| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:12.03 | Ray Withy | Good evening and welcome to the September 10th, 2013 meeting. And at this time here, roll call, please. |
| 00:00:21.60 | Unknown | Councilmember Feiffer? Here. Councilmember Theodorus? |
| 00:00:23.13 | Thomas Theodores | Here. |
| 00:00:24.36 | Ray Withy | present. |
| 00:00:24.89 | Unknown | Thank you. Councilmember Withey? Here. Vice Mayor Leone? Here. Mayor Weiner? |
| 00:00:26.46 | Ray Withy | here. here. President. Um, Vicky, you want to lead us in the pledge, please? I always pick the people in the first row. Thank you. |
| 00:00:38.41 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 00:00:38.56 | Ray Withy | Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. |
| 00:00:40.18 | Vicki Nichols | you |
| 00:00:52.98 | Ray Withy | Thank you, Ricky. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:01:04.02 | Ray Withy | There's no announcements. We had our closed session on three items that are on litigation, and we're hopefully moving ahead on that. Is there any public comment on those closed session items? Okay, if not, then let's move on along to approval of the agenda. okay second |
| 00:01:29.64 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you. |
| 00:01:29.65 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 00:01:29.67 | Thomas Theodores | Second. |
| 00:01:30.53 | Ray Withy | All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay, thank you. |
| 00:01:31.76 | Thomas Theodores | Bye. |
| 00:01:35.95 | Ray Withy | At this time here we have a special presentation, an introduction of the Sausalito graduates from the Southern Marin Management Academy. |
| 00:01:46.02 | Adam Politzer | Mr. Mayor, thank you very much. Very excited to share with you that the city of Sausalito, city of Mill Valley, Town of Tiburon, Southern Marin Fire District, and the Marin City Community Service District all participated in our first annual Southern Marin Management Academy. We had 20 people employees through those five agencies attend the seven session academy that went roughly eight months long from January through the graduation ceremony that was held earlier in August. In the academy we had eight Sausalito employees. Several of them are here and I'll ask them to come up in a moment. But they included Andrew Davidson from the Public Works Department, staff engineer, Thank you. Heidi Burns, Associate Planner from the Community Development Department. Carl Erickson, sewer maintenance worker, Cindy Cato, Senior Accounting Technician, Susan Paterson, not Nichols, now Susan Paterson, our HR administrator. |
| 00:02:58.25 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:02:58.97 | Adam Krivacek | Thank you. |
| 00:03:02.33 | Adam Politzer | Lily Shinseng, our Administrative Analyst, and Matt Shoup, our police detective, and Erin Wilson from the Children's Librarian. Those were the eight that represented Sausalito We have the city clerk from the city of Mill Valley, battalion chief from Mill Valley, recreation, coordinator for Marin City, you know, just a variety of really outstanding individuals from all levels of of the city agencies. We I'll name a couple of the sessions here, highlight a few of the sessions. We kicked off with a leadership and vision session. of bring the team together, 20 people in the same room, not everyone knowing each other, Even the folks that worked in the same cities didn't necessarily know each other that well because they were in various departments. But sessions range from leadership and vision, public meetings, basically how to, how to present and write staff reports, you know, public speaking skills, strategic management, conflict resolution, Finance 101. risk management and then building the public's trust, a session on the building the public's trust where we brought in Joanne Spears, as many of you. would remember from the league for Mayors and Councilmember where she leads the ethics training, one, two, three, four. at the league where she came in and did an ethics training in building the public stress for our employees from the employees' perspective, not from an elected position but from the employees' position. So all in all, very well received from the actual participants. I can't tell you the number of different speakers that we had here but It looks like it's close to probably well over 20 different speakers from Matthew Heimel, the county administrator, to Suzanne Solomon who's our legal counsel for Leverett Cassidy, and a variety of other you know, terrific folks that we asked to come in and speak. on the various subjects here, including your police chief, your city attorney, your finance director, your city clerk, and myself, and then the other managers from those other cities. just wanted to highlight the program, it's something that we plan on Continuing. and we think that it will be well received going forward. and hopefully easier for us to coordinate. If I can just ask, I think Andy is here. Heidi is here, Heidi is here, Lily. and Susan to come on up to the podium. SUSAN TO REPRESENT THE GROUP, BUT THEY'RE ALL WELCOME TO COMMENT IF THEY WOULD LIKE. But just to kind of give you a perspective Also, special recognition to Susan It's like the hair club. Um, commercial, not only was she a participant but she was the coordinator of the program. She worked closely with the team. to organize it but then was also a participant in the program and went through So I've asked her to kind of comment and if the others would like anything, you're welcome to do so. |
| 00:06:15.87 | Susan Paterson | So Mr. Mayor, council members, First of all, we want to thank you for choosing us, for selecting this particular group and recognizing we were interested in this Management Academy. I'd also want to share that we had the opportunity to coordinate this incredible group of people with all different backgrounds, educations, experience, and link us all together and create one kind of large cohesive group. We had the opportunity to formulate relationships and to create a network for all of us for the future. We had the opportunity to meet and talk to a wide group of professionals, which we appreciate being able to do. we had the opportunity to learn all the inner workings of local government. We had to challenge ourselves. We had to make ourselves very vulnerable at times with this group and trust one another. We have the valuable asset of becoming, of working with other cities, and now we're eager to all continue to work together This program became so valuable that other cities have now contacted me and asked for applications to join our Southern Marin Management Academy. So on that, I really want to take the opportunity on behalf of the group to thank Adam for creating this wonderful academy. and to thank the council for putting the resources behind it. and to thank the staff who created each an individual particular meeting for us because that was a big deal for them to take time out of their own career careers and jobs in order to put these programs together. and to create a strong foundation for the future. So we thank you very much, Adam. And I want to say it as a bat, my background, which is sales. that features and benefits, which is the biggest issue program with sales, whether it's intangible or intangible. It creates the knowledge. in order to be able to sell. In this case, we created the knowledge of local government. which ultimately provides the best customer service. And with that said, as a quote that was given to me when I was a manager with United, they told me that good management is the art of making problems so interesting and their solutions so constructive that everyone wants to get to work. Thank you. |
| 00:08:44.07 | Ray Withy | Okay, step right up. |
| 00:08:47.59 | Heidi Burns | Thank you. |
| 00:08:47.63 | Ray Withy | Thank you, Susie. |
| 00:08:48.47 | Vicki Nichols | Yeah. |
| 00:08:48.94 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 00:08:49.10 | Heidi Burns | Again, thank you to the council for putting those resources into this program. We certainly, I got a lot out of it. I really enjoyed meeting all the folks from the other communities. The conflict resolution class will stick with me because I will fail at conflict resolution. I will continue to try. Charlie, my arms are still behind my back. Thank you. |
| 00:09:12.35 | Lily Shinseng | Thank you. I also wanted to thank Adam, Mary, Chief Tejada, and Jeremy for allowing me the opportunity to participate in this program. For me, what I got out of it was just the inspiration of all these different careers that are within our local government. And it's really fun to see how everything works, and I just really appreciated the opportunity. So thank you. |
| 00:09:36.65 | Andrew Davidson | I think you will be hearing from me enough tonight, so I'll just say thank you for the |
| 00:09:40.65 | Unknown | you |
| 00:09:40.70 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 00:09:40.72 | Unknown | Thank you for that. |
| 00:09:41.58 | Ray Withy | He's |
| 00:09:43.32 | Andrew Davidson | you |
| 00:09:43.55 | Ray Withy | Thank you. And thank you all. |
| 00:09:45.63 | Jonathan Leon | Thanks for taking this. |
| 00:09:51.87 | Ray Withy | Okay. This is the time that the City Council is to hear from the citizens regarding matters that are not on the agenda, except in very limited situations. State law precludes the Council from taking action on engaging in discussions concerning items of business that are not on the agenda. Is there anybody that would like to speak? Thank you. The items that are not on Vicky. |
| 00:10:22.30 | Vicki Nichols | Good evening, Mayor Weiner and Councilmembers. I hope you had a nice one-month holiday from City Business. Maybe you didn't. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask if you might adjourn tonight's meeting in memory of Joanne Livingston. Joanne passed away on September 1st, and Joanne was a longtime Sausalito resident. She came from the East Coast early on and came to California marrying Lawrence Livingston, Jr., who was a city planner. They raised their three children here in Sausalito. And she was a patron of the arts and a social justice advocate. After her divorce, she and Fritz Warren, her partner, who you know well, spent 10 years traveling around the world on their 51-foot sailboat. So they went to Africa and Asia and Latin America all over. Joanne did a lot of work with the Friends of the Sausalito Library, and it's been identified that they're one of her beneficiaries, and the family plans to have a memorial for her later. I don't know anything about that, but I met her shortly after she turned back from her trip, and she was just effusive of all the things she'd experienced. So I always appreciated talking to her. She was politically savvy, knowledgeable, and a real active participants as little so thank you |
| 00:11:48.73 | Ray Withy | We will. Thank you. Thank you. Any other? Yes, sir. Step up, state your name, please. |
| 00:12:00.05 | Sandy Stadfelda | Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. My name is Sandy Stadfelda. I live on 2nd Street between Valley and Sausalito Boulevard on the east side of the street. And I was intrigued to hear that we're looking for interesting problems and creative solutions. The problem I would like to speak about is the proliferation of charter and tourist buses going up and down 2nd Street and through the rest of the south part of town. I've noted in the time that I've lived in Sausalito that the number and the size of the buses has increased to the extent that now there are at least two services operating a scheduled operation through Sausalito. And many of those buses go through empty, it being a scheduled service. So the solution I'm proposing, one would be that you agenda this item amongst the other agenda items that you're considering for the next year or include it in one of the other agenda items. But might I suggest you consider a solution that buses not operate in both directions on 2nd Street, but actually depart the town at the north end and back onto 101, thereby minimizing the fuel consumption, the noise, vibration, emissions that we get on 2nd Street. |
| 00:13:22.77 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 00:13:23.32 | Sandy Stadfelda | Thank you. |
| 00:13:25.61 | Ray Withy | Okay, anybody else? Okay. With that, I have approval of the minutes of the July 23rd, if we can remember it, 2013 |
| 00:13:42.42 | Unknown | So here we go. |
| 00:13:43.80 | Ray Withy | Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. |
| 00:13:46.70 | Unknown | All right. |
| 00:13:47.51 | Ray Withy | Opposed? Okay. Now let's move over to the consent calendar. Matters listed under the consent calendar are considered routine and non-controversial. require no decision or expect that they have a unanimous Council support. and may be enacted by the Council when one motion in the form listed below. A motion to adopt the consent calendar items. Council members, city staff, or members of the public may request that specific items be removed from the consent calendar. Okay, we have two items. |
| 00:14:28.00 | Ray Withy | So we have a move on. I move that. |
| 00:14:29.31 | Tom | I move that we approve the consent calendar. |
| 00:14:32.30 | Ray Withy | Second. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Good. All right. With that, we'll move to public hearings. And the first item that we have on there is a zoning ordinance amendment, updated standards for two and multi-family zoning districts, and that will be Lilly. So you were right. Thank you. |
| 00:14:57.21 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 00:15:23.60 | Andrew Davidson | Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Council members. The item before you tonight is a zoning ordinance amendment for updated standards for two-family and multi-family zoned properties in the city. In terms of background, this ordinance amendment was first discussed at Planning Commission meetings in late 2010. At that time, the Planning Commission directed the formation of a Planning Commission subcommittee to work with the community and refine some of the issues that were raised at the Planning Commission hearings. The subcommittee held 13 meetings from 2011 through 2013 and hosted a community workshop in May of this year. In June of this year, the Planning Commission held two public hearings and forwarded a recommended draft of the ordinance to the City Council. City Council held a public hearing on the draft ordinance on July 9th of this year and then continued the hearing to this evening. In August, the draft ordinance was presented and reviewed at the legislative meeting as well. So tonight we're going to review issues that were raised at the July Council meeting, the Legislative Committee meeting, and from the public at the Council hearing and then since the Council hearing. |
| 00:16:48.04 | Andrew Davidson | So first of all, there has been some discussion in the community about how this ordinance, as it is currently drafted, has come into being. So initially in 2010, the draft ordinance focused solely on limiting the size of single-family residences in two and multi-family zoning districts. as the development standards in those zoning districts are more generous than the R16 single-family zoning district. And the Planning Commission desired new rules that would not allow property owners to use all of those development standards to build one single-family house. In late 2012, the housing element effort was beginning to be wrapped up, and the adopted housing element relied on a three-legged stool, where one component was ADUs, the other was liveaboards, and then the third was infill capacity. And the infill capacity relied on several programs, one of which was housing element program number 20. which is on the screen right now. The highlighted portion is Housing Element 20. called Multifamily Development and Multifamily Zoning Districts. And the objective of Housing Element Program 20 is to develop and adopt standards within the zoning ordinance in 2012 that promote and incentivize the development of the two family and multifamily developments in multifamily zoning districts and discourage the development of single family homes in such districts. Furthermore, the narrative of the program states, amend the design review regulations and the zoning ordinance to add requirements for the submittal of a schematic site design to demonstrate the feasibility of constructing The maximum number of units allowed under zoning or reserving site capacity for the future addition of an accessory dwelling unit on the subject parcel. Staff asserts that the draft ordinance, which was forwarded by the Planning Commission to the City Council in July, adequately addressed Housing Allament 20. |
| 00:18:56.73 | Andrew Davidson | So now we'll look at comparing the draft ordinance, which was recommended by the Planning Commission to issues raised by the Council, the Legislative Committee, and the public. So we'll begin with the changes to the development standards. So today's zoning ordinance for the maximum FAR, or floor area ratio, which is the living space of a home, for the R2 2.5 district is 0.65, which is 65% of the lot. And for the R3 district, it's 0.80, which is 80% of the lot. This means, for example, in the R3 district, a parcel that's 5,000 square feet can have a maximum of a 4,000 square foot home on it. |
| 00:19:47.68 | Andrew Davidson | the fixed percentage option, which was presented in the July version of the ordinance. and the ordinance that the Planning Commission recommended would restrict the four area for a single unit to the single family R16 standard of.45, 45% of the law. This, using the example of the 5,000 square foot parcel, would restrict the size of a single home on that parcel from 4,000 square feet to 2,250 square feet. the leftover square footage could be used for an additional unit or units on the lot or an ADU. if the property owner chose to do so at some point in the future. And similarly, there was a fixed percentage for building coverage and impervious surface. The second option in your packet this evening is a new option, which was proposed by Russ Irwin and Fay Mark, who are residents and property owners on Johnson Street in the city. They proposed a sliding scale which allows a greater ratio of development standards for parcels under 6,000 square feet. |
| 00:21:09.99 | Andrew Davidson | As identified in the staff report, there are a number of pros and cons with the sliding scale option. One of the major pros is that it eliminates the anomaly between the parcels less than 3,000 square feet, which were exempted with the percentage option, and those equal to and greater than 3,000 square feet. |
| 00:21:34.56 | Andrew Davidson | The sliding scale also gives slightly more floor area to smaller parcels, and as the concept behind reducing floor area for single units in the multifamily districts was to discourage very large single-family homes, the ratio proposal is much more fair to smaller parcels, as on smaller parcels, only modestly-sized homes result from the slightly larger floor area ratio. |
| 00:22:03.50 | Andrew Davidson | One of the cons is that for very small parcels, very little remaining development standards is left for additional units on the lot. and this could discourage the creation of an additional unit or an ADU in the future. |
| 00:22:21.27 | Andrew Davidson | Another con with the sliding scale system is that for parcels under 3,000 square feet, only one primary unit, where only one primary unit can be legally built, that unit is restricted to 0.55 FAR, where the current draft ordinance restricts the unit to 0.65 FAR, for example, in the R2 2.5 zoning district. So parcels under 3,000 square feet lose overall development potential unless they factor in a very small unit like an ADU into their plans. |
| 00:22:32.24 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:22:56.47 | Thomas Theodores | Mr. Mayor and Lily, sorry for the interruption. Would you prefer to have questions at appropriate points, like you were just moving from this mechanism to another subject, or would you prefer to wait? |
| 00:23:00.25 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. |
| 00:23:13.97 | Andrew Davidson | I think I intend the discussion, the presentation to be pretty brief, so perhaps if you could hold the questions to the end, that would be better. |
| 00:23:20.08 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:23:23.54 | Andrew Davidson | So now on to the conditional use permit exception. The ordinance allows for an exception to the new development standards with the approval of a conditional use permit. This would allow the Planning Commission to allow a project to not abide by the new regulations based on specific property characteristics like odd-shaped parcels, steep slopes, and the location of an existing structure. At the council level, the discussion was that the exception might be too broad. And the legislative committee directed staff to identify a more stringent criteria for a parcel to qualify for this exception. And therefore, there are five options which have been presented to the Council in the So the first is option four, which restricts the CUP to only those parcels less than 6,000 square feet. And as the smaller parcels were the ones that the Planning Commission was really targeting with this exception, that it seemed to make sense to restrict it to only 6,000 square foot parcels. Option 3C adds language which specifies that the conditional use permit should only be approved in extremely limited situations. |
| 00:24:41.76 | Adam Krivacek | Thank you. |
| 00:24:45.62 | Andrew Davidson | Option 3D. Adds language that reiterates that the exception is not a guarantee and the planning commission needs to consider the context of the neighborhood in approving a larger home. Option 3B adds criteria to the special findings to allow a property owner to demonstrate that additional units are not feasible. and therefore additional development of the main unit could be considered by the Planning Commission. And option 3A adds an additional finding, which provides the Planning Commission with a measuring stick to adequately measure how big is too big in the neighborhood context. |
| 00:25:33.06 | Andrew Davidson | Next, onto the 200 square foot bonus. This bonus is not to exceed the total development standards for the parcel. So the.65 or the.80 would not be allowed to be exceeded with the bonus. The bonus was included to address those property owners who have been informally planning additions to their existing single-family homes. like an extra bedroom for an additional child, and may be capped out on floor area due to the new regulations. At the council meeting in July, there was some discussion related to this exception, but there was no specific direction given. At the legislative committee, there was a discussion about this exception. and discussion of the concept of a sunset clause. And the purpose of the sunset clause would be to allow for a specific period of time whereby property owners could utilize the exception, specifically with consideration of those who may be in the beginning stages of planning for an addition. Therefore, after the expiration of the sunset clause, the exception would not apply for property owners in the city. And it wouldn't need to because there would have been a sufficient amount of time for people to come in and submit those plans and get them approved through the city. The revised draft ordinance includes a sunset period of 10 years. And this has been added as option five. |
| 00:27:10.53 | Andrew Davidson | The historic register exception was added to recognize that older homes, which may exceed the new cap on development standards, may need extensive renovations. And those renovations may require substantial demolition, which would require the home now conform with the new development standards, which might mean that the home size would be required to be removed or portions of the home demolished. Removing portions of older homes, especially historic homes, was not the intent of the ordinance and therefore this exception was provided in the ordinance. At the council level in July, the council registered that this exception might allow these homes to expand and get bigger. which was also not the intent. Additionally, the legislative committee requested the list of properties which are currently on the local historic register and what type of criteria is used to list a property on the historic register. And that information was provided in your staff report. So there are two options for additional language in the draft resolution. The first is to add the national and California registers in addition to the local register. And the second is to require that those properties on the the National California or Local Register may be exempt from the new development standards where they're not increasing any of the floor area, built-in coverage, or impervious surfaces. So it really gets at the intent of those property owners planning on making renovations to their homes and not expanding them. |
| 00:28:57.73 | Andrew Davidson | The next item is the addition of an additional design review permit finding which requires that a project demonstrate feasibility of constructing the maximum number of units or show why it is not practical to do so. And this finding was developed to partially address Housing Element Program 20 by requiring that property owners consider the siting of future units on the property during the design phase of their current project. This would open up the possibility of siting future units on the property at some later date. There would be no requirement for the property owners to build those units. At the council meeting in July, there was no concern registered by the council, nor was there at the legislative committee meetings, but we have received correspondence from the public regarding this finding. One of the options in the revised draft ordinance is to modify the term feasibility in the A option to practicality to be consistent with the language in B where it discusses practicality. And the option nine in the revised draft ordinance adds additional criteria to the finding, similar to the criteria for the conditional use permit exception. |
| 00:30:24.39 | Andrew Davidson | And lastly, the purpose and intent section was also discussed at the council meeting, the legislative hearing, and in the public comment. We heard from the public at the council meeting that the word appropriate in what was well, what is listed as number going to be number four in a minute on your screen, implies that single-family homes are inappropriate and should be removed. And the Legislative Committee also acknowledged Planning Commissioner Werner's correspondence with the concept of a new item in the purpose and intent section. So 11 adds a new purpose to the purpose and intent section. And option 10 rewords the former purpose, which included the word appropriate to either state to allow the preservation of development potential for parcels in the two-family and multifamily residential zoning districts, or to allow the preservation of development potential for the number of units appropriate to the zoning district in which the parcel is located. |
| 00:31:30.32 | Andrew Davidson | This provides you with a summary of the options that are listed in the staff report and are identified in the revised draft ordinance. And we can return to this slide if we need to, to look at the individual options. With that, staff is recommending that the council conduct a public hearing, review the optional language, and introduce and read by title only the ordinance regarding updated standards in the multifamily zoning district. and then continue the second reading to the next city council meeting on the 24th of this And with that, I conclude my presentation. And we're available for questions that you might have. |
| 00:32:10.57 | Ray Withy | Okay, we're going to go one question at a time. Go ahead. |
| 00:32:14.02 | Thomas Theodores | Okay, one question. So I guess I'll begin with process. There were a couple of letters in our council packet with respect to transparency and noticing specifically for the legislative committee. And my question is, Were the legislative committees, were they all scheduled during the weekday, during daytime when folks were at work and also if you could respond to the, one of the letters with respect to noticing for residents. |
| 00:32:46.31 | Andrew Davidson | Sure. For residents. To my knowledge, legislative committee meetings are always scheduled during the daytime, usually in the morning. So this item was scheduled at a legislative committee meeting, I believe, at 10 a.m. during workday. We did go above and beyond normal noticing for legislative committee meetings. Usually it's posting here at City Hall and perhaps online. I did send a notice to all of the email recipients that I have on the email list that is about, I think, 180 people right now. So I sent an email to that list notifying them of the legislative committee meeting. With regard to public noticing for the zoning ordinance amendment, there was a notice put in the IJ of the two planning commission hearings. There's also a notice put in the IJ of the city council hearings for July. There was a notice put in the currents. The notice was posted at City Hall and online. I also sent an email to everyone on the email distribution list. And we did send a postcard to all property owners in the R2 2.5 and R3 zoning districts prior to the community meeting in May. |
| 00:34:05.03 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you, Lily. |
| 00:34:06.33 | Thomas Theodores | you |
| 00:34:06.38 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:34:07.04 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you. |
| 00:34:07.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:34:07.19 | Thomas Theodores | Right. |
| 00:34:09.30 | Unknown | I'll throw this. |
| 00:34:09.95 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you. |
| 00:34:10.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:34:11.63 | Thomas Theodores | Sure. Thank you. So I'll start off with my one question. I do have a number, but I'll stick to one. Could you... Well, first of all, could you just clarify that You've compared two options up here, a fixed percentage and a slide in scale. And the slide in scale methodology that you've put up there was kindly and creatively provided by our residents, Russ Irwin-Famak, who proposed this as a solution to solve some anomalies. But could you also put, my question is, could you comment on the fact that A slide in scale mechanism was part of this draft ordinance, from my understanding, for two years, and in fact, was only removed from this ordinance when it finally got to the Planning Commission. So that's right. And so what was the nature of that slide-in scale? Because in the end, we're going to be talking about methodology. Yeah, the slope, yeah. |
| 00:35:17.72 | Adam Krivacek | Thank you. |
| 00:35:17.74 | Unknown | That's correct. |
| 00:35:27.85 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. |
| 00:35:27.87 | Vicki Nichols | Yeah. |
| 00:35:28.00 | Andrew Davidson | The original sliding scale was a fixed percentage within parcel categories. So, for example, parcels between 3,000 and 3,500 square feet got a fixed percentage of, I'm just making up a number, but 50% or 55%. And then another parcel category got a different fixed percentage. So it's sliding in that sense. |
