t RagghiantilFreitas LLP Attorneys at Law

Transcription

1 Riey F. Hurd III RagghiantiFreitas LLP RECEfVEO Attorneys at Law 1101 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 San Rafae, CA teephone 415, facsimie MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT JUL co CITY OF SAU SALI TO Juy 27, 2017 Via Hand Deivery City Counci City of S&usaito 420 Litho Street Sausaito, CA Re:. Appea of Vahaa approva (DR-CUP '.' EA-TM ) Dear Members of the City Counci: Our office continues to represent Linda Jenkinson, the owner of 207 Bridgeway, in regards to the proposed redeveopment of the Vahaa at 201 Bridgeway and 206 Second Street ("Vahaa"). This etter is submitted in conjunction with our appea of the Juy 17, 2017, Panning Commission decision to approve this project. Simpy put, it appears that the perceived pubic benefits of the proposed project resuted in an abbreviated and much more generous rèview process. The seeming quid pro quo for these. improvements resuted in a project being approved for which the findings coud not truy be made, and for which the impacts on neighbors were sti too great. We woud request that the Counci take a more detaied ook at the issues addressed herein, and ony then approve a project that meaningfuy responds to these warranted concerns. BACKGROUND The owner of 207 has an easement for parking and access on and across the V ahaa property. The Vahaa and 207 Bridgeway were previousy hed under the same ownership, and the owner at that time was acutey aware of the parking circumstances and access issues that 207 Bridgeway faced, which is why the easement was created. It was never contempated that V ahaa woud, or coud, be redeveoped into a gated compound. Whie our cient supports the redeveopment of this historie property, the eve of impact created by the current design is beyond that which can be accepted. Page 1 of 6

2 Page 2 of 6 RagghiantiFreitas LLP PARKING The parking for 207 has aways been accessed off of Main Street. The proposed pan woud reocate this access, as we as the access for the V ahaa, to the much busier Second Street (Bridgeway). In the new configuration, the residents and guests of the Vahaa, 206, and 207,-woud a be forced into a 16' drive aise that terminates in not ess than 8 parking spaces, a crammed into a tiny area. The newy proposed parking and access configuration ooks ike this: ) n==:::::!.jl-rt_ - - T -+ -;,, _=-= = 16 '.<J½ =,.._ = _ = _ = _ = _ = _ - =; + =-=.,,... 1 ' ' --.- "":"! ---: -.. '-) _-/ 9'-0" :'i'.:r-,"---...c..---ia."-'--._:-,-, "--,- _ '; '8 11. :ª. : "'!) :e: i'! '" :::_'..,, i{', -,,. r : i? i 'ir f,\ - >: '. r/'j 00 \O o 'º m... g º.=.i Page 2 of 6

3 Page3 of6 RagghiantiFreitas LLP To suggest that the owner and tenants of 207 wi actuay be abe to navigate in and out of the 4 tandern spaces within their easernent under this configuration is unreaistic. This fact was acknowedged by the City when the previous Vahaa project was approved. Specific conditions were irnpernented at that tirne to resove the cear parking conficts that woud resut. Nothing has changed in this regard, and rnitigating conditions are sti needed. ACCESS In addition to the parking irnpacts, the ingress and egress point for these three properties is now through the rnuch busier Second Street, where cars, bikes and buses are a constanty passing. This bus pu-out and exit interpay ooks ike this: Sc c o nd S r c c At the Panning Conunission hearing on this rnatter, the appicant's own traffic expert conceded two points the Counci rnust be aware of:. That the site distance for the exit onto Second Street was inadequate, and therefore that a vehice rnust pu 2-feet into the sidewak in order to be abe to see enough roadway to exit, and, 2. That when a bus was using the newy proposed bus puout, site distances woud be irnpaired in a way that coud not be overcorne, and that woud prevent a safe exit. Page 3 of 6

