| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:01.50 | Jill Hoffman | Welcome everyone. the regular meeting of the Sausalito City Council for September 15, 2015. Lily, would you take the roll, please? |
| 00:00:10.53 | Unknown | Councilmember Weiner. |
| 00:00:11.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:11.57 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:00:11.59 | Unknown | President. |
| 00:00:11.95 | Jill Hoffman | you |
| 00:00:11.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:12.64 | Unknown | Councilmember Pfeiffer? Here. Councilmember Withey. |
| 00:00:15.59 | Jill Hoffman | Here. |
| 00:00:16.79 | Unknown | Vice Mayor Hoffman? Present. Mayor Theodoris? |
| 00:00:20.09 | Jill Hoffman | Present. And we have Bonnie McGregor Lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance, please. |
| 00:00:29.39 | Unknown | We wish. Thank you. |
| 00:00:34.35 | Unknown | Get it, Bob. |
| 00:00:38.98 | Unknown | Aye. |
| 00:00:39.40 | Unknown | Say aye. |
| 00:00:41.75 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 00:00:42.20 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:42.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:42.29 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:42.49 | Unknown | Thank you. to the flag. |
| 00:00:44.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:44.09 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:44.14 | Unknown | you |
| 00:00:44.40 | Unknown | of the United States of America. |
| 00:00:45.39 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:00:46.93 | Unknown | and to the republic for which it stands. |
| 00:00:47.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:47.97 | Unknown | Thank you. Amen. |
| 00:00:49.88 | Unknown | one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. |
| 00:00:50.44 | Unknown | you |
| 00:00:57.58 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. We did not have a closed session this evening, so there'll be no closed session announcements or public comment on them. Can we move on to item 2 E approval of the agenda? Can we have a motion to approve the agenda? So moved. |
| 00:01:13.08 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:01:14.20 | Unknown | that can be done. |
| 00:01:15.43 | Jill Hoffman | All in favor? Aye. Aye. Passes unanimously. |
| 00:01:16.29 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:01:19.24 | Jill Hoffman | All right, we move on to our special presentations. Introduction of Rebecca Burian. Library Assistant 2 by our city librarian, Herbert Chambers. |
| 00:01:32.83 | Unknown | Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, those of you here tonight in the audience and people watching from home. I'm here tonight to ask you to join me in welcoming Rebecca Bergen to the staff of the city of Sausalito. Uh, In her role as a library assistant, too, Rebecca will be splitting her time between helping the public out at our service desk and working in the library staff workroom processing materials and doing other projects. The library assistant, too, is one of only five full-time staff members of the library. And in her previous position, Rebecca was the head manager and buyer at the movie department for Amoeba Records in Berkeley. She also worked as a volunteer at the Oakland Public Library and at the Pacific Film Archive. And I should mention that this is Rebecca sitting right here. She'll come up to meet you afterwards. Rebecca grew up in the Gold Rush town of Grass Valley, California. She received her Bachelor of Arts in Literature from UC Santa Cruz and a Master of Library and Information Science from San Jose State University. In her time off, Rebecca is a freelance writer who voraciously studies film, linguistics, botany, Victorian history, and true crime. Please join me in welcoming Rebecca Bergen. |
| 00:03:02.60 | Rebecca | Thank you, Abbott, and to the whole library staff for giving me such a warm welcome my first couple weeks here in Sausalito. I've had a great time so far, and it's great to be here, and a pleasure to meet you all. Thank you. |
| 00:03:36.05 | Jill Hoffman | Well, welcome, Rebecca. This is one area. Everyone loves the library, and you have a great staff, and you're working for a wonderful man in Abbott. So good luck to you. Welcome. Okay, our next item is Super Bowl Trophies in Sausalito. Our Parks and Rec Director. Oh, no, Julie. Okay, they have a little misprint here. You didn't look like Mike. He doesn't wear that. He's not 21. |
| 00:04:00.96 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:04:01.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:04:01.04 | Julie | Thank you. |
| 00:04:01.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:04:01.19 | Unknown | you |
| 00:04:01.24 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:04:01.61 | Julie | Oh, I'm sorry. Holy mackerel, I've got to answer this in a second. |
| 00:04:07.10 | Unknown | It's a good thing they won yesterday. |
| 00:04:09.26 | Julie | Thank you. Oh, yeah, 49ers. You want to bring the trophy, your Lombardi trophies to Sausalito? I don't know. Wait, hold on, I'm getting another call. Uh, Mark? Mark Davis with the writers? Oh my goodness, you want to bring your trophies to Sausalito? Oh, I don't know what to do. Okay. Well, you know what? I'm sitting here in front of the city council. Let me talk to them and I'll get back to you. Okay. Just a second. Hey Jed, I know you really wanted to, okay. Okay, I'll talk to the city council. Let me get back to you, okay? Thank you. Sorry about that. Just, I thought it was important to answer those calls. So, hi. So we have an opportunity to not only bring Let's see if I can get this open. the Super Bowl trophies to Sausalito, but we have a couple opportunities. I'm here to share that with you. Is it okay that I'm not using the mic? I have to use the mic. Okay. I talk really loud. So, okay. So we have a couple opportunities. The Super Bowl host committee is doing some great things in the Bay Area around the 50th Super Bowl that's coming to Santa Clara. And we have Sausalito has a couple opportunities. And one of them is to become a super community. And the other is to bring the 52er here. And I'm going to talk about each one right now. Super communities are something that they've created for all the cities in the Bay Area. They can join and help to generate excitement with their residents and also to maybe bring some of the people that are coming in for the Super Bowl to each of the cities. The Super Communities, it's a free registration. We just build a website that says, like, Sausalito Super Communities. They'll do a logo. You can see the sample there. They'll do a web banner. We link it to them. And then all we have to do is if we decide or if anyone decides in Sausalito to hold some sort of activity around the Super Bowl, we register it with them, and it'll go up on their website website and this is a great opportunity because they'll be promoting these activities to the guests that come to town some of that is through the volunteer program I don't know if you guys are aware that I've been working with a volunteer program for the host committee since March. I'm their volunteer recognition lead and evaluation lead. So that's kind of how I've learned about these things. And I know that from the volunteer standpoint, they'll have an app that will list all these activities. And that's something that when guests ask them what to do, they'll be able to share that with them. So this is an opportunity that's open to any Bay Area city, and we have this opportunity to join them. as a super community. As a super community, we can then bring the 50 tour, Champions by the Bay, to to Sausalito. This is a mobile exhibit with the Super Bowl trophies and it's interactive. It's going to all nine Bay Area counties. Here's the overview. It's at no cost. It won't cost us anything. They just don't want to be charged anything either. It will go September 9th, which is last Thursday. They did it at the kickoff event at Justin Herman Plaza. Thank you. through November 22nd. There'll be 11 weekends, 33 events, all Bay Area counties, and then the host committee will actually do the promotion. They will do it through social media, TV broadcasts, radio broadcasts, print, online, digital channels. They'll do the promotion of their tour and the dates. The tour itself. has a Chevron stem zone, that's the science technology engineering and math interactive activity. Thank you. There's an NFL play everywhere. kind of where you get the kids involved and agility session where the kids can run around on a phone. like a football field. CBS Mobile Weather Lab comes to the events. There'll be autograph sessions, a read zone, And then... the champions row. with the Lombardi trophies. If you didn't know, the 49ers have five of them, and that's, yes, that's me, with the five 49er ones, and then the Raiders have three. And it's a cool exhibit. It's a big truck. They have all eight of the trophies, and then they have pictures of, the athletes who are part of those teams as well. This is kind of a layout of what it would look like. You can see the trophies and the play area. The STEM zone would be a container. It's an all-inclusive container that they drop And the tour dates, it started obviously last Thursday, and if you look, We're at the bottom, November 2nd. And we're the only one right now in Marin County if we choose to do this. And so you can see that the closest would be Sonoma, I think, or Santa Rosa. Yeah. They're going for weekend events, so this is an opportunity. Their last one is November 22nd, so we will be the second to last. It'd be a great way to maybe pull in people that haven't made it to any of the other dates and also give our residents a chance to see this. |
| 00:09:17.55 | Jill Hoffman | Because we have a lot of people on TV and they can't see this. You said November 2nd, but your slide said November 21st. I'm sorry. |
| 00:09:18.64 | Julie | Sure. |
| 00:09:22.73 | Julie | I'm sorry, November 22nd is the last date of it, and we have the opportunity to be on the 21st. First, okay. Thank you. |
| 00:09:25.43 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. the opportunity. First. |
| 00:09:30.09 | Julie | So right now the two options, we're looking at the Marinship Park and utilizing the Bay Model parking lot as a possibility and then possible downtown. So right now, what we have done already is I've presented this to the Hospitality Committee and the Parks and Rec Committee, and all of them are on board. They've gotten, they support this. And then what we'd like to do now is form a committee. Anyone is welcome to be on it. If you're interested, contact me. We'll help determine the site by working with their tour producer to figure out what's going to work best for them, what's going to work best for us. figure out. the dates. or what's going to work best for that date, and then produce the event. And then at that point, Parks and Rec will then support any kind of additional events that are going to go on for the Super Bowl. And thank you. And do you have any questions? |
| 00:10:22.11 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, Julie. Welcome. Any questions up here? |
| 00:10:22.87 | Julie | You're welcome. |
| 00:10:25.64 | Jill Hoffman | I have just a couple questions. Sure. So can you go back to the slide that shows what this would look like when... And I was wondering if you had the dimensions of that mobile exhibit, because it looked rather |
| 00:10:43.59 | Julie | Um... |
| 00:10:44.17 | Jill Hoffman | It's large. |
| 00:10:45.97 | Julie | Thank you. |
| 00:10:46.02 | Jill Hoffman | 60 by |
| 00:10:46.97 | Julie | Thank you. |
| 00:10:47.03 | Jill Hoffman | 60. |
| 00:10:47.96 | Julie | 60 feet by 60 feet? |
| 00:10:48.69 | Jill Hoffman | 60 feet by 60 feet? Mm-hmm. |
| 00:10:50.80 | Julie | Thank you. |
| 00:10:50.82 | Jill Hoffman | THE END OF and Could you go to the slide that listed all the cities? |
| 00:11:08.48 | Jill Hoffman | So one of the things I noticed here is that these are larger cities, and they have events going on. You've got Mountain View, the wine festival. You've got Fremont, their street eats festival. event and downtown date night, Santa Clara's Wine Festival, Pacifica's got their Pacific Coast Fog Fest, Sonoma, it's at the Sonoma County Fairgrounds. You know, every, I mean, going down the list, they all have a big event going on. |
| 00:11:41.41 | Julie | Right. That's what they prefer is to attach it to an event, but they're more than willing to come and have us create an event around them. And this isn't actually all of their confirmed dates, they still have dates that aren't confirmed. So some of the events are like ours. |
| 00:11:42.92 | Jill Hoffman | Much. |
| 00:11:59.45 | Jill Hoffman | I guess my concern is that I can see when you've got this big event going on and then this is something that, but to make this the thing and downtown Sausalito just, you know, sounds like it could, you know, be really big downtown. You mentioned the Marinship was another thing. Do you know where... |
| 00:12:18.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:12:18.18 | Julie | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:12:24.17 | Julie | Well, at the Marinship Park area down by the Bay Model. Okay, all right. We felt like one possibility is that since it's so experiential to maybe do something and tie in the Bay Model and the tall ship. |
| 00:12:24.18 | Jill Hoffman | that would be. OKAY. |
| 00:12:35.79 | Julie | some of the experiential things down there. And then downtown has other opportunities as well. It would be something that obviously the committee will decide. They do prefer to go to events already in existence, and these are the events that put out two weeks ago, so that's why it's the ones that are already in existence. Where they are going to some cities like us, where they're building an event around them, but they just haven't promoted those yet. |
| 00:13:03.62 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, yeah, no, I'm just, it's just so small, you know, just to, |
| 00:13:06.88 | Julie | Right. |
| 00:13:09.16 | Jill Hoffman | to see that downtown. It seems a bit overwhelming to me. I can tell you. |
| 00:13:10.39 | Julie | It seems a bit... I can tell you that on the 9th and 10th at Justin Herman Plaza at the kickoff, they had about 2,000 people go through the trophy a day, which to me is... I mean, they, or actually it was at the Wine and Art and Wine Festival. They probably had 30,000 or 40,000 people there all weekend, and 2,000 a day went through it. 2,000. |
| 00:13:31.58 | Jill Hoffman | 2000 plus or 3000 for the bikes. I guess I'm just concerned about the well, the bike. It's in November, so you know, |
| 00:13:36.21 | Julie | Well, the bike's, it's in November, so. |
| 00:13:39.28 | Jill Hoffman | Will this come back to us for a vote? Will we be discussing this? What's the game plan for that? |
| 00:13:45.56 | Adam Politzer | No, we're not looking for a vote. I mean, at the end of the day, this is meant to be more of a passive event, and that's why we are looking at the Park and Rec Commission and the Hospitality Committee to kind of work with us and then the committee that gets put together. But if it's at the Marinship, it's going to be very passive because there is no foot traffic down there, and it would be a very passive event. Although this slide looks a little bit larger than the reality of it is, it's a pretty small area. The trophies themselves, as you can see, come in a self-contained vehicle. The idea about potential of moving it downtown was that in November, especially at the end of November, we do try to kick off the winter holidays and bring people downtown to support our local businesses in November through the 1st of January. So I think that we're looking to the council to trust staff and the committee to keep this as a passive event. We're not looking to turn it into an art and wine festival, but we do have events during the winter months that the chamber hosts that would be a part of a series of events. But the idea is to keep this passive. |
| 00:15:09.36 | Unknown | you And I guess, you know, to look at traffic and traffic, |
| 00:15:10.42 | Unknown | you |
| 00:15:15.35 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. And then it's Shema's prayer. Thank you. Anyway, I'm not... |
| 00:15:28.51 | Mary Wagner | Okay. Could we schedule maybe a follow-up report after, or is there gonna be a recommendation from the hospitality and the downtown merchants you know, whether or not they want it down there. I'm guessing they want it there to draw on more people. |
| 00:15:40.22 | Julie | I'm guessing they want it there to draw on more people. The next steps would be to pull together a committee and then start to discuss those. I guess we could come back once we make our decisions and let you know. |
| 00:15:45.18 | Mary Wagner | I guess we could come back once we Let you know. I think fundamentally you're not opposed to, I'm hearing, but you do wanna understand the impacts before we decide where |
| 00:15:57.15 | Jill Hoffman | I guess it's a non-issue if you're not seeking council approval. It's not coming back for a vote on this. I have concerns about traffic impact. I have concerns about the Chevron branding and it being downtown and 2,000 people in addition to the 3,000 bikes we get. You know, I just have concerns about the impact to downtown is all. So anyway, so I personally would I think it comes to the level of council. I'd like to see it come back to council for a vote. |
| 00:16:35.77 | Jill Hoffman | When do we have to make a commitment on this? |
| 00:16:37.61 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:16:37.63 | Julie | We have until the end of September. |
| 00:16:40.38 | Jill Hoffman | So we could go back and take a look at some of these and the impacts, but I do want to relate that Council member Fiverr is worried about negative impacts. This is going to have a very positive impact. It's quite an opportunity for the city to especially any football fans and Super Bowl 50 and it's going to be in San Jose this year. So I think there's a lot of positive things we have to take a look at. Like anything, we just had the art festival with |
| 00:16:57.61 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:16:57.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:17:03.50 | Jill Hoffman | 25,000? I'm not sure what the number is. 29,000. So 2,000, and the city has done worse for wear. It's a wonderful thing. |
| 00:17:07.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:17:12.51 | Jill Hoffman | This is a city that we celebrate ourselves. I think we want to bring... important things and events to the city. We do want to be conscious about the traffic, but I think we also have to realize this is a wonderful opportunity for us. |
| 00:17:24.66 | Jill Hoffman | Well, if it's in the Marin ship, like the art festival is, I can, you know, it's like, It's a little less impact. I'm concerned about it being downtown and all of that. |
| 00:17:35.56 | Julie | Thank you. |
| 00:17:35.60 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:17:35.90 | Julie | Thank you. |
| 00:17:36.17 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:17:36.27 | Julie | Okay, I will definitely will address those concerns. Absolutely. |
| 00:17:43.91 | Unknown | No, the other thing is November, late November is a reasonably quiet time, especially for bicycles coming over, very quiet. |
| 00:17:54.65 | Mary Wagner | Yeah. |
| 00:17:54.68 | Unknown | Thank you. And you could look at the records. |
| 00:17:56.84 | Mary Wagner | I'm looking at my calendar and that looks like it's the Saturday before. Thanksgiving. And it's one day, but I do am concerned about the traffic impacts and the congestion downtown as well. So to me it's like, well, it's easier to commute downtown because you have the ferry, but then it is a very small space and you have much more room down in the Marin ships. |
| 00:18:01.55 | Unknown | Thanksgiving. |
| 00:18:02.80 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:18:12.08 | Bonnie McGregor | Yeah. |
| 00:18:16.20 | Mary Wagner | I mean, you could do like scrimmage games or something, like football. |
| 00:18:17.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:18:17.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:18:17.95 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:18:18.10 | Unknown | or something. |
| 00:18:19.91 | Mary Wagner | Council versus staff? What do you guys think? them. |
| 00:18:24.85 | Jill Hoffman | Well, and what I would recommend is, is as it moves along and you get closer to the venue, You can bring it to the city manager, we'll discuss it at the agenda setting to see if it's appropriate to bring the council. |
| 00:18:35.06 | Julie | Absolutely. |
| 00:18:35.54 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Thank you. |
| 00:18:36.50 | Julie | Thank you. |
| 00:18:36.94 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:18:40.73 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. This is the time for the city council to hear from citizens regarding matters that are not on the agenda. except in very limited situation state law precludes the council from taking action or engaging in discussions. concerning items of business that are not on the agenda. However, the council may refer matters not on the agenda to city staff. or direct. that the subject be agendized for a future meeting. Please fill out a speaker card I have. We'll start off with Lorna Chris, and this is something not on the agenda. |
| 00:19:20.10 | Lorna Chris | Uh. My name is Lorna Chris. I am 81 years of age and I have lived in Sausalito for close to half a century. I come to you today Utterly frustrated. I desperately need your help. To correct however possible a situation that never should have arisen, and that has been going on despite repeated appeals and objections voiced endlessly to every official and department of Sausalito government for 10 long years. In 2005, a set of plans for work at 32 Cloudview Road, the house closely alongside mine, was approved by staff without going before planning or design review. These plans were entirely new plans, done by a different architect from the 1990 set, 1999 set of plans, and greatly expanding upon those 1999 plans. which plans were denied at the time by the Planning Commission. That was 1999. I asked for a stop work order, which was granted by Paul Kermoyan. but was never enforced. Paul compared the 1999 to the 2005 plans. said it was an outrage that staff without the need for any other approval was allowed to okay, okay. These plans. Shortly thereafter, Paul Kermoyan was no longer with the city of Sausalito. Jeremy Graves, and you all know him, replaced Paul. He dropped the ball and I got nowhere. Graves has been replaced by Danny Castro, who is fairly new and was unable to help me. Your 2005 work is now completed. and 32 Cloudview Road has been sold as of August 26th. Here are some of the ways that I and my property have been impacted. My property value has been lessened by an enormous sum Through the loss of privacy, the addition of intrusive lighting, and the potential of increased noise levels. For three decks have been added, one the size of the entire roof, which roof is 15 feet from my bedroom window. with lights and water accessed by a new three-story metal spiral staircase. which also starts at ground level and which can also be accessed by a newly created door opening from the dining room. so that food can be brought to the roof deck. The lights from this stairway Is that my three minutes? Okay. All right, let me just wrap up. My bedroom, living room, and dining room can be looked into from two of these three new decks. I need your help resolving these issues. I need you to get me to whomever is empowered to act on this. I need to move forward. and present my case. Thank you. |
| 00:22:54.10 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, Ms. Grist. And as I said in our preamble, we can't take any action tonight because it's not on the agenda. But I would invite you to work with our city manager, Adam Pulitzer, to work on your issue. And if need be, he will raise it to council or take whatever appropriate action is necessary. Thank you. |
| 00:22:55.93 | Lorna Chris | Thank you. |
| 00:23:11.44 | Lorna Chris | Okay. |
| 00:23:13.35 | Jill Hoffman | Anyone else? I don't have any other speaker cards on items not on the agenda. Okay, seeing none, we'll move on to... Item three action minutes of previous meetings, minutes of September 1, 2015. Anyone have any comments or corrections? I have one on item 6A. And I already gave the language to Lily. And Lily, what do you want to do? Repeat that since you have it. It's on the motion that I made relating to the coin and the consideration by staff Prior to our next labor negotiation |
| 00:23:52.01 | Unknown | So the modification is on page four. It would start with line 42. And it would read, Mayor Theodore is moved seconded by Councilmember Withey to direct staff to return to Council 45 days prior to future negotiations in order to develop, and then the additional words are, and approve A, and then the original language continues, negotiation methodology, and then additional language would say, including whether or not it should adopt all or any of the elements of COIN, and then the rest of the language. And I just. |
| 00:24:28.70 | Jill Hoffman | And I just wanted to be clear that we weren't just going to consider whether we have an independent negotiator that we're going to look at all of coin prior to the next negotiation. And I think that was the intent of my motion, and I wanted to clarify the language. That was my only comment on the minutes. Anyone else? We have a motion to approve the minutes with that correction. |
| 00:24:47.12 | Unknown | So I move to approve the minutes of September 1st with the corrections notice. |
| 00:24:52.13 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:24:52.64 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:24:52.66 | Unknown | Second. |
| 00:24:53.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:24:53.05 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:24:53.91 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:24:53.94 | Jill Hoffman | in favor aye that passes unanimously 50. Okay, moving on to |
| 00:24:55.17 | Unknown | Bye. Bye. |
| 00:24:58.73 | Jill Hoffman | Item four. Consent Calendar. Matters listed under the consent calendar are considered routine and non-controversial. require no discussion, are expected to have unanimous council support. and may be enacted by The council in one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion of consent items. However, before the council votes on a motion to adopt consent items, council members, city staff, or members of the public may request Specific items be removed from the consent calendar for separate action. We need, if anyone would like to speak on that, we need to have a separate speaker card. And, um, So we'll move to public comment on the consent item I have. various speaker cards. I'll start with Peter Johnson. |
| 00:25:46.27 | Jill Hoffman | And I would remind everyone to limit the discussion to the items on the consent calendar, and not anything broader than what specifically on the consent calendar. |
| 00:25:58.05 | Peter Johnson | Good evening. My name is Peter Johnson. I've owned a property here in Sausalito since 2007. It's a wonderful community. And I was just wanting to speak tonight in regards to the enforcement that the council is looking into. And I had just three things that I wanted to say. I'll be very brief. Which is, one, it's unusual that we don't have any type of a bid contract on this proposal. Two, I know that there has not really been an accommodation for some of the folks that would like to work with the city to prepare better legislation surrounding this. And then three, I think that there really needs to be more review of what's going on with this and to look at some of the other communities around the area that are studying this issue. Thank you very much. |
| 00:26:54.82 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Sumit, and the name's quite long, so I won't give it a try. Thank you. |
| 00:27:00.61 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:27:00.64 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:27:00.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:27:00.69 | Jill Hoffman | you |
| 00:27:00.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:27:00.79 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:27:00.81 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:27:00.82 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:27:00.86 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:27:00.88 | Jill Hoffman | you Thank you. |
| 00:27:02.28 | Unknown | So I essentially echo the feelings voiced by the previous speaker. I have been a resident of Sausalito for 16 years and I have been a homeowner for 11. So the concerns are again about the no bid contract. Our belief is that there are other processes in place to address this particular issue, so the timing of this contract seems questionable. And finally, we have to say, the It is unclear what is the metrics of success for this contract is. there is no clear timeline or actionable deliverable for this contract. So these are my concerns. So I prefer that this is dropped from consideration. That's it. |
| 00:28:03.40 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Ken Dresdell. |
| 00:28:20.31 | Ken Dresdell | Thank you for being nervous. My name is Ken Drisdell. And basically, I was... I'm here to ask that the council pull the contract from the calendar, because in lieu of more discussion and input from the community, and that's because the consulting company basically wrote what their scope of work was and I've found to me there's at least four major flaws in it that are worth noting and reasons for tabling this. In general, I think the contract is too vague on collection of TOT. It's actually kind of recklessly vague. And one of the scope of work points, I think that It lacks provision to ensure a balanced report for the final recommendations. And specifically, the current scope of work I better put my glasses on so I can get this right. to me has four major flaws, and it seems to miss the mark in defining what success is. And it seems to be all about how many fines, how many TOTs are collected, and perhaps liens put on properties, it's all quantitative and negative. And I doubt in their final report they're gonna say how many people lost their houses because of the action or went to bankruptcy because they had too many TOTs in the past. And, scope of work. It lacks provision to ensure a fair and unbiased assessment of short-term rentals for the final report. Um, Their own statement of scope of work is to find Like I said, illegal landlords, fine tax, placed liens, et cetera. in a customer service oriented manner. I don't know how you can do those kind of things in a customer service oriented manner. I think their intentions are good, The scope, the In their mind, they're looking for lawbreakers, and I don't see how in the final report, they're gonna have anything positive to say about short-term rentals from lawbreakers. And. I think a fair report should give consideration to at least the following. owner occupied versus non-occupied rentals, neighbor complaints and neighbor support. guest parking space is needed. Balanced. by say relatives who moved out of the house who already had the parking place to begin with possible TOT to be gained by the city. A number of homeowners who rely on the income to afford to be able to stay here. and possibly small local businesses who actually support who get support from guests who come to their places and who are recommended by the hosts. The third major flaw to me is the stated |
| 00:31:23.90 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:31:24.43 | Ken Dresdell | Could I have 30 seconds more? |
| 00:31:25.47 | Jill Hoffman | No, please. We have a long agenda, and we have a lot of detail, and we have your written material. So please. All right. |
| 00:31:31.67 | Ken Dresdell | Thank you. |
| 00:31:31.68 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Kate's store |
| 00:31:37.83 | Jill Hoffman | And I will be on all speakers on any subject. We want to limit it to three minutes. And when the buzzer goes off, we want you to stop. Because, again, we have a lot of people tonight. And we have a long agenda. Thank you. |
