| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:38.89 | Monica Finnegan | So I'll talk to Mary. I fall in love. |
| 00:00:49.61 | Mary Wagner | I fall. |
| 00:00:53.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:01:10.75 | Monica Finnegan | Thank you. |
| 00:01:51.83 | Joe Burns | Welcome, welcome. |
| 00:01:55.94 | Joe Burns | Good. Welcome everybody to our August 27th meeting. Feels like a new year for us, we've been gone for over a month and We haven't been gone out of Sausalito and we haven't been gone from our duties as city council members, but we haven't been in this chamber or on your TV sets at home. So we're hoping that you got some good Netflix and Hulu time in while we were not on the air, but we're back. And we have an exciting meeting tonight. Thank you all for being here. We are going to start off with a quick roll call. |
| 00:02:26.25 | Unknown | Councilmember Cox. |
| 00:02:27.43 | Emily Cox | here. |
| 00:02:27.97 | Unknown | Councilmember Huffman. |
| 00:02:29.51 | Emily Cox | Here. |
| 00:02:30.08 | Unknown | Councilmember Withey? Here. Vice Mayor Cleveland knows? |
| 00:02:33.47 | Emily Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:02:33.49 | Unknown | Mayor Burns. Here. |
| 00:02:33.83 | Emily Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:02:33.85 | Joe Burns | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:02:35.92 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:02:35.94 | Joe Burns | We're going to do the Pledge of Allegiance. I'm going to ask Lorna Newlin if you'll lead us. I saw you. |
| 00:02:46.35 | Lorna Newlin | I pledge allegiance to the flag |
| 00:02:48.04 | Len Rifkind | All right. |
| 00:02:48.26 | Lorna Newlin | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:02:48.76 | Len Rifkind | and the United States of America. |
| 00:02:50.47 | Lorna Newlin | Thank you. |
| 00:02:51.16 | Len Rifkind | to the Republic for which it stands. one nation. |
| 00:02:55.38 | Unknown | God. |
| 00:02:57.98 | Lorna Newlin | and justice for all. |
| 00:03:01.18 | Joe Burns | Thank you. We did have a closed session meeting tonight, and we have one closed session announcement. So if you will, the city council voted unanimously to approve a settlement agreement with Zena Gillig, pursuant to which the city, through its insurance pool, will pay approximately $86,000 for the repair of the San Carlos slide. Ms. Gill will hire the contractor, do the repair work, and will pay 25% of the cost. We anticipate that the repair work will be completed this year. So great news. Thank you for all involved on that. That's going to be a wonderful cleanup of our, beautification of our city, so thank you. |
| 00:03:44.44 | Lorna Newlin | Yes, finally. |
| 00:03:47.05 | Joe Burns | Now looking for an approval of our agenda, I have just one really tiny change on special presentations. I'm going to flip a couple letters, C and D. Otherwise, any other suggestions or approval? |
| 00:03:56.72 | Unknown | Move approval as amended. |
| 00:03:58.81 | Joe Burns | All in favor? Aye. That passes 5-0. |
| 00:03:59.64 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:04:02.32 | Joe Burns | Okay, this is the time for special presentations, and we have some, a few, and they are great. I am actually going to start off with when we were here last in July, we had a, at this point, I asked the city manager to announce on the condition of former mayor and council member Herb Weiner. Unfortunately, during that time and since then in our break, Herbie did pass away as pretty much everybody knows. So I wanted to remind the community that we will be having a celebration of Herbie's life on September 22nd at 3pm at Gabrielson Park. And we hope I'll be there and there will be some wonderful and fantastic things said about Herbie. So thank you for that. Now, I'm going to go to 1A, which is a proclamation remembering a wonderful person who gave so much to our community in Norman Walschlager. This is a proclamation of the City Council of the City of Sausalito remembering Norman Wolfschlager. His wife Gloria is right here with us tonight. Whereas on May 25, 1932, in St. Louis, Missouri, Norman Clifford Wulschlager was born. And whereas Norman grew up in Chester, Illinois, a small town comparable in size to that of Sausalito, and where this small town taught Norman the values of hard work and gave him the opportunity to develop a love for building and engineering. However, he ultimately turned in his favorite childhood tool, a fishing pole, and moved to California to pursue an education in building and engineering and obtain the work experience necessary to obtain a job and raise a family. And whereas, it was right here in the Bay Area that Norman met and married Gloria and ultimately in the April of 1962 he was hired by the city of Sausalito as supervisor of public works and then upon completing his engineering degree in 1966 was promoted to the position of director of public works city engineer. And whereas, Norman excelled in this position and was duly recognized with outstanding performance evaluations, along with being awarded several prestigious hard-earned merit awards throughout his tenure and has been the only employee to ever receive a gold watch. And whereas, in 1989, after serving the community with such notable dedication, Norman retired with 27 years of service to the city of Sausalito. And humbly noted in his letter of resignation, a special word of thanks and appreciation goes to the Sausalito Public Works Department, whose personnel helped me get the job done. With limited funds and resources, we maintained and improved this town's infrastructure, enabling all citizens to enjoy life here in Sausalito. And whereas Norman continued to live in Sausalito and assisted in several important public work projects following his retirement, and again was recognized by the community for his dedication when he and Gloria served as the Grand Marshals in the 2018 4th of July parade. Now, therefore, the City Council of the City of Sausalito recognizes that the community has lost a precious and thoughtful soul. But the contributions that Norman so generously gave during his tenure with the city, in continuing after his retirement, will not be forgotten, and ask the citizens of Sausalito to join in sending their thoughts and prayers to his family. Eyewitness thereof, I, Joe Burns, Mayor of Sausalito, have heard that I set my hand and caused the seal of the city of Sausalito to be affixed this 27th day of August, 2019. Gloria, would you accept this? Thank you. |
| 00:08:09.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:08:09.47 | Lorna Newlin | picture. |
| 00:08:29.91 | Joe Burns | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. conference later. Yes. |
| 00:08:32.78 | Lorna Newlin | Thank you. |
| 00:08:32.96 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 00:09:01.97 | Neil Sorensen | Yeah. WEEK. |
| 00:09:05.77 | Lorna Newlin | Thank you. |
| 00:09:06.61 | Joe Burns | All right. Hey, Steven, you think you can follow that act? I'm not sure. 1B on our special presentations is a update on the Fort Baker RFQ responses and public session held on June 17, 2019. Steven Kozurski from the Fort Baker Real Estate Project Manager of GTNRA is here. And you have Charles as well? |
| 00:09:28.14 | Unknown | I'm solo tonight. Okay, great. And I'll humbly follow the event earlier today. Welcome. Mayor Burns, Council Members, ladies and gentlemen, just a very brief update on a few Fort Baker matters. Our request for qualifications for a long-term operation of the boat shop and marina at Fort Baker closed on June 12th with five responses. We're very grateful to receive all those responses. We're in the middle of the summer and fall evaluation period, and we hope to announce some results of a short list selected from those responses later this fall. We're all very grateful for the help of the city in the RFQ in two important matters. One is through the grateful – we're grateful for the assistance of city staff to make available the Edgewater room for the public tabling session that gave opportunity for local residents to meet the respondents. It was very well attended. Mayor Burns, I remember seeing you there. We were at capacity. It really reinforced the notion of Fort Baker being a community center as well to all the respondents. And we're also grateful for city staff for working with the city's website to help host the public versions of those summary responses on the city's web pages. It relieved us of a great burden on the park service side. So we're very grateful to Serge and Adam and Abbott for that assistance during that period. Just the RFP, which will be a request for proposals from an invited shortlist out of those five respondents, we expect will be late this fall into the wintertime. We also expect to work with you in the same way we did with your predecessors back in 2001 to host public presentations from the RFP respondents. So that would be more formal than the drop-in session, public tabling session. So we'll work that out as the months go on. There are just a few other Fort Baker matters I thought I could bring you up to date on while we're here. |
| 00:09:29.29 | Joe Burns | Okay, great. earlier today. Welcome. |
| 00:11:37.75 | Unknown | Beginning on September 16th, there's going to be a massive what the Parks Service called pavement presentation project at Fort Baker in the Headlands where all our asphalt roads get sealed and then striped. That will go on for two months, but at Fort Baker it will be most intense the week of September 16th, which also happens to be the last week that the Discovery Museum is closed to the public as part of their annual two-week break. So you'll see that across the headlands and Fort Baker for the next couple of months where things get worked on. On public safety. |
| 00:12:11.66 | Joe Burns | Excuse me just a second, sorry, I hate to interrupt you. Is his mic off? |
| 00:12:12.58 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:12:16.22 | Unknown | Oh, I'm sorry. A little bit, I'm sorry. My apologies for that. I'll submit things in writing for you that don't come out clearly. Just a few public safety related matters or public interest. Earlier today is in conjunction with the city of San Francisco's Wednesday noontime public safety announcement test that are done by speakers. We did our own staff testing of some communication systems and messaging systems. We know that's important in the county. This Thursday, our chief ranger, David Schiefsky, is meeting with many representatives of our park partners on public safety planning. That includes a lot of coordination on this side of the bridge with your staff and public safety providers over here. The PG&E repair project, just a brief update on my latest understanding of that. They're in the final stages. Here in the park, we've provided a helicopter landing area off of Bunker Road to make the aerial work go a little bit quicker. We understand, as of today at least, the latest reports, is they expect to be through by September 13th, possibly significantly earlier than that based on the weather that affects the last Hilo operations. That should get all the trails reopened in the area. And it's my understanding that the temporary shoe fly power lines that are replacing the poles are functioning right now so we should all feel good about that. And the Park Service will work with PG&E for the larger replacement projects out in the coming years now that the shoe fly is in place. Final items. I have I have mentioned I think in a few discussions with you that at Fort Baker we're allocating some more financial resources for some vegetation management that will help fire safety and preparation. You should see some of that rollout later this fall, late September into October when our fiscal year flips. We hope to have more for you back later this fall. You should see some materials. So with those... later this fall, late September into October when our fiscal year flips. We hope to have more for you back later this fall. You should see some materials. So with those brief comments, thank you again and look forward to talking with you. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to take. |
| 00:12:29.37 | John DeRay | Oh, I see, okay. |
| 00:14:38.14 | Joe Burns | Really quickly, if we have any questions on that. That's awesome, Stephen. Thank you. And we know that we can always reach you as well. So appreciate your easy communication. Thank you. You bet. Thank you. Great. |
| 00:14:42.88 | Unknown | And we, |
| 00:14:47.37 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:14:52.50 | Joe Burns | We'll sell it. |
| 00:14:53.11 | Unknown | It's a great souvenir. |
| 00:14:54.03 | Joe Burns | We'll sell it. |
| 00:14:54.09 | Unknown | We'll sell it. |
| 00:14:57.41 | Joe Burns | I'm now going to move to 1D. We're going to move down to switch 1C and 1D. So I'm going to call up Kurt Weinsheimer, president of the board of directors for Willow Creek Academy. And Kurt is going to introduce Emily Cox, who is our new head of school for Willow Creek here in Sausalito. |
| 00:15:24.80 | Unknown | Great. Good evening. Thank you for inviting us to come. And as many of you know, Willow Creek Academy serves about 170 kids in Marin City and about 165 kids in Sausalito. About 400. and 10 overall. It's a really diverse school, and as we were looking to find A new head of school. We were trying to find somebody that would carry on that passion for education. somebody who could bring diverse communities together, and somebody who is really focused on building our world class team, and helping them turn Willow Creek into a world-class school. And so I'm happy to say that in Emily Cox, we've found that and more. Emily's got over 25 years of experience, both teaching in traditional public schools and public charter schools, administering traditional schools and public charter schools, And she's worked most recently at the Mather Elementary, which had 600 students coming from all different backgrounds and really brought that community together and put kids first and made decisions that put kids first. So I can't tell you how excited we are to have Emily here. And I want to thank everyone, you know, the members here and everybody in the community that's welcomed Emily in. We're really excited. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:16:53.36 | Joe Burns | Thank you. on up Emily and say welcome. |
| 00:17:01.76 | Emily Cox | Good evening. For those of you who I have already met, you'll know I'm much more comfortable when I have this mic in my hand and I'm running up and down the aisles. yelling and screaming and getting the kids all excited about assembly. So this format's a little uncomfortable. |
| 00:17:17.32 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:17:17.67 | Emily Cox | However, what I will say is having come from the most amazing elementary school in the Boston Public Schools, probably the most diverse elementary school in Boston Public Schools, when I left four years ago and moved out to California, I had said at that time, I'm not going to go back to school leadership ever because how can I ever replicate what I had in the sense of amazing community? But I did say, I always had one caveat and that was, The only exception I would ever make is if something truly incredible and amazing were So four years later, I was actually getting ready to move back to the East Coast after having spent some incredible time at San Jose State University as a student teacher supervisor overseeing elementary student teachers, which was incredible. We were heading back to the East Coast and something popped up on my LinkedIn one day And I saw the first thing I saw was Sausalito. I'm like, ooh, I don't really know Sausalito, but I heard it's really nice. |
| 00:18:18.42 | Lorna Newlin | Thank you. |
| 00:18:18.74 | Emily Cox | And then when I clicked on this Willow Creek Academy website, I couldn't believe what I was seeing. The more I read, I just kept thinking, my god, if I could have created a school on my own, it would probably look a lot like this. The first thing that I noticed was its diversity. Because again, having come from just a public school background, that's been my life. calling to service a diverse public school. the more I read, I said, you know what, I think I need to be part of this. And long story short, I applied, I missed the deadline, I was late, and I don't know if I had someone working with me, I advance to the next stage and then the next stage after that, and then I met Mayor Burns, I'm like oh my god. So if I live here, I get to work with this guy who showed me to all the great places. And |
| 00:19:12.10 | Joe Burns | you |
| 00:19:12.17 | Emily Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:19:12.20 | Joe Burns | you |
| 00:19:12.37 | Lorna Newlin | Thank you. |
| 00:19:12.39 | Joe Burns | you |
| 00:19:13.40 | Emily Cox | Thank you. All the great places, it's true. |
| 00:19:14.32 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:19:14.37 | Klaus Lund | places. |
| 00:19:17.52 | Joe Burns | Okay, so. |
| 00:19:18.14 | Emily Cox | Long story short. |
| 00:19:18.50 | Joe Burns | Are we sure? |
| 00:19:20.58 | Emily Cox | at the local business establishments. He introduced me around. |
| 00:19:22.52 | Joe Burns | . |
| 00:19:22.79 | Lorna Newlin | Thank you. |
| 00:19:22.90 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 00:19:24.96 | Emily Cox | The offer came through, and at that time, I also learned that a lot of really interesting things were going on with the possibility for a unification with Willow Creek Academy. and Bayside MLK, at which point after I had accepted the position, I met Atoko Garcia, our new superintendent, who you're going to be hearing from shortly. And I realized, oh my god, this is kind of my dream. It's not only an opportunity to serve with serve these incredible children from Willow Creek Academy, which represents two really interesting communities. But it's also the opportunity to move forward and begin working directly with the with. Bayside MLK in that community. Since I've been there, I've had great meetings with the principal from Bayside MLK. We're already planning out our first uh, cross-pollination social slash professional development with the two communities. And we're going to move forward and create something that's even more magnificent to that will service all of our communities. So thank you, everyone, for this incredible opportunity. And again, it's an honor to be here. Thank you. |
| 00:20:31.37 | Joe Burns | Thank you and welcome. |
| 00:20:38.23 | Joe Burns | Well, the cat's out of the bag. We have a new superintendent of schools as well for Marin City of Sausalito. So I'm gonna ask Ida Green to come on up and introduce our new superintendent, Itoko Garcia. So Dr. Itoko Garcia. So Ida, if you would come up and Ida is the board president of trustees of the Saucy-de-Morning City School District. Welcome. |
| 00:21:03.04 | Ida Green | Thank you, with pleasure. I too need to get on that good side of Joe Burns so I can get toured around in Sausalito as well. |
| 00:21:12.61 | Lorna Newlin | . |
| 00:21:15.73 | Joe Burns | Yeah. Okay, I have openings. |
| 00:21:19.17 | Ida Green | So unless you have been touring in Italy or somewhere in Europe, then you missed the memo on the fact that our school Bayside Martin Luther King Jr. Academy is on the map of and radar of the Attorney General. And that's a good and a bad thing in many ways. I'm not here to talk about that. I'm here to introduce our new superintendent for Bayside Martin Luther King Junior Academy, Itoko Garcia, and so good evening to you. the council, council members, thank you Mr. Burns for extending an invitation. And it is my pleasure to introduce Dr. Itoko Garcia. who is no stranger to the Southern Moran community. He grew up in Mill Valley. He graduated from Tamalpais High School. He befriended many people from Marin City and the Sausalito communities, and so he's very familiar with this area as well. Do not let the baby face fool you because he has over 20 years of experience in the education, community He is. an innovative, transformative, progressive change maker And as one of the board trustees for the Sausalito Marin City School District, I am honored to be able to work and walk. work beside him in collaboration as he charters our new school year. in the work that is beyond. And so it was refreshing to hear from Mrs. Cox with Willow Creek. that some of that work is already beginning. Um, And so happy for that. So please help me welcome Dr. Itoko Garcia. |
| 00:23:27.56 | Lorna Newlin | Thank you. |
| 00:23:32.43 | Itoko Garcia | Thank you, Ida, and thank you, City Council, for the invite. It's an honor to be able to address you. Thanks for making some time for us. other employees of the city government. and community members here in Sausalito. As Ida mentioned, I did grow up in Southern Marin. longtime Sausalito residents might recognize me from working at the Bank of America, Sausalito, for about an 18-month stretch when I graduated from UC Berkeley in 1996. Hopefully I don't look too different. It's a real honor and pleasure and gift to be able to return to this community and give something back to a place that gave me so much. Sausalito and Marin City were very formative in my youth. Both communities provided me male role models and adult mentors. For a kid growing up without a dad, that was critically important. I have spent 20 years working in both the Oakland and Hayward Unified School Districts and very diverse urban communities and every step of the way as a teacher as an instructional coach as an assistant principal and a principal we have been able to transform underperforming schools and create outcomes for all of our students and families. I very much look forward to doing that here in this community with all of you, with all of your children, with all of your various friends and relations. As I am fond of saying, it's not a me thing, it's a we thing. And I had the great pleasure of meeting Mayor Joe. He was actually on the committee part of my interview committee. And I made a commitment in that space that I want to reiterate here tonight, which is to work hand in hand with everybody in this community, also with the city government and the business community to create a world-class school district and school system, one that creates not only high academic outcomes, but offers a very rich and diverse program so that when our kids get to Tam High, they already have exposure to theater, they already have exposure to music, they already have exposure to photography and visual art. And to work hand in hand to support both the economic and the health and well-being development of this community. I'm really excited to have had a couple meetings with marriage already and to begin a collaboration between not only our school district and your city leadership but also the leadership from the Marin County Office of Education so that we can really come together and unite and engage in a process of healing. of unification and one that creates a school that everybody in the 94965 can be proud of and want to send their students to. So thank you so much for giving me a few moments of your time this evening. Really looking forward to working with everyone. |
| 00:26:52.79 | Joe Burns | Thank you, Dr. Garcia. |
| 00:26:58.26 | Joe Burns | I really appreciate all four of you being here tonight, your comments. This is obviously a very exciting time. And congratulations on your two new roles, and you two presidents that helped get them in here. Thank you. Thank you for that. Wonderful. |
| 00:27:17.99 | Joe Burns | Channel 27. Thank you. Good night. I'm gonna ask, Monica, come on up. How exciting. We have some people from Viña Del Mar, a lot of guests and officials. I'm going to introduce Monica Finnegan, our Sister Cities board member, to introduce the Viña Del Mar officials and guests and then direct me when you need me to do my thing. |
| 00:27:45.69 | Monica Finnegan | Thank you. Thank you. On the screen. |
| 00:27:52.46 | Joe Burns | THE FAMILY IS |
| 00:27:52.48 | Monica Finnegan | THE COUNTRY. I'll just do you. |
| 00:27:54.50 | Joe Burns | While they're getting this set up, just a reminder, after this we're gonna go to communications. If anybody wants to make public comment on items not on the agenda, please fill out a green slip over there underneath the TV on the red table. And we'll take that right after this item. They look like this. |
| 00:28:11.73 | Monica Finnegan | On your mark, get set, go, right? You're on. OK. Thanks from me to all of you guys for giving us time. And I want to say that. |
| 00:28:12.98 | Joe Burns | You're on. |
| 00:28:22.97 | Monica Finnegan | We really appreciate the partnership that we have been developing with the council in Sausalito's sister cities. It's been fantastic. We've grown together. And you've been a great support to us. I'm asking Lizzie Jeremy to help translate into Spanish so that our guests can understand what we're saying. Lizzie? |
| 00:28:42.24 | Lizzie Jeremy | it in think. Buenas tardes. |
| 00:28:43.41 | Monica Finnegan | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:28:44.66 | Lizzie Jeremy | Monica wants to express that we are very grateful for the committee here who works very well with the sister cities, so she wants to thank her great cooperation. |
| 00:28:48.77 | Klaus Lund | . |
| 00:28:54.58 | Klaus Lund | Thank you. |
| 00:28:54.65 | Unknown | MOTIVATED. |
| 00:28:54.73 | Klaus Lund | Thank you. |
| 00:29:05.66 | Lizzie Jeremy | Thank you. |
| 00:29:05.68 | Monica Finnegan | Tonight, we are really excited to welcome the women and two executives from the city of Vigna del Mar. I'm going to introduce them in a moment, but first, I'd like Susan Rowe, who is the president of Sausalito Sister Cities, Inc., to come up and say a few words. |
| 00:29:21.98 | Lizzie Jeremy | Thank you. We have several visits this night, and we also have Susan Rowe, who will give us some words. |
| 00:29:37.22 | Susan Rowe | Good evening and welcome, Vigna Del Mar delegates. We are so pleased to have you here. Thank you, Monica, for all your hard work, the dedication, the loyalty, and the effort that goes into an eight or 10 day delegation visit. It is amazing the support we get. Thank you, all of you. Thank you over there. And most of all, thank you back here, because you are the supporters of the program. Gracias. |
| 00:30:13.01 | Lizzie Jeremy | Susan, I want to thank all the people who have helped this great project. I want to thank the people in front the people next to here. And the people who are sitting there too. Please, thank you very much. And thank you for coming and giving us this opportunity. |
| 00:30:36.89 | Monica Finnegan | Real quickly, our mission with the Vigna del Mar program is a focus on women in business versus our other two programs, which are focused on high school and student exchange. We are teaching American business skills to entrepreneurial women from Chile. We are offering cultural and business and global exposure by their traveling here and their home staying with all of the citizens here in Sausalito. This is our eighth exchange, and we've had a lot of workshop and leadership training. This program for this coming week offers 40 different sessions with executives and different businesses teaching the women their perspective on business and giving them good advice. And they are all volunteering with us at the Sausalito Art Festival. So it's going to be... their perspective on business and giving them good advice. And they are all volunteering with us at the Sausalito Art Festival. So it's gonna be a wild ride for the whole week. Just a word of Herbie and his legacy. This program was the first sister city that Sausalito established in 1964. And in 2010, Herbie went to Chile and reestablished the program and has been wonderful working with these women. Sorry, I didn't give you enough time. |
| 00:31:47.45 | Lizzie Jeremy | you In a summary, Monica, |
| 00:31:50.43 | Monica Finnegan | And, |
| 00:31:54.52 | Lizzie Jeremy | We have had... many years, since it started in 1964, E Hemos pasado varias actividades. and most of the most with the ladies. Viña del Mar. And they have been here And we've been there. to share new ideas and also learn from the business and how to do much better things for each one. So we are grateful for all this opportunity. |
| 00:32:34.31 | Monica Finnegan | I'd like to introduce the women one by one, so you understand the business that they're in, and you might be able to have some visual recognition of them. There's a nice photo. But first, I'd like to introduce Karina Parada. She's a designer, craftswoman in textile and weaving. |
| 00:32:54.41 | Monica Finnegan | We don't need you, they know who they are. Next is Elena Rios. She's a pastry chef and caterer. |
| 00:33:06.89 | Monica Finnegan | Following Elena is Paula Lopez. Paula? Paula is a retailer, has stores with tobacco sales, gifts, uniforms, and she's the woman of all trades. |
| 00:33:20.78 | Monica Finnegan | Following is Gladys Cordova. Gladys is in tourism and a hostel owner. . |
| 00:33:28.90 | Joe Burns | Oh, we have those. |
| 00:33:30.27 | Monica Finnegan | Hostel owner owns a bed and breakfast. |
| 00:33:30.47 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 00:33:34.30 | Lorna Newlin | Thank you. |
| 00:33:39.19 | Monica Finnegan | Carmen isn't here. She's arriving tomorrow. She's a jewelry designer. You'll see her at the art festival. Sylvia Villablanca is next. She is involved in jewelry design, you And then, There she is. OK. And Antoinette Aleman is in elder care and also beginning some coffee importing, right? She's my roommate this week. And Antoinette is the president of AHEP, the organization that we work with. So she's the jefe of the group. you |
| 00:34:18.28 | Monica Finnegan | And last but not least is Britannia, Mitty Salinas. Midi is an artist and a painter in design. And she's in booth 903 at the Sausalito Art Festival. So we're very proud that she got here. |
| 00:34:38.46 | Monica Finnegan | Please, sit down. Thank you. One thing that I wanted to tell everybody about, the women will be displaying their products at a trunk show on September 6th at the shoe stories in Sausalito. on El Portal, we invite everybody to come and bring some money and buy something. Thank you. |
| 00:35:00.80 | Lorna Newlin | . |
| 00:35:01.85 | Monica Finnegan | unique. |
| 00:35:02.27 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 00:35:03.33 | Monica Finnegan | That's okay. |
| 00:35:04.24 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 00:35:04.75 | Monica Finnegan | Okay, we're very pleased to have two executives from the city of Viña del Mar. Macarena Llorenda is a city council member. She knows your pain. and she's president of the Tourism Commission. and Vladimir Espinozo, who's director of communications for the city of Vina del Mar. Macarena, I believe, has some words to tell us, so we're gonna have her come up in a minute. I just wanna say one more time, thank you so much for giving us this opportunity to introduce the women and to bring them all to Sausalito. Macarena. |
| 00:35:42.77 | Monica Finnegan | Let's see, where did she go? I'm sorry, where did Russ go? |
| 00:35:47.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:35:47.16 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 00:35:49.35 | Monica Finnegan | Thank you. |
| 00:35:50.09 | Unknown | you |
| 00:35:50.11 | Monica Finnegan | Thank you. |
| 00:35:50.12 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:35:50.14 | Monica Finnegan | you |
| 00:36:00.08 | Unknown | Thank you. Hi, hello. I just want to say I'm very glad to be here. It's my second time in South Salido. It's the first time of Vladimir Spinoza Director of Communication of the Municipality of Viña El Mar. Uh... I prepared a presentation, but I think it's not necessary. I prefer show you some pictures about Viña. Many people who are in this room They have been in Myanmar. And I hope the other, they want to go to Viña del Mar soon because I think Viña and Sausalito, they have many, many things, many, many links, many points in common. Sausalito is really, really, really beautiful. I have to say that. But Piña is a beautiful city too. I have... I want to... Ah, okay. No, it's not necessary, but I think it's more important to you see some pictures. We have, like you, we have a How do you say a flower watch? and beaches. And we are a |
| 00:37:42.46 | Lorna Newlin | Thank you. |
| 00:37:49.38 | Unknown | We are a tourist city. we want to become the most important a tourist city in in South America. and But We have also some traditional Because we are too close to Santiago, the capital of Chile, how do you say, in the last century? In the last century, people who live in Santiago used to go to Viña del Mar. for the weekends and the But now we want to grow, and we think you have many things, and we want to learn about you. Let me tell you, I want to learn about your sense of humor in the session of the council. Because in Binyan, we don't have that. We are very serious, too serious. And you laugh in, I love that. I love that. |
