| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.03 | Walfred Solorzano | Members, tonight's October 1, 2024 City Council meeting is being held at Council Chambers. It's also being broadcast live on the city's website and cable TV channel 27. |
| 00:00:12.60 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, Mr. City Clerk, would you kindly call the roll? |
| 00:00:18.64 | Walfred Solorzano | Council member Blaustein. Here. Council member Hoffman. Here. Council member Kelman. Here. Vice Mayor Cox. |
| 00:00:20.69 | Unknown | Cheers. |
| 00:00:24.45 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Here. |
| 00:00:26.52 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:00:28.08 | Walfred Solorzano | Here. |
| 00:00:28.09 | Jill Hoffman | here. |
| 00:00:28.84 | Steven Woodside | and Mary Sobieski. |
| 00:00:29.77 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:00:29.78 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:00:29.82 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:00:29.87 | Steven Woodside | Here, the items in this special city council meeting to be discussed in closed session are conference with legal counsel existing litigation. Yes, in my backyard versus the city of Sausalito. The second item is conference with legal counsel anticipated litigation significant exposure pursuant to 54956.91 case. This third item is conference with legal counsel, initiation of litigation pursuant to government code section 54956.91 case. And the fourth item is conference with legal counsel existing litigation, Schrader versus the city of Sausalito, Marin County Superior Court case number CV0002988. Is there any public comment on any of these items? |
| 00:01:15.01 | Walfred Solorzano | There are no people in the council chambers and online. We don't have any guests asking for public comment. |
| 00:01:21.23 | Steven Woodside | We will close public comment on these items, and we will adjourn the closed session and return at 7 p.m. Thank you. |
| 00:01:31.81 | Steven Woodside | We have just returned from closed session where we heard a number of items listed on the agenda, and I'm just announcing that upon joining closed session, I was informed that items two and three concerning significant exposure to litigation and the initiation of litigation involved matters that had the potential to affect my real property interests, and accordingly I recused myself and did not participate in discussion of those two closed session items. Other than that, there are no reports from closed session, and we are going to move on with the beginning of our open session by starting with the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, if you'd kindly join us. |
| 00:02:08.94 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:02:18.96 | Jeffrey Chase | Amen. |
| 00:02:22.91 | Steven Woodside | Thank you very much. The only announcement I will make is that there will be a change on the sewer subcommittee. Vice Mayor Cox will be stepping off and our colleague, Councilmember Jill Hoffman will be joining Councilmember Janelle Kelman on the sewer subcommittee. There are no other special announcements, we'll move on to action. I don't think we have to because she's using our special allowance unless Sergio tells me we got it wrong. Thank you. Councilmember Hoffman is participating remotely. Would you like to speak to the matter, Councilmember? |
| 00:02:56.95 | Councilmember Hoffman | Yeah, I think if under the just cause provision, I think our city attorney has the provision for that. I'll be attending the rest of the meeting remotely. |
| 00:03:08.63 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, so in terms of attending remotely, you have to state the reason for the Just Cause appearance, and also mention whether or not there are any adults over the age of 18 in the room with you. |
| 00:03:21.26 | Councilmember Hoffman | Yeah, the reason for the just cause is that I'm not feeling well. I'm suffering from some medical issues, and there are no other people in the room with me. |
| 00:03:31.76 | Steven Woodside | Thank you very much. We do not need to take a vote, correct, City Attorney? |
| 00:03:36.35 | Sergio Rudin | No, the council just needs to be notified of the appearance for just cause, but does not need to approve. |
| 00:03:42.21 | Steven Woodside | Well, thank you very much, Councilmember Hoffman, for having the commitment to be here, even when you're not feeling well, and we all hope you get better soon. |
| 00:03:48.84 | Councilmember Hoffman | And I'll just note, let me just say this is the first time I've used this provision, so there's a limit of twice per calendar year. So, anyway, just so that's everything. Thank you. |
| 00:03:56.42 | Steven Woodside | Thank you for your dedication. |
| 00:03:58.68 | Jill Hoffman | And city clerk, is it possible to turn up the volume so we can hear Councilmember Hoffman more clearly for... What? |
| 00:04:06.96 | Unknown | Thank you. I'm trying to... |
| 00:04:09.97 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:04:10.17 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:04:10.39 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, so maybe Councilmember Hoffman, you can turn up your volume a little bit. |
| 00:04:14.17 | Steven Woodside | If possible. You're very soft to us, so if you can do something with the microphone, we'll let you know. There are no other special announcements. We move on now to action minutes of the previous meeting. Is there a motion to adopt the minutes of the July 30, 2024 meeting? |
| 00:04:30.84 | Jill Hoffman | So moved. Second. |
| 00:04:33.51 | Steven Woodside | Motion is moved and seconded to adopt the minutes. All in favor say aye. Aye. |
| 00:04:36.46 | Jill Hoffman | All the comments. |
| 00:04:36.97 | Jennifer Nemo | Thank you. |
| 00:04:37.03 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. |
| 00:04:37.42 | Jennifer Nemo | Thank you. |
| 00:04:37.54 | Sergio Rudin | I think we'll call vote because children know. |
| 00:04:39.94 | Steven Woodside | Do we need to take a roll call vote, city attorney? |
| 00:04:43.97 | Sergio Rudin | Yes, all items need to be approved tonight by roll call vote. |
| 00:04:48.32 | Steven Woodside | Okay, let's do a roll call vote then, city clerk. |
| 00:04:50.37 | Walfred Solorzano | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:04:50.55 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:04:50.57 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:04:50.58 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:04:50.60 | Walfred Solorzano | Bye. |
| 00:04:50.67 | Steven Woodside | a comment? Public comment, please. Thank you, City Clerk, on the action minutes. We have a- |
| 00:04:55.11 | Walfred Solorzano | We have a. We have Ava and again, just as a reminder, this is for minutes only and you have two minutes. |
| 00:05:00.15 | Steven Woodside | Two minutes. |
| 00:05:08.15 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:05:08.17 | Steven Woodside | All right. This is public comment on the minutes of the July 30, 2024. So any comments? |
| 00:05:08.74 | Walfred Solorzano | This is public. |
| 00:05:13.06 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:05:13.96 | Unknown | I'm sorry, I emailed the city attorney that this comment is about item one. And that is the combination of announcements and I believe minutes. Am I correct? |
| 00:05:26.66 | Steven Woodside | No, this is public comment only for the minutes of the July 30, 2024 City Council meeting. |
| 00:05:36.18 | Walfred Solorzano | All right, we have Babette McDougall. |
| 00:05:43.00 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:05:43.01 | Steven Woodside | Is McDougal? |
| 00:05:47.00 | Steven Woodside | Is she online? |
| 00:05:48.52 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah, she's online. She has her hand up, she needs to unmute herself. |
| 00:05:52.82 | Steven Woodside | to understand. |
| 00:06:01.90 | Walfred Solorzano | All right. I don't think he's figured it out right now. |
| 00:06:12.04 | Steven Woodside | Okay. Ms. McDougall, can you unmute yourself? |
| 00:06:22.79 | Walfred Solorzano | All right, yeah, she has permission to talk. |
| 00:06:31.45 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah. I don't, yeah. What do you want? |
| 00:06:43.61 | Steven Woodside | nothing. All right, Ms. McDougall, if you're having trouble with your public comment, maybe you could send someone an email if you are trying to. And if you're not trying to, then that would be great. But if you have been trying and you can't, please let the city clerk know and we'll try to resolve that matter. So any other public comment? Seeing none. All right, we'll close public comment. We have a motion on the floor to approve the minutes. Please do the roll call. |
| 00:07:11.12 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Blasting. |
| 00:07:14.38 | Steven Woodside | Yes. |
| 00:07:14.83 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Hoffman. Yes. |
| 00:07:16.87 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:07:17.19 | Walfred Solorzano | Council member coming. Yes. Vice Mayor Cox. Yes. Thank you. |
| 00:07:20.84 | Steven Woodside | And Mayor Sobieski. Yes. Thank you very much. We got passed unanimously. And we will now move on to the consent calendar. The consent calendar only has one item, so I'm just going to proceed to read the item. It's adopt a resolution accepting and surrendering the abandoned vessel exchange program grant agreement 2024 to 26 appropriating the grant funds of $50,000. Is there any public comment on this item? |
| 00:07:45.78 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:07:45.80 | Craig Merlees | for the rest of the day. |
| 00:07:54.40 | Steven Woodside | There's one public comment in the audience, Mr. City Clerk. He just announced himself. Is it if there anyone else has public comment, please bring a piece of paper to our city clerk. |
| 00:07:58.66 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:07:58.69 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:07:59.20 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:08:04.18 | Walfred Solorzano | We have Jeffrey Chase. |
| 00:08:05.22 | Jeffrey Chase | Thank you. |
| 00:08:08.88 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:08:08.92 | Jeffrey Chase | Lomare. Hello workers of Sausalito and for Sausalito called public servants. Hello, packed audience, missing a fairly boring vice presidential debate, so don't worry about it. |
| 00:08:26.33 | Jeffrey Chase | There was a man named Samuel a prophet. But Samuel had an issue. His children were not prophets. Because a man is a prophet doesn't mean he's gonna make prophets, a man's a carpenter. or a mason, he's not gonna make carpenters or masons necessarily. They weren't ethical enough, they didn't communicate with God enough But the people said, we want to be like the other nations. Give us a king. Samuel said, when you ask for a king, you're asking that your men will be soldiers. They will build castles. They will build places for the king's horses. Your women will be servants. Your women will be carriers of water. Your women will be maids. Do you still want a king? And they said, yes, we do. My name is Jeff Jacob Chase, I'm running for city council. It might have to be a write-in vote, even though this is now being litigated in federal court. Because the clerk, Walfred Solorzano, after I informed him that the cost of government in Marin County has doubled since 2010 until now. and that he was a public servant. He said, I don't serve you. He came very close to me. And he threatened to call the police. That was for running for office as an anchor out. We are still here. This agenda item is $50,000 for the Sausalito side. There is one boat on the Sausalito side. It's owned by a city worker. Hippie Brian. There are no boats there. This is $50,000 that is going to the police department for no purpose. It will be taken to court, too. That's a guarantee. Thank you very much. |
| 00:10:10.84 | Walfred Solorzano | We have online Ava. |
| 00:10:16.64 | Steven Woodside | This is a comment only about the save grant agreement. |
| 00:10:26.74 | Steven Woodside | Any other public comments? Thank you. |
| 00:10:28.91 | Walfred Solorzano | I'm trying to get Eva. |
| 00:10:30.31 | Steven Woodside | Okay. |
| 00:10:32.86 | Unknown | Thank you point of order. I believe you're supposed to take comment on item one. and on every subsequent numbered item I had my hand raised for item one and I was removed |
| 00:10:43.44 | Unknown | I WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE |
| 00:10:45.08 | Unknown | from that possibility. um i'd also like to point out that uh during the uh comments from Council, comments from Mayor, there was no mention of what occurred, what your police did last Thursday night, which was to violently eject someone for exercising their First Amendment rights and from the end, the very end of a candidate |
| 00:11:09.82 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:11:10.34 | Unknown | You have to do it. |
| 00:11:10.39 | Steven Woodside | forum. I save that for comments for items not on the agenda. This is only for the item. |
| 00:11:11.27 | Unknown | to get to the next. |
| 00:11:16.13 | Steven Woodside | concerning the save grant program. And if you would like to make a comment about the only item associated with item number one, which was my appointment of Councilmember Hoffman to the sewer subcommittee replacing Vice Mayor Cox, I would allow you to make that comment about the sewer item if you'd like. |
| 00:11:33.88 | Steven Woodside | I think that's a good thing. Okay, thank you. |
| 00:11:37.24 | Walfred Solorzano | She can... |
| 00:11:37.88 | Sergio Rudin | I will note also for the record that the city did have the opportunity for public item public comment on item number one at 530 when the special meeting was called. |
| 00:11:37.93 | Walfred Solorzano | here. |
| 00:11:48.70 | Steven Woodside | Thank you very much. All right, any other public comment, Mr. City Clerk? Seeing none. All right, we'll close that item and we will move on. There are no public hearing items, so we'll move on to our first business item, 5A, a study session and presentation regarding draft amendment, 2023-2031 housing element, including modifications Yeah, thank you for the catch. All right, we actually have to vote. Vice Mayor is on the ball today. I move adoption. |
| 00:12:13.91 | Jill Hoffman | I move. I move adoption of the consent calendar. I'll second. Is there a second? |
| 00:12:19.60 | Steven Woodside | I'll second. All right, and please, a roll call vote. |
| 00:12:22.28 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Blossom? Yes. Councilmember Hoffman? |
| 00:12:23.42 | Jill Hoffman | you |
| 00:12:26.46 | Lorna Newland | Yes. |
| 00:12:27.15 | Walfred Solorzano | I don't remember coming. Thank you. |
| 00:12:28.01 | Lorna Newland | Yes. |
| 00:12:28.59 | Walfred Solorzano | Bye. Thank you. |
| 00:12:29.42 | Lorna Newland | Yes. |
| 00:12:29.75 | Walfred Solorzano | Arasovievsky. |
| 00:12:30.72 | Steven Woodside | Yes, all right, that is passed unanimously. Thank you. And now moving on to the first business item, study session and presentation regarding draft amendment 2023 to 31 housing element, including modifications to the housing element programs and proposed opportunity sites. Welcome to Director Fitz. |
| 00:12:49.50 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you, and good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council members, staff, members of the public. Happy to be joining you this evening, as always, this evening to introduce Council Item 5A, as stated by Mayor, a study session and presentation regarding the City's draft amended housing element. A little background before we dive in. As I'm sure we all recall, the City Council adopted its current housing element on January 30th of last year, first jurisdiction in Marin County at that time. Based on changes to the city's approach regarding the creation and adoption of more robust objective development and design standards, which we will discuss in more detail later this evening, feedback from the county and or other state agencies such as Caltrans and the State Department of Housing and Community Development. as well as feedback from council members and the community particularly related to concerns associated with the potential scale and impacts of development in the historic district. And in waterfront adjacent areas, staff initiated a process to work with DeNovo Planning Group, our housing element consultant, to develop an amended housing element. In developing this document, it's staff's intent to provide revisions to the site's inventory, as well as other programs that address the concerns raised by the City Council and public while promoting the goals of the housing element to preserve housing and neighborhood assets, support housing diversity, opportunities and assistance, reduce constraints to housing development, rehabilitation, and preservation, and affirmatively further fair and equal housing access and opportunities. The proposed amended housing element contains both an amended site's inventory as well as changes to housing element programs, mainly Program 4 related to ensuring the city's site inventory addresses its arena, Program eight, related to public property conversion to housing. Program 19, related to development review procedures to clarify implementation of streamlining provisions for permitting and these cities obligations to adopt odds. And actually that will do it. We will discuss these amendments in more detail shortly. Hearing from you tonight, your comments, your feedback, Your ideas related to this amended housing element are very important, as finalizing these amendments are necessary in order for the city to implement time-sensitive programs of our housing element and to prepare complementary amendments to our general plan as well as our zoning ordinances. So next steps associated with the sequencing of approval and approval of these items is called out in the staff report. Yes, yes, Mayor. |
| 00:15:24.43 | Steven Woodside | We just are cognizant of how many people are standing in the hall and just wondering if someone from staff could set up the overflow in our conference room or bring in some additional chairs for people in this room. Sorry to interrupt you, Director Phipps, but just want to be mindful of people that may not be able to do that. Nope, always appreciate that. Mayor, you want me to open the back? If you could open the conference room, that would be great. |
| 00:15:39.31 | Brandon Phipps | Nope, always appreciate it. |
| 00:15:45.17 | Brandon Phipps | So I believe I was just touching on next steps. Next steps associated with the sequencing and approval of these items is called out in the staff report, but immediate next steps will include a study session on these items before the Planning Commission on October 23rd, a Planning Commission public hearing on these items on November 13th. and a City Council public hearing currently scheduled for December 3rd. We look forward to seeing you all there. With that introduction, I'll turn the mic over to Beth Thompson of DeNovo Planning Group, who will provide a more detailed presentation on the draft amended housing element. Ms. Thompson, the floor is yours. Thank you very much. And, Council, I'm available to answer any questions before or following Beth's presentation. Thank you. |
| 00:16:38.14 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:16:38.17 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:16:38.20 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:16:38.22 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:16:38.24 | Jill Hoffman | Good question. Yeah. Good evening, Mayor, members of the |
| 00:16:41.56 | Beth Thompson | Good evening, Mayor, members of the Council. |
| 00:16:43.57 | Jill Hoffman | One moment. One moment. |
| 00:16:43.65 | Steven Woodside | One moment, please, Beth. The Vice Mayor has a question for the Directorate. |
| 00:16:45.95 | Jill Hoffman | I'm not sure. Brandon, I just want to be clear that tonight is a study session. So we will be giving direction to staff, after which this will go to the Planning Commission and then come back to us, hopefully, in the beginning of December. But we're not making decisions tonight. We're giving direction based on a study session. Is that right? |
| 00:17:04.41 | Brandon Phipps | Absolutely, Vice Mayor. |
| 00:17:05.54 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you so much. |
| 00:17:11.30 | Steven Woodside | Go right ahead, Ms. Thompson. |
| 00:17:13.25 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 00:17:13.81 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:17:14.32 | Beth Thompson | It's a pleasure to be before you tonight with the housing element, the amended housing element, and I won't go through all of the introductory slides. Director Phipps covered most of these points, so I'm just going to pick up here on slide six, which is where we go through the changes to the housing element programs, programs 4, 8, and 19. that are revised in the amended housing element. And what I'm going to do is just go through some of the sites that were changed through program four. Through program four, several sites were removed, several sites were added, and then the unit counts were modified on a number of sites as well as the proposed opportunity site overlaying. So sites 85 and 209 have been removed So those are both no longer part of the proposed sites to be included in this amended housing element. Site 85 was the Bridgeway-Caltrans right-of-way, and then Site 209 is 931-933 Bridgeway. So basically, a lot of the sites were affected as part of the changes through Program 4, a reduction in density. so a new a new overlay or new series of overlays is proposed for the areas along bridgeway along the waterfront that are south of Harbor Drive. So these would go down to a 29 unit per acre overlay. So either the housing 29 or a mixed use 29 |
| 00:18:12.21 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:18:35.38 | Beth Thompson | unit per acre overlay. And so when this was applied, the site 209 went to zero units. So that one was just removed because it would no longer accommodate an additional unit with that reduction in density. Sites 401 and 402 were added, and I have detailed slides on each of these sites later in the presentation. These are both new sites. They're both on Bridgeway north of Harbor Drive. And those would be assigned the MU 2985 for the 2400 Bridgeway site, which is the as a FedEx building, and that would accommodate about 16 units in realistic capacity. And when I'm talking about the units here as part of this presentation, I'm talking about the realistic capacity or the number of units that the city would get credit for in the housing element. And that's a little bit less than the maximum number of units that would actually be developed at maximum density. Site 402 is 2680 Bridgeway, that's a storage site, and that would also be designated housing 49 and accommodate about 43 units. |
| 00:19:35.12 | Councilmember Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:19:35.14 | Beth Thompson | Beth, could you sit down a little bit? |
| 00:19:35.81 | Councilmember Blaustein | Can you sit down a little bit? Sorry, could you slow down just a little bit, just a tiny bit, and then it's a little bit hard to follow the pace. |
| 00:19:38.18 | Unknown | you |
| 00:19:38.21 | Beth Thompson | Bye. |
| 00:19:45.26 | Beth Thompson | Okay. And so, and I'll go through these sites in more detail. So A number of sites are modified, as I had mentioned, applying the housing 29 or mixed use 2985. And I'll just go through these and a few slides. That way it's easier to see each of those changes. And then in addition to the sites, so I've listed the sites here, several sites, 79 and 81, there was no change to the overlay, but we did recalculate the units based on the minimum densities. So they each got a slight bump upward in the number of units you can take credit for. And then I'll also note that at site 301, which we'll discuss in a few slides, we had identified that as housing 29, and that should actually be mixed use, the 29, 85%. It currently has commercial uses on it. So to continue to encourage those commercial uses. It was intended to be mixed use and not housing 29. All of these changes collectively would still accommodate the city's regional housing need allocation. So there would be a total capacity with all of these changes for a total of 958 units that gives you a small surplus for your very low and extremely low income units of 39. a surplus of 44 units for the lower income category, a surplus of 84 in the moderate income category, and then a surplus of 67 in the above moderate income category. So a little bit of a buffer. That provides you some flexibility as decisions are made and as projects come through. |
| 00:21:22.50 | Beth Thompson | So as part of program four, there are a number of implementation steps the city would take. So you would adopt your amended housing element, and then you'll go through a process to rezone the opportunity sites to the different designations to housing 29, housing 49, housing 70, mixed use 29, 85, mixed use 49, 85, and mixed use 70, 85. So that won't happen as part of the adoption of the housing element. That a subsequent action the city will take and then there will also be a local ballot measure or majors for the votes for ordinance 1022 and ordinance 1128 which address the fair traffic initiative and then use of a city city-owned park site for a use other than parks and recreation Under program eight, the city would make the city-owned sites available for development during the planning period. So that will also be a separate step or series of steps because there are a number of sites that the city would take to make those available. And then program 16 has a number of changes to the zoning ordinance. So following adoption of the housing element, the city would be considering site rezoning as we had mentioned, and then also changes to the residential and commercial zoning districts too. address design, streamline ministerial review, historic preservation and historic design guidelines, and that removes governmental constraints and then also increasing the housing types that are available in the city. |
| 00:22:47.35 | Beth Thompson | Program 19 would also be implemented. That addresses some streamlining requirements under state law to accommodate developments with two or more units under SB 35, as well as adopting objective design standards, which will implement SB 35 and SB 330. And that's your next item on the agenda. So just ask the objective design and development standards. And then also revising some zoning code findings to make sure that you have objective findings. So if people have input on the project, the city is currently has the draft EIR for this project out for public review. And so if the community would like to comment on the adequacy of the EIR or on the project, they can comment and they can comment through October 21st, 2024 at 5 p.m. So they can submit their comments via email. They can mail them in and those comments should be submitted to Director Phipps and his information is shown here. As was mentioned, there's a number of next steps in this process. On October 21st, the draft EIR, Environmental Impact Report comment period closes. October 23rd, the Planning Commission will have a study session to consider this amendment to the housing element, provide input on how the project is taking shape. On November, around November 7th or 8th, we anticipate that the final environmental impact report will be published and that will include all of the public comments that are received on the EIR and a response to each of those comments. So if people are interested in commenting on the project and the EIR, we'll, we'll review all of those comments and adjust them in the EIR. November 13th, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider the certification of the EIR and then adoption of the changes, the amendment to the housing element on December 3rd, it's anticipated the city council will hold a hearing to consider the item as well. And then following that city council hearing, the amended housing element will be submitted to the state department of housing and community development. or HCD and then they'll have a 60 day review period to review and certify the housing element. And during that period, they may have some comments, they may make some findings. And so we anticipate that we will continue to work with HCD during that public review period. And of course the city's website has a lot of information regarding the amended housing element. So the current documents, background information, past meeting information, that all of that information is available on the city's website. So I'll go through the individual sites and describe the changes to those sites. Have questions regarding those sites, and this is an opportunity. there's an desire to further refine the sites. We can talk about that. We are in the process, of course, of comparing the EIR. So we can look at if there's some |
| 00:25:36.06 | Ian Kellman | I'm sorry, Beth, can we pause you may recommend. So this is the first attachment. And, Beth, thank you. For those of us familiar, it was a great cadence, but perhaps for people newer, maybe a few things require clarification. Do you mind if I |
| 00:25:52.80 | Steven Woodside | Please go right in there. |
| 00:25:53.09 | Ian Kellman | Not at all. Okay. you |
| 00:25:54.74 | Steven Woodside | Councilmember Kellman has been on the working group for this matter, and so has been living and breathing it. A very long time. So help guide us, please. |
| 00:25:54.83 | Ian Kellman | Thank you. I'm nervous. It's been a very long time. Yes. OK, so thank you, everybody. Of course, this is attached, and there are copies of the attachments for the agenda. So on page 11 of the slide deck, Beth, you indicate and run through very quickly some really important items here. So first of all, Program 4. So we talked about this years ago about these RENA numbers. We tried to push back, and maybe this is a question for Director Phipps, we did try to push back on the numbers because we went to HCD and said, hey, this is two square miles, South Florida's only one square mile, you included the GGNRA area, these numbers aren't fair. My understanding was that HCD did not entertain that appeal and did not give us the opportunity to comment on that. Can you just articulate that? I know some folks have questions. |
| 00:26:51.31 | Brandon Phipps | Yes, that's thank you for the question, Councilmember, and that's my understanding as well. And I will just make the statement also that even in consideration of Sausalito's total land area, we ought to be evaluating the land area above water. So Sol Solator becomes even smaller. when you include only above water area. I just want to make that point, and I do not believe the state has budged on that. |
| 00:27:13.18 | Ian Kellman | Okay, thank you. And when I said HCD, I meant the California Department of Housing and community development. Okay, so then on this slide, you have several shortcuts. Can you slowly run through what each of these means? What does it mean to have a housing 29, a mixed use 29, 85%? If you wouldn't mind, I think that'd be very helpful. |
| 00:27:35.03 | Beth Thompson | Absolutely. So each of these is an overlay designation that would change the allowed uses on a site. So they would allow each of these designations would allow residential development. Housing 29 would allow up to 29 units per acre. And in some cases, this is applied on sites that already allow 29 units per acre. If those sites will accommodate lower income housing, those will also be rezoned to have a minimum density of 20 units per acre. For the housing 49 and housing 70, those would allow 49 units per acre at the 49 and a minimum of 43 units per acre. The housing 70 would allow 50 to 70 units per acre on this. And when I say allow, I should actually say require. So these sites would be, if they're developed in the future, they would be required to include a residential component that meets the minimum density. Similarly, the mixed-use designation would allow up to 29 units per acre. And it also provides for a portion of that site to be developed with non-residential uses. The mixed-use 49 would allow up to 49 units per acre and also provide for a non-residential component. The mixed use 49 would allow up to 49 units per acre and also provide for a non-residential component. And the mixed use 70 would allow up to 70 units per acre and also provide for a non-residential component. |
| 00:28:54.43 | Ian Kellman | Okay, and then Beth, on slide 10, you had arena site strategy, and you had at the top of that sheet, the Reno requirements. And these are from the state, right? This is what the state is requiring in terms of numbers of low, moderate, above moderate, correct? Correct. Perhaps. Okay. Go ahead. |
| 00:29:10.68 | Unknown | And the, |
| 00:29:10.96 | Unknown | Right. |
| 00:29:11.08 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:29:11.10 | Unknown | Thank you. Sorry. |
| 00:29:13.44 | Ian Kellman | I didn't see anywhere in this beginning slide deck anything about density bonus laws or other state mandated requirements, i.e. things the state is making us do, but the city of Saucyutu has no control over. |
| 00:29:29.22 | Beth Thompson | Correct. So you don't get credit for density bonus under the site strategy. So for cities that have had a lot of density bonus development and they can demonstrate strong trends of density bonus projects and applications that have been successfully been constructed, those communities may be able to get a higher amount of units credited under their existing capacity or their realistic capacity. so they would be able to count slightly higher. In Sausalito, there have not been a density bonus. under their existing capacity or their realistic capacity. So they would be able to count slightly higher. In Sausalito, there have not been density bonus projects in recent years. So yes, you don't see density bonus. So that provides for even more development than what is shown here. |
