| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.03 | Unknown | Good evening everybody and welcome to the special City Council meeting for the City of Sausalito on Monday, April 16, 2018. I'll call the meeting to order and ask Lily to call the roll. |
| 00:00:12.25 | Unknown | Councilmember Hoffman? Presently. Councilmember Withy. |
| 00:00:17.07 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, Chair. |
| 00:00:17.77 | Unknown | Vice Mayor Burns? |
| 00:00:18.76 | Jill Hoffman | HERE. |
| 00:00:19.27 | Unknown | Thank you. Mayor Cox. |
| 00:00:20.23 | Unknown | Here. Stephen Frazier, will you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance? |
| 00:00:28.87 | Unknown | I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. |
| 00:00:30.10 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:00:34.20 | Catherine | THE END OF THE END OF THE Thank you. |
| 00:00:36.46 | Unknown | one nation, Thank you. indivisible with liberty and justice for all. |
| 00:00:42.05 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:00:50.18 | Unknown | There was no closed session this evening, so there are no closed session announcements and no public comment on closed session items, so we'll move on to approval of the agenda. |
| 00:01:01.42 | Jill Hoffman | So moved. Second. |
| 00:01:02.77 | Unknown | All in favor? Aye. Aye. That motion carries 4-0. |
| 00:01:03.43 | Jill Hoffman | Hi. |
| 00:01:07.95 | Unknown | We have no special presentations this evening or mayor's announcements, so we'll move on to public hearing items. And the only item before us this evening is consideration of design changes to the approved single family residential dwelling at 77 Crescent Avenue. And because both Council Member Susan Cleveland Knowles and I heard this application as planning commissioners, we are recusing ourselves from the hearing on this matter this evening. And so with that, I will pass the gavel to Vice Mayor Burns. |
| 00:01:47.03 | Unknown | And I will pass it. No, I'll take it. |
| 00:01:48.86 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:01:51.83 | Unknown | Yeah. All right, well, welcome everybody. Thanks for being here tonight. We are gonna hear item two. Thank you. I WANTED TO BE ABLE I'm going to invite up staff to give a presentation. Then we're going to have public comment. And, uh, |
| 00:02:14.36 | Mary Wagner | Mr. Vice Mayor, prior to Calvin starting, it would be your opportunity to make any ex-party communications? Yes, yes. Ex-party communications. |
| 00:02:14.66 | Unknown | Mr. Vice Mayor, prior to- TO GET A LITTLE BIT. |
| 00:02:21.09 | Unknown | Yes, yes, ex parte card communications. Disclosure of? |
| 00:02:22.93 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 00:02:25.19 | Unknown | Councilmember Hoppin. |
| 00:02:26.52 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | No, none between, wait, yes, I had one brief conversation with Mr. Holop at a fundraiser. Anyway, that was it. |
| 00:02:37.22 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:02:37.24 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:02:37.32 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:02:37.51 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:02:37.69 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:02:37.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:02:37.73 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. In connection, as you know, there is a lawsuit pending in connection with this matter. And I was asked by the city council to represent the city council and work with staff on this matter. In connection with that, staff asked me to join a meeting that occurred some months ago between staff and Mr. Holub and his team. At that meeting, Mr. Holub's team told us that they intended to present this revised project this evening. I did not comment on the merits of that project, but I thought it important to let you know that that meeting had taken place. Thank you. |
| 00:03:29.50 | Unknown | And I have on occasion, since the applicant, David Hollib's daughter and my daughter play softball together, we've had communications regarding softball. Thank you. Thank you. as two parents, but nothing about the project whatsoever. I think we both were very conscious of that as we've talked about balls and strikes and other things going on at the softball diamond. So that's it. All right, so now I'll turn it over to Kelvin. |
| 00:03:58.34 | Calvin Chan | Good evening council members staff members of the public and Calvin Chan senior planner with the community development department. This item, as mentioned by the Vice Mayor, is a consideration of design changes to an approved single family residence located at 77 Crescent. To provide a brief background on this project, in January of 2016, the original application was filed for a remodel of the duplex at 446-448 Sausalito Boulevard and the construction of a new single-family residence at 77 Crescent. The entitlements requested were a design review permit subject to height and design review, a tree removal permit, a parcel map and condo conversion permit, and an encroachment agreement. The applicant is McCoy Architecture and the property owner is David Hullab. Following several public hearings in December of 2016, the project was denied by the Planning Commission, and subsequently, an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial was filed by the property owner. A year later, in December of 2017, the City Council approved the project, subject to conditions of approval, including project modifications. The approved project is based off of project plans that were denied by the Planning Commission, and this would be the modification most significant, being the third level above the garage being removed. In April of 2018, an application was filed for modifications or design changes to the approved 77 Crescent Avenue dwelling, and no changes are requested of the duplex remodel uphill at 446-448 Sausalito. |
