| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:05.11 | Walfred Solorzano | Good evening, Mayor and City Council. Tonight's December 2, 2025 City Special and Regular City Council meeting is being held at 420 Litho Street, San Salido, California, over here in City Council Chamber. It's also being broadcast live on Zoom. It's also being broadcast live on the city's website and on cable TV channel 27. |
| 00:00:29.68 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, City Clerk. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the special meeting for the City of Sausalito for Tuesday, December 2nd, 2025. I will call the meeting to order and ask the City Clerk to call the roll. |
| 00:00:45.59 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Blaustein. |
| 00:00:47.30 | Steven Woodside | You're good. |
| 00:00:48.23 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Hoffman. Councilmember Sobieski. |
| 00:00:53.15 | Steven Woodside | He will be joining us for closed session. He will not be here for the interviews. |
| 00:00:58.15 | Walfred Solorzano | Vice Mayor Woodside here and Mayor Cox. |
| 00:01:01.24 | Steven Woodside | here. A. A. Thank you everyone and welcome, we will commence today's meeting with interviews for the sustainability Commission and the library board of trustees. |
| 00:01:14.08 | Sissy Damner | have my staff at work. |
| 00:01:19.02 | Steven Woodside | And it's not listed on the agenda, so I don't have. |
| 00:01:21.44 | Walfred Solorzano | Okay, the first person that we do have is, Jackie Winkle. |
| 00:01:25.39 | Steven Woodside | checking. |
| 00:01:27.71 | Walfred Solorzano | Is Jackie here? Oh, let me see, yeah, Jackie is online. |
| 00:01:37.55 | Jackie Winkle | Hi there, can you hear me? Yes. Hi, Jackie, and welcome. |
| 00:01:41.21 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:01:41.87 | Jackie Winkle | Thank you. |
| 00:01:41.99 | Jackie | Thank you. And is my video working? |
| 00:01:42.01 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:01:42.61 | Jackie Winkle | Bye. |
| 00:01:44.30 | Steven Woodside | No, we don't see you, but we definitely |
| 00:01:46.02 | Jackie | hear you. Okay. I would love to turn my video on. Oh. |
| 00:01:53.60 | Walfred Solorzano | Let me promote you to panelists. |
| 00:01:55.27 | Jackie | Okay. |
| 00:02:12.20 | Steven Woodside | There we see you. There, okay, hello. Wonderful, hi, welcome. Hi, thank you. |
| 00:02:13.55 | Jackie | Okay. |
| 00:02:19.05 | Steven Woodside | So these interviews are necessarily short, but the first question we always ask is, why are you applying for this position and what's your interest and experience? |
| 00:02:35.50 | Jackie | Okay, well, hello again, everyone. My name is Jackie. I am a newer resident here in Sausalito. I moved here About a year ago from San Francisco, And I'm just so happy to be here. As you all know, it's such a lovely place. And I would like to stay longer term and become more involved in the community. And I have a personal interest in sustainability, which has also guided my professional career path. So I'll just talk a little bit about that to begin. I currently work in environmental consulting. at a firm called First Carbon Solutions. We provide environmental compliance, permitting assistance and sustainability planning to a variety of public and private clients. I work within the air quality and greenhouse gas team. And prior to joining First Carbon, I worked for about 10 years at the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in the Planning Division. And while I was with the Air District, I worked on a variety of programs, Implementation of the air district secret guidelines when I joined back in 2010 the air district was actually the first air district to adopt greenhouse gas thresholds of significance. I worked on development and implementation of clean air plans, which are required for attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality standards. I was part of the climate team. and we would assist local governments in adopting local climate action plans, including for the purposes of Sequa Streamlining, And I was one half of a two person team. We spearheaded the adoption of the um, commuter benefits program, which is an ordinance adopted by the air district. in partnership with MTC. And it's an ordinance that is targeted at employers to try and reduce commuter trips. Um, So as I mentioned, I'd really like to become more involved in the community and I think my combination of professional background combined with personal interest is such that I could add value. |
| 00:04:42.35 | Steven Woodside | Thank you so much. You certainly have a wonderful background. Are there any questions of Jackie? |
| 00:04:50.16 | Joan Cox | just like, |
| 00:04:50.33 | Steven Woodside | Mayor. |
| 00:04:50.67 | Joan Cox | Just quickly, even though you're new in town, what do you think is the most significant, I'll call it environmental issue that you see? |
| 00:05:00.17 | Jackie | Well, in Sausalito, seal of rise is certainly of great concern. And just in terms of tackling greenhouse gas as a problem, I know that the transportation sector remains the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, both in Sausalito as well as in communities throughout the state and in the state as a whole. So trying to reduce those greenhouse gas emissions and also the other air pollutant emissions that come from transportation related sources is, I think, the biggest hurdle that we have to overcome. |
| 00:05:34.34 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:05:36.37 | Jackie | We have a minute. |
| 00:05:36.97 | Melissa Blaustein | left. Any other questions of Jackie? This is kind of obvious based on your background, but why the sustainability commission? |
| 00:05:46.76 | Jackie | Well, like I said, based upon my professional background, I do feel that I can utilize the my knowledge gained, to really add concrete value to the commission, but I'm passionate about sustainability on my personal side as well. I moved to California 15 years ago from Wisconsin, in large part because of what a beautiful place it is. And I would like to protect the beauty of the environment that we have here. |
| 00:06:14.20 | Melissa Blaustein | And if for some reason, We didn't end up appointing you to the sustainability commission. Would you be interested in other commissions like the disaster preparedness committee, for example? |
| 00:06:22.77 | Jackie | Oh yeah, absolutely, for sure. I, to be frankly honest, I don't know if I would add as much value to that commission, but I would be happy to be involved in any way that I can be. Great. Thank you. |
| 00:06:33.49 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:06:33.77 | Jackie | Thank you. |
| 00:06:34.03 | Steven Woodside | Thank you so much. Thank you for taking the time to chat with us this afternoon. And welcome to Sausalito. Appreciate it. Thank you so much. All right, next on our list is Nan Farley. Yes, come up to the podium. Welcome. Hi, thank you. You can tilt that down. Perfect. Okay. And so we'll start with the same question for you. So what is your interest in the sustainability commission and what is your relevant background? |
| 00:07:07.04 | Nan Farley | Yeah, thank you. My name is Nan Farley and I moved to Sausalito. I just hit two years in Sausalito and I'm currently pursuing my MBA and dual degree with a master's in public administration at the Presidio Graduate School. I'm very passionate and the MBA focuses in sustainability. So I'm very passionate about bridging the gap between businesses and local government for sustainable purposes. So I thought the sustainability commission would be a great place for me to apply all of the things that I've been learning over the last year and a half. And also the work that I've been doing in climate activism for the last 10 years at 350 Bay Area, where we coordinate, I guess, climate organizing, climate pressure and local government action toward climate initiatives and state policy primarily. So, yeah, I think I've watched a bunch of the different commission videos and caught up on all of the things that the Sausalito Sustainability Commission has been up to lately. And I really, appreciated the work that they did for the Chargers and how that kind of bridged that business and public gap. And I think those are really creative solutions that I'd like to be a part of. |
| 00:08:23.50 | Steven Woodside | That's great. You know, I'm so proud that our sustainability commission is really cutting edge on many things. We're working on our in reach codes and our green building codes. So I'm pleased to hear that you've listened to some of those. Any questions for Nan? |
| 00:08:41.20 | Melissa Blaustein | I can. Yes. So I serve as the liaison to the sustainability commission. I'd be interested to hear what, what areas, since you watched a number of the meetings, um, you think that we could be doing more in or topics we haven't yet tackled that might be an important area of emphasis. |
| 00:08:56.08 | Nan Farley | Yeah, I mean, kind of to the question as well about what is one of the biggest issues in Sausalito, you know, obviously, in addition to sea level rise and transportation. I do see a lot that could be done in embodied carbon and reach code work. And we had that great presentation about, you know, all of the different targets that we can meet and how this is kind of like low hanging fruit. but I'm not really sure what the action plan is in that regard. And I think that's something that I'd be excited to work on. And there seems to be a lot to be done there. |
| 00:09:25.90 | Melissa Blaustein | Great, thank you. |
| 00:09:26.42 | Nan Farley | Thank you. |
| 00:09:26.46 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:09:28.01 | Nan Farley | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:09:28.06 | Melissa Blaustein | MAKING A LITTLE BIT OF |
| 00:09:28.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:09:30.12 | Joan Cox | This is a little twist on the question I asked the other applicant, but you've quoted from one of my favorite scientists, Dr. David Attenborough. What do you think he would say about Sausalito? |
| 00:09:41.63 | Nan Farley | Oh my gosh. Well, we have so much wildlife here in Sausalito. I'm sure he would love it. I think he would. Well, I would love, I mean, I don't know if he would say this, but I would love to hear his narration of the bobcats that find their way into Sausalito. And what are they thinking when they make it over here? |
| 00:10:03.57 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:10:07.80 | Steven Woodside | Other questions of Nan? All right, Nan, thank you so much for making the time to chat with us. And thank you for your contributions. Hmm. All right, with that, we will move on to interviews for our Library Board of Trustees. And the first one I have is Robin Wolaner. |
| 00:10:32.86 | Robin Wolaner | Hi, I've been here for five years, a longtime San Francisco resident who said I would never be a Marin mom. But once my kids were grown, I chose this as my forever home. And I'm interested in joining the library board because I've been on so many boards of directors, as you can see, I didn't even list all of them because in the dot com, I can barely remember some of those companies. They lasted so briefly. But I think my nonprofit board experience is probably the most relevant. Obviously, I love books and reading. I spent my first part of my career in magazine publishing. I've written a book. I was a volunteer at my kids' school library throughout their elementary years. So I have a passion for the topic. And I'm really good on compliance, governance, emotional EQ, which is usually what makes councils and boards work. So I think I could bring a lot. |
| 00:11:32.62 | Steven Woodside | Thanks. Are you at all familiar with our library and some of its challenges? Thank you. |
| 00:11:38.39 | Robin Wolaner | I've mainly used the library online for Libby, for borrowing books. I've gone to a few events at the library, but I do not know. the challenges other than the obvious, right? There's always financial challenges, there's utilization challenges, and it's how to make the library the true community center that I see it functioning as. |
| 00:12:02.04 | Steven Woodside | Yeah, I think one of the things we're really striving to accomplish is that transition toward maintaining the community center aspect of it, but yet being more accessible virtually and online. |
| 00:12:17.92 | Robin Wolaner | Absolutely. |
| 00:12:18.70 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:12:18.72 | Robin Wolaner | Thank you. |
| 00:12:19.90 | Steven Woodside | Any questions of Robin? Yes. Council member Hoffman. |
| 00:12:22.65 | Jill Hoffman | Good afternoon and thank you for applying for the trustee position. Have you been able to talk to any of the trustees or meet with any of them to talk about what they've been able to do? |
| 00:12:31.68 | Robin Wolaner | No, the process has been a little opaque for me. I just submitted the application and heard come for an interview. So until I saw it on the agenda, I didn't even realize how many, I don't know how many seats there are available. You know, that kind of thing. |
| 00:12:45.50 | Jill Hoffman | It's a separate board, an independent trustee board. |
| 00:12:48.72 | Robin Wolaner | Right. I knew that, but I didn't see a list of who's on it or whose terms are expiring or how many seats you're filling. |
| 00:12:56.45 | Jill Hoffman | I think I'll find it is an interesting group of people in Sausalito, and they're very involved in the financial oversight of the trust and also the ways that they can support the board so they have their own, they have their own budget that they manage that they in the past have used to support as a separate arm of the, an asset for the library. So they've been very successful in the past and I think it'll be. very interesting exercise for you. So thank you for a |
| 00:13:27.65 | Robin Wolaner | I usually get thrown on audit committees and things like that because I'm good with numbers. |
| 00:13:31.72 | Jill Hoffman | Great. Do we staff? Does anybody know how many? Well, I'm going to refer you right. |
| 00:13:34.89 | Steven Woodside | Well, I'm going to refer you. Yeah, so item 3B on our consent calendar this evening is to receive and file our MADI Act report, which is our status of local appointments for various boards and commissions. And so all of the information about whose term is expiring, when, how many positions are open is in that report. Oh, cool. Thanks. I should have read that. No worries. We only publish it once a year, so you would have no way of knowing it was on our agenda for this evening. Any other questions of Robin? |
| 00:13:57.64 | Robin Wolaner | We're cool. I feel like... |
| 00:14:08.98 | Steven Woodside | Oh, I see Councilmember Blaustein looking at the MADIAC report. Okay, then I will just say thank you so much for being here. Thank you for your contributions. I can't believe you were with... parenting and Mother Jones, that's amazing. |
| 00:14:25.16 | Robin Wolaner | People usually say from penthouse. to parenting because I started my career there. That's the, you know, and Mother Jones was sort of in the middle. |
| 00:14:33.02 | Jill Hoffman | Thanks. |
| 00:14:33.35 | Robin Wolaner | Thank you. |
| 00:14:34.53 | Jill Hoffman | Three. It looks like we have three openings for the Library Board of Trustees. So thank you. One is for 94965. |
| 00:14:40.97 | Melissa Blaustein | liaison. So that would be someone that |
| 00:14:42.51 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, gotcha. So two. Yeah, so we have two. So thank you. |
| 00:14:42.58 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, got your asses. you |
| 00:14:46.21 | Steven Woodside | All right. And our next. Applicant is Dale Barnes. |
| 00:14:55.99 | George Osterkamp | Thank you. |
| 00:14:59.06 | Dale Barnes | So I am Dale Barnes, it's true. Would you like a statement or do you want to just ask questions? |
| 00:15:04.72 | Jackie Winkle | Thank you. |
| 00:15:04.73 | Steven Woodside | I'd love to start off the same way as the others with to tell us about your interest in the Library Board of Trustees, as well as any relevant background that qualifies you for that position. Thank you. |
| 00:15:16.53 | Dale Barnes | Thank you. |
| 00:15:16.80 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:15:16.83 | Dale Barnes | Thank you. Um, I was on the board for the foundation, the library foundation. a number of years. And then I was actually on the library board of trustees while I was still working as an attorney. And that was there and laid the rub because the meetings were in the afternoon. And I was finding that it was very difficult for me to come over from the city on those afternoons. So I did resign at that time. but I've been interested in the library I guess libraries generally since I was a child. going to the library in my town, Rockville, Maryland, was really quite an experience. It was in an old house and just all the books there, and it was a magical place. The Sausselia Library strikes me as similar in terms of it being a gathering place, a place that attracts people. But it's also interesting to me that it is we're in a phase where, you know, are we virtual? Are we, um, in real life. And so that tension is an interesting one. It's going to be an interesting transition to make. I think it's very important to still have a real place where people can go. But that virtual world, I read books now on Kindle most of the time, and I get my books from the library through Libby, and it's great. Um, in terms of my skills, I was an attorney for over 40 years. Um, and, uh, had a particular specialty in representing financial statement auditors. So a strong both legal, but also, um, financial background. I'm currently on the mediation panel for the Northern District of California Federal Court. So I also do a lot of people type work. trying to find consensus and find a way through difficult issues, which is actually what I did for most of my career as well. During my time at Deloitte, I also taught business chemistry. and meditation. So all those skills kind of come together in a way. Um, but, uh, I think that You know, I enjoyed working with Abbott when he was still here. and I'd be interested to meet the new library, which I have not done yet. Um, but I thought, okay, I'm retired now and I can help. And so if I can be of help, I'd be happy to. |
| 00:17:43.09 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. I will ask you, do you prefer paper white or color soft? |
| 00:17:47.61 | Dale Barnes | have a color saw because um my my guilty pleasure is i still do like comic books but i also The screen resolution is just great. And it's a light little thing that you can carry around. For sure. Yeah. Questions of Dale? |
| 00:18:04.45 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:18:08.82 | Melissa Blaustein | I can ask one just because you're here. Nice to see you. Thank you for your interest in the position and wanting to engage. What's something that was that you learned previously while you were on the foundation board that you think might be we could bring forward now? |
| 00:18:25.34 | Dale Barnes | I think the focus Mm-hmm. At that time, one of the biggest issues was where would the library be? |
| 00:18:33.78 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:18:34.07 | Dale Barnes | And, you know, should we do some renovations to this space? At that time, I think we were feeling somewhat crowded. And we hadn't we hadn't really gotten to the virtual phase as much. And now I don't know that physical crowding is as much of a problem. So it's really kind of an interesting question you know, sort of transitioning forward from that, what do we do with this space? How do we maximize it and make it? the most useful we can to the community. One thing that Abbott came as an advisory member to the foundation board And He was always very focused on what are the needs of the community. And I think that's really got to be the focus. |
| 00:19:11.82 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:19:11.83 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:19:12.14 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:19:12.29 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:19:12.31 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:19:12.32 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:19:12.36 | Jill Hoffman | THANK YOU VERY MUCH. |
| 00:19:12.69 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah. |
| 00:19:12.71 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:19:12.76 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:19:12.96 | Jill Hoffman | MULTIPLE. |
| 00:19:13.03 | Steven Woodside | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:19:14.42 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 00:19:14.60 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 00:19:15.97 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, Dale, nice to see you again. |
| 00:19:17.77 | Steven Woodside | See you, too. |
| 00:19:18.28 | Jill Hoffman | And now that you're here, I think I got those two mixed up, the foundation and the board of trustees. So, Robin, I think I got those two mixed up, but I'd like to introduce you to Dale and you guys should get coffee. because they'll give you a really good background about the difference between the two. And I'm looking at the MADIAC list and it looks like we do have two vacancies, but then we have, it looks to me like we've got like three people coming up and their terms expiring, at least their first terms expiring coming up this spring. So we might have in April of 2026. So we have two vacancies now, but we also have some more people rolling off come spring, maybe if they're not going to renew. So |
| 00:19:30.11 | Aditya Padala | because |
| 00:19:59.47 | Jill Hoffman | Anyway, Is that my question? That's the end of his five minutes. Oh, sorry. Okay. Thank you. You two should talk. Yeah. Thank you so much. And yeah, the two of you should talk. And let's. I think we should, because I looked at. |
| 00:20:01.97 | Steven Woodside | That's the end. |
| 00:20:13.02 | Dale Barnes | Robin's resume and I would choose her Thank you. |
| 00:20:17.11 | Jackie Winkle | I don't know, but it looks like... |
| 00:20:17.26 | Steven Woodside | . |
| 00:20:17.33 | Dale Barnes | I know. |
| 00:20:17.71 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. we have the option to choose both. So welcome to both of you. Thank you so much for your interest in our Library Board of Trustees. |
| 00:20:24.40 | Unknown | Thank you all. |
| 00:20:27.48 | Steven Woodside | And with that, we will be adjourning to closed session at 3.50 p.m. That concludes our interviews for this afternoon. |
| 00:20:40.61 | Jill Hoffman | Mayor, how are we going to do selections? Thank you. |
| 00:20:44.61 | Steven Woodside | We will select an agenda item at the end of our agenda for committee appointments. |
| 00:20:49.71 | Jill Hoffman | And I note that we interviewed people last fall, I think, also for sustainability. people are still in the hopper for selection or not. |
| 00:21:01.18 | Steven Woodside | Sure. So I'll ask the city clerk during our meeting to compile that data for us so that we know what we have to choose from. Thank you again so much for being here. All right. I'm looking. City Clerk, I'm not seeing. Oh, yeah, appointments. So we have 6D, make appointments to sustainability and Library Board of Trustees. If you can see if we have any other applications from last fall still in the hopper for sustainability, that would be great. |
| 00:21:31.63 | Jill Hoffman | Walford Welch was one of the guys. Wilford Welch. Wilford, yeah, sorry. That we were not able to. |
| 00:21:33.50 | Steven Woodside | Wilford, yeah, sorry. point. |
| 00:21:36.47 | Jill Hoffman | we |
| 00:21:36.69 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:21:36.72 | Jill Hoffman | Right. |
| 00:21:37.25 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Okay, we will be adjourning to closed session to discuss items C1 through C5. C1 is Public Employee Employment, Title City Manager. C2 is Conference with Legal Counsel Existing Litigation, Sullivan v. City of Sausalito. C3 is Conference with Legal Counsel Anticipated Litigation, One Case. C4 is Conference with Legal Counsel Existing Litigation, Con v. Sausalito. and C5 is Public Employee Employment. The title is... case. C4 is conference with legal counsel, existing litigation con versus Sausalito. And C5 is public employee employment. The title is interim city manager. Is there any public comment on our closed session items? |
| 00:22:13.90 | Walfred Solorzano | See you then. |
| 00:22:15.05 | Steven Woodside | All right, with that, we will adjourn to closed session. Thank you all. |
| 00:22:27.11 | Eva Crisanti | Thank you. |
| 00:22:33.32 | Steven Woodside | Who? |
| 00:22:33.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:22:33.46 | Steven Woodside | Good evening. |
| 00:22:33.96 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:22:34.03 | Steven Woodside | Bye. It's great to see our chambers full. Welcome to the Sausalito City Council meeting for Tuesday, December 2nd, 2025. I will call the meeting to order. and ask the city clerk to take roll. |
| 00:22:49.83 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Blaustein. |
| 00:22:51.36 | Steven Woodside | You're, |
| 00:22:52.26 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 00:22:53.71 | Steven Woodside | Here. |
| 00:22:54.68 | Walfred Solorzano | Council Member Sobieski. Here. Vice Mayor Woodside. Here. Mayor Cox. |
| 00:22:55.95 | Steven Woodside | or something. Next on our agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance. |
| 00:23:04.29 | Jackie Winkle | Salute and pledge. Thank you. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. |
| 00:23:06.41 | Unknown | I pledge to leave. |
| 00:23:10.88 | Jackie Winkle | and to the republic for which it stands. one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. |
| 00:23:23.04 | Steven Woodside | We held a closed session this evening. There are no closed session announcements. |
| 00:23:28.13 | Ian Sobieski | I would like to point out that I recused myself from item concerning 33 San Carlos, and we'll do that again here today. |
| 00:23:35.67 | Steven Woodside | Yes. So that was item C3. Okay. I will take a motion approving our agenda. |
| 00:23:47.84 | Joan Cox | So moved. |
| 00:23:50.46 | Steven Woodside | Second. All in favor? Aye. That motion carries 5-0. We have no special presentations this evening. I will move 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. My first speaker is Damian Morgan. Yeah, if someone would like to speak, please fill out a speaker card. Welcome, Damian. Yeah. |
| 00:24:50.52 | Steven Woodside | You can't approach us. You have to give it to the |
| 00:24:53.25 | Walfred Solorzano | I'll take it. |
| 00:25:00.25 | Damian Morgan | Yes. you |
| 00:25:10.24 | Steven Woodside | Okay, go ahead, Mr. Morgan. |
| 00:25:12.64 | Lorna Newland | All right. |
| 00:25:15.24 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:25:15.32 | Lorna Newland | The Court. |
| 00:25:15.79 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:25:15.83 | Damian Morgan | with. |
| 00:25:15.88 | Lorna Newland | Thank you. |
| 00:25:16.03 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:25:16.08 | Lorna Newland | Thank you. |
| 00:25:16.22 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:25:16.33 | Lorna Newland | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:25:16.33 | Damian Morgan | time pledge of allegiance uh Thank you. Thank you. and justice for all. and justice for all. |
| 00:25:22.27 | Carolyn Revell | Yeah. |
| 00:25:22.29 | Steven Woodside | I'm not sure. |
| 00:25:22.34 | Carolyn Revell | Is there a clock? |
| 00:25:23.54 | Damian Morgan | as we just, Heard. and justice for all. So I gave you a copy of this. M-E-I-J, Ernest Hook. From center fail. He's a professor at Cal Berkeley. And he wrote this piece. about California code requires front license plates for vehicles. Maybe some of you in here who are driving Fancy, fancy cars, expensive cars. around town with no front license plate. I'm not afforded that same ability. My brothers, to you, I said this about two years ago. Someone else is noticing this too. The police departments, the local police departments, are. neglecting to enforce this citation. including the State of Police Department. I have data. going back 35 years, that police departments, including Sausalito, Oh, take away the civil rights of black folk. So you do use the way of pulling people over pre-tech stops. But this pretext stop, no front license plate, You're not enforcing it. Why? reinforcing others. I'm going to pull data because I'm certain when the sun goes down, sundown town, you've heard that term before. When the sun goes down, You're probably pulling over black. Latinx people having no front license plate But white people, with a fancy, nice, big, fancy expensive. cars that were worth $150,000. They don't get pulled over. So others are noticing. No front license plate. White folk, you get a pass. I don't get that ability. |
| 00:27:22.49 | Steven Woodside | Mr. Morgan, I'll say you can include me in your data because I have been ticketed in Sausalito for no front license plate. |
| 00:27:27.17 | Damian Morgan | Thank you. |
| 00:27:27.35 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:27:27.40 | Damian Morgan | Congratulations. You said that once, you're one of the very few. You said it. You can always take that angle. True statement. I have 30 years of data. |
| 00:27:34.54 | Steven Woodside | True statement. |
| 00:27:37.83 | Damian Morgan | Not where, John. End of the path. |
| 00:27:40.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:27:40.46 | Steven Woodside | All right. Next speaker, Michelle. So obviously I was here the last time you brought this to the council. Michelle McCullough. Welcome. |
| 00:27:59.28 | Michelle McCullough | Good evening, Mayor Cox, Vice Mayor, City Council. I sent my comment earlier to city clerk. I will try to keep this short and stick to bullets. My name is Michelle McCullough. I live on Tomales Street. Questions, if Measures K&J did not pass, what was the backup plan? I think that was supposed to be on the agenda tonight, according to Mayor Cox. Please provide that report. Question, why are the city staff referring to our developers? As if a deal has already been negotiated, and why haven't pro-K committees disclosed to their funding sources? Isn't this a violation of state campaign law? WHERE IS THE |
| 00:28:32.81 | Steven Woodside | Bye. |
| 00:28:32.93 | Michelle McCullough | Thank you. |
| 00:28:32.98 | Steven Woodside | transparency, because this is an item on our agenda tonight. This communication period now is for items not on our agenda. Okay, I'm going to stick to items not on the agenda. Why is MLK site not a surplus site? Don't get to speak now regarding items that are on our agenda. You have to speak in connection with that item when we get to it. |
| 00:28:44.34 | Jackie Winkle | We know. |
| 00:28:52.54 | Steven Woodside | Even if the item is not on the agenda? This item is on the agenda. We are hearing as a business item, the next steps regarding in the wake |
| 00:29:04.70 | Michelle McCullough | Okay, I understand. I can wait until that time. Please confirm if I can comment at that time about things that are lacking in the staff report for this meeting. Absolutely. Okay, and that will be at 7 o'clock or later. Okay. |
| 00:29:16.18 | Steven Woodside | Well, it's one of the last business items. I know, it's at the end. |
| 00:29:18.29 | Michelle McCullough | I know, it's at the end. I'm just trying to gauge the time a bit. |
| 00:29:21.24 | Steven Woodside | you know, 8.30 or thereabouts. Okay. Thank you. |
| 00:29:23.42 | Michelle McCullough | Thank you very much. I appreciate your time. |
| 00:29:25.09 | Steven Woodside | Of course. And thank you. We did see your letter. |
| 00:29:31.16 | Steven Woodside | All right, last speaker I have is Nicole Beck. Welcome. |
| 00:29:41.29 | Nicole Beck | Good evening. As you said, my name is Nicole Back. And I would just like to say how incredibly disappointed I have been by the bait and switch tactics about the Votation of November 4th about the development at the school. Again, we're... |
| 00:30:02.35 | Steven Woodside | Again, Ms. Back, this is an item on our agenda. At item 5C. So the implementation following the passage of measures J&K is on our agenda, and you can address concerns, including the manner in which we are implementing it. We did see correspondence, and we are prepared to address the perception of folks about the implementation. |
| 00:30:06.53 | Nicole Beck | I know. Item five. |
| 00:30:29.28 | Nicole Beck | Can you explain what implementation means? Like, carrying out. |
| 00:30:31.63 | Steven Woodside | Lareng out. |
| 00:30:34.31 | Nicole Beck | statewide election and ballot. I mean, there's nothing in your agenda that speaks about a state ballot, which was to vote about this M. Kelly thing where you said that it would never exceed 32 feet. You send a mailing to the whole city. |
| 00:30:51.59 | Steven Woodside | I can't have a dialogue with you here. This is the time for communication. Can I repeat that? You can repeat that. in connection with item business item. So I call it- |
| 00:31:02.74 | Nicole Beck | So I call it bait and switch. Thank you. |
| 00:31:08.89 | Steven Woodside | All right. Lorna Newlin. Welcome back. |
| 00:31:12.53 | Lorna Newland | other questions. I guess I missed it. So, um, |
| 00:31:13.85 | Steven Woodside | Sure. |
| 00:31:17.27 | Lorna Newland | I thought you said 5E, but you're saying 5C? |
| 00:31:20.02 | Steven Woodside | Bye. |
| 00:31:20.18 | Lorna Newland | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:31:20.58 | Steven Woodside | 5C is summary of next steps on implementation of housing element programs for- |
| 00:31:28.02 | Lorna Newland | anything I want to speak about the election. I wait. Correct. Thank you. You're welcome. |
| 00:31:36.43 | Steven Woodside | Okay, I have no further speaker cards in the chambers. City Clerk, is there anyone online? |
| 00:31:43.50 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah, we have Sandra Bushmaker. |
| 00:31:45.30 | Steven Woodside | Welcome, Sandra. |
| 00:31:49.86 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:31:49.88 | Sandra Bushmaker | Welcome, counsel. Yes, I have sent you about four letters concerning Plan B Area 2050 and the obnoxious population projections four times greater than the Department of Finance. If we thought we got hit, Bye. Rena numbers this last cycle at 724. Just wait if this plan goes through as proposed by MTC staff. We are in deep trouble. I have requested several times and sent you sample letters that all you have to do is fill in the blanks and send it on to MTC. Before the 17th, excuse me, the 18th at 5 p.m. Please, Sausalito. send a letter in opposition to the plan, which is going to affect Housing. transportation, economics, and the environment. 52% of the environmental impacts are substantial and unavoidable. And this is just not acceptable in today's world. Uh, I would appreciate you filling out the letter or sending the letter and putting it on the consent calendar for your next meeting so that it can get passed and sent out to MTC on time. This is really a serious matter. I have been attending many, many meetings, statewide meetings, or Bay Area meetings actually, on this particular subject, and it is very, serious. We need to have the city's opposition Otherwise, it's going to look like Sausalito agrees with this program. Do you realize that the MTC is projecting a 24% increase in the population? of the Bay Area, whereas the Department of Finance recommends 4.2%. excuse me, 6%. So there's a huge, huge difference. |
| 00:33:51.49 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:33:51.60 | Sandra Bushmaker | uh, |
| 00:33:52.27 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:33:52.52 | Sandra Bushmaker | in the |
| 00:33:53.03 | Steven Woodside | here. |
| 00:33:54.99 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 00:33:55.00 | Steven Woodside | Sandra, thank you so much for your comments. We will cover this in future agenda items. I'm going to propose that the housing element subcommittee carry this out and let it be put on consent for a future agenda. So we'll give that direction under future agenda items. All right. City Clerk. |
| 00:34:14.82 | Walfred Solorzano | Bye-bye, Matt Muttogo. |
| 00:34:17.33 | Babette McDougall | Welcome, Babette. Well, thank you very much. Welcome back everyone, Madam Mayor, Council. So actually I too would like to speak about this MTC problem First of all, I have to say that I thoroughly resent that they're crying poor and saying that the California state budget ought to include some huge bailout package for them. just in their 24 audited financial statement with SA. They point out that in addition to a clean audit, Absolutely on the button. They also have the obligation to share that they have billions and billions and billions of our own infrastructure tax dollars sitting around in something called a rainy day fund. And they say, well, now, of course, we haven't decided what it means. And we're not obliged to tell you exactly how much is in there. Just know it's there and someday we'll need it. And then they go on to other priorities. So I find it unconscionable that they can't just cut loose instead of hoarding. our infrastructure tax dollars. It's just not fair It's a matter of gross overreach. And frankly, with all of this takeover, Sure. looming on Sausalito's horizon, which thankfully I'm glad to hear you say is going to be daylighted. I don't understand how they have the wherewithal or the how they feel enfranchised or empowered. to know that who was authorized on behalf of Sausalito to sign away Sausalito's own future, its own destiny of its own future, without any of the citizens knowing about it. And I was really proud of Ms. Blaustein because when I first caught wind of this, she said, well, I remember signing some letters. And that was like my first real clue in the search to say somebody from Sausoleo is being empowered to sign away our futures. So we have to look into this carefully. They have very punitive housing element contract language. Thank you so much for your time. |
| 00:36:17.14 | Steven Woodside | City Clerk. |
| 00:36:17.60 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 00:36:17.65 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:36:19.12 | Walfred Solorzano | Next we have Eva. |
| 00:36:20.91 | Steven Woodside | I'm sorry. |
| 00:36:21.41 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 00:36:21.55 | Jackie Winkle | Thank you. |
| 00:36:21.58 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 00:36:21.87 | Walfred Solorzano | Amen. |
| 00:36:22.78 | Steven Woodside | Hi Ava, welcome. |
| 00:36:27.67 | Eva Crisanti | Hi, this is Eva Crisanti. I wanted to point out how jarring it was to see the mayor laughing at Mr. Morgan's comment. And I say this with real sorrow. I am the person who pulled the 32 years of arrests referred to prosecution data. from every law enforcement agency in the county of Marin. And what it showed about Mill Valley Police, Saucenito Police and the sheriff was very shocking. I did this in 2020, I had the full data set By mid-2021, I had it analyzed, I had presented it, and it has never made it onto your agenda. But what it shows... is that Saucelot Police, over a 32-year period, 1989 through 2020, arrested and referred to prosecution referred to prosecution, Black individuals at a rate over eight times their demographic presence in the county. Now, I don't know why Joan Cox thought it was very funny to admit that she was driving around without a front license plate. That is not behavior that I would expect from a mayor. It is not behavior I would expect from a mayor to laugh about it subsequently. But I do think that By this time, and it has been many years of my bringing this matter to your attention, That extreme arrest referred to prosecution disparity should have been placed on the agenda. And I would like to point out that there are a number of white, quote, progressives who live in Sausalito, who frequently show up in Marin City to pledge their, you know, whatever their, quote, solidarity with Marin City. And not one of them has demanded that this matter be placed on the agenda. This is unfortunately just the peculiar nature of the county I don't know that I can change it, but I do have to keep recording it and reporting it out and documenting it. So I think you can do better. Thank you. |
