| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:06.66 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Of course. I have a lot of... Okay, thanks. |
| 00:00:13.19 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Good evening everyone and welcome to the City of Sausalito regular City Council meeting Tuesday, October 30, 2018. I will call the meeting to order and ask Lily to call the roll. |
| 00:00:24.31 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Really? |
| 00:00:25.38 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. Sorry, Surge. I've been talking with Lily all day, trust me. |
| 00:00:29.51 | Lily (City Clerk) | Trust me. |
| 00:00:30.22 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 00:00:30.24 | Lily (City Clerk) | Thank you. Council member Withey? Here. Council member Cleveland Knowles? Here. Council member Hoffman? |
| 00:00:34.67 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. Here. I'm frozen. |
| 00:00:37.02 | Lily (City Clerk) | Thank you. Vice Mayor Burns? Here. Mayor Cox? |
| 00:00:40.21 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Here. |
| 00:00:44.58 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Carolyn Revell, will you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance? |
| 00:00:53.24 | Carolyn Revell | I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, |
| 00:00:53.26 | Unknown | 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. |
| 00:01:00.61 | Carolyn Revell | Thank you. |
| 00:01:11.77 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you, we held a closed session this evening. There are no closed session announcements. Is there any public comment on our closed session items? All right, seeing none, I will move on to approval of the agenda. And before I ask for a motion approving the agenda, I'm going to... ask the council members up here that we make some changes to the agenda. Um, Since our agenda was published, this is the late mail that we have received on short term rentals. We have received several legal challenges as well to our short term rental program. And so I am going to move now that we continue our discussion on short term rentals to a date uncertain to allow Um, staff an opportunity to carefully evaluate and assess the legal issues posed in various of this late correspondence. And so that the members of the City Council can weigh in and provide opinions with full information. So that's one change I'm going to request. And then. If that motion is granted, I'm going to ask that we move 75 Cloudview up to take the place on our agenda of the short term rental discussion since we have. residents and council here. to hear from on 75 Cloudview. So I am moving that we make Those changes to the agenda. I'm also going to move later that we withdraw one of our items from consent, but I will do that when we get to the consent calendar. Is there a second to my motion? Serge, will you call the roll? |
| 00:02:59.65 | Lily (City Clerk) | Councilmember Withey? Yes. Councilmember Cleveland Knowles? Yes. Councilmember Huffman? Yes. Vice Mayor Burns? |
| 00:03:03.26 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Yes. Yes. |
| 00:03:07.28 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:03:07.48 | Lily (City Clerk) | Mayor Cox. |
| 00:03:08.56 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Yes, that motion carries 5-0. Thank you. |
| 00:03:13.57 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | All right, can I just make a comment? Please. So I already raised this with the city manager and the mayor, but our agenda tonight did have items scheduled to start past 10 o'clock at night. And they are items that I think a number of people in the community might be interested in. And I just wanted to register my discomfort with having items that people are interested in start so late at night. And I think that discourages public participation and meaningful discussion. So I'm just hoping in the future that we can. I know we have a lot on our plate. There's a lot going on. So I understand how we got there, but I would love moving forward to try to be very careful about scheduling things so that people from the community can participate in a meaningful way. |
| 00:04:01.46 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 00:04:01.88 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 00:04:03.32 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | All right, are there any special presentations this evening? I'm not aware of any, okay. Then we'll move on to communications. This is the time for the city council to hear from citizens regarding matters that are not on the agenda. Except in very limited situations, state law precludes the council from taking action on or engaging in discussions concerning items of business that are not on the agenda. So I want to make everyone aware that we have now removed from our agenda this evening, the discussion on short term rentals. So if you are here to discuss short term rentals and you would still like us to hear tonight, what you have to say about short term rentals, this is your opportunity to comment. Because it is now not an item on our agenda, and this is your opportunity to comment on items not on our agenda this evening. So is there anyone who would like to speak this evening on an item not on our agenda? |
| 00:04:55.19 | Jeff Jacob | Yes. |
| 00:04:56.73 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Please step forward. |
| 00:05:08.40 | Jeff Jacob | Hello, Madam Mayor City Council. city managers, and people. If you look at the Bill of Rights to the American Constitution, It does not say citizens. That document begins, The... People. Are we a democracy or a republic? Democracy would be... encouraging full participation, of all of the people in their lives self-government, Republicans, or a republic would be electing leaders who are expert at what they do, to look at the issues because they've got the time. Why is it that the United States does not allow its people to vote. Why is it that Sausalito, does not allow people on the anchorage TO VOTE. for City Council. Madam Mayor, Jill Hoffman? Susan Cleveland Knowles running unopposed That's not the way to encourage a political system. by having zero competition. That's called authoritarianism. The same here in Sausalito as it is in Washington, DC. Anchor-outs were allowed to vote until 2016 when we had a mailbox taken away. So what's happening in Georgia and North Dakota? What is the shame of this country? Lack of participation in the political process. Even in a coffee shop, politics is frowned upon. Most people are cynical about the process for very good reasons. Switzerland. doesn't have as many people vote because they vote on every issue. Direct democracy. Chili? used to have a mandatory vote, and when they took it away, people stopped voting. My name is Jeff Jacob, I will run as a writing candidate for city council. I think that's the honest thing to do, despite being prohibited because I am not in Sausalito jurisdiction, though. I do get tickets. Boats are towed and boats are crushed with funding from the state and federal government on the side of the channel that I'm on on, that I'm on. That's called taxation without representation. That was a reason for a revolution. It's nice to think about this with a week until the election. Please vote for me. even though it's illegal. |
| 00:08:13.64 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Are there any other comments on items not on our agenda? Seeing none, I'll move on to item three, action minutes of the previous meeting. May I have a motion of... to approve the minutes of our October 9, 2018 council meeting. |
| 00:08:31.44 | Unknown | so moved. |
| 00:08:33.55 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | All in favor? Aye. That motion carries 5-0. |
| 00:08:33.71 | John Eberle | Thank you. |
| 00:08:33.81 | Unknown | you |
| 00:08:34.41 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:08:37.87 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Next on our item is the consent calendar. Removal of matters listed under the consent calendar are considered routine and non-controversial, require no discussion, are expected to have unanimous council support, and may be enacted by the council in one motion in the form listed below. Thank you. We have received a number of comments on item four And the Public Works Director is still in the process of negotiating an appropriate response to the concerns raised to the resolution that is before the City Council. Since this item is not this evening non-controversial, I would like to pull this item from the consent calendar. continue it to our next meeting to place on the consent calendar And hopefully there will be a resolution, they will reach agreement between them. Any objections? |
| 00:09:38.44 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:09:39.38 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | OK seeing none. I'm going to, with that, I'm going to open it for public comment on the consent calendar. All right, seeing none, we'll bring it back up here and I'll entertain a motion on items 4A through 4D. |
| 00:09:54.05 | Unknown | I move adoption of the consent calendar items 4A to 4D. |
| 00:09:59.57 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Second. All in favor? |
| 00:10:01.74 | Unknown | Aye. |
| 00:10:02.08 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Aye, that motion carries 5-0. Okay, we'll move swiftly on to business items 6A, update on the land side and water side improvements, Sausalito Ferry Landing. And welcome Jonathan Goldman. |
| 00:10:20.91 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you very much, Madam Mayor, members of council, staff, members of the community. My role here is very brief. And if I'm successful, I'll actually get the slides up without anyone knowing that I'm trying to do two things at once. I'm Jonathan Goldman, the Public Works Director. I have the pleasure this evening of introducing Bob Hayes and I think Bob's going to introduce some members of the landside design team we also have John Eberly and some of his staff here this evening from Golden Gate Bridge highway and transportation district in my way of introduction I do want to highlight the fact and to some extent it's been detailed in the staff report and I won't read it but I think we're continuing to develop a very collaborative working relationship between the city's landside design team and the ferry district's team attempting to make sure that we minimize disruption and conflict if you will minimize the ferry district building something that something that we then subsequently end up damaging or destroying or vice versa. And so I want to give both of the teams that have been working with us in doing this work thus far a lot of credit for that collaboration. And with that, I'm going to introduce Bob Hayes and let him take it away. Unfortunately, our wireless slide controller isn't working this evening. So you'll have to use the old-fashioned buttons. And if things get really hairy, you just pull the part of it. |
| 00:11:13.28 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:12:00.83 | Robert Hayes | Let me test this out here. |
| 00:12:03.06 | Unknown | I know. That's right. |
| 00:12:07.01 | Robert Hayes | Very good. Council members, thank you for giving us the time tonight. Fellow citizens of Sausalito, my name is Robert Hayes. I'm the project architect for the land site ferry improvements for the city of Sausalito. I'm here tonight with a couple of my team members to give you an overview of where we are with the project and tell you what we've done to date and where we're headed. Our team is as many of you know, I'm comprised of local design professionals. We've worked and or lived in this area for a long time. We've got a pretty good knowledge of history of around town and so forth. So we've been working for about the last three months on the project. Jonathan Goldman's our project manager. Willie Wallen our project planner. As Jonathan said, we've been dovetailing with the Ferry District on a regular basis to look at what each team is doing, to plan sort of our efforts and discuss amongst us what is next coming up and look at schedule and really to bring these projects together in an orchestrated fashion. So I think what Jonathan and John have set up relative to that, again, is a really good process that's going on. So we will continue that as we move forward with the project. |
| 00:13:48.88 | Robert Hayes | Our process so far, a little bit of where we're at and where we're going, we've basically been just looking at the issues and looking at background information. I mean, it's a very complicated situation out there. It's very – there's a lot of pressure points. There's a lot of issues to be solved. There's much work to be done out there. We've been looking at all that kind of stuff and getting our heads and our hands around those issues. Again, working with the Ferry District in talking about some of those things. So our next steps really in our next phase will be outreach to the community. We're going to have a workshop in January to garner input on what the community wants to see in at the ferry landing and the surrounds to that area we're going to take that and bring and do some alternate designs that we will then bring to council bring to the Planning Commission and council will be our third and sort of final stage in the project, in the process. And hopefully at the end of that we'll have a chosen alternative in the design for the new ferry landing. What we've been looking at background-wise is we all know we have a $2.4 million grant from the Ferry District. That grant has specific sort of requirements associated with it, mostly about access to the ferry, to and from the ferry, and how we circulate in and around the parking lot and the zones in that area. That's really what the grant is focused on, and we have certain things we need to achieve in order to adhere to the grant and get the grant. We have certain things we need to revise and change out there. We're also looking at our new transportation modes and how they sort of impact circulation, bikes and Ubers and all these different transportation methods that are coming together and how can we better circulate those in that quite compact and complicated area. We also want to make this a great area for the sit-ins in Sausalito. for people to come and visit us here. And always keeping in mind Ordinance 1128 and the requirements of that ordinance. I think it's interesting to see sort of the progression of the ferry landing over time. It has had a life. It is a living thing, I think. It started out sort of upper left-hand corner, and as it became more of a commuter destination and or junction point, it changed. And we're at another one of those junctions where change is to happen and meet the current needs of us. So we're excited about that change process. The ferry district's sort of minimum requirements in order to meet the grant, the $2.4 million grant, are really items one through six. We need to improve the circulation at the pier and the plaza. We need to create a connection from the pier and plaza, a pedestrian connection over to lots three and four. We need to improve the bus staging area. We need to improve the bike staging and how that impacts ingress and egress onto and off of the ferry. It's a bit of an issue right now. And we have parking lot improvements. And then item seven is just an extra thing that we think is sort of a minimum item that needs to be fixed out in that area. So this is our minimum list of changes that need to happen out there. This slide shows where those changes, or where those issues take place, and sort of the overall Site plan from the lot one over to lot four. Most of these items take place in Lot 1 and 2, one being on the right, two being on the left side of Bank of America. We have the plaza and the pier and the circulation issues in and around that area. |
| 00:18:39.86 | Robert Hayes | We have the connection, the pedestrian commuter connection that needs to be better in place between the ferry landing and parking lot three and four. We have the bike staging and parking area that we need to improve. We have the parking lot that we need to improve. And then we have these intersections at, Anchor and El Portal that can use some minor changes to help circulation, help traffic along Bridgeway. Those are the minimum list of things that we're looking at at this point to improve at the ferry landing. Quickly going through some of these conditions pictorially, we've all been down there, we all know it, but I think, you know, as they say, words are, you know, pictures are worth a thousand words. Circulation in and around the plaza and the ferry landing, it's tight when there's nobody there, and it's tighter when there's a lot of people there. So we need improvements in this area. |
| 00:19:53.84 | Robert Hayes | We have, you know, the plaza itself can definitely help be upgraded in a lot of ways. How do we get to parking lot three and four from the plaza right now? It's a bit helter-skelter. there is no pedestrian, real clear pedestrian route for commuters getting on and off the ferry to parking lot 3 and 4. Navigate a lot of different issues when you're leaving the ferry. The bus staging area needs a little help. There's alternate ways of looking at how you get from the ferry plaza, from the ferry itself to lots three and four. Definitely alternatives of how we can revise and work on the circulation in this area. And again, the at lot. four, three and four right there. So again, some of what's happening out there, the bike staging, the bike parking, that's today. We can do better. The parking lot, some of the trees, degraded conditions out there, we can do better. Number of crosswalks. And this is just sort of a minor thing, but there's so many crosswalks along Bridgeway, they're redundant. Do we need all these crosswalks? I mean, we all drive through town on a weekend. There's a lot of tourists that go using both crosswalks. There's probably some ways of relooking at crosswalks and getting a better flow of traffic for cars and bikes along Bridgeway. Now this is a connection that I think is really important from the plaza to the commercial zone along Bridgeway. It's a very tight walkway right now. It's a very tight sidewalk with just a few people. It becomes crowded and hard to sort of navigate. That's a pedestrian avenue that I think we can enhance. |
| 00:22:08.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:22:20.11 | Robert Hayes | So we... As part of this part of the project, we want to establish sort of a base, our no-change alternative, you know, our sort of base design from which we can look at alternatives. But the base design, the no-change alternative, really addresses the requirements of those sort of put out by the Ferry District in order to get the funding, in order to meet the funding requirements. Priorities are one through six, and one through six, And so that no change alternative, we put it, we. We've put a design together for the no change alternative. And again, this is our base plan. This is our sort of base point. From here, we'll look at alternatives with more input from the community and so forth, but just to meet the requirements of the Ferry District and get the grant, we need to make this connection to lots three and four from the ferry with a new pedestrian walkway here. We'll lose a little bit of parking in doing that. That's a walkway that's along Gabrielson Park. As you can see, we need to improve the bus staging area and, again, finish that connection to lot 4. So that gives commuters a pedestrian path to and from the ferry to lots 3 and 4. This is our idea for, again, the no-change alternative in how we stage bikes in the high season, where we park bikes in the high season, leaving open El Portal and Tracy Way. This will be a good commuter drop-off and pickup area, as well as a commuter drop-off and pickup area there. And then the overall parking lot improvements, of which there's a long list. But this is our sort of base plan again, and we're putting this together. We put it together so that we could price it, so that we could have an idea of where we are cost-wise as we begin the project. The price of this base plan has come in at $2.5 million, so that gives all of us an understanding of where we are for just meeting the bare minimum improvements in the area. Obviously, it's a preliminary price based on preliminary drawings, but it does give us a rough idea of where we are price-wise for our no-change alternatives. In this phase, we decided we wanted to do a little bit more than just the base alternative, the no-change alternative, and give you some look-sees on what might happen out in the plaza and the areas out there to improve upwards from the no-change alternative. The first of these concept plans Thank you. And this would be one, you know, this is an alternate plan. Again, but just to give you some ideas of different ways of circulating In the area, we've made El Portal a one-way loop into Tracy Way. That's given us a drive aisle lane. the you know, the drive aisle that was here has been changed into a pedestrian walkway, pedestrian avenue to Bridgeway. So it's a 12, 15-foot wide sidewalk that gets you to Bridgeway, a really nice improvement from the plaza to Bridgeway. We've done plaza, grown the plaza somewhat to provide bike staging in the season when there's bikes, and it'll go over to a nice plaza in the off-season for those mostly us citizens of Sausalito. Again, we have the connection from lot 3 and 4 to the ferry, the pedestrian commuter route around the parking lot, on the edge of the parking lot, the Gabrielson Park side of the parking lot, the bus, staging improvements, and then on to parking lot four. So that's sort of the big moves on this. And then, of course, the parking lot improvements. The big move is really sort of this one-way drive and the connection to Bridgeway, and then how we're circulating people over to lots three and four. We wanted to look at another way of circulating, another sort of bigger change to this. Again, just to give you some ideas of some different ways that might happen to improving the area. And so the big change here is really this circulation route for pedestrians right off the ferry, a pathway through the parking lot right off of that Pier Plaza connection. And it's sort of on axis to Mount Tam, so there's maybe a view of Mount Tam on that axis. that pedestrian walkway, and then over to the bus staging, and then over to lots three and four. So that's kind of a big difference between the two schemes, how you walk through the parking lot. And then the plaza, again, grows for the bike staging in that part of the season. Bike parking does take up part of the parking area in that part of the season when there's a lot of bikes. And then we do a one-way drive loop through the parking lot that becomes a nice drop-off area for commuter drop-off and pickup. So really we're putting these out here just to show you some different circulation routes that could take place, some different ideas of what the improvements could look like. We really did this in the interest of food for thought. It's not like this is we're really heading into our outreach part of the process. And that outreach is slated to happen in mid-January. We're going to have a workshop where we garner input from the community, where we take that input and translate it into some alternate design schemes, some alternate plans, similar to the ones that you've seen here tonight, although with community input. And then we'll take those schemes and start into the hearing process, the Planning Commission and Council process. So that's what our team has been doing for the past couple of months. I think we have a good baseline of information from which to take into the outreach and the community process and sort of a knowledge base of what that baseline's going to cost and where we're headed in sort of a number of directions, pricing and what these potential alternate schemes may, they're going to cost more. It's good input moving forward. So with that, I'm going to hand it off to John with the Bridge District, and we'll be here to answer any questions and so forth. Thank you. |
| 00:30:44.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:30:44.99 | John Eberle | Thank you. |
| 00:30:49.77 | John Eberle | Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council Members, John Eberle, Golden Gate Bridge District. And again, thank you for having us here tonight. I'm here with one of my staff members. I'd like to introduce Brandon Stone, who's new to the project. So I want to welcome him to the meeting tonight. The district is very excited to see this project moving forward. And we believe that the city has put together a very good team, people with experience, knowledge of the area, the issues of the area. We've been meeting for the past couple months now, and I'm very happy that we're coordinating this. And tonight I just wanted to bring a brief update of where the district is on its project. |
| 00:31:38.25 | John Eberle | So just a project summary again, for the water side improvements. We have the existing conditions on the left of the screen and what the project is going to be, the water side improvement projects on the right side of the screen. So we'll be removing the dogleg up here, putting in a new access pier, a new gangway, and a new float. |
| 00:31:52.98 | Unknown | on the right side of the screen. |
| 00:32:04.69 | John Eberle | And what we wanted to do in addition to making sure that the the grant. items are incorporated into the landside improvements is to see where the two projects interface and to make sure that we don't do anything that interrupts that project and wherever we could coordinate we will so right now we see the upgrade of the electrical facilities being the primary interface at this point as as you may recall there is a existing electrical at the base of the pier and we're putting in a new transformer on the other side of the parking lot. So we'll be trenching across the parking lot, and we're going to coordinate that work so whatever we do will not impact any of the future improvements for the land site project. With that, right now our schedule is to advertise for construction in April of 2019. Then we'll award in July notice to proceed in August of 2019. And then looking at the environmental work windows and the other restrictions, it'll probably construction will go from August 2019 through the end of 2021. And with that, we'll open it up for questions. Thank you. |
| 00:33:22.06 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Any questions? I have one. Can you flip back to the slide that shows the parking lot? with the, there you go. So I don't recall these four different features being part of the project when the Golden Gate Bridge District brought the project to the council. And I'm wondering if any of these features you're proposing will result in a loss of parking in the parking lot. |
| 00:33:53.81 | John Eberle | the Short answer is no. There would be a transformer adjacent to the existing electrical transformer for the pump station, I believe it is, Jonathan? And it's directly adjacent to it at the sidewalk, just off the sidewalk on the upper part of the screen. And then the red is underground works. So those are utility trenches. So there'll be conduit buried underground. And where it comes back out are pull boxes, ground pull boxes, and then there'll be, there are existing electrical panels behind the ticket vending machines that will be removed and new electrical panels put in. |
| 00:34:37.01 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | So the pull box is not going to take any room in the parking lot? |