| 00:05:47.42 | Calvin Chan | There are three design changes in total. The first change is the addition of one story to the dwelling, and this results in an increase in a roof height of 22 inches to include a total of three living levels above a street level garage. Design change number two is the modification of the deck railing from glass to stainless steel cable infill with a wood top railing. And third is the consideration of an alternative rear retaining wall design. I'll go through each of these changes now. Design change one, as I mentioned, is the addition of one story to the dwelling, with an increase in roof height of 22 inches, to include a total of three living levels above the street level garage. Condition of Approval 1 for the approved project with modifications requires that as part of the building permit application, project plans would reflect the removal of the uppermost level at 77 Crescent Avenue, resulting in a 1,912-square-foot single-family residence with three bedrooms. And what this modification does is it establishes a datum line for calculations, and I'll show that in just one moment. And this datum line is located establishes a datum line for calculations, and I'll show that in just one moment. And this datum line is located at the roof of the second level. Like the condition states, it requires the removal of this third level above garage, removal of this uppermost level would then result in two living levels above a garage. So here's a diagram that you've seen in your staff report. The blue line is the datum line, and the red lines are for purposes of just comparing the floor and the overall ceiling height of the structure. The left side images are the city council approved design with modifications. Do keep in mind that the left side images do show the third level above the garage, which was to be removed. And the right side images show the proposed design changes. |
| 00:07:52.97 | Calvin Chan | In comparison to the November 2016 design, the proposed design is nine feet lower, and that's shown by the purple hyphen area. And the golden yellow area highlighted is the 22 inches above the datum line that is requested by the proposed design change this evening. |
| 00:08:18.01 | Calvin Chan | The second design change requested is for a modification of the deck railing from glass to stainless steel cable. In an effort to reduce the appearance of bulk and mass for this project, this condition of approval was originally placed on the project, which states, as part of the building permit application, project plans shall reflect the modification of the steel and wood guardrails and handrails at 77 Crescent to a transparent glass material. In preparation for this hearing, city staff did consult with, we did reach out to three different design firms to get their professional opinion on which design material would be most appropriate if the objective is to reduce scale and mass and make the railings disappear. Two firms responded, and they both concurred that either steel and glass, steel and wood top rail or glass are acceptable options. Staff does recommend and concur with these two design firm's opinions. |
| 00:09:23.77 | Calvin Chan | The third design change shown this evening is an alternative rear retaining wall design. So just showing back one slide, this retaining wall that we're talking about is highlighted on the screen, this curved retaining wall that forms the backside of the 77 Crescent Avenue. And the design change is for an alternative rear retaining wall design that instead of one larger wall here, where my mouse is pointing, it's a step system that results in an overall shorter wall. The proposed design change does regrade the hillside above the residence, above the story level, and culminating in a new wall that, in comparison to the previous design, that extends seven feet upwards. In total, it's six feet less than the previous design. |
| 00:10:20.64 | Calvin Chan | In order to approve the design changes, all 46 findings that were previously adopted by the City Council must be re-reviewed and affirmed. The language has been updated in your draft motion. If the design changes are approved this evening, conditions of approval 1 and 2, 1 being the third level and 2 being the guardrails, would be removed. You have updated findings and conditions of approval for your consideration located within attachment 1 of your staff report. If the design changes are denied this evening, the project will remain as approved by the City Council with modifications and these conditions of approval intact as done in December of 2017. That concludes my presentation. We're available for any questions. |
