| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.03 | Mike Kelly | Okay, I'd like to call to order the regular meeting of the Sausalito City Council, June 12th. Debbie, would you call the roll? |
| 00:00:10.54 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Councilmember Fiverr? |
| 00:00:11.78 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:00:12.52 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Councilmember Ford? Here. Councilmember Weiner? |
| 00:00:13.63 | Herb Weiner | THE END OF THE END OF THE President. |
| 00:00:16.32 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Vice Mayor Leone. |
| 00:00:17.77 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:00:17.78 | Mike Kelly | here. |
| 00:00:18.70 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Mayor Kelly. |
| 00:00:19.49 | Mike Kelly | Here. All right. We previously held the ribbon cutting for the new restrooms. For those of you who haven't seen them, you should stop by. They're actually gorgeous. |
| 00:00:28.94 | Jonathan Leone | I am out. You could be the first. |
| 00:00:31.00 | Mike Kelly | . Thank you. All right. |
| 00:00:33.49 | Jonathan Leone | terror actually arrived at the station. |
| 00:00:36.38 | Jeremy | Thank you. |
| 00:00:36.45 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 00:00:36.48 | Jeremy | you |
| 00:00:36.55 | Unknown | Oh. |
| 00:00:37.75 | Mike Kelly | All right, the council met in closed session this evening to discuss three issues. Received information on Bruce versus the city. Received information and gave direction on Zacks versus Sausalito. And we received information from the city manager and city finance director. |
| 00:00:55.47 | Unknown | That's your legion. |
| 00:00:56.26 | Mike Kelly | on the SEIU and Police Association negotiations. And Herb just reminded me I forgot the Pledge of Allegiance, so we're going to do that. All right. Do I see a suspect out there? |
| 00:01:11.56 | Shirley Thornton | Thank you. |
| 00:01:11.60 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:01:12.04 | Shirley Thornton | Thank you. |
| 00:01:12.05 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:01:12.07 | Shirley Thornton | Thank you. |
| 00:01:12.09 | Unknown | Don't. |
| 00:01:12.86 | Mike Kelly | Oh, Herb has volunteered Shirley Thornton. No. |
| 00:01:16.09 | Shirley Thornton | Bye. |
| 00:01:16.91 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:01:16.95 | Shirley Thornton | you |
| 00:01:17.00 | Unknown | Thank you. Bye. THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:01:19.29 | Shirley Thornton | I pledge allegiance to the flag. of the United States of America. and to the Republic. Thank you. Thank you. Chams. Thank you. I'm not sure. nation. God. indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. |
| 00:01:33.08 | Mike Kelly | Thank you, Shirley. |
| 00:01:38.89 | Mike Kelly | All right, first item of business tonight. is special presentations, and we have an update from the superintendent of Sausalito Marin City School District, Ellery Pitts. Welcome. |
| 00:01:54.58 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you very much. Good evening. Mayor, Council members. |
| 00:01:59.56 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 00:01:59.69 | Karen Warner | you |
| 00:01:59.86 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 00:02:01.72 | Unknown | Mr. Politzer, I was here about, gee, it must have been in September, so it's been about nine months ago. And I was new at that time in getting to know the community and getting to know the schools. And I am very pleased to report that we've had an excellent year in the schools of the Sausalito-Moran City School District. We have three schools and all of them had really wonderful years with wonderful activities going on for our students and lots of good learning happening. |
| 00:02:15.84 | Judy Shaper | Yeah. |
| 00:02:30.02 | Mike Kelly | Valerie, would you speak this way to the council actually? |
| 00:02:31.20 | Unknown | this way to the council actually. If we could measure all we do by just test scores, then I'm sure that we'll all be pleased in August when the test scores are released because there was a great feeling at all of the schools this year, Bayside, Willow Creek, and MLK. The district has done a lot of work this year looking at its vision. I'm sure you're aware of this. They did a lot of work last year as well. And we forwarded that work into this year so that we didn't lose it. And what we've done is we've looked at our vision, we've looked at our mission, we've looked at our core values, our strategic priorities, and we have developed Um, a set of actions that we believe will move us well into the 21st century. A lot of us school types talk about the 21st century, and yes, we realize we are 12 years into it, In education, we're famous for hanging on to things for a long time, so now what we're trying to do is really move ourselves into the 21st century. So we've adopted a set of actions and strategic priorities that we hope will improve learning for all the students in the Sausalito Marin City School District. One of the things that we have also talked about are the components of a comprehensive educational program. And we've been involved in that discussion district-wide. So not only looking at Willow Creek, which is a wonderful school that has really done super things over the past 10 years, but looking at Bayside and MLK and looking at what do we need to be able to provide all of our students with the rich opportunities other students in Marin County receive in their educational programs. So we really have spent a lot of time discussing that. We spent a lot of time talking about the word equity. We've had community meetings about the word equity. and what that means relative to student achievement. And when we look at our outcomes, our student outcomes, well, I just spoke about hopefully we will see an increase in student test scores. We still do have a gap here. We have a gap in achievement in the students of the Sausalito Marin City School District. So we need to be looking at ways, continuously looking at ways that we can close that achievement and that opportunity gap. I think it's no secret that the demographic of 5 to 18 in the Sausalito Marin City School District is growing. I think if you read the newspapers and you're familiar with what's going on in Marin County that we've seen an increase in student enrollment, which is particularly challenging in what's called a community-funded district, as we are. Some of you may know that as a basic aid school district. Property taxes are flat. enrollment goes up, same amount of money. So we have been looking closely at the components of the program, what are the things that we need to be offering our students and then Lastly, the punchline, what kind of facilities do we need? to make sure that all of our students are getting what they deserve and what they need to be successful in high school and beyond in their careers. We have two campuses, as you well know. We have a growing enrollment at Willow Creek. They are probably going to be at about 275, hopefully 300 in the next couple of years. Enrollment of about 120 split between Bayside and MLK. And when we look at all of that, and we look at the challenges that we have fiscally, especially in this environment in California, we recognize that we need to collapse and consolidate programs in order to be able to sustain and particularly put into place the kinds of programs that we know our kids need and deserve. So we have two schools. And one of them is here in Sausalito and it's on about 20 acres. And it is an absolutely gorgeous campus. And it's a campus that had some work done to it the last time we ran a bond. in 2004, I believe. And it has even more needs. It has some deferred maintenance needs. The district needs to be able to make sure that it can meet its obligation to Willow Creek Academy in terms of providing facilities. It also needs to just meet its obligation to the public. and make sure that those facilities are kept up in a way that affords our students, again, the best opportunities that they can receive. So we're looking at what we need to do at Willow Creek and Bayside in order to bring the facilities up to where they need to be so they can sustain us well into the 21st century. And over at MLK, as you well know, there was a facility built over there in the year 2004 as well. I believe it opened in a little bit later than that. And it was a campus that was built with six classrooms. It's a wonderful facility and a wonderful building, but it doesn't hold very much. When you look at it, it only has six classrooms, and there's some needs that that campus has as well for completion. So the district talks about its facilities master plan. We're required to have one according to policy, and in looking at our facilities master plan, we recognize again that even in eight years, there are things that need to happen on our campuses in order to make our programs as good as we hope, as good as we would like them to be, and as good as we know you expect them to be. So the district has been discussing for the last couple of months the merits of running another bond in order to get deferred maintenance, modernization, health and safety upgrades, and to complete the campus in Marin City because it is not a completed facility. We know that that comes with a lot of pros and cons. We are right in the middle of discussing those pros and cons. We have several meetings set up. one every Thursday through the first week in July. We invite you to attend. I'll leave you some information about that tonight. where we will be discussing this in an open and transparent way. And we'd like to invite everyone in the community. The meeting that's happening here in Sausalito is on June 21st. We do have a meeting this Thursday over at MLK Academy where the district office is now located. And then we also have a meeting on the 28th as well as on July 10th, I believe. So we really want to do our job and due diligence with looking at what are our needs and how can we get those needs met in a reasonable way. Being mindful about the impact a school bond has on a community, being very mindful of that. But we need your input and our community to discuss that with us so that we can make sure we craft something that is as reasonable as it can possibly be and at the same time, we need to do that. meet the needs of our growing public school population in South Salido, Marin City. That's all I have now. I would like to return at a later point in time, maybe sometime this summer, when we have something that we could show you, potentially a scenario. Design doesn't happen that quickly, but we certainly do want everyone's input on that. inviting you to have the discussion with us about yay, nay, good, bad, where do we go, how do we do this, and then would welcome the opportunity to return and do a deeper presentation for you. |
| 00:09:38.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:09:38.86 | Jonathan Leone | you |
| 00:09:38.91 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:09:39.20 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 00:09:39.23 | Unknown | Question? |
| 00:09:39.97 | Mike Kelly | you know. |
| 00:09:40.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:09:40.26 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 00:09:40.58 | Jonathan Leone | It sort of sounds like you think the district is thinking about putting something on the November ballot. |
| 00:09:45.80 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 00:09:45.81 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:09:48.11 | Jonathan Leone | for a bond issue. |
| 00:09:49.17 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:09:50.83 | Jonathan Leone | before. I just hope there's enough public outreach before then to rather than just one meeting just so that the Thank you. |
| 00:09:57.98 | Unknown | Yep. |
| 00:09:58.00 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. both communities. |
| 00:09:58.27 | Unknown | We have three or four meetings scheduled in the next month, and we also have done some community. We've been working with the community. Willow Creek and a smaller group of people from Marin City have been working with us on sort of just ideas. We've had a facilities needs analysis completed. by a construction manager, so someone who's come in and said, these are the things that I see need to hop into your facilities to modernize and to keep them maintained so that they last well into the future. So we're trending in the right direction. But yes, you're absolutely right. We need to reach out and communicate. That's why I'm here. |
| 00:10:31.24 | Mike Kelly | Good. All right, thank you very much. |
| 00:10:34.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:10:34.46 | Mike Kelly | So... I'm going to drop |
| 00:10:35.70 | Unknown | I'm going to drop them. Are you going to leave these at a place where they can be picked up? |
| 00:10:38.58 | Mike Kelly | If you'd give them to Mary or to Adam, it would be great. Thank you. I'm going to drop back to the closed session items. Is there any member of the public who wish to comment on any item on the closed session agenda? All right, seeing none, we'll move ahead to approval of agenda. |
| 00:10:59.15 | Herb Weiner | So move. |
| 00:11:00.30 | Mike Kelly | All in favor? Thank you. |
| 00:11:01.48 | Herb Weiner | Hi. |
| 00:11:02.12 | Mike Kelly | Opposed? you All right. I do. Thank you. |
| 00:11:08.32 | Unknown | you |
| 00:11:08.40 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 00:11:08.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:11:08.52 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 00:11:08.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:11:10.44 | Mike Kelly | I actually made those. All right, public communications. This is the time for members of the public to address the Council on items that are not on the agenda. And I have several cards up here that are listing 6B. That is on the agenda, so those cards will be held until such time as the agenda item is brought forward. Any member of the public wish to address the Council on any item that is not on the agenda? All right, seeing none, we'll move to action to the previous meeting. Motion to approve or comments or changes? |
| 00:11:49.12 | Carolyn Ford | Mr. Mayor, I have one comment on the minutes for May 15. I made a note of it. Thank you. Page 7, line 6. We were talking about the priority list, project priority list. And, uh, I wanted to make sure that they were clarified in that motion. There were five items moved up to the above the line. And I know that I objected and I think Councilmember Pfeiffer, she's shaking her head, yes, objected to to the marine ship specific plan being moved above the line. So I'd like to see that added for clarification. And also, line 16, it's mentioned that there, that everything else stood, but actually I believe what we did was we took the enforcement ordinance, that the enforcement ordinance update off. Revision off. |
| 00:13:07.28 | Jonathan Leone | Debbie, maybe on that last point, you can just move that up. Because I think that didn't occur before the vote or it didn't? It was after the vote. It was after the vote. |
| 00:13:13.97 | Carolyn Ford | It was after the vote. It was. Yes. |
| 00:13:17.12 | Jonathan Leone | that that one did come off the yeah |
| 00:13:19.18 | Unknown | Yeah. Okay. would |
| 00:13:24.11 | Jonathan Leone | I think the motion and your non-support for it would indicate your non-support for those specific |
| 00:13:24.16 | Unknown | I think it's a good thing. |
| 00:13:33.37 | Carolyn Ford | actually I disagree we were quite verbal about the Marin ship specific plan it was at the bottom of my list and as it ended up was moved to the top and so I would I would like that indicated in the record just for clarification Thank you. |
| 00:13:56.24 | Unknown | Okay. You okay with that, Debbie? I mean, you have it anyway. Yeah. Okay. |
| 00:14:03.00 | Mike Kelly | All right. With those changes, do we motion? Thank you. |
| 00:14:07.53 | Jonathan Leone | you |
| 00:14:07.76 | Mike Kelly | you |
| 00:14:07.83 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 00:14:07.91 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. I'm 15. later. So we'll move forward. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? |
| 00:14:13.87 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 00:14:14.02 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:14:14.16 | Jonathan Leone | I'm sorry. |
| 00:14:14.24 | Herb Weiner | Bye. |
| 00:14:16.39 | Mike Kelly | All right, next one is |
| 00:14:21.60 | Mike Kelly | May the 22nd. Any changes? Yes. Corrections, additions, motions approved. |
| 00:14:28.10 | Herb Weiner | So move. |
| 00:14:28.98 | Mike Kelly | All in favor? Aye. Aye. All right. |
| 00:14:29.97 | Herb Weiner | I |
| 00:14:31.96 | Mike Kelly | And now we move to the consent calendar. These are items that are considered routine and not controversial. They require no discussion. and are expected to have unanimous counsel support. Thank you. |
| 00:14:42.00 | Unknown | but |
| 00:14:42.27 | Mike Kelly | Um, And any member of the public can request that we change or pull one of these items for a regular hearing, as can the Council. Do I have a motion? |
| 00:14:52.45 | Jonathan Leone | I just have a quick point, a clarification for Mary, maybe you can answer this one for item A. Is the envelope of this construction in the filbert right away, is that essentially, you couldn't tell from the drawing that was submitted? Is it essentially replacing something that was already there? Or maybe Jeremy can answer that. or is there greater encroachment than was there previously? |
| 00:15:17.29 | Jeremy | Yes, Vice Mayor Leon. It is basically replacing an existing garage. However, the new garage will be slightly wider in order to be able to accommodate two vehicles whereas the existing garage could accommodate one and three quarter vehicles. |
| 00:15:33.67 | Jonathan Leone | with. Three-quarters is a tough number to park, I would imagine. So, smart car. But there's... Stuff above, too, is a deck now. |
| 00:15:44.88 | Jeremy | There is not a roof deck currently on the existing garage, and the Planning Commission discussed that for a while, but they went ahead and recommended approval of that roof deck. |
| 00:15:55.31 | Jonathan Leone | But as with any encroachment agreement, the owners are aware that if there was ever a need for that right-of-way, they'd have to take it out of the right-of-way. |
| 00:16:02.01 | Jeremy | Yes, they understand that. |
| 00:16:06.28 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 00:16:06.29 | Mike Kelly | Thanks. Thank you. . All right, does any member of the public have any comment on any item on the consent calendar? All right, seeing none, do we have a motion? |
| 00:16:15.37 | Carolyn Ford | I move we adopt the items, accept the items on the consent calendar. |
| 00:16:21.09 | Linda Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor, I'm sorry. I do have just a quick question for Jeremy on agenda item 4S, the municipal lot 5, parking 5. I just wanted to clarify that for the L permits. Oh, that's Jonathan. I think we have the question. Oh, Jonathan? I'm sorry. |
| 00:16:25.84 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:16:39.96 | Jonathan Leone | That's Jonathan, I think. |
| 00:16:45.93 | Linda Pfeiffer | Jonathan. |
| 00:16:46.22 | Jonathon Goldman | Yeah. I was going to wait and see if Jeremy can answer that. |
| 00:16:48.73 | Linda Pfeiffer | Ha ha ha ha Bye. |
| 00:16:50.64 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. |
| 00:16:50.67 | Linda Pfeiffer | you |
| 00:16:51.38 | Jonathan Leone | cross training. |
| 00:16:53.32 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:16:53.34 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 00:16:53.56 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. So my question is for the L permits, is a requirement to get an L permit that you are a resident in Sausalito? |
| 00:17:07.30 | Jonathon Goldman | You'll have to forgive me. I don't know. The city clerk is indicating no. |
| 00:17:14.42 | Linda Pfeiffer | OK, so and the L permits allow for overnight parking? |
| 00:17:22.33 | Jonathon Goldman | Correct, as they do now. |
| 00:17:25.23 | Linda Pfeiffer | Okay, is there a... Is there a limit to how long someone can park their car for overnight, 72 hours. |
| 00:17:40.24 | Jonathon Goldman | I believe that the limit is 72, and the requirement is that it be moved at 72. They're still allowed to park, but not in the same space, even with an L permit. |
| 00:17:50.51 | Linda Pfeiffer | Can they park elsewhere in the parking lot five? |
| 00:17:54.36 | Jonathon Goldman | Yes. |
| 00:17:55.64 | Linda Pfeiffer | OK. you |
| 00:17:58.97 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 00:17:59.44 | Linda Pfeiffer | OK. |
| 00:18:00.91 | Mike Kelly | Thanks. We have motion and second. |
| 00:18:00.98 | Linda Pfeiffer | Right. |
| 00:18:03.24 | Herb Weiner | Second. |
| 00:18:03.68 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 00:18:04.06 | Mike Kelly | All in favor? |
| 00:18:05.06 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:18:05.08 | Jonathan Leone | Bye. |
| 00:18:05.33 | Mike Kelly | I... |
| 00:18:05.38 | Jonathan Leone | to the next episode. |
| 00:18:05.95 | Mike Kelly | you Opposed? All right. Now we'll- |
| 00:18:09.63 | Jonathan Leone | and is that the lot where vacation parking will be allowed? Is that five or four? Which one is that? Do you know? I think it's five. It's five, right? I don't know. |
| 00:18:11.93 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 00:18:11.94 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 00:18:12.28 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:18:12.35 | Vicki Nichols | All right. |
| 00:18:12.37 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:18:12.38 | Vicki Nichols | Bye. |
| 00:18:12.42 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:18:12.43 | Vicki Nichols | Yeah. |
| 00:18:13.30 | Unknown | Of course. |
| 00:18:19.03 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. |
| 00:18:19.23 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:18:20.82 | Jonathon Goldman | Do you remember a deviation part? Jeremy might be able to answer that. I don't think there is any. |
| 00:18:23.86 | Jonathan Leone | I don't think there is any. Thank you. |
| 00:18:26.88 | Jonathon Goldman | Yeah. |
| 00:18:26.96 | Jonathan Leone | It was five. I think it's five. |
| 00:18:27.18 | Linda Pfeiffer | It was fun. It's five. That was my concern. |
| 00:18:30.74 | Herb Weiner | I don't think there is any, but that's what we were talking about. |
| 00:18:33.36 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:18:33.38 | Jonathan Leone | We both. |
| 00:18:33.76 | Linda Pfeiffer | him. |
| 00:18:33.82 | Herb Weiner | FATHER. |
| 00:18:33.88 | Jonathan Leone | coming for vacations and staying. I thought it was in Santa Cruz for one of these. I thought I'd never been reading it. |
| 00:18:33.98 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:18:34.03 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:18:34.05 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:18:34.07 | Linda Pfeiffer | Bye. |
| 00:18:34.12 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:18:34.32 | Linda Pfeiffer | Location. |
| 00:18:34.89 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:18:35.03 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:18:35.08 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:18:35.10 | Linda Pfeiffer | I don't know. It was five. |
| 00:18:38.18 | Jonathan Leone | you which is a good thing actually. That's why he was calling it out. |
| 00:18:43.81 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. So possible, you can go down to the police station and get a permit or something? |
| 00:18:47.52 | Jonathan Leone | Well, I thought it was in here. I remember reading it in here. Or living there. Did the chief leave already? She might know. Do you know? Five. |
| 00:18:52.28 | Linda Pfeiffer | living there. |
| 00:18:55.92 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:18:55.94 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 00:18:56.02 | Unknown | So, |
| 00:18:56.07 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 00:18:56.12 | Unknown | You know? |
| 00:18:56.41 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 00:18:58.92 | Mike Kelly | Bye. |
| 00:18:59.40 | Jonathan Leone | If it is, it's fine. |
| 00:19:00.83 | Mike Kelly | It's five. But is it limited to three days? Thank you. |
| 00:19:03.53 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 00:19:03.57 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 00:19:03.60 | Jonathan Leone | We turn. |
| 00:19:03.90 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 00:19:03.92 | Jonathan Leone | Yeah. |
| 00:19:04.31 | Mike Kelly | Yes. Yeah. sort of defeats the purpose. |
| 00:19:14.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:19:16.96 | Linda Pfeiffer | A resident, Mr. Mayor, I have a question. Another question, Mr. Mayor? |
| 00:19:22.30 | Mike Kelly | Let him answer the question on the floor. |
| 00:19:22.84 | Linda Pfeiffer | Yes. Oh, yeah. |
| 00:19:30.58 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:19:32.02 | Jonathon Goldman | If I can have a moment, Mr. Mayor, maybe we can find where Vice Mayor Leone is referring to in the staff report. My recollection in both of these lots is that there is a 72-hour limitation that's going to apply no matter what. So one can certainly be on vacation and it's possible that has a special... |
| 00:19:59.89 | Jonathan Leone | Maybe I was just wishful thinking, but I thought I read it in one of these staff reports, but why don't we just put this out there? |
| 00:20:06.61 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 00:20:06.63 | Linda Pfeiffer | Okay. |
| 00:20:06.71 | Mike Kelly | When we have the next pause or something, we'll... |
| 00:20:07.03 | Linda Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor. |
| 00:20:07.83 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 00:20:10.20 | Linda Pfeiffer | Mr. McClure. |
| 00:20:10.42 | Jonathan Leone | by the way, |
| 00:20:11.13 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:20:11.37 | Jonathan Leone | Who made the motion in this? |
| 00:20:12.79 | Linda Pfeiffer | I do have a question, though. So a resident had raised the issue to me that perhaps some people were living in their cars on Lot 5 using the L permit. Is that a rumor, or was that? |
| 00:20:24.09 | Jonathon Goldman | Yeah. |
| 00:20:27.77 | Linda Pfeiffer | Okay, it's a rumor. Thank you. Okay. |
| 00:20:31.23 | Jonathon Goldman | Right. |
| 00:20:31.75 | Linda Pfeiffer | I just wanted to clarify. |
| 00:20:33.14 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. I'm Certainly not aware of anyone living in their car, although I don't know that if their car were legally licensed and operable and they moved it every 72 hours, that it would be a problem under the parking ordinance. It might be a problem under other... On coordinates is but to the best of my knowledge There's nobody living in their car and lot five or a lot four or three or two or on the street. It was fun |
| 00:20:58.57 | Linda Pfeiffer | It was five. Thank you, Jonathan. |
| 00:21:01.59 | Mike Kelly | All right, now we're to public hearings. And our first public hearing is... Well, hold on, sir, you're based on |
| 00:21:09.98 | Jonathan Leone | the question so why don't we amend the motion to approve items |
| 00:21:16.20 | Jonathan Leone | So the consent calendar is A through F, or A through E, and just put F and G at the end of the meeting. |
| 00:21:22.55 | Mike Kelly | Well, here's my question. Would that, if you found out that there was no vacation parking, would that change your vote on the approval of the resolution, which is to extend the boundaries and amend the parking regulations? I'll leave it as a question. |
| 00:21:35.69 | Jonathan Leone | I'll leave it as an open question. So I can't say would or wouldn't, but I would just like some clarity on it before I vote on it. Either way, there's no harm in moving things to the end. |
| 00:21:36.61 | Unknown | open. |
| 00:21:37.03 | Mike Kelly | question. |
| 00:21:37.41 | Unknown | So. |
| 00:21:45.55 | Mike Kelly | All right. Well, just G is the only one that's in question. |
| 00:21:47.76 | Jonathan Leone | Yeah, but they don't know if it's four or five, right? Can we just approve A through F and put F and G in? Okay. A through E and put F and G to the end of the meeting? |
| 00:21:53.46 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:21:53.48 | Mike Kelly | Can we just |
| 00:21:53.97 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:21:54.00 | Adam Politzer | from the |
| 00:21:56.32 | Herb Weiner | Okay. |
| 00:21:57.92 | Carolyn Ford | A through E. I accept the amendment to my motion. |
| 00:22:02.93 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 00:22:02.95 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:22:03.05 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 00:22:03.15 | Mike Kelly | THE FAMILY. |
| 00:22:03.35 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 00:22:03.64 | Mike Kelly | Aye. |
| 00:22:04.28 | Herb Weiner | I knew you seconded. |
| 00:22:05.87 | Mike Kelly | Yeah. Thank you. . All right. Public hearings. The first public hearings are on the introduction and reading by title only of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Sausalito establishing regulations for the temporary use of residential properties as vacation rentals during the 2012-2013 America's Cup events. and continue to the second reading and adoption on June 26th and also to adopt a resolution which amends the master fee schedule to establish a vacation rental. to the second reading and adoption on June 26th and also to adopt a resolution which amends the master fee schedule to establish a vacation rental permit fee. Heidi Burns. Is Heidi in the audience? |
| 00:22:45.52 | Jonathan Leone | She was in the hallway. There she is. There she is. |
| 00:22:46.77 | Mike Kelly | THERE SHE IS. |
| 00:22:47.18 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:22:47.21 | Mike Kelly | to the next episode. |
| 00:22:47.23 | Herb Weiner | to the next episode. |
| 00:22:47.24 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 00:22:47.26 | Herb Weiner | Yes. |
| 00:22:47.35 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 00:22:47.51 | Herb Weiner | Yeah. you |
| 00:22:47.87 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 00:22:47.92 | Herb Weiner | She's a good one. |
| 00:22:48.20 | Herb Weiner | Bye. |
| 00:22:48.22 | Jonathan Leone | Bye. |
| 00:22:48.29 | Herb Weiner | meeting. |
| 00:22:48.73 | Mike Kelly | Grand entrance. |
| 00:22:52.00 | Heidi | Good evening, Mayor Kelly, members of the City Council. Good evening, members of the public. I'm gonna get the clicker. |
| 00:23:12.88 | Heidi | So the purpose of this agenda item is to conduct a public hearing on the vacation rental regulations ordinance. Also to introduce and read the proposed vacation rental ordinance. So tonight would be the first reading. And lastly, to adopt a resolution which amends the master fee schedule for the Community Development Planning Division to establish a new fee for the vacation rental permit if the ordinance moves forward. So just to provide a background of how we got to where we're at today is the America's Cup announced that they're coming to San Francisco. We all know that. And visitors related to the America's Cup are expected to visit Sausalito. The San Fran – the draft EIR and then eventually the Certified Environmental Impact Report that was approved for the city of San Francisco for the America's Cup identified upwards of 5,000 people coming to Sausalito. We know that there might be more. So Sausalito staff began brainstorming as to what opportunities existed in terms of planning for this event. And one of the items that seemed to stick was the preparation of a short-term vacation rental ordinance. Currently, short-term vacation rentals, which would be the rental of properties of 30 days or less, are currently prohibited in all residential properties. So staff began to research this issue to see what other jurisdictions have done regarding this issue. Staff found that some jurisdictions prohibit vacation rentals and others approve it, subject to a permitting process. What I found in terms of the pros and cons related to vacation rental ordinances, in terms of the pros, would be it promotes tourism and it generates tax revenue. What I found in terms of a con is that sometimes they create noise, additional traffic, there could be increased crime and vandalism, there could be unfair competition with with other licensed establishments. There could be impacts to the neighborhoods and the characters of the neighborhoods and also code enforcement. Staff also looked at Sausalito's current lodging capacity and found that in 2012, that there are approximately 106 lodging rooms that are available, and in 2013, there will be 123 lodging rooms. The increase in lodging rooms isn't that these new rooms magically appeared, but that Casa Madrona has been undergoing redevelopment of their property, and so they haven't been able to offer all of their approved rooms. So based on the research that staff had found and in preparation for preparing a working ordinance, staff identified three primary objectives that we were targeting. One would be to balance property owners' needs and wants, desires, with the visitor's experiences. We want visitors to be able to come back and have a positive experience in Sausalito. We also wanted to accommodate property owners' ability to legally rent their properties on a short-term basis. And we also wanted to protect adjoining or nearby property owner's quality of life. The majority of, well, everybody moves to Sausalito because of its beautiful scenery and the quality of life that it provides people. So once staff prepared a working draft ordinance on March 14th of this year, staff introduced the concept to the legislative committee. Staff received a positive response and then provided a more detailed outline to the city council on April 17th of this year. And staff provided a status update. based on the city council direction, City Council directed staff to move forward to the Planning Commission and on May 9th of this year The Planning Commission held its first meeting regarding the draft ordinance. At this meeting, the Planning Commission identified a couple items relating to how special events would be handled, and issues relating to refuse and recycling, as well as sewer issues. and continued the review of the item to the May 23rd meeting. At the May 23rd meeting, staff addressed the issues that the Planning Commission had And at that meeting, the Planning Commission took no position on the adoption of the regulations. There was a 3-1 vote regarding that action. So what is before the City Council tonight? Well, it's essentially an ordinance that would allow the short-term rental of residential properties for 30 days or less. The duration of the ordinance would also be short term in the sense that it would only be allowed for rentals during July of this year through October of this year. and then after October 30th, then short-term rentals would cease, and then they could resume again starting May of 2013 and conclude, it should be October. 2013. And the ordinance with sunset are terminate on October 31st of 2013. The ordinance has been crafted to create an administrative staff approved process subject to performance standards. We wanted to make this process user friendly and easy enough so it wouldn't intimidate property owners to want to come and get a permit. to rent their properties. And so what we have done, and you'll see this through the next couple slides, is We've developed these performance standards, which essentially a property owner would need to agree, that they would limit the number of vacation rentals on their property, for example, If a property owner had two units on one property, one unit could be rented on a short-term basis. There's a minimum duration of rentals, which would be you can rent your unit one time every seven days during a month. Oh, yeah, one time every seven days. In terms of parking, some sites are able to provide on-site parking, some sites are not. So the ordinance addresses those issues. In terms of sewer connections and septic systems, the city would require that all sewer and septic systems need to be in working order. There would be a requirement for the payment of a 12% transient occupancy tax. there would be a requirement for a local contact person. That would be a person that if either a renter or a member of the public wants to complain about a certain property, they can contact this person. This person has to be available 24 hours a day. I'm just going to say, seven days a week. In terms of signage, signage would be prohibited. So that would take away some concerns regarding the aesthetic of neighborhoods and the overproliferation of rental signs in neighborhoods. There would be a renter notification requirement that would identify all these performance standards that would be posted within the rental unit. And then there are also provisions regarding refuse and recycling. Another item that's not on this slide that would also be a performance standard is that if you have an ongoing code enforcement action against your property, then you would be prohibited from receiving a vacation rental permit. Other requirements of the ordinance would be, again, the 12% occupancy tax, and then there are code enforcement provisions. Essentially, the ordinance does not spell out verbatim what those are, but it does reference the municipal code chapter 1.10 that would regulate the property. And essentially what 1.10. 10 of the municipal code requires is that if they're is a code complaint, staff will issue a courtesy notice. There will then be a compliance order, and if the compliance order is not met, then there would be an administrative citation. In terms of the process, so again, staff's goal is to create this user-friendly process, so essentially there will be application forms that a property owner would need to fill out So there would be a vacation rental permit application form And because a transient occupancy tax payment would be required, There will also be a transient occupancy tax certification application. There would be a performance standards agreement form. So it's essentially you check off the box that you adhere to all these items, and then you sign it, and you pay your fee. This would be, again, an over-the-counter permit, so you would come to our Community Development Department |
| 00:31:44.83 | Unknown | again and over the years. |
| 00:31:48.91 | Heidi | You would submit your applications. If everything is complete, staff would issue this over the counter. It's similar to our occupational use permit application process or a zoning permit. So, and staff also would be able to issue the transient occupancy tax certificate as well. The application form and certificate is issued for the transient occupancy tax, then staff, community development staff would forward that information over to the administrative finance department and the finance department would then follow up on those applications. And unfortunately, the projector is a little too bright. But these are just examples of the application forms, what the performance standards agreement form would look like, Also transient occupancy tax and then an example of the certificate. So I apologize for the clarity. Regarding the process and to make it as, again, as easy as possible for property owners, Our goal is to create a vacation rental permit brochure And in this brochure, it would create or identify what the purpose and applicability of these regulations are, what the submittal requirements are, identify what the permit process entails, |
| 00:33:01.71 | Vicki Nichols | I could permit |
| 00:33:05.24 | Heidi | regarding code enforcement, it would spell out what the process would be, identify the transient occupancy tax requirements, identify the permit fee, and staff contact information. One of the items associated with this request, as I stated previously, is that staff is requesting that the City Council update its master fee schedule to address this issue. And because the vacation rental permit fee has not been previously established, Staff is recommending that a fee of $283 be imposed as part of this process. Staff came to this fee based on current fee schedule regarding zoning permits and the take staff to process this type of application. So with that, staff is recommending that the City Council continue the second reading of the Vacation Rental Ordinance to, actually it should be June 26th of this year, and adopt a resolution which amends the master fee schedule to establish a Vacation Rental Permit Fee of $283. With that, I conclude my presentation and I'm available to answer any questions you may have. |
| 00:34:10.78 | Mike Kelly | Thank you, Heidi. Questions? |
| 00:34:14.56 | Herb Weiner | Yeah, what are the penalties if they don't? |
| 00:34:18.44 | Heidi | Okay, so based on our current code enforcement process, staff would issue a courtesy notice with a specified timeline. If a property owner fails to meet that timeline, then we would issue a compliance order. the requirement for that compliance order would be 10 days If the compliance order is not met, then staff could issue an administrative citation for $100 for the first offense, $200 for the second offense, and $500 for the third offense and thereafter in any 12-month calendar year. |
| 00:34:51.52 | Carolyn Ford | Mr. Mayor, do we have estimates for the cost of this program in terms of staff time and also for how much revenue it would generate? Thank you. |
| 00:35:06.79 | Heidi | You know, staff hasn't really gone that far. We don't know how many property owners might want to participate in this program. In terms of the $283 fee, we know that that will definitely cover staff's time to administer the permit and the transient occupancy tax certificate. But above and beyond that, we don't have any estimates. Thank you. |
| 00:35:29.17 | Carolyn Ford | Thank you. |
| 00:35:29.28 | Heidi | Thank you. |
| 00:35:29.30 | Carolyn Ford | you |
| 00:35:29.39 | Heidi | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:35:32.09 | Linda Pfeiffer | Questions, Linda? Yes, Mr. Mayor. Do we know what San Francisco is doing during the America's Cup with regards to rentals? |
| 00:35:40.96 | Heidi | Based on when I was before you in April, I contacted the city of San Francisco to see if they were considering amending their regulations. And their current process is that if you want to – what's considered a lodging use associated with a residential property, you would apply for a conditional use permit. That would be similar to our conditional use permit process that the city currently has. They don't have any plans in the works regarding any type of temporary stay on those regulations to date. |