| 00:31:46.59 | Unknown | We have a long agenda. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mayor Theodores and Councilmembers. And as you know, we were here until midnight, the last meeting, so nobody wants that to happen again. We know how hard you all work. However, I did want to represent the Sausalito host group. As you know, you had the meeting in March, and many of us didn't even know that this issue was on the agenda. Since then, we have come together to organize. We were at the meeting in June to... address our concerns about how the Council was proceeding. We've since met with Danny Castro and have opened the door for further dialogue and have made a commitment to him to meet in October and bring forward recommendations for alternative regulations that we think might be fairer and maybe a positive win-win for the whole community. In addition to that, there's a number of groups who are looking at the tourism issue here in town, they're meeting on October 7th. And we plan to, of course, attend and participate. We hope you will, too. And I think that this contract is obviously premature. There hasn't been an opportunity for the community to weigh in on this issue, much less come to some consensus. In addition, As you heard at the previous meeting, the contractor that you have chosen has received numerous complaints from business owners for harassment, We feel that this is perhaps the wrong vendor. This is an amendment to an existing contract. The vendor hasn't been vetted for the specific work that you're tasking the vendor with. It's a no-bid contract, and we feel that we can do better as a city. It's $50,000. We think it's going to be a waste of money in this process. We'd prefer that the council reconsider and remove it from the consent calendar. Thank you very much. |
| 00:33:25.37 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Yasmin, I'm sorry, I can't make, McGrain? McGrain. |
| 00:33:35.93 | Unknown | I'm going to stop there. |
| 00:33:37.27 | Yasmin McGrain | I'm Yasmeen. I'm a homeowner for 15 years in Sausalito, a Willow Creek Academy parent, a business owner in Sausalito, and a board member of the Sausalito Marin City Little League. And I'm here with others to also ask you to remove the contract to consider removing it from consideration. One of the things that I feel really strongly about is before you go into something like this is to for all of us to learn from our neighboring communities as I'm sure you've read just recently a week ago the city council of Tiburon who also went through this similar process everybody's trying to find the right solution as we are as well actually changed their vote and said whether I agree this way or that way we as council members have the duty to listen to both ends of the spectrum on a decision like this and so they reversed their decision to go forward in a similar direction to take the time not to rush and hear from the host the host community as well. and then try and find an amicable solution that we are all wanting to do as well. I see both sides of the coin on this one, and I think it's worthwhile taking that time. Also, in Mill Valley, they are looking at finding a very good solution as well. So they put in place just a week or so ago an incentive to have all the people who are doing short-term vacation rentals to actually get licenses. They've waived the fee until I think it's the end of October to get people to come forward and say, this is what I'm doing and to actually find, to assess how many there are out there and actually come to a solution that way. And a lot of people are coming forward. We have property there, too, doing a short-term rental, and it's a very good process that I think they're taking. I also feel that through this process, we're not really differentiating the different reasons why people are doing short-term rentals. There are people that are abusing the policy, and I think those that are getting complaints from neighbors should be addressed and dealt with. But there's also a lot of people that are retirees, and this is a source of income in order to stay here. There's people that are unemployed that are needing to do something like this. There's absentee landlords, and there's people that are homeowners in our community that are participating. So I think some of that should be assessed through this process instead of grouping it together. Again, I just really reiterate how can we don't rush, take the time to really understand this, come together and work together, as Kate has mentioned, to find a solution that works for our community. So thank you. |
| 00:36:16.84 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Alessandra Gallo. |
| 00:36:26.78 | Alessandra Gallo | I am speaking on behalf of Melanie Merhanchant, who can't be here. She read the contract, and she's concerned about the timeline. There doesn't seem to be a clear timeline for when this starts and ends and if there is a limit. And also there don't seem to be clear deliverables from this company. Another concern was that there doesn't seem to be any information on how the company gets the information and then how can a homeowner appeal if the information is incorrect. So these were the the main points that you wanted to put forward. Thank you. |
| 00:37:12.09 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. And the last one is Leila Samrod. |
| 00:37:23.63 | Leila Samrod | Hi, everybody. I just really want to reiterate what these guys have said. I would also like the contract to be removed from the consent calendar for now, and I think it would just be such a, just a wonderful reflection on our community. If we could come to just a more gentle, group oriented. way of dealing with this because I think there are some very valid concerns around short term rentals and then There are some very valid concerns that I heard voiced around the way that this contract is kind of coming forward. So I would love to see us work together. about the point that Yasmin made, love to get a license to do this, you know, and to really be in line with regulations around it. It's just hard when it's this kind of adversarial way of going about it. It feels a bit hard to do the right thing. So thank you. |
| 00:38:18.15 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, we'll bring it, close public comment, bring it back up here. Do we have any comment? I just want to be clear just for the public. Sausalito has had an ordinance for decades outlawing short-term rentals, unlike Mill Valley or Tiburon where some of the speakers discussed. We've had a variety of complaints from residents that it hadn't been properly enforced. We had a meeting some months ago as many of these speakers were there and were up to midnight and heard the discussion and decided that we would do a pilot program and hire someone to enforce our short-term rental ordinance. We decided that time we were going to target the most egregious offenders and not worry about others and see how it goes. All we are doing tonight is appointing CSG. I'm very DISAPPOINTED AT SOME OF THE DISPARAGEMENT. THEY HAVE BEEN CONSULTANT FOR US ON MANY OF OUR OTHER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS. WE HAVE HAD VERY GOOD SUCCESS WITH THEM. AND THE PERSON APPOINTED THAT WE WOULD HAVE UNDER CSG WOULD BE SOMEONE WHO HAS EXPERIENCE IN THE AREA. WE CAN STOP IT AT ANY TIME. It's what did we we can stop it at any time. We're going to see how it goes. So it's a very simple matter we have on tonight. So I just want to put some of that in context. |
| 00:39:42.71 | Jill Hoffman | And I just wanted to add just for the record, because I've had several residents contact me expressing the desire for this to expand to include condos and duplexes and triplexes, et cetera. So just to clarify, the reason it started as single-family was just kind of to go into this test case kind of period and see because I guess because we've had some egregious defense offenses with respect to single-family homes as well as even the marinas You know being rented out I mean liveaboard |
| 00:40:20.31 | Jill Hoffman | We are just targeting, I mean, if there are other offenders, I mean, this is an ordinance. It's our duty. It's a duty of the city council and the staff. that when there are ordinances on the book to enforce them. We've had complaints This is our way of doing that. At some point in time, we've staff's been open to meeting with this group that's been formed relating to it to see if anything else has changed. In the meantime, our mandate is that we enforce the laws that are there now. and we will be monitoring it to make sure that we do it in an appropriate manner, that we don't violate any citizens' rights, and that's what we're here to do tonight. Okay, anyone else? |
| 00:40:56.54 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, I think, but there is a concern about how this is going to be implemented in the community about whether or not we want to come up with some sort of ordinance that allows a certain number of short-term rentals. So I believe there is a group, and I think you people are here now, to work with the city on coming up with a draft ordinance, and I look forward to seeing that. But this is to hire somebody with regard to enforcement of the laws that are already on the, on the books and how those are implemented. The thought is that the, that the, the payment for that person would be negative because he would be bringing in you know, via fines and transient occupancy tax. So how this is gonna roll out and actually be implemented and work, I mean, I think kind of remains to be seen. Part of his mandate is to come up with the process And so I would encourage people that are already involved in this issue to stay involved and help. Yes, Adam. |
| 00:41:55.76 | Adam Politzer | And just wanted to add that as the staff report indicates, this will come back to the city council in December. for further discussion and an update and that would be A perfect opportunity between now and December to work with Danny. to come up with additional options and alternatives and draft language and check in what our neighboring communities are doing and any successes that they or others are finding. So this will come back at the end of the year for a report and discussion on next steps. |
| 00:42:25.20 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. And I have a motion for the approval of the consent calendar. |
| 00:42:28.38 | Jill Hoffman | So moved. |
| 00:42:30.16 | Jill Hoffman | and I have a second. All in favor? |
| 00:42:32.31 | Jill Hoffman | I'm so sorry. I do need to make a comment on item A. Just for the record, because I voted against this when it was agendized before. And I got clarification from the community development director that with regards to the streamline approval for the solar panels, that apparently the state does not allow for appeals per glare. And so I was disappointed in the state for not allow for appeals per glare. And so I was disappointed in the state for doing that, but I guess all we can do is move forward with meeting this legislation. So anyway, I have problems with it, but I'm going to go with it because it's a state mandate. |
| 00:43:11.37 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:43:11.39 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 00:43:16.74 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, now I think we have a motion. Do we have a second? Did we have a second? |
| 00:43:20.33 | Jill Hoffman | Second. |
| 00:43:22.43 | Jill Hoffman | All in favor? Hi, so that passes 50 unanimously. Thank you |
| 00:43:23.59 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:43:28.55 | Jill Hoffman | We now move into our hearings 111 Ford Street appeal and Community Development Director Danny Castro will I'm sorry, Calvin Chen will, uh, you have. We'll present Calvin. |
| 00:43:52.45 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:43:52.46 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:43:52.68 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:43:52.72 | Unknown | you |
| 00:43:56.33 | Jill Hoffman | Oh, let's see. You know, before I'm just going to go by our agenda here. Before we start the presentation, I'm going to go. We have disclosure of ex-party communications, so can we do that? Can we start with Councilman Pfeiffer and we'll just go along? |
| 00:44:11.65 | Jill Hoffman | I spoke to both parties. And I visited both sites. |
| 00:44:16.16 | Unknown | Yep, as did I. I visited both sites and met both parties there. |
| 00:44:21.25 | Jill Hoffman | as did I, and I reviewed the Planning Commission hearing of June, their decision on this matter. you |
| 00:44:29.96 | Unknown | Yes, as did I. |
| 00:44:31.76 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:44:32.03 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:44:32.20 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Yes, me too. |
| 00:44:33.98 | Mary Wagner | Same, I reviewed, met both parties and visited both locations and viewed the entire video of the Planning Commission meeting. |
| 00:44:43.16 | Unknown | I met with Lee Daly and was at that home. |
| 00:44:52.39 | Jill Hoffman | Calvin, please. |
| 00:45:06.32 | Calvin | Thank you, Mayor Theodores and members of the council. On June 10, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, and they approved a design review permit in a 3-2 vote for the conversion of an existing second-level deck to 216 square feet. of living space, a new 10-foot by 15-foot second-level deck, and a 149-square-foot first-level addition to the existing single-family home at 111 Ford Street, which is owned by Patrick Murphy and Martina Quinn. On June 18th, Lee Daly and John Sonsmo, adjacent property owners to the north at 115 4th Street, they filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve this entitlement. The appellants assert that the required findings for a design review permit with heightened design review were erroneously made by the commission. The appellants request that the city council remand the project back to the Planning Commission for further review. |
| 00:46:06.16 | Calvin | The appellant's bases for appeal are organized into five areas of objection. The appellants assert that the following design review permit findings required for approval of the entitlement were made in error. Design review permit finding two with regards to complementary architecture and site design, finding four regarding views, finding seven regarding light and air, and finding nine regarding privacy. Lastly, the appellants also contest the Planning Commission's findings for heightened design review. |
| 00:46:41.13 | Calvin | Prior to an analysis of the appeal, we'll provide a brief overview of the proposed project that was presented to the Planning Commission on June 10th. The subject property lies within the Old Town Hurricane Gulch portion of the city in a medium high density residential neighborhood. It contains a mixture of single and multi-family residential dwellings. The two-family residential district, it's the R2 2.5 zoning district. is where the subject property is located and the lot size is 3,300 square feet and the property fronts onto 4th Street. Parcels in this neighborhood are characterized by being generally narrow and long. And unless the parcel has been subdivided, in which case the parcel width is at least roughly two times the width of the subject property, properties such as the 115 and 117 duplex will be double the size of the subject property at 111. |
| 00:47:37.71 | Calvin | The Murphy Quinn residence at 111 4th Street is located on the left-hand side of this photograph, and it shows the existing conditions without the story poles. The appellant's residence at 115 4th Street is on the right-hand side of this photo. |
| 00:47:54.55 | Calvin | The left photo shows the existing conditions, again, with story poles as viewed from 4th Street. And the right photo shows the setback area between the subject property at 111 and the appellants at 115. This is viewed from their existing second-level deck from 111 4th. |
| 00:48:14.16 | Calvin | Here's another photo showing the story poles on the left viewed from a southern portion of 4th Street, and the right photo showing the existing conditions with story poles viewed from the street. |
| 00:48:27.26 | Calvin | Here's an existing site plan. The existing two level residence has a building coverage of 914 square feet. This is 27.7% of the parcel area and a floor area of 1,565 square feet. Floor area ratio of 0.47. Deck spaces are present on the first and second level. And access to the residence is via a walking path on the left hand side of the detached two car garage that fronts onto fourth street. |
| 00:48:58.63 | Calvin | Here's the proposed site plan. The project proposes a building coverage of 1,063 square feet. This is 32.2% of the parcel area. The maximum permitted building coverage is 1,650. That would be 50% of the parcel area. The project proposes a floor area 1,930 square feet. This is 0.58 FAR, and the maximum permitted FAR is 2,145 square feet, floor area ratio of 0.65. As the proposed FAR is 90% of the total permitted floor error ratio, the project is subject to heightened design review. |
| 00:49:39.89 | Calvin | Here's the proposal for the second floor living area. The blue outline shows the conversion of the existing second-level deck to 216 square feet of living space for the new family room. And the green outline shows the new 10-foot by 15-foot second-level deck. |
| 00:50:01.69 | Calvin | Here's the proposed first floor plan. The red outline shows the removal of the existing first level deck for a new 149 square foot addition, which will serve as a new bedroom. |
| 00:50:03.29 | Unknown | man. |
| 00:50:15.71 | Calvin | Here's the northern elevation. As previously stated, the proposed improvements include the enclosure of this existing second-level deck for conversion to approximately 216 square feet of living area. Two north-south facing windows located approximately one foot from the ceiling above eye level are proposed in this deck space conversion. The former deck space would serve as a family room connected to the existing living room and dining room. And the proposed second level deck conversion will match the existing roof line. |
| 00:50:50.44 | Calvin | Here is the southern elevation. The project proposes the removal of the existing first level deck to accommodate the addition of 149 square feet of living area for a new bedroom. An approximately 10 foot by 15 foot second level deck is proposed directly on top of this first level addition. |
| 00:51:11.33 | Calvin | Here's the eastern elevation. The front of the residence is articulated through the use of deck space and shifts in the building wall. The primary entrance to the residence is on the main level, accessed through the existing porch that will be covered by a new pitched roof. The proposed improvements relate to the existing residence in both design and materials. The exterior of the first and second level improvements will be covered in wood shingles to match the existing residents. And to the right of the lead, we have a colors and materials board if you'd like to see it, as well as photos from the appellant. The second level deck guardrail will be wood to complement the structure, and new window openings will have trim to match the existing windows. |
| 00:51:54.30 | Calvin | I'll now go through each of the appellants five points of objection and provide some staff analysis. Design Review Permit Finding 2 states that 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 B, introducing a distinctive and creative solution which takes advantage of the unique characteristics of the site and contributes to the design diversity of Sausalito. Design Review Permit Finding 2 identifies two options for demonstrating that the proposed architecture and site design complements the surrounding neighborhood and our district. Only one of these options must be complied with, either option A or option B, to make this finding. Staff and the majority of the commission, we found that the project does maintain the prevailing design characteristics of the neighborhood through remaining consistent with the diversity of housing styles in the area. This would be option A. The proposed improvements are compatible to the existing residents in both design and materials, and the project overall is harmonious and relates to the design and materials of the surrounding neighborhood. |
| 00:53:08.06 | Calvin | design review permit finding four states the proposed project has been located and designed to minimize obstruction of public views and primary views from private property 115 4th Street the appellant's residence is located to the north of 111 4th Street the primary views for properties along 4th Street are to the east including Richardson Bay Belvedere and Angel Island the appellant's residence at 115 4th Street is part of a duplex structure with south facing windows which would be facing 111 4th Street and east facing windows towards 4th Street. The proposed project will result in some loss of view of hillside trees and other residences to the south for the appellants. This would include views of Old Town and Hurricane Gulch neighborhood. |
| 00:53:56.77 | Calvin | Chapter 10.88 of the Zoning Ordinance provides some definitions for views. I'll go through them now. View means for the purposes of this title, any view of the Sausalito waterfront, San Francisco Bay, Mount Tam, Shrubbery Point, Tiburon, Belvedere, Angel Island, East Bay, and or the city of San Francisco, or any view greater than 300 feet distance and or including significant aesthetic, cultural, natural, or historical features. The term view does not mean an unexpected panorama of all or any of the above. A view, primary means any view distance from primary viewing areas of a dwelling, such as a living room, dining room, kitchen, master bedroom, and deck, or patio spaces serving such living areas. A secondary view shall be any view from bathrooms, accessory bedrooms, passageways, and utility areas. The proposed project will result in some loss of view of hillside trees and other residences to the south for the appellants. Per the zoning ordinance, it can be seen that the term view does not mean an unobstructed panorama. The definition of view, comma, primary in the municipal code is under the definition of view. Staff maintains that the primary views for 115 4th Street are through the multiple windows on the middle and upper levels facing east. These views are not affected by the proposed project. |
| 00:55:21.50 | Calvin | As discussed by the Planning Commission, the Pellant's current views to the south are akin to a borrowed view, a reality that stems from the design of their duplex residential structure and subject properties' existing residents being located toward the rear of the property. Thus far, the residents at 115 4th Street has benefited from the openness of views to the south. Staff and the majority of the commission found, however, that such openness of views for the duplex structure is not guaranteed, and some impact to such views will occur as the project is located and designed consistent with the character and development patterns of the narrow neighborhood. Further, staff and the majority of the Commission found that the project is consistent with the general plan and the zoning ordinance in order to preserve their property rights for reasonable development. |
| 00:56:14.07 | Calvin | Design Review Permit Finding 7 states, the design and location of buildings provide adequate light and air for the project site, adjacent properties, and the general public. The subject neighborhood is characterized by the development of residential structures on narrow lots located in close proximity to one another. There are inherent mutually shared concerns for light and air impacts as well as view and privacy impacts in this neighborhood. Staff and the majority of the commission acknowledge that some of light and impacts may be experienced by the appellants as a result of this project. These impacts, however, staff and the majority of commission find that they are not egregious or damaging to the extent that the proposed improvements should be prohibited. |
| 00:56:59.01 | Calvin | The proposed project is located on a narrow lot. It's 30 feet wide, and it is in compliance with the setback requirements of the zoning ordinance. The project would maintain 11 to 14 feet of separation between 111 4th Street and 115 4th Street and provide adequate access to light and air for both properties. An 11 to 14-foot side yard setback distance between buildings is very common and characteristic in the neighborhood, especially when you have these long and narrow lots, which are part of this neighborhood configuration. The appellants also assert that the building code was not factored into the review of this |
| 00:57:32.79 | Calvin | In addition to meeting the zoning requirements, the project design and construction will undergo an extensive plan check for its compliance with the building code prior to issuance of a building permit. The distance and separation between buildings is more than adequate to make this finding. |
| 00:57:54.61 | Calvin | Design review permit finding nine states, 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, window, and deck and patio configurations. The proposed project includes the enclosure of the existing second level deck for conversion to living area. The photo to the left is a view of the story poles taken from within the 111 4th Street subject property. This new living area will have two small north-facing fixed windows located approximately one foot from the ceiling. That is a purposeful design intended to allow some natural light into this second-level living area, but also to restrict viewing opportunity. The existing second-level deck, 15.5 feet by 14.5 feet, is sited directly in front of the window openings of concern at 115 4th Street. The proposed second level deck, 10 foot by 15 foot, is 33% smaller, 75 square feet smaller than the existing second level deck, and shifted away from the appellance of aforementioned openings and closer to the street. |
| 00:59:05.28 | Calvin | The existing lower level deck space would be limited for a new 149 square foot addition. This lower level addition will not have any windows facing the appellants. Staff finds that these proposed design elements reduce privacy impacts from the current conditions. At the June 10th planning commission hearing, a draft condition of approval requiring the addition of a privacy screen at the proposed second level deck was contemplated. Ultimately, the commission decided not to include this condition of approval because the privacy screen at this location would create new view impacts and would not be beneficial to the project or the neighborhood as a whole. |
| 00:59:12.22 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:59:48.75 | Calvin | As previously mentioned, the project is subject to height and design review. Staff and the majority of the commission reviewed all seven height and design review findings and found that the project was in compliance. It was found that the proposed project at 111 4th Street does not affect the primary views to the east for 115 4th Street. The openness of the south-facing views of hillside trees and residences from 115 4th Street will experience modification as a result of this project. Any change to this view, however, is anticipated given the existing neighborhood layout and design and siting of existing structures, the duplex directly adjacent to a single family residence. Staff and the majority of the planning commission maintain that the south-facing views of 115 4th Street are not guaranteed and that some loss of view due to the proposed project is permissible as it is consistent with the zoning ordinance development standards and also consistent with the character and development of the existing neighborhood. With regard to the Planning Commission's authority to impose additional requirements or conditions or even to continue the project for further revision of plans, the Commission did not feel that this was necessary. |
| 01:01:01.99 | Calvin | After reviewing all the elements of this project, staff and the planning commission determined that it is consistent with the general plan and the zoning ordinance. Conditions of approval have been carefully developed and the project as a whole meets all the required findings for a design review permit with heightened design review. The options for city council action this evening are to. Thank you. either deny appeal and uphold the approval of the design review permit to uphold the appeal and deny the design review permit, continue the hearing for additional information and or project revisions or to remand the project back to the planning commission for further consideration of specific issues. And that concludes staff's presentation and we're available for any questions. |
| 01:01:42.47 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Before we go into questions, I just want to go over how we're going to handle this today. Open up the council questions in a minute. And then we will have The appellant present. and followed by the applicant. And at that stage, each team will have 10 minutes. And you can use it between the residents, the homeowners, the attorneys, or whatever. They have 10 minutes per team. Um, After that, after the Appellant, then applicant will have council questions. And then we'll open it up to public comment. And then we will come back and again have the appellant and applicant have five minutes of rebuttal. We'll finalize any other council questions and then we'll have council discussion. Okay. So now we'll open it up to city council questions of Calvin. Anybody like to start any questions? |
| 01:02:32.15 | Jill Hoffman | I have a couple questions. Sure. So starting with, well, on 115, the appellate, how many windows? They've got no windows on the north side, correct, of their home? |
| 01:02:32.74 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:02:35.38 | Jill Hoffman | Um, |
| 01:02:35.82 | Unknown | you |
| 01:02:35.87 | Jill Hoffman | in. |
| 01:02:52.30 | Calvin | Correct, because it is part of the duplex structure. |
| 01:02:54.83 | Jill Hoffman | How many windows are on the south side of their home? |
| 01:03:14.12 | Calvin | I don't have a particular photo of that, but I'm sure the appellants would be happy to tell you |
| 01:03:18.54 | Jill Hoffman | I saw in here that there were three. |
| 01:03:21.43 | Calvin | There are. There is on the second level as well as the lower level, yes. |
| 01:03:24.65 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. At least three. Talking about, with respect to primary views, we're looking at the primary living areas too, |
| 01:03:24.99 | Calvin | At least three. |
| 01:03:32.74 | Jill Hoffman | Dining room, kitchen. Living room. Um, It's my understanding that there are three windows in those primary... living areas and all three are impacted. Can you confirm that? |
| 01:03:51.28 | Calvin | So there is a difference between views and then primary view areas. So that is, let me go back to that slide. |
| 01:04:00.01 | Jill Hoffman | So let me just rephrase that then. Are all three windows impacted in terms of light? |
| 01:04:08.73 | Calvin | In terms of? |
| 01:04:09.56 | Jill Hoffman | in terms of light. is my first question and in terms of view. |
| 01:04:14.08 | Calvin | Sure. So there will be some light and air impacts as well as some view impacts by the proposed project. That is not something that we dispute or the Planning Commission disputes. The point that we want to make here is that the views to the south for 115 4th Street are of these natural features or 300-foot distance of the Old Town Hurricane Gulch neighborhood. |
| 01:04:38.26 | Jill Hoffman | I'm sorry, can you repeat that? Because I didn't hear that. Can you repeat that slowly? And in the microphones? |
| 01:04:45.43 | Calvin | Sure, exactly. Thank you. So the views to the south for 115 4th Street are looking into the hillside of natural features and different residential structures of the Old Town Hurricane Gulch neighborhood. And those, if the city council feel are part of these natural historical features, then yes, it would be one of these views attributed in the zoning ordinance. Whether or not they are views from these primary view areas, yes, they would be those areas. But whether or not that is a view that is protected and part of that unobstructed panorama of criteria, that is discretionary. |
| 01:05:23.62 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:05:27.86 | Unknown | Other questions? Mr. Calvin? |
| 01:05:31.82 | Jill Hoffman | We have questions of the appellants as well, which won't affect their time. So we could pick your questions for either the appellant or Cal. |
| 01:05:38.86 | Unknown | Yeah. Thank you, Calvin, for that presentation. This is a really technical question. I want to understand in this particular, with this particular lot, what is the trigger for heightened design review? I know it's 90 percent. I know it's 80 percent, right? Say, so if we take floor area ratio, it's 80 percent, or any of those parameters. But for the moment, let's just pick on floor area ratio. |
