Renewed request to hold City of Sausalito Accountable for housing violations

Dear Governor Newsom, Deputy Attorney General Pai, Senator Scott Wiener, Senator Mike McGuire, Joan Cox, and the California Department of Housing and Community Development,

I am once again writing to urge the State of California to investigate the City of Sausalito for its ongoing and unlawful obstruction of housing development. My family’s experience is one of many that reflect a pattern of procedural gamesmanship, legal misinterpretation, and targeted delays—all in violation of state housing law.

We own a small multi-family lot in Sausalito and have applied to build a 2,196-square-foot primary residence with an 800-square-foot Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). After more than four years, we are still waiting for building permits. The most pressing issue is the City’s unlawful requirement that we construct the ADU in two separate phases (see email from Principal Planner here). City Attorney Sergio Rudin has falsely claimed this email is “out of context,” but the full thread with Teiche, Phipps, and Rudin—provided here—shows clearly that the only context was how to legally construct an 800-square-foot ADU, making Rudin’s claim patently false. The first phase of the ADU, a 428-square-foot portion, was only approved after unnecessary reductions (we are still waiting for the ADU building permit). We will soon be applying for the second phase, roughly ~372 square feet, to complete the full 800 square feet ADU allowed under state law. As required by California law, the City has 60 days to approve or deny this ministerial ADU application—but they have not followed these guidelines for the first phase of our project. 

Why should you care about 372 square feet of an ADU? Because this project is not an isolated incident. The same people within the City of Sausalito that are obstructing the development of my family's remaining 372 square feet of a proposed 800 square foot ADU are also obstructing what could be the first new multi-family housing development in over 50 years in Sausalito! This is the proposed WATERSTREET project at 605–613 Bridgeway. Sausalito is mandated to add 724 new homes by 2031, but at the current rate it will be fortunate to reach even 10 percent of that target.

Behind these failures are key individuals who continue to enable the City’s bad-faith approach: City Attorney Sergio Rudin, Community Development Director Brendan Phipps, Principal Planner Kristin Teiche, and City Councilmember Joan Cox. These officials have consistently misused outdated local ordinances to block or delay housing, despite clear state mandates that preempt local control in many of these areas.

Background on Our Case

Our family of six, including our children aged 7, 5, 2, and a newborn, has endured years of unnecessary and unlawful delays. Despite designing our ADU in full compliance with state law, the City forced us to reduce its size by 372 square feet without legal justification. In March 2024, the City Council finally approved plans for the 2,192-square-foot primary residence with only a 428-square-foot ADU. After that partial approval of the ADU, we began seeking ministerial approval for the remaining 372 square feet to complete the ADU as originally intended.

Since May 16, 2024, we have made at least seven documented attempts to initiate Step 1 of the ADU process: a required meeting with Planning and Building staff. Each time, the City has ignored our outreach. (Below are the corresponding email threads and communications with hyperlinks for verification.)

Date	Action	Response	References
May 16, 2024	I emailed Principal Planner Kristin Teiche to begin Step 1 of the ADU application process.	Principal Planner Kristin Teiche did not respond.	Exhibit A: Email
May 20, 2024	I followed up by email to Teiche, copying the City Attorney Sergio Rudin.	Neither Teiche nor Rudin responded.	Exhibit B: Email
August 22, 2024	I sent an email Community Development Director Brendan Phipps, Teiche, and Rudin who replied, “I will connect with Sergio and discuss your request”	Phipps, Teiche nor Rudin responded.	Exhibit C: Email
September 8, 2024	I sent another follow-up email to Community Development Director Brendan Phipps.	Again, Phipps never responds.	Exhibit D: Email
September 11, 2024	I followed up to Phipps, Teiche, and Sergio with a request for a 45-minute Zoom call to complete Step 1 of the ADU application.	Phipps, Teiche nor Rudin responded.	Exhibit E: Email
September 20, 2024	I informed the Sausalito Mayor about the City’s ADU violations and lack of communication.	The Mayor copied the City Attorney Serio Rudin but Rudin took no further action.	Exhibit F: Email
September 24, 2024	I made another request to meet with City Attorney Sergio Rudin.	Rudin ignored my email.	Exhibit G: Email
October 7,2024	I emailed Governor Newsom, Deputy Attorney General Pai, Senator Scott Wiener, Senator Mike McGuire, and the California Department of Housing and Community Development.	Rudin finally responds to my email but continues to make false claims about our project i.e “their project eliminates all on-site parking”. This claim is simply false.	Exhibit G1