| 00:11:10.63 | Unknown | Any questions of staff? Yeah, please. |
| 00:11:17.97 | Jill Hoffman | I'm trying to correlate this rendering with the section that shows the new retainer mold design. that that new retaining wall design, is that incorporated into this rendering or not? It is not. |
| 00:11:40.82 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 00:11:41.63 | Calvin Chan | because the rear retaining wall would come out. to about here. |
| 00:11:48.16 | Jill Hoffman | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:11:48.19 | Calvin Chan | Mm-hmm. Thank you. this new step system is seven feet lower than the previous design. If you look in elevation... This, as you see, is a continuous wall. So that section that we're showing would be approximately where my mouse is showing, but behind the foliage. |
| 00:12:10.99 | Jill Hoffman | So the vegetation that's shown on there is shown in this rendering? No, it's not. |
| 00:12:20.88 | Calvin Chan | So this vegetation here is shown. You just can't see the wall behind the vegetation. OK. All right. |
| 00:12:23.71 | Jill Hoffman | Oh, okay. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:12:35.09 | Unknown | None. So now without any further city council questions, we will turn it over to the applicant. For a 10 minute. Per team time and then that'll leave 5 minutes for rebuttal. So same 10 and 5. Thank you. Yep. And that is for the entire team. |
| 00:12:57.83 | John McCoy | Thank you. Great. Thank you. My name's John McCoy, I'm the project architect for this project and have been. |
| 00:13:00.35 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 00:13:06.27 | John McCoy | I did want to ask staff a quick question, Calvin. Now, when I was looking to your presentation, I wasn't quite clear as to your final findings on the rails. We're going with stainless steel cable rails, correct? And that's what you found to be, or the firms that you spoke to, agreed with. |
| 00:13:30.32 | Calvin Chan | So of the three design firms that we reached out to, two responded and they concurred that either railing design is acceptable and appropriate if the objective is to make the railings disappear. |
| 00:13:43.57 | John McCoy | I just want a clarification on that because our application currently this evening is to go with stainless steel cable rails. We've, in our research and our opinion, it has always been the better option. So I wanted to clarify that. I don't have a whole lot to present beyond what Calvin already presented. I think he did a fantastic job. with the railings. I want to speak to beyond what Calvin already presented. I think he did a fantastic job. With the railings, I want to speak to, there was a question, Let me see if I can find this here. of the vegetation on the retaining wall. As we get through this, you can see here, we clearly labeled this as an alternate retaining wall. It is our hope and our desire, and we're working with our civil engineers to ascertain whether or not we can step the hillside back and do more of a tiered system. That hasn't been confirmed yet, but we think We're positive, we're not positive, We're optimistic. that that is doable and that's our preference. If it is not, it would be the single retaining wall that you see here with the higher height. So I did take some photos and went back to a previous project that I did in 2000. And you can see obviously this wall is completely blank and we had the same kind of discussions as to how this impacted the community. And this is right along Bridgeway, kind of at the south end, towards the south end of Bridgeway. And then as the planting came in, we had vegetation growing both from above and below and completely enclose the wall. So either way, what you're going to be viewing is going to be a vegetated ball. So we're either going to have this and about 18 months to two years after construction. Or you'll have something like this where we actually tier the walls back and are able to plant immediately within the ground. So those are kind of the quick ones that I wanted to speak to that Calvin mentioned. Some of the other things that I think are important is we've done some research and we're looking at this and we had multiple discussions with staff and others. about three stories above the garage versus kind of the overall height. And basically the overall height. is allowed. Everything we've always submitted has been allowed. And we've reduced it, I think Calvin said, 9 feet. I think my calculations came out at 9 feet 3, so we're pretty much in agreement there. And at least one-third of the properties in the surrounding neighborhood with the allowable height have three stories above the garage. So we're not out of character. We're not out of scale this at this point we believe we've come grossly within scale to make it happen the other things the railings we talked about already the height standards we've always met the height standards so you know at this point we don't have much more to present than what Calvin did. I'm happy to answer questions about the reductions that we did make, if you have any. And I'll just kind of leave it at that and save my time to respond. Great. Thank you. |