| 00:34:40.99 | John Eberle | No, it'll be in either the sidewalk or the driveway. Right now it looks like it'll be the driveway, a surface mounted. There's an existing facility adjacent to it currently. |
| 00:34:53.98 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:34:56.90 | Unknown | I know this is a premature question and Bob, you might want to get on this too since we had this discussion very lightly. We don't want to get into a lot of designing right now and I know that, but I know we're going to have some questions and comments coming from the public. On option two, first of all, thank you for giving us the options, primarily the base. That was always our question, so having that was just such a huge clarity. Unfortunately, it's the reality of it. And then working from the different options. On option two, I think you have accomplished one of the things we were looking at, which is the pedestrian safety issue coming off of the ferry or going to the ferry. But given that most of the ferry traffic is away from Sausalito, it's really... people, visitors going to the ferry in a large percentage. Is that correct? Given the numbers of the Golden Gate ferries, transportation numbers, more people go towards San Francisco than. |
| 00:35:48.10 | Robert Hayes | THE END OF |
| 00:35:56.37 | Robert Hayes | Well, that connection that we're creating right here is for commuters that are parking in Loss 3 and 4. They're citizens of Sausalito. They're people like you and I. And they're going to the city and coming back |
| 00:35:59.88 | Unknown | Yeah. Yeah. |
| 00:36:07.47 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:36:11.05 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:36:15.89 | Unknown | the same amount. |
| 00:36:16.59 | Robert Hayes | Yeah. |
| 00:36:16.97 | Unknown | Yeah. Yeah. And I was going to, I was going to address that. What we see currently is a straight line path of travel. We currently have the opportunity to go 90, 90, 90 and go around the parking. But that site of travel, it's straight at the ferry because that's what they see if there are tourists especially, but we're talking about commuters only, so one way or the other straight line. Giving up that option of taking from lot, between lot three, or between priority three and four, where the bus staging is, and doing a straight line through basically the number two to the ferry landing or at least the yacht club parking. Was the reason to not do that cost, giving up the 1128 parking, engineering? What kind of came into that play of not creating a straight line of sight? |
| 00:37:05.44 | Robert Hayes | Not Korean. It was predominantly parking space loss. Okay. |
| 00:37:10.52 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:37:10.75 | Larry Bedard | Thank you. |
| 00:37:13.49 | Robert Hayes | basically two rows of parking. I mean, you know, you can shift this parking a lot all the way in, you know, many different ways, but that'll eat up a lot of parking as opposed to putting the route up on the upper part between Gabrielson Park and Lot 1. If you go straight through... It eats up a lot of parking. So that was the reason we haven't explored that yet. |
| 00:37:41.48 | Unknown | Okay. Thank you. |
| 00:37:44.34 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | And have you costed out the other two options? |
| 00:37:46.61 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:37:46.63 | Robert Hayes | We have not. |
| 00:37:50.48 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Any other questions? I have, I do. I'll go ahead. |
| 00:37:52.40 | David Lay | Yeah. I do. I'll go ahead. |
| 00:37:55.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:37:56.49 | Unknown | I This may be a question for Jonathan Goldman, maybe. Okay, you said that at the moment your scheduled, your planned start of construction would be August 2019 Golden Gate Bridge District, to end in 2021, mid 2021, end of 2021? End of 2021, okay, so my question for |
| 00:38:20.67 | Unknown | And |
| 00:38:25.49 | Unknown | is what's our goal for the land side improvements in terms of completion of construction? Is it to coincide with the end of 2021 for instance, and if it is, when does our start date have to begin? And therefore, when does our process of actually, you know, going through planning commission, etc, etc. So I'm trying to understand the integration of the timelines and therefore how much urgency we have right now versus how much time we have to |
| 00:39:09.54 | Jonathon Goldman | And I appreciate the question, and you give me way more credit than I can possibly live up to. Our job is to coordinate as best we can, but at this point we have conceptual plans and a fairly extensive public process to go through, as well as has been described, a lot of moving pieces in that process. so the advantage to working with the district in this capacity now is the commitment from all of us to minimize disruption to optimize the two projects together and I can't answer you except to say that we certainly aren't in a position to kick back and smoke cigars and wait for the district. We're in a good position to continue to work together and integrate the projects to the best of our ability, which does require building community consensus on not only probably one land side project, because as we've heard this evening, it seems unlikely that we can deliver of anything with the resources we have available but to look at a sequence of landside projects continue to build momentum in developing additional funding continue to work with the BCDC and the other joint aquatic resource permitting agencies and the district to try to deliver a combined project or a series of combined projects with the ferries being one and the money continuing to flow so that the community's vision for not only lot one but the other elements of improvement to benefit the community that those can happen so I wish I could tell you you know that the day after the ferry district is done will be done or something like that but I just can't answer that |
| 00:41:02.26 | Unknown | No, I was just simply from a planning perspective, if you've got $2.4 million that you've already costed out for a project, presumably that construction lasted a certain length of time. My question is, what is that length of time? And if it's going to end in the end of 2021, when would it have to begin? That's my only question. And if you've got a, as I said, if you've got $2.4 million, if you've got a cost, you must have a timeline for construction. |
| 00:41:32.45 | Jonathon Goldman | We don't. And part of the reason that we don't is that we still have a planning process to go through to determine what the project is. |
| 00:41:48.16 | Jill Hoffman | Jill, I have a request as we go forward. How many parking spots are there now in lot one and along Tracy way? Do you guys know that? Okay, so here's the request. going forward, the two plans, the proposal plans, you had the parking spots on there, like how many? In your proposal, I mean that's part of the analysis that I'd like to have included in whatever plans you propose. |
| 00:42:15.16 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:42:15.52 | Jill Hoffman | you know what are the existing parking spots um and if if your change whatever the change is you know what that is um |
| 00:42:24.01 | Robert Hayes | Okay. Right now there's about 185 spaces. Okay. And these, both of these schemes drop parking out. I don't know, Eve, do you know what the parking of these two schemes, we'll have it in a minute. No, that's okay. |
| 00:42:27.21 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Okay. |
| 00:42:36.00 | Jill Hoffman | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:42:41.35 | Jill Hoffman | No, that's okay. Okay. Just think. |
| 00:42:44.73 | Robert Hayes | Thank you. |
| 00:42:45.07 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:42:47.12 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | We can't call out from the audience because the viewers at home can't hear us. So I think it's adequate that you'll provide that information to us the next time we hear from you. Thank you. |
| 00:42:58.95 | Carolyn Revell | Thank you. I have a question. All right. Oh, go ahead. |
| 00:43:02.77 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Yeah, could you just talk a little bit more about what you envision for January 16th and how, maybe this is also a question for staff, how you envision publicizing that meeting and getting input? |
| 00:43:17.80 | Robert Hayes | We're going to hold a community meeting. We haven't decided where it's going to be yet, but it's going to be a working session. It's not going to be a top-down sort of presentation. It's not going to be a presentation. It's going to be something by which we ask for input, get input. We have not really tailored that yet. I think we could really need to, in the next couple of weeks, figure out what that's gonna look like. But we'll probably tailor it after some of the general plan outreach meetings. But we really are not completely specific on it yet, but we really, we're looking to, you know, put it out there and get input. That's our goal. |
| 00:44:15.77 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Okay. Thank you. Ray. |
| 00:44:19.21 | Unknown | Thank you. I don't know who this question is for. So you mentioned the general plan process. It would be. Obviously, as part of the general planning process, one would be looking at our downtown. It's all its land uses and circulation, pedestrian circulation, traffic, car, automobiles, bicycles, buses, etc. All of that would get wrapped into the environmental analysis that's going to get done with the overall general plan. They're on. similar but not quite the same schedules. So what I'm trying to understand from someone is what is the integration Thank you. plans for this process with our general plan process. Because whether we like it or not, the length of the lifetime of this improvement is going to be the lifetime of our general plan. So... This is going to drive the whole circulation element of the downtown. And so... what are the plans, staff, for integrating this effort with our general planning effort? |
| 00:45:51.60 | Adam Politzer | I think that's an excellent question, Councilmember Withey. And we would take that as direction to come back with that information, to align the efforts of the general plan with this specific project. They don't overlap because the discussion and the direction that the city has had for a number of years related to the water side and land side has been going on for six, seven years. And so now that we are aligned, now that we have resolution on how we're moving forward with the water side, and land side improvements and funds for that we have to take a look at how narrow or how wide this project. intersects with the circulation element of the general plan. So I think a combination of a variety of factors and also opportunities, similar to the pedestrian and bike committee's interest in being part of this discussion, both at the micro level and the macro level. I think that that's where staff needs to come back, working with Lily Whalen, our community development director and with the M group. and have this discussion also at our next, general plan advisory committee meeting to look at how do we coordinate these efforts. And I think your first question earlier to our Public Works Director, to Jonathan Goldman, was the timeline, do we have urgency that we have to move quickly, then well that will give us a different process. If we have some time, then this will give us an opportunity to intersect more carefully and strategically. So I think the question is a good one. The staff needs to come back and respond to that more directly. |
| 00:47:39.13 | Unknown | OK, thanks a lot. My line of questioning was linked there. |
| 00:47:44.63 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 00:47:44.78 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | THE END OF |
| 00:47:44.83 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 00:47:44.87 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:47:44.88 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 00:47:45.96 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Okay, with that, I'm gonna open it up for public comment. I have a number of speaker cards, which I will call from. If you'd like to comment and you haven't yet filled out a speaker card, please do so. We will hear first from Bill Hines and then from Jacques Ullman. |
| 00:48:10.74 | Bill Hines | Good evening, council members, Madam Mayor, city staff, and members of the community. My name is Bill Hines. I'm president of Sausalito Beautiful and an associate principal at SWA Group, an employee-owned master planning, landscape architecture, and urban design firm headquartered in Sausalito. |
| 00:48:22.77 | Unknown | and |
| 00:48:28.39 | Bill Hines | As a person working in concert with the community to preserve, enhance, and create great public spaces in Sausalito, I felt compelled to share my view of the project. In addition to the comments made in the letter from Peter Van Meter, I agree that this design process does not put the highest priority on public access to the bay views and also setting parking as far back as possible. I don't think that the priorities listed are aspirational in terms of place making, and I understand that that needs to dovetail with the overall goals of the Golden Gate Bridge District and the project. The project doesn't really set any goals for sustainability, cleaning water, reducing heat island effect, and sea level rise. The project assumes an immediate limit of work that doesn't really get involved with the adjacent spaces and doesn't take or incorporate a holistic look at downtown. And I feel passionately about this because it's really one of the last opportunities to envision a downtown Sausalito 10, 20 years in the future and hopefully longer. The current trend in design of urban space is to move parking away from the pedestrian realm and create a park once district with enhanced walkability. Parking is valuable and should be priced accordingly to manage demand and it shouldn't continue to be the dominant land use of our downtown. These alternatives place a lot of weight on parking, which is interesting to me, as it's easier as ever not to own a car, and we're talking about valuable land. It could be underwater at some point in the near future. The bus staging area that's labeled as new from the conceptual diagrams really appears to be no much more improved than it is today. So I have some questions about that. Humboldt could certainly use some trees as a part of that urban design expression. The rules around parking are antiquated, but I believe the issues are solvable, and I wouldn't be scared of a vote if it promoted a network of world-class open space downtown. Tracy Way is a fantastic tree-lined street that's been marooned as a bike parking lot. The figure 1.2 suggests that the trees are remaining, although I don't see them in the figure here. And I think that a comprehensive look at the connections between Vina Del Mar, Gabrielson, and the other public open spaces downtown that would dovetail into the general plan process. Thank you. Would be appreciated. |
| 00:51:12.70 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 00:51:12.73 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 00:51:12.75 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. Exactly. Yes, we have a question for you, Bill. So actually, it's just a quick comment. If you have your comments in writing, that would be helpful. Thank you. |
| 00:51:21.46 | Carolyn Revell | I do. |
| 00:51:25.09 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Jacques Ullmann. |
| 00:51:25.96 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | And then Carolyn Revell. |
| 00:51:44.73 | Unknown | Thank you. The Press. |
| 00:51:46.36 | Robert Hayes | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:51:54.28 | Jacques Ullman | Thank you. |
| 00:51:59.85 | Jacques Ullman | Jacques Ullman, 423A Litho Street. I appreciate the efforts that have gone into this. I came to Sausalito in 1970 because of the ferry service starting again and commuted many years down to downtown San Francisco. And I've loved that area and have been waiting for something to happen to make it better. But the thing that I feel we need to remember, and it was mentioned by the last speaker, is that the pedestrian should be the major focus of this area. Those are the people who go into the shops. Those are the people who enjoy the area. They get out of the cars and they become pedestrians and they come off the ferry. And so therefore, the plans should reflect that. And I don't feel that the current plans are reflecting that enough. And I particularly am worried about Alternate 2 because what it does is it creates a new access into the parking lot and is bringing more traffic into the very place we don't want traffic to come on El Portal. So I didn't even make any effort to try to analyze that solution because I feel that it's the wrong way to go. Now, I think about solution number one and I've indicated a few of the things that concern me but the most important thing is I think we've got to have a plaza that has a meaningful size and so I'm showing a shift over a one car space to the to the left from what is shown on the proposed scheme. And I'm also introducing a concept that is saying to the people in cars that you're driving over an area that is really the priority is for pedestrians. So the red area is all for pedestrians, but then the sort of darker hatched area would be an area which would be raised up. I think that there's a term for that, pedestrian tables, I think the technical term, but the cars have to bump up to that level and drive on a different surface, which announces to them that the pedestrian has the priority and you slow down. This is done all over France and I suppose other parts of Europe where I spend a lot of time and it just makes it so much nicer for the pedestrian and you don't have to negotiate all these handicapped ramps. So we widen the plaza and we create a raised area and minimize the traffic going on El Portal. It's really there only for the drop off of commuters and access to the end of the tides. So that's fine. I've made my points and I look forward to the workshops. |
| 00:55:02.52 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 00:55:06.57 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Great, we hope you will attend. And excuse me, Mr. Ellman, can I ask the same question? If you have a copy of that, it would be great to have it in the record. |
| 00:55:15.29 | Jacques Ullman | I'm afraid it's just handwritten, but I'd be glad to give it to you. Thank you. |
| 00:55:18.50 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Yeah, well we have it because it's on our system. |
| 00:55:18.57 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Yeah. |
| 00:55:18.62 | Jacques Ullman | Yeah. |
| 00:55:18.65 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. Oh, oh, okay, great, maybe we can. |
| 00:55:22.26 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Oh, yeah. |
| 00:55:22.53 | Jacques Ullman | Yeah, I know, the drawing you have. Thank you. |
| 00:55:24.83 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Yeah, okay. |
| 00:55:24.84 | Jacques Ullman | Yeah. Okay. |
| 00:55:26.28 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thanks. |
| 00:55:26.36 | Jacques Ullman | Thank you. |
| 00:55:26.43 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | All right, Carolyn Revell and then Peter Van Meter. |
| 00:55:32.39 | Carolyn Revell | Good evening, I'm Carolyn Revell, a retired urban planner and a board member of Sausalito Beautiful. I want to make just three quick points. First, our waterfront is our major asset. The ferry landing in the heart of our downtown should be a place for people to gather, not primarily a place to park cars. It should be a place for an early rising Sausalito resident to watch the sunrise while walking her dog, a visiting family to eat an ice cream cone while waiting for the ferry, an exhausted commuter to pause for a moment to savor the view of the ever-changing bay. A plaza. could be linked to Vigne Del Mar Park, Treeline, Tracy Way, and Gabrielson Park, each with its own unique character but connected by pedestrian ways. So first, a place for people. Secondly, any plan for our waterfront should consider sea level rise. We've all seen the map showing the effects of climate change on our bay. We've seen Manzanita parking lot inundated with water. Let's not keep our heads buried in the sand, sea level rise is coming. Any plans for the ferry landing should be part of a long-term plan for our downtown, part of the general plan. Plans for our waterfront should be bold and imaginative and designed for the future. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:56:47.77 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:56:48.65 | Carolyn Revell | Peter. |
| 00:56:48.97 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Van Meter and then Suzanne Wibro. |
| 00:56:53.35 | Peter Van Meter | Thank you. The project priorities list is incomplete. Most importantly, every affected agency, from BCDC to the Bridge District to the City of Sausalito, has put the highest priority on public access to the bay, views, and setting parking back as far as possible. This priority is one of the bedrock goals recently adopted by the Council for the General Plan Update, and I quote, preserving Sausalito's waterfront as a natural resource while carefully balancing the needs of water-dependent business. by the Council for the general plan update, and I quote, preserving Sausalito's waterfront as a natural resource while carefully balancing the needs of water-dependent business, water-related activities, and amenities for the general public, including access to and from the bay. After all, it's widely recognized that our ferry landing area is truly a world-class setting of open space, water, and skyline views. As we enhance this space, we can create a place for the residents and visitors alike. Think about it, as Carolyn just said, pretty much an exclusively resident-only meeting place virtually every morning of the year and many other times throughout the year. A great place to meet and greet your neighbors, just like Mill Valley's Depot Plaza, only better, as some of us have studied for over a decade. Recognizing this, the adopted design needs to be forward-thinking. It should not be limited by current budget constraints, Ordinance 1128, or the number of parking spaces in revenue. With will, we can overcome these issues. The 2.4 million pass-through grant is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get a leg up on cost. A nearby property owner has Suggested that maybe public parking can be made available Increasing the downtown space inventory The project can be implemented in phases. Now regarding the issue presented tonight. And I don't know if I can get this going, if I can pause the clock. What do I do? |
| 00:58:54.43 | Peter Van Meter | I was. |
| 00:59:04.49 | Peter Van Meter | Okay. Yeah, thank you for giving me a moment to put that on the screen. Regarding the idea presented tonight, this is option two on the screen, and it has the most merit, because abandoning Tracy Way has long made sense. And this is the best part of this option. Also, the pedestrian path directly to the commuter lot recognizes reality. that people will walk this way regardless of another path elsewhere. That's straight off third lot three, where they go. The problem is the one-way El Partel loop. Its alignment forgoes any meaningful process size. essential for the openness and sense of space. So the answer here is to keep El Pertal as a two-way street. and move the existing entrance to the lot to either an alternative as shown on the map of anchor or where it currently exists. And doing all of this allows you to change the alignment, as you see in a red line, basically doubling the size of the project. Now if it's phased, and let's see how I toggle this. There we go. Here's the condition for no change alternative. You could build that curve with the same alignment as you would do in a later phase when you closed Tracy Way and you'd be able to just expand it when you have the funds to do that part of the project. So I strongly recommend that these revisions be included in the base case for future study. Thank you. |
| 01:00:28.26 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you, Peter, I hope you also will attend our January 16 workshop. Suzanne Wibrow, and Michael Rex. |
| 01:00:41.81 | Suzanne Wibro | Good evening, my name is Suzanne Webro, lived here all my life, and I want to congratulate our city council members for your accomplishments of resolving the dingy duck crisis from last year at the end of Turning Street, organizing correct ambulant hygiene for our local population in shower need in the works, as well as decongesting our downtown tourist impact with this Golden Gate district project by passing as well, the eventual Pier 39 ferry traffic to our Fort Baker Harbor access and working with the park lands. This interest is in finding harmony between our water and land communities in the veritable paradise, especially before winter sets in, having gone to the anchor out meeting at the firehouse 12 days ago about removing marine debris to secure safety, I'm just here to make a possible suggestion, probably not targeted at the right, target of discussion tonight, but to suggest to our Peace Force and to our community, as they do in all exotic ports of call along the Pacific West Coast, the mission of keeping all mariners coming into our Richardson Bay who indulge in all our town's multiple and privileged amenities while anchoring out, harboring, and passing through, along with the indigenous and necessary marine house population, and in order to protect our exclusive Richardson Bay environment and all our creatures, a simple proposition to create a kiosk at the ice house or local peace station that all mariners on arrival to our bay log their vessels into a ledger of registration, Coast Guard acclaimed security, marine safety, and recognition status, such as a kiosk station, may even earn a small security tax for our town, concur with marine laws, and help keep everyone and everything accounted for welcome and safe. Thank you. |
| 01:02:38.23 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. Michael Rex, and then Adam Crivasi. |
| 01:02:46.68 | Michael Rex | Hello, I'm Michael Rex, local architect, and I'm delighted to see this planning effort moving forward. We've been talking about these needs and community goals for well over 40 years. We have an impressive team that's been put together to plan improvements to downtown, but we're missing some very crucial key members. We need a city planner, somebody like Bill Hines from SWA, and we need a transportation expert. We have David Parisi, one of the top in Marin right here in town. We need this kind of skill on the team. It's a good idea to close Tracy Lane and add it to lot one. It's a good idea to keep El-Pertel a cul-de-sac, but it's a bad idea to run a pedestrian path through the middle lot one. These conceptual plans fall far short of the goal of promoting multimodal transportation. The one completely missing component is the north-south greenway that was planned by the Marin Bike Coalition, or sponsored, planned by Royce and Hanomoto and funded by TAM's non-motorized transportation program. It's been fully planned and it's missing. Like communities all over the world, bikes can be more than a recreational use. They can be a viable transportation mode if we can plan a safe route, dedicated and well connected outside of traffic. Another place these conceptual plans fall short is serving the residents. We don't have a plaza downtown. Calling the staging area for the ferry a plaza doesn't make it one. And the ones you see here that are called a plaza are too small to be useful. Past studies have very carefully analyzed what the right size plaza should be downtown, and those studies need to be considered. When it comes to cost, don't phase planning, phase construction. Downtown suffered from piecemeal planning for years. Develop a master plan and implement in stages as funds present themselves. And last, I'd like to talk about process. Besides one or two public forums, which are good for gathering input and feedback, they're not sufficient to study something so complex. I highly recommend that you add a few brainstorming sessions around a big table between the project team and a few selected citizens and design professionals that are right here in our midst. So you can brainstorm at a very finite level, more developed and detailed plans. This is a good start, but it has a long ways to go, thank you. |
