| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:03.69 | Steven Woodside | We're going to go ahead and call this reporter. City Clerk, would you please call the roll? And we're recording in progress. His name, city manager Zapata has a comment to read. |
| 00:00:08.77 | Barbara Brown | record. |
| 00:00:14.05 | Walfred Solorzano | Okay, I'll call Council Member Blossom. |
| 00:00:17.93 | Danielle Dubetz-Grabem | here. |
| 00:00:18.81 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Cummins. |
| 00:00:20.52 | Danielle Dubetz-Grabem | Thank you. |
| 00:00:20.53 | Janelle Kelman | here. |
| 00:00:20.75 | Danielle Dubetz-Grabem | Thank you. |
| 00:00:21.48 | Walfred Solorzano | Vice, sorry, Councilmember Hoffman, we'll get to that right now. Mayor, Vice Mayor Cox. Here. And Mary Sobieski. |
| 00:00:29.63 | Steven Woodside | here. |
| 00:00:31.39 | Walfred Solorzano | Here. |
| 00:00:31.60 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:00:32.09 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 00:00:32.11 | Steven Woodside | City manager. |
| 00:00:33.43 | Chris Zapata | Yeah, if I may, Mayor, Councilmembers, public, Councilmember Hoffman sent me a text message saying that she will be at an event she had pretty scheduled because of our schedule being uncertain, and she will try to attend the meeting later this evening. So she won't be here at the start of the meeting, but she'll try to get here later. Thank you. |
| 00:00:54.28 | Steven Woodside | City Manager, can I just comment on the comment that our schedule is uncertain? Because we passed a resolution last year saying that our meetings would occur the first and third Tuesdays of every month. Is that not true? |
| 00:01:08.42 | Chris Zapata | That is correct. |
| 00:01:09.44 | Steven Woodside | Has that changed since that resolution was passed last year? |
| 00:01:12.14 | Chris Zapata | That is not. |
| 00:01:13.54 | Steven Woodside | So I just don't know what was uncertain about our schedule. |
| 00:01:17.77 | Janelle Kelman | Vice Mayor, if I may, and Walford could explain. I think we had a limited number of dates that were actually posted on the city council website under meeting dates. And so perhaps if people weren't aware of our regular standing schedule, they were misunderstood. |
| 00:01:36.44 | Steven Woodside | Thank you for that. I think council member Hoffman voted on that schedule last year. Anyway, I just wanted to clear that up. Thanks. |
| 00:01:44.94 | Steven Woodside | All right, so the closed session items that will be heard today are conference with real property negotiators, 100 Spinnaker Drive. Negotiating parties are Sausalito Yacht Harbor and the City of Sausalito. and Conference with Legal Counsel, Government Code Section 54956.9, significant exposure to litigation. There are two cases here. We will take public comment on the closed session items now. |
| 00:02:12.25 | Unknown | And we do have Stephen Woodside. |
| 00:02:20.85 | Steven Woodside | Can you check your mic, please? I think your microphone is not on. One moment, Mr. Woodside. |
| 00:02:28.67 | Steven Woodside | I would like to address briefly conflict of interest matters that may or may not affect your ability to meet either in closed session or open session on certain items. And I know last week you had an item. where I think the mayor Indicated he did not have a conflict in that item, if I'm remembering correctly, and that's fine. I'm not here to question that. What I'm really here to do is to urge all of you to do your very best to vote on every single item related to the historic district. I'm not sure you're going into closed session on that now, but you may well be in the future. And the reason I say that is that the historic district I believe, affects the public generally. And that's an exception to the bright line you know, 500 foot, thousand foot, whatever they are rules that would otherwise preclude a council member from participating and or voting. |
| 00:03:21.08 | Unknown | or |
| 00:03:22.82 | Steven Woodside | So the reason I'm concerned is that there's a lot of ability for people to say, no, you can't vote because this, because of that. And they're forgetting the public. generally exception. So please take that into consideration. And I don't want to go much further, but there are other situations Thank you. where, for example, Councilmember Hoffman might live across the street from the marine ship well within a bright line rule, but it may well be that in that context, the marine ship our coast that particular area that's been so well covered by the voters and by the Council over the years. Things that happen there affect the public generally. You know, we can all explain the reasons for that. And in my case, I live within the view shed I'm about as far away to the south as anybody, but I can see the whole stretch of Bridgeway. I can see a good portion of the historic district, and it's meaningful to me. It affects me personally, and I think it affects lots of voters personally. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. |
| 00:04:26.12 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:04:26.25 | Steven Woodside | Can I ask him a follow-up question? |
| 00:04:28.19 | Unknown | you |
| 00:04:28.93 | Steven Woodside | Thank you so much for always giving us your sage advice. Are you distinguishing between voting on matters concerning the historic district as opposed to voting on matters concerning a specific property? because there's a fairly bright line rule regarding you know, when you're within a certain, when you're home is within a certain distance from another home. as opposed to district in general which i agree with you would affect the public generally |
| 00:05:00.32 | Steven Woodside | Well, I think there may be a middle position, if I may. I think there are situations where even as to a positive a particular parcel. In this case, it's whether to include or include it. as an opportunity housing site. And I think the combination of those two tells me it's more affecting the public generally. So when you vote on the overall housing element, clearly that affects the public generally. But what about each piece? I think you should be able to vote on a piece to include or exclude, because it's part of that whole complex of affecting the public generally. That's how I'm looking at it. And I really want all of you to be able to vote on all of these things. That's where I'm coming from. |
| 00:05:48.60 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, we appreciate your perspective. |
| 00:05:50.27 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:05:52.36 | Steven Woodside | Any other comments? No further public comments. All right, we'll adjourn to closed session. back at seven o'clock. |
| 00:06:15.55 | Steven Woodside | Well, everyone, good evening. We are returning from closed session. There are no announcements coming out of closed session, so we will reconvene in open session and begin today with the Pledge of Allegiance. |
| 00:06:27.75 | Unknown | Let's read this to the flowers. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. you Thank you. Look at each of those things wrong. |
| 00:06:38.55 | Steven Woodside | Thank you very much. Uh, We will now move on to approval of action minutes from the previous meeting. Is there a motion to approve the minutes? |
| 00:06:48.24 | Unknown | I move to approve the action minutes from our previous meeting. |
| 00:06:52.57 | Steven Woodside | All in favor, say aye. |
| 00:06:53.94 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:06:54.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:06:54.41 | Steven Woodside | Aye. Opposed? Minutes are approved. We're now gonna move on with the consent calendar. These are items that are typically non-controversial, require no discussion, and are expected to have unanimous council approval. They may be enacted by the council in one motion in the form listed in the agenda. There will be no separate discussion of the consent calendar items. However, before the council votes, any member may ask that an item be removed and it will be heard later in the meeting. The consent counter items of 3A include approval of the purchase of three replacement police administrative vehicles 3B the adopt a resolution authorizing the city manager funding agreement. with the county of Marin for the design of the Marin ship large capture project 3c is receive and follow report regarding the status of the ferret landslide improvement project 3D, adopt a resolution authorizing the city manager to approve the purchase of a city hall operating system certificate not to exceed $43,450 over three years. 3E, adopt a resolution authorizing the city manager to approve the purchase of a police department operating server at a cost not to exceed $38,638. 3F, authorize the city staff to issue proposals for the comprehensive user fee study and development impact fee study. 3G received and filed the 2023 annual Housing Element Progress Report. I don't want to bring public comment on these items, unless I should ask, does anyone want to remove any of these? See no removal. |
| 00:08:24.17 | Janelle Kelman | Mayor, I don't want to remove, I just want to... Just call out a thank you to staff. I see our director of public works, Kevin McGowan, is here for item 3P. These are the types of things where our community gets to lead, although we went with a more traditional civil engineering approach staff did spend. A significant amount of time reviewing Gray Green infrastructure and bioswales and opportunities to innovate in a more climate friendly manner. It wasn't even appropriate for this project, but I want to just thank Kevin and his team, Ali. who are working so hard on this and then providing counsel with that update so |
| 00:08:53.72 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:08:53.87 | Janelle Kelman | coming. |
| 00:08:54.24 | Steven Woodside | Thank you very much. Is there any public comment? We have Peter Van Ameeter. |
| 00:09:05.82 | Peter Van Ameeter | Thank you. This is regarding item 3C, the Ferry Landing Improvement Project. Very pleased to see this report moving forward. I think that it's interesting that it looks like a vast majority of the project can be within this first preliminary cost estimate. I think that's very exciting news. And in fact, if you look at some other funding availability, you in fact may even be able to pull off the entire project in the first phase. Look at some value engineering, look at some other source of funding. Of course you have this Tidelands Fund. I don't know what the limitations on that may be, but there could be perhaps funds come there so you can actually get the whole thing done at one step. And very pleased to see that moving forward. And thank you for implementing that |
| 00:09:47.74 | Unknown | Okay? THANK YOU. |
| 00:09:48.65 | Peter Van Ameeter | RECORDING TO THE FEDERAL |
| 00:09:48.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:09:48.80 | Peter Van Ameeter | I'm not sure. |
| 00:09:49.04 | Unknown | Thank you. Any other public comment on the consent calendar? We have. Senator Bushmaker. |
| 00:09:58.77 | Unknown | mute yourself. |
| 00:09:59.23 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 00:09:59.25 | Unknown | please |
| 00:09:59.68 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. Yes, I have finally. Good evening, everybody. I'm talking about item 3C, the ferry landing. I was, if I read that report correctly, it seems like the report the resurfacing of parking lot one is not included in this project. And this seems to be a problem because if the plan is to ignore the need for that parking lot and shift that grant money over to bicycle parking and sidewalk widening and benches and other things that are outlined in that project, then I have grave concerns. It seems to me that the ferry landing grant. is for improving the ferry landing of which parking lot is an integral part. Parking lot one is an integral part of that. So I was very disturbed to see that removed and I hope that the council is Paying close attention to the grant the grant uses and how we are appropriating our money. I don't wanna see the city being on the hook or the taxpayers again for the repaving where we've got grant money available to us. Thank you. |
| 00:11:12.82 | Steven Woodside | Any other public comment? City Clerk? Kieran Culligan. |
| 00:11:17.24 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:11:20.67 | Kieran Culligan | Heather, just super briefly, yeah, that great language is super important. for the Ferry Landsite area. And it, yeah. Maybe you could read it sort of somehow and interpret and heed to pay for something, but. Any normal reader would not see that. It is very clearly for the improvement. |
| 00:11:37.21 | Steven Woodside | Can you pause for one second, Mr. Culligan? We need to turn up the microphone. I don't know why he suddenly got so quiet. |
| 00:11:47.68 | Steven Woodside | Could you keep, all right, what is someone saying? |
| 00:11:54.00 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:11:57.02 | Steven Woodside | All right, well, we need to proceed. So go ahead, Mr. Culligan, go ahead. Just speak about her. Go ahead. Oh, now we can't hear you all. Could we unmute him? |
| 00:12:13.30 | Steven Woodside | Okay, go ahead. How's this? That's good. Now you don't need to talk. Just talk normal. |
| 00:12:13.60 | Kieran Culligan | Mike, how's this? Thank you. Okay. Well, my children are screaming, so I have to talk a little bit Yeah, I just want to call out that the grant language is quite specific about the $2 million is intentionally for the improvements for pedestrians bicycles safety expanding the promenade. And, you know, I think it'd be a tough sell that any dollars from that 2 million could go into paving the parking lot that would have to come out of general funds and I don't know if that's a wise use of our general funds. given long-term plans for that area and ways that could evolve. So, Um, Agree with the speaker, we need to look at the grant language. Disagree with the previous speaker that the parking lot is a good use or even an appropriate use of those funds. |
| 00:12:58.15 | Steven Woodside | Any other public comment, Mr. Clerk? Seeing none. All right, close public comment. Can there be a motion to approve the consent? |
| 00:13:04.04 | Steven Woodside | I actually have a comment. Thank you. In light of the public comment, I also would like to direct staff to examine the grant language because when this grant was first made, we understood that it was intended. to repave. the. parking lot one because We anticipate that parking lot one will be adversely impacted by the construction equipment necessary to build the ferry landing improvements. And so my understanding of the grant funding was that it was absolutely intended to cover repaving of parking lot one. And given that we have other funding sources, I have to believe there's a way for us to do everything that's appropriate for this project. So I know we're only in the design phase now, but I would like to hear from the staff what, and see what the grant requirements are for the grant money. |
| 00:13:56.93 | Steven Woodside | Okay, grant money. With that comment made to staff, can we have a motion to approve the consent agenda? |
| 00:14:01.54 | Steven Woodside | you |
| 00:14:01.55 | Unknown | So moved. |
| 00:14:02.97 | Steven Woodside | Is there a second? All in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed? Items are approved. We'll now move on to the public hearing item. This is an appeal of the Planning Commission decision approving design review and encroachment permit 2023-00013 for 426 Pine Street, APN 065-5411. Staff? |
| 00:14:06.45 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:14:07.04 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:14:26.19 | Steven Woodside | Mr. Director Phipps. |
| 00:14:32.94 | Steven Woodside | Is Director Phipps here? Maybe he knows. |
| 00:14:48.16 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:14:48.20 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:14:48.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:14:48.75 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:14:51.67 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:15:01.04 | Unknown | Thank you. Are you waiting for Kristen or Randy? |
| 00:15:04.68 | Steven Woodside | Kristen. |
| 00:15:07.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:15:10.59 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 00:15:22.62 | Unknown | I'm so sorry. I have a PowerPoint presentation prepared |
| 00:15:33.15 | Kristen Tyke | There's one is the PowerPoint and the other one's the PDF. You may want the PDF version. Is this on? |
| 00:15:40.96 | Steven Woodside | It is on. Thank you. Just for the record, would you introduce yourself, Kristen? I'm sorry. Yes. |
| 00:15:44.15 | Kristen Tyke | I'm sorry. Yes. Kristen Tyke, principal planner for the Community Development Department. |
| 00:15:57.99 | Kristen Tyke | Yes. Thank you. I missed your introduction. So since I missed it, I'm just going to repeat that this is an appeal of a design review approval by the planning commission. Application 202313. for 426 Pine Street. Next slide. |
| 00:16:19.22 | Kristen Tyke | On January 25th, this application was filed proposing to expand a existing single family home into a larger single family home with a JADU. on the ground story. After discussions with staff about the JAD rules versus the AD, U rules, they changed it to an ADU and gave it a little better kitchen. So they could then exempt that square footage from floor area. |
| 00:16:42.64 | Unknown | or? |
| 00:16:43.60 | Kristen Tyke | On October 25th, 2023, the planning commission first heard this application. And after hearing from everybody concerned about the project, they determined that the findings could be made and they moved to approve the application. On November 15th, we brought the resolution back to them for approval and they adopted it and it was resolution 2023-21. The appellants then filed the timely appeal, and we heard our first appeal hearing on January 22, 2024. Just to recap, the proposed plans proposed to substantially expand an existing single-story system single-family residents, |
| 00:17:26.84 | Unknown | single. |
| 00:17:28.64 | Kristen Tyke | to three stories with the Ground Story ADU. Exterior amenities include a third-story rooftop patio at the front and rear, rear decks that extend beyond the rear wall of the residence, New two-car driveway, built-in hot tub, and a fire pit in the real yard. And go to the next. So these were... That's okay. This is the site plan. It shows existing proposed. Next slide. |
| 00:17:59.10 | Kristen Tyke | And here is the front and rear elevations and some perspective drawings to give you, just to remind you what this building looks like. Next. And this is the south side, which has been the most contentious side with regard to the design impacts. Next slide. Thank you. So during the city council hearing on January 22nd, 2024, the council concluded the project client with both objective and subjective design standards and continued the hearing and suggested the applicant Consider meeting with the appellants and redesigning the project to address some of the concerns you expressed during the meeting. With regard to objective standards, it was determined it didn't comply with the side yard setback due to the application of 10.4407 OD1. which measures the length of the building wall and increases the setback based on measurement over 40 feet. And this particular building wall, if you include the rear decks, which the council determined should be included, Um, is 47 feet, four inches total. So it did increase the required setback slightly above what was actually being provided, which is five foot three inches. The subjective design standards were regarding the design review findings number seven nine and 12 and heightened design review findings B and C and those are laid out for you in the table there on the. screen. Generally, these findings address light and air between structures, once based on the impacts of the proposed design, privacy and require that primary views from surrounding properties be protected. Next slide. So today's hearing, the applicant has requested that we reschedule the hearing, and they have opted not to propose design modifications as required. suggested by the council. They did provide you with a written address of the concerns of the appellants and the council that were discussed during the last hearing. And they did agree to remove the rear decks to bring the project into conformance with the side yard setback. They have requested the council take action based on the plans that they presented and were approved by the planning commission. Less the decks. Next slide. So tonight, staff recommends the council conduct the next public hearing. And based on your design concerns, we have gone ahead. and prepared you a resolution upholding the appeal and overturning the planning commission. But if during your deliberations tonight, you determine you can come up with a solution that might allow approval of the project subject perhaps to some design modifications, as we discussed in previous staff reports, Staff has prepared you the draft resolution denying the appeal and approving the project. We did include a condition requiring removal of the rear deck's. |
| 00:20:59.33 | Steven Woodside | Questions please for staff. |
| 00:21:04.39 | Steven Woodside | If there are no questions, then we will move on now to the appellant presentation. Thank you very much. |
| 00:21:10.35 | Steven Woodside | May I just ask, once you're done, that you resume the slide that counts the conditions we were not able to make last time? Sure. But after everyone is done with their presentation, our deliberations. Thank you. Mr. Ginn? |
| 00:21:25.10 | Steven Woodside | again please approach the podium and you have five minutes any time you do not use you may add on to your rebuttal period at the end of the session |
| 00:21:32.23 | Unknown | Thank you. I don't think I need that much time. I urge you to approve the appeal and reject the project when after the January 22nd meeting, we were expecting some kind of, um, Communication to begin regarding the findings and alterations to the project. Um, about three or four days after that, um, They went back to next door and social media and it was clear to us it was unlikely that they were going to take that direction. Um, So I'm not going to need five minutes here. I do want to say we have two memos from Elizabeth breakfast. The second one addresses their letter regarding the Housing Accountability Act. And, um, uh, It's very clear that this is not net to you. you housing units for Sausalito, it's also not low income, and therefore discretionary findings criteria do apply. Um, I urge you to defend the municipal zoning code because I think they are going to lawyer up on that. If the council's frustrated that the applicant made no accommodations, this is the feeling that the neighbors have had throughout the project. There's just no material accommodations. At any point. And, um, And the final point I'd like to make is even the plans before you now that they're asking you to approve. have not been modified for the removal of rear decks. There's a second floor sliding door window that's probably illegal. With that, I'll... Save the rest of my time for a rebuttal if necessary. |
| 00:23:12.74 | Steven Woodside | Mr. Gann, any questions? Just stay for a moment. Any questions for Mr. Gann? It may not be. All right. Thank you very much. Now to the applicant, please. And just for the record, please identify yourself. Thank you. |
| 00:23:30.04 | Unknown | Each get five. |
| 00:23:30.82 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:23:30.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:23:31.03 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:23:31.05 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:23:31.10 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. The thank you please have a seat, thank you it's you have five minutes anytime you do not use you may use instead during a rebuttal period at the end of the hearing after public comment, so go right ahead. |
| 00:23:42.73 | Stephanie Stryka | All right. Good evening, Dubieski and Councilmembers. I'll introduce myself. My name is Stephanie Stryka. I'm an attorney at Cobblins Patch, Duffy & Bass in San Francisco, and I am legal counsel for the applicant, Jake and Georgia Byer. As the council is aware, the buyers have spoken. |
| 00:23:59.10 | Steven Woodside | What? us for a moment, Madam. What is the issue, Mr. Clerk? It is on, yes. |
| 00:24:04.26 | Stephanie Stryka | Thank you. It is on, yes. Hi. And if you need, do you need spelling? or anything. |
| 00:24:09.81 | Steven Woodside | No, we're fine. You're good. Go right ahead. Please. |
| 00:24:10.51 | Stephanie Stryka | You're good. Oh, yes. If I can have a presentation shared, please leave that that's ready. If we can just pause one moment. |
| 00:24:18.54 | Steven Woodside | I'm sorry. |
| 00:24:18.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:24:19.04 | Steven Woodside | THE END OF |
| 00:24:19.13 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:24:19.25 | Steven Woodside | you |
| 00:24:19.30 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:24:19.31 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:24:21.58 | Unknown | Give sharing access. |
| 00:24:25.00 | Stephanie Stryka | Thank you. |
| 00:24:29.71 | Steven Woodside | Do we have access to these slides? |
| 00:24:31.90 | Unknown | It's remote. So. |
| 00:24:33.76 | Steven Woodside | I see. Thank you. |
| 00:24:37.18 | Unknown | LAM, L-A-M, first name L-A-M. |
| 00:24:40.64 | Stephanie Stryka | . |
| 00:24:40.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:24:40.96 | Stephanie Stryka | you |
| 00:24:44.51 | Stephanie Stryka | And thank you for allowing us to do that. I am not tech savvy. Thank you. |
| 00:24:48.05 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 00:24:48.12 | Stephanie Stryka | Thank you. |
| 00:24:52.03 | Steven Woodside | All right, there you go. Please proceed. |
| 00:24:53.52 | Stephanie Stryka | Great. As the council is aware, the buyers have spent nearly three years and over 150 hours working with the neighbors to address their subjective concerns regarding light, privacy, and views. And despite those efforts, some of the neighbors cannot be appeased, and so we're here again tonight. The buyer's significant efforts, including several project revisions, are detailed on the screen for you here. including the removal of the rear deck following the January City Council hearing, which now ensures that the project complies with all objective standards regardless of code interpretation. Although not required, the buyers have also proposed some additional articulation beneath the third story deck to allow for more light and air, should the council wish to include that. as you can see. Any assertion that the buyers have not made good faith efforts to work through these issues with their neighbors are disingenuous. We wish to highlight that during the review process for the project, The city appears to have potentially illegally required the buyers to remove a JADU. and to then reduce the size of the remaining ADU. Both actions are in conflict with government code section 6585 2.2, which would have allowed the buyers to proceed with the project that includes three units as originally proposed the single family home, a J and an ADU. But setting aside the for now, these earlier potentially illegal actions, the city council tonight appears poised to commit another. by upholding the appeal and denying this project based on wholly subjective design review findings. As detailed in our March 13th letter to the council, this is not a legal basis to deny the project because it is afforded the protections of the Housing Accountability Act. The Housing Accountability Act, by the way, does not require that a housing development project include low-income units. in order to be afforded the Housing Accountability Act protections. The staff report for the item to be considered immediately after this appeal. indicates that the city is taking the novel and unsupported position that the HAA applies only to projects that include two or more net new units. Thank you. which would mean that the HA would not apply. position that a project must include two two more units than currently exist on a site is not supported by the HAA statute. The legislative history, the California Housing and Community Development Department's guidance on the HAA, which is the expert agency on this matter, or any case interpreting the HAA. Nowhere do the words net new or any similar variation appear in the context of determining whether the HAA applies. And nowhere is there a requirement that a single family home and ADU be proposed on a vacant site in order to be protected by the HAA. We also have not identified a single other jurisdiction in the state that has taken the position that this city appears to have adopted. Given the novel nature of the city's position, We have forwarded the staff report to HCD for its consideration and received word this morning. that HCD staff is meeting next week to address it. possibly anticipating that HCD will disagree with the city. and that HCD will instead confirm that the two or more units required for coverage by the HA are not also required to be net new. The city has recently and conveniently redefined this project as a substantial remodel. However, up until the issuance of its staff report for this hearing last Friday, The city has defined the proposed project as the quote substantial demolition. of the existing single family home and the construction of a new single family EDU. Importantly, The city's previous characterization of the project fit the only definition in the city's code of quote, new unit. That definition of new unit includes a unit built after the substantial demolition of an existing unit. The project squarely fits the city zoning code definition of substantial demolition. which includes the removal, replacement, or alteration of 51% or more of the area of existing floors, ceilings, and roofs. As such, Because this project involves the substantial demolition of the existing single family home, by the city's definition of quote new unit. The project consists of two new units and is subject to the HAA. And that is regardless of any net new, which, as I've stated, is not a requirement of the HAA. In closing, we wish to note for the city that violations for the HAA are subject to penalties and the award of attorney's fees. For example, just last month, the city of Berkeley was fined $2.6 million plus attorney's fees for a total of $4 million for that city's violations of the HAA. Thank you for your time. |
| 00:29:52.29 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Any questions, please, for the applicant's attorney? All right, see no questions. We will now move on to public comment. Any public comment on this matter? City clerk. |
| 00:30:07.06 | Steven Woodside | Mayor, before we hear public comment, may I ask a question of our city attorney? I would like our city attorney to respond to the comments from A. A. A. Thank you. |
| 00:30:29.86 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah. In the recently decided Rosnitsky versus County Marin case, the Court of Appeal recently held that the legislative history of the Housing Accountability Act, supported their decision that it did not apply to a project for a single unit of housing. The Housing Accountability Act applies to projects that are quote unquote residential units only. And the court held that that meant that it was not intended to apply to projects that created only a single unit. With respect to this proposed project, I do think that there are some questions in the record with respect to what it is. At present, the home that exists would be lifted up to be the second story of the proposed project. So it is... you know, in actuality, a addition of a new first floor and addition of a new third floor to an existing home. The proposed first floor, as I understand it, and this is, again, can be clarified further by staff, would contain A new additional dwelling unit as staff previously testified, the city did not remove or request the removal of a JADU from this project. The applicants originally proposed the JADU and staff recommended that the applicants revise their plans to make that an ADU instead. so that it would not count against the floor area ratio of their projects. So they could potentially even have a bigger project than if they had Additionally proposed to JAD. So in closing, I don't think that the Housing Accountability Act applies to a project that would be an addition to existing home. and an ADU. So I disagree with the characterization that has been put forward by the applicant's attorney. |
| 00:32:28.67 | Steven Woodside | you're going to be a little bit. So thank you, city attorney on now to public comment. Any public comment, city clerk? |
| 00:32:34.06 | Walfred Solorzano | We have Stuart Rabinowich. |
| 00:32:39.67 | Unknown | closer. |
| 00:32:39.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:32:40.64 | Unknown | video. Yeah, so, well, I was here last time, so my only comment is I do live at 425 Turney Street, and my main issue was this was with the height and that it obliterates the view that I've enjoyed for 40 years from my property. And I'm not sure that any of these amended proposals, I mean, the removal of the back decks would certainly improve some of that. I don't think it would completely change the fact that I would still, you know, be losing significant view, but, you know, anything that can be done that would help that would, and also the other thing was light will definitely, in fact, since I was last here in January, I noticed the sunlight coming over the hills and it will no longer be there in the winter time in the morning, which will be very unfortunate so. Anyway, I'm really glad that the applicants hopefully are making some changes, but I certainly still think that the project is. Thanks. quite large for the lot and in some ways out of character with the neighborhood. OK, thank you. |
| 00:33:43.87 | Steven Woodside | with. Thank you, sir. Other public comments? |
| 00:33:48.15 | Walfred Solorzano | Ray Swanson. |
| 00:33:52.73 | Steven Woodside | Maybe you can say who's next after Mr. Swanson just so they can be ready, city clerk. you |
| 00:33:56.42 | Walfred Solorzano | Nobody else in-house. |
| 00:33:57.20 | Steven Woodside | Okay. Mr. Swanson, go right ahead. |
| 00:34:00.81 | Unknown | Yeah, good evening, Mr. Mayor and counsel. So I do realize that this meeting is called to address this very narrow issue as to whether or not the applicants have adequately responded. to the purpose of the continuance which was, as I quote, the purpose of the continuance was to allow the applicant, the buyers to meet with the appellants of which I am one. to address the appellant's concerns and meet design review findings, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I have had no contact from Mr. Beyer. any of the buyers about this issue. Until tonight, I wasn't aware that any had been done. But I think it's safe to say, that the criteria by which this continuance was set up have not been met. And so the logical and reasonable course of action would be simply to approve the appeal, and that would be the end of the story. Except, of course, the city may be worried about this lawsuit. or at some later date or by some other mechanism, the issue is about the structural size and the decks, et cetera, will be adjudicated in some way. And for this reason, I feel the need to once again draw attention to the really larger issue that I, have raised before and that is that this issue really fails to meet design requirement 2A, that is to maintain the prevailing Oh, shoot. Character of the Neighborhood. As you all know by now, this this this is a very This block of Pine Street is, is almost unique in that it maintains the character of the 1920s buildings that were built I see tourists walking up from Caledonia Street, taking pictures of it. They realize it. They step out of their shop, stare and do so. And we're going to lose that aesthetic. I don't know why the planning commission didn't flag that in the beginning or still hasn't done it yet. |
| 00:36:01.77 | Unknown | Thank you, sir. |
| 00:36:02.44 | Unknown | All right. The rest of my statement is posted, and please look at it, and please also look at Kate Green's presentation, which captures the other- How about Kate Green? |
| 00:36:05.80 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:36:09.40 | Unknown | We have Kay Diggs next online. Kay Diggs, are you going to meet yourself? Keith Diggs, sorry. |
| 00:36:15.98 | Steven Woodside | Thanks, go right ahead. Thank you. |
| 00:36:17.73 | Unknown | Hello, good evening city council. Just want to check in and weigh in support of this project. I learned about this while I was looking at the objective design standards material later on tonight. I know that it's an HAA project. I do agree with the project proponents characterization of Resnitsky. I don't read anything in Resnitsky that says anything about net new. It just applies to one single family home. This home has an ADU. I think I skipped this part. I'm the attorney for Yes, My Backyard. So wanted to HAB-Jacques Juillandas- Comment on behalf of yes in my backyard that we do believe that the ha supports the approval of this project. HAB-Jacques Juillandas- Giving comment now, I also want to know it doesn't sound like there's a low income component on the ad, but I do want to note for the applicants. Um, if they are willing to put a low income condition on the ADU, that makes it 50% affordable. And as my client's position, as you all know from our active litigation right now, The city does not have a compliant housing element, notwithstanding HCD certification so. One way or the other, I think it's in the city's interest to approve the project tonight. It was approved unanimously by the Planning Commission. So I would encourage vote to deny the appeal. Thank you. |
| 00:37:41.84 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Is there other public comment online? |
| 00:37:43.81 | Unknown | Yes, we have Danielle Dubitz Graham. |
| 00:37:55.83 | Unknown | If you can unmute yourself, please. |
| 00:38:00.86 | Danielle Dubetz-Grabem | My apologies. My name is Danielle Dubetz-Grabem, and I am a resident of Solslito, who has closely followed this entire process, and I empathize with the challenges of the Bayer family and what they faced. I urge you to deny the appeal and approve the projects as they stand. The project is in compliance with all objective municipal codes, including FAR, lot coverage, height limits, and so forth. The Beyer family has made ample accommodations to address the appellant's subjective concerns, though extensive, through extensive redesign work, However, the findings presented are highly subjective, allowing for wide interpretation. everyone holds their own perspective on what constitutes adequate light and air the fact that the city council is considering overruling the planning commission's unanimous approval suggests a lack of objectivity in this process it raises questions when the entire planning commission and the planning department staff found all the necessary findings achievable yet some city council members disagree it undermines the countless hours spent collaborating with city planning department to secure their support only to face potential opposition from the city council. due to different interpretations of the non objective language of the findings, I implore you to make the right decision and deny this appeal also i'd like to address the previous man to people back. The criteria in which the continuance was set up was vague. It sent this team back to the neighbors as far as maintaining the prevailing character of the neighborhood. I've been to that area and the primary person against this plan, Conrad, has essentially a big box rental with no apparent character at all. So again, the complaints appear to me to be ambiguous at best. |
| 00:39:55.69 | Unknown | Next person is Mike Wynn. |
| 00:40:04.21 | Mike Gwynn | Hey there. My name is Mike Gwynn. I'm a resident of 115 Solstice. See you there. It was a beautiful town. Thanks for enabling us to join by Zoom. Um, I would just like to parlor and continue on the thought pattern of the last speaker. It's been very interesting to watch as a resident of this town as a decision that's made here. It's not just a test of what should happen on Pine Street, but how decisions are made in Sourcetia in general. What is the position of the Sourcetia Council and how we run this council? How do we govern the city? And right now it's been most disappointing to see Yeah. subjective standards being applied over subjective, over objective standards to see the Planning Commission's decisions overrule. And so I argue strongly in favor of Um, letting the Bay of Fire family move forward into the right processes there. And I would just question all the residents that live nearby and their subjective standards, including to, as to the last speaker, the discussion around What is the character of the neighborhood? where the neighbors are literally big boxes, down the road are concrete structures. Most of the objectives, objections, including the fire issue from Joan Cox at the last meeting, have been simply ridiculous. And you have to question how the city is governed overall simply on this decision alone. Thank you. |
| 00:41:42.58 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Anyone else? Thank you. |
| 00:41:44.59 | Unknown | Emily Schmidt. |
| 00:41:50.20 | Peter Schmidt | Hi, can you hear me? This is Peter Schmidt. |
| 00:41:51.94 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:41:51.96 | Steven Woodside | Go right ahead. |
| 00:41:52.48 | Peter Schmidt | Thank you. Thank you. Peter Schmidt, Hi, this is Peter Schmidt, I'm a resident of Sausalito and a homeowner on the north side of town and I've been following this project as well for quite a while now and just wanted to share that I agreed with the Peter Schmidt, The speaker to previous who mentioned the. some points to me. And he also reminded me that, so I'm in support of the project, and I believe that the appeal should be denied because my concern is the future and the precedent that this would set. And my concern would be that if, you know, these homes that are for families that intend to stay in Sausalito are denied again and again, or it takes, you know, years and years for them to accomplish the home they want to build or live in. My concern is that in the future, what's to present a family that gets denied and denied and denied again from them just sitting on properties, which it seems like we have some of those here just as a point to fight the city or, and then all of us as taxpayers are fighting these individuals because they're denied. And in this case, this seems to me like objectively the Planning Commission has decided that this is something that they agree with. So I think we should support the Planning Commission. But I think, yeah, so that's all I have to say. |
| 00:43:13.43 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:43:13.52 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:43:13.57 | Unknown | You know? |
| 00:43:13.79 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:43:13.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:43:13.92 | Steven Woodside | What else? Thank you. |
| 00:43:15.42 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:43:15.44 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:43:15.47 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 00:43:15.71 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:43:15.74 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:43:15.78 | Steven Woodside | No further put. |
| 00:43:16.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:43:16.59 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:43:16.69 | Unknown | I'm not sure. I'm not sure. |
| 00:43:16.94 | Steven Woodside | All right, we'll close public comment. And now we have an opportunity for the appellant to... Alphabet rebuttal. Mr. Ginn. |
| 00:43:30.98 | Steven Woodside | I guess in this case, Mr. Chase, please. You have four minutes and 46 seconds. We'll be starting for the time that was- |
| 00:43:39.45 | Sam Chase | Thank you. Thank you. Sam Chase, 19 Bonita. I just want to clarify that, uh, |
| 00:43:44.18 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:43:44.20 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:43:44.30 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 00:43:44.43 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |
| 00:43:44.45 | Unknown | I'm just... |
| 00:43:48.89 | Sam Chase | I submitted my concerns over views back in January of 2023 this is when the first Planning Commission actually had a public hearing prior to the meeting. And I submitted a lot of information regarding my views then, I subsequently, submitted. all my concerns about views a week before the October 25th, Planning Commission. So Quite frankly, the first thing that staff got up and said is they had no time to Look at my view concerns that came in late. As for us. So the Planning Commission I can detect, never even considered them. And, uh, Secondly, if you listen to Commissioner Junius's presentation in the planning commission, He clearly does not care. about what it says. in our planning codes. there's something that he doesn't really relate to. He thinks they're confusing. too ambiguous, went on and on, and basically said, look, we should just approve this project. Now, that's... as far as I'm concerned, Those two items alone were enough to toss this 5-0 Planning Commission decision that was made. commission and then the two women on the commission, rightfully started out trying to defend The need to Listen to the... findings and go through the process. Well, they withered at the end of the meeting and went 5-0. I mean, what kind of a 5-0 vote is that? think about it. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. |
| 00:45:52.78 | Steven Woodside | Mr. Gant? |
| 00:45:53.76 | Sam Chase | I'm not sure. |
| 00:45:53.84 | Unknown | I'm going to go I just want to make the point that If this was a housing development, then they should have said, this is a housing development up front. This is the regulatory environment. We're going to do it. They didn't. In fact, their website is renovate for 26 Pine Street. Thanks. So what's on the table here is a regular approval process. It's not a housing plan. development process, as far as I can tell. Um, um, |
| 00:46:32.00 | Unknown | Yeah, I'll leave it at that. |
| 00:46:33.23 | Steven Woodside | Thank you very much, Mr. Ginn. The applicant now has one. You're going to speak. Go right ahead. I didn't know you were speaking, Mr. I'm going to go ahead. |
| 00:46:40.78 | Michael Rex | Michael Rex, local architect representing Conrad Gann who lives next door. And I just want to offer one thought here. Yes, this project's been a long time coming. A lot of efforts got into it. It would never have taken so long. And there would have been much more surety in what they could get approved. had they been cooperative and worked with their neighbors in a reasonable fashion. This has been an all or nothing approach. And that doesn't work very well in a dense neighborhood where people live so close by. I can tell you, we get our projects approved much quicker when we work with the neighbors and collaborate than Stonewall M. So you don't need to feel bad that this took a long time. It took a long time because of the applicant's approach. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Rex. |
| 00:47:32.39 | Steven Woodside | The applicant now has one minute, if you would like to speak. |
| 00:47:32.41 | Michael Rex | the, |
| 00:47:38.82 | Steven Woodside | Please put one minute on the clock. |
| 00:47:44.78 | Steven Woodside | All right, go right ahead. |
| 00:47:46.01 | Stephanie Stryka | Thank you. I'd first like to address the Ratsnitsky case, which holding states we hold that the HA does not apply to projects that build individual single family homes. |
| 00:47:48.07 | Steven Woodside | Are you speaking to the microphone? |
| 00:47:56.91 | Stephanie Stryka | That is the holding of that case. That is not the case here. This is a single family home in an ADU. Second, I'd like to point City's Council to footnote seven. Since we decide only whether a project consisting of one residential unit qualifies as a housing development project, we express no opinion whether that term contemplates a minimum number of units that is greater than two. The holding is quite limited. It is not expanded to mean net new. The city is pulling that out of thin air. Next, the city's position on whether or not this project constitutes a demolition or whether or not substantial number of walls are being taken down, the city's position would mean that any time a project does not level the existing structure, the HA would not apply. That is not the case here. This project, it is lifting up a level. It is doing substantial work, and it fits the definition of substantial demolition in the city's code, and it is an HA project. |
| 00:48:49.34 | Steven Woodside | for your comments all right we will now close the uh and bring everything back up to the city council for discussion is there anyone who wishes to make any comments Vice mayor. |
| 00:49:01.93 | Steven Woodside | Can staff please restore that slide to the... |
| 00:49:07.03 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Can you kindly put the findings slide up? |
| 00:49:08.04 | Steven Woodside | Of course. So the concern I have is that the applicant has declined to make any revisions to the project. And at our last meeting, I believe we had consensus that we were unable to make some of the design review findings, both design review and heightened design review findings. I am gratified that the applicant has agreed to remove the back deck. That makes a huge difference for me in terms of the required setbacks for the project. Without the removal of the deck, this would be a slam-dunk denial of the project for me. So... The applicant has declined to make any changes to their project. And so from my perspective, Wait, yeah, those are them. But since nothing has changed, I don't know how I can change my view on these standards, unless we somehow make modifications to the project. I hate to design from the dais. I always said that as a planning commissioner. But for me personally, nothing has changed in terms of the whether we can make these findings. So that, that would be the challenge I pose to my fellow council members. |
| 00:50:36.15 | Janelle Kelman | Thank you, Vice Mayor. May I offer a suggestion for consideration? So my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, is that the project sits within the existing footprint. The first floor has been lifted up. A new first floor has been placed. And so the first and second floor are sort of stacked on top of each other. But there is a new third floor that is really contributing to that massing, that loss of space and air and light that pertains to the finding. I checked with the city attorney and there is an objective standard within our zoning that allows us during a heightened design review, such as this project, to adjust the setback requirement. If we were to adjust the setback for the third floor, would that address some of the light and air concerns that you have? lead you more towards making a finding. |
| 00:51:35.19 | Steven Woodside | Well, I believe that the majority of and may I answer. Okay, I believe that the majority of the issues complained of by neighbors concerns the south elevation of the project. And so Because the neighbor on the other side doesn't seem to have objections to the project or their prior objections were addressed. So for me, I would focus on the south side of the project. |
| 00:52:08.13 | Janelle Kelman | Okay, so maybe the city attorney can weigh in here, but my understanding is that the zoning ordinance allows us to under heightened design review standards, objectively modify the setbacks. And so let me suggest that we modify the setback for the third level on the south side. Um, And I don't know, can you just confirm that before I go further, city attorney? |
| 00:52:33.60 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, you're referring to provisions of 1050-4050-E discussing heightened design review project findings. That section of the code deals, um, with the following and mentions the site development standards contained in table 10.22-2 are not entitlements. The size, setbacks, or other physical conditions of a proposed new home or expansion of an existing home subject to design review shall be at the discretion of the planning commission. And in order to meet findings for design review, including The following heightened review findings, the planning commission may approve a home smaller or with greater setbacks or impose requirements that are more restrictive than those that are set forth in this chapter. So basically, to the extent you need to make design modifications or impose conditions of approval to address things like light, air, slope stability, utilities, topography. appearance of bulk, you are allowed to impose conditions of approval to address those aesthetic issues and other issues under your discretionary design review process. |
| 00:53:52.79 | Steven Woodside | Mayor, may I ask a follow-on? Please go ahead, Vice Mayor. |
| 00:53:53.97 | Sergio Rudin | THE FAMILY. |
| 00:53:54.06 | Unknown | Go ahead. |
| 00:53:54.87 | Steven Woodside | Um, I seem to recall, city attorney, I seem to recall from the letter we received from counsel for the project proponent, an assertion that we are not allowed to reduce the size of the project. Do you recall that? assertion and can you address that in with respect to what I think Councilmember Kelman is thinking to propose. |
| 00:54:32.08 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, the the Applicants Council and the applicants submitted some information basically saying the city cannot Andrew Bickford, Ph.D.: Reduce the size of their project on the basis of the housing crisis act of 2019 and they cite to the recent Umbi versus Culver city decision. The Housing Crisis Act includes language that says the city cannot change the general plan, land use designation, specific land use designation, or zoning of a parcel to a less intensive use or reduce the intensity of land use within an existing general plan use designation, specific plan land use designation or zoning district. Um... below what was allowed. in effect on January 1, 2018. Um, and you're not allowed to impose standards that would individually or accumulably reduce the site's residential development capacity. I do not believe the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 limits the city's ability to impose conditions of approval on a project, as long as you're allowing for a reasonable amount of development. And furthermore, you know, imposing conditions of approval under the existing zoning process would not be considered. making any of the changes that are prohibited under the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. That act defines development policy standard or condition pretty specifically to be a provision of or amendment to a general plan, a specific plan or a zoning ordinance. So you're not changing your zoning for this project, you're actually applying your zoning. |
| 00:56:08.67 | Steven Woodside | And doesn't that act focus on density primarily? |
| 00:56:11.37 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah. It does. I think the intent, the intention there is that you are not you're not supposed to reduce the intensity of land use in a way that would lower the amount of units that are allowed to be developed. |
| 00:56:23.97 | Steven Woodside | May I ask staff, the third story of the project, it's my understanding that's primarily the master bedroom. Is that your? Okay, so I hear yes from the, thank you, Kristen. So essentially, where I hear you going is to reduce the size of the bedroom, potentially, which would not reduce the intensity of use or the density of the project. |
| 00:56:50.82 | Janelle Kelman | Yeah, I think Councillor Boston had a comment. |
| 00:56:53.25 | Unknown | Yeah, I just want to say I know that this project has come a long way. There's been a lot of effort and a lot of excitement and passion from both the applicants and the appellants. And I appreciate the amount of time that's been put into this. I continue to, as I said at the previous hearing, I would like to see us get to a point where we can approve the project. So I'm hopeful that we can come together to find a way to do that, which will be amenable to those who have put in all of that time. So I'm mindful that there are four of us here and I'm hoping we can work forward to a way to approve this tonight and making it as acceptable as possible for everyone involved. |
| 00:57:35.32 | Steven Woodside | You have a proposed number for this increased setback, Councilmember Kellman? |
| 00:57:38.66 | Janelle Kelman | Where are we right now on the setback? Remind me. Kristen, can you tell us what the setback is? |
| 00:57:43.57 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:57:43.61 | Unknown | by press. |
| 00:57:44.35 | Kristen Tyke | Thank you. |
| 00:57:44.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:57:44.64 | Kristen Tyke | THE END OF |
| 00:57:44.67 | Unknown | 0.3. |
| 00:57:45.03 | Kristen Tyke | Thank you. |
| 00:57:45.13 | Janelle Kelman | Thank you. |
| 00:57:45.33 | Unknown | five foot, three inches, I think. |
| 00:57:46.81 | Janelle Kelman | you |
| 00:57:46.83 | Kristen Tyke | THE END OF THE END OF THE Thank you. Current setback provided is 5'3". If you were just taking a 40-foot-length building, they would be Bupar or Dev 4'6". So they've already increased it some. |
| 00:57:58.31 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:57:58.54 | Kristen Tyke | We did not include the deck in our original calculation. |
| 00:58:01.97 | Janelle Kelman | Right. |
| 00:58:02.41 | Kristen Tyke | you |
| 00:58:02.49 | Janelle Kelman | I appreciate that. Thank you. Right. So just for purposes of the record, we're applying the heightened reviews standards, I think maybe propose something in the tenant range to increase the light and air so that we can approve this project without the deck. And with this minor modification to the third floor, |
| 00:58:20.70 | Steven Woodside | I mean, I don't know how other council members feel. I would rather see a foot, but. Thank you. |
| 00:58:26.57 | Unknown | I don't want to. I'd rather see less. I'd rather see six inches. So I don't know. |
| 00:58:28.36 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |
| 00:58:32.33 | Unknown | Again. |
| 00:58:33.98 | Steven Woodside | I think we should do the 10. You have six feet of a foot. So look, I'm just going to make a motion to approve the resolution denying the appeal and approve the project with the following additional conditions. Number one, removal of the decks. And number two, increasing the south setback of the third story, an additional 10 inches from five foot three inches to six foot one inch. That's the motion. |
| 00:58:59.46 | Sergio Rudin | And I will just note that the existing resolution The council packet already includes a condition of approval requiring the removal of the deck. |
| 00:59:13.13 | Steven Woodside | So there's a motion or is there a second? I'll second the motion. Motion's made and seconded. |
| 00:59:16.27 | Steven Woodside | Christian's made in the world. May I make public comment? Sure. I so- |
| 00:59:21.14 | Steven Woodside | I think I have a dually moved in second. Oh, yes, you're correct. |
| 00:59:23.00 | Steven Woodside | Right. |
| 00:59:24.86 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:59:25.25 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:59:25.75 | Steven Woodside | Yeah, we do have discussion. You're right. Sorry, all the questions are we did. |
| 00:59:27.98 | Steven Woodside | Okay. Yes, exactly. I appreciate Councilmember Blaustein's comments about the passion involved in this project, but I do want to make clear that if we approve this project, it is not an endorsement of some of the behavior that we've observed on by both sides, both the proponents and the opponents. to the project. I think the dialogue has devolved from any type of collaboration to um, I just have not enjoyed reviewing the posts on Nextdoor, and I really... sincerely hope that if we do approve this project, that neighbors will be able to build bridges rather than walls between them. |
| 01:00:18.17 | Steven Woodside | Any other discussion? No, please, please, please order in the room. Thank you. emotions, anyone, any other comments? All the questions? |
| 01:00:29.88 | Barbara Brown | Thank you. |
| 01:00:29.98 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:00:29.99 | Barbara Brown | Thank you. |
| 01:00:31.16 | Steven Woodside | Okay, the question's called. Motions, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay, unanimously carries. Public hearing is closed. Moving on to the first business item 5A, Project Application 2024-00019, study session for zoning ordinance amendment, adoption of more comprehensive objective design and development standards and form-based code. So let us please hear from the staff on business item 5A. |
| 01:00:35.19 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:01:02.82 | Unknown | chickening out. not supporting the code, fear them taking you to court. |
| 01:01:10.11 | Unknown | Thank you. That's all I'm going to take. Thank you. So grab that. Thank you. |
| 01:01:16.62 | Steven Woodside | So do we have a stop? We'll just take a moment to let the room... |
| 01:01:26.05 | Unknown | Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, members of the public and staff. Happy to be here this evening, as always, to introduce item 5A as related to the adoption of more comprehensive objective development and design standards, which we colloquially refer to as the odds. Just to frame this item a bit for council and the community, this is a study session. To review the draft odds that staff have been working on that will ultimately apply to development projects, which incorporate two or more new projects. Dwelling units in multifamily and non residential zoning districts that allow such as our R2 and our R3 districts, as well as our central commercial Commercial Residential and Neighborhood Commercial. zoning districts. So as this is a study session, staff is very happy to receive feedback and comment from city council and members of the public at this meeting. And we'll be making modifications and or amendments to the odds as directed. Once staff are able to amend the odds as appropriate to respond to the feedback and direction provided at this meeting, staff will bring the item back before the Planning Commission at a future formal public hearing where the Planning Commission will provide their formal recommendations to city council. And with that, Commission's recommendation in hand, staff will return to the council once again. for counsel to review the odds and to render a final decision. And to prime the council discussion this evening, I'll just highlight, based on some of the comments that we've received from members of the public, that staff is particularly interested in receiving council feedback and direction on two things. The first of those being objective standards for historic resource preservation. How would Council like to deal with that, considering the importance of our historic district and the fact that we have not heretofore integrated historic resource preservation objective standards into this draft document. Secondly, objective standards for public and private view reservation. As detailed in the staff report, both of these items are |
| 01:03:34.03 | Unknown | as |
| 01:03:38.59 | Unknown | a bit sticky as far as objectifying them is concerned and as discussed by our historic preservation commission as related to historic resources these kinds of objective standards may result in a false sense of historic character for new buildings or at least that's some of the feedback we received from our planning commission excuse me historic preservation commission of course just because something is hard does not mean it's not worth looking into I will though just add that direction to look into objectifying these standards may result in both budget and time increases as related to drafting and ultimately approving a final improved, new and improved version of the objective development and design standards. So thank you for the opportunity to introduce the item. I'll now give the floor to Principal Planner Neil Toft, and he will discuss the sequencing that the odds have gone through during their development and Thank you. And then you will hear from our consultants, Bob Brown, and I believe Tony Perez as well from OptiCost Design, who will discuss details associated with the odds. And myself, as well as staff and consultants, will all be present to answer questions following the presentation. Thank you. |
| 01:04:53.01 | Sam Chase | So vice mayor, I have one question. |
| 01:04:54.19 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:04:54.21 | Sam Chase | Thank you. |
| 01:04:54.59 | Steven Woodside | Um, um, Thank you for your presentation and for all the work that's gone into bringing this to us for a study session. You mentioned the challenges of integrating historic preservation standards into the odds, and then you also mentioned the challenge of integrating two other factors into the odds. |
| 01:05:13.39 | Unknown | Public and private view preservation. |
| 01:05:16.89 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:05:17.97 | Unknown | Of course. Let's move on. Thank you. |
| 01:05:19.72 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:05:24.24 | Neil Toft | Hello, I'm principal planner, Neil Toft, and I'm just going to give A brief overview of the process, the city. has been through so far to get to this point with the draft odds. And I'll try to be very quick. I know Bob has a lot of detail to go through, but beginning largely in 2017, The state of California began adopting series of housing laws, largely to limit discretionary review authority of local governments, particularly for what are considered multifamily housing projects. However, the state did encourage implementation of objective design and development standards. Thank you. as a mean of, streamlining development review. And a lot of agencies began taking on this concept. Now, I will note The city does have objective standards already in the form of current zoning and subdivision regulations, things that regulate building size, lot size, building bulk. But the concept of the objective design standards are to attempt to replace and provide some controls. that are more objective rather than the typical subjective design review. So subsequently, a consortium of county and Marin County jurisdictions, including Sausalito, joined in developing the Countywide Odds Toolkit This was an effort funded by SB2 grant funds. and to develop these local regulations. The city retained Robert Brown. and Opticos Design. to assist the city and to use local standards due to their experience in working with the odds toolkit and with other brand jurisdictions. in June of 2021. The Planning Commission appointed a subcommittee of Commissioners Feller and Junius. to assist staff and the consultants. in reviewing these code sections, drafting the criteria. Thank you. And subsequently, the staff and the consultants met with the subcommittee |
| 01:07:29.61 | Unknown | And. |
| 01:07:35.53 | Neil Toft | 16 times since 2021. extensively discussed, evaluated their options for the draft odds. And they also held several meetings with the Planning Commission, some with the City Council, and meetings with the Historic Preservation Board to review the topic uh, and had largely completed drafting the odds. The consultants had largely completed this in early 2023, and, However, the city's housing element was already in process and underway during 2022. And in order to achieve the reallocation, The city adopted the housing element with 48 opportunity sites. with much higher densities, allowing for maximum residential densities of 49 and 70 units to the acre. And as a result of these changes, staff began coordinating with the consultants to update the draft odds to address these increased densities. on these sites. And this included coordination with both the odds consultants and our housing element consultants who are working on the draft EIR as well as the programs for the rezoning and the zoning amendments to comply with the housing element. direction. What we had to do was make sure that these Zoning amendments and general plan amendments And the odds were all consistent, internally consistent with the odds and vice versa. So at its meeting in October of 2023, the council Authorized contract revisions for our odds consultants to address this. Subsequently, they did update the draft objective odds, worked a bit more with the subcommittee. And then we had a presentation to the planning commission for the current draft odds on February 14th. We received several comments from the Commission. uh, Nothing highly consequential. Certainly some things we can work with. Bob will go into those. But we're before you tonight before to get any additional feedback or comments before preparing a final draft to bring back to the Planning Commission and the Council for Adoption as Code, for public hearings and adoption as code. So do you have any questions for me before I pass this on to Bob Brown? Questions from Councilor. |
| 01:10:09.97 | Steven Woodside | Kelman and then Councilmember Blaustein. |
| 01:10:12.06 | Janelle Kelman | Thank you so much for that, Neal. And just since we have members of the public who are very interested in this process, talk to us a little bit about the process itself. You just spent a significant period of time taking us through all the different hearings and where we're going with this. What exactly is next for us? This is we're just receiving this. We're not making recommendations here. Can you, I know you already covered it, but can you just sort of say, so it didn't get lost in the time frame. What exactly are we doing tonight and where is this going from here? |
| 01:10:46.96 | Neil Toft | Well, we've adopted, we've prepared a draft objective design standards using the Marin toolkit as the kind of a baseline to work from, and then design standards utilizing direction from the subcommittee. There's a number of sort of recommendations they built into what you now see as the draft, as well as feedback from those meetings. Now, I didn't participate in all those, so I can't speak too directly to the whole process. But where we're at right now is we have a draft. We do have a few comments and suggestions from the Planning Commission. And what we intend to do is to bring this back to the city council in a, final draft form as a recommended Um, ordinance for adoption. as part of the housing elements. program and the rezoning We have prepared a draft environmental impact report. and we've received comments on that. And that impact for drafting EIR also addresses the programs which include adoption of the odds. So the odds are somewhat intertwined with the programs that increase the zoning and up zone these sites, increase the densities and increase, you know, height limits, things like that. That is intertwined with the odds because the odds have to be consistent with that program and the odds provide more detail to development standards for those types of housing projects, more details to follow, but one thing the odds cannot do is create more shall we say more restrictive zoning requirements than our current standards or anything prescribed by the housing element or the general plan. |
| 01:12:43.72 | Janelle Kelman | Let me just pause. I followed you. I was on the housing element committee, planning commission and all that stuff. |
| 01:12:50.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:12:50.60 | Janelle Kelman | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:12:50.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:12:50.72 | Janelle Kelman | you I think staff, I'm looking for Brandon as well, we're going to need a very simplified version of that. And with like a timeframe, like a chart project management, very simplified because I think the interplay between the odds and housing element, EIR and pragmatic ER, it's going to get complicated. So thank you for that. But I hope, and then, and Mayor, I do have some questions about the historic resources, view corridors and the state housing laws, but I don't want to take up too much time. So I'm happy to wait. |
| 01:13:19.90 | Steven Woodside | I think they're great questions. Let's let Councilmember Faustine go and we'll come back to you and then by Samaritan we'll come back. Those are important questions. |
| 01:13:26.26 | Unknown | My questions are very similar to Councilmember Kelman's. I was just trying to get to a point where we could more plainly explain the process. So I think you did a really good job of articulating that with your questions. I won't repeat them. Thank you. |
| 01:13:38.04 | Steven Woodside | You mentioned the necessity to up-zone . opportunity zones in order to accommodate the required density in order to meet the required RENA numbers. Is it possible in our odds to delineate areas where we up zone. For example, the north side of town where we could easily go to 45 feet as opposed to the historic district where going to 45 feet might, conflict with preservation of historic resources? Is it possible to enunciate a program that makes that distinction? |
| 01:14:17.65 | Neil Toft | I think the odds does make that distinction because the updated draft odds, and Bob will explain this in more detail, but it creates... The original draft odds had, I believe, four districts. three neighborhood design areas. But what we've done is create a new or new neighborhood design simply for the opportunity site. So it's an overlay zone, and it's the odd standards that apply only to those overlay sites. |
| 01:14:55.23 | Steven Woodside | The challenge is that we have opportunity sites in the historic, in the historic preservation district. And so what I'm, I'm I'm seeking to understand how best to not have the overlay apply to every opportunity site. Can we just apply the overlay to opportunity sites north of a certain landmark or something of that nature? |
| 01:15:21.38 | Neil Toft | Well, I think there could be an exercise to really look at those opportunity sites. study them more carefully and determine if there is a way of looking at a different designation for those sites potentially. I don't want to I want to be careful not to spitball too much right here. |
| 01:15:41.11 | Steven Woodside | No, I will tell you that. |
| 01:15:41.62 | Neil Toft | Oh, yeah. But I see where you're, you know, I think it's a concern. And I do think height was certainly one of the issues that we recognize as |
| 01:15:43.96 | Steven Woodside | Yes. |
| 01:15:51.12 | Neil Toft | is a concern. It's that balance of trying to make sure we're following through with the housing element programs. and that we're not taking measures through the odds to further restrict or necessarily undermine those programs while at the same time How do we maintain preservation in the |
| 01:16:11.72 | Steven Woodside | I will share with you there was a group that I was a participant in called sensible housing Sausalito that did exactly that looked at every single site and Sausalito and identified the appropriate number of units for each of those sites consistent with The ability of those sites to accommodate higher densities higher heights or not, and so. |
| 01:16:11.84 | Neil Toft | I WILL SHOW YOU. |
| 01:16:35.23 | Steven Woodside | and I know we shared that information, but somehow that didn't translate to the group to the work that got done. I think it would be a simple matter to revisit that and perhaps adjust. the parameters for the overlay zones for the opportunity sites. Thank you. |
| 01:16:57.05 | Barbara Brown | Thank you. |
| 01:16:57.06 | Janelle Kelman | Thank you for that. So I want to ask three sets of questions. The objective design standards around historic resources, second one around view corridors, and the third around the state housing laws. So, Director Phipps in his introduction suggested that we would be looking at historic resources, but I'm wondering if you can further articulate how objective design standards can safeguard historic resources in terms of providing clear guidelines for alterations additions or new construction within historic districts. |
| 01:17:06.56 | Kristen Tyke | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:17:06.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:17:31.52 | Neil Toft | I think that one of the basic premises is the the historic district or that CEQA can still be a tool for areas that are within for development within the historic district. So there are there is opportunity for using Sequa as a tool. But I'm going to. |
| 01:17:55.91 | Janelle Kelman | Sorry to interrupt you, but I'm not referring to CEQA. I'm talking about the actual odds. My understanding, and this is just one of clarification on, is that objective standards could, for example, dictate an appropriate roof pitch, window style, facade, etc. to maintain historical authenticity. Do I have that right? |
| 01:18:03.15 | Neil Toft | Thank you. |
| 01:18:03.38 | Linda Fudge | Thank you. |
| 01:18:03.42 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:18:13.54 | Neil Toft | Well, the odds as proposed as the what you have before you tonight is not necessarily designed to say it's going or create standards that assure historical authenticity in new construction or construction that is accessory to what might be a historic building or site. So there are details. Could they? |
| 01:18:36.29 | Unknown | But could they? |
| 01:18:38.03 | Neil Toft | It's possible. It's a challenge. And we're not aware it's something we'd have to research because it would be a matter of really identifying what is the historic character of that particular building or site. that you're trying to preserve. There are. Um, eras that you need to look to. There are architectural styles. And in fact, this is a set of odds that intended to keep architectural creativity. within the guise of the developer and actually did not attempt to develop you know, our tech, our architectural palettes or choices in terms of architectural palettes. That was some direction of some of the odd standards to actually provide certain types of palettes. Some communities are more known for mission style or know, there's a variety of different approaches, but Sausalito was kind of known for having a fairly eclectic different types of architecture and so on, a lot of different eras that kind of play into the history. |
| 01:19:46.44 | Janelle Kelman | It is possible. You're saying that the ones we are looking at don't have that, but it is possible. I mean, a similar question for view corridors. So my question is, could an objective development design standard process, maybe not ours as written today, could they address view preservation enhancement? including standards that could potentially limit building heights or require certain setbacks. Is that a tool in the toolbox? |
| 01:20:13.57 | Neil Toft | Well, I think historic preservation in terms of trying to look towards doing complementing or mimicking certain historic styles is a potential tool. I think the food preservation is a different animal. It's been something very... much discussed as I understand through the subcommittee and through this process, through a lot of processes and has not, we have not yet seen a, um, any other agencies that have developed, and we can look more towards this, but developed what you'd call objective, view standards, particularly for private views, because the extent to which where the view comes from so much plays into how you would address the standard. And so many, such a multiplicity of trying to create a standard that meets that definition of what is objective versus subjective by state law. |
| 01:21:17.26 | Janelle Kelman | I'll just share and I'll circle back with the city attorney. Thank you for that, Neil, that I consulted the Association of Bay Area Governments objective design standards toolkit. The San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agency's objective residential design development standards, as well as Mission Viejo example of objective design standards to help craft some of these questions and so maybe we could circle back after the meeting on where those might take us. The reason, obviously, that you know that I'm asking this is because, and tell me if I have this right, that local governments can deny project approvals if they violate objective standards, but they have to be verifiable and measurable, right? |
| 01:21:56.80 | Unknown | Right. |
| 01:21:57.09 | Janelle Kelman | Okay, what does verifiable and measurable really mean? Sorry, I should ask you beforehand. I honestly don't know. If you don't know, that's fine too. |
| 01:22:07.67 | Neil Toft | Well, I think what it means is it's got to be something that a judge and two parties can agree to and that it's written in a way that it's not easily considered interpretive, that you're able to say this is a standard that applies correctly. to this property, to that property, to that property. It doesn't apply differently here than it does two doors down. Or it has to apply under very, you know, if you meet certain conditions. |
| 01:22:37.82 | Sergio Rudin | or there has to you know, |
| 01:22:40.62 | Janelle Kelman | Yes, I didn't have to beforehand. I realized that was a |
| 01:22:43.85 | Neil Toft | No, it's a challenge and I will say |
| 01:22:44.34 | Janelle Kelman | It's a challenge. |
| 01:22:47.71 | Neil Toft | of many communities certainly view as one of the most significant and important issues in Sausalito. It's a, it's a community that, um, has a significant, um, You know, view is a big part of its character and the home values and what you have. It's not, I don't take your question lightly. It's a frustrating kind of matter. |
| 01:23:14.15 | Sergio Rudin | And I can just supplement that a little bit. That is 98% correct. Objective in the Housing Accountability Act means it involves no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and it has to be uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion. available and knowable by the development applicant or proponent and the public official. So it has to be something you can verify at the time of application submittal. |
| 01:23:46.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:23:47.40 | Unknown | Anything else? |
| 01:23:48.19 | Unknown | If we have questions about the specifics, that's for the next presenter, right? Okay, no problem. Thanks. |
| 01:23:49.93 | Unknown | Let's go right now. |
| 01:23:50.57 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:23:53.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:23:53.57 | Steven Woodside | Right? Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. |
| 01:24:02.15 | Bob Brown | Good evening. Can the city clerk call up the presentation? That's the one. Thanks very much. I'm Bob Brown. with the council previously about a little over a year ago. So we continue on. So Neil's covered a fair amount of this. So if we can go to the next slide, probably can go through a couple of these. So tonight we're going to cover, I think Neil's already covered why Sausalito and a lot of communities are trying to adopt odds because you lack a lot of discretion in many cases. And this helps to reestablish some of that. We'll talk about what development projects the odds will apply to and which they won't. We'll talk about how we prepare the odds. Again, Neil covered a little bit of that process. And then we'll go into describing the odds. And I know we'll definitely touch upon the height and how we came about the height proposals and how that relates, but also just generally what these regulations are trying to accomplish and how they really differ from your current zoning codes and design review process. And then I think Brandon wanted to deal with next steps, and I think you'll have some questions on that. Q&A, public comment, and then I'm sorry that was from the Planning Commission. We want then feedback from the City Council tonight. Next slide. I don't think we need to dwell on this. And Neil already covered why we're going about this fairly arduous process of adopting odds. Next. So the city attorney had recommended that we have this in the staff report to try to clarify these state laws are extremely confusing, you know, both to attorneys, planners, and certainly decision makers. So what this indicates is sort of how these state laws affect your current discretionary design review process. So there's really three buckets of types of projects. One is a project that adds only one new housing unit or involves renovation of existing housing units, but not addition of multiple units. These are not subject to these state laws or limits at all. So your current discretionary design review process still is in play and your current zoning standards are still effective. The next category of projects are those which add two or more new housing units and are not necessarily affordable. They don't meet the state's affordability requirements. So in these cases, the city cannot deny reduced density or make practically infeasible these projects if they're consistent with the adopted odds. So you can add conditions, you can do discretionary design review, but those conditions cannot reduce the density or make the project infeasible. And then the last bucket of projects are those which qualify for state laws. There's SB 35, AB 2011, and no doubt more coming down the pike. And for those projects, those have to be reviewed ministerially. There's no SQL review. And it's really a check the box. If they meet the odds in their entirety, then the projects have to be approved. They cannot be denied or the density reduced or the projects conditioned in any way that would do that. Next, please. Even with the very best adopted odds, that's not necessarily the end of the game because the legislature and their wisdom have created the state density bonus law. And so projects that meet the affordability requirements in that law can qualify for waivers and concessions so they can avoid your zoning regulations, including the newly adopted odds regulations. So you may get a project that will claim these waivers or concessions and are allowed then to exceed what the odds would otherwise allow. The other projects that would not be subject to your odds are those that have a complete SB 330 pre application. I think you may have one of those, at least, and any application that has been submitted and is complete prior to these odds being adopted. Next, please. So very important, what projects do the odds apply to and which do they not? So the odds will apply to any development project that includes two or more new dwelling units. So these are multifamily units, supportive or transitional housing units, emergency shelters, or mixed use projects that are at least two thirds residential. It will be applied only in your zoning districts that currently allow multifamily units. So that's in the R2, R3, and three of the commercial districts. It does not apply in your single family zoned areas. So it does not affect a new single family home, does not affect a new single family home and a new ADU, and it doesn't affect anything that would be applied for under SB 9. Again, these odds are not doing anything with those types of projects. And it also doesn't apply to a commercial project or remodel of existing multifamily projects. |
| 01:29:11.19 | Unknown | Next, please. |
| 01:29:16.09 | Bob Brown | As Neil said, the housing element caused us to go back to the drawing board. You have two programs in your housing element, 16 and 19. They call for preparing odds for these streamlined situations and also call for evaluating the height limits to accommodate these new densities. The original odds we prepared were based on your current zoning parameters. So, existing FAR, existing densities, height limits, setbacks, they're all virtually the same for the existing zones that are multifamily, multifamily and commercial. But because of the housing element, increasing density on 48 specific sites, allowing up to 49 or 70 units an acre, we had to go back and create an additional odd zone that can accommodate these higher densities. And so I'll talk a lot more about that in a few minutes. Next. |
| 01:30:15.42 | Bob Brown | Neil already covered the preparation here. I would just mention one additional factor. Your newly appointed planning commissioner, David Marlott, is an architect. He has submitted a lot, about 90-some specific comments on the draft odds. So we're working those through with him. And we've had one meeting, very, very productive. So we'll be getting back to him. And again, it's great having the input of a local architect. |
| 01:30:38.69 | Steven Woodside | And can you share that with the council? |
| 01:30:41.46 | Bob Brown | his comments? Yes. Yeah. I can make sure Brandon has that available. |
| 01:30:47.30 | Steven Woodside | Or at least the council working group. I don't know if the entire council is interested, but. |
| 01:30:52.77 | Unknown | We're always interested by smear cocks. Thank you. |
| 01:30:56.04 | Bob Brown | Okay. |
| 01:30:56.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:30:57.27 | Bob Brown | More homework. Okay. Next slide, please. Again, Neil covered the fact that all this is based upon the Marin County odds toolkit prepared by Opticos. And. Five jurisdictions, five have already adopted these in one way or another, all customized for their own situations. But Corte Madera, Belvedere, San Anselmo, Novato, and the county have all adopted one form of this particular type of form-based code. Next. |
| 01:31:33.32 | Bob Brown | So to customize the odds for Sausalito, again, we started with your existing zoning, and then we essentially turned that into the form-based code for your existing multifamily and mixed use zones. Again, the adoption of the housing element causes to go back to the drawing board and adopt additional overlay zone for the housing opportunity sites. Next. Next. |
| 01:32:01.38 | Bob Brown | So as part of this effort, OptiCoast, regarding the housing opportunity sites, they looked at 33 of the 48 housing opportunity sites. Normally, OptiCoast would just study a small percentage to figure out what needs to be modified. But in this case, your housing opportunity sites are very unique. varying sizes, uh varying topography a lot of with steep slopes various sizes so it's not a one size fits all thing by um by any stretch of the imagination so they went through 33 of these and what they did was they for each of these sites placed the building footprint on the site that corresponded with one of their building types figured out where the parking could go and then they figured out how many stories do you need to get this number of housing units for each of these sites. And one of the most important assumptions was how big are the units. So we used an average unit size of 600 square feet for this study. And 600 square feet is not particularly large. It's not really typically market rate size, but it does minimize the form of the building. And also importantly, I think it's also makes these units more affordable by design because they're smaller. Okay, and what the analysis by Optico showed was that, again, a wide variety of these sites, some could get by with two stories of height, others up to five stories. So we had, again, a wide range, and I'll go through the specifics of that in a minute. Next. |
| 01:33:38.14 | Bob Brown | So I think before we get into some of these details, it's really important to understand sort of the bigger picture of what this floor-based code is trying to, um, achieve and how it's different from your current zoning. So your current zoning essentially establishes a developable box on a piece of property with height limit and setbacks. And it relies on discretionary design review to sort of fill in the details of the building architecture and form that's acceptable. Well, lacking that kind of discretion. What the optical standards try to do is with a form based code, create predictable results that reduce the scale of buildings by limiting the maximum building size and dimensions. And that's super important. These don't allow huge complexes. They try to limit the visibility of parking as much as possible, really focus on how pedestrians access the units and what the streetscape looks like. They try to address development on slopes, so it steps with the slope. It addresses things like the privacy of bedroom units when they're in opposite buildings, and even things like screening of parking and mechanical equipment. Next. |
| 01:34:54.74 | Bob Brown | So these OptiCoast form-based codes really focus on what's been dubbed the missing middle. You've probably heard that at conferences. It's sort of moderate density housing types that sort of are between the scale of single family homes and sort of mid rise block scale buildings. And it's trying to hit that sweet spot in the middle. Next, please. And so the idea is to have these standards and they create building types that fit in and integrate into the existing scale and neighborhoods pretty well. Again, without discretionary view, but just based upon the allowable forms, heights, and character and size of these buildings. Next. Also extremely important in the OptiCoast code is that it limits, it requires that larger sites be sort of subdivided, not physically subdivided, but have multiple smaller buildings on them instead of, again, these large block scale buildings. Block scale buildings are allowed in the commercial mixed use districts, but not in the multifamily districts. Next. The other thing that OptiCoast codes really stress is how the buildings front the street to sort of make it very friendly and active streetscape. This is an example recently built in Novato. This is not something that would be allowed under the odds. So this building, these units don't face the street, they face a side driveway. And what's immediately behind the sidewalk is a parking space. So this is exactly the kind of development that the OptiCoast standards would not allow. |
| 01:36:25.62 | Unknown | Thanks. |
| 01:36:25.91 | Bob Brown | Thank you. So I think the best way to describe this new form-based code is to sort of look at how a developer would use the code to develop a project. So the first thing they would do is try to figure out what is the odds zone for the particular property that they're interested in. And next, please. And there are, as Neil mentioned, four zones. The neighborhood small scale on the far left, that is going to be what the currently R2 sites are under this code. And it allows single family homes and duplexes only, which is consistent with what your R2 is right now. R3 would typically be rezoned to the neighborhood medium scale, so it allows multifamily structures. And then the mixed use small scale would be applied to your commercial sites. And then again, we have this fourth, which is the housing opportunity overlay. Next, please. And these would all be shown on a zoning map. You're used to this. This would essentially be the second page to your current zoning map where each of these sites is designated. And in response to Councilmember Cox's question, again, this is where those housing opportunity sites, the 48, would be designated on this particular map. |
| 01:37:46.68 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:37:46.73 | Bob Brown | Yeah. |
| 01:37:46.86 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:37:46.94 | Bob Brown | Thank you. |
| 01:37:46.96 | Unknown | Peace. |
| 01:37:47.15 | Bob Brown | Thank you. So what these zones do, they regulate the building types that are allowed, the size of the development site, so how many buildings you get on a particular site, the setbacks, setback encroachments, the height limits, the amount of building facade you have to have adjacent to the street so you don't have much in the way of parking lots on the street, uh, frontage types. And again, these all reference your general plan for density and FARs. They don't modify those at all next please There are two changes that are proposed from your current zoning. One is to slightly reduce the parking requirements for multifamily units. And again, this is an attempt to incentivize housing production, make it feasible. And the other thing is we increase the bike parking requirements commensurate with the reduction in auto parking. We want to make sure that residents have plenty of bike parking available for them. Next, please. So again, what this chart is showing is the three zones that are applied to your multifamily and your commercial zones are essentially the same setbacks and the same height limits as you currently have. So really no difference there. Next, please. So for the HO overlay, which I think is probably most on your mind, again, there's 48 of these. The intent is that 30 of them that aren't encumbered by the Fair Traffic Initiative or Ordinance 1128 would be rezoned with the adoption of the odds in a first phase effort. And then the second phase, the remaining, what is that? |
| 01:39:34.98 | Bob Brown | 18 would be included in the ballot initiative that will occur subsequent. So the proposal is for the overlay to increase the height limit to four stories. That's 40 feet to the highest eave, and then up to 45 feet maximum for a sloped roof. And to try to mitigate the effect, the visual effect of that fourth floor, that fourth floor is required to be stepped in five feet around the sides. So there's a bit of a step back for that, the fourth floor. Next, please. Just want to remind the council again, the housing element that was adopted and approved did anticipate that there was a likelihood that the height element, the height restrictions would have to be modified to accommodate these higher densities, which is what we're doing. Next, please. So this is the analysis that Opticos did for 33 of these sites. And what it shows in pink, you see the sites that are highlighted as needing four stories to achieve the densities that are assigned. And there's three sites that would require five stories. The others can get by with three. And unfortunately it didn't sort out rationally. So you might think that the 49 unit per acre sites could get by with three stories. and the ones going up to 70 units, would have to have four or five stories. That's not the way it's sorted out. Again, these sites are so different. It was a site by site kind of analysis. And we can talk more about how to differentiate the heights on individual properties. But again, what's proposed right now in the draft is a four story height limit for all 48 of these sites. Next week. |
| 01:41:19.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:41:20.03 | Bob Brown | Thanks. |
| 01:41:24.75 | Bob Brown | I just wanted to show this short sampling of the relationship in other jurisdictions between density and height limits. just to give you a sense that Really, once you start getting up into 49, say 50 units per acre to 70 units per acre, In other cities that have those kinds of densities, you are definitely not talking about three stories anymore. It's just not really practical to try to get that kind of density into three stories. Next, please. So getting back to how a developer would then proceed developing his project, after they figure out the building volume, then they would pick one of the building types. Next, please. that are allowable for that zone. And there are 11 different building types. Some are allowed in each zone, some are not precluded, but again, there's a total of 11 of these different building types. And the idea is to try to create a really predictable building form as a result. Next. And the building types include maximum building dimensions, the minimum size of open space required, and how the pedestrians access these buildings. Next. Then the developer would determine the building form and design. So for each of these building types, there's an associated allowance for amassing composition. And there's a handful of these for each building type. So the developer would pick one of these massing compositions. And what those do next, please. |
| 01:42:56.18 | Bob Brown | is next. Yeah, the mousing compositions make sure there's some articulation in the building facade and form and also define what the roof type would be like. Next, please. And then finally, the applicant would select a frontage type. Next, please. And there are five different frontage types for residential projects and four for mixed use projects. And again, they would pick one of these. And next slide. And each one of these frontage types has dimensional requirements, allowed encroachments in the setback, et cetera, et cetera. Next, please. Also, beyond these specific regulations, there's a chapter of regulations that apply uniformly in all zones to all buildings, and these include requirements for screening of mechanical equipment and parking. Some provisions for parking and loading that are a little different than the zoning ordinance, mostly in terms of landscaping and where the parking can be located. Some slope standards to get the buildings to step with the slope. public frontage standards for how the streets is affected. And then lastly, privacy standards when you've got buildings that are adjacent to one another and their rooms can peer into one another's windows. Next, please. Regarding architectural standards, so there is a chapter in the toolkit that has very, very detailed standards for six different architectural styles. Contemporary, which is a lot of what you see today being built. Craftsman, Mediterranean, Tudor, Victorian, and Main Street classical. And these have really detailed requirements for, you know, window styles, doors, cornices, materials, balconies and railings. So again, really trying to make sure that if somebody builds to one of these styles, it's authentic. These have not been included in the draft. And that's because the Historic Resources Commission and your Planning Commission on subcommittee felt that these regulations were too prescriptive, and they would result in very highly stylized sort of Disney-esque faux historic buildings. So they rejected that idea. We've not included them. And in fact, I would say half of the communities I've seen include architectural standards. Some don't. Um, If you don't have these though, the odds will regulate the building form and its location but leaves really the facade design and the materials up to the applicant. |
| 01:45:32.68 | Unknown | Next week. |
| 01:45:32.88 | Bob Brown | THE END OF |
| 01:45:32.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:45:33.15 | Bob Brown | Thank you. We have a chapter that has standards for large sites, and this is a site over three acres in size. That's not very applicable to Sausalito. In fact, I think the only site that we've seen that really meets this would be the MLK site, which is one of our housing opportunity sites. And what these regulations require is that a large site like that be broken up into blocks of a reasonable size and divided by streets and sidewalks, et cetera. So it also requires that there be some minimal amount of civic space and has design criteria for what those civic spaces can be. Next, please. The administration chapter refers back to your zoning code with its procedures only. Next. And we have a chapter on definitions. There's 128 unique terms in the odds that are defined very carefully. And there's a whole section on how to do measurements of slope, building height, et cetera. So very helpful to project designers. next. And that's it. So the next steps, I don't know, Brandon, if you want to handle this, you want me to go over this? |
| 01:46:45.65 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:46:46.52 | Bob Brown | So the idea is that the EIR is being completed. We'll have a final EIR for implementation of some of these housing element programs, including adoption of the odds. I imagine that's going to be available in a couple of months for certification. Then the idea is that we would adopt amendments to the municipal code. Some of these are for Title 10, your current zoning code. And then the majority of these would be the adoption of Title 10 A, which is this new odds. And we would also adopt changes to your zoning map and adopt a new odds zoning map as well. And again, these would be for the phase one housing opportunity sites, not the ones that are limited by voter initiative. Thank you. |
| 01:47:35.27 | Unknown | I'm not sure. speak to some brief items? Sure. Thank you very much, Bob. So some of the items that I think aren't listed here, but that would be helpful to paint the picture of sequencing, I think this is getting a little bit ahead of ourselves. What I would like to receive from council this evening is direction as to how this group might amend the objective development design standards to be more in line with the product that council would like to see applied to these zones that we've created. And part of that, as I mentioned in my introduction, is getting direction from council on objective standards for view preservation, as well as historic resource preservation. Those would all be very helpful for us this evening. Following council's provision of direction to staff this evening, staff will rework the odds and, And bring that. New and improved version. Back to the Planning Commission for consideration with David Merlot. the new planning commissioner who has replaced Richard Graff most recently. David Merlot has provided 90 comments in connection with these odds already. But at the time of provision of those comments, he had not yet sat as a planning commissioner. So we want to give him the opportunity to provide that feedback at a planning commission public hearing. so that staff can then formally integrate those comments into A further question. new and improved version of the odds. that then will go back to city council for additional review. Only after that point. Thank you. Will these steps. Kick in. And we will move to completing our final EIR, informed by the new and improved odds, housing element, and implementation of our housing element program. Thank you. |
| 01:49:26.62 | Steven Woodside | All right, so can we ask you some questions now? Or are you- |
| 01:49:27.63 | Bob Brown | Yeah. I'm not sure. Brandon indicated that this afternoon he wanted me to address historic preservation and view preservation, which weren't in the original presentation. So let me try to do that. Those are both, as Neil indicated, pretty thorny issues for objective standards. So on historic standards. Let me suggest that there are three scenarios here that really relate to historic preservation. One is when you have a listed historic structure and it's being demolished. A second is if you modify a listed historic structure. And the third would be a new building that is being built in historic district, but it doesn't affect a listed structure, but it impacts the overall cohesiveness of the district. So the state laws like SB 35 and AB 2011 that allow for ministerial review, no CEQA, they're not applicable when an applicant proposes to demolish a listed historic structure. So. CEQA is applicable in those cases, as well as your normal review processes, your historic resources commission, et cetera. Thank you. Um, But in those cases, if they're adding two or more units, then as I said earlier, You cannot, as part of that discretionary review, you can't limit the density or make the project infeasible. So it's really difficult to scale down the size of those buildings and not impact the project feasibility. For projects that would seek to modify but not demolish a listed historic structure, Um, and therefore would qualify for laws like SB 35 and AB 2011. There would be no SQL analysis, no review discretion. It would only be compliance with the odds. And again, the odds don't really address this at all. So, and where that line is between demolition and modification, I'm not an expert. I can't really address that. Yeah. I would like to add that, again, I've looked pretty extensively all over the country to see if there's a jurisdiction that's been able to come up with objective historic preservation standards, and I've not found anything. I mean, even communities like Pasadena that are all about historic preservation, they have nothing but discretionary standards right now. And that's because... Historic preservation standards, they rely on guidelines like the Secretary of the Interior standards. These are discretionary and they require a case by case determination of an historic buildings character defining features and how those are being affected. And like the city attorney said. with these ministerial projects, you have to define these standards upfront. You cannot wait for an historic architect to render an opinion about what's historic character and what is not. So it really makes it very, very difficult. When you have a new building being built in a historic district where they don't directly affect a listed structure, the rules we discussed earlier still apply. So for SB 35 and 2011 projects that qualify... There is no discretionary design review, only compliance with the odds. And for projects that don't add two or more units, or don't qualify for those state laws, then it's the odd standards and your normal design review process. So it's complicated, but again, the new laws don't allow for a lot of areas of discretion like historic preservation. In terms of view preservation, the Planning Commission odds subcommittee and I, and the city attorney spent a lot of time, better part of two years working on this. to try to find objective standards. And I guess I would point out three things. First of all, is the odds aren't applicable, as I said, to single family homes. So a lot of review issues, which relate to the views from the hills and the single family homes, they're not really affected by this. Second, for projects that aren't SB35 or AB2011 projects, you still have your discretionary design review criteria, including your view preservation criteria, except again, you can't reduce the size or the feasibility of the project to accommodate off-site views. So again, you can play around the margins, but you really probably can't reduce the size of the building much at all to make it infeasible. And again, third, as I've said before, we cannot find an example out there of objective view preservation standards. Vancouver, Canada comes close on public view preservation, but they still require subjective determination. So that one really isn't there yet either. And that's because the analysis of views is inherently subjective and requires a case-by-case analysis from potentially multiple offsite vantage points. And I did develop a very draft ordinance for the review of the planning commission subcommittee. The city attorney was less than enamored by it and has strong reservations. But just to give you a sense of the kinds of issues you need to quantify, one is, What constitutes protected views? More specifically, you know, Is it the Bay Bridge, the Bay? I'm not sure. San Francisco skyline. What are you trying to protect? what surrounding properties have protected views. How far out does it go from the subject property? I mean, is it is a quarter mile, a half mile? How far out can it go? Because you can have dozens of protected vantage points. How do you determine what vantage points are used for view analyses? From what locations in a home? How many locations? How does the applicant get permission from those homeowners to get into their homes to take photographs for a view analysis? Most importantly, how do you determine when a view reduction is not acceptable? Is it a certain percentage loss of a viewscape? I don't know anybody would be very satisfied with trying to quantify someone's view loss like that. And then finally, how do you allow the public to participate and verify the accuracy of these view analyses, especially when you're given the limited timeframes that these state laws allow? So those are some of the real challenges. The Planning Commission subcommittee suggested that we've tried to delve first into public view preservation, specifically from parks and, and, uh, the public stairs, because in those cases, you can identify the vantage points up front. So it's not a, You know, depends on the situations thing with private view so you would predetermine those and what those viewscapes are and you can that case quantify if a project is intruding into those and by how much. So that might be one thing to look at further. But again, the city attorney has a lot of reservations about view preservation standards. |
| 01:56:42.14 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. All right. Let's ask some questions. If you don't mind, I'll just ask a couple and then share it with my colleagues. So just on these last points on view preservation and historic preservation. |
| 01:56:42.80 | Bob Brown | Thank you. |
| 01:56:54.09 | Steven Woodside | And I also noted you didn't do any subjective... standards on facades or on colors. Let me start in the reverse order actually colors. Defined by wavelength, nanometers, it could be very prescriptively and objectively defined. A color wheel gives you complementary colors where you could define axes of complementary colors across a neighborhood. So is that an objective standard that one could use? |
| 01:57:21.72 | Bob Brown | You could preclude certain colors in the odds we did for Tiburon. They did not want very dark colors or very light colors because this is all their sites were in the hillsides. And so we were trying to get a middle range. So in that case, we prescribed a certain percentage of gray that has to be in the colors. So you can get at it. It's not easy, but you can. All right. But currently we have none. |
| 01:57:45.51 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:57:45.66 | Bob Brown | and the other side. |
| 01:57:45.97 | Steven Woodside | can do a bright orange house if they want. They could. They could. So, and so, well, we'll get to direction. Let's stick with questions for now. |
| 01:57:56.93 | Bob Brown | Again, I would say that you do not have that authority in projects that qualify for like SB 35 or AB 2011. because that's strictly ministerial. However, for projects that don't qualify for those. You still have design review and changing the color is not something that really would limit the feasibility of a project. So I think that that would be fine. |
| 01:58:18.15 | Steven Woodside | Got it. But in your, in the current draft, we do not have any kind of color guidance and we could, and not only could it be specific tones, like you talked about with Tiburon, did you say, but you can actually use a color wheel to, to match, have a complimentary or if you want to be clashing, you can have clashing colors only, but it could be an objective standard, presumably. |
| 01:58:31.39 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:58:43.74 | Bob Brown | You probably could create an objective color standard. Yes. |
| 01:58:46.43 | Steven Woodside | All right. Then similarly, or maybe differently, actually, I have a question. I'm no lawyer, but A lot of times they read in the law as a lay person, I just want to ask this question. People apply something called the reasonable man person, reasonable person standard. What would a reasonable person say about this or that? Now, I appreciate that. that eventually has to be adjudicated. But in terms of it being an objective standard that still affords someone the opportunity to litigate to say you're not being reasonable, but it does allow you the flexibility of just being reasonable to say that facades should look reasonably complementary. Is that not a standard that could be incorporated in the odds |
| 01:59:28.48 | Bob Brown | I'm not an attorney. I don't think so. But I'm sure your city attorney be happy to weigh in on that one. |
| 01:59:33.39 | Steven Woodside | you Thank you. |
| 01:59:33.91 | Bob Brown | I guess I would ask the city |
| 01:59:34.98 | Steven Woodside | if he knows the answer to that question. |
| 01:59:37.88 | Sergio Rudin | So... Am I on? Here we go. Okay. Yeah, I do think something like a reasonable person standard is going to be hard to |
| 01:59:42.03 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:59:47.95 | Sergio Rudin | argue is an objective standard. So again, I think that the big issue is whatever your objective requirements are, you have to make sure that they're verifiable at the time of application. So the developer should be able to know whether or not they're in compliance and it shouldn't be susceptible to dispute. So that's really the key issue with any of the standards that you set. |
| 02:00:12.02 | Steven Woodside | All right. I just have to ask, because it's kind of my job, I suppose, as the layperson here to ask that question. Really, you said you didn't think so, but I'm wondering how much wiggle room there is in that. Like, we know, if you take, well, to pick my example, if a reasonable person would say bright, you know, construction, blaze orange clashes with tonal grays. Like, no one would say that those two colors like harmonious together. Like a reasonable person would say those colors clash. You would also say that a stainless steel facade clashes with brick. Reasonable people would say that. Why can that not be a standard that we apply as an objective design standard in the sense that developers, builders, people, they're reasonable people too. They live in the population, they grew up in the culture, and that there could be an expectation that a designer and a developer, a property owner, would be part of the reasonable community, would know what's reasonable and what isn't. |
| 02:01:22.05 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, I mean, I think the question you've got to ask is rather, is the standard sufficiently concrete to be verifiable? And if you can answer that with a yes, then that's sufficiently objective to be enforceable. And I can give you some examples of what HCD has in their toolkit suggested are. you know, sufficiently definitive that they are enforceable, even though there's potentially some room to argue that they may be subjective. You know, one of their design standards is, you know, rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view by a parapet wall. |
| 02:01:52.12 | Unknown | You know, one of, |
| 02:01:59.12 | Sergio Rudin | David Kahneman, Decorative Equipment Screen or other actual treatment. So you can see that that in that standard, there is some, you know, obvious room or you can potentially debate whether or not something is a architectural treatment unless you define that more closely. Um, So, Hopefully that provides... more and not less clarity to your issue. |
| 02:02:25.21 | Steven Woodside | It does. It's just this question of facades is actually, to my mind, very important in maintaining character. it's easier to define in some ways than historic. And so if, but people, I think people know when, when something doesn't seem like it fits in. And of course there's a gray area, but, But we can eliminate the extremes with that kind of standard. And if you have a, again, a stainless steel monolith, it's going to look different than a, than a brick facade. And I'm wondering why we can't have a standard that at least gives us a way of excluding the more extreme violations of the, of the facades clashing with what is there currently. |
| 02:03:07.31 | Sergio Rudin | I think that you can include objective standards that deal with that by including standards with respect to materials or For example, a standard that says, you know, no exterior stainless steel finishes would be a sufficiently objective standard that you could include that and enforce it if there's specific kinds of facades you want to prohibit, I think that you can develop objective standards to deal with that. |
| 02:03:32.75 | Steven Woodside | Okay, so you're reminding me. In fact, isn't it true that you said earlier that materials is not one of the odds that are currently in the draft? |
| 02:03:39.04 | Bob Brown | Materials is regulated in the architectural standards, which were not incorporated into the not incorporated. |
| 02:03:44.96 | Steven Woodside | So color is not incorporated, materials is not incorporated. All right. So let me just ask one more set of questions and turn it over to my colleagues. And that is on this view easement. And it's kind of a similar view issues. It's kind of a similar question. You talked about other municipalities and how they struggle with views. Did you look at the body of law and descriptions of how view easements are implemented? After all, people buy and sell view easements in all kinds of places, and those are prescribed. and then people continue to own the property and are able to develop it and they have to comply with the view easement. So why couldn't we do embark, for example, on a kind of survey of Sausalito and ascribe view easements or using that formula ascribe protections of use? |
| 02:04:34.61 | Bob Brown | Well, again, you are basing your view impact in each individual case from a specific location. Let's say from an adjacent property's living room. And... How do you determine in advance what the view scape from that particular location is that you're preserving you really can't. It requires an analysis of each situation around a subject property that's proposing a project. You know, view easements are defined between two properties. And so they're predetermined. Here you're not, you're having a project proposed right in the middle of a neighborhood, for example, And you've never assessed. and defined you know, what each property's view allowance is. So I'm not really sure how you would do that. Again, in a generalized sense. |
| 02:05:27.92 | Steven Woodside | sorry to belabor it, but let me just ask. Sure, if you want to do it completely comprehensively, 100%, but if you went to each property, let's just say many of our properties, they face east, south, and north, right? And you could, or you could just, it wouldn't be perfect, but if you took the, stood at the front door and looked east for east-facing properties, and you said this, that you currently have 75% open sky. based on a Google photograph and the view and that, that, that just sort of watermarks where you are in the current state. And the odds are that you will not have your open sky view reduced more than 10%. That's an objective standard. It requires a survey. It's not perfect. It wouldn't get every view. Somebody might have their favorite view is actually looking at sunset the opposite direction, but it would be capturing a significant portion of the view concerns. Right. |
| 02:06:23.81 | Bob Brown | And again, that's essentially the kind of ordinance that I drafted that, again, the city attorney did not feel comfortable with. And again, it gets into a lot of practical difficulties because again, to do that view analysis from neighbor's property you know, You have to get on their property. So you have to have their permission first. They have to participate. And then, The view analysis that comes out of that, which the applicant is preparing, theoretically, then the city has to verify with a third party. That takes time. By the time this goes public, In many cases, the state has limited the review timeframe so much that the public is not going to have much or any opportunity to really, you know, get in there technically themselves and verify the accuracy of this, this view analysis. So again, I think that it's going to create a lot of hubbub in terms of people not believing the analyses and objecting to whatever standard you set, if it's like, you know, a 10% loss of view. Um, And the particular 10% is they no longer see the Golden Gate Bridge. Well, that's an important 10% to them, whereas a view of the water may not be. So. |
| 02:07:31.02 | Steven Woodside | Last question, though. I get all that. But that's letting the perfect be the enemy of something. And right now the proposal is nothing. So I get that you're exactly right. If the 10% is the Golden Gate Bridge, that's too bad. I mean, yeah, but is the alternative to that to have nothing? Is that really a better alternative? |
| 02:07:47.32 | Bob Brown | Again, we have a draft ordinance that is ready for review. But again, I think the city attorney has a lot of reservations about it. My colleagues. |
| 02:07:55.96 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. questions. |
| 02:08:01.16 | Steven Woodside | Councilmember, bless you. |
| 02:08:01.89 | Unknown | Yeah, I have a couple of questions. Thank you very much, Bob and staff, for your hard work on this, and also to the Planning Commission subcommittee members who had 16 meetings with you, which is quite substantial. So I know hours and hours of work has gone into this, and we really appreciate that. A few questions I had. So you mentioned that this has already been approved by a number of communities in Moran and you outlined some of those, but it wasn't exactly clear what are the specific Sausalito adaptations that you've made that are clearly differentiators from those other communities. Could you talk a little bit about those and why you made those choices? |
| 02:08:37.64 | Bob Brown | Sure, I mean, they're numerous, but again, the setbacks, the heights, are very specific to Sausalito. They're not consistent among all the other jurisdictions. The types of building types reflect the allowable densities. So Marin County, for example, allows a lot bigger building types than we're suggesting here in Sausalito. So those differ. Whether or not you include architectural standards differ. San Anselmo eliminated particular architectural styles they didn't think were consistent with them. So there are a lot of fine-tuning standards compared to what came out of the original toolkit. Again, trying to make it as homegrown and reflective of Sausalito as possible. |
| 02:09:29.05 | Unknown | Okay. But when you were thinking about things like, I think it was called cottage, cottage village. Is that consistent with other communities or was that unique to Sausalito that I, that type of development? |
| 02:09:39.56 | Bob Brown | Well, there's pocket neighborhood and cottage court. So no, those are building types that are being allowed in other communities as well. |
| 02:09:48.30 | Unknown | Okay, but there was significant consideration for our unique qualifications for this. |
| 02:09:54.56 | Bob Brown | Yeah, I don't expect the cottage court kind of development with little units cluster around open spaces is likely to occur in Sausalito because of your slopes and you don't have a lot of larger sites. You don't have a lot of small sites. Most developers are probably not going to gravitate towards those, but it's available as potentially compatible. It's a nice development style because they're very small and low key buildings as opposed to a larger high horizon. So, again, there's a lot of options in there that are probably not going to be selected by a lot of developers, but they're there for alternatives. |
| 02:10:32.51 | Unknown | And what are some of the benefits of having a consistent toolkit when we think about of fast tracking development. |
| 02:10:40.04 | Bob Brown | What was the advantage of what? |
| 02:10:41.00 | Unknown | What are some of the advantages of having the consistent toolkit? I mean, why does it make sense for us to use the same standards for the rest of Marin, for example? |
| 02:10:48.36 | Bob Brown | Sure. Well, the toolkit was developed by Opticos reflecting on the types of buildings that are here in Marin and the scale of those buildings. So it is very different from what you would have found being prepared for the East Bay or the peninsula. So it starts out there. And then again, each community further customizes it. Sausalito could have gone a different direction. In Tiburon, they created their own unique odds from scratch. Yeah. But Sausalito chose to pool its grant funds with other communities to develop this toolkit and, you know, work off of it. So again, you could go in a different direction, but, you know, those funds would have been then lost. |
| 02:11:31.02 | Unknown | And then I wanted to ask specifically about, there's quite a bit on parking and the odds and the types of parking that we're going to allow And one of the things that was interesting in the parking section for me was the EV charging and the requirements that EV charging should be provided. In Section 10A03-040, you talk about this a little bit. Could you explain where that will be required and where it wouldn't be required and how we might implement it? Because I'm obviously an advocate for EV charging, but there are a lot of limitations to the installation of a Level 2 charger. |
| 02:11:58.02 | Bob Brown | have to look at that specific regulation. Really, the EV charging is regulated by the Cal Green Building Code. So I don't think that this changes those standards in any way. It may indicate where you could locate an EV charger on the site. Tony Perez from Opticos is on the line. Tony, you may be able to say any regulations regarding EV charging in the odds itself? |
| 02:12:22.35 | Unknown | It's 03040 under 10A. |
| 02:12:25.93 | Bob Brown | Thank you. |
| 02:12:25.94 | Tony Perez | So yeah, I'm looking at it right now. I don't remember off the top of my head at the moment. So let me take a look at that. |
| 02:12:30.89 | Unknown | Okay. You can circle back when you have had a chance. And then I'm going to bring up a topic that maybe I won't have consensus from my other council members on, but I'm really wanting you to speak to your decision to have only 600 square feet, because as an advocate for providing workforce housing, allowing people that serve our community to live in our community, |
| 02:12:39.60 | Unknown | Amen. |
| 02:12:54.78 | Unknown | I hasten to think about 600 square feet as being the minimum requirement in terms of if someone has a family or what, you know, I understand that it's affordability based and it creates incentives for pencil, but I don't know if it really does create incentives for build. |
| 02:13:08.93 | Bob Brown | It's not a maximum at all. What it is, is it was just used as an average unit size to do these calculations and that analysis for building height. But there's no limitation. It's just, you know, we've created building forms and height allowances to do the number of units that your housing alma calls for. but to fit them into a building form that is not going to be necessarily seven or eight or nine stories, And so again, the assumption that was made was what are the size of the units then? Well, we're going to say an average of 600 square feet. If we went to a thousand square feet, then your four or five story height limits would be probably seven or eight stories. |
| 02:13:50.99 | Unknown | Okay, so it's an effort to create more opportunities for affordable housing. |
| 02:13:54.54 | Bob Brown | And to achieve the densities that the housing element calls for, for these 48 sites, yes. |
| 02:14:00.11 | Unknown | Okay. Did you have something on the EV charging, Tony? Sorry. |
| 02:14:07.69 | Tony Perez | Not yet, I was just gonna add what Bob already added about the site analysis, but he covered it. |
| 02:14:14.13 | Unknown | Okay. All right. Well, let us know when you have to think. You can go to the vice mayor. I'll |
| 02:14:20.17 | Steven Woodside | It's ironic that your last question was out 600 square feet because mine is as well. But for the opposite reason, which is I lived in a 600 square foot apartment in law school and it was huge. I had a home office and a bedroom and I mean, it was huge. And so for me, and 600 square feet in Sausalito is not affordable. And so my question was, is it possible to lower that threshold? For not for multifamily, obviously, but not but a lot of Sausalito's current residents and potential residents, including workforce, are not all families. And so. And certainly the lowest, you know, the anchor outs that we're trying to house are not families. They're single people. And so my question was whether we can lower that threshold or perhaps apply a gradated threshold. |
| 02:15:20.25 | Unknown | Oh yeah. |
| 02:15:20.55 | Steven Woodside | that accommodates single people as well as families. you |
| 02:15:26.47 | Bob Brown | Again, these are not a threshold. So they're not a regulation. If someone wants to come in with a project that has, you know, three 200 square foot units and six 1,000 square foot units, that's perfectly fine. Again, we've just trying to use that as a calculation to figure out what kind of height limits can accommodate 49 units per acre or 70 units per acre on all of these specific sites. |
| 02:15:56.49 | Tony Perez | Yeah, Bob, I have a response on the EV charging, and I want to make a comment on the unit size. On the EV charging, that provision, the way I read it, is simply just stating that it shall be in compliance with the Green Building Code. There's nothing more to it than that. |
| 02:16:00.43 | Bob Brown | Yeah. |
| 02:16:14.45 | Tony Perez | As Bob stated, I wanted to also add, council members, the calculations that the average unit size, the reason, as Bob has said, that only resulted from the test of, okay, on site X, for example, the EIR says that we are to achieve so many units, let's say 24. We literally tested the site, put the setbacks on, and extruded a building using certain assumptions about where parking would be located, especially on steep sites. And then whatever it took to achieve those 24 units on that site is how big the building was determined to be. And we were using stories in addition to that. So then on some sites it was two stories and on some it was five. But the average unit size is simply the result of that calculation. We did not enter the calculation without it was the outcome. |
| 02:17:30.45 | Steven Woodside | Any other questions? All right, let's move to public comment. |
| 02:17:33.68 | Unknown | Oh, I have one more question. Sorry, just quickly. Community Development Director Phipps, could you just reiterate the three points that you most would like feedback from us on so that we can think about that as we hear public comment? |
| 02:17:48.58 | Unknown | Thanks, Bob. |
| 02:17:49.96 | Unknown | Certainly, Councilmember, and thank you for the question and request. So, and this is partly based off of the innumerable public comments. that came in in connection with this item and staff certainly want to be sensitive to those. So those items are public and private view preservation standards and whether or not we should or ought to look into creating objective standards to define those. The second is objective standards for historic resource preservation. |
| 02:18:23.97 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:18:26.41 | Unknown | Vice Mayor. |
| 02:18:26.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:18:27.78 | Steven Woodside | Mayor, before we take public comment, I wanted to make one comment preliminarily, because we've received dozens of letters regarding Um, proposed and potential developments and the impact of our work on that. So I just wanted to. Please go ahead. Okay, thank you. I just wanted to speak to the people who have taken the time and energy to write into us on these and regarding how these, how this study session will impact Pending and proposed projects so we obviously appreciate all of the feedback that we've received. We are listening. We know people have concerns. We're taking all of the information that we receive under careful advisement, as you can tell from listening to this evening's study session. We are very aware of various pending developments and potential developments. Night is a study session, so we are working to develop objective standards consistent with the state's policy. As we provide feedback on the odds, we are committed to ensuring that Sausalito does everything possible to define what will constitute objective development in the city and what will not, and determine appropriate rules for developers so that they and the community understand those standards, specifically as they deal with the odds. We are committed to carrying out the housing element in compliance with state law while protecting historic resources and view corridors as allowed by the state. Fortunately, one area on which the state gives the city a bit more authority is the protection of historic structures. So as part of our study session, we will explore how best to include preservation of historic resources in Sausalito within the authority and guidelines established by state law. At the same time, as demonstrated by the housing element and by our comments this evening, we are committed to affordable housing and residential development at all levels. We are committed to carrying out the policies of the housing element. So our goal is to determine Sausalito's best path forward that both advances appropriate development and protects valuable resources. And we ask for the community's patience as we work our way through this. So thank you for allowing me to make that statement. |
| 02:20:41.08 | Steven Woodside | for that comment. Let's open the floor to public comment, please, first from the room and then online. |
| 02:20:45.88 | Walfred Solorzano | Sophia Collier. |
| 02:20:52.26 | Sophia Collier | Well, first of all, thank you very much for creating a study session approach. And I really compliment and am in awe of the amount of work that has gone into creating these projects and this whole endeavor. I think the key thing and I really associate myself with what our mayor said, which is that finding we cannot maybe get perfection, but by some sort of defined parameter, we can get a long way. And if we, it's better, something is better than nothing. And if we go with nothing, we have nothing. So if we protect views in a, gee, some kind of geometric system, we fly a drone over the town and we come up with some formulas, That's going to be a pretty good system. A lot better than nothing. Same thing on our historic. If you look at the Secretary of the Interior's standards, there's a lot of math words in there. Mass, size, scale, proportion. These are math words. Of course, the Secretary of Interior put it for every part of the nation where common sense will use it. We have a very specific case, Sausalito, we know it. We can use those standards and apply them to our case and come up with parameters that are mathematical, clear as day on the And when these developers come in, They can read them. take action based on what they are. It's completely objective. We're done. |
| 02:22:17.14 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:22:19.42 | Steven Woodside | Linda Foch. Could you call who's next so they can get ready as well? |
| 02:22:23.93 | Unknown | And then it's Hank Baker and then Ed Beckman. |
| 02:22:27.40 | Steven Woodside | Let me just watch, please. |
| 02:22:28.67 | Linda Fudge | I'm sure. |
| 02:22:31.13 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:22:31.15 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:22:36.47 | Linda Fudge | Oh, they haven't received it? |
| 02:22:49.12 | Steven Woodside | Thank you very much. |
| 02:22:53.97 | Linda Fudge | My name is Linda Fudge. My comment is on the staff report for this meeting. A prior version of the same staff report was published on February 14th, 2024. In that report under historic preservation identified various properties that are listed historic properties listed in the National Register and as house little landmark historic properties. In this staff report of this meeting, March 19th, there doesn't seem to be any changes to the historic preservation section of the staff report. It lists those same properties except with the new addition of adding my two properties to that list. The properties are, my properties are not registered historic properties or registered Sausalito landmark properties. It's no secret that I've submitted applications on this property as a Sausalito Housing Opportunity Site for Development. The Sausalito housing element flatly states that there are no designated historic resources on the opportunity sites. But now that I've submitted a housing application, staff has endeavored to try to create a new designation for my property and add it to a list of listed Sausalito registered historic properties. There is a specific Sausalito code that was established to add properties to this list. In fact, it would publicly go up for nomination and review by this city council with owner notification. This has never been done. my current submission freezes standards that are in place at the time of submittal and prohibits a local government to impose new standards staff's sudden and deliberate effort to reclassify my property has not gone unnoticed i request that this staff report be corrected to remove 605 to 613 bridgeway property from the listed historic buildings list of properties and that City council looked to the overreaching of staff's actions, which are incorrect and cause harm to me and my property. |
| 02:25:01.69 | Unknown | Next speaker is Dick Baker. Didn't follow by that frequency. |
| 02:25:06.13 | Hank Baker | Council, my name is Hank Baker. I'm a business owner and resident of downtown Sausalito and a member of Sausalito's Economic Development Advisory Commission. I'm also a retired real estate developer who has had direct responsibility for the creation of more than 10,000 residential units, 15% of which were affordable. I can only assume that the city council is attempting to balance their responsibility of complying with the new state housing laws. with the unstated reality that many in town would like things to remain unchanged for many years to come. not an easy balancing act at all. The new state law required that the approval of a housing element but also requires that substantial progress be made in the implementation of that plan over time. Failure to make this substantial progress could result in the imposition of the dreaded Build a remedy. whereby the municipality has little discretionary approval and generally the developer can build whatever they want. The objective design and development standards we are reviewing tonight will, for the most part, but a negative influence on the feasibility of each development submitted. As an example, page nine of the staff report states quote to achieve the adopted unit count for many of the parcels the site assumed average unit sizes of 600 square feet, which would allow at the minimum studio or one bedroom units unquote I disagree. from some 40 years of experience, average unit sizes in almost any multifamily development are closer to 1000 square feet. In fact, of the 10,000 units I've developed, less than 5% or smaller than 600 square feet. And the adoption of the proposed 600 square foot model and the feasibility of any development is unnecessarily reduced. This example and other elements of the standards before you will have a negative effect on the feasibility of any housing development. Yet our housing element states that it is to encourage housing development. Thank you, Mr. Baker. Substantial progress. We're out of time. |
| 02:27:10.97 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you. Please submit it as a written comment. Thank you. Next speaker. |
| 02:27:15.59 | Unknown | Next. Thank you. Sure. Thank you. Ed Brakeman followed by Michael Rex. And then it's. Stephen Woodside. |
| 02:27:26.36 | Ed Braikman | Hello, I'm Ed Braikman, a resident of Sausalito. My comment is both to the group here, but also to all those who might be listening or afterwards will hear recording this, because I think this issue is so, so important, yet most residents of our city have no idea how substantial this issue is and are not yet engaged in trying to be thoughtful about what we can do to shape the Sausalito that we want. So I just continue to ask that we be as communicative with the community as possible. Joan, I really appreciated your comments about the fact it's going to take some time, but we also have to make sure that people understand what's going on. This really is seismically important for our city and most people don't understand it. I've just become aware of it over the last four or five weeks. And it's something that we should all do, spread the word and get everybody to be aware of what's going on. Following on your comments, Council Member Cox, about the current housing opportunity overlay which is really a one size fits all, even though we've heard so much tonight about how these 48 sites are dramatically and uniquely different from each other. And I think we really ought to be Focusing on having a more sophisticated overlay that addresses that reality we in our that's pursuing our housing element, but in our housing element we do talk about targeted units at each of these sites. And I think we should be coming up with a much more sophisticated overlay that takes into consideration the reality of the sites. And also what we're trying to accomplish in terms of historical preservation and public and private view preservation, because things could change dramatically if we don't get that to be more sophisticated than what we started with. And that's fine. We always start at one place, and hopefully we end up in the best place possible. I'll wrap with that. Thank you. |
| 02:29:25.53 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, Mr. X. |
| 02:29:27.42 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 02:29:31.71 | Michael Rex | I'm Michael Racks, local architect. I went to, there's a lot I like here, okay? I recognize the hard work. I attended numerous planning commission sessions. I walked out disappointed because they weren't receptive to a lot of input. Although I talked to Bob Brown at great length about view protection, how essential it is. But frankly, the recommendations that I made then were pretty well ignored. While there's a lot about this I like, There's some terrible things I'm concerned about. We've talked about historic preservation and view protection. Just because it's difficult doesn't mean we can't. And I'll take Sergio's 2%, okay? I am certain we can make it measurable and verifiable. We've been doing it for years, and just we have to work harder. The form-based, I'm a bit worried about. We're going to get cookie cutter shapes. I'm particularly worried about and I think it was a huge mistake that we threw out all aesthetic consideration because the Historic Preservation Commission was afraid we get Disneyland. Santa Barbara's been defining architectural appropriate details for decades and it doesn't look like Disneyland. Just because we're fearful of that doesn't mean we throw the entire aesthetic analysis out because a lot of that's measurable. The privacy protection is absurd. 42 inch window height sills does not protect views. We've been trying to, we know how to protect privacy and that's not in here. In my few minutes, I'm gonna make a recommendation. This is not, this needs some real peer review by design professionals, that hasn't happened. I'd like you to take the month of April to put together a select committee of professional designers that know how to answer these questions. We shouldn't just depend on one planning commissioner. Please do that. We can't solve this in two minutes, but we have the know-how in this town to solve these answers. Thank you. |
| 02:31:33.67 | Steven Woodside | Mr. Woodside. So, |
| 02:31:35.62 | Michael Rex | All right. |
| 02:31:35.77 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:31:35.79 | Michael Rex | you |
| 02:31:36.08 | Steven Woodside | City Clerk. |
| 02:31:36.67 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you. My name is Steven Woodside and I live here in Sausalito and the probably the southern most place in town below the freeway. I just want to make that clear. I don't have a I have an unobstructed view and nothing that's going to happen is going to block my view. That's good. But I am very concerned, and I think you all know this, about the historic district. And Nothing about the state law requires you to put an opportunity site into the district. And all of this discussion, and it's very difficult to define standards in an historic district. I'm not talking about registered historic landmarks. I'm talking about a district that's been around for a long time. I think the vast majority of the community supports continuation of the standards that now exist in the district. and putting an opportunity site into it I think was a terrible mistake. Take it out. Take it out now. Cut your losses. Don't engage in this very protracted problem of trying to define a new standards that are going to make, you know, withstand legal challenge. So that's that's really what I'm getting at. Secondly, in the context of all of this. You know, there's a relationship between the state and cities and you have power that's local and it's only when the state preempts you totally that you lose that power. And your choices of opportunity sites is within your power. So please exercise that as well as you can to avoid all the nasty problems. Thank you. |
| 02:33:18.69 | Unknown | All right, we have Daniel Chador followed by Peter Van Meter and then Jeffrey Korn. |
| 02:33:23.22 | Steven Woodside | Amen. Mr. Chidor? |
| 02:33:28.18 | Daniel Shudu | Hi, Daniel Shudu, Gable's in Sausalito, Hotel Sausalito. In understanding development, the odds have little control over housing sites, especially in the historic district with use of concessions and waivers. There's no way you can control size, which will lead to the possibility of the destruction of our historic district and one of our major economic assets being the historic district and an asset to our community. I agree with Stephen that no housing opportunity site should have ever been put in the historic district and an asset to our community. The I agree with Stephen that no housing opportunity site should have ever been put in the historic district. When we apply the the secretary of interior standards. Um. That is the way in which the Historic Preservation Committee governs and oversees our historic district. We've all lived by it. We've we've studied it. And we built to it tens of billions of dollars. And now all of a sudden you're throwing that entire process out in the wind. So what I believe is, as Stephen said, Remove the two district, the two, whatever history, any property that is in the historic district. as a housing opportunity site, remove them now and be done with it. It would what it will do is remove that put those sites back in their original densities which will then control them to the original to a size that was would be assigned under the state laws. When you put the housing opportunity site you doubled tripled and made the sizes so unbearable. but put it back to the original zoning. And then with those concessions and standards will then be applied and it will be bigger but it won't be as big as it could be. Thank you. |
| 02:35:03.42 | Unknown | you. Peter Van Meen. |
| 02:35:15.33 | Peter Van Ameeter | I'm in the position of a prior speaker who said that the general public has no idea what's going on here. I didn't know anything about this till I came to the meeting for another purpose tonight. And I sat here and listened to this. And I know that the state has been taking over. taking things away, making it more difficult, putting down mandates, And here they're talking about this level of detail and this odds that's just beyond imagination. So I'm just standing here just lamenting the fact of the dominating control from higher levels of government over our lives. And |
| 02:35:49.37 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:35:56.92 | Peter Van Ameeter | It's just so disheartening, so upsetting. And so I'm sorry I don't have a, solution to how you're going to deal with this. It's one where you really, your hands are tied, You've got some little things around the fringes here that was mentioned you can do. And so take the maximum advantage of that that you can. But it's just a sad day for all of us, I think, that's what's coming down to us from Sacramento and elsewhere. I'm very sad to have to be living with it. Thank you. |
| 02:36:32.83 | Unknown | And Jeffrey Cohen. |
| 02:36:37.58 | Jeffrey Conan | Hi there, my name is Jeffrey Conan. I'm learning about all of this. And have a lot of questions around the staff report saying that the historical resource commission and the planning commission's odd subcommittee are doing away with architectural design standards when Opticos on their website, uh, literally states that you can have creative approaches here. So I encourage you to go back to, um, those responsible for the architectural, um, uh, milieu of Sausalito, um, that is to me very objective. I think we saw that in the previous proposal. There's a lot of people who really love and cherish their block, um, And, you know, we don't want to lose that, even with new development that's being fast-tracked. And I do believe that it doesn't have to look pastiche. It can fit in. It can look like it's always been there. And we don't want to lose particular resources that are not yet designated historic. We really want to be sensitive to demolishing potential sites that could be historic in the future, which is, you know, an ongoing evolutionary, it's not yet defined type of resource, such as Newtown. I really think that we should propose that as a historical designated district. and if we do away with certain homes or buildings, commercial buildings, we could injure ourselves in that endeavor. So I think we really have to weigh the balance between our architectural design heritage and development. Thank you. |
| 02:38:32.84 | Unknown | On Zoom, we have Vicki Nichols. |
| 02:38:46.52 | Unknown | Please unmute yourself. |
| 02:38:53.00 | Vicki Nichols | the Historic Preservation Commission. Um, I wanted to talk about a couple of things quickly. First of all, I want to put to rest this discussion about Builder's Remedy. Because of the work of Joan Cox and Janelle Kelman, who worked up their fingers to the bone the last weekend, We were able to get our housing element in on time and approved. We do not have to be subject to the builder's remedy. So let's stop scaring people with that. I see a couple of issues here that I wanted to talk about. It looks like who has precedence with a historic overlay district versus an opportunity site or district? There's a question. The I like the idea of odds for historical preservation being considered. But I would say with all due respect that the two people that were on the subcommittee for the planning commission do not have historical preservation experience. And if this goes forward, I would really like at least one person from the HPC to be on this committee to be able to talk about these things. If we go back and look at the lists that Bob showed us by area, there's not addresses on there, they're numbers. How do you easily look, pick that up? and know what these opportunity sites are. So I'd also like the idea of putting to use the work of the previous analysis that Joan mentioned, Every site was analyzed. I think this can be looked at again. If it's not applicable, it won't hurt. It's no additional work. The reason that the design standards, the architectural standards were decided to not be used is we would have been forced into designs that are not representative to the district. And we were talking about the district. That was our only purview. I think there's a way to get around this, but again, with the committee or more consideration to Brandon. And I love to, I'm really heartened by all the people that are standing up for the district tonight. I've never heard this. And if historical preservation is something- |
| 02:41:01.19 | Unknown | Can you please call the next person? X person is Senator Bushmaker. |
| 02:41:10.47 | Steven Woodside | You're not muted. I'm muted, Ms. Bushmaker. Stand by. Now we can hear you. Go ahead. |
| 02:41:16.58 | Sandra Bushmaker | All right. Let me tell you, one day I'll sit down with you and tell you what it's like to unmute yourself on Zoom. It is no easy task. Uh, anyway, uh, I just want to say that I appreciate all the work that's been done on this. Turning things into objective standards is not an easy task. I did that in the field of education. for years and years and years on the classes that I taught. And it is difficult. appreciation is not a measurable standard. So I just want to put that out there. I also urge you to not Um, to not use the reasonable person standard, Ian. The reasonable person standard, let's put it this way, reasonable minds can differ. And if you put up your reasonable person standard, I'll bring in my reasonable person standards and how many reasonable people standards do we need before we get to the ultimate it just it's just fraught with with. Problem, so I would encourage the Council to not go in that particular direction for a measurement. Um, With regard to removal of opportunity sites, I would like to hear what the impact of that would be on the status of our housing element. I think that needs to be answered by the city attorney. I don't think we can get into that tonight. but I would be concerned about the While it's an appealing idea, for the historic district. I think that we are may be jeopardizing our housing element, thus exposing us to all these other draconian things that Sacramento has laid on us. I too am sad to see the impact on our town of Sacramento's mandates. I think it's creating, I haven't seen anything good come out of them yet. The mandates, just a lot of angst, a lot of money being spent by municipalities to conform with the requirements of Sacramento's legislation. That's it. Thank you. |
| 02:43:18.75 | Unknown | Next speaker is Barbara Carlisle. |
| 02:43:25.10 | Barbara Carlisle | Hello. Have you, am I unmuted? |
| 02:43:28.81 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes, you are. |
| 02:43:29.98 | Barbara Carlisle | Thank you. I'm a Sal Salido resident and I too, like your fellow speakers tonight, understand the challenges of developing these objective standards, but I really strongly feel that we can't. not. do anything about this and just because it's difficult, do nothing. not put in whatever we can Mathematically, like Sophia said about proportions or scale. It seems like The biggest concern I have is with height. restrictions in the historic district and what I could take away from listening this evening was that If A property is in the housing element. in the historic district and it doesn't involve the demolition of historic building, then the sky's the limit. And as you all know, Salsalito is just an exceptional place. It's one of only 12 historic districts in California. People come from all over the world, and if we all of a sudden have you know, 10, 15, 20, STORY BUILDINGS IN OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT, IT WILL CHANGE COMPLETELY THE FACE. I think, I hope you will look seriously at removing some of those opportunity sites from the historic district. or doing whatever you can to try to define using the odds. Um, proportions, scale, to keep Sausalito looking like Sausalito and keep all of those people from all around the world to see this city and they arrived by the ferry and we want to preserve This look, but we also want to increase housing And I know it's a difficult, difficult challenge, but I do hope that you will rise to the challenge and put in these odds and do whatever we can to protect it. Thank you. |
| 02:45:25.28 | Unknown | Daniel Shuguru. |
| 02:45:33.36 | Unknown | Daniel, please unmute yourself. |
| 02:45:38.50 | Dan Chagro | Oh, hello. Hello. Oh, can you turn your sound? |
| 02:45:40.00 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |
| 02:45:41.80 | Dan Chagro | Sorry, we're having a little technical difficulty. Hello, my name is Dan Chagro. I'm a Sausalito resident. I'd like to make a few comments on the subject of views. Views can be a significant factor when purchasing real estate. Typically, the greater the view, the more the property is likely to cost. Through a process referred to as bracketing, a real estate appraiser can determine the value associated with the views. Loss of views equates to loss of property value. Until very recently, citizens and property owners in Sausalito could take comfort in the city's longstanding policies of view protection. Now, in a stunning reversal of these policies, any citizen could have their view blocked by a neighbor constructing a project with two or more units. Since the loss of property value can be directly linked to the city's change in policy. I would like to suggest a program of tax relief for those citizens whose properties have suffered losses as a result of these changes. The costs of such a program would likely be more than offset by the increase in property tax revenues from the new developments. Thank you. |
| 02:47:04.29 | Unknown | And Barbara Brown. |
| 02:47:12.15 | Barbara Brown | Hello, thank you. I'm Barbara and I'm an architect and resident in town. I believe that it's urgent to establish objective standards to evaluate view and historic district preservations. I recognize the challenge that the staff has faced when trying to create these standards surrounding views. But as other people have said, just because it isn't easy doesn't mean it's not worth doing. There are well-established objective methods that are used to evaluate views. as we all are aware, real estate appraisers determine the value of properties and the financial impact of views. There are also programs in other towns of how to record properties' existing views through photographs, and that could be either from Google or it could be something that the adjacent property owners could provide. And there are other towns in California that have programs like this. So, and then relating to historic preservation, the report implies that the Secretary of Interior standards are too subjective to follow, therefore will no longer be upheld. I'm hoping I misinterpreted that section of the staff report. Um, Are we really willing to literally throw away our historic district protection to gain a few more housing units? That's a very high cost to pay. On the other hand, in the odds report, there are some excellent guidelines referencing massing compositions and facade articulations. I'm not sure if this part of the odds was adopted, but I think some of it would be very helpful for Sausalito to... facilitate and You know, one thing is, I don't think that these kind of design standards would necessarily |
| 02:49:17.09 | Walfred Solorzano | All right, that's our last speaker. |
| 02:49:18.61 | Steven Woodside | All right, we'll close public comment and now bring it back up for discussion here. on the dice, who would like to start us off? Anyone? Any comments? |
| 02:49:28.97 | Janelle Kelman | I'm happy to. I really want to thank everybody who came here and is listening. you You're right, it is so hard, no matter what the topic is, it is so hard for everybody in the community to feel like they know everything that is happening all the time. I strongly recommend, if you're not already signed up for Currents, Abbott and staff do a great job of keeping people apprised. We are endeavoring to increase our communication around the entire housing process to make sure that everybody feels informed. But please, go home and tell 20 people, tell everybody in your network. So you guys are here, share it, we try to as well. So thank you all for being here. I know the hour is getting late. I heard some, sort of consistent themes. I don't think there are gonna be any surprise. So I'm curious to hear my colleagues, but historic resources, trying to find a manner in which we could preserve our historic resources, whether that's looking at what the California Register has already determined is worthy of protecting and using that as an anchor to design our objective standards. Seems like a worthy initial inquiry. And figuring out can we have standards, would we be comfortable as a community with standards that dictate everything from facade materials to other ways that we enhance authenticity. And so I agree with Vicki Nichols' comment that I think if we put a working group together, which really illustrative for us that we need someone from the HPC to be a part of that. The second is the view corridor, which we've been asked about, sort of similar comment. You know, we have had view protection as an element of Sausalito zoning for as long as I have lived here since 2001. I'm very honored. So, you know, it's always been a part of what we've considered in our planning. And so I think it absolutely has to be direction to Opticos and staff to reconsider that and figure out how we might provide something that is objective. And maybe it is within a certain overlay or within a certain district. Maybe it's not every part of town where we're able to find an objective standard. Maybe it is something related to historic resources. there was a question that came up that I don't, I'm not going to ask the attorney to opine on today, but we should have an answer to, which is, can you just remove something from the opportunity site list? And what does that do? There seems to be an assumption that that's just a very easy process and it won't trigger any other unintended consequences. I will endeavor to make sure we have a report out to let you know what the answer to that is, but I do not think it is an easy process. That was an interesting comment about a more sophisticated overlay on what that might mean. And then I also really appreciated the offer I thought I heard from some design professionals to participate in a peer review, some architectural design standards. I know, Michael, you've done a lot of work on this already. So those are my four or five main areas. No surprise, historic resources, view corridors, some clarity around the opportunity sites, bringing the design professionals, look at the aesthetic considerations, and make sure we have someone from HPC looking at the designation. A question was raised here tonight. Again, I'm not going to ask the city attorney to Thank you. look at the aesthetic considerations and make sure we have someone from HPC looking at the designation. A question was raised here tonight. Again, I'm not going to ask the city attorney to opine in real time, but let's resolve this question of whether or not certain properties are within or not within historic area. |
| 02:52:55.79 | Steven Woodside | points to go next. |
| 02:52:57.36 | Unknown | again, we just go right along along the dice. I also want to thank everyone who put their time and effort into the preparation of these odds thus far and community members who came tonight and to |
| 02:52:58.27 | Steven Woodside | GO RIGHT ALONG. |
| 02:53:09.43 | Unknown | wrote to us and who are engaging and learning more about the process. We are all always learning, even us sitting on the dais. So we appreciate you being here and wanting to continue the conversation. I very much agree with Councilmember Kellman's comments about the concerns around views and preservation standards um i in response to the community development director's requests around historic resource preservation and whether how we would look at that and whether we might be looking to to better define those i think that should be considered in the next version of these odds absolutely i would love to see a peer review group of design professionals chaired by michael rex potentially i think you volunteered uh in the month of april to review odds. So I agree with everything that Councilmember Kelman said. A couple of things that I would add. I was surprised, I guess not surprised, but I guess a little dismayed to not see any sort of implication or questions about climate-friendly building or how we might make decisions from an environmental impact perspective. So I would ask that when you go back to the drawing board on some of this, you take into consideration how might we encourage more climate friendly or more resilient climate factors in our building processes as well. But otherwise, I think my comments are mostly consistent. Oh, and I'll just add a consideration of how we can create as much as possible workforce or affordable housing and whether that means a tiered level of that 600 square feet to have single family, multifamily and what that looks like because I really wanna optimize as many opportunities as we can. |
| 02:54:36.20 | Unknown | Vice Mayor? |
| 02:54:38.80 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:54:38.82 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. I echo the comments of my fellow council members, and I also thank the community for their feedback. Aside from those of you who attended in person and virtually, we also received numerous emails. expressing concern and providing ideas. I endorse the creation of a working group. I would like to work on the working group. um i would like vicki nichols to be it i'd love michael rex to be on it he was instrumental on a blue ribbon housing committee that i formed back in 2018 um and he he's just a terrific resource and we should take advantage of that um I agree about integrating historic preservation standards into the odds, public and private view corridors into the odds. It is difficult, but there are ways to objectively manifest those standards. And we heard some examples tonight. I agree with the mayor about providing direction on color and materials. you know, as a planning commissioner, we denied a project that entailed container being plopped on a hillside so that would um, limiting the types of materials would address that. Not to say that a container wouldn't be appropriate somewhere on the north side of town. So I do believe that the overlay that a challenge with the overlay zone is that not one size fits all and we do need to better refine the overlay zone for our opportunity sites. |
| 02:56:24.20 | Peter Schmidt | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:56:25.23 | Steven Woodside | I'm happy to share the work that Sensible Housing Sausalito performed over a couple of years to remind Staff and our consultants of what that group had in mind about where and how to accommodate 724 units. And believe me, not all of the units were tiny, but I do think it's important that we include tiny units that are affordable because a large portion of our housing element requires affordable units. |
| 02:57:05.22 | Steven Woodside | I would like, before you convene the Planning Commission and officially receive David Marlott's comments, I'd like staff to go ahead and start to review and address those comments. Please don't wait until you receive them formally from him at a Planning Commission hearing. And those were my, oh. |
| 02:57:25.83 | Janelle Kelman | Thank you. |
| 02:57:25.86 | Steven Woodside | you Thank you. |
| 02:57:26.72 | Janelle Kelman | Vice Mayor, can I ask you a recollection question? Yeah. I seem to recall there's something in the odds about height. |
| 02:57:28.83 | Unknown | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 02:57:33.45 | Janelle Kelman | that a high table that was inserted. Do we want to direct staff to be good to that? |
| 02:57:38.97 | Steven Woodside | Do you remember that? Yes, so we would like to, I think that, I think having an over, revising the overlay zone for opportunity sites will address the height because it's within the opportunity sites that they increased heights in order to accommodate density. But I would like to see the higher heights be focused on the north side of town, which is where the higher density projects were identified in the sensible housing Sausalito plan. which will facilitate the protection of historic resources downtown. I'd like us to consider reducing the ground floor minimum ceiling height to eight feet for both residential and non-residential uses from the current nine foot height. I'd like to... Reduce the number of stories for different housing opportunity sites, depending on their locale. Again, modifying the overlay. I'd like to revisit the concept of average unit sizes, and I'd like to promote small slash modestly sized units. Also consider decreasing the depth for a ground floor space to 14 feet or less. I'd like to see flat roofs on four-story buildings. and reduce or remove the common open space minimum widths and depths for neighborhood courtyard and pocket neighborhood types on multifamily sites. Okay, those are some of my preliminary comments. Thank you. |
| 02:59:35.97 | Steven Woodside | Great. What I would add incrementally is just to emphasize this idea that something is better than nothing and that many qualitative things can be quantified in an objective way that captures a large percentage of the cases. So things like views, a standard may not be perfect, but with technology and a little bit of effort, we can create a view objective standard that would capture 80% of what we're after. And we ought to make that effort. And so I would like to see that done. |
| 02:59:36.49 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 03:00:13.43 | Steven Woodside | since I said it, I obviously agree with myself that I think that, uh, color and facade of color and materials, uh, again, also can be quantitative quantified. And I would like to see that included. So I understand that, that there was some thing to work out between, uh, the city staff's initial recommendations and, and further conversations. I would definitely err on the side of including objective standards on views and materials, uh, and color, uh, where we can, uh, I thought Mr. Rex's comment on having a peer review panel of some kind makes a lot of sense. I would look for Director Phipps to gather input from city council members and board and commission members as well to make some recommendations on what that looks like. I don't know what the answer is about what exactly a peer is and whether that's an important distinction between design professional and other people that have unique and valuable things to provide on this question. So I want to make sure that that that's done correctly and in the most helpful way possible. But I would look for staff to make some give us some guidance on what should be done there to take advantage of the resources we have here in town to do that. well. And maybe only in passing, it's only peripherally related to the odds. There are other approaches to doing urban planning, and that is to actually do an urban plan. We have in the past considered on this dais urban plans for different parts of town that would involve a little more comprehension of the way different designs and development integrate with one another. We've, to my disappointment, passed on that in the past, and I would put a plug in for considering that as a parallel path. Obviously not in the short term, we have other fish to fry, but it's a way of trying to avoid this or lessen this problem in the future. I think that's it for our comments. So let's close this topic now and move on to our next business item. Thanks to everyone who was here this evening on this important issue. The next and final business item is discussion and approval of. |
| 03:02:15.96 | Janelle Kelman | quick break or no? |
| 03:02:17.11 | Steven Woodside | Do we need a break? All right. We'll take a five-minute break. So we'll reassemble at 10.05 on the knot. Thanks, council member. |
| 03:02:30.20 | Steven Woodside | resuming. Director McGowan, please. Thank you. |
| 03:02:34.30 | Kevin McGowan | Good evening, Mayor, Member of City Council. Thank you for taking this item this evening. |
| 03:02:41.63 | Steven Woodside | you kindly pull the door shut behind you just to make the |
| 03:02:43.21 | Kevin McGowan | Yes, sir. |
| 03:02:53.81 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:02:54.13 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. |
| 03:02:54.20 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:02:55.30 | Kevin McGowan | All right, thank you so much. I'm Kevin McGown, Public Works Director for Sausalito. This is a short presentation, ooh, short, regarding a staff work related to the development of a facility assessment study. The slide in front of you notes that we would like to have receive and file a report, but actually, the staff report says we welcome your discussions and your input on this specific item. So next slide, please. The city of Sausalito has many infrastructure assets. To understand them a little bit better, I've broken them into categories. Transportation, properties, public spaces, and utilities. These categories are also similar to our capital improvement program categories, which we'll be probably talking about hopefully in our next council meeting. Each category is further broken down into assets such as roads, sidewalks, parks, public buildings, leased building spaces, and many, many others. |
| 03:03:59.15 | Unknown | next. |
| 03:04:01.78 | Kevin McGowan | Staff provided several presentations to the council over the last year regarding the pavement conditions here in Sausalito. of our roadways and noted that continue allocation of resources is needed to maintain or improve the roadway quality in town. However, there are many other assets in this category which we have not been which have not been assessed recently. I can go on and on about all these specifics on this slide, but we have a limited amount of time this evening, so let's keep going. So next slide. The city owns more than 110 properties. Some of these properties are occupied by city-owned public buildings, such as City Hall, while others are leased to tenants, such as the Spinnaker Restaurant or the Sausalil Yacht Club. There are also city properties within our, there are also city properties with other facilities, such as our parking lots, harbors, piers, and some of them even located in submerged parcels. The development of a facility assessment study for each of these structures noted in the staff report would assist the city to identify deficiencies with the intent of establishing an estimate for the repair for their repair, which helps assist the city in planning for future fiscal requirements for for their replacement. Specialty firms are typically utilized to investigate for the investigation of specific buildings. These firms utilize standards of practice, such as the American Society for Testing and Materials, called ASTM, and they use a general ASTM guideline, so we would want to reference that in our RFP. A facility assessment study will define when a new roof is needed for a building or whether the replacement of carpeting is needed for our public spaces. The facility assessment study And the facility assessment study provides the city with a rough costumate for the work as well. Currently staff is working with Climatech regarding a study of energy conservation measures for city facilities climatech will be evaluating key items such as heating and ventilation systems which would also be covered in a facility assessment study Staff recommends not issuing the RFP or the request for proposals until Climatex investigation, or at least a draft report, is forwarded to staff so that we don't duplicate efforts in reviewing our infrastructure. Next slide, please. you |
| 03:06:45.47 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:06:45.76 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. City also has other public assets noted as public spaces. These include over 15 parks, parking lots and open spaces. All of these require maintenance and improvements. Evaluations of these facilities are not normally included in a facility assessment study. with the exception of structures such as restrooms within our parks or other other actual structures on these areas. Next slide, please. The city also maintains a sewer collection system and pumps to deliver flow to the Sausalito-Marin City Sanitary District system for processing. The city also performed a video assessment of this system and presented these findings to the council in 2022. Staff continues to move forward with a consolidation effort to transfer the responsibility of the collection system to the Saucer-Lumerian City Sanitary District and anticipates bringing a memo of understanding to the council in the next six months, which will define a path forward for the consolidation. Next slide, please. At this time, staff anticipates working with Climatec to review the city facilities for the energy efficiency study. For elements not covered in the Climatec work, the facility assessment study should be crafted to incorporate these elements. After reviewing a draft report from Climatex, City staff anticipates refining the draft facility assessment request for proposal to secure consultants to examine City facilities that are not covered in Climatex review. Several of the tasks related to structural review of some of City facilities. There may be an opportunity to separate out these tasks into a separate request for proposals, since the emphasis of this work does not relate to energy conservation measures and the work being performed by Climatech. This separate study would evaluate the substructures of some of our facilities that may be impacted by a corrosive environment such as the bay, climate change, or shoreline recession. So one of the ideas that after taking a look at this for a while is to take some of those elements out and have a separate RFP, send that out sooner before climate tech gets finished, and that way we're moving forward with that type of work. Next slide, please. All right. Moving forward with a facility assessment study is important to avoid failures of our systems that support both public and private facilities. The study will also help the city strategically plan for costly improvements. The staff report also denotes examination of city-owned facilities that are leased. The intent of including these facilities is to examine key elements such as piles or peer foundations that may have been impacted by climate change. Adding additional facilities such as peers, parking lots, docks, and other not normally covered in a standard facility assessment study would help to move this project along much quicker. |
| 03:10:15.40 | Kevin McGowan | It is also staff's understanding that the city may have an opportunity to pursue grant funding in some or all of this work. with the help of Councilmember Kellman and katie garcia katie garcia and others here on staff we have worked to identify funding sources that may support this study effort so that concludes my portion of the presentation and i welcome your input as well as steph's input on this particular uh issue thank you |
| 03:10:47.03 | Steven Woodside | Director McGowan, questions from the dais, please. |
| 03:10:48.84 | Chris Zapata | Mayor, if I can. |
| 03:10:50.53 | Steven Woodside | Yes, city manager. |
| 03:10:51.42 | Chris Zapata | If I can add some color to the report, I'd like to do that at this time. Thank Kevin for doing the work. In the staff report, there are three things, a staff report and two attachments. In one of the attachments, there is a draft RFP that we would like to release. I'd like to point your attention to page five of the draft RFP because I think that tells a lot of information in one page that I think will help us get to the point where, as this agendized, this is agendized tonight for direction to release an RFP and take your input tonight and do that. But what we're trying to do is, in the draft RFP, we're trying to make sure we merge our work in this RFP with Climatec, that we look at city-owned buildings that are open to the public, that we look at city-owned buildings that are leased, that we look at other facilities that are city property, that we develop a facility assessment report and scope of services, that we provide the draft report that staff will look at with internally and then bring to the council. And then that there will be a final and fully vetted facility assessment report. And so those are the basic scope of services that I think are important to note for the public. And then the anticipated timeline for this would be in April, mid-April, we would release and advertise an RFP. We would have a deadline of May 23rd to have the RFP back. We would look at the RFPs and have a pre-proposal meeting with the applicants. The proposal would then come to Public Works and be vetted, and then there would be consultant interviews after May 30th. At that point, when things are ripe, then we would bring that to the city council for a recommendation on who the consultant should be to perform these services. So tonight, I think we've understood that there is a lot that needs to be done in Sausalito. We understand that we have a lot of public assets that Kevin outlined at the beginning of his report. And we were trying to get direction on the focus of what we are going to actually assess that will coordinate with climate tech in a timely manner. Thank you. |
| 03:13:12.85 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Vice Mayor. |
| 03:13:15.03 | Steven Woodside | Thank you city manager because one of my first questions was when will climate when will the climate study be complete and should we wait that long to move forward with this project. So I'm happy to hear that you're asking to release the RFP ASAP and that it by its terms will merge their work with that of Climatec. I was curious about the May 31st response. A lot of RFPs have a 30-day turnaround. Can you advise why you're proposing a 60-day turnaround for this RFP? |
| 03:14:00.68 | Chris Zapata | It's more like a 45-day turnaround. So if we need to speed that up, I think that's within the realm of possible. So, you know, that's a draft timeline, so we can adjust that so that this can, in fact, happen. I think it's important to get this done by year end and, you know, make sure that we don't duplicate, as Kevin mentioned, some of the work that's already going on. And that one of the things that I know is important is as we get this information, it has to be integrated into our financial modeling. There's a concurrent exercise going on with the city ad hoc finance committee, which consists of Mayor Sobieski, Councilmember Hoffman, former Mayor Ray Withey, and Chad Hess to look at tenure modeling. And certainly infrastructure would be a big part of those costs. So that's a factor as well. So in a perfect world, we get it out as soon as we can. We merge it with Climate Tech. We make sure we considered the tenure financial modeling and how that could impact that. And we get it done by the end of the year so we can start planning on how to fund and resource whatever it is that we know needs to be done in our expansive portfolio of properties. |
| 03:14:11.10 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 03:15:18.50 | Steven Woodside | Fair enough, thanks. Thank you. |
| 03:15:19.75 | Vicki Nichols | That's it. Thank you. |
| 03:15:20.36 | Unknown | That's remember, Calvin. |
| 03:15:20.97 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 03:15:21.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:15:21.05 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 03:15:22.13 | Janelle Kelman | Thank you very much, Kevin. And I had the benefit of an excellent conversation with Kevin and Chris prior. And in your voiceover for the presentation, you articulate the topic we had talked about, which was since many of our properties are waterfront, I wanted the assessment to also evaluate the impact of any type of saltwater intrusion or impact of maybe pylons or things that were waterfront. But I don't see that language in the staff report. I don't see it in the RFP. And there's two places in the RFP where I would have expected to have seen it. So I'm just wondering, did I miss it? |
| 03:15:56.76 | Kevin McGowan | Maybe not. I probably need to refine the RFP to make sure that I cover all those details. So keep in mind that we had taken a look after our conversation and simply added a table to the RFP. So let me take those into account and modify the language so that those are covered. |
| 03:16:13.84 | Janelle Kelman | Okay, thank you, Director McGowan. And if it helps also, I guess the last slide in your PowerPoint slide 10 that also has the chart probably could be updated just for posterity as well. Yes. |
| 03:16:23.89 | Kevin McGowan | Yes. |
| 03:16:28.47 | Unknown | I just have one question. Do you know if Climatec does these types of facilities assessments beyond just energy use, and if we might continue our engagement with them? |
| 03:16:36.67 | Kevin McGowan | I do not know if they do or do not. So we could research that with them and see if they have sub consultants that actually do this type of specific work as well. |
| 03:16:45.46 | Unknown | Okay, thanks. Can I come on? Yes, please. |
| 03:16:48.04 | Kevin McGowan | Right. |
| 03:16:48.26 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 03:16:48.35 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. |
| 03:16:48.48 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 03:16:48.51 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. |
| 03:16:49.63 | Steven Woodside | So although AB 334 relaxed conflict of interest laws so that there is some flexibility in hiring an existing consultant to perform an additional scope of work. Are you aware of the Government Code 1090 rules that regulate how we are able to expand an existing scope of work to include a scope not previously included and also the eligibility of existing contractors to bid on new work? |
| 03:17:28.05 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. |
| 03:17:28.07 | Steven Woodside | you |
| 03:17:28.83 | Kevin McGowan | So no, but thank you so much for enlightening me on it. I love these discussions. So I've written down a couple things, and we can research that with our city attorney. |
| 03:17:36.31 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. The city attorney is well-versed. So as you consider the ongoing use of Climatec, we just have to be aware of those issues. Thank you so much. Thank you. |
| 03:17:49.43 | Steven Woodside | Any other questions? My question is similar to Councilmember Kelman. We discussed the ASTM 2018, which is referenced in the staff report, but not referenced in the RFP at all. Would you include that in the RFP? |
| 03:18:03.54 | Kevin McGowan | Yes, we will. |
| 03:18:04.91 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 03:18:05.03 | Kevin McGowan | I wrote that one down too. |
| 03:18:06.26 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 03:18:06.41 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. |
| 03:18:06.44 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. And then similarly, in the staff reports, the city manager mentioned the effort to build a 10-year model, which is part of the creeping excellence that he is leading and you're a part of. And I'm wondering if we could incorporate a 10-year outlook in these facilities instead of the typical five. |
| 03:18:27.15 | Kevin McGowan | I think we can address that. I'm not too sure if at least the companies that I have encountered in the past to examine buildings, they haven't usually put together a program for more than five years. But let me address it with them. Let's put it in the RFP and see what we come up with. |
| 03:18:42.59 | Steven Woodside | You have a bunch of ways of measuring and grading the respondents to the RFP, so perhaps that could be one of them. |
| 03:18:48.34 | Kevin McGowan | That sounds great. |
| 03:18:49.64 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. And then... Let's see, I have another question. Oh, for a long time, I've been asking for just a list of all our city properties. And our previous property manager that we hired for a while did actually provide one, but it was all APN numbers, no addresses, no map, and it was... large acreage and tiny fractional lots all listed in one table that was comprehensive but also very difficult to use and I never got a grip on it. As part of this, could we get a map and a listing just of everything we own? Open space, old fire stations, corner lots, anything that's measured in square feet. So you can exclude anything that is ethereal or doesn't occupy square footage. But any square feet that we own. Can we get a list of that? And in addition to it, a map that shows where it is and in plain English, a short description of what it is, if it's a sub lot or an acre. |
| 03:19:45.84 | Kevin McGowan | So those- I have some of that already. One of the things you requested is a map. I have a booklet on my desk that has all of those listed. I can easily get you a copy of that. But the other details you had requested of square footage, let me look at what I have and maybe work with our planning director, and we can get that off of GIS. |
| 03:20:08.06 | Steven Woodside | It would be great to have only in respect of we're not doing everything. We're choosing what to do here with this study. It's not every city property. It's a subset of it. So it does, of course, it would be nice to know what we're not doing. And just so we have a list of everything we have. And I think everyone would like to know what we have. |
| 03:20:23.30 | Unknown | you I think it's a good thing. |
| 03:20:26.42 | Steven Woodside | just as a matter of public transparency. So if that could be part of this project, since we're looking at what we own, just getting that list would be a nice... |
| 03:20:35.16 | Kevin McGowan | I can definitely send you a copy of what I have in the next day or so. |
| 03:20:39.55 | Steven Woodside | Okay, and if it's not complete or... Like I see some nodding heads. Like, can we get some, well, we get, I guess we could take it under direction, but it'd be nice. Do you need direction to do more than that? Like if there's, to do something that's kind of user friendly so that members of the public could say, okay, I can read this book and I, now I understand everything we own. Does that require kind of council direction? Or do you think that's something? |
| 03:21:00.16 | Kevin McGowan | I'll leave that to our city manager, but I think I have enough direction from you to kind of know what you're looking for. Thank you. |
| 03:21:07.06 | Steven Woodside | All right, thanks. Let's take public comment on this matter. Thank you. Sandra Bushmaker. |
| 03:21:21.03 | Sandra Bushmaker | I can't get my video. work. Okay, now I can start. All right. I'm very happy to see this on the council agenda to be dealt with. My comment is we've been talking for years about deferred maintenance in Sausalito. We know getting us up to snuff again is going to be very, very expensive. I would like to request that the council be mindful of that. in the upcoming budget cycle and our current spending. where we have to be aware that we've got incredible expenses on the horizon here that are really necessary for the operation of the city. And I just want to encourage you to Be mindful of that when you're making spending decisions and when you're making budgetary decisions. I appreciate that. Thank you. |
| 03:22:12.99 | Unknown | No further public comment? |
| 03:22:14.20 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 03:22:18.00 | Steven Woodside | Okay, we'll close public comment. Any discussion here on the dais? |
| 03:22:22.72 | Unknown | Just to say, I'm really excited to see us after this has been deferred to other meetings to finally get to this because we have a lot of critical revenue that lies within our facilities. And we have an opportunity to leverage them to not only increase our revenue, but also to improve services to residents. So I would wholeheartedly agree with the staff recommendation to approve an RFP for facilities assessment. And I'll go ahead and make that motion. |
| 03:22:49.52 | Steven Woodside | Okay. I'll second it with the amendments that reflect the comments of people here on the dais about expanding it to include the I'll let you speak for yourself. |
| 03:23:01.45 | Janelle Kelman | Yeah, I just want to know. Yes, and I don't even know if this is an amendment at all, but I want it to be helpful and state that I think the RFP needs to get updated on Section 3, which is the project description. And then it's Section 6, Task 2, actually 2.1, where it outlines the infrastructure to be reviewed. So just put that on the record, and then hopefully we'll see this in its, and with your ASTM. |
| 03:23:02.87 | Unknown | I'm not going to be a |
| 03:23:29.95 | Steven Woodside | ASTM 2018 and having an ask that it'd be a 10 year assessment and grading responses accordingly. |
| 03:23:41.16 | Steven Woodside | There is a second, and I'd love to add, I mean, maybe it's a separate direction after the vote, so let's vote on that motion to release the RFP. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Who was the second? I was. It was the mayor. Opposed, none. That motion carries. Just in terms of direction, just so that the city manager is on the same page, is there a consensus that we should get a list of all our city-owned properties? Yes, absolutely. |
| 03:23:51.45 | Steven Woodside | Who was the second? I was. It was the mayor. |
| 03:24:04.68 | Steven Woodside | Absolutely. |
| 03:24:05.98 | Steven Woodside | and a user-friendly description so that everybody can understand what we're in. |
| 03:24:09.41 | Steven Woodside | Something beyond APM. |
| 03:24:11.05 | Steven Woodside | Yeah, all right. Something that the layperson can understand so that they will know everything we own. All right, that's consistent direction that you could add to the minutes, Walford City Clerk. All right, thank you. So moving on to communications, this is a time for items not on the agenda. City Clerk, could you please open up public comment? |
| 03:24:32.63 | Walfred Solorzano | Sandra Bushmaker. |
| 03:24:37.84 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 03:24:37.86 | Sandra Bushmaker | Okay, I'm back. I don't think I ever left. to be honest. I'm sorry to have to bring this up, but I sent you a letter on March 7th regarding the group FPPC decision in the Christine Dietrich matter, which was a 2019 decision where a Council member or two, actually. resided within or had a business within 500 feet of the BID border. And the FPP said they needed to recuse themselves. And so I bring this up again because I'm, was disheartened to see that the council member whose property was within that district within that distance did not recuse himself. So I'm disturbed by that. And I hope that will be reconsidered for future action. Thank you. |
| 03:25:36.91 | Unknown | Seeing no further public speakers. |
| 03:25:38.71 | Steven Woodside | All right, we'll close public comment. Council member committee reports. Are there any? Seeing none city manager, would you like to provide a report? |
| 03:25:47.99 | Chris Zapata | Mayor and Council, the report that I would provide is in writing. It's listed as a staff report. It covers basic city priorities, which include infrastructure, finance, insurance, quality of life, public safety, and resiliency. And then it also covers the five areas that the Council agreed to at its February 10th strategy meeting. And then there's a listing of continuing initiatives that we're working on that is out there for the public. And as I require most departments to provide quarterly reports, what's good for the goose is good for me. So I will start providing these quarterly reports. So this will cover January, February, and March. I'll get another one out three months from now. And hopefully the input I get from you all, from the public and from our staff, will flesh that out a little more because I'm sure I didn't include some important things, but I included what I know was current. So that's my report, Mayor. |
| 03:25:54.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:26:40.20 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, city manager. And I do. I know the hour is late, but for anyone who's still online, I recommend that they actually click through and read that report. It is impressive to see all the things that are being done out of the limelight by you and the hardworking staff working on behalf of the people of Sausalito. |
| 03:26:56.91 | Janelle Kelman | Thank you. |
| 03:26:56.94 | Steven Woodside | Thank you for that city manager. |
| 03:26:57.95 | Janelle Kelman | Thank you. |
| 03:26:57.97 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 03:26:58.16 | Steven Woodside | And the vice mayor would like to comment. |
| 03:27:00.10 | Steven Woodside | Yeah, I sit on the agenda setting committee with the mayor, so I feel as though the two of us are more aware than most of what the city manager does. But when I read that report, I was very surprised to see everything that he's doing that I wasn't aware of. So city manager, thank you for putting it in writing. this council does not know but back in 2018 I demanded that our then city manager put his City Manager reports in writing rather than taking 20 or 30 minutes of our time to tell us what he'd been doing so. Very much appreciate that effort and the information provided. |
| 03:27:36.62 | Chris Zapata | You're welcome. |
| 03:27:37.44 | Janelle Kelman | Thank you. |
| 03:27:37.46 | Steven Woodside | We'll be right back. |
| 03:27:37.53 | Janelle Kelman | I was thoroughly impressed by it and also really loved it when you did it in the past. So thank you. I know it's not easy to put together a written report, and I just want to echo what the mayor said. If you're still on listening or listen to this later, read that document. It's excellent so that you understand just how hard our city staff is working. Thank you. |
| 03:27:58.62 | Steven Woodside | Okay, we'll now go on to future agenda items. Does anyone have anything they wish to add? Councilman McKellman? |
| 03:28:04.00 | Janelle Kelman | Yes, I'd like to agendize an item to look at alternative parking opportunities in the downtown area. |
| 03:28:09.76 | Steven Woodside | or any particular kinds of vehicles? |
| 03:28:11.67 | Janelle Kelman | And also looking at the bus parking. I also want to make just a global, more of a recommendation or suggestion. It feels, and this is the feedback I've gotten from the community, that the last four months have been very heavily focused on the downtown area. And I would just like this council to spend some time prioritizing agendas that focus on other parts of town. And so I know our budget's coming up. We should be looking at our roads again soon. I would love for us to have another conversation very soon about what roads and infrastructure projects we will be working on. So I just want to put that in and make that request. |
| 03:28:13.94 | Steven Woodside | of the |
| 03:28:49.47 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thanks, Councilman. |
| 03:28:52.13 | Janelle Kelman | you |
| 03:28:52.15 | Unknown | Thank you. I wanted to agendize just in the interest of transparency and all of our conversations around the Brown Act. I think it would be helpful many of my colleagues and other constituencies have a set budget for travel for all of their council members in a very open discussion where they talk about what should be covered and shouldn't be covered for city business and speak engagements. And many of us travel to the League of Cities Conference or National League of Cities members or Conference of Mayor members. So I'd like to have a conversation about how we budget for that as a group. |
| 03:29:21.14 | Steven Woodside | I will say that traveling to three sister cities and various conferences over the last six years, the city's never paid for any of that for me. |
| 03:29:30.32 | Unknown | Yeah, the city's never paid, but other jurisdictions do provide reimbursements, and it is city business, and I'm not an attorney, so I don't make the same hourly fee that you or other attorneys you might sit here do, and I would still like, you know, I don't think that public engagement should necessarily be hindered, but we should be responsible with our budget and our spend. So I just want to have a discussion so that it doesn't become an issue. |
| 03:29:50.60 | Steven Woodside | Noted, thank you. The travel budget on the future agenda items. Anything for you, councilor, vice-chair? No? Okay. Thank you. Then we will take public comment on items 8A through 8CB. |
| 03:29:55.53 | Unknown | of, you know, Thank you. |
| 03:30:05.27 | Steven Woodside | and the city manager report also while we're at it. |
| 03:30:08.14 | Unknown | See none. Okay. |
| 03:30:10.84 | Steven Woodside | Thank you very much. That will end the evening. Thanks for being here. Good night. And we're adjourned. |
| 03:30:18.45 | Unknown | Thank you. |