| 00:36:14.44 | Linda Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor, I have a follow-up question. For June 26, would it be possible to create a guesstimate on how much, you know, staff time and an estimate of, you know, how many permits might be requested and staff time, including the time to put together this brochure and the production costs on that and also the finance? fee, the finance department's time with regards to the application processing and then the |
| 00:36:44.33 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:36:47.25 | Linda Pfeiffer | I don't know. You mentioned checking sewer and septic. Is this going to be paperwork that the resident is supposed to provide? You're not going to go out there and... |
| 00:36:58.00 | Heidi | No, the city actually has a current list that we can refer to rather quickly over the counter. So if they're on this, I don't know the exact name, but it's essentially an offender list or a list that identifies properties that need enhancement to their existing sewer lines, then we would red flag those properties if they're on that list. |
| 00:37:20.34 | Jeremy | Heidi, can you provide estimates of some of those time estimates right now for Councilmember Pfeiffer? |
| 00:37:27.41 | Heidi | Sure. I mean, regarding the brochure, the brochure is essentially two-thirds done, so staff would anticipate it would be another probably two hours to complete it. The application forms are in the PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AGREEMENT FORMS ARE ALREADY PREPARED. I WOULD ANTICIPATE I mean, currently just kind of doing a, a cursory research of properties that may be offering new services right now. There are probably about 40 to 50 properties that most likely would want to enter into this program. It might be upwards to 80. Let's see. In terms of the finance department fees, I would need to coordinate with Charlie Francis on that item. But the administrative fee at the planning level, again, was identified as being part of that $283 figure. |
| 00:38:25.86 | Adam Politzer | Mr. Mayor, if I can just add a response there. Just for the audience benefit, you know, currently we don't allow vacation rentals for 30 days or less. And so we're trying to create a small window, a two-year window during the America's Cup to legalize it to allow people to do it. So we didn't ask staff and I wouldn't recommend that staff put a lot of time into estimating revenues and expenses other than what Heidi has just shared because the question is do you want staff to spend any time on this and if you do then it's either legalizing this or not legalizing that and that's really what's before you tonight. If the council chooses not to approve the recommendation to create this program, then the 40 folks that may have sites already listed would then create staff time to go and administer the enforcement side of this. And I know that there are neighborhoods in our community that have these types of illegal activities that go on that we've heard over the last five years has in some cases have been very challenging in terms of parking and noise coming from those apartments. So I just want to be clear that we're talking about either legalizing this for a two-year period or enforcing what's existing today and what may become a bigger problem during this two-year window. |
| 00:38:26.10 | Heidi | Thank you. |
| 00:38:26.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:38:26.17 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you, Heidi. |
| 00:38:39.64 | Unknown | All right. |
| 00:40:05.01 | Jeremy | Questions? |
| 00:40:07.06 | Jonathan Leone | Hi, do you remember the I can't remember the list of them, but you had a list of communities that do already, forget the America's Cup, but already sort of not regulate but oversee, supervise this type of rental activity that you use as part of your research with those? |
| 00:40:23.60 | Heidi | you |
| 00:40:26.91 | Heidi | Yeah, so there were a lot out there. So these are the ones that I actually downloaded their existing ordinances. So there's a city of Pacific Grove that I'd like to come back to, the city of Bear Lake, California, city of Encinitas, city of Palm Springs, city of Santa Cruz, city of Rancho Mirage, county of San Luis Obispo, Pismo Beach, City of Pismo Beach, County of Sonoma, City of South Lake Tahoe, Nevada, City of Santa Fe, New Mexico, City of Cannon Beach, Oregon, City of Palm, The city of Isle Palms, South Carolina. So it was just a mixed variety. I just wanted to see what each community would do. Regarding the city of Pacific Grove, I wanted to look at areas that are similar to Sausalito, although we're not on the Pacific Coast. We're close to it. And what the city of Pacific Grove has done is over the past couple years, they adopted a vacation rental ordinance. So this actually allows full-time rental of properties. And I spoke with the administrative person who handles the processing of these applications. And the only, I was curious to see approximately how many permits they received. Their population is about 15,000 people. They have about 120. properties that are currently as part of their licensing program. I asked about, you know, complaints from neighbors. They said they don't really receive that many complaints, but the complaints that they receive are based on noise in too many people in the houses. I said, how do you enforce properties that, or asked, how do you enforce properties that currently do not have licenses? They identified that they sent out a letter, similar to our co-enforcement process. They require a $200 annual fee for a license. And over the past couple of years, they've generated approximately $377,000 in transient occupancy tax just related to this program. probably more information than you wanted. |
| 00:42:32.12 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 00:42:32.14 | Vicki Nichols | I'm sorry. |
| 00:42:32.17 | Jonathan Leone | Bye. |
| 00:42:32.19 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 00:42:37.67 | Jonathan Leone | But for clarity's sake, right now this is not a permitted activity. So this would actually let people do something that looks like they're currently advertising that is not permitted. |
| 00:42:48.22 | Heidi | That is correct and as our city manager had stated, that it would only be on a short-term two-year basis. |
| 00:42:55.38 | Mike Kelly | This would be in all zoning districts throughout the city. |
| 00:42:58.45 | Heidi | just in all residential zoning districts. So that would be R1, R2, R3, the ARCs, and the house vote zoning areas. |
| 00:43:08.22 | Mike Kelly | So NC districts would not. |
| 00:43:12.08 | Linda Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor. |
| 00:43:12.67 | Mike Kelly | you |
| 00:43:13.50 | Linda Pfeiffer | So would you find, would you expect this to be a... a pull from the community, in other words people would come in and contact you through community outreach or would you be looking on Craigslist or looking at advertisements Thank you. |
| 00:43:31.28 | Heidi | you know, |
| 00:43:31.79 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:43:32.99 | Heidi | I think it would actually be a joint effort. So in terms of advertising this program, if it does get approved, of course we would, you know, post it on our website, post it on Saucyde Occurrence, and then we would. maybe put a mailer in the MarinScope and try to encourage property owners that if they're currently renting their properties that they should come in and get a permit and it may open opportunities for other people if they're interested. That's how staff sees it. |
| 00:44:03.80 | Mike Kelly | And this ordinance will become effective on the second reading and go to the council. |
| 00:44:08.61 | Heidi | It would become effective 30 days after the adoption of the ordinance. |
| 00:44:10.84 | Mike Kelly | of the ordinance. Okay. and stay there until October 15, 2013. |
| 00:44:16.80 | Heidi | Actually, October 31st, 2013. There might be an inconsistency between the staff report and the ordinance, but the ordinance state October 31st. |
| 00:44:25.45 | Mike Kelly | And the |
| 00:44:26.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:44:26.55 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. close. Thank you. Any more questions? Thank you. Thank you, Heidi. Thanks. Would any members of the public like to address this issue? Yes, please. Identify yourself, please. |
| 00:44:43.38 | Judy Shaper | Hi, I'm Judy Shaper, and I live on Spencer Avenue, and I rarely get up to speak about anything, but I have had personal experience with short-term rental. My neighbor did short-term rental for several years, until I finally reported him and he no longer is doing it, it was not an easy job to get him to stop. He had advertised on 12 different sites. The problems that I had were, it was a living hell. And I just want the Council to really consider this for the residents who came here because we want to live in a peaceful, place. It is not peaceful doing short-term rental. People are paying a lot of money for these short-term rentals and they're gonna really pay. during America's Cup. They're going to feel entitled. They're going to be celebrating. They're going to be having parties, which is all that I experienced without America's Cup. |
| 00:45:37.09 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:45:37.98 | Judy Shaper | They are also from the East Coast, from Europe. What time is it there? Hmm. Well, 5 o'clock in the morning is the time that you make your calls to the East Coast to do your business outside because it's so beautiful. So what does that do to the neighborhood? I have suffered people parking in my place, in my spots. I have suffered people using my garbage because they didn't understand what to do. I contacted the owner and he told me, call the police. Now these are people from other parts of the world, I don't want to be mean to them. I don't want to treat them badly. I don't want them going home and saying, because they will, Sausalito sucks. You know, I want them going home and saying, Sausalito is a beautiful place to visit. Go. I also... want to say that I think it will be very difficult to stop once you open this can of worms. I think that it took staff a lot of time to get this guy to shut his weekly, daily business down. He is now renting it by the month, and it's very nice. It's fine. But I am so against it. I just hope you will consider us residents. when you make your decision to vote, because it's just, it was hell. It was pure hell going through it. Oh, and barking dogs? Didn't mention that. A lot of people will get tenants because they accept dogs. How do dogs behave in a strange environment? They're scared of everything. They bark all the time. So thank you very much for listening. |
| 00:47:18.37 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 00:47:18.42 | Judy Shaper | Yes. |
| 00:47:18.91 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. Can I ask Judy? Sure. Judy, you bring us some very valid points. And so my question to you, and you don't have to answer it, is what do you think is the more difficult situation where This is going to happen probably regardless, because some people don't care what the law is. if there's a money-making opportunity, maybe such as someone you've dealt with. So which is better or which would be the more palatable situation to you |
| 00:47:42.66 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:47:49.27 | Jonathan Leone | to provide some documentation on who to contact and how to get a hold of people or to to not do that, say it's not permitted, and then you have to do the enforcement actions like we're and you were doing. |
| 00:48:02.77 | Judy Shaper | Well, I think frankly, |
| 00:48:06.58 | Jonathan Leone | Maybe there's not a right answer there, but it's not. |
| 00:48:07.60 | Judy Shaper | Well, I'm going to tell you my opinion since you asked. Oh, I'm right. I think that you... If neighbors are being disturbed, they report it. People get one notice. If they don't stop, they get a $1,000 fee. I mean, they get fined. $1,000. And, um, How do you know? Well, you can see the advertisements. you can follow it. I think that I think you make the penalties stiff. for doing it. And maybe not even one notice, I don't know. But it's against the law and it shouldn't be done. And I think it should have a very stiff penalty. |
| 00:48:54.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:48:54.73 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 00:48:55.32 | Judy Shaper | And that would make up for all the staff time. |
| 00:48:58.24 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. Thank you. Andy Rowan. |
| 00:49:03.32 | Shirley Thornton | you |
| 00:49:03.34 | Mike Kelly | No. |
| 00:49:03.35 | Andy Rowan | No. |
| 00:49:03.52 | Shirley Thornton | . Thank you. |
| 00:49:03.93 | Mike Kelly | you |
| 00:49:03.98 | Shirley Thornton | Thank you. |
| 00:49:04.03 | Andy Rowan | Thank you. |
| 00:49:04.06 | Shirley Thornton | Thank you. |
| 00:49:04.18 | Andy Rowan | Thank you. |
| 00:49:04.25 | Shirley Thornton | Thank you. |
| 00:49:04.26 | Andy Rowan | You can sing. In effect, my standing in the Communist Party, which I'm still trying to work on. |
| 00:49:09.55 | Jonathan Leone | which one's the best. |
| 00:49:12.46 | Andy Rowan | Uh... The short-term vacation rental thing is just a bad thing. |
| 00:49:15.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:49:19.50 | Andy Rowan | Um, So I live on Vista Clara. And the house was rented out. to a group of individuals when the economy was really bad, And for a year, I lived across the street. from a boarding house fraternity. It was not There was at least 15. |
| 00:49:43.73 | Mike Kelly | And the address to the council, would you? |
| 00:49:45.29 | Andy Rowan | Oh, sorry, 15 people. In that house, my driveway became overflow parking. Trash, noise all night. I've seen you, Mike, in the morning jogging. Once this really set in, my whole exercise routine, I couldn't sleep at night. My house, until about the last month or so, when I really started cracking down, became the most miserable place to live. Um... What made it worse was, When I filled out a form to the city, to enforce its code. And I had photographs of 15, 20 cars. I had everything. The city deemed these kids just out of college a family. and thus did qualify as R1, So they're deemed now family, but sometimes you have someone there for a day and they never come back. Um... My biggest problem with this whole concept is, you know what a short-term vacation rental's called? A hotel. not my neighborhood. That's why we have hotels. You combine Craigslist, and people looking to make money. and the fact that the city At this time, is not properly equipped to manage this process. I'm not sure. Code enforcement is one area in the city that clearly needs constant improvement. As I've said before, Bridgeway Marina Corp has not paid taxes in three years on $50,000 a month income. That's code enforcement. So I don't know how you entertain this idea. of short term vacation rentals without a staff of one or two code enforcement officers that are ex-police officers or so on, that go out and actually deal with this on a daily basis. I have to say, that my problem frothed up to a point where the entire street went after the city. Adam stepped in, Lieutenant Scoog stepped in, and things got a lot better. That was after two years of me not being able to enjoy my home. I don't want this. I just think it's unnecessary. Hotels. |
| 00:52:07.73 | Mike Kelly | Thank you, Andy. Would anyone else care to address the council? Sean? |
| 00:52:14.19 | Jan Fidlotham | Thank you. Jan-Fidlotham 501 Ulima Street, Did I miss? I've gone somewhat deaf. Anything mentioned about a business tax? that all homeowners have to pay in city of Sosledo. Did you mention that? You didn't. Did I miss it? |
| 00:52:35.18 | Jonathan Leone | Just the equivalent of what you would pay if you stayed at a hotel. |
| 00:52:35.32 | Jan Fidlotham | Yes. A business, every single homeowner and SaaS leader that rents out their property has to pay business tax. |
| 00:52:38.71 | Jonathan Leone | That's what it is. |
| 00:52:46.34 | Jan Fidlotham | Thank you. |
| 00:52:46.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:52:47.15 | Jan Fidlotham | Yeah. 35 dots. |
| 00:52:49.11 | Jonathan Leone | That's a business license fee. That's a license fee. This one would be $238. Well, okay. |
| 00:52:52.97 | Jan Fidlotham | Well, okay, business license then. Where's the business license for these owners that are renting out property? The other thing is that there's been a long time person over in Whiskey Springs who's rented out short term rentals over there for the last 30 years and they have not been, the board has not been able to ever do anything about it. |
| 00:53:17.52 | Mike Kelly | Thank you, Joe. You want to address the tax issues? |
| 00:53:22.70 | Heidi | The proposed license or permit fee of $283 would be the equivalent to a business license. That one would need to apply for. And then the rental would also be subject to the transient occupancy tax as well. |
| 00:53:39.19 | Mike Kelly | Okay. Would anyone else care to address the council on this matter? Yes, please. |
| 00:53:47.61 | Eric Barrett | Thank you very much. My name is Eric Barrett. I actually own a real estate rental company. We actually have a couple of rentals in Sausalia. We do 30 days plus, so nothing illegal. But one of the things we find since we have a concentration in America's Cup, one of the things that we're finding as people are calling us, and this may be considered as you're doing this, a lot of these folks actually live in their properties still. And they're seeing the valuations that people are placing on property for the future and they've read all the newspapers about there's going to be a billion dollars coming to everyone in all the cities. And so what they've done and what they've requested to us is, well, Can we just have it made available? And if things really happen, then yeah, sure, we'll move forward and we'd love to do that. So I think in something to consider when setting up a whole process, some of these folks, may go, yeah, we don't know if we actually are going to do it or if it actually will materialize. Because there's a lot of theorizing with all the money that's supposed to be made. So that's just something to consider for your review. But I definitely think that people, you know, there is some penalties if your tenants are unruly. I think that would be opened, you know, I think the landlords I've talked to, or property owners I should say, would be very open to that. Because, you know, they're making a premium and I think that would just be part of doing business. |
| 00:54:59.33 | Vicki Nichols | THE FAMILY IS |
| 00:55:08.44 | Eric Barrett | Thank you very much. |
| 00:55:09.56 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. Yes, please. you |
| 00:55:16.17 | Patricia Hale | Patricia Hale, 299 South Street. I'm here for another issue tonight, but it occurred to me, having heard the stories from these people about their absolute nightmares, the city's apparent alleged failure to deal with her in a timely fashion, you're talking about, quote, pretty stiff penalties. $1,000 is nothing if you can rent your house for $10,000 a week, which I assume is, you know, and further, how does that solve the problem of getting rid of the noise, the phone, the, 50 cars, the people from your driveway. I mean, I see the city fining, and that's one thing, but who do you call to say, Shut this down immediately. And, Apparently, this nice person is going to be on call 24-7 for that property. Is that person just a regular civilian with no enforcement power, no ability to shut anything down or evict or say, you know, go to hotels except they've been booked for months. So suddenly I see real problems with this and I'm in a place where there are a view where somebody could decide, excellent place to rent my house. And we're too close together for that. So I think that the people who've lived with this should really be given a great deal of respect in terms of their experience. because who's going to actually fix it that day? |
| 00:56:45.41 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. Does anyone else care to address this issue? All right, seeing none, we'll bring him back up here for discussion. Thank you. potential action. Who would like to start? |
| 00:57:01.52 | Herb Weiner | Wow. I think we all know we're going to be impacted on this. I've already had 10 friends of mine call me up. and I only have room for about two. So, and I think we're all going to entount to this. uh, We have to have some kind of management of this because or else it's going to get so overwhelming for us in the parking situation. We've heard about noise. I think as we move closer and closer to America's Cup, I think we're going to have to sit down with the police. and the city manager and be able to see what kind of response we can have to manage this. Um, If we don't, It's still going to be a zoo. Without a doubt, you all know that. You see what it is on Fleet Week, and those people aren't even staying in the houses. Okay? So I think we all have to kind of I'm not sure. Pull together. Take your suggestions. Let's work on this so we can get something that we can not only be able to handle or manage for that period of time, but be able to respond to the needs of the residents that are here, that were here before this America's Cup came, and will be here afterwards. So I think that we still have a little ways to go. We did form a task force that's out there, one that represents for the residents, the businesses, and the maritime. And I think we all have to just kind of pull this together as we get closer and closer and figure out and have you people back here, you residents back here again, to see if we can come up with a plan that we can all be able to live with. |
| 00:59:03.29 | Unknown | Thank you. Linda, Carolyn? |
| 00:59:07.78 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It seems to me that we've put a lot of emphasis on the front end of applications and fees and checklists and brochures and not a lot on the noise abatement, the issues that can unravel after the fact. And I guess for me, in having personally experienced folks next to me having huge parties, no longer, but pretty outrageous, kind of revisiting the noise abatement and those strategies and that kind of approach to enforcement. Because Because I do think we are opening a potential can of worms here without listening to the residents who've spoken tonight and figuring out the amount of staff time, not only on the upfront of the processing, but also on the actual implementation of this. |
| 01:00:22.23 | Jonathan Leone | So I think the reason why this is here is because it's already happening. And so the question before us is whether we... |
| 01:00:23.16 | Unknown | So, |
| 01:00:30.53 | Jonathan Leone | Right now it's not permitted, right? So the question is what you do. Do you say it's still not permitted? It's going to take place. Do you deal with the consequences when they arise? Or do you proactively kind of put in place some guidelines for this? You know, if folks aren't familiar with this, this whole sharing or weekly rentals or daily rentals thing has become a huge business throughout the country. And there are a lot of startups that are focused on that and basically ignoring all local laws in order to do so. |
| 01:01:02.50 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 01:01:03.91 | Jonathan Leone | Um, And that's not a good thing. And actually, my mother-in-law is a short-term rental person on Nantucket, which is a huge business in short-term rentals. And people expect a lot for $10,000 a week. and they are going to use it as they see fit. So you better be prepared for a lot of unforeseen consequences. So in terms of parties, and a lot of these are going to be corporate rentals where people or companies are coming in and having parties. So there's a lot of... There's a lot of implications for all this. So the question before us, I think, is do you bother to try and deal with it or do you ignore it? and say, if it happens, it happens. The advantage of dealing with it up front is at least you have some names to contact. because, you know, with a lot of these properties, we're not going to know who to contact with the stuff that's going on underneath the radar. So... It's a, it's, there's no easy answer here. I'm happy either way from a, one, you get the advantages of both. It certainly, hopefully will dissuade some folks from doing it if it's not legal. And there's some benefits of knowing, you know, here's your plan, you've got to give us information, and if you don't, you're sort of in big trouble and the consequences are hopefully more dire. Thank you. |
| 01:02:10.32 | Councilmember Ford | LEGAL. |
| 01:02:23.87 | Carolyn Ford | Thank you. |
| 01:02:23.89 | Heidi | That's true. |
| 01:02:26.15 | Carolyn Ford | Yes, well, you only have to log on to Craigslist to see how many vacation rentals there are in this town. And I'm very familiar with problems with noise and parking and that sort of thing, as one of my close friends had people who were renting next to her. um so i think what we need to do i think it's going to happen anyway we're going to have and continue to have we already have them continue to have these short-term rentals and they will there will be more and i don't know that we have the city has the wherewithal to enforce the code Certainly. we would have a better chance of enforcement if we had regulations in place. So I believe we do need to get the regulations in place. We need to make them very stiff. We need to have a certain number of people per residence based on bedrooms, for instance. You don't just load a whole fraternity into a home and expect it to be quiet. So I think we need to involve our residents in that. And I, as we were talking here, I was considering Perhaps we'd want, since there are two periods, maybe we'd want to do a pilot test this year, do a pilot test and see how it goes, and then learn from that and revise our regulations or change them accordingly. So that's all. |
| 01:04:04.75 | Mike Kelly | Well, I'm of mixed mind. I think that the can of worms has been referenced a couple of times. The can of worms was released quite a while ago. All you need to do is go, as Carolyn said, to the web, and you can find plenty. There's Airbnb, which is international, has at least 50 Sausalito homes listed on it. And most of those, by the street names, I can tell are in residential areas, so they're not downtown and zoned areas that permit. A company called Sunbow Properties, LLC, in Atherton, owns a house that they're renting out for $4,000 a week or $595 a night. Sounds like a business to me. So it's going on. And just by the numbers I looked at, there's over 100 on three websites that I looked at, HomeAway and URBD. So it's going on, and just by the numbers I looked at, there's over 100 on three websites that I looked at, HomeAway and URBD, whatever that is. So I'm, again, of two minds. One mind is, you know, no, and the other mind is, no isn't working. We said no, and they came anyway. So when that happens, I think some regulation and some ability to police what's happening and get sort of our arms around it from the city's And then, not the least of which is if you just take 50 homes at 150 a night times 50% occupancy, That's $1,350,000. The TOT on that's $162,000. That pays for a couple of people to enforce anything we want. So there's a lot of revenue that's being lost by the city. So if we've got to have it, at least we have the revenue to take care of it, our police department, our public works department, and so on. So I, again, I'm on the fence, but there we are. So what's before us is a motion to adopt this ordinance. Do I have anyone wanting to read that? |
| 01:05:59.95 | Jonathan Leone | I would say to... Oh, you have other... Yeah, I don't know if Carolyn or Linda or Herb have other things to say. I think we publicized this very well. There's publicity around this fairly, and there are two articles, one in the Chronicle, one in the IJ, about this. So hopefully people from both sides would have shown up. |
| 01:06:05.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:06:05.22 | Mike Kelly | THE FAMILY. |
| 01:06:05.42 | Unknown | Oh. . |
| 01:06:06.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:06:14.92 | Vicki Nichols | What a lot of people. |
| 01:06:23.63 | Jonathan Leone | I'm happy to not permit it and see how it goes this round. And if it's problematic, then regulate it. later. |
| 01:06:34.12 | Councilmember Ford | Let me just leave it alone. |
| 01:06:35.63 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. well, you could probably adopt some more stiffer penalties for doing this than are currently in the code. and you could start enforcement take community services and let them go right now on the people who are listing this stuff. if you wanted. I mean, the only reason this is here is because it's happening already. So I think the idea was to bring something to the council that tried to solve this problem. Doesn't necessarily remove it as a problem, but at least has a framework to deal with it. Um, I don't think this is a revenue play. Revenue would probably cover your costs. It's more of a leveling the playing field for the hotels, lessening the neighborhood impacts and even knowing who to contact if there are problems. If anybody has paid any attention to articles about these share programs, there are safety issues that people have some very serious problems with lack of background checks for people who are renting these and things like that. in terms of both burglary and physical harm. And the city's going to have costs associated with this, so we do need to, whether we have passed this or not, that we should... rather than pass them on to the taxpayers, we should come up with a way to cover them. |
| 01:07:44.58 | Unknown | Mm. |
| 01:07:45.67 | Jonathan Leone | So if we want to go this round and make it clear that we're not going to permit these and we're going to force it strictly that I don't have a big problem with that. Thank you. but we could continue the hearing to another day if you wanted to send that message out there see if there's other points of view coming |
| 01:08:06.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:08:06.72 | Mike Kelly | That's right. |
| 01:08:06.87 | Adam Politzer | That's right. What I'm hearing Councilmember Leon say, what concerns me with that approach is that we won't know if we have the revenue until we go through the enforcement of the |
| 01:08:10.31 | Unknown | What I'm hearing. |
| 01:08:23.02 | Jonathan Leone | Oh, I know. |
| 01:08:23.36 | Adam Politzer | And we don't have the staff, so we either take a risk and hire staff, thinking that the money will come based on the fines versus this approach gives us a known revenue. If someone fills out the application, then we have revenue that we can, as Mayor Kelly just showed an example of what revenue could be based on X number of rentals. So that's the challenge we as a member a member of the public, this stated, we don't have the enforcement ability today. And it really has to get bad for the city to be able to pull the resources together. And even then, it's not easy to clear up the problems because of legal rights that tenants |
| 01:08:50.47 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:09:13.68 | Carolyn Ford | Mr. Mayor. Thank you. |
| 01:09:14.35 | Adam Politzer | Yes. |
| 01:09:14.40 | Carolyn Ford | Thank you. You know, I would think that We should try it. We should try it for this year, certainly, because we're looking at three or four months, July, August, September. in October or just the three months? for this year. Okay, so we're looking at about three months. |
| 01:09:38.47 | Mike Kelly | No, actually, it would run from now until the end of America's Cup. That's the way it's structured. |
| 01:09:42.90 | Carolyn Ford | Thank you. |
| 01:09:42.95 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 01:09:42.97 | Carolyn Ford | No, no. Two periods. |
| 01:09:44.36 | Mike Kelly | No, it's period. |
| 01:09:44.37 | Carolyn Ford | So, |
| 01:09:46.08 | Mike Kelly | Oh yeah, you're right, I'm sorry. Two periods, yeah. |
| 01:09:47.19 | Carolyn Ford | Two periods, yeah. So let's take this first period. implement it. and see how it goes Review it, make changes. and, you know, either do it again for the America's Cup or just say no. We can make a better decision if we have a pilot program. And I think we should make our rules really strict. Again, number of people per bedroom, probably no dogs. Just let's make it really strict because the neighbors have a great point about the noise issue. So that would be my recommendation. actually I'll move, I'll make a motion that we do try this. We have a pilot program for the first year, session or section of time this year. We reevaluate that and then determine what we're going to do for the America's Cup next year for that period of time. Mary. |
| 01:10:53.95 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, Mr. Mayor, if I may, you know, in order to adopt an ordinance, we would need any specific changes to the ordinance tonight in order for you to be able to give second read to that ordinance at your next meeting, the 26th. |
| 01:11:02.32 | Vicki Nichols | in order to get the |
| 01:11:07.95 | Mary Wagner | to allow the 30 days for it to become effective, so if there are specific is that the Council wants to direct to the text of the ordinance. One that I'm hearing is the actual duration of it that you would like it to run perhaps for only one of the two periods of the America's Cup, or that you want it to run for the first period with the reporting back and then you may decide to rescind it at that point. So there's a couple of options with respect to timing, either to leave the the two periods in that are currently in the ordinance with a direction to staff to report back after the conclusion of this first period of the America's Cup activity. And then you can make the decision then whether you leave it in place for that second period or not. You could rescind it if you chose to. Um, With issues with respect to noise, it's a question of enforcing the noise ordinance, and I don't believe that we built anything into this ordinance with respect to animals being allowed on the property or not. And I don't know if you want to get into that level of specifics. If a dog is not noisy, do you want to say you can't have that dog? That's a policy question really for the council. One last thing is to make sure if you're going to, one, give a specific direction, and then the motion we would need from you is to waive first reading, read by title only, and then I need you to read the full title. And then we need the second motion on the resolution with the fee issue. |
| 01:12:29.17 | Linda Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor, for a comment? |
| 01:12:30.22 | Mary Wagner | I'm going to call it. |
| 01:12:31.33 | Linda Pfeiffer | So my level of comfort about this concerns the noise abatement. We've heard from residents and also the parking, the cars, and the parties. We do have a current noise ordinance, but obviously there is room for improvement or there is something that we need to tighten up. And that's what I would like to see addressed before going forward on this. I would like, because I heard a lot about the application process and all the checklists that they have to do to get the permit. and what they have to pay, but I didn't hear about those regulations, the regulation piece and with regards to how we might address the noise issues or the parties if we already have an ordinance that doesn't seem to be enforced. I mean, where are the gaps in that? |
| 01:13:27.81 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 01:13:30.72 | Unknown | you want to speak. |
| 01:13:31.22 | Jonathan Leone | Heidi wants you to walk through it. It's in the. |
| 01:13:31.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:13:41.60 | Heidi | Excuse me, I was looking through some papers. Do you mind repeating the question? |
| 01:13:44.86 | Linda Pfeiffer | Oh, yeah. Could you review for me? Could you review for me how the concerns raised by residents this evening will be addressed in what is being proposed? |
| 01:13:58.21 | Heidi | Sure. So I'll just read to you what we currently have. So parking for vacation rentals shall be provided in the following manner. |
| 01:14:01.97 | Linda Pfeiffer | So, |
| 01:14:02.26 | Vicki Nichols | I'm sorry. |
| 01:14:06.69 | Heidi | For properties which have two on-site parking spaces, the two parking spaces shall remain accessible for parking at all times. That means that a property owner can't utilize a space or if they have a garage, they can't close it off with their personal items. It has to be made available. For properties which have less than two on-site parking spaces and are located in areas subject to city parking permit regulations, The owner shall provide parking permits, so the combination of on-site parking spaces and parking permits provide parking for two vehicles. For those properties that are located in areas that have permit parking, two guest passes may be applied to the unit and passed on to the prospective renter. Regarding the last item, for properties which have less than two on-site parking and are not located in areas subject to the city parking regulations, any on-site parking space shall remain accessible for parking at all times. The remaining requirement shall be met by on-street parking. And within the city's current regulations, you can park on a street for up to 72 hours before you have to move it. |
| 01:15:12.27 | Linda Pfeiffer | and the noise aspect. |
| 01:15:15.81 | Heidi | So regarding the noise aspect, we have noise identified in our general plan, and we also have noise regulations identified in our municipal code. So, you know, everybody in Sausalito, whether they're full-time property owners or renters, will need to adhere to those provisions. If there are any nuisances regarding noise, then someone can file a code compliance complaint form with the city and our code enforcement officer would look into it. With regards to this ordinance, there would be a person that someone would be able to call and that person would be able to hopefully abate the situation. But again, the city could get involved. Or they can call the police. |
| 01:15:58.05 | Mike Kelly | All right, I would propose What's the motion? |
| 01:16:05.56 | Carolyn Ford | Oh. |
| 01:16:05.97 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:16:06.49 | Carolyn Ford | Um, |
| 01:16:06.86 | Mike Kelly | Debbie, what's the motion with him? |
| 01:16:08.04 | Carolyn Ford | Yeah, I just moved that we do a pilot program, but then I understand that we've got a problem with doing that because we need to adopt the ordinance. |
| 01:16:09.21 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:16:17.29 | Mike Kelly | adopt the ordinance. Let me make a suggestion. Instead of a pilot program, why don't we have a sunset |
| 01:16:19.47 | Carolyn Ford | Yeah. |
| 01:16:22.23 | Mike Kelly | at the end of the first period unless the Council votes affirmatively to continue. |
| 01:16:26.23 | Carolyn Ford | Good. |
| 01:16:26.59 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. You know where he's in Chile. It's easier to sunset it, isn't it? It's. |
| 01:16:32.97 | Carolyn Ford | Well, whatever's easier. Let's do it that way. From the staff perspective. |
| 01:16:35.77 | Jeremy | From the staff perspective, I think we would prefer you adopt the entire program now. And of course, you could give direction to the staff to give a status report back, say, in the January, February timeframe or in the November, October timeframe after, when it's fresh in everyone's mind, how well did this work? If it worked well, great. |
| 01:16:37.76 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 01:16:51.28 | Mike Kelly | in the January, February. |
| 01:16:57.71 | Mike Kelly | Yeah. |
| 01:17:05.45 | Jeremy | we'll leave it alone. If it didn't, how can it be improved? And then we could amend the ordinance for improvements. Or if it was a failure and we don't need it at all, we can rescind it. But if the council at that status report decides, you know, it's probably working as well as we can make it, you don't need to take any further action, and it will continue through the summer of 2013 and automatically sunset in October of 2013 at the conclusion of the America's Cup. |
| 01:17:15.53 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 01:17:18.80 | Vicki Nichols | center. you |
| 01:17:19.51 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 01:17:37.78 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 01:17:41.82 | Councilmember Ford | Okay. |
| 01:17:44.08 | Carolyn Ford | So now we need to move. |
| 01:17:44.70 | Councilmember Ford | Bye. |
| 01:17:44.97 | Unknown | And now we can. |
| 01:17:45.53 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 01:17:46.91 | Unknown | If you want to... |
| 01:17:49.11 | Mary Wagner | If you want to adopt the ordinance that's in front of you and or modify the ordinance that's in front of you and adopt it, we need you to technically introduce, read by title only, read the full title, the ordinance for first reading. |
| 01:18:01.38 | Carolyn Ford | Mr. Mayor, I withdraw my motion. |
| 01:18:05.44 | Jonathan Leone | All right. So we just. You don't have to do that tonight. That's only if you want to adopt it at the next meeting and then have 30 days after that. You can always change the dates of adoption. You shouldn't be hampered by that. |
| 01:18:15.80 | Mary Wagner | If you don't want to give first reading tonight and you want us to come back to you on the 26th, that's fine. We just run into a time crunch on the effectiveness of the ordinance because it won't, I believe, be in effect before the real start of the America's Cup activities. |
| 01:18:24.14 | Jonathan Leone | . |
| 01:18:24.71 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 01:18:24.75 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:18:24.80 | Jonathan Leone | Yes. |
| 01:18:25.14 | Vicki Nichols | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:18:31.60 | Jonathan Leone | Right, but you can always have it start whatever the 30 days after the adoption, which you may miss two weeks or something. |
| 01:18:41.93 | Mike Kelly | It's ongoing, those are my problems. It's happening as we speak. No, I know, but. |
| 01:18:45.30 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 01:18:45.32 | Herb Weiner | No, I know, but... |
| 01:18:48.03 | Shirley Thornton | you |
| 01:18:48.29 | Herb Weiner | Amen. |
