| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.03 | Mayor Withey | Are we ready, Debbie? Okay. Well, good evening. |
| 00:00:04.05 | Unknown | Uh. |
| 00:00:06.19 | Mayor Withey | And welcome to the regular meeting of the Sausalito City Council for Tuesday, March 4th. Debbie, would you please call the roll? |
| 00:00:15.89 | Clerk | Councilmember Pfeiffer? Here. Councilmember Weiner? Present. Councilmember Leon? |
| 00:00:18.61 | Mayor Withey | President. |
| 00:00:20.43 | Clerk | VICE MAYOR THEODORES. |
| 00:00:20.92 | Unknown | Vice Mayor Theodore. |
| 00:00:21.97 | Mayor Withey | Present. |
| 00:00:22.83 | Clerk | Mayor Withey. |
| 00:00:23.94 | Mayor Withey | Here. And now the... |
| 00:00:33.97 | Council Member Weiner | Yeah. |
| 00:00:37.29 | Michael Racks | Thank you. |
| 00:00:37.39 | Council Member Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:00:38.02 | Michael Racks | I 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. |
| 00:00:38.25 | Council Member Weiner | I'm going to go ahead and get to the right. |
| 00:00:40.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:40.09 | Council Member Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:00:40.51 | Unknown | Amen. |
| 00:00:40.97 | Council Member Weiner | States of America. |
| 00:00:42.51 | Unknown | you |
| 00:00:42.81 | Council Member Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:00:42.83 | Unknown | and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, business. Thank you. |
| 00:00:49.96 | Unknown | and your support. |
| 00:00:52.26 | Mayor Withey | Thank you, John. |
| 00:00:57.52 | Mayor Withey | The City Council met in close session this evening to discuss two matters. Um, a conference with connection with real property, and a conference with legal counsel. There are no additional announcements. Are there any member of the public who'd like to comment on the closed session items? Seeing none, we will now move to the approval of the agenda. |
| 00:01:31.43 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Go ahead. I move to approve the agenda. |
| 00:01:32.45 | Council Member Leon | Thank you. |
| 00:01:32.47 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. |
| 00:01:32.49 | Council Member Leon | Bye. Can I make one change? We were going to pull item 4A off the consent calendar. Is that correct? do that now. |
| 00:01:42.70 | City Attorney Wagner | The MLK lease amendment with Peppa Murray, correct. The staff is just asking that you continue that. |
| 00:01:45.01 | Council Member Leon | Thank you. |
| 00:01:52.62 | Council Member Leon | I'll second it with that amendment. |
| 00:01:56.33 | Mayor Withey | All in favor? Aye. |
| 00:01:57.55 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:02:01.53 | Mayor Withey | There are no special presentations. Communications. So this is the time for the City Council to hear from citizens regarding matters that are not on the agenda. And except in very limited situations, state law precludes the council from taking action or engaging in discussions concerning these items. Is there any member of the public who would like to make a communication about any item that is not on the agenda? Okay, seeing none, moving on to the approval of the minutes of the regular City Council meeting of February 25th. Can I have a motion? Second. All in favor? |
| 00:02:49.25 | Council Member Leon | I'm not sure. |
| 00:02:49.29 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:02:49.76 | Council Member Leon | Thank you. |
| 00:02:49.78 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:02:53.54 | Mayor Withey | The next item is the consent calendar. We have already removed item 4A, so there's therefore items 4B, C, and D. |
| 00:03:09.49 | Council Member Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor, I have a question about Item 4B, or perhaps I just want to state for the record my understanding that the $1 million estimated price tag that goes along with 4B. We are not approving that. We are just approving and accepting the report. and that that topic will be explored during the budgeting. |
| 00:03:33.63 | Mayor Withey | That's my understanding. Would the staff confirm that for us, please? |
| 00:03:38.60 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Jonathan Goldman, Public Works Director and City Engineer. Yes, that's definitely the case. OK. Thank you. |
| 00:03:43.69 | Mayor Withey | Jake. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:03:44.65 | Michael Racks | Thank you. |
| 00:03:46.49 | Mayor Withey | Okay, could we have a motion for the consent calendar please? |
| 00:03:53.87 | Council Member Leon | You already had it mostly. |
| 00:03:54.97 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Yeah, we did that before. |
| 00:03:55.71 | Mayor Withey | Yeah, we did that. |
| 00:03:56.53 | Michael Racks | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:03:56.84 | Mayor Withey | Yeah. |
| 00:03:56.91 | Michael Racks | Thank you. |
| 00:03:57.02 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Yeah. |
| 00:03:57.28 | Mayor Withey | consensus |
| 00:03:58.04 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Items B, C, and D. |
| 00:03:58.17 | Mayor Withey | Yeah. Items B, C and D. Thank you. Okay, all in favor? I'm not. |
| 00:04:04.30 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | I, I, |
| 00:04:04.36 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. |
| 00:04:04.62 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Thank you. |
| 00:04:04.74 | Mayor Withey | you Okay, thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:04:07.93 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:04:09.54 | Mayor Withey | So we have two public hearings this evening. The first public hearing, item 5A, is the regulation on single-use carry-out bags. And I believe we are in the capable hands of our senior engineer, Andy Davidson. |
| 00:04:54.11 | Michael Racks | to do anything. |
| 00:04:59.43 | Michael Racks | You have to come around. |
| 00:05:02.19 | Mayor Withey | So I have been reminded by our capable staff that I did not ask for public comment on items on the consent calendar. And especially as we have someone who wants to. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:05:15.95 | Alicia Laughlin | Thank you, my apologies for interrupting. Alicia Laughlin, Marin County Bicycle Coalition. I'd like to comment on item 4C, please, the Gate 6 Intersection Improvement Project. |
| 00:05:15.98 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. No. |
| 00:05:28.20 | Alicia Laughlin | And I'm basically just here to thank the city and to thank DPW staff for all the great work that's being done on this project. As I'm sure you're aware, this has been a major barrier, I think, to all road users, but particularly to the cyclists. And it's been a priority for the Marin County Bicycle Coalition since we formed in 1998. So we're thrilled to see this project moving forward. We're very grateful to the city for taking the lead on this and working with the county and the Caltrans to make this happen. And I'd just like to express our support as well for staff's preferred design alternative, which incorporated MCBC's preferred alternative, Alternative 3, with Alternative 7, which we think makes for an overall better design that accommodates all types of cyclists, including your road cyclist and commuter and your more casual cyclist, and would result in improvements to the existing pathway and sidewalk for pedestrians, and again, your more casual cyclist, and would sort of pave the way, if you want to say, towards the overall improvements that we'd like to see between Gate 6, the completion of the pathway between Gate 6 and the ferry terminal. So thank you so much. |
| 00:05:53.58 | Unknown | . . |
| 00:06:37.82 | Mayor Withey | Thank you very much. Is there any other member of the public who would like to comment on any item on the consent calendar? Okay, and sorry about that. So we've already taken action on that, and back to Andy. Andy. Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. |
| 00:06:55.97 | Andrew Davidson | Council Members, City Manager, City Attorney, Director of Public Works, and Sausalito Sustainability Commission. It is my privilege this evening to bring before you a proposed ordinance to your municipal code to regulate the use of single-use carryout bags in Sausalito. |
| 00:06:57.70 | Mayor Withey | managers. |
| 00:07:12.65 | Andrew Davidson | My name is Andrew Davidson. I'm a senior engineer in your Department of Public Works. This is an action that has been recently approved by the cities of San Rafael and Novato and will be considered by other communities in the near future due to preparation and certification of an environmental impact report by the Marin County Hazardous and Solid Waste Management Joint Powers Authority, the JPA. The JPA prepared the EIR because of CEQA lawsuits that have been filed by the Save the Bags Coalition in response to other single-use bag ordinances around the state. Why is there an interest in restricting a store's ability to give away free bags? Well, the EIR estimates that in Sausalito, retailers give away on the order of 3.8 million bags. It says 3.4 there, but the EIR says 3.8. Very few of the bags are actually recycled. And due to their weight and the fact that they are non-biodegradable, Plastic bags are easily released into the environment where they persist for many years in landfills, easily become litter along our roads, storm drains, and in our open spaces. Plastic bags also harm wildlife. They may become litter, which has the potential to affect coastal habitat, such as the Richardson Bay, San Francisco Bay, the Pacific Ocean. They can adversely affect sensitive species that inhabit our coastal and marine environments, such as sea turtles, seals, fish, otters, and birds that may become entangled or ingest plastic. |