| 00:17:30.03 | Unknown | I'll check with Council any questions for the applicant? Yeah. |
| 00:17:33.07 | John McCoy | Thank you. |
| 00:17:35.70 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, John. Could you help us understand how you've managed to bring the height down Admittedly, not quite to the datum line that we were... at the last meeting, but how did you manage to bring this height down and still retain, still be able to accommodate three? stories. |
| 00:18:09.40 | John McCoy | Thank you. The vast majority of that height reduction was in ceiling heights within the structure. as well as looking at the final elevation of the garage slab, which didn't change a great deal, and we left that intact for some... perceived technical issues with drainage and water running down the hill. But with reduction in ceiling heights and reduction in when we consulted with our structural engineer as to how narrow can we make these ceiling slash roof assemblies. Previously, we had them at 12 to 18 inches, and now we've come up with a kind of a poured-in-place concrete technique that would put them roughly at eight inches. So we've lost about a foot there in each assembly, And when you compile that with a reduction of ceiling height, everything kind of steps down, and we were able to get to this gross reduction of... Well, and this is 9'3 from... from this plan, which is a taller plan than what we had ultimately presented at some point. So this is kind of version two, now we're version six or something, so between all of those things, we were able to make that happen. Long story short, it was a construction methods and materials as well as just lowering ceiling heights. |
| 00:19:48.13 | Unknown | Thank you. And that was... I want to ask the square footage difference, but I need to determine in which plan we're presenting or we're comparing it to. So comparing your submitted square footage today to the size you presented at the last meeting. |
| 00:20:09.39 | John McCoy | The square footage we are presenting today is exactly the same as what was approved by the city council in December 2017. It has not changed in any fashion. compared to some of the other versions it's less than the original application and it's greater and I don't have all those numbers I'd have to spend five minutes kind of digging that up but it is greater than the last iteration presented to the Planning Commission but it is exactly the same as the City Council approved in December 2017 Thank you. |
| 00:20:54.96 | Unknown | Anything else. Joe. All right, I'm going to open up to public comment if you haven't already if you're planning to speak tonight, please fill out a green card underneath the television over there we have. three or so we've also have letters in the file received FROM THE PUBLIC. I'M GOING TO CALL ON NONPARTICULAR ORDER HERE. THE FIRST ONE OFF IS MARY THOMPSON. |
| 00:21:22.35 | Unknown | then Catherine, then Bob. You have three minutes, Mary. |
| 00:21:27.04 | Mary Thompson | Okay. Hi, my husband Greg and I live at number 76 Crescent. We've all been here before. We appreciate the council's ongoing due diligence about this project. We know it's been a long road. But I wanted to just review my thoughts again about this project. We believe that this deserves your highest scrutiny, ongoing scrutiny as you have been providing. This isn't a vacant lot. As you know, this would not be the only improvement on this lot, and the primary improvement for this lot exists already, so this is the secondary opportunity for the owner to make money, and that's important to remember. It's a reasonable strategy. We get it. We get it's approved, that he wants to build and flip and make money, and he does have that right right to do that but what's also reasonable is to ensure that the impact of this secondary structure is minimized when it impacts our daily lives as the neighbors and so thoroughly affects the property value of our houses so for nicole and taylor and the petersons of the trestle house and greg and i at our house and Cathan at number 75 in particular, whatever's built there will immediately and permanently impact the value of our homes and the way we live in it. Our houses weren't designed with the idea that number 77 would ever be built. The top structure was built 30 to 40 years before our home. So they weren't built with that in mind. And so what it means is that Trestle House will lose some privacy, they will lose some views, and our house does become a fishbowl. And as a realtor, I can't get over that. It will be a fishbowl, so that affects my value. There's nothing I can do to deflect that, and that's, you know, we can't landscape around it, we can't move our houses houses and that's why we're here asking that one more time you really consider what the decision will be we understand he can build the december approval i'm asking that it stay a two-story and that by building a second structure on his property that he has to adhere to perhaps a stricker standard than if it was his only property because it does affect us in such a bottom-line way so I'm asking that the original design from December that's approved that we understand as a neighborhood We've had to embrace it and that so be it. but that it is limited to the two story structure. Thank you. |