| 00:30:06.87 | Ian Kellman | Okay, and then back to the slide 11, program eight. Can you, this is my last question, I'll let you continue. On the next slide that's right, can you explain why it's so important that we have city owned property in the mix and the relationship of city owned property to affordable housing in our community. |
| 00:30:24.88 | Beth Thompson | Absolutely. So city-owned sites are fantastic from the perspective that you as a city have control over these sites. So you can decide to make those sites available. You can also decide the maximum number of units you want to allow on those sites. So in some cases, the density bonus may accommodate a much higher number of units. But as the city, you're going to be in control of that. So you can determine how many units you want to have. And this also helps assure that you will have some affordable housing that's constructed. So a lot of the sites, when we're looking back at the the realistic capacity, the inventory, a lot of these sites are privately owned. Not all of the owners of these sites are necessarily going to want to develop their sites during the sixth cycle. So it's very rare for jurisdictions to see development of their full arena. Now, with all of the changes in state law that are really promoting and expediting housing development, we may see much higher arena numbers and much higher construction numbers during the sixth cycle. But in past years, you don't really see that full amount being built. So having city-owned sites helps assure that you will have new affordable and workforce housing available in the city. It helps make sure that you can control the design of it, how that's laid out on the site, how it works with the community. So those are fantastic sites from that perspective. |
| 00:31:42.65 | Ian Kellman | Okay, so I think I just heard you say the city has more control over any housing designed for a city-owned property. |
| 00:31:50.38 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 00:31:50.40 | Ian Kellman | Thank you. |
| 00:31:50.42 | Beth Thompson | Absolutely. |
| 00:31:51.07 | Ian Kellman | Thank you. Okay, thank you so much. Thank you for letting me interrupt, Mayor. |
| 00:31:56.07 | Jill Hoffman | I just had a follow up on city owned property. So one of the city sites is listed for 80 units. Is this city required to build 80 units? |
| 00:32:09.23 | Beth Thompson | So, The city is required to make that available during the planning period. And two, I'm gonna just scroll down to some of those city owned sites because I have a feeling we're talking about. MLK. So we have here MLK, which was adopted to accommodate 80 units. Now the city is you have your arena, you're going to be working with the state, and you're going to want to be making that site available. You may have capacity at other sites where it makes sense to say, hey, you know what, we don't need the full AV units on this site or the full 94 units that would happen under the amended housing element. You may want to do something slightly less. And if you can show that you have capacity elsewhere and that this decision won't damage the ability of the city to accommodate the arena, won't have your ability to accommodate the arena. You could develop a lesser amount. You could also do a phase development. You could have where you want to do, you know, a series of projects on a site. And so you can start rolling that out during the seventh cycle or the sixth cycle planning for that full amount, but then not necessarily, you know, phasing it as you have funding and as it goes. So there's a lot of different ways that you can approach the city on sites. But if you were to, build far less than what's planned and we don't have capacity elsewhere, then that would be problematic. |
| 00:33:28.11 | Jill Hoffman | But we have a buffer in our housing element with lots of capacity elsewhere, correct? You currently do. Yeah. |
| 00:33:32.14 | Beth Thompson | You currently do. And so, yes, you currently do. |
| 00:33:35.53 | Jill Hoffman | And so as it now stands, the city is not required to build 80 units on that site just by way of example. Thank you. |
| 00:33:43.60 | Beth Thompson | And if you don't, I would want to make sure that you're communicating that with HCD and you're clearly letting them know why you're not doing that because HCD will ask why is the site not being implemented. So you may have reasons. There may be community resources that you're protecting. You may have other projects that you're working on. But yes, there's the capacity to do less. |
| 00:34:02.77 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:34:05.74 | Steven Woodside | Please proceed. |
| 00:34:06.90 | Beth Thompson | Okay, so I'll just scroll back up and go through the changes to the individual sites. And some of these changes are relatively minor. So for example, we have sites 23 and 24, they're across the street from one another on Mead Lane and on Excelsior Lane. And both of these were changed from a housing 49 designation to a housing 29 designation, meaning now that the maximum capacity would be up to 29 units per acre, not 49. And so with these changes, site 23 will be reduced to two units rather than three units under the amended housing element. And then site 24 would also be reduced from three units to two units. And these are both just vacant. at Good Sight's Site 39 is an amalgamation of a few different sites here. three different components. And so this site was planned to also be developed at up to 49 units per acre with 24 units and it's being reduced to up to 29 units per acre. So that would reduce the capacity to 13 units. So we're going to just see that through a lot of the sites is that there's a reduction. A lot of the sites aren't being removed, but the capacity is being reduced just to be more sensitive to this area along Bridgeway and then also areas in the city's historic district as well. Site 44 is also revised, the sites at Caledonia and Bridgeway. with the reduction A portion of the site wouldn't be developed, so some of the addresses have been removed and a few of the APNs are actually removed from the inventory because when we shift from the 49 unit per acre mixed use overlay to the 29, some of the sites are no longer accommodating units, so the adopted units. would go from five to one with the amendment to the housing element. Site 47, which is near Dunphy Park. So this is site 47 right here. This was also, it's currently designated commercial waterfront in the general plan. |
| 00:36:08.50 | Steven Woodside | I'm sorry, this is the |
| 00:36:11.12 | Beth Thompson | I'm sorry, this is it. |
| 00:36:13.01 | Steven Woodside | Just think of the cross streets that are nearest out loud. |
| 00:36:15.30 | Beth Thompson | have. at Bridgeway and Wilka Street. This is at 300 locusts and it would be reduced from the mixed use 49 to mixed use 29 category and the adopted units would go from 13 to now to 11 proposed in the amendments to the housing element. |
| 00:36:37.04 | Beth Thompson | site 55, which is along Napa Street. There's also another reduction where this was actually going from housing 70 to housing 49. So it would go from Four units and it actually would change the five just because of an error in calculation, I think in the original. the original element. And let me just quickly double check that. Sorry to scroll back here Um, Yes, so that's just a correction and a map on this site. |
| 00:37:06.69 | Steven Woodside | that, you know, And then, I think, you know, I think, The vice mayor has a question for you. |
| 00:37:11.41 | Jill Hoffman | And Beth, so I have what's in what was online for your presentation and it ends with a slide called slides discussion. What are these slides? These are the slides, yes. |
| 00:37:23.34 | Beth Thompson | These are the slides, yes. So these are the slides for discussion. |
| 00:37:26.82 | Jill Hoffman | Have these been provided to staff? Thank you. |
| 00:37:29.60 | Beth Thompson | Yeah. |
| 00:37:29.69 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 00:37:29.86 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 00:37:29.91 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Okay, Brandon, can you forward these slides to the city council? Because we do not have them. Okay. because this is so helpful for me to see this page by page. But the presentation that we have ends with a slide that's called sites discussion. It doesn't have any of these specific sites. |
| 00:37:37.67 | Unknown | And I, |
| 00:37:48.57 | Ian Kellman | Is there a way to get that onto the agenda for attachment during the course of this meeting? Bye. |
| 00:37:56.23 | Steven Woodside | I think it's really helpful for the public to have access. The city clerk can ask him to do that. |
| 00:37:56.33 | Babette McDougall | Don't let me. |
| 00:37:57.04 | Ian Kellman | Thank you. |
| 00:37:57.06 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 00:37:57.23 | Ian Kellman | Thank you. |
| 00:37:57.26 | Babette McDougall | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:37:57.43 | Ian Kellman | or, |
| 00:37:57.48 | Babette McDougall | the public to have access to it. |
| 00:38:00.25 | Ian Kellman | Thank you. |
| 00:38:00.26 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:38:00.30 | Beth Thompson | THE FAMILY. |
| 00:38:00.47 | Ian Kellman | Thank you. |
| 00:38:00.49 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 00:38:00.50 | Ian Kellman | Thank you. |
| 00:38:00.60 | Beth Thompson | Okay. |
| 00:38:01.70 | Steven Woodside | I'll text the city clerk right now. Please go ahead. |
| 00:38:04.42 | Beth Thompson | Okay, and let me know if I just need to forward this to the city clerk. I'm happy to do that. |
| 00:38:04.94 | Unknown | Okay, and let me know if I |
| 00:38:06.04 | Steven Woodside | to the next one. me to do that. Send that to the city clerk so that he's able to upload it if I text him now. |
| 00:38:13.97 | Beth Thompson | Yes, I'll do that right now. |
| 00:38:14.27 | Steven Woodside | I'll do that right. Great, thank you. |
| 00:38:22.42 | Steven Woodside | Go ahead, Ms. Thompson. |
| 00:38:28.03 | Beth Thompson | All right, sorry, let me repeat. You can. Okay, so. |
| 00:38:32.09 | Steven Woodside | Okay. |
| 00:38:34.20 | Beth Thompson | So site 84 is the Martin Luther King Park site. This is located at Coloma Street, Anna Lima Street. The address is 100 upside. And so this is a pretty large parcel. So it's not looking at developing the entire park site or all of the existing uses on the site. With residential uses, it's looking at developing approximately two acres. And so the The original housing element, the adopted housing element, anticipated 80 units on this site. And as part of the shifting of units for the amended housing element, the designation would stay the same at a maximum of 49 units per acre, but the total unit count would be increased to 94 units on this site. Site 85 is the Caltrans right of way along Bridgeway and the site is removed. So it would no longer be counted toward your units and the housing element. Site 201 is located at 605 and 613 Bridgeway. It's along Bridgeway near Princess Street. And this site was designated and you 49 85% and the adopted housing element with 20 capacity for 20 units and it's reduced to the mixed use 29 85% with a now reduced capacity for 11 units. And this is one of the sites in the historic district. Site 207 is located along Bridgeway and the intersection of Bridgeway, San Carlos Avenue, and Caledonia Street. And this is another site that is reduced from housing The adopted overlay is not housing 29. I apologize. This should be housing 49. So it's reduced from housing 49 to housing 29. And it had Three parcels, or one of those parcels, would now come off. And so the site would be reduced a bit and it would go from eight units to a capacity for two units with the changes proposed in the amended housing element. Site 209, also located at Bridgeway and the intersection of San Carlos and Caledonia, will be removed. So the site was designated for 49 units per acre. And with the reduction to 29, the housing 29, it would actually have no capacity. So it would just come off the ballistic capacity would be gone. site 301 located along Humboldt Avenue and Bridgeway at Lothar Street. And this is just the water-based portions of Site 301. So Site 301 also, or just the land-based portions, I apologize, just the land-based portions. There are water-based portions that could accommodate housing, but that is a future action and not part of any rezoning that would occur. as part of or subsequent to the housing, all that adoption necessarily, there would be some future planning for that. So looking at just the land-based portion of the site It would be also revised from the mixed use 49 to mixed use 29 And it would go from 29 units under the adopted housing element to about 22 units. under the proposed amendments to the housing element. Site 303, which is the 1 and 3 Harbor Drive. So this is located along Bridgeway at Harbor Drive, just north of Harbor Drive. And this site is included in the original housing element. There is no change to the proposed overlay, but the area for the proposed overlay would increase. It was about $2. two or so, two to two and a half units previously, and just increasing that portion of the site that would be designated to accommodate additional housing up to three acres would increase the units accommodated on the site from 90 to 125 units. site 401, which is located at Harbor Drive and Bridgeway, which is the FedEx site that I mentioned. This site is currently not included in your housing element, so this is an addition, a new site in the housing element, and this would also be given the mixed use 29 units per acre overlay and it would accommodate 16 units under the proposed revisions to the amended housing element. Site 402 is located at Bridgesway and Coloma Street. And this site, it's north of Coloma, The site's an existing storage facility and this site is also a site that was not included in the adopted housing element, so this would be designated housing 49 and approximately one acre of the parcel would be designated to accommodate new residential development. So kind of anticipating some conversion of the undeveloped area of the site to accommodate residential uses and that would accommodate about 43 units. And so with that, yeah, those are the changes identified to the sites and the amendments to the housing elements. So I'm happy to talk about any of those further, but I'll turn it back over to the council for discussion. |
| 00:43:37.53 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, Director Phipps. Do you have anything else? All right, other questions please from the guys? |
| 00:43:46.88 | Councilmember Blaustein | What? |
| 00:43:48.06 | Steven Woodside | Vice Mayor, Council Member Hoffman. |
| 00:43:48.43 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:43:48.46 | Councilmember Blaustein | Oh, I have questions. |
| 00:43:49.24 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:43:51.06 | Councilmember Blaustein | Sorry, unless Councilman Hoffman had her hand raised, I don't want to jump back. |
| 00:43:53.39 | Unknown | Go ahead. |
| 00:43:54.35 | Councilmember Blaustein | Yeah, sorry, I'm just trying to reconcile um, some of the changes that are being made because in looking at the numbers and also in looking at some of the letters and correspondence that we've received, it seems like we're increasing density another site on the north side of town and then decreasing density at some of the south side sites so can you speak to why those that decision was made since i wasn't part of the working group and and want to get a better understanding of that. |
| 00:44:22.89 | Beth Thompson | Sure. So there wasn't And overall, approach to reduce density in the historic district and to reduce density generally kind of along bridgeway and along the waterfront to provide for continued views and more preservation of your historic areas. And so those sites were reduced to 29 units per acre. And so there was an increase to the sites 303, then adding 401 and 402, and then increasing the Martin Luther King site. And I will also note that the Caltrans right-of-way was also removed from that north area. So that was a reduction from the northern area. But there's definitely some movement in that direction. And that's basically the MLK site was chosen to be increased because the city has control over that site. The 303 site, site 303, which is the one at Harbor Plaza, was, was identified to be increased because the property owner is interested in accommodating additional units there. And then the other two sites, the site 401, the property owner is also interested in accommodating development and site 402 was added just because it has some capacity. And this would actually, so all of these changes would give you a really small increase and lower income development, but a larger increase and you're above moderate. So there there's definitely some flexibility with these changes and how how we go about kind of juggling the sites a bit. |
| 00:45:51.18 | Councilmember Blaustein | So I'm trying to understand, again, just where we, because the lines of the historic district as identified by the state, because it's really important to be aware that we are one of 12 historic districts in the state and that should be respected, but 300 locust isn't within those bounds, is it? |
| 00:46:06.69 | Beth Thompson | It is not. So that's one of the kind of, we did the historic district and some sites along Bridgeway and along the waterfront were also reduced to 29 units per acre. |
| 00:46:15.53 | Councilmember Blaustein | Okay. just. but because we were trying to preserve views or because |
| 00:46:20.39 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. Preserve views and some just general reductions of mainly view preservation I think your building height's a little lower along the waterfront. |
| 00:46:29.62 | Councilmember Blaustein | Okay, and my understanding is we're going to hear from the odds working group tonight about a way to preserve views with regards to the impending development, correct? Correct. Okay, so we have the ability to return to the initial allotments for some of those sites if we wanted to decrease some of the density on the north side so that we could potentially more evenly align some of the burden of where the housing goes. Okay. |
| 00:46:54.98 | Beth Thompson | You absolutely could. You'll probably want to hear the whole odds presentation because once you increase the density, If, somebody wants to develop at maximum density and they cannot maintain the views, they would still have the ability to develop. So we'll discuss that. I don't want to, I'm not part of the odds discussion. So, but I, You'll want to weigh that in when you're looking at the final allocation of the sites. But tonight, we can take some discussion of recommendations and changes that perhaps you may want to consider, and my team will go back and we'll analyze those changes. We're hoping to keep sites within the range of what's already addressed in the EIR so that we don't have to recirculate. So if we get some discussion, we can provide you more information about those sites. |
| 00:47:45.84 | Councilmember Blaustein | Great, and I fully understand that. I just know we've gotten a lot of feedback from folks on the north side of town about consideration for the numbers of sites there. So could you provide us in the study session, perhaps, just if you can now, that'd be great, but just like a percentage of the number of units across so that we have an understanding of what that looks like, because I think it should be part of our work to try and make it as much across the neighborhoods as we can. |
| 00:48:10.58 | Beth Thompson | I don't have that total in front of me right now, but I could probably |
| 00:48:10.67 | Councilmember Blaustein | I don't have that. |
| 00:48:14.40 | Beth Thompson | Look at that. And are you talking about just the changes? I can come up with the changes to the North area pretty quickly, but not necessarily the total numbers. |
| 00:48:21.76 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, I think she's asking where how the 724 units is allocated throughout Sausalito. Right. |
| 00:48:27.59 | Beth Thompson | Okay. Yeah, I can look at that. Just have to give me a few minutes. |
| 00:48:32.79 | Councilmember Blaustein | me a few minutes. I mean, it's a study session, so we don't have to decide now, but I'm just trying to put everything forward based on the public comment that we've received and trying to understand what makes sense. So I appreciate that, and it would be helpful to look at it. And then I just wanted to bring up as well, there were some sites previously that we had discussed that are city owned. So for example, City Hall or the Spencer Fire Station. So what is the implications of having a discussion around those potential sites, whether or not they would be added, what the timeline would be if they were or weren't? Just again, we're looking at a whole holistic picture of all of our housing sites. |
| 00:48:33.80 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:49:09.98 | Beth Thompson | So, adding sites that are not included in the environmental impact report, such as the Spencer site, such as city hall could be problematic. We could end up, we, we would have to analyze if those weren't included in that initial BNT analysis for the draft, the IR. So we would have to do more analysis of what, the changes those sites would result in, and they could result in the need to recirculate your EIR. So it would mean that we would require additional budget to go back and revise the EIR and analyze those sites, and then the cost of recirculating the EIR. And that would add time to the process so that you would not, if you're wanting to have a ballot measure, next year, early next year in March, that this would probably delay that. And I'll let the city attorney speak to that as well, if he would like to chime in. |
| 00:50:00.20 | Councilmember Blaustein | heard you. |
| 00:50:04.51 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, so on that point, You know, the city has indicated that it intends to adopt its odds – at least in the current housing element, stated that the city intends to adopt its odds by May of 2025. That means that the latest regular election date that you could put that on the ballot for would be the March 2025 election. The deadline to put something on the ballot for that election happens to be the end of the first week in December. So that is driving the calendar there. Um, Yeah, so. I think really that is the sum of it. |
| 00:50:47.00 | Councilmember Blaustein | Thank you. And I just want to say again, this is a study session because it's going to be difficult to make decisions without knowing what odds we adopt and what types of protections we have. But I do want to understand as well, Sergio, or maybe Brandon should weigh in on this, just the outcome. Because as I'm asking about the properties along Bridgeway and the increase and decrease in density, what is the implications of that with regards to density bonus? And what are the implications with regards to protecting views? Should we increase the density? And what does that mean? |
| 00:51:04.85 | Unknown | So, |
| 00:51:16.75 | Councilmember Blaustein | I can get a stab at this. |
| 00:51:16.83 | Sergio Rudin | can be out of this. |
| 00:51:18.67 | Councilmember Blaustein | I can tell. |
| 00:51:18.77 | Sergio Rudin | I can take a stab at this. Basically, the higher the allowed base density... the larger of a project you have, which means that the larger potentially of a density bonus that a developer is entitled to, So, you know, under state density bonus law, A developer has to have a base project that fits... within the allowed density and then is allowed additional units based on the mix of affordability that they are proposing. So obviously the higher of base density that you have allowed in your zoning code. the bigger kinds of projects that you may have. And of course, the bigger kinds of projects you may have, the more applicants are going to want waivers and concessions, particularly to height limits, which are going to impact views. Thank you. |
| 00:52:07.73 | Councilmember Blaustein | Thank you. Can you also just elaborate on waivers and concessions and whether or not we would be protected with regards to increasing the density at those sites or decreasing the density? |
| 00:52:17.26 | Sergio Rudin | So, for any Any area that allows basically a base density that would allow more than five units on a particular site to be developed as a base project. could potentially result in a state density bonus project on that site. The state density bonus law applies to projects of five or more units. Um, So in terms of, |
| 00:52:41.95 | Councilmember Blaustein | Those. If it was a five unit project, what is the largest possible increase of density? |
| 00:52:47.50 | Sergio Rudin | until So density bonus law was amended recently Historically, it was a 50% increase. you could only get, if the base density of the out of five and you had the maximum affordable number of units that you were proposing, you could at most get maybe eight. Now, Density Bonus Law actually allows you to stack even more units on top of that. have to provide a little bit more research and information on that. But, uh, |
| 00:53:19.33 | Councilmember Blaustein | really important to know because we would need to make decisions about what level of increase would be acceptable based on the potential base project size for each of these sites as we're as we're making these decisions. So if we that would be very helpful to know what the update is. |
| 00:53:32.78 | Unknown | No. |
| 00:53:36.49 | Councilmember Blaustein | Thank you. I appreciate it, Sergio. |
| 00:53:37.66 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:53:38.06 | Steven Woodside | So the vice mayor had her hand up first and then Council Member Hoffman. |
| 00:53:42.57 | Jill Hoffman | So, Beth, with respect to some of the sites on the southern side of town where you reduced the base density from 49 units per acre to 29 units per acre, did you do that in order to reduce the total possible sized project that could be built there within the historic district, including density bonus? |
| 00:54:11.30 | Beth Thompson | Correct. That would have the effect of reducing the percentage of which the density bonus would be calculated from because it would reduce that maximum number of units. |
| 00:54:20.50 | Councilmember Blaustein | But some of these aren't in the historic district. Oh, sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt, but I'm so sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. Go ahead. |
| 00:54:28.36 | Jill Hoffman | So on a one acre parcel at 49 units per acre, the base density would be 49. Then they could add another 25 to that. plus stacking an additional density bonus on top of that under existing law. Is that right? |
| 00:54:46.64 | Sergio Rudin | Yes, and that maximum theoretical stacked extra bonus is 50%. |
| 00:54:52.95 | Jill Hoffman | So on a historic site zoned one acre, 49 units per acre, you could have 100 units on that one acre using density bonus. |
| 00:54:52.97 | Sergio Rudin | So. |
| 00:55:06.77 | Sergio Rudin | So yeah, if, for example, the base density allowed on a site is 10 units, um, Historically, you could have gotten an additional five. Now, if you provide even more affordable units than Um, you could. Well, the formula has been changed basically to allow an up to 100% density bonus for very low income units. |
| 00:55:29.52 | Jill Hoffman | That's my point. So on a one acre lot. If it was 49 units per acre, they could put 49 units plus another 49 units at 98 units on one acre. Correct? |
| 00:55:40.12 | Sergio Rudin | Yes. |
| 00:55:41.13 | Jill Hoffman | And in our historic district, they would be allowed to do that even if it meant going above our existing height restrictions and interfering with neighbors' views, property values, etc. Correct? Correct. |
| 00:55:57.40 | Sergio Rudin | Yes. |
| 00:55:59.02 | Jill Hoffman | And so that was one of the rationales for reducing in our historic district the density from 49 units per acre back down to 29 units per acre, which is the standard units per acre throughout Sausalito. Is that right? |
| 00:56:13.63 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, that would be one of the reasons, yes. |
| 00:56:16.04 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. And tonight, Melissa kindly asked about two other city-owned sites, Spencer Firehouse and City Hall. Those sites were considered as a part of the initial housing element and removed at the Planning Commission stage. Is that right? Thank you. |
| 00:56:35.67 | Beth Thompson | Those sites had been part of the initial housing element project and the draft housing element that was initially published before it was adopted, yes. |
| 00:56:45.95 | Jill Hoffman | And so... Although we could not keep our current timeline and add those sites, there's nothing to prevent us next year from revising our housing element again to reduce some of the sites in the northern side of town and adding those sites in the middle of town and up on Spencer. Is that right? |
| 00:57:05.84 | Beth Thompson | Correct. Yes, you absolutely could go back and make additional revisions. |
| 00:57:09.40 | Jill Hoffman | So the goal is to adopt a housing element amendment in time to make our ballot initiative deadline in March, but there's nothing to prevent us next year from making further housing element amendments correct. Facts. Thank you. |
| 00:57:27.09 | Steven Woodside | Councilmember Hoffman and then back to Councilmember Boston. Oh, I'm sorry. |
| 00:57:31.15 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:57:31.37 | Steven Woodside | We'd like to go. Go ahead, Councilman. |
| 00:57:34.99 | Councilmember Hoffman | Oh, thank you. I tried to work on my microphone. Are you guys hearing me a little bit better? |
| 00:57:39.81 | Steven Woodside | You sound much better, yes. |
| 00:57:41.06 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. Okay, thanks. Okay, so one of the things I did want to ask was about the odds, the odds recommendation to increase the height limit. And I know we're going to talk about later, but I want to talk about it now as well. What those sites are and how that affects our housing number. and where those sites are. Cause I think there's some confusion about where we're proposing that the height limits be increased. |
| 00:58:10.00 | Brandon Phipps | Councilman, is there any question? |
| 00:58:10.25 | Councilmember Hoffman | So question. Yeah, so I think this may be a question for either our community development director or for Ms. Thompson, if you know where it is, Ms. Thompson. But if either one of you could just show us the odds recommendation is to increase the height limits on, I think, two particular properties on the north end of town. |
| 00:58:30.88 | Brandon Phipps | Absolutely, Councilmember. And Beth, I'm hoping that we can one-two punch this. If you wouldn't mind perhaps pulling up one, let's see, slide or page 19 of the amended housing element, which shows and summarizes the changes visually, that would be really helpful. Absolutely. |
| 00:58:46.53 | Unknown | Absolutely. |
| 00:58:47.46 | Brandon Phipps | And again, yeah, this is an important question, Councilmember. So in order to accommodate the city's assigned housing needs, height limits will need to be increased on designated opportunity sites. And there is the potential for some adverse impacts to public views, as we've been touching on. The city is required to accommodate its assigned housing needs, also referred to as the RHNA, which has resulted in the need to increase densities on sites throughout the city. We did go through this public process in 22 and 23 to draft the amendments and identify the sites that were ultimately included in the element. The city is now working to further refine the sites. But what we see is, based on our preparation of objective design and development standards to establish standards for development, projects with with, this is for projects of two or more units, of course, these odds will apply to these sites identified to accommodate increased densities. And the odds are being drafted and are anticipated to establish a maximum height of four stories or up to 45 feet. Or opportunity sites that are designated to accommodate densities of 49 dwelling units per acre and 70 dwelling units per acre. That's housing and mixed use overlay sites. So to your question, Councilmember Hoffman, the short answer is those height limits are increased for 49 dwelling units per acre sites and 70 dwelling unit per acre sites, both housing and mixed use. |
| 01:00:12.93 | Councilmember Hoffman | but, |
| 01:00:15.28 | Brandon Phipps | Oh, thank you. Bob Brown has just clarified. Everything but the 70 remains three. 70 is four. |
| 01:00:24.17 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay, so just the 70 sites per acre? |
| 01:00:29.57 | Brandon Phipps | 72 units per acre. |
| 01:00:29.91 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:00:31.26 | Brandon Phipps | overlay for housing and mixed use. Thank you. |
| 01:00:35.28 | Councilmember Hoffman | And where's that? |
| 01:00:36.02 | Brandon Phipps | With a limit of 45. |
| 01:00:37.99 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay. And where are those on your map? |
| 01:00:41.17 | Brandon Phipps | Yeah. |
| 01:00:42.06 | Beth Thompson | So if you, those are the housing 70 is the one with this orange and then the bright pink. So we've got the, Site 202 here, which is the Altamira site, not including the actual hotel building, but the parking and other persons that are part of that site, Site 110. which is, I don't remember the street name, off of San Carlos Avenue here. And then let's see, we've got a couple others. I'm going to have to really peer in at this though to find those. OK, we've got the uh, corporation yard site right here. Oh wait, that's not, hold on. Right here, we've got the Corporation Yard site, and I believe that, yes, that's 70 as well. |
| 01:01:23.84 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 01:01:23.98 | Unknown | here. |
| 01:01:29.72 | Beth Thompson | And then let me quickly look at my spreadsheet to see if I'm missing any, but I think those are the ones we have. Awesome. top of my head and it might get blurry here for a minute while my spreadsheet tries to share. share that. Let's see. |
