| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:07.00 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:07.02 | Herb Weiner | Good evening. |
| 00:00:08.08 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:08.11 | Herb Weiner | Hit it. |
| 00:00:12.03 | Herb Weiner | Good evening and welcome to the regular meeting of the Sausalito City Council. for April 22, 2014. Debbie, would you call the roll, please? Yes. |
| 00:00:28.73 | Unknown | Councilmember Pfeiffer? Here. Councilmember Weiner? Present. Councilmember Leon? |
| 00:00:32.43 | Herb Weiner | present. here. |
| 00:00:34.52 | Unknown | Vice Mayor Theodorus. |
| 00:00:35.69 | Herb Weiner | PRESENT. |
| 00:00:36.62 | Unknown | Mayor Withey. |
| 00:00:37.71 | Herb Weiner | here. And this evening... Could I ask Steve Hoffman to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance tonight? Thank you. |
| 00:00:48.43 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 00:00:48.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:48.70 | Mike Rogers | allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. |
| 00:00:48.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:49.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:49.29 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:00:49.96 | Unknown | of the United States of America. and to the Republic for which it stands, |
| 00:00:53.39 | Mike Rogers | and two, three, |
| 00:00:55.21 | Unknown | to stand. under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. |
| 00:01:03.09 | Herb Weiner | Thank you, Steve. |
| 00:01:10.97 | Herb Weiner | The City Council met in closed session this evening to discuss four matters. Is there two matters which were conference with legal counsel and two matters connection with real property negotiations. Is there any member of the public who'd like to make any comment about our closed session items that are on the agenda. Yes, sir. |
| 00:01:42.38 | Desiree | My name is David. I didn't know whether you were going to Let's bring this up in the meeting later. Yeah. as an item to talk about, or is this going to be now? |
| 00:01:53.30 | Herb Weiner | That is an item that's on the consent calendar on the agenda, and there will be opportunity for public comment at that time. |
| 00:02:01.51 | Adam Politzer | That's what I'm |
| 00:02:02.27 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. Thanks. |
| 00:02:02.68 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:02:05.78 | Herb Weiner | Okay, there's no comment on the closed session items, so could we move on to the approval of the agenda, please? So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? I see none. |
| 00:02:17.60 | Unknown | I know. |
| 00:02:20.87 | Unknown | I... |
| 00:02:26.02 | Herb Weiner | So our first topic is a special presentation this evening. |
| 00:02:32.46 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:02:32.90 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. And that is an introduction to the to our latest employee. in our Public Works Director, and I'll hand it off to Jonathan Goldman, our Director of Public Works. |
| 00:02:48.22 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Vice Mayor, members of the council, staff, and folks at home in this huge audience that I'm sure is here for this item alone. I have the pleasure of introducing Katie Loffman, who joined us recently as the Department of Public Works administrative aide. Katie is a recent graduate of Sonoma State University with a bachelor's in business administration. She actually started here with the city of Sausalito as an intern in the administration human resources department and also in community development. And largely by virtue of her experience as a recreation day counselor, drifted towards public works're delighted to have her in a full-time position helping us in the infinite list of work that we're responsible for. And I think her attitude and outlook is a significant benefit to our customers and certainly to me and our coworkers and other people in the department. So I would like to introduce her, give her a chance to say a few words if she would like to, and encourage you to welcome her to the city of Sausalito. |
| 00:02:58.89 | Herb Weiner | Bye. |
| 00:02:59.33 | Unknown | . |
| 00:02:59.41 | Herb Weiner | I'm not sure. |
| 00:02:59.46 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:02:59.48 | Herb Weiner | Yeah. |
| 00:04:10.20 | Katie Loffman | Hello, Mayor and fellow council members. My name is Katie Loffman, and I am honored to meet you all tonight. And I thank you for the opportunity to work for the Public Works Department for the city of Sausalito. Thank you. |
| 00:04:32.88 | Unknown | Bye. Yes. Thank you. |
| 00:04:35.03 | Unknown | Amen. |
| 00:04:35.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:04:35.75 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:04:36.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:04:36.92 | Unknown | Congratulations. |
| 00:04:44.22 | Jonathan Goldman | katie you have to say through the whole rest of this meeting |
| 00:04:46.77 | Herb Weiner | Bye. |
| 00:04:50.77 | Herb Weiner | Thank you, Katie, and welcome. |
| 00:04:52.24 | Unknown | you |
| 00:04:55.76 | Herb Weiner | So the next, our next item is communications from the public. This is the time for the City Council to hear. from citizens on matters that are not on the agenda. Okay, so we got lots of topics tonight, and I know many of you are here to talk about those topics, but you'll have your time later. So if there's anybody who wants to talk about anything that's not specifically on the agenda, then now's your time. So anybody would like to, please. |
| 00:05:37.18 | Lisa Fredericks | Good evening. I'm here to talk about the buses. And I know my husband and I, John Fredericks, I'm Lisa Fredericks, have sent you all emails, kind of giving you a heads up of what we wanted to discuss. And we wanted to come and really urge you to make something official. to make an amendment. The buses are not complying. I live on Second Street. and probably about 60% still go back up the hill. I took a lot of photographs, which I'm gonna email to you. It's like fish in a barrel. I can walk my baby and be like, oh yeah, here we go. Here it is parked on Bridgeway taking photographs for the tourists. So it's wonderful that you guys have gone to the – measures of trying to get a consensual agreement. We're proposing that we make it official. With the height of the season coming, it's not here yet. I think we really need to act now. and to get something on the agenda with the council by June. Thank you. That's why we're here tonight. So we're going to ask you and hopefully make that a consideration. My husband's going to come up, and he is the one who legislated the amendment. So thank you very much. |
| 00:07:08.82 | John Fredericks | Good evening, Mr. Mayor, council members. My name is John Fredericks. I live at 216 Second Street, as you know. And so we're in the heart of the traffic zone for the tour buses and live through it every day. And as Lisa said, it is like shooting fish in a barrel. The repeat offenders, city sightseeing, big bus, cable car tours, routinely violate the terms of the voluntary agreement. Some of them aren't parties to the bus association, so they don't feel obligated to. It creates a situation where it's unfair to the bus companies that do abide by the terms of the agreement. And in order to compete, eventually people are all going to have to violate the agreement. So it's clear a legislative solution is necessary at this point. I really applaud the efforts of the city manager, Captain Tejada, or Chief Tejada and Captain Roebacher in negotiating the terms of a voluntary agreement, getting everybody aligned as to what are reasonable restrictions, getting the San Francisco Tour Bus Association to agree that restricting traffic southbound out of the city is a reasonable restriction. And now it's time for the city to actually legislate that solution. And it's Thank you. with the city is a reasonable restriction, and now it's time for the city to actually legislate that solution. And it's really quite simple. As I pointed out in the e-mail I wrote to you last week, the city staff has already acknowledged that you have authority to amend the existing ordinances. I sent you drafts of proposed amendments. No pride of authorship certainly would welcome whatever comments other people in the city attorney would have on this. But there is an existing ordinance that prohibits buses from operating in certain parts of the city. We simply need to amend that ordinance to prohibit southbound traffic from Bay Street South on Bridgeway, Richardson, Second Street. Alexander South Street. And the other issue is the noise from the amplified PA systems that the unenclosed tour buses use. Again, there's already an existing noise ordinance, very simple. I would argue that it already applies and we could enforce it today. But it would be very simple to make it absolutely clear. So if anyone is interested and I brought copies of the proposed ordinances, happy to share those with members of the public. But I would urge that the council, I would urge that you today make a motion to put this on the agenda for next May's meeting so we can pass this legislation and make that part of the solution before the tourist season is in full bore upon us. |
| 00:10:08.81 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:10:08.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:10:08.85 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:10:08.86 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:10:09.39 | Herb Weiner | Bye. Thank you. |
| 00:10:09.94 | Unknown | Bye. Thank you. |
| 00:10:15.60 | Adam Politzer | Mr. Mayor? Yes. Can I just comment on that? We definitely appreciate hearing from our residents on this item and particularly |
| 00:10:16.76 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:10:16.96 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:10:17.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:10:27.65 | Adam Politzer | of. from Lisa and John, sorry. We have been meeting since we've initiated the Work With Us program. which hasn't been working 100%. but staff under Captain Robacher's leadership working with the city attorney and our public works director are moving forward on looking at and bringing forward to the council options. We plan – so this is part of my city manager's report that no one likes to stick around for at the end of the meeting. But we are planning on bringing this back to the Council on May 6, which is our next Talking to the Council of the conversations we've had with the CPUC, which oversees the regulations here, and then letting us, exploring what at the local level we can do and making sure that we do it legally so we don't get challenged in court. but the simple, approach that you just heard is what we're asking them to do. agreed to this to go right off of Bay Street. Now we want to legislate that. And so that's the direction we're heading. But we don't know at this moment in time if, in fact, we can do that legally We'll give you an update on the May 6th meeting. As council remembers, we were going to come back in June and give you an update. We agree with the community that we can't wait until June. So we'll bring it on May 6th and then, if necessary, bring back some action at the May 20th meeting. So again, we can try to be in front of the curb here or the bus as we move forward. So you'll get an update at May 6th, and you can count on your – you the police department and the rest of the city taking this seriously and moving forward on this as we speak. |
| 00:12:16.47 | Herb Weiner | Thank you, Adam. A couple of things to remind you that In this section of the meeting, in public communications, up here we can't really discuss your matters, and so I think it's helpful for our staff to as Adam just did. The second point I'd like to make, and this applies throughout the whole of this evening and to any council meeting, it would actually be very helpful if you hold your applause because on some matters there may very well be someone in the audience who disagrees with you. And so generally we try to adopt the protocol of trying to discourage applause. But anyway, Scott, did you want to move on? |
| 00:13:08.11 | Scott Damon | Scott Damon. Sally Stanford is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to improvements needed on Sausalito's waterfront. The council directed Adam Pulitzer and staff to move forward with the Tourney Street dock issue. Why is Chief Tejada obstructing this issue and why is Adam allowing her to do so? Does the city really expect to receive a gift worth over $7,000 and still have me punished for the heinous crime of helping the community? The chief is clearly abusing her power by pursuing a baseless personal vendetta against me The tickets against the Sally Stanford should be dropped as they should have never been written in the first place. They are capricious selective enforcement of some archaic law no one has heard of. Every boat in Sausalito waters is in violation of this law. Is the chief really ready to write 3,000 letters? I would think she would have better things to do. Why is the Sally Stanford being singled out? Crystal Giff says that Chief Tejada claims that I am anti-Anchorout and that she has a tape to prove it. Let's hear this tape. Why would I build a landing for the offshore community for free if I am so anti-anchor out? Why would anyone believe the chief when she is spending so much energy trying to get rid of the Sally Stanford? It is my understanding that audio recording someone without their knowledge or consent is illegal. The city should produce this tape, drop the charges, and put an end to this ridiculous, embarrassing behavior. Let's be clear. If the charges aren't dropped and I have to spend more time in court over this issue, a sizable amount of the police force will accompany me to explain their actions I will find a purpose for the Sally Stanford other than to gift it to people that are ungrateful. The city can move on to the Public Works $50,000 solution. Why fix the problem now for free? when we can wait and spend $50,000 on a solution later. |
| 00:15:21.85 | Herb Weiner | Thank you, sir. Yes, please. |
| 00:15:28.64 | Carrie Waters | Hi, I'm Carrie Waters and I want to get back to the bus issue. My husband Mike and I live at 309 Second Street. We've been there about four years, and just in the last Two years we've noticed this enormous number of buses and There are many members of us on that side of town who would love to work with you. to offer our assistance. John and I are both lawyers. I mean, whatever we can do to help. It's a safety issue and it's only a matter of time until someone gets killed. one of the bicyclists, and we're all unnoticed now. You're all unnoticed that it's a problem, and so it makes it really very likely that we'd be if someone gets killed. It's a terrible noise issue, and it's also an environmental issue, If you talk to Robert at the Golden Gate Market, he's got soot problems from these buses that he's never had before. So it's really a quality of life issue on so many levels for us. So I urge you, I thank you for taking it seriously and all of you for listening to us. And, you know, offer our assistance and, you know, openness to working with you. |
| 00:16:35.28 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. Yes, madam. |
| 00:16:41.66 | Ula Davis | Good evening. I'm Ula Davis. I live on Issaquadoc, but I have a boat across. And while I have not that much knowledge about anybody's agenda, or a vendetta with Scott Diamond, I would like to say that I'm in total favor of him having the doc but only if he ever learns to tie it up properly. I've had on two occasions I've called the police and they didn't want to get involved And I said, that's fine, you don't have to get involved. as long as you promise you're gonna pay for the damage to my boat, and then they got involved. because they wouldn't promise that. They said, okay, and they called him, and he moved it twice. I've been on the boat with neighbors fending off that thing. And as good as it is for anchor outs, I'm in total favor of that as long as the city agrees. He needs to tie it up where it doesn't endanger private property. Thank you. |
| 00:17:35.75 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:17:39.41 | Adam Politzer | Yes, thanks, Mr. Mayor, if I may respond to this. The City Council in February did hear requests to move The doc. to the Turning Street ramp. and to attach it to the ramp properly. And the staff has been working with Mr. Diamond to do just that and that's in fact what we did. And it was a temporary solution. That was the direction that the council gave temporary solution to use. the floating That says Sally Stanford. to give access to the people on the waterfront, during low tide. and that was until we found a long-term solution. What Mr. Diamond cited there, that there may be a $50,000 solution. That may be the cheaper version. There's a lot of things that we could do to address that. That was discussed at the last – the council meeting where this item was discussed back in February. People can go back to the record and see what was proposed. and what we're working on. It is unfortunate that Mr. Diamond chose to remove it. after the work that went into installing it correctly. We've created signs to try to help navigate which way people go to put in their trailers to unload boats into the water and where folks can come with their skiffs to tie up safely on the south side of the dinghy dock. Um, There was no agreement. to exchange the docs and the data for waiver of citations. Those citations happened back in 2013. After the new year, there was no additional citations made and we started working towards a solution to provide that dinghy dock to give extension for access to the waterfront. We welcome continued discussion. It's not at the discretion of the council. nor the city manager, nor the police chief. It's now at the discretion of the courts. We prepared a letter accepting the dock for use for access to the waterfront, for access to the land from the waterfront. and had offered to give that to Mr. Diamond. and all it said was this was what the purpose of the use. and there was no agreement to exchange it for the value of the dock. That's unfortunate that the position he's taken, it's unfortunate that it's not being made available. But we remain open if they would like to return it and attach it properly with the guidance of the Public Works Director. But in the meantime, we will continue to work towards a long-term solution of providing access from the water to the shore so that when low tide occurs, the people are able to get ashore. And during future agenda items, if council wants to re-agendize this for further discussion, happy to consider that then. |
| 00:20:23.47 | Herb Weiner | Okay, thank you, Adam. Please. |
| 00:20:26.76 | Sarah Schlimmer | Hello, good evening everyone. I just have two other perspectives on the bus situation. So I work down on 2nd Street. My name's Sarah Schlimmer. I work down on 2nd Street at an office space, 207 2nd Street. And so two perspectives, one is the noise. I literally occasionally have to turn away to try and get some quiet while I'm on the phone with business calls or if I'm doing a presentation on my computer, I literally have actually walked into other rooms to try and get to a quiet corner to be able to conduct basic business calls and business presentations. So the noise is definitely an interference. And in addition to that, I think there's a lot of other office spaces in that area, up and down that street, especially going up the hill when they're accelerating to go up the hill. There's also empty office space that is for lease. I would imagine it's going to be difficult to find tenants if it's really difficult to conduct business there. So again, just the noise level is difficult to work with. And then the safeties are already being mentioned. You see a lot of bikers, a lot of pedestrians, and like was mentioned, it's not peak season yet. It's already very busy and you just kind of see so many incidences where you kind of just cringing and hoping that it's not going to be a contact. So I see it every day in front of the office and try and avoid the noise and work around it, but it is really difficult when you're stationary and the buses are the ones coming and going and you can't really get far enough away. to have enough peace and quiet to just conduct basic business. So I just wanted to share that with everybody. Thank you. |
| 00:22:13.43 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:22:19.42 | Herb Weiner | Is there anybody else who would like to... make a comment on any item not on the agenda. Okay, sir. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. The next item... |
| 00:22:40.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:22:40.58 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:22:40.81 | Unknown | you |
| 00:22:45.64 | Herb Weiner | Yeah, because I think the – |
| 00:22:45.98 | Jonathan Goldman | because I, I'm not going to interact with you right now, but I'm back. |
| 00:22:49.81 | Herb Weiner | I think we've made clear that it's on the next agenda item. On the next meeting. |
| 00:22:54.94 | Linda Pfeifer | Mr. Mayor on May 6th, correct? May 6th, that's correct. May 6th, everyone. The tour buses are on May 6th. Great. That's great. Great news. Thank you. |
| 00:22:57.18 | Herb Weiner | May 6th. Okay. Great, thank you. |
| 00:23:07.29 | Herb Weiner | So our next item is an approval of the minutes of the last council meeting. Do I have a motion to accept the minutes as submitted, or are there any changes? Yes. |
| 00:23:21.23 | Unknown | the choir. |
| 00:23:21.67 | Ray Withy | Thank you. I move that we approve the minutes of our April 1st, 2014 meeting. |
| 00:23:24.15 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:23:28.38 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:23:28.45 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:23:28.60 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:23:28.62 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 00:23:29.31 | Herb Weiner | All in favor? Aye. Aye. OK, the next... Thank you. Item is item number four the consent calendar We have... five items on the consent calendar. And before we discuss what we have, and get a motion for approval of the consent calendar up here. Is there anybody from the public who would like to make a comment about any of the five items on the consent calendar. and As our very first speaker suggested, that does include The Sea Drake thing. |
| 00:24:22.32 | Desiree | I'd like to remove that item from the consent calendar, pass the consent calendar without it, and then discuss item four, it is. |
| 00:24:34.74 | Unknown | wants to move to a business item. |
| 00:24:37.15 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. Is there anybody else who'd like to |
| 00:24:38.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:24:43.34 | Herb Weiner | Please. |
| 00:24:48.96 | Ula Davis | I'm not. I'd like to have the item for the consent for Sea Track removed for further discussion. I think you need a lot more input, and the public, especially the waterfront, should be allowed to hear. And while I understand that it's not residential, but commercial, to look at a business that would be there seven days a week, I think that really should be discussed in public before it's consented to be. |
| 00:25:12.82 | Unknown | . |
| 00:25:18.33 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. Any other member of the public have a comment on any item on the consent calendar? Jerry? |
| 00:25:30.81 | Jerry Fade | Yes, I live at Sausalito Marine, and I'd like to have that item removed. I didn't get a chance to look at any of the materials, and none of us received any notice, and we're like in shock. And since we live there, we'd like to have, we'd like to be involved in the process from day one. Thank you. |
| 00:25:39.64 | Unknown | No, no, but... |
| 00:25:50.00 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:25:50.02 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. Anybody else? |
| 00:25:58.34 | Herb Weiner | Okay. Very good. So let's bring this back up here. Oh, what do we want to do, folks? |
| 00:26:10.37 | Jonathan Goldman | Yes, so I'll make a motion to adopt the consent calendar, items A. B, C, and E, and remove item 4D and place it as the new business item 6B and move the fishing period to item 6C unless staff has a better place to put it on the agenda. I think that works. |
| 00:26:37.87 | Linda Pfeifer | Thank you. |
| 00:26:37.89 | Ray Withy | I missed your message. |
| 00:26:38.03 | Linda Pfeifer | Mr. Mayor. |
| 00:26:38.45 | Jonathan Goldman | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:26:38.92 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 00:26:39.07 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:26:39.09 | Linda Pfeifer | Yes. |
| 00:26:39.33 | Ray Withy | or I would have a... |
| 00:26:39.56 | Jonathan Goldman | Yeah. |
| 00:26:40.73 | Ray Withy | I actually think if there's more time, if we need more time, that I would actually... I have a friendly amendment that we just... move it to the May 6th agenda. I don't know that we... Do we have time tonight? |
| 00:26:50.04 | Linda Pfeifer | I would second that. I think the housing element, to give everybody an opportunity to speak, we're going to take a lot of time. And what I just heard from the waterfront community is that they need more time to review that consent calendar item. |
| 00:27:06.63 | Jonathan Goldman | I think to be fair to the to the I think what they want is information. They want to know what exactly is going on here. So even if we use the opportunity just to disseminate information about what with C-Track and the whole involvement down there and why the city is involved at all. that we should just take the opportunity to do that. If they want to hang out until the end of the meeting to do that, then that's their, to me that would be productive. |
| 00:27:34.69 | Unknown | To me, that would be Thank you. |
| 00:27:35.97 | Linda Pfeifer | It... Thank you. If I may, I think they want more than information. I think they want participation. |
| 00:27:41.56 | Jonathan Goldman | Yeah, no, that's what I mean. They want information. They want ability to comment on it. It's getting the information in their hands they may not know and hear what their opinions are, and then we can decide what we're going to do with it. |
| 00:27:50.02 | Linda Pfeifer | Mr. Mayor, may I comment? |
| 00:27:51.65 | Jonathan Goldman | Please? |
| 00:27:52.07 | Linda Pfeifer | I think that what I heard was that they, and I understand that this was released late on a Friday afternoon on an Easter Sunday weekend, And what I heard was an interest to have more time to digest the details that have been presented. |
| 00:28:15.85 | Jonathan Goldman | Once they have that information, we can continue it to another evening to actually act on it. You know, but let's have it. It's on the agenda. They're here. Let's discuss it. And we can move it to – we don't even have to act on it today. It gives them more to think – to know what they're thinking. |
| 00:28:24.76 | Linda Pfeifer | Thank you. |
| 00:28:30.62 | Linda Pfeifer | So what you're recommending is that you discuss it tonight, but you don't make a motion on it tonight? |
| 00:28:37.37 | Jonathan Goldman | I don't know what they're going to say, so I want to hear what they have to say before you tell me what you think they're saying. |
| 00:28:41.57 | Linda Pfeifer | I think there's... I think, well, I'm not trying to put words in their mouth. I think the request was clear. No one is saying they're against it. They just want time to educate and read. I mean, they don't know the questions to ask until they've had the time. |
| 00:28:52.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:28:52.79 | Jonathan Goldman | I'm all for that. so they've had the time. Well, then they will have a better idea what questions they ask once they have some information about what the heck's going on here, right? There will be some. discussion from staff about what this is about. So it's more information for you. at a disadvantage. |
| 00:29:13.55 | Herb Weiner | What would the city manager like to weigh in on this one? |
| 00:29:20.77 | Adam Politzer | I think the recommendation to move it to item 6B in business is the right location to place it as discussed at the dais. If there's more time that's needed, then we can take more time. But I think... having a public discussion now that the public has asked for that. That's what tonight's about. We'll have a public discussion. And to remind the public when they do have time to read the staff report and the information, it has had two public meetings that are posted, which was the OMIC committee meetings, that were posted. It will go from here two public hearings with the Planning Commission. So those meetings will take place in May. And that will actually talk about the proposed use of the space. Tonight's action, which we'll hear about in more detail, is about the parking spaces and the use of the put-in. So I agree with the recommendations of the dais to put it at 6, start the discussion, hear from the public, and then take the necessary action at that moment. |
| 00:30:21.38 | Linda Pfeifer | And Mr. |
| 00:30:23.44 | Herb Weiner | MR. Yes. MR. Hold on. Do you want to pursue your friendly amendment or withdraw that? |
| 00:30:24.15 | Linda Pfeifer | Yes. Your friendly amendment always rolled out. I withdraw it in. |
| 00:30:27.96 | Ray Withy | I actually second this motion. |
| 00:30:29.45 | Linda Pfeifer | Thank you. Okay. Mr. Mayor, I just want to, for the record, I just wanted to clarify the – thank you to the city manager and your comment about the two public meetings. You said it was OMIT just for the benefit of the public. OMIT is a subcommittee. |
| 00:30:29.87 | Ray Withy | And Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:30:31.07 | Herb Weiner | Don't. |
| 00:30:31.22 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 00:30:44.11 | Linda Pfeifer | And all due respect, I didn't know I know that there was – I asked the question the last council session. I was told that they were looking at somewhere around Dunphy Park, but this was the first time I received information about it. And I'm not saying I'm against it. I just – you know, I'm just hearing the request, and I support that. |
| 00:31:01.22 | Herb Weiner | request, and I support that. Okay, we've got a motion, we've got a second. So it's to move the item to item 6B and move 6B to 6C if we've got time for it. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Right. |
| 00:31:14.10 | Unknown | . |
| 00:31:14.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:31:14.34 | Unknown | the |
| 00:31:23.50 | Herb Weiner | And I think through that we approved the rest of the consent calendar, did we not? Yes. Okay. |
| 00:31:26.61 | Jonathan Goldman | Yeah. Yes. Okay. We, |
| 00:31:29.24 | Herb Weiner | We adopted the motion. We adopted it. Okay. |
| 00:31:29.90 | Jonathan Goldman | We don't know. I'm sorry. |
| 00:31:32.49 | Herb Weiner | Okay. |
| 00:31:32.97 | Jonathan Goldman | Yeah. |
| 00:31:32.98 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:31:33.02 | Jonathan Goldman | I'm smear you have a question from a member all please |
| 00:31:35.58 | Herb Weiner | Oh, please. |
| 00:31:37.76 | Unknown | Thank you. . you It's not on it. |
| 00:31:45.37 | Unknown | That is correct, madam. |
| 00:31:50.60 | Herb Weiner | Okay, our next item is... Item 5, under public hearings, which is a housing element update. And I believe we are handing the discussion over to Lily. cinching. |
| 00:32:15.66 | Herb Weiner | Good evening, Lily. |
| 00:32:17.18 | Lily Shinseng | Good evening, Mr. Mayor, council members. My name is Lily Shinseng. I'm an administrative analyst with the city, and I'm here to kick off this discussion on the housing element this evening. Yeah, kind of. So the purpose of the meeting tonight is to receive an update from the city's housing consultant on the implementation of the 2009 through 2014 housing element. In addition to an update on the update of the current housing element for the 2015 through 23 housing element cycle in addition the 2013 annual progress report is due to the state and therefore the council has an opportunity to review it before staff sends it to the state for housing element law So some reminders for the council and the public this evening on where we've been and where we're going with regards to the housing elements. From 2009 through 2012, the city updated our housing element. It was adopted in October of 2012, and it was certified by the State of California in November of 2012. in two thousand thirteen the city be in work on programs that we're committed to in the 2012 adopted housing element. And specifically to date, the city has completed the required ADU programs. We've worked on some of the live-in board programs. We've completed the multifamily standards ordinance. And we've also created numerous brochures, flyers, and handouts on housing opportunities. This year, in January, the council appointed the Housing Elements Subcommittee, and that consists of two council members and two planning commissioners. from January through April of this year, the subcommittee held numerous meetings, public meetings, on drafting the remaining ordinances that were committed to in the 2012 adopted housing element. And tonight we'll discuss the status of those draft ordinances. The state also requires an annual progress report on the city's implementation of their adopted housing element, and this is due on April 1st of every year, and there's a 60-day grace period. And so we have drafted that report and have requested from the state the 60-day grace period in order to present it at a public meeting and then get city council authorization to forward it to the state. And so tonight we'll discuss that report. Lastly, the state requires that the city adopt an updated housing element for the 2015 through 2023 housing element cycle. and that is due to be adopted statutorily by the State of California by January 31st of 2015. And we'll discuss the draft chapters that the Housing Elements Subcommittee has been reviewing. And we'll discuss those tonight as well. |
| 00:35:44.64 | Lily Shinseng | So just as a reminder of some of the terms that we're going to be using this evening, Track 1, we'll use that a lot. That's work on implementing the programs in the city's adopted 2012 housing element. And Track 2 is the update of the housing element for the upcoming 2015 through 2023 housing element cycle. The annual progress report is a report required by housing element law. The state requires that jurisdictions report on the status of the adopted housing elements implementation programs by April 1st of every year with that 60-day grace period. New legislation also requires that cities review the draft report at a public hearing prior to forwarding it to the state for review. Staff has prepared the required report and highlights include the fact that In the calendar year 2013, the city permitted 10 units, which will count towards the lower income category. These were seven amnesty or existing illegal units. once what were unpermitted ADUs and now are legal, and ADUs are second units or mother-in-law units in the city. We also permitted three new ADUs. We had one above moderate income unit which was added through a building permit in the city in 2013. And staff also provided a detailed narrative of the status of compliance with housing element programs in that report as well. So tonight's staff is recommending that the council first receive an update on the implementation of the adopted housing element, which covers 2009 through 2014. and also an update on the 2015 through 2023 housing element, and that update will come from the city's housing element consultant, M Group. Second, we're also asking you to review, take public comment, and direct staff to submit Housing Element Progress Report to the State Department of Housing and Community Development. I want to mention that we have received a number of late correspondence items for this item tonight. So it's a reminder to the council to refresh your iPads to see all of those letters, some of which came in 15 minutes before this council meeting. And with that, I'd like to welcome Jeff Bradley from Metropolitan Planning Group to give the update on the implementation and update of the housing elements. |