| 01:05:30.12 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. Adam Crivazzi and then Cass Green. |
| 01:05:42.35 | Unknown | Good evening, Madam Mayor and other members of the Council. I would like to repeat what I've written in several public comments during the general plan process and earlier. What we need here is recognizing downtown as a great place and functional solutions are only part of the plan that we have to adopt. We have to find a way of expressing Sassolito's identity Sosuitos character. provide an arrival experience that urban designers and landscape architects are capable to do. And I suggest that the city doesn't just look at 2400, I mean $2,400,000 as a windfall that we can use for planning for our future. We should match it. and probably figure out what would we do if there is no windfall, if there is no $2,500, or I'm sorry, $2,500,000 in our lap as a result of collaborating with an agency. And raise our sights, hire an urban designer, and plan for an imageable, beautiful arrival experience and arrival to downtown. Thank you. |
| 01:07:20.87 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. Cass Green. and then David Souto. |
| 01:07:32.19 | Cass Green | Good evening, council members and Madam Mayor. It's nice to see you all again. My name is Cass Green. I'm one of the owners of the Inubub Tide. I'm here. My brother, Willie McDevitt, is here, one of the other owners, and our general manager, Mark Flaherty, is also here tonight. First, I want to express our appreciation for the opportunity we had to review the progress of the site analysis and the early conceptual approaches to the land site improvements. We really appreciate being involved. It's great to be informed, and we're happy to be more involved in any way that we can. Because it's a very important project. As you can see, we're one of the two properties that will be the most impacted by the project. We've got two really serious concerns and we'd like to get those addressed for soon or be involved again in any way that we can. The first one is the new location of the ticket machine. It's going to concentrate people at the driveway of the Inn above time. It's going to be very dangerous for people. It's a real safety issue. If you look at slide 15 of the presentation, the original presentation that was done, the photo is actually taken from our gate, from the driveway gate. And you can see where the benches are, and that's where the new ticket machine is supposed to go. It's about 20 feet away from our gate. So you're gonna end up with people queuing Right across the driveway. And in the middle of, and it'll just be a mess. I mean, it'll be a serious mess for folks. All the previous plans, except for one, the very first one, for the ferry landing itself, had the ticket kiosk somewhere else and way far away from the hotel in a much safer location. So we'd like to see it go back to that safer location and not be right in the driveway where it's going to cause problems. The other problem we see is, I think of idea of a plaza is really interesting and really intriguing, but we are concerned that it's going to reduce or make it impossible to get into the end with emergency vehicles or with any delivery vehicles at all. So somehow the plaza needs to be made safe. We had a fire last year, a neighbor had a fire last year. For the fire department to be able to get into the courtyard is really important. That was the way those fires were stopped. So we're really concerned about two safety issues. One is the ticket machine so close to the driveway, and the other one is that there doesn't seem to be adequate area there to provide for safe access for emergency vehicles and large vehicles. Thanks. Thank you. |
| 01:10:18.48 | Cass Green | THANK YOU. |
| 01:10:18.56 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 01:10:18.85 | Cass Green | Thank you. |
| 01:10:18.97 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. Okay, David Suto and then Kate Storr, and then those are all the speaker cards I have. So if anyone else wants to speak on this topic, please fill out a speaker card. |
| 01:10:32.57 | David Suto | Hi, David Sudo. I really like the comments that Bill Hines, Peter Van Meter, Michael Rex, and Adam Cravazzi did. As people who plan things, they've made some really good comments. I would say that this base plan only makes everybody unhappy. It fixes a couple cosmetic issues, but it takes away parking spots and doesn't work very well. It doesn't improve the functionality of area at all and it all and it removes some parking spots so it's likely to make everybody unhappy I think option two comes the closest we're improving the functionality of the downtown area of this area but I like some people said before I think we need to work on the aesthetics of that functionality, whether it's adding trees, park benches, looking at how the space opens, one space flows in the next. Um. Some other comments about the intersections removed. That's something that PBAC has looked at too. I did find a 1961 traffic study we did where we looked at removing those two crosswalks, and for some reason we didn't, I'm not sure why that is. Also, I would say that it might be time to look at our parking ordinance and getting an amendment to it and adding some flexibility into it. It's likely that parking demand is going to decline over the next 20 years. It would be great if our plan for this space reflected that and took advantage of that. It's also likely that additional grant funding may be linked to reductions in VMT. So removing parking spots would obviously play into that and help contribute to that. Also, I would say that cars are parking and it's car storage, and it also contributes to the congestion of the downtown. So if we remove parking spots and adjust our parking fees to reflect a change in demand, we can be revenue neutral and still optimize that space for the residents of town. Thank you. |
| 01:12:51.18 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 01:12:52.78 | David Suto | Thank you. |
| 01:12:52.82 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. Kate Storer, and then David Lay. |
| 01:12:57.49 | Kate Storr | Hi there, Kate Storr. I really appreciate getting this update and I wanted to thank the planners and the Golden Gate Transit District and the city for all the work you've done on this. I couldn't agree more with the comments that have previously been made by Bill Hines and Peter Van Meter. Carolyn and David. I feel there's too much emphasis on parking and... not enough emphasis on place making. So I'm just gonna focus on two process questions that I have. The first question is, these are concept drawings and I'd like to get more information on what the purpose of these concept drawings are because they haven't, clearly haven't received any community input Are they there to aid in pricing? so that we can push the project forward, or are they intended to actually be viable approaches that we refine? The second question I have is really down to process, which is, has the city considered pursuing a public-private partnership for this particular project? It's pretty clear that on a square foot basis, $2.5 million is really not enough to create an aspirational project. I was so glad that Sausalito Beautiful was here tonight, but I think the city should consider a public-private partnership with a group like Sausalito Beautiful that would allow us to do a true community engagement design process and also allow us to raise monies that we need to enhance the overall project and do it more holistically, and thirdly, to get community buy-in in a more... which I think will really help you get this pushed through and approved. So those are my two questions. Thank you. Thank you. David Lake. |
| 01:14:51.67 | David Lay | Thank you, I'm David Lay, I live in the harbor. I hadn't intended to get on this, but I couldn't help it. The science is way behind what's really happening and what's got to happen in our society, in our world. every time we get a new analysis of where we are, it's always at the maximum of what they said last time. and so we have to pay attention to that. We have to pay attention to the people in the town that already see that, that we don't need more cement and pavement and all that stuff in parking places. We really need more plaza, more walking, and use the ferry more and stuff like that. And if you are just business and ignore what's really happening and what you really need to lead us to happen to get us into fewer cars and more public walking around that can be really nice and an example of that is what they what they sort of did in strawberry mall up here with the central parking and all that stuff. That's really kind of a nice thing in that redesign. And the next step is to just get the cars out of the plaza and have that more walk around, and that'd be even better. And that's really the way our place should look down here. A lot more space for people to wind up for the ferry and a lot more space for people just to use that piece of waterfront. And they'll get up and down the hill in their golf carts or the cars that are really golf carts. Thank you very much. |
| 01:16:37.52 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. Those are all the speaker cards I have, so I'm going to close public comment and bring it back up here. for discussion. Any comments from council members on the presentation we've received? |
| 01:16:54.69 | Unknown | I'll just say thank you to the additional speakers, one to the project team for what you've done so far, but the additional speakers bringing your ideas forth this early. It's a start of a long process, and I think this is a very good start. And I wouldn't expect such a full room for this item. But thank you for everybody who contributed. |
| 01:17:17.13 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Yeah, I'd also like to thank all the speakers who had such aspirational goals and for the project team as well. I really think this is an opportunity for us to revisit this area of town. And what I've heard so often is that people don't feel like it's truly a space for residents and that it is one of the most beautiful places in town and that we do need to make it a place that our residents feel like they own and belong in, not just a place for tourists. So I really appreciated the thoughts around that. I think everyone had very interesting ideas, and now the challenge will be you know, making them work. I also love the ideas... around traffic calming, the elevated roadway, other kinds of ways to slow traffic down and make this a pedestrian space. I liked the ideas that I heard around more green space and less pavement in that area. Um, I, think we really do need to improve the drop off and pick up situation. Many, many residents use the ferry and there's a big drop off and pick up issue in the mornings and in the evenings. It's very dangerous. along with the pedestrian pathway for fairy users. I mean, one of the interesting things is a lot of people go to lot three and lot four, but a lot of people are coming going to the south end of town as well. So there needs to be pedestrian access in both directions. And people do walk right down the middle of the parking lot. unless you can lure them off to the side, I think that's gonna be almost inevitable. The last comment I'd make, because this kind of isn't our big, you know, our chance to weigh in, is that I am very concerned about the public outreach for this project. There is clearly a lot of interest from residents in this, and one public hearing, with all due respect, and I know, you know, I've got cost and timing considerations, but I just don't feel like that's going to be sufficient and that we need to think of other creative and meaningful ways to gather public input. Workshops, I think were mentioned, gathering input from ferry riders and commuters, you know, that we just, we need to get creative. There have been some great pop-ups in the general plan process. plan process you know again I know we have consultants for that and there is a cost issue but I would really challenge the project team and our local organizations like Sausalito beautiful and others maybe our bike and ped committee to to get folks involved and figure out good ways to make this project known so that we don't get to kind of the end of a couple of options and have people surprised and disappointed that that's where we are. So that does happen. So I know it's challenging, but I'd really I think that it's very important. So thank you to everybody who came out to speak tonight. It was really interesting and inspiring. So thank you. |
| 01:20:27.29 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | I agree, I want to thank Bob Hayes and Bill Werner and John Eberly and Brandon Stone for coming here tonight to present us with a status report. I too believe that parking lot one and this downtown area has to be oriented around our residents needs and those who use this space daily. I think it would be a mistake to make long term design decisions based on a short term issue such as our bicycle congestion that we are working on many other options to address. And so I think that we have to focus on our long term goals here. I think it's important to address the safety issues raised by Cass Green and any other issues raised by the local neighbors who will be affected by the design decisions downtown. I agree with Councilmember Cleveland Knowles that public outreach is critical. And I agree with Council Member Withey that it's important to weave this process into our general plan process. And finally, in terms of timing, I want us to be sensible and make sure that we time this in such a way that we perform our major construction and paving work after the major construction work of the Golden Gate Bridge District so that we don't have their heavy equipment destroying our hard earned funds. So thanks to everyone for showing up and providing us with your feedback. That's what really will strengthen our project and make this design process stronger. So thank you. All right, and with that, we're going to move on to our next item, which is going to be item 5B, which is the appeal filed by Len Rifkind on behalf of property owner. Angela Weber. We are first going to take a five minute recess and Susan Cleveland-Knowles has an announcement as well. |
| 01:22:24.59 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | I just need to announce that I need to recuse myself from the 75 Cloudview matter as my residence is within 300 feet of that project. |
| 01:22:35.78 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | And for those of you who were not here at the beginning of the meeting, |
| 01:22:39.54 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:22:39.63 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | We have postponed the hearing on the short term rental issue. So that hearing has been continued to a date uncertain. Thank you. |
| 01:22:39.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:22:39.86 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 01:22:50.29 | Jacques Ullman | Thank you. |
| 01:22:53.87 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | kind on behalf of property owner Angela Weber of the Planning Commission's decision to deny variance application for relief from the city setback and building coverage requirements for the extension of a second floor deck at 75 Cloudview Road. Good evening, David. |
| 01:23:08.11 | Unknown | Good evening, Madam Mayor. Thank you, council members and members of the public. Tonight's item is a consideration of an appeal that was filed for a planning commission decision which was to deny a variance application for the extension of a second floor deck. Staff recommends that the city council conduct the public hearing and adopt the draft resolution that denies the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. I will now provide a summary of tonight's item. The property owner, Angela Weber, sought a retroactive variance from the city's setback and building coverage requirements for a 71 square foot extension of a second floor deck at the rear of 75 Cloudview Road. This variance application was submitted as a result of a zoning permit that was issued in error to rebuild an existing deck within its existing footprint, with the addition of 100 square feet of extension. On June 6th of 2018, after two public hearings, the Sausalito Planning Commission voted four to one to deny the variance application on the basis that findings A, B, and C of the zoning codes variance chapter could not be made. |
| 01:24:19.22 | Unknown | That decision was then later appealed on June 18th of 2018, based on the grounds for appeal that are outlined in attachment four of the staff report. |
| 01:24:32.23 | Unknown | Shown on the slide is a vicinity map showing the subject parcel highlighted in red on the south side of Cloudview Road at the end of a shared driveway. |
| 01:24:46.56 | Unknown | On September 19th of 2016, the Community Development Department approved the zoning permit at 75 Cloudview Road to reconstruct a second floor failing deck to occupy its original footprint with the 100 square foot extension. A building permit, B2016-560, was subsequently issued on November 1st of 2016. Staff notes that setback distances were not provided in the project plans that were submitted for the city's zoning permit and for the building permit. On September 19th of 2017, Robert Teasdale, the property owner of 81 Cloudview Road, the subject parcel's southern neighbor, raised concerns to the Community Development Department that the extended portion of the deck that is closest to his property violates the city's setback requirements and impinged on his privacy. Staff confirmed that the deck's extension violated the city's setback and building coverage requirements. On November 3rd of 2017, staff notified the property owner, Ms. Weber, that the deck was constructed in violation of the setback requirements. And Ms. Weber was ordered to either demolish the extended portion of the deck or which would return the footprint of the deck to the original footprint or to submit for a retroactive variance application. |
| 01:26:03.24 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Can I ask a question as you go along? |
| 01:26:04.15 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 01:26:05.22 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | So up above you say reconstruct failing deck with 100 square foot extension. But you instructed the applicant to reduce the deck back to its original status, The city had approved plans extending it by 100 square feet. Correct. Okay. |
| 01:26:26.48 | Unknown | In February of 2018, Angela Weber chose to submit for these retroactive setback variance application. Upon further review of the project, staff determined that the existing residents and the improvements already exceeded the maximum building coverage requirement for the parcel. And therefore, the variance application was later modified to include a request from relief from the city's maximum building coverage requirements. |
| 01:26:55.28 | Unknown | Shown here is a site plan which has been modified by staff to provide clarity for the key elements of the site. Filled in with black shows the residential structure at 75 Cloudview Road. In gray is a 24-foot wide driveway that connects with the shared driveway that is highlighted in yellow. In light brown, you will see the original footprint of the deck, of the second floor deck, with the proposed extension that was constructed, shown in a darker shade of brown. You will see that a 45 square foot portion of the building was already encroaching into the rear setback, which is shown with a dashed blue line. |
| 01:27:43.82 | Unknown | Shown here is a blow up of the rear setback encroachment. with the old setback measuring seven feet one inch from the rear property line and after a four foot extension of the rear deck the new setback being reduced to three feet from the rear property line |
| 01:28:05.72 | Unknown | Also shown here is an encroachment into the side yard setback. Typically, parcels in the R16 zone require a five-foot setback from side property lines. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 104070D1, the side yard setback is increased to nine feet, given the length of the structure over 40 feet. |
| 01:28:34.41 | Unknown | Staff mentioned that the parcels building coverage was already exceeding the maximum zoning limit by 542 square feet. the building coverage was existing at 40% of the lots area, and the ordinance specifies that the maximum limit is to be set at 35%. |
| 01:28:56.90 | Unknown | Shown here are existing and proposed elevations before the construction, post construction of the south elevation of the structure. This is the elevation that the Teesdales at 81 Cloudview Road can directly view. |
| 01:29:16.83 | Unknown | You will note that the original width of the deck was 3 feet 6 inches and that was later extended to be 7 feet 6 inches with a 6 by 6 wood post supporting it underneath. |
| 01:29:31.28 | Unknown | Shown on this slide is the existing and proposed elevation of the rear of the structure. |
| 01:29:42.40 | Unknown | Photographs showing the extended portion of the deck post construction. |
| 01:29:53.96 | Unknown | And shown on this slide are photographs of the extended portion of the deck from the ground floor. And with the, an exterior door accessing a second unit highlighted on the, or notated in the photographs. |
| 01:30:16.81 | Unknown | In order to approve a variance for relief from the city's setback and building coverage requirements, the zoning code specifies six findings which must be made. Staff will briefly summarize those six findings. Finding A states that there is an exceptional circumstance with the property that is not common to the rest of the district. Finding B states that owing to such circumstance, the literal enforcement of the code creates a hardship for the property owner. Finding C states that the variance is necessary to preserve a substantial property right. Finding D states that the variance is not materially detrimental to the public welfare or to the district. Finding E states that the variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with other properties in the district. And finally, finding F states that the variance is in harmony with the purpose and the intent of both the general plan and the zoning code. As mentioned earlier, the Planning Commission could not make findings A, B, and C. |
| 01:31:28.30 | Unknown | The variance applicant's response to finding A was that there were two circumstances applying to the subject property. That would constitute an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance. The first is that the year of the construction of the house is 1937, which was prior to the current setback requirements in the zoning code. The second circumstance is that the parcels lack of the street frontage and its location at the end of the shared driveway pushes the residents further back into the lot for access purposes. The Planning Commission found that there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions that apply to the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the R16 zone. The lack of direct street access and the use of a shared access way is not sufficiently unique to rise to the level of an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance. The condition of the house and the year that it was constructed also do not constitute an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance. |
| 01:32:30.94 | Unknown | The appellant cites three grounds for appeal in attachment four. Staff will summarize them. Finding ground for appeal number one states that a lack of street frontage and the siting of the property at the end of a shared driveway constitutes an exceptional or an extraordinary circumstance. The appellant supports this claim with an image analysis in the attachment showing that six of the example properties provided by staff at the May 23rd Planning Commission meeting constitutes only 1.3% of the surrounding 450 properties. |
| 01:33:09.96 | Unknown | Staff does note that at the May 23rd Planning Commission meeting, staff noted that very few parcels are located at the end of an individual or shared access way in the neighborhood. Therefore, the parcel's location and its unique point of access to the shared driveway may constitute an extraordinary circumstance applying to the property. However, staff followed that point up with the fact that these circumstances do not prevent the property owner with complying with the city's current setback requirements. |
| 01:33:47.66 | Unknown | The appellant cites a second ground for appeal being that there are additional criteria for uniqueness with the property. The parcel has a 30% downslope according to the Marin County Parcel Database. There are also mature heritage trees along the western portion of the parcel and that the parcel has poor soil conditions. Staff suggests that the slopes, the existence of the heritage trees, and the soil conditions do not constitute an extraordinary circumstance. Staff performed its own analysis using the Marin County Parcel Database and calculated the total average parcel slope for all properties within 300 feet of 75 Cloud View Road. This analysis shows that the total average parcel slope for properties within 300 feet is 37%, which exceeds the subject parcel's 30% downslope. Additionally, the existence of mature heritage trees and poor soil conditions are not unique to the subject property, but are rather conditions that can be found all throughout the city. The third ground for appeal states that Sausalito's variance chapter does not exclude age or design for exceptional circumstances. The appellant argues that because Sausalito's ordinance does not specifically exclude consideration of a home's age or design that the Planning Commission should have considered these factors as unique. Staff disagrees with this point. In its discretion, the Planning Commission reviewed the record, considered public testimony, and found that there was no exceptional or extraordinary circumstance that applied to the property that was sufficient to justify a variance from the setback or the building coverage requirements. And this included age and design. |
| 01:35:30.86 | Unknown | The applicant cited two contexts for finding B for the variance application in which the literal enforcement of the city's setback and building coverage requirements would result in a practical difficulty or an unnecessary hardship. The first context was that the second floor deck had to be extended for a post to clear the ground floor deck and the door that are located beneath it. The second context is that a 24 foot driveway fronting the parcel pushes the building back towards the rear setback. And that this driveway is required due to the lack of a street frontage. The planning commission found that the lack of public street frontage did not require the home to be placed in its current location on the lot. Rather, the siting and the orientation of the home was a design choice at the time that the home was constructed. Both the setback and the building coverage requirements may be satisfied with a different project design. The Planning Commission followed up this point by observing that the site plan indicates that the majority of the residents is in fact able to comply with the zone's 15-foot rear setback requirement given the 100 foot depth of the parcel. |