| 00:35:49.75 | Thomas Theodores | category. So rather than a smooth algorithm that dropped from 65 to 45, it created a lot of little anomalies. |
| 00:35:59.98 | Andrew Davidson | It created a lot of It was set. Yeah. So that was modified after that was originally proposed to a table solution where there wasn't a straight percentage that you took and multiplied by your parcel size, but an actual table that said, if you're within x parcel size and x parcel size, your floor area ratio is x square feet. Your building coverage is x square feet and your impervious surface is x square feet. That was the sliding scale that was presented |
| 00:36:02.39 | Thomas Theodores | Yes. |
| 00:36:16.96 | Adam Krivacek | you |
| 00:36:17.01 | Lily Shinseng | Thanks. |
| 00:36:17.75 | Adam Krivacek | Thank you. |
| 00:36:30.47 | Andrew Davidson | to the Planning Commission and considered by the Planning Commission. And then at the Planning Commission hearing in the last one in June 26, the Planning Commission decided to go with the fixed percentage option. |
| 00:36:48.34 | Jonathan Leon | anything. Sure. Actually, can you... All this is choices, right? And none, parcel size and sliding scale and all that stuff, it's all somewhat subjective. But the one I wanted to just talk to you about were the differences between your interpretation of 3A and 3B in the exemption language. |
| 00:37:14.96 | Unknown | for this evening. |
| 00:37:22.68 | Jonathan Leon | So how do you |
| 00:37:29.65 | Jonathan Leon | because one has parking attached to it, but it's more as an afterthought. But do you see those as different or as similar? |
| 00:37:37.82 | Andrew Davidson | Maybe this needs a little clarification. So option B is intended to go into finding one, where it begins with, it has been adequately demonstrated. So that's one finding that needs to be made for the CUP. And it's an additional criteria that the Planning Commission can use in making that finding. |
| 00:37:53.13 | Vicki Nichols | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:38:00.03 | Unknown | Right. |
| 00:38:00.50 | Andrew Davidson | Option 3A was intended to be a second finding. for the conditional use permit option. So it's not intended to be a part of finding one. |
| 00:38:11.93 | Jonathan Leon | Right, so what that's sort of saying is if there are other large homes around, I should be able to have a larger home too, even if I'm in a single family home, even if I'm in a multi-family district, because that's just how things unfolded. |
| 00:38:32.93 | Vicki Nichols | So I get an example. |
| 00:38:33.17 | Jonathan Leon | So I get an exemption because some other people billed to the max on and around me. |
| 00:38:34.03 | Andrew Davidson | It's a good assumption. |
| 00:38:35.13 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 00:38:35.16 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:38:38.34 | Andrew Davidson | I think the key word there is other conforming dwelling units. So the other units that the Planning Commission would be looking at are other units that conform with the new development standards. So those homes wouldn't exceed the, let's just say,.45 FAR. |
| 00:38:55.41 | Jonathan Leon | Right, so that has some logic to it, but I think in phrasing, because what's conforming to what in this particular statement, you clarified it. If you say it's conforming to |
| 00:38:59.55 | Andrew Davidson | All right. |
| 00:39:09.69 | Jonathan Leon | the proposed new standards versus the standards at the time that those were constructed, then it makes a little bit more sense of the intent of the whole thing. You know, it's not, hey, that's a much bigger house. I should have a much bigger house because all these people did it first. Do you know what I'm saying? |
| 00:39:25.55 | Andrew Davidson | When the Planning Commission and staff presents this CUP exception, if it goes through to the Planning Commission, we would be considering that word conforming. That would mean with the current development standards. That's what that word means. So we wouldn't be looking at it in the context of in the past there were different development standards, but what are the current development standards today and do those homes conform to them or not? |
| 00:39:50.41 | Jonathan Leon | Right. So then what's the need for that, though? If that's how you're interpreting it, what's the need for it? |
| 00:39:56.33 | Andrew Davidson | The idea is there may be larger parcels in the neighborhood and therefore slightly larger homes. And so this home that doesn't conform to the new development standards might be able to make a case, I want a home that's slightly larger and looks the same as other homes in my neighborhood. |
| 00:40:00.62 | Jonathan Leon | . |
| 00:40:00.79 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:40:14.56 | Jonathan Leon | even though you're on a smaller parcel. |
| 00:40:16.68 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:40:18.22 | Jonathan Leon | In theory, that's a higher... intensity of use. |
| 00:40:22.01 | Unknown | It's a larger FAR. |
| 00:40:23.15 | Jonathan Leon | on a smaller scale. So where did that come from? I can't remember that comment coming up. |
| 00:40:32.02 | Unknown | I think that the |
| 00:40:33.03 | Andrew Davidson | The issues that were raised at the council meeting, legislative committee meeting, and some of the comments from the public have been, well, what criteria are we going to use to determine how big is too big and how big is it for this neighborhood? So that was something that staff is proposing in order to make that judgment. |
| 00:40:46.53 | Adam Krivacek | Thank you. |
| 00:40:59.75 | Jonathan Leon | Thanks. |
| 00:41:02.89 | Tom | I've had the opportunity of participating in the legislative committee, so we've explored a lot of this, but I still have some issue on number E as well. And my question is, do we have anything comparable for R1? Because a lot of this is we're making them comparable. I mean, if we have lots that have |
| 00:41:10.13 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:41:19.63 | Tom | issues in terms of meeting the development standards. And I still struggle somewhat on why we have it in there and then the applicability is very difficult, I think. |
| 00:41:31.69 | Andrew Davidson | So the only option for R1 parcels to exceed the.45 FAR would be through a variance process. So that's the only option. The reason why we wouldn't recommend allowing a CUP for R1-6 parcels to exceed the.45 FAR is because in the R2 and the R3 zoning districts, those districts were created with the 0.65 and the 0.8 development intensity in mind, as were the R16 parcels created with the 0.45 in mind. So we're not actually, we wouldn't be exceeding the 0.65 or 0.80 FAR. we would just be allowing a single unit to go somewhere between the.45 and the.65 or the.80. and intensity of development in those zoning districts. If that answers your question. |
| 00:42:30.42 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:42:30.43 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:42:30.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:42:31.11 | Ray Withy | Okay. I'm going around the board. Linda. |
| 00:42:35.70 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you. Thank you, Lily. So my question actually has to do with the tandem parking. And you're familiar with the 99 study that and I was just curious as to how tandem parking wound up in this ordinance is something that Okay. |
| 00:42:56.45 | Andrew Davidson | The thought was that on tightly constrained parcels where tandem is available, it would be better to get two parking spaces on that parcel instead of one. And so the other space, even though it's parked in tandem, wouldn't have to be parked on the street. So the change would be, it's not a question of whether or not to allow tandem parking. That's already allowed through the zoning ordinance. It's how it's allowed. And currently tandem parking requires a conditional use permit. The change would take away that conditional use permit requirement. |
| 00:43:30.53 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 00:43:30.54 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:43:30.56 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. |
| 00:43:30.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:43:31.82 | Jonathan Leon | Okay. Well, we're talking about like a single point. Can we stay on that point rather than jump around? I mean, it's not Linda's fault. I'm saying... That's okay. |
| 00:43:37.29 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. |
| 00:43:37.31 | Thomas Theodores | You know what I mean? |
| 00:43:37.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:43:37.82 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. |
| 00:43:39.05 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:43:39.67 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you. |
| 00:43:39.79 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:43:39.94 | Thomas Theodores | Well, I understand. |
| 00:43:41.14 | Jonathan Leon | So that way we can get to solve some of these one issue at a time maybe. That's fine. I don't know if you solved your earlier one. No, no. I haven't even begun. So while we're on this, why not? |
| 00:43:43.52 | Unknown | So good. |
| 00:43:44.03 | Unknown | you |
| 00:43:48.31 | Thomas Theodores | No, no, no, I haven't even become. So while we're on this, why don't we deal with that? |
| 00:43:54.20 | Jonathan Leon | Okay, so I'm just clarifying because I'm having a mental breakdown at the moment, but just in... This is the exemption of why I shouldn't have to do this, right? If I make these findings, I don't have to comply with... I can go beyond this reduced standard. |
| 00:43:59.75 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you. |
| 00:43:59.89 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:43:59.92 | Thomas Theodores | I'm not sure. |
| 00:44:10.05 | Jonathan Leon | So, I'm not quite sure exactly why we have to be able to allow that, but... just in general, since the whole goal here is to reduce and not to allow for exemptions of reduce, but I understand that people want to add to their homes, and that's a good thing, but to a certain degree. But I don't see why I understand how to come up with criteria to a certain sense, but if feasibility and practicality and these things are so subjective, and you can make an argument either way. So to even put language in that has that, it's... And I've seen having sat through these, everybody will make a claim what's feasible or impractical or... And then you leave it up to five people. Some may be able to make that decision. Some are lay people. Some are architects who can say that's feasible, practical. So it's that whole feasible, practical thing, I just have a very hard time with including that because that You know, what does feasible, at a price, anything can be built, right? It's feasible. Is it practical? Practical for me versus you versus him? Who knows, right? We don't really ask for financial information for people when they come in. So to put any of that language in, I think, it gives you a little sense of comfort until you really stop and think about how it plays out. So I'm not sure if that really gets us anywhere. I don't know how, as a planner, having sat through that, you know, |
| 00:45:40.51 | Andrew Davidson | The intent of the CUV exception, I think from the subcommittee level, was to really address smaller parcels. I think that was really the intent, which is why we've included an option here to limit the exception just to parcels under 6,000 square feet. 6,000 square feet is the minimum lot size per subdivision in the R16 districts, so we thought there was a correlation there. |
| 00:46:00.93 | Jonathan Leon | We thought. Yeah, but I mean, you don't have the benefit of having your table from the last of the number of lots and where they fall in each size. Most of the lots are 6,000 square feet and under in Sausalito, from my memory. |
| 00:46:15.93 | Unknown | I actually have the parcel of info. |
| 00:46:22.47 | Unknown | Is this what you're saying? |
| 00:46:23.43 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. |
| 00:46:23.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:46:23.46 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. |
| 00:46:23.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:46:23.58 | Andrew Davidson | you |
| 00:46:23.63 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:46:23.92 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. You had like a, I don't know if it was a graph, it was a table that had actual numbers of, but this is fine. Well, I don't know. Anyway, I can't process in such a short period of time. But, you know, there are many more parcels 6,000 and under than 6,000 and above. So when we have exemptions for under 6,000, that was one proposal, number four, I think, or we have a sliding scale between six and three. I mean, that's the meat of the issue. |
| 00:46:33.32 | Adam Krivacek | I can't process it. |
| 00:46:46.33 | Adam Krivacek | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:46:51.47 | Jonathan Leon | It's not the 3,000 and below. You can only build one unit on that. It's not the 10,000 and above. There are very few parcels of that size. And so it's really, six to three is what it's all about. |
| 00:47:02.91 | Unknown | Uh-huh. |
| 00:47:03.32 | Jonathan Leon | So once you start saying, OK, well, that's OK, we can push and pull and move things around. I mean, that's really what we're talking about here. By the lot of the numbers are between what's three and six. Is that the bulk of all the number of parcels |
| 00:47:19.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:47:19.77 | Andrew Davidson | Well, I think there's...we can try to take a look at these tables if we'd like to, but this does show an analysis of parcels between 1,000 and 12,000 square feet in the R16, R2, 2.5, and the R3 zoning districts. I haven't run the numbers to see how many there are of 6,000 square feet in all of those zoning districts. |
| 00:47:43.18 | Jonathan Leon | Right, I mean, you can just see from 6,000 below, it's a lot smaller, a lot higher numbers in the R2 and R2 and R3, so versus... in the R16, right? So it's, I mean, that's really what we're talking about, is people took advantage of, and it'll happen now, real estate, everything's coming back again, of these multifamily lots that were zoned, have higher capacity for coverage, FAR, and built big single-family homes on them when that was really the goal of the R16 district. So the question is, why do we have to carve out a lot of holes is the good question here. |
| 00:48:21.32 | Andrew Davidson | Why do we have to call it? It was a recommendation from the Planning Commission Subcommittee. They thought it was important to give some consideration for parcels that may have some physical site constraints and can make a good... Well, that's a different... |
| 00:48:28.44 | Jonathan Leon | I'm sorry. |
| 00:48:35.27 | Jonathan Leon | Well, that's a different story altogether, and that's what Falloff, I think that's where you were, before, there was a whole slope component that was mixed into this before. That gave you a sense of practical, impractical, and that had sliding scale and stuff like that in there. That's a different story altogether than every lot has some slope to a certain degree, but if you're on a 18% grade, that's a different story than a 5% grade. we're sort of carrying some things forward that for exemptions that applied if you really got specific why you should be exempt, and now we're leaving it as vague, and then you leave it up to the planning commission to sort through it. a tough process for them to do. |
| 00:49:19.96 | Unknown | So I think that's a policy decision for the council to make. |
| 00:49:23.23 | Jonathan Leon | Right. |
| 00:49:23.77 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you. |
| 00:49:23.86 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. |
| 00:49:23.87 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you. Lily, could you put up those diagrams again, please? I'm really trying to phrase these as questions, because I think there's a preface I need for this question to make it clear. If we stand back from, and I am very sympathetic to the Vice Mayor's view here about lots of little exceptions sort of scattered all over it like little band-aids almost, and it says to me that the core idea may be need working at because if you've got a core simple idea with not having to put lots of exceptions on it, you probably have a sounder construct. So... We started off with the basic problem of saying how can we close this loophole of large large houses being built on large lots taking advantage of the um, large hire entitlements that the multifamily zones could have. Okay, and so picking R2, this is my question. Picking R2, 2.5 is one example, and I'm thinking far. |
| 00:50:35.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:50:35.76 | Thomas Theodores | ratio in my head because those are the only numbers I have in my head. I'd have to look up the data otherwise. So we made the decision that the way to execute this was that for Sadiar II's, where we have a maximum FAR entitlement of 65% of the net parcel size, that we would use the R16 development standards, so 45%. So in one sense, we could write a simple ordinance and say we're changing that from 65 to 45, end of story. Right? But... When you do that, you create a lot of problems for the tiny lots. So if we accept the fact that we are going from 65% to 45% Do you have a feel for, I think staff's position is, you want to start any decline to the 45% at 3,000 square feet? Is that because you've said 3,000 square feet parcel size should be exempt from this ordinance, right? That's your position? |
| 00:51:43.46 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:51:43.48 | Andrew Davidson | I think that's what staff would recommend. Would recommend. And if we look at the numbers, too, we can look at the. |
| 00:51:44.78 | Thomas Theodores | would recommend |
| 00:51:49.22 | Thomas Theodores | Right. |
| 00:51:49.45 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. the chart. All right. here where you can look at what that minimum |
| 00:51:55.85 | Vicki Nichols | Yeah. |
| 00:52:01.32 | Andrew Davidson | with that maximum floor area would be. |
| 00:52:04.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:52:07.76 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 00:52:07.85 | Unknown | before, let's say. |
| 00:52:07.90 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 00:52:07.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:52:08.03 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 00:52:10.80 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:52:10.83 | Thomas Theodores | Right. |
| 00:52:12.13 | Unknown | Trying to get the laser. |
| 00:52:15.68 | Thomas Theodores | But I'm not necessarily coming from the perspective that that sliding scale is the one that should be good for it. |
| 00:52:17.23 | Unknown | So I know. |
| 00:52:17.87 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:52:22.53 | Andrew Davidson | Well, what I was trying to use the laser, but if we look at a 3,000-square-foot parcel, or let's look at a 2,750-square-foot parcel at 65%, that's a 1,700-square-foot home. That would be the maximum size of the home at 65%. |
| 00:52:38.84 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 00:52:42.00 | Andrew Davidson | So from staff's perspective, we don't find that size of home abnormally large. it. So, |
| 00:52:49.78 | Thomas Theodores | And if you were imagining you were going to do just a simple linear function from 65% to 45%, straight line slope down to the 45%, |
| 00:52:59.48 | Thomas Theodores | Um, Otherwise, you could have a neighbor with 3,001 square feet who could build a much smaller house than someone with 3,000 square feet. I mean, quite a big difference, right? So, right. |
| 00:53:10.15 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 00:53:13.96 | Thomas Theodores | Where do you end? Where do you definitely pick up the 45%? Do you ramp it down to 4,000 square feet, 5,000 square feet, 6,000 square feet? Where's the number? |
| 00:53:27.07 | Andrew Davidson | If that was a question, I think that would respond. That was the question. That was the question. |
| 00:53:28.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:53:28.51 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 00:53:28.63 | Thomas Theodores | That was the question. |
| 00:53:32.19 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. I think we would suggest the 6,000 square foot parcel due to the correlation between the minimum lot size and the R16 zoning district being 6,000 square feet. |
| 00:53:43.27 | Thomas Theodores | And so what's the only reason I will then yield is the only reason the major reason then that you went from a Sloping function to a step function an administrative one about ease of administration? Or was there some sort of further, deeper analysis into that? |
| 00:54:05.35 | Andrew Davidson | from the subcommittee recommendation in the table? Yeah, whatever. To the fixed percentage? Yeah. Yes, yes. That was decided by the Planning Commission. |
| 00:54:09.87 | Thomas Theodores | Yeah, whatever. Yeah. Yes, yes. but for what reason? |
| 00:54:19.71 | Andrew Davidson | The table, if I recall correctly, the table that was presented to the Planning Commission using the, so at that point it was the table of parcel ranges with the set floor area building coverage impervious surface. There were |
| 00:54:28.06 | Joan Cox | the table. |
| 00:54:35.99 | Andrew Davidson | some anomalies with that table, but that didn't sit well with the Planning Commission. I think the Planning Commission also thought it was... a little too complicated, as well as easier with a fixed percentage system. There may be other reasons that I'm not remembering right now. |
| 00:54:55.55 | Thomas Theodores | I won't play. |
| 00:54:56.82 | Ray Withy | Okay, are there any more questions on this particular area before we move on out of it, no? Yeah, what I'd thrown on this |
| 00:55:04.19 | Jonathan Leon | Yeah. I'm sorry. Well, we've kind of talked around a little bit. |
| 00:55:07.78 | Ray Withy | I want to try to stay on this and then move on. |
| 00:55:12.78 | Jonathan Leon | I have more questions on this particular point, but I have questions. Okay, then we're good. |
| 00:55:17.57 | Ray Withy | Okay, then we're good. That I know. Theo? Linda? |
| 00:55:22.82 | Thomas Theodores | On this point, no. |
| 00:55:24.41 | Ray Withy | Okay, all right, then let's move on to the next point. |
| 00:55:27.41 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you. |
| 00:55:27.46 | Jonathan Leon | Over. I think the easiest one to tackle is the local register one. Okay, since the local register means absolutely nothing in terms of the number of lots, right? So I don't know why we picked that, and that's no offense to anybody, because we need to work on the local register, and that's something we'll do hopefully short. That's something Heidi Vuleff is working on with folks. But so, I don't think the intent is that if you do work on an older home, you can't build it back to the same size it was before. Because we don't even discourage that currently in the zoning ordinance. If you put exactly what's back there, again, it's OK. It's if you're converting it. Is that what you're trying to get at here? |
| 00:56:10.81 | Andrew Davidson | So the catch 22 comes in when you have a large older home. |
| 00:56:17.26 | Vicki Nichols | Right. |
| 00:56:17.61 | Andrew Davidson | that may exceed the new development standards. Now that home is non-conforming. |
| 00:56:23.22 | Vicki Nichols | Right. |
| 00:56:23.79 | Andrew Davidson | If it needs a lot of work, and that work falls into the substantial demolition category, which involves more than 50% of the home, That's a voluntary demolition, which by the zoning ordinance requires variance. or portions of the home to be removed to be conforming. So that was the issue. |
| 00:56:45.30 | Jonathan Leon | Right, but in practical, I don't know if you can recall, but I can't recall somebody It's been a while since I've been on the Planning Commission, but that we're We said you can't build back to the same size you were there before. unless you created some condition that wasn't there to begin with. Do you know what I'm saying? or Usually when it's a, and Joan, correct me if I'm wrong, if you can recall, it's more like, okay, I tore it down, I want to bring it back to some other thing, plus this other junk I want to throw in the back and go up the floor. So... |
| 00:57:17.87 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. |
| 00:57:23.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:57:23.04 | Andrew Davidson | So from what I can remember, when presented with that reality at the counter, that someone would have to achieve a variance in order to do the demolition that they would like to do, they usually stick to the 50% or under. That's what they submit plans for. |
| 00:57:36.84 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. Right. |
| 00:57:42.14 | Jonathan Leon | I'm not. |
| 00:57:42.21 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 00:57:42.41 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. I mean, I understand you want to keep the character of the homes. You don't want this to do anything to take away from, forget the register, just, you know, what's the HLB or whatever the appropriate process would determine if it's something that should be maintained or preserved. I'm not sure what the... the harm is here unless you convert it from a multi-family into a single family. Do you know what I'm saying? |
| 00:58:12.31 | Unknown | the harm in not having the historic register in the language? |
| 00:58:15.64 | Jonathan Leon | No, I wouldn't choose that because that's only six, that's what, eight properties, you know, so what's the difference? But it's not, you're not getting to the core of the matters. Like if you, if I rehabbed, let's say the house on Sunshine and Saucyuta Boulevard, that's taken like 10 years to redo. |
| 00:58:16.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:58:21.24 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 00:58:21.26 | Unknown | I'm not. |
| 00:58:33.79 | Jonathan Leon | for a variety of reasons. But they did it back to what it was. And I'm sure that's not conforming. I would be my guess, because it's a big house on a weird pie-shaped lot with a garage with another living space above it. with I don't know where that doesn't, you know, in the vision of when we started this many years ago, like why are we allowing people to kind of build a bigger house in a multifamily That's not really where this is, that's not the problem. So why are we targeting a problem that isn't a problem? Do you know what I'm saying? Is this creating a problem where there wasn't a problem before? |
| 00:59:11.44 | Andrew Davidson | From our perspective, it's fixing a problem that was identified at the community workshop, where people were expressing concern that older homes that may be historic may be damaged because the property owner will choose to tear down the historic resource to comply with the new, smaller, single-family home rather than to rehab it. |
| 00:59:46.96 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. I'm going to knock you down. I'm going to break. |
| 00:59:57.39 | Jeremy Graves | Jeremy Graves, Community Development Director. Another aspect that was discussed at the community workshop is, say we have an older home that may be eligible for the local historic register and it's currently a duplex, and the property owner would like to convert it into a single family residence and rehabilitate it, but |
| 01:00:15.45 | Adam Krivacek | Yeah. |
| 01:00:18.86 | Jeremy Graves | the new regulations would not allow the reduction from a duplex into a single, would not allow a single family residence that large. And so the property owner may be more persuaded, well, I guess I'll leave this as an investment property and not rehabilitated. as opposed to converting it to my own single family residence where I and my family are going to be able to enjoy it as a rehabilitated Thank you. property on the local historic register. We want to make sure we provide the property owners with the adequate economic incentive to rehabilitate their property. |
| 01:00:48.54 | Jonathan Leon | Bye. Right. |
| 01:00:56.72 | Jonathan Leon | Yeah, but that's the whole point. The whole point is that they don't convert it into a single-family house under the... |
| 01:01:00.69 | Jeremy Graves | Some of these homes have already been converted decades ago. |
| 01:01:04.81 | Jonathan Leon | Well, that's another story altogether, right? If it's already been- |
| 01:01:05.72 | Jeremy Graves | altogether, right? If it's already been... |
| 01:01:09.38 | Jonathan Leon | But that's not the way, I mean, is that the way this is phrased? Am I missing, I mean, I'm missing something now. |
| 01:01:13.30 | Jeremy Graves | I believe so. This provision here provides an exception to properties which are on one of the registers from having to comply with the more restrictive development standards. |
| 01:01:15.52 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. |
| 01:01:30.09 | Jonathan Leon | Yes, no, I understand that part where you just said previously, saying if I bought a property and it's historically significant, let's say, it's not on, there's only eight properties on these lists, so forget those for the second. I mean, it doesn't really impact the town to save those. We want to save larger numbers of historic homes. and I want to convert, it's an apartment building, I want to convert it into a single family. Well, yes, we don't want you to convert it into a single family. That's the whole point of this whole exercise, whether it's an old home or a brand new home. I don't... That's where you lose me in the logic behind it. |
| 01:02:09.30 | Jeremy Graves | Well, I think the number of situations where that may occur, I think, are fairly limited. And the only way that residents can become eligible for this provision is to be placed on the local historic register, which comes with lots of burdens on that piece of property. So I think the likelihood of this happening is fairly remote. But this is a clause or a regulation that would encourage residents preservation of these homes on the local historic register, which give our neighborhoods character. |
| 01:02:43.54 | Jonathan Leon | But I would think you'd have a hard enough time getting the permission to demolish it, period, if you were... You're just talking about the conversion of single to multifamily. |
| 01:02:55.66 | Jeremy Graves | Multifamily, single family. Or demolition by neglect. |
| 01:03:04.69 | Vicki Nichols | Hmm. |
| 01:03:12.32 | Tom | Thank you. |
| 01:03:13.43 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. Bye. |
| 01:03:13.80 | Tom | Oh. |
| 01:03:13.87 | Unknown | Ha ha ha. |
| 01:03:14.29 | Tom | Yeah. |
| 01:03:14.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:03:14.49 | Tom | Bye. |
| 01:03:14.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:03:14.58 | Tom | Yeah. |
| 01:03:14.80 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:03:14.86 | Tom | Thank you. |
| 01:03:14.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:03:14.91 | Tom | Thank you. |
| 01:03:15.72 | Unknown | Thank you. I'm sorry. |
| 01:03:16.53 | Ray Withy | Let me go around this with Theo. |
