| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:06.76 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Welcome everyone to the regular meeting of the Sausalito City Council for Tuesday, November 10, 2015. Lily, would you take the roll, please? |
| 00:00:15.57 | Unknown | Councilmember Weiner. |
| 00:00:16.48 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. |
| 00:00:16.54 | Unknown | THE PRESIDENT. |
| 00:00:16.89 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. |
| 00:00:17.39 | Unknown | Council member Pfeiffer? Here. Council member Withey? |
| 00:00:20.11 | Unknown | I'm here. |
| 00:00:20.87 | Unknown | Vice Mayor Hoffman. THE FAMILY IS NOT ABLE TO Mayor Theodorus. |
| 00:00:23.93 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | President Trump, Joe Burns, would you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance, please? |
| 00:00:32.68 | Unknown | I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. and to the republic for which it stands. One day. Amen. Indivisible. with liberty and justice for all. |
| 00:00:48.88 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. you We did not have a closed session today, so there'll be no closed session announcements, nor public comment on closed sessions. The next item is item. E, do we have a motion for approval of the agenda? So move. Second. All in favor? Bye. Bye. |
| 00:01:05.88 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:01:05.89 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 00:01:06.16 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:01:06.72 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | passage unanimously. So we now, there are no Special presentations or mayor announcements? We move on to item two. Public Communications. This is the time for the city council to hear from citizens regarding matters that are not on the agenda. except in very limited situations, state law precludes the council from taking action 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 future meetings. We need anyone who would like to speak on a matter not on the agenda, please fill out a speaker card. I have one right now. So Bert Drobnis? Aye. Please. |
| 00:01:55.64 | Bert Drobnis | This may be, I may be too loud with this. |
| 00:02:03.50 | Bert Drobnis | Okay. |
| 00:02:04.06 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:02:04.18 | Bert Drobnis | Don't forget this. |
| 00:02:04.20 | Unknown | Don't forget to smile. Go ahead. |
| 00:02:06.27 | Bert Drobnis | Good evening. My name is Bert Drobnis and my wife and I have lived here in Sausalito for 33 years. The first thing I'd like to say is for the record that I have not been coerced in any way or promised anything in return for my comments to the city council tonight. To the best of my knowledge, The position of mayor of Sausalito is an appointed position versus an elected position that you see in many other cities and towns. Having said that, Mayor Theodorus, you were elected to the City Council in 2012. and you've been appointed and you currently serve as the mayor of Sausalito. Council Member Withy. You were also elected to the City Council in 2012. and you were appointed and served as mayor last year. Councilmember Huffman. You were elected to the city council last year. And I have no doubts whatsoever that in future years, you will be appointed and you will serve as mayor of Sausalito also. Councilmember Weiner. You were elected to the city council in 2006. And you were appointed and served as mayor twice. And according to the Sausalito Historical Society, Two previous members of the City Council, Jonathan Leone and Mike Kelly, were appointed and served as mayor two times each. Councilmember Pfeiffer. You were elected to the city council in 2008. But you as of yet have not been appointed mayor or served as mayor. And I find that very puzzling and very disturbing. So I ask myself, why can this be? Is it possible maybe you've acted improperly as a council member? Is it possible that you haven't served the city and the residents to the best of your abilities? Possibly. The conclusion that I draw, having been in Sausalito for some time, is that in vital matters in the past, you have held a different opinion than the majority view of the council. And you've been very vocal with your opinions. But does not a difference of opinion lead to discussion? And does not discussion lead to finding the very best solutions for the city and the residents that live within it? And isn't this truly what good government is all about, I ask you? So I ask you, put your personal feelings aside. And I believe tonight is the vote where you will appoint the next mayor of Sausalito. I could be wrong about that, but it's coming up. Or maybe you already have and I'm too late. But if I'm not too late, I ask the city council to do the right thing. and appoint Council Member Pfeiffer as the next mayor of Sausalito. Not only does she deserve it, she's earned it. And my three minutes are up. Thank you very much. |
| 00:05:14.63 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | is not you I'm not sure. on matters not on the agenda. Thank you. Okay, seeing done, we'll move on to item 3A, minutes of the regular council meeting |
| 00:05:33.62 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | So moved. |
| 00:05:34.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:05:34.58 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Second. All in favor? Aye. That passes unanimously. |
| 00:05:36.62 | Unknown | I'm not. I. |
| 00:05:37.30 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:05:39.44 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | So we now move on to item four. the consent calendar. Matters listed under the consent calendar are considered routine and non-controversial, require no discussion, are expected to have unanimous counsel support, and may be enacted by the Council in one motion in the form listed in the agenda. will be no separate discussion of consent calendar items however the council Before the council votes on a motion to adopt the consent calendar, council members, city staff, or members of the public may request that items be removed from the consent calendar for separate. Discussion. Items will be removed from the consent calendar only by vote of the council. I HAVE A MOTION IMPROVED. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT OR REQUEST ANYTHING be removed. |
| 00:06:26.30 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | We may, would someone like to make, well, that's right. We have public comment on the consent calendar. Does anyone have any public comment? See none will move can we have a move. |
| 00:06:37.50 | Unknown | I move adoption of the consent calendar items 4A through F. Second. |
| 00:06:44.71 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | you All in favor? Aye. That passes unanimously. Five zero. |
| 00:06:46.33 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:06:49.62 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Now we move on to item five, the business items, dumpy park ski net schematic master plan update, Mike Langford and Jacques Oman. |
| 00:07:09.62 | Mike Langford | Well, good evening, City Council, Council members, staff, our great audience tonight. Tonight I have the pleasure of introducing a couple people here that represent the Friends of Dunphy Park. And neither these two individuals nor the Friends of Dunphy Park really need any introduction. They're long time Sausalitoans. They've been contributing to the Sausalito for many, many years in so many aspects I can't count. But a little bit of history before I bring them up here. Back in 2013 when the city council was working on their priority calendar for fiscal year 14, The city council, actually the friends came to the city council and said, we need some plan for Dunphy Park. We need to know what's going to happen going forward to that property and the properties that the city owns adjacent to Dunphy Park. So they came to the city council, and they talked about what's called a schematic master plan. Now Jacques and Paul will get into that a little bit more, but the city council, after learning what a schematic master plan was, ranked it fifth on the priority calendar. So that's right up there, right on top. And they set these guys and the rest of the friends of Dunphy Park to work to come up with this schematic master plan. These guys have worked really hard, put countless hours, time, expertise, everything into this schematic master plan. So we're coming before you today, and they're going to present it. And you see my recommendations up there. First off, we want to recognize the Friends of Dunphy Park and Jacques Ullman and Paul Leffingwell for all the work they have done. My recommendation is for Council to accept the schematic master plan as presented by the Friends of Dunphy Park. And then direct the Parks and Recreation Department and the Parks and Recreation Commission to hold some public hearings where the public can have more access to these plans, discuss them, look at them, see how they fit, give some input. And then if there are changes that are major that the public wants to see and it makes sense to go along with that, then the plans be adjusted accordingly. But then the plans be brought back to the city council for final approval and final adoption. After that, we would go forward as we have with other park projects and hiring architects and all that other stuff as we move forward. But tonight is our first look at the schematic master plan. in its entirety. And so I would like to bring up both Jacques Ullman and Paul Leffingwell. We've worked countless hours on this. |
| 00:09:46.84 | Jacques Ullman | Good evening. I'm Jacques Ullman. So I just want to add to Mike's comments that actually this process started quite long ago when there was a proposal for extensive development on the peninsula property at the foot of Locust and Litho Street. and we the Friends of Dunphy Park actually were formulated at that time to fight back on that development which would have been extremely negative to the park. And through extensive efforts on the part of the then council and the public works, the planner and the city attorney, we managed to purchase the railroad right-of-way property, which was not part of Dunphy Park, and also the property which is currently being used as an interim corporation yard by the city for some of the public works projects going on. And those properties need to be integrated into Dumfee Park. And that's really what generated our feeling that we needed a master plan that would then properly integrate those new properties. So this is really the end of quite a long process in which I think maybe, Herb, you were the only person who was originally on the council when we started all of this. |
| 00:11:21.68 | Tony Badger | Thank you. |
| 00:11:23.94 | Jacques Ullman | So, |
| 00:11:29.39 | Jacques Ullman | So this plan is so that we can improve and maintain for public use as a park and habitat preserve this last remaining portion of undeveloped waterfront. Because it is a very unique spot. It's really in the center of town. And it's a park that serves all generations of Sausalitans, young, middle, and old, and has not received the attention that it needs, and so we felt this was very important. It's probably important for people to understand the ownership of the properties in the Dunphy Park neighborhood. The dark green line is the outline of the land that is currently owned by the city. And then the purple to the left to the north is Galilee Harbor property. And then Bridgeway Marine, that's a little bit of a moving target. I don't know if they still call themselves that, but that sort of reddish color, that is their property. Then you have a number of other properties. The Houlihan Limited, that may not be their name anymore. I don't know, but that's an important piece because it's part of that peninsula next to the park. So... The schematic master plan is really a guideline to assure that future incremental improvements, improvement plans are compatible with the city's long range view for park development. Desired improvements, activities, and priorities will be defined along with preferred locations, technical requirements, and governmental limitations without specifically designing them. And actually, even at the time when we started this, we knew that first of all, we had to incorporate the new properties, newly acquired property. And also, we knew that there were some parking needs that Galilee Harbor had to satisfy and it was also Cass Marina which was being rejuvenated and it would need ADA access and parking and Dunphy Park did not really have an established parking area, just sort of an informal array there. So we knew right away that we needed to have some plan. And also the shoreline access path was being developed along Saucyus Waterfront, and it would have to go through Dunphy Park, and that had to be determined. And there were some accessibility issues at Dunphy Park. So all of that made it quite clear that we needed some sort of a plan to coordinate all of these improvements. The program for Dunphy Park schematic master plan is based on public input from an outreach program that included a city website, survey, a questionnaire, and a professionally facilitated public forum. and I want to make very clear about this that this was an extensive effort which you, the council, voted to help us with and help us fund and we also received considerable help from the staff particularly from Mike Langford, in organizing this and seeing to it that the public really had an adequate opportunity to express its feelings about the park. And I think it's important to understand that this plan is, we actually spend a tremendous amount of time compiling all the results of this public outreach. And we have it very well documented and we presented to you the council some time ago the results of of that forum and of this outreach program we knew that this was extremely important because there have been other plans done for the park that caused some contention and paul leffingwell landscape architect has worked on other parks and he learned that lesson that you've got to do your Are you... And Paul Leffingwell, landscape architect, has worked on other parks, and he learned that lesson that you've got to do your outreach if you want to get a plan through without having a lot of problems. So that actually was done, and it is well documented. Obviously, there were many points of view, and we had to work and study hard to make sure that the plan reflected a consensus opinion. So this is the overall plan and the plan One of the major things that came out of the outreach was that Thank you. |
| 00:16:40.77 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:16:40.92 | Jacques Ullman | that all aspects of the community showed interest in this park. It wasn't just people with children or older people or waterfront people or bocce ball people. It was all these people. So this was obviously a park that has to meet a complex multitude of needs. so we came up with the analysis that there were four or five basic aspects to this. The parking obviously, and then what we call active uses like bocce ball or volleyball and toilet facilities. And then we have to do that. And then a multi-use area for large and small events as you all know, we have our 4th of July and Easter and chili cook-off, et cetera, et cetera. And then at the southern end, a passive area, because I should have mentioned earlier that one of the main sources for our being able to add this property to the park, I believe it was the Coastal Conservancy, and I think there was another source. These were all environmentally oriented organizations that helped us purchase this property, and one of the requirements, one of the motivations for their funding us was so that there would be better access to the bay, particularly visually and for the public to have more access to the bay. When that development was proposed on this property and they proposed large buildings, that would have blocked the view of the water from Bridgeway. And that was the... So creating a habitat preservation and having a passive area on the southern part was very much in keeping with the concept that was behind the funding for our purchase of this property. |
| 00:18:57.32 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:19:01.91 | Jacques Ullman | So we'll start with the parking. It was difficult to come up with a number, but it's based on current use and also on the idea that it would be much more efficient to combine the parking for Galilee Harbor, the parking for Cass Marina, the parking for the cruising club, and the parking for the park all in one parking lot because then you can aside from the fact that the use of the facility would vary depending on the time of day, you also could just make it much more efficient than having each one have to have its own access to its own parking area. And we were able to incorporate some of the parking lot that's shown here is actually on land that's owned by Galilee. So we were able to, and we had several meetings with Galilee. We studied their parking proposals. We also studied the parking proposals and access for Casa Marina. And then we combined all that to make it all work together and had meetings with everyone concerned. Um, So we also have at the North End toilets, and then the active uses are placed near the parking and near the toilets, because that makes sense. But as we'll show you, with the active uses, is that even though it's near the parking, we configured it in such a way that each one is in a sort of an amphitheater with some mounds on either side that can act as places to sit and view the bocce ball. But the mounds are also such that when bocce ball is not going on They they roll over to the joint use area so that it can be it's again It's like it's not Defined areas for just this activity or that one but a blending and a flow of the activities from one to the other |
| 00:21:29.37 | Jacques Ullman | You can see in this section a little bit this concept of the berms and then the bocce ball. You see the people sitting on either side. Thank you. Thank you. AND, UH, |
| 00:21:47.71 | Jacques Ullman | And then this section I think is particularly important because unfortunately perhaps in our former presentations we didn't make this clear enough. And I think there was a misinterpretation somehow that the shoreline trail was going to block people from the shoreline. And it's actually doing just the opposite. that we're very careful to do the contours, and I'll get to the shoreline path afterwards because it's actually doing just the opposite. We're very careful to do the contours and I'll get to the shoreline path afterwards because it's a very important part of this because it links all of these activities together. But in this section, I want you to appreciate, you see on the left, the shoreline trail that it's actually facilitating people getting closer to the shoreline. So I'm sorry if there were some objections expressed to that, and I think it was perhaps because we didn't explain it properly and it wasn't properly understood. So this is just to remind you that we've now done the parking, the active, just so you continue to see how these various uses. Now we go to the multi-use, and that's the grass bowl in the middle. Mr. Leffingwell studied these contours carefully because on the one hand you wanted to have enough berm action to give it interest and to allow people to see out, but you also didn't want to block the views of the water from the sidewalk along Bridgeway. You also, this had to be contours that could be drained properly, because that's one of the difficult issues here being so close to the high tide level and to have enough possibility to because now one of that came out very strongly in our outreach program that people were very upset about all the puddles and the wet areas and found the park was not usable in certain times of the year. And so it's very important that we have proper drainage and that the contouring and grading be studied very carefully. |
| 00:23:39.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:24:05.05 | Jacques Ullman | You can see along Bridgeway, that's where the railroad right-of-way used to be, and of course the railroad has to be level. So in doing the... Thank you. The parking only goes about a little more than a third of the way across the railroad right-of-way, and then the rest of it is incorporated into the park, and the grading is reconfigured so that it undulates, and we break that sort of abrupt horizontal feeling that there is now. So this area accommodates these wonderful events that we've all enjoyed, Fourth of July and Easter and musical events and Farmers Market. Then the beach, of course, needs improvement, and the public works director has made it very clear to us that this is not technically an easy thing because of the tidal situations. The beach, the sand goes away, so we can't expect to have maybe a beach as we have at Schoenmarker, but we can still have something that gives access because even the conditions it's in now, it's wonderful to see how kids love to go down there and play. So, and I want to mention that we show in this drawing the cruising club turned 90 degrees. Now, I know that our last presentation, there was some objection from the cruising club, and you asked us to do an outreach with them and discuss it with them. Well, we didn't discuss it with them because, for one thing, I think that their organization has been in a state of flux, but also we were really instructed by the city manager that |
| 00:25:35.34 | Unknown | Right. |
| 00:26:02.99 | Jacques Ullman | uh, it's the city's desire to see it turn. Now, whether it can be for technical reasons or financial reasons, it may not be able to happen. And this plan will work, whether it happens or not. But you might as well show what you want, otherwise you'll never get it. So we're showing it that way, but it's not a contentious thing. This isn't meant to be in any way threatening to the cruising club. It would exist one way or the other. But in this configuration, it allows the shoreline to be extended and we can greatly improve the appearance of that. So there would be tremendous benefits to doing it if we can. So the shoreline path currently ends either end of the park, and we need to figure out how to make that connection. So the red line shows the connection, and what it really does is kind of link all of these various functions. It gets integrated with the overall BCDC public shoreline path, |
| 00:27:09.62 | Unknown | it. it. |
| 00:27:15.98 | Jacques Ullman | which through Saucedo then ties the park activities together. The path is graded to conform to ADA requirements with benches and picnic areas along the way. No bicycling within the park with ample bicycle racks at access points. So this path is graded to meet the ADA requirements, but as you go along the path, it doesn't interfere. If you're on one of the berms or you're in the bowl area, the path is not going to block your view of the water. And for those who want to walk along the water and not get their feet wet in the grass and so on, it'll allow them to go along the water on a path that meets ADA requirements. So we feel it's actually a very positive element in terms of allowing people to enjoy the waterfront. Eelgrass and water traffic provide limited access for non-motorized vehicles without disruption of eelgrass and wildlife preserves. So the red arrow shows where we would encourage the traffic to go and keep it away from the air. from. If I can. So keep it away from all of these areas where there is an eelgrass report, which is part of the documentation that goes along with this plan, which the green areas are where there's a high probability of getting eelgrass to extend. It currently is in where the darker lines are. And so obviously you want to keep traffic out of there. Plus, we were advised by Marin Audubon that if we want to have any kind of wildlife preserve in terms of birds, that you really don't want to have a lot of kayak traffic even. You want to keep it away. And another device that I guess I'll talk about that later when we get to the preserves. So again, some sections that simply show you how we've undulated the land, contoured it so that we create the berms. I'll talk about the planting on the berms a little later. This you saw before. Again, it shows the shoreline path. Now, access. So there'd be three major accesses where we show the red arrows. Now, in big events, people just swarm. And so they can just swarm across the bridgeway, and they can swarm right on to the lawn area. They won't necessarily be so disciplined to go to these designated. But most of the time, we would want them to encourage those crosswalks. And I don't know how soon we'll have a fully developed bicycle path, but the plans are for a pretty formalized and significant bicycle path along here. So you don't want to have so many crossings here that people on the bicycle have to stop here and then stop there and stop there. So we're trying to at least encourage just two major entrances across Bridgeway. |
| 00:30:58.31 | Unknown | way. |
| 00:31:02.02 | Jacques Ullman | So I talked a little bit about the grading before, the rolling contoured berms creating central open grass bowl while maintaining visual connection to the water from bridgeway. Improve runoff water management to minimize wet soil and eliminate standing water by regrading and installing an engineered subsurface drainage system as required. |
| 00:31:30.01 | Jacques Ullman | So, |
| 00:31:35.11 | Jacques Ullman | You see? This would be the bowl area, and then you've got a berm here, and a berm here, and another one here. So it creates a variety of places for people to go, but when there's a main event, everything is visually interconnected. And again, it's designed not to overly obstruct views of the water as you walk along the sidewalk and bridgeway. This is just the same plan, but just with the contours. Not for you to study now, but if you wanted to, you could. So now planting. Again, the rolling grass with contoured berms, shade trees, and low water use planting. Improved condition of planting by progressively replacing with more appropriate species and improved maintenance. Now, exactly how to do this so that it's not too disruptive is something that will have to be part of future planning. But we met with the city maintenance staff. We met with an horticulturist. And it's pretty well agreed that most of the trees are not in good shape in the park. It's a tough area, and so we need to improve the soil, bring in soil amenities and better soil. It's one of the advantages of doing more berming because then we can create the berms with better soil. The drainage will also help. so bit by bit we should be able to replace the trees that we have now with ones that will survive better and perform better. And Paul particularly designated trees at the top of berms because that's where people like to be and that's where they enjoy the shade plus it'll give the trees a better chance to grow well because the berms will allow us to bring in better soil so and also the drainage will work better. |
| 00:33:48.39 | Jacques Ullman | planting in active areas of the park to be predominantly low water, requiring lawn and deciduous trees with shrub masses used for screening of parking. Low shrubs and ground covers, as appropriate, are to be used on steep slopes to the bay. Views of the bay through the park from the sidewalk and bicycle lane along bridgeway are to remain as open as reasonable. the city's trees should be used around the grass bowl to visually reinforce the bowl form, provide light shade for visitors, use viewing bocce ball and volleyball as well as views of the activities in the park and the bay. Dense tree masses providing heavy shade should be used sparingly. Tree choices should allow adequate daylight for healthy lawn growth below. Now, in the passive areas, should screen the adjacent undeveloped property along Locust Street with a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs. Deciduous trees should be used around the picnic areas. Remaining open areas between the walk and the litho street slough are to be planted with native plants and grasses to create an area that attracts birds, butterflies, and are of interest to the public, essentially providing a place for people to view and enjoy native plants appropriate for use in Sausalito. All existing natural bay-related shrubs and grasses should be retained. |
| 00:35:28.73 | Jacques Ullman | So there's a list here which I won't go through, but Paul obtained some advice from horticulturists in his own knowledge and came up with some trees, some deciduous trees, some evergreen trees, and some screening shrubs, and some low shrubs and ground covers, and there's a variety of choices so that there'll be some latitude as to what could be used. And of course now with the drought, there's been an awful lot of study on how to deal with lawns. And so you have to really stay on top of it. There are new ideas. And in this case, the lawn gets such heavy use that it's really tricky to make the right choice because you don't want to use too much water, but you want something that's sturdy because it gets tromped on with all the activities. Yes. Habitat Restoration and Preservation. Passive recreation area in undeveloped portion of the park for viewing restored habitat and the bay and for picnicking low water native plant demonstration. Actually, there was a conceptual plan prepared by Marin Ottoman Society, and we were guided by that. One of the reasons that we... |
