| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:28.75 | Unknown | Good evening and welcome to the regular meeting of the Sausalito City Council, January 28, 2014. Debbie, will you take the roll, please? |
| 00:00:40.40 | Unknown | Councilmember Pfeiffer? Here. Councilmember Weiner? |
| 00:00:44.23 | Unknown | Mr. President. |
| 00:00:44.62 | Unknown | Councilmember Leon. |
| 00:00:46.59 | Unknown | here. Thank you. |
| 00:00:47.60 | Unknown | Vice Mayor Theodorus? Present. Mayor Withey? |
| 00:00:48.73 | Unknown | President. here. And this evening, could I ask Paul Alberton to lead us in the... |
| 00:00:54.98 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:00:55.28 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic |
| 00:01:18.74 | Unknown | So we have no closed session announcements other than we conferred with legal counsel on an existing litigation matter. Is there any public comment? on. the closed session items. Seeing none, we'll move on to approval of the agenda. |
| 00:01:39.42 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:01:40.99 | Unknown | Do we have a motion or any corrections needed? |
| 00:01:45.23 | Unknown | Move to approve the agenda. |
| 00:01:48.45 | Unknown | All in favour? Aye. Opposed? |
| 00:01:49.48 | Unknown | I. I. |
| 00:01:50.24 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:01:53.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:01:53.72 | Unknown | The next agenda item is for public communications. And this is the time for the City Council to hear from citizens regarding matters that are not And I repeat, not on the agenda. except in very limited situations, state law precludes the council from taking any action or engaging in discussions concerning these items. Is there any member of the public who'd like to make a communication at this time? Again, C and none. Let's move on to item three, action minutes of the previous meeting. |
| 00:02:36.85 | Unknown | No, there are none. Okay, then we'll move on to the consent calendar. |
| 00:02:42.71 | Unknown | If something... |
| 00:02:47.65 | Unknown | I move that we approve the consent calendar, which I believe two items, 4A and |
| 00:02:52.14 | Unknown | Yep, items for A and B. I'll second. All in favor? Aye. |
| 00:02:52.44 | Unknown | I just... |
| 00:03:00.95 | Unknown | Okay, so we move on to item 5A, which is a... |
| 00:03:06.03 | Unknown | public hearing. the appeal of the McGuire Residences, 62 Marion Avenue. And before we ask Heidi to begin, I'd just like to remind folks of our procedure and it's slightly different than the procedure you went through I think in perhaps December in front of the Planning Commission. Each of you have ten minutes for your whole team to present your case starting first with the appellate and then with the applicant. Um, the I'm going to be very strict on time this evening. And I think you should assume that we've all read the information. Um... We've Perhaps all listen to the Planning Commission hearings. I would have thought that within 10 minutes you can get your matter across. If you don't use the full 10 minutes, then you lose the time, because after public comment, you then have five minutes each for rebuttal. So the 10 minutes and then the five minutes, I would like us to be trying strictly to adhere to. So with that, Heidi, thank you. |
| 00:04:38.64 | Heidi | I'll start again. Thank you and good evening, Mayor Withee, members of the City Council. The purpose of this agenda item this evening is for the City Council to hear an appeal on a development project that was approved by the Planning Commission on December 4th of 2013. The appellant, Kim Stoddard, owner and resident at 66 Marion Avenue. filed an appeal within a timely manner with 16 grounds for appeal that are identified in the staff report that was presented to the city council. The staff presentation this evening will consist of a project overview as well as for staff to focus on three of the major grounds for the appeal. The remaining grounds for the appeal are sufficiently addressed in the staff report. |
| 00:05:24.74 | Heidi | So the project site is located at 62 Marion Avenue. It's within the medium high density residential land use designation and has an R2 2.5 zoning district, or is within the R2 2.5 zoning district. It allows for the construction of single family dwellings as well as two family residential development. The size of the parcel is 18,725 square feet, which could allow for up to seven residential units. As I stated earlier, the Planning Commission on December 4th of last year adopted a resolution resolution number 2013-34, which approved a design review permit for the construction of two new single family residential units, a true removal permit that allowed further protected trees both within the project site as well as on city property. a conditional use permit to allow for tandem parking, a tentative map for the division of land into common interest development, as well as a request to the Planning Commission to provide a recommendation for an encroachment agreement that would allow for the construction of a driveway and road widening within the Marion Avenue public right of way. The Planning Commission did approve the Project 3-2 with two specific conditions of approval, or two major conditions of approval. a mandatory 1 foot 6 inch roof height reduction for the carports as well as using 36 inch boxes for all the proposed replacement trees. These next couple slides will actually go into the project that was presented to the Planning Commission. So as you can see from this slide, The applicant has provided a site plan that demonstrates the location of the two single family units that would be constructed on the site. These are detached units. |
| 00:07:12.45 | Unknown | Do you want us to hold our comments until you're done or ask you in the flow? It's up to you. |
| 00:07:16.79 | Heidi | It would be helpful if you waited to ask your questions until I conclude my presentation. Thank you. |
| 00:07:18.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:07:23.30 | Heidi | So both projects were designed to provide three on-site parking spaces. Two parking spaces are required. The additional parking space per unit is to accommodate guest parking within the neighborhood. The project consisted of wood and stone materials to match the neighborhood, and based on water conservation efforts, the projects are designed with internal cisterns to collect water runoff. As I suggested earlier, the project included a tree removal permit, which is proposing to remove 18 trees as part of the project. Fifteen trees are located on site, and three of the trees are located within the Marion Avenue Public Right-of-Way. One of the trees within the Marion Avenue Public Right-of-Way is currently dead, but although it's dead, a tree removal permit is still required. The applicant is proposing to remove those trees and replace them with 27 replacement trees. Out of the 52 on-site trees, 37 would still remain, and the project was found to be consistent with the tree permit findings. The tentative map, as shown in this slide, shows that the parcel, the existing parcel would be broken up into or divided into three parcels. Two parcels would be for the individual units and the third resultant parcel would be a common area parcel. Any type of future subdivision of this new development would require coming back to the Planning Commission with a revised tentative map for any subsequent subdivision. The project also included an encroachment agreement request. You can see from this slide the encroachment agreement is for the construction of the driveways that are located within the public right of way on Marion Avenue. in one of the benefits associated with this project is that the applicant is requesting to widen Marion Avenue. You can see in this slide that currently Marion Avenue is wide enough only really to accommodate one vehicle, but with the widening of up to seven feet fronting the project site, two cars could pass. So this project could accommodate fire safety vehicles such as a fire truck. So pursuant to section 10.84.10, 010D of the zoning ordinance, any person or party affected or aggrieved by a decision made by the Planning Commission is able to file an appeal to the City Council. And this slide is to show you the proximity of the appellant's property as it relates to the McGuire proposal. They are adjacent properties. So the first major ground for appeal would be that the appellant suggests that the project exceeds the allowable height limitation. In the R2.2.5 zoning district, the maximum height limitation is 32 feet as measured from the average natural grade. However, the zoning regulations do allow for an exception related to parking. And specifically, it states that the overall height of the structure and all appurtenance does not exceed 40 feet. As summarized in the Planning Commission's staff report and further expanded upon in the City Council staff report, staff has suggested an argument that considers this proposed storage this proposed storage area. is an appurtenant feature related to a garage use. and the Planning Commission upheld staff's interpretation of that. And it's primarily based on a 500-square-foot floor area credit that's allowed for garages. And based on the requisite parking stall dimension, there's a surplus of floor area to suggest that those areas could be accommodated for such uses. So what that does to this project is that it does create an additional building mass that continues the proposed carport. in order to accommodate the storage area. |
| 00:11:27.60 | Heidi | The second major ground for this appeal relates to the impacts on light and air. And this was a photograph that was taken a couple weeks ago from the appellant's property, the southernmost corner of the deck. And as you can see in this picture, where the yellow circles are, it demarcates where the story polls are located for both the East Wind and the West Wind houses. You can see that the site currently has filters sunlight based on the existing vegetation But there are these pockets of open space. And the design review finding that was in front of the Planning Commission related to Is the design and location of the buildings, or does the design and location of the buildings provide adequate light and air for the project site? |
| 00:12:07.75 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | design. |
| 00:12:11.44 | Heidi | adjacent properties in the general public. AND THEN, THEY'RE GOING TO three out of the five planning commissioners were able to make the finding that, yes, this impact is consistent with a medium to high density residential neighborhood and the impacts would be nominal to the appellant's property. And staff suggest that the city council uphold the planning commission's finding on that And the applicant has actually provided a sunshade study that was included in the Planning Commission's packet, which again shows the various shading impacts throughout the year and the impacts again would be nominal. The last major ground for this appeal relates to slope stability. This is a steep site. There are urban legends that there was a slide on this property However, there are no records. to demonstrate that that actually occurred. But what the applicant has provided was a geotechnical engineering report prepared by Miller Pacific Engineering Group. this past May of 2013. And as part of that geotechnical investigation, there were borings that were put into the ground, and both two on site and two within the Marion Avenue public right of way. And based on those borings which provided soil samples, the report stated that this site did not reveal any signs of active or imminent slope instability. the site did not, or they did not observe any significant adverse geological features or zones of weakness with the exposed rock outcrops. And most importantly, that the project is suitable for the planned improvements. So with that, staff suggests that the Planning Commission finding regarding health and safety can be upheld. And as I stated earlier, the other grounds for appeal are outlined in the staff report for the City Council. So with that, staff is recommending that the City Council adopt the draft resolution, which denies the appellant's appeal and upholds the Planning Commission's resolution 2013-34, which approves the project. Staff did incorporate two additional conditions of approval that speak to the appellant's concerns regarding landscaping and vegetation. And those conditions are included in this draft resolution. Because the project also includes a request for an encroachment agreement, the City Council still needs to act on that component of the project. So if this project, if the appeal, is denied then this allows the City Council to approve the encroachment agreement request and therefore staff is also recommending that the city council adopt a resolution which approves the encroachment agreement as proposed by the applicant. So with that, staff concludes its presentation. |
| 00:15:01.53 | Mary Wagner | Mr. Mayor, if I may, quickly, I think we jumped over the step of expertise. I know. I know. |
| 00:15:04.80 | Heidi | Thank you. |
| 00:15:04.84 | Unknown | I know. So before we ask questions of staff, I did omit X-Party Communications. Let me kick off. I met with both the applicant and the appellate on Sunday afternoon and looked at the projects. |
| 00:15:29.03 | Unknown | And I met with both the applicant and the appellate as well. |
| 00:15:34.99 | Unknown | I also met with the applicant and the appellant and her architect, and I don't know if we need to disclose this and view the Planning Commission proceedings video. |
| 00:15:47.14 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | I also met with both parties. |
| 00:15:50.94 | Unknown | I met with the Appellant. and read the staff report. |
| 00:15:55.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:15:55.33 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:15:56.30 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:15:56.73 | Unknown | No. |
| 00:15:56.98 | Unknown | you |
| 00:16:00.81 | Unknown | So does anybody have questions? |
| 00:16:03.80 | Unknown | Yeah, Heidi, one thing about the storage unit, I've never heard that argument made that, you know, |
| 00:16:04.22 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. |
| 00:16:11.68 | Unknown | there's a related use, so that space should be counted within the 400 or 500 square feet exemption of what a garage is. Either your garage is your garage or it's not your garage. So I've never, maybe it's been something in the last seven years, but the previous seven years before that, I never kind of heard that argument being made by the city staff that you could put additional space counted towards, because what if I put a laundry room? Is that related to my garage, or is that I could say a lot of laundry is done and people in the house that have laundry and they're ready to the garage. kind of a never-ending argument. So where would you draw the line there? |
| 00:16:53.39 | Heidi | Because the zoning ordinance is silent on the exact, you know, appurtenant uses that are related to those areas, staff did identify that as part of the Planning Commission presentation and through the Planning Commission's approval of it, staff is suggesting that the Planning Commission concurs with staff's interpretation. What's of interest is, you know, two parking spaces are required for single family residential units and based on again the required stall dimensions it would suggest that only 372 square feet of maximum floor area could be allocated to the garage. The question of staff was why is there then an additional 158 square feet that's available for a project applicant to exempt it. And a storage area which could be used for trash receptacles, anything related to a garage use, could be considered an impertinent use and therefore staff has presented that to the decision-making body. |
| 00:17:54.61 | Unknown | Right, but I mean, you don't necessarily have to have covered storage for your trash receptacles or whatever. So it can go either way is my point. |
| 00:18:03.88 | Heidi | That's correct. Staff did provide that suggestion to the Planning Commission in its presentation on December 4. And the Planning Commission chose to approve the project as proposed. |
| 00:18:09.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:18:13.97 | Unknown | Right. And I mean, you're also not, there's nothing in the zoning ordinance that guarantees covered parking, period. So that's another thing to consider. And you sort of led me to the next question. So if you can go back to the map of the parking that has the parking on it. So you're saying there's a guest space, but the guest space is actually, if you go to one that has a couple before. |
| 00:18:39.64 | Heidi | Thank you. Yeah. Go back to the first slide. This slide shows it. MS. Yes. |
| 00:18:47.89 | Unknown | There was one with two car garages, two two-car garages. And... And so the guest space is actually in the right of way. Both of them, the length of them go out into the right of way. Is that correct? |
| 00:19:02.40 | Heidi | There are portions of the guest parking spaces that are located within the public right of way, and part of the encouragement agreement request is to include that as well. So there's a couple interesting components with this. So you can see in this garage, there's two adjacent cars, and then part of the request was a conditional use permit to allow for an additional parking space to be located behind the one in the garage, and that would be parked in tandem. So our regulations require that CUP, and you can see a little bit less than half of that guest parking space would be located within the Marion Avenue public driveway, but outside of the actual travel way. And then based on the 9 by 19 parking stall requirement, a little less than a third is proposed in the right of way for the East Wind House. |
| 00:19:29.72 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:19:29.97 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | Yes. |
| 00:19:42.83 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | Right. |
| 00:19:55.37 | Unknown | So was there a turning radius kind of analysis done with this that didn't go to the Planning Commission or isn't in these plans that could show you could get in and out of this? |
| 00:20:05.08 | Heidi | Yes, that was included in the Planning Commission's staff report. There was actually a site distancing analysis that was prepared by the applicant. And based on the existing conditions of the site as it relates to the 50 mile an hour road speeds, the applicant was originally proposing a situation where all cars would need to back into the parking stalls in order to meet that site distancing requirement. However, staff suggested that that would be really hard to enforce. However, in speaking with our senior engineer, there was an alternative that allowed for vegetation removal within the Marion Avenue public right-of-way to the west, and based on some tree trimming that can be done there, the project would be able to provide adequate site distance related to the traffic and terrain movements. |
| 00:20:57.79 | Unknown | Okay. I'm not sure. And the last question I had for you was, I wasn't in any of the either of the staff reports for the Planning Commission, but this, you know, I sat through a project on this. seven years ago. And I believe there's been one since then proposed for this site of different owners. And now this is the third go around, at least in my recent memory for this particular prior proposals for this had things that were stepped kind of down the hill as a way to kind of lower the impact on somewhere over the top with a lot of in terms of the maxing out the property, this one's very vertical. Did the Planning Committee, I didn't see it in the action minutes, but I didn't have a chance to spend, I don't know how long to... hearing was, but was there any discussion about, because it was about changing the design at all to kind of make it sort of conform to the hillside or actually use more of the hillside as part of, I mean, you know, putting back on my planning commissioner hat from many years It doesn't sound like they really talk about the design to a great at least in the action minutes. |
| 00:22:12.08 | Heidi | Yes, so unfortunately the action minutes don't really go into that detail. However, the staff report for the Planning Commission did provide a background of the most recent project that was presented to the Planning Commission last year that was presented by the current project proponent. for construction of a similar project, but based on major design issues, the Planning Commission determined to deny that project. This project is very different from the early 2000 proposals in the sense of initially the previous owner was proposing more density of the site, larger units, it was more of an invasive design, although it stepped down the hill, and there was more grading that was actually related to this. So the current owner, is proposing to minimize the actual grading disturbance by designing the units to be as close to the property line as possible, which would also allow the additional on-site parking spaces and kind of create more of a compact vertical design instead of more disturbance that would go down the hill. If the applicant were to design a project that actually went down the hill Not only would there be more grading, but there could potentially be more privacy and invasive impacts on adjacent property owners based on the topography of the site. |
| 00:23:35.13 | Unknown | Right. No, there's a trade-off for everything. So I just was interested if there had been some discussion. I mean, it's four stories. One of them is four stories in effect, and the other one's three, I think. It's sort of, you know, stepping it down or, Eliminating roof cover on the top is a way to kind of sort of limit the impact on the street. |
| 00:23:59.01 | Heidi | The Planning Commission's 2012 staff report included information on the early 2000 project, and then the Planning Commission staff report for December 4th of last year included the 2012 history. Right. So all that history was presented to all the Planning Commissioners. |
| 00:24:14.61 | Unknown | Right. |
| 00:24:18.32 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:24:23.43 | Unknown | On the storage unit, does the... you discuss the pertinent issue and whether it fits, but I'm looking at the, uh, the, Sunlight issue. Does the storage, building of the storage, affect the sunlight issue that the appellant has an issue with? |
| 00:24:41.89 | Heidi | Based on the observation of the story pools from the appellant site, that storage area is located around this area. So there is a small impact to that open sky. |
| 00:24:57.15 | Unknown | Can I just ask a quick question? On that note, do you have, I didn't see it in the stuff we had. Maybe it was at the Planning Commission, but, and it's not on this, this we have as the late-mail plans. Is there an actual, |
| 00:24:57.18 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:24:57.20 | Jonathon Goldman | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:24:57.40 | Unknown | The Press. |
| 00:25:09.62 | Unknown | rendering of both Condos from this angle? |
| 00:25:15.34 | Heidi | Not from the Marion Avenue street level looking north. |
| 00:25:19.76 | Unknown | There was more. |
| 00:25:19.79 | Heidi | There was one that was prepared. That was it. Sorry. |
| 00:25:26.44 | Unknown | That's from the... From the back. Right, but not from the... We're all looking at it from the back. |
| 00:25:27.64 | Heidi | from the back facing. |
| 00:25:31.94 | Unknown | All the issues are from this side, right? |
| 00:25:33.28 | Heidi | That's right. |
| 00:25:33.90 | Unknown | And there's no... drawing of that. |
| 00:25:36.57 | Heidi | not that was presented to staff. |
| 00:25:38.73 | Unknown | And the Planning Commission didn't want to see that either. |
| 00:25:41.34 | Heidi | The Planning Commission did not request that. |
| 00:25:42.89 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:25:54.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:25:58.12 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | . possible that it could have another parking space? |
| 00:26:04.09 | Heidi | Based on the design of where the storage unit is located in relationship to the Marion Avenue public right of way, the only way to accommodate that would be if this internal stairway were to be |
| 00:26:07.50 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 00:26:07.52 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | located |
| 00:26:14.89 | Heidi | would actually swap the storage area so it could be done if if the stairwell moved to the north, the storage area moved back, and then the retaining walls associated with the driveway were expanded. |
| 00:26:30.72 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | So it wouldn't be any difference whether there was a storage bin there or an automobile, give you the same effect as you look up. |
| 00:26:38.82 | Heidi | That's correct. And another way to look at this is if this addition wasn't there, there would still be a solid wall that would still be the same height as what's being proposed today. |
| 00:26:40.10 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 00:26:53.18 | Unknown | Thank you. but you could. I mean, sorry to, you know, if you don't mind. I mean, because this, we don't do this very much, so it's kind of a... |
| 00:26:57.08 | Heidi | I mean, |
| 00:26:57.79 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 00:27:03.02 | Unknown | It's not really what, I mean you could play around with how this whole house is laid out to move the cars away from the street. The cars are not, many of the homes up in the hill there, cars are parked right on top of the living space. So I mean you could There's a lot of things you could do if you really wanted to. move cars out of the street and you know you could have no roof. There's a lot of potential things that you could do. Maybe they're not desirable from either side's point of view, but there's a lot of things you could do here that aren't necessarily being done depending on whether you think they're important enough to do. |
| 00:27:39.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:27:39.05 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 00:27:39.08 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:27:39.15 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 00:27:39.16 | Unknown | I just... One more thing on this. The storage goes from floor to ceiling, basically. There's a wall. But you're saying if there were no storage, we'd still look at a wall on that part? |
| 00:27:50.05 | Heidi | you would still look at our wall. you |
| 00:27:52.65 | Unknown | Not quite. |
| 00:27:52.95 | Heidi | I don't have an elevation, that elevation would be included in your site plan, but there would be a solid wall. |
| 00:27:59.89 | Unknown | Where? I mean, you see, if you took out storage and it was just empty, where would the wall be? |
| 00:28:00.21 | Heidi | I think it's a great thing. I'm sorry. I mean, you see |
| 00:28:04.11 | Heidi | If you were to look as if you were creating a section through the building, there would be a solid continuous wall here, unless the applicant were to come back and design this as an open balcony, and then there would be a door. |
| 00:28:11.62 | Unknown | Oh. |
| 00:28:18.10 | Heidi | I mean, there's a lot of design alternatives, and the architect is here and could answer those questions in further detail. |
| 00:28:26.73 | Unknown | Any other questions of staff? Thank you, Heidi. |
| 00:28:36.67 | Unknown | So we are now going to ask the appellate to to make their presentation. Again, the clock there, which has a maximum of three minutes, will start ticking down once you're seven minutes in. |