| 01:36:46.70 | Unknown | The appellant cites four grounds for appeal for the Planning Commission's finding of denial for finding B. The appellant argues that there is a nexus between the unique criteria in finding A and the need for a setback variance. And this again relates back to the lack of a street frontage, the 30% down slope of the parcel, the poor soil conditions, the mature heritage trees located along the side of the property, and the location of the door which required the cantilever post and beam system. Staff suggests that there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances of the property that result in a practical difficulty or a hardship. The Planning Commission determined that there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. and therefore there would be no practical difficulty or hardship created by them. Staff finds that there was insufficient evidence presented at the planning commission meeting to establish that the particular post and beam design chosen for the new deck is the only practical solution for any of the conditions that the appellant mentions. Moreover, there are no documents in the city's file for the variance application that suggests that the chosen design relates to the preservation of trees on the site. |
| 01:38:05.96 | Unknown | The Planning Commission lastly noted that the location of the door is an architectural element and that it may be possible to redesign an improvement within the setbacks even though it may require a relocation of the door. Such a redesign would not constitute a sufficient practical difficulty or hardship. |
| 01:38:25.20 | Unknown | The second ground for appeal that the appellant cites is that there is a practical difficulty or a hardship that does not require an exhaustion of all the design alternatives for the deck. The appellant argues that because an engineer designed the deck to encroach into the setback areas, that presumably other designs would have represented a practical difficulty. And staff disagrees with this point. There is nothing in the record to establish that design alternatives that would have complied with the zoning code would also constitute a hardship or a burden to the property owner. The third ground for appeal asserts that it would have been practically difficult to design the deck in an alternative manner. Staff notes that a memo was provided by Design Everest, the structural engineer that designed the new decks extension. However, there was no mention made in that memo regarding whether an extensive investigation into alternative designs was made. The last ground for appeal states that reconstructing the deck would impose an unnecessary hardship on the property owner, and staff disagrees with this point. Finding B assesses whether the literal enforcement of the zoning code would produce a practical difficulty or an unnecessary hardship on the property owner. This is a different matter than the financial cost that would ensue from an after the fact reconstruction of the deck in order to correct for a design that doesn't comply with the zoning code. |
| 01:39:51.90 | Unknown | Lastly, for finding C, the applicant cited at the May 23rd planning commission meeting that a deck with a view is a substantial property right to the petitioner. Other homes in the district possess such decks and this particular deck was destroying the house and needed structural repair. The Planning Commission found in response to this that the variance is not necessary for the preservation of any substantial property right that is possessed by other properties in the district. Furthermore, the variance is not required to construct an upper story deck and is therefore not necessary to preserve a substantial property right as the deck already exists. |
| 01:40:34.67 | Unknown | The appellant cites four grounds for appeal to the planning commission's finding for denial. The first is that there is an inherent right to maintain, repair, and rebuild portions of a residence in the name of health and safety. Extending the deck to accommodate the post, clearing the ground floor entrance beneath it is tantamount to preserving this inherent right. |
| 01:40:57.04 | Unknown | Staff believes that extending the deck further out in violation of setback requirements to add the support post underneath it is not the only design option that is available to mitigate for the failing deck. Ground for appeal number two asserts that there is an implied right to possessing a deck in Sausalito, as supported by the city's built environment and the land use policies in the city. Staff disagrees with this assertion. Sausalito residents do not possess an implied right to possess a deck. While a number of properties in the community do possess decks, these structures are required to undergo review for compliance with the zoning code. Oftentimes, a deck, in order to achieve compliance with the zoning code, the original design for a deck must be modified, or in rare instances, even taken out of a broader scope of work due to site conditions and the zoning realities of the property. There is no ordinance or policy, implied or otherwise, that guarantees a property owner the inherent right to possess this type of structure. Ground for appeal number three asserts that various properties identified in the May 23rd staff report possess similar setback encroachments. Which is noted in exhibit A of the supplemental memo to the appeal. Staff believes that the appellant confuses the existence of the other setback encroachments surrounding the property with a substantial property rate. Existing setback encroachments on neighboring properties do not constitute a substantial property right. It's possible that these features could be recognized as legal nonconforming structures pursuant to the nonconformity chapter in the zoning code, but this is a different concept to a substantial property right. |
| 01:42:35.74 | Unknown | The last ground for appeal for finding denial number three is that the variance is necessary to preserve Ms. Weber's vested rights. The appellant asserts that these rights are vested in a good faith reliance upon the city's approved planning and building permits. Staff response is that the appellant has no vested property interest to a deck that was constructed in violation of the city's zoning code when the permit was issued in error. It is well established that the public and the community's interest in preserving development patterns that are set forth in the zoning laws. Outweighs the hardship incurred to those who rely upon an invalid building permit issued in violation of the zoning laws. |
| 01:43:17.10 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | May I ask you a question? |
| 01:43:18.22 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 01:43:18.57 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | On this point. So the initial deck that existed when the applicant came to the planning department was already a legal non-conforming structure like others in the neighborhood that you referenced in item three. Is that right? |
| 01:43:37.57 | Unknown | It was a non-conforming structure. To be legal, it would have had to have been documented through some process that is outlined in the non-conformity chapter of the zoning code. |
| 01:43:47.02 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Does staff believe that it was illegally installed in the first instance? |
| 01:43:52.81 | Unknown | There isn't enough evidence in the record to show that. Being that the original year of construction was 1937, staff was not able to identify the original building permit plans for the house. So it's hard to tell when it would have been put in. |
| 01:44:06.60 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | but the setback requirements did not exist in 1937. |
| 01:44:10.21 | Unknown | Correct, the first set of setback requirements were instituted actually in 1938. |
| 01:44:14.95 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | So if the deck was built in 37... It was legally built. |
| 01:44:21.38 | Unknown | Yes, it would have been built not in violation of any setback laws. |
| 01:44:26.16 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | And where you have a legal non-conforming structure that is subsequently torn down would that have required a variance to restore? |
| 01:44:35.81 | Unknown | If you remodel a non-conforming structure, it does require a variance that's outlined in the zoning code. If you are replicating such a structure that is not conforming with the zoning code, it would require a non-conformity permit. Thanks. |
| 01:45:01.58 | Unknown | Staff does note that a late mail item was submitted just a few hours ago. This late mail item is an agreement that was made between both the property owner of 75 Cloudview Road and 81 Cloudview Road, which finds both parties in agreement of an approval of a variance subject to certain privacy measures. That could be discussed by the city council tonight. Staff does note that privacy was not specifically mentioned in the findings for the denial. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the draft resolution that denies the appeal to overturn the Planning Commission's decision to deny variance application 2018-00045. Should the appeal be denied, the same order from the Planning Commission would take effect, which is that the property owner would be required to remove the improvements at the southerly portion of the deck, the portion that encroaches into the rear and south side setbacks and to return the deck to its original footprint prior to the issuance of the zoning permit alternatively the City Council may direct staff to return to the City Council with the resolution upholding the appeal or to continue the hearing for more information This concludes staff's presentation of the agenda item. |
| 01:46:22.93 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, I have no interest whatsoever in denying the request for variance if we have an agreement among all the parties for to issue the variance that will settle all their concerns. So what do we need to do for that? |
| 01:46:38.05 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | So let me propose a process here. So first of all, I'd like to ask a couple of questions. |
| 01:46:38.09 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:46:43.49 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Is the owner of the property below the property? 75 Cloudview here. And sir, do you have an objection to the proposed settlement agreement? Are you aware of a proposed settlement between the owners of 75 Cloudview and 81 Cloudview? |
| 01:47:05.57 | Larry Bedard | I'm Dr. Larry Bedard. I live at 88 Prospect Avenue. I've known Dr. Teasdale for 40 years. He's an orthopedic surgeon. I'm an ER physician. He's been a good friend, a colleague, and a good neighbor. Angela Weber has not been a particularly good neighbor. I know this has been a long legal contention between the two. I've looked at the resolution they've come to. As long as she adheres to it, which I guess I have some concern because she hasn't adhered to the building process. As long as she adheres to it, I would agree to it. Right now, I think it was really a misnomer to call it a deck before it was a bedroom, which a couple of doors could open and you could stand out three feet. |
| 01:47:53.30 | Unknown | Right. |
| 01:47:53.38 | Larry Bedard | Thank you. |
| 01:47:53.45 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:47:53.47 | Larry Bedard | Perhaps now it's big enough to have the biggest Weber grill you can put out there, a table and four people having dinner or grilling for breakfast. So I think it obstructs my property. I also think it adversely impacts my property value. I'm 74. My wife and I are looking at selling the property, and I think not only does it adversely impact my privacy, it adversely impacts the value of my property, and I would agree with the resolution that's come up with the Teasdales and Angela Weber. |
| 01:47:53.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:48:29.07 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | And does that provide the screening that you're seeking for your hot tub use as well? |
| 01:48:33.90 | Larry Bedard | Yes, I believe it does. |
| 01:48:36.41 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | All right, so with bearing that in mind, does the appellant and respondent have any objection, or the city attorney, to our attempting here at the dais to fashion a findings for a resolution that would accomplish this settlement. before we hear the petitioner or the appellant's presentation. |
| 01:49:00.88 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:49:01.05 | Jill Hoffman | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:49:05.52 | Jill Hoffman | Or should we continue this hearing, come up with a resolution, That passes muster and then. |
| 01:49:12.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:49:12.95 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:49:12.97 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 01:49:13.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:49:13.13 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:49:13.18 | Unknown | I'm like, |
| 01:49:13.42 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:49:13.52 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | and the |
| 01:49:14.85 | Jill Hoffman | I don't like fumbling on the record. They've done it. Thank you. We can avoid it. |
| 01:49:19.65 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Agreed, but I'd like to make a couple of suggestions and then see if we can reach consensus. Well, OK. |
| 01:49:24.14 | Unknown | Oh, yeah, that sounds fine. And I'm just concerned, you know, when you have an agreement that I don't want to say or do anything that gets in the way of an agreement. You know, I don't want to tip hands or give ideas to anything that can disrupt that. |
| 01:49:35.68 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | But the agreement is contingent on our granting of variance. |
| 01:49:39.37 | Unknown | Understood. |
| 01:49:39.69 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | The agreement cannot be carried out unless we grant the variance that's requested. Understood. So I want us to identify whether we're able to fashion a legal way to grant the variance. Otherwise, the agreement won't be able to be sustainable. Okay. So... The Planning Commission wasn't able to make three of the six findings. I just want to make sure I have speaker cards here from Larry Bedard and from... Riley Hurd. So you're okay with us. fashioning this resolution if we can. Okay. Um, So... The Planning Commission, so as to finding one, can you put the findings up on the board? As to finding one exceptional circumstances with property not common to the district, the Planning Commission did acknowledge that there are very few parcels located at the end of an individual or shared driveway and that the unique point of access may constitute an extraordinary circumstance. So the What we would rely on to find this circumstance is the existence of a flag lot with a larger required front access area forcing the deck, forcing the house and deck to be shifted to the backyard. Would everybody be comfortable making that finding? |
| 01:51:14.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:51:14.41 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 01:51:17.44 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Mary, do you prefer to work out these findings with the appellant and the respondent and come back to us? |
| 01:51:23.17 | Mary Wagner | No, no. Okay. Just to be clear, the city council has to make these findings independent of any agreement or input. I'm clear. Just in response to your comment. Yeah. And so the full council is clear. All six of the findings have to be made. Yep. So if you want to work through that now and give us direction, then take public comment. And then if that's the way you're going, the direction would be to return with that |
| 01:51:24.10 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | on. Yeah. |
| 01:51:29.72 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | I'm clear. |
| 01:51:30.40 | Unknown | Thank you. Yeah. |
| 01:51:39.39 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:51:45.89 | Mary Wagner | resolution for approve our approval of the appeal and you know we could take any direction you give us tonight on that that would be very helpful |
| 01:51:56.79 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | The second ground is that, can you go to the next ground? is that owing to circumstance, literal enforcement of the code creates a hardship. For me. Reconstructing that with the appellant can contends that reconstructing the deck would impose an unnecessary hardship on the property owner I believe that the main reason reconstructing the deck would impose an unnecessary hardship on the property owner is that staff made a mistake in granting the application in the first place. because of staff's mistake, there's gonna be a financial cost to the applicant. And so I would like to rely on this aspect for this finding to keep this project unique and not create precedent for granting a variance for other similarly situated projects. I wanna be clear that had staff not made the mistake and granted this permit, then I would not be finding that reconstructing the deck would impose an unnecessary hardship on the property owner. Does that sound okay to everybody? |
| 01:53:02.94 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:53:02.99 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Yes. Number three. |
| 01:53:05.72 | Jill Hoffman | and agree. |
| 01:53:06.45 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 01:53:06.46 | Jill Hoffman | and |
| 01:53:06.52 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | you Okay. Number three is necessary to preserve a substantial property right. Again, I'm persuaded by, and if you wanna flip David to item C, |
| 01:53:22.38 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | I'm persuaded by the necessity of the variance to preserve Weber's, the construction that Weber undertook in good faith reliance on the building permit issued by the staff. |
| 01:53:45.14 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | I agree. Agree? OK. So then, I'm going to quickly go through four, five, and six. Four, not material detrimental to public welfare or district. So we know that the neighbors have now assented with conditions to this project, and we know that no other objections have been posed to this district. I've been out to visit this area. It's in a somewhat densely vegetated, area, and I personally don't perceive that this project is materially detrimental to public welfare or district. Five, no special privilege inconsistent with others. Again, the reason I don't believe this is a special privilege is because this was a building permit applied for in good faith and granted and mistakenly granted. Um, Other neighbors in the area don't undergo a process where they, in good faith, apply for a permit, it's granted, and then they're forced to tear it down. So because of those circumstances, I believe in this unique situation, it's not a special privilege and consistent with others. |
| 01:55:02.73 | Jill Hoffman | I agree with that. One of the other issues that I was looking at, and it might be applicable to some of the other variance findings, is that David, can you go back to slide two where you see all the other lots? All the other houses and all the other lots. So this is mainly we were talking about, yeah, we're talking about setback. Right, and of course you want to sit back. Well, it looks to me like, A lot of the other houses in that area also are very close to setbacks. |
| 01:55:30.04 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | And staff acknowledges that they do have various non-conforming conditions with other houses. So that's consistent with the neighborhood? That's consistent with the neighborhood and not a special privilege. So, Mary, you're clear on those two reasons? Okay. And the fifth is that it's in harmony with the purpose and intent of the general plan and the zoning code. So, you know, One of the intentions of the general plan and the zoning code is that neighbors reach out and collaborate with one another to align. on building on projects and so I'm pleased that that has now been done. and that agreement has been reached. And another purpose of the general plan and zoning code is for folks to be able to enjoy and appreciate their property rights without infringing on those of others. And with this settlement, I believe that goal has been accomplished too. So Mary, I don't have all the other overview, Thank you. Goals of the planning of the general plan in mind It's been a couple of years since I served on the Planning Commission So if you could help us with that finding So would those be acceptable findings for a draft resolution for the city attorney to come back to us with? Any, okay. |
| 01:56:49.27 | Unknown | Yeah, this is all fine. Is it possible to... |
| 01:56:57.31 | Unknown | I probably know the answer to the question as I'm asking it. Is it possible to add... some conditions to all the parties. |
| 01:57:07.29 | Jeff Jacob | Sure. |
| 01:57:07.69 | Unknown | I mean, I don't want this coming back to bite us. I mean, staff made a mistake here and we ended up going through a process, people spending money. If we agree to this variance, this settlement deal between these parties go into place. Could anybody come back and sue the city? And should we be looking for some form of indemnification? |
| 01:57:38.68 | Mary Wagner | Indemnification. We include our standard condition of indemnity in all of our approvals so that would run. Including variances? |
| 01:57:45.32 | Unknown | included variances. |
| 01:57:47.05 | Mary Wagner | I'm looking to community development to nod their heads, yes. Okay. But that runs to the property owner. So in the event other, that's an obligation of the property owner. So if this is challenged, if for some unknown reason something goes sideways and the settlement falls apart and there's a challenge, we would tender that to the property owner. |
| 01:57:50.17 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:58:09.54 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | So I would like to have this approval of the variance conditioned upon |
| 01:58:10.10 | Mary Wagner | like to. |
| 01:58:14.90 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | The finalizing and execution of this settlement agreement. And if the settlement agreement, so I'd like to continue this to a date uncertain so that we still have the power to hear the appeal in the event that the settlement agreement falls through. |
| 01:58:34.24 | Mary Wagner | Oh, it's executed. Well, it's my understanding based on the quick reading I had that there needed to be more work to finalize that settlement agreement. But if you just hold on one second, they can call you up if they want to hear from you. But that's a good question for the parties. |
| 01:58:49.79 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Yeah, so I'll hear from Mr. Rifkind. Is this settlement agreement fully executed? And I'd like to hear from Riley Hurd as well. |
| 01:59:00.03 | Len Rifkind | Sure. The parties have signed what typically happens at a memorandum of understanding. It's a memorandum of agreement. It's just the bullet points. It says the express language, and I provided a copy to staff. It says, parties shall enter into a more formal settlement agreement within 30 days following. So we have basically the business or deal points. |
| 01:59:03.27 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | As a memorandum of understanding. |
| 01:59:14.51 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Exactly. |
| 01:59:19.37 | Len Rifkind | but the attorneys are to draft That was my question. |
| 01:59:21.80 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | That was my understanding. So what I want to do is continue this matter until after that final settlement agreement is negotiated and executed, And then, we will execute the resolution. But I want to continue this matter so that we retain jurisdiction in the event that the settlement negotiations fall through. We can come back and hear the appeal in its entirety. Okay, so with those conditions, any public comment? |
| 01:59:50.64 | Riley Hurd | Hello, good evening. My name is Riley Hurd. I represent the owners at 81 Cloud View. And first of all, thank you. Amen. despite what some might think we are out there trying to resolve these before hearings and so forth. Only thing I wanted to get up and say was it sounded like the settlement agreement itself was an important finding, specifically, I believe, the portion where the deck becomes inaccessible in the rectangle. And so, With that caveat, we support the variance, and I think that would be an acceptable condition in any eventual approval, and we will endeavor to reach that final agreement with Mr. Rifkind's office. Thank you. |
| 02:00:35.88 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you, so I would like to include as a condition of approval of the variance, the conditions that are contained in the settlement agreement. concerning the screening and the use of the deck. |
| 02:00:52.50 | Len Rifkind | And my name is Len Rifkind for the record, and I represent Angela Weber. And I want to thank the four council members for your good work tonight. I know it's not easy, lots of things to read. I appreciate all four of you making the efforts to come to look at the property and for the very progressive and expeditious manner in how you've handled this matter tonight. So we thank you for your good work. |
| 02:01:18.66 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. Any other public comment on this item? |
| 02:01:22.00 | Len Rifkind | Thank you. |
| 02:01:25.41 | Len Rifkind | We did, so the, just I wanted for the record, we did actually bring the engineer of record here who was available to answer any questions about the whole. the whole thing. I know that we're not going to need that, but I just wanted the council to know that we made the effort for an engineer to be available to answer questions. |
| 02:01:41.07 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. I appreciate that. I personally did not find the |
| 02:01:46.30 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | support structure persuasive. So I've enunciated those findings I found most persuasive. So, okay, so Mary, we are giving you direction. Do you need a motion from us? Yes, please. Okay, so I move that we approve, that we grant the appeal. and grant the variance on the with findings as we have enunciated and with and subject to the standard conditions of approval in addition to the incremental conditions of approval set forth in the memorandum of understanding and that will be set forth in the settlement agreement and contingent upon the full negotiation and execution of the settlement agreement. |
| 02:02:35.83 | Mary Wagner | Point of clarification, Mayor Cox, I previously understood that the council direction was to continue this to a date uncertain, to allow the parties the time to work through the settlement. |
