| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.03 | Walfred Solorzano | This meeting of August 5, 2025 is being held in council chambers at 420 Litho Street, Sausalito, California. It's also being broadcast live on Zoom and on the city's website and on cable TV channel 27. |
| 00:00:18.26 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, City Clerk. I will call to order the special meeting of the City of Sausalito City Council at 4 o'clock p.m. on Tuesday, August 5th, 2025. Would you please call the roll? |
| 00:00:30.74 | Walfred Solorzano | I also remember Blaston |
| 00:00:32.06 | Steven Woodside | Here. |
| 00:00:33.26 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 00:00:34.61 | Steven Woodside | Here. |
| 00:00:35.35 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Sobieski, Vice Mayor Woodside. Here. And Mayor Cox. |
| 00:00:40.16 | Steven Woodside | here. We will start off with closed session. We have items C1 through C4. C1 is conference with real property negotiator. The property is 750 Bridgeway. Sausalito. The negotiating party is Verizon Wireless. C2 is conference with real property negotiator. The address is 300 Spencer Avenue and the negotiating party is Verizon Wireless. C3 is conference with legal counsel anticipated litigation significant exposure to litigation one case and C4 is conference of legal counsel anticipated litigation initiation of litigation. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 D4, one case. Is there any Oh. Yes. |
| 00:01:29.35 | Melissa Blaustein | Madam Mayor, I just I have to recuse myself from items C1 and C2 as the firm that I've done work for represents Verizon and also my proximity to 300 Spencer so both C1 and C2. Thank you. |
| 00:01:41.92 | Ian Sobieski | And one of those items, a is recurring and I recuse myself because of my assessment of its financial impact presents a potential conflict of interest. |
| 00:01:53.01 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Is there any public comment on closed session items? |
| 00:01:56.48 | Walfred Solorzano | See you, man. |
| 00:01:57.46 | Steven Woodside | With that, we will adjourn to closed session. We will resume this meeting at 5 p.m. Thank you. |
| 00:02:07.20 | Steven Woodside | Good afternoon, everybody, and welcome to the Sausalito City Council meeting for Tuesday, August 5, 2025. It is 5 p.m. We are returning from closed session, and I will ask the city clerk to call the roll. |
| 00:02:25.93 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Blaustein. |
| 00:02:27.35 | Steven Woodside | Here. |
| 00:02:29.24 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 00:02:31.31 | Jill Hoffman | now. |
| 00:02:32.94 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Sobieski. Vice Mayor Woodside. Here. And Mayor Cox. Here. |
| 00:02:36.44 | Matthew Mandich | I'm not sure. |
| 00:02:42.77 | Steven Woodside | we're going to have the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. |
| 00:02:51.92 | Unknown | and to the republic. |
| 00:02:52.80 | Steven Woodside | for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and |
| 00:02:54.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:02:58.03 | Rebecca Singer | and justice for all. |
| 00:03:03.16 | Steven Woodside | There are no closed session announcements. I will ask for a motion approving our agenda. So moved. |
| 00:03:10.06 | Matthew Mandich | Second. |
| 00:03:11.14 | Steven Woodside | All in favor? Aye. That motion carries five zero. There are no special presentations or mayor's announcements this evening, Promptly on to communications. This is the time for the city council to hear from citizens regarding matters within the jurisdiction of the city council that are not on the agenda. Except in very limited situations state law precludes the council from taking action on or engaging in discussions concerning items that are not on the agenda. I have no speaker cards for communications. Anything online? |
| 00:03:41.85 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah. Yes, we do. We have Sandra Bushmaker. |
| 00:03:45.78 | Steven Woodside | Okay. Welcome, Sandra. Thank you very much. Good evening, counsel. I have a question about enforcement of our short-term rentals ban in Sausalito and what has happened with that. It seems that it's been off the radar. And if you check... Airbnb and other short-term rentals, you'll see that there are plenty of them available in Sausalito. And given the fact that we had a very resounding populace against this and the council voted against short-term rentals in our community, I would like to see the enforcement stepped up. Thank you. Anything further? City clerk, any further communications? |
| 00:04:29.25 | Walfred Solorzano | See you then. |
| 00:04:30.22 | Steven Woodside | All right, we will close communications and move on to the consent calendar. Karen Hollweg, Matters listed under the consent calendar are considered routine and non controversial require no discussion are expected to have. Karen Hollweg, Council supports may be enacted by the Council in one more motion in the form listed below we have items three a through three G on our consent calendar three a is approve the meeting minutes of July one and July 15 2025. |
| 00:04:40.83 | Lorna Newland | Thank you. |
| 00:04:40.93 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:04:40.97 | Lorna Newland | Thank you. |
| 00:04:56.37 | Steven Woodside | 3B, consider whether to transmit letter agreeing to remove opposition to SB 79 if author will add exemption for 12 California historic districts. 3C, receive and file Marin voice letter from Marin County mayors entitled Marin Must Stand for Human Dignity, Not Fear. 3D, second reading and adoption of ordinance number 06-2025 of the City Council of the City of Sausalito, enacting Chapter 15.14 Marin Electric Bicycle Safety Pilot Program of Title 15, Vehicles and Traffic of the Sausalito Municipal Code. 3 E adopt a resolution authorizing the city manager to award construction contract for the bridgeway safety project Napa street to Johnson street to gelati brothers in an amount of 1,342 $1,750.50. 3F, adopt a resolution approving an encroachment agreement for improvements in the Bridgeway Boulevard and Filbert Avenue public rights of way at 1755 Bridgeway. 3G, adopt a resolution approving the Sausalito Police Association Memorandum of Understanding and approve the updated publicly available pay schedules. Any questions from council members? Councilmember Hoffman. May I like to remove item 3B for further discussion? Okay. Item 3B will become item 5C. Thank you. All right, so I will now open it up to public comment on items 3A and 3C through 3G. I have no speaker cards, city court. |
| 00:06:35.51 | Walfred Solorzano | See you then. |
| 00:06:36.80 | Steven Woodside | All right, I will close public comment and entertain a motion. |
| 00:06:40.15 | Matthew Mandich | I would move, excuse me, I would move adoption of the consent calendar with the exception of 3B. |
| 00:06:45.67 | Steven Woodside | Second. All in favor? Aye. That motion carries five zero. We'll now move on to public hearing items. The first of which is the appeal of a planning commission resolution number 2025-18, approving a design review permit, a variance, three conditional use permits, a minor use permit, a signed permit, Thank you. and a Certificate of Appropriateness for Joint Hotel and Restaurant Use at 715 Bridgeway. And I'll welcome Matthew Mandich, our Senior Planner. |
| 00:07:17.16 | Matthew Mandich | Good evening, council members. Just waiting for the presentation to be loaded. |
| 00:07:22.36 | Walfred Solorzano | And a quick announcement, Mayor. We do have overflow room down at the Edgewater room. We have the Zoom. So if anybody, if we start getting full, we'll send somebody down there and help people out. |
| 00:07:36.08 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, city clerk. |
| 00:07:39.71 | Matthew Mandich | All right, we're good to go. All right, good evening, council members. Yes, before you today, we have the appeal of the 715 Bridgeway Project. Next slide, please. So I just wanted to make this clear from the outset that legal noticing has been done and requirements of 1082 have been met. Notices were mailed to all neighbors in the 300-foot radius of the project site 10 days in advance. The site was also posted 10-day advance. Notices were also hand-delivered to neighbors in the Del Monte apartments due to some previous complaints that the post office wasn't getting there with the notices. So I personally hand-delivered those myself, did that as well for the Planning Commission hearing. notices were also sent to the Marine to some previous complaints that the post office wasn't getting there with the notices so i personally hand delivered those myself did that as well for the planning commission hearing um notices were also sent to the marine municipal water district southern marin fire district and pg and e as well as placed in the marin ij so we are fully covered on our notices thank you absolutely next slide please oh so location um 715 bridgeway the old wells fargo building i'm'm sure many of you know it located in the corner of Bridgeway and Excelsior Lanes. So you can see here it's in the heart of our downtown Central Commercial District across from Vineyard Del Mar Park, our new pedestrian Tracy Way, parking lot one, the ferry landing and a number of other shops and restaurants here as well as two other hotels, Hotel Sausalito and In Above Tides. Next slide, please. |
| 00:08:28.86 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:08:59.63 | Matthew Mandich | So a little bit about the building's history. It's built in 1924, designed by H.H. Winter for the Bank of Sausalito, designed to resemble the grand banking temples that were very popular at this time, but on a smaller scale. It's a contributor to the Sausalito-Downown Historic District on the local and state historic register, and it's eligible for the national register with a listing code of 2D. The structure remains largely unaltered. It's very well preserved, especially on the facades facing Bridgeway and Excelsior Lane. It became the American Trust and Savings Bank after it was the Bank of Sausalito before eventually becoming Wells Fargo, which it served as until July 12, 2023. The building was then purchased by its current owner, Kent Ibsen, in 2024. Next slide, please. So the project proposal before you today is a adaptive reuse of an existing historic resource. The ground floor will be for fine dining restaurant and bar with capacity for 105 guests inside and 16 outside. Uh, construction of a second floor inside the building will be for three boutique hotel rooms. Um, and the existing construction in the rear yard will be removed to create space for new patio decks, fire pit, hot tub lounge area, which will serve as a guest amenities area. This is all within the existing imposing perimeter retaining walls on the site, which coincide with the property lines for the exterior will have some new signage new lighting. Some general upgrades and some flower boxes, repainting and refurbishment of the structure all defining characteristics will be reserved preserved and rehabilitated next slide please. So as council is aware, this project has had a number of approvals and appeals, which we'll just walk through briefly here. On December 11, 2024, the Planning Commission approved the application before you today, approving design review permit, variance to condition use permits, a minor use permit, a signed permit, and a certificate of appropriateness. At this hearing, the commission found that the proposed project was designed appropriately and will not result in substantial adverse impact on the historic resource or the historic district. The Commission also at this hearing found that the project was in conformance with the required Secretary of Interior Standards 1 through 10, and that the project was, which was recommended for approval by the Historic Preservation Commission on a 5-0 vote warranted a certificate of appropriateness. The Commission found that the proposed project is in conformance with all required findings in the Sassolio Municipal Code for the permits requested. And they approved resolution 2024-24 unanimously on a 5-0 vote. The project was then appealed by the neighbor Sharon Kahn of Excelsior Lane, and it was heard in front of the council earlier this year. However, at that hearing, it was remanded back to the Planning Commission for further evaluation. Next slide, please. In the interim, the applicant and staff have worked together to improve the project and make the necessary changes required for renewed approval. In this time, a zoning ordinance amendment was passed by the council that allows for some commercial uses in the Central Commercial Zoning District above the first floor to go forward in special circumstances. And this project qualifies for that exception. There's also been a redesign of the back rear deck area to address some concerns, both of neighbors, as well as to address any concerns that the project was not compliant with floor area. It isn't. Now very much fully compliant with this new design, the application for a conditional use permit and additional previously there were two approved now there was three. This is for a waiver of parking requirements that was submitted in this interim period and the also, as I discussed the rear deck was designed, which does affect the setback for the variance, however, all the findings for that variance remain valid. On July 11, 2025, the Planning Commission approved this application again for 715 Bridgeway, approving a design review permit, a variance, three conditional use permits this time, a minor use permit, and a signed permit, as well as the Certificate of Appropriateness. The project was then appealed again, and we are here before you today with the project up for appeal. It is my understanding that the project will be for the Council for a de novo review and approval. Because of this, I will be walking through each one of the permits briefly, but I want to touch on all of them. So we're all fully aware of what's being approved today. Next slide, please. So a number of planning permits are required for this project. First and foremost, a design review permit for the addition of 1,013 square feet of floor area, a variance to demolish and remodel existing legal non-conforming structures in the rear setback, conditional use permit for a hotel transient lodging use in the Central Commercial Zoning District, another conditional use permit for the sale of alcoholic beverages in that district, and a conditional use permit for the waiving of parking requirements for historic structure in the historic district. There's also a minor use permit for outdoor sidewalk dining, signed permit for new business signage, and a certificate of appropriateness that was previously recommended for approval by the Historic Preservation Commission and officially approved by the Planning Commission. Next slide, please. So design review permit before you today. These are the floor plans here, the first and second floor. You'll see this is bridgeway right here, entrance to the restaurant, full bar, back of house. On the same bridgeway frontage, there is an entrance that will lead hotel guests up to the second floor right here. There's also access to the restaurant. As you head up these stairs, you'll come out into a foyer here. This will be the bathrooms for the restaurant as well as access to the elevator. And then through these doors, you'll be able to access the guest amenity area in the back here. This is for registered guests. And then, as discussed previously, there will be a second floor built inside this very large space that exists currently to facilitate three hotel rooms, which will be one, two, three, that all three back out onto the back amenity space. Next slide, please. Here is that rear deck reconfiguration that we were speaking of. So in the previous iteration of the project, there was a staircase that led to a platform. Hotel guests had to exit onto Excelsior Lane and reenter through the public right-of-way to get onto this viewing deck, which pretty much took up this whole area. The project has been thoughtfully redesigned to shrink this deck down to about 50% of its original size. And all of the access now is contained within the perimeter retaining walls, all within the parcel. So no exiting onto Excelsior Lane and reentering will be required. The only exit comes off of this small patio here, and that is an emergency exit access to Excelsior Lane. So you could see here the smaller size deck primarily contained in the northern corner of the site. And we'll see some renderings of that later. Next slide, please. So yes, the floor area, fully compliant. This deck redesign that we saw here, there was some concern about whether or not the interpretation of this area as an inner court was valid. Any of those concerns have now completely vanished with this redesign. We have a fully compliant FAR project here. The addition of this square footage over 1,000 square feet is entirely within the envelope of the existing building. In fact, the only square footage in the rear area that is occurring is being removed. So currently the site's built all the way up to the back retaining wall. This is all existing square footage. Some of that square footage is now being removed in favor of patio space and open air space. And then the first floor will remain larger the same, except for the addition of an elevator. Next slide, please. So setback variance is required to remodel the existing legal non-conforming structure in the rear yard setback. This building was built in 1924, so it has no setbacks. It's built all the way up to the property lines on all sides. It's entirely contained within very large existing retaining walls, which are about two feet thick. And those retaining walls are necessary to hold up the hillside. It's a very unique situation that we have here. It's a registered historic building and resource, which kind of limits the use and constructing that's available to the site. Um, um, um it's a very unique situation that we have here it's a registered historic building and resource which kind of limits the use and constructing that's available to the site it must be preserved and meet the soi standards secretary of interior standards so it's hard to achieve adaptive reuse without a variance in this case um the parcel is also substandard uh parcels in the cc district are required to be 5 000 square feet this is less than that, as you can see, but also limits the existing area for the building's use. It's not injurious to any surrounding parcels. It's abutted by a public right of way on two sides, Bridgeway and Excelsior Lane. It backs up to a vacant substandard parcel at the rear and has a commercial business on the north side. Next slide, please. So here's a rendering of that deck I was discussing earlier. As you can see, here's the entrance from the staircase up to the guest amenity area. Previously, there was access up the stairs onto the deck. That's since been eliminated. This is only an emergency access point. Staircase comes up to this platform here, leads guests up to another platform before reaching the viewing deck in the northern corner here. So that is probably the most significant redesign that has occurred on the project since you last saw it. Next slide, please. This is just a section of a very similar image there. Again, staircase up, door to the bathrooms, door leading out to the guest amenity area here. With the hot tub, you can see stairs going up to that same platform, another platform, and stairs up to the viewing deck here. Next slide, please. Again, this is just another section in the other way now. Bridgeway right here, outdoor dining here, entrance to dining area and bar down here, hotel rooms in this area, and the rear guest amenity areas through here, this time in section, looking at a different angle there. That is the gate leading to Excelsior. Next slide, please. So a number of use permits are also required for this project. It's a conditional use permit for the hotel use in the central commercial zoning district. This is allowed on the second floor pursuant to SMC 1044 190 DA, which provides exceptions to residential requirements for qualifying projects. This project does require for that does qualify for that exception. The ordinance amendment was approved by the city council on May 20th, and it went into effect on June 20th. Um, there's also a conditional use required for the sale of beer and alcohol in the central commercial zoning district, as well as a conditional use permit for the parking waiver, which can be given if their preservation of a historic structure in the historic district. I'd like to note, too, here that all of the hotels in our CC district rent spaces from the city as they cannot support the required parking in the area. None of them have the parking ratio required for the number of rooms they have. It's a historic district and very difficult to facilitate that. But luckily, we do have a number of city on parking lots in the near vicinity. Um, minor use permit is also required for outdoor dinings on sidewalks. This is a particularly wide sidewalk here. It's about 12 feet. Um, and the outdoor dining will be for 16 people. And that space path to travel is typically 48 inches. However, the planning commission required it to be five feet. So they up that by one foot. Next slide, please. So just to highlight some of the approved outdoor dining we have in the vicinity here, here's our project site, 715 Bridgeway. We have Cultivar, which will be opening soon. Copita here, Lappert's Ice Cream, Napa Valley Burger, a number of other businesses and restaurants, public space here, Pedestrian Way, Parking Lot 1, Ferry Landing, and two other hotels. So, you know, right in the center of a lot of our economic and dining and hotel activity. Next slide, please. Here's just a highlight of how the outdoor dining will be configured. Three tables on the left of the entrance, one on the right, and this path of travel being extended to five feet. Next slide, please. Another permit required for this project is the sign permit, as you can see here, the signage being proposed is very similar to the existing signage on the building replicates the sign program almost exactly switching out some projecting signs for wall signs and wall signs for projecting signs, but the square footage of the total sign area is almost identical to the previous sign program. So it's very similar overall next slide please. Just a little details on the proposed signage. These wall sides will have some illumination to them. It'll be very light, very elegant. And there'll be a LED strip placed below the crown molding recessed in that will also give some soft lighting to the top of the building here where it says in the pocket. Next slide, please. Finally, a certificate of appropriateness is required. As you can see here, the building has a number of defining features, which I'll point out. The decorative frieze, terracotta medallions, Corinthian column capitals, copper grillwork and sashes, and Romanesque arch windows. All these features will remain intact. They'll be preserved, restored, and maintained. Next slide, please. So that was all the permits required for the project. All of those were approved by the Planning Commission twice on 5-0 votes. Appeal was again submitted to the last approval by Brekus Law on behalf of Sharon Kahn, the owner of 10 and 14 Excelsior Lane. The grounds for appeal are laid out here. They state that the project is barred by the general plan, that the conditions of approval attached to the project are inadequate, and that the project does not qualify for a parking waiver CEP nor does it qualify for a variance. Next slide please. So I'd just like to take this time to briefly provide a response to that appeal. This variance was not issued in error, as the appellant asserts. All findings can be made and were made by the Planning Commission on two occasions and appear in your resolution, the draft resolution for your adoption today. There are special circumstances that exist on this site. To begin with, as discussed, it's a stub standard lot for the district. It has an existing historic building, legal nonconformities, a lot of things that are hard to work with, which is why a variance is required. The existing retaining walls, it's worth noting here, these very large retaining walls, all are within the property and within the setback itself, and they need to be maintained for the health and safety of both the properties and the property above it. Um, granting the variance is not injurious to adjacent properties as discussed. There's a vacant lot in the back of this right here, um, right of way in the, on the left and the right side and a commercial space on the north. Um, there have also been conditions of approval attached to this project that, uh, condition the outdoor space and what can be done there and time limits and occupancy and all of that. So that's all part of this next slide, please. Just want to highlight that situation I was pointing out previously. So here's the project site. Once the existing construction is removed, you'll have a drop from the top of the retaining wall down to the guest amenity area of about 35 feet. It backs up to a vacant parcel, which is right here. It's its own separate parcel. It's currently used as kind of an outdoor backspace for 14, has a bit of a basketball court and some some vegetation. It's about a 45 foot lot and it slopes down towards the site. And then you have the con property here at 14 with the deck in question above here, which is about 20 feet off the ground. So from kind of a hot tub level up to that deck is a rather significant distance. Next slide, please. Yeah, and just highlighting that again from the street perspective, there's the deck highlighted in red here. Here's the slope down to the back of that retaining wall right there. Next slide, please. Also, we had a number of concerns about noise and the variance from the Del Monte apartments next door. Just like to highlight that right here. That is the building. Here's our project site. When I went and hand-delivered the notices, I was able to take a couple photos from the Del Monte apartments, specifically in this area here. As you can see from the down level here, you're really just looking kind of up at the bottom of the staircase and really don't see much of the building at all. So this is half of the apartment building down here. The level up here, which is this level right there at this window, as you can see here and here, looks directly at the retaining wall on Excelsior Lane. However, all the improvements for the deck and the staircases will all be hidden behind that retaining wall. Next slide, please. Um, The other issue with the project that the appellant states was that it didn't qualify for a parking waiver CUP. However, it does qualify as a waiver is allowed when parking requirements for a new or expanded use proposed allows preservation of a historic structure, which this is in the downtown historic district, which we're in, and does not require substantial alterations. All the square footage that we talked about, which the appellant is saying is a substantial alteration alteration will all be interior there's only removal of square footage in the back area, none of the defining characteristics of the building will be altered or removed as only repaint and maintenance level repairs will be performed. The project conforms to the Secretary of Interior Standards for the treatment of historic properties with guidelines for rehabilitating historic buildings. Certificate of Appropriateness was recommended for approval by the Historic Preservation. Vation commission then approved by the planning planning commission on two occasions. And again, the fact that there's not adequate parking all hotels in the downtown area rent spaces from the city for their guests and employees. And I imagine this would do the same next slide, please. Um, finally, uh, the appellant asserts that the project and hotel use is not consistent with the general plan. However, it is just like to highlight some pieces here while we do have some pieces of our general plan that do point to the possible nuisances that could be created by hotel, especially when paired with a restaurant. Um, there's a second statement that hotels can have a minimal impact on nearby residential areas with good location management and adequate parking. It goes on to say that hotels bed and breakfast uses should be located in the downtown central historical historical and compatible with the character of the existing structures in the downtown. So first of all, the hotel use is in an ideal location in the Central Commercial District in the historic downtown. It's of small scale and compatible with the surrounding structure. It's also adjacent to three other large hotels, including Hotel Sausalito and Above Tides and Casa Madrona. The owner has a proof of concept and proven management skills. He's made this project work in Carmel, has a 24-hour accessible concierge for the project, and will be really giving a bespoke experience to every one of the guests that comes here. There's also ample parking in the vicinity with the city-owned lots. So I think this addresses all the issues of how... Powerhouse can have a minimal impact with good location, good management, and adequate parking. Next slide, please. Finally, there's been a number of special conditions of approval that have been attached to this project. One of those is that a hotel concierge or welcome ambassador will be on site during the operating hours of the restaurant to assist hotel guests. this concierge or welcome ambassador shall be available for contact by hotel guests 24 hours a day for any issues that arise outside of the restaurant's operating hours. 24 hour management is not a requirement of the municipal code or the general plan. And it's not typically seen with small boutique hotels or limited service hotels like this one. Hotel Sausalito, which is across the street has 16 keys as well as Gables Inn up the street on Princess 13 keys. Neither of those have 24 hour staff manning the front desk at three, as well as Gables Inn up the street on Princess, 13 keys. Neither of those have 24 hours staff manning the front desk at 3, 4 a.m. in the morning. But staff, again, at those places is also reachable by phone or email at all hours, which is a pretty standard practice for these smaller hotels. |
| 00:28:15.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:28:24.20 | Matthew Mandich | Also, I'd like to point out that even though Casa Madrona does have more management, they also abut a residential area and Gables Inn as well abuts residential area. So it's not a foreign concept to have a hotel that runs right up against residential zoning district. There's also no record of registered code complaints for existing hotel uses in Sausalito. It's not really a culture we have here, and there's nothing really on file saying other hotel uses, especially those next to residential districts, have ever run into any issues. Use of the hotel common area and amenity areas, including those elevated decks, must be limited to registered guests and guests of guests with key card access. and use of the hotel common area, amenity area, including those decks will be prohibited after 10 p.m. and before 7 p.m. and guests of guests with key card access and use of the hotel common area amenity area, including those decks will be prohibited after 10 p.m. and before 7 a.m. We also have a number of enforcement mechanisms, including first of all, the concierge will be available 24 hours a day for any complaints, the Sassabito Police Department, our code enforcement officer and the general noise ordinance that covers the zone. So next slide, please. |
| 00:29:08.72 | Unknown | Right. Thank you. |
| 00:29:26.54 | Matthew Mandich | All right, that brings us to the recommendation. So with that, staff recommends the city council adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the planning commission's decision to approve this project for a new joint hotel and restaurant use in the historic building at 715 Bridgeway. The proposed project is designed appropriately, will not result in a substantial adverse impact on the historic resource or the historic district. The proposed project is in conformance with all the required findings in the Sausalito Municipal Code for the permits requested. The Planning Commission and HPC have previously approved this project unanimously. The proposed use fills a very difficult vacant space in the heart of our downtown Central Commercial District. The proposed use is also a boon for economic development and vitality with sales tax and TOT tax that can come from it. And of course the approval is subject to the conditions of approval included on the draft resolution, as well as any added by the council this evening. That concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. |
| 00:30:22.84 | Steven Woodside | I had a couple of questions. |
| 00:30:23.98 | Matthew Mandich | Absolutely. |
| 00:30:25.52 | Steven Woodside | Thank you for that great and thorough presentation and for all the work you've invested in this, including hand-delivering. notices to be sure that everyone was aware of this hearing. um, You mentioned in a prior slide that the concierge is available to the guests. the 24 hour concierge. You also mentioned in the subsequent slide that a, you know, something that complainants could rely on is the concierge. But it's not clear that the concierge is reachable by the general public if they have a complaint. is the concierge Sarah Silver, available only to hotel hotel guests, as indicated in your prior slide or will because the code enforcement officer is not available at night. The police are not in the station, you have to goes to the 911 dispatch so Sarah Silver, will the concierge be available to the general public if there are complaints. |
| 00:31:22.89 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you for the question, Mayor. Yes, they will be. This is the same model that is operating Carmel currently. The hotel concierge is available to anyone that needs to contact them for any kind of complaint. So sorry if I misspoke on that previously, but, you know, the idea of the concierge, too, is also to educate hotel guests when they get here about what the rules are, what they can and can't do, the hours of operation for the rear areas, all that, all those things. So that's something that they'll be doing. And they're really on, on hand to serve the guests and provide, you know, the bespoke experience that they're after, but they will also be available to anyone that has any complaints about noise. |
| 00:32:00.56 | Steven Woodside | Throughout the... permits, the conditional use permit findings and the other findings, it makes reference to a proposed hotel and restaurant use. I'm not sure that encompasses the rooftop, deck, and spa use. And so I'm wondering if it would be smart to include in these various permits reference to the spa use on the rooftop deck, because that's not necessarily a hotel or restaurant use. |
| 00:32:35.94 | Matthew Mandich | So the back area is designed to be guest amenities for the hotel. So they are connected to the hotel, just like a hotel would have a swimming pool or, um, a bocce court or something like that. So, um, they are part of the hotel use. |
| 00:32:49.34 | Steven Woodside | So the issue is, you know, one of the several of the pieces of correspondence we received pointed out that the rooftop, deck, and spa is now approved to allow guests and guests of guests, which means it is not strictly a hotel use. |
| 00:33:07.25 | Matthew Mandich | Well, that was a condition that was added by the planning commission. I don't believe that there's any kind of condition that would prohibit somebody staying at a hotel from having a friend come visit them in a hotel. |
| 00:33:20.44 | Steven Woodside | But again, I'm wondering if a guest using the spa is a hotel use. |
| 00:33:25.57 | Matthew Mandich | If I guess using spas, I'll tell you. So I would say that it is. Yes. Okay. Okay. |
| 00:33:25.62 | Steven Woodside | like you're going to be a |
| 00:33:25.89 | Unknown | you |
| 00:33:25.91 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:33:25.96 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:33:25.98 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:33:26.11 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:33:29.57 | Steven Woodside | I guess I'm going to recommend, I'll save that for my comments. Okay. |
| 00:33:33.27 | Matthew Mandich | Okay. |
| 00:33:35.18 | Steven Woodside | And then, This letter also made reference to a maximum occupancy of 70 people. That seems a lot. So what is the established maximum occupancy for the, when you have three hotel guests, how would you possibly have 70 people occupying the rooftop deck and spa? |
| 00:33:54.60 | Matthew Mandich | That's a max for fire, I believe. Occumency, I don't believe. |
| 00:33:59.07 | Steven Woodside | Has the hotel established a maximum occupancy for the rooftop deck and spa? THE FAMILY. |
| 00:34:05.52 | Matthew Mandich | believe we've established a maximum occupancy, but that's certainly something that the council could condition this evening. |
| 00:34:10.68 | Steven Woodside | Okay. |
| 00:34:17.14 | Steven Woodside | because one of the conditions of approval says that the Permitted use of condition of approval H under the Uh, parking waiver says that the proposed hotel and restaurant use will not materially adverse affect nearby properties or their permitted uses, as the use of newly created outdoor spaces will be governed by hours of use and occupancy limits. |
| 00:34:43.66 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:34:44.08 | Steven Woodside | And so I think it is important to establish an occupancy limit for that outdoor space. And what are the hours of use that are being conditioned for the outdoor space? |
| 00:34:54.83 | Matthew Mandich | From 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. |
| 00:34:59.67 | Steven Woodside | Okay, those were my questions. Thank you so much. |
| 00:35:01.44 | Matthew Mandich | Keep in there. |
| 00:35:04.99 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes, some of mine are somewhat follow-ups. So I wanted to ask specifically about the welcome ambassador. Great that that's going to be... A position and I understand from your comments that this is something that already exists within the protocols and Carmel. Could you just talk a little bit, and maybe this is a question for the owner, but what kind of training or expectations the welcome ambassador will have beyond just the bespoke mean I understand the bespoke experience idea, but I would love to get a sense of will they come and meet with city staff so they're aware of. our code requirements, that kind of thing. |
| 00:35:39.88 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, I mean, that's going to be a question that's better for the applicant. But I do know that the woman, I believe her name is Jane, that's been running the pocket in Carmel is actually going to be moving here and running this hotel. So she has quite a bit of experience under her belt and has worked on this concept in Carmel for several years already. So I'll leave the applicant to provide maybe more on the background and all that. I don't know her whole resume, but I do know that she has a lot of experience in this type of thing. |