| 00:39:00.46 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you, Lily. Thank you, Mayor, members of council. Pleased to be back here again tonight to update you on our progress. We've been busy. |
| 00:39:14.60 | Jeff Bradley | A quick overview of our agenda tonight so you know what you're in for. We're going to outline the purpose of our presentation tonight. A little background on how we got here. Lily covered quite a bit of it, so I'll keep it brief. A project overview. We're defining the project as having two major parts, as Lily described. Track one is the zoning ordinance amendments, which the city committed to through your existing housing element adopted in 2012. Some community concerns we've heard loud and clear at both the community meeting on March 15th as well as two subsequent subcommittee meetings. |
| 00:39:51.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:39:55.52 | Jeff Bradley | Track two is the 2015 to 2023 housing element update. You'll notice it's for an eight-year planning period, as opposed to the five years that we've been dealing with prior. We'll go through the next steps in this process. And finally, we have question and answers, as always. So the purpose of the meeting is really to provide an overview of the housing element and its purpose, the process of developing one, and the requirements that we have under state law. This is mostly for the benefit of folks who may be new to this process. I'll present the outline of the zoning ordinance amendments, the work we've done with the subcommittee, very detailed deliberations on those four very important ordinances. We've been working closely with the staff and the subcommittee members and getting lots of public feedback as well. discuss the community concerns that we've heard, and provide an update on where we're at with the actual housing element update for the next or new eight-year cycle. |
| 00:40:59.80 | Jeff Bradley | So as Lily mentioned, the recently adopted housing element actually covered two planning periods because Sausalio did not have an adopted or certified housing element for the 1999 to 2006 time period. And so we had to show through the currently adopted element that there was no unmet need from that period. Over 50 public meetings were held of all types, council meetings, planning commission meetings, joint planning commission council meetings, task force meetings, community meetings, and Mobile workshop. A mobile tour. I'm not sure who drove for that. And the direction, the input we received from the community at those meetings was very consistent in that the community wanted low-impact strategies. And that was great because that was also consistent with the council direction we received in the very beginning when we were first hired back in September of 2011. The council also used the same terminology, low-impact strategies. And so that really became our mantra. and we came up with really three three Council also used the same terminology, low impact strategies. And so that really became our mantra. And we came up with really three main strategies, infill development, Existing parcels under the city's existing zoning rules and within the existing building envelopes that those rules create. ADUs, secondary units, small units in people's backyards, attached, detached, and also liveaboards, which is a novel concept. We're aware of only one other city in California that has been able to count liveaboards for their housing element. and also mixed-use development incentives to provide some reasonable means that property owners and applicants would seek to develop some of the smaller, older properties in And obviously, we need to comply with state law as part of this process. And there's several specific housing laws that we need to show compliance with, including the density bonus laws, special needs housing, which covers a variety of housing types for folks with special needs, reasonable accommodation, which we'll get into a little later, a provision for emergency shelters in the community, and brings us to the new element in order to meet what's called streamline review for HCD to allow HCD to just look at those changes between the adopted element and the new element we needed to comply with those ordinance amendments. |
| 00:43:49.80 | Jeff Bradley | So stepping back a little bit and looking at Housing Element 101 for folks new to this, it's one of the state-mandated elements of the general plan. Think of it as a chapter in a book. There's typically seven chapters. And the housing element is unique, and it's the only element or chapter that the actual content is reviewed and certified or not by our friends in Sacramento. There's really five major components of the housing element, which the council is well aware of. A review of past element performance. A very detailed assessment of the housing needs within the community. An evaluation of constraints to housing. That could be anything from zoning regulations to naturally occurring environmental constraints. Identification of residential sites. a program strategy to address these needs. And that really becomes the meat of the document, the housing plan, which contains all your goals and policies for housing. We mentioned the eight-year cycle, and obviously it has to be reviewed by the State Department of Housing and Community Development for compliance. And we talk a lot about the arena. It's not a person. It's a thing. Regional housing needs allocation. The state of California generates a big number, passes down a chunk of that to the Bay Area. And our friends at ABAG divide that number among all the member cities and counties. To put in perspective, the number from the previous cycle was 165. And for the new cycle coming up, it's 79. And that number is really based on – the big number is really based on state population growth. And then it's allocated at the local level based on jobs, population, as well as household growth and vacancy rates within the residential units that all the cities have. And the goal is to really provide housing for all economic levels within the community, from very low income to above moderate incomes. And luckily for us, the affordability is linked to something called the default density, where certain densities are assumed to be affordable. And that's an important concept. And finally, sometimes the RHNA is confused as a building permit target. It's really a planning goal to show that the city has a capacity for this type of infill development. And so the analogy we use is the city's obligation is to set the table for development, but you can't force it to happen. |
| 00:46:35.88 | Jeff Bradley | There are several risks to noncompliance. We view the number one risk as litigation. There's a long list of cities that have been sued by everyone from nonprofits to developers to housing advocates for not having a certified housing element. That can lead to loss of local control over land use issues. The RHNA can become cumulative, which Sausalito experienced with those first two cycles we looked at. And this risk number four is becoming increasingly common, where cities become ineligible for a variety of grants, because the requirement to have a housing element becomes a threshold requirement for a lot of those programs. And finally, risk number five is future penalties. The legislature in Sacramento is constantly coming up with new ideas to incentivize cities to comply. So we don't know exactly what they'll come up with next. A quick project overview. Track one is the zoning ordinance amendments. Important to reiterate that we're really talking about implementing the ordinances that the existing housing element described in detail. And that allows us to be both in compliance with the existing housing element as also we can build off of that to launch into the next housing element cycle. And Track 2 is that eight-year housing element that Lily mentioned is due to be certified by the end of this year. |
| 00:48:12.17 | Jeff Bradley | That's the same schedule you've seen. It's been placed on postcards. |
| 00:48:21.80 | Jeff Bradley | So there's really a package of four. ordinances. The first one is really key to implementing the existing housing element. As the council's aware, we did – we were able to show what we called a buffer, where the city showed arena, an allocation of units from a planning capacity over and above the bare minimum number. And a lot of that was an outgrowth of the strategy we took, where we looked at every parcel in the community. We looked at the existing zoning standards, and we looked at what could be developed. So if a space was open space, it fell off the list. If it had serious constraints, a historic property, took it off the list. We did not advocate any rezonings of property. But this strategy allowed us to show the number of units we needed. And within the very low income category, we actually didn't have a buffer. It was zero. So in this regard, implementing this policy allows the existing housing element to do what it said it would do in terms of the levels of affordability built into it, again, based on density. The last three, two, three, and four. Those are the ones I mentioned earlier that are simply required by state law. Whether they're in our housing element or not, every city has to have an adopted density bonus ordinance that comports with state law. Every city needs a special needs housing section that deals with emergency shelters, single room occupancies, transitional housing, a lot of types of housing that can generate controversy And a lot of cities historically have tried to push them out or not let them in. And so these laws were passed to basically level the playing field. Every city has to allow them somewhere in their community and treat them fairly. And finally, reasonable accommodation is an ordinance that will codify a practice the city's already doing under both federal and state law. People with disabilities, mental, physical, if they need some relief from standard city ordinances or regulations, those can be granted administratively or through a public hearing process. |
| 00:50:44.33 | Jeff Bradley | So the vertical mixed use is the idea of trying to recapture the traditional downtown type of development where you have the residential over the commercial, the housing over the shops. under the existing standards within the commercial zones, property owners your applicants are free to within an existing or new to a story building on the upper floor, the code is ambivalent about whether that space is office or residential. In some of the land uses, the zoning districts, the residential requires a use permit. So you could argue the code gently discourages residential because the commercial is allowed by right, but the residential is required to use permit. The vertical Bix use basically says if you have a new two-story building, the upper level has to be residential. So just that minor little change in the code has the potential to encourage a lot more of the upper level residential. So within the central commercial, the neighborhood commercial, and the commercial recreation zoning, the vertical mixed use would be controlling. And small projects with one to five units would have to provide just one affordable units. Larger projects would include 20 percent affordable units. |
| 00:52:23.41 | Jeff Bradley | Horizontal mixed use came out of some feedback we received late in the process. from nonprofit housing developer group engaging and making the argument for them to do a feasible affordable housing project, they needed opportunities to do a standalone 100% affordable housing project. |
| 00:52:51.77 | Jeff Bradley | And so the HMU was developed as an overlay. So the existing zoning could control, existing commercial uses were fine to stay, But the applicant would have the option of doing commercial on both the upper floor and the lower floor, which currently would be prohibited in the commercial zone, the CN1 zone. And at first, HCD said we needed to show a site that had at least 20 units, because their definition of viable was any site that's less than 20 units just isn't viable. Just don't show us that. We were able to point to some smaller projects built and developed here in Sausalito that were affordable, that were done by nonprofits, that were eight units. And so that became the number that we used to show viability. And so we identified two sites that met that standard, the 1901 Bridgeway and the 2015 Bridgeway. and the affordability. would be – half the units would be affordable, 25 percent to very low, 25 percent to low income, and 30 percent of the units would be required to be three-bedroom units. |
| 00:54:11.61 | Jeff Bradley | And part of what we received from the nonprofit housing group was translated by HCD as we also needed to show opportunities for family housing and large family housing. A lot of our strategies were focused on very small units. So these are an opportunity for sort of normal size, two and three bedroom units. |
| 00:54:35.40 | Jonathan Goldman | I just want us to wait till the end of your presentation questions or as you go along? |
| 00:54:41.39 | Jeff Bradley | My preference would be to get through this and then make every effort to answer your questions. Thank you. |
| 00:54:43.18 | Jonathan Goldman | I'm not sure. |
| 00:54:47.84 | Jeff Bradley | This brings us to the density bonus. Again, existing state law has been on the books for a long time. The city has an existing density bonus ordinance, but it's only about a page and a half long and doesn't quite match up with all the existing requirements. Consistent with state law, the bonus grants a 5% to 35% density bonus in exchange for providing certain levels of – certain number of affordable units and levels. The density bonus is intended to exceed the normal allowed density. under the ordinances and state law, up to three concessions or incentives are allowed. Those two terms are used interchangeably. And it only applies to projects of at least five units. And that's significant because the great majority of the capacity we identified in the community based on our site analysis, the great majority of those units were less than five units. So the example we use is an eight-unit project with 20 percent, two units, affordable to low income, would be eligible for the maximum density of 35 percent. If you do the math, that comes out to 10.8. Under the law, you have to round up, and then that becomes 11 units. |
| 00:56:10.59 | Jeff Bradley | Special needs housing came out of a Senate bill called Senate Bill 2, and as mentioned, requires provisions to be outlined for emergency shelters, transitional and supportive housing, as well as single-room occupancies or SROs. The policy within the existing housing element is to allow emergency shelters within the public institution – institutional zoning district, subject to design review, as well as some fairly detailed standards that are allowed to be applied. Transitional and supportive housing is defined and regulated as a residential use, which is the thrust of the legislation, is that these types of housing should be treated as housing and not as a commercial use or some other type of use that would cause it to be difficult to be implemented within a community. And SRO units would require a use permit consistent with state law in the three commercial districts. |
| 00:57:19.93 | Jeff Bradley | The reasonable accommodation, as mentioned, is a codified process so that people who are confined to a wheelchair, for example, who need a ramp that doesn't meet the setback requirements could ask for that and not have to go through a variance process. So as this shows, this shows a small ramp in the front yard And the code amendment really outlines a nice level of review for those things and deals with issues such as, well, if the person who's requesting the accommodation sells the house or moves out of the house, what happens to |
| 00:58:10.19 | Jeff Bradley | This section deals with community concerns we've heard, mainly concerned on the horizontal mixed use ordinance and also the density bonus. and the way those two interact. |
| 00:58:30.13 | Jeff Bradley | So to boil it down to our takeaway, and we'll obviously hear from the residents tonight, But our takeaway as consultants to the city is the neighborhood was really concerned that this policy, even though we're trying to work within the existing building envelope of what could be built on those parcels today, It really encourages new construction. of multi-story buildings on those parcels. And that's true. The purpose of the housing element is to encourage and facilitate affordable housing. And these two parcels were key for that effort. And on top of that, the density bonus provisions would potentially allow or encourage an applicant to go over the maximum density currently allowed. |
| 00:59:25.60 | Jeff Bradley | Those are sort of the two high-level things we absorb, sort of the detailed... |
| 00:59:25.63 | Unknown | So those are sort of the... |
| 00:59:26.29 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:59:33.97 | Jeff Bradley | issues underlying all that. |
| 00:59:39.86 | Jeff Bradley | Again, the combination of the density bonus was seen as a big undesirable, and then specifically buildings at 19-0 Bridgeway would block views. In spite of the city's ordinances and requirements for view protection under the density bonus laws, there is some mechanism where those two things would basically just be in direct conflict with each other. potential traffic and parking problems, concern over declining property values, this, And just to touch base on 2015 Bridgeway, this site is a three-story office building that appears to have at one time been an apartment building. And so we haven't heard as much concern about this one, but most of the letters coming in include them together and carry the same concerns with them. Our response so far has been |
| 01:00:49.72 | Jeff Bradley | to go back into the ordinance, these draft ordinances we've been working with the subcommittee on, and change the purpose statement to make it clear that one of the objectives of the HMU by allowing residential on the ground floor is to take pressure offer the need for buildings to go higher. Our original thought process was, well hey, under the existing rules, someone could come in and build one level of ground floor retail and either one or two levels of apartments or condos above that. Three-story building within the 32 feet height limit. If you took out that commercial on the ground floor, the whole thing could just go down a level. but there's no guarantee that would be, that would be the outcome. Um, |
| 01:01:44.53 | Jeff Bradley | or the neighbors are correct, someone could come in and ask for a three-story residential building and comply with the HMU, as long as their Florida ceiling heights didn't get too high. Also, staff, we work closely with staff on a fact sheet to get the facts out to the neighborhood, which they quickly absorbed. And, I had a lot more other questions. And so... |
| 01:02:15.26 | Jeff Bradley | working through all these issues hearing the residents' concerns and talking over staff, We'd like to basically ask council for direction to Basically do two things. consider adding language to the HMU ordinance that specifically says, remember it's an overlay, specifically says that these overlay zones don't have to be placed just on these two properties, but they could be used elsewhere. within the CN1, the CN2, potentially within the other commercial zones. So that's the first thing. Kind of widen the scope of where this strategy could be used. So I think it's a good strategy. It just needs to fit correctly on the ground. And our whole goal all along was to have both council support as well as community support. We know in a town like Sausalito, you have to have both. If we haven't learned anything since September of 2011, we've learned that. Um, and then also basically get direction from council Thank you. to allow us to do some analysis. of alternative sites. for the upcoming housing element, the new housing element, the 2015 to 2023 housing element. Specifically, ask us to look at the CN2 sites that the neighbors identified as having some merit. the And the big holdback on those sites, of course, is that they're subject to the fair traffic initiative. which would essentially disallow any change in the zoning that would permit residential. |
| 01:04:13.27 | Jeff Bradley | So the way forward we're starting to see is if we can adopt the existing oranges essentially intact, I don't want to suggest otherwise, because there's a lot of reasons why we think that's the best thing to do, but then also allow us to work with the staff in the community |
| 01:04:33.08 | Jeff Bradley | allow time to revise the ferry traffic initiative, potentially pending council direction. and continue to look at those sites, which at first glance, Those are really good sites. They're very similar to the two sites we picked. If anything, they're a little bigger. They back up to a large Park, open space, school, MLK, They're built around the same time, late 50s, mid 60s, early 70s. They're older buildings, mostly low profile, one, two story. and allow us to work through potentially swapping these sites out, using the new housing element as the vehicle to do that. |
| 01:05:28.70 | Jeff Bradley | So quickly, |
| 01:05:30.34 | Jonathan Goldman | Can I ask, Mr. Mayor, I think this – if you flip back to the other one, that's the key topic for, I think, most folks, is it flows into the other one. But so if we could ask – maybe we could ask questions at this point and then move on to the density bonus, if that's okay with you. Is that – MR. Yeah, I think that's good. MR. Okay. So my – if I could. MR. Please. MR. So my question is – and this is true of other |
| 01:05:46.13 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 01:05:46.16 | Unknown | Is that? |
| 01:05:46.97 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 01:05:47.03 | Unknown | That's good. |
| 01:05:47.43 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 01:05:47.53 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. |
| 01:05:47.63 | Herb Weiner | and the other side. |
| 01:05:53.89 | Unknown | Hmm. |
| 01:05:54.97 | Jonathan Goldman | Folks in other parts of town had similar issues about whether it was Old Town or what have you about whether having this HMU or VMU or just having affordable housing of any kind would automatically trump any protections that are in the city's zoning ordinance, protecting views, regarding parking, traffic, all these other things. And so far, you may have answered this in the hearings in the subcommittee meetings, or in the prior community meeting. for you and or Lily or Jeremy to kind of answer that for these folks and for us, because we went through this same discussion a few years ago, and it would be good to hear if that's still the case. |
| 01:06:39.29 | Jeff Bradley | Sure. Yeah, our position has always been, and we believe it's based on fact and practice, that having a site simply on a site's inventory or an opportunity site list does not defer any kind of special status on that development or any proposed future development. The one exception to that is if a city doesn't have a buffer at all, if they have a rena of 100 units and they're showing 100 units through their site strategy and someone comes in to implement a 10 unit project that's shown as a 10 unit project on the inventory and the city for whatever reason decides that's a bad project and they don't want to approve it then that starts a process where the city essentially has to find a replacement for that site. That's why we always advocate for the buffer. |
| 01:06:53.46 | Unknown | opportunities. |
| 01:07:29.02 | Jeff Bradley | That's what, that's... That's one part of the answer. The other part of the answer is through the density bonus provisions under state law, and they will also be under the local ordinance, There are provisions where the applicant can ask for three concessions. And those, if they can, prove through financial information and showing a pro forma that they need a concession to provide the levels of affordability that the law... specifically, allows and encourages, then the city essentially has to approve it unless they can make a finding that there's going to be a physical negative impact either to the environment or public safety. So that's a pretty high bar to turn back. So there... There is... That is possible. We spent a lot of time you know, talking to the community and with each other and reaching out to other communities, as a practicing planner, a density bonus for whatever reason, are very rarely taken advantage of by applicants. But that's of little comfort if you know it's a 1% possibility, then it's a possibility. |
| 01:08:43.22 | Jonathan Goldman | I want to follow up on that, but I can certainly... Okay. Let's put aside for the moment state law with a density bonus because we really, unfortunately, don't have – I think you might have turned off the lights. That's okay. was it really that bad a question |
| 01:09:05.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:09:05.48 | Unknown | I'm getting the time. |
| 01:09:06.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:09:07.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:09:07.38 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:09:07.42 | Jonathan Goldman | Thank you. |
| 01:09:07.47 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:09:08.41 | Jonathan Goldman | Yeah. Yeah. We don't want to leave you in the dock. |
| 01:09:09.69 | Unknown | We don't want to leave you in the dark. That's a good question. |
| 01:09:12.97 | Jonathan Goldman | you So let's just set that aside. We can discuss that when we get to that point. But so if I'm in Spring Valley or if I'm on 2nd Street or wherever you may be, And I live in either a view corridor towards one of these sites, or I live directly behind it where it would be most impacted, what have you. how can you give me comfort, and we had this discussion when we adopted the housing element two years ago, So the HMU, VMU, vertical, whatever they stand for, rather than me recounting them, mixed uses vertically and horizontally. that that's not going to suddenly just wipe off the board all the protection that we built into our zoning ordinance that sort of gives people at least some comfort that they have a chance to voice their concerns and have their community be able to have input in development. So I think that's – I'm not going to say what I think people are saying, but that would be my concern if I was, you know, behind 2015. It will live right next to it. I just want to make sure it's clear. and correct me if I'm mistaken, It doesn't wipe out the local zoning and design review criteria that you have, There's no we would just have to substitute, and we can deal with that in another way. And the only category I think we don't have a buffer is in the very low, did you say before? Some other site or inventory to offset that if you denied a project that was in that category. Is that – am I kind of getting there, or you can help me understand where you're at? |
| 01:11:00.21 | Jeff Bradley | Well, right now, we're still in the phase of trying to implement the adopted housing element. Right. And so without putting all that work in jeopardy, We feel it's very important to adopt the HMU ordinance with some fairly minor tweaks, but then create a program or policy within the new housing element where the city will officially be looking at replacement sites essentially for one or both of these sites, if they continue to be objectionable and through that process, we've talked to HCD about this, |
| 01:11:43.46 | Jeff Bradley | If that's built into the new housing element, and the city, does, carries out that program as part of the new housing element, from HCD's perspective, it's a non-issue. Right. |
| 01:11:53.84 | Jonathan Goldman | I get that part. I'm just really focusing on the core issue of Hey, is this going to be a three-story building? And do I have any input as a community member or the laws as they exist currently? I mean, these sites are zoned for two- and three-story buildings anyway, but does having these different meuses being put in place, the horizontal and vertical sort of trump all that opportunity to have local control. Absolutely. |
| 01:12:19.39 | Jeff Bradley | No. Absolutely. Absent the density bonus, which I think you said in the beginning, we set that aside just for a moment. Our position is that all of the normal development regulations would still apply. It still applied with the density bonus scenario, but the applicant would essentially get, three things they could request |
| 01:12:38.22 | Unknown | brand. |
| 01:12:38.73 | Jeff Bradley | Um, help with or deviations from, but some of those could be financial. They could say, you know what? My project's great. It pencils out. but I can't pay your building for a fee. That could be one of his or her concessions. Another one could be parking, another one could be setbacks. But the concern is they would ask for a waiver from the view protection ordinance. But through the density bonus section of the presentation, we've tried to organize it into two tiers, which you can do to try to send a signal, strong, loud and clear to folks that you need to ask for concessions out of Tier 1 before you ever get to Tier 2. |
| 01:13:26.55 | Unknown | Yes, sir. |
| 01:13:27.12 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 01:13:27.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:13:27.16 | Herb Weiner | Mr. Mayor? MR. Yeah, before you do. We pause for questions specifically about the HMU. So I know, Jeff, how much more do you have to go on this? |
| 01:13:44.57 | Jeff Bradley | I'm prepared to go all night if that's not all. |
| 01:13:48.55 | Linda Pfeifer | Mr. Mayor, |
| 01:13:49.28 | Herb Weiner | So do you have any specific questions about the HMU? Because I... |
| 01:13:53.08 | Linda Pfeifer | I do have some specific questions about the HMU. Thank you. So I think it's hard to divorce the HMU here and state density law over here because, of course, |
| 01:13:54.34 | Herb Weiner | specific questions about the HMU. |
| 01:14:07.62 | Linda Pfeifer | You know, one of the incentives in the Tier 2 is, and I'm reading from, you know, a staff city staff document, including increases to allowed building heights and impacts to private primary views. We know that, you know, from at least some of the case law I've looked at, if a developer can establish that, then that it's a hardship. that they can, push for that incentive. Now my question actually though is something else. My question is, that And I had a specific question, so I actually called Sacramento and talked to HCD for clarity on this. From what I understand, developers find HMUs much more desirable actually even than VMU sites because HMU is a HMUs, I guess, financing is way easier. because the developer is not dealing with two different kinds of mixed uses. So it's much easier for a developer to get financing for an HMU versus a VMU because VMUs have the mixed use whereas HMUs do not. So can you comment on that? |
| 01:15:26.94 | Jeff Bradley | Yeah, that's entirely consistent with sort of the genesis of the program where the nonprofit housing community said we can't build mixed-use projects because essentially we're in the affordable housing business. That's our expertise. That's our mission. That's what all of our funding mechanisms are interested in. And if you throw in even a small amount of commercial requirement on the ground floor, they'll just go off and look for a site that's zoned R3 for multifamily residential, and they'll just build their 30-unit affordable project. |
| 01:16:09.19 | Herb Weiner | Again, I'd like Jeff to finish his presentation on density bonus before we ask questions about it. |
| 01:16:12.78 | Jeff Bradley | Sure. |
| 01:16:16.28 | Jeff Bradley | And to answer your question, I have about eight more slides. I'm sorry. |
| 01:16:19.05 | Herb Weiner | Okay, and just one, I'd like to... |
| 01:16:19.91 | Linda Pfeifer | just one – I'd like – MS. Well, my question specifically, though, related to the HMU and financing for HMU. |
| 01:16:24.31 | Herb Weiner | for HMU. Yeah, no, that was fine. Yeah, that was fine. I just want to ask a question to clarify something that Council Member Pfeiffer has just said. Just to clarify, the HMU program is not forcing the removal of residential on the ground floor. Is that correct? |
| 01:16:50.03 | Jeff Bradley | Forcing the removal of commercial? |
| 01:16:51.75 | Herb Weiner | Commercial on the ground floor. It is allowing residential on the ground floor, which currently is not allowed. Is that correct? |
| 01:16:58.84 | Jeff Bradley | So correct. Right. And that's why it's important to recognize it as the overlay zone that it is proposed to be. So the existing zoning, CN1, stays in place with everything that it allows and doesn't allow. That's there. So if 7-Eleven wants to be there, another – 45, 50 years, and the property owner wants them to be there, then they can do that as long as they want. But with the overlay function, if the ownership interest is interested in doing what we're calling a horizontal mixed use project, which is basically a residential project, standing alone there, that they could file an application for that. or they could stick with the, because remember it's an overlay, or they could stick with the CN1 zoning and come in and submit a, a vertical mixed use project. residential over commercial on that site. |
| 01:17:55.18 | Linda Pfeifer | So, Mr. Mayor, if I may, just to clarify, because you said something Council Member Pfeiffer said. I think I stated this correctly, because the HMU is a voluntary optional overlay, okay, where you can |
| 01:17:56.11 | Jeff Bradley | Yeah. |
| 01:18:08.87 | Linda Pfeifer | put residential on the ground floor. In fact, it can be all residential on the second or third floor as well. And so my point was that HCD said that developers find it way easier to get financing or far prefer development on HMU designated |
| 01:18:11.33 | Jill Hoffman | Correct. |
| 01:18:28.16 | Linda Pfeifer | parcels because of that fact. |
| 01:18:34.62 | Herb Weiner | Why don't you continue with your presentation, Jeff? Thank you. |
| 01:18:37.08 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:18:37.10 | Jeff Bradley | Okay. |
| 01:18:37.18 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:18:37.20 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so we're into the... Densy bonus ordinance. which is the last of the four ordinances we've been talking about. So we've... We've tried to channel the incentive concession program into two tiers. The first tier requires review and decision by the Planning Commission. And these incentives would be a reduced minimum lot setback, essentially building setbacks, lot sizes and or dimensions, or the dimensional requirements for common or private open space. The second one is increased maximum building coverage, 70 percent, or maximum FAR, 50 percent. This one's important, in my view, because you'll notice the building coverage number is actually higher than the maximum FAR, which is unusual. usually the maximum FAR is higher than the lot coverage. Essentially, it's impossible you to achieve the building coverage but if you don't exceed the maximum FAR. So I would actually argue you almost want to encourage people to ask for a concession for maximum FAR, because then their building could spread out more on the ground floor and approach the allowable building coverage, which is 70 percent. |