| 00:39:03.41 | Lorna Newlin | I'm sorry. |
| 00:39:14.41 | Unknown | Eh. And we, well, we, Also, We have many sports in Viña del Mar. And we have the Sausalito Stadium. It's a soccer? Soccer Stadium Is... In South Salido, place the... Everton is the Official, how do you say it? Blue. Hello. Official club, sorry, club is in English word. you And we have supra because And Because of that, many people who live in Chile know In the states, there is a beautiful, and small city. Who name is Sausalito? Because if you go to Chile, You say, Sausalita, ah Sausalita, of Viña del Mar, oh, South Salito is a city close to San Francisco. Thanks of you. we have a mini festival, I think, like a Liza Usalito also. And We... We hope. how do you say maintain this relationship and we want to learn. and we want to do many projects with South Elite. And we want to learn about your sense of humor in the council. I insist. Thank you. |
| 00:41:12.47 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 00:41:18.23 | Joe Burns | That was wonderful, and I think we can help you with the sense of humor part. We'll try. |
| 00:41:27.20 | Joe Burns | Okay. |
| 00:41:28.30 | Unknown | Can I just say one second? |
| 00:41:28.33 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 00:41:30.31 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:41:30.49 | Joe Burns | Thank you. Really quick, gentlemen, |
| 00:41:32.08 | Unknown | Thank you. Yeah. Yep. |
| 00:41:34.27 | Joe Burns | Good thing. really. |
| 00:41:38.07 | Unknown | Thank you very much for being here. We are grateful for our collaboration with Vigna del Mar and AHEP. |
| 00:41:49.26 | Joe Burns | Apparently that was a joke in Spanish, but. |
| 00:41:56.45 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 00:41:56.47 | Unknown | Good afternoon. Lizzy, do you want me to do? in the next video. It's a honor for us to be here representing our city, and especially as representatives in this moment of this heritage that is ancient, since 1960. Yeah. We had the opportunity to meet the creators of this association. Yeah. Alcalde Gustavo Lorca. who reactivated it, when he reactivated it. And we feel really proud of being here with you. This is my first time here. Siento realmente que en el día que hemos estado... has been quite well. |
| 00:42:43.60 | Lizzie Jeremy | It is my pleasure to be here, and it is a pleasure to be part of this great program. We have had the honor to have met with Herbie and with others that have come, and we're very happy that we have had that opportunity. It is an opportunity of a lifetime to come, and so they're very happy to be here. Thank you. |
| 00:43:07.02 | Unknown | Thank you. Just to add that we will take the opportunity to record a Herbert with a letter that our alcaldesa sent to you. |
| 00:43:25.50 | Unknown | That's it. |
| 00:43:31.51 | Lizzie Jeremy | She has a letter that comes from the mayor of Viña del Mar, and it is in regards to... Herbie, Herbie Weiner, who did so much for our city and for the city of Viña del Mar and for South Salido, of course. And this is a proclamation that we have |
| 00:43:54.88 | Joe Burns | Thank you. And we'll share this with the council. |
| 00:44:02.18 | Joe Burns | Thank you. Okay. Okay, I'm just waiting to see what their next move's going to be here for just a second. I appreciate you guys being on. |
| 00:44:17.98 | Mary Wagner | This is for you. |
| 00:44:20.70 | Lizzie Jeremy | This is for the Mayor. |
| 00:44:25.61 | Lizzie Jeremy | This is for the mayor. and all the representatives. |
| 00:44:34.48 | Neil Sorensen | Thank you. |
| 00:44:35.56 | Lizzie Jeremy | These are our gifts. |
| 00:45:45.97 | Lizzie Jeremy | Thank you. you Thank you. |
| 00:45:48.90 | Ida Green | Thank you. |
| 00:45:48.95 | Joe Burns | Wait, wait, wait. |
| 00:45:49.09 | Lizzie Jeremy | Thank you. Make no more background. |
| 00:45:50.52 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 00:45:50.96 | Lizzie Jeremy | you |
| 00:45:51.13 | Monica Finnegan | you |
| 00:45:51.18 | Joe Burns | you |
| 00:45:51.41 | Monica Finnegan | Thank you. |
| 00:45:51.55 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 00:45:51.65 | Monica Finnegan | Okay. |
| 00:45:53.73 | Joe Burns | Yeah, right in front. |
| 00:46:04.09 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 00:46:07.33 | Unknown | Well, we need him in the picture. you you |
| 00:46:09.25 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 00:46:09.64 | Len Rifkind | you |
| 00:46:09.94 | Joe Burns | you |
| 00:46:10.18 | Len Rifkind | We're going to hear it all again. |
| 00:46:10.96 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 00:46:10.97 | Len Rifkind | Thank you. |
| 00:46:12.68 | Unknown | Monica, he should be. you |
| 00:46:29.64 | Unknown | You don't trust Mary. |
| 00:46:31.21 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 00:46:31.22 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:46:31.86 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 00:46:32.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:46:36.52 | Joe Burns | Well, that was absolutely wonderful. Great presentation. Thank you very much. And we're going to see you all week long. It's going to be a wonderful week. sharing between Sausalito and Vina del Mar. |
| 00:46:52.10 | Unknown | I couldn't get you. |
| 00:46:55.95 | Joe Burns | We can take volunteers for garbage. |
| 00:46:57.60 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:46:57.85 | Joe Burns | Thank you. Okay, that's a wrap on special presentations. Thank you. See you soon. I have three speaker cards for items not on tonight's agenda. So I'm going to call them up in the order received, which was Sandra Bushmaker, Klaus Lund, and Susan Gordon. So first up, Sandra. And these are three-minute items not on the agenda. |
| 00:47:25.85 | Veena Delmar | Good evening, council, staff. Audience, Veena Delmar. Happy to see you all. I just want to request whether or not you received my email today with the photographs, counsel. |
| 00:47:42.98 | Joe Burns | I will check our emails. |
| 00:47:45.64 | Veena Delmar | All right, well you have a hard copy in front of you of what I've sent. Back to the nitty gritty of the maintenance of Sausalito. Basically, my email addresses the vegetation management, Issues here in Sausalito specifically the 1 to 400 block of Sausalito Boulevard, which has been unattended for years and And, um, I have listed some of the curious problems. We have interjurisdictional, battles, if you will. where we have Southern Marine Fire, we have MMWD, we have Comcast, we have telephone company lines. a number of other jurisdictions, including the National Park Service, Caltrans, and the city of Sausalito. I am very concerned that there is a lot of hand-wringing about these jurisdictional issues, and the streets are not getting cleaned up to the extent necessary to prevent Uh, Fire Management. in an appropriate way. And I have included pictures I took this morning, which I had requested. Unfortunately, my emails were bounced back from the city server. But, um, You can see that our grates are filled with leaves. We have trees entangling the power lines and the communication lines. And we have vegetation growing into the streets to the point where the street sweepers cannot get near the curb in order to clean the leaves and dirt and whatever else is in the gutter. But we need to be able to have a clean stream Our Department of Public Works has advised us that the Um, First rain that's going to come around October 31st, will be the one where more and more leaves will be falling and flushed down into these full catch basins. And like I said, the street sweepers cannot remove the leaves because they can't get close enough to the curb where everything is accumulating. So I'm asking the city council to please make this a priority issue. Someone has got to drive the boat. or ship, and I would like to request the city council take a More... active role. in making sure that we don't get tangled up in the jurisdictional hassles between the various agencies. I'm not demeaning anybody or anything. or any jurisdictional issue. I understand it's complex, but it needs to be addressed. And I think I have 13 seconds left, so I would like to request that you take a look at the photographs that I provided you, which I took this morning. One of the things that concerns me is that the lack of canopy, the lack of canopy, management on the streets of Sausalito. |
| 00:50:52.18 | Joe Burns | All right. Thank you. Thanks, Sandra. Klaus Lund. |
| 00:50:59.77 | Klaus Lund | Hello, my name is Klaus Lund. I'm a member of committee that has the very easy name, Marine Residents Working on Amazon to Reuse Boxes Initiative. And that explains basically what it is. The initiative is trying to get Amazon to run a pilot to pick up, a pilot here in Marin County to pick up boxes. So when delivery trucks drive around in the neighborhoods, they would pick up the Amazon boxes and the plastic mailers and take them back to Amazon, not for recycling, but for reuse. A little bit of background is that Amazon has 166 million customers in the US. |
| 00:51:43.58 | Benjamin C. Graves | Thank you. |
| 00:51:50.03 | Klaus Lund | It ships 7.6 billion, not million, billion orders a year. And that is made up of 5.7 billion cardboard boxes. I mean, it would go from here to the moon 18 times if you just put them on top of each other, so to say. and they ship out 1.9 billion plastic mailers. The numbers are absolutely staggering. and the Bay Area is one of Amazon's main markets. So all that packaging is either being stored in your garages or is being dumped nonstop into Marin's recycling system and landfills. That has become a huge expense for residents as well as for cities, as you probably know better than anybody else. So our goal is to slow down and move away from single-use products And. get into the reuse of cardboard and plastic mailers. So what we're asking is the Socialito City Council to support the local initiative to ask Amazon for a pilot program to pick up their cardboard boxes and plastic mailers in Marin County. And if you support it, that will elevate the issue inside Amazon And. together with other innovative reuse programs that will move the city of Sausalito to its goal of zero waste. And in addition, we asked Social Leaders to sign the online petition, which is on change.org under Amazon to reuse boxes. We have been advised by Conservation International, and they have told us that in order to get |
| 00:53:45.22 | Lorna Newlin | Thank you. |
| 00:53:45.55 | Klaus Lund | have an impact on Amazon. We should collect 10,000 signatures. to show that there's widespread interest in Sausalito as well as in the rest of the marine. So we can kind of like force them is not the right word, but we can hopefully get them to initiate this program. So please support this initiative, and we can move forward with less cardboard boxes in our garages and so on. Thank you. Thank you so much. |
| 00:54:14.98 | Joe Burns | Thank you. Thank you so much. Just for the quick record of the council, we did refer this to the Sustainability Commission, and they had initial response, but I think they still might hear it further or might consider something further or not, but they have received information. Susan, Gordon, and then Vicki Nichols. |
| 00:54:50.01 | Susan | I'm really beginning to look forward to these meetings. |
| 00:54:53.68 | Joe Burns | Good to see you. |
| 00:54:54.49 | Susan | short but sweet. I thank you members of the City Council of the staff. and all the departments who have worked so diligently in regards to the mudslide project. And I wanted to thank you all personally. especially catching the wrong filing to FEMA. which would have been disaster. So I'm so grateful that that was caught. And on a personal note, after seven months, I finally get my own bed. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:55:31.80 | Joe Burns | Thank you. Good seeing you, Susan. Vicki. |
| 00:55:37.18 | Vicki Nichols | Yes, good to see Susan. Vicki Nichols and Mayor Burns and counsel, I'd like to bring to your attention the passing of Leland Jordan, a civic attorney. Mr. Jordan passed at 92 on July 26. And he's notable because he was the first counsel for Marin County. But more notably, he served in a number of municipalities. And if you've ever done any research, historical or just general, with debbie in the city files his name is all over everything because he was a city attorney here in sausalito for uh 27 years in addition to be the being the city attorney for mill valley for 33 years and also fairfax in 14 so mary probably knows of him quite well there's a distinction in his obituary about a comment he made specifically about Sausalito. And I've told you of the other cities where he worked. He said, of the Marin towns, Mr. Jordan worked where Sausalito kept him the busiest, he told IJ. One big reason was the ongoing battle between residents living on the waterfront who wanted to see more commercial development and promotion of tourism and residents living in the hills who wanted to retain Sausalito's idyllic character. So we still may have some of those issues as we struggle with our general plan, but I just wondered if you would consider adjourning tonight's meeting in his honor. |
| 00:56:59.95 | Klaus Lund | General. |
| 00:57:06.50 | Joe Burns | Thank you. Thanks, Vicki. Any other public comment on items not on the agenda? Seeing no hands or green cards. I'm going to close public communications and bring us to. And I will note that we received one communication, 2A, that is listed in the package. Taking us to action minutes of the previous meeting, which we are all called up. We have the July 16th minutes. And I would look for a motion or any amendments. |
| 00:57:43.68 | Susan Rowe | Move approval. Thank you. |
| 00:57:44.87 | Unknown | Second. |
| 00:57:47.12 | Joe Burns | All in favor? Aye. Aye. Minutes passes, five to zero. Council member committee reports. Now, we were gone for a month, as I said, at least a month more from these meetings, but we still had numerous other meetings. If we can keep them fairly, |
| 00:57:48.42 | Unknown | Hi. |
| 00:58:06.07 | Joe Burns | I appreciate your document, Joan. That was awesome. Documents. Keep these as close to the committees that we serve here in the city as possible, since we have so many meetings that we've attended in the last six weeks. |
| 00:58:16.82 | Unknown | I can start and be very quick. I attended the Sausalito Sustainability Commission last month. And I would just want to recommend we had our landscape architect from the city, Oscar Lusario, make a really interesting presentation on his landscaping efforts, and he did a really excellent job about integrating sustainable practices, sustainable communities, and diversity both among plants and people. I thought it was a really fantastic presentation, very well received by the Sustainability Commission, and it was taped. So I don't exactly know where that's available online, but hopefully on the city's website, either now or shortly. And then we had an interesting discussion about the art festival, which I think is, I want to thank them for moving towards avoiding single-use plastics at the art festival, especially in the food location. So that's an experiment towards moving towards the single use plastic ban that will be in effect next year. So that was great news. Thank you to everyone, including Council Member Withy, who helped to make that happen, but to the art festival organizers as well. |
| 00:59:38.68 | Lorna Newlin | Thank you. |
| 00:59:39.08 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 00:59:39.10 | Lorna Newlin | Thank you. |
| 00:59:39.13 | Joe Burns | you |
| 00:59:39.40 | Lorna Newlin | Thank you. |
| 00:59:39.44 | Joe Burns | Thank you. Thank you, Joe. |
| 00:59:42.12 | Unknown | Sure. Ray Withey and I attended two GPAC meetings on July 17 and 30. They will be the subject of a business item later, so I'm not going to report anything further on those. On July 27, I was privileged to attend the Southern Marin Fire Evacuation Drill for Northern Sausalito at MLK. And I have to say I'm very proud of the work that Southern Marin Fire is accomplishing throughout town, on Cypress Ridge, on Spring Street, in my community, which my HOA is about to become the very first firewise community in Sausalito. And the other great efforts that Southern Marin Fire is making throughout town. to come up to speed with the WUI declaration that we all adopted a couple of months ago. So I guess not everyone sees everything that Southern Marine Fire is doing, but I just met this week with a group of neighbors who are concerned that too much vegetation has been removed and they want some of it replaced. Southern Marin Fire is definitely on the job and doing great work and I want to encourage them to continue. You have in your packet my materials from my August 8th MCC-MC Legislative Committee meeting with Senator McGuire. Um, The mayor and I attended. a meeting with the Attorney General at the Sausalud Marin City School District, which was the subject of many newspaper articles, so I won't report further on that. And Councilmember Hoffman and I met with Bridgeway Marina on August 23, In order to move those negotiations along swiftly, we requested a succinct letter of intent from the Bridgeway Marina owner. He has promised that within a month, and so I'm optimistic that we'll be able to move swiftly forward once we receive that. Thank you. |
| 01:01:28.77 | Benjamin C. Graves | Go. |
| 01:01:29.99 | Sandra Bushmaker | Yeah, so since we last met, we met with the representatives of VA and the machine shop, or well, we're trying to make sure that we're Set a meeting to meet with them again. But we're hopeful that their position has changed to the extent that we may be able to move forward a little more quickly than nothing, the zero amount we've been able to move forward. So we're hopeful on that. That seems to be. Positive. With regard to the mudslide task force that was created on June 11th, we've met five times since June 11th. The members are myself, Mayor, sorry, Council Member Withey is one of the liaisons, the council liaison. Mike Stewart, all these people were chosen for their expertise. So Mike Stewart is a resident and engineering geologist Christina Feller is an engineer. She's a resident. She's a planning commissioner. Steven Woodside is a resident and an attorney and a former county council, Marin County County Council and other counties as well. And Standard Bushmaker, resident attorney, vice chair of the community development, Vice Chair of the Disaster Preparedness Committee and former city council member and mayor here in Sausalito. So what we've done in that time, we've narrowed down. what We wanted to first look at what we knew, so what do we already know? We looked at that first. We wanted to look at the history of mudslides in Sausalito, which we did. including the 1982 fatality slide Near the slide that occurred in February, we had two presentations by Public Works. One focused on passed in past mudslides, and the other one focused on areas of greatest risk in Sausalito And I think we've done a tremendous amount of work to narrow down what we think the focus of our recommendation is going to be. I'm not sure. to identify needs of the city for an update and assessment of its vulnerability to future mudslide disasters. that may cause harm to residents of property, identify preventive program to keep the city ahead of potential slides. in vulnerable areas. I'm using modern methods and technologies and develop a plan for residents to report geologic vulnerabilities and a program to keep their properties safer, from mudslides, landslides, and water invasion. And specifically based on the expertise that we've been able to glean from our committee. what we would want to recommend to the city council in a way of consultants and reports that would be most helpful to the city and the city engineers moving forward. So that has been our focus to harness the expertise of people that live here in Sausalito and make meaningful recommendations to the city of Sausalito. in the city council. So I've invited our new public works director, Kevin McGowan, to our next meeting so that he can be part and help us craft what our recommendation will be to the city. And I'm asking that we be added to the September 24th City Council meeting so present our recommendation. And perhaps the city council give direction to the city staff on how to move forward. That's the report from the And my last is that the mayor and council member Withy and I attended the League of Cities Bocce tournament. This past Sunday, and I believe the mayor and council member Withey may have come in first, no? Third, well, okay, third's not losing, third is good. So, yeah, so well done. Well done for the city of Sausalito on that, so that's it for me. |
| 01:04:57.21 | Klaus Lund | Third, well, okay. |
| 01:05:02.14 | Klaus Lund | the |
| 01:05:02.21 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 01:05:02.95 | Klaus Lund | Thank you. |
| 01:05:09.33 | Unknown | We won't add that I was on the winning team last year. |
| 01:05:09.90 | Sandra Bushmaker | WON'T. I was going to say that, but I didn't want to make Joe feel bad. I definitely wasn't going to say it. |
| 01:05:15.37 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:05:15.39 | Joe Burns | I definitely wasn't going to say |
| 01:05:16.58 | Unknown | Yeah. So, let me see. Muds Light Task Force, General Plan, BOCCE. I don't really have much to add. The – when we met last, I indicated that the MCC MC, that's Marin County Council Mayors and Council Members, was issuing a report on pensions and OPEB. We don't, I was hoping to send a link so that everybody had that. We're not quite ready yet. It's actually out to, believe it or not, John Bartell to proofread it for us before it actually, the link goes up. So he's probably one of the most senior actuaries in California. So I will hopefully sometime this month, sometime in September, I'll be able to give you the link to the updated pension report. Other thing is the only other thing really I did in this break was MCE. We're preparing for a strategic planning session in September. We've got some challenges that we're facing with regards to more regulatory upheaval with the CPUC, which at some point I will, once it's clarified, I'd be happy to explain if anybody was interested. I love you. upheaval with the CPUC, which at some point I will, once it's clarified, I'd be happy to explain if anybody was interested. And also attended their audit committee meeting. So that's it. |
| 01:06:58.80 | Joe Burns | Thanks, Ray. Susan has an addition. |
| 01:07:03.25 | Unknown | I apologize. I also attended several meetings of the Transportation Authority of Marin and very pleased we did an extensive search for a new executive director and we are tentatively set late in September to approve Anne Richmond as the new executive director of TAN. There was a press report on that. She has extensive experience in the transportation field, and is currently at MTC, and has been there for 12 years. Prior to that, worked for the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. And most importantly, she's a resident of Marin County. So I think that will be exciting, and we'll wait for final approval in September. |
| 01:07:50.35 | Joe Burns | Great, thank you. I have attended the different than the TAM, the MTA, which is the Marin Telecommunications Agency meetings. We had, I guess, just one, but we discussed a grand jury report that that committee was also asked to do by the grand jury speaking to really its viability as a JPA. We're going to answer it as well from the city, but really the gist of it was that the JPA doesn't do much more than take money from franchise fees and give it to the cities. Ironically, in that meeting, we also discussed all the things that we do with 5G, communication with cities, lobbying on state levels, and so many other things. However, we worked on that report, and again, the city manager will have that, and we'll be able to construct our reply as well also have attended a couple meetings on a group called Marin ready together and that's a group that Katie supervisor Katie Rice put together the meeting I attend is representative from each city to discuss a county-wide effort to manage wildland fires and that is a an effort to to raise money to do such so it's currently in the discussion of how do we do a measure countywide and make it equitable for all the 19 agencies 11 cities 2,000 residents and let alone the tremendous diversities we have in topographies climates and everything else so not an easy task and definitely not an easy task to do a little bit of time frame that we are given this group also has the fire officials meeting as well as city managers meeting so there's kind of a three-pronged approach to this as they look at how do we come together as a county there's a lot of discussion that will be coming forth in the next two months as they prepare each area whether it be an agency or a city who has their own agency to approve they're going on the ballot for this initiative. And as you know, we passed Measure U just last year. That does a lot of that, or enhances it, or however this might turn out. So without getting into the actual details of it, there will be a lot, and we'll probably be seeing that in our next month or so. And then finally, generally, when I started this last year on these committee reports and some of the direction of the various committee chairs, I asked them to do a white paper for each committee, without a better term for the paper, other than it was something that might change occasionally, and it describes what that committee's maybe objectives or goals were. Had some great responses. Many of them were used during the general plan update, so it was kind of key in that discussion. They were kind of used to shoehorn into that discussion, maybe modified. In this last couple weeks, I put an email back out to each chair asking for them to kind of come back with their final version, now that it might have gone through some public discussion. And then each one of those, and I believe there's nine or ten, each one of those I'll put into a format for us and then for the community but more importantly for each of those committees they could start seeing how the other one program there's how they templated it and then their next charge will be to modify that for the following year so maybe they they have you know the winner to look at it and then by March or April have a a redone version that we can use as we go into our two-year budget planning process and we'll have more input from the committees on some of that grassroot level stuff that they're working on so that's just so you know if you're a liaison to a various committee the chairs receive. And I think I have middle of September for them to kind of give a hard copy back. And then I'll get something to you, I'm sure, by the middle of October or so. and to the community as well. So that's it on community discussions. Anything else? Seeing none. We are off and running to the consent calendar, we're four minutes behind. My goodness, I didn't see that happening. So we do have a busy consent calendar, so maybe I shouldn't say anything. |
| 01:12:04.22 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor, I have to recuse myself from item 5M. |
| 01:12:06.83 | Joe Burns | Yeah, so let's take recusals now. You have Joan is 5M. |
| 01:12:09.80 | Unknown | M, as in Mary. Since 5N is simply receiving an update and not taking any action, I don't think I need to recuse myself from that. |
| 01:12:16.28 | Lorna Newlin | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:12:20.30 | Unknown | That's what I said, 5M is the leases. |
| 01:12:23.10 | Joe Burns | 5M is releases. and then five M. |
| 01:12:26.20 | Unknown | So, 5n is the... |
| 01:12:28.04 | Joe Burns | Any other refusals? Jill. |
| 01:12:33.58 | Sandra Bushmaker | Yes, 5J, the CEQA review for 7074 Leadership Way. That's within. 1,000 feet, I believe, of mine. Or just, it's very close, but it's very close. Well, interestingly enough, Mary might have some information on that. |
| 01:12:46.28 | Mary Wagner | very close. |
| 01:12:46.91 | Lorna Newlin | Thank you. |
| 01:12:46.96 | Monica Finnegan | you |
| 01:12:47.05 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:12:47.06 | Monica Finnegan | Thank you. |
| 01:12:47.10 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:12:52.29 | Mary Wagner | So the rules have changed, and I will provide the council with a memo, kind of summarizing the new analysis that we have to go through when we're looking at conflicts of interest. |
| 01:13:05.98 | Joe Burns | Okay. For now, we'll happily accept that and then one other recusal. |
| 01:13:08.27 | Mary Wagner | except that and then one other group. |
| 01:13:10.52 | Unknown | No, I just would like then to, in light of that change, ask staff to provide each council member with a new map of the areas where they're conflicted. |
| 01:13:23.36 | Sandra Bushmaker | Yeah. Yeah, with the 500 and then 1,000 feet. Yeah, but |
| 01:13:28.39 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, I've communicated that to the Community Development Department, and I believe they're implementing it with the projects coming forward. This one should have been identified, so I apologize for that. |
| 01:13:38.35 | Joe Burns | I can do with Google Earth, too. OK, so any other recusals? I'm going to open up to public comment. This time, we're going to hear public comment on the consent items. Again, we have 5A through 5N. Is there any public comment, request from the public to pull any of these items, 5A through 5N? There is a button, isn't there? |
| 01:14:02.17 | Lorna Newlin | Yeah, I almost slapped him. |
| 01:14:03.40 | Joe Burns | Yeah, he almost slapped him. Okay, no public comment. Seeing I'm going to close public comment and then ask up here for a motion. |
| 01:14:15.13 | Sandra Bushmaker | Yes, first. So we have various motions. |
| 01:14:15.50 | Joe Burns | We have various motions. First. You want to try to take this on? |
| 01:14:19.00 | Sandra Bushmaker | Uh... |
| 01:14:19.81 | Joe Burns | with recusals or you want to make comments? No. |
| 01:14:21.70 | Sandra Bushmaker | No, comments about the items on the agenda. Yeah, yeah. Or consent. Consent, approval. |
| 01:14:24.38 | Joe Burns | Yeah, yeah. Or consent. Approval. Yeah, but remember, we have the recusal, so. Okay. How are we going to do a motion? |
| 01:14:28.36 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. Okay. I'm going to request that certain things be taken off of the calendar. I think this is the time to do it. So with regard to 5D, that, I believe, is the contract for Brian, for us to approve the contract for Brian Moira to actually perform, I think, perform the work that's on our agenda for 6B. And so I thought it was odd that we would, by consent, approve him when we haven't approved the project that he's going to be working on. So I think that's right. No, that's not right. |
| 01:14:35.70 | Joe Burns | Oh, okay. This is the time to do it. |
| 01:15:04.56 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 01:15:04.58 | Joe Burns | NO. |
| 01:15:04.85 | Adam Politzer | Which is not right, okay. So he's. |
| 01:15:07.39 | Sandra Bushmaker | Okay, then go ahead, sorry. |
| 01:15:10.09 | Adam Politzer | He's actually serving the role on the General Plan Committee. So when Danny left and Lily moved over to community development, we brought Brian in to sit in for the economic discussion, not specifically the economic development, but just someone there to represent the finance discussion. |
| 01:15:34.44 | Sandra Bushmaker | Okay, so I thought, okay, so he's, but he is going to be working on item 6B. The proposed economic development plan at 6B. |
| 01:15:40.27 | Adam Politzer | THE END OF THE END OF THE If the council approves that, but right now that's not. |
| 01:15:44.65 | Sandra Bushmaker | Okay, so regardless, you're gonna need the contract for Brian to do the other work. Okay, sorry, disregard what I just said about that. And then the other item was, Item 5K, which was the authorized staff to enter into an agreement with Kimber Communications for the destination Sausalito.com website. I've discussed this with staff and I've discussed it with Yoshi, Mr. Tomei, and Mr. Shirage. And I think we've come up with a solution, a pretty easy one, My concern was that it looked like it was, the way that it was written in the staff report was that it was for the same website that we saw and the same sort of work that we had already been done. So when I talked to Mr. Shirash and Mr. Tomei, they said, no, that's not right. It's something different. But, It's not in the staff report. There's no contract yet. So what I talked to Adam just now is that we can... Um, can prove it on contingent that we have a contract that is agreeable, right? I mean, and I'm going to talk to Jeff, and Jeff and Yoshi and I have agree that we're going to talk. very quickly, because we don't want to take it off. The other thing I thought was that it should be really in the economic development discussion, because those are the two things, right? if we want to go forward with the economic development plan, It should be part of that. But after talking about Jeff and Yoshi, I understand that they want to move faster because we have issues, actions that they want to take before the next plan. So I'm fine with it. If you guys are fine with doing it that way. |