| 00:36:05.30 | Melissa Blaustein | Then I wanted to follow up on some of the essentially our past history with downtown hotels, because I know, for example, for a fact that the Madrona sometimes rents out the penthouse specifically for parties. And you stated that we haven't received any complaints from neighbors about any of those types of events. |
| 00:36:23.45 | Matthew Mandich | We have no code complaints on file. I don't know if somebody has called the police or called the hotel. There's been no code enforcement complaints that we have in files on hotels that we were able to dig up. |
| 00:36:34.05 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay. And did you communicate just, or this might be a question for the owner as well, but with the other hotels about their processes to make sure that this was in line with what they've been doing as well? I know you mentioned the Gables and Hotel Sausalito. |
| 00:36:46.52 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, I did a little bit of research on that for sure. I called some of the hotels around town, looked on their webpages, checked out what they have stated there. So made some phone calls to reception. So I, I, You know, got the information that I received from those hotels. |
| 00:36:59.99 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, great. Thanks. I just wanted to follow up on that. |
| 00:37:06.05 | Steven Woodside | Yes, Councilmember Hoffman, thank you. |
| 00:37:09.12 | Jill Hoffman | I think, you know, we could go back. I think it was, I can't remember when we had a short-term rental discussion, but we had numerous complaints about unmanaged short-term rentals and parties and unmanaged events when we were going through that discussion. So there were issues with unmanaged houses and parties. That's why we did not approve short-term rentals in Sausalito, even though we had a very – pilot program that I thought was going to actually be a good program, but ultimately we did not pass that. Anyway, I had some questions about about the Some of the units and the rooms and so if you could go to I think it's page six of the plans. If you have that up, I don't know if you can bring that up. I can share my screen if that's easier for you. it's I think it's the attachment, I believe, on the agenda. |
| 00:38:06.81 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, it would be passionate. |
| 00:38:08.62 | Jill Hoffman | I think it's attachment 13 or something. Yeah. I think it's page six and there's a white chart. |
| 00:38:11.34 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, towards the end. |
| 00:38:17.60 | Jill Hoffman | And it shows the lodging units. And that's kind of what I'm going to ask you some questions |
| 00:38:44.70 | Jill Hoffman | Have you got that? I think it's page six of the plans. And that's going to be attachment. It's almost the last attachment. Hold on a second. I can tell you exactly which one. |
| 00:38:57.45 | Matthew Mandich | I believe the plans are up on the screen, council member. |
| 00:39:00.34 | Jill Hoffman | Oh yeah, great, thank you. It's not that page. It's going to be the next page, I think. |
| 00:39:10.82 | Jill Hoffman | Attachment, it's going to be page six. Go back one. Nope, you went too far. Are you on six? Oh, there it is. See that box? |
| 00:39:23.48 | Jill Hoffman | Gosh, you're not going to be able to see that. Okay. So, well, you probably know this backwards and forwards, Matthew. So let's just say, so there's three lodging units, 201, 202, and 203. And so I'm just going to read across the unit. Lodging unit 201 is area square footage of 969 square feet, and it gives an occupant number of five. So that can house five people. And- |
| 00:39:55.45 | Matthew Mandich | W those are including the pullout bed numbers, I believe. |
| 00:39:58.88 | Jill Hoffman | However they're cramming them in there, it says five. And lodging unit number 202 has 424 square feet, and that has an occupant number of three. And lodging unit number 203 has 731 square feet, and that has a lodging unit 5. number of occupants of four And 201, going back up to the top, 201 is a two bedroom, two bath unit, lodging unit 202 is essentially a studio, and lodging unit 203 is a one bedroom, one bath. Is that your understanding of these units? |
| 00:40:37.79 | Unknown | That's correct. |
| 00:40:38.86 | Jill Hoffman | And. And so in the lodging unit, the one bedroom, one bath, essentially the studio is a lock off and you can either have that as a separate unit or you can it's it's you can combine that and those are the three units. |
| 00:40:50.47 | Matthew Mandich | Correct. |
| 00:40:50.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:40:50.94 | Jill Hoffman | And so the other interesting thing on this chart that I found interesting, and I think this is what some of the residents were finding interesting, is that the number of occupants total for the residential patio, if you go down that chart, it says 47. And the patio cumulative for number of occupants, it gives a number of 59. And so maybe that's what people are relying upon when they're talking about the number of occupants for the patio cumulative for the outdoor areas. Do you think maybe that's what people are? Thank you. |
| 00:41:26.82 | Matthew Mandich | Yep. Potentially. Sure. Those are the fire requirement occupant numbers, max limits. Yeah. |
| 00:41:27.25 | Jill Hoffman | Potentially. |
| 00:41:31.96 | Jill Hoffman | And so is that where people are getting, maybe they're adding those number of the lodging? I'm just asking, I don't know, maybe somebody else who's gonna present is getting that 70 number? |
| 00:41:44.97 | Matthew Mandich | I don't know where those numbers are coming. If they're coming from public comment, I mean, I couldn't tell you. |
| 00:41:49.66 | Jill Hoffman | So maybe when we're talking about guests of guests or something, we're talking about those numbers. But when I'm looking at number of occupants principally, I think we're going to be relying on the number of occupants that we're looking at under the units, the lodging units, the max number, which I'm getting like is 12, if you add up the max number of occupants for the units there. And so the other questions I had were, Were there, is there any thought or access of guests, restaurant guests having access to that upper area where the hotel guests are going to be? |
| 00:42:34.45 | Matthew Mandich | That's not how it's intended to be, no. There's a... a wall there. It's a glass wall that when you walk up, you'll be able to look into the amenity area as you're going to the bathroom, but you'll need key card access to get in there. |
| 00:42:45.50 | Jill Hoffman | So the restroom area for the downstairs restaurant is gonna be downstairs? |
| 00:42:49.33 | Matthew Mandich | No, upstairs. |
| 00:42:50.04 | Jill Hoffman | Upstairs. So, okay. So the restaurant area is upstairs, but they're not going to be able to go. |
| 00:42:54.33 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, the restrooms up there's restrooms where the restrooms are located. There are restrooms there now. So that's where the current restrooms in the building are. So they're going to repurpose that same space, the plumbing area, all that. So, yeah, you'll have an elevator and a staircase to access. And there's a small foyer up there that will provide access to the restrooms. And then kind of a glass wall with two doors that would open into the amenity area. |
| 00:43:00.67 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 00:43:15.39 | Matthew Mandich | Okay. Okay. |
| 00:43:29.21 | Jill Hoffman | I think that's all I have right now. Thank you. |
| 00:43:30.86 | Steven Woodside | All right. Any other questions? All right. I'm going to open it up to public comment in just a moment. But first, I do want to inquire whether there were any ex parte communications by council members. |
| 00:43:30.90 | Jill Hoffman | Right? |
| 00:43:41.92 | Steven Woodside | I'm seeing no. No, not by me, no. |
| 00:43:44.01 | Jill Hoffman | Oh. I had one conversation with a neighbor and I had, it was one. to less than a minute call with the architect for the project, Clay, but we did not have a substantive conversation, it was just a, just a You have my phone number if you have any comments. |
| 00:44:08.92 | Steven Woodside | Okay. All right. With that, I'll open it up to public comment. I have no speaker card. |
| 00:44:13.61 | Walfred Solorzano | Should we say that we're opening a public hearing? |
| 00:44:15.90 | Steven Woodside | Sure. Yes. So. Well, no, sorry, I'm not going to take public comment yet. I'm completely out of order here. I've done city council questions. I'm next going to have a presentation from the appellant. |
| 00:44:28.51 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you, council members. |
| 00:44:28.76 | Steven Woodside | Council members. I'll take the speaker cards when you're ready. |
| 00:44:33.32 | Elizabeth Brekus | Thank you. I'll keep doing the video. Thank you. |
| 00:44:37.47 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:44:37.49 | Elizabeth Brekus | Thank you. |
| 00:44:37.52 | Steven Woodside | Hello, welcome. |
| 00:44:38.78 | Elizabeth Brekus | Thank you very much. Elizabeth Brekus, Brekus Law Partners, and I represent Sharon Kahn, who's the appellant here, And thank you for your time. Uh... You know, I take issue with the description of this project being fully compliant. It isn't fully compliant and the first thing you should look at is the general plan compliance. Here is the general plan language. First floor uses should be retail, commercial, with general office and residential uses on the upper floors of buildings in this area. So there was a residential use requirement. And, you know, And the purpose of that, and it says this in the general plan, is the policies have been designed to minimize the impacts of intensely used commercial areas to the surrounding neighborhoods. And that's exactly that's express language. And that's a purpose designed to prevent exactly what we're doing here, which is encroaching into residential areas to say this project had a zero setback. that the existing building does is not really to describe what the zero setback is. It's an enclosed use of this space. And what we're doing is having a very intensely, you know, used area, the only outdoor amenity for this hotel use. And it looks attractive. I'm sure it's going to be a fun spot. And I'm sure it's going to be actively used. And so it is really concentrating a commercial use into that area. So the city then amended their ordinance, and I do just want to say I think that was the wrong thing to do. We were here previously. We said that this project did not comply with a particular ordinance. We were told we were wrong. And then whether the city did It went and amended the ordinance, which it said could not be interpreted as we urged. And I just want to point out, I mean, you can do that. You did that. You shouldn't have done that. It's now inconsistent with your general plan. And that history is going to be very much, I think, scrutinized by a court if this were challenged, if this is a challenge. So I think that's problematic for the city. Karen Hollweg, Additionally, that ordinance has its own problems, as we have described to the city previously. The housing element compliance. This project violates your housing element because it, Your housing element specifically relied on residential uses in the downtown. And you guys had some discussion when you were modifying that about, well, we really aren't even getting residential uses in the downtown park. One of the things I found very interesting in the staff report is the discussion about the Gables Inn Hotel. I did, as staff did, and looked online at Gables Inn and the other hotel site, and I didn't see any of the support they state for a. you know, concierge type of Airbnb type of check-in process. But I did see that they bought a commercial building in the CC district. And in 2017, the staff report allowed, proposed and it was adopted, that they added two hotel units to that. And maybe the reason the city doesn't have as much housing in the downtown area is because staff doesn't know the rules, because that was a flagrant violation of the rules in 2017 and the ordinance that the city just changed. Um, so both is housing element and the general plan require denial of the, um, CUP for hotel use. Additionally, the general plan states that there must be adequate management and adequate parking and no management for, you know, uh. most of the time, and no parking is not adequate management or adequate parking. So again, I really question that. In addition, I don't know why any hotel wouldn't come to you and say, why are we leasing the city space? And I can... |
| 00:48:46.76 | Unknown | And I think that's a good question. |
| 00:48:53.50 | Elizabeth Brekus | foresee the city having to give up that revenue. for those hotels that are paying you for what you're giving away for free. There are three conditions that the city talked about in December of 24 when we were here, 24 hour on site management registered gas hotels seven to 10. And now the applicant saying no 24 hour management guests of guests. And I do want to remind you that Mayor Cox that you were in support of 24 hour management previously and I hope that you will continue to be in support of that. The limit that we cited was from the fire code on the plans that talked about 78 people. That's where that came from. There will be no one on site to police when this place gets the most rowdy. when the hot tub is completely occupied, when the party deck is accessible and people want to be up there. And that's when the noise ordinance is supposed to be the remedy. And it isn't because people are going to call the police. And, you know, the police is going to maybe get out there and maybe tell them to be quiet. And that's just what the neighbors are going to have to put up with. And I bet if any of you. any of you. had this kind of a project next door to your home. I really don't think that you would stand for it. So I think it's really kind of unkind to call out this appellant whose property is impacted. And I want to take issue with the idea that we have a vacant lot so we can just do whatever we want next to the vacant lot. The vacant lot is subject to development. The impact will be subject to, you know, be adversely affected. And the city should just not say, well, we don't protect vacant lots, which is what staff was proposing. Um, And again, I do want to remind you that the applicant themselves said that this would be a great site for a bachelorette type party. So we can expect that we will not have the same kind of use that we would if it was a neighbor to neighbor where you kind of have to live with the person. uh, saying it was a zero setback. I just want to, um, highlight that, um, You know, we wouldn't be here if the zero setback was going to be continued, but it was internal use. That wouldn't be an issue, obviously. Um, So then the other thing I want to talk about is the variance. It's a high standard. I'm sure many of you are familiar with this. We've got lawyers on the council. Many of you have served on planning commission. So I understand you know that. But it's literally that the actual enforcement of this Can't be met. It's too big a hardship. Well, number one, if that party deck was not there, the applicant's project would still have plenty of outdoor amenity space. So you cannot make that finding. And you have to make a finding it's not injurious to neighbors. And telling the neighbors, hey, we got a sound ordinance, you can just rely on that, is not taking into account the fact that they will have to be triggering that. And they are the ones that are going to be calling up the city when that whatever maximum occupancy you put on it, hopefully it's not 78 and just limit it by the fire code. But they're the ones that are going to have to police this for you. because the planning controls that are being proposed here are not adequate I just want to say I don't think that this project has been really well vetted. I know that you guys want it. Frankly, I want it. I love seeing new restaurants come into Marin County. But I just don't think it's being properly vetted. And unfortunately, I think the city is tripping over itself. to approve and in the process it's tripping over itself if you really wanted this project you would make it so that it's not subject to appeal. And as it presently exists, it is subject to appeal. And it can be appealed and my clients are actually committed to appealing it. So I think that if the city wanted this project really badly then the city should say to the name the applicant who's been Hold no limits. You know, conditions imposed. He doesn't want to follow him. The city just says, sure, we'll get into that. So unfortunately, we don't have any kind of olive branch We've had several discussions with the applicant through council to try and get there. And they just have no incentive because they've been told that they can do whatever they want. You're dying to have the project and you're going to give it to them even without any conditions. So there's been no motivation to meet us halfway. With that, I'll leave you to it. I ask that you really consider the occupancy limits. 78 is way too much. Um, guess of guess is an unlimited number. and the city should have a way that the neighbors can look down and say, okay, that's over. And if it was 14, if that was the occupancy, then it would be really easy for neighbors to say, you know, look, there's more than 14 people, but once you get to 20, or more? it becomes very difficult. And I think this is going to be a problem. and I hope the city will reconsider. Thank you very much. Thank you. |
| 00:54:15.27 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. We'll now invite the... applicant to make a presentation. |
| 00:54:32.60 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |
| 00:54:33.71 | Kent Ibsen | Good evening. It's nice to be back in front of you this evening. I'd like to start with some of the occupancy things. We don't have 78 people that are going to be up there. That's just, uh, that was something through the fire code. And I'm more than happy to have our architect who is here this evening, speak to that, that we've never come up with that number. Um, I have no problems with having some sort of occupancy limit. We have not broached that. If you have the two bedrooms with two couples in them and, and there's a couch. And if there's two people under that six. studio. husband and wife and two kids, that's four, that's 10. And in the same thing in the one bedroom and the other, you're at 14 people. Um, the, you know, a reasonable number. So I would, I would ask this question to me, it just seems outrageous and absolute lunacy. I want to ask. All of you, have you ever gone to a hotel? and not been allowed to have a guest. |
| 00:55:46.22 | Steven Woodside | We can't answer you, you just have to, this is- |
| 00:55:46.60 | Kent Ibsen | Thank you. No, I think you did. You know, it's just silly. I mean, if you're sitting there in that space, and you're over to see your grandkids and your kids, and you're like, hey, come on over, have a glass of wine. I'm sorry, you have to stay downstairs. No one is allowed in here. It's just unheard of. So guest of guests is that that's not something zany. That's just what happens in hotels. So, you know, if, if, if you, if there's a reasonable number, I don't have a problem with it. I own the property. I own the pocket. I own. what happens in hotels. So, you know, if, if, if you, if there's a reasonable number, I don't have a problem with it. I own the property. I own the pocket. I own in the pocket. I have absolutely zero interest in having these crazy things that they're indicating. And also The deck we're talking about, the sky deck, First of all, that's the roof. I measured it the other night when I was here. It's 11 feet below the wall. This is exactly what you're looking at. This is the people on the wall. the sky deck, the sky deck. is roughly 275 square feet. So this absolute crazed rave lunacy up there is just, it's all just for shock value. Then the hot tub that they're referring to that they continue to want to place on top of this Bayview deck isn't there. It's another 25 feet down. which is 35 feet below the wall. Yet if I was their neighbor, We'd have a good neighbor fence and there'd be a six foot high fence and I can have as big a hot tub as I want right up against the fence line and goof off all I want. It's just, it's like what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander here. And it just, it's, some of it just seems inappropriate. And also the fact that we have not reached out an olive branch, again, completely inaccurate. We started off by sending letters out and we met them on their property. And the very first person I met was the cons attorney. And it went on from there and there and there. The process has been dragging down the road. I start my first conversation with Matthew on this was in September of 2023. So I surely do not feel like I've been the recipient of any kind of preferential treatment. I have done this in multiple cities and even in another state. It's been arduous. I'm not going to lie. It's been incredibly difficult, but it's a process worth pursuing because I think the project is so extraordinary. So I'm going to leave some of my time to see if there's any other people that want to talk to me or ask questions. And this is our argument. You can talk about the occupancy. |
| 00:58:22.37 | Steven Woodside | So, |
| 00:58:22.78 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:58:22.79 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. City Clerk, will you pause the clock? So this is not a back and forth. We will hear public comment. You can reserve some of your time to respond to public comment. So right now you have six minutes left. If you want to reserve some of the time and not have your architect use all of that time, the appellant had roughly a minute left. Yeah, he's not too. |
| 00:58:43.72 | Kent Ibsen | Yeah, he's not too long-winded. |
| 00:58:46.15 | Steven Woodside | If we ask you questions, that won't go against your time. If you want to address questions that come up during public comment, you can reserve some of your time to do that. But there won't be a dialogue between you and members of the public. |
| 00:58:58.25 | Kent Ibsen | yeah that's that's fine um do you want to address so you can keep my clock ticking uh and and he'll just address the occupancy thing and then we'll be done |
| 00:59:07.43 | Clay Haberman | Thank you. |
| 00:59:07.78 | Steven Woodside | Okay. Great. All right. |
| 00:59:11.26 | Clay Haberman | Good evening. I'm Clay Haberman, Johnson Lyman Architects, the architect for the project. I just wanted to clarify that the sheet that everyone was looking at and those occupant loads, that is a code analysis sheet that's required by the building department and the fire department to ensure that we are showing a safe environment. So it's really meant to calculate exit widths, number of exits, widths of corridors, that kind of thing. And it's strictly based on a square footage calculation. You know, the the the apartment there are the the hotel rooms is a residential use, according to the the building code at 200 square feet per person and the the the the patio. They make us call it an assembly use, which is 15 square feet per person. That's just what I have to design for. It doesn't mean there's that many people there. So. Thank you. |
| 01:00:09.37 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Okay, so city clerk, will you turn off the clock? Okay, I do have some questions of the applicant and I know there are some questions of the appellant as well. So could you return? So I would like to know what the hours of operation are for the deck and spa. And I would also like to know the maximum. I am going to recommend that we. adopt a as a condition of approval, a maximum occupancy. of the, for 275 square feet, that's not a hugely large space. So I am going to recommend that. I'd like to hear from you what you would like that number to be. So you don't have to answer me right this second. We're going to hear a public comment, but before... Before we deliberate, I am going to recommend that we adopt hours of operation for the deck and rooftop spa, and a maximum occupancy for that area. |
| 01:01:07.27 | Kent Ibsen | Okay. I believe the hour or the hours of occupancy for the outside amenity area and the deck have already that's in that's conditioned already. |
| 01:01:15.47 | Steven Woodside | I missed it. Can you just tell me what it is? |
| 01:01:17.40 | Kent Ibsen | I'm going to need some help from |
| 01:01:20.52 | Steven Woodside | So 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Matthew answered that question when I asked it before. Yeah. |
| 01:01:20.62 | Kent Ibsen | So 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. |
| 01:01:25.13 | Steven Woodside | And then will you think about what a reasonable maximum occupancy is? Sure. If you want to say it now, it might affect some of the public comment. If you want to wait till after public comment, that's fine with me too. |
| 01:01:27.08 | Kent Ibsen | Sure. I'm sure. |
| 01:01:29.78 | Sandy Strawbridge | Thank you. |
| 01:01:29.80 | Kent Ibsen | Sure. |
| 01:01:30.00 | Elizabeth Brekus | Thank you. |
| 01:01:36.14 | Kent Ibsen | I maybe I just think about it for a second. |
| 01:01:38.07 | Steven Woodside | Sure. Thank you. |
| 01:01:41.07 | Melissa Blaustein | Great. Anybody else have questions? Yes. Yeah. I had touched on this with Matt, but I would love to hear from you a little bit about your experience with the concierge, the 24-hour concierge in Carmel, since you've done that before, just so we can understand how you interact with residents and also about the person you're planning to hire. |
| 01:01:55.57 | Kent Ibsen | the person. Okay, so the way this works, this welcome ambassador and concierge service is when you book your room in the pocket or in Sausalito, you're immediately provided with a welcome letter, how everything is going to work when you come to site. We even have some different rules and things that are included in that welcome packet so they understand. We have a limit of how many people can be there. One of the reasons we always have this welcome ambassador and take them into their space with the people in their party is to make sure that when they said that there's going to be two people there staying in the studio, that it's not, you know, eight people from San Francisco State. And so we have someone that walks them in. These are the amount of people here. Obviously, cameras will be all over the property in the public areas for us to watch. Now, when someone, when they're coming in to our properties, they will have the welcome ambassadors cell number. They will text the welcome ambassador 15 minutes before they arrive. When they get to the parking lot, she will come out and greet them. It is Jane. Jane is moving up here. She's done it for five years in, um, in, Carmel and she's just magnificent. Um, She will take them upstairs, sit down, walk them through the amenities, explain all of the rules of the property, how late the restaurants open, when they can get food, and also provide her with her. It's not her personal sell. It's her sell for the company. And the cons had asked if that could be put on the website. I'm not opposed to that. So that's not a problem. It's not a secret. And we don't want any problems. We haven't had any noise problems. We've been doing this since 2020 in Carmel. But we, too, can't. don't want those types of issues. So then whenever there's a question, anything like booking, booking a boat ride, you know, a wine trip, anything, Jane handles that for them. And if it's not Jane, it's the other person that works for Jane. If it's Jane's day off. So, and just to, toot her horn a little bit. We have been doing this in Carmel since 2020. We have over 500 separate bookings. We have a star rating of 4.985. That's like really good. That's like over 500 fives and two fours. So this is not pie in the sky. This is something that works. We create relationships with our guests. Currently in Carmel, there's a guy that stayed. He brought a corporation down. He was there for a week and he just liked it so much. He's down there this weekend with his wife. And that's what we have. It's not, we're not. We're not Holiday Inn Express. It's a very, very curated experience. So... That's how that process works with the welcome ambassador. We've had very, I shared this with the planning commission. We've had very few. calls um after 10 o'clock in the evening um one was they could they couldn't turn off the golf simulator so the the screen was on all night long and there was a switch there that they just couldn't find someone couldn't turn off uh the sonos music system which it was was inside it was really simple a simple fix and then um the third one was um Something to do with either the AC or the shower. Simple, basic things that we're able to either address immediately or first thing the next morning. So... That's how that works. |
| 01:05:55.65 | Melissa Blaustein | So I have a couple of follow up questions. So, and as someone who's worked in hospitality, I appreciate that you also wouldn't want, you know, a party on your property. And I'm wondering, since you mentioned that you sent a letter with rules, etc., |
| 01:06:08.02 | Elizabeth Brekus | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:06:08.10 | Melissa Blaustein | Would you be open to including in their language that says X number of guests and this is not a location for – or we prohibit parties or similar order of just to be clear that there's something to enforce? |
| 01:06:20.15 | Kent Ibsen | Absolutely. So what, like, I can, what I can take is our pro our property in Carmel. It's a pretty big house and it's split it split into two spaces. It's 3,400 square feet. We allow 10 guests because there's five, um, either King or Queen bedrooms. Um, we've had people reach out and say, Hey, can we have, um, can, can we have some people over like another 10 people for cocktails? Cause we're all eating at the pocket restaurant this evening. The response is you're more than welcome to have someone come over and have these cocktails 10 people that's all it's allowed to stay in that place tonight and we will be the restaurant is we have people at the restaurant from eight in the morning usually till around midnight and it's like that we we limit it and we have had people want very large like rehearsal re rehearsal dinners and things. It's like, boy, I'd love to do it. Just can't. The property is too valuable and too important. This is the amount of people that can come. I actually recommend my friend's hotel. It's like, go down there. He's got 16 rooms. I just, you can't have that many people here. So that's, that's, that's how that works. And as with regard to outside, There's nothing, I don't see anything wrong with having a baby shower. And so if three ladies are sitting there and they bring over seven other ladies and they have a baby shower outside their courtyard for 10 people. That's what you do at hotels, but we don't have anything or any facilities there for huge parties. It's just not that type of place. |
| 01:07:47.39 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, great. But that's something you'd be willing to put into the language of your welcome letter with regards to occupancy and number of guests in part. So it's a concern. |
| 01:07:51.77 | Kent Ibsen | Sure. It protects me too. |
| 01:07:56.44 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, great. Thank you. Okay, I think that's it for now. Any other questions? |
| 01:08:02.35 | Steven Woodside | All right. We do have questions for the applicant. Thank you. Sorry for the appellant. |
| 01:08:13.01 | Steven Woodside | Yes. Oh, you don't want to. Oh, sorry. Apologies, no question. |
| 01:08:19.04 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 01:08:19.39 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Okay. Oh, go ahead. |
| 01:08:22.01 | Ian Sobieski | I mean, you know, on the city council, we have a lot of other matters we take on, and this is a de novo hearing as part of the appeal. But this issue has been heard twice by a body that focuses just on planning issues, on code issues, on variances, on CEPs, and all the issues that we are getting kind of drinking from the fire hose here tonight. And twice that commission made up of a variety of different residents with a variety of different backgrounds unanimously approved this project. Why do you think they did that? |
| 01:08:51.94 | Elizabeth Brekus | They got the law wrong. They got the facts wrong and they got the law wrong. And when you get garbage in in a staff report, you get garbage out. And I see it all the time. This project has been framed for you erroneously and you should know that because you had to change your ordinances after you were told by your staff that you don't have that problem. You also got told there's no need for a parking waiver. So it came up approved and we pointed out correctly that it didn't need a parking waiver. So the history of the family, You also got told there's no need for a parking waiver. So it came up approved and we pointed out correctly that it didn't need a parking waiver. So the history that you're describing that should be on your mind is the fact that mistakes have been made by staff, by the applicant. I'm not just following it on staff. I mean, an applicant is supposed to apply for the right application. So if the applicant studies the project and realizes they need a parking waiver, they're supposed to apply for that. So I just, I don't think it should be, hey, the appellant is so unreasonable. It really should be that the House is not in order. And part of that is the applicant inviting it. But obviously, if you look at the history of this project, there have been errors and there continue to be errors. And tonight, if you prove it, That will be an error. |
| 01:10:04.00 | Steven Woodside | All right. Thank you. All right, I'm going to now open it up. I'm going to now open it up to public comment. The first, first up I have Matthew Stewart, followed by Carolyn Revell, and then Bob Mitchell. |
| 01:10:22.75 | Steven Woodside | Yes, everybody will have two minutes. The clock is right up here on the screen so you can see. |
| 01:10:27.10 | Matthew Stewart | Look, uh, okay. My name is Matthew Stewart. I live in Sausalito and I work here. Um, I've never done this before. It's nice to be here in front of you all. This is crazy. Let's approve this project and stop wasting everyone's time. This is absolutely ridiculous. Look, no one likes loud noises, right? Just call the cops and make a complaint. I don't get it. Why are we here? It just doesn't make any sense to me. We need to approve this project for the greater good of Sausalito. There's so many amazing things that the tax money from this project could benefit for the town. And to the people that are stalling this, like, shame on you. Honestly, shame on you. Like, there's a whole city here that could benefit from this. And respectfully, use your money to soundproof your fucking house. Sorry. Thanks. |
| 01:11:23.09 | Steven Woodside | All right, Carolyn Revelle. Sorry, sorry, yeah, Carolyn Revelle, then Bob Mitchell. then Sandy Strawbridge, hopefully I don't have to say out loud to please refrain from cursing during your public comment. You're not going to hear that from me. I'm Carolyn. |
| 01:11:40.03 | Carolyn Revell | with it. Thank you. I'm an urban planner with old fashioned words. The conversion of this Wells Fargo building to a restaurant and boutique hotel is an extraordinary opportunity for Sausalito. It's a well-designed, adaptive reuse of an historic building which will enliven our central business district. As you've heard, it meets the Secretary of Interior standards, the Sausalito historic guidelines. preliminary certificate of appropriateness, and final approval from the Planning Commission. It will reinforce the enhancements for the downtown at our Ferry Plaza and those that are being pursued by the business district. it will generate. Hotel tax and sales tax. The applicant, as you have heard, is a well-regarded developer with a proven track record for a similar project in Carmel. I believe he has been very responsive to the concerns of abutting neighbors with access. providing access changes and reductions in the size of the roof deck, as well as providing the on-call ambassador that he's just been describing. Noise concerns can be addressed by the noise ordinance. I believe the staff has responded to the planning issues released in the appeal and have made a convincing case for the appeals denial. And I urge the council to deny the appeal. and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve this excellent project. Thank you very much. |
| 01:12:59.36 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. at Bob Mitchell. then Sandy Strawbridge, then Beth's work. |
| 01:13:08.81 | Bob Mitchell | Hi, I'm Bob Mitchell. I did what you're doing for eight years, 30 years ago. I was mayor during Sausalito Centennial, 1993. Not a lot has changed since then. in particular, applicants trying to ache out all they can for their project. the rule against intensifying preexisting unpermitted uses hasn't changed. This applicant wants to change an unused rooftop into an outdoor party venue and nightclub with amplified sound, outdoor party venue, TVs, piped in amplified music, hot tubs, kitchen area, alcohol, all to the detriment of the many neighbors. living around the property. including the appellant. residents of 28 apartments at 120 Bulkley. The residents of the Del Monte apartments. and the Presbyterian Church. It's a violation of our zoning code. and it's entirely unnecessary. If the applicant feels he needs a party venue, all he has to do is enclose it. and his hotel guests can party on all they want without affecting the neighbors. Yes, and closing the rear deck. would also be a violation of the code as written, but if approved by variance or ordinance revision, It would protect the neighbors from unrestricted amplified noise of the applicants unmanaged and unregulated party venue. with the bar amplified music television, hot tub, alcohol, and whatever other attractions can be squeezed in And it would be usable when it is cold outside, And when it is raining, benefiting the applicant You have a rare opportunity here to give both the applicant and the appellant Part of what each wants. It's an almost Salm-esque Solomon-esque. HAPPENING. Thank you. Any questions? |
| 01:15:13.27 | Steven Woodside | Sandy Strawbridge, then Beth Swerke, then John Diamante. |
| 01:15:19.04 | Sandy Strawbridge | Hi, I'm Sandy Strawbridge. I've never done this before either. I live at 30 Excelsior Lane at the top of the lane. Um, My concern is noise, and it isn't noise after 10 p.m. I don't care if I have to call the cops after 10. I'm worried that my balcony, which I like to keep open when I dine, when I watch television, that I will have to close that door from 4 p.m. until 10 p.m. on many nights because this, we keep referring to it as a boutique hotel. It's not. It's an event space. It is a high, expensive rooms. with a joined outdoor space, not like any other hotel rooms with balconies in this town. So it's an event space. It's going to open up onto our neighborhood, and it's going to be an interruption. Otherwise, the restaurant, great. Love to have the restaurant. Just make them regular hotel rooms with regular balconies. |