| 01:18:48.93 | Shirley Thornton | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:18:49.96 | Mike Kelly | Yeah, I think it's out of the city. |
| 01:18:49.98 | Shirley Thornton | Yeah, I think it's out of the street. But if you're not happy with how it's flirted, |
| 01:18:53.22 | Mike Kelly | I'm okay with how it's working. I'm more concerned with how it's implemented, but that's another story. So the motion is? The motion is... |
| 01:18:53.23 | Shirley Thornton | I- |
| 01:19:03.59 | Carolyn Ford | Thank you. |
| 01:19:03.81 | Mike Kelly | We have to read it. |
| 01:19:03.88 | Carolyn Ford | We have to read it. We have to read it verbatim. Exactly verbatim, yep. It's ordinance. Someone have it up on their screen already. |
| 01:19:05.11 | Mike Kelly | We have to read it verbatim. Exactly verbatim, yep. |
| 01:19:09.08 | Shirley Thornton | Thank you. |
| 01:19:18.38 | Mary Wagner | Mr. Mayor, I can tell you what the proposed motion was, if you'd like. Thank you. |
| 01:19:24.05 | Mike Kelly | You can what? I can. |
| 01:19:24.10 | Mary Wagner | It's a good thing. I can read it to you if you'd like. Sure. Go right ahead. The proposed recommended action was to introduce and read by title only an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Sausalito establishing regulations for the temporary use of residential properties as vacation rentals during the 2012-2013 America's Cup events, and then continue the second reading to June 26, 2012. That's staff's recommended motion. |
| 01:19:25.90 | Mike Kelly | Sure, go right ahead. |
| 01:19:48.62 | Mike Kelly | All right, do I have a second? |
| 01:19:49.88 | Mary Wagner | I'm going to go ahead and go ahead |
| 01:19:50.59 | Mike Kelly | I'll make that motion. |
| 01:19:52.75 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Bye. |
| 01:19:52.77 | Mary Wagner | I'm not. THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:19:53.56 | Herb Weiner | Demi, would you come? |
| 01:19:56.29 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Do you have a second? |
| 01:19:57.27 | Mike Kelly | Yes, Herb Suckett. No, Herb needed it. |
| 01:19:59.20 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Thank you. |
| 01:19:59.21 | Herb Weiner | Yeah. |
| 01:19:59.47 | City Clerk (Debbie) | . |
| 01:19:59.55 | Herb Weiner | He needed it. I made a motion to you. |
| 01:20:00.23 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 01:20:00.33 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:20:00.48 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 01:20:00.50 | City Clerk (Debbie) | I nearly read it to you. One of you needs to make that part. |
| 01:20:01.46 | Mary Wagner | I literally read it to you. |
| 01:20:02.77 | Mike Kelly | All right. |
| 01:20:02.86 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:20:03.06 | Mike Kelly | I second it. |
| 01:20:03.80 | Mary Wagner | I don't know. |
| 01:20:04.04 | City Clerk (Debbie) | I'm sorry. |
| 01:20:06.18 | Mike Kelly | Hey. |
| 01:20:09.51 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Councilmember Pfeiffer. |
| 01:20:10.91 | Linda Pfeiffer | No. |
| 01:20:13.59 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Council member four. |
| 01:20:14.62 | Linda Pfeiffer | Yes. |
| 01:20:16.70 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Council member Winer. |
| 01:20:17.66 | Linda Pfeiffer | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:20:17.98 | Mike Kelly | Yeah. |
| 01:20:18.03 | Jonathan Leone | Yes. |
| 01:20:18.37 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 01:20:19.36 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Vice Mayor Leone. |
| 01:20:20.65 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 01:20:20.68 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 01:20:20.78 | Jonathan Leone | Bye. |
| 01:20:20.91 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 01:20:21.93 | Mary Wagner | Mayor Kelly. |
| 01:20:22.47 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Thank you. |
| 01:20:22.55 | Mike Kelly | Yes. |
| 01:20:25.27 | Mary Wagner | Mr. Mayor, the second action was to adopt the resolution which amends the masterpiece scheduled to establish a vacation rental permit fee. |
| 01:20:32.47 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 01:20:32.49 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 01:20:32.51 | Herb Weiner | So moved. Second. Debbie. |
| 01:20:39.21 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Council Member Pfeiffer? Council member Ford. |
| 01:20:43.10 | Carolyn Ford | Yes. |
| 01:20:44.52 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Council member Weiner? |
| 01:20:45.42 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 01:20:45.43 | Carolyn Ford | Thank you. |
| 01:20:45.45 | Herb Weiner | Yes. |
| 01:20:48.05 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Vice Mayor Leone. |
| 01:20:49.23 | Jonathan Leone | Can you just clarify the difference between this one and the prior one so I understand what you're |
| 01:20:52.59 | City Clerk (Debbie) | This is the actual resolution setting of fee. |
| 01:20:55.36 | Jonathan Leone | fees. |
| 01:20:57.01 | City Clerk (Debbie) | I'm not. |
| 01:20:57.57 | Jonathan Leone | Is this the full fee schedule or just this particular part of the fee schedule? Just this? Okay, no. |
| 01:20:57.60 | City Clerk (Debbie) | is the full feast. Just this. Thank you. Mayor Kelly. |
| 01:21:06.24 | Mike Kelly | Yes. |
| 01:21:10.06 | Mike Kelly | All right. |
| 01:21:13.97 | Mike Kelly | Next item is Item 6A, request for nominations to fill an opening on the Southern Marine Fire Protection District Board of Directors. |
| 01:21:24.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:21:29.06 | Catherine Hilliard | Mayor Kelly and members of the Council, thank you for having us here. I'm Catherine Hilliard, President of the Board. We have an opportunity here now to go forward We promised that you would have at least two ad hoc seats, ex officio ad hoc seats on our But because of the resignation and retirement of one of our board members, we have a full voting position open. And so I'm here to ask you all to please encourage civic-minded people in your community to apply for this. It's a great opportunity. So the process is, because Director Wriston resigned as of the first of May, we have 60 days in order to fill that position. So I've asked that we move our normal Wednesday board meeting to Thursday, the 28th. Why? because we need certification of the election plus certification from LAFCO. Otherwise, we can't make this happen. If we don't do it within the 60-day period, it goes to the county. So I just wanted to give you an idea of why the push. This would be great. That's why I'm here and you have a letter in your packet. And I'm asking for your help, and that's it. |
| 01:22:42.82 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 01:22:42.83 | Catherine Hilliard | Thank you. |
| 01:22:42.85 | Mike Kelly | All right. |
| 01:22:44.00 | Catherine Hilliard | Any questions? Mr. Gathen? |
| 01:22:45.65 | Jonathan Leone | When do you need, when would the deadline be to get applications in so people are aware of it? |
| 01:22:48.55 | Catherine Hilliard | What? The best thing would be by the 18th. I don't know if that's a weekday or not, but it's like 10 days or... We could probably stretch it to get it. to get the nominees information in the packet that's sent out to our board. Okay. |
| 01:23:05.70 | Councilmember Ford | Any other nations? |
| 01:23:07.03 | Catherine Hilliard | either. |
| 01:23:07.12 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. Thank you. THE END OF |
| 01:23:07.98 | Catherine Hilliard | And he can't do it. |
| 01:23:08.25 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 01:23:09.21 | Jonathan Leone | A question for the city attorney. So you can't serve on two – that's a public elected body. You can't be an elected official here and serve on that body. Is that correct? |
| 01:23:18.00 | Mary Wagner | there'd be a problem with incompatibility of office. |
| 01:23:20.52 | Jonathan Leone | Yeah. |
| 01:23:21.68 | Mike Kelly | Okay, so Adam, do you have anything to add to this at all? Um, All right, so I think the process, as I understand it, is that the board is going to make the decision. Is that correct? That's correct. So the board will accept applications from qualified individuals from any place in the district. Exactly. You're right. Including Sausalito. And then the board will study those and make the best decision as to the qualifications of the person. |
| 01:23:33.04 | Shirley Thornton | That's correct. |
| 01:23:40.72 | Vicki Nichols | Exactly. You're right. |
| 01:23:49.79 | Mike Kelly | would look very favorably on having a qualified person from Sausalito. |
| 01:23:53.54 | Catherine Hilliard | Exactly right. We have to open it up publicly. which I came to you first. We will do that probably tomorrow. And so it's publicly noticed to all of the residents in the district. Okay, terrific. |
| 01:24:00.61 | Councilmember Ford | All right. |
| 01:24:06.30 | Mike Kelly | you |
| 01:24:06.48 | Catherine Hilliard | All right. |
| 01:24:06.62 | Mike Kelly | All right, let's take a little public comment and then we'll have some ideas maybe. Okay. Thank you. Would any member of the public like to address this issue? |
| 01:24:09.40 | Unknown | Okay, thank you. |
| 01:24:16.83 | Mike Kelly | Okay, seeing none, I'll bring it back up here. My thought is that we just get this publicized in our currents, get it in the scope, get it in the IJ, get it every place we can that this is happening. And then all of us individually who think we know or have candidates for it, suggest that those candidates apply directly to the board and put their hat in the ring and take their chances. So I think it's an excellent opportunity for us to get immediate representation on the district. candidates applied directly to the board and put their hat in the ring and take their chances. So I think it's an excellent opportunity for us to get immediate representation on the district board and it's kind of exciting. |
| 01:24:51.17 | Adam Politzer | Mr. Mayor, just for clarification, because I'm not sure if Catherine Hilliard knew this, but my understanding is that that notice was noticed last Saturday in the paper, and we sent it, the city sent the district's notice in the Sustent occurrence on Friday. So we've already publicized it through the occurrence, and we're happy to run the same information again. |
| 01:24:51.54 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. Yeah. |
| 01:25:12.82 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:25:19.05 | Mike Kelly | again and again and again until we get a good candidate pool. Okay, good. |
| 01:25:22.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:25:23.82 | Mike Kelly | Any other comments, suggestions? |
| 01:25:25.76 | Jonathan Leone | Yeah, my only comment is that this is great, well, not great for whatever reason. The person resigned from the district. Hopefully it wasn't anything terrible, but I don't know. But I think the next election cycle, I think, for the district is until 13. So it's a good opportunity for folks from Sausalito who are worried that they wouldn't be represented on the |
| 01:25:41.22 | Unknown | So, Exactly. |
| 01:25:48.88 | Jonathan Leone | in the combined district to do so. If there's anybody who wants to resign from city council, they'll be on the fire board. Now's your time. |
| 01:25:54.31 | Shirley Thornton | Bye. . |
| 01:25:55.68 | Jonathan Leone | since it seemed to be a lack of trust in what goes on in that fire board, so here's your opportunity. |
| 01:25:55.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:26:01.30 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:26:03.76 | Mike Kelly | Okay. All right. I think we know the mission, and we thank you for coming out tonight, and we thank you for the opportunity. All right. All right, well that moves us to item 6B, which I sense most of you are here for since you've waited so long. And that is the second submittal for the HCD review of the housing element update. And that's Lily. Hi, Lily. And our consultants. |
| 01:26:40.62 | Jonathan Leone | There are a few extra seats. If people in the hallway want to come in, we've got a chance now to grab them. Or if you want to sit on the floor, that's certainly permitted. It's better than standing. |
| 01:27:03.53 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 01:27:42.47 | Mike Kelly | whenever you're ready. |
| 01:27:45.64 | Jeff Bradley | Good evening, Mayor Kelly, members of the council. I'm Jeff Bradley with Metropolitan Playing Group. Thanks for having us back again. We also have Karen Warner of Karen Warner Associates with us tonight. |
| 01:28:03.86 | Jeff Bradley | With your permission, Mayor Kelly, I can provide a brief overview of the housing element process for folks who might be dropping in for the first time. |
| 01:28:10.78 | Unknown | Please do. |
| 01:28:14.46 | Jeff Bradley | The most important thing to remember is that Housing Element is a chapter of your general plan. belongs to the city. It sets a policy framework and a vision for how the city will address the development of housing within the community. It also satisfies some very specific state legal requirements. There's a lot of numbers. There's a lot of technical issues. There's a lot of acronyms. But at the end of the day, the goal is to have a plan that proactively plans for housing for all segments of your community at all income levels regardless of household size. |
| 01:29:08.11 | Jeff Bradley | At the last council meeting on May 22nd, Thank you. Thank you. We brought forward revisions that we were recommending to deal with some comments we got from the State Department of Housing and Community Development, HCD. These included revisions to programs 4, 8, 10, 11, and 20 of your elements. The short headings of these program areas are residential design review, mixed use in commercial districts, ADUs, liveaboards and houseboats. and multi-family development in multi-family zones, respectively. |
| 01:29:57.82 | Jeff Bradley | We also had some technical revisions to the site inventory and the RHNA chart. RHNA stands for Regional Housing Needs Allocation. That's the total number of housing units the city is obligated to plan for. And we added some maps as requested by HCD. We received some very clear direction from the council. to remove the MUO incentives that we had proposed for the two sites on Second Street. part of program eight. and explore all other alternatives to address the stated HCG concerns. and several clarifications within the document were also requested by the council. |
| 01:30:46.49 | Jeff Bradley | overview of the presentation tonight. Karen Warner will talk about some new strategies we have developed since the last time we were here. We're calling these the horizontal mixed use incentives, the vertical mixed use requirements, vertical mixed use incentives, I will talk about all the alternatives we've looked at. The council asks staff and the consultants to respond to some very specific questions. To save time, those are provided in your packet as attachment to in a Q&A format. I request that you review the correspondence in your packet. There's several items in there. Many more came in after packet production and are on your desk. And finally, we'll wrap up with a conclusion and recommendation. |
| 01:31:42.41 | Jeff Bradley | And with that, I will turn it over to Karen Warner. |
| 01:31:59.25 | Karen Warner | Good evening again, haven't seen you in a while. Karen Warner with Karen Warner Associates. Um, We're down to the final wire. We've addressed all the state's concerns in their April letter, and we're really down to one remaining issue. and it's this concern about providing sufficient sites and program measures to encourage multifamily rental housing. So we've been, this is really the core of what our challenge has been all along. in terms of how we're providing affordable housing and the city has made huge strides in developing its Live Aboard strategy, in developing its ADU strategy, amnesty program for ADU, that is going to be the first one that the state is crediting, your live aboard strategy, the first one. So, I mean, you've made huge strides from where we started, where you were looking at rezoning. Um, you know, large sites. So this final hurdle we're looking at is what can we do to address the concern and the statutory requirement to provide for a variety of housing types, one of which is multifamily rental housing, and what can we do to provide housing that's accessible to families. So those are the two pieces we're looking at. |
| 01:33:34.21 | Karen Warner | What we brought before you at the last meeting was really focused on the mixed-use opportunity, MUO. And based on the input from council and the public, this was not seen as an appropriate strategy in the Old Town portion of Sausalito. So we've pulled that back. And so the basic two areas we're looking at to address these state concerns are modifying this program 8 of mixed-use zoning and commercial districts to a more limited... MUO that we're now calling horizontal mixed use and adding a vertical mixed use component that would apply to all commercial zones. So that's the first piece. The second piece, Program 20, is something that you've already seen. It's been in there, but it kind of goes hand in hand with how we're addressing the state's comment. And that's a program that encourages multifamily development within your multifamily zones. |
| 01:34:52.07 | Karen Warner | So briefly, and you've heard this before, because this is really the mixed-use opportunity with a new name and a more limited application. But what the horizontal mixed use is, and basically horizontal mixed use is kind of plannaries to say you can have residential side by side with commercial. So that's why it's horizontal. Or vertical is you're having the ground floor commercial and the upper story residential. |
| 01:35:20.08 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 01:35:23.07 | Karen Warner | So the horizontal mixed use is something that would be applied on a site-specific basis and would allow for ground floor residential. So the entire structure within the commercial district on the designated site would be allowed to be residential. The requirements to do that would be that a minimum of 30% of the units in the residential project would need to be three bedrooms, again, to address the city to families. And half the units would need to be affordable to very low and low income. Any development within the horizontal mixed use would still be required to meet all the city's development standards, design review findings, and there's no change to the city's existing floor area ratio under the Fair Traffic Initiative with this horizontal mixed use. This just shows, it's a little washed out on the slide, but this just shows the city's existing development standards in its commercial districts. And then the right hand column shows that those would still be in play in the horizontal mixed use. The only change would be that residential is allowed on the ground floor. So the, again, based on the input received from the community and the council direction, The recommendation is now to eliminate the Um, mixed use designation on the two Second Street sites in Old Town and to limit it to the two bridgeway sites which can accommodate a total of eight units on each site. These are seen as good sites, you know, a large enough size to where a residential project becomes more feasible. So that's the first piece and that's nothing new. other than limiting its application. The second piece, and this really came out of the discussion at the last Council meeting and we just kind of tried to solidify it, we're calling vertical mixed use requirements. And this would apply within the three commercial zones, CN1, CR, and CC. And basically the concept is to tried to intersperse some affordable units. in your commercial districts. So not all in one project, but little here, little there. So the requirements would become Um, As development is occurring above ground floor commercial, it would be limited to residential on the second and, you know, if there's a third story as well. And if there's two units that are being built, one of them would need to be affordable. As the project gets larger, which is not that likely in Sausalito, but we would go to a ratio of 20%. So if you had a six-unit project, and there was a 20% requirement two of the units would need to be affordable. The affordability would be at the low income level for any rental units and at the moderate income level for ownership units. |
| 01:39:14.95 | Karen Warner | The affordable units would need to have two bedrooms, again, so we're addressing the need for families. They would have deed restrictions in the minimum of 40 years. and just again as a protection for residential any conversion of existing upper-story residential to commercial would be prohibited. um, It's important when you're imposing these sort of mandatory requirements that there's a safety valve so it's not considered... and undo hardship. if we've identified several different areas where the city could provide some exception to this mandatory residential component. First, if there was an expansion of an existing business, an existing ground floor business, Second is if there was a financial hardship, And third is if there was an application in process currently. And so we came up with this if the project was, application was deemed complete by March 30th of next year. |
| 01:40:40.86 | Karen Warner | And then just briefly, how does all of this relate to the city's development regulations? And as I mentioned previously, the zoning remains in place for your vertical mixed use, for your horizontal mixed use. But just kind of to put it all in context, the site inventory in the housing element basically is an assessment of the potential development capacity under existing zoning. It's always up to the individual property owner whether they propose development. There's never any requirement to develop a piece of property. And all proposed development, whether it be, you know, in the VMU district or if it has an HMU designation, still goes to the city's standard development review process, design review, environmental review. And should the council adopt this, the HMU and VMU would become part of the city's zoning ordinance and the specific standards for those both would be fleshed out and incorporated into the city's zoning ordinance. Um... One of the very big carrots to having a certified housing element is maintaining local control over land use decisions. So this is really what we're trying to do. MS. And as long as the city does achieve the state's approval of its housing element, it maintains zoning control. You are never required to rezone something that is not consistent with your general plan. If you don't have an approved housing element, you may be required to approve an affordable housing project that is in direct conflict with your general plan. So this, again, is one of the strong incentives for an HCD approved housing element. The State Density Bonus Law. is always there regardless of whether you have an approved housing element or whether you don't. That's always an option that is available to developers. And the densities can range anywhere from 5 to 35 percent if certain criteria are met. economic development element of the city's general plan. There was some concern that, you know, the, not the vertical mixed use, but the horizontal mixed use that would be taking away ground floor commercial, you know, is there consistency issues with the city's economic development element. And there's two policies in the element that kind of come into play. the existing businesses which produce high tax revenue per employee should be encouraged. Neither of the sites that are proposed for designation with the horizontal mixed use could be considered high tax revenue generators. And then the second is just the policy to encourage a diversity of local serving commercial uses. And yes, one of the sites does have local serving commercial uses. the conversion of these uses is small and incremental, and we are not seeing that as a significant degradation to the existing character of the neighborhood. |
| 01:44:44.15 | Karen Warner | And now I'm going to turn it over to Jeff, and he's going to talk about all the other rocks we tried to look underneath for options. |
| 01:44:56.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:45:04.75 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you, Karen. So, of course, we talked a lot about the MarinShip last month. As the council is well aware, the MarinShip specific plan was adopted in 1988, amended in 1989, promotes residents serving waterfront and diversified water dependent uses, industrial uses, and uses compatible with industrial area. Let me just back up one second and give a little preface to this section. The council directed staff and the consultants to really go back and look at everything, all the options we looked at through this process and kind of bring that back and explain why or why not those options were viable. And through this effort we would also provide some documentation of why some of these big picture issues are not working for this effort. So back to the marine ship. New land uses such as residential in the marine ship would require rezoning obviously. Additionally, any increase in density or FAR is subject to the fair traffic initiative which is a voter approved initiative that limits any increasing in commercial density or changes in residential allowances. because of these big picture issues involving long lead times and lots of community outreach and effort, is not considered a viable strategy given the current planning period that we're in now that is ending in March of 2014. |
| 01:46:47.64 | Jeff Bradley | In terms of other site alternatives, the question came up of why are we not looking at residential uses in the CN2 district? Quite simply, residential uses are not currently allowed in the CN2 district as opposed to the other three districts that do allow residential currently on the upper floors. And similar to the marineship, this would also require an amendment to the fair traffic initiative and is really not considered a feasible approach. mostly because of the timeframe required for an effort of that type. |
| 01:47:29.05 | Jeff Bradley | And as the council recalls, towards the end of last year, the task force was actively considering nine candidate sites for rezoning. And it was the AHAs, if you remember, the affordable housing overlay zone. That would allow higher density development on sites that were zoned residential and would also rezone certain open space parcels to allow housing. that was not considered a low impact strategy by the council and the community. And we were directed to rack our brains, get creative, work with liveaboards, ADUs, look at the city's existing development structure and see what we could come up with. |
| 01:48:19.13 | Jeff Bradley | So I'm not going to go through all these in any real detail, but it gives you a flavor. I'm sure it brings back some fond memories of discussing those sites. And we were very happy to be able to recommend to the task force to take those off the table because we had come up with a finer grain approach, a way to really dig into the underlying development capacity within the city under your existing zoning, your existing general |
| 01:49:00.34 | Jeff Bradley | This strategy, conversion of commercial units to residential units. So this is referring to existing office space, for example, on the second and third floors of existing commercial buildings. And in our view, this strategy is actually a subcategory of the vertical mixed-use strategy that Karen just described. And sort of the ultimate low impact strategy because the building envelope is already there. You're simply replacing out the use from commercial to residential. Thank you. |
| 01:49:34.35 | Shirley Thornton | you |
| 01:49:34.40 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 01:49:38.01 | Jeff Bradley | So in our view, we sort of incorporate this by reference. |
| 01:49:45.55 | Jeff Bradley | One other idea that came up was conversion of market rate residential units to affordable units. This is a very appealing idea, similar to the previous one, very low impact, working with existing housing that's already there. It doesn't change any view or building footprint or building height. However, there are some significant hurdles. Namely, you really need a really strong funding source to pull this off. The closest we come to this within the existing proposed draft housing element is the idea of a trust fund, where some in-lieu fees would go into a trust fund. Potentially over time, you could build up a balance where you could look at a strategy like this. But at this time, we don't feel like we have the track record to show we have X number of dollars per year to contemplate conversion of X number of units. |
| 01:50:45.68 | Jeff Bradley | So in conclusion, We have specific recommendations that we covered, but generally we believe that the document provides a very carefully tailored approach to meeting the city's obligations under state law while protecting the very unique nature of the community we have here. And importantly, it also provides a path forward to the sensitive development of homes, places to live for all the people that make up your community. |
| 01:51:21.53 | Jeff Bradley | For this reason, we recommend that the council authorize sending the revised document with any changes you'd like to see tonight to HCD for the second round of review and hopefully the final round. |
| 01:51:34.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:51:34.49 | Mike Kelly | Thank you, Jeff and Karen. |
| 01:51:35.80 | Jeff Bradley | CAROL. |
| 01:51:39.15 | Mike Kelly | All right, any questions? |
| 01:51:43.59 | Linda Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor, I have some questions. I have a number of questions, and I don't want to dominate this, so I'm going to ask maybe three, and then yield to the rest of the council members, and then I'll jump in. Okay, so... |
| 01:51:55.28 | Unknown | I'll jump in. |
| 01:51:58.95 | Linda Pfeiffer | My first question is regarding slide nine, I mean the slide that had the title of nine candidate rezoning sites, and... Oh. I'm seeing constraints listed here like you know, slopes and the like. And my question is that you probably know that Saucido has a view ordinance. Why wasn't the view ordinance seen as a constraint and called out for those sites where high-density housing obviously impacts primary views? |
| 01:52:45.79 | Jonathan Leone | It's actually... |
| 01:52:47.78 | Mike Kelly | No, let's try one at a time. |
| 01:52:48.98 | Jonathan Leone | Let's try one at a time. |
| 01:52:50.90 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:52:51.01 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 01:52:51.02 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. If you could. |
| 01:52:51.50 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 01:52:51.51 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 01:52:52.14 | Jonathan Leone | If you're struggling to have it. |
| 01:52:52.76 | Mike Kelly | Do you want to take all the questions? Then you can be looking them up. |
| 01:52:58.75 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:52:58.77 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 01:52:58.79 | Unknown | I don't know. |
| 01:52:59.38 | Mike Kelly | . Let's try working. |
| 01:53:01.00 | Linda Pfeiffer | I've stumped the panel. I have another question. |
| 01:53:01.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:53:01.05 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:53:03.01 | Jeff Bradley | Mr. Mayor, thank you for the opportunity. As you recall, what we did is we essentially looked at all the parcels within the community, regardless of zoning. But then we developed some filters that included the existing zone plan, the existing zoning, the slope of the property, any known site constraints such as access, topography, shape. and we tried to limit ourselves to factors and criteria that were quantifiable and that had something you could put your hand on and identify based on the available information. Obviously with the proposal last month for the Second Street sites, we became much more familiar with the View Protection Ordinance and fallacies that the city has. where we always felt within any of these sites they would all be subject to the normal development review, and we took that into account in a general way when we anticipated the number of units. |
| 01:54:09.53 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:54:10.88 | Linda Pfeiffer | Okay, Mr. Mayor, thank you. So my next question is, at the last council session, a motion passed that protected commercial space at ground floor levels at two parcels on 2nd Street. Doesn't the proposed horizontal mixed-use Incentives disregard this motion and in fact allow 100% housing. on these sites. throughout 2nd Street as well as the CC zones and Um, the I forget the other zone, for future housing elements or future councils. |
| 01:54:46.48 | Jeff Bradley | the only two sites within the draft housing element that are recommended for the horizontal mixed use which would allow for ground floor residential in addition to the |
| 01:55:03.09 | Jeff Bradley | I don't want to overanalyze the question here. Basically we're left with the two sites on Bridgeway where you would have the situation you described, Councilmember Pfeiffer, where you could have 100 percent residential. The sites on Second Street are closer to their current situation where any development by city ordinance would require ground floor commercial. And what we're simply dealing with is if there's any development on the upper floors, that would be required to be residential unless the council approved a waiver essentially. |
| 01:55:37.12 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you, Jeff. Although you're correct in saying that this housing element highlights 2015 Bridgeway and 1901 Bridgeway, Earlier on the same page, it says that to further facilitate the provision of housing within the commercial zoning districts, the city will implement horizontal mixed use incentives. These are voluntary incentives that allow commercial property owners of designated CN1CC and CR zone sites to utilize the ground floor level of the buildings for residential use rather than the commercial uses otherwise required. So what I read in this is that although for this housing element, further down the page you highlight 2015 Bridgeway and 1901 Bridgeway the earlier paragraph kind of opens the creates an opportunity for future councils to apply this horizontal mix to use. you know, just HMU incentive for designated parcels in the future. Correct? Okay, thank you. It does. |
| 01:56:48.51 | Jonathan Leone | It doesn't allow it under this housing. Anybody can do what they want in the next version. |
| 01:56:50.14 | Linda Pfeiffer | No, not. |
| 01:56:50.78 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:56:50.85 | Councilmember Ford | Yeah. |
| 01:56:50.97 | Unknown | ANYBODY? |
| 01:56:51.04 | Mike Kelly | Yeah. |
| 01:56:51.10 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:56:51.15 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 01:56:51.22 | Unknown | They can do what they want. |
| 01:56:52.20 | Unknown | I'm going to go. |
| 01:56:52.49 | Linda Pfeiffer | But in the future... Well, that goes... |
| 01:56:56.67 | Mike Kelly | without saying for everything we're talking about. |
| 01:56:56.72 | Linda Pfeiffer | Yeah. |
| 01:56:56.98 | Councilmember Ford | saying for everything we're talking about. |
| 01:56:58.88 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 01:56:59.03 | Councilmember Ford | Yeah. |
| 01:57:00.11 | Councilmember Ford | Well, that's... |
| 01:57:00.18 | Mike Kelly | I've just... |
| 01:57:00.65 | Linda Pfeiffer | Yeah. |
| 01:57:00.89 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 01:57:00.98 | Councilmember Ford | blue point. |
| 01:57:01.63 | Linda Pfeiffer | And my third, it's not a moot point, Mr. Mayor. And my third question is, okay, so when calculating the unit count for the district capacities. I seem to remember, and I think this was earlier, or maybe at the end of last year, when you were presenting to us, that you had said that For homes that were on R2 or R25 zoned lots that were single family, you were not counting an extra unit, even though they were on duplex lots. Do I remember that correctly? |
| 01:57:51.26 | Jeff Bradley | Yes. Thank you. |
| 01:57:51.97 | Linda Pfeiffer | Okay. |
| 01:57:52.18 | Jeff Bradley | Although there was some movement on that. That became known as the great onesie debate, whether we needed to go so far as to try to count a property where you could theoretically build exactly one more unit. In the beginning, we were trying to avoid that because it was kind of pushing the envelope a little bit. But at the end of the day, we came back and we actually did count those. |
| 01:58:18.28 | Linda Pfeiffer | But, |
| 01:58:21.88 | Linda Pfeiffer | Well, because I'm looking at, the reason I ask is because you're not necessarily building onto the single-family home. It could be within the footprint of the existing family home that could be, you know, cut in, you know, reconfigured inside. Because when I look at this graph, it doesn't appear, it said that you had counted six units for very low under the R2, R2-5 district capacity. But this version of this housing element, it's been stuck. It's not counted. What page are you on, Councilman? I'm on page 4-5. |
| 01:58:32.15 | Vicki Nichols | you know, cutting. |
| 01:58:50.87 | Jeff Bradley | It's not counted. What page are you on, Councilman? |
| 01:58:56.81 | Linda Pfeiffer | I'm sorry. 4-4. I apologize for my coughing. It was important for me to be here tonight, but I'm not contagious. |
| 01:59:05.56 | Herb Weiner | I hope not. We're going to find out. |
| 01:59:11.45 | Linda Pfeiffer | According to my doctor, |
| 01:59:12.01 | Karen Warner | Doctor. Thank you. |
| 01:59:17.81 | Karen Warner | Let me respond to that. As you can see on this cross-out version here, the total number of units under the R2, 2.5, remains the same at 50. Thank you. the units were moved from, we had six units under very low and six units under low, they were moved up to moderate based on this concept that these really small sites, regardless of if they met the density threshold of 20 units an acre, really were not conducive for affordable housing. So on any of our sites, if they can accommodate fewer than six units, regardless of the density, we're not showing them in the very low and low income category anymore. |
| 02:00:11.29 | Linda Pfeiffer | It seems to me that, okay, well, I'll comment on that rationale later. Disagree with that, but anyway, and it plays in it's an important point when we're looking at strategies Thank you, mr. Mayor, so I |
| 02:00:21.32 | Vicki Nichols | point. |
| 02:00:22.02 | Mike Kelly | when we're looking at strategies. |
| 02:00:26.95 | Linda Pfeiffer | I'll yield to the rest of the council and I'll come back with more questions. |
| 02:00:28.99 | Mike Kelly | and I'll come back with more questions. Go, you're on a roll, go, go. Thank you. |
| 02:00:33.50 | Linda Pfeiffer | THE FAMILY. |
| 02:00:33.67 | Mike Kelly | I'm out. |
| 02:00:33.74 | Linda Pfeiffer | Okay. So my next question is, our RENA is 165, and the housing element accounts for 311. So in other words, the state only required us to accommodate 165 units. This housing element accommodates 311. And we are overcount for moderate and low, but we're even count at the very low income and I noticed that the bulk of this very low income unit is allocated to the commercial district. which is what I'm struggling with personally. Couldn't we look at other strategies here, such as the R2 district capacity I just mentioned, to offset that heavy reliance on the commercial district capacity for very low income and liveaboards, which, you know, seemed to me could also apply there. |
| 02:01:47.45 | Unknown | I'm not. Thank you. |
| 02:01:50.59 | Linda Pfeiffer | especially since we're over count by 180% in the low income. It seems like. looking at the low income and very low if we're meeting the very low income but we're 180% over Meeting. the low income that we might be able to look at some synergy there and create a housing element that did not rely on such high density in the commercial districts. |
| 02:02:20.08 | Karen Warner | And this gets to be a little bit of a numbers game, moving things around, but let me try to explain. The affordability distribution on the ADUs is based on the survey. So that's kind of a fixed distribution based on percentages. The affordability distribution on the LIBA boards And is we had been showing all liveaboards is affordable at the low income rent levels, which the state said, you know, the future liveaboards, you might have some moderate. We can't move any of the liveaboards to very low income. None of the rent information would support that. So that's why we end up with more in the low, because we have the liveaboards and the ADUs are basically primarily in the low. So we're stuck with this one outstanding issue of sites for the multi-family rental. So since we're not rezoning any site for multifamily rental, I mean, we basically have one R3 site in here that is large enough that the state has said, you know, you can count this towards lower income. So we have one multifamily site. |
| 02:03:36.29 | Vicki Nichols | every site. |
| 02:03:47.70 | Karen Warner | the rest is commercial unless we go for some of these other options. So that's why It doesn't mean they have to be built. very low income or low income. But the development standards are such and we have the incentives through the VMU and HMU on designated sites that... it shows that the city is setting the table. So that's the point. |
| 02:04:16.23 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. My last question is, some time ago this council voted on a goal statement for the housing element. And the goal statement was that this element would have a minimal impact to Saucido neighborhoods. And I guess my question is, were you aware of this goal statement and do you think this element meets that goal? in terms of minimal impact to neighborhoods. |
| 02:04:44.24 | Jeff Bradley | That really became our mantra. That became low impact strategies. That was the filter that we looked at everything through. What we've tried to do is carry that through the entire document, whether we're talking about a goal, a policy, or a program, right down to spacing out the follow-on actions and the implementation to be manageable for the city within its resources. So the answer is yes. |
