| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:08.74 | Mayor Cox | Good evening. I'm going to call to order the joint special city council and planning commission meeting for Wednesday, May 30, 2018. Lily, will you please call the roll? Councilmember Withy? |
| 00:00:24.21 | Heather Hines | you |
| 00:00:24.70 | Councilmember Withy | here. |
| 00:00:25.29 | Heather Hines | Councilmember Hoffman? Present. Councilmember Cleveland Knowles? Here. Vice Mayor Burns? |
| 00:00:30.42 | Danny Castro | Here. Thank you. |
| 00:00:31.05 | Heather Hines | Mayor Cox. |
| 00:00:32.20 | Mayor Cox | here. |
| 00:00:34.02 | Danny Castro | COMMISSIONER KELMAN. Commissioner Graff? Here. Commissioner Freed? absent. Vice chair Nichols here and chair Pierce here. |
| 00:00:45.16 | Unknown | Here. |
| 00:00:48.17 | Mayor Cox | Adam Crivasi, will you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance? I'm sorry. |
| 00:00:53.80 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:01:01.76 | Mayor Cox | Thank you. Okay. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. |
| 00:01:03.13 | Heather Hines | I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. and to the republic for which it stands, Thank you. |
| 00:01:10.97 | Vicki Nichols | I'm sorry. You should. Thank you. |
| 00:01:14.50 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:01:19.78 | Mayor Cox | All right, first thing on our agenda is approval of the agenda. I'm going to entertain a motion from... the Planning Commission and then from the City Council. |
| 00:01:31.76 | Vicki Nichols | So moved. |
| 00:01:34.58 | Vicki Nichols | Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Motion carries. |
| 00:01:37.01 | Vicki Nichols | I'm not sure. |
| 00:01:39.97 | Mayor Cox | 4-0? May I have a motion? |
| 00:01:43.78 | Councilmember Withy | I move approval of the agenda. Thank you. |
| 00:01:45.91 | Joe | All right. |
| 00:01:45.92 | Councilmember Withy | I'm not sure. |
| 00:01:45.99 | Joe | Thank you. |
| 00:01:46.01 | Councilmember Withy | Bye. |
| 00:01:46.82 | Mayor Cox | All in favor? Aye. That motion carries 5-0. |
| 00:01:47.56 | Councilmember Withy | Hi. |
| 00:01:52.97 | Mayor Cox | We have one item on our consent agenda, and I'm going to have to step aside for this. So I'm gonna turn the gavel over to... Vice Mayor Joe Burns, I'm going to step aside as you consider the consent calendar. And the reason is because I live within the project that is the subject of this construction contract. |
| 00:02:24.13 | Joe | Thank you. Items listed on the consent, matters listed under the consent calendar are considered routine and non-controversial, require no discussion, and are expected to have unanimous council support. May be enacted by the council in one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion of consent calendar items however before the Council votes on a motion to adopt the consent calendar items Council members city staff members of the public may request that specific items be removed. In order to request any item be pulled you must have completed a speaker's card green in the back. Interested to see clerk items removed from the consent calendar by a vote of the Council. I'm removed from the consent calendar be discussed later on the agenda. When public comment will be heard on any item that was removed from the consent calendar. Is there any public comment on the consent calendar? Seeing somebody Shelby's getting up no public comment close public comment. |
| 00:03:22.18 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | I'll move approval of the consent calendar. |
| 00:03:24.96 | Joe | Second. All in favor I did all that really. |
| 00:03:28.89 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Bye. |
| 00:03:55.74 | Mayor Cox | All right, number two on our agenda is business items for the Planning Commission and the City Council Review and Discussion. And this is our update on the general plan, the review of the general plan, comprehensive existing conditions report, and introduction to the general plan update visioning. And so I'll turn it over to Danny for a staff report. |
| 00:04:20.41 | Danny Castro | Good evening Mayor Cox and members of the council and members of the planning commission. Danny Castro, your community development director. I just wanted to give a brief introduction to the matter before you this evening. The general plan officially kicked off in June. of last year, 2017. It's been an exciting year to begin of the discussion on many topics about Sausalito. The update to the general plan is a three-year effort and that involves almost every facet of the community The general plan is an important document that establishes the framework of objectives, which guides city decisions on city development. We have a 13-member general plan advisory committee that was appointed by the City Council. We have held 10 GPAC meetings since June of last year and nine outreach meetings involving walking tours, workshops, special topic meetings. It included boards, commissions, and committees, as well as active organizations, the residents, as well as the business community. This evening, we will let you know what work has been completed to date and the next steps. I am now going to turn to Heather Hines, who is with the M Group. And the M Group is the general plan consulting firm that has been involved and has been working with staff and GPAC for the last several months. Thank you. |
| 00:05:42.85 | Heather Hines | Good evening, Mayor Cox, council members, and planning commissioners. We're happy to be here. I'm Heather Hines, this is Melanne Navida, and we are here representing the M Group team. Am I on? Yes? Okay. So we're going to take you through, if you could switch. We're going to take you through three updates on the general plan update process. We're going to touch on an update of where we are, and really this is, talk about what outreach we've done, what we've heard, and moving into the comprehensive existing conditions report, that's really the culmination of this first phase of the general plan update process. So we're moving from the understanding phase to the visioning phase. So we thought this was a good time to come before these two bodies, give an update, get your feedback before we kind of launch into the next phase of the process. So after giving a brief update on project status thus far, Melanne is gonna walk you through the existing conditions report and touch on all of those chapters that you see there in a little more detail. And then I'm gonna pick it up at the end and give an introduction to the next phase, which is visioning that we're about to kick off. I did just want to touch on what was in your packet were the existing executive summaries of the existing conditions report. The full existing conditions report is available on the website. So that is there. Anyone in the public can look at that. GPAC has looked at that, looked at various versions of that, and this is the final version vetted through the GPAC. |
| 00:07:39.13 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:07:41.44 | Heather Hines | The CECR is the Comprehensive Existing Conditions Report. |
| 00:07:50.15 | Heather Hines | So in terms of where we are in the process, Danny said June of 2017. I think it was March of 2017. So we've been working on it for a while. We have gone through that shaded area, shows you the understanding phase. And then it really shows you as we march into the visioning stage, some refinements to this graphic. You see a few things in August of 2018 that we've shifted to July to make sure we keep August open without any meetings, the city policy. So, and you can see the number of check marks. There has been a lot of tasks completed, meetings held, outreach events held through the first phase of this process. So kind of diving a little deeper into the engagement that we've done so far, we have had 11 meetings with the GPAC as part of this understanding phase. And GPAC really looked at, they looked at each chapter of the existing conditions report. They looked at it initially and then gave feedback and then they looked at the comprehensive culmination of all of those chapters, all of those edits. Many of the draft reports that the GPAC looked at, we had our technical sub consultants with us as well for things like traffic, sea level rise, economics, environmental, so they had the opportunity also to have the technical experts that we have on our team to talk through those items. Let's see, we also have met with a lot of other boards and commissions that are listed there. Some of them directly, we facilitated a historic landmarks board meeting to get input. We had a meeting with the Planning Commission, Parks and Rec Commission. Others have been A little bit more through work with staff, such as the Finance Committee, working closely with staff that brought information to the Finance Committee that reported it back to us. So some have been direct, and some have been working with staff. Also have had a lot of outreach with stakeholders, neighborhood groups, And those really have been in different formats. We've had a formal community workshop. We also had walking tours, which were very well attended. We've had roundtable meetings. We've had kind of small group discussions. We've had the committee meetings that we've attended and talked to them about. So it's been a range of different formats and different people that we've talked to during this understanding phase. And finally, I just kind of wanted to touch on our online presence too. We have a general plan website up and right now we have 339 online subscribers. So that's another way that people are staying connected, knowing when meetings are coming up, being able to look at comments that come in, look at drafts that go out to the GPAC. Those are all linked through there so people can stay involved that way as well. |
| 00:11:08.52 | Heather Hines | So really, what do we hear? What's our objective tonight? I'm going to turn it over to Milan, and he is going to walk through the... comprehensive existing conditions report, really an opportunity for these two bodies to become familiar with the reports. And then if we missed something, if there's something that wasn't in there that should be added for accuracy, these have been vetted through the GPAC, but we wanted to bring them to all of you to make sure there's nothing that really stood out that you wanted to make sure that we took note of. |
| 00:11:50.00 | Milan | That's my cue. Do we want to cover any questions with some of the basics or dive into this introduction to the comprehensive existing conditions report? I'm seeing nods. So in your packets, as Heather mentioned, you received the executive summaries. We tried to keep them to two pages. They generally were two pages. There was one, I think, the environmental report that just had multiple subchapters, so a bit of a lengthier one there. Those front the actual conditions reports that are available online and in detail, and I hope you've had a chance to dig in through those. What we tried to do with the executive summaries was just bring to the top the major or prominent considerations that seem to be coming through in the reports themselves, but there are several more considerations in the actual report. There are eight chapters to the existing conditions report. including an introduction, which I think I just jumped over. The introduction really just lays out the format of the report, how it's meant to function, how it's meant to be read, and also does a summary of what you just heard from Heather on how we reached some of the conclusions that we reached in the report and what sort of lies behind that information. We also included a comprehensive appendix, which we basically have been updating up until today of letters that we receive online or direct mail that we receive through staff just so that there's full transparency on what has been communicated to us and where we're getting all the information that we've been reviewing. Chapter one is trying to take a high level look at all of the documents and structures that govern land use and planning in the community. This was our first sort of effort to get partly coordinated on what are all the different regulatory instruments in effect in Sausalito that govern land use and trying to find a way, trying to find out how they blend together. Each following chapter of the CCR looked at a higher level or a deeper level at those reports and how they pertain to the specific topic. So when we get into sea level rise, we looked at any reports that inform that. When we look at transportation, we look at how the existing plans affect that as well. So you get a finer level of detail within each of the subsequent chapters. Chapter one provides an overarching look at all those documents. Generally speaking, each one of the chapters is divided out into a regulatory framework to set the stage and then follows on with the analysis. And that's true for chapter one as well. So in the regulatory framework, we try to address all the different levels of planning that are involved in a single community. So we certainly have local plans, local regulations, local initiatives, but there are regional, state, and federal policies that are either regulatory in nature, or they provide opportunities that we want to be aware of, or they provide guidance that we want to be aware of. So we've tried to flag all those so that we understand how all the different things web together. At the close of chapter one, we took a look piece by piece at each one of those documents that are regulatory in nature and provided considerations as to how we need to be thinking about them when we do the general plan update and what kind of information the general plan update would need to provide in order to make those documents work together or update those documents based on the information that we come across through the whole update process. The considerations that we flagged within your executive summary are pertaining to this list on the right. And they're documents that immediately jump out as we've gone through this process. These documents have major land use and circulation and planning implications for the community. and the considerations that we flagged are generally trying to figure out how the effects of one of those documents or one of the policies in those documents is going to be affecting the rest of the general plan. The actual considerations are in your executive summary. I won't be going over those for any of the chapters. We'll leave that for discussion, seeing what you guys think is most important to dig into or where you'd like more information. So once I finish the brief introduction to the chapters, we can jump in and start talking about the considerations in more detail. In chapter two we worked closely with staff to do a complete assessment of every implementation |
| 00:16:33.31 | Mayor Cox | Yeah, so we're going to go ahead and if it's okay, we're going to ask questions for each chapter. |
| 00:16:38.68 | Milan | THE FAMILY. |
| 00:16:40.06 | Mayor Cox | Thank you. So Susan. |