| 01:20:12.02 | Jeff Bradley | And then the third one is, and this is an incentive that's specifically called out in state law. Approval of mixed use zoning under the condition that reduces residential development costs. |
| 01:20:24.63 | Jeff Bradley | This is a little different what we've been thinking about, where this is basically assuming a site is zoned residential and someone wants to come in – a mixed-use developer wants to come in who's all set up to do that. They want to come in and ask for some amount of commercial in that project, sort of convert that piece of property from pure residential zoning to a mixed-use zoning. So we haven't really talked about that much, but it has to be in there somewhere. Tier 2 incentives. requires review and recommendation by both the Planning Commission and final approval by City Council. And so this is where we have the reduced parking. Building heights not complying with the code, And then this last one is sort of a catch-all, which is also coming out as the state law. Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the applicant, resulting in noncompliance with the code. |
| 01:21:23.27 | Jeff Bradley | That brings us to track two, the new housing element. |
| 01:21:29.39 | Jeff Bradley | We looked at the five major components of the housing element, so I won't repeat that here. It does need to be approved by both the city and certified by HCD in Sacramento. In terms of the progress where we're at now, we have an administrative draft very near complete with nearly all the chapters reviewed by the subcommittee and staff. Chapters and appendices have been redlined pursuant to the streamlined review that is now available. We had our first community workshop in March, generate quite a bit of feedback both at that meeting and subsequent to it. Upcoming tasks include completing the admin draft, incorporate the edits we've received from the city, conduct a second community workshop, and continue to communicate with HCD during the submittal and review. Next steps includes finalizing the ordinance amendments, complete the draft housing element, conduct that second workshop at the Bay Model, hopefully. And in terms of timeframes, track one, we're looking to bring the zoning ordinance amendments to the Planning Commission in May, May 21st specifically, with a council hearing in June or July, or both with the second hearing and such. Track two for the housing element itself, continue to discuss that with the community at the workshop in May, targeting a council meeting in June, planning commission meeting in June, July. Council review and approval hopefully in July. HCD review the draft during August and September. and then bring it back for council adoption once we have ACD buy-in towards the end of the year. well before the deadline of January 31st of 2015. Lily, as always, is your primary contact. And now we've made it to Q&A. Thank you. Thank you, Jeff. |
| 01:23:42.91 | Herb Weiner | OK, so we want to have questions from up here. I know some of us are going to have a lot of questions of Jeff, and then we will open it up for public comment before we bring it back here for discussion. So I'd like to spread it around, having to go first, but with your first question. |
| 01:24:08.24 | Linda Pfeifer | Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So Jeff, I do have a lot of questions, but I'll ask my one question at this time. So you mentioned the buffer was, there was, when you said no buffer for very low income, you were saying what you meant was that we met the RENA. that we met the allocation required of the state for very low income. |
| 01:24:33.77 | Jeff Bradley | Exactly, 45 units for low income, very low income. |
| 01:24:37.38 | Linda Pfeifer | Now, is our buffer 180% over for low income? Is that, do I have an old data here? |
| 01:24:45.70 | Jeff Bradley | No, that's correct. That's what I'm showing. |
| 01:24:47.15 | Linda Pfeifer | So we're 180% over. That's quite a buffer for low income. And moderate, is it correct? I'm looking at 276% over for moderate. |
| 01:24:58.85 | Unknown | Correct. Thank you. |
| 01:25:00.60 | Jeff Bradley | Right. |
| 01:25:01.41 | Linda Pfeifer | And that's an 88% buffer. Thank you. |
| 01:25:05.44 | Jeff Bradley | overall. |
| 01:25:06.74 | Linda Pfeifer | overall. |
| 01:25:07.16 | Jeff Bradley | Correct. |
| 01:25:07.69 | Linda Pfeifer | Thank you. you Okay, and so how was it that this was viewed as a low impact housing element? |
| 01:25:18.96 | Jeff Bradley | Well, you remember when we first started, the situation we walked into, was Before all this, there was a strategy to essentially identify six or seven sites Good-sized sites, not necessarily residential or commercial sites, just pieces of land that were around town. And we zone them for affordable housing overlay. And just meet the arena on the backs of those six, seven properties? Nine? Right here, nine? Nine. Nine properties. And each one of those sites basically had a room full of people like this attached to it. And so that strategy wasn't really going anywhere. So we stepped back. We stepped way back. We said, hey, we're new here. We can just look at this with a fresh perspective. And you can fire us if you want, because we're consultants. So we went the other route. We said, let's forget about the big properties, because all the big properties are zoned open space. They're zoned public facilities. They're street right away. They're weird stuff. Let's look at every single parcel in the town. And let's just see what you could build. under the existing rules. So here's a lot that has one house on it, but it's big enough to build two. Great, that's one unit. We added all those up. We had a huge list of like 90 sites. And that's where the number came from. It wasn't a targeted approach to a handful of sites. It was a shotgun. We said we're going to look at the whole We're going to get literally every parcel which is normally too time consuming. No one wants to do it. But we got the GIS data, we developed some criteria, we got our heads around what the city allows now under their existing rules, and we teased out all these sites. That's the short end. |
| 01:27:09.73 | Linda Pfeifer | Okay, my recollection of history is different from yours. I was on the front lines on that one, but my recollection was we – We got the state to agree to count liveaboards and second units, and you worked closely with city staff to drive that home. I guess my next question – oh, I'm sorry. I yield to the – |
| 01:27:30.69 | Herb Weiner | So, I think it's important to try and get you know, cover the whole ground, because there's a lot of stuff here. But most of the people out here are interested in HMU. Okay, so... |
| 01:27:50.77 | Linda Pfeifer | I have multiple questions about HMU. I didn't realize you were specifically asking for HMU. I'm not. I'm just trying to figure out how to move this along. |
| 01:27:54.13 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 01:27:54.24 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 01:27:54.35 | Unknown | The |
| 01:27:55.32 | Herb Weiner | No, no. I'm not. I'm just trying to figure out how to move this along, to be honest. |
| 01:28:02.02 | Jonathan Goldman | Can I suggest, given we have a room for people and a lot of people are standing up, let's hear from them first so that we can – |
| 01:28:08.35 | Linda Pfeifer | Actually, I think that they also might learn from some of the questions we ask. Thank you. Yes, I think they will. |
| 01:28:18.17 | Jonathan Goldman | Well, they might, but I value what they have to say. |
| 01:28:22.65 | Linda Pfeifer | Yeah. I think they will. |
| 01:28:25.80 | Jonathan Goldman | Well, I don't – I value the public's opinions. |
| 01:28:28.08 | Linda Pfeifer | I certainly value the public's opinion. I'm very, very happy they learned that this was going on and are here tonight. I do think that they learn when we ask questions and we do our homework. Yeah. |
| 01:28:43.23 | Herb Weiner | Please carry on, Linhart. |
| 01:28:45.31 | Linda Pfeifer | I yield to the council. We're taking one question at a time. Nobody else has any more questions? |
| 01:28:46.88 | Herb Weiner | No? |
| 01:28:48.65 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:28:48.95 | Scott Damon | And I'll see you next time. Oh. Wow. |
| 01:28:50.22 | Linda Pfeifer | Thank you. |
| 01:28:50.24 | Scott Damon | I'll go for until after. Is there anything else for you now? |
| 01:28:53.34 | Herb Weiner | Okay, go on. |
| 01:28:55.92 | Linda Pfeifer | Okay, so it's my understanding that The primary reason, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that we have the HMU in the first place is to provide for large family housing. Is that correct or incorrect? And please comment. |
| 01:29:20.98 | Jeff Bradley | It's been described as meeting the large family requirement, but thanks to the intense neighborhood interest, we went back and looked at all that documentation, and it was really family housing, not large family housing. HCV essentially found that we had a lot of small units Livaboards, accessory units, ADUs, and small. Our modeling indicated that even on the infill strategy because the parcels were so small that the units would have to be really small too. And HCD picked up on that. And we argued, well, you know, half the town is consisted of single person households. So our strategy is totally consistent with the demographics of the community. And they said, okay, yeah, we'll accept that, but you still need some family housing in case people, you know, start making families, or families want to move here. Maybe you don't have too many families of any size because all of your units are really small. That's of course a very crude summary of the back and forth, but that was essentially the debate we had with HCD. So they wanted to see some family housing. They would prefer to see some nice big vacant site up in the hillside, just zone at R3, where you could build a a 10-unit apartment building. That would meet the requirements. We came up with the HMU strategy as a response to that, to try to utilize the existing land resources within the community, close to services, close to transit, and sort of tease those units out within the existing development framework. |
| 01:31:10.77 | Linda Pfeifer | I have a follow-up question to that with regards to multifamily and |
| 01:31:14.79 | Jonathan Goldman | Can other people ask questions? Is that okay with you? MR. Please. MR. So how many units are dependent out of the – on the HMU concept? |
| 01:31:26.55 | Jeff Bradley | We're showing eight out of each site, so 16. |
| 01:31:31.07 | Jonathan Goldman | Okay, so if we found or we came up with a different way of obtaining six units, Would that alleviate the need for the HMU designation somewhere else? 6 or 16? 16, sorry. |
| 01:31:46.85 | Jeff Bradley | 6 or 16? Yes, I mean, HCD's a bit and little about whether they go here or whether they go there. They want to see that the site itself meets basic criteria. that's a feasible site. |
| 01:32:03.83 | Jonathan Goldman | Because these two sites are zoned vertical mix use anyway. Right? So it's just really the change here is the horizontal mix use. |
| 01:32:05.58 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. Right? |
| 01:32:07.45 | Linda Pfeifer | Right. |
| 01:32:11.00 | Linda Pfeifer | Yeah. |
| 01:32:11.15 | Jonathan Goldman | Okay. |
| 01:32:11.88 | Linda Pfeifer | and as a follow-up question? |
| 01:32:14.07 | Jonathan Goldman | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:32:14.86 | Linda Pfeifer | And so we would not need to use the HMU program at all if we located these 16 other units, correct? |
| 01:32:25.80 | Jeff Bradley | If we had another strategy where we could show 16 units of, let's just call it multifamily housing, yeah, there's not an ideological reason why you have to have an HMU strategy. The ideological thing is really, well, you need to show some family housing. That's sort of the non-negotiable thing from HCD standpoint. And it's a fairly small amount they're asking for. |
| 01:32:42.74 | Linda Pfeifer | Thank you. |
| 01:32:46.00 | Linda Pfeifer | And so forth. |
| 01:32:49.90 | Linda Pfeifer | Exactly. And so for family housing, are you defining that by size of the unit then? Are you saying two, three bedroom? Is that what you're defining? |
| 01:32:59.77 | Jeff Bradley | For large family, large family is defined in the statutes as a five person family or more. Okay. So it's not a huge family by any means. And then family housing from HCD's perspective is anything with two units or more. |
| 01:33:05.84 | Linda Pfeifer | Okay. |
| 01:33:13.84 | Jeff Bradley | Sorry, bedrooms or more. So the idea that you could have a couple sharing a room and you'd have a second bedroom for one or two children, and then that would be your hand. |
| 01:33:14.53 | Unknown | Federal. |
| 01:33:14.97 | Bob (Sea Trek owner) | Thank you. |
| 01:33:22.90 | Linda Pfeifer | Okay. So I have a follow-up question to that. The statute, as I've read it, does not dictate that a city must allocate two bedrooms per income, a specific income group, correct? |
| 01:33:44.10 | Jeff Bradley | They're... |
| 01:33:46.10 | Linda Pfeifer | And this is coming from HCD. |
| 01:33:48.25 | Jeff Bradley | Right, and we've spent some time digging into the statutes and making sure we're recommending things that are consistent with state law. And our position is when HCD says you have to show a variety of housing types for all income groups, they're basically using that language to enforce this idea. |
| 01:34:13.49 | Linda Pfeifer | Here is the exact quote from Sacramento I received today. There is no legal requirement within a variety of housing types to require certain unit sizes within certain income levels. So if that's the case, and I got that directly from Sacramento HCD then I don't see the need for the HMU. |
| 01:34:40.21 | Jeff Bradley | When we were down to the brass tacks with HCD, this HMU policy was basically the last thing they required before they would certify it. |
| 01:34:51.14 | Linda Pfeifer | I think the interest was with the accommodation for for multifamily, you know, the family housing, but I'm looking at a list of over 35 or 40 homes that were built in the last RENA cycle that we actually have taken credit for And I guess my question is, Surely some of these are two bedrooms. three bedrooms. and that the current zoning in Sausalito accommodates duplexes in and triplexes and fourplexes even. And in fact, we recently passed a multifamily ordinance just like two months ago, to ensure the protection of, you know, the density in certain, you know, zoning areas. So that is new since this. I'm wondering if we could submit that and have a negotiation discussion with HCD with regards to that, because we have moved in good faith. we really have to provide for large family and, you know, and this covers, frankly, you know, different income levels. |
| 01:36:19.28 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:36:20.71 | Linda Pfeifer | Thank you, Jeff. Thank you. |
| 01:36:25.24 | Herb Weiner | Um. Thank you. Jeff, could I ask you to clarify what you've just agreed to? |
| 01:36:32.75 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:36:32.80 | Jeff Bradley | . |
| 01:36:33.17 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:36:33.23 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 01:36:33.35 | Unknown | you |
| 01:36:33.42 | Jeff Bradley | Ah. I agree the city has made a lot of forward progress on housing issues since we've been involved. And It's commendable, it's difficult. |
| 01:36:50.18 | Monica Chowers | Okay. |
| 01:36:51.31 | Linda Pfeifer | I'm sorry. |
| 01:36:51.32 | Monica Chowers | Bye. |
| 01:36:51.34 | Linda Pfeifer | Jeff, if I could clarify, because what I heard |
| 01:36:51.92 | Monica Chowers | Yeah. |
| 01:36:56.02 | Linda Pfeifer | was also... that the good faith efforts we have made have been specifically in the area of multi-family ordinances, the area that HCD is interested in. |
| 01:37:07.64 | Jeff Bradley | Right, and the multi-family ordinance was one of the implementing programs in the housing element that staff ran ahead with and got adopted. |
| 01:37:12.08 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:37:12.10 | Linda Pfeifer | Yeah. Yeah, so perhaps my question was, and what I heard, was that approaching HCD with this information and acting in good faith to the spirit of their goal for affordable housing and family housing, to me, speaks to that. And I would like to have a good discussion with HCD on that in good faith. |
| 01:37:42.22 | Herb Weiner | Um... |
| 01:37:43.79 | Jeff Bradley | They would view that as essentially a housing element amendment. Yeah, but at what expense? |
| 01:37:49.04 | Jonathan Goldman | Yeah, but at what expense? Can other people – so do we have in the way – in the structure of how these housing element cycles are – or legislated, let's say, do we have the opportunity or is there a process for reopening your old housing element which we would have to do in this case if we wanted to waive the HMU requirement, right? Is that correct? Right. Is there a process for that, or is it better – and what would that be? How long would that take? And would that be reopening the whole can of worms at the same time? |
| 01:38:14.45 | Unknown | Right. |
| 01:38:25.76 | Jeff Bradley | Yes, it would be opening a big can of worms. And the thing to keep in mind with the existing housing element that was adopted in 2012 And we're sitting here in April of 2014 That's... That housing only essentially expires at the end of this year. Thank you. |
| 01:38:40.98 | Jonathan Goldman | I don't know. |
| 01:38:41.11 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. It was actually due in 2009. Right. We adopted it in 2012. So we were more than halfway through the the cycle when it was adopted. So it Right from the get-go, it had a very short shelf life. |
| 01:38:57.75 | Jonathan Goldman | So are you saying it would be you recommending that we do, if we made changes to those existing programs, we do it in the current |
| 01:39:04.45 | Jeff Bradley | We do it in the... Thank you. in the new housing element, the 2015, 2023, the track two that is going concurrently with this implementing program for the ordinances. That way you can let the existing housing element continue to be certified. |
| 01:39:15.45 | Unknown | That was... |
| 01:39:21.68 | Jeff Bradley | expire at the end of the year, and then pop up with a new housing element that can deal with some of these issues in a way that garners more support. |
| 01:39:33.21 | Ray Withy | that you and just follow what I I think Councilman member Leone's asked a question but so you're saying in our housing element that starts in 2015, we could revisit this HMU strategy and potentially remove it? |
| 01:39:48.43 | Jeff Bradley | Yep. Our recommendation is to have a whole program or policy, just like we have a bunch of programs and policies in the existing home. We have a program that basically says, we're gonna take a look at this HMU program. We're either gonna slide these sites into some other more appropriate sites that would have strong community support and be equally acceptable to HCD, or to Council Member Pfeiffer's point, which I think it's finally sinking in, is you could, Thank you. You could meet the family housing requirement On one hand, As long as you also meet the ringa, number on the other hand, because Thank you. what gets tricky about these sites is we're using these sites to meet both, right? We're meeting the family requirement and we're meeting our very low income where we have the zero buffer. So in my mind, they're linked in this particular case. There is a possibility to meet both those requirements if you just go about it a slightly different way. |
| 01:40:51.15 | Linda Pfeifer | Yeah, it... Mr. Mayor? And so... Moving forward, I heard opening a can of worms to make an amendment, but to me the can of worms is in this room, the fact that we're losing local control with a high-impact, high-density housing element. So... If we were to remove the HMU and, you know, I think it would be personally well worth the time and the effort to listen to the people and go back to Sacramento and say, you know what, some folks just found out about this. and we didn't realize all the ramifications, and to really do our homework beforehand and explore the statute and look at the housing that's been built and look at our multifamily ordinance that was just passed because from what I'm seeing, the spirit of the law is there. And I guess I also had actually a follow-up question. Uh, to... |
| 01:41:51.65 | Herb Weiner | I would like to open this up soon to public comment. |
| 01:41:55.56 | Linda Pfeifer | I think I've made my point. |
| 01:42:00.81 | Herb Weiner | Do you have any further questions? |
| 01:42:02.36 | Jonathan Goldman | But just to clarify what you were saying, because I want to make sure I get my head around it. So you're saying, let's just say HMU is not the way to go. And the core question with me, because the density bonus is we can't control that state law, right, unfortunately, good or bad, whether their intent is good or bad or their impact is good or bad. The The HMU is certainly within our purview to control whether we do that. But really... Thank you. From my point of view, I'm not really so concerned if it's low income, what income level is there. If I'm a resident, I'm more concerned with is this going to impact my views or is it going to waive – because otherwise I'm discriminating against people on their income. So – which to me isn't necessarily a very palatable thing. My concern, and what I asked you before, is having the HMU policy Does it wipe out local control? overview impacts and other things, and your answer was no. The density bonus, unfortunately, does. And there's nothing we can really do about that is what you're, I think, saying. Is that – am I – Thank you. with that assumption. Yes, sir. Short answer is yes. |
| 01:43:15.01 | Jeff Bradley | Yes. |
| 01:43:15.22 | Jonathan Goldman | Yes. |
| 01:43:15.76 | Jeff Bradley | Okay. |
| 01:43:18.03 | Linda Pfeifer | So as a follow-up to Council Member Leon, I think when we're looking at the HMU though, one of the questions we ask is if I'm a developer and I'm looking at where I'm going to build, Where's the low hanging fruit? would you agree that an HMU designated parcel is going to be much more attractive to me in terms of, you know, a potential greenfield site and... and development And it's hard to divorce that from the state density bonus and the waivers, you know, because if I'm a developer and I'm looking at hardship to pencil it out, not an affordable housing developer. I'm not talking about like Windcup in Corte Madera. I just want to make a profit Yeah, I'm going to want those views too. Build it high, high, high. I get that waiver and, you know. Wouldn't you agree? What I'm, I mean, To me, I look at the numbers and I look at the law, and that's what I see. |
| 01:44:17.52 | Jeff Bradley | the- The strategy was because of the beginning part of it where we were working, talking to these nonprofit groups and their very skilled attorneys, We were focusing on nonprofit developers, quite frankly, because those are the folks that were advancing the argument. And it also met up with the goals of the housing element, which is to provide affordable housing, and the nonprofit folks do affordable housing. And so the 50% requirement for affordable housing with the HMU was not an issue for them because they would typically do 100% affordable housing. Um, However, the requirement that half the units be affordable with or without a density bonus would potentially be a constraint in the classic sense of the analysis for a private developer, a for-profit developer. |
| 01:45:10.35 | Linda Pfeifer | But irrespective, it's an attractive opportunity for financing for a developer, whether you're a nonprofit or a for-profit developer, correct? I think it does open up a greater role. |
| 01:45:19.60 | Jeff Bradley | I think it does open up a greater pool of finance opportunities. Okay, thank you. |
| 01:45:22.57 | Linda Pfeifer | Okay, thank you. |
| 01:45:23.47 | Jeff Bradley | And also, that's what I'm saying. |
| 01:45:24.19 | Linda Pfeifer | Thank you. |
| 01:45:24.22 | Jeff Bradley | we heard from the community. |
| 01:45:25.96 | Linda Pfeifer | Thank you. |
| 01:45:26.10 | Jeff Bradley | you |
| 01:45:26.18 | Linda Pfeifer | Thank you. So just to summarize what I heard. |
| 01:45:28.16 | Herb Weiner | I heard Linda we're not summarizing right now |
| 01:45:30.48 | Linda Pfeifer | No, I'm asking him to confirm my understanding |
| 01:45:32.14 | Herb Weiner | Okay. |
| 01:45:35.40 | Linda Pfeifer | of the summary, so it is a question. |
| 01:45:36.80 | Unknown | the |
| 01:45:36.81 | Herb Weiner | summary. |
| 01:45:37.93 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:45:38.90 | Linda Pfeifer | So to summarize, what I did not hear being ruled out was the opportunity to go back to HCD. with negotiations and discussions around an amendment in which we would remove the HMU. And I haven't gotten to the VMU, which I think is horrible too. because I want to see that removed. But with the HMU, definitely to discuss, you know, removing that and looking at the recent multifamily ordinance that was passed and looking at you know, prior housing that's been built and with respect to the duplexes, fourplexes, and triplexes, et cetera. Thank you. |
| 01:46:22.85 | Unknown | Okay. Thank you. |
| 01:46:24.20 | Herb Weiner | Where was the question? |
| 01:46:26.27 | Linda Pfeifer | He nodded his head, yes. I under... he understood me. |
| 01:46:27.27 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:46:27.29 | Herb Weiner | Yes. |
| 01:46:27.94 | Unknown | I understand. |
| 01:46:28.72 | Jeff Bradley | He understood me. I was correct. We can always go back to HCD and we have a very open communication with them. |
| 01:46:29.99 | Linda Pfeifer | You can always go next. I was correct. |
| 01:46:31.54 | Herb Weiner | You can always wear that cake. |
| 01:46:35.25 | Jonathan Goldman | I'm not sure. So earlier, you're confirming that you could always go back to HCD and reopen the whole thing. Right. That's always a possibility. Yes. That's what you're confirming. My concern is that you're confirming. |
| 01:46:43.45 | Jeff Bradley | Right. Yes. My concern would be being able to do it before the existing housing element cycle actually expires and becomes a moot point. |
| 01:46:54.74 | Jonathan Goldman | Because you're already negotiating with HCD over the current – what we have to submit by the end of this year and this – For the new cycle. Right. So you might as well negotiate through that process at the same time and get it all taken care of and not have to negotiate twice. |
| 01:46:55.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:47:01.48 | Jeff Bradley | This is... |
| 01:47:01.96 | Bob (Sea Trek owner) | for the new cycle. |
| 01:47:09.78 | Jonathan Goldman | Exactly. |
| 01:47:11.52 | Jeff Bradley | But it's not that we don't want to negotiate twice. I mean, that's fine. The issue really is, If the council, for whatever reason, declines to adopt these ordinances in some fashion, and we go into negotiations with HCV with the idea we're going to convince them that we've made good faith efforts and they're going to accept that, we get to the end of the year, they're basically going to decertify our housing element because we didn't implement what we said we were going to implement. So then we roll into the new cycle with an uncertified housing element, and then we're back to where we were when we first started having to deal having to deal with the arena, because then they're gonna carry forward arena into the new cycle, and we're gonna have a double whammy with that, to use a technical term. |
| 01:48:00.18 | Herb Weiner | So |
| 01:48:00.20 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 01:48:03.44 | Herb Weiner | I would like to open this for public comment, but I think there needs to be some clarification of what you've just said. Thank you. Are you saying that if we don't adopt the ordinances that are before us, that are an implementation of the housing element that the City Council of 2012 adopted, so if we don't do that, there's a danger that 165 units could roll over? |
| 01:48:35.13 | Jeff Bradley | if we're not successful in Councilmember Pfeiffer's concept of a negotiation where they accept some other things in lieu of the things that we had in the package. |
| 01:48:48.02 | Herb Weiner | Okay, let's... |
| 01:48:49.19 | Linda Pfeifer | And I just want to clarify something as well. |
| 01:48:50.60 | Herb Weiner | Yeah. |
| 01:48:54.06 | Linda Pfeifer | It's a fair assumption, however, that if the worst case scenario happened, and I know of other cities throughout Marin who have not yet certified and outside Marin who have not yet certified their housing elements, by the way, and are far behind as well. Um, But that... We know that they have approved our ADUs, they have approved the programs that we've already in good faith move forward on, they certainly are going to take that, and we already know we're way over buffer anyway. So I don't see the risk in that. even if it happened, even if the worst case scenario happened. What do we win? We win our small-scale, small-town charm. |
| 01:49:35.34 | Herb Weiner | And the question, Linda. |
| 01:49:35.90 | Linda Pfeifer | We saved that. Oh, just confirming. |
| 01:49:40.42 | Herb Weiner | Okay. At this point, I am going to open it up for public comment. And So could we have a show of hands as to how many people want to talk tonight? |
| 01:49:49.62 | Linda Pfeifer | I have to run. I have to bio break. to be able. |
| 01:49:53.36 | Herb Weiner | Yeah. I actually think that we're going to need to take a five-minute break. And then they can come up with you. And if we could fill in speaker cards, et cetera, et cetera, that would be really good. Thank you. |
| 01:49:58.70 | Ray Withy | and they can't. |
| 01:50:07.35 | Herb Weiner | Five-minute break. |
| 01:50:21.81 | Rob Butchell | Thank you. |
| 01:50:21.85 | Unknown | assignments. |
| 01:50:39.67 | Unknown | If we could... If we could all cycle down please. |
| 01:50:52.17 | Herb Weiner | Okay. |
| 01:51:01.76 | Herb Weiner | For those of you who want to stay, if you'd kindly stop talking. And for those of you who want to kindly keep talking, please leave. |
| 01:51:17.18 | Herb Weiner | Okay. Thank you. you Now, We're going to now resume this topic. And if we could shut the doors, that would be great. Thank you. And we're going to open this up for public comment. |
| 01:51:37.67 | Ray Withy | Comment on the change in the kitchen. |
| 01:51:40.15 | Herb Weiner | Yeah. |
| 01:51:40.89 | Ray Withy | No, they do. |
| 01:51:41.70 | Herb Weiner | you |
| 01:51:41.77 | Ray Withy | you |
| 01:51:41.84 | Herb Weiner | Thanks, Tom. Before we do that, I want for any of you who are here to want to talk and listen to the priority calendar item, we've decided to move that to the May 6 meeting. And if any of you are here to... Listen about the fishing pier. We're also moving that to the May 6 meeting. So we are going to continue with this housing element item and then the other business item will be discussion of C-Track. Okay? Now, for all of you who wish to talk on the housing element, I'd like to remind you that we've got three minutes. I'm going to be really strict on timing, because there's a lot. Thank you. I'd really like you to sort of line up and Let's try and move things along. I, like you to, if you have this burning desire to applause, then why don't we do that at the end so that we can just move things along. So, I don't need to ask if there's anybody. I know there are numerous people, so. Sonia and I know who that is. Uh-huh. Wouldn't be Shea, would it? |
| 01:53:02.97 | Unknown | I know who that is. |
| 01:53:10.01 | Herb Weiner | So, okay, so please go ahead. |
| 01:53:10.06 | Unknown | So, |
| 01:53:14.75 | Sonya Hanson | I'M SPEAKING FOR THE CANARY. CHIRP CHIRP, COUNCIL MEMBERS AND MAYOR WITHY, MY NAME IS SUSAN SHEA AND I LIVE ON SPRING I am a canary in the housing element land, mine, rather the housing element coal mine. Not a NIMBY have some have accused. The difference is that a NIMBY is only concerned about their own backyard, while a canary is worried about the whole coal mine. In this case, I'm worried about the coal mine of the housing element. I flew in. AS SOON AS I HEARD that there is a proposal for HMU housing which could also include a high density bonus. This causes me grave concern. And now I have even graver concern because I've heard Someone suggested it could go all over town. Frankly, I think it needs to be a limited eliminated completely. We hope you'll heed our warning that the coal mine is losing oxygen and you need to get some fresh air in this housing element pretty quickly. or we will look like Corte Madera in miniature. Thank you for your time. |
| 01:54:31.68 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 01:54:33.93 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. I'm angry. Thank you. |
| 01:54:37.15 | Steve Hoffman | Good evening, Mr. Mayor. My name is Steve Hoffman. I live at 518 Easterby Street. I'm here to speak out tonight against my vehement opposition to the proposed zoning amendment that impacts two designated HMU properties. That's 1901 and 2015 Bridgeway and VMU properties throughout Sausalito. The zoning amendment proposed by the city is completely unwarranted. It is not necessary to be in compliance with state law. It will cause irreparable harm to our town's character by facilitating high-density housing, destroy water views, |
| 01:54:37.17 | Unknown | Thank you. you |
| 01:54:38.21 | Herb Weiner | Mr. Paul. |
| 01:54:38.72 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:54:38.84 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 01:55:11.91 | Steve Hoffman | and property values and will incur a significant burden on the surrounding neighborhoods in terms of congestion and parking. My opposition to the zoning amendment focused on the following. Per the state's own documentation, Sausalito has actually met and exceeded the housing element quotas, and we do not need to rezone properties to be in compliance with the state laws. This afternoon I had an extensive dialogue with the city staff. There was some debate about whether having HMU and VMU was required for the city to meet the state certifications. The state sent a letter on November 7, 2012, and in there it's certifying, it's saying we're in full compliance with the state housing element law. In no way. Does it say anything about the HMU and VMU that must be, um, Implemented and fulfilled. It does specifically talk about the ADUs and it talks about the liveaboards. They got, the city got an attaboy They like the fact that we put together an HMU and a VMU, but it is not a state requirement. Okay? That is from the state. Furthermore, by designating these two properties that will support high density housing in a very confined area of town along the proposed development, There's going to be a 16-unit housing proposed on 1757 Bridgeway. I think most of you in the neighborhood area know about those three abandoned houses. Everyone would love to see those things go away. 16 units, and that's extremely high density. And you combine that with the properties on 1901 and 2015 Bridgeway. It's a recipe for disaster. We also have the housing element plan. Excuse me. They're looking at the marinship and doing development down there. All that congestion in that very tight area is going to be insane. |