| 01:01:51.16 | Beth Thompson | Sorry, my spreadsheet's rather enormous with all of the sites, so it takes me a moment to scroll through. |
| 01:01:51.67 | Brandon Phipps | especially. |
| 01:01:58.54 | Brandon Phipps | I'll just restate while Beth is searching that the increase in height limits was necessitated based on staff's evaluation of the densities that we've allocated to those units. And based on our evaluation, an increase in height was required to accommodate those densities. |
| 01:02:19.09 | Beth Thompson | We also got one site that I have not mentioned. |
| 01:02:23.89 | Ian Kellman | You might want to articulate what drove those densities in the analysis. |
| 01:02:30.25 | Brandon Phipps | Well, this was driven by public feedback, staff's input, feedback from council, feedback from HCD, as well as our own integration of new state law, specifically regarding housing policy into our local zoning code. |
| 01:02:50.01 | Councilmember Hoffman | And so where are the sites on, so those are the central, I guess, central sauce later sites, the Altamira, and then there was another site over there. |
| 01:02:59.37 | Beth Thompson | or Altamira site 110, and then you also have the corporation right off of Tomala Street. And then we have one site at 72, and it's either Avatar or adjacent to where that that is commercial development is that avatar And that is where the, the, um, Property owner was planning to convert the parking area to housing and had submitted some preliminary conceptual plans. for those uses. |
| 01:03:28.04 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay. OK, thank you. Thank you very much for showing us that on the map. And so what If we increase it to four stories, I know under state law, there are some other waivers with regard to height if you have the density bonus. So how many stories conceivably what's the maximum if they take advantage of all of the various density bonus calculations. |
| 01:03:57.12 | Beth Thompson | There's really no specific maximum there. It would be what they propose using the maximum density allowed and how they design their project. And it would be up to the city to determine if that's really necessary to achieve the density. So there's not like a maximum increase that people are limited to. |
| 01:04:15.51 | Councilmember Hoffman | Yeah, so my question is though, would they be able to build up higher than four stories? Yes. |
| 01:04:20.91 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 01:04:21.64 | Councilmember Hoffman | I'm sorry. |
| 01:04:21.69 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 01:04:21.71 | Councilmember Hoffman | Bye. |
| 01:04:21.72 | Jill Hoffman | Bye. |
| 01:04:21.74 | Beth Thompson | possibly. |
| 01:04:21.98 | Councilmember Hoffman | with. |
| 01:04:23.09 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. But wouldn't they have to demonstrate that it is financially infeasible for them to accommodate the number of units to which they're entitled to before they could go above the four-story height limitation. |
| 01:04:37.15 | Beth Thompson | I will let the city attorney answer that. I believe so. Not financially, but I believe they would have to demonstrate that it's not feasible. |
| 01:04:45.91 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, I will pull up government code 65915. But in terms of a request for waiver of the height limit, you know, under state density bonus law, developer is entitled to a certain number of incentives and concessions based on the mix of affordability that their project proposes, and additionally, The city is required to waive any development standards that physically preclude the construction of the development you know, at the densities that are requested by the developer. So, David Vogelpohl, David Vogelpohl, You know, there may be some back and forth with a developer as to whether or not a city's height limit actually effectively prevents the project from being approved by you know at the proposed density. Um, And there are some additional grounds under which You know, a public agency can deny a waiver. Um, they are relatively limited. You know, those include you know, a specific impact on health or safety for which there's no feasible method to mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. Um, or, um, Josh Triplett, Allen Institute of Technology, Additionally, if it would have an inverse impact on real property listed on the California Register of Historic Resources. So, but in general, if a developer has a Josh Triplett, Strong argument that they need a waiver to the height limit in order to realistically achieve the density, then They will have a strong argument they're entitled to it. |
| 01:06:21.67 | Steven Woodside | Can I interrupt? I think we all have interjections. It's still how Calisbury-Huffman's Question time, but could I interject a question here on this point? |
| 01:06:30.58 | Councilmember Hoffman | Yeah, sure. Go ahead. I'm fine. I'm finished. Thank you. |
| 01:06:32.23 | Steven Woodside | It seems pretty important in terms of the game of chicken. Sergio, this is something we talked about. If the developer claims that it's necessary to go high to achieve the affordability balance, then is the burden of proof on them to prove it to us with numbers and fancy? |
| 01:06:55.91 | Sergio Rudin | You know, the burden of proof is on the city, unfortunately. |
| 01:06:59.54 | Steven Woodside | The burden of proof is on the city. Yes. We would have to do the research, financial and design. |
| 01:07:01.49 | Sergio Rudin | you. Thank you. |
| 01:07:05.33 | Steven Woodside | to prove that they don't have to go high. Correct. And what are the consequences if we got it wrong? So let's say we say the developer says they need to build six stories and we say, no, you only need to be four. Here's our analysis. The developer sues us, the developer wins. What is the consequence to the city? |
| 01:07:26.44 | Sergio Rudin | Well, one, they can seek invalidation of the city's action on the project and require the city to look again and potentially re-approve. Additionally, they may be entitled to attorney's fees. And lastly, they could be entitled to penalties under the Housing Accountability Act. |
| 01:07:45.79 | Steven Woodside | And can you put a scale on those? So attorney, like what kind of penalties are possible? Um, |
| 01:07:51.63 | Sergio Rudin | What is this? Well, one, the attorney's fees are a pretty significant penalty. Um... And additionally, under the Housing Accountability Act, Um... There is the potential for I'm looking for the statute. |
| 01:08:22.65 | Sergio Rudin | potential of fines if a public agency acts in bad faith, and a fine and a minimum out of $10,000 per housing unit. in terms of any sort of denial. And then additionally, a court can multiply that fine by a factor of five for actions in bad faith, so. |
| 01:08:46.58 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. PB, David Ensign PB, David Ens |
| 01:08:51.79 | Sergio Rudin | Yes. |
| 01:08:56.87 | Steven Woodside | I think just in order, it's still are you done, Council Member Hoffman, with your questions? |
| 01:08:57.63 | Jill Hoffman | THE FAMILY. |
| 01:09:01.60 | Steven Woodside | Okay, so it was council member, I promised council member |
| 01:09:04.65 | Jill Hoffman | I couldn't follow on that, but I was too. |
| 01:09:06.52 | Steven Woodside | Councilmember Blasstein and then Councilmember Debbie Vice Mayor. Did you have any more? |
| 01:09:06.76 | Jill Hoffman | I'm going to go. |
| 01:09:06.88 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. |
| 01:09:12.38 | Ian Kellman | Oh, I haven't gone yet. |
| 01:09:14.37 | Steven Woodside | Okay. All right. So Council Member Blossy, and then the Vice Mayor, and then Council Member Calvin. |
| 01:09:19.82 | Councilmember Blaustein | City Attorney, isn't it true that in the current environment the state is much more likely to favor the developer? And in fact, there are very few cases where the state favors the city on these types of rulings. |
| 01:09:30.92 | Sergio Rudin | Yes, there are, to my knowledge, very few court decisions where the courts have upheld decisions of cities in Housing Accountability Act litigation. |
| 01:09:41.10 | Councilmember Blaustein | And just last month, didn't Governor Newsom sign 30 plus new housing proposals to streamline further the enforcement of the state laws at the local level? |
| 01:09:50.06 | Sergio Rudin | correct. There have been significant revisions to SB 9. Additionally, there have been three new ADU laws signed. Additionally, there have been revisions to to the builder's remedy. which change the affordability requirements, clarify the statute, make it more usable while imposing, I think, more requirements on developers. Yes. |
| 01:10:14.31 | Councilmember Blaustein | So could we request as part of the study a better a better emphasis or understanding of what the implications of those new streamlines will be in terms of the decisions we're making about the housing element because they could indeed change what the outcome of density at all of these sites would be per the state mandates. |
| 01:10:31.40 | Sergio Rudin | Yes, I mean, I'm certainly happy to provide briefing on those. I think one of the key issues here, of course, is that given your size of your arena, you are mandated to plan for 19% more housing units than you currently have. You know, that's not going to, that is going to result in impacts throughout the city, regardless of where you put them. And the bigger issue is, given the state housing element law, You're not allowed to credit potential development under state density bonus law or similar as Beth explained. in helping you offset or lower your density you know, while you're picking your housing sites. |
| 01:11:09.35 | Councilmember Blaustein | Of course not, but I was referring to more the bigger picture of thinking holistically about how we make decisions that will have a long-term impact. and envisioning what the footprint could be with what we are allowing and then also considering what the density bonus worst case or best case however you look at it scenario would be with regards to the housing there so okay thank you i appreciate it |
| 01:11:30.92 | Steven Woodside | Vice Mayor. |
| 01:11:32.80 | Jill Hoffman | We jumped a little bit ahead, Brandon, in discussing the odds before we finished discussing the housing element. And we were talking about higher, you know, allowing four stories for 70 units per acre. I just will we not as part of the odds discussion also be reviewing a software that will allow the city to make its case for the development capacity of any. individual parcel so as to have a good faith basis for resisting efforts by developers to go above our height limits. |
| 01:12:11.54 | Brandon Phipps | Absolutely, Vice Mayor, and that's a very good point. I have been biting my tongue because I'm excited to, well, present this to you this evening, but you're going to hear some very innovative and novel solutions to view preservation this evening that I don't believe any other city in the nation has thought about or has engaged in with quite as much passion and commitment as this city so absolutely vice mayor those efforts, which all refer to as view sync and view preservation related efforts. Are under counsel consideration will be presented this evening. |
| 01:12:49.10 | Jill Hoffman | And so, city attorney, you were discussing certain penalties that could be available to a developer if the city acted in bad faith. But if a city takes a good faith position based on objective standards and software validated analysis, would the city not be able to make a case that it is acting in good faith, not bad faith, and avoid some of those penalties? |
| 01:13:14.87 | Sergio Rudin | Potentially, yes. |
| 01:13:15.29 | Jill Hoffman | THE FAMILY. Thanks. And I again I don't want to go too far field I just wanted to address the efforts being made by staff, not only to meet the arena, but also to reduce risk in adopting the odds that we're also required to do. |
| 01:13:31.54 | Steven Woodside | Councilmember Kelman, and then Councilmember Hock. |
| 01:13:33.64 | Jill Hoffman | you |
| 01:13:33.65 | Ian Kellman | Thank you, Mayor. Beth, let's go back to 300 locusts. Councillor Blossom brought it back up. This is something that we like to act closely. Take us through What? How many units it would be zoned for? And then how many could actually be built based on these state density bonus laws? |
| 01:14:02.48 | Ian Kellman | And I think we're all sort of getting to the, the point we're trying to make to the community is there are things we can control and there's a lot of things that are way beyond our control, including penalties for not taking action. So we're trying to balance all of that. Sorry. |
| 01:14:21.04 | Beth Thompson | There are a few different things that can happen with this site. So I'm just going to share my screen again so you can see the site or discuss. |
| 01:14:28.48 | Ian Kellman | discussing. So 300 locusts is on Bridgeway. It's right by where the joinery is located. It's just south of Dunphy Park for everybody's reference. And so this is a parcel that we looked at and thought, well, how high could it potentially get? And wanted to really understand that. So, Beth, that's the question is how high would the density bonus laws Could that be? |
| 01:14:51.70 | Beth Thompson | All right. That's a little bit of a harder question. So what we can see on this site is you're currently designated for 49 units per acre, and the housing element counts 13 units for that. And at the 49 units per acre, and it's roughly a half acre site, If that was doubled, so you were to get a 100% density bonus, then you would see, um, 49.98 around the gap. You would see 50 units on that site. So, which is, A lot, roughly, you know, a hundred units per acre. And I don't know what the exact height would be, but based on your 70 units per acre going up to four feet, you would probably see something that was, you know, five or six feet tall, or six feet, six stories tall. And that would, the heights would vary depending on how the building's designed, if it has an excuse or if it's all residential. So you would see it, you know, your six stories and your averaging, you know, 14 stories. or 14, 13, we'll say 13 feet. If you average 13 feet per story, you'd be at 78 feet, which would be very high along your waterfront. |
| 01:16:12.92 | Councilmember Blaustein | Yeah, sorry, do you have a thought? Yeah, I just wanted to, I don't understand the math on the number of units. Is it 13 times three? |
| 01:16:17.97 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. I'm going to ask your questions out loud, I think. |
| 01:16:20.80 | Councilmember Blaustein | Yeah, let's have that do it. Just because you did. Sorry, I'm just asking her because the expert and she and Joan worked very hard on this. I'm just trying to understand. So if the 13 units initially and we're amending it to 11, in a worst case scenario with density bonus build, it would be 3x the number, correct? Because it's 100% density and then an additional 100% density? |
| 01:16:21.86 | Steven Woodside | Sorry. asking her because the |
| 01:16:40.21 | Beth Thompson | So it would be, well, So it all depends on the density bonus they receive. So there are 49 units per acre and 0.51 acres. So they could... So they counted 13 units. |
| 01:16:52.34 | Councilmember Blaustein | So they keep it. units. I see. Thank you. |
| 01:16:56.24 | Ian Kellman | Thank you, Beth. Thank you. |
| 01:16:59.46 | Steven Woodside | Any more questions, Councilmember Hoffman? |
| 01:16:59.49 | Ian Kellman | Thank you. |
| 01:17:03.44 | Councilmember Hoffman | Yeah, let me, I'm sorry. Let me just follow up on that one. So we have amended units of 11 on this site. Because it wasn't clear to me, sorry, the answer. So 11 units on this site. What's the, so with density bonus, what would the max be? Thank you. |
| 01:17:17.43 | Beth Thompson | So, |
| 01:17:18.01 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. you |
| 01:17:18.36 | Beth Thompson | And this would once again depend on the density bonus they received. But if they were to get a 100% density bonus, it would be 30 units. on that side. |
| 01:17:30.58 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay. And a height limit still of three stories. |
| 01:17:33.45 | Beth Thompson | At 30 minutes, you would probably be, they should be able to do that within three stories. Definitely. |
| 01:17:37.99 | Steven Woodside | I'm wondering why is it 30 and not 22? |
| 01:17:42.15 | Beth Thompson | Why is 130 and not 20? |
| 01:17:43.12 | Steven Woodside | And that's right. Why is 100% density bonus on 11 amended units, not 11 plus 11, 22? Why is it that? |
| 01:17:48.95 | Beth Thompson | A lot. But, Because that's the realistic capacity, which is a reduction. It's not actually based on the maximum capacity. So 29 units per acre and a half acre is 15 or 14 and a half units, running up to 15. So if you double that 15, which is the maximum units it could get under the maximum 29 units per acre, and you double that and you get up to 30. |
| 01:18:14.00 | Steven Woodside | My colleagues followed that, but I would like you to repeat that because I did not follow it. Can you say that again? |
| 01:18:18.50 | Beth Thompson | Okay, so the adopted units and the amended units are not 100% of the allowed density. They're the quote unquote realistic capacity. So HCD doesn't allow you to take credit for the maximum units per acre unless you've demonstrated a trend of developing at the maximum units per acre. So they, in Sausalito's case, we didn't really have that trend over the past housing cycle. So we looked at a realistic capacity, which is a reduction. The maximum allowed units on this site under the 29 units per acre, and that's applied to a half acre site that's 14 and a half, we're rounding out 15 units. So you can, so the amended units is the realistic capacity, but the maximum under that density is 15. So multiplying that by two is how you get to the 30. |
| 01:19:13.89 | Steven Woodside | Okay, thank you. Councilmember Hoffman, did you have... Any other? |
| 01:19:16.94 | Councilmember Hoffman | I did, yeah, I did. I had a couple of questions as follow up So even though we don't in our planning of our RHNA number, we can't take credit for whatever in excess of whatever we plan for. In other words, this, for example, this unit that we're talking about, so this parcel We've given number 11. we can't, the maximum density that we just talked about would be 30. We can't take that into account. you know, for this arena cycle, for our arena number in our planning, But let me ask you this, the converse, If let's say they do actually build 30 units there and we're talking about whether or not we've complied with our build requirement at the end of the time, do we then get to take credit for them? |
| 01:20:01.04 | Beth Thompson | You do get to take credit and then in your next housing element cycle, you can have much more aggressive assumptions. |
| 01:20:06.76 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay, gotcha. About how many units we can get per cycle. |
| 01:20:09.32 | Beth Thompson | Right. |
| 01:20:09.69 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you. And then I had a follow up question. |
| 01:20:10.20 | Ian Kellman | Thank you. |
| 01:20:10.22 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 01:20:10.47 | Ian Kellman | Yeah. |
| 01:20:10.49 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 01:20:12.22 | Councilmember Hoffman | This is sort of a general question for I think our community development director, maybe, or maybe you Beth, I don't know. But, The benefits of it being a city-owned site. So in other words, we have, I think the main city sites that we have are, the corporation yard that we're talking about and the MLK site, I think, I mean, one of the benefits I'm sorry. I mean, one of the benefits to me that comes to mind, is that the city owns it. So the city gets to decide what's on that property. you know, we can probably decide that we're not going to build a four story or three story or whatever it is on those sites, which I think is a benefit for the residents that are concerned with what's gonna be built on city-owned sites. I mean, you know, what do you, how do you explain that or Director Phipps, what do you think about that? |
| 01:21:06.29 | Brandon Phipps | Yeah, I agree, Councilmember. MLK and the corp yard, both owned by the city, both zoned public institutional, I think would generally need to go through something akin to a development agreement process between the city and a developer in order to arrive at a mutually beneficial negotiation. Development agreements do not require the proposed project to be consistent with local zoning, as it can allow for more freedom in developing a concept that, as stated, is mutually beneficial. So yes, city has much more control on properties that they own. |
| 01:21:40.63 | Councilmember Hoffman | And I just said, I can't imagine that we wouldn't have public meetings. I mean, I believe we would have to have public meetings and take public input about what the design would be and the impacts of the neighborhood. So that is the benefit if you're talking about city owned properties and what we're going to build there. And I don't think that was clear in the discussion that I've heard. Um, around town and also in the staff report. So thank you for that. |
| 01:22:08.38 | Councilmember Hoffman | And that's all. |
| 01:22:08.98 | Steven Woodside | I don't have any further questions. Do you want to go first? I just have one question. Okay. The council member. |
| 01:22:11.28 | Councilmember Blaustein | Thank you. question. Just one last clarifying point on the density bonus as we're looking at all of these sites, but specifically at Locust. At any one of these sites, even though we see a number here like 11 or 4 or 5, 80. Well, not in the case of the 80 unit site, it is city-owned sites. This would not apply. But any of those would be applying the percentage of the acre. So as we're increasing or decreasing, we're effectively choosing to protect from the scenario where it would be the largest number. So if we are zoning for 29 units per acre, no matter what number we give, should a stensity bonus be granted to a developer, it could be up to 29 units per acre, even if we've said eight. |
| 01:22:55.81 | Beth Thompson | Correct, correct. They can, so they can always come in without a density bonus at the maximum allowed density, regardless of what we've put in the, |
| 01:22:57.60 | Councilmember Blaustein | They can't. |
| 01:23:05.11 | Beth Thompson | assumption for realistic capacity. Yes, and they can come in with more than that. |
| 01:23:09.31 | Councilmember Blaustein | So in effect, protection is the amount of units that we select to provide per acre here. |
| 01:23:09.70 | Beth Thompson | I don't know if I can't remember |
| 01:23:14.57 | Councilmember Blaustein | In reality. That's your largest protection, yes. |
| 01:23:14.93 | Beth Thompson | That's why I just put it. |
| 01:23:17.98 | Steven Woodside | Great. That was actually my question too. to simplify this for the public and for me, uh, When you're saying the number of units per acre, after all of setting it down with all this density bonus stuff and all the hoops that a developer could go through, it's not gonna be more than that. That's the maximum, 29 in the case of the Locust Street location. No. |
| 01:23:41.91 | Beth Thompson | Yes, the density bonus will always be based on that maximum units. |
| 01:23:45.10 | Steven Woodside | on the units. But it's 29 per acre. So half of that, because it was a half acre, like maybe you could put it back up is 15. So the maximum is, uh, is 30 is what you said. |
| 01:23:55.60 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 01:23:55.70 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |
| 01:23:55.75 | Beth Thompson | And that's what the 100% of the city bonus. |
| 01:23:58.99 | Steven Woodside | actually if it was if that lot had been a whole acre the maximum number of units would have been 60. |
| 01:24:03.94 | Beth Thompson | And I am working to put that back up. I had scrolled away from that one. |
| 01:24:06.03 | Steven Woodside | I'd scroll the way from that one. It's basically whatever that number is times two is the maximum number of units that a developer could use the state law to try to claim that they could build. And so that's the worst so-called worst case scenario. Is that correct, Beth? |
| 01:24:11.85 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 01:24:12.00 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. |
| 01:24:24.15 | Beth Thompson | Correct. That would be the worst case scenario. |
| 01:24:25.43 | Steven Woodside | about. Right, so for anyone in the public, you multiply that number by the acre, the size of the lot, and multiply it by two, and that's the maximum number of units that could potentially be built there. Thank you. |
| 01:24:38.41 | Jill Hoffman | Except for city owned properties. |
| 01:24:39.76 | Steven Woodside | except for city owned properties, which we control. Uh, Okay, so, well, since we're on this slide, If they wanted to build 15, 30 units on this, no, is this the, yeah, that's the one. When it would be 30 units on this location and the developer claimed that they needed, I don't know, 12 foot ceilings to make it work economically in their market units to justify having 50% affordable units. Could they go to seven stories? |
| 01:25:17.31 | Beth Thompson | So let's see, let me pull up my math there on this one. And And they could try to justify anything and that would be up to the city to refute that and to demonstrate whether or not that's feasible. So I don't wanna tie it to a specific story without having a little more like, Let me get that. design and math thing of that, but I, you could see something. I, I. I have a hard time imagining it at the 29 years per acre, if it was doubled going up to seven stories, but |
| 01:25:55.90 | Steven Woodside | obviously picking numbers out of the air but what i'm really driving at is and it went to my previous question and to the vice mayor's comment on the thing we're going to take up next about its utility in many ways the burden is on us to prove that a developer's claim that they need design features like height to meet the affordability requirements is on the city |
| 01:25:56.27 | Beth Thompson | to say, |
| 01:26:21.75 | Steven Woodside | And there are consequences if there aren't. And so the main... And I'm seeing nods. So I'm understanding that. But I also think it's important for the public, really, to understand that, too, because this is a learning curve for a lot of us. odds, the ability to have objective design standards, does that, let's just say the view issue, does that, if the developer claimed that they needed to go to block someone's view, doesn't matter how high, to block someone's view, that would have been prohibited by our view ordinance to have an affordable unit to meet their affordability requirements. Would our view ordinance still preclude them from doing that? Okay, well, I don't know, I could ask it later. It just seems, sorry, that was my question. I'm trying to put it together. |
| 01:27:09.69 | Sergio Rudin | The answer is yes. The developer would have a very strong argument that they are entitled to build their project, notwithstanding the impacts on Vue. |
| 01:27:18.23 | Steven Woodside | Okay. If we wanted to enhance our position on this question, of pushing back on developers who are trying to build the maximum number of lecture units in the biggest building Would we be in a strong position if we had our own in-house architectural assessment and financial assessment of a project so that we could have a certified opinion about whether or not the developer's claims are accurate? |
| 01:27:45.25 | Sergio Rudin | So... I think it would improve your litigation position, I don't know that it by itself would necessarily Um, you know, win the day in part because of the very strong language in the state density bonus law. the burden being placed on the city, you know, to justify any sort of denials of incentives and concessions. And additionally, there is existing case law that, suggests that cities cannot deny |
| 01:28:20.23 | Sergio Rudin | waivers and concessions on the basis of the fact that a project could be built differently to avoid them. That is the Bankers Hill decision against the city of San Diego. So, you know, It would definitely be helpful to have that sort of analysis if the city wants to deny waivers and concessions. The best Jason Schiffernitz, CA OSMP. Reason to deny waivers is the language that is tied in the statute which identifies a specific impact on public health or safety that has no possible mitigation or alternatively. Um, you know, an impact on a listed historic resource on the state register. So those are the strongest grounds the city has for denial of waivers. |
| 01:29:07.77 | Steven Woodside | Okay, thank you. I had a question about community development agreements. You mentioned that owning city property is kind of like having a community development agreement. So if we own the property, we own the property, so we get a veto on what's built there, and we can make sure it's two stories or three or one because we own it. Community development agreement is an agreement with a private property owner. I'm saying this so you can tell me if I got it wrong, where, as you said, it doesn't have to meet the underlining zoning. I believe it has to meet the general plan goals, but that we can agree with a specific design on a specific location with a private property owner. Is that you're nodding yes? |
| 01:29:49.64 | Brandon Phipps | Yes, the city will have the most leverage to do this on a property that they own. However, it is possible for a city to engage in a development agreement with a private property owner in connection with a property that they do not own. |
| 01:30:03.15 | Steven Woodside | So if there was a house, say there's a site that is not currently in the housing element, we could go to that property owner if they were interested in building housing and we'd have two choices. We could put it in the housing element and then we have all these issues of they're possibly using bonus density law to build the tall building or building the blocks views or otherwise. Or since they're not in the housing element and the property is not zoned, we could negotiate with them a specific height limit that's specific to the agreement. You're nodding yes. |
| 01:30:34.03 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. That's correct. And we would just want to make sure that whatever we agree on, whatever concept is committed to, is consistent with the underlining general plan. And we would have to make follow-on amendments to our code as required. |
| 01:30:47.05 | Steven Woodside | So when we put sites in the housing element, we don't have that freedom to negotiate a community development agreement. But for sites not in the housing element, we would have that freedom. Because in the housing element, they have vested rights. I don't know if that's the term of art, |
| 01:30:59.09 | Brandon Phipps | I would say that there's nothing that precludes the city from attempting to engage in negotiations with property owners, whether or not on city property or on private property. The housing element really allocates density. And what the city chooses to do as related to public-private partnerships, I would say, is outside of that process. |
| 01:31:17.67 | Sergio Rudin | Additionally, development agreements are typically, you know, an alternative pathway to a land use approval. They are usually used when the underlying zoning doesn't allow for what the developer wants to propose. So once you allow in the underlying zoning, that particular land use, your leverage for negotiating any such agreement evaporates. So that's the main issue. |
| 01:31:43.02 | Steven Woodside | I'm sorry, I'm not a lawyer. I'm just wondering, Is there a way of trying to meet our housing requirement and having more control over what's being built? that uses this tool. |
| 01:31:54.41 | Sergio Rudin | I think the answer there is no, for the reason that the housing element law says you must zone to allow a certain amount of capacity to develop based on this arena and you're allowed to credit the not the actual maximum zoning, but What HCD determines is a realistic development capacity based on factors like your history of approving building permits and projects, whether or not you have historically approved density bonus projects, and discounting things like site constraints on the site, such as slope So, yeah. |
| 01:32:35.01 | Steven Woodside | A following question, just that's to approve the housing element and get past the builders remedy threat near term, but four years into our housing cycle if there isn't a meaningful number of units actually built with this zoning change. Is there a threat that we could possibly have our housing element decertified because we haven't had actual construction? Or is it a safe harbor that once we have the approved housing element, that even if very few sites are actually built, that we will not lose our housing element? We will not lose our money. |
| 01:33:08.51 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah. Typically, you are required to create a plan to zone for the housing requirement to meet the Reno. You normally have three years from adoption of the housing element to complete all rezoning actions. And once you do that, If you don't end up having those sites be developed, then basically you will be subject to you know, stricter assumptions, you know, when you're developing your next housing element cycle, you may have to permit some of those sites that you identified as being for housing development in this cycle Great administerial approval process for some of those sites in the next housing element cycle. You don't necessarily get your housing element decertified if you've completed your program of rezoning. but you may be subject to things like For example, SB 35 only applies to cities that are not meeting their Reno. Additionally, HCD may take a look at whether or not you're following all of your programs in your housing element besides your rezoning. So there is generally a requirement that you're supposed to work to remove governmental constraints on development. |