| 01:17:11.24 | Joe Burns | you And they, and I'll note for the record that they nodded, three of them nodded their heads. |
| 01:17:15.34 | Sandra Bushmaker | Yeah. |
| 01:17:18.95 | Sandra Bushmaker | OK, yeah, so that's fine. So other than those caveats. |
| 01:17:23.29 | Joe Burns | Okay. Thank you. |
| 01:17:23.68 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 01:17:24.64 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:17:24.65 | Sandra Bushmaker | If you want. |
| 01:17:25.03 | Unknown | Can I take on the motion? |
| 01:17:28.25 | Joe Burns | Sure. Okay. |
| 01:17:29.99 | Unknown | All right. On our consent calendar, I move approval of items 5A through 5A. |
| 01:17:30.01 | Joe Burns | I don't know. On our... |
| 01:17:40.40 | Unknown | L and 5N. |
| 01:17:45.24 | Unknown | Check it. |
| 01:17:47.62 | Joe Burns | And that's Jill's recusal on J. |
| 01:17:50.80 | Unknown | Yes, so she'll just say recuse. |
| 01:17:54.37 | Joe Burns | Okay. |
| 01:17:55.00 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:17:56.57 | Joe Burns | And Susan, second. All in favor? Well, you have to have a roll call. Oh yeah. |
| 01:17:59.72 | Unknown | Well, you have to have a roll call. |
| 01:18:06.34 | Unknown | because we're all voting on these. Council Member Cox. |
| 01:18:07.42 | Unknown | Council Member Cox. |
| 01:18:09.56 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 01:18:10.86 | Unknown | Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 01:18:12.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:18:12.73 | Sandra Bushmaker | Yes, except I refuse on 5J. |
| 01:18:18.28 | Unknown | Councilmember Whitley. |
| 01:18:19.45 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:18:19.47 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:18:19.48 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 01:18:21.22 | Unknown | by smear Cleveland knows. |
| 01:18:22.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:18:22.79 | Unknown | And Mayor Burns. |
| 01:18:24.86 | Unknown | you |
| 01:18:24.95 | Unknown | YES. |
| 01:18:25.03 | Unknown | And I'll leave it to someone else to move approval of 5M. |
| 01:18:28.88 | Lorna Newlin | I think we'll... |
| 01:18:30.11 | Unknown | I'll move approval of item 5M on the consent calendar. |
| 01:18:34.87 | Unknown | Second. I'll up that over, Tom. Council Member Cox. Recuse. Council Member Huffman. |
| 01:18:43.43 | Sandra Bushmaker | Yes. |
| 01:18:44.32 | Unknown | Councilmember Withey. Yes. Vice Mayor Cleveland Knowles. Yes. Mayor Burns. |
| 01:18:45.50 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 01:18:45.52 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 01:18:45.64 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. |
| 01:18:49.37 | Joe Burns | Yes. Those all pass. I don't even know the numbers. We have two recusals, 5J and 5M. I'll pass 5-0. Thank you. Great job. Ready for a break? No, we're right on time. |
| 01:19:05.96 | Sandra Bushmaker | No. Just keep going. We are up. Can I ask a question before we move on from this? Yep. Did we vote on 5N as in Nancy? |
| 01:19:07.73 | Joe Burns | We are up. Yep. |
| 01:19:13.82 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 01:19:13.84 | Unknown | Yes, I said five, yes. I thought you said through five? Through five L and five N. Oh, okay, sorry, my problem. |
| 01:19:13.85 | Sandra Bushmaker | Yes. I thought you said through five. |
| 01:19:22.93 | Joe Burns | OK, so we are up to business items. And on our business item, we start off with 6A, This is a monthly report on our general plan update. And as you may have heard, or you haven't, our community development director, Lily Whelan, had a baby a little early. And Delmar came into our world this last week. And so she's going to be late. She's still coming. No, she's not. She has started her maternity leave. I'm sure she's watching. |
| 01:19:50.47 | Sandra Bushmaker | I'm sure she's watching it home though, and we wish her well and her new baby. |
| 01:19:51.55 | Joe Burns | We wish her well. She's rushing for her bag right now. No, she's home and we have instead, Tom is going to give our presentation, so welcome. |
| 01:20:02.25 | Tom | Thank you. |
| 01:20:02.35 | Joe Burns | you |
| 01:20:02.42 | Tom | Thank you. |
| 01:20:02.56 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 01:20:03.03 | Tom | Thank you. |
| 01:20:03.38 | Joe Burns | you |
| 01:20:03.74 | Tom | So I only found out about this last night, so I don't have a presentation or anything. |
| 01:20:09.02 | Unknown | because Lily had her baby yesterday. |
| 01:20:13.68 | Tom | So no, I only learned last night that my presence was requested here last night. So I didn't have a chance to make a presentation, which is, I believe, what Lilly usually does. But I can speak to the memo, if you can find that in your package. So, So again, this is our monthly update. So it's page 311 of our packet. Thank you. |
| 01:20:40.44 | Unknown | 3-11. That's weird. |
| 01:20:43.26 | Tom | So I'm going to just report quickly on two past GPAC meetings. Then I'm going to talk a little bit about the one that's happening next Tuesday night after Labor Day. At the 17th, it was an interesting meeting. It was a continuation of some sea level rise potential impacts to Sausalito. So if you didn't have a chance to click on the little link to the memo, it's an interesting read. And if you haven't seen it, I encourage you to do it before the workshop. There's some interesting things in there about, for instance, potential jobs at stake in Sausalito if sea level rise impacts hit the way a lot of people are projecting them to. It's about, I think it's a little over 45% of the existing employment could be affected by businesses that would be hit by sea level rise. Item two that night, we talked about the Mirage workshop, and we're actually going to give an update of that at this coming GPAC meeting because it's moved forward. At the July 30th meeting, it was a little embarrassing. We, GPAC, I mean, M group tried to sort of short circuit things and move things along. And so we used a lot of just shorthand to take the committee recommendations that we had received from the nine groups that had been coming in between May and July, thinking, well, let's just shorthand this, let's just go through it. And we got a lot of pushback from the GPAC because they wanted to see the actual recommendations. So we heard that. Two GPAC members stepped forward and helped us, and we actually gathered everything everything sent it to them and they wordsmith it and maybe 25% of ours they still wanted to tinker with so they did and that's out in the GPAC hands now in advance of the September 3rd meeting. It's also tagged at the back end of the GPU issues matrix that you all received, and I'll talk about in just a moment. The last issues, and there's probably 30 pages of them, of that file, are recommendations that have come forward from the groups but haven't actually been deliberated on or discussed or recommended for approval by the GPAC. So at this next meeting on September 3rd, The GPAC is also in possession of the economic analysis, which we can get to you folks if you want, but I'm sure you want, but we haven't identified a date to actually get it to you folks. But the GPAC is in possession of that since last Friday, and they'll have about 45 minutes to an hour to sort of comment on it. Mostly we want to hear any comments they have, but we particularly want to hear their comments Tuesday night because and EPS will be at that meeting, they're the consultant that did the study. EPS will be making a presentation at the September 7th workshop. So if there's phrasing or wordsmithing or the way issues are phrased, it would be nice for us to hear that from the GPAC on September 3rd. Also on September 3rd, hopefully there'll be work, starting to get a lot of different things that are coming into the meeting, the two-hour meeting schedules. Also on the 3rd, we'll start to look at those lists, the list of recommendations that we received from the boards and commissions. And then the last 20 minutes, 20 to 30 minutes of the GPAC meeting, we'll talk about sort of a preview of the workshop and how the four-hour timeline is laying out, what the different exercises are, what the different pieces of information are that we'll be asking community members to fill out, to sort of give us information about who they are, what they think, what they want, and where they come from. So let me move on to, next part of the memo which is the general plan update issues so that's the big file that you got attached to our memo for tonight's meeting This has been requested for a while from different GPAC members and also I think many of you. And so what we have done in our office is we basically went back to the beginning and looked through all of the GPAC meetings, sometimes sifting through just actual video archive of the meetings, sometimes looking at minutes. But trying to identify every issue that has been raised, it quite often never gets to a point where there's a clear-cut vote, but at least it's been raised, discussed, and potential pros and cons identified. And if you look at the matrix, you can see there's a lot of empty columns, but it shows how we intend to use this through the fall as we push the discussion or the resolution of a GPAC discussion on these issues and then get it to come to you. So, for instance, I think if you look at, if that file is handy, and I don't know what page that is in your packet, but if you look at, for instance, issue 27, it's on page 11 of the matrix, you can see where we've taken a stab at how we would fill that matrix out. So you see the issue identified, utility undergrounding, you see some of the points that were raised by GPAC members. In that second column there's also an identification of which night, which meeting date that GPAC discussed it.. And as you move across, there's in the next column, the fourth column, moving left to right, |
| 01:26:10.55 | Lorna Newlin | Thank you. |
| 01:26:24.86 | Tom | That's how M group might propose something. We'll come up with a few proposals based on what we hear from the GPAC, or sometimes just using our own opinions that we might think is the right solution. Then options is what can be done about that. For instance, if it comes to you, you might have three different options for what to do about our recommendation for utility undergrounding. and then we'll try to also identify some pros and cons of that kind of decision. So what we've tried to set up here is a way that all these issues, once they're identified, and we'll be offering the GPAC this Tuesday a chance to comment to us in writing about things they think might be missing from this list. As these issues are identified and discussed, we can bring them to you with pros and cons and a potential recommendation or resolution that you might choose to agree with or take your own direction. Before I talk about the EIR update, does anybody have any question about this matrix or how it would work or how it looks to be working? |
| 01:27:34.75 | Joe Burns | Any questions? |
| 01:27:37.93 | Unknown | So, yeah, I mean, this seems like a lot of hours of work, and I'm not sure I exactly understand how this feeds into the general plan that we're trying to, I mean, is this, |
| 01:27:53.47 | Tom | Do you mean hours of work behind us or ahead of us by looking at this? I mean, it's just... It's a lot. It's been two years of meetings, so there's a lot been happening. A lot of these are pretty straightforward issues, and a lot of them, especially when you get into boards and commission recommendations, there's a lot, you know, the XYZ commission might have recommended that another commission also did. So it's going to, things will collapse collapse a little bit and it's a general plan update so we're taking what you already have and augmenting it with new ideas and and |
| 01:27:56.02 | Unknown | boat. I mean it's just. |
| 01:28:27.86 | Tom | new policies. |
| 01:28:31.66 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:28:32.55 | Tom | But I would like to hear your concern about when you say time, because the time is, as you probably saw on the EIR schedule, The time we're coming to a a juncture here. by the first of the year. |
| 01:28:47.11 | Unknown | Yeah, I guess I'm just surprised that we had to do this now. We had to go back. I mean, I kind of thought that this process was what the committee was working towards. So this is... to go back and listen to meetings that you were all sitting at. I just, I mean, I'm, It's just like recreating a process. I guess I just thought we were a little further down the path. Well, one thing I'm. |
| 01:29:13.22 | Tom | Well, one thing, I'm relatively new to the project. No, I'm not. This is not directed at all. |
| 01:29:14.74 | Unknown | THE FAMILY IS No, I'm not, this is not directed at you. You and Luke, you. |
| 01:29:18.53 | Tom | Well, no, you can direct it. But no, this was very informative for me, actually. And I didn't see too much of the video. There's a number of us working on this. But at some point we had to catalog all this. So this had to happen sooner or later. And there's just a number of people that had been clamoring for it to happen. |
| 01:29:34.95 | Joe Burns | So this becomes the living document then as you put your recommendations in and the options. This document actually can almost stay behind as well, right? I mean, it is the direction that will then be the |
| 01:29:48.67 | Unknown | Incorporated into. |
| 01:29:49.40 | Joe Burns | to incorporate into the update. |
| 01:29:51.04 | Unknown | the plans and policies of the general plan. The thing is. |
| 01:29:53.15 | Unknown | The thing is, so Council Member Withee just said he didn't understand my point. I guess my point is that the M Group staff and our staff were at every single one of these meetings taking notes and supposedly, I thought, tracking from the beginning from all that data gathering and all of the reports that were done in that into the visioning. So the fact that it all had to go back with many hours of work, and I think it was probably useful for you, I hope that our budget accommodated that because that seems like something that should have been happening from day one. That was my point. and not again directed at you specifically, |
| 01:30:35.54 | Tom | Well, it's a fixed fee, so your budget accommodated it perfectly. Except for the add-ons. Now, we have plenty of notes, but sometimes when utility undergrounding, I can't believe there was no decision. We'd go back and look at the video. We didn't look at two years of video, just verbatim, but we used it as an archive, as a way to go back and say, certainly somebody must have made a decision. In some cases, no, and in some cases, yes. |
| 01:30:36.92 | Unknown | Yes. I edited it perfectly. |
| 01:30:39.42 | Joe Burns | Except for the add-ons. |
| 01:31:01.84 | Unknown | OK, but then that comes to the other point, which is the decisions as they were made, I think we decided |
| 01:31:08.59 | Unknown | So decisions have not been made. That's the point of this document, is the GPAC is not the decision-making body. The city council is. And so it was important to the GPAC leadership to create a document by which the city council could weigh in as requested. And so this is, and I have to commend Council Member Withey for his leadership in helping get this process moved along in this manner. Because this document will now make it much easier for the city council to weigh in having heard the GPAC recommendations and the consultant recommendations and then the M group can assist in weaving |
| 01:31:23.68 | Klaus Lund | And so, |
| 01:31:48.76 | Unknown | the various directions into the policies and programs that are being updated within the general plan. |
| 01:31:54.53 | Unknown | Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:31:57.40 | Tom | Sure. Anything else? Good. So let me make two points about the EIR, the update, the last point. I did have a chance to talk to Lily about this last week because the piece that's in your packet that's called Sausalio General Plan Update EIR Schedule, we had that from our consultant, First Carbon Solutions, and I also gave Lily a heads up that First Carbon Solutions was developing a scope augmentation request, and so Lily said we can't send the uh... calendar. to the council and then show up two weeks later with a budget request. Well, we're still asking them. We actually had a phone call this morning. We're asking them to refine the budget of their request. And so what we did is we at least gave you notice that it's happening, that there is a budget request. And you can see in this calendar, there's three items that have asterisks. And they're affected by the budget request. A lot of it, more than half of it, will come from what's called Appendix G in the CEQA guidelines. Since this contract, we came under this contract, the state of California changed the CEQA guidelines, and so those went into effect January 1st this year, 2019. And then I think June 1st of 2020 the VMT regulations the VMT analysis kicks in and if you look at the calendar don't quote me but I think June 20th is approximately after we've released the admin draft EIR but before it's come to certification and adoption so as as a precaution, we decided to go ahead, or David Parisi decided to go ahead and do that analysis. Some of the costs affect |
| 01:33:06.31 | Klaus Lund | Yes. |
| 01:33:50.10 | Tom | counts being too old, the traffic counts are older than two years at this point. And so I asked him how old is too old, and he said two years is generally too old. So he's going to cut their sharpening their pencils this week, and we'll have in your staff report next week an alternative option where he might be able to do sort of a calibration, maybe go check one count and see how demonstrable the change is over the two years. And if it looks within reason, maybe we don't have to do more counts. So I think what you'll see in two weeks is the minimal cost and a potential additional add-on if we do have to go back and do more counts. So that's the update on the EIR. And if you have any questions, I can ask about that. Or I can answer them. |
| 01:34:41.20 | Joe Burns | Any questions on the EIR or comments? Before we do comments though, questions. |
| 01:34:44.12 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:34:44.19 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:34:44.32 | Unknown | Well, |
| 01:34:44.63 | Tom | Thank you. |
| 01:34:46.87 | Unknown | I don't have a question. I'm aware of the CEQA guidelines update. |
| 01:34:50.52 | Joe Burns | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 01:34:51.65 | Unknown | That's been coming for a long time. So I mean, I just assumed we would do a VMT analysis. |
| 01:34:51.66 | Unknown | That's my question. |
| 01:34:57.37 | Unknown | No, I'm talking about the CEQA guidelines updated. The CEQA guidelines totally got renovated at the beginning of this year. |
| 01:35:04.19 | Tom | There's a VNT piece that's in Appendix G. So Appendix G will be affected a lot by First Carbon Solutions, which is doing many of the chapters. But it also has a piece that will affect Parisi in the traffic analysis. |
| 01:35:04.37 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE Right. |
| 01:35:17.43 | Joe Burns | We're going to... |
| 01:35:17.65 | Tom | Thank you. |
| 01:35:17.70 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 01:35:17.80 | Tom | Thank you. |
| 01:35:17.84 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 01:35:17.87 | Tom | this is coming to us still two weeks yeah okay |
| 01:35:19.90 | Matthew Weintraub | Yeah. Go ahead, Ray. Yeah. |
| 01:35:24.18 | Unknown | So my question is, If you look at the, what do you call it, the EIR schedule, Um... I mean, your very first, the very first thing, which I'm obviously aware of, is City confirms changes to propose land use classifications and dentists, September 27. And If we are not ready for that, were we not to be in a position for that, does that mean that really the EIR timeline is impacted until we do that? So is one of the rate-limiting steps, step one, on the calendar? That's the question. |
| 01:36:18.82 | Lorna Newlin | Thank you. |
| 01:36:20.19 | Unknown | How long of a delay did you want to suggest? |
| 01:36:22.74 | Unknown | No, I'm not suggesting anything. I'm asking the question. |
| 01:36:22.76 | Unknown | Thank you. THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:36:23.21 | Tom | I'm asking the question. Potentially, yes. However, this wasn't written by us. We might have written this differently. The EIR consultant wrote this. So you know I've only been in this project since April 1st, but Heather Hines has been in it from day one. And what she's told me over the, if she were to use this language, her understanding from any of the GPAC meetings that if you take out the marine ship, out of Sausalito, there's not going to be any significant changes in land use or density. So we kind of already know the answer, that answer, the way the EIR consultant worded this for most of the city, except for that piece that hopefully we're going to hear from the community on September 7th, what a vision is. Now add to that, The community doesn't have to say We want. 2000 square foot of industrial and we want 40 residents. It doesn't have to be that exact. We just have to give enough so that we can write the NOP about what's going to happen generally and have a general build out table. So, We're still working on the specific plan, but it's in our head that we need to be thinking about the September, I guess it's 24th meeting here, where we bring you guys the results of what we heard from GPAC and how they interpreted the workshop results. So we believe it's doable from the standpoint of getting a build-out table for a notice of preparation. But if we get to that point and you're not able to make decision then we're going to have to see how far can we push it. I wouldn't say we could push it more than a month or two. Actually, let me say more than a month. |
| 01:38:12.70 | Unknown | So the issue then is that this timeline is driven on the fact that we've set a goal of next fall for adoption of the general plan, right? And We are... What is going to be rate limiting, from what I'm hearing, is going to be the land use designations that we want to see changed, if any, in the marineship. I don't know how we get from here to there is the problem. |
| 01:38:49.69 | Unknown | So that's our job, Ray. You and I have been working on that for a couple of months now. So that's our job. So it does seem- |
| 01:38:56.49 | Unknown | Well, it's the city council's job. |
| 01:38:58.39 | Unknown | Well, but you and I have been working on how to. |
| 01:38:59.10 | Unknown | that you and I have been working on. |
| 01:39:03.25 | Unknown | how to organize the work of the GPAC and coordinate with the city council to get to a decision point on those issues. |
| 01:39:13.36 | Unknown | But it does seem, right, it is your job, and I appreciate all the work that both of you have put into it, but it does seem that the task of the GPAC could be prioritized in the next several meetings, especially after public input at the workshop, to focus on this particular question, because all of these other issues in these charts don't have as high environmental impact report consequences. |
| 01:39:16.38 | Klaus Lund | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:39:40.56 | Unknown | That is exactly the way it's organized. The GPAC is going to meet five days after the workshop. |
| 01:39:42.15 | Unknown | Okay, great. |
| 01:39:45.86 | Unknown | to, make recommendations based on feedback from the workshop that the City Council will then have at its meeting two weeks later. |
| 01:39:53.22 | Joe Burns | Even prior to that September 7th meeting, I think a very direct timeline should be put out. That this is, you're going to meet within five days and this is what's going to be done. And this is where you're going to get to these decisions. We've published that. |
| 01:40:04.16 | Unknown | We've published that timeline to the GPAC. We just developed that over the summer, so we haven't published it to the council. |
| 01:40:08.68 | Unknown | But I also think. So, But also for the public's expectation. I think people at the Marinship workshop need to understand if they want to weigh in more directly in public comment what GPAC meetings will be addressing this topic, and then if we can schedule city council meetings or planning commissioning, I don't know how this is gonna go, Um, to have that all available so people can see their path to public comment and our path to decision. Yeah, that's a fair point. |
| 01:40:42.40 | Joe Burns | Any other questions for Tom? I'm going to open up to public comment. Questions? I don't have any green cards. Does anybody like to make a public comment on this item? Seeing Vicki, this is opening up public comment on item 6A, general plan update. Vicki Nichols. |
| 01:40:59.19 | Vicki Nichols | I'm sorry. speaking as a just a citizen, not as the chair of the planning commission. I've only heard one comment in all this discussion about the public. You're basing all their input on one workshop, And I don't think you're giving people enough time about the marinship if you're saying that that's what you're going to base everything on. I'm hearing that you already have a plan about how you're going to use that information. It makes me very nervous for you, because if you're using this to roll into your EIR process, We know in Sausalito that if you don't engage the public and you don't engage them fully as much as you can, you're going to have a problem. And the marinship is a lightning rod. So I would urge you to allow enough time, not Russian EIR, And if you have to have two meetings for people, I went door to door and put out flyers. People have been trying to do everything they can to get people to this meeting. But there are going to be some people that can't come. that have valuable input. So I just think it's a little short-sighted to base everything on one workshop, I really do. Mr. Mayor, can I address that? |
| 01:42:13.30 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:42:14.19 | Joe Burns | Okay. |
| 01:42:14.75 | Unknown | So this is not the only meeting on the MarinShip. We've had several pop-up workshops already in the MarinShip at the beginning of our process. We have a whole page devoted to the MarinShip. last community meeting regarding the Marin ship, but we've been soliciting feedback regarding the marine ship throughout much of our GPAC process. |
| 01:42:37.47 | Joe Burns | Any other public comment? Any public comment on this? I'm going to close public comment. Okay. Did you want to say something? I have comments, but whatever. Okay, let's – how do we want to do – Jill, you want to throw anything on this one? Go ahead, Susan. |
| 01:42:44.79 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:42:44.81 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:42:44.82 | Lorna Newlin | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:42:45.02 | Unknown | comments. |
| 01:42:46.56 | Lizzie Jeremy | Thank you. |
| 01:42:52.28 | Unknown | Okay, so I had a couple comments. First, just a technical issue, and I would have emailed Lily, but I heard that she was otherwise occupied. The links in the memo are not working. So thank you for putting the links in. That was something I had commented on before, and I don't know if that was a city side issue, but on the iPads, the links to the memo and the presentation are not live for me. Second, in terms of input from boards and commissions, I just wanna make sure that the admissions brief that the Sausalito Sustainability Commission worked very hard on has actually been transmitted to the GPAC and is being considered in their recommendations. That has a lot of elements that are worthy, I think, of the general plan and then some more detailed things that might be more appropriate for our strategic plan. So I just wanna make sure that everyone has received that because it was not received at the time they gave their presentation to the GPAC. I would really like to get the economic analysis if that's out to the GPAC. I think something that's that important should be posted and available to the city council and to members of the public. Thank you. |
| 01:44:08.05 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:44:08.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:44:08.12 | Unknown | It's online now. It's on your IA legislature. |
| 01:44:08.17 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:44:13.48 | Unknown | Okay, under what? Under GPAC. Under GPAC for next Tuesday's meeting? |
| 01:44:16.86 | Joe Burns | next Tuesday's meeting? Yeah, 30th, yeah. |
| 01:44:19.19 | Unknown | Okay, so if the public wants to access it, they can go to the general plan committee meeting for Thursday. Correct, the agenda is posted. Okay, thank you. And then lastly, I did listen to the meeting about where sea level rise was described or discussed. And I did just want to note, so I guess this was the July 17th meeting, I thought it was a really interesting discussion about the realities of sea level rise. But I also thought the initial reports that a lot of effort and time went into, |
| 01:44:24.84 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 01:44:24.86 | Unknown | Correct, the agenda is posted. |
| 01:44:59.91 | Unknown | Shoot, I had it up on my screen, but the existing conditions report for sea level rise has a lot of that information. And, you know, including Bay Wave. And it seemed, at least at the meeting, that the GPAC members had not had that refreshed in their minds, had not re-read it. I mean, I read all those existing condition reports. They were thorough. And we worked very hard on getting summaries that were understandable. And the summary of that actually contains recommendations on sea level rise for consideration. So I don't want that work to get lost in the new kind of reiteration. So when these issues are coming forward, I think building on all the work that we've done in the past. and refreshing the committee members sending those information sending that information to them again putting at the top of their minds so that we're not rehashing the same things over and over again so that just um i thought that was a good summary uh that they that had been finalized over a year ago i think then lastly, on this issue of public input on the marineship, I mean, I would just emphasize that this decision about what the EIR is gonna consider is just the assumptions. and alternatives that will go into the EIR. So there will be, this is not a final decision that X, Y, or Z is the density in the MarinShip or anywhere else. It will be a series of alternatives and there'll be public input throughout the development of the EIR. So while I agree, and I did already note, that I think we should publish the calendar for public input, there will be, it's not a final decision on the land uses. It's just what our preferred project is. |
| 01:46:57.73 | Joe Burns | Great comments. Brady, do you have anything else? |
| 01:47:03.20 | Unknown | Yeah, so thanks, Tom, for the, you know, 24 hours ago you didn't realize you were going to give a presentation tonight, so thank you. And of course, congratulations to Lillian family. Now, I think if you look at the document that was prepared, and I fully understand the vice mayor's concern, frustration, I don't know, I don't want to characterize it. I'll let you characterize it. That many of these issues that are listed there, it was the plan of the M group to end up discussing a lot of that in the context of the work we're going to be doing in October and November, which Tom remind me is the four or five meetings that we've got scheduled. What's your? |
| 01:48:03.29 | Tom | They call it policy framework. Okay, got it. And for instance, that would give you a chance to look at the marineship in the context of the land use element again. |
| 01:48:05.08 | Unknown | Okay, got it. |
| 01:48:12.30 | Unknown | Right. Right. Okay. So a lot of these decisions and recommendations up to City Council will be made of a lot of these things that are relevant to the general plan. some of them are not relevant to the general plan, but those that are relevant to the general plan will be coming up to City Council, I mean, going to GPAC and then coming up to City Council to confirm or not the decisions that GPAC has made on a lot of these issues that are relevant. |
| 01:48:23.39 | Klaus Lund | Thank you. |