| 01:57:13.18 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:57:13.72 | Steve Hoffman | The concessions that high-density housing units receive will enable more units to be built without sufficient parking to accommodate the residents. The 7-Eleven is the only store open on a 7 by 24 basis. It's not just a place for our police officers to go to on a daily basis. It's for our residents. And by removing that and by designating this as an HMU, that is a vital city function. a laundromat there that we need. |
| 01:57:42.27 | Unknown | Thank you, Stephen. |
| 01:57:47.03 | Jill Hoffman | Good evening, my name's Jill Hoffman. I live at 518 H. Ruby Street with someone else who might have just spoken. |
| 01:57:52.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:57:53.83 | Jill Hoffman | And, uh... Let me just start off by saying I'm a citizen of Sausalito. I'm a voter in Sausalito. And I'd like to welcome all of my neighbors here tonight. And thank you for showing up for this important issue. We, uh, |
| 01:58:04.86 | Unknown | Uh, |
| 01:58:06.15 | Jill Hoffman | I think I can just boil it down. I have a whole bunch of notes, but listening to the conversation between the city council members and Jeff, I think the way ahead is clear. And I'm kind of a bottom line sort of person, so it seems to me that What we need to do is revisit the housing element that we're looking at right now, the Track 1, It seems to me that we all agree we meet the requirements. We had the HMU in there to sort of accommodate what was true five or six years ago. It's not true anymore. We just had an ordinance, a multifamily ordinance that was passed. We've just built some new multifamily housing in town. These are new things that weren't in existence when we submitted the plan. I don't know why you would submit an outdated plan with the thought that maybe we're going to change it on the next cycle. That seems ridiculous and creates work. So I think right now we have the contacts in the state. I think Jeff and I think Linda certainly have the contacts in the state. The way forward to me looks like and what I would urge the council to do, is to work with the state and bring these things to light and make those small revisions into the plan, which seems to me it would be, I've looked at the plan, We're going to delete a couple paragraphs and insert a couple other paragraphs, and we're going to run it by the state first, and then we're going to submit our plan. It seems pretty simple. And that's what I would suggest that we do going forward. The city looked at the other sites on the south side of town that were also looked at for this sort of high-density housing. Those were taken off, mainly exactly the same concerns that are brought up here tonight. I know that then Councilwoman Carolyn Ford put forth a motion at a meeting. It was seconded by Councilmember Leon and... MS. PIEFER, AND I WOULD EXPECT THAT SAME SORT OF SUPPORT FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, AND ALSO FROM MAYOR WITHY, I WOULD EXPECT YOU TO MAINTAIN that you made during your campaign. So thank you for your support, and I expect this to be resolved easily and quickly and efficiently. Thank you. |
| 01:59:55.11 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:00:01.71 | Vince Majora | I'm Vince Majora. I've been a resident of Sausalito all my life. My father grew up here and lived here for 90 years. Being very busy, I did not pay any attention to what was going on until now. I was recently told about two sites for HUM incentives, 1901 and 2015 Bridgeway. The city would weigh permitting fees, reduce parking requirements, allow zero setbacks, and the height could be as much as 50 feet. There are only a few parking spaces on Olive Street. Where are the people going to party? We own 17 properties and we provide affordable housing over 60 years. in the area of spring, olive, and Easter bee. This is above 1901 and 2015 Bridgeway. Because of the height and density of the two sites within the two blocks of these buildings, our views will block our views and lower our property values. We already have high density in our neighborhood. It's called the Sausalito Towers. |
| 02:01:10.68 | Vince Majora | Not knowing what an HMU and housing element was, I met with Herb, and he told me there was nothing to worry about. We have the numbers for the California state requirements. Then I met with Jeremy, Lily, and Mary. I asked them what the numbers were and what the city needed to fulfill the state requirements. It was complicated and I did not get an answer. From the City of Sausalito Housing Element Report 2009-2014, you state that the housing element seeks to protect, enhance the best aspects of the community and ensure the new residential development is incompliable with Sausalito's small-town character. With the HMU and state density bonus, our neighborhood and the rest of South City will not be protected by the housing element and building codes. |
| 02:01:57.54 | Unknown | THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE |
| 02:01:57.91 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:01:57.98 | Unknown | AND THEN, THE FEDERAL |
| 02:02:02.65 | Vince Majora | We do not need the HMU or the VHPMU period. I am, along with many friends, it's also to want the HMU and the VMU removed from the housing element. If that doesn't happen, we will take the streets, walk the streets, gather signatures for a referendum against the housing element. Thank you. |
| 02:02:28.42 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:02:29.28 | Herb Weiner | Bye. |
| 02:02:35.27 | Bill Meehan | Good evening. My name is Bill Meehan. I live at 2107 Bridgeway. First I want to say that I very much appreciate how much more informative this meeting has been than the one I attended in March. I'm very pleased with that. Um... I have only got a couple of points I want to make. One is, The comment that Jeff made about the interest being mostly about the 19... I don't remember, 1901 Bridgeway. I used that 7-11, but I never did think about what the number was. Um, |
| 02:03:26.25 | Bill Meehan | We're very concerned. about the 2015 Bridgeway. as well. I would reinforce this last gentleman's point that there is very little parking already on Olive Street. uh, I didn't know about the, I was concerned about density um, and traffic and parking before I came here and I'm even more concerned now because I didn't know about MarinShip or the other buildings down the way. Finally, I want to say that like many people, I didn't know anything about this until March. And it seems to me that rushing this HMU and VMU through between March and whenever and the end of this year is really undemocratic. way to proceed. Thank you very much. |
| 02:04:43.03 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. Damn it. |
| 02:04:48.41 | Emmett Yeazell | Mr. Mayor, Councilmembers, Thank you. My name is Emmett Yeazell, and I live at 21 Miller Avenue. Oh. Please do not exempt any building permits from the workmanlike process of the planning commission. Please. It's already in place. There is no urgency when it comes to existing property owners' rights. let us get this right. I find it unusual that I would be held to a higher standard than the proposed permitting process for this current development under discussion. |
| 02:05:35.92 | Emmett Yeazell | please remove the, and I think I have it right, everybody else knows except me, the HMV and the, HMU and the HMV. applied to this project, and I'm not buying an ATV. |
| 02:05:52.03 | Unknown | I don't know. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:05:55.36 | Emmett Yeazell | HMU and HMV are not necessary. Again, I implore you. Take the time. Get it right. Thank you very much. |
| 02:06:14.22 | Mike Hood | Mayor, Councilman, my name is Mike Hood. I live over on 518 Spring Street, so my family is greatly affected by this. I have two little kids, both under the age of two, and there's already a bunch of congestion, as other people discussed tonight. You know, it's very tough to park, and oftentimes, you know, it's tough to even find a spot in front of our house now. So, you know, if you add this, you know you're just going to add more people that are going to be looking for parking. There's already a lot of people speeding down Spring Street coming from Rodeo. So that's a big problem, I think, for all the families. And there's a lot of historic homes that don't have parking, and it's already tough enough. I also think it's important to respect a lot of the neighbors' views. I just think it'd completely unfair if you, you know, this would set a terrible precedent for Sausalito if you start changing the zoning requirements. And lastly, you know, our family uses the 7-Eleven and the laundromat, and these are, you know, these are conveniences for us, and I don't think that it's fair for them to disappear. So, you know, this is a pretty tight-knit community, and I think the community's needs need to come first before somebody in Sacramento pushing a separate agenda. You know, you guys are here to work for us, and this is our community. Thank you. |
| 02:07:37.94 | Dawn | Hi, my name is Dawn and I live on Spring Street. And I've got a little bit different view. I grew up in a small town, very similar to Sausalito. And it was a very wonderful youth. We came to Sausalito often visited because of the color and fresh perspective that it gave to us. And it was a fun place for me to come see as a child |
| 02:07:56.65 | Unknown | is |
| 02:08:00.10 | Dawn | My hometown's no longer that town of my youth. At one time, you could view the coast for miles as you drove down Highway 1 because there was a building moratorium along the coast, and the view was for everyone, not just the residents. The beaches were clean, the tide pools were magical, and the visitors were few. And it was a place for children to be children. But development chipped away at the edicts of our community and more and more people began to arrive. The beaches are no longer the shell-strewn stretches of sand. I remember the tide pools are dead. The coastline has been horrifically punctuated with ugly housing and hotel development. The traffic is horrendous, and now my hometown is no longer a destination I wish to go to. I feel like crying when I go there. Please don't let this happen to Sausalito. This is the place I now call home. And instead of going with the flow, the state of the county, why are we not maintaining our uniqueness in this world? It's so simple. It's about sustainability and what we will be handing to the generations after us. California is facing a drought, and the solution is easy. Quit building and bringing larger populations into spaces that can't sustain the need. By building Sausalito up, we will be taking the uniqueness away from residents and visitors alike. By adding to our already built-up town, we are putting more pressure on our sewers, our public services, and our community, and who's going to pay for that. Not the developers once their project is finished. It's going to be subsidized by the residents who will have to pay higher taxes. I've been trying to understand the consequences of not going with the flow. Are the developers going to help subsidize our sewers? Is this one of the reasons for pushing high density into Sausalito? Are we going to lose money from the state if we don't do what everyone else in this county is doing? And what does it really mean if we tell the state we don't want to go with their program? You mentioned at our last meeting that it will set us back about eight years. What does that mean? I want to understand this because in my ignorance, I don't know why that would be such a bad thing. I'm against high density building anywhere in this town. We can't sustain more growth, and we shouldn't have to. We already have enough traffic and enough housing. We need to figure out ways to sustain and maintain what we already have, keeping Sausalito, the very unique and wonderful town it is. And I am here with all these people to say, we'll do whatever we can to work with you, because we know you've worked hard, and you've done a great job. and we want to make it stay a good town. Thank you. |
| 02:10:28.28 | Unknown | Hi, I'm John Majora. My brothers talk for the family. But I thought I'd bring up a story that goes back into the 70s. I owe a vacant lot across from the 7-Eleven. It was two big lots back then. We went through the city and made them three. They all have the requirements of over being 5,000 square feet, which allows two units. But the city then thought, no. Higher density. The congestions. My lot is a single unit lot. Go figure. Thank you. |
| 02:11:03.60 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:11:08.54 | Jenny Reinders | It's a hard act to follow. Good evening. Hi. |
| 02:11:10.30 | Unknown | Hi. Thank you. |
| 02:11:11.76 | Jenny Reinders | I'm Jenny Reinders. I own 511 Olive Street, which is directly next door to 2015. I would invite you all to come and walk through my house and stand in my backyard 2015 is already a very, very big building. It epitomizes why we need city government, because it's out of scale completely. If you Google Earth, you'll see how huge it is. Um... Thank you. I hope I'm not misquoting this gentleman whose name I've forgotten. Jeff, pardon? You mentioned, I believe, that the possibility of that building becoming high density was about possibly 1%. Am I right? |
| 02:11:54.61 | Jeff Bradley | No, I was referring to the mayor. I was referring to the density bonus ordinance. The possibility someone would use a density bonus application. Okay. |
| 02:12:02.56 | Jenny Reinders | the possibility of that building being used for high density was low. But my point is, so I was being struck by lightning, but if it happens to you, it's 100%. And... |
| 02:12:12.11 | Unknown | And... |
| 02:12:15.99 | Jenny Reinders | So I would also like to point out that other people have mentioned, we have very little parking on Olive Street. Olive Street is a dead end, which means that people who inadvertently cruise up the street do have to use the properties at the top of the street to turn around. And I really, I know you've all worked so hard on this, and I would appreciate if you would just think about how we are impacted as a neighborhood. Density won't help anyone in the long run, as everyone so pointed out better than me. Thank you very much. |
| 02:12:57.57 | Sonya Hanson | Hi. My name is Sonya Hanson, and I'm a resident of Spring Street, Sausalito. |
| 02:13:03.36 | Unknown | Who sent you, a little birdie? |
| 02:13:05.06 | Sonya Hanson | You betcha. There's a lot of little birdies in the room. First, I would like to thank Linda. She has gone way beyond helping us understand what this means, how we got here, Yeah, you've been a tremendous help. So thank you very much. I think the mantra that Jeff said is low impact strategy. the HMU is not a low impact strategy. It puts a bull's eye on two specific spots in this town. I don't think it should be on any spot in this town. I'm not saying move it somewhere else. I'm saying let's get rid of it. And I have a real problem with thinking that we would just wait and go forward to the next housing element before we remove it. Once it's in place, it's in place. And anybody who thinks that with this HMU those two spots are not going to be developed and they're gonna be developed to every inch they can be developed and this town, you're going to have no control. It is a state State is in control here. I just think it's insane. It's insane for us certainly, and we feel persecuted by it, but it is insane for the town. I mean, once these things get built, They're not coming down. the change has happened. So please. I know a lot of work's happened. I, And I am saying right now in front of everybody, I will go to work on the next housing subcommittee. A lot of people must be very burned out. I will step up. But we need to get it right. So thank you very much for all your efforts, and I hope we get it right. |
| 02:14:50.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:14:55.78 | Mike Rogers | Excuse me, good evening. I'm Mike Rogers. I own 107 Pearl Street, and I have a prepared letter that I like to read because it's pretty concise. But I'd also like to push you guys in the direction to maintain local control of our ordinances and the building heists and so forth. All of us, the property owners who own property behind these two identified lots, built all of our places under the local ordinances, height ordinances. We cooperated with neighbors as to placement of buildings and sites so that everyone could enjoy their bay views. We don't want to see anyone losing their bay views over a couple of high-density housing units that really don't have any place in this area of Sausalito. And, of course, the HMUs and VMUs we need to totally get rid of also. I'm going to go ahead and read this. It's very short. I'm writing to you today, and my cousins Vince and John have already spoken to you also. Oh, and also, this is, I've been in Saucetville for a couple years. This is my kindergarten room that we're in right now that I had with Mrs. Schiller. |
| 02:16:00.38 | Unknown | That, |
| 02:16:00.60 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:16:00.61 | Unknown | Edward. |
| 02:16:02.16 | Mike Rogers | And probably no one else has done this. I used to work at 7-Eleven when I was in high school for about three years. So I've quite a perspective on the town. |
| 02:16:12.58 | Jonathan Goldman | Did they have the rolling hot dogs then too? |
| 02:16:15.26 | Unknown | Thank you. Yeah. |
| 02:16:15.48 | Mike Rogers | you And burrito. |
| 02:16:16.42 | Jonathan Goldman | And burritos too. |
| 02:16:17.03 | Unknown | I was too. Same hot dogs. Probably are. |
| 02:16:18.06 | Mike Rogers | Bye. . Oh, my God. Bye. Bye. LAUGHTER So, |
| 02:16:26.21 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:16:26.97 | Mike Rogers | And this letter is in your package. I'm writing to you today in strong opposition to the housing element edition of 1901 Bridgeway and 2015 Bridgeway for development and adding the HMU regulation to the properties. Please remove them immediately and find more appropriate sites in Sausalito or drop them entirely. My family, the Majors and the Rogers, have lived in Sausalito since the 1920s. My grandfather and his brother, Vincent Louie, had a team of, I'm going to mention this to the Housing Element Committee, they had a team of mules that they kept in Old Town along with a wagon. They were contractors, and that's how long we've been in Sausalito. They also worked on the Golden Gate Bridge. I have my grandfather's helmet that has still the orange paint on it and they worked in the marine ship area. I have his badge from his security badge. We've been around a couple of years. My family, the Majora's and the Rogers, have lived in Sosso since the 1920s. As a family, we own 25 houses and three empty lots within Easterby, Spring, Pearl, and Olive Streets. As a family, we are the largest single family property owners and thus taxpayers in the Spring Valley. I'm a third generation, my children are the fourth and now we have the fifth generation born. Many of our properties overlook the tops of both of these two sites, the 1901 and 2015 Bridgeway structures. If structures were built If structures were to be built taller, we would lose many of our bay views, thus the beauty of enjoyment of the beauty of our bay views that we currently have. As a result, our house values would assuredly decrease. We have already experienced loss of bay views from two of our houses at 509 Spring and 519 Spring. This loss of bay views occurred when the properties just to the north of 7-Eleven Thank you. the 1913 Bridgeway. |
| 02:18:18.68 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:18:18.72 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. I love them. I don't think you can. I can. Can I say it? Yeah. Yeah. For, I hope you and your family, wherever they are. |
| 02:18:22.08 | Mike Rogers | I can't. . Very sweet. |
| 02:18:26.16 | Jonathan Goldman | for I hope you feel too yummy. Whatever's going on here, maybe you should pass it over. |
| 02:18:32.17 | Unknown | Oh, my God. |
| 02:18:32.52 | Mike Rogers | you |
| 02:18:32.56 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:18:32.57 | Mike Rogers | I'll talk to you later. At the time, we were told that they were just adding decks and that the new construction would not impact us. But it was a lie. And now the third stories block our views. We will not let this happen again. |
| 02:18:48.30 | Herb Weiner | Mike, I think this letter is in the packet, right? It is. Yeah, yeah. |
| 02:18:53.63 | Unknown | Sure. Hi, I'm Lorette Rogers. I go with him. 107 Pearl Street. And part of the Rogers-Majora family. And just to finish this up, Just to remind you that 1901 and 2015 Bridgeway are at the bottom of the hill. All of our houses were built in compliance and built to look over those buildings. If, you know, I like the way Councilman Leon is thinking, If if these are designated, if you change the zoning ordinances tonight, and give it the green light for this. I mean, granted, you're talking about maybe looking into some other things. I'm really not gonna be sleeping. If there's a 1% chance that they're gonna build high density And as you found out, they can go over 32 feet. No problem with this density bonus. We're not going to be sleeping. If these ordinances pass tonight, we are not going to be sleeping. But yeah, we'll be awake and be planning what to do. But anyway, back to my husband's letter, I'm gonna get in trouble here. You know, so if the zoning's changed and the HMU is adopted, a developer will come in and buy these buildings and ask for the density bonus, which will give them carte blanche concessions that you're already thinking about. Building higher than 32 feet, they can have fewer parking spaces and allow for deeper setbacks. You know, if you refer to item 14 on the city's Q&A sheet from April 2014, You know, it's pretty assured. You can see it there in print. You guys know. Our views are not going to be protected. It's part of the deal. In summary, the development would not only ruin our legacy properties, that we've held for generations. but it would impact all our neighbors. I don't know anybody in the neighborhood that supports this change. It really adds to the parking nightmare. We already have a sailors and friends, and our community would be blighted with more traffic noise and, again, the loss of property value due to Bayview loss. So we want you to remove these properties from the HMU. Remove the VMU. And Please don't pass these ordinances tonight. Let's work this out together, okay? Thank you. |
| 02:21:13.63 | Jane Dirks | Following the majoras is a tough act. Goodness. This will feel very restrained. My name is Jane Dirks. I know for some of you this is the third time I've been in front of you in the past month, but here I am representing Olive Street. |
| 02:21:13.96 | Unknown | the minute. |
| 02:21:14.23 | Carrie Waters | Thank you. |
| 02:21:14.33 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:21:15.35 | Carrie Waters | Thank you. |
| 02:21:15.36 | Unknown | . |
| 02:21:15.42 | Carrie Waters | Thank you. |
| 02:21:15.60 | Unknown | Oh. |
| 02:21:29.69 | Jane Dirks | where I have lived and owned my own home for the last almost 20 years now. But first off, Linda, I want to thank you for doing your homework and for your insightful comments. listening the way you have. Thank you. So if these properties are allowed development, there will for sure be a dramatic change in the field. of this neighborhood. 1901 Bridgeway provides such important services to those residents who don't drive in particular whether it's to... to use the convenience store, as you've heard, or the laundromat. The intrusion of a 32-foot tall building will have a profound and lasting effect on all the homes behind it. Increased parking. the traffic is already increased significantly over the past few years along Bridgeway. And it just gives one pause to wonder how these considerations were so overlooked in 2012 when this was considered. 2015 Bridgeway is at the corner of Olive Street where I live, so that's where I have most experience. And as you've heard throughout the evening, the parking and the traffic are significant. There is no parking on Olive Street during the week. the people from the office buildings park on the street rather than in their parking lot. You've read the letters from the residents. It continues to be an issue. I can only imagine. what would happen, um, if that building changed. traffic on Bridgeway as well, increase in the bicycle traffic as well as the vehicular traffic. And now I think these buses are also coming along Bridgeway in that direction. I can hear them, and they're very... Um, very sparsely um, maybe three or four or five people on on the buses, and yet there seem to be more and more heading in that direction. I don't know whether they're going to Tiburon. But it's another consideration as far as dense traffic. I know for certain that Olive Street cannot sustain more parking, and I trust that you've all visited the street, that you're aware of how little parking there is, and especially as I'm sure you've visited Spring and Easterby streets as well. you got a very clear picture of the small town neighborhood that we all live in and love. I urge you all then to vote on behalf of this Sausalito neighborhood and all of its residents. |
| 02:24:24.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:24:29.43 | Rob Butchell | The clock started. Rob Butchell, 501 Easterby. You've heard a lot of very detailed comments or a lot of problems people have identified. I'd like to just express some more high level issues that I think that need to be addressed. High density residential, Development in Sausalito is just incompatible with our small town. especially along Bridgeway, which is the face of our city. And once the door is open, once the HMU and the VMU ordinances are passed and embedded in the housing element, the door is open and the change could be permanent, it will be permanent. Now, Sausalito has a proud tradition, I think, of fighting inappropriate development. If you go back to the 60s, Marinchello, the city of Sausalito actually sued and kept out 30,000 housing units up there that would have destroyed what's now part of the GGNRA. And that was Sausalito. And we should not be bullied by the state. The... The state may be telling you, HCD may be telling you they would like something. Do they really have the power? It's rather interesting if you actually read the government code. In my spare time, I do that a lot. 65-585, section A. The HCD's guidelines shall be advisory. doesn't sound very mandatory to me, and even more interesting, 65, 585. F. to. if the city decides not to adopt an element, a housing element, that the HCD says that they think they should do, you can adopt one that you think substantially complies and you just have to put your findings in the record. And that's reviewed under a very supportive standard under 1085 of the Civil Code. which is traditional mandamus, which supports legislative bodies' decisions like your own. And so nobody wants a lawsuit, but we should not be cowed by it when a permanent change to the character of our cities at stake. It affects all of us. So you can be heroes, and you can strike those provisions tonight, as soon as you can. or you can have a legacy of being the city council that let high-density residential development flooded at Bridgeway. Thank you. |
| 02:27:12.20 | Michael Racks | I am Michael Racks, local architect, and I'm a strong advocate of affordable housing because I don't just love Sausalito for its views. I particularly love it for its broad mix of people, and I firmly believe that with a mix of housing values, you preserve a mix of people and a mix of ideas. I don't particularly – I don't think we should and I don't think we have to create large apartment blocks to create affordable housing. I don't think we want to urbanize Sausalito. I don't think we should segregate a certain group of income earners altogether. I don't think that's socially right. we need to get more creative, and we will. What I want to talk about is the vertical and the horizontal in terms of land use. I think it's a fundamental mistake to restrict offices on upper floors. Um, So... Caledonia already prohibits office use on the ground floor. Now we're talking about prohibiting office use on the second floor. You know, that's not the fabric of our community. Where do our accountants, our therapists, our attorneys, small business people, going to have an office space? What, we're going to build office blocks to house them? No. We need these small offices and we're prohibiting them where they historically have been, and I think it's a mistake, and I'd like you to change that. Okay? I'm also concerned about not having retail services on the ground floor in our community commercial neighborhoods. I think we can have residential use on the ground floor on really deep lots, but the frontage in those community service districts should be for commercial. So we can walk to laundries, we can walk to small banks, small cafes, If we don't, If we can't have them within walking distance, now we gotta get in our car and drive, and now we have traffic and we lose touch with our community. Our zoning is working. So let's not screw it up. I ask that you keep commercial on the ground floor along the street. If it's a deep lot, you can put residential in the back where commercial actually doesn't work. Don't prohibit offices on the second floor in our commercial districts. The last thing I want to mention is density bonuses. As an architect, I can tell you right now, Yes, it's mandated by the state. It rarely, and Jeff mentioned it, is rarely utilized. Why? because you can't create that kind of density most of the time. You can't get enough parking for it. The other thing is – and I'll – last sentence – the affordability is such that it isn't economically sound. So it's a little scary, but it's not very real. Thank you. |
| 02:30:30.06 | Ren | I have to follow an expert. My name is Ren and I live on CASNOW over there 15 years. And I hate speaking in public. And I'm late to this party. I came for friends to hear what was going on. But I'm just very concerned about the waivers and allowing building heights that will block views and that are – and also allowing larger units and the infill. And the thing that I thought of when I was first hearing about this is I used to live in Mill Valley, which is another charming town. And if you've seen with all the condos that have gone in there and the new developments and the multiple houses and where they used to have two houses to a lot, It's just, I don't know if you've tried to go downtown there at any time of the day, but it's very sad what's happened there. And you let one foot in the door, you let one height waver, and then it'll just get away from you entirely. So I would encourage you to really reconsider that. |
| 02:31:35.77 | Rick Johnson | Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Council. My name is Rick Johnson. I live on 109 Pearl Street. YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN HERE FOR 10 YEARS, AND, JONATHAN, I REMEMBER WHEN YOU CAME UP AND I WAS WORKING ON BRICK And you said, you know, I'm running for city council. And I said, well, I'm concerned about Schoonermacher Point. Thank you. And you said, don't worry, we're going to take care of the community. And ever since then, I've had this sense that the city council is certainly working for the community. So... with that Our house is about 100 yards from both of these properties. It just kind of intersects in both, and it's a concern. Pretty much everything that I'm going to say. I mean there's a lot that's been covered, but at the same time it's very, very important that you do know It's a cohesive community. It's a tight-knit community. We have block parties. We talk to each other. We know what's going on. We... We want to be a part of the bigger Sausalito, And I think that this is probably one of the greatest DEMOCRATIC EVENTS FOR US ALL TO BE HERE and experience what you guys do on a regular basis because none of it's easy. You know, it's difficult. So with that being said, Um, What my basic requests of this council and of our city mayor THAT ALL ELECTED AND APPOINTED MEMBERS OF THIS COUNCIL BE COMMUNITY LEADERS AND FIND WAYS TO SATISFY THE STATE REQUIREMENTS without the proposed HMU changes to the existing properties in the Spring Valley Township area. Let the efforts of this council be focused on low density, as opposed to high density. that the HMU and the VMU elements be removed from the Sausalito housing element planning. And if you can vote on that tonight, THAT WOULD BE ideal. that a revised housing element be drafted And Jeff, I know you've done a lot of work on this. but it probably would be just a little bit more. |
| 02:34:05.66 | Rick Johnson | that a revised housing element be drafted WITHOUT THESE TWO HMU AND VMU ELEMENTS AND THEN BE CARRIED TO SACRAMENTO, not mailed. by members of this council that can negotiate for our city. because I really do believe As was stated before, the housing development is not necessarily dictating mandates. They're suggesting. And in some of these letters, and I have them here, The verbiage they use is should, could, not you have to. So that is the gist of pretty much what I had to say. And thank you very much for all of your time. |
| 02:34:48.82 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 02:34:49.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:49.30 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 02:34:55.73 | Diane Johnson | Hi, my name is Diane Johnson, and I live at 161 Filbert, which is Filbert, that end, is right across from the parking lot at 7-Eleven. And there is quite a dangerous little intersection there because you need to make a right turn and an immediate left turn and then go up the hill. and there's no double line there. So it's already kind of a, we all kind of respect each other, but it's already kind of a, we all kind of respect each other but it's a dangerous intersection and would be made more so if that was developed into a big project. And my house is directly across from the three abandoned houses at 1757, different addresses on Bridgeway and 160 Filbert. And my home has been in my family for 25 years, but its history goes back to 1904, 110 years. and it's situated on a piece of land that goes from Marie Street down to Filbert and includes stone walls, gardens, mature trees. It's kind of like the quintessential Sausalito cottage with a beautiful bay view. And I'm concerned about these three developments, or the two developments that are being discussed, 1901 and 2015, and also the development that's proposed for the three abandoned houses of 16 units. So we're talking about a three block area in which there's three huge developments being proposed and that would just, totally irrevocably alter our whole neighborhood. I attended the community meeting at the Bay Model, and these ideas were brought up, but it was not even mentioned about the 16 units directly across from my house, and I was very alarmed about that, |
| 02:36:39.35 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:36:39.39 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:36:39.41 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:36:43.34 | Diane Johnson | and also the concern for bicyclists and the increased traffic that this would generate. So I think that that is another thing that has not really been brought up during this whole discussion of bridgeway development. This is all within three blocks. And then I, too, am concerned about this density bonus given to the developer to get around the height requirements and other environmental concerns. And if they provide affordable units, and affordable is by what definition? That has never been really made clear whether that's a dollar amount or just slightly below whatever they can get for the units. And other municipalities such as Fairfax have been fighting this push for rampant development. And this push will turn our beautiful towns into suburban sprawl like Southern California where I grew up. I grew up in Orange County in the 50s and the 60s. And I watched the strawberry fields that went to the ocean turn into shopping centers and gas stations at every single corner, and it's strip malls. And I don't want to see that happen here because that's what I love about Marin County, and I've been here for 40 years now, and I'm very happy to live here. I think that's it. I think I said it. Thank you. |