| 00:08:51.54 | Andrew Davidson | The proposed ordinance before you this evening will ban specified retailers from distributing plastic carryout bags, allow retailers to sell recycled content paper carryout bags for a minimum charge of 10 cents per bag. The charge will be for the retailers to keep. It's not money that's going to come to the city or any other government. The charge does two things. First, it helps the retailers pay for the recycled bags, which are more expensive than plastic. And second, it drives people from using recyclable bags over to reusable bags. And this helped reduce the total number of bags used each year, and I'll discuss that a little bit further in a few minutes. The ordinance exempts plastic produce bags, such as meat bags or bags you put your lettuce in or bulk food within a market. And it exempts participants in the supplemental food program for paying for paperbacks. |
| 00:09:51.20 | Andrew Davidson | The ordinance will be applicable to the following store six months after its adoptions. Supermarkets with over $2 million in annual sales. pharmacies of over 10,000 square feet, and convenience and our liquor stores that sell milk, bread, soda, and snack foods. |
| 00:10:12.14 | Andrew Davidson | The EIR proposed a model ordinance along with seven alternatives for you to consider as presented or in some combination. The bottle ordinance is applicable to the same stores I've just mentioned. and mandates a five-cent fee for recycled bags. The model ordinance is predicted to reduce the number of single-use plastic bags distributed by 95%. Now there were seven alternatives in the EIR, and I'll go over them briefly. The first alternative is the no project alternative, no regulation of plastic bags, status quo where we are right now. Alternative 2 mandates a 5 cent fee for retailers accepting restaurants. And this would reduce the numbers, it's predicted to reduce the number of single-use plastic bags distributed by 99%. I should have said, if I didn't, that the model ordinance would reduce it by 95%. Alternative three, five cents, including all retailers and restaurants, and this would reduce the number of single-use plastic bags being distributed by roughly 100%. Number four is similar to the model ordinance, but it increases the required minimum fee from $0.05 to $0.10 per recyclable bag provided at groceries, pharmacies, and convenience stores. Alternative 5 is also similar to the model ordinance, but the minimum fee for recyclable bags would be change from $0.05 for the regulated business is up to $0.25. Alternative 5 is defined in the EIR as the superior alternative, as it would have the greatest overall benefit compared to the model ordinance. Alternative 4 is also considered to be a superior alternative to the model ordinance. Alternative six, expands plastic bag band to include product bags, which are the bags, like I mentioned, without handles, for your produce, bulk foods, meat, It would also have a five cent minimum fee. And alternative seven, increases the minimum fee charge for recycled paper carryout bags to 25 cents per bag and is applicable to the retailers. |
| 00:12:27.64 | Andrew Davidson | The draft ordinance before you this evening is based on alternative four. |
| 00:12:35.81 | Andrew Davidson | This ordinance would be applicable to supermarkets, pharmacies, and convenient liquor stores, would ban plastic carryout bags, and require a minimum charge of 10 cents for each recycled carryout bag. The reasons for picking this alternative are first providing consistent regulations between Marin's jurisdictions to reduce confusion among retailers and customers. The City of San Rafael adopted a version of Alternative 4 on February 18th, and the City of Novato held hearings and adopted Alternative 4 on February 25th. The county and Mill Valley already have ordinances and have indicated that they would consider updating their existing ordinances to become consistent with regulations adopted by the majority of the Marin agencies. Now this slide provides a comparison between the existing, where we are now, the model ordinance, alternative four, and then alternative five. The JPA, as I mentioned, indicates that right now 3.8 million bags are used each year, classic bags. And this is this yellow bar. The model ordinance applying to grocery stores, pharmacies, and convenience and liquor stores reduces this basically by 95%, leaving 5% of the single-use bags in circulation. Now there are some plastic bags still being distributed. The problem here is that the significant proportion of plastic bags being replaced with recycled bags. Some 65% of the replaced plastic bags are replaced by an equivalent number of recyclable bags. Now unfortunately, the recyclable bags have a greater environmental impact than do the plastic bags. During their manufacture and distribution, recyclable paper bags generate more greenhouse gas and require more water usage than do plastic bags. They weigh more and are more bulky than plastic bags. So recycled bags are not distributed as efficiently as our plastic bags. So as I mentioned earlier, the fee for recyclable bags is to do two things. One is to reimburse the retailers and also to help drive people from using plastic over to actually using recycled or reusable bags. |
| 00:14:50.61 | Andrew Davidson | Now the model ordinance with its 5% drops the total number of bags used each year from the 3.8 million down to 2.7 million. That would be total bags used in Sausalito. And that's a reduction of about 1.1 million bags. Moving over to Alternative 4 with its 10 cent fee, you can see that there's a much greater drop in bag usage. It goes from the drop is approximately 1.3 million bags less than the model ordinance or 2.4 million bags less than are currently used. I think we're at about 1.4. That's what's predicted. Alternative 5, with its 25-cent charge, shows an even greater shift from plastic to reusable bags. This alternative wasn't recommended due to the relatively high fee it would initially require, from basically zero to 25 cents per bag. |
| 00:15:51.85 | Andrew Davidson | So tonight before you, you're being asked to adopt the resolution certifying the final EIR. Adopt the resolution adopting CEQA findings of facts supporting adoption of a single-use carryout bag reduction ordinance. And finally, to take action on adopting an ordinance establishing Section 11.30 of Chapter 11 of the Sausalito Municipal Code regulating the use of single-use carryout bags. Alternatively, you may continue action for additional information in response to Council comments and concerns. direct staff to revise the ordinance including consideration of other alternatives evaluated in the EIR, or choose not to adopt regulations on single-use carryout bags. And that concludes my presentation. |
| 00:16:36.45 | Mayor Withey | Thank you, Andy. Do we have any questions of Andy or staff in general? |
| 00:16:47.42 | Council Member Leon | Andy, have any jurisdictions in Marin County, and I can't remember if this was in the packet or not, adopted an all retailer? |
| 00:16:56.55 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. |
| 00:16:56.56 | Council Member Leon | Thank you. you you |
| 00:16:57.61 | Andrew Davidson | Classic. |
| 00:16:58.07 | Council Member Leon | you |
| 00:16:58.24 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. |
| 00:16:58.25 | Council Member Leon | Thank you. |
| 00:16:58.27 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. |
| 00:16:58.98 | Council Member Leon | Thank you. |
| 00:16:59.03 | Andrew Davidson | I don't know for sure. I know that San Rafael and Nevada, who just did adopt, are based on Alternative 4. So I don't know if Fairfax and their voter initiative, if they included all retailers, I don't believe the county does. |
| 00:17:07.36 | Council Member Leon | so I don't |
| 00:17:19.67 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Have any adopted option five? |
| 00:17:23.46 | Andrew Davidson | Not yet. Well, I should say that there's nothing that would prevent you from starting with an alternative and at some point in the future raising the rate, which is basically the difference between Alternative 4 and Alternative 5. |
| 00:17:41.60 | Council Member Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor? So I didn't notice any input from the community. Have you received any letters or, you know, in the town hall or anything like that, the electronic online system? |
| 00:17:53.84 | Andrew Davidson | No, the only feedback I have is from the Sustainability Commission and they were supporting the EIR. They had their comments. |
| 00:18:05.33 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | One more question. Do we know what the state's doing on this issue and how our ordinance would relate to any changes mandated by the state? |
| 00:18:13.38 | Andrew Davidson | The only thing I've read is that the state is looking at a compromise bill. I haven't looked into what that bill is. It's been knocked down in the past or it hasn't moved forward in the past. But that's all I can say regarding the state. |
| 00:18:30.98 | Mayor Withey | Any other questions? OK, this time let's ask any member of the public who would like to make a comment about this topic. Vicki. |
| 00:18:53.64 | Vicki Nichols | Good evening, Mayor Withey and Congress, been at a lot of meetings today, sorry, council members. I'd like to speak to you tonight as Vicki Nichols, the second vice president of the Marin Conservation League and we're actually, very thrilled to see that you're taking this up. We've been tracking this issue for quite some time, knowing that this, uh, model ordinance to the JPA, if you will, was being developed to prevent the cities and protect them from exposure to additional lawsuits. Andy gave you an excellent report and telling you that San Rafael and Nevada have already passed this. We're actually tracking the city, so we hope we can tick you off the list tonight. It is a good ordinance not only to safeguard wildlife, but also... I took some quick notes here. Excuse me. Well, the wildlife, and I can also tell you as the chairperson for the coastal cleanup in Sausalito every year, this will be doing us a big favor. So it's a great ordinance. I think many people are aware of the consequences of the bags. And I want to also thank your sustainability committee to you. I think they're doing some great work and proud to know that Sausalito is considering this. And I just want to acknowledge also that you were a forerunner with your styrofoam prohibition in 2007. So we're happy that you're continuing on a good path. Thank you. |
| 00:20:27.37 | Mayor Withey | Thank you, Vicky. Thank you. Jen. |