| 00:23:55.89 | Catherine | Hi, Keith and Proser, I live at 75 Crescent. We've written a number of letters obviously over the last two years and I just I'm going to try to keep it short tonight. main points that I want to make. First, I mean just overall, I'm bewildered as to why we're still here. You've repeatedly denied a third story that's been a consistent THEIR OWNERS. consistent finding of the city, both the planning commission and the city council throughout this process and yet here we are again. you've already approved a two story structure and we're spending another many hours and time here Um, to consider another three story structure that you've already said wasn't acceptable. Second. You know, we just can't allow ourselves as a community to be bullied by someone who threatens baseless lawsuits in order to force us to give him what he wants. That just can't be the way, that can't be a way. to get a to get a design review permit. in Sausalito. And finally, I wasn't sure whether to say anything about this, but I just wanted to say that I appreciate your disclosure of ex parte communications. There has been a rumor. circulating. that the city and Mr. Hullu have already reached a decision on this proposal. And that tonight is just a formality. Um, And I appreciate your stating that. no such thing happened and I of course respect that. We're just so tired and we just beg you. We've all gotten comfortable with what you approved last time. It was a reasonable balancing of all interests concerned and we beg you to stick by that approval. Thank you. |
| 00:25:46.03 | Unknown | Thank you. And I will state at this time that I made an error. I should have invited the city attorney to speak a little further to the point that Catherine just made about. Any type of discussion we've had up to this point is in a legal matter. So I will let Bob speak on public comment because you are next, and then I'll turn it over to the city attorney to just give a little brief statement on why we are here tonight. Sorry, I should have done that before. operate. |
| 00:26:20.76 | Bob Braid | Hello again. My name is Bob Braid. I live at 95 Crescent Avenue. It's a house that directly opposes 77 Crescent and is above Mary's home. I don't have anything technical to add, except that I think it was a real error to permit the home or the residence to be built even at two stories. It's already an eyesore. He's removed trees, left the, I won't say logs and cuttings on the lot. It's unsightly already. I can't imagine it's going to be any better looking with the house there. The property was never intended to have two homes occupy it. It is a project that none of the neighbors on Crescent Avenue, probably within six houses, maybe seven houses either side, going up into the 100s and down into the 60s, nobody on Crescent Avenue wants that structure built. I can't imagine wanting to live there when you've already upset every neighbor you could possibly have in every way possible. So again, nothing technical to add. |
| 00:26:51.95 | Unknown | So, yeah. |
| 00:26:59.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:27:00.07 | Catherine | Thank you. |
| 00:27:32.46 | Bob Braid | The permit should have never been granted and should not be granted still. The story poles appear to represent a reduction in height of maybe three or four feet, even though the architect is describing nine feet three inches. But from eye level, it looks like about three foot difference on the story poles from the red ribbons down to the blue ribbons. Thanks very much for your time. Thank you, Bob. |
| 00:28:01.47 | Unknown | this green thing. Any other public comment? Sorry, my mic wasn't on. Seeing none, I'm going to close public comment and ask Mary, our city attorney, to speak a little bit about, again, why we're here and the process we've taken. Thanks, Mary. |
| 00:28:13.03 | Mary Wagner | Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor, members of the council. I mean, as you're aware and as I believe the public is aware that after the council denied this project, after it was remanded to the planning commission and then came back to the council, In early fall of 2017, the city was sued under the Housing Accountability Act by some housing advocacy groups. Um the Housing Accountability Act and their argument was that the city used subjective standards in violation of the act to deny the project. The project then came back to the council and as you are well aware, the council approved the project with conditions that the litigation continued. and the city was engaged in extensive settlement discussions with all the parties, which may be what some of the neighbors had heard discussions about. They did not go to the substance of the project, but rather to the process that the city would agree to, which included Mr. Holub asking to submit requests for changes to an approved project. There is a process in the zoning ordinance that allows the community development director to make minor changes to an approved project. However, changes of this nature. PROJECT. THERE IS A PROCESS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWS THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO MAKE MINOR CHANGES TO AN APPROVED PROJECT. CHANGES OF THIS NATURE COME BACK TO THE BODY THAT APPROVED THE PROJECT TO BEGIN WITH. THAT IS WHY WE FIND OURSELVES HERE TONIGHT. That's essentially in a nutshell how we've gotten to tonight. I'm happy to answer any more questions or provide you with additional information if that would be helpful. |