| 00:38:31.97 | Steven Woodside | I will just respond that I was smiling because Damian Morgan is a dear friend of mine and someone vandalized stole my front license plate. So yes, I agree. Everyone should have both of their license plates. Okay. |
| 00:38:47.94 | Walfred Solorzano | No further public comment? |
| 00:38:49.02 | Steven Woodside | All right, I will close communications and move on to our consent calendar. Mm-hmm. |
| 00:38:58.18 | Steven Woodside | We have items 3A through 3I on our consent calendar. 3A is adopt the draft minutes from the meetings of November 18 and 21, 2025. 3B, receive and file the current local appointments of various boards, commissions, and committees, also known as the MADI Act Report. 3C, authorize the city manager to execute a professional services agreement in the amount of $274,252 with Anchor QEA, consulting for the Turney Street Dock Improvement Project, with $170,000 from state grant funds and $104,252 from the Tidelands Fund for expanded scope. 3D, authorize the city manager to execute Amendment 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with BKF Engineers. for the Coloma Street Safe Pathways to School project in an amount of $49,866. for a total contract amount not to exceed $200,292. 3E, receive and file the annual report on construction traffic road fees for fiscal year 2024-25 under the Mitigation Fee Act and adopt a resolution making findings pursuant to California Government Code 66001. 3F, receive and file an update on implementation of landslide task force recommendations, including status report on development of geologic hazard monitoring plan. receive and file the stats report to city council regarding development of 10 year financial model tool. 3H waive second reading and adopt ordinance number 13-2025. An ordinance of the city council of the city of Sausalito amending the official zoning map of the city of Sausalito and adopting various textual amendments to Title X of the Sausalito Municipal Code for the implementation of the Sixth cycle housing element And three I waiver of second reading and adoption of ordinance number 12-2025, an ordinance of the city council of the city of Sausalito. amending chapter 10.44, section 10.44, |
| 00:40:58.74 | Aditya Padala | Amen. |
| 00:41:02.30 | Steven Woodside | 080 of Title X of the Sausalito Municipal Code. Matters listed under the consent calendar are considered routine and non-controversial, require no discussion, are expected to have unanimous counsel support, and may be enacted by the Council in one motion in the form listed below. |
| 00:41:20.25 | Ian Sobieski | Mayor, I have some, There are two things I wanted to possibly pull, but I might rely on a question first. Thank you. If I might just ask Director McGowan, I don't know if you see him there in the back. |
| 00:41:28.32 | Aditya Padala | as a result. |
| 00:41:32.67 | Ian Sobieski | Would you mind just answering a question or two to see if I feel like I need to pull, um, the two items, 3D and 3C. So 3D is on Coloma Street. And my understanding of that project was about how parking might be handled. I understand that parking might be moved to be parallel, and that was one area where angled parking was possibly considered as a mitigation to the effects of Measure K and reduction in parking that might occur if a development occurs at that site. So can you speak for a second just about what the implications of parking are under this authorization that we're being asked to give on consent? |
| 00:42:17.07 | Kevin McGowan | So the item... 3D relates to finalizing the plan set associated with this project and having the design engineer move forward with generating the 100% plan set so that it can go out to bid. Your council will be able to take a look at that plan set before we bring it out to bed For its review, the current plan does include parallel parking on both sides of the street in order to widen the sidewalk that connects from close to Bridgeway up to all the way up to Olima. |
| 00:42:48.79 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, so I think if we're going to give different direction on that, on spending money on a design that we might want to change, we'd have to do that tonight. Presumably, correct? Yeah. I think the answer is yes. |
| 00:42:59.26 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. We can now I think what he's saying is we will be able to weigh in on the plans before they go out to bid |
| 00:43:05.36 | Ian Sobieski | Tonight, we're authorizing spending money on doing a 100% design set, which we will then see that at a future date to issue a bid on that 100% design. Is that correct? |
| 00:43:14.24 | Kevin McGowan | Yes. |
| 00:43:15.20 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah. So if we want to change the direction for the design to change the way parking is handled, we would have to do that before. Well, we'd want to not spend money on a design we're not going to implement. |
| 00:43:25.07 | Kevin McGowan | we can incorporate it into the design itself. And if we need to have an amendment to this contract to incorporate it, we can bring that to you back to the council list. |
| 00:43:33.73 | Ian Sobieski | So I think I have to pull his items so that we can give that direction. uh, So tonight. Yeah. So thank you, sir, for that clarification. But now I also have a question. So I'm going to ask for 3D to be pulled so we can give that engage with this more substantively in accordance with our policies of how we hear these matters. So sorry, but need to pull that to discuss it. 3C, the turning street dock issue. Um, They're also... I guess I have questions that are material about the scope of the design work that's being done. $270,000. Oh, hi. There. How are you, Katie? |
| 00:44:16.48 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:44:16.83 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. Hey, thanks. So, uh, This is a $274,000 design project that does not include money for the dock design. This is about the ramp and the bulkhead. Is this correct? |
| 00:44:30.09 | Unknown | Yes. Can you define, you know, exactly where you're talking about with the Docs. |
| 00:44:34.58 | Ian Sobieski | This is by the joinery restaurant, right? By the- |
| 00:44:37.10 | Unknown | yeah so the fronting walkway in front of the joinery is not included in this and neither are the i've called them slips in the staff report they're listed as a optional service that we could choose to include if we choose to include that. |
| 00:44:59.95 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. Okay, so I guess I do have a fair number of questions about the details of this project. So I would like to pull this item so we can discuss it. |
| 00:45:06.65 | Melissa Blaustein | Councilmember Sobeci, can I just ask you, given the number of agenda items we have this evening, if you'd be comfortable at those being continued to another date, or are you feeling like we absolutely need to hear them this evening? |
| 00:45:16.48 | Ian Sobieski | I hate to delay. We're not going to meet again until January. |
| 00:45:18.90 | Steven Woodside | No, we're going to meet on December 16th. I'm going to move them to December 16th. Thank you. |
| 00:45:22.63 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:45:22.68 | Steven Woodside | Right. So we would December 16th is traditionally ceremonial, but given the press of business, what I will do is I'm going to continue them for now. as items. 5D and 5E. |
| 00:45:38.41 | Kevin McGowan | Yeah. |
| 00:45:38.69 | Steven Woodside | But with the possibility of continuing them to our next meeting, neither of these are so urgent that we need to address them this evening. Would you agree? Thank you. |
| 00:45:48.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:45:48.33 | Steven Woodside | I would agree. Yes. And in the case of I see our public works director nodding his head. Yes, as well. |
| 00:45:54.57 | Unknown | Yes. In the case of 3C, council has previously approved grant agreements with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, which authorized the scope, which is this, has... Yeah, it's the experience. |
| 00:46:06.13 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:46:06.15 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, I'm not. |
| 00:46:07.03 | Steven Woodside | Banditscope. |
| 00:46:07.77 | Ian Sobieski | It's the range of the scope and other alternatives as well. So we'll hear them tonight if we have time. And if not, there'll be a continued to the 16th. Correct. Okay, thanks. |
| 00:46:17.81 | Sergio Rudin | Mayor, Council, if I may for the record state, there's a typographical error in item 3H, which I just noticed. The item is agendized as Ordinance Number 13, 2025. That ordinance number is wrong. It's actually Number 6, 2025. That was introduced on May 27, 2025. |
| 00:46:37.92 | Steven Woodside | Okay, so the ordinance language is still there. So is this a waivable error city attorney? |
| 00:46:44.39 | Sergio Rudin | This is something that is waivable. I think the council should move to adopt it with the corrected ordinance number. |
| 00:46:51.24 | Steven Woodside | All right. Thank you. |
| 00:46:52.33 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:46:52.35 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:46:52.49 | Melissa Blaustein | I wanted to pull something. Yeah, so, and again, it doesn't need to be heard this evening. In fact, it could likely be continued to January, but I really, item 3F, which is an update on the landslide task force and mitigation for a hillside ordinance, I feel that it's extremely critical that we're tracking the work we're doing with the landslide task force, and I don't think it should be a consent item. So I'm comfortable pushing it not to a date certain, but at least hearing it as an agenda item in January. But it's incredibly important. And also I noticed there was a staff presentation attached that we, I guess, opted not to have this evening, but I think it deserves to be an agenda item. |
| 00:47:28.85 | Steven Woodside | you So you want to agendize it so that it is heard publicly as opposed to the information being provided on consent? |
| 00:47:36.95 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah, I'd like to ask a number of questions. I wanna make sure we're giving the correct direction |
| 00:47:39.25 | Steven Woodside | Okay. If you have questions and are disputing the staff report, then of course we'll pull it. you |
| 00:47:45.79 | Jill Hoffman | I'm... |
| 00:47:46.10 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. I second that. |
| 00:47:47.13 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, request. Same, that it should be a agendized item instead of consent item. |
| 00:47:51.94 | Steven Woodside | All right, so that will be item. We don't have to hear it tonight. I just think it should be agendized. It was a priority for this year. |
| 00:47:56.48 | Jill Hoffman | which will be a good one. |
| 00:47:57.03 | Melissa Blaustein | DENDIT. |
| 00:47:57.39 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:47:59.58 | Steven Woodside | So we are going to hear that item this year. Thank you. |
| 00:48:02.45 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay. |
| 00:48:02.67 | Steven Woodside | I mean, I don't think. Okay. |
| 00:48:03.04 | Melissa Blaustein | I'm not sure. |
| 00:48:04.63 | Steven Woodside | So that will be item. 5G. |
| 00:48:09.27 | Jill Hoffman | Well, I think the point is that the priority of this year to hear it at midnight tonight is not the priority. The priority is that it's on an agendized item. for in a meeting. So we're happy... I think the point that Councilmember Blaston is making is that we'd rather move it to an agenda for January. Yeah. as a properly agenda item. |
| 00:48:28.71 | Steven Woodside | Well, So you'll be on the agenda setting committee next year. So I'm... The agenda setting committee for this year, I'm Dr. Newman. |
| 00:48:39.74 | Jill Hoffman | I'm determined. I decided. |
| 00:48:41.33 | Steven Woodside | I think it's pretty clear, but in any event. |
| 00:48:44.28 | Jill Hoffman | Is that pretty clear? Has the Brown Act been violated on that? |
| 00:48:48.32 | Steven Woodside | No, not that I know of. |
| 00:48:50.48 | Jill Hoffman | Has it been pretty clear? |
| 00:48:52.06 | Steven Woodside | It is clear to me and we'll see if I'm right or not. Council member Hoffman. So item. Right now, this will become item 5. G. And then we'll take it from there. OK, anything else on the consent calendar from council members? Okay, then I will open it up to public comment. I have two speaker cards, Lorna Newlin. Actually, 3D is being moved now to the end of the evening, so we're not going to take public comment on it now. We're not taking comment on it now because it's now an agenda item, a business item, as opposed to. Um... |
| 00:49:33.30 | Lorna Newland | Hope Street has been moved. |
| 00:49:34.76 | Steven Woodside | Yes. It's a business item. |
| 00:49:36.26 | Lorna Newland | And that's now what? |
| 00:49:37.69 | Steven Woodside | It is now item 3D, sorry, 5D instead of 3D. |
| 00:49:45.05 | Lorna Newland | Thank you. |
| 00:49:45.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:49:45.66 | Lorna Newland | And just so you know, I did I tried to research the three H ordinance and it was not there. So if the city lawyer is saying it's a different ordinance number, |
| 00:49:57.54 | Steven Woodside | It's a different ordinance number, but with the same title. So you should have been able to find it by title. |
| 00:50:01.93 | Lorna Newland | I couldn't, well, I looked by the ordinance number because I thought that was more specific than something. So that's now 5G. Okay. Okay. |
| 00:50:04.49 | Steven Woodside | I'm sorry. |
| 00:50:04.57 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 00:50:09.05 | Lorna Newland | Thank you. |
| 00:50:10.06 | Jill Hoffman | Cologne, the 3D is now item 5E. |
| 00:50:14.68 | Lorna Newland | 5D, 3D is 5D. No, 3D is 5D. |
| 00:50:16.82 | Jill Hoffman | 3D is 5. |
| 00:50:17.62 | Lorna Newland | Five E. |
| 00:50:17.97 | Steven Woodside | Sorry, 3C is 5D, 3D is 5E. And three. F. is 5G or 5F. |
| 00:50:33.19 | Lorna Newland | 3H. |
| 00:50:36.33 | Steven Woodside | No. 3H is still on consent. 3F is... |
| 00:50:42.26 | Lorna Newland | five. Okay, then I'll speak to 3H. |
| 00:50:43.01 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:50:45.26 | Lorna Newland | Great. Lorna Newland, 32 year resident of Sausalito, 23 year business owner. currently in MLK bus barn, but regarding this, I looked up second reading and adopt ordinance. And if the number's wrong, I couldn't look it up. So I have no idea what, um, That's about. |
| 00:51:11.08 | Steven Woodside | It's amending the zoning map and adopting textual amendments. We heard this matter in May. So this is second reading. All right. I do have a speaker card from Greg Price and Al Spector, but this will now be on a business item, so I will call you when the business item comes up. Those are all the speaker cards I have for the consent calendar. Anyone online? City Clerk. |
| 00:51:37.99 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes, we have Sandra Bushmaker. |
| 00:51:41.44 | Sandra Bushmaker | Hi, I just want to encourage a full hearing on the Landside Task Force recommendations and progress, particularly the Hill State. |
| 00:51:48.12 | Steven Woodside | So that's already been moved to a business item. So we do not hear public comment on that right now. |
| 00:51:51.26 | Sandra Bushmaker | Got it. |
| 00:51:54.24 | Steven Woodside | Got it. But I've just given it. |
| 00:51:54.78 | Sandra Bushmaker | I've just given it. |
| 00:52:00.32 | Steven Woodside | All right, who's next, city clerk? |
| 00:52:02.28 | Walfred Solorzano | Aaron Nathan. |
| 00:52:04.24 | Steven Woodside | Sorry? |
| 00:52:05.13 | Walfred Solorzano | Aaron Nathan. |
| 00:52:06.31 | Steven Woodside | Hi, Aaron. Welcome. |
| 00:52:07.83 | Walfred Solorzano | I hear it. |
| 00:52:08.47 | Steven Woodside | You're speaking about what you wrote to us about That is a business item. |
| 00:52:14.24 | Aaron Nathan | No, I understand. This is a different element. So I first wanted to confirm with the city attorney that the Ordinance 13-2025, which is, I guess, actually 6-2025, is the ordinance that is amending the official zoning map. And if so, this ordinance still contemplates the disposition of specified city-owned properties under 1128, which is in direct conflict with language used by the council, that they would not be selling the MLK property. And so I would really love to understand why we are still including the language of disposing of the properties, when that is something that we've been promised is not on the table in terms of the city's intentions. And I will yield my time if it's possible to have an answer. |
| 00:53:06.79 | Steven Woodside | Mr. Nathan, we are not proposing to sell the MLK property. We will discuss this in more detail during business item 5C. The surplus lands act applies not just to sales, but also to leases. And so in order to lease the MLK property to a developer to build low income senior housing, we have to go through the surplus lands act. The staff will explain that in more detail during our hearing on business item 5C. |
| 00:53:41.43 | Sergio Rudin | And Mayor, if I may briefly respond as well. Item 3H does not, it does alter the city zoning map. It does not alter the city zoning map with respect to the sites that were restricted by voter initiative, including the MLK site. |
| 00:53:43.19 | Steven Woodside | Yes. |
| 00:53:55.12 | Sergio Rudin | So this rezoning ordinance is for rezoning of the city's uh inventory sites um that the council directed as part of adopting the six cycle housing element and amended six uh cycle housing element But it does not concern the voter restricted sites, which were subject of measures J and K. |
| 00:54:17.87 | Steven Woodside | Thank you for that clarification. City clerk. |
| 00:54:20.91 | Walfred Solorzano | for the public comments |
| 00:54:22.15 | Steven Woodside | All right, I will close public comment. I will entertain a motion to approve the following items on the consent calendar. 3A, 3B, 3E, 3G, 3H, and 3I. So moved. |
| 00:54:35.50 | Joan Cox | Second. |
| 00:54:36.19 | Steven Woodside | All in favor? Aye. Aye. That motion carries... Unanimously. |
| 00:54:43.59 | Unknown | All right. |
| 00:54:44.19 | Steven Woodside | . |
| 00:54:47.45 | Steven Woodside | Um, city attorney, um, you |
| 00:54:58.72 | Steven Woodside | We have a business item that we have stipulated to continue. Is it possible to do that now in case anyone's here? to comment on that or must we wait? Thank you. |
| 00:55:07.94 | Sergio Rudin | No, you can dispose of that now at the council's convenience. |
| 00:55:11.83 | Steven Woodside | Okay, folks, we have on our agenda business item 5A. The parties have stipulated to continue that item to a date uncertain. And so I'm going to go ahead and move to item 5A. I will take public comment from anyone who wishes to provide public comment on that item this evening, and then I will entertain a motion from the council, continuing that item to a date uncertain. So with that, I'm opening this up for public comment regarding item 5A. |
| 00:55:50.17 | Ian Sobieski | Mayor, it's familiar to you because you're a lawyer, but hearing that, I would have been a little confused. So can you just elaborate on what you said? Both parties have asked or agreed to move the item to a future date. Correct. So we're going to hear exactly this item, presumably again, at some future date. |
| 00:56:05.36 | Steven Woodside | No, hopefully we won't have to hear it again. Hopefully delaying this slightly will give the parties an opportunity to negotiate a mutually agreeable resolution. |
| 00:56:14.44 | Ian Sobieski | So both parties asked to delay hearing the matter tonight, and that's why it's not going to be heard tonight. |
| 00:56:18.61 | Steven Woodside | Correct. Thank you. |
| 00:56:20.08 | Ian Sobieski | Thanks. |
| 00:56:21.39 | Steven Woodside | Okay, I'll open it up to any public comment on item 5A. And to be clear, this is the 480 Sausalito Boulevard item. Correct. So I see none in the chambers. City Clerk, is there anyone online? |
| 00:56:35.99 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes, we have Jonathan Pickett. |
| 00:56:37.85 | Steven Woodside | Okay, and that's counsel for the... property owner. Welcome, Mr. Pickett. |
| 00:56:46.50 | Jonathan Pickett | Sean Bigg on behalf of Andrew Sullivan in this matter, we agreed to continue this matter so we can work on possible resolution and mediation. My request is actually just to set it for the next council meeting so we actually have a date and not just leave it with no date. And then we can agree to maybe continue it or change that date. by agreement before that next meeting. |
| 00:57:13.20 | Steven Woodside | So our next meeting is December 16th. We will not be hearing business items or public hearings on that date. So we can, I thought that this had already been resolved between our, the respective lawyers. If you prefer to proceed tonight, we can do that. Otherwise, it would be heard sometime in January. And we don't yet know that will be up to the new agenda setting committee. who will be deciding those matters. |
| 00:57:40.50 | Jill Hoffman | Mayor, if you don't mind. I'm going to wait for you. |
| 00:57:41.99 | Steven Woodside | his response and then I'll hear from you. |
| 00:57:43.39 | Jill Hoffman | May I ask him, does he have an objection to a January date? |
| 00:57:47.18 | Jonathan Pickett | No objection to January 6th. |
| 00:57:51.56 | Steven Woodside | I cannot schedule it to a date certain because we don't yet know what else is on our agenda, sir. So I will... And I cannot make a commitment on behalf of a committee that's not yet been formed. But it would likely be heard in January. |
| 00:58:09.26 | Jonathan Pickett | That's agreeable. |
| 00:58:10.59 | Steven Woodside | All right. |
| 00:58:11.05 | Jonathan Pickett | Thank you. |
| 00:58:14.00 | Steven Woodside | Any other public comment? City clerk. |
| 00:58:16.11 | Walfred Solorzano | See you then. |
| 00:58:17.14 | Steven Woodside | Okay. Um, With that, I will move that we continue item 5A, the administrative hearing on 480 Sausalito Boulevard to a date uncertain, but with a preference that it be scheduled in January, 2026. |
| 00:58:35.80 | Joan Cox | Second. |
| 00:58:37.07 | Steven Woodside | All in favor? Aye. That motion carries unanimously. All right. Thank you for allowing me to address that housekeeping matter. With that, we will move on to our first public hearing item, which is item 4A, Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution Number 2025-21, approving a design review permit with heightened review at 33 San Carlos Avenue. |
| 00:59:05.40 | Ian Sobieski | And Mayor, because of the proximity of this to my house, I will be recusing myself. |
| 00:59:10.04 | Steven Woodside | All right. Thank you. |
| 00:59:12.05 | Jackie Winkle | We will text you or come, will you be... |
| 00:59:14.66 | Steven Woodside | OK. We'll come get you. |
| 00:59:25.30 | Steven Woodside | All right. Item 4A is appeal of planning commission resolution number 2025-21, approving a design review permit with heightened review at 33 San Carlos Avenue. I'll welcome Matthew Mandich, our principal planner. But first, I'd like to hear from our city attorney regarding the notice required by law for this matter. |
| 00:59:57.56 | Jackie Winkle | All right, is Sergio still with us, city clerk? |
| 01:00:03.05 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes, he is. |
| 01:00:05.31 | Jackie Winkle | Sergio, are you able to rejoin us? |
| 01:00:10.79 | Steven Woodside | Okay. Sergio, are you able to provide us with a statement regarding the notice required by law for this public hearing? |
| 01:00:20.66 | Sergio Rudin | Um, Well, my understanding is staff did notice all applicable property owners and tenants within 300 feet, so And I do think that sufficient notice was given to all interested parties such that this can proceed forward. |
| 01:00:34.52 | Steven Woodside | All right. So with that, I will open the public hearing and ask for disclosure of ex parte communications regarding this matter. Okay, seeing none, I'll turn it over to Mr. Mandich for a staff report. There will be 15 minutes for the staff report. |
| 01:00:54.67 | John Hutchinson | All right, good evening mayor vice mayor members of the Council. So yes, this is an appeal hearing and have an approved design review and heightened review project at 33 San Carlos Avenue next slide please. As you can see here, the site is located on San Carlos at the confluence of San Carlos Central and Sunshine's avenues. The site in question today is the blue highlighted one. It is adjoined by another site 33 a San Carlos, which is owned by the same owner. It's an R16 single family zoning district and the lot size is 11,280 square feet. Next slide, please. background. So this house was purchased in 2017 after laying vacant for over 20 years. From May to June 2021, applications were submitted for an ADU and a remodel. Neighbors were consulted, site visits were performed, and solar poles were erected. On November 10th, 2021, a notice of decision was issued by the city, and the project was approved under an ADU permit and a zoning permit. This did not require a public hearing at that time. Notices were sent to neighbors and posted on site, and the 10-day appeal period commenced. No appeals or objections were provided at that time, and building permits were issued for this project in February 2024. Next slide, please. A co-complaint was then filed March 11th, 2025, by the neighbor, 25 San Carlos, the appellant, and their attorney, 22. saying that there was a legal tree alteration that took place and demolition beyond the scope of work. On April 16, 2025, a site visit was performed by myself, the building inspector and our code enforcement officer. And on May 1, a stop work order was issued as we did determine that demolition occurred that was over the approved amount. Staff then determined that the project would have to be re-approved through planning and through a design review permit to move forward. Next slide, please. So I'm just gonna do a little background on the code enforcement here first, and then we'll get into the project proposal. Next slide, please. So first of all, we're going to talk about the tree alteration. So the code complaint was received for unpermitted alteration of a protected oak tree. One of the trees you can see is right here. There is a bit of a history of alteration here. In 2023, for the sale of 25 San Carlos to the appellant, the applicant and property owner was asked to trim the tree for that sale to open up the view a little bit more. That was done by Bartlett. more of a routine tree trimming in may 2024 the tree was altered more substantially for the construction of the adu as you can see right here the tree was over overhanging the house you can see the outline of the second floor here the canopy completely covered that um you know the tree grew unabated for about 20 years when no one lived there so um there was property damage to the home uh fire issues, which if the tree removal permit had come before the planning commission would have been grounds for removal. However, removal did not occur. The tree was altered. It's also worth noting that at this time, the property owner had a valid ADU permit, approved ADU permit. ADU law does not allow for a discretionary process for tree removals or alterations. So this, this, this alteration would have been ministerially approved at the time. However, no documentation was ever submitted for the alteration, which is one of the big issues at hand here. Um, next slide please. So, because there was no documentation for the protected tree alteration ever given to staff, the CEO, which is our code enforcement officer, has determined that a violation did indeed occur here. However, this violation is processed via a different path. trees and views section, as you can see right here, we do administrative citation process, which is heard by the Planning Commission. This section is actively being repealed. However, this is the process that has been followed on multiple occasions. The city has followed this process for other unpermitted alterations, and several members of the council have even heard appeals of those citations in the past. However, we are doing a pending code enforcement amendment, which will change this process, remove the administrative citation path, which requires a public hearing and allow the code enforcement officer to issue fines directly without a hearing. And that is how we're going to be handling this illegal tree alteration. Again, past tree alteration is not necessarily pertinent to the new design review permit in front of the Council this evening. That's really the purview of the code enforcement officer and all the findings for the dr permit that were made by the planning Commission, I believe can be made by the Council tonight. Next slide please. For example, as part of their approval, the planning commission required a tree preservation plan and an arborist report be presented by the property owner. The arborist report states that all trees are in good health and none require removal. The preservation methods recommended by the arborist have been implemented by the applicant. And all the tree-related findings for the design review permit can be made and were made by the planning commission. As you can see, the tree preservation has been implemented. Next slide, please. Yes, compliance order was also issued. I'm sure you're well aware from all the public comment you've received on this, that there was work that occurred without permits during this process. The city issue compliance to orders for this stop work orders. City was out to the site multiple times to assess the situation and reiterate a lack of compliance and these new pending code enforcement amendments that I just spoke of will allow the city to have more teeth and more ability to find for these types of infractions in the future. Next slide, please. So moving on to the proposed project itself. Design review permit with heightened review to add 1,620 square feet of new net floor area, add a one-car garage, and add an interior ADU as well as a JADU. Neither of the ADUs are under the purview of the council tonight, as those are processed ministerially by state law. Next slide, please. So just want to highlight the site plans here first and then we'll walk through some floor plans. As you can see here, the pre-existing former home shares an almost identical footprint as the new structure. It's terraced down a hillside here. The new footprint of the new home matches almost identically that of the former residents. Next slide, please. As you can see, the first floor here takes advantage of the existing retaining walls foundation here that was pertained to the former residents. The only difference is here being a small addition of square footage here as well and the conversion of some crawl space into a media room, a stair set and an elevator. Next slide, please. The second floor, nearly identical to that of the previous home, the only additions being slight additions here of floor area as well as a slight departure from the previous second floor floor plan right here. So almost identical, taking advantage of exactly the same placement of exterior walls of the former residents. Next slide, please. The third floor is where we see the largest departure from that of the previous residence. You can see here prior there was only a garage and a sewing room. The third floor is actually the floor that is on the level of San Carlos. So the house presents as a single fan, a single story home from the street of San Carlos Terrace down a hillside. This is where we see our most significant expansion here, where the upper floor, the third floor, which was a garage and a sewing room extends to both the south and the north. And you can see that here and as reflected. in the plan here. It's also a one car garage there, who's formerly a two car. Next slide, please. I think we skipped one. Go back, please. Well, one was edited out. That's unfortunate. The reason for this expansion of the third floor was due to ADA accessibility issues that the future inhabitants are dealing with. They require larger hallways, larger bathrooms, exercise equipment, and therapy tubs on that floor, which will be their primary residence, and that was the reason for that expansion. It's unfortunate that that ADA slide has somehow been removed. So we have the elevations here, which you can see are very similar to the prior structure. Again, as discussed, the main difference being the expansion of the third uppermost floor right here. The rest of it matches very similarly. The height of the new structure is actually slightly below the highest point of the previous structure. Next slide, please. Again, elevations, previous structure, former home, match very similar. Again, the main issue here being the expansion of the third floor Um, the kind of the reason we're here tonight is that expansion over here to the north, which is the neighbor at 25 San Carlos sits on this side of the property line. Previously, this was the upper floor of the home and the new floor is larger than that and extends closer to her home. Next slide, please. Ah, there's the third floor ADA access. Got moved around. Anyway, this is it right here. As you can see, larger hallways, larger turning radius for the wheelchair access and therapy tubs, exercise equipment, and a one-car cover garage with ADA access path into the home. Next slide, please. As you can see right here, our zoning table, Project complies with all of our requirements, all of our development standards for the R16 district. It is right up against all of those standards. I will tell you that right up against building coverage, floor area, height, all that. But that's why we have heightened design review and this project went through that. Next slide, please. So neighborhood context. It's been argued, too, by the appellants that the house is simply too big for the neighborhood. A 5,000-square-foot house is too large for Sausalito. However, it's hard to see here, but I've identified a number of homes in this nearby neighborhood that are at least 5,000 square feet. Some are four and a half. Others are up to 10, 6, 8 as well. So it certainly is in context with the other larger homes in this neighborhood. Next slide, please. So potential view impact is another issue that's been discussed by the appellants here. Finding number four of our design review is that the proposed project has been located and designed to minimize obstruction of public views and primary views from private property. As you can see here, this is a view of the construction out the window of 25 San Carlos. It does not impact the San Francisco skyline at all or Angel Island. There is some water view that is being taken away. However, that water would be a minimal obstruction and not of a primary view. You can see here as well standing on the deck at 25 San Carlos to stay hand railing about waist high the orange line above the roof height and then the sight line the green line there goes well above the structure. Next slide, please. Again, views encompass Angel Island, Skyline, Bay Bridges, Belvedere, et cetera. The project site, which is marked by this arrow right here, this red arrow, is really far below any of those major features. In fact, the house at 25 San Carlos enjoys incredible panoramic views of the entire bay. You can see that this will all be completely unobstructed and the views looking out to San Francisco as well completely unobstructed aside from looking down on a roof below the railing there Next slide, please. So the planning commission hearings, um, July, 2023, uh, 2023 was when this project was first heard. It was continued by the planning commission at that hearing with the following recommendations to reduce the square footage of the third floor by 300 square feet, uh, submitted arborist report and submitted tree protection plan. Uh, as you saw the arborist report and the protection plan were submitted. Um, the hearing was then continued twice due to a lack of materials and finally heard again by the Planning Commission on October 8th, 2025. And it was approved by the Planning Commission on a 4-0 vote at that hearing. The project was resubmitted with the removal of 63 square feet rather than 300 on the third floor, as well as the addition of a JDU and the Arborist Report and tree preservation plan were also included. Next slide, please. So as you can see here, the key changes was the removal of 63 square feet on the upper floor here, sliding that a little bit away from that neighbor at 25 San Carlos. This was originally designed to be a deck. However, the planning commission conditioned that just to be a roof, so an inaccessible space. It's also an addition of a JADU on the second floor right here, as well as a trellis and living wall on the south side of the property to shield that from the neighbors at 39 San Carlos. With these changes implemented, the planning commission approved the project. Next slide, please. So after that approval, which is why we're here today, the project was appealed by the neighbor at 25 San Carlos. The grounds for appeal are that the project is inconsistent with the general plan. The proposed building coverage exceeds the maximum required. the proposed impervious surface coverage exceeds the maximum required The required design review and heightened review findings cannot be made in the planning committee. and misapplied the effect of the housing accountability act, um, and impermeasibly mid limited design review to objective standards only planning commission failed to require adequate height condition, um, and tree removal application was not submitted and construction work continued on the project after a stop work order was issued. So those are the grounds for the appeal. So I'm just going to briefly walk through kind of a rebuttal of, of those appeal grounds. Uh, next slide please. |
| 01:13:46.26 | Steven Woodside | So, are you advocating for, you're rebutting the issues or you're providing facts? |
| 01:13:54.11 | John Hutchinson | I'm yeah, we're providing facts that the I am rebutting the appeal. Yes, I believe the appeal should be denied. That's the recommendation of staff that was in the staff report and, |
| 01:14:04.01 | Steven Woodside | Right. The staff report laid out a significant procedural history, which I've not heard in your presentation this evening. |
| 01:14:10.04 | John Hutchinson | Oh, it was in the background slide. |
| 01:14:11.79 | Steven Woodside | Okay. |
| 01:14:13.23 | John Hutchinson | We can certainly cover that in more detail in the question and answer period. |
| 01:14:16.28 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:14:16.90 | John Hutchinson | Yeah. So just to take staff's point of view on this project, I mean, it was taken to the planning commission and approved. It was approved previously. So we wouldn't be taking a project that we didn't think was compliant for it. |
| 01:14:29.41 | Steven Woodside | Right. I just. Okay. I just want to be sure that you're presenting facts and that we're not taking a position before the City Council has been able to weigh in and ask questions. So I understand the recommendation, but I want to be sure that your presentation is factual and not advocacy. |
| 01:14:46.01 | John Hutchinson | Well, I believe it is factual. I'm looking at objective standards here. That's the main priority of what my job is as a planner here. |
| 01:14:52.86 | Unknown | Yep. |