If you look at our project at 426 Pine St and the projects of the other brave applicants there is a clear pattern of complete disregard for state law, applicants, and tax payers dollars. One applicant even wrote a book called, “I Am Applicant: One Family's Seven-Year Odyssey in Building A New Home In Sausalito, California” Joan Cox and Sergio Rudin made this process excruciating for this family. And, the delays that Joan Cox created in her capacity of a city council member benefited her personally because City Attorney Sergio Rudin worked at the same law firm she was and still is employed by, Burke, Williams, Sorenson LLP.  

We are not alone. The City’s pattern of delay, obstruction, and bad-faith application of municipal code has harmed families and applicants like ours and undermined state housing goals. It is time for oversight and accountability. 

Addressing the City’s Unlawful Claims  

1. Misapplication of Parking Requirements 

City officials, particularly City Attorney Sergio Rudin and Principal Planner Kristin Teiche, continue to misapply parking standards and make erroneous claims about our proposed ADU to block its development. In reality, our initial ADU proposal actually increased public parking on Pine Street, and our initially proposed plan abided by all planning and building code ( Sausalito Municipal Code 10.40.100 allows parking offsets via frontage improvements, which we proposed and documented). Despite our design-build firm’s repeated follow-ups, the City refused to engage, then unlawfully required neighbor approval for changes to public property—a standard with no basis in law. To highlight this pattern of obstruction I have provided the a communication log below.

Date	Action	Response	References
September 25, 2023	Our design-build firm emailed Principal Planner Kristin Teiche and DPW, attaching a diagram of the proposed parking reconfiguration in conjunction with our 800 square foot ADU that would actually provide a net increase of parking on Pine St.	Teiche never follows up.	Exhibit H: Email to Kristin Teiche and DPW Exhibit I: Parking Proposal Diagram
September 26, 2023	I followed up, requesting a decision by the following day.	DPW staff responded stating, “We are going up the ladder on this one” and he will “report back by the end of the day” but the Beyer’s never hear back from anyone at DPW ever again.	Exhibit J: DPW’s response Exhibit K: Beyers’ follow-up request Exhibit L; DPW email to the Beyer’s
September 27, 2023	Our design build firm followed up and offered to hop on a Zoom call to clarify any questions.	The DPW or CDD did not respond.	Exhibit M: Design build firm email to city
September 28, 2023	Our design build firm  followed up again to the DPW and CDD for an update.	The DPW or CDD did not respond.	Exhibit N: Design build firm email to city
October 4, 2023	Our design build firm  followed up again for an update on the off-street parking plan. DPW did not respond.	DPW did not respond.	Exhibit O: Design build firm email to city
October 4, 2023	Principal Planner Teiche provided an incorrect interpretation of SMC 10.40.100 B.4 and unlawfully required neighbor approval for re-curbing public property to offset parking.	Per the demand of Teiche I reached out to our neighbor to request approval to re-curb public property on Pine St.	Exhibit P: Email from Principal Planner Teiche
October 10, 2023	Despite this unlawful demand, I contacted their neighbor offering to pay for re-curbing the public property.	The neighbor responded, stating the decision was the City’s responsibility, not theirs.	Exhibit Q: Beyers’ email to their neighbor Exhibit R: Neighbor’s response
October 12, 2023	We informed Principal Planner Teiche and DPW that their neighbor approved the ADU parking plan and asked to move forward with the proposal.	Neither Teiche nor DPW responded.	Exhibit S: Beyers’ follow-up email to the City

Our original parking plan provided two off-street parking spaces and increased public parking on Pine Street. Sausalito Municipal Code 10.40.100 allows offsetting any loss of on-street parking through frontage improvements, subject to approval by the Community Development Director and City Engineer. The City’s demand for neighbor approval to recurb an old unused driveway has no legal basis, as decisions regarding public property rest solely with municipal authorities. Community Development Director Brandon Phipps and City Attorney Sergio Rudin had all authority and objective facts to approve the 800 square foot ADU but instead continued to obstruct our project with this procedural gamesmanship that wasted taxpayer dollars and forced us to remove 372 square feet of our ADU. 