| 02:02:43.91 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | through this. |
| 02:02:45.02 | Mary Wagner | And that you wouldn't actually be taking the action tonight, but you would be directing staff to return to you. when we receive the final settlement agreement with a resolution of approval. |
| 02:02:54.74 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | So I got confused because you asked for a motion. Just a motion to continue and direction to staff. Okay, so I move we continue to a date uncertain to allow staff to carry out the direction enunciated. |
| 02:03:06.05 | Unknown | Second. you. |
| 02:03:07.42 | Unknown | So we have not agreed on any structure of those findings. |
| 02:03:08.12 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Yeah. |
| 02:03:08.28 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:03:08.29 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 02:03:11.77 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | We have given direction about- |
| 02:03:11.96 | Unknown | We have given direction. Given direction, but we have not. OK. |
| 02:03:15.23 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | We will have an opportunity to review. |
| 02:03:16.68 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:03:18.01 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | them in their final form. Okay, all in favor? Aye. That motion carries 4-0. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. And congratulations on reaching a settlement. I know these matters are difficult. |
| 02:04:22.10 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | All right, we're now going to move on to item 5A, marijuana regulations update, introduction and adoption of interim urgency ordinance. Welcome Calvin. |
| 02:04:35.13 | Calvin | Thank you. Thank you, council members, Madam Mayor, members of the public, and members of our staff. I'm taking over this project for Joshua Montymayer, who was our previous business manager. So it's my high honor to present to you this marijuana regulations update. |
| 02:04:56.38 | Calvin | Recapping a bit, in January of this year, the city council voted to amend and to extend the original urgency ordinance that was set for 45 days. The extension was for 10 months and 15 days. The extension of this urgency marijuana ordinance is effective to November 24th of this year. Under the current interim ordinance, what is allowed is the delivery of medical and recreational marijuana into Sausalito and limited personal indoor cultivation. What is not allowed is other commercial sales such as retail sales, dispensaries, and distribution centers. Under the interim ordinance, there is a requirement that businesses that conduct cannabis-related deliveries into Sausalito must register and notify city staff. |
| 02:05:51.29 | Calvin | There are two primary objectives for the presentation this evening. One is to provide a mechanism for the City Council to extend the Interim Urgency Ordinance of final year. and secondly, to provide an update on marijuana regulation activity both at the local level and statewide. And lastly, to request council feedback and direction on the following points. And I'll repeat these following points throughout the evening. These three points are to share any questions that the council believes is important to have answered as part of developing permanent marijuana regulations, to provide direction if additional public outreach is necessary, and or to conduct further community workshops. Lastly, to provide direction if additional public outreach is necessary, and or to conduct further community workshops. Lastly, to provide initial thoughts on exploring other non storefront type businesses, and I'll talk more about this later on in the presentation. |
| 02:06:46.10 | Calvin | starting first with the extension of the interim urgency ordinance. Pursuant to the government code, the city council is allowed to extend the interim urgency ordinance twice, once for a period of 10 months and 15 days, and this was done earlier this year, and secondly and finally for an additional year, a one-year extension. This extension is permitted by the government code, and staff recommends that this additional time would be necessary in order for us to have an opportunity to develop permanent marijuana regulations. |
| 02:07:23.06 | Calvin | If approved of this extension, the effective date for this interim urgency ordinance would be extended from November 24th of 2018 to November 24th of 2019. |
| 02:07:38.89 | Calvin | Moving on to talking about marijuana regulations update at the state and local level. At the state level, cannabis program continues to be very dynamic and evolving, which changes almost weekly. The state is currently operating under an interim emergency regulations. This is until non-emergency or permanent regulations are complete and make their way through the rulemaking process. At the state level, there are three licensing authorities. This is the Bureau of Cannabis Control or BCC, the California Department of Food and Agriculture, and the California Department of Public Health. And the regulations that are proposed for these non-emergency regulations are available on the state's website. |
| 02:08:29.31 | Calvin | Moving on to recap some of what has happened at our local Sausalito community level. In November of 2016, with the general election, Prop 64 specifically, it was revealed that 77% of Sausalito voters supported the legalization of recreational marijuana. About a year later, the legislative committee studied the Medicinal adult use cannabis regulation and safety act and continued to consider adopting permanent marijuana regulations for Sausalito. In November of 2017, the original interim urgency ordinance was adopted. So this was for the period of 45 days. A month later, in December of 2017, city staff did prepare and conduct an online city survey on the city's website. And this revealed that 73% out of a total of 307 registered users supported recreational marijuana delivery into Sausalito. On the Nextdoor survey platform, it was also revealed that 82% of a total of 176 responses were in support. In light of this and in response, later, a couple months later, in January of 2018, the beginning of this year, the interim marijuana ordinance was amended to allow the delivery of recreational delivery of recreational marijuana into Sausalito and it also extended the interim urgency ordinance for that 10 months and 15 days. In June of this year, the city council received a progress report on marijuana regulations. In September, the legislative committee received an update and directed staff to present to the city council and request for feedback and direction on next steps. And that brings us up to today in October of 2018 with this public hearing. |
| 02:10:34.15 | Calvin | Pursuant to the interim ordinance that we have in place right now, it states that any person or entity delivering cannabis or cannabis products for medical or adult use in accordance with interim ordinance, would need to register and notify the city of Sausalito. Since this has been in place, we have had one delivery business called Ona Life register with and notify the city. At the state level, with the BCC or Bureau of Cannabis Control, displayed on the screen is a sample of what their licensing would look like. Their licensing records the license type, the license number, the legal business name, the premise address, as well as the validity and expiration dates. |
| 02:11:24.91 | Calvin | Delivery services for cannabis-related products are generally very available through online platforms. On the right-hand side is a screenshot from Weed Maps, which is one of these delivery service platforms. And everywhere you see one of those pop-up bubbles is where, at the time of this picture snapshot, is when a delivery service was available for cannabis delivery. And you'll notice the little blue dot towards the left-hand side of the screen, that's Sausalito, and there's none here at the moment. |
| 02:11:53.95 | Unknown | And... |
| 02:11:54.09 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 02:11:54.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:11:57.31 | Calvin | Enforcing registration is a challenge when other surrounding cities and agencies don't require a registration process like we do. Besides us, only Larkspur is the other city nearby that requires this registration process. City staff did contact the city of Larkspur to see how they've been doing with their registration. They also have only had one delivery business register with the city. In order to move forward with this registration requirement under the Interim Urgency Ordinance, it would require a very proactive staff effort to research and contact these cannabis delivery platforms to find their contact information, to contact them, send letters, and to notify them that if they are not registering and notifying the city, they are in violation of our local ordinance. And staff notes that this would not be a singular effort as new cannabis delivery services and companies frequently pop up. So far, we have had no reported issues with marijuana delivery service into Sausalito. |
| 02:13:10.61 | Calvin | The next few slides will be talking about taxation for cannabis products at both the state and the local level. |
| 02:13:20.94 | Calvin | Prop 64 created two new taxes. One was a cultivation tax, and the second was an excise tax on retail price for cannabis sales. This collected revenue is remitted to the state of California and is not collected at the local level. In order to create a specific tax for marijuana businesses, a local ballot measure would be needed. Two examples that staff has researched are the city of Marysville. They passed a cannabis business tax to help fund their general city services. They did place a cap on this tax to not exceed 15% of gross receipts for the license sale of medical and non-medical marijuana. Down south in San Diego, they imposed a very similar gross receipts tax for general revenue purposes on non-medical marijuana businesses and they set their cap at not to exceed 15 percent. They're initially setting the rate at 5 percent. In July of next year, they would increase this from 5 to 9 percent and ultimately not to exceed 15 percent. |
| 02:14:28.73 | Unknown | Sorry, Calvin. Any word on what city of Maryville passed that at? On when? No, with the vote, what it was. |
| 02:14:33.25 | Calvin | with their voice. |
| 02:14:46.46 | Calvin | I'm not sure, but I can find that out for you and report back. Thank you. |
| 02:14:51.19 | Jill Hoffman | Can I ask you a question too? Yes. The city of San Diego They imposed a gross receipts tax. So that was not by measure. It was the city that imposed that? It was by a measure. |
| 02:15:04.81 | Calvin | It was by a measure. |
| 02:15:05.99 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. It was by measure. |
| 02:15:19.37 | Calvin | City staff has looked at San Rafael, who recently passed their Measure G for their cannabis business tax as more of a local example, to see what worked for them and a roadmap for potential action for us. For the City of San Rafael, in March of 2018, their City Council unanimously voted to place the Measure G on their June 2018 ballot for a commercial cannabis business tax. This measure was passed with an 82% approval rating. What was required was a two-thirds vote. The measure G sets a 8% cap on the tax for gross receipts for cannabis businesses that would operate within the city of San Rafael. It also allows their city council the discretion to set different tax rates for cannabis supply chain businesses. So without requiring a vote back by the, without referring it back to the voters, the city council would have the discretion to adjust those tax rates every two years. Revenue that would be collected from this cannabis business excise tax would be remitted directly to the city of Seimerfeld. Measure G allows and limits the number of medical related cannabis licenses to testing labs, infused product manufacturing, and non-storefront delivery and distribution businesses. The City of San Rafael does not allow retail cannabis and cultivation businesses. They have estimated that there could potentially be an annual revenue of up to a million dollars, but this would be dependent on multiple variables, depending on how many licenses are issued, how much business is actually generated from these cannabis businesses, and other factors. And within your staff report, there is a breakdown on how they arrived at this 1 million estimate |
| 02:17:23.52 | Calvin | In January of 2017, prior to any of this tax discussion, the city of San Rafael did form an ad hoc committee after their city council studied it. The ad hoc committee came up with some objectives for if we were to do a pilot program, what would we want? And they came up with the following objectives. They wanted it to be discreet, low impact, and have minimal public interface to provide safe patient access, to improve transparency and reduce public safety risks, to add revenue, to support their city's infrastructure and services, to create new jobs and produce artisan products, and to also promote industrial land retention and a more diversified industrial economy. |
| 02:18:12.20 | Calvin | At the bottom of the screen is kind of a summary of how they went through developing their marijuana regulations. So as I mentioned, they had an ad hoc subcommittee. It went to city council and then to their planning commission and so on to update their business and professions code and zoning ordinance. And the final step was the tax measure. |
| 02:18:39.34 | Calvin | The BCC is responsible at the state level for licensing of retailers and dispensaries and distributors, testing labs, micro-businesses, and temporary cannabis events in our state. A non-storefront retailer, what we mean by that when we say that is that A non storefront retailer is essentially a delivery service. It sells and delivers cannabis or cannabis products to consumers. They must have a licensed premises, but the premises are not open for to the public. Sales are conducted exclusively by delivery. It's noted about a week and a half ago, the BCC did release modified proposed regulations that would preempt cities from not just prohibiting deliveries in their communities, but would disallow cities from regulating deliveries altogether. And this is something that staff is continuing to monitor. |
| 02:19:27.64 | Unknown | I don't know. |
| 02:19:38.74 | Calvin | Yes. |
| 02:19:39.58 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | You know, maybe it's too soon, but do you know if the League of California Cities has taken a position on this or are they following it? |
| 02:19:46.77 | Calvin | They're following it. They are following it. That's how we learned about this. They're against it. They feel like it usurps the local jurisdictions' rights to local government. So they are challenging it. |
| 02:19:51.14 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:20:03.21 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Okay, great, thank you. |
| 02:20:07.65 | Calvin | Yes. |
| 02:20:12.67 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | So Calvin, follow up to that question. This proposed modified regulations would disallow cities from regulating delivery. We already allow delivery of medical and recreational marijuana. So my understanding is that this would prohibit us from requiring the registration of the delivery services? Correct. Thank you. |
| 02:20:41.60 | Calvin | Our current interim marijuana urgency ordinance does not allow for a non-storefront marijuana retailer in Sausalito. So it doesn't allow for one of those delivery services that I mentioned. Delivery is allowed to come into Sausalito, but a delivery service itself to be established in Sausalito is currently not allowed. If the council would like to consider having one of these non-storefront marijuana retail land uses as a potential in our city, the process would include, and we've outlined some of these steps, establishment of regulations and standards for a non-storefront marijuana retail use, including a new land use category, a selection of a zoning district or multiple zoning districts in which a non-storefront marijuana retailer would be allowed. an initiation of a zoning ordinance, specific plan, if applicable, and general plan amendments with a review by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Staff would, of course, recommend a very robust community engagement process to accompany this, and we seek your direction on that this evening. A selection of the total number of available licenses would also be needed, much like Samerfeld did. How they got their estimated $1 million potential is by taking a look at how many licenses would be available for each type, what would their gross receipts need to be, and multiplying all that together, it was an estimated potential of up to $1 million. And of course, the initiation of a ballot measure for commercial cannabis business tax if a special marijuana, special excise tax would be desired. |
| 02:22:21.28 | Calvin | I'll conclude my presentation by recapping the two objectives for this presentation. It's to provide a mechanism for the City Council to extend the Interim Urgency Ordinance another final year to November 24th of 2019 to allow additional time and opportunity to develop permanent marijuana regulations and to provide a marijuana regulations update at both the state and local levels and to request council feedback and direction on the points that you see on your screen. These questions, again, are to share any questions that the council believes is important in having answered as part of developing permanent marijuana regulations for our city to provide direction if additional public outreach is necessary and what that outreach would entail. And lastly, to provide initial thoughts on exploring other non-storefront type businesses such as non-storefront retail delivery or distribution businesses. That concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions you may have. |
| 02:23:23.97 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. Any questions at the moment of Calvin? All right, then I'm going to open it up for public comment. David Lay. |
| 02:23:39.44 | David Lay | Thank you very much. Things that you all already know as adults that are really smart. The more you delay and the more you make it cumbersome, the more it keeps the door open for people otherwise to make these deliveries and access. And the other stuff that they bring, that's all bad. the more you can do to friends and associates and the people you're governing for around town, and especially the kids, is to convince them that vaping is bad. That's nicotine addicting, and that leads to cigarettes, because you gotta do something about that addiction. and that brings the tars and the, deadly stuff that's going to kill him eventually, and that's not a nice way to go. the more you can. Teach him that. dabbling in things once in a while. is a learning process that they have to do to get control of themselves so they don't wind up stupid. so they have to educate and so on. So the more you can do to keep it uncomversive, and easier for legal access and teaching kids and adults, the better we all are. Thank you. |
| 02:25:06.03 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. Joshua Black, and then Dr. Larry Bedard. |
| 02:25:18.26 | Joshua Black | Honourable Mayor, Council, City staff, my name's Joshua Black from a company called Element 7. We're a medical cannabis company. We're obviously very interested in possibly doing business at some point in the future in the city. What I wanted to talk today about, though, was more our findings with cities across the state of California regarding uncertainty and misgivings with adopting a cannabis business in their city. I've given you two packets of information. There's a packet we dropped off at the city about a week ago to Calvin, which I believe has been circulated, as well as the two pages that I gave to Mary. When we look at developing commercial cannabis businesses in cities, we obviously look at things like economic development, and yes, taxes are a benefit, as well as jobs and various other economic benefits. What we also try and do is bring in best-of-breed operators, people that are compliant, controlled, taxed, tested and trusted because that's obviously important to mitigate risk from both a legal but also a consumer point of view. And also, you know, one thing that we do in many cities we operate in is we develop community boards so that we're held accountable to the community from community leaders people like the people in this room That obviously have concerns with with cannabis either for or against it so we work with with with local communities to establish those community advisory boards that Essentially keep us on check and make sure that we're doing the right thing and |
| 02:26:52.44 | Unknown | So, |
| 02:27:04.49 | Joshua Black | Obviously, having a local connection is important as well. I'm not from Sausalito, but we would look to employ local operators here that are connected to the community. That's important. And finally, making sure that whatever we bought into the city, whether that was a delivery business or a retail storefront at some point in the future, that that was connected to the local customer base. Cannabis stores across California generally try to be everything to everyone, but having a very local footprint is important to the local community. Our core value proposition is really developing cannabis that consumers can trust. And that's what I wanted to say tonight. So thank you. |
| 02:27:51.73 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. Dr. Larry Bedarg. |
| 02:27:59.74 | Larry Bedard | Madam Mayor and Council Members, thank you for the opportunity to talk to you about this issue. I came out of the cannabis closet in 2009. I've been a long-time delegate to the California Medical Association So in 2009, I instituted a resolution asking for the California Medical Association to support legalization, regulation, and taxation of cannabis. It took two years before the California Medical Association, still the only state medical association to support legalization of cannabis. As you're aware, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, which passed in 2016, was supported by the California Medical Association and the California Nursing Association. I sat on the task force that developed the CMA policy, and basically a regulated system is much safer for our children, it's much safer for patients, and it's much safer for adults who use recreational cannabis. After the law passed, I also had the privilege of writing a rebuttal of one of three authors to Senator Feinstein and Dwayne Donner of the California Hospital Association. Much to my surprise, reefer madness is alive and well, particularly in Marin County. I mean, we're three years into it and we don't have a single operational medical dispensary in other than a rather funky one in Fairfax. The County Board of Supervisors looked up at establishing four medical cannabis centers 10 applicants, at least 200 grand in applying because they had to have a two year lease, et cetera. And they don't. Board of Supervisors turned down all 10 of them. the problem we have in Marin is not with cannabis, it's with alcohol. I'd be happy to present you a study that was done in Great Britain that looked at all drug use and came to the conclusion the most dangerous drug to an individual is heroin, the most dangerous drug to society is alcohol, combined the most dangerous drug in our society is alcohol. Nicotine was sixth, cannabis was eighth. I think we ought to be looking at having a medical dispensary here, and also, if any of you have ever been to Amsterdam where it's been quasi-legal for 40 years, they have clubs where you can go and imbide and use of cannabis. So I would encourage you, you know, we've collected half the taxes in California because it's overtaxed, it's overregulated, and the black market is alive and well because of the persistent reefer madness that exists in California and in Marin County. Thank you. |
| 02:31:01.11 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. All right, with that, I'm gonna close public comment and bring it up here for discussion. Thank you. um is there agreement on adopting the draft urgency ordinance for the next year Thank you. |
| 02:31:13.80 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 02:31:14.61 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Okay. Yes. So may I have comments on whether we want to... consider or have staff undertake the process to explore a non-storefront option. |
| 02:31:36.77 | Unknown | My only thought that we haven't really explored it and we have public outreach on there I think we've had so much public outreach, you know, every group continues kind of like Climate change we talk about it constantly, you know without doing anything um Is landing on a tax rate in a tax structure. I think that's the one thing we need to figure out for the very reasons that Dr. Bedard brought up and is what we've experienced in all industries that where you go from band to regulation is The concern of over-regulating and what that does so I think we have to kind of land on a fair number that allows us to do what we need to do with the funds as well as keep it legitimate so |
| 02:32:17.76 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | So you'd be in favor of exploring a non-storefront process? Oh, yeah. Yeah. Okay. |
| 02:32:24.49 | Unknown | Yeah, sorry. |
| 02:32:25.76 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Yeah, I'm generally in favor of taking the steps that Calvin outlined. I do think it's worthwhile to do more outreach. I mean, a non-storefront retail establishment has different issues than delivery. I mean, I think we've generally been getting the same feedback, but I think it would be helpful to see if we get the same feedback on that issue. I agree that the tax rate is an open question. Also, I'm interested in looking at whether we would want to limit the number of non-storefront businesses, if that's a good model. It seems like a couple of other jurisdictions have taken that approach. You know, at least initially, that might be |
| 02:33:07.76 | Unknown | you |
| 02:33:13.14 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Good idea. I'm not sure. Anyway, yeah, so I'm in favor of continuing down that path in the next. Whatever it is, six months. Great. |
| 02:33:24.89 | Unknown | So I think generally I feel comfortable that we have taking care of the voters' very strong desire, almost 80%, that to gain legal access to both medical and certainly, through that vote, recreational use. And I think we have, through agreeing with delivery of both medical and adult use, that the majority of our residents who voted for this and who use medical marijuana, either recreationally or medically, have access. I'm still a little uncomfortable that at the moment that Sausalito should house a retail dispensary because the only logical there's only a Well, a retail dispensary where you can have people is only logically in the downtown or in Caledonia Street, possibly the Marin ship, right? So I think this, yeah. I understand. Okay. And so, we're not going there. |
| 02:34:40.18 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | So I think this is- |
| 02:34:40.98 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:34:41.85 | Unknown | . |