| 00:29:01.19 | Michael Rex | Hi, I'm Michael Rex, local architect, and I'm here representing the adjacent neighbor, Ken Stotter, who's here tonight. She's really the only neighbor being impacted by this project, so it's important to her extremely. I want to put the screen up. |
| 00:29:23.65 | Michael Rex | Can you turn off the projector, please? Okay, we're not objecting to two homes being built on this site. We're not objecting to the position of the homes as proposed, nor are we opposing the floor area. What we're objecting to is a loss of sunlight. the only sunlight that's going to come into Kim's daughter's home. Because her eaves are so low, it's only when the sun is rising above that ridgeline does it enter her home. That's the sun coming right through the story poles. The story poles go all the way across. Coming into her primary living spaces, her outdoor deck, her living room, her master bedroom, and her lower level. |
| 00:30:02.65 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | or |
| 00:30:04.69 | Michael Rex | You see a sun study here. We show that it doesn't just stop at her house. We added this square here. That shadow's going to come all the way into her bedroom and living room. The only light she gets. Where there is sky, there is light. There are trees there, but the light filters right through the trees, but they'll never filter through solid walls. Um, You can see here, these angles of the sun were plotted by Google Earth, and the Entry towers, the carports, the storage unit, all permanently block the light entering Kim's home. The buildings are simply too tall. They're too massive. We have a four-story building going straight up 49 feet opposite Kim's home. This design is excessive. The mass is unnecessary. It also conflicts with the zoning ordinance. A storeroom is not allowed to exceed 32 foot height. And we're not just talking about a storage unit. We're talking about a room six feet wide, 13 feet long, Why would you put a storage unit on top of a three-story roof particularly when it blocks a neighbor's life. The code only allows a cover over a parking space and an access way. It's not allowed over storage. Five of the 12 findings cannot be made. Finding number three says the scale should be consistent with neighboring homes. Here's Kim's house, two stories. Here's the four-story West House proposed. Um, You cannot make the finding, it's consistent in scale, it's overwhelming scale to Kim says. Finding number five, the project will project above the ridge line we've seen from. Himself. The finding says it shouldn't project above ridgelines. Findings 6 and 11, the landscape is not adequately to screen the house. The houses are so tall, trees will never grow high enough to screen it. They're pulling out 22 trees. Given the excessive height of these buildings, the fact that it's on a rocky, steep slope, very little light, poor soil, it'll be amazing if anything grows. We have doubts about the landscape plan and you should too. Finding number seven, the design should not block sunlight to adjacent properties, and this does. If you can't make the findings, you can't approve it. The Planning Commission earned their approval We've complained to staff, our complaints have gone unheard, that the plans were incomplete and inadequate. Now the west elevations of the home are shown separately. This plan shows the east home as well as the west home. That's significantly more bulk that Kim will be looking at than what was shown. The plans did not adequately show the mass that's being proposed. The driveway of Butmer that runs along the property line Nowhere does that show in a section. This is a wall that's 120 feet long. It rises in some places 12 feet high, and yet nowhere is that mass indicated, except in Planned View. We complained about it. It was never shown. The landscape plans are inadequate. When landscaping is so important, we need specifications that give us assurance the plants will grow. Retaining walls that are going to be needed to retain soil on this very rocky, steep slope are not shown and if they're not planned, the plants will have no soil. Um... Okay. complaint is partly because options exist that have not been explored. I want to give you some examples. They could replace the carport roof with open parking decks, like many homes in town on downhill lots. |
| 00:33:51.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:33:52.62 | Michael Rex | A roof over your car is an amenity, it's not a necessity. Preserving your sunlight is a necessity. Think for a moment. For a few moments getting wet in the rain from your car to your front door versus permanently losing your only light in your home, is that equitable? No. |
| 00:34:15.39 | Michael Rex | Lower the entry towers by walking down to the front door, like many homes in town. I did a drawing here. Um, showing I'm going to walk over there very quickly. |
| 00:34:24.55 | Unknown | Thank you. over there very quickly. |
| 00:34:29.26 | Michael Rex | I show in the right-of-way, on gray, a staircase, half a flight down to a front door. You've approved many encroachments for access stairs down to a front door. All throughout town, people walk down to a front door. You could lower that entry tower, that four-story entry tower, a half a story, just by doing that. The applicant won't consider it. We have a level driveway. shown here, perfectly level from the street. It could drop a couple feet. ceiling heights. We have 9 foot ceiling on the ground floor, 9 foot high ceiling on the second floor. The wall height on the top floor is 10 feet high with a peak roof bringing to the ceiling heights to 13 to 13 feet. That's excessive heights when we end up with a massive building that's blocking light. The East Tower, that peak in that living room, gets up to about 14 feet. you don't need nine foot ceilings on every floor. and 13 and 14 foot ceilings on a top floor. If he took a foot out of every one of those levels, you drop that building Three to four feet. There's many things that could be done that haven't been considered. Um, Extending the garden around. They have a 12-foot high retaining wall down here. trying to get access from the lower level down to the lower garden. If they would just wrap that balcony around, it would meet Greg right here, and you can eliminate all of this construction, 12-foot-high retaining walls. Why would you put a stair to a lower garden from the highest point of the house to chase Greg down? It doesn't make any sense. All it is is adding mass. It's unnecessary. Excessive and unnecessary. We ask that shades be, there's skylights right here on this deck. That's the master bedroom. When that bedroom has lights on that's The light will emanate from the skylight, illuminate that entire wall. We ask that a screen be put on that, an automatic screen that would close. The applicant said they'd do it. It's not in the plans. It's not in the conditions of approval. Light glare is something that should be controlled the distance. So I want to wrap up here. We're not asking for major changes. We try to work with the applicant, they won't work with us. So tonight, we're asking for your help. We're asking you. to encourage the applicant to work with us like they should. We request that you continue the hearing. and direct the applicant to consider revisions that address our concerns in a meaningful manner. We need your help. We didn't get that help. from the Planning Commission. Kim has no options here. Her house is built. The applicant has many options. please encourage them to look out. Can I answer your questions? |
| 00:37:30.14 | Unknown | Thank you, Michael. Does anybody have any questions up here of the palette? Who would like to go first, Jonathan? |
| 00:37:41.03 | Unknown | Michael, did you or do you have, you know, I read the appeal, and in some cases I can understand where you're going with what the alternatives would be. Do you have like a concise list of what you you know, what changes you would Proposed? |
| 00:38:01.11 | Michael Rex | Uh, I just gave you a summary orally also in the packet. There's a one-pager. Heidi, maybe you can find the page number for us. where it's a letter we gave to the architect on one page listing the things that Thank you. we ask them to consider. In fact, I met with Marty to walk him through it. Unfortunately, they wouldn't make any changes. Not a single one on the list. But that list is in your packet. |
| 00:38:35.47 | Michael Rex | Yeah. you can find the paper. |
| 00:38:40.09 | Unknown | Is it one of the attachments, Heidi? I'm trying to open them, but I'm not sure which one it is. I can't remember. |
| 00:38:48.09 | Unknown | Is this attachment five, Heidi? Yeah, attachment five. |
| 00:38:51.68 | Michael Rex | Yeah, touch on the fire. It's just one thing. |
| 00:39:03.88 | Michael Rex | We offered to draw the appeal if they would consider these changes. |
| 00:39:24.89 | Michael Rex | One other item I did mention is the houses could be lowered into gray. If you look at the west house, that floor just touches gray. So does this one. A few feet in the grave, a few feet out of ceiling height, get rid of the carport, step down to the entry. These houses would look smaller and Kim's light would be preserved. It can't be done. There's no reason they shouldn't. |
| 00:39:54.80 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 00:39:55.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:40:02.90 | Unknown | Okay, at this point I'd like to ask the applicants team And you too have 10 minutes maximum. Thank you. |
| 00:40:15.84 | Peter McGuire | My name is Peter McGuire. I'm the Univis. Oh, yeah. |
| 00:40:26.20 | Marty | There's a need for something. |
| 00:40:33.34 | Peter McGuire | slides. Oh, great. Thanks. |
| 00:40:37.39 | Marty | And can you just teach me quickly? |
| 00:40:39.30 | Unknown | Right. It's a trick. You gotta wipe it down. |
| 00:40:41.79 | Marty | We're going to wait for that. . Thank you. Fast forward. Absolutely. |
| 00:40:51.19 | Peter McGuire | Okay. Great. Thanks. My name is Peter McGuire. I'm the owner of 62 Marion, where I plan to build two detached single-family homes that will enhance the special nature of this part of Sausalito. I've lived in and owned property in Sausalito for 35 years. I own a home adjacent to the site where I lived for 25 years. The planning staff produced a very thorough and professional report demonstrating why my plans satisfied every one of the nine requirements for the design review permit. My architect, Marty's Rick, prepared a detailed written presentation for the Planning Commission supporting those conclusions of the planning staff. That presentation included numerous photos, charts, graphics that accurately depicted these homes as consistent in style and proportion to the neighboring structures and entirely compatible with the surroundings. Slide one, please. |
| 00:41:28.03 | Unknown | to an extent. |
| 00:41:45.99 | Peter McGuire | No, that's two. I need one. Okay, there we go. This is the largest lot in the neighborhood. Six of the seven owners of nine of the ten structures adjacent to 62 Marion, these are the people who actually live there. have approved my plans and written letters of endorsement. Ms. Angelique Perra, who I don't see yet, will speak on their behalf. Next slide, please. The first thing I will do is widen the entire project frontage on Marion Avenue. This is a safety and traffic improvement that the city should have done years ago. This will now be the widest stretch of road from Saucelita Boulevard to the end of Marion. who will allow two fire trucks to pass unobstructed. Next slide, please. The plans include guest parking for up to four additional vehicles completely off the widened street. a rarity in this neighborhood, and not required by the Planning Code. On December 4th, on motion of Bill Werner, the Commission determined my plans for 62 Mary met all requirements of the design review permit. In contrast, on December 16, Ms. Stott had filed an appeal listing 13 claims. These claims are either misrepresentations, exaggerations, or irrelevant to the issue of this appeal, that the Planning Commission properly issued the design review permit. Midsada's appeal letter throws everyone under the bus, not just me, my architect, the experts that came to report on the staff, but also the planning commission and the planning staff. On January 6th, an entire month after the approval of this permit, Ms. Stoddard filed a 34-page letter listing yet new claims, and for the first time, setting forth her extensive list of demands in writing. This letter was not a compromise as suggested by Mr. Rex. It was an ultimatum to us. The staff report for this appeal hearing dismisses all of Ms. Stoddard's claims and demands as unnecessary and unwarranted. my three-page letter. does likewise. Masada's presentation this evening or Mr. Rex's presentation this evening has nothing really new here. Thank you. Let me go to some of the examples. I'll skip the slide area because apparently we don't have to worry about slide area anymore. Could you put on slide five, please, the building diagram? This is similar to the diagram that Mr. Rex just presented, but now they have separated the houses as they were properly separated before. But this was the submission that Ms. Stoddard made at the Planning Review, at the Planning Commission. It's still a cartoon, and it's not a very funny cartoon, unfortunately. They have now separated the houses that they were properly separated, but they've taken a floor off Ms. Stoddard's house. Would you believe that these three buildings are approximately the same floor area ratio? They're both about, Ms. Doddage is 2,300. The one on this side is 2,100. Smaller than Ms. Doddage, the other is 2,500. You would not believe these houses were effectively the same size. And that is continued in the presentation that was here tonight. Let me go to the next slide six. These are, this is a slide that despite repeated requests that we be able to take pictures from Ms. Stoddard's deck, we were refused that until fairly recently when Ms. Scobla was able to take a slide, which is the slide on the left. The slide on the right is the slide Ms. Stoddard presented in the Planning Commission, and they've corrected that mistake because it was taken with a zoom lens. They are now using the proper slide and the proper picture. Um, Let me. Well, there are reams of paperwork here that Ms. Stoddard has filed. The essence of Ms. Stoddard's claim and the source of most of her demands is that the proposed homes take away attic with light and air. Marty will show you the technical flaws with this claim, but I just want to make three common sense observations. First, the location. Nostar's home sits in a ravine of dense foliage. She purchased her home knowing full well that the adjacent lot to the south and east with a higher elevation was zoned for development of two houses. On at least three separate occasions, she passed on the chance to purchase all or a portion of this adjacent lot. Given its location, it is no mean feat to design houses that do such a minimal shadow effects on adjacent parcels. Marty did a great job in doing that. Let me go to this deck photo. And again, a common sense observation. Don't go back to the foreman's. If you hold this photo at arm's length, the area of sky that we're talking about, you can cover with your thumbprint. In the early, in the mid-winter, the sun rises at about 721, and it gets up to this thumbprint at about 815. it will pass that thumbprint in about 10 or 15 minutes. Um, According to some transits that skag, it can possibly be casting a great shadow on Miss Staudet's property. So at its worst, in the early winter mornings for less than an hour, on some part of Ms. Stoddard's deck filtered sunlight may be blocked by some portion of the proposed wind structure. Such a minimal effect can't possibly demonstrate that both the staff's conclusion and the Planning Commission's determination are incorrect. If it did, then Section 7 of the design review permit would simply become an impossible standard. The next point I wanted to make is the foliage. You'll also notice in this picture that the foliage on Ms. Stoddard's property has a far greater effect on lighting than could possibly be done by a structure depicted by the story poles. You just have to wonder why someone so concerned about early morning light wouldn't have done some judicious pruning of her own trees in the 10 years that she's lived there. At this point, I'd like to ask any questions. Again, these are common sense observations from what Ms. Stardet has presented. Marty will present the shadow study in a more technical detail to show that these lighting effects are absolutely minimal. Thank you. you Thank you. |
| 00:48:33.57 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Yeah, I have a question for you. |
| 00:48:35.42 | Marty | Is that going to come into our time or are we going to be correct? Thank you. |
| 00:48:38.51 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 00:48:38.63 | Marty | Thank you. We need at least a minute to talk about this. |
| 00:48:42.34 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Sorry. Go ahead. The distance between the Westwind House and the Westwind House |
| 00:48:43.66 | Unknown | Go ahead. |
| 00:48:44.20 | Peter McGuire | Thank you. |
| 00:48:50.02 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | And the started house. What's the dish? |
| 00:48:52.08 | Peter McGuire | It's over 80 feet. It is greater than the average of any house in that neighborhood. There's a diagram in the presentation that we did for the Planning Commission that shows the actual distances of houses in this neighborhood. And you see that the distance from our house to Ms. Stoddard's house is well over the average. In fact, it's probably twice the average distance to that neighboring house. |
| 00:48:52.33 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | over. |
| 00:49:19.65 | Peter McGuire | Thank you. you |
| 00:49:20.68 | Unknown | Um, yes. |
| 00:49:21.83 | Peter McGuire | Thank you. |
| 00:49:21.85 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 00:49:22.66 | Unknown | So I'm looking at staff photo and the appellate's photo, and I'm wondering if the appellate took the Zoom to illustrate the story polls, because it's hard for me to see the story polls in the staff photo. |
| 00:49:37.02 | Peter McGuire | Well, it was presented as a picture from her deck. And it was not presented as a Zoom picture from her deck. But even so, that's fine. If you look at it, you will still see that the foliage on the property, on Ms. Stoddard's property, |
| 00:49:38.15 | Unknown | To illustrate the impact on sunlight. |
| 00:49:40.21 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:49:55.04 | Peter McGuire | has a far greater effect in reducing your light than any structure represented by these |
| 00:50:06.58 | Unknown | I'll wait and ask that question of the appellate. |
| 00:50:10.01 | Unknown | Any other questions before the team continues? |
| 00:50:14.77 | Unknown | Yeah, Mr. McGuire, my apologies for not having a chance to chat with you. I think we've met before. We did. Yeah. |
| 00:50:20.42 | Peter McGuire | We did. We met originally when I was an opponent of the project that was first proposed to this. Right. Where that appellant one proposal involved splitting the lot into two, putting in four 3,000 square foot houses. I remember. You came over, I showed you where the houses were going to go. They were going to come down in front of the four houses that I own in that area. |
| 00:50:35.15 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:50:41.46 | Unknown | Right. Yeah. |
| 00:50:47.32 | Unknown | Right. |
| 00:50:47.61 | Peter McGuire | and I properly posed that. It was a much more intense development than this proposal, far more intense. |
| 00:50:53.92 | Unknown | You guys. Right. And I recall from those discussions, you're a pretty reasonable guy. And that was over the top what was happening in that particular proposal. And it doesn't seem to me, uh, in this particular circumstance, I think you did some things that sort of were much less, much more accommodative than those previous proposals and I applaud you for that. Much more accommodative. But I think in my read of sort of some of the things they're asking for, the sort of mass is not one of the, the living areas is not one of them, which was kind of the bigger problems of those other ones. There's just too much going on with the four different units before. But some of the |
| 00:51:17.30 | Unknown | Much more. |
| 00:51:36.39 | Unknown | some of the things, and since it's a spec house, I'm wondering if there's an opportunity or spec condos that to maybe massage the plans a little bit to sort of meet in the middle here in terms of the ceiling heights or the car roof deck or however the entry works or the storage on the carport, none of those sound like they're big Um, game changers for the design of the home, in the two homes in particular. But is that something that you might entertain? |
| 00:52:07.69 | Peter McGuire | I'd like to make a couple of comments about that. First, they're not spec homes. My plan had been to occupy the Westwind house with my family. The other comment I'd make about seemingly that it's so easy to take carport decks off, take roofs off the lower, et cetera, I'm 66 years old. |
| 00:52:09.26 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 00:52:15.59 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:52:26.66 | Peter McGuire | I lived in 90 Marion, which is a house fairly close to this, which had open carports and an open entryway down to where you entered into the house. I lived there for 25 years. In the course of that 25 years, I probably fell on those stairs half a dozen times. It's almost an inevitability in wet weather. |
| 00:52:42.86 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | Amen. |
| 00:52:47.43 | Peter McGuire | When I'm 75 years old and I'm trying to walk down stairs, I was able to bounce up when I'm 40. I may not be bouncing up when I'm 75. Let's knock on wood for that one. It's a big deal. |
| 00:52:56.82 | Unknown | Let's knock on wood for that. No, I understand the desires, but my Let's not get in the back and forth. I hear you. I hear where you're coming from. |
| 00:53:07.95 | Peter McGuire | These changes are suggested, it's no big deal, you have the same footprint, etc., etc. They are a big deal. They are a big deal. And the reality is, it doesn't affect misthoughts like whatsoever. So, the premise upon which these suggested changes are is false. It doesn't affect her life. And it's an easy thing, but it seems like a subjective thing, but you can see That sun transits that area in 10 minutes. It can't possibly be affecting her life. in any appreciable way. |
| 00:53:48.49 | Unknown | Yeah. So I believe the rest. Was there another question? Sorry. |
| 00:53:54.18 | Unknown | No, no, I was wondering when we were going to hear him. |
| 00:53:55.98 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | I understand. |
| 00:53:57.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:53:58.01 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Right, I'd like another question. Oh, please. It was said that they didn't, that the, |
| 00:54:03.57 | Peter McGuire | Thank you. |
| 00:54:06.32 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | did not make any ask you for They asked you for some changes and they said none were made. Is that accurate or were there changes made? |
| 00:54:18.85 | Peter McGuire | There's a whole history here. Um, |
| 00:54:23.66 | Unknown | Um, |
| 00:54:24.55 | Peter McGuire | Could we? |
| 00:54:25.43 | Unknown | just |
| 00:54:26.59 | Peter McGuire | Let me, let me, let me. |
| 00:54:28.68 | Unknown | This is, could I just stop the proceedings for a second? We were asking questions, and so could you quickly answer Council Member Weiner's question, then we'll ask the team |
| 00:54:28.70 | Peter McGuire | This is... |
| 00:54:37.05 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | Yeah. |
| 00:54:37.09 | Unknown | Councilor. |
| 00:54:40.34 | Peter McGuire | I mean. |
| 00:54:41.31 | Unknown | To finish the SUN study, and then |
| 00:54:41.43 | Peter McGuire | The thing. Thank you. |
| 00:54:44.41 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:54:44.45 | Peter McGuire | There's a history with this site, Harry. |
| 00:54:44.63 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:54:46.79 | Peter McGuire | I may pay particular attention in the initial designing of these units that they would have minimum impact on the adjacent units. I'm quite aware of Ms. Stoddard's house, etc. I own four houses very close to her as well. I have every interest to make sure that these structures do not impede the privacy or the light of adjacent structures because I'm affected as well. So in the initial design of these things, we pay particular attention to that. We have minimum windows on the side by Ms. Stoddard. We don't have big decks. The decks that we do have are on the side opposite from Ms. Stoddard. We don't have decks in front. Mr. McGuire. |
| 00:55:26.08 | Unknown | Mr. McGuire, may I interrupt you? Did you answer directly, Council Member Weiner? I believe I may answer these questions. |
| 00:55:32.54 | Peter McGuire | I believe I'm answering this question now. We were then presented with 12 design changes by Ms. Stoddard. That design change would take, you have to make all of these design changes if I was going to, if she was going to withdraw her appeal. But even at that it wasn't, she didn't say she was going to withdraw the appeal. She might think about withdrawing the appeal after making all 12 of these design changes. The problem we have with it is that there was no factual premise for making the design changes. We didn't know where to start because we had to make all or nothing. |
| 00:56:10.04 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:56:15.07 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | . I'm fine. Thank you. |
| 00:56:16.03 | Marty | I'm going as fast as I can. |
| 00:56:18.86 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 00:56:19.06 | Marty | Thank you. |
| 00:56:19.15 | Unknown | You need to take the microphone. Don't start the clock yet. You have to... Michael? Michael? |
| 00:56:19.22 | Marty | You need to take that. I will, I'm training. Multitasking. Hello, hello. Okay, so I gotta be able to read this. You know, we did meet with Michael, and we did take a look at further sun studies. We were curious as well. And you can see in the lower right hand and left hand corner what we had presented to the Planning Commission |
| 00:56:24.09 | Unknown | I'm trying to multitask. |
| 00:56:30.64 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | You know, we did. |
| 00:56:40.88 | Marty | Thank you. seems like years ago, but a month ago. And we had never modeled the trees because Kim wouldn't let us do a survey on her site, nevermind, doesn't matter. But we were able now to model the ridgeline that Michael and I were talking about at lunch. So what we did is we overlaid the two, and we look at 7.30 a.m., sun rises at 7.21, and because the ridge line casts all the shadow, the net new shadow is zero. Then we look at 8 a.m. You can see, if I can get this laser to go, there's a little bit of shadow on her garage roof. We move ahead. to 830 and there's a little bit more shadow on the roof, just as Michael drew on his diagram in the garage and this piece of deck And then at 9 a.m., there's a little bit of shadow here. This is on the worst day of the year, by the way. Not the best day of the year. We tried to look at the worst case scenario. And by 9.30 a.m., the shadow is gone. So I think this just kind of bolsters what Peter was saying a minute ago. There is a slight impact on Kim on the worst day of the year. In the summertime, there isn't In the spring equinox there isn't. In the fall there isn't. But in the winter for a little bit of time there is a little bit. And it's 80 some feet away between the two houses. They're not close. That's what I have to say. I'll be happy to answer any questions. |