| 01:48:46.84 | Unknown | The marine ship is... One where we have... I think we've got to be very careful that the economic study is a residual land use study, residual land value study, sorry. And that is sort of one lens, one economic way of looking at the issue. There are all kinds of others, including what we're going to be discussing next, which is the land use, economic – Land economics. Yeah. Which is – and anyway, we don't need to talk about that. This is our next agenda item. But they're linked, right? So the problem is we're only going to get a certain amount of information from the residual value study, and there's more that's going to be needed. And so part of our challenge is here we've got a sort of misalignment of timing, potentially. |
| 01:49:29.54 | Joe Burns | on economics. |
| 01:49:55.34 | Unknown | I mean, the other thing is we're going to be rolling into our strategic planning process in later on in the fall and getting ready for the budget process that is starting next year. And so we've got a lot of things that belong in our strategic plan, but we also have some implementation measures that are going to roll out of the general plan that need to go into the strategic plan. So there's going to be a lot of jiggling of timelines, which is in the perfect world, they'll all be in alignment, but it's not the perfect world and they're not, so we just got to figure out how we're going to get through this so that the decisions can be made. If the priority in the next several for the GPAC is to really focus on land uses in the marine ship so we can at least move that ball along a little bit. I think that would help enormously for clarifying our timeline. Because I think my sense is that the timeline were really We're in a crunch on the timeline if we want to meet that next fall's deadline. So I'm not providing any words of wisdom or illumination here. I'm just also a little bit frustrated that we've got this timing issue that we've just got to deal with. |
| 01:51:18.67 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. |
| 01:51:18.95 | Joe Burns | you |
| 01:51:20.94 | Unknown | Ray said it all. |
| 01:51:23.04 | Joe Burns | No, not everything. So, he did. In fact, between Joan and Susan, you said a lot. And thank you, Tom, for being here and taking that on. You're part of the M group, and the M group's been here the whole time. So I think of you as being here the entire time, and that's how we're going to proceed. |
| 01:51:24.99 | Unknown | . |
| 01:51:41.52 | Klaus Lund | Thank you. |
| 01:51:43.51 | Joe Burns | I think the big discussion for me and really my role or just my feeling on this whole process is the public communication element to this. I think we have to provide every opportunity for the public to come. And really there has been some really good public input through this process. We've seen it in different ways, but in your meetings, even though I'd love to see those have 10, 12, 14 people in them, you have taken, the GPAC has taken some of the public comment in writings and in reports and in one-on-ones and and and you've brought that into what's currently on our on our sheet that we're looking at that will be into the recommendations because that's got to be the hardest process is two and a half three years of public comment getting wrapped in and then we're gonna have an evening where we have to kind of go through who said all this about what well we can't really we can't do all that we really are going to rely on that the public had opportunities and will continue to have opportunities to speak to the g-pack and that they're considered and heard there so that a lot of that's wrapped in and going forth we got to get more people to these means really excited about the 7th. I'm looking forward to a lot of people being there. And like Susan brought up, the Vice Mayor brought up, and Ray touched on, we have this isn't the end of the discussion, both on the marinship or the plans in general, especially as we get into more of the economic development discussions. But hopefully we get the voices before, because we know we're gonna get them afterwards. We just know that there's gonna be a lot of opinion when it's done, but let's get those in here now. Let's get them as many as possible. So to me, it's still a severe public outreach attempt by us, by the GPAC, and our staff is doing that, so. I think we're moving along. Look forward to the 3rd and the 7th. You have two big dates ahead of you. |
| 01:53:44.48 | Tom | Okay, thank you. |
| 01:53:45.70 | Joe Burns | Thanks, Tom. Thanks for coming down. We know. Anybody want to take a quick break as we get wrapped up here? We've got to. Start a slide presentation. Julie, I'm going to call you up. |
| 01:53:58.90 | Joe Burns | Discussion? of an economic development program consideration of economic development and authorization to issue RFPs as in two. |
| 01:54:11.65 | Unknown | of the ethnicities. |
| 01:54:12.48 | Joe Burns | Anybody needs to grab water? Cookie, you better run. He's almost set up. Okay. |
| 01:54:14.44 | Unknown | almost set up. |
| 01:54:20.41 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor and City Council, I'm Yulia Carter, your Assistant City Manager and Administrative Services Director. And it is my pleasure to introduce today this item tonight. We've been working on the concept of economic development program for about two months now. And the With some initial preparation and internal discussions, we first introduced our vision for economic development. at the joint meeting with the business advisory committee and hospitality committee, we received some very constructive feedback from both groups The meeting was back in July, July 18th, And we also formed a subcommittee with representatives from both groups. Later in July, July 30th, we brought this item to Finance Committee. We had several meetings with the subcommittee Another joint meeting with the Hospitality and Business Advisory Committee on August 15th. to finalize the details and sequence of all economic development plans and initiatives that you will see later tonight And tonight. we are bringing all conceptual elements of this new economic development program to the entire council. So that's the first time you will hear it as a council level. for the whole vision of the program. And before I turn it to Brian Moore, our economic development advisor with RCS, I would like to thank I would like to point out that this presentation represents a major milestone. in the city's vision for the economic development. And I would like to thank both Hospitality and Business Advisory Committees who have done a tremendous job is outlining the program and identifying economic needs for the city. I also would like to thank the City Council for taking the lead during the budget process for identifying this capital improvement project and allocating funds for the economic development And again, so this presentation today is really collaborative effort of many, many stakeholders in the city. And with that, I would like to introduce and turn it to Brian Mora, who will go over the presentation. |
| 01:56:54.90 | Joe Burns | How long have you been sitting there, Brian? I didn't notice you. I thought, wow, he just appears. We need him, and he just shows up. |
| 01:57:02.49 | Brian Moore | I was in the back hanging with the police and fire folks. Okay. |
| 01:57:03.12 | Joe Burns | OK. |
| 01:57:07.47 | Brian Moore | So we have presented a lot of this material to several committees and I believe most, if not all, the council member have seen much of this. What I'm gonna try to focus on tonight are some of the new items that are new in this particular report, although obviously as we get into discussion, we certainly can discuss all of it. Um, The first section that we want to talk about has to do with economic development and the general plan. There's been a lot of discussion and in some cases questions on how the two relate. And so in the staff report, we talk about that. I think one of the interesting things is we initially talked about the goals of an economic development program in any city, this is kind of a generic list of goals in terms of promoting healthy business climate, communications between the city and the businesses, attract and retain key businesses, et cetera. What I thought was interesting is if we then flip over to the other lens, the general plan, what we find is in the city's current general plan, which was adopted in 1995, In the current economic element, If you go to the six goals, in that element, you find that those six goals track almost exactly what one would find in a standard city economic development program. Things like establish a working relationship with the business community, foster a spirit of cooperation with business community, encourage businesses that enhance the quality of life, encourage and ensure diversity in downtown commercial area uses, ensure and encourage local serving businesses, and promote and enhance economic vitality. Now obviously these six goals will be reviewed by the GPAC and ultimately by the Council as part of your current general plan update process. and they may change. but my prediction is in many cases they might be tweaked a bit, but you'll probably end up with something very similar to that. And as I note and you noted at the Council Dias in the previous item, obviously in this process you take the existing element, it's reviewed by GPAC, those recommendations come to the Council, and then as the Council has noted, the Council is the one that makes the decision on any changes. And I won't go through this only because I think Yulia did a nice job in terms of talking about the evolution of the economic development program over the last... year and the last two months. but I wanted to focus a little bit on the recommendations from the Business Advisory Committee and the Hospitality Committee, one of the interesting things that Um, earlier this year is when the BAC and the Hospitality Committee made their recommendations to Actually, most of the recommendations they made related more to economic development than they related to the general plan. And at first there was some concern slash confusion about that. And when I looked at it, I said, actually, this is great because we can use all of the business community's recommendations as a starting point for economic development and kind of pick the ball up from where they left it when they presented to. the general plan. And so what you have is earlier this year we had a report from the BAC to the GPAC and Council, three reports actually, covering the downtown, Caledonia Street and Marinship areas. There's actually a merchant meeting that the BAC did with the merchants in the Caledonia Street area to engage them and get their feedback. And we had a list of 14 recommendations from the hospitality committee, most of which dealt with hospitality, but some actually dealt with the broader business issues in the general plan. Thank you. And out of that came 35 recommendations, which initially, as we met with the two groups, it was seen as a little unwieldy. However, what we did at the staff level, working with the staff, is we were able to create a matrix pulling all of those together, looking for the common themes. And we put together this table, which is in your packet, which shows you the 35 items and that list of letters and numbers on the right-hand side shows you how many times a specific item was mentioned, which reports it showed up in, and also there's a column called process, which talks about what type of a process one would use to address the various recommendations your business community has made. And this is just a quick summary of the recommendations. 17, roughly half, appeared in two or more of the reports. There were four recommendations involving reviewing format retail, looking at a tourism and visitors plan, addressing landscape and streetscape, maintenance and funding, and doing a land economic study that appeared in three of the four reports. And then there were other areas mentioned including branding, economics, zoning, signage, et cetera. So we broke this out into really two areas. One is what I would call long-range elements, namely major initiatives that will take a significant amount of time. And. We put these under an umbrella of sorts that would ultimately be the city's economic development program if the council elects to move in this direction. And this just highlights, again, elements of an economic development program. You typically work with your business community, also with your residents. It requires a significant commitment from your existing city departments. You're going to probably need some outside expertise. And so we can talk briefly about some of the major elements that could occur in such a plan. The first is the land economic study. You have a copy attached to your council report tonight of an RFP for such a study, and if the council is so inclined tonight, we're asking that you authorize going to the market and doing one of these. The significance of this particular type of report is you hire a land economist or a land economist firm, they take a look at. what are the potential uses in your key business districts in a community over the next 20 years. It's very helpful in terms of taking a look at your existing rules and regulations and sort of some of the nuts and bolts in terms of areas where if you made a little tweak here, a little change there, it would facilitate retaining and attracting the sort of businesses you want. The next one is an economic development strategic plan. This is sort of the umbrella, as we talked about earlier, where literally all the different activities related to economic development fit. In some instances, in some cities, this is the first step in the process. In this city, there seems to be more energy towards doing the economic review first, but again, either can come first on one of these plans. And then finally, there's a branding and marketing study. This is done in most cities, particularly in those that are larger and also those that have a particular theme such as here, the tourism. And what's interesting about this type of an initiative is that you create a Sausalito brand and identity. And what you do is you have a firm come in that has expertise in this area, and they talk to a number of audiences about what the city means to them, not just city residents or local Marin County residents, but people who are outside the area, tourists, et cetera. And then finally, As I noted earlier, one of the things that we found was of the 35 recommendations, roughly 10 are things that would either be addressed by community development general plan Interestingly, about a month or two after we did this analysis, the M group came in with their analysis, and they also came to the same conclusion, namely 10 of these items relate to the general plan and the other 25 do not. And this talks a little bit about some of the areas that the city departments would be engaged in if the city moves ahead with an economic development program. So I wanted to highlight just briefly the RFP that you have in front of you for a land economic study. Again, the purposes are to inform your economic development program It, uh, looks at opportunities that the city has based on market forces, not necessarily desires per se, And it also comes up with a series of strategies for business success in the various business districts. Now, perhaps the most important part of this slide is actually the second half, which is normally when you do a land economic study, one of the things you want to do is focus the firm on questions. I call them questions. Some people might call them strategies or something else. But you focus them on issues that the city is curious about or is wrestling with. So as we looked at, the recommendations from the business community, it occurred to us there are a number of themes that we hear over and over again, and you can see I've actually identified by number where they show up on that list. Things like... What are the existing and desirable uses in your different business areas? How can the business mix in the various business areas be improved? How does the city and the business community work together to retain and grow independent businesses? Should the city revise and review its format retail restrictions? What businesses are missing from Sausalito? What future uses are likely to come and how do you get the uses that you'd like? And then finally the question of resident serving businesses. How do you enhance that? Are they going to be successful in the short term and the long term? What options do you have? These are specific items that are in the RFP and as part of any reviewer selection process what What we need to do is, if this moves forward, find a firm that will answer those sorts of questions. items that are in the RFP and as part of any reviewer selection process, what we need to do is, if this moves forward, find a firm that will answer those sorts of questions. The key to success in one of these studies is to have a firm that will give you some narrative that helps you with strategies to achieve some of these goals. You don't want a firm that's going to strictly give you a report with a lot of numbers and economic jargon. You want specific answers. And again, that's why this strictly give you a report with a lot of numbers and economic jargon. You want specific answers. And again, that's why this is constructed the way it is. The other area I want to talk about a bit is short-term deliverables and elements. One of the things that we heard when we met with the BAC is and with the hospitality committee in the joint meeting format is people said, well, it's great that the city is starting down this road of economic development. It's great you're looking at some of these long-range things, which will take, at a minimum, a couple months, if not longer, to achieve. But what do we do in the meantime? We don't want to lose momentum on things that we have going or things that can be done quickly. And so, we began talking about two different areas, one having to do with geo-zones and data, and the other having to do with some initiatives that the hospitality committee was working on. So let me start with the concept of business zones. This is something that is fairly common as part of an economic development program in many cities. In some cases, it's also done in finance to better understand where revenue is generated. Traditionally, cities look at revenue particularly in the sales tax area in terms of the type of business that generates revenue. So, for example, reports that have come to this council in the past have told you things like a lot of your sales tax is generated by restaurants. It's 50% of the total, and you've seen other business category-related reports. What you haven't seen before, I'm guessing, is you haven't seen where in the city the money's coming from. So that's the purpose of this. So we started with how people in Sausalito define the business districts. And basically it appears, at least from what I've seen and heard, that everybody looks at it, there's like these four areas. There's the downtown, there's Caledonia Street, and the adjacent portion of Bridgeway, there's the Marinship, and then there's what we call neighborhood commercial. So what we did is under each of those major areas or major headings, we created anywhere from one to three zones that represent those particular areas and we broke them out based on the city's zoning map. And we did that at the recommendation of community development that said, you know, if you want to get going quickly, that's how you do it. I think as we looked at our initial results, I have a feeling we're going to probably have to tweak those zones a little bit. One, because we didn't quite capture everybody in those proximate areas by using the zoning map, but it's pretty close. And the other thing is we did have some feedback early on as we began to look at the Marinship area where there were some suggestions that maybe it should be divided up a little differently. Instead of using the zoning map, maybe there should be three areas versus two or whatever. Again, the nice thing about this sort of a program is once you set it up and you have your initial reports, you can always fine tune the geo zones because what happens is you provide the geo zones, the map areas or the shape files as they call them, to the various sources of the revenue data, they overlay the two and then generate quarterly reports. And this is an example of zone three that we created. This is the Caledonia Street and adjacent Bridgeway area. and essentially as you can see this is right out of the city zoning map we use the pink colored area, which is the CR zone, to capture that particular, or create that particular zone. The other seven zones were created in the same fashion, and in your packet you have the maps. I won't go into that level of detail. So let's take a look at some of the early results. And again, these are subject to change, both based on tweaking the zones and also taking a look at those results that fell outside the eight, because in some cases those probably should... approximately be there. So the first table we have are the business license tax. This is for the 2019 tax year. And as the council probably recalls, in 2019, you gave the current businesses a rate holiday for one year in the new ordinance. So everybody renewed in January, and those who were on the books in January paid under the old ordinance, the lower rates. Everybody starting July 1st going forward, new businesses pay the new rates. And in fact, if you go on the website today, you'll see the new ordinance, the description of the new program. And in talking to HDL, which is the company that helps the city manage its business license program, they tell me these are the registrations to date. You have 622 total businesses. Of those, 60 have come online since July 1, so they are under the new ordinance. 562 or whatever the number is are under the existing ordinance. And you see that in this particular view of your business community, that over half of your businesses are in the so-called Marinship North Zone, and that is followed by the other seven zones. It's also interesting that in the Marin Ship North Zone, you have 55% of all your business license tax revenue. Now, one of the things to remember about this table is is that because the ordinance kicks in on January 1 of next year under the new formulas, this distribution may well change. Both the numbers might be different, but also which zones or where might be a little different. But right now, for this tax year, that's what it looks like. And for those who are a little more visually inclined, here's a pie chart of the same information grouped by major zones. And what this basically shows you, again, is based on revenue, 61% of the business license tax revenue comes from the marineship, 28% from downtown, 11% from Caledonia, 5% from neighborhood commercial. Property tax is the next area we looked at. Now the one caveat here is, The council probably will recall that in the budget, you bring in over $5 million a year in property tax. And so when you see this number, $600,000, you might initially think, did the staff make a mistake or what happened here? The thing to know about Sausalito is 80% of the parcels in Sausalito are residential. They are not business. So that would explain why the business portion of your property tax is significantly smaller than the rest of the community. It's just an observation. But if we look at the property tax of the business zones, again, a familiar pattern emerges. Most of the money, 46%, is coming from Marinship North again. And then the second, again, is your downtown central. So we certainly see a theme here in terms of where the revenue is generated. And if you look at the pie chart, similar but a little different, Marinship 53%. Downtown, 28%. Caledonia, again, around 11%. And the neighborhood commercial, 7%. And then finally we have sales tax revenues. And this one, the caveat is that we're only looking here at your 1% sales tax. In other words, we're not looking at your measure 0.0.0 local sales tax. So if you want to approximate total sales tax, you should multiply all these numbers by 1.5. I'm not sure. which tells you, for example, if you combine the downtown central and the downtown waterfront, which is around $800,000, and you multiply it by one and a half, it tells you that if you look at those two together, that your downtown is generating about $1.2 million a year in sales tax. Similarly, if you take MarinShip North and MarinShip South together, which is around $600,000, and you multiply that out, you get around $900,000. And again, because we need to still tweak the zones and look at the all other category, I have a feeling both the number of businesses and the revenue on all of these charts are likely to change and probably go up a bit. But this one is a little different. At this time, you see that the top two are flipped. Now the downtown central is a little higher than the Marinship. In terms of revenue, however, the number of businesses is still primarily in the Marinship North, which again is consistent across all of the slides. And the reason for that is, again, what we talked about earlier, the fact that half of your sales tax is from your restaurants. And obviously downtown central and downtown waterfront is where your restaurants are. So that's the explanation as to why that distribution is a little different than the others. And again, it's also shown on this pie chart where you see the downtown is now 47% of sales tax, the Marin ship is 35% roughly, Caledonia again 11% and that neighborhood seven. Again, those last two pretty consistent. So that's one initiative. Again, we have initial data for you. We're gonna tweak the geo zones and tweak some of the other information there. And then hopefully what happens is once that's all finalized, going forward, the city can get on a quarterly basis this kind of data on a regular basis so you know where your revenue is coming from in addition to what you knew in the past, which is what sectors it came from. So we think that's a step forward. The other thing that we've talked about in a short-term deliverable has to do with the work that the hospitality committee is doing regarding an enhanced marketing program and an enhanced digital platform. And some of the things that they've talked about And again, You know, this is early stages. Um, is that they've talked about things like under the Enhanced Marketing Program, reviewing the target market, further developing the program that they have, looking at how do you get people who are on business trips or going to conferences to stay in Sausalito versus staying in San Francisco, and does that involve certain events or promotions or marketing or more information, that sort of thing, sort of the linkage, if you will, between shopping, dining, and lodging. So that's one piece of the puzzle. And then the other piece of the puzzle has to do with the city's existing digital platform, the so-called Destination Sausalito program. The discussion at the Hospitality Committee was today that program is on the web, it's on Facebook, it's on Instagram, the question is should it be on more social media platforms. Should there be more videos or photographs? Should there be additional messaging opportunities? Should there be better analytics? A whole series of things you could do. And so the discussion that we've had initially is, do you do these as two different RFPs or one? And I think the initial thought was, well, maybe you put them together, because it could be the case that one firm might come in, almost like a general contractor of sorts in public works, and say, we'd like to do the whole ball of wax for the city. We'd like to do the enhanced marketing, and we'd like to control the digital platform so the two work together. Others may look at it as two separate things. So what you have in your packet is a real early sort of first cut. It's an attempt by Yuli and I to take the comments and the early materials from the hospitality committee and rough out what we think a scope of work looks like. And what we're asking for the council to do today, if you're interested in the program and interested in this particular aspect, is to authorize us to finish out that RFP with the assistance of the hospitality committee and then go ahead and issue it. And I guess the one thing, too, to emphasize on both of these RFPs is obviously, Each of them has to come back to the council before anything happens. You have to review them in terms of who the recommended firm is and what the price is and what the deliverables are, the scope, and to see if that's something that you're ready to green light or not. Sure. |
| 02:18:24.03 | Sandra Bushmaker | Do you mind if I have a question real quick since we're on this? Okay, so this goes back to my comments back on the consent calendar with regard to the proposal for the 16,000 for the Destination Sausalito platform. So is this separate from that, or is this in addition to that effort? I'm just trying to figure out how the two work together so that I can focus my efforts in the next week to figure out what we're doing with that. |
| 02:18:49.34 | Brian Moore | Right. Well, our understanding was that, and again, I'll defer to Mike, and you have some hospitality people here. They may have better information than I. But my understanding is that the item that you had earlier was to maintain the current level of the digital platform. In other words, what you have today and extend it through the end of the fiscal year. What this is talking about is sort of taking it to the next level and adding a lot more to it. And I guess one of the policy questions the council will have if we move ahead with this and we bring it to you is, A, what does that cost? B, what additional features whoever the successful vendor may or may not be? And then do you as the council feel that that's worth that additional investment? I'm anticipating, I could be wrong, that the enhancing destination Sausalito is likely to cost more than, the $11,000 or the $16,000 you're paying today. And so that's going to be a decision point, I think, for you. |
| 02:19:47.65 | Sandra Bushmaker | Okay, so I think My conversation today with Jeff, Mr. Shirash, and Mr. Tomai, I think was more than just maintaining the current website. In other words, it was moving more toward the discussion that you have here. And so I think, Jeff, if I have that right, if you could nod your head and I see Yoshi back there too. Yeah, okay, so I don't think that the consent calendar item was to maintain what's currently there. It's definitely to move more in this direction. So I think we should all talk about this, sort of, so that we don't duplicate efforts and we all sort of have a common idea about how we're moving forward, but I'm happy to do that, thanks. |
| 02:20:11.63 | Klaus Lund | Yeah. |
| 02:20:30.73 | Brian Moore | Thank you. So move on now to the review process as Yulia indicated earlier. This item was reviewed by the joint meeting of the BAC and the hospitality committee. It also went to the Economic Development Subcommittee, which basically are two members from each of those groups to kind of refine the documents. And then it went to the Finance Committee, which recommended to the Council that they move forward with both the Economic Development Program and the Land Economics RFP. And so those are the recommendations we have for you tonight in terms of one authorizing proceeding with the Economic Development Program for the city, Second. issuing the RFP for the land economic study, and then third, authorizing an RFP for the enhanced marketing and the digital platform recommended by hospitality, recognizing that on that third item it's still, at least what we have, is a rough draft. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. |
| 02:21:30.23 | Joe Burns | Yeah, stay there, Brian. Let's see. Jill, do you have another one, or do you want to? I do, but someone else can ask. Go ahead, Steve. |
| 02:21:33.15 | Sandra Bushmaker | I do, but someone else can ask. I was just going to ask, do you have, I mean, I know we had some money allocated for this effort, but with regard to the RFPs that you just talked about, do you have a sense of what we're looking at budget wise? I mean, you guys have gotten a, I like the presentation that you've given and the data that you've already drawn from sources that we already have. I think that's fantastic, so thanks for that effort. |
| 02:21:49.05 | Brian Moore | THE FAMILY. |
| 02:21:54.95 | Brian Moore | Thank you. Great. |
| 02:22:01.47 | Adam Politzer | The question, do we have funds available or do we have an estimate of what these will cost? |
| 02:22:07.17 | Sandra Bushmaker | Yeah, because I think we budgeted for this effort, or at least the $200,000 right, in the budget. And so I just want to make sure that we're clear about what the scope, I guess, of the economics of the RFP. |