| 02:34:42.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:47.37 | Unknown | But we're not getting any tax off the delivery. Therefore, the only way we're gonna get any tax revenue off of this, if there's any to be got, is to have a core business situated here, as I understand it, and Calvin can correct us. That either is a hub for distribution that distributes all over the place, and we can collect tax on that, or does something else, warehousing or distribution you know to whatever you could even have infused products i could see that where it's a non-storefront manufacturing slash distribution uh non-retail outlet all of that could occur somewhere the only place logically for it is the marine ship and so if we're actually i think i'm very much in support of staff exploring that, again, in the context of all the discussions we're having about how to change the zoning and land use in the marineship. I mean, this is an obvious land use that we should be considering for that area. So I'm in supportive of that. I'm not particularly supportive of expanding that beyond a non-storefront investigation. |
| 02:36:07.80 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 02:36:07.82 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Yeah, I don't have any issue with exploring it in the manner you set out. My, I think, important parts of that need to be, you know, the negative impacts on neighborhoods are explored. To me, there are no remote areas in Sausliu. There are no buffer zones. Even when you talk about the marinship, within 100 feet, there are some homes. So I want that to be part of it. The true tax and revenue potential as well. Like what are the challenges that we have with the tax structure from the state to what SOSLI would actually receive? What other zoning prohibitions we might come up against? I'm also very cautious about doing anything until the state and federal, well, federal laws are a whole different kettle of worms. But the state laws are finalized. We're still in a state of flux, as you said, as Calvin said. So that's got to be part of our decision making process, has the state actually finalized whatever the rules are going to be? And we may be two or three years down the road on that, I don't know. The other concern I have is because of the banking issues that you have with marijuana and the federal bank. whatever the rules are going to be. And we may be two or three years down the road on that, I don't know. The other concern I have is because of the banking issues that you have with marijuana and the federal banking issues that you have, that also plays into it and the stability of any you know, any financial plan or financial basis for a business. And I also want it to be looked at, as Ray says, in the context of just economic development as a whole and not just because it's marijuana business. So... I think we had set aside some money for an economic development plan you know, If we want to take on this area of business, it's got to be in the context of everything else we could be able to be focusing on with regard to businesses in town and economic development. So that's the context that I would like. you know, for the staff to address. And I'm wondering, do we need like an ad hoc task force or something like that group to specifically, I mean, these are some of these are complex issues. Or is it in the context of the overall economic development sort of plan that we're trying to come up with? Those are my comments. |
| 02:38:29.01 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Yeah, I agree. I like the process that Calvin enunciated Um, it would be, you know, establishment of regulations and standards including a new use of category, selection of a zoning district, which I agree with Ray, most likely should be the Marinship, initiating of a zoning ordinance. I agree with Susan, there should be a robust community engagement process because this is something different than what we've previously discussed. And identify the total number of licenses. Would like to shoot to have this, if we're going to undertake a ballot measure, I'd like to shoot for having this on the 2020... ballot. I think, I don't think. Yeah, June or November, but I don't think we can get it done in time for 2019. And I think that we want to have the state you know solidify what it's going to do so that we can fully answer the question what are the true tax benefits and implications for Sausalito Yes. So. |
| 02:39:38.09 | Jill Hoffman | We want to have a ballot measure before the state's interim emergency ordinances. Is done. Yeah. So that's- |
| 02:39:46.03 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | that would be |
| 02:39:47.21 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:39:47.80 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | my feedback. Um, In the meantime, I do need a motion to adopt the attached ordinance to extend the Inter-Emergency Ordinance on Marijuana Regulations through November 24, 2019. |
| 02:40:00.03 | Unknown | So let's let's talk about that then. So we have until November of 19. And then any challenges that exist after that point, any legal challenges or anything else that we have. So if we do an election in 20, what are we gonna do between 19 and |
| 02:40:15.96 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | So what we're going to do by 2019 is finalize our delivery ordinance. Okay, so it will be unrelated to delivery. |
| 02:40:23.56 | Unknown | So it would be unrelated to the other. |
| 02:40:25.40 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Correct. And I would recommend that we consider an ad hoc committee further down the road as this process continues if staff needs the assistance with the logistical work. |
| 02:40:32.11 | Carolyn Revell | Thank you. |
| 02:40:32.16 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:40:32.28 | Carolyn Revell | Thank you. |
| 02:40:38.58 | Unknown | I mean, I don't want to send the discussion backwards, but quite frankly, we could have put a permanent ordinance in place this year. We didn't need to do another renewal. |
| 02:40:49.97 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | I like, I, I |
| 02:40:52.18 | Carolyn Revell | this. |
| 02:40:52.82 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | This is the staff recommendation and I happen to believe that we may as well let California get its ducks in a row and then finalize our ordinance. I don't see any harm to us. We're serving the residents in the manner they requested. So I don't see any harm in postponing this. |
| 02:41:09.68 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | But just following up on that, there's nothing to stop us between now and next November from adopting. Right, and so that was really. |
| 02:41:14.75 | Unknown | Right, and so that was really, well it's too late for now, so we got to adopt the urgency ordinance, but my message was, |
| 02:41:19.73 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | You have to. No. |
| 02:41:23.08 | Unknown | because the non-urgency ordinance would have to go through the Planning Commission and then first second hearing which we don't have time for anymore No, I agree |
| 02:41:26.77 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Right. |
| 02:41:31.02 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | No, I agree that we don't have time, but I'm saying there's also no reason that we need to wait until next November. |
| 02:41:32.46 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:41:36.41 | Unknown | And I don't think we should wait. I was building up to actually agree with you very much because... |
| 02:41:39.24 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | I actually agree with you very much. |
| 02:41:42.95 | Unknown | The sooner we delay, we're going to be scrambling and Yeah. The thing that we need to understand is this need for a license in negotiation because we're looking really stupid. We've got delivery operators operating in town and They don't care, they're not letting us know. |
| 02:42:02.88 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Yeah. |
| 02:42:03.86 | Unknown | But of course they're operating in tax. |
| 02:42:05.63 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | All right, so that's direction to staff to move this forward. |
| 02:42:13.40 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Just so I understand the timing. So if, just as an example, we did consider an ordinance earlier than next November, and there was some interest in the non-storefront retail What's the timing that you think puts any tax measure into 2020? |
| 02:42:35.77 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | because if we want in June, the deadline is March. to put something on the ballot. And if we wanted in November, the deadline is June. And I think that's or August. I just think that could be challenging timing for this year. And I also think we're going to have more voters in 2020, a regular election year. And so I think that is the logical target for that ordinance. |
| 02:42:55.40 | Carolyn Revell | Thank you. |
| 02:42:55.55 | Unknown | THE END OF |
| 02:42:55.63 | Carolyn Revell | Thank you. |
| 02:42:59.89 | Unknown | That's fine. |
| 02:43:01.54 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | All right, I'm asking for the motion that I enunciated about adopting the ordinance. |
| 02:43:07.01 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Adopt. |
| 02:43:08.26 | Unknown | So moved. |
| 02:43:09.29 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 02:43:10.18 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | All in favor? Aye. Aye. That motion carries 5-0. |
| 02:43:11.16 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:43:11.61 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:43:14.50 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. All right, and we're now gonna move on to |
| 02:43:23.33 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | It is. |
| 02:43:24.35 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Our accessory dwelling unit and I want to thank Melissa Blaustein and Michael Rex who were willing to stick around until 1120 to hear this. But now, their goodwill is rewarded because we're actually going to hear it at 9.56 instead. |
| 02:43:54.51 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | I'm gonna get to that. |
| 02:43:56.27 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:43:56.42 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 02:44:14.71 | Lily Whalen | Good evening, Madam Mayor, council members. I'm Lily Whalen, your Community Development Director, and tonight I have a host of housing items for you, discussion topics on accessory dwelling units, junior accessory dwelling units, and inclusionary housing in Sausalito. So the first is accessory dwelling units. So ADUs are accessory dwelling units, which are smaller units on a property that contain independent living facilities. So a kitchen and a restroom facility and are ancillary to the primary dwelling on the parcel. they are they can be located inside a dwelling unit on a parcel attached to a unit or detached to a unit and in sausalito we adopted our accessory dwelling unit policies in 2012 and we updated them in 2017. New state law on accessory dwelling units was adopted in January 1st, January 1st of 2018. And staff is recommending updates right now to Sausalito's accessory dwelling unit ordinance in order to comply with the state laws. And then also to provide a limited number of clarification items that staff has experience in using the document. So we're recommending some updates for use of the document for staff and the public. This is just a slide to tell you what ADUs are and that they provide opportunities for affordable housing in addition to multi-generational and senior housing in Sausalito. Staff is recommending that the council adopt a variety of updates to the ADU ordinance and those changes, those proposed changes are listed in the staff report. In addition, we've provided some red lines to the ADU ordinance and then some comment bubbles to show you why we're recommending those particular changes. We've also provided a few discussion topics in the staff report for the council to consider. is... the question of whether or not there should be a new amnesty period for ADUs. When we adopted the amnesty program for accessory dwelling units in 2012, we had an amnesty period that lasted through I think it was March of 2014. During that period, we were able to legalize 34 accessory dwelling units, illegal accessory dwelling units in Sausalito. So the question is with the council whether or not we want to reinvigorate an amnesty period for accessory dwelling units. |
| 02:46:52.20 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | You mean with the new constraints now since we're changing the parameters |
| 02:46:56.69 | Lily Whalen | Correct. |
| 02:46:57.00 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Do we want a new amnesty program with the new parameters? Correct. Yep. |
| 02:47:02.67 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Yeah. So do we have any sense of How many? units might still be out there that would qualify. |
| 02:47:14.08 | Lily Whalen | I don't have the figures off the top of my head, but when we were looking at this issue during the housing element, we did send out a survey that received really great participation from the city. So we can get those numbers. I think we had done some projections on the numbers of illegal units that potentially were in the city. I just don't have that off the top of my head right now. |
| 02:47:33.43 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Mm-hmm. Because that would be, I think, relevant to me about whether, I mean, if you continue to do, well, I guess this is more for discussion, but if you continue to do amnesties, you kind of remove the incentive for them. So there's some penalty. |
| 02:47:48.28 | Lily Whalen | And when we were adopting the amnesty program, we did put some parameters on the fact that the unit, they had to show that the unit was not created during discussion of the amnesty program. So there was a date that the unit had, they had to show that the unit was created before. And so we can consider something, we can even go back to 2012 when the original amnesty program went forward. So we were still trying to capture those units that were preexisting. |
| 02:47:59.81 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:48:13.54 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | That were pre-existing. |
| 02:48:14.64 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. Okay. |
| 02:48:16.51 | Lily Whalen | Thank you. |
| 02:48:16.68 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 02:48:16.78 | Lily Whalen | Thank you. And then the second question is regarding the off-street parking areas. So the question is if the definition of the accessory dwelling unit required off-street parking areas in the ordinance be modified to specify that the street whips are determined by data in the city's pavement management systems. So this is the. This is a map from that system showing streets in Sausalito less than 16 feet wide. Currently, the ordinance requires that in areas with streets less than 16 feet in width, that ADUs are only allowed if parking is provided on site for that unit. And we've gotten some questions since this modification was put into place as far as how exactly that's measured and where it's measured from. So we think that we could provide some clarification in the ordinance indicating that that those streets are those that show up on the city's database. And so there's not the question of where do I go in front of my parcel to measure the 16 feet? If at one corner it's 16 feet and another corner it's 18 feet, Does it? Matter. So we think that that could provide some clarification. |
| 02:49:38.36 | Lily Whalen | So junior accessory dwelling units, the city's legislative committee is recommending the council explore the creation of new regulations for junior accessory dwelling units. And junior ADUs are units that are 500 square feet or less that are entirely contained within a single family dwelling. They're also required to have an efficiency kitchen, so a small kitchenette. And then they can also have shared restroom facilities. So they differ from ADUs in that sense. They do have similar benefits to ADUs in that they can provide affordable and flexible housing. The legislative committee directed- Question for you, Lily. |
| 02:50:18.03 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | I have a question for you. |
| 02:50:18.86 | Unknown | Lily, sorry, my ignorance. What's an efficiency kitchen? Was that the, go back a slide, was that? Yeah. Yeah, efficiency kitchen. What is that? |
| 02:50:27.65 | Lily Whalen | Yeah. So a smaller kitchen, so there can be just a cooktop, like a hot plate instead of a full blown range. Um, or potentially even a microwave for heating up food. So a much smaller kitchen than what we would consider a kitchen for an accessory dwelling unit. |
| 02:50:51.07 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | And Lily, junior ADUs are fully within an existing structure. |
| 02:50:56.60 | Lily Whalen | That's a good point, yes. They are fully contained within an existing structure, so there's no new construction either attached to an existing unit or detached. |
| 02:51:05.50 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | And do they count as a unit for purposes of the housing element for HCD? |
| 02:51:11.56 | Lily Whalen | Yes. |
| 02:51:11.86 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 02:51:13.19 | Lily Whalen | Similar to ADUs, they don't count as density on a parcel, but they do count as a unit. |
| 02:51:18.81 | Unknown | So to follow up on that, and this is just kind of an overall question on our ADUs. If somebody says I want to build an ADU for my son to visit in the summertime and not put it on long-term rental market, does it still qualify for the housing element? Yes. Okay. |
| 02:51:30.69 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 02:51:31.08 | Lily Whalen | Thank you. |
| 02:51:36.80 | Lily Whalen | The legislative committee directed staff to reference San Rafael's junior ADU program, and we've provided that as a part of the staff report, and then we've also drafted regulations for consideration that mimic San Rafael's. We do have some discussion points that came up in drafting those regulations. The first is, should junior ADUs be allowed on two-family and multi-family parcels? So Celedo is somewhat unique in California in that we allow ADUs on multifamily parcels. Typically, cities only allow them on single-family residential properties. And so the state's junior ADU laws are tailored for single-family residences. And so the question is if we'd like to allow junior ADUs like we allow other ADUs on multifamily parcels, so duplex properties and apartment properties. Right now, ADUs are only allowed. There's only one ADU allowed per parcel, so if there's a duplex, only one ADU is allowed to be accessory to one of those units on the property. That leads into the next question is if there we should allow an adu and a junior adu on a single property The third is should notices be mailed to neighbors when staff receives an application, which is identical to the process for the ADUs. We mail out notices indicating that we received an application and that someone can come in and take a look at that application. And then the final one is though, although parking is for ADUs is not required, should the regulations for approval of a junior ADU require a property owner to meet the city's current parking regulations for the primary dwelling unit that the ADU, the JADU is going to be accessory to. So should the property already meet its parking requirements before we approve a junior ADU? |
| 02:53:45.66 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. Can I ask a question about that? Sure. So if we're not allowed to, and maybe this is a question for the city attorney, if we're not allowed to require new parking for a junior ADU, would it be permissible to, if the use is already grandfathered, the primary residence? I'm not sure I understand how we could require |
| 02:54:10.62 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Can you go back, Lily, because you answer that in the next bullet, I think. |
| 02:54:11.51 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | I'm not bad. |
| 02:54:18.57 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Yeah, I just don't know if I don't really understand if that's a legal possibility. I mean, there is a state law that says you need to allow a junior ADU without requiring any new parking. So if there's a non-conforming use, sorry, legal non-conforming use, can we require that to be changed? |
| 02:54:30.93 | Mary Wagner | So if there's a non-conversion, |
| 02:54:37.68 | Mary Wagner | So I think there's a few iterations of that question. One, true, the state law doesn't allow us to require the parking for the junior ADU. And then if you have a legal non-conforming structure as one issue, or legal non-conforming parking, areas you might just not have enough parking. We'd have to look at that a little bit for you and come up with a recommendation. I think it's defensible, but I want to look into it a little bit further. |
| 02:55:07.23 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | But are the junior ADU subject to the same overlay zone as ADUs, the 16, the area where we don't have 16 feet of driveway? I thought that junior ADUs were going to be subject to that same. |
| 02:55:19.60 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. I'm looking to Lily to see if that's accurate, but we can verify that for you. It's a different question of if the primary dwelling unit is under perked, can we require that to come into conformance to allow them to have a junior ADU? Which is the question you're asking us. We need to look into that. That's the question I'm asking and I just don't. I need to look into that a little bit for you. |
| 02:55:36.31 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | which is the question. |
| 02:55:37.03 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | asking us. |
| 02:55:37.67 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 02:55:37.69 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Yeah. |
| 02:55:37.96 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | We need to look into that. That's the question I'm asking, Okay. Great. |
| 02:55:47.11 | Lily Whalen | And I'm just looking quickly to see if we had added in the street widths question, which I don't think that we did for the junior 80s. All right, I'm gonna add that to the- |
| 02:55:55.97 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | All right, I'm going to add that to the list of questions, yes. I'm just going to add that to the list of questions to be discussed. |
| 02:56:05.33 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Which is should the overlay zone apply to ADUs and JADUs? Thank you. |
| 02:56:11.81 | Mary Wagner | If I may, it's somewhat of a distinction because there's no new construction. So you've got parking right for the- |
| 02:56:18.41 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Correct, but there is an increase in |
| 02:56:20.56 | Mary Wagner | housing stuff. |
| 02:56:22.85 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Correct. There is an increase in use, perhaps. |
| 02:56:22.93 | Mary Wagner | Correct. Correct, but you've parked the, you arguably have parked the development on that site. So if you have a four bedroom house and you're required to have X number of parking spaces, if you're converting one of those bedroom units into a ADU or a junior ADU, you've arguably already parked. |
| 02:56:46.04 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | project. |
| 02:56:46.64 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:56:47.74 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | but, At the same time, a junior ADU could allow you to create a new unit within your structure that's not currently existing. So you can erect a wall. and create a new unit. which would then increase the intensity of use from what's already parked. True. |
| 02:57:10.67 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Is that it on the? |
| 02:57:11.74 | Lily Whalen | And that's it on the junior ADS? Okay. Ready to move on to inclusionary housing? Yep. So as discussed in the staff report, the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Committee on Housing is recommending that council |
| 02:57:12.93 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Okay. Yep. |
| 02:57:14.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:57:21.91 | Lily Whalen | Consider an inclusionary housing ordinance and the city's housing element requires the city to evaluate enacting an inclusionary housing ordinance in the first five years of the housing element period, which would be through 2019. We haven't passed that yet. |
| 02:57:42.67 | Lily Whalen | The housing element suggests that staff begin with a nexus study to quantify the relationship between market rate residential development and the demand for affordable housing and establish the technical basis for creating an affordable housing impact fee. Therefore, staff is recommending that the council direct staff to initiate an RFP process to select a vendor for an inclusionary housing nexus study and then send that inclusionary housing item to the finance committee for discussion. So if the council moves forward with the ADU and the JADU ordinance amendments, we could have a hearing with the Planning Commission next week, we pre-noticed for that hearing last Friday. And then a hearing by the council in late November and adoption in early December, mid-December. Staff is recommending that council direct staff to initiate those zoning ordinance amendments for the accessory dwelling unit revisions, the junior accessory dwelling units and then direct staff to initiate the RFP process for a vendor for an inclusionary housing nexus study. I'd like to, at this point, that concludes my staff report. I'd like to, at this point, invite Melissa Blaustein, who is a member of the Sustainability Commission and also a member of the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Committee. And she has done some research on these issues and would like to share her thoughts with the council. Thank you. |
| 02:59:04.26 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. And as Melissa approaches the podium, I do actually want to acknowledge the Blue Ribbon Committee members, Melissa Blaustein, Susan Cleveland-Knolls, Andrew Sullivan, and Michael Rex, for their work not just on the inclusionary housing ordinance but on the ADU and junior ADU ordinance as well, from which the legislative committee benefited. So these folks meet on Sundays. Not only do they meet on Sundays, but Susan and Melissa meet outside of the meetings of the Blue Ribbon Committee. So there's been an enormous investment of effort and a great deal of talent brought to bear on this committee for which we're all very grateful. |