| 01:06:03.50 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:06:14.72 | Unknown | Because this is a single-family residence on a 2, 2.5 lot, the, I can't remember our section number, somewhere in 1054, I think, or maybe somewhere else, is the fact that there's a sliding scale for small properties. we put an ordinance in place that did not allow folks to build single-family, large single-family residences in the zone 2.5, 2.25. And for small lots, there was a sliding scale. So for instance, if your lot was under 3,000 feet, you actually got the full amount, the 0.65, It looks like on this project, they're just slightly into the slide in scale. Okay. And so is the 80% trigger the 80% of The full amount? |
| 01:07:25.29 | Unknown | you |
| 01:07:25.46 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:07:25.47 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:07:25.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:07:25.63 | Unknown | or is it 80% of where you land on the sliding scale? How the ordinance is written? |
| 01:07:31.03 | Calvin | It's by the total amount, not by the sliding scale amount. |
| 01:07:36.83 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:07:36.97 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:07:37.27 | Calvin | Thank you. The total maximum permitted floor area. |
| 01:07:40.71 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:07:40.75 | Calvin | for that. |
| 01:07:40.80 | Unknown | Thank you. So if you were low down on the sliding scale around about, you know, say near the point point four five, you would still the 80% trigger would still apply to point six five. If you were. |
| 01:07:55.18 | Calvin | If you were counting on the lower scale, yes. |
| 01:07:57.61 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:08:00.37 | Jill Hoffman | I have a question as long as you have this slide up, and I'll welcome the appellant to answer it as well. But looking at the definition of views, And we're talking about the views from the kitchen and the work area. Can you tell me where on that qualifies as a view because it says of Sausalito Waterfront, San Francisco Bay, Mount Tam, et cetera? or any other view greater than 300 feet distance, And when I saw it, I basically We're looking out the deck, so I'm just wondering where the view, under what definition, the view that we are discussing tonight falls. |
| 01:08:33.73 | Calvin | From staff's perspective in our analysis and how we've done our completeness reviews and through our site visits, as well as the majority of the planning commission, it was found that the view that is talked about by 115 4th Street, the appellants, the view to the south is probably, in our guess, the 300-foot distance and the natural historical features because it is just looking at a hillside and residential structures. It is not looking at San Francisco Bay, Tiburon, Angel Island, Belvedere, or any of those near the top of the list. Those would be viewed from the other side. |
| 01:09:07.72 | Jill Hoffman | Right, but the part that's obstructed, would that be within the 300 feet or historic? Because I understand part of that view is the deck next door and closer in and then further to the left is the distance. Has that been determined? Are you blocking a view or, you know, 300 feet or more or natural features? I believe it would be. |
| 01:09:28.43 | Calvin | I believe it would be the 300 feet or more because it is quite far on the hillside. |
| 01:09:33.71 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, I'll have Appellant address that as well. |
| 01:09:36.15 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:09:36.64 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:09:36.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:09:42.13 | Mary Wagner | And Calvin, as I understand it, then under the code, view primary, and we're only talking about the living room is not affected. So we're just talking about the kitchen, and, And whether or not you consider the den study a dining room. I mean, that's also, it seems to be where it's described in the papers as a DIN study, but now we're defining that as a dining room or the appellant is trying to define that now as a dining room. Have I got that right? That is correct. Okay. So depending upon how you define that space, really what we're talking about is the kitchen, the views from the kitchen windows. |
| 01:10:13.06 | Calvin | That is correct. |
| 01:10:22.34 | Calvin | from the kitchen and the appellant does assert views from her den study work area. |
| 01:10:27.59 | Mary Wagner | which they're now calling a dining room. Because den or work study area is not a primary view. Am I right on that? |
| 01:10:35.76 | Calvin | You read it correctly. |
| 01:10:37.34 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. Okay, thanks. |
| 01:10:42.56 | Jill Hoffman | I have a follow-up question. Regarding the DUN study area, I guess is it, I know that they're currently using that as a DUN study, but is it that they refer to it as a dining room because that is what it is on the books as its original purpose, that area? |
| 01:11:05.76 | Calvin | We don't have original plans showing what those uses could be. Okay. And uses inside a house can change. |
| 01:11:09.51 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 01:11:13.66 | Calvin | depending on the user's preferences for that space. |
| 01:11:16.38 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you. |
| 01:11:20.15 | Calvin | Thank you. |
| 01:11:20.17 | Unknown | Any other questions? Oh, Calvin. Thank you. |
| 01:11:24.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:11:25.13 | Unknown | I was trying to find, again, the tables, and I don't know if you guys put it together or the original applicant put it together, which was comparison of the build-out of the neighborhood. Is that in your staff report or is that in the Planning Commission staff report? Could you point me in the right direction? Did anybody do a comparison of the project with its neighborhood? |
| 01:11:48.44 | Unknown | Point me in the back. |
| 01:11:57.94 | Unknown | In other words, this is being built out to 1930 square feet, which is an FAR of 0.58, right? If you look at, you know, 4th Street, 3rd Street, West Street, you look at the general neighborhood, let's say in the rough vicinity of 4th Street, let's say, right? In that block of 4th Street, let's just pick that. What are the size of the homes? |
| 01:12:24.03 | Unknown | That's the question. Do we have that data? That data is not in your |
| 01:12:29.04 | Calvin | in your report or presented to the Planning Commission, but through just looking at our other files, there are some undeveloped lots, there are some underdeveloped lots, and there are definitely lots such as the 115, 117, which are developed to their maximum potential. |
| 01:12:43.37 | Unknown | Do you know what the FAR for 115 is? I do not off the top of my head. No. Okay. |
| 01:12:52.61 | Jill Hoffman | Any other questions of Calvin? Okay. Seeing none, we'll move on to the presentation and we'll start with the appellant. And again, the team has 10 minutes you can reserve. some of your time, but who's going to keep our clock on that? |
| 01:13:08.21 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, Mr. Merrill, I'll run 10 from here, and then when they hit three, I'll start that clock. But in this context, they have the five-minute rebuttal at the end, so they don't generally resolve. At the end, as well. |
| 01:13:16.78 | Jill Hoffman | at the end is wrong. Right, okay, so we won't reserve you use it at this point, but you can share it with whomever you'd like so we'll start with the appellant If we interrupt you with questions, which we'll try not to, we'll stop the clock and that will not be on your clock. |
| 01:13:31.56 | Bill Ziegler | Thank you. Good evening. Thank you for being here and thank you for listening to our appeal. Very simply, this is a project that should not be allowed to happen as it's now planned. Findings were made by the Planning Commission, but I think that four of them have no basis. You have them enumerated up there, and certainly the heightened review was not made, and I'll explain how they got around that without really finding anything other than that the improvements could be built to the lot line and they're in compliance with the building code. That was the justification. |
| 01:14:07.91 | Jill Hoffman | And Bill, could you use the microphone? |
| 01:14:11.00 | Bill Ziegler | Please. Oh, sorry. Um, On the first requirement that the site design complements the neighborhood of the district or takes advantage of the unique characteristics of the site, I don't know how it complements the district. I didn't hear the Planning Commission anything particular about that other than the siding and the finish seems compatible. And we don't really debate that. What's unique about the site, however, is what I want to point out. |
| 01:14:22.14 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. |
| 01:14:44.26 | Bill Ziegler | the 111 site. It's a very small site, which the owners are attempting to build to the max, basically, other than a few feet. And that is something that is occurring in the area and is being condoned by the Planning Commission. There's nothing else unique about the site, certainly not the design or anything particular. It's just going to be a big structure on a little lot, and that's what is going on down there. Finding number four requires that the project is designed to minimize the obstruction of public and primary views. I think the Planning Commission basically skipped this test. by finding that there was a primary view at the front. of the property, looking to the east. And, I know you all visited, it's my understanding, you visited the 115 site. And there is a view out the front window of water. It's not the view that is treasured by the occupants. And I wanna raise the issue of how do you decide what the primary view is? What is the protected view? Is it the one that the occupants primarily enjoy, that they primarily spend their time by, Or is it the one you'd get the best picture from? you might get a good picture of the water from the front. But- If you live there, if you visit the house, if you spend any time there, it's very clear that the views from the kitchen and the study area or dining, I'm not clear exactly what that is, but it's certainly a work area where a large amount of time of the occupants is spent. They look out on that, 300 plus feet. They look out over the other structures in the area. And that is the view that creates the feeling of openness. to the residents. And that is the one that the Planning Commission just basically skipped over by saying it wasn't protected. It's not guaranteed. I don't know where that phrase came from. Not guaranteed. but they used it to say the front view is guaranteed, so this one isn't. And so, yes, there's a view there. I think it's admitted there's a view there. It's clearly admitted that a good part of that view is gonna be obstructed. And if you look at some of the pictures or if you looked in the file, you can see it's substantially obstructed. and it's creating a major impact on the residents. And if you read some of the letters in the file, it's very clear what that is doing to the property. We have two people experienced in real estate and Sausalito highly experienced, and they both said this will create a major impact, both in dollars and in desirability. And one of those letters quantify that impact of having these views that are proposed being in the range of $250,000. That is how much less desirable that is. And certainly... It's a view that's being blocked that you would want to spend less time looking out. And there is no other alternative in the house other than the front view. of the water. which is nice. . But I don't know why. We have to trade that off and say, well, that's guaranteed, and you don't get anything over here. How... How did they get to that point? I am not clear. it seems to me that the decision of what's primary depends on the residents and the people who live there or the people who visit there, and people who might come and see the property If they're interested in purchasing it or using it in some way, Thank you. That is the area that is pleasant to be in. And if you spend any time there, you recognize that immediately. And certainly the... the appellants here have done that. for close to 20 years. That is where they spend their time. And it seems to me that has got to have some protection. We realize there are going to be some impacts Planning Commission said, Well, they're not major impacts, and it's not guaranteed anyway, And, and, uh, it's going to have some effect, but their words were it's not egregious or damaging. That's incredible. That's incredible. It's clearly damaging. And if it's not egregious, it's because I guess you spend your life inside some place without many windows. in Sausalito. What is valued, as we all know, Is the view. its primary in South Sioux, the primary factor in determining value and desirability of a residence. Thank you. That's what we love here. We have great views, and they're different. I may have a garden view that I treasure very much. I look at all the time. Someone else may have a great view of San Francisco. They vary tremendously, but if you go in each residence, you will see how the house is set up. It's always toward what the resident would say is my primary view. findings number seven and nine, which are supposed to protect light, air, and privacy. were also basically skipped over. The planning commission didn't deal with them, Instead, they found that. Because the proposed project, is in compliance with the setback requirements which is a building code requirement, because it's a in compliance with that, i.e. they're not building into the setback is all they said. We're not building into the setbacks. and they've got a right to do that. So, They've got some rights to go all the way over there and put this deck 10 or 12 feet from where the appellants spend their time. And Now, what is going to happen? Instead of having light and air in privacy It was going to be a big deck. with a barbecue. And so we're going to have smoke. It's gonna be a party place, so we're gonna have Adults, parties, children, we're going to have noise. And privacy, well, you can stand on it and look right in the windows that we're talking about. Privacy is gone. So, Thank you. Light air and privacy are gone. Smoke, noise, and views into the kitchen and into the house are coming. That's what we were told at the Planning Commission. And I think if you look at it with those facts, you ask yourself, how did they get past the heightened review test? What was heightened about the review? I looked at the record and looked at the record And exactly the same rationale was given Well, the applicants who want to build this are only building to the setback limit. They're not going any closer than that, so they have a right to do that, and yet, The heightened review standard says, |
| 01:22:11.55 | Bill Ziegler | section 10.54050E that. Site development standards are not, quote, entitlements. In other words, they're not guaranteed. and can be reduced. That's what heightened review is all about. you don't necessarily get the right to build to the limit, which is where this project is going. But the Planning Commission turned this around and said, well, your view is not guaranteed. Um, forget about Um, where the building is going, your view isn't guaranteed. They're able to put their building there, so we're going to let them do that. That was the total substance of the heightened review. There was no review of what's going on with light and air. There was no suggestion about how do we mitigate that, how do we How do we come up with some? mutually agreeable, position on this It was simply all or none. You get it. They get nothing, your view is gone, well, your view is not protected, Except they didn't say not protected, they said not guaranteed. And basically, it's gone if you look at the pictures. 60, 70 percent of that view is simply disappearing. So I submit that those findings were just never made, and you need to reverse them. I want to call Lee Daly up here now, who will use up the rest of the— You have 20 seconds. How much? 20 seconds. Oh, my goodness. |
| 01:23:28.21 | Jill Hoffman | You have 20 seconds. How much? 20 seconds. |
| 01:23:32.26 | Bill Ziegler | Well... |
| 01:23:32.35 | Jill Hoffman | Well, you can use your time on rebuttal, but we're very tight on time. We've warned everyone. |
| 01:23:34.47 | Bill Ziegler | All right. |
| 01:23:37.90 | Jill Hoffman | about this and we had a timer here so you have five minutes on rebuttal thank you okay |
| 01:23:41.74 | Bill Ziegler | Thank you. |
| 01:23:48.11 | Lee Daly | Yes. You'll have your five later. I appreciate everyone listening to our concerns here tonight, and I hope that you will take them seriously. Because when people come into our house, they can't believe that this is happening to us. They are shocked. |
| 01:23:49.39 | Jill Hoffman | You'll have your five later as well. |
| 01:24:05.66 | Lee Daly | And our home has been a complete labor of love for the past 17 years. We feel truly blessed to be here in Sausalito. Thank you. |
| 01:24:16.52 | Jill Hoffman | And just as a reminder, I'm going to be very strict on time. We have it so whoever on your team And the same thing with now we'll have the appellants. Pick him up, please. And again, you have 10 minutes for your whole team. and we'll abide by that strictly. We'll then go into public comment, and then each side will have five minutes for rebuttal or whatever you please. |
| 01:24:41.99 | Martina Quinn | Good evening city staff and council members. I stood right here exactly three months ago, right before my kids got out of school for summer to ask the planning commission to vote in favor of our small addition at 111 Ford Street. Well, I can't believe summer has come and gone. The kids are back at school, and I'm still here once again pleading on behalf of the |
| 01:25:01.55 | Jill Hoffman | Could you please speak into the mic a little bit because this is recorded and we're televised and be a little helpful. Thank you. |
| 01:25:04.65 | Martina Quinn | I'm sorry. Sorry. pleading on behalf of my family for you to vote to support the decision made by the Planning Commission back on June 10th. Firstly, I want to say that the high level of professional service we have experienced from the city staff has been exemplary, and this is something we can all be proud of. So thank you, Calvin. In the plans that were recommended by the city and approved at Design Review, we've tried only to address our need. Nothing more, nothing less. We've lived in the house for 20 years. It's been wonderful to us, but it needs modifications that can adapt to our evolving needs. We have two teenagers, one grandchild, and two grandparents. I work from home full time. My office, as those of you who visited will know, is right smack bang in the living room, where I compete with afternoon snack making, homework, and boisterous teenagers going about their business as I try to take conference calls and meet deadlines. We have really resisted the temptation to maximize our potential on the lot. We don't need a ton of space. We just want to be a little bit more comfortable. We didn't try to play a game of chess that many others do. Max out your plot, then peel back till you find the middle ground. We don't need a ton of space. Naively, perhaps, we just asked for what we wanted and what we needed, just enough to be comfortable. We've tried very, very hard to strike a balance between the minimum expansion that would meet our family's needs and at the same time have as minimal impact as possible on those around us. This is really, really challenging in Old Town where the lots are narrow and small and there's really only one direction we can go. We can't go up. We can't go back. We can't go side to side. We can only go forward on our lot. Taking into account the sensibilities of our neighbors, in particular John and Lee, we made design decisions that we believed would help with potential impact. The first thing was we did not build to max our lot. I think that's abundantly clear. The plan is inherently small. We're only at 32% of lot coverage. That's when this project is complete. We removed the deck from the first floor, removing a potential privacy concern. We reduced the size of the second floor deck by 33%. That's only 10 feet compared to 14 foot 6, which the existing is. We placed only two small windows in the upper story, facing into John and Lee's, And we left our chimney to the rear of the lot instead of moving it down in front of John Ali's windows where it should logically go right above our fireplace. Council members, we really do want to stay in Sausalito. Our children have the luxury of having been raised in this town. They attend the local public schools, Willow Creek Academy and Tamil Pais High School. They have the benefit of being able to bike, walk, or bus to school. And as anyone who's lived in this town for any period of time knows, this is a relatively rare and new phenomenon. It's a wonderful gift of independence for growing children. It gives them a sense of what life can be like when you don't have to hop in the car, be chauffeured, and be managed by the adults in your life. My son has spent the summer working downtown. He still does on weekends, acting as a bike ambassador, proudly guiding tourists around the town that he knows he's privileged to live in. We want our kids to be able to remain here until they fly the coop of their own volition, and not because they cannot be accommodated in our homes. The staff report in response to this appeal interprets the zoning and ordinance of this town in an objective, unbiased, fair, and nonpolitical manner. Isn't that what we depend on them to do? That's what we depend on our city staff to do. There are no alliances to be upheld, no political objections to sustain. It's just simply fair and consistent application of the laws pertaining to these processes. We agree with the staff report and we agree with the decision made by the planning commission. We urge you to consider the impact of your decision tonight, not just on our family, on our needs, but on the future of all undeveloped and underdeveloped properties in our town. Your decision in this regard tonight has the potential to see parts of town that are currently undeveloped or underdeveloped frozen in time. Your decision tonight has the potential to arrest the swell of families who choose to stay and raise their kids in this town if developable properties just like ours are rendered undevelopable. This concern was put most eloquently by our neighbor adjacent to the south, Nicholas Dufort. In his letter to council recently, he states, If the council were to deny the approval of the proposed improvements, they would in effect be giving preferential treatment to homeowners who developed earlier and have enjoyed improved views and other benefits provided by adjacent underdeveloped lots. My parents were war babies. My mom was raised in a two-bedroomed home along with nine siblings. The motto in her home was, first up, best dressed. This, of course, was because resources were so limited for so many kids that the first one out of the bed in the morning got the best of the clothing, the shoes, the food, etc. Well, we feel like that a little bit ourselves here tonight if you uphold this appeal. We feel that you'll be sending a message to us and to the community that says, First up, best dressed, or more directly, first to the street, can't be beat. Please vote to deny the appeal. I did want to show you a slide pertaining to the issue that was raised in regard to FAR on the street. |
| 01:30:54.93 | Martina Quinn | This specifically is the 100 block of 4th Street. We see it there, Patrick. Okay. So you'll see that in terms of FAR, the appellant's property is at 96.4%. We're at 90%. I think it's worth mentioning that on the 100 block of 4th Street, the average square footage is about 1725 square feet. That essentially means that to trigger heightened design review you really only need to get to about 1715 square feet. And you've triggered heightened design review for the majority of properties on our block that fall into that average. In terms of square footage, again, the average is 1725. The appellant is at 2069. We will raise to 1930 from our current, which is 1565. |
| 01:31:59.81 | Martina Quinn | Thank you. |
| 01:32:00.22 | Unknown | you |
| 01:32:18.31 | Jill Hoffman | I guess I have a question of Michael Rex. Michael, I think you did some sort of, you know, we've heard that, you know, the challenge here is that the applicant, can't build back, can't build forward, you know what I mean, that there are some challenges with respect to their options. It's my understanding, did you take a look at that? Did you have any other insights that the council should hear on that? |
| 01:32:55.78 | Michael Rex | Yes, I looked at four design alternatives trying to seek compromise. And one of them was actually adding an addition to the rear of the garage down at grade. We also proposed additions that enclosed portions of the upper deck, but not all of it. The portion that was, Originally proposed they say they cut back. Well, they cut it back only because it encroached in the setbacks The deck that is proposed enclosed is right at the setbacks But we did look at a number of alternatives and propose them to the applicant. Thank you. |
| 01:33:37.52 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:33:37.55 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 01:33:39.57 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:33:41.40 | Unknown | Michael, while you're up there. you So I've been trying to follow the to and fro negotiation between the parties here. They're looking for 300 and something. I can't remember the exact number, square feet, 300 and 60. |
| 01:34:00.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:34:01.98 | Unknown | 65, okay. Could you come up with a design solution that gave them that? |
| 01:34:10.27 | Michael Rex | Yes. |
| 01:34:10.74 | Unknown | you So you came up with a, okay. Multiple ones. What was, that gave them 365 square feet of additional space? |
| 01:34:12.80 | Michael Rex | Multiple ones. |
| 01:34:19.82 | Michael Rex | I don't exactly recall the exact score footage, but at the end we were willing to compromise significantly with very little loss in score footage. |
| 01:34:31.45 | Unknown | All right. |
| 01:34:33.10 | Unknown | I'd like to see those particular... proposals that actually gave them that square footage. |
| 01:34:42.03 | Michael Rex | We would love to present you those proposals, but we aren't able to in the time allotted. |
| 01:34:49.64 | Mary Wagner | Michael, I have a follow-up for you as well. I'm looking at page 18 of 27 in our, looks like our staff report, and it has the neighbor negotiations on it, right? It starts with plan one, plan two, plan three. and then plan for it. |
| 01:35:04.61 | Unknown | And then plan four. What attachment, Jill, is that? |
| 01:35:06.55 | Mary Wagner | Attachment 7, Item 5A, Attachment 7. Yeah, yeah, okay. So, and I did review... What page is that, Jen? I'm looking at Attachment 5A, sorry, Item 5A, Attachment 7. |
| 01:35:11.43 | Unknown | I mean, I- |
| 01:35:11.63 | Unknown | What page is that, Jen? |
| 01:35:13.57 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 01:35:20.62 | Mary Wagner | And I'm looking at page 19 of 27. And it says neighbor negotiations. |
| 01:35:23.61 | Jill Hoffman | It says neighbor negotiations. You can have my copy if you don't have one, Michael. Or does staff have an extra copy for him? Oh, in the front, you'd have where is |
| 01:35:35.71 | Michael Rex | Yeah, can I just see what you're doing? |
| 01:35:38.04 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:35:38.07 | Mary Wagner | Here. |
| 01:35:38.54 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:35:39.45 | Mary Wagner | Bye. Oh, thanks, Calvin. |
| 01:35:43.13 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 01:35:43.18 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:35:43.88 | Mary Wagner | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:35:44.43 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:35:46.26 | Mary Wagner | Calvin, while you're up there, can you tell us who? I think this was submitted by the applicant. I can't tell who it was submitted by. Can you tell us in this report, it's item 5A, attachment 7, who prepared this? |
| 01:36:03.45 | Calvin | This was prepared by the property owners, Patrick Murphy and Martina Quinn. |
| 01:36:06.91 | Mary Wagner | Okay, thank you. |
| 01:36:08.16 | Jill Hoffman | I'm sorry. |
| 01:36:08.51 | Michael Rex | My office prepared sketches and design concepts. |
| 01:36:08.53 | Mary Wagner | was prepared by? |
| 01:36:13.00 | Mary Wagner | I got it, yeah, but this summary was prepared by the applicants. Okay, thanks. So, and I did watch all of the planning commission hearing, and one of the issues was under plan number four proposes. And I think that was the one that was the additional living space upstairs, no building downstairs. But then it was this part down here that's in bold. It was a deed restriction containing, constraining any further development on the first story. That seemed to be when the negotiations... Stay. We're done. And that seemed to be also, Commissioner Cox and Commissioner Cleveland Knowles both commented on that about, that they felt that that was unreasonable. to require a deed restriction on the, um, as part of the negotiations. Is that correct? |
| 01:37:10.58 | Michael Rex | Yes, that's correct. And we couldn't understand that logic at all because actually it was very disappointing to us. This was probably the number fourth compromise we offered and it was actually proposing to put One of the reasons we were told they wanted to expand, in fact, the reason they were going to push the master bedroom out, was to convert the master bath to a study And at a great expense, not to mention the impact to Lee and John. So option four that I presented was to put the home office as a little addition to the back of the garage, which would have no impact on Lee or John. And cut the deck back a little bit and cut the corner off the new deck and we were willing to live with that. But the one thing we asked is that you not come back later and close that lower deck. In other words... would you agree not to put back what you're now giving up. So we'd have some assurance. We thought that was really reasonable. uh, What kind of compromise would we have if what's offered to us We're not assured. we can count on. down the road. So while the Planning Commission thought it was an unreasonable, we thought it was completely reasonable to expect that. Uh, So that's what happened. And at that point, we were at the end of trying to find a solution together. |
| 01:38:46.53 | Mary Wagner | Okay, but at this point they had agreed not to build on the first floor. It was the problem about the deed restriction which to be clear would not just run to them but anybody that bought the property in the future. |
| 01:38:52.67 | Michael Rex | If they agree, yes. |
| 01:38:58.56 | Michael Rex | Well, or even themselves. |
| 01:39:00.17 | Mary Wagner | Well, more importantly though, it would impact the value of their property and anybody that bought it in the future forever until the end of time. |
| 01:39:06.71 | Michael Rex | Right. You know, maybe the deed restriction was a little heavy handed. A condition of, okay, well, a condition of the approval probably would have been sufficient. But we never had an opportunity to get there. We just wanted some assurance she wouldn't come back a year or two later and then take away what you offered us. |
| 01:39:29.29 | Mary Wagner | Well, you would have to go through the same planning process, correct? |
| 01:39:31.99 | Michael Rex | Yeah, I think a condition of approval probably would have been sufficient. |
| 01:39:32.41 | Mary Wagner | I think. |
| 01:39:37.00 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 01:39:38.56 | Unknown | I'll reserve my comments on the deed restriction to my comments section. I'm a little puzzled, though, by how you're going to put an office in the garage, next to the garage or attached to the garage without, are you expanding the garage or are you going to try and make an ADU out of it? I mean, how, by what part of our ordinance can you actually expand the garage? |