| 01:34:23.77 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:34:24.41 | Sergio Rudin | So they may ask about some of those issues. Um, But yeah, realistically, if you, adopt a housing element that complies with state housing element law. HCD makes a finding that's in substantial compliance And as long as you're following through with the programs that you said you were going to do in the housing element, you should be good until the next housing element cycle. |
| 01:34:45.52 | Steven Woodside | right that's really good to know thank you i didn't have that uh that information so thank you uh councilmember hoffman |
| 01:34:55.58 | Councilmember Hoffman | Next, I had one... Final question. And sort of in conjunction with the mayor's question, So if we do have a developer who wants to come in and wants to build on a site that we haven't rezone that we haven't really looked at. but they actually do build on it. We received the credit for those numbers, correct? at the end of the cycle, even though it's not part of our plan, but we would still receive that. |
| 01:35:18.88 | Beth Thompson | even though you're not going to be able to do it, THE END OF Yes, all development in the city counts toward your arena, regardless of whether or not it's on a site identified in the housing element. |
| 01:35:21.65 | Councilmember Hoffman | Yes. |
| 01:35:28.94 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:35:29.09 | Steven Woodside | Bye. |
| 01:35:29.18 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:35:29.21 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:35:29.73 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:35:29.77 | Beth Thompson | Thanks, that's helpful. |
| 01:35:30.53 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:35:30.81 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 01:35:30.85 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:35:30.93 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 01:35:30.95 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:35:31.00 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 01:35:32.52 | Steven Woodside | Are there other questions here? Okay. I want to. |
| 01:35:34.53 | Councilmember Blaustein | One last question. Could you clarify which sites in the housing element are in our historic district as designated by the state of California? |
| 01:35:44.84 | Beth Thompson | Sure, let me pull that up. We do have that in ours. |
| 01:35:53.02 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 01:35:53.04 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thanks for bearing with all the questions. |
| 01:35:57.01 | Brandon Phipps | And I believe the answer is site 201 is within the historic district. |
| 01:36:02.37 | Steven Woodside | Okay, thank you. And that's it. Thank you for bearing with all our questions. We'll now move to... Hearing from everyone here in the room, thanks for dealing with the heat. City Clerk, would you kindly call the people in the order that you have for them? Maybe you'd call two people at a time so people know who's next. minutes. |
| 01:36:22.20 | Walfred Solorzano | Linda Fudge, then Adriana Dehanian and Bert Drubness. |
| 01:36:44.85 | Unknown | Just give that to the city. |
| 01:36:45.17 | Steven Woodside | Just give that to the city clerk and he'll give it to us. |
| 01:36:50.53 | Unknown | Is it from Willys, Linda? |
| 01:36:57.50 | Unknown | Linda, is it from Willie's? |
| 01:37:00.69 | Linda Fudge | Thank you. |
| 01:37:00.79 | Unknown | Is the late mail from Willie's? |
| 01:37:02.63 | Linda Fudge | Late mail? Yeah. It's actually from me. Oh, okay. |
| 01:37:07.74 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 01:37:10.33 | Linda Fudge | I'm Linda Fodge, resident of Sausalito. |
| 01:37:13.79 | Steven Woodside | I'm sorry, Ms. Fetch, can you pull the microphone down and can you reset her time and make sure the microphone works? |
| 01:37:20.25 | Linda Fudge | Hello, hello. you |
| 01:37:21.33 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:37:21.50 | Linda Fudge | Thank you. Thank you. I'm Linda Fotch. I'm resident of Sausalito, and I won't take a lot of your time, but I think you can see by what's happening tonight, it would be really good for the city of Sausalito to do more education on housing laws. I think there's a lot of questions, even with you, and certainly out here. Transparency. |
| 01:37:48.36 | Linda Fudge | I think we're getting one side of the story here. We're getting what Sausalito says and what Sausalito thinks, but we're not getting what HCD thinks. And I think it's really important that these letters, which I've tacked one on here, that people understand what HCD is saying to Sausalito, how they're responding to you. I think that's really important. The odds. the Objective standard based on external facts such as laws, rules, or common practices, verifiable by both the public and the applicant. I think it's a big stretch to say we're inventing a new system, and it's going to fit into that. I think you're opening yourself for litigation. Um, I'm covering all this that's in my letter, so I don't want to duplicate it. But I do think that fair housing, that there should be housing throughout the whole city. And I think that what's been done here to put housing in just the north part of town is not fair. It's not fair to a lot of these people in this room. um, The down zoning that was |
| 01:39:06.76 | Linda Fudge | couched as a minor thing by staff, and it's actually over 40%. Um, I think that people need to know here that you can say whatever you want, but ACD is reviewing this. |
| 01:39:24.74 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:39:24.97 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:39:25.41 | Linda Fudge | All right. |
| 01:39:25.48 | Walfred Solorzano | Adrian Sopher, applicant OLIVIER, ADRIANA. |
| 01:39:29.73 | Steven Woodside | Adriana? She would prefer to go later. We'll respect that. We'll respect that. Yes, ma'am. Can you just put her name at the bottom of the stack? Just put her name at the bottom of the stack. Thank you very much, Sir Sigler. Well, you can go now or at the end. Okay, let's move on to the next speaker. |
| 01:39:51.35 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:39:51.36 | Adriana Denehanian | Thank you. |
| 01:39:52.66 | Steven Woodside | Please come to the microphone. Your time is right now. Thank you. |
| 01:39:58.69 | Adriana Denehanian | Hi, I'm Adriana Denehanian. I live on Woodward Avenue, which is not adjacent to Martin Luther King Park, but I am still speaking about the park because I am there almost every morning as a pickleball player. I just want to show you what I see from my perspective. And from my perspective, the Martin Luther King Park is a city jewel. And it should not have any residential stuff built on it, because there is a huge amount of people that use that park Yeah. A lot of them have cars. A lot of them make a lot of noise, like the pickleball courts and the tennis courts, but I can list what goes on there in the morning. And if you don't go to Martin Luther King Park during the day in the morning, you have no idea what an amazing community center it is. There are people that walk their dogs. There are Zumba classes. There's the pickleball courts, totally, you know, 25 people at least. There's the tennis courts. There's the, there's on the weekend, there's soccer games, not just one, but like, two or three at a time there's lacrosse players there's children especially during the weekday that come out of those classrooms and All these people, with the exception of the children, and maybe the dog walkers. and a lot of dog workers do drive in. Drive in. Where are we going to park if all the parking lot is gone? Where are these people on the weekend going to park if the street is just full of parking and they can't play their soccer games? Plus, there's a lot of noise that goes on there. The pickleball makes a lot of noise. The loud Zumba classes, I just talked to some neighbors. They hear it. |
| 01:42:00.14 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you, ma'am. |
| 01:42:01.10 | Adriana Denehanian | Thank you. |
| 01:42:01.12 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 01:42:01.39 | Adriana Denehanian | Thank you. |
| 01:42:02.31 | Walfred Solorzano | Robert Robbins. |
| 01:42:07.34 | Bert Drobnis | Good evening, counsel. My name is Bert Drobnis. My wife and I have lived in this town for 42 years. Nobody wants the 724 units. However, it's being forced upon us. And what I hear and what I've listened to from the people here and from the council is, is we want it to be evenly distributed. Right now, it appears that the vast majority of the units being discussed are being discussed in North Sausalito, where I live. It is very crowded to begin with. So please look at the numbers and evenly divide it. If one in three, Olima, the private person you were just referring to, wants to develop it, and I heard the number 129, okay, which could be available now. All right. That would eliminate what's being proposed for the Martin Luther King area. And if I'm not correct, in reading Ordinance 1128, Section 11.1 and 11.2, you're going to need to have a vote by the residents of the town in order to determine what goes there. All right. My other comment is, in living in this town for forty two years It's amazing how little downtown has really changed in that period. And to put a four-story, seven-story, whatever story in the historic district is preposterous. And I urge the city to reject that project. Lastly, what I'd like to say is, And I could be wrong, but what I've heard is that HCD has included the Golden Gate Recreation Area. as part of Sausalito. This is wrong. I urge the city council to take whatever means necessary to have this corrected. and have that area taken out of the mandate, which would reduce the 724 to whatever number, I don't know, but please, Thank you. |
| 01:44:13.08 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:44:13.10 | Bert Drobnis | Thank you. |
| 01:44:13.43 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:44:15.56 | Walfred Solorzano | We have Mark Coleman, followed by Tuli Friedman and Robert Mashala. Mark Cohen. |
| 01:44:33.38 | Mark Coleman | It's hard to follow that. Greetings, council members and folks. So this has been very informative, this meeting. I've got some questions. I'm not quite sure where to go with them. One is who decides on the density per acre of a particular lot? And is there any recourse against that ruling? It's going to be challenged. It seems like so much of the housing proposal is benefiting developers. not the community. Not residents. Um, One of the lots is going to be proposed in front of our house. So we're very concerned about the size restrictions. but it only affects a couple of people. We don't live in an area where you know, whether it's marineship or... MLK, whether it's going to be a big you know, group of people protesting. So how do we protect Small. neighborhoods. the odd, you know, household to where their value, their neighborhood is going to be severely impacted by these developments. And then just lastly, you know, be curious to know where, we can have more input like this. I feel like a lot of this information has been um, not exactly behind closed doors, but it's been hard for me the public to really understand the process, It's been helpful to hear how this state is putting a stranglehold over cities and your hands are mostly tied Um, And yet, um, we still have to protect residents and the integrity of this community and, um, Yeah, I wish I had better solutions, and I hope you can find some too. Thank you, Mr. Colvin. Thank you. |
| 01:46:25.14 | Steven Woodside | Who's next? |
| 01:46:25.61 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 01:46:25.73 | Mark Coleman | Thanks for your work. Thank you. |
| 01:46:25.75 | Walfred Solorzano | Thanks for your welcome. Thank you. |
| 01:46:27.59 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:46:28.52 | Walfred Solorzano | followed by Robert Machina. |
| 01:46:34.39 | Walfred Solorzano | Notuli? No? All right. Notuli. Robert Mashalat. |
| 01:46:41.49 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:46:41.53 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 01:46:41.71 | Steven Woodside | Maybe name the next three people. |
| 01:46:41.97 | Walfred Solorzano | Amen. All right, then next three people are Derek Bentley, Adriana Bentley. and Stacy Nemo. |
| 01:46:59.05 | Derek Bentley | How you doing? My name is Derek Bentley. I'm born and raised in Sausalito, grew up around here. I started on Olima and then luckily got a house on Coloma. born and raised in that park. but I recently did a remodel and, uh, I discovered there's the hundred year flood on our block that I have to keep a maintain a ditch in my backyard. And during my whole building process, I had to deal with nightmare after nightmare about the hundred year flood. Then when I was building my driveway, I dug three feet down and hit Bay water. And I'm wondering how you're going to go three, four stories high when me putting four poles into the ground took six civil engineers coming to my house, 30 bags of concrete, and you guys arguing with me for a week about how long that concrete would dry. One guy gave me an estimate of 10 years. And so if you guys are telling me you're gonna build three stories in front of my house, and you're telling me four poles take 10 years, I just don't see where this project is even feasible, especially if you're talking 70 plus units and expanding it into the parking lot. Then if we're talking about my weekends, I have Whiskey Springs people parking on one side. I got the soccer people parking on the other side. And me and my neighbors that are here, we're always looking for parking on the street because we can't just park everything into the driveway. And I love that the community is packed. I love that we have a neighborhood. I love that I can walk up and down my street. We've already lost one neighbor, and that neighbor was the one that was here saying, yeah, build, go for it. She sold her house two months later. So my problem is we're talking about this huge development. My mom is born and raised in Sausalito. I'm second generation here. I can pull out photos of every, development on the hillside. None of it's a single family home. It's all high residential. And then the last development you guys built next to my house was high residential for the senior citizens, which I love them. They're great. But if everything you're building in my house is high residential and I don't see anything on the other side, I can't help but feel picked on by the city of Sausalito. I mean, I try to build a house, you guys pick on me. |
| 01:49:00.43 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, sir. Thank you. |
| 01:49:02.00 | Walfred Solorzano | Adriana Bentley. |
| 01:49:12.85 | Adriana Bentley | Hi, everybody. Thank you so much for staying late listening to us. My name is Adriana Bentley. Derek's wife. So I echo everything that he said. I've also been through all of that heartache of building a home and having just to go through a lot of red tape. Um, I was wondering a couple of things and maybe we can't address them here, but I was wondering if ADU units are taken into account when we're thinking about all of these housings. I don't think I've seen them. anywhere on the map. So I just wanted to raise that. And also, wanted to also echo what somebody said about the Golden Gate something or other being counted. And if we could like go back and like fight that fight, it would really be worth it. And, um, Finally, living where I live, I've heard so much talk about preserving views for people. And I know I don't have a $3 million home. But I walk out of my home and guess what my view is going to be. It's not going to be preserved. I'll tell you that it's going to be a building. So when we talk about preserving views, let's also think about people who are not in the hills, who do not have very expensive, like $3 million. I mean, our homes are expensive, but they're not $3 million expensive or $5 million expensive. Let's think about us. I also feel like we're being picked on. um, So there's that. And then I also wanted to say about the parking, which we've also talked about on the weekends. It is bananas there. There are so many soccer games. games and I can't even park. on my street. I have to drive around and look for parking. So, you know, I just worry that adding more housing will just exasperate that situation. Thank you so much. |
| 01:50:58.42 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:51:03.12 | Walfred Solorzano | They see Nemo followed by Jennifer Nemo and Justine |
| 01:51:07.75 | Steven Woodside | Yeah, if you'd kindly just move things along and come up in threes as the city clerk names everyone. |
| 01:51:13.96 | Stacy Nimmo | Hi, I'm Stacy Nimmo. you I've been in Sausalito for about 20 years. I've served on boards here, commissions here. I've been pretty involved in the community. And recently I found out that there was a plan to build an MLK Park. It's right next to my house. I've also had a studio in Marinship. So I'm very familiar with both pieces of property. And I thought they would never build in MLK. I didn't think it would fall. It really happened. But it seems like it may really happen. So I looked into this and I found that 45 sites were already removed when, and they gradually applied more sites into northern Sausalito. Now when Beth was talking about why this happened, she said, because the process of removal had to be more sensitive to the community. That was the first thing she said. Does not seem like that's being applied equally throughout Sausalito. She also said later that it was views and historic, again, not applied throughout Sausalito. So when we come in through into Sausalito, we see from the north side of town, we see that welcome to historic Sausalito, the building in MLK that they want to build on is a historic building in the state historic register. So it just doesn't make any sense that they're doing one thing on one side of town and one thing on the other side of town. One of the properties that was removed from the register or removed from the inventory was Marina Plaza, a largely underutilized office park. Marina Plaza was removed due to concerns about noise and pollution on the waterfront. And as someone who lives right next to Highway 101, I would much rather be on the waterfront and not have motorcycles go by at 2 a.m. with their whatever revving their motorcycles making a bunch of noise. I think there's going to be noise a lot of places in Sausalito. That's not a deal breaker and people would love to be on the waterfront. And while the boatyards were protected from development, they were also protected from a chance of being revitalized and brought into compliance. One of the most shocking things about this was the Working Waterfront Coalition, which lobbied to remove the Marina Plaza, never even talked to the property owner, never talked to him about filming, and never talked to him about finding a solution. |
| 01:53:16.96 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. jennifer nemo followed by justin are And Josh Burroughs. |
| 01:53:25.25 | Jennifer Nemo | Hi, thank you, counsel. I mean, my name is Jennifer Nemo. I have a few concerns I wanted to state. I am concerned about the fact that more than half of the 900 plus realistic units in the housing element plan are now in the northern tip of Sausalito. These are also some of the largest parcels which in my mind are likely to entice developers for those density bonuses. amplifying the numbers even greater. I am concerned about the fact there's a zone of high wildfire risk around and in MLK Park. And what I see is a lack of concern and mitigation strategies for this risk in the EIR report. I also worry about the Marin ship just subsiding into the sea, as it seems no one is ever allowed to do anything different in that area. And Mayor Sobieski, the development agreements that you mentioned, I think, could be a pivotal thing there in the housing element or outside. Um, And one question I had coming out of this meeting, which was so informative, thank you for sharing everything you did. I'd like to understand more about how the city thinks it will not be pressured to build on city owned sites like MLK by the state and developers. I feel like there will be even more pressure. Say you have control. but we don't have any control here. |
| 01:54:37.91 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:54:41.82 | Steven Woodside | Welcome. |
| 01:54:44.02 | Unknown | Hi, City Council. My name is Justine and I live on Coloma and Alema Street. I'm concerned about MLK as well. The MLK Park is central to our community. It's the heart of our community. My family bought our home in 2011 and we built our life around it. Our daughter attends the new village school, which uses the park every single day. and placing a building right next to our school raises safety concerns for me as a mother. I also own a business in the Marin ship that would be displaced by the proposed housing development. The land is home to many industrial businesses that are the backbone to Sausalito's local economy. By eliminating these industrial spaces, we risk losing essential businesses that provide jobs and contribute to the unique character of Sausalito. As a business owner, I also employ lower income workers. I have never faced challenges in finding housing for them. And I think that it is misplaced how The low-income housing is directed at MLK Park specifically. I also wanted to say that, It feels like the city council is more concerned about complying with the state mandates than protecting the character and future of my specific community inside Sausalito, loading the north end of Sausalito with low-income housing at the expense of parks and business spaces that will harm the city in the long term. We need leaders who will look beyond the surface and fight for what's truly best for Sausalito. I also second that Golden Gate Park should be taken out of the plan, and if it's not, then we should build there. Thank you. |
| 01:56:31.58 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:56:31.63 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:56:31.65 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you very much. Thanks. Thank you. |
| 01:56:31.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:56:35.97 | Unknown | If they're going to be there, |
| 01:56:41.03 | Walfred Solorzano | Josh Burroughs followed by Aaron Nathan and Alison Salzer. Thank you. |
| 01:56:47.04 | Steven Woodside | board. So it really would help move things along because we have to hear the odds, which is very important here tonight. If when the city clerk calls your name and he's calling up in three, that you all line up, it really will make a difference. So he's called three names. Could the other two people come up |
| 01:57:03.24 | Aaron Nathan | I'm number two. So I'm Aaron. Thank you for having me today. I am a new resident of Sausalito. We've lived here one year, moved into Coloma Street. We live directly across the street from MLK Park. We had our first child here in Sausalito, and safety is a big concern for us. That's why we moved out of San Francisco. And to be candid, I think that having an enormous complex on our small street will pose a real problem in the event of a natural disaster, which we all know are becoming, unfortunately, more and more common. I unfortunately had to go through a house fire that happened in San Francisco. And I can tell you that you don't have much time to prepare. And if you just look at the traffic on five o'clock going down Bridgeway, you will see that there is no way that you could evacuate what looks to be over about 180 residents that you're proposing to add to Coloma Street. So I want everyone here to consider the real danger that we're bringing into this community, and I think that this is something that's been, frankly, overlooked by the EIR and the report that's available online. So thank you. |
| 01:57:04.23 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:58:22.28 | Walfred Solorzano | Josh Burroughs, Allison Salzer, and Jeannie Glott. There's a lot. |
| 01:58:28.96 | Steven Woodside | I don't think any of those three are here. All right. |
| 01:58:32.08 | Walfred Solorzano | Let's go John Gavin, Stephen Woodside, and Kathy Rozak. |
| 01:58:39.68 | Steven Woodside | Mr. Gavin. |
| 01:58:41.50 | John Gavin | You want to go ahead? Thank you. |
| 01:58:42.55 | Steven Woodside | Mr. Gavin, go ahead. Go right ahead, please. It's your time. |
| 01:58:43.42 | John Gavin | Yeah. |
| 01:58:52.62 | John Gavin | you could do it. uh first time at this body thank you for uh being here it's very late i'm just curious at the seven o'clock start i saw some people leave hopefully the next time we have this conversation can be a little bit earlier for some of our older community but as you can see people are very dedicated and they do want to continue having this conversation but again appreciate your time for the last three and a half years on this my concern is really about the uh |
| 01:58:55.90 | Unknown | Thank you. I'm not sure. |
| 01:59:21.31 | John Gavin | Disparity in where you're looking, the housing element is looking to have affordable housing. It's within about five or six blocks of each other. You're potentially having 400 units of very low and low income. That's one issue. The other issue I have is is it seems like One community in Sausalito says no to having housing. And then you're looking in the housing element to revise to increase affordable housing in another community. Well, that community says no. And my question to the body here is if in March, Sausalito decides to say no at MLK and wants it to keep it at park only. What happens? I have a child that's three. I want to keep raising that child in the neighborhood. I'm concerned about traffic already on Coloma. Traffic is going to only increase. I understand there's no development in place, but just be a little bit more thoughtful about the density there. And the type of housing. I mean, we haven't even talked about the type of housing. Teacher housing makes a lot of sense. At MLK Academy, Nevada, they're building something right now. It's already over budget, and it doesn't seem like housing's even contemplated there. The superintendent of California has said they would put money towards any district in California, any school district in California, to provide housing for teachers and the staff. Why aren't we having that conversation at MLK Nevada more so than the little parking lot in the back? I mean, it's a very large swath of property that we need to- |
| 02:00:54.73 | Steven Woodside | Stephen Woodside? Thank you. |
| 02:01:02.37 | Steven Woodside | Good evening, Mayor Sobieski and members of the council. My name is Steven Woodside. I've appeared before you before on this topic. I wish we could turn the clock back to 2023, because if we could, we might have taken a more aggressive stance to appeal what HCD described as the number. I think if we had not sort of turned the whole analysis over to the consultants, you might have had greater control over your own property. when the Planning Commission that rather suddenly took many sites out and put some in Critically, it took out the City Hall site. And we're now being informed that because that was not subject to any analysis in this EIR, you'd have to go back over and recirculate, et cetera. So you may lose that opportunity as well. Sadly, I wrote in August 19th suggesting that very thing, that the analysis include all the sites that had been included. So at least we would have done the EIR process. And you might have some flexibility today. But it appears. Very much so that your hands are tied. But I want to say, and finally, thank you for having this tonight. Even though it's late for many of the decisions that may have gone by the wayside, It's a start. And I think you should strongly consider, and I know Vice Mayor Cox has strongly recommended that we consider becoming a charter city where we might have some little chance to stand up for ourselves and say that we should be able to decide on senior housing worker housing. multifamily housing on our own without having to. Well, without having to count out to the state, thank you. |
| 02:02:45.34 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, Mr. McSagher. |
| 02:02:50.41 | Steven Woodside | or attraction. |
| 02:02:51.10 | Catherine Roszak | Hello, I'm Catherine Roszak, and I am for jobs and housing in this community, but I don't think this is the way and I'm very discouraged because I'm concerned. that these developers are in the pockets of the highest people in our state. And I am very concerned about how we're going to overcome these challenges. I want to say that I'm a teacher and an artist, and I give employment and jobs. I live right here in the MLK, but I hire artists in our community, including artists who are going to be paid through a California Arts Council grant to perform at our Sausalito Arts Center. And I'm bringing them locally and also from outside from New York City. And so I am a first time single woman homeowner and I bought in the Anchorage. I was very lucky to get a loan. I don't have a 401k. I have my one-bedroom condo, and its value is critical. So this density and the ugliness of the structure that would be put there. The loudness while I'm trying to live there and work in my apartment to feed all these artists and teach all these people is going to not work. even the nails that go in and out of the vehicles, because when you drive back and forth in a construction zone, as we've had, that happens. I don't know how I will sell if I have to with all of this going on. I agree it's unsafe. I agree with all the comments about fires, traffic, disasters that could happen, and we can't get out. We're trapped. We cannot get out onto Bridgeway. So let's create jobs and housing in a healthy way, and I beg you to do everything that you can to stop this development, because that's what it is. It is not affordable housing. It is development and money going into the pockets of those developers. And let's support seniors, women, and families, and let's support the community and the beauty of Sausalito. Thank you. |
| 02:04:40.16 | Walfred Solorzano | Michael Rex, followed by Arthur Giovara and Fred Moore. |
| 02:04:51.16 | Steven Woodside | Can you repeat the next two names? I don't see anyone coming up. |
| 02:04:52.95 | Walfred Solorzano | The next two are Arthur Giovara and Fred Moore. Go ahead, Mr. |
| 02:04:58.07 | Michael Rex | Thank you. Hello, I'm Michael Rex, local architect, and I want to suggest six ideas to consider. You should be spreading the units out more. We need more opportunity sites with less density. We need to promote more Senate Bill 9 lot splits and ADUs. Item two, is create more publicly owned sites where you can control them. I wouldn't preclude MLK completely. I think a smaller density in the right place, we can build some units there. but the density is proposed absurd. Item three will be more successful if we collaborate with property owners and developers and be proactive. We should go to them, not wait till they come to us. Item four, we need more senior housing, workforce housing, and affordable housing, and that's not what we're getting here. We're getting very expensive housing. The way to do that is to provide subsidies and to have a fund to buy down development rights. We've proposed that in the past successfully to get smaller buildings. Item five. Development agreements are superb. It creates an incentive for a developer to build smaller because he has a more guarantee of a streamlined approval process. That's probably the best idea. And the last one, I like the idea that was suggested to have a local group. be provide peer review and negotiating a team of architects and legal people and even developers and contractors. They should be paid either through development fees or subsidized by the city. Better to pay them than pay attorneys and lawsuits. Thank you. |
| 02:06:48.53 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 02:06:48.55 | Walfred Solorzano | Arthur Javara, Fred Moore, Jordan Dodds, and Vivian Wohl. |
| 02:06:58.10 | Arthur Giovara | My name is Arthur Giovara, and I own a property on Bridgeway. |
| 02:06:58.16 | Walfred Solorzano | I love you. |
| 02:07:04.71 | Arthur Giovara | 599 Bridgeway, the Lincoln Garage. And I noticed tonight that you have decreased the density of the project that is next to me. which is... project 201 However, I'd like the clarification. that decrease in density doesn't really apply because the application has been made. So, It's only if she withdraw or the property owners. withdraw that application. Is that correct? |
| 02:07:47.90 | Arthur Giovara | She has two applications, 35 and 330. And now you have decreased the density of that lot. |
| 02:08:00.43 | Steven Woodside | Yeah, I'm sorry it's unsatisfying. We're not able to have a dialogue, but you can email any of us. Pardon me? You can email any of us to get an answer to your question, but we're not in a position to answer the question. |
| 02:08:09.07 | Arthur Giovara | Well, you can ask somebody in planning or... |
| 02:08:12.65 | Jill Hoffman | This is your opportunity for public comment. We're not gonna answer questions to you directly here, but we can answer questions later. |
| 02:08:17.71 | Arthur Giovara | questions later. You're giving misinformation. The woman said, |
| 02:08:21.98 | Jill Hoffman | I encourage you to write to us. We'll explain it to you. Thank you. |
| 02:08:22.02 | Arthur Giovara | I agree. |
| 02:08:26.73 | Walfred Solorzano | I read more. followed by Jordan Dodds and Vivian Wall. |