| 00:57:59.00 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 00:58:01.31 | Unknown | Thank you. Is there any questions on this stage? No, then thank you, sir. |
| 00:58:10.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:58:10.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:58:10.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:58:15.89 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:58:15.97 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 00:58:15.99 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:58:17.07 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:58:18.81 | Unknown | Thank you for both teams. And now I'm going to open this for public comment. Could I kindly have a show of hands and get a sense of how many people want to talk. Okay, so if the first person would like to start, and just to speed things up, if you want to line up along there, if it's not too cold, so that we get a quick turnover from people, and you have three minutes, and please try and stick to your time. |
| 00:58:56.49 | Aditya Padala | Hi, my name is Aditya Padala. I live on the highest house at the end of South Street. I've been there 20 years. So I drive by this curve every day for the last 20 years. And occasionally, quite often, I walk with my daughter and wife. And I plan on living there a long time. It depends on how long I live. So I have seen this property try to evolve. and I'm kind of shocked by the inability for progress to be made. And like I think John was saying here seven years, eight years, I mean time seems to stand still here. And I've seen the story calls the most recent and I was very much against the early plans that were huge and humongous and ridiculous. But over time I said, you know, I should start looking at these things. And I've looked at the most recent one in great detail. And I think it's great for many, many reasons. One, the width the four foot wide width of that road is probably the safest part of that curve. I've heard today some ideas about light and the walkway going down or the building going down, so it has less of an impact. I have actually looked at those plans, and one of the first things that came to me is when I walk up with my daughter, who's 10 now, I've been walking up with her since she was two the last eight years. The only part of the walk that I'm a little wary of is that last curve where there's no house, because there could be dogs. I think if I'm worried about mountain lions, I think there's a lot of people who are not worried about the mountains. since she was two the last eight years. The only part of the walk that I'm a little wary of is that last curve where there's no house because there could be dogs there. I think if I'm worried about mountain lions, I'm still a scared kind of person. |
| 01:00:29.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:00:29.14 | Aditya Padala | The only place that I worry about is that curb. And I also worry about traffic because I cannot be seen on the opposite side. So I actually think it makes the whole place significantly safer. The points on light I've just heard today, I've never heard before, is all about Sausalito. I own a duplex in Sausalito, the last one, and I built actually with your permission, a little easement and earthquake protected. Moving from the east coast, I was scared of earthquakes. And that took me 15 years to put in place. But anyway, my own home. My own home, my tenant's home has so much more light than my house. And sometimes I worry, why am I living on this side? And, I mean, these are facts of life here. But I think it's important that people be allowed to build what is reasonable in their lifetime before Peter dies. I mean, this needs to get over. This needs to move forward. I don't think it's such a big deal now. I think it's been looked at and we're nitpicking, like I say, thumbprints and this and that. Obviously, everybody wants to make this a nice place to live. But part of being a nice place to live is we've got to get through these processes quickly and focus on the essence of the issue. And I've seen that place. I believe, I mean, I walk by the house and I feel for him. I mean, I hope Peter is good looking when he stands on his deck. But I think he's my neighbor. But I think we've got to move forward, and I support it 100%. |
| 01:01:32.94 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | Thank you. I'm not sure. And I've seen it. |
| 01:01:42.71 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 01:01:42.76 | Unknown | I know. |
| 01:01:43.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:01:43.20 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:01:43.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:01:43.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:01:43.67 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | No. |
| 01:01:47.92 | Unknown | Thank you, sir. |
| 01:01:49.11 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:01:49.12 | Aditya Padala | Thank you. |
| 01:01:53.93 | Aditya Padala | Thank you. |
| 01:02:19.43 | Unknown | . Jeremy, would you be so kind to show him how he's a, oh, you got it. It's a tricky thing. |
| 01:02:26.35 | Jorge Lee | My name is Jorge Lee, I live at 108 Marion, and the last time I tried a presentation for the Planning Commission around the time, so. |
| 01:02:35.04 | Jorge Lee | applied through. This is an example of the painting wall, similar to what's being built here. All right. |
| 01:02:52.74 | Jorge Lee | As you can see, there is a railway, and the retaining wall is right below it. And I'd like to show you that the diameter of those piles are two feet. and they have to be drilled 20 feet into the ground Right? |
| 01:03:14.75 | Jorge Lee | Um... This is the... the Pacific Overlook in San Francisco, under construction and you had a failure, the retaining wall failed. So I just wanted to show you the amount of dirt that has to be removed, the equipment that needs to be there to remove the dirt, When you drill a hole, you have to pull it there and put it someplace In this property there is no place to put it there. his project. This is the plan view. How do you, the laser, okay. |
| 01:03:58.79 | Jorge Lee | As you notice here, this is not a read. the retaining wall that they are proposing. The retaining wall should be started here, the corner of the building. and go over it and then end up here. So it's misleading. The structural design wasn't Consider here. We are in a Earthquakes soon. So this footage don't work at all. Here I show you what needs to be done. This is going to be, by the architects, this is a 40-foot concrete retaining wall. what is going to hold the retaining work from falling Oops. |
| 01:04:46.63 | Jorge Lee | What have we... Lights out. |
| 01:04:49.55 | Jorge Lee | Right. They are piles that need to be driven into the ground. Okay? And there's a few of them. Otherwise, the whole building will collapse. In an earthquake, it will collapse. |
| 01:05:05.87 | Jorge Lee | What? |
| 01:05:09.61 | Jorge Lee | It's not working. Here I show where the retaining wall is. with drilling all the way down to the floor, that's about 30 feet. or drilling. And I'll show you. the diameter, |
| 01:05:30.20 | Jorge Lee | This is the diameter of the tile that needs to be driven, 30 feet 30 feet from the top. and there is no access. So, |
| 01:05:39.30 | Unknown | Thank you, sir. |
| 01:05:39.38 | Jorge Lee | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:05:46.18 | Unknown | May I ask a question of the presentation? Sure. A quick question, sir. So are you saying that the current architecture of the retaining wall does not have Right. |
| 01:05:57.98 | Jorge Lee | . |
| 01:05:58.03 | Unknown | adequate framing. |
| 01:06:02.50 | Jorge Lee | They don't show, as I showed you before, They only show little footings, which is standard for it. On a flat surface. |
| 01:06:11.71 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. |
| 01:06:11.80 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:06:11.93 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:06:13.05 | Jorge Lee | Thank you. |
| 01:06:13.08 | Unknown | Uh, |
| 01:06:13.13 | Jorge Lee | But not piles. They don't show any piles in their... |
| 01:06:17.67 | Unknown | Thank you, sir. Thank you. |
| 01:06:18.97 | Jorge Lee | Thank you. |
| 01:06:23.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:06:28.44 | Darshan Brock | Hi, my name is Darshan Brock. I live on the street, right down the street. |
| 01:06:43.12 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:06:43.14 | Darshan Brock | So |
| 01:06:46.61 | Darshan Brock | Thank you. So I like Peter and I support his project in general. I just have some very specific concerns. I hope that his age will not enter into this issue. His age is, we're going to be dealing, we're going to be living with this for the rest of our time there. So I feel like that's important both ways. So if you look at what I wrote, basically I'm thinking only about the visuals and it's really the stuff that Mr. Leone mentioned, which is what can be seen from the road. I did try to, Peter and I did talk and he did not feel comfortable making any changes based on the discussions that we had. So these, by the way, these pictures are not mine. For the visual impact on the first page, just shows theoretically what it looks like now in the street. And then the second page shows the haves from the side. Most of the visual impact is from the side, it's a curve. So you're not kind of looking straight from the top of the curve out, but on around the side. So I think that's why it matters to me such. |
| 01:08:02.18 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | So I know. |
| 01:08:05.50 | Darshan Brock | My main concern is the blockage on the carport level. That's all. So, um... I wrote down what my issues were and what my suggestions were. So the visual impact is simply to open it up on the sides. |
| 01:08:17.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:08:24.39 | Darshan Brock | on the front, which you can only see from the top of the curve, but not on the sides. And that is because of the storage unit that you all brought up as an issue, or has been brought up as an issue, and because of the towers. So if either of those or both of those could be dealt with, then it could be opened up from the side. So that's what I'm saying is a suggestion. Nobody's mentioned this, but I just think those skylights are a minor deal. Who needs a skylight in the carport? And they're a disruptive element. So I don't feel like they fit into the area. The slope of the roof on the right I think is quite fine. I find the slope of the roof on the left, again, it's going more into the visual and it could be sloped less. All the houses around have pretty much flat roofs and so it sort of stands out as a peaked roof. And then lastly, I don't think this is... Okay, well it's not as important, so... |
| 01:09:33.02 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:09:34.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:09:35.06 | Unknown | . |
| 01:09:39.46 | Thomas Neumeier | Good evening. My name is Thomas Neumeier. I'm a resident for about the last 10 years across the gulch from Marion over on Central. And I don't have too much new to add. I did watch the entirety of the Planning Commission proceedings and I've heard Heidi here eloquently tonight. And it just dawns on me that the experts have really gone after this. The experts have spoken. They've taken it into consideration. I'm intimately familiar with public process and at some point reasonable decisions need to be made. I would not at all be in favor of what I heard about ten years ago, four 3,000 square foot houses on this, but this plan strikes me as eminently reasonable and they've done very fine work. I've dealt with Marty before. I know he does good work. They've done their due diligence. They've put a lot of time and effort into this, and I think it looks like a very nice project. Perhaps most importantly was the point made on the expansion of Merriam. That, to me me is dramatic, and I know that is not going to be cheap. I'm guessing we're talking six figures here, and that is a great public service this will provide. So I ask you to just go along with what the Planning Commission has already fully vetted and voted on. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:11:00.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:11:07.90 | Dorothy Gibson | Dorothy Gibson, I live on Johnson Street. This issue came to my attention this afternoon. I saw it on the agenda and I said, oh my god, you've got to go. So I went up there and I often take my walks with my historic walking group in the fall up in this area, which is the old fire room, which runs off of Marion and Heck. And I recall, it was probably 10 years ago, when someone in the planning department handed me a camera and said, Dorothy, will you go around, particularly in Old Town, and find the places which have such tremendous views that they should never, ever be destroyed. Wow. I took the camera, and I did. This is one of the pictures I took. What it is at the junction of Edwards, High Vista, and the Old Fire Road, and Marion. And right at the top, where this house is is proposed is this wonderful, wonderful view which spans the entire width or length of Hurricane Gulch from deep in the valley to out on the waterfront. It encompasses Tiburon Peninsula, it encompasses Angel Island, it encompasses the entire Richardson Beach right in front of your face. I just can't see destroying this view. I walked further along around the bend, and I saw three houses there in a row. I think it was 64, 66, 68. They all were built down below the street line. They all had garages on the street line, but all of their garages did not have walls. They had pickets around them, so you could sort of look through pretty well. But come back to this, and I fantasied the building there. I pasted it off. I pasted it up. It's at least 15 feet high from street level as I stood there. And I think it was something like 65 to 85 feet long. The other two houses that are already there now are built down low enough so if you crane your neck, you can get at least much of that view. But this house definitely blocks that entire view. And so all I can say is, please don't destroy that view. |
| 01:13:49.69 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 01:14:06.51 | Unknown | Thank you, Dorothy. |
| 01:14:12.64 | Randy Deutsch | Hi, my name is Randy Deutsch and I'm a real estate broker here in town for the last 35 years. And I know most of you in this room actually. Peter's a friend of mine and I've known him for quite some time. And I know he lives in a very, very small house on Edwards. And, um, He now is a member of a family, and he needs a larger place to live. He owns a property he should be allowed to build on, and he should be able to build a house that suits his needs, that's big enough. There's a lot there and I know it's a vacant, it's one of the very rare, very few vacant lots left in town. And at some point, somebody's gonna build on it, and I think what's been proposed here is a very modest, Proposal. I think it's something like 24, 25% of the lot area that's going to be covered. And I sold a property, a couple of properties within the last year and a half down on South Street that were larger houses built on half that lot size. And these were brand new houses. uh, This is, I think, a very modest proposal. I think it's reasonable. I think we need the houses here in town. Thank you. I think, I know for a fact at the moment we don't have much to offer people. There's very little for sale. There's a push, I think, for people to have houses here that are substantial, that are up to code. A lot of houses here in town are not up to code. They're not on proper foundations. They're in very poor condition. There are fire hazards. And... I think what we have here is something, like I said, very reasonable. I think he's been through the approval process. He got approvals. I don't see any reasonable objection to what was approved. And I hope to take that into consideration and let him build his house. |
| 01:16:26.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:16:30.96 | Paul Albritton | Mayor, council members, Paul Albritton. It's a pleasure to be here in this room. What was that again? It's Bill Johnson. Thank you. When I was on council for 12 years, I loved it, but the thing I hated the most probably was land use appeals, and so thank you for listening to this, and I know the time and effort. I really know the time and effort that goes into the job that you're doing tonight. I'm really here to speak on behalf of my friend Peter Maguire. If you listen to the Planning Commission tape, you heard he said he was 65, and tonight he's saying he's 66, and that's because tonight's Peter's birthday. |
| 01:16:34.89 | Unknown | What was that again? Bill Johnson. |
| 01:16:39.02 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 01:17:06.33 | Paul Albritton | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:17:06.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:17:06.50 | Paul Albritton | . But I moved to Sosolito because of Peter Maguire. He was living on Marion, and he got me to move into a little cottage on Marion that he was managing for Marie Hines, who lived in the PG&E substation up on the hill. And her husband, Bill Hines, had built these cottages along Marion Avenue, each with a little peak roof and tucked into the hill. And it's a perfect entry-level place to go. If I could, I'd go back there to live on Marion Avenue. At the time, it was a dirt road. When Marie died, Peter bought some of those cottages along that way and really has continued to maintain this old-town affordable area, really, for Sausalito residents and entrants. The houses he's proposing tonight are modest, really, by Sausalito terms, 2,100 square feet and 2,400 square feet. They fit into this community. Personally, when I lived at 88 Marion next to Peter and I looked out and I saw cars parked over by Fox Hill, if you're talking about, on top of these boxes built on stilts, it really is not a pleasant view to look straight out at a car, and even more so when you're in Old Town looking up, you want to see a community of texture and angled roofs, and so I encourage you to consider these designs that are being made today. As you know, four homes were proposed by our favorite local architect, Don Olson, that would have fully occupied. Peter did the thing that I encouraged people to do when I was sitting up there. If you don't like what's going next door, buy the lot and put something that you are going to agree with. That's exactly what he's done. His initial proposals were actually down the hill, as you were talking about, Jonathan, and then three years ago he was told to move them up the hill, and that's exactly what he's done. He's pushed them back up against the roadway so they're out of the view. This roadway, it's interesting listening to Jorge Lee because his triplex burned down directly behind my house. I was standing on the roof with a hose trying to shoot the sparks as they came down, and the 11 fire trucks that always show up for every mutual aid fire in Sausalito couldn't get down Marion and as a consequence were sort of stacked along Marion and this will obviously create a huge benefit. I have to let you know that Marie and Peter actually objected to the paving of Marion. When I moved there it was a dirt road. And I think that which used to scare girlfriends when I drove them up there. But this is a huge... Are you sure? |
| 01:19:33.61 | Unknown | Are you sure that was the reason they were scared? |
| 01:19:35.39 | Paul Albritton | All right. laughter |
| 01:19:38.63 | Unknown | Was that getting up or going up? |
| 01:19:39.98 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | going down. |
| 01:19:41.14 | Paul Albritton | Anybody remember the Boris story? So I know that this is something that he has to do. He feels he has to do, and he'll pay for it. But it's not as though he wants to do this. So thank you. I appreciate your time, and I encourage you to support this. |
| 01:19:41.19 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Yeah. |
| 01:19:54.13 | Bill Keller | Jesus Christ. |
| 01:19:54.67 | Unknown | you you |
| 01:19:55.15 | Bill Keller | Thank you. |
| 01:19:55.16 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:19:55.37 | Unknown | Thank you, Bill. |
| 01:19:59.40 | Bill Keller | Mayor. members of the City Council. My name is Bill Keller. I'm a 20-plus year resident of Sausalito. I'm a former City Council member back in 2000 and 2004, and I sat on the Planning Commission from 2004 to 2010. And I'm here to speak on behalf of the applicant's proposal. Just by way of background or history, I happened to be chairperson of the Planning Commission when Mr. McGuire and Ms. Doddard sat on the same side of the table as opponents to the prior application, which was a Don Olson project very massive, two buildings right next to one another, and we weren't getting anywhere. And I decided to have a meeting to see if we can come up with a resolution with Ms. Stoddard and Mr. McGuire And in that meeting, I realized that Mr. McGuire was a Pretty reasonable man. And he suggested that he would be in favor of the project if in fact they downsized both properties, moved them apart, created more privacy, And that's exactly what we're looking at today. And he followed through and said exactly what he was against, and he's applied it in his project. On the other hand, I came to the realization that Ms. Stoddard continually moves the goal line. She's never going to be satisfied with anything until it's just a vacant lot, because that's what she's lived with. And I respect that. Every person's entitled their opinion. But the reality is that someone's entitled to build there. And I think that what Mr. McGuire has come up with is well thought out as other people have already brought up. They've spent a lot of time on this, and this has been significantly vetted by the Planning Commission. I was at the meeting, and I'll point out one person in particular at that meeting, and that's Bill Werner. We're all familiar with Bill Werner, He sat on the Planning Commission, this is his second or third tenure, he's a long-standing resident of Sausalito, very smart man, difficult to convince, a very experienced and well-known architect, and he was the one that offered the resolution of approval. And he disagreed with most, if not all, Mr. Rex's concerns about the project. It was vetted, it was voted, it was approved. And I hope that you'll see it this evening to follow on with what the Planning Commission has already decided to roll your honor and vote for approval. Thank you very much. |
| 01:22:33.47 | Unknown | Thank you. Is there any other member of the public who would like to comment? With that, I will close public comment. |
| 01:22:49.73 | Unknown | Oh, sorry. Now ask the appellate to come back and, Michael, you have five minutes. |
| 01:22:59.02 | Michael Rex | Yes, thank you. The neighbors and friends you've heard from tonight who support the project, they're not being impacted by the project. Only Kim, really, is being impacted by this project. |
| 01:23:09.80 | Unknown | point. |
| 01:23:10.15 | Michael Rex | to take heart to heart There was talk about solid walls. You remove that storage room. like Heidi suggests, you don't necessarily have to put a solid wall back there. In fact, the entry towers have solid walls. The carport facing Kemp has solid walls. They don't need to be solid. If they weren't solid, the sun would shine through. Um, Heidi mentioned that the Planning Commission dealt with this question about a storage room. extending above the building height. And she says, well, the Planning Commission considered it, and rule favorably. Well, I want to point out it wasn't a slam dunk. That's a three to two vote that we're appealing. And the swing boat? If you heard the tape, you know what was said? The person who was a swing vote said, you know, if it comes down to a roof over a car, or someone's sunlight, I'll err for sunlight. And then for whatever reason, I can't possibly explain, she voted against Sunlight. So, I'll tell you, Joan Cox and Stanford, Kagan, We know them too, just like Bill Warner, and we know how tough they can be. support this project. Carly unanimous. There was a question raised about, we gave the applicant an ultimatum. You either do this or else. I'd like you to know it was the opposite. I told Marty, I want to sit down with you, I want to be architect to architect, let's find a solution together. and keep our clients happy. No, we were told, you either give us a letter or spell out exactly what we need to do to remove your appeal, or we won't talk. So who gave the ultimatum? It wasn't us, okay? You know, Kim's a realtor. She understands she bought a house next to a vacant lot. She knows it's going to get built on. She's not opposed, like some people say, against everything and that houses shouldn't be built here. I'll tell you what she does expect. She expects that the city code and its findings be upheld And just because you can't afford the lot doesn't mean that she shouldn't expect that the people who do buy a lot honor the city's development standards. I heard yes about what changes are made. significant changes were made between this application and the one that was turned down. When I first saw this design, I said so. Wow, you've come a long ways. |
| 01:25:27.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:25:27.25 | Michael Rex | We asked for a few more changes. A few changes were made before the Planning Commission, They turned the stairway going down from the west wing down to the garden, so half the flight didn't look at Kim. They put one tree in front of it. with no specs on it, It would give us assurance that we grow. Those were the only changes made when we got to the Planning Commission. And after the Planning Commission hearing, not a single change. That's what occurred. Um, I'll wrap up here. There was a question that we're delaying the project. I'll tell you who's delaying the project. It's the applicant who won't consider the neighbor's needs and respond in a meaningful manner. That's what's dragging this process out. It's not us. The last thing. Due to how low Kim's house is back in that ravine with a really low ease, it's only the sunlight in the morning from 7 to 9 that comes into her home. That's the light that they'll be taking. And it won't be just a part of the year. It'll be half the year. The last half of spring, all winter, and I mean, the last part of fall. all winter and early spring. Half the year, she'll get no light in her study, her living room, and her bedroom, on her deck, and downstairs. That's not being nitpicky. It's not being nitpicky to expect the city to uphold its codes and honor the findings. It's mandated. Kim wants to say just a few words, please. |