| 02:22:21.08 | Adam Politzer | Yeah, I think that the first question is that we think that what we have in the city's budget, existing budget, would cover the costs of the larger RFP. I think what we'll know when the proposals come back is that exceeding, or does it leave money on the table to do more? I think the short-range RFP will give us a variety of opportunities. And as Brian indicated, there may be one firm that comes and says we can do it all, or there may be multiple firms that say we can do this piece or that piece, and then we'll pick and choose what programs we think we want to move forward with, and then we will negotiate with the vendor based on what they propose. So I think it's early, too early to say. I don't want to compare it to our parks projects, but we can put an estimate out there. until you actually get into the weeds and get into the the discussion it will evolve we might see something that's in the proposal that we didn't think about. that we want to explore and then that would be an additional potential additional cost. Right now I think overall we think that we have plenty of money in the budget to support this effort, but until the proposals come back we won't know exactly which ones we would recommend to the council to proceed on or which ones to give us direction to go back and negotiate some different aspects of those proposals. |
| 02:23:54.12 | Unknown | Ray. you So partly to also help with that question and answer is if I can ask Brian, You, in the past when you've given this presentation to the various subgroups, you indicated that of the three long-term studies that need to be done, land economic, strategic plan, branding marketing study, you saw each of the – you were thinking or we all were thinking that one of those let's say you did one of those a year was that sort of roughly what you were thinking yes and and |
| 02:24:37.27 | Brian Moore | Thank you. Yes, and part of what I'm trying to do here in all of this is try to match this up with the size of this city And also the staff that you have I mean in any city of any size frankly When you start up an economic development program you typically do three to five initiatives a year and any one of those three major areas Would be one of those so we don't want to overmatch This because as you noted in the presentation There's gonna be a significant commitment of the city departments as well as admin in all of this but the |
| 02:24:45.05 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:25:09.17 | Brian Moore | The other thing that happened, and again, I think it's interesting, is when we started you know, reviewing this concept with the various groups. Initially, we were talking about doing the strategic plan part first. And I think what happened is we made this presentation to different groups. It was almost like a magnetic pull. Everybody kept saying, that's great, but we want to look at the land economics thing first. And that's why we flipped them by the time we came to you. We initially said, these are all three major elements. They're commonly found in city economic development programs. Usually, you either do the land economics or the strategic plan first. If you're looking at it from a pure standpoint, you probably do the umbrella first. But again, there's certainly a lot of value in the land economics piece. |
| 02:25:33.25 | Klaus Lund | Thank you. |
| 02:25:53.74 | Unknown | And in those previous discussions, I don't wanna put you on the spot, but it gets to the numbers. You were sort of thinking each one of these three studies could be in the region of what, 75,000, that sort of figure? Yeah, I think that's right. |
| 02:26:09.78 | Brian Moore | sort of figure. Yeah, I think that's right. I think the branding one might be a little more expensive, but the other two, I think you could comfortably come in at that number. I think the other thing too, by the way, for example, on the land economics study is because we've already started to generate some of the data for the firms, and we will provide that to them, that should also help you in terms of what it might cost, because otherwise they might have to try to create some of that data. And my experience in other communities is if you just hand them the data as they come in the door, that really moves things along, because you've done some of that work for them, so to speak. |
| 02:26:14.52 | Unknown | Right. come in at that number. |
| 02:26:18.39 | Klaus Lund | Thank you. |
| 02:26:45.93 | Unknown | Right. And so finally, on the sort of the same thread of questions, so if you're rolling out one of these major studies a year, let's say, and we've got room for short-term |
| 02:26:53.42 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:26:53.45 | Brian Moore | Yes. |
| 02:26:57.08 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:26:57.13 | Brian Moore | Yes. |
| 02:26:57.42 | Unknown | Thank you. to be done at the same time. Eventually, the longer term studies will inform and drive what short term studies. That's what the strategic plan is about, right? |
| 02:27:07.85 | Brian Moore | That's correct. And basically the other thing the strategic plan does, by the way, is usually that's the point at which you're able to bring in the public and bring in all your businesses. Cuz remember, we're using the 35 recommendations from your two advisory committees as a proxy for what your business community is thinking and what they want. |
| 02:27:09.15 | Unknown | I mean, |
| 02:27:26.65 | Brian Moore | Based on my experience in other communities, I would say that the lion's share of issues you normally hear from the business community are on that list. In fact, as I was sitting in the meetings with those two groups and they started rolling out these ideas, I was thinking, kind of checking them off in my head going, okay, I think you've got most of them already. But it is important to have that. But the other thing that happens is the firm that helps you with the strategic plan, or some people call it a business plan, they basically lay out all the ideas. And the bad news, if you want to look at it this way, is once you engage all the businesses and the community, you'll get more than 35. You may have 50, you may have 75, so you'll have even a bigger number to deal with. But then the firm that you work with will start to strategize and say, okay, here's the highest value ones, and here's the second group of five and the third group of five. And usually what you do in that sort of process is you then bring it back to your business advisory committees and then bring it back to the council and say, okay, now one, Are these the items that you are interested in see a priority? And two, are we doing them in the right sequence? Because it may be sometimes the council may say, let's take some of these and move them over here and vice versa. And again, I think that's where the Council's direction is key in a successful program like this is in each of these areas. Jones. |
| 02:28:42.91 | Unknown | A couple of questions. Do you see any benefit to advising prospective proposers of our budgetary constraints? |
| 02:28:51.87 | Brian Moore | We will certainly give them, you know information on the budget and all that absolutely and I think You know, one of the, to me, one of the bigger constraints here is going to be in the fact that most of your properties are developed, particularly in your downtown. And also the other issues because Sausalito is a small community and for that matter in Marin all of the cities are small communities Thank you. |
| 02:29:15.44 | Lorna Newlin | In the arts. |
| 02:29:15.83 | Brian Moore | the land economist is going to have to look at the population area, and that may be a restriction in terms of the businesses you can aspire to get. For example, someone told me when we started this project that when Charlie Francis was here, he said, we need an Apple store. And I said, well, your problem is there's an Apple store in Cordo Madero, there's one in San Francisco, and there's a limited universe of Apple users. So as I look at it, that could be a question. We could ask the land economist, do you think Sassily didn't get an Apple store? As I'm looking at it, I'm thinking, I think you're already boxed out. |
| 02:29:48.20 | Unknown | And do you intend to include in the RFP our timing constraints because much of the narrative descriptions contained in the draft talk about potentially utilizing this information in the general plan, which we've just heard earlier tonight is already tight up on its deadlines. And so do you have timing constraints in mind and do you intend to communicate those to prospective proposers? |
| 02:30:15.04 | Brian Moore | One of the discussions that I had with one of the prospective proposers just to kind of kick some of this around was what kind of a timeline were they looking at for this report? And was there a possibility perhaps giving the city some early results in a draft form? Related to the general plan considerations and what I was told is that this sort of a studies typically a four to six month Timeline but that you could probably get some draft numbers maybe a month sooner so I'm not sure that in this particular I project or this city, it's going to impact your general plan as much as it might in other cities. There are some cities that literally will do the land economics and even the economic development strategic before they start a general plan. That's not what you have here today. So it may be the case that in this community or in this project that the land economics study might influence those other items more than the general plan. However, the key to remember about the general plan is since those are goals and in some cases big picture visions, a lot of the smaller items, things that have to do more with signage percentages and some of the nuts and bolts of community development as it were, still may be able to be implemented that come out of the land economics study even if the general plan is sort of moving ahead of it. So I think there's still a lot of value. It's the, I think somebody earlier made the expression about in the perfect world. And it's one of those, yeah, in the perfect world, this would have come sooner. But since it didn't, we'll just have to look for, assuming the council says we're moving forward, how best to utilize it, recognizing that, yeah. |
| 02:31:50.51 | Unknown | I guess the point of the question was to ensure that we communicate our timing constraints to the proposers. That's not currently in the RFP. |
| 02:31:55.60 | Brian Moore | you |
| 02:31:55.77 | Lorna Newlin | . |
| 02:31:57.86 | Unknown | The other thing that's not currently in the RFP I'm asking if you're planning to include is the data that's already been compiled that you shared with us tonight. on our sales tax. So that's not right now listed as an attachment to the draft RFP. So are you planning to include that data to short circuit some of the otherwise groundwork that proposers would have to undertake. |
| 02:32:21.98 | Brian Moore | We actually had that discussion today because there's language in the RFP that says the city will provide it, and the question was do we provide the draft version of it, and we're kind of leaning towards doing that. Yes. I think as far as the time constraints, I think you're right. We could certainly talk to the consultants or the proposers about the fact that there's a general plan process under the way. We may ask them to try to get us some data early. Again, how early that will be, I don't know. |
| 02:32:48.56 | Unknown | Thank you. question. |
| 02:32:50.77 | Lorna Newlin | Thank you. |
| 02:32:52.81 | Joe Burns | Okay, we'll do that next. We have no other questions, Brian, so we're going to open up to public comment. Thank you. |
| 02:32:58.12 | Brian Moore | Thank you. |
| 02:32:58.33 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 02:32:58.34 | Brian Moore | Thank you. |
| 02:32:58.46 | Joe Burns | Thank you. Thank you. Does anybody have any comments on this item? Public comment on this item? We have one. John. |
| 02:33:13.19 | John DeRay | Thank you. John DeRay on the General Plan Advisory Committee. Last time I was up here, it was to advocate for the last economic study that we talked about here, a study that EPS was doing. We were trying to get a little bit more detailed analysis of a maritime community that had to do with the clustering of the different businesses. It's a type of analysis that maritime communities do up and down the coast, and we gave some examples. So that didn't happen. And now it looks like we found another $250,000 to do an economic analysis. And so for one thing, I'm hoping something like that could be done, although it doesn't look like it will be done in this presentation that I just saw. But I had another sort of question or issue with this, and that has to do with the starting point for the economic development analysis, which is those 35 recommendations. So, as you know, those recommendations came from the business advisory committee and from the hospitality committee and from the chamber now some of you have heard me talk about this before you know it's pretty apparent that those bodies do not represent all of the marineship especially the industrial businesses in the marineship and the maritime businesses in the marineship because there are no members. Well, we have the manager of the bay model. who's on the business advisory committee. But there's no industrial business owners, and there's no maritime business owners. So, Those 35 recommendations as a starting point, I think, would be somewhat different if you had somebody from those industries in there. And it's not for lack of trying. I mean, they did kind of come forward and try and get more involved. They've been up here several times. So it is something that I'm concerned about, and I think it's something that maybe we have an opportunity to perhaps get them more involved. When you look at what the BAC and the Hospitality Committee did, they have some really good proposals. Like, for example, in Caledonia, create a Caledonia business committee, which is a great idea, and downtown, develop a strategy to recruit desirable businesses great ideas but nothing like that for the Marin ship no advocate no advocates for the Marin ship at all and so I think that's problematic and I think the optics are bad and I'm not the only one who is seeing that. So I'm hoping that somehow those businesses can get more involved in the economic process here. Especially with the data that we just saw today, where marineship is number one in property tax, number one in business tax, and number two in sales tax. |
| 02:36:17.03 | Joe Burns | Thank you, John. Any other public comment on this item? Bruce, you get up for public comment? |
| 02:36:25.05 | Bruce Huff | Thank you. Hi, I'm Bruce Huff. I am a member of GPAC. I am a member of the BAC. And I was on the subcommittee with hospitality. I just want to say that I've been on the Business Advisory Committee collectively for about 10 or 12 years. There has been times that we have looked for members, begged for members. So in Mr. DeRay's comments, nobody's actually stepped to the plate. from the industrial or the waterfront areas, but beyond that, what I fully support the land economic study. I think it not only provides valuable information to the business community, but I think it provides benchmark data to the city for future initiatives to be able to establish a benchmark that when you decide to go to short-term initiatives, you can actually judge and see if they're working. you can actually see if there's a return on your investment. And in the 35 or 40 years I've been in this city and involved in the business community and as a resident, That's always been council's issue. There's no benchmarks. So when the business community suggests a program or an initiative and city council looks for return on investment, they have nothing to judge it by. What I think the land economic study is going to give you is those benchmarks. So that's the reason that I fully supported staff's efforts to do this. Thank you. |
| 02:38:15.81 | Joe Burns | Thank you. Any other public comment? Michael. Anybody else have public comment? Please fill out a green card and we'll get you to it. |
| 02:38:25.15 | Michael Rex | I always get frustrated when we try to reinvent the wheel. And I want to remind you that the county did a study a number of years ago when they asked some experts, what kind of industry should we target to promote economic health in a way that's really unique to Marin. And a superb study was prepared that I provided the city before and happy to do it again. I just want to remind you it's out there and it's based on creating hubs. and we all know about hubs where You get a kind of synergy between businesses and activities that have symbiotic kind of relationships. And this report talks about the unique hubs in Marin. Marin is, it draws people who are creative, people who have wealth, and people who are concerned about their lifestyle. and what kind of businesses relate to that those type of people. And the creative people, we look to innovative industries, R&D, startups. Wealth, you have wealth management. businesses and in lifestyle it's quite broad, agriculture, open space, recreation, health, I think if we, particularly in the marineship, because that's such a major area of economic benefit to the community, If we look to creating those kind of hubs, this report could be We don't have to rethink everything. If you look into that county report, and I can provide it again, it might be good to at least give it to the consultant you hire as food for thought. Okay? Thank you. Great. |
| 02:40:12.71 | Joe Burns | Great, thank you. Any other public comment? Yes, Yoshi. |
| 02:40:24.45 | Yoshi | Hi there. I do support for this program proposal. I think that will be wonderful. I've been here a little while this time to be involved in this sort of study we have done years and years. And finally, I think we can get there something we can put out a step onto just what we've said, something benchmark we can get to move on somewhere very quickly. And then changing a little bit the direction is we are happy to speak with you, Joe, afterwards and the next week also. Right now everybody knows how much restaurant hotel industry, tourist business has been declined, San Francisco Bay Area, as well as South Carolina. We cannot wait three years to take action to allow myself Thank you. San Francisco Bay Area, as well as South Carolina. We cannot wait three years to take action to it. A lot of mom and papa shops, Caledonia Bridgeway, and the small restaurants are. they may not survive. You may already know how much declining the tourism comes to the Bay Area. It has a huge effect on our businesses. Our meeting, we talk about it, to how we can share I'm not sure. what the restaurants are we can get the reservation ratio individual restaurant we can how we can share together before really have declining i can see that how much decline my business has a little so this based on we can make something quickly act on now wait for that one or two years so let's move on thank you |
| 02:41:58.83 | Joe Burns | THANK YOU. Thank you. Thanks, Yoshi. All right, see no other public comment. I'm going to close public comment and bring it up here for comments and direction. |
| 02:42:11.52 | Sandra Bushmaker | I had some comments based on what John Dore, the points that he brought up. I don't think anybody here would be opposed to having some recommendations from the industrial or whatever, whatever you want to call it, in the Marin ship. I think there is a group there that could provide some recommendations. I mean, I think it seems like Mr. Dray has looked through the recommendations that have been provided and if they feel like they want to provide some recommendations, I think we're I believe that we would all be happy to incorporate that. into what Brian's working on and so, and have participation from them too. Anybody can come to the BAC. meetings. They're on the third Thursdays, right? At 8 o'clock in the morning, sometimes there's coffee. And so we're happy to have that voice, and especially seeing the numbers today, that was extremely helpful from Brian. So thank you for that presentation. |
| 02:43:06.86 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 02:43:11.09 | Unknown | I'm just going to reiterate what I said earlier, which is I and what I've said to staff when I first saw this presentation, which is I wish we had started this at least a year ago because this could dovetail so nicely with the work that we're doing now on our general plan and that we'll undertake next year on our strategic plan, and I just wish we were about a year ahead. next Saturday at a land use based economic study of the marineship. it would really be ideal if our timing dovetailed better. And for those reasons, I believe that the RFP should set forth time constraints and categories of deliverables to enable us to at least use some of the data that's gathered for our general planning process. I think that the RFP should have a budget. so that we don't get someone proposing the Taj Mahal when really all we have to pay is the Motel 6. The BAC and Hospitality Committee recommendations do make somewhat short shrift of the Marinship. They do mention some of the other studies that have been done of the Marinship, the WAM report, the other reports. We could consider including some of those reports in the data that we provide to the prospective proposers. And then I agree with Michael Rex that we should include the county report, the county economic study dealing with hubs. And I also think we should include an attachment the city data that we've compiled so that Proposers know the universe of data that they have to work from and can fashioned their proposals accordingly. |
| 02:45:08.68 | Joe Burns | Thank you. Susan, Ray. Ray. |
| 02:45:14.30 | Unknown | So yeah, I, Thank you. I agree with everything that's been said so far. One thing I disagree with though is I think actually the BAC spent nearly most of their existence talking about the marine ship and also wrote a four-page white paper on the subject for GPAC. The thing we've got to do tonight, assuming we want to do it, is to recognize that we're balancing long-term planning with short-term actions. And eventually the long-term plan, as I said earlier, will actually determine what the annual short-term initiatives need to be because we will have a strategic plan to drive it. Until we get there, What in particular the hospitality industry has put forward is some short-term initiatives that from their judgment seem really necessary. And in the past, we were put in the cart before the horse a little bit by putting a big branding study ahead of the actual work that needed to get done. But that doesn't mean there isn't short-term things that we need to do. So it's that balancing act, and I believe there's the budget for it. We've got $200,000 in the budget. I believe we're going to be spending about $75,000 on a land economics study. There's going to be some money spent on the short-term work. And then our policy, what we've got to decide in the next budget cycle is how much extra money we're going to put and is it into economic development. The only reason we're doing this, Bruce said in the last, he made the point, he didn't make it as forcefully tonight, but in the previous meetings he's made the point he's been here for 35 years and this has never happened. You know, this sort of thing has never happened. Well, it's never happened. The only reason it's happening now is because this council decided to prioritize economic development. and put it in the budget. That's why it's happened. Right? So I think that's really important. The only other thing I'd say, I agree with John completely about we need to get more of the marine industrial voices heard. I absolutely agree with that. But part of the reason we started this all in the first place was because we knew, but didn't have the data, that the marine ship was a critical economic hub within Sausalito, including the marine industry. The numbers that Brian presented tonight actually demonstrated that. I, you know, I'm mystified and I'm not pointing fingers at anybody, but why didn't we have this data five years ago? You know, I mean, we've always been talking anecdotally about where the different revenue streams come from. Now we know, right? It's great. I mean, it's really, really good. And I wish we'd got that earlier, because we could have taken some of the fluff and nonsense out of the conversations, because now we've got data. Right? And so I'm actually very encouraged by this and think we should move ahead. And obviously it's gonna come back to us as the RFPs are gonna come back and we might not like what we see, but I think. |
| 02:49:02.11 | Unknown | The proposals will come back. |
| 02:49:03.20 | Unknown | Thank you. Yeah, the proposals will come back, and I think the staff will, I hope, will be working on making sure that what comes back works for us. |
| 02:49:15.41 | Joe Burns | Thank you, Ray. |
| 02:49:18.41 | Unknown | Great. Well, thanks for all the comments and the great presentation. We did hear this at the Finance Committee, and in the interest of time, it's getting late. I will just echo the comments of my fellow council members. I'm very supportive of both the short-term and the long-term plans. And I guess the only thing that I would add to what Ray said is that the council is supportive of economic development, but for a lot of the good reasons that have come forward that we need to balance, we need to minimize some of the negative impacts of some of the business models that we do have and maximize models that have fewer impacts on our community. And so it's economic development, not just for economic development's sake, but to kind of support and enhance our community for both residents and visitors. So that's the only point I would add to that. |
| 02:50:09.22 | Joe Burns | Thank you. Well, I said right what I was going to say. I just wanted to point out a couple terms for people who might be new to this conversation. Again, we've heard it for a while. And it's kind of grown from discussion we had as far as hospitality to economic development to these RFPs, which I think is a great way to be going. And the new information, thank you. That's some great numbers. And as Ray said, that's stuff that we've known. And now we have some actual data, and we're going to have more data. But I just want to clarify the two, in case somebody's listening for the first time or at home, the short term and the long term. We've kind of used those. And the short term being, you know, short term in a framework of, you know, we have a season coming up of not a lot of business. And how do we maximize that? Because what we are seeing, as brought up at the podium by Yoshi and Bruce, or I think Yoshi, tourism is declining. And a lot of people I think are going to go, yay, tourism is declining. But I know a lot of people aren't. The number of tourists isn't our objective. The quality of tourists is our objective. And if that number drops in July or August, yet our revenues can increase in July and August, and better yet, our revenues in January, February, March can double. Then we have something going on, and that's been the goal. Lower impact, raise revenue. So that's, when we talk about short term, that's really what we're discussing. And it's, you know, most notably head in beds right now, what we call head in beds, which is that TOT, and somebody who's gonna stay the night, because then they buy a dinner, they buy a plane ride, they buy a kayak, and they buy a massage, and they have lunch, and then they go home. Well, that's a wonderful thing, as opposed to coming over for an ice cream and leaving. So that has been the goal, we want to get that take care of. The other part of this in the long term, I think the key part of the long term was a was in this presentation, quality of life. And quality of life for our residents. And this is about better business choices and options for our residents we shouldn't have to go all around the county and north side of San Francisco for every little thing we need we can have more opportunity here we can have even restaurants entertainment activities stapled goods whatever it is it can occur more in Sausalito than everywhere else we know we're going to be increasing our play time out here with the new fields so what does that mean when we have 400 kids playing soccer tournaments here instead of 20 kids freezing under a broken tree in a bad softball field so we have the opportunity to really do some great things and increase the quality of life for our residents and that is what I want the community to hear this economic development plan would really do uh... and in the Marin ship in Caledonia those areas are really key to this study so I'm excited about what we're going for I'm so excited that we're having this discussion I didn't think I'd see it in my lifetime I was always afraid to see the D word up here but the D word being development, but we are making some great strides and the winners are gonna be our residents. So I'm excited that we're gonna do this. I have a feeling we're gonna have a motion that's gonna really dictate the RFP wording. I'm a little, I would kinda leave some of that up to staff to include that, but I'm not sure. |
| 02:53:38.96 | Unknown | I think I gave my feedback, so I'm hoping that the motion need not incorporate that. Okay, great. That it will just be considered direction from counsel. |
| 02:53:43.58 | Joe Burns | Okay, great. Thank you. That's perfect. Thank you. So with that, I will be quiet and listen. for a motion. |
| 02:53:56.04 | Unknown | some kind. |
| 02:53:56.46 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 02:53:59.83 | Unknown | So I move to authorize city staff to proceed with an economic development program for the city of Sausalito. So that's number one. Number two, authorize the issuance of a request for a proposal for a land economic study of the business zones in Sausalito. And three, authorize the issuance of an RFP for a short-term marketing program as recommended by the Hospitality Business Development Committee. That is the motion in our staff report. |
| 02:54:33.97 | Unknown | Second. |
| 02:54:35.02 | Unknown | We have a second. |
| 02:54:36.52 | Joe Burns | discussion. |
| 02:54:37.77 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:54:37.79 | Joe Burns | All in favor? Aye. Aye. That passes five to zero. |
| 02:54:39.12 | Unknown | . |
| 02:54:39.27 | Unknown | All right. |
| 02:54:39.51 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:54:45.95 | Joe Burns | All right, we're going to hop on to 6C. 6C, consideration of acceptance of a bequest from Dorothy E. Gibson 2010 Trust, which is a property known as 429 and a half Johnson Street. Mary Wagner, you're going to take this one? |
| 02:54:59.81 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. So this is a continuation of your discussion from July 16th, when you received a report on the bequest to the city from the Dorothy E. Gibson 2010 Trust. Specifically, Ms. Gibson left the city her house at 429 1⁄2 Johnson Street to be utilized by the city to provide moderate to low-income housing for one or more full-time employees of the city, including employees of the city's police and fire department. Thank you. the city to provide moderate to low-income housing for one or more full-time employees of the city, including employees of the city's police and fire department. As you're aware, the city has until September 12th to decide whether or not to accept this gift. And when we discussed this on the 16th, you had some requests for some follow-up information. You've got some of that information in your report tonight, including the fact that this property is in the R3 multifamily zone. The maximum density allowed is one dwelling unit per 1,500 square feet, which means you could potentially have two units and an ADU on this property, because it is approximately 3,900 square feet. You also asked for some information on how the city would actually |
| 02:55:00.80 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 02:56:09.75 | Mary Wagner | run this program. staff reached out to the town of Tiburon and got some information that's included in your packet about how they operate seven units that they own. They're first made available to their city staff and then to other people not city workers, but other types of municipal workers. We've also included a table for you of the current 2019 Marin County income and affordability information. You had asked if we could look at whether any city positions would actually qualify for these levels, and there's a lot of factors that go into the analysis, but, you know, keep taking into account that we'd have to look at actual family size and other sources of income. We believe that there are a number of positions based on the current salary schedules that would qualify as either low or moderate income. So I'm happy to answer any questions that the council has. I will let you know you do have a resolution in your packet to accept the bequest and we took the direction from the council at your last meeting that you were very interested in this but I'll also point out that you have one more meeting before September 12th So if there was additional information we could return to you on the 10th and with that I'm happy to answer any questions |