| 01:14:53.25 | John Hutchinson | Yeah. Thanks. Okay, so general plan here, the appellants argue that natural features is not being complied with does not maintain or enhance the natural features on the site. Let's say that the project uses a nearly identical footprint as the pre existing home and does not disturb the natural features on the site, minimizes disturbance to any of that natural terrain. And it is within the permitted densities, the tree removal permit required by the city. That's another issue that they take a front to there's Excuse me, I can't read that. No protected trees were removed and the tree preservation plan is in place. Penalties for the alteration will be assessed by the CEO. This runs on a really different path than what we're looking at for planning here. And this is an uncorrectable offense, so we don't really do retroactive tree removal permits. And then design review considerations were not taken into account. The design review was undertaken by the planning commissions. All the findings were made for the project and it was approved unanimously. Next slide, please. So looking at the building coverage here, the appellant states that the building coverage was incorrectly calculated. This is something Okay. that we're concerned with here because this is an objective standard and this is one of the things we're looking at for compliance. They argue here that the retaining walls that you see right here and the earth behind them should count as building coverage. The retaining walls themselves certainly do count as building coverage and were included in staff's calculations. However, the earth behind the retaining wall should not be counted as building coverage. We do not count retained earth as building coverage. Again, the same situation here. we have another raised patio with a landscaped area and some stepping stones right here again pellet arguing this was not calculated as building coverage when again this is retained earth with stepping stones should not count as building coverage in staff's opinion Next slide, please. Again, appellant objecting to the stairs here being not counted as building coverage. However, these stairs fall outside of the property. The property line that you see right here is actually this property line, which if you look at it laterally projects forward like that, the stairs are actually not in the property. So therefore should not be counted. Furthermore, the raised patio here as well is a landscaped area with stepping stones and pavers should not be counted as building coverage and the exposed earth being held up by the retaining wall. Again, should not be counted as building coverage. Next slide, please. Impervious surface coverage, they argue, was incorrectly calculated. These are the calculations here provided by the applicant. You can see here that they've double counted the area up here that's already been counted as impervious surface. And again, this exposed earth, which will be landscaped area that counted as impervious surface, which staff disagrees with. Next slide, please. Housing Accountability Act. So this is one I'm sure that will be discussed a little bit tonight as this is a three unit project and it is subject to the Housing Accountability Act pursuant to government code 65589. |
| 01:17:49.26 | Steven Woodside | pause you for one second so a council member has asked a question city attorney We had designated 15 minutes for a staff presentation. We've now exceeded that. Is are we able to allow the principal planner to continue conclude his presentation and how much longer do you think you need? |
| 01:18:07.87 | John Hutchinson | Thank you. |
| 01:18:07.91 | Sergio Rudin | I have about two more slides, I believe. Yeah, it's at the council's discretion. |
| 01:18:11.11 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:18:15.16 | Jill Hoffman | I say we go forward, but give the same amount of time to the applicant or appellant. Thank you. |
| 01:18:19.23 | Brandon Phipps | If I may, Mayor, I am tracking the additional time that Matt was taking, so I'll provide that. Great. So we will. |
| 01:18:19.40 | Jill Hoffman | If I may. |
| 01:18:23.11 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 01:18:23.13 | Steven Woodside | Okay. |
| 01:18:24.46 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:18:24.48 | Steven Woodside | Great. So we will give the appellant the same amount of time as we're giving the staff. |
| 01:18:25.54 | Brandon Phipps | THE FAMILY. |
| 01:18:29.34 | John Hutchinson | Sure, and the applicant also gave the presentation, I believe. And then just as a point of order, I've done several of these appeal hearings. I've never been timed before. So just letting you know. |
| 01:18:38.18 | Steven Woodside | For whatever reason, Mr. Mandich, it is noticed on our agenda as being 15 minutes. That's why I asked the question. |
| 01:18:45.37 | John Hutchinson | All right, noted. So just to remind this isn't HAA projects, the three unit build project is subject to the HHA. Our city attorney has weighed in on that multiple times when this was heard by the planning commission. As such, the project cannot be denied or have its density reduced. The project does comply with all objective standards and the planning commission made all required subjective findings and the project was approved. Next slide, please. So some of the remaining items here that the appellant argues that there is no condition for the height. In fact, there is a condition. It's condition number seven. Roof heights and locations of exterior walls must be verified by a licensed surveyor during building inspection to ensure conformance with Planning Commission approved plans. Again, they argue that no tree removal or alteration application was ever submitted. We do not do retroactive tree alteration permits, uncorrectable offense. It is indeed subject to fines and will be fine, but it follows a different pathway under code enforcement. And that construction work in sitting on the project site after the city issues stop work order again, that is true. However, this is a code enforcement issue, not one that has to do with design review findings next slide please. So that concludes my presentation recommendation is that the city council deny the appeal of the planning commission resolution and grant the design review permit with heightened review. The proposed project conforms to the objective design standards in the Sausalito municipal code. The proposed project is in conformance with all the required design review and heightened design review findings. The approval will allow a halted open construction site to move forward in the permitting process. And of course, the project is subject to the condition of approval attached to the resolution as well as any conditions added by the council this evening. Thank you. |
| 01:20:26.26 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Any questions of Mr. Mandich? |
| 01:20:28.58 | Melissa Blaustein | I have a couple of questions, if I might. Okay. So in the staff report, it's indicated that in May of 2021, when this proposal first came forward, there was significant neighborhood outreach that was conducted. Are you aware of any additional neighborhood outreach since the change in 2025? And could you please speak to what that was? |
| 01:20:47.02 | John Hutchinson | Yeah, so the applicants, property owners have been in touch with their immediate neighbors quite a bit. They've actually worked to appease a lot of concerns from the neighbors surrounding the property. The only issues that we see at this point that is from the neighbor at 25 and neighbors at 39, the chauffeurements have weighed in. That's why they put the trellis in as well. And, you know, as far as I understand, all the other immediate neighbors have not expressed any public comment or issues, or I've not received any emails or phone calls about any issues with the project. Thank you. |
| 01:21:18.46 | Melissa Blaustein | Were the neighbors that were there in 2021 the same neighbors as 2025 in terms of- |
| 01:21:23.03 | John Hutchinson | I believe everyone's the same except for 25 cent Carlos. |
| 01:21:26.26 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay. And do we know It's indicated also in the staff report that there was a no view impact that was signed in 2021 from, from 37 San Carlos. |
| 01:21:36.19 | John Hutchinson | I think that was, yeah, 30, yeah, yeah. |
| 01:21:38.30 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay. And so obviously that's those neighbors are now have been contacted and have the same agreement with the substantially changed plan. |
| 01:21:47.10 | John Hutchinson | Well, the plan is pretty similar and yes, those neighbors have not reached out in any significant way to repeat the project. But then, |
| 01:21:53.98 | Melissa Blaustein | But the plan's different. I mean, the 2021 version is different. Yeah, the plans have changed. |
| 01:21:57.05 | John Hutchinson | Yeah, the plans have changed over time. Yes, they have. But the third floor addition, as it stands today, is similar in size, more or less. It's still that expansion south and north. |
| 01:22:07.46 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay. |
| 01:22:08.04 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:22:11.66 | Steven Woodside | Other questions? Okay, thank you. THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:22:19.68 | Steven Woodside | All right. |
| 01:22:24.07 | Nicole Beck | Thank you. |
| 01:22:24.09 | Steven Woodside | or careful. Next step. |
| 01:22:24.79 | Walfred Solorzano | Next. I'm sorry? Am I giving them 10 minutes or 15 minutes for the other? |
| 01:22:28.44 | Steven Woodside | We're giving him 13 minutes and 22 seconds. And you're welcome to This is for the applicant presentation. We're giving you an extra three minutes and 22 seconds because that's the extra time that staff took. you may reserve some of that time if you like. |
| 01:22:46.60 | Jason Nelson | Thank you, Mayor. Good evening, Mayor Cox. Vice mayor, council members, my name is Jason Nelson and I'm counsel for Mr. and Mrs. Casares who are the owners of the project at 33 San Carlos Ave. the A project you have before you today. has been labeled messy by the Planning Commission at least one occasion. However, I submit to the council that the issues that are before the council tonight are actually quite limited. And The reason for that is that state law is quite clear as to what the city council can and cannot address in these types of projects. And my intent is to show you that the result ultimately is clear and that the only reasonable solution that is compliant with state law is for the appeal to be denied. in its entirety. the Project Before You is a three-unit project. It's 100% residential, and as such, it qualifies for the protections of the HAA. So there's a single family home, there's an ADU and a junior ADU. And once it has been designated as an AHA project, which it has by staff on the multiple occasions, as well as by two separate city attorneys. And then, we have to look at and we can only look at objective design. and development standards. And given the next item on the calendar, I'm confident the council is well aware of what that does and does not encompass. So in the present matter, the project has been found to be fully compliant with all the objective design development standards. both by staff, And that's in regards to floor air ratio setbacks. on and on. It has been deemed to be fully compliant with all those objective standards, And there's no variance that is being requested for that reason. Once we have an HAA project, that has been that satisfied all the objective development and design standards. Subjective standards cannot be taken into account. It is just a matter of fact requirement of the HAA. |
| 01:25:00.60 | Jason Nelson | That takes us to the next point where the city can only deny or condition a project under very limited circumstances. And it can only be done related to issues. of public health and safety. And beyond that, it has to be. upon a presentation of evidence by a preponderance of the evidence. So as it states in the code, subsection J one, a of the HAA. That once once it is established a project complies with all applicable objective standards. The city's discretion to disapprove or reduce the density of the project is severely limited. It's it. We can only disapprove project or reduce its density of the city can prove based on a preponderance of the evidence that will the project will have unavoidable public health and safety impacts. which must be quote significant on a viable direct and unavoidable impacts based on objective, identified, written public health or safety standards, policies or conditions. And I submit to the council that none of those exists at all. And surely not. to the level of a preponderance of the evidence. an additional Important factor. I want to point out to the council that goes above and beyond ha protections and requirements are the various ADA and related fe h a um Standards that come into play given that mrs. Casares and her twin sister who will be living in one of the units as Parkinson's disease And as you heard from Senior Planner Manage, a lot of the items that were. Why into the design or specifically for accommodation reasons? So I feel that those provide yet additional important and powerful reasons why the appeal should be denied. And based on the foregoing, we feel that the only reasonable outcome and the only outcome that is compliant with the law is for the appeal to be denied its entirety. I do ask that the remainder of the time be given to Mr. and Mrs. Casares, so if we could please stop the counter to allow me to give that to them. Thank you. |
| 01:27:21.83 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:27:47.61 | Catherine Casares | Is it okay to start? |
| 01:27:48.51 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. You may start. Thank you. Your clock is up there. |
| 01:27:51.95 | Catherine Casares | Thank you. |
| 01:27:52.42 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. And you have 13 minutes and 22 seconds total. You're at eight minutes and 54 seconds. So you have a little over four minutes. |
| 01:27:59.63 | Catherine Casares | Thank you. Good evening Mayor Cox and City Council members. My name is Catherine Casares, so my voice. |
| 01:28:07.31 | Steven Woodside | Yeah, if you can just speak into the mic, that will help. Yes, thank you. |
| 01:28:09.48 | Catherine Casares | Yes, thank you. I am here to respectfully ask you to uphold the Planning Commission's unanimous approval and deny this appeal. We have been working on this project for over eight years. We followed the city's guidance and received approval for our project in 2021. Mrs. Isabella's purchased her property two years after the project was approved and failed to do her proper due diligence. This year, when the project was halted mid construction, we again followed the city's guidance and voluntarily submitted to a height design review. The most rigorous scrutiny available. The planning commission unanimously approved our project for as we did not ask for any variances and met all objective standards. Additionally, the Planning Commission and the city staff did their best to help us protect the site and our investment. the work that you're hearing about that happened post- stop work order was because the planning commission brought up the suggestion that we protect the site for safety reasons and the materials on the site. And we worked with the city numerous times obtained approval and then because of the um, objections to of my neighbor, all of those approvals were revoked. Thank you. Um, So despite this, we have been subjected to what I believe is a scorched earth campaign to wreak havoc on our reputation and also on the city's resources. So first of all, here's the playbook. Mrs. Adelis conflicted out all of the local attorneys. She hired multiple experts and buried us in unverified images from tools like Google Earth, which its own website warns are inaccurate, added reputational attacks, and flooded the record with misinformation, mischaracterizations too numerous to defend against. Do all of this at the very last possible minute so you have no ability to defend yourself in an allotted time. then delay and obstruct and threaten litigation at every turn with a goal of breaking us physically, emotionally, and financially. The smoke screen about the tree is a non-starter. The tree is on our property. It destroyed our house because branches directly touched the roof. The pruning over the roof is mandated by the fire marshal and is a condition of the project. It's in the public records. We posted it. We have voluntarily set the structure back for the tree to grow adjacent to the house. Mrs. Abelis wants it to grow back over our house. That is not possible both for Fire safety issues. and also for safety issues of ourselves for egress. That is the only floor that we can evacuate on. by ourselves without risking First responders. or family life. |
| 01:31:16.39 | Catherine Casares | When the principal planner Mandich attempted to enter Mrs. Isabella's home to take objective photos, she refused. Instead, she submitted AI generated projected images This isn't a search for the truth. It's a strategy to prevent it. My twin sister and I both have Parkinson's, which is progressive, degenerative, and incurable. The home is supposed to be our lifeline. It was designed so we could live together with our families, share treatment resources and caregiving, and face her incurable illness with dignity. The accessible feature, I'm sorry. The accessible features this appeal seeks to destroy are medically necessary for us to live safely and in the case of a wildfire to survive. There's no time left. Our dream is deteriorating before our eyes and the implications are profound. Eight years, two approvals. We followed the city's guidance every step of the way. I respectfully ask you to do the only legal and moral thing deny this appeal in its entirety. Please let my family go home. Thank you. |
| 01:32:26.47 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. That leaves four minutes and 49 seconds. All right. |
| 01:32:39.25 | Steven Woodside | We will next hear, are there any city council questions? |
| 01:32:47.43 | Steven Woodside | I have a question. of our city attorney. And I'm going to ask this question. If you don't have the answer right now, answer it later after you give it some thought. But here's my question, if you're available. Sergio? |
| 01:33:06.13 | Jackie Winkle | Thank you. |
| 01:33:14.36 | Unknown | with the food. |
| 01:33:15.16 | Steven Woodside | Sergio, are you available to turn on your... camera. |
| 01:33:25.52 | Steven Woodside | Is the city attorney with us, city clerk? |
| 01:33:27.27 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah, he is. |
| 01:33:55.27 | Steven Woodside | Hi, are you available to rejoin our meeting? |
| 01:33:59.06 | Unknown | Okay, thanks. |
| 01:34:04.58 | Steven Woodside | Hey, Sergio. Okay. I was saying I have a question regarding an assertion made by the applicant. I'm not sure you'll have an answer off the top of your head. So I'm asking it now and you can answer it later if you don't have the answer now. So Um, the the applicant takes the position, as I understand it, that Um, the HAA, because the application and added a J-A-D-U in their latest submission to the Planning Commission in October 2025. that the HAA, also applies to the single family residence portion of the proposed project and precludes the commission or our ability to deny it. Thank you. Um, Of course, the appellant takes the position that the HAA does not apply to new single family homes and certainly not to remodels of existing ones. Are you able to weigh in on that or do you want to wait until after we hear from the appellant to weigh in? |
| 01:35:12.74 | Sergio Rudin | No, I can weigh in on that issue now, and I can give the council my opinion on the applicability. Apparently the host is disabled screen sharing, so I can't actually show the language of the statute. |
| 01:35:24.55 | Steven Woodside | OK, hold on. Will you please promote Sergio and give him all the rights, city clerk? He's working on that, so give me a second. |
| 01:35:34.98 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, and maybe I can just go over this without having to. |
| 01:35:37.63 | Steven Woodside | You can screen share now. |
| 01:35:38.31 | Sergio Rudin | Share now. Okay. So. |
| 01:35:46.26 | Sergio Rudin | The relevant statute here is government code 65589.5. And there is discussion about |
| 01:35:54.44 | Steven Woodside | We cannot read that. Are you able to make it bigger? |
| 01:35:57.07 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, I will do so right now. We have that. |
| 01:36:00.56 | Steven Woodside | We have laughter in the chambers because it's so small. |
| 01:36:05.39 | Sergio Rudin | All right. Well, I've, you know, for the council's benefit, I'll just read it out loud. Subdivision D says for a housing development project for very low, low or moderate income households or an emergency shelter, a local agency shall not disapprove the housing development project or emergency shelter or condition approval in a manner that renders the housing development project or emergency shelter infeasible, including through the use of design review standards unless it makes specific written findings based on the record. of the evidence in the record. So to be fair, this project is not a project for very low, low, or moderate income households, but it's important that the statute here acknowledges that public agencies still can use design review. for consideration of Housing Accountability Act projects. I do think that it is likely that this project is subject to the Housing Accountability Act. The Resnitzky case versus the County of Marin, the Court of Appeal held that the Housing Accountability Act doesn't apply to a single-family dwelling case. That is a one unit project because the housing Accountability Act defines a project as being one of residential units. So any project with residential units, plural, is likely going to be subject to that. Now, we haven't seen courts weigh in on whether or not it applies to a single family residence with an ADU, but I am aware of at least one public agency, City of Berkeley, being sued on that, and HCD taking the position that it was subject to that, and the city deciding not to, as I understand it, further litigate that. So here's... Here's that language in H2 defining what is a housing development project. Um, Subdivision J. |
| 01:37:37.60 | Steven Woodside | Can I ask you a further clarifying question on that? |
| 01:37:40.35 | Sergio Rudin | that, |
| 01:37:41.17 | Steven Woodside | So, If indeed we take the position that the HAA applies to homes to which an ADU or a JADU is added, what that means is that any applicant can seek a remodel and add an ADU or a JADU to avoid design review. So is that, Is that your understanding? |
| 01:38:08.19 | Sergio Rudin | So I will try to answer your question slightly differently by by further discussing the restrictions on use of design review in the statute. Subdivision J, which I do believe applies to this project, says when a Project complies with applicable general plan zoning and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards. The local agency shall not, but the local agency proposes To disapprove the project or impose a condition that the project would be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision upon written findings based on a preponderance of the evidence that the project would have a specific adverse impact on public health or safety. um And additionally, importantly, there's no feasible method to satisfactory, mitigate or avoid that adverse impact. So basically, the Housing Accountability Act says that for market rate projects, it's very difficult to deny those projects unless you make these specific written findings. Now, that being said, This literally says you shall not impose a condition that you develop the project at a lower density. So you can't require that the number of units be eliminated. Additionally, you can't deny the project. It doesn't say that you can't impose design review. or conditions to meet subjective criteria in your design review ordinance. So as long as the modifications are imposed by council and they are reasonable, then they don't reduce the density. and there is a basis to make them under your local design review ordinance, I do think that they are legal. Importantly, subdivision O also indicates that conditions of approval can be imposed where necessary to avoid or substantially lessen impacts under CEQA. So, The statute is clear that there is authority for public agencies to impose reasonable conditions of approval aimed at mitigating the impacts of the development project. |
| 01:40:07.30 | Steven Woodside | So- um, at the July 2025 design review hearing, the Planning Commission was unable to make all of the findings necessary for approval and asked the applicant to reduce the third floor by 300 square feet. The applicant did not reduce the third floor by 300 square feet, but the at that time. Um, Thanks. The Planning Commission apparently perceived that they could not enforce that requirement due to the HAA. Do you agree with that perspective? |
| 01:40:51.54 | Sergio Rudin | I do believe that the project was, was, um, The third floor was reduced, as I understand it, in response to the Planning Commission's direction, although not to the full 300. |
| 01:41:03.86 | Steven Woodside | Not by 300 square feet. |
| 01:41:05.58 | Sergio Rudin | And additionally, the Planning Commission did make the required findings to approve the project after imposing an additional design condition, which I believe staff can correct me if I'm wrong on the record here, but it was to enclose... some patio space or to reduce it. Mr. Manage, can you? remind me if that was the case. |
| 01:41:31.99 | Steven Woodside | He's coming up to the podium. |
| 01:41:37.51 | Sergio Rudin | I'm trying to find the resolution because it was included in the resolution in our packet this |
| 01:41:42.05 | John Hutchinson | Yes, thank you, Sergio. So the reduction that was made by the applicants was in response to the recommendation to remove 300 square feet was that they removed 63 square feet, 63 square feet of floor area that was closest to the neighbor at 25 San Carlos. That was then turned into |
| 01:41:59.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:41:59.55 | John Hutchinson | into yes a patio area the planning commission and further condition that space to just be a roof so that it would be inaccessible so that was the condition that was finally settled upon and the planning commission at the first hearing also recommended they were having a lot of struggle with the findings concerning the tree so they requested an arborist report and a tree preservation plan both of which were provided and the tree preservation plan was implemented and the arborist report provided, you know, so the trees were in good health and they could continue to live and move forward. So with those documents being submitted, with the reduction of 63 square feet, the removal of the patio as a roof, the planning commission then moved forward to make the findings and adopted the resolution with all the findings for design review and height design review. |
| 01:42:43.62 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Anything further city attorney? |
| 01:42:47.54 | Sergio Rudin | No, thank you. I hope that answers your questions. |
| 01:42:49.97 | Steven Woodside | Yes, go ahead. The vice mayor is going to have a follow-up. |
| 01:42:52.62 | Joan Cox | Just to follow up and maybe asking in a different way, what authority do we have sitting here now to perhaps alter the design as opposed to eliminate a unit? |
| 01:43:04.65 | Sergio Rudin | I think that the council does have authority to alter the design, provided that you don't reduce the density, i.e. require the removal of a unit, But to reduce or modify to modify the design in any way I do think the Council should be looking at specific findings in the municipal code that would justify Um, those design changes. Again, I do think that the council can apply discretionary design review to this project, notwithstanding the Housing Accountability Act. The Housing Accountability Act includes language stating that you can do so. But, in order to impose any requirements, you know, or conditions with respect to the design, you do need to base them in the findings that are required for the project and Municipal code 1054 or 50. |
| 01:43:56.95 | Steven Woodside | And those include the design review and the heightened design review findings, correct? |
| 01:44:01.84 | Sergio Rudin | Correct. Yeah, those are the findings in subdivision D. and E of that code section. |
| 01:44:08.57 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:44:08.59 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Sergio, could you just give the specifics? I know that in that municipal code that we had talked about, sections D3, D7 and D9. Could you just review the conditions so we have a better, broader understanding of what's available to us? |
| 01:44:23.37 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, so I'll actually point you directly to the draft resolution, which includes all of the required findings. This is attachment one in the staff report. as you're going through that resolution, attachment one in the staff report, attachment one to the resolution sets forth the required findings. So to the extent that the council feels that you cannot make any of these specific findings, than, or more importantly, that you feel that further design changes are necessary in order to make the findings for approval, that is where you would impose conditions of approval on the project. |
| 01:44:54.85 | Aditya Padala | Thank you. |
| 01:44:54.95 | Steven Woodside | or |
| 01:45:02.59 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. I think that's all of our questions for now. Thank you so much. Uh, with that, I will invite the appellant up to make a presentation. Uh, and, uh, The appellant will have 13 minutes and 22 seconds. |
| 01:45:18.34 | Len Rifkind | Mayor Cox, one of the neighbor's neighborhood wants to speak. Her husband is very ill. She's very senior and she needs to go. And I'm wondering if, The council would consider letting her go out order before I speak. Is that possible? |
| 01:45:34.72 | Steven Woodside | Yeah, I'm seeing consensus from the council. So we'll go ahead and invite her up. Each public commenter has two minutes. If you'll let us know your name and pull the microphone down so we can hear you, you'll have two minutes. |
| 01:45:48.42 | Saga Perry | area. I'm Saga Perry, and I live next door to this project. |
| 01:45:52.91 | Steven Woodside | What is your name? |
| 01:45:54.18 | Saga Perry | Saga Perry. Yes. And it's, my address is actually 7 Harrison, but I use the same driveway as, um, the 25, Okay. St. Carlos. |
| 01:46:04.08 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:46:05.38 | Saga Perry | So this is right next to me, even if your address is not like it. So I was there already in 82 when we had these big slides. And my house was basically the whole corner that is towards this project slid down and had to be replaced and a new deck as well. So I'm concerned about, since this is going to be so much more Wait on that hill, which my my Architect at the time or the soil engineer said that it's a wet hill. So I'm concerned when we're going to get big rains that the hill is not going to hold. And we're going to have the same right across the street from me at Berkeley 4 and 6th. That rose house is slid down totally. the hill. So that's my feeling, especially since there's going to be a swimming pool as well in the plants. It's going to be a lot of weight on that hill. And is it going to hold? |
| 01:47:16.49 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:47:17.91 | Saga Perry | Thank you. |
| 01:47:17.93 | Steven Woodside | All right. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you for coming here personally to provide your comments. |
| 01:47:18.10 | Saga Perry | Right. |
| 01:47:18.16 | Catherine Casares | Thank you. |
| 01:47:30.47 | Steven Woodside | All right. Again, if you'll introduce yourself, City Clerk, can you reset our clock? |
| 01:47:37.16 | Aditya Padala | Yeah, hi. My name is Aditya Padala, saw Salita resident for 35 years. I just am going to be very short. The comment was made on views, and we all care a lot about views here. And I think... taking a very objective views as possible here. All you have to look at from that place next door, who's the appellate, is water and trees, nothing else. Nobody else can say whether I want a pretty woman standing there or whatever. But if you just look at water and trees and say, keep it exactly the same. If you build 20,000 square foot underground, that's fine. I think that one thing, if it's done well, and that's the thing I think that we're all concerned about. It'll affect all of us, not just this home. And if we say yes to this, other things can happen. But you just cover the trees the way it was supposed to be. Probably everybody would be fine here. Thank you. |
| 01:48:37.46 | Steven Woodside | All right. With that, I'll invite the appellant up. Yes. |
| 01:48:45.83 | Steven Woodside | He's handing to the city clerk copies of the slides. The appellant will have 13 minutes and 22 seconds. You are welcome to reserve some of that time if you'd like, sir. |
| 01:49:09.13 | Sissy Damner | here. |
| 01:49:15.31 | Len Rifkind | Okay. Good evening, Mayor Cox, members of the City Council. My name is Len Rifkind. And I have the honor, I'm sorry, I'm not feeling well as you can hear my voice, and I have the honor of representing Vicky Abelas, the owner of 25 San Carlos. Ms. Abella's appeal opposing the design review approval for 33 San Carlos focuses on the proposed third floor remodel. which has nearly tripled in size from 582 square feet originally to 1,468 square feet. To make room for this, the applicant, without a mandatory tree alteration permit, demolished approximately 40% of a protected oak tree canopy, which had provided nearly complete screening of 33 San Carlos from the view shed enjoyed by 25 San Carlos, resulting in a significant loss of the quality of the primary view from 25 San Carlos, where the definition of view under municipal code includes natural features, including vegetation. And there is, as a result of the uh, uh, harming of the view of consequential reduction and the properties fair market value. Effectively, Ms. Abelis is getting a building wall 18 feet closer in her face where she previously viewed an oak tree canopy. First slide, please. This slide depicts the aerial view. I don't think that's the first slide. There we go. Okay. Thank you. And you have copies in front of you. Um, as what you're seeing in this slide here is 25, San Carlos to the north. 33 San Carlos to the south, and the... a tree canopy before. it was altered. Next slide, please. In this slide, the red outline is the proposed third floor. built into the illegally altered protected tree canopy. The green outline is the original Third story and the heart of this appeal council members is the request to relocate as you can see on this slide the closet and the bathroom to a more southerly location on the third floor. That's it. No one's reducing units, no reduction in density, anything. We just need to get the closet and the bathroom out of the tree canopy area. Next slide, please. This slide depicts the existing conditions. You can see the tree canopy there is highlighted and you can see it's been reduced significantly. We're next slide, please. And this is an interesting slide. What you see here is looking north towards 25 San Carlos. depicting the extent that the butchered protected tree canopy. Next slide. These slides are going to show before and after pictures on the left, what you're seeing, is the condition before from the only primary view a room at 25 San Carlos. Please observer notice the full canopy almost entirely screening 33 San Carlos. You only see a smidgen of roof there. The image on the right depicts how the view will be impaired. Now you get no tree canopy and you get building. This is the antithesis of design review in Sausalito. Next slide, please. On the left. One can see the original third story in Canopy completely screening uh, 25 San Carlos and on the right, is the full impact of the proposed design as it imposes itself on 25 San Carlos, creating view, privacy, mass, and bulk impacts. As articulated in my November 26 letter, some 13 of the 20 mandatory design review findings cannot be made. The applicant appears to have misled the city regarding the scope for the project from the beginning, originally approved as an ADU in an effort to avoid design review. in 2024 after demolishing the residents without a permit. Yeah. the applicant illegally butchered two protected oak trees. also without a permit. The applicant failed to obtain, in our understanding, four mandatory permits, the demolition, tree alteration, design review, and building permit. This project is the epitome of how not to do a project in this city. but there's more. In 2025, after it Ms. Abelis attempted to meet and confer unsuccessfully. with the applicant to move back the third story out of the tree canopy area. And to take steps to allow the protected oak canopy to regrow, Ms. Abelis had no choice but to file a code enforcement complaint. Not surprisingly, the city found the project exceeded the scope of the 2021 ADU. and issued a stop work notice. In spite of the stop work notice, The applicant continued to illegally construct the project from May to October this year. despite and count this for city stop work notices. They were a compliance with us, but there was effectively four letters from the city. And with apparent impunity, this applicant kept building. Focusing on the merits of the appeal, the Planning Commission unfortunately erred in granting design review approval because mandatory findings cannot be made as the PC made clear. And the mayor noted, at the July meeting that design review findings could not be made in particular finding number 11 and heightened divine design review finding number one requiring preservation of protected trees and significant natural features which are objective findings since the July meeting there's been no material design change except adding a J due to the second floor. |
| 01:54:55.02 | Aditya Padala | which is not the case. |
| 01:55:11.42 | Len Rifkind | according to the PC, did not have a factual basis to reverse course and approved design review at its October meeting. Unfortunately, the PC was led astray in its deliberations by staff in two critical respects. First, staff advised the PC that it could not consider illegal tree cutting because it was the subject of a separate code enforcement matter. Staff's rationale as illegal tree cutting is an uncorrectable condition. I disagree respectfully. To the contrary, if Ms. Abelis' arborist recommendations are followed, this canopy can and will regrow. And second, and this is now we're going to get into the HAA, comments, staff directed the PC that it had to, this is a direction from the city attorney, they had to approve design review. Had no choice. I don't think that's a correct direction to give a planning commission. because the HAA applies. I think the city attorney gave very good advice tonight. And I think, and I hope that you will follow it. Staff direction aired because the project is a remodel of an existing residence. I think there's a distinction of remodel of an existing residence under the HAA. The purpose of that law is to add housing, to make new housing, remodeling an existing house. does not add housing and we have no beef with the a do and the J do in this case and we're not trying to reduce density there's no case law or hcd interpretation that the ha applies to the remodel of existing residences. Please also consider... uh, staff report on tonight's agenda for the objective design and development standards, odds. that the city has been working on very hard for, I think, several years, which is replete with references to the HAA applying to multi-family units. This is right in the staff report and references to its application to several zoning districts in this city. But notably absent to any of those references is an R1 zone like where 33 San Carlos is located. We urge your council to act consistently with your own proposed odds ordinance that presumably you will approve tonight and not find this project subject to HAA preemption of discretionary design review for remodels of existing residents. A remodel does not add new housing. And even if the HAA were to apply, your council can still impose conditions that do not make the project infeasible as your city attorney has advised. And we outlined what those conditions were at pages 13 and 14 of our November 26 correspondence. And we're here to offer solutions. We're not here to say no. Next slide, please. Miss Abelis retained a consulting architect, and we presented to the applicants some seven alternative designs. And you'll see our option A in front of you on the slide, and they go A through G, A, B, C, D through G. And looking at option A, you'll see the red outline on the right there. That's where the current closet and bathroom are located within the, um, Uh, tree canopy that was illegally cut. And we're simply proposing to move that section to some other location south out of the tree canopy, still on the third floor, still can be ADA compliant. There's no reason why I can't. And if you flip now, please just quickly through ABC, it's actually, it's kind of like a movie. If you go fast, you can see the different places that it can be and keep going. And you see these are, and these are just seven. I'm sure there's a thousand ways that you could design this. We're just... see the different places it can be and keep going. And you see these are and these are just seven. I'm sure there's a thousand ways that you could design this. We're just but what the problem was, is the applicant's response to these proposed alternatives deafening silence. |