| 01:40:09.99 | Michael Rex | Oh, well, you wouldn't expand the garage. You can have an accessory building on your property, and it could butt to the garage. The only restriction on an accessory building is you can't sleep in it. But they weren't seeking to sleep in it. They were seeking for a home office. which is what they told me. Although they could apply for an ADU and put a little kitchen in it. Of course, it begs the question, where are you parked? But the ADU ordinance, as you know, allows for an ADU without parking if you put a deed restriction on renting it to a low income for 10 years. And so that is an option. That could be considered, but they weren't asking for an ADU. asking for, they're seeking a home office. And I prepared a design that would have it opening out to their little courtyard between the home office and the home, as opposed to being squished between the bedrooms with almost no light because it would look right into Lee and John's home at the ground floor. it seemed like a real benefit to me anyway. |
| 01:41:13.75 | Unknown | you Okay. At some point, can we have some clarification from staff about whether you can just stick an accessory unit, a second structure on This. |
| 01:41:36.33 | Unknown | Without it being an ADU, I mean, yeah. |
| 01:41:38.50 | Danny Castro | Danny Castro, Community Development Director. And it is permissible within that zoning, R2 2.5, to apply for an ADU, an accessory dwelling unit, to meet all the development standards. I think that's answering your question. However, it's not actually. |
| 01:41:57.76 | Unknown | No, it's not actually can you put an accessory structure on there if you just without applying for an adu? |
| 01:42:07.56 | Danny Castro | Yes. |
| 01:42:09.93 | Unknown | Okay. Under what part of our ordinance can you do that? |
| 01:42:15.12 | Danny Castro | Well, it's a detached accessory structure. It's not used as a, you're not living permanently there. It could be an ancillary space to a residential. |
| 01:42:27.85 | Unknown | A residential home. Okay. |
| 01:42:35.86 | Jill Hoffman | Well, I have questions of the applicants, |
| 01:42:45.06 | Jill Hoffman | Now looking at some of these proposals, and we understand the deed restriction from reviewing the Planning Commission and such was a deal breaker, and one might call it, Mr. Rex said, could be viewed as heavy-handed, and I think the Planning Commission and some of us up here do that. If that were not part of the deal, are there some of the proposals, and I'm looking at particularly Plan 4, that if you were so encouraged by the City Council that you would entertain at this stage? |
| 01:43:15.42 | Martina Quinn | Well, the issue wasn't just the deed restriction on Plan 4. That proposal offered us only 46% of the square footage that we were looking for. So we're a long way from the 365 that we needed. Further issues with that were the deck size was reduced to only 8 feet with a 3 foot 5 inch by five jog in the northeast corner of the living room. And the impact on that on the living room, coupled with the fact that we have a 1.7 setback in the room, pretty much puts our wall on the northeast side like a stepladder on the inside. The symmetry is ridiculous. Similarly, on the deck, we already have a 1'7 setback. So on top of that, we were asked to put a jog in that corner of our deck. So we have symmetry problems. We haven't come close to addressing the issues of the space that we need. And in terms of the ADU issue, it's... Mr. Rex proposed an office to us. We needed a bedroom and an office. And we wanted in our house an accessory dwelling unit. It's just that. It's an accessory dwelling unit. It doesn't add square footage to the house where we need it. If we were using it as an office, we would have to send our children out to do their homework. Anyone here who is teenagers knows you don't send your kids out to an ADU to do their homework. You don't send your grandparents out in the rain to go to bed. So, Not a utopian solution for us by any stretch of the imagination, I'm afraid. |
| 01:45:03.76 | Jill Hoffman | I think some of us here share some of the planning commissions frustration that not all potential compromises were fully explored now. Let me ask you the question. Are there any potential compromises that had been discussed before that you see that that you would be willing to explore. The council's forced to choose one or the other, and certainly We all recognize this is a difficult decision. We want to find ways, if possible, that both parties can come to some resolution of it. If they can't, we're certainly willing to make a decision. I guess the question we have from your side, were there any And I thought some were alluded to it at the planning commission. any potential compromises and you don't have to give away your positions, but that you see there was room for compromise or Are we going to make a final decision tonight? |
| 01:45:54.68 | Martina Quinn | we negotiated for almost over a year on this particular project. At the end of our last negotiation round, we appeared to be getting further. We appeared to be getting further. We were only at 46% of the square footage that we needed. not close to where we started. Our plan is inherently small. It's a very small home with a very small proposal. We're not asking for a lot. So in terms of that last proposal, the closest that we came was only 46% of the square footage that we needed. |
| 01:46:36.62 | Rebecca | So- |
| 01:46:36.64 | Martina Quinn | So there wasn't a plan on the table that really came close to addressing our needs. |
| 01:46:47.69 | Unknown | Michael Rex has just said that he presented proposals to you that gave you the full 365 square feet, and yet you're saying that's not the case. |
| 01:46:57.68 | Martina Quinn | It's not the case. To be clear, in the last, in the very last proposal that went between us, offered us only 165 square feet. That's 46% of requested critically needed living space. So with that essentially, what Mr. Rex is alluding to is counting that accessory dwelling unit, assuming we did that, Assuming we got that, as square footage. It's not square footage in our home. It's an accessory dwelling unit. It is not in our home. So no, there was nothing close to 365 square feet. There was no solution. that addressed our need for space. And again, Mr. Rex proposed an office, not a bedroom. We need a fourth bedroom that serves as an office. |
| 01:47:55.46 | Jill Hoffman | One last question on that subject. forgetting what Mr. X may have proposed, do you see any room for any compromise other than that you might entertain at this stage? |
| 01:48:06.02 | Martina Quinn | Well... We hired an architect and we presented what we needed and we went inherently small. We did not play a game of chess. We didn't go say, let's max out our lot, invoke all of our neighbors, peel back and then get what we want. We didn't do that. As I said, maybe we were naive. We just asked for what we wanted. uh, We are where we are. We did not want to come to design review. We didn't want to be in city council, obviously. But we hired an architect to do something that we thought was reasonable. And we still think it's reasonable. |
| 01:48:49.81 | Unknown | Yeah, I was wanting to just follow up on the mayor's question one more time to just get a feeling like, you know, you know. I'm not an architect, right? But just looking at the plans generally, you've achieved, your architect achieved the goal of getting you what you needed by moving basically the upper and the lower floor out, admittedly closing and closing a deck and then, right. Is there, and that gave you a total of 365 square feet. Is there a way, excuse me I'm recovering from a cold so I hope I don't grind to a halt here, but, um, Right. Is there any way, any sort of solution that you could see by sort of just bringing the whole thing back by – Thank you. foot or two? Does that, does that, do you reach a point where you just can't achieve what you want to achieve or is there some room there do you think? |
| 01:50:05.80 | Martina Quinn | I mean, I would say we are already at the smallest that we can possibly be without making this project almost non-viable. There is very little room for maneuvering where we already have. We already have incorporated a 1'7 setback into the structure, which we didn't anticipate when we began the planning process. So we were already cut down from where we were originally. |
| 01:50:45.71 | Unknown | Council questions. |
| 01:50:48.34 | Jill Hoffman | I actually have one of the appellant and either Mr. Ziegler or Mr. Rex. Can you put up the slide on views, please? the slide that has the definition of views. |
| 01:51:18.28 | Jill Hoffman | And I do have one question. follow up for. |
| 01:51:22.94 | Jill Hoffman | So this will be for Mr. Ziegler, I guess. The appellant. So the concern is that there's blockage of views, |
| 01:51:26.94 | Unknown | you |
| 01:51:32.62 | Jill Hoffman | when you look out the kitchen or the work area slash dining room, We know that from the front they have views of the San Francisco Bay We look at views means any view of the Sausalito waterfront, So none of those apply. any of you greater than 300 feet distance AND OR including significant aesthetic, cultural, natural, and historic features So I don't. I'm not sure that Does it define... qualify as a view because My understanding, when you look out the kitchen window, you're looking at a deck, and they can look right back at you. I've been on that deck. Under their proposal? No, no, currently. |
| 01:52:09.95 | Bill Ziegler | Under their proposal. No, no. Currently, if you stand. Currently, there is some. Yes, there is some with the current deck. |
| 01:52:16.26 | Jill Hoffman | There's plenty. I mean, if you stand on deck, there's no privacy. |
| 01:52:17.43 | Bill Ziegler | If you're standing on deck, there's no privacy. Right. It takes everything and... |
| 01:52:21.32 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, but right now they look at out on a deck and it's not 300 feet away. And my understanding is to the left there is a longer expanse, but I'm not sure. We haven't seen any evidence that that longer expanse will be blocked. What will be blocked will be the deck and some views of houses that are I think within 300 feet. So can you have you looked at that? And have you guys made an assessment of that? You know, what qualifies that as a view? We know from the front of their house, they have view the bay. That's clearly a view because that is of San Francisco Bay. And of course, we talked about the primary part. There's no issue with that. I'm just wondering about what qualifies it as a view under the definition in the order. |
| 01:53:01.79 | Bill Ziegler | You don't just see the deck, the deck is there and certainly partially into the view, but you look past that when On a nice morning, you're out there, the sun shines down, you're looking at the hills. They're 300, 400 feet away. There are other homes over there. It's clearly a view. But that's not being blocked. Not the deck part. |
| 01:53:20.35 | Jill Hoffman | But that's not being blocked. Not the deck part. I mean, there's still that part. If you put a picture up, there's still a view left. The long view is left. The part that's being blocked is the current deck, is my understanding, when I look at it. |
| 01:53:34.63 | Bill Ziegler | Well, it depends on if you move two feet this way or two feet that way, your view changes. But clearly, if you're standing in the kitchen looking out, a little southeasterly You're not looking at the deck. You're looking at all the things that are out there. That's the view. |
| 01:53:53.23 | Jill Hoffman | Didn't do any analysis of that, anything. We have some people. |
| 01:53:55.22 | Bill Ziegler | We have some pictures, but we didn't have time to show you. Pictures show that what's now maybe a 30% obstruction turns into, with the new deck, 75% obstruction. |
| 01:53:57.56 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 01:54:08.73 | Jill Hoffman | We've taken one. Okay, thank you. |
| 01:54:10.25 | Jill Hoffman | Actually, does someone have, I, I, I see Herb's got it. Yeah, I thought I had put that into my binder, and I didn't. So because this is, these are the before and after pictures that I found helpful. So sorry. You were talking about the view and the impact. Yeah. |
| 01:54:32.05 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:54:38.16 | Jill Hoffman | So actually I had one question of Mr. Rex again, Michael. Um. You know, looking at this attachment seven and hearing from the applicant with respect to the comment about this only addressing, I guess, 46% of what, you know, they were hoping to get. Do you have a response to that? Is there more wiggle room? Is there more? Are there other options that could be explored? |
| 01:55:15.00 | Michael Rex | I don't know where she got the 46%. I think it's absurd. I don't think it's true. We got very close. What I want to point out to you is they agreed to the alternative. We had an agreement. So they must have thought it was- |
| 01:55:31.40 | Jill Hoffman | I'm sorry, which alternative? Plan four? |
| 01:55:33.72 | Michael Rex | Plan four? They must have thought it gave them a reasonable amount of what they wanted. because they agreed to it. It was only when I think it was John. John was concerned that He'd come right back and ask for it later, and he asked for this deed restriction. And at the time, it didn't occur to me that that is probably overly restrictive and then a condition of approval would have been better. but they, had actually agreed to it. So we got close enough that they were okay with it. Uh, In fact, when they refused to do the deed restriction, it fed our fear that they intended to come back and ask for it later. Or why not at least agree or offer some way of a promise that they wouldn't come back. build what they offer to not build, Uh, So the 46%, I think it's a fabrication. |
| 01:56:31.21 | Mary Wagner | Michael? Do you have an idea of what the square footage was, not including the accessory dwelling unit? But if you're saying that 165 is a fabrication, do you have any kind reference or what the inside the house square footage would have been from that? No, no. |
| 01:56:45.40 | Michael Rex | or what... No, no, the addition to the back of the garage was part of that square footage. That was one of the reasons we got it close. Although I have to say the main expansion, except for pushing out the master on the ground floor. They've. want to enclose the entire upper deck that they're able to within the setbacks. |
| 01:57:08.06 | Mary Wagner | Okay, well, the total is $365, so if you take out the master bedroom, I mean, that's a big chunk. So if you're talking $365, $165. |
| 01:57:08.20 | Michael Rex | Thank you. AND, |
| 01:57:15.32 | Michael Rex | except for Tiger 365 and 165. you They were pushing the master bedroom out ten feet by enclosing the lower deck. They, Ms. Murphy said that they, offered to remove the lower deck. well by fully enclosing it and putting a wall out in front of Lee's study but the real need that we understood was to create a bigger living space on the top floor. And we compromised four times. We first asked it to be pulled back about six feet, then we went to four feet, and then we went to three feet. I think the last one was just, can you pull it back just two feet and cut the corner off the deck? This is, could I? |
| 01:57:53.17 | Unknown | May I just ask that specific question? When you say pull back four feet, then three feet, and then you even went to two feet, what is it you're talking about? What is it you're pulling back? |
| 01:58:06.72 | Michael Rex | The top floor deck, if I recall, is 12 feet. update. Okay, and this proposed plan and closes its entire length and puts a wall right outside Lee and John's kitchen. Okay. Right in their face. |
| 01:58:20.24 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:58:20.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:58:22.84 | Michael Rex | We said. Our... Our view looks to the southeast, all the beautiful hills of Sausalito to the south. So if you could just pull us back a little bit so we don't just look at a big giant wall. That's what we ask to pull back, instead of enclosing all 12 feet, Could you just enclose You know, eight feet? You know, I think we eventually got down to 10 feet. It seemed like, I mean, from my perspective, we were offering a lot. In the end, they offer nothing. |
| 01:58:53.52 | Jill Hoffman | Could I get an extra copy of the viral bound pictures? Is there an extra copy of that I could borrow? Because I just thought I had mine with me. It's just driving me crazy that I don't have that in front of me. That's okay. Thank you very much. |
| 01:59:09.26 | Unknown | One final question. So, Michael, are you saying that if... If these guys were willing to pull it back two feet, your client would accept it. |
| 01:59:21.06 | Michael Rex | And we ask that they cut the corner of the new deck that they were adding. Because we understand you want a deck off your living level. They live on the second floor. We just didn't want it square because our view is angled to the southeast. To us, it seemed like they were minor changes. And I have to tell you, the Planning Commission never considered those in any way where there was really no discussion about the options. And yet the finding says, The design should minimize impacts. Well, I thought we were going to have a hearing to talk about how do we minimize impacts because the impacts are clear. And that discussion didn't happen. I think Bill had it right. They just said, well, they have a right to build. There's no question that Lee and John have a bigger house. although it's not a lot bigger. Their unit's 2170 square feet. This one's almost 2,000. But clearly they- |
| 02:00:18.06 | Unknown | Michael, it's currently 1760. |
| 02:00:20.99 | Michael Rex | which? |
| 02:00:23.14 | Unknown | The current house is 1565 square feet. |
| 02:00:25.35 | Michael Rex | I'm talking about what's before you. |
| 02:00:26.70 | Unknown | Before going up to 1930 in proposal. Thank you. |
| 02:00:29.72 | Michael Rex | Yeah, and I think Lee's 2170. |
| 02:00:30.33 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:00:34.41 | Michael Rex | But we never denied their right to expand. We understand that. We just think there should be a working relationship to find a solution. That minimizes the impacts, because that's what the code requires, and that's not what happens. |
| 02:00:49.31 | Adam Politzer | Mr. Mayor, can I just jump in here and say that you're about halfway through the formal process. You still need to take public comment on the first year of the applicant and the appellant's comments, and then you still have ten minutes of- |
| 02:00:57.97 | Mary Wagner | That's... Ten minutes of... you Thank you. I just have one question. So are you saying that as we sit here tonight, if the applicants agree to move their deck and lower bedroom back two feet that would be acceptable to the |
| 02:01:20.09 | Michael Rex | We still have the problem of the 10-foot enclosure of the lower deck, which puts the wall directly out of Lee's study. Um, |
| 02:01:27.92 | Mary Wagner | Okay, so that's the, okay. |
| 02:01:29.19 | Michael Rex | Got it. Thank you. |
| 02:01:31.80 | Jill Hoffman | Well, let me follow up Michael again. We seem to be getting nowhere with this, but a lot of the council would like to find to help you guys come to a resolution, but. |
| 02:01:38.84 | Unknown | We're fine to help you guys |
| 02:01:43.21 | Jill Hoffman | Let me put it a different way. Are you at this point willing to work on other solutions and options if the council were to direct you to do so? |
| 02:01:54.26 | Michael Rex | Absolutely, in fact, we're asking you to remand it back to the Planning Commission so we can look at options. |
| 02:01:59.97 | Unknown | Absolutely. |
| 02:02:00.61 | Peter Johnson | Thank you. |
| 02:02:04.42 | Unknown | I just have one quick question. How many feet is it from the garage at 111? you to the house. |
| 02:02:21.23 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:02:37.40 | Calvin | With the proposed site plan, the distance from the garage to the lower level addition will be approximately 23 feet. |
| 02:02:48.01 | Jill Hoffman | How much is it now, right now? |
| 02:02:50.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:03:02.51 | Calvin | approximately 25 feet, looking at my drawings here. |
| 02:03:08.51 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. So we'll close council questions now. We'll move to public comment, and we'll start with Amy Wilson. Amy Wilson. |
| 02:03:21.22 | Amy Wilson | Good evening, Mayor Theodorus and council members. I am a homeowner in the neighborhood just around the corner at 208 3rd Street. My name is Amy Wilson. And I'm here tonight because I did attend the Planning Commission meeting where they made this decision. And I couldn't believe that the Planning Commission had decided that basically in Old Town you can't have a view out the side of your house. I mean, that was sort of how the chair of the committee phrased it even. And so I don't understand how the ordinance can say if it's 300 feet away and it's a hillside, it's a view, and it's a primary view, and then to say, but because it's on the lot line, you don't get to have it. So that was just stunning to me, and I wanted to bring my voice to the city council to ask you to ensure that our ordinances are applied accurately. I also I seen, I don't know either of the owners of these properties, and I've never spoken to the owners, the applicants. I have visited the site, the 114, and looked out the window of the kitchen, et cetera, and I just can't imagine having a building go up. It really becomes view of hillside versus wall in front of your face. And I just don't think that we can be in the habit of letting that kind of impact take place. And I came here to say, you know, can we encourage one more round of negotiation and compromise? So I'm stunned to hear that the applicant, when you said, could you even move one foot, couldn't say that she was willing to do that. So I hope that just because they're digging their heels in doesn't mean that we don't apply our ordinances accurately to projects and that we do require that if it's a heightened review that they take special care to minimize impacts that's the the language in the ordinance is around taking special care this doesn't feel like special care to me I know that their addition is modest that the home is modest you, you know, but these lots are tiny. They're 30 feet wide, typically, and the buildings that go on these lots have to respond to the site. And so they've made decisions in the past to have a two-car garage in their front yard instead of additional attached living space. And they built the house themselves, actually. So they made decisions about what the house would be at that time. So they've had plenty of opportunity to develop this site. And I would ask you to require them to continue to take special care to minimize impacts on the neighbors. |
| 02:04:36.20 | Unknown | applicants. |
| 02:06:23.15 | Amy Wilson | Thank you. |
| 02:06:24.50 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Terry Lang. |
| 02:06:39.38 | Terry Lang | Good evening. Boy, I don't envy you guys. I just thank you so much for your service. That's what I will definitely start with. And I can't imagine that what I will say tonight will have any impact. I do live within 500 feet of the property. I do know Martina and her husband. She is a mother at the school that my children also attend. And I think it's really important to be able to help keep families in Sausalito. And this is one of the ways in which we're kicking them out, by not letting homeowners expand a little bit so that they can accommodate their growing families. I also find that it's interesting. What was it? I'm sorry. Um, I do know that the Murphy-Quinn family, they don't use their deck as much as they would like to. because they would be looking at their neighbor and I don't know, maybe they should put up some bamboo on that wall and create a little bit more privacy for themselves. I also find it interesting that the residents at 115 West Street, where they say they value views, it is known in the neighborhood that they refuse to cut the trees in the backyard. So I feel like there's a little bit of hypocrisy here. And I hope that you would find with the city review that – They are in character with the neighborhood design and views and light and air. And I you think that they should be allowed to expand. Thank you. |
| 02:08:25.39 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. And then we'll have... Let's see, I think it's... |
| 02:08:34.74 | Jill Hoffman | they're not McCullough and then Susan Antonelli after that. |
| 02:08:39.33 | John McCoy | Thank you. |
| 02:08:39.36 | Jill Hoffman | John? |
| 02:08:40.39 | John McCoy | Hi, my name is John McCoy. I'm the owner and principal architect at McCoy Architecture here in Sausalito. We've looked at this project a little bit, and the debate over the views has been discussed ad hoc tonight. There's certainly some type of view there that's being greatly diminished, and it's up to you to decide whether it's a primary view or not. And if, in fact, whether it is or not, is it substantial enough to be protected and allow Lee and John to continue to enjoy the experience that they've had in their home for the last 20 years. But the view aside, that's been talked about so much. What hasn't been talked about is light and air quality. And that's an important factor. When you look at, when you talk about building a two-story 11 feet from a window from the primary entry in the patio. 11 feet is closer than from you to Councilmember Pfeiffer. So you're creating a monolithic structure and basically a tunnel to get into the house, which creates throw shadows into the house, diminishes the enjoyment of their front patio, completely diminishes the light quality coming in their kitchen and their study, and the air quality and the flow of the air and the natural ventilation in the house is completely impacted. that the planning commission did not require a sun and light study to be performed via BIM and 3D modeling as it has on multiple projects of mine where my project was 40 feet from the next house. and we still were required to do sun and light studies, that that wasn't even required to explore this and really understand the impact that's going on with Lee and John's home. I think that needs to be looked at. I think this project should be remanded back to the Planning Commission with that direction. That's my opinion. I think the negative and substantial impact to 115 4th Street just needs to be more seriously considered. I understand there's no variances. I understand the FAR. I completely, there was discussion about average FAR. I think that's moot. I think that has nothing to do with approvals, but I think the view needs to be strongly considered and protected, and the sun and light and air quality needs to, at a minimum, be studied, but I'm pretty sure how that study is gonna come out it's pretty obvious when you look out a window and a two-story monolith of wood shingle siding that is closer than from me to you that that's that's a major impact on somebody's quality of life and and it reduces their ability to enjoy the experience that they've enjoyed in that house for decades Thank you. |
| 02:11:18.83 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. And I'm sorry for mispronouncing. Is it Lina? No, no. Oh, I had it right the first time. |
| 02:11:25.87 | Lina Kauna | Mayor and council members, good evening. My name is Lina Kauna and I'm a resident of Sausalito. I yesterday I visited the residents at 115 fourth street. And although I do understand this is a very tough on both parties and they both concerns are legitimate. I was very surprised and shocked. by the impact that this design will have next door to John and Lee as far as privacy, light, and view. I was shocked, actually. My hope is that the council will look at the ordinance and show equity in how it is interpreted as far as what consists of a view and the ordinance in general. Thank you. |
| 02:12:14.27 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Susan Antonelli. And then Annie Porter after that and Lee Daly. Well, wait a minute. No, that we can't. You have your five minutes, so sorry. And then Carrie Goldstein. What about you? |
| 02:12:30.81 | Susan Antonelli | THE END OF THE END OF THE What about Sherry Faber? Can she go? |
| 02:12:33.03 | Jill Hoffman | No, I'm just calling the next one so they can be prepared. We have more cards. We won't miss Sherry. We can't do that. |
| 02:12:35.29 | Susan Antonelli | I'M GOING TO GET A LITTLE Oh, okay. We won't miss Sherry. I moved here 25 years ago from Manhattan, and I had a view of a brick wall in the village, and it you know it's one of the reasons why I love living here because I do have a tiny little view But I saw what has happened or what will happen, and I just thought, oh, my God, it's going to be dark and not very, you know, nice in her place. And I just thought, why can't we create a win-win situation? I'm all about, well... I'm the number one inviter on the next door Hurricane Gulch website because I've invited 107 people to join the website. And I'm all about community, and I think neighbors are – it's very important so if we can figure out a way to make it you know, both people win, then I think that's what Rex has gotten, you know, solutions for, and I think that that should be considered. I just don't think that there should be any bad vibes between neighbors in Sausalito. Thank you. |
| 02:13:59.16 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Annie Porter. And then Terry Goldstein after that. |
| 02:14:06.74 | Jill Hoffman | And then Alana Unsworth. |
| 02:14:09.66 | Annie Porter | Good evening City Council. I'm Annie Porter. I have lived in Sausalito for 23 years. I am a huge advocate of reasonable development in this town. And I feel over the last maybe... 10 years that personal property rights have just been encroached upon by this process that I understand that, um, you know, city council and planning commission want neighbors to work together. I, my husband and I have built two homes in this town in the last 15 years. We understand the process of working with your neighbors and trying to compromise with your neighbors. Um, And at times it can really work, but in certain times it can't. And, you know, part of that is that nobody likes change. Change is hard. And in this particular situation... 115. Um, 4th Street has been the biggest house on the block for the longest time, And unfortunately, you know, the Murphy Quinns need more room. trying to raise their family here like we're trying to raise our family here. And, you know, change may be happening and, you know, the neighbors at 115 don't like that. But there's never been any guarantee to them that the properties surrounding them we're going to remain the same. So I support the... Thank you. reasonable development the Murphy Quinn's are trying to do on their property and I would like to support this project. Thank you. |
| 02:15:46.69 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Kerry Goldstein. And actually, we'll do Sherry a favor, but I don't have a speaker card. And if anyone else would like to speak, you need to have a speaker card. But Sherry will go next. Bonnie, we have one from you. Well, I don't seem to have it, so. Sherry, you'll go next. Oh, I'm sorry. Good evening. |
| 02:16:08.29 | Sherry Faber | Good evening to you all. I think you have a very tough job. Thank you. It isn't that Lee and John are afraid of change. They have a substantial complaint. When I first went to Lee's home, and I saw the story polls. I asked her what the heck was going on. She took me in, she was in tears, she showed me the photos of what If the applicants were allowed to expand, their view in the kitchen was. I looked at the view in the kitchen. I saw the photos. it looked just like you would be in a container One side's already adjacent to another part of the duplex. This is all they have to work with. So I think all of us love our diverse population here in Sausalito, but I think we can all agree that we've moved here and chosen our residences for, number one, the views. Number two, not to have house upon house like in San Francisco, to have some space. And number three, I think the other commentator, two behind me, was very right where we want peace. We don't want to be fighting with our neighbors. We want to have a peaceful, workable community, and that's what makes South Salido, South Salido. And I thought it was very ironic today, and I called it serendipity instead of irony, but a friend started telling me, oh, my sister is moving after 22 years from the home that they built from scratch. And I said, well, what's that all about? And I have Lee's... Lee's issue in my mind so I guess it hit me harder than it normally would and he said well you know They were having some problems with their neighbors because my sister wanted to expand their home because they really came to the point where they needed extra space, and the neighbors were fighting with them because they were taking away a lot of their rights with views, with everything else. And they just simply, and I said, what did your sister do? Did they expand or what? And he says, no, they decided to move because when it got to the point that they were fighting with the neighbors they had been friends with for so long, They didn't want, and vibe was the word that I heard here tonight, They didn't want the bad vibes, they realized they needed more space and the place that they had chosen to build in the first place was no longer meeting their needs. I don't know the applicants. I'm sure they're very nice people. I think this is all about working together. I think you have a tough job, but I think that we all need to keep our community on the same page of what's valuable to all of us and the reasons we came here at the beginning. That's all I have to say. Thank you. |