| 02:57:31.53 | Joe Burns | Thank you, Mary. Any questions for Mary? Seeing none. Is there any public comment on this item? This is the item to receive the 429 and 1 1 Johnson Street from the Dorothy Trust. Seeing none, we'll close public comment. General comments? |
| 02:57:48.22 | Unknown | I'll just say thank you to the city attorney for answering all of our questions and providing this very helpful information. And if there's no other comment, I will move we adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Sausalito, accepting the bequest of 429 and a half Johnson Street, Sausalito, from the Dorothy E. Gibson 2010 Trust. |
| 02:58:08.33 | Unknown | Second. |
| 02:58:09.68 | Joe Burns | All in favor? Aye. That passes 5-0. Thank you, Dorothy. |
| 02:58:11.22 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:58:15.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:58:19.20 | Joe Burns | All right, it is now time for our public items. First up is a, I think again, a very Quick public item, and that is establishing an application fee for sidewalk vending permits. |
| 02:58:33.14 | Mary Wagner | Yes, thank you again, Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. I am taking this one as well. On May 14th, you adopted an ordinance establishing the sidewalk vendor regulations in accordance with state law. One of the return issues from that is to come back to council to establish a fee for a sidewalk vending permit. So that is the issue that's in front of you tonight. Staff did some research that's included in your packet about what other jurisdictions charge. They also analyzed what they think it would cost for city staff to issue this type of permit. They believe that, um, the amount of time anticipated to process the permit and the fully burdened rate for $270. So we are asking councils to amend the city's master fee resolution to include that permit. |
| 02:59:22.75 | Joe Burns | Great, thank you. Any questions, Mary? Any questions from the public? Any questions on this fee schedule? |
| 02:59:29.64 | Lorna Newlin | Thank you. |
| 02:59:29.74 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 02:59:29.81 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 02:59:30.04 | Vicki Nichols | from it. |
| 02:59:31.01 | Joe Burns | I have comments. Yeah. |
| 02:59:33.45 | Vicki Nichols | Vicki Nicholson, I'm sorry. Your staff reports like that. I didn't text that. What zones are these going to be permitted in? I don't see any discussion about that. Is the city water? |
| 02:59:43.04 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 02:59:43.29 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 02:59:43.88 | Joe Burns | I'm not sure. |
| 02:59:44.54 | Vicki Nichols | you |
| 02:59:44.61 | Mary Wagner | citywide sidewalks? So I'm happy to discuss that with you, the ordinance that went into effect established areas within the city that they're allowed. And I'm happy to talk with you about that ordinance that was adopted in May. Is it in the staff report? No, because this is just establishing a fee for those regulations that have already gone into effect. Okay, I think that's important. Thank you. |
| 03:00:06.90 | Joe Burns | Thank you. Any other public comment? Seeing none, I'll close public comment. |
| 03:00:14.61 | Unknown | I move we adopt a resolution, attachment one, amending the master fee scheduled to establish an application fee for sidewalk vending permits. Second. |
| 03:00:25.19 | Joe Burns | All in favor? Aye. That passes five to zero. |
| 03:00:26.15 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:00:30.47 | Joe Burns | Next up is an item of which I am going to hand the gavel. to the Vice Mayor Susan Blevins-Knolls, as it deals with the property on Wolfpack Estates, which I may have an interest in. I am going, as I recused, the original item as well. And I will be in the back room and available for seven seats. |
| 03:00:58.01 | Unknown | All right, thank you, Mayor Burns. We'll just give him a minute to leave. First of all, just a couple of housekeeping items. I wanted to just remind the audience we had some information from the city attorney about what would occur, given that we only have four council members, about if there is a vote of two to two. And just so that we all understand that from the beginning. |
| 03:01:25.40 | Mary Wagner | So that we all understand that from the beginning. CHRISTIE WOODWARD- Thank you, Madam Vice Mayor. So a 2-2 vote. is essentially a non-action by the Council, but in the case of appeals of the Planning Commission decision if you aren't able to continue the item for further consideration and have us return with that. In some instances that would mean that the decision of the planning commissioner would |
| 03:01:49.30 | Unknown | Okay, thank you. And then the second thing is I just wanted to explain the reason for this hearing. We have heard this item on May 14th and that we are tonight conducting a full rehearing of this matter. The attorney for the adjacent property at 51 Wolfbeck Ridge informed the city that they would challenge our prior decision from May 14th based on an alleged violation of the Brown Act And as the city attorney has fully explained, In correspondence to that party, it's the city's position that no violation of the Brown Act has occurred. And I also just want to reiterate on behalf of myself and my fellow council members that we all take our obligations under the Brown Act very seriously. And we are confident that we did not violate the Act. But we want to avoid any doubt on that issue. And we also are recognizing our fiscal responsibilities to the public and we're going to conduct this hearing fully anew and we will definitely conduct the hearing in a full and a fair manner so this is a new hearing a new day and with that i will turn it over to staff welcome and i would also like to just ahead of time ask that staff and the city attorney, when you're finished your regular presentation, we did receive additional correspondence from the attorney for 51 Wolfback Ridge with some additional allegations and arguments. and I would appreciate it if whoever is appropriate could address those issues after your regular presentation. So there'll be staff presentation, then 15 minutes. Oh, I'm sorry, 10, 10 and five minutes for each side. And if I may. And public comment at the end. |
| 03:03:44.25 | Mary Wagner | And if I may, I apologize, Vice Mayor Cleveland-Nulls, before Matt gets started, I just wanted to also remind the council to make any ex-party communication disclosures as well. |
| 03:03:55.96 | Unknown | All right, why don't we do that now? I think I can start. I visited the property and the site, met with the 51 Wolfback Ridge, met with the attorney for the property owner at... lot five at the site. So I met with both sides at the site. Also met several of the adjacent neighbors at that time. |
| 03:04:27.16 | Unknown | Yeah, back in May or whenever it was, I visited the site with Ms. Bracus and some of the neighbors. |
| 03:04:43.01 | Unknown | John, did you have a discussion? |
| 03:04:44.56 | Unknown | Yes, I did exactly the same thing. I visited the site as well as the neighboring properties, met with the owners of various of the properties, was careful to confine my discussions to the physical characteristics of the properties and not the merits of the hearing. |
| 03:05:03.56 | Unknown | Great. So we have staff Matt Weintraub here tonight. Thank you for jumping into this. We appreciate that and we'll let you get started. |
| 03:05:10.36 | Matthew Weintraub | Great. Thank you, Vice Mayor, Council members, and members of the general public. I'm Matthew Weintraub, contracted senior planner, filling in for Calvin Chan this evening. The item before you is an appeal of a Planning Commission decision, granting an appeal of the Community Development Department's determination of the front property line at Lot 5 at Wolfback Estates. And here is a summary of recent events involving this item. In November 2017, the Community Development Department, or CDD, issued a front property line determination at the subject property. The CDD decision was appealed to the Planning Commission. In March and April, the Planning Commission conducted two public hearings to consider the appeal. At the April hearing, the Planning Commission granted the appeal which overturned the CDB determination. The PC decision was subsequently appealed to the City Council, which brings us to today, August 2019, where the Council is conducting a public hearing to consider this appeal. This project is categorically exempt. I'd like to make that correction right now. It is not statutorily exempt. It is categorically exempt under CEQA section 15303, new construction or conversion of small structures, as well as the general rule of common sense that the project would not have an impact on the environment. |
| 03:06:37.88 | Matthew Weintraub | And these are the options for City Council action. Grant the appeal or deny the appeal or continue the public hearing for more deliberation or remand the matter to the Planning Commission for review with specific direction. And I'll review these again at the end of the presentation. So the CDD's determination was in response to a pre-application meeting request by Couture Architecture to establish the front property line of lot 5 at Wolfback Estates. Lot 5 is shown as the C-shaped irregular lot that you do see here on the screen. The determination of the front property line originates from the Sausalito Municipal Code section 10.88.040. Property lines means the recorded boundaries of a lot of record as follows and I will read just number one. Front property line means the line separating the parcel from the street. In case of a lot abuts on more than one street, the parcel owner may elect any street parcel as the front parcel line, provided that such choice in the opinion of the community development director will not be injurious to adjacent properties. And once the front property line is determined, the side and rear property lines are also reconciled. |
| 03:08:03.42 | Matthew Weintraub | The factors that were considered in the CDD's determination are shown here. They include evaluation of the existing site conditions and pattern of development. consideration of potential future development of the site and surrounding areas, stated purposes of design review, and stated purposes of setbacks between properties. Resulting from the community development director's memorandum which is shown here on the screen, this diagram also shown shows the CDD's determination of the western property line which is shown as segment A in the diagram as the front property line. and the eastern property line, which is segment H in the diagram, as the rear property line, and the remainders as side property lines. |
| 03:08:54.40 | Matthew Weintraub | Now staff's determination of the front property line is supported by the Municipal Code. SMC Section 10.88.040 provides that where a lot abuts more than one street, which is the case here, the parcel owner may elect any street parcel line as the front parcel line, provided that such choice, in the opinion of the Community Development Director, will not be injurious to adjacent properties. And we can see here that lot 5 does abut Canto Gal, Wolfback Terrace, and Cloudview Trail, some streets more than one. So it is a property that abuts more than one street. |
| 03:09:34.20 | Matthew Weintraub | And here are some relevant observations related to the CDD's determination of the front property line. In looking at the definition of front property line, it does not require the front property line to be contiguous with the street, nor does it require that it actually abut the street. However, Segment A does have abutment with Canto-Gal, as we see in the yellow circled area, before it then travels parallel to Wolfback Ridge Road. Establishing line segment A as the front property line will not be injurious as it will not cause physical damage to the land, interfere with access, or harm existing structures. And it should be noted that design review would be conducted in the future for any development application and that would consider all the aspects of development that would normally be considered under design review. |
| 03:10:34.53 | Matthew Weintraub | The CDD's determination was appealed by attorney Elizabeth Brekus, who represents the owners of Lot 3. Lot 3 can be seen to the northwest of Lot 5, separated by Lot 4. |
| 03:10:52.62 | Matthew Weintraub | And in the appeal of the CDD's determination to the PC, the Planning Commission considered basically the three criteria that make up the definition of front property line. And those criteria are listed here. Criteria one being the line separating the parcel from the street. Criteria two being lot abuts on more than one street. And criteria three being parcel owner may elect any street parcel line. |
| 03:11:24.92 | Matthew Weintraub | A majority of the Planning Commission articulated that the CDD's determination did not comply with criteria one and three. Specifically, the Planning Commission conveyed that they believed that the downhill portion of Segment A, which is here circled in yellow, does not meet the definition of a street parcel because it does not bisect a street. and should not be combined with the uphill portion of segment A which is circled in blue in order to form a continuous street parcel line that would be considered a front property line. So the Planning Commission disagreed with the Community Development Department's decision based on criteria one and three. The Planning Commission's decision was subsequently appealed by Attorney Riley Hurd, who represents the owners of Lot 5, which is the subject lot. Mr. Hurd provided four grounds for appeal, which I will review and respond to. |
| 03:12:23.26 | Matthew Weintraub | Appeal Ground 1, the legally acceptable front property line at 99 Wolfback Ridge Road, a.k.a. Lot 5, is the line that parallels Wolfback Ridge Road. This is consistent with the staff determination. Staff determined that Segment A was the front property line, and that is parallel to Wolfback Ridge Road. |
| 03:12:45.82 | Matthew Weintraub | Appeal Ground 2, other properties on Wolfback Ridge Road utilized the exact same front property line as the one requested here. That is true. In fact, staff has determined that Lot 3, which is the appellant in this case, actually does utilize the same front lot line strategy in order to determine their front lot line parallel to Wolfback Ridge Road. Appeal ground three, excuse me, the Planning Commission deliberations inappropriately considered design review issues and other factors not found in the code. It is true that design review permit public hearing has not occurred or been scheduled. So the matters that would normally be considered under design review were not asked to be considered. Thank you. |
| 03:13:36.31 | Lorna Newlin | Thank you. |
| 03:13:36.68 | Matthew Weintraub | Yes, thank you. And so just to review what design review does, it provides discretionary review for the architectural and design features of selected projects for which design review is required. We also would note that each zoning district has minimum setback requirements and special situations can exist where setbacks are applied differently and must be increased. So this is all to say that there will be an opportunity for Planning Commission review and public comment on the project under design review, but that was not asked at the previous hearing. |
| 03:14:15.04 | Matthew Weintraub | And lastly, appeal ground four, if the front of lot five cannot serve as the front property line, the remaining lines are non-sensical choices as the front. The community development department's determination certainly indicates that property line A, thank you again, indicates that property line A is the most sensible front property line. The PC disagreed with that. However, the PC Planning Commission did not provide Thank you again. It indicates that property line A is the most sensible front property line. The PC disagreed with that. However, the PC Planning Commission did not provide an alternative lot line. Front property line. So once again, I'll review the options for city council action. The Council can grant the appeal of the Planning Commission decision which is granting an appeal of the Community Development Department's determination of the front property line, and you have a resolution attachment 22 for that. The City Council can deny the appeal of the Planning Commission decision, granting an appeal of the Community Development Department's determination, which you have a resolution attachment 23 for that. The Council may also continue the public hearing for further consideration, or the Council may remand the matter to the Planning Commission for review with specific direction. |
| 03:15:32.93 | Matthew Weintraub | And I'd like to note that the resolution proposed for approval does include this condition or provision, which I'll go ahead and read. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, including reimbursement of all fees and costs reasonably incurred by separate counsel retained by the city, and hold harmless the city and its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents, and employees from and against any and all liability, loss, damage, or expense, including without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees which City may suffer or incur as a result of any claims relating to or arising from the City's approval of the project or any |
| 03:16:17.55 | Matthew Weintraub | That concludes my presentation for the moment. I'm available to answer any questions you may have for the public. Thank you. |
| 03:16:24.72 | Unknown | Great, thank you for that very thorough presentation. Are there questions from the council? Okay. |
| 03:16:32.62 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Well, I would like to ask the questions that you asked about the late mail that we received. So I would like to hear the city attorney's perspective on some of the assertions contained in the late mail. |
| 03:16:37.02 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:16:47.23 | Unknown | Great, thanks for the reminder. |
| 03:16:48.62 | Mary Wagner | So thank you, Councilmember Cox, members of the City Council. In the late mail correspondence you have on your dais and you received from the attorney representing the property owner at Lot 3 or 51 Wolfback Ridge Road, she's contending that it's inaccurate. not to take the development of the lot or the proposed development of the lot. into consideration and you'll probably have noted that there were story polls up And, um... may have had. questions about that so what what I have indicated is that You're essentially putting yourselves back in the Shoes of the Community Development Department when they made this determination and you're not being asked to a pine about the development proposed development project you're being asked to apply the Definitions and language in the municipal code to the determination of what is the appropriate front property line. And that's the decision that's before you this evening. I'm happy to. Thank you. answer any more questions about that specifically, but also the other issues that are raised. |
| 03:17:56.28 | Unknown | and also the other issues that are raised. Can I just stop you right there? Sure. So if I understand the advice and the, I think you said this at the Planning Commission correctly, it's not that we can't take the future development into consideration at all. it would be that the determination of the lot line at the time could be so injurious as to prevent some type of development. We could take that into account. for example. Right, but it's that we shouldn't be doing a design review phase now without all the plans and things in front of us. |
| 03:18:31.49 | Mary Wagner | Absolutely, correct. |
| 03:18:32.25 | Unknown | Correct. |
| 03:18:32.68 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:18:32.72 | Unknown | All right. |
| 03:18:34.24 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. Another point that was made in the letter had to do with the resolution that was adopted by the city in 97 when the actual subdivision of Wolfback Estates was approved. Specifically, there's a condition in the resolution a calling out a procedure for the designation of the property address. I think they're two very different Issues what the front property line is and what the address is that's assigned to it I'm happy to read that condition for you if you would like but it You know basically indicates that the city engineer decides the actual address at the time final building inspection occurs I believe that's a completely separate issue than Thank you. the issue that's in front of you this evening is what is the appropriate front property line. Then there are other indications in here about conditions that she believes have not been complied with regarding the subdivision. and she's contending that building permits cannot be pulled for this particular project until those issues are resolved. Again, a separate issue than what's in front of you this evening, something that staff will continue to look into, but I don't believe that that impacts your decision on what the front property line is for this property. |
| 03:19:55.78 | Unknown | And just a question for you or perhaps for staff. There are addresses in Sausalito that are not, do not correspond to the front property line. Correct. Okay, thank you. Okay. Any other questions? No, thank you very much for that. Okay, great. So I think we hear the appellant first. Mr. Hurd? |
| 03:20:26.32 | Unknown | And as I said earlier, you'll have 10 minutes for your presentation and then five minutes of rebuttal. |
| 03:20:52.33 | Riley Hurd | Thank you. |
| 03:20:52.34 | Bruce Huff | Yeah. |
| 03:20:53.64 | Riley Hurd | Good evening. My name is Riley Hurd. I'm here on behalf of the owners of Lot 5. Incredible amount of resources have been expended over this singular and truly narrow issue. The owners of Lot 3 sued my clients and your city about the property line selection process, which is how this first came to be heard in front of the PC and the council then, as was stated tonight, They threaten to sue you again, which is why we're having a second appeal hearing about the exact same thing on a very busy evening for you. We've yet to even get to a merits hearing on the House, and that new condition about indemnity that you read about is because more is probably coming. It's a really unfortunate use of the process. But when this level of distraction occurs, I think it's helpful to refocus on the only thing that controls, and that's the municipal code. And the language here is very, very clear. When a property line abuts more than one street, The parcel owner may select any of the lines of the front so long as the CDD determines it won't be injurious. That's it. There is nothing in there about front door location, address selection, or excluding lines that aren't perfectly straight. Very few are. Here is lot five. It abuts not less than four streets. for the code. This means the owner chooses which is the front. here. The owner selected line A. which undeniably abuts Canto Gal right here. This selection was not made in a vacuum, it was informed by the layout of the entire neighborhood. As you can see, lots one through five all generally front along Wolfback Ridge Road. The director took a look at this. visited the site, reviewed the code, and found it not to be injurious. This is an important fact. Front property lines usually have a zero foot setback. So the injury that the code considers is the effect on light and open space between structures on adjoining lots. That's because that's what setbacks protect. Makes sense. So having the reduced setback towards Wolfback Ridge Road, is the most logical because there is no home in that direction. certainly does not create an injury to lot three because the new house would be over 215 feet away. No different front property line will improve the light and open space between these homes. So that's why the director came to his conclusions. And the code purposely front loads this decision at the outset so the house can be designed around the development standards. You have to know at the beginning What we have here is that process being turned on its head. The neighbors and their lawyers have conflated the property line with the design of the house. I'd really just like to get to the merits hearing. And that will happen. The Planning Commission, and I'm certain this council, are going to get a crack at what the house looks like. But the mere selection of the property line is not the time for design commentary. I think that, in my opinion, that that's where the Planning Commission got a bit off track. They wanted to address what sounded like the buildable area, a house that may be coming later and to do that they had to go through some machinations to deviate from the clear language of the code that I just read. And, uh, follow me here, but my best understanding of the basis for their decision was that because property line A turns a bit right here after its abutment with Canto Gal there, that this invalidates A because the remaining portion of it supposedly doesn't touch a different street, Wolfback Ridge Road. There's quite a bit to unpack there, but before doing so, I'd like to note that the import of their decision is that the line parallel to Canto-Gal, that's line G, would have to then be the front, and that does not work. As a reminder, the front property line must be one, quote, separating the parcel from the street. Here, Canto Gal is an easement that is inside of Lot 5. The line G property line of lot 5, which is over here with the blue arrow, most certainly does not separate this lot from the street. It separates this lot from Lot 4. Then we got the inside line of Canto Gal, which is shown in orange here. That can't be the front property line because it is not a property line. When you look at the rest of the site, there is no option for another front. That's why the Commission's decision creates such a problem. Another argument you'll hear is, well, line A doesn't totally touch Wolfback Ridge Road due to a landscape easement, so it can't be the front. First, this ignores the fact that it does touch a road, Canto-Gal, and no part of the code says Thank you. that the whole line must abut a street. Second, this ignores the fact that the landscape easement does not run the full front. of lot five and there's actually touching point here to a vehicular easement that's attached to Wolfback Ridge Road. But third... This argument very conveniently ignores that this is the same situation as Lot 3, which has been confirmed by your staff. and they treat wolf back as the front. So while this. has been occurring. The owners of Lot 3 decided to do some work on their house, adding a second story without the City's approval. a separate issue except that the plans they submitted show the exact same property layout that we are proposing. Wolf back as the front. As you heard, staff has confirmed this. Lot three has the same landscape easement in front, does not directly touch wolf back, and yet it uses Wolfpack as the front. So... My only point for bringing that up is the arguments of the neighbors cannot be reconciled with their own application. We've also heard about views. The theory is that Well, if they get this as the front property line, they're going to be able to build that and then that will impact our view. First and foremost, The front property line guarantees nothing. Your development standards are maximums, not guarantees. And second, you have a strict view ordinance that you're going to have to consider during the design review phase. Finally. The view claim is without merit. This is the existing conditions from lot three. There's the proposed house. So even if you impact was the test, there isn't one. Before I conclude, I'd like to briefly address the late mail as well that you asked the city attorney about. This letter claims that the city's analysis is flawed for three reasons. I'll go through each. First, it claims that allowing a parcel owner to select any street as the front property line, including streets that do not abut or adjoin the parcel, is an untenable reading of the code. I agree. If that were occurring, that would be an untenable reading. But streets aren't being chosen as the front property line. Property lines are. And this one abuts Canto Gowl. Second, the letter claims that interpreting the phrase injurious to adjacent properties as being about physical injury is both preposterous and indefensible. Well, it's not really clear where this comment is coming from because the approval resolution before you tonight really articulately states that, quote, the designation of line A as the front property line is not injurious to adjacent properties because ample light, open space, and air will remain, and there are no other unusual circumstances. There is no mention of physical injury. simply recites what setbacks are about. Third, the letter claims nothing in the code allowed the applicant or the city to declare which portion of the parcel is the rear or assigned setbacks. Again, unclear where this is coming from. This is about the front property line. Finally, the letter covers two other unrelated subjects, address selection which I actually just pause and comment on for one second, which I found very interesting, and was saying the address selections related to the front property line and those two go together and you get it when the building inspector signs off on your house. So you've designed and built a house and you get to know what the front property line is when they give you your CO to move in. It makes no sense. And then the letter talks about subdivision improvements, which have nothing to do with this. The conclusion is, Property Line A has been supported at this point by two community development directors and now two seasoned planning professionals, the City Attorney in her November 15th letter, and I would submit that this many staff did not get this wrong this many times. This issue is about One thing, it's a crusade. to stop development at this site. It seems like this crusade will continue. Somehow it got some traction at the Planning Commission, but we would respectfully request that you correct the injustice that happened at the Planning Commission and grant this appeal again. Thank you. |
| 03:30:51.17 | Unknown | Thank you very much. Are there any questions for Mr. Hurd? Okay, Ms. Brekus, you also have 10 minutes for your team. |
| 03:31:16.06 | Elizabeth Brekus | Good evening. Good evening, Vice Mayor and members of the council. Elizabeth Brekus on behalf of Green Tree Headlands and Steve and Joan MacArthur. Why are we here? Because the city of Sausalito has some code clean up. under the definition section of your code, you have a section that purports to say that people can go in without notice, without hearing, and request a staff determination of the front property lines. And notwithstanding that, you have sections of your code which talks about notice, a hearing, and the right to appeal. So you have a conflict and you have a problem. That's why we're here, because somebody went in and did this client assigned decision. And we didn't get notice and hearing even though we were objecting. And then staff, not giving us notice or hearing, didn't get to hear the objections, didn't go onto the property of Green Tree Headlands, and didn't make a determination of whether decision was injurious. So that's a problem and that's why we filed a writ of mandate. We're asking you to uphold the planning commission resolution. declare that staff can't do this again. They shouldn't do this again for this or any other lot up on Wolfpack Ridge Road. and find that the decision was void not only for the reasons that the Planning Commission articulated it but for the additional reason which is the wrong standard was used, and that is that the injurious to adjacent property owners isn't just about physical injury to the property. Here's the proposed project, which is pending, and I don't think you should play this game of pretend that's being advanced, that you don't understand that that's coming in the next week. probably in the next month. Here's what a setback does that is 20 feet versus one that is 10. On the other side, setbacks are going to matter for views. And here we have a setback that would be determined by the length of this building. So setbacks are going to be very important. Design review is particularly important for this site because of the fact that The settlement agreement that was entered into with the subdivider says it was. setbacks should be looked at according to the EIR for this subdivision. to de-emphasize building mass and protect views. The EIR specifically contemplated a 2,000 to 4,000 square foot home versus what the applicants are proposing here. And again, that application is pending. And so the property line determination by staff wasn't made in a vacuum. It was made with the design pending. We also have a building restriction, essentially a view easement burdening this property that limits the height and building envelope of this development on this property. It's a private agreement. |