| 01:58:43.14 | Aditya Padala | can be. |
| 01:59:10.39 | Len Rifkind | Nothing. The applicant, this appeal will determine whether discretionary design review and Sausalito for home remodels will remain. A question was raised by your council a few minutes ago. Given the applicant's cavalier attitude towards city stop work notices, this council should not reward such aberrant behavior with design review approval and the applicant benefits from unlawful construction and protected tree destruction. Commissioner Junius said at the October 8th, planning commission hearing, quote, We can't have a situation where people feel like Oh, as long as I do a two or three unit project, I can do whatever I want. because they'll have to approve in the end, even if I break the rules. That can't be the rule. That's not going to be the rule, close quote. Accordingly, we respectfully request the Council deny design review or alternatively remand to the Planning Commission with directions to apply all 20 mandatory findings to the single family remodel portion of the project or lastly, consider approval tonight but only with the specific conditions of approval as we've outlined on page 13 and four. 14 of her letter in closing. Unfortunately, the city appears to be struggling to enforce its laws in connection with this project. whereas it appears to be far more aggressive towards code compliance at 480. I THINK I'M GOING TO BE Sausalito Boulevard, which is also on tonight's agenda and I heard now continued, and I'm glad to hear there's a settlement. that's a good question. giving the appearance, unfortunately, of selective enforcement. This project creates the risk that property owners and developers will build without permit and face of stop work notices and pay the modest fines. which have no deterrent effect. Your counsel needs to send a message that illegal activity in Sausalito is not acceptable. or to be condoned. Thank you for your time and attention. |
| 02:01:05.68 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Will you stop the time, city clerk? I did have a couple of questions. |
| 02:01:11.55 | Len Rifkind | Yes, Madam Mayor. |
| 02:01:23.16 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. And I lost my Lost my screen. Okay. You keep talking about the removal of the tree canopy, but isn't the tree canopy solely on the applicant's land? |
| 02:01:36.29 | Len Rifkind | 100%. It's not archery. |
| 02:01:38.16 | Steven Woodside | And so, a homeowner can always trim their trees even protected trees, should they so choose? |
| 02:01:46.84 | Len Rifkind | Well, yes, no, except that it's these oak trees are, quote, protected trees under your ordinance because of the circumference at breast, breast height or whatever they measure it, you know, the arborist consider it a protected tree. And so if you're going to do that and under ISO, ISA, excuse me, standards, the arboricultural standards. Typically, you never prune an oak tree more than 25%. These oak trees were pruned. up 40%. We know it's 40% because if you look at the Arbor's report, they show the mathematical way that they calculate. |
| 02:02:21.72 | Steven Woodside | But even if you restore them by that 15% so that it only would be a 25% pruning, that would still allow for some development of, the revised third floor of the applicants project. |
| 02:02:37.61 | Len Rifkind | I guess I didn't quite catch the verb of the question. I'm sorry. |
| 02:02:40.55 | Steven Woodside | Yeah, so you say that the trees were reduced by 40% when they should only have been reduced a max of 25%. The arborists- |
| 02:02:48.18 | Len Rifkind | The Arborist. highest |
| 02:02:49.66 | Steven Woodside | I apologize. I'm sorry. |
| 02:02:49.68 | Len Rifkind | I apologize. Thank you. |
| 02:02:51.65 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:02:51.67 | Len Rifkind | Thank you. |
| 02:02:51.82 | Steven Woodside | The arborist has said these trees will regrow. So let's assume we regrow them by the 15% that would then have brought the reduction to 25%, which is permissible. That still would allow for some development on the third floor of the applicant's project. |
| 02:03:07.94 | Len Rifkind | We have no objection to development on the third floor. Right. What our goal is, is we want some screening. That's what she had. We want some screening back. And so, and there's no objection to the house, the project, just... figure out how that we can get the screening back and some of the other conditions that were identified. Thank you. |
| 02:03:27.04 | Steven Woodside | you took the position that a remodel does not add new housing, so it's not subject to the HAA, but... The J-DU does add new housing. Arguably. |
| 02:03:40.02 | Len Rifkind | I am taking the position that the J do and the a do is a separate body of law that, that their ministerial approvals that we can't touch them, that we're not objecting to them. I mean, you know, if they wanted to J dues, we don't object that it's fine. What we object to is the, position of the applicant that you can't deploy, apply any discretionary design review findings. That's all. And I think the city attorney reversed or said that you can. |
| 02:04:13.16 | Steven Woodside | And you're not objecting to either of the bedrooms. You're simply asking that the closet and the bathroom be moved. |
| 02:04:19.15 | Len Rifkind | Thank you. |
| 02:04:19.19 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:04:19.22 | Len Rifkind | That's it. Yeah, 100%. Any of the seven alternatives that we showed you or any other way that our applicant is ready, or excuse me, our consulting architect is ready, willing and willing to meet and confer with the applicant. architect and, you know, speak architect speak and come up with a design. |
| 02:04:38.47 | Steven Woodside | Is your, suppose that the applicant were to select one of the options A through G, is your architect willing to finalize those drawings so that it doesn't cost the applicant more money to undertake those revisions? |
| 02:04:52.46 | Len Rifkind | Well, that's a hard question since I'm going to spend my clients' money without consulting for that question. As a medium. |
| 02:04:56.61 | Steven Woodside | Well, I would ask. As a mediator in my spare time, I would ask that you confer with your client. |
| 02:04:59.84 | Len Rifkind | in my school. their time. The answer is, is we're willing to do a lot of things to make this work. |
| 02:05:03.38 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:05:07.90 | Steven Woodside | Okay, those are my questions. Yes, Councilmember Hoffman. Thank you. |
| 02:05:11.94 | Jill Hoffman | My question is, Mr. Rifkin, do you or if you don't, does staff have an idea of or actually the square footage of the closet and the bath? |
| 02:05:24.19 | Len Rifkind | Well, let's see the square footage. I know that the planning commission wanted a reduction of 300 feet. They reduced it by 63 feet. |
| 02:05:33.00 | Jill Hoffman | I'm not asking that. I'm just asking for what's the square footage of the closet in the back. Does anybody have that? |
| 02:05:33.25 | Len Rifkind | Yeah. |
| 02:05:37.77 | Jill Hoffman | Anybody? |
| 02:05:38.23 | Len Rifkind | You know, anybody? |
| 02:05:39.17 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, I'm gonna ask that maybe somebody could do that. calculation, I'd like to have that before we make our decision. As the city manager, can your staff figure that out for us? |
| 02:05:45.53 | Len Rifkind | Thank you. |
| 02:05:45.55 | Steven Woodside | as the city manager. I'm seeing him nodding his head. |
| 02:05:50.92 | Len Rifkind | And Councilmember Hoffman, our consulting architect, is available by Zoom, and he may know the answer. |
| 02:05:56.88 | Jill Hoffman | That's fine. Somebody could get that to us. I think that's pertinent. And the next question is, okay, and thank you. I think the mayor asked this, but, and so that's principally your, your, your objection at this point is just to move the location of the closet in the bathroom. We can't make trees grow as a council as much as we'd like. That's not within our purview or something that we can make happen. So, um, here tonight. So, um, screening, as we've said in many times and privacy, it is up to the person that wants the privacy. And so we can talk about maybe mitigation things that that we might be able to require that the, you know, as a mitigation measure, but we can't make a tree grow. So, um, We can look at You know, we can look at things that we can do with regard to the location of the closet and the bath. We can look at mitigation measures for privacy our first choice would be that the parties work it out amongst themselves so But thank you for that. |
| 02:07:07.50 | Len Rifkind | Can I respond to your comments briefly? |
| 02:07:09.74 | Jill Hoffman | About not making trees grow? |
| 02:07:11.38 | Len Rifkind | Sure. Well, because the problem is, is these trees are located on the north side. And so if you build the building, if you read the recommendations of our arborists, that you need to have the building far enough away from the trees so it gets air and light so that they can have a possibility of regrowing. And it's north side, so there's limited light on that side. And so there are a number of The problem, Council Member Hoffman, is it's an extremely steep slope there. And so it's not easy to grow new plants to screen way up in the air like, Thank you. |
| 02:07:48.37 | Jill Hoffman | Do you have, sorry to interrupt you, but do you have specific mitigation measures that you list other than. |
| 02:07:48.40 | Len Rifkind | Do you have some? |
| 02:07:54.97 | Len Rifkind | Yes, on pages 13 and 14 of my letter. And Ms. Abelis is going to speak in two minutes time and be able to list specifically those mitigations that she's looking for. |
| 02:07:55.57 | Jill Hoffman | I'm those listed. |
| 02:08:09.50 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you. But principally, with regard to the outline of the house or any other recommendations or requests that you're asking for, is just the reconfiguration of the closet and the bath? |
| 02:08:24.92 | Len Rifkind | Yes, and we also want, I mean, we're adding a deck and a pool and all kinds. So we want the normal stuff like there's no, for example, there's not a current, as we understand, geotechnical report for this property. It was done for the 2021 project, but not for this project. So we don't have a property specific. geotechnical report. There's drainage issues. I realize that a lot of these things are dealt with at the building permit stage, but, but we have a project that's, you know, cattywampus, it's being built before you get the approvals. That's the problem. |
| 02:09:00.56 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:09:00.58 | Steven Woodside | Understood. Okay. Thank you, sir. |
| 02:09:01.98 | Len Rifkind | Thank you. |
| 02:09:03.82 | Steven Woodside | I'm going to follow on to that because I believe that I guess I'm going to ask our assistant city manager, community and economic development department Manager don't our standard conditions of approval include Um, Geotechnical and those types of concerns raised by Councilmember Hoffman as a condition of approval. the |
| 02:09:28.71 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you for the question. Not necessarily, Mayor. You will be hearing an item this evening in regards to a hillside ordinance, which does ponder adding some oil or plate conditions of approval at the planning phase as related to geotech. However, |
| 02:09:44.37 | Steven Woodside | But at the permit phase, I'm asking whether it's at the permit phase required. |
| 02:09:47.57 | Brandon Phipps | The planning permit phase, it is not. At the building permit phase, it generally would be. |
| 02:09:52.40 | Steven Woodside | Right, exactly. The building permit phase. So they do have to demonstrate certain... |
| 02:09:53.56 | Brandon Phipps | Okay. |
| 02:09:57.92 | Steven Woodside | Um, that that they meet certain parameters in order to obtain a building permit. |
| 02:10:03.99 | Len Rifkind | Absolutely. Yeah, but Mayor Cox, under your design review, and this is a design review hearing, there is a requirement for the design review application to have a soils report or a geotechnical report. There is not a current one for this project. That's all. |
| 02:10:18.69 | Steven Woodside | Understood. Okay. Thanks. All right. |
| 02:10:26.25 | Steven Woodside | Okay, that concludes, oh, we're going to hear from the, Mrs. Abelis, I think. |
| 02:10:38.94 | Steven Woodside | And city clerk, you're showing 106, but I showed that it was two minutes left. |
| 02:10:48.27 | Vicki Abeles | And I was actually going to use my time for public comment. |
| 02:10:48.58 | Steven Woodside | There we go. |
| 02:10:52.14 | Steven Woodside | You're using your time right now, so go ahead. you |
| 02:10:54.72 | Vicki Abeles | All right, good evening Mayor Cox and council members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. I wanna focus on the clearest facts in the record and on a constructive path forward that protects safety, fairness, and trust in the process. Over the past couple of years, the project at 33 San Carlos has been pursued in violation of the city's code and procedures. The lot was scraped and work began on what is essentially a new home. without required permits and without design review. Two protected trees were significantly damaged and construction continued after stop work orders. These are straightforward facts. When work happens outside the rules or continues despite a stop work order, it undermines confidence that the code applies equally to everyone. I wanna be clear, I'm not trying to stop the applicants from having a home. I'm simply asking the city to follow its own process and to take the impacts on my property and on this hillside seriously. With that in mind, if the council does not deny the project or remand it for heightened design review, I respectfully ask that you adopt the following conditions, which would meaningfully reduce the harm and restore the balance between our homes. First, relocate the northern portion of the third floor, as we've been talking about this evening, to the south, away from my home and the protected tree. That's consistent with the arborist report and with the alternative designs provided by Eric Cobb. It's also consistent with the Planning Commission's request that the third floor be reduced by 300 feet. Second, require a living green wall on the elevations that are facing my home. Third, lower the steel column so that the roof line does not exceed the story pole height as they currently do. Fourth, limit the roof level improvements to further prevent impairment of my primary view with third party verification of roof corners. Fifth, adopt all conditions in the arborist's report and I remain willing to oversee and to pay for the long term care of these altered trees. And finally, require independent geotechnical review to ensure the hillside safety given the unaltered |
| 02:13:03.34 | Steven Woodside | Your time is up. I'm so sorry. Your time is up. But can you please repeat conditional work? |
| 02:13:08.52 | Vicki Abeles | Thank you. |
| 02:13:08.99 | Steven Woodside | Can you please repeat condition four that you were requesting? |
| 02:13:11.03 | Vicki Abeles | or Absolutely. Limit roof level improvements to prevent further impairment of my primary view with third party verification of roof corners. |
| 02:13:24.20 | Steven Woodside | I don't understand that, but okay. All right. Thank you. |
| 02:13:32.79 | Steven Woodside | Any further City Council questions? Okay, then I'm going to open this up to public comment. I have no speaker cards. We've heard... I- I see the applicant raising their hand. We're going to allow rebuttal after we hear from the public. |
| 02:13:57.59 | Steven Woodside | All right. So I have Vicki, but Vicki Abelis, you've already spoken as part of the application. So I'm not going to have further questions. Thank you. public comment. Jamie Abeles. |
| 02:14:18.87 | Steven Woodside | Each public commenter will have two minutes. |
| 02:14:25.40 | Steven Woodside | Welcome. |
| 02:14:25.91 | Jamie Abeles | Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Cox and members of the city. |
| 02:14:28.85 | Steven Woodside | Please speak into the microphone. Thank you. |
| 02:14:30.03 | Jamie Abeles | I agree. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Cox and members of the City Council. Thank you so much for your time tonight. My name is Dr. Jamie Ables and I'm a local veterinarian. I recently moved back to the Bay Area and while I'm new to Sausalito, I've spent a great deal of time at my mother's house at 25 San Carlos. That has given me a really close view of how the project at 33 San Carlos has unfolded and what I've seen has left me deeply concerned for the community. As a veterinarian, my work centers on protecting the vulnerable and building trust. And this situation has shown how quickly trust erodes when rules aren't applied consistently. Over the past couple of years, I've seen construction move forward without required permits or design review damage to protected trees that stabilize our shared hillside work continuing despite multiple staff four quarters and an applicant unwilling to pursue reasonable collaborative solutions. it. And the most frustrating part is that if proper procedures had been followed from the beginning, our neighbors home could very likely have been completed by now safely lawfully and accessible. As someone hoping to build my future here, I'm concerned about the message it sends. If an applicant can bypass procedures, damage protected resources, ignore stop work orders, and refuse compromise and still expect approval, it raises real questions about fairness, safety, and the integrity of the city's process. This isn't just a dispute between neighbors. It's about whether rules apply equally. whether our hillside environment are protected, and whether residents can trust that Sausalito's values are upheld. I really respectfully ask the council to require full, lawful, and unbiased review, independent evaluation of the hillside, and enforcement of the same standards that apply to every resident. My hope is to build a life in a community that values fairness, honesty, and accountability. I believe Sausalito can be that community, and I really hope your decision reflects those values. Thank you. |
| 02:16:14.26 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:16:14.74 | Jamie Abeles | Thank you. |
| 02:16:14.75 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Our next speaker is Stacy Cray. followed by Eric Lundquist. |
| 02:16:26.13 | Stacy Cray | Welcome. Good evening, council members. Let's see here. I'm sorry. I just missed my. Give me one second here. You can pause it, city clerk. Thank you. Okay, here we go. I am a resident and homeowner in Sausalito. I've been following the objections to construction at 33 San Carlos raised at the Palanen Commission hearings earlier this year. My general understanding is that Sausalito has design requirements and related trees and views ordinances. for multiple reasons, but one of the most important is to maintain fairness for residents who, owing to our beautiful environment and our primely valued real estate, live squeezed in side by side with very little buffer space. Over my time owning property here more than 10 years, what I have found is that most residents are courteous to one another, an attempt to ward off potential disagreements about development and altered plans and site issues. that may impact neighboring properties by informing neighbors about potential changes in advance of taking action. and obtaining input and making good faith efforts to respond cooperatively to raised concerns. From the administrative record in this case, it appears that the owners of 33 San Carlos are not abiding by these social norms. In fact, it appears that they may have attempted to subvert meaningful input by breaking development plans into smaller chunks. to hide the overall impact of their ultimate plan. It is hard to fathom how in our space challenged environment, a property owner can move their house 18 feet closer to a neighboring house. and at the same time increase the square footage by a thousand feet at an elevation that impacts views and not have those elements subject to public input and city approval And how after these facts are brought to the city's attention that the same property owner can still then violate multiple. stop work orders and still obtain city approval? Please put an end to this bad behavior and deny or otherwise condition or delay this permit to ensure that that the owners of 33 San Carlos have complied with city design requirements. |
| 02:18:35.90 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:18:36.18 | Stacy Cray | Thank you. |
| 02:18:37.68 | Steven Woodside | Eric Lundquist, and then Jeffrey Stafford. |
| 02:18:54.56 | Jackie Winkle | You can go ahead. |
| 02:18:55.67 | Eric Lundquist | Eric Lundquist, resident of Sausalito, a practicing planner for 26 years. This particular project may not be approved tonight as it doesn't meet four particular objective design standards. First, I think we've all been duped by the fact of believing that this counts as building. In fact, the enacting ordinances for lot coverage, Ordinances 1167 and 1205, differentiate between buildings and structures. Exhibit A, you can see that5 differentiate between buildings and structures. Exhibit A, you can see that lot coverage, buildings and structures are to be included. Structures is defined by section 1088.03.0, which is exhibit B. Those include earthen structures. The intent of this legislation is to avoid situations like this, where hillsides lots get built up with earthen support structures in order to flatten them to make them more usable. Exhibit C, Section 1012-020E, the more restrictive provisions apply. So in this particular case, structures must be included in the lot coverage calculation. The plain language of the code differentiates, again, buildings and structures. The legislative intent of the ordinances 1167 and 1205 is to differentiate buildings and structures. An interpretation of the code, or this is what we've done in the past, cannot alter or revise the plain language and then legislative intent of the code, which is exhibit C. Exhibit D, should the appropriate structures be included in the lot coverage calculation, the lot coverage is at 67%, where 35% is required. Exhibit E zoning code non compliance and impervious surface all structures which count towards lot coverage shall be calculated as impervious surface. Exhibit F should those structures be included in in the impervious surface calculation, the impervious surface calculation exceeds required 67.5% exhibit G. Submittal requirements codified in section 1040 requires a tree alteration permit and a geological report. Thank you. Your time is up. |
| 02:21:00.09 | Steven Woodside | have not been provided. Um, Mr. City Attorney, I'm going to ask you a question to answer later. This speaker took the position that section 10.88.030 includes earthen structures. I'm not seeing that as I quickly read this. Can you opine on that following our next speaker or following public comment? |
| 02:21:25.17 | Sergio Rudin | Yes, thank you. |
| 02:21:26.28 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. All right. Next speaker is Jeffrey Stafford and then Colleen Hancock. |
| 02:21:33.98 | Jeffrey Stafford | And Thank you, counsel. My name is Jeffrey Stafford, and I'm a resident of Sausalito. The design review and heightened review findings require this project to preserve protected trees, minimize impacts and maximize preservation. These are mandatory. In particular design review finding 11 requires preservation of protected trees and minimization of impacts and heightened review finding one requires that the project maximize preservation of protected trees. In July, the planning Commission said they could not make the required findings and they directed the applicant to remove 300 square feet, as we've heard from the third floor. When they returned in October, they only removed 63 square feet. yet. it was still recommended for approval. if the planning commission could not make the findings in July, how can those same findings be made in October when the design remains essentially unchanged? The project now extends 18 feet into the space where the canopy once existed. The design is only possible because the protected tree was altered. For these findings to be lawful, the protected tree must be able to reclaim its original canopy space, and room to grow back with light and air, This project prevents that. It blocks the area. Findings must be based on substantial evidence. Here, that 300 square foot reduction was not provided. The tree impacts were excluded from consideration and the project relies on illegally altered site conditions. I'll say that again, the project relies on illegally altered site conditions in its current, in its current state. The findings, therefore, cannot be legally made. I respectfully ask the Council to set aside the Planning Commission's approval and require a revised design that puts, pulls fully out the tree's original canopy area and removes the full 300 square foot reduction. that the commission required in July. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:23:26.97 | Steven Woodside | THE FAMILY. Colleen Hancock and then Michelle Dumont. |
| 02:23:42.97 | Colleen Hancock | Hello, City Council. I'm Colleen Hancock, a 25-year homeowner on 244 Sausalito Boulevard. So I have been in here many times before. I visited Mrs. Abellis' home and was pretty shocked at the loss of all the trees. I'm a tree nature buff. And just the visibility of the poles and the roof. it's really sad. And I keep hearing that the trees are all healthy, but if you look at the tree report, Tree number three, which is the one where the bathroom and closet will be encroaching on. is 75%. healthy. and actually has a long-term capability of being stressed. So it's gonna need a lot of care and a lot of space to come back. Two major branch cuts were made, which is really devastating to a tree, especially as we move into the raining season. So it is gonna need, some care to make it. It's a beautiful tree. Um, but it is, it is something that, um, it's not, I mean, if I were, if someone said you're 75% healthy, how'd you feel about that? right? Come on. Who wants to be 75% healthy? Um, I do have great empathy for the sisters and it struck me in the last meeting. how they said the light in the view are needed for their mental and cognitive well-being. I'd say many of us in Sausalito say that. It is so incredible here, but I also believe that it's true for Mrs. Isabelus. This is also good for her cognitive well-being. So why do we put her aside in this issue? And it is a very different view she's dealing with right now than what she used to have. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE So really, I recommend a compromise, which hopefully we're all talking about, where we remove that extension into the canopy of the trees, put it somewhere else on that third level, allow that to be able to grow back and become good neighbors. |
| 02:25:46.66 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. All right. |
| 02:25:53.14 | Steven Woodside | Michelle Dumont. |
| 02:25:57.02 | Steven Woodside | And then those are all the speaker cards I have. for the chambers will then turn to any public comment online. |
| 02:26:03.96 | Michelle Dumas | Hi, I'm Michelle Dumas and I'm here as a concerned neighbor and as an architect And everything. we're seeing here really does come back to life safety building without a permit. That's why we have building permits, altering trees that support hillsides. And construction that continues without a stop work order is extremely serious, especially for life safety. When these actions happen outside of the normal process, it really makes it hard to trust that the record fully reflects the actual site conditions. Staff can see what is there. But there's no way to know what happened when the work was being done and people didn't know that it was unpermitted. The plans still show don't show original tree drip lines. There is the issue of the geotechnical report. And on steep slopes, as we heard about today, this one had a slide. This all comes back to life safety. We really have to have the most up-to-date information. And I really want to stress that you go over to Vicki's home I spend at least one day a week. at construction sites and what you see there. is just, it's a whole different perspective. A photograph could never show it. So give yourself the time. I'm not asking you to deny the project. I'm asking for a pause. I'm suggesting a third party come in and really look at what's there because we really don't know at this point. And on all of our steep hill sides, that's critical to make sure that life safety is being upheld. Um, So thank you so much for your time. Thank you. |
| 02:27:59.56 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. All right. That concludes my speaker cards. I had one from Mr. Rifkind, but he has obviously already spoken. So I'm going to turn to the city clerk to see if we have anyone online. |
| 02:28:15.35 | Walfred Solorzano | Equity department. |
| 02:28:17.58 | Catherine Casares | That's me. I'm sorry. It's where I work. My name is Olympia Kiriakides. Can you hear me okay? |
| 02:28:22.93 | Michelle McCullough | Yes. |
| 02:28:24.02 | Catherine Casares | I don't know if you can see me. I don't think you can see me. I'm the twin sister of Kathy Casares, and I was supposed to be a resident living at 33 San Carlos. I am retiring this month. I'm a lifelong California K-12 educator, and I was supposed to be living there. And I apologize for not being there in person with you, but I am advanced in my Parkinson's beyond my sister, and mobility is difficult, and the stress of this whole situation has really impacted my mobility, and I could not travel up there. Stress has a strong impact on Parkinson's. And I wanted to, I hope none of you ever have to experience. really impacted my mobility and I could not travel up there. Stress has a strong impact on Parkinson's. And I wanted to, I hope none of you ever have to experience Parkinson's disease. The comments that were just made were really upsetting to me because One of the for sure things that's going to happen is that we're going to get dementia. So when we talk about mental well-being and what matters and doesn't matter for one to another, it's because it's almost a guaranteed outcome. And it's a very scary outcome. And the square footage that they want to take away beyond what was already done by the planning commission is critical. square footage for two sisters. I'm not nearly as mobile as my sister because my Parkinson's came on sooner than my sister. And that square footage is critical. And there's rules to protect people with disabilities as well and your own. Your own guidance in your policies help make homes for people with disabilities so taking away that square footage is needed it's very limited square footage that's possible there and that's the only floor. that has the egress where we can get out safely and get if there's an emergency. And the ironic part is if my sister and my brother-in-law are amazing people and they have only acted in good faith and followed the guidance. All right. Thank you so much. |
| 02:30:23.19 | Steven Woodside | Thank you so much for your public comment. |
| 02:30:25.81 | Catherine Casares | City, |
| 02:30:27.08 | Walfred Solorzano | We have Jack Burroughs. |
| 02:30:29.62 | Steven Woodside | Jack who? |
| 02:30:30.60 | Walfred Solorzano | Burroughs. |
| 02:30:30.74 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you. Jack Burrells. Welcome. |
| 02:30:34.32 | Jack Burroughs | Good evening, city council here and everyone else. |
| 02:30:36.00 | Steven Woodside | So, Burrows. |
| 02:30:41.44 | Jack Burroughs | This night seems to be a very good contrast of first world versus third world problems here. And I think we've spent an hour now talking about views... health and safety, fire, You know, a lot of issues that matter to all of us, not just people up in the hills that are looking at water and hillsides or protected trees like we have here in LK Park. But, um, you know, I want to understand something. And what I'm, what I was hearing earlier when Sergio was talking about HAA, is that if you're adding new housing, especially where it concerns low income and extremely low income, There is no guidance that the city can give with heightened discretionary review or even discretionary review when it comes adding new housing. Is that a correct assumption? And I yield my time and I await an answer on that as it relates to, you know, a an issue that is much more pressing than hillside views, in my opinion. So thank you. |
| 02:32:08.07 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. City Clerk. |
| 02:32:10.72 | Art Guilvaro | We have CP. |
| 02:32:21.45 | Steven Woodside | Uh, CP, are you there? |
| 02:32:27.56 | Walfred Solorzano | All right. They're not answering. So we have another person, George Osterkamp. |
| 02:32:38.04 | Steven Woodside | George Osterkamp. |
| 02:32:40.44 | George Osterkamp | YES. |
| 02:32:42.75 | Steven Woodside | Yes, go ahead. |
| 02:32:43.56 | George Osterkamp | Thank you. Yes. My name is George Osterkamp. I live down the street at number two San Carlos. I've been a resident there for more than 20 years. And I was deeply disturbed that construction continued full scale after several stop orders. It seemed to me that the attitude of the applicants was, we'll build it, we'll do what we want, and we'll worry about punishment later. I think maybe Maybe there's a $100 fine. Maybe there's a $100 fine, maybe there's a $100 fine for the next violation, but it just seems to me of deep concern that because you cite an ADU, that you seem to be able to go and do what you want. And that troubles me a great deal. And thank you very much for considering this. |
| 02:33:22.80 | Aditya Padala | I mean, |
| 02:33:35.13 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. City Clerk. |
| 02:33:38.47 | Walfred Solorzano | No further public comments. |
| 02:33:40.06 | Steven Woodside | Did you want to try CP again? |
| 02:33:42.39 | Walfred Solorzano | See. |
| 02:33:49.83 | Walfred Solorzano | They are not responding. Okay. |
| 02:33:54.84 | Steven Woodside | All right, then I'm going to close public comment. I'm going to invite the applicant back up. They have a little bit over a minute left to respond. |
| 02:34:08.22 | Steven Woodside | I'm going to leave it at, okay, four minutes and 17 seconds. |
| 02:34:20.64 | Jason Nelson | Thank you, Mayor. Obviously, I have a limited amount of time, so I can't address all of the issues raised. But in terms of the H-A-Y-A-S-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H-A-C-H- |
| 02:34:27.66 | Steven Woodside | I'm so sorry. |
| 02:34:28.62 | Jason Nelson | Yes. |
| 02:34:29.81 | Steven Woodside | I have another speaker card. from, Sissy Damner that was handed to me after I thought we had finished. So I'm going to hear from Sissy Damner before I hear from the applicant. So sorry. |
| 02:34:53.65 | Sissy Damner | Good evening, Mayor Cox and council members. My name is Sissy Damner. I live at number one, San Carlos. I've lived here for 20, almost 20 years. And as a neighbor, I'm a... that this construction is not going in the way of neighborliness. Thank you. It's really repulsive to me that permits have not been made, they have not been honored. There seems to be a flagrant disrespect for rules. And as a neighbor, I'm concerned that this could happen to me, that a house could be sold, it could be leveled, and nobody would care that Sissy Damner's house was there. views were enjoyed by It could be leveled, and nobody would care that Sissy Damner's house was there. Views were enjoyed by myself, by my husband, by our children and grandchildren. I think you, as council members, are almost obligated to honor the rules of our city. And I think one of the things that makes us, Leo, really... pretty and bucolic is the fact that we are pretty and that the rules have been followed and pretty houses and i don't when i say the word pretty i don't actually like that word but houses in keeping with the rules that have been laid are followed and i just really want you to respect my property as much as anyone else's property, as your properties. And I think I certainly don't want somebody to level a house in front of me and build something that is not permitted and is going to ruin my view and my house. Thank you. |
| 02:36:29.40 | Aditya Padala | Yeah. |
| 02:36:57.29 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Okay, now I'm going to close public comment, and I'm going to bring it back up here for the applicant, who will have four minutes and 17 seconds. |
| 02:37:07.35 | Jason Nelson | Thank you, Mayor. |
| 02:37:11.28 | Jason Nelson | So this most recent speaker makes me realize something that I think I have to address that. The council is in a very difficult political position, and I acknowledge that. And there's not much I can say or do about that. All I can do is my best to present what I understand the law to be. And I believe it's quite clear. that the state has decided to exercise its right to preemption and It's changing a lot of things, and that is precisely why the HAA has the conditions that it does. and why it is as powerful as it is. And as to that point, the HA and the technical memo that I linked to in my November 30th letter, clearly states in the FAQ page page 19 specifically, that a single family home with an ADU Just those two units. are clearly two units under the H.A. So in this case, we have two new net units. which is, Clearly an HAA project. We have a single family home, and without addressing the level of work done to it, it was vacant for 20 years. So whether that technically qualifies as an additional unit on the HA or not, The reality is we have two new net units, which clearly qualifies for the H.A. In any attempt to slice it apart, to say that HA applies to the ADU and the junior ADU, and it doesn't apply to single-family home. I just do not believe that's a valid argument, and it leads to a ridiculous situation. where you can build the accessory units. but not the single family home. That defies any form of logic. The HA refers to a housing development project. This is one project of a single family home, A DECISION OF THE an ADU and a junior ADU. I also do not agree with the city attorney's conclusion that the council can impose subjective conditions or discretionary conditions. I believe that flies in the face of both the statute on its face, as well as the legislative intent, which is further evidenced by all the ODD, like ODDS language, which is to do away with subjective and development standards. and to only focus on objective. That is entirely the point. of the HA and all related housing statutes. as to the issue of The view. First of all, that's obviously a subjective finding. And secondly, THE PLANNING COMMISSION not only conducted a full design review, They conducted a full heightened design review. And the. and the findings were all made the planning commission and they were unanimous in their approval. Finally, I want to say that |
| 02:40:01.99 | Jason Nelson | We are asking the Council to follow staff recommendations and a unanimous approval for zero by the Planning Commission. Thank you. I'll save the remaining minute minute 18 for Mrs. Casares. |
| 02:40:16.37 | Costas Casares | Thank you. |
| 02:40:16.40 | John DeRay | Thank you. |
| 02:40:16.42 | Costas Casares | Thank you. |
| 02:40:20.60 | Costas Casares | I'm Costas Casadas, the owner. I want to kind of... I'm sorry. Your time is |
| 02:40:27.57 | Steven Woodside | Your time is running, sir. |
| 02:40:28.50 | Costas Casares | Yeah. |
| 02:40:28.64 | Catherine Casares | Bye. |
| 02:40:28.69 | Costas Casares | Yeah. |
| 02:40:28.70 | Catherine Casares | Yeah. |
| 02:40:29.16 | Costas Casares | Well, |
| 02:40:29.43 | Catherine Casares | First of all, we had a full-blown building permit. |
| 02:40:29.50 | Steven Woodside | First we'll be back. |
| 02:40:33.17 | Steven Woodside | You have to speak into the mic. There you go. |
| 02:40:35.45 | Catherine Casares | Sorry, we had a full blown building permit and we had geotechnical all done by Miller Pacific. The living space that is being asked to be removed 300 square feet is living space that the design, the planning commission. asked us to remove what changed from the original design to this last issuance, which was the addition of the garage. That is the 300 square feet that was added. Additionally, it isn't feasible to change that corner because it's built and we have structural engineers saying the house is two thirds built. |