| 02:05:13.62 | Linda Pfeiffer | And sorry, I lied. One more question. Is there a reason why this housing element, this revision, which was just released on Friday afternoon at 5 o'clock, has been fast-tracked? Is there a reason it didn't, it wasn't, these latest revisions were not reviewed by the Planning Commission first and not reviewed by the Housing Element Task Force first before coming to this council? |
| 02:05:40.52 | Jeremy | These revisions were prepared at the request of the council, and so we're bringing them back to the council. |
| 02:05:48.42 | Linda Pfeiffer | I'm sorry, Jeremy, I coughed in the middle of your answer. |
| 02:05:51.69 | Jeremy | I'll be happy to repeat it. Since the last hearing on this was in front of the council in May and the council gave direction to the staff and consultants, we brought these revisions back for the council's |
| 02:06:08.05 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. That's all, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. |
| 02:06:11.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:06:15.13 | Jonathan Leone | Um... A couple of questions. |
| 02:06:23.32 | Jonathan Leone | the |
| 02:06:27.23 | Jonathan Leone | There's language about reassessing the residential design review criteria in a couple of different sections, like in chapter, I think it's all chapter 2, but page 13 and a couple other things, a couple other sightings. And is that Is the concept there in sort of revising the criteria that are under the current zoning ordinance as far as design review procedures for these specific designated areas, or is it in general, |
| 02:07:02.94 | Jonathan Leone | Because that's, you know, we're sort of, I mean, people are looking for some degree of input and consistency. And, you know, there's one of the proposals that's in here is considered to exemption from a 32-foot height limit and another on page 29. So I'm just trying to figure out if we how many holes were poking into the current criteria for design review. Um, And will that give people a lack of comfort in terms of their ability to impact the size, mass, and light and air, and view impacts of future construction? |
| 02:07:58.78 | Jeff Bradley | design review is one of those areas that can be deemed a fairly serious constraint on development by ACD if it's not based on any known criteria, if it becomes an endless cycle of revision and back and forth. So any opportunity to add definition to it, to add standards that can be distributed and implemented that can be distributed and implemented on a project basis are helpful to address that perception. And then this also was an outgrowth of some of the work the Planning Commission was doing on a study item in regards to encouraging or requiring multifamily development in multifamily zones as opposed to a single family house on a property that's zoned for three or four and have some fairly well defined criteria for that so that the multifamily development is in character with the development. It's most likely to be in a mixed area with both single family homes and multifamily development, an effort to document a policy direction that would give the city the tools it needs to really continue to evaluate development on a case-by-case basis, but also provide an objective level ground for everyone going through that process. |
| 02:09:26.38 | Jonathan Leone | I understand what you're saying, but I guess that obviously some of this will come this is just one step in a longer process of developing the implementation of these policies, and that certainly could be addressed in that. But I mean, I think design review by its nature is subjective, having done it with for too long. But the with. You know, our purpose statements in our design review procedures are relatively straightforward. They're not objective, but they're straightly straightforward. Um... So I think what people are sort of saying, and I would help me leave this room with some comfort. And if I can't rely on the height limit or that, you know, just for people's benefit, not to bore them, but there's, you know, nine sort of general purpose statements, and it's preservation of Sawstall's unique visual character, preserved land values, PREVENT. unsightly or obnoxious structures, incorporate site considerations, traffic, and all those other things, minimize obstruction of views. minimize destruction of light and air, minimize property clearing, destruction of trees, Um, So, You know, those seem to be, you know, again, some of they're subjective in there, but they're relatively straightforward, and my concern is if we're saying to the state, we're going to review our all of our design review criteria Thank you. and especially the height limit, which sort of dictates a lot of the character of this particular town, and any city for that matter, |
| 02:11:00.12 | Vicki Nichols | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:11:03.97 | Jonathan Leone | is a little bit of a problematic to do. I know we're trying to, you know, this is an iterative process. We're trying to come up with the right solution here that will give us the right numbers in various categories. But to me, that's a little... |
| 02:11:14.48 | Vicki Nichols | Right. |
| 02:11:21.99 | Jonathan Leone | Um, That wouldn't leave me with a lot of comfort if I left the room, saying that we'll review a lot of design review and we'll have to come back with something that exempts some of our criteria as well as the heightened review criteria, which are basically the same, but just have some higher standards. |
| 02:11:37.36 | Jeff Bradley | If I may, Council Member Leon. This program has gone through a little review that shows up as the underlying text in your draft. But if you go back to the objective, It basically says, continue to keep doing design review. That's the essence of the program. Right. Because you want to take credit for those things that you are doing that are facilitating the creation of housing that fits within the community. So 90% of this is just to keep doing that. The 10% that is the new idea is evaluate revisions to design review procedures to encourage multifamily use in multifamily zones. And the one bullet point in the middle there says, basically, show the feasibility, if you're not actually building those units, at least show the feasibility of constructing the maximum number of units permitted under the zoning in the future by illustrating the potential location of future units on-site parking and access. So essentially it's asking for a diagram showing, well, if I build my house here at some time in the future, you know, I could build another unit here and I would be consistent with the zoning. |
| 02:11:59.92 | Shirley Thornton | Right. |
| 02:12:47.98 | Jeff Bradley | Okay. But it's not asking for a wholesale revision of the design review procedures or guidelines. |
| 02:12:51.41 | Jonathan Leone | Division of... |
| 02:12:55.46 | Jonathan Leone | Well, It does. Yes, I hear what you're saying is not wholesale, but it's about removing those that decrease the feasibility of building up to the maximum. And that is what I think people are worried about. Because if we're trying to tuck these in all over the place, which we're not in these site analyses, then that becomes, I think, problematic for... for folks. And it's not your fault. It's just the nature of how this process has unfolded. So I'm not pointing the finger at you. I'm just saying some of it's from the committee, from the planning commission, from us. So the other thing is the live-work language is really vague. Live-work has never worked wherever it's been implemented. You have to have a ton of oversight. And if we're worried we can't enforce the America's Cup stuff, you're not going to enforce LIV work. It's failed everywhere. It's been tried. San Francisco, South Market's a huge failure for LIV work. It's all become LIV. And so, you know, there's some language to that in here. I think we should just take that out in general. The height limit exemption, again, I think we should take that out. I'm wondering where that's going. That's page 29. |
| 02:14:11.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:14:11.90 | Shirley Thornton | Oh, shit. |
| 02:14:12.34 | Carolyn Ford | That's page 29. |
| 02:14:15.63 | Jonathan Leone | Yeah, I'm asking if these are conscious decisions to put these in, or are they misreading maybe comments made at the last meeting to get to the numbers where we're trying to go? So, like, if you're... |
| 02:14:35.77 | Jeremy | I'm sorry, Vice Mayor Leon, on the removal of the height limits, can you help us out here? |
| 02:14:42.13 | Jonathan Leone | Yeah, let me... Help us out here. I wrote down, this is chapter 11 or 1-1-2, whatever you want to read it, dash 29. Thank you. |
| 02:14:53.50 | Mike Kelly | I'm... |
| 02:14:53.97 | Jonathan Leone | I can't find it. |
| 02:14:55.20 | Jeff Bradley | exemption from heightened design review. |
| 02:14:55.22 | Jonathan Leone | Exactly. Yeah, that's part of the... And then you have... |
| 02:15:01.45 | Mike Kelly | That doesn't have to do with hype stuff. |
| 02:15:02.70 | Jonathan Leone | No, there's... True. No, it does actually. Exempt from height is in the... |
| 02:15:02.71 | Mike Kelly | No, there's... No, it does, actually. The height, exemption from height, No, but Hyten does that review. |
| 02:15:10.27 | Jonathan Leone | I know. No, it's the same. It's in the review. You can't be higher than 32 feet. So, you know, that's why the problem with vague language tends to be similar. |
| 02:15:19.74 | Jeremy | Can we address that point? Thank you. |
| 02:15:21.94 | Unknown | If I may, the heightened design review adds on seven or so additional findings to the design review permit that are more strong than the original design review permit findings. So, for example, there's a finding in the design review permit about views and not being able to... |
| 02:15:29.49 | Shirley Thornton | Right. |
| 02:15:29.88 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 02:15:39.64 | Unknown | to minimize obstruction of primary views on private property. The heightened design review would limit that to not just primary views, but also secondary views as well. |
| 02:15:49.09 | Jonathan Leone | Yeah, no, I understand that. But the development's- |
| 02:15:50.52 | Unknown | But the development standards would stay the same. There's no intent that the height would change. |
| 02:15:57.49 | Jonathan Leone | But the language that's being suggested here is to reassess your design review criteria. to increase the feasibility of building up to the maximum. |
| 02:16:07.40 | Mike Kelly | I don't read that. I read it that it's talking about an exemption from heightened design reviews, which are |
| 02:16:13.17 | Jonathan Leone | That's in a different section than when you are. It was one we were just talking about previously. Who is that one? 11, or 2-13. I think it needs to be maybe read with a fine tooth comb as to some of these edits. |
| 02:16:15.58 | Mike Kelly | we were just talking about previously. |
| 02:16:34.14 | Jeremy | I'm sorry, Vice Mayor Leon. Yeah, let me find it again if I wrote it down wrong. |
| 02:16:38.16 | Jonathan Leone | Yeah, let me find it again if I wrote it down wrong. |
| 02:16:53.70 | Jeremy | There is a component that the Accessory Dwelling Unit Working Group is working on right now and possibly allowing... taller accessory structures. Right now we have a maximum height for an accessory structure such as a garage is 15 feet and the ADU working group is considering because we need ADUs and one of the places ADUs go is in accessory structures there is a discussion at the ADU working group should they recommend to the planning commission and ultimately to city council that those accessory structures, the height be increased to 18 feet from 15 feet? |
| 02:17:10.96 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 02:17:10.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:17:11.03 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 02:17:11.05 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:17:11.10 | Vicki Nichols | for a while. |
| 02:17:20.16 | Vicki Nichols | and one of the places that kind of is, Thank you. |
| 02:17:25.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:17:25.66 | Unknown | All right. |
| 02:17:39.21 | Mike Kelly | Yeah, but that's not 32. Agreed. |
| 02:17:40.73 | Jeremy | Agree. But that's the only, at the moment, the only place that I recall. Is there another place where we have been talking about increasing the allowable hikes? |
| 02:17:41.27 | Mike Kelly | Yeah. But that's just a question. |
| 02:17:54.94 | Unknown | Not the allowable heights. There is a discussion on reducing the development standards for projects on multifamily lots that only provide a single family house. So that's on the top of the page on page 2-29. So that's where it mentions. |
| 02:18:12.41 | Jonathan Leone | On 2-29, you've got evaluate the following incentives for the zoning ordinance for projects that propose the maximum number of units allowed on parcels for projects that propose multiple units, including... exemption from heightened design review. So, I mean, that's a truck. |
| 02:18:28.88 | Mike Kelly | It doesn't mean anything. Heightened design does not mean height. |
| 02:18:32.00 | Jonathan Leone | That's part of the heightened design review criteria. |
| 02:18:32.33 | Mike Kelly | That's part of the I don't know. |
| 02:18:34.44 | Jonathan Leone | No. |
| 02:18:35.14 | Mike Kelly | No, it's not. Is that true? |
| 02:18:35.37 | Jonathan Leone | Oh, it's not. |
| 02:18:38.70 | Unknown | It's not true. The development standards wouldn't change. The heightened design review imposes several findings, additional findings that need to be made, but those don't relax the development standards for any zoning district. |
| 02:18:45.31 | Mike Kelly | additional findings. |
| 02:18:54.32 | Mike Kelly | Yeah, I mean, I hear the word heightened is, |
| 02:18:58.02 | Jonathan Leone | No, no, no, I understand the English here, but the... Would you like it in a different language? Maybe that'd be more helpful. But the... I'll... You know, I just think you don't want to put that... |
| 02:19:00.26 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 02:19:01.04 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:19:01.99 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:19:02.49 | Unknown | Would you like to hear a different language? Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:19:04.97 | Unknown | Maybe that'd be more |
| 02:19:06.03 | Councilmember Ford | Bye. |
| 02:19:12.41 | Unknown | Hmm. |
| 02:19:13.21 | Jonathan Leone | You don't want to put the possibility you're going to remove your height design review. If I lived next to one of these sites, I would say, why are you taking this out? Why are you saying you'll take this out? |
| 02:19:16.50 | Unknown | If I live in a... |
| 02:19:23.43 | Carolyn Ford | Mr. Mayor, I think we're getting into discussion here rather than questions, and there are a ton of people here to speak. |
| 02:19:24.34 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. First of all. to the |
| 02:19:25.85 | Mike Kelly | here rather than questions. Right, but it does say evaluate the following incentives. So that for me is a long way from saying we're going to take off our heightened design review. I mean, maybe there's something here we can tweak a little bit, but anyway, we are into discussion. We are questioning the answers. So any more questions? We'll deal with this in a minute. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:19:51.56 | Jonathan Leone | Why is 1757 Bridgeway not in the designated sites? It's been abandoned for seven years. It's in a high, sort of R3 zone. |
| 02:20:02.19 | Mike Kelly | I've set the one on three units over here. |
| 02:20:03.56 | Jonathan Leone | Bridgeway. Three. |
| 02:20:06.90 | Mike Kelly | That's the one with the three units on British. |
| 02:20:08.08 | Jonathan Leone | I mean, it's in the discussion that the committee took it off. It doesn't say why. The 1700 block of Bridgeway. |
| 02:20:15.20 | Unknown | Thank you. It's the one here, 7, 2, 50, 7, 15, 51, and 6 of the other. |
| 02:20:20.71 | Mike Kelly | because people yelled at us. Everybody has to take a little bit of pain. |
| 02:20:22.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:20:23.00 | Jonathan Leone | to see. Everybody has to take a look. Bye. |
| 02:20:24.49 | Karen Warner | That is our one multifamily site. It says right here. It's not proposed for up zoning. It was taken off the list for affordable housing overlay. Right. But no, that is our one multifamily site. |
| 02:20:28.11 | Jonathan Leone | No, it says in the... It says right here... |
| 02:20:37.34 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. Thank you. That's interesting. So where is the comprehensive list of designated sites here? Because you have to piece through it. It's the very last. |
| 02:20:49.78 | Jeff Bradley | It's the very last thing. It's appendix G, right? |
| 02:20:50.96 | Jonathan Leone | It's appendix G, right? Appendix G, the very end of the document. |
| 02:20:54.08 | Jeff Bradley | the very end of the document. |
| 02:20:54.12 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 02:20:55.76 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 02:20:55.84 | Jonathan Leone | Jesus, I read this like ten times. Mm-hmm. THE END OF THE END OF THE I am getting old, but if it's this hard for me to read, it must be incredibly hard for the average person to read this stuff. |
| 02:21:09.14 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. All right, while he's looking for that, Carolyn, do you have questions? |
| 02:21:12.41 | Carolyn Ford | Do you have questions? |
| 02:21:14.54 | Mike Kelly | Attention please. Can we have everybody's attention? |
| 02:21:17.24 | Carolyn Ford | Yeah. the, uh, |
| 02:21:19.45 | Mike Kelly | Please attention. |
| 02:21:20.00 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 02:21:20.97 | Carolyn Ford | The horizontal mixed use incentives, I have a question about the statement that our consultant made and the staff here. There's a statement that says our goal is not to change our neighborhoods, our general plan. And there's a statement that says that it over time it wouldn't be noticed that much, that it would be incremental. But it's still opening it up to getting rid of our neighborhood um, uh, resident serving businesses. So I have a real problem with that statement, and I think maybe there's a reason for it that you can give me. But I mean, is there a reason for stating it like that? Because it will change, in my view. |
| 02:22:24.55 | Jeff Bradley | Yes, we looked at it in terms of proportionality. Within your commercial zones, there's approximately 150 sites. And so the horizontal mixed use that would allow ground floor residential applies to only two of those sites. So we did not feel it raised to that level. It would obviously change the neighborhood, but it wouldn't degrade the neighborhood in our view. And obviously, as the council, that's a judgment call for you to make. But that is our recommendation. |
| 02:22:56.34 | Carolyn Ford | So why do you include this horizontal mixed use in the document? If we've already designated two sites, Let's not open this up and... Quick question. Okay. Oh, yeah. I mean, we're opening it up, are we not? No. Just to clarify, the whole... |
| 02:23:08.36 | Vicki Nichols | AND, AND, |
| 02:23:08.43 | Unknown | Quick question. Okay. |
| 02:23:10.52 | Vicki Nichols | you |
| 02:23:12.65 | Jeff Bradley | We're open. No, just to clarify, the horizontal mixed use only applies to those two sites. And if the council had directed us to not do that at the last meeting, we wouldn't have done that. But we felt that the council obviously had concerns about the Second Street sites. We walked away from that recommendation. But on the Bridgeway sites, it would literally be just those two sites that could have that ground floor residential feature. |
| 02:23:34.52 | Carolyn Ford | Thank you. |
| 02:23:43.29 | Carolyn Ford | Well, the incentives to foster this kind of thing, though, are still in this report. Yes. |
| 02:23:51.26 | Jeff Bradley | for those two sites. |
| 02:23:52.98 | Carolyn Ford | Only for those two sites. Yes, ma'am. That was not clear to me. No. |
| 02:23:54.56 | Jeff Bradley | Yes, ma'am. That was not clear to me. For the horizontal. |
| 02:23:59.71 | Carolyn Ford | only for those two sites. Correct. |
| 02:24:01.40 | Jeff Bradley | Correct. But for the vertical, it's all the other sites. |
| 02:24:05.19 | Carolyn Ford | Well, but the vertical concern does not concern ground floor, right? Correct. Ground floor businesses would not be affected. |
| 02:24:09.25 | Jeff Bradley | Correct. |
| 02:24:13.68 | Jeff Bradley | Bye. |
| 02:24:13.75 | Carolyn Ford | Thank you. Okay. All right. That's good. I'm sure glad I asked that question because I thought you were opening it up to change commercial resident serving businesses to... |
| 02:24:16.03 | Jeff Bradley | All right. |
| 02:24:17.55 | Vicki Nichols | Good. question. |
| 02:24:29.29 | Carolyn Ford | Residential. |
| 02:24:30.19 | Jeff Bradley | No, we heard you loud and clear last time. |
| 02:24:32.14 | Carolyn Ford | Thank you. |
| 02:24:32.18 | Linda Pfeiffer | Okay, thank you very much. |
| 02:24:33.16 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 02:24:33.17 | Carolyn Ford | Thank you. |
| 02:24:33.22 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 02:24:33.70 | Carolyn Ford | I appreciate it. |
| 02:24:33.75 | Linda Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor? Question? I do have a question. So you've just told Council Member Ford that this horizontal mixed use only applies to two sites. And although you're correct, for this housing element, you have a statement in the paragraph at the top of the page. is very clear that states that horizontal mixed-use incentives are going to be used in the future to allow commercial property owners of designated CN1, CC, and CR zone sites to utilize the ground floor level of buildings for residential use rather than commercial uses otherwise required. So the M group is correct in saying that This housing element specifically only identifies two designated sites but This housing element also opens the door in the future for future councils to make exceptions and to remove commercial businesses at the ground floor, correct? I mean, that's what I asked earlier and you confirmed it. |
| 02:25:42.26 | Jeff Bradley | We would, if I may, Mr. Mayor. we would be perfectly happy to strike the language about the future housing elements. We believe we have our hands full with this housing element and this cycle. We were thinking this was a tool, right? And if the council in the future wanted to use it again, they could, but we don't need to say that in here. And secondly, your next housing element, |
| 02:25:50.92 | Vicki Nichols | I hate believing that. and this is... |
| 02:25:54.68 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 02:25:55.12 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. this |
| 02:26:08.06 | Unknown | Good. |
| 02:26:12.28 | Jeff Bradley | is going to be a lot less of a challenge because Mayor Kelly was correct when he said months and months ago that the numbers were going to be much lower. We have sort of third round draft numbers from ABAG that are public, right? Public number from ABAG. It started out fairly high, but now we're down to 86. 84, 84 units. So it's a manageable number, and we don't think you'll need this tool again because you'll have all this built-up capacity within your existing zoning areas. So we did debate that language, you know, after we wrote it and thought, well, what is this really saying? And I think you're absolutely correct. It doesn't need to be in there. No, it doesn't. Great. Take it out. I'm very happy. |
| 02:26:55.67 | Linda Pfeiffer | I know it doesn't. Great, take it out. Take it out, I'm very happy. Do you have any more questions? I guess so, just a clarification, a question clarification. So the 45 very low income units that are designated for the commercial district assumes only development in the 2015 and 1901. |
| 02:26:59.41 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:26:59.55 | Jeff Bradley | questions. |
| 02:27:18.01 | Karen Warner | No, it also assumes certain vertical mixed use. |
| 02:27:21.87 | Linda Pfeiffer | Oh, right, I'm sorry. You're right, it was 28 for the commercial district capacity. It was 45 for the total arena for that. Okay, thanks. Yeah, I would be very happy if you struck the entire first half |
| 02:27:22.34 | Karen Warner | I'm sorry. You're a little bit. |
| 02:27:34.36 | Linda Pfeiffer | of page 2-18 and took out that whole horizontal mixed use and in fact take out the whole program and instead just say okay So, |
| 02:27:46.04 | Mike Kelly | We're debating what to take in and take out. Okay. It's a question. Sorry. Okay. |
| 02:27:47.94 | Linda Pfeiffer | Okay. Sorry. |
| 02:27:51.44 | Jonathan Leone | I just had a couple of minutes. Thank you. |
| 02:27:53.99 | Mike Kelly | I'd be happy to. Actually, Herbert hasn't. Oh, Herbert. That's right. |
| 02:27:54.00 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 02:27:54.51 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 02:27:54.53 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. And we're going to have a MR. |
| 02:27:57.72 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 02:27:57.73 | Herb Weiner | I'm not. |
| 02:27:59.56 | Jonathan Leone | No, he was. |
| 02:28:01.82 | Herb Weiner | No, I'm smart enough to listen. A couple of questions. The Marinship Specific Plan, that was in 1986, not 88. |
| 02:28:17.34 | Jeff Bradley | I'll yield to you on that. Yep. |
| 02:28:19.57 | Herb Weiner | Okay. The other question is if we submitted this plan and all of a sudden we made some changes in this community. We'll say like we took CN2. And CN2 for your information is between where Tommy's Walk is on Bridgeway. to Coloma Street, Scott's, All right? If we took that and made that a CN1, it would allow us to have some numbers to put up on the top. Is that correct? Yes. |
| 02:28:53.30 | Jonathan Leone | You have to say you're right. That's true. |
| 02:28:53.81 | Herb Weiner | after it, say it right away. That's true. And let me go back to that. The traffic initiative was passed, I believe, in 1985. And here it says, I'm going to eat a glass of sweet. |
| 02:29:07.61 | Unknown | I hope that you see all of them. Thank you. |
| 02:29:08.94 | Herb Weiner | Okay. Oh, boy. Okay. The people of the city of Sausalito hereby find that it is in the best interest of the present and future residents of the city to reduce the increase in automobile traffic generated by the new development in the city's commercial and industrial zones and to preserve the maritime character of those areas by reducing permissible density in commercial and industrial areas. |
| 02:29:12.05 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:29:37.30 | Herb Weiner | You know, first of all, we have... Thank you. We have CN2, we can make it a CN1, and we could probably get the numbers, on additional numbers, I figure, of a minimum of 33 and maybe a maximum of 50. As far as the... |
| 02:29:52.63 | Unknown | Thank you. This is a question. |
| 02:29:54.37 | Mike Kelly | Yeah. |
| 02:29:54.76 | Herb Weiner | Sorry. |
| 02:29:54.79 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 02:29:54.84 | Unknown | So, |
| 02:29:54.90 | Mike Kelly | I should have a baby. |
| 02:29:54.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:29:55.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:29:55.18 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:29:55.69 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 02:29:55.79 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:29:55.98 | Mike Kelly | period I think put the question mark |
| 02:29:59.15 | Herb Weiner | My question is to you, if we put this one in, |
| 02:29:59.35 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 02:30:04.24 | Herb Weiner | And this would be the second round, so that would take it up to 2014. Is that correct? |
| 02:30:12.09 | Jeff Bradley | for the next one. |
| 02:30:12.17 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 02:30:12.40 | Jeff Bradley | This planning period right now goes up to 2014. And then the next one goes 2014 to 2022. |
| 02:30:15.33 | Herb Weiner | Okay. to 21. Sure. Thank you. |
| 02:30:20.58 | Jeff Bradley | Yeah. |
| 02:30:20.70 | Herb Weiner | you |
| 02:30:20.73 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 02:30:20.83 | Herb Weiner | Okay, eight years. If we made some changes down at the north end of town, Could we come back and revise some of them and take some of those formulas out of there, like on Second Street? Could that be removed in lieu of making a change? Yes. We can. |
| 02:30:39.60 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 02:30:41.13 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 02:30:41.17 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:30:41.18 | Herb Weiner | because Okay. Can you answer my question? Thank you. More questions. |
| 02:30:47.80 | Linda Pfeiffer | I have a question about the... I'm sorry, I'm sorry, go ahead, Jonathan. |
| 02:30:52.22 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:30:52.30 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 02:30:52.37 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:30:53.30 | Mike Kelly | Good, good, Linda. |
| 02:30:55.78 | Linda Pfeiffer | On page 2-20, it refers to the working group for ADUs, and it says, scheduled to finalize the recommendations in June. And it lists three things of which, two, I'm very concerned about regarding the relaxed height limits, the ability to, and it looks like reduced or waived parking standards. And I guess my question is, is there, any reason why we have to list anything in this submission? Can't we just say that the working group is currently evaluating ADU incentives and their decision is pending? I'm just concerned if this housing element were to go to HCD, implying that they were going to do relaxed height limits for ADUs and exemptions of ADUs from floor area standards and reducer wave parking that we might wind up locked into that with HCD. |
| 02:31:59.32 | Unknown | All right. |
| 02:32:07.79 | Karen Warner | The state understands that the ADU standards are being developed. They specifically in their letter wanted us to incorporate what the nature of the standards would be. they can evaluate and again it's obviously not finalized so that they can evaluate to see if these standards are going to incentivize ADUs and we can meet the numbers that we're projecting in the element. or whether they look like they're going to constrain 80 is. So by putting something in here that has not been adopted, you're not tied to this. When you do adopt your AAU ordinance, you're required to send it to the state. So at that point, you know, they may comment on it. |
| 02:33:06.09 | Linda Pfeiffer | But didn't you just answer my question affirmatively? When I, I mean, because my question was, aren't we getting kind of locked into this? Because you just said HCD wanted to know what our, our, what our standards for ADU incentives would be. And if we're, I understand what you're saying, technically, that ADU policy will not be enacted until we formally vote on it. If we send in an element in which we have identified those standards per HCD's request, doesn't it kind of preclude and set it up for HCD to assume we're going to go in that direction? And shouldn't perhaps we wait until the ADU policy is actually created before sending this element into HCD? |
| 02:33:51.89 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 02:33:51.91 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 02:33:52.02 | Karen Warner | it wouldn't respond to their concern. Thank you. We've clearly stated in the element that it's in progress, it's working. If we just indicated, none of the preliminary standards, the state would not be, it wouldn't address their concern. So no, it's not locking you in. It's giving a flavor of the sort of incentives that the city is moving towards. |
| 02:34:25.92 | Jonathan Leone | Okay, Jonathan. Yeah, just to clarify on the On the bonuses proposed, do they essentially match the state requirements? There's some language of bonuses and density and other bonuses. At this point, are they essentially just trying to match the state? |
| 02:34:36.91 | Karen Warner | Point of the essential Yeah, the density bonus program is straight out of state law. |
| 02:34:39.64 | Jonathan Leone | I'm definitely. program. Okay. And how many units do you gain with the horizontal mixed use in those two sites? How many units on the ground floor would you gain by... you know, in the two you Bridgeway sites that are the 7-Eleven and |
| 02:35:00.33 | Jeff Bradley | Oh, yeah. |
| 02:35:00.75 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. Is it 11? |
| 02:35:02.59 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 02:35:02.65 | Mike Kelly | 11th on the Bridgeway site. Thank you. Okay, I'm going to close this off and it's time for the public to comment. We've gotten into a minute of detail that's probably boring them to tears. So how many people want to speak on this issue? |
| 02:35:20.97 | Mike Kelly | Okay, I've got some cards here, so I'll start with the cards and we'll go from there. If you can make it brief, it's 10 o'clock. We've still got budgets to do tonight. If you can state your case, we'll get it quickly. Give us a succinct statement and then pass it on to the next person. That would be greatly appreciated. All right, I'm going to start with the oldest, Charlotte Mastrangelo. Thank you. |
| 02:35:50.33 | Carolyn Ford | Charlotte Mastrangelo on 3rd Street. |
| 02:35:50.37 | Charlotte Mastrangelo | Charlotte Mastrong, hello. And I'm here to say the same thing I said before, basically, is that Second Street is totally wrong to have this plan. It's inappropriate. Old Town is already congested. We have absolutely no parking on Second Street. We accommodate, that's three blocks of Second Street. We accommodate all those people on the side streets, or on third, or fourth, and on up to west. |
| 02:36:01.57 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 02:36:08.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:36:08.54 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:36:30.41 | Charlotte Mastrangelo | And so if you look at this area, I can't even imagine how they ever came to the idea that Second Street, our commercial district, would be appropriate. It's just mind-boggling to me. Some of the houses, basically most of them, on Second Street that go down to the bay have no garages. This part of 2nd Street is Old Town. It was developed before we had housing standards. We don't have setbacks. We don't have garages. It wasn't necessary. They didn't even have cars in those days. That's when I was born, of course. I was right there in the same era. You mean in the 50s they didn't have cars? No, geez. Give me a credit. I'm giving you a credit. |
| 02:37:15.70 | Jonathan Leone | You mean in the 50s they didn't have cars? No, jeez. Give me credit. I'm giving you credit. |
| 02:37:23.62 | Charlotte Mastrangelo | Thank you. demolish this little area that we have. Most of the homes are modest little one-story homes. And to bring in a three-story one, which we have brought in, we've got the big office building on the corner of 2nd and Valley. We have another big residential district building on Valley. And then we have another one on Third Street that Michael Warnham built. And |
| 02:37:25.10 | Jonathan Leone | I love children. |
| 02:37:25.68 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:37:25.73 | Unknown | . |
| 02:37:36.43 | Vicki Nichols | in it. |
| 02:37:49.13 | Vicki Nichols | building. |
| 02:37:59.04 | Charlotte Mastrangelo | So it brought up some of the little, we have some of the little low ones, then we have the high ones. but see, other than The other basic issue is the traffic. This is your main artery into Sausalito from the bridge. Years ago they changed the sign and said you have to come in the other end of town because we couldn't get out on the streets. It was so clogged with traffic that that little sign helped immeasurably, but they still are coming down. We deal with all these cars. We deal with all the bicycles, and the bicycles are coming so fast that you think you're going to get killed if you try to cross the street. So it appears that the city's looking to change the general plan and bring in something else into our area. This is not acceptable. There's just no way when you look at it, Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:38:54.66 | Mike Kelly | you All right, let's see. Catherine Booth. |
| 02:39:07.52 | Unknown | for you. Thank you. I'm Catherine Booth. And I came to Sausalito to live permanently. in 1956. and In all this time, I've seen a lot of silliness on the part of our city government. But I'm afraid that the proposed low-density housing on 2nd Street. really takes the case. And I want you to consider, do you really want to trample on the already paid for rights of the people, many people, in Old Town. I've lost my word here. quite many people in the Old Town to retain the neighborhood that they came to and that they cherish and their views that go with it. You take away their views, their property values are going to go down. People come here for views. Don't take away. what they have. legally. and right. Thank you. Thank you. Make your constituents proud. |
| 02:40:11.88 | Mike Kelly | THE FAMILY. Thank you. Mike Montefi. |
| 02:40:21.99 | Mike Monson | I paid $25 for this map, but somebody has to pay |
| 02:40:28.33 | Herb Weiner | Well, it's used, so how much is it now? |
| 02:40:30.69 | Unknown | We're out. |
| 02:40:37.06 | Unknown | Yeah, horrible. |
| 02:40:40.31 | Councilmember Ford | It'll be on time, Commissioner, get there. |
| 02:40:41.75 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:40:41.85 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 02:40:44.50 | Mike Monson | They practically answered some of the question. My name is Mike Monson, I'm at 211-430. Interestingly enough, four of the councils, they live in that area. So you know the problems that exist. I would like to say first that I am in favor of affordable housing in Sausalito. but you pick up the right site for it. The city of Salcido is the biggest property owner in town. and they have properties all over. Unfortunately, it's not big enough for people to see it. but I'd like to show you have next to the fire station. I know you answered some of those on your schedule. You have area right down here, end of Woodward. You have... You have the Martin Luther King. Ariel? And You have the And... area close to a dog park and all that. You have all these areas that you can go ahead and it's called PI, that means public institution. And you can go ahead and design something over there. There is nothing wrong. to bring if you find areas in South end. The problem in South End is very limited. You're in bottleneck. And today's planning and urban renewal encourage neighborhood commercial Why? Because they don't want people to get in their car to go buy a dozen eggs or something like that. If you have a little grocery store, it's an exercise for me to walk down the street and buy it. So if you take that one away from me, That means you're gonna encourage me to be obese, you're gonna encourage me to use more foreign fuel, And all of these are going to hurt not only Salcido, the whole nation. So you have to be sort of concern about every issue that comes in front of you. I see that you have right now. So many areas. It is re-zoning. It's spot zoning, regardless how you look at it. I like the vertical mix use because at least you keep the commercial part of it. and you have to make sure, even if you go to that direction, keep the commercial value in that area. Do not take it away. I'm involved with some project in San Francisco. They're saying that. So please pay attention to that. And you have to, let me just say one more thing. You have 2200 bridgeway, the plant studio. That's a good area. It doesn't affect anybody. And next to 2400 bridgeway. |
| 02:43:40.98 | Mike Kelly | Thank you, Mike. Thank you. Everybody, yeah. All right, Michael Stenberg. |
| 02:43:46.95 | Jonathan Leone | Actually, do you want to? There's some constraints on all those properties. |
| 02:43:50.48 | Mike Kelly | Yeah, well let's answer them later. Every site in town has a constraint. So little guys, huh? |
| 02:43:58.22 | Herb Weiner | So, |
| 02:44:01.38 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 02:44:02.14 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. How much was your cartridge? Thank you. |
| 02:44:06.80 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:44:06.83 | Michael Stenberg | Thank you. you Thank you. My wife paid for it. Michael Stenberg, 314 Valley Street. The latest staff report recommends various scenarios involving residential and commercial properties. There is no inclusion of property owned by the city of Sausalito or other government agencies, as we just heard previously. If low income housing is indeed a community wide responsibility, then why is government not at the table? This void ignores your directive to, quote, explore all other alternatives. The Spencer Fire Station, which could accommodate 28 units, was eliminated from consideration in 2011 because it would require, quote, rezoning. So what? Shown in the first photograph, Opposite the star of the city church is a weed-infested lot which has a City of Sausalito Park sign. The weeds suggest it could be put to better use. I'm told that the huge vacant lot south of Dunphy Park site of the temporary police station is city owned. Is that true? At the park adjacent to the MLK site, as shown in the second photograph, There is a large, flat, open space with access to bridgeway that could accommodate housing without impacting either the dog run or the soccer field. Why not include a strategy of how to deal with the issues related to the use of this limited area? On March 1 of this year, the U.S. Postal Service gave notice that the sale of the Sausalito Post Office had been approved. I find it shocking that the staff report makes no mention of taking advantage of this unique opportunity. In San Francisco, former military properties on Treasure Island and the Presidio are now serving that city's housing needs. Sausalito builds itself as a waterfront community that promotes creativity. May I suggest that you direct your staff to refocus their efforts on creativity and not be intimidated by the molehills. Thank you. |
| 02:46:08.62 | Unknown | Thank you. you |