| 00:36:51.52 | Unknown | Uh, |
| 00:36:54.03 | Jacques Ullman | show the the path here being Whoops. |
| 00:37:01.66 | Jacques Ullman | being 50 feet from the shoreline, and I guess I should mention at this point that we can't plan on other people's property, so there's a nice white area here. But it seems clear that whatever is done on this property, BCDC, will require some preservation of the shoreline, and we don't know how far back but then this this path could tie in even if if this were intensely developed here we could still at least wrap something around this way and extend our preservation area and hopefully eventually these owners will be reasonable, and we can find a way to make it work for everyone and get a little more than that. But we're not allowed to plan that at this point. |
| 00:37:33.97 | Unknown | intensity. |
| 00:37:38.77 | Unknown | then |
| 00:37:57.33 | Jacques Ullman | Um, |
| 00:38:01.21 | Jacques Ullman | So I'm not going to read all the rest of this, because actually I believe all of this is on the web, so people can read this in more detail if they want to, and all of you can, and I don't want to keep you here all night. So this is from the eelgrass study that was done, the Merkle report, and this is just to demonstrate again the importance. This is a very important eelgrass area, and as I've gotten into this subject more and more, it seems ecologically how important eelgrass actually is to the health of the bay, And we happen to have an important part of it here in Richardson Bay. So there are a number of references here of different sources that we went to that influenced us in putting the plan together. And so guidelines for the future, Dunphy Park has many different components, which this schematic master plan ties together harmoniously. Improvements will occur incrementally and to ensure that this harmony and balance is maintained, the schematic master plan must always be consulted when planning each increment. Each component has an effect on the others. A secondary toilet facility should be considered in the future at the south end of the park at Locust and Humboldt. It is recommended that the city be committed to adequately fund a long-term care and maintenance program for landscaping. This program should reflect the variety of uses and site conditions ongoing professional consultation may be required. and this is important that this is one of the things that unfortunately of uses and site conditions ongoing professional consultation may be required. And this is important that this is one of the things that unfortunately I think we're experiencing in all our parks is that maintenance is important and if we don't maintain properly, we Thank you. we end up having to spend much more money. The Friends of Dunpey Park got involved in putting together this plan when the new properties were added onto the park, and for the reasons I explained earlier, and there didn't seem to be money available for planning, so we volunteered to do it hoping that that would save the city money and make the plan possible um |
| 00:40:12.06 | Unknown | Who? |
| 00:40:34.70 | Jacques Ullman | And as I said, we had an extensive outreach program, so that we hope that at this point, when this moves forward to hiring professional help, that this can be more in terms of the working drawing phase, that we don't have to revisit the planning phase too much, otherwise we won't feel like we've saved you the money. We hope we've saved you. Plus, frankly, we've done the outreach program, and so we feel we have a plan which has already been well exposed to the community, and we hope that we'll be able to move forward with it. |
| 00:41:18.82 | Jacques Ullman | So, Thank you. |
| 00:41:21.97 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. |
| 00:41:21.99 | Jacques Ullman | Have questions? |
| 00:41:24.50 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Well, before we move on, thank, thank shock and Paul and all the friends of dumpy park for all your work over the years on this. Uh, we're going to move to council questions for us. So please stay there. Uh, after council questions, we'll open it to public comment. So if anyone would like to comment on this issue, please fill out a speaker card and we'll have them passed up, but let's start with council questions right now. |
| 00:41:48.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:41:51.77 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you Jacques and thank you Paul for your hard work on this. It was kind of, as you know I've been a big supporter of your efforts in improving Dunphy Park and the Friends of Dunphy Park. I oppose Measure F because of the high finance fees but I certainly support your efforts and I appreciate the fact that you've donated so many hours to this great project so thank you so much in doing that and and the last time that you were before the council and you presented the design you'll recall that I expressed some concern regarding the pedestrian path next to the waterfront in that my fear was that rental rental bikes would would flood the path because it would be very it would be hard from a cost perspective to enforce you know that I mean rental bikes off the pass to keep it a pedestrian path. And at the time you presented, one of the recommendations we discussed was to have a bike, a bike path, you know, off street closer to bridgeway for, for the bikes. In other words, if you were going to have a pedestrian path along the waterfront to then include a bike path along Bridgeway so at least the bikes would know where to go. And I was wondering, because they were talking about off-street, an off-street bike path, so I was just wondering if you could comment on that. |
| 00:43:33.75 | Jacques Ullman | Well, I would suggest that you study the proposals that are being made by the, I forget the official name of the organization, is putting a bicycle path plan together. But if you do that, and frankly I haven't looked at it in a number of months, but I believe it's probably pretty much the same, is it's quite an extensive bicycle path that runs along Bridgewayway and in fact it reconfigures the sidewalk and so on so that we felt it would be inappropriate to give up any dumpy park property to another bicycle path when there's several lanes of bicycle path already being proposed as part of the along bridgeway and of course these things take a while to come together so I don't know but there is currently a bicycle path there such as it is so |
| 00:43:40.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:44:17.37 | Unknown | way. |
| 00:44:27.95 | Jill Hoffman | It's just that I had heard they wanted to put a bike path inland off the street. And I was just wondering if you were talking to each other and had considered. |
| 00:44:34.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:44:34.28 | Jacques Ullman | I just wondered if you were talking |
| 00:44:35.33 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:44:38.70 | Jill Hoffman | I just want to make sure that we don't get the rental bikes in the pedestrian. I believe that that. |
| 00:44:40.20 | Unknown | don't get the rental. |
| 00:44:41.03 | Jacques Ullman | I believe that that is probably the property line there, right? So therefore, obviously, we can't, I mean, the city obviously has a right to have some control over its own property, but it may not be, this part may not be on Dunphy Park. So maybe something would happen here, but it would seem appropriate to keep the bicycles here. And then we have, we are suggesting ample bicycle parking areas, bicycle racks at the entrances. And then there could be bollards. I mean, it's not unusual to have paths, walking paths that don't have bicycles. And so that's what the shoreline path would be. |
| 00:45:29.82 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, Jacques. I have more questions, but I'll. Let the rest of the council |
| 00:45:36.77 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you, Jacques and Paul, for your hard work on this and the years I know that it's taken to get this point. We've talked about, I met with both of you privately and talked about your plan. I think it looks great. I have a couple of questions, though. I have a couple of questions, though. And I do you have or is it because we're going to be looking at these things with other parks as we look at, you know, the renovations. So you may get this question because you're the first one up here with this part. that I've been seeing on the council, but is it possible to do like a water capture system? Because I'm really interested in the maintenance of the parks and sort of as we've seen here in the city, you build these beautiful parks, but a really important part of the cost of a park is the ongoing maintenance of the park. And also with the drought and, you know, with the need to water the parks. Is it possible to incorporate that into the plan, or is that, am I coming out of left field and that's just going to be cost prohibitive? |
| 00:46:37.59 | Jacques Ullman | Um... |
| 00:46:40.99 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:46:41.03 | Jacques Ullman | I'm sure that something is possible, but I think that that has to be studied in the overall part of the whole drainage system. Yeah. And that's a big subject because in some ways, of course, the Bay needs some of the water to go into it. So I don't know. Right. |
| 00:47:02.26 | Jill Hoffman | Right, sorry, I mean that was a good question. |
| 00:47:03.24 | Jacques Ullman | I mean, I've made a note of it, and we will definitely |
| 00:47:04.86 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Thank you. Yeah, as long as we're talking about drainage and we're talking about redoing the park and regrading things. If we can, if you can do that and it's not cost prohibitive and it's not going to delay the plan, then I would, it would be nice if that was addressed. The second thing is when we have the cost projections come up or we're looking at a budget for the park. |
| 00:47:07.94 | Jacques Ullman | Thank you. |
| 00:47:23.89 | Jill Hoffman | Is it possible to also incorporate the ongoing maintenance after completion of the park as part of the budget, or at least reference that, you know, it'll cost X millions of dollars to do this park, but we project for five years out, it will also cost five or ten years out, it'll cost this much to maintain the park? I think that would help from a budget perspective. |
| 00:47:43.65 | Jacques Ullman | Thank you. I'm an architect. I'm not a finance man. I think you need to. I mean, again, I can make a note of it, but that's not my, you know, I'd make a mess of trying to answer that for you. |
| 00:47:48.07 | Jill Hoffman | I mean, |
| 00:47:55.38 | Jill Hoffman | Understood, and sorry if I'm throwing these things at you. Those are my only two questions. Thanks. |
| 00:48:02.77 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Doc, again, we all the work in this, the master plan, but I, as we looked at the staff's recommended motion, I just want to be clear for the public's point of view, we are anticipating, although you've had other public workshops, at least two more public workshops, And we'll be coming back to the, so there'll be a chance for public input on certain things if the public decides they would like to have, you know, put in some input that something should be changed one way or the other, correct? |
| 00:48:34.55 | Jacques Ullman | Well, I think that's correct. And I think the thing that we have to be a little careful of is, we're at a different stage now than we were when we had the forum. The forum was an open possibility for people to come forth with all sorts of ideas, and then we had to compile all that. So I think that in a process like this, the public's opportunities are on different levels. Now we're at a level where we don't want to be taking too many steps backwards, but for instance, there was a small vociferous group at the farm that wanted to have showers at the toilets, but there was also a very vociferous and larger group that was not in favor of it. So we figured that we've crossed that bridge and we're not showing showers. That subject may become up again and I guess we want to be fair and listen to it but we are at a different level in the design phase now and I think that needs to be understood. So I don't know that I would even call this a workshop. I think that would be a misnomer. I think it's a public review of a plan. And if someone were to make a comment, for instance, a concern about keeping bicycles off of the shoreline path, I think it would be incumbent to us to come up with the suggestions that, I mean, if people are going to break the law, I guess they'll break the law, but that we can show an effort to solve that problem, but we're not going to eliminate the shoreline path just because of that concern. We rather want to try to address that concern. |
| 00:49:20.65 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:50:32.43 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | And this one, I think staff may answer, but in terms of what we're proving going forward, this also goes through the planning commission, correct? So this that's one thing that we would we would note because besides the two other public gatherings and comes back to council, but also have to go to the planning commission. I just want to be clear as we what we approved tonight and the steps that are going to go |
| 00:50:55.00 | Adam Politzer | Mr. Mayor, maybe I'll just chime in here and going back to Mike's opening remarks. I think we're looking for direction on the council. We've heard already several nice comments that they like what they see. So we're looking to make sure as the property owner, the council represents the property owner. You are the property owner. So if you agree with what's been proposed, then what we're suggesting is two special park and rec commission meetings we can work on the name if it's a forum or just a meeting to continue to present this plan so that we reach a broader audience than what's this here tonight which it's nice to see so many in our audience tonight though once those comments are received and clarification is provided then we'll bring it back to the council to say we think that we have the community support. If there are any minor changes, you heard one suggestion tonight from Vice Mayor Hoffman, they'll take that into consideration. We'll bring back something that looks pretty similar to what's in front of you. You guys bless it and then off it goes to the Planning Commission and if it's approved by the Planning Commission It then goes to construction. So that's the process that we anticipate. So two meetings held by this Park and Rec Commission, back to the City Council with the Council's blessing onto the Planning Commission. A lot of work will happen in between that City Council meeting and getting to the Planning Commission, because that's when all the technical work would have to happen in terms of the engineering and what have you, as Jacques has explained. |
| 00:52:34.22 | Jill Hoffman | I have a question as to process. So Adam, is there a reason why we're not doing more of the public outreach first with the park and rec department and then going through the planning commission and then it comes to the council? |
| 00:52:52.34 | Adam Politzer | Yeah, I think as Jacques explained, it has gone at various levels, discussion at the Park and Rec Commission in advance of their public meetings. And then they held the public meeting at the Bay Model that was also very well attended. And then they've come back to council with preliminary feedback from that process and then preliminary schematic plan. Now, based on the feedback that the council and the community provided along that road, probably over the last two years, this is now the final version of the schematic plan for the council's consideration and so that's why we're suggesting the two additional meetings with the Park and Rec Commission and then back to the council so tonight to Park and Rec Commission meetings and then back to the council are four additional meetings you know that will occur and then on to the Planning Commission where the real heavy lifting and community input will be gathered |
| 00:53:59.24 | Jill Hoffman | So if there is a public concern, and this changes a lot between now and then, with the planning commission, is there a scenario where it could come to the council again after planning commissions? |
| 00:54:16.62 | Adam Politzer | Yeah, like any other project, it can be appealed. If the Planning Commission approves the project and someone is not happy with the approval, they can appeal it to the council. Or if it's denied, planning commission denies the project, than it could be, I appeal to the council. or if the Planning Commission feels that there are some significant discussion items that significantly changed the design We as the staff and working with the Friends of Dunphy Park, may ask to send that back to the council. before planning commission takes any action. So there's a variety of things that could happen if new information was discovered, or the community had a strong opinion. on one of the various aspects of the design. We hope. that that process has already occurred, that the community has been following this, through the process. We're hoping by creating opportunity tonight and then two special Park and Rec Commission meetings that the public would have the opportunity to participate and ask for clarification on some of the elements that Jacques has described this evening. And then again, we hope that the, uh, the, community has the opportunity to come out. when it comes back to the council prior to to going to the plank mission. We hope for the Planning Commission's benefit that the majority of the issues that the community raises or ask questions of are answered prior to getting it to the planning commission. But, you know, we obviously have a very diverse community, and we may not be able to solve all of the wishes of the community prior to getting into the Planning Commission. But that's our intent. and |
| 00:56:01.87 | Jill Hoffman | I just have a couple more. |
| 00:56:03.54 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 00:56:03.56 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:56:03.57 | Adam Politzer | Okay. |
| 00:56:03.98 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. So I notice you've got 70, I think it is 70 parking spaces in but I believe only three are ADA, and then you've got two for an ADA van. Is there, it just doesn't sound like they're, Can you explain the process that you use to determine the placement of the ADA parking spaces as well as the fact that there are only three public ADA spaces? |
| 00:56:47.28 | Jacques Ullman | Let's see. There are actually two van spaces, is that correct? And then there are. |
| 00:56:51.26 | Unknown | VINCENTURAL. And, |
| 00:56:56.76 | Jacques Ullman | uh, three regular ADA, so you have five ADA spaces. |
| 00:56:59.48 | Jill Hoffman | Right. |
| 00:57:03.53 | Jill Hoffman | But I'm talking about private car ADA spaces. There are only three. Three. So the ADA van suggests that there is some sort of an organized. It could be, for that matter, a tour group organized to come in, seniors from out of town. So I guess I'm just curious as to why why 3 ADA, why only 3 ADA public |
| 00:57:08.69 | Jacques Ullman | There are only three. |
| 00:57:10.63 | Unknown | So, |
| 00:57:35.93 | Jill Hoffman | Spaces I'm wondering if we might want to have |
| 00:57:38.53 | Jacques Ullman | Thank you. Yeah, I think that we're following the standards that are set by ADA. Now, if the city wishes to have more than is required, that's something that could be done. But I didn't think it was our prerogative to put more than what you're supposed to put. |
| 00:57:41.33 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 00:57:59.25 | Jill Hoffman | That was my question is what was the rationale? |
| 00:58:00.30 | Jacques Ullman | And then we also did distribute them in a way that responds to the variety of uses, because there is the bocce ball, but there's also Casmarina, and there's also Galilee. So you didn't want to have them all bunched in one place, and so we thought we did the right thing in this circumstance. |
| 00:58:25.74 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, Jacques. One more question about the parking, which is right now, as you know, there's kind of informal parking along the waterfront where the cruising club currently is. so can you talk a little bit about what this parking lot in this design would service it would service not only Dunphy Park it would service? It would service not only Dunphy Park, it would service the cruising club as well. Would it service Casamarina, Galilee Harbor? Can you talk a little bit more about that? |
| 00:58:55.45 | Unknown | and the other. |
| 00:58:55.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:58:55.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:59:03.22 | Jacques Ullman | Yeah, well, Cast Marina had a plan put together to satisfy their requirements for ADA and their other access requirements. And we pretty much reflected that plan in here. So we dovetailed into their plan. We also dovetailed into Galilee's plan. And then you have the Shoreline. which then comes along and goes past the Galilee little building here so that in a sense, it's a dovetailing of all, each of these entities sort of did their own plan and then we brought them and made them link together. |
| 00:59:55.35 | Jill Hoffman | So will there be any reserved parking spaces for the cruising club for Galilee Harbor, for Cass Marina? |
| 01:00:05.59 | Jacques Ullman | I don't know exactly what you mean by reserve. |
| 01:00:07.72 | Jill Hoffman | Well, will there be, you know how when you sometimes you go grocery shopping and it says these spaces only for this business? |
| 01:00:16.12 | Jacques Ullman | Oh, I see. Designated for a particular... Yeah, is it all going to be open? No, I don't... I mean, no. So far, that hasn't been... |
| 01:00:18.64 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, is it all going to be open? |
| 01:00:27.30 | Jacques Ullman | is it? Yeah, I mean, it can be done, but at this point, it seems that there are benefits to not doing that because you have needs at different times. So you have a much more efficient use of your parking. |
| 01:00:40.42 | Jill Hoffman | You're perking. I agree. Yeah. So I was just curious about that. And then just to reiterate that the showers are not in the restroom in this design. |
| 01:00:51.05 | Jacques Ullman | You will not find that mentioned. Because that was very controversial. We don't feel that that's an issue that we can deal with. I mean, it's a real issue, and other people may want to deal with it, but it just didn't seem appropriate at this point, no. |
| 01:00:54.06 | Jill Hoffman | Because that was very... We don't feel that that's... |
| 01:00:59.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:00:59.58 | Jill Hoffman | I mean, |
| 01:01:04.91 | Jill Hoffman | It's true. Okay, thank you. |
| 01:01:09.87 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. At this point, we'll open it up to public comment. And first person is Scriba. And then we'll have Michael Rex and, I think it's John Roberts. So if we can line up to do this, and I'll call out names periodically. |
| 01:01:25.68 | Jim Scraba | Thank you. Good evening. Jim Scraba, resident of Sausalito. I like the plan. Went to the meeting a while back. And I looked at it, and we didn't have a schematic plan when they had that meeting a long time ago. And it was good. In my memory, it was a lot of ideas. You know, we want this, we want that. and everything. And then I looked at the plan and I was like, oh great, this looks great. We're gonna do something with Donfeet Park. And it's a real gem in Sausalito. It's probably our largest park if you don't count MLK. um, But I was thinking, let's kind of zoom out in our thinking here is, I mean, I'm not a city planner, and I didn't go over the master plan or anything, but I go down to Dunphy Park fairly often. And I'm just thinking of it from a transit standpoint. There's a number of different access points into Dunphy Park. And there's a lot of traffic that comes into Dunphy Park. For instance, there's a bike path between the Galilee parking lot and the offices, which are right on Bridgeway, that kind of dead ends into Napa Street. And then Galilee Harbor, a lot of people ride bicycles and amble along past Galilee Harbor and enter the park that way and then kind of make a beeline. to the point where the slough comes in. So there's this natural path straight across the park. And if you go down there, there's a natural dirt path that's been there for years for where people ride their bicycles and walk and such. and then, of course, there's the traffic that comes north and south on Bridgeway. So people are coming from Schoonmaker and beyond, Galilee and beyond. People are coming from downtown and beyond. People that are on Bridgeway, north or south, typically stay on Bridgeway, but if they're on these other paths, they're going to enter the park, for instance, at the south end of the park. I didn't think I did that. Enter the park at the south end of the park where Locust Street meets the park. And they're going to have a choice. Can I go into the park? And they could follow along the shoreline grate where they would head down along Bridgeway on their way. Or they might cut straight across to the bathroom, which is kind of what happens today. People cut straight across the middle of the park. Um, So from north to south, there's really kind of four flows. North to south, people come from Galilee. Um, And the park's kind of like a funnel from that standpoint. I think of it as there's that narrow end down by the Locust Street slough, I guess is what you call it. And so people come in from Galilee. They come in from the bike path. They come in from Bridgeway. They're funneled kind of through the park to the end of the slough there. And then they either come out on bridgeway or we take the shoreline around. And then the other flow would be from the bicycle path, which is between the building on bridgeway and is my time up. So so I think that it would be good to have a single path across the center of the park and also to take into account the traffic that's coming. mostly from the north end through that bicycle path that kind of dead ends into Napa Street. And it might be an alternative to have the entrance to the parking lot on Bridgeway as opposed to on Napa Street. And I was just wondering whether that was ever discussed or anything like that. |
| 01:05:07.01 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | And there'll be an opportunity on all these, on the details. As we said, we have further time. So thank you. Thank you. Michael Rex. |
| 01:05:11.00 | Jim Scraba | Right. |
| 01:05:19.28 | Michael Rex | Hi, I'm Michael Rex, local architect, and I'm glad to see this moving forward. The park is pretty sad right now. It could be much more enjoyable. I think we all need to applaud the Friends effort, Jacques and Paul, Ursula, Doug, Carol, and others. for volunteering their time and bringing something to us that's so thoughtful. and useful. I would call this a masterwork. I think it's superbly done. and support it. I think creating this passive and active zones, restoring the marsh and protecting our eelgrass, I think the shoreline trail is essential. I think pulling the parking away from the shore and grouping it is excellent. Turning the cruising club around should be done. I think bringing the park up to Bridgeway at the southern end is also brilliant. I think that they worked with Cass Marina and Galilee and incorporated their plans is wise. I'd like to suggest a couple things and express one concern. I think the north-south greenway, the bike path along Bridgeway should be shown. It's been fully planned. I'd like to see it on the drawings here so we can incorporate that. I think in the future landscape plan, better screening of the parking lot from the park, either with a very low hedge you can look over, or berming would be good, although a berm will take more room. Maybe a hedge is better. It could be very low. I'd like to – I think we should revisit the idea of a bridge across the marsh. I know that's been rejected. I don't think that would be in conflict with the habitat. A perfect example is Crissy Field. That curving bridge across the Crissy Field marsh is beautiful. Thank you. And I think it would connect the dots with a shoreline trail. The concern I have is that water recreation for small craft has been removed from the plan. I think it needs to go back in. Plan 5B, which is our official plan, calls for a small recreation boating, and that's been the heritage of this park, from the Hobie Cats to the Funky Boat Race and other uses. A small, non-motorized craft does not compete with eelgrass because they don't have keels, and the motors don't scare the ducks. I've lived on the water for 18 years on four different houseboats. I used to be an anchor out, and I can assure you. kayaks, paddle boards, and racing shells do not scare ducks and does not damage eelgrass. So I'd like to see that put back in. The last thing I'd like to note is the process Adam outlines is superb, and I hope you adopt it and we can move forward. Thank you. |
| 01:08:14.61 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. |
| 01:08:14.63 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 01:08:14.93 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. John Roberts. Then we have Paul Rogers, Chris Bowen, and, um, THE FAMILY. |
| 01:08:26.55 | John Roberts | A couple of points that the gentleman, I think, have you spent much time in the park on this? spring or summer day, |
| 01:08:34.39 | Jacques Ullman | Thank you. Every time of the year, they live only two blocks away. |
| 01:08:39.89 | John Roberts | There's one problem with Dumpy Park that you have. |
| 01:08:42.41 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Excuse me, can we speak in the microphone? And I think it's best if you address us and we can redirect any questions. |
| 01:08:46.90 | John Roberts | I'm sorry. There's one problem with Dunphy Park that's an environmental problem that is not addressed with the plans. It's so windy down there at times you can't even be in the park. And I was hoping they'd have some kind of a wind blocks in it, make the hills a little higher possibly or more brush like the hedge that exists across there, maybe a little closer to the multi use area to give you some windbreak. because I've seen There was a wedding down there this last spring. I got literally blown away. Everything they had went in the water, practically. From the wind. some wind block would be really very good. |
| 01:09:33.59 | John Roberts | And this area up in the corner... |
| 01:09:40.05 | John Roberts | Well, by where Cass Marina is going to be there, nothing's drawn in. Isn't that city property up there, part of the park? |
| 01:09:51.48 | John Roberts | That area down in there. |
| 01:09:59.95 | John Roberts | something to think about. I believe that's now part of a parking lot in a dirt field right now. |
| 01:10:17.04 | John Roberts | Well, the lease area for Cassis is that line that goes across the top of a little further up. If you go a little, there's the line. That's the start of their lease right there. and the area down in there below it over to I'm sorry, the left a little bit. That's part of the park also. |
| 01:10:36.03 | Adam Politzer | Yeah, Mr. Mayor, I'll just... Lease it city property. Right, that's correct. And I think what Jacques and Paul have done also on the north end, or the south end of the passive area, is that those areas are still, we still need to work with the cruising club and with Cass Gidley and look at how that transitions from the park to their facility. So obviously there's still still a lot of question marks on what happens there obviously you know either tonight in writing or or at one of the upcoming meetings that we outlined if you have ideas of what the how that area can be used we wish we would absolutely take that but at this moment they're purposely left blank so that we can incorporate the needs of Cass Gidley and the Cruising Club as a smooth transition from the active park and the parking lot for their uses. |
| 01:10:36.18 | John Roberts | Thank you. Mr. Mayor, I'll just city property, right? |
| 01:11:29.32 | John Roberts | Does the City Council have any inclinations to getting rid of the parking lot that's underneath where it says... Pass the recreation area to sign. |
| 01:11:44.54 | John Roberts | It was the old Thank you. for the old police station. |
| 01:11:50.63 | John Roberts | I'm just curious because you're talking about the 70 places and there's more parking up there. |
| 01:11:57.21 | Unknown | Certainly not. |
| 01:12:01.48 | John Roberts | Well, thank you very much. Just the biggest problem I have is the wind. I wish some more wind block things in there. Make it possible people can sit there and not get blown away in the summertime. |
| 01:12:11.10 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | And again, there'll be opportunities for you to make these comments when they get more in detail on some of these other, we'll call them public workshops. Thank you very much. |
| 01:12:18.44 | John Roberts | Bye. |
| 01:12:18.46 | Paul Rogers | Thank you very much. |
| 01:12:19.02 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | you Paul? |
| 01:12:21.66 | Paul Rogers | Mayor thank you City Council members Paul Rogers resident of Sausalito and also a member of the Sausalito Lions Club I'm a five-time bocce league champion And also a member of the Cruising Club. And I'm here to support this staff recommendation that this does go back to the Parks and Rec Commission and Mike's group. My personal opinion is there's a lot of work to be done. This looks like a nice working document to begin with. And a couple of points why I think that's important as we begin to vet this process out even further. I did attend the meeting back in November 2013. Couple of points, number one. The bocce courts were made and built by the residents, and it's kind of a labor of love, and a lot of us, we're probably at, what, about 150 players now, Mike? So as we move forward and those people begin to get mobilized to have some input, obviously it would be very difficult to do this over a long process here at the City Council meeting. It would be better with Mike's group and the Parks and Rec Commission. Secondly, the Cruising Club is not in a state of flux. We're looking forward to being an active participant in whatever changes are made to the park. And I think it just really needs to be thought about in reality. I personally take care of the gazebo and we're going to turn this into a Wildlife preserve, that's great. But I've tried to plant plants. I've had a fire. I've had people park bikes there. I've had people sleep in the gazebo. build this stuff and kind of keep it under control and maintain it is going to be unique because I'm sure the R-Line's Club, I'm sure the BOTC players would love to have some input. And again, I think in front of the Parks and Rec Commission would be the best route to go. Thanks. Thank you. Chris Bowen? |
| 01:13:59.98 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Bond, sorry. |
| 01:14:01.61 | Jim Scraba | Thank you. |
| 01:14:01.65 | Unknown | James. Yeah. |
| 01:14:02.66 | Paul Rogers | Thank you. |
| 01:14:02.66 | Chris Bowen | My cousin. Yeah, so I'm the commodore of the Sausalito Cruising Club. And I was here in winter, I believe, of 2013 when this plan was first presented. Let me just say that the club is not in flux. We have more than 500 members. Half of those, roughly, are Sausalito residents. Those residents who are members bring their friends from Sausalito down. So many people have come and visited the club. We've done a lot of work the past two years |
| 01:14:02.69 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 01:14:02.93 | Paul Rogers | Thank you. |
| 01:14:02.97 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:14:03.15 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:14:04.50 | Unknown | THE CITY IS GOING TO BE |
| 01:14:04.91 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. |
| 01:14:34.82 | Chris Bowen | since I became Commodore to fix things up. You've probably noticed it down there. We've got a nice new roof on it now. The club. was founded by some returning GIs at the end of World War II. It was founded in 48 The facility is a surplus munitions barge because the government was selling stuff off then. So they bought it and then it's been expanded over the years. It's been in its present location for more than 50 years. Okay? It's a part of Sausalito that harkens back to its days as a working waterfront. So at that meeting back in 2013, I had said that we had never been contacted by the friends of Dunfeet Park regarding this plan, and yet if you look at this plan right here, the whole thing is predicated on rotation of the of the facility, the barge. And so I was actually, and then the city council at that meeting urged the friends at Dunphy Park to contact us and haven't had one single contact and I was disturbed to hear Jacques say tonight that he was dissuaded Bye. members of city government from talking to us. That's what I heard. So that's does not speak to a good process here. So I urge this council, to make sure that this whole plan is vetted. I could tell you that moving that barge is gonna be a massive undertaking with very considerable costs. uh, It hasn't even been engineered yet, if it can be done. All that has to be done before you can just say de facto, We're moving the cruising club. The cruising club's an important part of Sausalito. We shouldn't lose it. And I'll tell you this. I think that there's more people who come and enjoy the cruising club over the course of a weekend than enjoy Dunphy Park in its current state. Now, that'll probably change. There's a lot of the stuff I like about the plan here. BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT Let's not just, push aside the cruising club and assume that we can wave a magic wand and make it rotate There's a lot of issues at stake there. What I hope comes out of the process of these meetings is that we're going to have more in-depth you know, analysis of, hey, can we do this? We're not adamantly opposed to this rotation. We just want it to be done smart. And before we go down the road of, okay, it's a done deal, let's make sure that we understand all the ramifications all the considerations so that we Thank you. Work smart. Thank you. |
| 01:17:08.73 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. And is that Orly Lundgren? Thank you. |
| 01:17:12.93 | Orly Lindgren | if I have that right. Hello, I'm Orly Lindgren. you I'm a research psychologist, a Berkeley PhD graduate, and I've been based in Sausalito and to an extent Mill Valley for the last 35 years. I've been a resident and the head of a nonprofit and a for-profit company in Sausalito for about 20, 25 years. And I'm currently residing at the Bridgeway a marina facility there on Locust Street And so I'm there every day. My institute is also establishing itself there. And so I have an opportunity to observe the paddle boards and all the waterfront activity, that goes on in and around there. It's very extensive. And I walked through the Dumpy Park almost on a daily basis. I very much applaud your efforts. I think what you're trying to do is really very good, but I think that the process is limited and flawed to an extent. There have been some comments that the public outreach has been inadequate to date, and I think that's correct. Bridgeway Marine residents, some of whom have lived there for 20 years, have not been contacted. There's an office complex there with some artists and others who have businesses there. I don't think they've been contacted. That parking facility there, operated by the city for three-hour parking and 72-hour parking, is very popular and used to the maximum constantly. not just by the residents, but by visitors from all over the world, And I think it's very important that that that parking at Locust Street in the south end not be compromised by this and indeed expanded to serve the further expansion of Dumphy Park. Now, I think the access of people on the water, the paddleboarders, the canoeists, the people in small boats, has really not been accommodated and really should be. It's been an essential part of Dunphy Park. and should be, if anything, expanded. I myself attended a funeral in Dunphy Park for one of the luminaries of the waterfront community in which they had ceremonies and services on the water. there are a number of ceremonies and so forth that occur on the water, so working out that water interface I think is very important. I would suggest that eelgrass is very important to all of us and particularly to the water the water-based community. But if you will refer to the eelgrass conservation and restoration in San Francisco Bay report that was produced and widely circulated November 2010, the figures show that eelgrass in Richardson's Bay has expanded 13 acres in 87 were a 436 in 2003. 607 acres in 2009, and there is no evidence to show THAT SMALL boat use. or anchor out use. compromises eelgrass. Thank you. |
| 01:20:31.24 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. |
| 01:20:31.36 | Orly Lindgren | TODAY. |
| 01:20:31.44 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. |
| 01:20:31.55 | Orly Lindgren | Thank you. |
| 01:20:31.65 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. The last card I have is Jeff Jacobs. And. Anyone else? |
| 01:20:53.80 | Jeff Jacobs | Hello, Mayor and City Council. Citizens of Sausalito, I would second, starting from the left. The cruising club that to rotate the cruising club begins The strangeness of this plan that there is nothing in here about Cass's marina that is even further to the left, been closed now for six years. There have been benefits given there, and as far as I know, a 100-foot well has been drilled to find what the soil was like. The bricks have been taken up, but otherwise it is just sitting there. that to put a trail along this entire spot and not have a place for boat landing for kayaks, for skiffs, for canoes, for sailboards and paddleboards, I don't really understand that either. And I appreciated Linda Pfeiffer's comment about pro bicycles. I hadn't heard that before from her. But to talk about the showers being inappropriate somehow, there's 150 bocce ball players. I like that. There's the same number of anchor outs, and I think all of them want showers. Cold, hot, in between. The water access has been reduced there. There was a drinking fountain, and there was another place that somebody could fill up a bucket with fresh water. That has now been permanently closed. Now, if we go to the south end of this, we have a place that is on the waterfront side of the storage yards that are used there, there's two storage yards. Um, It is owned by the state of California. That parcel I just found out, There are trees there that this place is good for. What has been discussed many times in Sausalito and has been squashed by the government, which is... A community garden. So, There are many issues with this plan, and I hope that the people of Sausalito, specifically the people from the anchorage and they're using the boats, are included next time there is a consultation with it. Thank you very much. |
| 01:23:16.92 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. |
| 01:23:16.94 | Jeff Jacobs | Thank you. |
| 01:23:16.97 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. |
| 01:23:17.02 | Jeff Jacobs | Thank you. |
| 01:23:17.33 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. So I have no further speaker cards and unless, please, and you're speaking on Dunphy Park? Well, please come up. Otherwise I'm gonna close public comment. I have no other cards. |
| 01:23:32.99 | Unknown | Hi, my name is Peter Romanowski, and I'm the longest living anchor out on San Francisco Bay now since Ale died, and I'm proud of it. I used to live in Dunphy Park virtually, you know, after my unwanted divorce 30 years ago. Very familiar with it. I'd like to see the fireplace pit. Doug back up. you know, I missed the fireplace. It's buried under that mound, you know, that would be Showers, yeah, cold showers, some type of cold shower. The police keep ticketing and harassing the elderly and the poor and the disabled in the park and blame us anchor outs for crime, which I don't see it. It's just the same people getting arrested over and over again, just a handful of people. We all know who they are. One of them holds the record for being arrested in Marin County, by the way. All-time record. I won't say his name, you know. But shower, yeah, some type of cold shower. What else can I say? Also, I've been anchored out so long that I've become like the shaman of this area. And I have the photographs to prove it. And I just want my credentials. I've got a picture of me in the clouds. I got a picture of an angel on my boat. And all you are welcome to see it. Peter, face this way. |
| 01:24:51.35 | Unknown | The President. |
| 01:24:53.28 | Unknown | Me with the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost. I mean, these are real photos. almost Unbelievable. And I've been anchored so long, I've seen these visions. These are cloud photos that I'm taking in the clouds. I'm going to leave them here for anybody who wants to see. Also, the library has a collection of them, too. They're putting them on. These are real photos. But anyways, it makes my job easier as a minister and a chaplain, and hopefully I want to join the cruising club and I'm looking for a partner to join up with and hopefully have waterfront services on the campus. for the maritime services. My ancestor came here in 1890 as a missionary to the waterfront people and set up the Finnish Seaman's Mission in San Francisco. And this was part of his parish, Sausalito, long before it was even a town. It was just a junction. 1890. Thank you. I've been sent here. I've been sent here as a chaplain, to the waterfront. Amen. Thanks for listening. Who's the mayor? Thank you. |
| 01:26:04.76 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. |
| 01:26:04.78 | Scott Diamond | Okay, thank you. Thank you. I'll be brief. My name is Scott Diamond, and I've lived in Sausalito most of the time since 1957 and pretty much always on the waterfront. And when I see these kinds of things about the eelgrass, it keeps coming up like it's something like the spotted owl. It's some kind of endangered thing. But what the eelgrass is actually telling us is that Richardson Bay itself is endangered and it's silting in. Basically, it's not a natural thing. It's from the development around the bay. It's all the uses that people have done and we're losing Richardson Bay and if we're going to make this a eelgrass preserve, we're not going to have a bay. We're going to have a marshland, maybe eventually a dog park, who knows. But it is increasing the silting of Richardson Bay and I for one am horrified when I see this kind of credibility given to the importance of the eelgrass because we didn't have this eelgrass 20, 30 years ago. So I think we should start thinking about Richardson Bay itself and trying to preserve Richardson Bay. |
| 01:27:24.46 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. Anyone else on this issue? Okay, seeing none, I'll close public comment. Bring it back up here for... Discussion? We'd like to start. |
| 01:27:37.12 | Unknown | How's that? |
| 01:27:41.35 | Unknown | Mike, can we get that back on that pitch? But anyway, just a couple of points. |
| 01:27:43.41 | Unknown | you're just |
| 01:27:48.27 | Unknown | I think bicycles should only be allowed on Bridgeway. Not inside that park, not along the shoreline. As far as the 70 parking spaces, if you really look the way Dumpy Park is configured now, it is almost 70 spaces, and that's going all the way up. So I think they've done a real good job at this end. The only thing I might add to it is that you might want to take a couple of spaces and put bike racks in there. and keep it wore out towards the street The cruising club. I think they should be included in it, but I also don't want it to be held up for another 50 years. and have this park get railroaded or sidetracked So I think the important thing right now is to Um, Let the park and rec go forward with their meetings, hopefully include everybody. AND maybe At the same time, thank Jacques, Paul, Carol Peltz, for a lot of years of working, and I hope that in our lifetime we'll be able to see this finished. |
| 01:29:20.65 | Jill Hoffman | So I too want to thank the Friends of Dunphy Park and especially Jacques and Paul for your hard work and your efforts on this. So I like the emphasis on the eelgrass. And for those of you who know me, that's no surprise. I think that the emphasis on the eelgrass is critical for the environment, for the herring row, for the wildlife. It's a critical part of the ecosystem. And what I love about what's before us here in this design is the respect to the eelgrass and the consulting with Marin Autobahn. The questions I have surface around, I wish that the outreach that had happened with Marin Autobahn and some of the research done around that was mirrored with discussions with the cruising club and with the North, what is it, the North-South Greenway bike plan. I agree. We don't want to see bikes in this park. That's the whole thing. We want this park to be a focus. The vision here that I'm seeing is is beautiful I mean in terms of the the wildlife and celebration of community but to put something along bridgeway and an off-road bicycle path that would not intrude into the park that would provide bikes a safe venue to go because I believe that's what the north-south greenway talks about because without that my concern is that they will go into the park and the bikes will go along that pedestrian path it's just kind of human nature I mean it took years for us to get the rental bikes off the sidewalks in you know the south part of town and they're still riding on the sidewalks so that is my concern and it it was my concern when this was first presented to us a few years back I think couple years couple years ago. And so I would say that. The other thing is I would like to see perhaps, I'm not sure about how best the council can serve the Friends of Dunphy Park in moving this forward in terms of an approval or direction with respect to discussions with the cruising club, discussions with the north south greenway bike path to keep the bikes out of the park to give that direction might be most helpful and to move this forward. |
| 01:32:31.65 | Unknown | Thank you to the friends of Dunphy Park. I know there's quite a few of you, and particular thanks, Jacques and Paul, for your presentation tonight. I think this is an important milestone in that, you know, we have an overall schematic site plan to refer to, to talk about, to actually focus our discussions in the next stage, which I fully support, which is moving ahead with the public process in connection with sort of overseen by our Parks and Recs Commission. And I would just emphasize what a number of my colleagues here have said, which is in that process we need to make sure we've engaged all the constituents and all the neighbors, the cruising club, you know, Gallilee, Cascadley, etc., etc. Overall, I think this is a great schematic site plan, and I think with very clever uses, the multi-use, the passive, the active uses, I think it's great. It really sort of makes like the park has really got some architecture to it. So thank you. |
| 01:34:11.28 | Jill Hoffman | have any direction other than what I already discussed about the passive collection of the water and the budget going forward I'm very happy to see the cruising club here so Chris welcome to us and this is Paul and over here because you guys might be able to talk and I'm happy to see the cruising club is is gaining direction and gaining some momentum and Welcome to the the discussion on Dunphy Park I hope that you take a leadership role and can get moving forward with the club. Because I agree, I think the cruising club is a an important part of our community and important part of our history. Um, Other than that, I think it's a great plan. I think we should go forward with the procedure that we've laid out. |
| 01:35:02.03 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | I do want to thank the friends for it's a lot of work and including all the public input. And we can see some examples of that tonight. We have more work to do. I think the plan's a good one. I think the schematic plan is really a good place. We have a couple more. We have a little more public input to get as we've seen tonight. I think I appreciate that while you haven't had detailed discussions with the cruising club, you've thought about it and we know that we can go forward whether we move it or not, which I appreciate that while you haven't had detailed discussions with the cruising club, you've thought about it, and we know that we can go forward whether we move it or not, which I appreciate how you plan that, although I think this is really the opportunity while we go forward to handle what we do with the cruising club. I think we have some more work to do, as we see, but I think the way the plans outline right now, and with all the work that's been done, I think we're really on the right see, but I think, I think the way the plans outline outline right now, and with all the work that's been done, I think we're really on the right path. And I would support going forward as detailed in the recommended motion. So it's someone like to make that motion. |
| 01:35:55.06 | Jill Hoffman | Mm. Well, I want to entertain a slightly different motion because I think what this motion talks about is that council would vote on accepting this plan as is. And for me, I think there are two fundamental issues with respect to if we don't plan for the bikes they're going to go into the park and if we don't um you know get the the cruising club in involved now um you know what are we approving so i mean because we just heard that that those discussions haven't taken place. I'm wondering if the best approach tonight is to provide direction to the Friends of Dunphy Park to move forward with this in spirit, without the showers, if they're going to have the pedestrian path, then talk to the North South Greenway with respect to the off street bikes and to keep the bikes out of the park. And to, what was the, there was one more, I can't remember it now, anyway. So I'm just concerned that if we just say, yeah, we vote to approve this with so many unanswered questions, I'm not sure about the message we're sending there. |
| 01:37:31.08 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Well, I just want to be clear, we're accepting what they presented to us. We're not approving it. We're not adopting it. And, and at this point, there's a lot of the, a lot of the details that you, you mentioned will be addressed in the, in some, in the mom, we call them workshops. And, uh, as we go forward and when, when they, when it comes back at the end of this, the final plan to be brought back at that point, hopefully they'll all be addressed. And if they're not, we will address them here. But I think at this stage, it's probably not appropriate, without a full hearing of all the people to address them. So by accepting this, I think that we're noting it, we accept it. And we're accepting this procedural plan. Yeah. |
| 01:37:35.94 | Jill Hoffman | Oh, okay. And at this point, there's a lot of it. |
| 01:37:46.51 | Unknown | that. And... |
| 01:37:55.84 | Unknown | but I think, |
| 01:38:08.81 | Jill Hoffman | I stand corrected. I thought we were, I heard the word approve, and so I just didn't feel comfortable voting on approval. I'm okay with accepting it. I don't see in the bullets of the recommended motion, specifically discussing with, you know, having talks with the North-South Greenway and with the Cruising Club. I don't see those two called out, and I'm wondering if we want to call those out. I would recommend that we include that. |
| 01:38:46.63 | Jill Hoffman | Well, look, I will make a motion to the board to accept the schematic plan and to direct the Friends of Dunphy Park to hold discussions with the North-South Greenway and the cruising clubs. |
| 01:39:13.02 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor, before we proceed with that, could I just ask staff just a clarifying question? In a sense, obviously the Friends of Dunphy Park are going to be intimately involved in the next stages, but isn't this also, in a sense, a handoff in the sense that the city, the Parks and Rec Commission with the Parks and Rec Department are now sort of picking up the ball here and be leading the next stage. So maybe I've misunderstood this or that this is still a Friends of Dunphy Park initiative to hold these meetings. So could you explain what actually is the process here? |
| 01:39:55.67 | Adam Politzer | Yeah, I think what, you know, if you look at the fourth bullet down, you know, that we're looking to hold these two, well, publicized public meetings through the Park and Rec Commission. But the fourth bullet down talks about having it facilitated by a professional facilitator, working with the friends and city staff to actually, bring on a facilitator. The handoff from the Friends of Dunphy Park, Well, to a to all the professional engineers that will be working the additional hours, I think as Jacques pointed out, actually using this as a working document so that they don't have to start over with some of the information they'll use as a working design as they now go into the engineering of the retaining walls, the mounds, the drainage, and what have you. So the handoff from the friends to the city and the professionals that the city hires with the friends still being advisors to the to the team they're not gonna walk away from this advisors to the team will happen when it comes back. after the Park and Rec Commission special meetings. So we have tonight's action, which directs it to go to the Park and Rec Commission, hold its two special meetings with a professional facilitator, incorporate the comments that we've heard tonight, the comments that we'll hear at those meetings, come back with any adjustments, changes, or clarification to the city council at a future date. And once that process has been concluded, And then at that point, assuming that the council approves the conceptual design, then send it to the professionals. That's where the handoff will take place. And then it will make its way to the planning commission. |
| 01:41:45.47 | Jill Hoffman | So per my motion then, Adam, what I'm hearing you say then is that my motion had mentioned the Friends of Dunphy Park having those discussions. Are you suggesting the city staff? and the consultants would have those discussions? Because I was thinking the Friends of Dunphy Park, they had done the whole schematic master plan. It seemed like if that was going to change, that we would want Shock and Paul involved in that. |