| 02:38:02.16 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:38:06.89 | Unknown | Hi there, I'm Joan Cox and I have been sitting on the Housing Element Committee for years it feels like. And I wanted to share... |
| 02:38:14.28 | Jonathan Goldman | It has been years. |
| 02:38:15.20 | Unknown | . I wanted to share my perspective on this. I really see our challenge as being not just the HMU but the density bonus. It's the density bonus law that. And whether or not you pass the HMU and the VMU ordinances, that law still applies in Sausalito. And so what we've done on the Housing Committee in an effort to ameliorate the adverse impacts of that law on the city is to is to draft a local ordinance that still comports with the state requirements, but that puts a hierarchy in the order in which the various concessions can be sought and puts the height at the very end of the hierarchy. And we impose greater requirements Thank you. for those seeking height concessions. They have to go through the city council, They have to demonstrate, you know, financial issues. So we've done the best that we can within the constraints of the state requirements to draft an ordinance that is less impactful to town. That's the density bonus. those two sites are already eligible for a density bonus. If we never pass HMU, a developer can come in and build eight sites on top of the commercial. They can put eight residential units on top of the commercial, then seek the density bonus concessions and go up to 11 units. and now we don't have the relief of being able to put those residential units on the ground floor. So our goal in adopting this HMU was to reduce the potential impact to the town by allowing some of those potential 11 sites, units, to be spread out onto the ground floor so that you have less of a likelihood of being able to demonstrate that you need to go up and seek that height concession. So that was the purpose in, you know, in adopting that ordinance in the first place. That and in responding to the letter from public advocates. The whole HMU and VMU, as I recall, came in response to one letter from one group after we had already Um, put together our housing element. And as Jeff said, they have very good lawyers, and I suppose there was a high degree of fear by the M group and by us that they could scuttle our whole process, and so therefore we came up with these strategies. What we didn't know at the time was that an HMU is much more attractive to a – that a developer is much more able to get financing for an HMU development than if they were to go to the bank today to seek to develop eight units on top of the 7-Eleven. And so I want to thank Linda for bringing that to our attention. But other than that, So that does seem as though it could make development more likely in sites with an HMU designation. But what I want to make clear is that right now a developer could come in develop, seek a density bonus, and we would still be deprived of local control. And so, you know, if we don't adopt an HMU, I'd like to have us for sites like that have some way that we can you know. put residential on the first floor, if we need to do that in order to avoid going up and blocking people's views. So I just wanted to provide a little bit of context Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:42:15.17 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. Thank you, Joan. |
| 02:42:20.05 | Herb Weiner | Is there anybody else who wants to comment before I close public comment? |
| 02:42:28.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:42:29.70 | Herb Weiner | Yeah, yeah. |
| 02:42:30.24 | Unknown | you |
| 02:42:33.27 | Amy Noveski | Hi, my name is Amy Noveski. I live at 534 Spring Street. Me and my family have lived on Spring Street for 12 years, and we're only here because of the generosity of our landlords. I'm a tenant of the Rogers, Flora and Ed Rogers, as well as previous to that, Sonia Hansen and Susan Shea. So we are currently in affordable housing on Spring Street. That's all we've known in Sausalito. We would, I think I've already said, but I'll say it again, we wouldn't be able to afford living here and send our child to school here in Sausalito if it weren't for the generosity of the Majora's, the Rogers, the Hanson Shays. And I just wanted to share that. Thank you. |
| 02:43:17.12 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 02:43:20.58 | Herb Weiner | Okay. So I'm going to close public comment now and bring it back here. I imagine that there may be some more questions of staff in particular and possibly of Jeff before we start our comments and discussions. |
| 02:43:42.73 | Herb Weiner | Did you? Yeah, I have a couple questions. |
| 02:43:43.44 | Jonathan Goldman | Yeah, I have a couple questions. |
| 02:43:44.71 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 02:43:44.84 | Jonathan Goldman | So I don't know, Lily or Jeff or whoever the right person to ask here is. So on this one, it is – I think people should understand what the definitions of what affordable and low and those income levels are in Marin County because it's all county relative. Um, And I don't know if you have those figures in front of you, but if somebody could look for those, and I'll ask the second question to Jeff or whoever. Oh, you got it. Okay, so just I think just for people to know, what is low income housing mean in Marin County in terms of rent? low income affordable housing in terms of rent per month. |
| 02:44:16.09 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 02:44:21.09 | Jeff Bradley | I have the income breakdowns. This is for a family of two. Extremely low income, family two, $27,150 is considered meeting the affordable income limit. Very low income is $45,250. Lower income is just over $72,000. Median income is just over $82,000. And moderate income is almost $99,000 per year in annual income. |
| 02:44:55.45 | Jonathan Goldman | Right. So how does that translate? I think they use a function of income to thrive from it. |
| 02:44:55.46 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. He was at the... No more than 35% of gross income going to rent or mortgage is considered affordable. |
| 02:45:06.40 | Jonathan Goldman | Right. So at the very bottom level there, just to put it in context, the 27th – I mean, I can't do this – Let's use the very low income. |
| 02:45:12.69 | Jeff Bradley | Let's use the very low income. Anymore. Let's use the 45,250. |
| 02:45:22.16 | Jonathan Goldman | even try to do this in my head. |
| 02:45:23.71 | Jeff Bradley | Bye. |
| 02:45:23.85 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:45:23.88 | Jeff Bradley | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:45:23.97 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:45:24.24 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 02:45:25.64 | Jonathan Goldman | So I used to be able to do that, but I can't see either now, so things change. |
| 02:45:26.50 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 02:45:33.36 | Herb Weiner | 15 to 16 |
| 02:45:36.50 | Jonathan Goldman | I have a question for you, Jeff. Lily, I know you have this stuff somewhere, so if you could access the rent levels, that would be great. So – but if – because I think it's important for people to know what it means in Marin County. |
| 02:45:45.18 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:45:47.98 | Jonathan Goldman | cheap, what is affordable rents. But my question for you, Jeff, is on the state requirements, and I forget the name of the gentleman who had the letter, and also what's been communicated to us before. So as far as my understanding from what's been communicated to us is that if you adopt a policy as an implementation for your state, you know, the state, you know, the state, your housing element, your required to implement that. And if you don't, then that nullifies your certification. Is that correct? |
| 02:46:27.52 | Jeff Bradley | Yes, unless you offer some substitute policy or strategy to backfill that. Right. |
| 02:46:29.02 | Jonathan Goldman | or some substitute policy. Right. And as far as – and just so we understand, and I'll say just so I understand, you know, in terms of the letter they sent, approving the housing element, does that alleviate the way it was phrased as he read, does that alleviate your ability to comply or your having to comply with any of the sub programs that are underneath the housing element? Just because they mentioned two, they mentioned the LIB awards and whatever, does that alleviate the obligation to comply with the other one? |
| 02:47:00.00 | Jeff Bradley | No, I believe that was sort of the final congratulations. Your housing element's been certified, and they typically highlight one or two programs that they think are notable, and they want to congratulate you on. But it's not meant to be an exhaustive list of all the things you've committed to do in your housing element. |
| 02:47:21.15 | Jonathan Goldman | I just wanted to clarify that. |
| 02:47:24.76 | Linda Pfeifer | Mr. Mayor, I have a question. Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Jeff, I have a follow-up question. I'm looking at a document. It has an inventory of constructed and approved units from 1999 to the present. And at that time, the present was September 23, 2010. And at the time, this was back in 2010, I mapped this to this. And it was almost a, you know, one-to-one correlation. These are both lists. And I guess my question is, we can take credit for housing that is built during the RHNA cycle, right, from 2007 to 2014. We can take credit for that. So I just wanted to ask, given that the documents I'm looking at are at least one is stamped September 2010, Have we taken a look at housing? that has also been built like in the hills and elsewhere from 2010 to 2014 because that you know feasibly is still within our RENA cycle and we could take credit for that. |
| 02:48:44.84 | Jeff Bradley | Those units that are actually built during the planning cycle Obviously, you look at those to determine how you did on meeting, even though it's not a building quota, you need to report back on how reality compared to the the And you're allowed to look at those units, obviously, because they've been built, but you're not allowed to deduct them from the RHNA. The only built or approved units we could actually deduct from the RHNA when we were doing the current housing element was in that period from 2007 to 2009, because that included the RHNA period goes from 2007 to 2014, but the actual planning period is from 2009 to 2014. So any units built after, let's say, January 1, 2009, are units and in the new housing element you would look back and say, hey, we built 100 units. Look at that. We did good. But you can't actually use them to pull down your arena number like you can the 2007 to 2009 units. |
| 02:49:51.69 | Linda Pfeifer | So could that strategy be applied to the next cycle, the next housing element cycle of 2015 to 2022? I'm just curious. |
| 02:49:59.99 | Jeff Bradley | But to some extent, the RENA period for that goes from January 1, 2014 to the end of January 2015, which is a little tricky because you'll notice that 2014 is covered in both cycles. And we've worked it out with HCV where we can basically count as many units as we need within the existing housing element to show conformance with certain policies. And once we reach that number, regardless of the date, we can count the other units towards the new cycle. |
| 02:50:30.62 | Linda Pfeifer | I didn't want to take us off track. I was just looking to ensure that we had, you know, looked at everything for the 2007 cycle. Thank you. |
| 02:50:37.42 | Jeff Bradley | Sure. |
| 02:50:37.62 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 02:50:42.28 | Herb Weiner | I... mainly for everybody here, but also those that are listening at home. I have a question specifically about density, because we've heard a lot about density tonight. We throw out high density as if it was, you know, a something that we're going to create and cause fear. And I understand that. Don't get me wrong. I'm not minimizing it. I understand that. But just to be clear, Um, Are we in any of Are we actually increasing our zoning density, our density with these programs? |
| 02:51:27.30 | Jeff Bradley | No, no. |
| 02:51:28.84 | Herb Weiner | and could you explain why? |
| 02:51:31.13 | Jeff Bradley | Well, currently, Sausalito allows basically 29 units per acre within the commercial zoning districts for residential uses with approval of a use permit. That's the existing zoning scheme. |
| 02:51:46.77 | Jeff Bradley | the code expresses it as one unit is allowed for every 1,500 square feet of land area of the parcel. So when we look at these 12,000 square foot parcels, we divide that by 1,500, and we get the eight units. That works out to 29 units per acre, which is a good number for us and for the city, because under housing element law, anything over 20 units per acre is automatically considered affordable. |
| 02:52:15.44 | Herb Weiner | And as a follow-up question for that, You know, we use the term either low impact or high impact, and I've even had people quote in my campaign literature as saying about low impact versus high impact. I'm obviously not asking you to define that, One of the reasons why we called the, I felt the strategy for our housing edelment was low impact was that we were using our existing Zoning. density in the infill strategy. And we haven't given enough emphasis about the infill strategy, And so could you explain why that was a very useful tool to use or a very useful strategy that for our house in Avelman, please. |
| 02:53:06.83 | Jeff Bradley | Sure. We felt that unless we could use a fairly large number of scattered sites that were yielding small numbers of units individually, the only real alternative to that was, and I referenced this earlier, was to find some larger sites where you'd actually have to change the zoning. And so to us, that was the distinction between a low-impact strategy and a high-impact strategy. If you have a five-acre piece of open space and you suddenly rezone that to allow 20 units per acre, we viewed that as a high-impact strategy, whereas a low-impact strategy would look at what was already allowed by the city's zoning and general plan. |
| 02:53:54.26 | Linda Pfeifer | Mr. Mayor, I have a follow-up. Would you say that some of the programs in the housing element are designed to enhance incentives that promote density housing? |
| 02:54:08.51 | Jeff Bradley | Yes, there is language in the housing element specifically to incentivize mixed-use development and to encourage redevelopment of properties that are deemed suitable for that type of use. Thank you. |
| 02:54:21.30 | Linda Pfeifer | Thank you. |
| 02:54:25.21 | Jonathan Goldman | I can barely read this, so I'm sure you guys know. Well, maybe you're better in my vision than I do. But so for a single – for a one-person household with very low income, that's close to $890 a month. That's the bottom end of the spectrum. Now, I don't know how many of you have looked for rental housing lately, You're not going to find that. in Sausalito. Maybe the majorities are doing that. God bless if you guys are, because I know you guys try hard to keep it down. But most of the – if you look at Craigslist, when I checked today, because I was a little curious myself, where rents are today at this point, and you're going to be hard-pressed to find that, and God bless you for doing it, and you're lucky you've owned the property so long that you can do that. |
| 02:55:04.65 | Linda Pfeifer | Are we in comment period now? |
| 02:55:06.78 | Jonathan Goldman | No, so I'm asking a question if you let me finish. Do you want me to interrupt you next time when you're speaking? Because you feel inclined to do it. |
| 02:55:07.59 | Linda Pfeifer | Oh, okay, thank you. |
| 02:55:16.26 | Jonathan Goldman | But my question is that, and I asked this question earlier, Linda, this is what the answer is, that there's $890 as your low end, very low income for a single person. And that's extremely hard to accommodate in Sausselia. There are very few of those available. So I just want people to keep that in perspective of why despite whether this is perfect or imperfect, and I'm not saying it is perfect, there's certainly some things that need to be changed. That's because no piece of legislation is perfect. At the end of the day, for me, that's what I'm trying to accomplish. And for those of you who think that yeah, there's a mix of people here and that'll never change. It's changing. It's changing. It's changing. The people who could afford to pay this are getting pushed out. And now that we've come through a low cycle of real estate, it'll happen even faster again. So, To me, that meaning that diversity of people is part of what we're trying to accomplish here. So. Well, the question was, I'm reading it off, so they don't have to. The question was, could you read this off? So, and rather, that's the one figure I wanted to get up. |
| 02:56:20.49 | Linda Pfeifer | So, Thank you. Mr. Mayor, I have a question. Here's my question. I'd love to track my question and then ask you a question. I would say, Jeff, I'm not sure if you would agree with this, that I heard a |
| 02:56:29.84 | Jonathan Goldman | Bye. |
| 02:56:29.85 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:56:29.87 | Jonathan Goldman | I'm trying to ask my question. |
| 02:56:30.97 | Unknown | I don't know if you're asking a question. |
| 02:56:38.22 | Linda Pfeifer | I didn't hear anything tonight against affordable housing. I heard concerns about density. In fact, everyone I've talked to in Sausalito has been a strong supporter of affordable housing. The concern is density. And in fact, I look at this housing element, we're a 180% buffer over what ABAC required for low income housing, 180%. So I think this is a message, you know, loud and clear, I certainly heard it tonight, that the people here embrace diversity, don't want density. They're here in Sausalito because they love the diversity and the lifestyle here. And they love the small town character. Wouldn't you agree, Jeff? That's my question. |
| 02:57:25.79 | Thomas Lyon Omohundro | And that's... |
| 02:57:26.37 | Jonathan Goldman | That's a question. That's a question in my mind. |
| 02:57:26.40 | Thomas Lyon Omohundro | Good question. |
| 02:57:28.29 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 02:57:28.31 | Linda Pfeifer | Just like your question, Councilmember Leon. |
| 02:57:31.06 | Jeff Bradley | I'm okay with comments. |
| 02:57:31.97 | Jonathan Goldman | That's a Jeopardy question. |
| 02:57:32.04 | Jeff Bradley | That's a jeopardy. |
| 02:57:33.03 | Herb Weiner | I should. Thank you. |
| 02:57:34.26 | Unknown | I don't know. Yeah. Thank you. |
| 02:57:36.39 | Linda Pfeifer | Thank you. |
| 02:57:38.01 | Herb Weiner | Okay. It sounds like we don't actually have any more questions. |
| 02:57:43.70 | Linda Pfeifer | Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a motion, if I may, and then we can discuss this per Rosenberg's Rules of Order. I move that we remove the VMU and HMU from the housing element and direct our consultant and city staff to revisit the HCD for negotiations with respect to other low impact strategies to meet the legal requirement. |
| 02:58:15.96 | Herb Weiner | Okay. So before we see if there's a second for that, I would like to ask Lily or Mary or Adam or whoever, what exactly is it we are doing tonight? |
| 02:58:31.91 | Unknown | So the... |
| 02:58:32.36 | Lily Shinseng | The update item on the housing element is for information only, no action required. The next step is to go to the Planning Commission with consideration of adoption of the ordinances that would fulfill the programs in the adopted housing element. The second part of tonight's meeting is to take action on the 2013 Annual Progress Report to the state, which is basically the progress in implementing the programs in our adopted housing element. Thank you. 2013 Annual Progress Report to the state, which is basically the progress in implementing the programs in our adopted housing element. And that report is required to go to the state annually. |
| 02:59:06.62 | Linda Pfeifer | And Mr. Mayor, if I may ask city staff a question? |
| 02:59:07.55 | Lily Shinseng | Yeah. |
| 02:59:09.74 | Linda Pfeifer | Is it correct that the fact that it's information only does not preclude us from making a motion and removing Thank you. removing the HMU and VMU. We have done it before. We've certainly done it before, and I was coached by the city manager that even if it says no information only, that I could still make a motion. |
| 02:59:35.33 | Mary Wagner | Mary. That is correct. However, the Council can't amend... the housing element tonight. I know that's Councilmember Pfeiffer, that is not what you said, technically. But the housing element would have to go through a different process if you were directing staff. to remove those programs from the housing element. It would be an amendment to the housing element. |
| 03:00:01.42 | Linda Pfeifer | that. Thank you, Mary. And that was not my motion. My motion was given that we are And in the process of submitting a progress report to HCD, wouldn't it make sense to give them an accurate progress report if our intention is to remove the HMU and VMU to start those negotiations and conversations with them as soon as possible and not to waste city staff time and our valuable consultants time. in moving forward in drafting ordinances for VMU and HMU. Do I have a second? |
| 03:00:42.62 | Jonathan Goldman | My question for you folks would be, wouldn't it be more |
| 03:00:45.04 | Unknown | No. |
| 03:00:49.19 | Jonathan Goldman | Firstly, I have no pride in authorship of anything that was ever done at the City Council. We can always change things. That's what the whole process is for. But from a negotiation standpoint or just a presentation standpoint, since you don't want to stick out your tongue at the state agency unless you have a solution that's going solve the problem is to say, well, here's our solution. We're not going to do this. We're going to do this instead and start from there, rather than just say, we're not going to do this, by the way. We told you we were going to do it, but now we're not going to do it. Is that a better strategy? |
| 03:01:27.86 | Jeff Bradley | In our view, yes. You'd want to have some informal discussions with HCD and kind of see where the issues shake out before you formally committed to that. |
| 03:01:39.05 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 03:01:39.07 | Jeff Bradley | I don't know. |
| 03:01:39.20 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 03:01:39.22 | Linda Pfeifer | Yeah. |
| 03:01:39.34 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 03:01:39.36 | Linda Pfeifer | Thank you. |
| 03:01:39.37 | Ray Withy | you |
| 03:01:39.44 | Linda Pfeifer | Go ahead. |
| 03:01:40.44 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 03:01:40.47 | Linda Pfeifer | Thank you. |
| 03:01:40.56 | Ray Withy | you Oh, on this, the progress report, first of all, I guess the first question is, what's the timing on it? Is there any set time that we have to... submit it and the second part of it is Is there anything relating to reporting on our progress on the HMU in that progress report? |
| 03:01:58.33 | Lily Shinseng | So there is a deadline for submitting it to HCD. It is April 1st of every year with a 60-day grace period. And I've requested that 60-day grace period for this meeting to give time for us to submit the report to HCD, and they've granted that grace period. So we have 60 days from April 1st to submit the report. And the report does provide progress all of the implementation programs in the housing element, including the VMU and the HMU. And currently, I could look at what it states right now, but it basically says we're going through the hearing process right now, about to be with the planning commission for the VMU and the HMU programs. |
| 03:02:39.53 | Herb Weiner | And so we're not, we're saying we're just going through a hearing process. |
| 03:02:44.66 | Lily Shinseng | Let me look up the exact language. Okay. |
| 03:02:46.33 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 03:02:47.77 | Linda Pfeifer | Mr. Mayor, if I may. Um... So I think it's very important, I heard this tonight, that we be community leaders. and listen to the people and Ask ourselves, Is the HMU-VMU part of our vision for Sausalito? would remove businesses from the second floor and third floor. It foreknew. development and There goes our walkable community. There goes our affordability for small business office space. Our HMUs. would potentially gut our walkable communities, take the town out of small town. So I think that we need to approach HCD from a leadership position and say, these are not what we want. We have made the decision, and we're not legally required. We are not legally required to do this. So let's take that action tonight. We can do it. There's nothing preventing us from doing it. and let's start getting to yes sooner Then later. Can I get a second on my motion? |
| 03:04:10.32 | Jonathan Goldman | Can I get a second on my Yeah, thanks. Here's some things I just wanted to recap from the conversation, and that's why I wanted to hear from you folks. And I'm sorry. You just said your name, but I forgot your name. But you should be worried about the Marinship and Schoonmaker Point. And what I told you is my point of view about Schoonmaker Point. You should be worried about that, since the other item on our agenda is they just kicked C-TREC off their property. you might want to be concerned about Scudermacher Point. My point of view about the Kuhnmacher Point has not changed since I talked to you. And you should all be concerned throughout Sausalito, but especially in your neck of the woods, about development in the Marantia. because it's going to impact your traffic, parking, all the other things. And if you want to have parking stickers in your part of town, |
| 03:04:49.00 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:04:52.02 | Jonathan Goldman | Believe me, I live with it myself. There's a trade-off. because I have parking stickers that aren't where I live. There's a good thing and there's a bad thing, but if that's what you want, come back and ask for parking stickers and kick the people who are parking out in your neighborhood who will work down the offices, because they shouldn't be parking in your neighborhood. All right, so come back for that. Um, The... And as far as the three buildings on Bridgeway, that came, I forget, maybe five, six years ago. eight years ago, because I was on the Planning Commission, and they wanted 19 units. And they got six. Then the guy went bankrupt. and ended up screwing around with it for a long time. And believe me, they're gonna be a tough time getting 16 units through this city council. So that's my point of view on that. As far as the HMU, VMU stuff, We are in a balancing act position. It's not enough to just say no. Because Corte Madera tried to say no, and they ended up with what they have. They tried to say no to the state, and the state said, we're going to take over your planning process, and that's within their purview. And they – and so Corte Madera panicked, pressed the panic button, built – that allowed what WinCup was. Okay? And there's one over on Paradise Drive if you're not aware of that in terms of – but that's more – maybe more suitable for that location. So we don't want to end up in that position. We don't want to just say no. We want to say, hey, maybe that's not appropriate. We put that out first. Let's change that a little bit because let's work together. Because I went through this before on the planning commission where the city council said, no, And they put forward a plan that the state just rejected, and that's why we're in the position we are today to make up for 10 years of non-doing this. Okay? So, I don't really – I wasn't a huge fan of the mixed-use concept, because it does change sort of the fabric. I'm not really for offices on the second floor. I don't – I know that is a negative on the Caledonia Street, not a positive. But as far as the mixed-use stuff, if there's another way to accomplish getting 16 units, let's go for it. because it doesn't – it would apply to Old Town as well, the HMU, BMU stuff. And people came in, I forget who which person said, said, you know, you took the Old Town sites off the, off the list, and they have basically the same concerns you do. Don't block my view. And so if there's another way to get there from here, let's get there. If it's, let's go forward with, here's, you know, I'm not gonna give you this Coke, but I'll give you this pitcher of water instead. Let's do that. If it's better to do it, because if it would take as long to negotiate that between now and the end of the year as it would to redo the whole housing element compliance for the next eight years, then let's do it all at the same time. I don't care what the tool is. But... let's just accomplish that and be done with it. I used the 7-Eleven. I go there after a tee ball with my kids, and I go there at night when it's the only place open. So we all appreciate these things. I don't want to end up – none of us here, I think, are fans of high-density development, whatever you take that to mean. But, But this is what's important to me. is that somebody can afford to actually live here. Not just those of us who are lucky enough to put down roots already. uh, And this is a very huge challenge. Can I have the floor for a second? So I guess not. I'll wait for you. Okay? So I'd interrupt you when you're speaking. Give me the same courtesy. I appreciate that. And for those of you on Spring Street... My final word is that hey, there's a couple of you, and this is how I met Sonia and some other folks, that that's what people were trying to do, block your views. maybe seven, eight years ago when the cycle was hot. And... Did any of those go up? No. Because that is this domino – it doesn't matter – forget affordable housing for a second, because if you do it here, it's a domino up the hill. Everybody wants to do it. It's true in any of these valleys. So it doesn't work to go up a second story. It doesn't work. And if this is flawed, let's change it. Okay? But I can tell you, when I was on the Planning Commission, I tried very hard not to block any of your views because that's one of the reasons you live here, and it is part of your property values. So it's not enough to just say no. Let's come up with a solution, and let's do it in a way that doesn't get us in between a rock and a hard place. Um, So my point of view is we don't have anything here to adopt tonight. We don't even have an ordinance to send to the Planning Commission for them to review. Um, So my point of view is okay, let's, Step back for a second. We have – I don't know what the implementation date is for some of these policies. No, not the compliance, because you can say we're still figuring out the language for and your report. I don't know when the deadline is to adopt. I think we mentioned it earlier, but it's like the end of the year. end of this calendar year, I believe. So we don't have to adopt this tonight. We don't have to adopt in June. We don't have to. We can adopt it. December 29th or whatever. So there's no rush to say, but let's come up with a solution before we say we're not going to do this. But we don't have to adopt anything, and we don't have to send it to the Planning Commission for further review. |
| 03:10:20.10 | Herb Weiner | Okay. So – Even council members, we've got an agreement among ourselves here that we're all going to limit ourselves to three minutes. Nobody's running the clock. Nobody's running the clock. So that's okay. We can all start again. I have another three minutes each. |
| 03:10:30.25 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:10:30.45 | Jeff Bradley | Amen. |
| 03:10:30.53 | Unknown | it's a very fine i know this is right in the park |
| 03:10:43.90 | Herb Weiner | I want to ask, go back to asking some questions because, and so, Councilmember Leona said, There is no timetable. There's no rush. I'm sorry, I'm paraphrasing. But, you know. |
| 03:10:59.30 | Unknown | Do you have a question? |
| 03:10:59.98 | Unknown | up. |
| 03:11:03.77 | Herb Weiner | Well, is there a rush? What is our timetable? And I want to ask a very simple, straight question. Are we, you At this... point. in a position... And it's not a position I'd like to be in, by the way. Are we in a position where we could backtrack on the HMU and VMU. policies. and not adopt those ordinances and by the way we do have draft ordinances before us to pass on to the Planning Commission tonight so yeah so it's okay I was just a clarification that no mom's me so listen your packet |
| 03:11:42.23 | Unknown | I didn't see that. |
| 03:11:42.98 | Unknown | Yeah, so... |
| 03:11:43.95 | Linda Pfeifer | Thank you. |
| 03:11:44.00 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:11:46.13 | Jonathan Goldman | Thank you. |
| 03:11:47.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:11:47.04 | Jonathan Goldman | you |
| 03:11:47.08 | Unknown | . |
| 03:11:47.16 | Linda Pfeifer | You amazed me? |
| 03:11:47.85 | Jonathan Goldman | Bye. |
| 03:11:51.51 | Jonathan Goldman | No, there's no action. |
| 03:11:51.99 | Linda Pfeifer | Don't threaten it. |
| 03:11:55.01 | Herb Weiner | No, there's no action. But the next step is the Planning Commission review. Is it, but that's a question. What is, what are we actually, is it? |
| 03:12:05.44 | Lily Shinseng | So when we started this process, when we brought forward an update on this process back in September to the Council, we promised the Council that we would be providing you updates, regular updates about this process. And this is one of those regular updates. We provided the draft ordinances that the subcommittee has reviewed in your packet for information only this evening. The next step is, because the subcommittee has finished drafting those ordinances, the next step is to go on to public hearings on adoption of the ordinances. That process starts with the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the Council on adoption of the ordinances and then it goes to the Council for hearings. |
| 03:12:44.49 | Herb Weiner | Right, so we don't actually have to take an action tonight on that. for it to move to the Planning Commission. That's just the timetable you're on. |
| 03:12:51.40 | Lily Shinseng | That's correct. It's just for information only tonight. |
| 03:12:53.58 | Herb Weiner | What we could do is actually stop that process if we so desired. |
| 03:12:58.51 | Jonathan Goldman | Crack. |
| 03:12:58.76 | Herb Weiner | Right. |
| 03:13:01.51 | Jonathan Goldman | Because for me, this is the story pulse. These are the story polls for this, and that's why you're all here, because the story polls in a sense went up when you got postcards or whoever called you or you talked to each other. And this is your chance, just because somebody came in with a plan, this is your chance to comment on it. You know, it's the same thing if an architect comes in with a project, this is your chance to comment on it. |
| 03:13:09.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:13:25.86 | Herb Weiner | But I still have a question on the table, which is? |
| 03:13:26.23 | Jonathan Goldman | Bye. |
| 03:13:26.42 | Unknown | . |
| 03:13:26.56 | Jonathan Goldman | Yeah. |
| 03:13:26.57 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:13:26.59 | Jonathan Goldman | Yeah. |
| 03:13:30.10 | Herb Weiner | The judge. |