| 02:41:14.64 | Costas Casares | And I want to bring three things about us kind of doing work on permanently That's not true. I forward you a spreadsheet with over 20 meetings that I held from the time that we were staffed Till now, where we had continuous discussion with the staff, everybody here all the way up, except the mayor and maybe you guys, but everybody else who was there. We did have permits. We did have five inspections. |
| 02:41:42.83 | Steven Woodside | Thank you so much. That's the end of your time. |
| 02:41:46.50 | Costas Casares | you gave, um, |
| 02:41:47.86 | Steven Woodside | We've already given you additional time. So everyone has gotten the same amount of time. |
| 02:41:53.18 | Catherine Casares | Are there any questions for us? We feel like we didn't have an opportunity to answer any of your questions. |
| 02:41:57.26 | Steven Woodside | We don't have any questions of you. Thank you. |
| 02:41:59.81 | Catherine Casares | Thank you. |
| 02:42:02.56 | Steven Woodside | Ahem. With that, I'm going to close the public hearing and bring it up here for council discussion. City Attorney, are you able to answer the question that I posed regarding... Yeah. Section 10.88.030, whether a structure includes earthen structures. Our principal planner took the position that it does not, that it only includes the retaining walls. We had one public speaker take the position that it does. |
| 02:42:36.97 | Sergio Rudin | Yes. So the The coverage limits and how they are calculated in those definitions are actually in 104050. Um, Thank you. |
| 02:42:49.15 | Steven Woodside | That's the perfect thing. |
| 02:42:50.67 | Sergio Rudin | Earth and structures are nowhere mentioned in the city's municipal code. My understanding after conferring with staff is that they do calculate Um, the retaining wall as part of building coverage. Those figures are included, but I don't see any basis in the definitions in 1040-050 that you would have to consider retained earth as part of either building coverage or impervious coverage. It doesn't meet the definitions set forth in 1040.050. |
| 02:43:25.92 | Steven Woodside | Thank you for that. |
| 02:43:34.38 | Jill Hoffman | Does staff have the answer to my question about the square footage for the closet in |
| 02:43:42.07 | Brandon Phipps | I see principal plan or manage approaching. I believe we have an architect who's joined us on the Zoom application as well. |
| 02:43:49.87 | John Hutchinson | No, I don't believe so. No, it's just, it's about 200 square feet. That space that we're discussing. |
| 02:43:55.54 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:43:55.74 | John Hutchinson | Thank you. |
| 02:43:59.51 | Jill Hoffman | Can I just confirm that with the applicants just so there's no |
| 02:44:04.40 | Steven Woodside | Does the applicant disagree that the closet and the bathroom comprised roughly 200 square feet i'm looking to the applicants council |
| 02:44:18.20 | Sissy Damner | by me. That sounds like Thank you. |
| 02:44:21.27 | Steven Woodside | I'll just say state for the record, since he didn't speak at the podium, that according to the architect, that sounds correct. |
| 02:44:33.16 | Steven Woodside | I'm sorry, please don't call out. |
| 02:44:42.07 | Steven Woodside | Okay, would anyone like to lead offer? I'm happy to do so. |
| 02:44:49.15 | Steven Woodside | Vice Mayor. |
| 02:44:51.19 | Joan Cox | Not with respect to... sort of the ultimate decision that we're about to make, but I just wanted to make sure everyone understood what the city attorney has advised us regarding our discretion here. that even though the Housing Accountability Act limits our authority in some respects. It does not limit but our design review authority and therefore we do have discretion to uh suggest as i believe the appellant has suggested that uh a that there be a relocation of a portion of the third floor i just want to make sure everyone understood that that's the legal advice we've gotten i happen to agree with it and uh |
| 02:45:32.57 | Vicki Abeles | No. |
| 02:45:32.74 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:45:32.93 | Vicki Abeles | I'm not. |
| 02:45:35.52 | Joan Cox | that may lead us to doing something such as that. |
| 02:45:38.82 | Steven Woodside | I'll just add the caveat, so long as we don't reduce the number of units. Correct. Correct. Yeah. And city attorney, please feel free to weigh in on anything that we are saying if we are going astray. |
| 02:45:54.69 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, and I will, I guess, indicate yes, I do think that Um, Because the Housing Accountability Act does say design review and it acknowledges design review, you do have the authority to change. the design. There have been some issues raised with respect to accessibility. With regards to any design changes the council does impose, I would recommend that you... do so in a manner that provides flexibility to ensure that the interior space can be reconfigured to maintain accessible paths of travel and accessible use within the envelope of the structure. |
| 02:46:39.38 | Steven Woodside | And then, city attorney, there's been several mentions of a geotechnical report. A geotechnical report was prepared in connection with the prior building permit that was obtained. Obviously, this is a different application from that. So are we... There's been a suggestion that we require that study now, as opposed to at the building permit phase. |
| 02:47:06.16 | Sergio Rudin | I think that the council can impose a condition of approval requiring a, geotechnical report to be provided and that appropriate structural calculations for foundations be provided with the, you know, building permits of metal. |
| 02:47:24.22 | Steven Woodside | With the building permit submittal and not before? |
| 02:47:27.69 | Sergio Rudin | Um, I mean, I don't see any reason that the city would need it before the building permit submittal after it reviews the design review permit. |
| 02:47:37.99 | Unknown | Understood. |
| 02:47:42.07 | Jill Hoffman | of. Thank you. Mayor, I think I think it's a little bit unusual in what I might throw out as a starting off point. Sure. And I think just to start our discussion. I don't propose that we end up here, but this is just maybe to frame and start off our discussion. how We might start us off. and what I'm looking at from the staff report, and I think isn't accurate. sort of summary from what I saw from the staff report. It looked to me like there was a hearing shoot. There it is. A hearing in the summer, July, in July. And then there was, yeah, July 23. And then there was a scheduled hearing, a follow up hearing for September, which was continued another scheduled hearing that was then continued again. And for various reasons, it looks like maybe it was on the applicant at least once, if not twice, that it was continued again to October. And then we had a hearing in October. And so the first recommendation in July was that the design be reduced by 300 square feet. And then we ended up with 63 square feet that was finally approved in October. That to me looks like how we progressed. This looks like a much larger house. That's not in dispute. It looks like there was a tree that was impermissibly trimmed substantially. That's not in dispute. And that has substantially affected the uphill house also not in dispute. And so we You know, we have limited ability to make a tree grow also not in dispute We have sympathy for the privacy and what this uphill house how we can mitigate that and so I I am sympathetic, and I'm just throwing this out as a starting point. I am sympathetic that what seems to be a request from the uphill appellant or applicant or whatever, appellant, is that removal or not even removal, just movement of the 200 square feet of the closet in a bathroom that's the closest and encroaching upon, as we now is undisputed, into the impermissibly reduced protected tree. And so I'm inclined to proceed down that path. What I'm cautious about doing And what I do want to do is to protect the ability of the applicant and certainly her access and her sister's access inside her home. Thank you. And I'm cautious about trying to design from the dais. And, but I am, cognizant of the limitations that we have in our scheduling here from the dais. And I don't want to slow this project or resolution of this project down. So we have some tools that we can do. We can condition certain things and we can suggests certain things that the parties work things out amongst themselves and how we might make a decision up here absent something that they work out amongst themselves. And that worked out perfectly. |
| 02:51:06.73 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:51:06.82 | Jill Hoffman | Exactly. |
| 02:51:07.03 | Steven Woodside | It did work out perfectly. |
| 02:51:08.38 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 02:51:09.30 | Steven Woodside | All right, I'm just going to follow on to that. The city attorney has told us that the tools we can implement are our design review findings. And so I want to focus on our ability to make the design review findings. And I believe the applicable findings are design review findings, Um, Four. The proposed project has been designed to minimize obstruction of primary views from private property. Design review finding 11. The proposed design preserves protected trees, and design reviews. Design Review Finding 12 that the project is consistent with the guidelines for heightened review. And because 12 concerns heightened review, I also believe we should focus on heightened review findings. proposed development of the site maximizes preservation of protected trees. and three The site will be developed in a manner that minimizes the obstruction of views from surrounding properties with particular care taken to protect primary views. So I believe those are the findings that we can focus on. in. imposing whatever conditions of approval We decide, and I really like your idea, Council Member Hart, Hoffman of imposing conditions of approval as a means to carry out our, uh, our ability to make those design review and heightened design review findings. And I see the vice mayor is ready to weigh in. |
| 02:52:41.03 | Joan Cox | Just to add to that, my understanding from what both of you have said is that the condition would be that the closet and bathroom be relocated. Not to any specific location, but to one that works for accessibility and other purposes. |
| 02:52:56.64 | Vicki Nichols | Correct. |
| 02:52:59.18 | Joan Cox | And then I just want to add one other thing about trees. We, for other reasons, are facing increased fire hazards all over Northern California, Southern California, et cetera. And there are pressures upon us to reduce foliage, trees, bushes, shrubbery, et cetera, near homes. And I think long-term, The idea that a canopy would grow back over a roof is probably something that won't be tolerated very long anywhere in Northern California. So I hope we don't create an expectation that by having it grow back To the extent it can without creating a fire hazard independently is is simply not something that we can control. |
| 02:53:49.67 | Steven Woodside | I would like to finish by saying that the appellant sought certain Um, conditions for us to consider, and I'd like to weigh in on those. So the first was that we relocate the northern portion to the south. I agree with the vice mayor. that we should require relocation, but not to a specific area, rather to an area that is not within the canopy but that preserves the accessibility and paths of travel for the applicant. Two was to require a living green wall on the elevations facing the home. I'm not inclined to. Again, I agree with the I'm not sure who said it, but it's up to the person seeking the protection to provide the protection. Yeah, Bill Werner used to say that. Three, lower steel columns to not exceed the story pole height. I certainly believe that the... construction should not exceed what was published as what would be the construction. So I am concerned that the columns not exceed the story pole height. Limit impairment of primary view. I think by moving the bathroom and the Closet we accomplish that. Adopt all conditions in the arborist report again by moving the bathroom and the closet. Um, we are, I think, providing the best opportunity for that canopy. by providing air and space for that canopy to regrow. And so I don't think we need to do a lot further. because I really don't want to favor one party over the other. I just want to... address what I believe is required by the design review and heightened design review findings that we need to be able to make. And then the sixth was to request geotechnical review. I think that is already partially a condition for issuance of a building permit, I would like to take the suggestion that we add PB Sarah Silver, Appropriate structural calculations to that geotechnical. report requirement with as a condition of approval for the building permit. Okay, did you wanna weigh in? |
| 02:56:13.10 | Melissa Blaustein | I'm just, I'm a little bit confused because the six requests that we heard from the appellant differ from what we heard from the appellant's attorney in terms of the request. So I would like us to hone in on which one we're responding to as a counsel. Thank you. |
| 02:56:31.20 | Steven Woodside | I think I am focusing on what the attorney requested because he had a legal basis for requesting that. He did say that we would hear from his client, which we did, but I'm really focusing primarily on those requests that impair that otherwise impair our ability to make the required design review and heightened design review findings. which primarily deal with the trees and the obstruction of primary views from private property. |
| 02:57:04.70 | Steven Woodside | Are we sort of in alignment so far? |
| 02:57:09.10 | Joan Cox | I think so. |
| 02:57:09.90 | Steven Woodside | you . I... |
| 02:57:10.98 | Jill Hoffman | Councilmember Hoffman, round two. Let me just ask, Mr. Rifkin, did your client submit written? |
| 02:57:11.21 | Joan Cox | So... |
| 02:57:19.90 | Jill Hoffman | A written statement. I know your client didn't get through all of our section. He had on pages 13 and 14 of his letter. Looking at, I'm looking at your, your written right now. I just want to make sure that we're not missing something. |
| 02:57:23.80 | Steven Woodside | He had, he had. Thank you. |
| 02:57:26.69 | Jackie Winkle | RUN. |
| 02:57:26.74 | Steven Woodside | Look, |
| 02:57:26.98 | Jackie Winkle | Thank you. |
| 02:57:27.02 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:57:33.03 | Jill Hoffman | for consideration because your client wasn't able to get through all of her. Is that what you're- No, she did get through all of them. Oh, you did? |
| 02:57:38.48 | Len Rifkind | Answer, yes, she submitted a letter. We didn't see it online, but she submitted a letter. Okay. That's part of the administrative record. |
| 02:57:44.46 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. I thought I saw. Okay, thank you. Great. Thank you so much. |
| 02:57:56.02 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 02:58:00.02 | Steven Woodside | All right. So I guess I'm going to take the laboring oar on this, if that's okay with everyone else. Sure. |
| 02:58:06.41 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:58:07.48 | Steven Woodside | given I was an eight year planning commissioner. Okay, so I am going to, and Sergio, will you help to be sure that we are, complying with the requirements of the HAA as we undertake this Challenge. So in order to be able to make design review findings 4, 11, and 12, and heightened review findings 1, And three, I am proposing that we imposed the following conditions of approval. to the project. And I am not. suggesting that the project return to us or to the planning commission, but rather that this be carried out administratively by the Community and economic development department so i'm looking at you assistant city manager to for confirmation that you will. and your staff will administer this to its conclusion based upon the direction we give this evening. |
| 02:59:16.02 | Brandon Phipps | If that is council's direction, Mayor, certainly we will do that. Thank you. |
| 02:59:19.02 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. And so the conditions of approval that I'm proposing are, um, one, um, Thank you. |
| 02:59:32.10 | Steven Woodside | that the two closets and bath, which right now are, are shown that AND I THINK THAT |
| 02:59:43.10 | Sergio Rudin | Sheet 827. |
| 02:59:44.93 | Steven Woodside | Excuse me? |
| 02:59:45.82 | Sergio Rudin | Sheet A27 of the plans. |
| 02:59:47.90 | Steven Woodside | A27, as being within the area of the tree canopy that was removed, are relocated elsewhere on the third floor. In such a manner as to preserve the accessibility and the path of travel for the residents that they will serve, The appellant has provided options A through G as possible alternatives. I'm not asking that the applicant... adopt any of those, although those are all acceptable to me from a design review perspective in order to make the required findings, but that they be removed uh, from the tree canopy area so that the, um, so that the... As shown on options A through G of the appellant's presentation, the green boundary line is maintained as the... boundary line for the project. The second. condition of approval. |
| 03:01:14.26 | Steven Woodside | I'll come back to unless the council would like me to just go ahead and |
| 03:01:18.99 | Jill Hoffman | No, you're drafting our, I say, go ahead. |
| 03:01:20.78 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. Okay. |
| 03:01:22.18 | Jill Hoffman | um, |
| 03:01:22.82 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. So are you looking at this line? No, I'm looking at the green line. So options A through G all have a green line showing the boundaries of the project. being constituted so as not to uh, fall within the canopy. The second condition of approval I'd like to propose is that the steel columns not exceed the story pole height. Um, And the third condition of approval that I'm proposing is that the applicant be required to obtain both a geotechnical report and appropriate structural calculations at the building as part of their building permit submittals. I think, Assistant City Manager, does that sufficiently enunciate the conditions we've been discussing in such a way that you can enforce them? that your department can enforce them as part of a revised application. |
| 03:02:34.66 | Sergio Rudin | Mayor, if I may suggest to help staff administer this, looking at... sheet. A27 and looking at the options that were presented by the appellant. You will note that the green line that is in the appellant's options does not have measurements. |
| 03:02:55.63 | Barbara Barron | Correct. |
| 03:02:56.41 | Sergio Rudin | David Koffman, And so it is ambiguous as to how that will be enforced, I would suggest that the Council actually require removal of the closet and bath space depicted on sheet a 27. and allow that space to be located elsewhere on the third floor. and that any bulb out because there is some depicted on some of these options, not exceed the midway point between line 4.1 and 4.8 on the project plans. So that gives a reasonable amount of space for these alternatives to occur. And that additionally, rather than removing the steel beams, I would recommend the council to condition the project so that the roof finished roof heights do not exceed the story poles. |
| 03:03:44.06 | Steven Woodside | Yes. Okay, so I accept both of those revisions to the conditions of approval that I have enunciated and city clerk, do you have those in mind? Okay. And so I guess that is my motion. |
| 03:04:02.42 | Joan Cox | I'll second it. |
| 03:04:04.03 | Steven Woodside | Is there anything else, Assistant City Manager, that you need? |
| 03:04:10.62 | Brandon Phipps | Mayor, thank you for asking. No, I think that's sufficient. Thank you. |
| 03:04:13.76 | Steven Woodside | AND, AND, |
| 03:04:13.97 | Melissa Blaustein | And any council members have anything? I just want to make sure that as Councilmember Hoffman mentioned, that just that the need for ADA compliance is, is also a part of the conversation and with within the realm of, |
| 03:04:26.08 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. So I did say accessibility and path of travel. So I'm happy to say... ADA compliance, including accessibility and path of travel. Those are priorities for the council. That's fine. In imposing these conditions of approval. |
| 03:04:47.23 | Steven Woodside | All right. I have there's a motion and a second. City clerk, please call roll. |
| 03:04:53.59 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilman Blastin. you |
| 03:04:55.33 | Steven Woodside | Yes. |
| 03:04:55.70 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Council member Hoffman. |
| 03:04:57.27 | Steven Woodside | Yes. |
| 03:04:58.33 | Walfred Solorzano | Council Member Sobieski, he is recused. Vice Mayor Woodside? Yes. And Mayor Cox? |
| 03:05:05.50 | Steven Woodside | Yes, that motion carries unanimously. It is 7.52. We still have a good bit of business in front of us, so I'm going to call for a five-minute break for personal convenience. |
| 03:05:14.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:05:14.77 | Jackie Winkle | THE FAMILY. |
| 03:05:15.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:05:18.41 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Okay, next public hearing on our agenda is to introduce by title and wave first reading of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Sausalito amending the Municipal Code to include a new Title 10A objective design and development standards. Assistant City Manager Brandon Phipps, do you have an ordinance number? The agenda does not have it. |
| 03:05:45.82 | Brandon Phipps | Yes. Thank you for calling that out, Mayor. That was fixed earlier today by our city clerk staff. The ordinance number ought to be 14-2025. |
| 03:05:56.97 | Steven Woodside | Okay, so this is ordinance 14-2025. This is first reading and I welcome our assistant city manager and community and economic development department manager, Brandon Phipps. |
| 03:06:12.31 | Brandon Phipps | Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council members, members of the public and staff. Happy to be here. |
| 03:06:16.53 | Steven Woodside | Can we have no talking in the gallery? If you need to talk, you can step outside. |
| 03:06:22.66 | Brandon Phipps | Happy to be here this evening to introduce item 4B in connection with objective development and design standards. This has been a four-year collaborative effort involving staff, consultants, planning commission, and a peer review group of local architects and historians and other experts to develop comprehensive objective standards for multifamily housing projects in the city of Sausalito. To give you some context, state housing laws now require local governments to use objective standards when reviewing certain residential projects. Back in 2021, we identified existing code provisions that met this requirement, but we recognized the need for more comprehensive design standards that would maintain Sausalito's unique character while complying with state law. Adoption of the odds is essential to fulfilling program 19 of our housing element as well, which requires the city to establish objective development and design standards that facilitate residential development and ensure streamlined review when they're mandated by state law. Program 19 specifically calls for creating a pathway for multifamily project approvals without discretionary findings while maintaining our existing discretionary process as an alternative option. for developers and that is therefore not reducing development opportunities available to property owners and only expanding it. So in that way, the odds creates an alternative approval pathway. Projects that fully comply with these objective standards can receive streamlined ministerial approval without discretionary design review. However, developers can still always choose our existing discretionary process if they so prefer. Most notably, The proposed standards include chapter three, which addresses view preservation through objective measurements using specialized software called ViewSync. And that's been developed primarily by our peer review group experts. The planning commission held extensive deliberations on November 12th and voted voted four to one to recommend adoption of the odds. However, the commission was divided on chapter three's view preservation standards and made no specific recommendation on whether to include that chapter. So their concerns centered on the software's general functionality, whether the maximum densities could be achieved and potential impacts on development rights. Tonight, Bob Brown will walk you through the detailed presentation on how the odds were developed and how they would function. Following that, Sophia Collier, an esteemed peer review group member, will provide a more detailed presentation on the ViewSync software, which has been made available for public beta testing on the city's website as required by our housing element. Staff recommendation on this item is for the city council to introduce by title only and wave first reading of ordinance 14 dash 2025. with Chapter 3 included. or introduce it with chapter three excluded. Again, chapter three is ViewSync. or provide alternative direction to staff as council deems appropriate. And I will now hand it over to Mr. Brown to dive into the details on the odds, and then we'll hear from Sophia Collier And we can do a Q&A following those presentations unless council has questions now. |
| 03:09:41.51 | Steven Woodside | Yes, before you move on, I do want to clarify that actually the development of objective design standards harkens back at least to 2018 when Councilmember Blaustein and I sat on a blue ribbon housing committee with Michael Rex in which we first started the process with then planner Lily Whalen to develop. objective design review standards, even before we were required to do so. |
| 03:10:12.37 | Brandon Phipps | I stand corrected, a seven-year process. |
| 03:10:15.19 | Steven Woodside | And second, I want to clarify, ViewSync is not only a view protection ordinance or view protection system. It is also a development potential mechanism that really allows us to better identify potential development capacity throughout Sausalito. Would you agree with that? |
| 03:10:38.08 | Brandon Phipps | Yes, I say thank you for stating that mayor. I think this is a really important distinction. There are kind of two buckets to view sync. You've got the compliance web app, which I think of it like a function. You put in something, you get a yay or a nay. Did you qualify? Did you not qualify? The second. is something I'm really excited about and can be used as a valuable tool outside of the odds process by both staff as well as developers and really any interested member of the public. That is the web app, which uses 3D applications. Esri software, and you will hear more details on that from Sophia this evening. |
| 03:11:15.50 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. And with those clarifications, we'll |
| 03:11:19.03 | Bob Brown | Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madam Mayor, members of the council. I'll actually correct Brandon. I've been involved for four and a half years. So I would say that the last time we were here was back in February. And so a lot of this presentation, the council has heard and Brandon just did a phenomenal job summarizing what would have been 15 minutes in two. So my intention will be to really move through this quickly, if that's all right. I think also most of the public has been along for this ride and has heard all this too. So next slide, please. |
| 03:11:55.24 | Bob Brown | So again, what we've covered previously, which again, I will not go into detail with some of these initial slides is how we develop the odds. Brandon just really covered that. What projects the odds apply to. We've even heard it earlier this evening. projects that add two or more new units. Um, and in this case, we are simply applying this to multi-family zones and to commercial zones that allow multi-family housing. So this is not applicable to single family zones at all. So again, the item you just heard earlier, that would not be subject to these particular odds. These are for multi-family and mixed use projects. Just the, um, |
| 03:12:34.02 | Ian Sobieski | Just a technical request, because of the closed captioning, the screen's like 30% smaller, and I can't read that. I can't either. Making that bigger. |
| 03:12:41.38 | Unknown | I can't wait. |
| 03:12:43.52 | Walfred Solorzano | Mayor, what would you like me to do? Because it's a potential ADA issue. Well, but. |
| 03:12:47.83 | Steven Woodside | Is there anyone here in the audience that's relying on closed captioning? All right, then I'm going to go ahead and turn it off so that we can actually see the presentation. |
| 03:13:02.36 | Bob Brown | Okay, so again, we will talk a little bit about the Planning Commission recommendation from their November meeting. And just for a moment or two, talk about the status of the ViewSync, the view analysis software. Again, that will be followed by a more detailed presentation. The only other thing I would note is what we don't have on the agenda tonight, which will be part of your ultimate approvals, will be a resolution of the council that would be adopting what's called the defining characteristics list. This is for the buildings that are in the historic district. So that's a critical component of the odds. And that can be brought back to you when you have your second reading for the ordinance itself. Next, please. Again, we started the process in May of 2021, and it's been through many iterations, partly because midway you adopted your new housing element, which had significantly higher density. So we had to really sort of backtrack in that process. And then again, as Brandon mentioned, the peer review group had a substantial change to the odds along the way as well. Next, please. I would also say we've had a total of 15 public meetings on this process to date. This will be the 16th. Next, next, please. Next slide. And as Daniel said, the review process |
| 03:14:23.80 | Ian Sobieski | You might have said the review process. changes. Just go back to that previous slide. Sure. Just a second. Sorry. to what the odds apply to? Yeah, what do not apply to. Okay, thank you. |
| 03:14:34.59 | Steven Woodside | Okay, and I want to try to avoid interruptions if we can. |
| 03:14:37.34 | Ian Sobieski | I couldn't. I wanted to read the slide. |
| 03:14:39.83 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. So, yeah. Is the presentation not part of our staff report? It is. |
| 03:14:45.65 | Bob Brown | report? Yes, it was included in the packet as well. So again, that's the reason why I'm buzzing through this. And as Brandon said, the review process changes because these projects that would go through the odds that comply with all the odds would become a ministerial process. So staff would check for compliance. And if. if it complies with all of the odds and also all of your other objective standards in your code, This will then move towards a building permit. Next, please. I made this this caution every time through, and I will again tonight. The very best odds you could possibly adopt will still not prevent applicants from having access to the state density bonus law. So if they have more than five units in their project and have the required percentage of affordable units, A developer can waive virtually any zoning standard, including these odds. That's why you've read about, for example, a 17-story project proposed in San Rafael where they have an eight-story height limit. It's through a waiver process through the density bonus law that cities and we cannot control. So that's just part of the terrain that we now navigate. Next, please. Again, the odds is additive to the zoning code. So the zoning code still has all your height standards, your density limits, your FAR, your site coverage, your impervious coverage, your parking standards. All that remains in the zoning ordinance. What the odds does, it's additive. And it really deals with the more detailed design of buildings. Next, please. So again, what the odds do is they really try to minimize the size of buildings. So if you have a very large project, you have to break it up into smaller building components that are more compatible with the scale of this community. And, um, Also, they have massing composition standards, so there has to be articulation in that building facade, so you can't simply build a box. But there are many other standards that are involved, the way the building is designed to meet the street, privacy standards between buildings, There are increased parking bicycle parking standards and decreased parking vehicle parking standards for projects under the odds. And most importantly, what the peer review group added were standards for the historic district. and also the view preservation standards. And I would just say that these view preservation standards are truly unique in this nation. No other jurisdiction has tried to go there. So this is really groundbreaking in that sense. Next, please. So there were a few edits that were made to the odds that you saw back in February, mostly to the view preservation standards. Most of those were technical. The real significant changes were that we've eliminated the Vista views, which were views of just out vegetation, which really couldn't be modeled with the software. And then secondly, the amount of view blockage for iconic views. These are views of Angel Island, the San Francisco skyline, really iconic features. That was increased from a maximum blockage of 5% up to 10% to create more flexibility. Next, please. So the planning commission recommendation, really they made a number of technical edits, which are included in the materials you have before you and your packet, but in terms of substantive changes, One was regarding the height definition for the historic district. previously staff had recommended that the height definition be that which is used citywide. The peer review group suggested that the height for the historic district be measured from the street frontage, not from a midpoint of the building perimeter. And so on a sloped lot that could allow taller buildings, this will limit the height to 32 feet above the street frontage. And the other change is, the other recommendation is they could not come to terms with recommending the view preservation chapter, chapter three. Same thing that they reached that decision back in February. Some of the commissioners didn't think the software was quite ready yet. Others thought that the process was not inherently objective. So they forwarded the document to you with no recommendation on the view preservation chapter. Next, please. And I would just note, you're going to see a presentation on ViewSync in a moment. What the staff report points out is that we have posted the beta version of the software for public use that was required by the housing element. We did that 30 days ago as required. And what you will see with the results of the ViewSync compliance software is that it creates a two-dimensional view, bird's eye view, of the impairment of the ViewScape. And so that's the example you have on the screen. Some previous versions suggested that there would be three-dimensional views from vantage points, from window vantage points, showing the proposed building and view blockage. That will not be the case with the compliance software. And again, Sophia Collier will address this in more detail in a moment. Next, please. So as Brandon pointed out, the recommendation is to hold the public hearing, introduce the ordinance this evening, and again, make a decision on the view preservation standards, whether they're in or out of the proposed code. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions. |
| 03:20:27.62 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. So yeah, could you go back to the slide that said what odds will not be applied to? |
| 03:20:32.93 | Bob Brown | you |
| 03:20:33.95 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:20:33.98 | Bob Brown | Several backwards. It only applies in the multifamily and the commercial districts that allow mixed use. It does not apply to any single family zones. So for example, the earlier project that had a single family home plus a couple of one ADU, one J to, It would not apply to that. This document would not apply to that. |
| 03:20:57.13 | Ian Sobieski | Uh, And so, but any, so it's really only multifamily family of four or fewer units, a five unit where it uses a density bonus would of course be able to get out of it if it uses the density bonus as well. |
| 03:21:10.18 | Bob Brown | It would be a multifamily project that's, or a mixed use project that's adding two or more new housing units. Thank you. |
| 03:21:17.05 | Ian Sobieski | Mm-hmm. Okay. |
| 03:21:17.89 | Bob Brown | The density bonus law kicks in at five units. But again, the... |
| 03:21:17.98 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah. |
| 03:21:18.09 | Sophia Collier | Thank you. |
| 03:21:20.41 | Ian Sobieski | But again, odds could apply for two or more. And then the iconic views bit. Can you describe how that works again? Awesome. |
| 03:21:27.78 | Bob Brown | Yeah, the the code, the odds specifies certain iconic elements And that would be the San Francisco skyline, Angel Island, the Tiburon Peninsula, So they're specifically identified And then in the technical document, it actually indicates exactly what the coordinates of those particular iconic views are. So, again, when the software is run from any particular vantage point, the maximum blockage will be 10% of the iconic view that currently exists. |
| 03:22:05.24 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, but just help me out with an example. This is a detail I didn't quite get. I got the view bit, but... The city's kind of a little bit far away, so I'm just imagining someone who sees, let's say, from Coit Tower to the Ferry Building at our distance. I could probably cover that with my thumb. So is that a protected view? |
| 03:22:22.57 | Bob Brown | For San Francisco skyline, there are two points that are geolocation points. And between those two points is the protected portion of the skyline. |
| 03:22:32.36 | Ian Sobieski | So if you have a thumb-sized view of the city, that's a protected view. You could be, yes. But if you have a more expansive view of the city, |
| 03:22:35.72 | Bob Brown | You could. |
| 03:22:38.92 | Ian Sobieski | then a portion of it would not be a protective view. |
| 03:22:39.85 | Bob Brown | Then the whole. Right. But if you just have a sliver, then that sliver of the iconic view is protected. |
| 03:22:46.65 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:22:47.82 | Bob Brown | Thank you. |
| 03:22:47.83 | Ian Sobieski | So what are the other iconic views besides the city? I don't know. |
| 03:22:50.89 | Melissa Blaustein | It's in chapter three specifically. And actually, it's not just like thumbnails. There's very clear latitude and longitudinal points that are So Golden Gate Bridge. which is very between latitudes 37.8101 and 37.8296. Angel Island has latitude longitude specific. San Francisco skyline, very specific latitude and longitude, which I wish we had a view of on here, which is rather large and extends 200 feet above the highest point of the skyline at the time of view shed analysis is conducted. Bay Bridge also included latitudes are specific there raccoon straights as well. And then the Mount Tam had been included in the planning commission suggested that we not include Mount Tam, but those are all protected and there's very specific, uh, measurements for all of them in the odds. |
| 03:23:37.67 | Bob Brown | I would just add that actually the removal of the Mount Tam view was at the peer review group suggestion. And again, in most cases, the views are really towards the east and the south, really not behind towards Mount Tam. |
| 03:23:51.55 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, just to make sure I understood it, because this was a nuance that just occurred to me as I was studying this and getting your answer. it has a nice view of that's 45 degrees, but you see a small part of the city that vector toward the city, even though it's comprises maybe only one or 2% of your water view, that's a, that in and of itself is a protected view. So even though covering that up might only be losing 1% of your view, that is a protected view. |
