| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:14.14 | City Clerk | Ready when you are. |
| 00:00:20.11 | Jill Hoffman | I hereby call this City Council meeting of April 19, 2016, sorry, 2016 to order. Lily, would you please take the roll? |
| 00:00:31.22 | City Clerk | Councilmember Theodorus. present. |
| 00:00:33.46 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:00:33.48 | City Clerk | Councilmember Weiner. THE PRESIDENT. Council member Pfeiffer? Here. Vice mayor Withy? Here. Mayor Hoffman? |
| 00:00:38.29 | Jill Hoffman | here. |
| 00:00:39.92 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Items D1 through D4 on tonight's agenda will be discussed in closed session. Do we have any public comment on closed session items? Seeing no one in the room, other than the city council members and city staff, I assume there is no public comment on Ghosts leave. |
| 00:00:59.36 | Unknown | Close session. |
| 00:01:00.92 | Jill Hoffman | closed session items the City Council will now adjourn to closed session to consider items d1 through d4 on our agenda |
| 00:01:01.52 | Unknown | an item |
| 00:01:10.47 | Jill Hoffman | You ready? |
| 00:01:25.40 | Jill Hoffman | Good evening, welcome to the April 19th, 2016 City Council meeting of Sausalito, California. Lily, would you please take the roll call? |
| 00:01:35.17 | City Clerk | Councilmember Theodorus. |
| 00:01:36.30 | Linda Pfeiffer | present. |
| 00:01:36.71 | City Clerk | Thank you. Councilmember Weiner? |
| 00:01:37.87 | Linda Pfeiffer | President. |
| 00:01:38.33 | City Clerk | you Councilmember Pfeiffer? Here. Vice Mayor Withey? Here. Mayor Hoffman? |
| 00:01:41.06 | Linda Pfeiffer | here. |
| 00:01:42.95 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 00:01:43.07 | Jill Hoffman | present. I'm not sure. Keith Stoneking, would you please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance? |
| 00:01:50.71 | Forest Basket | Please, gentlemen, please stand. |
| 00:01:58.46 | Unknown | Thank you. With allegiance. Thank you. |
| 00:02:00.35 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:02:00.38 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:02:01.03 | Ray Pfeiffer | Be right, Jesus. |
| 00:02:01.78 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:02:01.97 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. Thank you. Amen. That's true. |
| 00:02:03.98 | Unknown | to your public. |
| 00:02:04.03 | Ray Pfeiffer | probably. Thank you. |
| 00:02:04.94 | Unknown | For which it stands. |
| 00:02:05.18 | Ray Pfeiffer | The Lord just stands. you One nation. |
| 00:02:07.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:02:07.59 | Ray Pfeiffer | you Thank you. |
| 00:02:08.03 | Unknown | and their God. |
| 00:02:09.33 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:02:09.34 | Unknown | indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. |
| 00:02:14.78 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Well done there, Captain. |
| 00:02:16.03 | Unknown | No. |
| 00:02:18.57 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. All righty. |
| 00:02:25.88 | Jill Hoffman | Close. We did have closed session this evening starting at six o'clock to our present time. We do not have any closed session announcements. Do we have any public comment on our closed session items? See no one approaching the podium. I believe that we have no comments on closed session items. Would somebody like to move to approve the agenda, tonight's agenda? |
| 00:02:55.56 | Linda Pfeiffer | So moved. Second. |
| 00:02:56.76 | Jill Hoffman | Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. |
| 00:02:58.81 | Linda Pfeiffer | Bye. |
| 00:03:02.70 | Jill Hoffman | appears the motion carries do next is item one item one are on our agenda special presentations age-friendly Sausalito updates |
| 00:03:25.30 | Mike Langford | Good evening, Madam Mayor, City Council, and all of our guests here today. My name is Mike Langford, I'm the Parks and Recreation Director, and I'm the liaison with the Age Friendly Task Force here in Sausalito, which was established in 2013. I have a whole bunch of notes here that I was going to say, but I figure who better to say it than the actual people that are doing all the work. This is kind of a plug. We have our volunteer recognition event coming up, and these are some of the fantastic volunteers that are doing so much work for the city, gratis. So I can't say enough thanks to them, but I do want to bring up Tricia Smith first here. |
| 00:04:05.43 | Tricia Smith | Thank you, Mike. Hi. Thank you. Good evening, everyone, Mayor Hoffman, Vice Mayor Withey, Council, and staff. I would sincerely like to thank you for the opportunity that you provided us. to give you the special presentation about the work that the Age-Friendly Sausalito Task Force is doing. I have chaired the task force for nearly three years now and want to introduce you to the members dedicated hundreds of hours over this time In fact, during 2014, we met every Monday for a minimum of two hours. That's nearly about 50 weeks that year to create a baseline assessment and develop CARs. These members include Charles Kaufman, Claire Bell. Stella Chow. and Sybil Boutillier. I would like to now turn the presentation over to Sybil, who will provide you with a general overview, and I will come back to give you an update about cars. |
| 00:05:03.97 | Sybil Boutillier | Thank you. Good afternoon. Good evening. Mayor Hoffman, Vice Mayor with the council members. I, too, I'm going to read the lyrics tonight. So as many of you know, in South Salido, a group of seniors, some of whom were involved in the village movement led by Betsy Stroman, requested the city to form a task force to explore joining the global network of age-friendly cities and communities that the World Health Organization had organized. And by joining the network, a community agrees to conduct a five-year program to enhance the friendliness of South Salido, or whatever city, and here in South Salido, with close to 30% of residents over the age of 60, this is a very appropriate move for us to make. And so we were very excited to be able to move forward with this. The city council approved the task force proposal and appointed members. Some of us have some of the same original members are still part of the task force and others have joined us. The task force began its work in 2013. We conducted a very extensive assessment of older adults in the community by mailing out a survey with 25 questions to 2,400 citizens over the age of 55. We received 1,200 answers, which was really remarkable, and 3,500 auxiliary comments, and all of which have been digitized and analyzed. And the questions range across eight domains of an age-friendly community, including housing, transportation, communication, open space, and the built environment, social inclusion, health and safety, and civic participation. Then with the council's agreement, former Mayor Withey signed an official application for us to join the city to join WHO's global network of age-friendly cities and communities. And we were accepted in March of 2014. The All Volunteer Task Force has worked with many community service organizations and other volunteers. |
| 00:07:39.94 | Jill Hoffman | Excuse me, Sybil. So hold on just a second. |
| 00:07:42.96 | Sybil Boutillier | We have a... |
| 00:07:47.37 | Jill Hoffman | Anybody? Sorry, we have a... |
| 00:07:50.12 | Sybil Boutillier | I thought it was my hearing aid. |
| 00:07:51.40 | Jill Hoffman | No. |
| 00:07:55.11 | Unknown | FRIENDS. |
| 00:07:55.20 | Jill Hoffman | I'm not. |
| 00:07:56.02 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 00:08:04.78 | Jill Hoffman | Mm. |
| 00:08:10.00 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:08:10.13 | Janine Moody | Thank you. |
| 00:08:10.18 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Oh, thank you. OK, sorry. Our apologies. |
| 00:08:13.17 | Sybil Boutillier | Thank you. |
| 00:08:13.30 | Janine Moody | Bye. |
| 00:08:13.42 | Sybil Boutillier | THE FAMILY IS NOT |
| 00:08:13.49 | Janine Moody | Yeah. |
| 00:08:15.38 | Sybil Boutillier | Thank you. |
| 00:08:15.40 | Jill Hoffman | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:08:15.48 | Sybil Boutillier | Thank you. |
| 00:08:15.63 | Jill Hoffman | we're all |
| 00:08:16.51 | Sybil Boutillier | Okay, so. Excuse me. So we're an all-volunteer task force, and we've worked with many additional members of the community, service organizations, vendors, and many other volunteer supporters and cheerleaders to explore solutions to the problems and the many hopes that were brought up in the surveys and the comments. And we've begun developing the required strategic plan with generous advice from various city staff members and guidance of the city appointed liaison, Mike Langford. We'll be bringing our proposed draft to the plan. the city council in the next couple of months. And A number of helpful age-friendly programs have already been put into place with various partners and volunteers, like the one big project day with Rotary when volunteers help seniors around the community to turn over mattresses, replace light fixtures, alarm batteries, and that sort of thing. The task force wrote three grants on behalf of the city, all of which are coming to completion in the next couple of months. We were able to get startup funding from Marine Community Foundation, matched by the Board of Supervisors, to hire for a modest fee a consultant to help us write the actual strategic plan, which we've been working on for all these years, get it down so we can propose it to you. and get your feedback. And that's coming along very well. We wrote a grant to Marin Transportation Authority for Prop B Grapp grant funding which gave us the ability to hire a part-time coordinator and initiate the volunteer driver program, CARS, which is fabulously popular, and Trisha's going to tell you more about it. created an option for participating in home sharing placement program and have presented and co-sponsored many workshops and programs to engage our senior community. Currently, we're working on a proposal to make age friendly home modifications easier for senior residents working with the city building department and architect Michael Sheets, to identify some 50 home adaptations that do not require a permit And we've been customizing an illustrated senior home modification booklet which with the help of a Canadian age-friendly organization, we're able to borrow a lot of the work they've already done on it, and this booklet and self-assessment guide will be available for our seniors. And we're developing ideas with staff on how to ease navigation of the permit process and make certain types of age-friendly adaptations more affordable. so that'll be coming up to you sometime in the future when it's all been put into place as a good idea that makes sense for the city. So South Salido was the first city in Marin County to be accepted into the World Health Organization. and the third in the state. Um, Stella Chow, Hilary Bell, Charles Kaufman, Tricia Smith, and I. you have met weekly as a task force for the first year and a half or two years, and in addition have been contributing dozens of collective hours every month to continue this work. We've become a respected and copied model here in Salusalito. in the whole county and state and beyond. Tricia? And I in particular. have been counseling other towns that are interested in the process, and two, Fairfax and Cody Madeira have now joined the WHO network and are following along on the process. We hold monthly meetings with interested persons around the county and meet separately to advise folks on what we've learned. Tricia's also made presentations to other rec and park departments at the request of some of the county commissioners on aging. And the county's been so impressed with what Sal Salido has done that they've made age-friendly community initiatives one of four top priorities in the county's new four-year area plan for aging services in the county. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:13:02.00 | Tricia Smith | Thank you. |
| 00:13:07.79 | Tricia Smith | I am so excited tonight. I think a good group in the audience is here for cars. So thank you for everybody who came tonight. Um, This is exactly what we dreamed of for cars to be, a real community event. And if you could hear us when you were in the other room, Somebody said, it's like a cocktail party or something in there. It's a very social event, and that's really part of what a community program like this was meant to be. So Cars Call a Ride for Sausalito Seniors started almost a year ago. In May, May 6th was our first ride. So I want to tell you a little bit, give you a little background. I'm going to try to do this on my own. First, I want to go through who can be a CARS rider. And the beauty of this is it's open to all residents in Sausalito and the floating homes up to gate 6 1⁄2, which we're really happy about. The program is managed by Sausalito Village. And this is the same territory that Sausalito Village has for its membership. So there's a lot of crossover. Sausalito Village has managed volunteer driving program for five years, so it was a natural that the city would hire Sausalito Village to do the management. Anyone 60 and older or younger with a disability, but it's important they have to be able to get in and out of an automobile on their own. They can have a walker, the driver can put the walker in the back, but they have to be able to do that. And they have to have an application and waiver on file. And I know Mary knows that application and waiver. And I want to introduce what I'm going to have. have everybody come up and speak, so don't worry. We'll be here all night. But Nina Meister, who uses the program on a regular basis, is just going to say a word. |
| 00:14:50.37 | Nina Meister | Hi everyone, so I'm Nina Meister. I live in Hurricane Gulch on a hill. and I have mobility issues. So, CARS allows me to go get out and go places and get things done to the bank, to the doctor, to the dentist, grocery store, drug store, yoga class. you I use them several days a week, several times in one day. And it's been Really wonderful. Without them, I would be Totally stuck. Thank you. |
| 00:15:37.03 | Tricia Smith | So who can be a car's driver? You can be a car's driver. Anyone, we actually have drivers who don't even live in Sausalito but are in some way connected. Our newest driver actually runs the after school program at Willow Creek. She's a young woman who is our newest driver who is going to be doing the evening programs for us. Thank you. You have to pass a criminal and a DMV background check, and you will be asked to commit to a minimum of a four hour. So I've asked Hilaire Bell, one of our drivers, to just give a little testimony. to represent the drivers that are here this evening. |
| 00:16:17.04 | Hilaire Bell | Well, first of all, as a member of the task force, my idea about CARS was kind of ideal. I mean, this is a wonderful thing that we're going to be able to do here in this community to help people stay involved And, What's been amazing is to see how that feels with my boots in the car to help people continue their civic and social involvement. As Nina said, she wouldn't be able to get places without us, but it's much broader than that, and people are involved in many kinds of activities that they might not have been otherwise, and contributing a perspective and experience that is incredibly valuable to us all. And to me personally, I have learned the hills. |
| 00:16:45.02 | Jonathon Goldman | They're civil. |
| 00:17:09.64 | Hilaire Bell | Because I've got great teachers who have lived here a lot longer than I have. And I have a community that over time you get to some of the same people every week or so. And the friendships are really marvelous between me and them and between others in the car. It's been a great experience. |
| 00:17:32.86 | Tricia Smith | To give you a quick overview on how CARS works, in case you don't know, you call one number. That's our phone number. And when you call that, you get three prompts. You either are going to make a reservation for a ride up to a week ahead, or you're going to be connected to the driver on duty. That's a direct call to the driver on duty to set up a same-day ride. And this really sets us apart from other programs because it's kind of like an Uber service during those working hours. Or you're going to call for information or to ask a question. So the rides are Monday through Friday, 10 to 2. They can be for any reason. We thought it was going to be all about Molly Stones, and it's not. It's all about everything. It's about coming together. It's about the chair yoga class on 10 o'clock at the church. There's many different things that it's used for. We expanded in January to include evening events. So most of the library events, Sausalito People Series, all of that, we put out flyers. And I know you can't see the print on this, but these are the flyers that either are mailed or emailed to all of our riders. And then we have drivers who are willing to pick them up. And sometimes we only need one driver, and other times we have events that are very popular. They do have to put their reservation in a head so we can set that up. It's not a same day service for that one. So that's been wonderful and Abbott and the staff has been great in promoting that at all of the different events if you've been going to them. And we're doing the poetry night at Sausalito Women's Club tomorrow night because it's a linked Sausalito library and women's club event. And then we also do lunch about town. So every month we go to a different restaurant. And we actually expanded out a little bit. We did Smitty's in February. Okay. Thank you, Adam, for stopping by. You were all invited. I will say Adam did come and represent the city very well, so thank you very much. And Carol, he was on good behavior. It was great fun and LeGarage is this month. So that's a nice thing for people who don't have the transportation or somebody to have a meal with. This is a way to go and try the different restaurants around town. So that's been very successful. We actually went to Sausalito Presbyterian Church as well. They hosted us, and Joe Silverman, Paul Mallory's partner, made a fabulous vegetarian meal for everybody who was there. That was pretty fabulous. Cars by the numbers, this is an average over the last three months. We have 31 drivers. They commit a minimum of four hours per month. 89 riders are currently signed up. I have applications right here on the table, always looking for more riders and more drivers. Average of 137 rides provided per month an average of six citywide evening events per month, and an average of 173 volunteer hours per month. And cars by the dollars. In 2015-2016, we budgeted $24,000 for this program. $15,000 from the Marine Transit Grant that Sybil mentioned. and $9,000 from the city. We came to you last year and asked for an additional. We actually, the program cost is actually expected to be $22,000, less than what we budgeted for. And the expected cost for cars program going forward will be the same. And the reason we're able to keep this so low is because of the partnerships we have created. That's really for the salary of the part-time coordinator, the phone and the website. Everything else, we're going out into the community and working in partnerships with the community. So when you saw the banner across Bridgeway, that banner was paid for by Scan Health Plan, and the up and down of that banner was donated by Dennis Webb. So that's one idea. All of our printing is done by Molly Stones in their corporate office. The Lions Club is going to be doing an annual barbecue. It was very successful. We get raffle prizes for all of our events, our volunteer events. This is just a list of some of the partnerships that we have created. Rotary and Lions Club, I'll tell you, the Rotarians, when I went to the meeting the first time, 12 people signed up to be drivers. So between that and Sausalito Women's Club, we have an incredible group of drivers. But that's the partnerships created, but the friendships that have been forged are really of the utmost importance. It is amazing when you go to a lunch about town and people get to meet each other. Or you're driving, remember, so you might get picked up and there might be three people in the car. because three people at one point needed to go to an event or to the grocery store. We also go over to Gateway Shopping Center, CVS, the beloved Dollar Tree we're very sad about. Although good news is around the corner. So anyway, but the Dollar Tree is very sad. But CVS is still one of the options for people. And, uh... So these are just some of the faces of the people who have been part of it. John Gaffney has been an important part of this program because we did get the grant from Marin Transit, and he's here tonight. And we'd like John to come up and say a few words because he's on the county level working with Marine Transit, the GAP grant that got us started. |
| 00:22:49.89 | John Gaffney | Patricia, Madam Mayor, Council members, John Gaffney, I'm with Marine Transit. I'm their senior mobility analyst, so I specialize in senior and programs for people with disabilities in the county. That's everything from our paratransit program to our catch a ride program. to a volunteer driver program you may have heard of that we started last year with pilot money, which is CarePool. I have to start out by commending everyone who's worked on this project. Trisha, Sybil, Connie, Mike, and everyone at Sausalito Village and the city for what they've done on this. It's amazing what they've been able to do with so little. For instance, our care pool program. Though... okay we'll just be honest it's not doing well Whereas this program is averaging about $15 a ride, our care pool program is averaging about $80 a ride, and it is not working. Part of why it's not working is because it's not run exactly like this program. We are trying to run it countywide, which is hard to get volunteers, whereas you guys have very much made it a community feel. It's for the people, by the people, and that's probably the most important thing when it comes to a volunteer driver program. What they've been able to do is extremely innovative in volunteer driver programs. This is the only one I know of that allows for same day service. For instance, our care pool program requires up to seven days in advance. Just amazing. That's mainly what I wanted to say. I just wanna make sure I didn't miss anything. Let's see here. |
| 00:24:30.42 | John Gaffney | Yeah, this is just something that we've been very, very excited about and something I'd hope that we could see replicated in other areas of the county. But it is that boots-on-the-ground level that they've provided with this that has just been amazing, and I think it's been quite a successful program. I think you have double the volunteers we do. And that's just for a little area. So thank you again for letting me speak. |
| 00:24:59.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:24:59.39 | Tricia Smith | We'll be right back. |
| 00:24:59.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:24:59.71 | Tricia Smith | Thank you. Thank you very much, John. And if you haven't, I think I've sent this to all of you along the way, but CARS has been in the news locally, first with the Marine IJ. Mark Prado did a nice article in Drive Along with one of our drivers, Mary Ann Griller. Then it was picked up. There was a report that was done, a national report, financial report, that noted CARS. And that was picked up by both Grist.org and the Washington Post. So in the Washington Post article where it says what the world's best cities will look like in 2030... If you look right down here, it talks about Sausalito. It talks about two cities in the country. One is New York City and the other is Sausalito. Received props for Call a Ride for Sausalito Seniors, a program that provides free rides for seniors. |
| 00:25:45.53 | Unknown | Very good. |
| 00:25:50.08 | Tricia Smith | And I think we can agree that's a good reflection on the city. So, anyway, sign up today. While I'm up here, I'm going to do a plug for Sausalito for Cars because that's what I do. And the beauty of Cars is when you sign up as a driver for Cars, you also can drive for Sausalito Village. So the next driver training is Saturday, April 30th, and you can get more information at the website, www.cars4u.org. And Most importantly, special thanks to all of you, because you really allowed all of this to happen. When we came to you and asked all along the way, you know, each step of the way, We've always gotten a 5-0 vote from city council, and that's really monumental. And so heartfelt thanks to all of you for supporting our program. And I just want to see a raise of hands of the people that are in the audience that are actually here in support of CARS. Joe Burns left. He had to leave, and he said he was the one dissenter, the one person against CARS. But anyway, so if I could see everybody who's poor CARS that's here. right? great so thank you and thank you all for coming out tonight I appreciate it and Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:27:07.12 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, Tricia. Thank you, Tricia. Thank you for all your hard work on behalf of CARS as well. We appreciate it. |
| 00:27:11.86 | Ray Pfeiffer | appreciate it. I'd just like to make a comment too. I just am so humbled and so just filled with pride, Tricia and Sybil and Charles and everyone here with what you've accomplished. It's just truly just amazing. I remember six years ago, I was a driver for Saucido Village. This was before cars and I remember just feeling so good about going and picking up the seniors. She wanted swimming lessons, I guess, at Mount Tam Racquetball Club. But I think it shows that this is not just in Sausalito. We can take people outside of Sausalito as well, wherever they need to go. to meet their needs and increase that mobility. I just think what you're doing and what you've accomplished is truly inspiring. And, you know, I can't say enough. You guys, thanks for everything. Thank you. |
| 00:28:08.96 | Tricia Smith | I want to be clear, so CARS is Sausalito, the floating homes, and to Gateway Shopping Center. And part of what makes it work is because it's such a small localized area, so we can do a lot of rides. Sausalito Village, when somebody wants to go outside and countywide... then like you said, we hook them up to Sausalito Village because then you can get the rides throughout the county. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:28:29.97 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 00:28:30.14 | Tricia Smith | Thank you. |
| 00:28:30.16 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:28:30.45 | Linda Pfeiffer | Great job. Thank you all for coming tonight. It's great. |
| 00:28:32.22 | Tricia Smith | Thank you. |
| 00:28:32.24 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, thank you. |
| 00:28:39.19 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, that was a great way to start our evening this evening. |
| 00:28:43.12 | Unknown | Does everybody need a ride out there? |
| 00:28:43.74 | Jill Hoffman | They need a run. Yeah. Yeah. Who's taking me home is the real question. All right. Thank you. OK, moving on to item number two. Yeah. Thank you. |
| 00:28:57.52 | Unknown | you |
| 00:29:00.03 | Jill Hoffman | Um, |
| 00:29:00.10 | Unknown | Um, |
| 00:29:02.07 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Thank you. It is like a cocktail party. Yeah. Yes. |