| 00:29:43.45 | Unknown | Thanks. And again, just interviewing staff to give that presentation. Any questions on the dais on that further? Okay, great. Thank you. All right, so I'm going to close public comment, close staff comment. Is the applicant... like any time to address anything that they've heard. Thank you. |
| 00:30:00.96 | John McCoy | Do you have? |
| 00:30:01.03 | Unknown | Uh, just Bye. |
| 00:30:02.03 | John McCoy | just a little bit. |
| 00:30:02.20 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:30:02.55 | John McCoy | Yeah, we had three speakers this evening. Bob Braid, in essence, stated his opposition to any home on that hillside. There's not a lot we can speak to that. The other two, primarily the first speaker, and I'm sorry, I was taking notes, but I didn't get your name. There was a question of why are we still looking at a three-story house? As you are well aware and staff is well aware and all of the city employee staff is aware, the zoning ordinance does not speak to number of stories. The zoning ordinance speaks to a maximum building height allowance. from our, first application we were below the allowable height. Yes, we had three stories. We've always had three stories. We were below the allowable height within the Sausalito zoning ordinance from day one. Day one. We've reduced it over time. When we came back, Yeah, last fall and last winter. and this body approved. Um, In essence, two stories at the red line that you're looking at on the screen this evening. Thank you. There was discussion of, that it was, in essence, the comment to me was, John, what are you not getting? It's just too tall. And that was the line that was described as, it's just too tall. It needs to be within reason of this line. We went back. We redesigned the house and lowered it and took measures to do it. And again, found ourselves within not only the maximum building height allowance, within a reasonable degree of what was presented to us as an acceptable height. And I just want to restate that. Okay. the number of stories is not really relevant. If you wanted to take it out to a ridiculous amount, if you had people who were six inches tall, you could do 80 stories, so long as you don't exceed the maximum building height. So we wanted to, our initial application was within the building height. This current application is within what has been described to me by staff members as a reasonable, acceptable height, overall height. So that's what we came back with, in good faith we feel, and that's what we're presenting this evening. Other than that, I don't really have much to respond to the neighbors. I think we've done an extraordinary amount of... That's the word I'm looking for. Revisions, compensation, reduction, We've worked on this building for a long time And we worked with the neighbors for a long time, and the neighbors, and even beyond that, and the neighbors have been involved, which is, you know, which is their right to do. But we think now we have something that should be acceptable to the city, to the neighbors, and to my client as well. Thank you. |
| 00:33:28.73 | Unknown | Any questions arise from that from Council? Are we good? Well, thank you then. I am going to turn this back up to the dais to the city council discussion. I'm actually going to ask. Councilmember Withey, if you wouldn't mind beginning simply because you took a large part of this on when the rest of us backed away and you met with the applicant and did all you've done on this. So if you wouldn't mind starting, I'd really appreciate that. Thank you. |
| 00:33:57.03 | Jill Hoffman | Sure. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. We used to have a raw, don't design from the dais. You know? And the last time, I was trying to get across in my comments on the last thing that was presented was that this was just too tall. And I was getting a lot of pushback as to, well, why is it too tall? allegedly that what was being proposed was compatible with the neighborhood. But we still must remember that this lot is zoned for three dwellings, and we allowed three dwellings. It is a structure is allowed to be built here. And I know some of the neighborhood buildings doesn't want to hear that but We made that very clear during, I think, every one of our hearings that we've had. The major objection was... the overall height and looming nature of the building. The reason is why that is of such concern is that because of the way the topography of the hillside works, OK, I mean, not everybody's going to agree with me on this. Because of the way the topography of the hillside works, especially with the turn and the way then this lot comes down, If you allow too tall a structure, it's going to look like the whole of that hillside is populated, is full of house. As opposed to, and I know John doesn't agree with this, and the applicant doesn't agree with us, but that's my view. And so that's why I