| 03:13:30.28 | Jeff Bradley | The timing issue within the housing element, we committed to adopting the ordinances within six months of adoption. So basically about a year ago from April, May, from now basically a year. So we're basically a year late already. |
| 03:13:46.97 | Herb Weiner | Okay, and what would, I heard, um, to be frank I heard a very different |
| 03:13:55.28 | Unknown | I heard a very... |
| 03:13:58.43 | Herb Weiner | Not a very different. I heard a different tone, and I don't know if that's the right word, from you, Jeff, tonight. compared to What I've been hearing from the M group in our housing elements subcommittees. And if I asked, if I reopen public comment, ask Commissioner Cox to come here, she'd say the same thing, because she's behind you, not in her head. So what is the – so I'm very now confused. as to whether we What jeopardy do we put the city in? by not moving forward to let the Planning Commission Ponder. Hang on a second. Council Member Pfeiffer. Thank you. What are we... How are we putting the city in jeopardy if we decided that not to have the Planning Commission begin the hearings on the HMU and the VMU? That's my question. |
| 03:15:01.43 | Jeff Bradley | Our view is if the ordinances for the VMU and the HMU aren't adopted, some point between now and the end of the planning period, which is fast approaching, so as soon as possible, essentially we'll be out of compliance with our certification with HCD on the existing housing element that was adopted in October of 2012. And if we then roll into the new housing cycle on January 1st with essentially a decertified or an actually decertified housing element, we will then be trying to plan for those units that we have to then carry over into the new planning cycle. |
| 03:15:26.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:15:47.38 | Jonathan Goldman | I understand. When came that calendar year end or is it...? Correct. |
| 03:15:48.51 | Scott Damon | Yep. |
| 03:15:53.98 | Unknown | you |
| 03:15:54.01 | Jonathan Goldman | Thank you. |
| 03:15:54.02 | Unknown | That was me. |
| 03:15:54.60 | Jonathan Goldman | Yeah. |
| 03:15:54.78 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:15:54.80 | Jonathan Goldman | Okay. |
| 03:15:54.85 | Linda Pfeifer | Okay. And I have just a comment on this. I think what we heard from the M group tonight were the response to the public and what our options are as leaders in being responsive to the needs and the requests of our constituents. And that is we can go back to HCD and we can look at other options. And it's not the end of the world to take away the HMU, VMU. Yeah, we're out of compliance in terms of what their initial expectations were, but we have other strategies, like the multifamily ordinance that was passed, that we can bring forward. |
| 03:15:55.33 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 03:16:44.75 | Linda Pfeifer | Do a little bit of work. and enter those negotiations. So You know, I... I think that we don't, this is certainly not something that we want to rush into. because this is the fabric of our community. This is Sausalito. This is our small town. |
| 03:17:03.50 | Unknown | are |
| 03:17:04.75 | Linda Pfeifer | character. in our small town ambiance and we don't want to We don't want to sacrifice that at the expense of rushing something. |
| 03:17:15.67 | Herb Weiner | Of course. |
| 03:17:17.29 | Linda Pfeifer | So... |
| 03:17:18.64 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:17:18.67 | Linda Pfeifer | laughter |
| 03:17:18.99 | Herb Weiner | But we've been doing this since 2009, Linda. |
| 03:17:19.01 | Linda Pfeifer | But we've been doing this since Yeah, well, they just found out. I wonder what they- Right, I understand. I mean, and the fact that they just found out, I think, gives pause. |
| 03:17:26.36 | Herb Weiner | Right, I understand. You know, |
| 03:17:28.00 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:17:34.25 | Linda Pfeifer | You know? |
| 03:17:34.38 | Unknown | You know? Oh, come on. |
| 03:17:36.05 | Jonathan Goldman | I'm sorry. Now you're trying to lecture. Right. Well, I'm saying I'm being honest. You had your shot. And straight forward. |
| 03:17:36.07 | Unknown | you |
| 03:17:36.12 | Linda Pfeifer | . |
| 03:17:36.15 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:17:36.17 | Linda Pfeifer | Bye. |
| 03:17:36.35 | Unknown | Oh. |
| 03:17:36.59 | Linda Pfeifer | Oh! |
| 03:17:36.68 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:17:36.74 | Linda Pfeifer | Bye. |
| 03:17:36.95 | Unknown | Thank you. Okay. |
| 03:17:39.38 | Linda Pfeifer | Well, I'm saying, I'm being honest. |
| 03:17:42.73 | Herb Weiner | Bye. |
| 03:17:42.80 | Linda Pfeifer | I'm sorry. |
| 03:17:43.06 | Unknown | you |
| 03:17:43.09 | Linda Pfeifer | Hey. |
| 03:17:43.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:17:43.70 | Linda Pfeifer | Thank you. |
| 03:17:43.80 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:17:43.81 | Linda Pfeifer | Bye. |
| 03:17:43.86 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:17:43.92 | Herb Weiner | Okay. |
| 03:17:44.64 | Linda Pfeifer | and I was very successful with live aborts and ADUs. You never submitted my request. You never submitted my version to HCD, not once. |
| 03:17:44.66 | Jonathan Goldman | of where it went. |
| 03:17:53.01 | Herb Weiner | You never submitted. Okay, guys. Okay, guys. Um... |
| 03:17:59.63 | Jonathan Goldman | Thank you. Thank you. I would propose to continue this item to a date uncertain to give staff a chance to revisit our approach on this particular housing element program. And if there's an alternative substitute that we could submit, whether part of this is an amendment to the existing housing element or as part of, you know, it's going to take the same amount of time to renegotiate the existing housing element as it would to negotiate your compliance for the next eight years or as part of, it's gonna take the same amount of time to renegotiate the existing housing element as it would to negotiate your compliance for the next eight years, or as part of that process, I would like to ask you to staff and to let the community know. And if you all don't have your emails, you know, about this topic with the city, please, you know, drop them off so they can ping you with that. |
| 03:18:47.16 | Ray Withy | I would go with that, but I also recommend that we do not forward the ordinances to the Planning Commission at this stage. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's right. I mean, I think we're certainly – we've heard that, and on the HMU and VMU, I think we have |
| 03:18:53.47 | Jonathan Goldman | Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's right. |
| 03:18:59.13 | Ray Withy | Put the brakes on, I think we have to go back to staff working with the M group. We're going to look at the alternatives, that we can come up with other alternatives and all the recommendations we've gotten from the public. And I think we go from there. |
| 03:19:11.09 | Linda Pfeifer | Mr. Mayor, I have a comment. |
| 03:19:11.92 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 03:19:12.04 | Jonathan Goldman | before you so I accept that our city attorney wanted to something |
| 03:19:15.09 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 03:19:15.11 | Herb Weiner | I think our city attorney wanted to. |
| 03:19:17.50 | Mary Wagner | MS. A question, I guess, Mr. Mayor, for the Council's consideration is staff would recommend that you do direct the other ordinances to continue to the Planning Commission. You've got the reasonable accommodation, the density bonus. special needs housing. And they're right there. That those get started because they are also going to take some time in consideration. The Planning Commission has a special meeting set aside already to do that. Um, And if you want to suggest or direct staff to not move forward with the VMU-HMU ordinance to the planning commission. at that time or until we've been able to come back to you and outline for you what the implications of that are. What does that do to the timeline of adopting the element for 2015, 2023? If anything, what does it do to the city being able to utilize that longer period of time? What would it take to go back to amend the ordinance, including finding alternative programs or sites to accomplish the same thing that the VMU-HMU was designed to accomplish. There's been a couple of references to the single-family standards and multi-family dwelling – multi-family zoning districts being an alternative to that. It isn't. It was also a program that was part of the existing housing element. It's not a substitute for that. It doesn't fill that same requirement. And if it did, it was concurrently fulfilling that. So I think if that's the direction to staff tonight, we would go back and work with the M Group and Karen Warner to determine what the process would look like, be able to come back to you. I think staff would prefer to come back to you as soon as possible so that we could stay on the track that we believe, you know, was required by HCD either to – continue with the VMU-HMU with modifications or not, or to replace it with something else. |
| 03:21:17.99 | Jonathan Goldman | Can I address that? So I hear you, but let's knock the low-hanging fruit off the list, the 3 and 4, because we really didn't talk a lot about the – and the language seems has a lot of merit, but we just didn't really talk about very much kind of the two tiers and anything like that, and you can punt that to May 6th if you want if there's still room. But let's all amend my motion to forward the language about the housing element on points three and four here, which are the special needs housing accommodation and our reasonable accommodation language, which is state law, to the plan and commission for He was saying no. Thank you. |
| 03:21:58.17 | Mary Wagner | Yes. Okay. Yes, yes. |
| 03:21:58.69 | Jonathan Goldman | Thank you. Okay. |
| 03:22:01.58 | Herb Weiner | Not the density bonus. |
| 03:22:04.19 | Mary Wagner | We have no control. It's also statutorily driven. |
| 03:22:04.21 | Herb Weiner | you |
| 03:22:04.26 | Jonathan Goldman | Yeah. |
| 03:22:04.67 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 03:22:05.02 | Jonathan Goldman | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:22:05.21 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 03:22:05.24 | Jonathan Goldman | Thank you. |
| 03:22:05.29 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 03:22:06.61 | Jonathan Goldman | No, I know. I know that. But we didn't talk about the language of the two-tiered – that would be part of this, I'm imagining. |
| 03:22:12.95 | Mary Wagner | It's included in the draft that's in front of you tonight. Staff would recommend that that go to the Planning Commission for review. It's a more... |
| 03:22:20.11 | Jonathan Goldman | We can always change it later and send it back to them, right? It's coming up. |
| 03:22:21.44 | Mary Wagner | and send it back to them. You could either direct staff to include that in there now. |
| 03:22:28.01 | Jonathan Goldman | Because it has to come to council after the planning commission for final approval. Correct. Because it's a modification to the zoning ordinance. All right. So all amended have two, three, and four. |
| 03:22:31.31 | Mary Wagner | Correct, because it's a modification to the zoning Yeah. |
| 03:22:34.50 | Herb Weiner | And. |
| 03:22:36.90 | Jonathan Goldman | with the clarification that we still need to talk about number two. |
| 03:22:37.19 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:22:37.20 | Herb Weiner | Clarification. about number two. We're in, I realize we still need to talk about number two, but if we don't do that, I mean, we're definitely losing control over state density. |
| 03:22:48.07 | Jonathan Goldman | overstate density. Yes. I'm not saying we're not doing it. I'm just saying we haven't talked about it. Right. |
| 03:22:53.13 | Herb Weiner | Fair enough. Okay. So let's just see where we are with motions because Linda did make a motion. Thank you. |
| 03:22:59.44 | Jonathan Goldman | you take the second motion first. |
| 03:23:01.10 | Herb Weiner | But I don't think she got a second. |
| 03:23:01.13 | Jonathan Goldman | and |
| 03:23:03.93 | Linda Pfeifer | I didn't get a second. |
| 03:23:04.57 | Jonathan Goldman | didn't. |
| 03:23:05.23 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:23:05.62 | Jonathan Goldman | Thank you. |
| 03:23:05.65 | Unknown | I didn't get a second. |
| 03:23:06.77 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 03:23:06.85 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. |
| 03:23:06.95 | Herb Weiner | THE END OF THE END OF THE you I understand that. I understand that, but she didn't get a motion anyway. Thank you. Well, then you won't just let it go. |
| 03:23:11.75 | Linda Pfeifer | Thank you. |
| 03:23:12.12 | Jonathan Goldman | a second. |
| 03:23:13.79 | Linda Pfeifer | I got a second out there. |
| 03:23:13.85 | Jonathan Goldman | I can't. |
| 03:23:15.29 | Linda Pfeifer | Thank you. |
| 03:23:15.31 | Herb Weiner | Yeah. |
| 03:23:15.46 | Linda Pfeifer | Thank you. |
| 03:23:20.32 | Linda Pfeifer | So I do want to comment. And with that, there's a motion on the floor. |
| 03:23:22.92 | Jonathan Goldman | Okay, with that, there's a motion on the floor. Can we have action on the motion with a second? Yeah. It's amended. Let's recount it to make sure it's – you got it. The motion is to forward the staff-worded program implementation for the housing and all that concerning density – the density bonus ordinance and the special needs housing and reasonable accommodation as required by state law. |
| 03:23:28.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:23:28.52 | Linda Pfeifer | David. |
| 03:23:28.74 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:23:54.35 | Jonathan Goldman | to the Planning Commission for its review and comment, and those will come back to the City Council at a later date for final review and a vote. And you had... |
| 03:24:07.75 | Ray Withy | We also are directing staff to work with the M group to take all the comments from the public and others regarding alternatives to including HMU and VMU in our housing elements. |
| 03:24:19.95 | Jonathan Goldman | Right, in whatever fashion it makes the most sense, whether it's in the – And the report. Remending the old one or – And the report. |
| 03:24:22.25 | Ray Withy | Thank you. Mending the old. |
| 03:24:26.52 | Jonathan Goldman | Well, that they can file as they see fit. That really we don't – Well, that's the one thing we actually have to take action on. I would file the report, but you'd have to go back. You're going to have to – if it discusses these being adopted tonight, we can't submit that. |
| 03:24:26.82 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 03:24:26.98 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. Well, that's the one thing we actually have to take action on. |
| 03:24:44.52 | Linda Pfeifer | Mr. Mayor, I have a comment. |
| 03:24:46.11 | Jonathan Goldman | Yes, please. Well, let's make sure we know this – in the report, does it specifically – I just can't recall if it does – reference these being adopted tonight, the progress report? |
| 03:24:46.13 | Linda Pfeifer | Thank you. |
| 03:24:59.02 | Lily Shinseng | The ordinances in the update report to the HCD? No. Would you like me to read what it says about VMU-HMU? It says the VMU-HMU ordinance amendments have been drafted and introduced at a community meeting in March 2014. It is anticipated that the Planning Commission will consider the amendments at hearings in May and June 2014, and the Council will consider adoption of the amendments in June-July 2014. |
| 03:25:02.19 | Jonathan Goldman | Right. Okay. |
| 03:25:06.34 | Unknown | Love you. |
| 03:25:26.83 | Jonathan Goldman | Right, so that's noncommittal, so that's fine. |
| 03:25:29.28 | Lily Shinseng | I'm sorry. |
| 03:25:29.29 | Linda Pfeifer | I beg to differ if I may comment. I think that sounds like it's business as usual and we are moving forward. And I'm sorry, I've seen how this works in the past. I've been here since 2008. |
| 03:25:29.36 | Jonathan Goldman | Bye. |
| 03:25:29.40 | Lily Shinseng | Thank you. |
| 03:25:43.42 | Linda Pfeifer | I'm very concerned about this. I'm concerned I didn't get a second or even an amendment to my motion to stop this now. I'm very concerned. For those of you who did learn about this just recently, FYI, if you'd been on my newsletter, you would have known about this in 2012. My email is on the website, the city website. If you want to get on my newsletter, send me an email and I'll put you on my newsletter. |
| 03:25:54.67 | Unknown | We did. |
| 03:25:54.98 | Unknown | to learn about this. |
| 03:26:07.26 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 03:26:11.08 | Unknown | I'll put you on like... |
| 03:26:12.97 | Herb Weiner | I'm not. |
| 03:26:19.83 | Herb Weiner | Okay. |
| 03:26:21.81 | Herb Weiner | Vice Mayor. |
| 03:26:22.43 | Ray Withy | Well, I do think that we use |
| 03:26:24.05 | Herb Weiner | Yeah. |
| 03:26:24.14 | Jonathan Goldman | Thank you. |
| 03:26:24.29 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 03:26:24.97 | Jonathan Goldman | well. |
| 03:26:25.59 | Ray Withy | as the hour is getting late. But I do think that we may want to review the language on the HMU and VMU to more accurately reflect what we're actually doing. We don't have to go into great detail, but I certainly don't want to be misleading in any way. And I think we can... So, Lily, can we give you that action item? Obviously, we're still considering the HMU and BMU and that it's going to be discussed at future meetings, but I think we can leave it at that. |
| 03:26:35.31 | Unknown | Thank you. I, Thank you. |
| 03:26:41.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:26:41.96 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:26:42.25 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:26:42.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:26:53.38 | Herb Weiner | Yeah. I do not think that you should be state based on this discussion and the state of where we are today. I don't think that you should be putting in the report a commitment of when it will be adopted because I'm not sure. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:26:58.43 | Ray Withy | STANDING. |
| 03:26:58.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:27:06.43 | Linda Pfeifer | Yeah. I'm sure we can make that. Thank you. I appreciate that. And I have one follow-up question for the M group, which is the time frame on this. Did I hear you right in terms of making a final decision on the VMU and HMU, you know, in negotiations with HCD and moving forward? |
| 03:27:09.95 | Herb Weiner | Yeah. |
| 03:27:27.27 | Linda Pfeifer | Is the timeline for that the July? Did I hear that? July, June, is that correct? |
| 03:27:34.71 | Jeff Bradley | It was a year ago, May. |
| 03:27:37.22 | Linda Pfeifer | So it technically is May then. Of last year. Yeah, but I'm saying what is the timeframe in terms of everyone watching here tonight, you know, how long before we get to the answer with this? Is there – is HCD holding us to a certain time – you said a year since May. That would put it at May then? |
| 03:27:39.69 | Jeff Bradley | MR. Of last year. |
| 03:27:59.11 | Jeff Bradley | you No, they're going to want to know why we didn't adopt it in May of 2013. |
| 03:28:00.61 | Linda Pfeifer | Bye. |
| 03:28:03.80 | Linda Pfeifer | I see. I see. The reason, yeah, okay, thank you. |
| 03:28:08.10 | Jeff Bradley | Yeah. |
| 03:28:09.00 | Herb Weiner | Okay. Did we have a second on Council Member Leon's motion? |
| 03:28:17.03 | Ray Withy | Can I say, I added something, but I'll second. |
| 03:28:19.82 | Jonathan Goldman | Thank you. |
| 03:28:19.90 | Ray Withy | You good? |
| 03:28:20.24 | Jonathan Goldman | Thank you. |
| 03:28:20.37 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 03:28:20.91 | Jonathan Goldman | Thank you. |
| 03:28:21.52 | Herb Weiner | Yeah. |
| 03:28:22.23 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:28:22.53 | Lily Shinseng | Did the motion include the 2013 annual progress report, sending that to the state, or is that going to be a separate motion? |
| 03:28:29.99 | Jonathan Goldman | Let's make that a separate motion. |
| 03:28:30.13 | Lily Shinseng | Oh. Okay. |
| 03:28:36.44 | Jonathan Goldman | Because that wasn't what I was referring to in my motion. Okay. |
| 03:28:38.70 | Herb Weiner | Okay, so we'll have a second motion for that. So let's deal with this first motion. |
| 03:28:44.40 | Jonathan Goldman | Are you clear what that motion is given to chair? I think so. |
| 03:28:46.48 | Herb Weiner | I think so. I think so. It's two, three, and four basically. |
| 03:28:51.47 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. on the show. Review alternatives to VNU-HLU, and the outline of what that process |
| 03:28:53.40 | Herb Weiner | And, yeah. to. |
| 03:28:59.54 | Herb Weiner | Yes. Yeah. |
| 03:29:00.40 | Linda Pfeifer | And just for the record, I don't feel comfortable sending two, three, and four to the planning commission where I wasn't able to ask the questions I have about three and four. |
| 03:29:00.42 | Herb Weiner | and |
| 03:29:11.20 | Linda Pfeifer | I mean, we focused on the HMU and VMU tonight. and... I mean, these are critical issues, the special needs housing and the reasonable accommodation and what that means as well. |
| 03:29:24.63 | Jonathan Goldman | Are you really against special needs housing? |
| 03:29:26.86 | Linda Pfeifer | No, of course not. |
| 03:29:26.93 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 03:29:28.85 | Linda Pfeifer | I just have some questions. |
| 03:29:30.96 | Ray Withy | May I interject? I mean, we will have another chance when it comes back. I think it'll be helpful to have the Planning Commission vet these and explore these. So it's going to have to go one way or the other, and I think let's send it to the Planning Commission. I don't anticipate as many... |
| 03:29:37.46 | Unknown | . |
| 03:29:45.96 | Ray Withy | problems and, but you will have a chance to review it starting now when you go home tonight. And... and go from there and then we'll... Tomorrow morning. |
| 03:29:52.90 | Herb Weiner | Tomorrow morning. |
| 03:29:55.48 | Ray Withy | morning and then they'll be at the Planning Commission will be back to us in another session |
| 03:30:00.61 | Herb Weiner | Okay. We know what our motion is. We've got a second. Could you call the vote? |
| 03:30:06.18 | Unknown | Councilmember 536. |
| 03:30:07.46 | Linda Pfeifer | Now you guys know why I'm against everything. No. |
| 03:30:10.80 | Unknown | Councilmember Weiner. |
| 03:30:11.95 | Linda Pfeifer | Thank you. |
| 03:30:12.07 | Herb Weiner | Yes. |
| 03:30:13.43 | Unknown | Councilmember Leon. |
| 03:30:15.02 | Herb Weiner | Yes. |
| 03:30:16.41 | Unknown | Vice Mayor Theodorus. Yes. very withy. Thank you. |
| 03:30:20.76 | Herb Weiner | Yes. And could we have a second motion for the report with the change of language? Yeah, sure. |
| 03:30:26.24 | Jonathan Goldman | Yeah, sure. I'll make that several – so let's submit the report with amended language, which we don't have, but which you – the staff will draft that reflect the nature of discussions this evening as far as what actions have been taken concerning all the program updates. |
| 03:30:44.60 | Herb Weiner | Second. Is there a second? I'll second. Okay. Could you call the vote, please? Thank you. |
| 03:30:46.66 | Unknown | I'll see you next time. |
| 03:30:49.94 | Unknown | Council Member Fikers? |
| 03:30:56.87 | Unknown | Council member Weiner. |
| 03:30:57.90 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:31:00.11 | Unknown | Council member Leon. |
| 03:31:00.30 | Jonathan Goldman | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:31:01.39 | Unknown | Yes. Council Member, Vice Mayor Theodores. |
| 03:31:05.70 | Herb Weiner | Yes. |
| 03:31:07.47 | Unknown | Mayor Withy. |
| 03:31:08.09 | Herb Weiner | Yes. Okay. I realize this has been a long evening and a very difficult topic, but thank you all for coming, really. So, thank you. |
| 03:31:19.75 | Linda Pfeifer | Mr. Mayor, can we take a brief break? |
| 03:31:21.93 | Herb Weiner | Yes, of course. |
| 03:31:22.42 | Linda Pfeifer | Yes, of course. Thank you. |
| 03:31:46.99 | Herb Weiner | I mean, |
| 03:31:47.63 | Rick Johnson | Can you dim the lights? |
| 03:31:52.09 | Herb Weiner | Just to remind everybody, the Now our... agenda's been completely trashed for tonight. So just to remind for anybody who didn't hear, the priority calendar step one item |
| 03:32:02.72 | Unknown | I should. |
| 03:32:12.67 | Herb Weiner | has been continued to May 6. The Fish and Pier Repair Project has been... Uh. Um... continue to May 6th. And we are now going to What was item one? 4D, and is now item 6A, I guess, which is discussion of C-TREC, the license agreement, and poor Lilly is having to still be here. |
| 03:32:32.13 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:32:32.17 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:32:32.25 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:32:46.51 | Lily Shinseng | I'm happily here. Thank you. And I rarely get to be here at 11 o'clock in the evening. |
| 03:32:47.18 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 03:32:50.98 | Herb Weiner | Bye. |
| 03:32:51.00 | Unknown | Ah. |
| 03:32:53.11 | Lily Shinseng | I am excited. |
| 03:32:53.97 | Unknown | We'll see you. |
| 03:32:54.10 | Unknown | We'll see if you say that at 12, too. |
| 03:32:56.47 | Unknown | . isn't working. No? Do you mind then Debbie forwarding the slides? |
| 03:33:04.16 | Unknown | with police. |
| 03:33:04.70 | Unknown | and then |
| 03:33:07.89 | Jonathan Goldman | She's more than happy to do that too. Perfect. |
| 03:33:12.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:33:13.98 | Lily Shinseng | So this item, which was on the consent calendar, is regarding C-Track and a license agreement to utilize space in Lot 5, make improvements, some improvements to Lot 5, and then also some improvements to the foot of Locust Street. And as we all probably are aware, Sea Trek is a business that has been in Sausalito for over 30 years. They rent kayaks and paddle boards. They also teach classes. And they organize trips into the bay. They have been at Schoonmaker for 30-plus years, and they need to relocate by May 31st of this year. They found space at Bridgeway Marina, which is 225 Locust Street, and they found space for their business, but they don't have on-site parking that's required by the zoning ordinance. |
| 03:34:10.75 | Lily Shinseng | So in order to operate at Virgin Marina, Sea Trek is proposing, and this is going to be complicated because I did do a couple overlays on this slide. So they're first proposing outdoor storage of kayaks and paddle boards on racks on the outdoor deck at Bridgeway Marina near Locust Street. This portion of the business is principally permitted by the city but does require three on-site parking spaces. SeaTrek will also utilize the office building on the Bridgeway Marina property near the photo locus for the ancillary office use for their school portion of the building. And this is principally permitted by the city, but does require two on-site parking spaces. The next one, the also. THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:35:04.78 | Lily Shinseng | So they're also going to utilize a portion |
| 03:35:07.99 | Unknown | All right. |
| 03:35:09.08 | Lily Shinseng | Okay. |
| 03:35:09.37 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:35:12.76 | Lily Shinseng | Yeah. You just keep it there, that's fine. They're also going to be utilizing a portion of the two-story building on the site for the storage of SeaTrac gear, like helmets and life vests and paddles. In addition to a portion of that space, they would be renting for folks who own kayaks and want a place to privately store those kayaks. The rental storage portion of their business does require a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission for dry boat storage. And then the use of that space requires a total of two parking spaces. So a total for their overall business is seven required on-site parking spaces. That's what's required by the zoning ordinance. Since the parking cannot be provided on site, C-TREC is requesting use of seven spaces in lot five, which is the Humboldt right-of-way, for use for their business. A license from the council would be required for use of those seven spaces. In addition, a conditional use permit is required by the Planning Commission for the offsite parking. So it needs to be heard by the Planning Commission and approved by the Planning Commission for the offsite parking for their business. Sea Trek is also requesting to make improvements to Lot 5 for those spaces, including the provision of an ADA space and an ADA-compliant path of travel from that ADA space to the Sea Trek business. And a license from the council is required to make those improvements, and those would be done at Sea Trek's cost. Lastly, SeaTrek is requesting to make improvements to the foot of Locust Street to create a new put-in for kayaks and paddle boards. The put-in would not be for the exclusive use of SeaTrek and would benefit the community as a whole because everyone would be able to use it to access the water. A license from the council would be required to make those improvements in addition to a design review permit from the planning commission. and authorization from BCDC, which is the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. |
| 03:37:34.77 | Lily Shinseng | So in summary, Sea Trek is requesting that the council adopt a resolution approving a license agreement to utilize the seven spaces in Lot 5 for the Sea Trek business, also to make the parking lot improvements in the Humboldt right-of-way, and make improvements to the foot of locust for the kayak and paddleboard put in. SeaTrack would also need to subsequently secure a design review permit for the put-in at the foot of Locust Street. And they would also need to secure a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission for the off-site parking and a conditional use permit for the dry boat storage. And we have tentatively Um, scheduled them. We haven't set on a notice yet pending the discussion by the council, but for the May 14th planning commission hearing to discuss the design review permit and the conditional use permits. |
| 03:38:36.80 | Lily Shinseng | The license agreement requires that CTREC pay a license fee of $851.67 per month for the seven spaces, and that represents $4 per space per day annualized. The city is not responsible for the payment of the improvements to the Humboldt Street right-of-way, or Lot 5, or the improvements to the Locust Street right-of-way, which is for the put-in. That would be at C-TREX cost. |
| 03:39:12.12 | Lily Shinseng | We did receive a late mail item that includes a number of comments from this Oscillator community regarding C-Check, and so that was provided to the council. With that, staff is recommending the council adopt the resolution approving the right of entry and license agreement for C-TREC. And I am available for questions if you have them. Um, Avis and Bob from SeaTrack are also here if you have questions about the business. |
| 03:39:46.07 | Herb Weiner | Thank you, Lily. Do we have any questions of Lily at this time before we open this up for public comment? Please. |
| 03:39:59.98 | Jonathan Goldman | As far as the – this has to go not just through Sausalito. It has to go through BCDC as well. Do they conduct any sort of environmental review or impact as part of their review, or are they relying on the city to do that? |
| 03:40:18.10 | Jonathan Goldman | because I wouldn't want to tee it up to them and then it gets shot down there because we don't have all our ducks in a row. Thank you. |
| 03:40:22.94 | Adam Politzer | I don't know if we have the answer to that question. I know that we are looking at amending an existing permit. So whatever that process would require, I know that Avis and Jonathan Goldman, our public works director, are reviewing that and have initial discussions with I don't believe that's the case. I think we're amending an existing permit. And that's as far as we know at this moment. But that's something we can look into if directed by council. |
| 03:41:01.03 | Herb Weiner | Any other questions of stuff at this moment? |
| 03:41:06.48 | Linda Pfeifer | Not right now, I'm just trying to absorb it all. |
| 03:41:09.94 | Jonathan Goldman | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:41:10.41 | Linda Pfeifer | Thank you. |
| 03:41:10.46 | Jonathan Goldman | Thank you. Thank you. I'll ask the same question or similar question to the C-TREC folks. Is there a term for the licenses? Are they annual licenses or are they? |
| 03:41:21.45 | Unknown | month. |
| 03:41:21.92 | Jonathan Goldman | Thank you. Not too much, okay. for both. |
| 03:41:27.12 | Lily Shinseng | The license authorizes them to make the improvements to the Humboldt Street right away for the parking and to do the improvements for the put-in. And then it also gives them the ability to use seven spaces in lot five. Okay. And that's month to month. |
| 03:41:39.91 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 03:41:41.95 | Lily Shinseng | OK. |
| 03:41:42.32 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:41:46.51 | Herb Weiner | You've made the point, Lily, that this has to go in front of the Planning Commission for the various entitlements that you listed uh... Could you explain for folks at home or the audience, why you're asking City Council to approve this license before the Planning Commission has done their review of the uses and whether this can be allowed in that space? |
| 03:42:12.68 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:42:12.70 | Lily Shinseng | There it is. |
| 03:42:17.71 | Lily Shinseng | space. As the property owner, the city council as the property owner, and the planning committee. Planning Commission always receives an application that has been authorized by the property owner to be submitted. And so that's why we're coming before the council tonight to make sure that the council will authorize C-TREC to use the parking, because C-TREC is requesting to get an off-site parking conditional use permit from the Planning Commission. So the first question from the Planning Commission is going to be, does the property owner allow you to use this parking? |
| 03:42:37.39 | Unknown | Of course. |
| 03:42:56.18 | Lily Shinseng | Are there other... |
| 03:42:56.57 | Jonathan Goldman | other commercial well it's permit parking in lot five if I'm not mistaken right there other commercial that use that lot or do other commercial or do contractors or that have a similar – situation. not similar to Sea Trek, but just pay to use that lot on a program. |
| 03:43:17.19 | Adam Politzer | Yeah, there's a combination of uses of the lock. There's also public parking allowed, so it's not exclusive. |
| 03:43:21.41 | Jonathan Goldman | Thank you. |
| 03:43:22.61 | Adam Politzer | permit parking. a variety of permits that are issued and one being the quarterly parking that's available for the the business community and for the resident community. And then there's overnight parking permits that allow folks, especially the folks that live there, to have cars overnight without being sighted. And then we have construction, offsite construction vehicles are allowed to park there. so that once they unload their materials when they're doing work up in the hills, they can park their vehicles down there, and that's also permanent. There's probably a variety of others, and then, as we all know, in the evening, there's a demand from the restaurant and movie theater And that was one of the primary purposes to make that public parking. in the evening hours available to the public. |
| 03:44:18.53 | Jonathan Goldman | And the rate that we would charge – that the city is proposing to charge is comparable or is more – |