| 01:26:58.98 | Kim Stoddard | Good evening, Mayor. members of the council. I hope that you can appreciate that I'm not trying to be unreasonable here. I want to be reasonable. I don't want to be an obstruction to this. but I think it's a lot to ask of me to look at a 50 foot wall right out my bedroom door right off my deck. I'm looking at a huge downslope of 10, 12 feet of base on this house. high ceilings, and a complete blocked-in storage unit and entry tower. Now, they have not provided drawings of the east and the west house, so we don't really know what's going to be blocking up here, but we did try to do some drawings to deplete. that these solid structures don't need to be there. This is excessive, it's unnecessary. These are all on the street level and above. These houses could be brought down They could have covered entrances possibly, but not have walls all the way around them. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:28:08.02 | Unknown | Thank you, Kim. And could we hear from the applicant? Thank you. Thank you. And you have five minutes. |
| 01:28:18.01 | Peter McGuire | I'll make some quick points and then I'll turn it over to Marty. As far as working with Mr. Rex, we had a very productive meeting with Mr. Rex early on in this project and Kim wouldn't let us meet with him again. Repeatedly we asked to meet with Mr. Rex to go over the changes he requested. We were never allowed to meet with him again and Ms. Scoble can attest to that. |
| 01:28:26.00 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | in the |
| 01:28:37.78 | Peter McGuire | As far as only Kim impacted, she's not the only person impacted here. The two Davids on the right side are very well impacted by this project. They actually have windows that look directly on the project. They both have approved my plans. As far as the sunlight is, we have demonstrated through the studies here that the sunlight is not materially affected. It's a minor sunlight thing. And she can get far more sunlight by pruning her trees and taking care of the maintenance on the back of her house, where she complains about mold. Mold doesn't come from not missing or missing a half hour of sunlight in the winter. These have open carports. You'll be able to see through them. I appreciate the concerns of the people that have come here and talking about the view and wanting to maintain that view. That's why I want to build houses here. It's a beautiful place. But I'm maintaining open carports. You'll be able to see the view much better than you can now. The houses are essentially below the street level. They're not standing up, as I believe them one would have mistakenly thought. The mass of these houses is far smaller than the last three projects that Ms. Directs did in this area. The one project closest to this area is 301 South Street. The FAR coverage of that project wasn't twice what the the massive FAR coverage of this is. So what Ms. Directs says on behalf of the client here is not what Ms. Directs actually does. |
| 01:29:27.83 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 01:29:27.85 | Jeremy Graves | Oh, yeah. |
| 01:29:28.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:30:09.18 | Peter McGuire | As far as Jorge is concerned, we're not building a freeway entrance to the Golden Gate Bridge here. I don't know what else to say. We've shown that we're going to use very small equipment and we're not going to affect it. I think it's just kind of silly what he's done. So now I'll turn it over to Marty. |
| 01:30:32.18 | Marty | I don't have much to add. Michael and I are both architects and I respect his opinion and sometimes math will just tell the tale. And Michael's own Sun study and our Sun studies that, I've gone through elaborate detail and I'd be happy to answer any question. It just, we will not be blocking all of the light into her room as Michael attests, or any of her rooms for half of the year. It's just not mathematically possible. What I describe as the net new, shadow being cast by our houses is far exceeded by the trees, but I took the trees out of the equation because I couldn't measure them accurately. And what I did is very accurate and proves that she'll have a little bit of occlusion of her life for a very short period of time and the rest of the year it will get better and better on both ends of the shortest day of the year. That's all I have to add to that. I'd be happy to answer any questions, and that concludes my speech. |
| 01:31:25.35 | Unknown | I'd be happy to answer. |
| 01:31:29.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:31:34.63 | Unknown | Okay, so... back up here to us. |
| 01:31:41.28 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor, I actually have a question of our local historian Dorothy Gibson. Can I ask her a quick question? Is she still here? |
| 01:31:51.81 | Unknown | Thank you. Yeah, go ahead. |
| 01:31:54.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:31:54.97 | Unknown | of |
| 01:31:55.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:31:55.46 | Unknown | Bye. Bye. |
| 01:31:55.52 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 01:31:55.61 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:31:55.69 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 01:32:07.18 | Unknown | And to give Dorothy her due, she was also on the Planning Commission for this season. |
| 01:32:10.83 | Unknown | Bye. and former planning commissioner |
| 01:32:13.38 | Dorothy Gibson | Thank you. |
| 01:32:13.39 | Unknown | Thank you. you Thank you, Dorothy. So I didn't see your comments, which were very valuable to me. I didn't see them in the Planning Commission notes. Did you, were you aware of this project when the Planning Commission was hearing this? No. Okay. So this is the first time |
| 01:32:30.44 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 01:32:30.45 | Dorothy Gibson | No. |
| 01:32:33.43 | Unknown | you're sharing this knowledge with |
| 01:32:37.29 | Dorothy Gibson | Yes. |
| 01:32:37.69 | Unknown | Okay, thank you, that was my question. |
| 01:32:42.81 | Unknown | Okay, so who would like to begin? |
| 01:32:46.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:32:51.82 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | You always look over here to the left. |
| 01:32:53.61 | Unknown | I'm going to go ahead. |
| 01:32:54.81 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | But that's okay. I was up at the property. up and down that road a few times. few things that that you bother me. his All the houses look out to the bay. including Kim Stoddard's house. Where I live on 4th Street, there's a lot next to me which I own. And that's a side draw. which is my garden. but I have to tell you, most of the time when I, 99% of the time when I'm looking, I'm looking out. to the bay. my city view. So I had a real difficult time. looking up when everything is that way. When you go into the house, there's a three-foot eave that drops on the porch. So when you're inside the house, you barely can't see up that hill, only halfway up the hill. so I found that Um, You might be losing a small amount of sunlight. You're not losing light, because when I was up there, there was plenty of light. All right. Um, The widening of the street, I think that's a great plus. As we all know, that used to be the dirt road, and it's a tough street. And by the way, it's a dead-end road. So you're not talking about a tremendous amount of traffic. going up and down this street to connect or anything else. They're using that to leave Marion. wrong. There are two huge trees on Kim Stoddard's property. and there's huge branches, whatever they are, just piled in there. So no one's really touched that. piece of property in years. No, never mind. Uh, trimmed them or thinned them for transparency on that. The only thing that I did find that It wasn't in the report. and I think would be a positive is that Kim Stoddard mentioned that she's a, she's a little nervous about the idea that she doesn't have her privacy. And there was no talk about some blinds on that side. FACING HER HOME. I think that's something that we should look at. um, I, I'm gonna look at my notes. That would be the shutters. improving a narrow street, the storage up on the top, I wasn't thrilled about it, but the very idea that an automobile would sit there all in place of it, possibly. Um, So that when you looked up that way, it's a choice of even seeing maybe a storage bin or an automobile. like three minutes is up. Thank you. |
| 01:36:08.94 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor? |
| 01:36:09.93 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 01:36:10.03 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 01:36:10.56 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 01:36:11.21 | Unknown | So in listening to public comment, I want to thank everyone who shared their insights with this. And in visiting the site and standing on the appellate's deck and looking forward, from what I saw, and I specifically asked which trees were on which property, and I think that's what I'm saying. That picture over there really spoke volumes to me because it showed the little bit of direct sunlight that will be forever obliterated with the current design. I'm concerned about the, what I would say is the excessive height of the homes, the major issue that I'm hearing not only from some of the neighbors, but also from our local historian, has to do with the height of the carport, the fact that it's... It has the storage shed and the height and the impact on the view vistas. Not only the appellates, but also the public view vistas. Saucido councils actually have a history of taking serious consideration of public view vistas, especially with respect to the design of parking. because a lot of our homes are set down for that reason and to mitigate impact on public view vistas. The fact that our planning commission did not hear from Ms. Gibson during this deliberation I think is something very important. It certainly carried a lot of weight for me because I think the outcome may have been different with respect to the height. Most of all, I'm impressed that what's being asked here is not to not build. What's being asked here is a compromise. A compromise to preserve what little direct sunlight a home receives, the epaulette gets, and a compromise with respect to, for the public good, the public view vistas. There was also, I noticed in the documentation, a concern regarding privacy from a window. That resonates for me. I think it resonates with a number of folks in Sausalito because you don't want a window looking directly into Um, with a view side into your living space, so I can understand that. And then the staircase too, I think that there could be some mitigation with you guys to the staircase, so I would recommend some compromises. |
| 01:39:18.58 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:39:18.61 | Unknown | Thanks, Councillor Yeah, it's okay with you. So I think you guys are all that far apart. So I had my wish, and I was at this Planning Commission hearing because I was a part of the previous item and left, and I wish I had stayed for the whole thing. Um, And I didn't listen to the tape, but I read the action minutes. And this isn't that far apart. And this, my... general opinion about appeals is that this isn't the right body to adjudicate a lot of these things because we don't have enough time and we don't usually get enough information to to solve these problems on these appeals. And so I think if we direct this back to the Planning Commission on a couple of things, And both parties have to be accommodative. This isn't an all-or-nothing proposition any time you come in with a set of plans. You know, having a 14-foot high carport roof is unnecessary. Particularly, it's not, even if you give up, and having a storage area on that level that's walled in is also, it's nice, it's not necessary. Okay, it's nice, there are a lot of nice things here that can be done, given up to accommodate something that you can's asking. Some of the things she's asking are probably not so equitable. But I think by and large, if I look at the letter that's in the packet, it's not too far off. And it seems like both parties kind of dug their heels in and just said, okay, forget it. and the Planning Commission did not to provide an avenue to come to some meat in the middle is just let's put forward a resolution of what the plan is and vote on it. And that's not really the role of the Planning Commission in my mind. The role of the Planning Commission is not to determine who has a better sense of plan, but to accommodate views of the neighbors and views of the applicant. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition when you come in for a plan. The slope of these roofs, is it necessary? Again, you could decrease the height of these roofs without having such a meaningful slope. Your neighbors all at some of your homes that you want up there have no slope on the garage. So it's kind of like I'm, I don't want to decide this for you because you're going to get something you don't like if you leave it up to me. Because that's what I always warn people when they leave it up to them and won't reach some compromise before they come in the room. Because I don't know what the hell I'm talking about and I don't have to live with it. You do. So I would rather that you folks reach some sort of accommodation on some of these issues, because otherwise you're going to end up something that's not what either of you want, and it's like a mediation Um. arbitration where you're coming out with both sides need to be a little unhappy and a little happy at the same time rather than all or nothing, which is kind of what the discussion here tonight has been. So I think there are grounds for the appeal on the... on the height and views and, uh, certainly the sunlight that could be accommodated with some minor design changes, and not without having to dig deep into the hill and raise your costs a lot. know it's just tweaking things a little bit it's just i'm a little disappointed and that the planning commission didn't try to resolve it at that hearing |
| 01:42:48.03 | Unknown | As Mr. Albritton said, I think this land use appeals are probably the hardest part of our It's a difficult one. But starting point for me is taking a look at what the Planning Commission did. We have a fine Planning Commission and the staff. And both staff from Planning Commission supported this. I think, as Mr. Rex said, When you hear all the different comments, it really boils down to the impact on the appellant. I mean, this is where we're at. And actually, It boils down to the sunlight issue for the appellant When we look at this Uh... Sunlight view, that is when you turn your head on the deck. when you're out on the deck, she has that wonderful view of the bay that we have. I have to say that from 66 Marion to 62 is 80 feet. Very few houses in Sausalito quite have that luxury of so much room between the two. I spend a lot of time because I'm very sensitive to sunlight. huge issue. It's one of our factors. It's not a view issue. It's only a sunlight issue because there's no view involved on this. And I have to say, you know, when we're looking, that's a picture of a winter view and it gets higher and higher. I did take note that that tree blocks a lot more sun than the house would over time and it hasn't been trimmed. And I know the eaves from the deck as well. So it's an interesting part. I value the sunlight, but there are other ways. The house seems to recede from there. I'd say the mass of the project is reasonable. I think we've had some testimony to that effect from former planning staff. commissioners and others that took a look at it. and uh... Probably I would be... in favor of supporting the Planning Commission. I think the one issue that I'm still a little unclear about the storage and the wall, whether that would improve any of the light. Of course, because I'd like to give the appellant as much of the light as possible. I'm not in favor at all of going back and redesigning this whole project to make it, push it down the hill. You know, eventually to have cars go low below a street level doesn't make any sense. And I do applaud the idea that this is a well-designed project. that they're widening the street at their expense. There's a lot of city benefit to that. It's my comments. |
| 01:45:20.80 | Unknown | So just to pick up on the Vice Mayor's comments about, the street I didn't really know the street very well so Sunday I was driving around and it's a pretty dangerous street I think it's very narrow. I hear that the thing was thrown together many years ago. And I think it's great that a significant widening of that street's going to be done at the applicant's expense. I mean, remember, right now, Um, you know, the property line is in mid-air. And so there's going to be a significant piece of work Partly for the public who may be watching this and for everybody here, I really think we need to understand that the hillside like this, I'm not a geotech engineer, I'm not a structural engineer, but a hillside like this is going to be significantly stabilized with a construction and a retaining wall structures of this sort. So I think the public needs to be aware of that. And if, when this project got to... a building permit, I know our engineers and outside plan checkers will make sure that this is built such that there's no way this is coming down. So I think we're back to the issue at hand, which is really the carport. Hai. and the storage facility. And I would like to actually ask both the applicants and the appellate, the applicant and the appellate, whether they would accept a project where the storage facility is removed and the carport is opened up. |
| 01:47:27.44 | Unknown | Who wants to go first? |
| 01:47:30.10 | Unknown | You mean a parking deck, not a parking carport. |
| 01:47:32.68 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:47:32.69 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:47:32.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:47:33.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:47:38.16 | Unknown | Yes. Yeah, I know where you're going. The one thing is the one thing I'm drawn to |
| 01:47:42.04 | Jonathon Goldman | All right. |
| 01:47:42.13 | Unknown | What? |
| 01:47:42.68 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:47:47.44 | Unknown | No. |
| 01:47:47.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:47:48.05 | Unknown | . |
| 01:47:49.99 | Marty | Sit down. |
| 01:47:50.53 | Unknown | No, man. |
| 01:47:50.73 | Marty | Thank you. I'm not. |
| 01:47:53.20 | Unknown | See, I'm now keeping my time. I've got 56 seconds left. |
| 01:47:55.86 | Marty | Okay, do they have it on hold? Yes, it's on hold. I don't want to take up all your time. No, don't worry. So what you're proposing is that the storage would go away, and then we would open up the carport there. There wouldn't be a car park there, like Supervisor Winer was saying. Is that what you're proposing? |
| 01:47:58.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:47:58.63 | Unknown | Yes, it's on home. I don't want to take up all your time. |
| 01:48:01.48 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 01:48:19.59 | Unknown | I'm asking for your general view of that. |
| 01:48:22.88 | Marty | So what we're really talking about is taking away the storage line. |
| 01:48:26.68 | Unknown | Yes, that is the first question. |
| 01:48:32.04 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | And the roof. |
| 01:48:32.43 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:48:32.45 | Dorothy Gibson | I'm going to go. |
| 01:48:34.71 | Unknown | So, So, So. OK, so, well, I'm hearing there's lots of different problems. I mean, the emphasis that's been made is the storage. unit. Um... What is the problem? Is it the wall and the storage unit, or is it the carport roof, or both? |
| 01:48:57.98 | Unknown | See, this is where it gets a lot of moving parts. I understand. I'd rather the... My advice would be to use the adjudicating body that can sort this out and has the time to do so. |
| 01:49:14.97 | Unknown | I understand. |
| 01:49:17.32 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:49:17.34 | Marty | I understand what you're saying. I used to be on a planning commission for 20 years. It's expensive to go back through back there and back here. I cost a lot of money. So it would be better if we could come to some compromise the way that you're describing and we're willing to participate. |
| 01:49:34.28 | Unknown | Right. Okay? And for the appellate, are you willing to participate in the discussion to get this result? Not tonight. We're not doing it here. As Council Member |
| 01:49:46.11 | Marty | Well, then the question is, do we have to go back to planning commission? Because that makes all the difference in the world. |
| 01:49:52.35 | Unknown | Well, you could do a couple things, right? You could either go... Well taken. Well done. You could, you know, go off and get into this room and talk for an hour and come back, or you could go off and, you know, meet at some later date and come back here. We could resolve it at the council level or we could try to resolve it here at the council level right now or we could kick it to the plan. |
| 01:49:59.35 | Unknown | Well taken. Well done. |
| 01:50:21.36 | Marty | or we can kick it to the planters. We'd like to get done tonight. |
| 01:50:23.98 | Unknown | Okay, so, right. |
| 01:50:26.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:50:26.44 | Unknown | you |
| 01:50:26.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:50:26.62 | Unknown | So probably. |
| 01:50:26.71 | Unknown | So... |
| 01:50:26.79 | Marty | Thank you. |
| 01:50:26.83 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:50:26.86 | Marty | Bye. |
| 01:50:26.98 | Unknown | you |
| 01:50:26.98 | Unknown | The problem is that we have a very full agenda, and so we sort of have to make a decision. Now, I'd like to ask staff, can this be rather than – can this be continued? |
| 01:50:27.97 | Unknown | We have a very... Yeah. |
| 01:50:29.73 | Marty | it. |
| 01:50:29.91 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:50:43.70 | Mary Wagner | Yes. |
| 01:50:44.44 | Unknown | Okay, so |
| 01:50:47.58 | Mary Wagner | Well, so just to... |
| 01:50:48.07 | Unknown | to summarize what I think of the outstanding issues, and you can correct me if I'm wrong. Is that- |
| 01:50:53.64 | Marty | Could we just have 10 minutes and we'll go meet with Michael and Kim and try and concoct a solution and come back to you? |
| 01:51:00.41 | Unknown | Why don't we do this? We have to move on to another item. Can we come back after that? So why don't we move you to after that item? We'll see if you've gone anywhere. If you've gone anywhere, then we'll continue. OK. Everybody up there. I have one. |
| 01:51:03.61 | Marty | Let me come back after that. |
| 01:51:12.22 | Marty | Now we'll continue. |
| 01:51:13.99 | Unknown | So, |
| 01:51:14.06 | Marty | Okay. |
| 01:51:14.13 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:51:14.40 | Marty | Thank you. |
| 01:51:14.60 | Unknown | Everybody. |
| 01:51:15.04 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:51:15.07 | Unknown | It's all right. |
| 01:51:15.43 | Unknown | I have one comment. Could you include Dorothy Gibson, the historian? |
| 01:51:17.08 | Unknown | Thank you. No, no. |
| 01:51:20.96 | Unknown | Well... Thank you. Bye. It's... |
| 01:51:23.48 | Unknown | As much as we value her, that's not the issue. |
| 01:51:25.43 | Unknown | We're talking about the public views. Well, the public views. Historically, that's an important issue. |
| 01:51:28.39 | Unknown | Okay. So this public hearing is for the moment continued. until later on in the agenda? |
| 01:51:38.09 | Unknown | I don't know. |
| 01:51:38.29 | Unknown | you |
| 01:51:38.34 | Unknown | you |
| 01:51:38.39 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:51:38.41 | Unknown | I'm sorry, Doris. |
| 01:51:38.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:51:40.03 | Unknown | we put at the end of the agenda. Thank you. |
| 01:51:42.02 | Unknown | You can make use of this room in here if you want. Yeah. And we're going to put this to the end of the agenda, I'm afraid. There are a lot of people waiting for other subjects that we must continue and finish. |
| 01:51:43.76 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:51:56.20 | Unknown | Thank you. you |
| 01:52:03.99 | Unknown | I've given you the opportunity to meet. Thank you. |
| 01:52:07.89 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor, could we take a brief three-minute break? |
| 01:52:20.87 | Unknown | you |
| 01:52:22.10 | Kim Stoddard | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:52:34.47 | Unknown | So our next agenda item is Uh-uh. Public Works Maintenance, |
| 01:52:42.03 | Unknown | and presentation of the Sausalito Beautification Study Group Report. |
| 01:52:50.62 | Marty | Mayor Withie and other members of the council. Thank you for having me here tonight. There are some other friends. |
| 01:53:00.95 | Unknown | Before you start, Lauren, I just say you look beautiful. |
| 01:53:03.56 | Marty | Thank you. |
| 01:53:03.61 | Unknown | laughter |
| 01:53:07.65 | Unknown | beautifying sauce little all on your own. |
| 02:05:53.47 | Unknown | Thank you, Lauren. |
| 02:05:55.07 | Unknown | . |
| 02:05:55.88 | Unknown | Is there any questions of Lauren, or should we just move on and hear from Shelby and the group? |
| 02:06:07.96 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 02:06:19.91 | Unknown | Hold on one second, Shelby. |
| 02:06:22.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:06:22.34 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 02:06:22.36 | Unknown | Is that better? |