said, OK, vump, design it from the dais. Let's lob off the top floor. And that would be about the right height. I'd like to think I'm a bit more sophisticated than that, but that was about where I came from. Lob off the top floor, because that will be about the right height. The dangers of designing from the dais is that, you know, you don't actually ask the question, well, what is practical? What can be done? And so the applicant, as I gather, has come back with staff and said, look, we can do this, we can do that, we can do this. We need another 22 inches. And is it the number of stories or is it the overall height? So, you know, I'm feeling this is a very Tough decision, close call. Um, I think the height does need to be reduced. It has been reduced. I think the architect is... put a lot of effort into squeezing out every inch from what I can tell. So even though this is a close call, I can get comfortable with this. With regards to the railings, I wouldn't have even thought of the railings until the last one where staff threw out as an alternative. Let's use glass. So I said, okay, let's use glass then. Let's use that one. I respect the, I don't know who are the architects that staff consulted, but I would obviously go with their judgment that it doesn't make any difference and probably doesn't. And so if the applicant wants the stainless steel, I gather there's been some question about reflectivity of the glass. So I can go with that. know uh reservations um if i go back now and look at the findings and ask well could i make the findings with this new design de novo which is our job um i feel like i can so that's my comment thank you jill |
| 00:38:39.67 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Well, I didn't ask any questions or very many questions during this because you know I've read all I read all the files and went back and reviewed And you know we've been looking at this since Planning Commission since September of 2016. with. nine separate hearings on this. So, you know, I think I'm not unsympathetic to the neighbors and their concerns. And in Sausalito, and I've said this before, you come to a neighborhood as it exists. These people, they are your neighbors. They are your family. You have to get along with them. And I think the city council and the planning commission has been very vigilant in upholding that idea and taking the input from the community as we've worked through these these hearings since 2016 not just us but the Planning Commission as well and so we the City Council this is our fifth hearing on this our hearings were in January 2017 July of 2017 September 2017 in December 2017 and now here we are today. And if Calvin could you show the the the things that are side by side. the two renderings that show the red line and the difference. And to be clear, we talked about this before, these plans were within the zoning codes. you know the work the hard work that we've done um beyond the planning commission the city council to get this this design Um, within a scale. that fits into that very tight corridor and that's why it's been denied it was denied I'm going to say that we have a So, You know, and I did have a concern about the overall height that I agree with with the council member with that was my concern, especially when, you know, I drive down that curve. It is a tight curve and, you know, the looming ness of it over the road was a concern. And so when I look at where we are now and the reduction in scale. of especially, you know, the first story is about the same scale, but the reduction in scale too of the second, and now third story, that is still at is close enough to the line that we set. and the reduction in the window space and the reduction in the overall To me, it's not a perfect compromise, and I absolutely certainly understand everybody's concerns about you know, where we're ending up. It's not a perfect, not everybody's happy, Is it safe to say no one's happy? I don't know if it's that safe to say, but. You know, I think And given the constraints that we have, you know, with people that give us a plan within the zoning codes, you know, I think this is kind of where we're left with. So I know it's not perfect. Like I said, I understand the neighbors' concerns and also the concerns... when we start talking about construction and when we start talking about what the rules of construction are and whether or not the applicant is going to be complying with the impact on the neighbors during construction. We have some pretty good rules in Sausalito about how you follow that, and if that's violated. I have every confidence that the neighbors will follow up with our planning department. you know if that's a problem or ongoing problem please let us know Thank you. So that's my feeling. |