| 01:03:17.93 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:03:21.83 | Ray Withy | Linda? man. |
| 01:03:27.47 | Unknown | on this side. |
| 01:03:28.74 | Jonathan Leon | more. |
| 01:03:30.07 | Unknown | Okay. I can't even. |
| 01:03:32.23 | Jonathan Leon | I'm done with this one. |
| 01:03:33.16 | Unknown | Okay, Theo, next. |
| 01:03:37.71 | Unknown | I just went to the next slide, but you can pick whichever you want. |
| 01:03:41.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:03:42.05 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. |
| 01:03:42.56 | Unknown | you |
| 01:03:42.62 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. |
| 01:03:43.15 | Ray Withy | Okay, move on again. Linda, any questions at all? you |
| 01:03:48.51 | Thomas Theodores | Okay, ready? Okay, so let's come back to where I started on the We are going from 65% to 45%. We're saying that we're gonna use the R16 standard We're gonna have a starting point and maybe an end point and we gotta discuss whether we like the idea of a slope or just a simple, you know, Okay. How many... I... I looked at your earlier numbers. There was, what, 60, 70 properties that would become nonconforming through this ordinance. I can't remember the exact number. |
| 01:04:19.28 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 01:04:19.51 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:04:25.66 | Unknown | Yeah, it's 190, I think. |
| 01:04:27.76 | Thomas Theodores | Okay, and would there be a major difference, do you think, if, I know you haven't done this analysis, so it's really unfair perhaps to ask, but do you know if there's a major difference in nonconformity, into the amount of nonconformity you create? And I'm focusing on this, because this is a real burden for nonconformity, for people to actually even do safety upgrades. |
| 01:04:49.31 | Unknown | you know. |
| 01:04:49.95 | Thomas Theodores | You know? How many, Would we be reduced? making less properties non-conforming if we turned it into more of a gradual slope than an immediate drop. Thank you. |
| 01:05:03.89 | Unknown | Less properties. LES PROPERTIS. WITH THE SLIDING SCALE. |
| 01:05:04.89 | Thomas Theodores | less properties become. Yeah, okay. |
| 01:05:09.53 | Jonathan Leon | The non-conforming thing is the... I just don't recall saying to someone you can't rebuild... I can't recall someone saying I'm going to be in the same footprint |
| 01:05:11.86 | Unknown | Is, |
| 01:05:22.71 | Jonathan Leon | more or less. The Planning Commission is saying no to that and that's kind of what we're saying here by the nonconforming piece, by creating these nonconforms. Because we have legal nonconforming now for a lot of different things. And why you can't have legal nonconforming for this if you maintain the historic character and all the What? You know what I mean? My concern is more the reason why I brought this up a long time ago and other people have is that we're tearing things down and building bigger things. on a multifamily lot. than what was there before. or taking a big lot and splitting it into multifamily. Multifamily entitled smaller lot sizes with larger entitlements to those. And that was the story of the late 90s, early 2000s here. So why can we not have legal nonconforming if you're not... You know, you have to comply with every other thing in the code, right? You have to go through that whole process. What's the issue of creating legal nonconforming here? |
| 01:06:27.31 | Unknown | with creating legal non-conforming residences? |
| 01:06:28.99 | Jonathan Leon | Yeah. If someone wants to rehab what they have, and because they've crossed the 50% line, but they put back what's there and they don't trigger any other zoning order stuff, why couldn't this just be another category of legal non-conforming if you're essentially replicating what's there? |
| 01:06:51.57 | Andrew Davidson | If it's, so we're taking aside the involuntary, so a fire, flooding, all that stuff. We're just doing voluntary. Right. The regulations read if more than 50% is removed, then you can't put it back in its legal, in its nonconformity without making it conforming or getting a variance. |
| 01:06:55.81 | Jonathan Leon | Right, right, right. |
| 01:06:56.94 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:06:56.96 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. |
| 01:06:56.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:06:56.99 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 01:06:59.69 | Unknown | Right. |
| 01:06:59.98 | Unknown | you |
| 01:07:00.04 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 01:07:10.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:07:10.91 | Jonathan Leon | Right. |
| 01:07:11.82 | Andrew Davidson | So I think that's one of the issues with making |
| 01:07:14.41 | Jonathan Leon | Right, and if the goal of this is just... Yeah. I mean, the goal is, the original point was to the conversion, right? So it's almost not as much just about the size as one factor. It's the conversion. replicating what's there but you're converting it down to a single family home, that's a Right? than if I'm rebuilding it and I'm keeping it multi-tenant. |
| 01:07:40.44 | Vicki Nichols | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:07:40.70 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. |
| 01:07:40.73 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 01:07:40.75 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:07:40.81 | Jonathan Leon | Do you know what I'm saying? |
| 01:07:44.63 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:07:44.64 | Andrew Davidson | I think what we're talking about is the existing non-conformity regulations that are in the zoning ordinance. We're not talking about any new non-conforming language proposed tonight. It's what's existing in the zoning ordinance today. |
| 01:08:01.23 | Unknown | Amen. |
| 01:08:03.97 | Thomas Theodores | So something we haven't talked about yet is this 200-square-foot Bonus. All right. By the way, I've had some residents say, you know, you're at a stroke of a pen reducing my entitlements by X percent, larger number, and then you're adding back something and calling it a bonus? So there's some There's some angst out there about that. But anyway. What was the purpose of that 200 square foot bonus? I can see that it might help if you're going to go to this sudden precipitous drop at 3,000 square feet, put a bonus in to sort of help ease the pain, this 200. But if you've got a sliding scale and, you know, You've set your boundaries properly so that you're minimizing for the smaller lots the problem. Why do we need another 200 square foot just randomly sort of put there? I mean, the R16 doesn't get that. The R18 doesn't get that. Why are we doing that? |
| 01:09:11.47 | Andrew Davidson | I think one purpose behind the 200 square foot exception was at the subcommittee level there was discussion of existing single family property owners who have been thinking about or are in the process of planning some sort of renovation to their and addition. This 200 square foot exception recognizes those folks who are in the planning stages. Maybe they haven't come to the city yet. but they are thinking about it in the future and they're making those plans recognizing those property owners and giving them this exception, which is fairly small. It's 200 square feet. Staff is recommending and the legislative committee discussed a sunset clause which would put a time limit on the exception. So it could only be used within a limited period of time which does go back to what the subcommittee was discussing about the intent of the 200 square foot exception. in those property owners that are thinking about doing those additions. That's a little background on it. And I know Joan Cox is here too, and she might be able to address that from the subcommittee's perspective when she comes up tonight. |
| 01:10:24.59 | Thomas Theodores | I have no more questions really. So I'm wondering whether if you're going to open it for public comment, we could ask Joan to go first actually because |
| 01:10:35.71 | Thomas Theodores | Mr. Mayor, I have a follow-up question to that issue. So with respect to the 200, I was wondering, Lily, if you could comment on the fairness of that, like I guess someone on a 3,000 square foot you know, a 3,000 parcel getting a 200 square foot exception and someone on a 5,000 getting at 200 as well. One's a 15 percent, the other's a 9 percent. |
| 01:11:02.98 | Andrew Davidson | That was discussed at the legislative committee level. You know, should we make this exception a percentage of lot size? And it was determined that the simplest way is to give the straight 200 square foot exception. If you look at giving a percentage of lot size, the larger lots may get a larger exception, which defeats the purpose anyway. So we came back to the original concept. intent was just a 200 square foot for everyone. |
| 01:11:37.81 | Jonathan Leon | So I mean, you know, for some reason, this is reminding me how long it's been since I've been on the planning commission. But the, because I've forgotten how, you know, all these pieces tie together as well as I used to. But, you know, part of what happened with things like this, just to put in context, is someone would buy a steeply sloped lot. It was vacant. Well, it was vacant because it was A, expensive to build, and B, it's deeply sloped. And front load all the living area on the street and loom over the street with a three or four story structure because it's a multifamily lot for a single family home. Okay, so you create, you front load it, you stuck it on like lower, upper cast, and that was a good example. But it was like boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. You know, and it all happened about the same time. And people are like, well, how did this happen? you know, on my street. |
| 01:12:25.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:12:25.63 | Jonathan Leon | Well, it's because there's no teeth in here to stop it from happening because it's a multi-family rod. So it's a big thing. So it's not just the conversion. It's also the front where you're moving things around. You're using a higher degree of of use, not use, because use is the of just constructed stuff, to be in the lamest term. and taking advantage of just the fact that zoning is an imperfect especially zoning maps, imperfect thing. It says you're layering down. So here's the general characteristic of this area. There's a bunch of apartment buildings in this area, multifamily, but there's, so let's make it higher entitlements. But then, you know, the world changes, Sausalito is changing. So let's tear those down and put single family, large looming homes that are over the streets. So you've got to keep that in the context of all these discussions. It's not easy. That's why this hasn't been tackled before. I think it's part of the problem here. |
| 01:13:23.80 | Ray Withy | All right, why don't we open it up to public comment? Joan, you want to start us off, please? Thank you. |
| 01:13:36.05 | Joan Cox | Joan Cox, I sat on the planning committee subcommittee that helped develop this ordinance. And I also sat on the housing element, and I also sat on the subcommittee that developed the ADU ordinance. |
| 01:13:50.29 | Jonathan Leon | get some other activities seriously. |
| 01:13:53.36 | Joan Cox | I know, I have no life. So there really were some common goals that sort of wove through all of these ordinances. So I sort of made notes regarding some of your questions, and I'm going to try to address those. The issue that the Planning Commission had with the sliding scale that the Planning Commission reviewed. was that it was a stepped sliding scale rather than a strict sliding scale, rather than a strict slope that was formulaic. And because it was stepped, there were anomalies within each step that created an advantage sometimes for the smaller parcels within each particular step. At the subcommittee level, It was the subcommittee's request and recommendation that a sliding scale be adopted, but I believe that the stepped sliding scale was adopted or proposed by staff because it was easier to administer. So I think the best solution would be just a strict slope where it's the same formula for every parcel, and that way no one parcel is more, is given a greater advantage than another. Um, Okay, tandem parking. suggested tandem parking for two reasons. One was to avoid impact to street parking in some of these areas that are in the R225 and R3 Um, zoning areas because there's already limited street parking in some of these areas, and our goal was to encourage, development potential. by allowing tandem parking on site that would without adversely impacting neighbors by increasing the parking burden. The other reason was that it's exactly consistent with the ADU parking standard. And so the thought was, we don't want to... overly constrain someone who's seeking to put an additional unit on their R2.5 or R3 parcel, beyond how we're constraining folks who are building an ADU. The standards should be consistent. So those are the two reasons that we adopted the tandem parking approach. The Historic Register We were mindful that there are, you know, like a half a dozen homes on the historic register. Our thought was exactly as you surmised. The current nonconformity ordinance says that if your rehabilitation of a home will entail the destruction of more than 50% existing, you don't automatically get to rebuild in the existing nonconforming footprint. I know that when those issues come to the Planning Commission, it is our practice to allow someone to rebuild to the non-conforming standard, but I don't know how many of those projects are stopped at the desk by being told that they're going to need a variance. um, Okay, the 200 square foot bonus. The 200 square foot bonus, frankly, from my perspective, was there to allow a parcel that already has a big single family home on it to add an ADU. frankly, that was why I suggested the 200 square foot bonus. You're fully built out. But. You know, as a member of the Housing Element Committee, I want the ability to have our infill potential. because that's how we're going to avoid rezoning in the future and high density development in the future. So from my perspective, the main reason for the 200 square foot bonus was to perhaps allow an attached or detached small ADU, even if you're already fully built out. In hindsight, I think it does also ease the burden to homeowners who feel unfairly disadvantaged by this new ordinance. |
| 01:18:24.78 | Joan Cox | In terms of density, so I don't know if you recall, but when putting together the analysis, the infill analysis, the M group actually went through with the Housing Committee and we looked at every single site. And we came up with a number, okay, on this site you could put in additional two units. On this site you could put in additional three units. Those numbers do not exactly correspond to the square footage because our analysis actually did examine site constraints such as a river running through it or a steep slope. And so if we're struggling with how much density to require in this feasibility analysis, one suggestion might be to look back to this objective research already performed by the M group and use that as a standard for Um, density requirements for some of these lots in the R2, 2.5, and the R3. Okay, those were my main comments. Thank you. Thank you, Joe. |
| 01:19:27.64 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you, Joan. I have a question for Joan. |
| 01:19:35.50 | Thomas Theodores | Um, What people may not realize is that Joan has driven two and a half hours to be here tonight because she's working offsite specifically for this, so thank you very much. Thank you. |
| 01:19:47.33 | Unknown | I definitely have to find another one. |
| 01:19:49.53 | Vicki Nichols | . |
| 01:19:51.86 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you. So my question, the first question for you is that |
| 01:19:53.10 | Unknown | That's so much. |
| 01:19:53.97 | Unknown | dedication. |
| 01:20:01.74 | Thomas Theodores | You know I was served on the housing element with you. Absolutely. Not for a period of time, during the last part, and we did the ATU ordinance together. Yes. |
| 01:20:04.04 | Vicki Nichols | for a period of time. |
| 01:20:10.44 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 01:20:10.47 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 01:20:10.87 | Adam Krivacek | Thank you. |
| 01:20:14.40 | Thomas Theodores | I was a bit surprised, as I've told you, that the that we had included Section 5 in this ordinance. um, |
| 01:20:26.47 | Joan Cox | regarding the sighting. |
| 01:20:27.51 | Thomas Theodores | Yeah, regarding the sighting. And that is the one which is... um, That is really nothing to do with the, sorry for the jingos, the McMansion piece of this ordinance. Thank you. That is really solely to do with program 20 of the housing element, is that correct? |
| 01:20:53.42 | Joan Cox | You're exactly correct. And I know that I got some correspondence to you very late today, so I don't know if you've had an opportunity to read it. I did try to explain in there that, and this ultimately boils down to a policy decision for the City Council. So, As a member of the housing element, we adopted some very unusual strategies that HCD had not adopted before. That was the liveaboards. The ADUs where we were previously not allowing ADUs, we adopted this amnesty policy. And we gave HCD some projections regarding what we projected would be the success of these various programs. But in order to bolster these programs, we also had our infill strategy. relying on the development potential of these lots. Not that they ever have to be developed, but we need to demonstrate the potential on paper in order to avoid upzoning. So, If you look at the housing element, there's a graph that shows how many of each type of |
| 01:21:59.60 | Adam Krivacek | Amen. |
| 01:22:01.93 | Joan Cox | approach we relied on for the current period. And for the current period, the infill strategy comprised 33%. And we had a slight buffer. But when we next go back, and believe it or not, the current housing element period is over next year. We have to start all over again. |
| 01:22:20.32 | Adam Krivacek | Thank you. |
| 01:22:20.37 | Unknown | Right. |
| 01:22:20.73 | Adam Krivacek | Thank you. |
| 01:22:21.99 | Joan Cox | When we go back, we're going to have a report card based on did we actually have as many amnesty ADU applications as we projected? Did we actually demonstrate as many liveaboards as we thought we had? And if not, we're going to be forced to rely more heavily on our other strategies, and the key other strategy we have is the infill strategy. So my concern sitting on the subcommittee was if we don't take active action to preserve Thank you. strategy we have is the infill strategy. So my concern sitting on the subcommittee was if we don't take active action to preserve the development potential of our underdeveloped sites and vacant sites now, we may not have that potential in the future when we need it in order to avoid increased zoning. And you'll recall that before we came up with the infill strategy, staff literally had us touring nine different areas in Sausalito saying, okay, can we put a high density overlay on one of these areas? And we were met by a contingent of citizens at each stop objecting to their neighborhood having a high density overlay. So I think by enduring a little bit of challenge now we are protecting our long-term viability in terms of maintaining our cottage-like you know, environments. I also want to point out that written into this ordinance is a once a year barometer where Staff will report to the Planning Commission, Planning Commission will make recommendations about you know, this is working or this is not working. So we do have We are mindful that this is a new ordinance that it may create some problems we haven't considered, and we do want to be mindful of that and be able to adjust the ordinance if necessary. So I am an advocate of the more conservative approach. Obviously as you and Jonathan have both said, this is a policy decision for the City Council. |
| 01:24:28.67 | Ray Withy | Thank you very much, Joan. Since we've opened this up now for public comment, anybody else want to speak on this? Vicki? Vicki? Can I have a show of hands of anybody else? Okay, why don't I get you to line up over here? For time-wise, thank you. |
| 01:24:47.81 | Vicki Nichols | Vicki Nichols. I wanted to speak, I think it's on option six and seven, which is the historical portion. And I just wanted to be clear that what I'm hearing is it's those existing homes or buildings that are on the register. We know that we've got potential historic structures that may not have the complete documentation on them. So to say we only have seven or eight is a little troubling, unless this is still going to be reviewed by, say, a 50-year trigger where the Landmarks Board can look at these properties, and suggest that there is significance. Otherwise, you've kind of wiped everything out, I think. in terms of changes. And I agree with the discussion that demolition, I don't even see how it gets into restoration or rehabilitation. If you're doing those two things, you're replicating, you're restoring it back to the size that it And if that makes it nonconforming, I would think that that would be not that bad of a leap for a variance. If it's the exact same footprint, you're protecting, you're restoring or rehabilitating a structure in its original form. So that one is a little bit... I see the issue, though, that Lily's raised, but if there's any way to... give some leeway with that on the condition that it's just in the exact footprint or size, not with the changes. So if you're doing an exact restoration and it's nonconformant, my house that I live in is probably 42 feet high. It was built in 1912. It would not be allowed now, but if you knocked off 10 feet, it wouldn't be historic. I mean, it wouldn't be historic. It wouldn't have its integrity. So I think that one needs a little work. I don't know. Thank you. |
| 01:26:55.94 | Unknown | Hi, my name is Fred Mites. I'm a resident for just six years, but I left Sausalito. I moved here with my wife because of a problem like this in another town, so I'd just like a chance to tell you a little bit about it. I have a feeling that I just found out about this a few days ago. I am one of these property owners that is affected. I'm not up to speed on the ordinance, and I apologize for that. I will get up to speed on the ordinance. I suspect, though, I listened to Lily and how hard she tried to notify people about this, and she did. She did a very good job. But I don't think very many people were notified. And I think there's probably a better way to do it I don't know what that is, but I'm more than willing to try to help everybody out to do that, whatever it is, because I know everybody in Sausalito are very concerned citizens, and we need to figure out a way to reach more. So again, I would volunteer to help any way I could to figure out how we can make more people aware of these issues. Um, As far as this one, just listening tonight, I know it's complex, very complex, and infill is not something very popular to anybody. how could it be, but it's a reality so we have to deal with it. And I think people are trying to deal with it very well. Thank you. My experience in many long years of dealing with issues like this is a sliding scale, a very equitable sliding scale is the only way to go. And again, I couldn't see all the numbers, my eyes aren't that good anymore, but anything that has a step in it does create anomalies and is very unfair. And actually what it does is it causes people to start playing games and we don't want that. My story though is really, I think the mayor said this, and I couldn't support it more. We lived in another town. We tried. We had a house that was not historic, but it was 60 years old. kind of falling apart around us, and we wanted to rebuild it on the same footprint that it |
| 01:29:06.03 | Adam Krivacek | Thank you. |
| 01:29:09.00 | Unknown | not do anything really different, but it was out of conformance, what's the word? Out of conformance? Legally non-conforming with the current ordinances. Had been there 60 years, so they said, well, you can't do it. but you can apply for a variance. So I said, okay. I mean, how could you not let me, excuse me, build on my same footprint in a very modest house? And The problem was the ordinance had very, subjective and at times judgmental wording in it. And we applied for a variance and it came down to things like impractical, feasible, etc., etc. And I sat through three years of planning commission meetings and we never won. We finally We finally gave up. We sold the house. We moved to Sausalito because we thought it was going to be better and I think it will be better. Oh, it's better. I do. We love Sausalito. But the problem was in those Planning Commission meetings, what I saw was the people who were getting the variances approved were the ones who |
| 01:30:13.31 | Unknown | Oh, it's better. I do. We love sausage. |
| 01:30:27.11 | Unknown | had the best lawyers, had the most money, could say, this is impractical to me, maybe it's impractical to Fred, but it's not impractical to me, so I'm going to get this done. They got it approved, I didn't get it approved. So I think that's... From what I've seen so far, that's the thing I would really try to tighten up if we could do that. Thank you. |
| 01:30:48.02 | Ray Withy | Thank you. Jan? |
| 01:30:52.18 | Jan | All I can say is thank God I remodeled 10 years ago. I'm here not for myself but for several neighbors from Old Town who couldn't come tonight. Three things. I have several neighbors who moved into duplexes with small families with the expectation that as their families grew, they could combine the units and have a large family home to accommodate their growing families. And when I moved here, I understood R2 and R3 as you could build multiple units, not that you must build multiple units. Personally, I think if you buy a property, you should have the right to use it as you wish. And if you have a growing family, you should be able to make your duplex into a single-family home. so that you don't have to sell out and move out of Sausalito. The other thing is I don't think that it should be local historic houses. I think it should be all existing houses that are exempt from this remodel repair, you have to downsize. I mean, old homes in Sausalito, you tear out a wall and gosh, half your house is dry rot. So you have to repair it and it can easily be over 50%. So that means someone who has a three bedroom home is going to have to take it down to two bedrooms because they don't want it to fall down around their ears. This makes utterly no sense to the property owners. and it's going to be a real financial burden to people. So I would plead with you to please consider making this prospective. Okay, you buy the home now, you can't do X, Y, and Z, but if you already own it, you should be able to maintain it to the size you bought it at, not have to tear down a fourth to a half of it to conform to a new rule. Thank you. So that's what I have to say. Because otherwise you're going to have demolition by neglect. People are just going to sit on it and let it fall apart. because I can't repair it. |
| 01:32:57.52 | Ray Withy | Okay. Anybody else like to get up and make format? |
| 01:33:05.06 | Russ Irwin | Russ Irwin. I brought a letter which hopefully many of you read that probably covers a lot of the most points I want to raise, but there's a couple of new things I've found as I understood that this Program 20 was really the part of the impetus for this |
| 01:33:24.77 | Russ Irwin | for this ordinance. The first was that I realized that the last part of the first paragraph of the Program 20 has sort of been ignored. It explicitly calls for excluding |
| 01:33:34.09 | Adam Krivacek | ignore it. |
| 01:33:41.35 | Russ Irwin | houses or anything that will change the existing character of the neighborhood. yet there's nothing in the ordinance that says you're exempted from this ordinance if adding a multifamily dwelling to your property would change the character of the neighborhood. So it seems like the program itself presents a bit of a conundrum. How can you take, you know, my street's all single family, not all, but mostly single family homes built 100 years ago, and if we turn those all into duplexes, that's definitely going to be changing the character of the neighborhood. So I'm not sure the problem is as much in the ordinance as it is that the ordinance doesn't honor what Program 20 is calling for, which is to explicitly exempt those situations. But to do that, how would you do it? You'd have to decide what a neighborhood is. Then you've got to decide what's the character of a neighborhood. Essentially, you're creating a a zoning overlay. of some sort that says, well, this is a neighborhood, and then the character of that neighborhood is X, Otherwise, we're just going to pass that burden either to the commission nor to the homeowner. It's kind of being sidestepped as it exists. The second point is that the, again, Program 20 explicitly calls for sliding scales. Now I realize it says evaluate, but it says evaluate everything, and it explicitly mentions sliding scales. I'm also curious, again, I can't ask questions here, but the Program 20 calls for including R25. I think that's a pretty small area, but I'm kind of curious why it disappeared in this ordinance. R25 doesn't exist, isn't covered, is excluded. But the real Achilles heel for this ordinance for me is that it just creates enormous ambiguities. I asked staff a number of times about various points, and the answer is always, well, a commission will decide. But the commission can't decide unless they have a complete, you know, deemed complete package of plans. So the cost of creating a complete package of plans to find out Maybe you're completely exempted. You know, maybe you'll get a COP. you can start all over with your complete set of plans because now it doesn't apply to you at all. Or maybe you will or won't get the 200 square foot. Or maybe you will or won't get this change because of this judgment call. So no matter how this comes out, I think it benefits everybody. Thank you, the shot clock. If we can remove the ambiguities and let people know what the rules are. So thank you. |
| 01:36:21.61 | Ray Withy | Yeah, just go ahead in line. Michael, you can get up behind him. |
