| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.03 | Jill Hoffman | of the Sausalito City Council for Tuesday, January 27, 2015. Debbie, would you take the roll, please? |
| 00:00:10.51 | Unknown | Councilmember Pfeiffer. |
| 00:00:11.83 | Jill Hoffman | Here. |
| 00:00:12.13 | Unknown | Thank you. Councilmember Whitty. Thank you. |
| 00:00:14.22 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:00:14.24 | Unknown | here. |
| 00:00:14.26 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 00:00:14.78 | Unknown | Okay. Vice Mayor Hoffman. . |
| 00:00:17.11 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:00:17.24 | Unknown | Thank you. Mayor Theodoros. |
| 00:00:19.37 | Jill Hoffman | present. |
| 00:00:25.21 | Jill Hoffman | First is our closed session items. And today we will be, before we go into closed session, we will be, announcing the items, which will be the existing litigation with Scaff versus Sausalito, which is our ADA lawsuit. We also will be discussing our anticipated potential litigation with LEAP Transit. the Strowman claim against PG&E and most importantly, the anticipated or potential litigation with Golden Gate Bridge District. I do want to take a minute before we go on the ferry district issue and the need for closed session. And as we said in our last meeting that we were going to have an open public meeting before the BCDC meeting in February, and we are going to do that. That'll be next meeting on February 10th. We have this meeting on the agenda because council needs to discuss certain legal matters that are done in closed session. These are pursuant to the Brown Act. These are important because if we go into any potential litigation, which may happen with the Golden Gate Bridge District that we need, all the council needs to be briefed by our attorney as to our legal rights. That's what we'll be doing tonight. And in two weeks, on February 10th, we're going to have an open meeting, a full discussion with the Golden Gate Bridge District and all the presentations and all the opportunities for the public to weigh in on... on that issue. We certainly don't expect any litigation. We've been working with the bridge district. We're Happy to report that it looks like they were on track to have them. go through our public process, but there's more to be worked out, and in two weeks we will be able to give you a further report and go through this. Also it seems, and again, some of this is moving, that the BCDC meeting will be moved from the February 19th date to the March date. I'm not sure it's sometime in mid-March. By the way, the public's comments to BCDC and the Bridge District, as well as to us, is helpful in this process. So we're working, but of course, on a parallel track, we're working with the Bridge District to find a way that we can work together to bring this before the public. Okay, so before – now, unfortunately, we've had – we have four matters on our closed session item. And one of them we have our lawyer from Los Angeles who's flown in, and we have – and this was scheduled before we had the bridge district period there. So I think what we'll do is we were going to – we'll take about 20 minutes of public comment now, and then we will – of go into close session on the scaf. issue. We'll come back at 7. We'll open up public comment on the ferry issue again. And we'll go until everyone has had their ability, an opportunity to speak. We'll then go to our hearings and our business items. We will, after those hearings and business items, probably in the 9 to 10 range, we will go back in the closed session to discuss the ferry. issue. So everyone's comments tonight will be heard before we discuss the ferry issue later this evening at 9 or 10. But we will take some comments. now and we'll take some comments at at 7 o'clock. What we'd like to do is we understand there are a couple of groups that have attorneys that are representing more than... groups of people. Are there any there? We'll start with them. |
| 00:03:59.15 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And then- Ms. Mayor, if I may weigh in on the process. I am personally, I would I would favor going forward and let all the busy residents who have shown up for closed session per the calendar have their time to make their comment. Because to say we're going to delay further comment an hour and then we're going to come back at 10 o'clock at night to resume the closed session, I don't think that that reflects the agenda accurately and I don't think that that is fully a transparent process. |
| 00:04:34.25 | Jill Hoffman | well, it's transparent since we're discussing it right in front of everyone, but... |
| 00:04:39.43 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I understand. I understand. The spirit of my client is that we have an agenda. We have a schedule. We have a schedule for when we were going into closed session. We let residents who are very busy know ahead of time when they have the opportunity to comment. And I would respectfully recommend that we allow people to comment now. |
| 00:04:39.45 | Jill Hoffman | I don't. Yeah. |
| 00:04:40.97 | Jill Hoffman | THE END OF THE END OF THE I understand, I understand. |
| 00:05:00.91 | Jill Hoffman | Well, we are letting some of them, and then we're coming back at 7. Everyone needs to be clear. We are going into closed session at 9, but we're having people continuing the public comment at 7. |
| 00:05:12.44 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I think that's a good question. |
| 00:05:24.40 | Jill Hoffman | That's just the way it goes. Well, let's have a discussion here, and we'll do it quickly so we don't... |
| 00:05:28.84 | Unknown | Yeah, I mean, we need to move along here, but... So is your proposal that we basically – Um. ask the attorney that we've flown up from Los Angeles who's representing us in a very important set of ADA matters to basically pack his bags and go, because you want and this has been scheduled for many months. So is that what you want to do? Is that sensible for us to do that? |
| 00:05:54.81 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I say. You know, I was not the one who put this on closed sessions. Okay. |
| 00:06:01.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:06:01.60 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So, I mean, you're asking people |
| 00:06:01.68 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:06:04.26 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | you're denying people the opportunity to comment And they have shown up to comment. And I think we need to give them the opportunity to comment. |
| 00:06:14.72 | Unknown | Could I ask whether there are people here who are able to stay beyond 7 o'clock so that we can go and deal with this ADA matter? So, okay. |
| 00:06:28.87 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:06:29.24 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:06:31.85 | Jill Hoffman | So, all right, and do we have consensus as a council? Because we'll basically, we're not going to be able to have our closed session on SCAF and we... It's certainly that had been scheduled for months and we'll look at it. |
| 00:06:46.46 | Jill Hoffman | No, I agree that we should hear all the public comment now on the |
| 00:06:49.23 | Jill Hoffman | on the ferry. First of all, can I get a show of hands of how many people want to comment? So we're looking at, can we get a number? All right, so do we have the speaker cards? Everyone have a speaker card? So I'll work from the speaker cards. |
| 00:07:12.57 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 00:07:12.59 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Well, we'll go forward with the public comments. First of all, can we have Pat Zuck, please? |
| 00:07:29.50 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 00:07:30.71 | Adam Politzer | Mr. Mayor, why don't you start with how you were going to start before. If there are folks that are represented by a group, that might be a good way. |
| 00:07:31.69 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:07:37.41 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 00:07:37.43 | Jill Hoffman | I haven't seen any. Are there any folks that are represented by a group or a spokesman? We'll start with that. Please. |
| 00:07:47.77 | William Ziegler | Thank you. |
| 00:07:53.00 | Jill Hoffman | Good evening, council members, staff. I'm Tammy Blanchard. And, um, I emailed you all this afternoon. I have confirmation that you received a copy of the petition signed by residents of Sausalito and others, friends. This is the petition that we intend to present to the BCDC before they have their vote in February. In case you didn't have a chance to read it, I won't read every single bit, but there are 14 pages of comments, 21 pages of signatures from the internet circulated petition, and 27 pages of wet signatures from here in Sausalito. The petition is to ask the BCDC to deny the permits for the Sausalito ferry expansion as it is presented now. We, the residents and friends of Sausalito, petition the BCDC commissioners to deny the permits to the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District for the proposed new ferry terminal. No. |
| 00:09:04.10 | Unknown | I'm not. |
| 00:09:04.16 | Jill Hoffman | No. |
| 00:09:04.22 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:09:04.23 | Jill Hoffman | you It's gangways, floats, planks, etc. Pierce, pardon me. The existing Sausalito ferry terminal was updated with ADA compliance 16 years ago in 1998, which is different from what has been stated to us in the past. Just a little side note. The Bridge District has provided no justification for the proposed expansion of the ferry terminal which would unjustifiably more than double the amount of bay fill from 6,057 square Thank you. to 13,000 square feet. And finally, it is unconscionable that the project of this scale should be proposed by the Bridge District without the review and approval of the residents and friends of Sausalito. I'd like to present the hard copy to Would you like it? Okay. |
| 00:09:58.72 | Jill Hoffman | We'll note that. Was that the petition that was sent to us just recently? Thank you. all right and will start up with others and uh... because of such a big crowd with uh... Appreciate if we could limit our comments to two minutes, then we could get through. unless you need anything more. But can we start with that? And I'll go with, um, Dave Minard. |
| 00:10:36.29 | Jill Hoffman | We won't be rigid, but we'd like you all, if we could, to get through this large crowd to limit your comments to two minutes if possible. |
| 00:10:43.79 | Dave Minard | Yes, good evening. My name is Dave Minard, and I'm a member at Sausalito Yacht Club. And I also have a unique perspective on this. The last three weeks, I was actually working as a deckhand on the Sausalito ferry. And I see, in my experience working many different boats, I saw no ADA issues with the ramp. And furthermore, I have concerns about what will this allow for Golden Gate Ferry to park boats there overnight and also the future impact of more bicycles in the city of Sausalito. What is the intention of the ferry district in the future as far as bicycles go and mooring of vessels overnight at this dock? |
| 00:11:23.23 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Yeah. Grover Deer. |
| 00:11:30.94 | Grover Deere | Thank you, council members and Mr. Mayor. My name is Grover Deere. I have been a homeowner here for about 25 years. I am simply reiterating what was said in the first speaker on questions being raised and not clearly understanding them. I live and vote and pay taxes here back and forth, and I am not in the village all the time. I have just become aware of this in the last month. And so my plea to you is that there be a public review process or whatever is expected for something of this major proportion and this major type of impact on the village, on the town, the city, whatever we call ourselves, because I'm totally in the dark until I became aware of this less than three weeks ago. So my request is that there be – if there is already been, show me what I've missed. If there has not been, please make sure this is publicly reviewed by the residents of the city and that we have a chance to comment. Second point, and I will close. say in two weeks or February the 10th, something will be proposed and we'll have a chance to comment. Second point, and I will close, you say in two weeks or February the 10th, something will be proposed and we'll have a chance to comment. I'm asking, is that for a vote? Is that a done deal that is to be proposed, or is it for discussion? |
| 00:12:52.32 | Jill Hoffman | We generally don't have questions, but it'll be on the process, and there'll be a lot more process before anything's done. And may I stop? And can we, because we do want to inform people later, can we get a sign-up sheet to get people's emails so that we can keep them posted on developments? So I appreciate your comment, and we want to address that. |
| 00:13:10.54 | Grover Deere | Then I will take back my question. I'm just saying I'd be concerned if the February 10th meeting is something presented a fait accompli or something that is not able to be reviewed by public, the residents of Sausalito. That's my comment. Thank you. |
| 00:13:24.93 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:13:29.17 | Jill Hoffman | And just as a general comment, we prefer that people not have applause because on many issues, including this, there'll be people on both sides, and we certainly don't want to intimidate anyone from coming up and speaking. Of course, you can do what you like, but that's a request. Sonia Hanson, please. |
| 00:13:56.47 | Sonya Hanson | I seem to have lost my notes in my pocket. There we go. Good evening, Mayor Theodorus and other members of the City Council, and to our fellow residents, here. And at home. Thank you. My name is Sonya Hanson, I live on Spring Street. First, Adam, could you put the camera that direction so the folks at home can see who's here and Thank you very much. Would all of you who are here because you're concerned about the mass and the design of the ferry landing, please raise your hands. |
| 00:14:33.18 | Sonya Hanson | Thank you very much. I'll let you ask for the other hand, the other side. I'm here for the same reason as most of my fellow residents. I am concerned about the mass and design of the Golden Gate Ridge District's proposed softly a fair landing. I am asking the City Council to please tell the Bridge District that the current proposal is not appropriate for our town. I am also asking that you provide a full public process to vet a new plan for the Ferry Building and that the process includes story polls so that we may see the impact that it will have on our waterfront. I have one other comment. I think from what |
| 00:15:04.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:15:07.18 | Sonya Hanson | Mayor Theodore said at the beginning, it sounds like most of us think that this is a done deal, that the British District is going forward, and you are in You agree with that. From what Mayor Theodore said at the beginning of the meeting, I believe you're implying that there is more discussion to be had and you may be listening to us. I don't know if I can ask that question, but – |
| 00:15:31.72 | Jill Hoffman | We're only at the beginning of the process, and we're doing a lot of listening, and we have been listening as we've gotten these emails over the last week or two. And we've been in the process of this. We haven't. |
| 00:15:40.14 | Sonya Hanson | Okay. |
| 00:15:42.72 | Jill Hoffman | obviously done an excellent job on communication, but we've heard this and we've been working on process and we're, again, In tonight's, our closed session is merely to handle the legal issues and make sure that the council is briefed of legal ramifications. But on February 10th, we're going to have an open session, but it's on the process. We're not even getting to a final plan. We're just starting the process. Okay. |
| 00:16:08.49 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:16:09.67 | Jill Hoffman | I normally don't respond, but I just do want to make that clear because there's a lot of confusion, and I just want to make that clear. We're at the start of the. |
| 00:16:10.09 | Unknown | Thank you. I want to make that. |
| 00:16:17.95 | Jill Hoffman | We're gonna be defining the process. |
| 00:16:17.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:16:18.00 | Sonya Hanson | Okay. |
| 00:16:20.59 | Jill Hoffman | in at our next session and then we go through the process done deals on the road |
| 00:16:26.04 | Sonya Hanson | Okay. Thank you, but we are being listened to, which is good, right? Okay. Thank you very much. |
| 00:16:35.17 | Adam Politzer | Mr. Mayor, can I just interrupt you for one moment? We have a new process as you guys are coming up with the cards and giving them to the mayor. We normally don't have a crowd of this size, so I want to remind the mayor that you can call out three or four names and have them queue up, or you can just ask everyone to just queue up that wants to speak and forget about the cards so that we can move a little bit faster through it. |
| 00:16:57.51 | Unknown | you |
| 00:16:57.59 | Adam Politzer | you |
| 00:16:57.76 | Unknown | Good idea. |
| 00:16:58.47 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 00:16:58.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:16:58.59 | Jill Hoffman | Well, I think the good idea was to cue in. Cue if you would like to speak, and we'll go from there. |
| 00:17:07.94 | Jill Hoffman | By the way, we do like if you sign them because when we do minutes of the meeting, it helps Debbie put in the minutes of meeting who presented at our meeting. So that's a helpful thing. If you wish, it's voluntary. So next, please. |
| 00:17:23.72 | Wendy Richards | Thank you. |
| 00:17:27.33 | Wendy Richards | Wendy Richards 48 Woodward Avenue, and I will be out of town on the 20th, so – I mean, a 10th or a 10th for the meeting. So I'm actually here tonight to ask for more than simply a process that gives us our voice. I'm here to invite the five of you to be unanimous on behalf of this town. There's been too much bickering. And we have the enemy at the gate, literally. at the Golden Gate. This bridge district does not stand by their word. There are people in this audience who were turned away at 11.31 from the Golden Gate Bridge. For weeks they told us the bridge would close at midnight. That tells me that they have goals that are not aligned with what we need and what we want. They will do anything to meet those goals, which are efficiency, common boats, bring as many people as you can, get more bikes on those boats, get more cars so we get more revenue, and raise those rates on the bridge. I pay taxes in this town. Those taxes pay the wages of these people. Those taxes go towards the bridge district because I earn my living driving over that bridge. And it's time for us to unite, put aside our differences, and stand up. There are huge externalities to building a shipping terminal in our town. That's what this is. They will control who lands there and who doesn't. I am a sailor, and I am happy to see that we have dolphins back in our bay, finally, because we're taking care of this town. And I know some of you very well, but the two gentlemen here, I do not know you personally, but I understand that your careers were based on companies who had valuable assets, valuable patents, valuable technology, and you protected that for your children and your grandchildren, and that's what we need to do to protect our town. Thank you. |
| 00:19:44.56 | Janet Dean | Janet Dean, 166 Casino Avenue, Councilmembers. We, the citizens of Sausalito, have been victims of a campaign of under-information and misinformation. First, the possibility of this looming eyesore was swept under the rug for years while we were basically told nothing important was happening. But behind the scenes, it was. Why? Second, although some council members have claimed that the city does not have jurisdiction over the site of the ferry landing, we now know this is not true. The city owns the land and we lease it to the bridge district. Why were the citizens of Sausalito being misled? Third. Someone on the Council stated that we needed to enlarge the ferry landing to meet ADA guidelines. This, again, was not true. The existing ferry landing already meets ADA guidelines. Why were the citizens of Sausalito being misled? Now, this city council... whose job it is to represent residents, is planning on discussing and voting on this project, one of the most important in Sausalito history. in secret Why are the citizens of Sausalito being left out of this process? What have you got to hide? Yes. I along with many other citizens are asking you to be open and honest with us for a change Remember Democracy? Please do not allow this blight to be built on our beautiful waterfront. Thank you. |
| 00:21:23.63 | Kate Flavin | Hi, I'm Kate Flavin. I live at 129 Prospect. And should the City Council opt for resident input into this massive project, I would like your promise that the citizens will not be patronized by expensive consultants with preordained goals paid for by the taxpayers. Residents don't want to be worn down with useless bureaucratic meetings, as happened with the housing element. We also ask. Sorry. May you respect the... |
| 00:21:55.56 | Margaret Brindle | that you're in. THE FAMILY. Thank you. |
| 00:21:58.58 | Kate Flavin | Sorry. That's good. |
| 00:22:13.81 | Kate Flavin | I've ever heard this. We also ask they respect the recommendations |
| 00:22:15.65 | Unknown | I'm not. |
| 00:22:19.72 | Kate Flavin | of the current Planning Commission and not override them as three of you have done in the past. We implore you to remember. who elected you and who you represent. Thank you. Thanks for the watch. |
| 00:22:41.32 | Unknown | Thank you. Hi, I'm Kayla Kahn, and I've lived here longer than most of you have been alive. And... And I want you to know, I want to know, why did you move here? Did you not like it the way it is? And for goodness sakes, you all ran. You want to keep this town nice the way it is, a lovely little community. And then you look at this horrible bridge. I spent 18 years working at San Quentin, and it really reminds me of where I was. Please, please think about this. You do have a, you have the right, and you have the, and it's your privilege and pleasure to vote against this horrible thing. Please do this. Thank you. |
| 00:23:30.61 | Richard Conley | Hi, I'm Richard Conley, resident of Sausalito for many years. I used to, as a little kid, ride the ferry boat over from Richmond, but that was with a car of seven brothers and sisters, and we'd go to Muir Woods. The city of Sausalito is a precious little place, but it is, I understand, certainly squeezed between the amount of ecotourism coming from San Francisco and the county of Marin, who certainly is a beneficiary of a lot of federal funds to fund alternative modes of transportation, which is part of this whole bicycle tours, et cetera. In 2008, there was an award to build this ferry terminal, $3.2 million. It was advertised in the IJ. And it was a shovel-ready stimulus project that was supposed to be completed by 2010. So there's a process that goes on here. There's a lot of money that is involved. Most citizens probably don't know how much is really involved. And we understand your interest in trying to keep the balance between our interest in having a vibrant city and help for our merchants. But also within the plan, the Envision plan, it also talked about not doing something that deters or diminishes the quality of life of the citizens in Sausalito. And in the last five years, it has really become hellacious. And if we continue on this same path, we won't have the kind of character that I think you're all trying to uphold. So I'm glad to see the process open, glad to hear the discussion going on, and appreciate all the hard work you do. |
| 00:25:22.53 | Unknown | Thanks. |
| 00:25:27.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:25:28.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:25:28.27 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:25:28.69 | Unknown | you |
| 00:25:28.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:25:28.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:25:36.43 | Peter Van Meter | I'm Peter Van Meter. I've had a copy of the lease with the district in my possession for the last eight years because we did have access to those documents when we were doing certain studies regarding downtown. And as I read the lease, the city council does have the authority to approve the project that's proposed. I'm not an attorney. |
| 00:26:02.67 | Peter Van Meter | Repeating. I said I'd have a copy. I've had a copy of this lease with the district in my possession about the last eight years because we used it in terms of some other studies. And I'm just offering an opinion, not legal advice. I'm not an attorney. But as I read it, the city council has the authority to review and approve this project. And so I think if you're talking about embarking on that process, as you've indicated tonight, and you may get that advice from your legal counsel, I would endorse that process and think that ought to be undertaken. They will have a full vetting of this. Thank you. as you've indicated tonight, and you may get that advice from your legal counsel, I would endorse that process and think that ought to be undertaken. They will have a full vetting of this. I think there's been some misrepresentations perhaps in this whole process so far. They can all be cleared up as we get into that more detailed process. And I hope you undertake that process in a public forum. Thank you. |
| 00:26:56.62 | Pat Zook | Pat Zook, Monty Mar, and for the record, I would like to say I agree with Peter Van Meter. |
| 00:27:06.71 | Pat Zook | Ha ha ha ha. I was somewhat dismayed that you put the ferry landing on the closed session agenda for some sort of consideration of anticipated or potential litigation. And if potential litigation is what you're really going to be discussed, that's fine. One would talk about scenarios for who sues who, when, and for what. But the project itself is, and the process itself, is not a matter of legality. When are you going to decide, for example, whether or not this expansion is a minor replacement that the district could build at will under the lease, or a major expansion that you have the right to consent to. And consent doesn't necessarily mean thumbs up or thumbs down. It can mean review and process and hearing by the City of Sausalito and its boards and commissions. You could probably finesse this hearing I don't think this project should be finessed into existence. It deserves full review, certainly by the Planning Commission and by the Historic Landmarks Board as well. And after all, in spite of the bridge district's representations, the ferry landing is located smack dab in the middle. of the historic district. They claimed there were only three historic resources relevant to the project, one of them being the Valhalla, the other being a pump station, and the third being the Stroud Building, which is on on. 3rd Avenue. Everyone I know and everyone I think here agrees that the ferry landing could be improved. and that the loading ramps are probably too narrow and should be replaced. But increasing it from 5 feet to 20 or 25 feet, the size of a two-lane road, If the response of most of your constituents to this project remains unchanged, Sausalito Review should not finesse approval. Review must include the possibility that these plans deserve and will get major redesign before they're allowed. Thank you. |
