| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:05.26 | Unknown | Okay, I'm gonna first test the mic. Can everyone in the back row hear me? Could you raise your hand if you can hear me? All right, great. Our audio visual team is doing great. So I am going to call this special joint meeting of the Sausalito City Council and the Sausalito Planning Commission. |
| 00:00:23.05 | Unknown | Salido, Thank you. |
| 00:00:24.21 | Unknown | and the Soccoledo Planning Commission |
| 00:00:26.63 | Unknown | To order, Tuesday, January 14th, we are starting |
| 00:00:26.91 | Unknown | Order. |
| 00:00:31.01 | Unknown | just a little few minutes past six o'clock. And first of all, I just wanna welcome everyone. Thank you so much for coming out on a Tuesday night. I know we're competing with the Democratic debate, so It's a hard one here in Moraine County, but I'll ask our city clerk if he could please call the roll. |
| 00:00:53.52 | Heidi Scoble | Council Member Byrds. Here. Councilmember Cox. |
| 00:00:57.78 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 00:00:57.79 | Mary Ann Griller (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 00:00:57.93 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 00:00:57.96 | Mary Ann Griller (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 00:00:58.52 | Heidi Scoble | Council Member Riley. |
| 00:00:59.97 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 00:01:00.11 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. Vice Mayor Whiting. More than us. Planning Commission. Commissioner Morgan. |
| 00:01:09.86 | Commissioner Pierce | Thank you. |
| 00:01:09.93 | Heidi Scoble | Mr. Pierce? Yes. Commissioner Richard? |
| 00:01:13.52 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | to the region. |
| 00:01:14.11 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:01:15.75 | Heidi Scoble | Graph, gradual graph, yes, here. |
| 00:01:18.23 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 00:01:18.28 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 00:01:18.31 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Commissioner Christina Phillips. |
| 00:01:18.97 | Heidi Scoble | Commissioner Christina Miller. Here. |
| 00:01:21.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:01:21.74 | Heidi Scoble | Vice Chair Janelle Killman. Here. |
| 00:01:23.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:01:23.95 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 00:01:23.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:01:24.47 | Heidi Scoble | Chair, Vicki Nichols. |
| 00:01:25.94 | Unknown | Here. Great, so this is, we've got a really full evening tonight, and I'm looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts on this really important topic. I wanna start with a few introductory remarks, and then we'll get going. We're gonna try to keep this meeting moving along. I'm glad it really is. |
| 00:02:16.99 | Unknown | Okay, well as you may have noticed, this is my first meeting as mayor, so. Bye. |
| 00:02:25.58 | Unknown | So luckily I have a seasoned vice mayor to my left who is pointing |
| 00:02:38.91 | Unknown | Okay, so first I will ask for approval of the agenda by the city council. |
| 00:02:39.21 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:02:39.47 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:03:02.16 | Unknown | City. on those in case. Thank you. So first I just have a couple of introductory remarks and some housekeeping details. So first of all, I want to thank a couple of people. I want to thank staff for all the hard work that they've done to date and our Consultant The Ungroup. They are here and they'll introduce themselves later. I also really want to give a special thanks to our General Plan Advisory committee. They have worked tirelessly over the last several years. They have had, I think, 40 meetings. Thank you. over 40 meetings and given a lot of their time, dedication, and hard work to this topic. And I know many, many of the members are here in this room. Could you just stand if you're a member of the CPAC? |
| 00:04:00.92 | Unknown | And a special shout out to Council Member Cox and Bill Werner for chairing that committee and for doing today. They still have more work to go, but for doing such a great job. I also wanted to take this chance to thank our multiple boards and commissions, including the Planning Commission, the Sustainability Commission, our Pedestrian Bike Advisory Commission, our Sustainability Commission, Rec Park, our Business Advisory Commission, Sausalito Beautiful, our Disaster Preparedness Commission, I don't know if there were others that commented, but they all Oh, Historic Reservation Commission, thank you. Who also have provided really valuable feedback to the City Council and to the General Plan Advisory Committee. posted on the web a summary of all of the input of all of those boards and commissions on a variety of topics. And it's really staggering to see the breadth and scope of what they have done. So thank you, and thank you to all the members of the public so far who have commented, and all of you again for coming out tonight. |
| 00:05:06.55 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. I thank you to all the members. |
| 00:05:08.29 | Unknown | Yeah. Bye. |
| 00:05:09.43 | Sandra Bushmaker | Bye. |
| 00:05:13.28 | Unknown | I also just wanted to take a special moment right now to thank Ricky Nichols, the chair of the Planning Commission. Vicki is terming out this year, but she has been serving the city for years, both on the Historic Landmarks Board and on the Planning Commission now for, I think, six years, and tirelessly with other community service, and I'm really happy with you. |
| 00:05:44.35 | Unknown | Okay, so now to the rules. Um, a new regime. So first of all, I just want to talk a little bit about our agenda tonight. We've organized it to maximize public participation. in three buckets. So instead of the usual three minutes just on the general plan in general, Thank you. Thank you. on each of the three |
| 00:06:11.97 | Unknown | the planning commission of chariottomers before me. We will keep you to your two-minute time limit. So think about what you'd like to say. Know that you have three chances to come up this evening to talk to us. And as always, we have read your written submissions, and really thank you for those in advance. Um, For those of you who were at our meeting in December, it is really important to me to have civil public discussions. And I have I've been in a lot of public meetings, both in my day job in San Francisco and here at the planning commission. |
| 00:06:44.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:06:44.68 | Unknown | and a lot of people. |
| 00:06:50.23 | Unknown | and at the City Council, and I would really ask that people are respectful, in their town, to their fellow citizens, and to the boards and commissions that are serving the public. One of the things the Institute for Local Self-Government recommends at public meetings is no clapping, cheering, or shouting, or other disparaging comments. And I am going to be both tonight and all year at our city council meeting. It's very strict with that. If somebody is saying something that you really like and you really need to support that person, you can do this. |
| 00:07:25.07 | Unknown | . |
| 00:07:25.63 | Unknown | So everybody put your hands up. Yeah. So if you hear something you love, Otherwise, respectful silence is fine. |
| 00:07:33.28 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 00:07:37.50 | Unknown | Um, and if there is clapping and cheering, I will take a break and we will try to get back on track after five minutes. our agenda tonight has time that we'll have staff presentations by the end group then we will have city council member Questions? There were questions from our planning commission. |
| 00:08:17.94 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Do you have Bradley Irvin? from the Planning Commission or City Council on how tonight is going to work. Oh, one new thing, and we've learned this from some other meetings, because we wanna finish in a timely manner and make sure everybody gets a chance to speak, Thank you. Not only are we holding the public to a time limit, |
| 00:08:37.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:08:37.16 | Unknown | Amen. |
| 00:08:37.45 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:08:40.09 | Unknown | We are holding ourselves to time limits for speaking. |
| 00:08:41.00 | Unknown | ourselves. |
| 00:08:44.25 | Unknown | So we really need to think about our comments. be concise, and we will have the timer on ourselves as well. Okay, so Jeff Bradley from Amber, please start us off. |
| 00:08:57.40 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor, members of the City Council, members of the County Commission, and the City Staff, and of course the public. Thank you for taking time out on Tuesday night to participate. |
| 00:09:14.21 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | As the mayor mentioned, this meeting is broken up into essentially three major pockets. Can you speak a little louder, Jen? Sure thing. As the mayor indicated, the meeting has been broken up into three major portions. The first one is the policy frameworks review, and that's been broken into two parts, part one and part two. |
| 00:09:19.74 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:09:19.83 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 00:09:19.89 | Unknown | Just give it a little louder, |
| 00:09:20.97 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:09:21.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:09:21.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:09:22.00 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:09:22.02 | Unknown | that has, Thank you. |
| 00:09:34.89 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | The next major section, and if you're looking at your agenda, this would be agenda topic number six. It's general plan considerations, and that covers three separate topics. The question of optional elements, the matter of the general plan build-out analysis, and the EIR alternatives to be evaluated. And then finally, the meeting will transition from a joint study session to a city council only meeting and tracking to the evaluated. And then finally, the meeting will transition from a joint study session to a city council only meeting and track into the agenda again, item number nine, starting with nine, we talk about the general plan update process moving forward. That's just to give a word now. |
| 00:09:41.93 | Unknown | and that covers |
| 00:10:15.53 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | So the policy framework review is attached to the staff report prepared for this meeting and includes policies that have been both carried over from the existing general plan that were evaluated by the consultants, the staff, the GPAC. The revised frameworks include GPAC input from the fall GPAC meetings. We display the draft objectives and policies. You can tell if a policy or objective is new, if there's a source listed at the end of it. And since that source is in italics, that tells you it's a new item. However, for this meeting, everything's on the table, of course, but we felt like after meeting with CPAC, there was eight policy issues that we really needed a high level of feedback on in the form of a joint study session with the Planning Commission and Council and the public. |
| 00:11:14.76 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | So as everyone is hopefully aware of by now, the housing, the general plan is a blueprint for development of the community over the next 20 years. It's required by the state of California and there are seven mandatory elements. And so when we talk about the elements, they're listed here. These six elements, three we will cover under part one, and three we will cover under part two. These six elements cover this, these six elements were chapters of the general plan, cover the seven mandatory elements, because you can combine more than one into a single element. So this is the core of the document, and later in the agenda when we talk about optional elements, those are ones that cities and counties may do on their own volition, they't have to do them that's why we refer to them as the optional element so in part one we are focused on land use and growth management element which is very fundamental element within the general plan that tells you what your future land uses are going to be the second one is the community design historic and cultural preservation element which obviously touches on a lot of important physical aspects of the community. And thirdly, the circulation and parking element. Then in part two, we look at the environmental quality element, the health, safety, and community resilience element that's receiving a lot more attention Bay Area-wide these days with fires, floods, landslides, everything that our communities are facing. And finally, the economic element. |
| 00:11:15.15 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 00:11:28.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:12:27.34 | Unknown | effect. |
| 00:12:48.82 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | So just as a reminder, we're in the policy framework review, part one. And the first high-level issue we want feedback on is the issue under objective LU2, promote enhanced commercial diversity. That's the high-level objective. One of the issues that we looked at with the GPAC was, should the upper floor residential uses be permitted in all the neighborhood commercial areas? Presently, these areas are divided into what's known as CN1 and CN2, and while CN1 allows upper story residential uses, CN2 does not. The GPAC discussion was generally supportive, though some were concerned about the CN2's various suitability for residential uses. The consultant's recommendation is to allow it to create some consistency within what's allowed within those neighborhood commercial zones, and also create a little bit of incremental capacity for future residential development. And the map shows there's a small piece of CN2 right here, and the other CN2 is down here. So this area is home to some, well, because there's strip development, but in the future, if it were redeveloped, if this general plan concept was received by a city and adopted, it could be potentially used for upper level housing. |
| 00:14:37.04 | Tom Ford (M Group Consultant) | Tom Johnson. Okay. Thank you. So it's basically along Bridgeway where the Shell Station is. |
| 00:14:50.51 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | So the second high level policy issue we want to feedback on was a subset of the objective of preserving Sostenido's waterfront. Again, we're still in the land use and growth management element. And the issue is, should Sostenido pursue the creation of a mooring field in Richardson Bay? Within your staff report, we also included pros and cons And some of the pros of doing this idea, of supporting this policy, is it may ease future management of anchor routes and visiting vessels and reduce their environmental impact and ease circulation in Richardson Bay. The Richardson Bay Regional Agency did do a feasibility analysis recently, and that analysis thought that this was something that could possibly be done in a feasible manner. The downside is that it requires upfront investment and ongoing maintenance and management. The GPAC discussion was generally supportive of providing services to visiting vessels. However, there is the concern of what it would take to actually implement and maintain a mooring field over time. The M group, us, the consultant's recommendation is to include this as a policy, at least at the level of analyzing it and studying it over the next 20 years as an idea that would be evaluated |
| 00:15:15.01 | Unknown | And some of the |
| 00:16:15.73 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 00:16:16.38 | Alice Merrill | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:16:17.58 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Thank you. Under objective value six, which is to establish a sphere of influence and designate land uses, So everyone knows the city has a certain land area, and that's what's generally known as what's within the city limits. But then in planning terms, there's areas beyond that that encompass the city's sphere of influence. So that's what we're talking about, the areas that are within the sphere of influence, but outside of the actual city corporate limits of the community. So the policy discussion tonight isn't about exactly what those, where those lines are drawn, but just have a general policy that the city would periodically evaluate the sphere of influence to make sure it's meeting the needs of the city at that time because those things can change as the city grows and develops over time. Or even as those areas outside the city grow and develop or change. |
| 00:17:23.46 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | So this is simply a map showing Thank you. the current city boundary in blue And prior to 2004, the sphere was quite large and picked up all of these areas. And then there was a LAFCO initiated adjustment that shrank the sphere down considerably. |
| 00:17:54.50 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | One of the reasons this is before you is a question, because if you don't have a policy like this, the sphere of influence can kind of become sort of a static line without any policy initiative behind it in terms of the city proactively evaluating it and looking at it and make sure it's serving its purposes. |
| 00:18:25.82 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | So under objective CD-4, preserve the city's identity and the character of its community, and we're switching now to the community design, historic and cultural preservation element. The issue that was discussed at GPAC was the issue of objective standards and design guidelines for development, should the city have these objective standards and design guidelines. The objective standards is something that's kind of come charging out of the Sacramento as a new concept that when we were talking about housing development, cities and counties and any type of agency that's approving housing, that's in the business of approving housing on a land use basis, should really base their review on objective standards. And so when we think of objective standards, by definition that is something that is just black and white. There's no debate, there's no discretion. It either meets it or it doesn't. In theory, it's the way the building code operates. It tells you exactly how big the pipe has to be, how big the structural beams have to be. It's not a matter of professional opinion. It is prescriptive in the code. The interesting thing is even though we're hearing there's a lot of impetus around objective standards, the cities are not actually required to have objective standards. But if certain types of projects do come into the city, there's a state law called SB35 that allows a very streamlined ministerial review of projects for cities that haven't met their arena requirements. And the only standards you're allowed to apply to these projects are the objective standards. So our recommendation is very strongly that, yes, the city should have these. And obviously you have some of them already. For example, setbacks. Those are pretty objective. Five feet, ten feet. We know what our setbacks are. Building heights. But anything that talks about preserving neighborhood character, fitting in with the neighborhood context, those are very subjective statements. But they can be converted to objective standards in a way that I think would meet the goals, maybe 90% meet the goals of the city. |
| 00:20:53.69 | Unknown | So Jeff, we're a little over our 10 minute presentation time. We're at 11 minutes and 14 seconds. So if you can wrap up, that would be great. |
| 00:20:56.80 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | 11 minutes and 14 seconds. I thought I was going so fast. I know you've got one more. Thank you. OK, moving on. |
| 00:21:01.34 | Unknown | So fast. We've got one more. |
| 00:21:06.89 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Okay, under circulation of parking, maximizing public transit services, the question is should the city expand public shoreline access to and from the water to be considered? The GPAC discussion was generally supportive, with some members expressing support for a policy. Others expressed concerns about the difficulty of implementation, as most of these locations would be coming up against and abutting against private property. This would, however, in terms of the benefits, would leverage the city's shoreline location for residents, workers, and visitors, and would potentially allow for additional water-based transportation alternatives, which would help out with roadway congestion. However, on the downside, sometimes public access does conflict with environmental protection. |
| 00:21:57.28 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | That brings us to the end of part one. And I believe this is the place on the agenda where The City Council asked questions. |
| 00:22:07.25 | Unknown | Great, thank you. Are there questions from city council members? And what I'm gonna ask the city council to do is we'll have one question for a council member. We'll go around and then after everyone's asked one question then you can ask another if you'd like. |
| 00:22:24.31 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Hi, thanks, Joan Cox. I had a question regarding objective LU4, preserve Sausalito's waterfront, should Sausalita pursue the creation of a mooring field in Richardson Bay. When the M group recommended Yes. Were you aware of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission correspondence to the city of Sausalito demanding that the city remove all boats from its waters or face sanctions. |
| 00:22:52.17 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | No, we did not know about that. |
| 00:22:54.99 | Unknown | So, And actually that letter- I thought that the staff report indicated that this would be for visiting boats. |
| 00:22:56.56 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | And actually that letter... |
| 00:23:02.82 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Well, this just says, should Sausalito pursue the creation of a mooring field? No. |
| 00:23:06.57 | Unknown | No, look at the |
| 00:23:08.18 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | It's the table on page seven of our report. |
| 00:23:10.95 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:23:11.39 | Joan Cox | Yes, under the discussion it says for transient. |
| 00:23:14.02 | Unknown | It says for visiting vessels. |
| 00:23:14.04 | Joan Cox | It does. |
| 00:23:17.69 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | So I'm clear. |
| 00:23:20.47 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:23:20.67 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Thanks. I wanted to know whether the M group was fully informed when it recommended yes to that. |
| 00:23:32.81 | Unknown | Okay, any other questions from council members? Council member Riley? |
| 00:23:35.39 | Unknown | to member Riley. |
| 00:23:44.20 | Joan Cox | I don't know if I'm coming, oh, here we go. |
| 00:23:44.84 | Unknown | Yeah. Yeah. |
| 00:23:45.33 | Joan Cox | All right, don't push the button. So there is a lot of interest and discussion in our general plan incorporating senior housing. Is this the land use and growth management element? Is this the element we should be discussing that in? |
| 00:24:04.77 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | The short answer is yes. Senior housing is a land use, but more broadly, it's a subset of housing. So we could talk about it here. We'll also talk about housing in the general plan considerations section of the agenda, which includes the EIR build-out, where we get into the real nitty-gritty of housing numbers, and the EIR alternatives. But we're also proposing an alternative that would include some housing discussion, which would include senior housing. But if you're interested in specific policies encouraging or promoting senior housing, the land use element would be a good place for that. |
| 00:24:44.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:24:44.71 | Unknown | But if you're interested in |
| 00:24:55.16 | Unknown | Any other council questions? |
| 00:24:59.24 | Ray Withey | Thank you. A sort of related question on LU2. I remember previously in our housing element discussion, the last update, we were talking a lot about upper floor residential, as you remember, Jeff, during that time. So is this duplicative of the house enalment or should this be deferred until 2023 when we do the house enalment? Thank you. |
| 00:25:35.79 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | It could be dealt with, if there was widespread support for it, just as a good idea, you could deal with it now through essentially the land use element. If there's a feeling like this is more of a housing focused policy decision, you could definitely defer it to the housing element update cycle, which is coming up not that far away. Either way is valid. |
| 00:26:05.95 | Unknown | Nope, okay, I'll turn it over to the Planning Commission. |
| 00:26:14.97 | Unknown (Planning Commissioner) | Thank you. Thank you. Do you have any? No question. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I'll start. Thank you for the presentation. The first question I'll ask is regarding, have you incorporated any of the recommendations that were put forth by the landslide task force, specifically as it relates to community design, height and review, the municipal code, updates, and reconciliation? |
| 00:26:50.66 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | For that question, I'm gonna use up one of my, call my friends. I'm gonna call Tom Ford and ask him to respond. |
| 00:26:59.71 | Tom Ford (M Group Consultant) | The short answer is yes. We're examining all of those as we're putting together the programs that will fit underneath all of these policies as we're developing the general plan. |
| 00:27:11.29 | Unknown (Planning Commissioner) | Can you elaborate on that? What do you mean by incorporating it in programs? |
| 00:27:15.71 | Tom Ford (M Group Consultant) | Well, we're looking, we've seen that material, and so we're trying to see if we can pull programs or potential implementation tools out of it to put into policies. |
| 00:27:26.22 | Unknown | Thank you. So maybe, Jeff, you could just clarify for everyone in the room that we've got goals, then we've got... policies, and then we will later have what we've called in the past implementation measures. I don't know what we're calling it this time. |
| 00:27:34.34 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Oh, see. |
| 00:27:34.94 | John DeRay (GPAC Member) | I'm not. |
| 00:27:42.99 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Yeah, I think Tom was referring to them as programs. Definitely implementation measures is what they're called now in the general plan. And then also, I think of them as goals also. But here in Tosolito, the high-level goals are actually called objectives. But I think we all use those terms a little bit interchangeably. So the highest level of goal or objective is the highest level statement of policy by the city. And then those goals have policies below them that implement them. And then what Tom was talking about is more detailed, which we don't. is the highest level statement of policy by the city. And then those goals have policies below them that implement them and then what Tom was talking about is more detailed, which we don't have at this level because we want to nail down the objectives and the policies before we really beef it up with the programs, which are actually more numerous than the objectives and policies because they're more detailed. But those are the three levels. And a lot of the detail from the Landslide Task Force would be at the program level. |
| 00:28:36.62 | Unknown (Planning Commissioner) | Thank you. Do you mind if I ask just a follow-up question to that? So there was no disagreement or everything we were recommending was in line with what you were thinking already, just for clarification. |
| 00:28:48.12 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Most of it, 90% plus, all of it? All of it? All of it, yeah. Thank you. |
| 00:28:53.24 | Unknown (Planning Commissioner) | Thank you. |
| 00:28:57.99 | Vicki Nichols | Commissioner Pierce? |
| 00:28:59.39 | Commissioner Pierce | Yes, and quite a clarification, are we asking questions of all the three elements in this first section or just LU? |
| 00:29:05.77 | Vicki Nichols | I believe anything that's been introduced to the address. |
| 00:29:07.35 | Commissioner Pierce | Okay, great. So this is regarding item CD number four, or dash four, objective standards. Can you specify, I mean, you alluded to how it would be different from our current standards, but I'm curious if you could give an example of how our currently complex discretionary review could be converted to objective standards, such as maintaining neighborhood scale and character for a residential project. |
| 00:29:31.43 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Thank you. So right. One of the issues you have when we say the development shall be in scale with the adjacent neighborhood, we just say that, and then we try to implement it when people come in with projects. And so if we have one-story homes, and someone comes in with a five-story building, we say it's not in scale. And we ask them to bring it down to two or three stories. An objective standard would say within 100 feet of a single or two-story home, the adjacent new structure cannot be more than one story higher than that or shall be the same, whatever the actual standard is. It could be sort of converted just sort of through brute force of kind of visualize what the discretionary standard is really trying to get at, like same, same development or slightly higher, and just write it up that way and make it a hard requirement. |
| 00:30:30.97 | Unknown | So can I just chime in on this? So we had the mayor's, Joan Cox when she was mayor, had a mayor's blue ribbon committee on housing. And one of the recommendations from that committee, which I think we sent to the planning commission, objectifier, add more objectivity to our design guidelines. And since then, the county has actually started on an effort to do that and sausalito has joined that effort we've chipped in a small amount of money but in order to have kind of a more efficient process the county is actually coming up with these recommendations we've already um tied into that, and so those will be coming back to us. And I think it doesn't mean we have to accept everyone, or some of them might not fit for our community, but I think this is already kind of a best practice coming forward. So I just wanted people to be aware of that background. |
| 00:31:25.74 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:31:27.74 | Vicki Nichols | So Jeff, I would like to follow up on Commissioner Pierce's comment. And one of the ways, the only way that I can see that the definition of community neighborhoods and character, in essence, is if we insist that we need these neighborhood context statements, which we don't have. Once these inventories are done, I'm going to do my shameless pitch that we need to get the money and the budget to do these if we want to protect the history and the character of these neighborhoods. These surveys indicate what that neighborhood is composed of, one story, two stories. That can be objective, but we do not have that information. So on this particular objective, I would need to have that defined somewhere before I can even consider it the way it's written. Thank you. |
| 00:32:17.01 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 00:32:17.03 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 00:32:17.21 | Commissioner Kelman | Thank you. Thank you. Chair Nichols, may I add to that? So along the same lines, Jeff, I think. So these are questions, yeah. Yes, on the same topic, yes. So yeah, we like to dig deep. So I think the question here is how do we reconcile this state of need for objective standards with a variety of elements already here. CD 1.1, or just careful design review aligned with Sausalito's identity. CD 1.2, encourage projects which promote Innovative Solutions, CD 4.1, urges careful design review aligned with Sausalito's identity. CD 1.2, encourage projects which promote innovative solutions. CD 4.1, neighborhood character, maintain the uniqueness of Sausalito's neighborhoods. As the body that has to implement a so-called objective design standard, I'm a little bit at a loss as to how we create those and reconcile them with the other policies within that element. So any guidance would be greatly appreciated. |
| 00:33:04.41 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Um... I know there was a question there, so I'm going to answer it. It was how. How to do that. How. Yes, how. The important thing to remember is that it's not either or. It's not like we're throwing out all the discretionary standards and bringing in these rigid, stiff, objective standards because Sacramento is telling us to. It feels like that. But we can have both. You don't have to throw out your, let's just call them your normal discretionary requirements to the extent that they're working because not all projects will be strictly subject to the objective standards. That's like the sort of insurance policy against certain, or just it's good planning for projects that may come in that say, I'm an objective standard project, that's all you can use on me for state law. So you wanna have those tools ready for those projects. For other projects, commercial development, |
| 00:33:10.17 | Commissioner Kelman | It was how. How to do that. How. Yes. |
| 00:34:00.45 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | housing that's not triggering some special state law, you could still have a normal discretionary review process. So I don't want to think of it as like you have to give up one thing and switch this totally different system of regulating development. It's really just adding to your toolbox. |
| 00:34:24.22 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 00:34:24.23 | Commissioner Kelman | Any, as everyone else, we've done our round, right? I have a, oh, well, do we have more? Are we gonna go back through? How much I think we're seeing? |
| 00:34:31.03 | Vicki Nichols | Two minutes or how you want to, Mayor? I have one more, yeah. Okay. So you want to go back to the council? Why don't you finish and then we'll go back to the council. |
| 00:34:31.25 | Commissioner Kelman | Thank you. |
| 00:34:31.39 | Unknown | to do that. The Press. Thank you. |
| 00:34:37.31 | Unknown | What if you finish and then we'll come back. |
| 00:34:38.96 | Unknown | Chair of Council. We're working this out as we go. |
| 00:34:39.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:34:39.50 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 00:34:42.27 | Commissioner Kelman | Go ahead. Okay, sure. So I have two threshold and then a specific. So the two threshold questions, which I think will guide our analysis of these elements and pretty much every other element. So at our last GPAC meeting, we recommended a separate climate change slash sustainability element. Is that in progress or should we consider those concerns separately for each of these elements that we look at tonight? |
| 00:35:05.47 | Unknown | So that's actually our next agenda item. |
| 00:35:07.84 | Commissioner Kelman | Next question. |
| 00:35:07.89 | Unknown | Exactly. |
| 00:35:11.06 | Commissioner Kelman | Also, threshold question. Has MGRP reviewed the planning guidelines provided by BCDC and the San Francisco Estuary Institute regarding sea level rise adaptation and planning? |
| 00:35:23.80 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Yes, I have read the BCDC guidance on that. It was fairly old though, so I don't know if there's a new one that you're referring to. Is there a new one? |
| 00:35:35.31 | Commissioner Kelman | Is there a new one you're asking me? Yeah. There are new studies. |
| 00:35:36.41 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Yeah. But, |
| 00:35:40.32 | Commissioner Kelman | biologically. |
| 00:35:40.96 | Vicki Nichols | I looked at the |
| 00:35:41.20 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | I looked at the real official looking document from BCDC. It may not have been the most recent version of it. |
| 00:35:50.04 | Commissioner Kelman | So they have some very specific points that they make around how local planning agencies should take those things into consideration In evaluating all aspects of their general plan and their zoning ordinance And so my question is just whether that has been Philosophically incorporated within the general plan to date or is that something we're going to need to review and then incorporate a later time? |
| 00:36:09.99 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | We can take another look at that. |
| 00:36:11.89 | Commissioner Kelman | Okay, and then my last question is something Chair Nichols mentioned. So we don't have an inventory of historic resources, we don't have an inventory for infrastructure, in your professional opinion, does that leave gaps for us in developing policies around these issues? |
| 00:36:31.13 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | I don't think so. It's rare that a community of any size has comprehensive information on the total state of their infrastructure. Because a lot of it's buried underground, and it's kind of case by case. You might know how old a pipe is, but that's about it. And switching over to the historic side, Even getting a complete survey within just one historic neighborhood is a task that most jurisdictions are not able to achieve. It's really a matter of organizing all the individual surveys that come in and keeping those well organized so you can find them. But to go out and survey an entire community, that would be prohibitively expensive, I believe. So I think it would have to be a focused effort on certain types of properties or certain locations or certain known properties with some historic interest or value. |
| 00:37:39.83 | Vicki Nichols | Can I just briefly follow up and ask for clarification on LU4? This is related to the mooring field. This would only be considered in Sausalito waters, correct? I mean, we have no jurisdiction outside of our waters. It's county and federal. |
| 00:37:55.66 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | for Correct, but the city level line goes pretty far out into that. |
| 00:38:00.53 | Vicki Nichols | Right. No, but we're just for clarification. Correct. We're only talking about Sausalito waters. Absolutely. Thank you. |
| 00:38:02.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:38:02.73 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Correct. |
| 00:38:03.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:38:04.47 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Absolutely. |
| 00:38:04.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:38:07.51 | Unknown | Okay, thank you. Everybody good? All right, Councilmember Cox. |
| 00:38:12.95 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Thank you. I notice throughout the land use element that we have migrated from the Marinship specific plan, various goals and objectives, and those are annotated, and thank you for doing that. However, what we have not migrated in from the Marineship Specific Plan are some of the restrictions on land use that were contained in the Marineship Specific Plan, such as no new residential uses in the industrial zone, no land-based residential use in the water zone, no, you know, the height limit of 32 feet, et cetera. So how is the M group planning to migrate into our general plan objectives, the um, restrictions contained in the marineship specific plan for that area. So long as those restrictions are consistent with the vision adopted by the City Council. |
| 00:39:13.81 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Thank you. Our strategy for that was to develop a program that would allow for the city to have a public process, of course, and basically update the city's municipal code or zoning code to have those more specific regulations or prohibitions that you described. Thank you. |
| 00:39:34.60 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | So it'll be at the program level, not at the objective and policy level. |
| 00:39:34.61 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | So it'll be. |
| 00:39:38.68 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Right, but the language of the program will just say, to do this thing, to go update your zoning code. Because we feel like those types of land use restrictions, to be more visible and more enforceable, should be in the zoning code and not in the general plan. We could have a very general statement in the general plan, sort of just capturing that sort of spirit and intent. But because it's so specific and needs to be enforceable, it really should live in the zoning code, ultimately. |
| 00:39:44.15 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Right. |