| 03:44:25.50 | Adam Politzer | More than the quarterly parking permits that we give to people that either park there during the day as employees on Caledonia Street or Bridgeway or folks that live there and want overnight parking. |
| 03:44:44.12 | Herb Weiner | Any other questions? |
| 03:44:46.45 | Unknown | Not at the moment. |
| 03:44:47.61 | Herb Weiner | Okay, so why don't we open this up for public comment? And reminder, you have three minutes. |
| 03:44:58.24 | Desiree | I'm Desiree. I get to watch this operation all the time. Bob doesn't want me to interfere with the negotiations that are going on, but I'm going to anyway, so separate me from him. But when you watch somebody run a business for a long time the way he does, nothing bad ever happens. Everybody's happy, nobody argues. Um... Nobody's ever drowned. Nobody's ever gotten hurt. Um, And you hardly know who's running all of this and why it works so well. Well, that's because somebody knows how to run a business with a lot of people of all kinds, little ones, big ones, fat ones, doesn't matter. works. He makes it work. That kind of person, he's so quiet. Well, I'm not quiet. Um... Let me give you the why. Um. That little beach is closed in. It's a perfect place for somebody to get onto a paddleboard for the first time or a kayak for the first time and all of a sudden over the hill up rodeo and down on us, 40 knots of wind. Ten people at once. He's got one chase boat. Um, That's the perfect place. It's contained so people can grab onto the docks in that area. and not get away, a whole bunch of them especially. where people are making them go now, that's kind of wide open spaces. You get a puff of wind and everybody's gone. Swimming. That's not so great in the marina. Um, Swimming is a little bit dangerous around those docks because it's also a place that has, for short periods of time, five or 10 minutes, there's a big push of current back eddy, or a big push of current the other way, And a person can get up against the dock and get dragged under. You know, the doctor. That goes over you, especially an inexperienced swimmer. Um... It's not a good place because there's a lot of paddling going on. Sometimes my neighborhood brings in engines. That's not great. The swimming belongs down. on the other side of the park. the kayaks belong where they are now. and this business of turning this operation out of there. is you know as well as I do the last time this happened, when it all came up five years ago, the problem was Sea Trek. Well, the problem with the people living in the town, the people that use the place, wasn't with Sea Trek. It was just the owner of the property that wants to make a lot of money by putting up five or six buildings and then dumping it off. He's got to do that now because in 10 years, Everybody's going to say, no, we're going to have to build a dike around this and all this. they're not going to want to do that all of a sudden. So they've got to do it now. So they move out the best thing we got going in town. This is ridiculous. You can help this. |
| 03:48:04.80 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. Okay. |
| 03:48:11.17 | Jerry Fade | Jerry Fade again. So is this, this is it, this is our comment period? Yeah, yes. This issue? And what about other people in the marina who don't know what's going on? I mean, you want me to speak for them? |
| 03:48:16.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:48:16.12 | Jonathan Goldman | for this issue? |
| 03:48:23.59 | Jonathan Goldman | It can go to the – it goes to the planning commission. All we're talking about right now is the use of the parking spaces. Right. |
| 03:48:25.10 | Jerry Fade | I think Commissioner does. |
| 03:48:26.68 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:48:28.42 | Jerry Fade | of the public. Yeah, the sprographies and, okay, because we don't have to bring up issues of whether we think it's good or bad. We just can get informed about you getting a license to it. |
| 03:48:38.39 | Unknown | You giving a license. |
| 03:48:40.03 | Unknown | Say anything you want. |
| 03:48:40.39 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:48:40.52 | Jerry Fade | anything you want. Well, I'm a little confused. I just met the owner of C-Track. It's nice of him to introduce himself. We express a ton of issues and he's sorry that we weren't informed. I'm insulted we weren't informed because we live there. And it's not, we're struggling to have our when we into compliance and be a real marina. And this could be a leverage point for us to, you know, get some things accomplished that would push us towards compliance and becoming a legal marina. We could get you as a city to put some pressure on them. And our list is really long because we feel they've been going the other way. |
| 03:48:41.63 | Unknown | Well, I think... |
| 03:48:42.27 | Unknown | I think I'm a little confused. |
| 03:49:22.81 | Unknown | you. |
| 03:49:33.20 | Jerry Fade | Okay, so now back to the parking. The way this gentleman that owns the seat tracker explained it to me, it wasn't exactly correct. The answer gave it wasn't exactly correct. We pay $410 a year for parking. |
| 03:49:40.04 | Jenny Reinders | Yes. |
| 03:49:52.96 | Jerry Fade | what's CTRAC gonna pay for one parking space? I'm not clear. You asked the question, so I just wanna make the answer. Who answered it? Thank you. Adam? |
| 03:50:03.70 | Adam Politzer | Yeah, they're paying $4 a day per space. |
| 03:50:07.65 | Jerry Fade | per car. What does that mean? |
| 03:50:10.94 | Adam Politzer | Chris Faye. |
| 03:50:11.24 | Jerry Fade | Oh, perfect. Well, that's what we pay. Yeah, I can't do the math. Can you tell him that it's for years? |
| 03:50:17.18 | Linda Pfeifer | Adam, is it 800? Is that in the staff report? How much a year? |
| 03:50:20.81 | Adam Politzer | That's the total for seven spaces. |
| 03:50:22.75 | Linda Pfeifer | total for seven spaces is $800. |
| 03:50:23.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:50:23.10 | Jerry Fade | Thank you. |
| 03:50:23.95 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:50:23.96 | Jerry Fade | Yeah. |
| 03:50:24.37 | Adam Politzer | Per month. Per month. So it's $10,000. It's a little over $10,000 a year. |
| 03:50:25.52 | Linda Pfeifer | For months, okay. |
| 03:50:26.90 | Jerry Fade | Thank you. |
| 03:50:30.22 | Jerry Fade | For seven spaces? For seven spaces. |
| 03:50:31.05 | Adam Politzer | have A little more than 1,000 a year. |
| 03:50:36.15 | Herb Weiner | 1,000, 3, 400. 1,000. |
| 03:50:39.35 | Adam Politzer | So you pay $400 a year. They're going to pay a little over $1,000. |
| 03:50:39.45 | Unknown | So you pay for it. here. |
| 03:50:41.68 | Jerry Fade | Thank you. |
| 03:50:41.75 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:50:41.82 | Jerry Fade | Thank you. Yeah. |
| 03:50:45.88 | Jerry Fade | What's the reason for that? |
| 03:50:46.36 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. Why are they going to pay more than a resident or an employee? Because it's for their visitors, so it's more consistent with what we charge the hotel guests for parking in any of the four lots. |
| 03:50:58.52 | Unknown | you |
| 03:50:58.57 | Jerry Fade | Okay. But... |
| 03:51:00.45 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:51:00.46 | Jerry Fade | Thank you for that. you Okay, so the next time that we get to really put in substantial comments, we lose the planning commission? Thank you. |
| 03:51:10.52 | Adam Politzer | Yeah. |
| 03:51:10.54 | Jerry Fade | Yes. |
| 03:51:11.96 | Adam Politzer | Yeah, well there's opportunity starting tonight. |
| 03:51:14.33 | Jerry Fade | Well, I have a few minutes, but I haven't had time to... Well, no, no, not just... |
| 03:51:15.18 | Adam Politzer | to continue. Well, no, no, not just your comments tonight, but there's opportunity to talk with staff talk with the owner of the company, C-TREC, |
| 03:51:22.94 | Desiree | Mm-hmm. Yes. |
| 03:51:25.51 | Adam Politzer | I talked with your landlord. And then the next public hearing, is when you can come back in front of a |
| 03:51:33.64 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:51:34.84 | Adam Politzer | a deciding body. |
| 03:51:34.99 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 03:51:36.14 | Adam Politzer | But between now and then, you can get educated, place your concerns and bring that to Lily or to myself. |
| 03:51:41.33 | Jerry Fade | TO LILY OR TO MYSELF. THAT WOULD BE GREAT. OKAY. AND THEN JUST IN PARTING, I'D LIKE TO SAY, that we are highly residential, and we – many of you have been to the marina, Jonathan, the mayor, and Linda, and I have had contact with the architect Michael Rex before, and I'm just very disappointed that we weren't notified in a dignified manner. Thank you. |
| 03:52:11.00 | Herb Weiner | Thanks, Jerry. |
| 03:52:17.62 | Thomas Lyon Omohundro | Good evening. My name is Thomas Lyon Omohundro. I live at 225 Locust Street here in Sausalito, which is Marineways. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, council and staff for hosting us tonight. I'd like to start off with I have no problems with C-TREC at all. I love that company. I recommend it to people who visit. I work in the public and have taken classes there. I train there. I love it. It's unfortunate that they're being forced to move. However, I don't feel that our concessions that would need to be made on Locust Street, not only the parking, which given the sold out status of the L permits, I ended up with parking tickets before I was allowed to get a permit this year. Um, then I get a permit, and then it's very, very difficult to park. Even if they have seven spaces, they are still taking those seven spaces away from the current parking inventory. No proposal has been made for a 300 locust plot to expand into a paved parking area, which was a proposal back in 2008 and 2009, according to staff reports, of up to a 90-space parking lot. Currently, a temporary storage of PG&A material was on that lot. That's 2009. It's five years later. That temporary storage is still there. Sixty-foot concrete forms, debris, pilings, weeds higher than your head. If cars were parked there, you wouldn't see them anyway. I also feel any business venture with public and business should be a good faith and clean hands approach. That's basic tenets of law and business. The current owner of 225 Bridgeway has I lost Federal Human Rights Commission violations with another company in Sacramento in 2006 before buying our property in 2008. Currently they are... with the Franchise Tax Board in a suspended business status as of November 1st of 2013. And as part of that, business loses its rights, powers, and privileges to conduct business The business cannot initiate lawsuits, defend itself against lawsuits, or enforce it so legal contracts. Excuse me, I'm a little emotional. haven't done this before. and if the business does enter into contracts while suspended or forfeited, it can never enforce those contracts. So the city needs to be aware that its current THE CITY ATTORNEY TO INVESTIGATE THEIR tax status ASAP. going on six months in arrears. I've already addressed the parking hard to do on the weekends. Um. Inadequate restrooms currently, there's one porta potty being proposed for the new facility. NO ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE BUILDING. The noise increase is already loud with Barbacci, Salidos, and Wellingtons on the other side of that peaceful marina. We need to maintain the peaceful waterfront. Thank you for your time. I have lots more to say. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:55:23.80 | Jonathan Goldman | Can I ask you a question? Yes. Because, you know, you live there, so I want to give you a chance to kind of get it all out. But maybe you could condense it down a little bit. Sure. So I'm curious what your other issues are, if you could maybe – |
| 03:55:32.94 | Thomas Lyon Omohundro | Sure. Just quickly, the new facility, specifically the put-in, It's located only if the plan is to scale, if I could ask staff to review the plan. The put-in is about 12 to 15 feet behind boats that exit that marina. You're going to put 40 little kids right here. where boats come out. How are they going to back out in here when there's 30 kids in there, you know? That's just a safety issue. You have a right to navigate. You've got to have a place to put your boat. Currently, it says on the planet's hidden now, 63 existing berths. There are currently 72 berths there, squeezed in every way imaginable. It looks like a Tetris puzzle. |
| 03:56:11.12 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:56:26.30 | Thomas Lyon Omohundro | properties in distress bear, dangerous electrical infrastructure, poor plumbing that sometimes leaks in the bay, slow response to fixed problems when they arise, piles of debris everywhere, animal feces, cat, dog, and rodent everywhere. Kids are going to be running around. That's dangerous. And the federally protected eelgrass bed that's there is on the Pacific Flyway. That's one of the largest sea lion and migratory bird species. areas in Richardson Bay. Thank you. come see it in the winter time when all the birds are flocking. And that's basically imposing most concern about the marina's inability, or according to state law, to lose the right to conduct business currently. And I could be evicted over this. I'm tired of staying quiet for years, and I was threatened with eviction when I was given a rent-increase notice that was post-dated. And the rent-increase notice says... 60 days notice of change in the terms of the contract. We don't have a contract. Is this my contract? And if so, according to the FTB website, it's not enforceable because it happened during a time that they're not legally a status, a business status. Thank you. |
| 03:57:44.23 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to comment? |
| 03:57:55.24 | Unknown | I am Sybil Boutillier. I am a constant patron of SeaTrek. And for Christmas, I gave all my friends gift certificates to use the kayaks and take their kids to learn how to use the boards. I think that this is one of the most unique features of South Salido. There's nothing like it in Southern Marin. It's devastating that they're being pushed out of this perfect location with a breakwater and the sandy beach, which is used constantly by families in South Salido. I wish the city would push on the of Schoen And if, you know, if a single citizen could do anything, I'd go to Eminent Domain. Because I think it's so unique and such a valuable asset for the community. It's really a community place. And it's the perfect place. I happen to keep my canoe there, which makes it easy to put it in the water. And because of the sand, it doesn't get ruined. It's quite a unique little vehicle. It's a perfect place for people that don't own a yacht but want to get out on the water. |
| 03:58:07.13 | Unknown | use |
| 03:58:46.94 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:59:14.21 | Unknown | I would beg the city to do anything they can to keep them in Sausalito if we can't keep them in the place they're in now. I think the best thing would be to try to work on keeping them where they are, give them the permits they need to move forward and see if there's any way to backtrack. But if not, then I think we need to try to keep them here because they provide a very unique and valuable addition to our waterfront activity and life here in South Salida. Thank you. |
| 03:59:48.55 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:59:56.26 | Diane Poslowski | Hello, I'm Diane Poslowski and a resident of Sausalito for 18 years now. And I direct a non-profit organization, Environmental Traveling Companions, otherwise referred to as ETC. And we have been partners, I'll try not to get emotional here, with SeaTrac for 30 years. And we mostly provide outdoor adventure and outdoor recreation for people with disabilities and disadvantaged youth. And we actually got started in terms of our sea kayaking program. We have lots of different programs. We're based at Fort Mason Center in San Francisco. But our kayak program started here, thanks to the good graces of Babalect. And we've really been partners all throughout our program of 30 years now. And that ETC has been part of Sausalito. We were the very first accessible sea kayak program in the country. And Sausalito has hosted that all these years, these 30 years. So it's pretty special. And we have this incredible partnership with SeaTrek. we borrowed books from them, they borrowed books from us, If we need help, we're at Angel Island, and it's too windy to get back because we've got blind participants, or we have participants in wheelchairs, or we have inner city kids, we call C-Track, and boom, they come to our rescue. And we've had that interdependent relationship for 30 years. And so, And is it really an emotional thing? I haven't even come to grips with the fact that C-TREC and ETC are not going to be in the same place. It's pretty devastating, actually, for us. And I'm not sure what to do about it. I know if they were threatening to kick us out of there, I'd have tons of people with disabilities probably singing their song of like, hey, this is our accessible recreation, Um, |
| 04:02:02.64 | Sonya Hanson | Amen. |
| 04:02:03.74 | Diane Poslowski | Right now we're not being forced to leave, but who knows what will happen in the future. And of course I would love it if Sea Trek could stay, but they've basically been given notice. And I think it's critical that they stay in Sausalito because I think they're a huge part of the fabric of our community and an accessible way for people to explore Richardson and San Francisco Bay in a soft way. and also for people who can afford sailboats to be able to enjoy this beautiful, beautiful bay and our community of Sausalito. So I don't know if the city can do anything in terms of Schoonmaker to encourage them to let Sea Trek stay. I really don't know, but If that Isn't? feasible. I do highly recommend that, and we'll continue to be partners and work together But I highly recommend that the city find a way, and et cetera will help in whatever way possible. to have C-TREC stay in our community. And I know my time is up, but the one thing that I can be a resource for, whether it's BCDC or the city, is the accessible piece and some recommendations in that capacity. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:03:21.31 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 04:03:21.53 | Diane Poslowski | Thank you. |
| 04:03:28.25 | Unknown | Sea track sounds wonderful, but I don't think it belongs in our marina. We have. a lot of problems with the owner. He uses intimidation and He resorts to being a thug. And even, I'm sure this is gonna be reported back to him that we are here, we talked. There's not enough parking. I could see him using this to do other things. And right now, he's stuffing boats in there. He doesn't care about whether it's safe for us or that he'll cut a dock. without concern for the stability of the dock. And that if you cut it, that you're ruining the structure of it. And he's putting more and more weight. And if there's, It's just... They're not improving the structure of it and they're not giving us any more bathrooms. It's disastrous for us. Thank you. |
| 04:04:39.14 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. Is there anybody else who'd like to comment? |
| 04:04:48.27 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 04:04:52.60 | Unknown | Monica, come on. Come on, Monica. |
| 04:04:56.50 | Monica Chowers | This has been going for a long time, but my name is Monica Chowers, and I'm a resident of Sausalito, and I'm on the Sustainability Commission here. I've been a sea kayak guide with ETC for 20 something, 20 years and a little bit. and I'm a really active kayaker in the Bay and a big supporter of Sea Trek. They're great, that's where I got my start. And I just, they're so important to our town. And I also think that this moving forward, it's so important to have continued public access to the Bay and I hope we can work something out. I trust your judgment on that, and I really hope we can work it out. And I would love it if they could stay where they are, but we have to be realistic and find another solution. So thank you for your time. |
| 04:05:45.88 | Herb Weiner | Thank you, Monica. Anybody else like to comment? |
| 04:05:53.08 | Jonathan Goldman | I don't know. |
| 04:05:53.81 | Herb Weiner | I was going to suggest that as well. No, please, go ahead. |
| 04:05:53.89 | Jonathan Goldman | Yes. No. |
| 04:05:58.99 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:05:59.21 | Jonathan Goldman | Can I ask the C-TREC folks? Yeah, please. |
| 04:05:59.31 | Herb Weiner | Yes. |
| 04:06:03.48 | Jonathan Goldman | So I'm gonna ask you some questions. You can answer the ones you wanna answer, because some of it's, if I were in your shoes, I wouldn't want to answer. So I'll leave it up to you. I'm not asking you about personal stuff, but what's your favorite color? Do you – and I just don't know the answers to these, and maybe other people on the council do because they were part of the committee that you were negotiating. So do you have a – like, is there a lease term for what you've negotiated with Bridgeway or whatever they call the Saucerino Marina or whatever they call themselves now? Do you have an actual term lease, or is it a month-to-month lease? |
| 04:06:12.17 | Unknown | I'm not asking. |
| 04:06:40.49 | Bob (Sea Trek owner) | We're still negotiating that. |
| 04:06:41.78 | Jonathan Goldman | Okay. |
| 04:06:43.02 | Bob (Sea Trek owner) | So that hasn't been resolved yet. |
| 04:06:45.04 | Jonathan Goldman | Okay. Because that's super important for you, and it's super important, I think, for everybody here to know. And if you care to, so that everyone has the same amount of information, can you speak why you're looking for another place to live, in a sense. And you can choose your words as you see fit. |
| 04:07:06.76 | Bob (Sea Trek owner) | Thank you. Yeah, well, thank you. I'm... |
| 04:07:15.18 | Bob (Sea Trek owner) | Yeah, well, it's been described. We've been given notice without much of a reason. Liability was used as that's – our communication is with the Harbormaster, with Mike Rainey. We haven't met with the owners. I've had very little – very little communication with them over the years. It's always been Mike. We've always gotten along. Had a very cooperative relationship with the Harbormaster. That's never been an issue. So on January 14th, my manager, Steve Hayward, and I were asked to come into the office, and we were given notice that we needed to leave by May 31st. So there was nothing that we could, as much as we wanted to see a laundry list of what we could do to make it right for them, we actually didn't get one. There was actually no specific reasons given except a general – that were a liability issue. I mean, that's what it was. |
| 04:08:20.64 | Jonathan Goldman | Okay. And as far as your attempts to find another home, I imagine those have been difficult, and I know the city has been working with you on that front as well. |
| 04:08:25.72 | Bob (Sea Trek owner) | Yeah. working with you. It's been three months full-on, full-time looking, you know, and with the support of the city, the staff and council, this has become the best that we've come up with. Having that put in at the foot of Locust Street would be good for us and, I think, really good for the public. I mean, from the response that we got from the petition that we put out and all the comments that have come from Sauceto residents, they seem extremely supportive of having another access to the bay. So that's certainly a plus. And we scoured the Marin ship. We've looked everywhere. You know, we went all the way up and all the way down, and this is what we came up with as the best solution. |
| 04:09:19.65 | Bob (Sea Trek owner) | Okay. |
| 04:09:20.21 | Linda Pfeifer | I just had a quick question. You said I heard you were able to speak to one of the liveaboards and you were open to working with them and talking with them some more. Yeah, I appreciate that. |
| 04:09:20.23 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 04:09:29.35 | Bob (Sea Trek owner) | Yeah. Yeah, I appreciate that. Just some more and, yeah? Yeah, I'm sorry that the communication has not been with the people that are living there. That's a real oversight. And I gave my e-mail address to them, and I'm ready any time to meet and talk and see what their concerns are. Absolutely. I mean, we've been, you know, over the last 32 years, we feel we've had a very good relationship with the Livabore, with the anchor outs, in terms of their interaction with us when they come back. in and out from the beach or they've been very helpful for us if we've had a situation out on the water. We have – we feel a good rapport with them. And the people on the beach, the people that we share that beach with, you know, we've always had to have a good rapport with them. And that's in our blood. We have – we're not going to live somewhere where we don't have good communication with our neighbors. It's just – that's what's made us who we are for the last 30 years. So I'm going to back – I'm going to definitely see what all those are. Yeah, absolutely. |
| 04:10:37.06 | Jonathan Goldman | I know it sounds daunting, but would you be willing to meet with them as a – No, I already suggest that. In a group setting? Absolutely. |
| 04:10:41.33 | Bob (Sea Trek owner) | No, I already suggested that. In a group setting? Absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah, any time. I mean, I'm ready. Yeah. No, I just made that suggestion. I was glad to have the opportunity just in the breaks to make contact. I haven't had contact with these folks, but I was telling them that, of course, let's set up a time when all of you can get together and I'll be there. |
| 04:11:05.22 | Herb Weiner | there were some concerns expressed about safety in that location. MR. Yeah. MR. You've been doing this for a long time. So what's your thoughts on that? |
| 04:11:12.68 | Bob (Sea Trek owner) | Yeah. Yeah. Well, you know, we've had to deal with that at Schoonmaker because you have the boats going in and out of that inner lagoon all the time. You've got, I mean, we have the five star. We have Billy Martinelli's boat that has to go in and out, and we deal with it. That's not a big problem for us because people know when they want to go out. They'll blow their horn. They'll let us know. We have, what we do now is when we see – they'll usually come by and tell us that they're going to go out, and then we'll take one of our staff people and go out and make sure that the people get out of the way and make sure that there's room. So I'm not too concerned about that. And I don't think – I don't know for sure, and this is something that I would find out when I talk to the folks that are living there, as to how much those boats actually do go in and out. I'm not sure. But I would find out and set up a system whereby that's not an issue. So I'm not overly concerned about that. |
| 04:12:09.83 | Herb Weiner | Any other questions? |
| 04:12:13.19 | Linda Pfeifer | I have a question of city staff, actually. |
| 04:12:13.36 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 04:12:17.78 | Herb Weiner | Well, we do still have public comment open, I think. Oh, okay. Is there any other questions? No? No. Okay. And before... |
| 04:12:22.39 | Unknown | So is there any other questions? |
| 04:12:24.97 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:12:25.02 | Unknown | of |
| 04:12:35.30 | Unknown | It depends what the question is. |
| 04:12:35.45 | Diane Poslowski | I'm just... |
| 04:12:35.75 | Jonathan Goldman | If I could. |
| 04:12:37.04 | Diane Poslowski | If I could. |
| 04:12:39.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:12:40.90 | Diane Poslowski | Thank you. |
| 04:12:40.99 | Jonathan Goldman | Thank you. |
| 04:12:41.21 | Unknown | Please, go. |
| 04:12:43.38 | Diane Poslowski | I do have one question. Does the city have any power at all with Schoonmaker Marina in terms of tenancy? you Well, you're... |
| 04:12:54.47 | Linda Pfeifer | Mr. Mayor, the question I was going to ask city staff is directly related to that. |
| 04:13:00.06 | Herb Weiner | So why don't we have our city attorney address that? |
| 04:13:02.89 | Linda Pfeifer | Actually, it was slightly, if I may, just ask my question. So to build on that question, the city I know worked with |
| 04:13:05.98 | Herb Weiner | Just ask. |
| 04:13:17.23 | Linda Pfeifer | the C-TREC to find a new location, did the city also reach out to the owner to discuss, to look at the original permit, the zoning for the marineship-specific plan and try some perhaps to be an intermediary in some way regarding keeping C-TREC at that perfect location? It's a perfect location. you |
| 04:13:42.99 | Mary Wagner | Mr. Mayor. No, not to my knowledge. It's my understanding that when we were approached by C-TREC, it was a fait accompli that they'd already been given their notice to move in and tried to work with their landlord. And in response to the question from – the public, you know, the city doesn't control private landowners, landlord-tenant relationships. You know, the city has permit authority and can work to ensure that the landlords are utilizing the appropriate types of tenants, but we don't have any legal authority to get in between a landlord-tenant relationship. That's not to say that we can't reach out and have a discussion either through the business community or the chamber or some other contacts, but from a legal perspective, we don't have control over landlord-tenant issues. |
| 04:14:38.35 | Linda Pfeifer | So the other part of that question was, I know in the past, for example, with the tour buses, the city has gotten engaged, and I think when – |
| 04:14:39.60 | Mary Wagner | Yeah. |
| 04:14:49.83 | Linda Pfeifer | Anderson Boat Works, I guess, left. There was some discussion. And I was just wondering if that's something the city could do, is to reach out to the current owner. and also to revisit the permit, the original permit. One resident said to me, and I don't know if This is... correct or not. that the nature of the permit required some form of water recreational activity. I don't know if that's correct or not, but I was just wondering if the city could comment on that. |
| 04:15:27.02 | Jonathan Goldman | Let me phrase that differently because I think it gets the same point. So I think it's worth reaching out to – and even the case with Andersons, we tried to reach out to the property owner who had already given them notice in the case of Andersons. We were talking to other property owners to try and help them find a home for Andersons Bowyard that used to be where KKMI is now. But my question for you – and I think this is – and, Linda, tell me if this is what're getting at, because there's no – the only permits that exist there are the permits that allow sea track and the boat storage and other things that currently exist there, but my question Can we look back at the – have we and could we if we haven't look back at the Schoonmaker original approval and see if there's any conditions of approval in there that could be enforced in terms of – that may assist C-TREC, but if it doesn't assist C-TREC, that would – that also apply to the property because that property, as you know, has the mono-marsh restrictions on it, which were a function of all that original development of Schoonmaker. So if we could take a look at the property, look back and make sure there's nothing sitting there in the conditions of approval for the initial Schoonmaker project versus this lot, and see if there's any teeth there, as well as if there's any requirement for a certain activity on the existing Schoonmaker property as part of that whole process. |
| 04:16:53.18 | Adam Politzer | So to answer both council members' comments, Um, We haven't reached out to the property owners. We can do that. That's just no reason why we can't. Bob or Avis may be able to already tell you what the conditions of both properties are because I'm sure they're looking for any loophole that they could find to help us help them. But we can have staff go back and look at the original permit and find out. if there was any requirement that required a business on that parcel to provide this type of activity, so we'll look at that. I don't believe that it exists, And if Bob and Avis know anything different, then I'd welcome them to come and comment. But we can look into that to see what leverage the city may or may not have. But to Councilmember Leon's comment, when he was the mayor, he and I and Councilmember and he may have been the mayor at the time. It might have transformed both of their terms. I mean, we were meeting with everybody to see what we could do, and we had no power. The only power was good, and we were hanging out redevelopment at the time because it still as maybe we had a bargaining chip. We had no chip, and that chip has now disappeared. So we can reach out. I unfortunately don't have a lot of confidence that the honor would want to make any concession at this point in time. And so that's why staff worked with Bob and Avis and listen to the community to see what we could do to support their effort, and that's what's before you tonight. One of the members of the public made a suggestion of is there a parallel I think that was Sybil's comment. you know, go this direction, but if we can find the path that gets them back there, we'll then backtrack later. I think because they have a a date certain that they need to be off the property to make sure that there's a place for them to land, I think, is what we're asking the council and the planning commission to give consideration to. If there's an opportunity to go backward, I would know that. Bob and Avis would love to stay where they are. So we'll take a look at both what the existing documents say And if there's any leverage, we can get gather with the property owner, we'll exhaust that option. |
| 04:19:14.98 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 04:19:15.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:19:18.04 | Desiree | I'm going to Thank you. |
| 04:19:21.18 | Herb Weiner | Please. I'll reopen public comments. |
| 04:19:24.92 | Desiree | I've been around this schoolmaker property for a long time, and Bob would just as soon not get into an argument with them, although that's hard to do with Mike because he's another good guy, the guy that runs the property. So they're both kind of helpless here. In the original construction of the place, the beach was already there. It was required to get the marina in to keep the beach, so they did. Then it was required to keep the dock that I use unlocked. They tried to lock that many times. And back in 98, when Bushmaker was here and so forth, they managed to keep that lock open in the dock that I use. At one time, Bob had a place in the building, plus places to store the kayaks outside. that he was pushed out of there when they brought in the loan shark, the country ride. and he took up the whole bottom floor where all those garage doors are, and that was countrywide, um, mortgage-backed securities. You know, there are They're their henchmen. And then they put in a big restaurant, and then they needed a big parking lot. So all the dry boat storage got squeezed. And really, to make the bay work, we really need to get boats out of the water to get less bottom pain in the water. and that's what that big flat piece of land is. We don't need buildings there. We don't need that damn parking lot there. We need boats there. so they don't have to have bottoms scrubbed in the water, because that's bad for our whole environment. And that's a concern to swimmers, to people that are using paddle boards and all this stuff. And it's a concern of fishermen in the wildlife. the things that we all love. |
| 04:21:21.83 | Unknown | . |