| 00:29:06.66 | John Gaffney | Yes. This is the ultimate part of the microphone. I didn't talk, I didn't hear my voice. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:29:15.27 | Jill Hoffman | If you could quietly depart, we're going to move on with our meeting. All right. I got another phone. |
| 00:29:40.98 | Unknown | Thank you. you Thank you. you I can't see you anymore. |
| 00:29:45.96 | Tricia Smith | Thank you. |
| 00:29:46.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:29:46.18 | Tricia Smith | Thank you. you |
| 00:29:46.50 | Unknown | you |
| 00:29:48.53 | Tricia Smith | He's going to be there. I'm going to take a break. I'm proud of you. |
| 00:29:56.51 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 00:29:58.81 | Jill Hoffman | All right. |
| 00:30:03.71 | Jill Hoffman | Hey, Captain Stone King over there. |
| 00:30:08.95 | Jill Hoffman | All right, we're going to keep going. We're going to. Soldier on here All right, we're moving on to section two of our agenda tonight, communications. Public communications. This is a time for the city council to hear from citizens regarding matters that are not on the agenda, except in very limited situations. State law precludes the council from taking action on or engaging in discussions concerning items of business that are not on the agenda. However, the council may refer matters not on the agenda to city staff or direct that the subject be agendized. for future meetings. If you would like to speak during this period, please make sure you have completed a speaker's card and turn it into the city clerk. I currently am holding two speaker cards. My first one is Ruthann Spike. |
| 00:31:08.36 | Ruthann Spike | Thank you for having public comment. Last meeting, I missed when there was public comment about the proposed homeless shelter in Nevada Street. And I wrote to all of you today, and I just wanted to give you my comment in person. I'm a longtime Sausalito resident. I have a jazz show on Radio Sausalito. I do the New Orleans show. I volunteer with the Historical Society. I'm also a member of the Art Festival. I got the Art Festival Volunteer of the Year Award. And I'm not telling you this just to brag, but to let you know I really care about this community. I spend a lot of time trying to make it a better place to live. And I live in Willow Creek, which is part of Whiskey Springs, the Willows. I'm really concerned about a 20-person homeless shelter being built at the city corporation yard. One block from a nursery school, two blocks from an elementary school. and abutting a wooded area which already has some teenagers doing some kind of shady stuff in occasionally. I'm a single woman. I live here with my daughter. I moved here because this community, as you can see, is an amazing place to live, and it's very safe. I wouldn't be here if we were talking about a four or five person group home type of situation. but 20 people living in a shelter in a place that doesn't have a lot of social services on a very limited bus route, is of great concern to me. It's of concern to my neighbors too. And I hope that you'll reconsider. This spot being chosen for this type of shelter. Thank you. |
| 00:32:45.23 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. The next speaker card I have for this part of our agenda is from Jeff Sears. |
| 00:32:54.24 | Jeff Sears | Good evening, council and mayor. I know you have a big agenda. We'll keep this, try to keep it really brief. Was really looking for some clarification. my understanding is the official position of Sausalito is to reduce the amount of bicycles coming into town. And we're getting ready to partner up with Sausalito Plus this year, and we're really hoping that we could have the same goals and work together to improve reducing the congestion in the downtown area and just the overall bicycle environment in Sausalito. Thank you. I heard this last year at one of the meetings, and I believe it was brought up at the last meeting, last council meeting as well, that I did not attend, so it would be really great know where the city stands on that so that we know what our partnership who we're partnering up with and what their goals are. And I would really appreciate, as well as many other bike-rilling companies, I think really just the biking community of what the policy and goals are of Sausalito. |
| 00:34:19.66 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. This is a time for public comment. We're prohibited by state law from responding to your questions. However, we will have the bike committees coming back in the next few city council meetings. The agenda will be published. You're welcome to come back at that time. |
| 00:34:35.93 | Jeff Sears | Sure. Please consider it. And we don't expect you to get on our bandwagon to promote our businesses, but we would like to have a partner that would work with us instead of against us. It's really difficult to work in two different directions. Thank you. |
| 00:34:53.93 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. I don't have any other, any more speaker cards for the public comment section. Therefore, I don't believe there's anybody else. We are moving on to section three of our agenda, the action minutes of the previous meeting. Would anybody like to move to approve or move to change or correct any portion of the minutes from our March 22, 2016 meeting? |
| 00:35:26.13 | Linda Pfeiffer | I move to approve. Second. |
| 00:35:28.66 | Jill Hoffman | All in favor? Thank you. |
| 00:35:29.57 | Linda Pfeiffer | Bye. |
| 00:35:29.61 | Jill Hoffman | Bye. I motion carries moving on to section for consent calendar. |
| 00:35:38.18 | Jill Hoffman | Matters listed under the consent calendar are considered routine and non-controversial, require no discussion, are expected to have unanimous council support, and may be enacted by the council in one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion of consent calendar items. However, before the council votes on a motion to adopt the consent calendar items, council members, city staff, or members of the public may request that specific items be removed from the consent calendar for separate action. In order to request an item be pulled. You must have completed a speaker's card and turned it in to the City Clerk. Items will only be removed from the consent calendar by a vote of the Council. Items removed from the consent calendar will be discussed later on the agenda when public comment will be heard on any item that was removed from the consent calendar. Do we have any public comment regarding the consent calendar or any public comment regarding requests to remove items from the consent calendar? Seeing no one approaching the podium, do we have a motion to approve the consent calendar? Madam Mayor, |
| 00:36:42.98 | Ray Pfeiffer | have a request to pull item a from consent calendar and to continue to another council session with notice on the open agenda because of the controversial nature of that particular project and I'm referring to the South Gateway complete streets project and my other I also have a clarification and regarding and I'm referring to the South Gateway complete streets project and my other I also have a clarification regarding an element in item e let's talk about |
| 00:37:18.03 | Jill Hoffman | item A first. The South Gateway Complete Streets Project and a preferred alternative program was included in our agenda for tonight and it was included in the materials. Does anybody, any other council member have any uh the opinions on Council member Pfeiffer's request to remove. I think we should go |
| 00:37:41.33 | Linda Pfeiffer | Well, I think we should go forward. I mean, this is the only action, as it says in the staff report, is staff request is permission to seek grant funding for the cost. Any if grants were made, if we got grant funding, it have to come to this council. just to accept the grant and certainly to go forward with it. If we waste time on not going for grants, We lose time. We spend time at council level staff level, and we'd have to get we expend money, I think. There is no commitment on our part either to even accept any of the grant money or to take any of this action. It's merely to ask for money. I don't think we're in a position What budget's coming up? I think any opportunity for us to seek money on behalf of the city, we should explore. So I would go forward and approve it again with the caveats that are in the staff report that they would have to come back to the council before any action was taken, including even accepting the grant. |
| 00:38:38.86 | Adam Politzer | I agree with Councilmember Theodore. If we keep talking about something just to go get a grant, we'll never get money. So I think we should vote on this tonight, Madam Mayor. |
| 00:38:53.44 | Jill Hoffman | Councilman. |
| 00:38:54.38 | Ray Pfeiffer | Yeah, okay. I'd like to respond to that. This is pretty outrageous We were told back and I want to say it was 2010 When this first came before us with little to no notice we were the council was told the same thing Oh, this is just for grant money. It's just for grant money You know you and I we all know that once this is submitted, if we get the grant money, you know, all these, look at all these design plans that have already been put in place with diagrams and everything. We're looking at You know, widening South Street by six feet to the north. uh, retaining wall on the south side of Alexander Avenue widening that road four to five feet to the south I mean we're getting into cutting out people's yards I mean this is very very controversial I'm not I I swallowed it when it was first presented you know oh rush rush rush we got to get this through I'm not going for it this time this needs to be vetted with the public first. We need a full public transparency on what is being proposed. And only then, when there is a common vision, should we go forward with constructing a plan and submitting four grant funds. Right now, we're going backwards and we're making this a fait accompli I can tell you this is not a good thing to do and it's the wrong way |
| 00:40:31.06 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:40:31.41 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:40:31.55 | Jill Hoffman | to do. |
| 00:40:31.60 | Ray Pfeiffer | it. |
| 00:40:31.84 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:40:31.85 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:40:32.28 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, let me if I could weigh in here as well. I think we're taking more time to talk about this and it would take to actually Move it. But that being said, because it is a consent calendar item, so the issue is whether or not we're going to hear it now or whether or not we're going to move it to another night and put it on our actual notice calendar. Here's my concern. Your part of the plan is on South Street, widen South Street by about six feet to the north, reconstruct sidewalk, et cetera, et cetera. Construct a mid block sidewalk. That's fine. Reconstruct sidewalks to eliminate or reduce driveway cross slopes. Construct a retaining wall on the south side of Alexander. Widen the road, four to five feet. Widen the sidewalk. reconstruct sidewalks or reduce driveway cross slopes, convert Edwards Avenue into Emergency access only with a raised barrier and signage. These are issues that affect the homeowners that live along that street If you widen the street, you're going into someone's private property. There's no place else to go. So I think for that reason alone I agree with Council a woman Pfeiffer that this should be a noticed noticed item on a future agenda at that point you fell it you know we can vote and if the votes three to the votes three to and it goes forward but I think that we have to give the public the opportunity to look at this, especially the homeowners who live along the street and are going to be concerned about these changes to their property. |
| 00:42:05.75 | Linda Pfeiffer | But you realize, I mean, and you probably should go back and see what the cost is. to have this, you have to have exports, and you're gonna be making substantive decisions at that point with no money, and then we'll go for things. |
| 00:42:17.24 | Jill Hoffman | No, I'm just talking about putting it on a future agenda for this vote. Thank you. |
| 00:42:19.90 | Ray Pfeiffer | Yeah, and I also want to disclose that I live on South Street, full disclosure. So I have some awareness. I know that the current plan talks about widening from the north, but these people just don't know what's going on. And we just cannot move forward with this sort of, I mean, it reeks of eminent domain without having a public forum. I mean, you apply the golden rule, and you just, I wouldn't want this happening to me. I mean, they're sitting at homes, they're not watching this on TV. This, I mean, look at how far this has come. We were just told that this was for the money. That was what, back in 2010 or so? Now look at this. |
| 00:43:06.58 | Linda Pfeiffer | Well, you're not referring to the current proposal. You're referring to something else. |
| 00:43:09.84 | Ray Pfeiffer | I'm talking about there. They have done meters. They have done a lot of research there. This is gaining speed I mean by the time about the current proposal is this current proposal is |
| 00:43:15.83 | Linda Pfeiffer | I mean, by the time about the current proposal, this current proposal, this is part of it. I just want to make sure what you're talking about. |
| 00:43:20.03 | Ray Pfeiffer | Yeah, I'm sorry. Yeah, the current proposal. And, you know, we're, like Mayor Hoffman said, we're spending a lot of time talking on this. We need, you guys, we need to put this on the open agenda for discussion and have a common vision on traffic calming on South Street and certain parameters, such as we're not going to take land from people's homes. |
| 00:43:45.01 | Jill Hoffman | Is there any timing issue with regard to the grant? I mean, do we have to have this submitted by May 1st or we lose the grant or something or other? I mean, I see no reason I might as my usual thing I don't see any downside to putting this on in the agenda. Is there a downside to it? |
| 00:43:55.65 | Jonathon Goldman | I mean, I see. |
| 00:44:02.77 | Jonathon Goldman | Madam Mayor, if I may, I would be happy to answer that question. |
| 00:44:04.14 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. Sure. |
| 00:44:06.37 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:44:06.52 | Jonathon Goldman | um, There is not. However, I'm up here because of some misstatements that I think are incredibly important to address on the matter. None of the alternatives that were considered involve private property whatsoever. All of the alternatives evaluated involve nothing but existing public right-of-way. So my recommendation, given the discussion, and certainly it's the council's pleasure to decide whether it is heard and considered on consent tonight or continued as a business item to a future date either one's fine with me but it was very important to me to get up and correct the misstatements that I heard |
| 00:44:50.11 | Ray Pfeiffer | And if I may just correct it, not a misstatement, Jonathan, you are correct. It is the public right-of-way. But the spirit of what I meant to say was there are currently, there are structures, homes, garages. There's a house on the public right-of-way. So, I mean, if you're talking about, you know, and there are trees for privacy on the on the public right-of-way so you know we're talking about cutting into that people just need to be aware they need to have a say in this and they need to be participating I'm sorry, I'm not talking to city staff. I'm referring to the council up here. I strongly urge you to pull this from consent and put this on the open agenda to discuss process and parameters. |
| 00:45:42.22 | Adam Politzer | Madam Mayor, if I can just add a little bit more clarification, because I think it's important what Jonathan Goldman stated, and I want to make sure the public isn't misled by some of the comments. We've had significant discussion about From Gate 6 Road to Alexander Avenue, we've had different studies and different grants And the council back in 2010, 2012, I don't have those states in front of me, But the council directed staff to look for grant money on ferry landing to Alexander Avenue. And then council directed us to narrow that from Richardson to Alexander Avenue. And we went and received funds of roughly 125,000. $150,000. to study this particular area. and our Public Works Director has stood in front of the council showing various Um, alternatives for our consideration from a $30 million project that went from the ferry landing to Alexander Avenue to a roughly $6 million project from Richardson Street to Alexander Avenue. So, There is no project for the council to consider tonight. It's just the understanding that if we're going to move forward, with any phasing of this project from Richardson Street to Alexander Avenue, we have to seek funding. I agree with the public works director, I agree with the comments of the council. that there is no rush to take the action tonight But I just want to make sure that the public and members of the council that haven't been on the council since 2010 12. that this is not a new idea, this is an issue that has been raised before the council and direction. probably from all five council members to go out and seek the money that we got to do the study that is before you tonight. |
| 00:47:26.30 | Ray Pfeiffer | So I want to correct something here myself because I called former Councilmember Carolyn Ford and conversed with her about this and reviewed our notes, including my emails and a letter that I created over that weekend and hand-walked up and down South Street to alert people about what was going on that they had no transparency to and no awareness of. So back in 2010, we were told the same thing that we just heard by one of the council members. Oh, it's grant money, and if we don't submit it, at that time we were told we're going to lose the money, and we've got to move forward, move forward, and don't worry. This isn't a project. This is just, you know, we're just doing this for the money. And at the time, our our feeling my I'm speaking on behalf of Carolyn then Carolyn Ford Councilmember Ford myself was that this was going to be looking at street calming measures ADA fixing cracks and sidewalks and the like and when we saw the other stuff about the widening itself that was impacting people, the way people's homes are configured. We were very alarmed. And we were concerned, and we expressed that concern, and we were assured, don't worry. This is just not a project. We're just going for money. Well, guess what, Adam? look at this, this is looking like a project to me. We've got diagrams, we've got all sorts of stuff, we've got the same bullets about what, Widening South Street, widening the south side of Alexander within Sausalito where Sausalito homes are, converting Edwards Avenue to emergency access only with raised barrier and signage. This is fundamental stuff. This is absolutely insane to go any further with this without involving the public that is impacted. |
| 00:49:16.03 | Jill Hoffman | thank you. Okay, so we have, I believe we have a motion on the Table two. I thought we did sorry |
| 00:49:23.11 | Ray Pfeiffer | All right. |
| 00:49:25.59 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:49:25.61 | Ray Pfeiffer | I move to withdraw Consent calendar item. 4A. and continue to another session. with on the open agenda for full public discussion regarding process and the way forward. |
| 00:49:50.32 | Jill Hoffman | And so do we second that? I second that. Do we have vote all in favor? Aye. Opposed? |
| 00:49:52.68 | Ray Pfeiffer | . |
| 00:49:58.92 | Ray Pfeiffer | Bye. you I think we need to do a roll call here. |
| 00:50:03.05 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, let's do a roll call. Sorry. Thank you. Great. |
| 00:50:05.76 | Ray Pfeiffer | Yeah. |
| 00:50:07.04 | City Clerk | of course. Thank you. |
| 00:50:07.63 | Linda Pfeiffer | Yes. |
| 00:50:08.88 | City Clerk | Councilmember Weiner? No. Councilmember Pfeiffer? Yes. Vice Mayor Withey? Thank you. |
| 00:50:14.02 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:50:14.16 | City Clerk | Thank you. Mayor Hoffman. Yes. That carries 3-2. |
| 00:50:18.58 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 00:50:18.80 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 00:50:19.49 | Jill Hoffman | And then Councilwoman Pfeiffer, you had a question about another item, I believe, on the consent calendar. |
| 00:50:25.11 | Ray Pfeiffer | I had a question about item 4E. Within the finance committee minutes, there is a reference to the AT&T wireless lease. And I just wanted to confirm that that is, or maybe it already has gone in front of the planning commission for review. And vetting? I don't remember. It may not be AT&T, it may be wireless, but there's some antenna, some wireless antenna. I just wanted to make sure that there was an opportunity for the people there to kind of know about the. |
| 00:50:47.52 | Ruthann Spike | Remember. |
| 00:50:48.30 | Jonathon Goldman | . |
| 00:50:57.11 | Adam Politzer | The item in front of the Finance Committee is renegotiations of the existing AT&T. cell tower lease and the Finance Committee has asked for additional information they are not ready to consider the request so there's no action from the Finance Committee it's just reference that this item was before the Finance Committee for its consideration |
| 00:51:20.14 | Ray Pfeiffer | Okay, so in other words, they haven't made a decision on that yet. Okay, thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:51:26.03 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. So at this point, do we... |
| 00:51:27.80 | Adam Politzer | So I move adoption of the consent calendar. items B for B through F. second. |
| 00:51:42.70 | Jill Hoffman | All in favor? Aye. |
| 00:51:43.95 | Unknown | Right. |
| 00:51:44.39 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 00:51:45.50 | Jill Hoffman | Motion carries. Moving right along to |
| 00:51:54.99 | Jill Hoffman | Item six, business items. |
| 00:51:59.70 | Jill Hoffman | This is an update from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs on the machine shop. Yes, Danny, you don't look like you're from the Office of Veterans Affairs. |
| 00:52:07.76 | Danny Castro | I'm not. I'm here to introduce. I'm sorry. Good evening, Mayor Hoffman, members of the council. I'm your community development director, Danny Castro, and I'm here to introduce Matthew Zetto, who is the facility planner for the Department of Veteran Affairs, San Francisco Health System, and he's here to give you an update on the machine shop in the Marinship. |
| 00:52:29.38 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. And welcome, Matthew. |
| 00:52:33.92 | Matthew Zetto | Thank you for the intro, Danny. And Mayor Hoffman, City Council staff, thank you for this opportunity for a surprise update. I'm sure much awaited. So just a quick summary on what we presented back in October, that we are running two ongoing efforts, a near-term effort to mothball the building envelope and add modular units, as well as a long-term effort to utilize the section 111 authority under the National Historic Preservation Act to partner with the private developer potentially to reuse to help reuse historic properties Happy to report back that we're still ongoing on both of those processes. Regarding the mothballing, it's in our engineering staff, and it's being scheduled to be scheduled for beginning of construction September 2016. We are running concurrently with that effort on the Section 111. We had a member of our real property staff from central office miss Jacqueline post report on that process and in this pilot stage the she reported that or reported sounds terrible she communicated that there was going to be a feasibility study done by the Real Property Service staff in central office. That feasibility study came back positive for both benefits to the private development community as well as the VA. The next steps are to wait. It's awaiting VA leadership approval for the next steps to release the marketing plan and request for qualifications, as well as an industry day to generate potential interest in redevelopment and reuse of that building. We understand that we're running both efforts concurrently, and potentially those timelines are going to cross at some point. And when that decision point is going to need to be made, and we've communicated back through Danny and Calvin and the planning staff when needed. Also, along with the ongoing since October, we've met with the South Salido Historic Landmark Board and had a study session regarding the machine shop. I felt it went positively. It was started for just the mothballing project, but it quickly transitioned into the long-term reuse of it and the Section 111 authority and our process and the pilot study for that was presented then as well. I know one other item that was presented in the last, from a comment from the city council was potentially tarping the building in the interim before the mothballing. We provide the update to the planners and just wanted to update you all as well. That was brought back to our engineering staff. The cost of the effort, combine that with the procurement of that. They felt that since they had the mothballing in line already funded and they're in the process of executing it, They didn't want to spend the additional dollars, being stewards of taxpayer dollars, to that effort through that season. And they were going to monitor it as needed if the concern was the rainstorms and monitor as needed if that's the case. And right now, they're still going to go with the mothballing as the protection of the building. AND, Other than that, we are glad to continue the communication efforts and open it up to you guys. Thank you. |
| 00:56:25.09 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:56:25.26 | Matthew Zetto | Thank you. Mm-hmm. |
| 00:56:26.62 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 00:56:26.78 | Matthew Zetto | . |
| 00:56:26.96 | Adam Politzer | AND I WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT |
| 00:56:27.25 | Matthew Zetto | you |
| 00:56:27.57 | Adam Politzer | Yeah, man. Oh, thank you for visiting us again for this update. Now, either the last time you were here or sometime last year when your whole team visited us, and I believe you met with the mayor and myself with a group, you indicated that the mothballing was going to occur, if I recall, in March. |
| 00:56:44.09 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:57:00.56 | Adam Politzer | So why isn't it being done? Why the delay? The cynic would. |
| 00:57:00.64 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:57:10.14 | Adam Politzer | draw the conclusion you're just trying to string this out and actually have your other option pursued so that you can avoid mothballing. So that's what a cynic might think. So how are you going to reassure me that that's not the case and, again, explain why there's a six-month delay? Thank you. |
| 00:57:32.54 | Matthew Zetto | Thank you for the question. The best explanation, there's no excuse, is the delayed procurement process to obtain a construction contract as well as the ongoing historic consultation efforts with the Section 111 consultation with the State Historic Reservation Office. Those two are the main drivers that are affecting the critical path for the schedule of the mothballing project. That is the update, but we are sure that that is going to be ongoing. That project from a construction procurement standpoint is in the queue of numerous other construction Projects that we have at Fort Miley and the contracting staff is overloaded at the moment. And it's binded by the process that we are dealt with at the VA regarding construction procurement. And we are working as best in affecting those timelines or communicating those critical path timelines as best we can. |