| 00:39:53.51 | Unknown | have a |
| 00:40:05.90 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | May I ask a follow-up? |
| 00:40:06.71 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:40:07.06 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | So in the interim between the adoption of the general plan, which will no longer include the Marinership Specific Plan and the adoption of those programs that will be recommended what will empower the city to enforce those types of programs in the interim. |
| 00:40:28.24 | Unknown | zoning code. |
| 00:40:29.74 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | It's not in the zoning code because it was in the Marinship specific plan and everything from the Marinship specific plan is coming out. And so, I just want to make sure there's not a gap, so that we don't just have an explosion of unauthorized uses in the maroon ship. |
| 00:40:43.55 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Thank you. To the extent that there's work that needs to be done post, after the general plan is adopted to fully Implement. Implement everything the city wants to see out of the specific plan, then the rescission or retiring of the specific plan really shouldn't occur until all of those things are done. So the general plan would be the first thing, update the zoning code would be the second thing. So then the specific plan could still be in full force and effect. |
| 00:41:05.01 | Unknown | So, |
| 00:41:16.72 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | So the M group is recommending the Marinship specific plan remain in place until the programs, until all of the programs to carry out its merge with the general plan are implemented. Correct. Thank you. |
| 00:41:31.19 | Unknown | Okay, thank you, Jen. That was a good clarifying point. Um, Okay, so before we start public comment, I thought it might be helpful. I had a few policies that were not included in here, we might consider adding. And so I was gonna note those so that if the public has reactions to that, they can comment on those. So I'm gonna ask after I've noted a few policies that I would like to see added, if other people have goals or objectives or policies that they would like to see added in, why don't we just not go on about why, but just briefly state those. So the Sustainability Commission sent us San Rafael's general plan. They had a goal of alternative fuel and fuel-efficient vehicles. I would like to see that. They also had a policy about school transportation, and I know we've had long conversations about safe routes to school. I would like to see that. I didn't see anything in our general plan about building bridges with our neighboring communities, such as Marin City and Mill Valley. and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. I would like to see a policy about that. I did not see a goal about community education and engagement on the issue of sustainability. There's been a lot of talk about a community center, either in Marin City or in Sausalito, that would serve both our communities. I would like to have that considered. We have received a lot of correspondence and very eloquent statement just before the meeting started from Sybil Laboucher about age-friendly Sausalito and age-friendly programming and goals. I think that should be highlighted in our general plan. Family-friendly items as well. And then I also noted in our infrastructure the lack of the absence of we had fire, police, water, sewer, no mention of schools. So I would like to see that added to infrastructure that we need to be a vital community. Are there any other... Oh, and I'm sorry, one last category. Other general plans have in each element, they have goals around, I think this goes to Commissioner Kelman's point, they have goals around collecting data monitoring and evaluation. So again, sort of for each element, I would really like to see that built in so that we have a continual educational evolution. Are there other city council members who have goals or policies that they did not see in the plan in these three elements that they would like to add. Councilmember Cox. |
| 00:44:43.22 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Thank you. I'm not certain which, whether this goes into land use or whether it might more properly go into health, safety and community. resilience, but along the same lines of data gathering, I wanted us to be reminded of our Mudslide Task Force recommendations that included an examination of hydrologic and geotechnical conditions, |
| 00:45:14.81 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:45:14.86 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Thank you. |
| 00:45:14.97 | Unknown | Yes, and I have that in the health, safety, and community element, but I think M group is starting to hear mudslide task force. |
| 00:45:15.03 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Yeah. |
| 00:45:18.85 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Yeah. wherever. |
| 00:45:20.91 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:45:26.49 | Unknown | We want more of that, their recommendations. |
| 00:45:30.00 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | So wherever that might go, I just, that was one that was on my list. Thank you. |
| 00:45:34.73 | Unknown | Okay, other city council members, anything not covered? in these three elements. here. |
| 00:45:41.11 | Vicki Nichols | Just for, I have no additions because I didn't realize we had the option, but I may come back. But I do want to mention that the Planning Commission passed along their recommendations and had the consideration of that updated geo technical survey is an important priority too. So it's in there, but maybe not as strong as we need it. Great. Okay, so now we are. |
| 00:46:04.07 | Commissioner Kelman | I have four to add. So unless my fellow commissioners also have. So number one, I think the land use element needs to pursue low impact development whenever possible per US EPA guidelines. I think we need to pursue low impact development whenever possible in terms of infrastructure perspective. We should be looking at energy independence and a strategy around that. I believe at your strategy session on Saturday, there were some talk. in terms of infrastructure perspective. We should be looking at energy independence and a strategy around that. I believe at your strategy session on Saturday, there was some talk of an innovation zone. I'd like to see that language articulated throughout the general plan and a better understanding of what that means for our community. |
| 00:46:04.85 | Unknown | I'll see you next time. |
| 00:46:10.30 | Unknown | . |
| 00:46:10.33 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:46:10.60 | Unknown | . |
| 00:46:19.90 | Unknown | We need to... |
| 00:46:43.09 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:46:44.20 | Commissioner Pierce | I have a couple, these are just, I guess, more refinements. Regarding land use element 1.18 historic properties, we only identify national register national landmarks and not the inclusion of state and local. I'd like to see that. Regarding circulation parking element and parking demand, there seems to be no reference to construction vehicles and their eminent clogging of our city streets. I'd like to see that addressed somehow. And then environmental health element EQ 3.3 regarding preservation and protection of threatened and endangered species. I'd like us to broaden that scope to include species that aren't threatened or endangered but habituate themselves in our community. |
| 00:47:30.66 | Unknown (Planning Commissioner) | Anyone else? I had a question, actually a question for clarification, that is, because I might have a couple follow-up comments. This whole sphere of influence, can you tell me exactly how you've defined that in the general plan document and what you're referring to? Because a lot of what we're talking about here actually touches on some of those areas. |
| 00:47:56.66 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | The sphere of influence is a technical term administered and controlled to some extent by LAFCO, which is the local area formation commission. And so the sphere of influence at its most simple terms describes those areas that are outside the city limits but are subject to future annexation by a city. So you're basically saying, this is our city now. This is areas that could possibly become part of our city sometime in the future. And your sphere of influence dictates what you can even think about annexing. If it's outside the city limits, and also not within your sphere, you can't annex it unless you first bring it into your sphere. |
| 00:48:06.65 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:48:25.53 | Unknown | So, yeah. |
| 00:48:25.74 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:48:25.77 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:48:34.55 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:48:45.41 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Right. Sorry, more importantly in this context, under state law, your general plan is allowed to have policy considerations for your annexed lands, your city limits, but also your sphere. So you don't have to think of it as, oh, we're gonna annex all these lands and make the city twice as big. It could just be more like, this is our, this is an area that we have some interest in having policies that address it. The policy may be that it stays sphere forever and never be annexed. That could be your policy for your areas within your sphere or it could be that if a new road comes through here, we may look at annexing this piece because of X. |
| 00:48:45.45 | Unknown | Right, so then, then, then, then, sorry, more importantly, in this context, |
| 00:48:50.32 | Unknown | Thank you. Go! |
| 00:48:56.53 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:49:00.68 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:49:16.67 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:49:33.22 | Unknown (Planning Commissioner) | And thank you. The reason I ask for the clarification is to be clear that the topics that we've discussed so far here as a body up here and some of the additional recommendations for consideration have varied impacts to that sphere of influence. And so I think it just sort of reinforces why the expansion of the thought and the expansion of some of the ideas that we're talking about is really important to consider in that larger sphere. Okay. |
| 00:50:06.14 | Unknown | Okay, so I want to bring the conversation back. Do you have additional, I mean, I think that was an important clarifying question. |
| 00:50:10.18 | Unknown (Planning Commissioner) | I think that was an important clarifying question. There'll be more later. |
| 00:50:13.75 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. I just want to quickly say for the public and for all of us that in the existing plan, the sphere of influence areas are Marin City, the shoreline, Manzanita, Golden Gate, National Recreation Area, East Fort Baker. And that just sort of gives an idea of those areas close to Sausalito that may fit into those categories. That's the existing plan. But we're talking about. Those are the former. |
| 00:50:37.82 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Thank you. Those are the former. |
| 00:50:39.93 | Vicki Nichols | that. |
| 00:50:40.57 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | The former. They were eliminated. And so there's a recommendation to add them back in. Because typically when you extend services beyond the city's limits, you only do so if that area to which you extend services such as sewer or school services is within your sphere of influence. |
| 00:50:44.62 | Vicki Nichols | DEATH. |
| 00:50:54.17 | Vicki Nichols | Period. |
| 00:50:59.79 | Vicki Nichols | No, I agree, but I'm reading from the 1995 plan, which is still in existence. |
| 00:51:04.95 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | But if you look at Lafco's maps adopted in 2004, they no longer include Marin City and the gates in the sphere of influence. |
| 00:51:07.74 | Vicki Nichols | Okay. |
| 00:51:13.93 | Vicki Nichols | So who do they include? That would be helpful. |
| 00:51:16.65 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Thank you. |
| 00:51:16.66 | Vicki Nichols | Yeah. |
| 00:51:16.92 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Thank you. |
| 00:51:16.97 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. If we're talking about these things, let's point them out. |
| 00:51:18.47 | Unknown | We're talking about that. so we know what we're talking about. |
| 00:51:22.82 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 00:51:22.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:51:23.03 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 00:51:23.16 | Unknown | Thank you. Okay, and while we're doing this, if there are members of the public who want to speak on this item 5A, if you could give a speaker card to the city clerk, that would be helpful. I've got about eight cards. |
| 00:51:51.95 | Unknown | Okay, so we're going to start public comment. Is everybody okay? Okay. So we're going to start public comment. Every member of the public on this item 5A will have two minutes to speak. You'll also have two minutes on 5B and on item six. Mary Ann Griller. So I'm gonna call three or four names and if you can line up behind the microphone that would be great so we can keep moving. Mary Ann Griller, Bennett, King, sorry. It's very dark up here. There we go, Brooke Marino, Gio Mondley. And how are we going to see the time? |
| 00:52:44.01 | Tom Reilly | Thank you. |
| 00:52:44.04 | Unknown | Oh, okay, they can see it. I cannot. All right. |
| 00:53:00.95 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:53:00.97 | Mary Ann Griller (Public Commenter) | Okay, Ms. Griller. Yes, I'm the president of the Edgewater Seniors Club and we have about 25 members And many of them are not here. There are only three of us here because there are some that cannot get out of their home because they're on the second floor or the third floor and they're falling down the stairs or they're afraid of the dark or they're in the hospital or they're too sick to come. And we have to take care of our seniors. I'm one of the younger ones. We have women as old as 97 in the seniors group. And we felt very strongly when I went to the presentation at the Spinnaker And everybody was so pro-pro about having senior housing over in Marinship, And it seems, I didn't hear the words at all come out now, but we really want to support this housing. We don't have enough housing, we have 38,000 Apartments for seniors. We need a safe place for our seniors. This town has an enormous quantity or number of seniors in it in ratio wise and We're just not being tended to as much as we should be. Um, They, um, The one lady could not come because she's being evicted. And she was waiting for the lawyer to call her back and couldn't get out of her third floor apartment. to come to the meeting here with me. This is sad. This is Sausalito. Another woman was trapped in her apartment until she fell down. and broke her ankle, sprained her ankle, and was taken away by the EMS, and now she's safe in Smith Ranch. But these are not uncommon situations. I work with the CARS program, I work with Sausalito Village, I work with the ladies or the members of Edgewater Senior, and we are neglecting our seniors and not giving them proper facilities. |
| 00:55:06.01 | Unknown | Great. Thank you very much. |
| 00:55:06.03 | Mary Ann Griller (Public Commenter) | Right. |
| 00:55:10.97 | Unknown | Go ahead. |
| 00:55:12.59 | Bennett King (Public Commenter) | Good evening. Thanks. My name is Bennett King. I'm a homeowner over on Johnson Street. And I really have just one main concern and one question. about especially the Sosseno Flats area quote unquote. is Caledonia Street. And, um, I've lived here my whole life, and I've seen the growth and increase and, you know, tax revenues, You know, everybody wants tax revenues here. But my question is, is there any assurances that Caledonia Street will be kept business-wise Uh, for not just citizens of Sausalito, but local people of the government, deep southern Marin area, you know, as opposed to downtown area where most of the people in Sausalito go down there for a restaurant or the bank, you know, and that's about it. So that's my question and also, Just really quick. I'm very concerned about The authority that the RBRA has over what you have on this map here, because I thought across the other side of the channel, in Sausalito. that the federal government pretty much were the only ones that had authority over that. what I mean by is the Coast Guard. So my question is, was there a change when the BCDC, came in. And did they give authority to the RBRA to take that authority and And also, we were talking about putting together these moorings And it's not just as simple as that. Of course, there has to be rules. and regulations and how long can people stay on these moorings and what's it going to cost? And is there honey bars that's going to come around and empty the, you know, the nastiness. Okay, thank you. |
| 00:57:16.89 | Unknown | Great. Thank you, Mr. King. And I just wanna let everyone know, we're not gonna answer every question as we go, but I'm gonna ask staff to keep a list and we'll try to hit the big recurring questions after public comment. |
| 00:57:30.95 | Unknown | over every minute on this week. |
| 00:57:33.11 | Unknown | There will definitely be a video and then we have kind of action minutes. But hopefully we'll have, yes, there will be minutes. |
| 00:57:46.86 | Gio Monley (Public Commenter) | Hello, my name is Gio Monley. I just retired from teaching at Tam High for 17 years. I taught engineering, architecture, math, woodshop. And I've also run a maker and woodworking program there for years. Um, We have recently, have lots of people, an influx of people using our program and the capacity we have at the high school is not very great. We have waiting lists for most of our classes now. People from around the county, southern Marin and so forth wanting to do woodworking and maker activities. I heard, uh, one of you talking about an innovation zone, and someone else, I think, Mary, you were talking about a community center. I think there's a great need for some kind of a large maker space community you know, woodworking, high technology stuff, training jobs in Southern Marin. And I would love to see a cooperation between Marin City, Mill Valley, Sausalito to have something that would serve people. I know a lot of my students have benefited a lot from all the technology, the small industry in Sausalito. So anyway, I'm just recommending that that's thought of and allowed in the planning. Thank you. |
| 00:59:21.30 | Unknown | Great, thank you very much, great ideas. I'm gonna... Great. Just before you start, I'm gonna call a couple of other names. Michael Perlmutter, Susan Au, Peter Van Meter, Adam Kravatsky. |
| 00:59:43.34 | Unknown | Go ahead, please. |
| 00:59:46.78 | Brooke Marino (Public Commenter) | Hi, my name is Brooke Marino. I've worked at Spalding Marine Center for the past year and a half. Excuse me, I'm going to speak really quickly. I can attest to what is truly special place the Marin ship is. The Pacific Coast is peppered with the ruins of bygone maritime industry, and few are the places that have been able to resist the gentrification of once working landscapes. Fewer still are the people who recognize what is lost when we swap cultural depth and vibrancy that comes from industries and economies firmly rooted in place for spectacle marketed at tourists and vacationers. The layers of material history, the structures, vessels, and stories that have built up along the shores of Richardson's Bay are unlike any other place because they are of this place. Likewise, the skills of maritime tradesmen and women in the Marin ship have been sharpened against the rocky shores and culture context of Sausalito. This sort of experience is invaluable and ought to be treasured, protected, and importantly, worked and improved. As a global citizenry, we are at a critical juncture as to how we move forward in the structuring of our societies and economies in the face of multifaceted existential crisis, commonly referred to as climate change. I firmly believe that industries, specifically local and regionally specific industries, are a necessary part of ensuring the resiliency of both land bases and economies. These industries will need to be adaptive and creative in addressing these challenges, and they'll need their communities' support, not abandonment. If Sausalito is interested in fostering resilient community, decision makers will have to begin to value the relationship and skills forged from those who work this waterfront above the possible revenue from real estate investment and good views for the elite. The people in this room are the cartographers tasked with the mapping of the future of the Sausalito waterfront. That map can still be drawn in several ways, the result of which may be a city and a stretch of shoreline indistinguishable from so many others, washed clean of the marks of history and the hands which made them, and which make this place distinct. Or can choose to leave marinship on the map. I'll return, I have another part. |
| 01:01:50.69 | Unknown | you All right, thank you. And I just want to remind people, you can always submit your comments. If you don't get through them, you can always submit them to us in writing. Aye, thank you. |
| 01:02:00.95 | Unknown | Hi. Good evening. My name is Michael Perlmutter. I'm a resident of Whiskey Springs. I'm here to speak primarily to the Planning Commission about the proposed Coloma sewage project, and I'll make my comments very brief. I provided about eight photos in a slideshow, but I know they can't be shown tonight, but they've been sent to the Planning Commission and Planning Commission staff and Mr. Avila. The current proposed location for the generator portion of the project is immediately adjacent to our bedroom windows and adjacent to the terrace and kitchen of our downstairs neighbor. It is extremely close to a residential location and is frankly unacceptable. In the last Planning Commission meeting Commissioner Pierce had suggested that the generator be moved south which would place it immediately opposite a parking lot which makes much more sense although still too close to residences but certainly better nevertheless in the last revision the project rather than moving it somewhat south, moved it north, which really makes no sense at all. In fact, in order to make sense, this project really needs to be moved either to the north side of Coloma, where there is commercial property, an MLK, I believe it's called, park. That makes much more sense because it's not right on top of residences. Or alternately, across Bridgeway, where again, across Bridgeway at Coloma, there are commercial properties. The generator will generate about 65 decibels of sound when it's running, which the planner claims is not very loud. But I suggest that if you had a diesel generator issuing diesel fumes and running at 65 decibels in the middle of the night, Thank you. suggest that if you had a diesel generator issuing diesel fumes and running at 65 decibels in the middle of the night, right outside your bedroom window, I don't think you'd be very happy either. Thank you very much for your time. If you're not. |
| 01:04:00.97 | Unknown | Thank you. My name is Susan Au, and I've been a Sausalito homeowner for 17 years. I'm on the Whiskey Springs Homeowners Association Board And I'm also speaking about the Coloma sewer project. And I believe it has a great impact on the community because also It's seen on Birchway as you enter Sausalito, on the right hand side, right across the street avatar and a few restaurants can be seen from the road. Many of the trees will be taken out as well. when they put this generator in, as well as the noise effect on Us that are right, behind the generator. And with many more outages in the future, we expect this to continue. And I believe that there should be more community involvement in terms of where this is going to be placed And again, I think at a commercial area of property where someone is not living constantly and listening to the noise and having diesel fumes. Thank you. |
| 01:05:16.03 | Unknown | Thank you. Peter Van Meter. Yeah, before you speak, Peter, I'm just gonna call a couple more names. Curtis Havel, Terry Thomas. |
| 01:05:16.23 | Peter Van Meter (Public Commenter) | I'm Peter Van Meter. |
| 01:05:27.45 | Unknown | Peter TIG. and Jeff. Great. Thank you, Peter. Go ahead. |
| 01:05:34.84 | Peter Van Meter (Public Commenter) | My speaker card was actually for item 6A, and so I'll return for that. But I will say that there's a number of items that were consensus of the GPAC that are not included in the current draft that was presented here tonight. And I figure that we will pick those up when we get into the program portion of each of these policies, because there were some significant omissions from what you're looking at tonight. But I was not gonna speak about that here tonight. but I'll come back for 6A, thank you. |
| 01:06:04.12 | Unknown | Okay, thank you. |
| 01:06:08.49 | Adam Kravatsky (Public Commenter) | Good evening, Madam Chair. Thank you. Adam Kriváči I'd like to make a general comment. on several elements. land use, economic, and community design the approach or planning at this point business as usual basis, and not in an innovative fashion. they are, living in Fast-changing times. For example, transportation systems are changing daily And moving about in the community is changing daily. on the basis of What? innovations are introduced in moving about in the community. I would like to emphasize the need for thinking about land uses, not just in terms of what uses serve the community, but how feasible maintaining those uses and functions and businesses is considering the expense of infrastructure that relates to supporting those uses. Thank you. So I would like to urge the general plan advisory committee to put on its creative cap and think about how we can improve the functional aspects of our planning rather than just consider it as an orderly process, thinking through each land use. Thank you. |
| 01:07:56.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:08:05.43 | Curtis Havel (RBRA Harbormaster) | Good evening, my name is Curtis Havel. I am the harbormaster of the Richardson Fay Regional Agency. And I think that the M group is on the right track with respect to acknowledging the sphere of influence. Sausalito does absorb really the primary use of the anchorage and what goes on out there. With respect to a mooring field, I heard the question clarified earlier that it's really a question of within city limits, that the idea of a mooring field. This is, the general plan update is an opportunity to look forward and have a seat at the table really begin to vision what a larger morning field might look like within your sphere of influence, but outside of the city limits. It doesn't mean that Sausalito has to accept it. The question of BCDC and whether or not they would approve something like that. There's a permitting process if and when the time comes and an actual application is submitted. Again, Sausalito will have, of course, an opportunity to sit at the table and comment on that. But this is really a golden opportunity to uh, begin to shape what that could look like and really look at the benefits and try to guide the conversation in the future. Not necessarily getting hung up on current regulations or enforcement efforts, but really looking to the future as to what the Anchorage could look like as a recreational resource for everyone to enjoy and benefit from. Thank you very much. |
| 01:09:36.48 | Unknown | Thank you. Terry Thomas, I think, is next. |
| 01:09:45.86 | Unknown | Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment this evening. My name is Terri Thomas and I'm a local ecologist and I would also like to comment on the mooring I want to identify two pieces of information to make sure that you have the background Um, The Richardson Bay Special Area Plan was done in the 1980s and it identifies policy and direction for Richardson Bay It also identifies the rich and diverse biological resources of Richardson Bay, which are really All of the the birds and the seals, it all develops from these basic resources. The Richardson Bay Special Area Plan identifies approximately 12 habitats within Richardson Bay, One of which is protected, which is the eelgrass habitat. Because of that, And this is the second piece of information. The Richardson Bay RBRA did commission a study of eelgrass in Richardson Bay to identify where eelgrass existed and where a mooring field would or would not be appropriate ecologically There was only one very, very small area in Sausalito waters for emergency purposes, and that little area in Sausalito waters does have eelgrass. So I just recommend that you look at these documents, that you consider the ecology of Richardson Bay. Sausalito waters are really the only place that from the shoreline you can see the values of that habitat of eelgrass. You can see the birds diving during herring season, that eelgrass supplies the resources for herring, which supplies the resources for the birds and the seals. And I would hope that you would look strongly at not recommending mooring field in Sausalito waters. Thank you very much. |
| 01:11:42.99 | Unknown | Thank you. I'm sorry, there's no clapping, cheering, or yelling, but if you appreciate a comment, you can raise your hands like this. Thank you. Mr. Teague? Yes. Thank you. |
| 01:11:57.57 | Peter Teague (Public Commenter) | Good evening. My name is Peter Teague, I'm a resident of South 40 Dock and what I've just learned is the zone of influence. Um, I've been an environmental advisor to elected officials including Leon Panetta, Barbara Boxer, and Dianne Feinstein. I'm currently advising the staff at the San Francisco Estuary Institute. We know that living with the frequent flooding in our neighborhood and the Marinship, we're going to have to begin to adapt to changing realities. Sausalito's floating communities are an example of how we might do this. In fact, floating buildings are being considered all over the world by communities, by cities that are exploring ways to work with water rather than against it. In fact, experts increasingly believe that these alternatives can be more effective, cost-effective, and durable than conventional approaches. We have the opportunity, I think, in Sausalito and in the Marin ship to do something really interesting and really magnificent, in fact. and the Bay Area, and I'm learning this working SFEI. The Bay Area is blessed with the wealth of world-class institutions that stand ready to assist you as decision-makers to understand the science of sea level rise, and to explore options with you. I've checked with the staff, the scientists, the technologists at the Estuary Institute. They are ready to jump in and assist. I think the same will be true of BCDC, Christina Hill's team at UC Berkeley, and others are all ready to help. They can explain how building housing on landfill surrounding it with sea walls may actually put people and the environment at risk. So I strongly recommend that we tap into the extraordinary resource, scientific resource, we have available to us. Thank you. |
| 01:13:59.61 | Unknown | Great, thank you. And then Jeff, before you start, we've got Carlo Berg next, Alice Merrill and Tom Hoover. If there's anybody else who would like to speak on these elements, please provide a speaker card to our city clerk and line up. Great. Hi, Jeff. |
| 01:14:24.82 | Jeff (Public Commenter) | Hello, Madam Mayor. Bye. Citizens, I'm happy that We're at Portuguese Social Hall. And there's a bigger audience that can fit into the city council. |
| 01:14:39.31 | Jeff (Public Commenter) | I'd like to... talk about What happened when A guy named Moses. was overwhelmed with the decisions that he had to make. He called in his father-in-law Jethro. And Jethro said, this is going to make you crazy. You need help. What you need is you need leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and tens. They must be lovers of truth. They must be men. and women of unity. and they must hate Monetary gain. This is in Exodus 18, if anybody wants to check this. So in this case, The city council and the planning commission and planning department, dozens of people have called in the M group And I agree with most of what they've said. I, I am on the anchorage on a 26 foot sloop The people on the boats were here long before the people on the houses. Yesterday, I'll tell you the good news. was the first day of the cormorants coming back. If a tree fell in a forest and there was nobody there, to see it. What does it mean? Well, the people on the Anchorage were there to see the return of the cormorants and the pelicans. and the grebes yesterday. So we're not dead yet, and neither is the Anchorage. We will fight back. Thank you. |
| 01:16:22.57 | Unknown | Thank you. Got Carlo Berg, Alice Merrill, Tom Hoover. |
| 01:16:34.40 | Carlito Berg | It's rare that anyone lifts a microphone so I can talk. Looking at a couple things here very quickly. First of all, thanks everyone for holding the meeting and for everyone's questions and time. First of all, for the moorings, we certainly would look at it, and I've been thinking about applying for a mooring permit. We have a 103-slip marina. It would be very interesting to see how we might be able to work with the city on something like that. There's new technology in terms of QR codes that allows people to moor in certain areas. They do it in Monaco and a bunch of other locations it's an interesting thing and I'd like to talk further about that of course sensitive to the all the ecological arguments Something else I wanted to bring up is the marineship specific plan. Just for everyone's edification, I consider myself to be a full grown person and the marineship specific plan was made before I was born. I've lived a pretty decent full life and I would just say that if we're gonna keep specific elements and pull them out wholesale, we should probably think about what that actually means. I didn't grow up with a cell phone, for instance, but cell phones and other technology certainly weren't around when the Marinship Specific Plan was around. And if we're looking at the changing nature of the city, We really need to think about those things. Specifically, with regard to senior uses in the city, I wanted to make everyone aware of some facts. The 2023 housing element has aging in place as a goal with continuum of care. This means assisted living. This means memory care. This doesn't just mean affordable, which is the 38 units of affordable, although that is a serious consideration. It needs to be thought of as well. In a survey of 1,151 Sausalito seniors, 615 said they would move to assisted living right now if it were in Sausalito. 602 said they would move to regular senior housing. There was a 90, there's going to be by 2023 a 98% increase from people of 75 to 79. In conclusion, seniors is going to be a really big issue and we're going to have to deal with that. Thank you. |
| 01:18:41.52 | Unknown | All right, thank you. |
| 01:18:47.97 | Alice Merrill | Hello, I'm Alice Merrill. I am talking about the general plan. thing is the Marin ship, you all know that. I have heard that there's been a group hired who is going to look into development in the range of what the effects were, what it could be, or what does development mean, or whatever. Yeah. I just really, I really feel like somebody isn't listening. to an awful lot of people who have been standing up at these meetings. because What people have been saying is what Brooke said, This is unique. It's old. It's important. It's needed. It's a waterfront community. It serves the waterfront. The people who have boats, the people who have whatever You know, the houseboats, And to think about developing it in any other way than supporting what's there. is it just isn't, it isn't being responsive to to the people who are coming up and talking to you. And this group that's been hired is all about business development. As from what I understand, it's about how can we put in Where can we put the hotels? Or where can we put the housing? It's not about supporting what's there. And that's so important. There's, it's a tiny town. There's not a lot of space. So maybe it can't go other places either, but this is the only place that we have this. And I just, really hope that the people who are elected now make the decisions for everybody, not just business. Thank you. |
| 01:20:50.68 | Unknown | Great. Thank you, Allison. Okay, next speaker. Thank you. |
| 01:20:56.99 | Tom Hoover (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 01:20:57.13 | Adam Kravatsky (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 01:20:58.80 | Tom Hoover (Public Commenter) | My name is Tom Hoover. I'm a 50-year resident and worker on the waterfront in Sausalito. I live at Galilee Harbor, which is part of the Marin ship. And I want to second something that Alice was noting, and that is that all of the meetings for the Marin ship-specific plan were way over attended and did not have proper facilities for everyone who wanted to come. And every time I've noted, coming out of those meetings, they have been ignored what the people were asking for. And I also see one of the things that I want to talk about is, okay, there seems to have been a decision to retire the Marinship-specific plan, and it seems that the people of the town don't want that. Now, my question is, if you are going to retire the Marinship-specific plan, many of you were not here when it was put together, and it was to stop the ravages of the international real estate oligarchy and from the monoculization of Sausalito. Now what are you guys going to do to make sure that when you take that away, which was very successful at the time and I went through two processes of getting my property okayed by that law. |
| 01:21:42.03 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:22:07.14 | Tom Hoover (Public Commenter) | So I want to know what you people are going to do to make sure that the success of that When you take it away, is not a front. for more development And. subjecting the waterfront and all of Sausalito to what we were trying to protect ourselves from 30 years ago. Thank you. |
| 01:22:27.29 | Unknown | Great, thank you. All right, John DeRay. And then that's the last speaker card that I have. So if you did not fill out a speaker card but you would like to speak, please line up. |
| 01:22:40.52 | John DeRay (GPAC Member) | Thank you. First of all, congratulations, Mayor, on your new role. Thank you. And good luck for 2020. I'm John DeRay. I'm on the General Plan Advisory Committee. And I'm here to talk a little bit about the elephant in the room, which is the marineship. From a planning perspective, I think that you're aware that we've had 30 years of lax enforcement in that document. And what you see down in the Marine ship reflects that. There's two main zones, the water zone and the industrial zone. And the office uses and office conversions down there have been rampant to the point where people are displaced. There's a gentleman here today and his wife from Hood Sale Makers. They're being displaced. They're being moved out of their space adjacent to where Facebook is in Sausalito. |
| 01:22:44.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:23:36.51 | John DeRay (GPAC Member) | So this is the kind of thing that we have happening here. I believe what we need to do is look at how we can create an environment that supports and encourages our current marine ship uses maritime industrial and art. and adds what the community wants to add. Remember from the Saturday workshop, a sea level rise technology zone. What they did not advocate for is hotels or offices. At least I didn't hear that. I think most of you folks were there as well. The other thing that we need is a current inventory of businesses. In 2011, that was done door to door. In 2011, there were 797 tenant spaces. The biggest use was offices, 257, and 99 industrial spaces. Very much skewed. That was nine years ago. You can just imagine what it's like now. Um... Thank you. |
| 01:24:36.82 | Unknown | Great, thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, seeing no more public comment, I'm gonna close public comment on this item. Again, you will have the opportunity to talk under 5B and 6 if you would like. And I'm gonna ask staff back up to the podium, Jeff, before we get started on our comments. In terms of the questions that we heard, I'd like to postpone the answer to the Caledonia Street question until our economic element discussion. But I would like to ask staff to read the vision that we agreed on with the GPAC recommended to the City Council a vision for the Mirrenship. And we had a hearing on that. Uh, in November and we agreed on a vision for the marineship and I just want to assure people that hotels and rampant development are not part of that vision. If staff has that handy, that would be, I think, helpful to read. at this point. And then I would also appreciate it if staff could explain the purpose of the economic development study that we've authorized and perhaps just discuss how that intersects or not with our general plan process. |