| 01:42:13.79 | Adam Politzer | Yeah, maybe that there's, we're losing in translation here. I think we may be saying the same thing. between now and the next time we come back to the council the friends at Dunphy Park. working with a facilitator, not a design professional or an architect, but a facilitator. |
| 01:42:29.97 | Unknown | of the Okay. |
| 01:42:30.34 | Adam Politzer | Similar to what they did at the Bay Model. |
| 01:42:32.47 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:42:32.60 | Adam Politzer | So the friends are with us. the team Jonathan Goldman and Mike Langford and myself and others that have been involved We'll continue to work with the friends until it comes back to the council after we've heard additional public comment through the Park and Rec Commission meetings. |
| 01:42:50.19 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, so then I guess my motion stands. |
| 01:42:56.36 | Jill Hoffman | Did you remember my motion? No. I moved to accept the schematic master plan and to direct the Friends of Dunphy Park and we could say city staff to hold discussions with the North-South Greenway folks and the cruising club to come together on a shared vision in terms of, you know, |
| 01:42:58.85 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 01:42:58.96 | Unknown | We moved to |
| 01:43:25.80 | Adam Politzer | the North. |
| 01:43:26.18 | Jill Hoffman | period. the |
| 01:43:29.29 | Adam Politzer | Can I address both of those recommendations from Councilmember Pfeiffer? |
| 01:43:30.72 | Jill Hoffman | Sorry. |
| 01:43:33.85 | Adam Politzer | I'm not sure. The city engineer ultimately our public works director also serves as our city engineer ultimately make sure that what is being proposed and he's already playing this role working with Jacques and Paul is consistent with the overall vision of of the you know the bike the bike circulation plan that's being developed by others and I think as you heard from Jacques earlier We're not proposing to create any additional bike lanes that go into the park So we're just looking at making sure that connectivity And I think Michael Rex was also referencing this. Some of this information is always already available. So the public works director as the city engineer will make sure that those plans are consistent. What I think that I heard the council say earlier in their Discussion is that we also don't want to hold up this project based on someone else's demands or needs. So I think that the public works director will have the responsibility of making sure what's being proposed does not come into conflict. later down in the design process and I think our design professionals Now. and our design professionals that we hire in the future you know, we'll understand that. In terms of the relationship with the cruising club, You know, the discussion with the cruising club has been going on Since the early 2000 when I was the park and rec director at that time, there was a the council took action. They actually asked the cruising club to remove the vessel from Dunphy Park and from its shoreline. And the cruising club back then brought 75 people to the council and. And encourage the council to change their mind and the council change their mind. But with the understanding. that we would reorient the vessel if possible and look into that. The cruising club engaged Michael Rex to work with Bill Keller who was on the council and myself at the time to look at those possibilities. We got about six months or so down the road and the discussions changed because some of the leadership at the cruising club changed. And so've we've been kind of in a variety of attempts to re rehold those discussions it is the city's intent in the city manager's intent unless directed other differently by the council. to preserve and protect the cruising club. We all value the use of the cruising club and the value of the cruising club, but we're also trying to maximize the shoreline benefit and the use of the park. And as I have shared in the past, look at the puzzle that Jacques has successfully demonstrated up, you know, there's a lot of moving parts here. There's a lot of other entities. That there we have to give consideration. So our effort here is to maximize and I think as Jacques demonstrated earlier, if the cruising club cannot physically be moved, for whatever reason, well then it won't be moved. if it can be moved and that we can find a way to do it successfully, that supports the cruising clubs plan And the community's interest. then that's that's our that's our intent here. So again, I don't think that you have to give direction at this moment in time for us to work with the cruising club. I think that that will will continue to happen. with or without, the Duffy Park plan going forward. It's a discussion that's been underway since the early 2000s and the discussion that Chris is welcoming and I am accepting the responsibility to continue these discussions with him. So I think the best course of the council is to accept the recommendations that are before us, If there are blank spaces, if there are issues or questions that are not addressed, during this. the two public meetings at the Park and Rec Commission will have. the council can say we're not ready to send it on to the planning commission. We still think that there's community dialogue that needs to happen related to any number of factors that have come up tonight. |
| 01:47:31.12 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, Adam, I have a follow up question. Because the last time the council saw the schematic plan, we gave specific requests to the Friends of Dunphy Park, to Jacques and Paul to talk with the crews and club. And I wanted them to collaborate too with the North South Greenway and to let the rest of the council know the North South Greenway, it was my recollection, and perhaps Michael Rex can confirm or correct me if I'm wrong. My recollection was that the path for the North-South Greenway had an off-street, Bike lane. that went right along Bridgeway that would go right where the right of way was. Not take up the whole place, but just a little piece. Now, I'm not saying I support that or I'm against it, but I am saying that when I look at the current schematic plan, I'm seeing a pedestrian path along the waterfront that in my opinion The bikes are just going to go there. And so I'm saying we need to go back to what the planning was with the North-South Greenway and factor that into this design. So those were and the other thing we asked the Friends of Dunphy Park to do was to talk to the cruising club. So what we just heard earlier tonight was that they were told that staff was going to talk with the cruising club. And so, Adam, that's what I'm hearing you say. kind of wondering if that time frame is in sync with the time frame on this. I mean... Is city staff going to talk with the cruising club, collaborate with them in sync with this timeframe now to get closure on that? Because I'm hearing two different things and I'm not feeling comfortable that that is going to happen. |
| 01:49:30.77 | Jill Hoffman | Could I offer a suggestion? I don't think anybody up here is saying, don't talk to Cruising Club. I don't think anybody up here is saying, don't consult the North-South Greenway. Can't we just add that as a bullet? I mean, can we, under Councilor steps, can we just add another bullet right there? Yes, that was my motion. Yeah. |
| 01:49:45.92 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Yeah, that was my motion. I'm not going to direct. I mean, the bicycle pathways in our control. I mean, there's no point going to if if we don't need to do to get give it to some third party. I mean, it's fine on the cruising club. They're going to just talking to them. Well, I don't know that we need to do that. So I mean, why would we direct staff to do that when we might have we it's under our control. Well, my how we do the bicycle. |
| 01:49:48.77 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:49:59.25 | Jill Hoffman | We're just talking. |
| 01:50:05.72 | Jill Hoffman | Well, look. Well, my- The motion that I made, I think, is fairly |
| 01:50:12.85 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. |
| 01:50:12.87 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:50:12.89 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | then put for a vote on it. |
| 01:50:13.09 | Jill Hoffman | Constructive, it just says accept the plan and direct the Friends of Dunphy Park to collaborate with the cruising club and the North South Greenway to discuss with them. |
| 01:50:15.94 | Unknown | and |
| 01:50:16.92 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | THE END OF |
| 01:50:19.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:50:19.05 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | to collaborate |
| 01:50:26.25 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | but So, well, I mean, because we're trying to do it, |
| 01:50:27.47 | Jill Hoffman | So, I mean, because we're trying |
| 01:50:29.80 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Now, The motion the staff recommends this motion are you approving this whole motion with your I'm a trip. |
| 01:50:34.64 | Jill Hoffman | I I'm approved. Thank you. I'm approving the whole motion, but I'm adding that bullet that Vice Mayor Hoffman just mentioned, which is that they will also discuss, the Friends of Dunphy Park will discuss the schematic plan with the Cruising Club and the North-South Greenway plan. |
| 01:50:49.27 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Let me just ask, since these are the staff recommendations, does anybody on the staff recommend that we don't talk to the cruising club? I mean, there's no reason not to put a bullet in there, is there? |
| 01:51:00.74 | Adam Politzer | No, but what I thought that I heard, and correct me if I'm wrong, Councilmember Withy, what I thought I heard was that we didn't want to put something that created a roadblock in. |
| 01:51:01.76 | Jill Hoffman | I heard. |
| 01:51:10.43 | Adam Politzer | You know, be polite. Regardless to why these meetings haven't happened, they just haven't happened. It's not because people were directed not to. We try. You know, it's just the same with Cass Gidley. trying to communicate on ways to coordinate And whatever the reasons were, these meetings just didn't happen. So what staff shared with Jacques and with Cascade Lake. is move forward, we'll address these issues. So staff It's absolutely going to meet with the cruising club. Charlie Francis has had at least one, if not more, conversations with the cruising club. And we've worked really well with the cruising club in the past to help support their efforts. That's not, THE QUESTION IS, DO YOU NEED THAT ON HERE? And what happens if that bullet point doesn't get checked off by the time we come back to the council, is that going to be the flaw that holds us up. |
| 01:52:03.45 | Jill Hoffman | That's so. It's not going to hold it up to me. The roadblock right now, a real roadblock is going forward too far with a, with a design and getting hit with a lawsuit or whatever, because we're moving forward, making assumptions with, All I'm saying is that they would talk to the cruising club. That's it. |
| 01:52:19.91 | Unknown | Nice. |
| 01:52:20.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:52:20.73 | Unknown | The Cruising Club. CALL FOR A VOTE. |
| 01:52:24.55 | Jill Hoffman | They would just talk with the cruising club and talk with |
| 01:52:25.07 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. |
| 01:52:29.14 | Jill Hoffman | The North South Greenway. |
| 01:52:29.20 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | The North. I'd be willing to say cross, |
| 01:52:31.16 | Jill Hoffman | Well, |
| 01:52:33.29 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | talk to the cruising club that's going to happen anyway. I think it's totally unnecessary just to get through this. I don't know anything about this talk to the north south greenway. That's in our control that that just throwing in something that really is totally unnecessary. And I I'm not going to have staff. We know staff's going to talk to the cruising club anyway. I'm not going to put something in that's unnecessary. We could certainly ask the friends of Duffy Park to consider the bike, any bike paths in their schematic as they've done and in future future workshops. |
| 01:53:02.85 | Jill Hoffman | How have they considered bike paths? There are no bike paths. The only bike path is the off-street, is the street. Lane. PATH RIGHT NOW. |
| 01:53:12.91 | Unknown | And that's a five-foot bike lane. |
| 01:53:18.40 | Unknown | Excuse me, excuse me, there is, there is, with the exception of about four meters on Bridgeway right there at Dunphy Park, there is a five foot legal bike lane there. What else do you want? What do you want, put arrows down Locust Street to tell them go around? |
| 01:53:38.95 | Jill Hoffman | You know, there's a street bike lane. I was just saying that to keep the bikes out of the park, |
| 01:53:45.02 | Unknown | They're not, look, look, tourists aren't going to go there. They're going to stay on Bridgeway. Let's. |
| 01:53:45.75 | Jill Hoffman | Look. |
| 01:53:50.64 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | let's do this weird I mean I think we're down at some very detailed make your motion we'll vote on the motion I would support if you only had direct staff to talk to the cruising club but if not make your motion and then we'll just |
| 01:53:51.22 | Unknown | Jesus. |
| 01:53:51.79 | Jill Hoffman | to the news. |
| 01:53:51.86 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:53:51.98 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. I think we're going to be |
| 01:54:03.59 | Jill Hoffman | okay I've already made my motion which is this and then to ask friends of Duffy Park to talk to the cruising club and to collaborate on the north south greenway plans which makes sense second second |
| 01:54:20.78 | Unknown | Council member Weiner? No. Council member Pfeiffer? Yes. Council member Withy? |
| 01:54:21.66 | Unknown | you |
| 01:54:21.68 | Unknown | know. |
| 01:54:25.81 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 01:54:26.84 | Unknown | Vice Mayor Hoffman? Mayor Theodorus. |
| 01:54:29.49 | Unknown | Thanks. |
| 01:54:29.64 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:54:30.89 | Unknown | That carries through two. |
| 01:54:37.13 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Moving on, I think it's time for a break. Okay, let's take a break. |
| 01:54:46.97 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:54:50.04 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Can we get everyone in order, please? We're going to get started. Tell me when you're ready. |
| 01:54:53.91 | Unknown | Tell me what you want, what you really, really want. |
| 01:54:56.62 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Okay, can we have your attention? |
| 01:55:00.79 | Unknown | you Thank you. |
| 01:55:01.10 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. We're going to move on to item 5B, Historic Resource Evaluation Reports, Marine Rails. And that will be led by our Community Development Director, |
| 01:55:13.63 | Unknown | Good evening Mayor Theodoris and members of the council. The presentation this evening is the historic resource evaluation of the Marin ship rails, the marine rails, Sausalito shipyard and marina. To provide some background to the subject, it began with the Marinship Specific Plan Steering Committee, the MSPSC. City Council appointed committee that was formed in 2013 to evaluate the marineship-specific plan to identify areas where improvements could be made to the plan. Reach out to the community and property owners in the Marinship and recommend changes to the plan. The committee in February 2015 presented to the City Council a strategic assessment analysis report which included a recommendation to create a zoning overlay for the protection of the marine rails area. As a first step, the City Council directed that a historic evaluation of the marine rails be conducted to determine its historic significance. The council directed in June 2015 that the evaluation of the marine rails be done and to circulate an RFP for a historic consultant. Also, that same meeting, the city council directed staff to meet with Joe Lemon, the property owner of the shipyard, and the city manager directed that I and Lily Whalen, meet with Joe Lemon to visit the property and to discuss any development plans that he may have or other options he may be considering for development of the site. Christopher Verplank. you of replink historic preservation consulting was chosen was chosen to prepare the evaluation to determine the potential historic significance and assess the potential historical significance of the property as a whole. Christopher Vaplank, who has over 15 years of experience evaluating historical resources in California and the San Francisco Bay Area, including five years of experience in Sausalito. completing several studies, including the Marinship Machine Historic Evaluation Report, a Marin Ship Historic Contact Statement and Survey, Sausalito Historic Context Statement, and the Marin Machine Shop National Register nomination. Mr. Verplank has also provided a number of historic evaluation reports on projects that are reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Board. What I would like to do at this time is to introduce Christopher Vaplank, who will make the presentation on his report, and then I will follow Mr. Verplank's presentation to conclude the presentation. |
| 01:58:05.29 | Michael Rex | that is it. |
| 01:58:11.97 | Christopher Verplank | Thank you. in the daily rooms. Good evening, City Council. Mayor Theodorus. My name is Christopher Plank for Plank Preservation Consulting. I apologize for sounding a bit like a monster. I have an 18-month-old baby in my house, and he's a vector for every single cold that passes through the city and county of San Francisco. So anyway, I got it. Danny gave you a brief introduction as to some of my experience in Sausalito. I have worked here for about five years on and off. The marineship areas I find endlessly fascinating because many of the shipyards in the Bay Area that were built for the emergency shipyard program in World War II were, are basically gone. The Richmond Kaiser Yards, I mean, there's a little bit left of those, but most of them are pretty much erased, as well as the Bel Air Shipyard in South San Francisco, which is another one. I'll get into more of that later. But Back in 2011, when I was working on the MarinShip Historic Context Statement and Survey, I was really interested in the shipways. First off, I want to define shipways versus marine rails. I know these two terms have been used sort of interchangeably for the site, but the marine rails are very specific structures. They're basically literally railroad tracks that extend from dry land into the water, whereas the shipways are the larger structures. They're basically literally railroad tracks that extend from dry land into the water whereas the shipways are the larger structures, larger basically facilities that include the piers, they include various buildings on the piers, they include the winch houses and the concrete ramps that extend into the water. I use the term shipway because that was the term that was used in World War II when the Marine ship was operating. And the Marine rails, as I'll demonstrate, are a later alteration to those facilities. this is an overview of the site it shows the property boundaries and as you can see the shipwaste area is basically concentrated The water and hopefully I'm not blinding anybody so I can try to hold like that that's those the shipways. This is the inland section, which I'll refer to later on. And these are the two shipways office buildings which still exist. |
| 02:00:29.15 | Christopher Verplank | So let me walk you through the site briefly. There are three shipways and there are four piers that flank the shipways. When I first evaluated these back in 2011, I thought you know, they could be historically significant. because there's definitely more of these left than there are in any other World War II air shipyard. And I also thought there could be some archaeological remains. But getting into this site and looking at them in more depth, personally, I was able to determine that there really isn't that much left. You can see that most of what's there are basically ruinous. You know, this pier between shipways one and two, you can just see the pilings and some fill. The actual decking is gone. This is shipway one. You can see this. This is a later structure over the concrete ramp. This is probably a World War II era building that was brought from somewhere else on the site. |
| 02:01:23.47 | Christopher Verplank | Another day I'd like to appear at Chippewa 1 on the left. This is shipway three. This is probably in the best shape. You can really see how these things work. Concrete ramps, the rails, the main rails that go up to the winch house, which is behind these vessels here, and the piers to either side. Again, shipway one, this is looking back down toward the water. You can see the cradle. You can see the rails and the winches that pull. the hull, the vessels in and out of the water. This is Shipway 2, the Winch House. And it's just an overall view. So I'm gonna provide a little background. into the history of the Sausalito Shipyard. And keep it pretty brief seeing it's pretty late and you've all seen the report. But if you have any questions about anything throughout the process, just yell out, and I'll try to answer it as we go. So in March 1942, the U.S. Maritime Commission asked the W.A. Bechtel Company to construct an emergency shipyard in the San Francisco Bay Area. Bechtel had built another emergency shipyard done in Long Beach called Cal Ship, so they had the experience. experience they said we need to get this thing up and running about six months this is of course is after Pearl Harbor so Bechtel accepts the challenge and they acquire this land through eminent domain and this is it it was basically marshland with some industry and a little bit of residential and they build it in about six months. This thing happened fast. And this view you can see, They filled in the area and they're actually driving piles here for the foundations for the various structures. um, This was one of six emergency shipyards in the Bay Area. As I mentioned, there were four Kaiser Yards, and there's another shipyard down in South City. There were 10 total on the West Coast, some in Portland and a couple in Los Angeles, Long Beach area. This is a diagram of the Marin Ship site. And when this was built, it was known as being one of the most efficient shipyards ever because the ones that existed in the San Francisco Bay Area before the war were sort of created ad hoc over a period of 75 to 100 years. whereas this was built in six months. So they could really just kind of build it from scratch a mass production mode Shipyard. This is called a turning flow because it's located parallel to the shore, And essentially what happens is that the, the raw materials. you know, mostly steel plates, engines, other preassemblies would come here They be sent to the plate shop to be cut into various shapes. sub-assembly building assembled into sub-assemblies then taken to this staging area next to the shipways and cranes that operated on the piers between the shipways would come pick up the sub-assemblies and assemble them. And each of the vessels had about between 150 and 200 subassemblies. Thank you. you And the whole purpose of this was to get them built quick and get them out of the shipways into the water. and towed over to the outfitting docks where they'd be finished, decking and lifeboats and all the equipment and wiring, et cetera. |
| 02:04:21.94 | Scott Diamond | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:04:27.12 | Christopher Verplank | Marinership was extremely successful, very efficient, and one of the most sort of successful of the World War II-era shipyards. |
| 02:04:40.57 | Christopher Verplank | And this is a view of the shipwaves in circa 1944. You can see all six of them. You can see the tankers. They're all here. You can see basically how they operated. The office buildings are right here. Two of these are still extant. And the shipways are about 250 feet long. And these are the staging areas, and you can see the rails where the cranes operated. |
| 02:05:06.96 | Christopher Verplank | This is a close-up view of shipways, I think three and four. And you can see these are a couple of Liberty ships, one about to be launched, and one they've just laid the keel right here. And you can see a close-up view of these two office buildings and what they look like. |
| 02:05:26.06 | Christopher Verplank | One thing I wanted to address is how these vessels were actually launched, because I think there's some confusion over the term marine rails, and thinking that the vessels were actually launched on those rails. They weren't. These facilities are much smaller today than they were back in 1942, 43, and essentially the way it worked is there were these massive wooden timbers that extended down the center of the shipways, and the shipways were clad in wood timbers, And essentially to launch them, they were all greased up. And there was another set of sort of slipways. I mean, the slipways were on top of the the skids, and the workers would actually remove these huge wedges and they would burn through some and they would basically slide down the shipways about 15 miles an hour into Richardson's Bay, with these huge, chains on them to basically keep it from going too far. and then it would be taken over to the outfitting docks. Nothing to do with rails. These were all wooden structures. No concrete either, because if there was concrete extending into the bay, the vessels would probably scrape their hole up and maybe run aground. I mean, it's very different from what's there today. |
| 02:06:48.53 | Christopher Verplank | Oops, I think I may have skipped one. |
| 02:06:52.78 | Christopher Verplank | There we go. This is just an image of a ship right before launching. This is the Kern Hills T2 tanker. |
| 02:06:59.40 | Unknown | to the next one. |
| 02:07:00.26 | Christopher Verplank | So between June 1942 and September 1945, the Marineship launched 93 vessels, including 15 Liberty ships and 78 T2 tankers and oilers. The yard also repaired 23 vessels, and was in the process of building hundreds of barges in preparation for the invasion of the Japanese homeland when Japan surrendered on September 2, 1945. Although management had hinted to workers that the shipyard might stay open after the war, unfortunately there just wasn't really the work available in peacetime to really keep that going. So it closed in early 1946. |
| 02:07:37.84 | Christopher Verplank | On May 16, 1946, the Maritime Commission gave the shipyard to the US Army Corps of Engineers. |
| 02:07:44.39 | Unknown | . |
| 02:07:45.15 | Christopher Verplank | However, the Army Corps didn't need the whole facility, and they gave the rest of it back to the government. And the War Assets Administration subdivided the rest of the shipyard into separate parcels and sold them off in the private market. to various developers and industrialists. And this is a 1950, early 50s sandboard map that shows the shipways. And you can see this red line. That's a property boundary. This is actually the property we're talking about today. So I'll say to shipwaves one, two, and three. And this is four, five, and six. This particular property was initially sold to a guy who wanted to build mine sweepers for the Navy. That didn't work out. So it was sold to another gentleman who established a window blind factory, which is right here, a plastics factory. This was an iron works. And this facility was sold to a man you've probably all heard of named Donlan Arquez. Hopefully I'm saying his last name right. A 23-acre parcel, and he bought it in 1949. |
| 02:08:47.65 | Christopher Verplank | So, I think that's a good question. In the early 1950s, Donlan Arquez moved his ship, dismantling and repair business from the foot of Johnson Street to Marinship. But unfortunately, as I mentioned before, the shipways that were there weren't really that suitable for his business. Because essentially what he did was he broke up and repaired smaller vessels. And to get them out of the water was a really tough thing because there was a big lip right here and a steep drop into the bay. And this is an aerial photograph in 19, wait, It's a little... So it's 1958. And you can see what's happened this is the property right here and Domlin has started to modify some of these structures and you can see over here he's actually created an opening right there. There's probably marine rail, so it's a little hard to tell, so that you can actually haul out smaller craft into that particular shipway. And he's actually started to build a marina as well. And some of the big groundways that I mentioned earlier, those huge wooden structures that the ships actually slid down, you can tell they're being broken up and removed in various sections. |