Even if Sausalito Municipal Code 10.40.100 did apply to our project, the new California Senate Bill 1211 (SB 1211) effective January 1, 2025, now permits property owners to replace uncovered parking spaces with accessory dwelling units (ADUs) without the obligation to provide replacement parking. We are simply replacing an uncovered parking space with an ADU and continuing to provide one legal off-street parking space.

2. Misapplication of Setback Requirements 

The City’s interpretation of Municipal Code Section 10.40.070(D)(1) to include the ADU in the “total building length” calculation violates California state law. 

• Under state law, an ADU is explicitly defined as an “accessory structure” to the primary dwelling and cannot be considered part of the “total building length.”  

• This interpretation conflicts with both the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) guidelines and the legislative intent behind California ADU laws, which aim to streamline and encourage housing development.  

Demand for Immediate Action 

Our family has endured over four years of delay, incurring more than hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages due to the City’s unlawful actions. We demand the following:  

1. Approval of both ADU applications totaling 800 square feet. Phase 1 (428 sq ft) has already exceeded the 60-day deadline. Phase 2 (372 sq ft) will be submitted imminently. 

2. Reimbursement of all legal, design, and engineering fees incurred since July 2023.  

3. Reimbursement for the restraining order filed our family was harassed by a neighbor at the encouragement of Councilmember Joan Cox. (See here) 

4. Compensation for approximately ~$200,000 in unnecessary structural engineering and material costs caused by the City Council's arbitrary requirement to recess our third floor by 10 inches in order to provide more ‘light and air’,  despite the fact we presented two shadow studies that objectively indicated this neighbor’s investment property in fact casts shadow our on our lot, not the other way around.  

5. Reimbursement of fees for the second ADU application the City unlawfully required.  

6. Immediate City action to recover taxpayer dollars spent on obstructionist legal work by Burke, Williams & Sorenson.

7. A formal investigation into Councilmember Joan Cox for conflict of interest and self-dealing, given her ties to the same law firm as City Attorney Rudin.

Conclusion

Our proposed ADU complies with all applicable state laws and development standards. The City of Sausalito has no lawful basis to deny or delay the remaining 372 square feet of our permitted 800-square-foot unit. This is not a discretionary matter—it is a ministerial approval that should have been granted long ago.

We have been in contact with several representatives at the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), including Jamie Candelaria, Shannon West, Melinda Coy, Grace Wu, Brian Heaton, and David Ting. Despite repeated outreach and documentation of the City’s violations, HCD has failed to act. From my perspective, the Department’s inaction reflects a disturbing level of bureaucratic dysfunction and raises serious questions about its effectiveness as an enforcement body.

A recent San Francisco Chronicle article highlights how HCD has not only tolerated but, in some cases, enabled cities like Sausalito to continue unlawful practices that clearly violate state housing law. HCD's failure to intervene meaningfully has made it harder for families like mine—and for every renter, homeowner, or builder in this city—to comply with the law and build needed housing.

This is why I believe the Office of the Attorney General must step in. While my family seeks approval for just 372 additional square feet of legally permitted ADU, City officials have wasted thousands in public funds to delay our application and others like it. Sausalito is currently obstructing a proposed multi-family development at 605–613 Bridgeway, which would be the first such project approved in over 50 years. But unless the State of California takes action and holds individuals like Joan Cox, Sergio Rudin, Brendan Phipps, and Kristin Teiche personally accountable for their actions, no progress will be made. Projects will continue to stall, and the City will remain in violation of its housing obligations.