| 03:34:20.82 | Elizabeth Brekus | and lot five is an unusual C-shaped lot. And the appellants, in fact, concede that the development is very restricted. In fact, there are their appeal to you. was, This is a critical determination because it massively impacts our ability to develop this So while on the one hand they're saying you should divorce yourself from any consideration of setbacks and how this impacts you, on the other hand they're saying that you should consider it. Staff's decision purported to determine much more than a front property line. The decision improperly decided setbacks. The code section does not authorize this. |
| 03:35:12.17 | Elizabeth Brekus | Property line means the recorded boundaries of a lot. If you take a look at the section, you've seen this now a few times on one which talks about front property line. As to that, you can come in and get a CDD decision. But what you cannot do is come in and get a setback decision or a side or rear yard determination. And that's what occurred. And so here you see that staff also decided side and rear property lines. And they just established setbacks. And that's not allowed in your code. |
| 03:35:45.38 | Elizabeth Brekus | The appellant selection fails to satisfy even their own questionable interpretation of this code section. Instead of selecting a recorded parcel line as their front, They purported to connect two separate line segments at muted angle and then proposed a street that never touches or butts the parcel as the front property line. The Planning Commission found that this creation of a single front property line from two separate segments and then designating a street parallel that doesn't touch that line is not what the code contemplates. I'd like to point out that Mr. Hurd just stated to you that in fact Their property does abut Wolf-Backridge Road. It does not. If you take a look, and ask him to bring that back up, you'll see that's the fire turnaround that was never developed under the subdivision improvement. That's not Wolfpack Ridge Road. Their property is designed about that. The commissioners considered this and felt like what they were doing was a code interpretation and they determined that you have to have a street parcel line that abuts the road that you're selecting. The appellant's own plan shows that they are using this as kind of a falsehood just to demonstrate where they're going to designate it, but then they're gonna orient the home towards Canto Gal, which is in fact an appropriate and proper front property line. So the front door is there, the garage's door, Only the address is going to use Wolfback Ridge Road, not the development. Lot three is not analogous and Guess what? It wasn't considered by staff in making its determination. You cannot say it's analogous because number one, Before this subdivision occurred, that residence preexisted. So all of the land around it was part of that parcel. And additionally, there was no landscape easement. So the designation of 51 wolf back is not analogous for that reason alone. It also is not analogous because as we've shown, It in fact has a landscape easement that terminates and then the lot abuts Wolfback Ridge Road. Here is the example of that. difference where the. landscape easement, ends And then we've also shown you where the turnaround is and why that does not but Wolfback Ridge Road, which is something that was never proposed, never claimed before by Mr. Hurd. Now tonight he's saying that. |
| 03:38:38.89 | Elizabeth Brekus | Shifting code interpretation. Here is a real problem. The city keeps coming up with different definitions of what is injurious to adjacent properties, but that's actually 15 months after the fact. on the eve of the March 13, 2019 Planning Commission hearing Staff said it's concerned with avoiding physical injury to the property. Then for the last city council meeting, staff came up with this claim. It's whether it interferes with access or harms existing structures. Tonight, SAP now claims it means physical damage to land, interference with access, harm to existing structure, and does not pertain to view impacts. Well, that might be persuasive if you could have staff cite to any example where they made a front property line determination. And what did they consider using that injurious to adjacent properties? What did that mean? They have not done that. Instead, what they've done is very suspect, advanced various arguments without any support or precedent. |
| 03:39:56.96 | Elizabeth Brekus | Can you help me? This button is not working anymore. I'm sorry, it's delayed. So there is an ability to set up a city planning commission study to analyze setbacks if that is desired. And that would be in a public setting with notice to neighbors. |
| 03:40:22.27 | Elizabeth Brekus | Maybe my presentation is too long because your slide presentation button is not working. Okay. It's not working either. |
| 03:40:32.87 | Unknown | Can you pause the time, Mary? Oh, thanks. Okay, so the time has been paused while you've been having this issue. |
| 03:40:44.68 | Elizabeth Brekus | That's just a site, that's just words, not actual video. That's thinking. |
| 03:41:07.53 | Len Rifkind | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:41:09.64 | Elizabeth Brekus | Thank you. Thank you. Can you just go back to the mic? |
| 03:41:13.97 | Ida Green | Thank you. |
| 03:41:14.02 | Elizabeth Brekus | Thank you. |
| 03:41:14.04 | Ida Green | Thank you. |
| 03:41:17.26 | Susan Rowe | Right. |
| 03:41:17.57 | Elizabeth Brekus | Thank you. |
| 03:41:22.28 | Elizabeth Brekus | So importantly, this argument that lot five and lot three are analogous did not form staff's consideration. |
| 03:41:42.17 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:41:43.27 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:41:43.72 | Elizabeth Brekus | Thank you. |
| 03:41:43.77 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:41:43.84 | Elizabeth Brekus | Thank you. |
| 03:41:43.91 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:41:43.99 | Elizabeth Brekus | Thank you. |
| 03:41:44.05 | Unknown | Is sheep just positive or is she... |
| 03:41:46.10 | Unknown | I think she's trying to get a picture. |
| 03:41:47.42 | Elizabeth Brekus | I am. Sorry about that. |
| 03:41:47.44 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:41:53.04 | Elizabeth Brekus | As we have pointed out, Thank you. |
| 03:41:56.11 | Unknown | It's just. |
| 03:41:56.65 | Elizabeth Brekus | Thank you. This interpretation does not support, is not supported by the language of the code section. And so, you know, no more could they select Wolfback Ridge Road than they could select you know, a street down here in the flats of the town. It's not supported, there's no precedent that supports this determination or this decision. Additionally, we think it's very problematic that once again your resolution references this staff determination, which was made without notice, without hearing, and specifically makes a determination that we were not aware of and suggests that it's proper and could be done again by other owners of other lots up on that ridge. |
| 03:42:43.29 | Unknown | Okay, thank you. I think your time is up. I do have one question. So what lot line would you choose as the front property line? |
| 03:42:53.92 | Elizabeth Brekus | Well, I would point out that criticism of the Planning Commission |
| 03:42:56.05 | Unknown | Can you just answer the, just what line would you choose? |
| 03:43:00.29 | Elizabeth Brekus | I would let them choose, and they have three to choose from. It's Canto Gal. or the two down on the lower portion of the lot. |
| 03:43:08.28 | Unknown | So how does canter gal it can't it's can't have us a street right so you need to choose a property line which is line G. Staff's drawing. |
| 03:43:21.46 | Elizabeth Brekus | You know, I don't, if you have a map with G, I'm not sure, but Kanto Gal is certainly an option, and it does, in fact, separate the parcel from the street. |
| 03:43:27.71 | Unknown | So, |
| 03:43:31.77 | Unknown | It's Canto Gala is a street, not a property line. So how... |
| 03:43:33.82 | Elizabeth Brekus | Correct. |
| 03:43:38.61 | Unknown | You have to choose a property line. So if you think that Canto Gal is an appropriate choice, |
| 03:43:38.63 | Elizabeth Brekus | You have to proper. |
| 03:43:44.35 | Elizabeth Brekus | Correct. |
| 03:43:45.90 | Unknown | as the front property line, it doesn't intersect a street until Wolfpack Terrace. |
| 03:43:57.81 | Elizabeth Brekus | Canto Gal, in fact, is a possibility. But what they did is they added another section that doesn't cross that street. And then they chose Wolfback Ridge Road, which they can't do. |
| 03:44:12.06 | Unknown | But choosing Canto Gal would have the same exact logic applied to it if you knew. |
| 03:44:17.78 | Elizabeth Brekus | Not choosing it from the orientation that was previously done, which is what the developer incidentally called it. Two canto gal, and so did the city previously called it. |
| 03:44:27.23 | Unknown | No, but I mean, it's the same way of reading the code if you choose G. Thank you. |
| 03:44:35.55 | Elizabeth Brekus | Can you pull up something that has G? |
| 03:44:41.84 | Elizabeth Brekus | Thank you. |
| 03:44:41.86 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:44:42.50 | Elizabeth Brekus | Thank you. |
| 03:44:42.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:44:46.24 | Unknown | Okay, you know what, we're just gonna move on to the public comment. It's fine, you answered my question that Canto Gale's unacceptable hotline. Thank you. |
| 03:44:55.05 | Elizabeth Brekus | Tanto Gal, but not at the front of the property as, no, I didn't answer G, because I didn't see where you were referring to as G. |
| 03:44:55.61 | Unknown | but not at the front of the property. |
| 03:45:00.74 | Unknown | It's the one that runs along Canto Girl. |
| 03:45:03.32 | Elizabeth Brekus | Between lot four and lot five is a line on Canto Gal, and that would be an acceptable one, but not the small portion that then bisects Canto Gal. Okay. |
| 03:45:17.99 | Unknown | Great, so public comment. Excuse me. Benjamin Graves, you've got three minutes. And if there's any other speakers on this item, if you could fill out a speaker card, please. You'll have three minutes. |
| 03:45:38.29 | Benjamin C. Graves | I want to thank everyone for their time on this matter. I'm going to speak to the single issue of the injurious element. My name is Benjamin C. Graves. My client was the developer of the subdivision, created the map, created the lots, sold the house to Ms. Brekus' client, intimately familiar with the lines. My client owns lot two. also owns lot four. Lot four is the lot closest to the development issue. closest to the front property line at grade. No other lot. is affected by what happens on lot five as is my client's lot four. I was hired to Vet. any problems or non-compliance issues that would happen with lot five? I agree with Mr. Hurd's analysis of where the front property line should be. And my client is not injured. Not the light, open space, or air. Lot four is not injured. by what is proposed by Mr. Hurd would urge you to approve his plan once and for all. |
| 03:46:49.63 | Unknown | Okay, great. Thank you. Any questions? |
| 03:46:50.36 | Benjamin C. Graves | Thank you. |
| 03:46:51.81 | Unknown | Any questions? OK. Mr. Rifkind? |
| 03:47:00.67 | Len Rifkind | It is way past my bedtime. Good evening. Madam Vice mayor members of the council. My name is Len Rifkind. I represent Bruce McMillan one canto gal and I appreciate that you are hearing this for a second time. But I do also appreciate what the vice mayor said that Sometimes, This is something really hard to do that you actually keep a really open mind because you just might hear something tonight that you didn't hear before. You might hear something that might resonate with you that might change your mind. I just heard the vice mayor ask Ms. Brekus about, well, how does Kanto-Gal work as a front property line that has the same problem as line A? And I'm not sure I understood how your question was going. I know I'm not supposed to ask the questions but I did want to understand why and how you were asking that so that perhaps I could answer it more fully. And so perhaps after my time is up we can you can ask that question and we'll talk about it. But it's my perception quite frankly is that with Riley's that he put up there that the property line for lot five is on the outside edge of Canto Gals so that is an interface between a street and a parcel and I wanted to spend the next one minute and 45 seconds that I won't finish this on on parsing the definition because that's what Mr. Withey said that he wanted to focus on. He doesn't care about design review. He wants to focus on what's the front property line. So I want to parse the definition of 10.88.40. |
| 03:48:06.55 | Klaus Lund | Thank you. |
| 03:48:06.57 | Lorna Newlin | Thank you. |
| 03:48:06.60 | Klaus Lund | Thank you. |
| 03:48:36.47 | Len Rifkind | The very first sentence, I think, is, is illustrative. Front property line means the line separating the parcel from the street. This makes perfect sense if we look at that multi prong diagram No way does segment A separate the parcel from the street because it doesn't touch any part of it anywhere ever. Parcel A, it only touches Canto Gallo. It doesn't touch Wolfpack Ridge. So I'm at a complete loss how we can make a decision that Wolfpack Ridge would be the orientation for the front property line. It's really, it seems to me, that simple. So the only choices are Canto-Gao, Wolfback Terrace. Those are both on line G or Cloud View Trail, which is on line H. So, um, |
| 03:49:29.31 | Len Rifkind | The next part is that lot A, as I said, excuse me, line A, it abuts lot nine, not Wolfpack Ridge. It's got this landscape easement that's in there. And that was put in by the subdivision. The next part is the definition continues in a case where a lot of buts more than one that you've got to pick then the street where it does abut. those three choices. Last part that I'll finish in the last five seconds and maybe you'll give me in the lateness of the hour an additional fifteen. We keep talking about injury. Is what's injurious? Well, it doesn't say anywhere in your code what's injurious. This council made up the factors of access and open space and all those things. And then the finding in paragraph five of your resolution, it's tautological, to use Mr. Withey's word, because it just says, we find that these factors don't exist because they don't exist. I'll give you five facts. The proposed garage does affect access and circulation to Mr. McMillian. Oh, I'm sorry. |
| 03:50:40.99 | Unknown | I'm sorry, Mr. Huffman, your time is up. |
| 03:50:44.05 | Len Rifkind | All right. |
| 03:50:44.72 | Unknown | All right. |
| 03:50:44.75 | Len Rifkind | And it does affect noise because it's so close. Thank you. |
| 03:50:48.45 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. All right, Mr. McMillan. |
| 03:50:56.47 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:50:56.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:50:56.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:50:56.74 | Unknown | Mr. McNeil, he just spoke. |
| 03:50:59.42 | Unknown | That's okay, it's a public comment. It's not the 10 minutes. |
| 03:51:03.96 | Bruce McMillan | Thank you picking Wolfback Ridge Road as the front injures my living area more than than any other choice that could be made. and it is ignoring the Sausalito Municipal Code. If you decide that Wolfbeck Ridge Road is the front, there is the potential, the pattern is set for significantly more house on a very small buildable portion of this lot five. and more of the building in the southern portion of lot five looming over my only and very small outdoor living space by southern end. about two hours and 34 minutes into the video of the May 14, 2019 City Council meeting. And thank you, council members, for your work and time. Councilwoman Cox asked City Attorney Wagner, and I quote, is that the opinion of the city attorney pursuant to the definition of the Sausalito municipal code, that the front property line of a lot need not abut the street. Attorney Wagner did not answer that question. The code doesn't specify that. Does the code need to specify that you need to pick from one of the several streets that do abut a property? Everyone in this case knows that Lot 5 abuts three streets, Canto Gal, Wolfback Terrace, Cloud View Trail, Everyone in this case knows that Lot 5 does not abut Wolfpack Ridge Road. When lot five abuts three streets as it does would it be logical that the code allows lot 5 to pick any street and that it does not abut, like Caledonia Street, as the front or bridgeway. or Park Avenue or Broadway as the front. City Attorney Wagner answered the question by stating, The definition of the front property line is the line that separates the parcel from the street. We all acknowledge that line A separates lot 5 from the landscape easement on lot 9, and lot A does not separate the parcel from the street Wolfback Bridge Road. Thank you. |
| 03:53:45.40 | Unknown | Great, thank you very much. And the last speaker card I have is from Ms. Bowen. Are there any other speakers? If so, if you could fill out a speaker card, we'd appreciate it. |
| 03:54:02.11 | Unknown | Thank you very much for your time. Why are we here? I don't think we're being honest about why we're here. My comments are not about design. or view. or whether there'll be development at all. My comments have to do with the property line. which ultimately allows for structure size. property line that as proposed does not even abut Wolfpack Ridge Road This is ostensibly a simple decision about a front property line. But we are here because the city's decision to ignore Canto Gal as the front is about a spurious reading of city code in order to build a larger structure on a small lot. This larger home sets a precedent for other new builds all over the ridge. The real estate company for whom the mayor works will benefit. The remaining lots are marketed by his company. The city benefits. Larger homes sell for more money. More expensive homes equal higher property taxes for the city. I ask that you not set this precedent. Lastly, Some of us know why we'd like Cantogal as the front. A smaller home will be built if Cantogal is the front. I'd like to ask the owners of Lot 5 why it is so important that Wolfback Ridge be the front. And as for Mr. Graves, lot four is not on grade with lot five. Therefore, his reasoning about it not being injurious to lot five is incorrect. Thank you. |
| 03:55:44.45 | Unknown | Great, thank you very much. Okay, we've got five minutes for the appellant, Mr. Hurd. |
| 03:55:55.10 | Riley Hurd | Thank you. Riley Hurtigan for the owner of Lot 5. I think I will primarily respond to the comments of the attorney for lot three. We keep hearing the word clandestine a lot, like a secret meeting happened. What really happened was the architect looked in the code figure out this answer and went and did what the code said to do. It's hard to understand how that's clandestine. Also, it was erroneously stated up here that the design was pending when this occurred. It wasn't. Actually, One year of design took place after Mr. Couture got the interpretation from CDD. He had to go down there and figure out what was front before he could start his design. I'm not sure why that inaccurate statement was made. Then there were the legal issues. What about notice? What about all these supposed problems with the CDD determination? We're at our third de novo hearing on this. All of that has been erased. You are the decision makers now. So any of those problems They went away. This is de novo. Thank you. Next, we heard that there was concern that the CDD set the setbacks and the side and the rear. Well, once you have the front, The rest of those are automatic based on your code. There's not really optional. Finally, I want to touch on this issue of a budding wolf back. Another false statement that was made up here was that I said that lot five abutted Wolfpack Ridge Road. Luckily, I... My notes are verbatim. I said second. The argument ignores the fact that the landscape easement does not run the full front of lot 5 and that part of the lot actually touches a vehicle easement attached to Wolfback Road. It's also what I said the last time I was here. This is the same speech. Um, So What I really can't figure out is why do people keep saying You chose Wolfback Ridge Road as the front. We didn't. It's the abutment to canto gal is what triggers line A, the property line as the front. |
| 03:58:14.56 | Klaus Lund | Yeah. |
| 03:58:17.86 | Riley Hurd | So... That's still perplexing me. It keeps getting repeated and repeated. You chose Wolfpack Ridge Road. No, we said that it goes through Canto Gal. |
| 03:58:23.85 | Klaus Lund | those. |
| 03:58:28.95 | Riley Hurd | And that line extends along. That's what we are saying. In regards to line G, Something that was left out of the statement of how that might work is that it must separate the lot from the street. Well, there's no way that that line could separate the lot from the street, because the street is in the lot. I believe that was the purpose of the question. In any event, I agree with Mr. Rifkind about keeping an open mind and maybe you'll hear something new that will change it. I heard nothing new. So I would ask that you uphold the appeal. Thanks. |
| 03:59:13.15 | Unknown | Great, thank you, Ms. Bruckes. Got five minutes. |
| 03:59:23.20 | Elizabeth Brekus | I'll cede some time to Mr. Rex first. |
| 03:59:29.19 | Michael Rex | Very briefly, Mr. Hurd suggests that setbacks are only needed to regulate light and open space. We know that's not the case. You know better than that. Setbacks clearly control building mass. When you have, if Wolfback Ridge Road is considered the front line, We have a 10 foot setback that's required. If it's not, it's a side yard. It's a 20 foot setback. That's double. Sure, we have to know what the setbacks are to design a building. I design to the maximum setbacks all the time if I'm not impacting neighbors and meet other design review criteria. So if we have a setback that's 10 feet instead of 20. The neighbors are relegated to opposing perhaps a much bigger building. And when views are so critical, This setback determination allows any building that's designed to be wider in the east-west direction and block more views. And we're all relegated to opposing something as bigger than it should be. And that's why this is such a critical issue. it controls the building mass, and a bigger building could have a greater impact on the neighbors. So that's why we're concerned that you follow your code carefully. Thank you. |
| 04:00:59.32 | Elizabeth Brekus | Thank you. Injurious to adjacent neighbors is a phrase without a definition. So it's up to you as City Council members to decide what that means. Staff has at various times throughout this process proposed that it means different things. One proposal is when there's no physical injury to adjacent property. I would challenge you to give me a single example of when a Front property line determination can cause physical injury to adjacent property. This is a code interpretation, it's yours to make. and the proposals that have been given by staff are not really very reasonable. It can be injurious to adjacent properties and do different contexts. And so the right thing for the CDD to have done in this situation would have been to notices, have a hearing, have an opportunity for neighbors to weigh in, go to the adjacent property, visit it, see what the impact is, see what the impact of the setbacks would be and studied this, and none of that was done. And so I would submit that it is important consideration to look at building mass for this property. There's nothing improper about it. and the idea that you have to divorce the decision on that grounds. It's just not supported by your code. And the planning commission decided it was an appropriate thing to consider how big the building envelope is, and they did. And so again, I think that the resolution, which is adopting this CDD decision, is inadvisable, sets a wrong precedent. and the city should revisit that and stick with the Planning Commission decision. uphold the Planning Commission decision and find that the I'm not sure. beyond what the Planning Commission did, which is, the decision is actually injurious to adjacent property owners here. by bringing the development closer to property owners where it otherwise would not be thank you |
| 04:03:14.90 | Unknown | Great, thank you very much. Any questions for staff? Okay, so again, we will, I appreciate all of the comments from the members of the public about keeping an open mind and I think the council is committed to that. So would anybody like to start? Right, you let us off last time. |
| 04:03:47.15 | Unknown | challenge. |
| 04:03:50.56 | Unknown | He's refusing. |
| 04:03:53.88 | Unknown | I mean, I'll go. I want to thank staff for the very succinct presentation this evening. It is funny to hear this twice and you hear different things each time. But I am inclined to go along with the staff's analysis, which is that the front property line means the line separating the parcel from the street In case a lot abuts on more than one street, the parcel owner may elect any street parcel as the front any street as the front parcel line provided that such choice in the opinion of the community development director will not be injurious to adjacent properties. Um, So. in this case, um, The front property line need not be contiguous with the street, nor does it require it abut the street. Segment A. Um, abuts, sorry, lot five, abuts, Canto Gal, Wolfback Terrace, and Cloud View Trail. Segment A does have abutment with Canto-Gao before traveling parallel to Wolfback Ridge Road. So I believe that segment A is the appropriate front parcel line for lot five. |
| 04:05:29.66 | Unknown | I have a couple more things. |
| 04:05:39.38 | Unknown | I do agree with Mr. Hurd that this is de novo and so I am not, I'm not, affirming the planning the community development director's decision, and I'm looking to the city attorney for this, so I'm not affirming what the community development director did. He actually had a slightly different reasoning for his decision. His decision says that Wolfback Road Thank you. That property line A separates the parcel from the street, Wolfback Ridge Road, as the parcel is accessed from a private roadway easement that connects to Wolfback Ridge Road. So I am not relying on that as my basis. So this really is de novo. So I'm not affirming what the community development director did. |
| 04:06:49.51 | Unknown | Line A undeniably abuts Canto Gow. |
| 04:06:56.06 | Unknown | And therefore, I believe it is an appropriate front property line based on the definition in the Sausalito Municipal Code. |
| 04:07:10.74 | Unknown | Those are my initial thoughts. |
| 04:07:10.83 | Unknown | Those are my initial thoughts. Okay. |
| 04:07:12.19 | Unknown | Great. So for that reason, I would grant the appeal. |
| 04:07:22.56 | Unknown | OK, make this simple. I intend to vote to grant this appeal. I believe that section 10.88.040 is quite clear. And if you follow it, that section of our code, I believe that the property owner selecting property line A is a property owner. fully meets that section of the code and that issues that we've heard tonight around views, around massing, etc., are going to be decided during the design review process. which is the appropriate place for it. You don't go to the Planning Commission with a design review application and saying, I haven't decided or I don't know which property line to choose as the front property line. The code separates 10.88.040 from our design review process. And that's the way I see it. So I find this to be actually fairly straightforward. |
| 04:09:05.59 | Unknown | Do you have any comments, Joel? |
| 04:09:09.56 | Sandra Bushmaker | Yeah. I agree with the analysis that's already been stated. I believe that the Section 1088.040, the front property line, it's pretty clear. It means the line is separating the parcel from the street. In a case that it abuts more than one street, the property owner gets to choose. The property owner chose. And I think that's the choice of line A is within the code, and it's within what I see to be the layout of the lots. They had other choices. They chose not to. I haven't seen that there's been a sufficient showing of injury that will require choice of another front lot line, contrary to the owner's choice. And the concerns, I think, that have been voiced tonight are more appropriate for, as the other council members have stated, for design review at a later time. So that's my analysis. |
| 04:10:01.81 | Unknown | You had something to add? |
| 04:10:01.96 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 04:10:01.97 | Unknown | you. Yeah, I do want to acknowledge that we did, or I did review and consider the late mail from the, from, counts from Elizabeth Brekus. And I do believe that resolution 4397A has to do with designation of street addresses different from designation of property lines. |
| 04:10:30.48 | Unknown | Okay, great. OK, so I also think that the definition in the code has been met with the selection of line A. I also want to address this issue of injury. I think at least three of us have visited the site and talked to the affected property owners and don't find that the property owners, the current applicant property owners choice, does not rise to the level of injury to the adjacent property owners that would allow us to overrule that. And I just, I wanna clarify something that I think has been a misstatement, which is obviously the selection of the front parcel line does impact the size, the massing of the building, and it does affect adjacent and non-adjacent property owners. But that doesn't mean that that choice is so injurious as to make that choice not a reasonable choice. And so I don't think it's a question of us ignoring all of the practical implications of this decision. Of course there are practical implications. But two things, this decision as Council Member Withy said needs to be made early on in the process and as local architect Michael Rex acknowledged, that is a preliminary decision that needs to be made. So from a practical matter, it should proceed the design review phase. And secondly, we have heard all of the testimony, and I really appreciate the property owners that have come to testify and I understand the the feelings that you have about this potential development. But just the choice of the front parcel line here does not, in my opinion, constitute an injury, does not preclude a reasonable development. on this lot and does not mandate that there will be an unreasonable development that is injurious. So the selection of the front property line I do not feel as injurious to adjacent or other neighbors. you I also, it's been pointed out that it's logical and consistent with the pattern of the neighborhood. And, you know, I think that's nice whether that really is the basis for the decision. I don't believe so. I think we're making the decision based on the code. I also just, for the record, wanted to note a number of issues with lack of notice, lack of opportunity to be heard, and those issues and those issues, I do agree that basically the adjacent property owners should have, you know, should get notice of something like this. So hopefully that's something we can discuss moving forward. But that's happened. We have had the Planning Commission, heard from the neighbors, we have heard, and we granted the appeal. So I think that was an important decision. We granted the right to have an appeal of this decision. And so that will, be the precedent from now on, and there will be an opportunity for all adjacent or other property owners to comment on these decisions. I also just wanted to note that one speaker talked about the mayor's economic or business interest in this decision. That is why the mayor is recused and is not here on the dais tonight. I can state for myself and probably the rest of the council members that we don't have any interest in his business interests and are not taking that into account tonight. So I think those... Oh, and then, yeah, I think those are all of this kind of other issues I wanted to deal with. Thank you. So are there any other comments? |