| 01:36:27.04 | Michael Rex | I'm Michael Racks, local architect, and I worked with the committee that brought this to the Planning Commission, so I followed it along all the way. And I'd like to respond to things that have been discussed here. The big topic, number one topic, is what kind of method do we use to reduce the size of single units in our multi-unit zone? And I kind of like the Planning Commission's concept of just.45 on the idea that if you build a single home in a multi-unit zone, subject to the standards in the R1. That's a really logical and easily explained approach. And on the surface, I bought into it, even though I was party to creating the table that had the stepped approach on the committee. But on further analysis, I think some of the inequity that's come up is rather alarming. And I want to tell you what I see. If you have a lot that's 2,990 square feet, you're exempt and you can build.65 FAR. That's a house of 1,943 square feet. But if you have a lot that's 3,050 square feet, only 60 square feet larger, You can only build a house 1,372 square feet because you're stuck with the.45. The difference is 571 square feet. Wow! In other words, bigger lot, lot smaller house, and they're side by side. Do you know you've got to get up to 4,300 square feet before it becomes equitable again? 4,300. I could build the 1,935 square feet. That is such an anomaly. I think we got an error here and we have to rethink it, okay? I like the idea of Russ and... Fay's concept of a single formula. In fact, my hat's off to them for their effort, even though it's at the 11th hour. It hasn't been adopted yet. And a lot of thought, and there's been several meetings I've attended and discussing with staff and Russ and Fay their concepts. I never supported the reduction in FAR for lots less than 3,000, and I'm seeing here a.45 instead of.65. Why do we punish people? people who can't add a second unit because the density doesn't permit it. I didn't subscribe to that. But I like the idea of a simple formula that would work for everybody. Where it kind of fell apart and we didn't seem to find a solution was that on the really small lots there's not enough left over for an additional unit. The units get down to 300 or less square feet. And somehow maybe if we go back and study it more we can find out how to fix that, but we haven't yet. That takes us back to the... Can I keep going here? That takes us back to the table sliding scale. You asked what happened with that when it went to the Planning Commission. Why did they throw it out? |
| 01:39:40.63 | Jonathan Leon | Michael, can I interrupt you for saying, Herb, to be fair, everybody has to have the same amount of time, but so how much longer do you have to go? Because otherwise, everybody should be allowed to go past her. Well, I'm addressing the main |
| 01:39:44.23 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 01:39:50.93 | Michael Rex | Well, I'm addressing the main topic. I'd like to hit a couple others. I'm not saying you're not giving great comments. I'm just saying. It's just a fairness all. |
| 01:39:54.17 | Jonathan Leon | I'm not saying you're not giving great comments. I'm just saying. It's just a fairness all. Why do you come back in that way? |
| 01:40:01.14 | Michael Rex | Can I finish this one time and then I'll come back? |
| 01:40:02.81 | Jonathan Leon | Yes, you can. |
| 01:40:04.54 | Michael Rex | On the anomaly that Joan explained, that worried the Planning Commission, why they threw out the table that had a stepped approach It was so minor, our committee identified the anomaly. It was about 100 square feet that the lots in the smaller end of each step got a little extra square footage, about 100 square feet. Our committee thought, are we going to sweat 100 square feet? Probably not. But the Planning Commission, particularly Bill Warner, just kind of freaked out at that because he resented that anybody's getting a bonus, that that was never the intent of this change in the ordinance. And my hunch is maybe we threw out that approach because that anomaly is much less than the anomaly we're now looking at. So I'll leave it at that topic. I'd like to come back and address the others. Thank you. |
| 01:41:00.59 | Ray Withy | Well, I won't, but let's see. |
| 01:41:05.61 | Carolyn McKenzie | This is all news to me. State your name. I'm Carolyn McKenzie, and I live in the area behind Caledonia Street. And I would just like to say that I think that we are really impacted in a high-density area already. And on weekends, it's very difficult to find parking when there's festivals and all the activities that go on down on Bridgeway in Caledonia. But besides that, I'm just wondering about Program 20 and if this is all the result of the mandated effort you've made to conform to the housing element, the California housing element. And I'm very puzzled because all I hear is zoning. |
| 01:41:08.43 | Ray Withy | State your name. |
| 01:41:48.97 | Carolyn McKenzie | and availability of housing, more housing, but I don't hear anything about how you're gonna provide |
| 01:41:49.27 | Adam Krivacek | Thank you. |
| 01:41:55.97 | Carolyn McKenzie | It's my understanding the housing element requires something to do with low income and moderate income families. And so I'm just wondering how you can qualify when it's all about zoning. Because this is a very high rental area. So that's all. |
| 01:42:11.09 | Unknown | I can't answer. |
| 01:42:16.07 | Jonathan Leon | Yeah, no, I think part of the goal of this is that to make it less to disincentivize the conversion of multifamily, which is by definition smaller units, into single family to maintain that stock of mostly rental multifamily housing, right? So to keep from making the situation worse in order to comply with some of the things we're having to comply with. That's sort of the primary goal here as far as some of the implementation of some of the other things we're trying to do that are attached to the housing element as well as some other aspects of it. It is a challenge, but it isn't trying to increase. This is actually not trying to increase density in any way this whole aspect of the housing element that there'll be other hearings about other implementation things that will really hit where you're going I think and that please come to those |
| 01:43:11.52 | Carolyn McKenzie | you And also the affordability of the new units you hope to create |
| 01:43:17.69 | Jonathan Leon | Yes, I think this is sort of trying to maintain housing stock more than it is create and not create anomalies to disincentivize multi-unit housing. No, believe me, it's confusing. You're right there. |
| 01:43:31.79 | Unknown | You're right there. |
| 01:43:35.41 | Unknown | Mike. |
| 01:43:36.75 | Mike Blatt | My name is Mike Blatt and I've been in town about 20 years. This is the first meeting I've ever been to that I think I agree with Jonathan Leon about 100%. |
| 01:43:46.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:43:46.69 | Mike Blatt | I know. It's scary. Don't say that. That's scary. We come out. |
| 01:43:46.97 | Unknown | I know. It's scary. Don't say that. |
| 01:43:49.32 | Jonathan Leon | We come out and next, if there's another election, I'm in big trouble. |
| 01:43:51.02 | Unknown | I don't know. |
| 01:43:51.26 | Mike Blatt | Bye. |
| 01:43:51.29 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:43:51.97 | Mike Blatt | I think that's exactly what it was. I can't figure it out any other way. I want to thank the staff for putting in a lot of time. They say 11 or 20 meetings, I don't know how many it was. I think I went to five or six And, uh, I felt like a stranger there because There were three or four staff members and a couple people from the public, but outside of Michael Rex, the same people weren't there each time. I agree with the man who said a lot of people either don't care about this ordinance or they're uninformed about it. But there's a lot of apathy in town about this and I think it's real important. The goal that we started with almost three years ago was large family homes on our three lots or multi-family lots. I've asked a question and I'll ask it again. in the last 7-10 years, have actually come to the Planning Commission with a large single family house on an R3 lot. And, I haven't gotten an answer yet. Second question. We did a lot analysis, Joan Cox said we did a lot analysis. I did a lot analysis. I picked out seven lots in the R3 lots. I wasn't worried about whether they had a creek going through them whether they were. too steep or not too steep. I was concerned with the dimensions of them. If you have a 60 by 100 lot, which is 6,000 square feet, and it zoned R3. The zoning says that you can put up to one per 1500 or four units on the parcel. If you have four units, you need eight parking places. eight parking places on a steep downhill slope or an even downhill slope or an uphill slope You can't get eight parking places across 60 feet. Totally impossible. So to cover the report, What we've said now is that the developer of the parcel must put a plan together to see whether it's feasible or not. So I question the time it takes to put a feasibility study together whether or not you could put four units on this lot knowing that you can't put eight spaces along the front. And even if you put five spaces along the front, for two and a half houses. it's going to take up to 60 feet. because you've got some setbacks. So I think the lot dimensions have a lot more to do with the feasibility than whether or not there's a creek going down through it. Second of all, The goal is to discourage. I always try to go the other way around. Maybe I should have gone to this management was in the Southern Marine Management Academy. Because I always look at it the other way around. What can we do to encourage a builder, a developer, a risk taker. |
| 01:46:51.64 | Mike Blatt | One more minute. How can we encourage a person to not build a big home and to build multifamily? |
| 01:46:53.73 | Unknown | How can we encourage someone? Not a couple minutes, a short period. Yeah. |
| 01:47:03.10 | Mike Blatt | But we didn't do it that way. What we want to do is discourage them from building a big one instead of encouraging them to build multi-family. We spent a lot of time with the staff. They've done a great job. But it takes an awful long time to get something through staff if you want to build a house. It's not 30 days, it's not 60 days. It's six, seven, eight, nine months to get through staff because they're busy working on other things. So my point being is let's encourage somebody to build multifamily. in a neighborhood in a multifamily lot. One thing that I don't like about this and half a second. |
| 01:47:35.80 | Adam Krivacek | I don't know. |
| 01:47:38.31 | Mike Blatt | One thing I didn't like about this is that they want you to build to max capacity. So example on that lot that I told you, the 60 by 100. |
| 01:47:38.41 | Adam Krivacek | One thing I did. |
| 01:47:47.26 | Mike Blatt | you have to give a feasibility to bill four. Let's assume the guy only wanted to bill three. He's going to get penalized because he's not willing to max density. And I think that's too much of a burden for the builder. Thank you. |
| 01:48:00.25 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 01:48:00.32 | Mike Blatt | Thank you. |
| 01:48:00.47 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 01:48:00.49 | Mike Blatt | Thank you. |
| 01:48:01.65 | Ray Withy | Okay. Anybody else like to make a comment again? |
| 01:48:12.42 | Ray Withy | I'm going to hold you to the three. A couple others. |
| 01:48:12.70 | Michael Rex | Pulled you to the three. A couple other issues, tandem parking. I think Joan made it quite distinct that better to park two cars on site, even tandem, than only one car or put one out in the street, particularly in our older neighborhoods. She also pointed out, and it's true, tandem parking's allowed here. It's just the process to get it requires a CUP. And knowing how clients respond to a particular issue, applications that create ifs, that kind of chills an application. because there's uncertainty associated with it. And it is consistent with the ADU standard. So I think, and parking usually is what restricts additional units. And we want to get any encouragement of additional units. Some relief from parking is wise, and this is the only thing in here that gives a little relief, offering just a little simpler process with a little more certainty. So I'd keep it in. On the CUP, the reason for the CUP is simply that there are some parcels where you just can't fit a lot more units. There's physical constraints. I do agree, though. So I'd like, I think you should keep it in. But I do agree with some of staff's suggestions. There should be greater criteria so there's less ambiguity. Looking at the ones that staff suggest, option 3A and 3D I wouldn't consider because they're already in your ordinance. It's basically compatibility with the neighborhood. I don't think you need to add 3A or 3D because it's redundant. The 3C that says you've got to have a finding that We're only going to approve these things under extremely limited situations is totally vague. I wouldn't go there either. But I do think 3B is good, that parking could be a constraint. Most of the time that will be the constraint. You just, the hill's too steep, you just can't get more cars on the site. I also think the idea of option four is a good one. Allow CUPs for only lots that are under 6,000 square feet, because once you get bigger than that, you could probably accommodate those units on bigger lots. And that reduces the amount of CUPs you might be seeing. However, I do want to respond to Russ's comment about all the expense that has to go in to submit a deemed complete application, and if you're asking for a CUP and going beyond these standards, you don't know if you're going to get it. And for that reason, I think we have to revisit the policy that we currently have that we don't allow study sessions for single-family homes. I think if you're going to submit a CUP to go beyond these standards, you should have a right and opportunity to a study session. So you don't have to fully invest in a deemed complete application not knowing. Two more? Can I... No. No? |
| 01:51:18.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:51:18.38 | Ray Withy | No. No. you No. Sorry. Yeah, go ahead, John. |
| 01:51:30.83 | Joan Cox | So I just was handed a piece of paper and it appears that between 2009 and the present there have been four approvals of conversion of duplex to single-family dwelling, three of which were approved administratively. So I think that given our interest in preserving housing stock, we might want to rethink whether we want to have that type of approval done administratively or whether we want that to go through planning commission or some other process so that, again, that we keep a handle on this goal that we have of preserving housing stock in Sausalito. |
| 01:52:15.30 | Ray Withy | Okay. Anybody else? Let's bring it back up here for comment. Linda. |
| 01:52:21.29 | Thomas Theodores | Mr. Mayor, actually I have a question for Jeremy. because Joan mentioned the comment about the amnesty from the housing element for the ADUs. the program we had for existing ADU's amnesty. And I was just wondering how has that program been just as a... It's a wrong topic. No, it's not. Excuse me if I may clarify. It's relevant because what I heard said was that one of the reasons we were pursuing this policy and with respect to Program 20 was that the infill was meant to kind of |
| 01:52:43.45 | Vicki Nichols | That's right. |
| 01:52:43.97 | Unknown | Topic. |
| 01:52:44.75 | Vicki Nichols | No, it's... Yes. |
| 01:53:05.01 | Thomas Theodores | kind of step in and meet requirements if the amnesty for ADUs did not. So that's why my question. So Where are we with the amnesty for ADUs right now? with our numbers. |
| 01:53:17.85 | Jeremy Graves | I don't know, the amnesty is off the top of my head. |
| 01:53:20.57 | Thomas Theodores | Uh-huh. |
| 01:53:21.06 | Jeremy Graves | Thank you. between the a regular accessory to all units in the Amnesty Units. received about 10 or 12 applications. Oh, great. And we're in the process of, I think most of those are going to be approved. |
| 01:53:28.44 | Thomas Theodores | Oh, great. |
| 01:53:32.23 | Thomas Theodores | Okay, good. |
| 01:53:32.79 | Jeremy Graves | It's been going along fairly well. But as Commissioner Cox said, |
| 01:53:34.91 | Thomas Theodores | Yeah. |
| 01:53:36.91 | Jeremy Graves | We have a three-part strategy in our housing element for infill. accessory dwelling units and the litter boards and it's vital that we maintain, you know, are mindful of that so we avoid rezonings or the need for rezonings in the future. |
| 01:53:54.78 | Thomas Theodores | Thanks for the information, Jeremy, on the ADUs. |
| 01:53:57.81 | Ray Withy | Thank you, Jeremy. Okay, ready? |
| 01:54:01.43 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you. Okay. |
| 01:54:06.22 | Ray Withy | Oh, God. |
| 01:54:06.77 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you. |
| 01:54:06.98 | Ray Withy | I know you're under a lot of pressure, but take it easy. |
| 01:54:10.10 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you. |
| 01:54:10.12 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 01:54:10.15 | Thomas Theodores | That's all right, thank you. We started off this many years ago, I gather, but really actively through the good work of the subcommittee with Joan and Stan to address the problem of building large single-family homes on lots in the multifamily R2 and R3s taking advantage and inappropriately perhaps, although quite legally, taking advantage of the fact that those zones allow a much bigger, say, floor area ratio, plus all the other ones, but let's say floor area ratio. fully support that. I think the community fully supports it. I think part of the issue is there's a lot of the mechanics of how to make this fair, reduce some of the pain of nonconformity, all the various things that we've been discussing. And I think that's all very well and good. But we're not ready. I think it needs to go back and get sorted out. But there's another point, and that is Since, and I was on the housing element, voted for it in that context and very supportive to make this happen. It's the lowest impact strategy that we could come up with. And the infill protection or the preservation of the infill was important. But now naively I realize that my view was that all we had to do for Program 20 was to stop the McMansion problem and take credit for it. I've realized, of course, that to really fully implement Program 20, we're not only dealing with single family homes. As Mike pointed out, we're dealing with Someone going in and having a reasonable, financially viable, three-unit project on a certain size, But they have to rig those three units in such a way to provide for another two. that potentially, this is all a balancing act, that potentially could create, when you're balancing, you know. How aggressive do I want to be in protecting the infill capacity versus the harm I'm doing and the unintended consequences. Where's the balance? I do not know if there has been enough discussion about that. I don't think it's really been addressed by the Planning Commission. Because I don't think, when I started off talking to residents and they were talking to me about the housing element in this, I was literally saying, and I think Ross and Fay will actually agree, will say, I was surprised. Now, yeah, the housing element's important here, but that's not driving the vote. But it is now. |
| 01:57:13.26 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:57:14.51 | Unknown | That's right. Thank you. Because you just finished the three minutes. |
| 01:57:18.07 | Unknown | Thank you. Okay. Jonathan. |
| 01:57:22.04 | Jonathan Leon | It's like, come on, man. You, I'm looking at the zoning map here and the Altamira properties and the stuff you did on Atwood. That's exactly what we're talking about is you. Come on, man. |
| 01:57:23.44 | Unknown | I'm looking for you. |
| 01:57:27.45 | Unknown | stuff you do like that. |
| 01:57:28.15 | Vicki Nichols | Yeah. |
| 01:57:28.21 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:57:30.88 | Adam Krivacek | Thank you. |
| 01:57:30.98 | Vicki Nichols | You know? |
| 01:57:31.74 | Adam Krivacek | Thank you. |
| 01:57:34.46 | Jonathan Leon | Those are things where you took, you put both single-family homes with multi-family entitlements. Come on. So anyway, but the... I agree with you. It's not ready. And it's okay to go slow with this because it's taken us a long time to even get... Forget the housing element for a second. It's taken us a long time to even tackle the the multifamily, single-family entitlement issue just to get it on the agenda. So I don't mind going slow. And if you look, I forget what community had a big stink about this recently, and they just pressed the punt button, and it went, I think it was in Larkspur and New Valley was one of them, just said, forget it. I'm not even going to tackle this because it's too hot. I think it's okay to go slow. and get it right. It's not going to be perfect. There's going to be anomalies. There's going to be whatever scale or no scale or I'm too fat for the scale situation. It's going to be a problem. You're not going to make everybody happy. And at some point, yeah, people who bought a house under certain expectations are going to face the reality that that may not come to fruition of what they had in mind. And when I redid my house, I kept it multi-unit. Because I didn't want to. run into this problem. And I thought it was the right thing to do. So was that pencil out economically? Probably not, but that's the choice that, you know, it's just too expensive to build stuff in Sausalito, period. So I don't care how many units you got on it. just the cost of construction is so high. But I think there's a lot of moving parts and rather than debate the moving parts here, and this is the second time we've sat through this, and I've got to admit I'm still as unsure of what the answer is. I'll give myself some credit and not say I'm perplexed, but I'm not sure what the right answers are that reach a compromise that get us to the finish line, and then I can go home and say, okay, it wasn't perfect, but it passes the straight face test. And I'm sorry I couldn't make the August legislative committee meeting or I might be a little more cogent on what the solutions should be. |
| 01:59:07.05 | Adam Krivacek | but you know, |
| 01:59:14.71 | Adam Krivacek | Thank you. |
| 01:59:14.96 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 01:59:15.00 | Adam Krivacek | Sure. |
| 01:59:19.47 | Adam Krivacek | Not Sam. |
| 01:59:20.09 | Unknown | perplexed. |
| 01:59:20.90 | Adam Krivacek | But, |
| 01:59:21.46 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:59:21.49 | Adam Krivacek | I'm not sure |
| 01:59:44.09 | Jonathan Leon | Yeah, there's no right answer here. That's the problem. There is no right answer. It's going to be a cobbled together set of stuff. And I think it needs another go around, whether at the subcommittee level or legislative committee, and come back here and then it has to go back to the Planning Commission, I gather, at that point, to get to march through and be approved. I don't know. I can't remember we talked about this last time. |
| 02:00:06.35 | Mary Wagner | It'll depend. Well, if there are things that you add to the ordinance that were not previously considered by the Planning Commission, it would have to go back to them for consideration and recommendation. |
| 02:00:10.99 | Jonathan Leon | New concepts. |
| 02:00:18.94 | Jonathan Leon | But it's a piece, and I'll use my final time, it's a piece of, W, literal, it's a piece of legislation. The legislative process, whether it's here, Sacramento, or Washington, you have an idea that starts and things start getting attached to it, good or bad, good intentions or good ideas and now you have to sort of make it all work together. And yes, we do have some responsibilities we have to live up to. We have some creative thinking that went into the housing element and we've got to implement it. And so we can't shy away from that. because the choice, the other option is worse. So, but let's make sure we've dotted the I's and crossed the T's. You know, folks have made some really good comments tonight. Everybody had great comments, and so I think we need to go back and work on it some more. See you. |
| 02:01:11.98 | Tom | Thank you. |
| 02:01:12.08 | Jonathan Leon | you Thank you. |
| 02:01:12.80 | Tom | Well, I agree with that. We're not ready to pass it tonight, but I think we need to do a couple things. One is we have to decide where we're going to send it, whether it's going to be legislative committee or planning committee. And also, I think we've talked around a lot of the issues, but I think before we send it to either of those places, that we should really... go through and take some sort of polling here that what we agreed to from the very basic, it seems like we all agree that we're going to change the development standards, but Are we going to do that? And I think actually if we go through the statue itself, it starts off with development standards, the exceptions. Well, you could do that. I don't know that I'd want to limit ourselves to only the staff options, but I think if we go through the the proposed statute, which is ordinance, which is not that long, and look at the standards, the exceptions. And then it has some of the things that I, what I characterize as dealing with the housing element. At least if we could go through that somewhat quickly and give some direction to when we give it over to the Planning Commission or Legislative Committee. Thank you. |
| 02:02:13.11 | Unknown | Okay, Linda. |
| 02:02:15.78 | Thomas Theodores | Well, so as you all know, I voted against the housing element, and one of the reasons I did was because of programs like this. They were ambiguous. A lot of residents didn't know. What? was being described. And now that things are getting into the details, we have a lot of questions. look at this policy and in my opinion it encourages maximum density The genesis of this was to prevent McMansions. It's morphed into something much more than that. I think it's, as written today, it's an unfair policy. I agree it's ambiguous. And I also believe that there is a difference between, you know, we can notice the ordinance, but I think we need to go the extra step to educate residents with regards to how this impacts what their rights are today with respect to their properties. I certainly don't agree with discouraging single-family homes. I think that that is something I personally disagree with. So, and then finally going back to just my personal opinion with respect to the housing element, I did not support the infill nor did I support building on open space or the overlays. I think that we've got good traction right now on the ADU amnesty, and I think that we've fully expect that to meet our expectations as well as some of the liveaboards and the other strategies we have in the housing element. So I guess in summary, I would just, my comment would be absolutely this is not ready, and we have consensus on that, which is good. And I am, for my part, I'm going to really make an effort to educate residents about what's at stake here. Because I think if more people really know what's going on, I think we're going to have a standing room only crowd in here. |
| 02:04:26.58 | Ray Withy | Okay. Well, I won't repeat a lot of the things that were said, but I definitely think that we have to go in a direction of a sliding scale. I think we all feel that's one of the most important routes. The question is whether we – where do we send this back? Do we send it back to the legislative or do we send it back to the planning commission? So how do we feel about that? |
| 02:04:54.40 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you. Well, whatever we do, we need to send it back with some instruction. Yeah. Because I fully agree with the Council Member Theodore on that. |
| 02:04:59.53 | Ray Withy | Yeah. THE END OF |
| 02:05:01.42 | Tom | Yeah. |
| 02:05:01.74 | Ray Withy | I agree. Yeah. |
| 02:05:02.98 | Tom | Thank you. I think that we have, I would recommend we send it to the Planning Commission, I think. For one, it's a large... |
| 02:05:11.87 | Ray Withy | Subcommittee. |
| 02:05:13.61 | Tom | Oh, well, the subcommittee of the Planning Commission. |
| 02:05:17.66 | Ray Withy | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 02:05:18.74 | Tom | Either way. I would go either way. I'd say rather in our legislative committee, I think we take their expertise. We need to give guidance. I would probably send it back to the Planning Commission and they can decide on that. |
| 02:05:32.61 | Thomas Theodores | I think part of the problem is there is now only a subcommittee of one, isn't there, John? Because Stan's... And it's a new planning commission. |
| 02:05:37.18 | Tom | stands |
| 02:05:40.79 | Thomas Theodores | or, you know, with new members, it'd be worth their view, but there needs to be some work done here. There's been an enormous amount of work done, but I think there needs, the unintended consequences need to be really looked at because I fully agree with you, there's no right answer, but there's the least wrong answer. |
| 02:05:55.07 | Unknown | Really good. |
| 02:06:01.25 | Unknown | All right. There he is. |
| 02:06:07.49 | Thomas Theodores | I want to make sure you don't misinterpret my comments about the housing element. I fully support the programs in the housing element. We just need to have a more comprehensive discussion about how to implement Program 20. You know? If we're going to actually look at the language of Program 20, |
| 02:06:31.45 | Unknown | Thank you. you |
| 02:06:32.70 | Thomas Theodores | you know, We're maybe piling too much into this ordinance for it. We need to ask the question, are there other ways to achieve the goal? 20 years of a market, there may have been nine or four or whatever number there were of conversions. But it's the market as it is with our current zoning ordinance that has produced the characteristics of our neighborhood with a considerable amount of infill. The key question is, how actively and proscriptively are we going to try and protect it? That's the debate about the housing element in Program 20, is how active are we gonna be to write rules and regulations to preserve it when it appears from the numbers the market's done a pretty good job of preserving it, other than this major loophole about McMansions, which I agree. |
| 02:07:23.51 | Jonathan Leon | Yeah, no, I would tend to just, I mean, it all depends what you say. You know, I tend my intent to go up when, and not to disagree with, the market is not a great determination of cultural things, of policy choices. Because you can just go up the street here up towards, I'm at the bottom of the casino. There used to be three little cottages that were tucked in, And interesting, artsy, cool people were living there probably seven years ago, torn down. McMansion And so is that the market? I don't know. Is that what we want TOS Leader to be? I'm not sure. And that's what this is all about, really. Yes, there are some flyers that are coming in from the housing element. You're right there. But we have to do something to try to comply with the housing element. We said we would. We passed it with a straight face. Yes, Linda didn't support anything. But then you still can't meet your goals if you don't support something, so if you don't do anything. So at the end of the day, little boards and Amherst D weren't going to get us there. So we had to come up with some other things. |
| 02:08:29.34 | Thomas Theodores | I fully support the infill strategy, don't get me wrong, I completely support the infill strategy 100%. It's the least impactful and it's probably our most important strategy. Right? But the infill's there. It's there. |
| 02:08:45.95 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 02:08:46.15 | Thomas Theodores | Mr. Mayor, if I may. |
| 02:08:48.32 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you. |
| 02:08:48.39 | Ray Withy | Yeah. All right, go ahead. |