| 00:20:34.56 | Jan Johnson | Jan Johnson, I'm a member of the Sustainability Commission, and we are all for this. On a personal level, I think the more stringent the better. The more you charge them, the more educated people get. I grew up in Belgium. We had no disposable bags. Everyone carried a string bag in their pocketbook. There was no question it was automatic. On an environmental point of view, it's not just local wildlife. I'm sure you're aware of the Pacific year of plastic garbage floating in the Pacific, about two times the size of the state of Texas and growing bigger. The plastic decomposes to microscopic bits that the phytoplankton, the snake, for food and eat and therefore die. So that the very fundamental basis of the food chain and the oceans is being threatened by the plastic that finds its way there. So the more each of us can do to get the plastic out of the water, the better off we're going to be in the long run, or our I mean, fishing is almost unsustainable now. We're almost already fished out. If you hit the phytoplankton level, which is happening, Fishing will collapse and more food supplies, et cetera, et cetera. So please, we encourage you. |
| 00:21:52.59 | Unknown | Thank you. Monica. |
| 00:21:58.73 | Monica | Sorry I came in late, you guys are so ahead of yourselves these days. But anyway, sorry I missed the presentation, but |
| 00:22:02.83 | Clerk | Yeah. |
| 00:22:06.00 | Monica | know pretty much what was discussed. Anyway, I'm on the Sustainability Commission. I'm all for this. I hope that we will be at least as strict as neighboring communities and all. And I just, my one little, and this was probably addressed, and I know Jan talked about the wildlife and all. I have a friend who runs a big kayaking operation over in Jack London Square, California Canoe and Kayak. And he just recently reported that since Oakland has banned single-use bags and all, he thinks he organizes some cleanup of the estuary, and he says it's down tenfold, is his wording. And now the things that they're finding the most are single serving size chip bags. So that'll be the next thing we should be on. But anyway, I think it's just time to move forward on this. And I hope you have your support. |
| 00:22:08.08 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:22:08.09 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:22:08.14 | Unknown | with you. |
| 00:22:08.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:22:52.14 | Unknown | that I'm going to say. Thank you. |
| 00:22:53.89 | Unknown | Anyway. |
| 00:23:01.03 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. Anybody else like to comment on this topic? OK, seeing none, we'll close public comment and bring the matter back up here. |
| 00:23:20.12 | Council Member Weiner | My thoughts really are Ten cents a bag. We can do it as soon as we can. |
| 00:23:29.40 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Well, I agree. I think it's important that we stay consistent and we could As Andy said, we could always raise the rate later if we find that We need to. And it's important to keep some of the consistency. I just want to thank everybody for their work on the Sustainability Commission and everyone else. So I'm all for it as well. |
| 00:23:49.97 | Council Member Pfeiffer | Yeah, this is a no-brainer. This is, it's, when you see the video of the Pacific Vortex and you see all the plastic swirling around, and as Jan Johnson mentioned, double, twice the size of Texas, it's so sobering, and it's such a tragic environmental disaster. And to have the ability to be able to make a difference is wonderful. And given Sausalito's proximity to the waterfront, I think that our votes here tonight will make a very big difference for our environment. |
| 00:24:31.58 | Mayor Withey | I think. |
| 00:24:35.08 | Mayor Withey | I have very little to add. I think this makes sense. I'd like to thank the Sustainability Commission, both the past members as well as the current members who have been pushing this issue very hard. It was, um, Oh. A little below the line on our priority calendar, but that was simply because we were waiting for this model ordinance. And now that that's been done, we're ready to act. |
| 00:25:05.20 | Council Member Leon | Yeah, sorry, I forgot it. So, yeah, I mean, one of the reasons we were waiting is because of the lawsuit that was filed, obviously. Once that had worked its way through the California Supreme Court, it was, you know, the time had come to push this through rather than for us to be involved in that legal suit at that time. So, I mean, at some point, we should revisit this and apply it to other categories of retail and where it's applicable. Obviously in some cases it's nice to have something that doesn't leak, but in other cases it doesn't make sense what you're putting in it. Clothes in a plastic bag is not necessarily a necessary thing to do, but we can revisit that. Let's do this to be in consistency with the county and we can go from there. |
| 00:25:24.28 | Unknown | I mean, |
| 00:25:52.60 | Mayor Withey | Good. So we have a fairly complex motion, I believe. |
| 00:25:59.42 | Council Member Pfeiffer | Um. |
| 00:26:00.24 | Mayor Withey | And I think, Andy, you're going to put it up for us. Ah, there we go. |
| 00:26:04.33 | Andrew Davidson | So it does need to go in order. It does need to go in order. |
| 00:26:08.33 | Mayor Withey | Is this three separate motions? |
| 00:26:10.77 | Andrew Davidson | Yes, that is correct. Okay, three separate motions. |
| 00:26:14.18 | Mayor Withey | Oh, yeah. |
| 00:26:14.32 | Council Member Pfeiffer | Okay. |
| 00:26:14.38 | Mayor Withey | Okay. |
| 00:26:14.50 | Council Member Pfeiffer | Three separate motions. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move to adopt the resolution of the City Council of the City of Sausalito certifying a final environmental impact report, FEAIR. SCH number 2013062049. |
| 00:26:32.17 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Thank you. |
| 00:26:32.19 | Council Member Pfeiffer | Second. |
| 00:26:33.86 | Mayor Withey | All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. Mr. Mayor. |
| 00:26:35.24 | Council Member Pfeiffer | All right. |
| 00:26:35.63 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:26:35.71 | Council Member Pfeiffer | . |
| 00:26:37.42 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:26:37.43 | Council Member Pfeiffer | Okay. |
| 00:26:37.81 | Council Member Weiner | you |
| 00:26:38.13 | Council Member Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:26:38.23 | Council Member Weiner | Mr. Mayor. |
| 00:26:38.89 | Council Member Pfeiffer | I... |
| 00:26:39.43 | Unknown | you |
| 00:26:39.70 | Council Member Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:26:39.87 | Council Member Weiner | I think we'll go around. |
| 00:26:40.17 | Unknown | Thank you. Oh, okay. Good for you. |
| 00:26:42.18 | Council Member Weiner | I'd like to have the resolution of the City Council of the City of Sausalito adopting CEQA findings of facts supporting the adoption of a single-use carry-out bag reduction ordinance. |
| 00:26:54.95 | Council Member Pfeiffer | Second. |
| 00:26:56.56 | Council Member Weiner | All in favor. |
| 00:26:56.93 | Mayor Withey | Bye. |
| 00:26:57.72 | Council Member Weiner | I have. |
| 00:26:57.97 | Council Member Pfeiffer | Bye. |
| 00:26:58.02 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Yeah. |
| 00:26:58.04 | Council Member Pfeiffer | Bye. |
| 00:26:58.24 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Thank you. |
| 00:26:59.68 | Mayor Withey | And finally, |
| 00:27:01.08 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | I'm sorry. I move that we adopt an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Sausalito establishing Section 11.30 of Chapter 11 of the Sausalito Municipal code regulating the use of single-use carryout bags. |
| 00:27:19.00 | City Attorney Wagner | Mr. Mayor, I apologize. It's technically under the government code. We need you to introduce and read by title only. So if that's what Vice Mayor Theodorus intended, then we are good to go. |
| 00:27:19.05 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Yeah. |
| 00:27:19.12 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:27:19.13 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Yeah. |
| 00:27:19.25 | Unknown | THE FAMILY IS |
| 00:27:19.30 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Thank you. |
| 00:27:19.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:27:19.42 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Thank you. |
| 00:27:19.45 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. |
| 00:27:32.26 | Mayor Withey | I'm sure that's exactly what's intended. Thank you. Yes. Second. Second. Okay. All in favor. Aye. Aye. |
| 00:27:38.00 | Michael Racks | Okay. |
| 00:27:40.38 | Council Member Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:27:40.48 | Michael Racks | I'm not sure. |
| 00:27:40.51 | Council Member Weiner | Bye. |
| 00:27:40.60 | Michael Racks | Thank you. |
| 00:27:40.72 | Council Member Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:27:42.08 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. |
| 00:27:42.12 | Council Member Weiner | Thank you very much. Those motions pass. And thank you to the Sustainability Committee for a good job. |
| 00:27:43.18 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. |
| 00:27:43.20 | Council Member Leon | as well. |
| 00:27:43.28 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. |
| 00:27:47.96 | Council Member Leon | And just as a final note on this one, I think we can take a second to remember Charles McClashen on this particular day was a big driver of this effort in California and in Marin County, our former supervisor. Thank you. |
| 00:28:00.04 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. |
| 00:28:00.12 | Council Member Weiner | HE HAD TO BE ABLE TO BE ABLE TO |
| 00:28:00.43 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. |
| 00:28:00.49 | Council Member Weiner | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:28:02.45 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. Okay, you can go home now. So the next item is to introduce and read by title only an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Sausalito, a man in Title 10 of the Municipal Code updating standards for two and multi-family zoning districts. It's over to you. |