The City of Sausalito is to spending over $33 million on a new K-8 school—but what is the point of this new school if families cannot afford to live here, or even if they can afford it are blocked from building homes big enough to accommodate a family with kids?

If the State fails to act promptly, we will have no choice but to pursue legal remedies, including filing a claim in California Superior Court.

Sincerely,

Jake Beyer

Urgent help requested to hold City of Sausalito Accountable for ADU Violations

Dear Governor Newsom, Deputy Attorney General Pai, Senator Scott Wiener, Senator Mike McGuire, and the California Department of Housing and Community Development,

I am writing to bring to your attention to a significant and ongoing issue regarding the enforcement of housing laws in the City of Sausalito. Over the past three years, I have been diligently working to construct a 2196-square-foot home that meets my family’s needs. A modest urban square-footage for a family of 6 (myself, my wife, our children ages 7, 5, and 2, and new baby on the way). More about our journey can be found at www.renovate426pine.com, including the project timeline.  Relevant here is that our home remodel includes an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) that fully complies with state laws. However, the City of Sausalito unlawfully obstructed our ability to build a fully compliant 800-square-foot ADU by misinterpreting outdated municipal codes and ignoring California State laws, resulting in significant financial and emotional harm to our family. Now, the City of Sausalito is ignoring our good-faith efforts to rectify this injustice. Given that California is in the midst of a housing crisis, we are urgently asking the State of California to hold the individuals and the City of Sausalito accountable for their violations and related damages.

History and Context:

After two years and hundreds of hours of negotiations with neighbors, we submitted our plans to the City of Sausalito in January 2023. It took the planning department six months to schedule our first planning commission hearing in July 2023. Then, just days before the hearing, we received an unexpected email (see exhibit A) from the community development department that reversed its recommendation for approval of our project. They alleged that Sausalito Municipal Code Section 10.40.070(D)(1) applies to the extension of the attached ADU from our primary dwelling. According to their interpretation, the City mandates an additional setback of 1 foot for every 5 feet over 40 feet for both ADUs and primary dwellings. The City calculated the length of our primary dwelling together with the ADU before applying this burdensome setback rule, which for our 45-foot-wide urban lot, would have mandated an unreasonable 13 feet in total side-yard setbacks. Instead, the City demanded that we remove roughly 45% (or 363 square feet) from our proposed, state-allowed 800-square-foot ADU. 

Whether an ADU is attached or detached, the state of California has declared the ADU an "accessory structure'. This means that ADUs should not be included in the total building length as defined by Municipal Code Section 10.40.070(D)(1). This particular code was enacted decades ago, long before our current housing crisis and newly enacted state laws. In the diagram below, the yellow highlighted section indicates the portion of the ADU that the City of Sausalito forced us to remove. The purple section is the ADU that was approved, and the red shaded section is the footprint of the primary dwelling that was finally approved earlier this year. See the full site plan here, (exhibit B).

For argument’s sake, let’s assume that the ADU and the primary dwelling could be counted together as part of the total building length. One would then ask whether the state of California has enacted any laws preventing municipalities from enforcing such a code, designed to maintain open space between urban lots. A simple web search reveals that AB 670 specifically voids and prohibits local restrictions used to maintain open space when those restrictions would constrain ADU development. AB 670 explicitly states that any covenants, conditions, or restrictions that effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the construction or use of an ADU or JADU on a lot zoned for single-family residential use are void and unenforceable (Civ. Code, § 4751). State ADU Law also requires that factors like lot coverage, floor area ratio, open space, or minimum lot size must not preclude the construction of a statewide exemption ADU.

If we continue along this line of reasoning and for argument’s sake assume that AB 670 does not apply to our project, one would next look at whether the state has enacted any laws that prevent cities from unduly constraining the creation of ADUs. Here, the situation becomes even more egregious. The City of Sausalito’s legal counsel, Sergio Rudin, has proposed that we build our ADU in two phases (see his email as Exhibit C). I had to email the city every week for nine weeks just to get this response. A two-phase approach to building an 800-square-foot ADU would require us to complete our primary dwelling project first, and then begin the second phase to expand ADU afterward. The financial and environmental impact of this recommendation is staggering.