| 02:08:51.28 | Thomas Theodores | So, Council Member Leon just made the comment that I didn't support anything, and I just wanted to just for the record say that I actually did support, I did support recognizing our liveaboard community, which has never been recognized before, as well as our second units, which have never been recognized in our housing element formally before, and neither had second units. And so I supported that. I also supported not building on open space, and I also supported not gutting the Valhalla. And so there were many things I supported. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. |
| 02:09:01.20 | Vicki Nichols | I think it's a good thing. |
| 02:09:01.94 | Adam Krivacek | Bye. |
| 02:09:35.83 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you. |
| 02:09:35.86 | Ray Withy | So Mr. Mayor, could we... When do I feel that the word I is the least important word? |
| 02:09:35.88 | Thomas Theodores | So I'm gonna say- |
| 02:09:36.30 | Thomas Theodores | Bye. |
| 02:09:36.35 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you. |
| 02:09:36.39 | Thomas Theodores | It's a good one. |
| 02:09:36.62 | Thomas Theodores | I feel like. |
| 02:09:39.03 | Thomas Theodores | . |
| 02:09:39.42 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 02:09:39.46 | Thomas Theodores | Could we pick up on Tom's suggestion about actually going through some specifics and giving some direction? |
| 02:09:39.52 | Ray Withy | Go ahead. |
| 02:09:46.43 | Ray Withy | And that's what we've got to do. |
| 02:09:47.99 | Thomas Theodores | And remember, I think a discussion and an update on the housing element and its implementation is on the agenda for next time. |
| 02:09:56.31 | Unknown | Thank you. Mm-hmm. |
| 02:09:57.87 | Thomas Theodores | where we can roll this into a more philosophical discussion about the ways we want to implement it. |
| 02:10:04.53 | Tom | Thank you. |
| 02:10:04.58 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you. Tell them. |
| 02:10:06.31 | Tom | you |
| 02:10:07.60 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you. |
| 02:10:07.64 | Tom | you |
| 02:10:07.67 | Thomas Theodores | you |
| 02:10:07.72 | Tom | I don't know. Well, I don't know who. Well, I think we should, maybe we could start off and maybe really |
| 02:10:14.08 | Jonathan Leon | What do you got, Theodore? What do I got? I got Lily. |
| 02:10:15.27 | Tom | What do I got? I know. What do you say? I got Lily. Yes. And I'd say. And to walk us through it, and maybe walk us through the statute and start with the change in the development standards, go through the exceptions. And we could do it quickly. Just say, do we care about it? |
| 02:10:28.43 | Thomas Theodores | So, Lila's slide presentation dealt with each issue. |
| 02:10:32.16 | Tom | Yeah, each issue we can go through. I said we got. |
| 02:10:33.09 | Thomas Theodores | I said we got rid of it. |
| 02:10:35.03 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 02:10:35.06 | Thomas Theodores | Lily. |
| 02:10:35.97 | Ray Withy | It's delicious. They might not, but I will. Well done, by the way. That was well done. So I actually don't have a slide issue. |
| 02:10:37.35 | Thomas Theodores | They might not. |
| 02:10:38.03 | Thomas Theodores | but I... |
| 02:10:38.44 | Andrew Davidson | Well done, by the way. That was well done. So I actually don't have a slide that shows the ordinance. But if you wanted to go through the slides on the screen, there are a couple of components of the ordinance that I didn't address in my presentation because they weren't controversial. But we could go through those. We could look at the ordinance. |
| 02:10:44.58 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:10:44.66 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:10:59.61 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:10:59.63 | Tom | Yeah. One point. I just use that as an example of how we can |
| 02:10:59.71 | Thomas Theodores | Yeah. |
| 02:11:00.03 | Unknown | Thanks. |
| 02:11:00.49 | Thomas Theodores | I'm not sure. |
| 02:11:00.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:11:05.35 | Thomas Theodores | I would literally start with your slide on the development standards. |
| 02:11:11.21 | Unknown | So this is the first. |
| 02:11:12.03 | Andrew Davidson | one here. In the staff report, we're giving you two options. There may be option 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, but option 1 in the middle column is the fixed percentage, so that's going to the R16 standard for single units. Or option 2 is the proposal by Rust and Fay, where there's a sliding scale. So parcels under 3,000, so we're talking about floor area right now, parcels under 3,000 square feet are limited to 0.55. There's a sliding scale formula for parcels between 3,000 and 6,000 square feet. And then that scale goes up to 45%. Over 6,000 is 45% straight. |
| 02:12:03.25 | Jonathan Leon | to beat the Let's just debate whether you're going to have a sliding scale of some kind starting somewhere, ending somewhere else at some percentages, or just go boom from.65 to.45 at 3,000 square feet or not, and then send that back for... So do you want to do a sliding scale? I think it's the only logical way to do that. |
| 02:12:14.37 | Adam Krivacek | That's.6. |
| 02:12:22.50 | Tom | I think it's the only logical way to go. |
| 02:12:24.04 | Ray Withy | It is a logical question. |
| 02:12:25.29 | Tom | The first step is we're reducing the entitlements, the development standards. And then, yeah, I would say on the smaller lots, 6,000 under, we go back to the Planning Commission for a formula that works. And I would just add that we should look at, you know, there might be a formula up to a certain point and then we may add, you know, under 3,000. But we could give that over, something that makes sense. |
| 02:12:45.39 | Jonathan Leon | You know, I don't know if you need to go below 3,000 square feet. Yeah, yeah. |
| 02:12:50.85 | Tom | Yeah, we thank you. Right. |
| 02:12:52.17 | Thomas Theodores | Yeah. |
| 02:12:52.46 | Tom | But I think I'm going to agree with that, certainly. |
| 02:12:53.18 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:12:54.06 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:12:54.11 | Jonathan Leon | I'm going to do it. |
| 02:12:55.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:12:55.88 | Tom | Thank you. |
| 02:12:55.90 | Jonathan Leon | Yeah. |
| 02:12:55.93 | Thomas Theodores | I want to make sure we are not endorsing starting 3,055%. That's not what we are endorsing. Revisit the whole thing. Right. But we don't want the Planning Commission to come back with an immediate stepfather. |
| 02:12:55.97 | Tom | . |
| 02:12:56.03 | Jonathan Leon | Okay. |
| 02:13:01.38 | Tom | No. |
| 02:13:01.97 | Unknown | Not while we're endorsing. |
| 02:13:03.97 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 02:13:04.03 | Unknown | the whole way. |
| 02:13:05.26 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 02:13:09.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:13:09.25 | Jonathan Leon | Yeah. |
| 02:13:09.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:13:09.64 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. |
| 02:13:09.67 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you. |
| 02:13:09.99 | Jonathan Leon | Okay. |
| 02:13:10.29 | Thomas Theodores | you |
| 02:13:10.36 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. |
| 02:13:10.38 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you. |
| 02:13:10.39 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. All right. Just to make sure, so you were sending this back to the entire planning commission? Well, I don't accept the problem. |
| 02:13:19.62 | Vicki Nichols | because... |
| 02:13:20.03 | Mike Blatt | And then they're going to. |
| 02:13:20.94 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 02:13:22.58 | Jonathan Leon | they're starting over because only two of them really worked on this for a long period of time. And then one of those persons is gone and now you have three, how many new people? Two or two new people. So it's going to be, you know. |
| 02:13:34.44 | Tom | Well, but they don't have, I mean, we're down to Jones. So either the Planning Commission can have a subcommittee or we could go to the Legislative Committee. |
| 02:13:37.55 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. |
| 02:13:37.82 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 02:13:37.83 | Jonathan Leon | I think we should get out of something. |
| 02:13:41.80 | Thomas Theodores | Mr. Mayor, I have a comment. |
| 02:13:44.87 | Tom | Thank you. |
| 02:13:44.89 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. |
| 02:13:44.92 | Tom | RIGHT. |
| 02:13:45.01 | Jonathan Leon | There were citizen movies. |
| 02:13:45.92 | Ray Withy | Oh. Yeah, we could do that. |
| 02:13:48.58 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. |
| 02:13:49.83 | Thomas Theodores | One positive about it going to the Planning Commission is that when it goes to the Planning Commission, they meet in the evening. It's everyone who's in the evening. |
| 02:13:50.56 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 02:13:50.59 | Jonathan Leon | Yeah. |
| 02:13:50.81 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 02:14:00.65 | Thomas Theodores | you know, is familiar with the planning commissioners. It's an opportunity, there's more visibility linked to it. And so that's a positive. It's not something that's going to be doing the work. |
| 02:14:11.67 | Jonathan Leon | It's not something that's going to be during the week. Wherever you send it. |
| 02:14:13.32 | Unknown | and visit wherever I've said it. |
| 02:14:14.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:14:15.11 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:14:15.23 | Unknown | it. |
| 02:14:15.30 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:14:15.50 | Unknown | Amen. |
| 02:14:15.58 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:14:15.62 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:14:17.71 | Jonathan Leon | What's next? |
| 02:14:17.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:14:17.86 | Ray Withy | That's next. |
| 02:14:20.39 | Jonathan Leon | Skip that. That's your science, yeah. |
| 02:14:25.25 | Unknown | It's the CUP exception. Yeah. |
| 02:14:27.07 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. |
| 02:14:27.11 | Ray Withy | Yeah. |
| 02:14:27.48 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. |
| 02:14:30.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:14:31.09 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:14:31.11 | Ray Withy | 3A, 3D, 3A, 3C, 3D. |
| 02:14:41.32 | Adam Krivacek | you |
| 02:14:43.04 | Jonathan Leon | So just let me make sure I understand. So option four is anything less than 6,000 square feet is what? |
| 02:14:44.76 | Adam Krivacek | So, |
| 02:14:50.19 | Unknown | So the CUP would only be available for... If you're less than 6,000. |
| 02:14:52.20 | Jonathan Leon | if you're less than 6,000. |
| 02:14:53.80 | Unknown | you |
| 02:14:53.89 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. Okay. |
| 02:14:54.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:14:54.92 | Tom | And E relates to D. They're together, I have to say the way this is worded. They are. |
| 02:15:01.26 | Unknown | They are. So the D is saying someone can get an exception with a condition |
| 02:15:07.03 | Andrew Davidson | use permit and E is saying there's a finding above and beyond the normal conditional use permit findings there's special findings for that exception and they're specifying those findings |
| 02:15:08.06 | Jan | and even, |
| 02:15:19.89 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 02:15:19.91 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. |
| 02:15:21.28 | Ray Withy | All right, then what do we have on 3A? What are we doing there? |
| 02:15:25.31 | Tom | 3D. We're starting at the top. |
| 02:15:27.01 | Ray Withy | We're starting at the top. All right, well, I'm jumping at the bottom. Aye, well to do then. |
| 02:15:34.76 | Tom | Well, my comment, I would take both and send it back. I mean, I think this is really an important one. This is one that I think has been the hardest to |
| 02:15:36.62 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 02:15:44.70 | Tom | I think it needs more exploration than any of them. So I would send the whole thing back, including whether we go 6,000 or not, and what the definition of what the exclusion would be. But I think we need some exception for that type of thing, particularly relating to the parking and on these sloped lots. I just think that we haven't really made a lot of headway on what we really should be doing with that. So I would send the whole thing back. |
| 02:16:14.18 | Ray Withy | Okay, Lilly, next. Thank you. |
| 02:16:16.74 | Tom | Thank you. |
| 02:16:16.81 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 02:16:16.83 | Tom | Thank you. |
| 02:16:16.96 | Ray Withy | Yeah, you might as well send it all back. |
| 02:16:21.17 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. |
| 02:16:21.18 | Vicki Nichols | Yeah. |
| 02:16:21.54 | Ray Withy | Amen. |
| 02:16:23.56 | Thomas Theodores | Well, I think in particular because, you know, |
| 02:16:23.60 | Ray Withy | Well, I think... |
| 02:16:28.81 | Thomas Theodores | Once you've got, if you get the sliding scale right, and you get your starting point, your bottom right, right, you know, you may need less of these band-aids, as I'm calling them. |
| 02:16:32.32 | Unknown | starting point at bottom right right. |
| 02:16:34.75 | Adam Krivacek | Thank you. |
| 02:16:38.75 | Adam Krivacek | Yeah. |
| 02:16:39.12 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 02:16:39.14 | Adam Krivacek | call number. |
| 02:16:40.98 | Thomas Theodores | Now, that is a Sorry, that isn't one. There must be a CUP mechanism in, but I'm not sure. I'd like to hear what the Planning Commission says. I agree. |
| 02:16:47.29 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 02:16:52.10 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 02:16:52.11 | Unknown | Thank you. All right. So the next is the 200 square foot exception. |
| 02:17:04.92 | Tom | Well, I would be supportive of it, but I think in this case, because we're making some changes, people may have had some ideas of what they wanted to put on their lots. I think also because we don't have any extra square footage for the accessory dwelling units, that that would also support that. So I would be, I mean, I would revisit it, but my initial, I would say that would keep that in and give support to the bonus. |
| 02:17:29.42 | Ray Withy | I like the 200 for the idea that you could add a second unit, possibly. |
| 02:17:36.26 | Jonathan Leon | A bedroom is really where Michael is going with things. |
| 02:17:39.31 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 02:17:39.33 | Thomas Theodores | Yeah, yeah. Creates a bit of an anomaly at the very low parcel numbers with a sliding scale. |
| 02:17:47.65 | Jonathan Leon | Yeah, but I think the key here is it still has to comply with the zoning ordinance in general. So you're not going to create a weird anomaly in the neighborhood |
| 02:17:51.58 | Adam Krivacek | general. |
| 02:17:53.59 | Unknown | You're not going to cry. |
| 02:17:57.76 | Jonathan Leon | It's a meaningful percentage of a 3,000 square foot home, or a lot. |
| 02:17:59.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:17:59.53 | Unknown | you All right. |
| 02:18:00.61 | Adam Krivacek | Thank you. |
| 02:18:01.34 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 02:18:01.94 | Jonathan Leon | a lot at 200 square feet. It still has to comply with everything else. So I can't see it being like creating a, it's not, this isn't the gateway to McMansionville. |
| 02:18:13.17 | Thomas Theodores | No, but you could do it on a 6,000 square footnote. |
| 02:18:13.43 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. You could do it on either one. |
| 02:18:16.81 | Thomas Theodores | Yeah, yeah, yeah. And it's a fairly owner standard. You gotta get a design review permit and a CUP in one go. |
| 02:18:24.00 | Tom | Right. And one of the questions, I mean, one of the things that was raised was whether we do the 200 feed or we do it on a percentage basis. And you could do it either way, but I would go with just a straight 200 feed. |
| 02:18:27.19 | Thomas Theodores | One of the things |
| 02:18:37.84 | Tom | Yeah. |
| 02:18:39.24 | Thomas Theodores | for the goal of the extra bedroom or whatever, it makes no sense to make a presentation. |
| 02:18:44.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:18:44.38 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:18:44.59 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Okay. |
| 02:18:46.48 | Unknown | Any comments from the Council on the sunset clause option? |
| 02:18:55.54 | Tom | anybody I would support it. I think, you know, we want to – I mean, our zoning ordinance is complicated. We're making it more complicated. But we want to – I mean, we're trying to address issues that people have now that had some expectations to ease some of the burdens of the changes. And I think down the line we won't need that. I think staff talked about 10 years, so I'd be supportive of it. I mean, I could go either way, but I actually think it would be a good idea to have a sunset clause. |
| 02:19:24.46 | Thomas Theodores | I'd ask the Planning Commission to ask what the right timeline is. |
| 02:19:30.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:19:30.05 | Tom | Okay. |
| 02:19:30.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:19:30.50 | Tom | you |
| 02:19:30.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:19:30.76 | Tom | So... |
| 02:19:30.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:19:31.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:19:31.09 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:19:31.28 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:19:31.30 | Ray Withy | to that one, but I think it's... Give it to them anyway. John will come up with something. Well, 10 years is a long time. |
| 02:19:31.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:19:31.55 | Thomas Theodores | I'm not going to that one, but I think |
| 02:19:32.97 | Unknown | I would say. |
| 02:19:33.19 | Thomas Theodores | . |
| 02:19:33.24 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:19:36.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:19:37.03 | Jonathan Leon | 10 years. |
| 02:19:37.37 | Unknown | since the longest. |
| 02:19:38.03 | Jonathan Leon | I've been doing this long time. You can't complain with 10 minutes. |
| 02:19:38.37 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:19:39.21 | Ray Withy | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:19:41.62 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:19:41.64 | Ray Withy | Okay, Lily? |
| 02:19:43.30 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:19:45.88 | Unknown | So the next is the historic issues. |
| 02:19:49.88 | Jonathan Leon | Yeah, this one, there's got to be some nuances in this, so I'd rather keep this one open. There's a way to make it a carrot for preservation. And I wish I had – I just feel like it's somewhere, and we've got to pull it out of the air. You know what I mean? There's an answer to this. There's something there. |
| 02:20:07.66 | Ray Withy | It's something there. |
| 02:20:13.21 | Tom | but I think we need to keep it. on the table until we figure out what we do with it. Yeah, I agree with that. |
| 02:20:22.06 | Andrew Davidson | So did I hear send that back or? |
| 02:20:30.61 | Carolyn McKenzie | Okay. |
| 02:20:31.07 | Andrew Davidson | So the next one is the additional design review permit finding that requires the demonstration of the feasibility or practicality of additional units on the parcel. |
| 02:20:31.12 | Carolyn McKenzie | THE END OF |
| 02:20:47.08 | Jonathan Leon | I think the, I would stay shy away from the option eight is rather vague. Even nine is, you know, open to interpretation, but it has at least, it conforms a little bit more to how we look at other parcels for other things in a zoning ordinance already. So these factors we already weigh in in some of the zoning decisions that are made anyway, so there should be If you can make a valid argument and that I've got a creek and I live in a triangle a lot and I can't, you know, 30% slope behind me, then there's something there. But it has to stand up to the straight face test kind of thing. |
| 02:21:33.74 | Tom | Thank you. |
| 02:21:33.76 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. |
| 02:21:33.83 | Tom | Thank you. |
| 02:21:33.88 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. |
| 02:21:33.89 | Tom | Okay. I'd like to address one issue on this, and this is a little different. I think one of the goals is we're trying to make sure that we not necessarily encourage, but we don't lose any of our housing stock. One thing we should bear in mind, that none of this prevents, we're not taking a position that we're preventing anyone from taking multiple units and making a single unit. That's still possible, okay. And, but we certainly want to, We're discouraging the McMansions by lowering the entitlements. But also, one of the unintended consequences of this is that we're making a lot of nonconforming units. So one thing we could do on this is that we could limit these type of findings to when someone is reducing the number of units and not doing it when, and I think that's a key part of it, and not when they're just making a remodeler, that kind of thing. And so that would be one thing, and the language would only be I think here you say something about uh, Let's see, what do I have here? That. this submit will apply only where it results in a project site developed at less than the maximum density, but maybe where there is some change in the density or change in the number of units. The idea is that it would only apply when you're lessening the number of units and not apply to where you're just making a change, and so that would make it less nonconforming. |
| 02:23:07.43 | Thomas Theodores | I think that's a very interesting idea to explore. |
| 02:23:10.27 | Tom | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:23:11.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:23:11.84 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:23:11.87 | Tom | I agree. |
| 02:23:12.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:23:20.22 | Ray Withy | Okay, Lily? Okay. |
| 02:23:24.10 | Andrew Davidson | So the next is the purpose and intent section. We have a couple options here. |
| 02:23:40.81 | Jonathan Leon | Is this the fully expanded version that you did? |
| 02:23:50.67 | Thomas Theodores | So, Lily, Mr. Mayor, I have a question for Lily. Go ahead. Because we just heard a comment on the council that the intent of this ordinance was not to prevent someone with multi-units to convert to single family. And yet point A says to discourage the conversion of existing two and multi-family housing to single family housing. |
| 02:23:54.26 | Vicki Nichols | Go ahead. |
| 02:24:14.63 | Unknown | you I think there's a. |
| 02:24:15.30 | Carolyn McKenzie | Thank you. |
| 02:24:15.32 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:24:15.37 | Thomas Theodores | you |
| 02:24:15.45 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:24:15.52 | Thomas Theodores | That's a discouragement. Well, that's, okay, so what we're saying here is your comment was about the prohibition as opposed to the discouraging. Okay, thank you. Thanks. |
| 02:24:32.25 | Tom | I'm not worried. These are the we're asked clauses. And I think if we're using whatever we do, that's the thing we need to worry about, the changes in the zoning ordinance. But we should take credit for it. And if we can take some credit in we're asked clauses, I'm happy with all of that. |
| 02:24:35.98 | Adam Krivacek | Thank you. |
| 02:24:36.02 | Vicki Nichols | Yeah. |
| 02:24:36.23 | Adam Krivacek | Thank you. |
| 02:24:36.30 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:24:48.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:24:48.88 | Andrew Davidson | Just to clarify, these are different than the whereas clauses. These actually go into the zoning ordinance, in the section of the zoning ordinance. |
| 02:24:50.99 | Tom | Oh. Thank you. |
| 02:24:54.27 | Vicki Nichols | Okay. I'm sorry. |
| 02:24:55.35 | Tom | Thank you. |
| 02:24:56.85 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 02:24:57.34 | Jonathan Leon | The theory, and correct me if I'm wrong, this is like if you're in a gray spot and you go back and, okay, well the intent here is this. That should help guide someone. Okay, well here's how I interpret the gray. |
| 02:24:57.62 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. |
| 02:25:01.41 | Andrew Davidson | Yeah. |
| 02:25:05.14 | Adam Krivacek | Thank you. All right. |
| 02:25:05.44 | Vicki Nichols | of that. |
| 02:25:05.98 | Adam Krivacek | help guide someone. |
| 02:25:14.25 | Jonathan Leon | I think number one, 11 is fine, and 10, the first phrasing is straightforward. |
| 02:25:15.16 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 02:25:21.22 | Vicki Nichols | Okay. |
| 02:25:23.06 | Jonathan Leon | you |
| 02:25:25.69 | Andrew Davidson | Somebody hearing not to send it back. |
| 02:25:28.51 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 02:25:28.54 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. |
| 02:25:28.56 | Jonathan Leon | I think you can just, those are I think rather benign and actually state what we're trying to accomplish. |
| 02:25:28.57 | Andrew Davidson | I think you know, Thank you. |
| 02:25:31.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:25:31.41 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. |
| 02:25:31.46 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:25:31.81 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. |
| 02:25:31.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:25:40.52 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. So that goes through all of the sections identified as having issues. There's a couple other sections of the ordinance. |
| 02:25:44.88 | Adam Krivacek | Thank you. |
| 02:25:44.98 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 02:25:45.06 | Adam Krivacek | identified as you |
| 02:25:51.61 | Andrew Davidson | So if you want to look at your actual staff report, I'm on page 8 of attachment 9. |
| 02:25:53.43 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:25:53.77 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you. |
| 02:26:01.02 | Thomas Theodores | I think the only other major one is Section 5, to discuss it in terms of how aggressive we want to be with it. |
| 02:26:11.15 | Andrew Davidson | So Section 5 is the conceptual site diagram. So that relates to the design review permit finding about feasibility. |
| 02:26:19.08 | Thomas Theodores | Yeah. And... |
| 02:26:21.41 | Unknown | Which one, the parking part of it, or just the whole idea of section? Or no, the parking, that's six. Yeah, six. Just the whole idea of the submitted consensual site diagram? |
| 02:26:25.66 | Thomas Theodores | Yeah. |
| 02:26:26.03 | Unknown | I would. |
| 02:26:26.44 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you. I don't necessarily say that it's not a good idea. And it's consistent with program 20. I just think that the community is not really |
| 02:26:32.12 | Unknown | No, I'm not sure. |
| 02:26:38.01 | Thomas Theodores | thought of this ordinance in that context because this is going beyond single families. |
| 02:26:43.57 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:26:44.27 | Thomas Theodores | This is going to... you know, how... I mean, on this one, it is... what the housing element wanted to do, which was partially drive the future development in the multifamily and the direction of multifamily and not single-family. |
| 02:27:05.40 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. |
| 02:27:05.45 | Unknown | So it's your thought that this may be |
| 02:27:05.56 | Thomas Theodores | Yeah. |
| 02:27:06.80 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. |
| 02:27:06.82 | Thomas Theodores | . |
| 02:27:07.02 | Jonathan Leon | Excuse me. Is your thought that this concept |
| 02:27:07.68 | Thomas Theodores | you |
| 02:27:07.72 | Unknown | you |
| 02:27:07.85 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you. |
| 02:27:09.79 | Jonathan Leon | good or ill, maybe belongs in a separate piece of legislation rather than this one one way It adds a general statement to a submittal. Isn't this for every submittal? You'd have to submit this, right? |
| 02:27:28.59 | Thomas Theodores | Yeah, and I could argue that one either way. I could argue that one in a way. This one's in play now, we might as well finish it. |
| 02:27:32.37 | Unknown | Amen. |
| 02:27:36.42 | Unknown | So, Okay. |
| 02:27:40.87 | Thomas Theodores | OK? I'd just like the Planning Commission to hold a hearing on making, hearing public comments specifically on this program. |
| 02:27:52.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:27:53.06 | Thomas Theodores | 20 and how it relates to this ordinance because I want, I'm not sure there aren't unintended consequences. There were public comment both at the Planning Commission and, well, privately and at the uh, Subcommittee, sorry. The subcommittee. What you're doing... Um. based on say in part the configuration of the lot views you know, the various aspects of where you would site a property on a lot you know It might make sense only to do four, not five. It might make sense. And I know some of the single family property owners were very concerned that |
| 02:28:30.59 | Adam Krivacek | Amen. |
| 02:28:37.24 | Thomas Theodores | you know, if you've got a 4,000 lot in say a number that allowed you to put two units on, say in an R2, whatever that is. But you only want to build a single family home, or it's only a single family home there, or you need to tear down because it needs to be rebuilt. it's going to be cited on the lot because of this, in a place to accommodate to. and Is that the right place on the lot? It may not naturally be the right place on the lot. So we are made to do this, and I'm not saying I disagree with it, but everybody needs to understand we are proactively managing how we are starting to place properties on parcels with the concept of we're leaving room for maximum density. |
| 02:29:30.59 | Russ Irwin | but the room's already there. Yeah. |
| 02:29:33.16 | Jonathan Leon | Good question, and Lily, I think the point there is, you whether this constitutes when you submit your submittal, and you say, well, I'm building my single family here, but it could accommodate an additional dwelling unit or an attached dwelling unit in this area, but I'm not going to build that, but it could accommodate that, which is what this is calling for, right? If that, by the Planning Commission accepting that and, you know, approving the submitted application, if that creates the obligation for future approval processes to honor that particular concept. |
| 02:30:14.05 | Andrew Davidson | The intent would not be that future projects have to honor that specific conceptual diagram, but another project that's submitted in the future on that parcel would have to go through this exercise again of demonstrating that they're showing that they can feasibly construct additional units in the future. So let say the the the other unit is located over here the Planning Commission goes to the process of a perverted project over here ten years down the road now we're looking at that space where that future unit was located someone wants to expand the house into that space that property owner has to show where else on the property an additional unit would be located |