| 01:16:15.03 | Steven Woodside | the alchemist. Thank you. Beth Swerke, then John Diamante, then Gail Schell. |
| 01:16:23.26 | Beth Swerke | Hello, that's work tenure resident. I'm here to express my strong support of the approval of this project. Um, I, been hearing all of the concerns and all of the pros at the planning commission meetings and city council. And a lot of it is about noise and bus benches being moved and the sound. Um, I am concerned that we're going to have a lot more empty storefronts and I'm concerned that our town is going to whittle away. We need to be filling these places with the appropriate people who are going to be doing amazing things for our town. There's no doubt that this project would be a fantastic addition to our downtown area. The new hotel and restaurant would bring much needed economic activity to our community. A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of going to the pocket in Carmel. I brought my out-of-town friends. We loved it so much. We went twice. It's such a charming place that caters to both local and tourists. It will no doubt bring in tourists and our surrounding communities and neighbors to South Salido, which will also represent the heart of ours and also bring in other economic investments throughout the town. uh coincidentally when I arrived at the house that I was staying at in Carmel, it was literally next door to the pocket, like 10 feet, not 100. I was there for multiple nights over a busy tourist weekend. I can personally attest that the pocket team and the guests were respectful, quiet neighbors. I never heard a peep from the restaurant, from the hotel. When you walk by, it feels like a home. The lighting is subtle. The sound is subtle. It is perfectly blended to the community. And it's what we need here in this town. I didn't even know they had hot tubs or fireplaces. And they want to be here. While dining there, I had the opportunity to meet the team that would be here. Jane, they're amazing. We would be lucky to have them here. The developers have clearly considered the impact on the nearby residents. They've been very thoughtful. I want to thank them for their patience and assure them that most of the community supports and celebrates what they're doing. And we can't have to wait to have your Brussels sprouts and martini with you. Thank you. |
| 01:18:24.04 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:18:24.19 | Beth Swerke | Thank you. |
| 01:18:24.31 | Steven Woodside | you |
| 01:18:24.55 | Beth Swerke | Thank you. |
| 01:18:24.60 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. John Diamante, Gail Schell, and then Jody Moore. |
| 01:18:30.30 | John Diamante | John Diamant, good evening. This project is a fantasy of the developer and the architect, and nowhere better illustrated than wishing away the bus stop benches of the town's primary Southbound bus stop. Those benches will be vigorously defended. And if they're retained, there goes the right-hand side outdoor dining unit. The noise issue is paramount, and that is not going to go away. I'm a resident, a neighbor, and you can look forward to vigorous defense of the century-old tranquility character of Excelsior Lane. The co-author of this fantasy, is Matthew and the planning department. for three, now four meetings, they have an entirety wished away seven to eight issues of public life and safety, public convenience and necessity, and others. Some of this is rehearsed in fine in three pages of my five-page letter to the Planning Commission, which started this. |
| 01:19:35.54 | John Diamante | Carmel is not relevant, nothing about it. Outstandingly so because this building is not accessible by vehicles for restaurant supply, restaurant maintenance, for Uber, Lyft, taxi, what have you, drop off, pick up, that will impact the two five minute green zones, which are absolute necessities for medical, grocery supply, other necessities for the Del Monte residents and others. You can only get to this place by foot. The rooms, dark, narrow, will have no fresh air exposure unless the architecture is radically altered by the plan, which means air conditioning, which means additional noise. So I think when you either remand this project or recommend a continuation of the hearing, that you look for a business plan for the hotel and the restaurant, and you'll see a lot of this illustrated in fine. Thanks so much. |
| 01:20:38.97 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Gail Schell, then Jody Moore, then Eric Lieb. |
| 01:20:44.98 | Gail Schell | Council on Gail Shell. It's nice to see you and thank you for listening to us. We appreciate the fact that you do take into account What residents think? So my feeling on this is that I think it's a fantastic project. I've been following it for a long time now. I really appreciate the accommodations that the owner has made. Um, I also appreciate the fact that twice the Planning Commission has unanimously moved this thing forward. And I put a lot of stock in that. The other thing I put a lot of stock in is the fact that the mayor of Carmel has spoken very favorably on behalf of this owner. This is somebody who has actually had had a project in their town, dealt with the kinds of issues that we're worrying about occurring here, and, and has a very favorable feeling about how it's been handled. And that just means a lot to me. I think it's a little... um, unreasonable to expect that only louts would come to Sausalito to take advantage of a place like this. My family loves going to little boutique places like this and renting a place. And I think, you know, I think most people going for this type of property are going to fall into that category. So I encourage you to... to move it forward. Thank you. |
| 01:22:00.04 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you. Jody Moore, then Eric Lieb, then Bonnie McGregor. Hello. |
| 01:22:07.87 | Sandy Strawbridge | Thank you. |
| 01:22:07.95 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:22:07.97 | Sandy Strawbridge | I, |
| 01:22:09.03 | Elizabeth Brekus | just wanting to add my voice to the resounding |
| 01:22:11.97 | Sandy Strawbridge | THE FEDERAL. |
| 01:22:12.04 | Elizabeth Brekus | chorus of positive people saying, let's do this. Our beloved town needs this. We need revitalization. We need open, you know, places that are open and welcoming and |
| 01:22:25.01 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:22:25.40 | Elizabeth Brekus | energy energetic. |
| 01:22:26.77 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 01:22:27.04 | Elizabeth Brekus | so forth and so on. So I know you've heard lots of arguments for pro, a few for con, but I'm hoping that the pros went out. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:22:41.33 | Steven Woodside | Aye. Eric Leib, then Bonnie McGregor, then Paul Mowry. |
| 01:22:47.68 | Eric Lieb | Thank you. I've lived next to the property right next door for 15 years. And a question came up earlier about why the Planning Commission approved this. And I want to speak to my personal experience of the Planning Commission meeting of July 9th. Like that night, the room was filled with neighbors, you know, who were simply standing up for their rights. But a lot of us were made to feel like we were somehow in the wrong. |
| 01:22:55.57 | Unknown | know. |
| 01:23:11.10 | Eric Lieb | The Planning Commission, the developer, they presented arguments that were either one-sided or in my opinion, inaccurate. For example, the Commission and tonight gave the example of the, you know, how neither the Gables Inn nor the Hotel Sausalito have on-site 24-hour management. Yes, but those hotels also don't have a large common area that directly abuts residential properties that could host bachelorette parties or other parties that have been mentioned tonight. Another one was, you know, the commissioner commented how to live to the cruising club. and they have to deal with the noise it creates. So yes, but the cruising club was there when they moved in. It's not like it just floated in one day and then they suddenly had to deal with how it changed the character of the neighborhood like this development will for us. And at that point, At that presentation, the developer said then and said now, They'd sent letters to everyone in the neighborhood, I live next door. I did not get a letter. I haven't been reached out once. Neighbor even called them out at that meeting. And then the commissioner proceeded to chide us, like the citizens of the town, the neighbors, like children, no one cursed. They were just simply standing up for their rights. and you know, They reacted that night in the way anyone who has been denied a voice. And the thing is, on a philosophical level, I support this development. My father who couldn't be here tonight has been a commercial real estate developer for over 70 years. Like he's done deals far bigger than this, but, |
| 01:24:37.72 | Steven Woodside | He's done. |
| 01:24:40.33 | Eric Lieb | He always respected the community first. So thank you for your time. |
| 01:24:43.57 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Viney McGregor. Paul Mowry, Alice Merrill. Good evening, Mayor and Council. |
| 01:24:50.44 | Gail Schell | I'm going to go. |
| 01:24:52.69 | Steven Woodside | Yes. |
| 01:24:53.02 | Bonnie McGregor | the records. I have been a resident in Sausalito now, pushing 45 years, three different stints. I seem to must like this place. And I like getting involved with what's going on in my city, whether I happen to own property at that moment or not. I am a resident. And I'm here to be much, very much in favor of moving this project forward, which has been approved twice by the Planning Commission. The type of clients that I believe will be bring bring the kind of business will bring into the city is not the party stoppers of 25 or 30 year olds. And I believe |
| 01:25:27.97 | Alice Merrill | that we once went through a situation with the Altamira where everybody was scared to death that it's going to be full of Hollywood types who are going to be hell raisers all over town all the time. That has not happened at the Altamira, and I don't see it happening here. The kind of clients that are going to be coming in here are ones that I think will probably be adding business |
| 01:25:48.97 | Bonnie McGregor | and all the restaurants around town and start buying some art other than ice creams and T-shirts. That ought to help our revenue coming in quite a bit. So I could go on and on and on, and I won't, and I'm very much in favor of this, and you all have read my letter, which is in the minutes. I hope you deny this late appeal. Thank you. |
| 01:26:10.61 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Paul Mowry. Alice Merrill. David Lay. |
| 01:26:20.81 | Matthew Mandich | Hi, I share the concerns about the operations raised by my neighbors. And please remember Eric Leib's comments that the project cannot be equitably compared to other hotels in the area without outdoor spaces. Mainly, I want to say I'm an ordained minister in a mainline denomination in the 21st century. Religiosity has dropped like 50 percent in the past several decades. I know so many pastors who are desperate to get anybody into church any way they can. And there's a lot of soul selling and sacrificing that people go through because they want the bodies in there. And I just have to say that now we're seeing this process with the planning commission, it looks like a desperate church willing to sell itself down the river in order to get something that's going to save its life. It's what I hear just from a lot of people, my neighbors here, who say that, you know, if we don't get this, Sausalito is just going to be destroyed. I don't feel it's like that. I think that the applicant is going to have a wildly successful venture. I haven't heard one person on any side of this issue who hasn't said this shouldn't go through. I have heard people say there should be reasonable accommodations. The planning commission seems to have a kind of desperate idea that no request is too high. Changing zoning regulations, whatever it takes. I think that it's okay for the city to put reasonable expectations on the plan, reasonable expectations about supervision, reasonable expectations about hours of operation. And I don't know why we can't |
| 01:28:23.73 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, Pastor. |
| 01:28:23.81 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you, Patrick. That's a nail-biter. All right. |
| 01:28:26.43 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, Pastor Paul. Alice Merrill, David Lay, Adrian Britton. Well, good evening. So as Bonnie said, she's been a how many 56 year resident? Well, I've been a 79 year resident here with bits and |
| 01:28:44.03 | Alice Merrill | spurts. |
| 01:28:45.58 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:28:45.63 | Alice Merrill | Um, |
| 01:28:46.03 | Steven Woodside | But basically, I have. Okay, so what I am worried, sad about, worried about, a little bit frustrated about is that rules were changed. Um, requirements have been changed to make this possible. So at one point we have only residential up above and all of a sudden in some city council meeting it was really fast, which is what happens all the time. It comes in, you decide, you talk about it, how do we know about it? And then it's passed. So you've changed the rules. for this clearly for this. What are you going to change the rules for again? Um, Very frustrating. This is, you know, this for commercial upstairs instead of residential. We need housing, right? Isn't that what we're working on these days? Um, And then You know, the Carmel thing. The Carmel is a beautiful town. It's a wonderful place. And it's been a place where Sausalito is known about forever. It's always been a little bit compared. Saucedo was always perfectly glad not to be Carmel. I'm not saying that this makes it Carmel. I'm just saying that just because it's Carmel... Thank you. doesn't mean it's perfect. Um, We are who we are and not Carmel. And I think that's all I have to say. I wish that You all... would would keep an even keel. I don't know. frustrating. Bye. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. David Lay. |
| 01:30:39.92 | David Lay | Yes, thank you very much. One of the things that our government needs to guard is bus stops. And that's one of the busiest in town. It's visitors, and it needs to be guarded, and you have to guard it. Across the street and down a ways is the Trieste. And I sit at one of their tables to wait for the bus. I've done that over and over and over again. Nobody's bothered me. And then I had lunch there. And now nobody bothers me anymore. or never did actually. Thank you very much. |
| 01:31:15.55 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Adrienne Brinton. |
| 01:31:23.85 | Adrian Brinton | I thank you very much for taking my comments. Uh, sorry, I'm just trying to get my notes. Um, I heard a comment, you know, somebody mentioned that not a lot has changed, um, in Sausalito. And I, I don't know about that. I think it's changed a lot, actually. I think when my mom was here in the sixties, um, They used to party. They used to party like crazy. She was a hippie. She partied downtown. She partied in Vina Del Mar Park to the point where they fenced off the park. They made a lot of noise. They partied in houses. They partied in parks. You know, I think my grandfather actually worked at the Altamira. He was the maitre d' there. And I can tell you that place knew how to party. They had weddings. They had bachelor parties. They had the rich and famous. They had actors. They had martinis. And they had an enormous deck right above the place we're talking about now for many, many years. You know, I think that the comment that the appellant made speaks a lot to what the problem is. You know, she said, we've got to protect the vacant lots. |
| 01:32:28.78 | Adrian Brinton | I mean, let that sink in for a minute. If we're protecting the vacant lots, who's eating at the restaurants? You know, who's coming to our town if our interest is protecting the vacant lots? I vehemently disagree with that. I think we need to bring life back to town. I think this is something that can start to do that. Every decision we make either takes us a little bit further or it moves us back a little bit. Let's take that little step further. Because the way we kill the town is to keep taking steps back, keep taking steps back. And we're, quite frankly frankly really good at that. The last thing, if I've got time, I want to touch on the parking. Mill Valley changed their parking requirements. They don't require new businesses under a certain size to have parking requirements. They said, we have the parking we have. We have the buildings we have. Nothing is likely to significantly change. Let's not burden these businesses going through the theatrics of saying, those are my two spots there and that one space there, and I've got this little space behind my building because that's a little silly and that's not how it works. Thank you. |
| 01:33:26.43 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Those are all my speaker cards. City Clerk. |
| 01:33:30.02 | Walfred Solorzano | Joel Carr. |
| 01:33:31.58 | Steven Woodside | Welcome, Joel. We got your correspondence. |
| 01:33:38.27 | Walfred Solorzano | gonna mute yourself. Thank you. |
| 01:33:42.04 | Joel Carr | Can you hear me? |
| 01:33:42.53 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 01:33:42.55 | Joel Carr | Thank you. |
| 01:33:43.35 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah. |
| 01:33:43.42 | Joel Carr | Yes. Yes. Okay, thank you. Thank you, counsel. I imagine that you all might know that we are swiftly becoming the laughingstock of the entire Bay Area. There was a huge story in the SF Chronicle last week and the Marin IJ the week before. As the hardest place in the region to do any kind of projects and the most contrary residents who make it impossible to do reasonable projects. We need a paradigm change. If we as a town cannot get sensible projects approved, we are more than failing. We are allowing all naysayers unfettered power over our towns. Please deny the appeal and approve this project. The fact that the Planning Commission and you all allow these appeals to even be heard rather than dismissed out of hand also empowers the contrary population who want nothing to change at all. Every one of these agonizing details like we have heard tonight are simply outlandish. We know that an important focus of any city government is to avoid lawsuits that can be costly and time consuming. However, that fear inhibits all the government agencies from allowing these appeals to be simply rejected, which is within their power. But even if there were a lawsuit, there is abundant evidence of community engagement, thoughtful compromises by owners, and previously unanimous determinations by planning, nearly unanimous by counsel, which all give the fodder necessary to whack down the suit easily. Without the courage to dismiss appeals that become increasingly unrealistic will result in them being endless and result in nothing. The people who want that will simply endlessly appeal every decision because they don't want anything. If that happens, it will indeed be nothing that we end up with. They will continue to whittle down the project agonizing piece by agonizing piece. Truly, I feel that it will be a huge mistake for our town and everyone in it to allow. |
| 01:35:44.69 | Walfred Solorzano | All right. Thank you, Joel. Next speaker is Rebecca Singer. |
| 01:35:45.24 | Rebecca Singer | Thank you. |
| 01:35:45.29 | Joel Carr | people. |
| 01:35:52.16 | Rebecca Singer | Hi, first I wanted to commend Matthew for that excellent presentation. I really appreciated how thorough and informative it was. I it made it very clear how much staff work has gone into this fantastic project. I am extremely concerned that we are creating an anti-business climate in Sausalito. It seems that every time someone wants to open a business here, the financial and aesthetic needs of our town are being held hostage by a small but loud group of litigious residents. We're being offered a proven successful business venture by an experienced hotelier and restaurateur who is not just willing but eager to bring new life to one of the most beautiful historic buildings in the downtown district. He has bent over backward to accommodate every single curveball that has been thrown at him and is still eager to build a business here. If that doesn't evince his commitment to its success, I don't know what does. I've been fortunate enough to be a guest at the Pocket Restaurant in Carmel on multiple occasions. Hi, Jane. And I can tell you I have never once so much as heard or laid eyes on a single hotel guest during my visits. So I can attest from personal experience that these appellants' noise complaints are frankly much ado about nothing. Please deny this absurd appeal and approve this beautiful project for our town. |
| 01:37:05.85 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:37:06.73 | Walfred Solorzano | Next speaker is Jordan Dodds. |
| 01:37:10.90 | Steven Woodside | Good evening. Welcome. |
| 01:37:14.38 | Matthew Mandich | Hey, how's it going? Everyone hear me already? |
| 01:37:15.42 | Sergio Rudin | THE END OF |
| 01:37:15.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:37:15.51 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:37:15.62 | Sergio Rudin | want everyone to hear me. Thank you. |
| 01:37:16.55 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 01:37:17.21 | Steven Woodside | Yes, thank you. |
| 01:37:18.32 | Matthew Mandich | Hey, thanks for having me. |
| 01:37:18.76 | Steven Woodside | I'm going to go. |
| 01:37:20.98 | Matthew Mandich | PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, Hewlett-Packard, Hey I wrote my notes here, so thank you city council. Thank you to the planning commission. I know it's gone through that a few times and, you know, thanks to the process. I feel like, uh, this is why we have this. So, um, good. And then lastly, I want to thank the entrepreneur. I, this is the first time I've kind of jumped into this, uh, subject. I just got updates and heard it was moving along. But just hearing him speak and I don't know you, I just want to say I respect the creativity in this project Um, if you don't know, I think it's very difficult to run a restaurant. So. The idea to bring a hotel in to kind of boost the chances of success in this venture to me is brilliant. Like, with margins as thin as they are in restaurants. I think it's such a creative way. Like I looked at that Wells Fargo, Wells Fargo building before it. So just cause I was curious, I didn't have a plan, but You know, it takes a lot of work. That's an old, really beautiful building and. with the revitalization coming downtown, the PBIT, I was just excited to hear about this project. Um, I don't have much more to say than other than this is, you know, in my opinion, the things that are moving the city in the right way and just want to think again, like I heard someone say like the rules are changing and, man, that made me excited to hear because it would be really difficult to live in a town where like the rules didn't change and adapt to the evolution of humans and progress. Thank you. That's all I got to say. |
| 01:38:42.31 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. City Clerk. |
| 01:38:44.56 | Walfred Solorzano | into Pfeiffer? |
| 01:38:46.75 | Steven Woodside | Welcome, Linda. Hello, can everyone hear me? Yes, thank you. |
| 01:38:52.72 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you. I urge you to support the appeal and reject the current second floor proposal for the The pocket agenda item 4A. It's my understanding that changes were made to Ordinance 1044 that initially required residential housing on the second floor of our historic district and it included an affordable housing formula And I'm |
| 01:39:20.03 | Rebecca Singer | so concerned about losing |
| 01:39:21.65 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:39:21.66 | Rebecca Singer | Thank you. affordable housing in our historic district And I'm also concerned about the |
| 01:39:29.43 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:39:29.44 | Rebecca Singer | Uh, |
| 01:39:29.97 | Jill Hoffman | and quiet and quality of life of long-term neighbors nearby. I urge the council to consider tenancy at 30 days. There should be setbacks, management oversight, parking, noise mitigation, And that's just to name a few. Most of all, I'm really concerned that as well, that if this moves forward with this second floor residential or rather, looks like a short-term rental short-term uh, rental to me. that we will start losing affordable housing in the historic district. So I also urge the council to revisit |
| 01:40:12.04 | Rebecca Singer | changes that were made to ordinance 1044 that back on the agenda for broader transparency and a bit more thoughtful research regarding the potential ramifications to Sausalito. Thank you. |
| 01:40:25.93 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:40:26.94 | Walfred Solorzano | And Sophia Collier. |
| 01:40:30.84 | Steven Woodside | Welcome, Sophia. |
| 01:40:31.78 | Bonnie McGregor | Thank you. Hi there, Sophia Collier, and I wanted to support the project and urge to deny the appeal. that I did a long project with a group of people about our historic district. And one of the things that really impressed me was the fact that we need people who are going to invest in our district to revitalize the beautiful buildings and retain them in the form that they are. |
| 01:40:54.66 | Unknown | that they are. |
| 01:40:55.86 | Bonnie McGregor | and that we need to have this kind of project. So I urge the council to Evaluate any particulars that they want to add, like affirming the hours of operation, reasonable occupancy. and then clear the way to proceed with this project. I think that these kinds of long, um, drawn out processes can be difficult for someone trying to start a hotel like this. And this is a project that we really need here in Sausalito. It will be a great addition to our community. Thank you. |
| 01:41:26.88 | Steven Woodside | Thank you so much. |
| 01:41:28.28 | Walfred Solorzano | No further public speakers. |
| 01:41:30.19 | Steven Woodside | All right, I'm going to close public comment. The appellant had roughly a minute left, and the applicant had roughly five minutes left. So appellant, did you have any further comment? |
| 01:41:49.62 | Elizabeth Brekus | Yes, thank you. Can you speak into the mic? I want to thank you. I want to follow up on a couple of comments that were made by council members. Council member Blossian had the idea that the nobody should be on the letter, the contract letter that goes out. I would suggest that it should be on the website. |
| 01:41:52.36 | Steven Woodside | you speaking |
| 01:42:09.44 | Elizabeth Brekus | um regarding um occupancy limits this is obviously not my first request but uh i do ask that the council consider a minimum occupancy and below 20 certainly uh And if the intent is not to throw parties, there should be no catering up there. And, um, And that should be a condition of approval because what you hear is the applicant saying, trust me, This is not my intent. This is not my intent. Bye. The problem is, THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT will go with the property. So it doesn't matter if he sells to somebody with different plans. So again, that would be my request. Thank you. All right, thank you. |
| 01:42:57.02 | Steven Woodside | invite the applicant back up. |
| 01:43:06.37 | Steven Woodside | So you have roughly five minutes left, but before that I do want to ask if you have an answer to my question so you heard the appellant recommend under that you have a limit of a maximum occupancy on the deck of 20 what is your suggestion. |
| 01:43:22.94 | Kent Ibsen | Well, I feel like we, if there's 14, I have no problems limiting the, the actual people in the residence, like we do in Carmel to 10, cause that's what we can adequately sleep in the, in the actual, um, lofts upstairs, 14. That's what we can, that's what we can sleep. No more than 14 can sleep on property. |
| 01:43:43.53 | Steven Woodside | That's hotel guests. |
| 01:43:43.77 | Kent Ibsen | Thank you. TODAY. That's the hotel guests. Then in total, if each of them have one guest, 28. I mean, it seems reasonable. |
| 01:43:53.45 | Steven Woodside | Okay, and then you heard, a suggestion that you don't have catering on the roof deck. Do you intend to allow catering on the roof deck? |
| 01:44:03.95 | Kent Ibsen | I own a restaurant right below it. |
| 01:44:07.61 | Steven Woodside | So do you intend to have people eating outside of your restaurant? Do you intend to? |
| 01:44:11.49 | Kent Ibsen | It would be like room service. Correct. I mean, if you're a guest upstairs and you want me to bring you a bone-in rib on it. |
| 01:44:19.48 | Steven Woodside | I don't know if your hotel has room service. Does your hotel have room service? |
| 01:44:22.80 | Kent Ibsen | Oh, we'll be happy to bring them food. |
| 01:44:26.87 | Steven Woodside | Okay. um, Okay, and then you have five minutes left. |
| 01:44:32.94 | Kent Ibsen | No, if you have any questions of me, that's fine. I don't really have anything else to add. |
| 01:44:37.80 | Melissa Blaustein | Just to acknowledge the question regarding putting the policies that you would have on the welcome letter somewhere on the website. I'm perfectly fine with that. |
| 01:44:43.49 | Kent Ibsen | I'm perfectly fine with that. |
| 01:44:44.92 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:44:44.99 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Okay, great. |
| 01:44:46.96 | Jill Hoffman | I have a follow-up question, Ian, and I just want to clarify that. So I think the concern is that there's going to be events, that it's an event space, an outdoor event space upstairs. And if you're – we're putting the maximum occupancy at 28 – outdoor, you know, 28 guests outdoor that there's going to be up to an event of out of an outdoor event at 28 people with food and with catering from your restaurant, admittedly, but and that's what I think the mayor's question was that, and so. how would we perhaps put some comfort or wording maybe in the permit that would address that. |
| 01:45:30.22 | Kent Ibsen | Yeah, I I'm fine with, I understand, understand what you're saying. Um, |
| 01:45:30.92 | Jill Hoffman | You understand why I'm going to say that? |
| 01:45:34.94 | Kent Ibsen | I think that in reality, I'm not going to run this place as the way it was proposed by others. But I think in quite all honesty, it's very hard to police. It's all inside these massive retaining walls. But 14 people, that could be, you know, or 28 people, it could be, you know, four tables of seven down on the courtyard, 35 feet below the wall. And I don't think that that's unreasonable if we're, you know, doing a small Napa Valley wine event, if we have wine vendors, there's things, it's just like, that's, that's what you do at hotels. I have no problems capping it at 28, because, you know, can it accommodate more? Probably. But. It's not really what we do. We don't do a lot of that. And typically, if there is an event of size, it happens in the restaurant. They either buy out the restaurant or they buy out a section of the restaurant. It they go downstairs. So. |
| 01:46:38.07 | Jill Hoffman | So I think that's what the neighbors are concerned about, that the upstairs courtyard area is meant to be and might be an event space. And that's what the fear is, that the commercial activity downstairs is moving up to the second level. |
| 01:46:56.33 | Kent Ibsen | know, and I appreciate the concern and I, and I, I get it. It's just, |
| 01:46:56.89 | Jill Hoffman | And I appreciate that. |
| 01:47:01.48 | Kent Ibsen | what kind of limitations do we put on this? Because this is in a form, in a way, are the neighbors, you know, telling me how to operate and run a successful enterprise. And so I'm okay with language. I just don't want it so constrictive that, you know, that I can't run the business that we created. And as I said, from the very start with the cons with their council, I'm, I'm very flexible. We can do whatever you would like to do as long as it doesn't impair the vision of this project or the economic viability of the project. So, and I feel like we have, we have stripped it down to that. I mean, that's where we're at. If 28 people, you know, but I should be able, we have a very successful restaurant in Carmel. We should be able to take food up to our guests. And I don't know what wordsmithing you do to... to allow us to do that, but also give them comfort. And if we can do that, I'm comfortable with it. I just don't. want to leave this meeting handcuffed from a business perspective. Um, because the one person that did call in, um, It's not the easiest business. It's all I've done since I was nine years old. But so, you know. If someone wants, if a couple want to share a halibut and a bone-in ribeye and a bottle of Krug, I want to be able to bring it up to them. |
| 01:48:32.92 | Jill Hoffman | I don't think anybody's concerned about that. What they're concerned about is some sort of event that would involve something beyond that. |
| 01:48:42.81 | Kent Ibsen | Well, we do a lot of self-policing at our own properties. There's things that we just don't allow. And again, I... This is me asking them to trust me, which is, that's a huge leap. So, and I get that, but for instance, you know, bachelor parties, we don't do. Bachelorette parties, we don't do. You know, baby showers. Yeah, we do them. We've even done some very small second and third weddings that are just like people coming out and they're going to have 10 or 12 people and they want a private place for dinner. We do that on their patios and on their decks. We manage that internally. And that's a big ask, obviously. But I just don't know how you put that into words and conditions to where I wind up getting handcuffed. |
| 01:49:36.05 | Steven Woodside | Anything further? All right, thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:49:37.85 | Kent Ibsen | Thank you. |
| 01:49:39.02 | Steven Woodside | I do want to ask a planner, senior planner Mandich a question. So we had a couple of comments about the bus stop. So I did notice that you did cite the outdoor dining Fairly close to the existing bus stop. So I use that bus stop. Many people use that bus stop. What is the plan to preserve the bus stop? |
| 01:50:04.18 | Matthew Mandich | Um, the bus stop will be in that location. The benches are going to be removed to accommodate outdoor dining. That was discussed at the HPC hearing back in October, 2024. Um, the historic preservation commission was fine with that. |
| 01:50:20.63 | Steven Woodside | I'm not fine with that. So I, you know, I was on crutches and a cane for months, and I relied on those benches. So we installed those benches to accommodate our aging population. So is there an alternative to removing that bench? |
| 01:50:39.90 | Matthew Mandich | I do not believe the street frontage would allow for a five foot passable and the the outdoor dining in front of the benches. I just don't know if that's feasible. |
| 01:50:49.56 | Steven Woodside | Is there another place to put the bench in close proximity to that? |
| 01:50:53.34 | Matthew Mandich | Well, there is a public right of way right there, um, on Excelsior. Um, this is not something. |
| 01:51:00.93 | Steven Woodside | OK, I'm please, please don't. |
| 01:51:03.07 | Matthew Mandich | Can we get some decorum? |
| 01:51:04.24 | Steven Woodside | calling out. Okay, if you continue to call out, I'm going to ask you to leave. So you've had your chance at public comment. I'm addressing your concerns. Okay. |
| 01:51:15.11 | Brandon Phipps | If I may, Mayor. |
| 01:51:16.40 | Steven Woodside | Yes, thank you. Assistant City Manager Phipps. |
| 01:51:21.08 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Staff has discussed this issue with Kevin McGowan, Department Works Director, and we understand that there may be a little bit of a rejiggering and a redesign that we need to evaluate. I consider this an important aspect of ensuring that this project complement the context and, you know, not in any way impact members of the public who want to access public transit. This is something that's important to us. So I'm committed to working with Kevin to finding an optimal space to reposition this bus stop seating. Yeah, that's so that's my commitment of staff. |
| 01:51:56.28 | Steven Woodside | All right. Thank you. Yeah, go ahead, Councilmember Hoffman. What is the... Oh, what? |
| 01:52:02.88 | Matthew Mandich | I would say the applicant has been his favorite. |
| 01:52:04.53 | Kent Ibsen | I did have one thing to add about the benches at the HPC. Um, it w there was a late, a lady that it was a part of the organization that donated the benches to that space. And she asked if she could have them and back. And I said, that's fine. We're not getting rid of them. We've donated them back to... |
| 01:52:23.36 | Steven Woodside | I object to losing the use of the benches. We have elderly residents who rely on public transportation. And I have been myself in that situation with six different surgeries over the years. And so I don't know what other council members say, but I'm asking for a solution to not to allow you to have your outdoor dining, but not lose the benches. But I'm not going to debate this with you, sir. |
| 01:52:27.53 | Kent Ibsen | and... |
| 01:52:50.75 | Kent Ibsen | No, no, no, we're not debating. I was just letting you know that someone from the HPC- I just wanted to ask your question about that then. |
| 01:52:55.18 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 01:52:55.19 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:52:55.21 | Ian Sobieski | That's what it is. |
| 01:52:56.57 | Steven Woodside | Let him finish his response, and then you can answer him. |
| 01:52:59.63 | Kent Ibsen | Absolutely. |
| 01:52:59.66 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:53:00.19 | Kent Ibsen | Someone from the HBC had asked about that. |
| 01:53:02.47 | Steven Woodside | I understand. |
| 01:53:02.87 | Kent Ibsen | And I, and I've said, you can take them and put them wherever you'd like. So I just wanted you to know where they were. |
| 01:53:06.65 | Steven Woodside | That's true. |
| 01:53:08.30 | Kent Ibsen | They weren't just going away. |
| 01:53:09.91 | Steven Woodside | But the opportunity to use a bench where there is a bus stop is going away unless we do something about it. I am bound and determined to do something about it. So go ahead. Councilmember Thank you. |
| 01:53:23.69 | Ian Sobieski | It sounds like our assistant sitting manager with the DPW head is looking at |
| 01:53:25.16 | Steven Woodside | Sobhia. Thank you. |
| 01:53:29.31 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, that issue. So I appreciate the proactiveness on that. But I just had a question for you. |
| 01:53:29.47 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:53:34.80 | Ian Sobieski | that one table that we're talking about, it's one table outside, with the bus stop, if there was no solution and it was impossible to find a location, to move that bench in close proximity to the bus stop. is losing that one table. A deal, Kelly? |