| 00:28:37.48 | Lily (Staff) | Thank you, Mr. Mayor, council members. Tonight, we are going to discuss a zoning ordinance amendment with several components and a very long history. |
| 00:28:55.32 | Lily (Staff) | The amendments will affect the two-family and the multifamily zoning districts in Sausalito by limiting the size of any single unit. on a parcel in those zoning districts. It will also add additional design review permit findings. It will modify parking requirements to be in line with the Accessory Dwelling Unit parking standards. and it will remove the requirement for a conditional use permit for tandem parking. The draft ordinance that we'll discuss this evening was forwarded by the Planning Commission on February 5th after considering a recommended draft which was forwarded to them by the Legislative Committee and a Planning Commission subcommittee after meetings in October, November, and December of last year. |
| 00:29:52.64 | Lily (Staff) | So this particular ordinance amendment has a history of over three years now. There have been a total of 25 meetings held to date on this topic, which began in December of 2010 when the Planning Commission held two public hearings. The matter was then sent to a Planning Commission subcommittee to revise the ordinance, and they held 12 meetings from January of 2011 through May of 2013, which culminated in a workshop in May of last year. The Planning Commission then held two hearings in June of last year and forwarded a recommended draft on a 4-0 vote to the City Council. In July and September of last year, the Council held two hearings and directed a special joint legislative committee and Planning Commission subcommittee team to discuss the ordinance, which they did from September through December of last year. The culmination of the subcommittee efforts resulted in a draft recommended ordinance, which retained, modified, and omitted some items in the prior draft ordinance. The Planning Commission considered the recommended ordinance on February 5th of this year. They made some minor modifications, and then on a 5-0 vote, recommend to you the adoption of the ordinance. I wanted to note also that throughout this entire process, we have advertised all of the meetings on this screen through the currents and also through our email distribution list of interested persons. So first, I'm going to start by giving some background on Sausalito's zoning districts and standards for development, which will provide context for the ordinance itself. So first we'll look at what kind of housing is allowed and where in our residential zoning districts. The R1, the R2, and the R3 allow for a variety of housing types. The single-family zoning district, which is R16, R18, and R120, allows for detached single-family units. The two-family, which is R2-2.5 and R2-5, allows for single-family and duplexes. And then the multifamily, which is R3, allows for both single-family duplexes and apartments in addition to other units like condos and townhomes. |
| 00:32:41.38 | Lily (Staff) | This is a zoning map of Sausalito, and we'll be focusing on the R2-2.5 and the R3 zoning districts, which are surrounded by the pink highlighter on the screen. |
| 00:32:58.27 | Lily (Staff) | So now we'll look at what the standards are for development in this study. So standards for development are things like how tall a building can be, how big a building can be, how close it can be to the property lines, those sorts of things. The first one that will be affected by the ordinance amendment is building coverage. And this is the building's footprint on a parcel. You can think of it as looking at the parcel from a bird's eye view. Building coverage for residential buildings in Sausalito is limited to 30% to 50% of the parcel. And then the remaining area has to be free of buildings. It can be used for uncovered patios, landscaping, and then also general open space on a parcel. |
| 00:33:48.05 | Lily (Staff) | And this is where the parcel lines are highlighted and then the building is highlighted and the building coverage is basically the building on the parcel. Next is floor area. You can think of this as the mass of a building on a parcel. And floor area for residential buildings in Sausalito is limited to 40% to 80% of the parcel for floor area. And in Sausalito, floor area allowances are greater than building coverage allowances because floor area is counted on all levels of the building. And lastly, we'll look at impervious surfaces. And as defined by the zoning ordinance, this is essentially a limitation on any area on the parcel that's not earth. regardless of the permeability of the material. And in Sausalito, our limits are between 67.5 and 75% of the parcel. And the remaining area needs to be landscaped or held as open space. Next we'll look at density. Density is commonly thought of as the size of the building or how much space a building takes up on a parcel, but that's not correct. Density is the number of units per parcel area. So larger parcels allow for more units and smaller parcels allow for less units. Also, areas that are zoned for multifamily units have a higher density allowance than areas that are zoned for single-family units. I have some examples here of how density is applied that we can go back to if there are some questions. |
| 00:35:37.08 | Lily (Staff) | Next we'll look at what can be built today in terms of residential units in the R2-2.5 and the R3 zoning districts. In the R2-2.5 districts, single-family or duplex units are allowed. And the development standards for both of these types of units are identical. For any given parcel, the same size single-family residence as duplex can be put on the parcel. Similarly, in the R3 zoning district, single-family, duplex, and apartment buildings all have the same development standards. So for any given parcel, the mass of the building can be the same regardless of the unit type. The Planning Commission directed that work on this particular ordinance begin in late 2010 due to some properties in the R2-2.5 and the R3 zoning districts proposing single-unit projects that utilized all of the development potential on those R2 and R3 parcels, which resulted in very large single-family homes. Initially in 2010, the draft ordinance focused solely on limiting the size of single-family residences in those districts. In late 2012, the housing element effort was wrapped up, and the adopted housing element relied on a three-legged stool, which one component was accessory dwelling units, the other was liveaboard, and the last was infill capacity. And the infill capacity relied on several programs, one of which was Housing Element Program 20. and it's up here on the screen, it's called Multifamily Development and Multifamily Zoning Districts. And the objective of this Program 20 is to develop and adopt standards within the zoning ordinance that promote and incentivize the development of two-family and multifamily developments in multifamily zoning districts and discourage the development of single-family homes in such districts. And so this draft ordinance addresses this housing element, number 20. |
| 00:38:00.79 | Lily (Staff) | So the draft ordinance has a couple of components. The first is new development standards, which restrict any single unit in the R2 2.5 and the R3 zoning districts to the R1 standards for single family homes. There are a couple of exceptions to those standards, which we'll go through. And then there's one new design review permit finding. There's a new submittal requirement for a site plan, and there are new parking standards, including the removal of a conditional use permit for tandem parking. First, the new development standards for any single unit in the R2 2.5 and the R3 zoning districts. This part of the ordinance has been modified from the previous version that the Council looked at, which limited parcels, all parcels over 3,000 square feet to the R1 standard and exempted all parcels under 3,000 square feet from the new regulations. So the newly drafted ordinance limits parcels under 3,000 square feet to the R2-2.5 standard. and it provides an adjusted ratio for parcels between 3,000 and 6,000 square feet. which slides the development standards from the R2 2.5 or the R3 zoning district to the R16 zoning district. it provides a fixed percentage for parcels over 6,000 square feet, which is equal to the R16 standard. It's important to note that the total Floor area, building coverage, and impervious surfaces allowed in either of those zoning districts will not change. What we're talking about is how that total floor area, building coverage, and impervious surface is distributed among the units on the parcel. |
| 00:40:08.67 | Lily (Staff) | This is an example table for the floor area ratio that was given to the Planning Commission in their evaluation of this ordinance. It's important to note that the tables were just an example of how the ordinance would affect sample parcels. What one would do is actually take their parcel size and put it into the ratio to determine their maximum floor area building coverage or impervious surface. |
| 00:40:41.54 | Lily (Staff) | So for building coverage, the same sliding scale system is in place, for which parcels 3,000 to 6,000 square feet, the building coverage slides from the current maximum of 50% to 35%, which is the R16 standard. |
| 00:41:02.28 | Lily (Staff) | And then for the impervious surfaces, parcels between 3,000 and 6,000 square feet, the impervious surfaces slide from the current maximum of 75% to the R16 maximum of 67.5%. |