| 02:08:30.39 | Fred Moore | Thank you again for all your efforts. I've got so many notes here. I'll probably just try to go through a few of them. Well, it's a suggestion of the process. one suggestion is because it's a very complicated issue and it's late at night and it's confusing for, I think, everybody to go through the process, one suggestion might be that the slides that came up earlier that show in the sites and the proposed densities, if those were printed out and posted in the city hall, it might allow people to come through and review and get a better idea of where the sites are going to be in the community so they have a better idea of what to react to. Second, I want to reiterate what was mentioned before, I've been in development for 40 years, developer agreements, city-owned property, city-private partnerships work the best. They give the city a lot of control. So I would not forego those sites as possibility of reaching the requirements that the state has put on us. I think overall everybody is concerned about the number of units, how they're going to impact the city, so I hope we haven't given up potential legislative solutions to reduce the numbers. I've seen the original appeal to what we did, and it was, in my opinion, sort of weak, so I hope we haven't given up the opportunity to go back and see if there's other opportunities to get this number reduced. The other one that I didn't see during the discussion of the process of height limitations, size of buildings, et cetera, were zoning modifications to the process where we limit the size. A lot of cities have adopted small lot subdivisions in order to increase density on a smaller footprint. I think if we have tie in the unit size to some of the density locations, you'll find that you don't need a big of square footage. You can have smaller heights in order to reach the densities you're trying to get. And the last one may be, since these are long study sessions, if you want to have them during the day or on Saturdays where people can come and you guys don't stay here until midnight. Thank you very much. |
| 02:10:24.07 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, Mr. Moore. It's next. |
| 02:10:26.42 | Walfred Solorzano | Jordan Dodds followed by Vivian Wall. |
| 02:10:29.54 | Jordan Dodds | I'm going to read off my iPhone. Thank you, city council. Thank you, city staff. My name is Jordan Dodds. I live in North Sausalito, and I'm OK with more housing. My view is lovely, and I feel pretty blessed to have it. But a big part of that view is blocked by the ICB building. I'm OK with it. I'm not trying to get that taken down. As it relates to the MLK site, I appreciate the council taking the time today to explain the benefits of why city owned land is good option and why it makes sense. I guess my question is, even with that understanding, why do we take away public utilized land when there's ample private land or even underutilized public land available to us? Thank you. I bike with my daughters through many parts of the Marin ship on the way to the cruising club just around town. I see areas that are derelict and I wonder why can't we build something beautiful here housing industrial use that's grandfathered in from the people who are already there. Maybe even a hotel in the north part of town. By the way, if that got built, I would see it in my backyard too, and I'm okay with that. I think like Mayor Sobieski said, it seems like with the development agreements and some collaboration, we could build something really great. Thank you. |
| 02:11:42.83 | Councilmember Blaustein | And happy birthday, Mr. Dodds. |
| 02:11:46.58 | Steven Woodside | Ms. Will. Who's next? |
| 02:11:50.73 | Vivian Wall | VIVIAN WALL, COUNCIL, MY NAME IS VIVIAN WALL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HOSTING THIS. IT'S BEEN EXTREMELY INFORMATIVE. I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG PROCESS OVER MANY YEARS. I would welcome if there was any chance of re-legislating the question of the DDNRA. And I ask that one because our numbers are larger than the numbers required of Tiburon. I just looked those up, number one. And number two, you know, this whole Sacramento initiative started before the pandemic and before the excess of empty office buildings that we have in the county and the empty Northgate Mall that we have. And so maybe there's a chance for more flexibility. I don't know the answer, but I guess I would encourage you to um, Karen Hollweg, Try that route one more time, because it just seems like there's a lot of resistance to the large sites here. Karen Hollweg, The second point that I would make is last night, there were Council members at the. the cruising club and one of them mentioned the possibility of counting all the boats that we have here that are currently not zoned for people to live on but whether there was any flexibility in considering that as an option as we look to get more creative and then finally when we look at and and speak to laymen here about the number of the density per acre, I think it's a lot more helpful to talk about the height of the building. And so to the extent that you send out drawings or plans, I think if you send out drawings that include the 100% developer bonus because I think we have to all assume that if they can build, they will build. And if we can have three-dimensional drawings reflecting that, it would be helpful. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:13:57.83 | Steven Woodside | Lorna Newlin. Could you name the next three people, please? Is this the last one? |
| 02:14:03.43 | Walfred Solorzano | the |
| 02:14:05.81 | Steven Woodside | Is this the last person in? |
| 02:14:07.09 | Walfred Solorzano | Last person, unless somebody gives me a kicker slip. |
| 02:14:10.42 | Steven Woodside | as well. Go right ahead. Nolan. |
| 02:14:13.74 | Lorna Newland | Hello, my name's Lorna Newland. I've been a resident for now almost 31 years. I bought my home in Whiskey Springs And I opened a business 22 years ago. And the last 19 years, I have been a tenant at the MLK Bus Barn. And I found out about this potential 181 unit building on next door and not uh, Any kind of notice to any of the tenants there, not all of the tenants are residents, but I've been there for 19 years I paid my rent on time when I got the coven relief of my rent, I paid it all back. within a year instead of taking three years to pay it back. And there are people who have been there for over 30 years. And I don't know what's going to happen to all of us. I've met Derek. He lives across the street. I've gotten to know the neighbors across the street. He was not allowed to put on a second story because of height restriction. So it has to do with – We are all for affordable housing. Unfortunately, so many of our city workers, or city workers, police, teachers, they commute to Petaluma. I don't know what the answer is, I was told we have to conform to the state law, but there are parts of this law that are not valid and to have developers come in and maybe have one |
| 02:15:42.67 | Unknown | Thank you. I don't know. |
| 02:15:42.86 | Lorna Newland | something that's not even really affordable to do. Anyway, I applaud everybody on city council for doing this. And by the way, this isn't late. Two weeks ago, I was here till 1230 to speak. So I applaud everybody who comes and waits. And by the way, I've been working and watching on Zoom. And I drove down here just now, so I couldn't figure out how to. It's too hard to talk on Zoom. |
| 02:16:06.91 | Unknown | Thank you, Mr. Nguyen. |
| 02:16:07.55 | Lorna Newland | But uh, The MLK part, you know, part of it was just thank you very much. Thank you. |
| 02:16:14.48 | Steven Woodside | Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. D. These are you Mr. Merlees, you're up. Mr. Merlees, Craig, you're up. |
| 02:16:31.29 | Craig Merlees | Thank you, Mr Mayor members of the Council. I've been following this and been involved in different ways for years on this project and tonight is kind of hitting me like a re-traumatization. The seeming impossible choices that we're being given here are just so to say they're frustrating and they're complex and they're unfair is an understatement um We're just going to have to muddle through and work together. This has certainly struck me from the Working Waterfront Coalition in a way that has inspired me to look at collaboration with folks. Because in some sense, we're all in the pot, bubbling away here. And the only people that are making out like bandits are developers who lobbied for this legislation in the first place and put us in impossible positions where it's their way or the highway we have to find a third way and i think between the members of the city council and the organizations that are here tonight people getting organized nothing could be healthier for our democracy and for a better outcome than than what we're we're doing tonight so thank you very much |
| 02:17:51.83 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, Mr. Merelyse. |
| 02:17:54.47 | Walfred Solorzano | We have some speakers online. Do we have anybody else in the house? No. All right. So first speaker we have is Eva. If you can unmute yourself. |
| 02:18:05.74 | Unknown | Thanks, this is Eva Cresanti. I lived for many years in Sausalito. My family has been in the area since before the 1906 quake. And I just wanna point out that a lot of the discussions here about what will be built are based on things that are very, very rapidly in flux. Somebody did mention what we saw last weekend on news from the Southeast. That was a one in 1,000 year flood event that was caused by a storm caused by, uh, essentially warmer ocean waters. You're right there on the water. I heard someone concerned about having to conform to plans for a 100 year flood. uh, none of us have any idea what's about to hit us. Some of the worst flooding in the Southeast that just occurred happened in places that were on high ground that were never expected to flood. And on top of that, we have a situation right now where we're, you know, all these externalities, all these costs related to the developers you're talking about, those costs may go sky high, not only because of a potential ILA strike, which would severely impact building materials, Thank you. may go sky high, not only because of a potential ILA strike, which would severely impact building materials, but also because we're about to engage in an extremely costly war in the Middle East. We're being dragged into this war, and that means higher petrol costs, higher fuel costs, and all of that, of course, will be creating more emissions that are going to cause more ocean warming, which is going to mean more storms. So I think, you know, I mean, you're picking over these details as if everything is in stasis. It's not. |
| 02:20:08.51 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:20:12.64 | Walfred Solorzano | Next person is Benjamin Dean. |
| 02:20:17.64 | Benjamin Dean | Hey, counsel. My name is Ben. I am a resident here on Olima, basically a property directly across the street. Sorry, I can't be there, but I have sympathy for all of you in that hot room. Listen, I just want to walk through my personal experience. I moved here four years ago. I have a three-year-old son that goes to the Lise, which is the school impacted. And I mean, frankly, I walk through the property every day and use the park at least once a day to walk my dogs. It's hard to be for this proposal as currently planned, just given the fact that the density considered is not only exceeds what you guys have planned throughout other places in the city, but also just what it will do to property values, what it will do to safety issues, what it will do to congestion, let alone the community that really thrives around MLK. I think ultimately, you know, there are some organizations that have popped up recently that I think would love to engage you guys in kind of proactive planning. We're not all against affordable housing. I think we recognize that this is being forced down our throat. Some of the ideas around Golden Gate Park, even though I'm an avid trail runner and would hate to see developments there, I think are not bad ones if you guys could think innovatively or considering the houseboats as potential housing as well. But ultimately I think, listen, you know, let's be more reasonable in what the development ends up looking like. I think we're happy to plan with you what could be kind of conceivable and reasonable given the space allocated. But ultimately, I think we need to push for more equitable distribution of housing throughout the city. And I'd love to support any council member that's willing to engage in real conversation around this issue. So thank you again. Name's Ben Dean, resident on Olima, if you want to reach out and talk more. |
| 02:21:58.43 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Mr. City Clerk? |
| 02:22:01.13 | Walfred Solorzano | All right, next person is Nicole. |
| 02:22:08.52 | Unknown | Hi, thanks so much. My name is Nicole Belfoy and I live in the Willows and obviously a resident of Sausalito's north side of town. And, you know, just kind of as we're going through this, I... I'm just frustrated and it's just sort of how we're overall handling the housing development, especially as it's... now going to be surrounding our home with these, our home in the Willows with multi-unit projects. You know, I feel like we're talking a lot about protecting views in the historical district, which I can't help but, you know, uh, Melissa's comments about kind of what is historical. Seems like that should be, if we're gonna continue to talk about it, we should be, zeroed in on the fact that it's not not a huge district in Sausalito. But I mean, basically it seems like the more affluent hillside areas are just kind of, um, getting a little bit more of the, the, um, not getting as much of an impact. So it feels like we're creating a community of haves and have-nots by pushing affordable housing into the neighborhood here and preserving views and exclusivity for more affluent areas of Sausalito. I don't understand why a park that's used by families, children, senior citizens, open spaces, we don't have that around Sausalito. It's a gem for MLK. You know, we're obviously concerned about safety. We're concerned about a lot, but why would MLK be, the one that is unnecessarily having the impact of all of the housing. You know, I'm going to encourage City Council here to redistribute and encourage you to be an equal opportunity offender across the whole town, construction, noise, traffic nails, Nails and tires is huge impact all of our property values across all of Sol Solito impact the community all the way and take away spaces that maybe the other side of town values. If we're saying here so many of us is MLK is a gem and it's a community |
| 02:24:10.76 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:24:10.78 | Walfred Solorzano | THANK YOU. |
| 02:24:11.03 | Steven Woodside | Thank you very much. |
| 02:24:11.45 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Peter Van Meter. |
| 02:24:19.45 | Unknown | Good evening. I'm opposed to the project at 605-613 Bridgeway, but I'm concerned that there may be the public relying on applying Ordinance 1022 to defeating this project. I would hate to see this overturned this reliance overturned on a legal challenge due to an apparent error in the housing element document. Figure 1A showing ordinances 1020 to 1128 restrictions zoning map shows the commercial district is being under the control of 1022 in the city's municipal code section. well, it's at Section 10 something or other, the Central Commercial District and residential districts are explicitly excluded from being under the jurisdiction of 1022. So that's an error that needs to be addressed and a definitive ruling made. So we cannot rely on that because, again, legal challenge could overturn that. Secondly, I was found it incredible that the corner of Nevada and Bridgeway was not included as an opportunity site. that's a Willow Grove that can be connected with the Corporation yard to provide over two acre housing development site, the use of that site, which is. Open space attached to the willows could be an economic benefit to those homeowners and would provide a tremendous housing opportunity. And finally, it's not too late to include the Marina Plaza project in the Marin ship, a perfect site for housing, back into your plan. Do not rush to have a vote in March if you can get it right by making these corrections. It's time to do this the proper way. There's no reason to have to have that election in March. Do it in November. Add these sites back into the plan. If you have to do an EIR revision, go ahead and do it. Let's get it right. Thank you. |
| 02:26:16.33 | Steven Woodside | Next speaker, please. |
| 02:26:17.04 | Walfred Solorzano | Thanks. |
| 02:26:17.21 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:26:18.42 | Walfred Solorzano | Bye-bye. |
| 02:26:18.88 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:26:18.90 | Walfred Solorzano | you |
| 02:26:19.03 | Steven Woodside | Google. |
| 02:26:22.54 | Steven Woodside | Mrs. McDougall. |
| 02:26:24.25 | Babette McDougall | Good evening, can you hear me? |
| 02:26:25.76 | Steven Woodside | Last weekend, please go right ahead. |
| 02:26:27.23 | Babette McDougall | Oh, hooray. And I want to just thank my able-bodied helper, Maria, for making sure that I can finally join you. So let me just begin by saying that the first three letters that I ever filed against this standing council body address the very issues that are Now being talked about this evening, where I point out the ridiculous idea of downsizing our best public parks, both Dunphy and MLK, in favor of increasing density And especially during a time when we're looking at bringing in economic sectors that cannot afford to simply pop the money for a yacht or other expensive ways to get out on the water. So having access to the shoreline via Dunphy Park is a unique experience that needs to be preserved. Those contiguous lots, including the one that you're hoping to have a high rise development on in the corner. has got to go. All of that was intended to be part of Dunphy Park. That was something that was done over 10 years ago. And nobody has yet been able to clarify why most of it went south. And the people who bought the properties now have got their own notorious story to tell about it. And if you want to know who's really in charge of the housing element, we all know that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission absorbed the Association of Bay Area Governments. A bag. no longer controls it. It's MTC, and their housing element contract languages far more punitive and difficult to work with. than what we've been seeing so far. And finally, This daylighting. issue. I totally agree with what's being said here tonight. We should not be made to the last minute to hear the ideas. All of this should be a matter of public record. We should have been chewing on this stuff for the last year or more. And why you have deliberately kept it from the citizens is beyond me. And for that reason, I give Linda Fotch a tip of my hat. She's the only one playing by the rules by tendering development plans at all. Thank you. |
| 02:28:29.32 | Walfred Solorzano | Next speaker is John. |
| 02:28:34.32 | John DeRay | Can you hear me? |
| 02:28:35.74 | Steven Woodside | Yes, please go right ahead. |
| 02:28:36.85 | John DeRay | John DeRay, M.D.: Thank you. This is John DeRay. John DeRay, M.D.: I was a member of GPAC a number of years ago, and I followed the housing element very closely. I'm also a member of the Working Waterfront Coalition. I'm actually the one who identified that the GGNRA land was being used in Sausalito's calculation and told city council members then, unfortunately they were unable to make some changes. based on that with their lawsuit. Um, I live on Nevada Street adjacent to the corporation yard. Uh, we're, uh, my understanding is there's a, uh, quite a dense, uh, um, development happening there. I support that development. because my understanding is it's targeted to be affordable senior apartments. I understand North Sausalito is currently less dense than the southern part of Sausalito, so I understand that there's some capacity for MLK, I think, so we moved from 80 to 94 units. Hopefully we can move back to 80 and perhaps less than 80 if some of these units can be moved across Bridgeway in those parking lots that are currently already listed in the plan. Um, These parking lot areas do not interfere with the current industrial users there. I will say that it's really unfortunate that signs around my neighborhood Kevin Mohrmanovic, Kept saying 181 units and some of the renderings were very ugly very ugly I think that really stoked some panic. When I think about affordable units, I always think about seniors. I also want to mention that I took a look at the rotary housing on Olima. 22 units on 0.43 acres is 51 units an acre. MLK, 80 units on 1.88 acres is 42 units per acre. So MLK plan would be less than the rotary plan. So, That's my comment. Thank you. |
| 02:30:36.54 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, Mr. Dre. |
| 02:30:38.36 | John DeRay | Thank you. |
| 02:30:38.38 | Walfred Solorzano | Do we have any further public speakers? |
| 02:30:41.12 | Steven Woodside | One more. Are you wishing to make public comment, ma'am? |
| 02:30:41.42 | Walfred Solorzano | One more. |
| 02:30:48.15 | Steven Woodside | Please just come to the podium and introduce yourself and make your comment. |
| 02:30:54.13 | Allison Salzer | Hi. |
| 02:30:54.55 | Steven Woodside | Welcome. |
| 02:30:55.34 | Allison Salzer | Thank you. Introduce yourself. I'm Allison Salzer. I'm a realtor and had to step out and. |
| 02:30:55.71 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:31:01.32 | Steven Woodside | Please go ahead. |
| 02:31:02.40 | Allison Salzer | But I'm really calling to talk, or coming here to talk about your SB9 program. I've sold multiple lots here in Sausalito. I've sold duplexes here in Sausalito. I currently have an SB9 lot for sale. And with the way the mandate is right now, the way the city ordinance is now planned, people aren't allowed to build more than a 1,200-square-foot home and a 1,200-square-foot ADU. And it's just not sensible, it's not market friendly. I've had so many people interested that we need just to reconfigure the size amounts. Thank you. and just make it more doable for most developers and for people that just want to live there and rent one of the units. And I think that's what we're trying to really do is promote more housing. And if we start small, then we don't have to worry about these huge density projects. So that's my comment. |
| 02:31:57.04 | Steven Woodside | Thank you very much. Any other public comment? then. All right, we'll close public comment now. Any discussion here on the dice? Who would like to be recognized? Go ahead. |
| 02:32:06.77 | Ian Kellman | Thank you so much, everybody. Really, really appreciate this. The Housing Element Advisory Committee held its first meeting October 2021? So here we are three years later. Really, really appreciate it. I also want to mention I was one of two council members who drafted a 40 plus page appeal to HCD. Covering this and more, if you'd like to see it, email me. I'd love to share it with you. It was very disappointing to have not been further recognized by HCD. um so thank you everybody for the for the feedback it's a delight to see so many new faces here i want to just make some suggestions for staff as we move forward um you probably saw in the hallway we have uh some of our sea level rise adaptation of big poster boards i think we need to update in city hall let's bring back some of the opportunity sites some of the maps some of the slides that we didn't weren't attached to the agenda that the consultant showed. I think everybody should be living and breathing with this. We've done that before when the housing element was meeting. I also want to comment on the GGNRA issue. So we did go to GGNRA. We were rejected. You know what, let's do it again. Let's bring it back up. So if my colleagues agree, I think we gotta go fight that battle again. I see no reason why. So we'll talk offline about sort of raising some publicity around that. But that's low-hanging fruit, and that makes a lot of sense. And that's not pro-con housing. That's just facts. Okay, the other thing, if everybody knows who our state senator and our assemblymen are, call them. Tell them a couple things. Tell them how you feel about these. Senator Mike McGuire, he's wonderful. He'd love to hear from you. Assemblymember Tim and Connolly, we'd love to hear from you. Because there's a couple things we've been trying to do. We've been trying to get BCDC to allow us to do more liveaboard. I mean, we're a waterfront community. Why do we not have 200 units on the water? So we need this pressure that we felt tonight, which is a wonderful exchange. Please help us help the community in that fashion. Okay, so for staff and as we move forward, we didn't see an accounting of the ADUs. We talked about this very closely and specifically as we were moving through the process, but I can't stand here today and tell you how many ADUs are being counted toward these numbers. I think it was a handful of people who said more opportunity sites with less density. I think ADUs are a great opportunity for this community. and and jd use that's right that's within the existing footprint of the home and adu is a separate unit and they have different size allocations um i think we need to really dig down deep into that and make those numbers public and see what we have um i also want to um comment on two ideas. And sorry, colleagues, we haven't spoken about this. Altamira, I am curious. Everybody knows where the old Altamira site is, completely other part of town. Are we maxed out there from a density perspective? I don't know, but I think in light of this conversation, we should take a hard look. And I also thought it was helpful to hear some of the numbers, and everybody seems to do their own math, so some of the numbers around how many units would actually go to MLK, but let's look across the street to some of those areas that exist that are currently parking lots and see if we can potentially move some of the units across the street there. So those are just my preliminary thoughts about things that we can take that are political, how you can help us take those political actions, but then also we as council members and staff can work on. So I'll start there. I'll also, oh sorry, just mention SB 1037 recently signed into law by Governor Newsom imposes fines of $10,000 to $50,000 a month on cities that don't comply with the housing laws. So we are as interested as you are in getting this done and providing more housing. |
| 02:35:59.99 | Steven Woodside | Who's next? Anyone want to speak? Are we going to move on? |
| 02:36:06.31 | Councilmember Blaustein | I'll go. I'll go. |
| 02:36:07.06 | Steven Woodside | That's very blasting. |
| 02:36:08.19 | Councilmember Blaustein | Yes, I love Councilmember Kelman's ideas. I, in fact, do. Thank you. I really appreciate that. I also really want to thank all of the members of the community who came out tonight. Many of you might have been your first time at a city council meeting. And it's always really invigorating to see new faces show up and have people be engaged. And it really does shift our perspective. So just know that you're being heard and we appreciate you being here. And we certainly heard your call for a different distribution of the sites. And so with that in mind, I would really like, first of all, I just want to make it clear that I would like us to do whatever we can to decrease the density of MLK sites. So as we're taking into account the study session, whether that's the lower number of sites or whatever might be required. And I think we talked about increasing density at a few of the other sites. So I agree with Altamira, potentially at the FedEx site would be helpful. And then I want a more clear understanding of downsizing at each of the sites and have a true assessment of potential density at each. So I would like to look at all of the sites that are being proposed to be shifted and know what the total potential largest number of units could be and what the number is now so that we have a real picture and we can determine what that would look like. and with that in mind, put an emphasis on an understanding of development agreements for some of these properties, as we consider what the real numbers are going to be that we put into the into the housing element definitely would love to see more of an understanding of ADUs, JADUs and maximizing SB9 to the best of our capability and understanding what that means for our housing element numbers. and And again, just doing a review of the total distribution. And I absolutely agree with going back on the GGNRA piece. And I appreciate Councilmember Kellman bringing that up. I would love to be able to have more of our BCDC work be done to potentially see more liveaboards be counted for our numbers and also potentially have more floating homes generally. So and then just to go back to some of the specific sites, because I have a few more notes here, if we are going to increase the density at one and three, again, really considering what that means with regards to density at the MLK site, and keeping in mind how important it is that we do have agency with these city-owned sites, I would like to at least work into the study assessment, and I don't know if it means returning it into our EIR, just a deeper understanding of potential within all of the city-owned sites. So that means the Spencer Fire Station and City Hall, as mentioned. And I think that that was it. But again, just really appreciate all of the hard work. And again, thank you to Councilmember Cox and Councilmember Kellman for your years of free hours spent on trying to get us to where we are with the housing element. And it's exciting that as sites come up, more and more folks engage. And it's still a work in progress. So I appreciate, again, everyone's input. And we will continue to work on this and look forward to what the study session will reveal. Thank you. |
| 02:39:05.73 | Steven Woodside | Who would like to go next? Councillor Hoffman, do you have any comments or vice mayor? Council Member Hoffman, go right ahead. |
| 02:39:13.78 | Councilmember Hoffman | I do think so. Um, so you know, in keeping with trying to get this housing element done, right? I think the focus should be on moving forward with the sites that are already in our, you know, we've already done the assessment on. And so I disagree that I don't think we should go back and look at Spencer and City Hall at this time. Keep it in mind. you know, in a few more years, we're going to start a next housing element and the more sites that we have in this housing element we by definition, you can't include them those in the next housing element so we've got to the point where we have we're pretty far along in our environmental impact review. We're adjusting that right now, but I don't want to have any further delays because I do think that we need to get this housing element finished and we need to move on and start looking to the future and actually getting some of these sites moving to the extent that we can with regard to development. I want to thank everybody again for engaging in this and talking with us about it. I don't live on the far north side of town, but I live on... the mid north side of town. So the comments of pushing development, especially high development into certain areas resonates with me and I think with all of us, actually, we've worked really hard to spread development throughout, um, Sausalito. I think, um, You know, if we can decrease some of the numbers at the MLK site, in keeping with knowing that with density bonus, we might be able to plus them up, but putting a ceiling on that, so that the horrific numbers that have been sort of bandied about, we have some protection against those. I think it's never too early to start working with the neighbors and working through what we would want and what those sites to look like, especially on the sites that we own. So with regard to the MLK site, certainly and with regard to the corporation yard and working with the willows, I think it's a great idea in keeping also the efforts to daylight the Willow Creek Um, area. and making sure that that remains open and working with the other people that live around there. I think we can do that with our own sites and it's much easier to do with our own sites. I think we should do that. I'm trying to remember when the last time we had a development agreement in Sausalito successfully. We've tried that in the past, you know, principally I'm not against that, but I just know that it becomes very complicated. And, And sometimes it slows the process down rather than just encouraging proposals from a developer. So I'm not saying no to that. I'm just saying, I don't want us to slow down with that. I don't think at this time that we need another architects group. I think that if we have a plan and, and we deny it. and somebody sues us for it, the experts that we need with regard to defending that lawsuit are very specific to each lawsuit. So I don't want to add another layer onto developers who want to build in Sausalito. I think we should be as free as we can on that and get projects started, frankly, and streamlining some of the projects that are, you know, have the least amount of objections to them. So that's my input at this point. Thank you. |