| 02:46:09.55 | Michael Stenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:46:09.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:46:09.78 | Michael Stenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:46:09.83 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:46:09.92 | Michael Stenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:46:10.84 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:46:15.25 | Mike Kelly | Let me just make a blanket statement about this without getting into individual sites. Every one of the sites you just talked about and the prior speaker talked about were considered by this. Legions of people got in this room, stood up, and screamed at us until we took them off the site. Some of them are disadvantaged. For example, the fire station site at the top It has about five or six antennas on it. which people in town don't want to live up near the antenna, so we stuck them on top of the buildings up there. That site is hardly developed. First of all, the building that's on it may be an historic structure built by Worcester, Bernardi, and Emmons. So it may not be able to be changed. So you'd have to make that particular structure, which probably has about 3,000 square feet in it, if that, and turn it into affordable housing. It's just not possible. And it would have to be rezoned. All the neighbors up in that area said absolutely not. all the neighbors over in the area next to the anchorage. Absolutely not. Butte Street. Absolutely not. The city owns half of the parcel of that was given to it by a couple of warring partners. |
| 02:47:25.19 | Unknown | Thank you. Thanks for staying out, too. |
| 02:47:29.25 | Mike Kelly | But this is all property that would have to be rezoned and redone under our general plan. |
| 02:47:34.73 | Jonathan Leone | Wait, wait, wait, wait, |
| 02:47:34.95 | Mike Kelly | Wait, wait, wait, wait. Wait. I'm just trying to ask you that every site in town has been looked at. Six years ago when I sat in this very room and listened to people who did not want it on the north end of town, they said, you didn't put any down the south end of town. |
| 02:47:45.51 | Jonathan Leone | Yes. |
| 02:47:45.88 | Vicki Nichols | I'm sorry. |
| 02:47:52.53 | Mike Kelly | Okay? This time we've got it spread equally and everybody's taking a certain amount of pain. First of all, though, you have to look at what's actually been done. and almost nothing has been done. to any of these sites. They are currently zoned the way they are zoned under our current general plan and have been that way for a number of years. And no one, has attempted to build anything on any of them. because when they do, You turn out en masse. You tell them they're going to block their views. The planning commission hides under the counter, and that's the end of that. All right, so none of that changes. None of that changes. You have absolute right to come down and complain about every nail that is driven by on 2nd Street. And you will. And we know that. But in the meantime, the state of California requires us to do what we are doing It's, as you can tell, a thankless task. None of us are enjoying it. We sit, I can't tell you how many meetings I and others up here have sat through. with different faces out there saying the same or similar things. And so what we're trying to do here tonight is to find the most un- obtrusive solution to this problem, and we're down to a tiny little thing here, which is two properties. Two properties located not in your part of town. And that's it. And then we can get our certification, we hope. And when we get our certification, we can live to fight another day. And as you just heard, we're going to get what looks like a blessing of a very small number of units for the next round. And we'll be able to approve that. We'll find where it will go. We'll find it somehow, somewhere. The then council will. And we'll do what is right to do. In the meantime, how many of you know, I'm not going to answer this question, but how many of you know how many affordable housing units have been built in this town in the last 10 years? So what? Well, |
| 02:49:50.54 | Shirley Thornton | Thank you. |
| 02:49:51.64 | Mike Kelly | 24, exactly right, 24. Not 366. Not anything close to 366. 24. So anyway, let's continue on. Patricia Hale. |
| 02:50:11.62 | Patricia Hale | Patricia Hale from 299 South Street. I'll go backwards here. Nerves are obviously frayed and it is not the fault of Old Town residents and people in our neighborhood that after, I've heard about six years and seven years, that I'm sorry your nerves are frayed. We haven't been here for six years fraying your nerves. And I don't think that this community should be the victim, for lack of a better word, of frayed nerves or counsel disputes among you or hard feelings among you, which were apparent at the last meeting, we didn't do that. Second, if you've been working on this for six or seven years, and ours is the best site, and we're the best solution, why are we the last? Why didn't we start at the first of the list? Now, I'm the one who stood up here, third, next point, and said, these are laws. The young man from M Group was talking casually about this and that and well, don't worry about it. And Mayor Weiner, or excuse me, Mr. Weiner, Councilman Weiner is saying, don't worry, it isn't gonna happen. |
| 02:51:16.72 | Vicki Nichols | Dang. |
| 02:51:16.94 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:51:19.07 | Patricia Hale | Who I, I'm, trained to say, where is the writing? Vice Mayor Leone said he'd like to offer us some comfort. What comfort do you think we get from watching the mayor and the vice mayor argue about the legal construction of the height requirement if you took Canterbury over six years? How do you feel that, why do you think we should be comforted by the fact that you've been working on this for six years, have been over and over it, as you keep telling us, and yet you gentlemen cannot agree? Vice Mayor Leon said somebody will drive a truck through it, lawyers will drive 5,000 trucks through it. And where is the comfort and where is the writing I can look to? because you, Council people will not be here. in four years when somebody decides to develop. We have no recourse. I believe, I have been trained to believe. Where is it written? It is the law, it is binding, and I don't want to hear, don't worry about it, isn't going to happen, isn't going to happen yet, hasn't happened yet, and so forth. That is of no comfort to people who will be faced with living with it. And I will yield my remaining 39 seconds to Dr. Jan Johnson if she intends to speak. She has been a major leader in this and has invested a huge amount of time And. could I give her my remaining 30 seconds? I beg that as a courtesy. But I'm sorry your nerves are great. And am I comforted? Mr. Leon, thank you for trying, but no, that argument up there said it all. Thank you. |
| 02:52:58.14 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 02:52:58.17 | Patricia Hale | Thank you. |
| 02:52:58.19 | Jonathan Leone | Well, I'm going to comment on that. I think at the end of the day, you know, I've been working with Mike Kelly for seven years in various capacities. So we discuss things. We disagree with things. At the end of the day, you try to solve a problem. So, you know, that... I don't know how you're extrapolating that out, the end of the day, we're trying to come up with a solution and sometimes you have to banter things about to get to the right end goals. |
| 02:53:22.30 | Patricia Hale | I understand, but that's what lawyers are paid to do. For a lot of my own, it's an employment act for lawyers. It's called statutory construction. It's called, These Are Legal Words What do they really mean? And lawyers are paid to argue about that. And we don't want to be here over every nail and everything. |
| 02:53:39.58 | Mike Kelly | Okay, we've got to stop. Okay, thank you very much for your comments. |
| 02:53:45.47 | Patricia Hale | I'm waiting for the buzzer. |
| 02:53:47.70 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 02:53:47.80 | Mike Kelly | Bye. |
| 02:53:47.85 | Jonathan Leone | You yielded your time before. |
| 02:53:49.81 | Mike Kelly | You yielded your time. Jan Johnson, please. |
| 02:54:04.15 | Jan Johnson | I'm Jan Johnson. I'm truly sorry. This is so painful for you all, and I appreciate your consideration. Um, The question first, is it my understanding that the CN1 zone of Second Street and Old Town has now been excluded from the horizontal MUs, |
| 02:54:25.00 | Councilmember Ford | Did you answer that, Jeff? |
| 02:54:27.42 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 02:54:27.44 | Jan Johnson | Thank you. |
| 02:54:27.58 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 02:54:27.73 | Jan Johnson | Thank you. |
| 02:54:27.75 | Councilmember Ford | Yeah. |
| 02:54:27.76 | Jan Johnson | Thank you. |
| 02:54:27.88 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 02:54:27.97 | Jan Johnson | Thank you. There is no rezoning of 2nd Street, Old Town for horizontal multiple use. It's gone. |
| 02:54:35.59 | Councilmember Ford | It's going to be. |
| 02:54:37.36 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 02:54:37.38 | Jan Johnson | Thank you. |
| 02:54:37.52 | Councilmember Ford | All right. |
| 02:54:37.72 | Jan Johnson | Thank you. Correct? Correct. Thank you, God. If that's the case, then I'm sorry I rallied all of you guys out here, because what the staff report said was there was going to be a recommendation that all CN1, CN2, CC, and CR be rezoned for horizontal mixed use and vertical mixed use. So if we're off for the horizontal mixed use, which preserves our commercial district and our ability to walk to surfaces, I praise you. So is that written in stone? |
| 02:55:14.62 | Mike Kelly | If you'd listened to the last council meeting, we took a vote and it passed. |
| 02:55:18.08 | Jan Johnson | I know, but then the staff report came out and said... |
| 02:55:19.43 | Mike Kelly | It doesn't matter what the staff report said because we passed it. |
| 02:55:22.59 | Jan Johnson | So all of Second Street, not just those two sites? |
| 02:55:25.95 | Mike Kelly | Bye. |
| 02:55:26.15 | Jan Johnson | All five of you agree on that? Thank you. Thank you, thank you. |
| 02:55:30.50 | Linda Pfeiffer | I'd like to comment on that, if I may, Mr. Martin. No, there's not time for comment. And so I'm correct. |
| 02:55:32.21 | Councilmember Ford | Bye. |
| 02:55:32.23 | Patricia Hale | Mr. Moore. |
| 02:55:33.17 | Jan Johnson | Okay. |
| 02:55:33.25 | Patricia Hale | I'm sorry. |
| 02:55:33.27 | Jan Johnson | You are correct, Jan. You are correct. I've got two more questions. Can we, if you would be so inclined, could you please then, in writing somewhere, preserve the 32-foot height limit? Because most of us are really nervous about that. |
| 02:55:51.04 | Mike Kelly | It's in place. It's in place. |
| 02:55:53.83 | Jan Johnson | And then the third thing is we have heard that the ADU working group has approved 10% view obstruction by ADUs in order to Encourage them. |
| 02:56:10.21 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:56:10.26 | Jan Johnson | I don't know. |
| 02:56:10.45 | Unknown | I don't know. |
| 02:56:10.67 | Jan Johnson | If that happens, then I think we're all going to be back here. Well, why don't you wait until that happens? I will. Okay. |
| 02:56:10.70 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 02:56:10.73 | Unknown | THE FAMILY IS NOT ABLE TO |
| 02:56:14.43 | Jonathan Leone | Yeah. Well, why don't you wait until that happens? I will. Okay. You should follow it, frankly, because we don't know what we're doing. I am following it. Because it's a separate group, and then we'll bring their stuff here, and then we'll have to sort it out just like we did with the recommendations. You should follow it. So, |
| 02:56:17.82 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 02:56:19.37 | Jan Johnson | I am following. Thank you. |
| 02:56:24.22 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 02:56:24.25 | Jan Johnson | I'm sorry. |
| 02:56:24.32 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 02:56:26.97 | Jan Johnson | So just to recap, vertical mixed use, which is already allowed, will continue. But horizontal mixed use in all of Old Town is off the table. How many more times do you want us to say this? Well, I'm just a little nervous, and I'm getting too old to walk an Old Town leafleting for five and a half hours every time something happens. |
| 02:56:39.08 | Mike Kelly | Well, I'm just a little nervous. for five and a half hours every time something happens. |
| 02:56:47.08 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. So, That's... |
| 02:56:49.06 | Mike Kelly | Yes. |
| 02:56:49.09 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. Yes. Yes. Yes. I want to say something, but he's not letting me say it. |
| 02:56:50.98 | Mike Kelly | Yeah. |
| 02:56:51.00 | Jan Johnson | I love it. |
| 02:56:51.22 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. No, you can talk later. We'll have plenty of time to talk. Yes? Okay. |
| 02:56:54.88 | Linda Pfeiffer | We don't have plenty of time to talk. Okay. So we've got it. For this and the future. And the future. |
| 02:56:56.63 | Mike Kelly | So we've got it covered. |
| 02:56:58.76 | Jan Johnson | Thank you. |
| 02:56:58.79 | Mike Kelly | Yes. I can't predict what somebody else is going to do sometime in the future. Neither can you. But this council and this moment, you are exactly right. |
| 02:57:04.55 | Jan Johnson | Thank you. |
| 02:57:04.58 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:57:04.70 | Jan Johnson | I'll try. |
| 02:57:10.66 | Jan Johnson | Thank you. |
| 02:57:10.69 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. Okay. Elizabeth Hill. |
| 02:57:18.84 | Elizabeth Held | Hi, I'm Elizabeth Held. My husband John and I own 32 Crescent Avenue and I'm here just briefly for myself and also to represent Kerry and Jeff Haddington, who are on third. Um, I'm a little confused still, just what was clarified, but the VMU plan is still in place, correct? For the Old Town, correct? Okay. So, My personal point that I want to put across is that when I was here last time, What really resounded with me was I heard that we're looking for more normal, low-income housing in Sausalito. Sausalito has just never been normal to me. |
| 02:57:56.79 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 02:57:56.91 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:57:58.18 | Elizabeth Held | If we take that away by building something like this in the old town, I think it would be a shame. |
| 02:57:58.73 | Vicki Nichols | Take that away. |
| 02:58:03.39 | Elizabeth Held | Um, So that's my point to put across. And then I'll just read directly from Carrie and Jeff's letter. We have several comments regarding our opposition to the new vertical misuse plan. which designates all commercial buildings along 2nd Street in Old Town CN1 zone as targets for development of large scale high density housing. With a mandate to build at least one new low income residential unit, any development of these sites would have to be large scale or it would not be economically viable. All of the neighborhood's concerns associated with the development of the two Second Street properties now apply to the whole strip. These concerns include impact on or obliteration of bay views, traffic safety concerns, and an already unsafe thoroughfare, aka the funnel. Parking limitations, overcrowding in our neighborhood, sewage capacity, neighborhood character impacts. Old Town should be excluded from this rezoning plan based on these valid concerns. There are other options, live-work sites, allowing conversion of current office to residential, et cetera. Why were these other options left out of the plan? Why is the city still encouraging new large-scale development in the Old Town neighborhood when numerous known constraints exist? Southern Sausalito is known for its views. There are even banners along the street that say South Sausalito where the view is. If the city of Sausalito really cares about our views, then why are they encouraging large-scale high-density development that would undoubtedly impact views of neighboring homes and offices. Whether by design or not, the City is removing preservation of views from their priorities list. During discussions around new development of second units on properties, the City ADU task force voted to allow 10% impacts to primary views. Which view is to be obstructed will be determined by City staff, not the offended property owner. Also, the latest proposed changes to the housing element removed direct references to height restrictions and view impacts. The language regarding view has been watered down. We are asking the City Council to please, one, remove the Old Town CN1 zone from the list of areas included in the VMU that will be promoted for development, and two, acknowledge that views are an extremely important part of South Slita's appeal. |
| 03:00:20.38 | Mike Kelly | We have this letter in our package, so thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the public who would like to address this issue? |
| 03:00:29.61 | Unknown | I would, sir. |
| 03:00:31.69 | Mike Kelly | it. |
| 03:00:31.86 | David Kleiman | Thank you. David Kleiman, 806 Butte. I represent the north end of Sausalito, where we also have spectacular views. So I'm the guy in the room that knows that there's 24 new units of affordable housing, the only new affordable housing that I did support that happens to be directly in my neighborhood, directly on Butte, Lincoln, Olima, right there. We all know where it is. And I just want to say that I am very realistic about what you guys have to do, guys, men and women. And I support what you're doing. But I want to go on record that by saying by including Butte Lincoln on here. You are doing nothing to mitigate the impact of the potential development of that site when 24 units have already been put in exactly across the street from that site. So I appreciate you're not rezoning it. I appreciate what you've done. But I represent the homeowners renters in that area. And if and when that site is ultimately developed, all of our values will go down. Just in the same way, and it was clearly documented when Rotary Housing went in, the home values went down, maybe temporarily, But that happened. And if it goes in, on the Butte-Lincoln site, our home values will go down again. So that is not a mitigated impact. And I'm, again, realistic on what you're going to have to do here, but two sites out of the, was it nine or 11, got left on. And there's a document in your records of the 19 constraints that we felt existed for that site. They're in the record. everybody to just acknowledge it if this goes forward, that it's not a low impact solution. Thank you very much. |
| 03:02:31.75 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. Anyone else? |
| 03:02:34.88 | Janet Potter | Janet Potter, 314 Valley Street. And I had a question about, on page four, incentives to foster the creation of upper story residential VMU units, which again includes our Old Town neighborhood. and specifically to the parking and traffic allowance for commercial and residential users to share a parking space and for tandem and offsite parking leases with a minor use permit. That seems to me like, again, it's in contradictory to maintaining the parking that is required in that neighborhood to minimize the impact, not maximize it. |
| 03:03:15.78 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 03:03:18.70 | Janet Potter | And the other question I had was, again, the variance in the square footage design and interior with reason, within reason from non-affordable housing units. Again, that what is reason? Our whole conversation might be about that tonight, but I do would like some responses or comments to be made on those particular qualifying items. Thank you. |
| 03:03:50.71 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:03:50.85 | Unknown | Yeah, Florida. |
| 03:03:54.44 | Jeff Bradley | The speaker is referring to page four of the city council report. There's a section on incentives to foster the creation of upper story residential within the vertical mixed use. The provision for shared parking between commercial and residential is a fairly standard feature of mixed use development, considering the two uses typically have opposite peak parking times. Currently, the city allows tandem and off-site parking to be approved with a major use permit, a conditional use permit that would go to the Planning Commission. So the minor use permit would allow that at the staff level. |
| 03:03:54.66 | Unknown | the speaker. |
| 03:04:36.55 | Jeff Bradley | In terms of the allowance for affordable units to vary in square footage, design, and interior amenity within reason from non-affordable units, some cities require the affordable units to be totally identical to the market rate units. This would allow for some deviation given the very small sites that we're dealing with here. |
| 03:04:57.57 | Mike Kelly | None of this is any different than exists with or without affordable housing. Is that correct? |
| 03:05:05.57 | Jonathan Leone | last Well, |
| 03:05:07.58 | Mike Kelly | Well, the last part, yeah, which is referencing that it shouldn't look different or be different. But other than that, It's all there now. Sure. Parking is available... |
| 03:05:20.94 | Jeff Bradley | The parking is slightly different between the conditional use permit and the minor use permit. The allowance for square footage for affordable units wouldn't apply if it were a 100% market project, for example. Would it be larger or smaller? |
| 03:05:36.25 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:05:37.50 | Jeff Bradley | smaller? |
| 03:05:37.89 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:05:38.76 | Jonathan Leone | More parking with your car. Currently? |
| 03:05:40.38 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 03:05:40.40 | Mike Kelly | currently more parking would be required okay so it's it's |
| 03:05:46.12 | Jonathan Leone | Can I ask a question of staff? So just to clarify, I think it's carried over from a variety of hearings. But in the CN1 district, which the 2nd Street is part of one of those districts, you can build up, in theory, to the 32-foot height limit. You can cover 70% of the lot coverage, and you can have 50% of the lot as floor area. and you can have no setbacks if you're next to a residential side setbacks, next to a non-residential property, So, Someone could on any of these sites, and there are already buildings of those sites on 2nd Street, build to come in for a project to build to that limit, whether it gets approved, is something else altogether. So I think we need to decouple um, Because you can do that today. You know, whoever owns the a lot with the healthcare thing on it and used to be the legal services thing, they could come in with a project 32 feet high. or they could come in with the state density bonuses today. So it's just then the residents have to come in and say, this is blocking my view, it's not light and air, and all those things. So that's where To me, that is comforting, except if you put in here that you're going to. So I just want to make sure that's the right read of it. I won't go off on the commentary. But is that the right read of it? that you could do these things already today. Correct. It's just saying if you do those things, you have to incorporate an affordable unit in that mix. |
| 03:07:18.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:07:18.61 | Mike Kelly | All right. |
| 03:07:18.80 | Vicki Nichols | Okay. |
| 03:07:19.19 | Mike Kelly | Do you want to speak? |
| 03:07:19.84 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:07:19.93 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 03:07:20.17 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:07:20.18 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:07:22.04 | Vicki Nichols | Tina Green, 106 4th Street. And I just want a clarification because I'm new to this process. What exact sites on 2nd Street are being considered? |
| 03:07:31.66 | Mike Kelly | None. |
| 03:07:32.06 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 03:07:33.19 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:07:33.21 | Jonathan Leone | None. They're off. It's changed from a couple of exact sites to the whole district because people didn't want to, you know, one accommodation was to just say it's these two sites because then those two sites will definitely be built on. |
| 03:07:38.88 | Mike Kelly | It is true. |
| 03:07:39.49 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:07:46.54 | Mary Wagner | Okay. |
| 03:07:46.59 | Jonathan Leone | Rather, it's saying that the whole commercial district there You can convert office to residential on the upper floors, and you can come in for a project with these bonuses and these other things that would let you build affordable housing, but you still have to go through the design review process. Thank you. |
| 03:08:01.63 | Linda Pfeiffer | About 20 minutes ago they decided to remove what was called the horizontal mixed use incentive, which would have applied to all of 2nd Street and downtown and 7-Eleven and four blocks north. And they have removed that. It's right here. No, it's right here, Mike. |
| 03:08:08.63 | Jonathan Leone | Jesus. |
| 03:08:09.10 | Vicki Nichols | to the next one. |
| 03:08:17.12 | Mike Kelly | And they have removed that. It's right here. No, it's right here, Mike. You're misconducting. |
| 03:08:22.79 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:08:22.85 | Mike Kelly | Bye. |
| 03:08:22.87 | Linda Pfeiffer | But he can comment and I can't. |
| 03:08:22.91 | Mike Kelly | So, near me. |
| 03:08:24.91 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:08:24.97 | Mike Kelly | speaking. |
| 03:08:25.44 | Linda Pfeiffer | you |
| 03:08:26.69 | Jonathan Leone | You took a vote in the last meeting. You approved the minutes. |
| 03:08:26.96 | Mike Kelly | Yes. |
| 03:08:27.17 | Councilmember Ford | Yeah, I like to go. |
| 03:08:27.85 | Mike Kelly | He spoke trans. |
| 03:08:29.03 | Councilmember Ford | thing. No. You approve the minutes. |
| 03:08:32.03 | Jonathan Leone | Right. |
| 03:08:32.09 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. Come on, man. Would you like to... |
| 03:08:32.66 | Jonathan Leone | Come on. |
| 03:08:34.97 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:08:35.00 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:08:35.07 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:08:35.17 | Councilmember Ford | comment on what |
| 03:08:35.75 | Jeff Bradley | Bye. |
| 03:08:35.88 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:08:36.03 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 03:08:36.10 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:08:36.24 | Jonathan Leone | That's the reality of it, not that. |
| 03:08:39.90 | Jeff Bradley | Yes, Mr. Mayor, thank you. in regards to the horizontal mixed use. My comment was intended to indicate to strike the language that was talking about the future planning cycle. We still need, in our opinion, we still need those two sites. We still need that strategy overall, but we don't need to talk about the next town. The future. That was the two sites on Bridgeway. |
| 03:08:53.89 | Vicki Nichols | Right. |
| 03:09:02.38 | Vicki Nichols | The future. |
| 03:09:05.70 | Unknown | Two shacks over. Thank you. |
| 03:09:06.53 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:09:06.70 | Mike Kelly | I'm sorry, I'm sorry. |
| 03:09:08.84 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:09:08.98 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 03:09:08.99 | Linda Pfeiffer | . So- |
| 03:09:09.72 | Mike Kelly | That was what was true. |
| 03:09:11.27 | Linda Pfeiffer | A question, just to clarify what you just said. I thought we were going to strike the first half of this page, which describes the horizontal mixed-use incentives for the CN1, CC, and CR zones, which would apply to all of 2nd Street in the future. |
| 03:09:14.58 | Mike Kelly | history. |
| 03:09:20.03 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 03:09:20.05 | Jan Fidlotham | Yes. or they say, |
| 03:09:29.51 | Linda Pfeiffer | in the future. What? |
| 03:09:31.40 | Patricia Hale | No. |
| 03:09:31.84 | Linda Pfeiffer | Let's get off these two sides that you guys are talking about. We get that this housing element focuses on these two sides. |
| 03:09:38.22 | Unknown | That. |
| 03:09:38.44 | Jeff Bradley | What page is it? |
| 03:09:39.35 | Unknown | Question. |
| 03:09:39.67 | Linda Pfeiffer | Bye. |
| 03:09:39.81 | Unknown | Wait, wait, wait, wait. What page are you on? |
| 03:09:40.02 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:09:42.30 | Jeff Bradley | that fun fun page on page 218 |
| 03:09:45.48 | Linda Pfeiffer | 218. |
| 03:09:48.55 | Jeff Bradley | of the draft housing element. |
| 03:09:52.07 | Linda Pfeiffer | I've read this paragraph twice out loud. |
| 03:09:54.33 | Jeff Bradley | My suggestion would be What's essentially the third paragraph would be to strike the last half of that sentence after the semicolon, strike the words, additional sites may be designated HMU in the next planning cycle. |
| 03:10:12.17 | Linda Pfeiffer | Now I'm talking about striking the first paragraph. That's what I discussed earlier and you're mis... No. These people are being misled. No, they're not. If this is not struck from this housing element. |
| 03:10:17.00 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 03:10:17.03 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:10:18.99 | Jeff Bradley | Yeah. |
| 03:10:19.01 | Mike Kelly | If this is not. |
| 03:10:23.56 | Mike Kelly | You're not being misled. |
| 03:10:24.90 | Linda Pfeiffer | Yes. Read the paragraph. It's in black and white. |
| 03:10:26.84 | Mike Kelly | Read the paragraph. Wait, wait, wait, wait. It's in black and white. We're not at the point of doing this language session. Let's just mark the page and let's finish the public comment. Okay? We've got public comment going. Anybody else want to speak on this issue? |
| 03:10:43.69 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:10:43.71 | Linda Pfeiffer | You go for it, Jans. |
| 03:10:43.93 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:10:44.03 | Jonathan Leone | Bye. |
| 03:10:44.07 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 03:10:44.08 | Mike Kelly | Oh. |
| 03:10:46.87 | Jonathan Leone | Actually, the mayor has to recognize it, Linda. Yeah, you're not the mayor. I appreciate the energy, but please go with the rules that we all agree to look by. May I? |
| 03:10:49.65 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:10:55.74 | Jan Johnson | May I? |
| 03:10:56.43 | Jonathan Leone | Yeah. |
| 03:10:56.49 | Mike Kelly | Yeah. Yes. |
| 03:10:56.75 | Jonathan Leone | you |
| 03:10:56.81 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:10:56.99 | Jan Johnson | Hey. On this page 218, I just thought I asked you all, and you confirmed, that all of CN1 and 2nd Street was off the list for horizontal multiple use. It is. The first paragraph says horizontal multiple use will be rezoned to CN1. That's 2nd Street. So if it's not going to happen, you have to strike at least the CN1 portion of that paragraph or what you promised me is no longer true. |
| 03:11:30.49 | Jonathan Leone | No, I think it's a phrasing issue here because the other area in the 7-Eleven is the same labeled CN1. So I think what you need to just clarify, folks, is just that it says designated CN1. So designated CN1 in this case is just those two properties in that district, right? So you need to just rephrase this so it's clearer. Can we specify? |
| 03:11:40.02 | Adam Politzer | that |
| 03:11:40.66 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 03:11:40.70 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:11:50.08 | Mike Kelly | Can we specify? You'll just pause for a minute. Yes, sir. I'm happy to. Think about this for a second, okay? And we'll get a response. |
| 03:11:53.30 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 03:11:53.39 | Unknown | Yes, sir. I'm happy to. |
| 03:11:58.55 | Jeff Bradley | what I would suggest Mr. Mayor is in the first paragraph in the second sentence we say these are voluntary incentives that allow commercial property owners of designated CN1 strike CC and CR designated CN1 zone sites and in parentheses add 1901 and 2015 bridgeway so that's a new text insertion 1901 and 2015 bridgeway to utilize the ground floor level of buildings for residential use rather than the commercial uses otherwise required. And then skipping down to the last paragraph, strike for the current housing element planning period. So it would read the following two sites are designated for horizontal mixed use incentives. Strike, additional sites may be designated HME in the next planning cycle. And then it would simply list the two sites again, just to be perfectly clear. |
| 03:12:54.22 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 03:12:57.16 | Jeff Bradley | We're just talking about those two sites. Do you see that? |
| 03:12:58.24 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:12:59.91 | Jeff Bradley | Do you want to come and look at it? |
| 03:13:00.97 | Councilmember Ford | Bye. |
| 03:13:01.04 | Jan Johnson | I'm looking at it. I would still like a statement say specifically excluding Old Town 2nd Street. |
| 03:13:06.83 | Mike Kelly | That we're not going to do. Okay. You don't have to have it. It's voted on. It's in the record. It's done. |
| 03:13:12.70 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 03:13:12.75 | Jan Johnson | I'm not sure what he's done. |
| 03:13:13.09 | Jonathan Leone | you |
| 03:13:13.63 | Mike Kelly | We're not trying to make the state look at this and say, aha, Jan, I think I hear your point. I'm a little bit. |
| 03:13:18.59 | Jonathan Leone | You get my point? |
| 03:13:20.24 | Jan Johnson | I'm a little paranoid, forgive me. I understand you're paranoid, but you're paranoid. |
| 03:13:22.28 | Mike Kelly | I understand your paranoia, but your paranoia should be now reduced by the factual matter that we have voted this off of the agenda. It's gone. Go listen to the tape. It's a public record. |
| 03:13:32.76 | Jan Johnson | I hear it, but I still see CN1 and 2nd Street is still CN1. |
| 03:13:33.98 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:13:38.22 | Mike Kelly | We just changed it. We just changed it to designate the two properties. |
| 03:13:42.69 | Jan Johnson | Only these two specific sites in CN1 then are |
| 03:13:46.69 | Mike Kelly | That's it. Exactly what it says. |
| 03:13:47.41 | Jan Johnson | Okay. |
| 03:13:48.10 | Jonathan Leone | So, |
| 03:13:48.90 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:13:48.91 | Jonathan Leone | I think that's a good thing. |
| 03:13:49.22 | Mike Kelly | It's okay. |
| 03:13:49.50 | Jonathan Leone | Okay. |
| 03:13:49.91 | Mike Kelly | You can settle your paranoia. We're not going to do it. We're on record. |
| 03:13:58.94 | Jan Johnson | at. Bye. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:14:04.66 | Mike Kelly | They're feet off each other. |
| 03:14:05.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:14:05.86 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:14:05.98 | Jan Johnson | So it's only those two sites in CN1. |
| 03:14:08.37 | Unknown | . |
| 03:14:10.75 | Jan Johnson | Okay. |
| 03:14:11.49 | Herb Weiner | You're on the record. You can relax now, Gantz. If they make the sentence... |
| 03:14:11.51 | Jan Johnson | . Thank you. |
| 03:14:14.80 | Jan Johnson | Thank you. |
| 03:14:14.82 | Mike Kelly | If they make those letters. All right, can anybody else care to speak to the council on this matter? You're welcome. Thank you. Okay, seeing that, I close public comment. |
| 03:14:21.43 | Jonathan Leone | I just want to have a quick question. My question before about the two sites on 7-Eleven and the other site there are Not the 7-Eleven particularly, it's more the homogenous side, the part of the now office building, former apartment building. How many units did you gain just from the glare on floor? Because it's eight units total. The way I read that chart has like the four units for the two, both sides, right? Is that correct? But how many units do you gain in the ground floor if you took out the 7-Eleven? Do you know what I'm saying? So what's the benefit of wiping out the commercial district rather than just having the residential on the upper stories? |
| 03:14:59.98 | Jeff Bradley | I don't have the exact numbers at my fingertips, but by taking out the ground floor, we would come below the six unit threshold, which we had established as sort of the very bare minimum to have a viable site. |
| 03:15:08.41 | Mike Kelly | I love you. |
| 03:15:13.07 | Mike Kelly | All right, so public comment is closed. We're going to get back up here. We'll start with three-minute rounds. Hopefully we can limit them because I think our minds are made up. |
| 03:15:22.98 | Councilmember Ford | . |
| 03:15:23.50 | Mike Kelly | you |
| 03:15:23.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:15:23.57 | Jonathan Leone | Yeah, I mean, I'll start off. I think there's some, you know, it's just any time you do a document, it needs to wordsmith it. And I think there's probably some things that need to be wordsmith in here a little bit, and we just have the example of that. So I would say you're better off |
| 03:15:23.58 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:15:23.63 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:15:23.97 | Councilmember Ford | or have I think? |
| 03:15:37.10 | Jonathan Leone | continuing this to the next meeting so you can refine the language would be my preference. I mean, I've read through it and there are parts I still don't, not totally comfortable with, but rather than debate them ad nauseum here, I'd like to say, That would be my |
| 03:15:53.33 | Mike Kelly | But what I'm concerned about is that |
| 03:15:56.89 | Shirley Thornton | Are we on three minutes now? |
| 03:15:59.27 | Mike Kelly | Well, it's, did you turn it on for three minutes? |
| 03:16:00.62 | Shirley Thornton | Thank you. |
| 03:16:03.00 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. Thank you. Okay, I'll start out. |
| 03:16:04.64 | Mike Kelly | Okay, I'll start now. |
| 03:16:08.03 | Jonathan Leone | Okay. No, I think the thing to realize here is that it seems like because of the way things were phrased before that Old Town is being targeted in some folks' eyes, but if you look at that appendix, which is confusing to read because it confuses me still, it's in a lot of places in terms of the units that are being tucked out. And if you go back to that little scatter map, so I read a little bit of a little bit |
| 03:16:35.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:16:40.01 | Jonathan Leone | And that's what's been our whole goal, I think, in general. It's only been here for two meetings, but at the Planning Commission and at the committee level. So I don't I don't have as much of a worry about that as I did in prior incarnations of this in terms of Second Street being targeted. As far as Mike's map, he's definitely going to get his $25 worth because he took it with him. All those properties have major issues with them. Either somebody else owns half or they're a part. Or in the case of the MLK school, we don't actually own it yet. So, um... You know, there's some, we'll own it in two years. We don't own it now. And housing is prohibited on that site. |
| 03:17:20.41 | Mike Kelly | Pacific Initiative 1128. |
| 03:17:22.08 | Jonathan Leone | Right. So the only thing that I think, and Herb brought it up, the only thing I would throw in here is a potential, and it's a big potential, is amend the traffic initiative to allow Second Story on the Tommy's Walk shopping center there, that whole block, which is commercial, |
| 03:17:36.52 | Unknown | there. Thank you. |
| 03:17:39.66 | Jonathan Leone | Because this doesn't block anybody's views because it's a playing field behind it. But that would require going to the voters, and it's going to be a pain in the neck. jump on that to amend other stuff, which could be problematic. But that it may be something that's about time to tackle anyway in terms of that initiative, and it would spread things out even further, I think, in general. But I would like to see it come back another time just from a language point of view before we send it off to Sacramento. And this isn't the final version, right? They're gonna look at it, they're gonna make comments on it, we'll get it back. We haven't even adopted it yet, so we have a chance to go back through it again. Thank you. |
| 03:18:21.29 | Carolyn Ford | Mr. Mayor. I would agree with continuing it to the next meeting. I would like to see the Planning Commission take one final look at this just to cover planning issues that we as council members are not as up to date on as they are. And just make sure that they're on board with it. And put it, rush it through if you want, but I would feel a lot more comfortable if They did. One more review. knowing full well what we are trying to do here tonight. And I've only been looking at this for three years, so my nerves aren't frayed yet. But I do see one thing, one change, that we have made tonight that makes everything good, in my opinion, and that is removing the horizontal incentives and making sure that that's not in there, that we're blessing that. I don't want, as part of this council, to be blessing that, because it changes the neighborhoods and puts people in their cars. It's just the wrong thing to do. We don't want, Sausalito should not become a bedroom community. And in regard to having residential on the first floor in any of our business districts, that affects the vitality of our businesses in those districts because we're losing some of the businesses so fewer people come to that particular district and shop so for all for those reasons that's just the wrong approach um i fully support the vertical limit for the top floors um to be residential in fact we've got a lot of office space available right now in town, so converting office spaces to residential is a good thing. And I do think we need... available right now in town, so converting office spaces to residential is a good thing. And I do think we need to get this approved and then really push back to get our local control back. What the state is doing, what ABAC does, is just not right. We need to be able to control our planning for this city. So, um... Basically, That's it. Thank you. |
| 03:21:12.12 | Unknown | President. |