| 01:53:53.56 | Kent Ibsen | No, it's not a deal killer. And also there's a potential to reconfigure the, the, the dining where maybe. Cause we have to, we have to, um, corral the guests for ABC laws. So we can do a really like a thin planter. |
| 01:54:06.61 | Walfred Solorzano | Sure. |
| 01:54:06.96 | Unknown | So, |
| 01:54:09.76 | Kent Ibsen | Almost like what's that the barrel house out on their patio looking out. So if you can imagine a planter right in front of that, and then we could put the bench in front of that. I mean, it gets choked out. We have seven feet to play with right now. So you put the bench in there, it's going to get to six feet. But there can be a reconfiguration of the space to try to accommodate. |
| 01:54:31.94 | Steven Woodside | Thank you for your flexibility. Appreciate that. And thank you, Assistant City Manager. So I am going to recommend we have that as a condition of approval. All right. I have no further questions. Any other questions from Council Members? All right. With that, I'm going to close the public hearing and bring it up here for a motion and City Council discussion. Each city council member will have three minutes on a rotating basis. |
| 01:55:03.81 | Ian Sobieski | Well, I guess I'll start. I think the world always involves compromise. Times do change. Downtown was really bustling in an early area that I didn't get the privilege to be part of. Anyone who walks around can see the vacant storefronts. The reality is that we have a community interest in having a vital town, not just for the quality of life, but also because of our tax revenue that's generated. Uh... I'll point out that if three people, if three cars park in our city parking lots and pay for a day of parking, admittedly every day servicing this hotel, you we get an amount of money for each one of those cars. That's an equivalent amount of revenue to Sausalito as if Sausalito got sales tax from $2.5 million of sales. because we get 1.5% of the sales tax ourselves. So the $37,000 that would be generated by day-long parking by hotel guests paying in our lots is a substantial amount of money just right there, not even including the revenue from hotel tax or from restaurants. But this is also a way of doing this in a way that saves a historic building and repurposes it for a while. the future. It will elevate the quality of our town. I think the noise fears of Mr. Mitchell and Ms. Con and the other residents are real. I don't think they're making that up. I think they're real fears. I just don't honestly think that they, I think they are fearing the worst case scenario. And I... And I... I think that they, I really would ask them like if, if the consequence of having it be quiet was that the town was dead, would that be a tradeoff you'd really want to make? We all in our lives as neighbors here in town give up a little bit to get something back. And so what my hope would be is that we would all adopt an ethos of that and that Everyone would remember when they gave up something a little bit or even overcame a fear of theirs and ask their neighbor to do the same, because that's how we would come together to build new things. So and have a new era that was as vital and unique as the 60s were to Sausalito, which were different than the 40s here, and different than the 20s, and different than when we were a farming community. it's not whether we like change or not. It's how we best manage change. The planning commission that all they do is pay attention to this, and they voted unanimously twice to approve this project. My ask of my neighbors is to reach out to the developer and to reestablish the good rapport that may have existed at the outset. Don't sue the project. Cooperate with it. Build goodwill. I support the idea of limiting the occupancy to 28 and reaffirming the residency requirement and ensuring that there be a place proximate to the bus stop for seating and if not, lose that one table. |
| 01:58:10.45 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:58:12.36 | Melissa Blaustein | Who's next? I can go because we want to go in order. Great. Yeah. Thank you very much. And thank you to everyone who has been involved in this project for the many months that these conversations have been ongoing. And I really appreciate the amount of public engagement and public feedback that we received, numerous letters and lots of people showing up. And that shows that there's a genuine excitement, interest, and as well concern. So I just want to say to the nearby neighbors who have expressed concern about the location and the potential for noise, you know, we, those, those are, heard and we are, I think that based on what Ken has said tonight about changing the rules. related to limiting the occupancy about including specific guidelines on the website and in letters and also having someone available 24 hours a day. To me, as someone who's worked in hospitality, it's really clear to me that He is concerned about the noise as well as about the well-being of the property as a whole and about keeping the property And if there was a wild party, it would definitely limit and increase costs. But I do think that those things should be taken into consideration, and be a condition as mentioned. And the occupancy limit is an important piece of that. And. And I think that this should be an ongoing conversation in terms of making sure that neighbors are heard and can weigh in if there are issues, if they haven't heard back from a code enforcement officer for some reason. And every time we have a project, it's part of our role from the dais to make sure that we are addressing and listening to. Thank you. neighbors concerns and then we have to make a decision about the change to the town or the, or the overall, that we're going to be shape of the town as a whole. And so while there are concerns, I think there's also a lot of excitement and a lot of opportunity around what this property will bring to our downtown. And also it's a unique opportunity to maintain the footprint of a historic building. I think that there are a lot of developers who would come in and do whatever they could to change the way the historic building works. And that's actually the opposite of what's been done here. The footprint is going to be essentially exactly the same. So that allows us to have a continuous historic district while adding a restaurant and three hotel rooms. So it's a, it's a, It's a great way for us to have, in many ways, the best of both worlds for people who are concerned about change and don't necessarily want to see it as much and for people who are excited to have more economic opportunity downtown. So I would welcome the. um, the, the conditions for approval that Councilmember Cox has addressed and brought up and I would again continue dialogue to make sure that there is an opportunity for neighbors to continue conversation so that if something comes up You know, they have access to the concierge, but at this stage in the project, I think that given how involved everyone has been and how much work the hotel developer has done as well as city staff, I'm ready to deny the appeal and approve the project. Thank you. Vice Mayor. |
| 02:01:13.06 | Steven Woodside | Amen. |
| 02:01:13.61 | Matthew Mandich | I agree with what's just been said and with the conditions that have been suggested. I think they're good ones. The one I struggle with, and I can't find a way to condition it, how do you protect against excessive noise? We have a noise ordinance. We have ability, perhaps, to enforce it late at night. I've had situations myself in different locations where I've lived, very near hotels or very near places where there are wild parties to have to ask people to be quiet and if that doesn't work I call the police it doesn't always work and I'm very sympathetic with that however this is the downtown this is the commercial district and as one who slept in Beanie Del Mar Park probably in 1968 I can tell you I did inhale but I But no, I'm serious. How do you control these things? The solution then was to put a fence around being a Del Mar Park. I think we've come a long way since then. Now, there may be problems in the future that hopefully the neighbors can work out with the owner of this establishment. I'm optimistic. He knows what he's doing. He doesn't want people who are seeking to rent rooms there to have excessive noise either. It works both ways. So I'm prepared to deny the appeal. I'll make one last comment. I heard a couple of comments that I didn't like hearing. I heard a swear word I didn't like hearing. I heard the concept that there was garbage in and garbage out. It wasn't garbage. We had a very fine staff work. When it first came to this body, we saw some issues that we sent back to the planning commission to try to remedy with another full blown hearing. I think they did a good job. Did they meet everyone's concern? Very hard to do. I think they've done their best and I'm prepared to deny the appeal and hopefully this whole thing can go forward. and we can bring people together to solve the remaining problems that are sure to occur from time to time. Thank you. |
| 02:03:12.60 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Councilmember Hoffman. Thank you. Thank you. So one of the things that was distressing was the first time this came to the council and that the level of negative discourse was already ramped up between the two factions or if you want to call it that when it came the first time. And there were people that were already attacking. each other when it came up to the council. And so the level of discourse between residents had already reached a fever pitch, which was distressing, I think. because We want people to listen to each other when they eat even at the planning commission level. and listen to the concerns of your neighbors. And that hadn't happened. That wasn't the dynamic when it came to us the first time. And it wasn't that dynamic, unfortunately, I think amongst some of us here today. And so I think, you know, when we listen to our neighbors and their valid concerns about noise, these are actual concerns that bear merit. The change in the use of this building is new. And essentially what is happening is that the commercial use on Bridgeway is being elevated up a story and so the commercial use is being elevated from the ground level which everybody knows along bridgeway and it's being elevated up to the second floor level with an open air and so that is causing concern amongst the neighbors on that second level into the open air up into the street and up as it goes up that to that level to the Del Monte and to Miss Khan and the other people who live up there because they came in and talked to us about that. That that's it's fair to air those concerns in this hearing. This is a public hearing and it's fair for us to sit up here and accept that. And it's fair for other people who appear at these hearings to accept that and to listen to that in a reasoned way and to assimilate that into your understanding. We all, I don't think anybody would look at this project and say this isn't a fantastic project for Sausalito. And God bless somebody who wants to come and try to save this beautiful building for Sausalito. No doubt it is a challenge, the puzzle of trying to work this thing out. And so I think we all aesthetically agree with that. And nobody, I don't think, has come to us and said that this is a horrible project and that we don't like it. And so we're all sort of trying to figure out how to move forward on this. The issue, the big issue, the problem that I'm struggling with is the ordinance change and the ordinance change that changed these units on the second floor from the residential to commercial. not only these units, but all the second floor units. And I have more comments, |
| 02:06:19.18 | Steven Woodside | All right. I don't think I'll get all mine in, in three minutes either, but I will start off by saying, I understand the noise concerns. I moved here in my early twenties and we had Sarky's discotheque and we had hooligans and we had the no name. And after, when the no name closed, people looked for house parties. And so, uh, the, it was definitely a livelier town, uh, back in the eighties. Um, than it is now. And so that's why I've been asking some questions and seeking conditions of approval to address some of those concerns. So, um, I will say that up here, I think each of us tries to do the right thing for the right reason. We are not selling ourselves down the river. We have, I've had no communications with the applicant other than to say hello at our last hearing. And I personally refuse to be influenced by the promise of an appeal. That is just, you know, that's like me coming in and saying, I'm going to vote this way no matter what. So we're going to do the right thing for the right reason from this dais. I appreciate the appellant pointing out the flaws in the initial application because we had an opportunity to address and correct any potential defects in the initial application, I believe. that the project has been bettered by the opportunity to go back, retool, and come back and address some of the challenges. I want to be very respectful of the fact that this project has been pending since September of 2023. It takes an awful lot of work to conceive the manner in which you can renovate an historic building and be respectful of it, which is one thing that the general plan does require. And so I'm very grateful for that effort by the applicant. In my opinion, we did not change rules specifically for this project. The ordinance that everyone is referring to was an inclusionary ordinance that I helped to draft back in 2010 as part of our housing element. And data reveals after two full hearings that that inclusionary ordinance was actually impeding housing. And so we voted by a 4-1 vote after two hearings on it, two staff reports to adopt that ordinance. But it applies to all of Sausalito, not to just this specific project. |
| 02:08:36.78 | Unknown | and, |
| 02:09:02.21 | Steven Woodside | I am going to enunciate conditions of approval in connection with the resolution to have a maximum occupancy of the roof deck and spa of 28. to include in the welcome letter a prohibition and on the website, Okay, I'll continue. It's not a motion, so I'll come back. Do you have more? I've got my notes. I'm fine. Do you have more? |
| 02:09:42.53 | Steven Woodside | Okay, all right, I'll take my second three minutes now, if that's the pleasure of the council. Okay. I have more. Okay. Do you want me to think? Sure, go ahead. And then I'll address, yeah. |
| 02:09:45.72 | Jill Hoffman | Pleasure of the council. Okay. |
| 02:09:52.96 | Jill Hoffman | So I'll finish my comments. So the ordinance change had two aspects to it. One was that it essentially relieved the, requirement for second floor residential throughout the central commercial district, which applies to this project. And it also really changed the the calculation for inclusionary housing requirement which would have required at least one of these units be affordable. And so this project with the three units that it has, one of those units would have required to be inclusionary housing, which would have been affordable, which probably which would have been the studio unit. And the other two would have been family housing units. So it would have been a one-bedroom apartment and a two-bedroom apartment. So by changing the second floor residential requirement in the Central Commercial District, we've now lost three the requirement for these to be three residential housing units. Now, We all know that the economics of this project probably would have required us to do something different and come up with some kind of variance, which is why when it came to us, we tried to work out some sort of agreement or some sort of, method by which we could get this project through as a hotel. I think the council would have been supported of that or some sort of method by which, um, to get this done. But what came back was a wholesale change in the entire Commercial district. AND, AND, Karen Hollweg, And, and also the recalculation of the inclusionary housing project across all of the five commercial districts so. Karen Hollweg, One project tremendous change throughout Sausalito with regard to our inclusionary housing project. And, second floor residential. in the commercial central commercial district. So the no fault, by the way, of the project sponsors and I'm sure had no you know, not foreseeable by them. So I'm just saying that this was a byproduct of this project I would hope that our council would go back and revisit this again, especially the loss of residential in the Central Commercial District. Um, I, uh, I will support this project, but I will, um, make a motion later that we revisit, um, the amendment, revisit the potential amendments to 1044 to restore residential in the central commercial district especially given our conversations later on this evening |
| 02:12:36.51 | Melissa Blaustein | Good question. Thank you. |
| 02:12:37.44 | Jill Hoffman | I heard that. |
| 02:12:37.61 | Melissa Blaustein | . Director, or I guess Deputy City Manager Phipps, did we, we received a couple of applications for this location, correct, or initial letters of interest? |
| 02:12:48.35 | Brandon Phipps | Well, during the sale process, we did speak with a few folks who were interested. |
| 02:12:53.50 | Melissa Blaustein | And were any of them interested in building housing? |
| 02:12:56.47 | Brandon Phipps | Out of the folks that I met with, I recall no discussions about residential development at that property. And part of the reason for that, I imagine, is the cost prohibitive nature of building new housing units in a historic structure. |
| 02:13:11.88 | Melissa Blaustein | which is exactly why we changed the ordinance in the first place. I think it's a good thing. |
| 02:13:14.75 | Brandon Phipps | That was one of the reasons for doing so, for allowing exceptions in order to maintain historic resources in the historic downtown. Yes. |
| 02:13:25.06 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. I just wanted to clarify. |
| 02:13:26.05 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. |
| 02:13:26.07 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:13:26.63 | Sergio Rudin | And may or may I address some issues that have been raised during discussion as well as during the course of the hearing about the provisions of the prior ordinance as opposed to the current ordinance. |
| 02:13:38.83 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, the attorney, please. |
| 02:13:39.13 | Sergio Rudin | Oh, yeah. Yeah. Prior to Ordinance 05-2025 being adopted by the Council, the Municipal Code had a provision authorizing the Planning Commission to waive the requirements for a second story residential. That language used to read, waiver of specific requirements in this section pursuant to SMC 1044-010E shall only be considered in the following two instances. To allow for an exception to subsection of this section, which requires that all uses above the first uh street or ground level of all existing and new structures shall be residential to allow for upper level commercial uses period so there was an opportunity for the planning commission to waive that requirement. That section went on to read the expansion of existing businesses within the same or adjacent site or the allowance of small commercial uses up to a maximum of a thousand feet per parcel may be special situations considered by the Planning Commission when evaluating an exception. to subsection B1 of this section. So that was a non-exhaustive list. One of the things that Ordinance 05-2025 did was actually make it an exhaustive list and limit the circumstances in which the Planning Commission could impose that waiver. of the residential requirements. There's been discussion about the ordinance violating the provisions of the general plan. I don't think that is the case. And that is because the general plan says that we must allow residential construction in our Central Commercial District. Our city code still allows it. residential construction is at the option and at the desire of the developer. And one of the things that the ordinance did was to allow development of small residential projects projects out imposing the requirements of including at least a minimum of one inclusionary unit, which potentially would not have been required for this project, even under the old ordinance because all residential construction requirements could have been waived under that prior provision and language. |
| 02:15:40.07 | Steven Woodside | I'm sorry. Wait, I'm going to let the city attorney finish his comment, and then you can ask questions. |
| 02:15:45.04 | Jill Hoffman | I thought he was done. |
| 02:15:45.24 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, I'm finished. Thank you. |
| 02:15:47.25 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:15:47.26 | Jill Hoffman | OKAY. |
| 02:15:47.52 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. |
| 02:15:47.79 | Jill Hoffman | Sorry. So city attorney, so are you saying that under the prior code or existing code, prior and current existing code, we could have done a waiver without changing our ordinance? |
| 02:15:59.75 | Sergio Rudin | I think arguably yes. The prior code did have a number of issues. I don't think that the prior language was the best in practice. And I had made recommendations to the city council to review and revisit making those changes. The changes did come before the council, which ultimately adopted them. |
| 02:16:18.89 | Jill Hoffman | So we didn't have to change our code in order to approve this project? |
| 02:16:23.16 | Sergio Rudin | I would say for the purposes of today's discussion, no. You did not have to change your code. And so the code changes were not strictly necessary for the council to approve it. That being said, |
| 02:16:32.79 | Jill Hoffman | That being said, you Was that information ever passed, provided to the city council? |
| 02:16:38.12 | Sergio Rudin | Yes, it was provided as part of a confidential memorandum. |
| 02:16:38.60 | Jill Hoffman | It was. |
| 02:16:42.41 | Sergio Rudin | I'd imagine had it. |
| 02:16:43.07 | Steven Woodside | I had to talk about confidential memorandums, city attorney. However, it was absolutely discussed during the first hearing. |
| 02:16:53.25 | Jill Hoffman | And then and then our hearing was suspended. |
| 02:17:00.59 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:17:00.60 | Steven Woodside | Councilmember, do you have a question? Your comments, you've had your comments, so do you, any other questions? |
| 02:17:01.41 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 02:17:12.89 | Jill Hoffman | I'm a bit perplexed. I'm a bit perplexed at this moment because my understanding was the code was changed specifically for this project because that was required. under our code, that the only option that we had was to change our code to legally Approve this project, but now you're telling me that at some point the council was informed that we were not required to change our code in order to approve this project. |
| 02:17:49.42 | Steven Woodside | Councilmember, I'm going to, again, caution you against discussing in public. discussions with the city attorney that weren't held publicly so please confine your comments to discussions that were held publicly i will remind you that in the that it was uh residents who stood up during the hearing on the ordinance who said we were changing it for this project but that was not what the staff report said and that was not certainly my understanding of why we were i asked the |
| 02:18:01.54 | Unknown | I will remember. |
| 02:18:16.51 | Jill Hoffman | I asked I asked that question of the city attorney at one of the public hearings that we had And I think it was in the May hearing. |
| 02:18:24.25 | Sergio Rudin | I will say that we |
| 02:18:24.83 | Jill Hoffman | I will say My first hearing. |
| 02:18:26.85 | Sergio Rudin | I will say that in response to the city council direction and remand to the Planning Commission. because the council did remand this matter back to the planning commission with direction to staff to review the existing ordinance in light of some of the arguments raised by the appellant. |
| 02:18:42.14 | Unknown | We did review. |
| 02:18:42.16 | Sergio Rudin | We did review |
| 02:18:43.44 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:18:44.10 | Sergio Rudin | this entire code section. And there were a number of changes, some of them you know, that were caused by study of the project, but many of which were not necessarily related. And I will just comment at this point that Um, While I think that the council plausibly could have approved the project under the prior ordinance, I think that It was important for municipal code language to be changed to ensure that The laws of the city were sufficiently clear and followed what I believed to be intent of the existing code language as it existed prior to 05.2025. |
| 02:19:26.81 | Steven Woodside | Okay, thank you for that. |
| 02:19:27.08 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. Substantively, the one major issue was, of course, the affordable housing requirement, which we did review earlier. Um, and the council decided to substantively modify. |
| 02:19:39.70 | Steven Woodside | Okay. I'm gonna move on. um, I was enunciating conditions of approval for a motion if someone ends up making the motion. So, uh, The, um, Maximum occupancy of the deck and spa is 28. Catering will be performed by the pocket and not outside caterers. The welcome letter and the website will... contain instructions prohibiting parties The. And we've already, so there will be a 24-hour concierge on site from 7 a.m. until 11 p.m. during the week and 12 midnight on Friday. Saturday. |
| 02:20:39.50 | Steven Woodside | Okay, those are my conditions of approval. Did anyone record one that I haven't mentioned? Senior Planner Mandich. |
| 02:20:47.32 | Matthew Mandich | Excuse me, Mayor, I'm sorry to interrupt, but you mentioned an on-site 24-hour welcome. No. |
| 02:20:52.35 | Steven Woodside | No, I said a on-site 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. and 12 midnight on Saturdays. That's what the staff report said. |
| 02:21:00.63 | Matthew Mandich | For on site, yeah. For on site. |
| 02:21:01.33 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. For honest. 24 hour availability. and that the contact information for the 24-hour concierge will be on the website so that a resident concerned about noise or any other issue will be able to contact the 24-hour concierge. |
| 02:21:20.29 | Matthew Mandich | Understood. That will be in there. |
| 02:21:21.96 | Ian Sobieski | So the on-site is until 10 p.m. on weekdays. 11 p.m. on weekdays. 11 p.m. on weekdays and midnight on... |
| 02:21:25.93 | Steven Woodside | 11 p.m. |
| 02:21:28.83 | Matthew Mandich | Correct. For the hours of the restaurant. That's during the hours of restaurant operation. |
| 02:21:28.93 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. It's better. |
| 02:21:29.32 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:21:31.80 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah. |
| 02:21:31.92 | Sergio Rudin | the same. |
| 02:21:32.09 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. Yes. |
| 02:21:33.62 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. |
| 02:21:33.64 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 02:21:33.67 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 02:21:33.84 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 02:21:33.93 | Matthew Mandich | Right. |
| 02:21:34.01 | Ian Sobieski | I'm sorry. |
| 02:21:34.03 | Sergio Rudin | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:21:34.08 | Matthew Mandich | Okay. Just wanted to... |
| 02:21:35.02 | Sergio Rudin | Mayor, if you may indulge me here, We have existing conditions of approval that are set forth as attachment two to the resolution proposed for adoption this evening. If I can read some changes into the record and perhaps you can indicate whether they meet your suggested conditions. We have conditioning. One moment. |
| 02:21:56.83 | Steven Woodside | One moment, city attorney. Before you do that, I also would like to change all of the conditions of approval to reference the... Spa, as well as the hotel and restaurant. So I see the assistance city manager. Are you coming to speak? |
| 02:22:19.91 | Brandon Phipps | I just had one other comment based on the previous discussions as related to the rejigging of the outdoor dining plan in order to allow pedestrian seating access to support the approximate bus stop. If council wishes to add a condition in that respect, we would support that. |
| 02:22:39.94 | Steven Woodside | So I was going to give direction to staff on that, but I'm happy to enunciate it as a condition. So have you got that one in mind, City Attorney? |
| 02:22:46.46 | Sergio Rudin | I do. I have some proposed language. So with regards to the... |
| 02:22:49.56 | Steven Woodside | Wait, so my question did not get answered about the spa. I want to say, Hotel, restaurant, and spa, or restaurant, hotel, and spa. |
| 02:22:59.42 | Sergio Rudin | So we have a different conditional use permit for the restaurant. We have a conditional use permit for the hotel use, where the council is making findings in attachment one. So we can indicate that those findings are being made for the hotel use, including amenities and spa. |
| 02:23:16.81 | Steven Woodside | Yeah, and I'd like to do that. There's also findings for the parking waiver conditional use permit that make reference to the hotel and restaurant use. Anyway, wherever we mention hotel and restaurant, I would like to add spa and amenities where appropriate. |
| 02:23:34.65 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, certainly we can make those changes to the resolution. I don't think we would need to modify the minor use permit findings or the signed permit findings to make that happen or the certificate of appropriateness findings. Um, So we have on attachment to existing conditions of approval. For hotel use, there is a requirement that The current condition reads a hotel concierge or welcome ambassador shall be on site during operating hours of the restaurant to assist hotel guests this concierge or welcome ambassador shall be available for contact by hotel guests. and the public would be the addition there. |
| 02:24:13.57 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |
| 02:24:13.78 | Sergio Rudin | 24 hours a day for any issues that arise outside of the restaurant's operating hours. for hotel use condition number three, We have an existing condition says use of the hotel common area Common area slash amenity area, including elevator decks, will be prohibited from 10 p.m. until 7 a.m. and use of these spaces must comply with the city's noise ordinances set forth in SMC 1216. I would recommend that you add total occupancy of elevated decks and spa shall not exceed 28 persons, and outside catering shall not be allowed. And then for outdoor dining, we have condition six. Outdoor dining use will be restricted for a total of 16 seats for outdoor dining on the sidewalk adjacent to 715 Bridgeway. The applicant shall always maintain a minimum of five foot clearance of the sidewalk for pedestrian flow and access. I would recommend that we add to that the 16 seats allowed under the minor use permit is contingent on the relocation of the existing benches to a location proximate to the adjacent bus stop and the ability to maintain the five foot clearance. |
| 02:25:20.52 | Steven Woodside | That's fine with me. Good with everyone else. |
| 02:25:22.03 | Ian Sobieski | or, Mayor. |
| 02:25:23.26 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |
| 02:25:23.33 | Ian Sobieski | With those modifications on... Thank you. legal paperwork, Can I make a motion to deny the appeal and approve the project as adjusted? Yeah. |
| 02:25:33.62 | Steven Woodside | Yeah, will you read the recommended motion? Thank you. |
| 02:25:36.22 | Ian Sobieski | Unless you give it to me. The recommended motion with the adjustments that the city attorney just read into the record. is that the city council adopt a resolution, which is an attachment one finding the project exempt from CEQA denying the appeal and upholding the planning commission's decision to approve project ID 2024-00147 for a new joint hotel and restaurant use in the historic building at 715 Bridgeway, APN 065-071-34. |
| 02:26:09.14 | Jill Hoffman | Is there a second? |
| 02:26:10.64 | Matthew Stewart | Second. |
| 02:26:11.33 | Jill Hoffman | Mayor, I'd like to make an alternate motion. |
| 02:26:13.90 | Steven Woodside | Sure. |
| 02:26:14.80 | Jill Hoffman | I'd like to make an alternate motion, an identical motion, but my alternate motion is that we not rely on ordinance 10.44, but the motion be made on the variance that the approval be made on the variance as outlined by the city attorney. Is there a second to that motion? |
| 02:26:34.83 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. All right, that motion fails for a lack of a second. I am going to finish making my comments. that address the, in part, will address some of the issues raised by the appellant. I want to be sure that our record is clear in addressing those. So the city attorney already addressed the general plan argument. There was also a argument that did not comply, that this project does not comply with our housing element. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT I disagree because our housing element, the policy LU4, says first floor uses should be retail commercial with general office and residential uses on the upper floor. It doesn't say they must in all instances or for every project. And we have other existing uses in the central commercial district, as outlined by senior planner Mandich, where that is not the case. In addition, the in the CC zoning district residential conversion is permitted with a minor use permit. This suggests to me that the housing element acknowledges that a non residential use is allowed on the second floor. Further, the zoning code does not mandate that all new construction on the second floor include residential units and so therefore i'm, I am not convinced that this project is inconsistent with our housing element. um, In addition, if the second floor use was residential, as requested by the appellant, the full-time residents who are neighbors would still have potential consequences from that residential use because residents would still be allowed to use that outdoor space. It could include two fire pits, a hot tub, and a patio. Both residents and visitors are constrained by our applicable noise limits, whether they are hotel users or permanent residents. And so if permanent residents were there, there would be no management required. I am convinced that the 24-hour concierge, the limitation on the number of guests, the limitation on the hours for the outside patio are all protections to assure that there's no adverse impact, no cognizable or significant adverse impact to the neighbors by this project. And then the last thing I wanted to address was the setback. THE END OF You know, as a planning commissioner for eight years, I acknowledge that we rarely grant variances. But where there is a reason to do so, we have done so historically. And in this case, there are colorable grounds for the setback based on the topography, the existing excavation, and most importantly, the efforts to preserve the existing historic structure. I believe those justify the granting of a variance. All of this is laid out in our findings and in our conditions of approval, I just wanted to that. personally address them. I'm going to continue unless anyone else has. I just have a couple of other comments. |
| 02:29:54.05 | Unknown | have a couple of weeks. |
| 02:29:57.58 | Steven Woodside | I will say that I was largely involved in putting together our housing element this site. was not one of the sites designated for our housing element, we did not depend on this site or second floor residential at this site as a part of our 724 unit housing element. I WANT TO DO THAT. And then as for parking, so many of our residents do rely on our parking. Many of our downtown businesses are not able to. provide the requisite parking outlined in the zoning ordinance, but they do provide it by purchasing parking from the city and by making parking available to their guests. And, you know, many of our restaurants rely on lots one, lot two, lot three, lot four. And so I'm also convinced that we have met our requirements for the parking. And then as for noise and enjoyment and consternation of the neighbors, I'm very sensitive to your concerns. Bob Mitchell is right. We did close Vigno del Mar Park at one point because of its uses. I'm happy that we were able to reopen it. But if the 24-hour concierge is not an adequate remedy, we can revisit this project at any time through our code enforcement. When code enforcement is unable to achieve a solution, they bring it back to us. We had that happen just a few months ago, where code enforcement brought to us an issue that had been unable to be resolved through fines and other code enforcement efforts. So we do have that mechanism. And that's obviously also over and above the calling of the police. So those were my substantive comments on the project. Thank you for indulging me. |
| 02:31:56.48 | Ian Sobieski | Maybe, Mayor, I might just add something. Well, first, I want to acknowledge my friend Jill. I would be happy to support a future agenda item on 1044, which I know you care about. I thought we talked about it already at a meeting. I didn't support... the motion, but I'm happy to talk about it more. I obviously have a different point of view about the benefits of that for adding housing, but I think in In fairness, in the future, if that's something we want to bring back, about the many things we need to bring back. I would support that. But I kind of wanted just to really turn to my neighbors who are, disaffected and who bothered to show up and are worried about the noise. Again, I mean what I say. I really hear you. And I get it. I get that you're afraid about a scenario that you think is, plausible. I called it worst case. That's not to dismiss it. I think you're worried that this actually might end up happening. Uh, |
| 02:32:52.45 | Ian Sobieski | The reality is that the best way, as I think a lot of us have talked about at this point, because Kent is gonna be your neighbor, is at this moment there's a choice. I know we've gotten a multi-page letter from Ms. Burkus with the structure for what could be claims in a lawsuit against the developer. But this is a chance to maybe not go down that route, but instead reach out and create some bonds of neighborliness. I know suing each other is a bit of the Sausalito way, And I don't mean to get on the horse about this, but I see it in my own neighbors where I live. is. to go to the mat, to the boxing ring right away. So we've done a bunch of rounds for two years on this. My call to you, my ask of you, Pastor Paul, Susan of Eric. of Mr. Mitchell, of Ms. Khan, is to maybe give neighborliness a chance to see if that's actually the best mechanism to attend to the very concern you care about, which is noise and management. because a lot could be done with goodwill and engagement that no amount of laws could possibly prevent. So If at this point with the appeal denied, you engage with your neighbor and try to make the best of it, then there might be a lot of goodwill that is reciprocated that pays off. Pursuing a legal approach will have its own course, but it misses the opportunity for that. when you finally run out of options to reach out and expect goodwill is not to really give much. So it's just a suggestion that I offer here from the dais in my role as trying to be of service. So those are my two cents. |