| 00:58:41.15 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. Yes, you talk about mothballing versus tarping. Can you define what you mean by mothballing? And then the other term I believe was tarping, you decided not to do that for financial reasons. And so can you define what you mean by mothballing? What would this additional tarping, I believe you said, what would that be? |
| 00:59:02.04 | Matthew Zetto | Well, I believe the tarping was brought as a temporary and interim measure to protect the building because half of the roof has been removed. Mothballing, to answer your question, our efforts to conform with the Department of Interior standards to mothball historic properties is to replace the plywood siding with cement hardy board, as well as replace the roofing and the windows as well. And that would be the extent of the mothmawing to protect the envelope of the building. |
| 00:59:36.22 | Linda Pfeiffer | Why would you need tarping if you're going to replace this roof you said? |
| 00:59:40.47 | Matthew Zetto | I would just, tarping was just brought up as a recommendation for a potential interim measure between the mothballing and the, excuse me, yes, then until the mothballing project would begin. And because of financial reasons, the size of the building, our procurement process on that end as well to procure those services, we decided not to do the tarping and just continue with the approved mothballing project. |
| 01:00:08.68 | Linda Pfeiffer | And the moth bowling would adequately protect the building, including when the rains come. Yes. And with this six-month delay, do you anticipate you'll get the procurement and be able to do the work in time for the next rains, which will come in probably another six months? |
| 01:00:23.50 | Matthew Zetto | Thank you. |
| 01:00:23.51 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:00:23.65 | Matthew Zetto | Yes. We would hope. I mean, it's the construction timeline communicated from our engineering department would be about three months and the mothballing would be actually on the front end of the timeline as it's tied in with the construction of modular units on that property as well. So three months is three to six months, but three months would be for the mothballing. Thank you. |
| 01:00:24.73 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 01:00:48.74 | Ray Pfeiffer | Yes, so did your fee, we talked about this the last time you folks presented to us. Your feasibility study, did it respect Sausalito's general plan, our local control with respect to the zoning in the Marin ship, light industrial use and maritime services? |
| 01:00:53.43 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 01:00:53.64 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. |
| 01:01:11.54 | Matthew Zetto | I believe they are the real property service considered those yes as part of their pro forma pro forma when doing their their cost analysis and that was the main driver for the feasibility but they did require consider both of those |
| 01:01:28.23 | Ray Pfeiffer | Both of what? |
| 01:01:29.43 | Matthew Zetto | what you've mentioned regarding industrial zoning as well as the potential conformity with the Marin ship. |
| 01:01:30.88 | Ray Pfeiffer | That's right. |
| 01:01:38.47 | Ray Pfeiffer | So they considered, you used the word considered, they did not frame the feasibility study in that context. |
| 01:01:47.00 | Matthew Zetto | The feasibility was based on a pro forma for benefit. The actual reuse and the concept of the reuse has not been decided and can be part of the decision criteria. |
| 01:02:00.73 | Ray Pfeiffer | Is there a place where soft-sitled residents can go to review the feasibility study and any other work the VA has done to date? |
| 01:02:09.89 | Matthew Zetto | There are, for the feasibility part of it, I do not know that, because it's an internal feasibility for a pilot, a pilot for the VA to use a Section 111, the site itself was just chosen as the VA pilot. So I do not know that particular study is going to be public information. I will communicate that back through Danny, but other, I think, I believe there's other public documents that it's already, you can Google some of them, regarding historic assessments as well as other building assessments can be viewed. |
| 01:02:51.29 | Ray Pfeiffer | And I trust city staff has your contact information. So if we want to follow up with you specifically with additional questions, that's a venue we have. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:03:02.80 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:03:02.88 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 01:03:02.93 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:03:03.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:03:03.27 | Ray Pfeiffer | you |
| 01:03:03.59 | Jill Hoffman | No. |
| 01:03:03.78 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 01:03:04.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:03:05.60 | Linda Pfeiffer | You mentioned that you were before the Historic Landmarks Board and you had a study session. Correct. Did you make a proposal to the Historic Landmarks Board and you had a study session? Or what transpired there? Is there a proposal, was that made there? |
| 01:03:10.41 | Unknown | THE END OF |
| 01:03:21.90 | Matthew Zetto | . |
| 01:03:21.95 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 01:03:21.97 | Matthew Zetto | The proposal was for the mothballing project. Oh, simply mothballing? Yes, because it's tied to a construction project that's funded by the VA. It has to go through, one, on our end, federal regulations from the project end, the construction end of it. The Historic Landmark Board, we reached out to as part of continuing communications with the city. They recommended that because this is a historic property in the local register, that they would like for us to participate in a study session with them, and we had one. |
| 01:03:22.31 | Linda Pfeiffer | The proposed... |
| 01:03:27.91 | Linda Pfeiffer | Yes. |
| 01:04:03.51 | Matthew Zetto | about five days ago. |
| 01:04:04.53 | Linda Pfeiffer | And it's strictly related to the mothballing and your plan for the mothball. |
| 01:04:08.02 | Matthew Zetto | Correct. That's how it started, but the conversation also... eventually went into the long-term plan for it. |
| 01:04:16.14 | Linda Pfeiffer | Were there any plans submitted that we could take a look at? Or? I'm just trying to get an idea for the mothballing. Yeah, well, mothballing and anything going past months for the moth |
| 01:04:21.03 | Matthew Zetto | For the mothballing, yes. For the mothballing, yes. And again, awaiting VA leadership approval for the pilot to move forward. We don't have any plans for the long-term reuse of it. But we've shared some construction documents with your planning staff that we're more than welcome to share with you guys what we're going to be doing for the mothballing effort. |
| 01:04:47.68 | Ray Pfeiffer | Yeah, if I may, just, yeah, because it's a good question just because I have some concerns with the HLB going, you know, down that long-term road, personally. So I guess my question would be to, I mean, HLB is critical for preservation and making sure that we are doing the mothballing or preservation of the building and its historic character for renovation. And I think that's how I would frame that charter at this point. |
| 01:05:16.90 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. |
| 01:05:26.57 | Jill Hoffman | Um, Matthew, how would we because of the nature of the building and because the, you know, our concern as a council member with the, you know, we discussed it last October, you know, our concerns last winter of this building through the rainy season. I mean, it's. 80 years old 70 year old building and it's a timber building It's amazing that it's still standing. AND, how would we, you know, what would be the process to get that a higher priority on on the VA's contracting level. I mean, is there a process that we would go through to bump that up |
| 01:06:05.03 | Matthew Zetto | I think that that'll be, there's no such process to bump up priority. |
| 01:06:09.98 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:06:11.38 | Matthew Zetto | are still in the process of, I think, the tail end of the historic the Section 106 consultation. And from there, the engineering staff has been very proactive on getting those construction packages over to contracting for award. But again, it's at the mercy of the schedule of the contracting office. |
| 01:06:16.86 | Dale Dillard | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:06:17.22 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 01:06:33.94 | Matthew Zetto | I wish I got a better answer. That's the process in which I live in as well. |
| 01:06:35.86 | Jill Hoffman | That's the answer. Um. Okay, I think that's a question I had. Do we have any public comment Do we have any public comment on this item, which is item 6A on our business item? Yes, I see. Okay. Go ahead. If anybody else would like to fill out a card, that would be great. |
| 01:06:58.12 | Vicki Nichols | Vicki Nichols, I'm going to speak to some of my experience of this project during the eight years I was on the HLB and add some updates of material I learned today while I sat at the California Preservation Conference all day. And we talked about mothballing. So, um, First of all, Mayor Hoffman, I think there is a way to do this. This, unfortunately, I'm not trying to shoot the messenger, but the VA management has dragged its feet on this from the very beginning. They tore the roof off, this roof should have been on. years ago. There have been letters that you can go back to staff where we had to write to Washington to get a little jump on this. To say that they came last October and we still can't get a project done for another year is, I can't even tell you how upset this sounds to me. Upsetting. The other thing is I'm hearing that there's this feasibility. Then I'm hearing there has to be a contract license. I don't know where the RFP is, but how do you get, is this contract for the mothballing. I'm hearing that in the mothballing, you wanted to go over the... windows and the roofing those windows are a character defining feature of that building if those are replaced why are we doing it now before the whole re-tab is done why is extra heavy duty materials being put over them some of the ordinances that we looked today that were sort of samples for other jurisdictions actually in other states even were that the building need to be watertight, obviously, and free from vandalism, these kinds of things. This doesn't have to be super structured. It's been open for years with the rain coming in it. So not even getting a tarp on it is insane. I just can't even believe this this that this is coming back now With this answer, so I would suggest that the city take a look at the letters that they have the support They've had from other organizations Particularly the VA in Washington that directed this local office years ago to do some um Mitigation about preventing further damage on this and another good thing is one of the sessions. I attended today was with the California I was with the state historical officer and I recognized them and I said something about the machine shop nomination, this is the organization that does this. That application has gone back, there was a little discussion and she's resubmitted it. So this will not only be on the local register, this is now directly in the pipeline for national status. So we need to move on this. Thank you. |
| 01:09:47.04 | Jill Hoffman | you |
| 01:09:47.09 | Vicki Nichols | Michael? |
| 01:09:53.65 | Michael Racks | I'm Michael Racks, local architect. I have some questions that I can't ask, but you can, and I request that you do ask these questions. First of all, I think it's good that the VA is trying to secure the building and improve its appearance. It's long overdue. and that building needs to be protected. It should have been done sooner. I agree with Vicki. In terms of the moss balls, I'm very concerned about sighting and windows without knowing exactly what it is. I'm not sure. I would like to request that there be a more broad public hearing on this, maybe for the planning commission. I think design review is appropriate. I'm afraid about something temporary on that scale and not being confident it's the right thing because it may be there forever. Hardy planks, while they're affordable and Thank you. Resist weather because it's cementitious. I don't know that that is really appropriate for an historic building of this age. I agree with Vicki that the character of those windows are crucial. I could imagine some vinyl windows or something temporary or cheap, Thank you. Maybe it gets replaced by a developer later, but maybe it won't. So, Something of that scale, siding and windows are worrisome. And I think we need to take a closer look in case it's not temporary. Regarding modulas, I'd like to know more about where they're going and what they look like. I'd like to know if the Butler building is going to be used for temporary use. As you may know, and if you're not aware of it, I'd like you to be aware of it tonight. that the Riches of Bay Maritime Association has been in discussions with the VA for over 10 years for temporary or permanent use of the Butler Building for a maritime museum and nautical library. I've had discussions personally with Matthew here about it. as well as many other people who preceded him at the VA. If they're talking about interim use, we would like to have interim use of the Butler building on a month-to-month lease with stipulations that once permanent use is decided, we would negotiate at that time or move out. In terms of long term use, Matthew assured us that, in fact, I believe we've been put on the list to be notified when the RFP goes out. to private developers to use this, come up with a vision and restore and use that building for a permanent use. We hope to partner with whoever that entity is because we think the Butler Building being on the water should have a public benefit. We think a Nautical Museum and Maritime Library is a perfect use for that building. I would like to hope we can have temporary use and ultimately permanent use. So those are the questions. I'd like you to ask about the the and ultimately permanent use. So those are the questions. I'd like you to ask about the modulars, and I'd like you to consider a more broad public hearing for its appearance of the temporary measures. Thank you. |
| 01:12:59.23 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Do we have any other public comment on this item? Seeing none, do we have any follow-up questions from City Council based on public comment? |
| 01:13:11.11 | Ray Pfeiffer | So my question would be, is the VA taking this to a planning commission review, to have a few more eyes on this in terms of preserving the integrity of the building? Your response to that? |
| 01:13:29.98 | Matthew Zetto | Our intent through the planning commission was the first step was the Historic Landmark Board, and we've been in very informal contact with communication. As you know, from being a federal government, federally owned property, we're fighting back and forth on what to participate, yes and no, but we fully intend to communicate in a forum potentially just as a discussion it's been where it's been communicated through my engineering staff we we assure you that the processes that we have to follow from historic preservation the architects that we hire the engineers that we hire as, are all very considerate of the concerns that are arisen. And we are happy to address them in a particular open public commission forum. It would be discussed internally with my staff. |
| 01:14:31.40 | Jill Hoffman | Um, Can you tell me a little bit more about the modulars? Are they going to be in there after the building is mothballed? |
| 01:14:38.98 | Matthew Zetto | Yes, that's the plan in the near term. So if we think about near term, and that's why we would like, we knew that, we know that at some point, both efforts is going to cross at some point, that if the timeline for the feasibility in the pilot study goes further and we understand that there's better, more interest, the mothballing could either be of benefit and or of disadvantage for us to attract a developer. This is just, it's just gonna be an ongoing communication back and forth on how we are going to proceed with this. But to answer your question in the short term, if the long term does not, or the section 111 does not |
| 01:14:39.04 | Jill Hoffman | Yes, that's the plan. So, |
| 01:15:19.34 | Matthew Zetto | pan out. The modulars do plan on being there for upwards of a year. We're using those as administrative swing space to decompress our current Fort Miley campus for construction impacts as we have a large capital portfolio happening at Fort Miley as well. So our intended use is for administrative touchdown space for our employees that come from the North Bay, so they do not have to travel to Fort Miley. But again, we like to open a lot of communication, keep the communication open to let you guys know how long to be there for, and they've seen the rough, the layouts for the modulars, and have open communication with your planning staff. |
| 01:16:05.11 | Jill Hoffman | Do you have any idea at this point how many modulars you're talking about or how many people, an estimate? |
| 01:16:10.74 | Matthew Zetto | Right now it's planned for 7,200 square feet, which is about 60 people. But it could fit 60 people. Are we going to have 60 people? That's still yet to be said. I don't believe we have that many employees in the North Bay. |
| 01:16:23.59 | Adam Politzer | Madam Mayor, if I may, obviously we've heard some new information tonight. I know that the VA has been communicating with our Community Development Director, but there's probably an equal amount of questions that we have at the staff level. And I may like to recommend, and it's up to the council if they'd like to move on this, is to sit down again with the VA as we did with the mayor and the vice mayor and staff because what we learned from them when they came to us, however many months ago that was as a group, was that they were going to go through our process and that they were going to protect the building and now there's a little bit of gray, I would say, to be polite. So I think it would be helpful if we sat back down with their team because, as we've heard from council members, it was supposed to be mothballed in March. We were asking for it to be mothballed before this winter, knowing that it was an El Nino season, and it didn't happen, and there was no protection, no courtesy, other than we'll keep an eye on it, and that was disuous and it's it's not what we agreed to when we sat down as one body and then you came with your team to talk to the council so I think that is really important that we sit down and we look each other in the eyes and go through all these points point by point understand clearly what they're gonna do what they're not gonna do then bring them back to council ask them to come back to council and make sure that we're on the same page with the schedule and the timing and the funds because if we go through the same process, we're going to get to October. when the rains start coming again, And the building will be in just as much jeopardy. regardless to the, The winds that we have that come down that neck of the woods during the summer. and the gust and the weather that we have in Sausalito, even during the summer, also puts that building in harm's way. And I agree with some of the comments from the council and the public. We can't wait, and we can't wait for them to go through this process and come back two, three months down the road and tell us where they are. I think it's important that Matthew goes back to his team. They obviously can watch this. It's on video. Maybe maybe they're watching it live now but an opportunity for them to hear your remarks your concerns and come back you know hopefully in the next two three weeks and sit down with the mayor and the vice mayor and staff and really get into the weeds here with them |
| 01:18:46.55 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. In principle, I agree with that. |
| 01:18:50.43 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 01:18:50.45 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:18:50.47 | Ray Pfeiffer | I do have a quick question. So I heard that the VA, from one of the speakers, that the VA removed the roof. Is that correct? |
| 01:18:59.63 | Matthew Zetto | Yes, previous staff before myself did remove that half of the roof. |
| 01:19:03.68 | Ray Pfeiffer | Okay. Okay, all right. And, okay. And what I heard was that you are amenable to going to the Planning Commission to review the strategy for the mothballing and et cetera, to echo the concerns that we heard from the public? |
| 01:19:27.77 | Matthew Zetto | Yes, yes. |
| 01:19:28.91 | Ray Pfeiffer | Okay. |
| 01:19:30.56 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 01:19:30.86 | Ray Pfeiffer | you |
| 01:19:30.95 | Jill Hoffman | Are you able to tell us tonight whether or not your VA is able to come back to Sausalito in the next two or three weeks, as the city manager suggests? I mean, I think you have to. |
| 01:19:42.25 | Matthew Zetto | Yes, no, I personally will say yes. I'll reach back to the team, I'll reach out through, |
| 01:19:42.93 | Jill Hoffman | I'm not sure. |
| 01:19:49.14 | Matthew Zetto | daddy and his staff |
| 01:19:50.35 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:19:50.52 | Matthew Zetto | Thank you. |
| 01:19:50.56 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:19:50.66 | Matthew Zetto | you |
| 01:19:50.71 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:19:50.73 | Matthew Zetto | Thank you. |
| 01:19:50.74 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:19:51.33 | Matthew Zetto | I think put that on the calendar sooner than later to clear the air. I mean, it's not our intention. I'll clear the air now. It's handcuffed somewhat by the process. I can't speak for what the decisions were made in the past and what was presented in the past. And this is my main point of contact, my main project, and we're trying to get this moved forward with the process that we have. I mean, there's a lot of internal factors that I don't want to present here regarding with the funding and how it was procured in the past. I mean, there's a lot of things that can affect it on our end and I apologize for it affecting the critical path and potentially the communication of, mean the lack of and we can help improve that as well but definitely I feel a meeting would just to help clear the air face-to-face to understand some of those processes outside of a public forum would be would be good and again that's not our intention at all I mean |
| 01:20:53.72 | Jill Hoffman | I think that would be helpful. And you understand our frustration where we've seen this important part of our history deteriorate slowly over the last 70 years. So thank you so much for coming. I appreciate it. And our staff will be in touch with you to set a date for our next meeting. Great. Thank you. |
| 01:21:08.25 | Matthew Zetto | Great. Thank you. |
| 01:21:09.53 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. Yeah, I just have a comment. Sure. if I may, is that when you look at this building, as you know, there's such a rich history. And the VA has an opportunity for such a legacy with this, with the restoration of this building. And it's very exciting. And I see it as an opportunity for collaboration and moving towards a common vision. And so, you know, in that spirit that I look forward to, you know, seeing you guys as you go through that process and you take, you know, aggressive steps to protect that legacy from the elements because it's kind of falling apart right now. So... |
| 01:21:50.28 | Matthew Zetto | THE FAMILY. |
| 01:21:50.60 | Ray Pfeiffer | CONSIDERING. |
| 01:21:50.99 | Matthew Zetto | Thank you. |
| 01:21:51.01 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 01:21:51.03 | Matthew Zetto | to the next episode. |
| 01:21:51.08 | Ray Pfeiffer | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:21:51.13 | Matthew Zetto | I can see it as well but yes we look forward to the continued communication and efforts on this understand we are again there's budget constraints to say the least through big VA, not just San Francisco. But, and we, there's a lot of, yeah, I would say very volatile times in the VA. And regarding with capital budgets. And this is one vehicle potentially to help us and help with this, especially with the machine shop. And we definitely look forward to working with you through this, communicating what's come down from the VA central office and definitely work with you guys all. Appreciate it. |
| 01:22:15.21 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. |
| 01:22:15.28 | Mike Langford | Thank you. |
| 01:22:15.41 | Jonathon Goldman | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:22:31.81 | Jill Hoffman | House of Representatives. |
| 01:22:32.76 | Adam Politzer | Yeah, Matthew, thanks for coming. I realize what I'm about to say is not directed at you personally, but I think that's a good question. You know, if a bunch of you guys show up at a meeting, and you sit down and you say something's going to happen, I'm assuming that those around the table have the authority to actually make those statements. And so I very much welcome that we have a meeting, but you know, We need. people at the table who are actually going to know what they're talking about. And if they're going to say it's going to be mothballed in September, then they're coming with the authority to say it's gonna be moth-born in September. Last October, when you told me, when your colleagues told me it was gonna be done in March, I took it at face value that you had the authority, and your colleagues had the authority, to actually make that happen. That wasn't the case. So my recommendation is to make sure whoever does come to the meeting has the authority to actually state what you really are going to do. |
| 01:23:46.55 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. And if I could add to that, you know, we probably, it would be good if you could come to the meeting as well with some interim measures to protect the building until September. Or until such time as the construction is even going to start, right? Because you're not even, you're starting about, so, you know, come to that meeting prepared to have some answers and some concrete, you know, plan going forward. But anyway, thank you for coming and... |
| 01:24:13.23 | Matthew Zetto | Appreciate it. |
| 01:24:13.84 | Jill Hoffman | Welcome back to Sausalito. Of course. Thank you. Hold on just a second. |
| 01:24:15.36 | Matthew Zetto | first. Thank you guys. |
| 01:24:21.28 | Jill Hoffman | . In deference to my fellow council members and myself, we'll be taking a health and comfort break for the next 10 minutes. My apologies to the next item on the agenda. Ten minutes. All right, we are back in session. We are moving right along at a very good clip. We are now onto item five. of our public hearing. Consideration of an appeal of a planning commission decision upholding a zoning administrator decision approving an administrative design review permit and variance to allow For the construction of a 946-square-foot residential pier and deck slash boat lift that would extend into the San Francisco Bay at 2 Alexander Avenue. And, Danny, I understand you'll be presenting the staff report. Yes, I will. |