Building the ADU in two phases means:

1. We would have to pay the ADU application fee twice.

2. We would need to rip out and re-pour concrete for the entire sidewalk in front of our house—twice.

3. We would have to rip off the front of our house after completing it in order to build the additional 363 square feet of the ADU.

4. The most costly consequence: we would need to install additional structural shear walls in the primary dwelling to make it a standalone project, an engineering requirement that would not exist if we were allowed to build the ADU concurrently.

The extra cost of this two-phase approach is estimated to be well over $100,000. This is financially devastating and, under any standard, completely unreasonable. The City's action is a clear violation of multiple state housing laws, all of which were enacted to prevent this very type of municipal obstruction. We informed Sergio Rudin, the city attorney, Brandon Phipps, the Community Development Director, Kristin Teiche, Principal Planner in Sausalito, and even presented the violation to the City Council during our appeal hearing. Before drafting and sending this email I made numerous attempts to connect with Sergio Rudin, the city attorney, Brandon Phipps, the Community Development Director, Kristin Teiche, Principal Planner. Our good faith attempts were completely ignored. See exhibit D, our most recent email to complete 'Step 1' of the ADU application for the City of Sausalito was sent one month ago and still has no response.

Broader Implications:

Beyond the specific legal violations, it is important to recognize that this is not an isolated issue in Sausalito. The City is already far behind on its obligation to add 724 housing units by 2031 under the state’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). At the current rate, it is impossible for the city to meet this goal. Another family, just a few blocks away from us, spent seven years battling similar issues while trying to build their home, culminating in the publication of a book, 'I Am Applicant'. These are symptoms of a systemic problem: the City of Sausalito is making it prohibitively difficult for families to develop housing that complies with state law.

Our own experience highlights this issue. When our project was appealed from the Planning Commission to the City Council, instead of approving or denying the project, Vice Mayor Joan Cox instructed us to continue negotiating with our neighbors—despite the fact our project was fully code-compliant and had already been approved by the Planning Commission. This decision invited further harassment from one neighbor, causing significant emotional distress for our children. This forced us to seek a restraining order against that neighbor, see exhibit D. Luckily, this resulted in a stayaway order. This is not how a family should be treated when attempting to build a modest, energy-efficient home, that complies with all local and state laws. 

Another example of systemic abuse obstructing housing development in Sausalito is the blatant conflict of interest involving Vice Mayor Joan Cox and the City’s legal counsel, Sergio Rudin. Both Cox and Rudin were partners at Burke, Williams & Sorensen LLP, the same law firm that for many years represented the City of Sausalito. While Cox served as a Planning Commissioner and later as Vice Mayor, Rudin was hired as legal counsel for Sausalito. This relationship created a situation where Cox created unlawful and unnecessary delays to directly increase the billable hours for Burke, Williams & Sorensen LLP at the expense of Sausalito residents and in doing so exacerbated the harm done to project applicants. One example involves a family’s seven-year battle to build a home in Sausalito, where Cox’s actions caused significant delays that increased legal fees for the city and directly benefited her law firm. The partnership between Cox and Rudin and their conflict of interest raises serious ethical concerns and warrants a formal investigation. I believe Joan Cox should be impeached from her current position as Vice Mayor to restore fairness and transparency to the city’s governance.

My plea is straightforward: how can we hold these individuals and the City of Sausalito accountable for their unlawful actions? How do we ensure that Sausalito complies with state housing laws? How do we ensure that what happened to our family never happens again in Sausalito or elsewhere in California? I would request immediate state intervention to ensure the City of Sausalito follows state law and allows us to build the ADU as we originally designed. We also request that the state begin enforcing its housing laws to protect families from arbitrary and unlawful decisions by local municipalities.

Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter. We look forward to your prompt response.

