1. Appeal Tuesday, January 14, 2014

2. Background Appeal Grounds Design Modification Options Community Feedback Staff Recommendation

3. 1936-2001: Public pier in use 2001: Storm destroyed pier 2013: Grant funds secured to rebuild October 16: PC considers Design Review and Non- conformity Permits PC directs reso of denial

4. 3-1/2’ height increase

5. October 22: Council Direction as Owner Lower Elevation Direct staff to return to PC with modified Design October 30: Grant extension (possibly end of May)

6. November 6: Planning Commission meeting Revised Plans Redesign- 2 feet height increase Simplified Ramp

7. 2-1/2’ height increase

8. November 6: Planning Commission meeting Asked for Design Direction No comment 4:0—Deny original project November 15: Public Works Director filed appeal

9. Council hears appeal Remand to OMIT to review design elements (December) Uphold appeal; reverse Commission denial and approve project with modifications Deny appeal; uphold Commission denial and consider next steps for a new project Council considers design elements Remand to Planning Commission to review design elements

10. December 9, 2013: Open City Hall survey released Closed Jan 5, 2014 194 people visited 44 people participated December 12, 2013: OMIT public meeting Approx 20 attendees

11. 6 Findings Can Be Made: 1. Design Review Permit Finding B 2. Design Review Permit Finding C 3. Design Review Permit Finding D 4. Non-Conformity Permit Finding B 5. Non-Conformity Permit Finding C 6. Non-Conformity Permit Finding D

12. Finding B: The proposed architecture and site design complements the surrounding neighborhood and/or district by either: a) Maintaining the prevailing design character of the neighborhood and/or district or b) Introducing a distinctive and creative solution which takes advantage of the unique characteristics of the site and contributes to the design diversity of Sausalito. Planning Commission Finding: the project’s cluttered modern aesthetic and materials are not consistent with the prevailing design character of the neighborhood, and adjacent buildings which are structures in the Downtown Historic District

13. Finding C: The proposed project is consistent with the general scale of structures and buildings in the surrounding neighborhood and/or district. Planning Commission Finding: the replacement pier, at an elevation of three and one half feet taller than the existing pier, is out of scale with structures and buildings in the surrounding neighborhood. The system of ramps and stairs to access the elevated portion of the pier is cluttered and is discordant with the structures in the surrounding district

14. Finding D: The proposed project has been located and designed to minimize obstruction of public views and primary views from private property. Planning Commission Finding: compounded by the raised height of the deck of the pier, the accumulative layered affect of the multiple railings will obstruct public views of Richardson’s Bay, San Francisco Bay, Angel Island, the East Bay and San Francisco from the Bridgeway sidewalk.

15. Finding B: The existing nonconforming use and/or structure has not resulted in a notable negative impact or nuisance to the surrounding properties and district (i.e., excessive parking demand, traffic, noise, view obstruction, etc.) Planning Commission Finding: the use may cause the public to congregate on the pier which may cause cumulative negative obstructions of public views of Richardson’s Bay, San Francisco Bay, Angel Island, the East Bay and San Francisco from the Bridgeway sidewalk. The smell of caught fish and bait may also be an attractive nuisance which will not contribute to the social vitality of the district.

16. Finding C: The nonconforming use or structure is not incompatible with the general character of the surrounding neighborhood or district. Planning Commission Finding: the replacement pier, at an elevation of three and one half feet taller than the existing pier, is out of scale and not compatible with the general character of structures and buildings in the surrounding neighborhood. The system of ramps and stairs to access the elevated portion of the pier is cluttered and is discordant with the structures in the surrounding district.

17. Finding D: If the application is for a nonconforming use, the nonconforming use will contribute to the social and economic vitality of the district or will otherwise benefit the public health, safety, and welfare. Planning Commission Finding: the use may cause the public to congregate on the pier which may cause cumulative negative obstructions of public views of Richardson’s Bay, San Francisco Bay, Angel Island, the East Bay and San Francisco from the Bridgeway sidewalk. The smell of caught fish and bait may also be an attractive nuisance which will not contribute to the social vitality of the district.

18. Rendering depicting pier with elevated height of 2½ feet above the Bridgeway sidewalk

19. December 2013 Rendering with Narrow Ramp, No Stair

20. Alternative 1 (narrow ramp) Alternative 2 (wide ramp)

21. Alternative 1 (vertical) Alternative 2 (horizontal)

22. Open City Hall (44 total) Yes: 61% (27) No: 27% (12) Other response: 11% (5) Yes: 31% (5) No: 69% (11) OMIT Meeting (16 total) Preference for a rebuilt pier, even one that is elevated 2- 2½ feet above the Bridgeway sidewalk and accessible Note: these percentages have been corrected from the staff report

23. 58% preferred the horizontal cable railings 49% preferred the benches with backs 63% preferred fishing to be allowed on the pier 75% preferred no bicycles or bicycle parking

25. Height: 2½ feet maximum Railings: horizontal cables with wood cap Access: narrow ramp Benches: with backs, location to discourage casting by fishers Fishing: allowed, advisory signage required Bikes: not allowed

26. Staff recommends the City Council evaluate the Planning Commission’s determination and the Appellant’s grounds for appeal and adopt the draft resolution (Attachment 1) upholding the appeal and approving the Design Review Permit and Non Conformity Permit with the conditions listed in the draft resolution. The Council may provide specific direction on the following design/use issues: Railing Design (horizontal cables vs. vertical steel posts) Access Design (Access Alternative 1 or 2) Use (Fishing, Bicycles) Furniture (benches)