| 00:29:30.59 | Lisa Simon | Hi. I have just a few quick comments from a fairly new transplant. I came here in 2009. Hi, Herb. Thank you. Um, Lisa Simon, sorry, I'm on Bookly Avenue. My view on Boakley Avenue is that of Angel Island. Where I came from is the Upper West Side of Manhattan via one of the New York boroughs. I had been coming out to Sausalito since 1998 from opening a champagne lounge in San Francisco to working for vineyards in the North Bay. One of the first things that I did when I moved from this broad metropolis was volunteer for the Monday crew at the Marine Mammal Center. What I was witness to at the Malmo Center was pretty outstanding, and it really encouraged me to get further involved in the community, with the sailing community around America's Cup, doing certain events and so on, and also with the marine life in respect to not only being a kayaker and watching what was going on when the tourists come in and come very close to the sea life, but also what sea life come in with some major issues caused by both our boating and some other things that are going on in the Bay Area. What I'm most proud of in living out here is our being on the forefront of kind of sustainable and green And Marin County is very strong in that, and I feel that that's a dynamic that needs to be incorporated within our ferry terminal. To watch black smoke coming out of these very old boats, we have currently a system where we can run more ferries, we can put in more machines to take more cards, and we can already improve systems as it currently exists right now. In the meantime, while this is voted on, So I feel that we can also provide an architectural structure that makes sense for Sausalito being a small town because it has changed so much since 2009 here, and it is getting really almost intimidating to be a resident here and to see what it's like when tourists come and just visit your space and don't know how proud and prideful we are about everything that we have and hold dear here. And so I just hope for consideration, not only for the, you know, the herring run that came back but also for the quaint town that we are, not dissimilar to Kapferrat. So thank you for your time. |
| 00:32:23.42 | John Farrell | I'm John Farrell, 439 Johnson Street. I moved here 40 years ago yesterday. It's a whole – a milestone for me. Some of you may remember, some of you may not have been here at the time, but there was – we had a little issue regarding our police station and fire station several years ago. That was a case in which all five members of the City Council were pressing for a giant building. We finally forced that thing to a public election, and it was clear how the people voted on that one. Those of you who are around will remember that. This is clearly a very similar kind of issue in which people are very interested. And I would hope that you would take that into account I'll just say it. Put this thing up to a public vote. The fact that you are elected, representative government does not give those elected carte blanche to substitute their own judgment for the will of the public. It's important you listen to the will of the public on this, and I hope you will. Thank you. |
| 00:33:37.91 | Joan Cox | Joan Cox 846-OLEMA and I came to express my disappointment in the process so far regarding this. So I know that BCDC has already met regarding this project and were it not for a cavalcade of Sausalito residents showing up at that meeting, this indeed might already be a fait accompli. And I think that's a failure in our process. I really do believe that we endeavor to put this through all proper review, including Planning Commissioner and City Council with public comment. I would point out that the Port of Los Angeles attempted to expand one of its docks without proper CEQA review and ended up paying $50 million to settle litigation arising from that improper process. So I think it's really important that we undertake a full and transparent |
| 00:34:26.38 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:34:26.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:34:26.43 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:34:35.96 | Joan Cox | Thank you. hearing and process. I also would like to caution us against unintended consequences. So if we expand this to the extent now proposed by the Golden Gate Transit District, who's to say they may not enter into some sort of lease or sharing arrangement with other entities and my prediction four years ago that we would have water taxis here in Sausalito could come true. So I want us to be very careful in how we – |
| 00:35:01.34 | Unknown | and, |
| 00:35:07.87 | Joan Cox | address this expansion and how we confine the uses in any negotiations that we undertake with the Golden Gate Transit District. Thank you. |
| 00:35:28.51 | Stafford Keegan | good evening mr mayor friends on the council and others My name is Stafford Keegan. I too have lived in Salcido for about 40 years, 26 Miller Avenue. I came here this evening primarily because I too was concerned about the process. I'm somewhat relieved to hear that the process is different than had been indicated, that the process is going to be different than had been suggested in the community. But I I also want to express my great concern about being very, very, very careful about large projects, being very, very, very careful about small projects that have large consequences. And I'm not quite sure where this comes out, but I was reminded just a few moments ago that the design that I have seen for it, is very reminiscent to me of the front gate of a penal institution somewhere, and that it should not be a punishment to go on the ferry. So I am confident that maybe you are heading off in the right direction. I hope you are, and I wish you well. Thank you. |
| 00:37:01.37 | Jan Johnson | Hi, Jan Johnson, 301 2nd Street. I'm glad the process is becoming more transparent. However, had not the community caught this, it would have stayed a star chamber secret staff, triumvirate push through. And frankly, I'm tired of being disrespected. I want open, transparent democracy. |
| 00:37:01.52 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:37:24.56 | Jan Johnson | I moved here 21 years ago, at which time we were a leafy green village. Now we're becoming a... Pier 39. I want to live in Carmel. I don't want to live in a tourist trap. It's too big. If you notice, we had a herring one last week or the last two weeks. We don't need double the infill in our bay. People swim between the spinnaker and the yacht club. That will end that. All the little fishies and the pelicans and the sea life that we cherish and are trying to restore. We'll be... adversely affected, not to mention the wintering over wild fowl. I'm I think it's too big, it's hideous, and the whole process is going to ruin our town. |
| 00:38:25.78 | Jill Hoffman | Anyone else? Okay, well you've been, thank you for coming. You've been vocal and succinct. It's amazing we got through that. And I appreciate it, I appreciate once again, on all the petitions and emails and keep them coming. February 10th, we will have our first public hearing on what the process will be going forward. And I also, if you're not signed up for the currents, please do so, so that we are able to get further information on this as it goes along. |
| 00:38:57.81 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Ms. Mayer. A quick question. You mentioned that the BCDC had moved the February 19th to March. |
| 00:39:02.72 | Jill Hoffman | What? Well, what I would say is our understanding is that the Golden Gate Bridge District in order to have time to work with us on the process, We'll move that. But I do want to caution everyone to keep the February 19th on their calendar. It's likely to be moved to March, but just in case it isn't formally moved to March, but it looks like it's moving to March at this point. We don't know. |
| 00:39:23.41 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | We don't know. MS. We have a big problem if it doesn't move to March, because I can't see how we would have that full review process if we waited until February 10th. |
| 00:39:32.54 | Jill Hoffman | Well, we would go before BCDC and say that we oppose the project. Okay, thank you. That's what I want to hear. |
| 00:39:37.62 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay, thank you. That's what I want to hear. Yeah, that's what I wanted to hear. Thank you. |
| 00:39:41.48 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:39:41.53 | Jill Hoffman | Good to hear. Go! With that, we actually have time, so we're going to adjourn to our closed session and we'll return afterwards. Thank you again for coming and we'll see you next session. |
| 00:40:05.97 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Angel glow that lights the sky. The dearest things I know are what you are Something might be out of you. Someday I'll make a thing |
| 00:40:35.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:40:35.04 | Unknown | you |
| 00:40:35.20 | Unknown | . |
| 00:40:35.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:40:35.74 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:40:36.93 | Jill Hoffman | Bye. Attention, everyone. By the way, we're going to start with an announcement before anything. Now it says cell phone was left in the council chambers. during the 6 to 7 o'clock hour and will be in the administrative office tomorrow. Okay, so with that, welcome everyone to the regular meeting of the Sausalito City Council. for Tuesday, January 27, 2015. Debbie, would you take the roll, please? |
| 00:41:04.95 | Unknown | Councilmember Weiner. Thank you. |
| 00:41:06.21 | Jill Hoffman | President. |
| 00:41:06.65 | Unknown | Council Member Fiverr. Here. Vice Mayor Hoffman. |
| 00:41:13.84 | Jill Hoffman | present. |
| 00:41:14.78 | Unknown | Mayor Theodore. |
| 00:41:15.91 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:41:16.00 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:41:16.08 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:41:16.13 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:41:17.43 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, Jenny Watson, can we? Would you lead us in the pledge, please? |
| 00:41:21.11 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:41:21.21 | Richard Conley | Thank you. |
| 00:41:22.39 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Yeah, Jenny. |
| 00:41:27.68 | Unknown | Over here. Right here. |
| 00:41:31.03 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:41:31.09 | Unknown | you |
| 00:41:31.36 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:41:31.73 | Unknown | you |
| 00:41:31.78 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | you |
| 00:41:31.86 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:41:31.96 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:41:32.03 | Unknown | I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. |
| 00:41:32.16 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | to the flag of the United States of America. |
| 00:41:37.33 | Dave Minard | Thank you. |
| 00:41:37.46 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:41:37.50 | Dave Minard | Thank you. |
| 00:41:37.51 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:41:37.57 | Dave Minard | to your father. |
| 00:41:38.38 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:41:40.40 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:41:40.55 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:41:40.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:41:40.70 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:41:40.72 | Unknown | nation under God, indivisible. With liberty and justice, |
| 00:41:51.20 | Jill Hoffman | So we are... On closed session items, we have discussed in closed session the SEGAF litigation and we have postponed until after our regular business meeting and hearings the LEAP Transit potential litigation, the Golden Gate Ferry and Stroman claim regarding PG&E. Right now is the time. that we will have public comment on any closed session items. Betsy. |
| 00:42:28.36 | Unknown | Good evening. Mr. Mayor, Honorable Mayor, members of the City Council, and Adam and Mary. Since I was last here, as you all know, I've had a meeting with Mary and have had a discussion, and I've outlined it in my letter to you, so I won't go away. I won't go over it again, but essentially I'm reading about some technical objections from the city and To date, I have heard nothing from PG&E. They didn't even bother to deny my complaint. They send little messages that they're going to do it, but they're not doing anything. So anyway, it's pretty clear to me that something went wrong and that that cable should not have been strung across my primary view. It's pretty clear to me that PG&E shouldn't have done it. And it's also pretty clear to me, with all due respect, that there should be some processes in the city to stop it from happening. So. I'm doing what I have to do, which is to take action against, potentially against, both the city and PG&E. And it's what lawyers call joint and several liability. So that's where my head's at on this thing. I have filed a claim with the Public Utility Commission after not hearing anything in response to my internal claim within PG&E. And I had told you last week or two weeks ago that I would file a claim against the city if we didn't resolve this by February 16th. Since that time, I took the trouble to go to the law library and found out that the statute was not, I believe, six months, but a year. And I trust Mary will tell me if I'm wrong on that, but that seems to be pretty clear that that's the case. I'm... thinking about the possibility of holding off and suggesting that the city join in my CPUC claim, it just strikes me as just everybody keeps saying, you know, PG&E is a monopoly. They do whatever they want to do. and They have to provide power. Yeah, they do. They do have to provide power, and they're a monopoly, but there's a right way and a wrong way to do it, and they did it the wrong way. And it just strikes me as, you know, it's almost you look at the picture and you know it's the wrong way. That's it. So I don't see a lot of downside for the city in joining me on that claim, and I think that it would have, since they don't pay any attention to me, they say, why isn't the city in on this claim? |
| 00:44:36.15 | Unknown | After. |
| 00:45:04.62 | Unknown | It's the only way I'm ever going to get any reaction short of going through the process with the PUC. And I assume that after a year, my claim will come up and I will be heard the way everybody else is. But I also assume that I might not have to wait a year, and we might be able to resolve this a lot more quickly if the city were behind me on this. So anyway, I also am aware that there may be strategic reasons for the city to want me to go forward with filing the claim, and I'm prepared to do that. And so what I thought I'd suggest is that we just hold off. I will hold off on this for a few more weeks and see if the city can come up with some way of moving forward on this that I find to be acceptable and that if we haven't reached a resolution in two weeks or so, or at least a path forward, I will just go ahead and file the claim. Thank you. Thank you, Betsy. |
| 00:46:01.93 | Jill Hoffman | Anyone else from the public who would like to comment on our closed session agenda? Any items on the closed session agenda? Okay. Seeing none, we'll close public comment and close session agenda. And we'll move on to approval of the agenda. A motion? So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. |
| 00:46:21.79 | Unknown | All right. |
| 00:46:24.61 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. The next item on the agenda is recognition of actions taken by employees and residents during the recent storms. And we have our Director of Public Works, Jonathan Goldman, to make the presentations and Chief of Police, Jennifer Tejada and Deputy Fire Chief, Chris Tubbs. |
| 00:46:44.52 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council and staff, and members of the audience here and the audience at home. I'm just going to be brief and read a statement. None of the individuals mentioned in my statement could be here this evening, but it is an important item, and I didn't want too much time to go by without recognizing these individuals and asking you and the community to do the same. I'm your public works director, Jonathan Goldman, city engineer. On Monday, December 29th of last year, PG&E notified Marin County local government representatives of a high wind forecast for the last few days of 2014. Both PG&E and the National Weather Service predicted high sustained winds as well as gusts of up to 45 miles an hour in Sausalito. The threat of the high winds and their direction posed a significant challenge for small boats, and many on the waterfront left for safe harbor. Sausalito was spared the power outages and transit closures that affected many areas of the Bay Area when the winds arrived largely as forecast. Although the winds were forecast to subside by 10 a.m. on New Year's Eve, the gusts continued through the day and resulted in capsized boats and persons in the water requiring rescue here in Sausalito. One such incident involved South Florida Department of Public Works personnel who were performing storm patrol on overtime pay to try to ensure that the streets, sewers, and storm drains remain safe and functional during challenging winter weather. Steve Hansen, a 15-year veteran of the Department of Public Works, and Trevor Seidler, who joined us two and a half years ago, first observed a large boat on the rocks near Pelican Harbor and stopped to see whether assistance was needed. The captain of that vessel declined assistance. Observing large quantities of debris floating on the shoreline, life jackets, fuel tanks, and buoys, they began picking them up to get them off the shore. They then noticed that the Coast Guard was rescuing boaters off the Tourney Street boat ramp. Some of those boaters were being taken to the hospital. |
| 00:48:15.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:48:47.98 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. They also noticed our local resident, Doug Storms, attempting to drag two capsized boats to the shore. Trevor and Steve asked if he needed a hand because he was trying to get the boats righted, flipped back over. The three of them got one of the boats lifted up and found that they had freed a dog that was trapped under the capsized vessel. Trevor Seidler pulled the dog out and immediately started to dry it off with his jacket and warm the dog. They put the dog in their city truck and turned the heater on to try to help warm it. Another gentleman on a private rescue boat knew where to find someone who knew the dog and the dog was reunited with him after about 20 minutes. The two boats were towed out of the water at the tourney ramp and tied off so they wouldn't float away or sink. Their contents were returned to the boats. And this evening, I am asking you for their prompt, selfless, and effective rendering of aid to others in need, including Mr. Storms risking his personal safety, I respectfully ask that the council and community recognize and thank Trevor Seidler, Steve Hansen, and Doug Storms for their service during the windstorm of the 31st of December of 2014. |
| 00:49:59.11 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:50:15.36 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. We have Chief Tejada. You can address this or |
| 00:50:23.78 | Unknown | Good evening. We do have one more certificate of appreciation to give, but our recipient is not here. He's on his way. So if you don't mind, I'd like to jump into doing the swearing in and introductions. Sure. Yeah. |
| 00:50:35.25 | Danny Castro | of course. |
| 00:50:35.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:50:38.93 | Jill Hoffman | Just so we know that in the agenda item, we are moving to the introduction of swearing-in ceremonies for certain new police departments. |
| 00:50:47.01 | Unknown | Oh. |
| 00:50:48.35 | Jill Hoffman | We are moving into the introduction and swearing in ceremonies for new police department employees. |
| 00:50:55.28 | Adam Politzer | Mayor and Chief, can I just interrupt? I see Chief Tubbs here, and so you might want to. Thank you. |
| 00:51:01.24 | Unknown | He's doing it with me. |
| 00:51:02.42 | Adam Politzer | you |
| 00:51:02.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:51:02.68 | Adam Politzer | Same thing. |
| 00:51:04.55 | Unknown | Yeah. Yes. Yeah. |
| 00:51:07.28 | Jill Hoffman | The chief knows best. |
| 00:51:10.54 | Unknown | Sorry. |
| 00:51:11.08 | Kate Flavin | Thank you. |
| 00:51:12.50 | Unknown | So good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council members, and city staff and audience. It is my pleasure to introduce to you this evening our two newest employees, Officer Christina Kazarian and Records Manager Erica Lindeman. If they would both come up, please. |
| 00:51:46.43 | Unknown | So on the left is Erica Lindeman, and I'm going to share a little bit about Erica. We did an extensive search for this position. It's a very important position in the department. She is the keeper of all of our records and has to follow all the state and federal mandates around that, as well as take care of all of our personnel issues and make sure that our front offices run efficiently and smoothly. And so Erica grew up the Bay Area, but was born in Marin County and lived in San Francisco and Sonoma for a while. She has been working in law enforcement for the last six years and most recently at Santa Rosa Police Department as a public safety dispatcher. She is a lifelong learning person of education and learning. She holds two associate degrees in humanities and one in natural sciences. She has a bachelor's of science in business management, and she is working on her final project to complete her master's in business administration with a focus on management and strategy. When she's not at work or studying, she's typically spending time with her husband, Gabe, and her three children and getting as much time outdoors as possible. Erica has expressed being very interested with the citizens' employees of Sausalito as they've all been very welcoming to her. I'm sorry, she's very impressed, not interested. And she said she is excited every day when she drives into work, and she couldn't imagine working in a more beautiful city. Welcome, Erica. |
| 00:53:23.02 | Unknown | And Erica is joined tonight by her husband Gabe and her three children, Zoya, Christopher, and Peyton. |
| 00:53:36.12 | Unknown | And next, it's my pleasure to introduce Officer Christina Kazarian. Christina grew up in San Francisco. She attended Sacred Heart Cathedral Prep High School. She went to college at the University of Arizona and majored in sociology and minored in health and human services. Her family has a long history in public safety, and it's important to us that our employees, particularly our sworn staff, understand the meaning of public safety, and Christina brings that value with her to this position. Her father and uncles were firefighters in San Francisco. Her grandfather, Grandpa Heike, |
| 00:54:17.31 | Unknown | Where is he? |
| 00:54:18.07 | Unknown | Thank you. Hey. grandpa hike is a retired san francisco police department officer welcome And Grandpa Hyke has had a great influence on Christina to pursue her career in law enforcement. She previously worked at the Oakland Police Department, and shortly after being there for a while, she applied here and thought Sausalito was a good fit for her, and we certainly are grateful to you for making that choice, Christina. and she looks forward to her experience and commitment to the Sausalito community. Welcome, Christina. |
| 00:55:04.53 | Unknown | So now I'm gonna swear you in, and if you'll raise your right hand, both of you. this up and then repeat after me I and say your name to solemnly affirm that I will support and defend. The Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies foreign and domestic. that I will bear true faith and allegiance. to the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of California. that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion And that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I'm about to enter. |
| 00:56:16.25 | Unknown | Well done. |
| 00:56:16.94 | Janet Dean | Thank you. |
| 00:56:34.45 | Unknown | And we usually ask our employees if they would like a family member to pin their badge, and Erica is going to have her husband Gabe pin her badge. If, Gabe, you would come up. |
| 00:58:16.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:58:16.09 | Unknown | Amen. |
| 00:58:21.32 | Danny Castro | Thank you. |
| 00:58:59.68 | Unknown | Thank you for giving us that time, and thank you for your continuous support of the police department. We appreciate it. |
| 00:59:13.26 | Unknown | And our next item is also a feel-good item tonight, and I would like to call up Reverend Paul Mowry. |
| 00:59:24.77 | Unknown | So as you know, Reverend Mary is also our police chaplain, as he proudly wears his police chaplain jacket everywhere he goes. Yes. And this is another storm event that we think deserves recognition. During one of the storms, a dog belonging to one of our anchor outs got trapped under a boat and ended up, as the boat was sinking, and swam about a mile to shore, came to shore and ended up at Pastor Mary's church. So Pastor Mary called the police department and spoke to Sergeant Georges and said, hey, found this dog, and I think it belongs to one of our anchorats, not quite sure, but I have the dog. And so the next day, one of the other officers took a report of a missing dog from a gentleman, but the gentleman was homeless because he lost his boat, and we had no way of contacting him. But Paul, Reverend Murray, put on his thinking cap and he remembered the routine of the dog and his owner and figured out how to reach the owner and connect the dog to the owner. And there was a story in the newspaper about this and it really does show how We're all connected and how, you know, just helping each other out and just the act of reuniting. It's not property. It's not, to some people, dogs don't have value, but this is the companion of somebody who lost his home in the storm and was just so overwhelmed with the emotion of gratitude for being reunited with his dog that we felt it was an act of... Tenacity, you kept working and figuring out where could you find Steve and reunite him with his dog, and we appreciate that. So I have a little certificate for you, and this is from Chief Tubbs and myself, And it says, recognition and gratitude for your assistance reuniting Daisy, a brown and white pit bull, with her owner. It was believed Daisy drowned when her owner's boat sank during a heavy rainstorm in Richardson Bay. Miraculously, Daisy swam a mile to shore and landed on the doorstep of the Sausalito Presbyterian Church, where Reverend Paul Mary went above and beyond to track down Daisy's owner. Because of Reverend Maury's persistence and kindness, Daisy was reunited with her owner within two days. The owner said, the things I lost are just things. They can be replaced. Daisy can't be replaced. Thank you, Reverend Paul Maury, for your exemplary service to our community. |