| 03:24:24.98 | Bob Brown | Well, up to 10% of that partial view is protected. |
| 03:24:25.05 | Ian Sobieski | up to 10%. |
| 03:24:29.61 | Bob Brown | Also, water views are also protected. So in many cases, you get water views and then, you know, iconic views sort of one next to the other. |
| 03:24:38.60 | Ian Sobieski | Yep. Okay. Thank you. |
| 03:24:40.68 | Bob Brown | Again, I think Sophia Collier could probably answer this more specifically than I. |
| 03:24:45.69 | Melissa Blaustein | I have a more general question. Oh, I was going to go next, but okay. It's a follow on to Ian. So it's just on the same topic at, |
| 03:24:49.52 | Jackie | Yeah. |
| 03:24:53.77 | Melissa Blaustein | I just, I'm again, in reviewing chapter three, which is the one that includes specific viewpoints, I'm just trying to understand, given the very specific the very specific requirements of ViewSync. What if we still wanted to apply these same I don't know, requirements associated with views, but we didn't use the software or we wanted to include, are there other places that views are included without the technology within our odds? |
| 03:25:26.46 | Bob Brown | Well, the code as before you, we really would define exactly what the views are between what points |
| 03:25:33.65 | Jackie | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:25:33.83 | Bob Brown | But, But The ordinance also allows for other means of generating compliance, according to, again, the code. And... The Appendix A that's part of this gives the specifics about how the software works. So somebody theoretically could recreate something comparable and do their own analysis, not using ViewSync. Seems unlikely, but it's possible. |
| 03:26:03.99 | Melissa Blaustein | And have we spoken to HCD about ViewSync and what's the status of that? |
| 03:26:09.62 | Bob Brown | I've not personally, but potentially assistant city manager could speak to that. Yeah. |
| 03:26:13.59 | Steven Woodside | Yeah, the housing element subcommittee has, but the assistant city manager and the city attorney have attended those meetings and can speak to that. |
| 03:26:22.50 | Brandon Phipps | Yeah, I'll keep this brief and just state that the city's housing element, as mentioned, Program 19 does contain strategies and sequencings of actions as related to the adoption of the odds. As such, HCD did review in depth the city's draft odds, which are not by any means a significant departure from the version that we're looking at today. So that gives myself personally some confidence that HCD, based on certification of our housing element, has endorsed these odds. We also have conducted some analysis as to whether or not opportunity sites in the housing element can accommodate the densities allocated based on the development standards and the odds. We have conducted that analysis to an extent. We have not been able to kind of objectively fully integrate view sync into that analysis, but the analysis that we have conducted does indicate that in the majority of cases, the densities that we propose in the housing element can be accommodated on the opportunity sites that we've selected. |
| 03:27:23.74 | Unknown | THE END OF Thank you. |
| 03:27:30.69 | Babette McDougall | Go ahead. |
| 03:27:31.27 | Joan Cox | If I can just follow up quickly, and specifically, HCD has said okay to ViewSync, and they'll want us to... do the beta testing and keep monitoring it to make sure it doesn't retard or restrain the building housing. |
| 03:27:48.38 | Brandon Phipps | That's exactly right, Vice Mayor, and thank you for bringing that specific wrinkle up. We have, based on collaboration with HCD, added some specific language into our housing element, which requires us to take specific actions, such as some of what you've already heard this evening, including and adding a beta testing opportunity prior to adoption, so as to receive comments from members of the public. We also will be doing a concerted... Tracking both qualitative and quantitative as related to how projects are in, for lack of a better term, filtered through our odds and what the results of those projects are. If the odds are not working, staff will certainly deliver that message to city council. But the tracking and the results of the projects that we track that go through the odds will ultimately help to show us that. |
| 03:28:36.86 | Catherine Casares | the, |
| 03:28:44.20 | Steven Woodside | And I just want to clarify, the odds are an alternative to traditional design review. So it is a way to expedite design review. But if the odds, for whatever reason, are not functional, the applicant always has the option to utilize standard design review. So this is an either or. It's not a, you know, you must use this or nothing. |
| 03:29:13.02 | Brandon Phipps | Absolutely, Mayor. Yeah, in that way, the odds is a is a additive, not a subtractive measure. |
| 03:29:18.25 | Steven Woodside | Correct. I knew you didn't realize that. Thank you. |
| 03:29:24.87 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, I have a follow-up with my microphone on. So just to be clear, we have a chapter of you know, of our whole odds program. Thank you. And this is a question for you, CDD director. that encompasses what you might think of as the whole traditional chapter, which OptiCoast has worked on with in conjunction with our working group, in our current planning commission, our former planning commission which lays out all of the traditional language. regardless of you sync, but lays it all out. And then we also have this new beta program called ViewSync. And you and I talked about this before. And you said it in your introduction. we can adopt the traditional Odds. and sever the ViewSync as a beta program, and we would still be in compliance and we would still be protected with what I might call a traditional odds program and still have a separate track for ViewSync, correct? |
| 03:30:29.21 | Brandon Phipps | Yes, thank you. Thank you for that. I would agree with you, Council Member. Council has the ability to make recommendations in connection with any element of the odds presented before them, which means the Council may include or exclude any element as they see fit. |
| 03:30:43.62 | Jill Hoffman | And that's an option that you laid out for us when we started tonight. Yeah. So what we should, at the very least, we should adopt a traditional odds program tonight. Like, there's no question. |
| 03:30:54.22 | Brandon Phipps | That's certainly my preference, Council Member. |
| 03:30:55.40 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Okay, so I have another, and I have a follow on question. So for Mr. I want to, yeah, I don't want to say Bob, but I guess I'm trying to keep myself professional. Okay, so I'm going back to the Mount Tam issue. I'm looking at the draft odds here, and I see that the reference to Mount Tam as an iconic view has been struck. And I'm, stricken. Well, Okay, there's only one, so it's a singular. It's been struck. So I'm wondering who decided that even though it was originally an iconic view, we've decided, somebody decided that it's no longer an iconic view. And it's been stricken twice. And, you know, on page 25, it's three in the header and then down in section F. The coordinates, Mount Tamalpais, the longitude latitude, and the coordinates have I find this interesting and surprising. that all of us on the north side of town that value our views of Mount Tannen and have up until this point, consider them iconic. And now somebody has decided they are no longer iconic views, nor are they protected. |
| 03:32:15.00 | Bob Brown | This was a recommendation from the peer review group as they used the beta version of the software. The conclusion was that the likelihood of impacting Mount Tam views was really slight. And again, I'm sure Ms. Collier can address this in her comments. |
| 03:32:23.31 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. |
| 03:32:30.14 | Jill Hoffman | Ms. Paul. Address. So I should, okay. So somebody just decided that all of a sudden Mount Tam views are not iconic and that they're not worth protecting. |
| 03:32:39.12 | Steven Woodside | No, it's that they are unlikely to be impacted by any development because of the manner in which. |
| 03:32:46.71 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, I'll ask Ms. Collier this. I find that hard to imagine that we just approved 40% of all of the... new build from this housing element is on the north side of town and that none of that is going to go up, you know, none of that is going to impact anybody's views going north and the views of Mount Tam. So I take offense to that. And I think anybody on the north side of town. Hey, this is the opportunity for questions. It is going to have comments. And so, okay, so let me follow up that. |
| 03:33:12.82 | Jackie | Later. |
| 03:33:14.39 | Jill Hoffman | So your group didn't have anything to do with that determination. |
| 03:33:19.60 | Bob Brown | We incorporated the changes the peer review group made or suggested to the chapter, largely because, again, this chapter is virtually entirely from the peer review group. So they've developed the regulations, they developed the software. We've tried to accommodate their suggestions. |
| 03:33:36.44 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:33:41.47 | Ian Sobieski | because I only half understood what you and Brandon were talking about. Can you to repeat that business about, it will say I'm applying to build something. So right now, |
| 03:33:49.40 | Steven Woodside | So right now, any project goes through a design review process. |
| 03:33:50.68 | Ian Sobieski | Any project. planning commission and that |
| 03:33:54.58 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 03:33:54.60 | Ian Sobieski | at the back. |
| 03:33:54.62 | Steven Woodside | At the planning commission, and then it can be appealed to the city council. This is an alternative to that design review process. If you can transmit that you have utilized the ViewSync software and you've gotten a passing grade, then you don't have to go through the more long-winded design review process. It's a... streamlined, uh, analysis of any proposed development. |
| 03:34:21.26 | Ian Sobieski | So what I don't understand, if someone can correct me, is I thought that our standards in design review were subjective and had to be replaced by an objective standard, so the subjective standard is gone forever. If the subjective standard is gone forever, then how is there an alternative to using only the objective standards? |
| 03:34:39.94 | Bob Brown | As the mayor said, The odds are an alternative permitting process. Applicants can choose. If they can comply with the odds and your other objective standards in your entire municipal code, if they comply with all of it, They get a free pass to staff for that review. and then to building permit. If they can't comply or choose not to, I mean, some architects or developers will want more flexibility than the odds can provide. they then can go through the design review process as they would normally. |
| 03:35:09.49 | Ian Sobieski | So theoretically, could it be that someone could propose a building that would block someone's iconic view of San Francisco? and to go to the planning commission and still get approval of that despite the existence of the |
| 03:35:21.30 | Bob Brown | or you would use the same process that you just witnessed this evening where, you know, the decision-making body determines if that view impairment is significant and worthy of a denial. |
| 03:35:33.15 | Steven Woodside | Because our ordinance says no one is entitled to an absolutely unobstructed unobstructed view. They are entitled To Preservation of Primary Views. And so there's some interpretation sometimes utilized there. And so someone who wants to push the limits, as one of the architects in our audience frequently does, they can go through traditional design review instead of relying on the odds. |
| 03:36:05.03 | Bob Brown | The advantage here though is you're objectifying it. You're actually saying what your standard is. It's maximum 10% blockage of the current view you have. Whereas in your subjective process, There are no criteria, so it is wide open to interpretation. |
| 03:36:19.66 | Ian Sobieski | And then flipping the question around, if the applicant passes the odds view test, doesn't block an iconic view, doesn't reduce anyone's view more than a few percent, but the person, uh, but still a neighbor chooses to appeal to protest, uh, can they try to avail themselves of a discretionary view standard? entered in the appeal, or is it not now off the table because of the odds? |
| 03:36:45.24 | Bob Brown | Yeah, if somebody complies with all the objective standards the city has, then their path is directly to building permit. Thanks for clarifying that. |
| 03:36:52.95 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:36:53.34 | Melissa Blaustein | I'm sorry. Okay. Go ahead. I'll ask after you. I just have a question. Go ahead, Vice Mayor. |
| 03:36:58.23 | Joan Cox | Um, You said earlier that view sync is unique, perhaps in the nation. Is it also true that preview protection is highly unusual in terms of any city ordinances, for example, in Marin, I believe only Sausalito and Tiburon have view protection and all the other cities do not. Is that Is that accurate? |
| 03:37:20.81 | Bob Brown | Generally true. But again, there are lots of cities that have discretionary processes that evaluate views as part of design review. So that's not entirely unusual. It's obviously of critical importance here, not in some other suburban locations, maybe. But again, a lot of cities have view protection as part of design review. |
| 03:37:41.45 | Joan Cox | And that purpose of view sync is, as you've described it and we'll learn later, is to try to make objective the notion of protecting views and how that can be calculated and reduced to numeric calculations and |
| 03:37:56.50 | Bob Brown | Well, the code establishes the standards view sync is a tool then that determines compliance with the standards. |
| 03:38:02.61 | Joan Cox | in a way that can be deemed objective, either you pass or you fail, for example. Right. Thank you. |
| 03:38:11.01 | Steven Woodside | Councilmember Blaustein. |
| 03:38:11.99 | Melissa Blaustein | Do you have questions first? I don't want to cut in front of you. Okay. Could you give a little background on our current view productions and our existing ordinance? |
| 03:38:20.51 | Bob Brown | Sure. Um, again, it is, it's discretionary. Um, it is based on views that occur from the primary, uh, vantage points, which are actively used rooms. So not bathrooms, not, you know, bedrooms. Um, And it really just relies on the discretion of the decision-making body, whether that view obstruction is, is, you know, I don't know exactly what the words of the code are, but essentially if it's unreasonable, they feel that it's overly impactful. the design review finding can be by the basis for a denial. |
| 03:38:57.61 | Melissa Blaustein | And with this, can you, I threw it tonight. Design review four. Okay. I know. I was going to, I was going to ask about that. Just give me a second. Keep going. So in that context, what I was going to follow up with was, for example, this evening, we heard about feedback with regards to vegetation within our views ordinance. And I know that that's not addressed within view sync. How will that relate in the odds? Should we move forward with view sync? |
| 03:39:20.18 | Bob Brown | you Right. Actually, I was reading your ordinance while the item was going on. And what it does say is that protected views include wooded areas. So you were talking about a single tree, whether that's a protected view, I don't know. But it does say, among other things, it does list a number of features, including water views. Some of these same iconic views are listed in the code and things like, you know, wooded areas. So there is some specificity, but there's no standard as to how much view blockage is acceptable or not. That's the discretionary part. |
| 03:39:55.94 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay. And then importantly, I noticed in chapter three, there's a discussion on, essentially it says the onus for facilitation of USINC is on the city. of Sausalito, correct? |
| 03:40:06.29 | Bob Brown | Yes. |
| 03:40:06.73 | Melissa Blaustein | So that means that the city staff will be responsible at every end to end of administering the software. |
| 03:40:12.09 | Bob Brown | Right. As we noted in the staff report, you know, you're probably going to engage a consultant to maintain the software to, you know, maintain the webpage, et cetera. So yes, there will be some cost involved in that. |
| 03:40:24.82 | Melissa Blaustein | So say Michael Rex has a design for us and he wants it to go through ViewSync. As the architect can't do it themselves, they have to do it through the city. |
| 03:40:33.49 | Bob Brown | Well, the city has to authorize access to it. So that's a step that that staff would have to or a consultant would have to undertake. And the the base model has to be continually updated. |
| 03:40:46.48 | Melissa Blaustein | So if, sorry, Michael, you're in the audience. So I'm using you as an example, as a known architect in the community, if you submit a design, through ViewSync one time and it doesn't work. Do you have to get back in a queue and wait a long time to do it again? |
| 03:41:00.56 | Bob Brown | No, there really is no queue. I mean, the software operates pretty quickly. So no, but you do have to do an iterative approach. to find a design that doesn't trigger ViewSync. And earlier, when you asked the assistant city manager was talking, there is another piece of software that's been developed that an architect can use in advance to get a handle on where the view blockage may be occurring in his building. So that gives them clues then. when they go through the compliance software that they could stay out of this area, for example, and redesign. |
| 03:41:36.45 | Melissa Blaustein | But if it's triggered, then they have to just redesign it and come back later. And so- |
| 03:41:40.81 | Bob Brown | And just keep reapplying through ViewSync. And again, it's not a three-week process. I mean, it's pretty quick. |
| 03:41:47.67 | Melissa Blaustein | Well, I mean, but you have to figure out what, what didn't work. Right. So it's not like you just go back to the drawing board. I mean, maybe AI can help at this point, which is great, but I was trying to understand. |
| 03:41:50.31 | Bob Brown | Exactly. Yes. Right. |
| 03:41:55.82 | Aditya Padala | Thank you. |
| 03:41:56.89 | Melissa Blaustein | And then if it doesn't work, then that's again, an issue with city staff. So city staff would be available to assist if you got a view sync output that was triggered negatively, for example. |
| 03:42:06.52 | Bob Brown | Right. And I'm sure, again, part of the staff responsibility or consultant is going to be answering questions from the public. So when an adjacent neighbor gets a copy of the compliance report, it's not going to be crystal clear as to really what they're going to experience. So again, there's going to be questions that either staff or a consultant will have to field. |
| 03:42:24.49 | Melissa Blaustein | In your experience, based on the way our code is written now, and I mean, we just had a three hour hearing with regards to a view, for example, do you feel like there are not significant view protections or do you think it makes sense to have increased view protections in the odds? |
| 03:42:39.85 | Bob Brown | As I was mentioning earlier, I mean, if the ViewSync software works really well for multifamily, the city may consider Wanting to use it for a single family, because again, it does objectify it. And it creates some, you know, some objective standards, which you don't have now. So again, I don't know what the future will hold, whether it really is applicable to single family. But. Again, if it works well for multifamily, that could be an option for you. |
| 03:43:05.65 | Melissa Blaustein | And if a developer has density bonuses, is ViewSync moot in those situations? Absolutely. So it wouldn't apply to any density bonus. It doesn't matter if you trigger ViewSync or not. |
| 03:43:11.20 | Bob Brown | and, you know, Thank you. |
| 03:43:15.69 | Bob Brown | And again, most applications we're seeing now for substantially sized projects are using waivers to get around all kinds of regulations. |
| 03:43:23.32 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay. Okay. That's it for now. I'll probably have questions for Sofi about the technology, but that's great. Thank you. |
| 03:43:31.47 | Ian Sobieski | Sorry, just one last question, because I'm still, when looking at this chart thinking, so what does, maybe turn around, what projects, Do odds apply to you? Yeah. |
| 03:43:40.72 | Unknown | you |
| 03:43:40.74 | Bob Brown | Yeah. |
| 03:43:40.80 | Unknown | Okay. Thank you. |
| 03:43:40.89 | Bob Brown | Can you characterize it? Any multifamily addition or new construction or mixed use addition or new project that has two or more new units in it. |
| 03:43:51.87 | Ian Sobieski | Two of them are a new unit. That's the key. New unit. Two of them are a new unit. All right. Thank you very much. |
| 03:43:52.83 | Bob Brown | Thank you. |
| 03:43:57.37 | Steven Woodside | All right. |
| 03:43:57.73 | Ian Sobieski | They're not. |
| 03:43:57.80 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 03:43:58.07 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:43:58.08 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |
| 03:43:58.10 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:43:58.12 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 03:43:58.17 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:43:58.20 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Hmm. BIRDS CHILDREN Safiya Collier, welcome. |
| 03:44:05.09 | Sophia Collier | Okay. I have a presentation as well. |
| 03:44:10.74 | Sophia Collier | So I realize now that I am the young one on the club here. I have only been working on this for 19 months. But I want to first start really by celebrating because, first of all, we have had a very – the fact that this odds is here after eight, four, or 19 months is quite an effort. And I think it's really – Brandon has been a great leader on this. And that also, but I would also really want to acknowledge our now mayor, then vice mayor, who helped get the peer review committee going and shepherded us through so many meetings and so much help. And she really kept us on track. And at any time when some of the... consultants or others may have been raining a little bit on our parade. She made sure that we were able to continue our creativity and work together And then, of course, our now vice mayor was a member of the peer committee. So thank you both for your efforts there. And it wouldn't have been possible, you know, mayor, without your continued efforts here to get this done. I think we have significant protections for the historic district. Very good. The original odds proposal, the reason we needed the peer review committee was there was no protections for the historic district and there were no view protections. And the truth of the matter is that objective standards are standards that a lot of developers are going to want to use. And that if there are no view standards in there, there will be no view protection in the odds. And there will be no, we've talked about waivers, those are possible, not always going to be there but we want to have a chance. If we don't have view protection in our odds, we have no view protection for these new projects. I also think that view protection is something that actually is an attraction for folks. If a developer comes in and takes a opportunity to build here, their property is going to have view protection. So they are going to be able to sell condos and whatever they have stating, hey, your view is protected. So view protection is actually a positive selling point for Sausalito, for the folks that live here forever and the folks that will come here in the future. So thank you for everybody working on this. Next slide, please. So the goal was to objectify the current design review approach. And obviously we had a lot of exposure to that today. But basically, there's a critical thing to a The Planning Commission must make a finding and that it has been located and designed to minimize obstruction of public views and primary views from private property. So that is what we had to objectify. It's not easy to do this. We've mentioned that this is a complicated situation and it needs to be. So we thought let's simplify it down to the spare essence. What what are our key views? So we came with the assistance of the peer group. We came up with the iconic views and then also the water view. Next slide, please. Obviously, we know view protection is a treasured value. We won't. Next slide, please. So our solution was a two modes of operation. One was the ViewSync interactive and this I presented in February, the ViewSync Interactive is a design tool It allows people to design and understand how a design might work in the context of our city. It's a 3D system. However, it is a simplified view. It only has the model uses Esri CityEngine And it used, it does not have the trees. So basically it, while it would be a valid way to work for compliance, it would be a tree list compliance. And that's not as realistic as the. what we really need for compliance. So the compliance app we developed The vision that we had was a web app The web, as we know, anyone can go on the internet. And our viewsync.us is up there right now. Anyone can apply for access and start doing it. And we've had, during the beta period, we've had some Folks have been on there and using it, as is reflected in the staff report. It basically, it checks for compliance. It has a more advanced analysis because it covers all of the, true circumstances of our 3D architecture, and then it provides a formal compliance report. Next slide, please. So this is its interface, very simple. What you do is you take your model, if you're an architect, and you drop it in that box. And then you, next slide, please. then it will provide you a showing of what potential impact properties there are. then you can hit that blue button. Next slide, please. and it will prepare a detailed analysis, and that will show you what is the view impact. This is the closeup view. Next slide, please. That's the zoomed out view. Next slide, please. Then we also have the supporting design tool. We've showed this before. Next slide, please. This is our interactive tool. This is the kind of visualizations you can get from it. Very, very helpful in making a design. You can see how that green is going on the building. And it's reflecting that is reflecting the area of potential blockage but you can see the representation of the city is not complete and that it doesn't have the trees. So we thought the two-part approach um, utilizing the best of each technology would be the way to do this. Next slide, please. And so basically we provided an objective, we did it. We came up with an objective way to which we've tested and proven to uphold our view protection standards. So they said it couldn't be done. 100,000 lines of code later, boom, there it is. |
| 03:50:27.52 | Sophia Collier | That's all she wrote. |
| 03:50:33.23 | Steven Woodside | Any questions of Sophia? |
| 03:50:35.93 | Sophia Collier | Thank you. |
| 03:50:35.94 | Steven Woodside | Yes. |
| 03:50:36.20 | Ian Sobieski | Oh, congratulations. Awesome. And I know this has been a homegrown effort. Thank you. I guess I should save those comments for later, but since you're standing here now, congratulations. Very cool and innovative. help me understand because I couldn't follow some of those drawings, this question I was asking the previous gentleman about the iconic view issue. So this is actually a pretty good picture here. So just... though this is obviously a bird's eye image. A structure that would say block a tower, like if you're extending a deck two feet and it took out one of the towers, that would be a prohibited... that would be taking away someone's iconic view. That would be, even though that two feet might only be, half a degree of someone's 180 degree view on the hill. If that was my view, that would be an iconic view that's protected. |
| 03:51:22.84 | Sophia Collier | Thank you. |
| 03:51:26.52 | Sophia Collier | Yes, if you have that. Can we go to the very last slide in the deck, please? Yes. |
| 03:51:39.21 | Sophia Collier | Are there more slides? Keep going to the very last slide. I have more slides in here to discuss these topics. Okay, boom, there. So this is where the iconic views are. So if you can see those anywhere within those areas, those represent the iconic view area. |
| 03:52:00.15 | Ian Sobieski | Help me out with what we're looking at. Is it the purple line or the red dots or the green dots? |
| 03:52:00.27 | Sophia Collier | you |
| 03:52:03.58 | Sophia Collier | It's the green line. |
| 03:52:05.30 | Ian Sobieski | So if you see any aspect of the purple line, that is an iconic view. |
| 03:52:08.08 | Sophia Collier | an iconic view. Right, exactly. |
| 03:52:09.38 | Ian Sobieski | So line is a vector. Right. And if you see that, and so say the angel island thing there has some length to it. |
| 03:52:10.83 | Sophia Collier | Right. |
| 03:52:16.52 | Ian Sobieski | an obstruction of 10% of that is allowed, 10% of that line. |
| 03:52:18.92 | Sophia Collier | Right. Not 10% of the line, 10% of whatever your view of that line is. |
| 03:52:20.89 | Ian Sobieski | 10%. Yeah, whatever your view of that one is. But for instance, with the Golden Gate Bridge... |
| 03:52:25.01 | Sophia Collier | that lady. |
| 03:52:29.61 | Ian Sobieski | from our point of view that would be almost, |
| 03:52:31.35 | Sophia Collier | It's almost, it's almost appalling. Hopefully some have that view. |
| 03:52:34.56 | Ian Sobieski | That'd be almost a point. |
| 03:52:35.79 | Sophia Collier | Oh. |
| 03:52:36.21 | Ian Sobieski | And |
| 03:52:36.50 | Sophia Collier | But we serve them. |
| 03:52:39.47 | Ian Sobieski | and the same through the Bay Bridge. you the sort of part of San Francisco part of the Angel Island and Raccoon Straits |
| 03:52:50.64 | Sophia Collier | I mean, one of the things. |
| 03:52:51.13 | Ian Sobieski | that the gasp of raccoon streets, is that what that is? |
| 03:52:53.97 | Sophia Collier | I'm sorry. |
| 03:52:54.50 | Ian Sobieski | I think I'm looking at what looks like raccoon straits there. |
| 03:52:57.58 | Sophia Collier | Right, raccoon straight. |
| 03:52:58.62 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah. Well, can you speak to the point about Mount Tamopias? Why is that not one of the things? |
| 03:53:03.52 | Sophia Collier | I mean, basically that I don't know how many people can actually see Mount Tam, So, So, however, I had received some communication from... Neil Toft and others that this that it wasn't as significant. So that was one of the things the there is if it the likelihood of somebody building behind somebody. is less likely. Certainly, Mount Tam can certainly be put right back on that list. If, you know, let me just ask you if it was, you know, if, if, if this was, you know, an in error, one of the problems with projects that go on for a long, long, long, long, long period of time. |
| 03:53:36.52 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, but let me just ask you. |
| 03:53:48.24 | Sophia Collier | is that sometimes the participation in them on the part of the staff or others becomes wanes. So there may not be as much input or feedback. So it's certainly if the, um, it was desirable to restore Mount Tam to its glory, it certainly can be done so. |
| 03:54:09.60 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, I think everyone appreciates that. Everyone should appreciate it. It's easy to forget that the Brown Act means this is where the sausage is made at the end of the day. So thank you for highlighting that we can add things if need be, but help me understand this still. |
| 03:54:09.65 | Sophia Collier | Yeah. |
| 03:54:24.21 | Ian Sobieski | just about the rules, if you can block up to 10% of an iconic view. |
| 03:54:29.71 | Dale Barnes | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:54:29.92 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. And so in the case of uh, So, uh, |
| 03:54:38.03 | Sophia Collier | 10% of the water view. |
| 03:54:39.86 | Ian Sobieski | and 10% of the water view, which could be- |
| 03:54:41.75 | Sophia Collier | It'd be back and store small. |
| 03:54:41.95 | Ian Sobieski | you know, Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. So interestingly, if you're lucky enough to have a substantial water view, say 100 degrees, you could have a relatively large blockage that would still be okay. But if you have a so-called peek-a-boo view of, let's say, the water, then this would be a very strong view protection of that peek-a-boo view because it would be very hard since, as I say, you could cover some of these peek-a-boo views up with your thumb. Something could take that away. Yeah, no. |
| 03:55:08.10 | Sophia Collier | one of the, yeah, no, you're absolutely right. Um, that one of the things that we did want to do was we wanted to recognize that Whatever water view someone has in Sausalito, it is very valuable to them. So if their view is a quote, peekaboo view or a smaller view, It is something that's a treasured moment in their life. to see that view. So we wanted to make sure that the standards were ones that didn't just we've seen some spectacular views, you know, earlier today. BUT, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO which obviously we treasure as well. But for the person who owns that home that they worked a lifetime to own, and live in Sausalito with that, whatever view they have, that we wanted to make sure that it would be respected and afforded some protection. |
| 03:56:04.92 | Ian Sobieski | So you had run an interesting... convolution. showing the entire buildable design space of Sausalito using this software where inside the envelope, no view was reduced by more than 10% from any point in anyone's current existing structure. Did that include the iconic viewpoints in that convolution? |
| 03:56:27.59 | Sophia Collier | We know. |
| 03:56:29.90 | Ian Sobieski | didn't. So... Are we sure we aren't creating some kind of null set with the iconic views by that bit, because I saw that convolution, it was quite a big volume, there was a lot of views there. |
| 03:56:42.22 | Sophia Collier | Yeah. |
| 03:56:42.35 | Ian Sobieski | But... |
| 03:56:43.31 | Sophia Collier | I think that one of the things that it does remain, you know, obviously, |
| 03:56:43.33 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:56:48.29 | Sophia Collier | this regulation and as all regulations are living document. And that there's, I mean, there's two parts here. One is the regulation itself. and whatever the standard is, that's one question. The second question is, okay, how do you determine the standards? because it's very complicated to come up with a truly objective standard, the only way to do it is to use deterministic software. |
| 03:57:15.02 | Ian Sobieski | So my last question, just because I want to make sure I understood that. I remember that convolution as being a huge, I forgot what you said at the time, but it was some large number of units could be built inside that volume. |
| 03:57:24.69 | Unknown | Right. |
| 03:57:24.94 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. but we haven't done that volume accounting for the iconic views. So we're not sure what the effect of the iconic view protection might be on that design space. Okay. |
| 03:57:33.57 | Sophia Collier | Okay, I would have to go back to reference the exact I mean, this was work we did a lot earlier, I'd have to go back to specifically look at it because I can't I don't have that information at this moment. |
| 03:57:44.75 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:57:44.77 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 03:57:47.71 | Sophia Collier | Yeah. |
| 03:57:48.16 | Joan Cox | Just quickly on Mount Tam, I've served on the peer review group and I do not recall taking Mount Tam off. |
| 03:57:55.71 | Sophia Collier | It came out later. So you have no responsibility for removing that. Thank you for that. |
| 03:58:01.12 | Joan Cox | Thank you for that. But I have to say that... cherishing the views that I have and I think everyone who has a view of something light, air, water, whatever, you hate to have that taken away. |
| 03:58:15.06 | Sophia Collier | I mean, these are policy decisions, you know, certainly the software can certainly support the assessment of a Mount Tam view. |
| 03:58:25.15 | Joan Cox | That was going to be my question, and you've just answered it. It would be possible. You'd have to define it such that you're not including the entire if you will, volume of Mount Tam, but perhaps a portion of it, which is the iconic view of the- |
| 03:58:40.21 | Sophia Collier | Originally, I think we actually had the whole Mount Tam was the entire Mount Tam was in the original. It was, we came up with a, |
| 03:58:48.88 | Joan Cox | large |
| 03:58:49.59 | Sophia Collier | Yeah, large, but it's far away. So it's like San Francisco. I mean, it's similar to San Francisco in terms of its scale. |
| 03:58:58.75 | Joan Cox | except the downtown view is circumscribed. You don't have the entire waterfront as the view of San Francisco. |
| 03:59:05.47 | Steven Woodside | Right. |
| 03:59:05.82 | Joan Cox | Thank you. You've got a portion of it. |
| 03:59:09.57 | Steven Woodside | You know, since, since we, since that was removed by, I think planner, Neil Toft. Yeah. Um, We have passed Measure J, which adds to our possible housing stock a lot of buildings on the north side. east side of the city that would possibly have views of Mount Tam. And so I think making a decision tonight to add that back in would be an acceptable approach. Would you agree? |
| 03:59:42.31 | Sophia Collier | I mean, to me, it's your wish is my command. I mean, in a sense that I would be... able to support. I mean, now that we're experts at Vue software, we can, we can, you know, any view that you'd like to see, you know, we met a gentleman here mentioned views he wanted to see, I'm not sure we can help him with those particular views. but we would be able to pretty much objectify any view. |
| 04:00:11.79 | Steven Woodside | . |
| 04:00:11.84 | Sophia Collier | Thank you. |
| 04:00:12.51 | Steven Woodside | And we had it in before, so we could certainly redefine Latin long to add it back in. I'm seeing the... |
| 04:00:13.96 | Sophia Collier | It's certainly redefined. |
| 04:00:18.99 | Steven Woodside | Assistant city manager nodding his head yes. |
| 04:00:21.74 | Jill Hoffman | I have a comment. Yeah. Actually a question. I'm looking at page 25 of attachment to the odds reflecting the planning commissions recommendations. It still has Mount Tam in here. It's just struck, you know, struck out. So on, which is what I was reading from. So paragraph three, the header has Mount Tamalpais in there. And then section F has the lat long. So I would suggest that. |
| 04:00:52.96 | Sophia Collier | You're just- |
| 04:00:53.28 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 04:00:53.30 | Sophia Collier | Let's restore. I mean, they removed it, so it could be restored. |
| 04:01:01.23 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, and there's many houses, by the way, on the north side that currently have. views of Mount Tam, and there's current construction that was just approved last year that had the construction gone up another story. Um, those views would have been obstructed. |
| 04:01:18.17 | Sophia Collier | One of the complaints, I'm sorry, excuse me. Yes. |
| 04:01:22.41 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah. Thank you. Okay, any other questions? I have some questions about |
| 04:01:27.67 | Unknown | SOPHIA? |
| 04:01:28.38 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes. Okay. Yes. Go. Hi, Sophia. Great to see you. And this is a really exciting innovation for the city and a very interesting approach. And I'm excited about it. I just have some questions about the you know, the technicalities, um, and the backend, because as someone who has worked in tech, um, and seen how startups iterate and products evolve, I'm very concerned about the I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE testing and age of the product. And I would love to hear more from you about The coding, the development process, how many people have tested it in the beta version? Um, how do we, how do we plan to evolve and iterate the software just to getting a better technical understanding? |