| 04:21:22.56 | Desiree | And this original property had a plan. Thank you. and a negotiation for building it, and they built it out. And what they got is what they wanted. And now they want to change something You got the best thing going with these kayak people, I'll tell you. That's well managed, it's safe, And there's thousands of people that have lived their lives safely in small boats in a very tough place right next to the gate. because of what this guy runs as a business in his own quiet little way. And handicapped people, all this stuff, it's important to what we call our community and society. To fight for the place it works, that containment, put the swimmers in a place where There's more openness not in the marina. That's the way things should be. He needs to drive boat storage. So does more people. So thank you very much for putting up. |
| 04:22:23.43 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:22:24.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:22:25.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:22:25.70 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 04:22:27.09 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:22:30.72 | Unknown | Just a question that just came up. So if the beach was there before this area was developed, isn't that make it a California coastal beach? Isn't that protected from being privately restricted? |
| 04:22:52.98 | Diane Poslowski | you Thank you. |
| 04:22:53.72 | Herb Weiner | Yeah. Okay, so if you wanna speak, you need to come up to the microphone, that's okay. But I think, to clarify, I think |
| 04:23:01.26 | Unknown | but |
| 04:23:01.77 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:23:04.57 | Herb Weiner | maybe Adam, you may know this better than anybody. Just to clarify on just a point of fact, the beach was sort of imported, wasn't it, as part of the deal to build |
| 04:23:18.90 | Adam Politzer | Yeah, I think that's our understanding, but there's no need to speculate. I think what the council is asking us is go back, look at the permit, look at what was required. and just make sure that the I's and T's are crossed. So I'd rather not speculate. I trust that the facts are the facts. But at the moment, what we have before is if there is no |
| 04:23:30.88 | Unknown | us. |
| 04:23:41.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:23:41.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:23:44.56 | Adam Politzer | you know, silver lining here, or silver magic bullet, whatever you want to say, the question is where else could they coming. and move to that would work. And this unfortunately appears to be the only location that has surfaced. |
| 04:24:01.81 | Diane Poslowski | I just had one more thought about if the city does go to the owners who I think are pretty absentee. I've never even met them and I've been around for 30 years. So I think strikes me that what would be an interesting thing to do if the city does do that, that C-Track, I haven't really talked about this, but that C-Track basically put out some conditions as well, like what would they be willing, like what would you be willing to do? Like would you be willing to pay twice as much rent? Would you be willing to... you know, what their concerns are with liability. Would you be willing, you know, like just to really, bullet. all the possibilities to respond to their concerns. My hunch, and it's only a hunch, because I know that I'm probably the last person that they would tell what they're planning on doing there, just because of what we do, and it's probably a little bit of a threat that we do work with a lot of very active people with disabilities. But my hunch is they're gonna use it for dry boat storage. and that they can make a lot more money doing that. So they're probably gonna respond to what you were saying. That's my hunch from talking to Mike. So that's all. |
| 04:25:36.43 | Herb Weiner | Okay, thank you. Okay, Jerry, yes, no, if you want to say something, please. |
| 04:25:43.97 | Jerry Fade | I was just... I didn't mean for city council to hear details of how horrible our marina was, but since you have, I was wondering if you would consider putting on the priority list something like urge Marina into compliance, whatever it is into compliance. You started to do that with, I mean, Jeremy Graves explained to me that the city, that was the city's intention to deal with the parking lot, the building, and then the marina. And I don't, of course, want draconian measures, but it could at least change the direction that the marina is going. We're up to 63 berths with 71 boats, and if that doesn't tell you something, nothing does. Thank you. |
| 04:26:40.35 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. Okay. Going, going, going. Last chance. Anybody want to talk? Nope. Okay. Okay. |
| 04:26:52.45 | Linda Pfeifer | Yeah. I can start So first of all, we all love the kayaks, and we want to see them stay in Sausalito. What concerns me, what I heard tonight was I heard a few things. I heard that the the original permit condition, there were conditions around the original permit as the beach was built and constructed. And public access was one of them. And so I think it's good for the city definitely to go back and revisit that permit and the specific conditions to see if the public access had to do with recreational, you know, something beyond just boat storage. Because if we can find any leverage to help them stay at that beautiful beach, you know. I'm also concerned with respect to the remaining water services at that beach that service are the handicapped disabled because that that could be Their lease could be out the door, too. and that would be a shame as well. So I'm very concerned. It's funny because when I first ran for city council in 2008, this was one of my issues. This was one of the platform issues. I had in my flyers, I had the... the building they wanted to put on that beach on one of my flyers. And it really resonated with people. People want to keep their beach and they want that access for, um, So I really hope the city will reach out to the city, and to and work and reach out with the owner and take a look at that permit. At the same time, I understand the two-track approach, and I was very heartened to hear how receptive the owner of the kayak of SeaTrack was in talking with the liveaboards and making sure that their concerns are addressed and forming an alliance and, you know, working out their concerns. And with regards to the liveaboards, I'm very concerned about what I'm hearing with respect to Saucedo Marineways. I mean, that is – there has got to be – we have regulations, standards for marinas, things that, I mean, it just sounds like a terribly unfriendly, it sounds like certainly Some sort of regulations are being broken there, from what I'm hearing. So I guess I would be interested in the city's comment on some of that as well, and perhaps follow up. Because certainly we have leverage. If there are safety hazards, if there are standards and regulations that are not being adhered to, |
| 04:29:31.72 | Unknown | . |
| 04:29:51.58 | Linda Pfeifer | That's our job to go and enforce that. So that's my comment. |
| 04:30:01.89 | Ray Withy | Well, we're faced with an interesting prospect. I mean, with C-TREC, there's a A lot of comments about a lot of things, but one thing everyone agrees about is that they love C-TREC. We want to keep them here, that they've operated their business in the utmost fashion and beyond anything we could hope for. We do see that we have a landlord on one side who kicked |
| 04:30:20.30 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 04:30:27.57 | Ray Withy | is people have problems with, and we also have another landlord on the other side people have problems with. But we don't want to saddle C-Truck with that. Bob and Avis have decided that, although I do think it's a good idea to talk to the Schumacher people, that we should see what we do. We should look at the two tracks that have been offered, and we can't get into this political battle or try to solve a bunch of other problems when CTREC has to move by May 31st. So I really think we can look at what happens about talking with the absentee lawyer – lawyers – the landlord's getting – it's past midnight, the bewitching hour is getting past midnight. But I do think we should stay focused and stay on this path. I think, you know, I'm willing to make a motion that we approve these parking spaces and this access. We are able to go to the Planning Commission to have further review on it. But I don't think it's a good idea for us to spend a lot of time – and our council has already said that it doesn't look like it's a real possibility that we're going to do anything with his prior landlord. And I don't think there's a lot. We're going to spend a lot of time and make him clean up the marina and have Sea Trek be homeless. So I think we should focus on it and approve it. We can look at these other things. We still have some time. But time's moving on. And if we don't do this soon, they're going to be without a place to stay. |
| 04:31:01.74 | Unknown | once again. |
| 04:31:28.08 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:31:54.58 | Unknown | Yeah, I agree with... Vice Mayor. First of all. If you go back, it kind of reminds me, like in the business I came from, gas stations, when oil companies wanted to get rid of you, they'd triple the rent. And I think if they really want to attempt to stay there, I think their rent might be tripled and possibly not feasible. And I think right now the best direction we should do is attempt to work with Bob. in the present. We've got till May 31st, which is around the corner. And let's get those people at least a place. And if we have to go backwards, we can always go backwards. I don't see that. So I think we should just move ahead with that. |
| 04:32:52.81 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:32:52.83 | Jonathan Goldman | So first of all, let me say you're valued as a business here. And let me say to the folks who live in – I don't know what he's calling it now, but Bridgeway Marine, whatever it's been morphed into, that I hear your point of view, and I am very worried for you, but I'm also very proud of you for this is the first time a lot of you have come forward and say, this really sucks. Right. That this marina is because you've been worried you're going to get kicked out. And you're going to leave tonight with that worry. And I think we've been dancing this dance with you guys and with whoever's been owning that property ever since I got in the Planning Commission about this dance of what do you do with this mess, because it's a mess, and you know it better than me. I kind of... We should use this as an opportunity to put the screws at Cameron, as far as I'm concerned, is give this guy an actual option on a lease before we give them parking spaces. Like, let's see the lease, man. Give this guy a reasonable lease, not month to month, and when we've done these parking spaces, and he uses it in some crazy fashion to negotiate something else. Right? So I don't want that to be caught in that. I thought you had at least an option on a lease, but you're not there, and I won't comment on Cameron, but let's get to at least have some certainty here before we, you know, use the public right-of-way for private use. As far as the conditions on the dock and the marina, you know, it's time to just – you guys have – you're – I've told you, the folks who I've talked to before, when you're ready for that to happen, you come here and you tell us. because you're putting yourself out there to get evicted. or you're all on 30 days or month to month, or you don't even have a lease, a lot of folks. And so when you're ready for that, let me know, because they've got to live by the letter of compliance. to be straightforward. They're doing the same dance they always do, and come down here and try and say, hey, we're willing to do this, that, and the other thing. Now that Morgan's out of the picture. as an owner. At least we think he is. I don't know if we've ever seen any confirmation of that. Um. So they're doing that same dance. And let's call a spade a spade, because your lease was – I don't care how much you were willing to pay to stay there. He wasn't – they weren't going to let you stay there. I mean, they did the same thing to you not too many years ago when they wanted to build these office buildings down there. I don't know what the status of your lease was then, but they were going to give you the boot anyway. And I can guarantee you they're going to come back. Dry store, boat storages are bruised for the – for an option to come back with another proposal to build on that property. So everybody's in a rock and a hard place here, but as far as my point of view is, I would suggest the staff or OMIT go back to Cameron and get some commitments on all these issues. And if he wants the lease income from these guys, and he's going to have to turn around and answer in a short period of time and not – let's say he's operating in good faith, and let's see if he is ready to operate in that way with the city. So Sea Trek has an actual lease. I would encourage you, as you said you're willing to do, to meet with the folks in that marina and get their concerns about noise and all the other stuff, and see if you can solve those and come back so we can cross those off the list. And let's get some commitments to upgrade the marina to at least a safe place. He wants to tear it down. You all know that. So he's not going to agree to make it, like, brand new. Well, you know. Come on. You know he's going to – he wants to – that's what he wanted to do before, and that's what everybody who's on that property wants to do, is tear it down. So he'd tear it down and build a new marina, so he's not going to invest in the marina to a point to get it back up to, like, a brand-new marina before he gets his – however many boats he wants to put in there, right? So, I mean, that's my speculation, because that's – otherwise, he would have made the improvements a long time ago. Right? So my point of view is let's use it as a leverage point. We'll see what we can get for you guys in the marina. We'll see what we can get for you as far as a lease. And, but the worst thing, and you have to give us the feedback, Um, well, you need a place to go at the end of May. So, because you got and you don't want to lose your business. And if you have recurring business, like from folks like this, you don't want to lose that. So you have to have a lot of work. It's a sprint, so that would be my suggestion. Rather than just do the, and the reason, can you forgive me, give me a couple seconds. And I think we're not the city isn't compelled to do this. a license agreement ahead of time, But, It's become a practice. One thing that pissed off a lot of people about Bridgetree Marine, the first time when Edmund Gossett came with his things, they had this agreement to do something But it wasn't actually on a piece of paper to do it. So I went to the Planning Commission in this kind of weird dance of, uh, So I commend you for actually coming at this point rather than after the fact to do the lease, or the license agreement. So... rather than put the Planning Commission a weird thing about a proposal on city property where there's no agreement to do anything on city property, which this would be if it didn't happen. |
| 04:38:28.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:38:28.54 | Jonathan Goldman | Thank you. So I know it's going to churn up a lot of time, but let's try and use this as an opportunity to make life better for Sea Trek as well as for the… the marina occupants and see what we can do. |
| 04:38:44.02 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:38:45.84 | Jonathan Goldman | I'm. And I apologize that you didn't get notified. It's just an oversight, I think, on the city's part, and I wish I had remembered to say, hey, did you email the folks in the marina or did you send out a notice to the folks in the marina? I apologize for that. |
| 04:38:48.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:39:06.38 | Jonathan Goldman | Sorry about that. |
| 04:39:09.28 | Herb Weiner | the most I mean, right now, the um, I think the Vice Mayor hit the nail on the head. The most important thing we can do right now is move forward on at least the track of Um. getting this through the Planning Commission and seeing if this is a new home for your business. Okay, because we don't have a lot of time So I'm not quite sure what I mean, we have a motion here to suggest move forward. I want to try and figure out what exactly more tangibly you want to do. Can I amend the motion? |
| 04:39:50.01 | Unknown | Can I amend the motion? |
| 04:39:52.01 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. Well, hang on, let me finish my question, because I'm trying to... I'm not sure. We've already got a motion on the table, which is to approve this license. subject to the Planning Commission and so on. Now, I'm hearing that that's not what you want to do, Councillor McLellan. |
| 04:40:10.97 | Jonathan Goldman | Thank you. No, that's not exactly right, but let's hear Linda's idea. Maybe it solves all the problems in the world. |
| 04:40:18.89 | Linda Pfeifer | I was going to amend the motion to, I'm in agreement with Council Member Leon. I think we certainly don't want C-TREC to be homeless. I think we're going to be doing them a favor by using this as an opportunity to first of all try and keep them in that beautiful location where they're at, but secondly to use it as an opportunity to go to the Saucedo Marineways and say, you know, you need compliance here. You need to adhere to basic, you know, regulations and permit enforcement. I mean, this is an opportunity. It's going to help C-TREC if they wind up there, not hurt them. not hurt them. If they're going into a situation where you know the landlord is not you know respecting something as fundamental as safety, this is you know, |
| 04:41:21.06 | Amy Noveski | Yeah. |
| 04:41:21.09 | Linda Pfeifer | No. |
| 04:41:21.16 | Amy Noveski | Thank you. |
| 04:41:21.17 | Linda Pfeifer | This to me is, you know, a way to help. So my amendment is that we – that we – engage in some sort of negotiations with regards to permits and original requirements for Schoonmacher Beach with the property owners there, and that we use the opportunity to also revisit compliance and safety regulation enforcement at Saucelot Marineways. |
| 04:41:58.47 | Herb Weiner | Public comment is closed by. |
| 04:41:59.29 | Linda Pfeifer | Oh. |
| 04:42:01.20 | Ray Withy | But... Yeah, the clarification on your amendment. So you're saying that... You support the motion I make, which is accepting this resolution. which would allow them the parking and access to the uh... Uh, put in, et cetera, but with the provisions that we also look at the Schoonmacher and the Bridgeway Marina. Is that – I'm just trying to get clarifying on what you're saying. |
| 04:42:27.85 | Linda Pfeifer | Well, actually, yeah, I'd like to ask Councilmember Leon a question because you made a good point. You said that he didn't have a lease right now or he didn't have – That's what he said. So clarification. So in other words, there's nothing really in writing right now? |
| 04:42:45.68 | Ray Withy | We can make this subject to his acquiring a lease, so this is very easily solved. |
| 04:42:50.48 | Linda Pfeifer | Okay. I don't know. |
| 04:42:53.73 | Ray Withy | I mean, |
| 04:42:55.03 | Linda Pfeifer | I mean, you know, I see people |
| 04:42:55.98 | Ray Withy | The thing I'm concerned about is that we're trying to solve a couple of other problems |
| 04:42:58.26 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 04:42:58.27 | Linda Pfeifer | Right. |
| 04:42:58.95 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:43:00.11 | Linda Pfeifer | We don't want him to... Yeah, I understand. |
| 04:43:02.64 | Ray Withy | Right. We don't want to solve other problems in the Bridgeway Marina and in the Marin ship. And then we force the Sea Trek to find another home because these guys are looking at a deadline. So I go back to what my original thing is. I think we should stay on this track. |
| 04:43:04.96 | Linda Pfeifer | Right. |
| 04:43:14.49 | Unknown | The original thing is... |
| 04:43:17.19 | Ray Withy | I make my motion to go forward with this. We still have some time to revisit some of this because it's going to the Planning Commission. We can talk to others. But I really, and we can look at these other issues, but I just would not hold this up or make it contingent on it because it can be a... hold it up and may not make it fail. |
| 04:43:35.23 | Jonathan Goldman | Right. So my understanding of what we're actually acting on here tonight is that it's just about the – where did Lily go? |
| 04:43:48.44 | Jonathan Goldman | Hi. |
| 04:43:49.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:43:49.98 | Jonathan Goldman | Thank you. |
| 04:43:50.11 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 04:43:50.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:43:50.16 | Jonathan Goldman | Thank you. |
| 04:43:50.18 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 04:43:50.21 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 04:43:51.43 | Jonathan Goldman | I'm sorry. |
| 04:43:51.53 | Unknown | I see it. |
| 04:43:52.07 | Jonathan Goldman | Is there a |
| 04:43:52.79 | Unknown | to be. |
| 04:43:52.85 | Jonathan Goldman | Thank you. |
| 04:43:52.86 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:43:52.90 | Jonathan Goldman | Hello, hello. |
| 04:43:53.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:43:53.42 | Jonathan Goldman | Thank you. |
| 04:43:53.52 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:43:53.72 | Jonathan Goldman | Thank you. |
| 04:43:53.88 | Unknown | you |
| 04:43:53.99 | Jonathan Goldman | is that we're acting on the parking spaces. It's a month-to-month permit for the parking spots, right? Is that correct? That's what I think. License. MR. License. But the improvements to the end of – is that Locust Street? Help me out. Improves the end of Locust Street, you could – so the month-to-month parking |
| 04:44:03.98 | Mike Rogers | Like, |
| 04:44:16.78 | Jonathan Goldman | I don't have a problem with it because it's month to month. You can always stop doing it. If they don't get a lease, you just stop doing it. The improvements to the end of Locust Street, which become, you know, run with the – I don't know. Do they run with the land? Because it's our land. |
| 04:44:32.38 | Mary Wagner | And just to also clarify, one of the conditions to the effectiveness of the license is that they do have a lease for the utilization of Bridgeway Marina property for the operation of its business. So that's already in there. So this license is conditioned upon insurance. It's conditioned upon all necessary permits, including BCDC and planning commission and having a lease agreement with bridgeway marina because it doesn't make sense to give them parking spaces in the put in if they're not operating the business there so I want to make that make sure that that was clear to the council |
| 04:45:09.58 | Jonathan Goldman | All right, that's fine. So that gives you a little leverage, hopefully. What I would make contingent, though, is that My understanding is the process here. This is just the license for the parking. They have to go through the permitting process through the planning commission for all the rest of the nonsense. |
| 04:45:28.49 | Mary Wagner | Yes, it's the right to utilize the put in, but the improvements to the put in are a public improvement project that have to get a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission. |
| 04:45:40.10 | Jonathan Goldman | And that we should make conditional on obviously having a lease term. but no, that's a separate thing is that part of the two licenses I just want to make clear, there's a license for the parking, there's a license for the – It's all wrapped into one. You put in one. Okay. Yes. That's cool. But what I would do is – because that will come back. They'll go to the Planning Commission, and it will come back here as a – No. No. No. Because it's a – |
| 04:45:54.48 | Mary Wagner | with it. Yes. |
| 04:46:06.11 | Mary Wagner | No. because it's... |
| 04:46:07.98 | Jonathan Goldman | Thank you. |
| 04:46:08.05 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 04:46:08.08 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:46:08.50 | Jonathan Goldman | It's out there. |
| 04:46:09.33 | Mary Wagner | It wouldn't need to come back to the council. |
| 04:46:09.37 | Jonathan Goldman | It... |
| 04:46:14.56 | Jonathan Goldman | Because... You want to have a hammer. |
| 04:46:19.79 | Herb Weiner | Yeah, but you also don't want to get in the way of these guys. Get in the lease. I know. And getting it done. |
| 04:46:22.63 | Jonathan Goldman | good. |
| 04:46:22.97 | Unknown | All right. |
| 04:46:23.03 | Jonathan Goldman | I know. |
| 04:46:23.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:46:24.06 | Jonathan Goldman | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 04:46:24.15 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:46:24.20 | Jonathan Goldman | . |
| 04:46:24.40 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:46:24.47 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 04:46:24.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:46:24.52 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 04:46:24.69 | Jonathan Goldman | Yeah. |
| 04:46:24.91 | Unknown | Yeah, look up. No, I'm going to... |
| 04:46:27.10 | Herb Weiner | Which is the danger that tries to hammer to right |
| 04:46:27.49 | Jonathan Goldman | Thank you. |
| 04:46:27.56 | Unknown | is the Thank you. |
| 04:46:28.52 | Jonathan Goldman | Yeah. |
| 04:46:28.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:46:28.55 | Jonathan Goldman | I'm trying to give him a hammer too. Right? I know that. And I'm trying to give the Marina people a hammer at the same time. |
| 04:46:34.34 | Unknown | He doesn't want a hammer right now. He wants a nail. He wants a nail down this thing. |
| 04:46:39.27 | Unknown | He was... Thank you. |
| 04:46:42.54 | Jonathan Goldman | Thank you. |
| 04:46:42.56 | Unknown | I give up. So... |
| 04:46:42.64 | Jonathan Goldman | I give up. So I would add to your motion as a direction to step, because your motion is to approve this and send it through the pipeline. The two qualifications that I mentioned earlier is, okay, whether the staff needs to look into the environmental aspect of this we talked about earlier and determine where that's going to fall, whether it's going to rely on the city doing a study for that and paying for it, or whether that's going to – BCDC will sign off. Somebody has to sign off. |
| 04:47:13.94 | Mary Wagner | you be BC DC and triggers office a BC DC will look to the city to make the appropriate CEQA findings, and BCDC will trigger off of that. |
| 04:47:23.33 | Jonathan Goldman | I just don't want. it all to blow up at the last minute because no one bothered to look at the environmental aspect of it. It goes to BCPC. So if that has to be done, it needs to be done. But I would direct staff to, you know, certainly reach out, contact Schoenmacher, I think, whatever that happens there, and to, you know, use this as an opportunity to discuss the condition of the facilities at Shaw City Marine Waste and their plan to bring them up into compliance in a reasonable period of time. So... Okay. |
| 04:48:00.74 | Adam Politzer | Well, just to remind the council, sorry, Mr. Mayor, but just to remind the council, we do have a working committee I know. I'm on it. And we've had one meeting with the owner and representative. And hearing this feedback tonight is good reason to call another meeting. And so I'll leave it at that. |
| 04:48:06.49 | Mike Rogers | Vice Mayor. |
| 04:48:22.09 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 04:48:24.97 | Jonathan Goldman | Uh, you're a landlord. Thank you. |
| 04:48:28.79 | Unknown | Whoever he is. |
| 04:48:32.38 | Herb Weiner | Okay, so we need a second to this motion. |
| 04:48:35.20 | Unknown | I'll give you a second. |
| 04:48:36.75 | Herb Weiner | Okay. Thank you. |
| 04:48:38.19 | Unknown | Can we do this? |
| 04:48:38.24 | Herb Weiner | Can we do this on those? |
| 04:48:39.03 | Linda Pfeifer | Were my two amendments taken then? |
| 04:48:39.60 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:48:41.81 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 04:48:41.97 | Ray Withy | Yeah. Were Jonathan's amendments different from mine? His were essentially, I believe. |
| 04:48:43.79 | Linda Pfeifer | Were Jonathan's amendments different from mine? |
| 04:48:51.40 | Ray Withy | We can. |
| 04:48:51.75 | Unknown | there are two amendments |
| 04:48:51.77 | Ray Withy | Yeah. |
| 04:48:52.01 | Linda Pfeifer | Yeah. |
| 04:48:52.21 | Ray Withy | Part two amendments. |
| 04:48:55.96 | Unknown | There are two amendments. |
| 04:48:57.32 | Bill Meehan | Thank you. |
| 04:48:58.10 | Unknown | But Vice Mayor Theodorus happened to have made the motion, and he has not accepted either. |
| 04:49:03.03 | Ray Withy | She has not. I'll accept the amendment. |
| 04:49:08.22 | Unknown | i here accepting both |
| 04:49:10.33 | Ray Withy | For what? |
| 04:49:10.35 | Unknown | the amendments are or one |
| 04:49:12.69 | Jenny Reinders | Thank you. |
| 04:49:12.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:49:12.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:49:12.81 | Unknown | you |
| 04:49:12.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:49:12.95 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:49:13.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:49:13.78 | Ray Withy | That guy, he's getting late now. I know. That's why I'm. |
| 04:49:13.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:49:13.88 | Unknown | That guy. |
| 04:49:14.65 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 04:49:15.78 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:49:15.80 | Unknown | I know. |
| 04:49:16.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:49:16.04 | Unknown | No, I... |
| 04:49:16.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:49:16.49 | Unknown | That's why I'm questioning this. |
| 04:49:18.45 | Ray Withy | No, but I understand it to be is that we're going to take a look at. |
| 04:49:22.40 | Unknown | They were nearly... |
| 04:49:25.50 | Ray Withy | Staff's going to take a look and have a conversation with Schumacher about |
| 04:49:28.73 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 04:49:29.20 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 04:49:29.60 | Ray Withy | the permits, et cetera, and that also have a conversation with Ridge Bay Marina about conditions there. I accept both of those conditions. |
| 04:49:33.25 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:49:33.30 | Unknown | you |
| 04:49:33.35 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:49:33.37 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:49:33.77 | Unknown | it. |
| 04:49:34.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:49:34.45 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:49:37.48 | Ray Withy | So I've... Is that, I mean, he's got one in there. |
| 04:49:37.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:49:37.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:49:37.58 | Unknown | So I |
| 04:49:40.03 | Unknown | Yeah, hers was a little more convoluted. |
| 04:49:43.49 | Linda Pfeifer | Mine was more convoluted, but also, Councilmember Leon made a comment that I liked, which was about the environment. In other words, also, insuring Wayne in on the Audubon. I mean, he didn't say Audubon, but I mean, he was talking about the environment. So I take his amendment. |
| 04:50:00.08 | Herb Weiner | Take his advantage. So you'll accept that and withdraw your amendments? Yes. Okay, good. All right. So I think we've got – we know what we're doing here. Can we do this by a vote? Just a voice vote? |
| 04:50:04.77 | Linda Pfeifer | Yes, yes. |
| 04:50:05.43 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:50:10.63 | Unknown | Second. |
| 04:50:14.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:50:17.39 | Herb Weiner | Yeah, okay. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? None. Okay. Thank you. |
| 04:50:19.65 | Unknown | Aye. |
| 04:50:23.77 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:50:23.91 | Herb Weiner | Thank you. |
| 04:50:23.94 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:50:28.67 | Unknown | Don't forget to be here for a 6 o'clock meeting tomorrow morning. And good luck. |
| 04:50:32.36 | Ray Withy | Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for coming. |
| 04:50:42.92 | Herb Weiner | Mm-mm. |
| 04:50:43.97 | Unknown | This is a chapter. |
| 04:50:46.25 | Herb Weiner | Okay, let's... |
| 04:50:52.14 | Ray Withy | manager. you city manager's report's not real. Thank you. Thank you for coming. You're still smiling, Debbie. What were you thinking today? |
| 04:51:04.00 | Herb Weiner | Folks, we're going to just try and wind up the meeting. So, um... If you could... Take your conversation outside, that'd be wonderful. I'm sorry. |
| 04:51:21.74 | Ray Withy | We should just keep going. |
| 04:51:23.85 | Herb Weiner | Oh, we'll just adjourn and run. |
| 04:51:27.39 | Ray Withy | Okay. |
| 04:51:27.90 | Herb Weiner | Okay. |
| 04:51:28.94 | Ray Withy | Thank you. |
| 04:51:33.69 | Herb Weiner | Okay, thank you folks. |
| 04:51:37.21 | Jonathan Goldman | Just keep going. Okay. |
| 04:51:38.06 | Herb Weiner | Okay. Adam. |
| 04:51:39.03 | Adam Politzer | Adam, |
| 04:51:40.84 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:51:43.57 | Adam Politzer | I have nothing to report at 1220 that hasn't already been discussed this evening. Okay. If there are any specific questions, happy to answer them. Okay. |
| 04:51:46.66 | Unknown | this evening. |
| 04:51:47.56 | Herb Weiner | Okay. Thank you. And bye. Thank you. I'm not going to ask for public comment on a report that didn't occur, so we'll move on to council member committee reports. Does anybody have anything to say? |
| 04:51:53.85 | Adam Politzer | All right, thank you. |
| 04:52:06.27 | Jonathan Goldman | Given the hour, I suggest... |
| 04:52:07.52 | Herb Weiner | I suggest we move on to future agenda items. And we're obviously right in the middle of budget. And we have two items which are now |
| 04:52:16.46 | Ray Withy | And we have buses next time. |
| 04:52:21.49 | Herb Weiner | coming back carried forward and we're bringing buses back. |
| 04:52:24.90 | Linda Pfeifer | Yeah, good. |
| 04:52:25.34 | Herb Weiner | So... |
| 04:52:25.83 | Linda Pfeifer | And in May, in the May meeting. So we may have some juggling. |
| 04:52:28.16 | Herb Weiner | So we may have some juggling. |
| 04:52:30.15 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. Thank you. We. you We're going to have lots of juggling and it's going to be the recommendation of staff when we meet at the agenda setting meeting that we have a special meeting. There's no way with what's ahead of us between now and July 1st that we're going to make it. |
| 04:52:31.26 | Herb Weiner | We're going to have lots. |
| 04:52:39.68 | Herb Weiner | No. |
| 04:52:40.34 | Unknown | head of |
| 04:52:45.19 | Herb Weiner | I think we have to. Yes, I agree with that. Okay, other reports of significance. I see none. Therefore, we're going to have a motion to adjourn. And we're done. |
| 04:52:58.90 | Ray Withy | It was a short night. 10 o'clock. I missed it by two hours and 20 minutes. |
| 04:53:03.46 | Herb Weiner | I have a little, we are adjourned, but I have a little story to tell. I was, |
| 04:53:03.48 | Ray Withy | Thank you. I have a little... |
| 04:53:08.67 | Ray Withy | Oh. |
| 04:53:11.34 | Herb Weiner | I happen to He sat next to one of the city council members at San Rafael, a fairly new council member there, and she told me that a couple of weeks ago their last city council meeting lasted 38 minutes. |
| 04:53:26.92 | Unknown | Oh, |
| 04:53:30.16 | Unknown | that's it. |