| 02:06:22.37 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | Is that better? Oh, yes, that's better. Thank you. Thank you, Lauren, for outlining a number of the things that we've talked about and are included in our report. Last July, a few friends and I came to a council meeting, as you may remember, and we talked about why Sausalito looked so bad. Since then, a lot of people in town have written letters and called you all and indicated their concerns and their complaints. Since that time, it's been quite remarkable what has happened. Meetings with Adam and Public Works and conversations with you all have been very kindly received with great interest. And as you can see, a lot is happening on the part of the city in a very short time. That was six months ago. So I don't need to go over all the wonderful response that has come from the city based on public concerns. With the future in mind, I'll just launch right into Sausalito Beautiful and the Beautification Study Group's work. An ad hoc committee of six citizens, including myself, came together to Number one, look at what other cities are doing to look beautiful. We researched several and made a synopsis and shared that information with Adam, Jonathan, and perhaps the city council, maybe not, I don't recall exactly. But it was very interesting. We interviewed public works people and we interviewed volunteer organization heads. So... I think that There was a lot that can be done, and we realized from the beginning that public-private partnership was probably an excellent idea to support the city in what must seem at this point an overwhelming task to get Sasselito to the point where it really does look the way it should. So I'd like to first acknowledge our study group members who are all here this evening, Joe Burns, Una Kavanagh, Linda Lee, Carol Raisbeck, and Tom Wilhite for saying yes enthusiastically, even though they didn't know who the heck I was when I called. Some of them didn't know. So thank you so much. They were wonderful and diligent, and the result is the report that you all have in your packet tonight. Um... We first encouraged the formation of a new organization in town to be called Sausalito Beautiful. to be an independent, non-city affiliated organization open to everyone. We see this as a good public-private partnership vehicle that would work with the city to develop an effective framework for collaboration. This is done in other cities. In some cities, the resident, Volunteer group meets once a month with Public Works to talk about projects that they can do together. We see South Little Beautiful as an advocacy group for budgeting and staffing that will ensure a suitable landscape care and maintenance well into the future. What is suitable, of course, is subjective, but surely our appearance must be suitable to who we are as a community, one of the world's most beautiful places sought after as a destination. Sauce Little Beautiful could conceivably spearhead adoption programs, raise funds for specific projects or co-sponsor beautification days for volunteer cleanup and litter removal. It's hoped as a result of its focus that the entire community over time would reflect a quite natural culture of responsibility. Thank you. that would engage individuals, businesses, and organizations in seeing it as their duty to help keep Sausalito looking great. Development of a Sausalito Beautiful Organizing Committee is underway. It's intended that that committee will formalize the organization's mission and purposes, select leaders, and begin developing plans. as well as a visual identity and a media-savvy communications program. A priority, as mentioned, would be working with the city to develop an effective, non-burdensome framework for collaboration. Sausalito Beautiful is not intended to supplant existing organizations that have done so much to improve Sausalito visually over the years, such as Blooming Bridgeway, the Lions and Rotary Clubs, the Suslita Women's Club, but rather to serve as a companion to these groups. We all know. Whatever meaningful role volunteers can play in landscape beautification, the ultimate responsibility for leadership and execution lies with the city. As Lauren has explained, many great projects are underway and in the pipeline. These, combined with what residents can do, makes the future look very bright indeed. It goes without saying that until the city can ensure a suitable high quality care and maintenance of its landscapes, it makes little sense for any organization or individual to invest time labor and money for beautification. Second, the study group has created an action inventory consisting of some 40 sites in need of restoration, beautification, and or maintenance. It is not an all-inclusive list. Some items are parks. and much is underway there, as you know. Some are as detailed as painting faded curbs and cleaning up dirty, unsightly trash containers. We hope the inventory is simply the beginning of a working document, perhaps as a starting point for South Seattle Beautiful, and perhaps as a vehicle for city dialogue planning and priority setting. Our report cites three high visibility locations of immediate need for restoration, beautification, and care. We feel that improvement of these three will signal positive forward movement and revitalize civic pride in our appearance. First is City Hall, our single most important visual symbol of the city's health. and self-image. Landscape and tree renewal is very much needed. Second is North Bridgeway, a certain opportunity to make a favorable first impression, the city's recent progress, improving medians and street sizes to be applauded, and plans for rehab, including trees, is a wonderful and great need. We feel that a handsome, beautifully landscaped welcome to Sausalito sign would immediately reflect a positive self-image. and signal the city's vibrancy. A welcome sign on the south end of town might also make sense. Third on our priority list is Caledonia Street, long recognized as Sausalito's resident serving street. Although several new businesses have filled empty spaces and many buildings present a tasteful, well-maintained face, the street overall looks shabby and uncapped. We encourage the city to invest in tree care as soon as possible, aware that its 47 trees can be properly pruned for a modest fee. We feel that well-groomed trees alone may inspire tenants and property owners to join forces and initiate overall streetscape improvement. Our inventory quite obviously includes parks. Stairs are also included, not only because they serve as thoroughfares for residents, but because they are, we hear, likely to be specified as evacuation routes in case of disaster. It's important that they be safe. We're certain that even more Sausalitans than are already engaged are ready and willing to support the city in its landscape beautification and improvement efforts. As stated earlier, the key to broad participation is the certainty that the city of Sausalito is prepared to properly maintain and care for what is done. And so looking toward the future, The South Slater Beautification Study Group respectfully recommends that THE CITY COUNCIL ENDORSED THE CONCEPT AND INTENT OF SAX LITER BEAUTIFUL allocate a portion of extra funds that might become available during February mid-year budget reallocation process for three immediate high impact improvements. One, the relandscaping and tree care for City Hall grounds. Two, a beautifully landscaped welcome to Sausalito sign on North Bridgeway and perhaps on the south end of town. And C, pruning of trees on Caledonia Street. Number three, we recommend that the City Council commit to adopting long-term budgets that ensure a high quality level of maintenance and care suitable to Sausalito's discerning citizenry and its reputation as a world-class tourist destination. Number four, we ask that the city review its landscaping and maintenance practices and create a list of plants and trees suitable for use in its public spaces to bring visual unity and appropriate and identifiable sense of place. We ask that the city consider using the action inventory and Dorothy Gibson's public stairs inventory as starting points or working documents for dialogue, planning, and budgeting. This pretty much completes our report and our recommendations. I would like to say that through the past month, we've had conversations with members of the council, Adam Pollitzer, Jonathan, Lauren, and Mike, and we gained a glimpse of what an immensely challenging and complex task it is to run a city in today's world. It's a balancing act, we know. In recent years, priority has been given to such basics as sewer repairs, street paving, and many other things we're sure that are invisible. Now we agree, we hope you agree, that it's time to focus on our appearance. Thank you all for your attention. and for encouraging us to bring our complaints to a place of positive proactivity. Thank you study group members for your commitment and to all the caring residents who joined us on a call for action. Thank you. |
| 02:16:43.02 | Unknown | Thank you very much, Sheldon. |
| 02:16:45.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:16:53.38 | Unknown | Now, do we have some questions? |
| 02:16:56.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:16:56.79 | Unknown | I have questions. |
| 02:16:59.51 | Unknown | I had a question. Please. Of course, thank you very much, Shelby, for all of your hard work and your recruitment of so many people in town who care so much about Sausalito to keep our beautiful town |
| 02:17:05.51 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 02:17:05.55 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:17:05.85 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | And, |
| 02:17:14.32 | Unknown | And I just wanted a clarification. In your notes you say the Saucyutu Beautiful Organizing Committee is being formed Did you want that to be, were you recommending that be a like a city commission or were you looking at that as a private a citizen, you know, committee. I just wanted that clarification. |
| 02:17:34.27 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | I just wanted to clarify that you should. No, in the beginning the study group decided we would not prefer to start a new committee, commission, task force, or board. We realized that there are a great number of them, that they take up a lot of time, and we feel that we can operate probably more effectively as an independent organization. |
| 02:17:59.12 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:17:59.14 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | Okay, thank you. |
| 02:18:00.78 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:18:01.66 | Unknown | Is there any other questions before I open public comment? So would any member of the public like to say a word? |
| 02:18:14.30 | Unknown | Dave, where you been, man? It's been a long time. |
| 02:18:18.36 | Dave (Public Commenter) | Oh, thank you very much. You guys are still doing a tough job, I see. It's just some of us old guys can't keep up with you. There's a force over there, and I remember Peter Van Neagher saying one day, well, we wouldn't mind a little benign neglect down there in the flats, but he's got power sitting It's just wonderful, I'm just overwhelmed. And there's something a couple of you have heard me talk about before, and that is, Look, things look pretty good when you come across on a ferry, but when you sail through the gate, like I did 20 something years ago. |
| 02:18:55.01 | Unknown | you |
| 02:18:55.28 | Dave (Public Commenter) | Um... Pretty good. As a matter of fact, gee whiz, this is kind of like a myth. And as a matter of fact, at that time, there was flags of 14 nations hanging in the harbor. And they kept on turning over, you know, art festival, and here's a bunch of more coming in, you know, from all over the place, northern Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, just all over the place. Italians. It was... This is really the place for people that are going around the world east about. And that's the way to do it in a good boat these days. But what happens is, as you go down the road, down the channel, my road. Um, There's things that you all know about from looking at houses and property and what the neighbors see and so forth and what it looks like from the outside. is you see a Corps of Engineers is by wire going across the dock. of the same way with a couple of marinas right on down the road. gates with locks and barbed wire surrounding them. This is not a good view that we want to present some of the visitors that are really quite different than the people that come over for a t-shirt and an ice cream cone off ferry. These are people that are going to stay around for a couple weeks or more. They're going to go up through the delta and then come back? go to the bay model first and then go up there, and then come back and then reload. And they're gonna spend five or 10,000 bucks. Um, These are people that you want to invite into your homes and say, come on over to our place for dinner and tell us about your voyage. This place where we live can be one of the great crossroads of the world that we ought to cultivate. And that's the kind of attitude |
| 02:20:38.93 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | Yeah. |
| 02:20:40.06 | Dave (Public Commenter) | that will do it. A group like that can lean on some property owners and say, hey, come along with us and we're going to try to make Sausalito more beautiful than it is and present better, is what I'm talking about. And those attitudes and that kind of talker would make all of us do better. So hang on to that. because That will make all of us better. It's better than a preacher any day. Thank you very much. You're just doing great. |
| 02:21:09.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:21:16.80 | Unknown | Is there anybody else who would like to say a few words? If not, we'll close public comment. Thank you. |
| 02:21:23.36 | Dorothy Gibson | Bye. |
| 02:21:25.59 | Unknown | keep doing that. Is there anything anybody here would like to add? |
| 02:21:31.19 | Unknown | I mean, the smart thing is to say nothing. |
| 02:21:34.13 | Unknown | Oh. Yeah. |
| 02:21:36.59 | Unknown | But, well, the problem, you know, as you well know, and Mr. Zero-Cost Budgeting, your husband, knows this very well, we have a lot of competition for what little money we have to go around. And thank you for bringing this item up to a boil so that we have to face it, and that's how the system really works. But, you know, we're faced with, you know, $5 million of sewer this or $11 million of handicap access that or whatever that really trumps some of these things sometimes and just turns the attention into different directions. And so I think we can make inroads into what you're you know, it does make a difference that the trees are kind of bare on Bridgeway. I, I, you're 100% spot on for that. And I think we, we're going to try to, I can't speak for everybody else, but I think we're all, everybody agrees with what you're trying to accomplish in principle and we just need to find room for it in the budget to make it happen if we have the money as you've pointed out. I mean, I remember four years ago. |
| 02:22:27.71 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 02:22:27.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:22:40.31 | Unknown | screaming at Mike Kelly in our budget meetings to say you've got to put money towards the parks and take it from something else. That's the thing. You've got to take it from something else, and that's going to be our problem in a couple months. We have to take it from something else to do what you're suggesting, because it's not going to just fall from the sky to hire more landscapers or whatever. So, but you're right. We need to do a better job of it. I think Adam and Jonathan and Lauren have all admitted that, and that's one of the things that kind of, and we went back to the basics. We lost one basic along the way. We need to do a better job of it. I think Adam and Jonathan and Lauren have all admitted that, and that's one of the things that kind of went back to the basics. We lost one basic along the way, and that's maintaining the right-of-way in a better fashion, and we're going to have to try and see if we can find the money to allocate towards that, and we'll see if we can do it. But I think what we have missed as a community is what you're trying to do. I mean, Blooming Bridgeway did it for a year. some aspects of the town, but is where the public has to stand up and say, hey, this is my community. I'm going to put either my horsepower and pull weeds myself or put my dollars out there to go to this little thing to do. Because Sausalito really doesn't do that very well, in my opinion. The money doesn't flow down because the city has developed repetition, not responding super well to the money that does come down. So the public-private partnership thing is if we can figure out a way to make it work, I think it's great. And you're probably the best person to do that. And it's because you have the passion for it, and you know the realities of what we're facing in terms of how we have to scramble around just to make sure everything gets, you know, we can have money to paint the city hall. So I applaud you for doing it, and, you know, I think we can work together. I wouldn't put your, what you put on your, I wouldn't call them complaints. They're positive suggestions for improvement, you know, and because in that way, we can all approach this in a positive way and start to move it more forward. And thank you for stepping forward, frankly, because no one else had done it, and thank you for doing it. |
| 02:24:40.02 | Unknown | Thanks, Shelby, and the whole Sausalito Beautiful for your work on this. It's really amazing. I thought Sausalito was pretty beautiful before I started talking to you. Now, I mean, you did open my eyes on how much better we can do. |
| 02:24:53.76 | Marty | Now he hates it. Now he's moving, but |
| 02:24:54.54 | Unknown | Yeah, I'm moving, but other than that, about how much we can do. And I think you've done a great job with that. Some of your recommendations are endorsing your concept. I think it's a great concept. I really appreciate this idea of the public, private, and community involvement, and that you're willing to roll up your sleeves, and I say that for your whole group, both literally and figuratively, in terms of getting involved in all this and leveraging the... the resources that we have. Certainly, we'll take a look at some of your recommendations. We're looking at our budget, both mid-year and long-term, and we'll certainly do that and do the best we can because it's really a valuable project. So I really appreciate all your work, all of you. So thank you. how snow |
| 02:25:38.93 | Unknown | Yes, and I want to echo what my fellow council members have said and also I want to say there Things specifically that I really liked about the report that I saw, I liked short-term action plans. I liked the long-term goals. I liked the focus on local professional resources. The fact that your group, your committee will be leveraging our local talent. A lot of, we have some amazing local talent here. which oftentimes will step up and volunteer their talent for free, pro bono. So I see this as a way of spending taxpayer funds efficiently, and maximizing local talent and all around deliverables and results. And I really appreciate that. |
| 02:26:29.16 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Well, thank you, Shelby, and your group for really doing an excellent job. and I will volunteer to help you. I remember about six years ago going up to cable roadway stairs, and spending a day myself up there cleaning those stairs. It's ironic though, every time I ask someone that lived there that walked down the stairs, why don't you help me, and they kind of looked at me Like, no, that's your job. So I, Hmm. I found out I guess it was my job because I ended up doing the stairs all day. But anyway, I think it's time that that some of these very small areas, stairs, and other things that could be, really make our town really beautiful, could come, now will happen because of your efforts. And as I said, I'll volunteer. within the next two weeks. to go up the cable roadway and do it again. |
| 02:27:37.38 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | Thank you, Harvey. |
| 02:27:38.68 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | You're welcome. And, |
| 02:27:40.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:27:41.13 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | You're welcome. |
| 02:27:43.08 | Unknown | I won't repeat what my colleagues have said. I mean, to me, this is why I love living in Sausalito, the spirit of volunteerism and caring. And that's what really matters. So thank you, all of you, for stepping forward. And, uh... and making these suggestions. It's an ongoing process. I'm looking forward, looking forward to see how I can help. And, you know, as Council Member Leona said, there's going to be some tough budget decisions we're going to have to make. I will try and look. you know, long and hard at some of this and see if we can find some money. But there's no promises. |
| 02:28:29.10 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | Wonderful, we know. We know, we just feel that a better looking town is going to be economically valuable. not only to the businesses, but I think it has far-reaching impact. And so thank you all for listening and for being encouraging. And we look forward to more conversation and to getting this off the ground. I'm not sure how quickly it can happen. But we have a lot of people out there who are interested and ready to go to work. So thank you again, all of you. Adam, Jonathan, Lauren. Mike and each of you for being so supportive and encouraging. We've actually enjoyed the process and I think I can speak for the whole study group when I say, we've had a good time doing it. And part of it has been that we have such an interested and cooperative group of city managers, including the council, and I think we're very, very fortunate to have that. So together, the community and all of you things are really going to change i think for the better we'll do what we can right Thank you. Okay. Thanks very much, Shelby. Thank you so much. |
| 02:29:40.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:29:40.57 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Thanks very much, Shelby. Thank you so much. Thank you. See you up at the stairs next week. |
| 02:29:48.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:29:50.19 | Unknown | Thank you, Loren. you So, um... Let's have a quick time check and see where this other... Our appeals got to. |
| 02:30:06.37 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Mary just went in there to see. Yeah. We're going to do the appeal at the burial. |
| 02:30:08.45 | Unknown | Yeah. THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:30:41.35 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:30:42.99 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:30:43.44 | Unknown | I see, I think we take another item. |
| 02:30:43.46 | Mary Wagner | I'm sorry. |
| 02:30:47.87 | Mary Wagner | Mr. Mayor, in In respect to the folks that are waiting for item 60, which is to discuss the getting direction from the Council on a mooring ordinance and discussion on improvements by the Churney Street ramp. I think that at a quarter to 10, which it's approaching now, that we continue that item to the next meeting. BECAUSE WE HAVE Two more items, but item C, which is a discussion regarding sanitary sewer fee, It's scheduled to go for 45 minutes, but depending on type of questions and discussion, it could easily go for an hour. So in respect to those folks, I'd like to recommend that we move that item to our next meeting. Thank you. |
| 02:31:37.78 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:31:38.63 | Unknown | Yeah. So, Folks, how many of you are there here who are wanting to talk about the dog? Thank you. |
| 02:31:55.06 | Mary Wagner | Well, Mr. Mayor, it's not necessarily that they want to talk about the dock. They want to see that the city is recommending actions that they are been asking the city to recommend. And so in short, and it's in the staff report, we are looking to amend the ordinance to allow for people to park their boats there, their skiffs, for more than the 15 minutes that technically is allowed today. So that's one discussion that we're going to ask the council and we're obviously staffed. It's obviously recommending that the council give consideration to change the ordinance. The second item is to allow the SS Sally Stanford to remain as a temporary extension to the dock so that we could deal with the challenges that were presented at the last council meeting where folks could not get to land because of low tide and the challenges of the various material that's coming out of the soil. from things sinking or being thrown in. So we think that we need a little bit of time to look at long-term solutions try to incorporate that into the budget but I think Staff is moving that direction. We've already made some improvements on the dock that exists now. And I think that we can continue to allow the SSLE Stanford extension to remain while, you know, between now and the next council meeting. So unless there is something that is new or they object to, I think we're actually moving in the right direction with all bodies involved. |
| 02:33:42.35 | Unknown | So I think is everybody okay here continuing that to our next meeting? |
| 02:33:49.10 | Unknown | And there's no difference. This is going to be status quo. Yeah. They don't lose that. No end possession. No end possession. |
| 02:33:52.80 | Unknown | He's down. |
| 02:33:53.24 | Unknown | No in possession. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:33:58.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:33:58.72 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:33:58.98 | Jonathon Goldman | I'm sorry. |
| 02:33:59.04 | Unknown | Everybody fine? Can we try to put it in? |
| 02:33:59.06 | Unknown | Everybody fine? |
| 02:34:00.17 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. |
| 02:34:00.26 | Unknown | Can we try to put it? |
| 02:34:00.97 | Jonathon Goldman | But... from the |
| 02:34:02.37 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:34:02.38 | Unknown | Put it earlier in the agenda next time so they don't get bumped. I know there's other things, but that would be good. |
| 02:34:02.42 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:02.45 | Unknown | Okay. just |
| 02:34:08.61 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:09.13 | Unknown | Okay folks, so that's going to be continued to the next meeting. |
| 02:34:12.51 | Unknown | Thanks for coming and your understanding. |
| 02:34:14.92 | Unknown | Okay, so the next item on the agenda is... Update, analysis and evaluation of the marine ship's Pacific plan. |
| 02:34:26.62 | Unknown | Do we know how to do those things first? |
| 02:34:29.65 | Unknown | which we're going to do in Marinship. Oh, Marinship before that. Yeah. |
| 02:34:29.67 | Unknown | which. |
| 02:34:30.25 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:30.33 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:30.36 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 02:34:31.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:31.49 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Oh. |
| 02:34:31.54 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:31.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:31.58 | Unknown | . |
| 02:34:31.81 | Unknown | before that. Yeah. Oh no, that's fine, I just misunderstood. |
| 02:34:34.61 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:34.73 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 02:34:41.94 | Dave (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 02:34:42.02 | Unknown | There's still a lot of time. |
| 02:34:43.95 | Lily | Yeah. |
| 02:34:48.20 | Unknown | Lily. |
| 02:34:48.60 | Lily | you Good evening, Mayor, Councilmembers. I'll try to be very brief on this update of the MarinShip project. This update will cover the months of December and this month. The last update that Council heard was on November 19th. On December 5th, the MarinShip Specific Plan Steering Committee held a meeting at the Bay Model, and they had a discussion from 12 to 1 about the stakeholder interview portion of the project. They discussed the expansion of the number of interviewees for that part of the project, the interview questions themselves, the types of groups that would be interviewed, and then the open city hall survey. And then they went on a tour of the Marin ship for two hours. There were approximately 25 people in attendance at that tour, and the tour was recorded by the Community Media Center of Marin and is available on the city's website. If you go to the MarinShip specifically in Steering Committee's website, there's a link that will take you to the YouTube channel for the video of the tour. On January 13th and 14th, the consultant conducted focus group interviews with approximately 90 people who are interested in the Marin ship. And the list of the different groups are on the screen here. They included a variety of folks in the community. |
| 02:36:32.30 | Lily | The interviewees were solicited in a number of different ways. First, we asked the Planning Commission, the City Council, and the Marinship Specific Plan Steering Committee for the list of names of people they thought might be interested in those interviews. And those people all were provided with an invitation to participate in the interviews. Additionally, all members of the City Council, the Planning Commission, the Historic Landmarks Board, and the Business Advisory Committee were invited to participate. We interviewed members of city staff. We also invited all MarinShip landowners and businesses in the MarinShip to participate. We did that in two different ways. We sent out a postcard in November, that's on the the screen here to all landowners and businesses using our business license list. And then we also sent them a flyer specifically regarding the interviews in December of last We also contacted the property managers to contact their tenants in individual buildings and marinas, and that was specifically the 2010 Liberty Ship Building, the ICB, the Schoonwalker Point Marina, Galilee Harbor, and Clipper Harbor. We also sent invitations to community groups in Sausalito, including the Rotary Club, Lions Club, Women's Club, Chamber of Commerce, the Historical Society, and the Sausalito Art Festival Board. We also sent an email to the approximately 275 people who are on staff's email list who have signed up for email notifications regarding the Marinship Project. |