| 02:10:03.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:10:05.66 | Christopher Verplank | The permit record for this property is extensive but incomplete. I did check all the permits to see what sort of work had happened here. In 1958, Donlan Arquez applied for a permit to build the marina. In 1960, he applied for a permit to re-deck the shipways, presumably in concrete, in order to put in the marine rails so he could haul up the smaller water vessels. And he also applied for permit to add fill. to the site. And I think what that was was to build the concrete ramps he had to fill in these areas in Richardson's Bay so he could get the concrete down into the water. |
| 02:10:47.26 | Christopher Verplank | This is a 1968 aerial photo taken 10 years after the last one. It's a little fuzzy, but you can really see a lot of changes have happened to the site. You can see the marina is definitely better developed, couple different floating. up here, floating docks. You can see that road three has been extended into the site. It's actually bisected the shipways. Those are the upper ends of the shipways. Those are the shipway office buildings. And these are the shipways themselves. By the late 1960s, Donnell and Arquette began to get into trouble with the city on a number of accounts. Chief among them was the dilapidated state of the yard, accumulated debris, abandoned vehicles, lack of appropriate sewage, water, and electrical systems, and the fact that a fair number of people had taken up residence in the yard. Um, In 1972, the city ordered Arkez to evict all residents, clean up the debris, and demolish the rest of the World War II era buildings. And he did some of that. He did kick out some of the people, but he kept these office buildings, which he actually found pretty useful. This is a view probably from late 60s that shows the site looking obviously from the water inland. And you can see that the upper end of the shipways were still there. Those are the roofs of the shipway office buildings. And they actually ramped up to that area. So in the early 70s, Arkes pulled a permit to demolish those structures. |
| 02:12:22.28 | Christopher Verplank | 1972, this site plan actually shows when the city really started to clamp down on him, how the site was used. This was prepared, I think, by a city worker. And it shows the decayed ways which were demolished. the three office buildings. storage areas, and these are the actual shipways right here, and the various occupants are identified in those areas. |
| 02:12:53.65 | Christopher Verplank | So essentially this kind of cat and mouse game between the city and Arcez continued on for a long time. It seemed like he was doing pretty well, but in the early 1980s, a developer constructed a big office park next door to it. called Marina Plaza. and the owners of that office park, a law firm from San Francisco, sued the city of Sausalito and said, basically by allowing these code violations on Arkeza's yard that you're devaluing our property, and we can't lease out these buildings. So the city. said okay, we're going to, you know, clamp down on Arkez, but then mayor, Alice Rogers, director of the Sausalito Planning Department, to prepare the marineship specific plan. And that was actually kind of a game changer because essentially it protected maritime uses and really kept other office uses from coming into the area. And that basically gained Arkeza reprieve, and the shipyard continued to operate until its death in 1993. and beyond. Prior to his death, Ark has established a trust to manage the property. He also founded the Arquez School of Traditional Boat Buildings. which was dedicated to teaching traditional woodboat building skills to a new generation. In 1996, the Lemon family purchased 50% interest in the property and entered into an agreement with Arca Shipyard Management Company to redevelop the property. And of course, that didn't happen. This is a view showing. |
| 02:14:23.14 | Scott Diamond | Yeah. |
| 02:14:28.42 | Christopher Verplank | Yeah, that's actually not right. Yeah, there's actually two, right? Yeah. Yeah, I'm not sure what happened to the third building. |
| 02:14:38.21 | Jill Hoffman | I think the traffic initiative happened. |
| 02:14:40.56 | Christopher Verplank | Oh, okay. Yeah. So essentially my research indicates, to me anyway, that not enough of the shipway structures themselves really remains to be eligible for listing in the California Register. because essentially everything that was there at least on the water side, was reconstructed in the 1960s and early 70s by Domlin Arquez. However, the shipway office buildings, two of which still exist, do retain a fairly high degree of integrity. They're still there. That's actually where the launchings took place, the ceremonies before the ships were launched took place. And a lot of those structures are still there, and there's really nothing else like them in the Bay Area at the other emergency shipyards, at least that I've seen. The two shipway office buildings that are left are associated with shipways two and three. And here they are today. This was a before view, obviously, and an after view. So those structures are still on top of the Shipway Office buildings. That's not historic. but pretty much everything else is. And these have these massive concrete roofs that kind of slope down. because they were part of the shipways. They're clad in wood siding, they've got these metal pipe railings, In terms of the other resources at Marinship, these things actually have a pretty high degree of integrity This is just a last shot that shows a comparison of 1946 aerial view on the left, obviously, and 2015 aerial view. And you can really see the changes that have happened to the shipways themselves. You know, these are the big groundways, the piers, et cetera. You know, essentially it's a different beast. And what I want to close with saying is that even though... The shipways themselves may not be California Register eligible due to lack of architectural integrity. Um, they clearly do have cultural significance to the city of Sausalito because, you know, maritime industry has a huge role to play here. And YOU KNOW, WHAT I'D LIKE TO bring up, and I think Danny will talk about some more depth, is that there may be other ways to to preserve. an element or an aspect of this use on the site, if it's redeveloped in the future, Um, In my opinion, it's more of an urban design program problem than a historic preservation issue. Um, But it's one that history ought to play a big role, because this is an important site, and very important things happened here. So with that, I will conclude my presentation. Thank you. |
| 02:17:09.68 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. Before we go on, I think we have an announcement. I think we have someone who's left their lights on in the parking lot and it's license plate number six GRJ zero six nine. Amen. That's all we have. So we've selected a winner, so we'll |
| 02:17:27.86 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:17:27.92 | Unknown | . |
| 02:17:27.99 | Unknown | Congratulations. |
| 02:17:31.00 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Danny? |
| 02:17:31.82 | Unknown | Thank you. I just want to conclude that one thing that I failed to mention at the start of my introduction was that staff did meet with Joe Lemon, who is a property owner of the shipyard, on two occasions to explore any development options that he may have, as well as get a visual tour of the site and understand the property much more. he did show staff potential plans that illustrated redevelopment with new buildings that included uses that would appear to be consistent with the marineship-specific plan allowable uses. Joe Lemon did indicate in our two meetings that he believed, and at the June City Council meeting, that he did not believe that the marine rails and shipways qualify for historic designation and provided supporting materials to staff. |
| 02:18:23.66 | Unknown | So in conclusion, staff recommends or has identified a number of next steps or options a city council could take. And I'm just gonna read these because I think it's important just to go through each one of these. is to receive the report this evening and refer the report to either the Marineship Specific Plan Steering Committee that was formed, or to the newly formed General Plan Update Task Force, which includes members of the original Marin Ship Specific Plan Steering Committee, for input and recommendation on the implementation of some type of protection overlay or preservation of the footprint of the shipways and or development of policies and objectives that can be added to the Marin Ship Specific Plan and General Plan updates. It's a long one. Number two, commence the local designation nomination of the two shipway office buildings with the assistance of Christopher Verplank to process the nominations. Number three, direct staff to explore methods on how the footprints of the shipways can be preserved. As Chris mentioned, there are... potential design guidelines that can be incorporated, whether it be incorporated within the Mauritian-specific plan Also with the general plan, It could also be done in some type of zoning overlay or zoning standards for development. That would, also could include an interpretive program working in concert with the property owner on any future development plans. Number four direct staff to continue to meet with Joe Lemon to discuss any future application of his property. And number five is not what was included originally in your staff reports, but it's included here in whites and yellow, is to refer to the historic landmarks board. Number one, to commence local designation of the two shipways. This would go to the HLB as part of the process, local process. Two, to also, with the HLB, explore methods to preserve the footprint of the shipways, get input from the HLB. And three, review historic significance, potentially, of the Arkez-era property with assistance with Krista River Plank. And that concludes my presentation. If you have any questions, both myself and or Christopher Plank is available. |
| 02:20:55.40 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you, Danny. Who would like to start? We have council questions. |
| 02:20:59.32 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:20:59.72 | Unknown | Just clarification, when you put Joe Lemon, is that senior or junior? |
| 02:21:04.57 | Unknown | of a jillion. I met with both Lily and I with Joe Lemon, Jr. |
| 02:21:10.44 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:21:15.20 | Jill Hoffman | I just have a quick, just a, A question about Fore and Joe Lemons. I know that at one point he had development plans that were not in alignment with the Marinship specific plan. At least that was the interpretation of the general plan. Thank you. the opinions at the time, but it never came before council. And I also, it's my understanding, which could be wrong, and I guess I'm asking you, or perhaps Mr. Plank, when the Lemons bought that 60% of that property, was that under the auspices of the Educational Maritime Trust? Was it |
| 02:22:11.95 | Unknown | I don't know. I don't know the specifics of his purchase of the property. |
| 02:22:13.42 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay, thank you. |
| 02:22:22.92 | John Roberts | Thank you. |
| 02:22:23.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:22:23.14 | John Roberts | Thank you. |
| 02:22:25.46 | Unknown | Danny, referring to your item number five there, Could you or Mr. Verplank help? So first of all, let me give a preamble, which is what I took from your report and from your presentation is that the concept of the footprint of what remaining three shipways are there might be able to be put into some design element, but effectively it probably can't be protected, but needs to be explored. But definitely the marine rails, which are sitting on the concrete, are from a post-World War II era. Right. So then coming to number 5.3, what I realize you haven't done the work, or we haven't suggested yet you do the work, but when you say review the historic significance of the Arceus area property, so that's to ask the question whether the post-World War II activities are are themselves eligible. Is that, did I, am I understanding this correctly? And generally what would be the criteria that would go into this? You know, I mean is it a much more difficult hurdle or whatever? |
| 02:23:52.49 | Christopher Verplank | It is. It is a much more difficult hurdle. One thing that simplified my analysis was the relatively small period of significance for the marineship era, which is 1942 to 1946. With the Marinship Historic Context Statement, anything that happened after that basically was irrelevant. for my analysis. With this report, I looked at post-war, history as best as I could But it's fairly... difficult to get a handle on a lot of the alterations that happened after the war because most of them were not permitted. Another thing to keep in mind is that typically for property to be eligible for listing the California Register, it has to be at least 50 years old. So there's a good chance that many of those alterations are not yet 50 years old. They're getting close, so am I, but we're not quite there yet with some of them. into and I think in order to really do justice to this property you need to do a lot of oral history collections because I think a lot of you know history that went down there is not in history books you know I mean I got some hints of that you know course with you know, a lot of the cultural history that took place there, a lot of the artists and, you know, poets, et cetera, who lived in and around that shipyard. |
| 02:25:14.52 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Well, I would. I have a question now, please would you. Number three, that explore methods on how footprints of the ship ways can be preserved, including an interpretation program working with the property owner. I take it that's totally voluntary on top on the part of the property owner. Would there be there'd be certainly no historic designations as as far as I take it, would there be any sort of zoning or any other kind of overlay? that the city would impose or is that um would that be totally voluntary on the part of the property |
| 02:25:48.59 | Christopher Verplank | Well, I'm certainly going to defer that question to Danny, but one thing I did want to mention is that, you know, Danny and I have spoken and, you know, of course, I have a lot of experience dealing with these kind of issues in San Francisco and the waterfront. You know, there's a National Register District encompassing the finger piers along the waterfront. Some of them are missing. And one thing that's been done in those areas where they are missing is that there are interpretive plaques along a public walkway, which is, you know, one possible solution. But I should probably turn it over to Danny before I get into trouble. |
| 02:26:20.48 | Unknown | No, I think that's a start. I think that we certainly, and we began that, is to communicate and meet with the property owner. I think we need cooperation if we were going to look at I'm not sure. potential development plans that we be advantageous of considering design considerations that would look at preserving. footprint or you know to recall certainly with zoning standards it's you know as as it is currently zoned and with the current zoning uses the the The maintenance of a working waterfront is maintained throughout through the zoning as well as the marineship specific plan. The question becomes do we want to make perhaps look at opportunities for continued preservation of that while looking at other opportunities, perhaps in the inland portions of the property. Again, that is something that we can explore, whether it be overall general policies or specifics. |
| 02:27:34.29 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | My question really is, Of course, in anything we do, we want to work with the property owners in case, but just to understand the scope of our ability to influence this, is it is it imperative? Do we have to have the property owners agreement to do number three in terms of this footprints and preservation? Or could that be something that can be imposed by the city? That can be imposed by the city. And what would be the mechanism? |
| 02:27:39.02 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 02:27:58.91 | Unknown | And what would be the mechanism? Specifically because that is not a historic preservation nomination. It is developing design standards and zoning standards that speak to preserving the footprints. |
| 02:28:27.48 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | public comment at this point and we will start with I think. Colleen and it's Horsepian. I'm sorry. I'm sorry? Oh, for the next one, I'm sorry, okay. Adam Cravazzi. And then we'll have... So we've got to get these right. These are mixed. |
| 02:28:52.58 | Adam Krivace | Good evening, Mr. Mayor, honorable council members. Adam Krivace, 840 Ulima Street. I just would like to make a brief comment in support of the idea of both preserving and developing the site. I participated on April 29th. I participated at the invitation of this group when they met. at Joe Lemon's office. And Denny and Lily were there. And I didn't have much to say. I just heard Joe Lemon volunteered that he would be prepared to work with the city in figuring out a concept that serves the community and serves his property interest as well. And I am lauding the City Council that, or the staff, that this kind of dialogue took place because for a long time there was a very, very, very, break up of communication between the city and the property owner And this was the first instant when I witnessed that there is an interest in finding a solution. We know the requirements for The marineship area, the uses have to be marine oriented. And if Joel Amman is interested in pursuing a project, a redevelopment project in that vein, and then the city would benefit I see an opportunity for seven and a half acre of a very underutilized land. serve a purpose and even generate the funds to commemorate the historical value of the property as well. Thank you. |
| 02:31:06.43 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. Tony Badger. |
| 02:31:11.69 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | And then Margaret Badger and Lynn Swanson. |
| 02:31:22.92 | Tony Badger | Good evening, counsel. I was on the WHAM committee and also the Marinship Steering Committee, and I probably am the most ferocious person trying to protect marine railways on the planet. I get a little confused when I hear there's three marine railways and then there's six, you know, and you seem to go back and forth. In my understanding, there were six shipways. And even now, there are six rails. It's sort of like an ancient site, really. Since the war, that site has been used continuously for 70 years. It's like cities are built on top of ancient ruins, and those sites are still of historic significance, even though somebody's built something on top of them. AND I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE I'm strong in favor of saying this is the last remaining one in the entire Bay Area. So that alone gives it some significance. Also it's not a dormant site. We have Aquamasan there. Bayside Boat Works there, which does all of the fireboat restorations and work, and they've done a lot of ferry conversions to diesel-electric. There's business going on there, despite the fact that none of these people have a lease. And they're required to put heavy investment in their facilities without any guarantee that their month to month situation could be terminated. And that's why they don't speak up. That's why you never hear them speak in a public forum. So we have the Arkez School, we have artisans that are trained in shipbuilding right next to this resource. And I sent you a letter that had to do with a local film major, Terry Strauss, who has put together a PBS series called Fantastic Restorations. And it's a riveting documentary about how internationally a lot of classic wooden boats are being restored at great expense. And I feel this is just a symbiotic relationship between the Arquez School and this facility, which is working today. It's not just a relic that isn't working, despite the tremendous odds that they have to work against without any protection economically. So I urge you to figure out a way, and I'm willing to help you any way I can, to figure out how We can keep this resource working and link it with the Archez School. because it's just right there. It's there. It's just right in front of you. And you have a marina there as well. So I think that The owner, the private owner, vision of a property might be entirely different. I've seen plans, and I don't think that they really, you know, are supporting the marine working waterfront, in my opinion. |
| 02:34:33.13 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. Margaret Badger. |
| 02:34:41.01 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Then we have Linda Swanson, Scott Diamond, and Greg Lindgren. |
| 02:34:49.42 | Margaret Badger | Margaret Badger, 14 Marin Avenue. I'd just like to speak in favor of the historic overlay concept. Sausalito goes back a long way to the 19th century. We had immigrant fishermen in Old Town who set up what they called skidways for their early falucas. we had in the 1920s in Old Town, the Nunes Brothers in the Reliant Boatyards. Then in Newtown, They start building boatyards. The bottom of Napa Street. and the Sausalito shipbuilders and Bob's Boatyard and so many. And it's interesting, isn't it, a progression from south to north, these boatyards and working on boat communities. Well, now that northward progression is still taking place. And here we are at the last stronghold, the Marin ship, which really is fairly recent history for Sausalito. But my feeling is if we don't get behind protecting an historic concept there, our last stand that has crept north into Sausalito we're really going to lose more than just the marine ship heritage, but a strong acknowledgement of our ship heritage. So the historic overlay concept protecting ongoing, diverse working waterfront businesses such as have existed in the past. and the tradition of working on boats in Sausalito. is an important plan for the city council to support. Let's not have just plaques. That, in my mind, isn't quite where it's at. It's something. But let's keep making history on the waterfront. Thank you. |
| 02:37:11.84 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. Linda Swanson. |
| 02:37:18.03 | Linda Swanson | Thank you. Linda Swanson from the Spalding Wooden Boat Center. I've asked Danny to find the picture that shows where we are. Um... No, there's actually a sign on it that says Spalding Wooden Boat Center. There was an aerial shot. I guess it's not that important. Maybe this is a pretty good one right here. So you could maybe use your light. And you probably investigated us too, I hope so. I did. |
| 02:37:51.85 | Unknown | I hope so. |
| 02:37:52.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:37:52.68 | Unknown | I did. |
| 02:37:54.15 | Linda Swanson | We have an acre. directly adjoining this property. It's a long rectangle Can you hear me all right? a long rectangle, one third of it is the building, and I think most of you have visited us, and one third of it is the dock, and then one third is actually in the water. And so the Arkez is actually our tenant. We own the property, no mortgages, but we are struggling, as the materials showed comparing our financial problems with those of Arkez. They have a big endowment. We don't. And so just to put an idea in your head when you think about this development, think about the mitigation measures and what Margaret Thatcher has suggested and others also. We need some help. We need parking. We need dredging. That kind of thing that you could require to support the historical nature of our project. Thank you. |
| 02:39:07.70 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. Mr. Lindgren. Scott Diamond. I don't have a question. I don't have a card from you. |
| 02:39:19.63 | Orly Lindgren | I'm Orly Lindgren. In my presentation earlier, I said I'd been active in Sausalito over many years in the 80s. I bought what had been a architectural and drawing building. of the Marin ship, it's at 40 Varta landing. off Gate 5 Road. And it was, one of my tenets was Hayes Orley Cundall, the long-time ad agency. and that was where i was my non-profit was based and i had it was mixed-use residential i was encouraged to Fix it up and I was one of the few people I guess who actually had a building permit through the city of Sausalito and I hired Mike Rex as My architect and he did a fabulous job. We raised it up with the the Jacker and poured foundations and did all kinds of things. And it's there now. It's a very nice building. I don't no longer own it. |
| 02:40:21.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:40:21.30 | Unknown | Oh, and it's... |
| 02:40:22.02 | Orly Lindgren | But in the course of it, I saw that the ferryboat Vallejo that had come into the marine ship in 1949 and was the previous home of Onslow Ford the artist Varda, and then Ellen Watts, really a historic building in the culture of San Francisco. was sinking and going to rack and ruin. And despite my good judgment, I bought it. And for over 10 years, spent a fair amount of money and lots of labor of love to make sure it was improved. I eventually then sold it to Eric Gullison. I think that would qualify as post-World War II buildings and structures, the ferry boat in particular, it's one of the only floating remaining ferry boats in Sausalito. would qualify for investigation. for post-World War II historic preservation status. I don't own either one of them now. |
| 02:41:23.41 | Unknown | I don't. |
| 02:41:25.57 | Orly Lindgren | The other is one of the buildings, the wooden, The Marineship buildings on concrete I well remember in the 60s, visiting and working for and with the well-known Henry Jacobs, who died recently. And Henry was a real pioneer and radio and, recording and He recorded most of the presentations of Alan Watts through his years. He was quite a celebrated guy and that was his studio. So there might be a post-World War II rationale. having to do with arts and electronic advances and so forth. in memory of Henry Jacobs for that particular structure, but you might think creatively like that about the other structures? How have they been used by artists and philosophers in more recent years? And are they still That building is still there. Henry Jacobs Studio. Thank you. Scott Diamond. |
| 02:42:38.56 | Scott Diamond | I started working for Don Arquez in 1970 and had a very close relationship with him for another 15, 16 years. And in the mid-1980s, I was hired to... stabilize the concrete. I'm not quite sure what we're calling them, but it's the concrete part of the ways that the shops are now under because they were going to fall in. And so we went in and stabilized them and put in fire protection and moved walls around, et cetera, et cetera. Otherwise they wouldn't be standing to this day. And so Don, this whole thing is a bit of a mess because of a man named Hugh Lawrence who was his wife's lawyer and the property was jointly owned and there was, Hugh Lawrence had some other ideas for the property but in the end he had to turn it over to a man named Ziegler because Hugh Lawrence had Too many conflicts of interest in this whole thing. Don Arkez's intention. for this property when he passed away was he was trying to restore all the marine railways on it and he had the money to do it this was stopped by a bunch of underhanded things going on with legal maneuvers and the people that were handling his wife's will actually one of the ways was rebuilt and by rickswell, the one that Ross Summers currently runs. So when he died, there was a trust there, and he had all the equipment, all the money, and there was an ongoing income to restore all of Gate 3. This was something he bought for $38,000 in 1949 and sold the corner who waited two years sold the corner to Gerhardt for $38,000 two years later so it was a freebie for him and Anyway, his intention was to put in the school, restore the ways, and in my opinion, this piece of property alone could probably take care of all the demands of a marine ship-specific plan of preserving the maritime community. It probably could also take care of a certain amount of the housing issues that we have. There's parts of it that wouldn't conflict. And I think that our money would be better spent for the city to find out how the lawyers that were hired to protect this trust and put this together ended up selling it to themselves and coming up with a whole other plan that is in conflict with all of Marin's ship specific plans. |
| 02:45:42.92 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. I don't have any other speaker cards. Anyone else like to speak? Vicki? Just speak. |
| 02:45:58.04 | Vicki Nichols | Good evening, Mayor Theodorus and council members. My name is Vicki Nichols, and I'm speaking to you tonight from my experience as a historic landmark member for quite some time and someone else, a 30-plus-year resident that loves and appreciates our maritime heritage. I think what we're hearing is from the community how much many people value that maritime heritage and love it. But I think specifically what we're being asked to talk about tonight is something very narrow in that it's an evaluation of a specific part of the area down there. Mr. Van Plank is an excellent resource. I'm glad that he's the person doing this. And I have no doubt that those rails were replaced. They've been in use for a long time. I'd be amazed that they'd been underwater like that for 70 years and not been replaced. I think what we're really looking at here is the offices and the buildings of the shipways. So to make sure I can get my points in, I would suggest and hopefully, and it sounds like what everybody wants to do is preserve them. I'm concerned if we do a small overlay district, we're cutting our nose off too short. There may be an expanded area. I think if we did I think we should always do option three. I think you always want to talk to the owner. There's no plan that Mr. Lemon has in right now, so I don't think we should speculate on what's going to happen and get all worried now about what we don't know. But keep the dialogue open with him and make sure Danny can work with him and get information about this. But if we use our resources, our legitimate resources, we can refer this to the HLB that can start the process to get these two structures nominated. That gives them local protection. They're not eligible possibly for California registration, but local preservation gives us a heightened level of protection to have more discussion about this. Not to be prohibitive, but to make sure that something doesn't happen, that we lose the resource. And I think the idea of taking them to an era past World War II, outside the area of Mr. Van Plank's context statement for the marineship era, 42 to 46, I believe it is, It's really going to make it more difficult to try to defend them for Mr. Arquaz's use. So I would recommend that we try to look at them and... And then in five, I think that that's even working with Mr. Van Plake to look more in the context of the whole Arcaz development down there. But. Anyway, I think you get the point. Thank you. |
| 02:49:03.39 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. Anyone else from the public like to comment on this issue? Seeing none, we'll bring it back up. Close public comment and bring it here. Who would like to start? Comment? |
| 02:49:18.65 | Jill Hoffman | Can you bring the recommendations back up? |
| 02:49:28.74 | Jill Hoffman | I think, I don't have an objection to any of those. I think they all look like good steps to me. Oh, sorry. I think they all look like good recommendations to me. You know, the Marin ship is something that we need to protect, especially the two buildings that are still there. If we can figure out a way to... you know, highlight what was going on there and the ways, even though the ways aren't particularly still historic but they still have a significance at least for our town. I think that we need to pursue that. I like the idea, too, of you know, pursuing that Orly had, that of pursuing other buildings and designations of people that were in our community maybe after the war as well. That may be something that's not part of this effort. But I think that all of those suggestions are good suggestions. |
| 02:50:24.05 | Jill Hoffman | Anyway. Yeah, I would say that before I had asked a question about the Lemons purchase of the property, and I did find a reference that said the Lemons paid $2.5 million to co-in the Marineship with a charitable educational trust. at a Maritime Preservation Foundation. Um. the certainly the initial vision of of this this site was preservation of the maritime heritage of the marine ship and preservation of the World War II, the historical significance of the railways. And so I'm happy to see this moving forward. I like the local preservation that's mentioned. I'm very happy we're sending it to HLB. I think HLB should be in the driver's seat on this one working with staff and leading the way I I will say one thing that the articles I've seen at least in the past of some of the development projects that were floated by the lemons did not at least and this and I'm speaking of a few years back didn't coincide with the marinship specific plan and so so I think that if we're going to be talking if staff is going to be talking with lemon it's important to keep in mind the marinship specific plan and the uses that are currently, you know, specified. And I will say that. When it comes to the Sausalito waterfront. People wake up. Sausalito wake up when when things get too far along going in the wrong direction. suddenly everyone becomes aware of what's happening. The waterfront is so integral. to Sausalito in our small town. The Marin ship holds a very, very special place in Sausalito. I don't have to tell the council. We all concur on that. the whole aspect of the historic preservation is is really critical here and it's our legacy you know. And it's what makes Sausalito unique, is that we still have a working waterfront. You know, it's not a waterfront of snow globes and t-shirts. It's a waterfront in the marinship of working waterfront and boat building. So I would support this moving forward. I do think the historic overlay is very important. I share the concern that we don't want to be narrow on this. We do want to consider, you know, the aspect of the whole the whole Marin ship, but I think this is a good start. |
| 02:53:27.69 | Unknown | Well, yeah, I mean, they all look like a good list, but we can't do it all because are we going to refer it to the HLB? Are we going to refer it to the General Plan Update Task Force? Are we going to refer it to the Marinship-specific plan? So I mean, it's I'd like to make the recommendation that you go with in terms of next steps, who does it, you refer it to the HLB. So other than the first sentence of number one, but everything else looks fine, I think. Yeah. Yeah. Including, I think, it's important to continue with these parallel paths of talking to the Lemons. |
| 02:54:01.08 | Unknown | wouldn't. Yeah. |
| 02:54:13.66 | Unknown | But in the end, you know, we ask the question, Thank you. What is there, we ask the question of our consultant, what is there of historical significance that might, that, in the background was then the question for us, well, if there was something of historical influence, then importance with the, that could be directly put on a register, then that would give us some leveraging context in our negotiations with the property owner. It looks from the consultant's report that there's less historical significance there, but that still doesn't order the fact that the problem down there is that we have businesses that the community cherishes, but in the context of a property that isn't sort of working economically. So that's the dilemma. And so I think, therefore, the parallel paths has got to be pursued. Because what the community wants in the end is to figure out a way that if that property is going to be developed. all of the Oh. the artisanship, the boat building, the school, all of which is admittedly off the property, but all of that um, Uh... culturally important activity somehow we can remain. And in the end, that's going to be with the property owner working with something and proposing something to allow that to work, and with us doing what we can to preserve that which can be preserved and that which can be registered. So I say move along on all fronts, as in this case, but with the emphasis on the HRV. |
| 02:56:27.69 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Well, thank you and thank you, Mr. Verplank and brought. Oh, I thought. Yeah, I thought you said no. |
| 02:56:33.18 | Unknown | No. All right. I agree. I like number four and five. I do like the first wording and number one. And the idea is also that as we move ahead, if there's some local preservation, we should really pursue that. A good portion or some portion of the Icaz property, we already know preservation is not blight, and there's some blight there. So I think I'd like to, I would support number four and number five. Thank you. |
| 02:57:11.47 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. Well, thank you, Mr. for plank and bringing us along. And I think that to keep in mind that tonight we're discussing about the historic evaluation report of the Marine Marine rails. We're not solving. any of the other property issues or the marineship in general. And I think this has brought us along because certainly being on the marineship specific committee, we looked at this and the protection of the marine rails. And unfortunately, the report makes it clear we can't. There are other alternatives, and I think we need to explore those other alternatives. But it's brought us along, and now we know what we can do and what we can't do. I do recommend that we start with the HLB. There's a lot on here. And at some point, we may need to bring it to back to the Marineship Steering Committee or to the general plan subcommittee. But I think the HLB is the right place to explore it for now and take THEIR OWNERS. and take their recommendations. We do have to have some focus on this. And I think it's, we're looking at the, this historic resource report and the possibility of the two buildings being designated, and even looking at the footprint preservation and such. But so that's what I'd recommend. And I agree with council member Weiner, I would focus on four and five, certainly bring it to five and then keep the others as possibilities down the road. But I don't think we can do them all at the same time. We need some focus on this. |
| 02:58:31.49 | Unknown | Those two buildings, is that one of the ones where parker diving is? Do you know? It isn't? No. Okay. |
| 02:58:44.13 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | So do we have a motion on this? THE FAMILY. |
| 02:58:49.29 | Jill Hoffman | I think so. I think five, the new, I think that encompasses, you know, four and five kind of encompasses everything that we're trying to get at tonight. So, yeah, I would make a motion that we go forward with four and five. |
| 02:59:06.27 | Unknown | And I'll second that. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:59:09.66 | Jill Hoffman | I just want one clarification point regarding point four is with regards to Joe point four direct staff to continue to meet with Joe lemon, to discuss any future development application of the property that is in alignment with the friendship specific plan is I'm just saying it just to make sure that we have clarity on that as the motion for, for four. |
| 02:59:33.74 | Jill Hoffman | Do you want to just amend that? Yeah. So period after property, just put comma? |
| 02:59:35.26 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. Yeah, in alignment with the Marinship specific plan. That would be my amendment. |
| 02:59:45.69 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | And I would amend to make sure that in compliance with all other zoning laws and every other law that we have to follow as well. |
| 02:59:49.67 | Jill Hoffman | that we have right Yes, so exactly. |
| 02:59:56.64 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | We have a second. |
| 02:59:57.57 | Unknown | Thank you. I second this. |
| 02:59:59.78 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Can we do this by acclamation? All in favor? Aye. Passes 5-0. Can we take a very brief break and three minutes and go from there? Thank you. |
| 03:00:30.66 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Moving on to item 6A. Appeal of a Planning Commission decision to approve a design review permit at 111 4th Street. and Associate Planner Calvin Chan will, I'm sorry, Danny Castro will be there. Thank you. |
| 03:00:44.77 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:00:45.58 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | THE END OF THE END OF THE I looked down and something. Oh, yeah. First, we're going to go to our ex-party communications. And does anyone else? Anyone have any? Thank you. I'll start. I've had no ex-party communication since the last hearing. I disclosed. Yeah, same here. But I haven't any since we last heard this matter. |
| 03:01:05.30 | Unknown | it. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:01:06.23 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 03:01:06.37 | Jill Hoffman | I'm not going to have an I received a phone call from the appellate and But I determined another visit wasn't needed because I've already visited. |
| 03:01:18.97 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | All right, thank you. Now we'll move on to Danny. |
| 03:01:22.03 | Unknown | Castro. |
| 03:01:22.50 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. |
| 03:01:22.53 | Unknown | Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the council. The matter before you is the 111 4th Street. This is an appeal of the Planning Commission decision approving a project at 111 4th Street. give you background at your June 10th, well, at the June 10th planning commission meeting the Planning Commission approved a design review permit on this property. The for proposed project on June 18th, an appeal was filed by a neighboring property owner at 115 Fourth Street. That appeal went before the city council on September 15th. And the city council at that meeting reviewed the appeal and continued the hearing to this evening to a date certain. with the direction that the applicant and the appellant engage in discussions to consider alternative design options that may be satisfactory to both parties. |
| 03:02:26.71 | Unknown | The staff, the applicant and the appellant met on September 29th, October 9th, and October 13th at City Hall to discuss alternative design options. And just for reference, what we've done is the concept designs are concept A, which is the original Planning Commission approved design. Concept B was an alternative design that was proposed by the appellant. And concept C was an alternative design proposed by the applicant. The next few slides I'm going to go very quickly through. If you wish to return to them, I can. But just for purposes of I don't want to go too much into detail only because I want to get to the conclusion of our meetings. But this basically shows the concept A, which again was presented to you at your last meeting. This was the subject of the appeal. Concept B was an option that basically drops the addition down about six feet from the appellant who presented this plan, which they indicated that would preserve their light and air and view. Here's a first floor level, second floor level, a section of that plan indicating that the front portion, which is to the right, is dropped down essentially about six feet. That project that was presented by the appellant would require a variance because of the building length. And the concept C again is a plan that reduces the extension of the addition not by 10 feet but by 9 feet, so it's a one foot reduction. in the plan. Ultimately, at the final meeting of the applicant, appellant, and including staff present, There was no resolution reached. The applicant rejected the appellant's concept B design And the app, the appellant. I hope I said this correctly. the applicant rejected the appellant's concept B design and the appellant rejected the applicant's concept C design. |
| 03:04:49.32 | Unknown | I'm getting this here. For staff, in terms of staff's recommendation, staff recommends denying the appeal and adopting the resolution, which upholds the Planning Commission decision approving the design review permit. Other options for the city council is to uphold the appeal Number two, uphold the appeal and deny the design review permit, which is concept A. Number three, deny the appeal and approve design review permit with concept C. Number four, continue the hearing for additional information or project revisions. Or number five, remand the project to the Planning Commission for future consideration. And with that concludes my report. I'm happy to answer any questions or clarify anything. |
| 03:05:35.39 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Any council questions? left the opportunity Okay, no council question. I'll just go through the process right now. What we're gonna do is, The applicant and appellant will each have 10 minutes each, and we're going to be very strict with time because I want everyone to recall that when we left at the last hearing, we decided this was a continuation. We wanted to go back and see if the parties would have any opportunity at working out a settlement. Staff was to work with them. As Danny reported, there has been none. So we're picking up where we left off so each side will have 10 minutes though but I'll be very tight on time so pick who you want to speak because when 10 minutes are up we call time on that we will have public comment we will also give each side five minute rebuttal so you'll have a total of 15 minutes again I'll be very strict on time so it's up to each team to decide how are you gonna split up that time so or less or and again or less so we will start off with the applicant and So that, yes. and whoever's representing you on that. |
| 03:06:50.60 | Unknown | Good evening, everybody. Sorry, I had a double espresso at 5 o'clock, thinking that it would last. So no guarantees on my lucidity, I'm afraid. But I'll do my best. And thanks, everybody, for your patience being here tonight as well. It's late, and I appreciate that. Well, when we left the meeting back on September 15, our impression of the directive that night was that small changes could make a big difference. But importantly, that any discussions around our project should be grounded in city ordinances. Repeatedly during that meeting I was asked, is there any room here, anything, anything? I stated then, as I do now, that our project is really small. There's precious little meat on the bones. And I'm reminding you that we didn't overstretch to begin with. We didn't present the straw man that everyone knows will be thrown out and peeled back to what you really want. We probably should have, as I said then. But we really thought that the best approach was the honest approach, and that was to only look for what we needed. Just 365 square feet for our family. I also recall stating that night when asked about wiggle room, that if it was just a matter of six inches, yeah, sure, we could look at that. We thought that we were called upon to tweak or to look at wiggle room. We honestly didn't anticipate then that we were going to have to consider a full redesign, inherent in which was the suggestion that we abandon the approved plan that we had and go back to square one with all of the uncertainty that that would entail going back to planning, etc., |
| 03:08:23.19 | Unknown | back. |
| 03:08:25.71 | Unknown | So when the Concept B option was proposed, it was suggested to us that it would be a win-win. We waited for Mr. McCoy's presentation in anticipation of this win-win. But unfortunately, it just wasn't a win for us. There were many problematic issues with it, not least of which was the variance component. but among others were loss of square footage in the second floor, which is our primary living area, loss of primary view from our master bedroom multiple additional steps, nine steps out of our living area into the deck. a significant loss of our gardens, and very importantly, the potential to shift the burden from one side of our house to the other because there would be potential for impact of primary view on our neighbor to the south at 107 4th Street. So you can see that whilst we might have been thinking around the idea of tweaks and wiggle room and how small changes could make big differences, John and Lee's plan is a complete redesign of our homes. Whether the variance was in or out of the equation, the scale of the plan and its potential for impact on at least one other neighbor was such that it would turn us right back to planning and design review. It's a plan that checks all the boxes for John and Lee, which you could see, which I understand. I understand that's their goal. But in order for it to be a compromise, it also has to check critical boxes for us. And at the very least, it must not create insurmountable obstacles like variances. So it's hard to see from our point of view where the compromise was in that. There may be more square footage, but it's actually not where we need it. In fact, it's significantly reduced where we need it, which is in the primary living space. The plan we originally submitted to the city proposed 235 square feet on our second story. With the increased side yard setback, which was imposed by the city, that became 216 square feet, which is what we're approved for currently by the planning commission. Mr. McCoy's plan cuts that to 189 square feet. That's a major loss in a prime use area of the home. We offer John and Lee 30 square feet of our home. That's one full foot off the front of our house. 8% of that plan that's been approved by the planning commission. It was instantly dismissed. Now, I'd ask anybody here tonight if I came to you and I asked you to slice a foot off the front of your property. What would you say? Would you consider it derisory? You know, it's a foot, it's 30 square feet. It's area that we'll never walk in, we'll never put a chair in. will never see the view from. This is what we offered to John and Lee, not to one of our children or grandchildren, but to a neighbor so that we could move forward. That's lost to us forever, so for us, this actually is a huge compromise. And for John and Lee, maybe it doesn't solve all their problems, but then we were working to mitigate those issues, maybe not eradicate them, but at least to try and help. 111 4th Street is our home. It's not a public property. It's not a community center. It's not Job's baby to be sliced, diced, and parsed in a public way. It's our home. It's owned by Patrick and I, we pay the property taxes on it, we pay the mortgage on it. And we're raising our kids in it. We've been in this process since June of 2014. Our very first outreach after speaking with our architect was in fact to John and Lee when we explored with them our objective to enclose only our second floor deck with no expansion whatsoever on the first floor. That was only 235 square feet. That plan was rejected by John and Lee. In March of this year, we presented a compromise option. We offered not to develop our first floor and explore moving our office and bedroom to the garden instead. If in exchange, we could gain all of the square footage we requested on the second floor. That was 216 square feet additional living space with a 10 foot deck. That plan was rejected by John and Lee. |
| 03:12:34.31 | Unknown | I don't know. |
| 03:12:35.36 | Unknown | And now in this last iteration, we've offered 30 square feet off the plan that the city planners have approved and that the planning commission has endorsed. And that too has been rejected by John and Lee. We've tried very, very hard. We've been in this process a long time, and that's why our plan was small to begin with, so that we could reduce as much as possible the impact to the neighborhood in the hopes that we could avoid the situation we now find ourselves in. All that being said, it cannot and it shouldn't be ignored that we have complied with the planning laws. We have presented a plan that does not infringe upon the property rights of anyone else. Were that the case, we'd never have got past Calvin and Danny. We have upheld our civic duty in this process, and then some. We have been approved for a plan that has the support of the majority of our neighbors. Is it perfect for everyone? Maybe not. But that's not actually what the law calls for. Otherwise, let's face it, nothing would ever actually get through town. In the end of the day, here we are, 17 months after our very first conversation with John and Lee regarding this project that you're considering tonight, and five months after the Planning Commission approved our design review permit, we feel like we've spent the last five months standing by as our project, along with our private property rights, have swung back and forth on a very public teeter-totter. Tonight, we really want to be sure they don't escape our grasp entirely on a runaway train and that they are protected from further abeyance. Thank you so much for your time. |
| 03:14:11.54 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. Is that your time on your presentation? Anyone else on your team? Thank you. Thank you. So we'll move on to the appellant. Again, 10 minutes for the entire team, and when the first seven minutes are up, then the clock will move down to three minutes. Okay? |
| 03:14:34.38 | Unknown | Good evening, everyone, Vice Mayor Theodorus and members of the council. Thank you very much. I'm really sorry that we're coming to you tonight, both couples, without having reached a resolution. That certainly, I think, was not either couple's wish. I think we all wanted somehow a hope that that would happen. I think my first comment is that this is a project that shifts the value of one property to another. It shifts the value of our property over to our next door neighbor's property. And I don't think that should be Supported. to take the view and value from one homeowner and give it to another is simply not right. there needs to be a balancing of interests. That's what a compromise is. A fair balance where we lose something, But we give our neighbors some of what they want, and they don't get everything they want, but neither do we. That's what a compromise is all about. So I'm asking you tonight to send this project back with the following proposed compromise that we have worked on very diligently. uh, For our light, air, view, and privacy, we're asking that they'll, that the elevation of this property be lowered by three feet. this property is not being built to take on the on the level of the grade as ours is. Ours steps down. That's why it has the steps that Martina complained about. We have those steps because we've built down. This addition is being elevated over the land that steps down. So we're asking that the elevation be lowered by 3 feet, that the pullback, the lowest story, 2 1⁄2 to 3 feet, and pullback the second story deck enclosure, 2 1⁄2 to 3 feet. We feel that's fair. It doesn't give us our view back, but it gives us some of it, and it's a compromise on the part of the Murphy-Quinn team. So we also ask that the total length of the addition be pulled back by two and a half to three feet. And I've written this all up, and I hope you have it. We ask that the windows on the north side of the building that face us and a small not small, but they're nothing like the windows on the front of the house, that they be either eliminated or reduced in size and that a requirement be made that they are opaqued. And then for our privacy, we ask that they provide screening on our side of the lot that we control at their expense so that we can screen our impact. That's basically it. I don't know where I am on time. Can I? I can't see that. Oh. Seven minutes left. As far as that first project that we rejected, I asked Patrick at that time if HE COULD BE ABLE TO BE ABLE TO considered the impact and he said if if you don't approve this project we will make it bigger. And he did carry out that threat to us with the larger 400-square-foot addition that he proposed. Also, Martina tells you that this is Her home, they intend to live there, but both Patrick and Martina Childish. Martina told me on June 28, 2014, that her goal is to turn that home into a three-family when the children go to college and the oldest of the two is headed that way soon. And they intend to move out and live off of the income. Well, that's fine if that's what they want to do, but I think it reflects... the one foot pullback is really not a compromise. A compromise is meeting halfway. And so at this point, I think John McCoy, who did an alternate plan after a private discussion with Patrick Murphy that we paid for, he devised a plan that he felt would help them achieve their goal. Thank you. That's what we want. We want to make a compromise, give up something, have them give up something, so we can all move forward without further duress. And I really ask you to remand it or recommend these options, these compromises. Thank you very much. |
| 03:19:49.09 | Unknown | THE END OF here. |
| 03:19:53.62 | Unknown | Okay, hi. Good evening, members of the council. I'll try and be quick so I don't run out of time. My name is John McCoy. I'm a local architect here hired by Lee and John to look at alternatives. And I met with Patrick Murphy on a number of occasions. I never had the opportunity to meet with his wife or other members of his family. We talked about what he was looking for. When I presented this concept to him, six feet is a drastic redesign. There's no doubt about that. what they're not telling you what was expressed, what we discussed, was this concept to them. Six feet is a drastic redesign. There's no doubt about that. What they're not telling you what was expressed, what we discussed was this was a concept where we can look at the topography of the site and we can lower the addition so as to reduce the impact to John Lee Daly's home, excuse me. |
| 03:19:54.46 | Bert Drobnis | uh, |