| 02:34:32.27 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Okay, with that, I'm gonna call the question. City Clerk. |
| 02:34:32.42 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 02:34:38.11 | Walfred Solorzano | Council member Blaustein. |
| 02:34:40.52 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 02:34:40.79 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 02:34:43.69 | Jill Hoffman | I'm voting no because this should be approved on a variance and not on an ordinance change that does away with second floor residential in the entire district, just to be clear. I think it's a great project, but I'm voting no for that reason. |
| 02:34:57.73 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Sobieski. Yes. Vice Mayor Woodside. Yes. Mayor Cox. |
| 02:35:03.22 | Steven Woodside | Yes, that motion carries for one. All right. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. |
| 02:35:08.11 | Elizabeth Brekus | Thank you. |
| 02:35:08.13 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |
| 02:35:08.35 | Elizabeth Brekus | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:35:09.83 | Steven Woodside | We're going to take a quick break. |
| 02:35:39.94 | Steven Woodside | on to business item 5a, which is adopt a A resolution calling a special election and submitting to the qualified voters of the city of Sausalito and ordinance to amend the city zoning map in city commercial districts to adopt housing overlay zoning consistent with the housing element. To be voted upon at the special municipal election to be held November for 2025 i'll welcome Sergio Rudin our city attorney. |
| 02:36:07.75 | Brandon Phipps | And I will be presenting on this mayor. |
| 02:36:07.80 | Steven Woodside | I'm not. Sorry, the staff report says Sergio. |
| 02:36:12.84 | Brandon Phipps | I know. |
| 02:36:13.03 | Sergio Rudin | with them. |
| 02:36:13.43 | Steven Woodside | Apologies. |
| 02:36:13.70 | Brandon Phipps | Yeah. |
| 02:36:13.72 | Sergio Rudin | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:36:13.79 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. |
| 02:36:13.81 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah. |
| 02:36:13.82 | Brandon Phipps | Totally appreciate it. |
| 02:36:14.58 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. And I would like to introduce and hand over the presentation to our assistant city manager. |
| 02:36:20.34 | Brandon Phipps | Attorney Rudin, thank you very much. And good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council, staff, members of the public. Happy to be joining you this evening, as always, this time to introduce item 5A. It's quite a wordy title. I think the mayor read it out just fine, so I will not reread it. But it has to do with the implementation of the Housing Elements Program of Rezoning. This presentation also encapsulates the narrative and contains content for item 5B. Just want to note that out front, which pertains to council's adoption of a resolution calling a special election for the rezoning of a portion of the city-owned martin luther king jr property located |
| 02:36:56.57 | Steven Woodside | This is not Martin Luther King. |
| 02:36:58.36 | Brandon Phipps | I agree. This presentation encapsulates the narrative and contains content in connection with both item 5A and item 5B. I can skip the item 5B items if that's best. Yeah, I have to recuse myself. |
| 02:37:05.17 | Steven Woodside | Okay. Yeah, I have to recuse myself from item 5B, Assistant City Manager, and so please confine this presentation to 5A. Very good. |
| 02:37:15.70 | Brandon Phipps | Very good. There's a singular presentation attached to both of the items. So I'll just skip over to the content that is not relevant to this item. Both these measures together represent what you see here on the first slide, the Sausalito Commercial District Local Control Measure and the Sausalito MLK Local Control Measure. Let's stick here for a moment. As council is aware, the city adopted its certified amended 2023-2031 housing element on May 27, 2025. Congratulations, council and community, for this accomplishment. Within the housing element, the city's committed itself to a certain rezoning strategy to address the city's regional housing needs allocation of 724 units, which was developed and imposed by the State Department of Housing and Community Development and assigned by ABAG. That's the Association of Bay Area Governments. Now, I will note, just for the record, the city did appeal its RENA allocation following receipts of these numbers in 2021. However, unfortunately, that appeal to a bag was denied. That rezoning strategy is detailed in program four in the city's housing element and the state imposed deadline for the city to implement its program of rezoning as stipulated in the housing element is January 30th, 2026. Next slide, please. With respect to Program 4 in the city's housing element, two categories of parcels must be approved by voters to be rezoned before the aforementioned January 30th deadline. Category 1 is 12 specified sites in the city's commercial districts, which are impacted by Ordinance 1022, which we also know it as the Fair Traffic Initiative. The second category is a limited portion of the city on Martin Luther King Jr. property, which is impacted by Ordinance 28 and which I will not be discussing until we get to Item 5B. Council's action this evening, if approved, will bring these items to the community via a special election and allow the community to vote on both of these future measures. And to call out the underlying text here, passage of both these measures is necessary for the city to complete its program of rezoning as stated in the city's amended housing element, as well as to maintain the city's ongoing compliance with state housing element law. And I'll touch on this later in the presentation. Next slide, please. As part of the rezoning process, both prior to and following the city's adoption of the amended housing element, the city enacted a robust public outreach program, which, beginning in January of this year, consisted of a multi-pronged approach containing all the things you see here. Mailing of surveys to residents, both phone and text surveys, a variety of in-person meetings, and I'll just thank very much at least one tenant of the Bus Barn property for the meeting that we had together, as well as digital outreach. And thank you very much again for the community, for all your participation and feedback thus far. Next slide, please. As part of this effort, we received a lot of community feedback, which we are extremely grateful for. And thank you specifically to the 765 residents who have provided their feedback to date. Based on the received responses, we received a lot of community feedback, which again, we're very grateful for. And in looking through these priorities, right, the city's really been able to hone in on what the community really sees as some of their core priorities, some of which are shown here, including protecting local control over Sausalito's zoning and land uses, preserving Sausalito's historic community character, and maintaining park parking and school uses. Once again, thank you for all of your feedback. Next slide, please. And the city's taken this feedback very seriously. As you can see here, based on feedback received, the city's amended its approach to the housing element rezoning program to ensure that these expressed priorities are addressed and maintained. As related to the commercial properties, the city has selected a number of sites, only 12, to be impacted and has only rezoned portions of those sites where appropriate. As you can see here, specifically in connection with Site 301, Site 303, and Site 402 in the city's housing element. And let's skip over the next couple of slides. Stop there, please. Thank you very much. OK, as related to item, excuse me, let's go. I'm sorry. Out of order, let's go back to. |
| 02:41:53.57 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you very much. As related to item 5A on this evening's agenda, this slide shows a summary of the sites impacted by ordinance 1022 in the city's housing element rezoning program, amendments to which must be approved by voters. As discussed, only 12 sites are identified to be rezoned, and three of the 12 sites will only have a portion of their total areas rezoned here. The title of the measure to support this ballot item is the Sausalito Commercial District Local Control Measure. Next slide, please. Here's a more detailed summary of the impacted sites, as well as a focus area map, or focus area maps in this case, showing where each of the impacted sites locate in the city. Now let's skip the next two slides, please, city clerk. Okay, let's stop there. So back to what I touched on on slide three, that the passage of both these measures is necessary in order for the city to complete the program of rezoning set forth in the city's amended housing element and to maintain the city's ongoing compliance with state housing element law. What happens if these measures are not placed or if they're not adopted by the voters? Next slide, please. If either of these things occur, the city will no longer be in compliance with state housing element law and could face significant challenges as related to the loss of local control, as well as hefty fines from the state. |
| 02:43:13.24 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah. |
| 02:43:13.30 | Unknown | . |
| 02:43:13.35 | Walfred Solorzano | . |
| 02:43:13.40 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:43:13.42 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 02:43:13.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:43:13.45 | Walfred Solorzano | . |
| 02:43:23.27 | Brandon Phipps | Specifically, without these measures, state law could override the existing city height limits and zoning restrictions for residential neighborhoods, and developers would be allowed to build at those levels, likely levels that are not to be in harmony with the city's character. Additionally, without these measures, the city could face fines of $100,000 per month, which could rise as high as 600,000 per month. And these fines would represent, of course, a significant financial burden to the city and could result in cuts to essential city services. Next slide, please. Having said that, here's a summary of key dates and milestones that the city must adhere to in order to implement its program of rezoning and to maintain compliance with housing element law. First, that's where we find ourselves now, and council this evening has the opportunity to vote to place measures on a ballot this evening. If placed, city staff would work to submit these items to the county by the deadline of August 8 to provide the county with the content materials they need to support the ballot measures. And again, if placed, the Sausalito election will occur on November 4. This is the date the voters will decide whether to adopt the changes. Finally, January 30, 2026, that is our state-imposed deadline for the city of Sausalito to complete its program of rezoning. All items associated with rezoning must be accomplished and finalized by this date to ensure the city's ongoing compliance with housing element law. Next slide, please. Okay, on to the staff recommendation. For item 5A, in order for the city to meet its state-imposed deadlines and to maintain ongoing compliance with state housing element law, staff recommend the following that the council adopt a resolution calling a special election and submitting to the qualified voters of the city an ordinance amending the city's zoning map in the city commercial districts to adopt housing overlay zoning consistent with the housing element and to be voted on at the special municipal election to be held on November 4, 2025. And that does it for this portion of the presentation. Let's go a couple slides forward, please, city clerk. Very good. |
| 02:45:17.77 | Unknown | And... |
| 02:45:35.12 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you for the opportunity. I'm happy to answer any questions. |
| 02:45:39.29 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 02:45:39.31 | Steven Woodside | questions. |
| 02:45:39.84 | Matthew Mandich | I have a couple quick questions up front. When the first version of the housing element was adopted in January of 2023, it was later approved by the state, and it contained, in effect, a commitment on the part of the city to submit to the voters amendments as necessary to put that housing element into effect. Is that correct? Correct. So we, as we now stand, we have an obligation to put measures |
| 02:46:14.98 | Brandon Phipps | before the voters. Absolutely, vice mayor, thank you for the question. We had that obligation in 2023 when we adopted our initial housing element and we have that obligation still in our amended housing element. That's also been certified by the state. |
| 02:46:28.38 | Matthew Mandich | Okay, and then with respect to throughout this period, once the state HCD, Housing Community Development, once they approved our housing element, it has been continuously approved since then, including the amended. |
| 02:46:43.97 | Brandon Phipps | The state has supported and certified our amended housing element. |
| 02:46:48.12 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 02:46:48.14 | Brandon Phipps | you |
| 02:46:48.16 | Matthew Mandich | Okay, thank you. That's all I have for now. |
| 02:46:50.84 | Steven Woodside | Other questions of staff? All right, seeing none, I'm gonna open it up to public comment. I have no speaker cards. |
| 02:47:03.86 | Steven Woodside | Yvette McDougall. |
| 02:47:21.04 | Steven Woodside | clearly live among giants. Thank you for recognizing me, Babette McDougall, Sausalito resident. So I tendered a rather strongly worded letter today for the public record. I don't know if it's on the public record. Why do I use such strong language? It's because We are at that moment of inflection in our community, and I'm so happy to hear Brandon Phipps note that, you know what, these deadlines that are quickly approaching, you've been facing these deadlines for years, and yet you've done very little to inform the public. and I'm upset about it. I'm from the Nancy Pelosi school. And I believe that when you need to take a punch for the children, you throw that punch and you throw it correctly. And that is why the language is what it is. It's terse and it's direct and it's right to the point. And the fact that you're missing the point is very upsetting. very upsetting. This is a conflation of arguments, this item on the agenda, a conflation of arguments, just like the last item on the agenda, the public hearing, One thing should have nothing to do with the other. Now, is this an example of gross incompetence because you lack experience, certain of you? Or is this because you're just so overworked because of your experience that you don't have time to keep your eye on the bottom line? One way or the other, you are not representing the will of your constituents. You have special interests. You've made that clear. |
| 02:48:46.87 | Sandy Strawbridge | Thank you. |
| 02:48:46.89 | Steven Woodside | THE END OF |
| 02:48:46.97 | Lorna Newland | idea that you don't daylight so much of what's going on, this lack of transparency, is frankly |
| 02:48:52.96 | Steven Woodside | becoming exhausting. And I say, going forward, you come through me. And that's where I stand. And from now on, my language will not soften. It will just get more strident. because we have a crisis on our hands that you refuse to acknowledge. We do not need to conflate these arguments in order to move forward in a proactive way. If we want to lose local control, let's just follow the lead you're trying to establish now. Thank you. |
| 02:49:22.75 | Steven Woodside | David Lay. |
| 02:49:28.81 | David Lay | Yeah, I've been poking around here for a lot in this room since 92. I'm in favor of both of these. I don't want to get people in the town divided over what we do, but I tend to think long-term, and so you'll hear more and more about this from me, but basically it's going to be develop that whole rocky bank that bottoms out at the old railroad track and tops out at the level of the road we have. move the real bicycle lane down where it belongs and make it much better on both ends and right through and make houses two or three or maybe sometimes four that have a storage place for bicycles. two or three or maybe sometimes four that have a storage place for bicycles and so forth, have a living space and have an upper floor bedroom. And it's all below the street level and the walkway of Bridgeway. and then develop that bike path for people that don't own a car and people that don't make a lot of money and tend to work on all that stuff that's right out in front of them except for the containers. Thank you very much. |
| 02:50:45.62 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Vicki Nichols. |
| 02:50:51.68 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:50:51.69 | Vicki Nichols | Good evening, Mayor Cox and council members. I'm going to be a little less fiery than Ms. McDougall, but, um, |
| 02:50:58.02 | Carolyn Revell | I'm a little bit curious about process. We've now gotten three days to look at this language. I think the language, We've had a long time to talk about this, and no language has been |
| 02:51:11.03 | Steven Woodside | at all about these votes. We've talked about it since 2023. So I think what I'm seeing now, if I didn't have any |
| 02:51:20.03 | Carolyn Revell | in this town, I would be hearing, oh my God, if you don't vote yes for this, we're gonna be out of compliance. I think what you need to do, like most ballot initiatives do, when there's an ordinance that says this ordinance does this or this or this, you then say, shall this be removed? rather than hammering that we're gonna be totally |
| 02:51:40.02 | Steven Woodside | screwed up on our housing element. I'm all for housing. I'm very proud of Sassolito being the first one in the county to have an approved housing element. But I hope there's some discussion about this |
| 02:51:51.03 | Carolyn Revell | language. This is really three days with nothing that we could have looked at before, and you're obligated tonight to |
| 02:51:57.96 | Steven Woodside | do something to get it on the thing. And I don't think that was fair. |
| 02:52:01.54 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:52:01.78 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you. City Clerk. |
| 02:52:07.61 | Walfred Solorzano | We have Jack Burroughs. |
| 02:52:10.96 | Steven Woodside | Welcome, Jack. |
| 02:52:13.08 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you, everyone, for taking the time to listen to me. I would like to say I appreciated Miss McDougall's fiery nature, but also the even-headedness of the last speaker. you know, Giving such short notice is like a noose. right, that you're showing to someone. And... The idea that our city that has so much potential Right. And so much natural beauty about it would Consider taking open space away when there was a surplus in our housing element, meaning open space away from MLK Park. when it could be so much more than it is with, you know, The fact that it's the second largest producing tax revenue generating space in the city. and giving the residents of this area when there's already a Thank you. You know, a projected 50%, you know. allowance for the city housing element in this direct area. Giving us three days to review language and giving us three days to come up to a response to it is a dereliction of duty, in my opinion. So I would just like to say, We moved here. four years ago for the open space for the quiet enjoyment and mlk park is the one place in sausalito that i have found in my four years of living here that has a you know a confluence of multi-generational living. from our seniors who play pickleball to everyone else who enjoys the park. So thank you. |
| 02:54:15.63 | Steven Woodside | Thank you so much. City clerk. |
| 02:54:17.74 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 02:54:17.75 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:54:17.79 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 02:54:17.82 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:54:17.84 | Walfred Solorzano | So, Faya Collier? |
| 02:54:20.73 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:54:20.78 | Bonnie McGregor | Welcome back, Sophia. Hi there, Sophia Collier. And I wanted just to mention in response to something that I just heard previously is that actually this language and versions of it have been before both the Planning Commission, I think, at the first part of this year, And then also before the council, Because I know that at Save Our Sausalito, we actually reviewed this language very carefully and actually provided comments. So one of the challenges I think for citizens is the fact that these procedures just go on for long periods of time, and it's very difficult at times to Keep up with them. But we do need to try to do that. And I do know that for a fact that these language has been out there. That said, I want to support the language because I I feel that in these this particular iteration of the housing element is very well thought through. We've identified underperforming commercial properties where there is potential And we have found people willing people that would like to develop And we've put together a nice set of 12 So certainly we wish that we didn't have to do this. We're framing this in terms of local control. Unfortunately, it's local control. under a sword. from the state, but we are trying to do the best we can. And I want to thank the staff, our now assistant manager, Brandon Fitz, and our council who has taken a lot of leadership in doing this and I support this going forward and I appreciate the opportunity to comment this evening. |
| 02:56:07.44 | Steven Woodside | Thank you so much. City Clerk. |
| 02:56:09.94 | Walfred Solorzano | Sandra Bushmaker? |
| 02:56:12.56 | Steven Woodside | Welcome back, Sandra. Thank you. Good to see you again. |
| 02:56:14.21 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 02:56:17.01 | Steven Woodside | We have known about the requirement for these ballot measures Since during the housing element, before the housing element was even approved in January of 2023, I, too, have some issues with this being jammed up to the deadline. And I think it would have been better if we'd had a little more time in order to discuss this publicly. Having said that, I would like to see this language with regard to 1022, which applies to the opportunity sites on the North Bridgeway corridor. that there be language in the ballot measure itself that says we are modifying Ordinance 1022. in the following way. In other words, there are enough of us around when 1022 was passed, and remember the groundswell of support in the community, that 1022 is an identifying moniker, if you will. to this ballot measure and we'll ring some bells for some of the voters. So once again, I'm sorry that we didn't have more time to discuss this. We have known for over two years that we were going to have to do ballot measures particularly for the North Bridgeway I opportunity sites. Thank you. Thank you. City Clerk. |
| 02:57:44.39 | Walfred Solorzano | And Lorna Newland. |
| 02:57:46.35 | Steven Woodside | Welcome, Lorna. Lorna, you know this is only on the Bridgeway corridor. The MLK is a separate item. |
| 02:57:55.34 | Lorna Newland | Yes, I do. But this has something to do with what, um, |
| 02:57:56.35 | Steven Woodside | Okay. |
| 02:57:59.71 | Lorna Newland | I guess, assistant city manager now, Brandon Kripsett. Okay, welcome. He mentioned, |
| 02:58:04.77 | Steven Woodside | Welcome. |
| 02:58:07.07 | Lorna Newland | um, And if you want me to stop, let me know. But I've been a tenant for... Almost 20 years at the MLK buildings. It's my livelihood today. And I received a notice about about about the meeting. And Brandon said that Brandon said that one person came to it. I replied to Noheli Gonzalez and copied Chris Apata, Steven Woodside, Brandon Phipps, that I was out of town working and I couldn't attend. And I asked to get a recap of the meeting from city leadership or a phone call to discuss my concerns and I did not get one. So I have no idea really what transpired at the meeting, but Brandon, that's why I wasn't there. And I think, anyway. That's all I wanted to say about that issue. Thank you. |
| 02:58:57.73 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, Lorna. I will ask the city manager to have someone from staff reach out to you. I did not know you were not able to attend that meeting. That does pertain to the MLK site, which is our next item, but thank you for letting us hear your concerns. City Clerk. No further public speakers. you All right, I'm going to call Alice Merrill. And that's my last speaker card. |
| 02:59:24.66 | Steven Woodside | Thank you very much. All I want to say is I wish that we had more ways to know about this stuff before the three days of the agenda. It's just every time. What happened to city meetings? What happened to them? The housing element is pretty big. what happened to city meetings. People don't come to these meetings. People don't look at the agenda. There's other ways to get people. And I don't know that I got any of the things that... Brandon talked about any of those four things that were up there. If I got them, they weren't obvious. That's for sure. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I'm going to close public comment and bring it up here for a motion and discussion. I'm going to start off. So, you know, we've heard a lot of criticism. We've heard that there are special interests and that there's a crisis on our hands and a loss of local control. That could not be further from the case. So. We do the right thing for the right reason. We are not influenced by special interests. Thank you. There is no crisis on our hands other than an edict from HCD that we identify 724 units of housing in a town that is two miles from Stem to Stern. As the assistant city manager mentioned, we objected to the numbers at the time. We are continuing to object. You know, we have residents, including Bert Drobnis, who is continuing to object to our legislators. So we are pursuing a political remedy. We are providing feedback to the auditor, to the state auditor, regarding the RENA process that identifies the number of units that will be built in each city. So we have not abandoned our efforts. And at the same time, we have to comply with the laws that are handed down. We have had numerous hearings on our housing element in 2023 2024 and 2025. One of our most strident objectors has attended most of those meetings, unlike some of the other commenters this evening. Um. So, um, There were surveys. There were mailers. I received the mailer. I participated in the survey. There were announcements in the currents. So as Sophia Collier pointed out, this has been, this language is not being circulated for the first time tonight. This is the first time tonight that we will vote on this language. we delayed the vote on this language so that we could engage in the survey and the um mailers and gauge the public we have you know a survey in the last week alone that was um responded to by over 300 residents and so we have very carefully um engaged in an informational campaign to make our residents aware of these actions. And as the assistant city manager mentioned, we knew when we adopted our housing element in 2023 that we would have to bring these ballot initiatives to the voters. We hoped to do it sooner, but we had to undertake an EIR, an environmental impact report for our revised housing element. That took longer than expected. We then got Numerous comments hundreds of comments to our draft EIR and our draft housing element that we then addressed in our revised housing element that took time and so. We only just adopted our housing element a couple of months ago, and now here we are with the required ballot initiatives. Who would like to go next? Vice Mayor. |
| 03:03:33.58 | Matthew Mandich | I'm just going to add one additional fact, and that is that in the resolution that is before us, specifically 1022, ordinance number 1022, is called out. It's not like we're hiding the ball here. This is a very complicated matter. We are under duress. We are under state law. I would say everyone on the dais and probably everyone in town didn't like to have to spend millions of dollars to do as much as we had to do. However, having said that, I think we have to acknowledge that in this state, in this country, there is a housing crisis. And how we go about addressing it and yet keeping intact that which makes Sausalito special, that's the challenge. And so I just wanted to add that as I see this, these are 12 sites that have to be sent to the voters for their approval for rezoning. And if they don't approve, well, we'll be in trouble. But it's the voters who will have the final say on these 12 sites. There are other sites that we have already at least given first reading approval, and upon completion of the election, we'll be able to address those others. That's the bulk of the sites, and they're spread throughout the town. So this is a complicated—I know it's frustrating for everybody, including myself, to keep having to revisit pieces of this in a piecemeal fashion. It's really no one's fault. In particular, it's just the way this is happening, not just in our city, but all over. So having said that, I will be in support of this language, but happy to hear from my colleagues. |
| 03:05:14.45 | Steven Woodside | So I'm going to go ahead and make a motion that the City Council adopt a resolution calling a special election and submitting to the qualified voters of the City of Sausalito an ordinance amending the city zoning map in city commercial districts to adopt housing overlay zoning consistent with the housing element to be voted upon at the special municipal election to be held on November 4, 2025. I'm going to take more comments. I just need a second. |
| 03:05:40.89 | Unknown | Second. Thank you. |
| 03:05:41.77 | Steven Woodside | And then I would like to give direction to staff that as a part of the language that goes in the ballot itself, we include the clarification that we are only modifying Ordinance 1022 in this small way with these 12 sites, that we are not abandoning Ordinance 1022. Oh. City Attorney. |
| 03:06:04.11 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, so I will say that So what you are placing on the ballot is exhibit A to the resolution that is in your agenda packet. So there is already language there that says notwithstanding ordinance 1022 or any city ordinance the contrary, the following housing opportunity overlay zones affecting the following 12 sites are adopted. And so there is the table. So that is literally the only change that is being made. as well as the system. |
| 03:06:29.84 | Steven Woodside | as well. Then I'd like it to be we're going to have a city website on both of these. So I'd like it to be on the city website to clarify. because there is concern and people are not reading the entirety of a four page resolution. that we are only E removing these 12 sites from Ordinance 1022. That's my proposed direction to staff. And with that, I'll turn it over to Councilmember Hoffman for her comments. |
| 03:07:00.40 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. So with regard to this particular this particular ordinance. And in my preparation last night, I was looking through the adopted amended housing element and looking through the maps as you work your way through the amendments to the housing element from 2023 forward. And I was struck by the migration of units north. And when you look at the map as it exists today, and it's on the website, and it's the May of 2025 map, that's the most current map, it is striking the way that the units have moved north. And when I did my math last night of the units and the sites, and particularly the sites that are subject to this ordinance, of the 923 units that are part of our housing element, so we have a requirement of 724, but our total number of units are 923, and that gives us what we call a buffer of 199 extra units. 450 of those units are north of Nevada Street. And so they have become clustered, I believe, on the north end of town. And so that does cause me some concern. And called out in the staff report on page four is, as required by state law, the city has ensured that the sites identified for rezoning are not concentrated in any particular location and are spread throughout the city. And so I think as we move through this housing element, and particularly as we look at this ordinance of 1022, and as it goes to the voters, this is something that is something of particular concern, and specifically of particular concern to those on the north end of town. And as you look at the map, it's clearly weighted in that that area so i have a concern about this ordinance and i have a concern about the way that this housing element has evolved and i have to say it wasn't evident to me in this quite way until i was actually preparing for this hearing last night so i want to call to call that out because this is our public hearing on this issue. The other issue I think we need to talk about, because we have such a short timeline, in, um, in addressing this to the, um, County. And we have such a timeline, we don't have really much time to pivot, right? So when we talked about this two years ago or 18 months ago, it was, okay, what do we do? if one of these ordinances doesn't pass. And we had some strategies. I don't think we have any strategies anymore. At least we haven't talked about them in a while. So that's something. I'd be interested in hearing and being briefed on. |
| 03:10:06.57 | Steven Woodside | Who would like to go next? Councilmember Blaustein, thank you. |
| 03:10:14.06 | Melissa Blaustein | Sure. I think it's been a long road to get to this point, and there has been significant public comment and significant number of meetings to respond to the demand that we received from the state, the weather. whether or not everyone on this dais wanted to see such 724 new units potentially in Sausalito, the repercussions of saying no to that would be much greater in terms of a loss of local control. And in fact, that's the name of the ballot measure that's before you. It's the Sausalito Local Control Ordinance, because the reason that we are moving forward with this ordinance is to do all that we can in the face of these statewide mandates to maintain local control. But I don't want to just focus on that point. I really want to circle back to the fact that while we do have 923 units in this housing element, everyone on this dais had an opportunity to bring up comments with regards to where sites were located. And there was pushback, actually, from decreasing density on the south side of the town at that time. And I, from the dais, was trying as much as possible as someone who is generally quite pro-housing to see as many sites spread throughout town as possible. And we ended up with the sites that we have and we have, as a council, approved the element and as you saw from the beautiful logo that our deputy city manager put together with a giant sign across it that says not approved that's what happens if we don't move forward and if we can't come to consensus before the voters on these measures as as we've said many times from the dais as well, there are a lot of people who will be unhappy and a lot of people who will be with the addition of all of these housing units, but we are in a place where we have to add units. And the reason we're adopting these measures in the way that we are, is to maintain what local control we can. And so while there is of course, consideration for how we're going to spread out the units, the adoptions of these measures allow us to ensure that we still control the housing goes, because if we had done things differently, we likely would have lost that right and I won't address MLK specifically until we reach that property discussion, but I have comments and remarks with regards to that as well, but I did want to focus on the units that are in consideration here, because I think what hasn't been said is that those units are mostly the ones that are in the Marin chip. And we know that we saw significant feedback and pushback to putting any housing whatsoever in the Marinship. And we are where we are because we were able to get some sites within this area of town that has never seen housing be included. So this is a first step in diversifying where our housing is in our town. And this measure in particular is focused on diversifying and opening up new sites so that we can meet our state mandates and that we can do so effectively. So I'm hopeful that we will be able to work with the community to gain the support we need for this ballot measure and to see sites in locations where we haven't seen them before, and that we can all work together whether we embrace and are excited about the addition of these units or not, what our shared future looks like so that we can do this effectively. |
| 03:13:18.93 | Steven Woodside | Can I just add one comment to that? So I do want to point out that the sites that are the subject of this resolution, many of them are office properties that are not fully occupied. And so there is a desire by the owners to transform those office spaces into residential housing. A key example where some of the most units are located is at 1 and 3 Harbor Drive. Those buildings are not fully occupied. That property is being sold, and part of the staff report shows that part of the property where residential housing will replace the existing office spaces, which are largely vacant. And so that's really a shrewd and strategic move by... leadership because we already have people coming and going in droves to that site. There's already parking there. There's already access there. There's already circulation around there. And so we've really tried to position people. high density development in those areas that can accommodate it through circulation, through parking, through access and egress and other factors. So this was not done not thoughtfully. This was actually very thoughtfully put together. We've reached out to the property owners to identify those property owners in the Marinship who would like to develop. Dan Morgan, 1 and 3 Harbor Drive. Michael Rex has designed a beautiful development on the FedEx site that is a part of this resolution. And so we're trying to identify sites that actually will be built and actually will provide additional housing. in Sausalito. Councilmember Sobieski, thank you. |
| 03:15:12.17 | Ian Sobieski | My only ad, I guess, maybe is... |
| 03:15:13.12 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 03:15:15.26 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. Uh, |