| 02:38:20.30 | Lily | As I noted, we had approximately 90 people over those two days that participated in their interviews. There were 45-minute to an hour interviews in groups of the smallest was three, the largest was eight. We also had an alternative due to some people not being able to participate in the interviews, and that's the Open Study Hall survey that's still on the line right now. It opened in December and it closes this Friday, the 31st. I've posted the link to that survey online here. And as of earlier this evening, we had 20 people who had participated in that survey. |
| 02:38:49.63 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:38:58.96 | Lily | The results of the interviews will be presented in a report by the consultant to the steering committee on February 24th for their review. |
| 02:39:13.05 | Lily | Last night, the steering committee held their first meeting of this year. The majority of the meeting was devoted to staff presentations from Associate Planner Heidi Scoble, where she discussed the historical context of the marineship. We also heard from Administrative Services Director Charlie Francis on an economic snapshot of the marineship. and from the Director of Public Works, Jonathan Goldman, on infrastructure issues in the marine ship. The steering committee was also provided with a similar update on the interview process that occurred earlier this month. And then lastly, the committee held a discussion regarding the composition of the steering committee itself. And the committee recommended on a 4-1 vote to recommend to the council that the council liaisons who sit on that committee be converted to voting members. And we'll bring you a report at your next meeting regarding that recommendation. |
| 02:40:12.33 | Lily | And the next Marineship Steering Committee meeting will be held on February 24th. And that concludes our update for you, and we're available for any questions you might have. |
| 02:40:25.34 | Unknown | Okay, any questions for Lily? |
| 02:40:29.63 | Unknown | Quick question. Is the Marin Ship Committee looking at a study regarding the future of maritime services and, you know, maritime green technologies and |
| 02:40:42.03 | Lily | Thank you. Everything at this point is on the table. They haven't eliminated anything. And we haven't gotten into that level of discussion at this point. |
| 02:40:43.18 | Unknown | with regaining. |
| 02:40:46.94 | Unknown | Okay. Okay, thank you. just |
| 02:40:53.04 | Unknown | So did you, I don't even know if we have a proper list, but on the, I don't even know what it's called now. I forget the name of the Lemon property, the Arkes property. Did we get any outreach into that community? Because I noticed it wasn't. |
| 02:41:08.27 | Lily | Sweet. |
| 02:41:08.66 | Unknown | Sausalito Harbor, whatever he's calling it now. Did we get any? |
| 02:41:12.12 | Lily | We did contact the property owner who did participate in the interviews. We also asked the property owner to distribute flyers to his tenants. |
| 02:41:16.49 | Unknown | What about his? |
| 02:41:21.83 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:41:22.23 | Lily | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:41:24.90 | Unknown | I don't need to comment on that. Did you? |
| 02:41:27.93 | Unknown | Did you find out since yesterday how many owners, property owners, participated in the interviews? |
| 02:41:34.03 | Lily | I let the consultant know about that question that came up from the committee and Rosie was taking a look at it. So I still don't have a number for you right now, but we're looking at it. |
| 02:41:44.32 | Unknown | And... |
| 02:41:46.01 | Unknown | Okay, does any member of the public like to comment on this item? Seeing none, let's bring it back up here. I don't think there's any action clearly required. Everybody fine? Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:42:03.27 | Unknown | Okay, right, let's move on. And we are going to briefly |
| 02:42:12.03 | Unknown | reopen. are the public hearing. |
| 02:42:18.51 | Marty | is your role in public hearing. We're back. Thank you. |
| 02:42:22.76 | Unknown | No, the lights are on. Does it make it exciting? |
| 02:42:24.48 | Dave (Public Commenter) | Does it make it exciting? Yeah. |
| 02:42:28.08 | Unknown | can't see us. |
| 02:42:28.09 | Dave (Public Commenter) | I can't see it. except for the fact. |
| 02:42:32.35 | Unknown | I still got 56 seconds. |
| 02:42:34.74 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:42:38.44 | Unknown | Okay, is... Heidi and, is, Heidi are you? Yes. Okay, thank you. |
| 02:42:48.58 | Heidi | Thank you. Community Development Director Jeremy Graves asked me to speak and kind of give a recap of the negotiations between the appellant, Kim Stoddard, and the project proponents, Peter and Pam McGuire. So during our discussions, there were six main items that were raised. The first item was whether or not to remove the storage room on the West Wind House. The second one had to do with the carport roofs and its pitch for both the East Wind and West Wind Houses. There was a discussion about putting auto shades on the windows facing Kim's, the Appelins House, as well as putting the auto shades on the skylight. And then there was discussion regarding increasing the windowsill height on the east wind house which is facing the Pelens property and out of the six items there was an agreement on five of the items one is that the storage room on the west wind house would be removed and there would be an open railing that would continue the wall of the along the wall of the carport the project proponent is also willing to put flat roofs on both carports so the ceiling height would be eight feet and then there would be a little room to accommodate drainage associated with that then regarding the carports there would be a use of translucent material so that there could be potentially some sunlight that would be able to come through the carport roofs. Oh, one of the items that I failed to discuss, which was one of the six items, is that the project appellant requested that the pitched roof on the east wind house be reduced or redesigned to a flat roof. And there was not an agreement between the two parties. And so just to recap on the auto shades, the project proponent is proposing to put window materials and auto shades on the windows and the skylights for all those windows facing the appellants of property. And there was also an agreement to increase the east wind house window sill height to |
| 02:44:24.70 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | to, Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:45:02.16 | Heidi | So please excuse me, it's a long night. It's been a long day. So if you have any other questions, I'd be more than happy to address those. What could you do? |
| 02:45:12.10 | Unknown | Just one more time, go through the six items. I wrote, I didn't. Okay. There was a storage, carport roofs. |
| 02:45:15.56 | Heidi | Okay. So the. The storage room is agreed upon to be removed with an open railing. The carports are proposed to be redesigned to a flat translucent roof with a ceiling height of eight feet, plus some room to accommodate the roof and drainage. |
| 02:45:32.67 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 02:45:37.45 | Heidi | There will be auto shades placed on all the windows and the skylight facing the appellants house. And the window sill on the east wind house is agreed upon to be raised to five feet. at the dining room. And then the last item that there was not agreement on was putting a flat roof over the East Wind House entry tower. |
| 02:46:05.33 | Unknown | There are two items they didn't agree to, correct? Just one, which is the flat. The last one. Oh, the flat. There's only one issue that they didn't agree to. That's correct. |
| 02:46:07.60 | Heidi | Thank you. |
| 02:46:07.64 | Unknown | JUST PUTTING THEM. |
| 02:46:07.89 | Heidi | . |
| 02:46:07.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:46:08.19 | Heidi | which is... |
| 02:46:08.28 | Unknown | Just the flat. Oh, the flesh. |
| 02:46:10.07 | Unknown | There's only one here. |
| 02:46:11.62 | Unknown | That's correct. Mr. Mayor, I have a question. Can you share some insight as to why there was, what was the problem with the last, the flat roof on the East Wing House? What was the concern? |
| 02:46:25.96 | Heidi | The project proponent suggested that that was a significant design change to the project and just you |
| 02:46:34.92 | Jeremy Graves | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:46:40.16 | Unknown | Are we up here ready to make a decision? Thank you. |
| 02:46:44.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:46:45.37 | Unknown | And I... |
| 02:46:45.42 | Unknown | And I have a question. Oh, go ahead. I'm sorry. |
| 02:46:50.23 | Unknown | I'm not... |
| 02:46:52.75 | Unknown | I have a question, a follow-up question. So I've heard why the last issue was not amenable to the applicant but I haven't heard why the last issue was critical or was it critical to the appellate? the flat roof. you know, when you're talking about six things that were discussed, and one wasn't you know, sometimes that one thing is the most important thing. I guess I'm just trying to get a clarity on waiting and how important that flat roof was. to the appellate. |
| 02:47:33.83 | Heidi | And I'm here just to discuss what was discussed at this meeting and what was decided upon. |
| 02:47:37.70 | Unknown | at this meeting and |
| 02:47:41.77 | Jeremy Graves | Jeremy Graves, Community Development Director. I think from the appellant's perspective, the flat roof on the East Wind House is important because a portion of that East Wind House roof does obstruct the sunlight to the appellant's house during some portion of the morning. |
| 02:48:02.86 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:48:03.18 | Jeremy Graves | Thank you. |
| 02:48:03.20 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:48:04.48 | Unknown | Thank you, Jim. Yes? Clarity? |
| 02:48:06.12 | Unknown | Clarity? I personally do not need to hear anymore, but if people think they do, then I would like someone to make a motion. |
| 02:48:17.37 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:48:17.39 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. Well, any other questions? Unless there's any other questions? |
| 02:48:19.62 | Unknown | Unless there's any other questions. I have a comment. Could we just, is there any other questions? |
| 02:48:21.51 | Unknown | I have a comment. |
| 02:48:27.53 | Unknown | Well, the only... Can I ask the architect a question? On the East Wind, we're talking about not the carport for the East Wind house, we're talking about the... Stairway. |
| 02:48:39.21 | Marty | Thank you. |
| 02:48:42.11 | Unknown | Oh, the stair enclosure, okay. And what's the plate height? It was not the peach root. Can we somehow bring up the... Thank you. |
| 02:48:50.82 | Marty | The plate height, as you asked, is 8 feet. Thank you. |
| 02:48:54.02 | Unknown | Okay, in the stairway. And then the people. |
| 02:48:55.41 | Marty | I'm just there. And then it probably goes up another foot, a foot and a half. |
| 02:49:01.18 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:49:06.07 | Unknown | So it's not the peaked roof for the actual living structure, it's the peaked roof for |
| 02:49:12.27 | Unknown | tonight. |
| 02:49:12.74 | Marty | Thank you. And it's our perspective that we've compromised quite a great deal, that it doesn't make a huge impact on already something that doesn't have a huge impact, and so that it's unnecessary and takes away from the... the house. |
| 02:49:32.01 | Unknown | Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Jeremy, can I, or Heidi, somebody can I ask a question of when the, when a landscaping, final landscaping plan will be? |
| 02:49:34.58 | Marty | TODAY. |
| 02:49:42.22 | Unknown | a place will be |
| 02:49:44.77 | Heidi | Prior to issuance of a construction permit, |
| 02:49:44.82 | Unknown | Thank you. part. And will everybody have a chance to look at that? Can comments be made on I'm sorry, can comments be made on that? Not here. I mean, the best thing. |
| 02:50:00.46 | Heidi | The way the condition of approval was approved at the Planning Commission level is that the Community Development Director has the final authority to approve the final |
| 02:50:06.20 | Unknown | Okay. So they can give comments to the community or the neighbors can give comments. |
| 02:50:11.40 | Unknown | And that's our standard condition, isn't it, Heidi? Yeah. |
| 02:50:14.91 | Unknown | Which is somewhat problematic, not just for this house, but it puts off. I understand. |
| 02:50:20.86 | Jeremy Graves | I understand. |
| 02:50:23.68 | Unknown | But that's, we should discuss that at a later date. |
| 02:50:29.72 | Unknown | Michael, in light of the fact that Marty had 30 seconds or a minute, do you want to just say something just for a minute? |
| 02:50:39.61 | Michael Rex | Thank you for that opportunity. I want to thank Peter and Pam and Marty for finding some common ground with us and your help in giving us the opportunity to negotiate a little bit. The negotiations were rather strange, very pressed for time. I didn't find it, frankly, I found it a very awkward process, I must say. I'm really disappointed that those ceiling heights and floor levels remain the same. I understand Peter's adamant that that car deck or driveway shouldn't slope, but if the car deck stayed the same place, I think those houses themselves could come down easily two feet, and both of them may be less massive. And I wish we can include that. Thank you. |
| 02:51:01.06 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | Yeah. |
| 02:51:30.68 | Unknown | Thanks. |
| 02:51:31.37 | Michael Rex | Thank you. In fact, if we could, we'd completely support denying the appeal with these changes. |
| 02:51:43.38 | Unknown | OK, let's bring it back up here for a decision. And we need a motion. Thank you. |
| 02:51:53.84 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:51:55.08 | Unknown | Well, I was going to make a motion, but I mean, my motion was going to move to accept the compromises made, but to include the flat roof on the east wing to accommodate the the sunlight. issue, which has been all along. as we see over here, the primary concern of the appellant |
| 02:52:29.98 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Did she make a motion? She did. Yes. She got a second. |
| 02:52:31.36 | Aditya Padala | She did. Yes, you've got to set. |
| 02:52:40.24 | Unknown | film. Well, and I'm not sure. I mean, certainly a starting point is what I would be moving is to deny the appeal provided that we include the five provisions that were agreed upon by the parties. And then, of course, that we would also make a motion to approve the encroachment agreement as well. I'm not sure if that's the proper way we can do that or we have to get more specific. |
| 02:53:00.81 | Unknown | We have to get more specific. Do we have any questions? Thank you. |
| 02:53:04.20 | Unknown | I think there's two separate motions here. One is denying an appeal and approving the accroachment. |
| 02:53:10.44 | Unknown | Tree permit and what's the other one? |
| 02:53:13.23 | Unknown | Do I need to set it out in more detail? |
| 02:53:15.33 | Unknown | There we go. |
| 02:53:17.71 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:53:17.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:53:17.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:53:17.92 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:53:17.93 | Unknown | I'm not. |
| 02:53:18.42 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:53:18.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:53:18.46 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:53:18.47 | Unknown | So I make a motion to deny the appellant's appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's Resolution Number 201-3-34, which approves a design review permit, tentative minor subdivision map, tree removal permit, conditional use permit, and encroachment agreement to allow construction of two family... |
| 02:53:20.31 | Dave (Public Commenter) | Thank you, Jeremy. |
| 02:53:38.86 | Unknown | single family residences, on the vacant lot located at 62 Marion Avenue and provided, and I assume I need to include the resolution, includes two conditions of approval regarding landscaping and tree removal, as discussed in the draft report, and to include the five items that were agreed to by the parties that are community development has taken note of. |
| 02:54:06.35 | Unknown | And you mentioned these plans. Is somebody correct me, Marty? Or the plans that we have are not the plans that were changed from the planning commission condition of approval, lowering it by a foot and a half. So that's going to be part of the revised set of plans. Exactly. |
| 02:54:24.89 | Marty | Exactly, that makes it a move point because this supersedes that. |
| 02:54:25.89 | Unknown | Thank you. I would say, Mr. President. |
| 02:54:29.67 | Marty | Thank you. |
| 02:54:29.94 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:54:29.96 | Marty | Thank you. |
| 02:54:29.97 | Unknown | Thank you. Why don't we vote on that one and then we can have another resolution on the encroachment. Maybe we should be doing that. |
| 02:54:36.11 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Yeah, two, both of them. Okay, I'll second that. |
| 02:54:36.74 | Unknown | you |
| 02:54:40.59 | Unknown | So just to clarify, so Heidi, this you'll get back a revised set of plans because they have to revise these based off these new changes. So those will not we were moving that prior conditional approval for the house to be lowered is that |
| 02:55:00.58 | Heidi | That's correct. There is a condition of approval that's part of the Planning Commission Resolution 2013-34, which required the roofs of the carports to be reduced by a foot nap. |
| 02:55:11.05 | Unknown | because we're already, you're changing the height as a result of your revised plan. |
| 02:55:13.75 | Heidi | So your action will be superseding that action by virtue of the approval of the Flat Roots? |
| 02:55:15.72 | Unknown | that action Thank you. |
| 02:55:19.47 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:55:20.01 | Heidi | Let's go, okay. |
| 02:55:21.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:55:21.36 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:55:22.07 | Unknown | Does that include everything? |
| 02:55:24.34 | Unknown | Do you need separate votes on this? |
| 02:55:27.68 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:55:27.70 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:55:27.92 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:55:28.95 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:55:29.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:55:31.28 | Unknown | Okay, should we call the roll? |
| 02:55:38.01 | Unknown | This is on the denial of the appeal. Councilmember Pfeiffer. |
| 02:55:42.35 | Unknown | No. |
| 02:55:42.79 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 02:55:42.81 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:55:45.54 | Unknown | Council Member Weiner. |
| 02:55:46.58 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Yes. |
| 02:55:48.73 | Unknown | Council member Leong. |
| 02:55:50.67 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 02:55:52.19 | Unknown | Vice Mayor Theodorus. |
| 02:55:53.54 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:55:53.57 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:55:53.64 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:55:53.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:55:53.69 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 02:55:53.86 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 02:55:54.80 | Unknown | Mayor Withey. |
| 02:55:55.63 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 02:55:56.20 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:55:57.15 | Unknown | And to move on to the encroachment agreement. |
| 02:55:59.48 | Unknown | Thank you. I move that we adopt a resolution which approves an encroachment agreement for the construction of an elevated driveway. and related site improvements in the Marion Avenue right of way and the parking of up to two vehicles partially located in the Marion right of way. |
| 02:56:20.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:56:21.03 | Unknown | So you don't have to – the guest parking vehicles, is that a – do we actually have to approve that as a condition of approval in the encroachment permit? I don't even know if it's required. |
| 02:56:21.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:56:36.69 | Heidi | It is part of the, it is a requirement because the applicant through its project would be utilizing part of the public right of way for the benefit of that project. |
| 02:56:45.50 | Unknown | Okay. All right. you Okay. |
| 02:56:49.12 | Unknown | Okay, I'll second it. Okay, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? |
| 02:56:55.43 | Unknown | know. |
| 02:56:56.82 | Unknown | I'm in favor of it. I just I would encourage the planning staff in the future to maybe |
| 02:56:56.95 | Unknown | I mean, |
| 02:57:02.66 | Unknown | go back to some prior practices of the use of the right-of-way for private parking. It's becoming a little bit too prevalent. in our encroachment. |
| 02:57:12.02 | Unknown | I agree. Bye. |
| 02:57:13.91 | Unknown | But in this case, since you compromise them all for it, God bless. |
| 02:57:16.58 | Unknown | Yeah. I would factor in the road improvement, which is if you... Actually, the city has a really required area. |
| 02:57:17.81 | Unknown | I was... |
| 02:57:18.33 | Jeremy Graves | So, |
| 02:57:18.35 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 02:57:18.44 | Unknown | with you. |
| 02:57:18.74 | Unknown | But- |
| 02:57:18.98 | Jeremy Graves | Thank you. |
| 02:57:19.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:57:20.76 | Jeremy Graves | Yeah. |
| 02:57:20.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:57:22.59 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:57:22.66 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | I'm sorry. |
| 02:57:23.13 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:57:23.30 | Randy Deutsch | I'm sorry. |
| 02:57:23.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:57:23.48 | Randy Deutsch | Thank you. |
| 02:57:23.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:57:23.62 | Randy Deutsch | Thank you. |
| 02:57:23.65 | Unknown | in the city. |
| 02:57:23.90 | Unknown | The parking is encroaching and they encroach the area. |
| 02:57:28.22 | Unknown | Okay, is there any others? |
| 02:57:30.65 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Okay. |
| 02:57:31.13 | Unknown | Thank you. Happy birthday. |
| 02:57:32.04 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:57:32.05 | Unknown | Sorry. |
| 02:57:32.29 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:57:32.31 | Unknown | Yeah, happy. |
| 02:57:32.31 | Unknown | Yeah, happy to be here. |
| 02:57:32.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:57:32.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:57:33.00 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:57:33.03 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:57:33.07 | Unknown | Hey. |
| 02:57:33.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:57:33.25 | Unknown | Thank you for going through the office process and coming through a resolution. |
| 02:57:33.27 | Unknown | you |
| 02:57:33.35 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:57:33.44 | Unknown | from |
| 02:57:34.05 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:57:34.10 | Unknown | Happy birthday. |
| 02:57:35.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:57:35.83 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | All right. |
| 02:57:35.95 | Unknown | Amen. |
| 02:57:37.08 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Hey, you got two more hours for your birthday. |
| 02:57:40.68 | Unknown | . |
| 02:57:40.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:57:41.59 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Go to Smitty's right now and you'll get their pork fuzzers. |
| 02:57:41.67 | Unknown | Go to Spain. right now and you'll get there for |
| 02:57:45.03 | Unknown | I don't know. |
| 02:57:45.59 | Unknown | . |
| 02:57:49.66 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Good job, Ray. |
| 02:57:50.94 | Unknown | Okay, our next item. is, excuse me. |
| 02:58:00.39 | Unknown | is a discussion regarding |
| 02:58:02.75 | Unknown | Why don't you give him a second? |
| 02:58:03.91 | Unknown | They want to hear you. take down their |
| 02:58:05.47 | Unknown | and other things. |
| 02:59:13.24 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 02:59:13.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:59:13.29 | Michael Rex | Yes, a lot. |
| 02:59:14.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:59:15.53 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 02:59:44.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:59:44.98 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 02:59:45.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:59:45.08 | Charlie Francis | Thank you. |
| 02:59:45.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:59:49.05 | Charlie Francis | Someone would have to... |
| 02:59:50.97 | Unknown | Okay, discussion regarding the sanitary sewer feed study. Charlie Francis. |
| 02:59:57.11 | Charlie Francis | Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. A summary of tonight's presentation, basically it's an information only to show you where we're at with the sewer fee study and to present to the Council the next steps in the public communication aspect of getting the public involved in the sewer fee study. The first thing I'd like to point out is the age of our sewer facility. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this because you've heard it from our public works director many times in the past, but a 75-year-old system, it's old and it's deteriorating And while the current rates, the current rates that we adopted in 2009 have gone a long way in increasing the maintenance and repairs of our sewer system, they don't include enough resources now to implement the next phase of critical upgrades that we need for our sewer pipes and our infrastructure. And as you know, we have a responsibility to protect the environment, keep it clean, and to protect from hazardous, any kind of hazardous spills going into the bay, jeopardizing our citizens. And so this sewer fee study, the goals of it, are meant to address these urgent sewer needs to protect the environment and the health and the safety of our residents. And to begin with, I'll just give you a little bit of background. What we have here in the city of Sausalito is a collection system. That's all we're responsible for. The Sausalito Marin City Sanitary District is responsible for treatment and with eventual discharge into the bay. And so to try to put some color on this, the lines in blue are a collection system. They include manholes. They include the sewer mains, they include lift stations. So what we have here is houses with laterals coming into the collection system. And you can see it, I drew it down because it's a gravity collection system except for those few places where it's lower than the water line or it's lower than the transmission line. We have to provide some pumps to get it back up into the regional transmission system. So the green lines are what is Sausalito Marin City Sanitary District is responsible for. The blue is what we're responsible for. I want to point out there's very few moving parts in a collection system. It's except for the pipes that are cracking, disintegrating, and caving in. We have a few pump stations that are actually |