| 01:02:06.22 | Paul Mowry | Thank you. Thank you. I don't know if it's okay to just say one quick thing, because if you saw any of the news coverage or the press coverage, you'll see that I was wearing my rain gear, which I don't really have rain for. But I wanted to do that specifically because I knew the way the story would get chopped up, there would be a really important element missing from it in most of the coverage, and And that is really the work of the Sausalito PD who, when I called in, that Tom remembered the next day when he got the report from Mac that, oh, this must be the dog that Pastor Paul was looking for. And so really, I am so touched, and I thank you both for this recognition, but I really do share it certainly with Tom and Mac, but I really thank all the Sausalito PD, so thank you. |
| 01:02:58.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:02:58.75 | Stafford Keegan | Thank you. |
| 01:02:59.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:02:59.27 | Stafford Keegan | Thank you. |
| 01:03:06.92 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you all. Moving on to communications. This is a time for the City Council to hear from citizens regarding matters that are not on the agenda. Except in very limited situations, state law precludes the council from taking action on or engaging in discussions concerning items of business that are not on the agenda. So would anyone like to speak on any matter not on the agenda? Okay. |
| 01:03:43.18 | William Ziegler | Thank you. |
| 01:03:50.64 | Jill Hoffman | Glad to see you wearing the hat. |
| 01:04:13.98 | Unknown | . Thank you. |
| 01:04:34.78 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Again, anyone, would anyone like to speak to any items not on today's agenda, tonight's agenda? |
| 01:04:48.64 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | By the way, we had a large crowd at 6 o'clock that commented on the Ferry Building. So if anyone's curious about that. |
| 01:05:00.43 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | you can watch the tape. |
| 01:05:08.65 | Neil Whitelock | Good evening, Mayor and Council. I am Neil Whitelock, 408 B Street, resident of 47 years. And I want to bring up something that I spoke about four years ago, that as far as I know, zero action has been taken on. Thank you. Find my notes, sir. No. |
| 01:05:45.93 | Neil Whitelock | Okay, four years ago, |
| 01:05:52.27 | Neil Whitelock | I spoke before City Council about the dangers of pedestrian crossing bridgeway. on three different occasions. I myself was struck by a hit-and-run driver while walking my bike in a crosswalk on Bridgeway and have a permanent leg injury from it. and I was taken to the hospital. Um, I've asked that something be done like it's done in Petaluma. or when a pedestrian goes to cross the main street, Au revoir. Pelham Boulevard. They push a button. And there are lights in the crosswalk that go on and flash very Easy to see. Startling the drivers somewhat and making sure they know to stop for pedestrians. I currently am afraid to cross Bridgeway in a crosswalk in broad daylight. because the cars go whizzing by. I've had a long raincoat on. They've hit the tail of my raincoat. If there's police around and you do this two or three times a year, and write tickets, yes, they'll stop for a couple weeks, and then they're bad at it again. And the second time after I spoke at city council four years ago, I was told by a legal aid person that Sosley was now subject to charges of gross negligence if, God forbid, there's a major accident or death, because the city council has been informed several times of the problem of crossing bridgeway by pedestrians and have yet to do anything. we could do as Petaluma has done for at least 25 years. It's not that hard, really. I've had people from city council tell me, Oh, we're working on it, or we've looked at it, or we know what they're doing in Petaluma, yet nothing's happened in four years. I beseech you, not just for my sake, because I'm scared to go across Bridgeway nowadays, but for other people to do something before there's a death. in which you'll be charged with gross negligence, and you'll be paying millions. instead of hundreds of thousands of dollars for negligence. |
| 01:07:55.22 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Anyone else on items not on the agenda? |
| 01:08:02.85 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, moving on. We move on to minutes of previous meetings. We will consider the minutes of the regular city council meeting for January 13, 2015. I move to approve as well. |
| 01:08:15.41 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:08:15.43 | John Farrell | And then... |
| 01:08:15.91 | Unknown | to approve. move. |
| 01:08:16.61 | John Farrell | to submit it? THE END OF THE END OF THE I don't know. |
| 01:08:19.59 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Well, any corrections or additions? I do have a correction. And maybe we did have Mir Withey conducting that meeting. I think there's a few areas. Is that correct? There's a few early on. |
| 01:08:32.25 | Unknown | Right. Amen. |
| 01:08:34.10 | Jill Hoffman | I'd be happy to let him do that, but I think last meeting I conducted. So there's a few places and on this agenda, so we'll work on that. So I think we need to make those corrections. I have no other corrections. |
| 01:08:35.24 | Marty Winter | Happy birthday. |
| 01:08:46.56 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | The only comment I had is on future agenda items, I believe I requested Bridgeway Marine within – for code enforcement be added to a future agenda. And so I just wanted that to clarify that. |
| 01:09:00.70 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 01:09:02.62 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So it would be good if you could say requested that Bridgeway Marine code enforcement be added to a future agenda. |
| 01:09:11.13 | Jill Hoffman | Didn't we do that? it. Okay. |
| 01:09:14.13 | Unknown | So I amend my motion to move as amend as amended. |
| 01:09:18.32 | Jill Hoffman | second. All in favor? Aye. |
| 01:09:19.55 | Unknown | favor? Aye. Aye. |
| 01:09:20.85 | Jill Hoffman | you |
| 01:09:22.84 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:09:22.87 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, we move on to the consent calendar. And we have one item, which is receive and file quarterly reports from the seed librarian. Do I have a motion to approve the consent? Calendar? So moved. |
| 01:09:38.35 | Jill Hoffman | get a second. |
| 01:09:39.53 | Jill Hoffman | Second. |
| 01:09:41.05 | Jill Hoffman | All in favor? Aye. |
| 01:09:42.08 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:09:49.72 | Jill Hoffman | Now we move on to business item six a, Introduce a draft. 2015 strategic planning document to the City Council for future city Council discussion and adoption, and that's our. Um, Administrative Service Director and Treasurer, Charlie Francis. |
| 01:10:09.23 | Adam Politzer | Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Tonight's agenda item is to introduce the strategic plan. And I'd just like to – it's not introduced a strategic plan. It's introduced a draft of what a strategic plan document might look like. It's a draft form for future city council discussions. As you can see, this was an excerpt from page 150 of the adopted fiscal year 15-16 budget and where we included a quite a detailed description of the strategic plan that was when the city last met on it on November 22nd of 2013. And in this document when we submitted this document for the distinguished budget award we did get comments on. It was an excellent example of describing the strategic planning process. They did also comment that it could have been better in outlying the strategic strategies and the goals for the next five years. So what I attempted to do in the document that was submitted to the City Council was to put more emphasis on narrative and on flesh and bringing together the strategies and the strategic goals and the objectives and the milestones from other city planning documents that have already been introduced and improved in the budget in the City Council and put them into a document that seemed to flow better. And the basis of it is we have five goals. Those five goals have been adopted in strategic plans for the past, well, six years that I've been here and even longer. And two of those goals, the goals regarding planning and the goals regarding community involvement, they seem to focus on the city vision, a vision that will create a safe and thriving friendly community with an updated general plan in the future. And then our other three goals are more of goals that support and sustain the city's mission, goals of quality service level, fiscal resiliency, and infrastructure management. And all those goals have milestone indicators which flow into a five to six year plan. So nothing here has been changed from other documents. It just added more flesh to it. So the mission statement, vision core, they're exactly the same as what we see in the fiscal year budget from the November 2013 strategic planning session. Now the goals, and I've added some description of what does this goal mean. City planning is a dynamic process, and it creates communities that offer better choices. Increased community involvement talks about how important civic engagement is in the city. It's the core principle of democracy. So it's not adding to the goal. It's not subtracting from the goal. It's helping to illuminate the goal for a reader of this document. I did the same thing with goals that sustained city's mission. And then underneath the goals, we've added objectives and within those objectives, key milestone indicators of what year we might expect those objectives to happen. Again, these are city council goals and objectives that have been in previous strategic plan. This is a draft document that will be coming back to the city council for future consideration. So I wanted to really quickly walk through one of the goals and those milestones to kind of show you how this document flows. |
| 01:12:24.41 | Unknown | Nothing. |
| 01:13:41.33 | Adam Politzer | And I'll focus on myself. One of the goals is for an objective and key indicator that sustains the city's mission is the importance of fiscal resiliency. As we know, every year we analyze our financial statements and our budgets, and we talk about that the city is able to pay its bills. We're stable. Our ability to continue to pay our bills and prove so it's sustainable. And finally, we're moving towards a system where we're positioned to meet the challenges of the future. In other words, we're resilient. And so in order to keep that fiscal resiliency, you know, we're entering into a session where we have very important decisions coming up. the budgeting sessions coming up. So for milestones, I said like for example in July and November we'll review our classifications, we'll review compensation comparisons, we'll review CalPERS and OPEB valuations, we'll formulate a negotiating strategy, bring it to the city council. City council then gives us parameters within which we negotiate MOUs with the city's labor groups, and then we execute the MOUs by the end of the fiscal year. So there's an example of, objectives and milestones that will occur within one fiscal year. Now, if we look down below on objective 3.2, here we're talking about managing and operating a budget for structural balance. And again, so again, within one fiscal year, we'll adopt a financial policy manual, adopt a reserve policy, have a fiscal health analysis tool. All of these things you will be seeing within the next six months as we roll out the budget. Develop a finance plan for the MLK facility, adopt a user fee study. Other milestones go off into future fiscal years. And then at the end, uh... what we're hoping to achieve as the city council reviews and deliberates and considers new strategic plans, strategies, new strategic plan goals, new objectives, or edits and amends these, we would get to the point where it's part of a process, where our annual strategic plan feeds into our priority calendar, which then informs our biannual and annual budgets, and then we periodically and annually report back on the progress we did, so it becomes a loop, a loop of strategic planning manifesting and results that feeds back into more planning. So with that, I just wanted to introduce this document to the City Council, and you'll be seeing more of it as staff comes back to you for more strategic planning activities throughout the year. And I'll be able to answer any questions you might have. |
| 01:16:33.42 | Jill Hoffman | Any questions? |
| 01:16:35.30 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I have a few questions. Thank you, Charlie, for that presentation. So on page 10, Objective 1.4, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. It refers to the City's current Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan adopted in 2008. Was this – I remember that there was a bicycle plan that was not really adopted so much as we were told it was just a sketchy placeholder to submit to try and get some funding, and that we were not locked in concrete to that plan. There were several controversial things. issues for residents in that plan. And I see Jonathan is approaching. He knows full well what I'm referring to. So I just want a reassurance that I want to understand, first of all, |
| 01:17:27.96 | Unknown | our president |
| 01:17:36.06 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Is this bicycle and pedestrian plan the infamous, just vote on this so we'll just have a straw dog that we can, you know, submit to get money? Or is this something that was before my time, because it says 08 and I was elected the end of 08? |
| 01:17:53.88 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. Again, Jonathan Goldman. The document does correctly refer to the last bike and ped plan that was adopted. We're in the process of revising that plan, preparing an updated plan in collaboration with the city's pedestrian and bicycle advisory committee. And in fact, we've had one, we may have had two sessions with that committee and the consultant working for Transportation Authority of Marin in helping us update that plan. And then our next, the meeting of February 17th, as I recall, is the day after the President's Day holiday, is scheduled for a larger public workshop on how the new plan will reflect the community's priorities for bicycles and pedestrians. |
| 01:17:55.11 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 01:18:50.90 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you, Jonathan. Could you answer my question regarding the plan that I recall Councilmember Carolyn Ford and I had voted on? We were very concerned and we were assured it wasn't cast in concrete, it was just a straw dog, and it wasn't even You know, I mean, we were assured that this was not some official plan. So when you say the bicycle plan was adopted, are you referring to the same... And you know what I'm talking about because I raise it every time I see Bicycle Plan. |
| 01:19:22.73 | Jonathon Goldman | Well, unfortunately, I'd have to go back into the minutes and the records of the agenda packets and things like that. My recollection is that the council adopted in 2008 our current bicycle and pedestrian But you don't. |
| 01:19:38.63 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | But basically you don't recall if it's the plan that I'm referring to because I don't – I mean, it wasn't – this is not the same plan, I'm sure, because Carolyn was not on the council at that time. So I'm talking about something that was later. But it was affiliated with the TAM grant. |
| 01:19:50.08 | Jonathon Goldman | Okay. It was affiliated with the TAM grant. There was a subsequent North-South Greenway, Ferry Landing, and the Gate 6 Road path plan that was also adopted by the council. Maybe that's what you're referring to. |
| 01:19:57.27 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | North Southern. |
| 01:20:06.01 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah, and I want to stress we were told, and the record will show that we voted for it, but it was we did not endorse the plan. We endorsed submitting what we were told was a straw dog draft. Is that now part of this current bicycle pedestrian plan? Is that what you're telling me? No. Okay. |
| 01:20:27.33 | Jonathon Goldman | No. What I'm telling you is that with assistance from Transportation Authority of Marin, consulting team and our, the city's pedestrian and bicycle advisory committee are preparing an updated bicycle and pedestrian plan that will come to council for adoption. |
| 01:20:48.02 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay, thank you. So I'm not going to worry about that. |
| 01:20:48.86 | Jonathon Goldman | Bye. |
| 01:20:48.98 | Jill Hoffman | Not that. |
| 01:20:49.21 | Jonathon Goldman | Yeah. |
| 01:20:50.28 | Jill Hoffman | And by the way, that will be agenda. It has been, will be agendized on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee agenda, and they meet in this room and they're Proceedings are televised, so you can track that. We're going to be right back. Can we go through any other questions? Okay. |
| 01:21:10.24 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So, thank you. So, Charlie, I have another question. On page 12, it says, conduct a best practice study to identify collaborative and social technologies that better inform and engage citizens. I was wondering if this shouldn't be or if it includes an analysis of the investments we've done to date, like open, open, open, City Forum or whatever that software is called to assess the effectiveness of some of the things we've invested to make go-no-go decisions in terms of further investment? |
| 01:21:50.74 | Adam Politzer | It definitely could, and it's something that the city council can deliberate on in the future. This was just put in there. We saw that it was engaging the community and using technology was important as we came out of the last strategic planning session, so we put this milestone in here as kind of a placeholder for council to deliberate on in the future. Are you referring to the open town hall for them? |
| 01:22:11.72 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | in the open town. Yeah, the open – that's the title. So, yeah, because I've heard quick mixed reviews about that, and so I just was concerned about – and if we – and I'm very careful about voting to adopt a draft of this, we're not locked into this, correct? We can change this. We can adjust goals. Absolutely. In fact, there's no action required. |
| 01:22:19.82 | Adam Politzer | Sure. |
| 01:22:33.23 | Adam Politzer | Yeah. Absolutely. In fact, there's no action required tonight. There's no motion. There's no adoption. This is just purely for information. |
| 01:22:39.76 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Right. |
| 01:22:44.05 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay. All right. |
| 01:22:49.36 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I do have another question. Nobody has a question? |
| 01:22:52.10 | Unknown | What? |
| 01:23:01.97 | Jill Hoffman | Charlie, while you're getting your question, could you mind commentating on and maybe explain a little bit as we go into the budget process and what's likely to happen in the next few meetings and starting with this? And would you mind? Because I think it's important for us to know that this is kind of a step in that process. |
| 01:23:12.57 | Adam Politzer | Oh, sure. Thank you. |
| 01:23:18.00 | Adam Politzer | process. I really like this time of the year because the finance calendar is very strong. So coming out of this meeting and the next meeting, we'll have a review of the annual audit that tells us where we are as of June 30, 2014. But more importantly, we'll also have a strong look forward as we've developed long-term financial planning and we inform the council on on the economic outlook so that at the conclusion of that we have a basis for going into budgeting sessions. And then after that we have on February 24th we'll be having the mid-year budget review. The mid-year budget review looks at what we budgeted and where we're at and where we expect revenues and expenditures to either exceed or be under budget. From there, depending on that financial condition, sometimes the city council makes supplemental appropriations or sometimes we make revisions and levels of service. It all depends on where that is. At the same time, we'll be asking Mr. Bartell to do a review of our annual, of our pension actuarial valuation for the year ending 2013. I know that sounds a little bit old, but that's the way CalPERS works. The most recent valuation that we have is two years over. So that will also be on February 24th. And it also helps inform our resource allocation decisions as we go into the budget session. And then beginning in March, we'll have a conclusion of a number of strategies that are in place right now. We're undergoing another OPEB actuarial valuation. We're looking at a condition and facility assessment for the MLK and also an IT strategy for what kind of investment do we need to make in technology in order to close the technology gap of where we're at now and what we need to deliver services in the future. So all of that is a series of items then that goes into budget preparation, which begins in March and April. The priority calendar happens pretty much around the same time with the budget finally be adopted around June 30. And also squeezed in all that are the labor negotiations so that we try to get those adopted at the same time we adopt the budget. Thank you. |
| 01:25:45.12 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Bye. |
| 01:25:45.23 | Adam Politzer | Yeah, I have my follow-up. |
| 01:25:45.25 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. I have my wallet. |
| 01:25:46.89 | Adam Politzer | The summary you were looking for? |
| 01:25:48.26 | Jill Hoffman | helpful because I want the council and public to know that this will be on virtually every agenda for the next several months as we go through this process and we're just starting it |
| 01:25:53.28 | Adam Politzer | Right. |
| 01:25:53.30 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I mean, |
| 01:25:58.40 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. So I found it. Thanks for the breather to find my follow-up questions. On page 17, item O, it says develop, permit, and construct the ferry terminal landside improvements projects. P, develop funding for the South City limits to Richardson. I think that was the big concern issue that I mentioned earlier about the bicycle plan that was so controversial, as well as P and Q, the design, permit, and construct the South City limits to Richardson. So there are some very kind of controversial milestones listed here that I personally would challenge in discussion with Council. Is this the venue to have that discussion now? No, that's right. Or is this just to start the – okay, this is just to – okay, great. |
| 01:26:53.65 | Adam Politzer | Or is this just... Yeah. This is just to let you know you can prepare for those discussions. Thank you very much. |
| 01:26:58.32 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | wonderful. Thank you very much. Okay. And so just, yes? |
| 01:27:03.13 | Adam Politzer | Yeah. |
| 01:27:03.15 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:27:03.35 | Adam Politzer | No question. |
| 01:27:05.22 | Unknown | Anyone? |
| 01:27:05.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:27:06.57 | Unknown | Thank you. Yeah, I do. And on some of those capital projects that are mentioned, they're actually part of our 10-year capital improvement plan. Are they not that's part of our budget? No. They are. |
| 01:27:17.26 | Adam Politzer | They are. |
| 01:27:17.96 | Stafford Keegan | All right. |
| 01:27:18.18 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:27:18.32 | Stafford Keegan | Thank you. |
| 01:27:20.49 | Unknown | I think. |
| 01:27:20.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:27:20.68 | Stafford Keegan | Thank you. |
| 01:27:22.98 | Unknown | It's time for public comment. |
| 01:27:31.38 | Jill Hoffman | Any comments from the council on the strategic planning document? |
| 01:27:37.52 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yes, thank you. I do have lots of concerns with a lot of the things that I'm seeing here that will take a lot of staff time that I believe that the residents of Sausalito have expressed an interest in focusing more on infrastructure in terms of roads and sewers and storm drains and the like. I am seeing things that I'm, it's not clear to me that some of these milestones would be a priority. This is just for me personally, so I look forward to that discussion. One of them is explore creative financing options with private property owners amenable to share the costs associated with infrastructure improvements. I'm assuming that's the Marin ship, but perhaps, you know, I shouldn't assume that. Anyway, I was looking at this document, and I'm just seeing a lot of questions bubble up, so I'm going to look forward to getting into this in more detail in the future. |
| 01:28:42.03 | Unknown | Any other comments? Yeah, I would just say that's exactly what the document's for. to actually have those discussions, to actually see which projects the community actually wants to fund long-term and which it doesn't. And so if you don't have it written down as for discussion, how are you ever going to know what to discuss? |
| 01:29:07.26 | Jill Hoffman | Anyone else? All right. Cause this item. And we'll move on to. Item. 5A public hearings, the appeal of a planning commission approving a design review permit and tree removal permit for the construction of a single-family residence and related site improvements and removal of one of the protected trees at 206 3rd Street. Thank you. |
| 01:29:34.25 | Richard Conley | Yeah. |
| 01:29:34.50 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Now, we'll start with our... I have to recuse myself. Oh, yeah. First, we have... I do get one. Yes. |
| 01:29:35.71 | Unknown | you |
| 01:29:35.78 | John Farrell | Thank you. |
| 01:29:36.03 | Unknown | Thank you. I do get one on 4th Street, and that's within those balances. |
| 01:29:42.36 | Jill Hoffman | and that's where they're going. Okay. |
| 01:29:55.22 | Danny Castro | Let me get myself set up here. |
| 01:29:58.26 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And while you're doing that, I'll just comment on the last council member Withy's comment that that's what it's here for. I think one of the steps is- |
| 01:29:58.53 | Jenny Wasser | Bye. |
| 01:29:58.56 | Danny Castro | Thank you. |
| 01:29:58.72 | Jenny Wasser | doing that. |
| 01:29:59.44 | Danny Castro | I'll just comment on the line. |
| 01:30:06.53 | Jill Hoffman | We've closed that item. Can we move on? Because we do have to focus on this. This is important. We have a lot of people here. And now is the time for disclosure. of ex-party communications. So can we start, Councilman Pfeiffer, |
| 01:30:23.79 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yes, I have... I have spoken to both parties, and I have visited both sites, and that is my disclosure. |
| 01:30:31.27 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:30:38.51 | Unknown | Previously, whenever that was, and it's been a long time now, so I've forgotten, I met with the applicant and the appellate, but in this most recent occasion, I haven't met with neither. |
| 01:30:42.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:30:51.08 | Jill Hoffman | And also, some months ago at the last hearing, I met with the appellant and visited the premises at 208 third, as well as at 206 third. And just recently, I met with the architect for the applicant just to go over the design changes of the exterior, briefly outside of 206 third. |
| 01:31:13.54 | Jill Hoffman | I've met with both the applicant and the appellant, and I've toured the house at 208 3rd Street, and I've inspected the exterior of the house at 206 3rd Street. Thank you. |