| 02:30:28.58 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:30:45.05 | Adam Krivacek | 10 years. |
| 02:30:57.64 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 02:30:57.65 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:30:57.89 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 02:30:57.94 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. |
| 02:30:59.76 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 02:31:01.10 | Thomas Theodores | So this is definitely one where there's no easy answer because we signed up for Program 20. And it was our idea. We wrote it down in the housing element. And so the question is, you know, how, in balancing the social benefit of this, which is to protect the existing infill capacities there for future multifamily development, versus the unintended consequences of forcing perhaps inappropriate placement on lots. That's the balancing and I don't think the Planning Commission has really had that conversation. but maybe Joan disagrees with me. |
| 02:31:51.20 | Ray Withy | No, sure, go on. |
| 02:31:53.98 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. Okay. |
| 02:31:55.82 | Ray Withy | Lily? |
| 02:31:58.28 | Jonathan Leon | So why don't we leave that as an open issue. |
| 02:32:00.73 | Ray Withy | Okay, leave that open. |
| 02:32:02.93 | Andrew Davidson | And then the tandem, the reduced parking sizes, |
| 02:32:06.94 | Ray Withy | Don't even bother. |
| 02:32:08.12 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. |
| 02:32:08.14 | Jonathan Leon | The tandem, just to make sure we're all clear on what the purpose of the tandem is. The tandem is allowed with the CUP now. This would make it an automatic, you can use tandem parking in the scenario of what? |
| 02:32:20.90 | Andrew Davidson | There's standards in the zoning ordinance. So the tandem space has to be located on your own property. It can't be located in the right of way. It has to serve one in the same unit. So there's already standards in the zoning ordinance. It proceeds away the CUP requirement. |
| 02:32:27.63 | Unknown | Right. |
| 02:32:28.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:32:32.95 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:32:32.96 | Jonathan Leon | Yeah, no, I know that. for any application. |
| 02:32:37.64 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. tandem spaces in two and multi-family zoning districts. It's not allowed in the single-family zoning districts. |
| 02:32:44.30 | Jonathan Leon | but it would be for a multifamily construction in a multifamily zoned area only for tandem. Or would it be for a single family in a multifamily zone? |
| 02:32:59.81 | Jonathan Leon | So why don't we revisit that one? |
| 02:33:30.81 | Andrew Davidson | The zoning ordinance states that tandem parking, two vehicles parked so that one is behind the other, may be permitted for two and multiple family dwellings where both parking spaces are intended to serve one in the same dwelling unit. So it's only for duplexes and other. |
| 02:33:44.09 | Jonathan Leon | So let's just state that, repeat that, belt and suspenders in this, so it can't be misconstrued. Otherwise, I'm fine. |
| 02:33:55.26 | Tom | Are we in agreement? We're not going to revisit that one. It was- As long as you just clarify. |
| 02:33:56.98 | Jonathan Leon | We, |
| 02:33:58.79 | Ray Withy | As long as she just clarifies it. |
| 02:34:01.34 | Tom | And the Planning Commission had already approved that. |
| 02:34:01.41 | Ray Withy | and planning. |
| 02:34:04.78 | Andrew Davidson | Yeah, the additional language in the zoning ordinance doesn't modify the language I just repeated. It just adds a sentence. saying that tandem parking shall be a permitted use without the requirement for a CUP for projects which propose the maximum number of units allowed for parcels in the R2 and R3 zoning districts. For purposes of this section, accessory dwelling units shall count as towards filling the density requirement. |
| 02:34:30.26 | Jonathan Leon | Okay. Okay. Anything else you need clarification on? |
| 02:34:37.75 | Andrew Davidson | We didn't discuss the parking exception for small units. That makes an identical exception as in the ADU ordinance for units under 700 square feet, so that those units only have to provide one parking space. And then it allows for the waiver of that parking on-site with a CUP, with a parking study for daytime and nighttime uses that show that there is sufficient parking available in the neighborhood and that's reviewed by the Planning Commission. It's the same language that was in the ADU ordinance. |
| 02:35:15.27 | Jonathan Leon | Right, and that's, again, is that in multifamily zoned areas? |
| 02:35:22.42 | Andrew Davidson | That is for all areas. It's a parking exception for any units under 700. |
| 02:35:27.00 | Jonathan Leon | for any units under 700. So if I have an ADU in R1, okay. |
| 02:35:42.52 | Andrew Davidson | And then the only other issue we didn't talk about is the additional design review permit finding about massing. That's on page 8 of attachment 9, starting on line 7. It says the project has been designed to ensure on-site structures do not crowd or overwhelm structures on neighboring properties. Design techniques to achieve this may include, but are not limited to, stepping upper levels back from the first level, incorporating facade articulations and divisions, such as building wall offsets, and using varying roof lines. |
| 02:36:06.75 | Adam Krivacek | limited. Thank you. |
| 02:36:09.20 | Unknown | the |
| 02:36:09.52 | Adam Krivacek | Thank you. |
| 02:36:28.00 | Tom | It sounds like a good idea. The one thing is I would make the same exception that we talked about the other one where it would only apply if they were changing the density and not that they wouldn't necessarily have to make this if they were just making changes and, for example, only making some modifications to a single-family dwelling, the same kind of where it says this shall apply to projects developed at less than the maximum density and that the density has not changed, or whatever language you want to use to show that If you're keeping the same number of units, you don't have to go through that. |
| 02:37:06.90 | Andrew Davidson | So for clarification, is that something you wanted the Planning Commission to discuss, or is that something you just want us to bring back for City Council review? |
| 02:37:15.26 | Jonathan Leon | Let's bring it back. |
| 02:37:15.65 | Andrew Davidson | that. |
| 02:37:22.61 | Thomas Theodores | unless it's sufficiently regarded as a new concept that the Planning Commission does |
| 02:37:26.32 | Jonathan Leon | does have to say. If that's a new thing, then yes. |
| 02:37:34.01 | Andrew Davidson | Would you like me to go over what I have for the Planning Commission to review? |
| 02:37:37.35 | Jonathan Leon | All right. |
| 02:37:37.49 | Andrew Davidson | Okay. |
| 02:37:39.50 | Ray Withy | Bye. |
| 02:37:39.51 | Jonathan Leon | No, we're afraid of that right now. But I would encourage you to send it back and have the Planning Commission designate. I would send it back to the subcommittee and have the Planning Commission designate a new member to take Stan's place on the subcommittee rather than send it to the Planning Commission as a whole body. |
| 02:37:39.53 | Andrew Davidson | No. |
| 02:37:40.00 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 02:37:40.16 | Ray Withy | I'm afraid of that right now. |
| 02:37:41.20 | Unknown | I'm not. |
| 02:37:41.27 | Ray Withy | I don't know. |
| 02:37:41.47 | Unknown | That's exactly it. |
| 02:37:42.01 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 02:37:42.03 | Unknown | Thank you. Yeah. |
| 02:37:47.09 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 02:37:47.24 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:37:55.48 | Tom | And one other thing, we should talk about notice, whether we want to give more than the statutory notice or whether we want to... |
| 02:38:04.27 | Jonathan Leon | Well, no, and I think it could come to the Planning Commission from the working group For the whole planning commission to hear and then you notice that all out. But some of this is going to be just some free thinking. And then you can then put it out in front of the public and get a comment back on it and do the noticing. And if there's more creative ways, I forget that I think he left the gentleman that was willing to be involved in that. |
| 02:38:09.74 | Tom | Yeah. |
| 02:38:25.15 | Ray Withy | Jeremy? |
| 02:38:25.75 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 02:38:31.74 | Jeremy Graves | I've been requested not to come up and add thoughts, but I'm concerned about timing on this. And this is really a topic that's going to be coming up in two weeks when we start talking about the housing element. And we have some severe, severe time constraints on preparation of our next housing element. And so I'm concerned about being able to bring revised ordinance, this revised ordinance back to you. And if we're directed to send it back to the subcommittee, the Planning Commission subcommittee, |
| 02:38:33.68 | Vicki Nichols | Yeah. |
| 02:38:33.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:38:33.83 | Vicki Nichols | Yeah, of course. |
| 02:38:34.63 | Unknown | Go ahead. |
| 02:38:43.25 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:39:08.89 | Jeremy Graves | My fear is that we'll have to bring a subcommittee up to speed, and then they'll have meetings on this. I'm concerned that may not get back to the Planning Commission. This is September. We have to establish a subcommittee. That will be October. Subcommittee is going to have probably three meetings on this, maybe four meetings on this. That's looking at December. That's getting back to the Planning Commission in January, and I hope I'm wrong on all this, and then that's getting back to here in February, and that's going to begin impacting our implementation program for our various other zoning ordinance amendments that we need to do in order to keep our housing element on track. So I think it'd be best to allow the Commission with flexibility on how they would like to handle it at their level. |
| 02:39:15.15 | Adam Krivacek | Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:39:18.33 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 02:39:18.64 | Adam Krivacek | you |
| 02:39:55.10 | Ray Withy | Send it to the command. |
| 02:39:55.95 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. |
| 02:39:55.98 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 02:39:56.05 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. |
| 02:39:56.15 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 02:39:59.92 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. you Well, so then why don't, maybe this is a compromise then, why don't you send it to a combination of the subcommittee and the legislative committee and get it done in a shorter period of time and then bring it back to whoever from the subcommittee wants to still participate, you can come to the legislative committee, I'll do it. If you want, we can meet in the evening so we don't have whatever conspiracy theory applies to the meetings, and get some good notice out and maybe that's the way to speed it along. Female Speaker 1, Mr. Mayor, does that work better for you? |
| 02:40:12.08 | Unknown | Whoever from the city is, |
| 02:40:20.33 | Adam Krivacek | here. |
| 02:40:28.58 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 02:40:28.60 | Russ Irwin | Okay. |
| 02:40:29.97 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 02:40:29.99 | Russ Irwin | Thank you. |
| 02:40:30.16 | Vicki Nichols | And I'll wait. |
| 02:40:30.97 | Russ Irwin | better for you. Yeah. |
| 02:40:32.03 | Thomas Theodores | Mr. Mayor, I have a comment on that, if I may. I think it's important that we pull this out of, I heard the comment regarding a conspiracy of daytime meetings. The simple fact is people work. and they work during the day. And if you're meeting during the day, they can't attend. And that's why I think |
| 02:40:52.99 | Jonathan Leon | And that's why I think... To avoid any aspersions of such a... Mike, if I may... |
| 02:40:55.82 | Thomas Theodores | I mean, If I may, my personal recommendation is that we send this to the Planning Commission. They meet regularly. Everybody knows. They're familiar with the process. And it would be the most visible way to address this. |
| 02:41:11.67 | Ray Withy | I understand what you're saying, but I think it's too much on the plate for the Planning Commission to do that. So I think that we go with the recommendation. |
| 02:41:22.28 | Tom | Since we have the person who's on every committee, would you like to weigh in on where you think the most appropriate place to send it to be? |
| 02:41:23.63 | Ray Withy | committee. |
| 02:41:28.75 | Tom | you That's why you ran for all of us |
| 02:41:30.04 | Jonathan Leon | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:41:30.97 | Tom | . |
| 02:41:30.99 | Jonathan Leon | right here. Thank you. |
| 02:41:32.03 | Joan Cox | . Thank you. |
| 02:41:33.15 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. |
| 02:41:34.25 | Joan Cox | Joan Cox, I do think it would be more efficient to have the Legislative Committee that has already got these issues in mind, and the Planning Commission subcommittee together with the community members who have already invested all the time and energy on this. We have two new members of the Planning Commission to get them up to speed. to be able to digest and make decisions on all six of the issues that you're remanding back to the Planning Commission could be torturesome. So I would recommend going to the, I love the idea of a joint legislative subcommittee meeting in the evening and then they can send their recommendations to the Planning Commission and that way we expedite the process. |
| 02:42:06.48 | Adam Krivacek | I love the idea of a joint... |
| 02:42:15.86 | Ray Withy | Okay. Fine. We'll do that. Excellent. At this time here, we really can't get public comment back up, and that's process. But there'll be more hearings. You'll have another shot. Okay, Lily. Fine. |
| 02:42:18.73 | Joan Cox | THE FAMILY. |
| 02:42:19.00 | Jonathan Leon | Right. |
| 02:42:19.57 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 02:42:27.22 | Jonathan Leon | But there'll be more hearings. You'll have another shot. |
| 02:42:32.09 | Andrew Davidson | I have one last question for you. I've heard discussion about noticing for that legislative and subcommittee. Do you have direction on how we should notice for that? |
| 02:42:45.95 | Tom | What would the typical notice for that type of thing be? I think in the end, I tend to agree that we don't have to worry about extensive notice, but I think we should try to do as much notice as we can. |
| 02:42:47.23 | Adam Krivacek | Thank you. |
| 02:42:47.25 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. |
| 02:42:47.26 | Adam Krivacek | Thank you. That type of thing. Thank you. |
| 02:42:49.24 | Unknown | I think in the end, |
| 02:42:58.47 | Tom | So what would be our typical notice in this type of hearing? |
| 02:43:02.89 | Jonathan Leon | How much did the postcards cost to send out that you sent? Is that like 5,000 bucks or something? |
| 02:43:04.19 | Tom | Thank you. |
| 02:43:04.22 | Andrew Davidson | to send out. |
| 02:43:05.12 | Tom | you |
| 02:43:05.15 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. |
| 02:43:05.17 | Tom | Thank you. Is that like five matches? |
| 02:43:07.85 | Andrew Davidson | I think it was about $1,200. |
| 02:43:10.03 | Jonathan Leon | Okay, all right. So do we have somewhere similar? |
| 02:43:10.11 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. All right. |
| 02:43:14.38 | Unknown | Somewhere similar to cover that messaging, do you think? |
| 02:43:21.11 | Adam Politzer | And the Council then we'll find it. But the answer is no. Just on a comment too would be. Where does that take us? |
| 02:43:22.72 | Unknown | We'll find it. I'm sorry. |
| 02:43:25.69 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:43:25.91 | Thomas Theodores | Just on a comment too, I'd be... Where does that take us though? Councilmember? Where does it take us for future legislative committees? Future, you know... I agree. I mean... |
| 02:43:29.92 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 02:43:29.94 | Mary Wagner | Council members. |
| 02:43:36.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:43:36.17 | Mary Wagner | . |
| 02:43:36.32 | Unknown | I agree. |
| 02:43:37.30 | Mary Wagner | on the road. |
| 02:43:37.35 | Unknown | . |
| 02:43:37.40 | Mary Wagner | I mean, Councilmember Theodores, if I can jump in on your initial question, which was how would we Typically, notice the ledge Committee meeting. we would post the agenda and Lily would email the group that she's gotten together of how many people do you think that is? |
| 02:43:57.40 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. 180. |
| 02:43:58.12 | Mary Wagner | 180. um, for the Legislative Committee meeting. The Planning Commission meeting would be conducted as a public hearing on the recommendation to amend the zoning ordinance. It would be published in the paper and emailed also to all the, people who have told Lilly they're interested. And if there are people here tonight who aren't on that list, you should give Lilly your email address so that she can add you to that list. We would do the same thing with the council meeting. So if you want us to do something different, It would be great to have that input now. postcard link below said is that a couple thousand dollars for the people who have, for the property owners in the |
| 02:44:32.56 | Adam Krivacek | Dollars. |
| 02:44:36.88 | Mary Wagner | affected zoning districts and it's not tenants it's just property owners. We can also put it in the current, I'm sorry, Council Member Piper, put it in the current and the... |
| 02:44:42.66 | Thomas Theodores | And Mr. Mary. |
| 02:44:47.21 | Mary Wagner | website. |
| 02:44:49.67 | Thomas Theodores | No, I'm sorry, Mary. I thought you were done. Okay. Mr. Mayor, I would be happy to volunteer to, you know, contribute to wording or, you know, kind of review the, you know, the phrasing of it just with respect to, I think that sometimes, unless there is a specific legal way that we have got to state it just in terms of how the ordinance states it as opposed to descriptions regarding this would discourage, you know, conversion from multifamily to single family, this, you know, to be a little bit more specific along those lines. |
| 02:45:32.30 | Adam Krivacek | Thank you. |
| 02:45:38.17 | Thomas Theodores | Is your microphone on, Mr. Mayor? |
| 02:45:38.43 | Ray Withy | that I'm going to say. I think we have it in place now, and I think we now picked what direction we want to go And I'd like to stay on that course. |
| 02:45:51.35 | Unknown | I think one day. |
| 02:45:52.08 | Ray Withy | Go ahead. |
| 02:45:52.48 | Tom | Just one thing I noticed, I do think we should bite the bullet and do a mailing at some point. I'm not sure this next meeting is the place and maybe we should give it some thought because I think we want to go, you know, step beyond in this particular case and do one. But we're going to probably have several, so we have to decide which would be the most appropriate. |
| 02:45:53.63 | Ray Withy | I, |
| 02:46:10.56 | Thomas Theodores | And Mr. Mayor, just to add to Council Member Theodora's comment, I do believe that if we do a mailer, it should be in this plain English, like just listing the purpose to discourage the development, et cetera, I think this is what, or the conversion of two multi-family housing to single family housing, this is what people need to be educated about in plain English, what this ordinance is doing and the fact that it encourages maximum density as written. |
| 02:46:38.49 | Ray Withy | Okay. All right. At this time, we've given direction. We're going to take up to a five-minute break. |
| 02:46:47.28 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:46:47.87 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:46:48.04 | Unknown | The Pressure guys are waiting. So you're the only son. You've got to take a break. |
| 02:46:48.34 | Unknown | you're waiting so much |
| 02:46:49.67 | Ray Withy | Well, you only said. You got to take a break. |
| 02:46:54.33 | Thomas Theodores | people from outside. Yeah. |
| 02:46:55.46 | Ray Withy | Let me mirror a budget. Hey, I'm on a break. |
| 02:46:55.95 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:46:56.05 | Thomas Theodores | I'm not sure. |
| 02:46:56.29 | Unknown | Bye. I'm not sure. Thank you. |
| 02:46:57.33 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you. |
| 02:46:57.37 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:46:57.39 | Tom | Hey. |
| 02:46:57.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:46:57.82 | Tom | And what? You've got to send a memo when you're wearing a tie because you know. |
| 02:47:17.62 | Ray Withy | Clark in school used to say, time will pass, will you? So we're going to move on. |
| 02:47:30.46 | Ray Withy | Okay, next on our agenda, we have the Marine Emergency Radio Authority update, and sorry not be on schedule. 8.45. Only an hour late. Okay, no emergency. Go ahead. |
| 02:47:53.12 | Ray Withy | I'm not sure. |
| 02:47:53.19 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:47:53.21 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 02:47:53.24 | Unknown | Oh. |
| 02:47:53.50 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 02:47:53.53 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:47:53.68 | Ray Withy | Well, Jennifer said she wasn't going to wake up. I know. I think you know it's fine. |
| 02:47:53.76 | Unknown | You're late. |
| 02:47:56.25 | Unknown | Well, Jenna, |
| 02:47:56.87 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:47:56.97 | Vicki Nichols | THE FAMILY. |
| 02:47:57.04 | Unknown | She said she wasn't going to |
| 02:47:57.90 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 02:47:57.92 | Unknown | I know. I know it's been. |
| 02:47:59.43 | Unknown | Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:48:03.06 | Unknown | Good evening, Mayor and Council Members, City Clerk, City Attorney, and City Manager. This evening I'm going to give you an update on MARA, Marin Emergency Radio Authority. And... Um, Thank you for this opportunity to fit this in tonight. This is an important update. I gave you an update in May of 2012, so some of you were not here. Some of the information is a repeat, and some of it is new. So thank you for your attention while I go through this. I have with me tonight, I'm actually a mayor representative. I serve on the governing board as well as the project oversight committee. And for two years I was on the outreach committee when we were doing a lot of the groundwork and research in how we were going to move forward, and if we were going to move forward, and why we were going to move forward. And with me tonight, Mara, staff people are here to answer the questions that may come that I don't have the information for. And project manager Dave Jeffries is right here. and his administrative assistant Alex Anderson. Dave Jeffries is right here, and his Administrative Assistant Alex Anderson. Dave Jeffries is about to retire from the Nevada Police Department after 30 years, 31 years, and was my field training officer when I went there, so you can blame him. Why? Why, man? |
| 02:49:28.37 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 02:49:28.50 | Ray Withy | Yeah. We want to talk to you after this meeting. You couldn't have weeded her out earlier on in the whole process. |
| 02:49:33.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:49:33.43 | Unknown | It's amazing. |
| 02:49:33.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:49:33.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:49:34.09 | Unknown | You. |
| 02:49:34.15 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. |
| 02:49:36.99 | Unknown | service. |
| 02:49:40.15 | Unknown | You're welcome. Anyway, I just want to thank you for your support, the past support that councils have given to us for this important, this project that's really important to us, the first responders. You have, I think, received a frequently asked questions, documents, and a fact sheet on MERA, which has a lot of good information for you. So just to review, Marin Emergency Radio Authority, what do we do? It facilitates how emergency responders communicate. We have We receive calls in one of three ways. On the left-hand side there, it's either through a 911 phone call to a dispatch center. We have seven dispatch centers in Marin County. Or it's from the field through a radio that's supported by MERA, the MERA system, the current system, or through a planned action, an event such as the Sausalito Art Festival is an example of another source of communications over the system. All of these communications are managed through MERRA Communications, and as the diagram shows, the communication goes to towers, and then it goes out to whichever agency or agencies need to hear that information. Um, Before Mira, This is an illustration of how difficult it was for people to communicate with other agencies. He's carrying, I don't know, five or six radios. And in order to communicate with other agencies, you would need that, because we didn't have interoperability. And so each agency maintained its own system, and public safety agencies were operating on different frequencies. And I remember in Novato, and it was somewhere out east of us, another state, we would get, it sounded like a public works department, and the lady would come over the radio and say, Billy, you need to go out and clear the tree from the road. When that was happening, we could not transmit, and we would have to sit and listen to that entire transmission from another state before we could communicate. |
| 02:52:03.13 | Ray Withy | Shows you what kind of state you were in. |
| 02:52:06.08 | Unknown | Yeah. And so we were very much impacted by other users, and then issues included static users talking over each other, not being able to create user talk groups. There were a lot of issues with how the system worked and how it was unable to serve our needs to help us do our jobs efficiently and safely. So today, MERA is 15 years old. It was designed in 1998. It is the back office, considered the back office communication system that allows us to best protect and serve our people and property. It was originally designed to serve 1,500 radios. Today's number is 2,874, which is almost 400 units over its original anticipated or expected capacity. So we've already gone beyond the expected capacity of the system. Um... So, MERA is made up of 25 member agencies. Here they are. It is designed to support interagency and interdiscipline operations, and frankly, there are a few, very few, if any, emergencies and even day-to-day operations in our community that do not involve fire and police at a minimum or fire and public works at a minimum every single day. There's a lot of crossover. And several times we have several agencies, not just the ones here in Sausalito, but Sausalito and beyond, that we communicate with. We also communicate beyond the county even with our current system. We have all of these other agencies. We have mutual aid. ability, fire and medical, and Thanks. And this, so this is important because this is one of the things that we were able to realize by introducing MERA and having the MERA system in place, because before that, we didn't have the capability to have communication with all of these agencies. So why am I here and why is Mira on the agenda? It's here because the system is old and the system has outlasted, or not outlasted but is not going to continue to be able to serve us in the manner that we need it. It was designed in 1988. It's 15 years old. It has more years, as I said, than was expected. And just based on current status, we know that we will need a new system in 2018. And that's 20 years from the original design. And if you think about how technology advances today with the new iPhone 6s or whatever, how often does technology change? And this is one of the challenges that we have, is that this system is 20 years old. It certainly wasn't designed with current technology in mind, so when we think about improving it, we have to not even include that technology because it's obsolete. So we have to look at a new system. But why are we planning now for something that we would need in 2018? We're planning now because these systems are complex. The design, the RFP itself will take a great deal of time. The vendor selection, again, a great deal of time. And then detailed design review and permitting and construction, and then training and testing of the system and then implementation all takes a lot of time. Thank you. And then detailed design review and permitting and construction and then training and testing of the system and then implementation all takes a lot of time. I think the current system took from 98 to 2004. before that phase. So that's why it's critical that we roll our sleeves up and do this now. We have some other than the condition and concerns with the current system. We have some regulations that are forcing us to make some changes. On January 1st, the FCC deadline for narrow banding, which is reducing the bandwidth in order to allow more users We had the first deadline for that in January of this year. We were able to do that to the current system using grant money to the tune of a million, I think it cost us. but we were able to do it by obtaining grant money. The second phase of that narrowbanding has a 2017 deadline. This again is beyond our control. This is FCC and federal regulations. So additional narrowbanding has to occur in 2017. Our current system is not capable of that, and we don't have the funding to make it happen. There's also... Let me see if I can read my notes here. And so it's important to recognize that we face a combination of these challenges, the FCC technical requirements, the FCC frequency give back capacity issues, which is the narrow bending, and a system that will run 20 years past the start of its original planning process when we turn a new system on in 2018. |
| 02:58:25.14 | Unknown | But the future is bright. The federal government is making a concerted effort to move public safety to a new frequency band of 700 megahertz. Federal funds have already been used to create a Bay Area mutual aid system in this band, and available frequencies are already being allocated to local systems. An example of complementary technology is the federal FirstNet project that will support wireless data and non-mission critical communications for public safety. Mera is not a non-mission critical. The proposed Mera system will take advantage of these investments to move us forward and address our aging equipment, our increasing user needs, and the needs of our first responders and communities. But of course, as Charlie would say, sooner or later it always comes down to money. And these systems come with a cost, and that is of special interest to the communities that we serve. So when we're looking at systems, we want to look at what is the public's expectation from us. We did a poll and 601 interviews occurred. These are the four areas that hit the target of expectations from the public. Effective day-to-day communications, emergency response to disasters, the fastest response times possible, and reliability and durability. So in our key poll findings, we looked at different funding options. One of them was a $45 annual parcel tax. And we looked at grants and sales tax and the parcel tax. And so the parcel tax was the one that gained most support. And initially, a $45 annual parcel tax was the one that gained most support. dollar parcel tax was proposed, but it didn't get the two-thirds vote that it needed, primarily because of a lack of information. People didn't know what MERA was, and in fact, a lot of people didn't even know that MERA existed. So once that educational piece came into play, the percentage in favor to support this came up to 64%. Voters have positive impressions of first responders, and they're not overly worried about their ability to provide emergency services. Voters place more value in the new system's ability to maintain reliability over the new technologies a system would use. And these are the compelling reasons to support this. Polling showed that voters wanted to see a lower parcel tax. And as you'll see in a moment, we've been able to lower this rate to $29 for a single family residence. |
| 03:01:32.27 | Unknown | Other methods was the sales tax, a general obligation bond only got 28%. It was very important to those poll that a citizen's oversight committee, the concept of that, be considered. And the voters also wanted these funds to be spent for capital costs, so for purposes for the construction and the equipment, but not the maintenance and the personnel costs attached to it. So this proposal, this funding is just capital purposes. Um, |
| 03:02:12.48 | Unknown | So how did we arrive at this solution? We recognize that the public desire for oversight and transparency in the use of these funds, in developing this funding solution, Mera began working on a strategic plan that was adopted in December of 2010. That strategic plan was based on technical studies as well as extensive review by the Mera Executive Committee, the Mera Board of Directors, and other MERA committees and subcommittees. These boards and committees are comprised of local elected officials, city managers, and public safety chiefs throughout Marin. Marin's goal or sorry, Mera's goal in crafting this solution is to develop a base plan that improves coverage with up-to-date technology that meets legal requirements while maintaining our ability to support rapid and reliable emergency services at a price that our community can support. So when we look at financing the solutions, we can meet these challenges with the right financing structure. The current MERIS system was purchased using bonds. We are obligated to pay our portion of those annual costs to retire the bonds in 2020. To minimize the impacts to our local budgets, we've tightly managed the project budget to a minimum and pursued other means of financing the replacement radio system. So here's a snapshot of what we predict the replacement system would cost. This represents our latest base budget for a baseline replacement of our system. These are decisions that will ultimately be made by the MERA Executive and Governing Boards. To proceed with the parcel tax, the County of Marin, and this would be 2014, the County of Marin is the legal entity that must place that tax on the ballot, as MERA itself does not have the authority to do this. Once enacted, the parcel tax proceeds will be collected by the County of Marin and furnished to MERA, which will manage the funds. |
| 03:04:27.91 | Unknown | These are other funding options, and we've developed a funding plan that's based on a parcel tax of $29 for a single-family residence for a period of 20 years. It's far less than the $45 tax used in the polling. We have obtained, and we continue to look for grant opportunities to aid in the funding, and that effort will continue as we move through this process. However, it does not appear that reliance on grant funding alone will address the base project's needs. The parcel tax figures shown are averages, just averages for each parcel type. While single-family residential is fixed, the other rates depend on the number of units on the acreage. There are currently just over 5%, or 5,432 parcels, that are exempt and that are not subject to property taxes such as government-owned property. Exemptions for... 32 parcels that are exempt and that are not subject to property taxes, such as government-owned property. Exemptions for senior citizens are also under consideration. Commercial industry is capped at $2,500. If that doesn't happen, this is plan B. If we are not able to get the parcel tax approved, the current alternative plan is to fund the next generation system as we did the existing system. Ultimately, that means more money from local government budgets. For example, for every $1,000 our agency spends on merit capital costs today, we'll need to pay $2,540 for six years from 2015 through 2020. Then beginning in 2021, when the first-generation bonds are retired, Thank you. and our capital payments were expected to end, we will still be paying $1,540 from 2021 through 2035. It makes sense. You see it on paper. However, if the parcel tax is approved, our capital bond payments end in 2020. And the nice thing is that there is a little reserve in the MERA budget right now, and it's possible that we can pay that bond off before 2020 and realize a savings for each local municipal government budget. And again, we're only looking at operations and maintenance costs during the life of the next generation system. So those costs would continue for each city but are expected to be in the same pricing that they are today. There's no guarantees, but that's the expectation. The impact of the cost of this project on local government budgets is what's really driving the property tax formula. So what are our next steps? Where do we go from here? This is round one of presentations to all the MERA members, and these are occurring from last month until November, so every member agency is receiving somewhat of a similar presentation. And then round two will happen next February through May, and then a request to the Board of Supervisors for a countywide ballot measure. We want to encourage feedback and questions, and you can send those to me or to Dave Jeffries, I'll come back and talk to you in Phase 2, and Dave Jeffries will be doing a little bit more of the presentation then. It'll be a little bit more involved. With your help, we'll continue and improve 911 and safety communications at a reasonable cost that we believe the taxpayers can support and we can build on existing public support We anticipate that the parcel tax will be on the ballot in November 2014, subject to everybody's agreement and support. Thank you. So thank you for your time. If you have questions, I'm happy to answer, or Dave or Alex are here also. |
| 03:09:06.86 | Ray Withy | Any questions? Mr. Mayor. |
| 03:09:09.62 | Thomas Theodores | Mr. Mayor, I have a question. So is the parcel tax, are you proposing that to be just to raise the $40 million, or is that, I mean, is it for a time period, or? Yeah, so for 20 years. |
| 03:09:10.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:09:23.01 | Unknown | Yeah, so for 20 years, and it would raise, so over a 20-year period, I think it's 3 point something million a year for a 20-year period, and that would fund the cost of the system itself. Thank you. |
| 03:09:40.68 | Jonathan Leon | As far as the budget goes, Is that just based off what, because you're trying to look four years out and guess what the technology is going to be four years out from now, is that just using kind of what's being put in place in other similar systems currently and then trying to, reasonably guesstimate whatever technology might be available in 2018. |
| 03:10:08.21 | Unknown | It's somewhat looking into the crystal ball and trying to see what we see, but somewhat based on what is currently available in addition to the needs that we have? What is it that we are trying to accomplish with the system? So a little bit of both. |
| 03:10:28.15 | Dave Jeffries | First, I'd like to say that Jennifer had other training officers besides myself. Now you're defending yourself. Really what we're looking at is we're in public works as well as the technical studies we have done have looked at what other systems are costing. The budget you saw, the $40 million, and then with the financing cost going to $46 million, does include a 25% contingency for a major project like this. That's pretty normal because we are trying to anticipate what it will be. That project cost does include four additional site areas beyond what we have now to address some of the coverage issues we've discussed in Southern Marin and also in West Marin. And it does also provide all the agencies a one-for-one replacement with their current field radios, portables and mobiles, so that when we go to the new system, there's not that expense as well. That's an additional round of radios as part of the project cost as well. |
| 03:10:32.03 | Ray Withy | Yeah. Now you're defending yourself. |
| 03:11:15.37 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 03:11:15.40 | Jonathan Leon | build in. |
| 03:11:15.89 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 03:11:19.00 | Jonathan Leon | And has there been, you know, for a brief period of time, I was on the joint JPA oversight committee, and in looking at the, is there, in the stuff that MIRA has been doing lately, both not just looking at the overall, because we've been looking at dispatch center costs and other costs, has there been a an effort to kind of look at it over archingly, not just, I understand the system is outdated and it was maxed out and when Meals on Wheels had radios and things like that, it was getting overtaxed with people using it for the wrong purposes. But is there a way to kind of look at the overall cost of this, the overall 911 service being provided as part of this whole effort, not just the capital and the communications equipment behind it? |
| 03:12:05.79 | Dave Jeffries | Well, in terms of MERA, the operating and maintenance costs, we are hoping to get a good estimate from where in public works the next few weeks. We've asked for that. It's been a common question. And so we'll see where that is and how they're best-educated guests without having an actual system design. The entire system, which includes the phone systems and the computer-aided dispatch systems, are really complementary technologies, and there's different funding sources for some of that. For the 911 systems, there's fees that people pay every month on their phones. So we're able to acquire that equipment through the state reimbursement pieces. And that's another area we're going to see some changes because we're having to deal more with text messages and potentially video calls and things like that. But there's at least funding sources for that. For the public safety radio, you know, it would really be really negligent of us to assume we're going to see grants to cover the whole cost. So we're really trying to create a funding mechanism that we believe will cover the whole cost. And if we're fortunate to find other sources, then certainly the mayoral board can look at what to do with parcel tax, whether it's lower that contribution rate at that time, which I'm sure no one would object to. I think that's a good question. |
| 03:12:32.10 | Jonathan Leon | Mm. It's a great day. |
| 03:12:35.02 | Adam Krivacek | Thank you. |
| 03:12:36.23 | Jonathan Leon | Right. |
| 03:12:50.71 | Unknown | Mm. |
| 03:13:32.51 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:13:34.42 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:13:34.43 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 03:13:34.49 | Unknown | Any other questions? |
| 03:13:35.48 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 03:13:38.91 | Jonathan Leon | So what are you looking for us to do in your timetable? You want $40 million. |
| 03:13:41.62 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 03:13:41.64 | Russ Irwin | I'm doing what's going on. |
| 03:13:43.02 | Ray Withy | Yeah. |
| 03:13:43.97 | Dave Jeffries | This presentation is purely informational, no decisions, no actions. When we do come back after the first of the year at that point, after the Executive Board and the Membering Board have a chance to meet again, then the intent is to come back with a staff report and a resolution of support for the parcel tax. So the only decision we're looking for to do the next year is the member agencies to support the funding mechanism. |
| 03:13:46.94 | Russ Irwin | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:13:48.63 | Jonathan Leon | No decisions, no action. |
| 03:13:49.91 | Ray Withy | you |
| 03:13:49.96 | Russ Irwin | Thank you. |
| 03:13:49.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:13:52.24 | Adam Krivacek | Thank you. |
| 03:14:09.55 | Jonathan Leon | Yeah, I mean, I think the thing, and I can't speak for anybody else, is that, you know, right now we're doing, the cities contribute into, with all the member agencies, into both the financing repayments as well as the operating costs. And this would change that dynamic a little bit, obviously. You can look at it as found money if you look at it as we're only responsible for this. But there is the other option of sort of keeping, you know, rather than going back to the taxpayer for the complete amount, just going back to the sub-amount and, you know, continue the same level of funding that comes out of the member jurisdictions. And that might be something. That's where you get into the operating costs, too, because it's all money at the end of the day, as she said. |
| 03:14:50.95 | Dave Jeffries | And currently you pay two costs each year. Right. So we're trying to separate the operating costs. It could be done through this mechanism, but it did look strongly that there wasn't going to be support. Right. So that's why we continue to separate it out. And really part of coming around here and getting these questions and feedback is so we can provide it to the mayor, committees, the executive board, governing board, as they come up with their final recommendations later this year. And certainly your member agency, you've got a good voice on those groups. And when the governing board, executive board come up with the final proposal for this, that's what we'll be coming back with early next year. |
| 03:14:52.84 | Jonathan Leon | Right. Amen. |
| 03:15:01.97 | Jonathan Leon | Right. |
| 03:15:30.64 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 03:15:30.67 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. |
| 03:15:30.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:15:31.06 | Ray Withy | Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Any questions from the public? Go ahead. Adam? |
| 03:15:48.37 | Adam Krivacek | Thank you. |
| 03:15:49.81 | Unknown | God. |
| 03:15:53.08 | Adam Krivacek | Adam Krivacek for the Olima Street. This presentation assumed that this is all new expense. I would assume that currently there is an expense. So is this a cost that can be reduced by the current expenditures of municipalities, or is this additional cost to the current expenditure? |
| 03:16:23.32 | Dave Jeffries | Thank you. If I may break that into two areas. Again, one is the operating and maintenance costs that are ongoing. We do completely expect that there will be continuing operating maintenance costs going into the future, regardless of what we do with the system. This is, there is a, you know, a large capital investment back starting in 98 to bring the system into play, and this is the effort to fund the next capital outlay. So in that sense, you know, while the paid out over a period of time, it's that investiture of money so that we can have this system on in 2018 is really the critical part of this thing. We are trying to find out where we can is what's reusable, like buildings, towers, potentially generators, and we want to make clear that all this 2013, we're talking about this project going live in 2018, and we're comfortable that we can get to 2018 with what we've done with parks. The radio shop here in the county has been really active looking at other systems that are coming out of service to see what they can buy or salvage from those. But we think that by 2018, we have to have a solution in place. And so hopefully that addresses some of the questions. But this is really about the capital outlay for the next generation system. And just like I'm sure you folks are aware of, all of our buildings, all of our fire trucks, all of our police cars are all on some kind of replacement schedule. Nothing lasts forever. And that's really what we're looking at here. And 15 to 20 years life for a project like this is fairly typical. |
| 03:17:52.59 | Ray Withy | Okay, thank you very, very much. So how would he keep you up so late? |
| 03:17:59.00 | Jonathan Leon | Yeah, thanks for waiting. |
| 03:18:04.18 | Ray Withy | Okay, let's move on to the... last item here. on business items, and that's marineship. Lily, it's your night. |
| 03:18:18.85 | Andrew Davidson | I told you you'd see a lot of music. |
| 03:18:21.34 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 03:18:21.44 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. |
| 03:18:21.46 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 03:18:27.92 | Andrew Davidson | So the purpose of tonight's presentation is for information and is to update the council on staff and the council subcommittee on the Marinship project to update the council on our work since the May meeting. So here's some background. In March of this year, staff gave a MarinShip 101 presentation to the Council. In March and April, the Council Subcommittee of of council members Theodorus and with the met with staff to come up with a scope of work in May of this year we gave a presentation on reviewing the existing conditions in the MarinShip the constraints and the. The council voted 3-2 to appoint a steering committee of five members and two city council liaisons to work with staff and a consultant to evaluate the marineship specific plan and identify areas of the marineship where improvements can be made to the marineship specific plan. |
| 03:18:29.82 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 03:18:29.83 | Jan | and |
| 03:18:30.41 | Vicki Nichols | It's different. |
| 03:18:30.96 | Adam Krivacek | Thank you. |
| 03:18:31.11 | Lily Shinseng | Thank you. |
| 03:19:31.92 | Andrew Davidson | The role of the Marinship Specific Plan Steering Committee is to evaluate the specific plan using studies already completed on behalf of the city and any new studies to participate in a physical site survey of the Marinship area. to identify areas of the MarinShip where improvements can be made to the specific plan, to analyze findings regarding the current state of the MarinShip specific plan, to participate in joint meetings with the Planning Commission and the City Council, and to gather community input at public meetings and community workshops. |
| 03:20:11.13 | Andrew Davidson | The steering committee will be composed of five members. That's two former mayors or council members, two city residents, and one planning commissioner. Staff began advertising for the steering committee the four vacant positions for the steering committee in June, and to date we've received 10 applications. In terms of the former council members and residents position, the council began interviewing for those positions this evening. Those interviews will continue through the next council meeting on September 24th. at which time it's anticipated that the council will appoint the committee. Planning Commissioner Werner was nominated from the Planning Commission in May of this year. as the Planning Commission representative. And at the next council meeting, the council may confirm that Planning Commission nomination. And then we also have two city council liaisons, council members, Withy and Theodorus. an update on the consultant for this work. Staff met with the MarinShip Specific Plan Council Subcommittee to develop an RFP for the analysis and evaluation of MarinShip Specific Plan. That RFP was released on August 9th. It was announced in the Currents and posted on the city's website. And it was also sent to 15 urban economics and land use planning firms. And those are listed in your staff report and on the screen. We held a mandatory pre-proposal conference with the potential consultants yesterday, and the purpose of that conference was for the potential consultants to ask questions about the RFP in such a way that everyone had access to the same answers. And nine firms attended the conference yesterday. |
| 03:22:06.84 | Andrew Davidson | The scope of the work in the RFP includes review of existing documents, conducting focused interviews, and a physical site survey of the MarinShip area. and the development of a community engagement plan, property owner outreach. The consultant will be responsible for two community workshops and three joint planning commission and city council meetings. and also six meetings with the steering committee, and those meetings will be public meetings. The final product will be a report for presentation to the Council, and the report will contain the identification of areas in the marineship where improvements can be made to the marineship-specific plan to add to the health of the city. The scope of work takes the steering committee and the consultant through July of next year. That's the tentative scope of work in the RFP. |
| 03:23:02.92 | Andrew Davidson | And here are the major next steps. We have proposals due from the consultants on September 23rd. On September 24th, the council will continue interviews of the steering committee members, and it's anticipated that you will appoint the steering committee at that time. The week of October 7th will have the first steering committee meeting, an introductory kickoff meeting. Their next meeting will be interviewing the top three firms that have been selected by the council subcommittee and staff. On October 23rd, we would bring back a proposal for a contract with the selected consultant, and then the work could begin in November. And that concludes our staff report. We're available for questions that you might have. This staff report was just for information, and no action is required tonight. |
| 03:24:04.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:24:04.57 | Ray Withy | Okay, any questions? No. public comment on this item? |
| 03:24:16.68 | Ray Withy | Three minutes. |
| 03:24:20.56 | Michael Rex | Amen. |
| 03:24:25.15 | Michael Rex | Michael Rex. Thank you. Yeah, just a few comments here on the marineship. Steering Committee meeting, are those meetings open to the public? Good, glad to hear that. I think it's good you're hiring a consultant. I think you need that level of professional assistance. On document review, that's on page three. I would like to suggest some specific documents be included besides the two that are listed. The city completed a historic structure survey. They should definitely have. |
| 03:24:52.10 | Adam Krivacek | I would like. |
| 03:25:05.15 | Michael Rex | of There's a county report dated 2004 called Targeted Industries Study by Economic Competitiveness Group, which is very informative. And there's also a land use study that my firm prepared and funded by Ken Peterson, who owns Clipper Yacht Harbor. His family's one of the longest standing property owners in the Marinship, and they happen to own the largest amount of land in the Marinship, and they funded that land use study, which is very germane. And I would specifically ask that those documents be included to ensure that they're reviewed. |
| 03:25:27.93 | Adam Krivacek | families. |
| 03:25:49.78 | Michael Rex | And then on the next page, four, under the interviews, where it states other necessary stakeholders. I hope those stakeholders include local planners and architects who have dealt directly with the marineship plan for many years, and that would include myself. Okay. And... That's all I have to say. Thank you. |
| 03:26:19.09 | Ray Withy | All right, thank you, Michael. Any other comment? Okay, let's bring it up here since it's just information. Is there any comments? |
| 03:26:19.21 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 03:26:28.51 | Jonathan Leon | Yeah, I guess my comment would be, you know, and Adam, forgive me because I'm not knocking consultants in general because I used to do that for a period of time. But when you give a consultant a project, there's the old saying, you know, they'll be happy to tell you what time it is if you hand them your watch. |
| 03:26:28.54 | Ray Withy | Yeah. |
| 03:26:28.68 | Unknown | I can |
| 03:26:48.57 | Jonathan Leon | In this case, we're not handing them much. We're giving them these documents and a little bit of guidance that are in these documents, but Yeah. like the housing element unless you want to continue to do this for a very long and extended period of time and churn it. Thank you. I feel that if you just hire a consultant and say, hey, we want to revisit this, what do you think? You're going to get back something that is very, you're making that job a lot harder for that entity. And this is why I didn't vote to do this. The real value of the consult will be on the implementation of ideas that the community has or that we've had enough time of community input that we could give to them. And so I'm a little concerned that we're going to get back something that really isn't Thank you. going to get you where you want to go. And so like a lot of these subcommittees and things that we form, if you don't, and there's not a lot of checking. I don't know, we went back to that schedule. basically the council, and I know you two guys will be involved, gets involved at the very end. But at the end of the day, that's where the heat falls. So that's not an approach. I don't like the way that happened with the housing element, and I don't I suggest we try a different methodology this time. So there's a little bit more back and forth along the way rather than Um... here's the end product, do you want to vote for it or not? |
| 03:28:20.95 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 03:28:21.08 | Jonathan Leon | I don't know if it doesn't create enough iterative |
| 03:28:24.71 | Vicki Nichols | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:28:27.29 | Jonathan Leon | flow to it. Right. |
| 03:28:29.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:28:29.84 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you. Could I ask Lily to remind us a little bit more detail of the anticipated in reporting back and interaction with and feedback from City Council. Because your comments when we discussed this were actually taken very much into consideration and tried to get a more interactive mode going. |
| 03:28:52.03 | Andrew Davidson | and |
| 03:28:56.75 | Unknown | No, that's good. That's great. |
| 03:28:59.08 | Andrew Davidson | that was actually built into the RFP. So we have... I didn't give it in the summary, but we have verbal status reports to the council two times a month through this process. |
| 03:29:15.45 | Jonathan Leon | It's kind of like what we were just going through just a few minutes ago, that if you don't, if you bring it in chunks rather than get to the very end and bring back, here's the report, what are you going to do with it, I would encourage us to just break it into pieces. And you can do that at the subcommittee level, determine how to break it apart. But don't come back with everything all at once, because then it's just a nightmare to go back through that. It's better to sort of spoon feed and digest it one piece after another and make iterative decisions, rather than have to revisit the whole thing at the very end. I mean, even with something as small as what we just were talking about earlier this evening, compared to this, |
| 03:29:52.46 | Joan Cox | Yeah. |
| 03:29:56.02 | Jonathan Leon | Um, Imagine how many If you really are going to go through it with a relatively careful eye, it would take a long time. You were going to say fine too. And I stayed away from that because I didn't want to use the comb analogy for this one. |
| 03:30:05.91 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. |
| 03:30:09.01 | Unknown | Thanks. Thank you. |
| 03:30:10.40 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:30:10.80 | Unknown | you |
| 03:30:11.04 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:30:11.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:30:12.03 | Unknown | I just wanted to use the comb analogy. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:30:14.97 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. |
| 03:30:15.04 | Thomas Theodores | I agree with that. Thank you. |
| 03:30:17.96 | Jonathan Leon | I don't know if that adds to what your Thank you. |
| 03:30:37.47 | Thomas Theodores | Mr. Mayor, I have a comment. I'm, as you know, I'm concerned about this on multiple levels. But with respect to the document review on page three, is, I was, I just had a question to city staff. Is there a reason why the traffic initiative wasn't included in that document review? And can we, can we include that if there's no? good reason not to. |
| 03:31:11.54 | Andrew Davidson | Yes, we can. We actually got a question yesterday from one of the consultants about additional documents that they need to review so we can add that to the list. Okay, thank you. |
| 03:31:20.95 | Jonathan Leon | they should have all city ordinances |
| 03:31:23.38 | Thomas Theodores | Didn't we actually ask them to include all city ordinances and documents? |
| 03:31:27.95 | Andrew Davidson | Yeah, and I actually forwarded all of them the paratrophilic initiative this afternoon. |
| 03:31:38.05 | Ray Withy | I think that's it, since it's just informational, so. Thank you. |
| 03:31:44.07 | Unknown | No, I did ask him. I think he missed it. Oh, okay. Go ahead, sir. |
| 03:31:44.12 | Ray Withy | I did ask him. I think he missed it. Oh, okay. |
| 03:31:51.04 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:31:51.06 | Ray Withy | Straub |
| 03:31:52.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:31:52.34 | Douglas Storm | My name is Douglas Storm, 700 Waldo Point, South Slado, California, 94965. Wow, you guys are great. 1047, how do you do it? We don't know. What's that? Lost touch with reality. Okay. You know, I'm really excited about... |
| 03:32:05.37 | Ray Withy | We don't know. |
| 03:32:07.92 | Jonathan Leon | Last touch. |