| 03:00:41.76 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 03:02:23.69 | Charlie Francis | having some movement. And that's kind of reflected in the next step. The rates that we charged based on 2009 and were enacted through 2014 are placed on the tax roll. This is an example tax bill I just pulled at random from our property tax bill. It's a property, a duplex probably, worth about $300,000, single family attached rate. And it's placed on the tax rolls once a year and it's collected and paid to the city through the county. But I wanted to give you a comparison. There's lots of moving parts in a treatment system. You got pumps and you got treatment. You got discharged into the bay. You have very few moving parts and therefore a lot less cost in a collection system and of course our collection system is specific to the city so you can compare our rates with the Sausalito City Marin rates are about double what our rates are for that same similar type of property. So those rates are placed on the property tax bill. And we retained NBS and we have Tim Supper here, managing director from NBS to prepare the sanitary sewer fee study for us with the goal of helping us identify what kind of operation costs and capital costs we need for the next five years to support and to allocate those in an equitable manner to address the essential sewer grade upgrades that we need. And there's three stages to their process. The first stage is what we're here to talk about tonight, and that's to say what are the financial requirements that we're going to need as we address our sewer fee study. On February 11th, we'll come back to you with how are we going to allocate those costs among single family homes, single family attached, multi-family and commercial rates. And then are there ways of doing it other than a fixed charge like putting a volumetric charge where people are actually charged a sewer bill based on the amount of water that they consume and put down the sewer. Before we talk about this first step, the financial plan requirements, what we're talking about tonight, I just wanted to go over some of the successes we've had over the past five years. We increased our maintenance. We increased our repairs in the sewer system. we've been able to significantly reduce our sewer spills, and we remain in compliance with our 2008 EPA order. It was a report that you received about a month ago from the Public Works Director, showed how we're in compliance and what our plans are to stay in compliance as we go forward. We added trucks and equipment. We brought on additional staff and we did considerable work in making sure that we were reducing spills and repairing infrastructure where we could. We also completed a number of capital projects. The Woodward-Dotoyan pipeline, we actually replaced some pipes in there. We got some generators going. We designed the Gate 5 Road project, and you all know we've got about a $1.2 million project going on down there by Spinnaker. Anchor area, that money was borrowed from the State Revolving Fund. It took us a lot longer to borrow that money from the State Revolving Fund than we had initially anticipated, but we were finally successful in doing that. And we corrected a lot of sanitary sewer defects from laterals, you know, that comes from trees growing into lines or laterals being disconnected from homes. And this little picture kind of shows some of the problems that we have with laterals. And we were required to address some of those sanitary sewer defects from laterals from the Riverwatch settlement that we had. I agreed to. So, but even with the increased maintenance and even with the repairs that we've been doing over the past five years, we still need upgrades to our deteriorated infrastructure to reduce sewage spit. We have cracks in the pipe. We have manholes that are caving in. We have some pipe that's completely caved in. It's clay pipe. It's collapsing. And so there's a number of projects that have been identified. Remember, this is infrastructure that was put in 75 years ago with a life of 50 years. You know, so there's a lot of work still left to be done in our sewer projects. |
| 03:06:39.17 | Unknown | So we should blame Paul Albritton, who was here before? |
| 03:06:41.00 | Charlie Francis | I was going to run out of my office and grab him before he left. But we have 27 miles of sewer pipe, and they were built in the 1930s. They're made of clay. And we've identified these four projects as being essential to complete within the next five years. That's about $5 million worth of capital projects. So what the public works director and the finance director and the city manager got together with MBS, we said, what we would like to do is provide money for operating costs. And we were able to look at our operating costs in our sewer system and say, we could probably operate with one fewer full-time equivalent for the next five years than we have for the past five fiscal years. As you recall, we upgraded by three full-time equivalents five years ago. And the reason that we're reducing it by one is because we've done so much maintenance, we've done a lot of repairs, and now that we're starting to replace pipe rather than repair pipe, we'll need less people to continue to be repairing these pipes. As I mentioned earlier, we have identified $5 million of capital projects to be constructed over the next three years, but that equals about $1 million a year, and we plan on doing that by not going through the rigorous bureaucratic controls of the state revolving fund, but actually just going out and issuing a revenue bond and having the rates support that revenue bond so that we can get the money right up front as soon as the new fiscal year starts and start these capital projects bond so that we can get the money right up front as soon as the new fiscal year starts and start these capital projects as soon as possible so that we can mitigate any future spells. Yes. |
| 03:08:19.28 | Unknown | Do you want us to hold our questions at the end? |
| 03:08:21.05 | Charlie Francis | If you have a question now, you can ask |
| 03:08:23.68 | Unknown | What would be the, you know, obviously in previous budget cycles, the state, the evolving fund got, you know, wrapped up in being people sucking money out of that pot into other things and having fewer people working in the furloughs. with Do we have any insight? I mean, who knows, but into... the possibility of the revolving fund becoming more of a resource for us, or is it more the administrative costs and the length of time for approval that makes it prohibitive? Thank you. |
| 03:08:54.02 | Charlie Francis | of. I'm going to have to ask Jonathan to answer that question. |
| 03:08:56.52 | Unknown | Oh, okay. |
| 03:09:02.38 | Jonathon Goldman | The short answer is I don't know. I'm an optimist as... I can sit down. But the fact that we don't know and that we can't rely on that. The last five-year period, we baked that funding source into our ability to deliver projects and found that we've been able to deliver one project. And there are issues, frankly, even with that. So under the circumstances, operationally, we need to be able to significantly recapitalize the system. And based on the advice that we're getting from our finance director and from our consultants, this is the best way to do this. |
| 03:09:07.56 | Unknown | I can't sit down. Bye. |
| 03:09:47.05 | Jeremy Graves | Thank you, Jennifer. |
| 03:09:49.04 | Charlie Francis | Yes, and then so that would cover our operating costs and our capital improvement costs. We have to maintain adequate bond coverage. It's always a good idea to have more revenues than you have expenses, and the bondholders would require a coverage of 1.15 to 1.2, where the state revolving fund only requires a 1.1, but we still have the obligation to covenant to meet that over the next five years. And then finally, we want to build adequate reserves, and we've defined adequate reserves here as being 25% to reach that goal, that target within five years to be able to say we have 25% of money set aside in operating reserves to meet any major emergency, any spill, any breakage that would occur. We also have some capital reserves equal to 3% of the depreciable capital assets, and finally the required debt service reserves. So with all that built into the model, we then cranked the model and said, what kind of revenue do we need? And so the first things for the years 2014-15 through 2018-19, we'll need from 2.2 to 2.5 million dollars a year growing through inflation for those five years. Currently, our revenues are generating a 1.7 million dollars per year. So that is a revenue increase that we'll be seeking as we develop the rates. The developing of the rates though, we're looking at a rate alternative to provide greater equity for the rate payers. When we went through an analysis of those moving parts versus the non-moving parts in a collection system, we determined that 12% of the expenses were related to flow going through the pipes. And so therefore, we're proposing that 88% of the bill be a fixed charge for single Thank you. flow going through the pipes. And so therefore, we're proposing that 88% of the bill be a fixed charge for single-family residents and for all the different ratepayers, and that 12% be based on how much volume. We want to encourage water conservation and at the same time recognize that when there is less water going through the system, we have less expenses. And finally, NBS will be coming up with proposed sewer rates that allocate those on a fair and equitable manner between the different classes of housing. So we have single-family residence. You have single-family attached. And then you have multifamily that would be like three units or more. And how much do they consume? How much water equivalent dwelling units are those, and they'll be restructuring those to make sure that it's fair and equitable as Proposition 218 and the state law requires. So we'll be coming back with what those proposed rate structures will be at our February 11th meeting. Between now and February 11th, the Finance Committee will be meeting to review those and to be making a recommendation to the full City Council on what is the best and most fair and equitable manner of allocating between the residential and commercial customer classes and going through the numbers and ensuring that the right ratio is 88%, 12% for the biometric |
| 03:13:01.66 | Charlie Francis | today. So the next step would be this Prop 218 process. We have, today is January 28th. We have two meetings in February. If the council wanted to study this more and get more community input, but we will come back to the council on February 11th with the proposed rates. The trigger dates are, we're looking at a protest hearing to occur on May 6th. That's the day when you actually count the number of protests from a protest hearing. Then on May 20th, there would be the second reading that would set the charge. We pick those dates so that action would happen before you adopt your fiscal year 12 to 14 budget in June of 2014. So it gives us enough time to make budget adjustments. And then these calendar items work backwards because the clock starts ticking. When you pick this date, you know you have to have a resolution to set the procedure and start the 45-day clock back here in March. So we have January 28th, two meetings in February, and then on March 4th we'll be coming to the City Council on the report, recommend the sewer rates, and adopt the resolution setting the rules for the protestors. So in summary, the city's With all the current funding that we had, we've really did a lot of work in this past five years. We've put in a lot of repairs, we've got a lot of maintenance, we've reduced spills. But we need additional funds to upgrade our 75-year-old deteriorating infrastructure, to keep our waterways, beaches, and the bays protected, to make sure there's no more spills, and make sure that the health and safety of our residents are there and to continue to comply with the EPA's orders because there's huge penalties if we're not compliant. It's the right thing to do, and that's why they put the big penalties in there. We want to make sure we do the right thing. So this plan we're recommending to the city council through the finance committee. It's fiscally responsible. It addresses our urgent sewer needs to protect the environment and health and safety of our residents. With that, we're able to answer any questions that you might have. Jonathan's here to answer any sewer and operations questions. Tim is here to talk about the rate study and the structure. I can answer any fiscal impact questions. Bonnie Jean Von Croch is our communications outreach managing director and overall city management. Adam and Mary are here to answer those questions. |
| 03:15:38.33 | Unknown | Thank you very much, Charlie. I imagine there could be quite a few questions, so we'll sort of do the rotating thing. |
| 03:15:47.09 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:15:48.03 | Unknown | Please. |
| 03:15:48.37 | Unknown | Thank you. So I'm just curious, with Proc 218, I know that the Council can has the power to do the protest vote. Is there a reason why we wouldn't put this on the ballot? to let for enhanced transparency to let residents, you know, proactively approve this or reject this. |
| 03:16:20.62 | Charlie Francis | I think that decision is a political decision, and the requirements of the law, Proposition 218, is a protest hearing. And then what we're doing is going along with what the law prescribes. Can I add? |
| 03:16:35.98 | Mary Wagner | I think the 218 process is limited to only a few utilities to use this process, and it's for a very important reason, you know, for water, garbage, and sewage. if it weren't to pass, then how would you actually deal with these utilities and sewage being probably at the foundation of Back to the Basics is really why they allow you to do it because the difficulties of passing a This would be if you went the direction that you may be suggesting, Councilmember Pfeiffer, you would have to have two-thirds vote approval because it would be a special tax. So it wouldn't be a simple majority. And so it would be a very difficult tax to pass on something that is really a basic necessity and that's why they limit what programs can go through a 218 process to keep from people abusing it. But at the end of the day, you are required by law to deal with public sewage in a safe and meaningful way. does. |
| 03:17:55.48 | Unknown | I'll withhold my comment until the comment period, but I do have my personal opinion. |
| 03:18:00.35 | Unknown | Well, in that vein, the question is, and we have the public relations and others, what do other communities in RIN do? |
| 03:18:02.14 | Unknown | Thank you. in that vein. |
| 03:18:10.44 | Unknown | on this type of issue and what have we done in the past? |
| 03:18:14.63 | Charlie Francis | Thank you. Well, the law came about in was it 1999, 2000? 1996. And so prior, so our last sewer increase was in 2009, and before that, I don't know when our most recent sewer increase was. Before that, do you have any idea? But our last sewer increase before 2009 may have been before Proposition 218 existed. So South Salido Marin City Sanitary District goes through a Prop 218 hearing. I don't know of any city or district that does not go through a Prop 218 hearing. I've never ran across, although I'm not sure that it could exist, where someone's exceeded the, you know, what Prop 218 calls for. No, but the question is not |
| 03:19:06.79 | Unknown | you whether it exceeded what it calls for, but if someone's used other processes as... Oh, there is one. |
| 03:19:11.06 | Charlie Francis | Oh, there is, by law, this is only one process, this process. It has a minimum, it has to be this. |
| 03:19:18.35 | Unknown | Is anybody on this side of the dais? |
| 03:19:21.03 | Unknown | Just to clarify, Charlie, and the bond issuance as well, that |
| 03:19:22.82 | Charlie Francis | Thank you. |
| 03:19:22.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:19:28.98 | Unknown | Um, you that we can do, that the city can do by law without having to go to a vote. |
| 03:19:36.56 | Charlie Francis | That's great. But the rates have to be adopted for the period or the bondholders would say, I don't have any assurance that those rates would be in effect. So the bondholders would need to see the Prop 218 process. |
| 03:19:54.86 | Unknown | and then, you May I ask another? I'm sorry. And I know you're gonna go to the finance committee and you can discuss the the final numbers in the allocations, but we're looking at, I'm looking at roughly a 30% 35% increase, is that right? |
| 03:20:07.59 | Charlie Francis | 30% increase in revenues. In revenues. So you're going to have to allocate it. And then, of course, we want to recognize within our revenue structure that there's inflation happens. There's wage inflation. There's general inflation. So we're building in a general inflation measure. But it won't mean necessarily a 30% increase for individual customers. Some customer classes may have been subsidizing other customer classes in the past and we're examining that equity. And then the second thing we're doing is by putting the biometric charges as we're putting the power of that increase back into the hands of the people. They use less water, their charges will be less the next year. |
| 03:20:09.65 | Unknown | So you're going to have to allocate it and |
| 03:20:49.03 | Unknown | Any other questions? Let's open this for public. |
| 03:20:53.44 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 03:20:53.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:20:53.98 | Unknown | Do you want to give any sort of clarity to, I mean, it was in the staff report to a certain degree, to what the outreach is going to be and do you want to have any more color to that? I don't know, Bonnie, if you want to add anything so that even though it's a 218, how we're going to make sure people are aware of it and that |
| 03:20:54.18 | Unknown | . |
| 03:21:16.02 | Bonnie Jean Von Croch | Good evening, Council. I'm Bonnie Jean Von Crow with the Lou Edwards Group. Absolutely, I can speak to the public outreach. Council Member Fevery mentioned transparency, and that's really what we're trying to do as part of this 218 process. So we're recommending to Council that we go forward with a plan to engage the community on this issue, inform them of the serious need, you know, what's occurred over the past five years in terms of successes, what the needs still are, going out to community groups similar to the 2009 effort that the city did in which city staff went out to groups in the community, talked about the issue, made sure that all people's questions were answered, as well as approaching, you know, large property owners, making sure their concerns or any questions are addressed, and, you know, doing a little further outreach than last time. Last time the city did one informational mailer, we're planning two informational mailers this time, so expanding the outreach this time to make sure that, you know, everyone is aware of the issues that the city is facing |
| 03:22:17.86 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | Right. |
| 03:22:27.70 | Unknown | Thank you, Bonnie. Um, Is there any public comment on this? Seeing none, let's bring it back up here. |
| 03:22:39.21 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:22:39.25 | Unknown | you |
| 03:22:42.96 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor, I have comments. |
| 03:22:45.32 | Unknown | Please. |
| 03:22:48.14 | Unknown | Yeah, so I just recall the 2009 sewer fee increase. In some cases, some folks were facing up to 65% rate increase. And I remember the room was full. We had a lot of people who were very upset. And at the time, I voted for it because we were facing the EPA mandates. We hadn't had an increase in quite some time, and it looked like this was our only route. But in hindsight, in looking at what is incurred since, I really believe this is an opportunity for a ballot vote. I think that if we do our... homework and we have a very educated resident base. that that participation people will uh, that, will weigh the pros and cons and they will, if we've structured it right, as opposed to just imposing what we think, I think that will wind up with something better. I just feel very uncomfortable moving forward with a five, you know, million dollar bond, revenue bond, and the sewer rate increases without a ballot vote. |
| 03:24:05.95 | Unknown | Any other comments? |
| 03:24:07.42 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:24:07.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:24:07.55 | Unknown | Charlie or Jonathan, do you remember what in 2009 we also said we were going to have a rate increase at some point, another rate increase at some point, I believe. |
| 03:24:07.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:24:21.20 | Unknown | you sort of forecasted a series of rate, not what was approved in the two, but we were gonna come back because we knew we weren't gonna have enough money to do the things that we were gonna have to do. |
| 03:24:33.96 | Charlie Francis | I don't see how we could have not made that comment because the rate increase that we passed back then was only for a certain amount of level of service and a certain amount of infrastructure and the following on debt service to the state revolving fund to pay for that. So it assumed more increased, stepped up increases in the future to include more infrastructure improvements. |
| 03:24:59.58 | Unknown | and we're still operating under the EPA mandate. We are not, that hasn't been lifted. We're still operating under the conditions of that mandate. Is that |
| 03:25:07.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:25:07.73 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 03:25:12.82 | Unknown | So if I may respond, Mr. Mayor. I do recall clarifying with the public that this was, you know, just the beginning, but I also know that what I might take away from that process was that we needed a more participatory approach. And so I think especially with the volume, you know, of what we're looking at with a $5 million revenue bond and the sewer rate increase, I think we need My personal opinion, is that it needs more participation. I think it's at a higher level here, and I think it rises to the level of a ballot vote. |
| 03:25:57.90 | Unknown | Thank you. And Do you want to comment? |
| 03:26:00.43 | Unknown | No, the only thing I'd say is I take it we have other um, meetings on this. We're not making that determination tonight. We have the Finance Committee and I assume the ballot measure would certainly be a much more expensive and time-consuming process. And I'm not sure what that would gain us because in the end, we'd be giving the public the same question, are you gonna pay $5 million, whatever the number is more. But I do think in the, as we go toward this process, maybe we should put it on Open City Hall and just make sure that we have a lot of notice so that the public can get its participation into our process. Because the importance is going to be what we do here because at the end, whatever our proposal is, I mean, the public can't change it in a ballot. They can say yay or nay. And same thing with the process. So I do think we should start the public awareness campaign and use our systems and whatever was recommended to us by our professionals. |
| 03:27:04.45 | Unknown | Do you want to say anything? Thank you. |
| 03:27:06.19 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:27:06.51 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:27:06.58 | Unknown | You know, this is kind of one of those necessary evils. You don't really have much choice here of solving where our waste goes. And, you know, we're in receipt of a debt that was incurred over 75 years and nobody paid. And now it's up to us to to repay that debt by replacing sections of this collection system that nobody's touched. And they were happy to ignore it because they were underground. And it was a subject nobody wanted to deal with. No one gets excited about. sewers, right, in terms of, hey, that's top of my list of things to do in Sausalito. It's the parks, it's the medians, it's the library, and politicians were happy to ignore this for a very long period of time. And, okay, so thank you for that, for not looking down the road, and now we've inherited it. We don't have a lot of options. We have the federal government still pressing us to And if we don't start doing things more quickly, I'm sure they will exercise their their desire to have us do it more quickly. And it's the right thing to do. You know, it's the right thing to do to replace our sewer system. You can argue back and forth whether it should go to a public voter or not. The 218 process, I think, is very limited for certain services. And I think in the last go-around, we had a very low level of objections to the 218 process because people realized it was something you just had to do. It wasn't a discretionary responsibility. We are put in a position to make decisions on some things, the tough decisions. Some things are more appropriate to go to a public vote. than others, and that's a matter of philosophy. I think in this particular circumstance, the 218 process will give people an avenue to express their desires, and if we do the public outreach correctly, we'll touch people enough that it'll make sure it rises to their on their radar screen and they can decide for themselves if they want to file a protest. We can always, if there's a, we don't have, we can decide how to react to the protest ourselves. 218 only requires you to there's a certain threshold, I can't remember if it's 25% or some number that, or 50, is it 50% to 18, that you can decide. But, you know, if you got 25, 30%, you might want to reassess what you're doing anyway. So you can always decide, okay, well, this is, there's a little bit more to this. We can always make that call later. But that being said, this is just the unfortunate reality of the cards that were dealt to us as a city because people didn't pay attention to this for a very long period of time. |
| 03:29:40.17 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | Anyway. |
| 03:30:01.64 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:30:01.79 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:30:02.79 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Well, I guess you can say out of sight, out of mind. As long as you don't see it, it doesn't bother you. It's kind of like an engine under a hood. The only time you're going to look at it is when it breaks down. I really think that we owe it to our citizens, our residents, to make sure that we go forward with protecting them and protecting our environment. I think it's very important that we go away from the idea of contaminating our properties in the And Also facing the idea that we could face some stiff fines for leaks that will occur. And they will occur unless we really make the improvements. So I think it's something that we all don't like to face, but I think for us to make sure that that engine is still running, I think we have to open the hood and make sure that it's in running order. And I think the same thing has to be done with our sewer system. |