| 01:25:15.13 | Danny Castro | the staff I will yeah thank you thank you Mary Hoffman members of the council as the mayor just identified is this is a project at 2 Alexander Avenue and it is an appeal of the Planning Commission decision that upheld a zoning administrators and zoning administrator decision approving an administrative design review permit and a variance to allow for the construction of a new residential pier and deck boat lift that would extend into the San Francisco Bay. |
| 01:25:16.09 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:25:48.24 | Danny Castro | The entitlements that are required of this project is an administrative design review permit, as I mentioned, and that's for applications for building permits for the construction, renovation, or extension of any pier or dock in the R2 2.5 zoning district. A variance is requested. That is for the encroachment into the required 15-foot rear yard setback of this property. And a city lease agreement. And it is for the portion of the project that does extend onto city property. The applicant is Mid-Cal Construction. The property owner is Dr. Edward Fotch. The appeal was made and filed by Janine Moody and Sherry Sinclair. They are the owners at 6 Alexander, and the legal counsel for the appellant is Christopher Skelton. The map you see here on this slide shows that the property of 2 Alexander and abutting it to the north is 6 Alexander. |
| 01:27:00.85 | Danny Castro | To give you some background on the timeline of this project as it came before the city, the applicant, Dr. Fotch, submitted his application in November of 2013, and staff since then has been working with the completeness of the project, various items that needed to be complete in order to move it forward through the city's review process. In August of 2015, last year, the zoning administrator held a hearing and approved the administrative design review permit and variance. Soon following the zoning administrator hearing in that same month, Jeanine Moody did file an appeal of the zoning administrator approval, and that is to go to the Planning Commission when an appeal is filed at the zoning administrator level. In November 2015 and in January 2016 of this year, The Planning Commission reviewed the project and denied the appeal and upheld the zoning administrator approval, and that vote was a four to one. In February of this year, the same person, Janine Moody, did file an appeal of the Planning Commission decision for approval. And this is to come before the City Council. And that's where we are tonight. |
| 01:28:29.78 | Danny Castro | In terms of the vicinity, this here is an aerial view of the subject property at the bottom. And at the bottom of this image, you'll see marked as 2, is the simulation of the proposed pier at the very bottom. You also see here various other properties within the vicinity along the front on Alexander, but also front along the shoreline there. The subject parcel is approximately 11,369 square feet and contains an existing single-family residence, a garage, and access stairs to the shore. A portion of the site is steeply sloping downhill towards the San Francisco Bay. The parcel is located in the Old Town Hurricane Gulch neighborhood with surrounding land uses consisting of a mixture of single and multifamily residential dwellings. Seven out of the nine waterfront residences currently have piers and are floating docks or have entitlements but have not yet commenced construction. This image here shows, I believe my count was seven peers to the north, including the appellant's property at 6 Alexander, and it's identified here. And then there's eight, and these are addresses, 20 Alexander, 22 Alexander, 24 Alexander, 36 and 40 Alexander. |
| 01:30:06.44 | Danny Castro | This is an image that shows the property boundaries, just to be clear, because most of this is where the pier is going to be constructed is in water. And so this image shows where the Foch property has, I call it sort of a flagpole of their property that extends into the water. And that's the extent in blue is the Foch property. To the south is the Golden Gate National Recreation Area property and you see where it abuts the Foch property. It also abuts city property just above that in pink. To the north and to the left there, to above, is the Moody property to the north and you'll see in green how it abuts the Foch property. |
| 01:30:56.80 | Danny Castro | So again, that narrow strip is the Fotch property as it extends easterly. |
| 01:31:04.83 | Danny Castro | In terms of as the National Park Service, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, they are an adjacent property. And so staff has coordinated with the National Park Service. We have met with Brian Aviles, who is the chief planning officer, as well as Larry Miranda, who is also an environmental, he works in the environmental division. And I'm sorry, I don't have his title. But he is both individuals we have met with throughout the course of this project. And we did notice properly using available data from the Marin County assessors. for the zoning administrator hearing in August of 2015. Staff, we did notice that in our noticing that there wasn't a an actual address that was identified for the Golden Gate National Recreation area in that mailing and as usual practice we do notify we do rely on the Marin County Assessor's Office for the latest available property information. We then since learned that they were not contacted at that level. Once we determined they weren't, when it was appealed to the Planning Commission, they were notified immediately. And notice was provided to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area at the first hearing for November 2015. And then the following Planning Commission meeting in January 2016. And then, of course, the City Council meeting this evening, they were notified as well. We've been in extensive communication with the NPS GGNRA, it's an acronym, and we also had a site visit towards the end of the year with city staff and that agency and have remained in communication for the last five months. Here's a site plan and project description where you see here in plan view and in yellow here on this image the extent of the pier. It's a 946-square-foot residential pier composed of composite decking and the deck boat lift at the very right. The pier is five feet wide and will extend from an existing concrete and rock wall located at the bottom of the very right. The pier is five feet wide and will extend from an existing concrete and rock wall located at the bottom of the existing beach access stairs which connect to the rear of the applicant's The pier, as you see, is narrow and rectangular in shape, contains a boat lift which would have permanent decking 16 feet in width. At the end, the furthest point into the bay, the pier extends into the San Francisco Bay a maximum of 154 feet from the face of the existing concrete and rock walls. And the pier would span over a rock formation you see just before the deck portion, which is the 16-foot wide portion at the end. The pier will be supported by a concrete footing near the shoreline and nine steel piles supports. And again, because it extends to the extent that it's within the required rear yard setback That typically applied to residential home development, but again, this is unique in that this is a peer, but it does extend beyond that and onto the city property. That's why a variance is being requested. Here is a side profile diagram of the proposed pier. It shows the existing rock wall at the base of the slope of the property and the pier extending out into the water. And again, by elevation view, sort of a cross section, you can see the existing rock formation. That in low tide, it's very visible, and then high tide, you may not see it at all. |
| 01:35:16.56 | Danny Castro | And this next slide shows that in August of 2015, The project that was presented and then approved by the zoning administrator was a walking surface of the top of the pier at a height of 12.06 NAVD88. NAVD88 stands for the North – I had it in here. Hold on one second. I want to make sure I get this right. I think, North American vertical datum of 1988. And it is the measurement height that is done for surveying in the United States. established for vertical control serving in the United States. And this, this again was at 12.06. This is the walking surface top portion of the pier height. |
| 01:36:17.98 | Danny Castro | When it came before the Planning Commission in January, the Planning Commission in upholding the decision of the zoning administrator required the walking surface top again, top of the pier height, to be lowered approximately one and a half feet. And this resulted in the walking surface to drop from 12.06 North American vertical datum to a 10.58, about a foot and a half lower. which would mean that the lowest horizontal element, lowest horizontal member of the project decreased from 10.48 to 9. That's the lowest portion of the deck. And that was to be in compliance with the then required FEMA base flood elevation requirements. |
| 01:37:12.15 | Danny Castro | I'm going to go over the basis for the appeal. Number one, as the applicant, appellant contends that there were, number one, there was an illegal exemption of the project from CEQA. Number two, inability to make findings under the Sausalito Municipal Code. And number three, procedural defects in the process of the application. Regarding number one, illegal exemption of project from CEQA, number one CEQA, A, the initial study required under fair argument of possibility of significant effect due to unusual circumstances. Here it lists the items that staff feels that have met CEQA requirements. The City of Sausalito is the lead agency, and that was a question previously as to who is the lead agency as there are other external agencies involved, because it's a project. This is within the City's jurisdiction, and it is under CEQA. We are the lead agency for that. The categorical exemption under CEQA guidelines, Section 15303, new construction or conversion of small structures, it qualified under that category and that listing. That there's no new evidence of presented to disqualify CEQA categorical exemption. The responsible agencies have reviewed and provided their own specific mitigation and design requirements. As part of the application to the city of Sausalito, the project has received correspondence from the Army Corps of Engineers, the San Francisco Bay Conservation Development Commission, this is BCDC, And by way of BCDC, comments from the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Sausalito Marin City Sanitary District, and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. What is common when other external agencies are involved or they're adjacent to a property, it's that these agencies often look for the project to receive local government approval, and that the environmental documentation is documentation is conducted prior to undergoing each of these agencies' regulations. With regard to the possible presence of eelgrass in or around the proposed pier project, Each of these agencies are requiring that eelgrass surveys be conducted prior to construction and during construction, If eelgrass beds are found under the location of the pier, A mitigation and monitoring program must be implemented to compensate for impacts to the eelgrass beds. including the possible imposition of alternatives to mitigate impacts to ill grass beds that are under or immediately next to Recent correspondence that was received as late mail from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, where they have determined that eelgrass was clearly identifiable within the vicinity of the proposed pier, and that a survey will be required prior to construction of that project. This requirement is consistent with earlier correspondence from the Department of Fish and Game. This is not new information. They just confirmed that it's clearly identifiable within the area and that a Neil Grass survey will determine how impactful the project could be to that project. the Again, staff finds that the categorical exemption that has been applied is appropriate, and the Planning Commission as well of city staff concluded that that was the case. There is most recent correspondence from the San Francisco Water Board, and they concur as well that a categorical exempt from review under CEQA is appropriate. In terms of exemptions, here is a list, a bullet list. I won't read them each, but it's a bullet list of what can be exempt from the exceptions from a categorical exemption. And these are certain designated circumstances which would preclude the use of an otherwise applicable categorical exemption. with respect to the class three categorical exemption being applied in this project. So the exemption cannot be used for the following. for any of these following that are bulleted here. The appellant claims that the presence of eelgrass in or around the project demand environmental review under CEQA. The pallet's contention is an incorrect application. of the provisions of the CEQA guidelines. The project is not located in an area that has been designated as an area of environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern that has been precisely mapped and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. The applicant contends that the project results in a reasonable probability that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. The unusual circumstances cited include the presence of eelgrass, the habitat that is afforded by the rock outcropping and or eelgrass, and the identified depletion of eelgrass habitat in and around the San Francisco Richmond Bays. Staff, the zoning administrator, and the planning commission find that these circumstances are not unusual to the project site or nearby vicinity. The project is typical of the many piers and floating systems along the San Francisco Bay shoreline and is similar to the piers of nearby property owners. No new persuasive evidence has been presented to exempt the application of a categorical exemption under CEQA and none of the exceptions identified under CEQA guidelines apply. |
| 01:43:13.95 | Danny Castro | Appeal basis number two, inability to make findings under the Sausalito Municipal Code. It was identified by the appellant, an inability to make findings. A, project is too tall, privacy in view. B, project is too close, privacy in view. C, project foreseeably includes tree removal that will unreasonably contribute to and exacerbate privacy concerns. the response to this is that the pier is located at an elevation below the appellant's windows. I will show you photos following this slide. The planning commission required lower pier height walking surface to alleviate any potential view impact. The pier could be observed when looking down from the primary view areas. The guardrails have not been proposed and are not required, and I will touch on that a little bit more. Proposed pier is seven feet set back from either side of the property boundary, and the trees between 2 and 6 Alexander are not subject to permitting, and nor is screening was required as when this went before the Planning Commission. That was not an issue of discussion regarding the trees. Those were existing trees, but it was not factored in in terms of privacy. I want to address the guardrails. The project has not proposed guardrails. It never had guardrails. The city staff has worked with the city's chief building official and in consultation with the International Code Council And it was confirmed that the subject project does not require guardrails per the California Building Code The section is Code Section 1013.2. And guardrails are required in particular circumstances when you have a vertical drop of more than 30 inches. But in this instance, there's an exception that guards are not required for the loading side of loading docks or piers. All portions of the pier and deck boat lift are suitable for loading depending on the tide. uh, In terms of this particular project, you can launch your vessel, kayak, recreational facility from both sides of the pier, especially when the tide is at higher levels. At high tide, the water nearly touches the base of the appellant's pier, which also does not have any guardrails. Here are some photos from the appellants' living room. And here's their window that faces southeasterly. And you can see the pink horizontal tape that is attached to the story poles. That would be the height of the highest portion of the proposed pier. |
| 01:46:19.17 | Danny Castro | Here's just a view opposite where we're standing inside the living room, and that's from the beach looking north. |
| 01:46:30.43 | Danny Castro | Here again, again, that would be the highest walking surface element of the pier. |
| 01:46:43.28 | Danny Castro | This is taken from the Moody's, the appellant's existing peer. And then to the north is a neighboring pier. I believe that's 20 Alexander or 8 Alexander. Here's another image that shows |
| 01:47:06.82 | Danny Castro | from the Moody's Pier to the north. |
| 01:47:12.17 | Danny Castro | The appeal basis number three, procedural defects in the processing of the application. A, that the application was incomplete. B, the findings were deficient and the conditions of approval. C, that there was story polls were inadequate. The appellant suggests that the project violates, well, let me indicate first that the project is complete. Staff in response believes the project is complete. It has all the required information to comprehensively review the project. The municipal code was applied and authorizes the zoning administrator to review specific administrative design and review permits and variance applications. There's specific language in our municipal code that indicates that residential pure projects are subject to zoning administrator hearings, and we followed that process. Project design remains similar and consistent with the zoning ordinance and the general plan. Regarding the stairs, there was indication that stairs would be replaced. That's typically non-discretionary in its review. Stairs can be replaced and requires a permit. building permit, but not a public hearing. Trees between the 2 and 6 Alexander, the alteration is not subject to permitting. I mentioned that before. Screening is voluntary, whether it be from the applicant or whether from the appellant. And the project does not violate the public trust doctrine. I want to elaborate a bit on that. The appellant suggests that the project violates the public trust doctrine and. In staff, the zoning administrator and planning commission's opinion, the project does not violate the public trust doctrine, As stated in the January 20th, 2016 Planning Commission staff report, Thank you. The public trust doctrine is a common law principle which provides that lands under the ocean and under navigable streams are owned by the public and held in trust for the people by the government. These public trust lands also include filled lands formerly underwater. the Traditional uses allowed under the public trust doctrine were once described as water related commerce, navigation and fisheries. The concept has evolved over time and has been shaped by the courts. the statutory grants from the state allow the city to lease trust lands, for trust purposes. The California Supreme Court has said that the public trust embraces the right of the public to use the navigable waters of the state for bathing, boating, and general recreational purposes. The statutory grant from the state to the city specifically allow for the lease of public trust lands. In staff's opinion, the use of the minimal amount of city controlled land in question for a dock, which can be utilized by others in cases of emergency, does not violate the public trust doctrine. Staff notes that other peer projects in the vicinity, including 40 Alexander Avenue and the appellant's own property at 6 Alexander Avenue, have been offered leases of city-controlled property for peer projects. Should the city... Should the city council uphold the approval of the project, the application of the public trust doctrine will be taken under consideration by the council In its review of whether or not to grant the proposed lease to the applicant. |
| 01:50:39.03 | Danny Castro | Looks like I just included more photos here. of the story polls. So staff's recommendation is to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision, upholding a zoning administrator decision, approving the administrative design review permit and variance. The council has a number of options as well to uphold the appeal and deny the entitlements. to continue the public hearing for additional information and or project revisions. or to remand the project to the Planning Commission for further consideration of a specific issue. That concludes my report. I'm available to answer any questions. Just before you answer any questions, I just would like to acknowledge that while I presented the project, Calvin Chan, the associate planner, has managed this project from the beginning. He did all the heavy lifting, and so I just want to indicate that he's been very involved in working with both the applicant and the appellant. Thank you. |
| 01:51:44.15 | Jill Hoffman | Thanks, Danny. I skipped over a very important part of the this public hearing process, which is the council's disclosure of ex parte communication. So let's do that first before we go into questions by the council regarding your presentation. And I'll kick us off. I've discussed the peer and had a site visit with both Ed Fodge at 2 Alexander and Jenny Moody at 6 Alexander. And I, don't believe I've had any other communications other than reading what's been in our packet and the and the comments that have been written comments that submitted |
| 01:52:23.08 | Adam Politzer | Yeah, I also have visited both 2 Alexander and 6 Alexander. I've read the numerous documents that have been put in front of us and listen to the planning commission hearings. |
| 01:52:42.48 | Unknown | Yeah, I also on Sunday visited and spoke to both parties in this. |
| 01:52:48.74 | Linda Pfeiffer | And I made site visits to both two and six and met with propellant Moody and applicant Dr. Fotch, read the materials and sat through the entire two and a half hour planning commission video. |
| 01:53:02.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:53:02.33 | Ray Pfeiffer | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:53:02.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:53:03.04 | Ray Pfeiffer | And I also talked with and met with and visited the site for with both the applicant and the appellate. And I also talked with Marin Audubon. |
| 01:53:14.01 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you. I also spoke with Ian Moody as well, and I did watch the planning commission hearing. Okay, so do we? And I'm sorry. |
| 01:53:25.82 | Ray Pfeiffer | And I'm sorry, of course I reviewed all the materials and the Planning Commission materials, et cetera. I thought ex parte was just communications with either side, so. Thank you. you |
| 01:53:36.55 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, so do we have any, I have some questions for Danny, do you guys have questions for, yeah, okay. well I'll kick us off then Danny one of the issues that seemed to be sort of bubbling up and then bubbling down in the planning commission and throughout our materials was the position of the peer in relation to the stairs and that you know so is there And there's that little dog leg now where the pier sort of goes in. Is it possible for the peer? for the land side as it comes to the rock wall, can it be shifted back to where? the stairs currently are. I understand now it's in the middle of the Fox property, but can it be shifted back to the left, assuming all parties agree are here? |
| 01:54:28.61 | Danny Castro | Well, it was always intended to make an easy transition, and if you ask the applicant to make an easy transition directly from the stair down to the landing of the pier, and through further precise measurements and to ensure that the pier was, in fact, in the center of that long portion of the property, there had to be an adjustment to ensure that there was the proper setbacks made at the side yards as it goes out. So it would require a redesign if there were to be straight from the existing stairway as it is and perhaps a jog later on. But I would ask the applicant to comment on that. |
| 01:54:28.66 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:54:37.03 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:54:53.55 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:55:17.40 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, that's fine, I'll ask the applicant that question then. with regard to the the height of the pier now with the floodplain so it went the pier kind of went up and it went down and you know so at its current plan that's the lowest the pier can be according to the floodplain and also whatever variances we could provide |
| 01:55:47.45 | Danny Castro | Right now, what was approved by the Planning Commission is actually below the current base flood elevation of 15 NAVD 88. And so this would require, if it were to be lowered to no lower than 9, 9 NAVD 88, it would require the variance. So it would be lowered and a foot and a half than what was proposed both to the zoning administrator and to the planning commission. I don't know if that helps understand. So anything below 15 is going to require that a floodplain variance be approved. |
| 01:56:34.55 | Jill Hoffman | Go ahead. |
| 01:56:35.65 | Adam Politzer | Yeah, I actually have a follow-up question to the mayor's first question, which is about the exact location of the pier on the... east-west axis I suppose yeah relative to the stairs now I want to understand the offsets I understand under our zoning under our municipal code without a variance you have to be five foot away from the side lot line right yes so that's right and right now this pier is in the middle of this little thin strip so there's about seven and a half feet if memory serves from the Planning Commission either side of it. |
| 01:57:26.52 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. |
| 01:57:26.56 | Danny Castro | Correct. Yes. With the exception of the deck at the very end. Understood. But that is actually beyond the property owner's property. |
| 01:57:33.04 | Adam Politzer | Understood. |
| 01:57:38.64 | Adam Politzer | Understood. Understood. I'm referring to the sort of line along which the deck runs. I know it runs out into city property. Now, GGNRA have said that they would prefer a three-feet foot setback from their property line. Right now, it's seven-and-a-half feet, apart from the very end, the float part, which I guess is only one and a half feet away from the GGNRA's property line. That's correct. As opposed to the three feet they're asking for. |
| 01:58:15.14 | Danny Castro | That's correct. |
| 01:58:19.07 | Danny Castro | Yeah, they were asking for it. |
| 01:58:19.23 | Adam Politzer | they were asking for it. Under what authority are they asking for that? |
| 01:58:24.22 | Danny Castro | There, in correspondence as well as in speaking to GGNRA representatives, they were saying that an additional one and a half feet, right now it's 18 inches, additional one and a half feet will make it three feet, that will provide an additional setback for should the applicant maintain when they're maintaining the deck, And that would assure that there's more space. We did speak with the GGNRA. We asked them, you know, that's a foot and a half more. You know, you could have a boat on that side. It could be 10 feet in width. I think anything on that side is still going to, you know, be within that area is a foot and a half. really providing what is necessary and I didn't get a response. |