| 00:16:45.02 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Yeah, so in this chapter, I mean, one of the things that I found and throughout is whenever you're talking about the plans and policies, regional plans, state laws, I mean, this seems like it should be in the framework of the general plan update. And I thought it was a little difficult to understand there's some state laws that Sausalito has to follow.'s some regional plans that we are committed to following there's some regional plans that are advisory there's local plans or ordinances that we must follow because they're voter adopted unless we change them. And then there's local policies that the general plan isn't bound by at all. And they just seemed in chapter one to all be, they were organized by state, regional, and local, not by relevance to the general plan. And I think that's confusing for the reader, because this is supposed to be about the general plan. So it seemed more like an EIR chapter on applicable regional, state, and local plans. you know, as a member of the public and as a decision maker, what I would really like to see under each... plan and government document is what's relevant to our general plan process. And so each one like the fair traffic initiative, unless we amend it, we need to be consistent with it. That was missing for me, and I would I guess it's more of a comment, really. But I was just wondering why it was organized the way it was. So that is feedback. |
| 00:18:28.97 | Mayor Cox | already gave to the m group and i believe that on the website um there was going to be a chart that distinguished between what was mandatory versus what was um you know, adopted versus discretionary. I know that We specifically requested that distinction on the website. I agree with Councilmember Cleveland Knowles, it's not in either the executive summary or in the chapter one, the full chapter one. |
| 00:19:02.59 | Milan | So for the website, we did structure, there's a resources tab that includes all the documents that we've been reviewing so everyone can access them. We did structure that along the lines of what's mandatory and what's more informative and also just what are other pieces of information. But for the report specifically, the way we tried to address that issue is in the actual full report itself, we have the first table, which is following page four on page five. It's basically a summary checklist of each one of the reports that we review, the year that was adopted, the agency that authored the report, whether it was Sausalito or another agency, the specific element within the general plan that it pertains to or that it mostly impacts. And then it concludes with two columns with little check marks or little blocks that say this is a document that provides a mandatory or compliance item or it's a document that provides guidance or information or |
| 00:19:56.64 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:19:56.65 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:19:56.69 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:20:04.94 | Milan | Sometimes they straddle both. Sometimes it has mandatory elements with guiding elements as well. So we tried to provide that sort of snapshot with all of the documents altogether as a summary. Within the documents themselves, in the considerations that we flagged, we tried to highlight the ones that are going to be impactful for the general plan. So perhaps what we could do is use this table and filter in some of that information directly into each section as we go through the documents. That way we have it as you're reading a document, you can again remind yourself of what Um, what status it has or what implication it has for the general plan, if that would be effective. |
| 00:20:45.85 | Mayor Cox | Yeah, so Milan, on pages I and II of the full report, where you list the various initiatives, you could have an annotation for each one that says whether it's mandatory, |
| 00:20:54.11 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:20:54.15 | Milan | Thank you. |
| 00:20:54.25 | Unknown | that's not going to be a |
| 00:20:57.59 | Mayor Cox | you know, you could use the same THE CASE. whether it's enabling or informational or mandatory. Um... |
| 00:21:08.85 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Yeah, I think having it in the narrative would be very important. I read this online, and this table is like, impossible to read on a computer. And in fact, I even missed, I definitely missed that it was in here. But I think, you know, the narrative gives very equal weight and in fact greater weight to things that I didn't really feel like were that relevant to a general plan update. So I think some kind of prioritization narratively would be helpful. |
| 00:21:43.00 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | The other thing I noticed and I was wondering so I... I... I found these, I'll just say up front, I found these documents very difficult to wade through. And I was really hoping the executive summaries of each section would give me kind of the overview and the guidance. And instead, they just focused on the prominent considerations. They didn't talk about the existing conditions at all. So you have to go into the document to look at the title. you know, to find the existing conditions, you have to go into the document. And so I would like to see the executive summaries more talk about the existing conditions than the prominent considerations. Because the prominent considerations don't make any sense if you don't understand what an soi is or you don't know what ordinance 1128 is so um that was Another kind of question comment. And then I guess my last thing is that I, you know, probably the GPAC already looked at this, but I thought this section, number one, should be the place where all of the policies and plans and laws are talked about. And then they shouldn't be repeated in these other chapters because they were actually described in different ways in the different chapters. And it wasn't just the level of detail. It was different characterizations. And I think repeating them is actually more confusing. And you have to go through 20 pages before you get to the existing conditions. So again, maybe you already looked at that. But I would like this document to be really accessible to the public. You know, because this is already a very challenging update. It's huge. There's so many issues that are going to be considered. And you know, this is this paper. Like, I don't know, you know, who's going to get through all this, except for some lucky planning commissioners and city council members. But so I would just consider pulling them all out. I mean, they mostly are all in here. |
| 00:23:54.73 | Unknown | MAKING A LITTLE BIT. |
| 00:23:55.86 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | So I'm not sure what. you know, there must have been a conscious decision, I guess, to repeat them. in each section, but if they are repeated, I'm wondering if they could be more consistent. |
| 00:24:13.90 | Mayor Cox | and my comments on chapter one. Thank you. Any, so I have one comment, but are there other questions and comments on chapter one? |
| 00:24:15.14 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 00:24:28.31 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Can I ask just another question? I'm sorry. So maybe somebody from the GPAC can help me with this. So what is a prominent consideration? Some of them seem to be |
| 00:24:29.76 | Mayor Cox | Yeah. |
| 00:24:29.98 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:24:39.88 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | we should look at ordinance 1128 and decide if it should still be in place. And then like in the land use chapter, the prominent consideration was it should be And that's what I'm saying. |
| 00:24:55.49 | Unknown | I'm not. |
| 00:24:56.98 | Mayor Cox | you are reading my mind i struggled with considerations throughout the gpac meetings and in fact The GPAC did not draft the considerations. They were drafted by the M group and then commented and edited by the GPAC. |
| 00:25:11.17 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | And is there a difference, so in some places it says, GPAC endorsed prominent consideration, and in some place it says prominent consideration. Is there a difference, or is that just a? |
| 00:25:21.65 | Mayor Cox | So there were some people in the GPAC that felt that considerations were really part of visioning, like figuring out what's important and where we should be going with things, as opposed to simply understanding existing conditions. |
| 00:25:28.42 | Unknown | What? |
| 00:25:35.42 | Mayor Cox | The G PAC did not necessarily endorse all of the considerations identified by the M group. |
| 00:25:41.17 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | So if it says GPAC endorsed, it means the full GPAC endorsed the consideration? |
| 00:25:46.13 | Mayor Cox | the majority of the GPAC. |
| 00:25:49.16 | Heather Hines | Yeah, I don't know that those were meant to be read differently. All of the considerations went through the GPAC and were forwarded on by the GPAC. We did make, we had considerable discussion about making sure that the considerations didn't say what to do with something to the extent we could, like the fair traffic initiative, needing to think about that, needing to consider that as we move into the visioning, but we don't know yet what the city, the community is going to want to do with |
| 00:25:54.44 | Mayor Cox | ALL OF IT. |
| 00:26:21.05 | Heather Hines | that necessarily. So trying to phrase them in ways like, that we have to do with the information. So these are key issues that came up, key things we heard in our engagement, issues that were a recommendation on what to do about it. |
| 00:26:39.73 | Mayor Cox | Yeah, so that is fair. So the M group, of course, participated in all of these workshops and pop-up groups. And so when I say the considerations came from the M group, they came in the M group draft for consideration by the GPAC. That's not to say that they emanated from the M group. It's very likely that the M group heard them from the various engagement forums that the M group participated in. |
| 00:27:08.15 | Milan | There's one last thing to add is I was just doing a quick search through the documents. There was a report that came to Council only earlier in this process, and that was to look at just this Chapter 1 component when we were looking at regulations and how these different plans fit together. And in that version, that initial draft of the document, we did include annotation of the GPAC had reviewed these considerations. There was subsequent review with the GPAC after getting Council input, and that distinction doesn't appear in the final version of this report. We filtered out the ones where we've had more back and forth thinking about council input and then thinking again about GPAC input. So there shouldn't be anywhere in this document that has that distinction. you |
| 00:27:55.28 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. Okay. I can I'll send you an email but it does there's several |
| 00:27:57.59 | Shelby Van Meter | Send you a message. |
| 00:27:57.95 | Milan | Yes. |
| 00:28:00.04 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:28:00.06 | Milan | Yeah. |
| 00:28:01.00 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | There are several that say prominent, GPAC endorsed prominent considerations, and then most of the other ones just say prominent considerations. So what happened is again- |
| 00:28:08.41 | Mayor Cox | So what happened is, again, when it came to the city council, the M group had drafted some additional that the GPAC had not yet reviewed. And so I pointed that out during the city council meeting that these were new considerations, not yet reviewed by the GPAC. And so then it had to go back to the GPAC. I see a member of the GPAC raising his hand, so I'm going to recognize Peter Van Meter. |
| 00:28:31.43 | Unknown | and |
| 00:28:35.75 | Peter Van Meter | As a GPAC member, just offering another opinion. My own memory is that GPAC did not endorse or unendorse anything either as a group or individually. I think that some of us felt that the selection of prominent was in fact a staff recommendation, was not chosen by the committee. Not all of us agreed with them. Some of us felt there should have been more, or maybe even showing the complete list in the executive summary, in reference back to the source document. So I don't think, Susan, you can interpret that there's some greater, support for one bullet over another coming out of GPAC committee. There is no such thing in my opinion. |
| 00:29:12.48 | Mayor Cox | Coming. |
| 00:29:16.46 | Mayor Cox | I agree. I think that the g pack. didn't want to hold up the process and wanted to give deference to considerations identified by the community, even if the GPAC didn't necessarily agree with them and figured that we would, but for me personally, figured that we would address these in more detail in the visioning process. |
| 00:29:38.30 | Unknown | Okay. Thank you. |
| 00:29:43.43 | Danny Castro | Mayor Cox. Yes. If I may just make a comment regarding the prominent considerations versus other considerations. I know that when staff was working with M group, you know, |
| 00:29:44.44 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:29:54.42 | Danny Castro | I'm not sure. My objective was to, when hearing the GPAC, was to ensure that these summaries were were brief enough and they were concise enough that it represented what the full reports were. But I think ultimately what occurred was we dropped some of those considerations and put them in the full report and put a few at the front, indicating I think there was notation that all the full considerations were in the report. So I feel like the word |
| 00:30:22.43 | Unknown | So, |
| 00:30:26.06 | Danny Castro | prominent considerations and others, I don't believe there's further weight on those rather than the others. And perhaps maybe we put all the considerations in the summaries so that there's equal weight on them. That's just a thought. |
| 00:30:40.03 | Mayor Cox | Again, reasonable minds can differ, Danny. I don't think the considerations are necessarily necessary as a part of reporting on what the existing conditions are. That's someone's interpretation of what is important to focus on moving forward. But the existing conditions are what they are. The interpretation of what is significant about them is a matter of interpretation. I'm The comment I wanted to make, I've made this at least twice to the M group, is this concept of Sausalito's sphere of influence. So there's a table on page 13. that still says that Sausalito, Marin County, and Fort Baker are all areas in Sausalito's sphere of influence. That's just not true. that's not going to be The chart at the end of chapter one is more accurate, and I appreciate and acknowledge the fact that it shows what the sphere of influence used to be versus what our sphere of influence is now. And one of the considerations I raised is the need to make the sphere of influence comport with the reality, which is that we have the Saucyuta Marin City School District. We have the Saucyuta Marin City Sewer District. Marin City is within our sphere of influence for those reasons, because it's within our municipal service review. However, Marin County, This chart says areas in Sausalito's SOI, and it lists Sausalito, Fort Baker, and Marin County. Marin County is not, the whole of Marin County is certainly not in Sausalito's sphere of influence. I've raised this issue several times because ultimately when Sausalito considers detaching or annexing, that is stopping or starting services, it's really important that this sphere of influence be accurate and that it accurately depict Sausalito's future intentions. I'd appreciate an update on that table. |