| 03:15:18.99 | Ian Sobieski | Well, on the previous item, I may mention that you can't stop change. It's really, it's not whether you're in favor of change or opposed to change, but change is thrust upon us. We all age, things change, and it's about how we manage change. And this is a case where we had a legal obligation to identify a certain number of units. So the question is, as a community, how did we respond to that insistence? And this falls really short of my idea. I'll make more comments on the MLK matter Alan. Along these lines, but it bears repeating actually one of my first votes in January of 2021 was against the housing consultant and this process, because I feel is and I predicted, then it would be divisive to the Community. because all we were doing was picking sites. We weren't picking designs. And the mayor's comment about the beautiful design of Michael Rex really is something I want to keep beating the drum about, because I believe that we all are largely have a presumption as residents that design is easy and we all kind of know it and we could all kind of do it on the back of a handkerchief. But in point of fact, urban planners and experts can actually create solutions we never thought were possible. And we didn't know we would love until we actually saw them. But designers cost money. And my proposal back in January of 2021 to actually take some of the money we were paying lawyers in the housing element process and instead spend it on designers and urban planners to come up with renderings and ideas for how housing could not be viewed as a negative, as I think a lot of people see it, but as a positive, would mean that suddenly the feeling wouldn't be where can we impose this burden, north or south of Nevada Street, but instead, how do we make it really work? for our community. Did we live up to that dream of mine? No. But as good as that could be, this situation could be a lot worse. We could have a not approved housing element, and we could be facing builder's remedy. We could not pass these measures here tonight and put them on the ballot, and then we would fall out of compliance with HCD and face the builder's remedy, which means things of wild scope and really bad design could be built. And so I'm supportive of this place, not because I'm thrilled by it. In fact, it kind of makes me a little, I'm a little allergic to it, but because This is the choice we actually have, and we have to make choices among the options we have. When I think about how much is north of Nevada Street, I would love an integrated design for more housing south of Nevada Street, but where? When we talked about having housing here at City Hall, there was huge opposition. Up at the Spencer Fire Station, lots of opposition. And I don't hear any specific ideas of where housing should go somewhere else. And the absence of specific alternatives is just problem identification without problem solution. Thank you, Mayor. |
| 03:18:11.66 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Other comments? |
| 03:18:13.02 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Yes. Here's an idea for housing. Here's a great idea. Here's maintaining housing in the central commercial district on the second floor. And another idea for housing is having a program for inclusionary housing throughout our central commercial district and our other districts. instead of pushing housing where nobody wants it? How about we incentivizing housing where you've talked about it, where we can partner with people and developers to have it where we might be able to have designs that we want and so i don't agree with removing housing and protections for housing where we created housing insecurity that's going in exactly the opposite direction where we should be going especially when we're trying to shoehorn housing into the middle of a park, which is our next discussion. When we're removing housing across a complete district in the central commercial district and pushing it into other parts of Sausalito, I completely disagree with that approach. |
| 03:19:19.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:19:19.38 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 03:19:19.44 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 03:19:19.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:19:19.51 | Matthew Mandich | I have to say something. |
| 03:19:19.65 | Unknown | I have. |
| 03:19:24.24 | Matthew Mandich | four members of this council approved the housing element in 2023. |
| 03:19:31.09 | Matthew Mandich | EIRs were done. Then in May of this year, we made some changes to the housing element. We approved those changes. We went back and did environmental analysis. It's approved by HCD. To suggest at this hour that we have a better idea is just – it's outrageous. |
| 03:19:55.67 | Jill Hoffman | I'll respond to that. I was a no vote in May for this very reason that at the late date, we're undermining our housing element because we're eroding existing housing in the Central Commercial District. And we changed designations in that same district to opportunity sites, large opportunity sites. We changed them from opportunity sites to inventory sites. So we were eroded. If you look at the map, and I saw it last night, we changed numbers and numbers. on our housing element that we approved in 2023. That's why our map changed and evolved over time. to a concentration of housing on the north end of town. And that's why I read that section of the staff report. we're getting dangerously close, I think we're probably there, where we're concentrating housing with our housing element in one certain area of town, and that's the north end of town. And so anyway... |
| 03:21:01.88 | Steven Woodside | Yeah, we made those changes in response to numerous comments from residents. We had a packed chambers where residents were concerned about the Altamira, about the 605 Bridgeway, about Princess Street, about our historic district, and about not losing the character of our historic district. So we did make some refinements to our housing element in response to those concerns and in response to some outsized project applications that we received under our initial housing element. So yes, we pivoted and we refined our housing element to try to spread out the impacts throughout town. I will say I live on the north side of town. I live right above MLK, and I embrace these revisions. I embrace taking existing empty infrastructure and turning it into residences for those who need them. |
| 03:22:00.31 | Jill Hoffman | And maybe, and to respond to that, and maybe that wasn't fair. And maybe the legal analysis when we were doing those changes wasn't correct. And maybe we should have had a legal briefing, a correct legal briefing to say, you can't concentrate all of the impacts in one part of town. Maybe that's not fair. And maybe we're getting dangerously close to violating state law where you're pushing all the negative impacts into one neighborhood or one part of town. I don't remember us ever receiving that legal briefing from our team And when we were having that conversation, And, we were having a lot, you're absolutely right. We were having a lot of pushback from those residents in that part of town. And you know, Sometimes it's a tough decision. And maybe we should have said we can give on some things on this, but we can't give. everything on this. And That should have been maybe part of the conversation. I completely agree. I think that with regard to repurposing, or if we have landlords that want to come in and have an empty office building and it's not going to negatively impact industrial areas or working waterfront areas, great. I think that some of the things that we've done, that's good hard work that we did there. But, um, when I look at the map and when I look at the state law is called out in the staff report, I think we're getting close to that. When I see half of our housing element now units are concentrated in one part of town, I think that's a problem. I think we're getting dangerously close to violating that law. And that's a problem that I'm seeing when I was giving a hard look at the map. |
| 03:23:49.11 | Steven Woodside | All right. It would be great if you could have done your homework sooner and provided these comments sooner. Okay. Because this was circulated to the council in advance of this meeting. I will say we have a housing element certified by HCD. If HCD thought we were over-concentrating, and by the way, HCD received comments from all of the people concerned about an over-concentration of housing units in the Northeast. side of town, so we have a certified housing element we voted unanimously to on the on the allocation of sites, making some of those changes that I enunciated earlier so at this point i'm going to call the question. All in. City Clerk, please call roll. Councilmember Blostey. Thank you. |
| 03:24:37.12 | Sandy Strawbridge | Yeah. |
| 03:24:37.17 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah. |
| 03:24:37.25 | Sandy Strawbridge | Thank you. |
| 03:24:37.34 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Councilmember Hoffman. Thank you. |
| 03:24:40.48 | Steven Woodside | Yes. |
| 03:24:41.94 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Sobieski. Yes. Thank you. Vice Mayor Woodside. Yes. Eric Cox. |
| 03:24:46.42 | Steven Woodside | Yes. All right. That motion carries five zero. We're now gonna move on to Item 5B. adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Sausalito submitting to the qualified voters of the City of Sausalito an ordinance amending the city's owning map to authorize development of housing on Martin Luther King Jr. property to be voted upon at the special municipal election to be held November 4, 2025. Before I welcome Assistant City Manager Brandon I'm going to pass the gavel to my colleague, Vice Mayor Woodside. Because I live in close proximity to this proposed housing site, I'm going to recuse myself from this discussion. I'm not going to make public comment on this matter. I'm simply going to retire to the conference room if you'll let me know when I can return that would be great |
| 03:25:44.13 | Matthew Mandich | We'll do our best. Thank you. |
| 03:25:49.71 | Matthew Mandich | Okay, a few seconds. |
| 03:25:54.81 | Matthew Mandich | OK, we are about to have a presentation from similar to the last presentation. OK, we need a chocolate. We'll resume in just a few minutes. |
| 03:32:20.08 | Matthew Mandich | Mr. Clerk, are we ready to go? Yes, we've been ready. OK, so Assistant Director, Assistant City Manager Phipps, can you present with a real focus now on MLK? Absolutely. |
| 03:32:37.18 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you very much, Vice Mayor, for the opportunity. So I'll just focus on, right, item 5B, that encapsulates the narrative and contains content for this item, which pertains to council's adoption of a resolution calling a special election for the rezoning of a portion. of the city on Martin Luther King Jr. property located at 100 Ebtide Avenue. I'd request that we go to slide three, please. |
| 03:33:16.16 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:33:25.07 | Brandon Phipps | There it is. And while we get a full screen, Oops. Oops. |
| 03:33:33.24 | Brandon Phipps | Slide three, please. |
| 03:33:41.74 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:34:22.06 | Matthew Mandich | That's perfect. So just for the record, we are on item 5B, which is a proposal to recommendation to adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Sausalito, submitting to the voters of the City of Sausalito an ordinance amending the city zoning map to authorize development of housing on Martin Luther King Jr. property to be voted upon at the special election in November. |
| 03:34:46.96 | Brandon Phipps | Very good. Thank you, Vice Mayor. So as discussed in the previous presentation, two categories of parcels must be approved by voters to be rezoned before the aforementioned January 30th, 2026 state deadline. We've already dealt with Category 1. That was Item 5A. Now we're moving on to Category 2, which is a limited portion of the city-owned Martin Luther King junior property, which is impacted by ordinance 1128. And council's action this evening, if approved, will bring this item to the community via a special election and allow the community to vote on this measure. To call out the underlying text, as I did in the previous item, passage of this measure pertaining to the MLK item is necessary for the city to complete its program of rezoning as stated in the city's amended housing element, as well as to maintain the city's ongoing compliance with state housing element law. And I'll touch that, and I'll touch on that a bit further in this presentation. If we could go to slide six, please, city clerk. We have been through this. Very good. So the city has taken the feedback that we've received from the community very seriously, right? You saw on previous slide, we received over 760 public comments. And those comments have impacted the ways in which council has chosen to implement program four in its housing element. As you can see here, based on the feedback received, yeah, we've amended our approach based on this public comment. Specifically, as related to the MLK site, the portion of the impacted site has been reduced to only a two-acre portion of the entire property, which is approximately 17 acres. The allowed density has also been reduced to a maximum of 50 units, subject to a 32-foot height limit. And the city has committed to maintaining the existing dog park, recreational facilities, and school uses on site. Finally, council has expressed a preference for affordable senior housing and has already directed that staff work towards this kind of development on the portion of the property identified. Next slide please and let's go forward. One more, one more. Thank you. Very good. Thank you. As related to this item, item 5B, this slide provides a summary of the one site impacted by ordinance 1128 in the housing element rezoning program. As discussed, that's the MLK junior property, also known as site 84 in the city's housing element amendments to which must be approved by the voters. And again, this kind of reiterates some of the things I just went over. Two acre portion, no more than 50 housing units, subject to a 32 foot height limit, as stated in the ballot question. Moreover, we'll be retaining an existing dog park, park recreational, and school uses, and we will develop the site with a preference for affordable senior housing. The title of the measure to support this ballot item is the Sausalito MLK local control measure. Next slide, please. Here's a more detailed map of the portion of the MLK site that is impacted, as well as certain site attributes, and some of the specifics we've already discussed, which have been amended and reduced, partly based on the robust community feedback we've received, particularly related to the reduced development area, the reduced densities, the reduced heights, and a preference for affordable senior housing. Next slide, please. Let's just go over this again. The importance of ensuring that these measures pass. What happens if these measures are not placed by council and or are not adopted by the voters? Next slide, please. So again, we will not be in compliance with state housing element law, and we could face significant challenges as it related to loss of local control and hefty fines. I think that I don't need to go through that again. Let's move forward. Summary of the key dates and milestones. We touched on this as well. Tonight, we're going to vote to submit the item to the county. We'll have a few days to submit the item to the county. We will hold the election. And assuming all goes well with the election, we will meet our state-imposed deadline. Next slide, please. Next slide, please. Okay. In order for the city to meet its state-imposed deadlines and to maintain ongoing compliance, staff recommend the city council adopt a resolution submitting to the qualified voters an ordinance amending the city zoning map to authorize development of housing on the MLK Jr. property to be voted upon at the special municipal election to be held on November 4, 2025. And I have a very small follow-on recommendation. Staff recommend a minor modification to the ballot measure question as presented in the resolution. Specifically, staff recommend changing the words subject to a 32 foot height limit to maintaining building height limits. And I'd just like to make the statement, the existing current height limit that applies to the MLK property is 32 feet. The height limit will not change. as a result of this ballot measure being submitted and the vote on the measure. Next slide, please. And that does it for my presentation. Thank you again for the opportunity, Vice Mayor and Council. And I'm here to answer any questions. |
| 03:40:03.72 | Matthew Mandich | Similarly, with respect to the matter just before this, we have included in our housing element, in effect, an agreement and now a requirement that we submit this to the voters. |
| 03:40:18.45 | Brandon Phipps | Absolutely. And, you know, I did I did leave out a portion of the presentation that I think that we should get to. And that's to give Mr. Michael Rex an opportunity to summarize some of the visualizations and some of the concepts that staff have collaborated with Mr. Rex on to to provide some concepts for the community to consider and to show the kinds of the development that the city is considering. So I'll turn it over to Mr. Rex. |
| 03:40:48.69 | Matthew Mandich | evening can you Identify yourself. Bye. |
| 03:40:50.87 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 03:40:50.89 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 03:40:50.91 | Michael Rex | Well, I'm Michael Rex, local architect, and I offer my services to the city not to design the visualization in your packet, but to collect. with architect Jerome Christensen, who's from San Francisco, because I thought we wanted to ensure that, we wanted to demonstrate that you could put 50 units there and preserve the character of the neighborhood and not block water views. And so I collaborated with Jerome Christensen in putting the visualization that you see in the packet together. And just yesterday, some questions were raised to me about what I collaborated on, and I wanted to touch upon those briefly. First of all, the ballot measure is not approving this design. Um, it's just simply showing if the ballot measure passed, it is possible to put 50 units there in a way that's compatible with the neighborhood, not block water views from uphill neighbors. Um, a specific design would still have to be created. And, um, There is a discrepancy between the visualization. You see it calls out a 27-foot-high roof ridge, not a 32-foot. So this ballot measure would allow going up a little bit. But we don't have a definitive survey. We have some rough survey data that we work from, but we need a more specific survey. And also, there should be some little wiggle room in a specific design and not get locked into this one because this was only studied in a very short time. So that's why there's a discrepancy to give the city a little wiggle room. And also, There's concern about the view sink that you see in the packet. If you flip to... The views sync really quickly. There's a photo. Keep going, please. A photo taken of you saying study. There you go, right there. Right there. Pretty hard to see. I don't know if this guy works. |
| 03:43:13.33 | Unknown | We just plan more to each other's house. |
| 03:43:16.81 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:43:16.94 | Unknown | because it was far. |
| 03:43:17.01 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:43:21.35 | Unknown | Thank you. Yeah. There you go. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:43:33.73 | Michael Rex | No. Sorry. The view sink is taken from that particular image. While the view sink is looking directly from the houses across the street, uphill, that photo right there, it almost looks like because of that perspective of that view sink study is taken so high, it makes the proposed housing look the same height as the bus barn. I think it's just how that perspective is interpreted. but what is very clear, and I can show you, if you go to the photo taken from the house across the street, there's a photograph. Not in ViewSync. It would go... It's a photograph. |
| 03:44:20.71 | Michael Rex | There's not that many slides. There's only one photograph. |
| 03:44:30.84 | Michael Rex | No. Well, it's in the packet. I'll just explain it. The tennis court has a fence around it. That fence is 10 feet high. The top of that fence is 22 feet high above the parking lot where the buildings would be built. The bus barn is 15 feet high, okay? So, The 27 foot height of what's proposed is just five feet higher than the fence. There's no way that would be blocking views from the houses across street. And we know that. We visited some of the neighbors. even without view sink, we're clear that you could build up to 32 feet high and still not block views. But the important thing is, Um, There's a lot of concern about density bonuses. This is such a unique site because the city owns property. So the city can joint venture. with a developer, they could select who that developer is, and they could be a co-applicant. They can actually control the design. And the city can choose not to apply for a density bonus. In fact, you can even put up story polls. The law doesn't prohibit story polls. It just doesn't necessarily require them. And so a specific sign could be tested. Also, if you adopt the proposed objective design development standards, it'll prohibit significant water view blockage. So when we get to a specific design, there's lots of ways to address these concerns. Thank you. |
| 03:46:00.70 | Matthew Mandich | Okay, questions for the Assistant City Manager. |
| 03:46:05.03 | Melissa Blaustein | I have some questions for Director Phipps. Are you going to end these? Okay, great. All right. We received significant correspondence asking specifically or addressing specifically the concern with regards to what a developer would or would not be able to do on the site and to what extent we would be able to maintain control of what the design would look like in the context of specific state laws. So could you speak to that and also figure out, well, I'll start with that and we can go from there. |
| 03:46:39.19 | Brandon Phipps | Yeah, extremely important question for us to cover and understand tonight. So thank you very much, council member, for posing that. I'll just I'll kind of answer it with respect to the bookends that the city has placed on itself and in the ballot measure question in order to ensure that the community and the city understand the concept that the city is wishing to see and support on that site. Number one is the zoning. We are zoning that area, that two acre portion, to H29, which allows for a maximum of 29 units per acre to locate on that site. We also have bookends. |
| 03:47:16.95 | Melissa Blaustein | Sorry, is that with the density bonus? |
| 03:47:19.39 | Brandon Phipps | that is not with density bonus. Yeah. Secondly, the city has backed into development standards, 32 foot height limit. We are preserving the existing 32 foot height limit that currently applies to the public institutional district. Number three, I think I spoke about, right, the limiting of the size to two acres. That ensures that we're retaining our park, dog park, school uses and recreational facilities on site. So that's bookend number one, the rezoning. Bookend number two is the ballot question itself. What did we put in that ballot question that is objective and very specific? Maximum of 50 dwelling units. That actually undercuts what the city could develop on that site in the H-29 zone. That's 29 units per acre. If you do the quick math, that's 58. So the city's already undercutting what it could be. do by committing itself to 50 units and again thank you for all the public comment that has supported that city's decision. Um, The other is the height limit. I think that that's also called out in the ballot language, and I will turn it over to City Attorney Rudin if he has any additional comments. |
| 03:48:31.10 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, so importantly, the ordinance that is being placed on the ballot would require the development on the site be limited. to no more than 50 units. And that's not a density standard, that's a max unit count standard. Additionally, it would be subject to the 32 foot height limit that already exists in the zone. Um, So the issue with density bonus law and this ballot initiative in particular is while the city as regulator, uh, when it's approving designs, uh, when it's approving land use permits and entitlements, it can't deny a project that requests a density bonus that qualifies for it. Um, you know, it has to comport with state laws regarding, you know, exceptions to density limits. under density bonus law. But the ballot measure doesn't just regulate the city as regulator. In fact, it doesn't. It primarily regulates the city as as project applicant. While the city probably couldn't deny some other project on this site if it was owned by somebody else proposing a density bonus, this ballot measure would constrain the city from proposing such a project in the first instance. |
| 03:49:49.98 | Melissa Blaustein | So to follow up on that, what you're saying is because of the language in this ballot measure and the way that it's written, we are essentially protecting ourselves from the potential for a density bonus as the owners of this property. |
| 03:50:02.48 | Sergio Rudin | Yes. |
| 03:50:02.99 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:50:03.27 | Sergio Rudin | Very well put. |
| 03:50:03.88 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. |
| 03:50:04.02 | Melissa Blaustein | So the maximum is indeed 50 units on this property should this ballot measure pass. |
| 03:50:09.18 | Brandon Phipps | Indeed. |
| 03:50:09.60 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. And just for exploratory purposes, if it didn't pass and someone else happened to apply on the site, that wouldn't be the case, right? |
| 03:50:18.44 | Brandon Phipps | The city, as an owner of the property, and city attorney Rudin, I'll give it to you. |
| 03:50:19.46 | Sergio Rudin | Nobody. |
| 03:50:25.09 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, somebody else can't, somebody other than the property owner can apply for entitlements. So that wouldn't be possible. And sale of this property would require significant additional process and public participation, input, etc. Yeah, that wouldn't happen by dint of this measure not passing or passing. |
| 03:50:47.40 | Melissa Blaustein | Even if we partner with the developer, which we would likely need to do, they would be subject to this maximum 50 unit, maximum 32 height limit standard. |
| 03:50:56.08 | Sergio Rudin | Yes. |
| 03:50:56.72 | Melissa Blaustein | Correct. It's different from projects, for example, like the one that we saw in Mill Valley, where the proposed unit measure did incur a density bonus, and it ended up being something that we had. Something like 70 units. I'm sure you're not familiar with the specific project. I'm referring to some correspondence that we received around a similar project. So I just want to make sure that we are clear, that the public is clear on what differentiates this ballot measure from a project of that nature. |
| 03:51:22.81 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, I'm not familiar with the project you're referring to, but I would assume that it was property that was owned by the developer where the developer was applying as property. Applicant. Yeah. |
| 03:51:32.22 | Melissa Blaustein | Yep. Okay. Great, I just wanted to clarify those points and to really ensure that the language that we and also on the uses we were noting as well that we prefer senior housing in the ballot measure. |
| 03:51:45.13 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, and that's in line with the city council discussion and direction. |
| 03:51:48.52 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, great. |
| 03:51:48.58 | Sergio Rudin | Okay. |
| 03:51:50.70 | Matthew Mandich | Other questions? |
| 03:51:54.90 | Matthew Mandich | and profit. |
| 03:51:55.95 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. So other than, let me ask you this. I'm, What is unique about this property? So under our housing element, so we have, we've got 50 units, right? We're only required to have 724 and we're delivering 200 over. Right. So even with my limited math skills, we're well within that, we're well within the buffer with this 50 units, right? So the questions I've been posed to me as well, we're, it's extra. So why are we going to the bother of plumping, you know, plopping, uh, right. This has come up again and again. So great, great question. It's the magic. |
| 03:52:45.26 | Brandon Phipps | Great question. It's the magic. Great question. I think the magic is don't look at the total buffer. Look at the buffer that we have in our low income categories. Thank you. |
| 03:52:55.75 | Unknown | Right. |
| 03:52:56.08 | Brandon Phipps | One, I think you asked, what's special about this site? It's city owned, which means the city gets to choose its own adventure with respect to how this site is developed. And the city's, again, instituted some bookends as to what that adventure is going to look like. 32 feet, 50 units, two acres, preference for affordable senior housing, maintaining dog park, park, recreational and school uses. We also have the opportunity to partner with a developer who's going to do a 100% affordable project. And that I think is more feasible for a city to accomplish on a property that they own because they can negotiate with the developer as to what the lease leaseback price might be essentially as to what the terms of the agreement are going to end up being. So that would be my answer. |
| 03:53:04.72 | Unknown | I hope you're going to be |
| 03:53:46.28 | Brandon Phipps | I'm not sure if a city attorney has additional comments. |
| 03:53:48.71 | Jill Hoffman | I would be with you if we didn't also have the corporation yard site 75. |
| 03:53:54.46 | Brandon Phipps | Unfortunately, that's a functioning corporation yard. |
| 03:53:57.21 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, but we've committed to having that, and we own that too, and we've committed to developing that, and we could also do the same things on that site. |
| 03:54:09.11 | Brandon Phipps | And we intend to do that. |
| 03:54:10.46 | Jill Hoffman | And we wouldn't have to rezone that size. |
| 03:54:14.76 | Brandon Phipps | That site is being rezoned. However, that site is not one of these sites impacted by these ordinances. Right. The voters. |
| 03:54:22.15 | Sergio Rudin | Yes. I think it's important to understand that the city's Reno total number of 724 isn't really how Reno works. Rina is broken out by by income category that the city has to meet. So there's 200 extremely or sorry, there's 200 very low units. There's 115 low-end units, 114 moderate. |
| 03:54:45.98 | Jill Hoffman | Got it. And 50 units and 35 of those units at the site 84, which is MLK site, 35 of those are very low. and 15 are low, this is the only site where 100% is affordable. So all of the affordable sites, this is, in fact, this is the only site in all of the housing element that is 100% affordable. |
| 03:55:00.90 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:55:09.93 | Jill Hoffman | So we're forcing 100% affordable. This is the only site that's 100% affordable that's being forced into this MLK park. So, which is interesting. Well, it's one of the... |
| 03:55:20.86 | Sergio Rudin | Well, it's one of the few sites where a 100% affordable housing project was determined to be feasible by the city. |
| 03:55:27.31 | Jill Hoffman | Well, or the corporation yard or some other sites. So what I'm struggling with is I got a couple of issues. One is |
| 03:55:35.93 | Matthew Mandich | Excuse me, can you please confine to questions at this point so we can then hear from the public and we can discuss later. |
| 03:55:41.09 | Jill Hoffman | Well, I'm getting it. Yeah, I'm getting there. The issue I have is if we're below the buffer – |
| 03:55:44.45 | Matthew Mandich | I think I should. |
| 03:55:49.52 | Jill Hoffman | And we've gotten lots of emails. We've had issues. We've had people questioning this every step of the way. Like, why are we forcing a project in the middle of a park? We've talked about a lot of it. |
| 03:56:03.83 | Matthew Mandich | Please, please ask questions at this time. Okay. There's public anxious. We've got a lot of public speakers. We'd like to hear from you. |
| 03:56:07.05 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 03:56:10.64 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, you're right. Okay, sorry. So I'm just, I'm struggling with if we're within the buffer and we can apportion units as we will across the sites. I mean, if we wanna, I think council member, so we actually use the term squeeze the balloon, we can apportion them as we want to throughout our chart on affordability. I mean, we've got 700 and something other sites |
| 03:56:38.72 | Matthew Mandich | Thanks. Is there a question, please? |
| 03:56:39.97 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, why can't we do that? |
| 03:56:42.47 | Sergio Rudin | I will answer that. So one of the reasons why the city has a buffer is the state no net loss law. And that means that the No Latin Loss Law requires that you maintain adequate capacity to meet the RHNA throughout the eight year cycle period. So as you get projects that are proposed to the city, which are on private property. those developers can propose projects at a range of densities. They can even propose projects that are not as dense as we necessarily thought would occur in the housing element. And when that happens, there is a shortfall. There is fewer units built than the housing element anticipated. The Housing Accountability Act says you cannot deny that project. in most circumstances. So if, You have a buffer there so that if you get developers who want to build smaller projects than you may have anticipated in your planning. that you are not required to find new sites. Because if you do fall below the capacity, And this is what the buffer is for, so you don't fall below air capacity. If you fall below your capacity during any part of the planning cycle, you have to up zone and identify new sites during that eight year period before you adopt your next housing home. So that is the purpose of the buffer. |
| 03:58:02.61 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. AGREED. |
| 03:58:03.88 | Sergio Rudin | And additionally, we probably would not have received certification from HCD without some form of buffer. |
| 03:58:11.23 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. And so of the 923 units that we currently have, and if we for some reason lose these 50 units and we go down to 873 units, you're saying that you're somewhat not confident that we wouldn't be able to apportion those other 50 units to the 873 units that we have, and for some reason we would... not be compliant. |
| 03:58:34.70 | Sergio Rudin | I think that that would be Potentially, yes. We don't know what would happen. Additionally, this is a site where we have identified the potential for 100% affordable project. So again, keep in mind that you'd be having to find more very low and low income units. particularly on sites where they're not publicly owned and they would not necessarily be getting any sort of subsidy. It's harder for private developers to build deeply affordable units than it would be on publicly subsidized sites. Additionally, this is included in the city's program of rezoning as part of its Adopted housing elements so. This was part of the overall strategy that the city proposed to HCD and that HCD approved to ensure that the city met its screen. |
| 03:59:22.12 | Matthew Mandich | More questions? |
| 03:59:26.93 | Ian Sobieski | Question? Yeah, thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:59:28.69 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 03:59:33.48 | Ian Sobieski | just to rip off the point that we just made just to help remind me i mean this came about from a process that involved the housing element advisory committee called the hiac for two years it helped identify sites and then numerous back and forth to the planning commission and back to city council and planning commission and now we have |
| 03:59:45.02 | Eric Lieb | Yes. |
| 03:59:54.58 | Ian Sobieski | An approved housing element. of which a constituent part is this MLK site. And it's approved, meaning that we are avoiding builder's remedy, which would let anyone build anything anywhere. And if we... get builders remedy than anyone can build anything anywhere. But as long as we Rezone these sites. because we have an approved housing element, we prevent builder's remedy. Is that correct? I don't know. |
| 04:00:24.98 | Brandon Phipps | I think that's a very fair assessment. Yes, City Attorney Rudin. |
| 04:00:32.16 | Sergio Rudin | Yes, it is necessary for the city to maintain compliance with housing element law during the entirety of the planning cycle in order to avoid builder's remedy. Part of that does require the city to complete its entire program of rezoning, including rezoning of all of the sites that we've identified prior to January 30th, 2026. |
| 04:00:53.43 | Brandon Phipps | So we adopted a document. In that document, we said we would do something. That's program four. That's our rezoning program. Now, we have to do that thing that we said we would do, which is the rezoning program. So that is what's before council tonight. We are just implementing what we've already agreed to do. |
| 04:00:53.54 | Sergio Rudin | So we're doing it. |
| 04:00:58.43 | Adrian Brinton | Thank you. |
| 04:01:05.50 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah. |
| 04:01:13.55 | Ian Sobieski | And we're up against a deadline because to get this done by January, it has to be on the ballot in November. And we have until Friday to approve the language. Correct. So ripping off of my account, my colleague, Councilmember Blaustein's inquiry, we got several letters from people who are concerned because they see the way these density bonuses are used by private developers to take a project that's approved for 40 units and actually build 80. And that's approved for 30 feet and actually built something that's 80 feet. So I just want to ask you both directly. This is a city on property. If this ballot is put on the ballot and it's passed by the voters, Is there a scheme without voter approval or without voter approval? where the city could be compelled to allow something taller than 32 feet. or more than 50 feet, more than 50 units to be built on that piece of property. |
| 04:02:08.34 | Brandon Phipps | I'm happy to answer first. And I'm not aware of any mechanism that would even allow that to occur. Thank you. |
| 04:02:15.57 | Ian Sobieski | How do you train? |
| 04:02:15.97 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. |
| 04:02:16.46 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, I believe that the city council would need to go back to the voters and have a different ballot measure passed. |
| 04:02:23.48 | Ian Sobieski | Okay. Thank you. |