| 02:59:47.61 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you so much. As Mayor Cox said, since August of 2018, I've had the honor of serving on this Blue Ribbon Committee, which Mayor Cox formed in response to a number of sweeping state housing regulations to try and prepare Sausalito as best as possible to be able to meet our affordable housing requirements while maintaining our community character. And Councilmember Cleveland Knowles is on the committee as well as Michael Rex, who is here tonight. Andrew Sullivan is not here tonight, but he has been a wonderful participant as well. On the committee, we've had an opportunity to discuss a number of issues related to housing, including ADUs, junior ADUs, how to increase housing opportunities in Sausalito, But among them and in particular, Councilmember Cleveland Knowles and I have spent quite a bit of time working specifically on an inclusionary ordinance for Sausalito. We were mostly inspired by Mill Valley's inclusionary ordinance, which they adopted very recently, which not only included a minimum percentage of affordable units and new builds, but also included what is somewhat new and interesting and a creative approach to affordable housing, which is an impact fee. So I know that in your staff packets, you have already had a chance to look at the Mill Valley ordinance. I wanted to share with you some of our feedback and comments on the Mill Valley ordinance as it does do a good job of addressing this issue. But of course, each city is different. And there agree with Mill Valley's approach and other areas where we think that things might be different for our community. In particular in Mill Valley, we really like the idea of a requirement fee for new construction and additions and remodels. This is really what was the innovative piece of Mill Valley's ordinance. St. Helena had already adopted an impact fee, but it was specifically for larger new builds, so this is a new approach. It was good to have a threshold to apply for new construction and inclusionary units for additions and remodels. So it's not every single addition or remodel specifically. Um, Some of the questions we had though around that threshold is, is 2,000 square feet, which is the size threshold right now in Mill Valley for the impact fee to apply the right square footage for Sausalito? We obviously have less square footage available to us in general than the municipality of Mill Valley does. So we might want to consider what square footage unit we would want to have. Additionally, in their 30% on site development level is four units, the correct number of units. That again is what they came up with in Mill Valley and we want to consider that. Also in Mill Valley, interestingly in the ordinance, they give all of the money from the impact fees to a trust fund for addressing affordable housing. They had a workforce housing summit to discuss how they might contribute that money to inclusionary housing. I think we really need to spend some time talking seriously about what to do with the money if we do collect an impact fee, who is best able to serve the community with those funds. Obviously, it would be a nonprofit, but who would be best suited to do that? And then around the idea of the Nexus study, can Mill Valley actually, can we adopt the existing Mill Valley Nexus study to apply to Sausalito? So rather than putting out a whole new RFP, would it be possible to save money for the city and perhaps just modify the existing Nexus study, which we have from the city of Mill Valley? Also, additionally, we wanted to spend some time vetting this with the development community and the community in general. What are their thoughts about what is a realistic amount to ask for an impact fee or for a number of builds? And obviously, we want to see who potential beneficiaries for the impact fee would be. So who in our community would best be suited to receive the funds? And again, I really want to thank Mayor Cox for putting together the Blue Ribbon Committee. It's been a number of very productive discussions with a great group of people. So thank you for giving me the opportunity to serve |
| 03:03:38.97 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. Thank you all for participating. So Michael, I just want to ask first, so that was the, she came, she was presenting as part of the staff presentation. So I'm going to first see, yes, otherwise you would have been confined to three minutes. So I'm going to first ask if there are any questions of staff. Seeing none, I'm going to invite public comment. Michael. |
| 03:04:06.95 | Michael Rex | Hello, I'm speaking as a housing advocate, and I've been a housing advocate for a long time because I firmly believe That if we have a mix of housing values, we'll have a mix of people. which brings a mix of ideas, more vitality to the community, and it's more socially equitable. I'm gonna... talk mostly about inclusionary, but first of all, the quick ones, on ADUs. I read the proposals. I think they're good changes. We need to align ourselves with the state requirements. I do have a couple concerns that it suggests we not count the FAR and ADUs that are in two-unit or multi-unit projects. How does that equate with the density bonus? If they're additive, we can get some pretty large buildings. Perhaps that needs to be looked at. How's it balanced with density bonus? Maybe you get one or the other or something. I don't know how you jive with the state on that, but we need to look at that. There's a suggestion that the design matches the existing dwelling. What if you have a really ugly existing dwelling? THE FAMILY. I think maybe be in harmony or something, but matching, that's a little worrisome. on the discussion points, I would suggest you have a new anmesty program. We'll get a few more units that miss that boat. Okay, on the junior units, I want you to know I was on Rachel Guinness' first board to create the whole concept, so I'm very familiar with it. I think what we need to do, though, is clearly define for our community the difference between a junior ADU unit and an ADU unit, because I think very few people get that. And if you don't make the distinction, it will be confusing. And there's some very important distinctions. You're not expanding the size of buildings. You wouldn't be adding parking. It's really most of the intent is to reuse bedrooms that are sitting empty by putting a little kitchenette in it. And another main distinction is they don't have a private entry. So you're really having a roommate, and that's not going to be desirable to a lot of people, but it could certainly be a benefit to older folks who want to live in their homes. There's also a whole program to match those occupants with the homeowners that should be part of our program. Okay, they screen the tenants and everything. It's a wonderful service here in Marin. And then a couple talking points there on discussion points. Don't provide parking. Don't require that the existing building be brought up to parking standards. That'll chill the use and it's unnecessary because that square footage is already there. Should you have an ADU and a junior unit on the same property? I think you could. Mike. |
| 03:07:10.39 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Michael, would you mind finishing your thoughts on |
| 03:07:13.03 | Michael Rex | JADU concept. The last one on January unit is I... Oh, I covered them all. And then I would like to briefly talk about inclusionary. |
| 03:07:31.72 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Michael, would you mind sharing your thoughts with us about inclusionary housing? |
| 03:07:35.89 | Michael Rex | Can I do that now? |
| 03:07:36.72 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | I'm asking you a question. |
| 03:07:39.00 | Michael Rex | and the other side. |
| 03:07:39.13 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 03:07:39.25 | Michael Rex | don't mind responding. Yes, I would like to. There's three topics here. |
| 03:07:39.28 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | DON'T MIND RESPONDING. |
| 03:07:43.27 | Michael Rex | OK, thank you. Um, Well, this is long overdue. It's been in our housing element since 2015. We worked hard to get it in the housing element, and it says you're supposed to adopt this, so here we are. A few things I want to point out. Inclusionary should be in all multi-unit zones and commercial zones, not just affordable, because we want to encourage mixed use. 15% is obsolete. We're now looking at 20. And I think it shouldn't just be for low and low income, because that's what historically inclusionary required. It should have a sliding scale of a range of values. And maybe we can get 20% up to 30% if we can get a range of values, like for moderate housing. That would be ideal. on the inclusionary or on the in-lieu fund. I'm very concerned about that. We found historically they don't tend to work very well. They don't get used. Developers love it because they don't have to build them. And then the units don't get built. The money just sits there. It's not a bad idea, but it has to be carefully structured. And I would suggest that the program be made very clear that the city always, as first choice, wants the units built. And you only can contribute to an in lieu fund if there's some problem with feasibility. It shouldn't be either or, because developers will almost always just pay the money and we won't get the housing. The other thing is that those funds should be kept completely separate from the general fund. They should be managed by a nonprofit, I suggest, Marine Community Foundation, who can invest the money so it'll accrue. It should also not be fully spent on projects. It should be used as seed money for matching grants and that sort of thing. we can stretch those dollars much further. And there should be a very clear program of how it gets used and when and by whom. And that's going to be challenging to craft. and the program should include revisiting it after a certain number of years to make adjustments because they tend to get obsolete, particularly because these are tied to economic needs. I definitely encourage the NEXA study because if you don't make it work economically, the developers won't build. And the four units is okay right now. The only inclusionary is downtown, and it's for one unit. You build one unit, it's affordable, and it has to have two bedrooms. No one's going to build it. So we've got to get that fixed. Let me see has to have two bedrooms. No one's going to build it. So we got to get that fixed. Let me see if I have anything else. Oh, and I would, part of the process, I would also consult with the development community about works for them because there has to be a buy-in. Okay, thank you. QUESTION. |
| 03:10:34.28 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. Question for you, Michael. |
| 03:10:35.56 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 03:10:35.58 | Unknown | I'm actually not sure Melissa or Michael to answer this question on inclusionary. The thresholds, I think you mentioned 2,000 square feet, Melissa, and they mentioned $100,000 in Mill Valley, can you kind of clarify? |
| 03:10:49.21 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah, so the fee would apply if you're building a unit that is over 2,000 square feet or if you're adding an addition onto your home so it goes above 2,000 square feet. And the fee itself is an assessment or an appraisal of the value of the potential build. So if it's an additional $100,000, then the fee is a 1% of that $100,000. So I'm not great at math, but assuming that you had an additional cost of a couple hundred thousand dollars, then it would be determined as a percentage of that. And I also want to point out that interestingly, that was not what was suggested by the Nexus study by the city of Mill Valley. The Nexus study suggested that there should be a $30 per square footage fee for each of the square foots that go beyond, and then the staff revisited it and rather did it as an assessment of the $100,000 or the feasibility study, or sorry, the overall cost of the bill. |
| 03:11:40.68 | Unknown | Okay, but they just took one square footage across the entire city. So it didn't matter if it was... A small unit, big unit, percentage of unit, it's just a square footage. |
| 03:11:52.63 | Melissa Blaustein | It's just the square footage at this point, right. So if you're going from, I mean, so if you decide to build an addition and it happens to go, 50 square feet over, if you were at 1,900 square feet and you wanna go to 2050, then the fee will apply for those 50 square feet as a percentage of the total equipment cost, or there's a per square foot cost. So it's a little bit confusing. Okay. |
| 03:12:13.42 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:12:16.05 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Any other public comment? All right, I'm going to close public comment and bring it up here for discussion. What I'd like to do is go through first ADUs, then junior ADUs, then inclusionary. So for ADUs, do folks want a new amnesty period? because we're changing the rules for ADUs. |
| 03:12:35.91 | Unknown | Yeah, I was... There was some discussion some years ago as to whether we should do that anyway. |
| 03:12:41.84 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Yeah. |
| 03:12:43.49 | Unknown | I think the amnesty program, I can recall as Lilith said, was pretty successful. But I know there's still a whole segment of that population that were nervous, didn't trust the city, all kinds of reasons why they didn't take advantage of it. I think it's worth doing it once again just to see who we can sort of collect into that program because it did work so well. So. |
| 03:13:11.91 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | And the last amnesty program was between 2012 and 2013. So should this one date back to 2012? In other words, it would include a requirement that the unit had to have been built prior to 2012. |
| 03:13:25.29 | Unknown | I think if you don't do that, you undermine our whole program. |
| 03:13:27.82 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 03:13:27.97 | Unknown | . |
| 03:13:31.57 | Unknown | think so too and you know there's another element to that that not only does it add a unit you know that we're looking for in housing element and that type of thing but it's an opportunity to make sure that these some of these units are health and fire safety yeah and up to code and that's really where our true benefit could be especially in the new fire dangers and all the things we're dealing with so I always support that amnesty or are we thinking |
| 03:13:44.78 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:13:55.14 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | And so are we thinking one year amnesty? |
| 03:13:57.10 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | I'm sorry. |
| 03:13:57.28 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 03:13:59.71 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | One year from when staff could re-advertise, I think. Right. I mean, if it takes, I don't know how much of the materials that we have from the prior amnesty and how long it takes to develop them and what staff resources are like, |
| 03:14:02.62 | Unknown | Right. |
| 03:14:13.10 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | whenever it ramps up, that that should be one year from then. |
| 03:14:15.73 | Unknown | Yeah. and then one year to application period right is how we do before yeah why |
| 03:14:20.30 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 03:14:20.32 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Yeah. Fly. You had to have the application in within the one year, not it built within one year. |
| 03:14:23.61 | Unknown | AND THEN, WHEN YOU |
| 03:14:24.42 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 03:14:24.44 | Carolyn Revell | Everybody okay with that? |
| 03:14:26.16 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | And are we okay with defining street widths by relying on data in the city's pavement management system? |
| 03:14:34.83 | Unknown | Well, it's certainly a lot better than people going out and measuring it themselves. |
| 03:14:37.33 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | in the arts |
| 03:14:37.97 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:14:38.16 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 03:14:41.16 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the street width issue as a whole, but if we're gonna have it, then I think we should have it measured uniformly. |
| 03:14:49.61 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Okay, so Lily, do you need any further direction on ADUs? Okay, I'm gonna move on to junior ADUs. Should junior ADUs be allowed on two family and multi family parcels? Typically, cities only allow them on single family parcels, but we already allow ADUs on multi family parcels. |
| 03:15:07.50 | Jill Hoffman | So can I ask a clarifying question on that? Go ahead. And it's something Michael brought up |
| 03:15:09.24 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | or something. |
| 03:15:13.20 | Jill Hoffman | It occurred to me as well, what's functionally the difference between a junior ADU and a roommate? I mean, if you're talking about sharing, right? So do we even need junior ADU? Like if you're, you know, I mean just practically. It's a kitchen. |
| 03:15:31.09 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 03:15:31.24 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:15:31.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:15:31.28 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | walking door |
| 03:15:32.04 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:15:32.05 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. and |
| 03:15:32.32 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:15:32.34 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 03:15:32.49 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:15:32.51 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 03:15:32.56 | Jill Hoffman | I can have a roommate that has a microwave in their room. |
| 03:15:32.86 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | All right. Thank you. |
| 03:15:35.12 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. I mean... |
| 03:15:35.63 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | It allows us to create housing stock. The reason for creating the junior ADU policy is that now ADUs with the revised 1200 square foot thresholds, may no longer be affordable. The thought was to create additional more affordable housing stock. Thank you. |
| 03:15:55.00 | Jill Hoffman | But do we need to, okay, I mean, I'm not opposed to it. Yeah. But I'm just saying, do we need to have another administrative layer over someone that just wants a roommate? I mean, that's fine. |
| 03:16:03.91 | Unknown | Yeah, but if HCD lets you count the number, |
| 03:16:04.84 | Jill Hoffman | D. I got it. |
| 03:16:09.74 | Unknown | I guess I have a question. Michael, you mentioned that you can't have another exterior door, but mandated by JADU, right? You can't have a separate... |
| 03:16:19.57 | Lily Whalen | Thank you. |
| 03:16:19.71 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | You can. |
| 03:16:20.03 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:16:20.06 | Lily Whalen | Can you see? |
| 03:16:20.23 | Unknown | And you're not required to cry. You don't have to but yeah. |
| 03:16:20.25 | Lily Whalen | You can. |
| 03:16:24.06 | Lily Whalen | The draft ordinance in front of you requires an exterior exit from the JADU. It requires it. It does require it. Is that- |
| 03:16:34.73 | Unknown | Is that? |
| 03:16:35.52 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | AND, |
| 03:16:35.81 | Lily Whalen | Thank you. |
| 03:16:35.94 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 03:16:36.04 | Unknown | I don't know. |
| 03:16:36.06 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. Go ahead. |
| 03:16:36.38 | Unknown | I just said you need a fire door between the two units as well if you have an indoor unit |
| 03:16:41.21 | Lily Whalen | FIRE DOOR. |
| 03:16:41.78 | Unknown | Yeah, or something. |
| 03:16:44.08 | Lily Whalen | I don't think so, but we can get clarification on that from you. So we drafted these based on San Rafael's, and my understanding is the state regulations do not limit us to require an exterior exit. |
| 03:17:01.02 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | OK. I mean, look, we can always revisit this and see what feedback we get. All right. So OK with it on multifamily parcels, folks? Yes? |
| 03:17:04.01 | Lily Whalen | and see what feedback. |
| 03:17:05.69 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 03:17:12.04 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | So can I just ask a question about that? If it's. New construction. So this for junior ADUs, it would not be new construction? Correct. Because I think we'd prefer to be encouraging two |
| 03:17:25.42 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Correct. |
| 03:17:29.50 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | regular sized units on two unit parcels. This is within existing construction. |
| 03:17:34.30 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | This is within existing. |
| 03:17:36.96 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Okay. Yes, I'm okay. |
| 03:17:38.74 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | All right, should an ADU and a JADU be allowed on the same property? So in other words, you could build a separate ADU. Right, separate, and this is what our housing element In our infill strategy, identified dozens of parcels in Sausalito, that could, HOLD. and ADU, a separate freestanding ADU. So the question is, Could someone... create a freestanding ADU and also junior ADU within existing within their existing structure |
| 03:18:16.25 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | With just one single family home on the parcel? IT'S NOT A LITTLE BIT. |
| 03:18:19.64 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | that the, |
| 03:18:21.02 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | So it's not like a JADU on one duplex and then the ADU and the other one. It could be an ADU and a junior ADU with only one. Right. Right. |
| 03:18:21.19 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | So it's not like. |
| 03:18:32.80 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | So it would be a primary residence, perhaps a separate freestanding ADU, and then a JA-ADU created within the primary residence. |
| 03:18:32.82 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | So it'd be. |
| 03:18:41.24 | Unknown | It's... |
| 03:18:41.65 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | In all zones? What zone are we talking about? The question was not confined to zones. It was just. But right now, obviously, ADUs, it would be all residential zones as the question is framed. |
| 03:18:58.76 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | I'm fine with that, but I think the issue is parking. Thank you. Right now, 80. |
| 03:19:02.38 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Right now, ADUs require parking, junior ADUs. uh, |
| 03:19:07.08 | Unknown | Uh, |
| 03:19:07.90 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | would not. |
| 03:19:09.18 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 03:19:10.33 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Well, ADUs, sorry, ADUs require parking if they're in the overlay zone where the streets are narrow. And that would create a fire life safety issue potentially to have more street parking But even in those areas, they can come to the Planning Commission with a CUP, to demonstrate through a parking study that there is adequate parking and they can still Build the ADU without. additional off street parking. |
| 03:19:38.89 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 03:19:39.78 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Okay, so I think that's a yes, Lily. Three, should notices be mailed to neighbors when staff receives a JADU application? We do require notices for ADUs. |
| 03:19:52.98 | Unknown | I'm still right back on the last question. Sorry. Trying to figure something out. Lily, maybe you can help me. |
| 03:19:59.91 | Unknown | Multifamily zone. You have a single family residence in a multifamily zone. So you're limited to the smaller floor area ratio, the 35%. |
| 03:20:04.77 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:20:10.07 | Unknown | right? In a multi-family you're not allowed to |
| 03:20:12.60 | Lily Whalen | So any single unit would be limited to a maximum cap on that single unit in the two family and the multifamily zones, correct? |
| 03:20:20.65 | Unknown | And he said, |
| 03:20:20.67 | Lily Whalen | Any single unit. Yes, any single. So let's say you're in the R3 zone where. |
| 03:20:22.35 | Unknown | Yes, any single. I'm R3 zone and I have a single family house, just that. |
| 03:20:27.89 | Lily Whalen | Just that. you're limited to a certain cap on your single family house. |
| 03:20:31.69 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:20:32.16 | Lily Whalen | based on a percentage of the law. |
| 03:20:33.07 | Unknown | My ADU then expands that out, allows me to increase that. |
| 03:20:37.59 | Lily Whalen | Correct. |
| 03:20:37.98 | Unknown | Okay, but the JDU allowed that as well? |
| 03:20:40.85 | Lily Whalen | So the JADU would have to be inside the existing footprint of the house. So we wouldn't be looking at expansion of the floor area. |
| 03:20:47.92 | Unknown | Not area not a we could have the floor air though If it was on a single family that had a sloping and you increased it inside you can increase the floor air without increasing the |
| 03:20:58.11 | Lily Whalen | The whole premise of the JEDU is that there's no construction. So it's all existing space in a house. |
| 03:21:05.23 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | It's not within the envelope, it's within the existing Actual resident. |
| 03:21:10.26 | Unknown | I'm thinking of areas like subfloor areas, basement areas that are non-living. |
| 03:21:17.91 | Unknown | sorry, I'm not on they're not considered residential area. |
| 03:21:21.96 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | That's an ADU, right? |
| 03:21:23.90 | Unknown | But it'd be inside the wall. It's basically a basement area. Those have been junior ADs in other areas where it's |
| 03:21:28.52 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | area. |
| 03:21:31.32 | Unknown | It's framed, it's doored, everything's there. You just don't have living, it's not conditioned. So we're saying that doesn't count as a junior ADU. |
| 03:21:41.04 | Lily Whalen | So it would depend on if it has a finished floor and a ceiling height greater than 511, I think it is, if that counts as floor area or not. |
| 03:21:45.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:21:45.35 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 03:21:45.38 | Unknown | All right. |
| 03:21:45.73 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | is. And a window at a certain, so the window has to be a certain height as well to qualify as a dwelling area. |
| 03:21:55.03 | Lily Whalen | that. Does that answer your question? |
| 03:22:00.72 | Unknown | home. |
| 03:22:00.92 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Well, here's the thing. This is going to go to the Planning Commission and come back to us. So we're giving direction tonight on what the ordinance that goes to the Planning Commission will look like. And then it's going to go to the Planning Commission, and then we get another bite at the apple. |
| 03:22:14.00 | Unknown | I think there's going to need to be more discussion on whether you can have an ADU and a junior ADU because especially in the multi, if we made the decision, which we did, to limit, say you are in a R2, let's pick that, they're easier because there's only two then, right. Let's go to the R2 and say you've got a duplex. or you've got on that property two dwellings. One of those, if they were able, and if they could Um... have an ADU, but the second one couldn't. So we made a decision that in the multifamily zones, you could only have one ADU on a parcel. We did that for a reason, and that was an intensity of use, right, for that. So you're busting that rule with junior ADUs. So I'm not saying we change what we said but I think that's going to be a subject vigorous debate at the Planning Commission and I think we needs to come back to us for a discussion |
| 03:23:04.03 | Unknown | And that |