| 01:59:25.21 | Unknown | Question Danny on the trees. I believe they're pitosporums. Yes. And that kind of leaves a little barrier between both homes. Do they plan to take those down or do they plan to just let that kind of be a little buffer zone? |
| 01:59:49.09 | Danny Castro | I believe that the little jog to meet the pier length would likely necessitate removal at least of the lowest of the series of pitosporum trees that are placed there. I don't think it would remove all of them. But that is, you know, those aren't protected trees. |
| 02:00:13.81 | Unknown | But what's the difference, what's the distance between those pitosporum and the property line? |
| 02:00:21.23 | Danny Castro | between the Moody's? |
| 02:00:21.92 | Unknown | Of six, yeah. |
| 02:00:24.40 | Danny Castro | I don't have that exact measurement. I think it's pretty close, but it's entirely on the applicant's property. |
| 02:00:29.87 | Unknown | Okay. Thank you. |
| 02:00:31.81 | Danny Castro | Thank you. |
| 02:00:31.91 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:00:31.96 | Danny Castro | Thank you. |
| 02:00:32.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:00:32.54 | Ray Pfeiffer | Yeah. So since we're talking about the setback, I'll start my question with that. Can I see the photo that shows the stair? Yeah, there. So it's my understanding that the white, where the storyboards are, they want to move the staircase over there. |
| 02:00:52.57 | Danny Castro | I believe the staircase would remain... from the top of the hill coming down in that location and then there would be a slight jog landing that would you know, if you were coming down the stairs, you would have to walk left a little bit so that you get to the point where The white framing is right there, so you would, it would be a slight jog. |
| 02:01:13.98 | Ray Pfeiffer | So I'm hearing that and there and slight jog and I'm not quite sure what what that means. And I know there was confusion in the planning commission about the children. The plan. I just want it. Well, I I but see visually seeing it is what I need. So this the staircase coming down, you're saying that that would stay in the same location until what point the first trunk there would it jog there? |
| 02:01:23.16 | Danny Castro | It's shown on the planet. |
| 02:01:23.97 | Unknown | it. |
| 02:01:27.70 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. |
| 02:01:27.74 | Unknown | MMM. |
| 02:01:28.01 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. |
| 02:01:44.07 | Danny Castro | you see the lower white |
| 02:01:52.12 | Ray Pfeiffer | Because it's my understanding that where the staircase is right now, too, it's got a three- |
| 02:01:58.55 | Danny Castro | Thank you. |
| 02:01:58.57 | Unknown | So if you look at the existing rock wall here, that's the point of reference where those poles are right in front of. So this where I'm pointing right here, that's the rock wall. So the stairs, as you pointed out, Councilmember Pfeiffer, those will be rebuilt in that location. But the landing goes slightly towards the north to the Moody's, towards that direction. Quick question. |
| 02:02:23.12 | Ray Pfeiffer | Quick question while you're pointing that out, or do you want me to wait until you're done? I'm fine with waiting. Because I appreciate this and I saw this and I appreciate this, but I guess I wanted to confirm that, first of all, the steps that I'm seeing there, have those changed? Those that you're telling me that those are going to be in the same location? |
| 02:02:27.41 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:02:27.85 | Unknown | I'm fine with waiting. |
| 02:02:46.37 | Unknown | As proposed by the applicant in their drawings, yes. |
| 02:02:48.84 | Ray Pfeiffer | Okay, so it looks like, what is that? Because it's cut off, there's an arrow that's pointing to there and it's cut off from the slide that we're seeing. Is that a foot or two feet? |
| 02:02:57.61 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. |
| 02:02:57.65 | Unknown | IS THAT? |
| 02:02:58.03 | Jonathon Goldman | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:03:03.13 | Unknown | Are you asking what the notation says? |
| 02:03:04.06 | Ray Pfeiffer | Mm-hmm. Thank you. Yeah, I'm just trying to see what that jog is, because I don't have perspective there. |
| 02:03:05.95 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:03:11.40 | Unknown | Based on the project drawings, it says, the caption reads, plus 10.19 NAVD 88. It shows the top of the existing concrete and rock wall at the location the pier intercepts the existing wall. So that's what that arrow says. |
| 02:03:29.89 | Ray Pfeiffer | Okay, so what I'm hearing then, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the photo of the stairs that we saw is not changing. It's going to stay the same. So those stairs, that's going to stay the same. The location of those stairs will not shift. And the only, that jog it looked like from that, drawing is going to be just about where that first trunk is for that pittisporum tree. |
| 02:04:02.19 | Ray Pfeiffer | lower |
| 02:04:03.59 | Unknown | So... So I took this photo standing in between the story poles, as you can see. So if I point on the computer, this would be the highest walking surface. So it comes out from that rock wall. When it was proposed and reviewed by the zoning administrator, it was at this higher height here. So that's where, at that time, you would have walked out. |
| 02:04:27.02 | Ray Pfeiffer | All right. So thank you. So so we're talking about just kind of just towards the end of that staircase. That's where the the dog would correct. OK, that that helps me. It wasn't clear to me if I was looking at completely new stairs from that from that drawing. |
| 02:04:35.10 | Unknown | Go ahead. |
| 02:04:45.63 | Ray Pfeiffer | I have a question about the comment the fish and wildlife clearly, I heard staff say the fish and wildlife clearly identified quote, no, there was no new information. And I was just, I guess we received an email yesterday from the Fish and Wildlife saying, quote, just to be clear, there is an email dating back quite a few years stating I did not identify eelgrass at the site, but during subsequent site visits during the eelgrass growing season, eelgrass was clearly identifiable within the vicinity of the proposed pier, and this was made clear to the applicant on multiple occasions. And it says CDFW will require an eelgrass survey before any construction begins. So I have two questions. That sounds like this official from the Fish and Wildlife is correcting a perception that Fish and Wildlife may have been misrepresented with respect to eelgrass not being there. Is that the case? |
| 02:06:03.20 | Danny Castro | I think in 2012 there is communication from the Department of Fish and Wildlife that they stated they believed there was no eelgrass. And so this recent email was clarification indicating that there is eelgrass within the vicinity. |
| 02:06:20.30 | Ray Pfeiffer | And this email, you're referring to the one we see just yesterday? Correct. So does that mean that the planning commission was not clear on the presence of eelgrass? Well... That they were just... |
| 02:06:24.52 | Danny Castro | Correct. |
| 02:06:35.32 | Ray Pfeiffer | If they had that information, this sounds like it's new information. |
| 02:06:41.46 | Danny Castro | The information provided has been consistent in terms of the requirement of an eelgrass study to confirm what impacts the project would have. But regarding the environmental determination, there hasn't been any new persuasive information indicating that eelgrass is precisely mapped and identified as a critical habit at that area within the construction of the pier area. |
| 02:07:09.29 | Ray Pfeiffer | So I'm just looking at this email, though, and it clearly seems to imply to me that they are documenting for the first time clarification that they did see eelgrass at the site. I want to clarify this because when I went to the site, I saw eelgrass. You know, I saw eelgrass. So the other question I have is, I guess I'm trying to reconcile staffs comment that I Did I understand this correctly that the National Park Service did not receive a notice at the time that administrative review was conducted and this project was approved? |
| 02:07:59.00 | Danny Castro | They have identified that they did not receive notice. We rely on the Marin County Assessor's Office on the latest available property ownership. And within that notice, we did send out notices. We looked back, and we found that that label for the GGNRA was not included. And so we then contacted them and then ensured that subsequent to that, that they received notice when this was reviewed by the Planning Commission. |
| 02:08:29.41 | Ray Pfeiffer | but not when it was under administrative review. Okay, my next question is, usually when these projects are conducted for review, especially a project which enters city waters and impacts the public trust doctrine, or potentially impacts it, we have council review this first, before administrative review. And I was pretty surprised when we changed the process on this because it was kind of like administrative review was granted before even though it was the public's you know water before the council had had a chance to review and you know review the project for for approval can you explain why that process was changed on this why it flipped |
| 02:09:32.84 | Danny Castro | Bye. I can't speak for whether the process was changed. I just understand that under the city's municipal code and the ordinance, the process we followed that requires that this is eligible under a zoning administrator hearing and that it was conditioned upon the portion of the property that does extend into the city property, that that would be subject to that meeting that condition of approval. |
| 02:10:00.82 | Ray Pfeiffer | So the process that I'm referring to is the process that was followed for the 40 Alexander. |
| 02:10:09.88 | Jonathon Goldman | That's correct. |
| 02:10:11.23 | Ray Pfeiffer | And of course, the unique aspect of Forte Alexander was that it also would have entered city waters. And the other peers that currently exist there do not. And so the question of the public trust doctrine is not an issue. Is that accurate? |
| 02:10:34.42 | Danny Castro | The previous, not all the peers that exist do extend into the public lands, but some of them do. And so that was applied in the time in which they were reviewed and approved. |
| 02:10:50.74 | Ray Pfeiffer | It's my understanding only 40 Alexander extends into city, would have had it been built, would have extended into city water. Is that accurate? |
| 02:10:57.10 | Danny Castro | What happened? |
| 02:11:02.03 | Danny Castro | It would have, yeah, and it would apply. |
| 02:11:04.68 | Ray Pfeiffer | Okay, so I'm just curious as to when back in 2009, I was a new council member and I remember Forty Alexander but I don't remember ever being told about the public trust doctrine. And I'm just curious, I guess it's a question you know, to staff, I mean, to me, it seems like that, I mean, that would have applied, correct? Because it was entering city water. |
| 02:11:37.84 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, so Councilmember Pfeiffer, you know, we need to go back and look at the documentation from 2009 with respect to the the discussion for the peer at 40 Alexander. I think you're correct that the public trust doctrine would apply in that same context. With respect to your question about process, this has been approached in various ways. In some circumstances, it's brought first to the council for consideration before planning entitlements are sought. And those the council approves the use of the city land then the planning entitlements can be sought and the lease is contingent upon receipt of those entitlements in other circumstances it's been done in the reverse where the planning entitlements go first with the understanding that it will be conditioned on receipt of approval from the council as the landlord and that it's contingent upon that. the applicants taking a bit of a risk, if you will, of going through that process, expending the funds and the fees and then coming to the council after the fact. Staff worked with the agenda setting committee of the mayor and the vice mayor in order to determine the appropriate steps with respect to this project. |
| 02:12:57.74 | Ray Pfeiffer | So I'll reserve my feelings about that for comment. Regarding CEQA, I, looking at the Marin Audubon letter, And it says, the Mono Lake decision, and I just want to clarify this, because I think this is what is unique about this dock, this proposed pier, is that it does go into city waters, and the others do not. The other existing docks there do not. And so I know that staff has referred to public use. This is a private doc. I'm reading here. It says, the Mono Lake decision extended the public trust doctrine to protect wildlife resources in addition to the public's right to use the waters for commerce, navigation, and fisheries. It is the project's impact on public trust resources, not the amount of fill that is important here. So if I look at that, and I look at the the documented eelgrass at the site, I'm having, as well as a reference to Class III categorical exemption does not apply with regards to CEQA, quote, a project which may result in damage to scenic rock outcroppings, and we know there's a rock formation there, which is why the applicant has to extend, why CEQA would not apply. I'm just, I'm grappling with that. |
| 02:14:36.64 | Danny Castro | staff and the Planning Commission and Zoning Administrator did not find that applicable and found that a categorical exemption was adequate and based on the information presented and provided. |
| 02:14:49.52 | Mary Wagner | And council member Pfeiffer, if I may add into that, CEQA does apply. And staff isn't indicating that CEQA doesn't apply, just that in this particular instance, the legislature has developed categorical exemptions for certain types of projects, of which this one falls into that category. And with respect to the eelgrass, I believe that the email from Fish and Wildlife indicated that there's eelgrass in the vicinity, not necessarily on the project site. And staff continues to support the use of the categorical exemption for this project. |
| 02:15:24.08 | Ray Pfeiffer | Well, just a clarification, if I may. You said that the email says that they say there's eelgrass in the vicinity. They say within the vicinity of the proposed pier, and you say not at the site. But, I mean, to me, when I'm looking at this, the vicinity of the proposed pier means that the proposed pier would impact the eelgrass. Why else? And they said that they made that clear to the applicant on multiple occasions. So, you know, I guess it's a shame we don't have them on speakerphone right now. We could potentially clarify that. But it does seem, and as I said, I saw eelgrass when I was there. So I know it's there. How far will this proposed peer enter the public waters? I've gotten different answers from the applicant and the appellate, and I just want clarity on it. It's my understanding. And I I'm just gonna step back because I don't I really don't know. I'm just curious. How far will the proposed pier? Extend into public waters. How many feet? |
| 02:16:53.01 | Danny Castro | Let me look at the plans and see if I can |
| 02:17:40.46 | Danny Castro | I'm looking. at the plans and the dimensions that are for other elements. And it's approximately 30 to 35 feet into the |
| 02:17:58.16 | Danny Castro | outside of the property line. and into the water. |
| 02:18:04.29 | Ray Pfeiffer | Okay, so just for the record, is it's my understanding that the rock formation roughly marks where, I guess it's just beyond that, just next to that rock formation that the city water, the public trust doctrine would apply. Is that correct? Or where the city waters are? |
| 02:18:33.64 | Danny Castro | It's before that. |
| 02:18:35.46 | Ray Pfeiffer | It's before that. |
| 02:18:37.04 | Danny Castro | So the rock formation is not on the applicant's property. It's outside of the applicant's property. |
| 02:18:46.76 | Ray Pfeiffer | Oh, okay. So, okay, gotcha. All right. So if we were to look at the rock formation, can you, I mean, maybe you can't tell me, I'm trying to understand how far this is going to extend because I looked at how far the other piers went out and they were all of the same, you know, length. This one seemed to go out a lot further and it was hard for me to, you know, ascertain that. So there's the rock formation. So can you tell me how many feet it extends out from the rock formation? |
| 02:19:40.97 | Mary Wagner | Danny why you're why you're looking for that is there a scene sorry sorry to interrupt isn't there a slide with the photo with the property lines on it that might be helpful to the council I'm not sure |
| 02:19:41.84 | Ray Pfeiffer | I know. |
| 02:19:41.98 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. |
| 02:19:42.03 | Ray Pfeiffer | While you're looking for that, isn't there a... 16 to 18 feet. Okay. Sorry. |
| 02:19:50.85 | Ray Pfeiffer | Okay, the reason I asked is because- |
| 02:19:52.39 | Danny Castro | There it is. I'm sorry, Council Member Pfeiffer. Here in the pink there, you'll see where exactly the FOTCAS property ends. Okay. And then the rock formation is just outside. Okay. And that would span over that rock formation. Okay. |
| 02:19:56.12 | Ray Pfeiffer | Sure. |
| 02:20:03.34 | Ray Pfeiffer | Okay. and that looks Okay, gotcha. And so we're looking at 35 feet longer than any other pier there. Is that accurate? |
| 02:20:18.51 | Danny Castro | No, I wouldn't say it's accurate in terms of its total length. There are peers... |
| 02:20:23.19 | Ray Pfeiffer | No, no, no. I meant, I meant from the point, from the, from the point where it enters city, city waters, because it seemed like the others stopped short of the city waters because they didn't have the rock formation. That's correct. Okay. |
| 02:20:49.39 | Ray Pfeiffer | So I have another, oh, I'm sorry, anybody? |
| 02:21:00.38 | Ray Pfeiffer | So the... The other question I had was, um, I was, I, I, the appellant told me that their parcel and the other parcels along the strip of Alexander, I mean, the other, the other, um, peers in the, the homes, um, have no reservation on the public trust and that this particular property does have a reservation on title for the public trust. Can you comment on that? I don't know if this is the case or not. I'm just asking for |
| 02:21:49.08 | Danny Castro | I don't know either. Thank you. |
| 02:21:50.28 | Ray Pfeiffer | Okay, okay, two of us. We'll hear from the applicant and we'll hear from the appellate, so. |
| 02:21:51.46 | Danny Castro | The two of us. Well, we'll... |
| 02:22:00.77 | Ray Pfeiffer | Okay, all right, well, I have a few other questions regarding the public trust doctrine, but maybe the presentations will answer my questions. |
| 02:22:12.60 | Jill Hoffman | I have a couple of questions, Danny, I do. The... The Moody property at 6 Alexander that we're most concerned about is the lower level and the views from that lower level as they impact or they're impacted by the pier. What's the floodplain level for that lower level? Is it, can you tell if it's above or below the 15, the 15 foot? Because it looks like the bottom of the pier is going to be level with the floor. |
| 02:22:46.03 | Jonathon Goldman | The floor. |
| 02:22:47.94 | Jill Hoffman | So. So the bottom floor of the 6 Alexander is also below the floodplain? |
| 02:22:50.54 | Danny Castro | Oh. |
| 02:22:50.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:22:56.67 | Danny Castro | Yes. |
| 02:22:57.81 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. I have a question also about the BCDC process and my apologies, I'm not trying to spring anything on anybody, I was just, I had a question about the eelgrass beds so I'm looking at |
| 02:23:17.93 | Jill Hoffman | item 5a attachment 7 and it's a September 18 2014 letter from BC DC and there may be subsequent information and you perhaps the applicant's attorney or the appellant's attorney might be able to address this as well. |
| 02:23:33.11 | Danny Castro | dresses as well. May, could you tell me what you're doing? |
| 02:23:34.97 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:23:35.04 | Danny Castro | drawn. |
| 02:23:36.14 | Jill Hoffman | I can't tell, I'm sorry. If you flip through, it says item 5A attachment seven. |
| 02:23:36.20 | Danny Castro | I can't. |
| 02:23:42.02 | Danny Castro | Okay. THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:23:43.09 | Jill Hoffman | And the bottom of my page is cut off, so I don't know what the page number is. It's sort of toward the back. I will find it. |
| 02:23:43.21 | Danny Castro | and, you know, the |
| 02:24:00.11 | Adam Politzer | September 18th, 2014. |
| 02:24:02.93 | Danny Castro | Yes. I think I have it in front of me. |
| 02:24:08.89 | Adam Politzer | Page 5 of 13, Danny, on attachment 7. |
| 02:24:14.44 | Jill Hoffman | So, and I'm looking at page three. |
| 02:24:22.07 | Jill Hoffman | And this says, and on page three, I'm looking at the second to the last paragraph. There's one sentence, but it's really the last substantive paragraph. And it talks about please be advised authorization from the commission If the project is approved, would not be issued until the results of an eelgrass survey conducted by a qualified biologist. During the eelgrass growing season from April to October are provided and reviewed. Do you know what the status is on that? Is that still in effect? Does the applicant still have to go back to BCDC? |
| 02:24:53.12 | Mary Wagner | Yes. |
| 02:24:53.58 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Okay. Okay. Yeah, the answer is yes? Yes. Okay. All right. Do you know if an eelgrass survey has been conducted? |
| 02:24:57.32 | Danny Castro | Yes. Yes. Do you know if any? I believe there was one. I would refer to the applicant, but I believe there was one done previously. Thank you. |
| 02:25:08.75 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:25:08.76 | Danny Castro | Thank you. |
| 02:25:08.78 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 02:25:08.85 | Danny Castro | Thank you. Um, Not recently, though. I think in 2012, but I would have to. |
| 02:25:16.63 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you. I'll follow up with the applicant on that. Those are my only questions so far. Anybody else? Okay. |
| 02:25:33.92 | Ray Pfeiffer | Okay, I have a question. Go ahead. Sorry. Go ahead. I'll hold the rest of my questions, but I just wanted a clarification. Staff makes a case. In support of the proposal, staff suggests that the peer would be helpful for emergencies, for emergency use. and I'm just curious as to we've got you know what three or four other peers there so it just seemed to me that I'm just curious as to how that was you know viewed as as you know in something that was unique or a plus for the project. |
| 02:26:28.53 | Danny Castro | In that, not anything in particular, but just that it does provide a potential public benefit should there be a state of emergency and that there is an alternative way for transportation. |
| 02:26:47.45 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 02:26:47.68 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:26:47.77 | Ray Pfeiffer | . |
| 02:26:47.84 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. I have another follow-up question. How does the prior settlement in 1991 affect this project? Thank you. you know, I'm sorry. Again, I'm, but I mean, I think that's an issue. I'm happy that, |
| 02:27:04.73 | Mary Wagner | But I mean, I think that's an issue. I'm happy to answer that. And if we could go back to the slide that depicts the property boundaries. Yes. |
| 02:27:12.93 | Danny Castro | the colored one. |
| 02:27:14.53 | Mary Wagner | The colored one, yeah. And I've discussed this with the applicant's attorney. The settlement agreement applies to the FOTS property as it comes out, that the city does not have the authority to require an encroachment agreement on that portion of the property. It does not apply to the portion of the property that's being considered under the lease. |
| 02:27:43.19 | Mary Wagner | i'm not sure i know what that means the settlement agreement was it was basically a quiet title action if you will and the issue that was presented to me for review was does the settlement agreement preclude the city from requiring a lease or some other right to use the portion of city property that is subject to this pier so the settlement agreement indicates for the portion of the Fodge property that's highlighted in blue, that the city does not have the right to require an encroachment agreement or other form of permission to use that portion of the property, of Fodges property, that is not city-controlled property. It does not apply to the portion, I don't look in what color that is light pink where the the city's property line begins |
| 02:27:43.24 | Jill Hoffman | I'm not sure I know what that means. |
| 02:28:22.89 | Jonathon Goldman | Okay. |
| 02:28:30.64 | Jill Hoffman | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:28:35.01 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thanks. Thank you. |
| 02:28:36.71 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 02:28:36.73 | Linda Pfeiffer | I'd recommend that we maybe have present a lot of these questions might get answered and then we can go back and make sure everyone's questions are answered. I did |
| 02:28:43.06 | Ray Pfeiffer | I just have one quick question that Mary would probably answer real quickly. Mary, as we listen to the presentations and we learn about the title status with respect to the reservation of the public trust, afterwards I'd like to ask the question regarding that there would not be any potential, for example, city liability from environmental groups or what have you you know that there would not be any potential for example city liability from environmental groups or what have you you know if this is if there is difference it with respect to title with respect to the public trust so I'll just I'll just I wanted to say that to frame that and I'll be listening and maybe it'll be a non-issue |
| 02:29:25.63 | Jill Hoffman | All right, thank you. So we'll move now into the applicant and appellant presentations. Appellant goes first. Appellant goes first, followed by the applicant. You have 10 minutes per team, which means however many people speak. Also, and then you're able to reserve however much time you want. with regard to the appellant, correct? |
| 02:29:46.04 | Mary Wagner | You've mayor Hoffman, if I may, the council's procedure is a little bit different from the planning commission, and they have that opportunity to reserve time. They just give a blanket 15 minutes and you can use it as you see fit. The council procedure is. |
| 02:29:47.52 | Jill Hoffman | Sure. Okay. |
| 02:29:56.84 | Mary Wagner | The appellant has 10 minutes. The applicant has 10 minutes. You take public comment. Then the appellant has five minutes of rebuttal, and the applicant has five minutes of rebuttal. Okay. And I'll run the separate timer for 10, and when it gets to 3, I'll switch to that timer up there. |
| 02:30:06.27 | Unknown | OKAY. |
| 02:30:06.54 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:30:07.69 | Jonathon Goldman | you |
| 02:30:07.74 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:30:07.77 | Jill Hoffman | you |
| 02:30:13.63 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, all right then, you have 10 minutes, sir. |
| 02:30:25.54 | Christopher Skelton | Sorry, we had a minor spill up here. Trying to make sure my notes don't bleed completely. |
| 02:30:42.58 | Unknown | you |
| 02:31:04.25 | Michael Racks | Okay. |
| 02:31:11.54 | Christopher Skelton | Good evening, council members. My name is Chris Skelton, and I represent the appellants, Janine Moody and Sheree Sinclair, the residents of 6 Alexander. I want to start off by thanking you very much for your thoughtful attention and a specific line of questions. I think that you guys have seen some of the frustration that's been experienced by the appellants, and hopefully this can be resolved. I wish I could educate the council on all four of these issues tonight. But as you can expect from the volume of materials that are part of this issue, it could take hours, maybe even days or weeks. So I only have a couple minutes. I'm already wasting my time somewhere. I'm going to focus on the CEQA issue, and I'm going to briefly touch on the design and the process deficiencies, and I'm going to defer to Ms. Moody on the public trust. The record is comprised of nearly a thousand pages and is so voluminous that I find it difficult to put myself your shoes. and identify and understand what's fact versus opinion, It's right versus wrong. What's necessary versus elective? or relevant versus inappropriate. To make certain that the documents that I previously submitted were not misplaced, I'm submitting for the record the reports, surveys, In other documents, supporting a finding of unusual circumstances as it pertains to the exception to the 15303 exemption claimed by the city for this project. |
| 02:32:51.64 | Christopher Skelton | More paper for the record, we're backing the truck up. To this point, After bringing this material to the attention of the PC, I was personally instructed at the dais from the commission that the San Francisco Bay documents that I had submitted were not relevant to this issue. For the record, the water body at issue is the San Francisco Bay. which is the issue. |
| 02:33:20.62 | Christopher Skelton | I am certain that this project is subject to CEQA. The city's stubborn Refusal to acknowledge this simple truth prevents a foreseeable exposure to both the city and the applicant for violating the California Environmental Quality Act. I'm going to cite two California court opinions. both of which originated, shockingly, out of Marin County Superior Court. I sincerely hope that the council has the wherewithal not to invite a third published decision by ignoring this obvious truth. |
| 02:34:05.37 | Christopher Skelton | An initial study is required. The exception to the exemption reads where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. Again, I've submitted probably close to 300 or 400 pages identifying multiple reports, surveys, biological investigations, all dealing with eelgrass. I'm not saying that this area in particular is specifically surveyed and identified. That's not the exception to the exemption that we're looking at. All right? A number of other community interest parties have also identified the unusual circumstances as stated in the Mono case and eelgrass simply is a diverse biological bed of that fosters an incredible community. the record is replete with information about birds, mammals, and other aquatic life that depend on it. |
| 02:35:17.50 | Christopher Skelton | So this is just a list of some of the reports, the Audubon Society letters, the appellate photos, the 2015 SF Bay Delta State of the Estuary Report, eelgrass mitigation policies, even the Golden Gate Ferry. Look back at their environmental review documents. They're perfect when it comes to identifying the eelgrass issue and the mitigation measures necessary. The 2010 subtitle Habitat Goals Report, 2008 Merkle and Associates Report, and the 2004 Inventory. Here's a photo of eelgrass where the project is proposed. |
| 02:36:06.74 | Christopher Skelton | We don't have to go into the past approvals by this city and decide whether they should be the basis for doing future decisions incorrectly. Furthermore, the appellant's property development process is not at issue. We're here to talk about two Alexanders. As I've said, the administrative record is replete with testimony from the appellant, neighbors, and concerned community members about the eelgrass birds, marine mammals. Harris v. Costa Mesa, a 1994 case, clearly states that this type of testimony is afforded weight of substantial evidence and must be considered. Here's the Marin County case, Spawn. You cannot mitigate around CEQA. That is the essence of what has happened here. And it's truly unfortunate. If a project may have a significant effect on the environment, Spahn says CEQA review must occur, and only then are the mitigation measures relevant. I'll give you the practical reality is An initial study is prepared. The list of potential impacts are identified. Techniques to mitigate the impacts to a less than significant level are proposed. And then a mitigation plan is adopted and implemented. The runaround of CEQA was a must stop. Again, this is quotes from the Spahn case, Marin County, 2005. I think the county took a pretty good black eye on it, and I don't want to see the same thing happen here. the illegally proposed mitigation measures. Now, the applicant's probably going to tell you, we got a great project here. We're doing so many wonderful things. That may or may not be the case. I don't know, but I'm here to tell you that you cannot, as part of the actual project, propose your own mitigation so that you work your way around CEQA. Here they are. pilings will be installed with an impact hammer, basically a vibratory hammer or pneumatic drill. Army Corps of Engineers wants that. Construction during a very narrow window to avoid migrating salmon and Pacific herring. Again, Army Corps wants that. The tool eelgrass surveys are required. Army Corps, eelgrass may not be cut or disturbed. Department of Fish and Game. Silk curtains be implemented to contain suspended sediment. Fish and Game. Employ light-transmitting deck material. This is BCD's bread and butter because they care about Bayfield. They say this is a condition, this is a mitigation measure. The original application had solid wood boards. They changed it out of respect for BCDC, mitigating their way around the impact. That's not how the process works. Finally, BCDC asked them to reduce it to the minimum necessary. BCDC has other policies. While I understand BCDC doesn't have necessary authority in this chamber, I do think that it's influential and these are policies that transcend a single body. Essentially, eelgrass beds should be conserved. And you know, impacting them should only be allowed if there's no feasible alternative and the project provides substantial public benefit. in the staff report earlier. You heard... about guardrails which were previously at issue. Guardrails are apparently not at issue. There's an exception because if you can load a boat from either side, you don't need guardrails, right? And that's the premise that they're operating under. So then why is it necessary to extend so far out if you can load the boat anywhere? It just doesn't make sense. Part of the issue that we had at the Planning Commission was the uncertainty of this guardrail issue. It wasn't vetted with staff or some international body before that. And we simply asked for a condition of approval that said you'll never have guardrails there because they will present a visual obstruction. That condition of approval never made it into the the PC appeal that was upheld. |
| 02:40:23.51 | Christopher Skelton | so Getting back to the guardrail. and the allowable disturbance of eelgrass beds says if there's no feasible alternative. Well, the feasible alternative is you launch your boats off the side, you don't extend so far out, and you don't have to disturb the eelgrass beds. That's maybe a mitigation consideration after the project goes through CEQA. We don't have that yet. |
| 02:40:53.54 | Christopher Skelton | Public trust, I'm going to skip over and defer to Janine Moody. I will mention, though, that the reservation of public trust I've verified on a preliminary title report extends from that stone retaining wall across the sand into the water. That's something that is not a part of the other properties along Alexander, and it is something that was a stipulated condition of approval to the 1991 settlement. That is specific to this project and this project alone. Is that my 10 minutes? Boy, that's flying by. Okay, new design, new problems. You know, your questions at the outset, they were right on. Thank you. |
| 02:41:37.11 | Jill Hoffman | What Mr. Skelton your time's up. No I have three more minutes. Oh you do sorry. No that's 10 minutes. |
| 02:41:39.66 | Christopher Skelton | No, I have three more minutes. |
| 02:41:45.40 | Unknown | Oh, man. |
| 02:41:48.79 | Christopher Skelton | Okay, may I give my concluding thought? |
| 02:41:52.96 | Jill Hoffman | As long as it's two sentences. Within 10 seconds? Two sentences. |
| 02:41:54.09 | Christopher Skelton | Two sentences. Within ten seconds. Well, why don't I keep it for a rebuttal then? THANK YOU. |
| 02:41:58.06 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:42:20.96 | Unknown | Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council Members. It's a pleasure to be here. I'm gonna try to be as brief as possible because Dr. Fotch is gonna do some heavy lifting, I do wanna address a couple of issues. Um, It seems to me that confusion reigns here over some of those issues, CEQA number one and public trust number two. I want to get to both of those. But first, I want to go back into the history of this property just a bit, which has been mentioned. Um, In 1991, the right to build a pier on this property was litigated. and settled by the city in the case called Hickey versus Woods and City of Sausalito. The city was party to the settlement agreement and the city specifically agreed It would not require an encroachment permit for the pier. There's been some discussion of whether what that refers to. Whether the city was saying Dr. Fotch didn't need an encroachment permit to build on his own property, What that meant? You need an encroachment permit to build on city property. The city now says, We don't want to give you an encroachment permit. We want to give you a lease. And that is what is proposed, and that's fine. but in the grant to the city, which is the same as all the other grants in Marin County and the other counties surrounding the Bay. or a specific authority. from the state. to lease. the properties that were granted to those entities, to the city of Sausalito, to Marin County that I'm very familiar with. You've got a number of peers in Sausalito. Marin County has a lot of peers, houseboat marinas. They all have leases. on public trust property. There is authority directly from the legislature on that subject. So the fact that you're in public trust property doesn't decide anything. The question is, What are the rights to lease? How are those limited? And if it's if it's leased for the proper purposes, That's totally authorized, that goes way back in the history of litigation involving the bay. It was the Berkeley case, or cases in Marin County. Um... Those leases have been upheld consistently as long as they were for purposes of the public trust, primarily navigation, fisheries, recreation and so forth, you've heard all those things. That's a red herring to say we're talking about public trust property. That decides nothing. What is decided on that issue is what are the terms of the lease And the least is not before you tonight. As you know, that is a matter to be decided later, and that will come before you. What we're talking about tonight is authority to build a peer, and what is up on appeal is, number one, whether the variants should be granted, and that's been addressed and, in fact, hardly contested. I haven't heard a word saying, There should be no variance. the issue that's really been raised is What I would put in a category it's the only other one design review What are the other issues here? That's what's going on. Every issue that can be thought of as being thrown up thrown against the wall and the appellant is trying to see what sticks. And so they raise issues of the pitosporum, of going into the public trust property, whatever. But the Hickey versus Woods and City of Sausalito case, I think, decided the Thank you. philosophy of that issue and The specific language of the Hickey case was that the city would not impose any other requirements or conditions on the development of the parcel which are more restrictive than those imposed on the neighboring lots, which also extend into San Francisco Bay. Well, we've got seven neighboring lots out of nine that either have peers or have authority to do it, and none of these conditions have been imposed. One authority was granted, I think, at the same time as this one initially. I believe it's 40. 40 Alexander. this condition or the conditions that are trying to be imposed here We're not imposed on that. The city. agreed that it would not impose unique different conditions from those that are on the other properties. But that is exactly what appellant is arguing. Well, you've got eelgrass, number one. They're trying to raise a CEQA issue. I'm not sure. You all looked at that. I heard you say that. You went down there. eel grasses all over the area. It's under every pier in the entire area. Eelgrass comes and goes. The rule on eelgrass, whether eelgrass is an issue or not, is whether the construction will diminish the eelgrass habitat. Not whether there's eelgrass there, whether the proposed construction will diminish that habitat. Now, we know the Moody Pier has eelgrass under it, I'm sure you saw it. Has it diminished it? No. It maybe has even fostered it. We don't know. That study has not been done. Eelgrass is relevant as a CEQA issue when an area has been mapped by the relevant agency and the agency says this is an area we have to protect. You've heard there's eelgrass all over. We agree it's all important. It's all over the bay, but that doesn't mean you can't touch the bay. Again, Go down to one of the houseboat marinas, go down to any of the other piers, in Sausalito or Marin County. and you will find eelgrass in most cases. Um, The CEQA issue was looked at not only by the city but by four other agencies. And they all came out with the conclusion that the exemption applies. Not that CEQA doesn't apply. CEQA always applies in the state of California. The question is, Is there an exemption for what you want to do? And that is the exemption the city relied upon and four other agencies, BCDC, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Department of Fish and Life. They all looked at it and said, you're under the exemption. Now, if the study reveals that it's going to ruin this sensitive habitat, that may be another issue. That study hasn't been done. Just the fact that there is eelgrass doesn't Cast a vote. Doesn't decide anything. I submit that you're being misled on that issue. I'll let Dr. Fotch, address the remaining issues so there's some time for him. Thank you. |
| 02:49:31.18 | Edward Fotch | win. In my experience as a physician, when attorneys start speaking, you can tell they get paid by the hour |
| 02:49:43.69 | Edward Fotch | This is very briefly, our lot was, two lots were combined and there was the court settlement associated with that. The only thing that's unusual when we bought it in the mid-90s was we discovered that there was a deck on our property, we had no deck. It turned out it was the Moody's deck which is neither here nor there until we get to the survey issues. When we decided that we wanted to try to build a pier, we found out there was a large rock on the end of the pier, by the name, by the way, good evening, Ed Fodge, hey. And so I spoke to the people at BCDC, I said hey we'll just build off the rock, they said thou shalt not touch the rock, We've designed the rock, appear to just get to low water at low tide. We then reached out to our neighbors and got supportive letters to essentially all our neighbors, some of whom are here tonight. And, specifically from the appellant's husband was concerned about the length of, excuse me, the width of the pier, that no boat would be on the end of it, and no rails, and those are all conditions for the Planning Commission. We then got approval. from clean water, from Army Corps, and from the sanitary district specifically addressing environmental issues from the Army Corps, and CEQA exemption from the the Water Board who also asked us to do a Neil Grass survey as is their standard both before and after. We then were approved by the administrative process along with our neighbor. By the way, none of these issues have come up with our neighbor's pier which seems to be going along quickly. This is a shot that you saw before and you'll see our pier is a little smaller, a little under 1,000 square foot. The average in the neighborhood is about 1,200 square feet. The appellant has complained about privacy. It seems like the peer isn't too close to The appellant built their house across the property line onto our property. This is looking up. This is roughly our property line, This is our neighbor. where our five foot pier is in the middle of our lot and the neighbors, main deck is built through the property line onto our property. So it is close. The pitosporne trees you can see right behind two Alexander unfortunately provide almost no privacy if you walk down and really need to be replaced. Unfortunately, we have to replace it with a hedge because they don't have a side yard because they built through it. They said that our peer was too close. Their peer's actually closer to their neighbor to the north. This is a view from their neighbor to the north And you can see the Moody's Pier There's a lot of concern about this rock, but you see the Moody's have their own collection of rocks And it turns out that the wildlife seem like humans to like the piers more than the rocks. So you know that there's a lease that was granted previously at 40 Alexander. I see that there's members of the council here were available at that time. And so I'll save my last slide for the rebuttal. Thank you. |
| 02:52:40.56 | Jill Hoffman | THANK YOU. Thank you. |
| 02:52:47.14 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, do we have public comment on this matter? I have one slip from forest basket. Is there anybody else? Nope. |
| 02:53:10.04 | Forest Basket | I'm Forest Basket at 24 Alexander, and I have a property that's similar to Dr. Fouch's property. It's set back from the water, but there's a piece of it that goes down to the water, and then I have quite a long pier out the end of it. It's a bit bigger, about 40% bigger than Ed's proposed pier, and it extend into a bit into public waters. I might also mention the eelgrass since that seems to be a popular topic. I do an eelgrass survey about once a week when I look out my window at low tide. There is really tons of it out there. It comes and goes of course but there's really quite a lot and I've noticed that there's really quite a lot of it that would be underneath the pier that's proposed at 40 Alexander. I don't know if that ever got discussed, but it's just something that I've observed. Anyway, I think Ed should have a pier like the rest of us. I don't see what the issue is. |
| 02:54:13.35 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. you Thank you. |
| 02:54:22.30 | Dale Dillard | My name is Dale Dillard. I'm 20 Alexander, and I believe they should have a peer. I got a proposed peer myself, and it went through fine, and I think everybody out there should be able to have a peer. |
| 02:54:23.53 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:54:23.83 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:54:23.85 | Unknown | I'm not. |
| 02:54:41.26 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Any other public comment on this item? See none. Did we have rebuttals? I'm guessing there will be. |
| 02:55:30.99 | Christopher Skelton | Five minutes. Okay? Where's the clock, by the way? Thanks. |
| 02:55:38.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:55:38.05 | Christopher Skelton | Thank you. |
| 02:55:38.45 | Unknown | You have five minutes doing it. Five minutes and that's when it's number three. |
| 02:55:40.85 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:55:43.01 | Christopher Skelton | Perfect, thank you. |
| 02:55:44.04 | Jill Hoffman | She's gonna start with a different timer and then she starts |
| 02:55:46.74 | Christopher Skelton | Okay. Awesome, thanks. Okay, I'll try to be brief because I've consumed all of Ms. Moody's time, but two quick points to the CEQA issue. One, CEQA is not irrelevant or is not, these peer projects aren't exempt up and down the coast throughout the Bay. Look no further than Belvedere, every single peer goes through CEQA, initial study, mitigated negative declaration, or in some cases a negative declaration. Secondly, Attachment 8 is the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Their letter February 22, 2016, the second full paragraph, final documentation of compliance with CEQA was not received, however, until February 5, 2016. February 5th, 2016, that agency felt comfortable adopting the CEQA. That's after the administrative process Things changed in between administrative and PC, so it's kind of a new application. After the PC upheld that secret determination, and then suddenly there's some new information, February 5th, 2016. I don't know what that information is. I wanna go into the design features because that's where your question started and that's where our main issue was. Am I still? Okay. So... There's been complete uncertainty as to what a final project will look like here. There's been lots of talk about intent and that's wonderful but there's not a lot of evidence to support the intent. Here we go in between the administrative process and the PC process, the kink as I call it was added. It's highlighted in pink. Um, This violates the design review standards for privacy. It forces a user to literally turn 90 degrees and look into the living room window, a primary area. THE FAMILY IS here we go, these are the four pittosporum trees. Now, keep in mind from a process standpoint, The application is deficient because there's no base layer. You don't have a topo here. You don't have a landscape plan. You don't have an existing conditions truly. So the pitosporimals are roughly approximated. One of them's gone. It does provide a valuable screening tool for people walking up and down You can see it right here. Now I learned after the PC appeal that the intent is actually to replace the entire stairway because it's unsafe or they don't like the location or something like that. And the intention is to remove the kink by lining the stairway up with the proposed pier which would demolish all of the trees and further eliminate screening opportunity. I think the council was going in the right direction by saying, Why the 7 1⁄2-foot setback from that property line? Can't you shift the pier further away? Every inch counts here. I would also note that there have been projects in the past that have been appealed to this body where we're talking about decks by adjacent neighbors extending out into the periphery of somebody else's deck, and those were outright denied. This is no different. looking out at somebody walking down this pier potential guard rail in yellow, we now understand that that's not gonna be the case. I will mind you that this is the old story polls, it doesn't show the one and a half foot reduction. I want to conclude by simply saying, well, one other point. I'm going to pass out after I'm done speaking the application checklist. It's completely deficient. We don't know what was and wasn't submitted. A title report is required. You would have seen the reservation for the public trust from the wall to the city's property had those documents been required, a landscape plan. The piecemealing of this application, suggesting that you're going to go back for a building permit for just the steps, Thank you. city's property had those documents been required, a landscape plan. The piecemealing of this application, suggesting that you're going to go back for a building permit for just the steps, to avoid an overall comprehensive understanding of all the impacts is not the way the process is meant to unfold. In conclusion for me, This lot simply does not support the peer that's applied for. At least two variances and a lease from the city for the public lands held in public trust are necessary to accomplish what is seemingly a selfish desire for a private peer. When was the last time any application before this body approved two variances and a lease to public land? Um, These entitlements, they come at a great expense to the public, the environment, as well as the appellants. We've said in the past that we're not opposed to any peer. We're just opposed to the peer that's currently designed. I'm going to leave the last 30 seconds for Janine Moody. I apologize. The record's replete with all the information. Thank you. |
| 03:01:00.34 | Janine Moody | I asked my daughter to pass out a transcript of the last PC meeting. There were two PC meetings. First of all, Janine Moody, 6 Alexander. |
| 03:01:07.33 | Jonathon Goldman | First of all, Janine. |
| 03:01:10.69 | Janine Moody | There were two PC meetings. I don't know whether you saw both of them. One before it was continued, which dealt a lot with CEQA, and that's important. Um, |
| 03:01:25.22 | Janine Moody | I'm passing this out because the transcript clearly says that Fotch intends to move the pier. He intends to move the stairs. And on the transcript, page 40, Two. |
| 03:01:44.56 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. |
| 03:01:45.77 | Janine Moody | Line 16 through 22. that. transcript you just received. Page 42, 16 through 22, talks about Botch saying he is going to move the stairs. so that it will line up with where the peer is proposed, where the story polls were. Okay. He also proposes to leave the platform where it is in spite of the fact that the GGNRA asked for a three-foot setback. Ma'am, I'm... |
| 03:02:21.04 | Jill Hoffman | I'm sorry, your time's up. |
| 03:02:23.37 | Janine Moody | Thank you. |
| 03:02:24.23 | Jill Hoffman | the president. |
| 03:02:26.37 | Janine Moody | OK. I'm just going to ask you then to look at Section D for public trust. Uh, |
| 03:02:40.95 | Janine Moody | the GGNRA letter that says three foot setback that I passed out to you. Since I can't talk about it, it's there. in front of you. |
| 03:02:51.80 | Jill Hoffman | in front of you. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Thank you. |
| 03:03:02.01 | Ray Pfeiffer | Um, |
| 03:03:06.13 | Ray Pfeiffer | So, oh, yeah. |
| 03:03:50.14 | Edward Fotch | If I could. Briefly. |
| 03:03:55.37 | Ray Pfeiffer | Can you use the microphone? |
| 03:03:57.36 | Edward Fotch | Sorry. |
| 03:03:57.46 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. Hmm. |
| 03:04:03.25 | Edward Fotch | I'd like to start by answering Mr. Skelton's question, which was, when was the last time a variance was granted and a city lease for a pier? And the answer, it was 2009 for 40 Alexander, and it was a unanimous vote for the exact same findings. It was a peer that needed space from the city to get to water at low tide. When the appellant built their peer beyond the extent of their property onto city property. They also asked for a lease. And the council also directed staff to work with them to get a lease. So in fact, the precedent has been set. twice. the council offers leases for modest amounts of property. In the case of Fort Alexander, it was a little over 500 square feet. In our case, it's about 400 square feet. The second is, I have to say that we've been kind of ping pong balled around here. We've got the... the appellant asking us to move our pier to the south and the GGNRA asking us to move our pier to the north. In the end, I think the Planning Commission their hands off. and said, just leave it alone. I can't say that a foot one way or another makes a heck of a lot of difference to me. But we do have side yard setbacks and frankly the last thing I want to do is come back for another variance. So we kind of have to keep it in the middle of the law. And so, This is an image of that lease. Lastly, we've been ping-ponged back and forth between a husband and a wife because I, for two years, corresponded, as you saw on the record, with Mr. Moody, who asked for several changes to the pier, which we made. And then at the 11th hour, Our variance was approved along with 20 Alexander this was appealed and then appealed to the Planning Commission, and it's now before you. every change that Mr. Moody requested at least that I'm aware of, narrowing the pier, eliminating the handrails, in the end lowering the peer, which is frankly what we wanted in the first place, and having the pier go no further than is necessary to get to open water at low tide. All those changes were made. |
| 03:06:14.45 | Edward Fotch | Um, So, pinned between our northern and southern neighbor And, between our two neighbors. We've done the best we can. I'm not aware of any other design that would achieve access to water at low tide. AND I'll just end by saying we keep hearing about ill grasp. we have requirements related to eelgrass that have been imposed by BCDC and water quality. The CEQA thing that keeps coming up, apparently Mr. Skelton's the only person around who thinks this is needs, that doesn't apply for a CEQA exemption. because The Army Corps seems to think it does. My attorney seems to think it does. The Water Board seems to think it did. The Planning Commission seemed to think it did. The planning staff seems to think it did, So I get the feeling that there's an agenda as opposed to a fact. here. At least that's my... And lastly, I think that's a very, very, I think the... arguments boil down to We deserve a peer. The Moody's have appeared that solid wood, we've had to design one that lets light through. not because we wanted that, that wasn't our original proposal, that was imposed on us by the people who approved these things. the water quality people, BCDC and the Army Corps, none of this was mitigated around, these were requirements that were brought to us. We had to make these changes. And the argument boils down to we've got a peer and you don't get one. and I just find that unfair. Thank you. |
| 03:07:58.12 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:08:05.83 | Ray Pfeiffer | Okay. So I have a couple questions for staff. |
| 03:08:09.07 | Jonathon Goldman | Sure. |
| 03:08:11.14 | Ray Pfeiffer | So, um. I guess going back to the photo we saw of the stairs where I was asking if those stairs would be moved and The answer I got was that they would not be moved. It would just be a little jog over at the end, at the foot of the stairs. And then I see the appellate points out this excerpt where the applicant says the stairs have to be rebuilt, so one way or the other, the stairs are going to be rebuilt. I think two and a half feet to the south, we're going to have to rebuild it and make sure the stairs line up with the pier. So I'm a little confused because that shows that there's a jog over, and the statement here shows that there is an intent To move the stairs over so I just want to confirm that the council is looking at this Proposal which does not move the site of the stairs except for at the very foot Is that accurate? That does not move the side of the current staircase except okay plans yet |
| 03:09:29.78 | Danny Castro | That's correct, the plans that you show that are shown here are the plans that were approved and upheld by the planning commission. |
| 03:09:36.82 | Ray Pfeiffer | Correct, but the plans that I'm looking at here, because there's no perspective, is that the stairs that we're seeing are in the same location as that photo you showed me of the existing stairs. Yes. Okay, so those are the existing stairs. They're not gonna be moved over. They're just gonna have a jog over at the very bottom, and that part is gonna align with the pier. Yes. Okay. |
| 03:09:48.61 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:09:48.99 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:09:59.70 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:10:01.51 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:10:05.02 | Ray Pfeiffer | I have another question, but I'll yield to. |
| 03:10:07.95 | Jill Hoffman | I have a follow-up on the stair issue. So as I understand it, though, the the landowner, which is the FOTHS, can move the stairs if they so choose because it's on their property and it doesn't require them to come back to the Planning Commission. they can just pull a permit. |
| 03:10:29.45 | Adam Politzer | that, |
| 03:10:29.99 | Danny Castro | Yeah, replacement of stairs doesn't require a discretionary application. |
| 03:10:35.93 | Jill Hoffman | So then maybe this is a question for the applicant. |
| 03:10:43.15 | Jill Hoffman | Dr. Fotz, do you have plans to move the stairs? at this time. |
| 03:10:50.46 | Edward Fotch | I don't have plans to move the stairs, but they clearly, and I think all the council members have walked in, they clearly need to be rebuilt. |
| 03:10:56.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:10:57.80 | Edward Fotch | they have a deficient handrail, they're uneven, and they're kind of rotting. So at a minimum, they have to be Um, they have to be rebuilt. And the other thing that from my standpoint has to be done, unfortunately has to be done on my property, is there needs to be a proper... screening, preferably waxy leaf privet or Anyways, a dense... privacy wall that has to be on our property because the Appellant has no side yard to put it in. So, and it's not part of the application, but it's, I don't want to look at their lower rental unit any more than they want to look at our stairs, at least I don't think they want to look at our stairs. So some privacy has to be done and the burden's on us to do that. |
| 03:11:45.39 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. Thanks. I'm not sure then with respect to the stairs. I guess the other question I have, because I'm hearing about privacy, which is clearly really important, and then I heard our stairs, and looking at somewhere in all of this paperwork I've got, I read about an agreement that had an easement that the Moody's have to those stairs. And so it's my understanding that they have an easement to use those stairs. Is that accurate? Yes. I guess I'd like to hear from the appellant and the applicant. |
| 03:12:29.52 | Edward Fotch | there is no easement to use the stairs. There was a previous, I just know this from having read the historic documents, prior to an owner, I guess two owners ago, maybe only one owner ago, before they acquired that property that goes out into the water, The assumption was that that strip of land was city property? Correct. And there was an agreement between a previous owner and |
| 03:12:53.51 | Ray Pfeiffer | I'm not going to be a |
| 03:12:58.78 | Edward Fotch | of two Alexander and six Alexander that they would maintain those stairs. |
| 03:13:02.31 | Ray Pfeiffer | Well, because they built the lower section of the stairs, correct? |
| 03:13:07.33 | Edward Fotch | I actually don't know who built them, and the stairs had subsequently been moved, and there was agreement between two parties. I wasn't part of it. The property title has subsequently changed hands. I've seen a number of legal descriptions and title, and there's no such easement. |
| 03:13:28.70 | Ray Pfeiffer | Well, I guess I'll hear from the appellate on that. |
| 03:13:47.34 | Janine Moody | The agreement was between the city of Sausalito, who thought that they owned the lane and did before it was transferred to Mr. Hickey, Thank you. |
| 03:14:01.60 | Ray Pfeiffer | And Mr. Hickey was the prior owner before before the applicant bought the property. Right. |
| 03:14:03.92 | Janine Moody | prior order to about the property. Right. |
| 03:14:08.34 | Ray Pfeiffer | . |
| 03:14:08.39 | Janine Moody | to the next day. |
| 03:14:08.44 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:14:08.91 | Janine Moody | Thank you. the agreement with the city, with Mr. Myers, No. Yes, with Mr. Myers. and Moody, and I have the documentation of that. was that we were allowed to go to use those stairs? Yeah, and to build them, my husband built them. |
| 03:14:31.54 | Ray Pfeiffer | To use those stairs. Yeah. Okay. |
| 03:14:33.43 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:14:36.97 | Janine Moody | and he was allowed to build access to each property from them. and we were told we could put the PITAS forum in which have recently been butchered by being cut underneath. They were dense before. There was a photo in your packet that shows how dense they were. I want to stick to the stairs, if that's okay. |
| 03:14:58.56 | Ray Pfeiffer | I want to stick to the stairs, if that's OK. Bye. |
| 03:15:01.22 | Janine Moody | The stairs. |
| 03:15:02.27 | Ray Pfeiffer | So how long have you been accessing those stairs? 36 years. |
| 03:15:05.17 | Janine Moody | $3,600. Thank you. |
| 03:15:06.56 | Ray Pfeiffer | 36 years. 36 years. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. |
| 03:15:06.64 | Janine Moody | 36 years. Thank you very much. |
| 03:15:10.40 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:15:10.42 | Janine Moody | THE FAMILY. So, I'd like you to look at the preliminary report that I gave |
| 03:15:21.66 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Um, I have another question for Dr. Fodge. |
| 03:15:33.32 | Jill Hoffman | Is it possible or is it to shift the peer to align it with the stairs as they are I mean, I know it's possible, right? But. has that been discussed with the parties and is that a doable thing or is it not a doable thing or do you have to, would that require a new application? Danny? |
| 03:16:01.69 | Edward Fotch | Well, Danny can answer to the application part of it. While Danny formulates his thoughts. Sorry. So the |
| 03:16:01.84 | Jill Hoffman | Dan can answer to the application part. |
| 03:16:07.81 | Jill Hoffman | Sorry. |
| 03:16:11.93 | Edward Fotch | The challenge with doing that is that there's still a desire, well the main desire is to have a pier so you can walk out on the pier. There's also a desire to be able to get to the beach. |
| 03:16:21.41 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 03:16:23.57 | Edward Fotch | Thank you. |
| 03:16:23.61 | Unknown | MAKING A LITTLE BIT OF |
| 03:16:23.88 | Edward Fotch | Thank you. and the landing, which is at the level of that current rock wall, is roughly three feet above the beach, and so you need treads to go down to the beach. So if you move the stairway over, you either put the stairway to the north which then I'm sure will be a privacy issue for the Moody's, or You put the stairway to the south, but now it's in the side yard setback. if you see what I mean. Somehow you need 30, |
| 03:16:50.94 | Jill Hoffman | Peace out. Yeah. |
| 03:16:55.21 | Edward Fotch | or 35 inches, seven or so inches to a tread, you're gonna need to get five-ish treads in there someplace. And so the challenge you get into is then you're I mean, frankly, it's not a huge deal. in the overall scheme of things, but you have to figure out how you're going to get to the beach because you still want to walk down to the beach. |
| 03:17:18.06 | Jill Hoffman | All right. Thank you. Danny, would that require a completely new permit process? |
| 03:17:28.66 | Sybil Boutillier | Thank you. |
| 03:17:28.68 | Danny Castro | No. |
| 03:17:29.39 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Thanks. |
| 03:17:31.39 | Danny Castro | You just need to make sure that you respect the five foot setback. So he's got about two feet of wiggle room to be able to shift that down. |
| 03:17:38.08 | Unknown | to be here. |
| 03:17:40.00 | Danny Castro | But the other thing is it also may require that it be redesigned at the deck boat lift at the end because he's already 18 inches away from the GGNRA property. So he can't get any closer. |
| 03:17:52.83 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, I was just talking about the, the, the P not the, not the part at the end of the pier over the water, but just if we could, yes. Okay. Thanks. |
| 03:18:00.96 | Sybil Boutillier | Yes. |
| 03:18:06.61 | Ray Pfeiffer | I didn't get an answer to my question about the title with respect to reservation on the public trust. And I was wondering if, I guess, the appellant and the applicant can comment on that. Or maybe the appellant, because the appellant mentioned it to me when I visited her your site there was a comment that because I'm really concerned about the public trust and the eelgrass those are the two things that are I'm grappling with when I voted on the 40 Alexander project I was a brand new council member I mean that I think it was one of the first things on the agenda and I sure don't remember discussion of eelgrass or public trust And I think it's kind of ironic that I'm learning about it from the documentation of legal counsel, Mr. Skelton, who also was the one who Alerted me to the city lease during the ferry landings. So thank you and thank you. Do we have is that question? My question is, could you answer the reservation on the public trust that I was? I mean, it's OK if. Are you there's no issue there? I'm I just have to get clarity on the question. There's no issue. |
| 03:19:15.11 | Jill Hoffman | a question or? |
| 03:19:24.64 | Jonathon Goldman | Are you drunk? |
| 03:19:32.57 | Ray Pfeiffer | If there's no issue, I don't want to go there. If the question is there a reservation on the public trust that is different for the title here versus the title on the other parcels. That might |
| 03:19:50.04 | Jill Hoffman | There can also be a question for our city attorney. |
| 03:19:53.67 | Ray Pfeiffer | Yeah. |
| 03:19:56.89 | Jill Hoffman | I just don't know what's on the title. |
| 03:19:58.51 | Janine Moody | I am going to refer you to your packet that I gave you, the booklet, Section D. |
| 03:19:59.42 | Jill Hoffman | I refer you to your packet |
| 03:20:07.22 | Ray Pfeiffer | I'm sorry, you're talking about this book? Section D. Hang on a minute, just a minute. I don't know where Section D is. Is that the lime green paper? |
| 03:20:08.97 | Janine Moody | Yeah. Section D. |
| 03:20:14.80 | Janine Moody | is that the lime Yeah, and it's a. |
| 03:20:19.40 | Ray Pfeiffer | ABCDEF no it's orange from no no this is |
| 03:20:21.27 | Janine Moody | In the front, there's a table of contents. |
| 03:20:25.07 | Ray Pfeiffer | Okay, I found it. Attachment D. |
| 03:20:26.89 | Janine Moody | you |
| 03:20:26.94 | Ray Pfeiffer | you |
| 03:20:27.03 | Janine Moody | Okay, D1. from Jonathan Goldman. puts the stipulation that the extent to which the portion of the parcel is bayward of the bayward boundary of the rock and concrete wall This is from the rock and concrete... |
| 03:20:50.91 | Ray Pfeiffer | Yeah, gotcha. We know where the concrete wall is. We gotcha. |
| 03:20:55.36 | Janine Moody | that that is subject to the public trust That's in Jonathan's letter. |
| 03:21:00.68 | Ray Pfeiffer | you Thank you. So this is coming from city staff, Jonathan Goldman. Thank you. |
| 03:21:06.26 | Janine Moody | from this |
| 03:21:07.02 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:21:07.07 | Janine Moody | you |
| 03:21:07.12 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:21:07.14 | Janine Moody | of the court. |
| 03:21:08.03 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:21:08.05 | Janine Moody | Thank you. |
| 03:21:08.09 | Ray Pfeiffer | The stipulation. From the... |
| 03:21:10.33 | Janine Moody | From the Hickey thing. |
| 03:21:11.98 | Ray Pfeiffer | From the Hickey and the Hickey was OK. OK. Was the person who who sued earlier to take basically this whole staircase that used to give the public access to the beach. Right. And he took it over just because the city didn't file title. |
| 03:21:15.95 | Janine Moody | Okay. |
| 03:21:25.30 | Janine Moody | Right. |
| 03:21:30.97 | Janine Moody | then Look at D4. |
| 03:21:35.07 | Ray Pfeiffer | So just to make clear, so this is, is this, so we're seeing the parties agree that even in the effective date, the extent to which that portion of the parcel, which is bayward of the bayward boundary of said rock and concrete walls is subject to the public trust. And that came from the lawsuit. |
| 03:21:52.01 | Janine Moody | Yes. . |
| 03:21:54.98 | Ray Pfeiffer | you |
| 03:21:55.24 | Janine Moody | Oh, yeah. |
| 03:21:55.30 | Ray Pfeiffer | Okay. |
| 03:21:55.98 | Janine Moody | . |
| 03:21:56.30 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:21:56.40 | Janine Moody | Thank you. |
| 03:21:57.06 | Ray Pfeiffer | Did you guys see that? |
| 03:21:57.46 | Janine Moody | Did you guys see that? In the preliminary report, title report... It is recorded as a reservation for public trust on the FOTG preliminary title. |
| 03:22:02.44 | Ray Pfeiffer | Oh. |
| 03:22:07.86 | Ray Pfeiffer | Okay, subject to the public trust easement for commerce, navigation and fisheries, and the precise location of the water word deed boundary of the parcel remain open questions not resolved in the action. So in other words, it's an open question. |
| 03:22:08.40 | Janine Moody | Thank you. |
| 03:22:25.59 | Janine Moody | Thank you. |
| 03:22:25.61 | Ray Pfeiffer | Good. |
| 03:22:25.96 | Janine Moody | There is the Hickey title that recorded it as well against the title because it was reserved for public trust. |
| 03:22:41.89 | Ray Pfeiffer | So this is D4. |
| 03:22:42.97 | Janine Moody | or |
| 03:22:43.87 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:22:43.97 | Janine Moody | Yeah, the whole section D refers to exactly what the public trust |
| 03:22:44.29 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:22:48.14 | Ray Pfeiffer | to examine. |
| 03:22:51.97 | Janine Moody | Thank you. |
| 03:22:52.04 | Ray Pfeiffer | It's about six pages. So I'm looking on page D for reservation rights, titles, and interests pursuant to the public trust easement as reserved in that certain quick claim deed from the city of Saucedo to John Hickey recorded and re-recorded. A portion of the herein described property was relinquished from said rights by quick claim deed. |
| 03:22:57.88 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. |
| 03:22:57.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:23:18.46 | Christopher Skelton | And I just wanna add a little bit color to that. Okay. This is slightly different than- |
| 03:23:18.78 | Ray Pfeiffer | Right. |
| 03:23:22.11 | Ray Pfeiffer | Okay. No, no, no, he's answering my question, guys, and this is an important point. Go ahead. |
| 03:23:25.60 | Christopher Skelton | you |
| 03:23:28.15 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:23:28.20 | Christopher Skelton | Yeah. |
| 03:23:28.81 | Jill Hoffman | And... |
| 03:23:31.12 | Christopher Skelton | Go ahead. opening up any new areas? This is my question. It's slightly different than the common law public trust doctrine that this was a specific reservation only against this specific portion of a particular property, whereas the public trust doctrine does touch all title land. And that's something that's been well decided by California Supreme Court. This is, I would equate it to belt and suspenders. |
| 03:23:33.28 | Ray Pfeiffer | This is my question. And I want to hear from them too. |
| 03:23:58.88 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:23:58.90 | Janine Moody | Thank you. |
| 03:23:58.91 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:23:58.93 | Janine Moody | Thank you. |
| 03:23:59.03 | Ray Pfeiffer | Okay. |
| 03:23:59.45 | Christopher Skelton | Thank you. |
| 03:23:59.45 | Janine Moody | Thank you. And my lot, which was a residential lot and all the other lots do not have that reservation from that rock wall out. That did because it was a lane, a Sausalito lane. |
| 03:24:00.11 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. you |
| 03:24:00.67 | Christopher Skelton | And I like it. |
| 03:24:12.61 | Ray Pfeiffer | Okay, thank you. |
| 03:24:13.80 | Janine Moody | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:24:14.03 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:24:14.08 | Janine Moody | Thank you. |
| 03:24:14.10 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:24:17.91 | Jill Hoffman | Mr. Ziegler, do you want to respond to this? |
| 03:24:21.22 | Ray Pfeiffer | Yeah. |
| 03:24:22.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:24:26.25 | Unknown | Mr. Skelton was correct. everything in the Bay below mean high tide line is subject to the public trust. Whether a reservation was recorded or not Primarily, it can be done, is a matter of title company practice. You can look at one title report and find it on there, and another one you won't find it on there. But the settled law in California is that everything in the bay is in the public trust. The public trust has the same restrictions whether it's recorded or not. Thank you. |
| 03:24:56.10 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:24:57.22 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:24:57.23 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:24:57.38 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:24:57.55 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. All right. Okay. No further questions, so we're into the council comment section and council discussion. Wouldn't anybody like to kick us off? Yeah. |
| 03:25:24.77 | Jill Hoffman | Tom, you want to go first? |
| 03:25:26.24 | Linda Pfeiffer | I mean, I think appellant has tried to, as their attorney said, they were gonna back up loads of documents and they're certainly making the best case possible of muddying up the waters. I mean, we went something, you have to take a deep breath to go back to what this is really about. But in the end, this is the last property in that in that string that doesn't have a peer. There's no reason that they shouldn't have a peer I think the zoning administrator, an excellent job of hearing it and documenting and making the appropriate findings Planning Commission did a very thorough job on this day they went through each of the findings as we all all listened to the video and such. And it was a four to one vote, and I believe the one vote that didn't, wasn't necessarily opposed, but wasn't prepared to make that final determination. That was my understanding of it. I think that on the CEQA, there's a categorical exemption. Just because the applicants making certain mitigation measures for certain agencies for other reasons doesn't mean that there still isn't a categorical exemption. That does not exclude it. It's pretty clear. And as the applicants pointed out, everybody that's looked at that, including the agencies involved, Um, BCDC staff planning commission have all found that be the categorical exception exemption when we look at the staff report and again there has been so much talked about and we've got a pile of papers that we just received tonight and that doesn't include the hundreds of others but if you look at the staff report anyone watching you really want to understand the staff has done an excellent job walking through the issues and understanding and the beside sequa there was procedural issues and I can't remember the third, but certainly all the findings made by the Planning Commission addressed all of these. The eelgrass will be addressed as they've talked about, and the agencies have requested. I think we're approving the pier up to the stairs at this point. What they do with the stairs after that is going to be their concerns. Right now, they're going to have a jog. They may be, if they replace it, they may have to do that. That's going to be something they're going to have to deal with with both the neighbors and the city at that time. So I think I haven't seen anything new in this uh i think the planning committee zoning administrator and planning commissioner had it right uh i think they went gone through it in a thorough fashion and again i think there's no reason that there shouldn't be um the applicant shouldn't have the peer proof so i would um i would up up i would deny the appeal and uphold the planning commission findings that |
| 03:28:12.98 | Ray Pfeiffer | So, yeah, so I'd like to weigh in on this. You know, at first when I looked at this, I thought it was, it seemed pretty straightforward. Everybody else had a peer, everybody else had a doc. But then, you know, in looking at the site and in understanding the impact to the wildlife there and the eelgrass and understanding the whole concept of the public trust doctrine and that this is going 35 feet in there and going over it's covering a rock formation where where I saw pelicans and cormorons and and eelgrass nearby, I mean this to me has a tremendous impact on the environment. I'm really stunned that the comments regarding eelgrass survey will be done during construction. This was in the, that was to quote the presentation I heard with mitigation. and the fact that the process seems to be backwards from the start, starting with administrative review that was conducted without notifying the National Park Service. I mean, come on. We have a working group up here. The NPS, they're our neighbors. We work with them all the time. I have a hard time understanding why they weren't notified, especially given the history of 2 Alexander having at one point built partially on NPS land property and 2 Alexander having to mitigate with the National Park Service after the fact. So, you know, I'm just really stunned that administrative review also happened before the city council and the public had a chance to review this and weigh in. That was certainly backwards with respect to 40 Alexander, which brings up another topic, Forte Alexander, which occurred in 2009. No discussion of eelgrass and public trust doctrine. Again, I want to thank the legal counsel of the appellant for, you know, educating me about stuff that I'm not seeing in the staff administration report here from 2009. And so with respect to CEQA, you know, definitely that should happen. The process, in my opinion, has been backwards. There is new information with respect to Fish and Wildlife email clarifying the eelgrass situation. And we also didn't discuss the Bay Trail. The Bay Trail is supposed to run along that path, along the water, and this is going to be a private commandeering of public land. So I have alarm bells going off around this, and I'm very I'm just very concerned about this and That's all I have to say. |