| 04:02:12.12 | Sophia Collier | Thank you. Yeah, I think that the software as it stands right now is finished in the sense for what it does. In other words, compliance app, it's finished for that. It does compliance very, very well. So we developed this. It took a year to do this. It is hosted on Google Cloud. It uses GPUs, which are we need to use GPUs to do this. So there it is. It has a front end, simple front end. Google Cloud. It uses GPUs, which are, we need to use GPUs to do this. So there it has a front end, simple front end. And then it goes to Google Cloud. does its calculations and brings it home to there. The technical team that worked on this, you know, obviously we sponsored this effort. I wrote some of this code myself, much of it. We also had various experts, GIS experts, as well as a cloud engineer involved in it. So I would anticipate the The cloud engineer would be somebody who would continue to keep an eye on it. But I think in terms of features, the evolution of this, the software in terms of features, I don't know that it actually needs any more features in the sense that it's a compliance software. So as long as it can perform a compliance assessment, then that's its mission. |
| 04:03:38.59 | Melissa Blaustein | So for example, it operates in 2D right now. Is there a plan for it to be iterative of 3D models? |
| 04:03:45.91 | Sophia Collier | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:03:46.50 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 04:03:46.54 | Sophia Collier | I mean, to me, there is not. I mean, in the sense that the... the Esri software and many other Um, architectural software actually does that a lot better. So like for me to undertake, to develop a 3D modeling software, to for view compliance, I don't see that as a necessity. Obviously, if this council wanted to undertake such an effort, you know, we could discuss it, the specifications of what it might be. But to me, that is not needed because we have THE The compliance software doesn't need a 3D It needs to know, is it compliant? That's the idea. Does it? The whole thing here was objectify THE FINDING FOR That was the mission. So that's what we attempted to do. And so and have done. But we also thought it was very important to we've been inspired by ideas that Ian has had, which is, OK, city planning. and therefore we develop and sponsored the creation of the city engine based modification. We've modified this every city engine and I've demoed it before how we had the entire housing element, how we showed it, the how showing different things, options, you know, how tall it might be if it had how many units. So those are software that we have. And we also have a new person in the planning department who is a planning department, who is a, has some experience with using Esri tools. So we can continue to, I believe that we can continue to do that both for our own planning, but also, Um, but developers, anyone who can develop a multifamily property has significant assets in their architectural abilities, hopefully. Is this technology open? |
| 04:05:39.97 | Melissa Blaustein | source. and it doesn't. |
| 04:05:41.24 | Sophia Collier | NOT OPEN STREET. |
| 04:05:41.88 | Melissa Blaustein | I think it's a little bit worse. Okay. So if another community wanted to replicate it, it wouldn't be a shareable system. |
| 04:05:46.59 | Sophia Collier | It certainly could be shareable, but at this moment, it isn't open source. I mean, one of the things the um and i know that you know the department has a lot of different um things it does and so i've had to carry this forth myself and with our committee um you know gaining some input you know from primarily from the mayor but also um from brandon over time so these are things that um are you know discussion points um but i'm i i am not this is my personal contribution to |
| 04:06:23.97 | Melissa Blaustein | What about, um, an API so that it could communicate with Granicus or other city platforms that we're already using? |
| 04:06:30.93 | Sophia Collier | I think that it certainly, I mean, it is fundamentally an API, but I think it wouldn't need to communicate with other city platforms because it is, it's a compliance tool for the applicant. that the applicant is the one who is, just like an applicant needs to bring in like a structural engineering report or what with a stamp on it, |
| 04:06:52.43 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 04:06:53.06 | Sophia Collier | you |
| 04:06:53.08 | Melissa Blaustein | I'm just thinking about, |
| 04:06:54.29 | Sophia Collier | you |
| 04:06:54.31 | Melissa Blaustein | As we continue to modernize our city processes, and we're thinking about how we can fast track this in the context of the odds, if we were working with I don't know that I think Granicus is the best one, but if Granicus or E. Trackit had a form that you filled out, would the API infrastructure I was thinking of would be able to have um view sync speak to essentially make it all in one form an easy one-stop shop for an applicant so that the the purpose of the odds that we're working towards if I understand it from our role in the diocese to make things as easy and fast trackable as possible so that's why I was |
| 04:07:28.02 | Sophia Collier | Certainly. I mean, those are things to look into and consider. I think in the case of, you know, there's quite a bit of documents that are like, you know, very like surveys and engineering documents that are mandatory to provide. So these process improvements certainly would be ones that the staff, you know, can consider and certainly would cooperate happily with any of them. Okay, great. Thank you. I really appreciate it. |
| 04:07:55.66 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 04:07:56.95 | Steven Woodside | I want to ask a clarifying question about Mount Tam. So, Is there a concern? that if we add back in Um, iconic views that that could impact the development of projects as at max capacity as currently enunciated in the housing element? And I'm looking to you or to our assistant city manager. |
| 04:08:23.95 | Sophia Collier | I mean, I personally do not believe it would. I really don't. I mean, in the sense that obviously, like as we know, you know, hearing that many times, you know, from our dear, you know, Bob Brown, that get out of jail free card that people can seek waivers or whatever. that they have to earn those waivers, not automatic, you know, but they, these, the analysis that we did early did include Mount Tam. And so the, analysis that we did that that we provided to, HCD that Michael and I worked on, that included Mount Tam. So I don't feel that it would. But one of the things that you are highlighting that's very critical, which was always in our mind, was that the idea that this cannot inhibit development potential, it must enable it. And the concept of it is to It's a drag and drop interface. It's on the internet. Drop your model in, boom, you have a report. |
| 04:09:20.98 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. So I do want to hear from our assistant city manager, because I believe that it was planner Neil Toft who was instrumental in removing that. So are you aware of the thinking behind the removal of Mount Tamb? |
| 04:09:36.22 | Brandon Phipps | Yeah, thank you, Mayor. And I would generally agree with Sophia's response in the sense that you |
| 04:09:44.66 | Unknown | uh, |
| 04:09:45.20 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. I don't know. Given the size of a particular view or vector, you know, the size of that vector and the positioning of homes in the city is going to dictate how commonly triggered that vector is. So, you know, this is me speaking qualitatively, I think, relative to some of the other view vectors we're looking at. Mount Tam may be a lower impact vector, if you will. With that said, on its face, if you add more view vectors, you add more development constraints. And that is objectively true. So I think that's one of my bigger concerns here, is that we want to strike a reasonable balance between preserving our views and allowing development to occur at the max densities as specified and approved in our certified housing element to your comment as to density bonus. HCD has stated to staff that they would like these projects to be able to achieve those max densities without employing a density bonus. So that's the balance. And that was part of the idea behind Neil Toff's recommendation to exclude that view. |
| 04:10:56.93 | Steven Woodside | But if we, obviously, whatever we do tonight, if we decide to proceed with Chapter 3, we still have the opportunity to refine that moving forward. So if we add back in Mount Tam as a, as a, an iconic view to be preserved. And we find that it is limiting development potential in an unacceptable manner. We can always remove it. So this is, we're really just at the end of sort of a pilot project testing phase. So if we move forward, boldly, where no man has gone before to adopt chapter three, view sync, we still have the opportunity to refine it moving forward as we gather data and learn more. |
| 04:11:43.07 | Brandon Phipps | I would agree, Mayor. And when you do bold things, you need to be ready to pivot and be flexible as appropriate to address unintended consequences as they arise. And that's something that I believe myself and my team are committing ourselves to. And I look forward to collaborating with Sophia as directed by council this evening. |
| 04:12:02.16 | Jill Hoffman | Thanks. Councilmember Hoffman. So I have a follow up on that. And so that same paragraph on page 25. The other iconic views, the only other iconic views are the Golden Gate Bridge, Angel Island, San Francisco skyline, the Bay Bridge, and Raccoon Straits, and those all are happen to be on the north side of town. Sorry, on the south side of town, all of which... are everybody else on the dais except for me. And so I'm sorry. I'm on the north end of town as well. No, you're moving to the south side of town. Yeah. But I am- Within a few- |
| 04:12:40.23 | Steven Woodside | I am. |
| 04:12:42.00 | Jill Hoffman | if not already. moved. So So all of these views that are now protected, except for Mount Tam, who we're talking about, either we're gonna, vote to, return it as an iconic view. So and 40% of all of the housing that we just put in our housing element is now on the north side of town, and that's what we're talking about. about one protected view on the north side of town and four are on the south side of town. So I don't know why we're even talking about I can't- Were there a question, council member? Is it the question? No, this is to confirm. |
| 04:13:11.93 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:13:11.95 | Unknown | Were there a question, council member? |
| 04:13:14.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:13:14.30 | Unknown | No. |
| 04:13:14.43 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 04:13:14.74 | Unknown | This is the first time. |
| 04:13:14.80 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 04:13:15.88 | Jill Hoffman | that for the protective views are on the south side of town. |
| 04:13:20.58 | Joan Cox | That is not true. |
| 04:13:22.48 | Jill Hoffman | How is this? It's a fact right there. |
| 04:13:24.17 | Joan Cox | I lived on Lincoln and I had a beautiful view of half of those iconic views. |
| 04:13:28.44 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 04:13:28.64 | Joan Cox | People all over town look east. |
| 04:13:28.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:13:32.03 | Joan Cox | And those views are predominant, well, many of them are East, some are South, some are North. |
| 04:13:36.89 | Catherine Casares | That's right. |
| 04:13:37.65 | Joan Cox | Please don't overcharacterize this as rewarding only people who live currently on the south side of town. It's just not true. |
| 04:13:46.75 | Steven Woodside | My views on the north side of town are gorgeous of Angel Island, of the Bay. I can see the San Francisco fireworks from my house on the north end of town. So. |
| 04:14:02.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:14:02.04 | Ian Sobieski | Okay. |
| 04:14:02.42 | Carolyn Revell | you |
| 04:14:03.20 | Ian Sobieski | All right. Come on. Anyway. Could I ask you a question? Just following a little bit on your conversation with Brandon. |
| 04:14:03.76 | Unknown | Come on. Anyway... |
| 04:14:09.65 | Ian Sobieski | And you said something that I thought I asked and got a different answer for. So sorry, I just want to still clarify. You say you or someone had talked to HCD, you know, to make sure they're down with this. And you provided numbers to show that using that convolution that it wouldn't negatively impact building potential in Sausalito. |
| 04:14:29.05 | John DeRay | Right. |
| 04:14:29.63 | Ian Sobieski | And I asked, did that include the iconic view standard? And I thought you said no, but then- Well, no, it did. |
| 04:14:34.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:14:34.05 | Sophia Collier | Well, no, it did. |
| 04:14:34.96 | Unknown | Thank you. With HCD, |
| 04:14:35.97 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 04:14:36.02 | Unknown | to be able to get the |
| 04:14:36.07 | Ian Sobieski | INTO. |
| 04:14:36.26 | Sophia Collier | Yeah, I did. One of the things that is, we actually used a slightly different approach, which was a numeric approach, wherein we went through and we analyzed the floor area ratio, and we provided a, in the odds, there is a |
| 04:14:36.87 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:14:52.86 | Sophia Collier | exclusion zone of up to two floors. So to the first two floors are actually not subject to view protection. in the high density zones. So that is, including that actually takes off. It is pretty much ensures compliance. It's a compliance assurer. And so David Marlott and I did an analysis that showed that basically That alone. pretty much satisfied the legal requirement. We also have another compliance adjustment process in the in the overall odds that if certain things aren't working that they can get, for example, a 15 percent view blockage is allowed. So the odds have a expandable |
| 04:15:44.03 | Steven Woodside | and I think that's what we're doing. |
| 04:15:44.75 | Babette McDougall | of. |
| 04:15:44.92 | Sophia Collier | Thank you. |
| 04:15:44.94 | Steven Woodside | It took me an hour to understand what she's just explaining. So if you're able to pick it up in 30 seconds, I commend you. |
| 04:15:51.25 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. I got it completely. So just to repeat it to be sure, you said that including the iconic view protection standards, you did do an analysis that was shown to HCD and they were down with it as not being... |
| 04:16:06.68 | Sophia Collier | Right. |
| 04:16:10.88 | Ian Sobieski | openly restrictive to build. |
| 04:16:11.01 | Sophia Collier | Yes, we can hear the detail, like a 30-page report for them on this whole thing. |
| 04:16:16.06 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah. And did that include the Mount Tam icon at the time? Got it. Okay. Thank you. |
| 04:16:19.11 | Sophia Collier | Yes. |
| 04:16:23.97 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 04:16:26.79 | Unknown | you |
| 04:16:26.81 | Steven Woodside | Okay. Thank you. |
| 04:16:28.11 | Sophia Collier | Thank you. |
| 04:16:29.71 | Steven Woodside | All right. Uh, with that, I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing. Um, |
| 04:16:39.19 | Steven Woodside | And open this up for public comment. I have several speaker cards. The first is Jed Dempsey followed by Nicole Back. |
| 04:16:49.12 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:16:53.07 | Jed Dempsey | Welcome. Hello, Mayor Cox and council members. My name is Jed Dempsey. I live on Bulkley Avenue. My overwhelming feeling tonight is how grateful I am to the city council and to the peer committee for These extraordinary work to help us maintain SOSLETA the way we want it. It's very, very difficult and I'm very grateful. So my request is that you adopt the odds, including chapter three. very few things unite Sausalitans. view protection. is one of them. Uh, It is a fundamental value of people in Sausalito. There's been a lot of hard work to develop the odds. And it occurred to me as I'm watching this, that actually this is pretty simple. because view protection is essential in Sausalito for odds. If odds is an independent pathway and it doesn't have view protection, then all of a sudden everything can just go that way. It's like a short circuit, that would allow a lot of very bad things to happen very quickly if you put odds in without any view protection. So My view. And number one, it's essential because a lot of bad things can happen if you don't have view protection. Number two, It supports a fundamental value of Sausalitans, view protection. And number three, It's something that everybody agrees about. So again, my request is that you include chapter three when you adopt odds. Thanks very much. |
| 04:18:44.39 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Next is Nicole Back, followed by Sorry, Nicole back. |
| 04:18:53.32 | Nicole Beck | Good evening and thank you very much for hearing me. Actually, I have questions now and no comments regarding this software and where it's going to take us and I'd like to give a couple of questions. basic examples, not speaking in terms of Um, It has to be tangible. What happens if you own a multiple unit building where each of those units have different vantage points, primary vantage points. One points here, another one points there, another one points to the south, east, north. So how is this software going to take into consideration the multiple primary vantage points of each one of these units? I live on, I own property on Bulkley. I have six units and each one of them looks in a different direction. And if my recollection is correct, I think the Sausalito ordinance says which are the views Views of Hills, views of water, Views of San Francisco... views of the Pelican Harbor is a major view. So that was one thing. And my next question is recourse. What does a simple citizen have in terms of recourse if this software or city planning runs through this thing without any oversight because the software is something that is... Perfect. And if the software made a mistake, what recourse do you have if your view suddenly gets blocked? How do you know what's going on? How do you know what's being done? Those are my questions. Thank you. |
| 04:20:48.84 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Lorna Newland, and then Alice Merrill. |
| 04:20:57.77 | Lorna Newland | faster than I expected. Hi. |
| 04:21:04.06 | Lorna Newland | I think everybody, I would like you to consider, and it's an excellent presentation. But it's not just about water. A green view is precious to me. And... I can see Mount Tam and whether it's from my house or walking to my studio and I can see green, I don't think with... What happened with Measure K that was even considering views, everybody on Coloma. Now they're blocked. They're going to be blocked. If that building goes up there. And people on that street weren't allowed to even put on a second story. So all I would just say is just not, and yes, I have friends up on Buchanan and they had a water view, but I find a green view or trees or anything like that incredibly precious. And I'm not saying it has to be involved in that, I've lived here for 32 years and it's one of the most expensive counties, one of the most expensive cities now in the United States. Our county is in the top 10, just depending on how you rank it. And it is what it is. But... So if the median price right now is a million dollars, anybody with any view, whether they're up high, and yes, clear up on a Lima, Lima goes up higher, that you can see great views. But I can also see, I can see, I can hear the fireworks from San Francisco, I can see them too. So, you know, it's just a matter out of which window you look at. And so please understand that anybody's view is precious. And when something goes in front of it, It's not. So thank you. have other things to speak to. I've got to get to work. I will do Zoom from my phone. Thank you. |
| 04:22:59.02 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. I do want to speak to the city attorney on this. So There are certain... Sergio, are you there? |
| 04:23:12.89 | Steven Woodside | Mm-hmm. Don't leave Lorna, this is to address your question. I'm going to call him again. |
| 04:23:21.00 | Sergio Rudin | Yes, Mayor. |
| 04:23:21.65 | Steven Woodside | There you are. Sergio, so my understanding is that we cannot now add new view protections that did not exist in our design review ordinances prior to, I think it's 2018. Have I got that right? |
| 04:23:37.68 | Sergio Rudin | Yes, the Housing Crisis Act, SB 330, enacted a couple of prohibitions. One, you cannot effectively... lessen the intensity of development capacity below what existed in January 1st, 2018? Additionally, you cannot adopt any new design standards whatsoever that are not objective design standards. |
| 04:23:59.51 | Steven Woodside | And so we had all... Already, the reason we're able to continue to protect certain views is that those view protections were already enunciated in our design review ordinance prior to 2018. But we are not able to add new. protections of green space or trees or things not already in our existing ordinance as of 2018. Do I have that right? |
| 04:24:23.88 | Sergio Rudin | Yes. A little bit different in terms of the way that I would go about justifying this odds project is, one, you are creating objective standards, which is allowed under the Housing Crisis Act. And additionally, by creating an alternate permitting pathway, you are preserving all of the development that was allowed under your existing regulations in effect as of January 1st, 2018. So you can't run afoul of |
| 04:24:42.43 | Aditya Padala | and then, |
| 04:24:50.02 | Sergio Rudin | the Housing Crisis Act by adopting this because you are still preserving the ability to get permits for whatever you could have developed on January 1st, 2018, under the existing zoning ordinance. |
| 04:25:02.27 | Steven Woodside | Thank you so much. Thank you again for your comment. Okay, Alice. And then John Hutchinson. Hello. |
| 04:25:11.60 | Alice Merrill | I vote for Mount Hymn. |
| 04:25:14.08 | Steven Woodside | That's my vote. Thanks, Alice. All right. John Hutchinson and then Michael Ricks. |
| 04:25:20.99 | John Hutchinson | study council. |
| 04:25:23.91 | Unknown | I'm John Hutchinson, second generation Sausalitan. My parents in the mid-80s scraped together all their money and bought a place downtown because my mother had fallen in love with the view. Both of my parents ended their lives staring out the windows at those views. And every day I wake up, I feel extremely grateful to live where I do. Many people have spoken about the need for view protection. I'm actually a technologist, and I had not heard about this ViewSync software before, so I have a short cautionary tale. Back in the 80s, San Francisco determined that they were only going to allow a small amount of shadow to be cast on the city parks. It was very crudely done by hand to calculate that. A friend of mine developed a piece of software, the company was called CADP, that calculated the number of foot hours of shadow cast on those parks. the city said sounds. We'll adopt that as our validated solution for doing shadow studies. At the time that ran on 286 computers. They never really defined what a validation protocol was to make sure that software was correct. 30 years later, that software was still running on x86s in the basement of my friend's apartment because there was no way for anyone else to get into that space. So I would advise that we decouple the solution from defining what are acceptable criteria for view obstructions. Because after all, they're not 1D lines, they're solid angles. And furthermore, it should be open source so other people can validate that it's correct. And so there's competition in the space because the technology will evolve. Thank you. |
| 04:27:29.98 | Steven Woodside | Rex. |
| 04:27:35.93 | Michael Rex | Yes, I was horrified when I understood that if a property owner added two new units, that it cannot be subject to subjective design standards. It had to be objective. And the Planning Commission sent you for consideration and odds that provided no view protection for those type of projects, no historic protection and no privacy protection that would really work. And so I proposed and organized the peer review committee and I brought it to you and asked you to make it official and you did thank goodness We spent six months. We broke into four committees. I had the easy one privacy. Sophia had the tough one, views. Richard Malat or David Malat did the committee on word sniffing. And then we had a whole committee for historic preservation. Yeah. Thank you. And six months later, we have what you basically have today. with the exception to my surprise tonight, for some reason, Mount Tam was taken out. I think that's a mistake and it should go back in. I know many properties that their iconic view is Mount Tam. Okay, so that needs to go back in. This is a design tool. that we architects really welcome. In fact, we wouldn't submit a project until we tested it with ViewSync. to make sure that we don't have a problem. So we have a more surety of getting the project approved. So please, I urge you to keep view sync in. Sausalito cannot be without view protection, because as one of the speakers just said, horrible things will happen. Thank you. |
| 04:29:34.65 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. And I do want to extend a special thank you to Michael Rex, who has really invested just countless hours in this entire objective design standard process, as I said, extending back even before 2018. And then the development of this committee that spent hundreds of hours, literally, the four groups in developing, in refining our odds to really be customized. and specific to Sausalito and not simply confine potential projects to the protection of views, but actually create a development capacity tool by which we can identify expanded development capacity throughout town. in an objective manner. I'm sorry. Okay, that's it on the speaker cards I have. Anyone online? Can I... |
| 04:30:27.03 | Ian Sobieski | You a question or him a question because he was on the thing and yeah it just he said something in passing and I guess you can confirm it or Brandon can, which is just so this whole effort is because absent this effort when it come from the planning commission before didn't have a view protection and so while we are. |
| 04:30:29.26 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:30:29.29 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:30:29.31 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |
| 04:30:29.55 | Unknown | Thank you. Bye. Thank you. |
| 04:30:44.83 | Ian Sobieski | trying to make it better by the feedback we're getting around what should and shouldn't be included. if not for this effort by these volunteers and by the members of the city, there wouldn't be view protection. So this is all about trying to do something above and beyond. |
| 04:31:00.71 | Steven Woodside | It was- Yes, it was really perceived that identifying an objective manner to protect, view protection was impossible. Thank you for underlining that. |
| 04:31:12.51 | Michelle McCullough | Yeah. |
| 04:31:15.33 | Steven Woodside | Okay, city clerk. |
| 04:31:17.47 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah, we have eight speakers, Beth McDougall. |
| 04:31:22.70 | Steven Woodside | Beth McDougall? |
| 04:31:23.60 | Walfred Solorzano | my bet. |
| 04:31:24.24 | Steven Woodside | back. |
| 04:31:24.41 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 04:31:24.56 | Steven Woodside | it. |
| 04:31:24.74 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes. I bet. Mike Duggo. |
| 04:31:28.02 | Babette McDougall | Good evening. Thank you very much. You know, This kind of breaks my heart to see this kind of time being consumed at the city council level. considering all the hot button issues we have before us. Now, I went back and grabbed my notebooks from when I first heard about this project, and it is fraught. with adjustment after adjustment after adjustment. to try to make it within the scope of what's possible. Now, this is not the way scientific methods usually play out. So it's a little odd that there's no university that's giving us backup beta testing. I think it's a little bit odd that there are no mainstream well-accepted design organizations that do similar types of sighting that have ever approved this in any way. And frankly, if it weren't for some of the questioning of Mr. Sobieski, I wouldn't think an engineer could have laid his hands on this at all. So I'm grateful for that from Mr. Sobieski. But I have to say, if this were the art world, this would be called juvenile art. because it's really not evolved. This is a, this is like a homegrown. You know, why not put it into a real startup lab Why not expose it to the best of the best in the Silicon Valley world? And let's just see if it really can hold its own. except to constantly extract extract, extract. And it's funny, it's almost laughable. that the latest thing you have to cut out is Mount Tam views. Those are fundamental to my home. So, I mean, it's just one more thing. And the notebooks over time show repetitive examples of whittling away something mission critical to empirical testing. And then that you just take it away because you can't account for it. Now, I don't know if We're talking about a group, including Ms. Collier, who is in fact a professional software developer engineer. I don't know. I don't know if the rest of the team is. I just know that Sausalito, for whatever the reason, and me and me, |
| 04:33:32.28 | Jackie Winkle | Thank you. |
| 04:33:32.50 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Time is up. Next, city clerk. |
| 04:33:36.38 | Walfred Solorzano | Cindy Rose. |
| 04:33:40.10 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:33:40.12 | Cindy Rose | Welcome. Oh, hi, thank you for letting me speak. I just wanted to comment, I was watching the meeting on channel 27 and twice It, um, it blocked off into a you know, a PowerPoint slide or Marin TV, um, thing and you guys were cut off. And both times it was when you were discussing the Mount Tam a view or changing it from the iconic view. |
| 04:34:10.61 | Steven Woodside | Thank you for that information. City Manager, did you hear that? comment that Marin TV inexplicably cut out twice during the presentation. Okay, well, she just said she was watching it on Channel 27, and twice it cut out in the middle of the discussion of Mount Tam. |
| 04:34:32.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:34:40.07 | Steven Woodside | Okay. Thank you. Who's next? City Clerk. |
| 04:34:43.48 | Walfred Solorzano | All right. We have Lorette Rogers. |
| 04:34:48.88 | Steven Woodside | Welcome. |
| 04:34:54.21 | Walfred Solorzano | All right, if you can unmute yourself. |
| 04:34:58.21 | Lorette Rogers | Hi, I'm Lorette Rogers. As you may know, my family and my husband Mike's family have lived, worked, and built in Sausalito for the last 80 to 100 years. And through the decades, we've had to adhere to certain height restrictions and view protections, and we're asking that those stay the same for future builders. View protection and view preservation should stay the same. And we really appreciate all the hard work that's been done on the 14-20-25 ordinance, but we ask for two changes. Well, one is we want that there should be no change to the percentage of iconic views that can be taken away. It should not be raised from 5% to 10%, but should remain at 5%. And the second is that, um, COB, Jean Gatza, she's a great question. We've heard enough that it seems like chapter three should be taken out of the ordinance before it's passed. I'm not really sure why software is in the ordinance and it seems like maybe it needs a bit more testing. COB, Jean Gatza, But a great effort has been made. I like the idea that the board of the It would be on another track, the software. So we hope you pass the ordinance with these two changes. And thank you and everyone who's worked so hard. Now, I'd just like to make one last note. I just, you know, Mike and I, we really worry about Spring Valley and Marinship, you know, our home and our family's home for a century. You know, we are an historic district and we really want to be protected as such. And we'd like to join those of you in the historic district. What do we have to do? Um, yeah, I think we could make a case for spring Valley and Rinship being part of the historic district. Thank you. |
| 04:36:43.75 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:36:44.91 | Lorette Rogers | Sure. |
| 04:36:45.30 | Walfred Solorzano | Next speaker is Aaron Nathan. |
| 04:36:48.95 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:36:48.96 | Aaron Nathan | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 04:36:49.12 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:36:49.15 | Aaron Nathan | Thank you. |
| 04:36:49.23 | Aaron Nathan | Thank you. |
| 04:36:49.25 | Steven Woodside | Erin. |
| 04:36:49.87 | Aaron Nathan | Hi there. And I wanted to say the software is very impressive, and I think it's great to see the city embracing this technology. I do think one of the questions that I couldn't find here is the overall cost. If there are any, and then also there was mention of need for someone to administer the system. And so I just wanted to have transparency on exactly what those costs would be both for the initial implementation and then the ongoing maintenance. And that can be done, you know, at any point. |
| 04:37:07.96 | Aditya Padala | I'm sorry. |
| 04:37:08.03 | Unknown | They're all good. |
| 04:37:27.91 | Aaron Nathan | The |
| 04:37:27.98 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 04:37:28.03 | Steven Woodside | Bye. City clerk. |
| 04:37:30.76 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker is Sandra Bushmaker. |
| 04:37:33.99 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:37:34.04 | Sandra Bushmaker | Welcome back, Sandra. Thank you very much. Okay, a couple of things. I support the odds. I'm not so sure about adopting chapter three right now. I think it needs more exposure. There've been a lot of questions about it tonight. uh, So let me just make another comment. Yes on Mount Tam, I'd like to have that included. So I have a question. So for each building generation, that can take it 10% of my view What's going to happen after 10 years? 100% of my view is gone. And secondly, how is the city going to manage the uphill neighbors above a proposed downhill multi-family building. In other words, the neighbors are going to have to be All of us are going to have to have our views measured to see the impact of the downhill proposal, particularly if it's a large proposal. And I just would like to encourage you not to adopt Um, the software while it's still in beta testing. I think there's a lot more that needs to be worked out. I think that a lot of people have raised questions about that and admonitions. And I think we need to move forward with the odds, Maybe postpone the chapter three. Thank you. Thank you. City Clerk? |
| 04:38:58.19 | Walfred Solorzano | Barbara Barron. |
| 04:39:00.74 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 04:39:00.77 | Steven Woodside | Welcome Barbara. |
| 04:39:04.40 | Barbara Barron | So as many of you know, I was actually on the peer review group, and I was honored to serve with other esteemed members. And I'm so impressed with what Sophia has accomplished with the ViewSync software. And as an architect, I see such great value of having this tool available. And responsible developers will have a much better. chance of getting their projects accepted by the community by using tools like this. So I wholeheartedly hope that the city council will approve the current odds draft, including chapter three. Thank you so much. |
| 04:39:55.82 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, and thank you for your work on our very important committees. City clerk. |
| 04:40:02.40 | Walfred Solorzano | Carolyn Revelle. |
| 04:40:04.17 | Steven Woodside | Welcome, Carolyn. |
| 04:40:10.18 | Carolyn Revell | Hello, good evening. I want to first, as a resident, a long time resident, commend this process of city staff working together with volunteers on the odds committee. And secondly, I urge you to adopt the odds tonight, including Chapter 3, with this very innovative view sink that Sophia Collier has spent so many hours on. It can certainly be refined, and certainly I would support, including Mount Tam, But I think it's a very innovative, groundbreaking approach for Sausalito to adopt, and I urge you to do so tonight. Thank you. Thank you. City clerk. |
| 04:40:46.55 | Walfred Solorzano | Daniel T. |
| 04:40:50.92 | Steven Woodside | Welcome, Daniel. |
| 04:40:58.51 | Steven Woodside | Are you there, Daniel? Did he unmute? |
| 04:41:03.22 | Dan Chagru | Can you hear me now? Yes. Oh, okay. Yes, my name is Dan Chagru. I'm a longtime resident of Sausalito. And I would like to thank Mayor Cox and Vice Mayor Woodside and the whole council for their thoughtful leadership. I'm here to voice my support for view protection, and I would like to encourage the Council to vote to approve the odds draft as written, including Chapter 3, And as a retired building contractor, I can see tremendous value in the ViewSync software, just from that perspective, not only to protect views, but also as a great tool for builders. So thank you very much. |
| 04:41:43.62 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:41:43.63 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:41:45.10 | Steven Woodside | City Clerk. |
| 04:41:46.22 | Walfred Solorzano | All right. We have somebody on their iPad. |
| 04:41:50.64 | Sissy Damner | Okay. Maybe me. Thank you. |
| 04:41:55.41 | Unknown | Who's that? That's a Hi. |
| 04:41:58.08 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 04:41:58.82 | Unknown | Bye. Okay, I'm sorry, I don't usually include my name on my iPad, Now that I've used up six seconds. In any case, secondly, second point is I urge you to add back the Mount Tam. As a former residence of Marie Street and Whiskey Springs, And Also as an observer of the effort that went into removing the Um, northern development north of Gabriel Galilee Harbor. which would have blocked their view of Mount Tam That is an iconic view. It's an iconic element in the whole of Marin County and should be retained in Sausalito. I won't. urge you to accept or adopt the odds software, I think it needs, I think you should look at it further. in a smaller group, and try and understand what the implications will be. I know that many of you are somewhat uh, not necessarily coherent about whether or not it would apply to single family houses or single family houses with two or more ADUs I'm not sure that you all understand what the ramifications would be of adopting it at this point, and I hope you will look at it further. Thanks. |
| 04:43:35.08 | Art Guilvaro | Thank you. |
| 04:43:36.54 | Unknown | City Clerk. |
| 04:43:37.05 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:43:37.76 | Art Guilvaro | Art Guilvaro. |
| 04:43:48.71 | Walfred Solorzano | You can unmute yourself. |
| 04:43:49.67 | Art Guilvaro | Can you hear me? Yeah, we do. You can hear me? We hear you. Please proceed. Sorry. Sorry. My question is pretty basic. Does ViewSync promote housing or restrict it? The state laws prohibit you restricting zoning or Oh. adopt zoning things that restrict more housing. So I don't see how this is going to promote housing. The other thing, when you have a point like the Golden Gate Bridge, And it's very easy to eliminate 10% of that one tower. So, I see it as a Trojan horse. Thank you. And what if a house in front of me is blocking my view, but it burns down? And now I have a great view. And I tell the guy, you can't build that house back. Who's gonna handle the lawsuits that are coming with this? That's my opinion. I don't see it promoting housing. |
| 04:45:07.81 | Art Guilvaro | Thank you. |
| 04:45:08.38 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:45:08.77 | Art Guilvaro | Thank you. |
| 04:45:08.78 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. City Clerk. |
| 04:45:11.45 | Walfred Solorzano | No further public comment. |
| 04:45:13.02 | Steven Woodside | All right, I'm going to close public comment, close the public hearing, and bring it up here for discussion. |
