City Council Meeting - October 09, 2012

The meeting is called to order for the October 9th meeting of the South Florida City Council. The chair requests the roll call to be taken by Debbie.

The meeting was called to order with roll call confirming attendance of Council members Pfeiffer, Ford, Weiner, Vice Mayor Leon, and Mayor Kelly ▶ 📄. Tom Theodoris led the Pledge of Allegiance ▶ 📄. The Mayor reported on closed session items: direction was given to the city attorney on Gabriel vs. Sausalito and questions were addressed on a consent calendar item regarding Marine School Lacey-Francet ▶ 📄. No public comment was received on the closed session. The agenda was approved with a change to reorder items: moving item A to become C and item C to become A ▶ 📄. Council member Weiner noted feeling unwell and possibly leaving early ▶ 📄.

A public announcement was made regarding a candidates night event scheduled for Monday at 7:00 PM at the Spinnaker Restaurant, moderated by the League of Women Voters and sponsored by the Sausalito Women's Club, with all six candidates invited and an opportunity for audience questions ▶ 📄. The council acknowledged the announcement and invited further public comments on non-agenda items, but there were none, leading to a transition to the next agenda item ▶ 📄.

Linda points out a correction needed on page 3A, item 29, regarding Councilmember Pfeiffer's request for discussion on traffic calming and bicycle traffic mitigation at the intersection of Alexander and Sal Street ▶ 📄. The council acknowledges the correction and decides to continue the item to the next council meeting for verification of the record ▶ 📄.

The consent calendar included items 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 4E, and 4F. Councilmember Linda commented on 4C (Laissez-Français lease amendment) to clarify that a traffic mitigation study is in progress with community workshops ▶ 📄. Staff provided clarifications: for 4C, a redlined version changes the security deposit to be required in full prior to commencement ▶ 📄; for 4F, a cleanup change replaces 'CSW's Stuber-Stroh' with 'Kimley-Horn and Associates' and updates the date ▶ 📄. Councilmembers discussed pulling 4D (continued to next meeting) and 4E (encroachment agreement for 22 Atwood). Concerns were raised about traffic and egress for 4E, leading to a motion to split the encroachment agreement into two parts ▶ 📄.

Associate Planner Lilly Schinsing presented the Initial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration (IES-ND) for the Housing Element Update, explaining that the Housing Element is a policy document under CEQA and does not propose any actual development projects, thus no significant environmental impacts. The Planning Commission recommended approval with an added statement clarifying that the IES-ND applies only to the Housing Element update, not to future housing projects, which would require separate environmental review. ▶ 📄 Councilmember Pfeiffer raised concerns about the adequacy of the 1995 EIR referenced in the IES-ND, specifically regarding scenic vista impacts on Second Street and sewer capacity analysis, questioning whether new information (like the Riverwatch lawsuit and EPA mandates) warrants a full EIR instead of a Negative Declaration. ▶ 📄 Staff and consultant Jeff Bradley responded that the Housing Element does not change development potential or zoning, so no new impacts are created, and that a Negative Declaration is standard practice for housing elements in California. ▶ 📄 Public Works Director Jonathan Goldman addressed sewer infrastructure concerns, noting improvements under EPA orders but acknowledging ongoing issues. ▶ 📄 Council discussion revealed divided opinions: Councilmember Pfeiffer and others argued for a full EIR to inform the public about cumulative impacts, especially on fragile sewer infrastructure, while others emphasized that existing protections (CEQA, design review) remain for any future projects and that the Housing Element is a balanced plan. ▶ 📄

Consultant Jeff Bradley presented the Housing Element update, noting it received conditional certification from HCD (State Department of Housing and Community Development) based on a June 2012 draft. The element has seven overarching goals and includes a healthy buffer above the RHNA target of 165 units, proposing 311 units. Bradley emphasized the unique challenge in Sausalito of including very small potential projects (down to one unit) and that only 10 sites are for four or more units. Removal of sites, like the contested 107-111 2nd Street, could cause HCD to reevaluate certification, potentially delaying approval by 60 days. ▶ 📄 Council discussion revealed divisions: Councilmember Pfeiffer expressed concern about lack of a cumulative EIR and undue burden on the south end, suggesting pushing back on the state and possibly removing the 2nd Street site given the large buffer for moderate-income units. ▶ 📄 Councilmember Weiner defended the plan as balanced and low-impact, arguing that removing one site sets a precedent and that development potential exists regardless of the housing element. ▶ 📄 The Mayor emphasized the element is ready and that fear of development is present regardless of adoption, while also suggesting alternative sites under a traffic initiative. ▶ 📄 Vice Mayor Leone focused on the need for proactive community solutions and view protection ordinances. ▶ 📄 A point was raised about potential conflicts of interest for councilmembers within 500 feet of the 2nd Street site, but the City Attorney indicated that for a citywide policy document, a conflict is not presumed unless a unique material financial impact is shown. ▶ 📄