| 02:18:27.98 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Sherry? |
| 02:18:33.70 | Unknown | Thank you. You all work so hard and I really, really appreciate all that you do. Sherry Faber, I've been a resident here for 27 years. I'm a business owner here. I own a real estate company. So I'm going to speak a little bit to the values that are being impacted for Lee and John. One thing I think is really important that hasn't been said at all tonight is... Lee's home was not built by her. It was built by a previous developer. It's a town home. It's not a single family home. There are no windows at all on the north facing side, so she only has windows on three sides. two thirds of those windows are on the south facing side that's next to the applicant's home. So we're talking about two thirds of the light, two thirds of the view, whether it's to the bay or to the hillside are impacted by the structure. But what's really, really important that hasn't been said at all is... Lee purchased her home at 115 in 1997. and did not know at that time that the structure next door was being taken down and was being rebuilt by the applicants. They had an opportunity in 1998 to build the home that they wanted to build on that lot. And that's what they built. And when that structure went up, it did impact Lee at the time, but she had just purchased the home and the previous owner had let that building happen and it's been a wonderful living experience there until the applicant decided to go up and impact the views again. I understand situations change. Families get bigger. Families get, situations change. Home offices, et cetera. There's a lot of lovely properties to buy in Sausalito, so maybe it's time to sell. Also, the property is an R225, and I spent a long time, many, many meetings with Michael Rex, Joan Cox, Stan on the Planning Commission, Lily, just two years ago. and we worked very, very hard to keep larger structures from happening on smaller lots because of the impact and making it more amenable for those R225 lots and people that wanted to expand by adding auxiliary dwelling units or second units to encourage that. And obviously adding an ADU off of the back of the garage would be a way to add more space, but it would also encourage eventually, maybe when those children are gone to college, to have an auxiliary dwelling unit or another rental on the property, which is what it was zoned for in the first place. That's all I have to say. Thank you. And I know you have a tough job ahead of you, but I do feel that this needs to be appealed. |
| 02:21:23.21 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:21:26.70 | Jill Hoffman | Alana Unsure. and then Richard Unger. |
| 02:21:44.41 | Alana Unger | Hi, my name is Alana Unger. I live on the street. in question. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS. I have a million things I'd like to say, Selected out one. And I want to tell a teeny little story. AND I THINK THAT'S A In the 1950s, there were scientific experiments that involved torturing uh, baby monkeys, baby chimpanzees, and baby human beings And someone remarked, Well, why don't you ask a mother? I'm so sure that if you people would walk into the 115. you would go, oh my gosh. impact. would be. devastating. the loss of property valley would be so extraordinary that I as a neighbor would hate to think how the domino effect would be in 5, 10, and 20 years to the entire neighborhood, which would then go back to 111. I happen to have met both parties. I adore living near them, their wonderful contributions. But I am in favor of acting on a compromise. Thank you. |
| 02:23:18.60 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. And then... Colleen Huspien. Thank you. |
| 02:23:27.63 | Unknown | I hope so. |
| 02:23:31.66 | Unknown | Thank you. That was my wife speaking. We live across the street. And I want to limit my comments to just one factor. If the proposal as it stands now moves forward, one party will be pleased and another party will be totally devastated. That alone, you know, FAR is details this, details that. They're not unimportant, but we've got one party that would be happy and another totally devastated. There's got to be a third way that doesn't have that outcome. Thank you very much. |
| 02:24:14.85 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Colleen? And then Bonnie McGregor. Mike Blatt, oh, I think I have two Colleen's cards. You have two Colleen. |
| 02:24:24.26 | Colleen Huspien | Hi, I'm the neighbor |
| 02:24:24.42 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Welcome to the Nail. |
| 02:24:27.20 | Colleen Huspien | in between. I'm 117 4th Street. I'm the mirror of Lee's dwelling. I do approve the project. I love both of my neighbors. I was hoping for a win-win. Thank you. I know that it's a small, they have a honeymoon cottage, and they're building it out to, what, 1930? It's a good year. That's why it's sticking in my head, the number. I know that we are the mega McMansions on The block, I think the apartment building across from me and Lee is maybe a smidge bigger. So I think it's a modest expansion. I know my bedroom windows... When I sit and watch TV and look out my side window, I see the apartment building. They can see me. It's up to me to draw the blinds. My entryway, I have foliage. I know the Daley's and the Murphy's had foliage. Because I was in both structures, and I've seen the foliage touch the deck to the point where Martina's like, Can you trim these back? this light in the air and privacy and now views, it's all little contradictory I just I think I approve the project I think it's small and let the trees grow back up. You'll have your privacy. You won't see a wall. That's how it's always been with these big trees. So it will be exactly the same. So I don't know what else to say. THE FAMILY IS |
| 02:26:01.08 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, Bonnie. |
| 02:26:06.04 | Jill Hoffman | And then finally, Mike Blatt, that's all I have. So we'll stop. All right. Okay, we'll just call you at the end. Okay, Bonnie. |
| 02:26:18.83 | Bonnie McGregor | I was good evening and thank you all so much for putting up with this difficult situation. I'm Bonnie McGregor. I've been a resident of Sausalito with three different stents squished together is 32 years, including having gone to the fourth grade in this building. And I've also been a private real estate investor for over 30 years. So I do have some experience. I've had a license in three different states, and I've not joined a company. I've done it for my own investments. I have been in the building at 115, and I, as one other person said, was rather appalled at looking at the pictures of current and what might happen as to what it's going to do. Yes, the view, the view from that house is not one of the best, but it is a little view. So they're going to lose most of that. And what bothered me more than the view but that's my personal opinion. Is the light loss. and the privacy loss. Thank you. I would hate to live in a cave where I've got to have the curtains drawn all the time or half the time just so I can maybe walk around in my undies. or other. So I really think it's going to be a significant impact on this property. And if it were my property, I would strongly object to this expansion. And I definitely think it should go back to the planning commission because the reduced value, the visibility and the privacy will reduce the sale ability. Please send this matter back to the planning commission. Thank you. |
| 02:27:47.66 | Jill Hoffman | Mike Blatt, thank you, Bonnie. |
| 02:27:57.55 | Mike Blatt | Excuse me, my name is Mike Blatt. I don't have a dog in this fight. So you do now. No, I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm only here because I live in Sausalito, and I've built 19 houses in this town in the last 14 years, and I want to make a couple comments. One is a gentleman said there's no win-win situation in this decision. I disagree with it. I think you do have a win-win. If I came to you and I said to you, I want to build... to 2,100 square feet. town homes in an area with 1,500 to 1,700 square foot houses. and I wanted to sell them I want them to be three-story, where most of them are two-story. I wanted to have nice backyards, and I wanted to make them shingles, and I wanted to show you how nice a job I was going to do in that area. I wanted to beat 90-some percent of available square footage because I wanted to sell them and make enough money. Yeah. Thank you. the way you make money is view and square footage, you would say that's a great idea, You're not compatible with a neighborhood. You're bigger than the neighborhood. You're building these two big duplex units there, and you're taking away from this cottage-type effect that we have around there. I think the neighbors at 115, I've never been in the house before, have already won. I think they have the biggest homes in the area, and I think that they have nice homes. I think they have a view of the water from the front. And, They are losing a little bit of view from the kitchen, and I've got a great precedent for that. In 2004, I came in front of the Planning Commission And I said, I want to build 16 Boakley. 16 Bulkley happens to be next door to Vijay Mallya's house. The 11,000 square foot house, second biggest house in Sausalito. I had an architect get up named Ravi Anand and said, you can't build that house next door to us because you're taking away from the view of the kitchen. I had two realtors, one passed away named Peg Koppel, who got up and said, you're gonna ruin the view of Vijay Mallya's house, and in addition to that, you're going to ruin the value of his house. I said, well, I don't think I'm going to ruin the value of his house. I'm building 3,100 square feet. You're 11,000 square feet. I'm on the side of you. your primary view is out toward the water, Your secondary view and tertiary view are out to the sides, and the only view you're gonna lose is the kitchen sink is gonna be looking at my house instead of looking out the next house. We got the house okayed. And. Since then, I think the view issue has changed on the general plan, it's now a little different. We used to have primary views, secondary views, and tertiary views in the old codes, and now we have a definition of what those views are. I looked at this situation and I drove by the place, and the only reason I did is because I have a couple houses that I'm thinking about going into escrow and actually improving the houses. If this doesn't go through, I'm questioning whether or not I should go through with the escrows on them because they are 1,400, 1,500-square-foot houses. It should be 19,000 to 2,000-square-foot houses, which are more compatible with the area. I don't think you're going to lose any view. If you said to the people, we can OK if you move it back six inches and everybody wins, I don't think the people next door would say, we're not going to go with that. I think you can get a win-win. |
| 02:31:42.35 | Jill Hoffman | I think you can get a win. Thanks. Could we get someone to get the microphone to Neil? So he doesn't. Is that OK, Neil? Oh, it does. Do we have? OK, that's fine. Oh wait, we have one. Neil. We have a mic for you. |
| 02:32:02.22 | Unknown | Okay. Mr. Mayor and Consul, Neil Whitelaw, And... I've seen a lot. In two years I'll be 80. I don't look it. I've been in town 48 years I've managed to be in 46 states and 25 countries. I traveled by limousine, Mercedes-Benz, private jets, and hitchhiking. I've seen a bit of a country. And hearing everybody here, I really don't have a dog in the fight. I don't even have a dog. It strikes me that Almost every place I've been and observed, The deal is, always been, and as far back in civilization as I can think, off the top of my head. If somebody's family expanded or they didn't have enough room, they stole where they were and moved into a bigger house. And conversely, when the kids left, a lot of people sold their place and moved into a smaller place. That's what's done in civilization. I don't see what the problem is. If, unfortunately, these people now have circumstances that require a bigger space then you got to do like millions of people have done for tens of thousands of years. You got to find another place. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:33:25.51 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. So having no other speaker cards, I'm gonna close public comment. So now we're gonna go into the rebuttals. Each side has five minutes. I'll be very strict on the time. I wanna let you know that ahead of time. And appellant will go first. And Lee, I'd suggest you go first because you got Bill and Michael there. You won't get a word in. |
| 02:33:44.06 | Bill Ziegler | . How do I get this down? |
| 02:33:50.33 | Lee Daly | Can you start the clock when he gets the slide? Yeah. |
| 02:33:52.72 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:33:56.88 | Unknown | Amen. |
| 02:34:01.19 | Lee Daly | Can you let me know when I have one minute left so Michael can speak? |
| 02:34:04.61 | Unknown | Is that possible? You will see. Thank you. |
| 02:34:16.10 | Unknown | Lee, you have five minutes, but that will start at, you'll look over there when you have three minutes and it'll start down at the bottom. |
| 02:34:17.57 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. THE FAMILY. |
| 02:34:23.14 | Lee Daly | Okay, well, I can't see the, see the, will someone, thank you, thank you very much. Thank you very much again for your concerns. |
| 02:34:32.51 | Jill Hoffman | And, Lee, you can adjust the microphone down if that helps. Okay. |
| 02:34:35.24 | Lee Daly | health. Okay. Thank you, Mayor Theodorus and Vice Mayor Hoffman and council members. Uh, Our kitchen is more than a primary living area. It is technically a primary living area. It's the heart of our home as well. Even opening a window with this project will expose us to our neighbor's deck life. and people looking in on us. That's the way it is. Our lives will be forever changed by the two massive shingled walls outside our kitchen windows, taking our light, our views, and our privacy. This is crucial. We only have side windows on that one side. That room that. It's a den study, a dining room. I spend seven to eight hours a day there. Each day I am always greeted by beautiful open hillside views filled with wonderful light. There I can open the window for air. But even that basic need will be impacted by this development. I bought my home for these views. Because this is where I am all day, I spend 90% of my time. in these two rooms. and in my outdoor patio. The dining room and kitchen will be robbed of the natural light that I now have by the huge walls that are just feet away. The view will be gone forever. The deck topping the wall not only blocks leaded light and primary views, but it's a gross invasion of our privacy. in our home, directly in front of these windows. Right now at 111, children play with their dog on the deck. The residents cook and eat there. It will be extremely hard for us to work at home as I do with entertainment and cooking directly above us. I ask you to please consider what this would do to your life if you sat in those rooms, if you cooked there, if you worked there, and how hard it would be under those conditions. Speaking of size, that house with the improvement would be 1,930 square feet. But they have a detached garage of about 420. That brings it to 2350 square feet. Our garage is under the house. We have a total with the garage of 2177 square feet. that is about 150 or 200 square feet less than this home. So the small addition that is constantly referred to really makes it into a bigger square footage property on that same size lot as what we have. And the majority of the people who have objected to it are people who have come into our home. The people who have supported it haven't seen the impact. I think if they did, and I've invited them many times, but they're friends. And I don't think that's fair. I think it's fair if you see both sides and you can make an impartial judgment. So I'd like to turn it over to Michael Rex now. And thank you. I really appreciate everything you've done. Michael, you have a- |
| 02:38:09.37 | Jill Hoffman | Michael, you have a minute. Thank you, Lee. You have a minute 35. |
| 02:38:20.77 | Michael Rex | After significant time and expense have been fully funded by John and Lee. Um, where we've been seeking an equitable design solution. After we have offered compromise after compromise, You're looking tonight at the very same max design that was first submitted. without a single revision or change to respond to the concerns that have been raised. There's no good reason. To approve a project that has such serious, and negative impacts on a neighbor. when reasonable options exist. The only reason Negative. impacts have not been reduced like the code requires. Is because the applicant is unwilling. to make a single change. You've asked tonight and you heard Mrs. Murphy refuse. That is not a good reason to approve a project. And that is why we're asking, and appealing for your help. and asking that you send it back to the Commission so we can consider an equitable solution. Thank you. |
| 02:39:46.60 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Now we'll have the applicant come, and you have five minutes as well. And again, after the first two minutes, that clock will go off. And at three minutes, it'll start. And then your time will run down from there. |
| 02:40:04.93 | Martina Quinn | So I just wanted to revisit that proposal number four again because it's because it seems to have been... hotly debated here tonight. You can pull them up. |
| 02:40:15.25 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:40:15.27 | Jill Hoffman | You can pull the mic we have a 40 speak into the mic you can |
| 02:40:15.96 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:40:16.03 | Martina Quinn | We have a |
| 02:40:16.67 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:40:16.82 | Martina Quinn | See you. |
| 02:40:16.98 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:40:17.03 | Martina Quinn | Thank you. |
| 02:40:17.09 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:40:17.19 | Martina Quinn | Thank you. |
| 02:40:17.31 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:40:17.33 | Martina Quinn | Thank you. |
| 02:40:18.09 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:40:18.11 | Martina Quinn | you |
| 02:40:18.17 | Jill Hoffman | You can- |
| 02:40:18.55 | Martina Quinn | You can. |
| 02:40:18.95 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:40:19.03 | Martina Quinn | Thank you. |
| 02:40:19.12 | Jill Hoffman | the mic down. |
| 02:40:19.94 | Martina Quinn | Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. The last of the proposals, again, by Mr. Rex, proposed an 11-foot-6-inch additional living space, an 8-foot deck with a 3-foot-5-inch-by-5 jog in the northeast corner of the living room. a living space and deck to have a jog on the northeast side, and a deed restriction. It offered us 165 square feet, which is 46% of what was requested. The garage is not living space. It doesn't form part of the living space. What I would say to you, again, is we're not asking for a great deal. We live in a neighborhood in which lots are very tight together. It is the norm for the neighborhood. There is an inevitable conflict between privacy and views. It was raised at the Planning Commission. And definitely privacy issues do exist on our deck at the moment. You've all been there and you've all seen it. We would contend that when the deck is filled in, that privacy issue largely goes away. Yes, there will still be a deck, but a deck is an important component of a view property in Sausalito. We've gone as small as we reasonably can and still have rights ourselves as property owners. So this is really, if it was just a matter as Mr. X suggested of pulling it back six inches on the upward and the lower store, yes, of course. But we were a million miles from that. We were not close at all at 46% of living space in the last round. We feel it's reasonable. We feel it's only what we need. I wanted to just briefly respond again to the statement that we had choices back when we built the house. In actual fact, we really didn't. We had a permit to convert what was a cottage at the time. It was hard on the rear set back. The permit was to allow us to remodel that existing cottage at the time. We had to maintain the floor plan. We didn't know that we were going to have to demolish the cottage and move it 15 feet down the lot. So hence the issue that we have today. At that time, reasonably, we were not opposed by anybody at design review. We could potentially have maxed our lot out at that stage. We could have tried to meet the size and the scale of John and Lee's property at the time. We didn't do that then. We're not doing it now. We're not even going to come close. We'll be at 32% of lot coverage. There is no expectation. of views on a side yard setback we will not have views to the south either when our neighbor to the south develops which he will do because when he purchased his home he purchased it with plans to develop he too will have to move his uh property forward off the rear setback that will affect us that will affect lee we understand that that's what is about. Please don't set a precedent that affects every property owner in Sausalito who has undeveloped or underdeveloped lots, because to uphold this appeal tonight will affect a lot of people in Sausalito in their property rights to be able to develop their lots, and certainly it will affect us. Thank you. |
| 02:44:03.40 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Okay, so now we're finished with presentation, so we'll bring it to council discussion. Who would like to start? |
| 02:44:16.21 | Mary Wagner | And Mr. Mayor, if you could just close public comment, assuming that's all right. |
| 02:44:18.68 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. I'll officially close public comment. I thought with that we did, but. |
| 02:44:18.96 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 02:44:18.98 | Unknown | Oh. |
| 02:44:19.20 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 02:44:21.93 | Jill Hoffman | Now we're bringing it back here. We'll have council discussion and we'll vote. |
| 02:44:27.06 | Jill Hoffman | So I guess I'll go first. My feeling was I visited both sites, and I certainly empathize with the applicant in wanting to expand. I do think, however, that the impact would be completely just devastating, have the impact of almost creating a tunnel sense inside the home of 115. And I think that there are some compromises that haven't been fully exploited. I want to respond to one resident was concerned about a precedent with this project and to the degree of not purchasing homes because he wanted to expand them. And I just wanted to say every project in Sausalito is unique every project is different the fact that this particular project involves an appellant appellant whose I mean, you've got no windows on the north side of the wall. Three windows on the south in primary living spaces all three windows at the second level all three the windows impacted Every project is unique. What does, I think, potentially set precedent in this particular project. I've never seen the phrase borrowed views or, you know, the the, um, some of the comments with respect to light and airing, I'm really shocked that the heightened review did not include a light and airing... study. I looked at these findings, I have issues with with some of the findings that were made. I know the Planning Commission was a split vote, Finding two complements the surrounding neighborhood. I think that it has a tremendous negative impact on a 115. Designed to minimize obstruction of primary views. You know, I think, you know, looking at wiggle room of even two feet, you know, making a huge difference. You know, I think things need to be explored. Providing adequate light and air. I can't find that. I'm sorry. I walked through both sites and looked at these pictures and it would be, I think, devastating to the appellate. Seven, finding seven, provide adequate light and air. I've commented on that. Number nine, reasonable level of privacy. By the way, regarding the tree foliage, there was a comment that was made about the tree foliage. I asked the appellant about that, and what I was told was that I guess it's a lumquat tree, It's always been windowed and that it was higher though and it was extending a little bit uh, I guess towards the deck but that it was trimmed but that was always a windowed tree and so it was always light and airy so I guess I I am just looking at this and the impact and I'm just really in favor of of sending this back to the Planning Commission for compromise and collaboration between these two neighbors |
| 02:47:49.51 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:47:50.80 | Jill Hoffman | We'd like to go next. |
| 02:47:53.43 | Mary Wagner | Oh, goodness. |
| 02:47:54.08 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:47:54.62 | Mary Wagner | Um, you know, boy, I really Take a hard look at. any project that's gonna impact the views any kind of view of a neighbor. but. In this case, you know, This is a really, really tough analysis for me because Like I said, we've had these before us in the past, I value my views, I value the views of the hillsides, but when I look at the zoning ordinances, I don't believe that these are you know, protective use. I agree with the majority of the Planning Commission and their analysis and when I go through When I go through the findings, and in the appeal, the basis for the appeal, number two, design complements the surrounding neighborhoods. And I take into account. the size and impact of 115 on the neighborhood as well. And, you know, I read Paul Horn's heartbreaking letter about what's happened in that neighborhood in the past 20 years, about Alma Johnson's house and about, you know, the house that had been on the property before the two duplexes were built. And when I look visually, I can see it's a three-story duplex. And I agree with Mr. Blatt when he said, the residents of 115 have already won. They have a three-story duplex on a street where they're mostly two-story cottages. Their primary views, which I view as water, We all know water views are sacrosanct in Sausalito. If we were even talking about a primary view of the water, there would be no issue. It would be Protect it. but we're talking about a side view, and I... I read all the reports, I listened to the Planning Commission, And I agree that the lots in that neighborhood are long, they are narrow. You can't reasonably expect your side views to last forever. And I also listened to the neighbor, Colleen, the mirror image, talking about the foliage and her particular views And I looked at the pictures that were provided as part of the applicants plan and I saw that the foliage was high. And so, you know, with regard to the design complements, yes, the design of that house as it is and as it will be complements neighborhood. Number four, minimize obstruction of public views from primary views from private property. So really, we're looking at the kitchen. And when you go and you look at, and Chair Warner said this as well, when you go to the kitchen and you look At the window box, the window box, you look at the deck. There's no question. You look at the deck. There's absolutely no privacy. when you look out the kitchen window, which is angled, and you stand at the sink, you can still see the view. The view is not as impacted as it is in the picture. So privacy, I don't think, is an issue. Leiden Air, you still have the views, they're just somewhat impacted. You don't have the right to a panoramic view, even if we were talking about, I think, a primary view. Let me just say one last thing. you Yeah, one last thing. with regard to whether or not this is a dining room or a study, the applicant, the appellants themselves call this a working home office. So a working home office is not, you can rearrange your house and you can use things for different things, but This is a home office. In order to get there from the kitchen, you have to walk down five stairs. So I find it unconvincing that this is now a protected dining room. Um, And just one last thing. I also take into account what the neighbors are saying, and I looked at the neighbors at 110 fourth, 108 fourth. These are comments that they provided. 110-4, 108-4-3. 105 fourth, 103 fourth, 107 fourth, 117 4th, 108 and a half, 4th Street, Um, 101 4th Street. You know, these are 10 neighbors that have no objection to this project. And several of those neighbors commented on the size of 115 compared to 111. And so I think, in my opinion, The criteria is met. even though I am sympathetic to the the owners at 115 to the change this is going to be in their view, I find it's reasonable under this code. |
| 02:52:22.80 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:52:26.09 | Unknown | Well... |
| 02:52:30.58 | Unknown | As far as setting precedent, as it was mentioned before, each home in this community has its own little problems. But let's go to some of the points that I wrote down. you. As far as the light and the sun. Anybody that knows that. I live on the upper section of 4th Street. the lower end near Valley Street. always gets much darker quicker. because of the hill and the way the sun sets. So, When I went over to the 115, 4th Street and looked out, I could see right away that building any obstruction there was going to really make it much darker. About two years ago, they completed a house right next door to me. I live at 315-4th. This is 317-4th. I believe they went something like from a 400, it's very small, it was a 30 by 60 lot. They went from something like 420 feet to something like about 1,200. I'm very fortunate. because They blocked my whole, I have one window. on the north side of my house. On the downstairs, before I used to be able to see a garden next door, and quite a bit of light used to come in. Now there is no light, and I don't even know it exists there anymore because it's all dark and there's no view at all. So I think it's very, very important that that these views are really important. As far as the value, there's no question in my mind. that if you look at that house, and after this would be built, That value would go down. without a doubt. So I really, the idea of smoke and barbecue, well, I think we all have that in the summertime. We put up with that. I put up with that at my next door neighbors. I would really like to remand this back to the planning commission. |
| 02:54:53.31 | Unknown | This is, I believe, the most difficult appeal that we've dealt with up here since I've been on the council, which is a short time, obviously. Obviously, I'm very sympathetic to both parties here because, you know, one can see both points of view. But... We've got some, we've got documents, we've got help to be able to look at, you know. We've got our general plan, which is like our constitution. We've got our zone in ordinance, which are our laws, our rules that govern this. And in making any of these decisions, which are by their very nature discretionary, if they weren't, you wouldn't be in front of the planning commission and you wouldn't be in front of us. They're discretionary, meaning that we have to make some judgment, but within the confines of the rules that are in front of us. And the judgment is usually a balancing act between are we granting a right to someone to expand that is unfairly hurting somebody else. Okay. That was not thought through very much in 1983 or whenever when 115 was built. because it was built as this huge duplex, um, with primary views at the front and taking advantage of side views. But if you walk along 4th Street, if you walk on 3rd Street, up West Street, you know, everything's crammed together. Nearly every house is long, dark alleyways with windows that nobody uses because that's the way that part of town is built out. And so in this balancing act, the problem I'm struggling with over and over again is that as Chair Werner, I think, and actually Mike Blatt tonight, has accurately stated, The fact that the house has been, has, that 115 has, by the size and way it was designed, has created for itself long before Lee was an owner of the house, created for itself views that impinge not just one property, But nearly every property that the vice mayor listed are in the 100 block south of 115. And so potentially, we are going to set a precedent if we uphold this appeal of actually reducing the property values of five or six homes. |