| 03:21:13.18 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I was also happy to see the change to the horizontal mixed-use incentives. I personally would like to see, however, that I can't say I support the HMU incentive in itself. I also have concerns with regards to the vertical mixed-use incentives. And when I look at the, with regards to views and the relaxed parking, I'm concerned about sending this onward with these ADU standards with relaxed height limits and mentioning relaxed parking requirements because I do think that HCD is asking us for standards and will be basing their opinion on the skeleton kind of outline we provide. And I don't see what the rush is in terms of why can't we just get these ADU regulations clarified and then send what truly will be what this council agrees with and allow residents to weigh in on that. I agree that the Planning Commission needs to review this. The thought of making these types of revisions and not having the Planning Commission weigh in with their background and expertise doesn't make sense to me. And I look at, you know, what we discussed today and what the residents expressed, and then I look at Appendix G and I see things like under 217 Second Street. It still says language where it says under existing zoning additional buildings up to three stories could be built adjoining the current building, etc. I mean, you look at the language and I guess I just need to reconcile what all of this Appendix G has with regards to statements regarding building up. along 2nd Street for certain parcels versus... But using that within the housing element to count for units, I think, raises the bar in terms of setting an expectation by the state that we will provide incentives for that to be done. The other thing I don't understand is the RENA is 165. This housing element targets 311. We're 276% over what Sacramento requires for moderate income. We're 180% over what the state requires for low-income units. If we are so far over, why can't we scale back and perhaps get rid of the vertical mixed-use incentives and or the horizontal mixed-use incentives for these two sites that are mentioned? So those are my concerns, and I support continuing this, but most of all, I support sending it to the Planning Commission for review. |
| 03:24:20.71 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 03:24:24.24 | Herb Weiner | I live in Old Town. And I totally agree that we shouldn't be down there. We shouldn't be on any of the residents along even except the space by 7-Eleven. once again. What happens in 2014? When the next round starts, where are they going to go? What parcels are they going to pick? And in 2022, What parcels are they going to pick? We got a small town. land isn't coming out of the water. We're limited. We have two parcels down at the north end of town, and they have the least impact of anybody's view. That's the CN2 property that I mentioned. and marineship. Let's go down to the marinship. Let's look at it. Let's take the 12 or 13 parcels that are in there that are historic and preserve them. And let's. Let's use that whether we use small cottage industries that allow them, like an artist, to have a loft or right opposite the Marin storage area, right along Bridgeway. have some housing there. But don't keep on every round. When I'm not here, You know? in two years, they're going to come back in 14 and say, hey folks, We need only 80 units. But where are they? same locations. Don't stick our heads in the sand. We have an opportunity to vote on a traffic initiative and put put at rest our housing element maybe for the next 30 years if we act on it. Thank you. |
| 03:26:11.03 | Unknown | Thank you. you |
| 03:26:12.71 | Mike Kelly | No, I want to talk. As one who's worked on this for a long, long time, |
| 03:26:22.30 | Mike Kelly | This document is the least impactful it could almost possibly be. to the entire city of Sassolico. And We have views protected. Nothing changes. In design review, nothing changes. We have horizontal limitations, 36 feet. Nothing changes. We took existing sites that are ready to build or build a bull. in the plant and massage them to work around them And to Glenda's credit and others, ADUs got included in ways that we never imagined they would. It's the same thing with liveaboards in ways that we never thought they would. So there is a lot to be said for the complexity of this project. No one else has anywhere near the kind of liveaboard program that Sausalito is about to, I think, about to get from the state of California. So with the generous use of ADUs, deliver boards, we've got a plan that I think we can possibly get through and get this millstone from around our neck. And could live to fight another day, with our next plan. which is going to be greatly reduced over this one. This one's so big because we didn't do the first one the first time. So we got piled on. We got two. and we got no help from anybody because they don't basically give you a lot of slack if you don't do what you're supposed to do the first time around. So we started from behind the eight ball. Um, you know, Certain people in this council want to withdraw from a bank. uh, and want to stick our nose in the air and say, we're not going to listen to you guys. We could do it. Somebody else, Cora Madera is doing it. But what does that do? It takes you off the table. And now they've really got you because they can give you whatever they want to give you. We started with, I don't know how many, 200 or 300 units in the next round. We've already negotiated that down into the 80s. because we can meet with ABAC. So quitting ABAG is no way. solution. If you really want to make some change in the housing and you think you have a case, The state legislature is the place to do that, not Sausalito. Um, And then there's an interpretation of the numbers. And as you can see, the language in here is complex. written and helped by the masters here who have done a fantastic job of making this document work for the state and work for us. The language is great. The numbers can be interpreted in a hundred different ways, but the numbers are not wrong. What we have down there is what we have to do. And there is an interpretation to defeat this. There are certain people in town who would like to have this just go away and then take our chances. in a sort of libertarian way with whatever the state might do to us. So I'm not of that persuasion. So I would like to make a motion that we approve this tonight because taking this back to the Planning Commission will not help. Jonathan and I have as much experience almost as the entire Planning Commission does in planning matters, if not more. And so I would like to make a motion that we make the changes that were suggested tonight. If anybody, Jonathan, you, Linda, anybody else wants to work with the staff to see if there's some language tweaking, We do it within the next week. and we get this product polished and shipped off to the state. More hearings won't help. We'll be right back in the same thing with the same arguments and the same issues. |
| 03:29:54.96 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 03:29:55.95 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:29:56.14 | Jonathan Leone | I hear you, but I don't want to go to the Planning Commission. I don't think that step's necessary. But I think that if we wordsmith it, then everybody has to see what that document is before they vote on it. |
| 03:29:56.48 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:30:00.69 | Mike Kelly | But I think |
| 03:30:07.56 | Mike Kelly | and send it out. This wordsmithing is basically tweaking little phrases. |
| 03:30:12.91 | Jonathan Leone | Right, it's trying to, if there's any vagaries like we, you know... |
| 03:30:16.15 | Mike Kelly | But the document itself is intact as far as I'm concerned. And coming back next week, we're going to do the same thing. plow through the same arguments, it'll be two hours for nothing. |
| 03:30:25.92 | Jonathan Leone | That may be the case, but you'll at least have here's what the final version is. And everyone's had a chance. I would encourage Linda and Carolyn and you guys too to submit your comments before the meeting. |
| 03:30:30.77 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:30:30.78 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:30:30.87 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:30:30.97 | Councilmember Ford | Right? |
| 03:30:31.04 | Mike Kelly | everyone's having a |
| 03:30:31.37 | Councilmember Ford | I would encourage Linton |
| 03:30:32.67 | Mike Kelly | Harold. |
| 03:30:33.21 | Councilmember Ford | that you guys |
| 03:30:33.92 | Mike Kelly | Yeah. |
| 03:30:33.94 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:30:34.04 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:30:34.06 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:30:34.09 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 03:30:35.71 | Mike Kelly | comments before the meeting. It won't be final. It'll be the same document. Well, I mean, it is what it is. |
| 03:30:39.47 | Jonathan Leone | Well, I mean, it is what it is, and you'll have a chance to vote on it and see where the dominoes fall as far as that goes. Do you want to say something? |
| 03:30:50.31 | Jeff Bradley | Mr. Mayor, thank you, if I may. Let's just say we sent this off. If council authorized sending this off to HCD, we got their comments back, or hopefully no comments. And then we've anticipated two meetings with the Planning Commission and two meetings with the council with just the adoption process. During that adoption process, we can continue to refine the language as long as we're in substantial compliance with what HCD saw and commented on or approved and conditionally approved because they still – the final step of this process is you send them your adopted element. And they look at it and say, yeah, this is what we, this is in substantial compliance to what we this is in substantial compliance with what we approved. So we still have four more potentially two to at least two up to four based on our work plan where we can make those types of adjustments in a regular open public way that would I think satisfy what the council is looking for. |
| 03:31:30.79 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:31:30.98 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 03:31:50.89 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:31:51.02 | Mike Kelly | where we can get it up there and get it back here. So it's not going to change it. And tweak it. We can put the tweaks we put in tonight, and then we can move it back here again. Like he says, it's not going to get approved by them until after we go through process, approve it, and put it back to them and say, this is our approved document. |
| 03:32:09.53 | Carolyn Ford | But then if we change something, excuse me, we'd have to send it back to them. We do. Whereas if they accept our final version, we're done. |
| 03:32:22.38 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. But they're not going to accept this federal version. |
| 03:32:24.92 | Linda Pfeiffer | Mr. May. My comment, Mr. Mayor, is that it would be very hard, I think, to change anything once HCD has weighed in on what we've sent. And I'm entitled to my comment. And I don't see what the rush is. This was just released 5 o'clock on Friday. People had barely enough time, including just two days over the weekend, to review it. I don't see what the rush is. |
| 03:32:33.94 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:32:34.02 | Vicki Nichols | And has said that... entitled to... |
| 03:32:51.64 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 03:32:51.84 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:32:51.86 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 03:32:51.89 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:32:52.03 | Jonathan Leone | been going. I think it is. |
| 03:32:55.47 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:32:55.54 | Jonathan Leone | I hear you and I hear your points too. They're very valid. |
| 03:32:56.04 | Unknown | I hear you. |
| 03:32:57.56 | Councilmember Ford | your points too. |
| 03:33:01.90 | Jonathan Leone | But I don't think two weeks is going to set us back too far. I don't know what the usual time frame for their review is. |
| 03:33:08.31 | Jeff Bradley | Our concern, quite frankly, is every week that we delay, our planning period is quickly collapsing. We're running out of time that we say we're going to do all these implementation measures. So we have until March 2014, and then that's the end. So to the extent we can say we have 18 months to do a lot of these things, it makes it a more more solid effort in terms of having a work plan where you can actually implement a lot of these zoning text amendments. |
| 03:33:42.25 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 03:33:42.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:33:42.30 | Adam Politzer | Mr. Mayor, if I can just add one more comment. |
| 03:33:43.88 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:33:49.11 | Adam Politzer | We're coming on to 10 to 11 and we still have our two-year budget to review. This is the first of two hearings assuming that we don't have any complexities. We obviously did not put a lot of other items on tonight's agenda and we moved those items to the 26th. So I support the mayor's comment in what is coming from the M group. that there will be other opportunities if we're talking about tweaking, if we're talking changes. than Yeah, we might as well continue to the 26th. If you're just talking about tweaking the language, then I think that there's an opportunity to do that. But we have, you know, at least, probably another two hours to go tonight. And I'm going to recommend that we have to go through this because our budget needs to be approved on the 26th. And we need to set a special meeting |
| 03:34:41.44 | Jonathan Leone | We could set a special meeting next week to just deal with this so it doesn't overcrowd |
| 03:34:49.19 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. But for- |
| 03:34:50.10 | Carolyn Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:34:50.24 | Councilmember Ford | Deal with the budget. |
| 03:34:51.62 | Carolyn Ford | at 11 o'clock at night to be reviewing the budget and discussing it for the first time |
| 03:34:51.65 | Councilmember Ford | at 11 o'clock at night to be reviewing the budget and discussing it in the... |
| 03:34:56.55 | Jonathan Leone | Yeah. |
| 03:34:56.67 | Councilmember Ford | I agree. |
| 03:34:56.97 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 03:34:57.04 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:34:57.29 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:34:59.43 | Linda Pfeiffer | I agree. I think a special meeting next week makes a lot of sense. |
| 03:35:03.45 | Jonathan Leone | No, I wouldn't push the budget off until next week. I'm just trying to wrap this up. |
| 03:35:07.04 | Mike Kelly | you |
| 03:35:07.35 | Jonathan Leone | Well, actually, |
| 03:35:07.36 | Linda Pfeiffer | Actually, I think a planning commission review makes more sense. |
| 03:35:08.04 | Mike Kelly | The Planning Commission review makes more sense. Delay, delay, delay, fight, delay, argue, delay. |
| 03:35:15.83 | Herb Weiner | If you see some value in it, I really... I wish I saw that. We have them saying that they're talking about tweaking. |
| 03:35:15.85 | Mike Kelly | One of three years. I really, you know. |
| 03:35:25.45 | Herb Weiner | I mean, tweaking to me sounds like changing, adjusting some words, not a whole sentence, not a whole paragraph, not a whole page. |
| 03:35:27.46 | Mike Kelly | It's changed. |
| 03:35:36.34 | Herb Weiner | But it |
| 03:35:36.39 | Carolyn Ford | But if you've been working on this for six or seven years, I mean, what is another week or two? We're so close to this, we're going to do it. |
| 03:35:46.09 | Mike Kelly | to this, we're going to do it. say that another week or two is getting closer and closer to the jeopardy of not having it approved. I don't care. So I mean. |
| 03:35:55.54 | Herb Weiner | I want to do it. It doesn't matter to me. These are what I think. |
| 03:35:59.12 | Mike Kelly | What I do. So these are where it belongs, which is in the hands of the consultants in the state, and get done with it. And there's nothing in that document that's going to cause us any grief. |
| 03:36:04.13 | Shirley Thornton | Thank you. |
| 03:36:04.15 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 03:36:11.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:36:11.59 | Mike Kelly | Nothing. |
| 03:36:12.15 | Unknown | you |
| 03:36:13.38 | Linda Pfeiffer | In my opinion, two weeks is not going to make a big difference. And it will make a huge difference for residents. |
| 03:36:16.65 | Unknown | And it will make a huge difference. to residents. The residents are only concerned about it is in my backyard. |
| 03:36:23.39 | Linda Pfeiffer | No, residents care about the character of Sausalito. |
| 03:36:23.42 | Unknown | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 03:36:27.00 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:36:27.01 | Shirley Thornton | Yes, they do. |
| 03:36:27.11 | Unknown | Yes, they do. Okay. |
| 03:36:29.04 | Shirley Thornton | I'm going to push around the coin. |
| 03:36:31.76 | Linda Pfeiffer | And like I said, I look at the Appendix G, and I just don't see a line. |
| 03:36:32.74 | Shirley Thornton | at the appendix G and I just have the alignment. |
| 03:36:41.97 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:36:44.02 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:36:44.08 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:36:44.19 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. So we'll set them up without any renewed help. Who? |
| 03:36:49.36 | Jonathan Leone | How about this idea then? All right. So if people are, if I think what you're saying, I forget it. Jeff. Jeff, is that if you take up too much of your implementation time, they'll just say, we can't approve this because you don't have time to implement it. Is that what you're sort of saying? |
| 03:36:58.00 | Mike Kelly | Jeff. |
| 03:37:07.58 | Jeff Bradley | Yeah, you have to remember this document was considered late after July of 2009. Right. So now we're coming up on the three-year mark, and we're asking the HCD to approve it with less than two years left, where we can actually implement all the policies and programs within it. |
| 03:37:10.43 | Jonathan Leone | Right. Right. |
| 03:37:16.66 | Jonathan Leone | Right. Thank you. |
| 03:37:21.49 | Jonathan Leone | Right. OK. So how about this as a concept? So people can submit their comments. to, you know, and if there are major changes, that doesn't involve tweaking. If it's, hey, this language appears to reference something that's not there, then that can be tweaked at a subcommittee level or at working with staff or whatever. And then you can send it on in a shorter period of time. |
| 03:37:46.53 | Mike Kelly | What should |
| 03:37:47.17 | Jonathan Leone | for sure. Thank you. |
| 03:37:48.17 | Mary Wagner | Well, we can't get comments from more than two of you. |
| 03:37:48.27 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:37:51.20 | Mary Wagner | Right. |
| 03:37:51.41 | Mike Kelly | All right. |
| 03:37:51.42 | Mary Wagner | Because it would be giving directions to staff outside the media. |
| 03:37:52.28 | Mike Kelly | Because it would be giving directions to staff outside the media. Thank you. |
| 03:37:56.40 | Mary Wagner | You can't take individual council comments and incorporate them. |
| 03:37:57.51 | Carolyn Ford | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:37:57.58 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:37:57.63 | Carolyn Ford | INDIVIDUALS. |
| 03:37:58.06 | Unknown | Council from it. |
| 03:37:59.30 | Carolyn Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:37:59.32 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:37:59.34 | Carolyn Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:37:59.35 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 03:37:59.62 | Carolyn Ford | You're right. Well, why can't we just meet quickly? |
| 03:38:00.72 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 03:38:01.46 | Mary Wagner | Well, Thank you. |
| 03:38:02.12 | Unknown | Why can't you? |
| 03:38:02.68 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:38:03.12 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:38:03.25 | Mary Wagner | I'm sorry. |
| 03:38:03.37 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:38:07.50 | Carolyn Ford | I do think we need to, you know, we haven't had any time to look. There have been major changes to this, Mike. Do not tell me that. There have been major changes to this document. We have considered. |
| 03:38:12.40 | Unknown | Thank you, Pat. |
| 03:38:20.74 | Mike Kelly | Your document lay in your mailbox all week long. You just picked it up tonight. Thank you. |
| 03:38:26.39 | Unknown | Wow. |
| 03:38:26.73 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:38:26.83 | Unknown | Oh! |
| 03:38:27.97 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:38:28.21 | Unknown | I had a document at home. That was... |
| 03:38:28.24 | Mike Kelly | Yeah. I have. |
| 03:38:30.34 | Carolyn Ford | I had a document at home. That was the second document. So please. I'm sorry. I really don't like these personal attacks. So where was I? |
| 03:38:44.92 | Jonathan Leone | Okay, so both. |
| 03:38:51.26 | Linda Pfeiffer | Referring to the timeframe of the review, I think. How about this? Let her finish. |
| 03:38:51.48 | Carolyn Ford | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:38:51.51 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 03:38:52.09 | Carolyn Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:38:53.15 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. How about this? Let me submit her comments. I'll submit my comments, and then the consultants reconcile the comments. the nature of what is major changes versus just tweaking language to get the intent. You've got to give it to them by the end of the week. |
| 03:39:07.66 | Unknown | You gotta give it to a guy. because... What are we doing? Then it kicks in. |
| 03:39:14.25 | Jonathan Leone | Review it and see that if it's a change of policy or intent, then don't do it. If it needs clarity or it's a reference change or whatever, then that's adopted as it suits the purpose. You okay with that, Mary? Okay. That's good. |
| 03:39:23.00 | Unknown | REFERENCE. |
| 03:39:23.32 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 03:39:29.69 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:39:29.70 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:39:29.74 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:39:29.80 | Unknown | Okay with that, Mayor. |
| 03:39:30.46 | Mary Wagner | Okay. |
| 03:39:30.99 | Councilmember Ford | you |
| 03:39:31.76 | Carolyn Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:39:31.81 | Mary Wagner | That's good. It's fine from a you're not violating the Brown Act. If Council Member Pfeiffer and Vice Mayor Leon want to send suggested revisions to staff by the end of the week, then you're leaving it in staff's hands to determine if they're substantial. |
| 03:39:35.68 | Jonathan Leone | Yeah. Yeah. |
| 03:39:45.51 | Jonathan Leone | That's fine because we'll have another go at it when it comes back. |
| 03:39:48.03 | Mary Wagner | when it comes back. |
| 03:39:48.97 | Mike Kelly | back I mean yeah but it's not coming back to before it goes to ACD. |
| 03:39:53.83 | Jonathan Leone | So mine are not going to be changing policy, like eliminating districts, whatever. It's going to be, okay, well, is this clear referencing that? |
| 03:40:04.48 | Jeremy | So I, the. |
| 03:40:05.83 | Jonathan Leone | You gotta send me this Word document so you can actually |
| 03:40:08.16 | Jeremy | with. |
| 03:40:08.36 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:40:08.40 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 03:40:08.43 | Mike Kelly | listen. |
| 03:40:08.53 | Jeremy | Thank you. Thank you. So I want to, the clarification, the direction staff is hearing here is if it's a change in policy, it does not get done. However, if it's a clarification... |
| 03:40:08.97 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 03:40:08.99 | Mike Kelly | So, |
| 03:40:09.21 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 03:40:22.28 | Jeremy | No, because she was... |
| 03:40:22.35 | Mike Kelly | No, because she will submit a change in policy. I feel like. I want to hear. |
| 03:40:24.80 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:40:24.85 | Jeremy | Bye. |
| 03:40:24.97 | Councilmember Ford | Yeah. |
| 03:40:25.10 | Linda Pfeiffer | I'm sorry. |
| 03:40:25.25 | Councilmember Ford | I feel well. |
| 03:40:25.96 | Jeremy | I want it. |
| 03:40:26.91 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:40:26.93 | Jeremy | Thank you. |
| 03:40:26.98 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:40:27.01 | Jeremy | Thank you. We're going to be right back. |
| 03:40:27.28 | Mike Kelly | I'm sorry. Thank you. |
| 03:40:27.91 | Linda Pfeiffer | I will. I don't like the VMU or the HMU. She's going to completely disagree with it. And I disagree with what they've said about the ADUs with relaxed height restrictions. |
| 03:40:28.41 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. I don't... |
| 03:40:29.54 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:40:30.72 | Mike Kelly | Yeah. |
| 03:40:31.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:40:31.58 | Carolyn Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:40:31.63 | Unknown | I'm completely. |
| 03:40:32.36 | Carolyn Ford | Oh. |
| 03:40:36.53 | Carolyn Ford | the relaxed height restrictions. It needs to go back to plan. It does. |
| 03:40:41.22 | Linda Pfeiffer | It does. I mean, I'd be happy to weigh in and document my comments, but I'm voting against moving forward with sending this to HCD. |
| 03:40:42.52 | Unknown | Question. Thank you. |
| 03:40:42.97 | Shirley Thornton | Thank you. |
| 03:40:48.76 | Carolyn Ford | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:40:49.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:40:49.59 | Carolyn Ford | forward. Thank you. |
| 03:40:53.27 | Unknown | you. |
| 03:40:53.44 | Carolyn Ford | but when is the planning commission's next meeting tomorrow night so they can't look at this tomorrow night |
| 03:40:57.45 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:41:01.27 | Jeremy | Thank you. Thank you. No, no. |
| 03:41:02.50 | Carolyn Ford | They would need a special meeting. |
| 03:41:02.55 | Jeremy | They would need a special meeting. Correct. |
| 03:41:08.54 | Carolyn Ford | Thank you. I would really recommend that so that we have... their input because major changes have been made major changes have been made to this document and yet we as a council don't have planning's input. If we could get them to have a special meeting and get it back to us, then I would be... then that would be good. |
| 03:41:38.05 | Unknown | Delay, delay, delay, and delay. |
| 03:41:41.16 | Linda Pfeiffer | It's not a delay if it's a special meeting. It's expedited, Mr. Mayor. |
| 03:41:41.48 | Carolyn Ford | What a direct. |
| 03:41:41.93 | Unknown | Nice. |
| 03:41:46.52 | Unknown | I get it. |
| 03:41:50.31 | Linda Pfeiffer | This is a huge change, Mr. Mayor, to our general plan. And these changes... |
| 03:41:50.34 | Unknown | This is... |
| 03:41:50.76 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:41:50.78 | Unknown | I |
| 03:41:51.52 | Councilmember Ford | Bye. |
| 03:41:55.43 | Unknown | This change is just... Excuse me, Mr. Mayor, this is just my opinion. |
| 03:41:57.04 | Linda Pfeiffer | She's good. Excuse me, Mr. Mayor, this is just my opinion. There's no reason why we cannot just ask the Planning Commission for a special meeting. It would also allow residents to attend and become more aware of what is going on. |
| 03:42:01.71 | Unknown | There's no reason why we can't |
| 03:42:04.11 | Unknown | you |
| 03:42:10.42 | Mike Kelly | and become more aware of what is going on. No, no, no. |
| 03:42:13.12 | Carolyn Ford | No. |
| 03:42:13.36 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:42:13.37 | Carolyn Ford | Thank you. No, they won't. No, no, no. This is in there. |
| 03:42:16.99 | Mike Kelly | MS. Mr. Mayor, Mr. President. |
| 03:42:17.05 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:42:17.10 | Carolyn Ford | THE END OF |
| 03:42:17.15 | Mary Wagner | DEFINITELY. MS. MR. MAYOR, CAN I JUST MAKE ONE QUICK POINT AND THEN STAFF CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ONLY CHANGE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS NOT REVIEWED IS THE VERTICAL MIX USE. THE HMU, WHICH USED TO BE THE MUO, IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME, EXCEPT IT'S LIMITED TO THOSE TWO SITES. SO IT'S THE VERTICAL MIX USE, WHICH ISN'T A CHANGE IN ZONING. |
| 03:42:18.33 | Carolyn Ford | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:42:42.15 | Mary Wagner | It's the the allowable development for that parcel as it is today. So I am not clear how much input the Planning Commission would have on that one piece that would change what the council direction has been. So I wanted to put that in your, I'm sure we could debate that for the next hour and we could be here until 3 talking about the budget. But I wanted to make sure that I'm correct in my understanding that the only piece that hasn't gone to the Planning Commission is the VMU. |
| 03:42:52.96 | Vicki Nichols | Peace, though. Yeah. I wanted to put that. |
| 03:43:08.13 | Linda Pfeiffer | The VMU is very controversial. And the planning commissioner's backgrounds, I think, would be very valuable to weigh in on that. |
| 03:43:16.27 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. Well, particularly the part of the |
| 03:43:18.65 | Linda Pfeiffer | I mean, relaxed parking standards, et cetera. |
| 03:43:21.04 | Herb Weiner | Listen, folks, let's move this along. You know, I'm dealing with Two people here that put Out of 1 to 57, 57 being the least to look at, I've got two council, Council Member Pfeiffer and Council Member Ford, that put that down on there. There is 56 and 57 on the list. I put it on one. For what? Okay? For what? And what I'm just saying to you is all of these are just delay tactics and not moving ahead. All right? And I'll tell you what. It's the public's chance now to really weigh in on being able to change that traffic initiative and go down to the marine ship. You've got two council people here that would never, never even enter it. Linda Pfeiffer, who I had on there, who was the chairperson of the housing element. Point of order, Mr. Mayor. Excuse me, in 2009, in 2009, she wouldn't even enter the thought of the marine ship or the CN2. |
| 03:43:43.92 | Unknown | What? For what? Okay. what I'm just saying. |
| 03:43:47.98 | Unknown | to you was |
| 03:43:48.78 | Unknown | you |
| 03:44:06.60 | Unknown | People hear that we've never |
| 03:44:14.59 | Shirley Thornton | Point of order, Mr. Meade. |
| 03:44:25.39 | Carolyn Ford | I don't know why you're trying to speak for us, Herb. Why don't you just ask us what we think? |
| 03:44:29.30 | Linda Pfeiffer | Why don't you just ask us what we think? Councilman McCoy, I'd like to respond if I may. He mentioned me. Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to respond to Councilmember Weiner. When I was chair of the housing element, I led the survey of live boards, and I led a survey for second units because I believed in minimal impact. we were able to show that we had hundreds of ADUs, second units, and liveaboard opportunities that would substantially address our arena. I am very proud of the work that I did with the team on that committee, and the fruits of our labor are shown in this housing element. I stand by my word, and I'm very, very proud of that and the team I worked with. |
| 03:45:05.99 | Jan Fidlotham | Thank you. |
| 03:45:06.02 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:45:06.29 | Jan Fidlotham | Thank you. |
| 03:45:06.31 | Jonathan Leone | I stand by my window and I |
| 03:45:09.09 | Jan Johnson | And. |
| 03:45:11.07 | Jonathan Leone | and the team might work forever. We're in the guest block. You guys got to step up to the time where somebody has to go. |
| 03:45:13.24 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:45:13.26 | Councilmember Ford | Yes. |
| 03:45:16.62 | Linda Pfeiffer | Excuse me, Mr. Mayor, but I was personally attacked and I needed to |
| 03:45:20.82 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 03:45:20.84 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 03:45:20.87 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:45:21.55 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 03:45:21.61 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:45:21.67 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 03:45:22.24 | Herb Weiner | And that's why, with that thinking, that membership will sit for another 27 years. |
| 03:45:27.77 | Shirley Thornton | you |
| 03:45:27.94 | Unknown | Thank you. Okay. |
| 03:45:28.38 | Shirley Thornton | you |
| 03:45:28.68 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:45:29.04 | Herb Weiner | The residents will beside that. |
| 03:45:29.06 | Carolyn Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:45:29.11 | Unknown | The residents hold beside that. |
| 03:45:31.05 | Shirley Thornton | I'm not. |
| 03:45:31.49 | Shirley Thornton | Thank you. |
| 03:45:31.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:45:31.57 | Shirley Thornton | I, I, yeah. Sorry, I'll, I'll. |
| 03:45:34.69 | Jonathan Leone | you |
| 03:45:34.94 | Shirley Thornton | Thank you. |
| 03:45:34.96 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. You're going to get it. I think you just let it. Just do the same. What I just proposed, I think is fine. It's just not going to go. |
| 03:45:36.33 | Shirley Thornton | Thank you. |
| 03:45:36.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:45:36.57 | Shirley Thornton | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:45:36.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:45:36.97 | Shirley Thornton | Thank you. |
| 03:45:41.21 | Jonathan Leone | No, no, no, that you just submit the comments, and if there are comments out of left field, they don't go. |
| 03:45:45.46 | Mike Kelly | I don't feel comfortable turning it over to somebody who's going to But you can trust these guys. |
| 03:45:49.20 | Jonathan Leone | But you can trust these guys to know when the |
| 03:45:51.62 | Mike Kelly | whether they then have to make the decision, say the council. That's not good. |
| 03:45:55.04 | Jonathan Leone | That's not good. |
| 03:45:58.03 | Mike Kelly | Look, this document is ready to go to HCD. The comments that were made tonight, they picked up on it. They made the changes, the language that both satisfied and partially satisfied and they made other changes to the document. If there's other changes we need to make, bring them forward now. Let's make them. But it's a document ready to go. And why delay the process? That's been the whole thing with this for months and years. Mr. Mayor, in an effort to move this |
| 03:46:23.46 | Carolyn Ford | Mr. Mayor, in an effort to move this along? |
| 03:46:26.14 | Jonathan Leone | The example of what I was when I brought up before, where you're evaluating the following incentives to that proposed maximum units and exemption from heightened design review is one of, you know, there's little things like that that are tucked in here that need to be... |
| 03:46:38.68 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:46:38.72 | Mike Kelly | Yeah. |
| 03:46:39.05 | Councilmember Ford | Oh, yeah. |
| 03:46:40.39 | Mike Kelly | When would you like to be in there? Are you going to know better on the 26th than you know now? |
| 03:46:40.86 | Jonathan Leone | Yeah. |
| 03:46:46.87 | Jonathan Leone | No, I told you already what I don't, I think that you've got to keep the height in review. You can't have any language of compromise. It's a height limit. We don't. That you have to be careful when you do the CUP raise from 4 to 7. The live work should be gone. Because that's just, it never works. If someone can tell me an example where it works, it would be nice, but it has never worked. It certainly doesn't work if you don't have 400 people enforcing it. |
| 03:46:53.38 | Mike Kelly | We don't. |
| 03:46:54.16 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 03:47:11.88 | Jonathan Leone | the, uh, |
| 03:47:16.99 | Jonathan Leone | Those are two specific examples. |
| 03:47:19.45 | Councilmember Ford | What would you change? What's the language you want? Get rid of live work. Well, where is the, let's strike it out right now. |
| 03:47:24.95 | Jeremy | If you want to give us direction, just as we were talking on page 2-18 regarding the HMU, if you'd like to give us some direction on specific bullets you'd like modified, we can do that. |
| 03:47:37.91 | Councilmember Ford | Yeah, let's just do it. You've got your list. Let's do it. |
| 03:47:40.38 | Carolyn Ford | That's true. Why don't we send it back to the Planning Commission when they're fresh and they are the experts on this, get their way in and then move on. In fact, I move that we took this that you are you want to make that motion. We'll just vote for you. Go ahead, Leonard. |
| 03:47:42.00 | Unknown | Why don't we- |
| 03:47:42.50 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:47:44.29 | Jeremy | when they're... |
| 03:47:48.17 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:47:48.21 | Unknown | Get. |
| 03:47:53.93 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. Go ahead and let her make the motion. It's her right. |
| 03:48:00.88 | Carolyn Ford | Oh, there is? What is it? For what? |
| 03:48:01.12 | City Clerk (Debbie) | There is. |
| 03:48:08.61 | Carolyn Ford | Yeah. |
| 03:48:08.96 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Thank you. |
| 03:48:09.96 | Mike Kelly | I did do that. Thank you. Do I have a second? I'll second. Do you want to make another version? |
| 03:48:17.35 | Linda Pfeiffer | I have a substitute motion. |
| 03:48:20.88 | Mike Kelly | I won't allow substitution so you can make a separate motion. |
| 03:48:21.22 | Linda Pfeiffer | Bye. |
| 03:48:24.83 | Carolyn Ford | No, you can make a second motion. Okay, I'll make a second motion. No, no. She's making a substitute motion. Not an amendment. Yeah, a substitute motion. |
| 03:48:25.52 | Mike Kelly | I'll make a second motion then. |
| 03:48:28.28 | Linda Pfeiffer | Okay, I'll make a second motion. amendment. Yeah, substitute motion. So I move that we send this to the Planning Commission on a special meeting to be scheduled. Excuse me. |
| 03:48:45.95 | Unknown | Yes, yes. |
| 03:48:48.05 | Linda Pfeiffer | as soon as possible, prior to review, a final review by the city council. |
| 03:48:58.15 | Mike Kelly | I second. Call roll, Debbie. Second motion first. |
| 03:49:05.56 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Second motion first. Council member Fyver. |
| 03:49:08.94 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:49:08.97 | Herb Weiner | Yes. |
| 03:49:11.60 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Councilmember Ford. Yes. Councilmember Weiner. |
| 03:49:12.62 | Herb Weiner | Yes. |
| 03:49:14.41 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Thank you. |
| 03:49:14.42 | Herb Weiner | No. |
| 03:49:14.83 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 03:49:16.16 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Vice Mayor Leone. |
| 03:49:17.97 | Jonathan Leone | No. |
| 03:49:20.08 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Mayor Kelly. |
| 03:49:20.77 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 03:49:20.78 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:49:20.92 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 03:49:20.95 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:49:21.04 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 03:49:21.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:49:22.47 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 03:49:22.49 | Unknown | All right, let's see if you can make the changes that you want to get. |
| 03:49:25.66 | Jonathan Leone | All right, I'll rattle them off. You guys tell me if you're crazy or not. |
| 03:49:36.16 | Jonathan Leone | Is Jan still here? Yeah, I'm not afraid by this. I just don't like giving you what you don't want. So it's just the fact that I'm spoon feeding stuff that nobody really wants. That's the afraid part of it. It's no fun doing that. So on 218, where you were, |
| 03:50:00.19 | Mike Kelly | we took out CC and CR zone sites of 1901 and 2015 Bridgeway. So we specified the sites. Yeah, on the page 2. |
| 03:50:09.79 | Jonathan Leone | Yeah, on the page, if you can flip the page before, 217, where you say you're raising the conditional use permit from 4 to 7, I don't think we'll have a lot of proposals for more than 7. With any of these sites, there's only going to be a handful, so I would keep that whatever it is currently. What page do you want? 217. Where? It's the, towards the bottom, the first bullet point and the last set of bullet points. |
| 03:50:16.47 | Mike Kelly | I'm not sure. |
| 03:50:16.76 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 03:50:20.98 | Mike Kelly | any of these things. |
| 03:50:21.57 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 03:50:25.48 | Mike Kelly | Sorry. Where? |
| 03:50:36.13 | Karen Warner | So are you saying to keep the CUP requirement at 4? |
| 03:50:36.50 | Jonathan Leone | Yes. |
| 03:50:41.95 | Jonathan Leone | Yeah, we'll just leave it at the current, that's the current standard, if I'm not mistaken. |
| 03:50:45.26 | Karen Warner | Right, so that is seen as a constraint by the state to have the CUP requirement. |
| 03:50:48.65 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 03:50:51.52 | Karen Warner | for residential. That's why we're saying raise the threshold so smaller projects |
| 03:50:54.14 | Jonathan Leone | Yes. |
| 03:51:01.02 | Jonathan Leone | How many of the projects you have in this Pandex G are greater than seven units? |
| 03:51:06.71 | Karen Warner | Well, but what if it's a six unit project? Currently, it would require the CEP or a five unit project. |
| 03:51:12.07 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:51:13.25 | Jonathan Leone | Right, but we're telling people they have some comfort. You know, that's where you sort of have to sort of balance. You know, our role here is to balance that people have an opportunity to weigh in on what is not permitted for a permit. Whether it's a permitted project would have a different path of approval, right? |
| 03:51:30.08 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:51:30.10 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 03:51:30.13 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:51:30.26 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 03:51:30.38 | Mike Kelly | So... |
| 03:51:30.45 | Karen Warner | that still would have designer view. |
| 03:51:33.77 | Mike Kelly | That's a constraint though. |
| 03:51:35.72 | Mary Wagner | Because it's only the use portion that's committed. The design portion is still required. |
| 03:51:41.17 | Unknown | I'll require everything. |
| 03:51:44.34 | Jonathan Leone | Okay, that gives me some comfort there. That's fine, that's fine. |