| 00:32:49.21 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Yeah, I thought the sphere of influence discussion throughout was erratic and differed. So again, it's in chapter three. Thank you. on pages 24 and 25 and that doesn't mirror what's in chapter one. That's right. |
| 00:33:03.81 | Janelle Kalman | That's right. |
| 00:33:05.26 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | and I was left even as sort of a semi-informed person confused. I was |
| 00:33:12.97 | Jill Hoffman | It's amazing because I was just... on my iPad looking at the sphere influence and looking at the LAFCO report and the maps on the LAFCO report. Yeah, I mean, I guess one of the priorities would be we need to nail down what the sphere of influence is currently, because the report I'm looking at is from 2004. And it seems to be something that was relied upon I THINK THERE'S BEEN SOME CHANGES. And understanding what the effect of that is and what that means. If you're saying this is part of our sphere of influence, I think that's incredibly important. |
| 00:33:48.79 | Mayor Cox | Thank you. So you got that in Chapter 3 as well as Chapter 1. |
| 00:33:52.25 | Jill Hoffman | OK. |
| 00:33:52.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:33:53.55 | Mayor Cox | All right, if there's nothing more on chapter one, we're going to move on to chapter two. Oh, oh, I'm going to turn it over to the Planning Commission. |
| 00:34:00.22 | Vicki Nichols | The Press. |
| 00:34:02.58 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:34:05.01 | Sybil | Thank you. |
| 00:34:05.11 | Vicki Nichols | So I just, in looking at the table that we were just referring to on page five, which I actually found helpful, but I was looking at the hard copy. I would like to suggest that |
| 00:34:19.96 | Mayor Cox | Your mic is not working, Vicki. It's on, but it's not. Is that better? |
| 00:34:21.58 | Vicki Nichols | It's on, but it's not. I would like, is that better? Thank you. |
| 00:34:23.96 | Mayor Cox | Okay. |
| 00:34:24.97 | Vicki Nichols | closed service. |
| 00:34:25.51 | Mayor Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:34:25.95 | Vicki Nichols | I would like to suggest that under local, on the sixth line down that the historic preservation guidelines be corrected to say historic design guidelines. That's what they were, that's what we developed in 2011. And those were guidelines for historic properties. We're working on historic preservation Thank you. regulations. So I just think that's a better descriptor of what it was. |
| 00:34:51.15 | Heather Hines | Thank you. |
| 00:34:56.34 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. Any other questions to the committee? |
| 00:34:59.30 | Mayor Cox | Great. Okay, we'll move on to Chapter 2. Okay. All right, this is a two-hour meeting, so we've spent a half an hour on Chapter 1. I see a member of the public that wants to comment. I'm going to take public comment on Chapter 1, but then I'm not going to take public comment until the end of the chapters. But Sybil, come on up. |
| 00:35:18.79 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:35:21.67 | Sybil | Civil Atelier H. Family Sales Leader. I just wanted to make one comment on the same page five. draft H Family South Salido also has a section on open space in the built environment. And that's not noticed here, you only mention circulation, I can't even read it now, circulation and health and safety. So I just wanted to mention that I think we, this should also be, No, there. That's included. Thank you. Because we are working with Mike Langford on park design and so forth. |
| 00:35:58.68 | Mayor Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:35:58.90 | Sybil | Thank you. |
| 00:35:58.97 | Mayor Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:35:59.03 | Sybil | Thank you. |
| 00:35:59.14 | Mayor Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:35:59.24 | Sybil | Thank you. |
| 00:35:59.68 | Mayor Cox | several. |
| 00:35:59.95 | Sybil | you |
| 00:36:00.03 | Mayor Cox | Thank you. All right, M Group, we're going to move on to Chapter 2. |
| 00:36:04.16 | Milan | Hey. |
| 00:36:04.99 | Mayor Cox | Audit of programs. |
| 00:36:06.73 | Milan | So chapter two, the bulk of chapter two is a table that summarizes the status of existing implementation programs for the general plan. This is a document or a table that the council had seen previously with some annotated notes from the GPAC's initial review on the same table. Essentially what's presented here is an assessment of how those implementation programs currently fare in terms of their applicability and relevance to the general plan update. We asked and went through a process of review with staff and GPAC to determine each implementation program's status in terms of whether it continues to be appropriate for the general plan because it provides direction that should continue to be pursued. That may mean that it can be modified and updated, but generally the program still stands as valid. The second category is whether the program needed further analysis to determine one way or another whether it was important or was valid or was not. And the third category was generally reserved for programs that were completed and undisputably completed or were clearly no longer relevant. They addressed issues or talked about bodies that no longer existed and so on. So this was an attempt to understand how the implementation of policies currently fares in terms of the listed programs that we have. The guidance provided on a program level is in no way meant to trickle up the stream to policies or objectives or broad goals for the general plan. There are some cases where all of the implementation programs under a specific policy were recommended for removal because they've been completed, but that's not meant to suggest that that policy is no longer valid as well. It just may mean that a whole new set of implementation programs is needed to implement that policy. So that's all we have to say on that, and I invite your feedback on the table. |
| 00:38:17.98 | Mayor Cox | I'm going to go to the Planning Commission first. Questions or comments for the Planning Commission? |
| 00:38:22.78 | Unknown | I figured you had a couple of minutes. |
| 00:38:26.71 | Mayor Cox | Yeah. |
| 00:38:26.98 | Vicki Nichols | Let's see. |
| 00:38:32.04 | Vicki Nichols | On page 11, on the Caledonia Street's roll, there's a recommendation. to remove from the general plan. And I wasn't sure it looked like It was sort of renaming the area or. What does LU2.10 mean? Thank you. |
| 00:38:52.80 | Mayor Cox | No, no, no, you're looking at the recommendation, which was to adopt the CR district. |
| 00:38:52.81 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 00:39:01.44 | Mayor Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:39:01.45 | Vicki Nichols | Okay, but I'm just looking at the action to recommend so. |
| 00:39:01.55 | Mayor Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:39:06.87 | Vicki Nichols | So the program was- Okay, I'm sorry, I see what you're saying. |
| 00:39:07.56 | Mayor Cox | Okay, I'm sorry. Revise the current zoning. And so because a CR district was adopted, that objective was carried out and so can be removed. |
| 00:39:13.67 | Vicki Nichols | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:39:13.94 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:39:16.93 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. Okay. |
| 00:39:17.15 | Mayor Cox | But the. Policy is still there. |
| 00:39:20.24 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. Okay, thank you. What was the other one? Umm... Same with upper floor residences, that was done as well. So that's mute. Moot and muted. Thank you. And let's see. On, let me look at this more carefully. on page 19, neighborhood compatibility CD 1.3. Um... Oh, there I would suggest that we Anywhere that's indicated that the neighborhood compatibility study be done. I would emphasize that that needs to happen. It's in the budget. It's been going on for a long time. And this is just another example about how important it will be to be included in our general plan. particularly from this Planning Commission standpoint and for the residents to know what their neighborhoods are composed of and what characteristics we find valuable in those neighborhoods to preserve. |
| 00:40:34.00 | Milan | Thank you. |
| 00:40:34.01 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. Any other questions from the Commission? Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:40:39.26 | Mayor Cox | Okay, City Council comments on Chapter 2. City Council has already seen this, so. Thank you. Okay, thank you M group moving on to chapter 3 |
| 00:40:56.73 | Milan | Chapter 3, Generally, these chapters track with the elements of the general plan. Chapter 3 tackles the land use and growth management element and just land use conditions in general. Again, we begin with a review of the regulatory context, some of it being presented in Chapter 1, and then going into a little bit more detail for this land use topic at the beginning of the report. We initially summarize the relevant land use conditions, and then we move into an analysis of those conditions. The close of the chapter is a presentation of the community and stakeholder feedback on land use conditions. It's presented in terms of a SWOT analysis, which is strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats. So at the close of this report, you have essentially a series of tables broken down by the different land use segments called out there, central commercial areas, neighbourhood commercial areas, industrial or marineship areas, waterfront that's not including the marineship, residential areas, and open space and public properties. We had a major outreach component as part of gathering the land use conditions information. And so the way we structured a lot of that outreach was within these themes. And the tables there present both an analysis from M group of land use conditions, looking at those documents and consultation with staff and other stakeholders and then weaving that in with the sometimes qualitative, a lot of times very precise and quantitative input we got from the community on what needs to be done, dealt with, improved, or celebrated in each of these areas. So the tables at the end are broken down into basically four sections, one for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, summarizing the keynotes that we received. Following the regulatory documents that we summarized as well as the analysis of land use conditions, we include considerations for the general plan update. And like the other chapters, we moved some of the more prominent ones into the executive summary considerations. |
| 00:43:09.33 | Mayor Cox | Milan, every single page in this is marked draft because it's part of a draft report. But some of these pages are not really drafts, they're existing from other agencies, right? So, like again, the sphere of influence that we talked about earlier. This chart is not a draft of a sphere of influence to be determined, it's the existing sphere of influence. |
| 00:43:23.99 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:43:31.57 | Unknown | Right. |
| 00:43:31.98 | Mayor Cox | And similarly, in the back of the second appendix, you have the table of uses in the marine ship, |
| 00:43:41.29 | Unknown | Right. |
| 00:43:41.60 | Mayor Cox | That looks like a table that's enlarged from our existing zoning ordinance. That's not something you created. |
| 00:43:49.53 | Milan | It was created from the Marinship Specific Plan. It tracks 100% with what was in that plan. |
| 00:43:57.41 | Mayor Cox | So there is a table in the zoning ordinance that also reflects the permitted uses. So is this different from the table that's in the zoning ordinance? |
| 00:44:08.60 | Milan | Danny Castro. |
| 00:44:08.93 | Mayor Cox | Danny Castro nodding yes. |
| 00:44:10.69 | Milan | Are we talking about Appendix G? |
| 00:44:12.21 | Mayor Cox | Yes. |
| 00:44:13.32 | Milan | So, This is a direct copy of what's in the Marinship-specific plan, which should track with the zoning ordinance. We know from engagement and from looking at those documents there are some inconsistencies. I'm not certain if on the use side. I don't know if you're following my question. |
| 00:44:29.44 | Mayor Cox | I don't know if you're following my question. |
| 00:44:31.02 | Milan | Thank you. |
| 00:44:31.73 | Mayor Cox | Is this an enlargement of a chart that already exists in the zoning code? |
| 00:44:37.40 | Milan | No, this is an enlargement of the Marinship Specific Plan Use Table. |
| 00:44:41.97 | Mayor Cox | that already exists in, so this is not something you created. Because what's in the zoning ordinance certainly is not color coded and So is this something you created? |
| 00:44:51.85 | Milan | Right. |
| 00:44:54.36 | Mayor Cox | By interpreting the zoning ordinance, or this is just an enlargement of what's in the |
| 00:44:54.41 | Milan | by... |
| 00:44:59.19 | Milan | It's not an interpretation, it's this table in this format exists in the Marinship specific plan without the color. Okay. We added that. |
| 00:45:04.50 | Unknown | in the OKAY. |
| 00:45:08.55 | Milan | Well, it's garbled in the Marinership specific plan. It's been a scanned document, and so this is just cleaning it up. There is no new information presented here that's not in that table. |
| 00:45:13.77 | Mayor Cox | THAT'S A GOOD THING. |
| 00:45:17.72 | Mayor Cox | Okay, thank you. |
| 00:45:18.58 | Milan | Good. |
| 00:45:19.18 | Mayor Cox | I'm sorry, yeah, page we want. I'm on Appendix G, which is at the back of... Appendix 2, Part 2 of Chapter 3. No. |
| 00:45:31.97 | Vicki Nichols | this one. |
| 00:45:32.33 | Mayor Cox | Okay, thank you. Uh, right. |
| 00:45:35.15 | Councilmember Withy | I just want to flag a comment that Milan made, which was there are some differences, implying that they were minor. There are some extremely major differences between the marineship-specific plan, the table you're looking at, and our zoning ordinance, to the point whereby the Planning Commission, in my view, over the last 10 years has used the marineship specific plan as if it were the zoning ordinance. |
| 00:45:36.90 | Mayor Cox | I know. |
| 00:46:13.67 | Mayor Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:46:15.26 | Joe | I had a question on And it's just kind of clarity on how open space is mentioned in here. There's two graphs or two pie charts on page 17 and page 34. One is land use designations and the other is existing land uses. But how it relates to Wolfback Ridge in the open space area within our city limit, that would change the percentage of acreage of open space within our city limit drastically, but obviously not under the control or that we have to do. I know that you have it designated. |
| 00:46:58.41 | Mayor Cox | Are you talking about the Golden Gate National Recreation Area? |
| 00:47:00.82 | Joe | Yeah. |
| 00:47:01.46 | Mayor Cox | I don't think that's in the city limits. I think that's in... It's federal. It's federal. Federally owned. It's listed in here as part of our land. |