| 04:02:24.16 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:02:24.86 | Ian Sobieski | So with that as a constraint that we really are talking about 50 units and 32 feet, I'm interested that you actually have some views view sync stuff that you did view sync was developed by volunteers right if I understand correctly correct, but this architect Jerome Christiansen was he paid by the city. Yes, where did the money come from. The show is a great day. |
| 04:02:45.97 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. |
| 04:02:46.02 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, I mean, but just city manager authority, I presume, because we didn't approve it. All right, so he helped do some design that helped look at these views and generate those renderings that we saw. And so that's where the staff came up with the belief that with this 32-foot high limit, we would have the view impacts that we see. |
| 04:02:49.45 | Brandon Phipps | is that? |
| 04:03:05.87 | Ian Sobieski | that are displayed in the presentation we just saw. |
| 04:03:09.41 | Brandon Phipps | I would say it's more than a belief. I think, you know, understanding that the view sync analysis is an accurate portrayal, that that's an objective, an objectively true statement, the concept that's being presented will not result in any significant impacts to views. |
| 04:03:22.98 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, so now I have a theoretical question for you. If we go ahead and we put this on the ballot and it's passed by the voters, I believe, is it true that the housing element that we can enter a process to amend our housing, ask for it to be modified for the HCD? |
| 04:03:36.72 | Brandon Phipps | We just did that, actually. |
| 04:03:38.74 | Ian Sobieski | You can do it again next year. if we so chose. Thank you. |
| 04:03:42.83 | Brandon Phipps | theory |
| 04:03:43.70 | Ian Sobieski | All right, so it's not excluded that if there were other sites say an empty field adjacent to bridgeway that has nothing on it, and we did not want to build low housing at mlk even though it's authorized. That we could initiate a process to amend the housing element to build housing there instead. It would have be its own process. It would have to go, but that's theoretically within the realm of possibility. |
| 04:04:09.30 | Brandon Phipps | In theory, not without risk to the city, I think. What would the risk be? Not noncompliance with our housing element. We'd be... |
| 04:04:16.64 | Ian Sobieski | We'd be proceeding to build housing, but I just... |
| 04:04:19.02 | Brandon Phipps | Okay. Well, in that context, in theory, yes. Okay. |
| 04:04:22.45 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, so I would comment on this. You know, we have both the corporation yard and the Um, MLK property, which are city owned inventory sites in the housing element, and they are both slated or identified as holding 100% affordable housing projects Um, While theoretically, I think amending the housing element to substitute sites is definitely legal. Practically, it would have significant challenges in terms of getting HCD review and approval. It is quite time consuming as this council is aware. And additionally, with regards to meeting the affordable, The affordability that is proposed on these two sites, if we were to substitute others, I would not be surprised if HCD you know, if we were anticipating that the affordability was going to be met by private development without subsidy from the city, the HCD would request a number of additional sites rather than just one. |
| 04:05:31.70 | Ian Sobieski | Understood. Thank you. I learned today something, and I just want to ask you again to confirm it. It's taken us four years to get to this point. 2021 is when it started, and it's 2025. And that's for the current housing cycle. The next housing cycle, I understand, needs to start in 2031. And if it takes four years to do that one as well, that means we need to start on the next RENA number, not this 7024, but the next number in 2027. That is two years from now. |
| 04:06:01.86 | Brandon Phipps | Yes, really appreciate that comment. I think that we're we may be on the same page here or at least going in a similar direction that it may be prudent for the city to begin drafting its seventh cycle housing element tomorrow, you know, or very soon. |
| 04:06:18.95 | Ian Sobieski | And then the last thing I learned that was shocking to me is that we've been talking about MLK being important because it's low income. Is that right? Is that the term? Low income housing? And now in the next seventh cycle, there are going to be two new categories introduced. |
| 04:06:34.12 | Brandon Phipps | That's correct. |
| 04:06:34.83 | Ian Sobieski | THE END OF Hello. |
| 04:06:35.44 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. Yeah, I think it's extremely low and acutely low. |
| 04:06:38.00 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 04:06:38.02 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. |
| 04:06:38.04 | Ian Sobieski | Stephen Sills, extremely low and acutely low will be two new categories of housing that will be introduced for the seventh element that need to be planned for so. Thank you very much for that. you know, profoundly important information. |
| 04:06:51.20 | Matthew Mandich | I'm not sure. Member Boston, you have another question? Yes. |
| 04:06:54.76 | Melissa Blaustein | A couple of follow up questions just because there seems to be a lot of first, how many sites, how many units did we have at the corporation yard? |
| 04:07:05.12 | Brandon Phipps | I'm not scopes to speak to that. We are scoped to discuss item 84. |
| 04:07:09.48 | Melissa Blaustein | Right. Sorry. Okay. Then I'll bring up a more. Um, and, and if you can't answer these, maybe, maybe, um, our architect in residence will be able to help. But typically the average cost per unit to build in Sausalito is probably around at least $1.2 million roughly. Right? I mean, are you aware of the economies of scale associated with like based on what you've seen from development applications? |
| 04:07:34.32 | Brandon Phipps | Absolutely. What I will not put a specific number on record, but what I can say is it's very high. |
| 04:07:40.29 | Melissa Blaustein | So it's safe to say in order to subsidize or in order to find a partner for a 100% affordable project, it would require probably at least about 40 units. |
| 04:07:52.37 | Brandon Phipps | Yes, there are certainly economies of scale in connection with, you know, development at density. And as previously mentioned as well, it's very important for the city to be a partner on this as it really lends itself to making these higher density affordable projects more financially feasible. |
| 04:08:08.03 | Melissa Blaustein | Because just because we've identified another site where we would potentially like to put a fewer number of units, it doesn't mean that we'll be able to get a partner if it doesn't become financially feasible on some level for them. |
| 04:08:19.39 | Brandon Phipps | That's correct. |
| 04:08:19.90 | Melissa Blaustein | And you've seen instances in your career where perhaps a city might want to develop a site, but they were unable to find a partner because of the size of the site. |
| 04:08:29.04 | Brandon Phipps | This happens all the time and it can be frustrating for cities. So we're trying to position ourselves in the best way possible to ensure that development does occur on this site. |
| 04:08:38.39 | Melissa Blaustein | So the reason that we went with the number of units and wrote the language the way we did was to ensure that we would maintain local control while having some sort of financial feasibility to get a partner. |
| 04:08:48.15 | Brandon Phipps | Absolutely. Yeah. Thank you, Councilmember. We want to maintain our local control. We want to maintain our parks and school uses and recreational facilities. But, you know, back to why we're here in the first place, we're also here to deliver affordable housing to the community and address our state housing crisis. So all of those things together are why this is before you this evening. |
| 04:08:58.78 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 04:08:58.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:08:58.84 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 04:09:10.18 | Melissa Blaustein | And to be clear, just to explore, right, if we did remove the site right now, what would happen? |
| 04:09:18.50 | Brandon Phipps | Well, I have a slide that describes that. The city could face loss of local control. The city could face hefty fines of $100,000 a month, which could increase up to $600,000 per month. And we would be subject to state-imposed development standards as opposed to our own local development standards that we've worked hard on to ensure that we can maintain our community context. |
| 04:09:37.12 | Burton Drobnis | the post. |
| 04:09:44.09 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. I appreciate it. |
| 04:09:45.77 | Brandon Phipps | And... |
| 04:09:45.84 | Matthew Mandich | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 04:09:45.89 | Brandon Phipps | you can't remember. |
| 04:09:46.53 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 04:09:46.68 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. |
| 04:09:46.72 | Matthew Mandich | I have one question and then do you have others? OK, just quickly, we have expressed a preference for affordable senior housing. And that's indeed how this ballot measure is structured, in part. Do you understand that affordable senior housing is typically defined as housing that is no more than, let's say, about 30% of income? Is that the standard that you're familiar with? So for example, a senior on Social Security with maybe two $2,000 income per month would pay $600 a month. Are you familiar with that standard? No. I see some hands in the audience, but I thought you might be familiar. |
| 04:10:32.92 | Brandon Phipps | Thanks. I am familiar, but out of caution in stating something on record that is inaccurate, I'm not going to attempt to regurgitate. |
| 04:10:38.80 | Matthew Mandich | but it's an |
| 04:10:42.66 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. |
| 04:10:42.68 | Matthew Mandich | Okay, thank you. Remember, hop. |
| 04:10:45.53 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. So I saw the slide and I heard you reiterate the, you know, the horror story, the worst case scenario. But perhaps a city attorney could articulate why we might be subject to those, even though we would be within our RENA number. So I don't think I'm clear on that because if we're within our arena number and we could reapportion those 50 units amongst the other 823 sites that we're still over, well over the arena, 100 over arena number, I'm not sure why we would fall into that category. |
| 04:11:20.68 | Sergio Rudin | So the reason why is that this is one of the sites the city included in its identified program of rezoning. And so if we don't complete the entire program of rezoning, it could be argued that we have failed to meet one of the statutory requirements and therefore not in compliance with housing element law. Now we could As previously mentioned, we If the site doesn't pass, then we can amend our housing element to include a substitute site. or sites as may be needed. But there will be a period of time potentially where we are outside and outside of compliance with state housing element law until we Do so. |
| 04:12:00.72 | Jill Hoffman | So, If it doesn't, let's say we didn't pass the... let's say we put it on the ballot, or we decide tonight not to go forward and put it on the ballot, or it doesn't pass the ballot in November, then we would, presumably after tonight, hopefully we're not on November 4th, presumably between now and November, we would come up with a plan that if either of the measures don't pass, we have a plan B, I would guess that we would do this, but we would have a pivot ready and available and present to HCD for a plan. But this, I would think with site 84 is fairly simple, that we have plenty of other sites and that we're still within our arena. I would guess HCD would have a hard time saying that you're non-compliant and that you're open to Builder's Remedy when you still meet your Reno requirements. So I don't think Well, I suppose we do then have to give direction after we do the motion to have alternatives ready and available prior to November 4th of 2025. Okay, thank you. |
| 04:13:16.64 | Matthew Mandich | Okay, if there are no more questions, we'll be hearing from the audience. to the public. I have 10 speaker cards up here. If there's anybody who hasn't filled one of these out who is here and wants to speak, please submit a card to the clerk. Oh, there are more coming. And what I'm going to do is read the first three and then continue in that vein. So when you hear your name called first, you're to come right up. And the other two should be ready to come up. The first speaker is Burton Drobnis. Welcome. Second, and before you start, next will be Adriana |
| 04:13:20.61 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:13:47.91 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. you Dina Hanian, did I get that right? Is she present? I'm sorry, OK. |
| 04:13:56.03 | Burton Drobnis | is Aaron Nathan. |
| 04:13:57.50 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:13:58.68 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 04:13:58.71 | Burton Drobnis | Good evening. I'm Burton Drobnis, and my wife, Barbie, and I have lived in the north end of Sausalito at the Anchorage for 42 years. So I'm very familiar. |
| 04:13:58.76 | Matthew Mandich | you. |
| 04:13:58.83 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 04:13:58.85 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 04:13:58.97 | Walfred Solorzano | Good evening. |
| 04:14:07.86 | Burton Drobnis | with that end of town. First, I want to digress for a moment. I had a one-on-one meeting with Assemblyman Conley specifically talking about Sausalito's housing element. And in this meeting, Assemblyman Conley told me that HCD has admitted that they made a mistake. The mistake was they included PORCILS THAT WERE UNDERWATER. that they included part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in calculating our number. I believe that one of the reasons we are here right now is because of your failure. to force HGD to recalculate our number. and get it down. They made a mistake. Why haven't they corrected it? As far as the Martin Luther King School goes, when you were talking about the Wells Fargo building you want to talk about Uh, uh, uh, inconvenience. Think about the inconvenience of 50 units in a highly density, high density area of North Sausalito, noise pollution, light pollution, car pollution, everything else that goes along with that. If you've ever driven down my end of town on Sunday when the soccer games are on, when there are tennis lessons being done and everything else, you can't drive down the street. Two cars, an emergency vehicle cannot. I'm in favor of affordable housing. I'm in favor of meeting what we have to meet. Pass the measure and remove Martin Luther King from our housing element and take other places that may not be in the housing element. Harbor Drive, put that in there and preserve our end of town from all this development. Thank you very much. Thank you. Adriana? |
| 04:15:57.31 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 04:16:00.48 | Matthew Mandich | followed by Aaron Nathan, followed by Bob Hayes. |
| 04:16:05.63 | Alice Merrill | Good evening city council. Um, I, it's something... struck me as Mr. Phipps was making his presentation. We're worried that developers are going to |
| 04:16:18.98 | Vicki Nichols | their bonuses and build more than the |
| 04:16:24.02 | Jill Hoffman | the number of units we have calculated, but we're also worried that developers won't build as much as the number we've given to |
| 04:16:34.98 | Alice Merrill | Thank you. |
| 04:16:35.89 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:16:35.90 | Alice Merrill | to the state and therefore we're gonna need MLK |
| 04:16:40.04 | Jill Hoffman | to fill the gap. I mean, those two ideas don't... don't really Connect. |
| 04:16:46.97 | Alice Merrill | Let me say also that I'm of the mind that we need to find some other place in Sausalito, whether it's, I think empty office buildings is a great idea, rather than putting it on a public park that's heavily used and enjoyed by the community and I also want to |
| 04:17:11.04 | Jill Hoffman | to say that if you look at those plans that I just looked at before coming to this meeting, they're not really true because |
| 04:17:19.98 | Alice Merrill | Thank you. |
| 04:17:20.74 | Jill Hoffman | There are. |
| 04:17:21.23 | Alice Merrill | Thank you. |
| 04:17:21.52 | Jill Hoffman | For example. |
| 04:17:21.97 | Alice Merrill | and we didn't look at that slide, but it's an overhead of the existing buildings and parking, and there are 10 spots on the eastern side of the parking lot, that is true. But in the new |
| 04:17:37.02 | Jill Hoffman | where we have the housing and everything added, all of a sudden those 10 spaces, instead of being diagonal, they're, what do you call it, whatever, not just pull in parking. Thank you. |
| 04:17:50.14 | Unknown | in the world. |
| 04:17:50.31 | Jill Hoffman | No, they're perpendicular to the, to the, all of a sudden it's 24 spaces and they are visually much smaller, like only golf carts could park there. Okay. So I would look at those plans with a critical eye. Thank you. |
| 04:18:07.30 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 04:18:10.99 | Matthew Mandich | Aaron? |
| 04:18:11.38 | Matthew Stewart | Thank you. Good evening, council members. My name is Aaron. I live directly across the street from MLK. |
| 04:18:19.97 | Matthew Mandich | 607 Coloma. And I urge you to not adopt the resolution that will effectively overturn ordinance 1128. This protects our parks. It protects access to our parks. And I believe that a lot of the communication that's been given is misleading and actually invalid, mainly because sure, while the dog park may still be there, the school may be there, there's no way to get there. There's no way to actually use those facilities. And so we're actually effectively neutering the ability for our parks to actually perform the functions that they're designed for. |
| 04:18:36.69 | Unknown | is, |
| 04:18:55.36 | Matthew Mandich | Furthermore, the MLK site is in the highest wildfire danger zone that has already required two emergency evacuations in the last five years. So we are creating an area that today, as was mentioned earlier on a Sunday, |
| 04:19:08.98 | Matthew Stewart | We love all of our soccer players playing, but it becomes incredibly difficult to even navigate. We will have an area that with this housing |
| 04:19:17.03 | Matthew Mandich | like that seven days a week. And I believe that this creates a life safety issue. As a parent of two young children, this creates a very, it's the same reason that we moved here, will now basically be following us from San Francisco. It's impossible to have a safe place to live and raise a family. The last piece is that two times the affordable units are being pushed into the northern end of Sausalito. And I appreciate, Councilmember. |
| 04:19:44.97 | Matthew Stewart | HALF. |
| 04:19:45.04 | Matthew Mandich | for bringing the |
| 04:19:45.97 | Matthew Stewart | this up, because it is completely and totally against the principles of what the housing element is trying to accomplish. And I believe that we need to really not waste time in passing this 1128, doing this all on November 4th, and instead use this time to find equitable |
| 04:20:05.03 | Matthew Mandich | places to put housing on both sides of Sausalito. So I urge you, use this time for productive exercise and not perfunctory ballot measures that will not pass. Thank you. |
| 04:20:16.34 | David Lay | Thank you. |
| 04:20:16.54 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. Bob Hayes, followed by Michael Rex. I assume Michael Rex will be speaking as a member of the public. |
| 04:20:24.09 | David Lay | Did David Lay get in there? I'm not sure. |
| 04:20:26.53 | Matthew Mandich | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 04:20:26.74 | David Lay | Thank you. |
| 04:20:27.92 | Matthew Mandich | David, I think you're in here somewhere, but... Yeah, not yet. So. |
| 04:20:35.11 | Bob Hayes | How do I turn? Is it on? |
| 04:20:36.52 | Matthew Mandich | you |
| 04:20:36.54 | Bob Hayes | you |
| 04:20:36.59 | Matthew Mandich | Yes, it is. |
| 04:20:36.96 | Bob Hayes | You may have to lift it up. |
| 04:20:37.27 | Matthew Mandich | You may have to. |
| 04:20:38.92 | Bob Hayes | Sorry. Bob Hayes, My name is Bob Hayes and i'm an architect in town i've lived in town for 40 years I live near the mlk site, I think that you know we're really kind of losing some sight here about recreational use I do I design affordable housing. As a business, I do it. I insert it into jurisdictions all the time. But I think to take away this recreation use and put low-income housing in that spot is really wrong-minded. We'll never get it back. We'll never get that use back in a location that is highly used. that site, and you go there on the weekends, it's, yeah, it's busy, but it's a good busy. You know, people have a good time there and they recreate and that's a very important need of citizens of this city and other cities. So I think it's a big mistake to put it there, number one. There's other places we could put it, I firmly believe. Now, you did do some big changes relative to, you know, my last comments from the last meeting that we had on this. And I have to say that, you know, going from 80 units down to 50 units is something. But when you look at where that is, it that site in half and now you have something here, circulation is wiped out in that site. I mean to take that center portion of the site and use it solely for this housing project is a huge mistake and I know we're getting into the weeds of the design here but Honestly, I think that we're kind of, we're getting to the point where the language is going to be a problem, you know. Thank you. What we're trying to do here. Thank you. |
| 04:22:46.73 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. Thank you. Michael Rex followed by David Lay. |
| 04:22:55.39 | Michael Rex | Thank you. Yes, I'm speaking as a local businessman and architect, and I want to focus on the ballot language. The intent of my comments is to help improve the chance of the measure passing. And I would like to recommend that we include a type of unit types and a mix of occupants. I agree that giving preference to seniors is wise, but 100% seniors is not serving all the needs of our community. I would recommend that we talk about maybe 80% seniors, 10% of the units be for first responders, primarily police, because the firemen can stay in the firehouse. And then maybe 10% for marine workers or instructors of our marine schools. or even students in our maritime schools. The other thing is a mix of housing values and households. The visualization, because of the time constraint, shows all the identical units, all one bedroom. Any housing advocate, and I'm one of them, affordable housing advocate, knows that you want a mix of housing sizes and values. There should be some studios when we get to a real design, and there should be some two bedrooms so families can stay. And I think it's socially healthy and more equitable. I didn't see in the ballot language the preference for seniors. Did I miss it? Thank you. |
| 04:24:36.05 | Matthew Mandich | It is. |
| 04:24:36.13 | Michael Rex | Thank you. in. It is in there. Uh, I'd love to see a confirmation of that. If you could check, please. But those are my recommendations. Thank you. |
| 04:24:47.18 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. David Lay, you're next, followed by Babette McDougall. Is Babette still here? |
| 04:24:53.46 | David Lay | Oh, thank you very much. I think if you try to do this MLK trip, you're going to lose. and just look back at what happened around, 25 years ago, 2000, when we tried to build safety building down there, didn't work. Firehouse down there didn't work. Voters didn't want to do that. I think that what I'm suggesting from the bike path down here to the street up here, there's this. And it's all between the bike path and the sidewalk. And it's all open except for one office building, which can stay, it doesn't bother anything. And it's all more, well, not all. Most of that is above 32 feet on the sidewalk. There's room to do that without interfering with a lot of these other opinions. And it puts people where they can get transportation, where there's a work right in front of them. And, um... It holds a lot of possibility for the long-range future of no car and so on. Thank you very much. |
| 04:25:57.62 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you very much. Bebeke McDougall followed by Stacey Nemo. |
| 04:26:10.23 | Sandy Strawbridge | Thank you. |
| 04:26:10.26 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:26:10.57 | Sandy Strawbridge | Thank you very much for recognizing me. |
| 04:26:12.98 | Steven Woodside | Thanks. Mayor. So obviously the MLK side is a very controversial subject and it's the perfect opportunity to remind ourselves about the value of that thing called good troubles. And it's times like this where making good trouble actually matters. So good trouble, are your constituents speaking candidly to you about where we see the successes, which you of course enjoy listening to, who wouldn't, I would. but we also have to be reminded of our failures. Even I get called out for being a little too Over the edge sometimes. It happened at least once tonight. I don't mind because that's what a vigorous dialogue and debate is all about. Small d democracy is about giving and taking ideas. It's not about stroking each other's egos. It's about the reality of public policy. So with that said, I just want to say you're not doing us any favors by continuing to compartmentalize and pretend like we only have to cross one footstep at a time. Because we do have a crisis on our hands, and I don't know why you refuse to acknowledge it, but we do have the MTC, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, driving the housing element as well as the transient-oriented communities thing. So we have a crush of development coming at us that you're not even daylighting. to the constituents And to say that we have no crisis, I think is a rather unusual statement from you as our leaders, to say the least. We have to appreciate the limits of growth. And we live in a place where we must be mindful of the limits of growth. We have geology issues. We've got... Soil that loves to get muddy and slide down and take the houses with it. We've got sea level rise issues. We've got fire issues. We've got seismic issues. We've even got security issues, for crying out loud. We've got every issue. So please, think it through. |
| 04:28:11.52 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. Stacy Nemo followed by Jennifer Nemo. And just to confirm, Mr. Rex asked whether prioritizing Sausalito's seniors was in the measure and is. |
| 04:28:24.33 | Unknown | Thank you. Most of this state mandated housing in Sausalito has been concentrated in the north side of town, as you have mentioned before in this group, near Marin City, continuing along and troubling trend of relegating lower income housing there. You have a choice now and a chance now to make one small, very meaningful change by making one less site in this area. proposing housing in a public park is particularly concerning and it's surprising that the Council persists with this plan, even though we're over the needed number of units and that city staff has previously suggested options for relocating the units away from mlk this is still possible. Although Michael Rex has done an effective and actually quite a good job and integrating housing there will be very difficult to find a builder that can afford to build this housing, even with city support. If the city is unable to build and a company like Pacific West has already said that they can, it seems very likely that HCD will find that city to be obstructing its own housing element. While we appreciate city's optimism at the MLK site, it seems like an unnecessary and high risk move I encourage you to avoid. Thanks. |
| 04:29:30.72 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. Jennifer Nemo followed by Adrienne Britton. You're going to pass. OK, thank you. Adrian Britton followed by Alice Merrill. And the last card I have is Jan Johnson. |
| 04:29:46.97 | Adrian Brinton | Hi, Adrian Brinton. Thank you for taking my comment. I'll try to keep it short. You know, this could be a pretty good project. We need this senior housing. And the renderings actually look pretty good and the density looks pretty good. But I worry, is it going to pass? You know, it's a really heavy lift. Telling people that they should vote for this to avoid builder's remedy is just not a very motivating message. And, you know, losing the public space, it's not ideal. Living next to a pickleball court is not ideal. You know, lots of ideas coming out that people have about other sites. You know, most of them tried, most of them with their own groups of residents who live nearby, who came out to fight against them. And, you know, the empty lots won. So we kept protecting the vacant lots. And now we have the choices that we have in front of us. So it's unfortunate. I hope we stop doing that. You know, nervous and excited to hear we're going to have to start our new housing element so soon, but that gives us another opportunity to hopefully go back and maybe do it better and actually look at how to integrate this housing. 700 units seems like a lot. If you really start looking at our town with more of a design focus, I have no doubt that we can find places to put them where they'll enhance the quality of life here. We just haven't chosen to do that. We've chosen to stick numbers on a spreadsheet and fight and throw eggs at each other to try to get our sites on or off. So anyway, I look forward to starting this process again in a few years. Thanks. |
| 04:30:30.49 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:30:45.22 | Unknown | Maybe. |
| 04:31:11.26 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 04:31:11.33 | Adrian Brinton | Thank you. |
| 04:31:11.61 | Matthew Mandich | Alice Merrill, followed by Jan Johnson, and another card was handed to me, Sybil Boutilier. Thank you. |
| 04:31:17.71 | Alice Merrill | Hello. To start with, I want to apologize that I did see the flyer. I did see the flyer. I got it. |
| 04:31:17.79 | Matthew Mandich | Hello. My speaker. |
| 04:31:27.61 | Alice Merrill | It didn't speak to me at all. So I apologize for not responding. The other two things I did not get, I did not get a text and I did not get whatever the other email from the city. So, um, What a mess. I don't have an opinion. |
| 04:31:47.03 | Steven Woodside | about. |
| 04:31:47.96 | Alice Merrill | I'm going to go. |
| 04:31:48.03 | Steven Woodside | low income. I want the kinds of things that was it Michael who said about the different kinds of people that can get into places and the problem with the rest of Sausalito, a lot of it. |
| 04:32:01.02 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 04:32:01.04 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:32:01.09 | Vicki Nichols | is that everybody wants fancy, fancy, fancy. And, um, |
| 04:32:04.91 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:32:05.11 | Vicki Nichols | expensive, expensive, and |
| 04:32:06.97 | Steven Woodside | I don't know how to solve that, but. I'm... I wish that it were easier. |
| 04:32:13.02 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 04:32:16.08 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. Jan Johnson. |
| 04:32:19.28 | Vicki Nichols | Hi, thank you. I hate SB 79. God help us all. I don't know what's going to happen with this. If it does pass, it is only a block from the 33 units of Rotary Singer housing that's already there on Thank you. Olima if I'm glad the design isn't set because it would seem to me that if you bring the the tennis courts forward to be next to the park area and put the housing between Olima and Coloma. You'll preserve more of a park-like setting and it won't be so chopped up. I know that's in the weeds for future, but who knows what's going to happen with this vote. Thank you. |
| 04:33:04.42 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. Sybil, I think your last speaker card or any other speaker card? Okay? |
| 04:33:17.62 | Alice Merrill | Thank you guys for Thank you, Vice Mayor and Council Members. I'm totally in support of this project, and I appreciate very much that the proposed ballot measure language does give preference of priority to seniors, of which among our current voters in South Salido, 3,140 right now on a voter rolls are between the ages of 55 and 104. |
| 04:33:18.50 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 04:33:55.12 | Alice Merrill | So as you can see, that's a large percentage of our population here. So where do all these people live? Some of them are living in big family homes where the rest of the family has... started their own homes and giving people a place to move to In their community, which is so important in such an engaged community as we have here, gives the opportunity to free up more housing for families. So just to put that aside. The very low housing here in South Salido, which goes by jurisdiction by jurisdiction, is 30 to 50% of the average income of the city of South Salido, which in 2023 was $141,000. So the 30% you're thinking of is for HUD housing, and that's for federally supported HUD housing. So this is a different calculation. And that's very low. And the low income, which is the other category, we have about 100 and some... We have 200 in the lower category and we have a, about 100 and some in this category, is 50 to 80%. So those are considered affordable housing in the town of Sausalito. I just want to say that. Um. This is a great opportunity for creative. Thank you. |
| 04:35:26.56 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you very much. Members, speakers online. |
| 04:35:31.05 | Walfred Solorzano | Jordan Dodds |
| 04:35:36.84 | Matthew Mandich | Hey, good evening again. Everyone can hear me all right? So I just want to say, I know this is hard and I agree with Councilmember Sobieski with this would have been better done with design and urban planners, but like it's passed. So here we are. And so I think just listening to all the comments here, my, my first kind of thought is on the economics of this. I haven't heard much about kind of the structure that deal with developer. Are we leasing the land to developer? Will they be condo or the leases? If it's senior housing, is it designated long-term care? Is this like assisted care? Is this just short-term rental for? Seniors to go into I'm just kind of curious hasn't been a lot spoken to kind of again the proposed build out And then kind of secondly, I'm just, I'm really curious. It feels like we're everything we've kind of been delivered as like, this is it or Builder's Remedy. And it feels a little bit threatening versus like, what are the options? So When I see the housing map now and I see the north part of Salcido taking 40 or 48% like as a resident there, I understand that there's a lot more land. I'm just like, I hear Merrick Cox and I know she's not in there, but the empty office buildings. And I have to say like, they're not all empty. The business I own is in one that's on there that's a hundred percent occupied. Um, and I just, I'm very curious as far as like rezoning and the Marin ship. And I look at that map and pretty much nothing south of Harbor is even designated instead of just shipping containers and dust. and recycling And I'm curious why that wasn't even like how we get to a place where the landowners themselves are allowed to like, I guess when I heard about the, you know, the proponent of building, I was like, Oh, I imagine one of the landowners would do assisted living for seniors to sell their homes, move there and have a long term option and viability to stay in Sausalito without displacing a public park. So I'm not looking at my clock, but I guess my like ask of the city council is like use this feedback and like from the citizens, not as like fear of the punishment from the state, but as a motivator to like Ian said is like, how can we build a better design city. Thank you. Thank you, Jordan. |
| 04:37:39.20 | Walfred Solorzano | Next speaker is Sandra Bushmaker. |
| 04:37:39.33 | Matthew Mandich | THE END OF |
| 04:37:42.98 | Steven Woodside | Hi again. The real enemy here is Sacramento and its draconian housing laws. And it is dividing cities all over up and down California. And I'm really happy to hear this Council talks so much about retaining local control because I'm going to discuss this with you on the next agenda item. But anyway, I wanted to bring up the concept that the state housing crisis that we hear over and over was declared by the legislature. It has since been challenged. Thank you. it was based on inaccurate population counts and that came from our department of treasury in california So the question before us tonight is, what do we put on the ballot? Somehow I didn't speak clearly when we were talking about 1022. Um, In the ballot question itself, I believe we should have language that this is a modification of ordinance 1128, which by the way was put in place in 1997 when I was running city council the first time. And was successful. But it was a big issue because people wanted their part. And this was the main issue behind 1128. So I certainly understand the resistance to putting in housing in our park area and we do have this large buffer. I would like to explore that more. And The, issue of whether we can prefer senior housing, I think, raises some legal issues, which I think needs a little more of a legal dive on it from our city attorney. I don't know that we can do that in a ballot measure. It needs to be looked at. But in any event, I do share The discussion about all of the affordable housing being shoved into the north end of town. I don't think that's fair to our town. It's not fair to the residents on the north end of town. And I think that it needs to be distributed throughout town, which is what our. Jenna? |
| 04:39:45.80 | Walfred Solorzano | All right, next speaker is Pete Schmidt. |
| 04:39:56.14 | Walfred Solorzano | eat. He's on mute. |
| 04:40:04.21 | Walfred Solorzano | All right, we'll go with John Gavin. |
| 04:40:12.71 | Walfred Solorzano | John, if you can please unmute. |
| 04:40:18.43 | Walfred Solorzano | Um, I, uh, |