| 03:23:06.04 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:23:23.58 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | So I'd like to suggest we move forward with a tentative, let's consider it, and then hear the feedback that we get, Lily. But let's not prohibit it yet, let's see. And perhaps those in our audience can weigh in on that as well. |
| 03:23:23.61 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:23:38.80 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | All right, should notices be mailed to neighbors when the staff receives a JADU application? So we do require them with ADUs. I think it should be required with JADUs. |
| 03:23:55.84 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | All right, so there's not much comment on this, Lily, so. Public process to it though, right? Yeah, there's no public process. It's just a notification. Yeah. Should the regulations for approval of JADU require a property to meet the city's current parking regulations for primary dwelling unit to which the JADU is an accessory? I believe it should. I know that Michael Rex. |
| 03:24:20.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:24:20.87 | Carolyn Revell | Rex. |
| 03:24:21.83 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Because parking is- What was your question? Should, although parking for JADUs is not required, should the regulations for approval of a JDU require a property |
| 03:24:22.55 | Carolyn Revell | What was your question? |
| 03:24:32.21 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | that's seeking a JADU to bring to meet the city's current parking regulations for the primary dwelling unit. |
| 03:24:40.07 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Uh, |
| 03:24:40.80 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | So I don't think it should. The reason I think it should is that the reason we're not requiring parking for |
| 03:24:40.85 | Jill Hoffman | So I don't know. |
| 03:24:41.99 | Carolyn Revell | Thank you. |
| 03:24:48.44 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | is there's a presumption that the parking for the proposed intensity of use is already accommodated for the primary dwelling unit. And so if the primary dwelling unit is out of compliance, then I think we should require provision of parking for the junior ADU. So I think it's one or the other. require it. for We don't require for the JADU, but we require If someone is asking for the privilege of a JADU, they should have... They should meet. |
| 03:25:18.95 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | I just don't know what the presumption of the state law was. I don't know if it was to incentivize JADs without parking requirements or what that was. And I think that that could be. |
| 03:25:36.91 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | could prohibit the opportunity. |
| 03:25:39.25 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | I'm just worried because you drive in many areas of Sausalito today. It's challenging, you know, many of us take an Uber to go visit one another because it's impossible to park at night when everybody is home. And so I'm really concerned about further taxing our neighborhoods with additional parking. |
| 03:26:02.33 | Unknown | Can I ask a question if we have a Non-compliant parking situation on a single-family home or a home and they do a major or they do a remodel, do they have to bring their parking into conformity? |
| 03:26:17.91 | Lily Whalen | My favorite answer, it depends. It depends on what they're doing. |
| 03:26:19.82 | Unknown | Yeah. Yeah. Substantial or 51%. Exactly. |
| 03:26:23.73 | Lily Whalen | Exactly. Yep. And if they're remodeling, if they're replicating. |
| 03:26:24.68 | Unknown | Thank you. And if they're remodeling, if they're replicating. And a JEDU is not a 50% style remodel. Obviously, the walls are there. |
| 03:26:30.92 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Correct. |
| 03:26:31.17 | Lily Whalen | Thank you. |
| 03:26:32.39 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | So how about this as a compromise, right now, |
| 03:26:32.46 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:26:35.39 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | if you're in the overlay zone, you have to go, you have to go through a more rigorous permit process to, um, have no parking requirements. How about the same thing for... the JADU, if a, that we don't require parking for JADUs if The primary dwelling unit to which the JADU is an accessory is out of compliance. They would have to bring it up to compliance, but they can seek a waiver through an application process. |
| 03:27:09.89 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | It just takes it out of the totally ministerial realm. |
| 03:27:16.64 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | So, I mean, if we're not voting on this tonight, I would like to seek input from the Planning Commission and make this decision when it comes back. I mean, I'm just not. Sure, I really, you know, I think the junior ADU is going to be a pretty minimal, addition to our housing stock to begin with and i think the more things that we just load on top of it is going to make it more and more unworkable so that's just my policy position i get your points joan yeah so i kind of just like to get the input from the planning commission see what they feel and then come back and and make a decision later but |
| 03:27:37.97 | Unknown | So that's it. |
| 03:27:49.02 | Carolyn Revell | Fine. I don't know what you're talking about. |
| 03:27:50.66 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 03:27:50.67 | Jill Hoffman | I agree. No, I agree. But there's a reason why the state law removed the requirement for parking for ADUs, right, because you want to encourage them. And if you're talking about a junior ADU within an existing building, then presumably there's going to be parking or it wouldn't be any greater load than it would be normally for that house that's out of. But I see your point, too. Input from the Planning Commission's part. Yeah. |
| 03:28:16.83 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | I agree, and I agree, input from the Planning Commission. The thing is, the state often passes laws without considering that not one size fits all. And Sausalito, I think, is a uniquely built out city with unique issues. attendant to that. And so I think From a health and safety perspective, we have to be cognizant of our parking challenges, our existing parking challenges. Okay. Okay. Should we consider an amnesty program for existing junior ADUs? because I don't know if we have any or not, but if we do, |
| 03:28:53.48 | Unknown | We do. |
| 03:28:54.56 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | We do. So I would like us to consider. |
| 03:28:56.89 | Unknown | So I'd like to. This is not a legal conforming unit, do what you want with it. |
| 03:28:58.85 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | So I'd like to... So I'd like us to consider an amnesty program for existing junior ADUs as well. And for that, Lily, the construction date would be prior to June of 2018. |
| 03:29:16.30 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | I, um, Okay, and then on the... on the inclusionary housing ordinance, I would like to know if we can piggyback on Mill Valley the Nexus study because we could save some money. Are you all in agreement that we should have the Nexus study before we consider the Inclusionary housing ordinance and I would like any inclusionary housing ordinance to consider the remarks. from Melissa and from Michael Rex. Thank you. |
| 03:29:53.35 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:29:53.88 | Unknown | I agree. Would there be a nexus between the nexus report of us and Mill Valley? They seem such different communities. We're going to have to do our own. |
| 03:30:05.60 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Well, I think so a lot of jurisdictions have adopted Nexus studies. I think Mill Valley is the first that has gone to this issue of applying an inclusionary housing fee to remodels and additions. And I think what I would just like to ask staff and the city attorney is to consider to what extent we can borrow off of the analysis done by Mill Valley of that issue. Because many jurisdictions have used similar nexus studies where a lot of the analysis is the same, but then it's tailored. |
| 03:30:37.94 | Carolyn Revell | Okay. |
| 03:30:38.43 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | to the specific community. So I think the real issue is just to what extent Can we do that to save? Okay, cost if we can't then we'll just have to do our own, but they can be kind of expensive. |
| 03:30:46.17 | Carolyn Revell | Okay. |
| 03:30:52.21 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | And I also would love to see us consider what Michael suggested, which is to have a sliding scale to include moderate so that we can consider including workforce housing as part of this inclusionary housing benefit. This is something that the Blue Ribbon Committee had also discussed. So I really like that idea. Thank you. |
| 03:31:13.92 | Carolyn Revell | Thank you. So. |
| 03:31:17.12 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. Go ahead, Ray. |
| 03:31:18.84 | Unknown | Yeah, one of the things that I'd like to understand, and I don't know if the Nexus study would do this, is, I mean, we really don't have. really any space apart from maybe one or two areas, one or two parcels, where you can put up multi-unit housing in Sol Solito. |
| 03:31:47.87 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | unless the general plan |
| 03:31:50.01 | Unknown | Well, yeah, but unless we make some radical modifications to the general plan. So the vast majority of any money, so in terms of you're trying to incentivize the actual construction of affordable units, |
| 03:31:52.49 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | He made some rational |
| 03:32:06.73 | Unknown | There's no space to construct any hardly any space to construct affordable units in Sol Soledo other than the info strategy. And therefore, because you're not going to be able to build 12 unit housing anywhere. you know. |
| 03:32:23.71 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | You're talking about four units. |
| 03:32:24.92 | Unknown | Okay, or four units. Well, there's one project pending right now. Right, exactly. And how many more? There's none left. That means all of the funds are actually going to really come. |
| 03:32:26.78 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Well, there's one project pending right now. |
| 03:32:37.67 | Unknown | from remodels in socialita and that's something that when the public understands that there's going to suddenly be a lot more discussion |
| 03:32:39.13 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | with. |
| 03:32:40.01 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:32:40.33 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 03:32:40.43 | Jill Hoffman | you |
| 03:32:40.48 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Yeah. |
| 03:32:48.18 | Jill Hoffman | That's fair. So how do we... |
| 03:32:50.84 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | you |
| 03:32:51.89 | Unknown | Well, I think we need to move forward and have the public discussion. |
| 03:32:54.41 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | to the next episode. And have the nexus study so that we understand. |
| 03:32:56.60 | Unknown | I understand. that we're a little different here than in general communities in which this has been adopted. |
| 03:33:00.77 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Right. |
| 03:33:09.02 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:33:09.04 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:33:09.37 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Yeah, I agree, and then it's just going to be seen as an additional fee. Especially if we're talking about, I have no interest in sending them an additional fee outside of Sausalito. None. For sure. So that's got to be part of the analysis as well. |
| 03:33:21.17 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Yeah. |
| 03:33:26.15 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Okay, does staff have the direction that it needs on these three items? Great. Thank you everybody, thank you for your feedback and thank you for your participation and the hard work in putting all of this together. Okay, with that we're gonna move on to city manager reports, council member reports, city council appointments, and other council business. Is there any public comment on item seven on our agenda? All right, seeing none, we'll move on to the city manager information for council. |
| 03:33:59.10 | Adam Politzer | Thank you, I'll be quick, but before Lily Whalen leaves, I want to publicly announce that we have appointed Lily as our Community Development Director. Her first official day was yesterday, but she's been serving for the last four months as our Interim Community Development Director, so congratulations. |
| 03:34:21.40 | Carolyn Revell | Congratulations, Lily. |
| 03:34:25.11 | Adam Politzer | As Calvin mentioned, and just a really exceptional job by Calvin, I'm going to say, this evening stepping in for Josh, who had been working for the last year and a half on the marijuana issue and had dug in to that issue and so for Calvin to get up to speed so quickly and to be able to speak succinctly about all the changes and moving parts. Just really appreciated the job that Calvin did tonight and the staff that supports him as well. With that, Josh created a vacancy, so we have named Amy Turner, who's been the administrative aide, as the acting business manager working on MLK and then working with Susan on HR issues. So that's what Josh was doing. prior to his departure as an analyst. So Amy will be doing that in the acting role until all the pieces in administration settle down. And that will be when the committee when the administrative services director starts later next month would also like to just do very quickly that tonight we staff appreciates that council approving the contract to move forward on the mlk field project so with that With that, we'll want to do a shovel ceremony to kick off the project. reach out to the council members in the park and rec commission and invite them to join us at a shovel ceremony. a groundbreaking ceremony at MLK, because that's another big milestone. and a big step forward. My understanding is Gelati who has won the bid. is ready to start as soon as the gavel goes down tonight to finalize the actions of the council. So I think that you'll see that mobilize pretty quickly in the next week. And then we'll, during or before or after, we'll get you guys out there with hard hats and shovel, and we'll celebrate that. Okay. |
| 03:36:41.24 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Okay, point of order. So I voted. on the consent calendar. So should we redo that? Yeah, should we withdraw our vote? Okay, so... We're going to revisit the sorry, Adam, I'm going to interrupt you. We're going to revisit the consent calendar. We're going to withdraw our I make good. |
| 03:36:59.48 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Yeah, I'll make a motion to resend our vote on consent calendar item 4C, appropriating funds for an award of the MLK Park Athletic Field Improvements Project Construction Contract. And issue the second amendment to professional services agreement and update Dempsey Park and Southview Park projects. |
| 03:37:17.52 | Unknown | Second. |
| 03:37:18.67 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | All in favor. |
| 03:37:19.66 | Unknown | Aye. |
| 03:37:22.53 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | I will make a motion to Adopt item 4C on the consent calendar to appropriate funds for an award MLK Park athletic fields improvement project construction contract and issue the Second Amendment professional services agreement. |
| 03:37:38.70 | Unknown | Second. |
| 03:37:41.03 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Serge, please call Roll. |
| 03:37:42.06 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 03:37:46.61 | Lily (City Clerk) | Council member Withy. |
| 03:37:47.83 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:37:47.84 | Lily (City Clerk) | Councilmember Cleveland Knowles. Yes. Councilmember Hoffman. Yes. Vice mayor Burns. |
| 03:37:50.29 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 03:37:50.33 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Yes. |
| 03:37:52.37 | Suzanne Wibro | Thank you. |
| 03:37:52.39 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Yes. |
| 03:37:55.20 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:37:56.27 | Lily (City Clerk) | Mayor Cox. |
| 03:37:57.19 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Abstain, that motion carries 4-1, Cox, abstaining. |
| 03:38:04.70 | Adam Politzer | So two last quick items here. Just reminding everyone, tomorrow's a big day, Halloween. So we will see you all tomorrow out at the parade in the basketball courts. You've seen all of the advertisements there. So lots of things to participate in. So look forward to seeing you all. We've had a bit of a public reaction to the informational flyers that we posted, letting the Anchor Out community know that we are moving forward on removing boats that have been identified in our waters that are storage vessels. And so as the council knows, we had a presentation last month where we said we were moving forward on this. We identified 34 boats that fit this category. We focus on 17 that we thought were either created a nuisance, were a threat to become marine debris, or a threat to people and Property in the upcoming storm season. So they've identified six that they're gonna move forward and So they've had a community meeting, which was scheduled on the 18th of October, where at least 20 folks participated, where they shared and talked about this program. Then we started putting out the flyer. So I wanted the council to know that we've done a lot of outreach to the community. Again, these are boats that are unoccupied. that are storage vessels. They are not people's boats that they live on part-time. These are boats that have been out there that have been identified over the surveys we've been doing every month that are clearly storage vessels. The flyers that were posted on every boat were meant to inform people of what we were going to do. So if you're hearing information out there, And Lieutenant Frost continued to and provide feedback to the community. And so I just wanted to make sure that you knew what actions With that, we have a couple other events coming up this month in November. We've consistently done a homeless and anchor out outreach event with County Health and Human Services. That event will be on November 13th. And then we will be doing the debris or garbage day out on the bay, as we did last year, where we try to get all of the garbage and material that may blow into the bay or help people relieve some of the trash that's on their boats or things they can't use. So we'll be doing that on November 16th. So a lot of good things going on on the water, but I wanted to let you know that that had stirred up. and we're working hard to make sure everyone knows exactly what we're doing And we will move forward. to answer any other questions to the council |
| 03:40:58.85 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you, Adam. All right, council member committee reports. |
| 03:41:07.92 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | So I went to the MCC MC, the Disaster Preparedness Committee meeting last night. We received a presentation from County Fire Chief Jason Weber, kind of basically on some of the lessons learned from Santa Rosa. I can forward that report to everyone on the council. It's pretty interesting. And that was the main focus of the report. Last night, I missed the last sustainability commission meeting, but I understand they discussed a ban on certain plastic food storage containers that they will be sending or proposing to the legislative committee. And they also discussed a joint meeting with the bike and to talk about general plan issues and I think are going to receive a presentation from Community Development Director Lily Whelan and I um also i think they formed a subcommittee of three people to focus on the general plan moving forward Thank you. |
| 03:42:23.08 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 03:42:23.26 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. Thanks. |
| 03:42:25.02 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 03:42:28.31 | Unknown | Yeah, very quickly. I forgot last time to mention that Marine Clean Energy had an all-day strategic planning session last month, and we followed it up with a board meeting last week. Basically just to let you know that Marine Clean Energy is now almost up to half a million customers. And the county of Solano has just requested to to join, actually no, the city, the county of Solano had previously requested to join and last week we voted them in based on the economic analysis study that we routinely do when new members come in. That will probably bring in, in a couple of years' time, Vacaville, Alejo, and the rest of the major cities up there that are not in. So our Sausalito's vote on marine clean energy is now down to 0.13-something percent of a vote. No, that's not quite true. But anyway anyway the other interests in news there is and I actually do most of my stuff there through the technical committee which I'm a member of we have just which focuses a lot on all of the procurement of the energy and the design and development of the portfolio. The Marin Clean Energy has rejiggered its goals and right now is on a path to being 100 percent greenhouse gas emission free by 2022, which is a remarkable achievement, I think. and the only other thing I wanted to report on was last night following the disaster committee we occupied the same room and did the MCC MC pension on an opeb subcommittee meeting um which we are at the draft stage of writing a report and um it's being turned upside down torn apart rewritten and everything's good and moving along there so that's my report |
| 03:44:55.56 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Did you want to report on GPAC? |
| 03:44:58.55 | Unknown | I'll let you do that. Oh, and someone should report on our meeting with the VA maybe. I know it went out in the currents. |
| 03:45:03.90 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 03:45:04.03 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:45:10.80 | Jill Hoffman | Well, we had a meeting with the VA for an update on October 19th, on Friday, October 19th. Not surprisingly, there's some new players, but what did they promise us, Ray, that in the next two months? I heard you held their feet to the fire, Jill Hoffman. I couldn't remember the dates, that's why I threw it over to you. I did have some notes from previous meetings. And I don't, you know, there is some movement. They do have a plan that they have approved. They haven't, at that point they have not released the name, have they released that now? Yes. |
| 03:45:25.83 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 03:45:25.87 | Unknown | Thanks. I couldn't remember the dates. That's why I threw it over to you. |
| 03:45:37.10 | Unknown | Anyway, there's... |
| 03:45:37.66 | Unknown | So, |
| 03:45:37.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:45:47.96 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 03:45:47.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:45:48.01 | Adam Politzer | The Pressure. Thank you. |
| 03:45:49.42 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:45:49.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:45:49.51 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Oh, well then, who was it? Bob Hayes. Bob Hayes. Oh, OK. Oh. All right. Well, there you have it. |
| 03:45:53.07 | Carolyn Revell | Bye. |
| 03:45:58.66 | Jill Hoffman | And, um, You know, pursuant to that, they're going to be doing, you know, some What did they call it, right? Not retrofitting, but... |
| 03:46:08.34 | Unknown | Weatherproofing? |
| 03:46:08.65 | Jill Hoffman | Weatherproofing. Yeah, weatherproofing for the, but we'll see. |
| 03:46:12.26 | Unknown | Yeah. Well, they've been promising to do this for a year and a half, two years. |
| 03:46:16.32 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 03:46:16.85 | Unknown | Thank you. It actually sounds like they might be really going to do it this time. |
| 03:46:19.07 | Adam Politzer | They might. yeah I think it was I think it was called stabilization projects but just in addition to it |
| 03:46:26.23 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Thank you. |
| 03:46:26.26 | Len Rifkind | Thank you. |
| 03:46:28.79 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Your report is over. |
| 03:46:31.22 | Adam Politzer | I know, but you asked about this, and I think it's the one piece that was important was that we asked them to come back in January preferably at our first meeting in January. to say what they've done. not to talk about what they continue to promise us. |
| 03:46:50.24 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Other reports? I have... a couple of brief ones. So I attended the Richardson Bay Regional Authority meeting on October 11, they are going out for RFP to do a feasibility analysis of a mooring field, focusing on the ecological components. In addition, they asked for Sausalito's support in seeking grant funding, and I did write a letter supporting their seeking of grant funding to address issues in the Bay as a good neighbor. um, We did have a GPAC meeting on October 16, and we really started to get into the nuts and bolts of some challenging discussions, including regarding the marine ship, dovetailing off of the council's direction. on October 9 and It was a challenging meeting. It was the first time there was sort of a disconnect between the M group and And the GPAC? but I think we gave some good direction to hopefully have future meetings be as productive as prior ones. And the last thing I did was I went to Viña del Mar Chile with our sister city delegation. And I'm wearing... and Ahep pin. So AHEP is the Association of Women Entrepreneurs for the Fifth Region. It was established in the year 2000. I attended a Congress of AHEP that was attended by 300 people. And in addition, I met with members of the city council who would like to renew our sister city agreement and would like to bring in AHEP, as a participant in that exchange program. And I find that to be a very good idea because It takes it out of the political realm, which has caused this program to founder from time to time, and brings it back into a more public realm. So... That's all. Any other reports for, we have no appointments to boards and commissions. Future agenda items, I would like us to consider, Joe Burns and I met yesterday with Airbnb, representatives of Airbnb, They mentioned to us a voluntary contribution agreement that they have with other cities. whereby Even for cities that have illegal Airbnbs. They transmit the TOT tax to the city. So I would like the city to pursue that agreement. It doesn't entail any obligation from the city to Airbnb. but it would at least the city would benefit from revenue from those people who have Airbnbs in existence. And it would be done anonymously, but it would give us a good data point to understand how much airbnb usage there is so not to agree on it i just would like to have city staff pursue that so i'm going to add that to as a future agenda item for consideration okay that's it for me any other reports of significance all right then we stand adjourned at 1103 thank you |
| 03:50:08.93 | Unknown | Thank you. to you. |