| 02:42:47.40 | Steven Woodside | I guess I'll go next and give the last word to the vice mayor who's been working so hard on this. I support former mayor, my colleague, Councilmember Kellman's idea of trying again to reduce our arena number if we can in some way by getting the state to not count the open space that's on the other side of the freeway as part of our denominator in our land area, then more power to us so. If that's a direction to the city attorney, I'm all in for trying that. That would be great. So let's try to do that. you A lot of things have been said here tonight, but I think the one thing I would like to nudge board and to continue to nudge board, I I know that this legal process is defined by the law. It has to be met. Three and a half years ago, I voted against the Beth Thompson, not because I didn't like her, I just didn't think that we should spend all our money on the legal process I advocated without knowing what it was called, something that would be called the Community Development Agreement process that's a parallel process that would do kind of what Vivian Wall asked for, for this process, which we can't do. kind of mock-ups of what might be built on these various properties. But that's like literally not what the zoning change process with these density bonus requirements allows us to do because we actually, we're not designing the building. We're allowing developers to build things under the state law within certain rules and whether they make their buildings of bright aluminum or all glass or wood shingle, it's kind of up to them. And so... the community development agreement approach would be and burden on the city we'd have to pay for an architect urban planner circulation expert but it would be a sort of master planning for lack of a better word of our community where we're actually helping actually meet the state mandates, in part, with designs that fit the sites. Not just picking sites to spread them out, but actually picking what goes on the sites. And part of that, of course, is an economic, it has to work for the developer, so there'd be some analysis. You know, I don't pretend. to have all those answers, but I do know that next we're going to hear an amazing piece of innovation that's grassroots. from SOS, Save Our Sausalito, about view ordinances. It's a piece of innovation. Didn't come from city council. Didn't come from city staff. It came from the creativity of the community in this place. And I would just love to advocate for us to cooperate with direct staff to, and we have lots of attorneys in both staff and on the council, to help figure out how to make a parallel path using this tool to help, if not in this housing cycle, the next one. because it will surely be an issue for many years to come. Those are my thoughts. Vice Mayor? |
| 02:45:47.07 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, Mayor. First, I'll say I am the only council member who actually lives above MLK. My backyard looks right down on top of the roof of the New Village School. And so I'm very aware of some of the issues raised by Adriana Duhanian and others about noise and parking and congestion, Um, But I am someone who advocated for putting some development on every city owned property that we can because we can control what happens there. There was a question, Councilmember Hoffman said, when was our last development agreement? I think the closest thing we had to a development agreement was our agreement for the Valhalla former site, which was a planned unit development in which we negotiated various concessions with the landowner for what's now a beautiful development that includes condos and is possibly going to become a hotel. We were also in the process of negotiating a development agreement with Bridgeway Marina. We had a letter of intent that was going to become a development agreement it's such an amazingly useful tool it takes time and we can't count units identified within the development agreement until we. I don't know. adopt the development agreement and carry out the requirements of the development agreement, like zoning changes, et cetera. So it's a great tool. I think we should definitely embark on that. for some of our more challenging properties as a parallel process, and then we can always update the housing element to reflect the addition of those properties. Um, I want to be clear that when we added the MLK site to our housing element and when we adopted it in the beginning of 2023, we were very clear that it would not affect the park. It would not affect the dog park. We would preserve the tennis courts. We would preserve the pickleball courts. We would preserve the basketball court. I would like to see city staff as part of our putting together a ballot initiative, help us with some renderings of what development at the MLK site might look like, that we can share with neighbors who will ultimately end up voting on a ballot initiative. I do not favor postponing the ballot initiative. If we don't pass something in March, we then still have November to take another stab at it. But we have a deadline of the end of next year to update our zoning ordinance, or we are not in compliance with housing element rules. And so I really want us to continue to march smartly forward to advance and meet the deadlines. That being said, I also do support reducing the density at the MLK site. No one on the council told staff to increase it from 80 to 94. That was a decision made by our consultant, I would like to see it reduced below 80 if we can. And I agree and endorse the suggestions that we see about increasing some of the density at parking lots elsewhere where the impacts to residents are less. I would like to see us reach out to the superintendent of schools and other resources to identify funding for housing on the Nevada street school site that's owned by the school district so we don't get to. say how it will be developed but if they put housing there we get to count it towards our arena number so i would like to do that i support councilmember kelman's suggestion that we go back to bcdc we went to bcdc in 2018 and asked them to allow us to have more live boards right now we're confined to 10 per marina we'd like to have 15 we have 2 000 slips in sausalito so um going from 10% to 10% per marina. We'd like to have 15%. We have 2,000 slips in Sausalito. So going from 10% to 15% gives us another 100 potential. affordable units of housing and people love living on their liveaboards. I would also like to see houseboats approved. I'd like to see another Galilee Harbor. We already have that in our housing element as a potential. The next time staff comes to us, I'd like to see an accounting of the JADUs and ADUs, which are an element already existing in our housing element. We just need to communicate better to the community about that. We really have adopted a myriad strategy. Um, okay. I do favor studying the addition of Spencer Avenue, a firehouse and city hall. We won't be able to do it by the end of this year, probably, because we haven't studied the environmental impact, but I would like city staff to embark on a study of what that would look like so that we can consider it in the future so that we do spread housing more equitably throughout town and we do... focus on housing on city-owned properties where we can control the development and ensure that we have the proper appearance and the proper occupancy. We had numerous study sessions as part of developing both the general plan and the housing element. It sounds to me like maybe we should have another one. as we're moving forward with proposed amendments, because the interest here has been phenomenal. The people that Councilmember Blaustein and I spoke with on Sunday are really engaged, really interested, have very creative ideas, and so I think outreach to the community continues to be an important aspect of what we do. And that concludes my comments. Thank you. |
| 02:51:56.21 | Steven Woodside | Okay, I think that's a wrap on this topic. Thanks to everyone for being here this evening. And we will take a five-minute bio break. And thank you indeed for your engagement. Stay engaged. It is a community. |
| 02:52:08.07 | Brandon Phipps | additional chances to take a bite at the amended housing element apple three meetings that are upcoming where they will be able to attend and we would welcome them october 23 planning commission study session november 13 planning commission public hearing december 3rd city council public hearing Thank you. |
| 02:52:25.27 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:52:25.35 | Brandon Phipps | Look forward to seeing you. |
| 02:52:25.37 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you very much, Director Phipps. We'll return at 10 minutes. |
| 02:52:30.13 | Ian Kellman | Director Phipps, Brandon, request, can you make sure that council receives copies of the materials that are provided to the Planning Commission, at least the subcommittee? Everybody? Okay. Yeah. |
| 02:52:42.16 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. He will. Heads on. We'll be back in five minutes. Five minutes past ten. |
| 02:52:47.83 | Brandon Phipps | Yes. All right. Hello again. Okay. Mayor, vice mayor, council members, members of the public and staff. I'm still happy to be here. Now to item 5B is related to more robust objective development design standards. So state of California has adopted or amended several housing laws, which generally limit development review authority of local governments to the use of discretionary or subjective review standards typically associated with design review. Recognizing that the city lacks objective development review criteria to regulate more intricate matters, such as the building design and potential view preservation concerns associated with new development, the city council directed that staff engage with consultants and the planning commission to develop more comprehensive objective development and design standards. We did go through a public process to retain Robert Brown and Optico's design, Inc., due to their experience in working with other Marin County jurisdictions, particularly on the development. go through a public process to retain Robert Brown and Optico's design, Inc., due to their experience in working with other Marin County jurisdictions, particularly on the development of the Marin County Odds Toolkit. Following collaboration with our consultants and the Planning Commission and the subcommittee and conducting a series of study sessions with the Historic Preservation Commission and Council, among other bodies, we ultimately developed a draft odds for new multifamily and mixed-use development that was presented to City Council at a study session in March of this year. Based on substantial counsel and public feedback, the Council directed that a peer-review group of local professionals, including architects and historic preservationists be created in order to conduct additional evaluation on the draft odds and recommend potential revisions to both staff and the City Council. The peer review group really has done a substantial overhaul of the odds, working in collaboration with staff and our consultants, improving and simplifying a significant portion of the document while providing a framework for objective historic and view preservation regulations. While there does remain some work to be done to finalize this effort, the peer review group accomplished a tremendous amount in a limited time in consideration of the time-sensitive nature of the city's rezoning program and in response to council direction. Before handing it over to Bob Brown to provide more detail on the amended odds, I'd like to recognize the amazing efforts of each member of the odds peer review group. Thank you. Vice Mayor Cox, Council Member Kelman, our City Council and City Council Housing Working Group members. Thank you to our appointed officials, Historic Preservation Commission, Vice Chair, Vicki Nichols and Planning Commissioner, David Merlot. Thank you to Sophia Collier, An invaluable member of the peer review group who has been instrumental in the development of the proposed objective view standards. You will hear more about that later this evening. And thank you to all other members of the peer review group. Michael Rex, Mary Griffin, Stephen Woodside, Barbara Brown, Ed Brickman, Connor Turnbull, and David Kornmeier. Thank you all for your work and your commitment to the city. It's been a pleasure to work with you all. And with that said, Bob Brown, the floor is yours. Thank you very much, council, and I am available to answer questions now or following Bob's presentation. |
| 02:55:50.15 | Jill Hoffman | Can I ask one? So again, Brandon. Tonight is a study session. We are not making decisions tonight. We're hearing information, giving direction. Then it goes to the Planning Commission. Then it comes back to us for a decision. Absolutely, Vice Mayor. Just so that everyone is clear on the process. |
| 02:56:03.78 | Brandon Phipps | Absolutely, vice mayor. Yeah, so the bites at the apple that I outlined earlier related to the three upcoming public meetings are the same for this process. So, and I will, we can speak to those again later. |
| 02:56:18.31 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:56:18.67 | Bob Brown | Thank you. Thank you so much, Director Phipps. And you've covered a few of my slides, so we can probably move through a couple of the introductory slides. Next, please. So very briefly, I will cover some of the changes that have occurred since you saw the last draft in March. And they've been, as Director Phipps said, pretty substantive. And then I'll just give a little bit of a high-level summary of some of the components of the draft odds. And then we can talk next steps. Next, please. I won't go through why we're doing this. The director covered that. Next, please. And again, the process was also covered, so let's go next. Okay. So, again, the major changes that have been recommended by the peer review group, again, they're pretty numerous. One, a very important one, they eliminated the odds zones. So these were sort of like parallel zoning districts that were in the odds. And the review committee said no. We'll just refer to what we currently have in the zoning code, and these are the regulations for height and setbacks, floor area ratios, and site coverage. So those will be referenced in the current zoning code and not in the odds, which took out quite a substantial portion of the document. Next, they reviewed and recommended reducing the allowable building types. There were previously 11. Now there are four. Again, a lot of the document is gone as a result. And they also proposed reducing the number of allowable frontage types from nine to six. And they added a front garage and a front garden option. These are how the building relates to the street, particularly given the slope nature of parcels in Sausalito. Also, they proposed modifying the privacy regulations that were in the original draft. So now, not just these are for when proposed development projects are in close proximity to an adjacent residential structure. Used to be that those would require modifications of the window placement or the window type. based upon the adjacency of windows now it also takes into account adjacent uh outdoor spaces on balconies and decks And they added regulations related to properties in the historic district. And as you'll hear a little bit later, created regulations to assess and limit view impacts from private and public vantage points. So those were the high-level changes that are in the document now. Next. Next. I think it's very important that everyone understands what the odds apply to and what projects they do not. So the odds will apply. to Any project that has two or more new housing units, multifamily housing units that would either be in a multifamily project or in a mixed use project where at least two thirds of the square footage is residential. It would apply only in the multifamily and commercial zoning districts or any zoning district where multifamily housing is allowed so that would also include zoning districts like in Marin ship if that occurs through the public vote. And it would also then be a requirement for projects seeking SP 35 or AB 2011 approvals next. what it does not apply to. Next slide, please. What it does not apply to will be single family homes or SB 9 projects or any application that is a modification to an existing multifamily project that doesn't add two or more units. and any new or modified commercial project. Again, it doesn't add two or more units. Next, please. It also proposes a change in the review process. So the idea is that this would be an alternate approval process. If applicants choose it, they would, if they comply with all of the odds and all of the objective standards in your current municipal code, The quid pro quo is they would avoid discretionary design review. So it would be simply an administrative approval. Staff would verify compliance with all these regulations. If they meet that bar, that very high bar, the projects would be approved. For those projects that don't meet the standards, any of the standards, or if the applicant wants more flexibility, they then would be able to go through your traditional design review process that's discretionary. Thanks. We've had a lot of talk about the density bonus law tonight and waivers and concessions. Again, this is just a cautionary tale that the state law under the density bonus gives a great deal of deference and ability for applicants. to obtain waivers to the zoning standards, including the new odds. So, again, the state mandates that we create these odds. and then they take away in the same hand by allowing developers to simply waive them. And that, as the city attorney said, could be height regulations. It could also be the view preservation standards that we'll talk about later. I would just add that I would say the great majority of housing projects that I see applied for in the last several years have all asked for height waivers. It's very, very common. Thank you. Next, please. So there are proposed changes that would be made in the zoning code, not the odds themselves. Beth Thompson covered some of that earlier. Again, the idea is that for the 48 housing opportunity sites, there would be one of three overlays applied to it. One would be the overlay at 29 units an acre. One would be an overlay at up to 49 units an acre. And one would be an overlay with a maximum of 70 units per acre. And as part of that, we would change the regulations to accommodate the higher density. The height limit, as we mentioned earlier, would stay the same for the 29 and 49 unit per acre maximum projects. But to get the 70 units per acre, we would propose an extra story, so four stories up to 45 feet. Also, to accommodate the additional square footage, you'd have to increase your floor air ratios. And so we show those here on the screen, both for a strictly multifamily project and also a bit higher if it was a mixed-use project to allow that commercial space. I think it's very important to point out that these FARs are based on an average unit size of 750 square feet. So not particularly large units. And the point of that is twofold. one, to keep the average size of these buildings down, And secondly, to promote more affordable units by design. So they're not going to be 3,000 square foot units. Again, the FARs that are being recommended here are based on 750 square foot average unit sizes. And we'd also propose that the building coverage limits be waived. And the purpose of that is to encourage shorter buildings. They may cover more of the lot, but they would be shorter. Next slide. So, again, trying to describe the draft odds very succinctly, it's important to understand that these rules are additive. So your existing code still exists. In a few cases, the odds would supersede what you have currently, but in most cases, they go beyond. They add additional requirements to what you currently have. So one of the things that it requires is that an applicant choose among four different building types. And again, we had previously, I think, 11 down to four. Next. And those building types each have various restrictions, particularly in terms of the building dimensions. So again, the intent is to not allow these buildings to be exceptionally large and to require some ins and outs, some articulation in the footprint of the building. Next. Again, the developer would have the ability to pick between one of six frontage types. This is how the building addresses the street. So, for example, a housing project could potentially pick having a porch in the front. A commercial project could pick having a storefront. And there are regulations and dimensions, et cetera, for each of those. Next, please. Also associated with the building type are allowable massing types, and these then provide for the form of the building. So some articulation in the front. Thank you. the way the roof relates and how the building is organized so the fenestration the windows and doors how they're organized on a facade next I think it's important to point out that what the odds do intentionally is restrict the placement of the building and the overall massing of the building. What they don't do is they don't regulate the style or the architectural design of the building. So the style is entirely up to the applicant. It doesn't call for specific material types. It doesn't call for specific window or door proportions. Again, the actual design of the facades of the building are left to the applicant. Next. There are other additional regulations that are incorporated as part of the odds. So there are requirements for screening of equipment and garbage enclosures, those sorts of facilities. There are additional regulations that relate to landscaping and lighting. Um, parking. The odds deal with the location of parking and also more landscaping for parking. They have increased bicycle parking. There are streetscape standards, so the street frontage improvements that are required. And then also, as I mentioned, there are privacy regulations that relate to residential properties that are in close proximity. Exactly. |
| 03:06:44.49 | Bob Brown | So there are, again, two areas where the review committee really went very much beyond the original draft odds. One is in the area of view preservation. So with the view preservation regulations, this would require the preparation of view assessments. It would be required using city commission software or an equivalent, and it would look at the existing topography, the existing buildings that are sitting on the land, vegetative forms. And it would determine the visibility of protected views from various vantage points from adjacent residential structures, but also from, I think, 38 publicly defined vantage points. it would then, the software would then incorporate the digital design of the project, and it would rerun the analyses. again, looking to the extent of view blockage from any particular vantage point. Um, The regulations define three different types of views. One is an iconic view of certain features, either bridge, the San Francisco skyline, Angel Island, Mount Tam. And those could not be blocked from any one vantage point by more than 5%. Water views of the bay or the ocean could not be blocked by, again, more than 5% from any vantage point. And then what they call vista views of the natural environment could not be blocked by more than 10%. So I just think it's important to note that the software, while it seems incredibly innovative and groundbreaking, does not currently exist. It would have to be created. It will have to be tested. And there will be costs to the city in doing that. So if the council, after hearing the presentations tonight, wants to pursue that, again, we will have to refine some of that information for you so you have a better picture of what that means. Next, please. Then in terms of the historic district, there are additional regulations that would apply to all properties within the designated district. Um, And there's really two areas of regulations. One would limit the height of a building. the ground floor height, Pardon me. See you next time. The window and door proportions on a facade and the building coverage. Hmm. based on the average of what are called neighborhood context buildings. Thank you very much. |
| 03:09:32.33 | Bob Brown | Appreciate that. |
| 03:09:36.26 | Bob Brown | So again, these neighborhood context buildings in the immediate proximity would establish averages in these areas, and then the new building would have to abide with those averages. I would point out since most of your historic district is two stories that could definitely pose a restriction on getting to an allowed third story in the district. Next. Then the other aspect of the historic regulations, it calls for adoption of what's called a defining characteristics list. So this is a list for each property in the district and identifies the historic characteristics, architectural features of each building that make it historic and make it a contributing building to the district if that's the case. So from this list, new construction would be required to incorporate at least two of those listed features in the new construction. And if it's a modification of an existing building, those features have to be retained. We would note that currently the draft defining characteristics list, this comes from the existing historic inventory forms that the city had prepared several many years ago. Um, Those will require some, I think, additional editing to make sure everything in them is objective. But I would also say that the review committee views that list as being an interim list and would really love to see a comprehensive update of the inventory done that would then update the finding characteristics list in the near future. Next, please. So these next steps, I think Beth covered these in her earlier slides. So again, we're shooting for bringing an ordinance for adoption of the odds. and the zoning code changes to the council in early December. in order to meet a deadline for a ballot measure next year. Um, and with that, I did want to mention that, uh, Tony Perez, who is, uh, The lead from Opticos, who's worked with us for the last three and a half years, is on Zoom. So if you have specific questions of him, we can refer them to him. And I think that that is it. Next slide. Yes, that is it. And I think at this point, if you have questions, I'll be happy to deal with them. If not, we can hear from the review committee and their presentation. Thank you. |
| 03:12:13.69 | Steven Woodside | Just one preliminary question for me is the six building types. We're about to hear from a view tool. that would would. potentially constrain the setbacks in a way that I'm wondering if you're building types would allow if you only have six. |
| 03:12:31.36 | Bob Brown | I don't think the building types would be constrained. I think it is possible if you have a site that's surrounded by properties that currently have views and they're coming, at that site from different perspectives, different angles. I think it is possible that you will find that there will be properties that cannot meet the density or the allowed floria ratio. So, again, that certainly is an opportunity for waivers and concessions under the state density bonus law. care. |
| 03:12:59.77 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:13:04.23 | Jill Hoffman | I had a couple of questions. Thank you. |
| 03:13:06.58 | Bob Brown | Yes. |
| 03:13:06.81 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:13:06.83 | Bob Brown | Thank you. |
| 03:13:07.62 | Jill Hoffman | I was concerned about your slide that says that the proposed software does not currently exist. So I think Sophia is going to show us that software does exist. It perhaps has not been customized for the city, but the software exists, no? |
| 03:13:24.53 | Bob Brown | Again, I think you'll hear from the presentation. I think what we're saying is that the software is not plug and play now. And I think from the staff's perspective, it should be by the time the ordinance is enacted and becomes effective because you could have an application the next day. that will have to utilize the software. So that's all we're saying. |
| 03:13:46.38 | Jill Hoffman | And that's my next question. Your slide said the software must be tested prior to ordinance adoption. Is that not up to the city council about the timing? It is. Okay, so there's no statute. that says that the software must be tested prior to ordinance adoption. |
| 03:14:06.25 | Bob Brown | No, I think you would want to know that the software is functional and it does what we believe it should do. |
| 03:14:12.50 | Jill Hoffman | Understood. And so perhaps we should ask of our review committee for a timeline for if the city council gives direction to move forward for development, or customization of the software and testing so that we can understand that process. Absolutely. |
| 03:14:29.99 | John DeRay | Thank you. |
| 03:14:30.04 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you. |
| 03:14:33.31 | Steven Woodside | Anyone else? Ms. Collier? Ms. Collier? |
| 03:14:39.83 | Sophia Collier | Thank you very much. |
| 03:14:42.17 | Steven Woodside | Welcome. |
| 03:15:10.42 | Michael Rex | Hello, I'm architect Michael Rex, and one has to ask why we're here. We're here because when we... myself and others reviewed the Planning Commission's draft that was sent to you for recommendations. We were concerned it's too generic. that it needed to be better tailored to fit Sausalito Saucena with its steep topography and its small village-like character. We thought we needed better protection of views. and privacy. We thought we needed better historic preservation standards. and form-based standards, again, to reflect this unique town. We understood and were firmly committed that when we do this, by state mandate. the solutions we propose must be objective, measurable, and known in advance. We were told, particularly when it came to view protection, it's not possible, it's never been done. We knew better. Views can be measured. and known in advance. Something physical. You shared our concerns when we brought those concerns to you in March. We proposed, and with your support, we organized a volunteer group we called the Peer Review Group because we're peer reviewing the Planning Commission's work. and we invited local experts. to assist. And you heard David Brown's imagine who they are and I I want to thank you for supporting this volunteer initiative. and also for directing. City staff and your paid consultants to assist us in this process. THE END OF THE END OF THE While Bob Brown mentioned the names, I wanted to let you know that It also included Connor Turnbull, who's worked with Vicki on historic preservation. and Steve Woodside and then Ed Brankman. and five of the members of the peer review group are architects. We broke into five different subcommittees, each one taking a key element, privacy, view protection, form-based design, wordsmithing, and historic preservation. And joining us in those subcommittees were David Cornyn, Josh Richman, and James Sparkman. Over a period of three months, we had 98 meetings. We met weekly, sometimes twice a week, and we did a lot of research of technology. We reached out to other experts. And I want to particularly shout out to Sophia Collier. on the view protection. and David Millat on our planning commission. with his diligence and detailed wordsmithing. I also want to thank Bob Brown from Opticos and Tony Perez. and our city staff, Brandon, Neil, and Sergio. This was a team effort, okay? I also want to thank the 67 people who wrote to you in your packet tonight supporting this effort. THEIR OWNERS. Before I turn it over to David Merlot, who's going to give you a broad overview, I do want to mention that when we get to the next steps, I have a few comments that I'd like to suggest. So David, please give us an overview. |
| 03:18:54.52 | Michael Rex | Bye. |
| 03:18:54.89 | Jeffrey Chase | Thank you. |
| 03:18:56.21 | David Merlot | So thank you very much, Michael, and good evening, council members. My name is David Marlott, also a local architect and member of the Planning Commission. What I'd like to do tonight is very briefly give you a high-level summary of where our group sees the work, principally the work of the historic preservation and view-based standards, fitting within the framework of the odds and that it's compatible. And then secondly, just highlighting some of what we feel like we were able to accomplish in the past three months, much of which has been touched on by Bob already. So there's just three slides here. One shows the current situation. What's helpful is to understand that the city, and like all cities in all counties in California, already have objective standards. They have objective standards and subjective standards. Subjective, of course, in our city involves the character, the review protection, historic, and so forth. And within the objective standards, there's two types already in our code. One is form-based, so setbacks and height will dictate some kind of a shape. And formula-based, such as the floor area ratio, lot coverage, even acoustical limits at the property line, don't tell you what a shape should be, but they give you a formula, and they're equally objective. And that'll be important in just a moment. because the first draft of the odds that you reviewed in March They moved the character, privacy, and screening aspects out of the subjective column and over into the objective column with additions to the form-based side of objective. But as Michael's expressed, and all of you well know, they left the view and preservation aspects, which are really critical to our city and the character of our city, they left them somewhat orphaned. And that was really what we saw as our challenge. And how could view in particular fit, how could it be objective? So, Sophia is going to show the demonstration of the software in use, but just I want to offer this framework that view synchronization, as we call it, or view preservation, actually fits very well in the existing framework of an objective design standard, just like any county or city may regulate floor area ratio, they may regulate daylight planes, they may regulate setbacks, lot coverage. These are all things that are formula-based that the jurisdictions established to protect the character of their city and view protection is nothing other than that. and form-based. can include historic preservation because that's usually associated with averaging or matching or being compatible with very specific forms. So that's a very broad overview of how we place our work in the context of the work that's already been done prior to the peer group. Some of this, obviously, Bob already mentioned, but some of the key results and recommendations that we see is we helped, working with staff, optimizing the form-based criteria, which as a result was reducing building types, zones, and other streamlining characteristics. It had the effect of cutting the page count by about half of what was presented in March, but that wasn't the original goal. The original goal was to be efficient, effective, consistent, so there weren't redundancies, and that would be just a better tool for staff and for any applicant or architect. We added some facade types that were more specific to Sausalito and offered modifications to others. We introduced something that was missing from the draft, which was a requirement for some level of neighborhood notification and a staff pre-app requirement. Understanding that a lot of these projects will be approved ministerially But that doesn't mean that communication is should be ignored. And it can actually be argued that it's a streamlining quality for HCD, not an impediment to permitting. As Michael mentioned, we enhance the privacy standards just to be more effective and account for our topography. And then, as you'll see in just a moment, the historic district standards to preserve the historic character and remain aligned with the Secretary of Interior standards and also developing, as has been discussed already tonight, the view synchronization methodology that will preserve what's really an invaluable community asset to our city. So with that, I'd just like to also join Michael in expressing our gratitude to staff and the consultants and the legal counsel for working with us and coming up with this joint document that you are reviewing this evening. Thank you very much. I'll leave it over to Sophia. |