| 03:51:47.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:51:53.99 | Jonathan Leone | So at the end of those bullets, you have to reword that 2009-2014 objectives, right, because you're, again, forecasting. you have to clarify that same relation of the zoning references because it only applies. Does it apply? This is VMU, so it applies everywhere. |
| 03:52:12.22 | Unknown | everyone Where are we? |
| 03:52:13.99 | Jeff Bradley | Any objective? |
| 03:52:14.95 | Jonathan Leone | Yeah, that's all VMU. Right, that would stay the same. Okay. So, and then in... |
| 03:52:16.05 | Jeff Bradley | Right, that would stay the same. |
| 03:52:21.97 | Jeff Bradley | The third bullet mentions the labor work units. Did you want to? Yeah, that was. |
| 03:52:24.53 | Jonathan Leone | Yeah, that one, I just think that's a snake pit. |
| 03:52:28.42 | Jeff Bradley | We can strike that. |
| 03:52:30.14 | Unknown | Which one? |
| 03:52:30.51 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. Live work in that same set of bullets |
| 03:52:33.46 | Jeff Bradley | on 2-17 |
| 03:52:33.50 | Jonathan Leone | On Tuesday. |
| 03:52:38.10 | Jonathan Leone | Yeah, but that's a whole, that's your next planning cycle as far as I'm concerned. |
| 03:52:41.31 | Vicki Nichols | skills. |
| 03:52:41.63 | Jeff Bradley | as far as I can. |
| 03:52:41.97 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:52:42.05 | Vicki Nichols | or |
| 03:52:44.65 | Jonathan Leone | That's where you're going to come up with your 90 units in the next plan, so if people want that. |
| 03:52:49.04 | Herb Weiner | That's fine. |
| 03:52:51.42 | Jonathan Leone | Okay, then... Okay, we reworded all that other stuff, and then you go to... I don't have any problems with the ADU stuff. Linda actually has a productive suggestion, which is that you don't refer to your criteria of your view, whatever you're talking about, the ADU, implementation work group, just referred, you know, where is that reference, Linda, that you're referring to? |
| 03:53:21.03 | Linda Pfeiffer | 2-20. |
| 03:53:24.76 | Jonathan Leone | that you tackle that when we've actually had a chance to, which reference on that page? |
| 03:53:31.92 | Linda Pfeiffer | 2-20 says flexible development standards including relaxed height limits for ADUs, exemption from floor area standards, and reduced or waived parking standards. |
| 03:53:45.89 | Mike Kelly | Those were. |
| 03:53:46.89 | Jonathan Leone | Where is this? The bottom vision of the bullet point? 2-20 at the bottom, the three bullets at the bottom. Okay. Yeah, so can't you just leave it as a generic statement and when you adopt the policies to implement that, we can debate whether it's height or view or whatever rather than have your implementation standards outlined here? |
| 03:53:47.32 | Councilmember Ford | and so |
| 03:53:48.22 | Linda Pfeiffer | 2-20 at the bottom, the three bullets at the bottom. |
| 03:54:06.17 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 03:54:06.24 | Linda Pfeiffer | And the other comment. |
| 03:54:06.31 | Jonathan Leone | The other comment... Because we haven't really talked about this. |
| 03:54:08.25 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 03:54:08.28 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:54:08.30 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:54:08.38 | Linda Pfeiffer | it. Thank you. |
| 03:54:08.99 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:54:09.25 | Karen Warner | This is specifically what the state is asking for. I mean, the preceding sentence says the working group is evaluating the following incentives and is scheduled to finalize their recommendation and forward to planning the Commission and City Council. The state wants to know as much as possible what sort of incentives you're considering for ADUs otherwise we're not going to be able to count all these. |
| 03:54:24.52 | Vicki Nichols | State. |
| 03:54:35.23 | Jonathan Leone | I hear you. So if it's only, as Jeremy mentioned, the 18-foot height limit versus the 32, then reference that. Can you say? Right. Don't say 18 feet is for an accessory structure close to a property line, I believe. Say 20 feet. No, but whatever the, you know, just say it's for an accessory structure not beyond the 32. I mean, clarify it. You're asking someone to go beyond the height limit, because otherwise it's a little vague. So that's what my suggestion would be in that one. |
| 03:54:41.66 | Vicki Nichols | Thanks. THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:54:43.26 | Mike Kelly | Can you say? |
| 03:54:50.79 | Mike Kelly | Say 20 feet. No, but whatever. Isn't that so? |
| 03:54:58.45 | Mike Kelly | I'm not. |
| 03:54:58.86 | Jeremy | Thank you. |
| 03:55:07.34 | Jeremy | I'm sorry. |
| 03:55:08.26 | Jeff Bradley | I think you're simply saying, Councilman Leo, that reference the actual numbers that are being discussed? Yeah. |
| 03:55:13.66 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 03:55:13.76 | Jeremy | Yeah. |
| 03:55:13.84 | Jonathan Leone | Yeah, so that way people, you know, the average person can read this and not need to memorize the zoning ordinance. |
| 03:55:15.82 | Jeremy | Thank you. |
| 03:55:15.83 | Jeff Bradley | First. |
| 03:55:16.05 | Jeremy | I think it really. Thank you. Thank you. height limit of 18 feet. Thank you. |
| 03:55:20.64 | Councilmember Ford | instead of 50. |
| 03:55:21.99 | Jeremy | All right. |
| 03:55:22.08 | Councilmember Ford | I'm 20. |
| 03:55:22.97 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 03:55:23.00 | Councilmember Ford | All right. |
| 03:55:23.24 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 03:55:24.71 | Jeremy | It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. Because it's still got to come before. 18 is fine with the labor working group. |
| 03:55:25.60 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:55:26.16 | Jonathan Leone | Yeah. It doesn't matter because it's still got to come before. Thank you. Okay. |
| 03:55:44.60 | Jonathan Leone | Yeah, I don't have any problem with the liver borns. |
| 03:55:54.44 | Jonathan Leone | Yeah, so in page 229, the first set of bullets, exemption from heightened design review, I just think that's... |
| 03:56:04.28 | Mike Kelly | But height and design review is not about height. It's about seven or eight other things that we review hard. Right. |
| 03:56:10.29 | Jonathan Leone | Right. |
| 03:56:10.71 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:56:10.76 | Jonathan Leone | Yes. Right, but this is as you're considering exempting it from it. |
| 03:56:13.60 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:56:13.65 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:56:13.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:56:13.76 | Mike Kelly | Yeah. |
| 03:56:13.92 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:56:15.35 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:56:15.39 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:56:17.21 | Jeremy | Why are we at this point, frankly, I don't think HCD understands what heightened design review is. Take it out? Let's just take it out. We will be using this birdie and our batten match in the future. |
| 03:56:26.59 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:56:26.61 | Jonathan Leone | Okay? We will be using it. |
| 03:56:28.77 | Councilmember Ford | Yeah. |
| 03:56:30.49 | Jonathan Leone | Bingo. That might match in the future. You win. No, it's actually what people want to protect their views. That's what that clause is, is the main thing that gets used in that heightened review. |
| 03:56:33.26 | Councilmember Ford | No, I'm just. |
| 03:56:34.28 | Jeremy | Thank you. |
| 03:56:34.30 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:56:34.35 | Jeremy | Thank you. |
| 03:56:41.02 | Mike Kelly | You and I could debate that forever, so... But I don't know. But then you want to go ahead. |
| 03:56:45.52 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 03:56:45.56 | Jeremy | We removed it. Okay. That doesn't mean we won't be talking about it in the future. But it won't be in front of the state. |
| 03:56:57.37 | Jonathan Leone | And just as a clarification, and this is my last point, so fold it in for one minute. The overages that Linda was referencing, in terms of those two categories, is that correct? And how is that being powered by it so hard to get the lowest one that it drives up the other two above? |
| 03:57:15.31 | Karen Warner | It's correct that we have an overage in the low and the moderate, and the reason is predominantly because the ADUs and the liveaboards are counted in the low and to some degree the moderate. |
| 03:57:27.97 | Mike Kelly | Yeah. Exactly. So you take those out and you get them. |
| 03:57:33.97 | Unknown | Okay, that's exactly right. |
| 03:57:36.20 | Linda Pfeiffer | Yes, and that was where I raised the question about potentially leveraging the LIV Awards into the very low income. some of those numbers into the very low income to alleviate But the rents aren't very low. |
| 03:57:50.41 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:57:50.42 | Jonathan Leone | The rents aren't very low. The rents of the little boards are not very low. It's not the very low category. |
| 03:57:52.03 | Councilmember Ford | the rents to the Portable. |
| 03:57:53.93 | Linda Pfeiffer | It's not the very low category. I thought the data suggested differently. In my discussions with some liveaboards, it seemed like there was some. |
| 03:58:02.07 | Jonathan Leone | You tell me where on the per foot it comes out at that level, because having looked at all these marinas, it is not a cheap way to live. |
| 03:58:03.98 | Unknown | That's it. |
| 03:58:04.50 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:58:08.19 | Unknown | you know, having looked at all these marinas is not data doesn't support it. Thank you. |
| 03:58:14.35 | Jonathan Leone | Plus they're all trying to push out every boat that's under 30 feet and make them 50 feet. So, and that pushes out all these people. |
| 03:58:20.36 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:58:20.38 | Mike Kelly | All right, moving right along. And the same comment with the AD. |
| 03:58:20.78 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:58:21.58 | Linda Pfeiffer | in this. |
| 03:58:21.97 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:58:22.03 | Linda Pfeiffer | . |
| 03:58:22.05 | Councilmember Ford | Bye. |
| 03:58:22.20 | Linda Pfeiffer | comment with the agent. is |
| 03:58:24.04 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. Anything else on this? |
| 03:58:24.73 | Jonathan Leone | you |
| 03:58:24.78 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:58:27.45 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 03:58:27.55 | Mike Kelly | Yeah. |
| 03:58:27.57 | Jonathan Leone | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:58:27.62 | Mike Kelly | . |
| 03:58:27.77 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 03:58:27.80 | Mike Kelly | Yeah. |
| 03:58:27.99 | Linda Pfeiffer | And I'm also concerned with that. |
| 03:58:28.55 | Mike Kelly | And I'm also concerned with that. Is the telephone over for him? Is he going away? |
| 03:58:33.03 | Jonathan Leone | I don't know. |
| 03:58:33.37 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:58:33.51 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 03:58:33.54 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:58:33.73 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 03:58:33.78 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:58:33.93 | Linda Pfeiffer | I'm also concerned with the relaxed parking for the vertical |
| 03:58:38.89 | Jonathan Leone | But that's the whole point of affordable housing, is that you have to give somebody an incentive to build it |
| 03:58:39.94 | Linda Pfeiffer | The tandem. |
| 03:58:44.69 | Jonathan Leone | Plus, it's being cited, most of them are along the Bridgeway corridor and it incentivizes people to take the bus, take the ferry, |
| 03:58:47.40 | Vicki Nichols | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 03:58:51.09 | Jonathan Leone | That's in your general plan, actually, separate from the how- Did you read my motion? |
| 03:58:53.57 | Linda Pfeiffer | I don't know. |
| 03:58:53.66 | Councilmember Ford | I don't know. you |
| 03:58:54.85 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 03:58:54.95 | Councilmember Ford | . |
| 03:58:55.19 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. No, but it's in the land use policy. |
| 03:58:57.20 | Linda Pfeiffer | We're already congested enough with parking and to suggest- |
| 03:58:59.75 | Jonathan Leone | Okay, we're up with the |
| 03:59:01.03 | Mike Kelly | to vote on this motion. Thank you. |
| 03:59:02.08 | City Clerk (Debbie) | The motion was, Mayor Kelly, move to approve the document tonight, making the suggested change. |
| 03:59:10.14 | Councilmember Ford | Can I second everybody? I second that. Would you call real? |
| 03:59:13.87 | Linda Pfeiffer | Could we wait just a couple seconds when Councilmember Ford will return? |
| 03:59:16.24 | Councilmember Ford | Carolyn, Council Member Ford will return. She didn't tell us she was leaving. She just got up and left. |
| 03:59:21.03 | Jonathan Leone | We'll wait, but hopefully she'll be back. |
| 03:59:23.09 | Mike Kelly | I'm not sure. attempt to find her, and then we'll move on. talking in the phone. Thank you. |
| 03:59:31.37 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 03:59:31.39 | Jonathan Leone | She's on the phone. |
| 03:59:33.16 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 03:59:33.19 | Mary Wagner | Yeah. |
| 03:59:35.42 | Jonathan Leone | Did you write? |
| 03:59:36.82 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:59:36.87 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 03:59:45.72 | Mike Kelly | The motion on the floor is to move the housing element through the |
| 03:59:52.38 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:59:53.98 | Mike Kelly | Staff and consultants to HCD. And there's a second from Herb Weiner. Debbie, would you call the roll? |
| 04:00:00.67 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Council member Piper. |
| 04:00:02.08 | Linda Pfeiffer | know. |
| 04:00:02.52 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 04:00:03.18 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Council Member Ford. |
| 04:00:04.21 | Carolyn Ford | No. |
| 04:00:04.61 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 04:00:05.54 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Councilmember Weiner. |
| 04:00:06.64 | Herb Weiner | Yes. |
| 04:00:08.23 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Vice Mayor Leon. |
| 04:00:09.59 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 04:00:09.63 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Thank you. Mayor Kelly. |
| 04:00:11.48 | Mike Kelly | Yes. All right. We'll take a five-minute break. |
| 04:00:13.78 | Jonathan Leone | Wait, wait, so will you just recap the process so people can leave? What happens now? What are the next steps so people can go home and think, I have another shot, come back and |
| 04:00:23.36 | Jeff Bradley | You know, Jeremy's really great with process, so I'm gonna have him describe the process. |
| 04:00:27.65 | Jeremy | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So with this direction, with this direction, With this direction that the council just gave to a staff and consultant, we will make the identified changes to the document and forward it to the prearranged expedited review period. We're anticipating this will be a 30-day review period. So today being, well, my watch is changing between. It's 12th and the 13th right now. So we'll be getting this back in the middle of July and then begin scheduling planning or public hearings for amendment of the general plan by the Planning Commission. Let me restate that again. We'll be scheduling Planning Commission public hearings on amendment of the general plan. We're anticipating that there will be at least two hearings that the Planning Commission will hold. The Planning Commission makes a recommendation on amendment of the general plan to the City Council, and then public hearings will be held by the City Council. So probably we'd be looking at those in the fall. On the environmental review side of this, as we have an initial environmental study, negative declaration, staff will be reviewing that document to determine if it needs to be amended to account for the modifications that the council has just directed tonight. and we will then be, if we need to make a modification of that document we will be re-releasing that document for a new 30-day review period on that document and at the conclusion of that 30-day comment period we'll be asking the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council on approval of that document. So we have two separate tracks going here. But I think the bottom line is that City Council will be looking again at this in the fall at public hearings after the Planning Commission wraps up its work. |
| 04:02:42.45 | Jonathan Leone | So you think there will be two planning commission hearings in July, maybe August, if they do meet in August, and then it will come to the council after the August break? Is that what you're saying? September something? |
| 04:02:52.13 | Jeremy | September planning commission also took a break but planning commission following the council's lead also took a break in August |
| 04:02:59.47 | Jonathan Leone | Oh, I know, but you think there's two hearings at the Planning Commission and then it comes back to the council. |
| 04:02:59.49 | Jeremy | Oh, I know. that guy's back. |
| 04:03:03.15 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 04:03:03.20 | Jeremy | Thank you. |
| 04:03:03.25 | Mike Kelly | Thanks. |
| 04:03:03.34 | Jeremy | Okay. |
| 04:03:03.61 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. from here in October. |
| 04:03:05.99 | Carolyn Ford | Will the planning commission be looking at the need for any I are negative declaration or reviewing that in any way? |
| 04:03:13.70 | Jeremy | Yes, they will be. Staff has prepared initial environmental study negative declaration. If the Commission feels uncomfortable with that, they can give direction for an EIR to prepare if they feel that's appropriate. |
| 04:03:18.53 | Carolyn Ford | I saw that. |
| 04:03:26.10 | Carolyn Ford | Thank you. |
| 04:03:26.15 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 04:03:26.17 | Carolyn Ford | Thank you. |
| 04:03:26.20 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. All right. Five-minute break. Thank you. |
| 04:03:30.79 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. Thanks for coming folks, especially staying this late. |
| 04:04:21.08 | Unknown | I still have my audience, I moved the podium. |
| 04:04:40.12 | Unknown | Yeah. So do I need to move forward? |
| 04:04:43.39 | Shirley Thornton | When did they have a visa? Thank you. you |
| 04:04:45.38 | Unknown | Oh. |
| 04:04:45.40 | Shirley Thornton | Thank you. |
| 04:04:45.42 | Unknown | Oh. |
| 04:04:45.80 | Shirley Thornton | you |
| 04:04:48.49 | Unknown | I want to make sure all my fans see me. |
| 04:04:53.89 | Unknown | Oh, good. |
| 04:04:53.90 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. Thank you. |
| 04:05:00.77 | Unknown | So if you guys... |
| 04:05:01.97 | Jeffrey Chase | I just wanted a budget binder. |
| 04:05:04.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:05:04.96 | Jeffrey Chase | Yeah. |
| 04:05:04.97 | Unknown | Welcome to follow along. |
| 04:05:20.25 | Mike Kelly | Councilmember Ford would like to make a statement. |
| 04:05:22.10 | Carolyn Ford | yes thank you considering that this is a very meeting subject and a very important subject we were given the council packet or the budget sunday afternoon now we're we're addressing this issue at 11.30 at night when council has already been through process and there are frayed nerves as we witness. I think it's very inappropriate. I think we should reschedule this meeting. I think it's totally inappropriate to have staff here at 11.30 at night. I think it's totally inappropriate to have staff here at 11.30 at night. |
| 04:05:50.13 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 04:06:09.30 | Carolyn Ford | to present their cases. It's not fair to anyone. It's certainly not fair to the public either. So anyway, I... I'm not staying for this I would like to have a special meeting instead and I will make the motion that we have a special meeting in the next as soon as we can and review it then and continue on our schedule. But I'm not staying tonight. I second that motion. |
| 04:06:40.28 | Councilmember Ford | I second that motion. |
| 04:06:42.17 | Mike Kelly | Call roll, Debbie. |
| 04:06:43.49 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 04:06:43.54 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 04:06:43.57 | Jonathan Leone | you |
| 04:06:43.62 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 04:06:44.03 | Jonathan Leone | 11-0. |
| 04:06:45.45 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 04:06:45.46 | City Clerk (Debbie) | tomorrow. |
| 04:06:46.58 | Jonathan Leone | We all have commitments. |
| 04:06:47.71 | Carolyn Ford | We're going to stay. That's fine. Thank you. |
| 04:06:50.39 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Council member Pfeiffer? |
| 04:06:51.61 | Carolyn Ford | Yes. |
| 04:06:53.12 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Council member Ford. |
| 04:06:54.64 | Carolyn Ford | Yes. |
| 04:06:55.18 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 04:06:55.59 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Council Member Weiner. Thank you. |
| 04:06:56.60 | Jonathan Leone | know. |
| 04:06:57.82 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Vice Mayor Leon. |
| 04:06:59.83 | Jonathan Leone | Nope, you sign up to work hard. This is no. |
| 04:07:01.80 | City Clerk (Debbie) | you Councilman, uh, |
| 04:07:03.44 | Jonathan Leone | Mayor Kelly. |
| 04:07:03.54 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 04:07:03.55 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Thank you. |
| 04:07:03.57 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 04:07:03.59 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Thank you. |
| 04:07:03.60 | Herb Weiner | Bye. |
| 04:07:03.74 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Thank you. |
| 04:07:03.76 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 04:07:03.77 | City Clerk (Debbie) | you |
| 04:07:03.84 | Herb Weiner | I'm sorry. |
| 04:07:03.98 | Mike Kelly | . |
| 04:07:04.03 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 04:07:05.16 | Mike Kelly | No. All right, staff report. |
| 04:07:08.33 | Jeffrey Chase | Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. You have four documents that we're considering tonight for the budget that they're all interrelated. First was the staff report that was on your iPad application, went out with the regular scheduled packet. Second is the PowerPoint that came out in your packet on Friday. And then was the binder, which we put in your boxes. It says the complete detailed budget on Sunday. and then was the binder, which we put in your boxes. It says the complete detailed budget on Sunday. And then for the public, we have a shorter condensed version. Now, I just want to really briefly explain the budget process. The following Tuesday's ballot measure, Wednesday, I had to put out a staff report. And then Friday I had to get the PowerPoint done. There's 45 spreadsheets. Each spreadsheet has about 10 worksheets and all of these are interrelated. And they all have to be open at the same time so that changes can ripple all the way through them. So there were some minor differences in your staff report to the PowerPoint, to the binders, and I'm going to be reconciling those tonight. They were minor, no more than in the general fund, $500, plus the cot I bought this evening for my office. So let's just go right to the PowerPoint presentation. Again, we're still in the theme of back to the basics. Back to the basics means that we go back to our general and to our strategic plan and focus on the four main goals, which is to attain fiscal stability and sustainability, to increase effectiveness and efficiency of the organization, improve the infrastructure and balance the retention of Sausalito's unique character. So it's a two-year resource allocation plan. when we're through with the process before July 1st, we will be adopting the first year of the two-year resource allocation plan, which would be the fiscal year 13 budget. So tonight I'm just gonna introduce the budget, go through the citywide summary. We have department heads here to talk about the service level, conclude with a summary and outlook, and look to the city council for direction and next steps before the July 26th regularly scheduled council meeting. Back to the budgeting, basically is going back to our two primary strategic plan goals, to stabilize and sustain fiscal condition and deliver effective and efficient services. And as you recall, during giving the annual financial report and also the mid-year budget review, consistently said that we're able to pay our bills, Our ability to pay our bills is improving. And we had several medium-term fiscal strategies that would help us meet the challenges of the future. And one of those strategies was the successful passage of the fire annexation and the ballot measure. And so now we're entering into a budget where we have more short-term strategies and medium-term strategies, but we're more assured that we can reach our budget goals, our strategic plan goals, because one of those medium-term fiscal strategies was implemented. We want to maintain our quality services. We deliver quality services to our citizens, our department heads, and we want to keep the service levels where they're at. And in some cases, improve them. But we also recognize, as I've talked over the past six months, that our cost of labor has been approaching a point that is unsustainable, where labor costs are reaching 75% of revenues. This is happening primarily for factors that are mostly, up until this point, out of our control. CalPERS increases because of the 2008 recession, healthcare costs being driven at a rate faster than normal inflation. And so we entered into this budget reflects what we hope will be successful labor negotiations with our bargaining units to implement reform on four fronts. Wage reform, pension reform, OPEB, other post employment benefit reform, and health care reform. And we'll do that with a two tiered workforce. Also in this budget for the next year is to pay down the fire side fund and the miscellaneous employees side fund, which will significantly reduce the general fund pension costs and allow us to, again, stabilize and be sustainable as we go off into the future. We have funds appropriated for infrastructure planning and revenue alignment with the continually evolving municipal economics. Over the medium term, we'll recognize the benefits of a lower cost of labor and because of recent leases at the MLK site we can examine ways to liquidate our frozen general fund reserves once we do that, liquidate our frozen general fund reserves we'll then have the resources to contemplate paying down the police caliperside fund and with that and the attrition occurring in our workforce, we'll have completely lowered our cost of labor from 75% down to 65% and be sustainable as we meet the challenges of the next decade. |
| 04:12:31.37 | Jeffrey Chase | Budgeting is not an easy process. It's a continual process. It's not something that we do once a year. It's something that we're doing every day. And I wanted to follow along. People at home can download this budget document. FROM THE CITY'S WEBSITE. I'm work this I'll be referring to the pages to the document you can download. This is page 33 where we talk about the review that the City Council goes through Over here on the left, for mid-year to budget policy, to strategic planning retreats, and priority calendar. calendar settings and on the right where staff is monitoring the community and monitoring the economics, doing city council reviews and finance committee reviews until finally our management reviews and all that becomes input into developing the two year resource allocation plan. Uh, We bet we're, we, we, prepare a budget from our bottom up. It's a pyramid and it's almost very similar to zero-based budgeting, a term coming back from the Jimmy Carter days which only a few of us might be old enough to remember. But we examine all the transactions and those transactions come up and balance into funds and the funds into combining statements until we finally can come from the bottom up to a statement that looks like this. This statement is not exactly found in the budget document because it's a summary, but it can be referred to on pages 12 through 14. Basically, it lists all the funds and all the account groups for the fiscal year 12-13. So that we have a total budget over here on the right. You can see the citywide totals with transfers in are $21 million in revenues and $27 million in expenses. Check out the transfers, and we have a net city budget of $17.8 and $21.8. Now, it sounds a little bit like we have more expenses than revenues, and the answer to that is yes. And that's because we have accumulated reserves over the past that can only be used for a specific purpose. They can only be used for capital improvement projects. And as we'll talk later on in the evening, over the past three years, we've spent $11.8 million in capital improvement investment for the bulkhead, paving 61% of our streets, working on storm drains and doing other infrastructure improvements in the city, as well as an additional $14 million in building the public safety building. So it's been an expansive process capital improvement investment plan and recently I got a report from Rob Eiler who ran all of our infrastructure planning through his economic model. This was one of the suggestions that he had, his in plan model. And it generated how many additional jobs were generated here in Sausalito, how much additional tax dollars were generated here. It's a fascinating report and we're working on refining it through the business advisory committee to report back to the City Council that, remember we called this the stimulus plan? It worked. We have the results to show that too. This next page can be found in your budget document on pages 16 to 18 which is the second year of the two year program. We'll more into the details, but the point of these charts is to emphasize that we started from the bottom in transactions and come up to a whole overall look. |
| 04:16:06.14 | Jeffrey Chase | We are, yes. |
| 04:16:10.24 | Jeffrey Chase | But you know, all these figures that come down to the citizen that's watching on the Internet tonight and they're saying, well, what does this mean to me? Can you just talk to me? They're not in budget talk, but can you talk to me in everyday language? Is the budget balanced? That's what citizens want to know. Are there adequate reserves? How much will this cost the taxpayer? Where does the money go and what services will I get? How many police officers are there? When is the library open? What recreation programs are there for me? Well, we're going to try to answer those questions as we go through the next slides. The first slide is, is the budget balanced? Well, not only is it balanced, but it's balanced with a surplus for the first fiscal year. Anticipating the proposed labor contracts and other activities of the city, we'll have about $13.7 million of revenues and transfers in for the general fund. Thank you. The general fund is the primary operational fund of the city that provides most of the city services. And the expenditures of 13.6 would be generating a surplus of $111,000 and increasing our reserves from 8.4 million to 8.5 million dollars. The second fiscal year it's balanced again with a $5,776 surplus. Now, We're... We anticipate significant savings from attrition. But you don't budget for attrition. Attrition just happens. Because if it doesn't happen, and you did budget for it, you wouldn't have enough to meet your day-to-day expenses. So we anticipate both the increases of changes to fund balance in year one and year two to be higher than what's projected when we do have attrition. from the current workforce to the new workforce. The new workforce realizing savings, we anticipate savings of about $50,000 per employee in the workforce. And then another question is the citizens asking are there reserves? And this chart goes to show us that our beginning balance and reserves in all sources totaled about eight point, in the general fund was 8.4 million and we have an additional 960,000 in the disaster assistance fund for total reserves available for emergencies of 9..4 million. That's 22% of annual expenditures and it's 12.5% higher than the City Council's policy. So we've been able to have reserves that other cities usually only have 3- 5 percent in this kind of activity. For the next two years, we'll be increasing that to where our liquid reserves are about 23.1 percent. But what's substantial here is our total reserves represent 78.7 percent of one year's worth of expenditures. And so the difference between the liquid reserves and the illiquid reserves, this 50% difference is the portion that I was referring to earlier that we want to get that out of the current illiquidity that it's in. |
| 04:19:28.30 | Jeffrey Chase | Most of the city's revenue comes from taxes, 48% of our revenue comes from taxes. And of that, 28% of the total revenues or more than half of our taxes are from very inelastic type taxes called property taxes. It's these kinds of property taxes are the kind of taxes that allowed us to get through the recession without significant deviations in our revenue flow like you saw in other California cities where car sales and other sales tax dropped. We do rely on sales tax, but our sales tax is in a band. It's not as elastic as on other communities because our business community is static in terms of size. And many people want to come to Sausalito, and when they come to Sausalito, they're eating in restaurants. We're filled to capacity in terms of our tourists, whether there's 100,000 people coming to San Francisco or a million coming to San Francisco, so we fluctuate within a band. Same way with our transient occupancy tax. I'm anticipating an increase in our transient occupancy tax over the next two years though because of the upgrades of the Casa Madrona Hotel, which we'll figure that they'll have even greater occupancy and at a higher room rate because of their upgrades. Our other financing sources revenues are coming in from transfers in from other funds. Those are primarily parking is the biggest source of those. And then the other are more fee generated from franchise fee, business licenses, planning and building. And we have a substantial amount of revenues, 4% coming from municipal fines. Expenditures by department, it's interesting that 37% of our expenditures are inward facing. In other words, they're serving the outward facing departments, departments that serve the public. So we have police is 32% of the budget, library is 28. Just a real interesting fact about police. Police budget, 32%. Generating 4% fines is 28% left, and that's just about the amount of property taxes. So property taxes plus fines are what support the police department. Our sales tax then and our transient occupancy tax provide the resource for library and recreation and a portion of planning that's not covered by fees. And then, of course we have our other, our inward facing expenses, the ones that support administration, information technology, the transfers out to our capital projects fund, and non-departmental expenses. The non-departmental expenses in fiscal year 2013 are significantly higher than previous years and post years, and that's because we're transferring money from the vehicle equipment replacement fund into the general fund in order to pay off the FHIRS CalPERS side fund, as well as transferring money from the employee benefit fund into the general fund in order to pay the miscellaneous employee's side fund off. So the first department and the first question that citizens ask are, well, what about our police department? How many officers are there? what kind of services are they providing. Through the Finance Committee, we're including this year sharing services with Twin Cities Police Department for a part-time evidence technician. We've included funding for reserve police officers and then the staff of 23, department strength of 23. We did not include the supplemental request to restore staffing to the 2002 levels and we did not provide the funding for the supplemental request for dual purpose motorcycles. But We are supporting the grant application for motorcycles. and if motorcycles can be obtained from neighboring agencies. Are there any questions for Jennifer regarding the police department and level of service or particulars of her budget? |
| 04:23:39.43 | Linda Pfeiffer | Okay, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I have a question. So I'm just curious, what was the cost for the dual purpose motorcycles? |
| 04:23:42.94 | Jeffrey Chase | requested. |
| 04:23:49.10 | Jeffrey Chase | 20,000. |
| 04:23:50.79 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 04:23:50.89 | Jeffrey Chase | In total. |
| 04:23:53.08 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 04:23:54.26 | Jonathan Leone | Just to answer your own question, are there the same number of police officers? That was one of your earlier questions. How many police officers are there? Is that the same number? |
| 04:24:03.28 | Jeffrey Chase | It is the same number as the year before and the year before that. Thank you. |
| 04:24:10.50 | Jeffrey Chase | library department. We have a new library director and appropriation for the library is $789,335. We know people in our community love their library. And accordingly, we increased the children's librarian hours. And to help offset that increase in hours, Abbott recovered $46,386 Abbott recovered $46,386 of funding from the NorthNet library system. That's enough to cover the children librarian for this year and a portion of next year. Other enhancements included reprogramming some of the sub-librarian hours, substitute librarian hours. Because of the way books are processed today, Abbott was able to cut some book processing costs, reduced the magazine budget, and he's increased interlibrary loan service. And if you want some elaboration on any library services, Abbott is here to answer your questions. Thank you. |
| 04:25:08.41 | Jonathan Leone | Well, to his defense, and correct me if I'm wrong, I have it used you didn't cut the magazine budget you chose not to renew some things that weren't in high usage is what I think you were doing. |
| 04:25:22.52 | Jeffrey Chase | Thank you. Any other questions regarding the library? The Recreation Department has $745,842 in appropriations and increases. You can see over here that the next couple of years have increased the revenues in proportion to the expenditures, starting to go back to prior year's levels. And there were no increases in services and no decreases in services to the Recreation Department budget. And Mike is here to answer any questions you might have regarding the Recreation Department budget. Are you happy, Mike? All right. You know, I feel neglect. If the audience is following along, the police budget can be found on pages 68 to 70. Library on pages 82 to 84. There's a lot more detail that goes into how much is being appropriated for every line item. Recreation can be found on pages 78 to 80. |
| 04:26:28.32 | Jonathan Leone | Just to highlight here, and you cut me off if I'm talking too much, is, you know, there's money in here for planning of park improvements, and there's no decrease in staff, and I think the event count is the same as in previous years, so there's no cuts or classes or anything like that. Yes. |
| 04:26:47.99 | Linda Pfeiffer | Oh, that's great. |
| 04:26:52.67 | Jeffrey Chase | The Community Development Department is comprised of two divisions, the Building Inspection Division and the Planning Division. The complete line item budget for these two divisions can be found on pages 60 to 62 in this document. And of course, the City Council and their binders has all the complete detail, including all the salary breakdowns and... detail by object. Basically no changes in the building inspection and the planning department budget, but in the planning department budget we'll find that there's appropriations for priority projects. There's a $60,000 appropriation for historic nominations and $20,000 appropriation for |
| 04:27:43.14 | Jeremy | Thank you. |
| 04:27:44.66 | Jeffrey Chase | Very good. So the $60,000 is for the housing element additional work. Right? Yeah. So there's a continuation of $80,000. And on pages 86 through 88 of the budget document, we can find a complete cross-listing between the above the line priority projects and where they're appropriated in the budget or what additional appropriation might be needed and who is the project lead and what department is the project lead. We have those here. |
| 04:28:25.31 | Jeffrey Chase | Are there any questions on the relations of the priority projects and where they're in the budget? |
| 04:28:35.50 | Jeffrey Chase | Pardon? No. |
| 04:28:44.43 | Jeffrey Chase | We've appropriated in the budget one community disaster drill. Is that right? Yeah, for $3,000. So for the priority project number eight, the coordination is appropriated in the police department budget with Sergeant Frost, and then there's one drill budgeted at $3,000. Okay. |
| 04:29:11.78 | Jeffrey Chase | Public Works is another department with two divisions, a maintenance division and an engineering division. number of employees there are then further spread between engineering, maintenance, sewer fund, the MLK fund, and also into capital projects. So where they have a total workforce of, what is that, 21.8, is that what this is? There's spread between 11.1 is in the general fund, less than one to the MLK fund, and about nine to the sewer fund. 21, okay. 31 even, okay, great, thanks. |
| 04:30:02.14 | Jeffrey Chase | And of course, the Department of Public Works primarily oversees the capital projects fund. And this is a little bit long a list. In the follow along budget, you can find the complete capital works, capital project five year CIP on pages. I didn't write down the pages on here. I can look it up later. The first column is the column that talks for all these projects. Here's how much has been spent for the past three years. And as you can see where I totaled the $11 million that we spent in the past three years. What the columns coming across over the right is the proposed budget for 2012-13. So the first year of a five-year CIP program becomes the capital budget and the adopted budget. And so the capital budget for next year is $3.4 million. With that $3.4 million, they'll start to address the remaining 39% of streets yet to be paved. And the other infrastructure is listed here in this document, including some work on pedestrian and bicycle projects, park and recreation programs, and building and waterfront programs. The remaining four years of the five-year CIP are the programmed expenses, but they aren't appropriated until the following budget year. And the capital improvement budget can be found on pages 115 and on. There's about 20 pages of the complete CIP program. Any questions on what capital projects are being proposed or budgeted for the next fiscal year? |