| 01:31:25.47 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, so now it's time for a presentation. We have our Community Development Director, Danny Castro. |
| 01:31:34.16 | Unknown | We're looking for it. Um, |
| 01:31:42.23 | Mary Wagner | And, Mr. Mayor, while we're waiting for that presentation to get pulled up, I know that I had a conversation with Vice Mayor Hoffman, and she indicated to me that she had reviewed the tape of the prior meeting. I don't know if you just said that. I apologize. MS. Sure. No, I didn't. I was just – go ahead. MS. Yes. So for due process considerations, I just want to put into the record that it's my understanding Councilmember Hoffman reviewed the prior City Council discussions on this item and was given the staff reports and all the related documents as well. |
| 01:31:55.83 | Jill Hoffman | Sure, no I didn't. Mm-hmm. |
| 01:32:10.36 | Jill Hoffman | I have. I reviewed all the tapes from start to finish, as will become apparent. |
| 01:32:14.61 | Mary Wagner | THE FAMILY. |
| 01:32:14.93 | Danny Castro | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:32:16.28 | Jill Hoffman | It was very informative. |
| 01:32:20.19 | Danny Castro | We're getting it. How are you going to? |
| 01:32:23.28 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:32:31.47 | Danny Castro | He'll put it on the ground. |
| 01:32:32.61 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:32:33.12 | Danny Castro | Thank you. Can I access it? |
| 01:32:37.20 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:33:00.12 | Danny Castro | That's it. That's it. Good night. Yeah, she found it on that. Do you want it on here? Yes, I can understand. We're going to... I think he's standing here. |
| 01:33:35.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:33:42.83 | Danny Castro | Okay, we're set. Good evening, Mayor Theodorus, members of the council. I think this is going to be the first of many presentations I'll have before you. The issue before you is an appeal of a Planning Commission decision approving a design review permit and a true removal permit for the construction of a single-family residence for property located as 206 3rd Street. The project entails demolition of a 1,200-square-foot existing home and construction of a 1,941-square-foot home. It's four bedrooms. It includes a covered garage and one uncovered garage entered from the street on 3rd Street on the driveway. |
| 01:34:33.61 | Danny Castro | Before I go into the presentation, I think it's important for me to, as I move forward in the presentation, I will be referencing different plans. And I think just for clarity, I've referenced Plan A, Plan B, and Plan C. Plan A is the original design that was reviewed by the Planning Commission and originally approved and then later appealed to the City Council. Plan B is the design that includes some design concessions, some revisions that at your July 8th meeting, the applicant presented changes that included a 6-inch reduction in the roof height, an 18-inch roof eve reduction, and I will go through this in more detail as we look at the plans, a reduced deck extension at the rear, and again, this was reviewed by the Planning Commission at the July 8th meeting, and that plan was also reviewed by the Planning Commission at their September 3rd meeting following the City Council. Plan C are plans that were recently submitted to staff, and it's a revised design that's intended to respond to the Planning Commission's recommendations to the City Council, specifically two findings that – two of the four findings that the City Council asked the Planning Commission to provide input. |
| 01:36:02.05 | Danny Castro | To give you background, on March 12th, the Planning Commission approved the project. It was a design review permit, entry removal permit. On March 21, 2014, the appeal was filed by neighbors at 208 3rd Street. On May 27, 2014, council upheld the appeal and denied the project. On June 10, 2014, Council voted to reconsider its actions. On July 8, 2014, City Council remanded the project, which is a Plan B design that included some design concessions, remanded the project to the Planning Commission for input regarding project conformance with four findings. Those four findings were, number two, architecture and site design, finding number three, scale of structures, finding number four, views, and number nine, privacy. This is the Plan B design. This is a front elevation of the proposed structure. It includes, you will see on this design, At the very middle top is a compromise option Z, which is reducing the height by 6 inches. And you'll see the dotted line at the top of the top curved roof and about a 6 inch drop as one of the design concessions. |
| 01:37:30.59 | Danny Castro | This is the south elevation, and again, you will see at the top a dashed line, including the design concession of reducing the height. Also at the very right, you'll see also a roof-eave reduction of about 18 inches. And at the rear of the proposed structure, the deck, another option to reduce the extension of the deck to match that of the existing deck of the house. |
| 01:38:05.54 | Danny Castro | Here is another floor plan showing the reduction of the deck at the very right of those plans. |
| 01:38:21.27 | Danny Castro | So the Planning Commission on September 3rd, as directed by the City Council, reviewed the four findings. Two of the findings, the Planning Commission, upon its review of the Plan B design, could not make two findings, and those were architecture and site design and scale of structures. They were able to make the findings for views and for privacy, and I will go into that. For architecture and site design, the finding reads, I'll read you the finding, the proposed architecture and site design complements the surrounding neighborhood and or district by either a maintaining the prevailing design character of the neighborhood and or district, or introducing a distinctive and creative solution which takes advantage of the unique characteristics of the site and contributes to the design diversity of Sausalito. The Commission unanimously does not concur with this finding. the Planning Commission. found that the project does not complement the surrounding Old Town neighborhood. And while the project design is unique and considerate of principles of sustainability, the site itself is not unique, and it is not responsive to the design of other structures in the vicinity. and will detract from the overall quality of the neighborhood. It was also stated that further modifications to the project plans would be necessary to be more in alignment with this finding. For finding three, the majority of the planning commission did not concur with making this finding. The finding is, states, the proposed project is consistent with the general scale of structures and buildings in the surrounding neighborhood and or district. THE The Planning Commission found that the proposed project is inconsistent with the general scale that the modern design and three-story volume is discordant. with the surrounding neighborhoods A minority of the Planning Commission finds that the project is consistent with the general scale of structures in the neighborhood, that the project is within the permissible floor area ratio, it's comparable in size and scale of surrounding residences, and within the development standards of the zoning ordinance. Finding four views, it reads, the finding, the proposed project has been located and designed to minimize obstruction of public views and primary views from private property. the majority of the Planning Commission did concur with this finding. Uh, The Planning Commission found that while there is some minor obstruction of view of a new project, it does not represent a significant view obstruction. A minority of the Planning Commission found that a new second floor deck of the proposed structure that is not existing in the current structure does not minimize the obstruction of view from the neighbor. |
| 01:41:45.05 | Danny Castro | And finding nine is privacy. The project, as it reads, the finding, the project provides a reasonable level of privacy to the site and adjacent properties, taking into consideration the density of the neighborhood by appropriate landscaping, fencing, and window deck and patio configurations. The majority of the Commission concurred with this finding. The Commission felt that the design takes into consideration the neighboring structures and provides a reasonable level of privacy. A minority of the commission found that the project does not minimize privacy impacts with the inclusion of a second floor deck that is not existing in the current structure. Another comment was that the incorporation of screening, for example landscaping, would help to minimize privacy impacts from the neighbor's property. So we go to Plan C, and this again was submitted to staff within this month. And the The plan submitted, again, as I mentioned, that it was intended to respond to the Planning Commission's September 3rd comments and input regarding the findings. Staff has reviewed the revised project, and we do focus on the four findings that were – that the city council had remanded to the planning commission. First of all, let me just show you the Plan C design. The Plan C design eliminates the modern curved roof design. It references the architectural style of the surrounding homes with a sloped pitched roof, which is prevalent along 3rd Street. The intent there was to complement the Old Town neighborhood. The exterior colors and materials were revised to replace what was originally proposed as exterior plaster to a horizontal wood siding. and |
| 01:43:58.63 | Danny Castro | they removed the front balcony with a bay window and they incorporate the design concessions that were included in Plan B And with that, the intent was to make it much more compatible than what was previously submitted. |
| 01:44:22.23 | Danny Castro | And that speaks to findings number two. Let me just show you further elevations. This is south elevation. |
| 01:44:33.53 | Danny Castro | and the floor plan. If I didn't mention before, the plan and the profile of this proposed new revised plan C is essentially the same plan and essentially the same floor area and height. |
| 01:44:54.74 | Danny Castro | but, The options for the City Council this evening is, there's a number of them. Number one is to uphold the appeal and deny the project. Number two, deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval subject to the Plan B design. Number three, approve the Plan C design. Number four, deny the Plan C design. Number five, continue the Plan C design for further consideration by the City Council. And number six, remand the Planning Commission, I'm sorry, remand the Plan C design to the Planning Commission for review with specific direction. |
| 01:45:48.17 | Danny Castro | It is staff's recommendation that option B to recommend that the City Council adopt and approve Plan C design. Staff finds that all the 13 findings can be made. Obviously with the four findings that were specifically directed for review, we feel that as I mentioned architecture and site design, we feel that it can be made for scale of structures. We find that because it's comparable to the size, it's within the development standards of the zoning code. It is within the floor area ratio. Finding three can be made. Finding four views, we do feel that the design and the improvements to the design were done to minimize view impact. And with privacy, we also believe that a reasonable level of privacy is maintained |
| 01:46:49.38 | Danny Castro | With that, that concludes my report. If you have any questions, I'm available to answer them. Thank you. |
| 01:46:55.50 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:46:55.65 | Danny Castro | Thank you. |
| 01:46:55.69 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Council questions? |
| 01:46:57.91 | Jill Hoffman | I have a question. Danny, can you tell us the peak of the roof on Plan C is identical to the current peak, but can you tell me if the slope of the roof is also identical to the current slope? |
| 01:47:14.60 | Danny Castro | It's slightly different. The peak is the same as the height of the existing. |
| 01:47:20.86 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:47:25.23 | Danny Castro | Maybe if I could. |
| 01:47:33.01 | Danny Castro | You'll see an outline. The current home is a sloped roof, but you'll see the line of the current slope. You can see that. It does extend further to the left. I've got a pointer. Do I have a pointer here? |
| 01:47:46.46 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:47:49.69 | Danny Castro | Is it this one? Thank you. |
| 01:47:52.13 | Unknown | you |
| 01:48:01.06 | Stafford Keegan | Thank you. This button, right? |
| 01:48:06.09 | Danny Castro | Oh, wait. There it is. Here is the outline of the existing. |
| 01:48:15.56 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. So that's the dormer, but what about the slope of the remaining room? |
| 01:48:22.04 | Danny Castro | of the existing. |
| 01:48:23.03 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. No, this roof. So there's the existing roof and then this new plan that we have. So I see the dormer there, but then the rest of the slope, though, on the right and on the left. |
| 01:48:35.16 | Danny Castro | This should be representing the – Okay, got it. |
| 01:48:37.09 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, got it. |
| 01:48:37.81 | Danny Castro | I love you. |
| 01:48:38.88 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, because in my mind that affects the sight lines and the views about the current slope. So that's why I'm asking that question. Thanks. Thank you. |
| 01:48:48.48 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. Yes, I have a... A couple questions. Am I reading this right? They've taken the outline there is not the current house. It was the plan. It was the original design, the sketch up there. That was the original design, correct? |
| 01:49:09.69 | Danny Castro | Well, no, the original design here is the curved roof of the original design. Yeah, that's what I meant. Yeah, that's the original roof curve design. |
| 01:49:15.60 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah, that's what I meant. Yeah. So we're not seeing the current house juxtaposed on this. We're seeing the new design. |
| 01:49:23.58 | Danny Castro | the new design? Yeah, the current house juxtaposed is this. which is this slope. |
| 01:49:30.84 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Oh, underneath the curved. Oh, I see. So when I went to see the home, |
| 01:49:33.27 | Danny Castro | Right. |
| 01:49:38.56 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | They still had story poles that showed a difference in terms of the pitch, in terms of height on one of the neighbors that they had addressed his concerns with the views and he didn't have an issue. the other neighbor said that. they had not addressed her concerns with the view, and she would have significant view impact because of the story polls that I saw that were still kind of raised on the roof. Can you comment on that? I'm referring to, I believe the neighbor was Jenny Wasser. Her comments. |
| 01:50:17.23 | Danny Castro | I can comment in that the new story polls, I believe, were revised to reflect the new design, the new slope design. Staff's recommendation is that while there is some view impact or view impact, it's not a significant view impact. |
| 01:50:41.66 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. I have another question, but if... There's another... |
| 01:50:45.61 | Unknown | If it's related to this, why don't you carry on? Because mine's a slightly different topic. Oh, okay. Danny. |
| 01:50:48.09 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | No, it's a different topic. |
| 01:50:52.14 | Unknown | You were in describing the Planning Commission's actions, and I know we have several Planning Commissioners here tonight. and describing each of the findings that you went down Thank you. When you got to finding number three, scale of structures, if I heard this correctly, you indicated that the Planning Commission was concerned about the overall basically size mass of the building, in particular this three-story structure on the inside, on the inside. But you also mentioned that they were concerned about the scale because of the modern design. But what's that got to do with finding three? That's finding two. So I was really confused with that. |
| 01:51:43.88 | Unknown | Am I confused? I mean, is that what really happened? And so should I be confused? |
| 01:51:54.56 | Danny Castro | Well, scale, you know, I'll read you the finding. The proposed project is consistent with a general scale of structures and buildings in the surrounding neighborhood and or district. |
| 01:52:06.19 | Unknown | And could you summarize what you said, the Cut Planning Commission's comments on that work? |
| 01:52:11.05 | Danny Castro | Sure. They found it inconsistent with the general scale that the modern design and the three-story volume was not consistent. It was discordant with the surrounding neighborhoods. |
| 01:52:26.89 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. May I? What I might suggest is that we have the appellant and applicant give their presentations, and then we bring it back to council for questions, and we can choose which whether it's applicant, appellant, or staff is the best to answer the question rather than asking the question of staff. So can we move on to that? Mary? |
| 01:52:40.91 | Unknown | Or staff is the best to answer the question. |
| 01:52:44.54 | Mary Wagner | so And just a quick reminder, Mr. Mayor, that the applicant starts with their 10 minutes for their entire team. The appellant has 10 minutes for their entire team. Then you take general public comment of three minutes apiece, and then each, the applicant and the appellant, have five minutes at the meeting. conclusion of that. |
| 01:53:04.94 | Jill Hoffman | And do we have, I don't, On our agenda, we don't have questions of counsel. we should have a place for the council. You can always. |
| 01:53:13.01 | Mary Wagner | You can always ask your questions at the end. |
| 01:53:15.31 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, and I think maybe we'll do that probably prior to public comment and |
| 01:53:20.37 | Mary Wagner | After the applicant and the male. |
| 01:53:21.30 | Jill Hoffman | after they have their 10-minute presentation. Thank you. |
| 01:53:24.13 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:53:24.59 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:53:24.71 | Mary Wagner | So, |
| 01:53:24.98 | Jill Hoffman | . |
| 01:53:25.06 | Mary Wagner | you That's up to you guys. |
| 01:53:26.61 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor, could I clarify? If I've got a question of, say, the applicant, specifically after his presentation, do you want me to hold that until everything's done? Because I think we will have lost the context of the question. |
| 01:53:41.97 | Jill Hoffman | That's fine. Of course, when we ask the question, it doesn't take from their time. Okay. So as we go forward, we can interrupt them during their presentations, which will not go against their time. |
| 01:53:46.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:53:46.61 | John Farrell | Thank you. |
| 01:53:54.56 | Mary Wagner | We always stop the clock, Mr. Mayor, if you ask questions during the presentation and we don't count time after. And I will also, we run 10 minutes off of this clock here. When it hits 3, I'll start that timer. |
| 01:53:56.28 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 01:54:06.32 | Jill Hoffman | So are we all clear on how we're going to proceed on this? Okay. Applicant Riley. Riley. |
| 01:54:10.42 | Riley Hurd | Thank you, good evening members of the council and staff. My name's Riley Hurd. I still represent the Vanderlindens. The first thing I want to do is respond to a lot of the correspondence from the neighborhood that the plans were submitted late. remembering that this application was made well over a year ago, and as you heard, none of the interior has changed from the previous plan. It's true, we submitted the new elevation that you saw, and it responds precisely to the comments of the Planning Commission and the neighbors. This was a tough decision for my client to make. It was a major concession, and we thought it was gonna be greeted with open arms. Again, we were proven wrong. But I would submit that this elevation is easy to understand, doesn't take weeks or days to digest, and suggestions to the contrary simply don't have a basis in the reality of what is just a new elevation. Next, it appears we're down to two issues, architecture and scale. We agreed with the Planning Commission's first statement about the front that it was a brilliant and novel design. But since the 180 on that statement, the owner has capitulated and proposes the cottage design, which if you look at this streetscape, fits exactly with the homes on both sides and further down. It is a square with a triangle on top. It is the cottage that was requested. I'm sad to see the more modern style go, but everyone is getting what they want with this in terms of architecture. Scale. I wrote a letter. I continue to be perplexed by the Planning Commission's comments regarding scale that Councilmember Withey was asking about. I've never heard that term interpreted in the manner in which it was interpreted at the Planning Commission, and I – get the privilege to go to a lot of these. That being said, Please look at the numbers beneath both of these homes. The appellant's house has well over 2,000 square feet and an FAR in the 80s. To the right, another house over 2,000 square feet, 75% FAR. This is an 1,800 square foot home with 56% of FAR. You see about a story and a half, maybe two stories from the street. This is what scale is all about. We match the height of the home next door. To go into the interior spaces and subterranean and call out scale, it simply does not comport with the term. That finding can be made. But... You do not need to hear it from us. Your staff agrees and has, again, a new planning director reviewing the same project, suggested that you approve it. . I would like to respond to this new issue of VIEW simply by stating that we've never, ever been permitted into Jenny Wasser's home. And I'll simply leave it at that and let her explain why. But look across the street, talking about scale. Look at 209. Look at these houses that are 5,000 square feet looming over Third Street. It's just hard to reconcile the scale issue. Next, I'm hoping we don't hear again about hydrology and geotech, since you said that this was not the place for that and your own staff says they'll take care of it. There's a condition about this. And I've been through the building permit review process here, and I think rigorous describes it lightly. So that issue is covered. I'd like to wrap up by... imploring the council to approve this project tonight. This is a de novo review, and what that means is you sit in the shoes of the Planning Commission. I am really concerned that further planning commission review would not be productive, and we're going to end up right back in this room again, no matter what. That's not optional. Um, little bit about history. When this project first started, the applicant, my client, negotiated for months, six months, with the appellants. It was about one issue. And it was the deck. The deck is a stub now. Then the target moved. It became a about the modern frontage. Well, it's a cottage now. So what? is this about? I think it's about what the appellants finally told my client at the end of the negotiations, and that is, we don't want to see anything happen here anymore. ever. That's not reasonable. Something's going to happen. If you've been in the house, it needs to be fixed. We implore to you, please. into this saga tonight, and I would even submit to you something that is very rare. I think we are at a point where there isn't even a way to legally not make the findings for approval. And I believe that's rare. Up comes Michael Heacock, and he's going to describe the new design for you. Thank you. |
| 01:59:33.91 | Michael Heacock | I'm just going to review with you the similarities and differences in about two minutes here. So the alternate front elevation here, there's almost no change in the floor plan. The only real change in the floor plan is that we took the front balcony and turned it into a bay window. That's the floor plan change. There's nothing else to understand about the difference between the previous elevation. Here's some other similarities. The ridge height matches the existing ridge height. There's no increase in height. That's the same as the previous proposal. This building, as designed here, is also two feet narrower than the existing cottage. Same as the previous proposal. Okay? I just want to make sure everybody understands that. It's two feet narrower. Now, some people that are talking about the roof line and changes in the ridge location, that's because the house as it sits is nine inches from the appellant's property line. We have to center the house on the property. It has to have a four-foot setback. So the appellant's house and the new design are now going to be seven feet apart. I'll just go through a few more of these slides. You've seen the previous elevation. Again, that curved roof, I think that was clarified. The pink outline is the existing building. You can see we've minimized how much we would have to push the house to the right. back elevation, again the only change here is the roof line. side elevations. I just want to point out, because I know Jenny's going to come up and talk, if you look at the back of the roof line, this newly proposed roof line, when I talk about the back, that's the right side on the top and the left side on the bottom. You can see both the concession we made from the curved roof line. You can also see the pink line is in the same location as the new roof line in the back. In other words, the new roof line is not shifting any further toward the bay, blocking Jenny Wasser's view. Now, it's true that I haven't been able to get into Jenny Wasser's house recently so that I could confirm the newest story polls. Okay? I just want to say this is just an updated chart that was put together by Jeremy Graves back in the fall. We have our updated Floria ratio of 56 percent, the appellant's Floria ratio of 85 percent. floor plan comparison, you can see here the appellant's house on the top and how it was expanded in 1985. We are not expanding nearly as far. And I'll leave you with this slide, which you've seen before. Obviously, this shows the new roof line. |
| 02:02:44.96 | William Ziegler | Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council Members. My name is William Ziegler. and I represent the appellants, but Before proceeding with my time, I'd like to raise a point of order. which I hope does not come up, but I'm fearful that it does. And that is because you have one member who's recused himself, there's a possibility of a tie. And I want to know what that means. My understanding, I'll just tell you that, It's not clear because of what's preceded this. My understanding is that the prior decision stands into the tie of both. That is, tie means no action. by the Council, so the previous decision previous decisions by the Council. was a decision. to deny the project, in other words, to grant the appeal. And then there was this subsequent meeting and further consideration. and then it was remanded back to the Planning Commission, and you know that history. It was sent back and the Planning Commission clarified its findings. But I don't. know where the appeal issue stands on that. because that was a remand, it was a request for information. It does seem to me that if there's a tie vote, that you denied this project. And that's the only resolution that could be adopted. Before proceeding, I'd like to know what we're arguing about. I'm not sure. prior decision, the new project, and now because We've got. a new project, and a resolution that embraces the Plan C Um, Where are we with that? Does that mean that's not even considered? Because if there's no action, it seems to me you can't consider it and vote on it. So I'd like some questions. |