| 03:31:34.08 | Unknown | Yeah, I won't speak too long, but let's go to eelgrass. My favorite subject. Okay. How come all the other piers that are built along there telling or I'm hearing and I visually went down, there is eoglass growing. History of eel grasses, if there's no light, it doesn't grow. That's eelgrass, all right? So all these other peers. have eelgrass. And the proposal for building. This period that I heard was that it would be opened as much as it could so the light could go in there. And eelgrass migrates. The reason that they tell you that the most bountiful of eelgrass takes place in spring In summer, why not? It's when we have the most sun. All right, we don't have fog. too much, especially now if you look in the last few years the fog that comes in in the summertime has dissipated So as far as the eelgrass, and eelgrass is migratory. It can move. It can be uplifted and moved. And according to Noah, the agency here in the Bay Area is now able to drop seeds or have seedlings in areas that can grow eelgrass. So as far as the eelgrass goes, It's migratory. We have it all around the bay. If some of it is disturbed, and it can be replaced in another area. if there's some Shadows that's cast out onto this pier. and there's eelgrass, then that can be moved to, possibly even be reseeded. So as far as the eelgrass goes, That's hiding behind a bush. |
| 03:33:38.06 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. Very quickly, a couple of comments. With regards to CEQA, I'm, as the Planning Commission was convinced that the statutory exemption applies. With regards to the eelgrass, standard practice survey done prior to construction and any mitigation during construction, I think that's planned. I think the emails that we've received has just been confirming that. I can make all of the necessary findings for the administrative design review permit that was and then subsequently the planning commission did as well. I've seen some correspondence, I don't believe from the appellant, but from someone that suggested that this being issued by Administrative Design Review was somehow improper. It was not. It's what our municipal code states. The Planning Commission, I think, did a stellar job in analyzing this. I want to particularly mention Commissioner Cox, who insisted that the Planning Commission reaffirm that the review was right and proper. |
| 03:35:03.40 | Adam Politzer | I think the – so I am very much believe that this property has a right to build a pier. I think it's been very carefully reviewed. Let me just say that I know There's been phrases bandied around like, well, I've got a peer, you don't deserve one, whatever. That is, you know, these sort of things happen in the heat of the moment. But Mr. Skelton, tonight you said, quote, this is out of a simple, selfish desire for a private peer. I believe that was inappropriate. |
| 03:36:00.08 | Jill Hoffman | Well, uh... You know, all of these planning commission issues that we have are tough issues for us. We all look at them. Commissioner, shaking your head over there. We take them all, you know, as they come to us. They're all unique. I visited both these homes. They're both lovely, beautiful homes. And the key is they're homes, right? People live there. They've lived there for a long time, and they're vested in vested in obviously their views, which are beautiful from both of the homes. I certainly understand the concerns from six Alexander. Um, They are low to the water. They've lived in this location for 30 some odd years they've raised their children there they're raising their grandchildren there so I can, I understand and I'm not unsympathetic to the concerns that they have, at the change in their steps from their home and the beach steps from their home however In light of the location, in light of the other peers that are in the neighborhood, in light of support from the neighborhood from six, eight, sorry, not six, but eight, 12, 20, and 34, Alexander, that are all in that same line, in light of the other peers that are there, I believe this is not an unreasonable request, especially given the settlement from 1991. So there's no surprise that this is coming down the pike. I think Dr. Fotch has gone and both the FACHS have gone out of their way to have accommodations to make their peer as least impactful as they can, yet still have a functioning peer. they've changed the materials so that they are um, The light can go through the pier. They took away the railing. They... lowered the height to the extent possible that they could. Um, and they've incorporated the requests, although not all the requests, but the requests from their the neighbors, the Moody's. I would hope that they continue to work with the Moody's with regard to privacy screening on the Foxes, the Foxes land to afford privacy to the Moody's and any further adjustments they can do with regard to the location of the pier. My recommendation and decision vote is that the appeal be denied and that the Planning Commission, Finance and Holdings be upheld. |
| 03:38:32.31 | Linda Pfeiffer | Is that a motion? I'd second it if it is. |
| 03:38:34.81 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, they did. Yes, that's a motion. |
| 03:38:38.03 | Ray Pfeiffer | I would like to make a substitute motion. |
| 03:38:42.71 | Jill Hoffman | Let me make sure I made my motion correctly. Do I need to say anything else or is that? |
| 03:38:46.74 | Mary Wagner | Just understanding from staff's perspective that you would be adopting the resolution that's in your packet. |
| 03:38:51.99 | Ray Pfeiffer | Yes. |
| 03:38:52.27 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:38:53.51 | Ray Pfeiffer | I like that. |
| 03:38:53.54 | Mary Wagner | I like that. |
| 03:38:53.93 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:38:53.94 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:38:53.96 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:38:53.98 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:38:54.00 | Unknown | you |
| 03:38:54.06 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. like to make a substitute motion to deny I mean to uphold the appeal and deny the project on the grounds of sequa and |
| 03:39:16.19 | Ray Pfeiffer | Sorry, I need the. the list, it resonated with me. Chris, do you have that list of your title? |
| 03:39:32.96 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:39:32.98 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:39:33.03 | Ray Pfeiffer | that. |
| 03:39:33.25 | Jill Hoffman | The staff. |
| 03:39:33.95 | Ray Pfeiffer | I'm sorry. |
| 03:39:34.44 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:39:34.82 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. Yeah, where is that? I've got so many, sorry, I've got so much documentation here. It's like I just, alternatively. |
| 03:39:38.24 | Unknown | Sorry, I've got so much... |
| 03:39:45.78 | Ray Pfeiffer | Yeah, to uphold the appeal and deny the administrative design review permit invariance and direct and and direct staff to prepare a resolution. on the basis of CEQA CEQA issues. That's, I mean, to me it's all about the eelgrass. |
| 03:40:10.86 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:40:10.88 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:40:10.91 | Jill Hoffman | And so any other motions? |
| 03:40:13.61 | Ray Pfeiffer | And violation of the public trust doctrine, my apologies. |
| 03:40:19.64 | Jill Hoffman | And so we're going to vote on the second motion first. No, is there a second? Oh, sorry. Is there a second to the substitute motion? |
| 03:40:22.01 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:40:22.03 | Unknown | first? No, is there |
| 03:40:27.79 | Jill Hoffman | Hearing none. And there's a second to my motion. Should we do roll call? Thank you. |
| 03:40:34.32 | City Clerk | Thank you. Councilmember Theodorus? Yes. Councilmember Weiner? Yes. Councilmember Pfeiffer? No. Vice Mayor Withey? Yes. Mayor Hoffman? Yes. That carries 4-1. |
| 03:40:36.00 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:40:36.02 | Linda Pfeiffer | Yes. Yes. Yes. |
| 03:40:44.16 | Jill Hoffman | Like, Thank you. Five minutes. |
| 03:40:48.10 | Unknown | No, let's get out of here or else I'm walking out. |
| 03:40:50.79 | Jill Hoffman | Keep going. How bad do you need it? It's bad. Okay. All right. We're moving on to our next... We do have another issue on our, we do have a, yep. We're moving on now to item 6B, consideration of a lease agreement. For two, Alexander for a private peer. Presentation. |
| 03:41:18.97 | Ray Pfeiffer | I think this still impacts everybody who's here for a peer. I would think so. |
| 03:41:24.22 | Jill Hoffman | What do you think? |
| 03:41:26.88 | Ray Pfeiffer | because this is the second half, this is the second heart. Mm-hmm. |
| 03:41:31.27 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:41:32.70 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:41:32.72 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. In case you don't have your agenda with you, I'll say it again. This is item 6B, consideration of lease agreement for two Alexander for a private peer. And Mary, are you doing the presentation? Okay, go ahead. |
| 03:41:47.89 | Mary Wagner | Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor. So as you correctly indicated, this is essentially a companion item to the item you just heard on the appeal on to Alexander and with the council's denial of the appeal and upholder of the project, we can then move forward to this issue, which is the consideration of the lease for the portion of property that's controlled by the city, approximately 400 square feet. You have the lease in your packet. Quickly, a summary of the lease terms. It's a term of 25 years, which is allowed under the statutory grant from the state to the city. They actually allow 50, but this is limited to 25. It includes an annual rental payment of $200, subject to annual increases based upon CPI. As you previously the dock is for private use but would also and not commercial use but would be a mail of a made available during an emergency for evacuation purposes and the dock must be constructed out of an out of environmentally friendly materials there is a description in your staff report of the manner in which the the amount of the rent was calculated and it was done utilizing the same formula that's used by the state of California State Lands Commission when it leases tidelands for private docks and peers attached to your staff report is that benchmark methodology overview which is utilized by the state the category one benchmark applies applies to private docks, piers, and buoys. First docking and mooring sizes and rates for nearby marinas are determined. Then slip rates which are usually expressed in rent per linear feet are converted to a rent per square foot. and then the rent is calculated using a 5% annual rate of return. The theory there being that private marina supplies a number of amenities that go along with docking your boat, other facilities that are not applicable in this situation. So we utilized that formula, looked at Richardson Bay Marina that has a minimum annual fee of $3,822 or $10 per square foot, applied that to the 400 square feet, multiplied it by the 5% that's utilized by the state to get to the $200. This was reviewed by your administrative services director, finance director, and she concurred with that methodology. With that, I'm happy to conclude the staff report and answer any questions. |
| 03:44:15.90 | Jill Hoffman | Very good, very quick. Thank you, Mary. |
| 03:44:19.48 | Ray Pfeiffer | Okay, so my question is the fact that this intersects the path of the Bay Trail, it just seems like there might be, you know, some added cost for mitigation on that. you Was that considered the impact to the Bay Trail? Thank you. |
| 03:44:40.15 | Mary Wagner | No. |
| 03:44:45.45 | Mary Wagner | And I just confirmed with the community development director that the Bay Trail portion doesn't apply to the lease. The Bay Trail is not in the water, but along the public shoreline. |
| 03:44:55.91 | Ray Pfeiffer | Because I'm well, okay, so I'm just it says the Bay Trail slated to run right along Alexander Avenue in the area of the pier. And it... |
| 03:45:06.04 | Mary Wagner | It does not affect the leased area. |
| 03:45:08.00 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:45:08.01 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:45:08.03 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 03:45:11.89 | Jill Hoffman | to be clear, the least area is beyond is like the rock area. And then the end of the pier. |
| 03:45:16.67 | Mary Wagner | Correct, Madam Mayor, and I didn't go into a great deal of detail about the actual project, because you just had such an extensive review of that. If you'd like us to put up some of those slides, if that would be helpful in your analysis, we're happy to do so. But you are correct. If you remember the color depiction that we had of the property boundaries, it's when you turn from the blue of the FOTCH. Finger, if you will, into the light pink of the city owned property and that portion of the pier just prior to the rock and after the rock water word of the rock, if you will. |
| 03:45:53.73 | Jill Hoffman | Is there any, you know, just looking at the lease, is there any way, you know, is there any problem with attaching a schematic to the lease? Known in fact. |
| 03:46:02.57 | Mary Wagner | No, and in fact, there is one schematic currently attached as exhibit B. |
| 03:46:08.73 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. I don't give back up. Oh, got it. Okay. |
| 03:46:12.10 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:46:12.36 | Jill Hoffman | you Thank you. Thank you. Okay, I don't have any questions. Anybody else have any questions? Nope, nope, nope. Somebody want to make a motion? Public comment. Public comment, sorry. |
| 03:46:22.72 | Mary Wagner | Public comment. |
| 03:46:27.02 | Jill Hoffman | Public comment, I have no cards, I see no one approaching the podium. off we go no public comment on this city council discussion |
| 03:46:38.08 | Ray Pfeiffer | Um, I, yeah, I have, I have a, a, a comment and I, I'm not sure if it would be applying or applicable to the lease with respect to when they're constructing the pier in terms of mitigation of parking and parking cars and things like this along the public right of way along Alexander. I don't know if we can put that, that they're not going to block access, block garages and things like that for their neighbors. |
| 03:47:14.09 | Adam Politzer | Madam Mayor, I could perhaps, the Community Development Director could, |
| 03:47:14.44 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:47:19.20 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. Yeah. Illuminate us as to the conditions of approval that deal with that. |
| 03:47:19.82 | Danny Castro | Yeah. |
| 03:47:25.56 | Danny Castro | So we do have a condition of approval. to do this without looking at it, but it's a construction management plan that is required to be submitted. Most of the, most I think all of the construction materials are coming in through by way of a barge. So everything is coming via the water and not, it wouldn't have minimal impact to the streets. Thank you. |
| 03:47:47.06 | Unknown | Same thing that's going on two doors down. |
| 03:47:52.46 | Ray Pfeiffer | OK. you And this construction management plan, this has already been reviewed and submitted or it's it's to be submitted. |
| 03:48:01.74 | Danny Castro | It's required to be submitted prior to even obtaining a building permit. |
| 03:48:03.16 | Ray Pfeiffer | Okay. And do the neighbors review that and weigh in? |
| 03:48:07.93 | Danny Castro | They have access to, they can come in. |
| 03:48:09.07 | Ray Pfeiffer | They can. Okay, good, thank you. Any other questions? |
| 03:48:17.23 | Jill Hoffman | Council comments. No. No? Right. |
| 03:48:22.80 | Ray Pfeiffer | I have a comment about just the process again. Going back to an earlier comment that an implication that I said the administrative review was somehow improper, my comment referred to the process of the administrative review coming before the council review, which is the process that was used for Forty Alexander and not used for this one. |
| 03:48:48.10 | Adam Politzer | Just for clarification, my comment was in not referring to you at all. |
| 03:48:54.16 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:48:56.58 | Linda Pfeiffer | motion. |
| 03:48:57.19 | Jill Hoffman | Yes, you may. |
| 03:48:58.14 | Linda Pfeiffer | I move that we adopt the resolution of the City Council of City of Sausalito approval of the lease agreement for 2 Alexander Avenue for a private pier as specified in as an attachment one of 6B attachment one. So... |
| 03:49:14.15 | Adam Politzer | Yeah. |
| 03:49:14.27 | Linda Pfeiffer | and |
| 03:49:15.79 | Jill Hoffman | Lily, would you like, would you take the roll, please? |
| 03:49:20.34 | City Clerk | Councilmember Theodorus? Yes. Councilmember Weiner? Yes. Councilmember Pfeiffer? No. Vice Mayor Withey? |
| 03:49:21.36 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:49:21.37 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 03:49:22.79 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 03:49:22.81 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 03:49:27.58 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 03:49:28.51 | City Clerk | Mayor Hoffman. Yes. That carries for one. |
| 03:49:29.31 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. Thank you. All right, moving on to item seven. City manager reports, councilman reports, city council appointments, and other business. |
| 03:49:44.53 | City Clerk | I just have a really brief assistant city manager report for you this evening. Just a couple of points. Just a reminder of the volunteer recognition event, which is going to be held this Thursday at the Spinnaker from 6 to 8 p.m. It's a great opportunity to honor our volunteers in the community. So we hope all the council members can attend. |
| 03:49:47.85 | Jill Hoffman | for you to see |
| 03:50:05.35 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:50:05.92 | City Clerk | A couple more points, sorry. There's also the Robin Sweeney Park progress is continuing on the park progress. And we've been including weekly updates on the progress in the current articles. We also have budget meetings that continue at the finance committee level. And then there'll be upcoming city council meetings. And finally, regarding the RBRA, sorry, last item, the enforcement program for RBRA, the proposed budget was presented at the last meeting, and Councilmember Weiner and Mayor Hoffman were in attendance, so if they wanted to comment on that. |
| 03:50:29.16 | Unknown | Thank you so much. |
| 03:50:48.18 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 03:50:48.20 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 03:50:48.38 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 03:50:48.53 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:50:48.60 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 03:50:48.62 | Jill Hoffman | THANK YOU. |
| 03:50:48.68 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 03:50:48.72 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:50:48.82 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 03:50:48.87 | Jill Hoffman | With regard to finance committee, we have our next finance committee meeting tomorrow at 1 o'clock. The agenda has been published and we welcome the public's participation in that process. Sorry. |
| 03:51:05.97 | Ray Pfeiffer | Yes. |
| 03:51:06.94 | Jill Hoffman | . |
| 03:51:07.97 | Ray Pfeiffer | Thank you. So are we doing council member committee reports? Yes. Okay, so as the ABAG alternate, I attended the ABAG delegate meeting in Novato last night. |
| 03:51:11.09 | Jonathon Goldman | Yeah. |
| 03:51:11.11 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 03:51:11.60 | Jonathon Goldman | Reports? |
| 03:51:21.02 | Ray Pfeiffer | And I tell you, there are alarm bells going off in a big way. Right now, we have, uh, as bad I have issues with a bag but at least it's one city one vote with MTC There's only one vote for all of the county. and we're coming up to 2017, Plan Bay Area, the next future rounds of RHNA, we could really not even have very much of a voice at all if this merger of ABAC and MTC goes forward. One of the things the group discussed was supporting autonomous funding for ABEC so that they would not be dependent on MTC, that they could exist separately as an entity. And that certainly is something that we, I think, to preserve what local control we still have, that's something we really need to push and support and get behind. The time frame for this is coming up. The General Assembly of ABAG is reviewing it this week. They're reviewing different options that were created by a consultant where MTC seemed to drive the RFP process and the starting point and the assumptions, which explains why the options, in in my opinion don't make a lot of sense and The I think the final vote is it is looking at Mid-may so we'll report back later when Ray is the M is the delegate on this and he will be attending Thursday's General Assembly |
| 03:53:20.42 | Adam Politzer | Yeah, I concur with everything Councilmember Pfeiffer stated there. I've been trying to alert this council for the last three or four months of this issue. I will be in attendance at the ABAC General Assembly on Thursday, so hopefully we can learn some more there. |
| 03:53:43.88 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Any other questions? Councilmember Committee reports. Thank you. Okay, moving on to appointments of various boards and committees. First up is sustainability commission. Do we have any council questions with regard to the sustainability commission and the nominations? |
| 03:54:07.37 | Linda Pfeiffer | question clarification, are we going to point an alternate as well tonight? Or we can't let me I recommended that night. |
| 03:54:12.77 | Jill Hoffman | I recommended that and I Mm-hmm. Thank you. I believe we can if we want to. |
| 03:54:18.63 | Linda Pfeiffer | I recommend that. |
| 03:54:19.03 | Jill Hoffman | we do so. Thank you. |
| 03:54:19.88 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. um, |
| 03:54:21.87 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. the presumption was in the staff report that we would be. |
| 03:54:26.05 | Jill Hoffman | Mm-hmm. You have that option. So any options are that we can appoint, we can continue? |
| 03:54:39.60 | City Clerk | There's two vacant positions for the non-alternate positions, and there's one alternate position, so three total positions. You have four candidates that you've interviewed. You can appoint all three positions. You can appoint one or two or direct staff to continue recruiting. |
| 03:54:47.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:54:47.91 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. |
| 03:54:47.94 | Janine Moody | for |
| 03:54:48.38 | Jonathon Goldman | or, |
| 03:54:58.25 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Do we have any public comment on appointments to the sustainability commission. you see none do we have council discussion with regard to appointments to the Sustainability Commission |
| 03:55:13.88 | Linda Pfeiffer | I would say we appoint two members and one alternate tonight. We have four excellent candidates. |
| 03:55:20.27 | Jill Hoffman | right? Any other council discussion? Any other? Do we have? Um, Do we start? Nominations. |
| 03:55:28.39 | Linda Pfeiffer | Do we start? |
| 03:55:31.51 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, okay. with regard to the appointments to the to the sustainability commission I would nominate Sam Rubin and Chris Allen for the two members I. Sure. |
| 03:55:46.82 | Ray Pfeiffer | Who was the second one, Chris? |
| 03:55:48.62 | Jill Hoffman | Chris Allen. you We had four members. We had four people. We interviewed Robin Parvin, Sam Allen, or sorry, Sam Rubin. Chris Allen and David Holub. |
| 03:56:01.92 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:56:04.25 | Linda Pfeiffer | Then you pull us and then we give two names. |
| 03:56:06.69 | Mary Wagner | We call for other nominations. And then if there are no other nominations, you can do it by acclamation. If there are other nominations, then we would ask each council member for their two votes by name. |
| 03:56:19.13 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Okay, so I've nominated Sam Rubin and Chris Allen. Are there any other nominations? their nominations so we can do it by acclimation. Okay, we all agree. |
| 03:56:31.75 | Linda Pfeiffer | Yeah. We all agree. Okay. |
| 03:56:34.27 | Jill Hoffman | All right. Okay. Okay, and does anybody want to nominate an alternate? I don't have a nomination for an alternate. |
| 03:56:42.59 | Ray Pfeiffer | I would nominate Robin Parvin. |
| 03:56:46.37 | Jill Hoffman | Do we have any other nominations for an alternate? All in favor of Robin Parvin? Aye. Okay. |
| 03:56:54.13 | Sybil Boutillier | Bye. |
| 03:56:57.62 | Jill Hoffman | very good moving on to the business nominations for the Business Advisory Committee. me. |
| 03:57:10.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:57:10.53 | Jill Hoffman | So do I have that? |
| 03:57:11.16 | City Clerk | This committee is a little unique in that there's three different categories of position on the BAC. There's a city resident category that's appointed by the city council. There's a chamber category that is nominated by the chamber and then confirmed by the city council. And then a BAC nominated position that's nominated by the BAC themselves and then confirmed by the council. So before you tonight are two of those positions, the chamber position and the BAC position. So the chamber has nominated Christopher Holbrook for their slot and the BAC has nominated nominated CJ Spady for their slot. So what's asked of you tonight is to confirm those nominations. |
| 03:57:54.69 | Jill Hoffman | Any comment on that? I move to confirm. |
| 03:57:55.66 | Ray Pfeiffer | Yeah. |
| 03:57:58.76 | Adam Politzer | Yeah, I'll second that, so. |
| 03:58:00.47 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, all in favor? Aye. |
| 03:58:01.56 | Adam Politzer | Bye. |
| 03:58:04.40 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, any other, oh, future agenda items? Go ahead. |
| 03:58:11.55 | Ray Pfeiffer | I have had questions about the when the homeless zoning is coming back to the council, do we have |
| 03:58:18.74 | Jonathon Goldman | Do we? |
| 03:58:21.37 | Ray Pfeiffer | Right now we have the May 3rd date. I'm sorry? May 3rd. Oh, okay. |
| 03:58:21.66 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:58:21.69 | City Clerk | priority on that? May 3rd date. May 3rd. |
| 03:58:27.87 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:58:27.89 | Linda Pfeiffer | any other questions? |
| 03:58:28.19 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:58:28.29 | Linda Pfeiffer | AND I'D LIKE THE AGENDA SETTING COMMITTEE TO TALK WITH STAFF ABOUT Possibly looking at rules about getting late correspondence on planning commission and and and and the city council. We cannot possibly review things that they cannot possibly review things that are given when they're set on on the dais. And I think it's just a matter of we set rules that it has to be in it will be the way they do in courts and I'd want that to be thought about. |
| 03:58:57.17 | Jill Hoffman | I will tell you what, let's we'll talk about it at. Yeah, but I mean, there are due process issues and you know. Yeah. Yeah. OK. Any other future items? No. Any other reports of significance? No. We're adjourned. Thank you very much. Thank you for everybody's hard work. |
Hilaire Bell — In Favor: Shared her experience as a driver, highlighting how the program helps seniors stay involved and fosters friendships and community connections. ▶ 📄
John Gaffney — In Favor: Commended the task force and CARS program for its innovation, efficiency ($15/ride), and community-focused model, contrasting it with less successful county-wide programs. ▶ 📄