| 02:57:57.52 | Unknown | You may be balancing $250,000 if that number's right. with millions of dollars. of lost value because there's no way to actually build The South End of 4th Street. to any reasonable development size, because some of them are tiny little things, right? Without blocking that kitchen view. That's the balancing act that we're trying to struggle with tonight. |
| 02:58:32.18 | Jill Hoffman | I agree with Council Member Withey. This is probably the most difficult feel we've had. And certainly respect everyone's views. And no pun intended here. Uh, but, uh, John and Lee, I mean, in, in terms of their use of the homes and of course, um, Murphy Quinn, uh, in terms of wanting to expand that. Uh, I, I tend to, um, I, I think the planning commission did a very thorough job and, and, and going into some of the policy issues and it's really important that we look at, The history of a property goes BEYOND WHAT SOMEONE IS CURRENTLY USING IT FOR. AS A MATTER OF FACT, IF I WALKED IN THAT HOME WITH NO ONE THERE, I WOULD GO TO THE FRONT. TO ME, THE PRIMARY VIEW IS LOOKING OUT AT THE BAY. I WOULD NEVER HAVE DONE ON ME THAT IT WAS THE KITCHEN AND THE WORK AREA BECAUSE THERE'S A VIEW OUT THE BACK. There's skylights and there, of course, there's some views out these other windows, but there's a deck And I think it was built to have a view of the water. I think, as has been said before, when this home was built and maximized, that it really put other properties at a disadvantage. And one could say that it took the value out of the neighboring properties because they no longer can develop. Most other properties there are facing the water, and that's the reasonable expectation. That's the way way things were built and while people are maybe used to it that that's very difficult I think on the light and air the the 14 feet I mean there's the view different but there will be light and air coming in not what we'd like we none of us like change and we certainly wouldn't want to lose any of the view But we have to balance that with the ability for people to develop. On the privacy, I'm stymied on it because if you go on that deck right now, you look right in that window that we're concerned. I mean, you're staring right at the person right there. It'll just change the angle of that, but it'll be the same thing. And actually, in some ways, it helps the privacy because the windows are up. It's a difficult decision. I think... I'd like to talk about it procedurally at this point, because I think, Certainly I heard this from the Planning Commission, their frustration that all potential compromises weren't explored. I think I hear that here. And I think we would like to do that. That's what I'm hearing. Of course, we'll vote on it. remaining it to the planning commission may not be the appropriate solution the planning commission Right now, it's really in the hands of the party. The Planning Commission has said what they've said. And I don't know that they have any ability. It'll just come back to them. We remand it. They're gonna come back and probably Come back with the same... decision, they're usually consistent. And we'll have the same people come up on it. We want to find some way that we can move this forward. What I may recommend is that we I'm not sure if you're continue this particular hearing and have the parties meet and negotiate with the community development director as the mediator THE FAMILY. and that we can come back and we would suspend this. We would actually pick it up right where we are now. And I think if it doesn't work out, if the parties can't come to a compromise, we'll just have to decide. And we're gonna decide one way or the other, we'll just decide that we uphold the appeal or we won't. I think there are grounds on each side. Certainly, as you hear here, that I think there this this council could find the findings for either way because it's a close decision. So that's what I might recommend. I want to hear what what the other council members would say to something on that order, because it's a very expensive process. It's an emotional process for everyone. We want to come to a resolution. What we don't want to do is kick the can down the road And I have immense respect for the Planning Commission. I think they did a great job on this. I just don't know that if we just send it down to them, it's going to make any difference. And we'll be right back here with the same set of issues. |
| 03:02:43.03 | Mary Wagner | I, you know. The one reservation I would have about suspending is that, you know, the Planning Commission had their decision in June. And so here we are at the end of September. So June, July. I mean, it was summer, but there were three months in between for the parties to sit down. for you know the appellants to approach the homeowners knowing that they had a decision from the Planning Commission and that We most of the time give weight to the planning commission to re-approach the owners and to come up with a solution. So I think there's been a window of time for further negotiation. And I guess I wouldn't be opposed to a short continuance, but based on my evaluation, I'm ready to make a decision tonight. I agree. |
| 03:03:31.64 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, I would support the continuation. I think that there's a difference between kind of waiting to find out where the council lands and clearly they had touched on some alternatives. But I think it's different having a message from the council that we think Perhaps you guys can go sit around a table with a cup of coffee and see if there are any compromises that can be worked out that would be small but could have a really big impact in terms of the light and the air at 115. |
| 03:04:13.48 | Unknown | Well, you can tell from my questioning. I was asking, is there some room for a compromise? So I would always, I would certainly support that. But on either side, you can't negotiate and just say no. That applies to both. You just can't do that. That's not a negotiation. Right? And quite frankly, I can't tell exactly what the nature of the negotiation has been. So I wouldn't mind giving it 30 days or something like that. But I also want to make a couple of just a few points that I didn't make earlier. |
| 03:04:59.60 | Unknown | The primary view is not the view decided by the occupant. That's not what our ordinance says. |
| 03:05:09.50 | Unknown | Setbacks are not just building requirements. You need a variance to go into the setbacks. part of the staff report for the Planning Commission so you know If we're going to have a negotiation for 30 days and come back with a response, let's have people talking, you know, realistic, grounded in our ordinances. |
| 03:05:40.32 | Unknown | I also agree a very short period of time to maybe come up with some solution, some compromise. And maybe the compromise has to be understood that when both parties walk away, they might not be happy with the result, but at least they know That they worked out something. and they can live together as neighbors. |
| 03:06:06.18 | Jill Hoffman | So what I would recommend hearing that is that we postpone it to, I believe we have an October 20th, Um, MEETING, THEN IT WOULD BE TO A DATE CERTAIN, I would also, and I'll look to the city attorney on this, what I would like to do is continue this where it is right now, meaning Public comments closed. We're going to come back and we're going to hear it. We're going to hear from the parties, and then we go back and we make a decision. I mean, so there's not to- |
| 03:06:35.92 | Mary Wagner | So there's that. The only, excuse me, Mr. Mayor. If there's a revised proposal that the council's considering, you're going to need to take public comment on that. |
| 03:06:48.54 | Jill Hoffman | give them the same amount of time? Do we go through the whole thing again? Or what I'm trying to do is somewhat Understood. |
| 03:06:56.18 | Mary Wagner | Understood. I mean, you can judge by how many people want to talk how much time you're going to give them, and you can also determine how much time you're going to give the applicant and the appellant to talk. So that could be adjusted as the council sees fit. |
| 03:07:07.24 | Jill Hoffman | That could be adjusted. Okay. And then it would still be continuation of this because for notice periods and that type of thing, if we set the date tonight. |
| 03:07:11.22 | Mary Wagner | And then, |
| 03:07:17.63 | Mary Wagner | If you set it tonight and you continue it to a date certain, then it doesn't have to be re-noticed. And you could indicate to the public that you've already heard exhaustive testimony on this. You want to hear public comment on the revised proposal or whatever it is that's coming back to you. |
| 03:07:36.75 | Unknown | Okay. So just to follow up on what the mayor said there, I mean, what I would be looking for is I don't want to hear all this stuff again. Right? We've heard it. What I want to hear is what's the solution or and I hope this isn't the case, why you weren't able to reach a compromise. I want to hear what the compromise is. I don't want to hear any of this stuff. I've heard it. |
| 03:08:05.29 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, as a matter of fact, I think, what I was looking at and making, see if this works, Either they come back and says, yes, we've compromised, we're willing to do this, or no, we haven't. And if yes, that's the plan, if no, we say, okay, now we're gonna decide it. Can we do that? |
| 03:08:25.37 | Mary Wagner | Sure. I mean, what I thought you had asked me, Mr. Mayor, and I apologize if I misunderstood the question, was whether or not you could have closed public comment and not have to reopen public comment. And there are opportunities for you to do that. When something's been fully vetted and you're just coming back to make your decision, you're not considering new information, you don't have to take public comment again. But when you've directed them to go and discuss alternatives, you have to take public comment on those alternatives. You can direct the applicant and the appellant, as you just did, this is what we want to hear. We don't need to have an exhaustive staff report about the history of where we've been. We just want to understand where we're going now. And Mr. Mayor, if I may, the more direction that you can give the applicant and |
| 03:08:35.48 | Unknown | You have to re, in public. |
| 03:09:14.69 | Mary Wagner | on the solution that you are directing them to work toward, it's helpful to them to go back to the table. And I've understood the issues from the council are the light, the air, and potentially the view from that side of 115 south. And if it was possible to pull back the project potentially or come up with other alternatives that were less impactful to that neighbor, that's what you're looking to them to try and work through. |
| 03:09:39.59 | Jill Hoffman | Again, I'll let the other council members, but we're looking to see can they agree on something that fits within our set, the community development director will have input that works within all our ordinances or no. And then we'll decide from there. We don't want to hear alternatives. |
| 03:09:57.05 | Unknown | You've got to be accomplished. |
| 03:09:57.98 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, it's a compromise or... |
| 03:09:59.92 | Mary Wagner | And Mr. Mayor, if you're going to approve a revised project, there's going to be project plans that are going to have to be reviewed and approved. |
| 03:10:07.60 | Mary Wagner | Let me ask, so that was my follow-up question. |
| 03:10:21.01 | Calvin | Staff's recommendation that we continue for a date that is more than a 30-day duration, because if there were to be any revised plans, they need to be fully vetted and reviewed by staff, including planning, Department of Public Works, fire, fire. How much time do you need? |
| 03:10:35.97 | Unknown | How much time do you need? |
| 03:10:38.46 | Calvin | it's really hard to say. It depends on the scope of their revisions. The standard completeness review is 30 days, but that puts a very limited time review at |
| 03:10:43.32 | Unknown | We need a date. We want to go to a date. |
| 03:10:48.92 | Unknown | The President's $45. |
| 03:10:53.08 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. Well, we need. |
| 03:10:54.22 | Jill Hoffman | Well, we need we need a council date that we can move it to. So can you work the city manager come up with a date that that'll work. So that's. at the 15th it was 35 days on the 20th the next meeting would be November I think it's the first weekend Tuesday sorry no that's the lecture November 10th Can we do November 10th? Okay. Now the parties, we're going off without you. Can you be here at November 10th? Are you willing to engage in this process? Are you? OK. And we'll move this to November 10. There's no moving that date. So we're going to set that. Okay, staff, are we good with that? All right, council. Consensus, right? Do we have a consensus on that? Yes. |
| 03:11:42.10 | Mary Wagner | that. |
| 03:11:42.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:11:42.91 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. All right. |
| 03:11:44.00 | Mary Wagner | let me sorry one more if they come up with an agreement though do they even need to come back |
| 03:11:51.25 | Mary Wagner | Yes. Okay. |
| 03:11:52.02 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:11:54.33 | Jill Hoffman | All right, well, I think we're done? Okay, thank you all. Okay, good night. Now we'll take a five minute break, yes. |
| 03:12:06.26 | Jill Hoffman | Tell me when you're ready. Are you ready? Okay, we're back. And we move on to item 6B, the introduction of the vegetation management program. Fred Hillard? |
| 03:12:18.58 | Unknown | Yes, Mayor Theodorus, Vice Mayor Hoffman. |
| 03:12:20.98 | Jill Hoffman | No, of course. Every single person on this agenda has been someone else for having me. Thank you, sir. |
| 03:12:27.73 | Unknown | Yes. Members of the council. |
| 03:12:28.54 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:12:28.59 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:12:28.61 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. Would Fred stand up in the back, please? Yeah, we'll certainly get that. |
| 03:12:30.40 | Unknown | Yeah. Yeah, we'll certainly get to all of them. For the record, Chris Tubbs, your fire chief. Council, you may recall we were before you this past October where we highlighted vegetation management specifically around the threat with wildland fire and how it affects the city. And we shared with you some of the solutions that we used to try and mitigate that threat. And as we said back then, we'd be back before you again with a little bit more information. And tonight we are. We've got several people here who are going to speak to you tonight, our Deputy Fire Marshal Fred Hilliard, We'll just sort of do a real quick briefing, and we're going to try and accelerate this, obviously, given the hour. And this is a no action item for Council. This is a presentation. Fred's going to cover just again a real quick review of the threat, especially in light of what we see going on across the state right now. I think it's very present for us to recognize that danger. And some of the solutions that we have implemented to try and mitigate that risk, primarily around vegetation management and creating defensible space. After Fred, I've got Captain Kerry Glockner, who's going to come up and speak on that a little bit more. Now, Kerry is... our resident expert on vegetation management and defensible space And wildland firefighting has got a very extensive background. He's a great asset for our organization. Kerry's going to tee up a few ideas that we're looking at, both that we can implement now that are kind of what we would call low-hanging fruit, and then some other solutions that we think may require a little bit more analysis with staff that might even require some additional resources. But we want to be able to sort of do the analysis and bring those back to council at a later date as options for you to consider to help us steer what direction do we want to go in the city. And so with that, I'll introduce Fred. |
| 03:14:17.85 | Unknown | Council members, thank you very much for having us. This obviously, in light of what the recent week has brought, is very important and it's very real. And it could very much happen here in Sausalito. I'm going to highlight a couple of issues, or not issues, a couple of things that we talked about in our last meeting in October. But Carrie's presentation really kind of cuts to the root of what we want to do to reduce the threat of wildfire getting into our homes Thank you. to do to, you know, reduce the threat of wildfire getting into our homes in Sausalito and becoming an urban conflagration, which is what happened in Middletown. I mean, it was a wildfire. that got into homes and businesses, and once the homes and businesses started going, that's what led the fire into losing 545 houses and another 500 other structures. So this is very real, and we need to kind of take this very serious. What I'm going to do is just go over what we're going to cover, and in lieu of the hour, we're gonna move through this quickly, but if you have questions, obviously, please just ask. We're gonna recap the previous presentation, go over analysis of current fire threats, vegetation management. Carrie's gonna talk about the vegetation management and firewise Sausalito, and then, of course, we're gonna entertain questions. This is probably what if you just changed the date to 2015 and move this to the Valley Fire, this is probably what you would have seen over the last couple of days. The other thing is September 20th, 1919, we had a big wildfire that burned Old Town, which is the area that we were just talking about with the previous presentation. And if you literally just change the date to 2015, Exactly what you see here is actually occurring right now. We have extensive dry period of drought, we have relative humidity that's very low, even though we have fog, we haven't seen as much fog as we have in the past. We have high winds. I mean, the last three, four days, we've had high winds, very low fuel, moisture content, and, you know, basically in this fire, The wildfire got into the roofs and the gutters by ember showers, and that's what created the conflagration in the town, and that's what almost burnt the town down. Basically, what it means is the wildfire the embers, it was like rain. and it was raining into the gutters and to the roofs. And once the home started going, the close proximity of the homes, and how far that the homes were throwing burning litter was catching the other homes on fire. So again... Uh, That's what we're facing right now if we were to have a fire. So we use this word, wildland-urban interface, and it didn't go over too well in the last presentation because there was some concern that we were quoting something that was not specific to what a wildland-urban interface is. It's where the wildland meets the urban interface and 500 feet in and that's what the state Defines it as however what the state didn't doesn't put in their definition and what they allow the fire districts and fire departments to do is Take into account not just what they're using as fuel but they allow us to also look at as let's put the homes in there and Let's put the density in there. Let's put the underbrush in there. Let's put the ornamental vegetation in there. and count all that. And with an ordinance that we have in our district for the Tam Valley and Homestead Valley area, it would indicate that during times of the wild, if you were in the wild and urban interface, if you were doing a substantial remodel or building new construction, there would be some construction features that would be required. some fire resistive materials that would be required to use some water supply components you would have to make sure be required to use some water supply components. You would have to make sure that you had the proper water supply in the lieu of fire hydrants. The roadway widths would be taken into account for fire access and egress for people that are living in the homes trying to get out. Defensible space and vegetation management, and then of of course, most of this was really on focusing on ember intrusion around decks and on roofs and in gutters. So we used the word wild and urban interface. We said we're going to come back with an ordinance, but instead what we're going to do is focus on one specific of this, and that is the vegetation and defensible space. Our current fire threat right now, Sausalito is actually nationally recognized as community at risk because of our densely populated and slope, population slope, our vegetation that surrounds us with eucalyptus and pines and ornamental vegetation that's been put here that was not here originally. So... we have, Sassalua has been recognized, and we want to reduce that risk. We want to be a lower side of that risk. Our open space areas also are a threat. The same ones that have historically wreaked havoc on these fires where they were less populated, when Sausalito was less populated, are still a big threat because they're still there. And they're not being taken care of. Current listings. On the county wildfire protection plan, we just did a new CWPP and we listed several areas in Sausalito that are a threat and we want to find ways to mitigate that threat. We have a heavy, thick, heavy understory of dead fuels. That's all the litter of the trees and. all the brush that has not been removed and, you know, people that haven't taken care of their properties, those all play into this. Ladder fuels, we use a term called ladder fuels and a ladder fuel is a ground fuel that gets into a shrub or a brush, which then gets into the trees. And then once you have a crown fire, you have a very fast moving fire. So the ladder fuel is from the ground into the tops of the trees. We have unmaintained vegetation throughout the city, and I field a tremendous amount of phone calls from neighbors who are worried, concerned about other neighbors, and concerned about some of the city property about unmaintained vegetation. I think there's a misconception that it's just go out and sight them and it's gone. Well's not really exactly how it works we ask for voluntary compliance we don't have the resources to to to you know mitigate all of the brush neither is a city so what we look to do is we look to educate the public And we have them Remove the brush. And we have them. then maintain that and we use the Firewise program to do that which Carrie is gonna talk about. We have three threat areas, and we talked about this in the last meeting. These areas that would be depicted in the cities, upper area, Wolfback Ridge and Rodeo Drive, and then along the coastal trail over towards the south side of the city. These are threats because they are in wildland areas. They are in areas where there aren't homes, and it's steep slope, and it could easily ignite and then throw fire embers and brands over the top of the hill into the homes below. That's the wildland factor. Thank you. But the urban fire threat is the whole city. And that's because, like I said earlier, if we had a fire in the city where we started seeing multiple homes ignited, It would it would they would take. It would take not very long for it to actually knight a lot of the city. We need to create fire breaks in defensible space. We need to mitigate the issue of vegetation. We need to create a fire break, if you will, by maintaining the defensible space and also eventually require certain types of building construction, simply so that if fire does, if we do have a wildfire that gets into the city, we could stop it or we could slow it. So Sausalito Vegetation Management, we recognize that the need for fire-wise and promote the benefits of the citizen is a key factor. Education and promotion of this program, which is a nationally recognized program, and we've set up several of these within the district, is key. We need to do an assessment of the entire city for defensible space, access, egress, water supply, and building construction type. |
| 03:24:02.14 | Unknown | We need to continue to host free classes as we do in the other parts of our district. We need to do that here. We need public outreach and not just on open houses where we can hand out a couple of brochures, but we need to have... Citizens attend these classes, and we need your help to promote that. We need to have the ability to apply for grants because it is going to take money to take care of this problem. It is going to take money to identify the areas that we need to apply to provide for defensible space. And we need to hold a community focused on prevention at least once a year and usually right before fire season. So we reach out to the public. We have an open house or we do it at our fire station or we go out to a bigger format and actually tell people what they need to do to take care of their properties. So with that, what I'd like to do is invite Captain Glockner up here, who's going to do a presentation on vegetation management. And then we'll welcome any questions. |
| 03:25:34.34 | Kerry Glockner | Good evening, everybody. My name is Captain Kerry Glockner. Thank you for giving me the time here to speak with you all tonight. Thank you. It's been a while since I've been in front of you, and the faces have changed, but I do recognize some old-time folks that saw me when I was a young whippersnapper. And changes have come. I keep my hat on now because most of my hair is gone. Speaking of vegetation management, it's nearly the same sort of process. So I would like to capture your attention tonight because there is one critical thing that I have not seen or witnessed tonight, and that is the respect to the issue at hand here, and that there is many, many families out there tonight that have no home. And to sit here through a very painstaking two hours of listening to views, I thought, you know, I wonder what those folks' views from the tents are. up there in Middletown. And I thought, you know what, we need to do better. A lot of times the issue, from what we do is not necessarily that people are behaving badly, they just don't know. but we're not going to be able to do that. I think it was 1999 when I experienced a very significant emotional event with my brother at a fire. along 116 and Sebastopol where I volunteered as well as worked down here. The long and the short of it was, is I saw fire move faster than I had ever seen before in my career. with a fog that was literally right at the start of the fire. It swept through from Stony Point Road all the way into the city of Cotati. And we elected, my brother and I, and one other guy elected to defend a home there, along that road. And the short of it is, is we lost the home. We saved the five people in the house, but we almost lost our lives. I mean, it was, I was on my hands and knees at that moment. I made a conscious decision, and I've had this. discussion with the chief of why I do what I do because at that moment I thought I'm 50 yards from a two-lane paved highway. and this is where my body's gonna lay rest with these other folks. So there is a lot of emotional connection here. I thought, you know, at that moment, What? Is it that I need to do better? We can get bigger, faster fire engines. We can do all these codes and things. But if we don't teach the constituencies, and the leaders of that constituency what it is that we need to do and how to do it. there's really no hope. So what I'm gonna hammer on tonight is a very few actionable items. But also, I'm begging you that we need all five of you to attend my four-hour class. That will change your life. And everybody in the fire department can attest to the fact The folks that go through my four hour class wish it was eight because it is highly entertaining, very informative, and you will leave there with the language you need in order to effectively communicate with the public that we'll be in here eventually asking questions of you as to... the who, what, and the why's. we're asking people to do the things that we're doing. Another interesting point in the pictures of the view there I saw was a a house that was covered in wood shingles. And for the life of me, I can't understand. that that wasn't a topic of discussion that's probably one of the the things that we really need to focus on tonight is building construction. where it's going to dovetail into what Fred talked about first, but we'll go ahead and get started here with the. a slideshow. So our topic's here tonight. We're gonna define the vegetation management, talk about two wildfire scenarios for the city, what the program steps are that we've come up with, and then talk about future presentations where we will be back here asking for some action items and your assistance. But again, what is the first thing that I need from the five of you? It was only a few minutes ago. |
| 03:29:34.05 | Jill Hoffman | Attend your workshop. Attend your four-hour workshop. There you go. When is your four-hour workshop, though? |
| 03:29:36.97 | Kerry Glockner | There you go. So I've gotten the five of you committed. Very good. So I've got five attendees for my next class, chief. Okay, under future presentations, that'll be the last thing we cover, and if this computer will work a little faster, we'll get to the next slide. There we go. So vegetation management defines the act of controlling the vegetation or the fuels through mechanical, biological, and that would be something like goats or sheep. or manual means in support of land management objectives. The dryness of that, it boils down to certain language that we need to use in order to tap into grant monies. And parts of the SRA applies to other areas in our fire district, not necessarily here. But that is a way that we can tap into money is to get projects paid for. So we have to use certain terminology that I'll keep kind of hammering home here. will land the plane with That's how we get free money to treat the problems here. So if there's not a lot of money for this and in tight budgets, we need to access all that we can. So here's the two scenarios. Again, we're nationally listed as community at risk. And for those of you that on the council that have taken all your ICS classes in support of the EOC and mitigating risk, through the FEMA section. That is very important that we identify these things, these problem areas, and treat them in order to get FEMA funds when there's a debt disaster declaration declared. We in the event have a big fire that taps our resources and burns part of the city down. It's very important that we can show the steps that we've done to mitigate the hazards. That goes a long way to receiving more funds to rebuild. and to start your programs back up again. We are listed as a federal threat at Community at Risk because we have a big federal threat, and that's the open space that the GGNRA provides us. You know, it's a great view, but it also... provides an ember shower that would potentially rain down hot flaming embers all over the town. The two main wildfire scenarios we're going to talk about tonight. is one, It's probably the more frequent event that could happen, and that is a fire that starts in the GJNRA. comes up to the top of the hill, impacts Wolfback Ridge rather immediately. and then cast all its hot embers and burning materials down upon the city. So from that vantage point, if you were gonna sprinkle you know, candy on top of a cake. you do it from high up so the same sort of Thinking applies here. If you want to burn down the most homes, Sprinkle your embers from a very high location with the winds at your back. and it will deposit it quite nicely down in a debris field, which is where our houses So that's the first one that we're going to talk about. THE SECOND ONE. is urban conflagration. And so when Fred and I were talking about the words we use and how we use them, this wildland urban interface I was sensing was kind of a hiccup for planning department in the building department and us to kind of get on the same page and that we realize that this doesn't look like Middletown. This doesn't look like Tahoe Douglas. This is a very unique situation. i did the uh... research for the last presentation that fred did with all the articles going back to the early eighteen hundreds And even the old timers knew that what we were talking about was embers landing on roofs. And every little mini article in the newspapers I found was talking about Make sure your roof and gutters are clear. That was the big take home from every single article. And fire after fire, it was kind of on a 10-year cycle. for the first hundred years. And then after that, we've done a very good job at keeping fires from occurring. So that cycle is now lengthened out to where we really haven't seen it. So historically now we've got residents that are new to the area, Council and quite frankly most of us have never seen what will take place in this town. What I've done is I've done a lot of personal studying and trying to figure out what it is that's going on. How are we losing homes? And I would say that there's three of my colleagues in here at Sage that would bet that I'm probably the foremost authority in the county now because I have this nature about finding out why I almost lost my life that day up in Sebastopol. I wanted to know how can we do better? And so this topic came back and it was more or less What's happening here isn't necessarily a wildland fire consuming homes. we get maybe a structure fire that spreads from one to two or three houses. Once we tap into two or three houses going, with the right weather combinations and wind going. there's really not much that we can do. There's only 35 staffed engine companies in the entire county. taking probably an hour and a half to get assembled and at scene here. By that time, everything's rolling so quickly, the game is lost. So trying to figure out, you know, how could we do better then is what we're going to talk about next in the urban conflagration in part two of this. So going first up here. We're just going to click on this video, and I want you to watch very carefully what you see in here because I'm going to focus on some questions afterwards. |