| 00:42:21.74 | Unknown | THANK YOU. I knew that there was going to be times where I had to face the community with my value set and where I departmentalize, compartmentalize my mind and prioritize different items. When we receive this as a council, an appeal from the planning commission, you know, the first thing we went through is the objectives met and the criteria met. And then it really boiled down to, the finding of the scale bulk and mass or the scale and mass matching the neighborhood characteristics So that was. REALLY THE ONLY THING I VIEWED OR THE PRIORITY OF MY VIEWING OF THIS PROPERTY FROM NEIGHBOR'S COMMENTS TO PROPERTY VALUES TO WHAT'S CONSTRUCTION GOING TO BE LIKE THAT, ALL VERY RELEVANT. are APPEAL WAS TO LOOK AT THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD REALLY BASED ON THE SCALE AND MASS OF THE And consideration with the entire lot and how it impacts with with sausage to the Boulevard property above it. My feeling at the time was that For that corner, it is a tough project. It is a tough spot to fit any project of scale and mass in there. However, matching what's going on in the little area there was a little harder to do. as some of those other properties really aren't minimizing scale and mass. THE APPLICANT PUT UP A LOT OF OTHER PICTURES OF OTHER PROPERTIES. AND I DON'T WANT TO POINT ANY OUT OTHER THAN THERE ARE MORE THAN A FEW EXAMPLES OF PROPERTIES THAT HAVE MORE MASS ABOVE THE LOWER FLOORS THAN OPPOSITE. SO THAT'S A REALLY TOUGH THING TO SAY THAT THIS ONE THAT ACTUALLY KIND OF STEPS BACK MORE THAN SOME OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA, THAT IT'S NOT MATCHING. As YOU KNOW, OR IF YOU DID FOLLOW, I DID VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT EARLY BASED ON THAT ONE CRITERIA, REALLY, IN KNOWING THAT THE OTHER OBJECTIVES WERE MET. THE PROCESS, YOU KNOW, AS WE KIND OF MENTIONED UP HERE, WE HAVE NOT BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE MERITS OF THIS PROJECT. AND I'VE BEEN WANTING TO SAY THINGS ALONG THE WAY. AND I'M SURE STAFF HAS WATCHED ME BITE MY TONGUE IN CLOSED SESSION HOW I WANT I wanted to talk about the merits, but we didn't. DID A VERY UNIQUE AND A VERY, I THINK, SUBSTANTIAL JOB TO GET TO A PLACE OF BRINGING A PROJECT BACK THAT HAD THE THINGS THAT WEREN'T MATCHING THE CRITERIA FOR THE OTHER MEMBERS INVOLVED. BOTH ON THIS DIAS AS IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION. IS IT PERFECT? NO. I THINK SOME OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SEEN OR SOME OTHERS MIGHT WANT TO SEE SOME OTHERS MIGHT WANT TO SEE SOME DIFFERENT. TO ME IT DOES MATCH WHAT THAT CRITERIA WAS TRYING TO REACH. SO, UM, Again, I want to thank everybody involved. I I know that the neighbors feel that there's going to be a severe impact. I hope in time that this project does not have the severe impact that they feel it will that I've heard other projects say that they will and ultimately I'm not sure that they have had that impact, but I think from where this has come, I I think it matches that criteria for me so. |
| 00:46:21.86 | Unknown | Anything else? |
| 00:46:24.07 | Jill Hoffman | No, so with that, if I may, Mr. Vice Mayor, I'll move to approve the following design changes to the approved single-family residential dwelling at 77 Crescent Avenue. One, adding one story to the dwelling with an increase in roof height of 22 inches. to include a total of three living levels above a street level garage. changing the deck railing from glass to stainless steel cable infill with wood top railing and three alternative rear retaining wall design could we have just some clarity on is the project is are we approving the new rear retaining wall design, or will we be giving staff the authority that when, if... the applicant comes back with the actual new wall design, we give the staff the authority to prove it. So that's the only, I know I was in the middle of reading a motion, but I suddenly got to the end and realized perhaps some clarity there is in order. |
| 00:47:35.89 | Unknown | Thank you, Councilmember Wheatley. Yes, the alternative rear retaining wall design is an option. So it does give staff the authority. The two options would still remain as part of the project, and we would be looking at either one |
| 00:47:52.44 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, so that's the content of my motion to say, to give staff the option to work with the applicant within the confines of either of those two options. |
| 00:48:02.36 | Unknown | That's correct. Are you good with that? Yes. |
| 00:48:03.78 | Jill Hoffman | Is everybody okay with that? Okay, so that's my motion. |
| 00:48:04.85 | Unknown | Okay. Right. Second. Do you want to take a vote? Do you want to do a roll call? |
| 00:48:17.91 | Unknown | Councilmember Withey. |
| 00:48:19.91 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 00:48:20.59 | Unknown | Councilmember Hoffman. Thank you. Vice Mayor Burns. |
| 00:48:23.76 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:48:23.80 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:48:24.27 | Unknown | That carries 3-0. |
| 00:48:28.25 | Unknown | As that is our only item of the evening, I will officially close this to make sure there's nothing else on here. Nope. Adjournment. So I am going to adjourn this meeting. Thank you all for all your work on this. |
Catherine — Against: Neighbor at 75 Crescent expressed frustration over revisiting a three-story design previously denied, opposed being 'bullied' by threats of lawsuits, and asked council to stick with the December 2017 approval. ▶ 📄
Bob Braid — Against: Neighbor at 95 Crescent opposed any structure, stating the lot was never intended for two homes, it's already an eyesore, and no neighbors want it built. ▶ 📄