| 03:31:15.03 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 03:31:15.05 | Unknown | Yeah, so... So I must admit I've been learning a lot about sewers lately, which is good. We have a problem, as you all know. It's a 75-year-old problem, as has been pointed out. |
| 03:31:27.26 | Unknown | We have a... |
| 03:31:40.31 | Unknown | we're going to have to be continually over many many years investing in our infrastructure. I think the most important thing I heard tonight was it's the right thing to do. I believe as a community and as a city council we've got to not only because we're under an EPA order, But we have a responsibility to ensure that sewage doesn't spill into the bay And it's just that simple. And we've got to think about the future generations so that we leave the city in a better shape than those in the past that didn't when they ignored sewers. So, 218 process is the way every city does it and we're just gonna have to knuckle down, work through the numbers, and this will come back to City Council. |
| 03:32:39.05 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor, I have a comment. I feel that if the council majority really felt strongly about the environment, we would not have, the council majority would not have passed a housing element that skirted a full environmental impact report in favor of a negative declaration based on a 1995 EIR that used a 1984 infiltration and inflow study on our sewers. So, you know, we've embarked on this high density housing element knowing full well that we had antiquated data. So now we're facing EPA mandates with spills right and left. And now we're heading for a $5 million revenue bond without a ballot vote, without public participation. with regards to that decision. I am concerned about it. I will continue to be concerned, and I can only voice my opinion as we go through this process. |
| 03:33:48.95 | Unknown | Thank you. Is there anybody else who wants to say anything? Nope. Okay. So this is for information only, and I believe that we will be back at this on February 11th. Is that correct? Okay. Thank you. Thanks very much, Charlie. Thank you for staying so late. |
| 03:34:07.90 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | to See you in the pipeline. |
| 03:34:10.33 | Unknown | See, |
| 03:34:12.23 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 03:34:15.59 | Unknown | Okay. The next item we have continued. |
| 03:34:20.03 | Unknown | to the next meeting, so we're on to item 7A, City Manager Information for Council. |
| 03:34:31.64 | Mary Wagner | Well, we're right back on time. Charlie cut some time off there, so we should appreciate that. So I'm going to take a few moments to talk about a couple highlights of our past week here. The mayor and I were in Sacramento last week at the new mayors and council of League of California Cities Academy. Um, great turnout of Marin, new council members and new mayors. 18 folks from Marin were represented The mayor may want to comment later on is... meetings with various mayors and also with our assembly member Mark Levine. Followed on Saturday, we had our council team building retreat, and that was also successful. A lot of healthy and productive conversation. AND WE'LL PUT ON THE NEXT COUNCIL AGENDA THE SUMMARY OF THAT MEETING SO THAT THE PUBLIC CAN GET A SENSE OF SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT HAD SOME ACTION given to them. Lily shared earlier today about last night's Marineship Steering Committee meeting. And then on this Thursday, We have Saucyotas hosting the Marin County Council Mayor and Council dinner at the Spinnaker. So we've had quite the busy week of meetings, but very, very productive. And then next week, starting on Wednesday, I'll be attending the State and League of California Cities City Managers Conference, which between the academy and the managers conference. gain a lot of valuable. training at both of those sessions and an opportunity to network with some very experienced and well thought of city managers so I look forward to attending that conference next You know, the discussion that we just had with sewers and the discussion that we had last night with the Marinship. And just to remind the folks that may be listening at home, watching this on TV. We are doing more and more coverage of these meetings on the web stream or on YouTube sites. or on TV. So hopefully you take the opportunity, if something catches your attention, to go and take a look. As Lily shared earlier, the walking tour was videoed by the media center of Marin. You know, and those are our dollars at work. We contribute towards that effort. And they came out and a lot of very good conversations were recorded. People had the opportunity to voice their opinion at every stop along the way. And that's captured. So encourage the community to watch that. But from that conversation last night and what's continued a little bit today, is that I want to make sure that the community and the council and the staff are all on the same page. You know, when I started six years ago, back to the basics was the theme, and I know that we are transitioning to building on the future. But we have a lot of back to the basics things to do. And no blame to our predecessors because I have no idea what they were dealing with. |
| 03:37:57.41 | Dave (Public Commenter) | of the accessories. |
| 03:38:01.43 | Unknown | I blame them. |
| 03:38:03.07 | Mary Wagner | No idea what this is. Cause they're not here tonight. |
| 03:38:03.56 | Unknown | Because they're not here tonight while Paul was here earlier. |
| 03:38:05.68 | Mary Wagner | We don't know what staff strains there were, what council objectives were made and reached, but what we do know is we all look around and as Shelby Van Meter and her terrific group |
| 03:38:09.65 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:38:24.48 | Mary Wagner | and interested parties that played a role in this. our infrastructure is old. And for whatever reason, it was neglected. and that goes from our streets, our sidewalks. Our trees are aging. You saw a photo earlier from Lauren Umbertus with a tree in the parking lot without a storm. sitting on top of a car. and luckily he didn't cut it down himself to have that happen. We have stories every winter and we have been incredibly lucky this winter on one side that we haven't had any rain or wind come through with those storms that affect us with our power lines and with our trees coming down and land movement. But we're also very worried because we haven't received much water and that's going to create other pretty significant impacts to our area, let alone. the state, but when you look at what is ahead of us in this two-year budget process. The back to the basics is going to ring true. You heard tonight a demand for increased level of service for just a basic service called maintenance. weed pulling. Um, And that by itself, weed pulling does create beautification. So I think that we're on the right path But we also have heard from previous council meetings, members of the public come up Say we've got a problem in community development. If you've got one person doing building inspection, When we have a staff person on board, we have a half-time position for code enforcement. And those are all very important quality of life issues for each person to get their project seen. or have something enforced when someone is doing something illegal in their neighborhood. and that's an increase in service. So when we talk about sewers and trees and parks and streets and street lights that don't work that we're still trying to get fixed. and combine that with levels of service, we have a mountain ahead of us and as the mayor and others have said earlier tonight, some very tough decisions. And so that is what I wanted to make sure that everyone is is prepared for the ride that is going to come. Can it still? the right ride. It's the good ride. It's the ride that we've been on for the last six years where we haven't shied away from the difficult decisions and we've made some significant improvements throughout the town. And I think that we've done a good job. And I thank the community for coming and thanking the staff that are actually really doing the hard work. the You saw Lauren's list. there was two or three people per category doing all of the work that he kind of walked through. You know, we have two or three police officers at best at any given time, patrolling and making our community safe. You all watch Kenneth Henry not walk through the halls or through the city, but run trying to the very next appointment. the talent that we have with Heidi and Lily, and Pat Glasto and others that are out there working hard every day We're very, very fortunate, and I think that you are hearing that from your community, We have very talented and hardworking staff. But we have a lot of work to do, and I want the public to know that these Finance Committee meetings are open to the public. They are posted. in the occurrence And we welcome folks to come forward with ideas. And as Councilmember Pfeiffer has said, and others here at the diocese We have some very talented individuals in our community come and participate. It's a welcome invitation to come and help us. and share your ideas and help us move forward with these successes. So with that, I'll get off of my So, box. and be available for any questions that you folks have. If you have not already RSVP'd to Debbie on attending Thursday night's MCCMC dinner, please do so because it is important. that we're all there. We're the hosts. And it's nice to shine bright on our month. |
| 03:42:32.24 | Unknown | Questions of Adam? |
| 03:42:32.41 | Mary Wagner | Questions about them? |
| 03:42:34.47 | Unknown | So, I was wondering if we had an update about the Lize bus using Sausalito as a go-between stop and pick up for their students for the San Francisco campus. |
| 03:42:49.92 | Mary Wagner | Uh, So I shared with them the information that you provided to me and they have told me that they have stopped running the bus. The bus, what they had was basically two students had families here in Marin and that's where they were using it. I recommended that they look at another location. in Manzanita and I'm assuming that that's what they have done. |
| 03:43:16.18 | Unknown | So did they shed any light as to how this was going on and the campus here presumably didn't know anything about it? |
| 03:43:24.23 | Unknown | It's a valid question. It's not an agendized item. I don't know how, and Mary, you tell us if we're getting into too much. I'll just leave it at that because, you know. |
| 03:43:33.95 | Mary Wagner | Just a quick response is that the San Francisco |
| 03:43:36.47 | Unknown | I haven't had this issue before when I've asked the question. |
| 03:43:39.08 | Mary Wagner | The San Francisco branch made the decision without talking to the Sausalito branch. Um, |
| 03:43:44.40 | Unknown | So the Saucido branch didn't know that there was a bus bringing over two students to their own campus and dropping them off? It's just, it boggles my mind. |
| 03:43:54.93 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, if, well, and that's not a... |
| 03:43:58.25 | Unknown | From a security standpoint at Bogus. |
| 03:43:59.96 | Mary Wagner | Well, you've got to remember when all this took place and when you first, they had just opened the doors. They had all types of moving parts and they had buses, all types of different buses coming for their own service, taking kids to San Francisco. And some of those buses were the exact same bus. They would drop kids off and then take kids off to San Francisco. So they had a revolving door of activity. |
| 03:44:12.34 | Shelby (Public Commenter) | They can get it. |
| 03:44:22.53 | Unknown | So one final request is that you get it in writing from them that they are no longer doing that? because I just don't want to be embarrassed again by getting these emails from residents and proof that they're doing it. |
| 03:44:35.26 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, what I said when you brought this up before, was that we actually are supportive of them commuting and using the facility to help reduce traffic congestion. And if this does not have a negative impact on the neighborhood or the campus, then we would actually, staff would actually support this I've never heard from a single resident, since you brought this up, that there's any traffic concerns there. at this point, unless the full council wants to agendize this and review the traffic pattern We can't. We can't I personally don't recommend that we micromanage that level of activity because we don't do it anywhere else in the community. Right now the staff's focus on buses, quite frankly, We all know where we're focusing our attention. is on the other end of town where we have all the tour buses coming in This issue, they're coming in if in fact they are continuing to come in, which I don't think that they are, but if they are, They're coming in off of the north end of town. Thank you. We have a much bigger issue with many more buses, with many more issues, and that's where staff's attention is. Thank you. Trustee, I am not. |
| 03:45:50.39 | Unknown | Thank you, Adam. Trust me, I am not. I am completely focused on the tour bus congestion that's next with the future agenda items. But this bus with the Lise School, Adam, this has been a primary issue with residents. And the only reason that they had stepped back is because they thought you were, addressing it. and they were waiting for closure on this, which is why asking the question for closure. Thank you. So perhaps you and I can follow up with this offline because it is a very big issue. |
| 03:46:21.88 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. It's a very big issue. Yeah, I would ask for council direction on that. At this point, police say it is approved to have buses there. And I couldn't imagine that the community knows which bus is going to San Francisco or going to Marin or dropping off or picking up. they only have one or two buses in total. New Village School has their own bus system up on the top And that's also never been raised, and nor do we care where that process is going. Excuse me. I'd like to... Excuse me, I'd like to... |
| 03:46:45.80 | Unknown | Residents want to be having buses coming and using Sausalito as a go-between drop-off point. It's adding to congestion down in the north end of town. |
| 03:46:50.04 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | I would. |
| 03:46:50.68 | Mary Wagner | Oh. |
| 03:46:50.70 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Bye. |
| 03:46:56.64 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | in the town. What people are you talking about? Because I've been around and I haven't heard anybody say anything to me. |
| 03:47:00.91 | Unknown | Another question? Well, they're not sending their emails to you, Herb. Probably for a reason. Mr. Mayor? Yes. |
| 03:47:06.49 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Uh, |
| 03:47:06.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:47:07.28 | Mary Wagner | Shake puff. these. Thank you. |
| 03:47:09.73 | Unknown | Yes, this is not an agendized item and I'd like to close discussion. |
| 03:47:10.96 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:47:16.33 | Unknown | Okay, thank you. So the next agenda I... |
| 03:47:18.64 | Unknown | I just have a question for Adam. Actually, maybe it's a future agenda item. No, it actually isn't. It's more... |
| 03:47:23.32 | Unknown | No. |
| 03:47:27.15 | Unknown | because I don't want it on the agenda, but it would be, given the governor's voluntary conservation request, if maybe you could return at a later date, it doesn't say what you're doing to conserve water voluntarily, that would be, I think, a good thing for us to do, and then for us to inform the community of what we're doing so they start to take it to heart, because it's not going to get any better in the short run. |
| 03:47:58.08 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, and just a quick response here. The Board of Supervisors, Marin County Board of Supervisors, had that on their agenda today. So we're following that closely. We'll find out what action they're recommending. We may have moved away from. voluntary act and I know the governor's office was looking to make the next step to move away from voluntary so there may be a requirement of a 10% reduction across the board. So staff will work on that and we'll get information out on our website through the currents and then try to help move that agenda forward. |
| 03:48:32.17 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Also keep in mind that MMWD also has, I believe, they will give you reducers if you go up there for your showers and other reducers, and there's no charge on that. |
| 03:48:47.93 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:48:47.96 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 03:48:47.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:48:48.00 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 03:48:48.03 | Unknown | Thanks. |
| 03:48:48.74 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 03:48:48.75 | Unknown | Okay, future agenda items. And before anybody jumps in, I'd like to suggest that we quickly state them and the agenda setting committee will take it up. Anybody have any future agenda items that you'd like to bring forward? |
| 03:49:10.20 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor, I would like to request the tour bus legislation. The, when we discussed it back in November, we talked about putting it on the February agenda. |
| 03:49:10.22 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:49:23.05 | Unknown | And I would just want to remind our council members that that's something that's very, very important. Another future agenda item I would like to see is the REED initiative, the San Jose Mayor Reed has... on an initiative for pension reform and I think it's something that this council should review and weigh in on. And the second, the third thing is Open City Hall. We've been using this system for a few months and it might be coming up time to weigh in on pros and cons. |
| 03:50:07.16 | Unknown | Thank you for those suggestions. I see no public comment on future agenda items. So moving on to Council Member Committee reports. Does anybody have anything to say? |
| 03:50:23.07 | Unknown | Well, Actually, since I was passed over on future agenda items, I'm going to combine them. Because our Ford Baker... Jesus! Touch it! |
| 03:50:27.07 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:50:34.12 | Unknown | Our Fort Baker Task Force is meeting on the 6th. We're going to move things along. And would like to also present |
| 03:50:38.58 | Randy Deutsch | Yeah. |
| 03:50:41.92 | Unknown | to the Council and update the Council on what's going on with Fort Baker at our February 27th meeting, and we possibly may have the Park Service as well to present |
| 03:50:53.65 | Mary Wagner | Just for clarification, February 25th. 25th, okay. |
| 03:50:58.78 | Unknown | Yeah, that'd be great, thanks. Anybody else on council member committee reports? |
| 03:51:04.89 | Unknown | I have a report. The Butte Task Force had a public forum and had overwhelming public resident support for their recommendations regarding open space. And in addition to my report on the Butte Task Force, I need to include a Task Force inquiry to Mayor Withy regarding the quote in the IJ. Quote, the Task Force came to us with a preliminary recommendation for open space. We did not authorize that. What we said was that it was not out of the question. I emailed you, you know, inquiry as to the quote, was it an accurate quote, And your response to me was, it was inaccurate when taken out of context. And I'm raising this because the Butte Task Force members have raised it. There is concern regarding counsel intention. When the task force came before the council, we were very, very specific in having done our research and done our homework and making the recommendation. for the Butte open space and the city donating its 50% of the parcel as open space. The council voted on this and I just want to reiterate that that is the Butte task force that was their takeaway when the council voted on that. And if the task force has got that wrong, the task force needs to get clarity on that. |
| 03:52:43.84 | Unknown | Yeah, well, thank you for bringing that up. Let me just make a couple of very quick comments. The first is that it's inevitable when reporters get hold of things that Mark doing his good work is going to make a story. and uh... The important thing is that I had a lengthy discussion with the chairperson of the Butte Street task force. Leon Hunting last night, and There seems to be. no lack of clarity between us in terms of the way forward. Let me remind you, and this is not an agendized item, so we can't really discuss but I just want to remind you that At the task force meeting we gave them the direction to go ahead and pursue the plan that they put forward. I'm hopeful that following the and various meetings you've had, there's gonna be a report back to the City Council soon. I think we're trying to legendize that for some time in February, February 11th. Um... But the other important thing that I was trying to get across, and I think everybody on the task force should understand, that if, in fact, the City Council, upon having a concrete plan on the table, decided it was going to sell its interest. then that decision has to come back to the City Council. And that was clearly emphasized when we actually voted on this. Clearly emphasized. And there's no choice. We just have to do that if we can sell a piece properly. And the second thing I want to make The point I want to make is that if indeed a proposal was put on the table which required the city as part of this transaction, to actually rezone that lot as open space, then the city has no choice but by law to actually hold open and public hearings, both in front of the Planning Commission and in front of the City Council to make that zoning change. Therefore, It is not a done deal. Thank you. So, Ms. Mayor Whitty. And I don't think that we really should be dialoguing on this from now on, because this is not an agenda item. |
| 03:55:23.70 | Unknown | So, Ms. Mayor Whitty. |
| 03:55:29.45 | Unknown | So, Well, you've just said a number of things that are going to cause a lot more questions than answers at this point. But you're saying I can't respond to them, so, you know, I'm not sure. |
| 03:55:41.16 | Unknown | Mary, please let us know. |
| 03:55:41.94 | Mary Wagner | Please. |
| 03:55:42.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:55:43.69 | Mary Wagner | Well, it's the same issue that we've discussed previously. You really can't get into a discussion about an item that's not on the agenda. I would suggest to the council that if it is coming back in February, on February 11th, that there'll be an opportunity |
| 03:55:46.88 | Unknown | Right. |
| 03:56:00.65 | Mary Wagner | for you since it will be an agendized item to have a full discussion at that point. |
| 03:56:04.58 | Unknown | Well, Mayor Withey, I would like to tender my resignation from the VUE Task Force. I feel manipulated. I feel this has been politicized. And I feel that now you're talking about selling the parcel, which that was never on the table before when we took that motion. |
| 03:56:04.60 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:56:19.94 | Unknown | It was clear that was not the option we were discussing in spirit. And I am pretty much disappointed and very disgusted by this turn of events. |
| 03:56:24.70 | Unknown | I am. Cheers. Disgusting. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Whoa, whoa. I think that, again, we can't really dialogue this, and it is coming up. I'm sorry to hear you want to resign from it. um, But I thought the whole idea was we were going to enter into a transaction where we were going to give this to a potential non-profit. You were discussing selling the parcels. Okay, so forget the word |
| 03:56:57.25 | Unknown | You were discussing selling the parcels. |
| 03:57:01.03 | Unknown | Donate pizza. |
| 03:57:01.91 | Unknown | That's a good dynamite word, Mayor Whitty. |
| 03:57:03.75 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor, can we please, we already, the city attorney has already advised us that it's not an agendized item. |
| 03:57:07.44 | Unknown | The city attorney has already advised us that it's not an agendized item. Thank you, Council Member Leon. |
| 03:57:13.47 | Unknown | I make a recommendation to go back to the minutes and follow exactly what we ruled on on that day and take that as your guidance into the further. And I would also caution to think through further procedures that we would have to go through. But I would say look at our video of what we decided, look at the action minutes, and take your guidance from there. |
| 03:57:15.16 | Unknown | Go back. |
| 03:57:33.72 | Unknown | Right. I would seriously ask you, Council Member Pfeiffer, to reconsider your decision of resigning. The task force is doing a very good job Leon Hunting is doing an excellent job as chairperson. You are liaising, and so let's wait till we hear |
| 03:57:54.59 | Unknown | I will reconsider my decision. I mean, my comment. But I am looking forward to the February 11th agenda meeting. I mean, the agenda is done. |
| 03:57:56.08 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:58:05.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:58:05.14 | Unknown | Thank you. So our next... Item is Councilmember Appointments and Committee Assignments. It's traditional at this meeting for the mayor to make any changes as they exist, and I intend making none at this time, but reserve the right to actually make changes to any of these committees at any time in the year. Thank you. |
| 03:58:34.01 | Unknown | Any other reports of significance, can we have a motion for adjournment? |
| 03:58:37.61 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 03:58:37.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:58:37.81 | Unknown | German. |
| 03:58:38.52 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Second. |
| 03:58:40.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:58:40.53 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | you |
| 03:58:40.81 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:58:40.97 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 03:58:41.02 | Unknown | you Thank you. |
| 03:58:41.30 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 03:58:41.30 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:58:41.35 | Harvey (Public Commenter) | Bye. |
| 03:58:41.37 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
Jorge Lee — Against: Raises structural concerns about retaining walls and earthquake safety, arguing plans are inadequate. ▶ 📄
Darshan Brock — Neutral: Generally supports but has visual concerns; suggests opening up carport sides and addressing storage/towers to reduce visual impact. ▶ 📄
Thomas Neumeier — In Favor: Supports; believes experts and process have vetted a reasonable project, praises street widening benefit. ▶ 📄
Dorothy Gibson — Against: Opposes due to impact on a significant public view vista from Old Fire Road; concerned about blocking scenic view. ▶ 📄
Randy Deutsch — In Favor: Supports as a modest, reasonable proposal; notes need for housing and that approval process was followed. ▶ 📄
Paul Albritton — In Favor: Supports applicant; highlights his history as a responsible property owner and public safety benefits of street widening. ▶ 📄
Bill Keller — In Favor: Supports; as former Planning Commissioner, notes applicant's reasonableness and that project was thoroughly vetted and approved. ▶ 📄