| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:03.24 | Joe Burns | Okay, welcome to the regular meeting of the Sausalito City Council. It's Tuesday, January 24th. Lilly, would you call the roll please? |
| 00:00:16.23 | Unknown | Councilmember Burns? |
| 00:00:18.36 | Joe Burns | here. |
| 00:00:18.93 | Unknown | Council member Weiner. |
| 00:00:19.96 | Joe Burns | Mr. President. |
| 00:00:20.72 | Unknown | Council member Hoffman? Present. Vice Mayor Cox? Here. Mayor Withey. |
| 00:00:25.78 | Joe Burns | Here. There's one closed session item, item number D1, which is conference with legal counsel litigation, existing litigation with the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District. Before we go into closed session, is there any public comment on the closed session? Yes. Jeff, and specifically on topic for this particular topic, please. Yes. |
| 00:00:48.75 | Jeff Jacobs | Thank you. |
| 00:00:48.87 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:48.97 | Jeff Jacobs | Thank you. |
| 00:00:54.52 | Jeff Jacobs | Absolutely. Hello. And happy new year, this is the first time I've seen you. in 2017. The one comment I have, and I'm not really familiar as much with this agenda item, but the closed session is over... legal issues. And... In the USA right now, the lawyers of this country are the only ones with, who can withhold privileged information, even a psychiatrist, or a psychologist, or a doctor, or a teacher, cannot do it. Only lawyers can. Um, Thank you. So, Even in the Constitution, it says that Congress can RECESS. and throw the public out and have a session about items that they're not going to talk about with the public. I understand sometimes you have to negotiate real estate, et cetera, Uh, My comment is about having a closed session that is only on The law. AND THAT THE PUBLIC IS NOT participate in this and perhaps this is the most important thing that's happening tonight but I don't know. So that's, thank you. |
| 00:02:17.87 | Joe Burns | Thanks very much. Is there any other member of the public who would like to... make a comment on this. No, let me remind you that this closed session is pursuant to California Government Code Section 549. 5. 6.9A. Thank you. We will adjourn into closed session. |
| 00:02:53.20 | Joe Burns | glasses would help. |
| 00:03:10.38 | Joe Burns | Good evening. And welcome to the regular meeting of the Sausalito City Council, Tuesday, January 24th. Lillie, would you please take the role? |
| 00:03:24.20 | Unknown | Council member Burns? |
| 00:03:25.55 | Joe Burns | Here. |
| 00:03:26.07 | Unknown | Councilmember Weiner? |
| 00:03:27.00 | Joe Burns | Present. |
| 00:03:27.83 | Unknown | Council member Hoffman. Vice Mayor Cox? Here. Mayor Withey? |
| 00:03:32.79 | Joe Burns | here. And, um... Vicki Nichols, would you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance tonight? |
| 00:03:43.94 | Joan Cox | Allegiance to the flag. Thank you. United States of America. and to the republic for which it stands. you Under God. Indivisible. |
| 00:03:54.85 | Joe Burns | you |
| 00:03:54.93 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:03:55.03 | Joe Burns | with. |
| 00:03:55.25 | Joan Cox | liberty and liberty. |
| 00:03:55.98 | Joe Burns | and justice for all. Amen. |
| 00:03:59.54 | Joe Burns | Thank you, Vicky. |
| 00:04:05.19 | Joe Burns | We held a closed session this evening. conference with legal counsel on existing litigation with the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District. We have no... decisions to report out on that closed session item. Are there any members of the public, however, that nonetheless would like to comment on closed session? Seeing none. The next item is the approval of our agenda. And we do have a suggested change. that I'd like council to consider and I'm gonna hand over to our city attorney to explain it. |
| 00:04:52.59 | Mary Wagner | Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yesterday, the general plan task force met to discuss the two proposals that had been received from the consultants to undertake the general plan update. Interviews with these two firms are scheduled for February 1st. During the course of the meeting, it became apparent that it was important that the task force actually be disbanded as their work has been completed, and that an interview panel be appointed so that the interviews could be conducted in private. and that prevents one firm from essentially getting an advantage of having the opportunity to go second and listen to the first firm's proposal. So tonight we're asking that you add an item at the end of your agenda to disband the task force and appoint an interview committee. It's recommended that that committee be comprised of the mayor. Council Member Hoffman and Bill Werner from the Planning Commission. In order to add the item to your agenda, you must make two determinations. That there's an immediate need to take action and that the need arose after the posting of the agenda. This issue arose yesterday, the agenda was posted on Friday. And the need to take action is related to the fact that these interviews are scheduled for February 1st before your next meeting. A two-thirds vote, that is four affirmative votes, is required to place this item on the agenda. |
| 00:06:13.17 | Joe Burns | Thank you, Mary. So I would, assuming that the Council approves this change of the agenda, I would propose that this be perhaps our first item under Section 7, a new 7A1 or something along those lines. Is that okay, Mary? Okay. So does anybody have any comment here? No. Um, Do we have... Is it necessary to take public comment on this item? perhaps. Is there any member of the public who would like to comment on this? Seeing none, do I have a motion to approve the agenda as amended? |
| 00:07:08.56 | Joe Burns | I move to approve the agenda as a... |
| 00:07:11.86 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:07:12.23 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 00:07:12.81 | Mary Wagner | If you don't mind, if you could vote on the addition of the item and then the rest of the agenda, that would be. So if you have a motion to add this item to the agenda. Okay. Go ahead. |
| 00:07:19.59 | Joe Burns | Thank you. Okay, then I make a motion to add this item to the agenda. |
| 00:07:26.85 | Joe Burns | Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? |
| 00:07:29.06 | Joe Burns | Bye. |
| 00:07:30.85 | Joe Burns | Okay, that motion carries, and then could I have A motion to approve the agenda with that additional item. So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. That motion carries. So let's move on to item number one. And there's no mayor's announcements, but we do have an important... Thank you. recognition to make of the sad loss of an important member of our community. And I'm going to hand over to our city manager. Thank you, Adam. |
| 00:08:17.32 | Adam Politzer | Thank you, Mr. Mayor and City Council members. Obviously, this is not a presentation that the council or... I WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE would like to be making this evening, but I think it's important that when we lose a member of our community, especially someone that has served on the City Council and also on the Sassana Marin City School Board, that we take a moment to pause and reflect and appreciate towards strategists. contributions to our community and to the city of Sausalito. Obviously, George is passing which happened I believe on the 13th of this month of a massive heart attack. and they were not able to revise him. and he was pronounced dead on arrival. And so unlike when someone gets ill with cancer or different diseases, there's at least an opportunity to say you goodbyes, recognize people for their contributions. But in this case, it happened rather quickly. And at the age of 55, obviously way too young. Um, There's a lot of emails that I've received in the last couple days from the community sharing a few stories some good memories of George but One of the things that I think was crystal clear was just his heart, his smile, and his generosity to this community. George was was a big man He was proud of his Greek heritage. and he was an optimist like no other. So I thought that we would take a few moments, and this information is also on the slide, so folks at home can see this and people later will have the opportunity to go back and look at this if they miss tonight's council agenda item. But I thought it was important to recognize a few things here. So George was elected to the City Council in 1996. And when you look at his campaign material, There is a theme throughout it. And it's born and raised, knows and cares. And so George was someone that grew up here in town, was born and raised, as he proclaims. Someone that, you know, you saw him around town. He was not an invisible person, not even as a kid. Thank you. He was someone that had a very big presence and again, a very big smile. But George ran for city council and was elected by the people in 1996. And this was the first election when the council moved from a March election to a November election. And because of this, George, unlike you folks, served his first term four years and eight months. So he was on the council longer. And for him, that was a good thing. For others, they may not have agreed that that was a good thing. But that way it wouldn't be Sausalito if we didn't look at it that way. But George, one of his accomplishments was that he was the leading vote getter of that 1996 election. It was also the same election that Paul Albertan ran for council and won, and as you can see, George had 1,625 votes and Paul Albarin had 1,375 votes and Amy Belser was running for her second term in 1996 and she came in third with 1,285. And I am sure that George reminded them of that, any opportunity that he had. Very proud of how much support he got from the community. Also worth noting that George was immediately elected to become the vice mayor and served two consecutive terms as vice mayor. Something that I haven't seen happen before and haven't seen happen since. I'm sure it's not a rarity, but it's not something that commonly happens to be placed in that leadership position immediately after joining the city council. We have two council members that are experiencing that now with both Councilmember Hoffman and now Vice Mayor. Joan Cox. In 1996, he was appointed to serve on the Cyberspace Subcommittee, which is interesting because we all think that the Internet and the websites always existed, but it didn't exist in Sausalito until 1996 when it was created by the subcommittee, and they worked on the first city of Sausalito website. George was also appointed in 1996 to RBRA. and served in that capacity for two years. I'm sure the issues that they dealt with in 1996 are quite different than what the current council is dealing with. But I'm sure that George would have liked to have been in this discussion if he was with us. In 1996, George presented a proposal to the Parks and Rec Commission to reopen Vienna-Delmar Park. And as a kid, As both George and I experienced, the park opened in the middle of our growing up here in town. The park was closed to preserve and protect the park. So in 1996, there was a proposal to reopen it, and eventually the council approved for that park to be reopened. In 1997, George had the pleasure announcing that we were going to hold the first Blues and Jazz by the Bay down at Gabelson Park. So that was the beginning of something very, very special in this community, something that we all celebrate and cherish, and George had a lot to do with that. As he was very involved in the Park and Rec Department, very involved in special events, and I think that's something that working with many in the community to get that off the ground and up and running, something that he's still very proud of or was proud of. George went on to serve two years on the Marin Telecommunications Agency and also served as the City Council's representative on ABAC. George, as I mentioned, was very involved with the Park and Rec Commission. but also very involved with the Sassou School Board. And I'm going to read a couple of little quotes here. But it is important to note that once George got on the school board, he was on the school board from 2000 to 2006. He was really key in helping move the school district forward, both with Willow Creek, both with his slogan that he came up with, 94965. Everyone that lived in the 94965 code was, our area was important and their education was important and he was committed to them. From there we actually started the 900 club where we recognized the students from at the time Bayside and MLK and then eventually Willow Creek Academy for all the students that received test scores of 900 or above and that was something that George had started during his time also on the school board But when I look back at some of the quotes when he left office in December 13th of 2000, Amy Belser, who is known to have a little fun here as a council member, said that she had urged him to run for the school board because he thought that's where his heart was. He did run and he was elected. She presented George with a symbolic gift of what He is leaving and where he is going. Councilmember Stratagas opened the gift. of a frying pan. |
| 00:16:02.55 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:16:02.82 | Adam Politzer | and wood, symbolizing the saying, out of the frying pan and into the fire. Thank you. |
| 00:16:07.15 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:16:10.80 | Adam Politzer | I'm going to ask you to ask said that George was his favorite dreamer. he could count on George on being the one to fight for thinking out of the box. And he thought that we weren't losing a council member but gaining a school board member. |
| 00:16:34.79 | Adam Politzer | I asked for some comments from Council Member J.R. Roberts and Council Member Bill Ziegler and they both sent me a couple memories here. I'll start with J.R.'s. JR says, my best and warmest memory of George was right after he got elected and the incredible excitement and gratitude he felt and expressed to the community that they gave him the vote of confidence. The day after the election, he ran all over town posting signs thanking the voters. It was very personal and touching. I also remember his close friendship with Susan Morris, who's also passed away too early of an age, and seeing them all over town having fun and laughing. Former council member Bill Ziegler mentioned that George was always an original and always having fun. In his first run for city council, he used the line born and bred to indicate that he grew up here and got a lot of attention with that because a lot of new people were running during that election. On the city council, he got complaints about maintenance of the elephant park because fawns from the palm trees were falling and not being picked up. Someone said it was a safety hazard because people were sleeping there. George said we would have liability for death by palm trees. The park was well maintained after that, and he was a great guy, always positive, and I will miss him. I asked Michael Rex, who was able to attend the services that were held last week, to share some of his thoughts. And Michael actually shared these comments at the services. George Stratagas is a big man with a big heart who filled a room with his gregarious spirit, broad smile, and hearty laugh. Party laugh. who lived his whole life in Sausalito, who was a member of the city council and the local school board, gave so generously of his time and positive energy for the welfare of the citizens and the town he dearly loved. What was interesting that was posted on Facebook, and they shared this at the services, was that George had posted on his Facebook site that last night, Sorry. posted on his Facebook page on the morning of his death that he woke up in heaven. when seeing the sun rise over the bay. Very touching. And if you go to the last slide here, I just thought that this was another good reflection of our community. And I can't tell if Phil Frank did this cartoon or not, but I think in the spirit of a Phil Frank cartoon, this was part of his campaign advertisement that he put out there. And again, I think that the conversation reflects the personality of George and the fun that George tried to create. I will miss George. He was one of the... Council members, when I was hired in 2000, back in March of 2000, that came and visited me probably on a daily basis, if not a weekly basis, with all types of ideas for park and rec. And when he became a school board member later that year, he and I partnered up to see how we can team up with the city, especially through parks and recreation programs with the school district. So he was a great ally for me to work with in terms of building the relationship with the school district, but also just a great person, great human being, and someone that we will absolutely miss in the days to come. I would like to encourage anyone here that came specifically for this item, if they'd like to share any stories or memories before we hand it back to the council for closing remarks. |
| 00:20:51.87 | Mike Monseth | Do I have to introduce myself? Mike Monseth. Just did. I was originally Well, one of the original people who recruited, actually, George Estratagus to run for city council. And we ran his campaign. It was three of us. And the interesting part that George never came through the rank of being a planning, being historical. We just brought him. He came fresh into the City Council and that's why he was able to accomplish a lot because he wasn't bounded by certain regulation or certain idea of how we can go about things. And that's, I was going to talk about the legacy of George here but I think Adam said most of it. Especially the jazz, by the way, was one of the contributions that the legacy of him, he should stay forever. And later on, it was funny that even the day before he passed away, he saw me downtown, and I was sitting at the Lappard ice cream, and he came and said, Mike, you know about the downtown? Would you tell me what's happening here? I just got back from Greece, and we sat and talked. And he had a tendency of talk a lot sometimes, and you have to walk away from it. And I told him, George, I have to go. I have some work to do. But I wish I would have stayed a little longer with him. That's what I think most of the stuff that he said. I remember the day that we opened the Vista del Mar. He was there, and quite a few of the Saucido people standing in the way with the cards, oh, don't open, the hippies will come, the hippies will come. I am the goddamn hippie. What are you talking about? See, this is not the 1970 or something. But I mean, he was that kind of attitude he had toward everything, the school board, The amount of work he put for the school board is unbelievable. And I really am missing him. And I think it was his. Thank you, Adam, for making that tribute to him. Thanks. |
| 00:23:21.67 | Bill Ziegler | Good evening. I'm Bill Ziegler. It's a very sad occasion for me. I just saw George a couple of weeks ago. And just like Mike said, I was walking down the street and George was driving along, but he had to stop and talk. even though a couple cars backed up behind him. He just wanted to know what was going on And I asked him what he was doing. And he says, well, he was just checking some houses out because now he was in the real estate business. But my recollection of George is that he was one of the best guys ever to work with. He was always upbeat and positive. I mean, he never had a disagreeable word. We sat together where you are now. and I never saw him Get it. or depressed. We always came up with something better. Whatever the discussion was he mediated it. He talked about it And he always had another idea, no matter what you suggested, George had another idea. And I was going to mention one of his ideas and one of the things he was not happy that didn't succeed about was when The park was opened up, Elephant Park was opened up, George came up with this idea that we should turn the whole parking area into a park, just open it up all the way to the water. And we spent, he was vice mayor when I was mayor, and I think we spent that first year meeting with people and architects and trying to figure out designed for that area. Unfortunately, there was too big a need for parking. The merchants weren't happy with just turning that into a park, which is what we wanted to do, cut the streets off, make it a big open area for the waterfront. But George just had a positive idea one after the next. And the same thing when he was on the school board I was on the Willow Creek School Board And he came over, he wanted to pass a bond issue to build the new school in Marin City. And it was critical that Willow Creek get behind it. And I'll never forget, he came to us. We had a meeting, and George presented what he was going to do, what his idea was for the bond. And... and he wanted to build this big school. There were only 40 kids in the middle school at that time, He wanted to build a school for 150. And we asked him why and he said, well, build it and they will come. that's how George thought. We'll make it better. Whatever is needed, we'll just make it better. and I don't know. I think I'll never serve on another board with somebody who's as enjoyable as that. He was a pleasure every minute of it, and he was a pleasure to work with at all times. We love George, and we're going to miss him, and I hope you hold him in your mind as one of your ideals. He's a model for all of us. Thank you. |
| 00:26:18.59 | Joe Burns | Thank you, Bill. Is there anybody else in the audience who'd like to say a few words? Now, is there any comments? from the dais. We will be, I met George only twice, both in connection with school events, and we will be adjourning tonight's meeting in his memory. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Adam. That's difficult, but thank you. Okay, next we have communications and this is the time for the council to hear from citizens regarding matters that are not on the agenda. Now, I have a couple of cards here from people who want to talk about certain capital projects. And that's going to be our next agenda item. So if you want to talk about a particular capital project, if you could hold off. So... I've got here... Russ Irwin? Thank you. And let me finish my little speech here. So these are topics that are not on the agenda. And as you know, except in very limited situations, state law precludes a council from taking any action or really engaging in any substantive discussions concerning these items of business that are not on the agenda. So please make sure you've completed a speaker card. And so first, Russ. We'll begin with you. |
| 00:28:23.34 | Russ Irwin | Uh, Russ Irwin, uh, Continuing my discussion of tourism. You might remember the last time we talked about sort of a framework for considering tourism-related issues in the city, basically in the context of either how they enhance or diminish the quality of life of the residents or how they enhance or diminish the coffers of the city's treasury. So I put forward this model and then I think. There we go. Uh, I took some analysis for what we see with the rental bikes and what kind of a contribution we see there. Based on my analysis and my assumptions that we presented last time, each rental bike tourist brings about 30 cents to the city. So that's One data point to keep in mind At the other end of the spectrum, however, I don't know if I'm not hitting the button or if the button |
| 00:29:27.11 | Unknown | I'm doing it for you, Russ. |
| 00:29:27.40 | Russ Irwin | for you. Um, Our hotel guests. This is quite a different situation. We have 124 hotel rooms in Sausalito. If we assume two guests in each room and 80% occupancy, we get about 72,000 guests per year. The transparency website shows that we collected $1.6 million in TOT tax last year, last fiscal year. I'm guessing that each additional guest spends about $150 a day. Now, that assumes they go out to lunch, they go out to dinner, then some of them buy something in the city of probably reasonable value. Some clothing, maybe a piece of art. Based on my own experience as a tourist, it's probably on the low side. I don't know about you. Dinner for two and lunch for two adds up pretty quick. And then, of course, one piece of art for a few thousand dollars raises the average quite a bit. So if you roll those together, you end up with more like $1.76 million for 72,000 guests. And if you take a look at that, that turns out to about $24 per tourist per day A visit. which is quite a bit different. I also believe that these people, those guests, enhance our quality of life a bit because they frequent the establishments that the residents are also more likely to frequent. They support our local artists with robust purchases. They support our restaurants at a more meaningful level. And the restaurants, the residents, are more likely to attend to, which is why I plot them further up the enhanced quality of life in this matrix. I think that ends my time and thank you very much. |
| 00:31:21.85 | Joe Burns | Thank you, Russ. And we're going to have... plenty of opportunity down the road when our general plan is an agenda item to dig into this some more. Robert Rourke. These are for items that are not on the agenda. |
| 00:31:38.74 | Robert Rourke | Hi, I didn't expect to hear such a great presentation on Georgia. Old Sausalito was a lot cooler when I was a kid coming over here from Richmond than it is now. And as far as the bike people go, I see the bike people every day going along past the park, past the cruising club, Sane. What's there to do? And I said, well, there's restaurants and stuff, but they can't afford it. They're kids from all over the world on bicycles. So I think the number one priority here would be A bike path from the bridge to town, that's not the road. And it's going to be expensive. But if you put it along the coast, Perhaps it could work. as a causeway here and there. Anyway. It's a big pain for the residents to have all these bikes on the road, right? Okay. The other thing is I think that you should keep your atoms already put to the RVRA that we're keeping the decision whether or not to be in the RVRA at abeyance right now, and I'm urging you to pull out of the RVRA because I think Sausalito could be much more creative without Tim around. Okay, bye. |
| 00:32:51.84 | Joe Burns | Thank you, sir. Thank you. Um, Cheryl Popp, I've got two cards for you. |
| 00:33:00.23 | Cheryl Popp | One is our capital, this is something |
| 00:33:02.20 | Joe Burns | Okay, please. |
| 00:33:02.22 | Cheryl Popp | I'm not sure. Okay, please. Thank you. Please. |
| 00:33:04.33 | Joe Burns | Jeez. |
| 00:33:06.59 | Cheryl Popp | I'm Cheryl Popp. I'm a resident and business person here in town. Mr. Mayor, city council, city staff, I'm here to thank you for helping pave the way for book passages. We are having our grand opening on February 4th, and we worked with city staff. There were a few bumps in the road, but I want to give a shout-out to Danny Castro and Milan and some of the people in community development who work closely with us, and it's happening, and I think it's going to be a tremendous asset to our downtown community. I think it'll get more people off the hill. We're certainly going to be visitor serving as well as resident serving. I hope you'll come see us February 4th, our grand opening. Thank you so much for your support for our venture. |
| 00:33:48.22 | Joe Burns | What time is that at? Cheryl. Thank you. |
| 00:33:52.37 | Cheryl Popp | from 4 to 6 in the afternoon. Thanks, Cheryl. live music, authors, books, food. |
| 00:33:59.73 | Joe Burns | So, um, Jim, I'm going to move you to item 6A, if that's okay with you. And Jeff Jacobs. You didn't mark this, but I presume this was for this agenda item. Okay, thank you. |
| 00:34:15.91 | Jeff Jacobs | Okay. Uh, Hello again and thank you for joining us. I looked at the agenda and I talked to a few people on the anchorage and coming through town a few others. And they asked me if there was anything concerning them on the agenda, and I guess nothing directly. The budget, I read it, I don't totally understand it. I'm just gonna go into this Torah portion, we began with Exodus at the same time as The inauguration happened in Washington, DC. Exodus is when the people of Israel become slaves. to the Egyptians. This is in Exodus chapter 6. Verse number three. and it says, Veera, which is the name of the portion, and that means I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob with the name Almighty God, But with my name, Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh, Adonai, I did not become known to them. Moses spoke to the children of Israel, but they did not Hearken to him. Because of their shortness of breath, and because of their hard labor and shortness of breath. is breath is ruach, it also means spirit. that their spirit lacked. So they could not leave themselves open to a big change. Slavery was garlic and onions and a place to live and something to do when you got up in the morning and somebody to tell you what to do. Being free. was a desert. and waiting for the manna to fall from heaven. And a guy, who's talking to God, telling you, that you have all of these commandments, all these covenants that you now have to fulfill. in lieu of your slavery, it wasn't easy. for Moses especially, or any of the people. Um, So Moses is told to come to the Pharaoh and tell him what's gonna happen The Pharaoh does not let the people go for three days. to worship God in the desert. That's the only request. It isn't to leave and to leave with all of the Egyptians' livestock and to have the Pharaoh drown, which is, of course, what eventually happens. So Moses and Aaron came to Pharaoh And they did as the Lord had commanded. Aaron cast his staff before Pharaoh and before his servants and it became a serpent. Now, the serpent at the beginning of the story in Genesis is the one who entangles us in believing that we have made this earth that we've made ourselves... And that is by far the biggest lie. |
| 00:37:26.99 | Joe Burns | Thank you, Jeff. |
| 00:37:27.80 | Jeff Jacobs | Thank you. I just want to end on a happy note here. This serpent that Moses brings is a serpent of healing. The same way that you see it around the staff, that's what is outside of hospital. Thank you. That's the healing. |
| 00:37:38.46 | Joe Burns | Thank you. Thank you. Um, I realize Peter Van Meter, you checked this agenda item plus future one. Yes, I did. Thank you. Sorry, I almost missed you. |
| 00:37:52.82 | Peter Van Meter | Thank you, since you already announced my name. Was the TAM tax going to be heard by this council any time soon? I thought that might have been on the agenda tonight, is one reason I came, but I didn't see it on the agenda. THE FAMILY. I know it's not on tonight, but do you have it agendized for the near future? |
| 00:38:12.40 | Adam Politzer | We do not, but they are requesting that we do. |
| 00:38:16.09 | Peter Van Meter | All right. Well, in case it's on your next meeting when I'll be out of town, I would say reject that concept. Thank you. |
| 00:38:23.55 | Joe Burns | Thank you. We do have an item later on called future agenda items in which it could be discussed. Is there anybody else who would like to address a council for any item that's not on the agenda? I don't have any more speaker cards. No, with that, okay, we'll move on to action minutes of the previous meeting of January 10th. Do I have any comments? Questions or? |
| 00:39:00.44 | Joe Burns | A motion to approve |
| 00:39:03.73 | Joan Cox | I move approval. |
| 00:39:05.00 | Joe Burns | Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? That item carries. |
| 00:39:07.95 | Joan Cox | Bye. |
| 00:39:11.48 | Joe Burns | Next item, number four, is the consent calendar. And matters listed under the consent calendar are considered routine and non-controversial, require no discussion, or expected to have a unanimous council support. There will be no separate discussion unless a council member decides to request to pull the item, and the rest of our preamble is as written. So is there... Any public comment for items that are on the consent calendar? Vicki, please. Thank you. |
| 00:39:53.75 | Vicki Nichols | Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council. My name is Vicki Nichols. I'm looking at item D. and I'm just looking at the text of this off the California website, and I'm just, I don't know if there's been discussion by this, by the council, you've got it on consent, but I'm reading the text here. This tax, unless I'm reading this wrong, is increase of 38.5% in the annual registration fee with an inflation adjustment as provided a new 165 annual vehicle registration fee Registration fee. within a late inflation adjustment. there's any more explanation of this. Maybe I'm not reading this correctly, but I'm reading the actual text of this bill. Has there been any discussion by the council about the specifics of this? |
| 00:40:38.62 | Joe Burns | Wait. You know we can't comment on this. The city manager can possibly- |
| 00:40:42.59 | Vicki Nichols | Can it be pulled though? Can it be pulled for- |
| 00:40:44.85 | Joe Burns | We'll discuss that. Okay, thank you. |
| 00:40:45.88 | Vicki Nichols | Okay, thank you. |
| 00:40:50.79 | Joe Burns | OK, is there any other comment? Any other member of the public like to comment on items on the consent calendar? |
| 00:41:01.43 | Jeff Jacobs | Yes, this is also on item D. which is transportation funding. First, I want to thank you for putting a bike rack in next to the dinghy dock. on Turney Street outside of Salido's. Maybe the restaurant were the people that did it, or the city, either way, That's good, that I've represented bicycles as well as I can here at the city council and riding through the streets. of Sausalito. Um, that The AB1 is not only about the money, it's about COMPANY. And bicycles, of course, contribute much less, as do pedestrians, even less. And cars are one of the more inefficient ways to travel, but are capturing a very, very, very, very high percentage of the budget. This is a cap in trade. I saw that. That's part of AB1. Hundreds of millions of dollars in Sausalito. I don't think people really understand this. I think that we as individuals now and as small communities are going to have to reduce our carbon output. It's not going to happen from Washington, D.C., and it's not necessarily going to happen from Sacramento or even from this board. It's going to happen from each of us so we can partner up with other people and be honest about what we're doing, how we do it, and how we get to where we're going. And that is going to be the solution. Thank you. |