| 03:35:13.69 | Kerry Glockner | I'm not sure what's going on with the volume, |
| 03:35:18.53 | Mike Blatt | Thank you. |
| 03:35:18.55 | Kerry Glockner | Yeah. |
| 03:35:18.91 | Mike Blatt | Bye. |
| 03:35:27.80 | Kerry Glockner | Look at the house behind the gentleman on the right-hand side there. And do you see the trees in front of the house? You'll notice, and I challenge you all to look later on tonight and tomorrow, and look at the pictures and videos from Middletown. And what you'll notice is that most of the trees are still standing, that we're in the wild land. So what we've picked up on is that it wasn't the wildland fire that was burning the trees down. It was the homes catching fire that's burning the trees down. vice versa. So this leads us then to figure out how are we going to deal with this problem? Is this a wildland urban interface problem? I think not. There's a vegetation management program that we can deal with these sorts of aspects. But again, it all boils down to education. Knowing that When you see these cars here trying to get out, of Dodge. They're not evacuating, they're fleeing. So the idea of vegetation management used to be that we're going to manage the fuels around the home so that we can have a defensible space. And that defensible space was mostly meant for fire department to intervene in between fire, the oncoming fire, and the home, so that we could save the home. What I've learned and that the residents of Middletown will tell you You've got two options when a fire comes. either stay or leave. I will submit to you, if you've really put yourself into the thinking shoes here, that when you're up on a home in the side of Sausalito on the hills, By the time you realize there's a fire moving your way, your chance for evacuating or fleeing are already come and gone. you don't have, Those windows are so short, these fires are moving so quickly now. obscuring roadways with smoke, embers and direct flames. that you don't have time to move, you don't have time to leave. So the importance of just the vegetation program now has really highlighted the fact that We don't just need to take care of our vegetation management, we need to make our home the Alamo. And I choose the Alamo very carefully in that the Alamo eventually fell. There were certain circumstances that might have allowed it to stand, but it eventually fell. What happened in the meantime though, is a lot of those folks inside there rode out the onslaught. They rode out the battles until there was a time for them to evacuate safely. and they moved out. So our thinking now and our planning has changed We need to make sure that people understand that vegetation management is is a component. It's learning that. by the time we Get notified that the fire is occurring. get response vehicles going. and get water on the fire under the perfect scenario, It's already gone. going to make its way through homes. and you're gonna get cut off. So we need to get the point driven home to folks It's. there's a huge amount of education here that needs to take place so let me see if i can get out of this quickly OK. So what you saw in the video there that I wanted to highlight is embers. across the world, and I've listened and spoke with had the Great opportunity to talk with a lot of folks. The North South Wales, excuse me, the New South Wales Fire Commissioner from Australia, I met a couple years ago and befriended, and I talked to him about how they lost 185 lives doing their program, what they could do better. And through these conferences and things that I've gone to, what we've realized is that We really need to make sure that, folks, this isn't just about cutting your grass and trees and stuff. This is about making sure you have a place to survive. And my heart goes out to the folks that are out there tonight that are living in a tent. And there was one woman that was killed in her home. And I don't know what the circumstances were around that. but I suppose that she was in that house for a while and maybe couldn't find her way out because of her ambulatory issues, but that only highlights the necessity to make your home that much more capable of withstanding fire. It's not just about saving your home because I always get that from folks. Well, I have insurance, it doesn't matter if the house burns down. And I retort, well. I think it might matter to you if you're stuck inside the house if it burned down. your life is definitely on the line. So here's scenario one, it's actually the easiest for us to deal with. It's fire occurs in the GJNRA, 50% of Sausalito currently is exposed to this sort of fire activity, and that would be maybe the top 50% of the city that is just below the one on one freeway specifically though uh... the Wolfback Ridge area is prime target. This sort of scenario would occur with a normal onshore flow. So maybe fog has not quite yet reached the mountain, but you can see it from the top of the mountain. It's just right there. That transition hasn't occurred yet to where we get fuel moisture recovery. but we have these howling winds. It's the same situation that occurred to me in Sebastopol when I almost bought the farm. That fog was right here. And the fire started there. They were very, very close. So this scenario is very real. So what you're going to have is a short duration one-hour vegetation fire that runs from the bottom of the hill up to the top. and throws embers down all over the city. A very quick and easy solution is to get people to evacuate. That's easy because they can move downhill away from the smoke and away from the fire. So we can handle that quite effectively. The problem is, is that I would bet you 99.9% of the population of this town has not cleaned their roof or gutters of leaves in the last year. And that is, in these situations, the primary scientific reason that we found that homes are burning down. a very simple act of just cleaning your roof and gutters. So the next thing here on our scenario is that Again, these embers are carried over the ridge. They showered out throughout the city. And by a show of hands, how many think that we have more than one engine company in the city? That's correct, we have one in the city. Now we have mutual aid in things, But initial attack is very important that it occurs quickly. Even up to a third alarm, it's gonna take us 15 minutes to get. nine engines here. And again, that's only nine engines. There's many more houses than just nine up there. The next part of this, we have a high probability of this occurring. it's, been to my knowledge 45 or 50 years since the last fire of this type has occurred. So we're more than due. It's likely to occur before the end of my career. It's a very low frequency, but in our way of studying what we call threat matrices, it's that low frequency frequency. high probability of occurring that we have problems with where people can lose their lives and we lose property. So it's a very real situation we need to look at. The next one, we're going to turn over to part two. This is the ultimate, if we can deal with this part right here, this fire, if we can deal with the effects and how to protect ourselves from it, all the other little nuisance fires of a fire coming up from the backside of GGNRA is is easy if we can handle this and this is very important this scenario because this is where people lose their lives in the Oakland Hills There was a lot of folks that lost their lives, and that was a fire that came from the top of the hill down to the bottom. with the winds that we're pushing from the north-northeast. So we're going to set this scenario up now with those same winds Same time frame. but now it's occurring in Sausalito, and you're going to get a picture. of why this is going to be a worse problem here than in Oakland Hills. Okay. Here we go. The fuel is structures, not the vegetation. Weather, it's north-northeast winds from 50 to 20 miles per hour, 90 degrees Fahrenheit, with relative humidities 15 to 20 percent. And for us in this area, a low fire relative humidity in the 30s is super critical for our fire fuels around here. So when you get less than that, We're beyond the extreme. This is everything is available to burn. The date? October to even November or December. as Climate changes and droughts continue. our fire window now seems to stay open for quite a long time. It was two years ago I was on a strike team in December heading down to Santa Barbara or somewhere. In December, I was preparing for Christmas, and I'm going to a wildland fire. So here we go. Ignition time, 2 p.m. winds again gusting from 15 to 20 miles an hour probably gusting to 30. Offshore flow. the duration of this fire, and I've run through what we call the IFTDS, which is a program that we use to identify how fast and how rapid fires will move through different fuels, and the fuels, again, here are structures. and very little fuels in between. Duration of this fire to really reach from bottom to top and stop sideways flank motion is about 16 hours. The source is a structure fire, 506 Pine Street. |
| 03:45:15.57 | Kerry Glockner | Conservative estimates after running this scenario through the program is 1,100 structures lost. |
| 03:45:29.09 | Kerry Glockner | It's just like my kid, this computer. It's giving me problems here. Every time I press a button, it doesn't want to work. Here we go. Median home value, 937,000. Value the homes lost. an estimated $1 billion. $3,700,000. That is a change in your economic and urban landscape that I don't think that we have the ability to come back from very quickly. And that is something that people are going to be looking for answers for. We're going to get to the answers. I have some very great solutions for you. It's always been my hope that Sausalito has had great thinkers at the helm. Adam has been one of them. I've known him now for quite some time. He's been leading the charge in many different ways. But there are great thinkers here that I feel want to do the same thing as me, as not do what everybody else is trying to do in the nation. but to lead the nation in where things need to be. We have the means, we have some of the tools, we're gonna be asking for more but we're going to capitalize on this right here. There's a little bit of financial motivation, and Sausalito goes a long way. 1787. That's the people left homeless after this fire occurs. And this, again, is a fire that's probably going to take 16 hours or less. to go start to finish, aside from the mopping up afterwards, very short event. |
| 03:46:59.88 | Unknown | Could I ask you how much insurance would cover the law? |
| 03:47:03.20 | Kerry Glockner | I can't intelligently, accurately answer that question. It depends on individual's coverages. So here's the steps. Here's how we're going to make it better. This is, as the chief said, the low-hanging fruit. Windshield survey program is what we're doing now and again. I'm stationed currently over in Tam Valley And this is what I do most of the time over there is prepare plans. I get communities organized We have three firewise communities over now. It's been a lot of work And so I'm looking for a little bit extra help. And I wanted to give you tonight more details on the heels of what's going on right now in Middletown that there's more than just hope. We have action. The chief has allowed me and given me plenty of time to get things done. Um, There's just a few things I'm going to need from you. So I'm going to get you to some details here. Windshield surveys are things that the engine companies provide. And really quick background, we have three shifts, A, B, and C shift. Those are the guys that work every single day. So windshield surveys are going to occur October 5th to 9th. We work two days on, four days off. So A comes on for two days. They're going to be doing windshield surveys in the city. So that when you get phone calls from now on for the next couple of weeks, what's the fire department doing? you can intelligently tell them They're out there, they're gonna be, you're gonna see the engines driving very slowly on every single street in town. They're gonna be looking very quickly, maybe five to six points. on what each house can do better and how to prepare themselves for any sort of fire. whether it's scenario one or scenario two, They're gonna do that quick survey. and we're going to get those things mailed out. but we're fielding nonstop phone calls. People are scared. And I think this is one way that you can step in with some great information now and say, look, the fire department's committed to this. It's going to take us six days to get these out. Part two of this, the defensible space evaluations. That's what I'm working on. I've completed Wolfback Ridge twice now. and very briefly what that is i go to each parcel it takes me about sixty seconds to add accurately quantitatively evaluate the parcel for their threat from wildfire, either from scenario one For scenario two, but that gives me a number and a color and a grade. Your home is down there on South Street. So her score might be. and 80, and it's green with a low hazard. I DON'T KNOW WHERE rest of you are, but let's say Herb over there on 4th Street. He's going to get a score probably in the neighborhood of, like 115, the higher your number, the worse your grade. A lot of it has to do with where he's at. because quite frankly, he's on next door Hurricane Gulch. Wins, as you see in Middletown. are everything. When God decides to shut the winds off, that's when the fires go out. It's not really anything that we do. It's when the winds shut off. your scores are gonna be different. So afterwards, we're gonna have a map that accurately reflects Every parcel in town. what their hazard score and rating is, and more importantly, what they can do to make it lower. So the next step after that is public education. It's free classes. I put those on. They're about four hours. They're fantastic, and that's what people tell me. uh... they really enjoy what we put on and they learned a tremendous amount Second thing is I need community to come together to establish Firewise Sausalito. The idea of Firewise, it's a community organization that takes on the responsibilities of preparing themselves There's nothing like self-motivation and preservation to get your work done for you. So we can send out codes and ordinances and citations, but... Quite honestly, not a lot of people listen to us anyway. What I found is tremendous success, and a very quick story to highlight that is Firewise Marin View over in Tam Valley. Last summer. They've been Firewise now for three to five years, I believe. But they take care of everything, vegetation-wise, building construction. They make sure they're all, they police themselves essentially. We had two simultaneous vegetation fires start on the road, up slope, with winds at their back, So it should have been a fast moving fire. It ran into these folks' defensible spaces. And we came up. rather casually and put out some flanking fires. We saved 240 homes before the fire ever started. So the importance of this fire wise is that we get the classes going. that the public comes to. I unveil what Firewise is, how they can help themselves, and I... hold their hands to take them through the process so that they start mitigating these things on their own. fourth step or fifth step here is we'd like to do four October roamer chipping days. And that is we can get some economies of scale here if each person each homeowner was to hire a chipper contractor for one day It's going to be about $1,500. We can hire for $2,000 a day. a chipper contractor that can do three to four streets or five streets. So we get them working all day long doing many, many parcels for a fraction of the cost. So it's super important. We'll come back to that in a minute. The last thing here is to collaborate with DPW to open the streets. Opening the streets, there's two very important reasons for this. One, for fire engines to get in. When you're paying $600,000 for a fire engine, I think you'd like it to last more than five minutes without scratches. But we need to have the canopies and stuff opened up so that the engines can get in. and more importantly, is to let residents get out at the same time. One of the reasons why folks died in the Oakland Hills fire was that they were trying to flee They got log jammed in because roadways were encroached with brush. and they parked their cars and they left on foot. When you leave on foot, That's when people die. So, we're kind of brainstorming some ideas here and i thought you know what there's probably an issue with each dpw being shorthanded Always liking to whip the chainsaw and get out there and do some work and help the public. our plan was to maybe meet with dpw and say you know we could probably help you with We could work together. You provide a dump truck and maybe a tractor to pick up brush. Our crews, fire guys, could go through and do some of the cutting to open up the streets to the correct, correct roadway width. Oh, and incidentally, El Nino is supposed to be occurring this year with high winds bringing down tremendous amount of branches. Now it would be that time to strike while the iron's hot. and to get that stuff cleaned up before it clogs our streets and brings down power lines too. There's a lot of great things we thought of here that can be done. The next is the follow-up presentations. Windshield survey, I've pretty much outlined this for you already, but we'll go through this very quickly. Cities divided into three survey areas, the A shift, B shift, and C shift teams. One for each shift. We're gonna start on the fifth, complete it by the ninth. Notices and information on how to and what to do is gonna be mailed out by the 16th. Final surveys will be wrapped up in November. It's gonna take us some time because quite frankly, it just, that's how long it's gonna take. Better to start now and to do something than nothing, I would say. Next we need two sets of mailing labels for all addresses in this city and now There's I have not just a city to worry about I have tan Valley homestead strawberry areas of in Tiburon to worry about as well, so what i'm looking for is a few nods and and the council support to really work with the fire department and get the city melded together with the district finally so we can work together. Just getting some mailing, you know, whoever, The department is that we need to get some mailing address labels done for us. shaves a tremendous amount of time. The second thing is we need probably three administrative folks to help us do mailing those envelopes and getting them out. We don't have the staff to. quite yet. to get all this done ourselves. So what we wanna do is try to tie into existing resources collaborate a little bit more and get this thing hammered out and done in a couple of weeks. Moving on to the next thing, the defensible space evaluations. That's something that I will be conducting myself, probably occur over the winter. Again, it's gonna address parcel level, every parcel in the city. Results will be mapped. The map will be highlighted the target treatment areas. You saw three of those that Fred presented to you, and those are kind of more big areas. Those are three areas that we could tap in for federal grant funds. It's going to be color coded again using that quantitative measuring, and the map supports the grant request for vegetation management improvements. public education classes they're free Conducted by myself. Topics to include fire behavior, case studies, defensible space, evacuation planning. How to Survive. That probably should have been the number one thing. It's just how to survive. Here's what we need. We need to post on city social media outlets, and that's a commitment from the city council and staff that you'll work with us. So when I say we're ready to go, that we can get these things posted so we get the information out. Just need a little bit of help there. Direct mail class offering by the city. So if that's something that we, I'm not sure who does that here, but if we could tie in with them and work collaboratively, we'd really love to do that. Firewise Sausalito, again, this is a public endeavor. So after the education class, that's usually when folks get this. They have the information. And then the group kind of emerges from these classes of people who want to take the ball and run. So it's established by the residents, four residents, and they work with the fire district, vegetation management division, and the chief to get things done, including grant requests. So they're going to write grants for treatment areas. Some of the things that we can do, options out there, is to use goats. So down there on the Spring Hill area where the water tank is, nice big open area there where we can take a biological cutter. put them in there. They feed the goats, they trim down the problem, and they return the recycled material back on the land for fertilizer. We're going to work with FireSafe Marin, and that's the connection to get the free grant money. And that seems to be a big deal for folks, is getting the money back. They're also gonna work with the National Fire Protection Association, the Firewise Committee itself, and they're the ones that offer also some more guidance. roaming chipper days This is, again, a mobile chipper program. We would hire a contractor to come in. And we'd establish based upon after the classes and level of interest and what those windshield surveys say We'll end up with a general idea of where work needs to be done. and who then is interested in getting some free shipping. That's usually the driver. to get people to start cutting. So the idea there is the folks do the cutting, they lay the brush on the side of the road, we schedule the chipper to come in, They chip it, haul away the chips, and it makes, we've had just, probably 800 tons plus pulled out of Tam Valley alone. this year. And 800 tons is enough to cover your parking lot up here about seven or eight times. 12 feet tall. It's a lot of material. So whatever you get out now does not burn later. That's another key point you'll learn in the class. This program is managed by us, city divided into four work zones. Four roaming chipper days, so one for each of those zones. 25% of the city done each time. Here's what we need. We need the city again to commit to sending out the mailer to residents, knowing that we're working together and collaborating on the effort. Mailer will be produced by us. City posted dates and zones again on social media. So it's the contact from you guys to keep with them saying, hey, we do recognize this problem. It's a life threat and a community involvement threat. Here's what we're doing to help. So, again, that connection still stays with you where you guys get to take credit for this, too. City financial support. We do not have the budget for this right now, but each day is about, I'm rounding up there to 2,000. It'd probably come in at about $1,850 per day. So for about $8,000, we can make a significant debt, get people motivated in the right direction to starting to get themselves defendable, and potentially even save a lot of lives and turn that 1 billion loss maybe into a smaller loss. but it starts with maybe an $8,000 commitment. I know that's maybe food for a later dinner, but I want to broach that with you now. I really feel like now is the time to get you all to commit to something very concrete. So the fire district will track the progress, and what we do with that tracking is we then submit that with our ISO ratings, and that falls under community risk reduction. You asked about insurance. Part of what we do when we get rated is they look at what has the fire department done to reduce the risk. And this is about the largest thing that you could do citywide. that'll garner much needed points. So when our ISO rating goes down, so do the insurance rates for homeowners. There's a direct correlation to that. So safety goes up. rates go down. So the collaborative effort Again, this is between the fire district and the DPW. We would propose that we reduce vegetation encroachment on the streets. Our goal is to improve access and evacuation egress for folks. DPW's goal would be to remove and reduce the potential storm damage, branches, and debris. So we're working with them. We're getting our goals solved, and they're also getting theirs done. the needs. Chief, quite frankly, and this is probably a lot too detailed for you folks, but I need you to understand we're committed to doing this. We need to spend some money, Chief, on a pole saw. I'm not sure if DPW has one, but we need that. We also need the DPW's dump truck and their tractor with a clamshell so we can quickly grab brush off the streets. The means of disposal could be a site to store it or store the chips for later disposal. And again, this is something that we'd like to meet with DPW on and flesh out and iron out some details. But I think it's always important to know that the directors bosses or definitely involved and want to pursue this sort of activity. And I think that's ultimately what I'm asking from you tonight is just that commitment to Say, this is very important. I think you guys should be working with the fire department on this. In future presentations. Council, you've already committed to attending my four hour class and I'll make it five if you like or longer. In the future council meetings, we'll be coming back to discuss with you and let you know the progress we've made. I would think within a year we would have solved the The four chipper days, we've gotten those done. The mapping should be done within a year. And I think what you're going to see is a social position where people aren't oblivious to the problem anymore. they're going to be keenly aware of the problem, and what you're going to find... like we found in our other areas, is that The community has grown stronger. Instead of neighbors arguing about what to cut, they leave my class with, they know exactly what needs to be cut and there's no more fighting about my tree, my bush, my shrub. people agree very quickly. And this is just... what I found to be true afterwards. You give people the right tools and they understand the same menu. everybody picks from the same thing and things get done in such a harmonious fashion. It's really... The esprit de corps that we've created in Homestead and Tam Valley has been just off the charts. People have commented like they have not seen the sort community involvement and barbecues and people actually talking to each other again. So for me, growing up in the country, I talked to my neighbors. We were all friends, whereas down here, People kind of shut in. They don't want to look out their kitchen window, and they don't end up talking to folks. So this is an aspect that we found a great social success in, We've created community. And we're right down here. We're the biggest house on the street. We're the biggest house in the city. How'd you get the permits for that? After we got the permits from you, sir. Our program goals, we're gonna come back to you again |
| 04:03:55.19 | Mike Blatt | Yeah. |
| 04:04:01.84 | Kerry Glockner | We're gonna talk about budgeting, further program goals, progress reports and future direction and guidance that you are going to give to us. I think, Chief, that is the end of it. And we'll give this back to you. Sorry it took so long. Thank you. |
| 04:04:20.22 | Unknown | Gary, council again apologizes took a little bit longer than we had anticipated tonight. But I think the big message that we really wanted to send you tonight is to be aware of the threat. We think it's very real. We have a responsibility certainly to report that to you. But the good news is that there's a lot of things that we can do to make that threat minimized. And we're going to be working on doing a lot of those things. We're doing some of them now. We're looking to partner with the city to do some more of them. And more importantly, we're going to come back to you with a report on that. So we certainly entertain any questions you have tonight. But thank you for your time. |
| 04:04:51.32 | Unknown | Just a comment. Okay. The two major failures that were in my area. One was on North Street, and that house went right down. Some painters apparently had left some materials that were combustible And that went up. Then the other one we had was on West Court. where somebody had left the pot on the on the stove. And that house was totally West Court, that was gone, totally. So, we have to be aware of also what we're doing in our environment. |
| 04:05:34.37 | Unknown | And that's where we see one of our biggest roles and responsibilities is the education and awareness part. Absolutely. |
| 04:05:40.66 | Jill Hoffman | Let's go to questions so we can, any other questions? |
| 04:05:42.50 | Unknown | Any other questions? |
| 04:05:45.64 | Jill Hoffman | Okay? Public comment. Michael? |
| 04:05:54.65 | Michael Rex | I saw this on your agenda and I wanted to learn what's happening and I'm glad I did. I used to fight fires, I used to work for the Forestry Department. And I stood next to trees and buildings getting so hot, you watch them explode. And it's terrifying. And I actually think the public's kind of clueless about the threat. As an architect, this threat's been brought to us through the WUI codes. where we can't design buildings anymore without thinking about this. Thank you. So actually, our profession, we can kind of team up with the fire department and help educate the public. And there's so many things we could be doing, but I think until people are aware of it, we don't have their cooperation. They just see this as extra expense, and they're fearful that their gardens are going to be stripped away and their privacy lost. And yet, if they're really aware of the threat, and how serious it is and how fast this stuff can happen, I think we'd find a very different response and a much greater reception. So I'm thrilled to see our fire department taking the lead here. And we'd be nuts not to partner with them. I didn't really know about this situation. Ember shower or the threat from the GGRA until tonight and wow, it's frightening, you know So, um, I think while I was sitting here, I wrote down 20 things we could be doing right now. And partly because, as I said, I've learned a lot from the WUI codes. But I've got to tell you, Sausalito, my firm works in many communities throughout Marin, and Sausalito is brilliant. way behind. You know, in most jurisdictions we have very strident construction standards that are not applied here. uh... so i i would uh... welcome uh... and uh... to work with fred and and the fire department to see how we can help to partner I'm imagining like we could go to our Rotary Club get a community service project to help administrate the needs of our windshield surveys. I mean, I think people would come out of the woodwork if they started learning the threat. And the side benefit of creating a more cooperative community I mean, wow, that's a positive for this town, protecting our homes and property. So I just want to speak in support of this, and I'd like to contribute what I've learned about what we can do, because it's something we should really get on board with. |