| 00:41:21.72 | Lily (Staff) | So there's a number of benefits of the subcommittee recommended system and the Planning Commission endorsed system. First, it reduces anomalies that the prior standards have. Because all parcels under 3,000 square feet were previously exempted, there was a step in development standards for parcels between 2,500 to just shy of 3,000 square feet, and parcels between 3,000 square feet and 4,000 square feet. What this meant was for a parcel that was just shy of 3,000 square feet, so a 2,999 square foot parcel, that was allowed a maximum of about 1850, 1850 square feet of floor area for their home. But a parcel just a square foot larger, a 3,000 square foot parcel, was only allowed a home of 1,350 square feet, which is a 500 square foot difference. The new standards have eliminated this anomaly. Thank you. as the development standards slide based on parcel size from the current maximum down to the R16 standard. And then at 6,000 square feet, it's held constant. Another benefit is that this new system allows for a slightly larger home on parcels that are under 6,000 square feet. In the prior draft, parcels between 3,000 to 6,000 square feet were limited to homes with a maximum of 1,350 to 2,700 square feet. And the current recommended draft provides limits of just shy of 2,000 square feet to 2,700 square feet, which still allows remaining floor area on the parcel, which could accommodate an additional accessory dwelling units. |
| 00:43:28.77 | Lily (Staff) | In the context of the new development standards for any single unit on the R2 2.5 and the R3 parcels, the Legislative Committee and Planning Commission subcommittee discussed whether or not heightened design review would apply to the total site development, or an individual unit on a parcel. And the subcommittee asked the a Planning Commission to take a look at this issue. |
| 00:44:00.85 | Lily (Staff) | And so staff reviewed the heightened design review section of the zoning ordinance, and in addition to general plan policy LU 1.9, which both indicate that the heightened design review is intended to be used when maximum build-out of the site is contemplated, compared to a single unit, which would exceed 80% of the new development standards only. With that said, staff recommended to the Planning Commission that the section of the zoning ordinance related to heightened design review be clarified so that it's clear that heightened design review applies to the total development on the site, not just any single unit on the site. And therefore, to make this clear in the Code, the Planning Commission included in the draft resolution to add the word total before permitted floor area ratio and or site coverage limitations and the word total allowed before floor area and or building coverage in the section of the zoning ordinance dealing with heightened design review. So those changes are in the recommended draft ordinance. |
| 00:45:15.88 | Lily (Staff) | So there was another exception to the new development standards regarding a conditional use permit exception. And this was in place in the prior ordinance in order to recognize that due to parcel configuration and topography and other physical constraints, there might be some parcels or property owners that would want to apply for a conditional use permit to exempt themselves from the regulations. And after much discussion by the the Legislative Committee and the Planning Commission subcommittee. That committee recommended that this exception be removed from the ordinance. And the Planning Commission agreed with the legislative committee and the subcommittee, and it has been, this exception has been removed from the ordinance. |
| 00:46:05.84 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:46:07.75 | Lily (Staff) | The other exception that was contemplated in the prior draft ordinance was a 200-square-foot exemption, and this was to account for existing single-family property owners who may intend to add a small addition to their homes, but otherwise would be capped out under the new regulations. And the purpose of the exception would not be to exceed the total floor area building coverage or impervious surface on the site. So the exception would not allow someone to go above the total FAR building coverage or impervious surface. To receive this exception, a design review permit would be required, and the Planning Commission would have to make four special findings for the exception. related to the addition being compatible with the existing improvements on the site and being in scale with the rest of the neighborhood. The provision was kept in the draft ordinance by the Legislative Committee and the Planning Commission Subcommittee. with the recommendation to add a time limit to this exemption so that property owners could only apply for this exemption within 10 years of the ordinance being adopted. The Planning Commission also decided to keep this exemption in the ordinance but is recommending instead of a 10-year sunset, a five-year sunset, so a shorter time where folks could take advantage of this. So that five-year sunset is included in the draft ordinance. |
| 00:47:42.72 | Lily (Staff) | The Legislative Committee also asked the Planning Commission to take a look at how that 200-square-foot exemption would work with the underground floor area credit that's allowed by the zoning ordinance. And so there's a section in the zoning ordinance that allows a basement credit of up to 250 square feet for underground areas if certain conditions are met. The issue raised by the legislative committee was that a property owner could receive a maximum 250-square-foot discount on floor area by utilizing the basement credit and then also apply for the 200-square-foot exemption through this ordinance, which would allow for a total 450-square-foot floor area credit for that particular property. the Legislative Committee. Thank you. 450 square foot floor area credit for that particular property. And the Legislative Committee recommended that the Planning Commission discuss whether or not those two provisions could be used in tandem with each other. The Planning Commission discussed this issue and decided that the 200 square foot exemption and the basement credit could not be used together. And therefore, language prohibiting them being used in concert with each other is included in the ordinance. |
| 00:49:06.95 | Lily (Staff) | So the last exemption for the new regulations has to do with older historic homes. The Planning Commission in the original version of the ordinance recommended an exception to recognize that older homes, which may exceed the new cap on floor area, may need extensive renovations. And these extensive renovations may require what's defined by the zoning ordinance as substantial demolition And because of the amount of demolition, then nonconformity regulations would require that The home size be reduced, so some of the historic features of the home may have to be removed, or a variance applied for and considered by the Planning Commission. and removing portions of older historic homes was not the intent of this ordinance, so an exception was given for homes on the local historic register. There was concern. at the council level last year that this exception may allow these homes to expand, which was not the intent, and therefore the Legislative Committee and Planning Commission Subcommittee expanded the historic exception to include the California and federal registers in addition to the local register, and then also a clause that says the exception could be used where there's no increase in floor area, building coverage, or impervious surface. and the Planning Commission agreed with this language, and it's included in the draft ordinance. |
| 00:50:52.99 | Lily (Staff) | regarding the purpose and intent of the development standards, the new section in the zoning ordinance. The purpose and intent was not something that the city council directed the legislative committee and the planning commission subcommittee to take a look at. So no recommendations were forwarded to the Planning Commission. But the Planning Commission did receive public comment regarding the purpose and intent section. and in particular, number four of the Purpose and Intent section. and is therefore recommending that the prior language in number four, which previously stated that one of the purposes was allowing the preservation of development potential for the number of units appropriate to the zoning district in which the parcel is located, to be removed and replaced with language that indicates that one of the intents of the ordinance is to implement the goals of the general plan with respect to housing in the two-family and multifamily residential zoning districts. So that change has been made in the draft ordinance in your packet. |
| 00:51:59.02 | Lily (Staff) | So on to the other components of the ordinance. The Planning Commission recommended originally that two new design review permit findings be added for the approval of any design review permit. The first was regarding the feasibility of development. And this would require projects that in the, those particular zoning districts, which resulted in the project site being developed at less than the maximum density allowed. demonstrate the feasibility of adding additional units on the parcel. And the Legislative Committee and Planning Commission Subcommittee removed this exemption, this new designer view permit finding from the draft ordinance. And the Planning Commission also agreed that it should be removed. So it is not in the draft ordinance. The second new finding would apply to all design review permit projects and require that the project has been designed to ensure that on-site structures do not crowd or overwhelm neighboring properties or loom over the street. and this was included to ensure that even if the site is being built out, there would be care and thought in the design process regarding the massing of the structures. The Legislative Committee and Planning Commission Subcommittee decided not to modify this finding and it remains as it was drafted in the current recommended ordinance. |
| 00:53:29.44 | Lily (Staff) | The Planning Commission originally also recommended that the ordinance include a submittal requirement, a new submittal requirement for a schematic design, which was intended to show the possibility of adding additional future units on the parcel. And this item would be required to be submitted as a part of any design review permit application that went to the Planning Commission. The Legislative Committee and Planning Commission subcommittee, after Um, their meetings and conversations with the public modified the language of the submittal requirement requiring not a schematic design but a conceptual site diagram. that demonstrates the feasibility to construct additional dwelling units, if any, as allowed on the project site by illustrating their possible location on the parcel as well as on-site parking and access. The Planning Commission reviewed that language and added language indicating that the diagram would not be deemed to grant any right nor bind any future development of the property. So that language is in the draft ordinance. |