Sincerely,  

Jake and Georgia Beyer

Dear Sausalito City Council

It is with immense frustration and disappointment that we write this letter following the events that unfolded at your City Council special hearing on January 22, 2024. We believe that what transpired must be made broadly known, so it may serve as a catalyst for positive change within our community. This is our official request for you to schedule a hearing and decide on the appeal.

For the past three years, we have doggedly pursued the expansion of our home in order to accommodate our growing family of five. Our dedication to Sausalito and its potential as a vibrant, family-friendly city has been the driving force behind this seemingly fruitless endeavor. It is no secret that it would have been easier to move to Mill Valley, as many have suggested. However, we believe that would be a disservice to our community of local families as it would perpetuate the red tape and rampant sense of entitlement that Sausalito is known for. Last Monday night, your Council did not uphold the unanimous approval of our remodel designs granted by the Planning Commission for our home. Nor did you overturn the Planning Commission's decision by taking up the appellant’s grounds for appeal. In fact, you did not decide at all. You deferred the appeal of the approved project to an indefinite future date, placing your burden of proof as an appellate body back onto the applicant. In doing so, you undermined your own planning commission’s expertise. And you failed to support your burgeoning constituency of young families, leaving the future of families in Sausalito hanging in the balance.

We are aware that the City Council was acting as the appellate body and  tasked with considering an appeal for a project that had already received approval. Now it is essential to underscore the distinction between the appeal process and the separate Planning Commission Design Review process. The Design Review is the determination of whether a project meets zoning requirements and the findings under city code made by a panel of experts. The appeal hearing is not a mechanism for considering the merits of the project, but simply to assess the appeal’s assertion that the lower governing body misapplied the law or made a procedural error or evidentiary error in their process. The Council's options are to 1) affirm the Commission’s decision denying the appeal, 2) modify the decision or remand the application back down to Planning Commission for reconsideration in light of stated procedural error or misapplication of law, or 3) reverse the original decision (see Sausalito Municipal Code, Section 10.84.050 of the Zoning Ordinance)

None of these actions were taken.

We acknowledge Mayor Ian Sobieski and Council Member Former-Mayor Melissa Blaustein’s sincere attempt to move our project forward, and thank Mayor Sobieski for moving to deny our project (approve the appeal) and thus provide us a path for recourse. Yet, their effort was road-blocked by Joan Cox, Janelle Kellman, and Jill Hoffman. Despite their 18 years of collective experience as planning commissioners and clear preference toward the appellant's baseless arguments, they refused to move to approve the appeal. Therefore they did not have to defend their unspoken assertion that the Planning Commission's decision was flawed. The Council completely ignored the Staff Report meticulously prepared by their Community Development Department (link to report here), which states,

Staff recommend the City Council deny the appeal, uphold the Planning Commission’s decision, and approve the project, subject to Planning Commission imposed modifications and conditions. (emphasis added)

The City Council is NOT tasked with rehearing our Design Review application. That can only be undertaken by the Planning Commission if the project application is remanded back down for further consideration. Nevertheless, Council voted 4-0 ( Mayor Sobieski abstaining) to continue the hearing, ordering a removal of a proposed rear deck with a stipulated deed restriction prohibiting us submitting a future application, and ordering the appellants to determine whether they think any additional modifications are required. 

Not sure when the neighborhood appellants were allowed to usurp the Planning Commission’s job. But as Mayor Sobieski astutely pointed out, the appellants have no incentive to ever reach a compromise with us, since as long as they do not, our project is stalemated. Further, Vice Mayor Joan Cox nor the City of Sausalito hold any authority to place a deed restriction on a property.

It was a disheartening lack of leadership and an obstruction of due process in the three-hour deliberation. The Council's disregard for the Planning Commission's 5-0 unanimous decision in support of our project raises serious concerns about the integrity of the system. They have opened a wide new door for all future design review applications to be appealed and left to wither in purgatory. 

Vice Mayor Joan Cox's staunch reliance on outdated statements made by a city planner and her attempt to undermine the fire department's determination on fire code compliance was an alarming belittling of our public service professionals. It was disconcerting to watch Vice Mayor Joan Cox proudly highlight her yet unsuccessful five-year collaboration with Michael Rex to create an “Objective design review process”, only to succumb to the subjective and ambiguous interpretations that are keeping our project in limbo without clear resolution. This contradiction raises serious questions about the fairness and consistency of the decision-making process and has created a hardship for our family.