| 00:47:09.02 | Joe | Well, we have some, I was going to continue, but we have some conflicting maps as well. |
| 00:47:11.34 | Mayor Cox | Okay, sorry. |
| 00:47:12.58 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Yeah. |
| 00:47:15.52 | Joe | Most of our, and I'm sure everybody knows the answer staff wise, but some of our maps show that in the city limit, city boundary, |
| 00:47:25.56 | Mayor Cox | Yeah. |
| 00:47:26.51 | Joe | So if you look at the maps, |
| 00:47:29.07 | Mayor Cox | Hmm. |
| 00:47:29.34 | Joe | other than the bike map that shows it not in the city limits. So my first point of clarity was Wolfback Ridge, not the housing part, but Rodeo and all that area, is that in the city limits. It looks like it is. |
| 00:47:44.22 | Mayor Cox | Oh, I'm thinking of something different. |
| 00:47:45.52 | Joe | THE END OF |
| 00:47:45.71 | Mayor Cox | Yeah, sorry. |
| 00:47:46.33 | Joe | So, um. How do we show that is open space within our city limit as a percentage of land use? And where does that become? I think it kind of becomes specific when we look at grants and maybe other considerations coming down the pike from Sacramento. |
| 00:47:53.78 | Mayor Cox | I don't know. |
| 00:47:53.98 | Unknown | Oh. |
| 00:48:04.15 | Milan | Okay. |
| 00:48:04.96 | Joe | Thank you. |
| 00:48:05.03 | Milan | So the first part of your comment, you were talking about page 17. There's a pie chart that talks about the distribution of land use designations in the city. We initially didn't have the two green slices of the pie, open space and parks. Oh, actually, sorry, we had the two green slices together as open space and parks. And I think it was either a GPAC recommendation or other recommendation received to pull out the DGNRA component that's why it's called out in that pie chart on page 34 the difference between this pie chart and the previous one is that The page 17 pie chart is what's designated. It's policy. Page 34 talks about how the land is actually being used based on what's recorded in the assessing record, which may be different. There could have been a commercial development in an area that's now zoned residential, and so there might be a mismatch. So these pie charts are not aligning 100% because of those reasons. In this pie chart of actual use of the land, we did not call out the GGNRA component within the open space and parks. I'd have to take a look and see if it's just not included in this pie chart at all, or if that 6% needs to be divided out. So that's one thing we'll have to take a second look at. I think Part of your other question was whether the city boundary included the GGNRA land. I think that's my understanding. Our understanding is yes, it does. |
| 00:49:32.36 | Joe | I understand. |
| 00:49:35.63 | Milan | And I'm not sure if I'm leaving a question hanging. |
| 00:49:37.32 | Joe | No, that's it. The existing development percentage will change drastically. How it got from one to six, I'm not sure. |
| 00:49:41.56 | Milan | THE CITY. |
| 00:49:46.25 | Joe | where that would possibly happen based i mean it's parks in open space there's not there's not a uh |
| 00:49:50.18 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:49:50.23 | Milan | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:49:53.12 | Joe | that combination of zoning there. that's a good question. It doesn't get confused often with commercial or something else. Right. But adding in that GG and RA area would increase that number |
| 00:49:59.71 | Milan | Right, right. |
| 00:50:05.59 | Joe | uh 15 20 I'd assume so just just kind of clarity on that uh just in case it's used later down the road for other purposes thank you |
| 00:50:06.43 | Milan | I mean, |
| 00:50:06.67 | Unknown | Team. Thank you. |
| 00:50:07.66 | Milan | Yeah. |
| 00:50:07.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:50:14.66 | Milan | you can see. |
| 00:50:14.75 | Joe | Thank you. |
| 00:50:14.77 | Milan | Thank you. |
| 00:50:18.07 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Can you explain the SWAT process that's used in this section and not in the others or not what's used extensively here? So were these opportunities, threats, strengths, and weaknesses identified by the GPAC? |
| 00:50:34.11 | Milan | This table was presented to the GPAC, so they had an opportunity to review them, but it's essentially a summary of feedback we received on the walking tours, pop-up meetings, pop-up workshops, the tabletop meetings, stakeholder meetings, the community workshop, and then our own assessment of in consultation with staff, what are some of the issues that are coming up and whether those issues should be in a strengths column. This is something that Sausalito has as a strength in comparison to other communities, whether it's a weakness and something that maybe needs to be addressed. The opportunities and threats are forward-looking. So this is maybe something that's not necessarily affecting Sausalito immediately, but is something on the horizon. So that's the distinction between those and the strengths and weaknesses. |
| 00:51:24.61 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | So this is basically in the considerations category, including community considerations. I mean, I think there should be a more clear explanation of how these were arrived at. A lot of them are normative, good or bad, but, again, given the title of existing conditions as a very factual kind of state of affairs. I think if some of these are reflecting community concerns or consultant concerns, I think that, or staff or whoever, I think that should be identified. I also, I think in the considerations and in the SWOT analysis, it's a huge mix of things that are could be addressed through a general plan and things that aren't appropriate for a general plan, just to pick out one, the life of a conditional use permit. Like we could the Planning Commission and the City Council can change that at any time. It doesn't really don't need to put that in the general plan. And I just found this to be a a conglomeration of a lot of things that are appropriate to consider in a general plan, and a lot of things that are just, you know, they're relevant, certainly, to the community, but they are not really relevant to this discussion. And there's no kind of ordering of that. So, Thank you. Anyway, you know, it was interesting to read, but I was left wondering whether this was kind of the conclusions from the GPAC or. or where and where it's going. |
| 00:53:02.76 | Heather Hines | And I think some of those were things we heard in the community engagement. And some of them, I would agree with you, some of them are relative to general plan update and some of them aren't. But we also were trying to kind of report out on everything we heard. But we could look at the way we identify those or pull things out that were heard but are not less relevant. less within the general plan context than the other things. |
| 00:53:38.55 | Mayor Cox | So I think, is there consensus that we would appreciate perhaps a paragraph at the beginning of this that contextualizes what these are so that it's clear that this is community feedback, community and staff feedback relating to their perceptions. |
| 00:54:05.89 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 00:54:05.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:54:06.01 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. Yeah, I mean, I guess it was just interesting to me. I mean, maybe this is nitpicky, but the title of the report is Existing Conditions. And then a lot of the actual existing conditions, like these maps that are in the appendix, which are really helpful and actually show what's happening in town, are in the appendix. And then the SWOT analysis, which I guess is an existing condition of the way people are thinking, is in the text. |
| 00:54:32.80 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:54:32.99 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | but not described as that. So we're just... It was confusing to me, and I thought a lot of the most relevant information is existing in these maps that are in the appendix, and which actually better reflect the title of the report. than what's in the report. So I would personally just place more emphasis on the appendix and what's what we're dealing with now Anyway, it's just a comment. |
| 00:55:01.17 | Mayor Cox | I'm sorry. Milan on page 37 you give an overview of what the SWAT is and you say you know the following is an overview of strengths weaknesses opportunities such that have been identified I would say by members of the community and staff slash consultants. I do think that the GPAC gave some feedback on this, but at no time was the GPAC I asked to identify for the M group, what do you consider to be the strengths, opportunities, threats that exist for each of the city's existing land categories? That was never a question posed to the GPAC. |
| 00:55:38.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:55:38.85 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Yeah. |
| 00:55:38.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:55:44.30 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | sorry i feel like i'm taking up too much time here but also just one more last comment on page 33 i think heather you said earlier that the considerations are not to reflect recommendations i mean here the last second and third to last bullets ordinance 1128 represents a land use constraint to be overcome consideration should be given to its impacts i mean i might you know might not disagree with that but it says and then it says ordinance 1022 ties the city's hands and prevents improvements In other sections, similar comments were made about those two things, but in a more neutral way. And I don't know if the GPAC endorsed this. But... It's just here they sound conclusive or like it's guiding. And in other places, they're presented in a more we should reconsider whether this is still relevant. So. |
| 00:56:43.94 | Heather Hines | We can look at those, land use was one of I think the earlier ones and then we had a lot of discussion about making sure that the language was may want to consider whether this is still relative for the city so we can look at those and kind of do it make sure that the reference to them throughout all the chapters are similar in that voice. |
| 00:57:08.54 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Yeah, I mean, I think it should just be one way or the other. |
| 00:57:09.18 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:57:13.93 | Heather Hines | Thank you. |
| 00:57:14.11 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Yeah, I just want to reiterate the comments about sphere of influence, because I noticed that I have that marked in here several areas where we go back to sphere of influence. So the importance of in some section, probably in the very beginning addressing that. The other one that I was, you know that I was confused about or not confused but was of concern was the sea level rise issue. And especially that it's barely even mentioned in this chapter. when you're talking about land use and growth, and there's a whole section on the Marin ship, and it's sort of touched on lightly in the Marin ship, but when I get back here, In chapter six, when you see the map, I don't think that you can effectively talk about what we want to do in the marine ship without looking at that map and then deciding what are we gonna do about sea level rise? Because it's all irrelevant if it's all gonna be underwater. So why would we pay or recommend infrastructure in that area without first addressing this and how we're going to deal with that? |
| 00:57:59.28 | Unknown | because |
| 00:58:12.09 | Jill Hoffman | To me, this is sea level rise in the projections in the map I don't know where it is. It's in Chapter 6. But it sets forth all of this. So I would think that that would have to be more prominently addressed and |
| 00:58:19.55 | Mayor Cox | Yeah. |
| 00:58:28.06 | Jill Hoffman | as a planning issue. more prominently addressed about when we're talking about development, especially land use development. Because when I'm looking at the map, all of it's You know, all of this, the most serious areas of sea level rise are all, Almost all in the Marinship, not all of it, but there's some. But I mean, the significant land portions are all down the Marinship. I mean, you know, I'm sure it can be addressed. I'm sure if people, if you're recommending development down there, you know, but you have to have a plan. |
| 00:58:58.03 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | So that actually raises a question I was going to raise in Chapter 6. Why did we pull out sea level rise and subsidence in a separate chapter? It's not a general plan. category and it could go in I mean I was just curious that it |
| 00:59:15.56 | Milan | The reason why is it's an issue that cross cuts against a number of the different elements. So we would need to be, I think the decision was made, one, because we had a technical report created just for sea level rise and analysis associated with sea level rise and land subsidence. So we had it as a standalone report already and then the implications of that report sort of blend through all of the different chapters. And so it seemed to make sense to look at it as an issue and see its full impact. And then within each of the chapters, we looked at considerations in light of the findings that are presented in that report. So I think I agree with you about bringing them. I think this kind of dovetails with your earlier comment, too, about the narrative in the discussion section being, um, Pulling forward some of that data, I think the sea level rise component could certainly have a home within the land use chapter, and we can add that in. |
| 01:00:12.26 | Heather Hines | And it is one of the things we've talked about in a lot of the stakeholder meetings. There's some kind of I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT. because they're so interrelated. You can't talk about land use in the Marin ship without talking about sea level rise. go next and how the elements are necessarily structured whether sea level rise is something that's dealt with separately in a separate section or whether it's woven throughout you know those are those are going to be some of the considerations |
| 01:00:45.49 | Jill Hoffman | I think logically though, that's the number one. That's the first thing you talk about. I mean, because what's the point of everything else if you don't have a solution for sea level rise? And when you look at the map, I mean, there are areas right now that are already affected by storm surges and flooding and things like that. So they're just not |
| 01:01:01.06 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:01:01.08 | Unknown | STORM. |
| 01:01:01.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:01:05.77 | Jill Hoffman | right now. the way they're currently constructed, they're not amenable to development. THE FAMILY. At least I don't think so unless Jonathan, is he still back there or did he take off? I was just talking about Jonathan Goldberg. Yeah, well right, but that's, right? I think that's a decision you have to make before you make |
| 01:01:26.78 | Mayor Cox | I do want to note that sea level rise is discussed in the SWAT, of course. So that is something that's covered in the SWAT section, but I agree with my fellow city council members that it's much more of. a foundational issue for land use and growth management. |
| 01:01:46.62 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | And it's also foundational to transportation, and it's barely mentioned in that. I mean, I think by pulling it out, it's almost like then it got dropped out of the other sections. And |
| 01:01:57.22 | Mayor Cox | I mean, in fairness, I think we pulled it out in order to focus more attention on it as opposed. So perhaps some references. |
| 01:02:00.68 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Yeah. |
| 01:02:04.87 | Mayor Cox | in the chapters um, Thank you. |
| 01:02:09.51 | Joe | Thank you. |
| 01:02:09.52 | Mayor Cox | to it |
| 01:02:10.89 | Joe | And there was an analysis done by the third party, right? You had a consultant do the... |
| 01:02:17.27 | Milan | Yeah, the consultant is Mott McDonald. Yeah. They work globally on- |
| 01:02:19.82 | Joe | work. I saw the presentation. Was there more of a report? that, |
| 01:02:25.67 | Milan | that they produce? Yeah. So they essentially produce that chapter on sea level rise with the data and the findings. Their scope was to look at what the projections were for Sausalito and try to bring all of the different ways of analyzing sea level rise and the different projections into one place, assess what the relevance of those different studies are locally, and try to give us a sense of what is the range of impacts and what should Sausalito be thinking about when it thinks about setting targets for what it wants to prepare for. Looking at areas that are affected, trying to understand where the data is coming from in the first place. |
| 01:03:05.09 | Joe | And then I saw the last meeting, I think the GPAC was still not sure how they want, which report they want to use or where they are in the conservative platform of |
| 01:03:15.02 | Mayor Cox | Which data? So some people want to use the same data as the county so that we have consistency throughout the county. |
| 01:03:16.59 | Joe | some people |
| 01:03:22.63 | Mayor Cox | others want to take a more conservative or less conservative |
| 01:03:26.90 | Joe | I'm just wondering how much further are we now that we've had that analysis done? |
| 01:03:30.46 | Mayor Cox | This is existing conditions, so we haven't gotten to visioning yet. So we haven't really, well, we just started visioning. We haven't as a committee... recommended an option yet. |
| 01:03:47.20 | Joe | But I don't know if our knowledge base is any further along on sea level rise than it was before we started. |
| 01:03:50.77 | Councilmember Withy | Okay. this is a personal opinion, it really doesn't matter what you take. Because in the end, Whether it's this level, or this level, or this level, we don't actually have the means to impact, create solutions to differentiate between them. over the timeframe in which this planning exercise is taking place. So arguing about which data set to use is complete red herring. |
| 01:04:23.33 | Mayor Cox | Well, Ray, except to the extent that it affects potential development in the lower lying areas of Sausalito. |
| 01:04:30.18 | Councilmember Withy | Right. |
| 01:04:30.65 | Joe | All of it does. |
| 01:04:32.37 | Councilmember Withy | Understood, and therefore it's going to factor into a particular area, particular development plan. Is the money available to actually ameliorate the sea level rise in there? And then it's a risk decision about who's put front in the money and whether they're willing to front the money for this level rise, this level rise, or this level rise. |
| 01:04:53.92 | Joe | All the information we receive is the same, and we're all receiving the same information. We're putting it around in different things and saying, oh, we had our analysis done, and it looks like this. But it's all the same information. Yes. And granted, our decision-making comes later on what to do with that. But at some point, it's got to be something valuable to use other than here's the reports we've all seen. We put them together, and hey, the sea level is rising. You just make them. |
| 01:05:14.80 | Councilmember Withy | It's rising. You just make note of the fact, as we have here, that there are currently different estimates. I mean, what's the point of actually having a vote on which data set he has? |
| 01:05:27.82 | Mayor Cox | Well, the point is. |
| 01:05:28.75 | Councilmember Withy | It makes no sense. |
| 01:05:29.86 | Mayor Cox | If we're expecting to generate revenue through development in some of our undeveloped areas, if those areas are in low-lying areas and are not able to get insurance, are not able to get loans based on sea level rise, then our financial projections are going to be skewed if we have not taken a conservative approach in ascertaining what the impact of sea level rise will be. |
| 01:05:54.97 | Councilmember Withy | Right, you've just made my point. |
| 01:05:57.93 | Mayor Cox | Well, it's a decision we have to assess risk as decision makers in planning for Sausalito's future over the next 20 years. |
| 01:05:58.26 | Councilmember Withy | It's a decision which is... |
| 01:06:06.20 | Mayor Cox | . |
| 01:06:06.28 | Milan | Thank you. |
| 01:06:06.43 | Mayor Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:06:07.65 | Milan | I agree. |
| 01:06:10.47 | Mayor Cox | Okay, I think we're done with Chapter 3. Let's move on to Chapter 4. Oh, sorry, Planning Commission. |
| 01:06:14.99 | Janelle Kalman | Oh, sorry, Planning Commission. Yeah, so one of the things we talked about in the GPAC was about doing an inventory. |
| 01:06:21.15 | Mayor Cox | Is your mic on, Janelle? |
| 01:06:22.41 | Janelle Kalman | Uh... Close it. You have to get real good. There you go. Sorry, this is like the American Idol mic. OK. So one of the things we talked about was doing an inventory. And so in an existing conditions report, I would have expected to see an acknowledgment that we would be doing an inventory on things like hillsides, landslides, subterranean water flows, daylighting creeks. We have some flooding information. And Jonathan actually came to a few of the meetings and acknowledged that that was something very important just want to mention it here because the council will probably have to find budget for inventory for some of those things |
| 01:06:54.46 | Mayor Cox | IT'S ON THE LIST OF THINGS WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY FOR IN THE FINANCE COMMITTEE RIGHT NOW. |
| 01:06:57.01 | Janelle Kalman | Amen. Okay. So- |
| 01:06:59.07 | Mayor Cox | But Danny has dutifully brought it forward to the Finance Committee. |
| 01:07:03.57 | Janelle Kalman | Wonderful. And then I would just reframe the sea level rise conversation a bit just to say climate change, because I think as we see a change in vegetation, we're going to have more issues related to the aforementioned things we need an inventory for. So I wouldn't want us just to limit our assessment as to whether or not the marine ship is underwater, but you know, are we going to have more erosion and more landslides, et cetera. And then the last thing I just wanted to note for everyone was we talked quite a bit about revisiting the goals, particularly preserving the character of the neighborhoods and such. And that wasn't necessarily captured in, I'm not going to belabor the prominent consideration point, but it wasn't really captured in the executive summary. So I just want to alert everybody that we did have a thorough conversation around looking at the goals and whether they were compatible and do we want to modify those as we move forward. |
| 01:07:52.15 | Mayor Cox | Thanks, Janelle. Other comments from planning commissioners? Okay, we're gonna move on to chapter four. |
| 01:08:02.55 | Milan | So Chapter 4 was the circulation conditions. This is existing conditions, not projections forward. This is a chapter that was a collaboration between M Group and Parisi Transportation Consultants. The presentation of this report to GPAC came through in two separate meetings. It was a pretty meaty discussion and a lot of questions around some of the regulatory changes that we've seen of late. And so those sections got added to this report. It generally follows the pattern that we've been trying to create throughout of setting a policy framework and then looking at conditions and providing analysis of those conditions. So specifically, this chapter provided an overview of the regulatory conditions, looked at level of service policy and conditions of level of service, presented traffic counts weekend to weekday, summertime, non-summertime for auto, pedestrian, bike at specific points, and also looked at transit ridership and conditions. The regulatory overview that we provided with some of the more pertinent discussions that everyone is having in the Bay Area right now, we looked at SB 375, the sustainable community strategy and its implications for the region and Sausalito, and had discussions at length about what is the appropriate way to understand what the conditions or what the considerations are for Sausalito from some of the guiding documents that have been published including Bay Area, Plan Bay Area 2040 and of course the transition to vehicle miles traveled SB 743. |
| 01:09:47.14 | Mayor Cox | Milan, one of the things that we spent a lot of time on was the difference between level of service and VMT. Can you just briefly address that for the council? |
| 01:10:00.35 | Milan | Sure. So the SB 743 was a piece of legislation that essentially directed a modification to the way that CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act, assesses traffic impacts for projects. Currently, the primary method to measure those traffic impacts is to use a level of service standard. And what this does is it identifies intersections that would be impacted by the project, and it looks at delay, primarily vehicle delay, at those intersections caused by the addition of trips from that project. This localizes the impact on the traffic or the circulation infrastructure. And in order to mitigate some of the impacts, it tends to promote widening streets, bigger infrastructure, and not necessarily promoting, or at least the thought is, not necessarily promoting a land use pattern that is more of a mix, more of an infill-type development, more of a contained form of development. So with SB 743, the thinking is that we transition the way that CEQA assesses traffic impacts to vehicle miles traveled, and that looks at where a project is located and how many vehicle miles would be generated in order for the people or the employees at that project to move to and from their home and their place of work and their other activities that they need to do. So there's a lot of theory and analysis that went before this decision to transition to VMT. The primary purpose is to look at reducing GHG, greenhouse gas emissions, through the transportation sector and trying to reduce the length and number of trips on a circulation network by promoting more of a mixed-use environment. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:11:59.27 | Councilmember Withy | Thank you. |
| 01:11:59.39 | Mayor Cox | RACE. |
| 01:11:59.41 | Milan | Thank you. |
| 01:11:59.44 | Councilmember Withy | Thank you. |
| 01:11:59.47 | Milan | Okay. |
| 01:11:59.69 | Councilmember Withy | Um, I know we discussed this, but I've forgotten. Sorry, is the transition to VMT a mandatory transition that each jurisdiction has to adopt? |
| 01:12:14.76 | Milan | So the transition to VMT is focused within the CEQA process, the CEQA review. So for purposes of determining whether a project has a significant effect via CEQA, the transition is to VMT, and that is mandatory. There is guidance as to what is the threshold for significance and how that's calculated. Communities can simply adopt the state's recommendations on how that analysis is completed, or it can look at modifying it. But that's all contained within the CEQA review process. It's possible for any community to say, SQL will look at impacts through a VMT lens, but we as a community feel that LOS or some other metric is equally relevant and we need to see that. And we'll set up standards of review based on that other metric. So for example, communities are allowed to require landscape plans as part of an application package because they see that that's an important part of how they evaluate development. That's not a required. plan set for a CEQA review necessarily. So those standards have a different home. There's the CEQA standard for impact, and then if a community wishes, it can solely rely on that or continue to include LOS elsewhere. And the general plan would be the place to place that. |
| 01:13:33.96 | Mayor Cox | Okay, and so Milan, we will be doing a CEQA analysis of our new general plan. But typically we do not do a secret analysis of each of the housing development projects brought to the planning commission. They're exempt because they're already within the general plan, which has already been And analyzed for CEQA. So with some rare exceptions like the Valhalla, etc. We typically don't do CEQA analysis on a project by project basis. Is that a fair statement? |
| 01:14:07.77 | Milan | A single family home typically wouldn't. |
| 01:14:09.70 | Mayor Cox | Well, we do an analysis, but it's found exempt. We do an analysis, but we render it exempt because it's already consistent. |
| 01:14:11.60 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 01:14:12.77 | Milan | Right. |
| 01:14:16.41 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | So that's because of a single family home exemption. I don't think it's because of the general plan. |
| 01:14:19.20 | Mayor Cox | I think it's because Well, it's within the, it's, That's fair. |
| 01:14:25.41 | Milan | So in any project that comes forward, the first test is to evaluate whether or not it is subject to a CEQA review. There are a list of exemptions. So it's duty of staff to determine whether or not some of those exemptions apply. And if they don't apply, on what basis? And then what kind of analysis needs to be done to determine impacts? So it depends on the project that's coming forward, whether or not this analysis would need to be done. The vast majority of projects in Sausalito, I think, safe to say, are single family home in nature. So those really wouldn't be touched by this. But any larger project, or any project that could have traffic impacts, that analysis would be on a VMT basis for CEQA. |
| 01:15:12.62 | Mayor Cox | So development and partnership would be done on a VMT basis, would be analyzed on a VMT basis? |
| 01:15:13.40 | Heather Hines | You can learn shit. |
| 01:15:18.26 | Mayor Cox | Potentially. |
| 01:15:18.33 | Heather Hines | under super. |
| 01:15:19.41 | Mayor Cox | under Sea Grant. |
| 01:15:20.34 | Heather Hines | And I do just want to, again, the terminology all of the projects are subject to CEQA. It's just part of that CEQA analysis that's done can say we've analyzed it under CEQA and it's exempt or we've analyzed it, but they're all subject to CEQA. Vicki. |
| 01:15:36.49 | Vicki Nichols | Do you have a rough, from your experience, example of what may trigger the analysis? In other words, single family is usually able to be reviewed and analyzed as non-SEQUO requiring. As exempt. Exempt. Thank you. But do you, from your experience, do you have, you know, is it, |
| 01:15:55.35 | Mayor Cox | As exempt. Exempt. Thanks. |
| 01:16:03.67 | Vicki Nichols | a square footage of an office or, you know, is there a trigger? |
| 01:16:07.65 | Heather Hines | It's usually the city has, does the city have thresholds for what number of units or square footage or specific situations where... |
| 01:16:07.67 | Vicki Nichols | IT'S A GOOD THING. |
| 01:16:17.12 | Heather Hines | For instance, a traffic study is done. |
| 01:16:20.41 | Unknown | It would just depend on the project. I mean, you have to look at it as a project by project basis, and we use the CEQA guidelines and the standards that are set up in CEQA and the CEQA guidelines. The Valhalla, for example, triggered a mitigated neg deck. So you look to see if a project has the potential to have a significant impact. And if it does and it's not categorically exempt, first trigger is a categorically exempt. If it's not, then you go through and do the analysis of whether there's a potential significant impact. |
| 01:16:48.14 | Vicki Nichols | So, my assumption would be a residential development. I think there was one that we saw preliminarily for Bridgeway that hasn't come back. It was multiple units. This seems to apply more to employees coming in or people traveling in if you're gonna analyze these vehicle miles traveled, is that right? |
| 01:17:10.33 | Milan | So vehicle miles traveled, there are recommended metrics for significant impacts if it's a residential project, a commercial office project, a retail project. So it is on a different land use basis. The example that OPR provides, the Office of Planning and Research provides, just to give you some benchmark, I believe the number is 10,000 square foot office is presumed to generate enough trips to trigger an analysis. But again, it's all on a site-by-site basis and what the conditions are. just for some scale of reference, but |
| 01:17:49.06 | Vicki Nichols | OK, so it's the OPRs made some suggestive |
| 01:17:49.72 | Milan | It's not a hard line. |
| 01:17:53.06 | Vicki Nichols | Suggestions. |
| 01:17:54.34 | Milan | So right now the formal adoption of the new CEQA guidelines that incorporate BMT is in the formal rulemaking process. And it should close this summer. There may be lawsuits and other things that follow on that which slow it down. But with that rulemaking process, they have published the guidelines and the technical advisory that goes along with that. And within that advisory, they provided the recommended thresholds and methods for calculating and the specific units of calculation that they recommend. |
| 01:17:55.03 | Vicki Nichols | Right now. |
| 01:18:30.45 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | So I know this isn't the visioning phase, but this issue was brought up many times in the circulation element. I mean, I would definitely like to see VMT considered as a tool in Sausalito and embedded in our general plan. I mean, going back to the comment that Janelle Planning Commissioner Kalman just made. It really gets to the heart of greenhouse gas emissions and sustainable development. And whether we also need LOS for certain projects or as a tool, that's fine. But otherwise, it's really the way that you can work towards having a community that's sustainable. And I think it's going to be hard to get used to using, but I definitely think that our general plan should include it. as a goal for all projects to reduce VMT. |
| 01:19:23.61 | Mayor Cox | Okay, other questions and comments on the circulation chapter? All right, we're gonna move on to chapter five. |
| 01:19:33.53 | Milan | So chapter five was a pretty hefty document. |
| 01:19:38.00 | Mayor Cox | They were all pretty hefty. |
| 01:19:40.97 | Milan | It was the assessment of environmental conditions, which also included a discussion of infrastructure conditions as well. So this report was prepared with support from First Carbon Solutions, our environmental subconsultant, and Parisi Transitation Consultants, as well as our infrastructure subconsultant, BKF. The way that this report was structured was more along the lines of what you typically see within a CEQA document. It still lays out the regulatory framework, follows on with consideration or with conditions and analysis and it's broken down into these sub chapters based on the CEQA checklist. The reason why it was structured in this way is because we wanted to do as much upfront work as we could to translate these existing conditions that we are analyzing now into the analysis of the general plan for CEQA purposes. So it also gives us an opportunity to look at all the aspects that CEQA would eventually look at when we do the general plan update review and make sure that we have a better chance of having a self-mitigating plan. So trying to identify the issues early that could be YOU KNOW, TRIGGERING significant findings in the secret review later. And again, the prominent considerations we tried to pull through in the executive summary. |
| 01:21:04.35 | Mayor Cox | So Milan, on page 223, this chapter includes a discussion of schools. And the GPAC discussed at length why would we discuss schools in an environmental chapter. So can you share that with the City Council and the Planning Commission, please? |
| 01:21:24.40 | Milan | So the reason why is we look at the Well, we look at facilities generally and try to understand what are some of the pinch points. If the general plan does consider growth If the general plan does consider growth, then we do need to see what the implications of that growth may be. Certainly, the general plan scope does not typically include management and operation of schools, but there are things that do interrelate that are relevant for the general plan. The one that immediately comes to mind is safe routes to school. Also, the general plan can provide guidance on participating in policymaking related to education that may be relevant at the local level. So there are places where the general plan can discuss and have an impact on the education system in a community, but certainly there are significant limitations to what impact it can have. |
| 01:22:30.30 | Mayor Cox | Thanks. Okay, Janelle. |
| 01:22:41.36 | Janelle Kalman | for the geologic hazard slope stability map. I just, the map feels a little difficult to read. It's very old. Just wondering what we're going to do to update this because it's such an important issue, we should capture the entire scope of Sausalito. |
| 01:23:00.48 | Milan | So we do not have any inventory, any accurate and up-to-date data sets on landslide activity incidents within the community. The last point of reference we have is this document that was included in the report, and that is from the 1995 general plan, which just referenced a document that I believe is from the 70s. It was a consultant that prepared it at that time. So what's clear to us, obviously, in trying to find that data is that the data needs to be created. This is a significant issue for a hillside community like Sausalito. So very likely through the visioning process and later policy development process, this should be, I think, should be a recommendation for the community to rally behind, potentially one of those inventories that may be more prominent than others. |
| 01:23:54.01 | Vicki Nichols | I had a question. This is the section on environment and infrastructure. And it seems that... Items that are green in our world are only mentioned in passing under air quality. And we have some lovely late mail from Ms. Fawcett regarding having more green infrastructure outlined. Is that been addressed somewhere? |
| 01:24:18.62 | Milan | Specifically green infrastructure and low and- |
| 01:24:20.78 | Vicki Nichols | We're just planting and Sausalito is defined by all of this green. And I think we talked about this in one of the workshops. It doesn't seem like it's percolated into anything that's really tangible in this. |
| 01:24:26.31 | Milan | Mm-hmm. Yeah. |
| 01:24:35.24 | Milan | So the land use report. did weave that in a little bit, but I think the place where it's discussed at most length is probably the last chapter, chapter 8, design and preservation, largely within that discussion of urban design and landscapes. |
| 01:24:49.80 | Heather Hines | And I think we've heard in a number of the stakeholder meetings a desire to see the issue of landscape Seattle, Sausalito's landscapes woven throughout different different elements as kind of either a separate element or combined element or woven throughout the different elements. That's been kind of a reoccurring thing we've heard at a variety of at the parks and rec at the sustainability during the design discussions. |
| 01:25:20.66 | Vicki Nichols | Well, and that's great. I mean, I guess maybe we just lost over any specificity of that in any of the earlier sections. And I'm just concerned that while we may be spreading it into everything, that we're losing any sort of poignant, I guess, direct impact of it somewhere. I just want to make sure that we. |
| 01:25:22.12 | Heather Hines | Yeah. |
| 01:25:36.29 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:25:41.27 | Vicki Nichols | acknowledge that as we move forward. And maybe it comes more into play, the visioning. |
| 01:25:41.47 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:25:41.57 | Heather Hines | Thank you. |
| 01:25:41.69 | Unknown | So, you know. |
| 01:25:42.92 | Heather Hines | Maybe it comes like, That's I think what the discussion has been is it's been identified a little bit here and there in the existing conditions report, but there's a real desire that we've heard to make it more prominent in this general plan update than it was in the existing general plan update. |
| 01:26:00.71 | Unknown | MAKING A LITTLE BIT OF |
| 01:26:02.57 | Heather Hines | Thank you. |
| 01:26:04.42 | Vicki Nichols | I'm not sure if this is the, area that this would be considered, but I see that you've identified hazards and hazardous materials. And some of the. My point is, in other parts of the documents, earlier chapters, It was mentioned that Sausalito isn't really current on its hazardous hazards mitigation plans. plan. |
| 01:26:30.06 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:26:30.24 | Vicki Nichols | And so I just want to stress that that needs to be updated. And I want to also stress that within that, cultural resources are called out. I just was at a conference and that was, addressed by our state historic preservation officer. that the California Climate Action Plan and hazard mitigation is including and emphasizing cultural resources. There may be some money, some funding for that. Um, I don't know if it would go in here, but certainly to identify what those hazards might be. This may not be the right spot. Thank you. |
| 01:27:13.12 | Mayor Cox | Okay, comments from council members? |
| 01:27:19.94 | Mayor Cox | All right, great. We're gonna move on to chapter six, sea level rise and subsidence. |
| 01:27:27.30 | Milan | So kind of gave an intro to this earlier in the discussion. Essentially what was presented here is an analysis of the different projections for sea level rise for the Bay Area. What is the basis of it? What is the data that is being used in order to make the determinations? And then what is the level of accuracy presented through a range of the load and high impact. So our sub consultant, Mott McDonald, took a look at the data and provided that overview, as well as provided recommendations on what we need to be thinking about as we look at this data. we had some discussion about again, which ones may or may not be more, more accurate. Um, but that's, we, we decided to move that into the visioning phase and try to, make the determination there. I think the big takeaway here is significant impacts, and we need to prepare for them in the best way that Sausalito can. |
| 01:28:34.90 | Mayor Cox | All right, any comments or questions from planning commissioners on Chapter 6? |
| 01:28:42.51 | Vicki Nichols | The only comment I would have is I would agree with Councilmember Hoffman and I think Susan that this really needs to be integrated in all the chapters. I mean, it's going to really influence how we do everything in future planning. |
| 01:29:02.18 | Mayor Cox | THANKS. Thank you. Any council member comments beyond what were made earlier? All right. All right, then we're going to move on to Chapter 7. |
| 01:29:13.71 | Mayor Cox | Economic development. |
| 01:29:13.76 | Milan | I can make it. Chapter 7 is the economic development, economic conditions chapter. So what we looked at here is, this is a bit of a slight departure just because this particular issue was, well, it had many facets and it had many ways of looking at it and so the report is presented slightly differently because we really needed a summary, a major summary of findings at the beginning to lead the report. So at the beginning of the report, you have this detailed summary of findings with some background on those findings. I'm curious to hear if the format of that is maybe something that would function better in the executive summaries that we prepared for the other chapters. If it works well, that may be a good model for us to use. The rest of the chapter looks at economic and market conditions, basic information, demographics, housing, employment, real estate market conditions, as well as more of a focused look on maritime industry. And then we moved into more of a focused analysis with GPAC guidance on what are the key economic questions, key economic issues for the community. So we looked at fiscal trends and land use implications. And this was an attempt to try to understand not on a market-by-market basis what the economic conditions are, but what are the fiscal implications of growth or no growth or status quo within different land uses. And we looked at the role of tourism for obvious reasons in Sausalito and its fiscal impacts and the role of the waterfront and marineship and their fiscal impacts. The key lens that we tried to apply on all this is what are the fiscal impacts for the community with considering different approaches to those different land uses and sectors. |
| 01:31:09.99 | Mayor Cox | Something I'm not sure that we've discussed with the City Council and the Planning Commission is the fact that the GPAC is discussing including in the new general plan or the updated general plan an economic element. So would Milan or Ray like to address that? |
| 01:31:30.52 | Milan | We already have an economic element. I think the discussion was around a fiscal |
| 01:31:34.77 | Mayor Cox | FISCAL ELEMENT, YEAH. |
| 01:31:35.04 | Councilmember Withy | Thank you. Can I make a comment there? Yeah, please. I think as the discussion has evolved, |
| 01:31:39.43 | Mayor Cox | Yeah, yeah, please. |
| 01:31:45.30 | Councilmember Withy | I think what we've come to understand is that Throughout the whole of the general plan, there needs to be a fiscal underpinning. |
| 01:31:52.96 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:31:53.26 | Councilmember Withy | And so I think it's rather than try and carve out a separate element, I think fiscal considerations need to go into the economic element, right? But overall, across any of the decisions we're making, we at least have to have some fiscal underpinnings. Let me give you a simple example. |
| 01:31:56.94 | Unknown | separate element. |
| 01:32:18.42 | Councilmember Withy | A lot of folks have talked to me about Why don't we get rid of parking lot one? Get rid of it. You know? It shouldn't be there on the waterfront. It's, you know, there's much better things we could do with it. And, um... Okay, I mean put in ordinance 1128 aside and all the other considerations, parking lot one brings in $900,000 a year into the city. That's a fiscal reality that you'd have to consider. That's what a fiscal underpinant means. That's a very easy example of something. So all those folks who want to get rid of parking lot one, that's fine, find a million dollars. |
| 01:33:04.52 | Mayor Cox | A year. |
| 01:33:05.22 | Councilmember Withy | A year. Right? That's the reality. And those are the sort of choices we've got to make. Now, there's other more subtle ones. There's other more long-term ones in terms of revenue growth, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. But that's what I think we've been trying to say about the fiscal underpinnings. Don't just dream about some thing that in the distance you want is the ideal for Sausalito, you can have some practical way to get there and understand fiscal realities underneath it. |
| 01:33:36.00 | Joe | Well, it... What you brought up is just a simple highest and best use scenario that we should apply to everything anyway. As your example, The parking lot, if we took out 40% of it and turned it into something that produced a lot of revenue and increased our parking and put more people in public transportation, we can have a win-win-win scenario without just looking at the... Right. And that's the sort of stuff we got to do? |
| 01:33:48.74 | Councilmember Withy | I'm not. |
| 01:34:01.61 | Councilmember Withy | Exactly. On everything. Yeah, on everything. Yeah, absolutely right. But you've got a fiscal underpinning. |
| 01:34:01.63 | Joe | Exactly. |
| 01:34:02.31 | Mayor Cox | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:34:02.46 | Joe | Bye. |
| 01:34:02.49 | Mayor Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:34:02.52 | Joe | I'm sorry. |
| 01:34:02.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:34:02.69 | Joe | Thank you. |
| 01:34:07.49 | Mayor Cox | At the same time, I think in the visioning process, we have to dare to dream. So I think what we've discussed at the GPAC level is that we cannot simply abandon all future concepts for the best possible Sausalito simply because we don't today know how we could fiscally make that happen. I think we have discussed the fact that we have to go ahead and dare to dream and, you know, make allowances if we, you know, hit a windfall and discover, you know, some, you know, some billionaire, you know, grant Sausalito, all kinds of money that we can use. So I think we have to dare to dream, identify what our dreams are, and then come back to reality in finalizing the general plan. |
| 01:35:00.15 | Councilmember Withy | I think the final point here is to to separate Um, If you can think of long-term development or infrastructure improvements, I'm not talking about not putting it into the plan if we don't know where the capital investment's coming from. But I am saying be aware if you're going to do something about use, land use, which is going to structurally alter the fiscal structure of the city. That you've got to be aware of. |
| 01:35:24.86 | Unknown | Right. |
| 01:35:38.61 | Mayor Cox | and responsible for. |
| 01:35:39.64 | Councilmember Withy | Yeah. |
| 01:35:39.93 | Mayor Cox | Agreed. who's a good friend. |
| 01:35:42.91 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | So I think Milan aptly anticipated my comments on this. You know, this section, you could read pages 5 through 12, and you knew what the existing condition of Sausalito's economic structure is. And I just feel like every executive summary has got to provide that. I mean, I have been trying to get people interested in this general plan planning process because I think this is so important to our community. And it's really hard to explain to people. And I was thinking, you know, great, I'm going to send people the executive summaries and tell them, you know, they should come to this meeting. And I started reading that you cannot get We have got to have a 20 or 25 page document that explains everything that is in all of these reports about the existing conditions. And so, you know, I sound like a broken record, but we really need to be communicating clearly and in an understandable way to the public what all these meetings and all of this good work has been about. And, you know, I'm sorry, but the executive summaries as they are are not a good summary of what all the meat that is in here and there's a lot of really good meat it's just not coming to the top and i really love these pages five to twelve of this it's clear it's understandable and you can just you get it right away so um i would love to see i know i'm not on the gpac but i would love to see an executive summary council has the final say so so |
| 01:37:11.39 | Mayor Cox | Council. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:37:14.80 | Councilmember Withy | What? |
| 01:37:14.81 | Mayor Cox | What? |
| 01:37:15.09 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | THE END OF ON. |
| 01:37:15.96 | Mayor Cox | I'M GOING TO TELL YOU |
| 01:37:17.04 | Councilmember Withy | No, I was going to say you're referring to the, um, The part that you liked reading or that you thought was more cogent was the economic |
| 01:37:28.27 | Milan | It's the detailed summary of the |
| 01:37:29.90 | Councilmember Withy | FINDINGS. |
| 01:37:29.95 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | It's the findings, key findings, and it's fiscal trends. |
| 01:37:32.89 | Councilmember Withy | in. Which section are you? |
| 01:37:34.54 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Pages 5 to 11 of Chapter 7. |
| 01:37:37.19 | Councilmember Withy | Of chapter seven. Okay, sorry. I didn't. Yeah. |
| 01:37:37.36 | Mayor Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:37:37.38 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Bye. |
| 01:37:39.34 | Mayor Cox | Yeah, and that was redone. That was the point I was going to make. |
| 01:37:39.64 | Councilmember Withy | THE END OF THE END OF THE redone. THAT WAS THE POINT I WAS GOING TO MAKE. THAT WAS REDONE. |
| 01:37:43.25 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 01:37:43.37 | Mayor Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:37:43.42 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | This is the only one. Yeah, yeah. |
| 01:37:46.44 | Councilmember Withy | Right, getting it shows. |
| 01:37:47.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:37:47.59 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | It shows, and it's great, and it's |
| 01:37:49.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:37:49.10 | Councilmember Withy | Yeah. |
| 01:37:49.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:37:49.41 | Councilmember Withy | Thank you. |
| 01:37:49.83 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | I mean, I'm not saying every single point there, but that format is just so much better. And I would just love to. |
| 01:37:55.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:37:55.84 | Mayor Cox | I love to. So Milan, were you intimating during your introduction that this is something you could provide to us for the other chapters? |
| 01:38:06.15 | Milan | Yes, I think this is very helpful feedback. I mean, we were, again, we were trying to work with a hard line of two pages max. |
| 01:38:11.82 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:38:12.24 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:38:12.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:38:12.80 | Mayor Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:38:12.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:38:14.25 | Milan | to know that it's more functional for it to go a little bit more than that and use this as a model, I think that's great input. |
| 01:38:20.65 | Mayor Cox | Yeah. And that, I take full responsibility for that. So I'm the one who demanded that the M group create these executive summaries because I found you know, this packet of materials daunting for residents and for others. And so I did want this executive summary. But I think through, I think the process has now evolved to where we now understand what's a useful end work product that we could strive for. So may I suggest that we're going to finish up with Chapter 8 shortly. But may I suggest that you simply redo the executive summary |
| 01:38:33.88 | Unknown | Yes, it is. |
| 01:38:55.93 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:38:56.15 | Mayor Cox | So take the 16 pages that you provided to us and expand upon those, transform those into a format similar to what you have in Chapter 7, and bring that back to the City Council for review. Of course, we'll invite the Planning Commission to attend that meeting should they wish to, but we'll put this as a short agenda item on the City Council for feedback on the Executive Summary. |
| 01:39:22.07 | Councilmember Withy | Yeah, to follow on on that, I think that's really good. It comes across, and I think, Council member Cleveland-Norals with a fresh eye has been able to see this very clearly is that each of the executive summaries they're not quite consistent with each other and If you put them all together and said, here, here's where we are, it doesn't tell the story. And so you need to actually bring it together, 16 pages, 20 pages, whatever it is, to actually get it all across in that short amount of time. I think that's a very good point that Susan's making. |
| 01:40:05.27 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | FACER. So yeah, and I mean the executive summaries right now are mainly the considerations. |
| 01:40:11.55 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:40:12.31 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Which are not, I mean, I said this earlier, but was that a, I mean, if you took those out, or maybe just had a summary of them at some point, you'd have a lot more space. |
| 01:40:13.25 | Unknown | existing. |
| 01:40:24.09 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | to put the actual, I mean, what I consider, at least for the existing conditions, the meat. So I don't know if that was direction or not, but... |
| 01:40:31.54 | Mayor Cox | No, and again, really what the GPAC focused on was the analysis of each of these chapters and all of the data and what should be included. The GPAC did not focus nearly as much, in my humble opinion, on the considerations. Those were presented to us for review. |
| 01:40:45.94 | Councilmember Withy | THE FAMILY. |
| 01:40:48.88 | Mayor Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:40:49.62 | Councilmember Withy | I think the focus of nearly every GPAC meeting was focused primarily on the considerations, considering that the M group actually focused all of their slides in every meeting to talk about the considerations. |
| 01:40:55.07 | Mayor Cox | Yeah. |
| 01:40:55.54 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:41:05.45 | Councilmember Withy | I'm not so sure. I agree. |
| 01:41:06.53 | Mayor Cox | It could be an individual opinion, Ray. I mean, I spent hours reading every... page, and so I didn't focus as much on the considerations as ensuring that the data about the existing conditions was accurate. |
| 01:41:18.24 | Heather Hines | I think we can work with that direction. I know that both Melanne and I struggled with the two pages because it's really hard to take as much information as in these chapters and put it into two pages. So I think that direction, the executive summary and the economic conditions being a good example, no problem. |
| 01:41:37.96 | Mayor Cox | THE FAMILY. |
| 01:41:38.27 | Councilmember Withy | Thank you. |
| 01:41:38.28 | Mayor Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:41:38.47 | Heather Hines | Thank you. |
| 01:41:38.72 | Councilmember Withy | it. |
| 01:41:38.91 | Heather Hines | Thank you. |
| 01:41:38.98 | Councilmember Withy | I mean, before we move on, I think we're a little hung up on this title, The Existing Conditions, because to me this is just the reference material to move on into the vision and stage. To me, quite frankly, the most important thing here are the considerations, because that's going to be the framework that we're going to consider in the vision and phase. the THE COMMUNITY HAS PUT A LOT OF INPUT INTO THIS AND GIVEN A LOT OF VIEWS AND SAID YOU SHOULD CONSIDER THIS. THERE'S GOT TO BE A VEHICLE WHERE ALL OF THIS IS CAPTURED AND IT'S ROLLED INTO THIS EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT. I think, retitle it, Existing Conditions and Considerations for the Vision and Phase, I don't know. |
| 01:42:29.42 | Joe | But period, period, period, not impediments to vision. Because that's my bigger concern is they become impediments to vision when the general public gets up and says, well, I always thought this, but we can't do it because of these conditions. I think this document doesn't have to stay that. We have to be cognizant of that. |
| 01:42:30.04 | Councilmember Withy | Period. |
| 01:42:33.50 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. |
| 01:42:33.82 | Councilmember Withy | Thank you. |
| 01:42:34.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:42:34.29 | Councilmember Withy | Right. |
| 01:42:34.77 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:42:34.80 | Councilmember Withy | Thank you. |
| 01:42:46.66 | Councilmember Withy | considerations. |
| 01:42:48.97 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:42:48.99 | Mayor Cox | Not completely. |
| 01:42:49.36 | Councilmember Withy | Not condition. I mean, it's important. There's a very important difference in terminology. But I... |
| 01:42:53.24 | Mayor Cox | But still, the existing conditions are important for us to understand. Sea level rise is a constraint we have to work within. our existing ordinances and Plan Bay Area and things coming down the pike climate change are all constraints we have to work within. So it's important, and I think the purpose of the existing conditions was to understand the framework within which we must conduct the visioning |
| 01:43:17.14 | Councilmember Withy | Oh, and I totally agree. I totally agree. |
| 01:43:19.42 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:43:19.47 | Mayor Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:43:19.48 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:43:19.50 | Mayor Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:43:20.33 | Councilmember Withy | Yeah. |
| 01:43:21.66 | Jill Hoffman | One of the issues, too, with economic, under the economic development, is a concise summary of where the revenues come from. And so I think that's part of existing conditions. It's a really, really important part of existing conditions and how you map your way forward and how you weight the different roads you're going to go down. So that's something that you really have to, that I have to dig through this to figure out. But if you look at the pie chart, and I'm sorry, Ray, it's escaping me now, but what's the program that you can go on? And you can just figure out what the economic, you know. Open. Go. Open. Go. |
| 01:43:57.00 | Councilmember Withy | Open.gov. |
| 01:43:58.72 | Jill Hoffman | I'm sorry, I've been off the- I'm going to go to the finance committee for nine months now. But when you look at that, it's really clear to me, like how do you weight these efforts? And if you look at the pie chart on page 40, 30% is property tax. Okay, well, what does that mean? Well, then you have to dig down further. Most of that property tax is single family and residential. And so most of the budget in Sausalito, or at least not most, but 30% of the budget, that's a significant portion, comes from residents. who live in Sausalito either directly from their property taxes or through the rent that they pay and property taxes paid on that property. And so when to me when you're sort of assessing okay, you know how do we move forward and what's the vision for our town. the significant portion of revenue for our town comes from residential housing. And so, but it's hard to see that. And I think if you start off, and again, if we go back to the executive summary, that should be, that's a two-paragraph analysis. Here's the pie chart. This is where the money comes from. This is how we break it down within those different sectors as it exists today. Now, the question is with the general plan, where do we want to go in the future? Okay. And do we want to undermine that significant portion that comes into our budget? by other efforts. And that's also the balance that you have in other sections when you're talking about, well, not other sections, but this section when you assess the significance of tourist impact on residents and tourist impact on the tourist serving businesses and the tourist, you know, welcoming businesses, how do you assess that? And how does that affect the quality of life of people that are living, that contribute a significant portion of our budget? And so I think from a planning purpose and from charting the road forward, that's a really important issue that you have to be aware of, and it has to be in the back of your head whenever you're talking about how we're charting the way forward for our economic growth. And again, back to my other comments about the Marinship, you know, there's a big section in here about about the Marinship and what do we do with the Marinship and what's the best, well to Joe's point, especially in that section, what's the highest and best use that we can have in the marinship. And I think that clearly also needs to be set forth in the summary, the executive summary. We have this big swath of land. We haven't really figured out what to do with it. But we have to address sea level. I mean, that has to be part of the analysis. And so I would just call that out again, and I've mentioned that before. But a really good summary, like I said, two, maybe three paragraph summary of where the money comes from now. And then, of course, to the other points, where can we maximize those revenue gross to the extent that we can without undermining other. So those are my comments on that section. |
| 01:46:51.87 | Mayor Cox | THE FAMILY. |
| 01:46:52.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:46:53.04 | Mayor Cox | I'm going to go ahead and go ahead the numbers on page 38. I'm less visual. I'm more... |
| 01:47:02.98 | Jill Hoffman | I'm not. But I think that doesn't have to be in pages and pages of stuff. That's a narrative that you can set forth. With footnotes, this is set forth and blah, blah, blah. But that's the point of the executive summary. So anyway. |
| 01:47:04.98 | Mayor Cox | Yeah. No. |
| 01:47:07.97 | Unknown | Exactly. Thank you. |
| 01:47:09.24 | Janelle Kalman | Yeah. |
| 01:47:17.32 | Mayor Cox | Yep. Thank you. |
| 01:47:20.17 | Jill Hoffman | Those are my comments. |
| 01:47:20.34 | Mayor Cox | those were. Okay, chapter 8 and we need to save some time for, oh, sorry, Planning Commission comments? I didn't see anybody making. |
| 01:47:29.82 | Jill Hoffman | I have no I have one more sorry. And when I was looking at the summary, On the current executive summary on page 33, broad considerations. The first bullet there, look for ways to increase fiscal revenues within the purview of city. Yeah, great, I agree with that. But there's no corresponding increase efficiency and reduced costs. And so I think that needs to be another consideration that you think about. You know, how can we garner... you know, Do we... can we access different technologies, can we access different that we have to do with the already available methods to increase the efficiencies of our government or increase the efficiency of whatever and reduce costs. I think that has to be always a corresponding. |
| 01:48:22.98 | Mayor Cox | OK, chapter 8. And I was saying we have to leave some time for public comment as well. Thank you. |
| 01:48:30.35 | Milan | Okay, so chapter eight is the... It's the design and historic preservation conditions. It aligns with the general plan element of the same name. So this is presented in five sections. It looks at the federal and state regulations that relate to design and preservation, moves to local regs on the same issue. We take a look at the current design guidelines that are in effect, so the historic design guidelines as well as the signage guidelines in the historic district. We incorporate discussion on design input from planning efforts since 1995. So there were a number of studies that aren't formal policies. They're not regulations or initiatives that were adopted, but various visioning efforts for the from a variety of different sources that provided input on the design of the community. And we wanted to incorporate those recommendations as a form of community input. And then section five looks at the actual outreach that was done on the design and preservation topic. We looked at the ideas, aspirations, and concerns voiced by the community along design and preservation topics. |
| 01:49:41.15 | Mayor Cox | And then Milan, also included in your appendices are our historic design inventory, as well as the current status of our historic preservation regulations update, which we hope as a city council to be adopting in the next month or so, now that the Planning Commission has finally finished their work on this. So I think it will be important to recognize the historic preservation guidelines once they're adopted. |
| 01:50:17.49 | Mayor Cox | that. |
| 01:50:19.91 | Vicki Nichols | I would definitely I would just like to add that on the historic design of the city council, we have to have a second mayor Cox's opinion guidelines that were done in 2011. Somewhere in the narrative here, I forget which chapter, There was a mention about upgrading them for sea level rise and that definitely needs to be included in fact at the historical preservation conference There was a speaker there, ironically the speaker who helped us do our design guidelines, who was speaking on Sea Global Rise and he was doing some, I believe, for, I don't remember what city it was, but they're being done, so we need to do that. |
| 01:50:57.03 | Unknown | you |
| 01:50:57.08 | Joe | you |
| 01:50:57.25 | Unknown | you |
| 01:51:05.08 | Joe | I just one small typo correction. On the Mills Act portion, you had an example of some math. The $800,000 assessed value example. When later, when you multiplied that by the tax rate, it showed a $500,000. So it's just a typo on that five. The math was correct. |
| 01:51:06.40 | Vicki Nichols | small. |
| 01:51:25.27 | Joe | just the number. |
| 01:51:28.77 | Mayor Cox | I think that's on page eight. Go. |
| 01:51:32.15 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Actually, that just raises a question. So if we have typographical and other small things, how should we communicate those and to whom? Send them to staff, to Danny. such as the Planning Commission only lists three of its members on the thing. But anyway, I think at the time of writing it was. There was only three, I think, when we wrote it. But yes, good guess. So we'll send them to Danny. |
| 01:51:50.09 | Milan | I think at the time of writing it was, yeah. OK. |
| 01:51:53.50 | Heather Hines | THANK YOU. Thank you. |
| 01:51:54.44 | Unknown | But yes, good night. Thank you. |
| 01:51:56.28 | Mayor Cox | . |
| 01:51:56.42 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:51:57.18 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Okay. |
| 01:51:57.80 | Mayor Cox | a lot. Other comments on Chapter 8? All right, I'm going to open it up for public comment. I have one speaker card. Shelby Van Meter. |
| 01:52:13.54 | Shelby Van Meter | Good evening, I'm the Southsville of Beautiful Liaison with the General Plan Update. I have just a tiny little thing to mention to you this evening. That has... to do with the introduction, page six of this report. Down near the bottom there's a reference to Shelby Van Meter and Bill Hines as having put something into the packet. And we should change that to South Slido Beautiful. And if you want to say Dash Shelby Van Meter and Bill Hines, that's great. But it was a softly or beautiful statement. And then also that statement should be under the architecture, community design, and landscape section, or topic, I should say, as opposed to the historic preservation topic. So Danny did make those changes, I think, but he suggested I point them out to you as well. So if that could be done, that would be great. And if I can take a moment to ask a question, I don't expect an answer to this question. But I'm having a little trouble as a lay person and a novice understanding Well, there are general plan elements in the 1995 plan, right, and there are chapters in the existing conditions report And then I looked at the introduction page and here are topics of discussion and I tried to relate all those labels or titles to try to make sense of what the basics are and I suspect it has to do with the current 1995 general plan elements. But it's a little confusing to me at least, and you don't need to answer this. I just wanted to point it out. It may be confusing to others as well. Thank you. |
| 01:53:53.60 | Mayor Cox | Thank you Shelby. I'll say from the GPAC perspective, these chapters relate to existing conditions. They do not correspond to the elements in the existing general plan or in the future general plan. They relate to an organizational approach for existing conditions in Sausalito. |
| 01:54:20.16 | Mayor Cox | Peter. |
| 01:54:26.20 | Peter Van Meter | Thank you. When you revise your executive summary, I suggest you really go back to ground zero for the public. and just say, what is a general plan? Why does it exist? What's its purpose? Just kind of, you know, what's this all about? Because a lot of people don't know. I hear people say, is that going to be called a master plan? I mean, they don't know. And so I would really have a little introductory page on that. And then maybe after you revise the executive summary, it might be good to run that by the GPAC as well. |
| 01:54:58.90 | Mayor Cox | Okay, I'm seeing on our agenda that we have an introduction to general plan update visioning. I know you covered that in the overview of where we are and where we're going. So was there something else you needed the Planning Commission and the City Council to hear about visioning tonight? |
| 01:55:15.17 | Heather Hines | I think we're going to be going to be a little bit more about the issue. I think the most important thing is we're starting visioning. And I guess this is probably the, if I'm going to have two minutes, this is what I'd like to focus on. June 23rd, we are having a community workshop, and this is kicking off visioning. This is talking about where we're headed and how we get to a vision statement, how we get to our community priorities. We will be working off of the existing goals that are in the general plan, as well as some emerging community priorities that came up through the consideration and through the discussions with the G PAC is really our kickoff point. But this is really the first meeting. It's on June 23rd, 9 to 12 at Spinnaker in the banquet in the banquet room. So I really wanted to... I will be doing a couple of pop-up workshops to go to where people are gathering already to start getting some input but those have yet to be determined in terms of dates. Thank you. |
| 01:56:29.71 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | So just to put in a plug for outreach, the original outreach on the general plan was good, but mostly done by mail and postcards. And I know a huge segment of the community kind of missed out on that. So I would really love to see more social media, more use of Nextdoor, Facebook, you know, handing out cards to folks at the park and other other places. I mean, I think if we really want to have a vision that reflects the entire community, we need to do a better job. at getting people involved and you know i think the end of june is a hard time for a lot of at least people um with families they leave town right after it's right after school ends they'll be gone um so i'd love to encourage the city to think about doing something in the fall again maybe not the same thing but wherever you are at that process to reach out to people that aren't going to be able to be there at the end of june Okay, thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:57:33.93 | Mayor Cox | THANKS. I see no other comments. I do want to acknowledge the residents that are sitting in our audience today. Some of these are diehards who come to nearly every one of our GPAC meetings, for which we're very grateful. We also have a couple of GPAC members in the audience. I think some of us are surprised there weren't more. So we're grateful for that. So I just do want to acknowledge the public participation. It's really important to us, and we're very appreciative. Yeah, Rick. |
| 01:58:02.40 | Councilmember Withy | Yeah, I want to make another personal point. And that is. There's two ways of looking at this whole process, I think, or there's many ways of looking at the whole process. But there's the mindset. which I don't have, which is we're producing a general plan document for the sake of it. That's then going to go on the shelf. to be used as a legal document. That's one vision. If that's what we're going to do solely, we should shut this down. Now. This is about... Using this process, yes, we end up with a general plan, but to make meaningful decisions about the future of our community that we can try and build a consensus around. And tackle issues that have been talked about but not dealt with, such as the marineship, and I'm not focusing on, I'm using that as an example, to really advance the ball. And so it's two ways of looking at it and Yeah, by the time we get to the policy and program stage where all the lawyers in the audience are going through every single word, I understand that process. We've got to do it because it is in the end a legal document, but it's really about designing Sol Solito's future. So that's my view. And that's the most important part of it. |
| 01:59:39.85 | Mayor Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:59:39.94 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:59:39.97 | Mayor Cox | you All right. Seeing no other comments, we're going to adjourn the first meeting that's run over, Ray. 8.03 p.m. All right. Thanks, everybody. |
| 01:59:46.98 | Unknown | 8.03 PM. All right. |