4 Page 4 of 6 Ragghian ti F rei tas LLP It is inappropriate to subject the residents of the V ahaa, 206, and 207, to this admittedy dangerous condition. Furthermore, this new access configuration woud directy contravene the vehicuar and pedestrian access sanctioned by the City when the ADU at 207 was approved. A ater project that conficts with the cear site pan and terms of a previousy granted project shoud not be approved. EVENTS At the Panning Commission hearing for this project, the appicant informed a who were present that the new Vahaa was panned as a pace to host major events, and that he anticipated hosting the President of the United States here. The ayout of the project fuy supports this assertion. Sheet A2.1 of the submitted drawings shows 5 smaer bedrooms in one wing, a massive area of iving, dining, and craft rooms, and an expansive 3,000 square foot outdoor deck. It is not a theory that this wi be an event center, it was an actua assertion by the appicant. Our cient and the tenants of her Cityapproved ADU shoud not have to ive next to a specia event venue. THE FINDINGS FOR THE PROJECT CANNOT BE MADE This appication seeks a whoe host of permits, each with its own findings. A genuine anaysis of these findings shows they cannot currenty be made. Some exampes are as foows: D (Design Review) REQUIRED FINDING - "Proposed entrances, exits, interna circuation, and parking spaces are configured to provide an appropriate eve of traffic safety and ease of movement." There is no way this finding can be made. The circuation is dangerous per the anaysis of the appicant' s own expert. The parking shown on the site pan speaks for itsef in regards to the objective ack of "ease of movement." Unti the parking and access is improved, design review shoud not be granted E (Heightened Design Review) REQUIRED FINDING - "The proposed deveopment of the site presents no potentia hazard to pubic safety in terms of vehice traffic, pedestrian circuation, sope and tree stabiity, run-off, and pubic utiities." Page 4 of 6

5 Page 5 of 6 Ra gg hianti F rei tas LLP t is undisputed that to exit the site a vehice must bock the sidewak It is further undisputed that it is not possibe to safey exit the site every time a bus is using the new bus puout. There is no way this finding can be made with the evidence currenty in the administrative record (Conditiona Use Permits) REQUIRED FINDING - "The proposed use wi not materiay adversey affect nearby properties or their permitted uses." As noted above, mutipe components of this project wi materiay and adversey affect the occupants of 207. They wi be exposed to a dangerous ingress and egress condition, they wi face extreme difficuty in accessing their ega parking spaces:, and they wi apparenty be residing next to a major events center. There is ampe evidence in the record that this project most certainy does resut in a materia adverse impact to the property right next door. CEQA In ight of the facts reveaed about the updated version of this project in regards to traffic safety, a mere addendum to the EIR is inappropriate. The inadequate sightines, sidewak bockage, bus interference, and exposure to objectivey dangerous conditions for cars and peope exiting the subject properties, are the type of II new significant environmenta effects," and/ or II substantia increase in the severity of previousy identified significant effects," that trigger a suppementa EIR. (14 Ca Code Regs 15162(a)(1).) There are no mitigation measures in pace to address these very significant and dangerous issues. How wi the interpay with the bus be resoved? What can be done about cars having to wait in a busy sidewa<: to even have a chance to exit? These issues need to be thoroughy reviewed and addressed. TENTATIVE MAP The proposed tentative map for the site was not even addressed by the Panning Commission. At a mínimum, the map has two major probems: 1. The map fais to ca out and reserve the critica "No Parking Zone" shown on the site pan, and 2. The easement on the map needs to be changed to a "pedestrian and vehicuar access easement," as opposed tò just an "access easement," Page 5 of 6

6 Page6 of 6 RagghiantiFreitas LLP because the appicant has reguary and baseessy asserted that the owner and tenants of 207 do not have a right to wak to the structure at 207, ony to drive. CONCLUSION It appears that a combination of project fatigue and pubic improvement quid pro quo ed to this project being approved without the important issues noted herein being resoved. Whie the broader poicy question of whether this part of town is the right pace for a famiy compound/ event center is one for the Counci to consider, at a minimum the parking, access, and map issues need to be addressed. Thank you for taking a second ook at this prominent and impactfu project. CC: Cient Very TruyYours, 1. t Riey F. Hurd III Page 6 of 6