| 04:40:20.47 | John Gavin | Hi, I'm here. Hello. Hello, are you Pete or John? Hi, this is John Gavin. Thank you. We can hear you. Okay, great. Thanks for having this hearing today. I'm, I'm, It's been a frustrating process, I think, on all sides. I just want to read a little bit about 1128 for those that aren't too familiar with it. No part of Martin Luther King property shall be used for purposes other than park and recreation purposes without approval provided. However, that the land area of the said property currently devoted to commercial purposes may continue in such use on a temporary basis without voter approval. There shall be no increase in the land area of said site. on the floor area situated thereon, which is devoted to commercial use. I just want to call out that on the title and summary, I think it's very important that it mentions, one, 100% affordable housing, so voters know what they are voting for. Also, that it should mention that this is Martin Luther King Jr. Park that we're talking about. and not being cute and calling it a property or a city asset or something of that nature. We all know that this is an area that is heavily used. You can go there any weekend, as I already said, and parking is not just utilized in the parking spaces, but also along Alema Street, along Butte Street, along Coloma as well. So it's heavily utilized. So any type of housing count of 50 and above is going to vastly put a negative impact along the neighborhoods regarding parking and traffic. If you're doing 100% affordable housing, you're not going to be able to do a parking garage underneath. And if you go above, you're going to go above the limit on the housing, on the height that you are saying is only going to be 30 plus feet. So I think this is just a. You're under the gun, I understand, but I think it's just kind of a poorly thought out to put it on a ballot measure. And I think we should revisit maybe the entirety of |
| 04:42:38.26 | Walfred Solorzano | Next speaker is Pete Schmidt. |
| 04:42:43.12 | Matthew Mandich | Hi, can you hear me now? |
| 04:42:44.49 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 04:42:44.52 | Matthew Mandich | We can hear you. Great, thank you council members. And I just wanted to say that I agree with what I was hearing from Jordan Dodds and Sandra Bushmaker earlier. In particular, Jordan was talking about the economics of this I just have a hard time understanding how this would I'm just curious what this would look like for the city of Sausalito moving forward in the future. I'm curious what kind of builders would be interested in a partnership. How would we afford to pay for the project? Would we have to get a loan? If we did so, would we even generate enough to maintain the facilities? Thank you. Is this a business that the city's already in the city? I'm not actually sure if we have other units that we rent as low income or especially if it's long-term low-income housing. I really love the idea of senior housing, especially the idea that Jordan Dodds is talking about. And I think this is a bigger issue for the state of California. we have this huge concern about a lack of housing, but we also have an older population that is probably ready to downsize, but because of their wealth locked up in their home, like because Prop 13 allows that to happen, that the Chronicles covered, things like that, it's just a tough situation to be in. And I know you're in a tough situation to be in, but I just would encourage you to, just consider the maintenance of this facility, the long-term costs of this idea, the field itself that was just redone, it's already got cracked asphalt. The path's a lot narrower than people thought it was gonna be. The drinking fountains don't work. The baseball diamond that our kids use, it doesn't get weeded. So I just, the field's getting mowed by an independent contractor. It's not... You know, we don't have an electric motor. Maybe we do now, but we didn't during the earlier season. It just doesn't seem like it's a good idea. Thank you. Um, so thanks for your time. |
| 04:44:35.56 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. No further public speakers. |
| 04:44:39.34 | Matthew Mandich | Okay, let's bring it back for discussion and hopefully a decision without a lot of discussion. We've heard a lot from all of you. I think if I can just lead off by saying I think this language goes as far as we can to constrain or put guardrails on what could be built on the site. and the language is quite clear about prioritizing senior housing, affordable housing, and maintaining the existing recreational park and school uses. One suggestion that the staff made was to change the language from a specific height limit to existing height limits. That's the staff recommendation. We've also heard other thoughts from the public. So I want to bring you back for comments, suggestions, and preferably a motion, and then a second and then we can discuss it and move. |
| 04:45:37.98 | Melissa Blaustein | I would accept staff's recommendation because I think it's critical that the height limit, it's clear that it stays where it is, but I'm happy to make a motion approving the resolution as proposed by staff with the addition or the change to the language. And then I have some comments, but I'll just put the motions. |
| 04:45:57.01 | Matthew Mandich | Is there a second to that motion? There's a second motion in the second and discussion. Would you like to lead off since you made the motion? |
| 04:46:08.23 | Alice Merrill | Uh, Can I get a little bit of a |
| 04:46:12.55 | Matthew Mandich | You may have a second, yes. the seconder. |
| 04:46:15.64 | Ian Sobieski | I mean, if people are not a year to go, I was going to wait a little bit because... I hate building in the parks. I don't want to build our parks. Our parks are a public resource. It's the last place in the world I wanted to build. if we build anything there to be a community center or saltwater pool or more services for people, people need a place to live indeed, but we have a lot of places in Sausalito where we can live. It frustrates me to no end. Um, I want to be able to share my screen. Can you give me authority to share my screen or can you turn off that please? So I joined the city council in 2021. This is where David Lay is talking about. This is right behind the Bay Model. This is up there as Bridgeway. Here's an empty field. You can put buildings there. You can put buildings there. You can put low-income housing there. You wouldn't have to put it in a park. Here's another example. How about this spot? This is an empty field. It happens to be right next to a park. Here are some empty buildings. This site was actually in our original housing element, but three votes took it out. At the end of the day, we have a democracy, and this, you're appearing here tonight, my friends, my neighbors, is too late. We've been at this for four years, and there were a lot of votes. There were a lot of public votes, and it was super obscure, I grant you. I could barely keep up with what was going on, frankly. but this site was originally in our housing element this empty field which by the way used to be a neighborhood called pine hill I could barely keep up with what was going on, frankly. But this site was originally in our housing element, this empty field, which by the way, used to be a neighborhood called Pine Hill. You could build a building up against this hill that would not block anyone's view, it could provide a meaningful plurality, if not a majority, of all the units we needed in our housing element. When you think of housing that's coming next to you, think about the fact that the process took away from our housing element, a site like this, that could have been where a lot of housing could have been. If you go down this street towards the FedEx building, which thankfully was added at the 11th hour, you have this nice dry storage yard, again, against the hillside. I'll just point out again, we're going to be building in a public park and we're not building in this spot. Something is wrong with the process. And I see some nodding heads, but it is too late to change. I'm going to have to vote for this because if I don't vote to put it on the ballot, here's what's going to happen. it will potentially make us drop out of compliance with our state housing law, which means that we would get a builder's remedy which means anyone can build anything anywhere. It's a disaster. So I'm sorry. I can see some exasperation. It is indeed too late. It's too late for this, but it's not too late for the particulars of whether to build an MLK park. First off, We'll see what the voters do at the ballot box. We have to plan for the fact that they may not pass it. Right. So I would. I propose we immediately start a process of doing the thing that was rejected in January of 2021. And with my colleague, we were the only two votes to hire an urban planner in May of 2023. If I can just finish the thought or I'll come back. We have this three minute time limit, but I have the other half of this. Oh, |
| 04:49:29.28 | Melissa Blaustein | Go on, because I was the second vote for the urban planner, and I have since asked a number of times that we agendize a further master plan to consider how we might look at the larger, bigger picture. And I share the frustrations as it may. mentioned by Councilmember Sobieski, because he and I voted in favor of essentially almost every site as proposed so that there would be a fair mix of housing across the community. We hear your concerns, and we did indeed vote for a housing element with that sort of footprint, and we didn't have enough votes. And so we are where we are at this point, and we are, and what I am excited about is an opportunity to offer more housing for our seniors and to offer potentially more housing for our city workers. And I'm someone who has very much advocated for housing because I believe in what it can achieve to further grow and improve our community. But, you know, I hear you. I hear your frustrations about the park. And I'm sorry that we are where we, but we are where we are. And moving forward with this initiative means that we will have the opportunity to not make the same mistake again. So I would hope that going forward, we would take a different approach to how we address the housing element, because there's been a lot of frustration from a number of members of the community about the way that it turned out. We did approve a housing element, and we are, I think, four or five years into this process at this stage, and we can start again with these conversations. And I would also hope, again, that the voters have an opportunity. This is not the end of the line. So if the voters don't approve this, then the voters don't approve this. But we as a city have a responsibility to put forward this ballot measure. And so I would hope that we would have the support from the dais to do that, but that also When we move forward in conversation about what our housing footprint looks like for the next 5, 10, and 20 years, we take a more future-minded perspective and do bring on a consultant so that we can have a master plan. And I appreciate that Councilmember Sobieski brought up all of those facts tonight, and I appreciate so much all of your public comment and engagement. And really, it means so much to hear from all of you, and you bring up some very valid points with regards to the way our housing footprint looks across our city. |
| 04:51:39.07 | Matthew Mandich | Huffman. |
| 04:51:40.12 | Jill Hoffman | Oh, sure. Thanks. And you can leave that site up. So the background on this site, this is the Carla Berg site, by the way, who donated heavily to both Councilmember Blaustein's campaign and Councilmember Sobieski's first campaign and Vice Mayor Woodside's campaigns. And so this site was heavily discussed during the original, I think the original Housing Element Advisory Committee. And Mr. Berg and his family is very interested in turning this into a housing element site and building, as we've discussed many times up here at the dais, as he likes to say, a senior living facility. And many times we've had seniors in here advocating for that. And so we took it off the site plan because it's sandwiched between two working waterfront areas, and it's sandwiched between the Corporation, sorry, not the Corporation Yard, the Corps of Engineers Boat Crushing Yard, which has high toxicity levels, is not particularly well suited for ongoing residential. It's okay if you're a shipyard worker and you take proper precautions, but it's not particularly well suited for under OSHA requirements for 24 hour living areas. On the other side is active working waterfront areas on the other side of the fence line. So on both sides of his fence line, he has working waterfront areas. And so for those reasons, because we wanted to preserve the working waterfront on both sides, we did not think that, well, the council and the housing element advisory committee agreed that because of the industrial nature and the proximity of his grandfathered but non-conforming office space, it was not particularly amenable for housing. And so that's why his office building is not was not listed as a housing element site and so it's been a council member sobieski and council member blaustein have repeatedly tried to get this back on as a housing element site and advocates for this to be a senior living facility, but I stand by the notion that places in such close proximity to a working waterfront area is not particularly well suited for that because of the high toxicity levels and what I know to be increased risk for development of cancer and other bad things that would come from 24-hour residential in those types of areas would not be a well or a good thing for a city to zone for housing or residential based on increased certainly risk for developing disease and also liability from. |
| 04:52:47.02 | Sandy Strawbridge | Thank you. |
| 04:54:44.83 | Ian Sobieski | So I'd like to chime in on that. I appreciate the comments. you can decide for yourself how close this is to the working waterfront. You can see the empty parking lot. You can see the building. You can see the hillside. uh as we walk down this street and look at this empty land just bear in mind that we're going to be building in our public parks instead of in a place like this so i just have to point out that we actually did have residents here briefly here in marinship park and they made the same claim when the homeless encampment was in marinship park that the ground was toxic they in fact made that claim in front of a federal judge and the city of of Sausalito spent money doing taxolity studies of the soil in Marin Ship Park and found that it was perfectly fine. It was fine enough that the judge dismissed that claim and allowed the homeless encampment to remain in that location. I'm not going to believe the point. I think my colleague made it clear. What you have here today, my neighbors, is this is a result of elections and politics. And this is the issue at hand. |
| 04:55:43.99 | Unknown | and, |
| 04:55:44.19 | Ian Sobieski | We are where we are. In 2021, in January, I voted against the housing element consultant, which we paid more than a million dollars for. We had a lower bidder that was $280,000. And my proposal then was, let's take half of that savings, so $700,000, take half of it and spend it on an urban designer and urban planner to figure out a way to solve the problem. thing that we do care about is we want to preserve the working waterfront But let's find places to put housing in empty lots like this that don't impact our parks, that don't disrupt our historic neighborhoods, that don't disrupt our other neighborhoods. I was the only vote for that. A few years later, we've had this. |
| 04:56:20.17 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. If we could focus on the proposed agenda item before you would... |
| 04:56:25.17 | Ian Sobieski | Bye. |
| 04:56:25.30 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:56:25.34 | Ian Sobieski | Oh, I know. |
| 04:56:25.91 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:56:26.31 | Ian Sobieski | notes. |
| 04:56:26.77 | Matthew Mandich | I'm going to ask everyone to hold on for a moment since I haven't commented. |
| 04:56:32.32 | Jill Hoffman | to that. |
| 04:56:33.20 | Matthew Mandich | I'm going to say no. It's not on the agenda. It's a future debate. I'm very sympathetic and will look forward with vigor to that super future. |
| 04:56:40.94 | John Diamante | Thank you. |
| 04:59:25.85 | Joan Cox | closed. So, you know, I would recommend giving her two minutes, but that's your call. |
| 04:59:31.25 | Matthew Mandich | You would recommend what? I'm sorry I didn't hear you. |
| 04:59:32.88 | Joan Cox | letting her have a public comment. |
| 04:59:34.98 | Matthew Mandich | that's fine for two minutes we can hear from Laura and then move on. |
| 04:59:41.85 | Joan Cox | So sound check, can you hear us? All right. |
| 04:59:47.41 | Walfred Solorzano | All right, we're good. |
| 04:59:47.92 | Joan Cox | Can you plug Lorna into the microphone, Wolford, please? |
| 04:59:51.94 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes, one moment. |
| 04:59:58.08 | Joan Cox | Thank you for that kindness. |
| 05:00:15.97 | Walfred Solorzano | I don't see her anymore, but I do see a 415. number was that? |
| 05:00:19.34 | Unknown | her. |
| 05:00:19.36 | Joan Cox | or |
| 05:00:19.75 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah. |
| 05:00:20.40 | Joan Cox | That's right. 415-259-9088. |
| 05:00:25.37 | Walfred Solorzano | I always. |
| 05:00:39.51 | Walfred Solorzano | She's not on. Thank you. |
| 05:00:41.62 | Matthew Mandich | Since he's not on, we do need to move on. There's a motion, a second, and I'm ask the clerk to call the roll. |
| 05:00:48.55 | Jill Hoffman | Mayor, you gave Councilmember Sobieski two rounds, and I only got one. I think – let me just – let me just – give me one minute. In fairness. |
| 05:00:58.63 | Matthew Mandich | Are you going to debate the sites that are subject to a future discussion that are not relevant to this? |
| 05:00:59.96 | Jill Hoffman | No, you'd get... |
| 05:01:06.56 | Jill Hoffman | I'm just saying. |
| 05:01:07.01 | Matthew Mandich | Just saying, okay. Don't you want to do that? |
| 05:01:08.38 | Jill Hoffman | Listen, in fairness, I think I get to respond. |
| 05:01:11.50 | Matthew Mandich | Well, I'm going to say no, it's not on the agenda. Thank you. Ask the clerk to follow the question. |
| 05:01:15.08 | Jill Hoffman | I can follow the question. I can remember so many of you have Tobiaski's comments. |
| 05:02:39.94 | Walfred Solorzano | Okay, can you hear us, Mike? |
| 05:02:40.91 | Unknown | you |
| 05:02:40.96 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 05:02:40.97 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 05:02:45.21 | Walfred Solorzano | Right. Sorry, we can go again. |
| 05:02:50.63 | Matthew Mandich | So we're back on the record. |
| 05:02:51.96 | Walfred Solorzano | And Lorna Newland's back online. You want her to do public comment? |
| 05:02:57.51 | Matthew Mandich | Pleasure, Vice Mayor. I think we should let her, if she's ready to speak right now. Yeah. No more than two minutes, please. |
| 05:03:01.63 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah. |
| 05:03:09.83 | Lorna Newland | Yes, thank you. Zoom, I had my hand up and Zoom ended, but I'm back on. Thank you. Lorna Newland, 33-year resident and a homeowner 23 years having a small business, which is an easy in Sausalito, and almost 20 years as a tenant of MLK in Building 7. And I will say that I did get this flyer, but it said a portion of MLK. Today was the first I learned that my particular building, Building 7, was slated to be there. But what I wanted to bring up is in 2015 mr f was passed by over 63 of the voters and that was the certificates of participation and this was a voter approved things providing that the future rents of the mlk site was to pay for park upgrades at mlk and parks in sausalito. So no taxpayer money was being used. Now, if you are closing that building, and apparently I'm the only one who was able to speak tonight. I think there are at least 20 people in the building. I'm not sure. I've been there almost 20 years. There have been tenants there for 30 years. And I don't know, there was no mention in an email we now have new property management which you guys know anyway That, when they, we dealt with, Three years of dust. I also live in Whiskey Springs. So I have a two minute walking commute. This is my livelihood for all this time, but I don't know what's happening with at least say, what's gonna happen with these future rents that are supposed to pay for all that, all the upgrades. But I agree too much is happening in the North end. I'm running out of time. I agree, a marine ship should be looked at. You're putting... I grew up on an acre. with one family house and to cram that many units in that area, doesn't isn't really fair. So I'm sorry I couldn't get everything I wanted to say, but I got a little flustered with the Zoom ending. Thank you for allowing me. |
| 05:05:21.98 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. And just to be clear, I know there was quite a bit of back and forth with respect to alternative sites that I know will be discussed in the future. And at that time, it would be appropriate to continue the discussion. But right now we have a motion to second, and I'll ask the clerk to call the roll. |
| 05:05:40.83 | Walfred Solorzano | All right. Council Member Blaustein. |
| 05:05:43.22 | Steven Woodside | Yes. |
| 05:05:44.51 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Hoffman? No. Councilmember Sobieski? Yes. |
| 05:05:45.79 | Steven Woodside | No. |
| 05:05:48.79 | Walfred Solorzano | And Mayor Pro Tem Woodside. |
| 05:05:52.56 | Matthew Mandich | Yes. |
| 05:05:53.72 | Walfred Solorzano | So, |
| 05:05:53.97 | Matthew Mandich | That motion passes. This matter will be on the ballot on November 4th. And I imagine that between now and then, this debate will continue. So I look forward to it. |
| 05:06:01.31 | Unknown | now. |
| 05:06:06.41 | Matthew Mandich | Now I'll make sure that Mayor Cox knows we can go back into session and she can take charge of a meeting and hopefully we won't. take too much more time. Thank you. |
| 05:06:20.99 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Get on the other computer, so if anybody wants to |
| 05:06:22.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:06:34.46 | Alice Merrill | What? |
| 05:06:35.84 | Walfred Solorzano | No, if anybody wants to comment, like to let people in and out of them. Thank you. because I can't log into Zoom right here and control anything. So what I'm saying is anybody who has their hand up |
| 05:06:49.32 | Rebecca Singer | Yeah. |
| 05:06:50.01 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 05:06:50.88 | Rebecca Singer | allow Jack Burroughs to talk? |
| 05:06:52.26 | Walfred Solorzano | No, no, no, put his hand down. |
| 05:06:54.03 | Rebecca Singer | Bye. |
| 05:06:54.12 | Walfred Solorzano | Ah. |
| 05:06:56.39 | Rebecca Singer | She will continue it. |
| 05:06:57.51 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 05:06:59.11 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:07:16.54 | Steven Woodside | Thank you guys for welcoming me back. The next item on our agenda is item 5C, which was formerly item 3B. We are actually going to continue that item to our next meeting. Given the late hour, I will entertain public comment on that item. Should anyone wish to make it? I see no one in the audience. City Clerk, anyone online for item 5C? |
| 05:07:43.96 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah, we have Sandra Bushmaker. |
| 05:07:45.67 | Steven Woodside | All right? |
| 05:07:50.26 | Steven Woodside | Welcome back, Sandra. Thank you very much. I am delighted to hear, as I mentioned earlier, that you don't want to lose any local control. because not opposing SB 79 is a loss of local control. Now, I support the historic district exemption, but I think the historic district exemption can stand on its own merits without you capitulating that you will re re Remove your opposition. to SB 79. Let it stand on the historic district exemption alone because the The consequences of SB 79 are too huge to ignore, and I hope that you will read Susan Kirsch's letter and Amy Kalish's letter, which were posted on tonight's agenda on this particular item. And I don't believe In my opinion, that SB 79 only applies to the ferry landing. I think there are huge consequences with regard to bus stops and other areas in Sausalito that will be affected by SB 79, in which case you will have absolutely no say about anything. Thank you. Thank you. City Clerk. |
| 05:09:06.01 | Walfred Solorzano | Next speaker is Sophia Collier. Sorry, Sophia Collier. |
| 05:09:10.28 | Steven Woodside | Welcome, Safiya. |
| 05:09:21.86 | Walfred Solorzano | If you can... |
| 05:09:22.29 | Steven Woodside | Sophia, go ahead. |
| 05:09:30.77 | Steven Woodside | Is she unmuted? |
| 05:09:33.11 | Walfred Solorzano | She's unmuted. |
| 05:09:34.16 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 05:09:34.19 | Walfred Solorzano | So, how do you do that? |
| 05:09:34.21 | Steven Woodside | Sophia, did you want to speak? |
| 05:09:39.90 | Walfred Solorzano | There's no further public speakers after that. |
| 05:09:43.42 | Steven Woodside | All right, I'm going to give her another five seconds. Sophia, I don't know if you're trying to speak, but we don't hear you. All right, she's gone. Are we still on the Zoom? |
| 05:09:56.67 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah, we're still on Zoom. |
| 05:09:57.77 | Steven Woodside | Okay, all right, I'm gonna move on to items six. The first is six a city manager information for council. I'll turn it over to our city manager, Chris Zapata. |
| 05:10:08.51 | Joan Cox | Thank you, Mayor. I'll be very brief. I was asked about the sewer debt retirement last meeting. I provided a staff report in your packet, which shows $5.2 million of debt was taken off the city's books, saving 20 years of interest on the sewer bonds and eight years of interest on the sewer revolving loan that we got from the state, which totaled $1.9 million in change. if anyone has any questions they can refer to the report i want to talk about something it's a little on topic that i believe is important and it's regarding emergency response this past year the city council approved a veritas bureau veritas study of facilities one of the facilities studied obviously was the Spencer Fire Station, former Spencer Fire Station. The city council also authorized $300,000 in the capital improvement program to get all of our records citywide, in particular starting with the Spencer Firehouse. So that investment to get that building ready for potential use by the Southern Moran County Fire District is going on as we speak. There's a discussion going on regarding what the terms of some agreement in the future with the fire district could look like, but I wanted to assure the council and the community that the city is working very diligently to take the council direction of getting the fire station in a situation where it could potentially be leased out to the fire district for fire service, fire protection. Thank you. |
| 05:11:40.58 | Steven Woodside | Thank you city manager. I'll move on to city attorney information for council. Anything Sergio? |
| 05:11:46.93 | Sergio Rudin | Not at this time, thank you. |
| 05:11:48.90 | Steven Woodside | I'll move on to Councilmember Committee reports. Councilmember Faustein. |
| 05:11:53.61 | Melissa Blaustein | I'll be brief, but it's important, so I want to make sure folks are aware. At our last TAM meeting, we had a presentation on mascot, which is the Marin and Sonoma Consolidated Transit Plan. And there was a discussion about using Measure AA funds, and two of those things are relevant for Sausalito. The first is that there will be some routes eliminated and consolidated as a result of this change, as a result of the mascot change, which was decided after a significant study. but there will be a hearing on golden gate transit august 21st to look into this and one of the routes that would be discontinued is at the spencer avenue bus pad and so i i'm hoping that some members of the council can attend and i'm happy to provide follow-up information but it's definitely pertinent to our district um and and additionally on august 24th representatives from tam will be at the sausalito farmers market specifically to talk about this and engage with this with members of the public but the the hearing for golden gate transit is on august 21st and they will look into this specifically i'm planning to write to director mulligan um and i would welcome another council member attending or or support or but i just think this is um a pretty pertinent issue it just came up at the last tam meeting so |
| 05:13:10.31 | Jill Hoffman | Can you send an email out to us? |
| 05:13:11.42 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes, I will send a one-way communication and I just wanted to make sure everyone was aware. |
| 05:13:15.39 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 05:13:15.96 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. I wanted to alert people to August 15 at... Jazz by the Bay. Thank you. |
| 05:13:25.28 | Jill Hoffman | was that yeah |
| 05:13:25.82 | Steven Woodside | Oh, great. You go ahead. |
| 05:13:25.99 | Jill Hoffman | Great. You go ahead. No, you're probably more familiar with it than me. It was on my list. Just for the council, this is our annual City Pack event. And so there's an email I think out there's tickets involved, but it's for our our North Bay region event. So it'll be fun. and the |
| 05:13:46.62 | Steven Woodside | And then they'll be at Jazz by the Bay. |
| 05:13:48.33 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 05:13:48.55 | Steven Woodside | have several tables. |
| 05:13:48.73 | Jill Hoffman | I have several papers. Thank you. |
| 05:13:50.02 | Steven Woodside | Senator Mike McGuire will be there. Nancy Hall Bennett will be there. So if you want to come out and meet some of our local politicians beyond us, come to Jazz by the Bay on August 15th. |
| 05:13:50.54 | Jill Hoffman | that your Mike DeGuire will. |
| 05:13:51.62 | Sandy Strawbridge | Thank you. |
| 05:14:04.73 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, yeah, it'll be fun. And we'll be in the park, so it'll be a good event. Also, Congressman Huffman's having his annual clean pack event at Spinnaker coming up soon. I can't remember what the date is, but it's coming in the next few months. I'm sorry, next few weeks. Golly. Just Google it, and it'll come up um let's see um we're getting the congressman garamendi's um ships act event is coming back on we haven't confirmed that but i think that's going to be sometime toward the end of august so that's coming up soon too so i'll get an email out yeah yeah yeah and that's coming up but i think we've almost got that confirmed um And I think that's it. |
| 05:14:54.40 | Steven Woodside | And then I'm an alternate commissioner for BCDC. At our meeting on Thursday, we will be considering whether to continue with the bike lane pilot project along the Richardson... Bay Bridge. So that'll be an interesting dialogue. Okay. |
| 05:15:19.22 | Steven Woodside | I'm going to get, I'll get there. Christina Woodburn- Appointments, I am naming an ad hoc committee of the Vice Mayor and myself to continue to work on the fun on the work needed to be done in connection with the ballot measures moving forward. future agenda items. |
| 05:15:39.59 | Melissa Blaustein | Can I be involved on the MLK one since you have to recuse and I I don't know. |
| 05:15:44.36 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Sure. I am not I don't have to recuse from campaigning for or against that. I just couldn't vote on it from the dais, but I'm absolutely able to campaign. In fact, I'm starting a campaign committee for it. |
| 05:16:03.13 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:16:06.38 | Steven Woodside | Okay. Happy to include you. It's fine with me if it's you and him. Okay. I don't have the bandwidth right now anyway. It's okay. I wrote down something on future agenda items in my bind. |
| 05:16:22.50 | Steven Woodside | Short term rentals. So I'm going to add a report on the status of the enforcement efforts for short term rentals to our future agenda items list. Any other future agenda items? |
| 05:16:36.94 | Jill Hoffman | Oh, go ahead. |
| 05:16:37.96 | Steven Woodside | you Sorry. |
| 05:16:41.08 | Melissa Blaustein | It might be the same one. |
| 05:16:43.66 | Jill Hoffman | I doubt it, but to reinstate second floor housing, second floor residential in ordinance 1044, now that we know that it's not really required for hotels, I guess, on second floor, and it wasn't required for the in the pocket. To be clear, second floor residential in the Central Commercial District, Whether or not, what we can do to encourage the inclusionary housing program and whether or not we can ramp it up even more than what it is. And also forensic audit. or at least a report on, I know, Mayor, you were doing a study on that, but where we're at on that. |
| 05:17:31.50 | Steven Woodside | I'm expecting that we will be able to share a report on that in September. |
| 05:17:37.41 | Melissa Blaustein | I, in fact, was going to mention that ordinance because it was asked to be brought up and we can keep talking about it. I think evolutionary housing is important. So anyway. Thank you. |
| 05:17:47.24 | Steven Woodside | Okay, with Yes, I know we have minutes attached from the disaster preparedness committee. We need three new members on the Disaster Preparedness Committee. Did we have people resign? We had people resign, so we're short three members. So if you know anyone who would be good to serve, please let us know. City Clerk, will you please run an ad for disaster preparedness so that we can do interviews when we return in September? |
| 05:18:16.74 | Melissa Blaustein | Did we formally receive letters of resignation from those folks? I don't see them. |
| 05:18:19.76 | Steven Woodside | I just got a note from the police chief letting us know that we need three members on that committee. Okay. |
| 05:18:24.29 | Sandy Strawbridge | you |
| 05:18:24.88 | Steven Woodside | 6G we have no other reports of significance at this point i'll take public comment on items 6a to 6c and 6e to 6g I have one speaker card from babette mcdougall |
| 05:18:41.72 | Gail Schell | Thank you so much for acknowledging me. |
| 05:18:43.37 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. So with regard to your committee reports, with regard to future agenda items? I would like to collectively sort of wrap up tonight's meeting, because tonight's meeting is a good example of how You folks clearly come prepared for these meetings with certain things on your minds, and you're prepared to argue those things. And they may or they may not. line up with what we the citizens have on our minds. And so we might say, the barn's on fire, the barn's on fire. And then you come back and say, oh, yes, and we planted petunias in the front garden last week. Do you see the disconnect? That's what's going on tonight in tonight's meeting, and this is not the first time. So for future agenda items, may I say that we need to correct what's going wrong. This is how you lose the confidence of your people. by the way you have comported yourselves this evening. I wish you would listen to this and take it seriously. It's not a joke. Thank you for paying attention, Ms. Blausty. I appreciate you looking up finally. I have been waiting for you all night to look at me. So look, future agenda items. We have been talking about the housing element for some time, but where we fail is, and where we have been failed by the city again. is the city will bring it up, you get a big turnout, people are ready to take it on, and then you go away. Nothing further happens. And then when COVID was on, people came forward. Thank God somebody came forward because most people didn't. Now people are coming back to life. Post-COVID haze, I call it, I'm Included. And now we are re-engaging. So don't waste the moment. Bring Robert's Rules back. For example, let us go forward so that we can actually work together and not against each other. Don't have instances like tonight where you have whole populations of your own constituents walk off, walk out in protest because of the way you're comporting this meeting. That's not good. Thank you. Thank you. City Clerk. |
| 05:20:47.08 | Walfred Solorzano | We have Sophia Collier. |
| 05:20:50.26 | Steven Woodside | Welcome, Safiya. |
| 05:20:57.68 | Bonnie McGregor | I wondered, can you hear me? |
| 05:20:59.94 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 05:20:59.96 | Bonnie McGregor | We can't hear you. We can hear you very, very faintly. |
| 05:21:00.08 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 05:21:00.11 | Unknown | I CAN'T HEAR YOU. |
| 05:21:00.70 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. you |
| 05:21:02.64 | Bonnie McGregor | Okay, so. I wonder if I could just speak on the SB 79, because I wasn't able to, I was trying to talk, but I wasn't able to get through. I know it's not exactly a right agenda, but if I may just give some brief comments on it. Okay, we've continued the item, but go ahead. Okay, I wanted just to report that we are seeking the amendment to exempt the historic district and that we've been building allies across the state. and working with California Preservation Foundation and some major historic advocacy groups in Los Angeles. So, we've made a lot of progress. So, I just want you to know that. and that our goal is to get a lot more active. And with respect to SB 79, we recognize that the council may want to just continue with full scale opposition. in order to preserve home rule and to continue to be in concert with the other cities in California. But regardless of the decision, that we will continue to work for the amendment And in the event that it does pass, we will hopefully, it can potentially contain language to preserve the historic district. and that we hope to work with individual members of the council and weigh in with their state representatives about the importance of preserving the district. So just wanted to give that quick report to you. |
| 05:22:16.47 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, Safai. That's so gracious of you. to let us know that and to take some of the pressure off of us to remove our wholesale opposition to SB 79. Okay. |
| 05:22:27.89 | Walfred Solorzano | We have Lorna Newland. |
| 05:22:31.08 | Lorna Newland | Who? |
| 05:22:32.28 | Walfred Solorzano | or not human. |
| 05:22:32.70 | Lorna Newland | Yeah. Welcome back. Thank you. I just wanted to thank, I'm glad you're doing future agendas and what Ian showed on his share screen was very interesting. I mean, most of us don't understand why that's not being utilized. And I also appreciate what Sandra Bushmaker said about SB 79 and the whole thing has never made much sense to me trying to put perhaps 20% more population into our overcrowded, unbuildable hilly town. And if you try to get out of, I live in the North End, as you know, but if you try to go North on 101 at, after 2.30, it's a gridlock. So there's, there's a lot of things that can be done. And also thank you, um, Councilmember Huffman for what you said, but I don't, you know, I, I understand you guys work really hard and you work late and so does the city. So, um, Best of luck getting everything going through and thanks for your service. |
| 05:23:40.67 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 05:23:40.98 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 05:23:41.18 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 05:23:41.38 | Walfred Solorzano | No. |
| 05:23:41.60 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. to have a great day. |
| 05:23:41.89 | Walfred Solorzano | No further public speakers. |
| 05:23:43.49 | Steven Woodside | Okay, with that, I will adjourn this meeting at 10.36 p.m. And enjoy our break. We will come back September 2nd. So enjoy a couple of weeks off. Thanks, everybody. |