Moreover, it became apparent that certain Council members had not thoroughly reviewed the facts and history of our project application before the hearing. The lack of preparedness adds another layer of frustration to an already exasperating situation. We provided comprehensive documentation, including a full set of approved plans, a photo-realistic 3D model, multiple sun studies, communication logs, and emails exchanged with the individual appellants over the years in order to ensure transparency.

• See email correspondence here.

• See communication logs here.

It has been 1,115 days since we started our collaboration with the City of Sausalito's Historic Preservation Commission. During Monday’s hearing, Vice Mayor Joan Cox expressed delight, incorrectly stating that it had not been a year since we submitted our design review permit. In reality, we submitted our plans 366 days ago on January 25, 2023. These plans were subsequently, and erroneously, deemed complete on February 23, 2023.

As anticipated, Michael Rex presented testimony on behalf of appellants Conrad and Shana Gann. His testimony was fraught with false and inaccurate statements. Two additional appellants, Sam Chase, and Stuart Rabinowitsh, asserted view claims without providing A SINGLE PHOTO of their respective views. Appellate Sam Chase persists in asserting that our project obstructs his cherished bay views, a claim that lacks merit. See the photo below from Sam's third-floor library window.

In reality, any potential obstruction would involve inches of minimal "blockage" of his panoramic view from a specific, constrained vantage point at the edge of his third-story library, offering secondary views. The blockage could simply be mitigated by taking two steps away from the edge of his library. See below a photo.

It is crucial to note that Sam's property at 19 Bonita Street exceeds both floor area ratio and lot coverage, featuring a four story, 2,486 sq ft house for only two occupants on a mere 2,787 sq ft lot. In ironic contrast, Michael Rex, the architect with four decades of experience, persistently characterizes our proposed 2,192 sq ft house on a 3,598 sq ft lot as "massive" and "out of scale" with the neighborhood. 

Additionally, Rex claims that we failed in our neighborhood outreach, despite dedicating 3 years and over 150 hours to working directly with the neighbors who are now appealing. Rex in fact never responded to any of the four attempts we made to work with him as seen in this email thread. Not to mention that he canceled the only meeting he actually scheduled with us just minutes beforehand. Now Rex is pleading with the city council to force us to go back to the drawing board to redesign our entire project under these false pretenses. Thus it appears that Michael Rex's mathematical acumen and logical reasoning have long expired, along with any semblance of a moral compass. Though some assert that he never possessed one. Regardless, it is regrettable that he has chosen to destroy his own legacy and take down the credibility of our city leadership in the process. 

The unsubstantiated claims and inconsistencies presented by these individuals further underscore the need for a fair and impartial evaluation of our project and all design review appeals that follow it. We remain committed to transparency and adherence to the facts, and remain confident that the City Council is capable of acting in good faith to opine on the validity of the appeal, and by extension the validity of the Planning Commission’s unanimous decision for a just and speedy resolution.

In light of the aforementioned, we request you, City Council, to schedule a hearing date to perform your appellate duty; approve or deny the appeal, or remand it back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. We request confirmation of a hearing date from the city clerk no later than January 30, 2024, with the hearing taking place no later than February 10, 2024. Considering the unnecessary cost and delay the city has imposed on our family, we believe that this is ample time for Council to re-review the facts at hand and provide a fair and expeditious resolution, potentially avoiding any protracted litigation.

As stated by our Designer during the hearing, we remain willing to remove the rear deck over 40' 3.5" to resolve any outstanding concerns. But we will adamantly protect our property rights and oppose any deed restriction stipulation prohibiting future building applications not presented here.

Sausalito deserves a City Council that values due process, transparency, and the well-being of its residents. We believe in the potential for positive change and hope for a swift resolution to this matter.

Sincerely,

Georgia and Jake Beyer