| 04:31:48.47 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 04:31:48.66 | Jonathan Leone | What? The one thing you might do for, you know, just to have a home note on the website would be to tie, you have some things that are very specific. Yes. But if there's any, |
| 04:31:51.49 | Jeffrey Chase | Bye. |
| 04:31:55.29 | Jeffrey Chase | Yes. |
| 04:31:58.27 | Jonathan Leone | non-specific allocations with regards to streets, that if there are specific streets that are in the CIP that you plan to use with these, just outline those and put them up on, if those can be tied to that. |
| 04:32:09.70 | Jeffrey Chase | Okay. Yeah, we'll take that report that he gave last time, and we'll stick it in this document, and then we can take a look at that. |
| 04:32:14.74 | Jonathan Leone | Right. |
| 04:32:18.96 | Jonathan Leone | I don't think there's as many as in past couple of years because there's not as much allocated to paving in this current cycle. |
| 04:32:22.67 | Jeffrey Chase | Right. |
| 04:32:26.56 | Jonathan Leone | And you can see Mike's stuff here too. |
| 04:32:29.49 | Jeffrey Chase | Yes, Mike's parks are here on this page. You can see the $1.3 million appropriated in park projects. |
| 04:32:37.91 | Jonathan Leone | three quarters of a million to Vina Del Mar and Barton Bathroom is the biggest chunk there. Sorry. |
| 04:32:40.41 | Unknown | Yep. |
| 04:32:48.36 | Jeffrey Chase | THE END OF THE END OF THE Our IT department is appropriated at $585,628 and on the list of major projects for IT would be the implementation of the Dell Compellent Series SAS storage array. Rhett is here to explain that. Thank you. Darn. VDI VMware thin client server for the police department. VDI VMware software and licensing for the police department. And then finally, community development building inspection project. We're exploring what kind of products can be out there where people can schedule their inspections and monitor the progress of the inspections online. |
| 04:33:07.56 | Unknown | Darn. Uh-oh. |
| 04:33:09.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:33:09.86 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:33:09.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:33:10.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:33:10.19 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:33:30.44 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 04:33:30.55 | Jeffrey Chase | Thank you. |
| 04:33:30.99 | Jonathan Leone | You guys all get gold stars. Rhett, no star. |
| 04:33:35.83 | Shirley Thornton | Thank you. |
| 04:33:35.86 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 04:33:35.90 | Shirley Thornton | I read that he'd be available by Saturday. |
| 04:33:39.62 | Jonathan Leone | He's wearing his aluminum foil hat, though. It would be hard to reach him. |
| 04:33:39.71 | Shirley Thornton | I'm sorry. |
| 04:33:45.31 | Jonathan Leone | I sang that with all two people who used me the same thing. I sang that with great respect and love there, Red, if you're watching at home. |
| 04:33:50.05 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 04:33:55.61 | Jeffrey Chase | Not in. derogatory way because I wear an aluminum hat frequently. And it is three minutes to midnight when he takes his cap off and turns into a pumpkin. |
| 04:33:57.09 | Jonathan Leone | Good night. |
| 04:34:05.04 | Jeffrey Chase | Administration and Finance Department is last. We can find the detail for the Administration and Finance Department on pages 52 to 54. This is the place where when things aren't going like you thought they should, call him. And there's no changes, no increase, no decrease. There's still the same three accountant technicians processing hundreds of million dollars of debits and credits. We have a HR manager who cycles through all the employees from hiring to dismissal. And then we have our city manager, our city clerk, and a clerk. Thank you. Administrative aid. The non-departmental is where people can get involved with the city. We support a number of community functions, historical society, sister city, business hospitality, business advisory, volunteer recognition, and our sewer rebate program. It's also where we provide funding for the retiree medical benefits, our outside legal services and inside legal services too, our audits, our LAFCO dues, our ABAC dues, our insurance premiums, all of these things, they aren't department-specific, get budgeted in the non-departmental group. But the reason you see the spike over here, this big spike, is because of the one-time cost of paying off the fire and miscellaneous CalPERS side funds. That will, paying off the fire side fund will save the city about $140,000 a year, and paying off the miscellaneous side fund will save the city about $50,000 a year. And just to clarify where that money's coming from. Yeah, that's great. Both the side funds were created back in 2002-03 when the city had to give up its individual retirement plans with CalPERS and go into a CalPERS pool because the state regulations changed about the size of employers. And all employers with less than 100 employees were mandated to go into a pool. At the time you went into pool, everyone had a different, either unfunded or funded, liability. And so to balance that out and make the pool whole, cities with an unfunded liability like Sausalito had to enter into an agreement to pay that back over time. Now, there wasn't something you could negotiate on what your interest rate would be. The interest rate would be whatever the discount rate was, which was 7.75%. So in effect, the city's been paying an interest rate of 7.75% on that loan to pay off the fund. Now, with the fire annexation being approved at the ballot measure, we're able to take the money in the vehicle replacement fund, pay off the side fund, and move forward. We've also accumulated over the years, the city council has had a policy of putting 1% of all salaries as an expense to the department and moving that to the employee benefits Fund. That has accumulated about a million dollars and the staff is recommending through this budget that we use the $400,000 of that million dollars to pay off the miscellaneous side fund and eliminate that. We're making half a percent on our investment portfolio with $400,000, but we're paying 7.75%, so it made perfect sense to do this. |
| 04:35:56.14 | Jonathan Leone | Yeah. |
| 04:37:43.62 | Jeffrey Chase | So in sum, it's a back to the basics budget. It's a budget that makes good sense in dollars and cents, and it makes good sense because we're continuing the level of service, the high level of service that our citizens are getting. We're adding a few services. We're doing so with a look at today, balancing the budget, and a look to the future where we're able to lower our costs and be sustainable as we meet the challenges of the future. So with that If there's any questions, any what if, why not questions, staff is ready to answer your budget questions. That's the general fund look. The other funds are the enterprise funds and the special revenue funds and the internal service funds are all balanced and kept in good financial shape. |
| 04:38:40.30 | Jeffrey Chase | Questions? |
| 04:38:40.90 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 04:38:44.02 | Jonathan Leone | My question for you, Charlie, would be, What you said? the city staff mostly, I should take credit for this, has done here. What do you kind of want to hit as the highlights in terms of just whether it's innovation or efficiency or just so people can walk away with that in their head in terms of change of whether it's Abbott sort of revisiting the whole what people are reading versus just going with what we always have done, that kind of thing. |
| 04:39:14.05 | Jeffrey Chase | Yeah. Yeah. I think the best takeaway from our budget is the complete team of the city, all dedicated to the mission statement of providing the best quality level of service. We work together very closely. Every department head manages their budget and is calling all the time. How come this charge was here? Why is this happening? And how can I move this around? Can I do this in order to stay within the budget? A great amount of financial awareness on the department heads to stay within their budget. But you know more importantly is dedicated to the mission and the mission is to number one we're committed to the strategic plan goal and that's stability and more importantly as we changed a couple years ago sustainability. We need to have a financial condition that's resilient so that we can meet the challenges of the future. So I think I would like to highlight the most in this budget is that we've significantly positioned ourselves through the implementation of our recent medium term strategy and now through the labor cost strategy that I'd feel comfortable leaving an inheritance to the next finance director and to the future city councils that you're able to meet the challenges 10 years from now because of what we're doing today. This is setting the stage for a sustainable future. |
| 04:40:44.03 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 04:40:44.17 | Jeffrey Chase | Thank you. |
| 04:40:44.18 | Jonathan Leone | So is the sun at the top? |
| 04:40:45.03 | Jeffrey Chase | exploding or is it not? |
| 04:40:48.33 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 04:40:48.35 | Jeffrey Chase | I wish I had that graph here because I did find the sun exploding. We're in a better way. |
| 04:40:54.21 | Jonathan Leone | We're in a better position than we were when |
| 04:40:57.58 | Jeffrey Chase | We have a sun exploding umbrella. |
| 04:40:57.78 | Jonathan Leone | We have a... |
| 04:41:03.08 | Unknown | LAUGHTER Thank you. |
| 04:41:04.65 | Jeffrey Chase | to hold up, to shield us from many catastrophes. |
| 04:41:11.42 | Mike Kelly | All right, any other questions? Thank you. Thank you. I gotta comment. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Let me just open and close public comment because there's nobody here. Unless Vicki. Oh, Vicki. Vicki's here. |
| 04:41:20.43 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 04:41:20.47 | Unknown | Vicky. |
| 04:41:21.31 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 04:41:23.05 | Mike Kelly | Vicki is happy. I love that testimony. All right. So closing moment, comment back to the city manager. |
| 04:41:23.15 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:41:31.16 | Adam Politzer | I just want to reiterate what Charlie said and also just a very sincere thank you to Charlie and his staff. There is a ton of work and I think he underplayed what happened between the election results on Tuesday night to where we are today in front of the council. And again under the umbrella that we have to have a balanced budget by the end of this month. Thank you. today in front of the council and again under the umbrella that we have to have a balanced budget by the end of this month. And so very, very difficult waters because the election was not something that was predictable and it had significant impacts. |
| 04:41:51.51 | Unknown | All right. |
| 04:42:11.68 | Adam Politzer | Either way, the results turned out. But I also want to recognize the department heads and the finance committee. Again, this process started as Charlie goes through these timelines, which you see here in your budget binders that started on January 18th to get to this moment. And because our financial conditions in the city really never rebounded to where folks were hoping, both in property tax values and sales tax dollars and hotel and revenues and valuations of projects as they came in for new permits. So you know, parking revenues, you know, there was a lot of request for waivers of fees, things that did not show a positive sign for the future in terms of growth, revenue growth. But it is very important to let our community know that we have been very efficient with the staff that has not really changed. They may be wearing different hats, maybe being asked to come and do more council reports or planning commission reports or coming and taking the lead at various community events. And it shows again that having stability in the workforce where we're retaining staff rather than having staff leave us and then have to go out and recruit and hire and train has also given us a lot of strength throughout the organization to be efficient and effective in providing these services. We have a new team here when you look at the faces in the audience compared to six years ago. And there's really just a few folks that are sitting to my left and to my right that... |
| 04:44:10.03 | Herb Weiner | The only one who is is Vicky. Right. |
| 04:44:12.17 | Adam Politzer | I mean... Thank you. . |
| 04:44:16.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:44:17.28 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 04:44:17.75 | Adam Politzer | But also during a time of transition at the staff level and with the economy doing what it did in 2008 and 2009 and be able to meet our needs to serve our public is also something that we have to stand and also take notice and take some recognition. Almost $12 million in capital projects paving 61% of the streets, having a plan to remodel Robin Sweeney Park, looking at the ADA requirements both in public and in private as we go forward. We've been tackling some very significant issues in this town. The amount of time that we've spent on the housing element and I know that you Two years ago, we didn't budget what we've been spending. with the expertise of the consultants and the number of meetings that we've held to try to be as transparent and inclusive as possible. And I think tonight is another example of the process working. The community came out, they were heard, and changes were made. So it's a significant year and when you look at the two-year process, that started back with a strategic planning session for the priority calendar and the budget And then looking at where we were at mid-year, We're negotiating contracts with our two formal labor units with police and SEIU and then also with management and nonrepresented all at the same time. I think it's been exciting. I think that our town has been educated and involved on a lot of these things. And I just go back to the meeting that Mike Langford held with the Robin Sweeney Park consultants. And just the number of workshops and the audience here, we had a full audience of people that wanted to see the outcome and the recognition that he and the consultant and the city received from being very thorough and bringing something that I think we'll all be very proud of once we figure out how to pay for it. But the process is moving in the right direction. Harrison Park, you tonight really took care of the last little piece there, which was the fence line. Now we can move to construction. The Planning Commission has approved the project. Now we get to, and we have the funding. The council has identified the funding. Now we get to move forward in the actual building. So, you know, I know that it's 1210 at night and everyone is tired. |
| 04:46:47.82 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 04:47:00.31 | Adam Politzer | And most of the people who are going to watch this that are in our community on Wednesday. but to not take the opportunity to thank the council and the finance committee and the department heads and the staff that works for them and all the boards and commissions and committee members that do a lot of heavy lifting for us. I'd be remiss if I didn't do so. So thank you for your indulgence. |
| 04:47:25.27 | Unknown | All right. Thank you. Any comments from up here? |
| 04:47:30.23 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. Thank you. So, yeah, I just wanted to, I think, |
| 04:47:32.79 | Vicki Nichols | Yeah. |
| 04:47:35.38 | Jonathan Leone | I wanted to, Adam, you did a great job in sort of pointing out some of the positive. I wanted to thank the department heads and actually everybody that works for the city. I think the labor force, you know, the people who work here, realize that we're kind of all in this together and that we're building for the future, not just for this year or next six months. And, you know, as the economy and, financial position changes, we'll see. We know and can foresee the future, so we're prepared for the kind of muddling along that I think we'll get for the next couple years in the economy. without having to lay people off, without having to cut services, without having to drastically reduce what we currently pay people. So I think that is a recognition of both management conveying with straightforward what the reality is and educating people who work here that and I think there, because of the environment you've all created here, that people are willing to look at it that way. Because it's not, in most organizations, people would not look at it that way. Because it's just, it's more us and them than looking at it as a unit. So I think that's a credit to all the folks at any level here who I think that's very different than what the city was like certainly eight years ago when you first run the city council. And this budgeting process is incredibly different than the first time I went through it in terms of the resident committees putting forward suggestions, public opinion, and just having a longer process and a more finely tuned and frankly more exact process and a lot of hard decisions are made at the staff level before they even get to the council level and that's also very much appreciated because you guys make some of the tough decisions for yourselves and that's I think very helpful for everyone. So I want to thank all of you for your part in it except for the chief but everyone else. |
| 04:49:23.44 | Vicki Nichols | So, |
| 04:49:45.42 | Jonathan Leone | I'm just kidding. I meant especially the chief. |
| 04:49:47.17 | Shirley Thornton | Thank you. |
| 04:49:47.85 | Jeremy | Thank you. |
| 04:49:47.91 | Shirley Thornton | Thank you. I mean, |
| 04:49:50.26 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 04:49:51.14 | Jonathan Leone | for her part, but it's a credit to all of you, and I think we're really well prepared, and we've all done a good job of ready to tackle the next couple of years, so thank you. |
| 04:50:04.58 | Councilmember Ford | THE END OF |
| 04:50:04.79 | Herb Weiner | you Yeah, I also, I think you've done a great job. And I was talking to Robin Sweeney the other day, and she was reminding me how it used to be and how she told me that she recommended that we have the first finance director back in her time. So I think it's a great team. Adam, thank you very much for managing it. And if anybody wants to see me, I'll be in Bank of America at 11.30 tomorrow. Thank you. Thank you. you Thank you. |
| 04:50:37.64 | Shirley Thornton | Thank you. |
| 04:50:37.68 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 04:50:37.98 | Shirley Thornton | you |
| 04:50:38.56 | Linda Pfeiffer | So I do want to echo what Council Member Ford said regarding the prep time for this presentation. We received the detailed budget binder on Sunday. I have a job. I work all day Monday, all day Tuesday. And I don't feel like I've had ample time to review this in detail. So that said, I do really appreciate all the department heads being here so late. It's after midnight. And that's the other point, to be reviewing this starting at 1130 at night. It's such an important topic It just seems like we should have had a special meeting if it got this late. So anyway, I want to thank everyone for being here, and thank you for your efforts and everything you've done. |
| 04:51:33.79 | Jonathan Leone | If you have specific questions, I'm happy to power through them. |
| 04:51:38.75 | Linda Pfeiffer | I don't have specific questions, Council Member Leung, because I haven't had ample time to review the detailed budget binder that was available on Sunday. I mean, it was available on Sunday. I work all day Monday. I work all day Tuesday. And that's why, you know, Council Member Ford isn't here. She was protesting the process for this. So this is just my opinion. I was ensuring it. You can disagree. |
| 04:51:42.11 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. Yeah. |
| 04:52:10.73 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:52:12.87 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:52:13.04 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 04:52:13.17 | Councilmember Ford | I asked you a question. |
| 04:52:14.52 | Linda Pfeiffer | Yeah I answered the question. |
| 04:52:14.56 | Councilmember Ford | Yeah, I answered that. |
| 04:52:16.03 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 04:52:18.13 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 04:52:18.15 | Mike Kelly | Um, I have spent eight years doing this almost. I can tell you that the, without going into the details about the first year, that the quality of the team out here and the ability of the team to execute, starting with the city manager and going right across the board with all of you that are here and a couple that aren't, is phenomenal. And in comparison to eight years ago, it doesn't even look like the same organization. What we have gotten done is amazing, I think, if we look back. Certainly we have our supporters and detractors, but starting with the police and fire buildings, now completing annexation, solidifying the city finances in ways that are lasting and will status and good status for years to come. And it's because you guys have executed along the way and kept your budgets in line and kept your revenues coming in even when it was thin and made wise decisions. And it's just heartwarming. And now having gone through this, which is, I think, I got on the finance committee my third year here. So this will be my sixth year of finance committees. And it's something that I hold very dear because I consider myself a financial kind of guy and I actually like what Charlie does. It's fun. Spreadsheets interest me. But to see the quality of the budget numbers coming through and the quality of the supplementals, first of all, supplementals have dropped. Most of them are now incorporated into the budget process so we're not looking at had a budget which is already strained and then I got five or six or seven essential supplementals over in the column. We had one or two here or there. I won't say who had the most, but We satisfied as many as we possibly could, most of them actually. And it's nice to have the revenue to do that. Now going forward, I'm just delighted with the way the city is financed and the way it's managed. And I think the citizens are as well from all I hear. So thank you. |
| 04:54:50.62 | Jonathan Leone | Yeah, I will say if Council Member Ford is protesting, I would say if you're not on a certain committee, it's up to you to make the time to, and this process has been going on for three months, two months. So you know, Charlie's doors are always open. I know if to get more involved, yes, you have a job, I have a job, Mike has a job, Herb has a job behind the Bank of America. |
| 04:55:15.69 | Unknown | Oh. |
| 04:55:17.03 | Jonathan Leone | But I mean, so I can't speak to Sunday or before, but it's all about how deep you want to wade in yourself. And I can tell you when I wasn't on the Finance Committee that I made the time to go and meet with the Finance Director at the time or staff to understand what was going on. So I know that can be tough, and I'm not saying it's easy, but it's sort of one of those. |
| 04:55:18.43 | Vicki Nichols | you |
| 04:55:18.46 | Unknown | I can't speak to Sunday. |
| 04:55:20.86 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 04:55:41.11 | Mike Kelly | Yeah, and to be clear about all this, the budget is public record from the minute it hits the first desk of the first meeting. And so it's always available for everybody to look at. And I know Charlie has made his time available generously to all kinds of people on all kinds of issues. not just the. the budget. |
| 04:56:02.91 | Linda Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor, I'd like to come. |
| 04:56:03.55 | Mike Kelly | I'd like to come. I'm speaking, please. |
| 04:56:05.96 | Linda Pfeiffer | Yeah. |
| 04:56:05.98 | Mike Kelly | Those things are all available to us all the time. So I think we all need to make sure that we're informed and we keep ourselves informed. It's up to each individual council member to do that. |
| 04:56:06.00 | Linda Pfeiffer | I was hurt. |
| 04:56:19.09 | Mike Kelly | Yes. |
| 04:56:19.13 | Linda Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor, so this, I understand the process is two months coming along and I'm in agreement about keeping ourselves informed, but the fact is that the detailed budget binder did not exist prior to Sunday afternoon. It was not available for us. |
| 04:56:19.87 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 04:56:36.02 | Mike Kelly | for us. That's not a correct statement. It existed for months. |
| 04:56:39.33 | Linda Pfeiffer | I did not know it. I did not know it because the email I received was, your binders are now ready, and you can pick them up on Sunday afternoon. And so, in fact, Council Member Ford had not seen, well, anyway, I'm not going to speak for her because she's not here. So, in my mind, having a detailed budget binder available on Sunday, two days, 48 hours before we have the discussion, and then having the discussion at 1130 at night until after midnight just doesn't fly with me. |
| 04:57:17.40 | Jonathan Leone | We're actually not voting on anything tonight. It's coming back on the 26th. It's coming back, yeah. So that's the vote? |
| 04:57:20.89 | Mike Kelly | 26th. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:57:25.09 | Jonathan Leone | there's the recommended motion is to bring it back on the 26th for a vote right so there's two weeks to so i got to feel you're not fully informed i'll second |
| 04:57:28.84 | Mike Kelly | THE FAMILY IS GOING TO BE Thank you. Second. If you feel you're not fully informed. you Debbie, you want to call the roll? |
| 04:57:40.53 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Council member Fyfer. |
| 04:57:41.80 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 04:57:41.90 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 04:57:41.97 | Linda Pfeiffer | steam. |
| 04:57:48.04 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Councilmember Weiner. |
| 04:57:50.67 | Herb Weiner | So, |
| 04:57:52.12 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Vice Mayor Leon. |
| 04:57:53.20 | Mike Kelly | Yes. |
| 04:57:54.12 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Mayor Kelly. |
| 04:57:54.98 | Mike Kelly | Yes. Thank you. |
| 04:57:55.90 | City Clerk (Debbie) | you |
| 04:57:56.14 | Mike Kelly | All right, so let's move quickly through the rest of this if we can. you We've got to deal with those two items from the consent calendar. So that would be our next agenda item. That was number six and seven? No, it was number F and G. So F is a master fee schedule for municipal lot four in the hours of operation. But the issue is clearly the issue of vacations. Is that the only issue? |
| 04:58:12.29 | Vicki Nichols | F and G. |
| 04:58:26.89 | Jonathan Leone | Yeah, which apparently I misread a lot of things for this particular meeting. But if it isn't in here, it isn't in here. I thought it was in one of these two, but I can't seem to find it again. |
| 04:58:39.31 | Jonathon Goldman | We weren't able to find it either, Mr. Vice Mayor. Certainly, and the Chief and to some extent the City Manager and I have done a little bit of communicating during the meeting. |
| 04:58:41.75 | Jonathan Leone | Okay. |
| 04:58:57.75 | Jonathon Goldman | I think setting aside the objectives of the two changes that we asked you to approve on consent this evening, if the council would like to direct staff to work towards a program that allows, and I think this is probably especially germane, given that we're looking at a two-year period of short-term rentals where residents may not, |
| 04:59:19.18 | Vicki Nichols | you know. |
| 04:59:25.92 | Jonathon Goldman | be with their vehicles and certainly aren't going to be, we're not going to ask them to leave them on the street in their house if they're renting it to somebody who's coming from somewhere else and will have another vehicle. I think we staff can certainly try to develop a program that helps people facilitate the storage of their vehicles while they're not here. So if it pleases the council at some point to have us work on that, you're welcome to direct us to do so. The intent of the two items that are before you is really very straightforward. Number one, change the hours of operation for Lot 4 so that the |
| 04:59:27.30 | Vicki Nichols | Oh. |
| 05:00:07.43 | Andy Rowan | Of course. |
| 05:00:09.64 | Jonathon Goldman | free parking begins at 6 instead of 7 p.m. that's intended to relieve some of the pressure on Caledonia and the residential area C the other is to expand the boundaries of lot 5 which is the area the lot that area L permits are valid in as well as make it specifically prohibit overnight parking for anybody without an L permit in that lot. Because as it stands now, the unregulated space that was formerly the parking lot for the police station, it's legal for people to park there for 72 hours and to park there overnight. And so that was the intent of those two. If there are specific questions there, the Chief and I are still here. |
| 05:00:16.27 | Shirley Thornton | Don't tell her. |
| 05:00:16.96 | Vicki Nichols | California. |
| 05:00:40.17 | Vicki Nichols | Right. |
| 05:00:58.93 | Jonathan Leone | No, I'm good. I'll just move these two items. Okay. Second, sir. |
| 05:01:03.67 | Linda Pfeiffer | So, |
| 05:01:04.04 | Shirley Thornton | I'm sorry. |
| 05:01:04.23 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. Yeah, I have a quick question just to get clarity again on this rumor about people staying over in that parking lot 5, sleeping over. Do we have maintenance or rather surveillance going on to make sure that people aren't sleeping in the cars and... Yes. That area? Okay. So we have ordinances to be able to prevent that from happening. |
| 05:01:29.47 | Unknown | We have. |
| 05:01:33.95 | Unknown | We do, and we have it on a directed patrol list, and Sergeant Viveros is in charge of it, and so it's regularly patrolled. |
| 05:01:41.69 | Linda Pfeiffer | Okay, thank you. I have an answer for the residents who complained to me then. |
| 05:01:48.36 | Mike Kelly | All right, we have a motion and a second. Oh, yeah. Debbie Colerone. |
| 05:01:54.11 | Linda Pfeiffer | Excuse me, I'd like to make an amendment to the motion. If I may, I like the idea of asking city staff to also explore a strategy for vacation, long-term vacation parking. |
| 05:02:08.08 | Jonathan Leone | I don't think that needs to be in the motion, but I think it's a good idea to just come back at a later date. Yeah. |
| 05:02:13.08 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 05:02:13.11 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 05:02:13.20 | Linda Pfeiffer | to see. Shall I make a second motion then? |
| 05:02:15.24 | Jonathan Leone | You don't need a motion to do it. You just direct the staff. |
| 05:02:16.89 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 05:02:16.93 | Linda Pfeiffer | We can just direct the staff. |
| 05:02:18.23 | Mike Kelly | I see. |
| 05:02:18.51 | Linda Pfeiffer | Okay. |
| 05:02:18.97 | Mike Kelly | Yeah. I think they'll work on it. So we have a motion and a second. Maybe call the roll. Please. |
| 05:02:27.49 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. I move. |
| 05:02:31.13 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:02:31.52 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Thank you. |
| 05:02:31.59 | Herb Weiner | Yeah. And he's still there. |
| 05:02:31.64 | Unknown | Yeah. I'm sorry. |
| 05:02:35.81 | Herb Weiner | So moved. |
| 05:02:36.16 | Unknown | Don't move. |
| 05:02:38.27 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 05:02:38.29 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:02:38.32 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 05:02:38.34 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 05:02:38.38 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 05:02:38.73 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Did you tell me? |
| 05:02:40.72 | Herb Weiner | Yes. |
| 05:02:43.13 | Jonathan Leone | Man, if I get sick, I'm... That's number one. Yes. |
| 05:02:44.67 | City Clerk (Debbie) | That's number one. |
| 05:02:45.97 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 05:02:49.06 | Jonathan Leone | Yes. |
| 05:02:49.93 | City Clerk (Debbie) | Thank you. That was by Samaria Leon. So moved. Mayor Callaghan. |
| 05:02:54.98 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 05:02:55.32 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 05:02:55.47 | Unknown | So, yeah. |
| 05:02:55.54 | Jonathan Leone | moves. |
| 05:02:55.94 | Unknown | Kelly. |
| 05:02:56.50 | Mike Kelly | Yes. Yes. So that passes. All right. We've got information for the council. Is there anything you want to say quickly? |
| 05:02:59.06 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:02:59.08 | City Clerk (Debbie) | So. |
| 05:02:59.32 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:03:04.83 | Adam Politzer | Very quickly, because the presentation from Superintendent Valerie Pitts today, very important that you guys are following along what's going on. |
| 05:03:13.78 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:03:13.93 | Jonathon Goldman | No. |
| 05:03:14.37 | Unknown | on. |
| 05:03:14.66 | Jonathon Goldman | Yeah. |
| 05:03:17.66 | Adam Politzer | They have been having community meetings. They've been putting out their own notices and they've had a series of meetings built in Marin City and at the school district offices in Sausalito on looking at consolidating the Bayside School with the MLK Academy School. So moving Bayside site over to Marin City and then expanding the Willow Creek site onto what now is the Bayside site. And so if you |
| 05:03:48.64 | Jonathan Leone | Why didn't she say that though? You know, this is the county person. No, I know you're right, but she should have, and I wish you had reminded me, because I would have called her out on it, because that is just wrong. And the fact that the county is being a party of that is doubly wrong. |
| 05:04:04.51 | Adam Politzer | There are several meetings that she stated earlier today that occur on Thursdays. We will make sure that those meetings are sent out in the currents because as stated, they are public meetings and we think that the public should be participating. I attended a meeting, I attended the meeting today. I couldn't, I was only able to stay for an hour and a half because the meeting ended at 5.30, so I was only there from 3 o'clock to 5. But well represented, again, from both communities. They had professional facilitators running the meeting, and they also had, it looks like the school district has engaged design professionals to help get the comments from the public so that as they look at conceptual ideas that those things can be captured by the design professionals. So again, it's really important that our community and our council is participating. Thank you. |
| 05:05:11.13 | Mike Kelly | Okay, future agenda items? Public comments? If you want to say something, just raise your hand. Did you get that items? |
| 05:05:20.73 | Linda Pfeiffer | I will say that I will have that arts commission. I guess you wanted a mission statement and a functions and purpose. I didn't realize you wanted that much detail in a proposal, so I'll have that by the end of this week, and hopefully we can include it on the June 26th. |
| 05:05:38.80 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. Okay, from my standpoint, and it's just me, |
| 05:05:45.42 | Mike Kelly | there has to be sufficient justification, thought given to how the art function, the art council is going to, commission, is going to function and what its mission is. So it's clear and direct. Because without that, it's a recipe for failure. |
| 05:06:01.15 | Jan Johnson | Thank you. |
| 05:06:01.16 | Linda Pfeiffer | Yeah. |
| 05:06:01.30 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:06:02.63 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 05:06:02.65 | Unknown | I love it. |
| 05:06:02.83 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 05:06:02.93 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:06:02.98 | Linda Pfeiffer | I appreciate the clarification, and you'll have that by the end of the week. |
| 05:06:07.39 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 05:06:07.49 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 05:06:07.51 | Mike Kelly | Okay. |
| 05:06:07.71 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 05:06:08.06 | Jonathan Leone | Thank you. |
| 05:06:08.15 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 05:06:08.18 | Jonathan Leone | I think you've got a pretty full agenda for next time. It may have to go off for another meeting. He stated that earlier. But if you... |
| 05:06:10.66 | Mike Kelly | It may have to go off for another waiting, yeah. But we'll see. But if you get it, we'll get it on the committee, or get it on the council. Council member committee reports? |
| 05:06:20.57 | Jonathan Leone | The only thing I've noted is that the MEA put Richmond in, whatever, but my point in that meeting was that you've got to have a vision of where you're going. And I think right now without McGlashan there to kind of guide it, it's kind of, and there's a whole new, most of the board is people who have never been on the board before because of just turnover and people leaving office and whatever. So not that it's, you know, in the end of the day, |
| 05:06:24.96 | Mike Kelly | MR. |
| 05:06:25.31 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 05:06:35.72 | Vicki Nichols | I'm excited. |
| 05:06:49.73 | Jonathan Leone | going down a horrible path. It just needs to have a plan beyond just growing for growth's sake. There's some cost advantages of including a bigger thing. But anyway, that's me getting in trouble with that group. |
| 05:06:57.64 | Mike Kelly | bigger. Sure. |
| 05:07:03.95 | Mike Kelly | Okay, Adam had a meeting with |
| 05:07:07.03 | Jonathan Leone | For the idea, I just think you have to have a plan. |
| 05:07:10.21 | Mike Kelly | I'm on the TAM board. TAM board, Adam had a brief meeting with, not brief, he had a meeting with Diane Steinhauser to get us in front of them to make sure we get our share share of what's coming down the pike and so we're working, both working very hard on that. So everybody else. Any other reports of significance? |
| 05:07:10.25 | Jonathan Leone | I'm sorry. |
| 05:07:15.02 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 05:07:15.04 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 05:07:15.11 | Vicki Nichols | of the |
| 05:07:27.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:07:28.07 | Herb Weiner | Yes. |
| 05:07:28.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:07:28.57 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 05:07:32.78 | Herb Weiner | MCC MC meeting this month. |
| 05:07:38.12 | Mike Kelly | No. All right. |
| 05:07:39.85 | Linda Pfeiffer | Oh, I know. Is there a reason why I got this in my mail? It was an envelope from the Southern Marin paramedics or medical and it was addressed to you and they scratched your name out and put my name. Is there a reason for that? |
| 05:07:39.91 | Mike Kelly | Thank you. |
| 05:07:39.95 | Herb Weiner | Oh. |
| 05:07:40.47 | Mike Kelly | Just stop. |
| 05:07:41.97 | Herb Weiner | Yeah. |
| 05:07:57.70 | Mike Kelly | that You were appointed to that at some point. Thank you. |
| 05:08:01.18 | Linda Pfeiffer | What? |
| 05:08:02.02 | Mike Kelly | I think you're the alternate to that. Oh, the alternate. |
| 05:08:03.91 | Linda Pfeiffer | Oh, the alternate. |
| 05:08:05.18 | Mike Kelly | I dropped off. Thank you. |
| 05:08:06.47 | Linda Pfeiffer | Oh, you dropped out? When did that happen? |
| 05:08:06.51 | Mike Kelly | Oh, you do? |
| 05:08:10.34 | Mike Kelly | of the |
| 05:08:10.51 | Linda Pfeiffer | I was never notified. I did not know. |
| 05:08:10.53 | Mike Kelly | I can't. They've never emailed me. The annexation? And now that goes right into the annexation. |
| 05:08:14.46 | Linda Pfeiffer | They've never emailed me. |
| 05:08:18.96 | Linda Pfeiffer | Yeah, well, no, I had no idea. It wasn't listed. You would have been doubling. It certainly wasn't listed on the agenda as. |
| 05:08:20.72 | Mike Kelly | I have no idea. It wasn't listed. It certainly wasn't listed on the agenda. It's unclear what's going to happen as a result of the annexation. |
| 05:08:30.98 | Linda Pfeiffer | Well, I'm just saying that I was unaware and it was never listed on the agenda and I was never formally informed. |
| 05:08:38.12 | Mary Wagner | It's SMEPS, so it's the ambulance service? It's not the same we're in? |
| 05:08:41.27 | Linda Pfeiffer | No, I got you. I'm just saying that evidently if I was appointed, it was never on the agenda, and I was never informed, and I never, ever received an email from anyone. Did you appoint me to anything else and not tell me? Just better ask. |
| 05:08:52.73 | Mike Kelly | Just better ask. Okay. Any other reports of significance? All right, seeing none, I move adjourn. All right. |
| 05:09:14.50 | Councilmember Ford | There you go. It's trying to park into affordable housing. |
Andy Rowan — Against: Described living near a rented 'boarding house fraternity' with 15+ people, causing parking, trash, and noise problems. Argued short-term rentals are effectively hotels and opposed due to lack of code enforcement capacity. ▶ 📄
Jan Fidlotham — Against: Questioned if business license requirements were addressed and mentioned a long-term illegal rental in Whiskey Springs that hasn't been stopped. ▶ 📄
Eric Barrett — Neutral: Real estate rental company owner noted property owners are inquiring about rentals due to America's Cup hype but may not follow through. Suggested landlords would accept penalties for unruly tenants. ▶ 📄
Patricia Hale — Against: Expressed concerns that fines are insufficient deterrent and questioned the effectiveness of the 24/7 contact person without enforcement power. Urged respect for residents' negative experiences. ▶ 📄