| 03:20:35.06 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE It was rejected completely out of hand when I said, if six feet is too much, it's one feet, two feet, three feet. Where do we go? And zero was the answer. There was absolutely no acceptable compromise in their mind whatsoever. To push a wall back one foot, again, is not really a compromise. In my experience, going through the Planning Commission numerous times with different members of you on the Planning Commission at the time when we've been given direction to to look at mitigating privacy impacts light and air studies a 12-inch reduction was basically laughed out of Planning Commission and it was considered to be quite frankly offensive to the to the direction that we were given and that's happened happened to me personally. So I know where this goes. With the design that we came up with here, with the concept of going down, after meeting with Patrick, we looked at everything that they need. We were able to meet their needs and their goals for their projects with the extended family room, the second fireplace, the outdoor living space. We increased the size of their office Thank you. and their goals for their projects with the extended family room, the second fireplace, the outdoor living space. We increased the size of their office, actually, with this, and increased the square footage of the upstairs slightly. So it's actually a usable office and not just kind of an ad hoc piece that's by the stairwell where you could put a desk. So when we looked at this, we tried to meet the goals of their project as well as mitigate the impact to John and Lee's house. If this is approved and goes forward, this will be, and I don't mean to sound threatening, but this will be a case that people can look at. If I can develop my client's projects within 10 feet of another property with a two-story monolithic wood-sided wall that blocks the light and the air. That's completely unacceptable on all projects I've been a part of. And if that's going to be the new standard, we're going to start seeing that throughout the city. And at this point, I'll turn it over to Bill Ziegler. We'd like to say a few words. |
| 03:22:44.68 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | minutes. |
| 03:22:50.57 | Unknown | I'll be brief. We're here obviously because we're dealing with what I think is a bad decision by the Planning Commission. And I'll tell you very simply why it's bad. But first I want to tell you there were serious efforts by the parties to work something out. I was at the meetings. John presented a very attractive plan. It wasn't accepted. I understand that. But time was short. And the end result was we got an alternative plan which then was not acceptable, but there wasn't any opportunity to go further. I think it would be very unfortunate in this situation not to get some kind of resolution. because, as I said, This is a bad decision. That's why we're here. the decision was basically to take away Light, air, and view. on the basis of I'm not sure. Primarily it was articulated that this is a borrowed view. And you don't own that view, we're just gonna take it because it's not primary. Well, there's total disagreement with that concept, but A view is borrowed in Sausalito has been tossed around too much, I think. Borrowed from whom? Uh, Lee and John have had this view for almost 20 years. Who did they borrow it from? They've had it. They've enjoyed it. It is built into their property value and into their life, and now they're being told, on the basis of Uh... a standard which is very unclear that if the view really isn't such and such, and that's not articulated in the ordinance, how you make that decision, because there's huge discretion in a planning commission to make that determination, And in this case, it was made without regard to the impact. And the net result is property values are seriously going to be affected in this case and in any other case. that follows this. And lifestyles are going to be affected, are being affected, and that's why it's emotional. It's always emotional when your house, the place where you spend your time, majority of your time. Oh, and a key element is taking away. You feel like you've been invaded and And that's what we've got here. There's a taking going on, and I think it needs to be resolved, not just passed on and ratified. Thank you. |
| 03:25:18.06 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. Now we'll move on to public comment. First one is Michael Rex, but Michael, are you part of that team? today. |
| 03:25:32.87 | Michael Rex | Hi. Thank you. Well, I have been involved in this project. I'd like to speak as a citizen and an architect in this town for 35 years. And I've never seen such a lopsided situation as this one. But I'd like to talk to broader intent, our city policies and procedures. Why do we have design review board and design review process in the first place? I'd say it's to review projects so that we can ensure they're appropriate to their settings. So as change occurs, it's done in a thoughtful and sensitive manner. and that we ensure That when one improves their property, it's not at the expense of others. Well, that's not happening here. The overriding 10 is a failure. You've heard from Mrs. Murphy that their focus has been to work for their families needs. Well, I must say only their needs and not the needs of others. And that's not right. You've asked them to compromise and They want to extend their upper deck by 11 feet or enclose their upper deck by 11 feet, and in turn, they offer a foot. That's not a compromise. That's insulting. That's not meaningful. It doesn't solve the problems. And in the past, You've asked much more from applicants. You've charged them a responsibility to design something proper. This is not proper. It's a taking, just as Bill Ziegler said. And the commission aired. This should be denied because there's options exist. And you can and should expect a more thoughtful and sensitive design so our review process actually works as intended. Thank you. |
| 03:27:25.63 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. you you Nick, I'm sorry, Dufort? Dufort. |
| 03:27:36.46 | Unknown | Hey there. I live at 107 4th Street, immediately south of 111 4th Street. I've expressed my support for the concept A in the past. During the Planning Commission hearing, I expressed my concern that drawing out this process would lead to alternative designs that would result in greater impacts to my project, which is what's happened with concept B, which not only lowers the property, but sticks it way out. I don't really want to see this happen again, and would like to see this resolved tonight with the approval of either Concept A or Concept C. I don't think this needs to be dragged out any longer. Thanks. |
| 03:28:18.53 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. And is it Ceylon, Britain? |
| 03:28:28.74 | Unknown | Long night. Hi. So I'm here to support Lee and John's appeal. And I think that a one-foot reduction on a 400-foot project doesn't seem like much of a compromise. It's a large project, poorly placed, and will increase the house size by about 25 percent almost. Lee's lived here. over 17 years and It's a long time she's fixed up her house to retire in it and to live there, to stay in Sausalito. This project will ruin her views and block her light and her airspace. So I'm here to ask you to honor the appeal and send the application back to the planning department. I think the The options four and five seem reasonable that you placed on the board there. |
| 03:29:21.04 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. Paul Chartrand. |
| 03:29:27.52 | Unknown | Good evening, council members, Mayor. My name is Paul Chartrand. I own the property at 114 West Street. I actually also developed that property. I bought it less than 10 years ago. It was a 106-year-old house. And I have an experience very similar to the Murphy Quinns in going through this process. The house that I purchased was actually one story. It was 800 square feet, 106 years old, very small. Really not much you could do with it. I applied for a permit to demolish the house and build a 2,500 square foot house to replace it. I went through the approval process. It was a much smoother process than the Murphy-Quinn's are being subjected to. It was much more fact-based. I added a third story onto the house. I have homes on each side that literally had three windows on each house blocked. to a much more significant extent than what we're talking about and dealing with here. That was approved by the Planning Commission through all the normal channels. We've heard a lot of arguments about shifting values that have been unproven Thank you. you know, the house going into a rental, a lot of, you know, direction around items that we don't really know if they will actually happen. It's a very emotional decision, I get that. And we've heard a lot of emotions come out through this process, but at the end of the day, we really need to focus on the facts. The Planning Commission approved this, the Planning Commission did their diligence, they did a phenomenal job as they have and they continue to do for the citizens of Sausalito. It is in your hands, I think you have a sense of Lee going through her checklist, that this won't end. This will go on and on and on. And we'll subject the Murphy-Quinn's to this process for a significant period of time. So I encourage you. to take a leadership role in this. and approve concept A. And just allow us all to put this behind us. Thank you. |
| 03:31:30.13 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. And the last speaker card I have is Colleen. you Horsbyan? |
| 03:31:45.88 | Unknown | you Good evening. Again, I'm on the mirror image of Lee. I'm on the opposite side of her. I approve of the projects for the Murphys. It is very tiny. The light lost window... it's not that much you still have over 14 square feet across I know how difficult it was to get my permit and draw out my house for windows. So I know we have a great. Permit Planning Committee. I know that you guys follow all of the laws. So... if it went through design, And I know that there was a lot of hoops and hurdles to get to that and get that approval, I hope you approve this project It's been going on for a really long time, and it's tough. It's very emotional just even on the neighborhood. So maybe we can just put it to bed and end it. Thanks. |
| 03:32:48.36 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, seeing none on closed public comment. Now we get to the rebuttal section and we'll start with the appellant. You'll have five minutes for the entire team and that's the last amount of time that you have. So we start with the appellant. Lee and your team. |
| 03:33:09.75 | Unknown | Yeah, I'm looking to go first. Okay, well I was a little flummoxed by Paul Chartrand because I remember when the House that he lives in, which is directly behind me, developed and it was a woman architect and then he bought it after It was finished. Um, you know maybe he worked with her prior unbeknownst to my knowledge but I remember he and his partner looking at it, and I told him it was a nice neighborhood. So it's very confusing to me. I'm not... I don't want to accuse anybody of anything, but it's just, it is confusing. I want to say that every project is unique. And as far as Nick at 107, if our compromise is accepted and it is stepped down, it won't have any effect on him because he can move forward on the lot. He can step his down a little. Every project is unique. This is a unique situation. And the compromise, so we're asking either for our compromise or an extension so we can continue to. There wasn't much time. This is not the time that people build anyway. I think there's room for more time to work out a compromise. So these are some of the things that I would like to request. I'd also, if I have more time, I do? OK. Well, I can't seem to find any more of my remarks, but I do want to say that... Um, We don't have a problem with the size of the project. What we have a problem with and what concerns us What affects us? and impacts our lifestyle is the location of it. on the lot. We don't object to the Murphys. We want them. and the Quinns. We want them to have their project. We would like to compromise. in a meaningful way. so we can all move forward without any further duress. That's my plea to you. |
| 03:35:22.25 | Unknown | And just in closing, in some sense of a rebuttal, we heard a couple different people come up here and speak and say, you know, windows get blocked. You know, views get blocked. Light gets blocked. And the natural ventilation and air that every property has a right to gets blocked, and that happens. Well, that's just not the case. That's not how it works. I've been working in Sausalito as an architect since 1999, and people been doing this a lot longer than I have and they can tell you that's not the case. We don't build within 10 feet of another home with the two-story monolithic wall and block the light in air |
| 03:35:22.28 | Unknown | Uh, THE FAMILY. |
| 03:35:56.89 | Unknown | regardless of the view. You guys have to decide if it's a protected view or not. But regardless of that, that's not how we build in Sausalito. We're held to a higher design standard in this town. I'm held to it. Michael's held to it. Everybody developing property in the city is held to it, and it's what keeps Sausalito unique. And there's times where it frustrates me beyond belief because I think I have a good design. But maybe I'm mistaken, and we go and we when we make compromise and we we work with the neighbors in the Planning Commission and even at times when we work with this body on an appeal one foot is laughable it's just laughable that's not how we do good design in this city that's we're held to a higher standard and we have a better city because of it additionally I just I just want to point out one quick factor. We did, when I was meeting with Patrick Murphy and staff, and we looked at this as a concept, like I said before, this can be, we had very limited time, so this was one of a few concepts. I presented this one. It could be adjusted, and the issue of the variance could be removed, And I presented that to him verbally with a quick sketch by hand. I didn't have the time to do it. So the variance could be removed from this. This project could be more thoroughly thought out, and it could be achieved in a way that reaches some compromise without a variance with maybe not such a drastic redesign, but with some redesign that would be a better project. And it wouldn't be ideal for maybe either party, but it would be better for both parties, I believe. |
| 03:36:12.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:36:12.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:36:12.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:37:26.09 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:37:29.87 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Okay, we'll move to the applicant, Murphy Quinns. We have five minutes. |
| 03:37:40.35 | Unknown | Thanks. The fact is that this plan that you're looking at here from Mr. McCoy, does check all the boxes for Lee and John. You can see that it's completely dropped down I WANT TO TALK ABOUT It's a good day. And you can see that in just walking out our deck to access our barbecue, we have to walk down nine steps. It impacts Nick next door. And even without a variance, that will be the case, by the way, because without a variance, that property has to move towards the middle and closer to Nick's side. And inevitably, it has to get longer. It will be longer and it will be narrower. So it just, that particular plan just does not work. Well, bringing it back to basics here. We might appear to you, Patrick and I, as Mom and Pop, 4th Street, We don't have a team of litigating architects and architecting litigators or lobbyists. It's just Patrick and I trying to keep the focus on what's at stake here. It's our home. And it's our property rights. All we ask of you now is that you acknowledge our compliance with the planning laws, that you don't forestall this process any longer. We've already lost this building season. As it is, we'll be lucky to start this project in April. delay the situation longer, and we could potentially lose that season as well. Please tonight, hold our property rights front and central in your minds. Vote in good conscience. Vote without fear. And vote without favor. Thank you. |
| 03:39:19.71 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. So now we bring it up to council for discussion. Who would like to start? |
| 03:39:28.94 | Unknown | Well, can you go back to the options, please? |
| 03:39:33.04 | Unknown | The |
| 03:39:35.47 | Unknown | The choices, the six choices are. Bye. Well, I'm very, very disappointed that you didn't have a compromise, because when this council said for you to go back and sit down and compromise, in some ways the feeling was that we wouldn't see you back here. And here we are. And now we have to choose tonight. one of these, one out of these five decisions. And it's not easy because I understand from Lee's perspectives, but I also feel that 17, 22 months, another six, that's almost three years will go by that someone can't get a project done. not easy. It's a tough decision to make. But as far as I'm concerned right now, I'm leaning towards number three. |
| 03:40:50.16 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | And for clarification, what is concept C is the compromise with which, make sure so that while as we discuss this, we all know what we're talking about. |
| 03:40:55.82 | Unknown | The Press. So Concept C was presented by the applicant, which reduces it by one foot from the original proposed design. |
| 03:41:07.06 | Jill Hoffman | So I too am disappointed that compromise was not reached. To me, the bar for me with respect to compromise is that that the compromise was not reached that as at least you have empathy for both sides and empathy from the appellant's view is that there are no windows on one side of the residents because it's a town home. And that means the, the, the main light coming in for the living area is on the side and, um, it, from what I've, what I've heard from both parties, it sounds like, um, the, the focus was more on, on square footage versus the, you know, really understanding that the degree of that input impact. What I'm concerned about with this is that in Sausalito. There are a lot of homes I know that have that narrow design. The homes are long and narrow. My house happens to be full disclosure, more the wide it's small, but it's it's wide. But I know a lot of homes are are more narrow. and in fact the light and the views that add the value to their homes are coming from the sides and Here we have a situation where It's a townhome which actually puts more emphasis and value on the side and so my concern with this proposal including the concept C which only gives a foot is that The design as proposed does not take into consideration Mitigation for for the impact for for the side of In other words, the tunnel effect and actually the dismissal of the side windows as an impact to the value of the home, it doesn't seem to be factored in. And that's my big concern. I don't think that, I think that by, if we uphold this appeal, I don't think that I think that by if we uphold this appeal I don't think that we are setting a precedent for other homes because every home is different every proposal is different I do think we are setting a precedent to devalue the weight of side windows on these narrow configurations, particularly because the appellant's home has no windows on one side. So it specifically is on the side windows. So that's what I'm concerned about. |
| 03:44:17.05 | Jill Hoffman | I think, you know, we take every property as it comes to us. So I take, and I value all views, like in the back, in the front, whatever, and views of hillsides. But when I look at this, the configuration of this property in relation to its neighborhood, in relation to the impacts on all the houses in that neighborhood and the configuration of all the houses that neighborhood. So I really went back. and I looked at the Planning Commission findings about the trends in that neighborhood of long, narrow houses with views. And let's face it, you know. I like side views of hills. I love my own side views of hills, but the money views are to the water. And so this doesn't impact any of the Daniels' money view to the water. And it certainly doesn't impact any of their third-story views, which are virtually panoramic. out of every way because they're a story higher than everybody else. part of my analysis, and that was part of my analysis back in September as well, and my analysis hasn't particularly changed I think that when you go through the Planning Commission you know they made a very reasoned review of this property and all the properties in that neighborhood and the impact of those properties the properties in that neighborhood money views are to the water and so um you know i i still think that my my opinion hasn't changed from the first planning commission meeting that or i'm sorry the first time we heard this which is the the um The addition undoubtedly does impact the side view Um, but there is still a view. It's not completely obliterated, there is still some view and it's a reasonable impact given the modest improvement of this property and from a city council policy perspective, It is the, I believe, that we want to encourage families to stay in Sausalito. We also want to encourage people to be able to modify their homes and age in place for our seniors. So we want our community to stay in Sausalito, our valued community. contributors in our community to stay. So I think this is a modest addition and the impacts, to be sure there are some impacts, but I think on balance they're reasonable. And with regard to the privacy, I did take into account that the Lees appeared to have valued privacy overviews in the past. When I looked at pictures from that property, it was clear that the vegetation had grown up to impact their view in favor of privacy and that also factored into my decision-making process. So I would approve either A or C, and especially in view of the fact that C the testimony from the applicants was that that wasn't acceptable to them either. So why would we approve C when that's not acceptable to them either? So I would go between A and C, whichever the majority feels is appropriate. |
| 03:47:35.38 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | or one or three. |
| 03:47:36.28 | Jill Hoffman | I'm sorry, yeah, either one or three, concept A or C. |
| 03:47:44.70 | Unknown | You know, I think I said last time this is a very difficult decision and I fully understand where each part is coming from, you know. This is tough. I'm pretty much agree with the vice mayor and, I think, importantly, the thing that stuck with me since the beginning, since I first listened to the Planning Commission, was Uh, the Commissioner Bill Werner I think laid out a very, very important issue that from a policy perspective this council needs to grapple with, which is you had before you were owners, a large property was, a large house was built with these side views, which if the planning commission and then subsequently the city council were to say, Yeah, we're absolutely protecting all the views to the side there. You are potentially wiping out development value in not just one property, but potentially two or three all along the south side of that street. Because what you're going to do is you're going to let a side primary view of a house which was potentially you know, which was a big house for the neighborhood, driving all future development decisions. And so what you might be arguing to use your legal terms, taking a certain amount, but you're taking a larger amount from multiple properties by allowing it. That's the balance again. So I would... I would go with one or three. I see actually little point. If it doesn't work for the appellates, why knock a foot off and it doesn't make sense. Thank you. |
| 03:50:18.87 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Well, I agree with that. First of all, I want to, I do emphasize and sympathize with all the parties for what you have to go through. And this is one of the pro this is the process. I mean, property is important to us and working with your neighbors important to us. But it's also important that we apply policy and guidelines for the city. It's not a personality issue. And it's not where someone may sit in their property. It's how the property sits. |
| 03:50:20.07 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:50:44.52 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | And, and property values. One of the things I agree with the idea that from the Planning Commission that Um, The way the property was built with the primary views we talked about shifting values, but actually when built that way was actually taking development rights from the adjacent property and possibly other properties down the line. All those properties on that block sit facing the bay and the money views as we said up here. And I think it's very important, it hasn't been talked about, but the residents, the appellant's residents, has a good view of the bay, has views outside, and has other views there. This is one view that would be potentially blocked. The settlement negotiations, really, there was a lot of compromise before they even came to the first hearing. It's a very modest addition in square footage. So the fact that they only compromised by one foot, they didn't have very far to go on this. We we really needed to apply our development standards. I start off by giving deference to the Planning Commission. I agree with the reasoning of the majority of the Planning Commission and denying this. I think that With those types of houses, I don't think it can be relied upon to have primary views on the property line Particularly when they have primary views and light on the other Lines the other properties on that block don't have that so um While I do have some sympathy with the appellant, I think that in this case that I would uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. And I tend to agree that probably concept A, which would probably be number one. Number one or whatever. |
| 03:52:34.34 | Unknown | Number two. |
| 03:52:37.95 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Do we have a motion on any of it? |
| 03:52:38.74 | Unknown | Also, you know, what made this really very, very difficult is that... that part of 4th Street It was basically flat. We don't encounter too many. If you really look at that street, now it goes up, especially just at that end, you got Third Street at that end from... Thank you. for Maine to Valley, that's kind of flat. Ford Street is even flatter. Okay, and then you go up to The next, which would be, I think, West. but basically most of our homes in the south end of town They were up on hills. And that's what made it to make that decision is a very, very hard decision because It isn't like one house is just all overlapping when it isn't on a hill. And it was a very, for me, it was probably one of my toughest decisions to make. |
| 03:53:38.85 | Jill Hoffman | And I just want to say a quick comment in response to is what influenced me about this is that unlike from what I saw the other homes on that street aside from the other side of the townhome, the twin unit, I didn't see anything that was like this and that One whole wall has no windows. I mean there's there are just no windows and the tunnel effect that will result in my opinion on having such a massive wall built just feet from this this narrow Configuration that I just I just applied the golden rule and I just thought I just couldn't I just I think that it will be very dark in there |
| 03:54:24.80 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:54:28.87 | Unknown | So put another window in there. |
| 03:54:31.86 | Jill Hoffman | So. |
| 03:54:32.89 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Do we have a motion? |
| 03:54:35.50 | Jill Hoffman | Sure, I'll make the motion. I'll make the motion that we deny the appeal and uphold, number one, deny the appeal and uphold the sign review permit for concept A. |
| 03:54:48.17 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Second. Lily, you want to take the role in this? |
| 03:54:51.82 | Unknown | Councilmember Weiner. |
| 03:54:53.61 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:54:53.91 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. |
| 03:54:54.60 | Unknown | Councilmember Pfeiffer? No. Councilmember Withing? |
| 03:54:57.78 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Yes. |
| 03:54:58.55 | Unknown | Vice Mayor Hoffman? Thank you. |
| 03:54:59.77 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 03:55:00.11 | Unknown | Thank you. Mayor Theodoris. |
| 03:55:01.64 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Yes. |
| 03:55:02.62 | Unknown | Carries, 4-1. |
| 03:55:03.65 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you, everyone. |
| 03:55:12.20 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Okay, moving on to. We'll wait till... |
| 03:55:54.71 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Are we ready to move on? City manager information for council. |
| 03:56:02.71 | Adam Politzer | Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As Christopher Perplank mentioned earlier, I started the day off with a little bit of the sniffles, and by the end of tonight, I've got a full-blown cold going, as you can now hear. So at 11.15, I will reduce my items, but I have a handful that I'll try not to sneeze or cough or touch anything. Okay, so let's start with one of the more important items that's scheduled for Thursday night Thursday night the RBRA workshop that the council asked staff to work with the working group which is councilmember Weiner and vice mayor Hoffman members of our BRA staff To work towards this workshop. I think we've done a good job of using the currents to |