| 00:54:37.75 | Lily (Staff) | And lastly, regarding parking, the ordinance proposes to provide relaxed parking requirements for very small units. So typically two parking spaces are required for each unit regardless of the size of the unit. The ordinance would allow parcels that provide at least two units, where one of the units is less than 700 square feet, with a reduction in one of the required parking spaces for the smallest unit. So that would mean that instead of four parking spaces, if there was a duplex where one of the units was less than 700 square feet, there would be a requirement of three parking spaces. |
| 00:55:20.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:55:20.80 | Lily (Staff) | This exception would only be allowed to be applied once per parcel. And additionally, there's a provision in the ordinance that would allow for off-site parking through a conditional use permit. And in order to apply for the Conditioning Use Permit, a parking study would be required demonstrating the availability of on-street parking during daytime and nighttime hours. And this is identical language to the language that's in the accessory dwelling unit. ordinance. And this section was not in the purview of the Legislative Committee and Planning Commission subcommittee review during their meetings. It remains as recommended originally by the Planning Commission in the draft ordinance. |
| 00:56:15.96 | Lily (Staff) | Regarding tandem parking, typically tandem parking is allowed with a conditional use permit to be approved by the Planning Commission for two and multiple family dwellings where both parking spaces are intended to serve one and the same dwelling unit. The ordinance proposes to relax this requirement by removing the requirement for a conditional use permit for tandem parking for projects that propose the maximum number of units on parcels in the R2 and the R3 zoning districts. Again, this is a section that was not directed by the City Council to be reviewed by the Legislative Committee and the Planning Commission Subcommittee, and so it remains as it was originally drafted in the ordinance. Staff has reviewed the general plan objectives, policies, and programs, and has determined that the proposed amendments are consistent with the general plan as described in the And with that, staff is recommending that the council conduct a public hearing on the updated standards for two and multifamily zoning districts ordinance and introduce and read by title only the ordinance and continue the second reading to your March 18th meeting. And that concludes my staff report, and I'm available for questions you might have. Thank you for hanging in with me. |
| 00:57:41.31 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. Thank you very much, Lilly. We've been talking about this for a long time. So are there any questions of Lilly or staff at this point? |
| 00:57:43.54 | Lily (Staff) | Thank you. |
| 00:57:43.68 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:57:55.89 | Council Member Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor, thank you. Um, Thank you, Lily. That was a thorough presentation. I appreciate it. I have just a few questions. One is what was the rationale for changing the conditions with regards to the parking? I mean not requiring a conditional use permit for tandem. Parking. for the... |
| 00:58:18.03 | Lily (Staff) | the original intent behind it. The original intent behind it was a part of the draft ordinance from the very beginning. I think it was to provide an incentive for folks that were um, needing extra space on the parcel in order to, so if they were able to provide three units but parking was a constraint, and the only configuration that worked was tandem, it was to provide that small additional incentive |
| 00:58:49.89 | Mayor Withey | Council Member Pfeiffer, there's probably a lot of questions, so I'd like to rotate them around it. |
| 00:58:50.99 | Lily (Staff) | Bye. Yes, thank you. |
| 00:58:54.97 | Mayor Withey | If you could, of course I may. Thank you. |
| 00:58:58.94 | Council Member Leon | Lily, can you enlighten us on, I have a couple questions, but I'll do one, on the sunset discussion, the limitation of the years there, what was the nature of the discussion of the planning commission to reduce that? |
| 00:59:03.97 | Mayor Withey | I'm not sure. |
| 00:59:04.22 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:59:12.67 | Lily (Staff) | I think the Planning Commission felt like the property owners didn't need five years of time since we have been talking about this ordinance for three years now, and they felt like the public has been... adequately aware of the ordinance. The original intent was for folks that were in the middle of preparing plans for in addition to their property, and the thought was they might get blindsided by the ordinance. the intent was to give a little back to those property owners, so I think The Planning Commission wanted to reduce that time period because they didn't think it was necessary for 10 years. |
| 00:59:50.69 | Mayor Withey | Vice Mayor, do you have any questions? Council Member Pfeiffer? |
| 00:59:56.16 | Council Member Pfeiffer | Thank you, Mayor Whitty. My next question has to do with parking again. With respect to the change to allow off-street, I'm sorry, off-site parking on the street with a conditional use permit per a parking study, is that decision administerial or is the nature of that that they would go through the Planning Commission and that have the opportunity for neighbors to weigh in It was. |
| 01:00:27.03 | Lily (Staff) | the requirement would be for a conditional use permit. So that permit is required to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. So the Planning Commission would be reviewing the parking study that's submitted by the applicant, and having to make the conditional use permit findings as required by the zoning ordinance. |
| 01:00:44.84 | Council Member Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 01:00:46.26 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. |
| 01:00:46.30 | Council Member Leon | Thank you. |
| 01:00:46.33 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. |
| 01:00:46.41 | Council Member Leon | And... |
| 01:00:46.63 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. |
| 01:00:48.69 | Lily (Staff) | Thank you. |
| 01:00:48.78 | Council Member Leon | The basement credit reduction, you know, that was discussed at the Legislative Planning Commission Subcommittee. What was the logic of removing it at the Planning Commission? |
| 01:00:58.51 | Lily (Staff) | The Planning Commission felt like the 450 square feet was too much of a credit for one property owner. They felt like the property owner should be able to choose one or the other and not get that much of a bonus. |
| 01:01:13.89 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:01:15.32 | Mayor Withey | you Council member. |
| 01:01:20.05 | Council Member Pfeiffer | Yes, Mr. Mayor? So let's see. The conceptual site diagram. So if I'm like a young family in town and we want to build our little dream home and and we have to do this conceptual site diagram. I'm just curious as to why this was inserted when it seems like there are so many already kind of regulations you know, site requirements and such. that clearly define what is allowed. This seems like it would be a lot of work for city staff, so I was wondering if you could shed some light on why this is required as well. |
| 01:02:03.72 | Lily (Staff) | Thank you. |
| 01:02:04.16 | Council Member Pfeiffer | as you were |
| 01:02:05.03 | Lily (Staff) | in the site diagram is to get people who are in the middle of either developing their properties with a brand new home or adding on um, an addition or a new unit. to think about the other space on their property, where an additional unit at some point in the future could be provided. So the requirement isn't to provide full-blown plans, floor plans or elevations, for an additional unit, but to show in a sketch where those additional units could be located at some point in the future. or if there's no potential for additional units due to site constraints, for example. |
| 01:02:49.92 | Mayor Withey | Maybe I could ask a question. To follow on with the basement credit, The basement credit is allowed Is the basement credit allowed in all of the zoning districts? in order to be able to, I think the goal was to be able to build down so that you encourage building down and so provide this credit. Is it allowed in all zoning districts? |
| 01:03:27.08 | Lily (Staff) | Yeah. That's correct. It's actually a part of the definition of floor area. So in the definition of floor area, it says this is what floor area is. And if you have a basement that qualifies with these components, then you don't have to count a certain amount of that basement towards your floor area. |
| 01:03:47.35 | Council Member Leon | Any? One last one. Just again, the general plan, consistency language and the purpose. What was the nature of the discussion there? |
| 01:03:48.45 | Lily (Staff) | Thank you. |
| 01:03:57.91 | Lily (Staff) | I think that the ordinance has evolved over time from the original inception to where we are today. Let me get to the purpose and intent. So the sentence that's been struck here had more to do with components in the ordinance that have since been removed. So I think the Planning Commission didn't think it was appropriate to keep that in there. |
| 01:04:04.76 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:04:17.18 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:04:21.49 | Michael Racks | Okay. |
| 01:04:23.60 | Mayor Withey | Is there any other questions before I open this for public comment? Okay, so why don't we open this for public comment now and remind everybody that who wants to speak to, please try and restrict your comments for three minutes. Thank you. |
| 01:04:45.91 | Michael Racks | Thank you. |
| 01:04:45.94 | Mayor Withey | Anybody want to go? Who's going first? Michael. |
| 01:04:46.02 | Michael Racks | Thank you. |
| 01:04:54.97 | Unknown | Hello, I'm architect Michael Racks. Um, Back in December 2010, I came to the city protesting this ordinance. Um, because I didn't think the public was aware of what was going on. and I thought it needed a lot of work, and I asked that it be directed to committee which occurred. Now three years plus later, here we are. Um, I'd like to point out some of the high points. I think Lily hit them well. But first of all, she pointed out, and it's really important to know, there's going to be no loss in allowable floor area on private properties from what's allowed in the Code now. And it's just that you can't use the entire floor area for a single unit. And that preserves the intent of the multi-unit zone, that we get multi-units in the multi-unit zones. That's why the FAR is unusually high in those zones. The results of this ordinance when it gets adopted, I think we're going to end up with smaller houses when we only have a single home. So we don't get these large lots occasionally, large houses that we've occasionally seen on little lots. Um, It's gonna help preserve that. By doing this, it'll help preserve the small scale and the traditional character of our older neighborhoods. Um, while it doesn't encourage growth, it gets one thinking about where additional units could be accommodated in the future. That's the purpose of this schematic diagram, so you don't when you improve property, you're not precluding future grows. And, um, by saving room for future growth, it allows us to be able to, as we grow, begin to weave throughout our neighborhoods, unit by unit. spread out through town rather than concentrating them them in high density multi-unit development projects which in fact over time to change the small village-like character of our town and make it more urban. something I don't think anyone wants. It also will focus growth as units are added close to walking distance to services in transit because our multi-unit districts are near those services After three years of debate, over two dozen committee meetings, multiple Planning Commission hearings and City Council hearings, and after now good notice to neighbors that actually included a postcard going out to every property owner in the infected areas, I think this ordinance has been well scrutinized. Every component, every line has been debated, chewed on, amended, and I think refined. It isn't perfect. I'm almost done. And frankly, I'm disappointed that the basement credit was removed. I think that's how we define floor area. And it encourages building down rather than up. You can put that back in if you want to. But other than that, I think it's ready to be adopted tonight, and I encourage you to do so as this first reading. I want to close with a special thank you to Jeremy and Joan Cox, who really provided the leadership to bring it to you in this quality form, and particularly Lily, who hung in there all these years and worked through all the details. She did the lion's share of the work. |
| 01:08:39.22 | Mayor Withey | Thank you, Michael. Any other member of the public like to comment on this item? Okay, then we will close public comment and bring it up here. |
| 01:08:53.78 | Council Member Leon | Can I lead off, if you would? I would suggest adding back the basement credit to this because the whole point of the basement credit when the zoning ordinance was redrafted and the zoning ordinance was redrafted and 2002 was to encourage people to build down particularly underneath the existing envelope of a building. I think the purpose of this 200 square foot bonus, and it was Michael's idea, I'll give him credit for that, is to say, well, if I bought my house with the anticipation that I was going to have a child or to be at a bedroom. where I would need to and you've changed the rules of the game on me, give me a little bit of wiggle room here so I can add a decent sized bedroom Um, uh, when you've reduced, if someone bought a single family home in a multifamily zone before this went into effect. So, and some of that is the five or 10 year discussion and you can do what you see fit with that, but I would suggest adding back the, the basement credit because removing the basement credit is really defeating some of the purpose of giving people an incentive. And what the basement credit says is if you build something that's underneath your, in the ground for at least half of the exterior walls, you get a little bit of an exception for floor area. Um, because we want you to not build up and block somebody's view or go out to the side and get close to the property line. So I would suggest putting that back in so that it doesn't penalize someone living in these districts. |
| 01:10:30.66 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. And I will agree. |
| 01:10:32.05 | Council Member Weiner | And I will agree with Councilmember Leon about the basement credit. I think it should go back in. |
| 01:10:42.96 | Council Member Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor? Yes, I would agree with adding the basement credit. I would also suggest that we change the exemption period from five years to the original ten years. I know that this has had about 24 meetings, et cetera, but there have been so many changes, as with any new ordinance like this, or with policies and zoning. There are so many changes. It's a moving target, and it's hard for people to keep track of all the changes. So I would support the 10 years. I also would ask that the tandem parking require a conditional use permit. I think that we need to be sensitive to the parking constraints. There are some parts of town where, I mean, if you're going to have tandem parking, people are going to park on the street first before blocking in. And it will leave a legacy of further congestion, I think, with parking on the streets. And with regards to, let's see. Come back to me, I have one more thing, but I can't look at it. |
| 01:12:03.93 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. |
| 01:12:04.28 | Michael Racks | Thank you. |
| 01:12:04.87 | Mayor Withey | Please. |
| 01:12:06.19 | Council Member Leon | Thank you. Lily, we've clarified a couple things. So the sunset period only is in relation to the 200 square foot bonus or exemption, right? |
| 01:12:15.47 | Michael Racks | Correct. |
| 01:12:16.82 | Council Member Leon | and the tandem parking There's a couple of places it flows through here, if I'm not mistaken. |
| 01:12:27.62 | Lily (Staff) | So today, Tandem is allowed with a conditional use permit for parcels in R2 or R3 zoning districts. The ordinance would change that so that a conditional use permit is not required if someone is proposing the maximum number of units for a parcel. So in that one instance. |
| 01:12:54.08 | Michael Racks | Thank you. |
| 01:12:57.51 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Okay, my comments. Well, it's been a long path, and it's a very complex issue. But I do want to thank everyone, the staff, Lily, the Planning Commission, And we had a lot of public health. Michael. among others. We had a lot of help with this thing. And so we really appreciate it. And I think we got to a good place. I think at some point we got overly ambitious trying to add some things to the original intent was to make the the density in single family dwellings in the R2, 2, 5 and 3 to be consistent with our one sixth, and then we started adding, I think, too many things, but we scaled it back and I think we're in a good place now. I do agree on the basement credit. I think we should do that. We really explored that extensively. in the Legislative Committee along with the Planning Commission that joined committee. And I agree with that. On the sunset provision, I could go with either the five or ten years. That one, I could go either way. On the tandem parking, I think, you know, that was there from the start. We've had this looked at in all the meetings you went through. We've had the subcommittees, the planning commission, and everyone agreed. factors was that these are routinely approved anyway. So I don't see opening that up at this stage. Thank you. And otherwise, I think we're there. I think we're ready to move and approve this. |
| 01:14:22.42 | Council Member Leon | THE FAMILY. |
| 01:14:22.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:14:22.84 | Council Member Leon | Right. |
| 01:14:24.31 | Michael Racks | I agree. |
| 01:14:27.59 | Mayor Withey | I would... |
| 01:14:29.98 | Council Member Leon | Go ahead. |
| 01:14:32.01 | Mayor Withey | No, that's okay. |
| 01:14:33.73 | Council Member Leon | Thank you. |
| 01:14:34.49 | Mayor Withey | I was... Just going to add that I also agree with not confusing 200-square-foot bonus for which will sunset away with the basement credit. They really have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and we shouldn't be messing around with our floor area ratio definition just for this. It makes no sense. The sunset clause, I don't know why somebody can't get it done in five years, but it's not important five or ten years, so I go with that. And, again, I also agree I don't see the point of opening up the tandem parking issue. |
| 01:15:22.58 | Michael Racks | Thank you. |
| 01:15:22.78 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. |
| 01:15:23.26 | Michael Racks | You know? |
| 01:15:24.05 | Mayor Withey | to do. |
| 01:15:24.34 | Michael Racks | Thank you. Thank you. Excuse me. |
| 01:15:26.28 | Council Member Pfeiffer | Oh, Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to make sure that, clarify what my comment about the tandem parking was that We've had tandem parking before, but it's always required a conditional use permit. which raised a heightened review for the street, for the neighbors, and to kind of waive, to waive that conditional use permit, I think is, you know, inviting. Uh, potential further congestion on us for street parking. And some units that are grandfathered in just have no parking at all and really rely on that street parking. And I know some areas in town are quite congested already. |