| 03:23:53.12 | Sophia Collier | Well, I would also like to add one other thank you, and that is to our leader, Vice Mayor Cox. She was there in our meetings and making sure that we were not overly constrained, that we were able to brainstorm and go freeform at times when we were trying to work with some of these very technical things, So it's like... form based or topics like that set is very, very technical. And then she encouraged us to get out there and think and not be constrained by whatever was. So that was a very important leadership. And we're very grateful for it. So thank you very much. And I also will mention that Mayor Cox has been a leader in some of the prior, in our research, some of the prior projects on the 2011 historic project was one that she was a leader on as well. So she and Vicki are still ruling the roost here and making sure that our city is in great shape. So our, of course, our historic district is world famous. you 1 million visitors per year and, as was mentioned by Melissa Councilmember Melissa one of only 12 certified districts in the state of California. And we say certified. That's certified by the federal government. These are really important areas, and that is an important part of our heritage. generations of Sausalito residents have worked to create and preserve the historic district. This is our moment to do so. So how does it work? So current approach to historic preservation, we have, for example, this case where there was the fire at Starbucks, Trained professionals are involved. It's case by case. There is the supervision by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Planning Commission, and then the use of the Secretary of Interior Standards of Historic Preservation. I didn't know much about that before, but now I know quite a bit about it, and I really think it's a great program. So, The standards are, there's 10 standards and they cover all aspects of work on or around historic structures. They're intended to protect America's history and our legacy, and they contain some subjective words, but also a lot of math words. And the reason that they're very general is they're intended to stand for a nation. So from sea to shining sea, they cover historic properties. However, we are a very small and specific area. So we were able to. address this issue by saying, Okay, let's find the math words and then define objective parameters for each based upon the surrounding buildings. Let's identify the building specific words and then reference the building itself. The buildings themselves are the ultimate objective standard. So here's an example from Standard 9. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the properties environment. So we can see, okay, the math words, massing, scale, size, the building specific words are, architectural features and the environment. So we can. Put these together. and create an objective standard to protect each building and the district as a whole So the context-based, Bob described it, but basically it's looking to the buildings in the surrounding area. And that is the approach that we think is best. So basically looking at buildings on, six buildings on either side, or three on either side, it provides a context And in the odds, we went through and said, okay, Let's say this is a good example. This is from R2. 2011 historic design guidelines, which really was a Bible for us, although not objective. It provided a lot of information. So, for example, you see here, preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening Say it's this one by two. So then you can see how this street nicely flows along. It's not exactly the same, but it relates to each other. So setting this context and then allowing things to alternate on a baseline off that context is a great way to ensure an overall compatibility. and also to keep in the spirit of the Secretary of Interior Standards. So our recommendations here, we have four. One is to establish a separate standard. adopt the objective standards for the district based on the 10 standards, define a neighborhood context, and then update the historic inventory And updating the historic inventory is something that I know has been on the wish list for a long time, but now is the time to do it and to give that case and explain its benefits. Madam Becky. |
| 03:28:47.88 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:28:48.18 | Vicki Nichols | I'll be quick. Good evening, Mayor Sobieski and Councilmembers. I'm Vicki Nichols, a member of the Sausalito Odds Peer Review Group. I want to thank you for the opportunity to participate with this group. While I read the voluminous draft odds document that was our launching pad for this work, I would like to pass the majority of the credit for the new revisions to the experienced planners, architects, and autodidactic innovator a.k.a. Sophia, among us for the final context you are reviewing tonight. My role was providing context on historical preservation procedures and policies and what our responsibility as a certified local government requires of Sausalito to retain that status. Being a CLG allows Sausalito to be eligible to complete for statewide historical preservation grants. The HLB, with the help of a professional historical consultant, produce the historic design guidelines, I think that Sophia just referenced about Joan and I. And we were able to produce those with the grant that we won from the state for $12,500, and that's how we were able to do those standards. So there's more opportunity as a CLG. The language in these odds is primarily directed to changes within the downtown historic district. As the group became more familiar with the inventoried status of the district resources, it became clear to all of us that there was other resources within the city limits that had not been inventoried and evaluated. And I think you heard tonight And another explanation that some of the exceptions to some of these laws, if these valid historical resources are listed on a list, we do have a layer of legitimate protection. So this is an important criteria, one thing that we can use. One of the requirements of being a CLG is that the city maintain a system for the survey and inventory of historical properties. That requirement and process is codified in our historic preservation regulations that were done not long ago as chapter 1046 in our zoning code. I feel confident saying that this group recognized the need to get a citywide historical inventory completed. After we discussed this, it became clear. I believe I can speak for the rest of them that we support this. Completing a citywide historic inventory has been a goal for years, and now is really the priority time. It is important to consider that preservation or reuse of historic structures has a built-in sustainability value. There is no building demolition waste, and the energy required for new construction is not a factor in these projects. In addition, it is a proven fact that historic structures areas add economic value to communities, making them a point of interest for visitors and residents alike. Lastly, historic inventories are one of the areas that the statewide CLG grants fund. Funding is awarded annually. The cost that the city may incur for taking on a survey could be supported or reimbursed by us winning one of these grants. And they do grants for inventories all the time. Being that we are now in an election cycle, it can be fairly perceived that I am the closer for tonight. That person who had all the coffees and all the events makes the ask for donations. So I am respectfully asking the Skiddy Council to prioritize the funding for citywide historic inventory. This is the formal list that will guide future development and changes to all structures in Sausalito. It informs our city staff, developers, and the community and is vital for any changes made in the future. Thank you. |
| 03:33:09.76 | Sophia Collier | Okay, so you protection. |
| 03:33:19.67 | Sophia Collier | So first of all, everybody in Sausalito knows that views are very, very important. Residents treasure their views which have been affected by |
| 03:33:27.89 | Steven Woodside | Ms. Collier, can you be sure to speak into the microphone? |
| 03:33:30.08 | Sophia Collier | which have been protected for generations by our VIEW regulations. Views are the foundation of real estate value. and resident tranquility. And a lot of people when they talk about their view even if it's a small view, a large view, just a little peek at the water. or a big view. That is something that speaks to their heart. This is not just for people. People have spent a lifetime to earn their home here in Sausalito, these are very, very important to people. We have three protected classes that we have focused on, feature views, water views, and vistas. A person mentioned earlier in the MLK discussion talking about perhaps they didn't really have much of a view In turn, they might, in that case, have been thinking about maybe a water view. but they do have the tranquility of their VISTA view or other aspects. So we want to take our view regulations have always taken into account the environment of a person's home. So this approach does that as well. So view protection compliance has shaped Sausalito. And if you look at our hills, they're shaped by neighbors and architects working with each other. So everyone can find a place in the best view that their property affords. We actually have stadium seating. If you look at how the environment is configured, you can kind of see that. Stadium seating is a little different than some of the ways other cities are laid out in a grid, but it's actually an old idea and a very successful one to have a stadium by the water. In the past, we used communication and coordination to do view work. The old school application involved a personal approach rooted in communication and respect, designing with neighbors in mind, putting up story poles, and communicating. Now we're in a new world, the world of objective standards. So the concept we have here is a specialized software tool set for developers and city planners. highly accurate and totally objective, designed to objectively enforce Sausalito's existing view ordinance. It is built on a proven system that is in use worldwide. It is built on top of Esri's ArcGIS and CityEngine. It is a proven technology in use worldwide for view analysis. ViewSync will initially be deployed as a desktop application using an approved service provider. So I wanted just to give very short introduction to the science of views. So a view shed is a geographic area that is visible from a specific location. So if you just imagine if you take a flashlight And where that light falls, that's basically the viewshed. So this is, you see the little guy looking out. You can see where he or she can see and where they cannot. View software, it's interesting that this is considered so innovative, and I'm grateful to be viewed as a great innovator. However, this thing began 56 years ago and was invented by the Forest Service in 1968. So I'm happy to pick up some of my old ideas from the 60s and bring them back to Sausalito. So using software, now it's improved a lot in 56 years, and Using software, the exact shape of any view shed can be calculated and visualized. So what do we need to do? We need to create a digital twin of Sausalito, a precise 3D model of Sausalito using high resolution LIDAR data and other geographic information. We actually have some LIDAR data, but we have another approach to this as well. So we want to create a Google Earth Pro example of a high resolution 3D model. So when you're looking at this, this is a 3D model of Sausalito. And this is a one that is created from both LIDAR and photogrammetry where photographs and LIDAR images are combined to create a very detailed model. So view sync in action. It is designed to apply our city wide objective standards. It is fully automated. The developer provides a digital model of their proposed project to the City-authorized provider The provider runs an automated six-step view-shed analysis and generates a pass-fail report. So it's basically push a button, and it's pass or fail. It also can be used as a design tool and also as a city planning tool, but just on the basic compliance, that's what it does. Our implementation strategy is to Get map data for a digital twin. We don't have a lot of time. We've heard about we've got to get this stuff going. We're under the gun. So what we need to do is we need to outsource So we need to purchase 3D data and LiDAR and high resolution images from a service provider. And we've identified several that have Current images taken in June of 2024 of Sausalito. This will save time, it will lower initial investment, and they also have frequent updates. We won't have to worry about flying around with a drone. As fun as that sounded, it is not necessary to start. I also believe that we should outsource the software. We should retain ESRI or an ESRI certified partner to write and maintain the software. and that we should then authorize third parties to use the software and provide the required report. So again, outsourcing, ESRI is a worldwide organization. Very substantial company, a worldwide successful company that's an expert in this field. regulatory, I think we should create a comprehensive analysis of our opportunity sites to demonstrate that the VIEW software will not hurt housing goals. I will do that. I will take that on and complete that. then we also need to do an education campaign We need to educate. our friends in the state about this, whether it be through our state representatives, other elected officials to get them on board and understand why this is a great idea for us and why they should really be comfortable with it. We have to finalize our budget and determine our funding model. whether it be private funding, Going out with the GoFundMe. cost recovery through applicant fees or grants. So those are the options for that. Okay. Now, go to the demo. |
| 03:40:20.28 | Sophia Collier | guys. So now what we're doing here is we're looking at a little We're zooming in. Some people think of views as being, okay, it's all in the banana bell or someplace. Actually, there's a lot of views in Sausalito. So we're zooming in. We're going into 4th and Main Street. |
| 03:40:42.26 | Sophia Collier | Now we're gonna go in on a simplified model So we're zooming in with a digital simplified model on the exact location. |
| 03:40:53.25 | Sophia Collier | Now, once we have our actual model, we will use a much more detailed model. But now we're pulling out a center line. This is just an interactive demo here. |
| 03:41:07.31 | Sophia Collier | Okay, so you've got where green is visible, red is not visible, so you can't see behind Angel Island. But check this out. Boom. We're looking through the window. |
| 03:41:23.15 | Sophia Collier | The software shows the exact percentage of the view, that is, the sky, the terrain, the buildings, and the water. |
| 03:41:41.53 | Sophia Collier | Okay so now we're going to walk around the neighborhood. |
| 03:41:48.80 | Sophia Collier | In real operation, ViewSync will use millions of points to get these details. |
| 03:41:57.59 | Sophia Collier | So first what we're going to do, go maybe look a little bit different on the maybe different window. On the same building, you can see the view change. Now we're going to go down maybe to a little bit of a lower floor maybe. Let's see what other people can see in this area. kind of starting to go up the hill. This one is a little bit lower view, but again, real nice. |
| 03:42:24.11 | Sophia Collier | Watch the numbers. |
| 03:42:36.16 | Sophia Collier | So every time we place that point on a spot, changes the numbers. changes what you see in that window. It's kind of going up the hill toward the banana belt. |
| 03:42:50.36 | Sophia Collier | Okay. We can, with this software, we can document and quantify any resident public or private scenic view. in a fully objective way. Okay, so let's see how this works with our housing element. So we did a case study on Site 53. where we have 14 bonus density units, and we synced them with no view impairments, but it took a little bit of work. |
| 03:43:25.11 | Sophia Collier | So site 53, this is right by City Hall. So it's right up here. |
| 03:43:31.89 | Sophia Collier | So we're looking here on... This is our little map that we made of the housing element that everyone can use to refer to. Here's the location. So the first thing in the process is to identify what are the potentially impacted properties. So in this case, it's going to be the one on Benita Street and then up on Girard. Just take a look. |
| 03:44:03.09 | Sophia Collier | Now we're gonna go in digitally here, same location. |
| 03:44:15.26 | Sophia Collier | So we're going to import the digital model of the proposed project. |
| 03:44:30.43 | Sophia Collier | Now we're going to do a view shed analysis on the properties that are in nearby so you can see, okay, when it's red, it's not visible. The yellow is visible from multiple vantages and green is visible from only one vantage. |
| 03:44:56.99 | Sophia Collier | We're going to bring back in the model, and now we're going to perform exactly the same thing. So step one, quantify the existing view. Step two, see how it impacts it. |
| 03:45:12.91 | Sophia Collier | So there you can see it in the window, Gerard. |
| 03:45:20.75 | Sophia Collier | It's not impacting the water view there. Bonita's front view. You know, there's the garden view The garden view did not have a view before. So the garden view was not impacted by the even though you can see it, it's not impacted by it. |
| 03:45:40.55 | Sophia Collier | But uh-oh, that side view, look at it. That used to be a nice looking out, but now it's unfortunately is that now the view is down to 1.7% there failed. |
| 03:46:02.20 | Sophia Collier | Okay, so the next step, refine the design based on the results. improved model is proposed. And interestingly, you'll note that this improved model is actually higher in the back. It's the same volume. So now we're gonna check out how it works. |
| 03:46:24.41 | Sophia Collier | And now we see the Bonita side window is not obstructed. |
| 03:46:32.59 | Sophia Collier | We can confirm the exact amount of water view is still present. Click back and forth. It's passed. |
| 03:46:44.07 | Sophia Collier | So the case study shows that site 53 can actually support 14 units. It's actually the realistic is six so 14 units can fit there. I from working with this software over the last period of time, I believe that we have probably 50 million, at least 50 million cubic feet of space where we can design and put properties that would have no be a way packed. So I really believe that this is the way to design our city. because we can find spots, our two, The bonus density The amount of space that we actually need is only 10 million cubic feet. to build all the way. I mean, we probably don't want to build to that level. That's too many, much a third more people that we have, but to meet our arena, we would not need to build anywhere near that. So I feel like we have the space that we can do it. And that if we study this, it's this we decided as a compliance tool but we really think that it can be a proactive planning tool. We'll identify the areas and the configurations where view impact is the lowest and plan for those versus being reactive. Also, developers can use this as a design tool as well, that they can access this and use it as a design tool. So that's the presentation. |
| 03:48:09.45 | Steven Woodside | Thank you very much. |
| 03:48:18.21 | Steven Woodside | Are there questions, please, for any of the presenters? |
| 03:48:24.37 | Ian Kellman | Yeah. |
| 03:48:25.01 | Steven Woodside | Right ahead. |
| 03:48:25.06 | Ian Kellman | right ahead. Sophia, quick question. Hi. Good evening. So Cass Green has a large amount of LiDAR data. She actually built the interactive sea level rise map for Sassido. Is her data up to speed for you guys? Could that get us started quickly? |
| 03:48:44.47 | Sophia Collier | I mean, I think that it, I have been in touch with her and I talked with her. She was one of the people that we work with. But when I did approach it, it didn't seem to be exactly on point for what we were doing. but certainly would love to see if it would be, but when we approached the vendor that was working with her that they, kind of said it wasn't, but it might be. |
| 03:49:08.18 | Ian Kellman | Thank you. Okay, and then under the funding, how much money do you guys think you need? I mean, I'm assuming this is a demo of a, of a prototype, but you want to build it out. |
| 03:49:17.68 | Sophia Collier | No, absolutely. Basically what we need to do is we need, this is built on top of ESRI. This would be called an alpha version of software. It's not modified as Vice Mayor said, it's not customized to us. My desire would be this is, okay, you don't see the other parts of the application. It maybe comes through an API or whatever. And so you basically upload your shows of interface. You upload your model. you. You see a report. So it has features like that that need to be developed. So when we visited with, Brandon and I met with Esri, and we talked about this. We met with them on other occasions, too, and they gave us some ballpark quotes, but obviously nothing concrete. I wanted to see whether people were interested first and then get a quote from them afterwards. But I think my opinion is that it's under $50,000, like they mentioned $10,000. But I don't think that that's realistic, but it might be. |
| 03:50:12.30 | Ian Kellman | A friend of mine is a geospatial data scientist at Esri. Let's talk offline on, like, I know for nonprofits, we just got something for $100. It's a $4,200 RGIS license. |
| 03:50:22.55 | Sophia Collier | Yeah, that's great. And, and, and Cass actually was introduced us to the the owner of ESRI as well. So he actually worked to some projects, early projects for Sausalito. |
| 03:50:30.36 | Ian Kellman | . |
| 03:50:37.60 | Ian Kellman | Okay, and my last question is, what project do you want to do next, this working group? |
| 03:50:44.94 | Sophia Collier | Okay, we're going to work on the ADU JADU. Okay, great. Yeah, you heard that. It's on the record. |
| 03:50:47.45 | Ian Kellman | Okay. Thank you. |
| 03:50:49.87 | Sophia Collier | Thank you. |
| 03:50:49.95 | Ian Kellman | Thank you. |
| 03:50:50.66 | Sophia Collier | Thank you. |
| 03:50:50.69 | Ian Kellman | Yeah, thank you all. This is awesome. This is really fun and exciting and really, really smart. Thank you. |
| 03:50:50.95 | Sophia Collier | Thank you all. This is |
| 03:50:55.98 | Steven Woodside | I have one question and then pass it over to the vice mayor. Sophia or Ms. Collier, I had a question for you. How does this... interact with my question of Mr. Brown about the six standard building shapes. |
| 03:51:08.77 | Sophia Collier | Okay. The views would be blocked, but not because of the shapes. Like, I think that his, I would not have answered his question, nor would David have answered that question in the same way he did, that certainly any shape. could block views depending upon its extent, but it's not the shape that's causing it, it's the size. |
| 03:51:36.59 | Steven Woodside | I guess my question was, and maybe you could help educate me, and maybe it's Mr. Rex's, in these objective standards, we have six building types that are objective, I think, right? But your convolution here could create a wide variety of customized envelopes that a property owner can would potentially like to maximize the volume, but the shape might be an arc, it might be a setback triangle up the hillside, and if there's standard type, then they may not be. |
| 03:52:05.84 | Sophia Collier | If there's six standard types, then they may not. I'm going to let my design partner and faithful friend David answer that. Thank you. |
| 03:52:13.31 | David Merlot | Yeah. Thank you, Sophia. Yeah, if I may, and Michael, certainly feel free to chime in as well. The building shapes are not so prescriptive, so that you may have a duplex as one of the building types. The duplex simply means it is two units. It could be side by side or one over the other. It's not three units or five units. It has no commercial. So it gives certain qualities, but it's not dictating shape. Then there are form-based standards that dictate the massing of a single building, like a duplex can be maximum 36 feet wide, I believe, by 48 deep by memory. So the shape itself or the facade type isn't really going to drive whether or not a building blocks of view. It's more the overall massing. The architect is still free to move roof shapes around and deal with courtyard type entries or porches or whatever they might be needing. |
| 03:53:12.27 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. Okay, I'm sorry to belabor it, but if I could just ask it again in a different way. The convolution could create an envelope that is... |
| 03:53:14.54 | David Merlot | Thank you. |
| 03:53:22.00 | Steven Woodside | Uh, that an architect like you might like to build within. But it wouldn't look like the neighboring buildings because it might occupy the upper left-hand corner of the lot. Its setbacks might be a little bit off-center, and it might have these sort of triangular features that don't fit in with the boxy features of the buildings next to it. That's exactly right. Would that be a problem or is that allowed? |
| 03:53:43.98 | David Merlot | That's exactly right. with. um, speaking as an architect, no, but, uh, but the odds and Bob can also speak to this as well. Um, they just provide, certain fences and limits about, you know, the wall can be only so long before it's has an offset or setbacks have to be respected, but it doesn't say that a building can't have a curvilinear roof shape, for example, or can't be triangular. Now, the historic preservation district, of course, there's a different story, but in elsewhere in Sausalito, it's not really prescribing shape per se, it's certain other qualities and massing restrictions. |
| 03:54:24.28 | Steven Woodside | Okay, so it sounds like these odds would allow you to use that envelope. Yes, exactly. |
| 03:54:30.05 | David Merlot | Yes, to the full extent possible. Thank you. |
| 03:54:35.57 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. We talked about, there were some asks of us tonight. So I wanted to ask Sophia, you heard Bob Brown say that he thinks that we need to approve that we need to prove that the ESRI system works and it must be tested and passed testing prior to ordinance adoption. So what is your rough order of timing in terms of if we were to say tomorrow, go spend between 10 and $50,000, how long would it take you to, Um, collaborate to develop and test the Esri View Sync system. |
| 03:55:21.00 | Sophia Collier | Okay, I think that the obviously be working closely with Brandon on this contracting effort and that there are some legal dimensions of it too. So those would need to be carefully considered. So, for example, the accuracy, how, whether we're licensing it or whether we own it. So there's some legal details, and Sergio has discussed those with us. But putting those to the side... I believe that this can, this, what we're, we've done a lot of work already. We've already written up specs and we've done a lot of work. So I do believe that we definitely will be able to complete this by the end of the year without fail. |
| 03:55:58.12 | Jill Hoffman | you |
| 03:55:58.38 | Sophia Collier | I really |
| 03:55:59.03 | Jill Hoffman | believe that. When would you need authorization to move forward in order to complete it by the end of the year? |
| 03:56:05.77 | Sophia Collier | I think we now, I mean, I'd love to see authorization, basically direction to the staff to, THE END OF engage discussions with ESRI. They're ready to go. And I'd love to participate in those meetings and bring this all the way home. |
| 03:56:22.86 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, my other question concerns the... Citywide historic inventory and I have to say Vicki has been pushing for that ever since I've been on the planning Commission. She welcomed me on my first day. to the Planning Commission in 2008, and she's been pushing for this ever since then. So What is the cost to the city for updating the citywide historic inventory? |
| 03:56:48.49 | Vicki Nichols | They generally can be up to about $200,000, but I have been working with I don't want to say the firm because I don't have any authority to make any agreements with them, obviously. But I've gotten a very high level proposal from a very well respected architectural historic company in San Francisco. And we could do this. They would do this, including all the public outreach meetings, because you do need to engage the public in a project like this. They would do it, train about four people, and by that we would use GPS phones to do the walking. If you have to pay for more. Anyway, we could get it down to 50 grand from about 120. And I've got at least two volunteers that will help do it with us. |
| 03:57:40.72 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Those are my questions. |
| 03:57:45.45 | Councilmember Blaustein | Did Council Member Hoffman have her hand raised? I think it's been raised before mine for a long time. |
| 03:57:48.94 | Steven Woodside | I'm sorry, I didn't see your hand up there. I can't see it. |
| 03:57:50.80 | Councilmember Blaustein | You're hopping it off. |
| 03:57:51.94 | Councilmember Hoffman | Yeah, it's whatever. |
| 03:57:52.96 | Steven Woodside | Go right ahead. You can go before Councilor Verblastine. |
| 03:57:55.77 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay. Thanks. I'm still a little perplexed on this height limit that I talked about with Director Phipps on the last presentation. So I'm not understanding why the proposed height for the two sites on the north end of town are four stories and it's called out in this presentation as opposed to in our housing element update. So it's a little bit confusing because it's not apparent in |
| 03:58:26.79 | Steven Woodside | Ms. Collier is coming to the podium to Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:58:28.60 | Councilmember Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 03:58:29.32 | Sophia Collier | You know, I'm going to Karen Hollweg, kind of spitball here, but one of the things that we've done is we've really tried to look at a lot of the projects like creating this little model. Karen Hollweg, This little massing model and doing this view seg analysis model we've actually looked at quite a few of the housing element sites and and so much of it what determines the height is the design so as we've seen today. When we're looking at 29. of units per acre. Obviously that's going to be a flatter, lower project. If we're looking at 70 units per acre. We're looking at projects, unless this is a, we're looking at projects that are going to be higher. So that's one of the considerations that in looking at the housing element, areas. is whether you want to have 70. But if you're going to go with 70, you're going to get, you're going to, unless the units are fairly small, you're going to get higher projects. And that's where, like I look at it and I look on Bridgeway, those underutilized office parks, I think those are great sites for it and they potentially could be taller, but I think that, The key thing to the to this height. is the mass, the cubic mass that's being contemplated. So that's the answer. Um, |
| 03:59:50.66 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:59:53.19 | Sophia Collier | I don't know if that's adequate. |
| 03:59:55.00 | Councilmember Hoffman | Yeah. Well, it's a little confusing because it's not, if somebody's trying to figure out what's going on with the height limits, it should be in the housing element update part. I don't think it should be in the odds because you have to prove it in the housing element. before you even consider it, I think, in the odds. Thank you. |
| 04:00:13.25 | Brandon Phipps | If I may take a |
| 04:00:15.35 | Councilmember Hoffman | Yes. |
| 04:00:15.75 | Brandon Phipps | kind of attempted answering that question from a different perspective. I think, and thank you for the question, Council Member, I think it's an important one. You know, what you're getting at at the moment is the kind of inextricable tie-in that the housing element has with the objective standards that underlie the entire city. So when I think about the housing element, I think of it primarily as a process associated with allocating densities to certain heights, to certain sites around the city. And the odds is... housing element, I think of it primarily as a process associated with allocating densities to certain heights, to certain sites around the city. And the odds is a complement to that process as it overlays standards that must be met to meet compliance associated with those densities. So they are separate documents. However, they are kind of inextricably tied together and complementary of one another. |