| 04:14:50.57 | Unknown | No, I'll go ahead and move that we adopt the resolution that's in our packet, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Sausalito granting the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision regarding the front property line at lot five of Wolfback Estates. |
| 04:15:07.72 | Brian Moore | seconds. |
| 04:15:09.27 | Unknown | All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, that motion carries four zero. Thank you everybody for your time and attention to this matter. |
| 04:15:10.35 | Unknown | . |
| 04:15:10.52 | Brian Moore | Bye. |
| 04:15:23.83 | Unknown | So we will hopefully get the mayor back in. Do we want to take a short? |
| 04:15:32.79 | Unknown | Right? |
| 04:15:51.42 | Unknown | Okay? |
| 04:16:30.27 | Len Rifkind | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:16:49.96 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. . |
| 04:16:54.18 | Matthew Weintraub | Yeah, you can give them to me and I can do that. Okay. Yeah. |
| 04:17:04.78 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 04:17:09.49 | Unknown | Go ahead, go ahead. Thank you. |
| 04:17:10.57 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 04:17:17.77 | Joe Burns | Okay, since I set out the last one, this one I'm gonna do all by myself. They've all left. It's Joan and I for this one. |
| 04:17:37.83 | Unknown | Are we? |
| 04:17:45.23 | Joe Burns | There are two men. |
| 04:19:13.94 | Joe Burns | All righty. Next up, we have the stab... |
| 04:19:23.67 | Joe Burns | started okay we have the appeal of the Planning Commission decision denying an appeal and upholding the Community Development Department's approval of an accelerate accessory dwelling unit permit at 416 Napa Street Matthew's going to present. Thank you. |
| 04:19:38.95 | Matthew Weintraub | Thank you, Mayor Burns, council members, and members of the general public. Matthew Weintraub, contracted senior planner. The item before you is an appeal of an approval of a permit for an accessory dwelling unit at 416 Napa Street. And I'll start by reviewing the previously approved permits at 416 Napa Street, which are not the subject of this appeal, but which do relate to the ADU permit. So previously at 416 Napa Street, under file number 2018-00198, a two-story western addition, an addition to the north or rear, a new covered deck to the south or front, and associated site improvements were approved. Also, a variance was approved to extend the garage into a side setback to provide two off-street parking spaces. A condition of approval for file number 2018-00198, the City Council implemented a condition of approval number one that excessive building coverage on the property may be satisfied by one of two actions either by applying for an ADU permit or by applying for a variance. So the applicant chose to apply for an ADU permit in order to satisfy that condition of approval. The ADU that was applied for is an interior ADU, meaning it was entirely within the building envelope that was previously approved by the City Council under the previous permits. |
| 04:21:19.74 | Matthew Weintraub | Now the ADU permit was subsequently appealed by an anonymous property owner of the adjacent property of 418 Napa Street, which is located behind and above the project site at 416 Napa Street. And here is a timeline of the actions related to the ADU permit. So April 10, 2019, the applicant, 416 Napa Street, applied for the ADU permit. May 28, the Community Development Department approved the ADU permit. June 7, the anonymous owner of 14 Napa Street appealed that approved ADU permit. On June 26, the Planning Commission affirmed the Community Development Department's decision and approved the ADU permit. On June 26th, the Planning Commission affirmed the Community Development Department's decision and approved the ADU permit. On July 8th, anonymous owner of 418 Napa Street appealed the approved ADU permit. And that brings us to today, August 27th, City Council considers that appeal. |
| 04:22:17.18 | Lorna Newlin | Thank you. |
| 04:22:19.06 | Matthew Weintraub | Here is some relevant information related to the approved ADU permit. An ADU permit is ministerial, and that is per the state law that was implemented last year. That means that no discretion is allowed if the standards are met. And I'll go ahead and read from our Sausalito Municipal Code, Section 1044-080.D1. Any application for an accessory dwelling unit that meets the accessory dwelling unit permit standards contained in subsection E of this section shall be approved administratively without discretionary review or public hearing within 120 days of receiving the application. Staff determined that those standards were met, and so that application was approved within 120 days of receiving the application. and staff has further determined that the stated grounds for the appeal do not relate to the objective standards in the code. Thank you. Um, Furthermore, I might note that the grounds for appeal are also primarily related to the physical development of the property, which was approved under the previous permits, not under the ADU permit. So for these reasons, staff respectfully recommends to the City Council the denial of the appeal and upholding of the Planning Commission's approval of the project. Based on applicable state law in the city's municipal code, the only basis to uphold the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission's decision is if the city council believes that the project does not meet the standards set forth in the municipal code. And staff, I do have those standards available and we can review those if you'd like. I haven't planned to go through those in detail, but if there's any that you would like to review, we can certainly do that. That, at this time, ends my presentation, and I'm available to answer any questions you or the public may have. Thank you. |
| 04:24:20.96 | Joe Burns | Thank you. Before we ask our questions, let's do our quick ex parte communications that I missed since I was coming back to the party late. Thank you. |
| 04:24:28.69 | Lorna Newlin | Thank you. |
| 04:24:28.91 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 04:24:28.96 | Lorna Newlin | Thank you. |
| 04:24:30.09 | Joe Burns | Any expert take, John? |
| 04:24:30.67 | Unknown | Thank you. My only visit to the site was in connection with the prior permit. I have not visited the site or had any communications in connection with this appeal. |
| 04:24:43.62 | Unknown | Yes, the same for me, although I did just would note that I did visit all of the properties impacted by the project, including the appellants at the time of the prior appeal. And I have reviewed the Planning Commission hearing the late mail. |
| 04:25:05.46 | Unknown | Yeah, I also have had no communications since the last hearing in connection with the prior approval. |
| 04:25:17.93 | Sandra Bushmaker | I only visited the property in connection with the prior appeal. I believe I may have spoken with the appellant after the appeal, but I can't remember. But it was not about this issue, I believe. |
| 04:25:34.37 | Joe Burns | Thank you. And I have not visited the property or talked with anybody since the prior decision. And I did watch most of the planning commission meeting as it occurred. Okay, so now any questions for staff? |
| 04:25:53.98 | Unknown | I would just note I thought the staff report was excellent, so thank you. |
| 04:25:58.30 | Joe Burns | Very good. 12. No questions? Seeing none. Okay. We'll give the appellant ten minutes. |
| 04:26:16.54 | Joe Burns | Welcome. |
| 04:26:18.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:26:35.07 | Unknown | Good evening. Thank you for your service. I am the anonymous owner of 418 Napa. That is the property that is located behind 416 Napa. Most of this project has involved the 420 Napa owner, Mark Rushford. I understand an awful lot of folks went to visit him. I sort of felt like I was the stepchild because not many people were paying attention to any effects that were going to impact the 418 Napa residents. I've owned the property. This is my 15th year. And it is a landlocked, very small property. I did purchase it. You have to access it up 50 stairs either way. I purchased it for privacy and solitude and beauty and view It does not have a garage. It is difficult to access and I did not want to hear street traffic, which is one of the reasons why I moved. I had a beautiful 70-foot fir tree and it was lovely. And so I am going to share with you some of the before pictures that you have in your package. I think you can see the beauty of how my property was, so you can imagine my surprise that it was actually possible to take down a 70 foot tree and not replace it because the trees and views committee mandated that it be replaced. And had I not brought this challenge forth, uh, Kirsten Thomas had told me that She had never received a sampling of what my choices were. She has actually received it three times. and that how would I like to have a lemon tree and sort of a snarky remark. Um... I will tell you that the general sense is that I've just been really surprised at how irascible and uncompromising the new owners are. And so I had decided after three remarks of finding them untrustworthy that I would no longer communicate with them directly. I didn't see any progress being made. but I knew that I didn't want my property to be injured. and trying to be reasonable, I have asked them to compromise. including Michael Rex. The Planning Commission was trying to figure out how to get that addition over to Mark Rushford. I sent last November during planning to pull back. that addition toward me. And Matt said he couldn't do it. Rex never answered. And Mark Rushford said he was going to go all out. to try to get it killed off. I didn't even go to the appeal meeting. which Mark Rushford had. because I thought that it was just about that addition. But it came to you good folks. And I was really surprised. that I got a message from Kirsten. to say guess what? Would you believe that your neighbor, Mark Westford, has offered $50,000 to move things into your backyard? But I had had much higher other priority items to deal with. So I was very surprised by that. I had worked a lot with Mark. So I had to put down what I was doing and come over to the meeting. and ask about it as a member of the public. And sure enough, he cocked it up and he didn't like it and he hasn't liked it since. And matter of fact, he drove by the other day when I was talking to a friend on Napa Street. And said I didn't have to bring it up to the public. So he doesn't like that this is being outed, but he's afraid of his own words. So I don't know what happened, but 14 out of the 19 amendments that resulted, when Mark came to you guys, ended up in my backyard. including all sorts of hardscapes a new ADU, which I guess you suggested to him, a new pitched roof, which faces me, and a number of other items. And I thought, how is this actually possible when I'm not considered? And so I've spent the... eighteen hundred dollars to challenge the planning commission on an edu opening and had to challenge it again to get it back to you. to say I had asked for more than three minutes so we could resolve those things. And so I'm back here. Oh, what do I think about an ADU? Yeah, it's a legal mandate. I'm on board. Nice job, Matt. You did a good write-up. Let's move on past that. My only question about the ADU was, There's an additional glass door that is facing me. I understand it is tinted. I'd like it to be tinted glass and not tinted film because you can you know, put high heat to the film and then you peel it off and you get clear glass. I'm hoping it's tinted glass. I also asked that asked for that door. to be on the side so that it doesn't open straight toward us and that noise comes right up. Believe me, that noise comes right up. I hear everything of the noise on the folks behind me. I can tell you what color shorts they're wearing. because we hear every single thing. We hear what they're listening to for news, at night, et cetera, noise modification. is a huge issue, and it has not been addressed. And my neighbor to my right has also asked you. Um, when the city council decides to design de novo, and that's going to affect me as a property owner. I have to come back to you and challenge it down through the planning commission and back up. And here it is on the ADU. And I know they asked for compensation on the ADU. I feel like I should ask for compensation to say, hey, I should have had more than three minutes when you're doing design work that's really going to affect me. I'll ask for it. You'll probably shut me down. That's fine. We'll all move on. But it's my opinion that it's not quite reasonable for a resident to end up in this situation. So what you're going to find before you are considerations that I have and requests that This building has been raised and you can believe it or not, but I have now put in a code enforcement. Ken Henry's been to the property. I hired a surveyor to try to prove it. Sausalito is one of the only towns that does not have A height request that is repeatable So they had an engineer, Vlad, I can't remember his last name, and you can't repeat the height requirements so I burned five figures in the testing that I tried to prove. I'm testing the height because I've lived there for close to 15 years. When you come out and look out my deck, which is my front yard, and I don't have a backyard. I have nowhere else to go. I can tell when that height's been raised. And now they're putting on a glass dome on top. I asked for that glass dome not to be there. I asked for a sun skylight only be on the south side. Michael said there were no windows I allowed. No windows. Not true. But if you're going to put an art piece up there, I asked for it not to be outlined in dark. And I believe you said, Michael, you need to talk to Chris. Well, that's code for never talking to me again because you didn't mandate it. So at the Planning Commission, he said, That will be charcoal. And that was in direct opposite of what we asked. And so I had to spend the, what is it, $3,800 come back to you and say, hey, can you now mandate to Michael to talk to me? about making that light gray. That's where we are. If you do not make these mandated, This is what happens. So I would like a number of items. I would like the skylight. be considered. I would like the landscaping. to be mandated and not be pushed off. I would like the walkway because they've met with the fire marshal to try to gate off My access to Napa Street. My address is 418 Napa Street. My mail is Napa Street. My emergency rescue is Napa Street. and they're planning on I think you can ask them about it, gaining it up. You can also ask them to vote. raising the height on that building. And we'll take a look at it. What's injurious to me? is removing that tree and noise and light. So I'm asking you, to require them. to do exactly what was required when there was a tree and views committee. And when I bought the property, I never in a million years would have thought you could strip out 70-foot trees and then build over them such that I now get to see the telephone pole and the six garbage cans down at the apartment building across from me. And I could even tell you when the kids were playing softball at the apartment building across from me. You don't pay what's today's value of a $1.7 million for a walk up 50 stairs of an old building that's 100 years old. to end up in this situation. So it is quite injurious and they've been quite righteous about it. And they've written a very colorful letter. I've included every text between myself and Kirshen and I think you'll see the reasonableness between us It doesn't have anything to do with the colorful letter that they wrote. But that's up to them. I'm comfortable with who I am. Um, let's see here. Finally, do I have any other things to say here? I think I'll resolve. I'll hold some time here. Thanks. Great. |
| 04:35:46.86 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 04:35:51.27 | Joe Burns | We're going to give 10 minutes to the applicant. |
| 04:36:04.60 | Neil Sorensen | Good evening, Mayor Burns, members of the City Council. My name is Neil Sorensen. I'm the attorney for the property owners and applicants, Matt Smith and Kirsten Thomas. With us tonight is Michael Rex. And Michael can answer any questions. And as you know, he's been involved throughout the process, including the design review for the building renovations and additions. As I understand it, it were approved last March or April and really aren't at issue tonight, although most of what we seem to have heard from the appellant relates to that project and not the current one before you. We're here to ask that you follow the recommendation of your professional planning staff and the unanimous decision of your planning commission to deny this appeal and approve the accessory dwelling unit. And you've heard from your staff, the state legislature has made it very clear that the approval of ADUs is a ministerial decision. There really is no discretion on the part of the city, either the Planning Commission or yourselves, as to whether this project is approved as long as it meets all the standards in your ordinance. And I think both your planning staff and the Planning Commission have made it very clear that this ADU meets all of your standards. And I don't think we've heard anything in the, or seen anything in the written materials or heard anything here tonight in the, appellant's oral presentation that would change any of that. I haven't heard any facts. I haven't heard any cogent arguments that go to each of the standards that are set forth in your ordinance as to ADUs and how this particular ADU does not meet those standards. In short, I think what you've heard, and to maybe do a bad paraphrase of Macbeth, what you've heard tonight is really a tale full of sound and fury but signifying nothing. And I want to ask that at the end of my presentation that you deny the appeal and uphold the decision of your planning commission. I do want to comment on some of the specifics that the anonymous appellant Just went through. First, the 70-foot fir tree that she's talking about, my understanding that tree was removed by the prior owners of the property and it was removed with a permit. It had nothing to do with the ADU. It had nothing to do with the prior design review that you approved last spring. Second, legal access to the appellant's property is really not an issue here. If it were, we've submitted documentation to your staff that the appellant does not have legal access down the stairway to Napa Street. Her legal and deeded access is up to Filbert Street. So there is no legal access on her deed or entitled to her property to Napa Street. If you have any other questions about the items that the appellant has raised, I know Mr. Rex is much more familiar with the details of the architecture and we can ask him to come forward. But unless you do, I'm going to conclude my remarks and ask again that you deny the appeal. Thank you. |
| 04:39:42.99 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 04:39:46.76 | Joe Burns | I'm going to open up to public comment. Do we have any questions for anybody? Any good? Okay, I'm going to open to public comment. I see somebody hopping up there with a green card. Mark? Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comment anticipated on this item? |
| 04:40:07.35 | Joe Burns | You have three minutes. Mark. |
| 04:40:11.38 | Mark Rushford | Thank you. I am Mark Rushford, the one spoken about earlier at 420 Napa Street. Just a few points of clarification, only because it seems so maybe injurious to let them sit incorrectly. The 70-foot fir tree was not beautiful when I purchased my property in 2012. It was dead, and we got a consortium of, well was the new the new neighbors who all purchased on my property since there's three of us there that approached the previous owner Jesse golf and You know with an arborist he agreed that should be removed. It was a danger to all of our houses We did provide a replacement tree. It was never cared for. So I think we met our obligation. And then finally, the continuing mistruth provided by Anonymous is that I somehow provided a $50,000 offer to the owners of 416 Napa to move the property into the back. Never did I provide that, not once. I did see an email from the attorney that I hired to that effect, and that was shown to me, but I didn't give him that approval. So I'm assuming that's where that came from, and believe me, I did not give him that approval. So I just want to clear that record. |
| 04:41:39.16 | Joe Burns | Great, thank you. Any other public comment? All right, seeing none, we'll close public comment. I'll invite the appellant back up, anonymous, for a quick rebuttal. to any of the information you've heard. |
| 04:41:56.97 | Unknown | How much time do I have? Do I have the five minutes plus the 50 seconds? You have five minutes. I lost the 50 seconds from before. I will see how you're doing. |
| 04:41:59.18 | Joe Burns | You have five minutes. We'll see how you're doing. I'm sorry? Yeah, you'll take the 50. Go ahead. |
| 04:42:03.43 | Unknown | I'm sorry? First, Mark, I forgive you. You've got other fine qualities. You might want to check with Kirsten. There is a text to me from Kirsten. The committee now has that. It is her offer. Up to you to figure that one out. I didn't make that up. Secondly, I'm going to ask you, |
| 04:42:31.44 | Unknown | I guess I would like to ask one question which was to Joan Cox who said that the ADU door could not be moved when we last were here and I'm sort of wondering what that reasoning was because I said that an architect can move a door. |
| 04:42:50.66 | Unknown | I guess you'll come back to me on that. Finally, I provided a list of solutions as I saw it, I do have a problem with the height on the building. I have hired the structural engineers. I do believe we're headed to litigation. Mostly because I'm dealing with some folks that aren't gonna compromise, are pretty righteous about pushing me on issues. are telling me that I have deeded access up. The folks above me are, by the way, saying that I don't. So that's sort of interesting. I bought a property I can't get out of. Um, The fire marshal seemed to think who I met with seemed to think I have emergency access down to Napa. But in any case, I guess that's a fight we'll fight. Um, If they don't want to fight, I am solutions-oriented, so I put it forth even though I'm not happy that they've raised the building. So, If anybody has any uh, thought about how to move forward, I've continually show up and I'm looking for ways to make to reasonably move forward. I guess I don't really appreciate the snippiness, but I'll leave that to somebody else. Michael Rex has certainly been full of snippiness saying I don't like children, I don't like barbecues, I gotta move and everything else and I think he'd do well Take a look in the mirror. I can send him one if he likes. And if Neil would like to say there's more sound than fury, I mean, we could use more light than noise Neil. So if you've got any of that, that'd be helpful too. We're trying to move forward here. I'm spending a great deal of time and a great deal of money saying, it'd be good not to buy a property to expand in every possible angle and then strip out all the privacy of the people behind you. That's probably not gonna be well received. So you might wanna take seat and just say why don't we ask what's reasonable and try to move forward if you don't somebody who's got a million dollars sitting in equity is probably gonna challenge you, so. There you go. Pick your poison. |
| 04:44:55.13 | Joe Burns | That's great. Thank you. No. Thank you. |
| 04:44:59.65 | Unknown | I would like... you to address Michael Rex on that issue please. |
| 04:45:09.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:45:10.00 | Joe Burns | Applicant, rebuttal. And then I actually do have a question when you do. Yeah. |
| 04:45:16.12 | Neil Sorensen | I was just going to say, unless you have questions, we don't have anything further to say. |
| 04:45:21.29 | Joe Burns | I'm going to ask a quick question. I'm not clear on the stair issue. Are you saying that anonymous will not be able to, or just that there's no legal access, no legal easement on the property, which I'm sure is a very provable situation. I don't know if there was a prescriptive easement over time, and then will there be access allowed, especially during emergency? What's the situation of that? |
| 04:45:42.38 | Neil Sorensen | Right. |
| 04:45:48.85 | Neil Sorensen | Well, Let me first start by saying we're not clear what her point was either. Okay. Although it seemed to be that she had access up and down the stairs. My only point was she does not have legally deeded access up and down those stairs. We weren't saying she doesn't have emergency access. We weren't saying that there might be other forms of access. But if you read her deed, which I have submitted to the city and I have copies here if you want to see it, it gives her access up to Philbert. |
| 04:45:54.73 | Joe Burns | Okay. |
| 04:46:02.58 | Joe Burns | Great. |
| 04:46:02.85 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 04:46:02.87 | Klaus Lund | Thank you. |
| 04:46:19.71 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 04:46:23.46 | Joe Burns | Any other questions? |
| 04:46:27.59 | Sandra Bushmaker | Okay. I have a question. Yes. I have a question for Mr. Rex. So I remember at the last meeting that you agreed to use your best efforts to talk to the applicant to get a color for the skylight that was acceptable to her. Have you met with her in the intervening time? |
| 04:46:46.00 | Michael Rex | We have not. We're currently in the middle of producing a permit set. And we still have the opportunity and obligation to do that. I intend to do that. |
| 04:46:57.63 | Sandra Bushmaker | You intend to meet with the applicant? Do you think you'll meet with the applicant within the next month? The appellant? The appellant? I can do that, yes. I think that would be acceptable. Would that be acceptable to you, ma'am? |
| 04:47:03.16 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 04:47:03.21 | Lorna Newlin | I can see that. Yeah. Thank you. Okay, we don't want to... |
| 04:47:09.74 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 04:47:09.78 | Sandra Bushmaker | Okay, we don't want to, yes or no. Okay, all right, well you're agreeing to meet with her to talk about the color, to get a color that's acceptable. I have another question for you too. I know. Look, I'm just trying to diffuse the situation here. |
| 04:47:17.10 | Lorna Newlin | I have another question for you, too. |
| 04:47:18.59 | Klaus Lund | Thank you. |
| 04:47:22.35 | Sandra Bushmaker | So I have another question. Is there any issue with doing tempered glass on the back door? |
| 04:47:32.15 | Michael Rex | Well, the code requires tempered glass. Okay, so. It's not tinted as was stated. It's clear glass, but it's surely tempered. |
| 04:47:34.87 | Sandra Bushmaker | Okay. Okay. Yeah. Okay, thanks. Um. I don't know either. |
| 04:47:52.93 | Joe Burns | All right, see no other questions. Then we've, those were just my question to the rebuttal, but we are now up to City Council discussion and action. |
| 04:48:02.81 | Unknown | So I think the code is very clear. We have no discretion so long as the application meets the standards. Staff has provided both us and the Planning Commission with an exhaustive analysis of how each element of the application meets Sausalito's objective standards. And so I see no basis for upholding the appeal. |
| 04:48:29.61 | Unknown | you Thank you. I would echo those thoughts. I think all the objective criteria are met. I understand the concerns of the appellant, which are primarily from my reading of the appeal and listening to both the Planning Commission and comments tonight, based on our prior deliberations and decision. I also, you know, I think the ADU was something that, that we asked for, and I thank the applicants for for providing and whether in the short or long term that that will add to our housing stock. So I would agree with Council Member Cox that I would be inclined to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission decision. |
| 04:49:24.41 | Unknown | I agree with my two previous colleagues and have nothing to add. |
| 04:49:32.10 | Sandra Bushmaker | I agree as well, I don't think we have discretion to deny, but I do understand the frustration between neighbors that are this close. and the heartache that sometimes is caused by these types of projects. Since I do sympathize actually with both sides, all sides, is that? Anyway, that's my two cents. |
| 04:49:56.62 | Joe Burns | Yeah, and I guess I agree with all that, especially, you know, I'm glad that we are bringing on an ADU onto our housing stock. I'm glad that we've gotten to this point. I'm sorry that we have certain relationship issues, but I trust that those will be worked out in time. So, and then most importantly on this item itself, I don't think we have any grounds to deny |
| 04:50:18.46 | Matthew Weintraub | I don't know. |
| 04:50:24.13 | Joe Burns | to grant given the information we received. |
| 04:50:29.75 | Unknown | Great then, Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a motion that we adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Sausalito denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's denial of the appeal of the Community Development Department's determination of approval of the Accessory Dwelling Unit permit at 416 Napa Street. |
| 04:50:49.25 | Unknown | again. |
| 04:50:50.71 | Joe Burns | All in favor? Aye. That passes five to zero. |
| 04:50:51.87 | Unknown | All right. |
| 04:50:55.95 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:50:56.66 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 04:50:57.17 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:51:00.07 | Joe Burns | Next up, we have our city manager, do we have any public comment on items 8B through 8E? In 8B through 8E, our city manager information, appointment of boards, future agenda items. Any comments from the public? Seeing none, I'll turn it over to the city manager for information. |
| 04:51:19.09 | Adam Politzer | Thank you, Mr. Mayor, City Councilmembers. At 7 minutes to midnight, I'll keep this very brief. Just one note, the art festival we all know is coming up this Labor Day weekend. Unfortunately, due to a number of events, going back to the shootings at Gilroy and then some other events throughout the nation, there will be a bigger security presence at the art festival. And I just thought that the public should be aware of that. And thanks to the cooperation of the art festival working with our police department, I think that we have taken the appropriate steps to not impact the quality of the event, but at the same time recognize that we're living in a different time and these safety issues have to be recognized and planned for. So if you have any specific questions related to that, I'm happy to discuss those offline. And I also know the chief would be happy to touch base with anybody that has concerns regarding the safety of a large event like the festival. Um, But on the positive side, the event planning itself, working with Parks and Recreation, with our special events application, working with Public Works, and Kenneth Henry from Building Fire Department with inspections, everything is actually going very smoothly, and Louis Brionis, the new Executive Director, worked really well with staff, and just want to compliment him and his team, and we look forward to a very successful and enjoyable weekend. But tonight we had a lot of special presentations, so the one presentation that we skipped was the introduction of our new Public Works Director, Kevin McGowan. We introduced him through Currents and will formally introduce him at the Council meeting on the 10th of September when he'll come back and give us an update on all of the great work that we're moving forward with on the slide removal project over on the south end of town. So he understood, and he'll be here for a while. So if you have an opportunity, please stop by and say hello. Thank you. |
| 04:53:48.60 | Joe Burns | Great, thank you. Appointments to boards, commissions, committees. I actually wanted to go over tonight, make up of all the committees and go through each name. Would you guys be in their terms? Are you guys interested in that? Probably not tonight. Then, I'm seeing nods. No. Future agenda items. I'm going to add the task force on landslide to the 924. We'll look at that agenda setting. |
| 04:54:10.40 | Lorna Newlin | Yeah. |
| 04:54:12.23 | Joe Burns | We could work on getting it that far. Anything else to add? We will be meeting on agenda setting this week. Seeing no other reports of significant, I am going to adjourn tonight in the memory of Leland Jordan, City Attorney and County Council of Marin. So we are adjourned. Thank you for that, Vicki. |
| 04:54:50.82 | Lorna Newlin | Thank you. |
| 04:54:51.49 | Ida Green | Thank you. |
| 04:54:52.62 | Unknown | Thank you. She's like, ooh, I'm out of here. Thank you. |