| 01:26:06.89 | Unknown | Thank you, Sandra Bushmaker. Ever prepared. |
| 01:26:19.81 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | With many thanks to Sandra Bushmaker, I'd like to read her copy of the vision statement. |
| 01:26:24.89 | Unknown | And can I just ask, is this the finalized one? |
| 01:26:27.10 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | This is the most recent one I can tell. Okay, thank you. She helpfully underlined the new part. The Marinship Vision Statement endorsed by the City Council is as follows. So it's three separate paragraphs, so bear with me. The Marinship is an economically sustainable working waterfront, maritime, and industrial neighborhood that is planned and developed with innovative solutions to sea level rise combined with regional and global sea level rise reduction and management programs. |
| 01:26:30.02 | Unknown | Okay, thank you. |
| 01:27:00.24 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | The Marineship welcomes residents of houseboats and liveaboards while providing safe and convenient public access to transit, the shore, and to parks with a low impact and functional vehicular and pedestrian circulation network. The neighborhood is supported by updated infrastructure, has unique local neighborhood serving services and amenities, and is home to a thriving community of artists and innovators. The Marin Ship neighborhood respects and protects water-dependent uses, as well as the neighborhood's historical, maritime, and industrial nature and character. And full stop. |
| 01:27:42.87 | Unknown | Great, and I also just want to clarify, there was some confusion about economic sustainability, and we had a really excellent definition of that when we decided to add that into the marineship vision. And could you just paraphrase what economic sustainability means? |
| 01:28:04.57 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | The economic sustainability sort of definition we had up on the screen was, not tonight, but at a previous meeting, economic sustainability is the idea of balancing economic and environmental concerns with a long-term view of how future generations would continue to thrive. And that was the core of it. |
| 01:28:27.54 | Unknown | Right, and I think there's also kind of a social and community aspect normally to economic sustainability. Great, thank you. So I just would like to try to alleviate some of the very legitimate concerns and fears that we heard tonight for public comment just before we get started. |
| 01:28:32.30 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Yes. |
| 01:28:50.12 | Unknown | Were there other questions that came up from the public? that any council member or planning commissioner would like aired. Mayor? |
| 01:29:00.09 | Tom Reilly | Mayor? Yes. There was a speaker, Gio, G. I didn't hear all of his, what he was recommending, the resources that he had. Did you have those, or at least were they familiar to the consultant? |
| 01:29:16.19 | Unknown | So the speaker was a retired teacher at Tam High, which I'm very disappointed about since. No. Oh, the Ecological Institute. |
| 01:29:21.20 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 01:29:21.22 | Tom Reilly | All right. |
| 01:29:21.23 | Unknown | No. |
| 01:29:22.57 | Tom Reilly | Thank you. |
| 01:29:22.59 | Unknown | No. Yeah. Thank you. |
| 01:29:25.51 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:29:25.62 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 01:29:25.64 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:29:25.66 | Vicki Nichols | you |
| 01:29:25.71 | Unknown | or something. |
| 01:29:25.98 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 01:29:26.47 | Unknown | It's worth it. |
| 01:29:26.77 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:29:26.79 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 01:29:26.82 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 01:29:26.97 | Vicki Nichols | It's Peter Teague. He's associated with the SF Estuary Project. |
| 01:29:27.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:29:27.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:29:28.59 | Tom Reilly | Thank you. |
| 01:29:28.74 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:29:28.81 | Tom Reilly | Thank you. |
| 01:29:31.83 | Commissioner Kelman | Thank you. death estuary in September. |
| 01:29:34.62 | Tom Reilly | And there was another name. |
| 01:29:36.35 | Vicki Nichols | The RBRA Harbormaster. |
| 01:29:38.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:29:39.55 | Vicki Nichols | Yeah. No, it's definitely Peter, but he had a different... He's written a communication that's in the packet. And he sent us some of those questions. |
| 01:29:40.59 | Tom Reilly | No, it's definitely Peter, but he had a different There was a different resource he had. |
| 01:29:47.04 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:29:47.34 | Tom Reilly | Thank you. Oh, OK. Yeah. Oh, OK. Great. I'll jump in. Thank you. |
| 01:29:51.86 | Unknown | Okay, so Jeff, do you have his information? |
| 01:29:54.95 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Oh, Peter Teague. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker number 11. |
| 01:29:56.00 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:30:00.55 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Yes, we could contact him. |
| 01:30:03.66 | Commissioner Kelman | Peter submitted late mail and it had attachments from both BCDC and the San Francisco Estuary Institute. It is in our late mail. |
| 01:30:10.93 | John DeRay (GPAC Member) | Thank you. |
| 01:30:11.45 | Brooke Marino (Public Commenter) | Okay. |
| 01:30:11.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:30:11.74 | Commissioner Kelman | Thank you. |
| 01:30:11.98 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:30:12.92 | Commissioner Kelman | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:30:13.28 | Unknown | So the way that we had set this up originally was that everyone would have three minutes to comment. But I'm actually thinking now that I've seen a staff presentation that might be better to go through with one minute each on the input items that M group has asked for input on. So through each element they had a couple of things and then we would have two minutes each for other comments on any of the elements. Does that make sense? We just walk through, so for example we'd start, do you think you could bring up page seven of the staff report, the land use and growth management element? It just might be more organized if we all talk about the same thing at the same time. Um, |
| 01:30:56.56 | Unknown | I have a couple of minutes. |
| 01:31:00.61 | Unknown | And then Jeff, I wasn't sure, did you mention in your staff report, did you mention the maximize public transit service items? that is on here. |
| 01:31:15.34 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | So what are you referring to, Mayor? |
| 01:31:17.64 | Unknown | So you've asked for input on several items and one of them |
| 01:31:18.48 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | All right. |
| 01:31:22.87 | Unknown | was maximize public transit service and either I was distracted or I'm not sure if you went over that item. It's CP3. CP3 on page nine. |
| 01:31:38.21 | Tom Ford (M Group Consultant) | Actually, excuse me. That would be the goal, that would be the objective. That's the next. |
| 01:31:44.18 | Unknown | Oh, that's the next. No, it's the circulation and parking element. Is that, I have that under, I have that under 5A. |
| 01:31:52.76 | Commissioner Kelman | I have that under The mayor is correct. The mayor is right. |
| 01:31:58.97 | Joan Cox | It's the last one in 5A. Yeah. It's CP3. |
| 01:32:00.81 | Commissioner Kelman | Yeah. Yeah. |
| 01:32:02.66 | Joan Cox | Thank you. But it's just specific to shoreline access. |
| 01:32:08.08 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:32:11.37 | Unknown | Okay, so could we on the screen, can we put back up, sorry, objective LU2. |
| 01:32:20.24 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:32:24.13 | Unknown | So I'm going to ask city council members if you have comments on whether you are supportive of having this policy in the land use and growth management element. I'm gonna start on the end if that's okay and just work the way up to the center. Do you mind kicking us off, Council Member Riley? |
| 01:32:49.52 | Joan Cox | Yes, I am supportive. I think we have to get creative in finding affordable housing. I think this is one way of doing it. |
| 01:32:56.66 | Tom Reilly | Yes, I am supportive of that. I actually have some experience, professional experience in how that can be done in that area given the low retail that's in that area. So I know it's possible. I have less concern about how it would work. My question would be on the con may affect character of Northern Sausalito. I think that's an important consideration. It's a bigger consideration in all this conversation about how we define some of these characters. What is the character of Northern Sausalito that needs to be protected and I think that's doable given the diversity of that neighborhood. |
| 01:33:35.44 | Unknown | Okay, thank you. |
| 01:33:36.69 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | I just realized that some portion of these zones may be close to my home since I live in northern Sausalito. I'm not voting, but I am generally in favor of this policy or objective to allow upper floor residential over commercial. |
| 01:34:02.57 | Ray Withey | I am also supportive of this and only wonder whether it should be moved to the House in Elm. |
| 01:34:08.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:34:08.62 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Thank you. |
| 01:34:08.63 | Unknown | Thank you. Great. Move to the housing element. I echo the comments of my fellow City Council members. |
| 01:34:10.24 | Kelly Adams | Okay. |
| 01:34:10.39 | Ray Withey | Thank you. |
| 01:34:10.49 | Kelly Adams | move to the housing element. |
| 01:34:11.87 | Ray Withey | Thank you. |
| 01:34:17.44 | Vicki Nichols | and I'll turn it over to the Planning Commission. Thank you, Mayor. I have the same comment. I'm generally supportive, but I think the better conversation would be with the update of the 2023 housing element. |
| 01:34:30.55 | Commissioner Kelman | Also generally supportive, although I agree with Councilmember Burns, that I don't think we can lump in the northern part of Sausalito with the Caledonia portion of Sausalito I think they need to be looked at separately to see if it's appropriate for both areas. |
| 01:34:47.04 | Commissioner Pierce | I concur with the previous comments and agree. |
| 01:34:52.83 | Unknown (Planning Commissioner) | I agree. I would accept this. I think we have to take a certain look at the enforcement and the impacts on the municipal code. But that is separate from this overall. |
| 01:35:09.52 | Richard (Planning Commissioner) | I also support the concept of that kind of mixed use. I think it makes for a richer environment and I think it's a good idea. So yes, I also think it certainly makes sense to deal with that issue in the housing element. It seems like that's something that we did before and that made sense there. |
| 01:35:38.58 | Unknown | Great, thank you. Is that enough feedback for staff? |
| 01:35:41.73 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Good feedback. I'm just a little more clarity on if we want to keep it in the land use element as a policy, or if we want to defer a couple of years and deal with it in the housing element. As I heard, support for both, sort of. |
| 01:35:55.64 | Unknown | Since we have agreement, I'd prefer to put a bookmark here and then go back at the housing element. |
| 01:36:01.24 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Can I just weigh in? If we put it in a land use element now and There is construction between now and 2023. We will not be able to count that construction towards our 2023 quota. We're right now on track for meeting our existing quota. So if we adopt this policy now and construction ensues, we won't get to count it towards what is predicted to be a very high RENA number that we'll have to meet in 2023. Thank you. |
| 01:36:29.34 | Unknown | So I'm not sure that's true. I mean, this is the general plan. I don't think that the general plan authorizes anything. I don't think it makes it legally |
| 01:36:29.74 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | I'm not sure that |
| 01:36:39.98 | Unknown | uh, Well, it resounds. |
| 01:36:41.93 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | We're allowing residential in an area we don't currently allow residential so someone could come in with a request for a building permit. |
| 01:36:48.95 | Unknown | a request for a billing permit. Code first. |
| 01:36:58.01 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | May I suggest a compromise? Absolutely. We love compromise. To the mayor. |
| 01:37:00.71 | Unknown | Absolutely. We love compromise. To the mayor. Joan and I are absolutely for compromise, absolutely. |
| 01:37:07.69 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Have a great day. We could draft a policy within the land use element that says the city will explore additional opportunities for second floor residential reference this specific area, but make it clear that the intent is to do it as part of a housing cycle. |
| 01:37:08.94 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:37:18.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:37:18.93 | Commissioner Kelman | area. We'll be right back. That's part of the housing. Perfect. May I also just make the request that for the M group, to the extent this impacts infrastructure needs, we heard from a few people about the sewer project on Coloma. This is a great example of that type of impact. I said earlier, if we looked at low impact infrastructure development and we end up having a sustainability element, we could also cover that conceptually within that type of element. |
| 01:37:48.99 | Unknown | Okay. Let's move on to LU4, which is Preserve Sausalito's Waterfront. This is the item about the mooring field. So I think before we start this discussion, I understood this as confined to visiting vessels. And we heard a lot of concern, obviously, from our friends in the environmental community I think we would, I don't think anyone on either of these bodies would want to do this without complete and thorough environmental review. So I think we'd need to add that. So with those two, And Jeff, was it your intent that this is for visiting boats? This is not about? a mooring field for living permanently. |
| 01:38:40.05 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | from an end. Thank you. That's my understanding, yes. I mean, that's our, the way we've presented it, yes. |
| 01:38:45.35 | Unknown | Okay, so with those two caveats, that it would be prefaced on a complete environmental review and the intent would be for visiting vessels. And I would just add there are some environmental, potential environmental benefits from the mooring field. |
| 01:38:58.34 | Unknown | And I wouldn't just say, |
| 01:38:59.12 | Unknown | . |
| 01:39:03.44 | Unknown | to eelgrass and other species. So anyway, a complete environmental review would give us all that we would need. |
| 01:39:10.68 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Can I recommend one more caveat? Absolutely. Which would be approval by BCDC, which has jurisdiction over that. |
| 01:39:16.50 | Unknown | I think that's... Yes, I think that goes without saying, but I also think, yes, we can add that to make it clear that we would not. |
| 01:39:18.66 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Yes. Yeah. |
| 01:39:24.79 | Unknown | Thank you. move forward. So I'm going to, why don't we start with the Planning Commission on this one? Vicky? |
| 01:39:31.11 | Vicki Nichols | I can support that, but I'd want just to reiterate, it has to have in the language the strongest environmental review. And it's gonna get strong review anyway, because the Richardson Bay eelgrass bed is the best example of eelgrass in the Bay Area. So that's been documented for years. |
| 01:39:54.39 | Commissioner Kelman | So one of the speakers referred to the Richardson Bay Special Area Plan, which was established in 1982. Jeff, I shared that with you during one of the GPAC meetings, and I think it would have been helpful to have incorporated some of those findings. into this. So when I read that the only pros is that may reduce environmental impacts, I can't approve this if I don't know to the extent to which that's mitigating impacts, what those impacts are. And similarly, when it says it may ease open water circulation management, This feels like this should be included in the circulation element. So I can understand those impacts. Should we pursue a more green alternative in water-based transportation? This sounds like this could be helpful to that, but I don't have a full understanding. |
| 01:40:37.21 | Unknown | I'm abstained. |
| 01:40:38.02 | Commissioner Kelman | Sorry, you're abstaining. I can't support it at this time. OK. Thank you. |
| 01:40:39.07 | Unknown | I can't see. |
| 01:40:43.42 | Commissioner Pierce | Well, I am generally supportive of the concept. I have to agree with Vice Chair Gelman that there's not enough information specifically as she has outlined, so I am not able to yet support it. |
| 01:40:57.26 | Unknown | So maybe just you know, for clarity, maybe this would just be an explore, the possibility, this is not a commitment. You know, because it sounds like we need further information. I mean, generally, the environmental benefits of a mooring ball versus just anchoring is that if you don't anchor properly, the boats that are visiting who just anchor create these big, giant circles, crop circles, that clear a lot of eelgrass and other sensitive species. So a permanent mooring is a fixed. It has environmental impacts when you install it. But then the purported environmental benefits are that there's not that circular movement of an anchor. So, anyway. |
| 01:41:44.58 | Vicki Nichols | I do know there are some current studies being done more about just in addition to eelgrass, we're talking about habitat and even having anything out there. So there's more information needed for sure. |
| 01:41:51.23 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:41:55.01 | Unknown | And we'll just add an explore to this so that we're not committing to it. Thank you. |
| 01:42:00.88 | Vicki Nichols | Okay. Well, everyone, was everyone able to weigh in? Christina. |
| 01:42:00.91 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:42:04.59 | Unknown (Planning Commissioner) | I have a couple more comments that I'd like to add to what needs to be explored before we can really make any decision here. And that is sort of the size or the limitation of how big this area would be. And is there a limit to the visitor time there? And how is that being enforced, policed, and so on and so forth? I think it's pretty important as well. |
| 01:42:21.74 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:42:30.70 | Unknown (Planning Commissioner) | Thank you. |
| 01:42:31.27 | Richard (Planning Commissioner) | you I agree that I think we need more information to make you know, a real critical judgment. I think the concept of, The mooring field for safety and other reasons is good. But I think the habitat issue is real and, yeah, the size, the area that it takes up. I would agree. |
| 01:43:00.80 | Unknown (Planning Commissioner) | I'm not. |
| 01:43:00.89 | Unknown | Wow. |
| 01:43:01.11 | Unknown (Planning Commissioner) | Thank you. Great, okay. Can I add one more thing? And that is just whatever utilities or whatever services those moored boats would require as well needs to be considered. |
| 01:43:12.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:43:12.04 | Unknown (Planning Commissioner) | Okay. |
| 01:43:12.26 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. Okay, great. So this time I'm gonna head this way. I'll start. I really value the comments of the Planning Commission and the limitations on time, enforcement, and scope. With those caveats, I'd be supportive of exploring this idea. |
| 01:43:17.39 | Unknown (Planning Commissioner) | Thank you. |
| 01:43:37.61 | Ray Withey | Yeah, I think this as an objective should be worded somewhere along the lines of explore the possibility, explore the feasibility. And if we are just, even if we are just talking about social leader waters, this nonetheless could not be, the feasibility could not be explored without understanding and working with our neighboring communities and the various agencies, RBRA, BCDC, but in particular the county of Miranda. |
| 01:44:10.45 | Unknown | Great. Good comments. Thank you. Councilmember Cox. |
| 01:44:14.63 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Yes, I agree. I actually, as a member of our waterfront committee, had the privilege of reviewing the comprehensive mooring feasibility study which, and listening to a study session regarding it, Unfortunately, the only ecologically feasible areas for a mooring field in Sausalito are areas that experienced mariners do not want to moor. because it's in turgid, rough waters, deep waters. Those are the areas where you won't, will not do damage to eelgrass. And so there's a limited feasibility for moorings in Sausalito, that are not ecologically disruptive. Um, In addition, I don't know if people are aware, but BCDC did actually authorize some moorings decades ago as an enforcement tool for a limited period of time which remained in place for decades instead of the one or two years for which they were initially authorized. and were only recently removed by Sausalito police when Sausalito removed itself from RBRA. So there's historically a challenge in enforcing time limits and regulating the use of moorings. And so these are things we'd have to very carefully explore and examine. So until we have identified solutions to those issues, I'm not currently in favor of a mooring field. |
| 01:45:42.58 | Unknown | So but within the 20-year scope of the general plan? |
| 01:45:47.92 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | the The anchor routes on Richardson Bay have existed for more than 20 years already. They harken back to the houseboat wars, and have been an issue of great controversy, And I think we have to get handle on that which Sausalito has successfully done, but Richardson Bay Regional Agency has not yet before we explore the mooring field. |
| 01:46:12.55 | Tom Reilly | My concern with this item and others going forward is if we have to figure them out before we pursue them, then we're probably not going to pursue them. How do we figure it out unless we pursue? So this is a very specific question. To preserve Saucyutas waterfront, do we want to consider moorings? I think that's something that we consider. It doesn't have to answer the question right now. It doesn't have to give the, Scope. doesn't have to do any of that. It just has to say, do we want to pursue it so that we can answer the questions, not so that we cannot answer the questions. What I envision as a mooring for visitors might be different when other people envision moorings for visitors. Where I do see visitors more right now is in this water that was specified as perfect for moorings. It's the area outside of the Yacht Club area. So I think it is something we should absolutely pursue given it's a, to preserve Saucido's waterfront. I think it's extremely important in numerous ways. I don't know if it's six, eight, 12, that's not what I'm trying to answer right now. I'm trying to answer if we should pursue it or what was the other verb you had, Ray? Explore and consider, investigate, whatever verb. Explore feasible. Yeah, whatever we drop in there. |
| 01:47:19.99 | Joan Cox | Floral feasibility. |
| 01:47:25.18 | Joan Cox | Thank you. So I'm a believer that mooring field in the long term can be beneficial. However, in the short term, this is completely out of context and there's just not enough information. And my recommendation is that we pull this out of the land use element and we create a specific waterfront element. The waterfront is such an important part and we need to have a complete plan of how that waterfront works. A mooring field, requires access to land. We need to determine what that means if we have a mooring field where the access to land is. A mooring field requires enforcement. Is that going to be done by our BRA or is that going to be done by us? And so I think we need to have a waterfront element plan that's more comprehensive and it's possible that a mooring field could be one of the answers. So I would just change the wording to consider instead of pursue. |
| 01:48:12.42 | Unknown | just Okay, I think those are all really valuable. comments, and I'm thinking, Jeff, that maybe we want to pull zoom it out to get to what the purpose of the mooring field would be. And then to have that as just one option, if it's to protect the waterfront and allow visitors a safe and environmentally sound way to stop in Sausalito, I think we all would agree on options to do that. So maybe if that's the goal, preserving our waterfront while allowing visitors to temporarily visit Sausalito, explore such options, explore a variety of options that do not preclude a mooring field. I mean, I think kind of- |
| 01:49:02.72 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | But don't focus specifically on a Morian field, but more the idea of getting- |
| 01:49:05.14 | Unknown | Yeah. I think the lack of information, and as Councilmember Riley and Councilmember Cox just articulated, the number of issues, I think we need to pull back a little and have |
| 01:49:08.81 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 01:49:18.74 | Unknown | you know, what we really want to do is allow visitors who are coming here by boat access. So, and we wanna do that in an environmentally sustainable way, we wanna do it in a way that we can enforce and we wanna do it in a way that's limited. Does everyone, does that sound, I think those were really excellent comments and I think we just need to kinda zoom back out on that one. All right, great, is that enough feedback? |
| 01:49:24.22 | Unknown | Got it. |
| 01:49:36.94 | Unknown | We just need to |
| 01:49:43.15 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Perfect, thank you. |
| 01:49:43.56 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. All right, let's move on to LU 6. |
| 01:49:53.21 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Would you rather see the map here? |
| 01:49:57.24 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:49:57.95 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | And again, this is a policy that would establish just the idea that periodically the city would review the sphere of influence and make a conscious decision that, yes, that's the sphere we want, or we want to change it this way or that way. There's no definitive change envisioned by this policy. |
| 01:50:11.77 | Unknown | There's no. |
| 01:50:16.40 | Unknown | Great, so I'm alternating, I'm gonna have the city council start this one off. Anyone who wants to start is fine. I had a question. |
| 01:50:25.12 | Tom Reilly | to start to, how does the sphere of influence impact the EIR? |
| 01:50:30.61 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF |
| 01:50:30.86 | Tom Reilly | Thank you. |
| 01:50:30.98 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | to do. |
| 01:50:31.03 | Tom Reilly | or anything in that sphere? |
| 01:50:32.95 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | The EIR is required. We have our EIR consultant here today, Lisa Davidson. I'll just like to thank her for that. The EIR is the general plan, it's basically optional whether you plan for the sphere or not. We're planning for it, obviously, because we're talking about stuff out in the water that's in your sphere. The EIR has to cover anything that's contemplated by the general plan. However, this policy in and of itself, I think is safe to say sort of a non-issue in terms of environmental impact because we just have a policy to periodically evaluate the sphere of influence for the city. So there's no environmental import there. |
| 01:51:20.49 | Unknown | Okay, I'm just gonna kick off by saying, I think periodically reviewing whether we wanna increase it is, Excellent idea and we should do that in cooperation with LAFCO. I mean if LAFCO pulled RSVIR back for some good reason and obviously we need to consider those reasons but |
| 01:51:33.01 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | I don't know. |
| 01:51:37.30 | Unknown | Periodic review seems I would make. |
| 01:51:42.56 | Ray Withey | I agree completely. I can't see why we would disagree with periodic review. |
| 01:51:48.69 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | I agree as well, LAFCO already requires a periodic municipal service review that includes an examination of the appropriateness of the sphere of influence boundaries. |
| 01:51:53.97 | Vicki Nichols | I'm sorry. |
| 01:51:54.02 | Doug Storms | We'll be right back. |
| 01:51:54.17 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 01:52:01.56 | Vicki Nichols | So because of the comments from the council, I'll just poll our group and if anyone has any objections, TODAY. |
| 01:52:09.71 | Unknown | So first of all, let's- Or you can speak individually too. Sorry, let's first of all poll our two remaining City Council members. Do you have any objections? |
| 01:52:09.78 | Vicki Nichols | So first of all, let's... You can speak individually, too. I'm just... Do you have any? |
| 01:52:15.97 | Unknown | Any objections? |
| 01:52:17.58 | Tom Reilly | I'm getting used to it, Vicki. Ever since that first Tuesday in December, I'm hardly even noticeable. Um... I would too aww |
| 01:52:28.41 | Unknown | Aww. |
| 01:52:28.82 | Unknown | Oh! Bye. |
| 01:52:31.04 | Tom Reilly | He only sits next to the intern. |
| 01:52:32.14 | Unknown | He's having postpartum depression from his being the mayor. |
| 01:52:36.75 | Tom Reilly | I miss all your emails. |
| 01:52:38.98 | Unknown | I'm sorry. I'll forward them to you, Jen. |
| 01:52:41.40 | Tom Reilly | Thank you. Yeah. I say yes, consider. I mean, if this was like the previous issue where we are pursuing, no, but to consider, absolutely. Yes. |
| 01:52:52.00 | Vicki Nichols | Go ahead. Okay, so if the, I'm just sort of doing a general poll, but certainly speak individually. If there's an agreement or why don't we speak individually? |
| 01:53:04.73 | Richard (Planning Commissioner) | Well, I just have a question about who and how are these areas determined, and How do you decide where that line is drawn and who gets to participate in that decision. And so I'm a little unclear in my mind about how these, I mean some of them are kind of obvious, but how these boundaries are determined. You know, I think the idea is fine, but. |
| 01:53:33.75 | Unknown | There was an excellent presentation. The idea is fine, but. Right, LAFCO came to the General Plan Advisory Committee and there was a really excellent presentation that they gave about the considerations. It's a very formal process. There's lots of input. We can't decide to expand our boundaries without consulting and conferring with not only LAFCO, but with our neighboring jurisdictions and any constituents. It's certainly not a, it's not just like we sit down and draw them out. |
| 01:53:42.83 | Unknown | It's a very formal process. |
| 01:53:59.69 | Richard (Planning Commissioner) | No, I know it's not arbitrary. |
| 01:54:00.60 | Unknown | It's not arbitrary. Can you explain who LAFCO is for people? I think Jeff already spoke. The Local Agency Formation Commission. Okay. Do you have anything to add, Jeff? |
| 01:54:11.64 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | It's a relatively obscure government agency that is very important, however, because they, as the mayor indicated, sort of arbitrate where these boundaries go. But the point of this policy is really to put the city in a position of being more proactive about it. Because if the city did decide that they wanted to change something, they could go through the process with LAFCO and everything that it entails, rather than waiting for LAFCO or the county or some other adjacent jurisdiction to come along and say, this is what we want to do. |
| 01:54:49.81 | Unknown | Okay, so let's move quickly through this. I agree to periodic review. |
| 01:54:54.87 | Adam Kravatsky (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 01:54:55.06 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 01:54:55.49 | Commissioner Kelman | I agree that it should be reviewed, but Jeff, I don't understand the objective title. Establish a sphere of influence and designate desired land uses. Um, we're not designating a desired land uses, so I'm just, can you just clarify the relationship between that title And then the issue that we're discussing. And then furthermore, I would like to see something like this included within a climate change analysis. Should we have a separate element, given the number of floating homes that are not in our sphere of influence, which will surely be impacted the same way as those |
| 01:55:24.92 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | So the objective LU6, establish a sphere of influence and designate land uses. That's just a statement of the high level objective or goal that we, in this case, it's been done. You know, the sphere of influence has been established and the land uses have been designated. But that's not a reason not to have that objective because the existing map is a result of that objective. So it's not a bad thing. If we accomplish something, we don't necessarily then delete the objective because it provides the framework for what's existing or what may periodically be evaluated in the future. |
| 01:55:58.62 | Unknown | Thanks. |
| 01:56:08.23 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | And the second part of your question I don't think I can answer. |
| 01:56:13.84 | Commissioner Kelman | That's fine. |
| 01:56:14.40 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Okay. |
| 01:56:14.42 | Commissioner Kelman | Thank you. Bye. Come back. |
| 01:56:14.92 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | it. Thank you. |
| 01:56:17.35 | Vicki Nichols | So I am supportive of this. And I would just quickly mention that the last time we were involved with LAFCO was when we were reviewed to see if it would be beneficial for us to join the Southern Marin Fire District. So that's the kind of review that LAFCO and Spirit of Influence. So they are obscure, but important. |
| 01:56:35.56 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Right. It's not limited to just city and county boundaries, but also to special districts. |
| 01:56:43.04 | Unknown | Okay, so let's move on to objective community design, historic and cultural preservation element CD4. uh, This is the issue about more objective design guidelines and standards. I mean, I think, as we kind of alluded to at the beginning, the mayor's blue ribbon committee that that Mayor Joan Cox put together did recommend this, and I don't think every single design review element or question definitely lends itself as well to having objective standards, but we found a lot of areas that could be improved. made more objective and I think we all agree that it also improves our legal position. If we do deny a project that we have under new state standards, we are in a better position. So this is one that you can kick off. Vicki, comments? the Planning Commission. Thank you. |
| 01:57:56.19 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. I first of all would say just agree with Council Member Cox on the objective, that word is the word that really helps us be um, within the law and really being objective and not being subjective. It helps the planning commission tremendously. I think we all take it very serious that we're not subjective. So these kinds of standards are the way to go. They're clear for everyone. Again, I am going to just harp on us getting some historical review though in here and getting some money in the budget so we can really be objective. in the structures that are uh, duly, qualified to be preserved and are considered in other ways. So we have to have that. And that's the end of my speech on that. |
| 01:58:50.29 | Commissioner Kelman | I would support the consideration as this is how it's drafted. Because for Sausalito, I would envision that the conversation as we are considering it would include looking at forward thinking policies from BCDC or the Estuary Institute or floating homes from EPA. And then also, as Chair Nichols mentioned earlier, the neighborhood context. so that we can be consistent with CD 1.1, 1.2, and 4.1. We'll nearly need to resolve what neighborhood character means within CD 4. |
| 01:59:28.89 | Commissioner Pierce | I would concur with that and also with the addition of a proposed resource inventory that I think we've talked about over the years. This will also be need to work in concert with a much more robust zoning ordinance, which clearly is understood. So with that, I can support it. |
| 01:59:50.10 | Unknown (Planning Commissioner) | I agree with my fellow commissioners. And I would just, again, as was mentioned earlier, go back to the 12 recommendations from the Landslide Task Force, because most of these underlying data points that we're talking about were also included in those recommendations. And that really will serve not just for use on landslider issues of that kind, but really help this more objective look at what comes in front of Planning Commission. |
| 02:00:21.89 | Richard (Planning Commissioner) | I would agree that objective standards would be beneficial in the design review process, but I have to say that it is, often very much subjective. And sometimes it's hard to draw that line. And so while I think it's a good I think it's a good goal. I don't know how we get there because how do you define things? You know, some of these esoteric things that are just, you know, you really have to kind of go with the given situation. And it's different on every block. So, yeah, we should do it, but. |
| 02:00:56.82 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:01:13.54 | Unknown | All right, thank you. I'll open it up to city council. |
| 02:01:20.19 | Unknown | We can start wherever. |
| 02:01:21.20 | Joan Cox | I would just say I'm supportive. I defer to my commissioner colleagues over there who know much more. The key words to me are the pros of streamlining approval processes. And I think we should always be looking for ways to streamline our operations. |
| 02:01:34.03 | Tom Reilly | THANK YOU. |
| 02:01:34.35 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 02:01:34.39 | Tom Reilly | Thank you. I'll piggyback on that. I've been having a hard time with this meeting and the meeting we had on Saturday, which was a public meeting, and we could talk about it where we did discuss some areas that where streamlining would help our departments and would help our commissions. So I think the objective standards process is critical in not only streamlining, but also the process making us more efficient as a government. My concern is in two areas. One, you can't do it unless you first define your character as Commissioner Kelman also said. So we really have to do that work first. I support that we should get to that point, but first we have to define the neighborhood's characters and then it becomes less subjective anyway. My only concern is in the loss of innovative architecture that sometimes comes with objectives. We are less in some communities, but many communities really have pushed the envelope in their innovative architectural opportunities through the design review criteria or process. So that's one caveat that I wanna make sure that we protect is the ability to grow architecturally. |
| 02:02:09.01 | Jeff (Public Commenter) | Yeah. |
| 02:02:56.30 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Thank you. |
| 02:02:56.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:02:56.33 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | member |
| 02:02:56.94 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:02:56.97 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Thank you. for the reasons enunciated by the Blue Ribbon Committee, and one of which is to ensure we're not vulnerable to Housing Accountability Act issues, I support adoption of this objective. |
| 02:03:13.98 | Ray Withey | Yes, so do I and I think the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Committee on that enunciated the reasons very clearly. I work very closely with the League of California Cities and one of the things of which their mission is preserving local control for cities and one of the things that they are very very fearful about this year is that pending housing legislation is going to actually mandate this. So therefore, it would be a good idea to get a head start on this. |
| 02:03:48.59 | Unknown | Great, all right, thank you. I think that's good direction, Jeff, on that. Thank you. |
| 02:03:52.96 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 02:03:56.78 | Unknown | We've got the orphan here that... circulation and parking element, which I don't think we reached. CP3, maximize public transit service. And it's, about public shoreline access. So maybe you can just explain to us that connection. |
