San Rafael did not need to grant every housing waiver

There has been understandable confusion about what state housing law does — and does not — require in the approval of the planned 17-story project at 700 Irwin St.

Laws like Senate Bill 330 and the state density bonus law make it difficult for cities to deny housing outright. But they do not require cities to approve unsafe projects or grant every waiver a developer requests.

At 700 Irwin, the San Rafael Planning Commission approved housing while granting extraordinary waivers, including tripling the base height, eliminating setbacks, sharply reducing bicycle parking and relying almost entirely on a mechanized parking system. The base height was increased through state density bonus provisions tied to the inclusion of affordable units and the waiver of local standards. At the same time, there appear to be unresolved issues involving traffic congestion, evacuation feasibility, emergency access and operational reliability.

During the hearing, commissioners openly expressed that they felt constrained by state law and had limited ability to influence the outcome, a view reinforced by the developer’s legal counsel. That context matters when evaluating how and when these waivers were granted.

I consider the waivers troubling because, under state law, they should not be seen as automatic. Cities can deny or condition them if they create specific, adverse public safety impacts that cannot be adequately mitigated.

The City Council needs to answer this question: Should major waivers take effect before evacuation, emergency access and operational safety issues are actually resolved?

This is not in opposition to housing. It is about sequencing, safety and accountability, especially when approving the tallest building in San Rafael’s history. We will all be living with this decision long after the current applicant is gone.

— Ken Dickinson, San Rafael

Too often, public projects go over approved budget costs

It seems like city, county, state or federal contracts are never completed within the accepted bid amount. Often, there appear to be changes, modifications, issues and problems that are not in the accepted/approved contract.

I think this may be one way for contractors to make a larger profit. They appear to charge full price for adjustments not in the contract.

I think the additional costs for the Highway 101 widening project is a good example (“Marin-Sonoma Narrows project costs climb as work goes on,” Jan. 21). Unexpected problems are costing taxpayers millions more than budgeted. Another case is the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District, which is seemingly begging for more tax money when I think it should be self-sustaining by now. Thirdly, Gov. Gavin Newsom has turned a multi-billion-dollar surplus into a multi-billion-dollar deficit.

It appears to me that government officials love spending our tax money.

— Bill Hess, Greenbrae

Doctor on vaccine committee needs to learn from history

Dr. Kirk Milhoan, the pediatric cardiologist who chairs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, recently suggested that both measles and polio vaccines should be optional. He also said deaths from the current measles outbreaks would be helpful for understanding the disease risk.

Milhoan made the comments while appearing on the podcast “Why Should I Trust You?” hosted by ABC News medical contributor and investigative reporter Dr. Mark Abdelmalek, Tom Johnson and Brinda Adhikari.

I think Milhoan needs to look at historical data before 1963, when the measles vaccine was invented. “What is the new incidence of hospitalization?” he asked. “What’s the incidence of death?” We don’t need new evidence. We already have the old evidence.

Why does America have to endure his “real-world experience” when we already have? This time people will die or contract a life-changing disease, I argue, intentionally.

— Michelle Kaye, Corte Madera

Elected officials need to stop SCAAP reporting

I am part of a large group of Marin residents outraged that the Marin County Sheriff’s Office is cooperating with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency to provide data on some residents. From my perspective, our county is accepting bounties via the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. The most recent demonstration was documented by the Bay City News Service. The article was published in the Marin IJ on Jan. 23 with the headline “Protesters demand Marin supervisors challenge sheriff’s ICE funding.”

As one person at the meeting said, what once might have been debatable is now unconscionable. I think ICE is in the cruelty business. California is a sanctuary state. Therefore, I think our leaders are betraying our values. Other counties have resisted the taint of ICE’s SCAAP; Marin should too.

Our supervisors, Mary Sackett, Brian Colbert, Stephanie Moulton-Peters, Dennis Rodoni and Eric Lucan shouldn’t hide behind the seemingly slow Marin Civilian Oversight Commission. Town leaders throughout the county should also be concerned about what happens when their police send someone, anyone, to the Marin County Jail managed by the Sheriff’s Office.

Let’s make sure everyone’s due process rights are respected. I do not believe we can trust ICE and neither can we trust elected leaders who partner with it.

— Matt Bearson, Larkspur

Noem’s comments after recent killing were off-base

Following the death of protester Alex Pretti in Minneapolis on Jan. 24, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem said, “I don’t know of any peaceful protester that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign.” Video shows that Pretti appears to have been held on the ground surrounded by more than a half dozen armed agents from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency and U.S. Border Patrol before some of those agents shot him dead.

I would like to hear a response to Noem’s comment from libertarians or members of the National Rifle Association. Those folks have always claimed that it would be liberal Democrats (like me) who would set it up to take away their guns. Noem need only look to the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville during 2017 or the infamous Jan. 6, 2021 assault, where protesters carried guns. I think it was people who support the current administration who opened the door for government to come for guns as further intimidation for their political opposition.

Pretti was a nurse represented by a federal employee union with a license to carry a weapon. His murder by federal agents, much like the killing of previous victim Renee Good, has put a fire into our community that will reject the extremism of President Donald Trump.

— Kris Organ, Fairfax

Officers who shot protester should be punished for killing

On Jan. 24, we appeared to watch members of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, along with Border Patrol officers, kill an American citizen on the street. I think Alex Pretti was exercising his First Amendment rights by protesting and recording ICE’s terrorizing of Minneapolis. He was also exercising his Second Amendment rights by carrying a legally licensed gun in the waistband of his pants.

The videos available to the public show an officer spraying him in the face when he tries to help another protester. Another agent throws him to the ground. At least five agents appear to pin him to the ground while he struggles. A sixth comes over and removes Pretti’s gun from his waistband (the gun is readily visible in the agent’s hand). Pretti is not armed, has nothing in his hands and is being held down on the street.

An agent then pulled out a gun and fired a round into Pretti. A couple of seconds passed before more agents fired at least three more rounds in him. In quick succession, other officers shot at least five more rounds into him. After that, Pretti appeared to be dead on the scene.

This is not some Hollywood movie, it is the killing of an American citizen committed by agents of our government in full sight. Justice must be done, as we would expect for any murder. Criminal charges need to be brought against the agents who perpetrated what I consider to be a violent murder before our eyes.

— Charles J. Wisch, San Rafael