| 00:42:39.75 | Joe Burns | Thank you. Any other member of the public like to comment on the consent calendar? No? OK. Up here, is there any member of our dais who wants to consider further information or consider pulling an item? |
| 00:42:57.06 | Joan Cox | I would like to make one comment regarding an addition to item D, the draft letters in support of AB1 and SB1. I'd like to recommend an addition to those letters. |
| 00:43:15.22 | Joe Burns | Okay, in which case we have to pull this for further discussion. So Adam, can you remind me of the urgency of this? I know this is a league. These letters were written by the league. Basically, every city in California is sending them right now. Could you remind me of the urgency here? |
| 00:43:40.68 | Adam Politzer | My understanding was the urgency was as yesterday, that the The bill was heard. or the discussion was heard yesterday and they wanted these letters yesterday so we shared that the earliest that we could get our letter of support would be today which they feel was still important that all of the cities in marin and in the north bay division support you know support this this action so if if we were to spend this discussion to a future council win then we might as well not send a letter supporting uh you know, supporting this request. I would remind the mayor and the council members that if it is tweaking that needs to be done, you can do that from the dais without pulling it from the consent if there's full discussion that needs to be had. then you need to pull the item and put it to the end of the agenda. or make the decision not to send the letter. |
| 00:44:37.50 | Joe Burns | Okay, could you help me, Vice Mayor, as to what the nature of the change is? |
| 00:44:39.44 | Adam Politzer | Certainly. |
| 00:44:40.24 | Joan Cox | I. |
| 00:44:40.42 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 00:44:40.52 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:44:40.54 | Adam Politzer | Yeah. |
| 00:44:40.59 | Joan Cox | Yeah. |
| 00:44:40.71 | Adam Politzer | to the community. |
| 00:44:40.96 | Joan Cox | Bye. Certainly, I previously communicated this tweak to the city manager and the city clerk. I simply would like the support of the city to be subject to the existence of safeguards to ensure that the monies raised are actually used for the maintenance and repairs of existing roads and not for other uses such as new roads, complete streets, pensions. I want to be sure that the monies are used for the purpose that the bill enunciates. That's it. |
| 00:45:13.97 | Joe Burns | Anybody else have anything to say? |
| 00:45:16.59 | Joe Burns | No, but I second and support that tweak. |
| 00:45:19.30 | Joe Burns | Okay, well, I then am going to pull this item, and it's going to become, we're going to put it at the end of the meeting, and it's going to be a very long night. |
| 00:45:32.48 | Joe Burns | Yeah. I want to discuss it further. Okay, so it's obviously going to be a more substantive discussion in light of what you want to say. So I think we'll put that at the end of the meeting tonight. |
| 00:45:39.28 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:45:50.39 | Joe Burns | Okay, so do I have a, is there any other comment on any of the other items on the consent calendar? Now, could I have a motion then to approve items A through C? and so moved. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. And we'll deal with 4D later. |
| 00:46:10.08 | Joan Cox | I. |
| 00:46:14.99 | Joe Burns | Okay. Next item is 6A, and this is the introduction and presentation of the fiscal year 27 mid-year budget amendment, and I will add with a heavy emphasis on the capital projects. And welcome to Melanie Purcell, our Administrative Services Director. |
| 00:46:45.31 | Melanie Persaud | Good evening, Melanie Persaud, Administrative Services Director. Thank you very much. This is to clarify the introduction of the midyear budget amendment and an update on where we're at on the capital improvement projects for the year. The intent is to introduce it at this time and to solicit feedback from the council as well as requests for any additional information. make sure that we have everything that you need before you and then to bring it back at a later council meeting. I do want to apologize. Unfortunately, the Finance Committee did not get the opportunity to vet this in detail as that meeting had to be canceled. unexpectedly. |
| 00:47:25.80 | Joe Burns | Before you move on, could we open some more windows? I've taken my jacket off, and I know it's really damn hot in here. |
| 00:47:39.08 | Unknown | Yes. Wait a minute. Thank you. Wait. |
| 00:47:45.24 | Joe Burns | Okay, sorry Melanie. |
| 00:47:47.89 | Melanie Persaud | Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Kicking off then, And I do want to note, I did send a note to city council earlier this evening just clarifying the intent of this item and also providing a cleaned up version of the resolution regarding staff. So I'll also clarify that as I go on in this presentation. We're gonna cover the citywide summary and then just kind of what's going on in the general fund departments. capital improvement program and then kind of where we're looking at from here. Just a couple of observations. Our sales tax revenue is declining. We did expect to have a little bit of a drawdown this year, given the end of what's called the triple... The triple flip. Once upon a time, the state decided to borrow some funds and then had to make it up. That has ended now, and we are seeing continuing declines in our sales tax receipts, though above and beyond that original anticipated. Okay. The good side of things though is our property tax revenue continues quite strong for Sausalito. The city is nearly fully staffed, which is a big jump forward. three new officers, police officers, over the course of this fall. and making great strides in keeping the department's fully operational. We're also making strong progress on the initiatives that the council adopted in June and kind of set the tone for the year of what you wanted to see happen. And I'm glad to report that we have quite a few making strong progress. Sorry. Real quick, you'll see a slight tick up in general fund revenues. That is grants and recognition of some carry forwards from donations of prior years. We are shifting dollars between recreation, which does have a vacancy, into non-departmental and to the library most of this is to recognize a settlement that the Council had agreed upon in the fall, and I just wanted to bring forward into the budget and fully cover. Sermily. Other changes, you'll see a little bit of a tweak in the general capital projects that recognizes a $5,000 donation from the library board. the Friends of the Library, excuse me, covering the website update. The other reduction in sewer at this time is simply a correction now that we have done a full reconciliation of the sewer bonds as was presented to the Finance Committee in December, November and December, we have reduced the amount available. So that's simply just clarifying how much is actually available. We waited until we had the books closed or close to close for FY15-16. The Tidelands Fund, you'll see an increase that is to reflect the grant to help take care of debris. It's just formalizing that. And there are no other changes. Okay, in the departments as I mentioned, you'll see a little bit of a tweak. coming down to non-departmental. Again, that's a reflection solely of the settlement. It was approved this fall. Slight tweak in police. And then the others are in Public Works, Recreation and Library. Again, these are just very minor tweaks regarding contracts, mirror costs that came in, just reconciling them. You'll notice that the bottom line changes minimally. That is a reflection of grants and donations received. over the course of the last six months. |
| 00:51:41.59 | Melanie Persaud | Community development has successfully contracted for a code enforcement official as well as to supplement its building official. That was one of the initiatives, well, two of the initiatives that council approved was to rather than hire additional staff to seek out an expanded contract, for additional services and that is underway, was finalized in the fall. Information Technology Phase 1 is all but complete. We will be bringing forward Phase 2 of the Strategic Infrastructure Replacement. and I think that's a great question. Probably in February. That will bring the next phase of the servers and switches and updates for the citywide information system. IT is also active in assisting with the planning and permitting software. That contract came to council in November, and the website date also came to council in November. Those projects are well underway. and hoping for full implementation this spring. Police has hired their parking enforcement officer. They used a temporary individual for the remainder of the tourist season and then hired a full-time person this December. Emergency management as a part-time person was hired immediately because we had somebody readily available very well qualified and the seasonal patrol officer the part-time seasonal patrol officer is going through final background right now these positions are non benefited non non full-time so they receive no additional compensation beyond salary Public Works, we're in the process of looking at and discussing contracts with various vendors, have done some review of staffing for lead contract assistance. The enhanced maintenance is underway and construction management is also underway. We'll see quite a bit of effort being spent by public works in maintaining the city's parks and Two changes that did cause some confusion, and I do apologize. in order to bring the formal structure of the organization compliance with what we do. The bottom half of this is a cleanup. The top half of this is to modify the city librarian to include communications director as a formal role. As a city priority, there's an increased focus on public communications. Obviously, we embrace transparency wholeheartedly and want to continue our lively engagement with the public that we serve. So the communications including currents, relaunch and redesign of the website, consistent use of the open town hall functionality, as well as increasing and expanding our presence on social media have been an increased focus of the last six months. The city librarian has sufficient experience in this area, and he has been acting in this capacity for the past six months. So a 5% increase was recommended to formalize that expanded duty. That salary increase would equal $6,605 for the year. This is intended to be rolled into the existing budget presentation before you. The part-time, the resolution addresses part-time salary ranges for library staff. This is to clarify those positions that are actually temporary part-time positions that do not mirror anything in the MOU. It creates... um, a range rather than specified dollar amounts to allow managers to assign staff. and to anticipate these ongoing and repeated changes in minimum wage law. It's a very fluid environment in our market, and we also find that coming back to council every time there's another change is that much more confusion. It is also intended to mirror the action that was taken for the part-time recreation staff. Historically, the city has made a practice of applying the across-the-board COLAs to the part-time personnel. That was not fully formalized, so I'd like to make it formal. You'll find that I tend to be one of those people. So there is no increase in budget proposed. |
| 00:56:11.12 | Melanie Persaud | Okay, the selected capital program highlights. We do have the license plate readers. They have been purchased. You approved that this past fall, and they are being installed. Design is actively underway at Southview and Dunphy Parks. Phase one at the Martin Luther King campus, MLK, is underway. And actually, as you'll notice, there have been, There's some questions obviously that we're in conversation with the neighbors to make sure that we incorporate their feedback regarding the roof. Um, and will continue that conversation actively. The streets projects, 2016 is now complete. That was awarded at the end of June and rolled over into this fiscal year, 2017. Design is ready to go forward. Gate six project we'll get discussed in more detail later on, but it has started. Storm drain master plan mapping, your approved contracts and that activity photos and all are underway. The ADA traffic and transportation projects is underway, and I'm going to mention something about that. What I have recommended is that we move the funds, $50,000 from ADA waterfront and buildings to ADA transportation. It is simply moving it from one project to another. It does not have a substantive change in the budget, but it does show up on your report, specifically because the council does look at capital projects you adopted at the fund level, but you look at it at the project level. So I wanted to make sure that it was clear that we were making a movement between those Sewer capital projects are definitely underway, and the Tourney Gainway project is in design review. Thank you. application. Quickly, excuse me for a second. |
| 00:58:00.21 | Nancy Ellsworth | Sorry. |
| 00:58:01.55 | Melanie Persaud | I wanted to walk through, just kind of in preparation for further discussion about the capital, but also to kind of prepare for as we head into this next budget cycle and into the fall when we start strategic planning and some more of our long-term capital. capital projects find their way into the CIP or the Capital Improvement Program from a variety of sources. One, public suggestions. People say, hey, there's an issue. We want to see this fixed. We want to see something new. Other agencies bring forward projects that they're working on, sewer, water. TAM or experts come along and say, hey, by the way, you have an issue. We asked for expert opinion out at MLK and got feedback, and so we studied it a little further we evaluate We have the experts look at it, provide us information. Then we start looking for the design funding because the study is strictly that. It gives us enough information to decide, hmm, yes, this is potentially a viable project or it's not. So we start looking for design funding frequently from grants or other sources or simply putting it into the CIP for the purposes of design so that we can identify a source. We then start looking at other projects, other agencies, what are they doing? Obviously, we don't want to rip up our streets and then turn around and have the water system rip up their streets and then turn around and have PG&E rip up the same set of streets. It's been known to happen. So we like to avoid that. We ask for the public's input. And then we also do additional study. And then we start to design the project and actually get into what is going to be built. Thank you. and how it's going to look. and then we start looking for the funding. Now some of these steps do kind of happen simultaneously. We try to look for funding a little earlier because otherwise a project can get stalled out and it may be more urgent. or we may have an opportunity to coordinate or leverage with other agencies and we wanted to be able to take advantage of that. So part of my role is working with our DPW director and kind of talking about where in the process each of these ideas are. And where do they come about? And then how do I anticipate the conversation about funding? Because sooner or later it's going to come down to do we have the money for this? Once we get that funding identified and we're ready to go, we have a design and we have money, we go through the plan review, we go through state permitting, we go through local permitting, we may even have federal permitting, we go through all kinds of legal steps, and then we can actually begin construction and get a new asset. So I just wanted to make sure that we kind of had some idea. Things show up on the capital improvement program often several years in advance without any clear idea of what they're going to look like by the time we get to that point, simply so that we are anticipating that it's a conversation to be had. So as you'll notice here, we have six years out. Traditionally, CIPs are developed on a six-year basis. We'll start discussing the new iteration of this. We'll update this as part of the budget process. We'll start the new iteration come fall and also look probably even further out. |
| 01:01:20.97 | Melanie Persaud | You'll notice the $50,000 move to ADA traffic and transportation projects. You'll see the decrease elsewhere. These projects are part of the priority one in the settlements that was reached almost two years ago now. |
| 01:01:46.59 | Melanie Persaud | Very few changes here. You'll notice the Kaiskais project is to be funded through donations. So at this point, it's not happening yet. A good example of a project that's been discussed but isn't at the point where we're ready to nail it down is the City Hall meeting room. that got pushed out in the last budget conversation, but we still stick it out there knowing But we don't know what it's going to look like at this point. And it might be less, it might be more. We'll have that conversation each year as we go through this discussion. Mitch and Tony Street Gangway is in design, design review application. We have proposal back from SWA that's being evaluated for the landscape beautification design. Other projects are underway and being reviewed. The ADA, you'll see where the $50,000 is being removed for the buildings and waterfront. We moved it earlier on the prior slide. Here's a description of the Attorney Street Gangway project. We're moving and replacing the existing 40 foot long gangway with an 80 foot to make shore and water safety accessible. without requiring judging. It is permitted. City design review pending and fully appropriated. It's expected to be completed this spring. |
| 01:03:04.94 | Melanie Persaud | Okay. This is simply a description of the wave attenuator. trying to design and develop the grant funding. So this is where we're looking again at the design side of things. rather than the actual construction. License flight readers, as I mentioned, are underway. IT infrastructure is reaching conclusion. Permitting tracking software is underway. Website underway. IT's been very busy this year. And we're in the process of looking, we'll start looking at the document management updates. in the coming months. Again, you'll see placeholders and outlying years for projects that we know need to be done, but we don't know quite what they're going to look like or exactly how much they're going to cost. |
| 01:03:56.60 | Melanie Persaud | Again, Southview and Dunview-RoboFinn design right now. |
| 01:04:03.33 | Melanie Persaud | medians work is is being evaluated |
| 01:04:13.15 | Melanie Persaud | changes in these projects. I just want to make sure that we do have them here for you. |
| 01:04:22.28 | Melanie Persaud | You'll notice here is the South City Limits. There's a lot of placeholders in the outlying years. Jonathan Goldman will be going into detail more for you on this. But you'll see there's placeholders. Again, design, construction, studies, not necessarily in that order. And the sewer fund, as we're doing some shift of funding, where it's anticipated that by downsizing the project for gate five, we will be able to redistribute some of those funds in another way. and continuing to hold aside a little bit of funding for urgent repairs that are not anticipated. |
| 01:05:02.29 | Melanie Persaud | the first project that was identified under Urgent 1 actually has been completed. Nevada project involves removal of eucalyptus trees, and the Gate Pride Project, again, is being looked at at an incremental basis now to measure and manage our response and see how successful we are at each step. So what we're looking for from the council is some feedback or direction. Questions, any additional information you need, Mr. Goldman is available for any quick or brief clarifications. Otherwise, we can bring back information at another council meeting. You also have the option to refer back to the finance committee if you would like them to review in detail before your next meeting. It is proposed that the amendment be brought for action at February 14th. I'm. |
| 01:06:02.57 | Joe Burns | OK, thanks very much, Melanie. So we're going to start off with council questions of Melanie on this topic. And I'm going to remind us and then I'm going to remind the public when I ask for public comments that we have a separate agenda item on the South Gateway project. And so I will, let's reserve any questions when we actually talk about that project, please. Okay, so. My colleagues here, do we have any questions of Melanie? I have one. Just want to clarify. I have no questions on the capital side at this moment. But on the other than capital, and in particular on THE staffing both permanent and part-time. Basically, we are not... There's no changes to the permanent staffing levels and there's no changing to the compensation levels of the permanent staff other than the one item that you identified. Is that correct? |
| 01:07:19.40 | Melanie Persaud | Yes, that is correct. |
| 01:07:20.68 | Joe Burns | Okay, I just wanted to make sure that was the case. Okay, thank you. |
| 01:07:22.51 | Melanie Persaud | was the case. The resolution has been modified to specifically state no changes prepared. to be made. |
| 01:07:29.14 | Joe Burns | Thank you. Does anybody else have any questions of Melanie? Yeah, please. |
| 01:07:34.06 | Joe Burns | Yeah. Yeah, I do. So I have some questions about the change with regard to the library staff. And I didn't see that slide in our packets. Was that the slide about that person? That's fine. So I'm going to have some questions about that, but we can talk about that in the finance committee, and I'll follow up with you in between now and the finance committee, and then if I have questions further, I'll address it then. |
| 01:07:49.22 | Melanie Persaud | Okay. |
| 01:08:03.12 | Joe Burns | I believe there was this bullet point at it, was there? Or was that in our figure? |
| 01:08:07.81 | Melanie Persaud | This slide was added today and the cleaned up resolution was sent out to Council this afternoon. |
| 01:08:13.72 | Joe Burns | Okay. Thanks. |
| 01:08:16.96 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 01:08:16.98 | Joe Burns | Thanks. |
| 01:08:20.45 | Joe Burns | Oh, okay. In that case, I'm going to open, thank you Melanie, we may have some more questions. I'm going to open this topic up for public comment. So this is item 6A, anything on that whole budget other than the South Gateway project, which we'll be talking about next. So does anybody have any public comment? I do have some cards and Let's begin. Someone who's been patiently waiting here, Jim Meyer. |
| 01:08:59.32 | Unknown | . No. Okay. |
| 01:09:02.45 | Joe Burns | Okay. |
| 01:09:03.03 | Cheryl Popp | Jim is cleaning it up. I'm not sure. . He needs a full free room. |
| 01:09:09.36 | Joe Burns | Okay. |
| 01:09:13.34 | Jim Meyer | Good evening, Mayor and Vice Mayor and Councilman out here. tonight to talk about the Cal Sada Project and give you a kind of overview of where we are. uh, I've been a member, I've been a resident of Sausalito, my name's Jim Meyer, first of all, I guess I should have said that, right? I've been a resident of Sausalito for 41 years and live on Platte Street, which all of you have driven by many times, I'm sure. Uh, I was actively involved in the initial contact with the city of Qashqai And it was through a meeting Herb attended, walking through Gableson Park, that they felt, the vice mayor of Qashqai felt that it would be appropriate for them to make a gift to the city of Sausalito. And that gift was a CalSATA project. which is a 24-foot diameter piece of art. to be installed somewhere here in the city of Sausalito. This is an incredible gift. Not only did the city of Qashqai provide the design, They are going to ship us the stones from Portugal, three different colored stones. It's 10 tons of stones that they're going to ship over to us. And they're going to send their lead artisan to come to Sausalito and install these personally, on site, for as long as it takes to get them installed. Quite a gift. Uh, After looking at lots of locations, Adam asked me to look at a lot of locations, we looked at more, it became pretty obvious that the best place to put this gift was in the area in front of the Bank of America. Um, This area. It's just a perfect fit for the design. It's near the waterfront, which is important. It's an area with lots of visitors and local people see. IT'S IN THE CENTER OF TOWN. and certainly it's an area that needs some beautification. Uh, The project will no doubt enhance this area. And I think it's a perfect compliment to our other sister city project, Venetamar Plaza, Venetamar Park. Oh. The CalSATA project has complete support of the Sausalito Sister City organization of I'm a member of the council, which is one level below. It has the full support of the Honorable Nuno Matias who's the Council General from Portugal here in Sausalito who can't be here tonight but would like to be here, would like to have been here It has support of Saucedo Beautiful, It has the support of the Portuguese, South Leo Portuguese Cultural Center, It's had the vote support of the city council. In addition, It recently was awarded a Um, from the Saucyew Art Festival. and a grant. from flawed. That is an organization in Portugal known as the LUSSOT AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION. that grants money to projects in America that helps build American Portuguese cultural ties. We were awarded a $10,000 grant for this project. I'm done. Ha ha. Thanks, Jim. Thank you. you |
| 01:12:19.52 | Cheryl Popp | Thank you. |
| 01:12:19.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:12:19.59 | Joe Burns | Bye. |
| 01:12:19.61 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:12:19.62 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 01:12:19.77 | Cheryl Popp | I'm Cheryl Popp and I too am a long time 25 year resident and Jim and I co-chair the Cache Kai Sister City program, our sister city missions for all three. |
| 01:12:19.81 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 01:12:31.03 | Cheryl Popp | is to promote educational exchange, cultural, artistic exchange. So we have our fabulous Youth Sailing Exchange program, which will be in its third year this year. The kids are coming here, a lot of dignitaries from Qashqai. Everybody will be in the Fourth of July Day Parade. But we also are trying to take advantage of this very significant gift from the city of Qashqai. They gifted it to us about two years ago. They're ready to ship the stones. And I am really, really proud of what I see as a terrific public-private partnership. Not only do we have the $10,000 from FLAD, but the art festival has recognized that this is a great public art project. Our council is contributing $15,000. We have a contractor and an engineer who are going to do in-kind work for us. You did see it on the capital improvement plan. There's a $50,000 line item. We are really hoping we can break ground on this in July or before July when all these dignitaries and people from Qashqash will be here. So this is just a shout-out for that project, and we really appreciate your ongoing support. We feel we've really done our homework and got all our ducks in a row, and we're ready to go. A lot of talented people on our council, engineers, contractors, they're all pitching in. And I know we've been working with Adam and getting Public Works and Danny and everybody else involved. So that's an update on our front. We're ready to go. And we appreciate your ongoing support. Thank you. |
| 01:14:00.38 | Joe Burns | Okay. For item number six, a Shelby Venn meter. |
| 01:14:13.26 | Shelby Venn | Good evening. It's always wonderful to be in front of you and speak to you. I have a question. It has to do with an item on the staff report on page 2. At the top of the page it talks about the budget and then public works and the first item says increased landscape maintenance contract dollars increasing by over $166,000. Does that refer to the landscape contractor, agreement that this person will be hired. I don't recall that 166,000, but I was just curious if that number also includes some increased maintenance for landscapes. I couldn't relate this to what I just saw in Melanie's presentation, so I'm just curious about that. Does anyone know? Maybe Melanie? |
| 01:15:05.12 | Joe Burns | Melanie or Adam? |
| 01:15:07.06 | Shelby Venn | or Adam or Jonathan. |
| 01:15:11.56 | Melanie Persaud | Yes, this was the dollar amount that was approved by the council in the budget in June, and it includes the contract maintenance foreman as well as increased maintenance dollars for all of the maintenance activities. |
| 01:15:28.18 | Shelby Venn | So this is not a change from the Original, okay. Well, thank you. That's always wonderful to see increased dollars for maintenance. So we're really looking forward to getting that contractor hired. The weeds are popping up all over town from all this rain and so the timing should be great. Is there any idea of when this might actually be A higher. Does anyone have any idea? |
| 01:15:57.12 | Adam Politzer | Well, we are just as interested in having this person hired as Sassalutra Beautiful. But there's a longer process and not to go into a great deal. But it also has to involve the unions and positions underneath. So we've had to go through actual series of promotional opportunities and interviews. And then reaching out to the various consultants that offer this service and then working through the logistics of that. So it's our intent that by the spring, when everything is growing wild, that we have our full force because reminder to the public, the foreman is actually a working maintenance worker, not another person sitting at a desk and doing reports. |
| 01:16:10.42 | Unknown | Right. Compensable. |
| 01:16:36.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:16:37.02 | Shelby Venn | Right. |
| 01:16:38.92 | Adam Politzer | that we have to do with the maintenance workers. |
| 01:16:42.79 | Shelby Venn | Okay, thank you, Adam. Thank you, everyone. |
| 01:16:45.40 | Joe Burns | Thank you Shelby. Jeff Jacob, you wanted to talk on the budget topic? Yes. Because you didn't indicate what subject matter. |
| 01:16:55.02 | Jeff Jacobs | Yes, this is on the budget as are, I think, most of the items here at Sausalito City Council. |
| 01:16:55.87 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 01:17:02.63 | Jeff Jacobs | and Congress and the executive and the courts as well, Um, Just before I do that, I just wanna read the preamble to the Brown Act. It says, the people of the state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies, that serve them. They retained control. of the instruments that they've created. And I think Donald Trump is like a stop clock, right, twice a day. And when he talked about the power going to the people, I think that is one of those times that that clock stopped. And that's what needs to happen. uh, This is specifically now going into the budget. And the homeless budget, this was last council meeting, We had a few folks from San Rafael come to discuss this. $3.3 million was what I heard as the number for Marin spending on 400 counted homeless people. I just worked that out and that's $8,000. A PEACE. Sausalito was given $15,000, this was a while ago, maybe even a year ago. And instead of using this for the house list, they gave it to San Rafael. And the first thing I heard asking about what happened last week was that San Rafael doesn't want to have to deal with the homeless. either. I'm not sure. Now, I'm gonna link this a little bit with The Torah The tribe called the Levites and the Kohens are to have no portions and no inheritance, that the people who still exist to this day And it's very difficult to have to talk to them about this. Nobody wants something taken away from them that they're used to having. This is so that they can make decisions without self-interest, because otherwise, it's a snowball going down a hill with all of the snow, and it starts an avalanche, and then it becomes emolumentum. And pretty soon, we're all under that pile of snow. That the only way that people are going to be able to make decisions is if they have no... self-interest. That's a very difficult standard to take, but it's something to aim for. And |
| 01:19:43.44 | Jeff Jacobs | I know that... that Herb doesn't take a salary. I know the salary isn't very much. I appreciate all of the work that you do. But for $8,000 a piece, I think we can provide places for everybody to live so we don't have to be talking about this next year also. |
| 01:19:59.50 | Joe Burns | Thank you, Jeff. Um, Peter Van Meter on item 6A. Okay, is there anybody else who hasn't filled in a speaker card who'd like to talk on the budget? Okay, with that we'll close public comment, bring it back here. This was no action required. But do we have any more questions of Melanie or any comments? Okay, so thank you very much for all of you who participated. And we'll now move on to... How are we doing on a break? Everybody okay? |
| 01:20:46.38 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:20:46.45 | Unknown | I'm telling you. |
| 01:20:47.93 | Joe Burns | Yeah, okay. So let's move on to the next item 6B, which is the South Gateway Project. And we have initially Jonathan Goldman, our Public Works Director. |
| 01:20:47.95 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE Okay. |