| 02:04:20.08 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Sure. This is the issue of It's kind of related to the idea of a mooring field having a, that was referenced by the Planning Commission Council members that it's one thing to get them to the mooring field, but then you have to have places on land for people to come on who want to visit the community. So this issue is to have a policy to support both retention of existing public access points and also the possible creation of new ones to facilitate that process of visiting vessels. |
| 02:04:40.01 | Unknown | Thank you. visit. |
| 02:04:58.13 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | And we put it under public transit, because the thought was there was talk of water taxis at both the Marin Ship Workshop on September 7th and at some of the GPAC meetings. And conceivably, if there were some water taxis operating, the more public access points there were, there were more opportunities for people to be able to use that form of transportation. |
| 02:05:01.48 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 02:05:29.96 | Unknown | OK. This is a little amorphous to me. I mean, I'm definitely in favor of improving public transportation. I think... I would just ask that we get some more information on this one. Does anybody feel strongly in favor of going forward with this as is. It's not clear to me whether this is talking about visiting boats and shoreline access, or if it's about water taxis, or if it's about something else. |
| 02:06:04.20 | Joan Cox | It's too broad. And until we know that. It covers a number of things. |
| 02:06:05.24 | Unknown | And until we know that. |
| 02:06:08.44 | Joan Cox | The way it's written, it's about access to the shore, which could be from land and from the water. We brought up water taxis, we brought up access for transient vessels. I think this belongs in a waterfront element and a much more comprehensive plan. |
| 02:06:25.09 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | If I may, through the mayor, we do have an existing policy being carried over from the Marin Ship Specific Plan, Goal 14, short title is Waterfront Access, provide safe public access to and from the water where possible, including limited amounts of temporary public small boat tie-up space. That's another issue that came up at the community workshop on the Marin Ship of folks who are coming in and off the water and need a place to tie up. |
| 02:06:52.77 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:06:56.90 | Unknown | Okay, I mean, I think in general we should explore options And I think the policy that you just read contains a number of the, you know, a lot of the important elements. Do you, does it, you wanna have the planning commission have a discussion on this? |
| 02:07:13.61 | Vicki Nichols | I'm not. Thank you. |
| 02:07:14.21 | Unknown | Yes, and I |
| 02:07:14.97 | Vicki Nichols | But I would like to say that we have projects that were that included conditions of providing public access spaces. They were given their permits based on them providing that, and that's not being done. And I asked for a review of this a while ago, and we've not heard, so I think we may even have legitimately more spaces that are supposed to be being provided. And I'd like to see what we really have out there that's been conditioned and permitted to have a better idea of where these might be, how they might be. So I need more information. I would need more information. I'd want to see an exploration of enforcement on existing conditions that are not being met. And then I think broader discussion. But I think it's very broad. It can be water tax, it can be this, it can be that. And I've seen this come up in the existing plan when people have come back with very wonderful, bold ideas that maybe didn't hold up, but were permitted under broad language. It's the... |
| 02:08:29.97 | Unknown (Planning Commissioner) | Anybody else? Thank you. I would just ask that Whenever we talk about public transportation, we use some of the same metrics we use for personal vehicles, and that is alternative fuel vehicles. Of course, there are... battery-powered public transport out on our roads now or alternative fuel of other kind out there. And so whenever we're talking about that and any other kind of transportation, I feel strongly that we need to look at sustainable solutions and environmentally friendly solutions. |
| 02:09:08.10 | Commissioner Kelman | And I'll just follow up on that comment commissioner Feller because this was originally explored at the GPAC level. as part of a sustainability initiative, not just public transit service on its own. And then the reason we explore the water base is ways to reduce emissions. And so there was an overall objective that I don't think is necessarily being captured here. |
| 02:09:30.65 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. Thanks. So I'm definitely in favor. I think that broader goal of kind of sustainable transportation over the water is a good goal. I think what's confusing here is public transportation other than ferries. over the water is not highly developed in this country. I mean, there's very few public, most water taxis and other types of transportation like that are private. They're shared, which can be good. but they're not. public transportation as we know it. So I think that might be maybe what's leading to a little confusion here. But if we go, again, maybe draw the goal back up to sustainable water transportation and access to and from the shore, maybe we can all find some common ground with that policy. |
| 02:10:24.92 | Unknown | Any objections? |
| 02:10:26.57 | Joan Cox | I'll just make a comment. Thank you. I'm very much in support of water-based transportation. I'm very much in support of more access to our land from the water. I just think it's just out of context just to be discussing this one item. I think it's got to be a very comprehensive plan for us to maximize the use of our waterfront for ourselves, for visitors, and to reduce greenhouse emissions. So I can say yes, but there's so much more work that needs behind this. |
| 02:10:56.36 | Unknown | Yeah, I think we all agree on that. Okay, so we're gonna wrap this up and then now is the time, we'll give two minutes to each commissioner and council member to talk about other comments that they have on these three elements, if that is agreeable. And I will let the planning commission kick it off. And we are gonna keep time on the clock. Would anybody like to start? |
| 02:11:23.52 | Vicki Nichols | or you want to just go in order or? Richard, would you like to start? |
| 02:11:28.98 | Richard (Planning Commissioner) | I'll see you next time. |
| 02:11:29.55 | Vicki Nichols | No pressure. Okay. That's why we ask. Anyone else? |
| 02:11:29.73 | Richard (Planning Commissioner) | Okay. |
| 02:11:34.19 | Commissioner Kelman | I'll start as the G PAC, as the Planning Commission liaison to the G PAC with all due respect to the process and to the M group. This is the first time the Planning Commission has had the opportunity to review the general plan. I have the benefit of having sat through 40 plus meetings but unfortunately my fellow commissioners do not. And so I just want to say as a matter of public discourse, I think it's extremely difficult to expect the Planning Commission to have a full understanding of the context and the nuance of the various elements and each policy and objective within the elements. And so I hope this is the beginning. of, hopefully more Planning Commission meetings on this. I wouldn't. be surprised if there's still thoughts in progress just because I think on the schedule we had, five at least a planning commission meetings that were supposed to happen that actually never happened. So, um, I just want to say for the record, I think those should have happened. And a lot of these require more vetting. |
| 02:12:32.32 | Commissioner Pierce | Well, I would like to thank Commissioner, I'm sorry, Vice Chair Kellan for going out on a limb and offering up those caveats for why Uh-oh. Some of us are a little bit in the dark relative to some of the substance. This is a great presentation and I really appreciate all of the |
| 02:12:44.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:12:48.20 | Commissioner Pierce | the content and depiction from M group, it's a lot to digest. And it's all moving Sausalito, obviously, in a very positive direction. That's why we're all here. I think we raised a lot of questions this evening about what is the right. Attitude to take towards some of these elements. I think one of the things that struck me Was a position that council member Riley took regarding the waterfront element and and the more I've read into Some of the background information that's been provided to us prior to this evening's meeting A couple of discussions here tonight. It seems like that is a very viable aspect of what we need to be pursuing moving forward because there's so many complicated facets of it that can't really be pigeonholed into the other elements very successfully and at all cohesively. So I would very much be in support of pursuing that as a separate element. The other things I think we've cited all the places where we need more information from staff and from the M group and I feel confident that they will provide that as we move forward. the next steps with this. But I'm really looking forward to how it all influences our new municipal code and other regulating elements down the road. But I think we're off to a good start, so thank you. |
| 02:14:12.70 | Unknown (Planning Commissioner) | I want to echo what my fellow commissioners have said regarding the presentation. So thank you very much for bringing us up to speed. I do also have concerns about what the process has been so far respectfully. looking through some of the work plans that were provided to us today, I mean, I counted at least nine times that we were supposed to be meeting with the GPAC group as the planning commission, not just our liaison. And so my concern is that when I look at the work that still needs to be done, and I reverse engineer that from a date that I've also seen in the documents, I don't see how a deadline the deadline was identified. I don't know if it's arbitrary, I don't know if it was a wish or a goal, but I don't see that as highly realistic at this point, unfortunately. I think that although a general plan in general is supposed to sort of have a high-level guidance. I think it's also very important to dive into some of the details on a micro level to test the viability of a general plan. And so, there's still a lot of connecting the dots that need to be done with a lot of these different elements and these different focused areas. I, like Commissioner Pierce, fully support Councilman Riley's idea for the waterfront-specific focus area. Um, And I'm looking forward to hearing more about some of these other elements and looks here. And I also want to make sure that when we get to the discussion on land use and economics and that whole study, that those elements are synchronized with the other studies that are being done and executed by the city, because they also affect what we've just talked about as well. Thank you. |
| 02:16:19.53 | Richard (Planning Commissioner) | Well, I don't have nearly so much to say about it. I'm unfortunately a little behind the curve here because I've sort of been Under the weather, you might say I had surgery and I've been kind of out of the loop a bit. So I feel like I'm I'm not totally up to speed here. Um... I very much appreciate the effort that has gone into this whole program with M Group and particularly the GPAC members. I've attended a number of the meetings and they're really very informative and So I think there's a lot of good effort going in here. I see that there's still a lot of work to be done. No. Let's get on with it. |
| 02:17:18.90 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. So since I got my staff report on the weekend, I have been really struggling with the process. And it's been very upsetting. So I wrote some thoughts today. I'm very surprised that my commissioners have had the same impressions. I'd just like to read them because I prepared them. But I have every bit of respect for everyone that's worked on this. I just think that perhaps we're moving too fast and we're not being thorough enough. And so that's the basis of my comments. I was very excited that we finally got our first opportunity to provide impact, direct impact to the GPU process this evening. As the initial timeline was laid out, there was to be multiple occasions for the PC to provide input along the way. Unfortunately for me, we have moved pretty far into the process without those check-ins. And now we find ourselves being asked in one meeting to provide critical input not only on the general plan elements, objectives, and policies but provide EIR considerations without seeing a draft of tonight's work. As you know, the Planning Commission is charged with reviewing applications for developmental changes while using the general plan as our guiding principle. We rely on it. Therefore, I feel it is only correct that the PC be given the time to discuss and deliberate this material with the same attention and detail that we apply to all the projects we review. We all realize this is an important responsibility I am very fortunate to volunteer with the commission of knowledgeable and dedicated individuals, whose shared opinions while making the legal findings I respect and value. And they often convince me and help me learn information that can educate me and change my opinion. We recently had a project where the Planning Commission was not able to make the findings required to approve a project. The applicant decided to go back and make adjustments to the plan that mitigated our concerns and received I think that was my timer, but my point is, that sometimes going back and taking a little bit more time you get a better product. And this commission needs time, rather than just off the cuff suggesting objectives and policies, which are the meat and the detail of these goals, we need to have that time to deliberate amongst ourselves, not to delay this process, but to make it the best process for the community. And those are my concerns. I'm gonna still do my best to get through tonight's proceedings. And however, my term shakes out, I am expired. I will be participating in the community. I think this is very, very important. It's our guideline for the next 20 years. So thank you. GREAT. |
| 02:20:12.03 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you very much. Maybe before we have City Council comment, could staff just comment on the change in the program in terms of the Planning Commission? |
| 02:20:26.58 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Consultant, okay. |
| 02:20:28.18 | Unknown | Sorry. |
| 02:20:28.76 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | to respond. Jeff Bradley, M Group. Our firm engaged on this project early in 2017. It was supposed to be a 30-month process. So we're going into the fourth year and we have a strong interest in seeing it, or at least seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. It's been a long road. We've had over 40 meetings with the GPAC, as mentioned earlier. And essentially what happened with the scope of work that we had prepared before we started was a lot of planning commission meetings were traded for GPAC meetings, which may sound bad, but the fact that GPAC was essentially a super committee at the time, it wasn't just made up of 12 or 15 regular citizens. It had two planning commissioners and two council members on it originally. So in my view, it was a fair trade. The GPAC was very detailed and very thorough and will continue to be so into this next phase of the work. And so I wouldn't want to dilute or disparage any of the work that they've done. At some point we have to write a draft plan. And that's why we need your feedback tonight. And there'll be multiple opportunities for both planning commissioners and council members to review the draft work product. And while you may feel like some of these, am I going on too long? |
| 02:22:07.73 | Unknown | No, sorry, I was just nodding to Councilmember Cox. |
| 02:22:08.07 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Sorry, I was just nodding. I was just nodding to Council Member Cox. That was my internal clock went off. Thank you. Just two more seconds. I know some of these. |
| 02:22:17.63 | Unknown | Given that the many multiple members of the Planning Commission raised the same issue, I just thought it was important. Independently because we didn't know what we were going to say. |
| 02:22:25.97 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 02:22:25.99 | Unknown | Yes, obviously. So yes, I think it's important. |
| 02:22:28.65 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | I think it's important. It may feel like we're looking at some of these objectives and policies through a straw because we're basically asking about specific issues that haven't received a level of consensus and agreement from the GPAC. So by definition, you're seeing the things that haven't been smoothed over and agreed upon by the group. But the packet includes all the objectives and all the policies. and if you look at these things in context, we're really... smoothed over and agreed upon by the group. But the packet includes all the objectives and all the policies. And if you look at these things in context, we're really just asking for feedback on those things that we need additional direction on so we can go back and write the chapters and bring that back for review. Sorry, that was a long answer. |
| 02:23:12.44 | Unknown | Great, thank you. And we do have on our agenda tonight a section about next steps. And there is some recommendation from staff for greater involvement. Uh, potentially by the Planning Commission. So we'll talk about that when we get to that point. So who would like to kick us off from City Council comments? right? Council Member Burns. |
| 02:23:38.84 | Tom Reilly | Council Member Burns. When I got here earlier tonight, I wasn't necessarily expecting to support the waterfront element. I thought we were getting a little heavy and I thought we can spread that through the rest of it. Hearing Council Member Cox and some of the other comments and seeing some of these things in a different view. |
| 02:23:39.65 | Bennett King (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 02:23:55.19 | Tom Reilly | I will support that now when we get to that item. But we're on a different item. And where we are right now is a few different things that kind of go throughout the agenda tonight. I wanted to address some of the comments that were made earlier from the public about the marineship By being residents here and choosing to be residents in Sausalito, we became stewards of an incredible area. And this area is important throughout the world for history, for pop culture, for racial history, and innovation. So as stewards of that, my first question is, who else gets to experience it? Is it just the 7,400 residents? I don't think that would be really good stewards of such an important cultural and historic Area. So as I look at these elements, I look at how do we look at their potential to be really what they truly are, the best place, one of the best places in the world for history in three different areas. And the potential leading the future in sustainability and other innovations, that's not an area to be hidden. It's not an area to be have words that are in the specific plan like minimize tourism No new this and no new that. It's an area that we have to really think boldly about how we want to maximize its potential. so it can continue to do what it's done in the past, innovate, support the water, create history. That's how important that area is. I very much, as the mayor mentioned, and we've all been very steadfast in this, we support the industrial and water uses of the maritime in that area, period. |
| 02:25:40.83 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:25:41.82 | Tom Reilly | I guess that's my time. I have. |
| 02:25:43.88 | Unknown | If you want to finish your sentence, you can finish it. |
| 02:25:45.60 | Tom Reilly | Um, So I'm looking forward to now, if that takes a waterfront management element to synopsize those elements into or those issues into, then that's probably a way to go because this general plan, as we've all mentioned, does come to one area and it comes to an area that's vitally important. I think in world history, racial history, pop culture history, we need to be looking at how we utilize it and utilize it correctly. |
| 02:26:16.42 | Unknown | Great, thank you. I'm sorry. Council Member Riley, would you like to go next? |
| 02:26:22.52 | Joan Cox | I always defer to my more experienced council members first, |
| 02:26:23.91 | Unknown | experienced council members first. How about Councilmember Cox? |
| 02:26:28.28 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | So I, appreciate the city council's hard work to adopt a vision for the marineship that included an economic underpinning that was read to us earlier tonight by Jeff Bradley. The city council also in on October 9 of 2018. did. give direction to retire the Marineship specific plan preserving those aspects of it that are still relevant and important that will work. on one overall general plan. And so we did not say throw away the marineship specific plan, we said dispose of it as a separate planning document and instead roll up its programs policies etc into the general plan and that's what the M group has been doing and I clarified earlier tonight that they will roll up those things necessary for us to continue to ensure that the uses we've enunciated that we want in the marine ship are the uses that exist in the marine ship. I appreciate also the addition by the M group of policy LU 5. Now I just turned off my iPad. LU 5.5, housing opportunities to examine appropriateness of development of senior workforce or affordable housing. So that's definitely a policy that I support. And that is respectful and responsive to the numerous comments that we've received from from aging Sausalito, from cars, and from various other members, senior members of our community. Um, But I want to be sure that we do this as part of our 2023 housing element for the reasons I enunciated earlier this evening. We do not want to be short-sighted in our adoption of plans to create additional affordable housing. We actually want to be able to count that towards the quotas we know will be imposed. upon us. If I can just have one more sentence. for both LU3.1 and LU2. I'd like to include in those as enunciated in the marineship vision adopted by the City Council, because both of those to ignore the fact that the city council has indeed, in fact, adopted a vision for the marineship. Thank you. |
| 02:28:57.32 | Unknown | Elliot. |
| 02:28:57.98 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | What is that last one, John? |
| 02:28:58.25 | Unknown | Uh, |
| 02:28:59.73 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Thank you. LU 3.1 and LU 2. |
| 02:29:01.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:29:03.41 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Thank you. |
| 02:29:04.12 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:29:05.38 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | I want to add, as enunciated, in the Marinship vision adopted by the City Council. I just want to add that language to those two objectives. |
| 02:29:13.21 | Unknown | Okay, great, thank you. |
| 02:29:19.48 | Ray Withey | In an attempt to do this in two minutes, I will first of all say I agree with everything else that my both planning commissioners and fellow council members have said. I also agree with, there were a lot of ideas thrown out there, but agree with the other objectives that were added and the various suggestions that were made. In particular, I want to... vigorously endorse the comment that Vice Chair Kalman made about an innovation zone. a sea level rise innovation zone or a climate change innovation zone, in particular for the marine ship, I think this is very, very important. I think it's the best way that I can think of to allow us to protect our maritime, artistic, industrial uses in the marine ship. okay, where's all this? Thank you. And it very importantly, you know, our boat building, our teaching, we have the opportunity perhaps to have a maritime center there. And as one of our speakers indicated, it allows us to tap into the latest scientific research. It allows us, importantly, to tap into funding. It allows us to tap into potentially foundation funding so I just wanted to acknowledge that this is a really really really important thing to do and I'll make some comments about the economic development when we get to the economic element and then finally, as far as I can see, absolutely nobody that I talk to wants to put a hotel in the Marinshire. |
| 02:31:14.73 | Unknown | Okay. Councilmember Rand. |
| 02:31:17.47 | Joan Cox | When we open the Withy Innovation Center, I would like to apply for a job. |
| 02:31:21.63 | Unknown | I'm very happy to have you. |
| 02:31:24.84 | Joan Cox | I'm... I'm very, very supportive of the same. I think we have to really think about how we do that and how we fund it. We need staff to go after research dollars and build relationships and so forth. As far as to the chair and Commissioner Nichols, that we could be moving too fast. I come late, I haven't been to 42 GPAC meetings or what have you. I think the risk is moving too slow. And we should have had this meeting a year ago, giving this kind of direction. We're not giving enough direction. We're not having enough interaction moving the ball forward. And we're treating this as one massive project. that we had to just break it down and have meetings like this where we say, Okay, let's get these eight things behind us. What are the next eight? So that's my recommendation. We should move faster. Not necessarily get this done sooner, but that's how you get it done sooner. |
| 02:32:20.68 | Vicki Nichols | I agree with that method. That would have worked. |
| 02:32:23.11 | Joan Cox | So then specific tonight, just some things we talked about earlier. I do think we need an age friendly objective. I don't think our job in the general plan is to determine where we want age friendly homes. But we should say we need to have an age friendly objective in the city. I'd like us to see, to establish a goal of how many units. I don't know if we need 10, 50, 200 or 500. You can solve them differently. 10 is easy to solve, 500 gets harder. So I think we should do that. I think we should have a youth-friendly objective. And we need to understand what our strategy is for schools, parks, after school sports and playing fields, paths to schools, and after school programs. So I'd like to see that. You heard my comments on the waterfront. Finally, we had this circulation parking element, which came down to just shoreline access. I think it was said earlier by one of the commissioners, anytime we talk about transportation, we have to follow it with economically friendly and sustainable transportation in everything we do. And finally, we didn't discuss anything about infrastructure tonight, so I don't know when But we have landslides, sewers, so on and so forth. |
| 02:33:39.57 | Unknown | Great, thank you. All right, excellent comment. So I'm really happy for my two minutes that most of my A lot of my big items have already been covered by my fellow council members. The age friendly and youth friendly goals and objectives I think are incredibly important. The innovation lab and the Mirrenship, as well. So echo all of those great comments. I think the area that has two areas that haven't been covered yet that I, Council Member Cox covered one of them slightly was We have LU 1.19 about affordable housing. And it talks about seniors, artists, and maritime workers. I am all for housing in those areas, but I think we also need to add just our overall workforce and our community. our city and municipal employees and our first responders. Those are people that we need. It's very hard to attract a good workforce and we need our first responders close. So I would add those, I would probably separate them out actually to two objectives, one about senior housing and another about our workforce, artists, maritime workers, first responders, et cetera. Another thing that has not really been talked about and I'd like to thank Mr. Kravatsky for bringing it up is our circulation element. would like the circulation element to be much more rounded out. We mentioned complete streets and safety and all of that, only in the bike, like in a bike place. I think bikes now are, bikes, pedestrian, vehicles, public transit are all an interconnected web and a network. and we really need to use all of the more modern language, the technological solutions that we've got and kind of jazz that section up and really I would like to make it a lot more punchy and a lot more meaningful. I'm running out of time, but And then again, I mentioned a few things like adding sort of monitoring, enforcement, data collection into each element to make sure that we're holding ourselves accountable. We had a great general plan in 1995, but we didn't achieve many of its objectives. So I think we need to kind of have a constant monitoring and self-improvement plan underway. And then lastly, I just wanna say, I noticed a lot of redundancy, and I think we're at an early stage, but there are different things being said there's similar things being said in different ways and multiple times and it's kind of hard to figure out which one to rely on. So I'd like to be a little more precise as we move forward. So now I'm just gonna open it up. If there's something that someone did not say that you are absolutely burning to say, I know this is a lot of material, there's a lot going on, I appreciate the comments that this is a lot to digest, I've listened to maybe a third of the GPAC meetings, But I can't say I've listened to them all. There's a lot of material here. Thank you. |
| 02:36:53.46 | Tom Reilly | I had a question on the process here. |
| 02:36:53.48 | Unknown | I had a question. Yeah. |
| 02:36:55.57 | Tom Reilly | We've done this first set of three on part one. We're going to do the second. Then are we going to go through and ask questions of the consultant on this larger elements, the package of all the elements? |
| 02:36:58.39 | Unknown | Yep. |
| 02:37:05.41 | Unknown | We're going to do the second three. |
| 02:37:06.84 | Tom Reilly | Yep. |
| 02:37:06.90 | Unknown | Yeah. and then we're gonna talk about the other elements. Kind of hearing the conversation tonight, I sort of wish we had started |
| 02:37:13.70 | Tom Reilly | elements. |
| 02:37:14.22 | Unknown | with item six. |
| 02:37:16.33 | Tom Reilly | No, I don't mean six. |
| 02:37:18.59 | Unknown | the other additional elements. |
| 02:37:19.62 | Tom Reilly | No, I mean this print, all of these. LU's. All the LU's, HC's. |
| 02:37:20.61 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:37:24.87 | Unknown | She's that's what we've been giving comment on now. That's what we're coming on now. |
| 02:37:28.90 | Tom Reilly | Oh, okay, well yeah, I don't know, possibly go through the entire documents. I thought we were doing the first, we were commenting on the first set that they gave us on the table. |
| 02:37:30.11 | Unknown | That's what I wanted to be. I thought we were just |
| 02:37:33.03 | Joan Cox | It was a good day. |
| 02:37:38.74 | Tom Reilly | Thank you. We'll speak to you. |
| 02:37:40.90 | Unknown | No, this, so I'm sorry if there was confusion. We went through everything on the tables together |
| 02:37:40.93 | Tom Reilly | Thank you. |
| 02:37:46.69 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:37:46.92 | Unknown | and then this last round of comment was to comment on the anything else for the other three elements okay and it is a short period of time that's why i'm opening it back up um why don't i let the planning commission have comments first and then if council members have other comments so if there's things that are just burning i'm not |
| 02:37:52.39 | Unknown | other three elements. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:38:06.53 | Vicki Nichols | I'm not, I'm not. |
| 02:38:07.27 | Unknown | I'm not burning any. |
| 02:38:07.97 | Vicki Nichols | where I've said my piece. |
| 02:38:08.79 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:38:08.93 | Commissioner Kelman | Yes. |
| 02:38:09.20 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 02:38:09.23 | Commissioner Kelman | So I want to thank all the council members for their comments and this new idea of the innovation zone, which we've been urging for a while. But I want to take it a step further. What we're talking about is not an innovation lab, and it's not a center. It's an ethos. So I think this document struggles from a vision. And it's a holistic vision for what Sausalito is now, and what we will become as a community of the next general plan. We actually have a policy, CD 4.2, that says the general plan should include a city identity. We don't have one. And that is why we struggle with each of these elements, each of these objectives. If we actually, for example, became a community that is a world leader in technical innovations and strategies to address major issues like climate change and sea level rise, we would have a vision and an ethos. We would, that would inform and educate every single objective and element that we work on. But here's the best part. We actually already have the unique resources and infrastructure to be a global leader in things like light industrial prototyping and micromanufacturing. We can design, create, test, and iterate right here. Again, not an innovation lab, not a center, not a segmented portion of the MarinShip or of the community. This is an ethos for an entire Sausalito. Thank you. Second, I think the important question is, where else can you find a historic waterfront community with the level of artistry, maritime innovation, and industrial know-how that we have here. I beg you to find another example that is thriving as much as what we have. I think we can continue to promote and enhance our creative community from artists to industry to maritime, but it has to be embedded in this general plan in a big way. Third, while I support the concept of the zone, I think some of the economic studies that have been contracted for don't speak to that ethos in the same way. I would commend us all to look to Port Townsend and the maritime economic study that they have developed there. I will tell you I spoke to Cosmont twice. They told me they weren't planning on looking at sea level rise in their land economic analysis. I was blown away. They told me that they weren't planning on submitting findings to the Planning Commission. Instead, hospitality and BAC, economic drivers, which is great, But how could it not go to this body? And the last thing I'll mention is community involvement. And I think some of you know this, there's actually already a group in the Marinship working on a strategic plan to help make Sausalito a leader in a range of technical and intellectual innovations. These folks are already thinking about how to become a hub for solutions and doing the hard work to figure out what type of community, financial, and political support will be needed to achieve this. These are the types of grassroots efforts and thinking that really stand out as a hallmark for Sausalito. They need to be integrated into the process, and we need to keep the community closely involved. |
| 02:40:53.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:40:57.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:40:58.00 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:40:58.01 | Unknown (Planning Commissioner) | anyone. |
| 02:40:58.32 | Unknown | That's... |
| 02:40:58.79 | Unknown (Planning Commissioner) | Thank you. |
| 02:40:58.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:41:01.41 | Unknown (Planning Commissioner) | I appreciate everybody's comments and particularly the perspective of the city council members. So thank you for your unique perspective as different from the planning commission. It's nice that there's a lot of common ground in what we see. And I'm equally impressed and blown away by what the companies and folks down in the Marin ship are already producing. But, There's a larger picture that we again have to make sure that we're connecting the dots here because there's a whole other part of Sausalito We've been talking about the marine ship a lot tonight for obvious reasons, but let's make sure that the opportunities that we see in the marine ship can also benefit the rest of Sausalito. So let's make sure that there's a cohesive Thank you. vision and plan that doesn't just address the partnership, but really adds to the greater value collectively together of the other elements and parts of Sausalito. |
| 02:42:07.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:42:08.06 | Unknown (Planning Commissioner) | Thank you. |
| 02:42:13.06 | Unknown | Anybody else on the commission? |
| 02:42:14.22 | Vicki Nichols | Anyone else? Last chance for the moment? |
| 02:42:17.09 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:42:17.45 | Vicki Nichols | Okay. |
| 02:42:19.05 | Unknown | Okay, back to the council. Anything else on these three elements? |
| 02:42:23.12 | Joan Cox | I just had one question in the backup. With respect to LU15 and LU17, which is houseboots and liver boards, which I think are a big part of our identity. Um, Do these, and Joan you may be willing to just, I don't know who does. |
| 02:42:39.50 | Unknown | Which numbers again? |
| 02:42:41.19 | Joan Cox | LU-15 and 17? The question is, do houseboats and liveaboards, do they count towards our housing? when we have to hit objectives. |
| 02:42:51.03 | Unknown | They do. NIGHT. Oh, no. So both Joan, Ray, and I were on the Housing Element Task Force, and Vicki was on the Planning Commission at that time. So within our jurisdiction, house folks definitely do. Live aboards, I think it's 10% of marinas, 10% of a marina can have permanent live aboard residential situation, and we have that. And they do count. But they're not supposed to be greater than that number. |
| 02:43:21.00 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Thank you. |
| 02:43:25.03 | Unknown | So it's. |
| 02:43:25.92 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | If Carlo Berg gets his wish to have liveaboards, we can count that 10% towards our low-income quota in our housing element. |
| 02:43:35.00 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 02:43:35.04 | Ray Withey | We should. |
| 02:43:35.27 | Joan Cox | support car |
| 02:43:36.03 | Ray Withey | to get a little work. |
| 02:43:36.74 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | I'm so excited. So, |
| 02:43:37.81 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:43:37.84 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Bye. |
| 02:43:38.85 | Ray Withey | That was one of the great achievements of the last housing element update was to be able to count those. |
| 02:43:46.26 | Joan Cox | Well, I know that Councilmember Cox also has some creative ideas that I support. |
| 02:43:50.61 | Commissioner Kelman | That I support. Cox, can you clarify though? They count, but my understanding is that everything from South 40 North is actually not within city jurisdiction. |
| 02:44:01.33 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | That's why we consider sphere of influence. |
| 02:44:02.48 | Commissioner Kelman | So they count. But we don't have that many that are actually voting members of of that answers your question. |
| 02:44:10.07 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:44:10.41 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:44:11.96 | Unknown | Okay, anyway, so we are going to take a five minute break before our next item, I'm sorry, Council Member Burns. Thank you. |
| 02:44:20.92 | Unknown | I agree. |
| 02:44:21.26 | Unknown | Thank you. Oh, sorry. |
| 02:44:24.45 | Tom Reilly | Sorry, sorry to be a burden here. OK, hold on. |
| 02:44:26.32 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:44:26.34 | Unknown | Okay, hold on, we're still, so if everybody can be quiet, we're still commenting. |
| 02:44:31.16 | Tom Reilly | LU 1.4, high density residential. We've adopted something that says located a half a mile from major transportation. I think that's to go along with the state. I don't think that's relevant in Saucon. I think we should actually fight that. A half mile from a major transportation stop when you have 800 foot of elevation is fairly irrelevant. I don't know why we have accessory dwelling units only in low and medium and not high density. We've already put one on Napa Street, which is high density. So that is LU 1.12. |
| 02:44:56.68 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 02:45:02.40 | Tom Reilly | LU 2.6, local art, we do have a art commission public art commission make sure we knew that and then we are prohibited from adding new recreational marinas under this so we have to take that allu out because a mooring field is a falls under the definition of marina according to marinas um trying to do this really quick um yeah that's it, that's it. Well, that's it for that first one, but go ahead. I'll get these somehow out somewhere else. |
| 02:45:25.40 | Unknown | It's just like. |
| 02:45:38.92 | Unknown | See you next time. |
| 02:45:43.49 | Unknown | Great, so if, can I just ask staff and the M group, if council members, I had a lot of nitpicky comments that I just, it's not worth going through at a public meeting that I don't think are very controversial. Will you take those from planning commissioners and council members? Thank you. |
| 02:46:04.68 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Yes. |
| 02:46:05.09 | Unknown | Thank you. Okay, and we can post those for the public? Yes. In the event they become controversial? |
| 02:46:08.47 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 02:46:10.52 | Vicki Nichols | I was just going to say, can we sort of define what the scope of those might be? I want to be able to bring the community along with all of our comments. Thank you. |
| 02:46:18.67 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Thank you. |
| 02:46:18.73 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. What would be a minor one? |
| 02:46:20.08 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | May I just suggest this is the first cut at confirming policies and objectives, these are then gonna turn into a general plan, there's gonna be a draft. We're all gonna have the ability to weigh in and on again, so I don't know why, any comments from any city council member, member of the public, Planning Commissioner should not be sent to the M group and considered by them as they do further drafting |
| 02:46:45.32 | Vicki Nichols | Well, with all due respect, we've been in some meetings where some things have been said, and it might be slightly interpreted different, so I just want to be I'm trying to be the advocate for the community here that hasn't attended these meetings a lot, and I want to make sure that the process is such that If someone's, if we're, submitting things that appear to change what we've discussed, that there's a way to track that and where it came from. I mean it respectfully. |
| 02:47:11.14 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | And to help with that procedurally, that type of thing should go through the Community Development Director, Bill Meeker, and they'll create a document trail and then he'll forward it to us, public records. |
| 02:47:11.16 | Vicki Nichols | I just think it's. |
| 02:47:25.33 | Unknown | Okay, great, thank you. We're gonna take a five minute break and come back for 5B. If you would like to speak on that item, please submit a speaker card. |
| 02:47:51.72 | Unknown | Okay, we're gonna get started again. I would like to ask Jeff Bradley to come back up. We're gonna start on part two, 5B. I have been reminded by some of my fellow council members that we have been here for three hours. And we've covered one third of our agenda. So we are going to make an effort to move this along. but continue to have this great conversation. Jeff, lead us off. |
| 02:48:24.59 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | I think we need the previous presentation loaded. This one is general plan considerations. |
| 02:48:31.45 | Unknown | Jeff, can you speak up? |
| 02:48:32.39 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Thank you. I think we have the wrong presentation up at the moment. I'm not sure who's driving. Yeah, the same one we had before. Thank you. |
| 02:48:56.96 | Unknown | OK, so I'm hoping these are going to be a little less time consuming so we'll have more time to talk about our general comments. Um, |
| 02:49:05.67 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | So in part two, we're going to talk about the environmental quality element, health, safety, and community resilience, and the economic element. We did part one. And we're now into part two. And so before we jump right into this specific question, I just want to take a minute and provide a little more context than we've been providing. If you have the inclination on pages 29 through 31 of your packet, it's three pages, is the objectives and policies for the environmental quality element. I just want to point out before we get into this one specific issue that we have nine objectives and they are supported by 29 policies. And those 29 policies will be supported by an unknown number of programs at this point. So I just want the Commission and the Council to understand that while we're asking one specific question, this lives within a larger context. I know all of us have slightly different levels of familiarity with this information. So the specific issue or question on the table, and this is under objective EQ7, Strive for Climate Leadership. That's one of the nine objectives. Right now, the one existing policy we have under that objective is called Applied Research, and it says that new research and technology that will improve environmental quality should be applied to city policies as applicable. So that's sort of a placeholder policy to cover things that we don't know about yet. because they haven't been invented yet. New technologies that can be beneficial to the environment. So in, In addition to this, the discussion at the G-PAC was how bold shall we be in terms of documenting within the general plan the idea that Sausalito really should seek to achieve a leadership position through its general plan on climate change, the climate crisis, sea level rise, adaptations to that. The G-PAC was generally supportive, with I believe most members expressing support for policy but I think we also wanted council planning commission input because it it seemed like a pretty strong policy for you know a city of 7400 people but I think there was you know some it generated some excitement and it ties into the innovation and it ties into what we heard at the Marineship Community Workshop. So our recommendation is Yes. |
| 02:51:56.16 | Unknown | Are there any questions on this? Okay, Jeff, why don't you move on to the next one? |
| 02:52:04.21 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Under objective, under health, safety, and community resilience element, that's on pages 32 through 34 of your packet. And there we have probably an equal number of, nearly an equal number of policies and objectives that we just talked about, a fairly large number. And within this context, we have an existing objective of encourage a proactive approach to sea level rise. So the issue is, so the, and this was a, an idea that was put out there by the GPAC was should the general plan update consider a policy of what's known as retreat, otherwise back away from properties that may be subject to the threat of sea level rise to augment policies proposed to mitigate the effects of same. |
| 02:52:28.25 | Unknown | have an example. |
| 02:52:55.07 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | In terms of the GPAC discussion, there seemed to be not strong support for it, but some members did express the need to kind of consider all options and take a really proactive approach to planning for and managing the effects of sea level rise. Our recommendation is no, simply because retreat is just one of the possible responses to sea level rise, and we don't feel like we're there yet to have a standalone policy that that supports that concept when the city still needs time to evaluate other responses to sea level rise before you get to the retreat which is really the most drastic in one way is it's it could be considered the most environmentally friendly thing to do but from a social and economic perspective it's one of the most drastic, in one way, it could be considered the most environmentally friendly thing to do, but from a social and economic perspective, it's one of the most drastic thing you can do. |
| 02:53:47.68 | Unknown | So just to clarify, the question is, do we have a standalone policy on retreat? |
| 02:53:52.78 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 02:53:52.80 | Unknown | Right. |
| 02:53:53.05 | Unknown | versus leaving it as one option out of many to mitigate and adapt to sea level rise. |
| 02:54:00.31 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Exactly. |
| 02:54:01.22 | Unknown | Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? We want that one answered. |
| 02:54:05.50 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 02:54:05.77 | Unknown | No, we have to have public comment first. Any other questions? Okay. Can you take the next one? |
| 02:54:15.55 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | So the economic element runs from page 35 of your packet through page 37 and has a number of objectives and policies. Within that context, we do have an objective, EC7, to promote economically sustainable tourism. And that objective we have labeled as coming from the GPAC. And within that, The question is, should we have a policy and or a program to implement a tourism plan? The GPAC had general support for this idea, with some, I believe nearly all the members supporting it. I can't remember exactly, so I shouldn't say that. Up on the slide, we said, with some members expressing support for a policy. And our recommendation is yes, based on the importance, whether you think the city has too much tourism or not enough tourism, it's a very important issue for the city, and a tourism plan can help with finding that right balance, is our position. |
| 02:55:26.71 | Unknown | Any questions on that? |
| 02:55:30.86 | Commissioner Kelman | I had one, I'm sorry, for Jeff. It's the con is if not properly implemented, would not be considered more beneficial than the status quo. what can we do in crafting this to ensure that it is a good use of our tax dollars. |
| 02:55:52.41 | Commissioner Kelman | I'll just read the second bullet under the con. |
| 02:55:55.60 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Oh, absolutely. |
| 02:56:03.49 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | We know that the city has a fairly limited staff resources for special projects or ongoing implementation of things. And so we're sensitive to just not piling on all these plans and studies. And so this con is just getting at the fact that you could hire a consultant to do a plan, but if it just sits on a shelf and it's not actively implemented then it might feel like it wasn't it wasn't worth the effort so we're just kind of acknowledging the reality that it really has to be part of a robust program to get to have to see real results. |
| 02:56:48.94 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. So under the pros on the economic element, the second bullet says could resolve perceived conflicts between residential and visitor-serving uses in commercial areas. Don't we normally do that through zoning? not through I don't know. |
| 02:57:15.21 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Yeah, I think zoning is the tool to really resolve land use conflicts. I think one of the things we heard maybe from the Planning Commission was that there wasn't a real good definition of visitor serving versus local serving businesses. And we thought maybe within the context of a tourism plan, it could be more effectively settled versus through trying to write a zoning ordinance around it. |
| 02:57:32.97 | Unknown | AND I'M GOING TO BE |
| 02:57:33.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:57:33.12 | Unknown | I'm not. |
| 02:57:47.66 | Vicki Nichols | I think that needs to be pinned down, what the definition is. I mean, it could resolve it. It has to be defined better. |
| 02:57:58.18 | John DeRay (GPAC Member) | Right. |
| 02:57:59.14 | Vicki Nichols | just in general. No. |
| 02:58:01.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:58:05.84 | Unknown | Okay, do you have anything else, Jeff? |
| 02:58:07.66 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | That's it. |
| 02:58:08.47 | Unknown | Oh, okay. We've got a question from Vice Mayor Withey. |
| 02:58:13.63 | Ray Withey | Yeah, Jeff. I was trying to find where a reference was, and I just missed it maybe, to our climate action plan. What's, and more generally, what's the relationship between the general plan and the climate action plan, and Again, corollary, at a GPAC meeting some months ago, I asked you, for instance, where any GHG greenhouse gas emission reduction goals would reside. Would they reside at all in the general plan? And you said yes. |
| 02:58:58.05 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:58:59.28 | Ray Withey | Where are they? So where's those? Where are those objectives? Could you sort of walk me through and help me find them? |
| 02:59:06.92 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Sure. The environmental quality element would be the logical place for that. |
| 02:59:35.51 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Unfortunately, I'm not finding it. |
| 02:59:42.77 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | stage. Thank you. to get the message. Thank you. |
| 02:59:49.97 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | EQ what? EQ 5. |
| 02:59:54.75 | Ray Withey | EQ5 is maintain high quality air quality standards. That's not relevant. I mean, it's highly relevant, but it's not what we're talking about. |
| 03:00:15.20 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | It'll be in that section. I apologize. |
| 03:00:19.52 | Ray Withey | No, that's all right. So it's not in there, so it's something we need to Think about it. |
| 03:00:24.11 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | But I promised you it would be at that last meeting. |
| 03:00:27.69 | Ray Withey | I know. |
| 03:00:32.04 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | So under state law, cities and counties can comply with the greenhouse reduction laws by either having a standalone climate action plan or having a resolution and policies in your general plan. So obviously we have a climate action plan. So we will have a fairly simple objective and policy in the general plan referencing the fact it is the city's official policy to maintain a climate action plan, that it be periodically updated. And so a lot of the details will reside in the climate action plan itself. We could have, in order to help implement the Climate Action Plan, we could have also a set of programs to actually help move the ball forward on achieving the goals of the Climate Action Plan. So it's really a belt and suspenders approach of really detailed Climate Action Plan document itself and then high-level goals, policies and programs within the General Plan that support that. Thank you. |
| 03:01:38.21 | Unknown | So if I can just jump in, the Sustainability Commission sent us again today, I think probably maybe for the fourth time, the low emission action plan that they drafted, which I think is a really excellent document that we were hoping the GPAC would recommend moving forward within this document. and referencing and implementing. And we heard again from the Sustainability Commission today that that really hasn't happened in as fulsome a way as it could have. So we can talk about that during our comments but I think that's a really great place to start that conversation. Are there other questions? Yes. |
| 03:02:24.67 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | A follow on to the vice mayor's question. We discussed including, Jeff, in the introduction to the general plan, the list of documents that have already been adopted by the city of Sausalito or that have been mandated by the state, so the climate action plan, the reduction in greenhouse gas, all of those things that have already been adopted by the city of Sausalito should be listed in that introduction as things that we are already I'm not sure. governed by and that are being incorporated by reference into the general plan. Correct. |
| 03:03:04.10 | Commissioner Kelman | Can I add to that, Jeff? It's your intention. |
| 03:03:05.81 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | It's your intention to do that, right? That's my question. |
| 03:03:07.87 | Commissioner Kelman | That's my question. I wholeheartedly support Councilmember Cox's intention statement there. And I go a step further. by providing whatever body moves forward with evaluating the general plan with a list of resources from other localities who are dealing with similar issues, So Rafael, Pataluma, Katati, they all have done recent general plan updates. What did they do on the issue of climate change on sustainability. There are very few that also have sea level rise examples, We should certainly look at that. THE CITY IS GOING TO BE And just to have that full list of resources in addition, to pulling in local science based frameworks which were articulated earlier tonight. So just to have those resources to shape our thinking as we're evaluating this, because I mean, climate change is going to apply to Sausalito equally wherever you sort of are within the city. So it's a, I think, a city-wide goal. |
| 03:03:57.56 | Unknown | So again, just I think this is under the sustainability item six. There's three sustainability plans that were provided to us from three different cities. And then again today, the Sustainability Commission sent us the city of Alameda's |
| 03:03:57.72 | Commissioner Kelman | I agree. |
| 03:03:58.20 | Lauren Derimer | Thank you. |
| 03:04:15.89 | Unknown | plan, which is a great model and also has the sea level rise component. So a lot of good things in there. |
| 03:04:23.94 | Vicki Nichols | I think. They're ahead of us in sea level rise plan in Alameda. Yes. That was a really good plan. |
| 03:04:27.21 | Unknown | Yes, that was a really good plan. A lot to borrow from. Okay, so we move to public comment. I only have two public speaker cards for this item. So if anybody else would like to speak. And Chris, did you want to speak still or no? Okay, all right, sorry about that. out. All right, I have Brooke Moreno, I don't know if she's still here, and Adam Karatsky. I have you under item six. Okay, well come on up. |
| 03:05:11.48 | Unknown | And Adam, I'm calling your name. |
| 03:05:20.64 | Sandra Bushmaker | don't have sandra I'm Sandra Bushmaker, whoa, I don't wanna speak that close. I'm Sandra Bushmaker, resident member of the Budslide Task Force, former council member, And, generally interested resident in what's happening with our town. I want to do it. a lawyer thing. because our time is short. I would like to refer to all my correspondents to both the City Council and GPAC. and all my public comments, I want to refer to them now and incorporated them by reference into what I am saying tonight. so that way you don't have to hear it all again. All right, I want to, on the environmental issue, There are some concerns I have with regard to the Marin ship and doing any kind of housing element in the Marin ship. I speak against a housing element in the Marin ship. The EPA, as you know, designated certain Superfund sites down in the Marin ship. I understand that there was a EIR report which we have been unable to get our hands on. with regard to the machine shop. and perhaps other areas in the marineship. These are for contaminants, asbestos, Lead. all the chemicals that we used during the World War II manufacturing site. and others, and there may be new ones that we don't know about now that have washed up on shore. Uh, I would like to request that we do a toxic materials study in the marine ship before proceeding with any plans whatsoever. Thirty years ago, there was drilling in the Arkes property for core samples. Where is the report on that? I would like to see that. I think the community should see that. along with the EPA's Environmental Impact Report. I also would like the council to consider some things that came from the mudslide task force. Really? |
| 03:07:30.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:07:30.98 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 03:07:31.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:07:31.03 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 03:07:31.24 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:07:31.47 | Sandra Bushmaker | That's two minutes. All right, I would also like to consider the geologic |
| 03:07:31.50 | Unknown | That's two minutes. |
| 03:07:39.71 | Sandra Bushmaker | assessment district, not assessment district, there's another word for it, formation, in order to receive funding and get our mudslide task force out of mothballs and put it on the front burner. Thank you so much. Great. Thank you |
| 03:07:59.43 | Adam Kravatsky (Public Commenter) | Good evening, Adam Kriváci. how to address proactively sea level rise. That's a basic question that the whole country is worried about. I have a suggestion for a direction. not the solution. we should approach sea level rise as a moving target because it keeps rising. We should not make firm plans for a certain area that is subject to sea level rise. We should work backwards from the cost benefit analysis of that particular piece of land What? how it can serve the community, and for how much money and for how long. And these are like equations that you set up with two or three unknowns and therefore you have to work through algorithms that economists can develop. And then you have to work through algorithms. and each And every square foot of that piece of land should pay for itself before it has to be given up. And if We approach it that way. We can make Maximum use of our assets. and It can serve our community to a maximum fashion. |
| 03:09:36.31 | Unknown | Great, thank you. Greg? |
| 03:09:41.17 | Greg Thompson | Hi, I was going to speak after the six, but given the comments, I think it makes sense for me to speak now. I'm Greg Thompson on the Saskolito Sustainability Commission, and I appreciate all of the positive comments about our need to take action on climate. And given the comments about integrating this into the general plan, that's exactly what our letter to everyone is asking for. and i just want to make a comment we did prepare the low emissions action plan specifically to be current and it is also based on other leading cities in marin county and marin county's drawdown initiative so it's aligned with the county it's aligned with other leading cities in the county and we want that to be totally integrated as you guys have asked for into our general plan and also of course the strategic plan going forward. So that is our request to everyone, to the commission and to the planning committee, and that's the letter that we submitted and we thank you for your consideration. |
| 03:10:41.33 | Unknown | Great, thank you. Okay, I've got Carlo Berg, Lise Chilino, and I also had cards from Michael Perlmutter and Susan Al. I think they may have left. |
| 03:10:54.17 | Carlito Berg | Hey there everybody, Carlo Berg, Marina Plaza, yet again here. Just to address Sanders' comment, I would invite any of you guys to take a look at our environmental impact report, specifically our Phase I, it's not really an EI, it's actually a Phase I environmental report. And on our site, which was on the southern portion of the boat launch, which constitutes about 10% of all the land in the marine ship, there is no contamination that that report was able to find, including, core samples that were drilled. after we helped launch the Matthew Turner as well. So the idea that the marineship is something totally contaminated area isn't necessarily factual. In fact, any property owner who has a loan on their property, which at the size of commercial property down there is most of them, they have to get an environmental loan, they have to get a phase one, and the bank has to approve it, and they have it on record, and they're hundreds of pages long, and they're quite exhaustive. So just wanted to make that quick statement, but I also do support Sandra's. that there are certain areas that are likely heavily contaminated and those should be talked about in terms of if someone were to submit some sort of conditional use or other permit to build on those, the, I think the issue specifically with that, could potentially be that some of those sites are so contaminated that no developer is ever going to try to build on those because the land cost to go down and excavate out you know, and shore and soil and everything down there isn't gonna pay for itself with the current uses in the land. even if you were to upgrade even if you were to up zone areas or do other things that this council's not considering, it's probably unlikely that it would, that you could remedy a super fun site to be able to pay for itself with even a couple hundred or even more units of apartments, it's very difficult. So just wanted to make that comment. |
| 03:12:51.49 | Unknown | Great, thank you. Please? |
| 03:12:56.84 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:12:56.85 | Lisa Chilino | Hi, my name is Lisa Chilino. And as a random resident of Sausalito, I was looking through all the objectives and policies that were put out. I would say 75, 85% of them could be applied to any city across the Bay Area or indeed in the nation. And so I, wanted to spend most of my time focusing on those things that were unique to Sausalito. And one of the things that people have been talking about |
| 03:13:22.05 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. |
| 03:13:23.99 | Lisa Chilino | would be like an innovation area for climate change and sea level rise. And. Given that there are a lot of things to do in this general plan, I do think that focus is going to be important. my comment would be, I think we should forget any idea of an innovation area for climate change in general because we are not uniquely affected by climate change. We have no unique um, or not. hyper unique. Um, qualifications to solve those problems. Whereas I really do think we do for sea level rise. We're not the only community around the world that is affected by sea level rise, We are. significantly affected. And I also think we have some great know-how. and industry in the marine ship that can help solve it. So I think that does make it special. So my only comment was, I think we should forget the stuff about an innovation area for climate change and focus on sea level rise. Thank you. Bye. |
| 03:14:29.90 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:14:29.97 | Lisa Chilino | Thank you. |
| 03:14:30.06 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:14:30.09 | Lisa Chilino | . |
| 03:14:30.17 | Wilfred Welch | Thank you. Madam Chairman, I was supposed to speak in the next section. Can I speak now instead? |
| 03:14:33.85 | Unknown | Yes. Thank you. |
| 03:14:34.51 | Wilfred Welch | for the My name's Wilfred Welch. My wife, Carol, and I have lived in the Houseboat community for the last 19 years. |
| 03:14:42.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:14:43.37 | Wilfred Welch | I came here because I was I haven't been participating in these meetings, but I've been concerned that sea level rise, climate change, and all the rest. would not be front and center for the general plan. And I see this as absolutely essential that it be an overlay, and this is the existential threat of our time. I've spent the last 10 years focusing on this issue from a more global perspective, and now I'm focusing a little more on a local perspective. So I came here concerned that that would not be the case. Listening to Peter Van Meter and listening to Jeff and you all, I realized that I was incorrect and that we are focusing a fair amount on this. And therefore my only concern or my only request is when it gets down into the details of the implementation that this be front and center and you don't let it slide at that point. Say the nice things at the top level, mean it, but don't act on it when it gets to the very details of what it counts. So thank you very much. |
| 03:15:48.08 | Unknown | Great, thank you. Should I keep your card under item six as well? |
| 03:15:51.12 | Wilfred Welch | Yes, take it out of there. My name is Wilfred Welch, and you can just yank it. |
| 03:15:55.90 | Unknown | So you don't want to speak under item six? Okay. Great. Okay, is there anybody else who would like to speak? Oh, sorry. Lauren Derimer. Hi, Lauren. And Doug Storms. |
| 03:16:17.57 | Lauren Derimer | Thank you. Thank you. Do I have a time limit? I'm sorry, I got here a little bit late. Two minutes, okay. |
| 03:16:20.33 | Vicki Nichols | Yeah, two minutes. |
| 03:16:23.08 | Lauren Derimer | Thank you for letting me speak. I'm sorry I couldn't be here sooner. My name is Lauren Dreamer. I grew up just up the street at Glen Drive. I've worked in for six-divid employers in the Marin ship and currently rent some storage in Arkez. I spoke last time at the meeting about the importance of an economic assessment feasibility study, and I just wanted to kind of reemphasize that tonight. I know that the city is planning, and I know we've talked about this whole plan for the city, and I think that the most important thing to add on to that and to do either |
| 03:16:42.81 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:16:42.95 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 03:17:05.39 | Lauren Derimer | separately at the same time or even before that is an assessment on the marine trade, light industrial, artisans and the whole part of the working waterfront. I speak just as an individual, because I've noticed and I've mentioned this before, there was a place work study in, I think it was in 2014 or 2015, for a marine ship and the specific plan analysis that came out with results that said to do that, and we never actually did that. and before we can actually decide what to do with marineship, we need to know as a city for whether it's property owners, the city, or whether it's people, the businesses in to be able to see who's working there, what's working, what's not working, and how to move forward And I don't think you're able to do that until you are actually bring to the surface what we have. So I just wanted to, that's all I wanted to say. |
| 03:18:05.21 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:18:05.31 | Lauren Derimer | Thank you. |
| 03:18:05.33 | Unknown | Thank you. Great, thank you. |
| 03:18:08.27 | Lauren Derimer | Thank you. |
| 03:18:08.28 | Unknown | Doug Storms? And if there's anyone else who would like to speak, if you could stand up. |
| 03:18:16.30 | Doug Storms | Yes, my name is Doug Storms. I live at Wallow Point Harbor, but I'm presently anchored out. I'm a mariner while my houseboat is being rebuilt. I'm a member of the Richardson Bay Special Anchorage Association. It's an organization that's existed for five years. We became a nonprofit. And it's just a coalition of people that live, work, play, love Richardson Bay, and that are dedicated to preserving the past and building toward the future. So what we've been working on, and we're actually going to be giving a presentation to the Richardson Bay Regional Agency concerning a safe harbor plan. This is an extensive plan that's basically three parts. to the next day. up to 200 moorings that we would manage, that we would request mooring permits from the BCDC for up to 200 moorings. And we would be responsible for the installation, purchasing, buying, the installation, the management, et cetera, et cetera. The second phase and this is in parallel, three parts. One, the moorings, two, shore access. 10 access points along the waterfront. Doesn't do any good if you have moorings, if you don't have safe, places to land, to egress, to access, to leave, It's critical. Um, The third phase, is the Maritime Center slash Marine Service slash Hospitality Center. met with Michael Rex a couple years ago and I told him about this concept and he pulls out of his bag his attache plans that he had drawn up for Schoonmaker Marino. And what was it? First floor was Marine Service. Second floor was the Marine, the Maritime Hospitality Center meeting conference room, similar to like the Edgewater room at the City Hall. So we're working on this and addresses a lot of those issues. And so we want to be a part of that process. It's a great adventure. Sausalito is worth it. There's no other place like this in the entire world. Great, thank you. And I appreciate your efforts and all the time that you put in. I really do appreciate that. Thank you. |
| 03:20:31.69 | Unknown | Great, thank you. |
| 03:20:36.61 | Unknown | Can I just ask you one question about that? Did you say you're asking permission from BCDC for this three-part plan or RBRA? |
| 03:20:45.41 | Doug Storms | We're coordinating and working with City, RBRA, Coast Guard, Mother Teresa, BCDC, it's going to be a joint effort to deal with this problem. It's a 30-year, as Joanne has said, it's been around a long time. So it's a comprehensive plan, a 10-year plan, it's not gonna be fixed overnight. But we need everybody's cooperation. So I have talked with Adam Paltzer Curtis at the RBRA and talked with Adrian at the BCDC. I showed them the rough draft and said, hey, this is what we're working on. So it's just part of a process. |
| 03:21:19.36 | Unknown | So it's... All right, good, thank you. Is there any other public comment? Okay, seeing none, we're gonna close public comment and ask Jeff Bradley to come back to the podium and walk us through I think it's three points of input. We'll try to move through these pretty quickly and get to kind of our broader comments. So can we? Go back to our |
| 03:21:52.77 | Unknown | Excuse me? Yeah, so now we need to give feedback. So the first one, no, this was not the first one. |
| 03:22:05.87 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 03:22:05.88 | Unknown | Was it? |
| 03:22:06.07 | Vicki Nichols | Is that right? Thank you. |
| 03:22:06.54 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:22:06.79 | Vicki Nichols | Climate change. |
| 03:22:07.94 | Unknown | Oh, it was? Okay. All right. I was wrong. |
| 03:22:08.60 | Vicki Nichols | Okay. So page nine maybe? Okay. |
| 03:22:13.97 | Unknown | Okay, I've got so many pieces of paper up here. |
| 03:22:17.17 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | All right. You're doing good though. Madam Mayor. Is it possible, since there's only three of them, can we just give our feedback on all three instead of walking through each one individually? Because we are going to spend 12 minutes on each item otherwise. |
| 03:22:23.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:22:33.25 | Unknown | Sure, I just thought these are so specific and kind of relatively small versus the other, just kind of the breadth of, we don't need to all comment on all of these, I think that's the main point, but, I mean, I'd just like to take them quickly one by one. But if nobody, if you don't have something particular to say, you can certainly feel free to pass. |
| 03:23:02.60 | Unknown | Do you want to do the planning commission first? |
| 03:23:06.51 | Vicki Nichols | Sure. Would anyone like to start? We're on page 9. climate leadership role in the general plan. |
| 03:23:19.54 | Vicki Nichols | And if you don't have a lot to, you know, I'm not trying to limit anything obviously, but if you just support it, let's just give that feedback and run through it. |
| 03:23:29.80 | Unknown (Planning Commissioner) | So, okay. You want to start? Yeah, I'll start. Thank you. |
| 03:23:31.24 | Vicki Nichols | You want to start? Yeah, I'll start. |
| 03:23:34.39 | Unknown (Planning Commissioner) | I support Sausalito taking on a climate leadership role through the general plan update. what type of resources and ability to implement I'm not really very clear on. But I don't think there's any reason why we could not and should not take a leadership role whether it's part of the marinship, whether it's just applied sciences here, I think we offer a wonderful platform for this, so I support it. |
| 03:24:08.85 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. Anyone else? Thank you. |
| 03:24:13.12 | Commissioner Pierce | I would concur with Commissioner Feller that we are uniquely situated in a place where clearly sea level rise is palpable and other broader climate issues are as well. So I don't see any reason why we shouldn't do this. Again, I'm not quite clear on what the specifics would be, but as an umbrella concept, it seems perfectly reasonable and noble for us to pursue. |
| 03:24:41.25 | Commissioner Kelman | I think Lisa made a great point about, you know, climate change, sea level rise. I would actually say that ecological biodiversity is being impacted as well, which is a direct result of climate change. So I would maybe change the language to be strived for leadership on climate change and sea level rise and make it a broader mandate, knowing that we do have both of those components happening here. And then my hope would be that the individual, uh, sort of program pieces would be, for example, by maintaining a climate action plan, by supporting research and industrial uses, specifically aimed at innovations and policies around solving these issues, things that are very specific so that we can understand doesn't really have meat behind it. And then, should I do the other one too? Thank you. Let's just do this one first. Thank you. |
| 03:25:31.74 | Vicki Nichols | Great. In the interest of time, I concur with all the Planning Commission comments that have been made. In just one sentence, I think climate leadership has to be embedded throughout our plan. We can't do without it. |
| 03:25:44.84 | Unknown | Okay, city council. |
| 03:25:45.92 | Vicki Nichols | Get off. |
| 03:25:47.08 | Unknown | Okay. City Council, any additional thoughts that have not already been mentioned? |
| 03:25:53.93 | Joan Cox | Yes. Well, I mentioned earlier, I just want to reinforce it. I think when it's to strive for climate leadership, that is about us reducing greenhouse gases and working upstream. Not the downstream about climate change. That's about resiliency and the next element. And I think the Sustainable Commission report should be embedded throughout our general plan. And that's my update. |
| 03:26:16.34 | Tom Reilly | Yeah. That's similar to what I was going to say. I'm a yes, but if we take on climate change, climate leadership role, then does the implementation just become about everything else? I mean, every single thing that we've talked about up to this point then becomes the implementation of that policy, correct? Greenhouse gas, steel. So that's an element more than anything. |
| 03:26:19.31 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 03:26:36.95 | Unknown | Pretty much. |
| 03:26:42.90 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:26:46.04 | Unknown | Okay, got feedback, Greg? Why don't we move on? |
| 03:26:50.97 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | CHEF. |
| 03:26:51.26 | Unknown | Jeff, I'm sorry. |
| 03:26:52.17 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | It's okay. I answered it great. |
| 03:26:53.82 | Unknown | I was looking at Greg Thompson behind you. Bye. |
| 03:26:59.64 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Sorry. |
| 03:27:08.86 | Unknown | Yeah, you know, I think we've talked about this so much tonight, and we all, I'm just going to ask if anyone does not agree with this. |
| 03:27:16.26 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. I would just like to go on the record of saying that we need to include all of the mitigations and solutions, and Retreat being one of them, should not be singled out. It's not a popular word, it's a scary concept. but it's real and we have to talk about it. |
| 03:27:32.19 | Unknown | And when I said does everyone agree with this, recommendation to not have a separate policy but to include retreat as a mitigation measure. Okay, any dissenting views? Okay, let's go to the next one. |
| 03:27:47.89 | Commissioner Kelman | I'm sorry, sorry. I don't think that retreat is a proactive approach to sea level rise in any respect. I think the proactive approach is adaptation. And we have many wonderful studies showing nature-based frameworks for how we adapt as a community. So I want to make that, if this is a proactive approach, it's adaptation. If it's a mitigation measure, then it's retreat. Two different things. |
| 03:28:10.43 | Unknown | Okay. I think we're all on the same page. All right, let's move on. |
| 03:28:16.83 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Okay. Tourism plans. discuss. |
| 03:28:24.32 | Unknown | OK. economically sustainable tourism, support for a policy. I mean, I think I'll kick off, I agree with Jeff Bradley that this doesn't mean that you're pro-increased tourism or anti, it just means this is a reality in our town and that we need to have a policy that deals with it. So I'm in agreement. Is there any dissenting, any dissenting voices on this? |
| 03:28:56.42 | Vicki Nichols | I would say that the The only thing I would... rather than leaving this just wide open, Tourism is a big provider of our Sausalito economy, so it's something that we live with all the time. whether we like it or not. But I would like the, if we do a plan, it needs to have more definition rather than just being open-ended that anything can come in here. It has to have some management capabilities and or guidelines or something. It's not just how do we bring more people in. |
| 03:29:32.80 | Unknown | Right, and I think what we've talked about is economically low impact, which is here in the objective EC7. It's still like the devil's in the details. Right, well, this is why this is a... It says develop appropriate. Yeah. |