The item was introduced but the first reading was postponed to October 23rd upon a councilmember's request due to time constraints and scheduling ▶ 📄. Staff presented a detailed overview of the draft ADU ordinance, which was developed by an ADU Working Group and reviewed by the Planning Commission. Key points include: ADUs are allowed in all residential districts; new ADUs require ministerial approval with possible Planning Commission exceptions for floor area (up to 10% of parcel area, capped at 500 sq ft), building coverage, height, setbacks, and parking; affordability covenants may be required for certain exceptions; amnesty for existing unpermitted ADUs (pre-2012) includes no parking requirement, a 500 sq ft floor area waiver, and safety inspections; owner occupancy is required in single-family districts with exceptions ▶ 📄. Councilmember Linda raised a question about parking challenges with existing ADUs, to which staff responded that the benefit of legalization outweighed parking concerns ▶ 📄. Councilmember Jonathon Goldman praised the ordinance as clear and well-done ▶ 📄.

Public Works Director Jonathan Goldman presented on required updates to the city's Floodplain Management Ordinance to maintain compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The city received a letter from the Department of Water Resources following a May 16 community assistance visit, requiring a draft ordinance revision by November 21, 2012. Two draft options were prepared: a 'minimum necessary update' addressing specific required changes, and a 'more protective update' that includes additional provisions from the California Model Floodplain Management Ordinance and city recommendations. The more protective draft offers better flood protection, considers sea level rise and land subsidence, and could reduce flood insurance premiums for policyholders, but would increase construction costs for new or substantially improved structures in flood hazard areas. ▶ 📄 Goldman explained that failure to comply could lead to probation or removal from NFIP, making flood insurance prohibitively expensive and eliminating federal disaster assistance and loan guarantees. ▶ 📄 Maps were shown highlighting flood zones AE (regulatory floodplain) and X (moderate hazard) in areas like Marinship, Bridgeway waterfront, and Spinnaker Point. ▶ 📄 Councilmember questions focused on cost implications for property owners and whether outreach had been conducted. ▶ 📄 Goldman acknowledged no specific owner surveys had been done but offered to provide flood insurance rate information. ▶ 📄 The council discussed the need for more information before deciding between the two drafts.

City Manager Adam Politzer provided several updates: 1) A strategic planning session was held, with an executive report to be presented soon ▶ 📄. 2) Announced a new Management Academy in partnership with Mill Valley and Tiburon for developing staff, starting in January, with 7 participants per city in an 8-month program ▶ 📄. 3) Noted upcoming events: MCCMC dinner on October 24th, Chamber of Commerce event on October 26th, and Halloween Trick or Treat Lane ▶ 📄. 4) Encouraged residents to report concerns directly to staff rather than waiting for formal reports ▶ 📄. 5) Praised Lily's work on the housing element ▶ 📄. Councilmember Pfeiffer asked about the MCCMC date ▶ 📄, and another councilmember inquired about academy size and structure, praising it as a 'terrific idea' ▶ 📄. The chili cook-off was also commended ▶ 📄.

The council briefly discussed future agenda items, noting that certain items could not be added due to constraints ▶ 📄. There was mention of interviewing two capable candidates earlier in the evening ▶ 📄. Council member committee reports were acknowledged, with one member stating they hadn't attended a committee meeting in two weeks ▶ 📄. The item concluded with a move toward adjournment.

The meeting concluded with a brief exchange where Dr. Fessel said 'seconds' ▶ 📄, Linda responded 'Yes' ▶ 📄, and an unknown speaker said 'Thank you' ▶ 📄, indicating the adjournment process.