| 02:04:35.12 | Jill Hoffman | We'll have clarification. Our city attorney will comment on that. We've anticipated this. |
| 02:04:40.55 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, and I think that one of the steps that Mr. Ziegler didn't include in his iteration of what occurred is the Council voted to reconsider the action when the council denied the – upheld the appeal, denied – the reverse. Whatever – the denial of the project that the council voted on was reconsidered by the council. So that action no longer stands. That's in fact why this appeal is back in front of you now. So a 2-2 is a non-action. The council's protocols, Rosenberg's rules of order indicate the same – that a 2-2, a motion fails if there's a tie vote. So the technical result of a 2-2 is a non-action on the appeal that's currently pending. All of the plans are in front of you this evening. the original plan, the revised Plan B, and the revised Plan C. The zoning code is very clear that the appeal is de novo and the council has the option to uphold the appeal, deny the appeal, or modify the project. |
| 02:05:48.15 | Unknown | Mr. Bair, may I further ask the question? |
| 02:05:50.01 | Mary Wagner | And I have a question after. |
| 02:05:51.83 | Unknown | So just to make sure we're all totally clear, your position, the position of our city attorney is different from Mr. Ziegler's in that you're saying it's no action. He's saying it's denial of the project. |
| 02:06:05.41 | Mary Wagner | I believe Mr. Ziegler, and he is more than capable of speaking for himself, said that if you don't – if there's a 2-2 vote tonight, that you would revert to the council's previous vote on this project, and that is not accurate. Thank you. The council reconsidered that vote in accordance with your procedures and voted to reopen that discussion, which is why we're hearing this again this evening. Thank you. |
| 02:06:19.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:06:19.35 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:06:19.77 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:06:29.02 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So, and I just want to connect the dots here because you're saying that if it's a 2-2 vote, no action means that the appeal is automatically denied? Is that what you're saying? |
| 02:06:45.83 | Mary Wagner | No, that is not what I said. |
| 02:06:46.61 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So no action. So does that mean that a new appeal would be filed again? I'm confused. |
| 02:06:53.22 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. the conjecture on where the council is going to come down on this project this evening. if you Thank you. have a 2-2 vote. on a motion, that motion does not carry. The appeal is still pending. There are a number of options. The council can talk to each other. and determine if there are other modifications to the project or if there's additional information that could be obtained that might If I may, Councilmember Pfeiffer, I think it's important to put this out there because it's very confusing. I understand it's confusing to the council and it's confusing to the parties, but it is, in fact, what happens. You are somewhat in limbo. And I think it's a very interesting thing. and the applicant can listen to the Council's discussion. to determine if there are other modifications that they're willing to make. But it's somewhat conjecture, and I think we should go ahead and let Mr. Ziegler make his presentation. And then we can continue this discussion where you see where you're ending up in your own deliberations. That would be my suggestion. |
| 02:08:04.25 | William Ziegler | May I, well, no, I, I. |
| 02:08:05.41 | Mary Wagner | No. Thank you. |
| 02:08:06.54 | Jill Hoffman | We've taken a look at it. I think two to two is not where we want to end up. So I think at the end of it, know that... It leaves us in a place that probably no one wants to be because there's uncertainty on everyone's part. So let's go through it. Let's see where we end up and what we can work out. And then if we are a 2-2, then we'll have this discussion again. |
| 02:08:27.53 | William Ziegler | on. My question is, if you are, on 2-2. Do we have any more hearing? Can you reconsider? and adopt a new plan. Or have you simply taken no action? |
| 02:08:42.01 | Jill Hoffman | Well, let's – I think we could spend a lot – we've taken a look at this before we got here. It's – what I would recommend is let's go through everything. Let's see where we get, and if we get stuck on 2-2, then we can have the whole discussion. If we don't – |
| 02:08:43.09 | William Ziegler | you |
| 02:08:56.66 | Jill Hoffman | then we don't need to have that decision. |
| 02:08:57.61 | William Ziegler | I'm happy to do that to defer, and we'll talk about it later. Hopefully we don't get there, so I appreciate that. So thank you very much for your time on that issue. MR. I think the issue before you tonight is very simple. This was sent to the Planning Commission for clarification of four findings. They heard substantial evidence on that. On those four findings, I believe the hearing lasted for about an hour and a half. testimony on both sides, and you know what they decided. They couldn't make the findings to support items number two and three. NUMBER TWO, was that the project complements the neighborhood and the district. And number three basically is consistent with the scale of structures in the buildings. Now, I know we have argument about that. Mr. Herd has apparently taken on the Planning Commission with you now. He disagrees with what they did and says they're flat out wrong, as I heard him. But, um, If I can boil it down, it seems to me both of those findings test the issue of how well the project fits in the area. It doesn't belong there. That's the key issue that they're deciding. And I think it's key because how well a project – a new project in particular fits in an area is critical to the character of Sausalito. And I think that's what we've got to keep in mind. Does this fit here? Does it belong in Sausalito, given the evidence that we've got? and the size of it and what's going on there. Does the project as a whole fit there? And I also want to point out that I think. whether the interior of the structure has changed or not. is basically irrelevant. other than extraordinary. This is a design review issue that's come up. And that again focuses on the issue of does it fit here in scope and does it complement – or excuse me, does it fit in scale? |
| 02:11:08.78 | William Ziegler | I think |
| 02:11:14.07 | William Ziegler | Now is the time for you, you either have to approve or disapprove. the project that you sent back for study. I know there's a diversion going on. substantial one. A new plan was |
| 02:11:25.28 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:11:26.90 | William Ziegler | put in eight days ago. was put into the file. It has not been reviewed in any detail whatsoever. The appellant's architect has looked at it, but there's been no study. There's been no experts that have looked at it. And so that's what's going on. And instead, what's being asked is look at It's smaller. We've matched the faces of the look of other properties in the area, so we fixed it. We fixed both the fines they couldn't make. So just go ahead and do it. Um, And notwithstanding everything else that goes on in a design review, which is what this procedure is all about. Does this really fit in Sausalito or not? We're being told that it's beyond discussion anymore. It's crazy not to approve it because it looks good, it's smaller, and we haven't had any real study about how well it fits and how well it matches. But even assuming that, we're being told that the process has now been reduced to that. If somebody comes here eight days before the hearing on appeal, and puts in a new look. and says it now fits. And we haven't changed the size, by the way. In fact, we've made it a little smaller. THAT YOU SHOULD APPROVE IT. And that's what design review has come down to, it seems to me. And that's what you're being asked to do. And I just want to submit to you that's a very dangerous precedent. If that's what design review is. If that's what the Planning Commission does, looks at it and sends it up here and then You listen to their objections and then a week before, the final hearing on it, oh here we fixed this look so now approve it, never mind the That's what the applicant is trying to do here. IS SAYING This is nice and neat. It's good. And don't make us spend any more time on this. But I just want to tell you that I think that's a very dangerous process. It sets a precedent, and more importantly than that, it's unfair to the neighbors and to the appellants. It's grossly unfair to them. They have spent the same amount of time looking at this, working over the issues, and now they've got something that they've had no chance to study, and, you know, they can't get their experts in here. And so we're here in this quandary of looking at a pretty picture and asking you to say, that's just fine. That's what design reviewers come down to if that's what you submit to. And so I think a better A BETTER PROCEDURE IS TO grant the appeal and send it back. if they want to send it back and have it stay. Let it go through the process. That's what the process is for. Let the planning commission and the neighbors dig into it and see. And maybe it flies through. Maybe this is a wonderful project. And if it's as good as the applicant says, it ought to just fly through. It's not the radical design that you had before. It's not bigger. And we've really changed the exterior, what everybody's looking at. We haven't changed the size, by the way. And it seems to me that's an issue because scale is a major issue that the Planning Commission got hung up on. But let them look at that and at least be fair to the neighbors and let them review this. And if it comes back to you, so does it. That's what happens in Sausalito. And I just want to point out in that regard A couple lines from the zoning ordinance Chapter 1054 of your zoning ordinance says, sets out the purpose of the ordinance. And the first purpose is A, to promote the preservation of Sausalito's unique visual character. And I think none of us disagree with that. But then 10.54 0.030. sets out the guiding principles of design review. And there are four principles. here. And the first three are all about architectures. For A is architectural control shall be minimal. on. B, good architectural character is based on suitability of building for its purposes. C, good architectural character is not in itself more expensive than poor architectural character. That's fine. But D, it seems to me to be very critical. and it reemphasizes what this design review is all about. D says this. The relationship of a building to a surrounding is of greater importance than the quality Thank you. the design of the individual structure. So, MR. THE FAMILY. Three pictures are great. We like it to look good. But The guiding principle, the key one other than to basically disclaim architectural issues is to say Right, right, right. relationship of a building to its surroundings. And I think that should be kept in mind when you judge this project. |
| 02:16:48.11 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:16:48.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:16:52.50 | William Ziegler | So I want to thank you and introduce Michael Rex to address you and some architectural issues. |
| 02:17:01.02 | Jill Hoffman | Two and a half minutes. Thank you. |
| 02:17:03.03 | Michael Rex | and I'd like to offer a professional perspective as an architect with a deep and long experience in how our town approves projects. On behalf of Gerard Cunningham and Amy Wilson, I object to the Vanderlinden's untimely submittal, the last-minute new plans with a building that looks completely different. particularly given they had four months since the last planning commission's hearing back in September. Uh, to address the objections from the neighbors and the inability of the planning commission to make two of the necessary findings. about neighborhood character and the three-story building mass. There's been no change to the three-story building mass. At no time during those four months have they ever presented to us Any drawings to consider, even though we ask for them. even though you directed the applicant to work with the neighbors. It didn't happen. Four months. Wasted. Such authorities submittal just before the Planning Commission closes on a Friday afternoon. on a holiday weekend. when you're closed on Monday, and we have to submit a response by noon the next morning is not neighborhood outreach by anybody's definition. Such timing can only be judged as a deliberate attempt to avoid neighbor participation. Such timing is impossible. for city staff. particularly a new planning director, and neighbors who are most impacted by the proposal to adequately review it Consider it and offer... a meaningful and informed response I want to give you an example. This new design that we're just now seeing has a 20 foot long skylight running along the ridge. The potential negative impacts from the nighttime glare to bay views or the sunlight bouncing and reflecting off that skylight has not been considered. by the neighbors who were most impacted by the city staff or certainly our planning commission who should have discussed this. There's been no mitigation for that skylight. And if that's what jumps out at me, In a cursory quick review, because that's all I'd been offered, What else are we missing? I've been practicing architecture in this town for 35 years, and I can tell you, this isn't how it's done. This is not how people should be treated. |
| 02:19:31.47 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 02:19:33.56 | Jill Hoffman | I think at this stage – well, we have five minutes on each side for rebuttals, so if you've missed any points, you can use it in your rebuttals. So we still have some time. Right now, I think we should open it for public comment. |
| 02:19:47.75 | Jill Hoffman | Oh, okay. |
| 02:19:53.98 | Jill Hoffman | Just... Take care. Take them as I receive them. Joan Cox. |
| 02:20:05.50 | Joan Cox | Hi, Joan Cox. I'm only here to talk about process, so as I was for the last item about which I spoke. I have not looked at the revised plans. I didn't know until tonight that there were revised plans, so I have no opinion about the revised plans. Danny Castro said that the revised designs were intended to address the Planning Commission concerns. And while certainly Riley Hurd is correct that the City Council has the ability to review the plans and this entire project De novo. I am disappointed. that the staff recommendation is not to remand this back to the Planning Commission since there are new plans, and since the Planning Commission has the benefit of having visited the site, visited the neighbors, conducted an extensive review of the prior plans, by not remanding new plans back to the Planning Commission, what you're essentially doing is substituting the staff's opinion for the Planning Commission opinion. If that's what the planning process is all about why do you need a planning commission to do any design review if that's what the staff is going to do. So I would like – I would recommend – and again, I haven't seen the plans. Maybe they're vastly different. Maybe they're very much the same. It didn't sound as though with the short amount of time for expedited review, that the staff had an opportunity to do what the Planning Commission would do, which is to go out and visit the site and visit the neighbors and look at the view impacts and see whether these revised plans have changed. It's now that the plans are revised, you're not just talking about the two findings that the planning commissioners could not previously make. Now, perhaps there are different issues that arise as a result of the new plans, or maybe not. We don't know. And perhaps you've reviewed the plans and perhaps you know, but not having reviewed the plans and being a staunch advocate for process, it would be – and transparency, where everybody has an opportunity to fully consider and analyze and – and expressed their opinion regarding the plans Um... It would be my recommendation that this be remanded back to the Planning Commission. in terms of scale, just because something is within FAR doesn't mean it's within scale. So it's not solely an objective evaluation. And that's why I'm not certain that legally you can say there's absolutely no way that this project can be denied. I think that this is something, you know, it's within Um, It entails both an objective and a subjective review, and I think the Planning Commission is uniquely qualified to do that. If the applicant believes and is confident the revised plans are responsive to the Planning Commission comments, Why not let the Planning Commission make that determination? Thank you. |
| 02:23:22.20 | Marty Winter | Good evening, Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. I'm Marty Winter. And I live in Belvedere, but I own a property here in Sausalito. My building is directly to the east of this project and also down slope. I heard earlier that you shouldn't hear about these hydrology plans again, but I guess I'm going to have to ask you to review the hydrology plans yet again because I've read them and they kind of make what's left of my hair stand on end. In the winter time, the winter runoff of this site as it would be proposed to be modified, the average underground water flow would go from 19,000 gallons per day to 38,000 gallons per day, roughly doubling. And there's no drainage plan. Basically the drainage plan is to pump the water up with the sump pump or let the water go through weep holes into the neighbor's parking lot. I'm the neighbor and it's my parking lot that's going to be made into a trash screen. So I'd like to know if these folks are going to stock my stream. Uh, The definition of nuisance in real property is to affect someone's quiet enjoyment of their property. And I would submit to you that 38,000 gallons of water and the possibility of a wall failing or mud, landslide, et cetera, would be an extreme danger to my property. The appellants have introduced a hydrology report, but no one – there seems to be there should be a requirement or presumption at least to rebut that. And yet no one seems to have done that. There isn't an expert in hydrology and soil science to say, oh, this won't happen and this won't be a danger to the downslope properties. So I'd request that you remand this to the Planning Commission, have them ask for a total review, and at a minimum, from my point of view, get a hydrology report from the folks that are doing the design. Thank you very much. |
| 02:26:03.84 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Jerry Taylor. |
| 02:26:14.17 | Jerry Taylor | Good evening, I'm Jerry Taylor. I live at 210 3rd Street. You've seen my house on this side over here. I'm really sorry to be here tonight. I had better things to do. I suspect that you did too, and you did too. with her own staff. This is ridiculous. We're still talking about the same things. Mr. Hurd talks about, complains about a moving target. And has he a front to bring in something brand new at the last minute? That's the very definition of a moving target. I can't believe you can seriously consider accepting this plan without having it been seen by the people who are used to looking at these things that have been in Sausalito and know what the concerns are. I'd like the new planning director laying things out nicely for that, but I don't see any sensitivity of who we are and what this represents. I'm appalled that when I had to indicate, am I for this or am I against this, I don't have the faintest idea. I'm not alone. There's other people that don't know what's for, what's against. the very confusion back and forth and now we don't know what the two by two would do? be careful send this back. Have it discussed. Maybe this is perfect. I like the front a lot better. I'm still appalled and scared to death by the 14-foot excavation. I don't have the water concerns. I'm concerned about my neighbor's house falling into it. I'd like some more assurance. I'm a fan of Jonathan's, but it's a little too casual for me. So please. Take your time. Another month won't be bad. Ms. Cox mentioned earlier about maybe we should look at the notification requirements because things would be postponed and taken up again and the neighbors didn't know about it. Staff, please, or council, please direct the staff to look at the notification requirements and make this a little bit easier for us to know where we are, what's going on, and plans submitted at the last minute like that, it's not worthy of your consideration in my opinion. Thank you very much. |
| 02:28:24.51 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, and my apologies, I can't make out. Is it Noel Norton? Oh. Thank you. No, no, my apologies. |
| 02:28:53.77 | Noel Norton | I go along with Jerry and saying, that this was a big surprise. to find out that it was submitted on the 19th. And There is a packet there that I came down and looked at today I am. and hooking. They couldn't give me the plans to look at because I've looked at the other plans. and they couldn't I went through the packet and discovered Plan C. And there was nothing in there about Plan B identified as such. AND I'M GOING TO BE Thank you. We started this back. IN. last January. when we got a letter from THE VAND. Dr. Linden's. wanting the neighborhood support for all of this. And then if... went to the Planning Commission on February 26th and then it went on May 18th to the Council. And then in July, I was trying to go through the papers that I had been able to keep hold of. And, um, in September and everything, it's so We have had plenty of time to look at these things, digest them and everything. And that's how you got this. because I had time to do it. And so, Anyway, another thing to look at is there is the curve line on the upper that is That works. Second part. where I tried to superimpose the modern one on it. But anyway, I think the new facade is much more interesting and compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. But I think there are other concerns that many of the neighbors have that should be allowed to be heard. And the Planning Commission would be the best place to do it because they deal with this stuff all the time. And... So I hope that's what your decision would be tonight. |
| 02:31:16.81 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Margaret Brindle. |
| 02:31:26.02 | Margaret Brindle | Good evening, members of the council. I had a little script that I wrote, but so much has been said already. Basically, I'd like to ask that you remand this back to the Planning Commission. It's been months since we've heard anything about the project. I wrote and submitted a letter on January 20th last Tuesday because I heard there was something happening. and I was asking for you to uphold the appeal because we didn't know what was happening. The day before at 4.30 p.m., Michael Heacock, the architect, sent me an email saying, would you like to look at the plans? I don't think anybody else of the neighbors got that similar notice. And I didn't have time this week. I'd already written the letter. I think we need more time to look at this. I, too, am happy with the Okay. fact that the pitched roof is now more in keeping with the neighborhood. I like the modern design. I just didn't like it there. I'm wondering about discrepancies. Mr. Hurd says that there's The new design has 1,800 square feet. Danny said it's 1,941 square feet. Which is it? Um, Well, I guess I also noted that Danny DeCossa said The plans were submitted. within this month. He seemed to avoid the fact that they were submitted January 19. He could have said January 19th, I learned today that the peak has moved 10 to 12 inches to the south. because they moved the house away from the property line, which I think is the required setback. that impacts Jenny Wasser's view. I don't know if it impacts it more than it was impacted It's just there's too little information. I'm not sure. I understand, and again, I've said this before, we are not interested in keeping the Vanderlindens from building here. But. The other thing I was thinking The Valhalla project finally happened, I think because there was enough outreach, enough discussion, all the people in the same room. Because right now in our neighborhood, This person says that, and then I heard this, If we got everybody in the same room and talked about we're able to exchange ideas and know what the facts are, because there's a lot of hearsay. So that would be something I'd recommend that the parties be asked to talk to each other with neighbors present, perhaps with Planning Commission staff present. Thank you very much. |
| 02:34:01.39 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Gina Amador. |
| 02:34:10.21 | Gina Amador | Good evening, Council. I live on 2213rd Street. I own a home there, which is somewhat across the street from this home. And I concur with the other speakers. I had no idea that there was new plans made. I'd like to look at the plans, take some time. I have some questions on details, like are there going to be solar panels that will add to, you know, the height of the roof that would block views. A lot of details that I would have questions about. So I would like to take time to look over those plans. So I just ask that we go through due process. |
| 02:34:50.11 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Jenny Wasser. |
| 02:35:07.79 | Jenny Wasser | Good evening, Mayor, Councilmembers and staff. My name is Jenny Wasser. I live at 203 3rd Street, indirectly across the street from the proposed project. I oppose this project at 206 3rd. I don't want to lose to myself. my three minutes, but I have to comment on another blatant misrepresentation or lie that occurred this evening. I never refused them in my house. They came into my house and took pictures. What has happened is nobody did contact me about Plan C. So I had to find out about Plan C from here and there and everywhere. Um, According to Sausalio's ordinance on views, a view is any primary view of Sausalio Waterfront, San Francisco Bay, Mount Tam, Strawberry Point, Tiburon, Belvedere, Angel Island, East Bay, and or the city of San Francisco. Unfortunately, the term view does not mean an unobstructed panorama of all or any of the above, meaning according to Sausalio's present law, a developer can lop off part of your panoramic view at any time, not simply impact or obstruct it, but nullify it. Then upon another developer can take some more ad infinitum until there is no more. This developer of 206 third wants to take away part of my view. I bought my house 28 years ago. My house was deficient in many other ways, but I love the view. It inspired me in my artistic endeavors. I made the mermaid statue up there on the second floor and painted landscapes because of the view. Thank you. The view being taken from me, a corridor between two houses, is of Tipperon all the way to Raccoon Strait, and is a primary view from my living room, dining room, kitchen, and deck space. The view in this totality is the focal point of my home. Because Vanderlind and their architect tried to originally mislead me into thinking that they're curved roofs, they're actually going to improve my view, I had to hire an engineering architectural firm to make up these pictures at great cost to myself. in order to prove the disease. These pictures are true interpretation of what is still happening to me. My view between these homes of the water is completely blocked off. They have not contacted me recently because their new plans and story polls have a worse effect on me than the old ones. Now they have skylights glaring at me at night, and the ridge line of the house has been moved a whole foot over into my view. If you look at page 11 of attachment 29 in the staff report, I colored the area blue. It looks like I have some view left. This is a total misrepresentation. I have absolutely no view left. I ask you, the City Council, to uphold the appeal to deny with prejudice this building proposal because it has not been seen or approved by the Planning Commission, is full of misrepresentations, and does not conform to the scale of the neighborhood. It also has a 14-foot basement excavation, which goes seven feet below the water table and destabilizes the surrounding foundations. Thank you. Amen. |
| 02:38:03.14 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Charlotte Mastrangelo. |
| 02:38:12.30 | Charlotte Mastrangelo | Good evening. I'm Charlotte Mostrangelo, and I'm not even on the same block. I'm on the first block of Third Street, and I don't even get notices of this. So I don't know why Herb has to recuse himself, but apparently he does. And I'm here to appeal that you uphold the appeal. I think everybody that's spoken tonight, no one is in favor of what's been going on. Things have all arrived late. I think everyone has said more than I can say about what the problem is here. in it. There's no communication from the developer and the architect that gets back to the neighbors. And I was so appalled the first time I came. to see this about the cut in the in the it's eight feet down. If somebody... dug a hole eight foot down against my house, over three or four feet, I would probably have a stroke. So you wouldn't have to see me again. So that's probably one of the good things. So I hope that this will go back to, I think Joan stated it very much, that it should go back to the Planning Commission, and I hope that you will all agree and listen to what your neighbors have said tonight. Thank you. |
| 02:39:41.30 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, Charlotte. Now we will go back to rebuttals, and I think we again start with the appellant. |
| 02:39:53.10 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. So we have the applicant up, but. |
| 02:40:05.05 | Riley Hurd | Hi, Riley Hurd. Thank you. I'm gonna respond in order to the comments that I believe require a response to. First, the new plan is not a diversion. It's a direct response to what we heard at the Planning Commission. And I would submit that this is exactly how the design review process is supposed to work. took an original submittal, refined, refined, we don't want this, we don't want that, okay. We'll give it to you and out the other end comes exactly what was requested. That's how design review works. Number two. Michael Rex knows better than to call this a three-story house. It's a two story house with a basement. The basement has 18 inches on the east side above grade. Look at that front elevation. and tell me that this is a three-story house. Three. And this is big and this is legal. I am deeply troubled. by a planning commissioner. testifying at this hearing. that creates a common law conflict of interest, and she must recuse herself if this project were ever to come back to the Planning Commission. I want to talk a little bit about what de novo means. When you appeal a project from the Planning Commission to the City Council, Thank you. You make the decision. that the council is gonna sit in the shoes of the Planning Commission. That's the route that you choose. So to appeal to you, and then say that this shouldn't be in front of you, it should be decided by someone else, ignores the fact that you are the body that this appeal is heard by. So I'm very unclear about the I want my cake and eat it too suggestion of bounce back and forth between the two in case I don't get what I want up here. And finally, you gave direction on drainage and geology, so I'm not gonna spend a lot of time on that. I'll just tell you that the impermeable surfaces remain the same, the water flow remains the same, and there's a reason it seems that the hydrology and geotechnical issues are casual, and that's because as you've heard, we're in design review. Geotech, hydrology. Ask your staff. they get fully vetted at building. This is called design review. So that's why it seems casual. We would implore you please approve this project tonight. And since I have a little bit of time, 2-2 is not complicated, okay? It means there's no action on whatever motion was made. So somebody's gotta convince somebody else to come over to three, and if you can never do it, Mr. Weiner comes back and he votes. That's what the law says. So don't let that be too confusing, but we would much rather see you come to a decision tonight and approve this project. Thank you. |
| 02:43:17.52 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Point? |
| 02:43:24.24 | Amy Wilson | My name is Amy Wilson, and I am a homeowner at 208 Third. I just wanted to clarify from the transcript of the Planning Commission meeting what they meant by the project not fitting the scale. It was Commissioner Nichols who said, I think the scale is problematic, and I think that's being driven by the program with the three floors and the height. So it's the bulk of the building that's trying to be submerged that they were responding to with the scale. You asked the Planning Commission for its recommendation for four findings, and they gave the project a close second look and were unable to make two of the findings. I think this shows that our appeal was justified. We appealed their approval and they changed their mind. And that's what this appeal is. And so you are here to uphold our appeal and let this new plan, this new concept, go through a proper new design review. |
| 02:44:36.21 | Michael Rex | Michael Rex. I said this is not how it's done. I told you that this is not how people should be treated. But it's also not how we get good and responsible architecture We do not in this town approve projects that are submitted at the last minute. that have not been properly reviewed and fully study We do not approve projects. The Planning Commission cannot make the findings. Can we go back one second? Can you hold my time one second? I'd like to go back a couple slides. |
| 02:45:29.82 | Michael Rex | Just go back. Aha. Right. Okay. Mr. Hurd said that I should know better calling it a three-story building. I can tell you firsthand, the code's definition It's not. levels above grade. The co-discipline for the story is one level upon another. This is not. a little cottage. It's a massive building stacked up. Look how much is underground. That is one of the reasons the Planning Commission could not make the finding en masse, and that has not changed. I'm going to conclude that this project's on appeal, and we're asking you, to review the project and decide the project that's been appealed. Not a new one that just showed up. I urge you not to send it back to the Planning Commission People are saying send it back to the Planning Commission to review a new project. if they want a new project, It should go back to the Planning Commission as a new project. And to do that, you should deny this one. That's what we ask so that it – we're not reviewing something at the last minute. So it goes through the proper channels like it should. Thank you. |
| 02:46:39.62 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:46:41.59 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 02:46:41.61 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Okay. |
| 02:46:50.72 | Amy Wilson | And just along those lines of remanding and back and forth, I just am really concerned that we will get into an endless cycle where the planning commission then makes a couple recommendations and they can't make a final decision. And then you come back here and it's another design at the last minute that hasn't been fully vetted. So I would really urge you to uphold the appeal, make a clean start, and let this new concept go through design review. |
| 02:47:23.42 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Okay, everyone. Now it's back up here for discussion. So I think what I'd suggest is that we all make comments. Let's see what take it. |
| 02:47:33.38 | Unknown | I have a bunch of questions. |
| 02:47:35.71 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:47:35.88 | Unknown | of various folks. We'll go to questions. Here, if I may, Mr. Mayor. |
| 02:47:38.93 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Sure. And then why don't you do a couple and go down the way. |
| 02:47:44.67 | Unknown | Michael Rex, could we have a discussion about scale and mass? Okay. You would agree that in your vast experience in Sausalito, please could you try and come up with the projects that the Sausalito Planning Commission has actually denied when an FAR proposed of.56 has been on the table and the Planning Commission has actually denied based on mass and scale when that statistic is there. |
| 02:48:23.53 | Michael Rex | you're asking about the F-A-R. |
| 02:48:27.01 | Unknown | Yeah. You tell me a Planning Commission rejection that has ever been made here where an FAR of 0.56 was said too big and it was the sole reason for a rejection. Let's set that precedent. I want to understand that. |
| 02:48:43.06 | Michael Rex | I couldn't speak to specific numbers like that, no. |
| 02:48:46.87 | Unknown | No, well I don't think there is. Now, staff, I'm gonna ask over a long period of time to go check that because What you're saying, Michael, is that if you... You are saying that we should never Build down. on a hillside in Solstito. if Building down puts any part of the foundation in the water table. That's effectively what you've been telling the community, you've been telling this neighborhood, and you've been telling us and the Planning Commission for the last nine months. |
| 02:49:23.37 | Michael Rex | I've... |
| 02:49:24.22 | Unknown | So explain this to me, because it's illogical. |
| 02:49:25.57 | Michael Rex | Because it's so... I firmly believe this is a completely inappropriate site to build an excavation 14 feet down They stayed out of people's views. by designing a brand new large house and to stay out of the views, they pushed it into the ground. and this is not the site where you build seven feet below a water table and will not and cannot demonstrate to us How you deal with the water. First they showed us a drainage plan that we know is bogus, right? First they did. Then when we brought in experts to prove it, at the very last minute they said, well, we won't have any drainage pram, we'll just build it like a boat. And then our hydrologist says that's going to direct the water onto the neighboring ground. |
| 02:50:09.24 | Unknown | You have no idea what you're opening up. Do you realize that even if they only went to two stories, part of the foundation has got to go up into the water table? We're going to have for every single project in this city where there's drilling under the water table, there's going to be neighbors coming in and basically saying this project is unfeasible and this is going to be used as a precedent. |
| 02:50:32.78 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I... |
| 02:50:33.05 | Unknown | You're destroying property values. |
| 02:50:34.11 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I think we're in con – we're supposed to be asking questions. Yeah. So settle down a little bit. |
| 02:50:39.44 | Michael Rex | You know what? I propose designs that excavate all the time. |
| 02:50:42.55 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | to the Lord. |
| 02:50:42.60 | Kate Flavin | Thank you. |
| 02:50:42.65 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | That's right. |
| 02:50:45.16 | Michael Rex | But I show how it can be done in a feasible way without impacting neighbors. And that hasn't been done here, and that's my objection. |
| 02:50:52.25 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I have a follow-up question, please. If that's the precedent, I'm comfortable with it. I have a follow-up question specifically to what he asked. If I – there you go. Okay. So we just heard the question with regards to this setting a precedent about never building down. But in your experience – and it's okay if you can't answer this one either, but have you – I mean, I'm looking at a statement here that on August 25th – |
| 02:50:52.27 | Michael Rex | I'm sorry. That's the precedent I'm comfortable with. |
| 02:51:21.70 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | The applicant submitted a letter where their engineer writes, it remains our judgment that if the proposed excavation is properly shored and adjacent foundations unpinned, So, I mean, have you ever experienced a proposal in Sausalito that directly their own engineer said that adjacent foundations will be impacted because it's going down? |
| 02:51:46.22 | Michael Rex | Not that they have to underpin their own footing so the neighbor can build. I've never seen that. |
| 02:51:48.46 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | so the neighbor can build Yeah, thank you. So I think this is unique. We are not, in my opinion, establishing a precedent. We are looking at this unique project and the impact. |
| 02:51:59.36 | Unknown | We're not in talking. Questions, would you? |
| 02:52:02.10 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, I did have a question afterwards. And this may be a question for Danny or the staff or Michael or whoever. So I'm looking at page one of the new |
| 02:52:16.49 | Jill Hoffman | It's not, sorry. Thank you. You didn't need it. I have a question about, yeah, I have comments on this later, but I need a point of clarification on this. So I'm looking at page one of the new plan. and I'm looking over very tiny numbers under project data. If I go down to total, Interior gross floor area. So I look, I go over here to the right, and I see existing is 1227. So I'm going to go over here to the right, and I see existing is 1227. And new is, I believe, 2000, 299, and that's the That's the projected. total gross interior floor area for the new proposed Plan C. And then I look down right below that total exterior gross floor area. is 1,313, so that's the existing cottage. And I think that number is, although it's very small, is 2,641.2. So I've heard numbers bounced around about total floor plan and what the size is. 1800 was the number I just heard. But this seems to indicate that it's really So we're going to have a look at the next slide. So we're going to have a look at the next slide. So we're going to have a look at the Can you explain to me the difference between an 1800 number and a 2229? |
| 02:53:51.87 | Danny Castro | The zoning code, in terms of defining the countable floor area, does exempt garage space, so that one-car garage that's proposed does not count towards that, but that total interior that you're reading, that total number, does include it just for purposes of a project summary. There's that, as well as other utility – perhaps the architect can explain further, but there are exempt floor areas that do not count towards that, and so that's why you're seeing that |
| 02:53:56.92 | Noel Norton | Thank you. |
| 02:53:56.95 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:53:57.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:53:57.29 | Noel Norton | Thank you. |
| 02:54:01.83 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:54:09.23 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:54:19.86 | Danny Castro | That's a total. |
| 02:54:19.98 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. So if I'm looking at the total bulk of this new building, those are the numbers. Those are the actual numbers. Correct. Total gross. Got it. Okay, thanks. |
| 02:54:25.13 | Danny Castro | Correct. |
| 02:54:27.42 | Jill Hoffman | And I'd like to go back to slide, we're on slide 7, I'd like to go back to slide 5, please. Whoever can do that. |
| 02:54:35.41 | Danny Castro | Thank you. |
| 02:54:35.42 | Jill Hoffman | like seven. |
| 02:54:35.96 | Danny Castro | Thank you. that phone. |
| 02:54:42.83 | Danny Castro | Tell me which one. |
| 02:54:43.78 | Jill Hoffman | Slide 5. I think you're going forward. You need to go back. |
| 02:54:47.15 | Danny Castro | Oh. |
| 02:54:50.98 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, here we go. and i'd like to see jenny was or your your poster board. Can you put your poster board right up there, please? |
| 02:55:07.30 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Okay. So it looks to me like, and I have my own pointer, how about that? So here's the existing roof line right here. And this looks like it's the new proposed roof line. Have I got that right, architect Michael Heacock? You can just nod your head. Okay. So this area right here has not been reviewed by the Planning Commission. We have no idea what the sight lines are and how this view of Ginny Wasser is going to be affected by moving that roof over. It may not be affected because this may be the back, I don't know. I don't think we can. Yeah. Well, I don't think we can make that finding. I don't think anybody can make that finding right now. We'd just be speculating about what the view impacts would be from that corner of the new roof line. So that's the problem I have with these late submitted plans. And we can get in more to that in our comment section. I think that's one of the crucial issues about whether or not to approve the plans or grant the appeal. |
| 02:56:14.85 | Unknown | Yeah, I have a question of our city engineer. |
| 02:56:22.17 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:56:22.51 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:56:28.84 | Unknown | Um... I know this may seem a little unusual. Could you explain your background and qualifications? |
| 02:56:36.67 | Jonathon Goldman | Sure. In this context, I think you'd be interested in the fact that I have a degree in hydrology, as well as a degree in civil engineering, where I specialized in water resource systems and history as a private consultant, including testifying as an expert in litigation involving ground water. |
| 02:56:59.13 | Unknown | Okay, thank you, because the comment was made tonight that there's nobody here qualified to make these judgments. Could you repeat for the umpteenth time the city engineer's perspective on drilling drilling piers and putting foundations below groundwater on hillsides in Sausalito. And is it the city staff's recommendation that we actually stop doing that? |
| 02:57:28.75 | Jonathon Goldman | Certainly the answer to the second question is absolutely not. And the best way, simplest way that I can address the broader issue and the first part of the question is really a mass balance conversation. This project will not create water. Whatever is underground now is still going to be underground. The question is how is it going to be handled by the question is how is it going to be handled by the structure? How is it going to be handled during the course of construction? And it's up to the applicant and their contractor, assuming that they're granted the design review entitlements, to satisfy me and to the extent that I believe we need peer review, the peer reviewers as well as our building official and their plan reviewers, that those issues are being addressed during the course of construction. |
| 02:58:20.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:58:25.08 | Richard Conley | Thank you. |
| 02:58:25.09 | Jill Hoffman | Any other questions? |
| 02:58:25.80 | Richard Conley | Thank you. |
| 02:58:26.04 | Jill Hoffman | so? Okay. We'll bring it back for comments. Who would like to start? |
| 02:58:33.01 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So I'll just jump in. So when this first came before us, you know, I was looking at this, and I said, this is a mess. And I'm looking at this again, and my opinion has not changed, if anything, You know, I have to say, You know, when we were looking at these sketches, I mean, you know, even Ray, you were asking, well, which one, which line is the existing and which one is the new? There is so much, there is so much uncertainty. And I think the applicant's intentions were well-meaning. They wanted to try to submit something that addressed the Planning Commission's concerns. But bottom line, that's not how we, that's not the process we have here in Sausalito. I mean, that's not how we review and approve projects. And we haven't had due diligence with regards to going through the new design. I see no alternative but to uphold the appeal and to deny the project, which was reviewed by the Planning Commission. |
| 02:59:12.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:59:41.60 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | and to invite the applicants to go through the regular process that anyone else would typically do. The concerns that I had before, I still have. I still have them. And with the new design, I have concerns, but at the same time, Even up here, we were having questions and vetting it back and forth. I don't believe remanding it to the Planning Commission is fair. I don't believe it's fair to anyone. Talk about precedent setting. I think that sets a precedent. You know, we have a unique situation here in that if it is a two-two, it will be very sad because I just see this going back and forth and back and forth and back and forth. And I just think it sends the wrong message in terms of... how projects of this caliber and this scope and this scale are vetted, reviewed for transparency, and approved in our town. So that's my comment. |
| 03:00:56.09 | Jill Hoffman | I spent a lot of time looking back at all of the hearings in this and looking at the evolution of this project as it's worked its way from the Planning Commission to the City Council back to the Planning Commission. You know, Thank you. I don't think it's appropriate to sandbag the residents with a new plan a week before a you know your second SWAT at the at the city council. We've heard significant testimony from this neighborhood. you know, Amy Wilson and Gerard Cunningham at 208 third, Ginny Wasser at 203.3rd. Jerry Taylor at 2103rd, Charlotte Mastrangelo at 105 Third Street, Margaret Brindle and Roger Brindle at 2.17 third, Noelle Norton at 202.3rd. Mordecai Winter at 207 2nd Street, um Chris Gronbeck at 209 3rd Street, Gina Amador at 221 3rd Street. You know, and I listen to those, and I listen to the input of the neighbors in the neighborhood. That's a significant portion of the neighborhood. I mean, there's only 17 – it looked like to me there were 17 houses on that street, and nine openly opposed this plan, and they have consistently opposed this plan. And so, you know, I don't think that it's fair to – you know, sandbag them, like I said, with a plan a week before They're coming back in. I also don't think that we can make any findings at all. And now you're throwing us back, talking about a de novo review. Now we're back to looking at views. We thought that was settled. That was, you know, the Planning Commission actually found that they could make the findings on site on views. But now we can't on this plan. We can either go back to the plan B and say, you know, uphold what the Planning Commission found and uphold the appeal. or you know, we're left with speculating on whether or not this new plan you know, impacts any primary views, which is a primary consideration in any plan that we would approve. I don't think that that would be appropriate for the City Council to speculate on whether or not this new plan impacts any views. I would suspect that it does. Thank you. If you – every view on that street, especially the uphill side, you move it – as the applicant knows, you move it an inch, you're impacting someone's view. This has been a – this has been a game of inches for the last year. And now you're significantly changing the game again. And so I would – what I'm leaning toward right now is upholding appeal or referring it back to the Planning Commission. I think those are the two options that we have for further findings with regard to the |
| 03:03:34.28 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:03:34.34 | Richard Conley | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:03:34.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:03:34.83 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, sure. That's so cool. you With regard to scale, there's been no change. The scale has not changed. And so the Planning Commission specifically found that the three-story structure was out of scale, and I agree with that. And I think that that hasn't changed. So certainly that portion of the appeal, regardless of the views or the new plan, could be upheld. And those are my comments at this point, but I'm willing to listen to other points of view. |
| 03:04:04.01 | Unknown | Yeah, I want to go quickly through some of this because I want to come back to this scale issue, which to me is by far the most important issue here and dangerous issue here. Thank you. I have a lot of deference to the Planning Commission on views and privacy in particular. I mean, they really know what they're doing here, and I completely agree with the Vice Not necessarily because the plans came in late. I don't think there is a definition of late in this context. But I cannot say that these new plans automatically mean that the Planning Commission would find the views and privacy to be unaffected. I don't know the answer to that. So I fully agree with the Vice Mayor and Council Member Pfeiffer on this point. So if I was being asked to vote on the old plan, Plan B, the one with the modern thing, |
| 03:04:50.35 | Unknown | I don't. |
| 03:05:08.03 | Unknown | I would not be able to vote for that plan, only because of one finding, and that's the neighborhood compatibility. The one, there was a 4-0 vote on the Planning Commission. Other than that, I could make the other findings. And here's the point, but, you know so for the vote on that i would have to up uh... uphold the appeal But if we can find a way of sending the new plan back to the planning commission for a They look. I'd like to find a way to do that that minimize the impact to all the parties so that it could actually get done judiciously so the Planning Commission can actually review the new plan. How much time have I got? Mass and scale. Planning Commission, by making a decision that an FAR of.56, even if you call it a three-story structure, is too big, is, in my belief, was made by the Planning Commission because they don't want the applicant drilling into the ground. And if you do that, What our Planning Commission is saying, or what you say, if you agree with that. You can't build up. You can't build down. You can't build out because you'll affect views this way. And you can't build either side because there are buildings in the way. You've just basically told every resident in Old Town who has not developed their property, whose house is sitting on brick or rubble foundations, that basically they're out of luck to ever expand their home. You have just driven a bus through the zoning ordinance. So if the Planning Commission does hear this again and sees this new plan, I think you've got to really ask very carefully of the scale and mass issue. What are you really doing here? because if you're letting the hydrology stuff come into effect You've just basically affected every future excavation in Sol Soledo. |
| 03:07:17.38 | Jill Hoffman | Well, I agree with the comments of my other council members here, I think. I applaud the efforts of the applicant in changing the facade. to make it more compatible with the surroundings. I think it's come in too late, and there are really too many unanswered questions on it. I do think before we start with the motion, though, a couple of things. I think when it goes back and we I'm gonna look for a way that it goes back to the planning and I agree with everyone. It's common agreement here that this needs to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. This is where it should be not up here. So I'm looking for a procedural method that it doesn't come back here unless there's a separate appeal. two points so on I agree with them council member with the on the scale thing and I urge the planning commission to take another look at that on scale going down, I think as Mr. Ziegler said, one of the findings is the relationship of the building to the surroundings. And if you walk by that, other than the new coat of paint, it's going to look a lot like the rest of the buildings in terms of size. No one's going to know how far it goes down. We've put in our zoning ordinance that we encourage people to go down for this exact reason, so that they don't go up and impinge on other views. So I really urge the Planning Commission to take a look at that scale issue. I think the privacy and compatibility and the view issues are going because this hasn't changed so much. But I think at this stage there are too many unanswered questions. I agree with Amy Cunningham. I think this idea of trying to find out which findings we're going to send back and which were not, I think we really need to send this down to take a look at it. simply uphold the appeal without prejudice and go through the process again. |
| 03:09:16.50 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | you I have a rebuttal. So upholding the appeal without prejudice, we would put it right back down to where we were again, right, because you're sending it back to the Planning Commission, or would they then submit for a new project? I just want to make it clear I understand. |
| 03:09:30.88 | Jill Hoffman | Well, we'll let the city. |
| 03:09:33.06 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, Mr. Mayor, if the City Council took action to uphold the appeal that denies the project under the provisions of the zoning ordinance, the applicant would not be able a similar project within a year. So if you deny without prejudice, that gives the applicant the opportunity to reapply to the Planning Commission and go through design review. MR. That's what I meant. MS. Different than remanding the project to the Planning Commission. MR. Oh, thank you. |
| 03:09:55.52 | Danny Castro | Thank you. |
| 03:09:55.55 | Jill Hoffman | That's what I guess. |
| 03:09:55.97 | Danny Castro | Thank you. |
| 03:09:58.82 | Jill Hoffman | Right. Remanding. Thank you. We're going to start over with the Planning Commission, but we're not going to penalize the applicant by making them wait a year. We're going to allow them to go through the process again right away. |
| 03:10:10.48 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So if we make a motion to uphold the appeal without prejudice, that means that the applicant resubmits whatever design they have. Maybe they might make additional, you know, compromises for the neighborhood. And then the applicant will be and that the Planning Commission then reviews that applying all the criteria, not just scale or They're looking at everything. Thank you. |
| 03:10:39.66 | Mary Wagner | Did we? |
| 03:10:39.90 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Correct. |
| 03:10:39.91 | Mary Wagner | Correct. It would be a new |
| 03:10:41.53 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | project perfect thanks |
| 03:10:41.58 | Mary Wagner | project. |
| 03:10:44.72 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | in. |
| 03:10:45.04 | Jill Hoffman | I would, if anyone's gonna make, and I would say that we, pulled the appeal on Plan B without prejudice because I don't think we have had time to review Plan C. I don't know that that's maybe a distinction without a difference, but they were able to go through, and I don't want any implication that we've looked at Plan C and upheld the appeal on it. I want to make sure that we've looked at Plan B. |
| 03:10:55.08 | Unknown | I don't know that's Yeah. |
| 03:11:01.97 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:11:07.88 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:11:08.35 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:11:08.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:11:08.42 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 03:11:08.50 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:11:09.11 | Unknown | Just for clarification, Ms. Mary, I'm assuming that we have not even considered Plan C. That's right. Is that correct? Because we don't. We don't know it. Right. |
| 03:11:09.12 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:11:16.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:11:16.84 | Mary Wagner | Correct. We don't know it. Right. Right. Mr. Mayor, if I may, it's an important point that the applicant's attorney has made to me, because he's not allowed to get back up to the podium. A new project is subject to all new applicable codes. And I believe that there was either it's the – I don't know which change it is, but this was discussed previously, that there was a change in the zoning ordinance which would impact this project in such a way that there was concern that they wouldn't be able to resubmit the project. If you're interested, the applicant's attorney may be able to tell you exactly what code section that is. I don't remember which one it is, but I know that there was a previous discussion about that. |
| 03:12:06.09 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. |
| 03:12:08.76 | Mary Wagner | It may have been. It may have been. |
| 03:12:13.28 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | You know? |
| 03:12:13.70 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. So they wouldn't be able to... |
| 03:12:14.60 | Jill Hoffman | So they wouldn't be able to resubmit at all? |
| 03:12:18.19 | Mary Wagner | They would be subject to review under the current provisions of the zoning ordinance, and I believe Council Member Pfeiffer is correct that it was the changes. Is it the changes, Riley, to the single-family homes and multifamily zoning districts? Your planning staff is indicating that that is accurate? Yes, it is. And how it affects their resubmittal, I can't tell you, but it would have an impact on their resubmittal and their ability to have this iteration of the project reviewed. It would change their project. |
| 03:12:35.05 | Janet Dean | Planning's. THE END OF THE END OF THE Yes, it is. |
| 03:12:47.64 | Unknown | It would change the project. Can someone – If I may, I think it's because the parcel is over 3,000 square feet, and therefore there's a slide in scale between 3,000 square feet and I think approximately 4,500 square feet, where the actual total maximum FAR allowed drops from 80 percent down to 45 percent. In this particular case, unless they decided to increase the FAR, this would have no impact because they're way below, which is the point I've been trying to make. |
| 03:13:14.20 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | They're way below, which is the |
| 03:13:19.40 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So I think we're fine, and frankly, we've applied |
| 03:13:23.26 | Jill Hoffman | Well, we'll let Mr. Hurd, I do want to hear on this because we don't want to make a mistake on this part of it. Because the intention is to send them back but not to penalize them in any way. Thank you. |
| 03:13:32.98 | Riley Hurd | Thank you. It would be incredibly punitive to not allow this project to come back under the code that was in place at the time that the application was first submitted. That's what you did when you did the motion for reconsideration because the same problem existed. Council Member Withy is right about the sliding scale but not precisely accurate on the effect of it. It would alter this project. if you're going to do what it looks like you're going to do, please don't make it any more punitive than it already is. Amen. |
| 03:14:10.67 | Unknown | I have. |
| 03:14:10.89 | Riley Hurd | Bye. |
| 03:14:11.56 | Unknown | you |
| 03:14:11.81 | Jill Hoffman | And I'm not sure when you say if you're going to do, what is the alternative? |
| 03:14:15.95 | Riley Hurd | If you're not gonna, see a remand to the PC, what we would rather you do is remanage the PC and say, look at this new project. That way, it goes back to the PC, just like it sounds like a majority prefers, and we don't have this new submittal, new fees, new code. It would be incredibly punitive. |
| 03:14:42.29 | Jill Hoffman | Well, I tend to agree with that. I mean, I think every one we came here, the idea was to send it back to the Planning Commission. I assume that was the cleanest way would be to uphold the appeal without prejudice, but now we're seeing that it isn't. |
| 03:14:53.70 | Mary Wagner | MS. And, Mr. Mayor, you could direct the Planning Commission to go through the full review process if you were so inclined. |
| 03:14:58.29 | Jill Hoffman | Every step. |
| 03:15:00.62 | Jill Hoffman | I'm not sure. I see Mr. Rex standing there. Can we hear his input on this? |
| 03:15:03.06 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 03:15:06.42 | Michael Rex | Thank you. If you let Mr. Hurd speak, I would like to – I'd first like to ask a question. I don't have the facts right in front of me. How large is the parcel? Maybe Danny could it? How large is – what's the square footage of the parcel? Could I have that information? 3,300. 3,300. Then I'd dispute the comment that it would be extremely punitive. If you look at the new ordinance, the reduction in Florida, if you build a single-family home in a multi-unit district for a 3,300 lot, |
| 03:15:22.03 | Unknown | 3,300. |
| 03:15:22.89 | Richard Conley | 33. |
| 03:15:23.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:15:23.58 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:15:35.65 | Michael Rex | We're talking a few feet. It's extremely minor impact on a little lot, okay? So I urge you to deny the project so we have a clean, fresh start. They have a different project. It should be reviewed as such. It is not punitive under the new code because of the small size of this lot. I can assure you, if you look at the numbers, that's the fact. |
| 03:15:54.72 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I can. Yeah. I'd like to comment. Thank you. |
| 03:16:00.93 | Riley Hurd | Yes. |
| 03:16:01.85 | Michael Rex | your time. |
| 03:16:02.43 | Riley Hurd | Thank you. |
| 03:16:03.29 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah. Michael's not the project. |
| 03:16:03.76 | Riley Hurd | Michael's not the project architect. We will accept a remand and we'll go through every finding. |
| 03:16:09.97 | Danny Castro | Thank you. |
| 03:16:10.14 | Jill Hoffman | We're planning to do it. |
| 03:16:10.65 | Danny Castro | I think I've been very, very, very, very |
| 03:16:11.07 | Jill Hoffman | Community Development Director, comment? |
| 03:16:13.55 | Danny Castro | by the help of other staff here. Based on your new R3 standards, Oh. Hold on. |
| 03:16:20.87 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | While we're waiting, I have a comment. Yeah, so first of all, we've heard from the architect that it does not have the punitive impact we thought. And I'm sorry, we heard from the appellate's architect. But second of all, my, |
| 03:16:31.07 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:16:39.69 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I mean, ironically, I opposed that ordinance, but it went through, and now it's part of the housing element. It's part of the code, and it's what we apply to every other new project being submitted. So, you know, to me, it's like, yeah, this is a case in point. This is the vision that the council majority had of the housing projects. |
| 03:17:09.08 | Jill Hoffman | Well, I'll just say, I think the intention was we were to send this project back The problem has been raised that they would have to alter the project once again. And I certainly don't think that's appropriate. I think we should... remanded to the Planning Commission, but they would have to make all the findings. on this and have them review the project in total. Well, before we, we're not going to, we'll ask anyone so far. There's no more time, but we have other comments from. |
| 03:17:39.17 | Jill Hoffman | Well, we let Mr. Hurt speak. I think we got to, I mean, you know. |
| 03:17:40.14 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you. We're going to be right back. All right. |
| 03:17:44.03 | William Ziegler | Thank you. |
| 03:17:44.18 | Jill Hoffman | . |
| 03:17:45.74 | William Ziegler | I simply don't understand your comment that they have to make all the findings, it's unclear whether they comply with the current code or the old code. If you send it back and it's a new project, it seems to me it's a new project. the new code, the current code, applies to it. And all I've heard from a legal standpoint is it's incredibly punitive, but we have No substance to that. In what way? Nobody said anything about that. We don't know the detail. It's speculation. And in order to get around that speculation, we're being asked to create kind of a new review process. I don't think that's a smart way to handle this. |
| 03:18:25.63 | Jill Hoffman | But Mr. Zignal, earlier your request was for us to remand it to the planning commission. So we want to do exactly what you say. what you asked for. At any rate, we'll bring it back. Thank you, Francis. |
| 03:18:42.61 | Unknown | Well, I'd still like an answer. I don't know if Danny and Lily are there yet. |
| 03:18:47.11 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:18:47.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:18:47.25 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. There appears to be some math involved in this. |
| 03:18:51.04 | Unknown | I hate it. |
| 03:18:51.38 | Unknown | Thank you. I have some comments. |
| 03:18:53.71 | Jill Hoffman | Um, With regards to the procedural aspects of this, you know, I think it's either we approve or we don't. We either adopt, you know, approve the plan or we grant the appeal at this point. Whatever, you know, the process is after that and whatever the effects of that can be addressed during the next procedural. If there are fees, you know, whatever, and whatever relief that the applicant wants to request, they can request, and that can be addressed by the the departments going forward. So Mr. Reilly, I'm not going to get into an argument with you from the dais. So I think that's the process. I think you make the decision, you follow the process, and whatever relief wants to be requested along the way is requested. MR. But they can't receive it. |
| 03:19:42.72 | Jill Hoffman | But they can't request relief from this other statute. So there are certain new zoning aren'ts. Can we have the city attorney weigh on that? |
| 03:19:46.51 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:19:46.53 | Mary Wagner | So there's certainly |
| 03:19:50.58 | Mary Wagner | I think it's important for you to hear from your community development staff about what the application of that would do to the extent that they can give you that information. |
| 03:20:00.52 | Jill Hoffman | Let me pose this question. Can the applicant request a variance of the square footage based on whatever |
| 03:20:09.02 | Mary Wagner | wants to base it on i think that's a good question for your community development director and lily to answer because they understand the impacts of that code section |
| 03:20:15.08 | Unknown | OK. Thank you. |
| 03:20:17.19 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. I mean, I don't want to get hung up on that either. The process is what the process is. Dr. Danny, are we going to be able |
| 03:20:21.11 | Mary Wagner | what the process is, what the process is. |
| 03:20:22.12 | Jill Hoffman | Danny, are we going to be able to have an answer soon, or should we move on? OK. |
| 03:20:26.62 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:20:26.71 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:20:26.78 | Unknown | . And who does it complicate? Thank you. Probably a slide in the sky. |
| 03:20:32.97 | Unknown | Okay, good. |
| 03:20:50.42 | Danny Castro | So one aspect we were really looking at in doing the math is there's a formula in terms of what your maximum allowable FAR, your floor area, is. With the new standards, it brings the floor area maximum to.63. Their current project as proposed is.56, so they would still be below that maximum. |
| 03:21:12.73 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yay, all right. |
| 03:21:14.89 | Unknown | We have the architect for the applicant shaking his head, saying that's not right. So I think we were... |
| 03:21:21.18 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I think. |
| 03:21:23.16 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:21:23.21 | Richard Conley | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:21:23.27 | Unknown | So, |
| 03:21:23.49 | Jill Hoffman | . |
| 03:21:23.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:21:23.59 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 03:21:26.02 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | that we just heard from our city staff |
| 03:21:27.54 | Jill Hoffman | No, we did. But what I do want to do before we're clear, we'll give both the applicant and the appellant one more minute each to comment on this particular part of it, if there's anything else, and then we'll go from there. and we'll... Riley, one minute on Are there any other code sections that would impact this project if we denied it without prejudice. |
| 03:21:52.67 | Riley Hurd | Our architect ran the numbers well in advance of this at the motion for reconsideration hearing and found that we would lose a significant amount of square footage. There's no procedure to ask for concessions after you guys make a decision unless you put them in the decision. And there's a condition of approval proposed that we can never enter the neighbor's property. So I want to throw that out there. Thank you. So. |
| 03:22:21.36 | William Ziegler | I'm sorry, but there is a procedure. It's commonly used. It's called a variance. They can ask for a variance. If they've got the grounds for it, they can get. but you want to sit here and basically give them a variance without hearing what exactly is going on. We've got a disagreement. people who apparently have done the calculations. But if it's that kind of an issue, an interpretation issue, that may be grounds for a variance. There's some necessity for a variance. They can get it. That's – coverage has really not been the issue here. So it seems – I don't want to give them any ideas, but there is a procedure for them to find out exactly what's at stake. |
| 03:23:09.65 | Richard Conley | I can hear any comments. We're going to start. |
| 03:23:17.58 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, do we have a motion? |
| 03:23:20.18 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I move to uphold the appeal and deny the project. |
| 03:23:26.68 | Jill Hoffman | without prejudice or are we, I'm just. |
| 03:23:30.39 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I'm sorry. |
| 03:23:30.61 | Jill Hoffman | I just wanted to know what your motion is. |
| 03:23:31.86 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | We've talked so much since then. Should I include without prejudice? Remind me again what that means. Yeah, I didn't write it down. |
| 03:23:40.58 | Mary Wagner | It means they can resubmit a project. It would be subject to the new any the then applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance would apply to the new application. |
| 03:23:51.05 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay, so the without prejudice means that it could happen within the year. That's all we're saying. Okay, so I would add without prejudice. |
| 03:24:00.41 | Jill Hoffman | Debbie would be |
| 03:24:02.30 | Richard Conley | Thank you. |
| 03:24:02.35 | Jill Hoffman | take the roll. We need a second. Yeah, second. |
| 03:24:02.88 | Richard Conley | Thank you. |
| 03:24:03.00 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:24:03.28 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 03:24:13.68 | Unknown | Council Member Pfeiffer. |
| 03:24:15.13 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yes. |
| 03:24:16.36 | Unknown | Tells them ever within. |
| 03:24:19.04 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:24:21.10 | Unknown | Vice Mayor Hoffman. |
| 03:24:22.62 | Wendy Richards | Yes. |
| 03:24:23.70 | Unknown | Mayor Theodore. |
| 03:24:25.05 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. Okay, thank you everyone. |
| 03:24:33.42 | Jill Hoffman | We'll take a five-minute break, and we'll be back. Thank you. |
| 03:26:42.72 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:27:05.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:27:24.94 | Noel Norton | I thought was |
| 03:27:34.81 | Noel Norton | Thank you. |
| 03:29:11.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:31:36.31 | Charlotte Mastrangelo | and I love it when you kind of bring it back to the show. And that's three stars. Thank you. |
| 03:31:42.05 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:31:42.10 | Charlotte Mastrangelo | Thank you. |
| 03:31:42.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:31:42.18 | Charlotte Mastrangelo | . Thank you. |
| 03:31:46.18 | Unknown | Thank you. . |
| 03:31:51.28 | Unknown | you |
| 03:32:16.61 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:32:16.98 | Margaret Brindle | Thank you. |
| 03:32:30.97 | Unknown | and you hope to make something |
| 03:32:35.52 | Jill Hoffman | Let's see if we can get going, because we've got so much. |
| 03:32:52.97 | Unknown | you |
| 03:33:09.97 | Unknown | I'm going to go back to the clothes side. That is done. OK. OK. See you later. |
| 03:33:51.97 | Unknown | you |
| 03:33:57.32 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:33:57.33 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, now we're moving on to item 7A. City manager's information for council. |
| 03:34:06.88 | Adam Politzer | Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council Members. Very quickly, because we have items that we have to cover in closed sessions, and it is now past 10 o'clock. First thing is just to recognize the community on a fantastic hearing festival that happened this weekend. Again, I think that the feedback that I received from the community was this is the type of events that we want to continue to encourage. And so congratulations to all that were involved and we look forward to seeing such events again. And this one in particular during the winter when it slows down in our community and the community actually likes to come out and enjoy themselves. So thanks again to those folks. The mayor and vice mayor and I went to the League of California Cities Academy for new mayors and new council members. I'll let the two council members share their experience if they so choose later in the council reports. But just want to reiterate that it is really a very good training that we go through. It's good for me to go there as well. It's a good refresher for me. But now each of the council members sitting at the dais have gone to this academy and encouraged Councilmember Pfeiffer and Councilmember Weiner if they would like to go next year. There will be an opportunity to go again. But one of the benefits that the mayor and vice mayor received is they went through and got certified in their ethics training which is part of it and they're now good and certified for the next two years. Councilmember Withey did that last year and so he still has another year left and we'll need to talk to our other two council members to make sure that they get recertified as something that is a requirement. One of the things that came out of that training that the mayor and vice mayor and I talked a little bit about when we were up there was the other trainings that they do for planning commissioners. And so Danny has already heard from I think at least one council member that thought that that was a good idea. And so we'll, when we go through the budget process, look and see. For not this year, this year it's down, the training's down in Southern California, but next year it's back up here. It rotates from Northern California to Southern California. So when it's up here in Northern California, that's a great opportunity for us to send this many commissioners that are available and add that so that both the council and planning commission are receiving that level of training going forward. In the meantime, Danny's going to look for local trainings here in Marin County, Northern California, and look at opportunities to enhance both at the staff level and at the planning commission level on training on running their meetings and doing their job serving our community. So it's also a very good benefit for us when we're there. The other that I'm and the mayor and the vice mayor are aware of this, I'm very excited that we met Senator Mike McGuire, newly elected senator, incredibly enthusiastic, incredibly young. but also very experienced from going from school board, city council to county supervisor in a very short period of time and now state senator. So I know that there's already been folks in the North Bay Division Legislative Committee that have met him and that the North Bay Division dinner that's coming up, I believe he may be also making a guest appearance at that as well. So we'll ask him to come to our city council. In the past we've had folks come to our town to present, you know, their agenda. We've had them at the mayor's and city council dinners that are held to be introduced. Mark Leno did that in San Rafael once, and so it would be a good opportunity to make sure that we introduce him to our community and our community be introduced to our senator. He's from the North Bay and so he needs to get to know the South Bay of his area. He represents as far south as Sausalito and as far north as Crescent City. So there's a lot of diversity in both town cities and people in that area and land. So we need to make sure that our agenda for our county of Marin and our agenda for the city of Sausalito that he is aware of it. So it was a great opportunity. Special thanks to Nancy Hall Bennett who introduced us to him at a reception and then he invited us to his office which we graciously accepted and it was worthwhile. So one city manager's point of view, excited about our new senator and I think that he's going to be a great help to us going forward. Last on my list here is we are coming to the end of our parking equipment contract with APARC. And so we began last fall the process of evolving to the new – to a new parking system at our parking lots and also exploring our parking meters and so in starting later this month we are going to start testing some of the equipment and we have a request out and have accepted proposals for qualifications. We've accepted proposals for product equipment and so we've selected a handful of these companies, I think three, I'm not sure if it's five or three, but a minimum of three to come out and test equipment in our parking lot, the pay per space equipment that you see in lots one, two, three, and four. We're going to test the equipment in lot one and they've picked out locations that have caused troubles for us because of the because of the cell coverage that is difficult down in the downtown area. So they'll be testing that out, and the public will have an opportunity to test it out and provide feedback to the city. There'll be a press release going out in the next couple days that gives a little bit more specific information so that the public knows what's happening. The resident cards won't work on the new ones that we're testing, but there will be stations for the residents to use the existing blue stations that are there that the residents will continue to be able to use to receive their free parking in lot 1. Lot 2, 3, and 4, there's no testing going in those lots, so anyone that's parking in those lots won't see any difference. And then we're going to change out the meters on Princess Street, a handful of the meters on Princess Street, and test the new technology on Princess, which are what you see in San Francisco or in San Rafael, where you're able to pay by credit card and not just with coin. And so we're going to test because that's been one of the streets that we also have for reception on for cell coverage. So we'll go through this test during the spring. We'll get community feedback on the ease of use and then the various other things from the staff perspective on how they use the handhelds to receive information and then we'll come back to the council with a report on the outcome of that study and then through the finance committee come through with a recommendation on changing to a new system which will be five years newer than the system that we're using now which at the time five years ago the equipment we put in there was state of the art technology. As we know technology moves very quickly so five years there's been a lot of advances in that. So before we put any permanent equipment in there we would have had feedback from the public through this testing process, feedback from staff, and then a proposal to the council for their consideration. But we wanted to give the community a heads up that the testing is going to start so they'll see a little bit of difference in lot one and then a significant difference on Princess Street in terms of the meter heads changing now. So that concludes my report. Happy to answer any questions from the council. |
| 03:42:57.82 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I have some questions. So, Adam, regarding what you just described as the parking process, was this proposal vetted with any of the subcommittees, like the Finance Committee or the OMIT or something? Was this discussed in some other venue before you shared it tonight? |
| 03:43:16.54 | Adam Politzer | several different venues finance committee most recently but also during the budget process talked about the parking equipment and the need to replace the parking equipment when you say talk |
| 03:43:32.11 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | When you say talk about the budget process, you mean, again, the finance committee? |
| 03:43:35.88 | Adam Politzer | and council presentations. |
| 03:43:39.39 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay, because I don't recall, I recall you mentioning problems with the parking system. I don't recall you suggesting this process where you are, It sounds like you're going forward with a new system in a pilot test, and then you're going to come back to us and say how it's… It's... It's performed. Is that what I heard? Did I get that wrong? |
| 03:44:05.34 | Adam Politzer | That's what you heard. |
| 03:44:06.08 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay. So I have concerns about that. I have concerns about the current parking system. As you know, I think I sent you an email a couple months ago. I want to do a history on that because |
| 03:44:06.13 | Adam Politzer | I'm sorry. |
| 03:44:21.64 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I had issues with that from the start. I mean, right out of the gate. And I have emails backing me up. One resident is an expert in contracts, and he requests – on my request, he asked to see the contract, I think, at least three years ago, and he couldn't get a copy of the contract to critique it. When Councilmember Leon was still here, I think it was back in September when I raised the issue about parking, the parking system, and he claimed that I knew it all along. That is something that I It's just not correct. I have been fighting it all along. One of the problems that I see that happened with this parking system that was installed is that I asked about the 90-day review when we went there, and it was glossed over, and you know, it's not coming back. even though we were told there was a 90-day review. I would like to see a different process. I would like to see |
| 03:45:25.46 | Unknown | Hmm. |
| 03:45:26.12 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | different vendors reviewed and vetted, submitted to the council for review. I'd like council to test the systems and kind of get our look at the systems, which, you know, in my opinion, we didn't do. And then I'd like to see the price comparisons and then look at pilots. I mean, at least I'd like to consider that, maybe agendize it and discuss. I'm concerned about this. I don't have the data and the facts just on how bad the current parking system is, but I do know that there were issues that I thought were resolved that weren't. you know, I, I, I mean, is the vendor that you're looking at piloting right now, is it the same vendor? Is it a different vendor? |
| 03:46:24.73 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor, could I just... Isn't it the case, Adam, that we are going to look at like three or four different systems? We're going to put them out there. We're going to let the residents and any council member presumably play with them as much as they want so that then when we've got field tested four different systems, as my understanding staff will come back with a recommendation. based on performance, based on cost, based on all of the, based on resident input of playing with the machines, so that we will then have a future agenda topic to discuss. Is that correct? |
| 03:47:06.20 | Adam Politzer | Yes, and maybe in my brevity, that wasn't as articulate as Council Member Withkey said. But that's what I said. We're having multiple vendors bring out machines, and we're going to test from different vendors, not one vendor with multiple machines, but multiple vendors with different machines, at least three. There may be five, but at least three. And the process, as Councilmember Pfeiffer shared, is similar to the process that staff has undertaken working through the Finance Committee. |
| 03:47:43.30 | Unknown | on. |
| 03:47:43.38 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. sending out the RFP, vetting, putting professionals together to vet the contracts, you know, the proposals, and then selecting vendors to go and test their equipment and then give a period of time during the spring for the community to test it and then bring the results of that and all of the information that Councilmember Pfeiffer has shared on the cost, timeline, process to the council for their direction and decision. |
| 03:47:54.67 | Unknown | I think. |
| 03:48:14.26 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So this, this, the finance committee has submitted RFPs. Is that what you, did I hear that wrong? |
| 03:48:20.02 | Adam Politzer | Staff submitted. Staff. |
| 03:48:21.05 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And that's been out there and vetted, and now it's come back, and they've selected |
| 03:48:28.22 | Adam Politzer | Request for proposals don't require Council approval. |
| 03:48:31.71 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay, look. |
| 03:48:31.88 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. A warrant of contract requires counsel |
| 03:48:33.33 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Um, Okay, I think I'm going to have to take this offline and document my concerns and go through the history of this because I am very concerned. I feel like we have not learned from past mistakes, and we are going to put four different vendors in the heart of our tourist district to test them and see how they're going to I've got lots of concerns, I'm sorry. |
| 03:49:02.10 | Jill Hoffman | I agree we should move on and take it offline, but I'll just say that the reason that they're taking a look at four vendors or five is because last time they looked at one vendor and it didn't work out so well. So this is so that it can be test driven by the, by the community. |
| 03:49:18.10 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I am very supportive of pilot testing, trust me. I am extremely supportive of that. But to take – I mean, typically you can do a pilot test in a way that is not so impactful. I mean, we had one system that was extremely disruptive to residents and tourists who were coming in. |
| 03:49:22.96 | Jill Hoffman | STREET. |
| 03:49:40.17 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | It just seems like we wouldn't pick the heart like lot one. We would go to lot three and pick a less trafficked, you know, area to test some of this. I don't know. I just have concerns. I will take it offline, and I will document what I've experienced in the past. Okay. Okay. |
| 03:49:52.64 | Jill Hoffman | Join. and I will document. |
| 03:49:58.21 | Jill Hoffman | Great. Bye. more. Adam, do we have any more on your... Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. |
| 03:50:09.62 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:50:09.67 | Jill Hoffman | I got it. |
| 03:50:10.70 | Unknown | I'll get you there. you Thank you. |
| 03:50:12.18 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:50:12.25 | Unknown | No. you No comments or questions. Thank you. |
| 03:50:15.37 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 03:50:15.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:50:15.73 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. So we'll move on to council member committee reports. |
| 03:50:20.79 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | The Butte task force met last week and We reconfirmed that it's mission accomplished. We've done the homework and submitted the recommendation for open space. The council took a motion and a vote endorsing that. And so we are WE RECONFIRMED THAT WE'D LIKE TO DISBAND AND TAKE THIS TO THE NEXT LEVEL WITH FUNDRAISING IN THE COMMUNITY. it's my understanding that, um, the chair if they haven't already submitted the disbandment letter to staff will do so shortly. And the request is to include it in the – on, I guess, consent for February 10th. |
| 03:51:07.85 | Jill Hoffman | We have... either Madam or Mary tell us, what's the process for final reports and disbandment of task force? Do we have a procedure? |
| 03:51:22.17 | Adam Politzer | I think it's a very important thing to do. Mary, our city attorney, and outside council to talk about two different processes. One that would be labor-intensive and very structured through a city process where the city would need to hold the reins, and then another process where the city would let go of the reins and a group of residents would fundraise and negotiate separate from the city. So what we shared with Chair Leon Hunting was to go back and consider which option they thought. He already had an opinion on what they thought, and then we would agendize it and have it come back to the council and we would tell the council what the options are and the pros and cons of both. And then the Butte Street Task Force would make their recommendation and then council would then give directions. |
| 03:51:40.02 | Peter Van Meter | you |
| 03:51:47.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:51:47.36 | Marty Winter | you |
| 03:51:47.63 | Unknown | you |
| 03:52:38.96 | Jill Hoffman | just seems a little premature until we accept their final recommendation to disband. |
| 03:52:43.15 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Well, we submitted a recommendation probably six or seven months ago, and it was the time that we also asked the council to make a motion to move to donate the parcel as open space that was city-owned. So that was our recommendation, and we Council did a vote, and we came back and we asked Council to take another vote to clarify the first vote, and you did. So that was our recommendation, and we asked for a council vote to endorse that recommendation. And the intent, just to close, the intent for the fundraising is to fundraise to purchase the privately owned half of the parcel. |
| 03:53:28.58 | Jill Hoffman | Well, no, I recall. We gave them... I can't remember how it was worded. I THINK THAT'S A LOT OF they were going to go back and find third party, and so there was much more work to do beyond our last thing, and that was what they were tasked to do. |
| 03:53:42.99 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I think what we can do is agendize it and have the chair of the task force present, again, the findings of the task force, review the past motions that were made, and the reason why we are recommending what we are recommending again, and we will ask for, you know, the council approval and to move forward with this. The entire community in the northern end of town, they are behind it. There's a lot of momentum to get going, and I think we need to move forward. And I'd be very happy to put this on open agenda. Well, the proposal is that the city-owned half of Butte be, as we had mentioned to you before, donated as open space, and that the Butte Task Force disband and then go towards open space Sausalito, which is a 501 that is being formed and the paperwork's been submitted, and to raise funds privately in the community to purchase the parcel. |
| 03:54:22.78 | Unknown | to put the money on the table. |
| 03:54:55.31 | Mary Wagner | And Mr. Mayor, if I may, I think that that Councilmember Pfeiffer's iteration is accurate of where we've been. So the task force brought |
| 03:54:55.74 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:55:06.45 | Mary Wagner | a question to the Council and asked the Council to weigh in on moving forward. Would the Council be willing to donate the half interest that the Council holds and that they would talk to the Hunts? So that process went on. Then we received a letter from the task force indicating that they had already voted to disband themselves and thought that they had done their job. And that's when we said, well, wait a minute. the council needs to weigh in on that and have a voice in the disbandment of the committee that they created. So I think it was a procedural step. We had a good conversation with Chair It was kind of a chicken and an egg issue. So we can have another conversation with Mr. Hunting before the 10th and how that process would unfold. And I think Councilmember Pfeiffer's comment about the 501 is also accurate. You know, as part of our conversation with Mr. Hunting, on. THE TWO PROCESSES THAT THE CITY MANAGER MENTIONED WOULD BE and the outside council that we have is a property acquisition eminent domain attorney to make sure that we were putting the city in the best position to acquire the property or have the property acquired by the 501. So there's no mystery there. It was just a procedural issue of the council needing to weigh in on the next step in the process. |
| 03:56:33.56 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And I want to be clear, though, that the – in terms of acquiring the Hunt's property, the intent is not to donate that to the city. The intent is the city to donate the city's half of the land to the and that we'll find a trust to hold the land separate from the city. |
| 03:56:53.51 | Jill Hoffman | Let me present it to the council because I think that's something we're going to need to have it presented in open session and to discuss. Okay. Okay. |
| 03:56:59.85 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And I would love it to be an open session. That would be great. OK. |
| 03:57:04.68 | Jill Hoffman | Any other council member committee reports? |
| 03:57:10.31 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:57:10.33 | Jill Hoffman | Moving on to future agenda items. |
| 03:57:14.45 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I have a couple. First of all, I remember when Neil here mentioned the lights and the crosswalk. That's part of my commute almost every day with going through Petaluma, and it's wonderful. Those lights work like clockwork. You come up to a crosswalk, and they immediately, you know, and they light up, and it's so safe. I think we should check with the city of Petaluma just in terms of how they're working out because they seem to be doing wonderful. I would support that as a future agenda item. We need the special meeting for the ferry landing. I might even suggest that we do a special meeting. We have the power here to do an emergency meeting next week. I'm nervous about February 10th. What happens if the emergency emergency emergency if the February 19th BCDC meeting goes forward. February 10th doesn't give us a lot of time. And I also think a special meeting would make sense because we could also – and I want to make sure that we are never – this council is not compromised in the coming days in terms of losing our ability to not give consent. The lease gives us the opportunity to give consent or not, and I want to make sure that is protected, that we do not lose that. Airbnb nuisance neighbors, that's something that I've been raising for a while. Code enforcement for Bridgeway Marina, I think And the final thing is closed session rules. Berkeley, I'm looking at the closed session, things we have in closed session, and there are two items that I have questions about, why they're listed on closed session. and I'm going to wait until we go into closed session to have that conversation, but I have a lot of concerns. And I know that the city of Berkeley has closed session rules where they take minutes in the closed session. And they take minutes of the actions and any votes and who votes how and these types of things. And the minutes for closed session are released later. they're held for 18 months and they're released after the sensitivity is passed. The other thing is the town of Palo Alto allows the City Council to vote on closed session items. So if I see something here that I don't understand why it's on closed session, the council has the opportunity to vote on whether or not the things that are listed as closed session should in fact be in closed session. As you know, the Brown Act has very strict rules in terms of when it is appropriate to exclude the public, and I think that the town of Palo Alto has taken the step towards transparency by allowing council members to vote on that. So. Thank you. |
| 04:00:27.62 | Unknown | That's it. Thank you. |
| 04:00:31.16 | Unknown | I have a future agenda item. I would like us, the agenda setting committee, to assess with some urgency, putting together a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the City Council. It's very clear that there is a lot of strategic and procedural issues that we need to clarify between the two bodies. Thank you. |
| 04:00:55.31 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Anything else? Okay. Any other reports of significance? He's seen none. All right, I want to advise the public that we will shortly adjourn and return to closed session, but my understanding is that the Television feed will terminate shortly after we leave. And we will return after our closed session But the television coverage will not return. public will be able to view it on the web and on our city website. But the TV, whenever we go dark for a certain amount of time, they just fill it with something else. And we're about to return, but I'd like to adjourn in memory of Bernie Feeney. as we all remember. So we'll adjourn this meeting in his memory. Okay. |
| 04:02:46.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:02:47.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:03:10.97 | Unknown | Thank you. you I have to sort it. you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:03:25.97 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:03:33.97 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. |
| 04:03:34.07 | Unknown | you |
| 04:03:34.30 | Jonathon Goldman | and what is more important than anything else. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:04:33.97 | Unknown | I just had a video camera on it, and I looked like I was dancing and curl at the skin of the cars that grew from one direction and went from the other. I was spinning and spinning like cars. Debbie, we're all good, right? |
| 04:04:44.50 | Unknown | Debbie, we're all good, right? |
| 04:04:46.39 | Unknown | We're all good. I'm just going to press the button. |
| 04:04:46.92 | Unknown | We're all good. I'm just going to press the button. |
| 04:04:51.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:04:52.01 | Unknown | What time we, yeah, yeah, yeah. And is it just motion to adjourn? Oh, it's a report out. And then motion to comment, report out, motion to adjourn. |
| 04:05:01.41 | Jonathon Goldman | I'm going to. Which way are you going? |
| 05:56:07.31 | Unknown | So you know, if you have to do a job, that is the point that you did that thing. Thank you. |
| 05:56:19.58 | Jill Hoffman | Do I need to bring it back? But I was asking you to do that. Adam, do I have to say we're back again? |
| 05:56:27.73 | Adam Politzer | Wait one second, though. |
| 05:56:28.76 | Jill Hoffman | No, I understand. |
| 05:56:30.09 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 05:57:48.81 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:58:35.27 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 05:58:49.10 | Unknown | you I heard that about it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you. . |
| 06:00:14.85 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 06:00:51.69 | Unknown | We have a great issue. We don't. We've been about in the first place. We've been about in the first place. |
| 06:01:39.39 | Unknown | Woo! |
| 06:01:42.17 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 06:01:42.92 | Unknown | Let's do that slide. Just go, just keep it all in there. Oh, my God, do that. |
| 06:01:47.68 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 06:01:49.96 | Unknown | No, I... |
| 06:01:50.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 06:02:05.41 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 06:02:23.69 | Jill Hoffman | The council has returned. to open session from its closed session meeting. We met in closed session where we discussed potential litigation related to the proposed ferry landing project. After our review, the council voted unanimously to announce the following. The proposed project is not a repair and replacement project. It is a major alteration that requires the city's consent which has not yet been given. The city is working with the district on the details of the review process that will include public hearings in front of the City Council, Planning Commission, and the Historic Landmarks Board. The district has agreed to attend a city council meeting tentatively scheduled for February 10th, where they will update the council on their project and where the design review process and timelines will be discussed. The district has informed the city that they are not planning to be heard at the February B.C. D.C. hearing and will instead request to be heard by the B.C. D.C. in March. The city will notify the public via the currents as soon as we are aware of the date of the BCDC hearing. And we will be adjourning now at... 12. 33 a.m. on January 28th. Thank you. |
| 06:03:53.60 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Do we need to make a vote on that, or is it by acclamation that we... |
| 06:03:59.10 | Jill Hoffman | We have stated that we had voted unanimously in closed session. And we announced that. Thank you. I think we're adjourned. |
| 06:04:02.69 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | session. Excellent. Thank you. |
| 06:04:06.41 | William Ziegler | This is a test. And... |
| 06:04:07.86 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | . |
Dave Minard — Against: Expresses no ADA issues with current ramp, concerned about overnight boat parking and future bicycle impacts from ferry district. ▶ 📄
Grover Deere — Against: Requests a full public review process for the ferry expansion, concerned about lack of prior awareness and whether the February 10th meeting is for a vote or discussion. ▶ 📄
Sonya Hanson — Against: Asks council to tell Bridge District the proposal is inappropriate, requests full public process with story poles, and seeks clarification on whether council is listening to residents. ▶ 📄
Wendy Richards — Against: Urges council to unite against the Bridge District, citing distrust from past actions and concerns about externalities of a 'shipping terminal' in town. ▶ 📄
Janet Dean — Against: Accuses the city of under-information and misinformation regarding jurisdiction, ADA compliance, and process; demands openness and honesty, opposing the project. ▶ 📄
Kate Flavin — Against: Requests that any public process not involve patronizing consultants or useless meetings, and that council respect Planning Commission recommendations and remember who they represent. ▶ 📄
Kayla Kahn — Against: Emotionally appeals to council to preserve the town's character and vote against the 'horrible' ferry expansion, comparing it to San Quentin. ▶ 📄
Richard Conley — Against: Notes the project's history and funding, expresses concern about balancing tourism with quality of life, and appreciates the opening of the process. ▶ 📄
Peter Van Meter — In Favor: Based on his reading of the lease, states the city council has authority to review and approve the project, endorses a full public vetting process. ▶ 📄
Pat Zook — Against: Questions the closed session agenda, argues the project deserves full review by Planning Commission and Historic Landmarks Board, and calls for major redesign, not finessed approval. ▶ 📄
Lisa Simon — Against: Advocates for a sustainable, green design that fits Sausalito's small-town character, concerned about environmental impact and tourist overcrowding. ▶ 📄
John Farrell — Against: Compares issue to past police/fire station debate, urges council to listen to public will and consider a public vote on the ferry expansion. ▶ 📄
Joan Cox — Against: Expresses disappointment in the process, warns of litigation risks without proper CEQA review, and cautions against unintended consequences like water taxis. ▶ 📄
Stafford Keegan — Against: Concerned about process and scale of project, finds the design reminiscent of a penal institution, and hopes council is heading in the right direction. ▶ 📄
Jan Johnson — Against: Demands open, transparent democracy, opposes the project as too big and harmful to the environment, fearing it will turn Sausalito into a tourist trap. ▶ 📄
Betsy — Neutral: Discusses her claim against PG&E and the city regarding a cable installation, indicates she may file a claim against the city, and suggests the city join her CPUC claim. ▶ 📄