| 03:29:39.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:29:39.53 | Vicki Nichols | I still like the devils and the details. |
| 03:29:41.96 | Unknown | This is why this is a... Develop appropriate. |
| 03:29:44.97 | Unknown | Thank you. Right, okay. Anybody? Okay. Jeff, are we good? |
| 03:29:52.95 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Yes, thank you. |
| 03:29:53.84 | Unknown | Okay, so now I'm going to turn it over to the Planning Commission for general comments on the environmental quality element. the health, safety, and community resilience element, and the economic element. |
| 03:30:13.52 | Vicki Nichols | Okay. |
| 03:30:13.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:30:13.98 | Vicki Nichols | I think if we made comments and you've had some specifics, we can let those stand. If you want to summarize, that's fine. I don't want to control any comments. So go free if you want them to make them. |
| 03:30:32.37 | Unknown (Planning Commissioner) | I have a general comment about economics, not just to this particular EC7. But something I hit on earlier that maybe I should probably elaborate on is the entire economic element, consideration, study, metric, It really is part of the foundation of what the decision making process should be, or the considerations for direction and vision They are not the only ones, certainly, But the economic foundation is pretty important to understand what is viable, what is possible, what isn't. And so, I'm interested in the sequencing of some of the economic and land use work that's being done here in the city versus what you're doing and make sure that those elements are working in tandem or in the proper sequence and that the City Council Planning Commission and other commissions and committees here have the opportunity to be part of whatever those economic considerations might be and so we can weigh in on those in a timely manner So these sorts of discussions are better informed so that we can provide direction or clarifications or whatever that might be. So that's a general comment I have. I think that's quite critical. So have you been sequencing your work with Cosmon? |
| 03:32:18.48 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Essentially the two processes are operating in parallel. The general plan has been going on since 2017. We'll be wrapping up before the end of this year. And Cosmont was recently engaged to do their work. The last council meeting that this was discussed, it was mentioned by the city manager, that if Cosmont studies in working with the leadership of the city, the city council, planning commission, administration, if it's decided that some of their recommendations require changes to the general plan, the general plan is a dynamic document. It can be updated from time to time. So there is a degree of concurrency with both of these kind of happening in real time. And there's pros and cons to that. But the good news is it is happening. And if Cosmod comes up with some really good ideas that require amendments to the general plan, that could be dealt with at that time. |
| 03:33:05.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:33:22.17 | Unknown (Planning Commissioner) | Well, I certainly agree that general plans should be regularly updated. There's no question about that. But the issue is more the die being cast in the bricks and mortar of what the general plan is. That's a little bit harder to update when you're land economic studies don't jive with what your general plan is. So that's my concern is the sequencing of that and informed decisions. So I'm I want to mitigate as much abortive work as possible by any of the city's consultants And I'd like to be able to focus in a more streamlined way these separate elements that should be more cohesive |
| 03:34:07.36 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | And I'll get, if I may, from a planning perspective, I actually prefer that the general plan be set as the guiding policy document before the economic studies come in. Because in a community like Sausalito, there's so many values at stake, from environmental protection, community character, economic sustainability, that if something is to be changed due to economic reasons, it has to be run through a pretty strict filter. And I'd rather have that filter set up ahead of time in terms of what the community values are and all the other non-economic factors. |
| 03:34:42.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:34:42.54 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:34:42.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:34:45.43 | Unknown | Yeah, I think the main thing is to make sure that Cosma, the consultant, is aware of these policies in our economic element that we, as the decision makers, are giving guidance on. So I think that's the step that they need to be brought into this list once we've finished commenting and kept moving forward in an iterative manner so that they don't come back with some recommendations that don't jive with our goals and objectives at all. And if they don't, then, you know, I think we won't be able to accept them. |
| 03:34:45.48 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Yeah. is to make sure that- |
| 03:35:02.66 | Unknown | finished. |
| 03:35:22.33 | Unknown (Planning Commissioner) | Were they invited to this meeting? |
| 03:35:26.03 | Unknown | to listen. So this meeting will be available online. Online. And it is online. Yep, I'm hearing the city manager agreeing. But I mean, I think it's an important point. But I think the general plan is the high level. We need to filter down from there. OK, other comments from the planning commission? |
| 03:35:53.11 | Commissioner Kelman | you |
| 03:35:53.20 | Unknown | I'm sorry, were you done, Christina? |
| 03:35:53.26 | Commissioner Kelman | I'm sorry, were you done? Yeah. I'm very pleased, Jeff, to hear you articulate that vision around the funnel so by the time we get to any economic studies there's a strict filter. When I spoke to Cosmon, I did request that they apply context to their analysis. So sea level rise was one of them, but just understanding not to provide us with analysis in a vacuum of in a perfect world. this would be the highest and best use or highest residual land value. I also asked them to provide some alternatives to look at what happens if we don't bring in new uses, but we enhance the existing uses, you know, how robust It cannot be. The thought there was long-term self-sustaining innovation, not dependent on tourism and seasonality. And so I think that's the type of I'm not sure. information that would be most helpful for us moving forward. My fear, as Commissioner Feller articulated, is that we get through the process and then we see this study because the scope of work didn't take into account the conversations that we're having tonight. It's just. It's just a waste of dollars. We've kind of missed the mark together. So I don't know if we go back and revisit the scope of work or we give them a list of the things we've talked about for context. something for that process so we all are making the best use of our tax dollars. Um... And then just real quick on the other topics for EQ 3.1, the preservation strategy. I love that we have a one here that says utilize development review process to protect natural areas and private ownership. I love that. Do we have one that helps protect natural areas and private ownership that are not under development? But we can think of many up and down Bridgeway that might need some. support from the community to make sure that those areas are enhance and I don't know, I don't want to call anybody out, but that's only if you're in the development review process do we take that look. And I don't know if that's even possible within this. |
| 03:37:50.98 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | This is an existing policy, and I think it's trying to acknowledge that significant portions of natural areas are actually owned by other governmental agencies, so they may not be subject to the city's development review process, but we could definitely look to make sure it's not meant to be. you know, ruling out all public lands from preservation, obviously. |
| 03:38:19.69 | Commissioner Kelman | Right. And then the last thing is just HS-1 and HS-3, natural man-made hazards and disaster planning. I want to give a plug for the Landslide Task Force recommendations. That report is fantastic. And this needs to be updated with that information. Thank you. |
| 03:38:39.03 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Did you guys get that reference? |
| 03:38:43.38 | Vicki Nichols | I'm just going to say I appreciate all the other Planning Commission comments, and I'd just like to reiterate I think we have a great sustainability commission right now and they're really doing some nice work gathering information, so I would like to see all the, the reports and research and everything incorporated into this and continue to advise on best practices for Sausalito. |
| 03:39:07.01 | Commissioner Pierce | May I add one more thing? I had to do this earlier. Under EEC5, promoting local commercial uses, EC5.3 pedestrian environment is talking about enhancing pedestrian environment along Caledonia. I'm not sure why we limit it to Caledonia to include Bridgeway on the north end of town, as well as the side feeder streets such as Pine, Tourney, B, Litho, Napa, and perhaps even Harbor, all of which are heavily pedestrian used commercial areas. |
| 03:39:36.82 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:39:36.96 | Commissioner Pierce | I'm on EC 5.3. I'm on the digital version. It doesn't have those numbers. |
| 03:39:40.49 | Unknown | It's 36. |
| 03:39:47.10 | Unknown | Agreed. Thank you. So... Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:39:49.97 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 03:39:52.52 | Unknown | It's the pedestrian environment, and it mentions Caledonia, but not the other neighborhood and residents serving commercial areas. |
| 03:39:53.12 | Vicki Nichols | Yeah. |
| 03:40:02.27 | Unknown | I agree. |
| 03:40:05.31 | Unknown | OK, any other comments from the Planning Commission? |
| 03:40:08.95 | Commissioner Pierce | Sorry, one more. HS 4.2 impacts on existing developed areas, prohibit unnecessary excessive and annoying noise in existing developed areas. I know we encountered some issues of perhaps incompatible uses in the industrial zone, incompatible being things that aren't industrial, being next to things that are industrial that make noise. I think we just need to make sure we're addressing that as we move forward. |
| 03:40:19.13 | Unknown | Encounters. |
| 03:40:38.79 | Unknown | THE CITY IS A LITTLE BIT. Okay. |
| 03:40:47.56 | Unknown | All right, should I turn it over to the city council? Yes. Okay, who wants to start? |
| 03:40:58.45 | Ray Withey | Two comments. The first is in relation to climate action, and the second is in relation to economic development. With regards to climate action, I fully endorse, we have one of the better sustainability commissions in Marin County, and To be brutally honest, I do not think that the general planning process so far adequately incorporated some of their efforts. And so I think I fully endorse the idea of a reread of LEAP and it be incorporated pretty thoroughly into some more objectives into our gen and probably the programs actually into our general plan that's the first thing I actually and and therefore I was very disturbed that we don't see the greenhouse gas emission targets and and policies actually actually anywhere in the plan, and that needs to be rectified. I do agree with Lise that our competitive advantage is we see level rise, and therefore an innovation zone Um, ethos, which Janelle indicated, which I fully support. In terms of the marineship in particular, that's where our competitive advantage is, no question. In terms of environmental, sorry, economic development, |
| 03:42:20.70 | Unknown | with. |
| 03:42:41.00 | Ray Withey | When we presented to the, I'm going to go over two minutes, I apologize. When we presented measure L and M to the voters for approval, part of the deal was we promised them that we would institute for the first time a rigorous economic development program for the city. That had nothing to do with the general plan. It was going to be funded, it has been funded, and economic development needs to be an ongoing thing. Some of the consultant work that's going to come back, we're not going to agree with. We're going to say that's not appropriate for sort of Toledo. They're going to say that's what the market's telling us. And we're going to say we understand, but we're making a decision, a balance, between what our community wants versus what the marketplace is telling us. I also very much agree with Lauren that we need to do a sort of specific economic analysis of what's down there right now and work that through. So I really do believe that we've got to, just as we've got to have environmental climate change and so on as part of our ethos, we also have to have economics as well. And as we said all along in the beginning, our general plan and our strategic plan, and all that we do is going to have fiscal, financial, economic underpinnings. |
| 03:44:12.75 | Unknown | Great, thank you, Ray. No, that was well said. And I can just incorporate your economic comments by reference now, so I'll cede 30 minutes, 30 seconds to you. Joan or Joe or Tom. |
| 03:44:28.46 | Joan Cox | I'll jump in. Okay, so just following on Ray, once we have our greenhouse gas reduction goals in the plan, the biggest impact is going to be on transportation because that's where most of the contamination comes from. We're going to want to discourage the use of combustion engines. The best way to discourage combustion engines is get rid of parking lots. And I think we have to have a plan for our downtown parking lots. I take the ferry in the city because I don't want to pay $40 for a parking garage. Raise our price of parking is where you start. that discourages it. make electric vehicles free to park, and eventually our best real estate will reclaim for humans and not cars. So I think we need to have, Some plan around our downtown parking, which today is just a cash machine. But as people start using more Uber, shared transportation, electric bikes, that cash machine is gonna be a pit. So we need a plan for that. I think when it comes to environment, we need to think about Everything we're doing to reduce sea level rise So that is all in the reducing greenhouse gases. And then when it comes to resiliency, that's where our innovation zone goes. But we also need to talk about fire preparedness, landslide readiness, the power grid going out. We can't solve this. And it's going to be with us for the next 10 years. So we need plans for those. And I'll stop there. |
| 03:45:59.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:46:02.05 | Tom Reilly | I don't have anything specific to add to the elements agree with with I really appreciate the comments about separating the three you know the general plan the specific plan any economic development plans that we do because You know this is the dog and the rest of it is smaller and we don't want the tail wagging the dog you know with some of these you know Economic development plan dictating our general plan But as we start to look at all of these things now, especially as we look at climate change, climate action plans within this current set of elements, it's becoming really foggy to me on how we're gonna redevelop, how we're gonna reset these up. If we do add a waterfront element, if we do add a sustainability element, and if we take maybe environmental out, what gets put to where, and then that'll take out some of the redundancy And then I could probably take a better look at what is left. But I think, you know, |
| 03:47:03.10 | Unknown | I think. |
| 03:47:05.08 | Tom Reilly | Council Member Riley brought up some great ideas that kind of flow throughout this. Circulation, I think, is really big, and I was looking at what we have in here to create sufficient parking. I don't know how you plan for sufficient parking. I don't know if that should be in here. But I don't even know where that's going to end up when it's done anyway. |
| 03:47:22.91 | Unknown | Yeah, well, we can talk a little bit more about that in item six. But yes, I think it's going to be hard. That's going to be a job we're going to have to give to the consultant and staff if we decide to go down that path. |
| 03:47:37.95 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Great, I endorse the comments of, most of the comments of my fellow council members. I appreciate very much the addition of EC 7.1 regarding the city identity. That's something that we also discussed quite a bit in our strategic plan meeting on Saturday. I think that's really important for tourism and for our economic viability. I think the tourism policy should identify the type of tourist we want to focus on. That's something that the hospitality committee has been working on. EC 6.3 contemplates an assessment district for circulation in the marineship, but I didn't see a similar one for infrastructure improvement. in the Marin ship. So I'd like to see that put in wherever it belongs. I agree with some of the comments of Sandra Bushmaker. A toxic materials study should precede any consideration of housing. in the marineship. I'd like to see us incorporate the mudslide task force recommendations as appropriate into programs for our general plan including the establishment of a geologic assessment district. I endorse the requests from the Sustainability Commission letter, which Vice Mayor Withey discussed in detail. I endorse the innovation zone ethos, particularly in the marinship. And I endorse Councilmember Riley's comments regarding the power grid, the resilience the recovery. Regarding economic development, my only concern is that I do believe our timing could have been better the GPAC requested economic analysis as part of its development of the general plan and studying various aspects of the general plan We didn't identify the funding in time for that to occur as part of the general plan process So since it didn't occur within the general plan, we will make the best of the data when we receive it. So we are where we are. um, I think we need to be informed by this economic analysis, even though I believe it would have been preferable to do it sooner. Thank you. |
| 03:49:41.89 | Unknown | Great, thank you all. |
| 03:49:45.02 | Ray Withey | one little, three small followers. Thank you. |
| 03:49:47.63 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:49:47.75 | Ray Withey | Thanks. Very small follow-on comment to Council Member Cox. Remember, her very important question that she asked of our consultant, which was, OK, we're going to roll up the Marinership-specific plan. How are we going? What do we then do? Well, we've got to get all the other stuff done. So we can have lots of opportunities to incorporate economic analysis. |
| 03:50:11.97 | Unknown | Yeah, I thought that was a really important point, so thanks for coming back to that. So I think the four of you ticked off pretty much my highest level comments. So for lack of repeating, I can't leave the discussion though without indicating that I really, really hope this time around that the M group will Look. at the low emission action plan and we'll incorporate that into our general plan. I think we've talked about that a lot and it's just not in there right now to a sufficient level. And then the landslide task force, the same thing. I think there's some antiquated language as well related to the geologic hazards. HS1 is minimize impact of natural and man-made hazards on human property. I think that really has to be prioritizing resilience and other tools to minimize the impact. And then I think we have to add human health safety and property. I mean this is not just a property issue, it's a broader issue and resiliency. is part of that. And hopefully, as part of our implementing measures, we can talk about the policies of the Landslide Task Force. I thought Council Member Riley brought up a good point about parking. We really do, over the next 20 years, I mean, this is not about taking away parking tomorrow. But this is about re-envisioning how our communities are going to be getting around And parking is, I mean, most things that you read now indicate parking is going to be going down in the future. and it is a big part of our economic underpinning in Sausalito at the moment, But we don't want to be caught flat footed when that's not People are just going to be unwilling to be driving their cars and parking and paying for that. So I think that is something that this general plan should anticipate, and we should work towards reimagining those areas of town. And then I'm going to make one more plug. I thought it was great that we added the microgrids into this thing. I think we really do need to look at our sustainable power supplies and energy supplies. So I'm really glad that energy resiliency made it in here and the microgrids as well. So there's some good stuff. I think there's a little bit more forward thinking strategies that we can add as well. Okay, so I'm gonna wrap this portion up unless there's anything that anyone can't live without leaving here. Okay, great. So we are not gonna take a break and we're gonna get started on item six. If any commissioner or council member needs to get up and stretch or walk around, please feel free to do that while we get started. So Jeff, why don't you kick us off on item 6A. So this one is going to work a little bit different. differently than our other sections, we're gonna have pretty much the same format, except that when we, after we've taken Planning Commission comment, we're gonna adjourn. We're gonna let you guys go for the evening or stay, whatever you prefer, but then there are some decisions that are on our plate as a city council, but we very much want your input. Then we will move to item nine after that. It's a little confusing on the agenda, but. OK, Jeff. |
| 03:53:50.99 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 03:53:54.65 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Item six on your agenda, general plan considerations. This is the first of three items under this topic, optional elements. Over the course of the GPAC considerations, we've intermittently talked about different possible optional elements. And these are the three that had the most durability in terms of coming up as ideas. The waterfront element would address the waterfront, obviously, in collecting all the goals, policies, and programs related to the waterfront within one element rather than having them divided up in the other elements. |
| 03:54:27.96 | Unknown | I mean, |
| 03:54:48.78 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | The infrastructure and technology element has been championed by our very own Peter Vibmeter. who's still here, thank you Peter. And he's made some passioned arguments due to the possibly unique challenges in Tosolito with aged infrastructure combined with sea level rise and subsistence and landslides. The infrastructure may need more focused attention. |
| 03:54:56.24 | Unknown | and I'm going to go back to the next slide. Peter. |
| 03:55:24.71 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Finally, the sustainability element. This debate goes back years. We used to, when we had a sustainable policy, we used to put like a little green leaf next to it so you could track them all through the element regardless of which element they're in. But then the flip side of that is, well, if you put them all together, give them their own element, that makes them seem more important. From the consultant's perspective, we're happy to do all three of these optional elements, one or two of them within our existing contract. Optional elements are kind of fun for consultants because most cities just want to do the seven standard and get in and get out. So if we want to present the information this way, we think it's fine. Generally speaking, having its own element wouldn't necessarily contribute to a lot more policies and programs. But it's kind of a way to package them all together and provide more context within the introductory text and the background of each element before you get into the guts of the policies. |
| 03:56:51.58 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | None of these are required by state law, obviously. They would follow the same structure as the existing elements. And as we mentioned there, would not have a cost factor to the city. So do you want me to go through all three of these items? And then pause? |
| 03:57:09.25 | Unknown | Now, why don't we take questions on this? |
| 03:57:11.27 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | on the offshells. |
| 03:57:12.03 | Unknown | Thank you. Any questions? |
| 03:57:15.71 | Vicki Nichols | I'm just curious here, it says that in September, early on in the process, 2018, there was a vote. It must have been the GPAC members. Six to five against including this. Can you give us a little more context? I wasn't at that meeting. |
| 03:57:32.27 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | for the infrastructure element? Yeah, so it was a close vote. It was six to five against the infrastructure element. |
| 03:57:39.59 | Vicki Nichols | No, I think this is the waterfront element. |
| 03:57:42.46 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | I don't know if we ever had a hard vote on the Waterfront Element |
| 03:57:45.28 | Vicki Nichols | It's listed on page 103. |
| 03:57:47.76 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | 103. |
| 03:57:49.46 | Vicki Nichols | Otherwise, I would have never known. I think that section's been doubled, so maybe it's the earlier pages. |
| 03:57:58.54 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:58:04.18 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | In any case, when we had a close vote like that, sometimes it was an indication that the GPAC would say, yeah, that was a close vote. Why don't you check in with Planning Commission Council on that? In that case, we were treating it as sort of borderline. |
| 03:58:24.43 | Vicki Nichols | So when it was closed, the desire was to err on the side of including it and having it in the discussion? |
| 03:58:30.44 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Or, yeah, at least keep the discussion open. |
| 03:58:31.30 | Vicki Nichols | Okay. Thank you. |
| 03:58:33.35 | Commissioner Pierce | Okay, thank you. If I may tag on that, I am curious, Vicky asked for some context, I mean, it's six to five, and I think we as a group are are feeling pretty much in support of it. but the stances were against it. and whether those are things that we've avoided talking about this evening. |
| 03:58:55.92 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | We'd have to go back and watch the tape. |
| 03:58:56.80 | Commissioner Kelman | THE TOO. Jeff, my recollection is that there was significant overlap with the land use element section, and there was a lot of confusion about how one would which one would trump the other in terms of development policies? And then it became clear that the waterfront was one of those It's embedded throughout everything that we were looking at. disaster preparedness or tourism or whatever it might be. And so I think The feeling was it was too difficult to pull out. in its entirety. |
| 03:59:28.99 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Yeah, and I'll just add to that if I might, that How we treat the waterfront is a subset of each district that enjoys a waterfront. So the way we treat the marineship waterfront is different from how we treat the downtown waterfront with our ferry landing, There are different challenges that are more appropriately handled within as a subset of how we handle that district, as opposed to trying to amalgamate them. Because they're actually not, the way that we perceive it is actually, and treat it, is actually not homogeneous throughout town. |
| 04:00:10.76 | Unknown | Any other questions? |
| 04:00:11.33 | Joan Cox | I have a question. With respect to the sustainability element, how would that differ from the environmental health element that we just discussed, and we said we wanted to include the sustainability commission goals in that? It seemed like it would be repetitive. |
| 04:00:28.31 | Unknown | So just to chime in a little bit, I think if we do have a different element, then a lot of that would go in the new element, in the sustainability element. But it's not the intent, Jeff, to repeat policies, right? They'd just be cross-referenced. |
| 04:00:47.65 | Joan Cox | I guess my question is what's the difference between an environmental health element and a sustainability element? Aren't they one and the same? |
| 04:00:54.14 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Well, we have an environmental quality element that talks a lot about open space, parks, conservation of natural resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gases to be added, energy conservation, and his protection of historic resources from seal rights. |
| 04:01:20.96 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | So yeah, I mean, it's a fair question. |
| 04:01:29.77 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 04:01:29.78 | Unknown | I looked at the Sam Rafal one today that the Sustainability Commission sent to us, and it was broader. You know, it was sustainability broadly defined sort of economic, environmental, climate change. |
| 04:01:29.87 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | What's the name? |
| 04:01:39.33 | Tom Reilly | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 04:01:43.57 | Tom Reilly | Did you look at all of their other elements as well? |
| 04:01:47.35 | Unknown | I didn't have time. Thank you. |
| 04:01:48.14 | Tom Reilly | Because that's what I've tried to do with both Albany and Carlsbad is look at what do they incorporate in their other elements. And one does take their resources, which is their environmental resources, and include it with sustainability. |
| 04:01:48.18 | Unknown | Thank you. You know, that's what I've tried to do. Thank you. |
| 04:01:52.87 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:01:52.89 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 04:01:53.02 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:01:53.26 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 04:01:53.29 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:02:01.25 | Tom Reilly | but then separate the hazards into another area. So we'd pretty much be right. If we do this, we're going to rewrite all of them in a way. We're going to change their titles and what they how they influence each other, I think, which is good because I think we need to have a bigger sustainability |
| 04:02:18.08 | Commissioner Kelman | WHICH IS |
| 04:02:21.42 | Tom Reilly | Mm-hmm. |
| 04:02:21.49 | Commissioner Kelman | Mm-hmm. |
| 04:02:21.71 | Tom Reilly | presence in this general plan. |
| 04:02:23.46 | Commissioner Kelman | I always understood the environmental element as we interpret at the planning commission level, but also when I was an environmental lawyer as a a natural resource focused element around our science-based environment, whereas sustainability was that forward thinking mitigation measures. In fact, Jeff, you included a really nice sentence. Understanding sustainability is an effort to meet current needs without compromising the needs of future generations. That's, I think, very different than focusing natural resource conservation and preservation. But that was just, I don't know if others feel that way about that understanding. |
| 04:03:00.76 | Unknown | Okay, are there other questions before we take public comment? Thank you. Oh, no, I'm sorry. We're going to go on to our general EIR alternatives, or general FAN bill now. ask a question? |
| 04:03:04.64 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Thank you. |
| 04:03:04.66 | Commissioner Kelman | Thank you. |
| 04:03:04.69 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Oh, no. |
| 04:03:09.21 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | or general fan belt now. Can I ask a question? Yep, oh yeah. The M Group's charter is to revise the existing general plan. Is it within your budget to add these elements and pull everything from where they are now, if we are to add new elements? you |
| 04:03:27.98 | John DeRay (GPAC Member) | Yes. |
| 04:03:28.97 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Thank you. We got that covered. |
| 04:03:32.60 | Unknown | Okay, should we move on? |
| 04:03:33.93 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Okay, general plan build-out is the next topic. And this is organized pretty simply into |
| 04:03:40.31 | Unknown | A pretty similar |
| 04:03:44.02 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | residential land uses and what we call non-residential land uses. So we're going to start with residential land uses. And we are taking our cue from the 2015 housing element that is good through 2023. And within that housing element, as most of you know, there was a very detailed and robust public outreach process. We did a very detailed sites analysis parcel by parcel based on over a dozen factors that also had to go through an HCD level of review and approval. to develop a really reasonable and defensible residential development scenario. And while we were dealing with just one eight-year RENA cycle, regional housing needs assessment, that eight-year period, our RENA, or our quota, was 79 units. But this very detailed sites analysis yield 250 units. So within the housing element itself, which is already adopted, and we're not proposing to change as part of this process at this time, there's already a structure in place to provide an amount of housing over and above what's strictly required by the current RHNA cycle. So we're using that as our general plan build out for residential with the one exception, because the ADU, accessory dwelling units, Thank you. were forecasted for an eight-year period, and the general plan is for a 20-year period, we extended the forecast out and got the numbers up to 305 units. |
| 04:05:54.10 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | And so based on that analysis, the existing units would go from just over 4,800 to just over 5,100. And it's only a 6% growth rate over 20 years, which is pretty low by Bay Area standards, but totally consistent with the past 20, 30 years of the city's development pattern. good about this analysis and what it's based on. |
| 04:06:29.40 | Unknown | Jeff, can you just back up and maybe explain for all of us and also the members of the public that this build-out scenario is, makes, you know, it's to set a, some data for the EIR projections. It's not necessarily what we plan to happen. It makes a conservative analysis for our EIR so that we have a lot of flexibility over time, right? I mean, this is, it's not that we'll necessarily see 300 units in X amount of time. It's that our environmental analysis will look at what that would those impacts would be and then we can make choices within that. build out. |
| 04:07:13.54 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | I'll agree with that statement, with just the added information that under state law, the general plan in and of itself, regardless of CEQA, the general plan itself has to contain a statement of overall development levels and intensity over time. Dwelling units, population, all that stuff. So if someone new coming into the community says, I'm going to move to Sausalito, what's it going to look like in 20 years? Or you're a business owner trying to plan for future growth. You have an idea of what the, really what the maximum plan capacity is. So we're doing that in the general plan for general plan purposes. And then we also take that information and feed it into the EIR, the Environmental Impact Report, which also requires a projection of possible growth over the 20-year time period to be analyzed within the Environmental Impact Report, which is mostly a disclosure document, but also a way to mitigate impacts, as we all know. So does that, are we on the same page on that? |
| 04:08:23.25 | Unknown | Yeah. Mm-hmm. Thank you. |
| 04:08:25.90 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Bye. Okay, so this map is nothing new. It's the little red dots, little red parcels are exactly the parcels that 250 of those units are based on. The remainder are ADUs, which could be in any of the R1 and R2 properties. And this was adopted and printed as part of the housing element. So you could go online and see it as part of the adopted housing element. |
| 04:08:57.41 | Unknown | Okay, I think we've got a question. |
| 04:08:59.17 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 04:08:59.18 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Jeff, these 250 units that you identify, are those the ones that are already listed as a part of our housing element? |
| 04:09:05.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:09:05.54 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Yes. |
| 04:09:06.27 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Isn't it true that SB 35 prevents us from being able to again rely on those units since they've already been listed in our housing element. The SB 35 says it turns that potential for development into a development quota. And just because you don't develop it doesn't allow you to roll it over and again list it. So I'm concerned that there's a fallacy in this residential build out plan, I don't think we can again list those 250 units in our next housing element. |
| 04:09:41.28 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 04:09:41.30 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:09:42.72 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | That is a concern, that the rules have been changed in regards to the housing element. But remember, we're using this as part of just the straight-up land use build-out of the city under the general plan, separate from the HCD housing element state law mandates. Generally speaking, the new law you mentioned says that if you had a site and represented it, it would reasonably be developed within the period and then it doesn't, you're correct, you can't count it again unless you change something about it, change the variables so you can make a fair argument that, okay, we increased the density from 20 to 24 units per acre. Now it's gonna develop. |
| 04:10:34.17 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Well, or we passed a junior ADU program that now would allow us to put junior ADUs, not just ADUs, on some of those sites, perhaps. Right. I just wanted to understand whether your |
| 04:10:39.79 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | not. |
| 04:10:40.11 | Lisa Chilino | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:10:42.54 | Tom Reilly | Perhaps. |
| 04:10:43.05 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:10:43.25 | Tom Reilly | Bye. |
| 04:10:45.92 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | build out. included those 250 units that were listed in our existing |
| 04:10:50.37 | Tom Reilly | But ARENA is 79, correct? Thank you. |
| 04:10:52.89 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | our existing RENA through 2023. But the new RENA is likely to be more like 300. |
| 04:10:58.86 | Tom Reilly | But it can pick up that difference? |
| 04:10:58.99 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | THE ONE. No, we have to identify new sites for those. |
| 04:11:02.72 | Tom Reilly | It can't pick up the difference of 79 and 250? |
| 04:11:05.09 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Nope. |
| 04:11:05.93 | Tom Reilly | because 250 is not in our current arena. |
| 04:11:08.02 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | No, but it's in our current housing element. That's the issue of having listed those sites. |
| 04:11:12.41 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | No. |
| 04:11:12.76 | Tom Reilly | Thank you. |
| 04:11:13.49 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Anyway, it's a legal issue to be decided. |
| 04:11:16.51 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | I don't think we'll be penalized for the delta between the 79 and the 250, because the 79 is what we said, hey, we think these are going to develop. And so those are the sites that you might have to do something to to make them more viable for development. The balance are still good, in my view. |
| 04:11:16.53 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Thank you. |
| 04:11:37.17 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | But now we're deep into housing and all this stuff. |
| 04:11:40.74 | Commissioner Kelman | And sorry, Jeff, how does a build out like this fit with the fair traffic initiative, which was an ordinance passed by the voters to control density? |
| 04:11:50.85 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | This analysis is 100% consistent with the fair traffic initiative because it's not advocating or suggesting any land use changes from a general plan perspective or a zoning perspective. This is all based on existing general plan, existing zoning, which is also what the new general plan is advocating for. So it's a reflection of both, at this point in time, this residential analysis is a reflection of both the existing general plan and the new general plan. And under CEQA, we have to compare the new general plan to existing conditions. We can't compare the new general plan to the old general plan and say no change. We have to evaluate what's on the ground and what the new general plan would allow for development. And that's this. So then we switch over to non-residential, which basically includes everything that's not residential, which is mostly industrial land uses, commercial obviously, and then several different categories of open space. And for these numbers, we based it on the maximum development allowed under the existing general plan. which is also what's being proposed for the update. So just a quick refresher, these are all the land uses in the non-residential categories. On the right is the maximum FAR specified by the general plan for each land use category. And to be ultra-conservative under CEQA, which wants you to disclose the worst case scenario, we assumed it would all develop at that maximum level. So from a base of 2.1 million square feet, you would grow 35% about 730,000 square feet for a total of almost 2.9 million square feet. Obviously, based on past development patterns and the overall development situation in Sausalito, we're not going to see this level of growth, but it provides a good objective number that we can tag into. And if we run the EIR on this and we see that there's impacts, we'll have to come up with mitigations for that. |
| 04:14:14.52 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | So we're going to do a quick question period here. on the build out. These last two are kind of related. related, so you want me, I can cover EIR alternatives. Yeah, why don't you go into the EIR. And you can see how they're kind of linked a little bit. |
| 04:14:24.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:14:24.43 | Unknown (Planning Commissioner) | Yeah. |
| 04:14:24.85 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 04:14:24.90 | Unknown (Planning Commissioner) | Thank you. |
| 04:14:24.92 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 04:14:25.07 | Unknown (Planning Commissioner) | Thank you. |
| 04:14:25.09 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:14:25.29 | Unknown (Planning Commissioner) | And. |
| 04:14:25.46 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. |
| 04:14:25.65 | Unknown (Planning Commissioner) | Yeah. it. I have a quick question. Forgive me. I just want to be clear on the general build-out on the non-residential you've used a maximum build-out number, but on the residential, you're only looking at the number of housing sites, not the max FAR on each site. Is that correct? Correct. |
| 04:14:48.76 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Correct. |
| 04:14:55.11 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | So just a quick reminder, the EIR alternatives have a very specific purpose under CEQA. It can't just be like some other idea. It has to be alternatives to the project, which in this case is the new general plan. It has to be alternatives to the project that substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of the project. So we don't know exactly what those significant environmental effects of the project are gonna be, but traffic is usually an impact that gets triggered. greenhouse gases, cultural resources, noise, And so one of the alternatives has to be a no project alternative, which means you don't, you just say, this is too crazy, we're not doing this, no project. Alternative one, we're sort of putting it out there for discussion and hopefully get some direction. Don't have to make any final decisions tonight because obviously we don't have all the information. But one of the ways we'd like to think of this is there is a potential if you actually increase the residential development, that could be a reduction in traffic because you have more people living here hopefully matched up with jobs close by and a reduction in vehicle miles traveled. And alternative two would be a decrease in the commercial industrial development, possibly to lessen traffic impacts. |
| 04:16:32.70 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | So that's, then we have more detailed tables and things. This is straight out of the housing element. These are just summaries of all the different land use categories. |
| 04:16:49.89 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | So that concludes the presentation on this item six. |
| 04:17:00.02 | Unknown | And did you consider an increased non-residential development for the same reason that it would reduce by bringing jobs closer to people? It could reduce congestion just to give us maximum flexibility? |
| 04:17:15.17 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | We didn't go there because the jobs housing balance would be thrown off. So if increased commercial industrial development went up even higher than the maximum currently allowed, and the housing was more modest increase than the that could trigger a VMT impact or a greenhouse gas impact based on extra commuting, people commuting from the outside basically. |
| 04:17:52.99 | Unknown | Sorry, can I just have one follow-up question? And then, so, and the current project alternative with the maximum non-residential build-out, would that account for... increases in some of the new types of uses, perhaps institutional or accessory office that might be associated with sea level rise innovation. projects. |
| 04:18:18.96 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Yes, I mean, all of the industrial lands are located in the marine ship and a significant amount of the waterfront. And all of those properties are pretty much underdeveloped relative to the maximum thresholds. And so there's a lot of leeway there. And a lot of the sort of debates we've been having, or discussions we've been having about, you know, future land uses in the marineship hasn't been so much been about just the raw amount of future development, but just sort of from a general plan perspective, fairly subtle distinctions between office or light industrial. or warehousing versus more employment-based industry. And so within the type of analysis that'll be done for the traffic, those distinctions aren't. I mean, obviously, straight-up office generates more traffic than warehousing or industrial. But the idea of allowing like incidental office within an industrial use or incidental neighborhood serving retail that's not there today is on such a small scale, it's not going to, my view is it's not going to move the needle. |
| 04:19:46.76 | Unknown | Okay, thanks. |
| 04:19:48.18 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | or an innovation center. |
| 04:19:48.19 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 04:19:48.23 | Unknown | I'M GOING TO BE ABLE TO |
| 04:19:48.60 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. Will those incidental spaces be limited in size so that truly that is the use that they will be having? Is that how you're looking at it? We've had trouble with these interpretations before. So I want, if you're analyzing this, it needs to be. Are you talking about the EIR? Yeah. |
| 04:19:59.50 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Oh yes, definitely. |
| 04:20:05.91 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Right. Yeah, if there's... |
| 04:20:08.17 | Vicki Nichols | Yeah, if we had, if there's... Well, whatever, defining whatever incidental sizes are, if they're gonna be added. |
| 04:20:15.72 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Yeah, my experience in the Bay Area is that most jurisdictions, the magic number always seems to be 10%. So if you have a warehouse, but 10% of it in the back is like the office or in the front, that's considered incidental. Anything over 10%, you know, you can't have. But anything under that is just, you know, allowed, and it's considered incidental or accessory to the main use. |
| 04:20:15.73 | Vicki Nichols | Yeah, my experience... |
| 04:20:42.67 | Vicki Nichols | And I think it's in July when BMT kicks in. That's right. |
| 04:20:49.10 | John DeRay (GPAC Member) | That's right. |
| 04:20:49.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:20:50.80 | Vicki Nichols | I know that San Rafael is working on defining their interpretation of that term. I'm just wondering how how you've been looking at that, and will you also be looking at LOS in your analysis jointly? |
| 04:21:06.61 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Bye. Thank you. I think I might have to get my CEQA expert up here. |
| 04:21:09.23 | Vicki Nichols | I know you looking over there. |
| 04:21:10.78 | Unknown | Hmm. Do you need to come to the microphone? |
| 04:21:16.03 | Vicki Nichols | I'm interested in hearing how you're interpreting BMT. |
| 04:21:19.76 | Unknown | Thank you. And just so that everyone knows, VMT has vehicle miles traveled in |
| 04:21:24.16 | Vicki Nichols | It's a new transportation analysis. |
| 04:21:25.36 | Unknown | analysis. NEW WEEK. |
| 04:21:26.71 | Vicki Nichols | that we have to do the analysis starting in July, right? Yes. |
| 04:21:30.56 | Unknown | Yes, July 1, 2020, all traffic analyses need to be VMT, vehicle miles traveled. And so our traffic consultant, Parisi, they're gonna be looking at that and they'll be analyzing the vehicle miles traveled from the vehicle miles traveled build out capacity, under the general plan. So that's why these numbers are important because these numbers will then translate to how many additional vehicle miles traveled will be Um, generated at build out of the general plan. |
| 04:22:18.52 | Unknown | And we have not, Parisi has not conducted the analysis so I'm not able to. |
| 04:22:18.55 | Vicki Nichols | and we have, |
| 04:22:24.14 | Vicki Nichols | I'm not sure anybody has yet. I just was wondering if you guys had. It's kind of complicated, and I guess there's some interpretation involved. So just wondered where you were at. Thanks. |
| 04:22:26.68 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:22:31.70 | Unknown | involved. Mm-hmm. |
| 04:22:45.60 | Unknown | Any other questions? Okay, why don't we move to public comment? |
| 04:22:59.61 | Unknown | Oh, there we go. Okay. So I'm gonna call a couple names. Joseph Nova bits |
| 04:23:08.94 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:23:08.96 | Unknown | Mr. Kowitsky. |
| 04:23:09.55 | Unknown | Thank you. Nobitsky, sorry. Nobitsky, oh, hi. Peter Van Meter, Greg Thompson, uh, Waterfront Sport Access. So name, Doug Childs. Okay. |
| 04:23:31.47 | Unknown | MADAM MAYOR. Good evening, members of the Planning Commission and all members of the City Council. Thank you very much for the opportunity to address you. I'm a Sausalito resident, again. Grew up in Hurricane Gulch. Had a paper route. Built a rowboat from a kit. and rode from Nunes to Arcus along the Sausalito waterfront a lot. Now I row the Sausalito waterfront on every, weather permitting, every day as a member of the management committee and an active rower in the Open Water Rowing Center on Liberty Ship Way. And I rise to speak in support of Council Member O'Reilly's suggestion that you adopt an element of waterfront element and unify those considerations that fall into other portions of the general plan there because when I robed, The waterfront, I don't see a difference. in between, as your map distinguishes, between the central waterfront the Marineship waterfront, the downtown waterfront, The seals don't see a difference. The herring don't see a difference. The birds don't see a difference. The gray whale that rolled alongside me four years ago in Hurricane Gulch and then had it as though it were going to the downtown waterfront for coffee didn't see the difference. We fit in every element of your plan. We're low emission, We don't admit Greenhouse gases, unless you count panting. And we would love to assist you in planning the waterfront as a whole for the next 20 years with low impact and access for all. Thank you. |
| 04:25:34.79 | Unknown | Great, thank you. |
| 04:25:40.41 | Peter Van Meter (Public Commenter) | Hi, Peter Van Meter. Back in September of 2018, the GPAC did hold a vote on having an infrastructure element. It was five to four not having that vote, And now in the last 16 months, as one of the swing votes, I've changed my opinion. And I think it's important to concentrate the infrastructure in one element because it does affect everything. And unlike some of the other different topics we're talking about, they are unique concepts that can affect everything in town and it makes sense to concentrate them. So I'm totally an advocate of the infrastructure element. You've seen my recommendation of looking at the San Rafael. I think it's an absolutely fantastic model. Now, the other topic is the scope of the EIR. The alternative of seeing decreased commercial and industrial development is something that has never been discussed JPEG. Never been a topic of consideration ever at all. I don't know where in the world that came from, Back in the beginning, And all along we've talked about three alternatives proposed M group, which is basically a as-is situation, as they pointed out, kind of a middle opportunity, and one that looks at what they called |
| 04:26:58.47 | Peter Van Meter (Public Commenter) | values-based growth. I think that's a very good term. Now, if you're talking about Innovation Center. You're talking about recognizing the kind of space that people occupy in the marine ship right now, as an example, artists, designers, graphics designers, and so on, they are basically gonna be sitting in office space. So that value-based alternative, looking at your EIR, does include, in my opinion, having to evaluate reintroduction of limited, permitted office space back into the marineship. Recognizing reality. Why is it that people are seeing space that is costing more than it should for industrial space. because people are doing this illegally, Let's recognize reality. analyze that alternative in our EIR. Thank you. |
| 04:27:50.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:27:54.31 | Unknown | Greg, did you want to speak again? No. Um, |
| 04:27:59.97 | Kelly Adams | Great, go ahead. My name is Kelly Adams. and I'm a resident of Sausalito. I live on a houseboat. and I have an office space in the ICB building. THEIR OWNERS. I'm here because I'd like to show my support for access to water sports in a waterfront. Yeah. I'm a board member of Open Water Rowing, and I've been a rower in the San Francisco Bay for 30 years. People come from all over the world to San Francisco Bay. to access the water. rowers, paddleboarders, kayakers, outrigger canoes, surf skis, and more. Hundreds of people come here to access the bay. these water sports have a very positive environmental impact. environmental education, the seals, the sea lions, the herring, the birds, I mean, it's endless. We are non-motorized. There's no damage to the eelgrass. The boats are stored, the boats or boards are stored off the water. Um, And most importantly is that We know what's going on on the water. um, We are the stewards of the water. We are the eyes on the water. So thank you very much, and thank you all for your hard work. Appreciate it. |
| 04:29:34.70 | Unknown | Great, thank you. Okay, Doug Childs, Lauren Drimmer again, Tom, did Tom Hoover wanna speak on? Great, so go ahead. So is Doug, yeah. Is Doug Childs not here anymore? That's it. |
| 04:29:57.77 | Tom Hoover (Public Commenter) | Hello, Tom Hoover again. And just since there's always more biography, you know, for years I did yacht maintenance, repair, and delivery on the waterfront before I got older. Now I'm a massage therapist. And one of the things that I wanted to point out, because it came up here with the FAR, the floor area ratio, one of the issues in Sausalito's development goes all the way back 40 years, we're talking like about 79 or so, where they were redoing, I don't know if it was the general plan, but the law was, and they got a floor area ratio put in to the law that was passed in 79, which led directly to the over build out of all the office buildings, which led to the moratorium, which led to the MSP. And that was one of the questions that I wanted to ask and to tie in that with talking about the studies about the Marinship Specific Plan, which I do not approve of it disappearing necessarily, but that when you do your economic studies and you do try and bring in what is necessary to incorporate the marineship-specific plan into the new general plan is that no wrong arithmetic be put in there like happened 40 years ago, which we are still now in some sense suffering from and trying to correct. And so that was what I was asking, part of what I was asking about, well, what are we doing or what are you doing in that sense to make sure that that same kind of thing isn't done in any future economic studies and writing up the new, whatever the new rules may be about fluoride ratios and the build out that you were talking about, that was one of the things that was so scary was that huge build out that you saw on that one. |
| 04:30:09.51 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 04:30:09.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:30:09.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:30:38.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:30:42.30 | Unknown | So that, |
| 04:31:55.00 | Tom Hoover (Public Commenter) | Whatever, I'm having old man syndrome. and, uh, chart. So thank you. |
| 04:32:01.06 | Unknown | Great, thank you. |
| 04:32:05.24 | Lauren Derimer | I just wanted to add on a little bit about what we're talking about and what I discussed before. Something that I think is really important to my point earlier about the importance of an economic assessment of what we do currently have in marine ships. is the fact that to me, as a local, I'm 35 years old and I've spent, grew up here, and I think what is fascinating is that in the same zone, you have a place like Schoonmaker that is a really nice marina, beautiful and flourishing, and then you have places like Arkez. And I discussed this because I basically, I've inherited a wooden boat that belonged to my boyfriend who passed away in 2018. And the only place that I can haul out is in Arkez, in the old ways. at either Richardson Bay Boat Works or at Ross's yard. And therefore, I got a storage unit in MarinShip, so I rent property there. And when I got my lease for my storage unit, it's a month-to-month lease. And that's the thing that I really wanna, I found that really interesting, and it was to my understanding that a lot of the people that are in that part of Marinship in Arques are on a month-to-month lease. And I don't know, I wanted to know if you guys are aware of that, and if there's anything that can be done that would benefit everybody including the city for maybe maybe there's some sort of incentive for people who have been there for many many many many years to be able to be on a more long-term lease and And I've also, I forgot to mention that I have spent 10 years in the adventure travel industry and tourism, and I would love to see this town benefit from a tourism, not only from people who want to go see the Golden Gate Bridge and happen to flock into our but who actually are local and have something, or we have something to offer that stands out of a lot of other towns in the country, and especially the West Coast, that brings people here in some sort of enrichment, whether it's education or artists or maritime or any kind of industrial. But I'd really like to see that in the whole general plan. Thank you. |
| 04:34:04.80 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:34:04.82 | Lauren Derimer | Thank you. |
| 04:34:04.97 | Unknown | Thank you. Carlo? And then, Chris, did you want to speak? I still have your card up here. And if anybody else would like to speak, if you could just stand up and come to the microphone. |
| 04:34:18.89 | Carlito Berg | Hi, everybody. Carla Berg, Marina Plaza. Quickly, I want to second Peter's comment, looking at the uses in the area that are actually realistic. We all know that office space in the MarinShip, I think we probably have the largest vacant block, soon to be vacant block in the MarinShip. And the reality is, in terms of office in Marin County in general. We did a 20,000 foot deal with a surgery center in North San Rafael and that constituted a little less than 20% of the entire net absorption for the county for the year. So that means that if you build anything even similar to what's listed in the EIR in terms of office, Um, in terms of large spaces, you're not getting these big tenants. Marin is a small tenant market, it's a renewal market, but to Peter's point, there is a lot of demand for those smaller tenants that are the architects and the sort of artisans that now work in offices rather than on big hand-drawn boards. So that's something to consider. Another thing to consider is you have a million square feet of vacant office space inventory in Marin and some of that is in Sausalito. And if you can repurpose that office space to have more efficient vehicle miles traveled for whatever use that might be, then that's something I think it should be included in the EIR. EIRs are intended to study those uses that are going to be more efficient environmentally as to what's, you know, versus what's existing there. So that's all I want to say. Thanks for your time. |
| 04:35:52.70 | Unknown | you know. |
| 04:35:58.35 | Unknown | Great, thank you. Are there any other members of the public who would like to comment? Okay, seeing none, we'll close public comments. Bring it back here for, I think we're at Planning Commission. deliberation. Let's check. Great, so we'll turn it over to the Planning Commission, and then we'll adjourn, and we will finish our business. Does anybody have any questions before we get started? Thank you. |
| 04:36:32.04 | Vicki Nichols | Anybody like to start? You want us to go through all three? One crack? |
| 04:36:36.95 | Unknown | Amen. |
| 04:36:39.50 | Vicki Nichols | I'll- Female Speaker 1 It's up to you about how you- Female Speaker 1 Okay. I think we could maybe take, since they're small, each of you give your three opinions. |
| 04:36:47.43 | Lauren Derimer | Three opinions. |
| 04:36:49.27 | Vicki Nichols | If anyone wants to start. |
| 04:36:55.16 | Vicki Nichols | I'll start. On the waterfront element, I'm not, convinced that we I can go either way on this, but I'm concerned about Councilmember Cox's comments about Thank you. her explanation about the different areas. We do have different uses along the waterfront, very different uses So to group them together, if the other If the element had enough detail and enough description about those various areas and could really do the job of including policies for each of them, I would be convinced. I'd like to hear what my other commissioners say on that one. Um, The infrastructure, I don't know that we need that, but again, I'm open to broader discussion. And sustainability, I think, is important. I do think it's different than natural resources, as was explained. To me, the sustainability is more of an element that can be used to list the policies and the guidelines to keep us sustainable versus the more conservation, biological analysis of natural resources. So those are my quick opinions, and if anyone wants to go next. and then we will adjourn afterwards. |
| 04:38:25.71 | Commissioner Kelman | I'll just dive in. I'm willing to consider a waterfront element, although like Commissioner Nichols I'm not quite sure how that comes into play with the land use and the environmental resources. So I think I just need more information, more understanding of the what the goal is for that. But in contrast, and I think maybe this is guiding my thinking, I would wholeheartedly endorse the sustainability element because I think that that is the type of element that belongs in a general plan, the overarching thematic impression for the city to understand our overall direction And so that makes sense and it's embedded within each of the other elements. In terms of the infrastructure, I understand and appreciate Peter's point. I think it's putting the cart before the horse. I think if we have an infrastructure element, then we'll make decisions based on that. When I don't think that's the role of the general plan, I think it is more of a vision document. And so I want to stay with elements that support that. |
| 04:39:29.34 | Commissioner Pierce | Well, I will say that I, and based on great feedback from the public and great comments from M group and other folks up here. I am actually in support of all, and specifically the waterfront element. I see the waterfront element as being an all defining feature. It is so much more important and it defines, I think, aspect that we're talking about in this general plan, It is all-encompassing for all of them. The marine ship is just a little piece of it. The downtown is just a little piece of it. So from that standpoint, I think it is of utmost importance for us to focus on that and have a strong focus on that and let everything else feed into it. |
| 04:40:10.26 | Unknown (Planning Commissioner) | Okay. done. I'm in full support of the waterfront element and adding that. And part of the reason behind that is it builds in an opportunity into the general plan to provide that connectivity and that spine and the, consistency of a vision for Sausalito Even though you can have distinct neighborhoods, districts, different faces of Sausalito along that, I think activating that and defining that is actually pretty important. It's one of the greatest assets we have here, and that should be celebrated and handled appropriately. I don't believe there's enough reason to have a separate infrastructure element Um... But I do think from the standpoint of the technology and ever-changing technology, that just needs to be something to be considered in the general plan. And I think it's, at this point, adequately handled. The sustainability element, I'm a huge supporter of. I think it's really important to be very clear with what our goals and objectives are here in Sausalito and how that is supported through other larger initiatives statewide, federally, and so on. So I believe in that wholeheartedly. I don't know. I did want to make sure that from some of the elements that we're talking about in the waterfront, that there are opportunities in there also for academic or institutional uses, not just industrial. or commercial, but if we are intending to be developing and creating the environment for research and applied research and study and appreciation of all of the natural resources around us, you know, academic and institutional partners beyond just foundations, I think, are a really, really important element to consider there. |
| 04:42:22.35 | Richard (Planning Commissioner) | Oh, okay, we're on. The waterfront element, it seems to make sense to me for kind of understanding the character along the waterfront and being able to define all the different needs and uses. So it seems to make sense to me. the infrastructure, I'm not advocating that as a major component, but I think clearly the infrastructure is something that has to be thought of. particularly in the Marin ship because everything is falling apart. So whether it deserves a separate element, I'm not sure. Sustainability, yes, absolutely. |
| 04:43:24.88 | Vicki Nichols | So if we could go back a quick round and just give our quick comments on the EIR alternatives. Richard, do you mind if we start with you and we'll go backward or jump in over there, whoever wants to go first. You're just wanting one preference. Is that what you're looking for, Jeff? |
| 04:43:39.48 | Richard (Planning Commissioner) | You're just wanting |
| 04:43:43.48 | Richard (Planning Commissioner) | I haven't even seen them. |
| 04:43:50.94 | Commissioner Pierce | I'll go ahead and start while they're looking. I'm not sure I really have enough information. Let me just see what he's wondering. |
| 04:43:54.26 | Vicki Nichols | Let me just see what he's wanting, what kind of feedback he's wanting. |
| 04:44:00.10 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | the, In terms of... level of effort that's warranted at this point, the EIR alternatives can sort of float and we can nail them down later once we know what the impacts are. The real important thing to get closure on is the general plan build out. Because once we have that, ELISA will release the traffic consultant to do the traffic analysis. Once we have the traffic analysis based on the build out, we'll have the air quality experts run the air quality modeling, the greenhouse gas estimates, the noise studies, the noise contours are all based off the traffic, which are based off the buildout. So any shifting of the buildout going forward is a major schedule and budget issue. So that's why this seemingly like nitty-gritty numbers based detail thing is before you, because it's very important. |
| 04:44:59.37 | Unknown | Can I ask a question? |
| 04:45:00.63 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Yes, ma'am. |
| 04:45:01.17 | Unknown | So, We had one member of the public, Peter Van Meter, talked about an alternative that was looked at by the economic consultant for values-based growth. Does this general plan build out, would that accommodate some kind of scenario along those lines? |
| 04:45:24.43 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Um... No. I don't see any. This is really based on the existing FARs, and we found working with the GPAC over the last two and a half years, there was really no appetite for development forecasts above and beyond what the existing limits were. |
| 04:45:49.18 | Unknown | So when we talked about doing the economic analysis, though, I thought we talked about having that that was supposed to be the framework for alternatives. kind of a high, medium, low to benchmark basic, you know, to benchmark impacts. |
| 04:46:08.91 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Well, the economic analysis did look at what feasible outcomes would, in terms of what the market would support for development under these scenarios, and it found some land uses could feasibly redevelop and most of them couldn't. But at no point were we able to get any kind of agreement that we wanted to go above these numbers. And so those middle and higher forecasts just never got any traction. |
| 04:46:44.24 | Unknown | So not even a middle forecast? So it seems like 700,000 square feet of potential development. Seems like a lot, given. |
| 04:46:54.69 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Given the size of the community and the development history over the last 20 years, it is a very large amount. |
| 04:46:55.57 | Unknown | Sausalito. |
| 04:47:04.46 | Unknown | So I'm just having a hard time understanding how that build out doesn't give us some amount of flexibility |
| 04:47:14.06 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | What gives you flexibility compared to what's existing now on the ground, right? I mean, there's property owners who take the industrial, for example. They can develop a.4 FAR, and they're sitting on properties that have FAR much lower than that. And the economic analysis came back and said, you know, there's not a strong market for industrial, but if you switch it to office, then you would see more activity. But we put that out there as an option and that got shot down. There was not an appetite for office in the marinship, for additional new office. |
| 04:47:55.69 | Unknown | Okay, I mean, we've heard from various folks that are in the marinship that they can't find space, that they want more space. But their uses are often a mix. They are doing light industrial, but they're also working at computers. So they're kind of, you know, I asked at one council meeting, you know, what the layout looked like, and sometimes it's much more than 10 or 15 percent. of people working at desks. |
| 04:48:25.85 | Unknown | Mm. |
| 04:48:26.14 | Unknown | Thank you. And office use has changed. It's not office like everybody's got an office anymore. Everybody's kind of standing up I worry that I'm not saying we want office parks or anything like that, We want the flexibility for the businesses that are there and thriving to be flexible and grow. And I'm just worried that we're being too conservative or too restrictive in our evaluation at this stage. I mean, we want to retain options for decision making. So for example, like I personally would love to see kind of general public storage minimized. That's a very low intensity use and something more thriving and active, you know, that could be a mix of light industrial, there, but it's a more active use, right? There's more jobs. So I just wanna make sure that I'm a little bit confused by the 700,000 square feet of additional growth allowed, because that sounds like a lot. Probably more than we would do. But then you're saying, but we don't really have much potential to change anything within that. |
| 04:49:44.25 | Sandra Bushmaker | I'll... |
| 04:49:46.16 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:49:46.17 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Right. |
| 04:49:54.83 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Well, our view is that the development identified in the build out is net new square footage in these different categories. And a lot of the discussions in the MarinShip, say for example in the industrial, which is on the top line here, really involved fairly discrete changes to the rules so that someone who did have an industrial use could have some incidental office, for example. And that's not a square footage issue in and of itself. That's just a straight up land use restriction. So within that 735,000 square feet of net new development, you could have policies to either change the specific rules of how that square footage could be used, which could be a big deal in the marine ship, but it wouldn't necessarily change the amount of net new square footage that would be allowed under the general plan. So for example, in industrial, we're showing that could grow by 13%, but waterfront, which is even more underdeveloped than industrial, could grow by 125%. over 340,000 square feet of additional capacity. So we don't feel it's restrictive based on existing conditions. There may need to be some tweaks to make individual projects more viable. For example, lot coverage, or the way the buildings can be used. But within this context, that level of detail doesn't even, doesn't really change the analysis. Because it's going to be based on three-quarters of a million square feet nearly in these different categories, which are at this level, at this general plan level, these are broad categories. So in most communities, industrial would include research and development. Research and development includes offices. So we wouldn't be having this struggle of, you know, what to call that. This is a very restrictive situation where these, you know, the land uses in the REN ship, because of the fair traffic initiative, because of the specific plan, everything is dialed down pretty tight. And this analysis is going to be based on sort of normal land use categories, quite frankly. So in my view, we're casting a pretty big umbrella that could cover a lot of these more detailed shifts in land use regulation. Thank you. |
| 04:52:51.73 | Tom Reilly | QUESTION. In most of these cases with the floor air ratio, the difference is parking in commercial zones, correct? If parking changes as an asset or as a commodity, what happens to that space if we're tied into floor ratio, say 20% on a shopping center that all of a sudden doesn't have the parking? need. |
| 04:53:15.56 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | If parking requirements are reduced over time, that could have a a big effect on how property is used, because obviously people want their property to be productive, and if land is not needed for parking, they're going to want to use it for something else, usually something that generates some rental income, and so you could conceivably look at that. |
| 04:53:44.33 | Tom Reilly | Would that provide a blighted look until that point though? I mean, if you just had space because there's no parking and you can't increase your flurry, especially like in the waterfront, if we, that's a lot of parking down there. If that went away 20%. |
| 04:53:57.09 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Cleveland. I mean, from the planning field's perspective, just the existing status quo on parking regulation in general is designed to produce an overabundance of parking. Like you look at any, just about any shopping center, is there's just lots of extra parking that's just kind of going to waste. You know, the cutting edge thing on parking is to, you know, if you don't want traffic, don't require parking. I think one of the council members made a similar point. There's a gentleman who's made a whole career about writing books about the evils of free parking and how that's destroying our communities. |
| 04:54:12.90 | Tom Reilly | Yeah. |
| 04:54:27.26 | Unknown | Thanks, fellas. |
| 04:54:42.96 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | In excess of parking itself is sort of just an extension of the status quo, in my view. If there's a, over the course of this general plan, if parking demand starts going down, that would only be a good thing, because then you would have options of using that land, that scarce land resource for something else. |
| 04:55:06.46 | Tom Reilly | And getting back to Tom Riley's comment. |
| 04:55:08.91 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 04:55:08.93 | Unknown | No, Joe. Sorry. Unless you have a question, I really want to turn it back over to the Planning Commission so they can wrap up. But a little after 11. and the other. |
| 04:55:21.51 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:55:22.04 | Unknown | yours. |
| 04:55:22.41 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. So would anyone like to start? I'm still not totally clear on what you're asking of us. I'm unclear. I appreciate your explanation, but. |
| 04:55:28.74 | Unknown | I appreciate your explanation. |
| 04:55:33.44 | Vicki Nichols | I mean, I can see the three alternatives. Yeah. If you just want comments about that, frankly don't feel very comfortable suggesting them at this stage. I know you're trying to do the EIR parallel. But... It feels... |
| 04:55:54.44 | Vicki Nichols | I would need more information, but let's see what the others think, and maybe we can get you some feedback. |
| 04:56:02.59 | Commissioner Kelman | Thanks Vicky. Yeah, I would agree that I'm not ready to suggest these. Several others come to mind. Retrofitting existing buildings for adaptation. converting office space back to industrial, i.e. enforcing the restrictions of the MarinShip specific plan. These are all analyses that we could include in the EIR I do wanna say that the dialogue we just had around Parking is so interesting because for me, if we were to actually have a lens of and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, And we start to look at this whole build out conversation much, much differently. which is why I keep urging us to create that theme and then let everything flow from that. because then we have a different philosophy around whether we actually want to require parking. So I just want to make that point, but I thought it was a very interesting dialogue |
| 04:56:55.91 | Commissioner Pierce | Agreed, and I will add that these, for some reason, they just seem like hypotheticals to me. And I'm not sure, I'd really like to know if One Direction benefits our community more than one, or if there are modifications, slight tweaks we can make to one of them that would even further benefit to us in the long run. And I really have no idea what the capacity for that is. |
| 04:57:19.94 | Unknown (Planning Commissioner) | I agree with everything that's been said so far. I don't know if there's like an option, D, none of the above, and some other other option. I really don't know how to respond to this. The only thing that I see that jumps out to me is obviously an alternative. One, it talks about you know, senior housing and more affordable housing, which I think you've heard all evening is important to everybody, but that shouldn't drive, that shouldn't be the sole reason to drive an answer here. I'm just not sure how to respond to you at this point. |
| 04:57:56.48 | Unknown (Planning Commissioner) | Thank you. |
| 04:57:56.51 | Vicki Nichols | MR. |
| 04:57:57.10 | Unknown (Planning Commissioner) | Thank you. |
| 04:57:58.12 | Richard (Planning Commissioner) | Mm-hmm. Thank you. I'm mystified as well. I'm not sure how these things really would affect the EIR. And so I couldn't recommend any of these, really. |
| 04:58:15.31 | Vicki Nichols | Do you feel, Jeff, that anything you've heard tonight from the public, from any of us, has given you different information that would cause you to tweak any of these alternatives? slightly, in other words, to add another level of analysis or anything like that. |
| 04:58:36.56 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Yeah. The one thing that I neglected to describe more fully, on their alternative one, when we say increased residential development, the idea there is not so much to just increase the densities on the existing residential lands, which would be sort of the normal thing to do, but given that we want Correct me if I'm wrong, but having gone through the two housing elements sort of protect the existing scale and character of the residential neighborhoods, the idea behind Alternative One would increase residential development, and these are alternatives again, which under CEQA have to be done and they have to be evaluated, but not at the same level of detail as the project itself. So under this Alternative One of Increasing Resident Development, the idea would be that we would substitute residential for some other land use. And thanks to this gentleman, Carlo Berg, who's been showing up at every meeting talking about converting his office to senior housing, we would do that not on his property, because we try not to do that in general plans, because it's not general enough. We would do it sort of on a global basis and say let's |
| 04:59:54.16 | Unknown | Great. |
| 05:00:01.08 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | 12% of all the office space in the community to housing, theoretically, and yes, it is a theoretical exercise that has to be done to comply with the statutes. So then you could have an analysis of that, apples to apples comparison of what that does to some of your possible environmental impacts? Does it make it get better? Does it make it get worse? And so it gives the decision makers and the public a way to evaluate possible alternatives to the project. |
| 05:00:40.92 | Vicki Nichols | And to me, that seems like something that would help me get clear on what you were evaluating. That topic has been discussed by the public quite a bit, so I think it's more meaningful in an analysis of a plan to be looking at things that the community has raised and supports. So those kinds of incremental parts to an alternative would help me be able to support one, I mean, I like the way you're thinking about being able to change these. So if one is the most adaptable, with being able to do those kinds of tweaks about increasing development rather than decreasing, then maybe I can support that. But I still don't feel comfortable making a recommendation at this point, personally. |
| 05:01:30.94 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Fair enough. |
| 05:01:31.94 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 05:01:32.04 | Unknown | Thank you. Okay, great. Well, I want to thank the Planning Commission for all of their excellent comments and input tonight. And do you want to adjourn? |
| 05:01:47.95 | Vicki Nichols | We will entertain a motion to adjourn at 10 after 11 or so. Early night. |
| 05:01:55.58 | Unknown | So moved. |
| 05:01:56.12 | Unknown | It's really nice. |
| 05:01:58.28 | Vicki Nichols | Is there a second? Second. Okay, all in favor? Aye. Thank you. I think some of us are gonna stay and listen, but appreciate. |
| 05:01:58.35 | Unknown | Secondary. |
| 05:01:58.77 | Unknown | . |
| 05:02:00.07 | Commissioner Kelman | Aye. Thank you. |
| 05:02:02.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:02:02.45 | Commissioner Kelman | Thank you. |
| 05:02:04.27 | Unknown | Cushy. having a meeting with you all. Female Speaker- Thank you very much, City Council members. Appreciate it. Female Speaker- Good. Thank you. Thank you all. I also just want to take a moment to recognize Corporate Media Systems and the Community Media Center of Marin. Female Speaker- Thank you. |
| 05:02:06.67 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you very much, City Councilman. |
| 05:02:07.97 | Commissioner Kelman | I appreciate it. |
| 05:02:08.64 | Vicki Nichols | Yeah. |
| 05:02:22.41 | Unknown | We have had a glitchless evening from our audio visual team and so I really appreciate that. Everything's worked really well. So I know it's not over yet, but I thought we could take this time. Okay, city council, we are still here. |
| 05:02:42.80 | Unknown | Yeah, I can spread out. All right, so I would Thank you. So I'd suggest we also start with the optional elements, if that's okay with everyone. I'm Okay, so does anyone want to lead off on that discussion? It sounded like we had unanimous approval from the Planning Commission on the sustainability element. There was some mixed comments on both waterfront and infrastructure. So I guess I would start off with asking, is there anyone on the city council who does not think that we should have a sustainability element? And if so, |
| 05:03:26.96 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | I'm a thumb to the side. I don't think it's necessary, but I'm not, you know, vehemently opposed to it. |
| 05:03:41.22 | Ray Withey | So if we just stand back for a moment and ask the question, Well... Why would we put anything in an element that's not required by law? Well, we would do that surely to highlight the issue and to make it front and center. And I can't think of, personally, three more important things in Sausalito that we'd want to elevate and put front and center to make sure there's a focus on them than our waterfront, terrible even though we've put a lot of investment into it, the terrible state of our infrastructure, like many places in Marin, and sustainability. So if it's not going to cost us anymore, my view would be to actually do all three. and, or, and, or, delegate, depending upon where we get with 9B, actually delegate figuring that out to a working group that's actually working through and looking at the feasibility as to programs and policies and what fits where. |
| 05:04:57.83 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | I actually so endorse that because it's not until we really get into the weeds that we're best able to evaluate that I think. So I would love to delegate that to the working group and then have them bring back their recommendation to the council after they've dealt into it. |
| 05:05:17.13 | Unknown | Okay, I would heartily support Ray's statement, though, that I really think these three topics are incredibly important. You know, there was a lukewarm reaction from the Planning Commission on infrastructure, But given our particular history with infrastructure in the town and our deferred maintenance and a lack of focus, especially in the marineship, the proper infrastructure there, the lack of public ownership of some of the right-of-way, I would really like to highlight that. in this general plan. I think the next 20 years, if we do not invest in our infrastructure in a strong way, we are, especially with sea level rise and other issues, we are going to be in bad shape. You know? |
| 05:06:01.72 | Joan Cox | One additional plug for infrastructure. We haven't even talked about modern communications and fiber optics, undergrounding, and all that is something we should tackle in the next 20 years. It's not going to happen unless we have a focus on it. |
| 05:06:02.70 | Unknown | I'm going to go. |
| 05:06:02.76 | Unknown | I'm going to go. |
| 05:06:17.97 | Tom Reilly | The important parts of the general plan are the implementations and then the policies. And really the least important part is the elements. Thank you. |
| 05:06:25.17 | Unknown | you |
| 05:06:25.38 | Tom Reilly | Thank you. unless they make a statement. And like Council Vice Mayor Withee said, you know, these are three strong statements. They're all important and all the elements, uh, implementations that go along with each one of these are equally important But what really kind of defines us? Obviously waterfront and I think sustainability. Infrastructure is less defining of who we are, though it's its portions are as important as anything else. So I don't want to take away from its importance I'm not sure it's element worthy. but its policies are extremely worthy. So if the policies of infrastructure can be spread out through the other elements, I would prefer that. If we just feel that they cannot and they guide a certain value by being in their own element, then I would support that. Sustainability and waterfront more so because I think they are defining to who we are and they make a bigger statement. as elements. |
| 05:07:32.03 | Unknown | Okay, so should we pause there in this discussion and then maybe we'll carry it back up again in 9b? about whether we're going to make a definite choice tonight or not. Does that work? Okay, so let's move on to the discussion of the general plan build out and EIRR alternatives. |
| 05:07:57.67 | Unknown | Anybody want to start? |
| 05:08:00.05 | Tom Reilly | THE FAMILY. I don't know really what we're asking on general plan build out other than yeah. But on the EIR, I liked Alternative 2 as a test against to lessen the significant of any other effects, I would choose to test that we would go to decrease the commercial industrial development. So I supported too in that. |
| 05:08:27.26 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | But isn't it the plan of the M group to examine all three of these alternatives as part of its EIR? as part of its EIR. |
| 05:08:37.04 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 05:08:37.10 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Thank you. |
| 05:08:37.14 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Yeah, we actually have to do at least three. |
| 05:08:39.43 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Yeah. So you're proposing that these are your three alternatives that you will test through the EIR process. |
| 05:08:49.76 | Tom Reilly | you didn't want a hierarchy of those, |
| 05:08:53.64 | Unknown | So I just really worry that the antiquated categories in our old in our former general plan or current zoning element, are not going to accommodate some of the innovative ideas that are coming out of the friendship. AND I THINK IT'S A GOOD I understand that people are not particularly advocating office use, but a lot of the ideas that they're talking about are artist space, maker space. Tinkerer. Tinkerer. |
| 05:09:26.68 | Mary Ann Griller (Public Commenter) | career. |
| 05:09:29.21 | Unknown | All these great ideas, they are sometimes more intense from a, just again, from an EIR perspective than some of the former uses. And especially, I think our parking requirements are completely out of line with our climate change goals. |
| 05:09:35.98 | Unknown | EII. |
| 05:09:49.38 | Unknown | So those are baked in. And that we just need to be a little more flexible. I'm just worried that we're not flexible enough with the build-out projections. But it's a little hard to understand from our current presentation about what flexibility we would really have. And so I, again, this is not to encourage an office park or any other youth like that, but to really kind of move forward with some of the very innovative and great ideas and current um, industrial growth that we have. I just, I think it looks really different now than it used to. And so that's the only direction I have at this point is to be flexible and I'm a little bit worried that our |
| 05:10:42.23 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | I would. |
| 05:10:43.73 | Unknown | build out. |
| 05:10:45.35 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | are, |
| 05:10:45.84 | Unknown | won't get us there. |
| 05:10:46.69 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | May I interject? Thank you. Our traffic consultant is local to this area, so he's very familiar with the nature of the uses in the marine ship currently. And we can clue him in on some of these ideas about having this more vibrant mix of, I mean, to him it's all going to be basically light industrial. |
| 05:11:06.67 | Unknown | to him. |
| 05:11:09.28 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | But he understands, and we talked about this in the waterfront district also, that conventional traffic categories might be difficult to capture what's happening in the waterfront zone. But he, you know, he, so what I'm saying is he can basically, he can do some, you know, I believe this is what I heard on our conference call. You know, he can do some, basically, customization of the standard, what's known as the ITE rates, based on Institute of Traffic Engineers, have these big books. They look up the land use, and they plug in the traffic factor. But he can adjust that based on what he knows the traffic to be like for those uses. And we can also make sure it's a broad enough analysis that it captures not just the straight up, you know, by the book industrial land uses currently allowed, but also to allow a factor for some intensification, for some marginal increases in allowed uses. This happens a lot with office space, which used to be for per people per thousand square feet. High tech companies now are up to almost 10 people per thousand square feet. So this kind of thing happens all the time. We have to make these almost these manual adjustments based on what you know the actual conditions are. So I don't want you to feel like we're I'm going to go ahead. we have to make these, almost these manual adjustments based on what you know the actual conditions are. And so I don't want you to feel like we're trying to lock you into the status quo. We just, we need a number to base the traffic analysis on. We can make sure the traffic analysis itself reflects the possible changes in the land use program. |
| 05:12:58.60 | Unknown | Any other comments on the build out? |
| 05:13:01.16 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | . I do respect the work that the M group did too, develop scenarios consistent with our existing constraints. So I did appreciate the table where you said, here you could go up to 0.4 FIR, here you could go to this. So I did appreciate the analytical approach that you took to developing the alternatives, the build-out alternatives upon which you're basing the EIR. |
| 05:13:24.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:13:32.58 | Joan Cox | My comments is supporting what you said, Mayor. I think we need to preserve flexibility for the future. We don't know what we need. I do know the Withy Innovation Center for sea level rise is going to be all offices. It's going to be offices with researchers and scientists and computers. And so we need to accommodate that somewhere. and we can't lock ourselves out from that flexibility in the future. Thank you. |
| 05:14:00.87 | Tom Reilly | I agree and I think that's a great comments. I'm concerned that in 20 years how we're going to have a viable innovation center when 65% of land is dedicated to parking. It just seems like we would have to take a change in the path we're on in how we utilize space. I don't know if there's a different, you know, it's not form based zoning, but if there's a different type of zoning application that protects the uses while considering the form differently than the FARs we have there now for the next 20 years. |
| 05:14:39.09 | Joan Cox | all parking spaces become two feet wide for just bikes. |
| 05:14:43.95 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | for bikes. |
| 05:14:46.63 | Unknown | Okay, so I think I just heard at least three of us as kind of pressing on this build out scenario. Is that what you heard? |
| 05:14:56.27 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Well, what I'm hearing is there's not a desire for an increase in the, just the net new amount of development, but there's concern that we may have locked in the existing land uses. We've increased the amount, but we haven't allowed for any flexibility in terms of actually what those land uses are. And what I'm trying to convince you of is that I think we can have it both ways. We can use the existing categories, we can use the existing FAR limits, and the one variable that we can sort of modulate is to make sure that the traffic analysis that the traffic consultant does is reflective of not just the way those existing uses are characterized, but how they could be characterized within the vision statement for the marineship. Because really that's where this comes into play, mostly all in the marineship, because that's where most of these lands are. |
| 05:16:05.84 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | And so, We're hoping to leave here with a that all five of you hopefully are okay with that approach. |
| 05:16:18.67 | Unknown | I think we are if we understand what you're saying. Yeah, I agree. I mean, if you're saying there's flexibility there and the kind of intensity of the use and the flexibility of the use in terms of parking ratios, |
| 05:16:21.10 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Yeah. |
| 05:16:21.59 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Thank you. |
| 05:16:21.65 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | I agree. |
| 05:16:22.28 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Thank you. |
| 05:16:32.12 | Unknown | and what the light industrial will look like which could include a much higher accessory office component as these businesses emerge and grow. I mean, I think that's the issue. |
| 05:16:50.73 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | And that's why Lisa's here, because she wanted to make sure we nailed this down. That's why I'm pushing hard on this. |
| 05:16:58.06 | Unknown | Okay, anything else on these topics? Do you have the feedback that you need from us? I'm in favor of the alternatives. I definitely wanna keep the housing alternative. |
| 05:17:02.29 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Thank you all. |
| 05:17:09.26 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | The increased housing alternative? Yeah. |
| 05:17:11.08 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 05:17:11.64 | Unknown | there. |
| 05:17:12.60 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:17:13.97 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | So just for the record, the build-out analysis with the 304 residential units on the residential side based on the housing element plus some projections of ADUs is good. And on the non-residential side, we're tracking to the maximum FARs, but we also have the ability to capture and build in future changes in how those land uses are used. |
| 05:17:14.05 | John DeRay (GPAC Member) | Yeah. |
| 05:17:14.10 | Unknown | Just for the record. Thank you. |
| 05:17:15.35 | John DeRay (GPAC Member) | Thank you. |
| 05:17:41.61 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | We have unanimous support for that. |
| 05:17:45.05 | Unknown | And Yeah, I mean, as this conversation evolves, we may have other alternatives, right? But as long as they fit in with our analysis that's been happening, they can have, or in other jurisdictions, sometimes they have variants |
| 05:17:52.24 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | Yeah. |
| 05:17:56.29 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | They're going to have it. |
| 05:18:01.71 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | We can continue to have this alternative discussion once a month or once every two weeks or whatever. Up until some point, we have to stop. But the other thing, the build-out, she can't release her consultants unless we feel like that's not going to change. So that's the thing... |
| 05:18:05.52 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 05:18:25.20 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | That's the thing I'm most focused on right now. |
| 05:18:28.07 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 05:18:29.38 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | So do you have what? |
| 05:18:30.77 | Unknown | Do you have what you need from us? Do I have five? I think there's consensus. |
| 05:18:32.30 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | I think there's consensus. Do we have five votes? Yes? Okay. Thank you. |
| 05:18:33.97 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Bye. Yeah. |
| 05:18:35.03 | Unknown | Yeah. I don't see any dissent. Okay, all right, so let's move on to 9B. |
| 05:18:46.44 | Unknown | Hopefully we can keep this staff presentation to under 10 minutes. Mr. Meeker. |
| 05:18:55.71 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 05:18:58.91 | Unknown | Great. Welcome. I'm waiting for Russ to pull up the slide. As you know, this evening concludes the visioning portion of the general plan update process. And as we move forward, I just want to make sure, make certain that the public and the commission and the council know that there are going to be multiple opportunities for additional public input. And on the presentation before you right now on the slides, you'll see that in April of 2020, it's anticipated that the General Plan Advisory Committee will review the public review draft of the General Plan with all of its elements in place. And that may involve prior to that, if you do appoint a subcommittee to work on each of the elements, that will have occurred before this GPAC meeting occurs. Then in May of 2020, there will be a community workshop on the public review draft of the general plan. June of 2020, the general plan advisory committee will review the revised public review draft of the general plan update and the draft EIR that's being prepared by the environmental consultant. And then ending up the year, we're looking at in September, two planning commission hearings on the general plan and the draft EIR, followed by two city council hearings leading towards adoption of the general plan and certification of the EIR in October, with the entire goal being that by the end of October, the general plan will be adopted and the EIR will be certified. |
| 05:18:59.79 | Unknown | Welcome. |
| 05:20:35.79 | Unknown | Moving forward, the City Council has asked to provide its direction on how to proceed from this evening. In the staff memo, we've outlined three particular specific options that are outlined in the slide, and then the Council could also provide some other alternative suggestion as to next steps to take. The first option is to have M Group draft the public review draft of the general plan update and the draft eir with city council input as appropriate at regularly scheduled meetings second option would be for m group to work with staff to draft the two documents with city council input as needed or the third option which is the recommendation of staff at this point is to create a working group of two City Council members and two Planning Commission members that would be subject to the Brown Act and work with M group and staff to draft the public review draft of the general plan and the draft EIR The advantages of this are that it would facilitate timely review and refinement of the general plan elements by members of the final recommending and approving bodies, that being the Planning Commission and the City Council, and also provide greater flexibility in scheduling meetings with M-Group and the subcommittee in moving forward in a time-efficient manner. If the City Council chooses to move forward with this option the mayor and the agenda does include this option this evening the mayor could make those appointments to the working group at this meeting or at a future council meeting and again we have placed an item on the agenda this evening that does permit the mayor to make those appointments this evening that concludes the presentation |
| 05:22:15.79 | Unknown | Okay, great. Are there questions for Mr. Maker Okay, is there a public comment on this item? |
| 05:22:26.26 | Unknown | Yeah, come on up, Alice. |
| 05:22:38.79 | Alice Merrill | I think I'm just going over and over, but I'm sitting back there and we're talking a lot about, and you know, I'm always the marineship, we're talking about the office space And if it's a maker or whatever, and they need a little more office space, We, in my, and since I've lived here in the last 20 years before I lived here, we've lost Sutter Sailmaker. Now that was here for as long as I can remember from my childhood. We just talked tonight about losing a sailmaker. We've got riggers and wooden boat repair people and wooden boat builders, and we have We have more than than this new stuff, and it's still there. I mean, we've got all these boats. So I just want us to remember that this is not, the conversation just doesn't have to only surround offices and office spaces. Why do the sale makers leave? Maybe they left because their rent got raised. I don't know. It just discourages me that we don't keep in mind and keep on, that's, I'm here to bring it up. |
| 05:23:51.98 | Unknown | it up. Great, thank you. Good point. Yes? |
| 05:24:03.95 | John DeRay (GPAC Member) | Thank you, John DeRay, GPAC. Just maybe a little follow-up on Alice's comment. The discussion that you've been having about development over the last hour or so, what I didn't hear is about sea level rise. So we are working with 1.67 feet to 2040. Everybody knows that's low. Everybody knows that there's subsidence going on in the Marin ship. 2050, the numbers could be as high as four feet. 2100, as high as 10 feet. So it's really a huge problem. I think we all know that, but there's no discussion of it in this development discussion, which surprises me. Yes, there are sea walls that can be done. extremely expensive. requires extremely huge developments to pay for that. I think we all know that too. So I think this is a path we're going down. The other thing about seawalls, You know, there's been studies now that the water table is rising and the water will come from the land. into The marine ship also So it's kind of a double whammy there. So it's just something I wanted to bring up. And then something else on the plan going forward. A few weeks ago at our last G-PAC meeting, it looked like there were two more G-PAC meetings for 2020, and that's it. And it sounds like Is that about right or is there possibly one more? or is it gonna be decided tonight? |
| 05:25:44.64 | Unknown | My understanding that there's definitely two more. Two more for this year. We can go back to the slide. Could we go back to the slides? |
| 05:25:48.38 | John DeRay (GPAC Member) | We can go |
| 05:25:53.09 | Unknown | Yes. that is. I'm sorry. That is correct. Thank you. |
| 05:25:59.57 | Jeff Bradley (M Group Consultant) | April and June. Two more. |
| 05:26:03.44 | Unknown | That is correct. Okay, I couldn't tell I was on. That is correct. There would be a, the next GPAC meeting would be in April to review the public review draft of the general plan update. And then the second meeting would occur in June of 2020. And that would be both to look at the revised public review draft of the general plan and also the draft EIR. And that those two meetings proceed going to the planning commission. |
| 05:26:31.97 | John DeRay (GPAC Member) | I understand that. I think we were surprised on GPAC that we went from two meetings a month to two meetings a year. It really kind of took us by surprise. So I don't know if that was the intention. The way I look at it, we represent the residents. I know you're going to work on another alternative here. |
| 05:26:31.99 | Unknown | Right. |
| 05:26:56.09 | Unknown | You can go ahead and finish your sentence. |
| 05:26:58.04 | John DeRay (GPAC Member) | Perhaps realize that GPEC is a very good idea has a Planning Commission member, has two BAC members, and has two City Council members. So it's not like, You don't have representation from those groups. Great. You do, and then you also have residents. Thank you. |
| 05:27:17.28 | Unknown | Right. Good, thank you. Okay, anyone else? |
| 05:27:26.88 | Carlito Berg | Very briefly, I agree with John's comment regarding climate change and subsidence. I think something to consider that's very important is that the marineship and other areas aren't a monolith. Some areas have greater elevation than others. And to put a blanket statement on it is very difficult, especially from a planning perspective, because you could be, I think like others have said, you could be preeminently looking at retreat through another means. I think it should be on a case by case basis with whatever projects are applied for. Thank you. |
| 05:28:04.19 | Unknown | Okay, great. Thank you. And actually, Mr. Kravatsky came to the Sustainability Commission last week and also made a similar comment about the expense of sea level rise and how that will play into the economic development for the future. So that was helpful. Okay. I think the only issue that we are asked to provide direction on for this item is what's the best way to move forward from now to the draft general plan update. |
| 05:28:44.68 | Unknown | That is correct. |
| 05:28:46.25 | Unknown | Okay, so does anyone have thoughts on the alternatives? |
| 05:28:54.04 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:28:54.06 | Joan Cox | I'll make a comment. I think we're at the drafting stage so we can read through something and see how everything ties and fits together. It's a lot easier to react to a draft than it is to talk in just generalities. So I like recommendation number three, a team that puts together the draft with the M group that includes the folks at this diaz and staff. It's not just our consultant driving it. And that'll get us the furthest along to a draft that is closest to acceptability. So I support the recommendation. |
| 05:28:54.08 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 05:29:41.19 | Unknown | Great, thank you. Anyone else? |
| 05:29:45.02 | Ray Withey | I, too, support that recommendation. We're now at the end of the vision phase, and a large committee drafting is almost impossible. And so the approval bodies moving forward are the Planning Commission and City Council. And so it makes sense to me that a working group is formed with two city council members, two planning commission members, who can actually really knuckle down and work with the M group in staff to get a first draft done. And then we have the two meetings with GPAC so that a draft, a product, that is in draft form can be reviewed in a much more efficient way. So I'm very much in support of that. |
| 05:30:44.34 | Unknown | OK, any other comments? So is there any, I've got two council members supportive of the subcommittee. |
| 05:30:54.41 | Tom Reilly | I'm supportive. I don't know if you get a motion or just a yay. |
| 05:30:59.04 | Unknown | Joan, do you have anything? |
| 05:30:59.39 | Tom Reilly | Thank you. |
| 05:30:59.49 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | I'm sorry. |
| 05:30:59.83 | Tom Reilly | Thank you. |
| 05:30:59.97 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | I'm not sure. |
| 05:31:00.15 | Tom Reilly | Thank you. |
| 05:31:00.24 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Thank you. |
| 05:31:00.25 | Tom Reilly | Thank you. |
| 05:31:00.49 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Thank you. |
| 05:31:00.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:31:00.57 | Tom Reilly | Thank you. |
| 05:31:00.84 | Unknown | Okay, all right, so I think we're all supportive of option three. I'm supportive of that as well. I think it'll be the most efficient and productive way to move forward. I would also say that this subcommittee would be a Brown Act committee so that we would hope that the GPAC members and other, uh, and commissions who have been actively participating in this whole process will continue to participate as well as the members of the public. Okay, so I think that's that. And then we have some additional business to attend to. We've got item number 10, appointments to boards, commissions, and committees. So for 10A council members sitting on GPAC, I would like to thank both Joan and Ray for their extensive participation over the last many years. I would like to, with great thanks, thank and excuse council Member Withy for his participation. And I would like to appoint myself, with all my new great powers as mayor, to be on the GPAC. So, we will do that. Can I make a comment? You may make a comment. |
| 05:32:30.97 | Ray Withey | So you could protest. No, far from it, quite the reverse. I think it's important. It's been a great pleasure for me to have participated on the GPAC with all the members. And I really would like to thank that group very much. And in particular, I'd like to thank our chair and vice chair, who's not here at the moment, for all the very hard work that they've done. There is a concept in leadership for long-range projects of finding the right person at the right time to do the job. And so I have been very used to the concept in my career of passing |
| 05:32:31.53 | Unknown | You could protest. |
| 05:33:12.84 | Ray Withey | to view a long-term project as a relay race. And it's a very, very important concept. And I can't think of anybody better to join GPAC and presumably the working group, but I don't want to preempt our 9B, to move forward at this very important drafting stage. So anyway, thank you very much. |
| 05:33:38.03 | Unknown | Oh, thank you. Thanks for everything that you've done on that. Okay, so that is our 10A. 10B, I'm sorry, I should probably take public comment on this. I just realized. So I'm sorry, before I do that appointment, I would like to take public comment on item 10. Okay, seeing none. So, 10B, two council members on that committee will be myself and Council Member Cox, if you're agreeable, so thank you. Yes, thank you. Great, and then I would hope, I see Commissioner Kelman sitting in the back of the room, so I would hope that you would, okay, thumbs up, be amenable to that. And then I would like to also appoint Christina Feller to that committee, given her |
| 05:34:11.08 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Yes, thank you. |
| 05:34:28.30 | Unknown | history with planning and general plans. So if you're amenable, you can, yes, nod your head. Great. So that will be the working group moving forward, and I want to thank Commissioner Kelman for her work on the GPAC, and look forward to working together on this committee. Okay, consent calendar. Is there any public comment on our consent calendar? Just as a full disclosure, I would like to note that on the purchase of a new parking enforcement vehicle, which is item 11B, |
| 05:35:08.28 | Unknown | which is |
| 05:35:10.26 | Unknown | I did ask staff, I think I asked them the same question a couple years ago when we were purchasing a new vehicle, is there an electric model available? And the answer is no, there is not one that is suitable to the challenges of our steep hillsides at this point in time. But, so, we're continuing with the old model. model for now because of its usefulness to the police. Is there any public comment on consent items? any council member who wants to take anything off of consent. |
| 05:35:52.27 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | I move approval of the consent calendar. |
| 05:35:55.14 | Tom Reilly | Second. |
| 05:35:56.54 | Unknown | All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries 5-0. Our consent calendar is approved. And then this is the time in our calendar today for general public comment. You'd have three minutes, please. |
| 05:35:57.54 | Joan Cox (Councilmember) | Hi. Hi. |
| 05:36:15.78 | Unknown | See one member of the public. Brave at this hour, quarter of 12. |
| 05:36:19.95 | Curtis Havel (RBRA Harbormaster) | Yes, I spoke earlier and I wanted to introduce myself. My name is Curtis Havel. I'm the new Harbor Master of the Richardson Bay Regional Agency. |
| 05:36:26.38 | Unknown | All right, welcome. |
| 05:36:27.12 | Curtis Havel (RBRA Harbormaster) | Thank you. Thank you so much. It's a pleasure to be here, and it was great witnessing all this tonight. I hired on in July of 2019, right after the RBRA board had adopted a resolution enforcement priorities and kind of renewing their commitment to trying to forward implementation of the policies and codes out there. To that end, you know, the enforcement priorities were enforcement of the 72 hour limit for new vessels entering the anchorage, uh, removal of unoccupied marine debris, of the vessels being stored out on the bay or vessels for sale on the bay. I've also, as I've come into the agency, I've been, whenever possible, removing unpermitted moorings. And I'm also pushing to have more serious consequences for vessels that go adrift, that are inoperable, that are derelict and hazardous. When I came on board in late July, on the heels of that adoption, or the adoption of that resolution by the board, The Marin County sheriffs performed a survey count, a vessel count in the anchorage, ending up with roughly 184 vessels. that was a little bit different than what Sausalito's count was. I think Sausalito had 192 vessels. As of my last vessel count in December, the tail end of December, we're down to roughly 140 vessels out in the Anchorage. And that is coming directly out of the Anchorage. I'm not counting voluntary turn-in vessels as part of that. um, Other efforts that have been made, I've implemented a program where I've got a regular rotation of law enforcement personnel coming out with me on the patrol vessel. to help with enforcement activities out in the Anchorage. And that's actually been really productive and really, really helpful. uh, The agency, of course, has hired on Andrew Henning as a consultant to help forward the launch of a program to help address issues like substance abuse, homelessness, that kind of thing for folks who are out there. Frankly, we're on the heels of Sausalito's great trailblazing efforts in terms of managing the anchorage. So we're working off of what I think is a very effective model. I've also been working with the crew at Sausalito, the law enforcement crew, so Chief Warbacher, Captain Frost, Mike McKinley, they've all been great partners, they've all been very accommodating in helping me get acquainted with the Anchorage, really forming what I think to be a productive working relationship. we've had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Pulitzer, oh gosh, and Chief Rohrabacher, as well as Marin County Sheriff's in terms of working for, you know, working together forward. Sassalut has made a very generous offer to help manage the anchorage, so we're trying to figure out how to coordinate with one another to best take advantage of that. So anyways, I just wanted to say hello and give you a quick update. And if you ever need to find me, it's all on rbra.ca.gov. So thank you again. |
| 05:39:47.04 | Unknown | Great, thank you so much for staying and speaking. I think we all really appreciate that. And I'm sure you will, if you haven't already started working closely with Council Member Riley and Council Member Cox, they're the two members of our waterfront working group and have been at this issue for quite some time and I think they'll look forward to working with you. I don't want to speak for them but thank you. And we do have regular updates on our waterfront so it would be really helpful the next time we have one of those if you'd be able to attend. Okay. |
| 05:40:25.68 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:40:25.72 | Curtis Havel (RBRA Harbormaster) | Absolutely. Thank you. Great. Thank you. |
| 05:40:26.34 | Unknown | Thank you. Great. Thank you. |
| 05:40:27.64 | Curtis Havel (RBRA Harbormaster) | All right. |
| 05:40:30.12 | Unknown | Okay, I think our business is concluded. |
| 05:40:35.88 | Unknown | Yeah, we're going to skip most of our regular items, I think. But we will come back at it on the 28th. So thank you for your patience tonight. It was a long meeting. I think we are adjourned. |
Bennett King — Neutral: Expressed concerns about preserving Caledonia Street for local businesses and questioned RBRA authority and mooring field regulations. ▶ 📄
Gio Monley — In Favor: Suggested a maker space/community center for woodworking and technology training, supporting cooperation between Sausalito, Marin City, and Mill Valley. ▶ 📄
Brooke Marino — Against: Urged protection of Marinship's maritime industrial character, warning against gentrification and loss of cultural history. ▶ 📄
Michael Perlmutter — Against: Opposed the Coloma sewer project generator location near residences due to noise and fumes, suggesting alternative sites. ▶ 📄
Susan Au — Against: Spoke against the Coloma sewer project placement, citing visual impact, tree removal, and need for community involvement. ▶ 📄
Adam Kravatsky — Neutral: Called for innovative planning considering changing transportation systems and infrastructure feasibility. ▶ 📄
Curtis Havel — In Favor: RBRA Harbormaster supported exploring a mooring field within Sausalito's sphere of influence as a future recreational resource. ▶ 📄
Terry Thomas — Against: Ecologist opposed mooring field in Sausalito waters due to eelgrass habitat and ecological impacts, referencing Richardson Bay Special Area Plan. ▶ 📄
Peter Teague — In Favor: Recommended tapping into scientific resources (SF Estuary Institute, BCDC) for sea level rise adaptation and floating community innovations. ▶ 📄
Jeff — In Favor: Spoke in support of the anchorage community and its connection to nature, referencing historical leadership principles. ▶ 📄
Carlo Berg — In Favor: Expressed interest in mooring technology and senior housing, citing survey data on senior needs and outdated Marinship Specific Plan. ▶ 📄
Alice Merrill — Against: Urged support for existing Marinship maritime community over new development, feeling public input has been ignored. ▶ 📄
Tom Hoover — Against: Opposed retiring Marinship Specific Plan without strong protections against overdevelopment, citing past community efforts. ▶ 📄
John DeRay — Neutral: GPAC member highlighted lax enforcement in Marinship, displacement of businesses, and need for updated inventory and support for maritime uses. ▶ 📄