| 01:16:10.96 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:16:14.27 | Council Member Leon | So let me just – Recommendation. Well, I want to add just a comment. Give me a minute because I used my three minutes before. I didn't use all of them. So this actually started pretty close after the redraft of the prior zoning ordinance where I just noticed in the last housing boom or the last real estate market boom, that there's this big anomaly or big discrepancy between the size of a single family home you could build. |
| 01:16:14.69 | Michael Racks | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Well, I'm not. |
| 01:16:16.82 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:16:16.87 | Michael Racks | Thank you. |
| 01:16:44.86 | Council Member Leon | in a multifamily sized lot versus a single family sized lot. And that makes absolutely no sense from an equity standpoint. So what it encouraged is a lot of developers to buy the multifamily lots, tear down the single or convert the multifamily into single family. And that was part of the McMansion problem in Sausalito. It was driven by other things in other communities. So the goal of this initially, I think, started out to remove that discrepancy, that why should a single-family home be bigger in a multifamily lot? It just didn't make any sense off the size of it. I think the subcommittee did a great job. It was a really pleasant subcommittee to be a part of. Folks worked hard and a lot of constructive comments and criticism and it was good. So I think we're there. |
| 01:17:28.16 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 01:17:38.76 | Council Member Leon | Lily, do you have a motion or do I have to read it off the staff report? Okay, here it is. Okay, I'll introduce and read, see if we wanna make a change to the way it's drafted, can we still... do first title |
| 01:17:54.62 | City Attorney Wagner | If you direct those changes tonight, Councilmember Leon, then you can still introduce and do first reading this evening. |
| 01:17:57.56 | Council Member Leon | Okay. Okay, so I'll introduce and read. |
| 01:17:59.99 | City Attorney Wagner | Okay. |
| 01:18:02.64 | Council Member Leon | by title only. Thank you. an ordinance of the city of Sausalito amending title an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Sausalito amending Title X of the Sausalito Municipal Code to add a new Section 10.44.330 Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:18:19.77 | Unknown | And... |
| 01:18:19.89 | Council Member Leon | Thank you. for development standards for dwelling units in two-family and multifamily zoning districts. Do I have to read this whole thing? Modify Table 10.22-2 to add reference to Section 10.44.330, modify Section 10.54.050.B to allow for a one-time 200-square-foot Area bonus, modify section 10.54.050.d and add 10.54.050.e to add findings for design review permits and clarify requirements for heightened design review. Modify section 10.54.050.d and add 10.54.050.e to add findings for design review permits and clarify requirements for heightened design review. Six zero. Hmm. |
| 01:19:04.91 | Unknown | . |
| 01:19:05.21 | Council Member Leon | Thank you. |
| 01:19:05.25 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:19:05.28 | Council Member Leon | to add submittal requirements for heightened design review permits and modify Section 10.40.120.B.1 to provide an exception for tandem parking. And this is where you guys can fool around because based on the discussion before, allow exception to tandem parking requirements in Section 10.4.0. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 10.40.110.D and add reference to parking exception table 10.40-1. And in the appropriate section to... to add, and I can't remember which section it was, you can scroll through that so we can get in the record. Is it? |
| 01:19:52.41 | Unknown | Is it for the 200 square foot? |
| 01:19:54.47 | Council Member Leon | for the basement credit. |
| 01:19:55.89 | Unknown | Yeah, so it's 1054-05-LB. |
| 01:20:00.07 | Council Member Leon | 1054.050B to allow for 1 times 200 square foot area bonus and a basement the relevant other credits to remain. |
| 01:20:09.96 | Lily (Staff) | You'd just be removing the reference to not allowing them to be used in conjunction. |
| 01:20:12.36 | Council Member Leon | Okay. Use in conjunction. Right. As stated by staff on the record. |
| 01:20:18.06 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Yes. Anything on the sunset provision? |
| 01:20:21.51 | Council Member Leon | I'll leave it up to you guys. I could go either way. I think the intent was just the 200 square foot bonus is that if you're someone who just bought their house who has a longer term horizon towards adding human beings to their family, but five to ten years, I could go either way. I don't know if it's a minute. |
| 01:20:44.30 | Michael Racks | Okay. Thank you. 10 times. I don't know. It doesn't matter, Ken. |
| 01:20:50.89 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Okay, and would add that we would make the sunset provision and change that from five years to ten years. I accept. |
| 01:20:59.81 | Council Member Leon | Thank you. |
| 01:20:59.85 | Council Member Weiner | Thank you. |
| 01:20:59.88 | Council Member Leon | I can't. |
| 01:20:59.96 | Council Member Weiner | I accept that. |
| 01:21:00.45 | Council Member Leon | AND IT'S A LITTLE BIT. |
| 01:21:01.67 | Council Member Pfeiffer | And I'd like to make an amendment. I move an amendment to require the conditional use permit for tandem parking. |
| 01:21:11.62 | Council Member Weiner | I would accept it if we did anything. |
| 01:21:14.12 | Mayor Withey | Is there a second for Council Member Pfeiffer's amendment? |
| 01:21:15.19 | Council Member Weiner | Right. |
| 01:21:19.51 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:21:20.31 | Mayor Withey | Okay, so we have a motion, we have a second. Do you wanna roll call please, Debbie? |
| 01:21:25.33 | Michael Racks | Thank you. |
| 01:21:31.47 | Clerk | Council Member Fyfer. |
| 01:21:32.84 | Council Member Pfeiffer | I'm going to vote no on this. I feel very strongly about the parking situation in Sausalito, especially in some neighborhoods. I just really have a problem with this removal of the conditional use permit. And, but I do want to say, I'm voting no, but I will, I want to say that this is at least a better better than what we initially saw about a year ago. |
| 01:22:05.83 | Clerk | Councilmember Weiner. |
| 01:22:06.81 | Council Member Weiner | Yes. |
| 01:22:08.59 | Clerk | Councilmember Leone. Vice Mayor Theodores? |
| 01:22:13.57 | Council Member Weiner | Yes. |
| 01:22:15.36 | Clerk | air with |
| 01:22:16.39 | Mayor Withey | Yes. |
| 01:22:18.06 | Clerk | We take the intro. |
| 01:22:18.79 | Mayor Withey | Yep. Thank you. We're going to adjourn for five minutes. Thank you. |
| 01:22:24.96 | Council Member Leon | Thank you. |
| 01:22:25.16 | Mayor Withey | you just make it a little. |
| 01:22:26.03 | Council Member Leon | as well. |
| 01:22:27.09 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. |
| 01:22:27.11 | Council Member Leon | Thank you. |
| 01:22:27.27 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. |
| 01:22:27.68 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Thank you. |
| 01:22:27.70 | Mayor Withey | No, no. |
| 01:22:28.34 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | time. |
| 01:22:28.83 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. |
| 01:22:28.84 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Thank you. |
| 01:22:32.22 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | projects, discussing some of the proposed changes of Tracy Way. We also had representatives of the Golden Gate Bridge and the National Park Service to discuss directing traffic down to Fort Baker to alleviate some of the potential safety issues. coming down Alexander. And I thought of note, we had a representative of the San Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee who came and took a look at sat in on our meeting And afterwards, we had a conversation where she was quite impressed with the fact that not only did we have two council members sit in, but we had our director of public works, we had a representative of the police department, Captain. Captain Roebarker. And that this was this, both staff and council and committee work and working on some of these issues. Thank you. And we will, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee hopefully will be before this council in the next several months. |
| 01:23:30.17 | Mayor Withey | Thanks. Anybody else? Okay. Any member of the public want to comment on these matters? Seeing none, let's move on to future agenda items. |
| 01:23:43.73 | Council Member Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor, I have two. One actually is just a I just want to add my voice of support that I noticed the tour bus legislation, the agenda item has been moved to April 1st, and I will say that a number of residents are looking forward to that item and are very happy to see that on the upcoming agenda to address the tour bus mess. And the other, the new future agenda item, that I would like to explore is, or submit for your consideration would be, it's my understanding that the county of Moran has designated Moran City a priority development area under Plan Bay Area. And I think that it would be transparency to the implications of what that could mean to Sausalito with respect to traffic congestion and other infrastructure strains. So I think that might be an important agenda item to have. |
| 01:24:50.61 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. Any public comment on any future agenda items? Seeing none. Any other reports of significance or any other comments that the public would like to make? With that, let's call for an adjournment. You have to adjourn. |
| 01:25:12.02 | Unknown | I will to adjourn. |
| 01:25:14.32 | Mayor Withey | All in favor. Bye. This meeting is adjourned. |
Jan Johnson — In Favor: Sustainability Commission member, supports stricter measures, shares personal experience from Belgium, highlights environmental impact of plastic on ocean food chain and Pacific garbage patch. ▶ 📄
Monica — In Favor: Sustainability Commission member, supports ordinance, cites friend's observation that bag bans in Oakland reduced estuary cleanup debris tenfold, urges moving forward. ▶ 📄