| 04:09:00.25 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, seeing none, we'll close public comment and bring it up here for council discussion. Who would like to comment? |
| 04:09:14.05 | Unknown | So I'm not sure exactly what you're asking of us tonight other than a commitment and a general commitment for support. And I think you obviously had that. So that's, you know, I'm sure I can speak for everybody. You've got that. I agree with Michael that I have every confidence in this community that once the awareness occurs, this community is really good at getting itself organized when it chooses to. Level of volunteerism and so on is just like first rate. So the first thing is awareness. So when that happens, you know, I think the community will mobilize, you know. So obviously you've got my support and I'll come to your four hour. |
| 04:09:51.78 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:10:00.07 | Unknown | you know. |
| 04:10:06.70 | Unknown | class. I wanted to just add one little thing, which is you brought it up, so it's very slightly off topic. The other thing I think we really, really need to make people aware of right now is that if they've got trees, they right now need to get them examined and trimmed, because this winter we have the potential of a lot of trees coming down and i think it's really dangerous i'm worried i'm sorry everywhere i look as michael knows and as fred knows everywhere i look i've got trees so it's like you know um but it's i think this winter it's really so that resonated with with me and the other thing the other thing that I noticed is that when I talk to neighbors and I see them cleaning off their roofs you know great and They don't bother with their gutters until they think the rain's going to come. But that's the very time you need to do it because it's all dry right now sitting in the gutters, right? You don't need to wait until the rain to get clear your gutters. You've got the fire hazard sitting there in the gutters that you need to clean. You guys know that, this is mainly for the cameras, I'm saying this. |
| 04:11:28.73 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, I just want to thank you for a very good and thorough presentation. And I know that a lot of people are going to gain a lot of knowledge just watching this. And, of course, I'll be going to that workshop, too. I'm looking forward to it to get more details. And you have my support on this. And, you know, as for Sausalito, I mean, we are pretty much, we're a tender box. We're a lot of old homes, close together. A lot of foliage, and you know, we're close to nature. And so I think that people are very receptive to this topic, especially now with the Valley Fire being so front and center in everything, every time you turn on the TV, you see the aftermath of what happens. And I think it's just that people are so busy. You know, they're just so busy and so, you know, this and this and run, run, run, run, run, and they just don't take the time to stop and think and go oh yeah that's one more thing I have to do but it's a real important thing so it's good timing and look forward to you guys coming back and sharing a bit more |
| 04:12:47.13 | Unknown | Well, thank you very much for that presentation. My comment also is that It's important for us to know our neighbors. When that fire occurred up on North Street, I had a neighbor next to me that he was 80 years of age. and he was trying to water down his roof. And he slipped, he fell, he hurt himself. And yet, a lot of people don't realize when you see how quick these fires move. And you mentioned about embers, how They just go everywhere. And that's why the first thing people do is they grab that hose and hit that roof because of that. But it moves very, very quickly. And it is very scary. And a lot of people just, it's like everything else. They don't think it's going to happen to them. And I think they mentioned it on one of the fires up in Middleton where they just said, nah, it's okay. And yet before they knew it, their homes were gone. So thank you very much for making us even more aware. of what we have to do, and we'll support you. |
| 04:14:08.03 | Mary Wagner | I agree with everything. Do you have any dates yet for your workshops? |
| 04:14:13.44 | Kerry Glockner | and have a barbecue. I will plan them around your schedules. |
| 04:14:17.73 | Mary Wagner | Good luck with that, sir. Okay. The earlier, the better. You can tell us so we can get it on our schedule. But, yeah. |
| 04:14:19.27 | Kerry Glockner | Sure. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:14:27.97 | Jill Hoffman | And thank you all. And obviously for a timely and critically important topic. And I reiterate what all the other council members have said. There was a lot that you presented tonight. It would be great if you could give us some of those materials, which we didn't have ahead of time, so that we can go through them and digest, because, again, it was quite a bit. And some of the things that you asked for in terms of coordination, you know, know you have our general commitment but I think you need to work with staff in terms of a lot of those things were really things that we need to coordinate with staff and I will come to class I have very high expectations so better be good okay so thank you thank you very much |
| 04:15:10.08 | Adam Politzer | I just asked the chief to just give you a very brief update. It is important. And Captain Kerry Glockner mentioned this earlier, but we do have men at risk today up at Middleton. You know, we had the county sent to strike team and we participate in that. So could you just comment on that and let them know that that they're in our thoughts? |
| 04:15:32.74 | Unknown | Sure. So since the wildfires began, our season began a little bit earlier than normal, we're part of the state's mutual aid system and we get requests frequently. And essentially since the requests started coming in, we have been rotating people out on a continuous basis. One of the most common deployments is what we call a Type 3. That's a specific type of fire engine that's used in wildland firefighting, deploys with four personnel up to a two-week period. That rig has just simply been going out for two weeks, coming back, four more people, and going out. In addition to that, we do what are called single resource deployments, and that's where the state says we have a request for, for example, a fireline medic, a paramedic who's got specific training that can attend to the injuries on scene. We've been rotating those people out frequently as well. So basically since the start of the season, we've had probably on average four to six people out a week. |
| 04:16:23.60 | Jill Hoffman | it. |
| 04:16:31.35 | Jill Hoffman | Again, thank you. And no end in sight. And thank you to all of those who are serving up to the other communities as well. Thank you. |
| 04:16:32.34 | Unknown | No end in sight. |
| 04:16:39.09 | Unknown | I have one quick question and suggestion. Could this or some promotional information |
| 04:16:47.48 | Jill Hoffman | Well, we are. We're going to coordinate with the city in terms of getting the information and finding the appropriate ways to disseminate, including, I'm sure there'll be currents and other type things that we can use. Thanks. Thank you. Okay, thank you all. Now we move on to Item 7. City Manager Information for Council. |
| 04:17:08.71 | Kerry Glockner | I was going to give you my cards here before I left. |
| 04:17:37.13 | Adam Politzer | Thank you, Mr. Mayor and City Council members. 11.32, I'll keep my comments brief and just respond to questions. But one thing that Council Member Withey just brought up is the... |
| 04:17:37.30 | Unknown | Are we ready? |
| 04:17:49.38 | Adam Politzer | winter preparation and we are using the currents and I know that the The two chiefs and our public works director are meeting, and they're looking at the public space as well, making sure that public works, fire, and police are looking at our high flood zones, the vegetation issues related in the more high-risk areas, the land movements that we've had in the past when heavy rains come in, what you just saw in Utah with the flooding and the amount of water that came on the flash floods. |
| 04:18:28.56 | Adam Politzer | guitar Yeah, yeah, Utah. Arizona has very similar storms that create those flash floods as well as Colorado, but in New Mexico, I mean, basically that whole area suffers from that. But, you know, we didn't have a lot of rain days last year, but we all remember we had two days of significant rain, and I came through town. with my daughter taking pictures of our storm drains because they were all overflow. and a lot of big trouble areas and so we sent those pictures over to Public Works as we look towards this this storm season to make sure that they've taken time last year between then and now to address it but I have to commend those three department heads working very well together in terms of preparing for this this storm as as you heard Kerry I actually attended Kerry's program in Tam Valley. and learned about what they were doing probably six, seven years ago. And ever since that moment, drumming. this issue forward and we brought this we've had starts in and stops in front of the council where we brought this item And then Kerry actually was out on workers' comp for a while, so we had a big gap there. Then they hired Fred and he's been ramping up. So we're in an excellent position now to move forward with educating the public, getting the public to support this. And as Council said, our community is very receptive to this. We've seen that with Sausalito. Beautiful. You know, they're not in conflict. They're actually in cooperation. And there's an opportunity here to make Sausalito safer. and beautiful. At the same time so you know, I'm excited about this but We do have threats right now in terms of fire safety and then the storm season. that really is probably a month away. because traditionally when it does rain here, it starts in the middle of October and then goes through February and into March. So it is important that people are cleaning their gutters, doing their own, work around home. So we'll continue to use the current. to communicate to the public. And then look at other opportunities to work with volunteer groups. similar to what Michael Rex was suggesting with the Rotary Club and the Lions Club and the Women's Club and see how They can also help us by hosting a few workshops and what have you With the next meeting as you look ahead in the future agenda items, we you know, they're there there are two in my mind there They're all big items, but We have two that have some sensitivity to them. One, we think we've made some progress on, but we still have a lot of progress to be made, which is the bike and ped or the ped and bike committee, they'll be coming and giving an update. on where we are from this season with some recommendations looking forward. The police department who's in the lead of our overall strategies of congestion management downtown will pull all the entities, the five entities. I look at the ferry district, Sausalito Plus, the back rental companies, the chamber of commerce, and the city to the table and then we'll come back later in November when time allows to give a little bit more thorough discussion about the season and then the look ahead of what changes we'll be recommending some of those will be in concert with what the head and bike share with you at our next meeting The other one's a little bit more sensitive. Sorry, Lily. The other one's a little bit more sensitive, and we've had a preliminary meeting when the mayor was in Sakaide. We had a meeting with representatives of the VA and Vice Mayor Hoffman and Councilmember Withey. join staff. It was a bit of an introduction of their new team, and they came. with representatives from Virginia, and the regional representatives of the regional VA, And local here in San Francisco, and they met with staff and Lily and Mary and Danny all joined us with Council Member Withey and Vice Mayor Hoffman. But one of the things that we thought was very important was that we get this to the council as soon as reasonably possible. And so at this moment in time, we're looking at our next council meeting for them to come and share with them. the status of that property and some of the funding options that they're looking at so that they can preserve the historic nature of that site and then give us an update. We want to give them the courtesy of providing us that information. with the understanding that we're not going to be taking action or giving a whole lot of direction, just making sure with what they share with us, is consistent to what the city told them that we wanted them to do and the historic value of the machine shop. But as we experience on several different occasions with the VA, they would come and tell us what we wanted to hear. And then when they would come and present to council, they would show us something quite different. And obviously our community again rallied. together. to make sure that we protect the historic nature and value and history of the machine shop. So we feel very optimistic that they're gonna come forward a good plan. and information that protects that site including mothballing the facility so it doesn't deteriorate further, and then come back at future dates to give us additional information as they evaluate and assess their options both for the year structurally and financially on how they move this forward. I'm going to stop with those two items. I think they are the big ones for the next council meeting. I want to give you a bit of an insight and preview that The VA is coming. We'll put something in the currents to make sure that people understand what the history of it is, what has happened back at least from my From when I was with the city back in the early 2000s, and the property was being surplused and the city was first in line. And then too much time passed and they went back out and the VA stepped up and took the property. And then all of the activity from that point forward leading up to this day. Well, so we'll try to give some history in the current so that The public is aware of that. And then we invite the public obviously to come in here. what the VA will have to say at the October meeting date. |
| 04:25:25.51 | Jill Hoffman | Adam, I have a follow-up question on that. Just two questions, basically, highlights. I'm assuming perhaps this was touched on when you met with the VA, but are they still looking at the use for, I think they said research or something like this? |
| 04:25:42.81 | Adam Politzer | They are actually looking because they're looking to access another grant, another funding source, not a grant, another funding source from the federal government that preserves historic structures. But to use that grant, the property would be used for commercial use. And so we shared with them that there are commercial restrictions down there and they'd have to be consistent with the zoning. So they're looking at, they're starting a feasibility study to see the money that's available to them to restore the property. would pencil out in terms of having commercial use versus the VA's proposed original use, which doesn't now pencil out. |
| 04:26:33.25 | Unknown | I'm sorry, what was the VA's original? The research? The research doesn't pencil out anymore? The money that they had, the money that |
| 04:26:35.83 | Adam Politzer | As a research lab. |
| 04:26:40.65 | Adam Politzer | The money that they have available to them through the traditional means does not cover the cost to preserve the building, which is what the city demanded that they do. |
| 04:26:50.98 | Unknown | I see. |
| 04:26:52.16 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. My understanding is under, and I don't have it off the top of my head, but there's a certain code section under the Historic Preservation Act or the Historic Sites is that they can rent it to third parties. So they're looking at a long-term lease, I think a 50-year lease or something like that, to a third party. And that's the context of what they're thinking of the Restorations. |
| 04:27:22.96 | Jill Hoffman | Did they say the nature of the third party or anything like that? No. Herb's smiling, he's raising his eyebrows. You know something? |
| 04:27:36.04 | Unknown | . |
| 04:27:36.22 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:27:36.26 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 04:27:36.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:27:36.56 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 04:27:36.59 | Unknown | I don't know what I could say because it's It's not something that I would say. |
| 04:27:44.91 | Unknown | I get the impression there's something out there. I agree with something. |
| 04:27:46.57 | Unknown | There's something out there. Thank you. |
| 04:27:49.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:27:49.60 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:27:52.32 | Jill Hoffman | Well, we're going to find out next meeting. So I mean, we have a lot of speculation. Well, okay. |
| 04:27:55.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:27:55.51 | Jill Hoffman | Well, okay, I had another question there, two questions. The second question. |
| 04:27:57.43 | Jill Hoffman | THE CITY IS A LITTLE BIT. |
| 04:27:57.60 | Adam Politzer | questions. Council Member Pfeiffer, can I just clarify one piece there, because I think what Vice Mayor Hoffman said is important. They need to do a feasibility study. to see if this option actually makes financial sense because they can't access the money to enter into a lease with a third party without doing a feasibility study if this works. |
| 04:28:19.39 | Jill Hoffman | I understand. But it's a commercial use. Yes. We're talking jobs. |
| 04:28:23.79 | Adam Politzer | Yes, they would be partial use. |
| 04:28:25.99 | Ken Dresdell | Thank you. |
| 04:28:28.10 | Jill Hoffman | My next question was that they were looking at preservation. They weren't going to come back with that. glass and concrete monstrosity they initially came to us with. |
| 04:28:39.40 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 04:28:39.42 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:28:39.52 | Adam Politzer | No, we made it perfectly clear that we were still upset about that, and they've got to rebuild trust with our community. But it is a brand new team. There wasn't anybody at that table that I've worked with in the 15 years I've been a part of this. |
| 04:28:55.06 | Jill Hoffman | Any other council questions? Public comment? Seeing none, we'll move on to council member committee reports. |
| 04:29:04.99 | Mary Wagner | We had an RBRA subcommittee task force today with Adam and some of the other subcommittee members. Basically, just to talk about the citywide forum. And the date is November 12th. So it's November 12th is Spinnaker. |
| 04:29:23.63 | Unknown | Thank you. Seats for the end. |
| 04:29:26.23 | Mary Wagner | At 6 p.m. |
| 04:29:27.26 | Unknown | Well, that's tentatively what I made the arrangements with if you want to change it. |
| 04:29:27.44 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 04:29:27.58 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:29:27.60 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 04:29:32.27 | Unknown | you |
| 04:29:32.36 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 04:29:32.37 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:29:33.62 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 04:29:33.79 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:29:33.81 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 04:29:33.82 | Unknown | Thank you. you |
| 04:29:34.19 | Unknown | That's fine. That sounds funny. At least we have a date. We have a place, we have a date, we have a time. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:29:39.36 | Jill Hoffman | Is the place the... Spinnaker. Spinnaker. |
| 04:29:42.90 | Jill Hoffman | So, and then just so we know, in terms of attendance to council, you will be sitting on a panel. No, no, I'm sorry. |
| 04:29:45.91 | Mary Wagner | of a No, no, I'll be attending. I'll be there watching, but I will not. |
| 04:29:51.34 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. But we can watch as long as we don't participate. Right. That's my understanding. Okay. Could you say the date again? |
| 04:29:54.04 | Mary Wagner | Yeah. Right. That's my interest. Sure, November 12th, it's a Thursday. |
| 04:30:03.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:30:03.91 | Mary Wagner | Uh-huh. |
| 04:30:07.64 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 04:30:07.66 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:30:10.44 | Jill Hoffman | reports. Thank you. You know, The only thing I have to report is that the, uh, uh, the, uh, ferry landing working group, uh, the, uh, uh, put together by, um, uh, Kate Sears, our supervisor, will be meeting. We have a date certain now. It'll be October 10th from 9 to 1230. I believe the place is the Bay Model. |
| 04:30:33.56 | Adam Politzer | No, I'm sorry. |
| 04:30:34.22 | Jill Hoffman | The pay model wasn't available. |
| 04:30:35.25 | Adam Politzer | The bay model wasn't available on that date, so Leslie is working with Lily and Debbie to see if we can find another location. |
| 04:30:43.03 | Jill Hoffman | So it's a place undetermined at this point. But we do have a date and time. Okay, that's all we have to report. All right, future agenda items. |
| 04:30:54.69 | Jill Hoffman | I have One, I guess we have a tour bus ordinance regarding traffic on Alexander, and we have a sound ordinance with respect to tour buses so that they don't disturb the neighborhoods. But apparently the sound ordinance only, I guess, begins at South Street, not Alexander. And some residents have said that the loudspeakers, evidently they use them on Alexander and it's just really Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:31:34.30 | Jill Hoffman | Really? |
| 04:31:34.31 | Jill Hoffman | Really, really loud. |
| 04:31:36.05 | Jill Hoffman | No, the ordinance covers Alexander, certainly. |
| 04:31:38.45 | Jill Hoffman | Well, for some reason, there was a perception that it did not. So it does? Yes, it does. That's what I was kind of looking at, Mary. I don't remember. |
| 04:31:44.15 | Jill Hoffman | So it Yes, it does. No, I mean. Yeah, because I'm very clear that I mean, that was one of the most important parts. I know we had the sound part is from city limits. |
| 04:31:50.41 | Jill Hoffman | And I'm very clear. when we had the sound part. |
| 04:31:57.90 | Jill Hoffman | All the way, certainly through downtown. I actually think we extended it the whole way, but I'm not sure. Certainly from city limits through downtown for sure. I tell. |
| 04:32:04.47 | Jill Hoffman | downtown for sure. I thought it started at South Street, though. I wasn't sure if it started at Alexander. Because there, yeah. |
| 04:32:05.85 | Jill Hoffman | All the way down. WHY WOULD WE DO THAT? Right. HE'S A LITTLE BIT. |
| 04:32:14.66 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:32:14.69 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, I'll take that. |
| 04:32:14.76 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, and I just got this inquiry coming up. I'll tell you what. |
| 04:32:16.48 | Jill Hoffman | Well, I'll tell you what, given this late hour, I'm almost certain. I don't know why we'd start at South Street. It would be kind of a. |
| 04:32:20.75 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 04:32:23.92 | Unknown | This is, yeah. |
| 04:32:24.55 | Jill Hoffman | I'm just saying. |
| 04:32:24.57 | Jill Hoffman | I'm not sure. |
| 04:32:24.60 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 04:32:24.89 | Jill Hoffman | But we'll come back and we'll check in. |
| 04:32:27.13 | Jill Hoffman | I told them I would raise it as a topic. |
| 04:32:28.63 | Jill Hoffman | . Okay. |
| 04:32:32.56 | Jill Hoffman | And actually, this is something else. It's not really a future agenda item, but it would probably fall, I guess, under other reports of significance or something, or maybe committee reports. Bottom line is, I know, Tom, that through the year you've appointed different working groups or task forces or what have you, and there have been a lot of them. And I would like to have a list of all of the different working groups that have been appointed and the names of those and the nature of what is a working group. Is it, you know, because, I mean, it's, they're not subject to the Brown Act. There aren't, there aren't minutes. And, you know, I, I just want to know what they are. I, I asked Debbie Pagliaro when she was here for a list. I thought they were task forces. I found out later they weren't task forces. I figured out it's the term working group. So I guess I don't know where that request falls under, but I would just like to know. |
| 04:33:26.48 | Jill Hoffman | I don't know that there are that many of them. I can't think, but I'll tell you what. |
| 04:33:29.28 | Jill Hoffman | I'll tell you what, what- Well, there's the ferry, there's the- Well, the ferry is- The homeless, there's the homeless ordinance thing. You mean the- The RBRA? No, the homeless zoning. |
| 04:33:31.36 | Jill Hoffman | Well, the ferry is not. They are. You mean the emergency shelter? I'm sorry, the emergency shelter? |
| 04:33:39.17 | Jill Hoffman | I'm sorry, the emergency shelter. I mean, there were like six. I mean, I was thinking of it. |
| 04:33:45.87 | Jill Hoffman | I'm not sure that that's there's that many the the very landing is not a council you read |
| 04:33:51.66 | Jill Hoffman | You referred to it as a working group though. Well, I, for lack of a better name, but that's not- And there are two council members assigned to it. |
| 04:33:53.56 | Jill Hoffman | Well, for lack of a better name, but that's not- but it's not a council. |
| 04:33:59.74 | Jill Hoffman | I'm just saying I'd like to know all the different... Working groups or whatever title you want to call them that have two council members appointed to them and |
| 04:34:09.09 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Well, and can we, as part of this, all of our committees, and I think Debbie had, and Lily would, of all our Committees and task force. And can you keep that just update that list and get that to us? It's |
| 04:34:24.38 | Jill Hoffman | No, not the committees. I know I'm clear on the committees. |
| 04:34:26.39 | Jill Hoffman | I'm clear on the committee. It'll be whatever the working groups will be. I'm talking about... |
| 04:34:29.00 | Jill Hoffman | I'm talking about all the informal kind of working group things that you've created. |
| 04:34:33.88 | Jill Hoffman | Well, there are the only working groups have been done at the city council notice meetings with all of us here. So but we could take a look at it. |
| 04:34:42.42 | Jill Hoffman | I would like to know what they are. I would like to have a list and I would like to know who's been appointed to them. And when I would also like to know when they were created. |
| 04:34:46.84 | Jill Hoffman | and... |
| 04:34:46.99 | Adam Politzer | I would also Well, and Councilmember Pfeiffer may be able to remember this more clearly than I, but I do remember the email to Debbie Pagliaro. And I think that she said that what you were asking was going to take a little bit more time |
| 04:35:04.02 | Jill Hoffman | She read that I asked her just for the past year. She thought I, for some reason, she thought I had put 2008 in the email. When she went back to the email, she realized I just said the year before 2014. I just wanna know, you know, the we've we've had all these Tom you've appointed all of these working groups and you've appointed two council members for each one there's not there's no subject to the Brown Act I don't know when they meet They're talking about really key critical issues. And I just wanna know, How many are out there? And who's on them? |
| 04:35:42.37 | Jill Hoffman | And again, and I... I just want to be clear, these groups, to the extent we had them, have been appointed at the city council in these open session meetings. I just want to be clear. |
| 04:35:50.46 | Jill Hoffman | open session. Late at night usually, Tom. |
| 04:35:54.12 | Jill Hoffman | Well, and you've been here and awake during them as well. |
| 04:35:58.19 | Jill Hoffman | And it's happened over the past year. I just would like to have a history of who they are. We could take a look at it. |
| 04:36:00.77 | Jill Hoffman | I JUST DON'T KNOW. of who they are. We can take a look at it, but I just don't want to have any implication that there were anything that was appointed other than at an open session of city council with all five of us here. So I just wanna be clear about that. |
| 04:36:14.28 | Jill Hoffman | And I would just like to know what has been created and who is appointed to them. Okay. And when it was created. |
| 04:36:19.69 | Jill Hoffman | into them. Thank you. |
| 04:36:20.61 | Unknown | Okay. Anything else? |
| 04:36:24.97 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:36:24.98 | Mary Wagner | I sent an email out to all of us about that, right? Yeah. That's not it. |
| 04:36:26.82 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:36:29.39 | Mary Wagner | Anything else? Mr. Mayor, going back to the passenger bus quite soon. |
| 04:36:29.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:36:29.61 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:36:29.62 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:36:29.67 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:36:29.71 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. |
| 04:36:29.98 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:36:37.01 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, well then, all right, then you're done. Goodbye. Goodbye. All right. |
| 04:36:41.44 | Mary Wagner | You're correct on the quiet zone for passenger buses. It includes Alexander Avenue beginning at the south city limits and continuing on south, second, Richardson and Bridgeway to the north city limits. |
| 04:36:57.55 | Unknown | Oh, good. |
| 04:36:57.91 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 04:36:58.01 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:36:58.06 | Mary Wagner | . |
| 04:36:58.11 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:36:58.14 | Mary Wagner | Good. That's good news. Yes. Good. |
| 04:36:58.97 | Jill Hoffman | THE FAMILY. |
| 04:36:59.04 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 04:36:59.22 | Jill Hoffman | . |
| 04:36:59.26 | Mary Wagner | THE FAMILY. |
| 04:36:59.42 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 04:37:00.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:37:00.57 | Mary Wagner | You said to the north side, all the way to the north side. |
| 04:37:01.03 | Unknown | Northside. |
| 04:37:01.48 | Mary Wagner | All right. |
| 04:37:01.50 | Unknown | TODAY. |
| 04:37:01.67 | Mary Wagner | in the north side of town? |
| 04:37:02.24 | Jill Hoffman | . |
| 04:37:02.33 | Unknown | Yeah. We went all the way. |
| 04:37:02.70 | Jill Hoffman | . |
| 04:37:02.78 | Mary Wagner | Please. |
| 04:37:02.92 | Jill Hoffman | We went all the way. |
| 04:37:03.68 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:37:03.81 | Unknown | The best is some of them announced that. |
| 04:37:08.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:37:08.69 | Jill Hoffman | OK. |
| 04:37:09.08 | Jill Hoffman | I guess they're breaking that rule then. I guess they're breaking that rule. |
| 04:37:12.25 | Jill Hoffman | I guess they're breaking that rule. It's an enforcement issue. Okay, any other future agenda items? Okay. Any other reports of significance? That will... Any motion to adjourn? I do want to... |
| 04:37:24.33 | Unknown | I... |
| 04:37:27.30 | Jill Hoffman | The next meeting will be October 6th, so we have a three-week. There will not be a meeting in two weeks, so our next meeting is October 6th. Okay, we're adjourned. |