| 04:00:45.07 | Unknown | And the other thing is, |
| 04:01:04.28 | Councilmember Hoffman | I think that I think, I mean, we can talk about this in discussion, but I think to make it clear that you should have it called out somewhere in the housing element update when you're talking about those sites, that there's a proposal through the odds presentation that these sites be extended to four stories instead of just three, because otherwise, It's not apparent from the documents, I don't think. |
| 04:01:29.58 | Brandon Phipps | I'd be happy to review that document to find a place where that language would be appropriate. |
| 04:01:35.13 | Councilmember Hoffman | Yeah, okay, thank you. I think that'd be helpful. And also my next question was, did we get an estimate for how much the ESRI system was gonna cost or is that the next step? |
| 04:01:44.03 | Jill Hoffman | 10 and 50. |
| 04:01:44.97 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:01:45.04 | Jill Hoffman | $1,000. |
| 04:01:46.93 | Sophia Collier | One of the things that I also want to mention that is a outcome of doing the ESRI portion of this project and creating the digital model is that you will be able to model exactly what the projects that you're looking at are. So in terms of Council Member Hoffman, if you are looking to find out how tall are we really talking about at the Altamira site? How tall are we talking about at site 301, et cetera? you will be able to ask Brandon and get an actual little form that shows what it will be. And then you can really have information to do it. I really think what we need is a mapping approach to understanding what we're doing because then the community can understand it. there will be true information for the council to have and consider That's objective and obvious. |
| 04:02:39.02 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay. Yeah, thank you. I think it's really super interesting and you know, if it's only, if it's only whatever, $10,000 to $50,000, and I think it's probably, right? a really, really great tool, especially if HCD accepts it. So anyway. Thank you. |
| 04:02:59.74 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you for your hard work on that. Councilmember Blas team, we really would like to take public comment, so go ahead. |
| 04:03:06.82 | Councilmember Blaustein | Okay. I... This is great, by the way. Thank you very much for all of your hard work and volunteer time put into this effort. It's really exciting to see Sausalito being a leader in technology. I just wanted to get an understanding, and I've asked you about this, Sophia, but just so that we're clear, because, Bob, you mentioned the concern around odds with respect to density bonuses, and I know that we've touched a little bit on how this would apply. Could you just speak to that briefly before we take public comment? |
| 04:03:34.94 | Sophia Collier | I mean, as we've discussed before, that really the density bonus is a feature of the The housing laws. So projects that have the affordability criteria are entitled to density bonuses. So that is something that you have to remember when you set those, how many per acre it's going to be, because you have to imagine it's going to be the maximum. Now, in many instances, it may not be because people might want to just build ultra luxury properties or find small amounts of affordability in there. So it's hard to know what the private sector has to do this. So we, as in serving our government, we at our community, we have to try to. think what is the maximum it would be. That's why the historic inventory is so critical. to document our historic properties. That is one of the antidotes to the bonus density is a specific adverse effect on historic property. So if it has that, then it's not eligible. |
| 04:04:37.30 | Councilmember Blaustein | Thank you. I really appreciate it. |
| 04:04:39.88 | Steven Woodside | Okay, we'd like, is it quick, Mr. Rackett? |
| 04:04:42.02 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 04:04:42.44 | Steven Woodside | . |
| 04:04:43.32 | Michael Rex | All right. Two things. As an architect, I'm excited about this because I think it's going to improve our planning effort. We'll have a tool we never had before. We used to have to put up story poles and then find out they're too big and then move them, and we could spend $20,000 to $50,000 on story poles. This would get us there a lot quicker to understand impacts. The other thing is I wanted to respond directly to your question that you raised, Mayor, that what if the odds restricts development rights and reduces flora or density beyond what is allowed? And we We're very concerned about that, and we address that head on. with what we call the fail-safe. approach. which for some reason didn't make it into the current revised draft that you see. We don't understand why. The failsafe approach was that if a developer can demonstrate that application of view protection or any of the odd standards, reduces the density or development opportunities or intensity use on the property, then at 5% increments, they get relief from those standards. In other words, they keep adjusting until it could be demonstrated that they're not diminished in their development rights. We think that's an important tool. We think that should be part of the odds. And for some reason, it's not. And we need more dialogue on that. The last thing I'll mention is that David Remember when he annotated the Planning Commission's odds with 100 notes? He just did the same thing for this draft. And when this goes to the Planning Commission, I think it's going to need more refinement and more wordsmithing. Okay? Thank you, Mr. |
| 04:06:40.98 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, Mr. Retz. We'll take public comment now. City Clerk. |
| 04:06:46.04 | Walfred Solorzano | Linda Foch. |
| 04:06:59.10 | Linda Fudge | Linda Fudge, I guess I'll say the same thing I said before, which is an objective standard based on external factors such as laws, rules, or common practices verifiable by the public and the applicant. I think it's a very interesting startup. I'm impressed to think that the city Sausalito in deficit is going to spend money to fund somebody's startup. I think you're open to yourself to litigation. |
| 04:07:31.57 | Steven Woodside | the next person that did. |
| 04:07:32.29 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah, really. |
| 04:07:34.30 | Steven Woodside | But please let city clerk call the city clerk, Scott. |
| 04:07:37.52 | Walfred Solorzano | I'm not sure. Lori Schombeck followed by Jennifer Nemo and then Stacey Nemo. |
| 04:07:46.97 | Unknown | you |
| 04:07:56.12 | Steven Woodside | is call you I'm afraid actually that that because you had the presentation you don't get to make public comment I understand. We'll follow up with the questions, but thank you. |
| 04:08:09.22 | Walfred Solorzano | So do we have Laurie Schwambeck here or Jennifer Nemo or Stacey Nemo? |
| 04:08:15.76 | Stacy Nimmo | Jason, if I'm here, |
| 04:08:16.93 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 04:08:17.03 | Stacy Nimmo | Thank you. |
| 04:08:20.67 | Stacy Nimmo | I think it's amazing that this group has volunteered their time to come up with such an amazing improvement to odds. I know a little bit about it. I saw the original documentation. It's massive. The year that they've put it in half is incredible. It makes it usable, makes it easily understandable for everybody, which is going to improve a lot. I think the only comment I have, the only thought I have was maybe consider solar racking, because I know in the marine ship that goes up like 8 to 10 feet sometimes on the buildings. So if you have, you know, a large building and they're going to put solar on top of it, you just want to figure out how it fits into the plan. But overall, amazing and inspiring to have a community group come up with something like that. Thank you. |
| 04:09:04.75 | Walfred Solorzano | Laurie Schombach? |
| 04:09:08.60 | Steven Woodside | Ms. Scharbeck? |
| 04:09:08.80 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Jennifer Nemo? |
| 04:09:12.43 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:09:14.01 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 04:09:14.03 | Steven Woodside | All right. |
| 04:09:14.64 | Walfred Solorzano | No further public comment. Thank you. |
| 04:09:15.74 | Steven Woodside | Anyone online? No? All right, we'll close public comment. Any discussion here at the Dice? |
| 04:09:22.35 | Councilmember Blaustein | can start. |
| 04:09:23.11 | Steven Woodside | is by Councilmember Boston. |
| 04:09:24.61 | Councilmember Blaustein | Thank you. I appreciate it. I just, again, want to reiterate how appreciative we are of the amount of time and effort put forth by this incredible group of community volunteers who are, care deeply, saw a problem, thought that they could contribute, so it means a lot, and I think that tonight's presentation is a great demonstration of that. I'm very supportive of ViewSync and of funding for ViewSync and of pursuing next steps and seeing what it's capable of, not just for our housing element and our odds, but I'm really excited about how we might use it for disaster preparedness planning and sea level rise, as was noted by Councilmember Kelman. And I would also be supportive of pursuing an index of our historic buildings so that we can reinforce the odds more effectively. Again, it's important to note that we will still be challenged with requirements from the state that will limit the capabilities of the enforcement of some of these odds at times, but I am confident that the hard work put forth by this group will make a huge dent in what the footprint of our community looks like. So direction to staff is to be supportive of the path for ViewSync and consideration of the historic context, and I'm in approval of the recommendations of the group as well. |
| 04:10:42.79 | Steven Woodside | Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 04:10:47.17 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. Yeah, I'm also supportive of moving forward, but I think we need to have, before we invest in the system, I think we need to have an indication from HCD whether or not it's going to be acceptable or not. And I think it seems to me that this presentation that we had with regard to the objective standards is pretty clear and to me seems, you know, pretty clear presentation by what they've come up with. and whether or not it will be acceptable to HCD. But I think we need to have that indication before we invest. um, you know, a substantial amount of money in the program only to find out that they're not gonna allow us to use it. than the way that we need to use it. The second thing is the historic inventory 100% support that we need to, we just need to get that done that's been on our plate and a lot of our properties or historic assets are vulnerable because we haven't finished our inventory yet so I think that's the higher priority actually number priority number one is making sure this is something that would be acceptable to HCD, or at least not flat out unacceptable, and then get the historic inventory started and get it done. |
| 04:11:49.42 | Unknown | Number five. |
| 04:12:04.74 | Ian Kellman | I'll jump in there. |
| 04:12:05.55 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:12:05.57 | Ian Kellman | Thank you. |
| 04:12:05.57 | John DeRay | Thank you. |
| 04:12:05.92 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:12:06.17 | Ian Kellman | Yep. So I'm going to also claim 15 years being lobbied by Vicki. Yes, absolutely. The historic inventory, long overdue. May I suggest, if it is available to us, that this group go in and pitch HCD? I think they'd be very interested to see how some of their thinking can and should evolve. And if we can get some type of not just agreement, like go in and blow their socks off about a tool that makes everybody's jobs and goal setting easier and clearer and literally more objective. I think there's some good grant money out there. I've seen very good grant money. Brandon, we should hear from you at a later date about how budget is looking in your department, what the potential cost savings might be, and is there an ROI to be made? And if not, I suggest that their grant monies be looked at more closely. I did want to pick up one thing that Councilmember Hoffman mentioned, which is there's still this disconnect in the housing element with the odds. And some of that we encountered today with how high will the building be and what does it really mean to have 70% units per acre, 49 units per acre. It's very difficult for the community to really observe that and understand that. And so if we learned a thing today, that if you can better illustrate that and help really make the case for that, it helps everybody understand what's happening in the housing element. And so, yeah, I just want to note that comment and make sure that that shows up, particularly when I think in that presentation, we see 32 inches, 32 inches, and then it shifts. People just don't really know what that means for something that gets approved, particularly with the state density bonus laws. Thank you everybody for staying so late. |
| 04:13:55.29 | Steven Woodside | Did you have anything? |
| 04:13:58.66 | Jill Hoffman | Um, Many of you don't know that there was a mayor's blue ribbon committee in 2018 on which Michael Rex, Melissa Blaustein, I, and two others served. And we started this process of trying to put together objective standards, objective design review standards, before the state even required that we do so. And so it's so satisfying to see this effort getting close to fruition. And I want to thank Michael Rex for, you know, really providing thoughtful comments to us back in March on the initial draft odds for recruiting volunteers for the effort to really meet 98 times in three months in order to accomplish this extraordinary task within a very constrained Timeline. Many thanks to David Marlott for his constant and incessant wordsmithing, literally editing every line of every odds draft. To Sophia Collier, who spent $4,000 of her own money to purchase the Esri software so that she could put together this mock-up that we saw this evening, and all of the endless time spent by the other volunteers on this group. In terms of direction to staff, I also support updating the citywide historic inventory. So that's at least three of us tonight who have said we support that. I'd like to see that start moving forward immediately. I support investing in the Esri software. I think we need to do it on a parallel path. with reaching out to HCD. So I would like, I do endorse having Sophia on a subcommittee that helps us reach out to HCD. to gain their endorsement of this approach, but I don't think it's a huge amount of money to spend. And we've been successful in being trailblazers with HCD in the past. in 2010, HCD and the US Census considered liveaboards to be transients. And we convinced the US Census to transform their category to residents. And then we persuaded HCD to accept them as units of housing for purposes of our housing element. We have a track record of success, and I'm optimistic we can do the same. with this groundbreaking Technology. Um, I endorse clarifying in the housing element that 70 units per acre will require up to four stories. The main reason for that is size of units. HCD is mad at us for making our minimum size 750 square feet instead of even larger. We actually insisted on 750 as the Community Development Director mentioned earlier, in order to assure affordability. But in order to accommodate the minimum size for these units at a, density of 70 units per acre using the size calculations, it appears that it will likely require up to four stories. I am very interested to hear about the fail safe approach that was deleted from the draft odds. I had asked that we see the draft odds as it came from the committee, not edited and so I'm disappointed to hear that we didn't actually get to see the work product of the committee that the fail-safe approach was deleted. So I'm interested to understand why that happened. It may be that it happened because instead of giving back 5% increments. The alternative is that if you are unhappy with the outcome of the odds, or you want more flexibility, the applicant can go through a discretionary design review process. So perhaps that's the reason for it being deleted, but I would like to hear back from staff regarding why that happened and what, if anything else, was removed from the draft odds prepared by our very hardworking volunteers. And I agree that we need to figure out how solar fits into all of this, because everybody knows that anybody can build solar without requiring any kind of approval. And so I agree that we need to evaluate that. But really, great job, everybody. Thank you so much for your efforts in this regard. |
| 04:18:41.96 | Steven Woodside | So it sounds like there's consensus to direct staff to move forward with the historic inventory and get a quote to bring back to us the same thing with the ESRI software. There's a direction to see if the peer group would approach ACD and make a presentation and get feedback, shaking your head. Not interested in that. Well, somebody should, that's the request. Well, |
| 04:19:10.44 | Ian Kellman | We need to, we need to, we need to buy off on this. |
| 04:19:11.39 | Steven Woodside | Okay. on this. |
| 04:19:14.50 | Jill Hoffman | We need HCD to approve on this. I'm happy to reach out to eight. I know Melinda Coy, personally, I am happy to help reach out. Yeah, it doesn't need to be. |
| 04:19:16.43 | Ian Kellman | to approve on this. Yeah, it doesn't need to be the community. |
| 04:19:21.89 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:19:21.90 | Steven Woodside | See you. Thank you. So maybe, maybe, uh, |
| 04:19:26.21 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, well, we're giving direction so that we can get authority to spend $50,000 on |
| 04:19:26.63 | Steven Woodside | We're giving to you. |
| 04:19:31.32 | Jill Hoffman | so that we can have this software developed by the end of the year. One of our fellow council members wants to be sure that HCD buys off on it before we invest that money, I understand that concern and so I would like to proceed on a parallel path. to obtain HCD approval and to proceed. |
| 04:19:50.71 | Unknown | Yeah, but... |
| 04:19:51.99 | Jill Hoffman | But we don't take public comment after we've closed public comment. So we can caucus with you offline. I don't want to be disrespectful of all of your efforts, but we can absolutely caucus further about this offline. |
| 04:20:04.38 | Steven Woodside | So it sounds like you, Vice Mayor, with perhaps a colleague from the City Council, will coordinate on reaching out to HCD and use the resources of anyone else who's available. I concur about, wanting to have seen the actual recommendations from the peer group, including this failsafe approach. So thank you for highlighting that, Mr. Rex. And maybe we can direct staff to put that back in. And we said historic inventory. And I guess that's it. That's all the direction, right? Anything I missed? |
| 04:20:35.93 | Jill Hoffman | I want to understand solar. And I also want to clarify in the housing element that 70 units per acre could require up to four stories. I don't think it should only be in the odds. I think it needs to be in the housing element as well. |
| 04:20:38.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:20:38.06 | Steven Woodside | AND I THINK IT'S A |
| 04:20:38.11 | Unknown | I'm not. |
| 04:20:38.31 | Steven Woodside | I also want to. |
| 04:20:44.20 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:20:44.22 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:20:44.32 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:20:48.17 | Steven Woodside | If there's no objection to the vice mayor's direction, then that will be all of ours. |
| 04:20:51.80 | Ian Kellman | Yeah, and I just want to make sure you missed one thing. I would love for Director Phipps to have a business case for the streamlined aspects of this and for supporting whatever the amount might be potentially to build this out. I think we need to see. That business case looks like. |
| 04:21:08.69 | Steven Woodside | any objection to that addition as well. So Director Phipps, it's to actually... If you had this tool, you're going to have to run it. Is it net positive to the city or negative? All right, that's it on the direction. |
| 04:21:21.82 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:21:21.90 | Unknown | the director. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:21:22.68 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:21:22.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:21:22.80 | Jill Hoffman | And I also want to see if we can get cost recovery for the cost of the software, since every applicant will benefit from it. |
| 04:21:30.15 | Steven Woodside | further direction. |
| 04:21:33.36 | Chris Zapata | Mayor, if I may. Yes, sir. You've closed public comment. Is that what I understand? Yes. |
| 04:21:41.68 | Steven Woodside | You're allowed to say something though. |
| 04:21:43.45 | Chris Zapata | Question. Thank you. |
| 04:21:49.04 | Steven Woodside | Okay. Then this item we're done with. Congratulations on this long journey. Kudos. It's an inspiration, truly, and the definition of community engagement. Uh, so we have five C and D that we have to take public comment on. I presume we don't want to act on either one. No. |
| 04:22:10.75 | Councilmember Blaustein | No. See you next time. |
| 04:22:14.25 | Steven Woodside | So 5C is the introduction and waiver of first reading of ordinance number 5, 2024, an ordinance of the city council of the city's also later repealing or replacing chapter 3.30, purchase of supplies, equipment, services, procedures for public works projects. Is anyone here to comment on this item? |
| 04:22:37.25 | Walfred Solorzano | We have on zoom. |
| 04:22:38.51 | Steven Woodside | We have someone on Zoom. All right. I bet McGugle. He's McGugle. Please go ahead. |
| 04:22:46.58 | Babette McDougall | Can you hear me okay? |
| 04:22:48.30 | Steven Woodside | Yes, we can. |
| 04:22:49.43 | Babette McDougall | Great. So I actually am surprised at the way this whole thing is playing out. Once again, instead of bringing the public along with you during this whole exercise, you wait until tonight to spring it on everybody. And now you don't even want to hear the whole thing through. because it's getting late. And I just have to take issue with the way this whole thing is being conducted. So yes, I think In a general sense, there are many things to say thank you for your service on. But this three-member voting bloc that has controlled this council and its actions for now this year and last, you are driving us in a direction that is dangerous to Sausalito's future. So while you may give platitudes. to thinking in the best interest of the people. you turn right around and circumvent their opportunity to participate more fully. I really urge you, especially seeing so many new faces tonight, to be encouraged to rethink the wisdom of reintroducing, sorry. real small d democracy back into the Sausalito public policy process. Thanks very much. |
| 04:23:59.19 | Steven Woodside | Thank you for your comment. I just have a question from my colleagues. Is this issue at all something we need to really discuss for this waiver, or is it? pro forma that we can move forward with it. I don't know how much consensus there is on 5C, because we've had this first reading on our agenda several times. |
| 04:24:17.00 | Jill Hoffman | I'm prepared to approve it. I gave my feet back up. |
| 04:24:19.66 | Steven Woodside | Does anyone have an objection? |
| 04:24:20.59 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:24:20.69 | Steven Woodside | It's just the first time. Does anyone have a rejection? I mean, it seems performer to me, and so I would just make a motion to approve this. |
| 04:24:30.24 | Jill Hoffman | Second. |
| 04:24:32.86 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Blostey? Yes. Councilmember Hoffman? |
| 04:24:35.32 | Councilmember Hoffman | Yes. |
| 04:24:41.25 | Councilmember Hoffman | Can you come back to me? I'm just reading. I mean, I'm just trying to look and see what the recommended motion is. So hang on, if you can come back. |
| 04:24:51.00 | Unknown | I'm just reminding me |
| 04:24:53.89 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. |
| 04:24:54.32 | Councilmember Hoffman | Here comes Sergio. |
| 04:24:56.21 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, no, the recommended motion, and I believe the motion made by, uh, on the floor for voting is to introduce the ordinance by title only and waive the first reading of ordinance number five 2024, an ordinance to the City Council of the City of Sausalito repealing and replacing Chapter 330, Purchase of Supplies, Equipment, Services, and Procedures for Public Works Projects, and Amending Section 208.160, Purchasing Duty. |
| 04:25:23.28 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay, sorry, I'm just trying to figure out |
| 04:25:29.03 | Sergio Rudin | And I'm happy to answer any questions about the ordinance. |
| 04:25:31.06 | Councilmember Hoffman | Sorry, I'm not trying to, I just, you know, sorry. I'm just trying to figure out what I know that we're voting on. |
| 04:25:36.51 | Jill Hoffman | and figure out what I know I know. It's been, this is the third time it's been on our agenda. So yeah. |
| 04:25:43.73 | Councilmember Hoffman | Yeah, I realize that, but it's 12, almost midnight, and I'm just trying to figure out you know, what it is that we're voting on. |
| 04:25:52.14 | Jill Hoffman | In the staff report, there's a redlined version that shows what the redactions and revisions are. That's in pages. It's in Exhibit A. |
| 04:26:06.80 | Sergio Rudin | And additionally, there are changes to Section 208.160 to revise the purchasing duty to also make the city manager responsible for signing contracts where the council orders him to sign the contract. |
| 04:26:28.49 | Councilmember Hoffman | So there's a motion and a second. We're in the middle of the day. I'll just abstain. You guys can go ahead because I'm just trying to. I mean, it's been on the third time, but. |
| 04:26:31.94 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:26:32.03 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 04:26:35.49 | Walfred Solorzano | I mean, That's fair enough. |
| 04:26:39.42 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:26:39.44 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah, sorry. Member Kelman? |
| 04:26:39.47 | Councilmember Hoffman | Yeah, sorry. |
| 04:26:40.13 | Ian Kellman | Thank you. Yes. |
| 04:26:43.05 | Walfred Solorzano | Vice Mayor Cox. Thank you. |
| 04:26:44.30 | Ian Kellman | Yes. |
| 04:26:44.70 | Jill Hoffman | you |
| 04:26:45.26 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 04:26:45.28 | Steven Woodside | mayor sobieski yes that motion carries uh four to one four to zero and one abstention item 5d is introduction a waiver of the first reading of ordinance 624 an ordinance the city council of the city of saslita repealing chapters 2.32 redevelopment agency 5.16 handbills and circulars 5.20 miniature golf courses 5.24 secondhand goods 5.28 operation of gasoline service stations 11.08 residential development review 13.12 fortune telling palmo street and similar practices and 17.20 street numbering of associated municipal code uh City Attorney just want to summarize the cleanup nature of these ordinances in 30 seconds. |
| 04:27:28.83 | Sergio Rudin | Sure. This ordinance comes to the city council as part of our overall risk management strategy. There are a number of provisions in the city code and including whole chapters which have been established decades, sometimes centuries ago, and which have not seen any use or enforcement by the city. However, they are still on the books, and I do recommend that they be repealed. Chapter 232 is the first one. This establishes the city's redevelopment agency. Of course, in 2011, the state began the process of dissolving the ability of cities to have redevelopment agencies. The current chapter is has no function other than to create a redevelopment agency, which the city can no longer have. Chapter 516 deals with regulations of hand-billing and pamphleting in the city and requires the city requires anybody who wants to undertake those activities to obtain a license from the city and post a bond. That violates the First Amendment based on 100 years of case law since that was enacted in 1937. Chapter 520 regulates the establishment of miniature golf courses. Since that chapter was established in 1930, the city has enacted comprehensive zoning, which eliminates most of the need for that chapter. Chapter 524 secondhand goods was enacted in 1917. It regulates the sale of secondhand goods in the city. Unfortunately, it is very much out of date and may prevent people from being able to sell things like their own car. So I would recommend that chapter be repealed as well. Chapter 528, Operation Gasoline Service Stations. Again, the city has enacted different provisions in its zoning code to regulate the operation of those uses. Chapter 1108, Residential Development Review. This chapter arises out of a collective planning effort from the 1960s where various Towns as well as Southern Bern County tried to do collective planning. Um, of residential developments That effort has been abandoned and the other participating agencies have repealed their city codes on this. Um, Chapter 1312 regulates and prohibits for fortune telling and palmistry in the city. This issue has been litigated, and the California Supreme Court has indicated that cities cannot impose wholesale bans. So I would also recommend that that chapter be repealed. And lastly, Chapter 1720 street numbering. This regulates street numbering the chapters from 1938. This issue has... been addressed in the California Building Code and California Fire Code. So I would recommend that we repeal that chapter as well. |
| 04:30:20.58 | Steven Woodside | Any questions? Can we open public comment, please, as we see it quick? |
| 04:30:26.73 | Walfred Solorzano | Anybody in the house? All right. Nobody online? |
| 04:30:31.17 | Steven Woodside | Okay, we'll close public comment. Is there a motion? |
| 04:30:33.95 | Jill Hoffman | Mayor, I recommend we introduce by title only and make proceeding of ordinance number 06-2024, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Sausalito, repealing chapters 2.32, 5.16, 5.20, 5.24, 5.28, 11.08, 13.12, and 17.20 of the Sausalito Municipal Code. Thank you. |
| 04:30:56.46 | Steven Woodside | Second. Okay. Motion made and seconded. Please call the roll, Mr. City Clerk. |
| 04:31:01.22 | Walfred Solorzano | when I lost him. |
| 04:31:02.17 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 04:31:02.18 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Yes. |
| 04:31:04.46 | Steven Woodside | Yes. |
| 04:31:04.71 | Vivian Wall | Thank you. |
| 04:31:04.76 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 04:31:04.78 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 04:31:05.35 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Kelman. Yes. Vice Mary Cox. Yes. And Mary Sobieski. |
| 04:31:07.80 | Vivian Wall | Thank you. |
| 04:31:07.82 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 04:31:07.83 | Steven Woodside | Yes. |
| 04:31:08.12 | Vivian Wall | Thank you. |
| 04:31:09.93 | Steven Woodside | Yes. We will now move on to communications for items not on the agenda. This is an opportunity for members of the public to provide comments on any items not on the agenda. Is there anyone who wishes to make public comment? |
| 04:31:20.46 | Walfred Solorzano | Anybody in-house? Thank you. |
| 04:31:22.15 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 04:31:22.25 | Walfred Solorzano | online by Beth McDougall. |
| 04:31:27.76 | Babette McDougall | I'll bet you're glad to hear from me again. So listen, I just want to say a couple of things going back to U.S. government 101. You know, as we have five individuals who have gone through a great deal of soul searching, not to mention their pocketbooks, to stand for election. I believe we need to draw the distinction between pep rallies at campaign rallies versus candidates' forums. I've now attended two candidates' forums where certain of you show up with your pep squads. That is so inappropriate. All five people deserve the same respect, dignity, and decorum that we have traditionally come to expect for all of our people running for public office. And our city council is no exception. So I'd like to encourage you to not bring the cheering fans to the council debates in the future, but by all means, bring them out in spades for your campaign rallies. They are two different animals. And with that, I just want to say my very best wishes to all of you as we go forward toward the election. I think it's wonderful to have as fair fight as possible. And that's what I look forward to and always support. So thank you for stepping up. That's all I really wanted to say. Thank you. |
| 04:32:48.43 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Any other public comment? |
| 04:32:50.65 | Walfred Solorzano | No further public comment. |
| 04:32:51.90 | Steven Woodside | Are there any council member committee reports? Nope. Okay. We'll close that city manager. |
| 04:33:02.64 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. Mayor and Councilman, members of the public, put it in your agenda packet as an agenda and travel and training summary. That concludes my report. Thank you. |
| 04:33:12.61 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Any future agenda items to add? All right, we'll close that and we'll take public comment on any of the items that we just heard. |
| 04:33:17.79 | Walfred Solorzano | Right. |
| 04:33:21.67 | Steven Woodside | Mr. St. Clair. |
| 04:33:22.72 | Walfred Solorzano | seen none. |
| 04:33:24.93 | Steven Woodside | Okay, we'll close public comment, and that will be the end of the evening. Thank you for bearing with us. Good night. We're adjourned. |
| 04:33:33.80 | Steven Woodside | Thanks, Gerard. Big indeed. |
| 04:33:39.32 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |