| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.03 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Regular meeting of the Sausalito City Council for Tuesday, January 13, 2015. Debbie, would you like to take the role? |
| 00:00:08.86 | Unknown | Council member Weiner. Thank you. |
| 00:00:10.32 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 00:00:10.58 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:10.60 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:00:10.63 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:28.97 | Unknown | and the first session item. We're going to be in the second session. And we're going to be going to be |
| 00:00:48.46 | Unknown | Good evening, members of the City Council and Adam and Mary. I'm here tonight to ask the city to take responsibility for wrongful action by city staff that resulted in PG&E illegally running a 105-foot cable across my primary view to bring new service to a house that was being built below me. The cable has significantly reduced the value of my property. The value will only be restored if the cable is removed and the service is undergrounded in compliance with Chapter 18 of Sausalito's Municipal Code. When I inquired of city staff as to how this could have happened, I was told that the work was done under an encroachment permit and was given a copy of the permit. I was also told that the city didn't have any control over PG&E. PG&E does whatever it wants to do, staff told me. We understand you don't like what PG&E did. You can pay to have the new service undergrounded if you want. When I persisted, I was told that I should go after PG&E and try to persuade them to correct the problem. or try to get the neighbor whose service was involved to voluntarily contribute to the cost of undergrounding the cable. I'm new to this. This was the first time I had ever heard of an encroachment permit, so it took a while before I understood its significance. But when I finally focused on the encroachment permit, I determined that despite what I was hearing, the city actually does have control over the work PG&E does. The problem was that the city failed to exercise that control. The Encroachment Permit Application Form states on its face that all work must be done in compliance with City codes and requires a description of the proposed work. The form also includes the option for the city to require Planning Commission review of the completed permit application before allowing PG&E to proceed. PG&E's completed application accurately showed the proposed work. a new overhead transformer on an existing pole and 105 feet of cable running down the hill from the overhead transformer to the construction site. PG&E didn't, as far as I can tell, explicitly state that the cable would be run above ground But the permit application states there will be no trenching So city staff presumably understood that the cable would be run above ground. Both the overhead transformer and the above-ground cable were flatly illegal under Chapter 18. The staff. of the municipal code. The staff member who signed off on the permit, however, apparently overlooked this. Staff also specifically waived review by the Planning Commission, circling no on the application rather than yes, next to the option for requiring Planning Commission review before the work was done. If staff had circled yes, we wouldn't be here. On a side. I'll just be a minute. 30 seconds. On a side note, PG&E did this illegal work several weeks after the permit had expired. Once again, city staff allowed this to happen. City staff could have checked the box next to the printed condition on the encroachment permit application requiring PG&E to provide notice before starting work. Staff did not do so, however, which meant that city staff lost control over the timing of the work and had no way of knowing that PG&E was performing under an expired permit. Under California law, if I wish to preserve my right to file a court action against the city, I must file a timely administrative claim. My plan, therefore, unless I can resolve this matter to my satisfaction before that time, is to file an administrative claim against the city on Monday, February 16th. Thank you. |
| 00:04:48.29 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, Betsy. So now we'll adjourn to closed session. Oh, any other public comment on closed session items? Okay, thank you. We'll adjourn on closed session to return at approximately 7 o'clock. |
| 00:05:18.67 | Jill Hoffman | Debbie, would you take the roll, please? Yeah. |
| 00:05:26.93 | Unknown | Councilmember Weiner. Present. Councilmember Pfeiffer. |
| 00:05:28.74 | Unknown | Thank you. Yeah. |
| 00:05:30.19 | Unknown | Here. THE FAMILY IS Thank you. |
| 00:05:35.29 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:05:50.15 | Unknown | He was here. Mike, Mike, Mike. He was here. |
| 00:05:51.71 | Steve Faves | you . |
| 00:06:06.98 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:06:13.51 | Unknown | Good job, Mark. There he is. Nice job. |
| 00:06:14.82 | Councilmember Weiner | There he is. Nice job, Ron. |
| 00:06:19.92 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:06:30.13 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. So we met on two closed session items in items D1 and D2. There are nothing to report on them at this point. Can we have a motion to approve the agenda, please? So... |
| 00:06:44.25 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So moved. |
| 00:06:44.66 | Councilmember Weiner | Thank you. I don't favor you. |
| 00:06:48.96 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Bye. |
| 00:06:50.45 | Jill Hoffman | All in favor? Aye. Aye. |
| 00:06:51.41 | Councilmember Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:06:51.44 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:06:51.78 | Councilmember Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:06:51.80 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Bye. |
| 00:06:51.95 | Unknown | Okay, sorry. |
| 00:06:53.55 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, the next thing on the list is recognition of the Sausalito Rotary Club and Rotary International. And we have a proclamation. that we will read. a proclamation of the city council of the city of Sausalito declaring January 28, 2015 as Rotary International Day. Whereas in 1905, Rotary International was formed in order to provide service to the community and to do good in the world. And whereas locally, the Rotary Club of Sausalito was formed in 1948. and whereas there are currently 18 Rotary clubs serving the communities in Marin County. and whereas Rotary International is one of the world's largest non-governmental service organizations with 1.2 million members in more than 200 countries, and whereas Rotary International focuses on promoting peace, fighting disease, providing clean water, providing improved health care for mothers and children. and supporting education and growing local economies. And whereas the Rotary Clubs in Marin County provide dictionaries to third grade students and also provide service opportunities for young adults aged 12 to 18 in Interact Clubs, And whereas our own Rotary Club of Sausalito developed and funded the creation of two affordable senior housing projects in Sausalito. in addition to instituting a smoke alarm maintenance replacement project for seniors and hosting an annual Thanksgiving lunch for our seniors. and whereas the Rotary Club of Sausalito has also helped to build or revitalize many of our parks and public facilities in Sausalito. including Gabrielson, Dumpy, Marinship, and Tiffany Beach Parks and the Fieldhouse at MLK. along with several of the bus shelters in town. And whereas the Rotary Club of Sausalito established the Sausalito Rotary Education Scholarship Fund and has awarded over $225,000 in vocational scholarships over the past 25 years and Whereas Rotary clubs are so involved in their communities, Rotary International has designated January as Rotary Awareness Month. And whereas because of all that they do, the Sausalito City Council wishes the Rotary Clubs of Sausalito, the Rotary Clubs of Marin, and Rotary International. Therefore... Now, therefore, be it proclaimed that the City Council of the City of Sausalito hereby declares January 28, 2015 as Rotary International Day in Sausalito. |
| 00:10:00.39 | Jill Hoffman | And Steve, would you come up for that? |
| 00:10:06.01 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:10:13.55 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Hello. |
| 00:10:14.13 | Adam Politzer | you |
| 00:10:19.87 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:10:19.95 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Okay. |
| 00:10:21.00 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:10:21.15 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:10:28.62 | Steve Faves | Good evening. My name is Steve Faves. I'm honored to be the current president of the Rotary Club of Sausalito. And like Herb, I don't think I've ever heard where as you so often. It did describe a lot of our activities. And we're very proud to be able to do this type of work in this community. Some of it is for the benefit of people who are less privileged than ourselves. A lot of the work is to do with just making Sausalito a better place to live and I think I speak for the entire membership of our Rotary Club that this declaration for us is a very significant honor and I receive it gladly. Thank you very much Council Members and Mr. Mayor. |
| 00:10:40.59 | Unknown | No. |
| 00:11:26.07 | Jill Hoffman | We're proud to honor you and for all the work that you do. Thank you so much. Thank you. |
| 00:11:29.38 | Unknown | you |
| 00:11:38.64 | Jill Hoffman | This is for mayor announcements. We want to announce that some updates on the ferry landing. that many of you know that the hearing, the original hearing for the ferry landing was scheduled for January 15th, which was Thursday night, but it's now been proposed to, postponed until February 19th at the earliest. And this was at the request of the Bridge District by the general manager of the Bridge District with the statement that they are seeking more time to modify their design to be responsible to BCDCs and the city of Sausalito's concerns. So they're taking a look at our concerns on the design of the ferry. We are getting together a group of staff and some citizens to look at some of the design, some of the discretionary elements of the design. The bridge is working with the BCDC. We plan to – assuming that the BCDC meeting will be on – in February 19th, we plan to have a city council meeting where we'll have the bridge and possibly BCDC as well as an opportunity for the public to have input into the bridge design. So that's just an announcement. It's not an agendized item, but it's something that we want to have the public, and as we get more information, we'll try to find ways to disseminate that. Okay, at this time, this is the time for the city council to hear from citizens regarding matters that are not on the agenda. Except in very limited situations, state law precludes the Council from taking action on or engaging in discussions concerning items of business that are not on the agenda. I would also like, we now are going to ask people to fill out the, speaker cards. And this is to give everyone an opportunity to be heard and to ensure the presentation of different points of view. Council request that members of the audience who wish to speak complete a speaker's card and when called on, always suggest the chair state your name, state views succinctly, and limit presentations to three minutes. This is on any right now we're on items that are not on the agenda, but we want to remind and we'll make this reminder throughout this meeting and in future meetings that we're going to ask people to do speaker cards. We think it helps the flow of the meetings and such. So going back to what's present, would anyone from the public like to speak on any items not on the agenda? Pat. |
| 00:14:22.07 | Unknown | Thank you, and I'll sign anything. I'd like to comment on the ferry landing and specifically on Mayor Theodorus' comments that the City Council will form a committee to deal with some of the discretionary items proposed by the Ferry District. Each one of you ran with the promise to preserve the small town character of our town or something like that. And in fact, nobody can get elected to city council without making that kind of a campaign commitment. I've been taken aback that you and staff have been claiming that Sausalito doesn't have jurisdiction over the ferry landing project, and that all we can comment on is the color of the railings and the design of the gate. even BCDC staff is interested in whether or not Sausalito is interested in exercising authority over this project. Um, BCDC apparently wrote our city attorney asking whether the asking her opinion as to whether or not the project was in compliance with the lease. specifically whether or not the city feels that this doubling of the Ferry Landing is a replacement. or major alteration. A replacement is something the district could do without your permission. Major alteration is something for which they should be asking your consent. The Bridge District and its lawyer apparently, and our staff apparently to date, feel that this project is not a major alteration. and that all it is really is a replacement of the existing facility. So I looked up the word replacement The definition I found was, quote, a person or thing equal to another in value or measure or force or effect or significance, as in send $2 or their equivalent in stamps. Do you really think that doubling the size of the ferry landing doubling the size of the float. adding hydraulics to the ramps, Moving the float out to deeper water. and practically quadrupling the width of the loading gangways are mirror replacements I suspect that if any homeowner in Sausalito came to you and said, I'd like to double the size of my house without talking to my neighbors. It's only a replacement. They get laughed out of the room. According to prior city council members, other expansion plans by the bridge district were heard and rejected Uh, I think that whether or not and how you choose to interpret this lease is not a legal question. It's a policy issue. And I think you should hear it in public and make a decision that you are willing to stand behind in public without... hiding behind the it's not in our jurisdiction banner. Thanks. |
| 00:17:37.47 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, Pat. Anyone else? on matters not on the agenda? Okay. All right, we'll move on. Next item is minutes of the previous meetings, item number three. Do we have a motion for approval? |
| 00:17:57.16 | Councilmember Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:17:57.18 | Jill Hoffman | So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. |
| 00:18:00.50 | Councilmember Withy | I don't know. |
| 00:18:01.90 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Okay. Item four, consent calendar. Matters listed under the consent calendar are considered routine and non-controversial, require no discussion, and are expected. to have unanimous council support. and may be enacted by the Council in one motion in the form listed below. Now, first of all, Moving into item four, are there any city council questions of staff on any of the items? |
| 00:18:31.18 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I have a comment on item 4A, which is regarding the speed limits. I received just—I wanted to read this into the record that a couple residents contacted me because the rationale for the speed limit adjustments were to bike mitigation and for safety with cars. And the neighbors living, especially on South Street, mentioned it would be helpful to have a 20-mile-per-hour sign. before the Alexander curve. It might entail working with the National Park Service and perhaps having a police car parked, you know, empty on Alexander Avenue to mitigate the the screeching and to slow down the cyclists. So I just wanted to read that into the record as a couple of examples, as well as perhaps traffic calming strategies on South Street. Thank you. |
| 00:19:24.27 | Jill Hoffman | We have a motion for approval of the consent calendar. I move approval. |
| 00:19:26.60 | Councilmember Withy | I move approval of the consent calendar. I'll second it. All in favor? |
| 00:19:32.18 | Jill Hoffman | Bye. |
| 00:19:32.20 | Councilmember Withy | All right. |
| 00:19:32.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:19:37.20 | Jill Hoffman | We have no public hearings and on business items. The next item is the approval of police dispatch project management contract MOU and purchase of RIMS record management system. Chief Tejada. |
| 00:19:53.73 | Councilmember Weiner | Raise your hat. |
| 00:19:56.21 | Unknown | I'm not. |
| 00:20:23.43 | Unknown | Good evening. Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Council Members, City Staff. Happy New Year. It's my pleasure to present to you this evening a proposal for engaging the services of the San Rafael Police Department to provide our dispatch services as well as your approval to buy the REMS records management system and approval to have a project manager for |
| 00:21:04.96 | Unknown | So, um... We have the historical context of this is that shortly after I came here, which is now almost four years ago, we entered into conversations with adjoining agencies on shared services possibilities. By 2012, that conversation had evolved into several areas that we subsequently agreed upon, which was hostage negotiation team, special response team, property and evidence services. And then we began a conversation about cost savings that could be realized in our dispatch services contract. We explored that in 2012 and into 2013, and we had two proposals, one from Central Marin, one from the San Rafael Police Department. Each of those proposals reduced our costs by an average of 50% with a very attractive buy-in annual payment of much less to get us through the conversion period. We continued the conversation with Central Marin. We already had established partnerships with them, so that was the reason for moving forward with them, and they were the first actually to present the offer. That discussion continued until Central Marin decided that they would go to the county because they were also looking for cost saving measures and they could realize savings if they took their dispatchers and placed them at the county. So then we started conversations in late 2013 with San Rafael, exploring what the cost funding formula would look like with them. We were eventually able to get all the language and the details and the timing and The MOU worded and vetted by attorneys by last December, and that MOU went to City Council on December 15th. They approved it. We are now at a point where we cannot move forward unless we have your approval also, which will be the green light for both police departments to sit down and look at this project and figure out how we move forward, what are our challenges, and to explore in great depth the potential here. So you have before you tonight your Where do I hear those? So this is actually how we benefit from this at the moment as we have reviewed the project. There will be significant savings in here, almost 50% of what we're currently paying to the sheriff's office. We will benefit from improved technology. As some of you are aware, our current records management system that the county uses is very cumbersome and it's outdated. And even though the county is improving their systems, they're getting an updated version of the one they currently use. And it's less than ideal for our purposes. And then we will be as good or better in our service delivery standards because this is an opportunity for us to partner with San Rafael and really look at how we deliver this service, how it can be enhanced. Chief Bishop is here tonight. She and I are very much partners, and we're aligned on what service delivery standards are important, what do our communities expect, and so we've already had conversations about that. This is a slide to just give you a snapshot of how the funding formula for the Sheriff's Office is unpredictable and has increased fairly regularly on an annual basis, and it's based on calls for service, which is an unpredictable figure. It changes and grows every year. The funding formula with San Rafael is based on one full-time employee with an annual increase of 3%. It's very stable. Of course, there will be a couple of, when contracts are renewed, there will be some movement there, but certainly not as much as we have seen in our contract with San Rafael or with the SO. This is a snapshot of a RIMS computer screen. It is much more user-friendly than what we have now. It will give us greater depth in our records and data management, greater dependability. It's less cumbersome. It has a mobile option. We can have it on our iPhones. It will allow the officers in the field to have much more information instantaneously than they can get now. So as I said, it's an opportunity to improve service delivery. We are aligned with San Rafael on best customer service practices. What we don't have now with the SO, we will have with San Rafael, and that's input on training, standards, and evaluation. Their supervisory staff will attend our monthly meetings, and we have a good management partnership. I put together a timeline for this to show you how it would progress. This is all very flexible because we don't know what's ahead. What will happen if you approve this tonight is we will jump in and figure out what this really looks like. What does the project entail? How do we address that? And so this is just a guess at what the timeline would be. We would like to be able to do this in six months, but there's a lot of still research on how to do it that needs to be done. |
| 00:27:33.61 | Unknown | So what we are recommending to you tonight is that you execute the agreement for provision of police dispatch services by the city of San Rafael to the city of Sausalito, and that you execute and agree the agreement with Sunridge Systems for the sole source purchase of the RIMS system. and that you execute an agreement with the Phoenix Group to provide management for dispatch conversion project for the police department. And I can take any questions. |
| 00:28:03.68 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor, just before you just want to introduce Chief Fischel. |
| 00:28:08.42 | Unknown | Yes, and Chief Bishop is here tonight. She's sitting in the back, Chief Diana Bishop. Hi. |
| 00:28:17.35 | Jill Hoffman | Council questions? We'll start from here. Yeah. Thank you. |
| 00:28:24.12 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. So I like to see the synergy and the, you know, collaboration between cities. I really like that for cost savings. I did have a few questions. I was wondering if you could go to the slide where it shows the funding. Yes. So it's – I know we'd get one full-time dispatcher. That would not be a new employee, obviously, of the city. This is a contract – this is part of the contract. |
| 00:28:52.20 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 00:28:52.69 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And how many dispatchers do we currently have servicing residents of Sausalito with the sheriff's program? |
| 00:29:01.48 | Unknown | Actually, I'm not sure what the total number is, but they try to have two on duty at all times, and then they reduce that to one between 2 a.m. and 8 a.m., or... |
| 00:29:17.22 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So we would be going from two dispatchers to one dispatcher. Is that correct? |
| 00:29:21.66 | Unknown | No, we would be part of the dispatching pool at San Rafael where they have two to three dispatchers on at any given time. And there's one two-hour period in the early morning where they will reduce it to one dispatcher. |
| 00:29:34.49 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So they have two to three dispatchers that cover all, just Marin or just San Rafael and Sausalito? |
| 00:29:42.52 | Unknown | San Rafael and Sausalito. Okay. |
| 00:29:44.83 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay. I have other questions, but I want to defer to the group. |
| 00:29:48.14 | Councilmember Withy | I just have a clarifying question on that subject. |
| 00:29:49.54 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | of funding. |
| 00:29:54.48 | Councilmember Withy | You were indicating that the cost, the way the deal with San Rafael set up is that it was based on an FTE. Just to clarify, what you mean by that is we agreed to fund an FTE. It doesn't mean there's only one FTE working for Sol Slito. Correct. Okay. |
| 00:30:15.58 | Mary Wagner | Bye. |
| 00:30:22.45 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So just a couple more questions. So right now our dispatch is with the county, and of course Sausalito is contiguous with Marin City and, you know, Tam Valley. So are there any potential? I mean, efficiencies we would lose in having dispatch, which is already coordinated with the sheriff, you know, in collaboration for response or anything, because I know sometimes we have flow between |
| 00:30:55.00 | Unknown | Yeah, we do, and it would be no different than most of the other cities in California where a dispatch service has to go to another channel and tell that dispatch, please dispatch your officers to cover mine. It's a seamless operation, something that we used to have in Sausalito. Mill Valley had it. It's a matter of when... For example, if our officers are on a detail and they need a cover officer and nobody from Sausalito is available, they would get on the radio as they would now and say, I need a cover officer. San Rafael would say to... the Sheriff's Office on Blue Command, the closest unit to Sausalito, please respond. And that's the way it's supposed to work now, and that's the way it would work there. The difference is this San Rafael dispatcher would transfer it over to Marin County to get one of the neighboring agencies to respond. But that's the way it worked for us in Nevada. That's the way it works in San Rafael. Ross and Fairfax. Fairfax dispatches for Ross, so it's the same system. It's fairly standard in our profession. |
| 00:32:04.25 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay, I have a couple more questions, but... Okay. So, and does this cost comparison include the cost of the project manager and the test and the training, or the training costs? |
| 00:32:22.09 | Unknown | Our project manager cost is separate from the agreement we're entering into with San Rafael. But I need to have the project manager because I certainly don't have the expertise to research this project and analyze it and set it up. |
| 00:32:43.69 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So I guess when I'm looking at cost, I'm also looking at ramp-up costs, you know, in terms of the cost of the project manager and training. So would the project manager only be there for the ramp-up of the project and to, in other words, once the project was sustainable and complete, that you wouldn't need a project manager to continue to manage the software and maintain that, correct? Oh, no. No. |
| 00:33:07.91 | Unknown | No, no. The project manager will stick with this project through the very end. And he's somebody who's already worked on similar projects. He worked on the CLATS expansion project for CNRFL, so he's very familiar with the RIMS system. So he will come in, assuming you provide approval, and look at what we're trying to achieve here, and then give us guidance on how to do that and manage the project to the end. There's almost a three-month test and training phase in this, and two months of that will be in this model, and I think that is a two-months is very realistic, will be a phase of training and testing and making sure that this works before we ever flip the switch from the SO. We have to ensure that it works for the community and it works for our officers and that Everybody is comfortable moving forward And if at that time everybody is satisfied with the system, then we move forward. Thank you. |
| 00:34:17.16 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:34:17.84 | Adam Politzer | Mr. Mayor, can I just ask the Chief to flip to slide 4, because I think that that will help the cost number 5 to see those numbers. So year 1 on slide 4 shows the cost there on the. MS. Is that slide? |
| 00:34:30.02 | Unknown | Is that the slide? No. I don't know what the number is for. |
| 00:34:32.96 | Adam Politzer | on the promise. |
| 00:34:38.90 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I know that the staff report says the cost of the project manager is $24,800. Yeah. So I had that. |
| 00:34:45.22 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:34:45.24 | Adam Politzer | Yeah. Yeah, so the PowerPoint that you have, it's got a slide, so for the council's benefit, in your attachments, there's on page four of nine, and this is, I think it's 6A. labeled item 6a PowerPoint presentation. |
| 00:35:10.94 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yes, and I think the chief answered my question to my satisfaction. |
| 00:35:15.45 | Adam Politzer | I just wanted to make sure that the public knows that the numbers are broken down on what the first year costs are and then the second year where that savings appears. |
| 00:35:24.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:35:24.97 | Steve Faves | Thank you. |
| 00:35:47.61 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Now, of course, we all want to look at it. Ha, ha, ha. |
| 00:35:57.77 | Unknown | Thank you. No. THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:36:08.30 | Councilmember Withy | It's item 6A-PPT, slide 4 of 9. I think Adam is what you were referring to. |
| 00:36:16.25 | Rob Buchel | I think. |
| 00:36:16.45 | Unknown | you |
| 00:36:22.22 | Unknown | We're going to be back. Yeah, I just wanted to point out that there was a breakdown of the numbers that showed |
| 00:36:29.97 | Adam Politzer | year one and year two. |
| 00:36:31.30 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:36:31.60 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, great. All right, I think now is the time. Can we open this up for public comment? Anyone from the public like to comment on this agenda? |
| 00:36:38.69 | Unknown | Good night. Mm-hmm. |
| 00:36:42.51 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Seeing none, we'll bring it back. So now is the time for council discussion and comments. |
| 00:36:52.24 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:36:54.57 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | You'll have to come back to me. |
| 00:37:00.70 | Councilmember Withy | Yeah, this is not new to me. This has been reviewed by Finance Committee a couple of times. I think we were convinced that this would be a cost-saving to Sol Solito. It would be while actually improving our infrastructure in this area. And the chief and her command structure assured us that this would in no way impact service to our residents or to anybody in Sausalito, in fact, might enhance it. So with that, just to know this isn't the first time it's being looked at by anybody. It's been quite thoroughly reviewed by the Finance Committee, and I'm very supportive of it. |
| 00:37:58.24 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So I want to thank the chief for answering my questions and all of this, you know, data. And, yeah, so, and it's good to know that the finance committee has reviewed it and everything. So, yeah. |
| 00:38:10.39 | Jill Hoffman | And I know the chief always looks for the best systems possible for her staff and for the city. And to save money at the same time is something that's very important. And we've had it thoroughly reviewed by finance, so I'm certainly in support. Can we have a motion on this? |
| 00:38:21.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:38:28.41 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:38:28.43 | Councilmember Weiner | Yeah. I recommend that we adopt the resolution of the City Council of the City of Sausalito authorizing the City Manager to, one, execute the agreement for the provision of police dispatch services by the City of San Rafael to the City of Sausalito. |
| 00:38:35.52 | Steve Faves | to the people. |
| 00:38:35.80 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:38:35.91 | Steve Faves | that. |
| 00:38:46.87 | Councilmember Weiner | Can we say all three? Two, execute an agreement with Sunridge Systems for the sole source purpose of one RIMS RMS system. And three, execute an agreement with the Phoenix Group to provide management of the dispatch conversion project for the police department. I'll second that. |
| 00:39:11.46 | Jill Hoffman | we need, we hope. All in favor? Aye. |
| 00:39:14.47 | Councilmember Withy | Bye. |
| 00:39:15.17 | Unknown | Bye. Thank you. Okay, so you know. Thank you. |
| 00:39:18.68 | Jill Hoffman | Great. Thank you very much, Chief Dallin. |
| 00:39:22.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:39:23.75 | Jill Hoffman | So now we're at item 6B, the 2015 to 2023 housing element update and initial environmental Study negative declaration. And presentation. Don't forget the hats. |
| 00:39:41.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:40:01.55 | Jeff Bradley | Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. I'm Jeff Bradley, principal with Metropolitan Planning Group. I have with me tonight our team who has worked on this, Karen Warner with Karen Warner & Associates. Immediately to her left, Olivia Ervin, our environmental specialist. And hiding in the back there is Dave Javid, our project manager. I'd also like to acknowledge the hard work that Lily and Mary and Danny Castro and Jeremy Graves, before he retired, contributed to this project. It's really been a team effort, quite unlike any other effort we've undertaken. |
| 00:40:48.10 | Jeff Bradley | And without further ado, I'll get you through this quickly. I'll be presenting the first part of the presentation. Karen Warner will take the middle part. Olivia will take the end, just to give you a sense of the structure. The purpose tonight is really to conduct a public hearing in front of the public. on the housing element that's before you for adoption. As part of that, you'll be considering the environmental analysis that was done pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. And then also we're going to ask you to approve both documents. |
| 00:41:26.14 | Jeff Bradley | In terms of where we are in this process, just to step back a little bit and kind of figure out where we are relative to everything that's happened over the last several years. Currently we do have a draft of the housing element that has been worked on extensively by the consultants, the staff, and the subcommittee. Also acknowledge there are many, many meetings on this effort. The draft of that element has been sent to HCD and we have received a certification letter from HCD pending just your final adoption of the document. We have been with the Planning Commission where they held a public hearing on the draft housing element and they approved the draft housing element on a 5-0 vote, a unanimous vote. They also recommended on a 4-1 vote that the City Council adopt the initial study and negative declarations. |
| 00:42:25.81 | Jeff Bradley | This is the letter we like to show off. It fits on one page, so you know it's a certification letter and not the other kind. Bear with me when we get into – we wanted to give you a very clear picture of the different options going forward in terms of when the council ultimately adopts the housing element. Staff and consultants hope, of course, and recommend strongly that you do it tonight, just to make that clear. But there are different options, and we always bring the council all the options and all the implications of those options. If the document is adopted any time before January 31st, end of this month, it's all good. There's no downside to that. We're in compliance with state law. We're not getting into any grace periods or 120-day periods at the end of that that are written into the statutes. However, there is a 120-day grace period that the council could move into. What that would do, once you did adopt it, we pegged May 31st as that outside the 120th day. You would be in compliance once you adopt it, but you would have created a gap period, if you will, between the end of January and whenever it's adopted prior to the end of May where the city would not have a certified housing element. |
| 00:43:09.62 | Steve Faves | Thank you. |
| 00:43:53.61 | Jeff Bradley | If adopted after May 31st, the city essentially would be penalized, and your next element would be due in four years instead of eight years, which is the current plans. And the city would have lost certification from ACD, which is the State Housing Department of Community Development. And the city would not have a certified housing element. And we'll be subject to all the risks that go along with that that we'll get into in a moment. So a brief recap of the Planning Commission meeting last month. No comment was received. The commissioners did, of course, have a vigorous discussion of the document. The CEQA was approved, and the Planning Commission recommended that this body approve the document. As the council is aware, we have divided this most recent effort on the housing element into two tracks. The first track was a long laundry list of ordinance amendments that the city committed to adopt as part of the previous element that covered 2009 to 2014 time period. The city and the staff did a lot of work to get very many very important ordinances approved that now allow us to go forward to this eight-year cycle. So here we are at track two. We've been plugging along. And believe it or not, we're actually at the end now. The stop sign here represents the January 31st deadline. And here we are at the council meeting asking for your support. |
| 00:45:32.38 | Jeff Bradley | We really look at this as a continuation of a process going back to 2009. The community and the city councils and planning commissions and staff has really been working hard to bring the city into compliance and have a really good plan for housing in the Over 50 meetings have been held on the combined housing element efforts and the Track 1 and the Track 2 efforts. Our group came along in 2011 and started working closely with the community on really a low impact strategy to address the city's needs to protect that small town character the previous speaker talked about in your opening items. And we came up with a three-legged stool strategy. Accessory dwelling units, sometimes called what commonly known as granny units. Liveaboards and utilizing the city's existing zoning to show what kind of built-in development potentials within the community. |
| 00:46:36.88 | Jeff Bradley | Major milestones during this period include the city adopting the housing element in 2012, going through the Phase I ordinance updates and actually readopting it with some changes in July of 2014 due to community input on the HMU program. and then bringing us to tonight for adoption in January of 2015. |
| 00:47:06.54 | Jeff Bradley | For folks who may be joining us for the first time, we'd like to give a quick refresher on what this is all about. The housing element is simply a chapter of the city's general plan. There's seven required chapters of the general plan, frequently called elements, hence the term housing element. Under state law, there are five major components of a housing element. You have to look back at your past performance. How's the city been doing on meeting its needs for housing? What are the unique housing needs of the community? That is documented through the housing needs assessment. The evaluation of constraints to housing. As we know, there's many constraints to build housing anywhere, ranging from physical constraints to financial constraints to regulatory constraints. Also, identification of residential sites to meet what's known as the RENA, or the Residential Housing Needs Allocation, And finally, a program strategy to really pull all this information together and come up with a unified approach to plan for the future. The city can be on either an eight-year cycle or a four-year cycle. We've taken the route to line up the city for the eight-year cycle. |
| 00:48:21.89 | Jeff Bradley | And of course, the housing home is unique, and it's the only chapter out of the general plan that requires this detailed review by our friends in Sacramento. |
| 00:48:34.19 | Jeff Bradley | So here in Marin County, there's a lot of discussion about the regional housing needs allocation process and how that comes down from the state to ABAG, then rolls down to the cities. And we come up with these numbers we have to consider and plan for. It's important to realize that the arena is a planning target. It's not a building quota. Cities don't go out there and build houses directly. They control the rules of the game, if you will, of what other people can do. The specific number on a very high level is based on the state population growth. As we know, California is always growing. It's the biggest state in the country by far. More population than Canada. And so the state law has been set up to encourage every city and county to consider that. It provides a mix of housing for all economic segments, and the affordability at a real basic level is assumed that as densities go up, affordability increases. So it encourages the cities to provide for apartments, condominiums, townhomes, as well as single-family homes. We're frequently asked, well, what happens if we just don't do this? You know, we don't want to play. And we've identified what we consider the four top risks to cities who decide not to comply with the housing requirements coming out of the state legislation. The number one risk, we believe, is direct litigation, where the city is essentially sued by a third party typically. The attorney general in the past has sued cities, but it's usually not the state of California coming after you. It's usually a third party such as a for-profit or non-profit housing developer or a community organization that represents low-income people who feel like cities aren't doing enough to provide affordable housing at different income levels. And of course, that can get very expensive and the track record is poor in terms of cities being successful at litigation in this matter. Litigation can lead to loss of local land use control because the housing element is considered a foundational element of your general plan. And without a firm foundation, the whole scheme of land use control that cities engage in from general plan updates to issuing building permits can be revoked or taken over by the judicial system. The arena becomes cumulative. That means the numbers we have to plan for get added to each other for these different planning periods. Sausalito had that for not this period, but the period before, and the period before that, we had to look at altogether because the city had gone a couple cycles without a certified housing element. And finally, A lot of state housing funds and grants are tied to do you have a certified housing element, yes or no. There's no gray area. You either have one or you don't, and that becomes a requirement for a lot of these programs that are funding different infrastructure projects for cities. This is the spot I turn it over to Karen, and she's going to take you through the changes between the document before you and the city's adopted housing element. |
| 00:52:08.84 | Karen Warner | Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. I'm glad to be back. It was interesting, Jeff, starting out with the timeline, which began in 2009 on the last element. So I calculated it out. The last element took about three and a half years. This one, the first six months or so was really the ordinance work. So this is really only taken about six months. So you did all the heavy lifting. This has been a very, very focused update. So what I want to start out with is just kind of highlighting what the changes are in this current element that will again be an eight year element compared to the one that you spent three and a half years on and just adopted in 2012. And As I said, it's very minor updates. The city was eligible for streamlining this element through the state HCD review process. So the state only looked at changes from your adopted element. The document that you have before you is redlined with those changes. with anything that is changed from when it was last before you in October. actually highlighted. And those changes are reflective of the comments that we got from HCD and the minor adjustments The element is two parts. There's the basic element itself, and then there's all the background materials. So the element is much, much shorter than the overall background report. And it encompasses four chapters. The introduction, oops. the introduction Very minor changes were made to the introduction. The housing plan, which is really the meat of the element. We had some targeted updates to some of the programs. Many of the programs had been implemented with all of the ordinance work that was done and those could be removed. And then there was the addition of one new program that I'll touch on in a minute. The chapter three in the element is just kind of a high-level overall summary of the detailed housing needs assessment in the appendices. And then the housing resources chapter is primarily related to the sites inventory, which is the same sites inventory that was in the prior element with the one change, which was the removal of the Butte Street site. The appendices, the housing needs assessment, Thank you. had all new, the most current information, hot off the press, from the 2010 census, from the American Community Survey, current market information. So that's really a comprehensive update and gives a really good picture of the community's needs. The housing constraints section, very focused updates to reflect primarily the ordinance work that the city's done. The sites analysis, again, there was only one change to that, which is the removal of And then Appendix D is the evaluation of accomplishments, and this is really looking back at the programs that you adopted in 2012 and the implementation of such. So what I'd like to spend a little more time on is really the meat of the element, which is the policy and programs and what is new there. The housing plan which contains the policies and programs, program 8 was in the adopted element mixed use zoning. It reflects now the adoption of the VMU program, the vertical mixed use program which was adopted in July of this year. which as you know allows for Well, it requires second and third story uses in the city's commercial districts to be residential. It allows the Planning Commission to make some exceptions to that if an existing business is looking to expand or if the commercial use is going to be smaller than 1,000 square feet. The mixed use program reflects the elimination of the horizontal mixed use, which had been adopted in the prior the mixed use zoning program, the vertical mixed use being a major portion of that. is required to maintain eligibility with the state approval. And as we've talked about, this is the only program in the city's element that meets the statutory requirement that the there is a program to assist in the development of housing affordable to extremely low very low, low and moderate income households. So that's the primary function of the vertical mixed use along with several other things that it adds to the element, but that is really kind of the critical aspect of the vertical mixed use in maintaining state approval. And And as we've talked about, the vertical mixed use program makes no change to the permitted uses in your commercial districts, the previously permitted residential. It makes no change to the permitted development standards, no increase in height, no increase in density, no increase in lot coverage. It just... has the both the requirement for residential on the second story with those minor exemptions and an affordability requirement for that residential that at least one of the residential units be low income if it's for rental or moderate income if it's for ownership. Program 10, the Accessory Dwelling Unit Program, this reflects the adoption of the City's ADU ordinance, which now facilitates new ADUs. addresses the initiation of a second new amnesty program since the prior amnesty program was so successful here we want to take advantage of that in the future as well. We're kind of pushing the envelope here on on ADUs where we're looking at 40 ADUs contributing towards the city's arena over the planning period. The only new program added to the element is the junior accessory dwelling unit program. And we've talked about this. It's something that several communities in the county are evaluating and a couple are moving forward on. And that is creating independent rental space within an existing single family home out of an underutilized bedroom perhaps or underutilized den. And so structuring an ordinance to facilitate that, establishing standards, and then at which point the city can define when those would potentially count as units and count towards the city's arena as well. So that's the only new program in the element. The Live Aboard program is alive and well. We were able to count many Live Aboards in the last element. Moving forward, we're really limited to A looking at the increased capacity in Sausalito Yacht Harbor. They currently are using only 5% of the spaces for liveaboards. BCDC will allow them to go up to 10%. So the program is to coordinate with Sausalito Yacht. to get the necessary permitting both from BCDC as well as from the city to increase their capacity to 10%, which would provide 31 additional liveaboard. So that's one of the legs of the stool. And then lastly, in the housing plan, We eliminated program 20, which was the Multifamily Development and Multifamily Districts program, and then Program 21, which is a special needs zoning since both of those have been completed. Then just briefly, other programs with minor tweaks, density bonus, we've reflected that the city has adopted a local density bonus ordinance and established the tiering and prioritization of tier one incentives. The program 22, Sausalito Senior Services, reflects the plan of action for seniors that will be developed. Program 24, reasonable accommodation, reflects the city adopted its reasonable accommodation ordinance. And then Program 25, which is the housing for marine workers, has an action to establish procedures for the low and moderate income occupancy requirements that are currently in the city's code. So that's the programs in a nutshell that were modified in some way, shape, or form. The housing strategy, as Jeff has discussed, is the overall goal was to maintain a low-impact strategy. What this has resulted in is really this three-pronged approach, which for this cycle moving forward includes 31 liveaboards, again associated with Sausalito Yacht. The ADUs, we have 40, which is a combination both of another amnesty program and new ADU permits, averaging two per year. I have to say when we did the amnesty ADU program in your last element, Sausalito was the first city in the state to be able to credit existing second units. So the fact that you're continuing to do this and you had so much success is really a feather in your cap. And then the infill strategy is your existing zoning. And you know, when we you know, started working with the city back in 2011, the approach was at that time really looking at larger sites for rezoning for multifamily. And there was not community support, for that, and so M Group really went in with a fine-tooth comb and looked at all of the capacity under your existing zoning and was able to identify vacant and underutilized sites both in residential zone and in commercial zoned areas. through a series of filtering criteria to show that these were realistic sites for potential development in the future. In doing that, the state looks very closely at when you're looking at underutilized sites in particular. So we met the criteria of the state that these were realistic sites. And in total, then, that analysis showed the capacity for a total of 179 units under your existing zoning. Um... this site's inventory is the same site's inventory that was adopted in your element in 2012. You can use that site's inventory for this next eight-year cycle. you can use that same site's inventory for the cycle in the following eight years, so 23, 23 to whatever that's going to be, 2030. So it's really just capturing what your zoning capacity is. And so whatever changes over the next eight years, then that is refined and it continues forward. And we talk a lot about the buffer Because as you see on the bottom of the screen, 250 units, which is the combination of liveaboard's ADUs and infill. where the city's regional needs are for 79. The difference between 250 and 79 is referred to as this buffer. um, And what's really important to understand is that Thank you. that in no way corresponds to the amount of development that the city is saying will occur. You're not saying that your goal is to develop 250 units. You're saying this is what our zoning capacity will accommodate. This is the way most jurisdictions do. Most jurisdictions that I've worked on, over 100 housing elements, do their site's capacity analysis. Some jurisdictions in Marin in the past have done a more focused kind of an affordable housing overlay approach. We're just going to identify certain sites and these are going to be the one that just meet the numbers. And the city started its process a little bit more in that approach and that was not something that was popular with the community. Thank you. The downside of not having a buffer, and again it's not reflecting what the city is saying is going to develop, is that you need to always, throughout your housing ailment cycle, have adequate sites to meet the arena. So we've kind of maximized what each of these underutilized and vacant sites can build at in the sites inventory. If as projects come before the city, if the city approves fewer units than are shown in the housing element sites inventory and you didn't have a buffer, you would need to replace that site. So that's not a situation you want to be in. The other thing that's important about a buffer is your next arena may be much bigger than 79 units, and you'd have to go through the process again then to identify additional sites. So that's my explanation on the buffer. the Planning Commission. recommended a change, and again it kind of ties in with this buffer terminology. We have, you're required in housing element statutes to have objectives, numeric objectives, for new construction, rehabilitation, and conservation. And The Planning Commission wanted the distinction made that the new construction objective really wasn't your objective to build that many units. and to refer to it as ARENA objectives. So we made that change. And so, it's reflected in the Quantified Objectives Table 2.2 and the Review of Accomplishments Table. |
| 01:09:14.34 | Karen Warner | The state comments were very focused in their streamline review. We sent the element to the state October 16th. A month later we had a conference call with Melinda Coy, your reviewer once again. AND SHE IDENTIFIED THE COUPLE CONCERNS THAT NEEDED TO BE ADDRESSED FOR COMPLIANCE A week later we sent the draft revisions to her that are highlighted in your element and by December 12th, we had the letter saying with those changes, the element would comply with state law. The revisions that were made briefly We needed an expanded discussion of the outreach to all economic segments under the discussion of public participation, so we added that. pursuant to SB 375, the state almost on every housing element I worked on recently, they are looking for program actions that are very concrete, and so some of our program actions needed to be tightened up. And so that's the programs listed there. We needed to have more specific time frames. we needed to amend the Homeless Continuum of Care program MR. because in her review of the and SHELTER STANDARDS THAT THE CITY ADOPTED AS PART OF THE EMERGENCY SHELTER ORDINANCE. A couple of the standards the state felt were beyond the parameters that SB2 permits cities to regulate. This is also a comment that the state is making on most housing elements and emergency shelter ordinances. So for example, the management plan that's identified in your ordinance needs to be clarified that it's not subject to discretionary review. The requirements that services listed in the management plan are permissive and not mandatory. And then lastly, that the city is not allowed to actually require an annual Then lastly, the state. LASTLY, THAT THE CITY IS NOT ALLOWED TO REQUIRE AN ANNUAL REPORT. LASTLY, THE STATE WANTED US TO look at the ES overlay district in greater detail to show that it had adequate site capacity to accommodate the emergency shelter. So we went through that analysis. So that was it from the state's comments. and I will turn it over to Livia to discuss Sikwa. |
| 01:12:22.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:12:24.47 | Olivia Irvin | Good evening. I'm Olivia Irvin, I'm an environmental planner, and I've been focused on ensuring that the housing element update achieves environmental compliance. So the housing element update does qualify as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and requires environmental review. The intent of CEQA is to inform the decision makers and the public of the potentially significant impacts of the project and to provide I'm not sure. mitigation to reduce or avoid those impacts, and additionally to provide an opportunity for the public and stakeholders and agencies to comment |
| 01:13:07.67 | Olivia Irvin | The city of Sausalito, as the lead agency, is responsible for conducting the CEQA review and determining the appropriate level of analysis. The process by which that determination is made is through conducting an initial environmental study. And the initial study guides the lead agency to prepare either a negative declaration, a mitigated negative declaration, or an EIR. And that determination is based on the review of significance thresholds and the nature of the project. |
| 01:13:48.18 | Olivia Irvin | For the housing element update, there are no changes to the allowed density. There are no changes to where residential development is permitted to occur. There are no changes to the existing development standards or guidelines. And additionally, the housing element does not result in any changes to zoning or land use at all. The new programs that are introduced through the housing element update as well as the modifications are all consistent with policies that are in place and intended to prevent any impact to the environment. |
| 01:14:29.73 | Olivia Irvin | The initial environmental study assessed the potential impacts that would result from the housing element update and determined that a negative declaration was the appropriate level of review. And this determination was made due to the fact that the project is limited to policy updates rather than any physical changes to the environment. And that the housing element update is within the parameters that were previously considered and analyzed as part of the general plan environmental impact report. |
| 01:15:07.14 | Olivia Irvin | The negative declaration was released back in November and circulated for public review, and at the close of that review period, there were four comment letters received, and those comment letters as well as responses to those have been appended to the initial study Um, One of the general comments that was made was regarding the level of environmental review. And based on the nature of the housing element update as a policy document. and that it is consistent with the general plan and within the scope of the environmental review that was conducted as part of that undertaking. The negative declaration is the appropriate level at this time, and that is what we would recommend moving forward, and the Planning Commission also recommended that as well. So that's a really brief overview of the environmental process and where we landed with the negative declaration. |
| 01:16:17.97 | Jeff Bradley | brings us to our staff and consultant recommendation is to conduct a public hearing following this presentation and hopefully approve the draft resolution before you, which approves both the initial study and the second resolution, which would adopt the housing element and bring it in to your general plan. Thank you. |
| 01:16:41.35 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Now it's time for council questions. And let's see, we'll start again. We'll start here and move on. One question at a time, one or two with a follow-up, and then we'll move through. Thanks. |
| 01:16:48.86 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:16:49.39 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 01:16:52.98 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So this is we're going to focus on the EIR first, are we? I'm just thinking it might make sense to start there. |
| 01:17:00.88 | Unknown | Sure, you can start there. |
| 01:17:03.01 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Do I have council consensus? So with regards to the EIR, I raised the same concern earlier, which is we are not doing a full EIR based on the assumption that there will be individual EIRs when the projects are done. And yet we know that CEQA is getting streamlined right now. So I'm concerned about that because of Sausalito's history with our sewer system and the EPA mandates we have right now on the town and the fines, potentially. So I was wondering if the consultants could comment on not doing a full EIR, even though This negative declaration is based on an EIR that was done in 1995 that was based on a sewer INI study done in 1986 in light of all of the leakages into the bay and everything we know about, you know, so I was wondering if you could comment on that. |
| 01:18:23.63 | Olivia Irvin | Am I on? Yeah. Yeah, so the – again, there's no physical development happening. This is a policy update, so any future project that would come forward would have to consider if there's adequate infrastructure, including sewers, to evaluate that. um, The negative declaration does tear off of the EIR that was conducted, but the parameters haven't changed substantially. Again, as I said before, there's no change in zoning, there's no change in land use, so all of those have been captured. doing it as anything. |
| 01:19:08.54 | Mary Wagner | And if I may add to that, Mr. Mayor, there is case law directly on point that talks about when you have an amendment to something like a general plan element that CEQA only requires that you focus on the impacts of that project related to the actual changes to the element. You don't go back and look at the entire element again. And it's very clear based on CEQA that there are no impacts and certainly no significant impacts that are created by the proposed amendment and that the negative declaration is the appropriate document from a CEQA perspective. As Councilmember Pfeiffer indicated, individual projects are reviewed for CEQA based on their own merits. And it's determined at that point what the appropriate environmental document would be. |
| 01:20:04.38 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. I have a follow-up question for our legal counsel. So, Mary, it's my understanding that the purpose of an EIR is to fully inform the public as to the potential impacts of potential development. And specifically, if new information has arisen since the original EIR, certainly new information has arisen regarding the state of Sausalito's infrastructure and sewers thousands, hundreds of thousands of gallons of raw sewage dumped into Richardson Bay because of our faulty sewer system. The EPA mandates were not in effect in 96, and we lost the with the River Watch lawsuit under the Clean Water Act. So none of that represents new information that would trigger a full EIR as to potential impact? |
| 01:21:05.03 | Mary Wagner | Sequa itself, whatever form of the document, whether it's an EIR or a negative declaration or a mitigated negative declaration is designed to analyze the impacts of potential projects. I don't believe that there's any information in the record that there is a significant impact that's created based upon the amendments to the housing element that are before you this evening. |
| 01:21:38.25 | Jill Hoffman | I don't have any questions about the EIR. I have some questions about the housing element. |
| 01:21:43.21 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I have one more question about the EIR. |
| 01:21:45.14 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:21:45.24 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:21:45.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:21:45.27 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:21:45.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:21:45.37 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:21:45.80 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:21:45.85 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:21:45.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:21:46.13 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:21:50.30 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay, thank you. So my next question about the ER has to do with the discussion on aesthetic and visual resources within the city of Sausalito include the views of waterways, shoreline. Richardson Bay is a particularly noteworthy view that is visible from many hillside neighborhoods and roadways. And I found it curious that you found less than significant impact. You said it would not substantially affect scenic vistas. And yet we know at least one program, the VMU program, by encouraging housing, could in fact Block. or potentially obliterate primary views for a number of residents. And so I was curious to see that less-than-significant impact was noted here. Could you comment on that? |
| 01:22:52.45 | Olivia Irvin | Sure. So I think it's really important to keep in mind that there's, again, no development is actually happening. What this environmental document is reviewing is the changes to the policy document, and none of those changes are any different than what had previously been analyzed. The VMU was a previous condition that was rolled into this as well. |
| 01:23:18.88 | Mary Wagner | And if I may, Mr. Mayor, I think it's also important to clarify that the VMU does not change the existing development standards, even if you were to argue that continuing of the VMU program had some impact on aesthetics. It doesn't change the existing development potential of any of those sites. It doesn't increase the height, as Karen indicated in her presentation. Any of the height, the FAR, and the density all remain the same. |
| 01:23:49.32 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | A follow-up question to legal counsels. But aren't we, I mean, if it doesn't, If the VMU program does not in any way change anything, I mean, we heard the same comment about the HMU program, why are we having it here? I mean, we are encouraging housing with the VMU program, and therefore the state density bonus law could kick in if, for example, two parcels were purchased side by side, correct? So I'm not, I don't see how you can say that the VMU is nothing to see here, folks. |
| 01:24:25.57 | Mary Wagner | I don't believe I made that statement. I believe what I said is the VMU does not change the existing height regulations, FAR, or density, nor does it change the application of density bonus law, which applied before the VMU was adopted, and it applies in the same manner today. Because residential development was currently allowed on those commercial sites, and it is encouraged, as you indicated, in that new development above existing commercial is required to be residential under the VMU program. |
| 01:25:00.25 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. And it doesn't change the height requirements, but it's certainly we have one-story structures right now that would fall under the VMU overlay, and perhaps second floors right now do not pencil out economically for the developer, but with a VMU program, they may. And so in a situation where you have a view, then just adding one floor, you could lose your view. So I think it's a little bit I don't think the point is that necessarily about the height uh, changes, that it doesn't change the height so much that it that we have to do with the development of housing and the creation of second floors or third floors even that don't currently exist, correct? |
| 01:25:48.12 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:25:48.19 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 01:25:48.22 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:25:48.24 | Jill Hoffman | move on because this is for questions. So let's keep it to actual questions and we can |
| 01:25:51.77 | Mary Wagner | We can – Ms. Chair, clarify, it doesn't change the ability to develop those floors. That ability existed before the VMU program was put into place, and it continues with the same parameters. |
| 01:26:05.08 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | but we're providing economic stimulation and incentive with the VMU program, with the state density bonuses. |
| 01:26:09.20 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:26:09.22 | Mary Wagner | with the |
| 01:26:09.57 | Jill Hoffman | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:26:11.00 | Jill Hoffman | Let's move on to the panel. |
| 01:26:12.67 | Jill Hoffman | Mr. Mayor, I have actually a follow-up question on that. |
| 01:26:13.28 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 01:26:14.24 | Jill Hoffman | that. |
| 01:26:14.94 | Jill Hoffman | in that vein. When you couple that though, understanding that the maximum height limits don't change, but when you couple that with the concessions and the density bonus law, What now is a one level or one floor unit can now be built up to three floors up to the maximum height that you would normally be able to build under up to because of the concessions. For instance, in my neighborhood, which is the ASEAN 1 neighborhood on Bridgeway, we have several buildings that are one stories, which affect the views of everybody up the hill, which is 20 to 30 neighbors up the hill. That's out of one story because of the view... The views that we have and that we can enforce if somebody tries to build up once you couple the density bonus With those locations now because you get those concessions and a density bonus law it does change the fundamental nature of that property, I believe, because now you can build up. because you get the concessions for parking, for setback, and for height. So to say that the density does not change or that the program 8 VMU program doesn't change the nature I think is a bit disingenuous to include in the as a statement. in the planning because it does fundamentally change those sites. for that neighborhood, which there's been substantial opposition to from the neighbors in that neighborhood, from both CN1 neighborhoods of the Golden Gate neighborhood and the 7-Eleven neighborhood. |
| 01:27:46.43 | Jill Hoffman | Now we're in the question period. So if there are comments, we could save those for the comment period. So think of it as a point. |
| 01:27:47.04 | Jill Hoffman | So if there are comments. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:27:51.17 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | was a point of clarification. So were there questions? |
| 01:27:54.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:27:55.10 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, the question is, isn't that correct? Doesn't the density bonus, don't the density bonus concessions let a landowner build up to two to three stories to the maximum height limit that they wouldn't normally be able to build up to because of the views, of the primary views of neighbors? I |
| 01:28:12.98 | Mary Wagner | Thank you, Vice Mayor Hoffman. The point that I made previously is that the density bonus law applied before the VMU program was adopted, and it applies after the VMU program is adopted. The density bonus law doesn't automatically grant a height or view concession, the developer has to ask for it. It only is triggered when five or more units are developed. And again, you know, those concessions and incentives were in state law before the VMU program was adopted and after. I would also remind the council that we specifically were – you know, we were able to do that. very mindful when the Council adopted the density bonus regulations back in July. to create a tiering of incentives to encourage or discourage or provide additional review if a developer were to require concession or incentive related to a height increase or something that could cause a view impact. |
| 01:29:17.42 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So it's correct that the state density bonus law, you know, exists regardless of the VMU, but the VMU program, encourages housing on the second floor or third floor. So it actually is sanctified by the city and incentivizes growth. I mean, it incentivizes housing density. If it didn't, it wouldn't be in this housing element. Isn't that correct? |
| 01:29:45.47 | Mary Wagner | I think it's subjective to determine whether or not by requiring upper floor residential and requiring that a unit be affordable that that is incentivizing somebody to develop an upper story residential unit. I think, in fact, as part of the conversation on the HMU, program um, HCD indicated or other sources indicated that it's actually a disincentive to have mixed-use development, that there's less funding available and it's less attractive to developers when they have commercial on the ground floor and residential above. |
| 01:30:28.33 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | As a follow-up question to that, Wouldn't you agree that we are seeing so many new legislation emerging in Sacramento that is from streamlining CEQA and removing the requirement of traffic? to other things. Wouldn't you – aren't we taking a risk here going forward with a program to incentivize housing under the assumptions that the current land use policies and laws are going to stay the same? from Sacramento. In other words, with SB 375, with Plan Bay Area, I mean, there are so many new legislations coming out of Sacramento right now that are being vetted, it's hard to keep up. And so I'm just asking and wondering that stepping forward with a VMU program to incentivize high-density housing in that climate, is that a wise thing to do? if we don't need it because we've already met our arena without it, for example. |
| 01:31:45.30 | Jill Hoffman | Let me ask you. Do we, and I'll ask our consultants, do we normally include potential and futuristic possible legislation in deciding whether in an EIR, if we were to do an EIR, do you look out and project whether there could possibly be further legislation pending if we were to do one? |
| 01:32:10.64 | Olivia Irvin | Yes, the answer is that you want to try and establish the existing regulatory context, as well as any things that are on the books that may come to pass, but you wouldn't That's not an existing condition if it hasn't already been adopted. So if something has already been passed, then it would be identified and explained. |
| 01:32:29.95 | Unknown | But not if it hadn't been. |
| 01:32:29.97 | Olivia Irvin | Thank you. Correct. |
| 01:32:33.63 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I have a quick question, my last question with the EIR. The word substantially is used to describe the view impact. It says the proposed housing element update will not substantially affect scenic vistas. And you specifically call out Richardson Bay in the prior paragraph. Uh... you could define what you meant by substantially. Was this for the neighborhood as a whole? Was this for the immediate adjacent homes? You know, was it primary views? Was it secondary? How did you come up with that? |
| 01:33:16.81 | Olivia Irvin | Yeah, the term substantial is definitely a CEQA word, and it certainly is something that is up to interpretation. The idea is that it would affect a substantial number of people or a substantial number of views. Richardson Bay was identified because that is a primary view corridor, so that was looked at specifically. |
| 01:33:43.64 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay, thank you. |
| 01:33:47.71 | Jill Hoffman | Now we're moving on again to questions outside of the negative declaration. And why don't we start? Thank you. |
| 01:33:54.32 | Karen Warner | Mr. Mayor? |
| 01:33:54.69 | Jill Hoffman | Mr. Mayor. you I'm sorry. |
| 01:33:56.97 | Karen Warner | Lillie's asked me to respond to Councilwoman Pfeiffer's comment about that the VMU isn't necessary for the RENA. Can I just... We've talked about the primary importance of the VMU is it's the only program that meets the statutory requirement to assist in the development of affordable housing. It plays an important component in the arena as well. The first go around with HCD in 2012, I guess it was, when we submitted the housing element to the state with And we showed capacity in the city's commercial districts based on what your existing zoning permits. the state did not accept that. They said, you know, you don't have a recent track record. What are you going to do to actually let alone the affordability component. But we were looking at it just based on what the city's regulations currently permit. So in order to count what we have now is 51 units towards the RHNA coming from the commercial districts. the VMU program is necessary for that. If the VMU program went away, certainly we could count some units in your commercial districts, but it would probably be something like a quarter of that, you know, gauging on what the state said. So it does play an important role in providing the necessary numbers for your arena as well. |
| 01:35:41.36 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I have comments and questions about that, but I'll refrain. |
| 01:35:45.24 | Councilmember Withy | Well, I think we're going to be talking about the VMU some more, right? Yeah, yeah. Because I think we're off the CEQA, right, for now. Okay. |
| 01:35:47.25 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | A little more, right? Yeah, I wasn't sure if it was now. |
| 01:35:59.00 | Councilmember Withy | My question, first question is not about VMU, it's about sort of some basics about our infill strategy. What I think is confusing a lot of folks, I've had residents come up to me and say, look, I'm getting all of this, I understand the state requirements, we don't wanna break state law, we don't wanna defy the state, we wanna do this, but, You guys have got... what you've called a buffer, what we've somehow called a buffer of a gazillion number of units that we don't need. Aren't you guys just a bunch of idiots? Why have you done this? Why are you giving the state more than they require? |
| 01:36:33.30 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:36:47.60 | Councilmember Withy | And I think there still needs to be an explanation for that Um... in that it goes to the basis of our infill strategy. Our infill strategy is just counting what's there. Now is that right? And could you definitively explain that right now so that people at home can understand? You get into the concept of default density, please explain that. Why is it by just counting |
| 01:37:04.64 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:37:17.09 | Councilmember Withy | under capacity you know, potential development Capability. under our current zoning laws, without changing a damn thing. We're that. by just counted numbers and handing over to the state, that we can claim that we are able to fulfill a large portion of our RHNA numbers. A lot of people find that very difficult to understand. So. |
| 01:37:44.65 | Jeff Bradley | I don't know if I'll be able to explain it better than you, Council Member Withy, but I think you did a pretty good job. What we do is we real simply look at the city's zoning. Because as every homeowner knows, or every resident of the community knows, every piece of property has a zoning attached to it. It's either commercial or industrial or residential. You can see that going around the community. And so we look at the zoning and say, okay, what is the latent, what is the built-in development capacity of the parcel? Because if one lot has one house on it and one family lives in No one could argue that that property... has a development potential of at least one, without even going down to City Hall and looking at the maps and reading the ordinances and talking to the planners, you know you could build at least one house on that lot, right? People get that. So we take that concept and we take it to the next level. Okay, this property looks a little bigger than the neighbor. Oh, guess what? based on the book, you could build two houses on that lot, just under the city codes. And the city has architects and contractors and developers and homeowners coming in and out every day doing business on that basis. That every property has been planned and zoned for a certain amount of development. The neighbors might not like it if someone comes in to build a 10-unit apartment building But if it's allowed by the zoning, they can at least ask the question, right? Can I build 10 units on this property? And after the whole process goes through, they might get, Eight, nine, seven, save a view, get down to six, let's call it six. And so we do a realistic development capacity. We don't do the max. We say if the max is 10, we have some slope, we have some trees, we have some neighbors, we have some views, let's call it six. And so we plug that in as a development capacity of six for that one parcel. We did that for the whole city, every single parcel. that allowed residential. If it was in the marine ship, We didn't look at it because the city didn't allow residential rent yet. We weren't looking to rezone properties. So we literally just took what the city already had based on their own rules. We applied some common sense filters. You can't build 10 units on the side of a cliff or underwater. You have to have some land you can work with. And that's how we came up with these numbers. And we think it's important to keep them in there because it's a resource for the city. No one can take that away from you. That is what the city has planned for in your general plan and your zoning, and you can use it this cycle, and the next cycle, and the cycle after that. |
| 01:40:32.74 | Councilmember Withy | But as a follow-up question, where does the affordability come in? |
| 01:40:33.43 | Steve Faves | you |
| 01:40:38.89 | Jeff Bradley | All right, sorry. Yeah, the second part of your directive to answer that was about the default density, which is a technical term coming out of the state housing statutes that says, if you can provide housing at certain – if you can provide zoning – forget about housing. If you can provide zoning at certain densities, we ACD, the compliance people, will consider that to be by default affordable. So the magic number for Sausalito and a lot of other cities is 20 units per acre. And luckily, a lot of the existing zoning in Sausalito is already above that number. So if we can point to parcels that are zoned at 20 units or acre or more, by default, we can count them as affordable. |
| 01:41:28.40 | Councilmember Withy | And so my final question on this topic, and I'll yield, is so all we're doing is counting the capacity that's there. And for the ones that can't be removed by some objective rational filter that you've used, for those that can't be removed, you put it on the list. |
| 01:41:55.14 | Jeff Bradley | Correct. |
| 01:41:55.78 | Councilmember Withy | Okay. Basically, That is a no impact. strategy. Because you're not doing anything. You're just writing down the information on a list. Is that correct? |
| 01:42:10.16 | Jeff Bradley | Well, that gets back to the discussion we had about the environmental document. From a policy perspective, it's absolutely no impact because it represents zero change compared to what the city currently allows through its zoning. If I'm a neighbor and someone's building something there, that obviously could represent an impact, and that's when the other part of the CEQA process kicks in. It says now you have a project, we have to analyze the particulars of that particular project. |
| 01:42:38.04 | Councilmember Withy | So the vast majority of the units on our list come from a no-impact strategy. |
| 01:42:44.98 | Jeff Bradley | Yes. |
| 01:42:47.68 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I've got a follow-up question. Oh, thank you. OK, sure. |
| 01:42:52.89 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:42:56.13 | Jill Hoffman | I want to let you know that although I could make it to the December 17th Planning Commission meeting, I did watch the tape. So I have a couple of follow-up questions from that meeting to start off with, and then we'll see if we need to pass a little bit. So at the December 17th meeting, I was troubled by a few comments that there were no objections to the BMU program. But, you know, I know that there's been, because I've attended most of the meetings, and I know that many residents from Neighborhoods across town, particularly CN1 neighborhoods, have submitted letters, they've attended the meetings, and they've objected to the increase in density in those neighborhoods. And you would agree with me that that's true. both Karen and Jeff and whoever else. Well, there have been people that have shown up at many, almost every meeting, including the meetings on this housing element, objecting to the use of the VMU program. Before it was, prior to the VMU, it was also the VMU and the HMU program. You would agree with me? Yes, we have. |
| 01:43:55.06 | Jeff Bradley | Yes, we have had a lot of feedback from folks on both of those programs. |
| 01:43:59.17 | Jill Hoffman | Well, not just feedback, but opposition to inclusion of those two small neighborhoods, particularly the CN1 neighborhoods, in the VMU and the HMU programs. Absolutely. Okay. So we're all clear on that, that there has been substantial objection from the people in those neighborhoods and the neighbors in those neighborhoods to those programs. |
| 01:44:09.52 | Jeff Bradley | Absolutely. |
| 01:44:20.52 | Jill Hoffman | There was also a question at the housing – sorry, the Planning Commission meeting about whether or not the consultants had approached HCD about either a scale down of the VMU program or taking out the VMU program totally. And I believe the response was no, that the consultant had not particularly asked that question of HCD. Olivia, you're shaking your head. Is that correct or am I wrong in that? |
| 01:44:52.67 | Jill Hoffman | I'm sorry, Olivia. |
| 01:44:52.69 | Karen Warner | I'm sorry, Liberty. THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:44:53.36 | Jill Hoffman | I DIDN'T HEAR THAT? |
| 01:44:53.97 | Karen Warner | No, we have not specifically approached HCD with that request. |
| 01:44:59.69 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, with regard to taking out either all or part of the VMU program? Correct. Okay. Since that December 17th meeting, have you had any conversation with the HCD about removing the VMU program or scaling back the VMU program? No. Okay. |
| 01:45:17.32 | Jill Hoffman | I requested that some of the slides from the be, could you put up the? |
| 01:45:27.75 | Jill Hoffman | And I'll just go through them quickly. It's not going to take long. Just for clarification so that it's clear what I'm talking about. |
| 01:45:39.44 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, this isn't the slide that I submitted. I submitted four slides. This may have the same information, but I don't think these are the slides that I requested that The Soledad. Um, that's not it. So there were four, man. This was table four. The same information. Okay, but I'm not familiar with the way those are laid out. Do you have my four slides? |
| 01:45:55.95 | Unknown | This was table four. I'm not. |
| 01:46:04.54 | Jill Hoffman | This should be easy to send it. |
| 01:46:04.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:46:04.69 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 01:46:04.93 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | It would be easy to send it. |
| 01:46:06.07 | Unknown | . |
| 01:46:07.96 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, but my question was, do you have the four slides that I emailed in? Not on this PowerPoint, no. Do you have them at all? Are you able to put them up? |
| 01:46:16.35 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:46:16.37 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:46:16.40 | Unknown | or something. |
| 01:46:16.47 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:46:16.50 | Unknown | able to |
| 01:46:18.66 | Jill Hoffman | It should be easy. It'll just be faster for me to go through. |
| 01:46:18.70 | Unknown | There's this, |
| 01:46:19.03 | Olivia Irvin | It should be easy. |
| 01:46:22.32 | Jill Hoffman | It's exactly the same information. Well, the first one was the map, the zoning map. |
| 01:46:23.71 | Olivia Irvin | Well, the first one is Thank you. Bye. |
| 01:46:28.10 | Olivia Irvin | Can you go to the map, Jeff? |
| 01:46:29.12 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. So we're talking about When we're talking about the CNN – and I – you know, let me just say as a preface, you know, I understand we have a housing element. I understand that we're like 90 percent there. I understand we're almost at the finish line. I understand that we have a VMU program. I understand that the state has approved our VMU program. I understand that we haven't asked them about a scale down or removal of the VMU program. So, you know, my... My position from September on has been why do we have the CNY neighborhoods in this program? And this is, just to be clear, so that everybody at home knows, this is a CN1 neighborhood here. It's 7-Eleven. It's a two block. And the other CN1 neighborhood is over here. It's Old Town. So these are the two CN1 neighborhoods. And then we have We have the Caledonia, the CR neighborhood, and then we have the CC neighborhood, which is right here. So we have all four of these programs in the VMEA program. you know, If we could go to now the slide that has the RENA numbers, which was the first slide I had, which RENA units and housing objectives. Okay. So here we have – you can see the existing zones of residential units, commercial right here, right across here, those are the numbers. Here's the residential district. and accessory delivery boards and dwelling. So you can see you know, What the commercial districts give you isn't particularly a high number. And that's across all four residential districts. And I have that correct, right? Any problems? OK, so then the next one, my next slide was The commercial sites associated with the units |
| 01:48:16.16 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, so here you've got it broken down by by the commercial zones. So you got Old Town, Spring Valley, Caledonia, downtown, And so you can see the totals across the board of what you get from these commercial districts. And so, again, if you go back and look at Old Town and Spring Valley, You know, there are several units there that you get in the site inventory. If you go across and you go down, you can kind of see the numbers. You can also see how small those numbers are. and the substantial impact on these two very small commercial – these two very small neighborhood units. And the reason they're called neighborhood units, by the way, is because they directly abut a neighborhood. So this is why this program in general is of great concern and specifically these two from my perspective and the residents that I've talked to, this is the most THE END OF of concern. And so then, sorry, I do have a question. There is a question here. If you go to the last slide, which is the RHNA scenarios with modifications. And actually, the slide that I requested be is much more comprehensive. I'm not sure that's the whole. |
| 01:49:36.52 | Jeff Bradley | We split it on two slides here. This is the top and then this is the bottom. |
| 01:49:38.21 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. So if you go across and look at the way you guys have broken it out, and thank you very much for doing that, by the way, it makes it much more clear. If you look at the arena without the CN1 neighborhood, and then you did it with both, and then if you go down... You did it also with Old Town and you broke the two C&1 neighborhoods out, and so you can also see the changes. The significant thing is if you take out both the CN1 and you lump those together, you still have a buffer in every category. You're still over. by 19. in even the very low, which is usually the hardest one. So you still have a buffer of 19 very low units, even if you take out the CN neighborhoods. So, This, This is not... Serena, without, okay, so there's one slide, maybe on the next one, Jeff. It says, there it is, without the CN1. This is the one. So you still have, even if you take both of those out, you still have a buffer of 19. a very low. You still have a buffer of 39. You still have a buffer of 97. So as you go across, there really doesn't seem to be a significant and substantial change to our numbers if you take out the CN1 neighborhood. Have I got that right? |
| 01:51:04.93 | Jeff Bradley | The thing to remember about the VMU program, the vertical mixed-use program, is it does show up in our arena tables because obviously it does add some numbers to our regional housing needs allocation. I'm trying to say all these acronyms. We've been accused of using too many acronyms before. But in addition to that, and more importantly than that, me contributing to our arena, |
| 01:51:30.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:51:30.55 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. is it's meeting some key policy objectives and statutory requirements that is the only program meeting those. |
| 01:51:39.68 | Jill Hoffman | Right. I got it. But if you keep the program, but you just take out the CN1 neighborhoods, you still meet everything, is what I'm looking at. Is that? |
| 01:51:50.31 | Karen Warner | Can I clarify that? Sure. It requires going back to an earlier table, Jeff, showing the parcels. We were looking at it previously, that one. Okay. So what this shows is how many parcels in each one of the VMU zones by the unit potential. |
| 01:52:11.86 | Jill Hoffman | And you're talking about this column right here. When you say parcels, do I get that? |
| 01:52:15.23 | Karen Warner | Well, all of these are parcels. All those numbers are parcel numbers. They're actually not units. So, for example, let's see. Does this go from this far? Okay. In Old Town, there's a total of three parcels. Two of them just have potential for one unit each. One of them has potential for four. In Spring Valley, there's five parcels in the site's inventory that were deemed underutilized and suitable. Three of those five only have potential for one unit. Two of them have potential for eight units, and as you know, those were the prior HMU sites. |
| 01:52:54.48 | Jill Hoffman | HS. So I know those sites well. |
| 01:52:57.30 | Karen Warner | And so what's very important is the viability of the VMU program. So as you know, the VMU program will require a minimum of one affordable unit. And if the project is a minimum of six units, it's 20%. So once you're requiring one affordable unit, when jurisdictions do analyses of impediments, |
| 01:53:04.10 | Unknown | you |
| 01:53:27.69 | Karen Warner | For inclusionary zoning, for example, if you have an inclusionary threshold that's very high, it's going to serve as a disincentive for development. And 25 percent requirement for an affordable unit is about as high as you can go. and probably even lower than that. So if you say, what's the minimum size project where you can still require one affordable unit and not completely blow it out of the water that you're creating a disincentive? That would be a four unit project, right? One affordable unit out of four is 25%. So really, the only sites in the VMU program, if I can get this pointer to work, it won't, are the ones with a minimum of four units. So we have two parcels with four unit potential, one parcel with six unit potential, three parcels with eight unit potential. So that's really a very few number of parcels that |
| 01:54:27.92 | Steve Faves | notes. |
| 01:54:32.98 | Karen Warner | are potentially viable. Aside from that, as part of our analysis in the housing element of What is the minimum, because you have very small sites in Sausalito, what is the minimum size site that an affordable housing project can be done on? And usually we have to have much larger sites than what we were able to demonstrate in Sausalito because of your rotary projects that are very small. that you could theoretically have a nonprofit developer do something as small as six units. So HCD did agree that we could count the parcels with a minimum of six units towards your affordable sites inventory. So it's not just the default density. We have to have minimum six unit size parcels to count towards the very low and low. So that's even fewer. We only have four minimum six unit parcels. So that's where reducing the VMU overlay to lessen what it is, is really not a viable program. |
| 01:55:46.93 | Jill Hoffman | So we still have – if you took out the two C and one neighborhoods, you still have this unit, you still have this one, and you still have this one. So you have three. So that's still three parcels that satisfy the program. And if I'm not mistaken, when we talk about these two sites, which were the targets for the HMU, We went through all this about size and density and all that, and we found the parcel on Eptide, which qualified for that, which is why we were able to remove that from the BMU. So, It seems to me that with the addition of the ebb tide unit, And if you still have THESE CHECK IN THE BOX FOR THE EIGHT UNITS, FOR SIX UNITS, AND FOR FOUR UNITS, I would think that AHCV would have a hard time saying that that's not in compliance. I know that you haven't asked the question. I think that that question needs to be asked before we move forward with adopting the plan, and that's been my position for quite some time. And so I also have one more, if I could. The third thing is I'm glad to see that it looks like we've resolved the question about the deadline for the eight-year plan for adoption. So there was a lot of discussion back in September about whether or not we had to – actually the driver for adopting the plan as is was that if we didn't adopt it by January 31st, we were not going to be able to stay on the eight-year cycle. Now I see in your slide that we're all in agreement that the eight-year cycle we have 120 days from January 31st, so we do still have time to um, amend it if we choose to and have it certified and adopted – sorry, adopted and then certified. We do have time to resubmit it to HCD. with the very minor change, should we wish to, and I would urge the Council to do that of removing the two C and one neighborhoods and see if they certify it. You know, we may not be able to advocate for that, you know, but I would hope that we would and that and that ACD... would certify that, and if not, then they would come back and say, whatever they want to say. We do still have time before May 31st, it seems to me. Am I wrong about that? I mean, that seems to be the schedule now. |
| 01:58:16.66 | Karen Warner | Right. I mean, there's a 120-day grace period. This sort of a change, as you're acknowledging, would require a resubmittal to HCD, which triggers another 60-day review. Right. So that's, you know, something to be aware of. |
| 01:58:34.82 | Jill Hoffman | Right. Well, it's 60 days, so. It's January 13th today. It would seem to me to be a very simple and minor change to just delete those sections. WE'LL REDLINE THEM SO THEY WOULD KNOW THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DELETING. and give them a 60-day review, then we're talking about March. And it comes back to us, and then we do what we do, and we still have three months. Thank you. |
| 01:58:57.13 | Karen Warner | It would also need to go to Planning Commission. |
| 01:58:57.16 | Jill Hoffman | it would... Thank you. Sure. But Planning Commission has already approved a much larger plan. If we scale it down, I can't see that Planning Commission... |
| 01:59:01.70 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 01:59:08.36 | Jill Hoffman | would have an objection to that, but I could be wrong. |
| 01:59:13.33 | Jill Hoffman | Karen, can I ask you, in your professional opinion, and we've had the discussion before because this has been We've considered this, whether we can go back. And in your professional opinion, what are the odds that HCD will approve this modified VMU proposal? |
| 01:59:38.52 | Karen Warner | And you're right, we did have this discussion before we submitted the draft element to the state, and I strongly advised against it, because I strongly feel this is down to the bones, really. This is really down to the bones. We've gotten rid of the HMU. We have very, very few sites that we can say are potentially viable for VMU, and to cut those in half, to three. I really feel very strongly that the state would not see it as a viable program. |
| 02:00:15.29 | Jill Hoffman | I did watch the December 17th meeting, the Planning Commission meeting, and I will say, you know, I was – I TOOK JOAN COX'S COMMENTS TO HEART BECAUSE SHE COMMENTED THAT THAT WAS ALSO YOUR POSITION WITH THE HMU. AND SHE ACTUALLY REPRESENTED TO RESIDENTS THAT WE HAD TO HAVE THE HMU THAT IT WOULDN'T PASS. we were able to amend it and take out the HMU program. |
| 02:00:44.74 | Karen Warner | Because there was an alternative site. cutting the VMU in half and have an alternative. We're cutting the VMU in half and having 50% left of what is already a very bare-bones approach. I can't see anything. |
| 02:00:58.81 | Jill Hoffman | That's my question. |
| 02:00:59.71 | Karen Warner | PIN. |
| 02:00:59.98 | Jill Hoffman | I mean, but there wouldn't be any downside to proposing that to HCD. I mean, is there? |
| 02:01:00.40 | Karen Warner | Okay. |
| 02:01:00.84 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:01:06.15 | Jill Hoffman | I can't see why you wouldn't have that as a policy from the city to propose the minimum. Or not even the minimum, just a scale down. We still hit all of the wickets. Can we keep it to questions, by the way, |
| 02:01:17.63 | Jill Hoffman | Can we keep it to questions? By the way, Commissioner Cox did vote to recommend to pass this ultimately. So, but let us for now, we have a comment period and we can make our arguments. Can we stick to questions? And then I'd like to, and we have one more question, one more round, and then we'll open it to public comment. And if there are more comments, if there are more questions, we can go back to that as |
| 02:01:36.88 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yes, I actually have several more questions for clarification before public comment. And the first one is I want to thank the board these slides because I think they clarify the point here. With respect to the RENA, I just want to confirm, so we're not talking about RENA impact if we remove the VMU program. Like certainly if we remove, I mean, from what I'm seeing in these slides, we still have buffers from very low income, low income, you know, we still have substantial buffers. So can you confirm that we are not talking about a RENA issue with the VMU? |
| 02:02:29.60 | Unknown | Thank you. Mm-hmm. |
| 02:02:32.23 | Karen Warner | How come you think this works? fight. |
| 02:02:35.66 | Mary Wagner | AM. |
| 02:02:38.22 | Karen Warner | Okay. So we have basically 30 very low and low income units in the VMU, and that's based on their size. They need to be a minimum of six units to be able to be counted under very low and low. So subtracting the 20 units from the buffer of 27, that leaves you seven. Subtracting the 10 from the buffer of 47 leaves you 37. What happens if your ADUs don't pan out? So while you still would have somewhat of a buffer, it leaves you less comfort where we're counting 12 very low ADUs, 23 low ADUs. So that could run into trouble with that. |
| 02:03:25.07 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:03:39.56 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | You could run into Thank you. So the goal is to meet the requirement of the housing law in our arena. And the goal, as stated and voted on and approved by this council, albeit it was a 3-2 vote, a few years back was minimal impact. That was the goal of this housing element, was minimal impact. So, I just want to confirm that we are not talking about arena issue in removing the VMU program, correct? Because we still have buffers in every category, in the very low and the low income, correct? |
| 02:04:14.43 | Karen Warner | Thank you. You still have a seven-unit buffer under very low, which is dangerous. That would be my... |
| 02:04:25.46 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | But it's not arena. We are meeting our arena. We have buffers in very low and low. |
| 02:04:29.68 | Karen Warner | You'll need to report every year on your ADU progress. You'll need to report every year on your LiveAboard progress. And if you're not up to what you're projecting here, then you would need to go back and make a change. |
| 02:04:46.57 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I understand that. But I mean, the ADU program, we established earlier that the track record |
| 02:04:46.59 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 02:04:53.19 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Even HCD said that that didn't apply because the housing element law says regulatory relief is an alternative if you don't have a successful track record. And we didn't at the time because we didn't even have a policy for ADUs. So, I mean, we didn't allow legalized ADUs. So we've established it's not a RHNA issue. Okay, right? It's not a RENA issue. |
| 02:05:17.24 | Karen Warner | I would say it's putting you in danger of not having an adequate RENA buffer in the very low income. So I would say it is a RENA issue. |
| 02:05:23.56 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Do we meet? Thank you. Thank you. Okay. When I say a RENA issue, are we meeting our RENA with removing the VMU? Are we meeting the RENA number? |
| 02:05:39.80 | Karen Warner | you have a sufficient RENA capacity. |
| 02:05:44.08 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | The answer is yes. I mean, if you go to the other slide, it shows we are meeting, in fact, we are exceeding our arena. Yeah. So that's one thing I wanted to establish. The other thing I wanted to say is that leads us to why are we having the VMU? So if it's not a RHNA issue, Uh, We are, you mentioned it was the statute, correct? Correct. Government Code 65583A7. Correct? |
| 02:06:28.97 | Karen Warner | The statutory reference to assisting in the development of adequate housing for affordable is 655836. |
| 02:06:36.06 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I see two. 6558. C2. Yeah, C2 and then 2C and then you've got A7. We have our ADUs that have been a huge success since we announced it, and we know that the New ADUs have also been very popular and have provided affordable housing to our demographic since we launched that. It's been so successful we have absolutely no problems expending that with this housing element. If I look at the my understanding of housing element law, I talked to a housing element consultant tonight before I came here. |
| 02:07:33.70 | Jill Hoffman | All right. Councilman Pfeiffer, we're going to bring in something. |
| 02:07:33.97 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Councilman Pfeiffer, we're going to have |
| 02:07:37.72 | Jill Hoffman | We should identify who that is because this is bringing in some additional facts that we can't confront unless there's a fact. |
| 02:07:43.26 | Unknown | Oh, okay. |
| 02:07:43.98 | Jill Hoffman | I mean, we need to know. And frankly, we have... the consultants here, if we want to have an opinion, We shouldn't be citing outside facts that no one can really attest |
| 02:07:51.56 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | No one can I'll just say it's my opinion then, looking at this, my opinion. I was looking at the law. I looked it up, and it seems to me that what they're saying is that the law is |
| 02:07:53.67 | Jill Hoffman | I'll just... |
| 02:08:07.52 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | asking for is that we do an analysis on our demographic. We do an analysis on the unique solutions for Sausalito and what that needs to be. And it's clear our demographic, you know, on average, we're 1.4, you know that's our average size and the ADUs are definitely serving a need there. So when I look at the RENA and I look at the law I don't see the need for the VMU programs because we have done an analysis, we've established our demographic, the ADUs are meeting that need. And the VMUs just seem like added density on that. |
| 02:08:53.62 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 02:08:58.27 | Karen Warner | And I think this is where we started in 2011. Why can't we rely on ADUs and liveaboards? And we were told time and time again, we cannot rely on ADUs and live aboards. They serve a very important need in Sausalito, and that's why they are a key part of your overall strategy. They are not addressing that statutory requirement, which is to assist in the development of housing affordable to extremely low, very low, low, and moderate. |
| 02:09:36.25 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And we have identified our three zones that would assist in the development of affordable housing. |
| 02:09:36.27 | Karen Warner | And we... |
| 02:09:42.46 | Karen Warner | So that's sites in RENA. So assist in the development programs typically are financial, which we don't have in Sausalito. So cities have trust funds, they have commercial impact fees, or they're inclusionary zoning which is sort of what VMU is getting at, requiring a certain affordable unit. But it's something tangible that is actually creating new affordable units. |
| 02:10:17.22 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | But I know the county has several programs that I know are listed in other housing elements in Marin as falling under this financial incentive for, you know, assisting in the development of affordable housing. Why wouldn't we point to those programs as well as the way other housing elements have done, like CDBG? |
| 02:10:39.04 | Karen Warner | Well, CDBG can't be used for affordable construction. Merely identifying other outside financial resources is not a program to assist in the development. |
| 02:10:51.38 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I'm sorry, I heard you just say we needed financial assistance. |
| 02:10:55.14 | Karen Warner | No, no, no. I'm saying the ways that cities address that statute. Okay, gotcha. Frequently is their own local financial assistance or an inclusionary zoning ordinance or some other way that they are actually |
| 02:11:00.35 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay, gotcha. Okay. |
| 02:11:09.60 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay. |
| 02:11:09.65 | Karen Warner | Okay. MS. Working to create new affordable units. |
| 02:11:12.10 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So what I'm hearing you describe is a program, is the need for a program, the statutory need for a program. But I'm not hearing you talk about how big that program needs to be. So if we could go back to that slide where we were looking at the viable, you know, sites. I know at one point we were going through with an HMU program that had just identified two sides, and that was viewed as viable. So why is it that we could re-scope the VMU program to focus on just one area. And that would be viable, wouldn't it? Because we are, you know, what you just described to me was a program requirement per statute. It wasn't size. You know? And certainly if I look up here and I see the CR zone, good grief, um, We've got Is that three sites there that are viable? So that's one more than the HMU program. |
| 02:12:13.00 | Karen Warner | But as you recall, the HMU program was something that we had to craft based on input from the affordable housing advocates who were saying, and HCD was concurring, that mixed use is much more difficult to develop. So those were focused on two sites, and augmenting that was the VMU program. So now we have three sites instead of just two. Okay, but those are VMU sites more difficult to develop than 100 percent residential. |
| 02:12:50.75 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Well, that's... But isn't that a subjective comment? I mean, that's just your assumption. We don't, I mean, we're seeing all sorts of incentives and programs out there to help this sort of development, certainly next to near transit. So it seems to me that this is a viable program based on what you've told me. I mean, narrowing the scope of this. And frankly, I'm not sure why we have the historic district down there, because it's zero, zero, zero across the board. |
| 02:13:29.53 | Karen Warner | Well, it currently permits residential, so this is just a continuation of what your zoning permits. We didn't identify any sites that looked to be suitable, you know, over an eight-year period for development. But this is a very, very limited program in scope as it is, with You know, if you go out and you look at the The few sites that have potential for four or more units in the commercial district, they're not ripe and ready to go. The city's not providing any funding to try to make that happen. So it's kind of about as narrow as you can go. |
| 02:14:19.07 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I have another question which speaks to I know that one of the things HCD is looking at is viability. And it seems disingenuous to go forward with a housing element that the community doesn't want. We know will trigger legal action from residents, and it has nothing to do I would say, I want to clarify, nothing, I've never heard anything against the affordable housing component. It's the view blocking that the VMU would do in these neighborhoods in the CN1 zones. I'm having a problem understanding why we wouldn't go forward with just the CR zone, and because we are meeting that program requirement. |
| 02:15:06.21 | Karen Warner | I think I've responded to that with, you know, why I strongly feel, and that's, you know, the discussion we had prior to submitting the draft to the state, that the program is very thin as it is. |
| 02:15:15.02 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | . I'm sorry, I guess I was, my question had to do with the viability. Is it viable, is it truly viable to be submitting a housing element that includes zones, neighborhoods, that we know will trigger substantial fight and uproar? to any kind of density housing, a second floor, how is that, how are we submitting a program that is viable that way? Wouldn't it be better to go forward with a zone that had a more minimal impact and would be more viable? That's all I'm saying. |
| 02:16:01.73 | Mary Wagner | And Mr. Mayor, if I may, with respect to viability, we already submitted a program to HCV that included the VMU program, and it was accepted as viable from the state, and we're not suggesting any modifications. Staff is not recommending any modifications to that program. And if I could just reiterate the point that Karen made that I think may have gotten a little bit lost because it was a long response to a detailed question. In response to Councilmember Freifer's question of, well, if HMU was viable with only two sites, why wouldn't VMU be viable at cut in half? One of Karen's points there was that HMU was always coupled with VMU. So it was the programmatic aspect of the state housing element law was met by both the combination of those programs. |
| 02:16:44.99 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And we are still meeting that legal requirement, Mary, though, because we let go of the HMU program because we found an R3 zone that met that statute. I mean, so we are still meeting, although we don't have the HMU program, we have the equivalent in that we have identified another R3 zone that could meet that statute. So in my mind that – I'm sorry, I don't follow the logic to the answer. And it seems to me when I look up here and I'm seeing three viable sites in the zone – in the CR zone. If we've already adopted the VMU program, we're not leaving it, we're just re-scoping it. And we're meeting the statute. And we are meeting our arena. We still have the buffer. We are just responding to the feedback of the neighborhood and the residents, and we are creating a more viable housing element. We're creating, in my mind, we're being We're being disingenuous submitting something like that. I mean, with all of this, it's tremendous impact. |
| 02:17:58.62 | Jill Hoffman | We're in the question period, so – and we're straying a bit. I understand some of this needs. But I think – I suggest that it's now time for public comment, and if we have any other questions after that. And then we will have time for our comments on this and to make your arguments about for or against. But, okay, so now we're new with these – with the cards, so I'll have to – do I just call people up as – is that the way we do it? Okay. Denise Soto. Thank you. |
| 02:18:33.33 | Unknown | This is very cool. |
| 02:18:41.82 | Denise Soto | Thank you. |
| 02:18:41.85 | Unknown | you |
| 02:18:42.14 | Denise Soto | Thank you. Hello, my name is Denise Souto. I live at 411 Locust Street, and apparently the word of the day is disingenuine. I find it to be disingenuous. that the City Council is trying to gut an already minimal housing element And I want to clarify that because I think that the staff has done a tireless job, and I'm so appreciative of the thankless work that you've done, frankly, because I've come here meeting after meeting and watched people be treated with disrespect. It's not okay. It's not okay that this city... is spending time thinking about how you can gut it even more, and be very clear that your risk number one That will happen. And the comment... that we should take certain towns off because they will lawyer up That right there, that's disturbing. It's disturbing to me. that you're gonna make decisions as to who can lawyer up more Because the purpose of affordable housing, and it was even brought out, that you needed Extend your outreach. to all segments. It's disappointing. It's disappointing again. It's disingenuous. that you spend time trying to eliminate every possibility And as a teacher, families can't live on live boards. some families can make it work not every family and if you want to grow the city if you want to maintain the character of the city You could do what other cities do, which is invest. Actually invest. Put your money where your mouth is. If you care about the character of the city, if you want to maintain the character of the city, if you don't want Saltz-Lead to become a gated community, If you only want to rub shoulders with a certain class of people, there are other places to live. Sausalito was never a gated community. It's lovely. Everyone here, take a moment tomorrow morning. When you get up, Think about all the people who have gone about their job. whether or not they could afford to live in Sausalito. Think about all the people you encounter every day and say thank you. who can't afford to live in Sausalito. And do you want to live in a town where the working class needs to commute 30, 60, 90, minutes more, much more, and it's disingenuous to say that we've pulled certain segments of the community when they're not here anymore. It's disingenuous. So let's think about that. |
| 02:21:52.67 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. David Soto. |
| 02:22:09.06 | David Sudo | I am David Sudo, also 411 Locust. I am also very strongly in favor of this housing element plan. I think it's really important to encourage affordable housing because I don't think there's a lot of developers around here looking to build affordable housing or even semi-affordable housing. You know, when I watch planning commission meetings, I don't see anybody saying, let's replace this 1,500-square-foot house with another 1,500-square-foot house or 1,200-square-foot house. They're looking at 3,000-square-foot houses. So we need to encourage units being built that someone who's not working as a junior executive at Salesforce or someplace else can afford to live in Sausalito. I notice a lot of new people on the ferry these days, but they're all being very well compensated. I don't see a lot of people that aren't being extremely well compensated moving into Sausalito right now. And it's very important that we maintain the character of Sausalito, which includes a diverse group of people. And if we don't encourage affordable housing, we're going to lose that diversity. And I would also say that we're looking at this set of mixed use commercial district in the number of sites and inventory but this is just the number of added units. I'm sure that there are VMUs already in every single one of these districts. We're talking about what the potential is to add to that in those areas. So, you know, almost all of our housing element at this point is legalizing or codifying what's already happening in Sausalito and recognizing that fact. So I don't see where all the controversy is in this new housing element. Thank you. |
| 02:24:05.04 | Jill Hoffman | Anyone else for public comment? Okay. Oh, sorry. You need to do it afterwards then. |
| 02:24:17.02 | Rob Buchel | I'm Rob Buchel from 501 Easterby Street. And in terms of Vice Mayor Hoffman's suggestion, I just didn't hear the consultants say there's any downside to considering nobody ever submitted to HCD? the concept of a smaller a smaller BMU. component? And if there is no downside, why not do it? and just make sure. If there is a downside and you can't go back to this and get it approved, then consider that. But anyway, that's my other comment. |
| 02:25:00.95 | Unknown | you're a client. |
| 02:25:03.83 | Sonia Hanson | Sonia Hanson, 522 Spring Street. |
| 02:25:05.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:25:08.97 | Sonia Hanson | Ah, wow, this has been a long process. And for many of you, a very long process. I came in late to this process. And I still feel exhausted. I can't imagine how the rest of you feel. The HMU and the VMU, I think, have always been the two programs that caused the most concern to the residents and the neighborhoods where they were going to appear. The HMU has been stricken, which there's been other units found to replace it. I think that's fabulous. The VMU is as much concern to the neighborhoods where it exists as the HMU was, and in some ways more, since ultimately it probably will mean an extra floor on whatever's built there. We keep talking about low income and very low income, but the truth of the matter is, in both the HMU and the VMU, you're talking about maybe one unit that's very low income, one unit that's low income, the rest is market rate. I know the state, because there's a certain number of units, give us some credence, six units or more, then there's some special consideration, but in fact, those six units are not very low and low-income units. Most of them are market rate. So... Thank you. He's... It's all very confusing. And I have to say, Ray, I do appreciate you following up on the buffer, which is another thing that is extremely confusing. |
| 02:26:46.49 | Steve Faves | offer. |
| 02:26:52.09 | Sonia Hanson | I think Jill's request that the question at least be asked of HCD certainly doesn't seem out of hand. I'd like to see the question asked. And thank you for your time. |
| 02:27:14.53 | Jill Hoffman | Anyone else? with that we'll we'll close public comment and if we have any other questions so And I would – we haven't been – we weren't very good about it, but if we can limit this part to questions, and then we'll have time for comments afterwards. |
| 02:27:30.67 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So I'd like to go back to the buffer because when Councilmember Withey made his comment on the buffer, I had a comment on that, questions. My concern with the buffer, first of all, it's my understanding that the RHNA, The regional housing need allocation is a state-mandated number, correct? And that is what we are supposed to accommodate. Okay. I'm seeing nodding heads. Okay. So a buffer, my concern, and it's been echoed by other residents with having a buffer that goes above that, is that what we are doing is aren't we locking in. Aren't we looking at, well this is already zoned this way so we're just gonna count it. And by documenting that and putting that in writing and locking it in the housing element, it becomes more, difficult to change later. For example, I mean, when I heard the question, you know, Well, this is, we're just counting potential capacity without changing zoning, and no one can take that away from you in the future. including the future city councils who will have potentially their hands tied with the fact that we have locked in this I'm looking at this as an example. Valhalla was zoned business, correct? |
| 02:29:16.74 | Jill Hoffman | Can we make it a question like that? I'm sorry. This is my point. Give you a little bit. |
| 02:29:17.79 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I'm sorry. Well, this is my point. I'm sorry. Yeah. So my point is that like Valhalla was a business. through planning, commissioned the residents and council, and we changed it to residential, the Butte property was zoned We went through the discussion, the debate. We had the community dialogue. We changed it to, you know, we're in the process of, you know, changing it towards open space. Isn't that a valid concern with the buffer? I mean, when we are locking that in and saying, these are all the units and this is all the zoning that we're doing. |
| 02:29:56.68 | Jeff Bradley | The inventory reports back to the housing element what the city allows through their existing zoning. So, for example, if a specific property goes through a zoning change, whether it's initiated by the city or the property owner, ultimately the council obviously has discretion on those decisions, and you make a decision either way. So in a future housing element, if we went through the same exercise, you would look at what the existing zoning is. And so when I said no one can take it away from you, I didn't mean this inventory could never change, They can't take your land use authority away from you because the council ultimately determines what your zoning is for every parcel in the city. |
| 02:30:38.48 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | But we're... you've got the inventory, but then you've got the sites that we are now counting as part of this housing element towards a RHNA and a buffer. And so that is my concern. that we are counting it as potential units, in a housing element equation. |
| 02:31:05.28 | Jeff Bradley | It only locks in in a negative way towards the city's discretion. Is if our arena is 79, which it is, and if we had a total sites inventory of exactly 79 units, then you would experience something resembling what you're describing, where the council suddenly has a lack of discretion because if you approve, like as Karen talked about, if you approve a project for one less unit than was identified in the inventory, you would have to almost immediately go out, round up another site, open up your housing element, do a general plan amendment, go through the whole recertification process with HCD because of the lack of that buffer. |
| 02:31:46.37 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | But we already have a huge buffer with our prior housing element. So how would that not accommodate any little glitches going forward? |
| 02:31:57.29 | Jeff Bradley | going forward. That's exactly the strategy. We're taking the inventory from the last housing element and simply rolling it forward because the zoning hasn't changed. |
| 02:32:05.03 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | But I – the buffers are different because not all of the – in fact, that's another risk is that the buffers that were identified in the 2012 housing element did not – were not necessarily a match to the RHNA. So in other words, we've got an overage again. You know, we weren't able to leverage all of the buffers that we had, because this next housing element was supposed to be pretty cut and dry and straightforward. We were just going to roll in the buffer, and it didn't work that way. In fact, not only did all the buffers' numbers from the 2012 housing element not mesh, because we can't predict the future. We can't predict what our arena is going to be. in terms of income level. When we went forward with it, I mean, with this one, now we have 171 units above 79. I'm talking about Rina's four years from now or eight years from now, we can't predict what that will be. Anyway, that's just my concern. I feel like we are potentially locking ourselves in. |
| 02:33:09.36 | Adam Politzer | Mr. Mayor, may I just make a comment here from an observation. You know, this is question time, but it's turning more into a debate, and the debate is amongst the five of you there. So if there are questions for staff or consultants, those should be asked. But you folks, the discussion that Councilmember Pfeiffer is having is really amongst the five of you. And if there's clarification that you need to pull staff back in or the consultant back in, I'd ask that. But I don't think that there's a lot of value, and I respect the Councilmember's opinion and their comments, but that's not really the intent of this section of the meeting. |
| 02:33:09.85 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Zoning. |
| 02:33:52.73 | Jill Hoffman | No, I agree. Let's wind up the questions and can we please limit it to a real question? And we will bring back we'll have time to discuss these things. But if there's a question of staff. Are there any other questions, any factual information that you need from staff? And then otherwise I. I think we're about ready to move into the comment period. |
| 02:34:16.69 | Councilmember Weiner | Thank you. |
| 02:34:16.76 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:34:16.78 | Councilmember Weiner | Thank you. |
| 02:34:16.88 | Jill Hoffman | question. |
| 02:34:17.42 | Councilmember Weiner | All right. |
| 02:34:19.02 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:34:19.04 | Councilmember Weiner | within within that eight year period we can go back to the state at any time and request a change. in that. We'll say some properties all of a sudden came up that weren't on it and now like Ebtide. We find other properties or some others. We have the ability to go back and ask the state to change it. Is that correct? And take something else, if we so desire, off the board, if the state would accept that. Is that correct? |
| 02:34:51.27 | Karen Warner | Absolutely. You can amend your element anytime during the cycle. Thank you. |
| 02:34:58.12 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:34:58.33 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 02:34:58.38 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:58.76 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So, and as a follow-up question to that, then if we can amend it at any time during the cycle, then presumably that works both ways. So if we fell short, even though we already have a buffer, even if we take out the VMU, we could go back and amend it. |
| 02:35:14.98 | Karen Warner | If you fell short, you would be required to amend your site's inventory. Yes. |
| 02:35:21.70 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | There you go. So it works both ways. |
| 02:35:26.02 | Jill Hoffman | I have a specific question. I think it's the I think it's the last site inventory. I think it's number 87. It's the ebb tide. Can you tell me how many units that actually we've attributed to that site? And I think that's the one we switched out for the HMU program. Is that right? |
| 02:35:48.21 | Jeff Bradley | Correct. That last site on the list is the 330 Ebtide site. It's a fairly large site of about three quarters of an acre, and we have it penciled in at 21 units. |
| 02:35:48.95 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. I'm not sure. |
| 02:36:04.19 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay. Thank you. |
| 02:36:08.64 | Jill Hoffman | Let's open to comment period now. You would like to start? Yeah. |
| 02:36:14.47 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah, I wanted to comment. I heard something about only to avoid the neighborhoods who could lawyer up. And I wanted to clarify. I think lawyer up is a very important thing. I mean, right now, I mean, I've worked with the liveaboards who worked with a pro bono lawyer to represent their interests with regards to their housing as liveaboards, I know, quality of their housing as liveaboards. I know with the ferry landing residents had banded together, we're not talking about wealthy residents to, you know, represent the waterfront to consult in legal services. And my point with regards to the legal aspect is that With the housing element, the housing element should reflect Um, Housing Element Law Statute. Rina. and the community, the community demographic and the community interest and to submit something that is viable knowing that people entire neighborhoods are going to be very upset when high density VMU projects are created uh... is a great concern to me We are not losing anything by re-scoping the VMU to the I think it was the CR zone. I frankly don't understand why we have the C zone, the historic district, because I have to question the viability there, too, and I'm seeing zero, zero, zero across the way. I don't see moral high ground with the VMU because we're only talking about just one affordable unit per you know, per parcel potentially, And, um, And at the same time, we have a very robust ADU program that is providing very much needed affordable housing in a very minimal impact manner. Um. So... My recommendation would be to remove the CC Historic District from the VMU, to remove the CN1 zones from the VMU, and to resubmit this. We know we have the time, the grace to do so without incurring the losing the eight-year cycle penalty. And we know that we would be doing something that would be reflecting our community's desires and wishes and respecting the small-scale, small-town character of Sausalito. So that would be my recommendation. And we would still have a buffer. Removing the VMU programs, because they only represent, like, one affordable housing per unit, would still have a buffer in the very low incomes and the low incomes. Thank you. |
| 02:39:26.87 | Councilmember Withy | Um... I, this afternoon, I decided to listen to, again, to the Planning Commission's review of this, which occurred on December 17th. Okay. I would strongly recommend anybody who's listening at home who has not done that to please do so. And to do so for two reasons. The first is, with regards to the VMU program, there was what can be best described as a very robust exchange between Chair Cox and our consultants, which really drilled down in a very objective, reasoned and careful way the need for this VMU program. I am not going to try and reiterate those arguments. I just strongly advise you to go listen to that. It's well worth it. The second reason is, and that relates to the public comment we received earlier from Denise, I would also strongly urge you to listen to the Planning Commission meeting because of the extremely eloquent reason for a housing element in the first place, and in particular the VMU program that Commissioner Cleveland Knowles gave. It is probably the best description of why Sausalito needs a housing element and why Sausalito needs a VMU program. And I have a lot of sympathy with the comments that Denise made that there is something a little distasteful when you're down to picking around between one unit and another unit, one neighborhood and another neighborhood. When really what we need to be doing is standing above these numbers and asking, we need some lower income families to be able to move to Sausalito. The other thing is, this is very complex. There's been a lot of misunderstanding, confusion, in some cases some misinformation and I think it's really important when you stand back from this to recognize that those consultants and the staff and everybody who's worked on this should be thanked very very much for producing what I believe is the lowest impact certifiable housing element that this city could possibly propose. |
| 02:42:20.53 | Jill Hoffman | You can get it. |
| 02:42:21.01 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:42:21.16 | Jill Hoffman | I think the memory actually goes last. |
| 02:42:23.23 | Jill Hoffman | Sure. Well, it's no surprise, you know, what my position is going to be on this. And, you know, I agree. I think we agree much more than we disagree up here. And I do thank the consultants. I know it's a huge job. and the staff are working on this, and I think we're, you know, I think we're 95 percent there. I think we're, like, right at the finish line, and you guys got us there, and thank you very much, because I know that it was a huge effort given that we didn't have a plan. I think we all want to have a certified plan. I think we all want to adopt it and move forward and not have to do any substantial changes for the next eight years. But we just have this last component, as I've said, with regard to the CN1 neighborhoods and for all the reasons that were clear during my questioning and clarification. You know, if you look at the numbers from the CN1 neighborhoods, removing them really don't change the overall numbers. We still have the VNU program. We check that box. You know, the target, the the arena target for very low is 26. Even without the VM, with the VMU program, we check that box. You know, the target, the arena target for very low is 26. Even without the VM – with the VMU, we have 53. Um, or sorry, without, with the commercial we have 53. Without the CN1 neighborhoods we still have 45. So we're still 19 over arena. without the CN1, we still have 39. So I agree with both Denise and David that we need affordable housing. I agree with Cleveland Knowles. In fact, you know, and I get really, concerned when people point the finger at me and say I don't like affordable housing because in Spring Valley, per we have more affordable housing probably than most of THE CITY. AND WE ARE PROUD OF THAT. AND OUR NEIGHBORS WORK VERY HARD And we're very thankful for the landlords that we have there that we can have affordable units in Spring Valley. In fact, one of the comments that was submitted was from one of my neighbors who wants to put another affordable unit on his property. change something that's already there by just putting it in a kitchen and he's getting some pushback from the city to do that. We have one neighbor who's ready to put a unit in, which is the great irony of this program. in our city. So I think what I would propose and I would hope that we do is that we submit THE PROGRAM AS IT IS, RESUMMIT IT TO THE STATE WITHOUT THE C-1 NEIGHBORHOODS. AS I SAID, AND I THINK NO ONE'S ARTICULATED ANY DOWNSIDE TO IT. IF IT COMES BACK THAT IT'S NOT ACCEPTFUL, IT'S NOT ACCEPTFUL. I THINK IF THEY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH REMOVING THAT ONE OR TWO from the CN1 neighborhood that we've talked about, then you just point to the eptide and say, we took out eight, but we gave you 21. and I think that would be a very hard position for the HCD to defend if they say that doesn't meet the requirements. So I think overall it's a great plan. I think we have lots of units in there, and I would like to see us submit it and advocate vigorously that even without the CN1 neighborhoods, we more than substantially meet the arena and all the program requirements, and we're doing a good job in Sauselio of providing affordable housing. Thank you. |
| 02:45:28.71 | Councilmember Weiner | Thank you. First of all, I really want to thank the M Group. When we brought you in in the first place, you saved our high den. And you're saving a hide now. We talk about small town, robust. |
| 02:45:36.84 | Unknown | you. |
| 02:45:42.46 | Councilmember Weiner | Well, let's look at the numbers. In 1990, the population in Sausalito was 7,152 people. And 2000, 10 years later, It was 7,330 people. Now we sit at 2010. And we get 7,000. 61 people. We're the only city in the county. where our population has gone down. Talk about small town getting smaller. right we've gone down with them The whole county has gone up an average of 10 percent. in the 10-year period. All right? That tells me something. that we're not doing something right. That's where you're losing the working people population in this town. And what you got is you got the big homes up there that could care less about this community And that's what you got. So as far as small town goes, these numbers mean something to me a lot more than those numbers because these numbers tell you how many people live in this town. Those tell you what you want to maybe do in the future. And what have we built in the last 10 years in this town? Basically almost nothing. And it's not going to be built over a period of time. Because what I gather here is that in the year Let's see, the year 2020, our population will be 7,272 people. according to the statistics. And in the year 2030... our population will be 7,500. and 62 people. So where are we going? with this. We have to... If we're going to put that amount of people, I'd rather make sure that we put people in here that can afford to live here. and possibly work here. So those are the numbers that really mean something to me. Not all these numbers that you need lawyers and you need consultants at. Those are the numbers that really mean something. |
| 02:48:00.77 | Jill Hoffman | I agree we're at the end of a very, very long road with I don't know for it was over 50 at some point public meetings and it's gone on for going on six years now. And I do appreciate all the work that the M group and our staff has because this is an incredibly low impact, low density housing element. The three legged stool, The beauty of it is it fits Sausalito, liveaboards, ADUs, and the infill strategy. There are no wind cups. We haven't rezoned anything. There are no major... developments, and of course there are some that would complain which we had more, wish we had more. The VMU, all the VMU means is that there's residential on the upper floors. Our city council some years ago on the Caledonia area recognized this. This is a way of encouraging viability of neighborhoods, and it's really important. In terms of the issue of whether we change it now, and having been part of the Housing Element Subcommittee, and over time, we have gone back to the M Group many times. Can this be changed? Can we cut it down? And Karen said, they have told us over and over, this is bare bones, this is as far as we can go. But probably more important, we have to be careful when I spend some time looking at that chart. This is a very low impact strategy and it's important. And this is not appropriate to, this is a housing element. It's not appropriate just because there are certain neighborhoods that may speak louder than others that we take them away from certain neighborhoods. I think it's very important that we treat, we have a, up and down Sausalito that we treat these neighborhoods fairly. I don't see any upside. And if we were, if we pass and adopt this housing element, we do have eight years. We can look at the program element, which has been the most discussed and problematic. And I suggest that we take a look at it and see if there's another type of program we want. But I think it's very important that we adopt this now and then we can go back. I don't think this is something that we want to play games with HCD and cut down an already bare bones and jeopardize an already an excellent housing element. I think this has been looked at. I agree with Councilman Withey. You should all look at the Planning Commission tape. And, of course, they passed them, including Commissioner Cox, voted 5-0 to approve – recommend adoption of this. And I go with their recommendation, and I think we should go forward and adopt this housing element. |
| 02:50:41.60 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I have a 30-second rebuttal. I believe when I look at this VMU program, I see it very much like what we just have gone through with the ferry landing, where you may not hear the voices, you may not hear all the letters, but believe me, it's out there. People do not want this high-density stack-and-pack stuff right in their neighborhoods. And we've heard loud and clear from the CN1s. This is a very interesting question. high-density stack-and-pack stuff right in their neighborhoods. And we've heard loud and clear from the CN1s. This housing element, by – I'm looking at – by no stretch of the imagination could I call this mental impact. We've got an arena of 79. We have a buffer of 171. And we are locking ourselves in. I urge my fellow council members to take a second look at their decision and consider re-scoping the VMU program. |
| 02:51:38.81 | Jill Hoffman | I also have a 30 minute. 30 seconds. with regard to the difference in the nature of the CN neighborhoods. The CN1 neighborhoods are fundamentally different in that most of the height limits are not met as they are on Caledonia. So when you're talking about forcing up the heights in the CN1 neighborhoods, that's a fundamental change in those extremely small neighborhoods that are both abutted by historic houses that are more than 100 years old in both neighborhoods. So you're talking about a fundamental change to the C-1 neighborhoods because of the push-up of the height that you don't find in the substantial way along the other two zones. And that's why I believe they should be taken out, no downside. |
| 02:52:24.05 | Jill Hoffman | Is someone ready to make a motion? |
| 02:52:26.48 | Councilmember Withy | Yeah, I actually think that... we have one minute rebuttals, not 30 seconds. Oh, don't. That's okay. Oh, wait. But don't, you know, I don't wanna. I only wanted 30 seconds. Yeah, no, but if you only wanted 30 seconds, great. |
| 02:52:32.89 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:52:32.91 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:52:32.93 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Oh, don't. |
| 02:52:34.33 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:52:34.38 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Oh, wait. But don't, you know, I don't want to, you know, but if you only want to, I would like to make a motion actually to remove, to submit the housing, to remove the VMU, to, to, remove the VMU program from the CN1 neighborhood and the CC Historic District neighborhood. Do you have a second? |
| 02:52:59.29 | Councilmember Withy | And, sorry. Thank you. |
| 02:53:02.00 | Unknown | Oh. Go ahead. I'm going to second it. Yes, I'd like to say that. |
| 02:53:07.08 | Councilmember Withy | and I'd like to make an alternative motion. And the alternative motion is to amend the housing element of the general plan to replace the existing housing element with the housing element update 2015 to 2023, which, for clarification, does not in any way amend the VMU program. I believe that is attachment, it's essentially resolution attachment three. And I'm making the presumption in making that motion that we can make the motion for the approval of the housing element before the sequel approval. It has to be the other way around. |
| 02:54:01.94 | Mary Wagner | We need you to take action on the CEQA document prior to taking action on the housing element. |
| 02:54:07.80 | Councilmember Withy | Therefore, Council Member Pfeiffer can't make her motion. |
| 02:54:11.63 | Mary Wagner | You can make the motion, but as a matter of process and procedure, we would ask that you take action on the CEQA document prior to taking action. Fine. |
| 02:54:20.27 | Councilmember Withy | Fine. I'm willing to make a motion on the sequel document. Could it be noted, however, that my motion is on the table and is an alternate motion? alternative motions. |
| 02:54:32.71 | Mary Wagner | So noted by staff. |
| 02:54:33.95 | Councilmember Withy | Okay, in that case, I'd like to make a motion, which is to... |
| 02:54:45.83 | Councilmember Withy | approve the housing element update initial environmental study and negative declaration, which was released on November 12, 2014 and updated December 17, 2014, to adopt that. Second. |
| 02:55:04.67 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I have a substitute motion. I move to reject the negative declaration and to do a full EIR on the proposed housing element with a particular focus on aesthetics, you know, scenic views, and on sewers, storm drains infrastructure. |
| 02:55:32.87 | Jill Hoffman | Well, this has been the most interesting motion situation. But by the way, by Rosenberg's Rules of Order, we could only have three motions at a time. We have four. But I recommend, I think they're simple enough at this point We'll work backwards, and I think let's take all four and let's do a vote. We'll start with Councilmember Pfeiffer's first, and we'll move backwards. But I do encourage, and I think for all of us, I think three is probably a lot for us to handle, and four is really a lot. So let's start here. |
| 02:56:00.78 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Are we starting with my- Your vote, what's up? Which motion? |
| 02:56:02.50 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:56:02.53 | Unknown | them, which |
| 02:56:03.88 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:56:03.97 | Unknown | No. |
| 02:56:04.03 | Jill Hoffman | Right. |
| 02:56:04.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:56:04.46 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:56:04.47 | Unknown | Thank you. You're late. |
| 02:56:04.96 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:56:05.03 | Unknown | We look backwards. |
| 02:56:06.02 | Mary Wagner | you |
| 02:56:06.11 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay, gotcha. That's what I thought. I just wanted to make sure. So we're voting on |
| 02:56:06.14 | Mary Wagner | Okay, gotcha. That's what I thought. So we're voting on – I'm sorry. I apologize. Councilmember Feiffer, just to clarify, you're still waiting for a second on that last motion. That's right. |
| 02:56:15.07 | Jill Hoffman | That's right. you |
| 02:56:17.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:56:17.77 | Jill Hoffman | So I'm interested, Debbie, can you take the roll? Now, we're now voting on Council Member Pfeiffer's second motion that she made, the last motion made. |
| 02:56:18.82 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 02:56:27.12 | Unknown | The rejection of the negative declarations. |
| 02:56:31.25 | Denise Soto | Yes. |
| 02:56:31.86 | Unknown | Council member. Oh, sorry. |
| 02:56:32.74 | Denise Soto | Oh, sorry. |
| 02:56:33.41 | Unknown | Councilmember Weiner. |
| 02:56:34.88 | Denise Soto | No. |
| 02:56:35.22 | Councilmember Withy | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:56:36.75 | Unknown | Councilmember Pfeiffer. Yes. |
| 02:56:37.85 | Denise Soto | Yes. |
| 02:56:39.56 | Unknown | Council Member Whitty. |
| 02:56:40.53 | Councilmember Withy | No. |
| 02:56:40.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:56:40.97 | Councilmember Withy | Thank you. |
| 02:56:42.81 | Unknown | Vice Mayor Hodman. |
| 02:56:49.72 | Unknown | Council Member, or I'm sorry, Mayor Kidd. |
| 02:56:52.82 | Jill Hoffman | No. But what was the tally on that one? That was? Okay. Now we are now on Councilmember Withey's motion on the negative declaration, correct? |
| 02:57:00.13 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:57:07.48 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. So can we take a... The poll on that. |
| 02:57:15.99 | Unknown | Councilmember Weiner. |
| 02:57:17.00 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Yes. |
| 02:57:18.99 | Unknown | Council Member Fiverr. |
| 02:57:20.85 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | No. |
| 02:57:22.72 | Unknown | Council Member Whitty. Yes. |
| 02:57:23.50 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:57:23.55 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | you |
| 02:57:23.63 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 02:57:24.92 | Unknown | Weiss Merit Hoffman. Yeah. and Mayor |
| 02:57:30.45 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 02:57:33.54 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:57:33.74 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:57:33.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:57:33.77 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Now we are on... Councilmember. Withy's motion... Okay. So we're ready to. Do we need to reiterate that or are we fine? I think we're ready to vote. Okay. |
| 02:57:44.10 | Steve Faves | We're fine. |
| 02:57:51.97 | Unknown | . |
| 02:57:59.59 | Unknown | Council Member Weiner. |
| 02:58:00.89 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | YES. Thank you. |
| 02:58:02.75 | Unknown | Council Member Pfeiffer. |
| 02:58:03.86 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | No. |
| 02:58:07.24 | Unknown | Councilmember Whitty. |
| 02:58:08.18 | Councilmember Withy | Yes. |
| 02:58:08.20 | Unknown | Thank you. Vice Mayor Hoffman. . |
| 02:58:11.49 | Jill Hoffman | . |
| 02:58:11.63 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 02:58:13.28 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 02:58:14.09 | Councilmember Withy | Yes. |
| 02:58:14.41 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. and now we're on the last one. |
| 02:58:18.06 | Councilmember Withy | Mr. Mayor, it's my understanding that under Rosenberg's rules of order there, we do not vote on this last motion because this motion has just settled the matter. Is it? |
| 02:58:29.19 | Jill Hoffman | And I agree with that's the rule under Rosenberg's Rules of Order. And in this case, that would supersede the original motion made? Correct. Substitute motion. Okay, substitute motion. Okay. |
| 02:58:40.84 | Unknown | Correct. Substitute motion. All right. Thank you. |
| 02:58:45.22 | Jill Hoffman | All right, is that it? No. |
| 02:58:46.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:58:47.40 | Jill Hoffman | Are there any other proposed motions from SAP that we've done? We're done. Okay, so can we take a break? And we'll go from there. |
| 02:59:08.00 | Unknown | I know, it's scary. What's that? No. |
| 02:59:10.98 | Unknown | What is that? Thank you. |
| 02:59:17.02 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:59:20.22 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:59:42.01 | Jill Hoffman | I'll see you next time. |
| 02:59:46.53 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. We are now in city manager report. |
| 02:59:58.92 | Adam Politzer | Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council Members. A very brief report as this is the first meeting of the new year. So welcome back to the Council. Nice to start it off with something meaty there and important. And so I appreciate all the energy that Council came in to the first meeting with. A handful of items here. The first is making sure that everyone has RSVP to the MCCMC Council Dinner for January 20. items here. The first is making sure that everyone has RSVP'd to the MCCMC Council Dinner for January 28th. If you have not done so already, please let Debbie know. The Town of Ross is hosting. They're hosting it at the Art and Garden Center. You should have received an invitation on that if you haven't. If you're not on that mailing list and I'm looking at Council Member Huffman to make sure that you're getting that information. So if you're not, make sure that you let Debbie know so that you're – because there's staff reports, there's requests for people to nominate either themselves or others for various county-wide committees. And so opportunity not only to have fun here in the city of Sausalito, but fun in the county of Marin as well. So I recommend that everyone pays attention to the agenda, but also attend the meetings because it's really important. It rotates monthly from town to town, and if we don't show up to their meetings, they're not gonna show up to ours when we host here in Sausalito. Sacramento awaits the Vice Mayor and the Mayor and myself as we go to the new Mayor's and new Council Members Academy. The Academy is sold out so that means there were plenty of folks that got elected that haven't been. in the past, up and down the state. And so that will be an opportunity for us to meet other council members statewide, but in Marin County there are three others. As you may have read in the paper, Sam Rafael appointed Councilmember Conley's position as he went on to the Board of Supervisors. They've made an appointment. And so that's council member will be joining us and then two council members. from the City of Belvedere will be joining us. So there will be five from Marin. I don't know how many from the North Bay, but there's normally a North Bay reception and then a legislative reception that's held by the league itself. So there's plenty of activities to meet others, which is one of the greatest benefits of the training. but then also opportunity to learn what you got yourself into for on both. the new mayor leading the cause and our newly elected council member, Vice Mayor Hoffman. The mayor at the beginning of the meeting mentioned that the bridge district asked for an extension from BCDC from the meeting that was scheduled for this Thursday. And it's now been tentatively scheduled for the February 19th date. And so we'll keep the council and the community posted as information goes forward. I do plan on meeting with the district the week of the 19th when we return from Sacramento to start the discussion and also to find out what they have in store. What are they proposing in terms of changes to the current design? So as soon as I receive information, I'll share that with the council and with the community, either at a city manager's update or through an occurrence or other means depending on what information we learn. Then the last is just a report that we all knew that the Golden Gate Bridge was closed over this past weekend. I'm happy to report that we had no major or significant impacts to Sausalito. Commend the police departments, specifically the Chief Dejada and Captain Roebacher for their involvement with the coordination efforts. Public Works and fire also obviously had a role in that depending on what type of events may have happened because the bridge was open to pedestrians and bikes and we provide medical service as necessary if accidents happen on the bridge or leading to the bridge. And since Alexander Avenue was also closed for staging, there's a lot of coordination that went into the effort, let alone the publicity and communication out to our community and the rest of Marin and the rest of the Bay Area, letting folks know that it could be heavily congested out on the freeways. My own experience and from most of the reports that I received, the Bay Area actually handled it quite well. And I think again through the coordination efforts recommending public transportation via BART, Caltrans, Muni, all the other modes of transportation, Amtrak, hopefully also reduced and introduced people to new modes of transportation beginning around Marin County. So my hats off to our staff that were involved and thanks to our community for their patience and also to our merchants that were impacted by that. We're hoping that the residents went to restaurants and to shops knowing that it wasn't going to be as crowded. And I also heard that that was the case mostly for the breakfast time. So again, thanks for everyone's patience there. Happy to answer any questions on other items that I didn't talk about. A busy year. As we know, our next council meeting will be on the 27th. And as we look, as you have already done, at the future agenda items that are next, later in the agenda year, you'll see that we have a pretty stacked up for at least the next three meetings in terms of what's coming forward. Vice Mayor Hoffman and Mayor Theodorus and I had our first agenda setting meeting where we were only able to get through tonight's meeting. So when we're in Sacramento, we might have some opportunities to talk about the 27th and the 10th as we look forward. But you have a good glimpse of it right now. So I'm happy to answer any questions of the council. |
| 03:06:40.98 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yes, I have a question about Bridgeway Marine. I was wondering, I've been concerned in raising this regarding code enforcement since I think 2011 or 12. So I was wondering if you could give a status report on Bridgeway Marine. code enforcement. |
| 03:07:04.00 | Adam Politzer | I don't think I have anything new to report from when we had a brief report on this last month, other than the fire department and our public works department is on top of this in terms of safety-related issues. The bigger challenge is looking at how they, the property owner owner brings forward the improvements that are necessary for the permanent fix. So the council, when the mayor has an opportunity, will make a new appointment. We had a, I guess it would be a committee, council committee, which was comprised of the mayor and Jonathan Leon. Jonathan Leon is no longer on the council, so we need to look at filling that spot. Those two council members joined the city attorney and myself and our public works director and whatever other staff was necessary RECKS and made the recommendation that they go and meet with the Friends of Dunphy Park and provide input on what they would like to do there and if the Friends of Dunphy Park support the project then we would bring that back to council. Friends of Dunphy Park did not support that project so it has not yet been scheduled for Thank you. Park support the project then we would bring that back to Council. Friends of Dumpy Park did not support that project so it has not yet been scheduled for Council. So the real challenge that Councilmember Pfeiffer is asking is how do we actually do code enforcement when the property owner can't make the improvements because the improvements will be permanent. So that's what the committee is working with the property owner on. And at this moment, staff's focus is on safety issues. And at this moment, as I described at the last meeting, there's no immediate threat of life or property. And so we'll continue to monitor that. I know that Fred Hilliard, our fire prevention officer, is meeting with the tenants there either later this month or early next month. I just saw an email earlier today from one of the tenants stating that Fred was coming to talk to them about fire safety. So we'll keep monitoring it, but that's where we are at this moment. |
| 03:09:37.14 | Unknown | you |
| 03:10:08.02 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So, Adam, I just want to quickly comment that I've been getting these status reports every time I ask over the past four years now. In 2012, they had 51 boats. Today, they have 72 boats. I walked through that marina last weekend. I saw boats that had brought in – they were brought in during high tide and in places that had never had boats before. Now they're landlocked. There's no exit possible. I saw an illegal dock inserted with other boats perpendicular so that boats can't even exit now. I saw inadequate electrical supply boxes throughout the marina. I saw electrical cords strewn across walkways. I saw boats stern to bow with no safety exit possible. and then I'll so many things. I'm not even going to go down the list of things that I saw. It is inconceivable to me that to me this is about safety. It's about code enforcement. And I'm just frustrated because I've been asking basically the same question for a number of years. And what I would like to hear is... And I know that at one point there was, I think, a public records request act out there from residents who were so concerned about the safety aspect of this. And what I would like to see is I would like to see a date for resolution. I know there are sensitive aspects around this. If that's the case, I will request it for resolution. a closed session item for a future agenda. But I'm really looking for a resolution date for the safety code enforcement. Safety code. It's a fire hazard. I am so concerned on so many different levels. I saw boats that were docked next to each other and then double parked and then docked like completely boxed in. It's like infill. And I encourage the council to visit Bridgeway Marine and just walk through and take a look for yourselves. So I'm frustrated. I know it's coming across, but I'm going to bring it up in closed session. I mean, for a future agenda for closed session. |
| 03:12:27.34 | Adam Politzer | I appreciate your comments and I share your frustration, but let me be very clear, and I've been clear with the tenants there as well. Code enforcement would take that. Let's all agree that we're going to allow 72 people there at some point in time. There's been proposals from Evan Gossett for 224. There's been proposals for 120. But we haven't approved anything. So let's just say that we've... |
| 03:12:49.63 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | But we haven't approved anything. And he's growing anyway. |
| 03:12:53.77 | Adam Politzer | Let's just say that we agree that they can have 72 units there. If we, in fact, move forward on code enforcement, that means seven people could stay. Everybody else has to be evicted because BCDC would only allow 10% on that marina. So yeah, absolutely, very sensitive. |
| 03:13:12.51 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | We didn't count Bridgeway Marina in the housing element. |
| 03:13:15.50 | Adam Politzer | in the housing element. |
| 03:13:18.52 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Oh, BCDC, I thought you said HCD. I met with BCDC and talked to them about this sort of thing, and they said they're not here to make any trouble or, you know, upset anything. All I'm saying is if we turn back the clock to 2012 and 51 votes, that's where we should be, and we should be enforcing the requiring the landlord, who, by the way, is making... |
| 03:13:31.82 | Steve Faves | Yes. |
| 03:13:32.04 | Unknown | If we turn back the clock. |
| 03:13:33.52 | Steve Faves | Bye. . |
| 03:13:34.43 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:13:34.54 | Steve Faves | 12. |
| 03:13:34.99 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:13:42.82 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I don't know how much money and doesn't pay any taxes because he doesn't have a business license and because then he doesn't have permits for all the things he's doing. |
| 03:13:49.64 | Adam Politzer | the things he's doing. The business license isn't what triggers paying taxes. Paying taxes is paying taxes, how we get our records. But all that I wanted to add is that BCDC is why we are involved with it, because the former member chief, the BCDC member, was having lunch at Salido's. He remembered being contacted. He walked over there, and he's the one that said, I think there is a health and danger issue and had the current BCDC staff person contact us. That's why I personally went out there with fire, police, and public works and our building official to look at the concern. I don't agree that it is a current danger. I've seen what you have described, but it is not something that is easily going to be resolved. But the committee, when the mayor reappoints that committee, will sit down with the owner again and will try to put forward a path forward that helps that become a legalized property and that the use can be taken to the planning department through an application process and that we can move forward on the parking limitations that exist and work out something that the council can approve. |
| 03:13:55.60 | Steve Faves | Thank you. |
| 03:13:55.68 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:13:55.73 | Steve Faves | Thank you. |
| 03:13:55.83 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:13:55.97 | Steve Faves | but all that I wanted to do was is that |
| 03:15:11.08 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And now he's adding Airbnb boats. |
| 03:15:12.02 | Mary Wagner | area. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:15:13.63 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:15:13.81 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. I'm going to jump in there and ask. |
| 03:15:14.66 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:15:14.72 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 03:15:14.79 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah. |
| 03:15:14.98 | Jill Hoffman | Can we have the city attorney speak? Go ahead, Mary. |
| 03:15:17.20 | Mary Wagner | This isn't an item on your agenda. No, we have to be careful. |
| 03:15:19.72 | Jill Hoffman | No, we have to be a little. Deeper than we might. So can we move on? And we will look into it. Your points acknowledge, Councilman Bufifer, and we'll move on it. But it's not agendized, so we probably shouldn't have any further discussion. Any other comments or questions on the city manager's report? |
| 03:15:22.77 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. So you're sitting. |
| 03:15:41.03 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, public comment. Thank you. Public? No. Okay, so I think now we're able to move on to item 7B, which is Councilmember Committee Reports. He won't. No. No committee reports. I guess we don't have any public comments since we have none. Okay, item 7C, future agenda items. |
| 03:16:03.68 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So I would like to suggest Bridgeway Marine as a, if nothing else, maybe a closed session agenda item. I think this involves, this is such a high priority, I mean, for the past four years. |
| 03:16:16.62 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, we'll put that on our agenda. Agenda. Any other comments? I think the thing we should note, as Adam mentioned earlier, is that we weren't – partly because of a lot of these – we have three appeals coming up in the next couple of meetings and such. Some of – I just want all of us to know and the public to know that the future agenda items are fluid at this point and they may need to be changed and we also only got to this meeting last time so hopefully we'll be able to extend it out further in our next meeting okay any public comment on the future agenda items |
| 03:17:02.00 | Jill Hoffman | All right. We're moving on now to mayor appointments for various council liaisons and members. And we'll do that before we make appointments to boards and commissions. So... Now, these are appointments. These are additions and changes to the various board we may sit on or be liaisons to. If there's no change noted here, it stays the same. And there may be certain changes in the next couple of council meetings. So this is not everything. And I'll do it by council member. So starting with council member Pfeiffer, she's appointed to the Arts Commission Liaison, ABAG Alternate, and Sustainability Liaison. Okay. Councilmember Weiner. is the Transportation Authority of Marin Alternate, and otherwise stays the same. Councilmember Withy is appointed to OMED, replacing Theodorus. Vice Mayor Hoffman is appointed to the Business Advisory Committee, again replacing me. Marin Telecommunications Agency, trees and views committee liaison and schools liaison. And I am appointed to the finance committee and transportation of Marin authority, Delia. Okay. And I guess... Should we do, we'll do the others and then we get to public comment. Any questions from the. from the council. Okay. We're on a roll. Okay. So now we're moving to appointments to boards and commissions. And the first is the planning commission. And this is to replace Stafford Keegan. And we want to thank Stafford for his over six years of service and particularly for staying with us when his time was up and we didn't have his replacement in place and really provided additional service and helped us greatly in that. So we're now ready to... Replace him and I nominate. Morgan Pierce is currently the chair of the HLB. Yeah. Any other nominations? Planning Commission and do we do this by do we vote what All in favor of Morgan Pierce to the Planning Commission? Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Now for this historic landmarks board. Okay, we have two openings on that board. um, And the I will nominate. Now, do I make both nominations if I have two at the same time, or do we do one at a time? Okay, I will nominate. Sasha Richardson and Ben Brown. Any other nominations? |
| 03:20:10.78 | Jill Hoffman | Again, or should we vote on them individually? So all in favor of appointing Sasha Richardson and Ben Brown? Aye. |
| 03:20:19.76 | Councilmember Withy | I'm not sure. |
| 03:20:19.94 | Steve Faves | Thank you. |
| 03:20:20.03 | Unknown | I. |
| 03:20:20.65 | Steve Faves | Thank you. |
| 03:20:21.82 | Jill Hoffman | One more, trees and views. I nominate Joe Silverman to be appointed to Trees and Views. Any other nominations? All in favor? Aye. |
| 03:20:32.92 | Unknown | Bye. Thank you. |
| 03:20:37.91 | Jill Hoffman | It's getting late. Okay, any public comment on these appointments to boards and commissions and liaisons? Okay, so any other reports of significance? |
| 03:20:50.70 | Councilmember Weiner | Just one New Year's Eve, we have the shuttle. This year here we only transported about 55 people, which was down the year before we transported a little over 100. you but It was easy to ride around. The streets were empty. The police waved at me as I just zipped through. But no, it worked out well, and to my knowledge, there were no DUIs. |
| 03:21:20.59 | Jill Hoffman | Well, thank you for your service on that. It was very helpful. Any other reports of significance? Okay. Motion to adjourn. |
| 03:21:29.45 | Rob Buchel | Okay? |
| 03:21:30.46 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, we're adjourned. |