| 01:21:07.49 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 01:21:07.51 | Jonathon Goldman | Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, staff, and members of the community, and your public works director and city engineer, Jonathan Goldman. Thank you. I'm, the staff report really speaks for itself, and I think in the interests of time, although I'm certainly happy to, to, To talk about the chronology the history of how we got to where we are tonight But I think most of you and lots of people both here and and at home are more interested in the details of the feasibility study that Parisi transportation consulting did and So I want to make sure that as much time as available for Andrew Lee to do that as possible. So let me, is that the right one? |
| 01:22:04.09 | Jonathon Goldman | Let me just introduce Mr. Lee. He's with Parisi Transportation Consulting, essentially right across the street from us on Bridgeway, who's the primary engineer who's been involved in both designing and then performing the study on the city's behalf. I'll let him give his presentation, and then both of us will be available to answer questions and hear public comments. |
| 01:22:30.31 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 01:22:35.19 | Joe Burns | Welcome. |
| 01:22:36.59 | Andrew Lee | Thank you, Mr. Mayor. |
| 01:22:55.49 | Andrew Lee | All right, good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of council. My name is Andrew Lee. I'm with Parisi Transportation Consulting. I'm their senior engineer. And as Jonathan mentioned, I've been involved in this project for the last three years. I just want to give a brief acknowledgement of the funding, which was from OBAG and administered by the Transportation Authority of Marin. They funded the feasibility study for the improvements along the South Gateway Corridor. A little bit of background just to set the stage. The South Gateway Corridor we considered is from Alexander Avenue to South Street, Second Street, down to Richardson, and ultimately at Bridgeway at its northern terminus. It is the only route for walking and biking. to and from Sausalito to the south to San Francisco. And as you know, there are thousands of people that use this route every single day, and they consist of commuters and residents, and also recreational users and tourists. It is a route of regional significance. It's a planned segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail. which aims to connect the entire San Francisco Bay with a route for walking and biking. And it's identified in several city documents for improvements, which include the general plan, the walking and bicycling master plan, and the countywide bicycle plan. The project history, as I mentioned, it was initiated through a request for grant funding on the study back in 2012, which was OBAG funds administered by the Transportation Authority of Marin. Pre-Sea Transportation Consulting was brought into this project and we began our work in late 2014. And then since then we've consulted with the city's bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee several times on our findings. The project goals. for what we were studying in terms of identifying issues and trying to identify solutions are pretty modest. Namely they are to improve or correct deficiencies that currently exist, and to improve user safety. that's it, we're not really looking for an entire re-imagining of the street we did not seek to change the character at all. It is merely to correct efficiencies and improve safety. But in that there are so many users, it is a very substantive goal. and we encountered a lot of challenges along the way. So in our work, we did a lot of data collection. We went and collected vehicular traffic counts three times, both on weekends and on weekdays, during the summer. and during the off-peak spring periods. We did the same thing with bicycle and pedestrian counts. We set up video counters that recorded the traffic that passed by either on foot or on wheel for 24 hours in the day. We studied the bus and ferry ridership, and we also went out to look at the parking occupancy along the South Gateway, namely on South Street, to see what sort of occupancy there was. So we considered all modes in our research. This is just one page out of the report. There are many others that I have as backup for the rest of this presentation, but it illustrates what kind of activity you're seeing out here. And so we consider this multimodal. We are looking at the bicyclists, the pedestrians, the people in cars, and at its very peak, when we recorded this during the summer, you're looking at 12,000 to 15,000 people per day. |
| 01:26:40.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:26:56.38 | Andrew Lee | And out of those people, during the summertime, More than a third are either walking or bicycling. and the other two thirds in cars. So you have many different users, but there's a very, very diverse mix of users. |
| 01:27:15.35 | Andrew Lee | A little bit more on the data collection, these are just excerpts again. We identified all of the traffic control devices, all of the signs along the corridor. We looked at the collision history along the corridor, identified that there were 56 collisions, whether they involved bicyclists, pedestrians, automobiles, what kinds of collisions, whether they were T-bones or side swipes or, you know, and the and we identified those hotspots. There are several locations you can see where there's a distinct concentration in crashes, so distinct safety issues here. Based on that, we identified what we call multimodal hotspots, which are the same locations with many crashes that involves all different kinds of modes. And where we saw those hotspots, we identified the crash factors, whether it's unclear signage, additional markings that could be provided. some traffic calming features that could slow some of the speed related collisions and possibly reduce these incidences. So with that, I'm gonna present the staff and BPAC recommended concepts. And I'll lead by saying that this is a small feature, or small page that will be blown up in greater detail. So if you have questions about the specifics of the improvement concepts, I'd be happy to cover that once I summarize what we have here. So starting at the very north end of the South Gateway Corridor, at Bridgeway, Richardson, and Second Street, The improvements here are primarily to install a Marks Crosswalk. across Second Street. with a potential pedestrian refuge island and pedestrian beacons, so flashing lights, bulb outs in order to reduce the crossing distance for pedestrians, but they wouldn't have any impact on the roadway configuration as it relates to traffic. So there are no removals of lanes or changes in automobile circulation. This would just be to facilitate the pedestrians crossing at this point. There are several other features that I'm I'm just going to mention briefly, but you'll notice some hatch marks. There are some locations where there are residential driveways that have cross slopes, and for ADA purposes, we're recommending repair or reconstruction. so as to meet ADA standards, also some striping related to the uphill bike lane if possible on Bridgeway. |
| 01:30:05.84 | Andrew Lee | on Second Street. The concept here is at two locations to install pedestrian warning signs and to consider flashing beacons because it's more of a residential corridor here. We do want to be careful about that. So it's a consideration for flashing beacons if the warning signs and the pedestrian markings for the crosswalks need additional assistance. I'll note that the city has already installed high visibility crosswalks at one intersection, actually at both these intersections across 2nd Street. And with this, the improvement would be just to improve the visibility of pedestrians wanting to cross with additional signage. As with the other locations, there are several segments of the sidewalk where we require repair or corrections to the cross slope, however, the the improvement concept would not change curb to curb width of the street so there would not be any widening. or narrowing the existing face of the curbs would stay exactly where they are. It would just be a reconstruction for existing deficient features. I'll note here as well, because the question may come up, we are recommending that the existing uphill or southbound bike lanes stay in place. And the very, very short explanation as to why we have that recommendation is that a uphill bike lane works better. based on the speed of the cyclist being more consistent And it's more important to vehicular traffic that there is a way for these motorists to pass uphill cyclists. to minimize the disruption to traffic. compared to a downhill bike lane, which based on our study would not work as well as the uphill bike lane because the speeds of the cyclists are less consistent. That is they are passing each other and also the disruption in having cyclists not in a lane is less compared to not having an uphill bike lane. If I'm... to explain myself clearly. That is, when you're going downhill on a bike, you can keep up with the flow of traffic in a greater manner compared to trying to keep up with the flow of traffic going in the uphill direction |
| 01:32:35.97 | Andrew Lee | So at South Street, this is one location where we are recommending a widening of the road that is to push back the existing face of curb, and this would be on the north side of the street. The property fronting that side of the street is a several, two residential complexes. and there's vegetation in the sidewalk there. But the reasoning for the widening of South Street in particular is to provide the space for a bike lane to close the gap between what's currently existing on South Street and approaching the shoulder that's provided on Alexander. Thank you. We did the parking survey, as I mentioned before, and we noticed that this area is pretty highly well parked. The occupancy's about 85% during the middle of the day. We understand that parking is a sensitive matter. And so the recommendation therefore is to preserve that parking, widen the street in order to provide a bike lane. and to construct the sidewalk to an ADA-compliant standard. |
| 01:33:57.87 | Andrew Lee | Again, some segments of the sidewalks with residential driveways, we recommend for reconstruction. Here we have Alexander Avenue. The improvements here are substantial. Our primary recommendation is for a retaining wall on the west side of Alexander. That's at the bottom of this figure. of the and with the widening of Alexander here, the ultimate objective is to widen the sidewalk on the east side of the street Right now it varies from a foot to a laminate board path that's about four, four and a half feet wide. Use the widening of the street and the realignment of the street to construct a standard four to five foot sidewalk. because we recognize that there are significant safety issues with not providing a compliant path of travel for pedestrians in this segment. However, We did want to avoid impacting the properties at 38 and 64 Alexander Avenue, which is why the recommendation is for a retaining wall to push the roadway to the west. So that way we wouldn't have to impact those properties. in constructing the sidewalk project. And we would retain the southbound shoulder for bicycle traffic. I'll also mention that there are like other segments, areas where driveways would need to be reconstructed to reduce the cross slopes in order to meet ADA standards. There are considerations for circulation changes to Edwards Avenue, making it emergency access only due to the limited sight lines in this location along with the slope. And, A recommendation to install a marked crosswalk with pedestrian beacons at Alexander and Edwards Avenue. |
| 01:35:56.16 | Joe Burns | Could I just interrupt you for a second and suggest that, do you have a clicker, a pointer there to help illustrate your points? |
| 01:36:05.68 | Unknown | Yeah. Thank you. Sure. Was there a... |
| 01:36:11.80 | Joe Burns | There were several members of the audience waving and I think trying to indicate that would be a good idea. So if you can. |
| 01:36:21.59 | Andrew Lee | Was there anything you wanted pointed out in particular? Thank you. Mr. So north is from the right side of the screen going to the left side of the screen. |
| 01:36:36.64 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:36:38.65 | Andrew Lee | So this is Alexander Avenue where it becomes South Street here. And north is in this general direction. |
| 01:36:53.62 | Joe Burns | So I think when people are asking what's north and what's south, they're thinking in terms of driving on the street. They're not actually saying what is compass north and what is compass south. Okay. Thank you. I'm just trying to help us along here. |
| 01:37:11.81 | Andrew Lee | to. as well. |
| 01:37:43.00 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:37:43.67 | Joe Burns | Thank you. I realize this is a little confusing, so if you could sort of remember that north, south, east, west, you may want to just emphasize what that means here. |
| 01:37:57.83 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:37:58.03 | Andrew Lee | Thank you. |
| 01:37:58.51 | Unknown | you |
| 01:38:02.67 | Andrew Lee | So with the next steps, having received the review by the BPAC, We are now coming to the City Council to seek direction for seeking grant funding. It is not a request for funding from the city, but rather a request for authorization to seek funding from other regional transportation improvement sources such as Caltrans with the highway safety improvement project the active transportation planning grants administered by the state of California and MTC and also with OBEG. And the reason for seeking these funds is to gather additional public feedback, on potential improvements and then ultimately with a agreed upon design if any. to prepare detailed designs and for permitting and construction. With that, I will take your questions. |
| 01:39:06.04 | Joe Burns | Okay. Obviously we start up here. Is there any specific questions of our consultant or Jonathan Goldman? |
| 01:39:19.23 | Joe Burns | I have a couple general questions. Have you done, can we go back to the maps of your, you know, the changes that you're proposing, have you done an analysis or do you have a number of how many homes that's going to impact and have you contacted them directly? |
| 01:39:34.84 | Andrew Lee | So with regard to the number of homes that would impact, Maybe you could define for me what you mean by impact. |
| 01:39:42.61 | Joe Burns | I WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THEIR PROPERTY. Sorry, you're right. That was a little vague. the number of homes where you're going to actually encroach onto their property. |
| 01:40:01.52 | Jonathon Goldman | All of the improvements that have been discussed in this presentation and conceptualized during the process are entirely within the public right-of-way. There's no private property involved in any aspect of this. |
| 01:40:19.56 | Joe Burns | So, okay, that's a good, thanks. So then I'm confused then, when you're talking about Alexander Avenue and Second Street and you're talking about. changes in locations of sidewalks and a retaining wall. And there is no sidewalk at certain points of Alexander. So I'm, know i'm a little bit confused about where that's going How that's going to work. |
| 01:40:44.77 | Andrew Lee | Thank you. This was good. |
| 01:40:51.10 | Andrew Lee | So I... |
| 01:40:53.33 | Joe Burns | Well, you're going to have to pay for that, sir. |
| 01:40:54.68 | Unknown | Well, |
| 01:40:55.12 | Andrew Lee | We're going to have to pay for that, sir. Okay. Like you mentioned, there are several segments where there are no sidewalks on Alexander, and there are fronting homes directly adjacent. Okay. Great. |
| 01:41:15.44 | Andrew Lee | So let's see, Alexander here. Segments without any sidewalk right here. You have this property right there. and this property right here, and they are both fronting the street, very narrow. |
| 01:41:25.32 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:41:26.76 | Andrew Lee | the objectives that we had for the exercise, the design exercise was to not impact either of those homes. So in order to construct the sidewalk, If you can't go to the west, if you can't go towards those homes, the only other direction to go is, excuse me, you can't go to the east. We can. If you can't go to the east, then the only other direction it goes to the west. And that's the reason for the retaining wall. So this is the uphill side. within the public right of way, |
| 01:41:53.98 | Unknown | WITH THE CITY. |
| 01:41:56.29 | Andrew Lee | we would be constructing a retaining wall and widening the road, or at least realigning the road, approximately five to six feet into the hill and using that extra space, or using that space gained, we would be constructing the sidewalk. |
| 01:42:13.94 | Joe Burns | And then on the other side where the X's are, on the west side, Thank you. |
| 01:42:19.44 | Unknown | Over here. |
| 01:42:20.00 | Joe Burns | Yeah. On the downhill side. Yeah, where I still is. So you're just reconstructing or redoing the sidewalk that's already there, or at least. |
| 01:42:22.13 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:42:29.13 | Andrew Lee | reconstructing the sidewalk already there so that it conforms with the new segment of sidewalk that we're proposing to be constructed. Because right now it has a bit of an awkward transition from the segment with no sidewalk onto that laminate board path that has a narrow passageway. And if we were to construct a new sidewalk, we would want a smooth transition between those segments. |
| 01:42:53.65 | Joe Burns | And so the same question then down here, if as you go north on Alexander Avenue and it turns into 2nd Street, these long red X's, they're on the left-hand side. Yeah, so same question for that. So that's also in the public right of way, but you're just moving the sidewalk. Is there a sidewalk on that side of the street now? I feel like there isn't. |
| 01:43:18.84 | Andrew Lee | There is a sidewalk up to about the bend in the street here. And that's where the sidewalk drops. |
| 01:43:19.11 | Joe Burns | Thank you. sideways. |
| 01:43:26.20 | Andrew Lee | be Hatching indicated here is for reconstruction of the sidewalk, SOLELY FOR THEIR HEALTH. let's see, repairing the cross slope of the sidewalk and replacing or repairing any areas where there are tripping hazards but it is not a proposal for any change in the alignment of the sidewalk. width of the sidewalk and its alignment along the road would not change there. |
| 01:43:58.43 | Joe Burns | Okay. And then my next question is with regard to Edwards Avenue. So if you can point that out to people that might help orientation wise. It's right here. |
| 01:44:06.67 | Robert Rourke | THAT'S RIGHT. |
| 01:44:07.88 | Joe Burns | So that's Edwards. So I don't understand, can you explain what you mean by closing it except to emergency vehicles? |
| 01:44:16.07 | Andrew Lee | Yeah, that was something that we studied With regards to the very limited site distance here, as you know, it's a very, very sharp uphill, that we have to do with the If you are going in the southbound direction or uphill direction as you approach Edwards, there's a very sharp crest, and Edwards would be located on your right, and it's a very sharp downhill. And so the issue there is that for anyone accessing Edwards, it represents a site distance hazard for oncoming traffic on Bridgeway. So we studied the opportunity, the possibility of restricting vehicular traffic except for emergency access vehicles there in order to remove the possibility of vehicular collisions because of that sight distance deficiency. |
| 01:45:11.89 | Joe Burns | How does that work though? I don't understand that. Is there a gate? |
| 01:45:14.50 | Andrew Lee | Well, is there a gift? In a practical sense, we would install some sort of barrier system where a fire truck would be able to drive over it. You see this sometimes as a raised metal curb-like feature where a vehicle with high clearance could get through and regular passenger vehicles with lower clearance couldn't get through. That's just one design option. It's not anything decided upon, but it is a possibility for controlling the access at this point here. Otherwise, a softer approach, if you don't want to go with the physical approach, would simply be signage, and then it would be incumbent on people using the street to obey the signage. |
| 01:45:58.26 | Joe Burns | Yeah, okay, because obviously there's, I don't know, how many houses along Edwards Avenue that that's there, you know, they'd be very interested in any changes to the ingress and egress on Edwards Avenue right there, so. Yeah. |
| 01:46:10.38 | Joe Burns | Um, |
| 01:46:10.58 | Joe Burns | And I have some other questions, but go ahead. |
| 01:46:11.52 | Joe Burns | Yeah. Will. I'll move on to other council members if we may. Very briefly while we're still on Edwards Avenue, how did the Bike and Peg Committee react to that, if at all? Was there any positive, negative, or was it not discussed? |
| 01:46:32.36 | Andrew Lee | I don't recall it being an item that attracted a lot of attention on their part. |
| 01:46:36.80 | Joe Burns | Yeah. |
| 01:46:36.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:46:37.11 | Andrew Lee | you |
| 01:46:37.18 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 01:46:37.68 | Andrew Lee | Thank you. |
| 01:46:37.82 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:46:38.09 | Andrew Lee | you |
| 01:46:38.39 | Joe Burns | I'm sorry, can I weigh in here? I think that's a good question. check with him about whether or not what their finding was or if they did support or if they endorsed or anything. So the response that I got from him was that, It was presented as a work in progress for informational purposes only. There was no request for approval or endorsement. bike and ped was provided an overview and suggested that the materials be prevented at a forum where the local residents who might be impacted be invited to with direct outreach all right |
| 01:47:22.89 | Joe Burns | Okay. Thanks. This side of the dais, any questions? |
| 01:47:28.83 | Joe Burns | One more follow-up. Oh, wait. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I don't want to interrupt you, but... I just read here, there was concern regarding some public concepts in the presentation such as the closure of Edwards admin. |
| 01:47:39.86 | Joe Burns | I thought there'd been some concern. |
| 01:47:42.11 | Joe Burns | Sorry, my apologies for interrupting. |
| 01:47:44.81 | Joan Cox | One more follow-up about Edwards Avenue. In proposing to close the exit from Edwards Avenue onto Alexander Avenue, did you consider the circulation impacts, given the parking on both sides of Edwards Avenue of residence, which is right now a one-way street? |
| 01:48:09.77 | Andrew Lee | Did I consider the circulation impacts? Yes. And also how that would affect. And parking impacts. And parking impacts, right. |
| 01:48:11.93 | Joan Cox | Yes. And parking impact. |
| 01:48:18.58 | Andrew Lee | If we were to close Edwards, the access to get there, obviously, would be more circuitous. However, we weren't talking about removing any parking there, so the parking spaces would remain the same. It would simply be that, the I'll just say back route to Edwards would be the route that everyone would take. So we weren't proposing to cut off all access completely and there was no parking removal in any of the concept plans. |
| 01:48:48.44 | Joan Cox | You understand that Edwards Avenue barely has room for one way traffic right now? Yes. Okay. But this plan would have it become a two-way street? |
| 01:49:00.07 | Andrew Lee | So as part of the, some of the proposals that we were looking at, because it would be one way access in only, there was a turnaround proposal that we were studying. It's not shown here, and I think it's still under consideration for what to do specifically at Edwards. Do you have anything to add? |
| 01:49:21.27 | Jonathon Goldman | Yeah, just briefly to add, the access to all of Edwards would be unchanged. Edwards is out there. Only at the present time it is one way we thought about a number of other alternatives, including doing nothing. We could restrict turning movements to right out only, because the worst of the decision site distance conflict at that intersection has to do with trying to keep track of whether there's a bus and a bicycle coming up the hill on your left and a gaggle of tourist bicycles coming down the hill on your right if you're trying to turn left. but certainly two-way Edwards would be challenging, and from my perspective anyway, and I think to some extent Parisi's, the most significant of that is how to get people turned around. The parking remains the same, There are plenty of very narrow streets in Sausalito that are two-way and have to be navigated as you're well aware In both directions and some people are better at it than others |
| 01:50:36.09 | Joan Cox | A couple of other questions on the process. |
| 01:50:36.88 | Jonathon Goldman | Yeah, please, please. |
| 01:50:37.98 | Joan Cox | Thank you. In performing this data collection and recommendations, how many residents along the South Gateway corridor did you include in your research? |
| 01:50:55.94 | Andrew Lee | If you're asking, I believe you're asking whether or not we did any door-to-door research, like door-to-door solicitation of these concepts. Is that right? Okay. |
| 01:51:04.05 | Joan Cox | or include any residents in your fact finding. Thank you. |
| 01:51:08.63 | Andrew Lee | Well, |
| 01:51:12.78 | Andrew Lee | Let's see. We went to the BPAC several times to ask for their feedback. You went to whom? |
| 01:51:19.36 | Unknown | To whom? |
| 01:51:20.24 | Andrew Lee | to the BPAC, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. And because that is the avenue that would be reviewing these sorts of plans. There is a matter of process in that if we are thinking about conceptual plans without any set project and funding that we go to the BPAC for their initial review of the concepts first. |
| 01:51:47.93 | Jonathon Goldman | And just to add to that, I'll take complete responsibility for the lack of repeated outreach to the property owners in the vicinity of this conceptual project. We did not actively go out to those property owners because what we're doing is developing a concept that the City Council had directed us to develop with the grant funds that we were awarded and the context that we have before us this evening is to seek the council's direction on what to do with the product of the work that we've done and there's absolutely no question in my mind but that not only the adjoining property owners certainly are going to want to know more of these details but there's also there are significant numbers of users of this these right-of-way segments that i think would be equally interested so In the absence of the funding to continue the process of trying to develop consensus in this community on this project, and in the absence of funding to prepare detailed designs and construct something, we're essentially done with our work. So one thing that the council can do this evening is, if you so choose, is to say thank you, and you are done. Thank you. you I'm sorry. I would prefer a different outcome, but those policy decisions are yours. |
| 01:53:26.60 | Joan Cox | Two more process questions. You mentioned 56 collisions. Does that data include statistics from the CHP, the Sheriff, Southern Marin Fire, and Sausalito PD? I met with Sausalito PD this morning and they tell me that you would have needed to collect statistics from all four of those agencies in order to have accurate data. |
| 01:53:52.99 | Andrew Lee | Yeah, we got collision records directly from the Sausalito Police Department and then we supplemented those collision records with the California Highway Patrol's online database, which is called SWITRS, the Statewide Integrated Traffic collision database. And so using those two sources, we collected all of the records that have been reported as police records. |
| 01:54:23.55 | Joan Cox | And my last question is, when you mentioned, I think Jonathan Goldman said that the entire plan, it would be within the public right-of-way. Are you planning to use the public right-of-way on the downhill side as well as the public right-of-way on the uphill side? |
| 01:54:45.30 | Andrew Lee | So any changes to the public right of way pretty much in the Alexander segment of the corridor. And what I mean by changes are whether or not there are any realignments of the roadway. For other segments along 2nd Street and down by Richardson Bridgeway, the alignment of the curb is staying exactly the same. |
| 01:55:09.03 | Joan Cox | For example, if you were to realign the sidewalk or realign it within the public right of way on the downhill side in front of to Alexander, you would deprive that resident of access to their home. |
| 01:55:09.30 | Andrew Lee | Yeah. |
| 01:55:22.48 | Andrew Lee | I would disagree with that characterization. If we were to provide a sidewalk on the downhill side of Alexander, by widening and realigning the road into the uphill side, we would still provide a driveway cut in order to allow property access. |
| 01:55:39.50 | Joan Cox | No, my point was if you used the public right of way on the downhill side. Not if you used it on the uphill side. So my question is whether you're intending to build within the public right of way on the downhill side. Because it is that construction that would deprive some homeowners of access to their driveway. |
| 01:56:00.41 | Andrew Lee | We are not planning to have any construction that would impact either of those buildings. So the construction on the downhill side would go from the existing back of the sidewalk into what is currently the street right now, and the remaining segment of that street would get pushed into the uphill side per the retaining law. Thank you. |
| 01:56:25.69 | Joe Burns | So just to clarify before I ask any other of my colleagues, You're not proposing blocking any driveways by adding new sidewalks? No, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Joe, did you? |
| 01:56:36.09 | Unknown | No, Mr. Thank you. |
| 01:56:39.75 | Peter Van Meter | Thank you. |
| 01:56:43.39 | Joe Burns | Andrew. |
| 01:56:44.10 | Peter Van Meter | Thank you. |
| 01:56:44.12 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 01:56:44.14 | Peter Van Meter | Hello. |
| 01:56:44.44 | Joe Burns | Um, In looking at, and I didn't see the slide in here, realizing that you didn't have them all up. The numbers of collisions, it seemed to be dropping from 2012 or 2013. |
| 01:57:01.79 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:57:03.81 | Joe Burns | Yeah. And then from what we know from the crime report and consent in 2016 would probably be a similar drop since it was there was less bike accidents reported by PD anyway granted that there's other. other sources. What would, if that is the antithesis of the growth of traffic that we're seeing, what would be the reason for reduced collisions with growing traffic. |
| 01:57:31.45 | Andrew Lee | You know, I think I can only speculate on the causes because collisions are highly variable. If there's consistent patterns of location, it indicates issues of safety even if there are no crashes being reported, if there's no clear yearly trend on crashes. I suspect and surmise that better education among drivers and among cyclists about correct placement of their vehicles in the roadway and how to ride and drive safely with other modes may be an explanation for why there's a downward trend in the number of crashes. That is just better education and better awareness amongst all of the roadway users. |
| 01:58:20.56 | Joe Burns | And that's kind of a direction of my next few questions that I'll make really quick. vehicle versus parked vehicle was 31% of the accidents. Yet parked vehicles is just a minute part of this stretch, not necessarily depicted here. Where are we seeing those? And then I'm good, I didn't know you had additional information to the size of that accident, whether it be a T-bone or a grazing or what, but where are we seeing the vehicle, parked vehicle crashes, that's 31%. |
| 01:58:52.08 | Andrew Lee | So there's not a lot along South Street where the majority of the parked vehicles are. I believe that. There are some along 2nd Street where downhill traffic was trying to make a turn and they crashed into someone parked on the minor street as they were making those turns. I think that's where we noticed most of the vehicle versus parked vehicle collisions. |
| 01:59:18.64 | Joe Burns | Okay. And then I'll go finally here and maybe wrap another question up later. The road widths that you had on a different slide varied from, in some spots, 17 feet wide for vehicular. 17 feet wide in some spots, down to 10.8 feet in some areas. I believe that's the number, but at least 10 to 12. Is that type of variation a challenge for traffic calming? And if these lines of questioning is getting to traffic calming issues, would bringing those into a synonymous number be a little bit better than trying to widen in some spots if it eventually has to narrow? Wouldn't we go with the narrowest application all the way through the corridor? to keep speeds low. |
| 02:00:14.72 | Andrew Lee | In some applications, yes. I'll say that for the driver and for cyclists, consistent conditions are critical for safety because whenever you have an unexpected condition or a changing condition, that's where uncertainty arises and the opportunity for a collision occurs. For this particular segment, I'll say that in the downhill northbound direction, having a slightly wider than standard roadway for the downhill lane is actually beneficial because there is no dedicated bike lane in that direction and it's a shared facility there. So a slightly wider, lane in the downhill direction allows for cyclists to be along the right side of the roadway and still allow for some motorists to pass when it's safe. That said... I'll reinforce that having consistent conditions are very important, and that's what we tried to design for in this condition. |
| 02:01:18.10 | Joe Burns | Thank you. Thank you I yield my additional questions to the gentleman from for sure every |
| 02:01:20.51 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 02:01:20.53 | Andrew Lee | Thank you. |
| 02:01:20.58 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 02:01:20.61 | Andrew Lee | to do. |
| 02:01:21.20 | Joe Burns | Don't. |
| 02:01:21.37 | Andrew Lee | from |
| 02:01:21.64 | Joe Burns | for sure very much appreciate that. |
| 02:01:23.92 | Andrew Lee | Thank you. |
| 02:01:24.40 | Joe Burns | Um... Did any of you look into the idea of taking Edwards and making it one way the other way? In other words, coming off, going on a hill, and the idea that people coming down Marion, or any of them, would have to come out Sausalito Boulevard, which visited Visibly, you could see much better. Coming out of Edwards is a horror show. Yeah. All right? I don't know if you ever considered it that way. But... I think we'll leave everything like it is. |
| 02:01:55.63 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:01:57.01 | Joe Burns | Accidents, if you really look at it, automobile and bicycles, it's really a very small number. IF YOU LOOK PER YEAR, or the. |
| 02:02:09.57 | Andrew Lee | Thank you. |
| 02:02:10.60 | Joe Burns | . Is that right? 2009 to 2015, you had a total average in maybe nine a year. |
| 02:02:17.85 | Andrew Lee | It was 20% of your total 56 collisions. So that's about 10. 11. |
| 02:02:26.61 | Joe Burns | Okay. Um, My other question is, South Street, you mentioned about everything for the bicycles going towards the Golden Gate Bridge. You know, I looked at it and studied the idea of putting a bicycle lane or shifting it onto the south, the north end coming down. Uh, on 2nd Street. And I found out after a while that It probably is better the way it is now. She and Cheryl share the road. Because it seems if you put a bike lane on that side, the automobiles would fly by. We're this way here by shearing the road. Everybody knows that it's a slow process. Okay, but it does seem to indicate it's much safer. A lot of people now say that if they wanted to get up to the hills instead of going down into, we'll say up to Richardson Street, now they're taking a left on Valley, or taking a left on Main Street. But I think we should also look at the idea, if you look at the amount of accidents that have happened on Second Street, it's really minimal. THE END OF THE END OF THE The other, let's see what else. Did you possibly look at the idea that when you come down 2nd Street onto Richardson and then onto Bridgeway, If you notice on the right, it's still share the road. You know, I looked at it and it's possible. Thank you. If you move on the meeting. Actually, you didn't have to. If you look at the solid yellow line and then the broken yellow line. If you move that eight inches, away from, we'll say west. |
| 02:04:29.61 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:04:30.41 | Joe Burns | That would almost give you 13 feet. on the north side coming down. You need 10 feet for the road. And what would stop you from possibly putting in a three-foot fog line? You don't have the five feet to put a bicycle lane, but you could put a fog lot. And yet, if you look at the law, the law says the distance between a bicycle and automobile is supposed to be three feet. Is that feasible? |
| 02:05:03.92 | Andrew Lee | I think it's certainly feasible to add a fog line in to indicate where motorists should be properly aligned. So I think that's something we could roll into. |
| 02:05:13.62 | Joe Burns | Well, what I'm saying is the bicycles are more wrapped, especially tourists. They're going to go inside the line. They're not going to know it's a bicycle lane. Excuse me, they're going to think it's a bicycle lane. They're not going to know it's a fog line. |
| 02:05:26.38 | Unknown | Right. |
| 02:05:27.04 | Joe Burns | But still, I think it may. That becomes a very, very frustrating point when you come down Bridgeway heading towards Princess Street. Everybody is flying by and taking advantage of the median. But sometimes it can be very dangerous because you have people crossing the street. or you have trucks and vehicles parked in the middle. So I think that should be some kind of a in your program. |
| 02:05:57.25 | Joe Burns | Okay, is there any more questions? I'm trying to get to public comment. Okay, there may be some more questions after public comment. I know I have one or two more, but let's hear from the public next. So I've got a bunch of cards here. And I'll start going through in the order that I've got them. Marie Wren. |
| 02:06:32.89 | Robert Rourke | We'll see. |
| 02:06:36.90 | Unknown | Good evening. I'm one of the residents on South Street, I'm actually in 200 South Street, right at the corner of South and Second. that condo building. So there's seven of us, seven units there. And, um... I'm a little confused when Mr. Goldman said that the six feet that would be added on on my side of the street would be all public right away because I went out this afternoon with a tape measure And it seems like if six feet were added on, it would be encroaching. on some of our retaining walls, trees, and vegetation. and I'm wondering if I also walked down to 202 South Street and 100. There may be some representatives from those buildings here, and it looked like there would be some encroachments there also. So that's a question I'm a bit confused about, where these six feet are coming from. And I also wondered why the widening of South Street, what's that going to do in terms of, we're not doing it for some of the other streets like Second. i think alexander we are though i think there is some widening of that but anyway um, I think that was my main question, comment. And there was absolutely no consultation with our homeowners association. The first I heard of this was yesterday when I got the letter. And even that, I didn't know what it entailed. One of our homeowners figured it out. So thanks. |
| 02:08:33.90 | Joe Burns | Thank you. Sorry, glasses again. Thank you. Gloria Pomelia? |
| 02:08:50.40 | Joe Burns | We don't have to talk, but we'd love to hear from you. |
| 02:08:53.79 | Gloria Pomelia | I'm on South Street as well and pushing it six feet north. We've got plants, we've got cypress trees. And if those have to be removed, they're like $10,000 a tree. and it will affect our driveway. And our driveway will be steeper, which is already a difficult situation, making it hard for 30 plus cars to turn around and have enough room to navigate. and I think more I think it'll just pick up the speed if we do some of these changes for some of these bikers that are already going by fast. So the way it is now, even though it's annoying, at least it's slow. Um, And I know that you know we don't want to encourage passing, you know, too much bikes passing and going around things anyway. and with It's mostly on the weekends and between 12 and 5. It's dead in the morning and after 5 o'clock. So it's... I mean, maybe no parking at certain times of the day if there needs to be more room, say from 12 to 5 on Saturday and Sunday, no parking up at Alexander or on South Street. There's only one homeowner that parks along there. on South Street, everybody else has a garage, but |
| 02:10:21.37 | Gloria Pomelia | Yeah, I'm just wondering with the accidents, what was the time of day, what were the days of the week when these accidents were happening? |
| 02:10:33.10 | Gloria Pomelia | THANK YOU. |
| 02:10:33.81 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 02:10:33.85 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:10:33.96 | Joe Burns | you. you Um... Karakala I'm sorry if I've messed up your name there. |
| 02:10:48.97 | Kara Halverson | It's Kara Halverson. And I also live at 202 South Street, which I've lived there for 23 years. And so I'm also concerned about the widening. My comments, I have comments and a question. And they're about the proposals to widen South Street by six feet and also to put a crosswalk there with a flashing light. As my neighbor has said, there's one building that's actually about 26 feet from the street. The setback right now is 26 feet. So if you push it back six more feet, we're going to lose that. We're going to be closer to the road, not farther away. There are trees that provide both privacy and somewhat of a sound barrier. If those are taken out, not only are they extraordinarily expensive, but they'll impact our living conditions. The building that faces, that's right on South Street, the eight units, all of those bedrooms face that street. Right? So also, if there is a crosswalk there with a flashing light, That's also going to be flashing into our bedrooms. if someone chooses to cross the street. So those are my comments. My question is, did anyone evaluate, so this is very expensive. Did anyone evaluate what the benefit of, say, increasing the police department to put more coverage there and enforce the speed limit, both by bicycles and by cars? because there has been impact by the Bicycle Coalition, out there through education. But I think if there's enhanced enforcement of the speed limit, that also will impact the accident rate. |
| 02:12:27.14 | Joe Burns | Okay. Thanks. Just so that you know, for those of you who have asked specific questions, it's going to be very difficult to answer them tonight. But I have noted on the cards that questions have been asked and someone will get back to you, okay? Alice Merrill. |
| 02:12:51.81 | Alice Merrill | Hi. My name is Alice Merrill, I live in Pelican Harbor. And, I think that this is kind of dramatic. I've always been a supporter of the fact that tourists are in Sausalito. They are, they have been since the 50s and they've been irritating people since the 50s. But on the other hand, they've been here since the 50s. And a good many of us, have come as tourists. And... stayed. and then don't want tourists, but they still come. AND, UM, I'M NOT I just, this whole presentation is disturbing. because it's hard to read. He didn't use his little marker so that we could see what we were looking at. Well, just the few of us that were here were here. Um, THE END OF END OF THE END OF THE END OF THE END OF Thank you. I know that this has sort of been coming, I've heard about it's sort of been coming. But here it is, like it's almost a done deal. I know Jonathan says it isn't a done deal, but it feels like maybe that's where we're headed. And I don't think it should be. I think this is one place where we need to... Step back, take stock. figure out whether we're a town that has tourists And so we just live with how that works. We give and take. We have a slower, you know, people going slower, people going. Maybe the bicyclists have to get it, that they don't get to be four abreast and zooming down at 40 miles an hour. Maybe they have to be slower. Maybe we as drivers have to be more cautious and more careful and not be mad at them because they're visiting here. So we give and take, they give and take. I think this is a lot. in this little town. This is a funny place that we have here. It's been a funny place for a very long time. And we need to really be cautious about this before we just... change everything. and, and, uh, things. instigate things. I think we need to be cautious and careful and thoughtful and gracious. I don't know, I want a lot more discussion about this. Thank you. |
| 02:15:55.72 | Joe Burns | Thanks, Alice. Peter Van Meter. |
| 02:16:13.69 | Peter Van Meter | Sure. |
| 02:16:14.74 | Joe Burns | Peter, I'm not sure you're. |
| 02:16:19.23 | Peter Van Meter | Hello. |
| 02:16:20.32 | Steve Frazier | Thank you. |
| 02:16:20.36 | Peter Van Meter | Thank you. |
| 02:16:20.41 | Steve Frazier | that was. |
| 02:16:20.85 | Peter Van Meter | Thank you. Yes. Formerly of 100 South Street, I lived at the Cote du Jour for many years. I'm familiar with the neighborhood. I have, in my days when I was a biker, ridden my bicycle up and down Alexander Avenue hundreds of times. And. This is an area which is unsafe. It needs to be improved. And I can tell you from long time experience, I'm very pleased with the fact that there's a plan to care. of the safety and traffic issues in this location. It's absolutely essential. There's a lot of details in the plan that might be of concern to particularly individuals in some detail. but the idea of having the plan go forward with modifications perhaps of this design that are of concern, is the right thing to do, in my opinion. do not cut it off, make it go forward, because we really need to improve and work in this area. Now regarding Edwards. If somebody's coming downhill, right turn only. will be not that big of an inconvenience because as you know, they can go down, a few hundred yards, go underneath Alexander, make that turn around and come back. It's going to be inconvenient if they want to head into town. But it's very easy to make that maneuver. because as you know, you can make that right turn. down underneath Alexander and come back heading north. So that would be one solution for that. |
| 02:17:51.25 | Joe Burns | Thank you, Peter. Nancy Ellsworth. |
| 02:18:02.36 | Nancy Ellsworth | Mayor Withey and council members, I'm Nancy Osborne, a long time resident at the north end of town. So this is, as Alice, this is confusing Unless you're really very familiar with the territory, and yet I think everyone in town uses at some point. the south end, I mean, it's an essential part of this town whether you live there or not. I think the presentation. First of all, I've, had occasion to just mention this briefly and people say they're gonna do what? and it's going to take how long and how will all our traffic patterns of commuters going in, and traffic, all the tour buses coming this way, how long will there be traffic control and what will the hours be? because I think all of us who experienced just a short term of traffic control when there were previous work being done there realize what a tremendous effect that had So I agree with Alice certainly that I think it's really of such an impact, it deserves a citywide forum. that has a lot of noticing in advance and a lot of detail. with actual photographs probably. It's hard to look at diagrams. We know what it, but if we had photographs and maybe even, moving picture of how the traffic moves. I mean, it could be much more complete than this, and I think it needs to be. I've been amazed at how few people who actually live near that end of town know about it. I mean, it's coming as something out of the blue to a lot of south of Sausalito residents. I had two questions, really, Besides how long this project would take and what the traffic controls, would be like. I wondered How many? I'm not sure. of the Uses. are with the commuter use and how many are recreational uses. and I've also attended enough of the bicycle meetings and heard a lot about what their proposals are. and often there are proposals that the bicycles, the rental bicycles, would no longer, some way of solving so that the rental bicycles no longer come to Sausalito. The bikes go back and the people come in. It's still something that seems to be a possibility. And how would that impact the numbers if you got all those rental bikes somehow not to be a part of what's impacting this? Thank you. |
| 02:20:57.68 | Joe Burns | Thank you, Nancy. David Suda? |
| 02:21:05.68 | David Suda | David Sudo, I'd like Peter Van Meter's comments. I think a lot of the confusion with this current plan is because this is really just a first draft engineering study. I think it would really be good to try to attract additional dollars to flesh out this plan, because really this is just a sketch. This is someone gathered data, and put it on a map and they said here's what we could do. But what we need is to do additional planning so that we can come up with something that people can actually visualize and we can study these different segments and say, well this is an issue here and how would that affect the residents at that location? But I think everybody can agree that we have huge safety issues here. The town has literally been discussing this segment of road for 80 years, ever since the bridge was proposed, finalized to be built. We have been, the town has been in city council meetings discussing how can we, how can or do we want to change this, especially Alexander and South Street. and And it would behoove us to do planning so we can figure out what our options are and whether we want to pursue them. And I think that's where we are at this point. Thank you. |
| 02:22:25.19 | Joe Burns | Thank you. Tina Menich? And sorry if I've not pronounced your name |
| 02:22:36.75 | Tina Menich | I'm Tina Manette, and thank you very much for your service and bringing this issue to the fore. I'm one of the few that, or one of the many, that apparently didn't know about it either until this evening or earlier today. Now that I'm here, I wanted to find out a couple of things. First of all, What happens if encroaching in what you say is the public domain, we have a retaining wall and some beautiful cypress trees and whatnot, who pays for damage, shoring that back up because the retaining wall is probably quite old. Does the community, do we, the homeowners, pay for it or does the plan pay for it? Um, Will this impact our trees? I mean, they're very beautiful and wonderful. And if we get too close to them, it might damage them, or you might find that you have to remove them. And that would be a huge shame. So we'd like to know more about that and who pays for that. THE CITY. As you said, this was a sketch, someone said. What did this sketch cost? We'd love to know that. So once it becomes a full-blown painting, what's that going to be? And what can be done actually to fight this if we wanted to? Is this a foregone conclusion it's going to be done, or is there something that can happen that An individual like myself could make some difference on the other side. The last thing I want to say is, I actually have ridden my bike there as well, Down that street. Well, I lived there, and before I lived there, I did that. And I found that the charm was just unbelievable. And I think that's what everyone thinks about Sausalito. So whatever is done. If you do something to take away that charm and that beauty that makes you think you're coming into a European village or something and not just plain old Sausalito, which it's not, but I'm joking. If we do that with flashing lights and marks on the ground and really beautiful brand new curbs, you're going to ruin a hugely beautiful part of the city, and that would just be a shame. Thank you. |
| 02:24:41.31 | Joe Burns | Thank you. Is there any other public comment? I've run out of speaker cards, so I'm assuming not. |
| 02:24:54.98 | Cheryl Popp | I actually agree with you. Cheryl Popp, I agree with many of the things that have been said. I don't think we want to destroy our charm. I don't think we want to encroach on private property or try to minimize damage to trees. I do agree with Peter and David though. I've lived here for 25 years. I had a home on Bridgeway in the south end of town. Now I'm on 4th Street. I bike, drive, or dog walk that road almost every day, and it is harrowing. And I think it's about public safety. I applaud that you've done this much so far. I think it does need to have a public forum. People need to input. I think that's kind of the plan based on what Jonathan has said, but I think anything we could do to make that corridor safer, it's really harrowing. It's very scary. I'm also a member of the Marin County Bicycle Coalition, and they have done more share-of-the-road training. And I think the spandex warriors, as I call them, they kind of know the rules of the road. They know they're going to get busted if they go too fast. They know how to dodge cars. It's the thousands of tourists that come down and the kids that don't have bike helmets on. And it's very scary. I just think it's dangerous. And I think we should try and do something about it. the community agrees with and is involved with that whole process. Thank you. |
| 02:26:13.26 | Joe Burns | Thank you, Cheryl. Okay, let's bring it back up here, but I want to ask Jonathan Goldman to come back up. I have a specific question, and I think there needs to be some clarification. Forgive me if I can make a comment as a prelude to the question to sort of make the point. I think, Jonathan, you would agree this is not a plan. you what was presented here today, it was the result of a study. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. And last April, we asked the council for money to actually develop a plan. |
| 02:26:43.84 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:26:54.79 | Joe Burns | to go and seek grant money to actually develop a plan. Presumably, in that planning process, we would be asking the questions, what of this do we like, what of this that we don't like? And we would be holding workshops, and it would be a sort of major public outreach as part of the planning process, even before we started building anything. And so explain, is that, first of all, am I correct in that? And could you also point out that we don't currently have the money to do anything? On this, there's no funding for this. We haven't budgeted for this. We have it in the capital improvement plan, but with a note saying there's no money for it. There's no money to even develop the plan. |
| 02:27:50.36 | Jonathon Goldman | Is that correct? In addition, Mr. Mayor, let me remind the council, and I think it was alluded to at the beginning of Mr. Lee's presentation, the city didn't even pay for this plan. This was a grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission under the OBEG program administered by TAM on the city's behalf. So we have the benefit of Outside grant funding to have taken a concept that again council saw and directed staff to pursue grant funding to develop to the point that we have so far and and No city dollars except city staff time have been spent in getting to this point, and the proposal is, if it pleases the council to continue to go forward, is to invest additional staff time in trying to develop more funding to do what you just described, try to develop consensus in the community on what to do if anything in this road segment it may be that the community as council member Weiner did suggest that we we should broaden the scope of this analysis and the discussion of other parts of bridgeway That's all. subject to your direction. |
| 02:29:17.74 | Joe Burns | Okay. And you're specifically looking tonight for us to authorize staff to go out and see if there's any grants available to begin the process of developing a plan. |
| 02:29:30.88 | Jonathon Goldman | That is my recommendation, yes. Okay. Obviously, again, there are alternatives available to council, including tabling the matter for the time being, you know, lots of others. |
| 02:29:33.26 | Joe Burns | Yes. |
| 02:29:33.68 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:29:43.03 | Joe Burns | That's my recommendation. All right. So let's, with that. |
| 02:29:43.07 | Jonathon Goldman | Okay. |
| 02:29:47.28 | Joe Burns | What council comments? Any more questions of Jonathan and council comments, and then we can wind this up. I'm not sure. |
| 02:29:54.66 | Joe Burns | Thank you. Yeah, I remember. back in 2012, Todd teach out who was the city engineer, and myself went to Transportation of Marin to request $120,000 grant. I didn't really want to have the city put out any money for this project down there because at the time, As most of you have indicated, I don't think at that time there that it was really wise to make any changes on south. South Street, Second Street, or even Alexander. But since the grant money was available, why not just have an outsider take a look at it? and see what ideas they could come up with. I still feel I'm a little reluctant on changing anything there. The only reason that it pushes me to think of how we handle this in the future is If you really look, many, many years ago, when you came off the bridge, there's no sign that says Sausalito. It sends you down to Marin City, Sausalito. And that worked pretty well, because what it allowed you to do was had metered lights. You had nine lights that guided you along bridgeway. You know, I remember that, because I had the Shell station down that end, and everybody used to, people that would get confused as they'd get off at Marin City and pull into my shell station and ask, where's downtown Sausalito? Because now I'm going back the same way that I came in. are the same direction. And that worked. But now it's a little different. Now people have navigation systems. And those navigation systems are not telling them to go to Marin City, Sausalito exit. They're telling them to get off at Alexander. And that's the only reason that I think in the future that we should look at this and attempt to go out and get some grants to study this, because I think you will see a greater amount of automobiles coming into Sausalito from that direction. And if you really remember, you go back 15 years ago, everybody in this town that lived in this town knew when you drove downtown, you didn't fly through. downtown. You drove very slowly, very carefully, because you knew the place was full of tourists. So I think it's, I have mixed emotions about this. I'd like to leave it like it is, but yet in the future, I think we're going to see more and more automobiles coming down, Alexander, and I would like to see us come up with something that's more sensible than we're seeing now. up there. So that's my feelings. Thanks. |
| 02:32:50.36 | Joe Burns | I'm not sure. I appreciate the work done on this, and reading the entire report has a lot of information in it that I think is very valuable. The biggest line is safety and looking at the safety aspect, not the convenience aspect or anything else, but if it's a true safety aspect, I would say that at this point we probably need more concrete safety information on what the current situation is. the vice mayor brought up some you know We need more concrete safety information on what the current situation is. The vice mayor brought up a little bit of concern. Do we have the full scope? And then applying that full scope to the project study, maybe in another step, and if we did further grants for that step, both to update what we have now as 2016 information, as well as pinpointing some of those safety issues. Because if it's a real, real big safety issue, it's a real, real big safety issue, NO OFFENSE, BUT JUNIPRES AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS AREN'T GOING TO GET IN OUR WAY. BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S THAT POINT. I DON'T THINK IT'S A GET DEEP INTO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY TYPE SAFETY ISSUE. I THINK IT'S A, AND IT'S MY FEELING, IT'S A TRAFFIC CALMING SAFETY ISSUE. IT'S A STRIPING ISSUE. IT'S CROSSWALK ISSUES. IT'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE CAN DO IN THE CURRENT SCOPE THAT WOULD MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE TO WHAT I CURRENTLY PERCEIVE AS A I WANT TO SAY MILD SAFETY ISSUE, BUT NOT A HORRENDOUS SAFETY ISSUE THAT IS PERCEIVED, BASED ON THE NUMBERS. NOW, OBVIOUSLY, ONE MAJOR ACCIDENT IS ONE TOO MANY, AND WE WANT TO AVOID ANYTHING THAT WE CAN. I have a lot of ideas on some of that traffic calming in areas, but I don't think that the public needs to get concerned about major renovations to the roads and the right-of-ways, and making Edwards a one-way cul-de-sac. which would be an interesting concept if you thought about it. I just don't think those are really in the scope of what this is doing at this point. But I am in favor of looking at further on looking at really what safety issues we're talking about. |
| 02:35:02.44 | Joe Burns | So, yeah, I think, you know, former Council Member Pfeiffer wanted this on, and we tried to get it on before, a little bit earlier than we got it, so I'm happy that it's on the calendar now and that people have the opportunity to hear. But I've heard from two different, and now here today, I heard from two citizens today and then here today from people that spoke that they didn't quite have enough notice and the homeowners along that route didn't have enough notice that this was coming on. So, you know, I do appreciate the people coming down here this evening and speaking that live along that route. But I feel like before we even get to the move forward that we need to have another opportunity for the citizens that live along there to come and give their input on this project. Because I, but I, to, you know, to speak carefully, Thank you. As Councilmember Burns said, and also Peter and David came up and talked about the safety issues. Yeah, I mean, I think we all acknowledge that there are safety issues along that corridor, and the sidewalk just stops, and, you know, there's... buses and bikes and people and so it's a little bit nutty. So I think something does need to be done. I think before we move on to the next step. I think we need to have at least one other noticed, some sort of workshop or outreach, very specifically for those people that live along there, for them to give their input, certainly everybody that lives on Edwards Avenue, that would probably be impacted with regard to closing. Frankly, that's going to be a tough one. Just because of the number of houses that are along there and how congested that is. but I'm happy to listen to my fellow council members about how to go forward and also from staff about how we would functionally do that. But I kind of feel like that's what we need to do at this point. Thanks. Thank you. |
| 02:37:02.19 | Joan Cox | Thanks, I agree this should definitely not be considered a done deal yet, as Alice Merrill said, and certainly not a blueprint for a design effort. Thank you. I believe that residents need to be involved in any feasibility study, and to date they have not been. Even for the meeting this evening, homeowners did not receive any notification until yesterday. So our public noticing effort definitely needs to improve. I think our direction to the consultant also needs to improve. Parisi Consulting told us the project goal was to remove deficiencies, but it's not clear what those deficiencies were. And when I review carefully the report, it appears that the recommended direction focuses more on complete streets than on safety. And so as Councilmember Joe Burns pointed out, I think the focus of the project needs to be safety. In my opinion, various other solutions were not fully considered, as well as the impacts of the proposed solutions not being fully considered. For example, What about removing some of the calming factors and installing four-way stop signs at the T intersections at key areas to slow folks down? What about as Council Member Weiner suggested, changing Edwards to be one way in the opposite direction? What about Reducing the size of buses that are allowed to come down Alexander Avenue. What about adding police coverage? I think we're going to handle tourist bicycles through another solution in the long run. So. the bottom line is that I'm not in favor of spending more money unless clear direction and goals are identified through a public process and unless further study of alternative solutions is performed first before any plan or design is developed. |
| 02:39:06.54 | Joe Burns | Thank you. So let me repeat what I what I believe. This is not a plan. This is one study. And unless we get more grant funding The concept ends tonight. So the question before this council right now is, do we want staff to go and see if there's any grant funding so that we can begin the process of looking for all those other alternatives that you quite rightly, the vice mayor quite rightly says, need to be examined. And also, we're going to need an enormous amount of public outreach. We're going to need workshops, we're going to need et cetera, et cetera. Remember also that we are embarking on the general plan. of which transportation is a big element. And as part of that process, I think that's where we're going to address. Do we need to restrict size of buses? All the various things that the Vice Mayor pointed out. So we have a simple question. Does the concept stop tonight? Or do we authorize staff to go and see if there's any grant money to move the process forward so that we can have start hearing more and comprehensive, more diverse set of ideas that could be formulated into a plan. That's what's before us. And if we don't want to go and ask staff for any grant money, fine, let's say so, and they've got plenty of work to do. So let's decide that now. |
| 02:41:01.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:41:01.37 | Robert Rourke | I'm not sure. |
| 02:41:01.75 | Unknown | you |
| 02:41:02.03 | Robert Rourke | Thank you. |
| 02:41:02.05 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:41:02.66 | Robert Rourke | I... |
| 02:41:03.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:41:03.75 | Joe Burns | I think we should pursue grants, but I think it should be specific where it should be M. the emphasis is on the safety issue, not moving driveways, sidewalks, that kind of thing, but what things we can do Thank you. as the land is now for safety issues. |
| 02:41:33.01 | Joan Cox | I would endorse that with an emphasis on public outreach as a part of this next step. |
| 02:41:42.46 | Joe Burns | I would suggest that we actually have two areas here, and one of them is the ADA sidewalk slopes that I think need to be considered anyway, outside of this. And yesIND OF SHOWS ALMOST VEHICLE ON VEHICLE CRIME, AND I THINK WE ARE LOOKING TO APPLY IT TO BIKE AND PEDS AND OTHER THINGS. SO THE SAFETY ISSUE IS NOT JUST ON THIS. IT'S GOING THROUGH OTHER AREAS THAT I THINK WE SHOULD CONSIDER MOVING FORWARD. |
| 02:42:45.49 | Joe Burns | Okay, so we're either looking for a motion or we'll shut this down. |
| 02:42:48.38 | Joe Burns | Could I... THE END OF THE END OF THE And One of the issues, I think, too, that was of concern was the recommended motion in our staff report was to direct staff to seek funding for the South Gateway Complete Streets project, which looks like it's funding for that project that was presented tonight, which some of our residents have concerns about. |
| 02:43:07.41 | Joe Burns | THEIR OWNERS. |
| 02:43:08.90 | Joe Burns | So, um. |
| 02:43:11.72 | Joe Burns | Yeah, I mean... |
| 02:43:12.20 | Joe Burns | Do you want to make a motion? |
| 02:43:13.18 | Joe Burns | SHORT. |
| 02:43:13.20 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 02:43:13.94 | Joe Burns | I make a motion for staff to seek funding for further review, further outreach for the South Street Alexander corridor safety. |
| 02:43:27.53 | Joan Cox | Yeah, I would say for a further feasibility study of alternative solutions to improve safety along the South Gateway Corridor. including further public outreach. |
| 02:43:38.43 | Joe Burns | Yeah. as amended by, you |
| 02:43:42.56 | Joe Burns | That's okay. |
| 02:43:43.17 | Joe Burns | Vice Mayor Fox. |
| 02:43:43.24 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 02:43:43.27 | Joe Burns | I'm sorry. |
| 02:43:43.52 | Joe Burns | you. |
| 02:43:43.59 | Joe Burns | That's fine. |
| 02:43:44.05 | Joe Burns | you Yeah. |
| 02:43:44.91 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 02:43:44.94 | Joe Burns | we're all in it together Do we have a motion? We have a second. Yeah, I'll second it. |
| 02:43:52.54 | Robert Rourke | Okay. |
| 02:43:52.98 | Joe Burns | Thank you. All in favor. All right. Aye. Aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? |
| 02:43:55.32 | Robert Rourke | I. |
| 02:43:58.16 | Joe Burns | Okay, very good. We're going to take a break, a quick break. |
| 02:44:26.56 | Calvin Chan | Thank you. you |
| 02:44:26.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:44:26.67 | Calvin Chan | you |
| 02:44:26.76 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:44:27.38 | Calvin Chan | Okay. |
| 02:44:51.01 | Joe Burns | Okay, we're gonna resume. for Those members of the public that may be listening, we have decided to move to a date uncertain, item 6C, the update on vegetation management. Apologies to our way overworked fire department because of the rains in the last, and sorry they had to sit through a council meeting and then we punt them. But thank them. We're going to now move on to public hearing, which is the appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny a design review permit, tree removal permit, parcel map, condominium conversion permit, encroachment agreement at 446 to 448 Solstede Boulevard, 77 Crescent Avenue. And before we begin, the Vice Mayor has a brief announcement. |
| 02:45:53.48 | Joan Cox | Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I am electing to recuse myself from the hearing on this matter because I served as a fact finder and a decision maker in the underlying proceedings conducted by the planning commission. Because as a city council member, I would be reviewing my own decision. I believe that could be perceived that bias exists and I am therefore recusing myself from this proceeding. I will be leaving the dais and leaving the room. Thank you. |
| 02:46:21.91 | Joe Burns | Thank you. . |
| 02:46:24.02 | Unknown | . |
| 02:46:24.38 | Joe Burns | Yeah |
| 02:46:24.58 | Unknown | Thank you. Yeah. . |
| 02:46:53.72 | Joe Burns | I'm not sure. Thank you. I will do that. I will, if you do wish to do that, I would like to deal a couple of procedural matters first. |
| 02:47:07.88 | Joe Burns | Okay, so I first of all want to start before anybody does anything to disclose any ex-partic communications. And let me, and also to just basically say what I've been doing and then I will ask each councilmember to do the same. So first of all, I, some weeks ago, I received a phone call from Mr. Holub requesting, he requested that I talk to him. He reached my voicemail. I did not return his call. Please don't think I was being rude. I just felt that that was inappropriate ex parte communication. Secondly, we were all invited to visit the property by the applicant's architect. I did visit the property twice. I didn't particularly feel it necessary to have the applicant's architect there. I visited what would be 77 Crescent twice, and I also at two different times of the day, and I also went to the Sausalito Boulevard side of the property. I've also watched each one of the Planning Commission tapes, and I've also read all of the materials, the voluminous materials from the Planning Commission, and I've also looked at the last iteration of the plans. So that's what I've done. |
| 02:48:57.82 | Joe Burns | I've read the materials. I went by this afternoon and met with the architect at the site. And I went by at the 77 Crescent site. And I went by the top, the 44, sorry, the Sausliya Boulevard side. went by on that side and like but spent most of my time looking at the 77 Crescent side. I received an email from Mr. Holla and also and. responded to it yesterday that I was going to go visit the side and informed him that I was going to be there and invited him to come if he wanted to. be there while I was there. And I've reviewed all of the films from the prior hearings. |
| 02:49:43.66 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 02:49:43.67 | Joe Burns | TO BE ABLE TO TAKE A LOOK. |
| 02:49:44.03 | Joe Burns | Yes. |
| 02:49:44.45 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 02:49:44.47 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 02:49:44.95 | Joe Burns | Yeah, I also received an email, but as everybody knows, sending me an email, you might as well wait until, I'm not really known for answering emails. I did go up to the site. Amen. I haven't read this much material probably in the last 50 years of my life. But anyway, I did. Don't ask me to read it again. And as I said, I looked at both pieces, the one up on Sausalito Boulevard and the one on Crescent. |
| 02:50:22.77 | Joe Burns | I have chronologically in order here. I did get a phone call from the applicant prior to seated on council, and it was to discuss the project, though I didn't really know about the project, and the conversation didn't quite... EMAILING. WE HAD A SECOND CONVERSATION THAT REALLY WAS MORE AROUND A PERSONAL MATTER WITH ANOTHER PARENT AND SOME SOFTBALL OR DAUGHTERS OR SOMETHING BUT STARTED TO GET INTO THE PROJECT AND DIDN'T GET INTO IT THERE EITHER. I DID GO PAST BOTH PROPERTIES TWICE BY MYSELF. I REPLIED TO MR. MCCOY'S EMAIL THAT I WOULD MEET HIM BUT I WAS UNABLE TO MAKE MY SCHEDULE AVAILABLE TO DO THAT. He did I would meet him, but I was unable to make my schedule available to do that. He did reply that he would, but I couldn't make it. And I watched the videos a lot. |
| 02:51:18.86 | Joe Burns | Great, okay, thank you. Mr. Fraser, you had a point of Order point of clarification, please. It won't be. |
| 02:51:31.23 | Steve Frazier | I will be very short. The counsel has, I'm Steve Frazier. I am the attorney for the appellate. I've been a sauce leader resident for 50 years. And I live in the neighborhood. We were informed. At first, I thought we had 15 minutes to make a presentation. Then I was informed by your very able city attorney that this was really 10 minutes for the presentation and five for rebuttal. and I wrote her a note, perhaps you've seen it, that I consider this grossly insufficient given that the matter is a quasi-judicial proceeding, that it involves no less than four permits, that the sparsity of factual information is such that it opens up the project to a great deal of comment and thought, and that I thought that a much more appropriate time limit would be 30 minutes for presentation and 15 minutes for rebuttal. Mr. the lead speaker will of course be the architect, and the second speaker will be myself. rebuttal. The lead speaker will of course be the architect and the second speaker will be myself and the third speaker would be Mr. Holub if there's time remaining. All of us will try to keep our comments concise but I cannot tell you at all that I could do this within that short a period of time combined with the architect. I think it would, I would compare this, please excuse me, I don't want to get this over with. I would have compared this in my own mind since it's a question of judicial proceeding with the proceedings for a summary judgment, which is a conclusive end to a case. It's a, this is a dispositive hearing. You're not passing on the size of a balcony. you're passing on a $6 million project, and it is dispositive. It's the end of the project or the commencement of it. So with that all being said, I do not think that it serves due process sufficiently or properly to limit the applicant in this case, this particular case, to the time limits. Your attorney informed me that she thought that well, 10 minutes was typical and reasonable. I told her I disagree. I still disagree. But Lawyers do that, don't they? So with that comment, I would again reiterate my request that we be extended the courtesy of half an hour to make our presentation, assuming that the facts or the nature of the presentation warrant it. Thank you. And 15 minutes for the rebuttal. Thank you. |
| 02:54:52.81 | Joe Burns | Thank you. Thank you. I am... not inclined to grant that. We have these You can call them whatever you want, semi-judicial proceedings, multiple times a year, because we often get appeals. And... Uh, those other applicants or palates also believe that this is a semi-judicial, which it sort of is, proceedings, and we have our rules. Now, often we do have the situation where there is a... the appeal has been brought by a neighbor, perhaps, to try and overturn a Planning Commission approval. And there, the rebuttal is, I think, more important. So I would give you the courtesy of just having the presentation last 15 minutes. And if there's a need for a rebuttal, let's consider it at that time. I will also say that during the appeals, at least the ones in which I have chaired, we try and make sure during questions of both of the applicant or appellate, to make sure that all the issues are thoroughly fleshed out in questioning. And so those are not in any way subject to a time limit. So I will certainly make sure I try and extend every courtesy in that regard. But I don't want to change our rules in any dramatic way. So I'll give you 15 minutes for your whole team to give the initial presentation. Okay? But... Other than that, now, unless I get sort of vigorous objection from any of my colleagues here, And our city attorney is, I'm sure, fine. Okay, very good. So, with that, we've disclosed ex-partic communications. We're now handing over to staff to orient us to this meeting. And I would remind everybody that, you know, I've already spent eight hours on this. I know this project pretty well. So we don't need to repeat over and over again the same things. That would just be my suggestion. OK? Thank you. Thank you. get to the point is the point I'm making. |
| 02:57:43.97 | Calvin Chan | Thank you. |
| 02:57:44.07 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 02:57:48.29 | Calvin Chan | Thank you, Mayor Withey, members of the council, members of the public. My name's Calvin Chan. I'm an associate planner with the Community Development Department. To start off, I'll give some background on how we got here today. The Planning Commission held four public hearings in 2016 and received public testimony at each of these hearings on this proposed project. The hearing dates were June 22nd, September 21st, November 16th, and December 15th. On December 15th, the Planning Commission denied without prejudice the project application before you because four of the 13 design review permit findings they felt could not be made. On December 27th of last year, the appellant David Holup, subject property owner, and the applicant architect, McCoy Architecture, they appealed the project to the City Council. |
| 02:58:40.52 | Calvin Chan | displayed on the screen are the entitlements requested this evening the design review permit tree removal permit parcel map and condominium conversion permit and an encroachment agreement and I'll go through each of these items as we go on in the presentation |
| 02:58:56.92 | Calvin Chan | The project site is a rhombus shaped lot. The net parcel area is 8,493 square feet. Sausalito Boulevard is located to the south downhill. It's a very steep downhill parcel with, I'm sorry, Sausalito Boulevard is to the south and Crescent Avenue towards north. The existing site plan is shown here. In 2014, the zoning administrator approved a lot line adjustment, which added some square footage to the 446, 448, also the property. This shift was done with the next door neighbor at 452. The lot line adjustment increased the size of this property by approximately 665 square feet, bringing the parcel size to what we have today of the 8,493 square feet. |
| 02:59:48.83 | Calvin Chan | The parcel is developed with a two-unit residential dwelling towards the southern portion of the parcel. This would be the part of the project that's facing Saucel Boulevard. In order of decreasing elevation, the existing four-level structure is organized with the carport and parking deck at Saucel Boulevard, 446 unit second level, and then 446 unit first level, and then at the very bottom, 448. The living areas for the two dwelling units are located downhill from the Saucyde Boulevard right away. Four parking spaces are provided for this project, two spaces for each dwelling via existing tandem parking spaces. |
| 03:00:30.17 | Calvin Chan | On the southeastern corner of this lot, there exists an encroachment onto the neighboring property at 440 and 442 Saucel Boulevard and the city's right-of-way. The adjacent property owner is aware of the proposed improvements and has provided authorization if the project is granted the entitlements for the proposed project to remove the encroachments from his property and into just the city right-of-way. |
| 03:00:58.64 | Calvin Chan | Here's the proposed site plan, 77 Crescent at the top of the screen and 446-448 at the bottom. The requested design review permit includes substantial demolition and remodel of the existing two unit residence and the construction of the new single family residence of 77 Crescent. |
| 03:01:20.74 | Calvin Chan | Here's a rendering showing as viewed from Crescent Avenue. You'll see 446 at the top and 77 Crescent on the bottom of the screen. close up of 446, 448 Sausalito. This is the existing condition. This is a Google Earth photo. Here's the proposed... The project does include the remodel with substantial demolition of this two unit structure. The project provides a comprehensive update of the exterior and also a reorganization of the interior spaces. The total floor area is modified from 3,132 square feet to 2,998, approximately a 4% decrease. The building coverage remains relatively similar, approximately 52 square feet decrease. Overall, the massing, The building coverage won't change significantly, but the massing will. |
| 03:02:19.08 | Calvin Chan | Here's a Google image from Saucido Boulevard showing the existing carport and parking deck, as well as the entryway. Here's the proposed condition. The flat roof of the existing carport is proposed to be removed and replaced with a slightly downward slanted north roof, as well as the entryway and stairs are proposed to be remodeled. |
| 03:02:43.84 | Calvin Chan | Now shifting gears to 77 Crescent, the new single family residence. This is a rendering of viewing the project from the east. The single family residence is 2,352 square feet. It's located at the northern portion of the parcel. The floor error ratio, or FAR, is 0.277, a building coverage of 23.3%. The building height of this project is 28 feet, 7 inches. It's a new four-bedroom, four-level residence that is set deeply into the hillside along Crescent Avenue. Here's another view from the west of 77 Crescent Avenue. The facade consists of stained cedar horizontal wood siding, smooth stucco finish in a beige hue, and various metal and stainless steel accents. |
| 03:03:36.32 | Calvin Chan | The project does propose a new landscaping plan for the site. As part of this application, the applicant is requesting a tree removal permit for the removal of three protected trees and six heritage trees. This is to accommodate the new development and also to meet some SMFD requirements regarding hazardous fire threatening vegetation in this area. The existing established vegetation will, for the most part, remain as is. And replacement trees and groupings of new trees are scattered throughout the project. |
| 03:04:14.81 | Calvin Chan | and I'm pointing out a special portion of the proposed site plan circled in purple here. A series of stairs and landings are proposed on the western portion of this property, leading downhill from Sausalito Boulevard towards Crescent Avenue. The stairs leading down from Sausalito Boulevard are used to access the 448 Sausalito Boulevard unit. The project also proposes a new parallel public parking space on Sausalue Boulevard. The parking space would be located in the public right of way and is subject to the securement of the encroachment agreement. Staff notes that this parking space is not used to satisfy the parking requirements for this project and is an extra space for the overall project. |
| 03:05:00.58 | Calvin Chan | So there are six encroachment agreement items that you'll see in the bottom right hand of this screen. Just to point out that in February of 1987, 446-448 Sausalito Boulevard does have an existing encroachment agreement. And this is for stairs, driveway ramp, and pedestrian access platform, as well as some sidewalk and minor planting. As part of this current application, a new encouragement agreement is required just because we have new data and proceeding to record the new proposed encroachments. So there's been much discussion about building coverage, encroachment agreement, and how this has been calculated and analyzed in this project. So the next few slides, I'll just go over some of the basic parameters that we find and guidance in our zoning ordinance, just so that we can set the stage for any further discussion. Among other zoning development standards that apply to this remodel project and new construction project, these include height, density, floor area setbacks, building coverage is one of these development standards. The maximum building coverage for this parcel in the R2 2.5 zoning district is 50% of the total lot or site area. Per our zoning ordinance section 1040.05.0, coverage is measured as the percentage of the total site area occupied by buildings and structures. And for the purposes of this definition, buildings include primary buildings, garages, carports, accessory buildings, and et cetera. Mainly if it's anything that's above two feet above average natural grade and is considered a structure or a building, as I'll discuss in our next slide, counts towards your building coverage. |
| 03:06:48.56 | Calvin Chan | Here's a section from our zoning ordinance 1056.05.0, which talks about encroachment adjustments and how these need to be included in your bulk calculations. Per this section, structures and buildings to be located in the public right of way shall be included in the coverage and FAR or floor area ratio calculation for the property which they are intended to serve. The area of the coverage and our floor area of the structure is added into the coverage and overall floor area calcs. |
| 03:07:19.05 | Calvin Chan | Here's the definition for a structure in a building. I won't go into this as it's already been detailed in your staff report. But if we need to come back to it, I'm happy to do so. |
| 03:07:32.53 | Calvin Chan | At the December 15th planning commission meeting, staff was asked by the planning commission whether or not the car deck and the proposed stairs would be included in the encroachment calculations and overall building coverage. Based on the project data submitted by the applicant, we had to conduct further investigation to see if those numbers were included. And after further discussion and clarification with the applicant, staff confirmed that those numbers needed to be added to it. And with the portions of the car deck and the stairs added, located in the public right away that would exceed the maximum allowable building coverage. Included in your appeal documents, the architect has provided a letter as well as a revised site plan addressing this issue. To recap, the max coverage for the site is 50%. The excess coverage, as calculated and concluded, was 2.1% over, 52.1% total building coverage. With the revised site plan that the applicant is proposing, the revised coverage would bring it down below 50% to 49.7%. And just to clarify, encircled in purple, these would be where the revised changes would take place. It would be a lowering of the entry stairs to be at grade, and also the removal of a roof portion at the entry stairs. I'll now briefly go through the project evolution of how it's gotten here to this point based on our public hearings at the Planning Commission. The first hearing was on June 22nd. The Planning Commission provided 10 different points of direction as you see on your screen. These are also displayed in in your staff report and explained thoroughly. At the September 21st hearing, the applicant presented a revised design in response to the June 22nd Planning Commission comments and direction. You'll see there are some red point outs there. Those would be some of the areas which the applicant made those changes. Here's a listing of those changes. There's 13 total points of response in response to the June Planning Commission direction. The second hearing for this project took place on September 21st. The Planning Commission provided further direction. These are the five points that they provided for the applicant to explore. |
| 03:10:03.97 | Calvin Chan | The applicant returned on November 16th, the third or fourth hearing. to present a revised design and this design resulted in the following changes. Floor area reduction of 152 square feet, building coverage reduction of 52 square feet, and impervious surface reduction in 40 square feet. I have slides later on to show where some of these areas are located if you want to see specifics. And looking at the project in totality, comparing the original design presented in June to where we are today, the November plans, the building height and building coverage for the project has decreased. The building height for 446 Sausalito has decreased from 38 feet 9 inches to 36 feet 9 inches. 77 Crescent from 30 feet 3 to 28 7. The building coverage overall has decreased from 49.9% to 46.6%. Shifting gears to talking about floor area, the floor area has also reduced. The overall floor area has reduced from 0.648 to 0.629. The impervious surface has also decreased overall from 68% to 55.6%. And keep in mind that these changes that you see represented by numbers are also in combination with the additional landscaping and design modifications that you can see reflected in the elevations. Showing a side-by-side comparison of the site plan, you have the original design on the left-hand side of the screen. the current design on the lower portions, And you'll notice that what you can see in the site plan is that there are some clear differences between the original design and the current design. Mainly there has been some removal of the excess staircase here as well as a commons deck in the middle Of course, there are some additional changes, and those can be better seen in elevation, and I can describe them more thoroughly if desired. |
| 03:12:14.99 | Calvin Chan | So in order to approve the design review permit, 13 design review permit findings need to be made. And in addition to seven heightened design review findings that this project also triggered, the Planning Commission found that four of these 13 findings could not be made. These are findings 1, 3, 6, and 12th. The findings are displayed on your screen. The full text of each of these Planning Commission findings is available, and I can go over them if desired. Staff's recommendation is of four different options that are available to the City Council this evening. Option one is to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the project. Option two, to uphold the appeal and to approve the project. Option three, to continue the public hearing for further consideration by the City Council. And option four, to remand the project to the Planning Commission with specific direction for review. Myself and Director Castro and any member of staff are available for your questions, and that concludes my presentation. |
| 03:13:19.20 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 03:13:19.30 | Calvin Chan | Thank you, Colin. |
| 03:13:20.02 | Joe Burns | I'm |
| 03:13:24.09 | Joe Burns | Questions of staff. |
| 03:13:29.27 | Joe Burns | Okay, let me start. |
| 03:13:34.00 | Joe Burns | So I just want to make sure that the final numbers that you have given us here that was in the package and you've shown on the slides reflect the changes that, the very recent changes that have been made to reflect reductions due to modifications to the encroachment. That part of the FAR or building coverage, and I think it's mainly building coverage, isn't it? It could be FAR as well, that have been corrected as a result of the final resolution as to what was included in the encroachment area versus outside. So could you just explain that a bit more? |
| 03:14:42.29 | Calvin Chan | Right, so within your staff report, |
| 03:14:45.55 | Joe Burns | And the reason I'm asking is, at least in the Planning Commission, There ended up being a lot of discussion about the structures in the area subject to the encroachment agreement, subject to the proposed encroachment agreements. And there was clearly some different points of view. That eventually got, I don't know if ironed out is the right word, but at least some resolution was reached about how to accommodate it. to meet staff's needs. So if you could go into that. |
| 03:15:23.60 | Calvin Chan | Right, so there are three different project summary tables that were prepared for this project, one for the June hearing, September, and November hearing. The plans that you have before you today are based off of the latest plans and of the November 16 project summary table. So those numbers do not reflect what the proposed revised site plan would speak to, and you're right, those would be a reduction in the building coverage to make it sure that it is under the 50% threshold. Staff did not prepare an updated project summary table, but based on the revised site plan, it would bring it down to, To be low the 50%, I believe it was 40, 48 or 49%. What about the numbers you've shown on these slides? The numbers shown on the slides are accurate. The project summary table that I showed previously, that was the November project summary table. And if the council were to approved the project, it would be subject to making sure that the building coverage was under the development maximum. |
| 03:16:33.02 | Unknown | with the revised site plan. Could you put the site plan up, please? |
| 03:16:38.17 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 03:16:43.86 | Joe Burns | Okay, yeah, that's good. Now this is maybe a really, I may be way off here. Okay, I realize that there was a lot line adjustment that was done previous to this, and this is this triangle piece sticking out, right? Correct. Okay. All right. So how do the setback, is that, are we, am I looking at the setbacks on, on that and how, I'm trying to understand whether that stare is actually in the setbacks. I can point that out. |
| 03:17:23.45 | Calvin Chan | Thank you. |
| 03:17:27.04 | Joe Burns | Yeah, just there. Thank you. |
| 03:17:28.41 | Calvin Chan | Just there. So this portion of the stair, it's considered an accessory structure, and it is allowed to be in the setback area. You'll see there's two lines here. The farthermost line would be your property line, and this second dashed line, inner, would be the setback line that the applicant has represented on their plans. |
| 03:17:47.56 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 03:17:47.86 | Calvin Chan | Thank you. |
| 03:17:47.88 | Unknown | Thank you. So that's a little bit. |
| 03:17:50.02 | Joe Burns | questions I had for now. |
| 03:17:52.76 | Unknown | Anybody... You know, |
| 03:17:58.11 | Joe Burns | part the part in the setback does not have to be at grade or two feet. It could be any height in the setback. I believe it needs to be under two feet has to be under two feet. So it's a landing. |
| 03:18:11.64 | Calvin Chan | Thank you. |
| 03:18:15.47 | Joe Burns | And could you just show on the Sausalito Boulevard side now, where is the encroachment into the right of way? |
| 03:18:32.28 | Joe Burns | with the very latest design. |
| 03:18:36.33 | Calvin Chan | This would be the very latest design. If we go back a step and look at the prior |
| 03:18:51.84 | Calvin Chan | Here is a circle in purple in the lower portion of the screen. These areas would be subject to the encroachment agreement. So you have your Sausalito Boulevard items with the existing parking deck, the parallel public space, public parking space, as well as the unit access stairs and landscaping. And on this side you have... at the Crescent Avenue frontage, the driveway. with the revised plan. |
| 03:19:18.80 | Calvin Chan | the entry stairs are pushed down to be at grade, so they don't count towards building coverage, as well as the roof above the entry stair is removed, so that also does not count as building coverage. |
| 03:19:29.00 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 03:19:29.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:19:30.63 | Joe Burns | And, um... The Planning commissions reasons for denial were based on an inability to find, to make four of the design review findings. Correct. Can I therefore conclude that they were able to make the encroachment agreement findings, the tentative parcel map finding, and the other findings of the other permits required? Yes. Thank you. |
| 03:20:11.01 | Joe Burns | Okay, so there's no other questions of staff. I'm assuming. Uh, what's my next is, I think, uh... |
| 03:20:24.26 | Unknown | I think. |
| 03:20:27.01 | Joe Burns | Your, um, the... applicant-appellant presentation, and I said we're going to give you 15 minutes. Try and focus on the key issues from your perspective. You know, I don't need you to do a summary of the project. I get it, okay? I just need you to focus on the key issues. And, you know, and anything that you, you know, if you feel like there's areas that are going to need exploring a little more, we can explore them through questions. Okay. |
| 03:21:07.17 | John McCoy | Thank you. |
| 03:21:10.95 | John McCoy | Okay, I'll keep it to the point. Good evening, members of the council. Mayor Withy, staff, Adam, haven't seen you in a while. And thank you, Calvin, for a really clear and concise presentation. I'll try and mimic that without duplicating it. The points I want to start with before I get into it would be a quick 20-second explanation. With the coverage, we used a calculation via interpretation of the zoning ordinances that we've always used. It was never brought to our attention until the very end, and when it was, we made the revision. We've consistently worked with the city on this project. We had pre-submittal meetings before Danny even began working here. We worked back with Jeremy. So we've been working with him the whole way. And as you can see through the revisions, we've been very open to direction and trying to be compliant and as accommodating as possible. With that said, let me see if I can figure this thing out here. Project review, we're just going to go ahead and skip all of that. The only thing I want to highlight is that we have had the full support of staff, including a recommendation of approval, and we've also had support of the public works staff. Jonathan Goldman came down and spoke in person when it was required, and though he doesn't make a recommendation, to paraphrase, from his department's review, he also said he sees no reason why this project couldn't be approved when he when he was questioned by the Planning Commission I'm sure you saw that on the tapes this is a extremely environmentally friendly project and I keep bringing that up at every hearing you see in the tape because I think it's an important thing I think the city of Sausalito and our residents need to really start a lot of our but we need to continue and enhance those aspects of a project. The project was more environmentally sensitive and friendly, but we actually had to remove some of the elements based on neighbor input and direction from the planning commission. And we can get into that if you want to. But I want to get through... These are the findings that of the 51 findings required for all the entitlements we're asking for, Only four couldn't be made, and I'm going to go through the four real quick, and I'm not going to read them all. I highlighted this so I can distill it down. Basically, looking at scale, mass, scale, density, scale, scale, and mass. Finding three, scale and mass, scale, general scale, out of scale. Six is a little bit different. They talk about landscaping, so we'll look at that, and then we go back to scale and mass. And then for number 12, which refers to the heightened design review findings, again, we're talking about scale of the overall project to seem to be what they wanted to, where they felt they had some issue with. And so we want to directly address that. So we have scale mass, basically character, it was mentioned in one of them, density and landscaping. Just still down even further, we're talking about size and landscaping of the house. So those are the two issues I think we can talk about. and try to keep it on track. So this part here is basically all of the findings that staff made and we can get into the, because they drilled down into how it meets the intent of the general plan, the letter of the general plan, as well as all of the Saucon Municipal Code zoning Title 10. zoning ordinance requirements completely in compliance below all the standards so we don't need they're highlighted but we can scoot those as long as we can all |
| 03:24:45.32 | Joe Burns | Paul's there. Could you stop the clock, Mary? So what you're showing us here is whose findings. |
| 03:24:58.77 | John McCoy | These are the findings that the staff has made, planning department staff. my backup of that with some graphics in a minute. Right now I'm trying to show the point that staff has at every Planning Commission hearing been able to continually make the findings for each of these 13 findings, for each of the 51 findings in particular, that goes beyond just the zoning code book but into the general plan as well and the specific objectives of the general plan per section as it applies to the heightened design review. |
| 03:25:36.08 | Joe Burns | Okay. Yeah, so if you could continue with your presence. |
| 03:25:39.89 | John McCoy | Okay, so I'm kind of jumping through these and I can come back and drill down on them. But these are staff's findings. All of this information has been provided to you in the staff report, which is why I think it's important. I think it says a lot that that the South Dakota planning department states that all heightened design refindings can be made, as well as that the heightened design review is consistent with all of the guidelines as specified. And then I point out, you can go back to your staff reports and read those, and they make all the findings. We talked about that. So we're gonna go through these. We're gonna look at landscaping first, because I think the other ones are all kind of group together so look at them like that. So We talked about tree removal, so the tree removal permits apparently They don't mention them in their resolution of denial, so those findings could be made to remove the trees. So we're removing three protected live oaks, we're replacing those three, we're putting nine new coastal live oaks on the property. All the other trees, the heritage trees and the unprotected trees, all fall within a designation of which is a flammable tree. Those trees must be removed for the Southern Marin Fire Department fuels, vegetation fuels and management plan. So those trees need to be removed regardless of this 77 Crescent gets constructed or not because it's 100 feet downhill from any structure and as soon as we get a building permit we need to meet those standards. and the trees we're talking about removing are these three oak trees here primarily. This is on our landscape plan. And we're talking about removing the trees. Excuse me. The largest trunk. that we're removing is an eight inch trunk, which is a salad plate. It's not even a dinner plate. So these aren't, we're not talking about, they are protected oak. And we're removing three of them, but they're not massive trees. And we are replacing them with nine new live coastal oaks. And this is the location, this points out the location of the new oak trees to be interspersed throughout the site. In addition to that, we have ornamental Japanese maples in the front. We have ornamental shrubs with some coloring in between to maintain this green band through here, which is important, and we'll look at it in a second. We have vegetative screening planted up and down both property lines. Because what we want to, what our goal is to essentially between the landscaping, that was my time, between the landscaping and the design is to tear this house back, nestle it into the hillside and give a minimal presence within its neighborhood on Crescent Avenue. And you can see here's this green band that I was talking about that comes behind the homes on Crescent and wraps down below Saucetal Boulevard. And here, this is our project from an aerial view. And with all of these trees remain, these trees remain, and with the infill planting that we're talking about up through here and around this side, We continue to maintain this green band, this band of greenery and natural hillside element. So we've done that. So we do have an extensive, comprehensive landscape plan that fits within the neighborhood very well. And you can see, here's the slide that Calvin showed earlier. You can see how the landscaping does come around, wraps around the house and continues this green band. Additionally, the roof of this house is a living green roof. It's one of the environmental elements that we have. So that's landscaping density. We talked about that. I do want to quickly. Just to inform you that per the general plan, in this medium and high density area of Sausalito, the maximum density is 17.4 units per acre. With the addition of this new residence that we're proposing, we will be at 5.84 units per acre, which is one-third of the allowable density per the general plan. So we believe that it's well within the general plan's intent of density unless it's not enough. But we certainly are not anywhere approaching too great of a density. I'm not sure. jump through some of these. So the next, we just need to look at scale and mass and the character of it and how it fits within its surroundings on Crescent. So if you look at the houses here, again, these aerial views are very helpful. So this is our project, Nestled Into the Hill. We've terraced back, we have a garage, and we can look at another image from the street in a minute. We have a garage and we'd have three stories, and each story, Steps back 10 to 12 feet. So it's not a minimal stepping back as the Planning Commission stated in their findings. I would say 10 to 12 feet is a substantial stepping into the hillside. And you can look at the other homes and it's far greater than all of these up Crescent as far as stepping and trying to relieve itself into the hillside and minimize its impact within the neighborhood. THEIR OWNERS. The Planning Commission also stated that all of the homes in the area were a garage at street level, with a maximum of two stories above that, which is incorrect, we'll say. The house directly adjacent to the Trestle home is a garage at street level with three stories above it. Three doors up, there's another one, and we'll look at that. So that's two within four adjacent houses that are exactly the concept of what we're proposing here. So we are within the character, within the scale of the neighborhood, and within keeping of the general feeling and design sensibilities of the neighborhood. Here's the Trestle house again. I'm going to run up the street real quick and try and save some time. So you can see it is one, two, three stories above. The next house up, parking at the street, living space above. The next house is the same. The next house is the same again. And then here's the other house with parking garage, one, two, three stories above. So our house from the street, is very much in keeping with the neighborhood. The materials we use are with the they have aesthetic elements and they have organic elements they're soft on the hillside we have ample landscaping surrounding it maintaining our green band and helping to nestle this project further into the hillside than any other home on Crescent Avenue there, mitigating and limiting its experience and impact on the neighborhood of Crescent Avenue. Here's more homes. We can just keep going all the way up Crescent. And these are the homes and the size and how they're constructed. And you can look up again. You can see all the way along And down through here, and here's another single family home, We're very much in keeping with the scale, the character, the density, the mass, we're talking about a 2,300 square foot home here. This is not massive. So the mass and 80% of the mass of this home is in the hillside. what are the points I want to make, you know? |
| 03:32:45.58 | Joe Burns | So why don't you just pause there. Could you stop the clock, Mary? Could you go back to the rendering of 77 from this? This may be about five, six slides earlier. Yeah, okay. I should have asked this earlier. Okay, so I understand in your design you've got this sweeping stair. Right, okay. Help me understand the reason for the sort of back of it to be concrete and closed in rather than open. So how much of this is structural for the house and how much of this is simply an aesthetic element? Right. Do you see what I'm asking you? |
| 03:32:57.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:32:57.49 | Unknown | We'll be right back. |
| 03:32:57.58 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:32:57.61 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:33:37.50 | John McCoy | Right. I'm asking you. Right, yes. So it is both. It is a structural element of a retaining wall as well as we did the sweeping curve for an aesthetic effect, certainly, and the color was in essence chosen by then Commissioner Cox. So when we cut into this hillside and we remove the earth, This outer wall is actually retaining the hillside over here, and this wall will only be about 24 inches above grade at the high point but as you can see on the stair side it's going to be between six and eight feet above the stairs because we're We're following the topography of the hill which is a very steep hill as you probably notice when you were there And we're not following the rise and run of the steps so we're we're taking the sweep of the hill and So this is a retaining wall. It's retaining the earth on this side. And then it's also, we left it as exposed concrete for an aesthetic value that we were pursuing. |
| 03:34:41.83 | Joe Burns | But I remember seeing a rendering, maybe not in this presentation, from looking from the uphill of, or looking from the downhill of Crescent. Sorry, looking from the downhill of Crescent up, where it looked like it was a lot more than two feet above grade. |
| 03:35:02.08 | John McCoy | Um... |
| 03:35:06.92 | John McCoy | We did revise this wall because we had to push it back, and there was direction, or there wasn't specific direction, but it was discussed as to how tall that wall was going to be. So I know when we brought it back for at least the third hearing, we did minimize the height of that wall. |
| 03:35:21.62 | Joe Burns | OK, all right. I'm probably remembering an earlier design. OK, thanks. OK, so carry on with your presentation. |
| 03:35:27.43 | John McCoy | Yeah. |
| 03:35:30.85 | John McCoy | I think we've talked about how the scale and the mass, the density and the size, and the character, which there's no, like every other community in Sausalito, there's no specific architectural character. We have an eclectic city. So even as I'm flipping back to catch up, you can see that these are all very different styles. But basically when you build on the hillside, you build on the uphill side, As you can see, as we go through all of these, You cut into the hill and then you put the living space above. So it's a common design concept as far as the basics of it. And we're in keeping with that. Again, you can see when you take kind of a bird's eye view, you really see how this will be, much softer in the hillside and tucked in, and at least, if not less than, will have no greater impact and presence in the Crescent Avenue neighborhood than all of these homes that currently exist there. Um, I think I've kind of hit, there's other studies and research we did on square footages, but Calvin's covered that. I think I'm just going to let it go for now. I know Steve wants to add a couple things, but I'm available for questions should you have any. |
| 03:36:55.28 | Joe Burns | I was going to say, Mary, why don't you stop the clock while they change over, so okay. |
| 03:37:12.44 | Steve Frazier | I'm going to ask the council for a favor. At 4 o'clock this afternoon, my computer died entirely. And not only with it, the printer died. So I was not unable to prepare anything in printed form. So I'm going to ask you to take my notes when I'm concluded and make them a part of the record, even though I would dread to give this to a judge, but, you know, I would give it to a judge if that was the only thing I have, and that's the only thing I have. But, of course, I hope you can read my handwriting if you get to it now Now let me time begin, please. I Just want to hit a number of highlights because mr McCoy got to those and you've I appreciate the fact that you've all taken a look at the project very diligently and Appreciate that. I just want to note a number of things number one In reading the four findings in the Planning Commission's report, I was struck, again, probably as a lawyer, but I was struck by the fact that although there was constant reference to size, mass, bulk, remember there was a phrase that was overwhelming, and there was another phrase that the building was looming in, I think, point four. I could not find a single description of what neighborhood the planning commission was referring to, of the size of whatever neighborhood it would be, of the size of any adjoining properties, the size of any adjoining buildings. So for a finding that in essence said it doesn't belong here, it doesn't fit into the character, it doesn't fit into the nature of it, there was not a single piece of evidence that they were able to cite. None, and I think that that is a gross deficiency in their material. I would have thought that they could have come up with one, but they didn't. They use a number of terms remotely, such as scale, mass. For example, they describe three living units as excessive. Well, the lot, legally, he is permitted to put three living units, and I'm not sure how a living unit, since the way it's cut up is what would make it big or small, would relate to mass or anything else. It's just three living units. I point out to the council that this lot is 8,493 feet. It stretches from Crescent to Crescent which is a gloomy section of the road in that particular area, all the way up to Saustadou Boulevard. From Crescent, you cannot see 446-448. No one walking or driving there can see it. From 446-48, no one walking or living there can see 77. So in the end, And I might add that the duplex, or whatever it was, existed beforehand, so it's nothing new. What this really came down to was the Planning Commission did not like 77 Crescent. And I think that needs to be put into that perspective. So they had to search for a reason to shoot it down, because they could not relate it to anything in the neighborhood because there were no facts to relate it to. They did not set any facts forth. So then they called, they said this has to go through heightened review. But you know, the seven points of heightened review, there is not a single reference |
| 03:41:23.69 | Joe Burns | Please continue. |
| 03:41:24.94 | Steve Frazier | There are, again, there are no references to any facts to back it up. It's pointless. They go back to the three points that were raised earlier. I see I'm out of time already, so let me just quickly check my notes. |
| 03:41:41.72 | Joe Burns | No, I did say please continue. |
| 03:41:43.50 | Steve Frazier | Oh, okay. Well, I won't go through all of these here. I had a point made on everything, but they were all, some of them were snarky, such as, you know, why or what the hell does this mean? Not defined. But I, your, your, two of you are lawyer. Herbie's been around forever and Joe, I'm sure knows what I'm talking about. So I'm not going to come up with something new. Um, |
| 03:42:07.40 | Steve Frazier | I'll go to my short notes. and I'll put on my glasses, Congratulations, sir. |
| 03:42:35.48 | Steve Frazier | There were no specific findings with regard to the heightened review, just a generic statement that it didn't meet the criteria regarding scale and mass, which really just takes you back to the first three non-findings that they couldn't make. So that wasn't a reason to reject the project. The neighborhood was not defined, square feet were not defined. They used the word looming, nature of adjacent property. The adjacent properties are looming because they are set at street level, and street frontage, and they go straight up. So the one thing that can't be said of this project is that it is looming. And they had no backup to say why it was looming. When I think of looming, I think of a castle in medieval Romania in the Transylvania district with Count Dracula looking down on the village that he's going to eat up. So I'm almost done. I just have notes, scale not defined relative to adjacent homes, the bulk not defined relative to adjacent homes. property is set up, is in fact stepped back. None of the adjacent homes are in fact stepped back. To say that it is insufficiently stepped back, wonders, you wonder about that statement. What it was in the end, The commission, and this is more of an observation that I had from the things that they said orally, the commission did not like the fact that this applicant was taking advantage of the law, if that's taking advantage of it, to either A, make a profit, and one planning commissioner said that directly, and, or was seeking to maximize it, but the law allows you to maximize profit, or to maximize the size if you can do it, but you have to comply with the findings. We accept that. So I feel that they reached stretched way out beyond their size to find some kind of words or reasoning that could justify a denial, but they had no specific facts by which they could deny it because they didn't state any. And that really is my major point. |
| 03:45:06.43 | Joe Burns | Okay. So I think I've given you a fair amount of latitude. I think you're at least at 20 minutes. |
| 03:45:12.99 | Steve Frazier | Yes, you've been very good, and I think that the... |
| 03:45:20.36 | Steve Frazier | That will conclude my remarks. I hope that you will approve this project and uphold it. I did want to take one issue with what staff said. Staff said you had four alternatives. You actually have five. You can uphold a project subject to conditions that you wish to place upon the project were to go forward, such as reducing the coverage below 50% and any other condition that you think may be appropriate You're not left with just approving it. We can add conditions. I served on the council for four years, many years ago, and I still remember that. Thank you. |
| 03:45:54.08 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:45:54.13 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 03:45:58.74 | Joe Burns | Thank you, Steve. |
| 03:46:03.60 | Joe Burns | Okay. |
| 03:46:08.80 | Joe Burns | Sorry, let me get my notes here. Okay. |
| 03:46:18.30 | Joe Burns | Why don't we, is there any member of the public who wants to... speak on this. other than the applicant's team, and there's a number of them here. So no, it doesn't look like. Okay, so let's bring it back up here. Now, |
| 03:46:43.54 | Joe Burns | Excuse me, I'm just having a senior moment. There was a question I was needed to ask staff, but I've, Lost it. Is there any more questions? Yes. I do. |
| 03:46:50.31 | Joe Burns | more questions. Yes, I do. Actually, this might be your question. Who knows? So do we have an agreement, or at least a close agreement, on what the floor area ratio is? Is it 46.6, or is it 49.7, or are there variations? Like, what's the final, from the final Yeah, the most recent plan. |
| 03:47:13.04 | Calvin Chan | The floor area would not change with the revised site plan. It would only be a reduction of the building coverage to ensure that it is under the 50% maximum allowed. |
| 03:47:21.78 | Joe Burns | I'm not sure if you're going to be a good one. Okay. Got it. And what's the |
| 03:47:26.91 | Calvin Chan | 49%. |
| 03:47:29.27 | Joe Burns | Okay, 49. Okay, thanks. I just want to make sure we're in agreement on that. Thanks. |
| 03:47:33.10 | Joe Burns | I WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE PROJECT. |
| 03:47:33.93 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 03:47:48.09 | Joe Burns | There's so many great things here. So given time and what we've gone through over the last months and videos and everything, it kind of streamed us down. Let's just get to the points. So that's kind of what I'm doing here, just getting to the points. But beautiful, a lot of really neat things going on here. I don't know how you would figure this, but I'm sure you could. How much square footage, floor area square footage, would be basically subterranean or would be inside the existing ground level? |
| 03:48:20.12 | John McCoy | I believe it's above 60% it's close, it's close, could be close to 80%. We did a, I don't have it with me. We did a study on that. We just section through that, which we presented to the planning commission. And there you... from our side, the point of that exercise was to show that while this is nearing the limits of floor area, even if we reduced it, it's all underground and we would still have the same house that you would experience from Crescent. So we did do a study and I don't know the number, but I'm going to say it's, if I had to say plus or minus 70%. |
| 03:48:44.42 | Robert Rourke | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:48:50.78 | Robert Rourke | Thank you. |
| 03:48:50.80 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:48:58.14 | Joe Burns | of the 23, so maybe 18, 19, that type of thing. |
| 03:49:00.65 | John McCoy | Yeah, the majority. It's inside. It's subterranean, technically, yes. |
| 03:49:02.51 | Joe Burns | that is inside. Okay. During both your process with staff and refining and up through the commission, did glazing come into discussion as far as amount of direction of in reducing its impact? Or was that just always kind of how it was with your plan? |
| 03:49:25.04 | John McCoy | I don't remember extensive discussions about it. I know we presented it and talked about the, Again, with our environmental focus, we talked about the efficiency and the type of windows we were gonna use. We did I don't remember any at-length discussions about it. I don't remember it being... |
| 03:49:46.81 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:49:46.91 | Mike Monseth | Thank you. |
| 03:49:47.06 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:49:49.17 | John McCoy | reflectance or anything like that there was there was a discussion with the uh the neighbor in the the trestle house recently with some privacy issues and that was prior to us hiring jan korejewski who's a licensed landscape architect he was not on board in the original permission and so we brought in and then we've had the the screenings and the plantings on the property lines, which blocked the views between the two houses. So there was some discussion of, you know, I'll see you into your, you can see my deck kind of thing, but there was no discussion directly about the windows. |
| 03:49:50.47 | Unknown | like that. |
| 03:49:55.58 | Unknown | Right. |
| 03:50:14.61 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:50:21.09 | Joe Burns | Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and go ahead Okay. |
| 03:50:30.38 | Unknown | DEFER. |
| 03:50:36.47 | Joe Burns | I think we all tried to interpret what the commission was saying. And your counsel has made some statements about |
| 03:50:47.99 | Unknown | BELL RINGS. I'm going to go. |
| 03:50:49.60 | Joe Burns | what they may be perceived as a finance. I'm not sure that I'm on board with what they were considering as far as that explanation. But I think there's one picture of your aerial that It may be where we separate this property from where we're trying to compare it to the others. And as we say, it's a three story above a garage, just like the trestle and like the two up. What I believe I was kind of reading from the planning commission is those don't have a duplex or a two unit condo directly above them. And where there is a duplex or two unit building, there isn't a single family directly below them. So though it is one lot and though it is objectively possible and feasible and allowed in the zoning to use those three units where it differs from the neighbors is in the is in the three stories with another building. So I don't know if that was the definition that you're looking for, but that's kind of how I read their comments. So in that, my question would be, in between the meetings where you were asked to maybe reduce bulk set of scale size, you and taking direction from your applicant Did you get direction to maybe go down to a level? Was that put together feasibly? And I've heard a number that is a big number. Talk about looming. I realize this is a big financial project. |
| 03:52:28.50 | Unknown | for. |
| 03:52:28.87 | Joe Burns | So many in margins do matter. Was that explored? Can we drop down maybe that 460 square feet that's on the third level, include it somehow into a second level? |
| 03:52:40.58 | John McCoy | it wasn't explored in direct reaction to planning commission comment. It was explored actually years before that. We explored doing more of a horizontal house because we do have almost, you know, 80 plus feet of street frontage there. So the original, some of the original concepts were more of a rectilinear style home. It didn't work functionally. It didn't work for, |
| 03:52:48.53 | Peter Van Meter | Thank you. |
| 03:52:48.55 | Joe Burns | for. |
| 03:52:51.72 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:53:07.01 | John McCoy | achieving the program goals of maximizing views. Which are important in this town, you know if you can go up without blocking somebody else's view it's always definitely a bonus I |
| 03:53:12.26 | Unknown | THIS TELL. |
| 03:53:19.51 | John McCoy | So it was explored at that point a different style. There was, I believe, one quick question at the tail end of the third hearing where Commissioner Pierce asked me, well, can you just cut the top story off? And my short answer was no. I mean, it just doesn't make sense. The House doesn't really work as the house, particularly with the effort and investment that we have to go through to get this house, and particularly since it is in keeping and in character and similar scale and mass with the other ones. And to your point of the house is not having a duplex above them, I think we can go back to another discussion where, in essence, we're looking at two street frontages. We're looking at a Sausalito Boulevard neighborhood, and we're looking at a Crescent Avenue neighborhood. and they don't relate to each other, and you don't see them together, so they don't, you know, that's why we have these aerial views, so we can see how all these houses kind of relate to each other, even though none of us will ever see this view here. |
| 03:54:27.42 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:54:27.44 | John McCoy | Thank you. Thank you. So the two houses are separate. They're two essentially separate neighborhoods within Hurricane Gulch, so to speak. That would be my counter to that point. |
| 03:54:35.82 | Joe Burns | Mm-hmm. Okay. But at one point we do, and granted there's not a lot of visuals to it, but at one point we do have six levels of living and two levels of parking on this combined incline. as we might not have, unless there's some other areas in town that have that. |
| 03:54:55.62 | Jeff Jacobs | Yes. |
| 03:54:55.97 | Unknown | That's what we were. |
| 03:54:56.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:55:02.86 | John McCoy | Yeah, that's true. It is a street to street lot. So within that lot, we do have from Crescent to South City Boulevard, we have parking, one, two, three. Yeah, six levels. Six and two. However, if I can find it. |
| 03:55:18.08 | Unknown | Six and two. |
| 03:55:26.35 | Unknown | at home. |
| 03:55:27.38 | John McCoy | I don't know that the photo is in here. There's a house that comes further along here. It's right below 438 Saucer Boulevard, my old residence. And right below that, there is a... two unit condominium, three stories, including the parking and they're directly one below the other. And I'm really wishing I had that photograph right now, it spells out exactly what you're describing. So if you were to go back to the site and look right below 438, |
| 03:55:58.58 | Joe Burns | here. |
| 03:56:07.13 | John McCoy | That's kind of it. It's a little. Seems a little skewed on the screen. |
| 03:56:19.60 | John McCoy | I'm just not seeing it. |
| 03:56:23.20 | Joe Burns | Yeah. THE FAMILY. you |
| 03:56:26.35 | John McCoy | Well, Miller lives at 438. He can send you a picture. We're on 438 right now. So it's. What's that? |
| 03:56:27.86 | Andrew Lee | THE END OF |
| 03:56:27.92 | Joe Burns | He can send you pictures. |
| 03:56:33.02 | Joe Burns | So it's that, that location, okay, and then right below it. |
| 03:56:36.16 | John McCoy | this one this house right below it it's a little skewed in this picture but it's it's this is a this is a two-unit condominium development I believe Donaldson did back in the 80s and then right above that is another duplex at 438 South Little Boulevard so you have parking two stories two stories and then parking so it's a little bit It's not three stories, it's two stories, but it's a similar concept, or similar to what you were describing. |
| 03:57:04.39 | Joe Burns | Thank you. And then, Tell me, and I know this is in here, and I actually don't have a way to look at it. what's the living roof material what what what's on there and what will its growth height be. |
| 03:57:17.86 | John McCoy | It's primarily succulents. I can't think of the term that they use for it right now, and our landscape architects couldn't be here today. I knew someone was going to ask me to plant it. |
| 03:57:24.57 | Joe Burns | and I knew someone's Nah, I went to. And essentially the. |
| 03:57:27.78 | John McCoy | And essentially it would be no more than succulents and grasses. It's typically what you put on those. What you want is something that requires zero maintenance or close to zero maintenance. So the growth height would be max six inches. |
| 03:57:38.00 | Peter Van Meter | Thank you. |
| 03:57:44.00 | Peter Van Meter | you know? |
| 03:57:45.70 | Joe Burns | That's it. That's all I have. |
| 03:58:03.77 | Joe Burns | I actually have a question of Steph. |
| 03:58:13.41 | Joe Burns | There's something I want to sort of clear up to make sure that we don't have some confusion here. I mean, it's been implied or actually directly stated that The planning by the applicant's attorney, I don't think it was, could have been you John, I'm not certain. I'm not sure. Thank you. The fundamental issue here was that They didn't like the structure which was to be called 77 Crescent. That was fundamentally what was going on here. Somebody made that comment tonight. Um, I don't recall that that was really the essence of the problem here. I mean, did the Planning Commission specifically say the problem is that there's a second structure and a third dwelling. I kept hearing about scale and mass, rather than in of itself, there is a problem with a second structure on that lot. I mean, I. in part reacting to what I heard and just wanted some clarification I'm actually asking staff this question, that's okay. |
| 03:59:48.04 | Calvin Chan | Thank you. |
| 03:59:48.08 | Joe Burns | Thank you. So |
| 03:59:48.97 | Calvin Chan | So, Calvin. Thank you Mayor Withee. I believe your assessment's correct. The four findings that the Planning Commission could not make, as you see on your screen, did not specifically speak to because there is an additional new single-family residence at 77 Crescent, or because there is three units on this parcel. That was not the basis for their denial. They had four public hearings. They made direction for the applicant to consider. Ultimately, at the end of the day, they found that the revisions and the different adjustments made by the applicant were not sufficient and enough to make the findings that would be required to approve this permit. |
| 04:00:33.10 | Unknown | you |
| 04:00:34.37 | Calvin Chan | Okay. |
| 04:00:34.82 | Unknown | you you |
| 04:00:35.78 | Joe Burns | And the other thing is, I realize John doesn't have immediately the answer to The question of how much was subterranean. I could show a section drawing if |
| 04:00:49.00 | Calvin Chan | Yeah. |
| 04:00:49.17 | Unknown | So... |
| 04:00:49.25 | Calvin Chan | Thank you. |
| 04:00:51.09 | Joe Burns | Yeah, could we see a section drawing? |
| 04:00:51.41 | Calvin Chan | Could we? |
| 04:00:53.47 | Joe Burns | But I just did want to make the point, correct me if I'm wrong here, subterranean offset of the FAR was taken of 250 square feet, right? So I think you're allowed 50% of... anything subterranean in living area up to a maximum of 500 feet, which is therefore 250. Right, is that correct? That is correct. Yeah, so that, right, so the actual So just to put this in perspective, when I keep hearing that this is a... 2,352 square foot house, that's not correct. It's a four bedroom, 2,602 square foot house. |
| 04:01:43.81 | Joe Burns | I, sorry, I think I know the code. I think that's right, but you might want to just check for me. |
| 04:02:06.99 | Joe Burns | While you're looking that up, Calvin, let me speak to something that I think Ray said. One of the findings with regard to the heightened review that I'm looking at that the Planning Commission made And this is on page 10 of 14 of the staff report. So the second paragraph. They couldn't make, let's see. |
| 04:02:38.55 | Joe Burns | they couldn't make the heightened review and one of the reasons why is because a project features such as the imposition of three living levels above a street level for a garage A street-level garage for 77 Crescent, the minimal stepping back of the massing for the new 77 Crescent Avenue structure to relate to the hillside, and the overwhelming development of three living units in two looming structures on one parcel contributes to the lack of consistency between the project and the requisite design review. So I think that was... Thank you. |
| 04:03:08.32 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 04:03:08.72 | Joe Burns | one issues you were thinking about. |
| 04:03:16.15 | Calvin Chan | So displayed on the screen is a site section. You have 446448 Sausalito Boulevard at the top of the screen and the proposed residence of 77 Crescent at the lower portion of the screen. So you see that a majority. of Thank you. of the proposed project is subterranean. So where the cursor is right here, this would be where the grade level is. So you'll see that a majority of this area is below grade. |
| 04:03:42.44 | Joe Burns | Do you have an existing conditions versus proposed section for the Sausalito Boulevard structure? In other words, what I'm trying to get at is, I mean... In terms of 77 Crescent, the I mean that section speaks for itself, right? I mean it has been cut into the hillside very significantly. But what I'm trying to get at is, have you pushed out in massing, I realize you're not going to be messing with the foundation, so you're not cutting into the hillside. But what I'm trying to look at with the remodel, with how much demo you're doing and then what you're rebuilding, how much is now coming out from the hillside for the upper structure? John, help us. |
| 04:04:43.29 | John McCoy | Let's see if I can get this here. Mr. Well, I'm sorry. Essentially, the 446-448 Sausalito Boulevard duplex is staying within its footprint, with the exception of we're redeveloping the entry because the existing entry crosses the property line. So we're cutting that back, reorganizing that. I believe we're reducing this upper deck here. |
| 04:04:56.94 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. |
| 04:05:13.53 | John McCoy | We're pulling that back in, and that was at the request of the neighbor, Mr. Sureness. What it does is it gives him a clear view of Alcatraz without a deck rail in his way, and so we were pulling that. Actually, that deck is coming back in, and I believe we're expanding this deck and this deck to line up. And I think they're being increased. And on the side of the building, there's the deck and a stair that's completely removed. So that massing's gone. So the decks that are over the hillside |
| 04:05:47.77 | John McCoy | I'll tell you how much they're being increased by. They're being increased to some degree, not a great degree, but. if that answers your question. But other than that, and then The other Do you have the full plan set in here? This is the full plan set. Okay, let's go ahead. |
| 04:06:03.73 | Joe Burns | I've got a full plan set up here, so if you can just give me a page number, I'll be fine. |
| 04:06:05.54 | John McCoy | of you. Um, If we go back to... on the floor plan of There was, we did add on to the, essentially, I've gone too far. |
| 04:06:29.26 | John McCoy | That is 77. need to get to 446. |
| 04:06:37.47 | John McCoy | We did add on to the, what is the |
| 04:06:43.32 | John McCoy | That would be the north side of the building because there currently is existing living space that is below the parking deck, which is in the right of way. And to alleviate that non-conforming condition, we took that living space, moved it to the north side of the building, and essentially created our master bathroom with it, which is what we're going to do below the deck. And that made it compliant within the city right-of-way so that there's no, you know, the only thing within the right-of-way is now access. It's a stair and a parking deck. So that was an addition also to the structure. It's at the uphill side of 448. |
| 04:07:41.41 | John McCoy | I believe it's this piece here. |
| 04:07:44.00 | Joe Burns | Yeah, okay. |
| 04:07:47.21 | John McCoy | So it's about 120 to 140 square feet that we took from below the parking out of the right of way, moved it to that building up at the South Soudal Boulevard |
| 04:08:00.37 | Joe Burns | 2AD102 is existing elevations of... the Sol Slita Boulevard property okay okay okay do you have that elevation for the proposed |
| 04:08:08.66 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 04:08:14.92 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 04:08:14.93 | John McCoy | Thank you. |
| 04:08:15.04 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 04:08:15.05 | John McCoy | Thank you. |
| 04:08:15.09 | Joe Burns | So that I can flip so we can sort of see the difference that's what I'm trying to get at. |
| 04:08:25.08 | Joe Burns | and then go back. |
| 04:08:27.98 | John McCoy | So this is the piece I was talking about that was about it. |
| 04:08:29.53 | Joe Burns | Yeah, yeah. |
| 04:08:30.39 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:08:30.48 | John McCoy | Thank you. |
| 04:08:34.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:08:34.38 | Joe Burns | OK. |
| 04:08:36.62 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:08:36.64 | Joe Burns | All right. |
| 04:08:39.98 | Joe Burns | Okay, thanks, John. |
| 04:08:45.58 | Joe Burns | And I don't know whether we have a still an outstanding question for staff. In fact, I've forgotten what it was now, because I wanted to focus on this. Yeah, that's right. It's 235, so 77 Crescent has got a FAR of 2352. Subterranean offset was taken of, that included a credit of 250, I think. And so the actual square foot of the size of the house is a 2,600 square foot, four bedroom house. |
| 04:09:23.68 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:09:23.78 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 04:09:24.44 | Unknown | Mike? |
| 04:09:26.62 | Calvin Chan | Thank you. |
| 04:09:26.64 | Unknown | Correct. |
| 04:09:27.02 | Calvin Chan | subterranean discount was taken. Okay. Yes. They said. What you see in your project summary table, this reflects the discounted floor area. Of $200? |
| 04:09:41.03 | Joe Burns | So a credit of 250 square foot. |
| 04:09:43.87 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:09:43.90 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 04:09:44.00 | Unknown | you Thank you. |
| 04:09:44.71 | Joe Burns | correct. |
| 04:09:45.66 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 04:09:45.67 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 04:09:45.69 | Joe Burns | Does that mean then that the house is actually, the square footage is actually 26 or it was 21 that was, it is 20, it goes up. It goes up. |
| 04:09:58.13 | Joe Burns | This is a 77 credit present is a 2,602 square foot living space plus the garage. Four-bedroom house. Okay, that's what it is. Now, because of the credits, you don't have to include the garage, and because of the subterranean credit, the FAR, which describes the entitlements in the code, is... 2352. Correct. Okay. |
| 04:10:27.37 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 04:10:27.39 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 04:10:28.47 | David Suda | Thank you. |
| 04:10:29.92 | Joe Burns | I just didn't understand if maybe the house, if it was stated differently that you come to that number when you do the math to come up to the percentage. So you add that. Thank you. |
| 04:10:45.36 | Joe Burns | Any other questions? Okay. David, do you want two minutes? I mean, I'm trying to be as fair as possible. Does anybody want to say anything? You got two minutes, man. Okay. Or John, or whatever. Go on then, John. |
| 04:11:03.03 | John McCoy | Oh, it's just... It's... I have a point of clarification, and we can pull it back up. When you asked your question, did the Planning Commission specifically say that they didn't want that there, and was it in their findings? And within one of their findings, the word that it was Uh... that increased the density too much, that there was too much density for the neighborhood. And the only increase in density is adding that house. So that I would say is a specific reference to them, stating that that house should or shouldn't be there. to answer your question. |
| 04:11:37.55 | Joe Burns | You were asked, though, whether you'd be willing to do a smaller house by taking the top level off and you said no. So, I think there was an implication there that you might very well have gotten approval considering they all kept saying. |
| 04:11:51.95 | John McCoy | I'm just speaking directly to the things that they put in writing. |
| 04:11:53.62 | Joe Burns | All right, okay. you you Alright. Okay. |
| 04:12:03.32 | Joe Burns | Okay, Calvin, do you need to add anything? There's nothing additional to add. Go on, Steve. |
| 04:12:27.28 | Joe Burns | And the reason is this is being recorded, as you know, and we can't hear the comments unless they're directly into the microphone. |
| 04:12:34.93 | Steve Frazier | Okay, I'm sorry. |
| 04:12:36.18 | Joe Burns | That's okay. |
| 04:12:36.53 | Steve Frazier | I'm just not modern. All I wanted to say is that I think that not enough credit is given the owner for the fact that This, the tops, I don't know how the Commission would have ruled on the subject, but he does own I must go up here. |
| 04:13:06.55 | Steve Frazier | this. Thank you. |
| 04:13:11.93 | Steve Frazier | you you project that would have simply relocated, let's say, a room here. Maybe it wouldn't have been approved. That would have destroyed the hillside. I'm sorry. That would have, the owner could just as easily made a decision to try to move it out this way towards the, I'm gonna say left, because I don't know where north and south is really, and that would have destroyed it. He preserved the whole openness of this area and built it this way. And I just want to make sure that you understand what he did. It was very environmentally sensitive and I don't think the commission gave him any credit for this, but I do. And I hope that the council will also. Okay, thank you. |
| 04:14:07.98 | Joe Burns | So let's now close everything and bring it up here. |
| 04:14:19.05 | Joe Burns | Who would like to go first? |
| 04:14:31.33 | Unknown | There you go. Thank you. |
| 04:14:34.77 | Joe Burns | All right, well, these are my first initial impressions, but I'm going to listen to what my fellow council members say as well. Most of them have more experience with these things than I do. But first of all, let me just say that I think the design is lovely of both of them. I mean, honestly. I love the environmentally sensitive plan and the effort. What I saw was a large effort to come up with a sustainable house and new building methods and things like that so i appreciate that and i you know wanted to comment on that first thing um you know i do i did you know like everybody else i watched hours of the planning so i feel like you know we're we may be speaking kind of shorthand but we've given this a lot of I think that's a lot of consideration, a lot of thought. So my initial inclination is that I do feel like that I do feel like that it is a little bit congested. Or I agree with the planning commission on their findings, their first finding that the project isn't consistent with the general plan, that the general scale of the structures and buildings are too much, their second finding, and then the... with regard to the landscaping, You know, I'm probably right on the fence on that one. Because I think the changes that you guys made to the landscaping looked to me like it did provide visual relief. But then on the last one with regard to the heightened review, I think, for projects which exceed 80%. I do agree with them. I think that this lot becomes a little bit too congested especially when you look at the other houses you know that are are to the uphill side of this house. So if you look in that Canyon what that Canyon has become is just a wall of houses and garage doors as you drive down that road and this just extends it further. But if you look on the downhill side coming up, then I think it is You do see that it is much larger than the houses further down that street. that we're going to be that's been articulated, the planning commission is that you have this creep of large structures. And so I think that is a concern in this project, especially because also if you look at the other lots, you know, you don't have, as Council Member Burns pointed out, you don't have two, you know, an uphill and a downhill house. You'll have either a downhill house and a lot of room at the top, or you'll have something at the top and a lot of room at the bottom. But this is inconsistent in that area in the fact that you have those two structures on one lot. So, yeah. I just think the 77 Crescent is just... that we're going to be able to do that. I'm willing to listen to the other, my other members on this as well. |
| 04:18:10.03 | Joe Burns | I WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE FINDING OF THE FIND OF THE in you kind of saw in the questions, I don't see an issue, or I'm not concerned with the landscape number three, um, because I appreciate the process that the applicant went through to get to where it is now. That it does take into vegetation management practices, that it does have the roof, AND EVEN GO AS FAR AS WHAT STEVE SUGGESTED, THAT THERE'S TO SHOW APPRECIATION FOR ALL THE THINGS THAT THE APPLICANT WENT THROUGH TO GET TO THE PROPERTY TO THIS POINT. THE SUSTAINABLE DESIGN, THE I EVEN KIND OF LIKED THE WIND TURBINE AT THE FIRST RENDITION. SO MANY GREAT ELEMENTS IN THIS AND AS INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS, I THINK BOTH ARE OUTSTANDING. I DIDN'T GET THE FEELING THAT I DON'T THINK THE COMMISSION HAD A PROBLEM WITH 77 AS A PROJECT. I DON'T THINK THE COMMISSION HAD A PROBLEM WITH 77 AS A PROJECT. Councilmember Hoffman just mentioned and what we see in finding for that it was the the combining even though the applicant did step back I think appropriately so the finding I don't have it with me that it that the stepping back did occur and it again as a solo property it works really well. I'M ALSO ON THE SAME FENCE AS COUNCIL MEMBER HOFFMAN WITH. I don't know. It is the three and two that is... I don't know. would love to not have that be the one issue. I was kind of hoping somebody had a rabbit in their hat tonight because... It's coming back to that that takes away from so many other great aspects of this property. I would put that into some type of condition or some type of process that I'm sure the mayor will give us direction here on going through the process and all of our options. There would be one other item that I wouldn't make part of the condition, but I'd just say as far as the one aesthetic that doesn't drive me as crazy in a good way is the parking stairs, the structure. I just aesthetically I didn't care for that. THE STAIRS, THE STUCTURE. ESTHETICALLY, I DIDN'T CARE FOR THAT, THE INDOOR STAIRS. AND I CAN SEE IT HERE, THAT'S THE ONE PART WHEN I LOOK AT THE DESIGN THAT DOESN'T DO MUCH FOR ME. BUT AGAIN, SO MANY WONDERFUL ASPECTS THAT I THINK ARE JUST SO CLOSE. AND I WAS HOPING AND STILL AM THAT THROUGH THIS PROCESS WE'LL FIND A SOLUTION. |
| 04:21:31.96 | Joe Burns | Okay. I, too, was very impressed with the green elements, let's call it that, of this project. I agree with Councilmember Burns. I think the wind turbine was just completely misunderstood. But we're not talking about that tonight. Because it's not in the project. And at some point Sausalito's got to grapple with residential wind turbines. It's that simple. |
| 04:22:09.22 | Joe Burns | Wind solar, you can't make solar work in the dark. Wind is, so it's complimentary. It's not, as one neighbor said, a gratuitous add-on. But that's so, the green roof, I'm not sure about that. But because often it's there, and I understand why it's there. But nonetheless, there was a wonderful job done to try and water capture all of it. Um, I'm not going to be in 20 years time, the state mandated it all anyway. I've actually watched one of the hearings, I think it was the penultimate one, twice. because I and in particular I wanted to try and I was looking at the res the findings and I was listening to what the Commissioner said and In the end, I agreed with a lot of what the commissioners were saying, but I don't necessarily agree with some of the words of their findings. Um... the Basic discomfort is with the totality of the structures on that lot. And it's not to do with the fact that there's two structures, three dwelling units, the fact you want to do a condo conversion, though all of that has nothing to do with it. It's to do with, and I know you tried to emphasize earlier, it was about scale and mass and you attempted to persuade me, us, that the scale in mass was consistent with the overall neighborhood. It isn't. You just don't get the feeling that it is. Now, Commissioner Pearce tried to put his finger on it by saying, was it the top level of the 77 Crescent? And I think he's got a point. Your commission the commissioners kept saying this was close to approvable, but you guys didn't quite get there So I can't make finding number one I can't make finding number three I I can easily make find number six, which is the landscaping. In fact, I don't have a problem with that. And when it comes, therefore, to the... um, Yes, the Planning Commission did not then go through in every detail the heightened design review findings, but the summary of which basically says roughly the same thing. If you can't make findings one or three, you're not going to make the relevant heightened design review findings. So I can't make findings one, three or twelve, but I can make findings six. I can make all of the encroachment findings. I can make all of the other things. And so that's my view. |
| 04:25:34.23 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 04:25:34.25 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 04:25:34.27 | Joe Burns | I agree a lot with what the other council people have talked about. For me, looking and reading, really overwhelmed me. So when I get overwhelmed on decisions like this, I kind of fall back to the Planning Commission. That's why we have them. they... You put you. the applicant put in a lot of effort, a lot of work into this, and I appreciate that. But for me to make it I THINK WE HAVE A DECISION I find it very, very difficult. And when I do that, I really fall back to the Planning Commission's decision. |
| 04:26:26.12 | Joe Burns | Okay. |
| 04:26:26.56 | Joe Burns | Hey. |
| 04:26:26.88 | Joe Burns | . |
| 04:26:26.97 | Joe Burns | I'm not sure. |
| 04:26:31.73 | Joe Burns | So I think one thing I want to know from the applicants is that would you like for us to this or would you like for us to set another hearing? And this is just I'm just not sure what you want from the what what's |
| 04:26:53.26 | Joe Burns | Where do we go? |
| 04:26:53.88 | Joe Burns | Where you would like for us to go at this point, hearing what you've heard? Because I know there's several different options. I know it resets some procedures for you, depending upon what action we take now. Anyway, Mary, am I seeing this right? |
| 04:27:09.16 | Mary Wagner | So I think, Council Member Huffman, what you're asking the applicant is if they're, after hearing your deliberations, if they are, Um, considering making revisions to the project that could address some of these concerns. Or if not, if the preference is just to have the council act on the project that's before them. |
| 04:27:30.65 | Joe Burns | Yes, that's what I'm asking. |
| 04:27:32.09 | Joe Burns | Yeah, before anybody says anything, let me... Um, |
| 04:27:42.21 | Joe Burns | If... I mean, the applicant can... We could deny the project tonight, deny the we could deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Let me make sure I get my words right. Uh, And in a sense, We have to act on the project that's in front of us. does the applicant want us to therefore deny that and they can obviously take whatever route they want to take but one of them would be could be to go back to the planning commission and recent having heard what we've now said resubmit a project that tries to specifically deal with the scale and mass. And But if you're going to redesign, it's got to go back through the planning commission. Thank you. So is it better? We can't remand to the Planning Commission to clarify a specific point. The only way it can get in front of the Planning Commission again is with a revised Design. Is that, does that go in front of them by us not making a decision and referring it back? Or does it go back to them with us making a decision and then putting in a new application? Or do they want us to deny the project and take a different route? And so am I, have I basically, do you want us to make a decision? And. um, Because we're not going to clearly approve the project that's on the table. So you advise us what you want to do. And I think Council Member Hoffman has basically said, if you want to do that, I don't know if it's a matter of fees, whether you resubmit as a new, because it would be denied without prejudice. I mean, it was denied without prejudice, so they can go back and go in front of the Planning Commission with a new application, or they can go under this application, Help me, Mary. |
| 04:30:07.84 | Mary Wagner | Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So as you indicated, if you denied the project without prejudice tonight, the applicant would have the ability to resubmit a similar project or revised project. Technically, there's a year that you're not allowed to do that after this decision, but you could waive that application. So that's one option. |
| 04:30:26.32 | Robert Rourke | I don't want it good. |
| 04:30:26.98 | Mary Wagner | Another option, and I'm hearing that it's not |
| 04:30:27.00 | Robert Rourke | Thank you. |
| 04:30:30.61 | Mary Wagner | the preferred option of the city council. would be to continue the appeal tonight to a date certain or a date uncertain. If the applicant wanted to bring project revisions to the city council, for consideration, the council has the ability to act on the revised project or send the revised project down to the planning commission to advise the city council, would then come back up to you. This council has not been in favor of that in the past, but it is an option. |
| 04:30:59.84 | Joe Burns | Yeah, why I don't like that is that, you know, If there's going to be a new design, it's got to go in front of the planning commission. I think if there's a new design, he's got to go in front of the Planning Commission. Therefore, why can't bring it here? |
| 04:31:13.81 | Mary Wagner | it. I mean, the council can act on a revised design that's allowed under the de novo hearing, but this council hasn't, you know, Recently, the council hasn't wanted to do that, to consider major revisions to a project at this level. |
| 04:31:28.83 | Joe Burns | OK, well let's pause for a second before anything's done. And David, did you want to say anything? Do you want to take a short break and talk among yourselves? |
| 04:31:41.89 | David Holub | Mayor Withey, thank you for giving me a moment. I'm not sure. I would like to pause and have a little conference with my team. But I also want to address something directly with you that I think is really salient here that we just I find myself back in the same quandary in a certain respect, and I think I want to explain something about my property that seems to be sort of hard for everybody to get a handle on. Right? I have the only lot like this in the canyon. There's no other lot. that goes from Sausalito Boulevard down to Crescent. And you can, I mean, I want to go back to these photos. But there are some examples that might be that might be. |
| 04:32:24.21 | Kara Halverson | Thank you. |
| 04:32:25.54 | Joe Burns | DAVID B. I'm trying to get to more |
| 04:32:31.03 | David Holub | Thank you. |
| 04:32:31.10 | Joe Burns | you |
| 04:32:31.30 | David Holub | I understand. I know you want to get to the substantive issue, Ray. I do. But I just want to say this. |
| 04:32:31.42 | Joe Burns | I understand, I know you want to get to the substitute |
| 04:32:35.80 | David Holub | that if you actually look down, there are a couple of new properties. There's one that's approved right down on Crescent that's in construction right now with a much more narrow band, actually, a very narrow band between the house above and the house below. That has been approved. It's in construction. So, but they're separate parcels. And this parcel was, I can't split it. So I have to live inside the parcel I've got. I can't, you know, there are severe constraints inside this parcel. Okay? The Hill is not only... it's very forward, right, at that section, if you might have noticed that. And it actually seems, and I think part of the presentation of the story polls is deceiving, because the story polls are really just holding up a string that says, this is the most forward part of the house. The house actually is set back even further than the story polls indicate when you walk up in front of it. So I recognize that you want to reduce the square footage, but it's an extremely difficult lot to develop. And I'm getting to a point. The point is, at a certain point, it's condemnation. Yes. There's no not, like if I put a house here, you're gonna see the house. It has to be built into the hill. When you do, you know I do this engineering, right? When you look at this thing, 80% of the house is in the hill. And I tried to make this point to the Planning Commission and really nobody got it, which is even if you did a couple hundred square foot reduction in this, you'd still see the house exactly the way you do today. because the square footage resides inside the hill. So the presentation of the house on the hill is pretty minimalistic under any circumstance the way it's designed. Yes, you could lop off the top. but at a certain point you lose the financial feasibility of it. And I tried to make this point as well. And so you can't, at a certain point, it becomes condemnation. And then what are my choices? I have an 8,500 or 8,600 square foot lot. Nobody wants a bigger structure on Saucolito Boulevard. So I purposefully didn't build a bigger structure on Sausalito Boulevard. I came up with an idea to how to develop on Crescent in the most minimalistic and low impact way I could. So in some respects, I don't know what I can come back with In terms of design, of course I want to meet with my team and I want to be as reasonable about this as I possibly can. But the lot and the site itself presents some very substantial constraints. |
| 04:35:10.99 | Joe Burns | Understood, why don't you take two minutes to talk to your team? I don't want us to talk anymore about the merits of the matter. I want to just decide which route we're taking. we're either going to deny it up here, and if you want us to do that, we'll do it. Can I see it? |
| 04:35:26.78 | Unknown | Yes sir. Thank you. |
| 04:35:27.64 | Joe Burns | I'm sorry. or, um, But there's no point coming back, sending you back to the planning commission if you can't reduce the scale in mass of overall the structures that are on that property, on that parcel. |
| 04:35:42.36 | David Holub | Mayor Withy, to your point. I, have had a difficult time in front of the Planning Commission. I would rather come back before you. If you would give me the opportunity to modify the design and come back before the four of you, I would appreciate that far more. Thank you. |
| 04:35:58.64 | Joe Burns | I can't do that. I do not believe, I think we can legally do that. But I think if you're gonna get a new design, it's gotta go in front of the planning commission. And that's been our consistent position at this council. |
| 04:35:58.66 | David Holub | I can't do that. |
| 04:36:13.61 | Joe Burns | Am I correct? Has that pretty much been the consistent position of at least the last four or five years of this council? |
| 04:36:20.11 | Mary Wagner | It has, but you would make that determination when it came back to you. But I think you're giving a realistic perspective on what's occurred with recent appeals. Yes. |
| 04:36:28.26 | Joe Burns | Okay. Go figure out what you want to do, and be cognizant of the fact it's 10 minutes to midnight. |
| 04:36:42.94 | Steve Frazier | Are you missing a member? |
| 04:36:51.24 | Steve Frazier | Oh, I know I wrote the letter demanding it. I guess it's getting late. Would it be possible, Ms. Wagner, if I may ask your attorney the question for this to be |
| 04:37:03.41 | Joe Burns | Please. |
| 04:37:11.64 | Steve Frazier | for the Council to reconsider this if the any if any changes are made to meet the Council's concern with regard to 77 only. so that we limit the scale of work that has to be done and the degree of view, which you be willing to accept that provision. |
| 04:37:41.48 | Mary Wagner | Mr. Mayor, that would be up to the City Council. If that's what you're concerned about, you could say that that's, you know, that you're, well, that your one option for the Council is to say whatever you want about the design at 77 Crescent or the other property. But if you're mostly concerned, if your concern is limited to 77 Crescent, it's completely appropriate to state that. |
| 04:38:07.47 | Joe Burns | Let's talk about this then up here. I, for me personally, I... I don't have any problem with the structure on Sausage Boulevard. So, yeah, I think we could sever that out to the extent that, I WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE but then you're kind of stuck with the floor area ratio percentage that you get from that building and then it pushes all the changes down to 77 crescent I mean, technically, |
| 04:38:35.63 | Steve Frazier | That's true. |
| 04:38:36.52 | Joe Burns | You could do all kinds of things. revisions now to get the total mass down however you want to do it. If you want us to go ahead and approve, wait, am I not doing that? No? I'm not understanding. |
| 04:38:48.78 | Mary Wagner | I wouldn't segregate the projects. I think what my suggestion in reaction to Mr. Frazier's point was, |
| 04:38:51.53 | Joe Burns | Exactly. |
| 04:38:57.79 | Mary Wagner | that direction from the council on what type of changes you're looking for is completely appropriate. Severing the projects and approving Saucer Little Boulevard is inappropriate. |
| 04:39:01.18 | Steve Frazier | Thank you. |
| 04:39:01.19 | Joe Burns | completely. |
| 04:39:05.89 | Steve Frazier | I'm sorry. |
| 04:39:05.90 | Joe Burns | Okay. |
| 04:39:05.97 | Steve Frazier | Bye. |
| 04:39:05.99 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 04:39:06.09 | Steve Frazier | Yeah. |
| 04:39:06.28 | Joe Burns | That's not what you're asking. |
| 04:39:07.02 | Mary Wagner | No, I'm not asking for that. |
| 04:39:07.03 | Steve Frazier | No, I'm not asking for that. Gotcha. But basically it's this way. It's difficult. After having gone to a couple of sessions, I realized that there were some, I'm going to use the word ideologies at play at the commission level. I mean, one commissioner excoriated my client because he chose to maximize. So you're starting off with one, you're not gonna get it because it doesn't fit his ideology of what some should do. We feel that we could get, you may not approve it a second time, it could be. But at least we don't have the feeling that there's any ideologies at play here. There's simply the balance of objective analysis by the council, which I respect and we have to live with. |
| 04:39:08.33 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 04:39:08.35 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 04:39:08.55 | Joe Burns | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 04:39:08.60 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 04:39:54.37 | Steve Frazier | Um, |
| 04:39:55.06 | Joe Burns | Sorry, so can you restate what it was you were asking then? Because I misunderstood. I misunderstood. |
| 04:40:01.32 | Steve Frazier | What I was asking was that you set a date for us to return to you for a second hearing in which we address the issue of mass and bulk with a view to some changes of substance that would alleviate your concerns regarding the, I'm going to say the image, the perception of the entirety of the project focused on 77? |
| 04:40:36.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:40:37.25 | Steve Frazier | Thank you. |
| 04:40:38.11 | Joe Burns | Yeah, the problem I'm having with that is that In my mind... if you're going to change the design, which you have to, because if you don't, we're going to deny it tonight, Uh... I don't accept, let me, no, let me start a preamble. I don't accept your premise. that the Planning Commission is not acting in a fair, unbiased, and objective way. And we have established pretty much a precedent that I don't see why it should change, that if the design changes, we want to hear what the Planning Commission says about it. Now that's what we've done. Now, if my fellow council members want to say, well, Ray, okay, no, we're happy to see it back here, and just do that, I'll go along with them. But that's not what we've done. And I just want to make sure that Mary, am I right? Now, when it comes to saying, you know, we're fine with the upper, with the Sausalito Boulevard one, and yeah, reduce the scale and mass of 77 Crescent. we probably could get on board with that. |
| 04:42:05.76 | Steve Frazier | I was going to say, would you be willing, if your direction is such as that, it would at least prevent us from, you know, it would hold the reins in on the commission in a manner that's more easily addressable. And maybe we can overcome the ideologies that are at play. |
| 04:42:07.75 | Joe Burns | WE COULD PROBABLY GET A MOTION. |
| 04:42:08.71 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. |
| 04:42:30.41 | Joe Burns | Again, a premise I do not accept. |
| 04:42:32.86 | Steve Frazier | Which Mayor Withey in his wisdom and knowledge does not accept and with which I humbly disagree. |
| 04:42:39.58 | Joe Burns | I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. If I could comment on that too. I believe on the hours that I heard from the planning commission. The last planning commission, you have commissioner Cleveland Knowles voted for you and then you had, I believe, I'm sorry, Nichols. And I believe I heard commissioner Cleveland Knowles say that you were very close as did one of the other commissioners. leaning your way, from what I heard. |
| 04:43:08.08 | Joe Burns | I'm going to speak to this and I was kind of biting my tongue, but if we're going to go forward, I do want to get this out. And I think this might be what's being called ideologies, but there's basically three phases of communication that we're talking about. It's insulting when somebody says, eat. You don't hear, you're not hearing me. or you're not understanding me, when it's simply because we're not agreeing with you. Doesn't mean we don't understand and not hearing, it's the agreement part that is where we were. So I don't know if it's an ideology as much as, we're trying to come to an agreement. We're hearing and I believe we've put in the hours to understand. So I want to kind of change that verbiage when we come back the next time, if this is where we're gonna go, |
| 04:43:41.37 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:43:55.78 | Joe Burns | We're hearing and we're understanding. We want to agree. |
| 04:44:00.07 | Steve Frazier | with all regard, respect, there is a bias. when a commissioner states that he is offended by the fact that the applicant sought to maximize his size. That, I'm sorry, that is an ideology. It's almost an anti-capitalist ideology, which again is fine. Everybody's- |
| 04:44:19.78 | Unknown | . |
| 04:44:19.83 | Robert Rourke | Okay. |
| 04:44:20.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:44:24.03 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 04:44:24.05 | Robert Rourke | Steve. |
| 04:44:24.65 | Joe Burns | here to debate now. |
| 04:44:25.62 | Steve Frazier | All right. |
| 04:44:26.43 | Joe Burns | Okay, so please. I'm trying to come up with now what we're doing, you know. |
| 04:44:26.97 | Steve Frazier | Mr. Mayor. |
| 04:44:32.55 | Mary Wagner | An alternative for the Council to consider if, um, is to continue this hearing to a date uncertain Direct the applicant to make whatever revisions to the project, particularly 77 Crescent, that they feel meets the concerns of the city council. take that revised project to the Planning Commission for their input and specific input to the City Council, for example, on whether or not that revised project meets their concerns and the findings that they weren't able to make, that they make that recommendation to the City Council and then the project come back here. What that avoids is a hearing here, a remand, and a coming back to another hearing here. |
| 04:45:18.15 | Steve Frazier | Are there any substantive costs involved, Mr. Castro? |
| 04:45:25.25 | Joe Burns | with The emphasis being on a change in the scale and massing of 77 crescent. |
| 04:45:35.29 | Steve Frazier | Yes. Thank you. |
| 04:45:36.12 | Joe Burns | Okay. |
| 04:45:36.17 | Steve Frazier | Okay. Yes, if you can put that language into your determination or your reference back, that would make it certainly more objective okay |
| 04:45:50.92 | Joe Burns | Let me try and craft a motion. So unless somebody else wants to have a go. So I move that we what was the word, Mary? We're trying to... |
| 04:46:09.52 | Mary Wagner | You can continue this hearing to a date on certain date. |
| 04:46:11.03 | Joe Burns | Continue this hearing to a date uncertain. Meanwhile, we're asking the applicant to revise the scale and mass of 77 Crescent And we're asking the applicant to go in front of the planning commission so the planning commission can determine whether it would be able to make the findings for design review permit, which is really all we're talking about because presumably the encroachment and the other things are fine. And for the purpose of making a recommendation to the City Council, and then it would come back here after the Planning Commission has |
| 04:46:58.62 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:46:58.66 | Mary Wagner | to the next episode. |
| 04:46:58.79 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:46:59.21 | Joe Burns | done that, right? So that's the motion. |
| 04:47:03.48 | Mary Wagner | Yes. Second. |
| 04:47:06.59 | Steve Frazier | figure that out the constraint is that |
| 04:47:07.13 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 04:47:10.55 | Steve Frazier | Reference back to the Commission is it will put you it will put you in a better position In dealing with them That's my advice to you so |
| 04:47:21.71 | Joe Burns | So, excuse me, we're in the middle of our hearing. Second. You guys can talk later. Second, motion. |
| 04:47:31.31 | Joe Burns | Okay, let's call the roll. |
| 04:47:31.41 | Joe Burns | THE FAMILY. Yeah. |
| 04:47:33.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:47:39.07 | Unknown | Councilmember Burns? |
| 04:47:40.57 | Joe Burns | Yes. |
| 04:47:41.84 | Unknown | Councilmember Weiner. |
| 04:47:43.00 | Joe Burns | Yes. |
| 04:47:44.86 | Unknown | Councilmember Hoffman? Mayor Withey. |
| 04:47:48.54 | Joe Burns | Yes. Okay, this hearing's closed. Thank you. |
| 04:47:49.57 | Unknown | you |
| 04:47:51.49 | Steve Frazier | you Thank you very much. |
| 04:47:52.84 | Joe Burns | Um, |
| 04:47:53.28 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:47:53.31 | Steve Frazier | OK. |
| 04:47:53.97 | Unknown | than I was. |
| 04:47:54.17 | Joe Burns | Thank you for staying for this late hour. |
| 04:47:54.21 | Steve Frazier | Thank you. |
| 04:47:54.24 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:47:57.15 | Steve Frazier | And we got more than 30 minutes. Hey. |
| 04:48:00.17 | Jeff Jacobs | you Hey. |
| 04:48:00.92 | Steve Frazier | I have. |
| 04:48:01.16 | Joe Burns | . |
| 04:48:01.19 | Jeff Jacobs | Yeah. |
| 04:48:01.42 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 04:48:01.70 | Steve Frazier | Thank you. |
| 04:48:01.75 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 04:48:01.87 | Joe Burns | All right, should we bring Joan back in? |
| 04:48:04.87 | Joe Burns | How do we date that decision? No, I've got it there. We've done that. Date of the 25th. |
| 04:48:15.40 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 04:48:15.52 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 04:48:15.56 | Joe Burns | you |
| 04:48:15.72 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 04:48:18.86 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:48:24.25 | Robert Rourke | Thank you. you |
| 04:48:28.96 | Tina Menich | Okay. |
| 04:48:41.29 | Bill Ziegler | Okay. |
| 04:48:42.30 | Joe Burns | Um. |
| 04:48:49.32 | Joe Burns | Sorry, let me get my things. Okay, on to Section 7. The first thing we're going to talk about is the General Plan Task Force, which, per the modified agenda, and... Mary, could you Just give a very brief staff report. |
| 04:49:17.50 | Mary Wagner | Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor, as we announced a few hours ago. The general plan task force met yesterday to discuss the two proposals that were received. from consultants to conduct the general plan update. The task force discussed and realized that the best course of action would be to request that the council disband the task force. To allow the interviews of the consultants to go forward with an interview panel appointed by the city council. The suggested members of that interview panel would be Mayor Withy, Council Member Hoffman, and Commissioner Bill Werner, along with staff representatives, which would include your community development director, Danny Castro, and the city clerk assistant, city manager, Lily Whalen. and the city manager Adam Poulter. |
| 04:50:14.31 | Joe Burns | Is there any questions, comments, before I ask if there's any comments from the public? Any comments from the public? Okay. Let me just... Let me just, so then let's bring it back here. So let's remember what this is all about. We're trying to interview consultants, We've run into a technical issue because of this. The task force was constituted under the Brown Act. We've run into, therefore, a technical issue because we're going to not serve the residents well by interviewing these consultants in public. And so I think it was the recommendation of the task force, including Councilmember Hoffman, myself, and Planning Commissioner Bill Werner that we take this route. So I would thoroughly recommend it. So I'm going to make a motion to that effect. Do I have a second? Second. Anybody want to comment before we vote? Okay, seeing none, all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Seeing none, that passes. Okay, the next one, let's, before we move on, deal with this letters, because I can deal with that. I said at the end, but I meant in section seven, so that's. |
| 04:51:25.65 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 04:51:41.31 | Joe Burns | Yeah. So thank you, Vice Mayor, for this. I just want to clarify, I was very reluctant to just hear. I heard some words that I wasn't sure of their context. I wanted to see this in writing, and especially as I'm signing the letters, I'd like to know what I'm signing. And so the issue before us is the, it was item D, 4D on our consent calendar. These are, um, um, Letters authorizing supporting AB1, which is Fraser's bill, and SB1, which is Beale's bill. By the way, Senator McGuire is co-authoring SB1 as well. It's basically the beginnings of an attempt to try and push through transportation funding again this year for this legislative year up in Sacramento. It failed last year to try and get transportation funding. If I may, I'd just like to comment. The whole purpose of this is not only repair and maintenance, but it's also, you know, For instance, if MTC and TAM would love to get their hands on some of this money to put a new interchange between, for example, not that this necessarily may get funded, but for instance from 101 to 580, which would significantly reduce the congestion, on 101, which is part of the major marine transportation issue. So I'm struggling with why you want to eliminate the construction of new roads. That doesn't make sense to me. This is a major transportation funding bill. And then you mentioned pensions, but you know Caltrans employees, employees are going to be working on this, and so indirectly you're going to be paying their salaries through this funding. So... So do you see why I was a little bothered? I'm trying to understand where you were getting at here. If it's that it's solely for transportation funding, then okay, I can put that caveat in, but I'm struggling with what you were trying to achieve. |
| 04:54:15.77 | Joan Cox | In my experience working with various municipalities, one of the most often neglected aspects of the budget is deferred maintenance and repair. And both the letter that we got from the League of California Cities as well as the staff report emphasized that the purpose of this bill is to address maintenance, pothole repairs, storm drain repairs to protect the bay. So it really is, you know, I drive down a road and I just hit pothole after pothole. So for me... personally the bill is being represented as to address issues in deferred maintenance and street repairs. And I believe its use should be confined to that. So I don't think it should be used to pay Pensions, that should be another pot of money, in my humble opinion. |
| 04:55:24.49 | Unknown | Thank you. I don't know. I'm sorry. |
| 04:55:29.73 | Joe Burns | I think so. |
| 04:55:29.75 | Unknown | So. |
| 04:55:33.02 | Joe Burns | workers with pensions, will be working on these projects. So that's what I'm trying to get at. |
| 04:55:38.02 | Joan Cox | So that's what I'm trying to get at. But as you know from your work on our budget, the pot of money that you use to pay salaries is different from the pot of money you use to pay deferred maintenance or street repairs. And so this bill is being presented as a bill to protect the bay, street and sidewalk maintenance, removal of barriers for persons with disabilities, pothole repairs, all of which are currently underfunded and which have an overwhelming backlog of repair and deferred maintenance. And if you don't want to make my change, that's fine. I will simply... you know, it'll just be a 4-1 |
| 04:56:19.90 | Unknown | just be a little bit. |
| 04:56:21.78 | Joan Cox | vote but for me this bill is being represented as having a certain purpose and i'd like to ensure that the money doesn't end up serving some different purpose from what as as frequently happens |
| 04:56:34.65 | Joe Burns | you |
| 04:56:34.92 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 04:56:34.97 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 04:56:35.54 | Joan Cox | If I can |
| 04:56:36.03 | Joe Burns | in on |
| 04:56:36.46 | Joan Cox | Yeah, please. |
| 04:56:36.47 | Joe Burns | Yeah, please. You seconded the motion. |
| 04:56:36.96 | Joe Burns | I think that's a good question. You seconded the motion. I agree with Commissioner Cox. You always have the state coming back and saying we have these deferred things, we need to raise some more money. And then they were raising fees. In some cases not insignificantly. Um, on the taxpayers, that money should be go for what we're representing to the people, if we're going to support this thing, that it's going to go for that, and not for some other sort of, you know, purpose. So I completely agree with that. and that we're approving or we're recommending this with that provides a contingent that there's some sort of you know that the money that's being collected by these increased fees that is a burden on the taxpayers that it's going to go for that purpose. |
| 04:57:31.10 | Joan Cox | And by the way, that language is in the bill. So there's already, the proposal includes a series of reforms to improve efficiency, transparency, and accountability, creating the Office of the Transportation Inspection General with Audit and Investigation Authority over the state's transportation spending. So that's already an aspect of the bill. I'm simply asking that our endorsement be subject to the adequate safeguards to ensure that the monies are spent in the way they say they're intended. |
| 04:58:01.56 | Joe Burns | And look, it's just, it's, they're not going to pull out Sausalito's letter and say, oh, you know, but it does have a representation of us from Sausalito as keeping that in mind when we're recommending things to our state and at a certain level of confidence, I think, for the people of Sausalito. that we're not just going to rubber stamp something that somebody else gives us. |
| 04:58:22.23 | Joan Cox | We can do the same thing forever. |
| 04:58:23.26 | Joe Burns | All right. |
| 04:58:23.28 | Joan Cox | But I think so. Own bills. |
| 04:58:24.54 | Joe Burns | Yeah. |
| 04:58:24.93 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 04:58:25.05 | Joe Burns | Are you, Joe, are you okay with the vice mayor's changes? I'm, you know. |
| 04:58:25.42 | Joan Cox | to, to, |
| 04:58:25.49 | Joe Burns | Yes, we try to. |
| 04:58:26.35 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 04:58:31.04 | Joe Burns | Okay, either way. |
| 04:58:32.00 | Joe Burns | I'm okay. |
| 04:58:32.98 | Joe Burns | Yeah. |
| 04:58:33.10 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 04:58:33.11 | Joe Burns | Are you okay the way Erby? My comment is that if you've been watching the news the last week or two, and after the tremendous amount of storms that we have gotten and the amount of potholes that are, they're not even gonna have enough money to even fix the potholes in this state. |
| 04:58:33.35 | Joe Burns | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:58:33.97 | Joe Burns | Yeah. |
| 04:58:52.54 | Joe Burns | never mind other things. |
| 04:58:53.97 | Joe Burns | Just to put it into perspective, these bills are band-aids. Does staff want to say anything? Public comment on this? Vicki, you actually talked about this item, so do you want to say anything? You all right? Okay. All right, if everybody's okay with this, I'm fine with this. Let's say, let's approve this. Everybody okay? Yep. Yeah, I'm okay. Very good. |
| 04:58:54.28 | Joe Burns | I mean, |
| 04:59:17.43 | Joan Cox | I'm okay. Should we move approval of consent item 4D? |
| 04:59:19.81 | Joe Burns | of consent item 4D. |
| 04:59:22.62 | Joan Cox | Okay. |
| 04:59:23.79 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:59:24.21 | Joe Burns | Yeah, move approval consent item 40 with the letters amended as per our discussion. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All right. |
| 04:59:33.97 | Unknown | Aye. Aye. |
| 04:59:34.94 | David Suda | I don't know. |
| 04:59:35.30 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 04:59:35.63 | David Suda | you |
| 04:59:35.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:59:40.68 | Joe Burns | You didn't have a comment on this, Adam? No? Okay. City manager information for council. So I think we've done all the things we needed to do yeah okay all right city manager information for council Yeah, I guess we've done that. We're still going to be good. Yeah, we still got to get there. Yeah. |
| 05:00:04.98 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. Mr. Mayor and Council members, I'll defer. My report to our meeting on February 14th. Happy to answer any specific questions of the council tonight, or you can contact me with follow-up later this morning. |
| 05:00:22.16 | Joe Burns | THE FAMILY. I have one question, which is, And I don't want any, I'm not suggesting any debate on it or discussion of it. Many of us have received quite a number of emails about the laundromat and the sewer rates. Could you just update us on what staff is doing here, please? Yes. |
| 05:00:49.55 | Adam Politzer | I believe you received an email from Jonathan Goldman. The letter that you all received had accurate information in it that other jurisdictions did look at reducing or waiving those increased fees. So we will work with the property owner to see what we're able to accommodate and then bring that recommendation back to City Council for their consideration. |
| 05:01:19.91 | Joe Burns | Okay, any public comment on city manager's report? Seeing none, any other questions? Okay, moving on. 7B, council member committee reports. I just want to make the. point here that we are in our amended protocols going to ask every council member to report out very briefly on any of the committees that they've been at, both internal and external, it's sort of the highlights, two or three bullet points of issues. I've got nothing to report. I'm trying to think if I've been anywhere in the last month. No, not really. Oh yeah, well. We've sort of, yeah, the only really thing that we've been working on would be the general plan task force, but I think we sort of covered that. The... candidates we had we sent out RFP we had to four potential consultants we had two who submitted very strong proposals and the other two declined to submit proposals the working group now the interview group will be interviewing those two consultants on february 1st there will then be a report back to this to the City Council by staff on February 14th. Included in that report will also be the first discussion of how a general plan steering committee should be constituted. possible subcommittees, although that will evolve obviously as the consultants brought on board. And we will be awarding the contract, assuming that we decide to pick a consultant, we will be awarding a contract with them on February 28th. That's about right. Yeah. |
| 05:03:46.03 | Joe Burns | you |
| 05:03:46.33 | Joe Burns | I'm |
| 05:03:47.04 | Joe Burns | Yes. Did anybody go to the A-bag thing? No, I guess we should probably discuss that. We... And Joan can speak to it as the main delegate, and the alternate delegate. |
| 05:03:57.79 | Joan Cox | Well, we received notice on Monday of a Monday evening meeting. Yeah. And we had- Thank you. We had filled out a doodle poll, and that was not one of the more popular dates, but that's the date they chose. I was in Bakersfield, and Council Member Burns was otherwise occupied, and so we were not able to attend that meeting. But I do believe it's critical. I THINK THAT'S A CRITICALLY IMPORTANT that the city be represented at ABAG meetings because we've seen what can happen when we're not. So we will, the city clerk has forwarded Joe's and my contact information to the board. uh, the person responsible for setting the meetings and hopefully that scheduling challenge will not occur in the future. |
| 05:04:45.39 | Joe Burns | Just for the record, I had previously informed Pat, the You guys were the delegates now, and I don't know how it got lost in the shuffle. Okay, moving on. Any public comment on committee reports saying yes. |
| 05:05:07.97 | Vicki Nichols | Yeah. the only way we can |
| 05:05:12.07 | Joe Burns | Okay. Okay. Appointments to boards, commission, and committees. |
| 05:05:17.78 | Joe Burns | Can I mention one thing? |
| 05:05:18.62 | Joe Burns | Yeah, please. |
| 05:05:19.16 | Joe Burns | to see you next time. Just to note that the short-term rental task force is meeting tomorrow at 3 o'clock. Thank you. |
| 05:05:25.64 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 05:05:25.76 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 05:05:25.98 | Joe Burns | . |
| 05:05:26.15 | Joe Burns | to see. |
| 05:05:26.21 | Joe Burns | us. And for completeness sake, we had to cancel the previous finance committee meeting and so part of some of the things that We were having to sort of ask some extra stuff was that finance committee had not gone through the. stuff ahead of time, but that's okay. It all worked out. Appointments to 7C, appointments to boards, commissioning committees. I have a motion. |
| 05:06:00.67 | Joan Cox | I have a motion. |
| 05:06:01.47 | Joe Burns | There are two parts of this. One, we, I think, want to make an appointment to the HLB tonight, and then I would like to go through very, very quickly, and I can follow up with people individually, some further appointees for mayor's appointments to boards, commissions, by members of this council. So, Joan, do you want to make a motion? |
| 05:06:30.08 | Joan Cox | Yes, I move that we appoint David J. Newman to the Historic Landmarks Board. We interviewed him at 6 o'clock earlier this evening. |
| 05:06:39.87 | Joe Burns | Second. Is there any public comment on this? |
| 05:06:49.61 | Vicki Nichols | As a previous historical landmark board member, I'm acutely aware of the qualifications needed on this committee, particularly now that I'm on the Planning Commission. not only for helping the planning commissioner understand that there's been a complete and thorough review but also to make sure that our accreditation with the state is not in jeopardy. um, In the past, there's been something in the minutes about who's being interviewed in the packets, so you can look and see the person's qualifications. um, |
| 05:07:27.71 | Joan Cox | This was online. |
| 05:07:27.73 | Vicki Nichols | This was on. Thank you. |
| 05:07:29.50 | Joan Cox | This was posted online. The person's application? And a link to his CV. |
| 05:07:29.59 | Vicki Nichols | this was. |
| 05:07:35.80 | Joan Cox | Okay. |
| 05:07:36.83 | Unknown | Yeah, I think that- Just a clarification, the application, his application was not posted online or made up, available. |
| 05:07:43.09 | Joan Cox | I just found it online through Granicus. I just opened it up through the link online. I thought. |
| 05:07:49.97 | Unknown | I'M WRONG. Maybe I'm wrong. It wasn't the intention. |
| 05:07:55.59 | Vicki Nichols | Okay, well they've been available in the past, so you know who you're dealing with or who's being appointed It's critical. |
| 05:08:04.37 | Joan Cox | and I will if I may respond. |
| 05:08:07.08 | Joe Burns | Please. |
| 05:08:10.74 | Joan Cox | Commissioner Nichols, we carefully considered that very aspect of the importance of maintaining the accreditation of the HLB. And this candidate, and I would ask that the city clerk forward to you the CV of this applicant. I think when you review it, you'll agree with us. He is eminently qualified to to to serve he uh... I'm not. He has extraordinary experience he served seven years on the Charlottesville Planning Commission he's very familiar with the general plan process he knows CEQA he knows how it relates to historic resources he did he prepared the community plan for Stanford at UVA he was put in charge of dealing with FEMA and learned about SHPO quickly he's had a passion for history since he was a child and his Various designations are numerous. So our interview definitely focused on those aspects because it's important to us that the historic aspects of this position be focused upon. |
| 05:09:29.96 | Joe Burns | I would just add, and this is no... comment on any of our current HRB members. This is one of the most qualified candidates of this position that I've actually come across. OK, so do we have a motion? |
| 05:09:44.27 | Joan Cox | Moved. |
| 05:09:45.14 | Joe Burns | SECOND. |
| 05:09:45.73 | Joan Cox | 10 seconds. |
| 05:09:45.77 | Joe Burns | All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? No. Okay. The next thing is appointments to boards, commissions and committees and that's appointing |
| 05:09:47.15 | Joan Cox | Hi. |
| 05:09:59.69 | Joe Burns | of the mayor appointing us to committees versus residents to committees. I'm going to quickly go down the list I've got and Um, there may be one or two that I haven't talked to some of you about. |
| 05:10:18.30 | Unknown | Oh, surprise. |
| 05:10:18.34 | Joe Burns | Oh! Thank you. Thank you. I just realized, but if you wanted, you know, we can talk afterwards if you suddenly take a big gulp. We previously, we don't, okay. And I've started with what I've not talked about. I would like to appoint Council Member Burns to the Board of Library Trustees Liaison. |
| 05:10:46.55 | Joe Burns | That's the building with the books, right? That's the building with the books, right. |
| 05:10:47.68 | Joe Burns | the building with the books, right. I would like to appoint to the Vice Mayor Cox to our Legislative Code Review Committee. which means we're going to have two attorneys on our legislative board. |
| 05:11:09.32 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 05:11:09.82 | Joe Burns | I know, okay. Our city manager is somewhat abused because I said, I don't think we should have two attorneys, but that's okay. I think this is good. For the law, the law won. |
| 05:11:22.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:11:25.60 | Joe Burns | And you don't need to scribble these down. I can give you a piece of paper with this on, okay? OMIT committee Council Member Weiner and Burns. The Sustainability Commission, Vice Mayor Cox, Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee, Council Members Weiner and Burns. ABAC delegates we've already done, but just to remind you, Vice Mayor Cox and the alternate being Council Member Burns. |
| 05:12:06.12 | Joe Burns | AND IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF |
| 05:12:06.19 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 05:12:06.30 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 05:12:06.34 | Joe Burns | THE FAMILY. |
| 05:12:06.51 | Joe Burns | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 05:12:06.59 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 05:12:06.62 | Joe Burns | THE FAMILY. |
| 05:12:06.78 | Joe Burns | No, don't worry. You see, the thing is, we've got, you know, some of these are vacant, some of these have already been populated. Marin County Homelessness Subcommittee, Vice Mayor Cox. Marin Telecommunications Agency is Council Member Burns. She may not realize it, but Council Member Hoffman's the alternate on that. already. you Thank you. You're already the alternate on that. MCC-MC Legislative Committee, I'm appointing the mayor and the alternate being Vice Mayor Cox. RBRA, the representative being Council Member Hoffman and the alternate being Council Member Weiner. School District Liaison is currently Councilmember Hoffman, which will remain, and we're adding an alternate to that, which will be Councilmember Burns. |
| 05:12:35.19 | Unknown | WE'RE ALREADY. |
| 05:13:07.51 | Joe Burns | Transportation Authority of Marin, I'm going to take that, and that's it for now. We still have a few other vacant ones that we've got to deal with. Oh, the final one is the sewer ad hoc committee, and that's more an ad hoc committee that we're going to reconstitute with the mayor and vice mayor. So... Otherwise, all the other ones remain the same, and city staff will... remind you what you're on. Okay. And I've tried to even it up, and there's a couple of vacancies, some liaisons that still need to be done, and I hadn't talked to anybody, and so I wanted to figure out were there any gaps, has somebody got more than others, and then... try and pick those and if some people don't like what they've done then we'll um We can negotiate. Okay? So, and I'll give you the piece of paper to deal with that. Future agenda items. I want to make another comment here. I know the late hour, but we're... So, we've got in our protocols how to get stuff on the agenda. We got into a habit of listing things here, and unfortunately, that implied that The only reason you said things up here is because the mayor didn't listen to you, if you read our protocols, but that's not what happened. We sort of, this became the vehicle versus the way it's in our protocols. Let's go back to the way it's in our protocols. What the vice mayor and I have talked about is that Obviously, there's been a part of the process that I think hasn't worked very well with future agenda items. And that is, rather than just listing future agenda items, we want to make sure that there's feedback from the agenda setting committee to the rest of the council members as to when something could be put on the agenda, or if the agenda setting committee thinks that it's too far out that we can't schedule something, we'll give you that feedback. So I've already got on my list, Council Member Hoffman, you brought up three things last time. The agenda setting committee met very briefly only last week to talk about tonight's agenda. We will be discussing those three items in the next agenda setting committee and then give feedback on roughly when we can get those in. One was the V8 and the machine shop. One was the report back from the COP committee and there was a third one that's just |
| 05:16:06.11 | Unknown | It's just... Good night. |
| 05:16:08.19 | Joe Burns | Hmm? |
| 05:16:08.21 | Unknown | Southgate |
| 05:16:08.97 | David Holub | I know. |
| 05:16:09.37 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 05:16:09.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:16:09.88 | Robert Rourke | Like something. |
| 05:16:09.98 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 05:16:10.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:16:10.50 | David Holub | Thank you. |
| 05:16:10.53 | Joe Burns | South Gateway, which we... |
| 05:16:10.69 | David Holub | Thank you. |
| 05:16:12.02 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 05:16:13.03 | Joe Burns | Go on. |
| 05:16:14.13 | Joe Burns | We need by comparing the comparing. Our social class about our... Scheduled. |
| 05:16:17.32 | Joan Cox | Scheduled for February right now, tentatively February 14th. |
| 05:16:21.18 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 05:16:21.20 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 05:16:21.22 | Joe Burns | Yeah, but I think that. |
| 05:16:21.30 | Joan Cox | But I think that. PBAC. |
| 05:16:23.81 | Joe Burns | I think what happens is they couldn't have a meeting this month because it fell on a federal holiday. But I think actually February also falls on a federal holiday. So I don't know if they will have a meeting in February. |
| 05:16:24.29 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 05:16:24.47 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 05:16:26.03 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 05:16:37.21 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:16:37.23 | Joe Burns | Yeah. All right. Our future agenda list is published, is in its attachment. to that item, and I think you will find that it's gonna be an evolving list, and we're gonna try and get it out, stretch it out further and further. And then, I think this part of the meeting can be one as much of discussion about something should be moved and prioritized, and if you feel strongly about that, you could so advise the agenda setting committee. Anything to add there, Vice Mayor? |
| 05:17:15.89 | Joan Cox | Amen. No. |
| 05:17:18.98 | Joe Burns | Yeah, bye now. |
| 05:17:19.42 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 05:17:21.16 | Joe Burns | So any public comment on future agenda items? |
| 05:17:24.70 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 05:17:25.04 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. Vicki Nichols, I'll be quick, because I know it's late. I would like to ask the council to consider what you might be able to come up with in regard to public art. We used to have, as a function of our art commission, a vetting process. we're gonna have a project that comes up pretty quickly about a public statue that's gonna be put on public land downtown considered. And I happen to know that that public art was created by the art festival, before anybody knew about it. I'm also hearing tonight that you've got another installation from some other committees that we have that I don't think that it's been vetted at all by the community. So there's no way any longer to talk about public art and where it's put and any vetting or any criteria I think we've got a couple precedents here that needs a process. We went through lengthy discussions about the mermaid that was going to be donated or was attempted to be donated to the city as public art. So there needs to be some kind of process and I think if you check into the HLB's original charter. Even the HLB has a little bit of Mary, I think you can help me. There's a phrase in there where the HLB can weigh in on accepting gifts. So it doesn't really fit this case, but I'm hearing that the Sister City Installation I don't even know if that's the historic district right there in front of the B of A. I'm not objecting to any of these things, but I think If we don't have a clear process, we could all be asking for our own images to be put up, and I don't think that is going to serve our... aesthetics downtown, at least not in Wyoming. |
| 05:19:32.73 | Joe Burns | Thanks Vicki, I certainly don't want my image anywhere but that's for sure. Let me add one more thing, I just quickly looked at the things. I don't think we have scheduled the bike and pet committee and so that does need to be scheduled. Very soon. And the other thing I wanted to point out, and I should have mentioned it under committee reports, but it's also under future agenda items, and that is... |
| 05:19:52.86 | Bill Ziegler | Yeah. |
| 05:20:07.71 | Robert Rourke | Sorry for just being in over. That's right. |
| 05:20:14.85 | Unknown | Okay. See you later. |
| 05:20:16.76 | Joe Burns | Okay, sorry. Is we, I have asked staff to, and part of the reason why there's still a few appointments to make to boards and commissions, I've asked staff to come back with some recommendations as to whether some of our existing boards, commissions, committees, task forces, etc. should be consolidated should some of the functions be brought together. And I think the sooner we can do that, the better. And then so that the public can weigh in on it. So that's something else for agenda setting to work through. Okay. With that, other reports of significance, I think, or none, and I'm going to move that we adjourn. Second. Okay, we're adjourned. And sorry, everyone. |