| 03:56:12.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:56:13.11 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:56:13.17 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:56:13.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:56:54.79 | Adam Politzer | Advertise it. I know that the chamber of commerce has also put the information out. We sent a mailer home out to all the homes So we're hoping this Thursday night at 6 p.m at the spinnaker that we have a sold-out crowd and The community gets to hear a little bit more detail about what was presented to the council back in May An opportunity to ask questions get some clarification and then bring it back in January or at the beginning, sometime in the beginning of January for council further discussion. There is interest and a need from the Arbor RAA's perspective for the council to take action and make a decision prior to the end of the year. Right now, until we actually have the workshop, I think it's premature for us to schedule something for the December 1st council meeting. But if everyone walks out of the spinnaker singing kumbaya in support of a mooring field concept, well, then we may schedule something. in December. We have not had that experience since I've been the city manager here. So I don't think it's going to start with the mooring field, but let's remain open to that and let the meeting happen, and hopefully it's very productive. Hopefully the community is participating and engaged, and it continues a dialogue that finds its way back to the RBA meetings, which is where this discussion really belongs. But ultimately back to the council because we do need to make a decision on our level of support. both in the concept and financial contribution. So Thursday night, 6 p.m. to Spinnaker, I hope all five council members can make it. Think just like some of the other workshops that we've recently had at the Spinnaker forums that we've had at the Spinnaker, you and the audience, not as participants, but just you being there to listen, I think is helpful. And as it comes back, makes its way back to the council, it'll just give you a little deeper understanding of the issue and the passion based on questions asked by the community. We've recently had some concerns regarding traffic speeding, specifically speeding related down at the MLK school site. Our police chief and police captain working with our property manager started doing some traffic contacts, including looking at the opportunity for enforcement. so the last two days, we've been actively out there with our police cars and motorcycles with radar and then we have a meeting set up with all the tenants next week to talk to them, about all of the safety issues there, the things that we've been successful in the past. And with two schools, every time you have new parents come to the school, they have a learning curve that they have to deal with. But we will be exercising our traffic control on Coloma and then doing some activity on campus. There may be some new policies that we need the council to adopt as we look at at at options in terms of traffic control on site consistent to what you see in a private property and a shopping center for example But I can assure you that we are actively working with the tenants and actively working with the people that travel through on improving the The concerns have been raised by some of the tenants out there. We have two big recruitment going on at the moment. Our administrative services director recruitment and our police chief recruitment. We're at two different ends of the process. With the police chief recruitment, we've just started that effort. I've spent a lot of time meeting with interim chief Scott Pollan and Captain Robacher to look at the needs of the department and the needs of of filling that position. I've also initiated meetings with the department staff themselves. So. working from the people that work at the counters administrative aids, to parking enforcement officers, to detectives and corporals and sergeants, just to understand the strengths of the department, the needs of the department as we move forward. I've also talked to several recruiters in terms of what the applicant pool out there is for police chiefs. And so I'll be moving forward in that process here in the next couple of weeks in terms of next steps. the administration And so I'll be moving forward in that process here in the next couple weeks in terms of next steps. The administrative services director position, on the other hand, we've recruited applicants. We had 25 people apply for the position, several from out of state, several from out of the area. We've had four different interactions with the candidates. Sorry, looking for my tissue. Didn't sneeze. But we've had four different interactions. We've had 15 evaluators, a part of the process. The biggest process included nine evaluators, including professional administrative services directors here in Marin County and also in the peninsula. We've narrowed the field down to two the top two candidates spent close to six hours on friday evaluating the two candidates continue to work with the recruiter as late as last night talking to the recruiter about the the candidates the good news is is i think we have two exceptional candidates that we are are trying to make that reach the final decision on And I think by the end of next week With some reference checks that are still underway We will be able to make an announcement on a conditional offer to one of those candidates The intent is for the next administrative services director to start at the beginning of the year and so that's what we're that's what we're moving towards but our process for all of our department heads that that I've hired since I've been the city manager is full background investigation and if you ask Danny who is the recent recent person that went through this we end up knocking on your neighbors doors I mean we really want to know all about the person we you know and we obviously go back and look at all their references, talk to all their employers. But we want to go deeper than that and make sure that we know everything we possibly can about them. Obviously, credit checks reference in terms of criminal history. Hopefully none. So far, we've had none. That's why they've been hired. But all the way across the board, very deep and thorough background investigation. So even at the conclusion of the interview process, we hire an outside investigator to go and look into their their their personal and professional life and come back with a recommendation obviously that's once that's cleared then they are able to start work so that's that's where we are on both of those two recruitments in the middle of, not as important to the public probably in terms of at this level of the operation, but we are also in the process of recruiting the administrative aide, which was Patty Enos, who used to sit there at the front counter at the administration services office. And so we hope to have a new administrative aide on board also by the beginning of the year. Two other very quick items, but one was a request from Council to share where we are with the Super Bowl trophies event that the NFL 50-year celebration is bringing forward, and we are going to be a super community. Mike Langford the park and rec director working with the Maddens have reached agreement to host the celebration the small event we look at as a small event because really looking at the eight Super Bowl trophies which is the primary highlight of the event but host that event on the Madden's property downtown Sausalito from noon to 5 p.m. on the 21st we'll work with the Chamber of Commerce we'll put information out in the currents and and you know try to make sure that our residents in our community have an opportunity to experience the activities we'll work with the schools as well because there's an education component to it, including their read zone play on words of the red zone. This had an extra letter there and you got the read zone. So I know that Abbott is working with them. So for the most part, it's an it's a non impact event in terms of of the way that it's unfolding there's no cost associated to the city zero costs to date and we will have some staff time full-time staff time dedicated to supporting it when it actually shows up the setup and then to make sure that they break down and move on smoothly and successfully and then we'll we'll put together some in-house flyers that we'll do here in our printers just to help publicize it around the city facilities. But a lot of excitement, I think, is moving forward as people learn about this opportunity, and we think it'll be a fun fun event for Sassali to host Last on here is short-term vacation rentals. You all received an email from a group of concerned citizens that are interested in supporting the Airbnb concept. I want to remind the council that this item will come back. also probably in January. further discussion and evaluation as you know we've hired a csg to help us uh review and and investigate uh kind of the high-end party houses as we're calling them where they're single family homes just so you know that we've had 31 contacts meaning that you know through a variety of different ways neighbors calling up danny or Community Development Department, or through our own review of listings, we found basically 31 active vacation rentals here in town. Of those, we're actively investigating 15 of them, and of those, five of them meet the criteria that the council set out, so're actually pursuing enforcement on those five so at this point the process is moving forward as as we shared the count that we would with the council We'll come back with a report. on the success of those contacts I'm back in January and then we'll look for council direction on how we're going to move forward. What I have asked Danny to do based on the email that you folks received is to reach back out to them and meet with them. And I'm happy to join Danny. I've offered, you know, if it would be helpful for me to join him. but again to keep them in the process, to allow them to if there are opportunities that they see that we should pursue if there are trends that are going on here in southern Marin or like type cities that they'd like to show where there might be successful ways to introduce other options to our community to do that. And then ultimately, I think just like some of these other important issues in town, we'll probably need to hold some public forums, you know, to really pull the community out so that all sides are being represented. It's important to know that There are residents that are contacting us saying we have a problem may not be coming to the council meetings but they do share that there's a problem in terms of the number of cars that are parking in their neighborhood, the types of activity in terms of the homes being occupied by different people with different needs on a rotating basis, and that has some negative impacts on the quality of life in those neighborhoods. At this moment, we don't have a recommendation to change what we're doing, but to continue to look at the enforcement options and then bring that back in January for further discussion. Lastly, we are trying to pull together dates for our holiday party for the council and the staff that we do every year, but we keep rubbing up against other events we were looking at December 11th which is the first night of the Winterfest so we've moved off of that night and looking for another night so stay tuned as we try to find the night as we go into the holidays that's free and clear where we can get the majority of our employees and you folks to join us happy to answer any questions from the council |
| 04:10:28.48 | Jill Hoffman | I have a couple questions. Yeah, so thank you, Adam. So I thought the NFL... the NFL tour thing was going to come back to council. I thought that was suggested and that we were going to have another bite at that apple. No. |
| 04:10:43.82 | Adam Politzer | No, I don't think for approval. We had shared with the council at that time the decision to apply came before any the next council meeting was after the application, so what we shared And what I thought we agreed to is that we'd bring information back to the council once we had information to share with you. But the committee would go forward working with Mike Langford and put forward a low impact special event, which is what we believe we've done. |
| 04:11:11.78 | Jill Hoffman | So with the, so it's, Chevron is sponsoring it, right? And they have the NFL trophies and the banners and the stem zone. Yeah, Chevron's not the advantage. |
| 04:11:23.02 | Adam Politzer | Yeah, Chevron's not the event sponsor. Chevron is the STEM. sponsor for the educational component of the event. Thank you. |
| 04:11:31.50 | Jill Hoffman | Ah. |
| 04:11:31.63 | Adam Politzer | which is the science section. |
| 04:11:33.18 | Jill Hoffman | Section. Is that, is the science section, is that stem cell research for the neurological degenerative disease? |
| 04:11:41.10 | Adam Politzer | I don't know. |
| 04:11:42.01 | Jill Hoffman | associated with the NFL. |
| 04:11:43.00 | Adam Politzer | But the website might share that information, but I don't know. |
| 04:11:44.34 | Jill Hoffman | that information, but I don't know. |
| 04:11:47.66 | Adam Politzer | but they're not the title sponsor or the event sponsor. |
| 04:11:52.77 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Any other questions on the manager's report? |
| 04:11:54.43 | Jill Hoffman | I have one more question that is it has to do with Bridgeway Marine. I've seen emails recently that I've picked up regarding Bridgeway Marine. And this is something that has been going on certainly since I've been on council since what, 2009? Uh, I guess now he's adding more and more boats, and it just seems like this goes on and on. I'm just wondering if we could I don't know if it's a question to the city manager, if it's a request to put this on the future agenda. Okay. Yeah. I'm fine with that, I just wasn't sure if, I didn't want to put Adam on the spot if it's a future agenda item. |
| 04:12:47.82 | Adam Politzer | You know, this one is, as Councilmember Pfeiffer is suggesting, it's been going on for a long time. We've had multiple property owners, starting with Evan Gossich, you know, going through Dan Morgan and now with Cameron. And the council has appointed the mayor and vice mayor to work with staff and work with the property owners to look to see if we can REACH is successful. agreement on how to move forward on their interests on the development Some of what we understood is consistent with what was proposed back in the day when we were trying to make a deal with Evan Gossage and then with Dan Morgan. So the direction of the committee was for me and our city attorney and our assistant city manager, city clerk, Lily Whalen, to... to meet with them and we've had several meetings with with Cameron and then Michael Rex has been hired to represent him. at their development plans, and we continue to... review. if they are actually approvable, Um, plans things that that meet the standards of the city so that they can actually come before the city council Show their their plans and then see if the council Wants to move forward with negotiating with them in terms of development rights What they what has continued to Progress and what public works fire department, and our community development, specifically Kenneth Henry, as concerns come from the people that live on the water there, we go and investigate it. And some of them have been, issues have been, |
| 04:14:18.76 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:14:18.79 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:14:18.81 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 04:14:37.88 | Adam Politzer | correction notices have been issued and corrections have happened But in terms of, are there 72 votes, 59 votes? We went out and did a physical count. Danny and Lily went out there with the property owner, with the support of people that didn't want to come forward, but online shared information with staff and we did a physical count. I don't remember what that, 71 votes is what's there. |
| 04:15:03.53 | Jill Hoffman | So there used to be 40 boats. |
| 04:15:05.89 | Adam Politzer | Well, there used to be 39, but... |
| 04:15:08.07 | Jill Hoffman | I mean, he's been adding them illegally over the years, and that's the problem. And he's violating safety codes. Yeah, it's been. |
| 04:15:14.45 | Adam Politzer | Yeah it's been well over 40 votes since I've been the city manager it's been in more in the neighborhood of 60 votes since I've been the city manager |
| 04:15:22.23 | Jill Hoffman | HE... |
| 04:15:22.63 | Adam Politzer | Um, |
| 04:15:23.07 | Jill Hoffman | Well, okay, well, let's just say, for argument's sake, it's been 60 boats, now he's at 71. He's at, I mean, I've walked the area too, and I've seen, you know, boats stacked like this, you know, where no boat could get out. you know, and it's permanent. So I guess I just keep seeing getting the pictures and getting the emails and nothing. you know are we enforcing safety codes are we are we gonna, you know, Thank you. Thank you. fine him, get things, is he still not paying for a business license? |
| 04:15:57.06 | Adam Politzer | He's still not paying for a business license? We're enforcing safety codes. So we continue to monitor to make sure that health and safety issues are not, that people's lives are not at serious risk. The density of how many boats there, you know, when you look at all the other marinas, and some are funkier than others, and this one is one of the funkiest, it's hard to determine if 72 is too many. where staff's spending its time outside of where it's hard to determine if 72 is too many. Where staff spending its time outside of where it's this group of staff sitting here are focusing its time |
| 04:15:59.18 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:15:59.23 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 04:16:30.42 | Adam Politzer | on is what is their ultimate plan And how can we help them make sure that their plan is consistent with the city's rules and regulations? And if in fact, what they propose, their application that they propose, is consistent with this city's rules and regulations, then we would bring that to council and what's the council's decision is looking at parking rights because they don't have the parking rights Thank you. to go forward with an application without the council's involvement. |
| 04:17:02.89 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. I've heard all of this before about the parking through the years and the back and forth about the development plans. But to me, the question comes back to we've got a short-term project problem and a long-term problem. The long-term problem is what does he want to do with the site? What's the trade-off with parking? That's the long-term. The short-term problem is we have various unsafe conditions. I've seen them walking the site. We have... uh, a situation that is dire for the people, for the liveaboards at that marina. And so I guess what I'm asking is, and I don't want to take up any more time in this, that I think we need to come down hard on the safety aspect and we need to enforce our protocols, our policies in that. Because from what I've seen, it's very, very dire down there. And it's getting worse. |
| 04:18:10.39 | Adam Politzer | Mr. I'll just respond by saying that our building inspector, our public works director, and our fire marshal continue to monitor it at this moment in time. It is not dire and it's not in a condition where people's health or safety is an issue. Is it crowded? Does it feel like it's, you got, people in there that that are moving in. Sure, some of that activity is there. But, The simple fact of the matter is there's not a permit for the marina today. They don't have a use permit to have a marina there. So you can't enforce something that doesn't have a permit. other than to evict everybody and say that you have to remove that. And so that's not where we are and that's not where we've been. We are talking about how do we move forward on approving something there, And that's what the council has given the committee. And myself. the responsibility to move forward. I think that Michael, Rex, and Cameron are very close to having something that they want to bring forward to the council. and make it public because that's been our position. That's been the committee's. position from the get-go, that's my position, is that we need to bring this forward so the public understands what's being discussed And there's either a green light or a red light. If there's a red light, then we have to go a very different direction. |
| 04:19:19.37 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. I've heard this before, too. And I guess my response is, from what I understand, there are still fire hazards in the area, in that marina. And the other thing is, I keep hearing that he's going to come forward, but I never hear a time frame. I never hear a date. Will it be by January? Will it be by next June? What is the timeframe on? When is this going to happen? Because this keeps coming up, the issue of the safety aspect. |
| 04:19:49.90 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Well, the safety, well, first of all, I would recommend if you have any... emails or complaints that haven't been forward to city manager, please make sure they do. They have been because they're addressing and and I can tell you from the aspects of |
| 04:19:57.93 | Jill Hoffman | sure they do. They have been. |
| 04:20:03.82 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | negotiating with them for regularizing it and making it proper that we're working on that. It just takes some time on that part of it. So and we do have to be careful because if we if we go in precipitously on any of these hazards, then we would be evicting everyone. And then we displacing people who otherwise wouldn't want to it's |
| 04:20:23.29 | Jill Hoffman | otherwise wouldn't want it's not it's not I'm not talking about extremes and evictions I'm talking about simple fixes that need to be fined to get to get this guy to adhere to to just basic safety. you policy. Thank you. |
| 04:20:40.94 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? NO PUBLIC COMMENT? ANY OTHER? Okay, now we're moving on to Council member reports, we do have a couple of them. Thanks. |
| 04:20:50.33 | Jill Hoffman | We have a couple of reports. |
| 04:20:52.94 | Unknown | I have a close to do. Yeah. Anything else? Five seconds. |
| 04:20:54.46 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. Anything else? Five seconds. |
| 04:20:57.70 | Unknown | Do you want me to do an A-back? Well, we don't have the motion, so I could put it on to next. |
| 04:21:03.49 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Oh, next. |
| 04:21:06.38 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 04:21:08.49 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Any other? But please remember it. |
| 04:21:12.18 | Unknown | Yeah, so sorry. |
| 04:21:13.72 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Do it on future agenda items. Yeah, okay. I'll do that. Now we have council member reports. Any other council member reports? |
| 04:21:15.17 | Unknown | Yeah, okay. I'll do that. Now we have council. to the next episode. |
| 04:21:18.75 | Jill Hoffman | We had the MTA audit information that came back. There's an audit of the Marin Telecommunications Agency and the fees that we get. AT&T apparently was not. providing all the fees they should have been providing and so MTA as a group did an audit, we saved a lot of money because we were all doing it together. And I think we're getting back at $1,500. Thank you. Thank you. or something like you're welcome um and we met we uh moving on for more good news uh we had the first meeting of the update for the um the general plan update so we had first, where we talked about future meetings. You'll be hearing more of that in the future. Ray, anything you wanna add on that? |
| 04:21:46.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:21:46.28 | Linda Swanson | Um... AND WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE. |
| 04:21:51.36 | Unknown | The Pressure. |
| 04:21:52.41 | Unknown | you |
| 04:21:52.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:21:52.68 | Linda Swanson | Thank you. |
| 04:21:52.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:21:52.78 | Linda Swanson | . |
| 04:21:52.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:22:15.95 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 04:22:16.56 | Unknown | I think it was a good first meeting, and we got some next steps. |
| 04:22:21.27 | Jill Hoffman | And that's it. |
| 04:22:22.13 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | And on November 14th, it's coming Saturday, there'll be another Ferry Landing Working Group in the Edgewater Room from 10 to 12. It's open to the public. And they will, there'll be responses from the Ferry, from the Golden Gate Bridge District on various questions that were put to them at our last meeting. |
| 04:22:41.62 | Jill Hoffman | And what was that date again? |
| 04:22:43.36 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Saturday, this Saturday, November 14th, 10 to 12th, Edgewater Room. |
| 04:22:45.80 | Jill Hoffman | November 14th, okay. Edgewater Room. |
| 04:22:49.65 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Okay, any other Councilmember reports? Public comment? Thank you. Thank you. Okay, moving on to future agenda items. anyone have it. Thank you. |
| 04:22:58.80 | Unknown | briefly mention could have done it in the last section on October 28th I attended a meeting of the MTC and they were considering a moving forward and basically attempting to annex the planning department of ABAC. That over the course of the week prior to that meeting got somewhat derailed so that MTC staff didn't get their way. But what did transpire was that ABAC and MTC or MTC voted to actually enter into a process to enter into a formal merger negotiations between MTC and ABEC. So there'd be the full combination of both entities, which I'm just telling you my personal opinion would be a disaster. But maybe not. The net result of The net result of all of this is that MCCMC, who both has its representatives serving on the ABAC board and has one of our county supervisors serving on MTC MCC MC will points those two to those two groups has passed a resolution demanding that that okay if you're going to move ahead with this negotiation don't do it under the threat of you're going to remove financing from ABEC, which is what they want to do. So I think the towns and cities of Marin County are pretty unified in this and are asking that each city council consider putting an equivalent resolution in place to send to MTC so that everybody knows that, you know, we want this to go in a careful manner and the key here is about local control and losing local control. So I would like to propose, as we didn't have the paperwork for today, I'd like to propose that this is a agenda item for next week um either on consent or on you know council reports whatever you guys need it and if you need me to write up the motion that mccmc wants us to pass i'd be happy to file a little report |
| 04:25:47.85 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 04:25:48.64 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | Thank you. |
| 04:25:48.68 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:25:48.69 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | And can we have the proposed resolution early so that we can have time to take a look at it as well? Yeah. When you get a chance. Yeah. |
| 04:25:53.32 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. When you get a job. And I'll just add to what Ray said is that the, with, you know, we were, We've had issues with in the past certainly. Uh, At least with AVAG we have delegates we have some degree of representation with MTC I think it's just one County supervisor who at this time is is Kinsey who sits on I guess who represents uh That's an MTC. So that's why there's a lot of concern about about a merger, because we would lose you know, even more of that local, you know, input. And the last thing I would say is, yeah, I like the outcome of the final resolution. The input I had to it was to just completely remove any discussion of the merger. So I'm concerned that they're going into negotiations, frankly. |
| 04:26:57.82 | Unknown | So my suggestion is that we try and get something etching incorporated into the council packet for next week so that it's there. Thank you. |
| 04:27:07.60 | Adam Politzer | Any other. I'm getting a sorry. Mr. Mayor. I guess I'm with these. Is there a sample resolution or draft staff report that others are using that we can. |
| 04:27:07.64 | Unknown | Any other future genesis? |
| 04:27:13.95 | Unknown | you |
| 04:27:17.39 | Unknown | Yes, there is, and it was on my to-do list to try and do it for this meeting in Vail. |
| 04:27:21.17 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 04:27:21.19 | Mayor Theodorus (or Mayor) | by the way it was on meeting it was an attachment to the last mccmc agenda just so you know it's the same Same resolution, so, and you can forward it, We could also get it from that as well. Any other future agenda items? Comments from the public? Any other reports of significance? know uh As we adjourn, tomorrow is Veterans Day. And so we want to adjourn in the honor of all veterans, both past and future. And we also have One other, and the Vice Mayor has provided us some historical data that not only is it Veterans Day tomorrow, but it's the 240th Today is the 240th birthday of the United States Marine Corps. That is correct. All right. So we'll close in the honor of the Marine Corps as well. |
| 04:28:09.99 | Unknown | Love you, baby. Thank you. |