| 03:32:16.18 | Douglas Storm | this whole initiative and the stated, the intent was to get the community involvement. I would like to gently encourage you to get even more involvement, and the way that you can do that is instead of having, limiting it to five standing members, and you're dealing for those are council members or former council members, and then there's I think there's a token one person or maybe two or whatever. that's from the community, there's a whole lot of interest in the Marin ship. It's the heart and soul. And if you're really going to have community involvement, get the players, get the people that really love Sausalito, they care about the Marin ship, that are willing to take the hours and hours to do the research, et cetera, et cetera, to work those hard issues and those ideas. I would like to see it expanded so that other can have that input. It seems like it's kind of a small committee Um, And that's not necessarily bad. But dealing with the marine ship, with all the diversity and all the money interests and all the personal interests and the historical interests You want to get as many people involved. Yes, it's going to be a mishmash and it's going to be tough, but usually Good things come out of sausage, you know, when you put that stuff in there. So you want to hear the diverse the counter arguments or the different opinions. and maybe there will be that stone that will be unturned. That person or entity may help you out to allow you to make a better decision or whatever. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:34:09.79 | Ray Withy | Thank you. Yeah, it's a good point. And also, you know, there could be subcommittees that come out of this also. Okay, I think we're kind of finished with the business items. And let's move on to city manager. |
| 03:34:26.97 | Jonathan Leon | Blowing. |
| 03:34:27.24 | Ray Withy | Lily, thank you. Jeremy, thank you. |
| 03:34:27.88 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:34:31.81 | Ray Withy | Mr. Colley, thank you. |
| 03:34:33.24 | Unknown | Thank you. Jeremy. |
| 03:34:37.68 | Thomas Theodores | I mean, I think it should be recognized. Staff has done a lot of work into some of this stuff. You know, a lot of work. Okay. |
| 03:34:40.63 | Unknown | Oh, yes. |
| 03:34:47.10 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 03:34:47.11 | Adam Politzer | Ready? |
| 03:34:47.74 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you. |
| 03:34:47.75 | Ray Withy | I'm ready. It's good. |
| 03:34:48.80 | Jonathan Leon | Before Adam begins, sir, if you have something of |
| 03:34:50.98 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 03:34:51.00 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. |
| 03:34:51.03 | Ray Withy | gives his report. Oh, you mean tonight is your sixth year anniversary? Is that right? |
| 03:34:52.63 | Jonathan Leon | Go back to the beginning. |
| 03:35:00.53 | Jonathan Leon | Holy crap. 60 years. Down to two. 60 years. I didn't even think about the anniversary day. |
| 03:35:01.71 | Ray Withy | 60 years, what have we done? |
| 03:35:03.75 | Adam Politzer | Yeah. |
| 03:35:03.87 | Ray Withy | Oh, yeah. |
| 03:35:03.89 | Adam Politzer | I'm on the tube, six years. Wow, I didn't even think about the anniversary date. You know you're in trouble. Happy anniversary. |
| 03:35:08.26 | Jonathan Leon | You know you're in trouble. Happy anniversary. That's amazing. It doesn't seem like six years. How many pounds of you gained and how much hair you lost? |
| 03:35:14.89 | Adam Politzer | 15. |
| 03:35:15.58 | Unknown | and how much hair you lost. All of the above. |
| 03:35:17.03 | Adam Politzer | All of the above. Thank you. |
| 03:35:21.00 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:35:21.79 | Adam Politzer | I'm on that sliding scale you were talking about earlier. |
| 03:35:23.55 | Unknown | I don't know. But I'm still smiling. |
| 03:35:25.54 | Adam Politzer | Yeah. |
| 03:35:26.69 | Adam Krivacek | on the slope. |
| 03:35:27.82 | Adam Politzer | But I'm still smiling, so thank you. I really appreciate recognizing that. I had forgotten and... but it is worth celebrating. Absolutely. I had planned to give a lot of information tonight, thinking that we were going to be closer to that 10-15 hour. We have made up a lot of time, so I'm going to still try to go through a few items here. and prioritize them of. But really important about transparency and being open to the public and available tonight, as we mentioned to the council members before we started, we went live on Comcast Channel 27, which is the government channel, so people can now, rather than just watching to stream video on their small computers They can actually watch it on their TVs, DDR it, record it and watch it at their leisure. It's part of the County of Marin's media center so it will also replay on there as their programming allows, so people that are surfing Comcast or AT&T Channel 99. can also watch it and record it and have the convenience of sitting in your living room. and watching it on their screen. at home. So it's a big deal. We haven't yet moved to having it on TV. That discussion is on your way. but the Planning Commission at their meeting on September 4. started streaming the video so people could watch the planning commission from their laptops and computers at home. will be moving in the direction of getting them also on the government channel. 27 and 99. So hang tight there. plenty of viewing opportunities for our public. um, A few meetings back in June or July, Shelby Van Meter came and shared some of the concerns of the resonance about our landscape, and some of the troubled spots in town that weren't looking great and asked for some support from the city. She, I think, reported and met with most of you. |
| 03:37:38.56 | Jonathan Leon | I just have to say Michael Rex has the most well-behaved dog in the world. |
| 03:37:43.78 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 03:37:43.81 | Jonathan Leon | Not well behaved, it fell asleep. |
| 03:37:46.01 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 03:37:46.12 | Unknown | No. |
| 03:37:46.38 | Ray Withy | Yeah. |
| 03:37:50.19 | Ray Withy | Why can't you sleep like that at meetings? |
| 03:37:50.29 | Unknown | I can't. Hey, Michael. He's a red bra. |
| 03:37:55.66 | Adam Politzer | . |
| 03:37:57.04 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 03:37:57.16 | Adam Politzer | It's not. |
| 03:37:58.93 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:38:01.53 | Adam Politzer | I think most of you have had various levels of correspondence with Shelby. since she brought it forward and I think that she took the time to recognize city staff in meeting with her. and then actually showing results out into the community. Kent Basso and Lauren Umbertus and Jonathan Goldman deserve A lot of credit to listening. And Shelby also deserves a lot of credit because she's brought some people to the table that haven't really participated in a variety of civic items. And I think a lot of good is going to come from this, including her working group that are going to kind of look at what other communities are doing and how to engage the community in various projects. So, you know, we made a commitment that in one year's time, we're going to look back at that moment and say, you know, that we are all very proud of of the accomplishments, hopefully able to build on what Diane Alper started a long time ago Um, the, uh, Oh. beautification projects that she's done on the medians and now has passed on to Tom Wilhite, who's taking the chair of those various projects. And it's also part of the study group. Moving forward here, just a quick reminder that MCCMC will be in Ross on the 25th, I A Wednesday. and it's at the Lagunitas Country Club. So it sounds pretty fancy. compared to some of the other locations. We've had... I think everyone that participated at the meeting in August, the special meeting in August with our Congressman Jared Huffman got a lot out of that. It was also a lot of fun, just the style of of asking questions and having more of an interactive engagement with him and I think he heard us and we also heard directly from him on some he won't be able to move forward that may be near and dear to our county and the people he represents. I appreciated his directness in some of his responses. Our strategic planning session traditionally is in October, November, so we'll be looking at dates again. to continue our strategic planning session. process and I'll send out an email in the next couple days looking for your availability on Mondays or Fridays. Thank you. over the end of October and the middle of November. and see if we can try to get a quorum of council members and majority of the staff. Again, it's difficult to get everyone scheduled to match up. I appreciate. you know, your guys' sacrifices and flexibility in trying to make sure that you're able to attend and also with the staff to take the time out of their schedules to make sure that they're available and can help us move forward in our strategic planning going forward. You know, we have, we took a little bit of a pause during the summer months with some of the construction projects and we do that purposely because we just know the volume of traffic and we also want to try to minimize the impact on the local businesses with roads being torn up. And in this case, we'll be moving forward here in the fall with the replacement of the fishing pier. and the removal of the platform at Vina del Mar. And then as you've already been experiencing the street improvements that are underway. So there will be a pretty intense construction effort made. before the rainy season begins. So hopefully You get positive feedback. And if you are getting concerns from residents, we are trying to put information in the in the IJ. so that people are able to read it. Updates on our website and information out in the current and then the noticing that's required based on whatever the project is. you know, that will also be adhered to. So just an FYI that there'll be a lot of activity And again, more good improvements here in our town. Mm-hmm. Southside and Marin City School District has had a significant amount of changes from a And I'm from just four months ago when school came to an end. They have a new superintendent of the schools, Steve Van Zandt, Bayside and MLK have combined and they're now located in Marin City and Willow Creek has now expanded into the Bayside campus so they now have more growing room there to support the students Thank you. that school. New Village School and the Lise opened their doors at the beginning of September. And, uh, as expected with any school starting, it'd be a Willow Creek or New Village School or Lycee. There's always a little bit of congestion traffic that comes at the first day of school or the first couple days of school. So we're seeing that that's now returning to more of a normal pattern. but we'll continue to work with all of our schools in town to make sure it's safe and well run. So good work from our Public Works Department and our Police Department on working with each of the schools going through the first day of school transitions. We lost a great community member with Elmo Majora. That's Chris Majora's dad for folks that remember that Chris used to work here as a parking enforcement officer and then worked for a long time as a parking attendant. They had a very nice memorial service at the start of the Sea Church, very well attended and a great loss to our community. So I thought that it was important to recognize him when we adjourned tonight's meeting. Um, as well as what Ms. Nichols had asked us to include as well. We came to an end of a very special, busy special event season, so it's important that I take the moment to recognize both Erin Stroud and Mike Langford for their work. both for the events that we hosted ourselves particularly the 13 weeks of Blues and Jazz by the Bay, 4th of July. Caledonia Street Fair, but also the events that we support. and the largest one is the art festival where there is still a lot of staff resources from the Police Department, Public Works Department Administration Department and obviously Park and Rec. to make sure that those go through smoothly and efficiently and reduce the amount of impact A lot of very positive responses that I received both from volunteering at the event and also participating as just an event goer. from community members that thought that this year was one of the more well-run events. from past years. Obviously, there's opportunities for it to improve. There was... WASN'T AS IF WE HAD NO COMPLAINTS but in comparison to past years, most of the complaints we were able to deal with. and others got noted as we evaluate the program going forward. The America's Cup, I think it's worth noting, even though we haven't had a big impact on it, and for some it would say it was Yeah, and we didn't have to close Bridgeway. |
| 03:45:45.22 | Ray Withy | There isn't. Thank you. |
| 03:45:46.47 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. But as much as there is anticipation of great concern, I think the planning efforts that were led by many folks not just the people in our community, but in our surrounding area, that those efforts were well advised and worth taking on. I think we're all relieved that Obviously some of the nightmares that we were concerned about didn't come true. But hopefully the residents and you folks as council are experiencing America's Cup because it still is a very special It has a very long history of that's pretty exciting to have here in our Bay. And I, for one, will tell you watching it on TV is really the way to watch it. I mean, they've done a great job of televising it, showing you and helping you explain. Yoshi, Tomei, and I went to the city on one day to just check it out. There was parking on anywhere you wanted to park, and there was plenty of places to stand and watch, with no crowds. But, It didn't make any sense if you watched it. It's just unless you understood the score you were just experiencing it, which is by itself some value. Watching it on TV. I think is worth recording. watching later if you're not available to watch it. Again, it's an exciting deal and something where putting down on your list of things to do. |
| 03:47:07.77 | Jonathan Leon | But there aren't enough places to park the mega yachts. Wasn't that going to be a huge issue where there's not enough room for the mega yachts? |
| 03:47:12.77 | Adam Politzer | Yes. They're blocking everyone's view. Last three items here. I want you to notice the good work of Public Works and Debbie on the repainting of our facility, the new blinds. |
| 03:47:15.64 | Jonathan Leon | Yes. |
| 03:47:29.02 | Adam Politzer | Um... you know, that Mary and I and Debbie are now recognized that people understand who these folks are on this We actually have names. That's right. And we have all, we got the makeup, sorry about that. But I think it's important that we make the facility look nice and it's not just for the council meetings, it's for any public meeting and use in this facility. So good job to the folks to get it ready for tonight's meeting. |
| 03:48:02.18 | Ray Withy | Maybe I'll get ten cushions now. |
| 03:48:04.98 | Adam Politzer | The last two items here were on a sprint to the finish line for this year. We have seven meetings, six more not including tonight. And as you'd notice tonight, that was a big item. a couple of hours to get through. but we only have big items coming forward. You know, your... effort to do your homework. and ask staff questions before the meeting is really important. and we really appreciate it. I don't think that there's a staff member, particularly Lily, And Jeremy on this particular last item you know, that, didn't appreciate the outreach that they received with questions and even from the community. I know that they met with Mr. Irwin and other members of the community. to take their input on several occasions, And tonight, you know, we included some of those recommendations as actual options. SO I THINK THAT THERE'S A REAL BENEFIT of you guys engaging with us prior to the council meeting with your concerns, your thoughts, your comments, your suggestions, or just asking for clarification It is a true value and something that I encourage that continues. And then the last is September 11th is tomorrow. And last year we had, because our council meeting fell on September 11th, we had Jennifer Tejada come in. talk a little bit about it and I know that Jim Irving was also in the audience that night Tomorrow, if there is anyone that is interested or available, It is the 12th anniversary and it's 6.58 a.m. in front of any fire station. but obviously the one here in South Toledo, they'll be doing a A salute. at 6.58 in the morning. It's a five bell ring. That's how they salute it. They encourage the public. come and join them so if you have the time to come out terrific. If not, take a moment at 7 in the morning to reflect and remember. important part of our history, and obviously a lot of people sacrificed their lives. and we want to remember that. So I conclude my message. I'm from the city manager with that note, and thank you. recognizing my six-year anniversary. |
| 03:50:17.35 | Unknown | That was the abbreviated list. Holy shit. |
| 03:50:21.15 | Thomas Theodores | Mr. Mayor, I have a question for the city manager. So Adam, do you have a status on the inquiry I sent you about the Lise potentially using MLK as a drop-off point for their shuttles? Do we know anything about that or...? |
| 03:50:22.95 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:50:23.27 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 03:50:40.65 | Adam Politzer | We don't know anything more so for everyone's understanding. Councilmember Pfeiffer in past meetings has mentioned that there is a correspondence that came from the Lise that identified their transportation schedule for all three of their schools. And one of the schedules shows a a bus route, from the San Francisco school site that. Um, ends at MLK and we're trying to understand why would there be a bus route that ends at MLK unless they're dropping off students that are now getting picked up at the MLK site, a ride share location that we see at other locations The Lise administration for Marin County for the MLK site have have not. heard of it. Um. seen it, so I sent them the correspondence that I asked Councilmember Pfeiffer to actually had something tangible. And they are baffled by it, but they are looking into it because they don't support it and understand why it would happen. It would make sense if they were bringing the kids on the bus and stopping at MLK to pick up more kids to take them to the and it was just a transfer. not to drop off kids. that would then bring more cars to the MLK side. |
| 03:51:58.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:51:58.68 | Thomas Theodores | What? |
| 03:51:58.95 | Adam Politzer | There's no confirmation that that is happening and there's no support. |
| 03:52:02.83 | Thomas Theodores | Yeah, if I could just comment, I don't think it makes sense either for Uh, children throughout Marin to be brought to Sausalito to be then carpooled into, you know, bused into San Francisco either. that's adding more traffic to our neighborhoods too. So I just wanted to clarify, to me the issue is not only that they appear to have a shuttle bus going from San Francisco campus to MLK. But that MLK appears to be a shuttle service. for points throughout Marin to then you know, bus to San Francisco. |
| 03:52:40.58 | Adam Politzer | Yeah, I don't think that's actually the case. The information you sent me, I looked at pretty thoroughly. Um, The location coming into the city actually picks up at Goodman's, that's their Southern So the only bus that comes in the MLK is actually dropping students off. It doesn't continue on to the city. |
| 03:52:58.13 | Thomas Theodores | Okay, so I sent you the letter, right? So since then I've received some more information I will send you. |
| 03:53:00.77 | Adam Politzer | Yeah. |
| 03:53:04.58 | Adam Politzer | send you. Thank you. That'd be helpful. |
| 03:53:09.66 | Ray Withy | All right. Next. |
| 03:53:11.38 | Adam Politzer | I'm sorry, can I just one comment? The Lise clearly understands that we're not supportive of that program. So, you know, there is no miscommunication on behalf of the city that we're not supporting any type of ride share activity that brings cars to MLK that have no purpose to stay at MLK. |
| 03:53:30.84 | Thomas Theodores | And that's good because I can't imagine that the laissez here would not know what was happening at their school with respect to children being picked up or dropped off. I'm just having a hard time with that. |
| 03:53:43.56 | Adam Politzer | In their defense, I mean they went through a massive you know, multi million dollar project. in a very short time and moved one whole school from one side. I... I'm not gonna say that they don't know. clearly said to me that They weren't aware of this, and I take that at face value. |
| 03:54:06.92 | Ray Withy | Thank you. All right. Okay, let's move on. What you got, Wyner? I got future agenda items. Any? |
| 03:54:13.63 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 03:54:13.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:54:13.72 | Jonathan Leon | Yep. |
| 03:54:14.04 | Unknown | point. |
| 03:54:18.75 | Unknown | I was calling you here. Yeah. Mr. Mayor. |
| 03:54:20.53 | Thomas Theodores | Mr. Mayor, |
| 03:54:22.48 | Jonathan Leon | Yes. |
| 03:54:22.52 | Ray Withy | Bye. |
| 03:54:22.58 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you. |
| 03:54:22.61 | Ray Withy | is. |
| 03:54:22.91 | Unknown | you |
| 03:54:22.95 | Jonathan Leon | you Thank you. |
| 03:54:23.08 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 03:54:23.10 | Jonathan Leon | I would... |
| 03:54:23.18 | Thomas Theodores | I would. |
| 03:54:23.54 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:54:23.77 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you. |
| 03:54:23.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:54:24.70 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. |
| 03:54:24.77 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:54:24.97 | Jonathan Leon | Yeah. |
| 03:54:25.17 | Unknown | Yeah. Okay. |
| 03:54:28.36 | Jonathan Leon | I feel it. |
| 03:54:29.95 | Unknown | Go ahead. |
| 03:54:30.39 | Jonathan Leon | I think it's a good point. |
| 03:54:31.28 | Unknown | Who? |
| 03:54:31.77 | Thomas Theodores | Oh, well. |
| 03:54:31.79 | Unknown | Thank you. Okay. |
| 03:54:33.92 | Thomas Theodores | Well, actually, with respect to the Arts Commission, one thing I would say, if we're not going to make it a future agenda item between now and December, that you just remove that from my |
| 03:54:36.21 | Unknown | mission. |
| 03:54:44.41 | Thomas Theodores | me as a committee because I've been requesting it for the past six years. You asked for a mission statement, I provided it. You asked for more data, I provided it. And you know, if there's just not consensus on this council to staff that commission, then... How many applicants do we have? No, listen, Mr. Mayor, with all due respect, please do not interrupt me, Mr. Vice Mayor. |
| 03:54:58.45 | Unknown | How many elephants do we have? |
| 03:54:59.97 | Adam Krivacek | know |
| 03:55:01.86 | Vicki Nichols | All due respect. |
| 03:55:02.98 | Adam Krivacek | Please do not. |
| 03:55:05.03 | Vicki Nichols | Put it on. |
| 03:55:09.89 | Thomas Theodores | As a future agenda item for the Arts Commission to ask about the applicants, I've ramped that up before and nothing happens. And so residents are frustrated. Frankly, I'm a bit frustrated over this. And all I'm saying is that if there's no consensus or support on this council to staff the Arts Commission, just take it, you know, off the list here by my name because I'm kind of tired of asking for it after six years. |
| 03:55:37.11 | Jonathan Leon | Fine. after 16 years. Thank you. |
| 03:55:39.00 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you. |
| 03:55:39.05 | Jonathan Leon | you |
| 03:55:39.22 | Thomas Theodores | to be able to get the |
| 03:55:39.24 | Jonathan Leon | But it took you a long time to get the mission statement in, so there's part of it. There's blame to go around on both sides. But you're right. We should put it on the agenda and staff it and get going. I will. |
| 03:55:44.84 | Thomas Theodores | both sides. Thank you. You're right. I will respond to that, Mr. Mayor. I actually did provide the mission statement within when Mike Kelly first was on this council and he asked me for it. I sent it to him immediately and did not get any response from that. And so to say that I delayed is completely an error. |
| 03:56:13.19 | Ray Withy | When I was mayor two years ago, I asked for that. So not six years ago, but two. |
| 03:56:20.09 | Thomas Theodores | And Mr. Mayor, I gave it to Mike Kelly and I Thank you. |
| 03:56:24.21 | Ray Withy | Mike Kelly wasn't the mayor at the time. |
| 03:56:24.25 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you. Kelly wasn't the mayor at the... Well, then it was more than two years ago I gave it to him. |
| 03:56:30.54 | Ray Withy | while I was mayor two years ago. |
| 03:56:32.85 | Thomas Theodores | Well, then it must have been three years ago. I mean, I've been asking for this for six years. |
| 03:56:37.09 | Ray Withy | Thank you. Wow, okay. |
| 03:56:38.56 | Tom | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:56:39.47 | Ray Withy | All right. It is a meal. |
| 03:56:40.11 | Tom | It is a reality. It could be a future agenda item or not. I mean, we could argue about it then. How many applicants? |
| 03:56:44.83 | Ray Withy | How many applicants do we have? |
| 03:56:47.03 | Unknown | to argue about city council. |
| 03:56:47.87 | Ray Withy | Okay, yes. |
| 03:56:47.90 | Unknown | Okay, yes. |
| 03:56:50.47 | Ray Withy | Okay, fine. Okay, any public comment? |
| 03:56:50.72 | Thomas Theodores | Okay. and I will support it being a future agenda item. |
| 03:56:55.87 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you. |
| 03:56:55.89 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you. |
| 03:56:55.90 | Thomas Theodores | Thank you. Thank you very much. |
| 03:56:56.04 | Thomas Theodores | Bye. |
| 03:56:56.09 | Ray Withy | Bye. |
| 03:56:56.12 | Thomas Theodores | you |
| 03:56:56.14 | Ray Withy | Thank you. Okay, council member, committee reports. Okay? |
| 03:57:03.36 | Tom | Well, wait, actually. Oh, that's OK. We did have a committee, a member, I represent us on the REN Telecommunications agency and we had a meeting. So we'll listen to you. Yeah, that's right. And you can wave through the camera because that's part of it. And we had one on August 14th and it was an important meeting because we have the Marine, the Media Center. |
| 03:57:15.41 | Ray Withy | So, what? |
| 03:57:27.17 | Tom | has been since its inception, funded by PEG fees, which are basically fees that come from Comcast, and go through the MTA directly to the media center. But they have projected that they have a shortfall until they get additional funds in 2018. And they will be coming, I believe, Adam, next council session on the 24th to make a pitch for additional funds to get them through. We will review and have more information at that time. I think both Adam through his channels and as representative on the MTA, we've tried to work to have them find other alternatives to the have more information at that time. I think both Adam through his channels and as representative on the MTA, we've tried to work to have them find other alternatives to their funding shortfall. But I think they will be making present PRESENTATION at our next Council meeting as to what they provide to Sausalito and its residents, but and correct me, that they will also be looking to us for potential funding. And by the way, what happened, they came to the MTA, which funds them, and basically MTA said this is something that each of us would have to go back to our councils. So I'll be, rather than acting as representative, we'll be voting. And so they have made some pitches to some residents already, so you may find that. And hopefully we'll have a fuller exploration of it at the next meeting in more detail. Adam, anything else? |
| 03:58:47.78 | Adam Politzer | Absolutely correct that they'll be asking for additional money in the ranges. They're short $600,000 to $1,200,000 too. You know, the conservative is they're only short $600,000. The city managers have been in part of this discussion now. And our recommendation back to the media center is you've got to do what we did, tighten your belt. You know, you just can't. you know, Like we don't buy a vehicle, we delay one year. and try to stretch the dollars. You heard the mirror conversation Every dollar matters to our cities and coming out of the recession, some cities are in much more serious disarray than others. but every dollar matters and so we want to make sure that if we go forward with any type of of understanding providing more dollars that we know what we get for it. And it goes back to You know, a question that Vice Mayor Leon asked of the Transportation Authority of What are we getting? what did we get? So go back five years, what did we, What's the benefit that we receive? Um, And then looking forward over this three years, what's the benefit that we'll receive by providing this additional funding? So, you know, they're looking at loans. They're looking at drawing down their reserves, which are pretty healthy. You know, they're looking at other grant opportunities, trying to explore other options. at this moment, they will come and kind of educate us on what they provide in terms of service, because I don't know if they've ever come to a council meeting to share what they do and who they are. |
| 04:00:29.39 | Adam Politzer | But here is an opportunity for them to kind of educate us. But I think it will be a tough sell, at least for our city. But we're only one of 11. Actually, one of 12 agencies involved. |
| 04:00:47.07 | Thomas Theodores | I will say that the Butte task force is making progress, but I'll defer to their spokesperson to, you know, present a formal status. And one other future agenda item I forgot was a gentleman here tonight mentioned the proliferation of tour buses in the south part of town, and I agree that it's getting pretty untenable with the traffic. So that might be something we might want to take a look at. |
| 04:01:20.18 | Ray Withy | Okay. All right. Public comment on Vicky? Okay. Are the reports of significance? |
| 04:01:30.19 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:01:31.30 | Ray Withy | I just have a question. Town Hall, how is that working out? |
| 04:01:36.11 | Unknown | the feedback thing that is |
| 04:01:39.18 | Adam Politzer | I think it's working well and we'll bring a report in the near future kind of summarize The activity, we encourage you to take a look at it. that there are a lot of folks that are reading it but choosing not to comment. And then folks that are commenting that, Some comments we've responded back to. |
| 04:01:59.03 | Adam Krivacek | some comments we've responded to. |
| 04:02:01.36 | Adam Politzer | to provide information and other comments. We just let the process evolve as it's supposed to. So we have three questions out there at the moment. And we're working with staff, Lily and and Debbie are working with the departments to continue to put questions out to the community. |
| 04:02:22.13 | Ray Withy | Okay, thank you. With that, we're going to... adjourn tonight in the name of Joanne Livingston who was a partner of Fritz Warren for very, very many years. I remember her very well. Elmo Majura, who was a very, very important cog in the wheel of this town. He really helped build a marineship park. you It was his equipment and everything else that went to bat. He was a member of the Lions Club for many, many years and did a lot of community. And the whole family has been involved in the community. And last, and it was mentioned before that 2001, 9-11, I think it's very important that we don't forget that. So adjournment with that in mind. |
Sandy Stadfelda — Neutral: Expressed concern about increasing charter and tourist buses on 2nd Street, proposing that buses depart from the north end of town to reduce negative impacts like noise and emissions. ▶ 📄