| 04:45:18.67 | Ian Sobieski | Mayor, could I ask just the three questions? It's just off of the public comment that would inform our discussion. Just be, if the staff could answer the questions. One speaker asked about multiple vantage points from the same building. if someone could speak to that. |
| 04:45:33.29 | Steven Woodside | Assistant City Manager. |
| 04:45:36.09 | Brandon Phipps | My understanding is that based on how Sophia has built the ViewSync compliance application, that there is a bit of a range of areas on each built facade that is evaluated, which would account for multiple vantage points. And I, if Sophia is still present, I'll just offer her the opportunity to confirm and verify that in her own words. |
| 04:45:59.75 | Steven Woodside | TODAY. All right. Thank you. Hold on, we're still answering the question. Council member Sobieski is asking questions first, then I'll come to you, council member Hoffman. It's not a discussion. |
| 04:46:11.93 | Sophia Collier | Just to very quickly say that any point on the building that has a view is part of the picture. So all of your apartments would have their view. To the extent they have, if they have a view, it would be protected. That's the whole concept. |
| 04:46:29.51 | Ian Sobieski | Assistant City Manager, Mayor, that there is a question of what recourse do you have? I think the answer is that you always have the recourse of doing the current process. |
| 04:46:37.06 | Unknown | Correct, designer view. |
| 04:46:37.63 | Ian Sobieski | That's the answer to that. Cost and maintenance and bug fixes. Who's responsible for that? |
| 04:46:44.28 | Brandon Phipps | Yeah, I think that's a really good question to bring up and discuss. That is something that I look forward to working on if council were to move towards adoption this evening. We have not, I'd say in earnest, dug into the specific terms of contract and how that responsibility, what the given costs are, how that would be handled between the city and Ms. Collier. But again, I look forward to working with her based on council direction. And I think it's up to council to take that for what it is and ensure that that timeline is integrated into the approval tonight. |
| 04:46:51.62 | Ian Sobieski | If. |
| 04:46:56.77 | Aditya Padala | we have to do that. |
| 04:47:17.12 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 04:47:17.93 | Aditya Padala | Bye. |
| 04:47:28.83 | Steven Woodside | I just want to clarify that, you know, When and if the council adopts Chapter 3, we will no longer be relying upon a resident of our community to fund the cost of the software, which she has done thus far to develop this project. because of her expertise as a software engineer, to develop it. But when and if we adopt it, the city will undertake the expense and or pass it along to applicants who choose to avail themselves of the availability of the software. |
| 04:48:06.92 | Ian Sobieski | And if at any point the software became unavailable, too expensive, stopped working, the processor wasn't updated anymore, this city council could simply suspend this element |
| 04:48:16.96 | Steven Woodside | We could suspend it. We could use a different software. |
| 04:48:17.68 | Ian Sobieski | Right. and we would still have the old system. We will always have the, |
| 04:48:21.58 | Steven Woodside | We will always have the, this is an additional tool. |
| 04:48:26.63 | Ian Sobieski | And my last question is just there are several people who said I'm in favor of the odds, but not with chapter three. uh, if the odds are passed without chapter three, is it correct that we don't have then... view protection. Thank you. |
| 04:48:39.20 | Steven Woodside | No, we still have design reviews. |
| 04:48:40.94 | Ian Sobieski | is the design review protection. We don't have enhanced review protection. We don't have the enhanced view protection of these of this. |
| 04:48:48.75 | Sergio Rudin | So if you pass the odds without chapter three included, that would mean that projects would be subject to the objective standards in the odds minus the view sync requirements until you go forward with adopting the view preservation requirements in Chapter 3. So basically, you would have a streamlined ministerial process without the requirements for view preservation whatsoever. |
| 04:49:14.16 | Brandon Phipps | And just to add on that, as the mayor mentioned, this would preserve our existing designer view pathways. So your options, based on what Sergio just stated, would be objective standards without view sync compliance or discretionary compliance with a discretionary element of view preservation. |
| 04:49:16.44 | Sergio Rudin | that. |
| 04:49:16.59 | Aditya Padala | Thank you. |
| 04:49:32.79 | Jill Hoffman | So to So to follow up on that, so we would still have all of the new objective design review standards, that the whole toolkit, the whole enhanced toolkit, the traditional type of enhanced toolkit, the new package Everything. But ViewSync. If we adopt the new odds tonight, we have everything, all the new enhanced tools, except for ViewSync. You think it's just one software tool that Sophia has been working on. is called |
| 04:50:03.67 | Sergio Rudin | Chapter three includes all of the view preservation standards that view sync, that software is intended to. streamline for staff. So the view preservation requirements, the methodology for determining view impact, Those are all in chapter 3. |
| 04:50:22.98 | Costas Casares | The softball. |
| 04:50:23.03 | Sergio Rudin | The software is not. you know, The software, obviously, the source code, stuff like that, that's not in Chapter 3. But. And certainly the city council can address concerns such as whether the software should be open source. you know, et cetera. Chapter three sets forth a methodology for what, a piece of software is supposed to look at. |
| 04:50:46.67 | Steven Woodside | But without chapter three, we don't have the same view preservation protections as we do with it. But we do have view |
| 04:50:54.97 | Jill Hoffman | preservation, new view preservation, Those are the things that we're going to do. |
| 04:50:58.47 | Sergio Rudin | All of those are in chapter three. |
| 04:51:00.76 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:51:00.78 | Steven Woodside | They're all in chapter 3. Without chapter 3, we don't have them. you. |
| 04:51:06.08 | Ian Sobieski | I think this is a key point to clarify and underline, Sergio, if you could just say all that again and help Council Member Hoffman and me and everyone else get on the same page about... |
| 04:51:08.36 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |
| 04:51:08.71 | Unknown | THE END OF |
| 04:51:10.57 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |
| 04:51:10.85 | Unknown | I hope. everyone else. |
| 04:51:15.44 | Ian Sobieski | what view protections are added by including chapter three. |
| 04:51:22.38 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, so the... All of the view preservation requirements that are in the odds ordinance are set forth in Chapter 3 of Title 10A of the proposed ordinance. So those include the protections for your iconic views, and the requirement for protections of the water views. That chapter also sets forth the methodology by which an impact to a view would be determined, i.e. how you calculate that 10% impact and whether or not it's been exceeded. And it also sets, it explains method by which software would go about determining that impact. |
| 04:52:03.33 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 04:52:03.65 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. |
| 04:52:03.94 | Melissa Blaustein | I have, I just have some clarifying. Council Member Hoffman, she could go next. I think we're on this. Okay, go ahead. Sorry, keep going. to follow up on your question i was just trying to understand i'm just i i think we're all in favor of the view protections specifically that we need more of them that we need odds for them but what what i would like to understand with with respect to councilmember hoffman's question is If we, for example, need to figure out a contract for how we move forward with the software or what software we're going to use, how can we do that and still have the view changed view protections because I mean, correct me if I'm wrong. I think everyone on the dais wants objective you protections. |
| 04:52:45.29 | Sergio Rudin | Um, |
| 04:52:45.83 | Melissa Blaustein | Follow-up. |
| 04:52:46.18 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:52:46.23 | Melissa Blaustein | that |
| 04:52:46.81 | Steven Woodside | Let Sergio answer and then you can follow up. |
| 04:52:48.64 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. |
| 04:52:48.68 | Jill Hoffman | I don't know. I'm not sure. |
| 04:52:49.20 | Steven Woodside | I'm going to ask her. Hold on, I want to hear Sergio's answer to her question. |
| 04:52:49.83 | Jill Hoffman | Oh, yeah. And I'll hear from you, counselor. I'm warning the CDD director, my follow-up is to you. So go ahead, Sergio. |
| 04:52:54.01 | Sergio Rudin | I don't know. |
| 04:52:54.20 | Steven Woodside | I'm sorry. |
| 04:52:58.72 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah. The reality is, is this ordinance is not going to go into effect until 30 days after adoption. So tonight this first reading, Uh, Yes, city staff will need to negotiate a contract with the you know, a service provider that at this point probably is going to be Sophia Collier and her company. I anticipate that contract is likely going to need to come to the city council for approval. Um, So in practice, this is something that should be coming back before the council, either at or following second reading. |
| 04:53:37.94 | Unknown | second meeting. outside. |
| 04:53:41.36 | Sergio Rudin | prior to the ordinance going into effect. Now certainly the council can delay second reading, until it sees the details of any contract. That is something the council can certainly consider doing. Um, And then again, if the council's The council could also direct that this go out for RFP or RFI for software providers to write software that meets the requirements of this language. That is also an alternative. But yes, I think as the assistant city manager pointed out, those are details that still need to be developed. I don't believe city staff know the... costs of administering the software. |
| 04:54:23.53 | Jill Hoffman | So do we, what? I had the follow-up question. |
| 04:54:24.81 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. |
| 04:54:24.92 | Babette McDougall | Oh, yeah. |
| 04:54:26.55 | Jill Hoffman | Go ahead. So CD director. So when we started and when we talked earlier about, We talked specifically about this, about parsing out these two things that the Planning Commission did not recommend going forward with the toolkit right now with, I'm sorry, they did recommend going forward with adopting the odds toolkit, but not going forward with, View sync because they didn't feel like it was far enough out of beta and they didn't have confidence in it. at this point. Not that they didn't think it was on the right path. They just felt that it was in a beta or You know. Um, And that that the recommendation from them was to adopt odds. And that when we started this, you said one of the path we could go on was to either you know, follow the recommendation of the planning commission. So now I'm confused because now it seems that we're being told that no, you have to adopt everything or nothing. So can you please explain this to us? |
| 04:55:22.14 | Brandon Phipps | Certainly. Thank you for the question. So I'll just firstly kind of recharacterize your assessment of the planning commission's recommendation. I believe how I've described it is a bit of an agnostic perspective. |
| 04:55:29.31 | Unknown | Amen. |
| 04:55:34.58 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 04:55:34.83 | Brandon Phipps | the commission has chosen to include chapter three before the council this evening in the package that we've provided, but not provide comment in connection to whether or not they would recommend adoption of that specific section or denial of that specific section. As related to the rest of the odds, the odds minus chapter three, the planning commission has recommended approval based on a majority of recommendation by the Planning Commission. So that is how I would characterize the recommendation before Council this evening. Based on that recommendation, I agree, Council Member, we did discuss one pathway option for Council this evening, which was that Council could decouple Chapter 3 from the package presented before them this evening and move forward with that package and ratify that language. Of course, if that language is ratified, that still allows Council to amend the odds moving forward to include Chapter 3, the view sync portion that in this specific case we've excluded. But an additional pathway that Council could consider would be, I believe, what we just discussed. It was approval of the entirety of the odds with a stay of second reading of the odds until staff can confirm, finalize a contractual relationship which describes the transfer of ViewSync and its operations from SOFIA to the city. So I think that both of those options are available to Council this evening. |
| 04:57:10.78 | Jill Hoffman | So let me ask just one further follow-up then to further clarify this. So the staff report says the planning commission split on whether to recommend inclusion of the view preservation standards And, chapter 3 Concerns included whether the view shed analysis software was fully functional. So that seems to me to be directly on point to what I was saying. And also, that they wanted to, I believe, my review of the hearing was that they wanted to split it out, our city attorney, Sergio Recommended they not do that. And so do you have a recollection of that city attorney about why you recommended that they not split their vote out |
| 04:58:03.41 | Sergio Rudin | Well, as a practical matter, this is all one ordinance, right? So for this to come to council... State planning and zoning law requires that the Planning Commission consider and render recommendation on the text that is before you. Now, whether you want to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation or not, That is really up to you. So, Really what was presented to them was the entirety of the odds. And we asked them, you know, the city staff asked them to make a recommendation so that this whole matter could come before the city council. So that's. That's the answer. And then the second practical issue is... by parsing this out into multiple projects. If you pass something 30 days after you pass it, that goes into effect, that becomes law. And whatever that standard is that you pass, people can seek. They can file a preliminary application They can... best rights to proceed with their project under those particular sets of standards. And regardless of what you may adopt later as you're workshopping through, they'll get the benefit of moving forward with something that you have already adopted in, say, maybe a partially completed stage while you are still workshopping other ideas. |
| 04:59:18.49 | Steven Woodside | And so if we adopt this without chapter three tonight, Someone could submit an application 30 days after second reading. that would not be subject to the view protections enunciated in chapter 3. Is that right? |
| 04:59:33.41 | Sergio Rudin | That's my understanding, yes. |
| 04:59:36.44 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:59:36.48 | Jill Hoffman | So I have another follow-up question for our CDD director, and this is about... |
| 04:59:38.93 | Steven Woodside | CDD director, and this is about |
| 04:59:40.82 | Jill Hoffman | This is about- You had said that was your last. I'm gonna do a follow-up and then I'll come back to you. I didn't say it was my last. |
| 04:59:41.37 | Steven Woodside | You have said that. off the back of the year. Thank you. |
| 04:59:45.00 | Jill Hoffman | You said it's my last follow-up. No, this is a follow-up on the contract issue and on the issue of who's responsible for operating the ViewSync application. And so we don't know who we're going to contract with for the software. |
| 04:59:46.27 | Steven Woodside | . |
| 05:00:04.05 | Brandon Phipps | That has not been determined, correct? |
| 05:00:06.48 | Jill Hoffman | And we have no information on what the costs are going to be. Yes, we have some. |
| 05:00:14.24 | Brandon Phipps | Yeah, I would agree with the mayor. Some, not all. |
| 05:00:18.53 | Jill Hoffman | What's the, what's the cost range? |
| 05:00:21.01 | Brandon Phipps | greater than zero. |
| 05:00:23.44 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. So, okay. |
| 05:00:29.72 | Steven Woodside | Okay. Um, If we delay second reading, what are the consequences of that, Sergio? Do we not have a deadline to adopt our zoning ordinance by January of 2026? |
| 05:00:48.52 | Sergio Rudin | We do. We have a deadline to adopt our rezoning for program four. by January 30th, 2026. We do not have a specific deadline in the program 19 for adoption of the odds. There were prior deadlines in the original housing element. Those were amended out. There are additional requirements that were put in based on the request of HCD regarding beta testing, review and revision following adoption to ensure implementation and that it's not serving as a governmental constraint, but I understand that the Council likely expected and did want, you know, for the odds standards to be in place as a permitting pathway for the rezone sites once the rezoning is in place, because if you have not finished this project by then, then realistically all of those sites will be subject to development under your existing design review ordinance. |
| 05:01:47.88 | Steven Woodside | which does not include the view protections enunciated in chapter three of the odds. |
| 05:01:53.03 | Sergio Rudin | Yes, it would not. |
| 05:01:56.96 | Steven Woodside | And so we had second reading tonight of the... Zoning, ordinance. at item 3i. And so 30 days from tonight, that ordinance. Sorry. item. That ordinance goes into place 30 days from tonight, correct? |
| 05:02:26.97 | Aaron Nathan | Thank you. |
| 05:02:26.98 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 05:02:27.00 | Aaron Nathan | Correct. |
| 05:02:27.42 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. And so that ordinance will those properties that may now seek to Submit applications pursuant to our new official zoning map would not be subject to the view protections in chapter three. If we don't, Advance the odds. the odds. |
| 05:02:47.88 | Sergio Rudin | So to be perfectly fair, Those, the odds are again, an alternative permitting pathway. those developers could look at the odds and decide, well, my project would be better suited to discretionary design review regardless. So, That could happen even if you adopted the odds. but, Again, I think that the general intent and what the expectations were of the Council of HCD when they reviewed our housing element was that we would have this alternative permitting pathway to streamline housing development in the city and hopefully to meet our Reno. Thanks. |
| 05:03:25.69 | Melissa Blaustein | I had just a follow-up. So from what I understand you're saying, city attorney and also assistant city manager, there are no negative repercussions to... accepting chapter three in the first reading and holding to the second, the second reading until we've figured out the contract and the best you know, potential use of software so that we could do things like make it open source, have a clear API to grant a kiss, et cetera. |
| 05:03:51.68 | Steven Woodside | I thought that the downside was we don't have the view protections of Chapter 3. |
| 05:03:56.13 | Melissa Blaustein | I just asked, can you, I was asking if there was a downside between |
| 05:03:58.08 | Steven Woodside | Okay. |
| 05:04:02.12 | Melissa Blaustein | Because right now we have no... If I just asked that same question. Right, but right now we have no view protections at all. So it's just... |
| 05:04:03.09 | Steven Woodside | No. |
| 05:04:09.18 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay. |
| 05:04:09.84 | Sergio Rudin | I will say this is that the reason why laws require two readings is to provide for a cooling off period and for a period for reflection. There is no downside to holding a first reading. |
| 05:04:24.25 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. |
| 05:04:24.26 | Ian Sobieski | So. |
| 05:04:28.13 | Ian Sobieski | I would just want to take a good question. If we adopt the chapter as written, and for some reason, six months from now, after we have a contract with ViewSync and everything, we're operating hunky dory, but the ViewSync system crashes and we can't get it to work again. Does the city have any obligation to provide the ViewSync software? Or is there a period of time when we can somehow be liable for not being able to make this practically available to an applicant? |
| 05:05:01.53 | Unknown | That's true. |
| 05:05:02.12 | Lorna Newland | you |
| 05:05:04.63 | Brandon Phipps | That is one of the elements that I would like to explore in an agreement, such that we are able to call upon certain maintenance staff and technical experts if we do run into those issues. |
| 05:05:16.44 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. Different questions, sir. It's not what I meant. I meant legal. I guess my question is really more for Sergio or you, but from a legal point of view, if it's an ordinance of the city, these are our standards. We have this view sync. View sync isn't even named. I don't think it's just that we're providing where we say that you, that we're protecting an iconic view of, of such and such. And you, as long as you don't take more than 10% of it away, you're fine, but we don't have a way for a developer to actually determine that. Is it on the cities to figure that out, or is it- |
| 05:05:47.41 | Sergio Rudin | I believe it would be on the city likely to figure that out. And this is one of the reasons why the beta testing requirement that is in our housing element. that we would have software out available for public testing, which I understand we do have some software out for public testing, why it's important But if we have a law that says, you know, we will permit projects provided that they comply with these objective view preservation standards as determined by a software. There are some potential legal issues with not having that software available. Now, obviously it would not be super, super concerning if it was unavailable for a day or two. If it's unavailable for periods in excess of the time to act on the application under the Permit Streamlining Act, which is, I believe, you know, sometimes 30, sometimes 60, sometimes 90 days, depending on the size of the project. then we potentially would have some issues. |
| 05:06:45.46 | Ian Sobieski | But why is it on the city to provide that instead of on the applicant to provide it? In other words... These are, as I understood it, specified criteria for what the odds are. ViewSync happens to actually exist, so it's possible to answer the question of Who am I obscuring by my project, but why is it legally on the city to provide that practically speaking, we want to so we can make we can operationalize our ordinance, but legally doesn't have to be. |
| 05:07:23.04 | Sergio Rudin | So as a practical matter, The answer to your question is it's the text of Section 10A.03.050, which requires that view compliance must be demonstrated using analysis and report in a format approved by CDD, using software certified by the city as showing compliance and following the methods in the ordinance. Um, or any other commercially available software determined sufficient acceptable by CDD. because certainly we don't necessarily want to allow an applicant to develop their own software where we have no insight into whether or not it actually does the analysis that is set forth in the ordinance. So. There are also alternative methods that CDD can accept, but In practice, we... I think it would behoove the city to ensure that this software is available. works and, you know, generally has some reliability with respect to uptime. |
| 05:08:24.82 | Ian Sobieski | Sure, for all those reasons, operationally, it makes sense, but legally for de-risking this from the city's point of view to avoid lawsuits and other such things, shouldn't we have some sort of escape clause that if CD determines that there is no current software able to do this or, you know, you're the lawyer, some such language that. that the ordinance is suspended until such time that CTD finds such software. |
| 05:08:49.88 | Steven Woodside | But that portion of the ordinance is suspended. Mm-hmm, exactly. Just that portion of the ordinance requiring the use of the software. |
| 05:08:57.07 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, I actually think that is a good idea. I think that the council on first reading can add to 10A03-050, you know, in the event that no suitable software or alternative method. is deemed acceptable by the Community Development Director, The requirements of this chapter shall be suspended. |
| 05:09:19.76 | Steven Woodside | And that's, The software requirements. So the view protection requirements remain. The requirement to utilize the software is suspended. you |
| 05:09:29.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:09:29.38 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 05:09:29.43 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:09:29.45 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 05:09:29.60 | Sergio Rudin | The issue is, of course... how does one determine compliance with the view protection software unless there is available software or some other |
| 05:09:40.01 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |
| 05:09:40.37 | Sergio Rudin | Objective method. |
| 05:09:41.41 | Steven Woodside | requirement to Assure compliance with the view protection software is suspended for any such period of time. The software is unavailable. |
| 05:09:52.96 | Jill Hoffman | I would say that it's a predicate to, that operational application is a predicate to the requirement. And that conversely, if at any time it becomes unavailable or unworkable, it's no longer applicable. So you have it on both ends. |
| 05:10:08.87 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. I think that's fine. |
| 05:10:11.06 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 05:10:11.08 | Steven Woodside | Sergio, you're good with that? |
| 05:10:13.00 | Sergio Rudin | Yes. Can we repeat that language since we are going to have to write it into the ordinance? |
| 05:10:20.60 | Jill Hoffman | I think I said that it's a predicate to the requirement, and conversely, on the other end, it's... it relieves the requirement of applicability if it becomes non-operational. And I would say also it needs to be a generic term and not a specific term for the software. So it shouldn't be called out as specifically the, quote, view sync software. It needs to be a generic term for it so that if the software for some reason becomes obsolete and some other operator comes in, then it becomes whatever software is used. |
| 05:11:03.19 | Steven Woodside | to be able to get the |
| 05:11:03.26 | Sergio Rudin | THE VIEW. |
| 05:11:03.49 | Steven Woodside | YOU. THE FEDERAL. |
| 05:11:03.81 | Jill Hoffman | evaluations. |
| 05:11:04.42 | Steven Woodside | So. |
| 05:11:04.64 | Jill Hoffman | . |
| 05:11:04.81 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 05:11:05.00 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Exactly. You got that, Sergio? |
| 05:11:08.17 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, so I will say that 10A0350 doesn't mention any specific software. It just says software as approved by the community development department. |
| 05:11:12.49 | Steven Woodside | Amen. |
| 05:11:18.33 | Sergio Rudin | So I, |
| 05:11:18.38 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 05:11:20.44 | Sergio Rudin | just to avoid any ambiguity in the record as to what the council is introducing into the regulatory text. Um, is it sufficient for the council if we add a sentence? at the end of that section that says the requirements of this, the view protection requirements of this software shall be suspended. Uh, if determined by the Community Development Department that no software meeting the requirements of this chapter is available. and no alternative method is deemed acceptable to determine compliance with this chapter. |
| 05:11:58.27 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 05:11:58.29 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 05:11:58.46 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Yeah. And then, okay. Can we also... We have a, you know, largely ceremonial meeting on the 16th. So that you have time and the Community Development Department has time, can we have second reading of this ordinance January, our first meeting in January, and still... you know, we'll still have accomplished this aspect of our zoning ordinance by the end of January as required by HCD. |
| 05:12:33.10 | Sergio Rudin | Yes. I don't see an issue with that. |
| 05:12:36.81 | Melissa Blaustein | In the meantime, can we see and review any sort of contract for how we're going to facilitate services with |
| 05:12:43.56 | Steven Woodside | Yeah, that contract has to be approved by us on consent anyway. So I would hope that we'd have a, I'm hoping that we'll have a contract on consent on January 6th. |
| 05:12:53.49 | Brandon Phipps | I hope to deliver that mayor. If I may just provide some comment on Sergio's language, I would request that we maybe add an element of within required review timelines, if we can identify within a required review timeline and if it's not available. |
| 05:12:53.55 | Walfred Solorzano | I know. |
| 05:12:53.60 | Costas Casares | Thank you. |
| 05:13:09.47 | Steven Woodside | Yeah, that's fine with me. Sergio, are you good with that? |
| 05:13:12.55 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, I would say within the timeframe prescribed by the Permit Streamlining Act is actually how I would phrase this. Okay. |
| 05:13:18.97 | Brandon Phipps | to the state. |
| 05:13:19.13 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. |
| 05:13:19.24 | Brandon Phipps | Excellent. |
| 05:13:19.86 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. |
| 05:13:21.16 | Steven Woodside | Yeah, go ahead. One more. Member Hoffman. And then I know the vice mayor has concerns. |
| 05:13:24.62 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 05:13:24.65 | Steven Woodside | about this. |
| 05:13:24.84 | Jill Hoffman | this. And I have one other, and this is looking out when we come back with the cost and the operational issues. Yeah. Are we looking at any kind of a cost aspect on how much is going to cost our staff? I mean, I know it's more than zero, but I mean, if we're going to be tasked with staff is city's gonna be responsible for operating, managing view sync application. We don't have any, you know, software. engineers and annually updating the DSM I mean, it, it, there has to be a cost aspect to operating this and how much this is going to cost the city. Um, and the operational side, right. Thank you. |
| 05:14:08.06 | Steven Woodside | I mean, |
| 05:14:08.29 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 05:14:08.33 | Steven Woodside | Can we pass this along to the applicant who avails themselves of this streamlined process, just as we do various other application expenses? |
| 05:14:08.36 | Jill Hoffman | I don't even want to. |
| 05:14:19.01 | Steven Woodside | I see the community. I see our assistant city manager nodding his head yes. Thank you. |
| 05:14:23.16 | Brandon Phipps | So, yeah, thank you for the opportunity to discuss this a little bit more, and apologies for my short answer earlier. So I agree, Councilmember Hoffman. We have, I would say, three primary buckets here as related to cost. So not zero, but I would say also not an insignificant number overall. We have the maintenance cost, so somebody who can look under the hood and actually understands how this thing works. Apologies, I'm not a software engineer, so I will come up short on that. Regarding the DSM, my understanding is it's not cheap to fly over a 1.7 mile area above water and to create a detailed scan of that. However, I need to learn a little bit more about what the cost of contracting for those services is and what manner of scans are available to us. The final piece I would say is the troubleshooting bucket, which is, of course, when we do something bold and new, there may be growing pains associated with adapting to that. We want to make sure that our community is well-educated and engaged on how this thing works and on how we can clarify any misunderstandings from the community or development, community within Sausalito or the development community who'd like to come into Sausalito. |
| 05:15:03.83 | Unknown | Ha. |
| 05:15:19.20 | Aditya Padala | Yeah. |
| 05:15:43.81 | Unknown | THE VICE MAYOR. |
| 05:15:45.56 | Joan Cox | I'm prepared to move forward as expeditiously as possible because this software is brilliant and it works. And if we have problems with it in the future, we can cross that bridge when we come to it. That's how I view it. That's why I'm concerned about the last 20 minutes of discussion that focus less upon the workability of this software than the possibility it will not work in the future. And I really think... I was a skeptic. I didn't think this could work. I did not think this could work. And it took me a while to realize that this is an objective standard that protects society. views. which is something very important in this community and a handful of communities around the Bay. And without it, we run the risk of having a less than objective, in fact, subjective standard that is viewed as illegal under SB 330, which passed in 2019. |
| 05:16:39.34 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah. |
| 05:16:39.39 | John DeRay | Thank you. |
| 05:16:39.49 | Aditya Padala | Thank you. |
| 05:16:49.25 | Joan Cox | So we're on borrowed time already. And I think we need to wake up to that fact and move quickly. We've done a good job finally getting through the housing elements. We've gotten HCD approval, including. including they are looking at the software and say, yeah, We think it can work. So that's where I'm coming from. I think we should move. expeditiously. Thank you. |
| 05:17:17.58 | Melissa Blaustein | If I could just respond to that. I'm coming at this from a perspective of having worked at the White House on the digital strategy team and in the new media office. And if you're familiar with things like healthcare.gov, which was a really great idea, but then had huge glitches, even with the most exceptional and innovative tools, technology requires testing. And I just want to make sure we have the most pragmatic approach. I'm 100% in favor of using it. I think it's amazing. I agree with you. It's incredibly innovative. I'm excited about having the views be objective in our odds. So I just don't want it to be construed that I'm not in favor of the software as a whole, but more generally, as someone that's seen government tools crash, I just want to be really thoughtful about how we approach the use of this, especially as we're writing it into our code. |
| 05:17:51.36 | Joan Cox | No, I understand. |
| 05:18:01.37 | Steven Woodside | Okay, with that, I'm going to move that the City Council introduced by title only and waive first reading of ordinance number 14-2025, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Sausalito amending the Municipal Code to include a new title 10A, objective design and development standards, as amended by the City Attorney and the Assistant City Manager, this evening. I had a comment though. I'm going to wait for a second and then we can comment on the pending motion. |
| 05:18:26.24 | Unknown | I'm going to wait. |
| 05:18:30.11 | Joan Cox | That includes the qualifying language? |
| 05:18:32.86 | Steven Woodside | Yes, that includes the qualifying language enunciated by the city attorney and refined by the assistant city manager. |
| 05:18:38.97 | Joan Cox | I'll probably vote for it, but having... |
| 05:18:42.12 | Steven Woodside | Okay. |
| 05:18:42.34 | Joan Cox | Sorry. |
| 05:18:42.56 | Steven Woodside | I have a second. |
| 05:18:43.42 | Jill Hoffman | you |
| 05:18:43.44 | Steven Woodside | you |
| 05:18:43.46 | Joan Cox | OK. |
| 05:18:43.83 | Steven Woodside | you |
| 05:18:43.98 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 05:18:44.38 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 05:18:44.76 | Jill Hoffman | All right, discussion. |
| 05:18:45.48 | Steven Woodside | THE END OF |
| 05:18:45.68 | Jill Hoffman | So, First of all, I want to apologize for saying that some people on the north side don't have views of Angel Island and Raccoon Straits. Because I know that there are some people out there. I know that if you're high enough on the hill that you do have those views looking east. |
| 05:18:59.39 | Joan Cox | Water, you have those views. I apologize. You have those views. |
| 05:19:00.75 | Jill Hoffman | I apologize. I'm sorry. Anybody, wife, and they don't have you, I know that they do. |
| 05:19:03.50 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 05:19:07.54 | Jill Hoffman | So anyway, but you also have views of Mount Am. And so, so I, I agree with, uh, councilman Blaustein in a limited time that I've had with developing software. And I know that software development moves so fast. And so I'm very conscious and cautious about anything that says, as it did in the staff report, that Sausalito is responsible for managing software. |
| 05:19:11.64 | Aditya Padala | Thank you. |
| 05:19:11.77 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:19:11.87 | Aditya Padala | Thank you. |
| 05:19:35.09 | Jill Hoffman | or that we're managing a database. Um, cause I know that we don't have that capability and our friend back there in the back, he's nodding his head saying that his friend had still had some sort of system in his basement. I worked with some systems in the Navy where we had these systems called a Frankenstein that lived in the bottom of some basement in some, you know, that we were running systems on just because we didn't have a million dollars to update, you know, and we ran it as long as we could. So, um, You know, that's my caution. about this. I think it's a great, brilliant, if we can get it to work. Great. I'm cautious about putting it in an ordinance and saying that it's required if I don't know how it works. And I don't, I'm not entirely sure that we're ready to go with it, but I support, I support the theory of it. And that's just why I'm cautious. I'm not, I'm not, you know, I don't want to, anyway, that's enough of that. before. |
| 05:20:32.28 | Steven Woodside | Before you continue, may I? I realize I forgot to include one thing in my motion, which is that we add back in the Mount Tam views as an iconic view that is protected. Thank you, assistant city manager. So will you second my amended motion? |
| 05:20:46.66 | Aditya Padala | I second for that. |
| 05:20:50.17 | Steven Woodside | Okay. And you're good with that council member. Okay, thank you. All right, who else would like to comment on the pending motion? |
| 05:20:58.27 | Sergio Rudin | And so to add back in Mount Tam, that would be a modification to section 10A03-020. |
| 05:20:58.29 | Steven Woodside | So, |
| 05:21:04.38 | Sergio Rudin | Uh, Subsection three. |
| 05:21:09.19 | Steven Woodside | We can just undo the redlined deletion. |
| 05:21:12.24 | Sergio Rudin | Yes, that is what you would be doing. |
| 05:21:14.86 | Steven Woodside | Okay. |
| 05:21:16.17 | Joan Cox | I'm going to vote for the motion, but only concerned about Um, How was it phrased that we're potentially going to be disallowing it on some future possibility that it doesn't work? |
| 05:21:34.16 | Steven Woodside | We have, you know, well, first of all, we'll get to see the revised language on second reading. So we can certainly comment on it and then have another second reading if necessary. |
| 05:21:43.87 | Joan Cox | I understand. I'm going to vote for the motion. |
| 05:21:47.46 | Steven Woodside | All right, I'm going to call the question. |
| 05:21:48.74 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 05:21:49.13 | Steven Woodside | City Clerk. |
| 05:21:49.97 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Mayor Mrakas, M.D.: Councilmember Blossett. Yeah. |
| 05:21:52.12 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 05:21:52.47 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 05:21:54.19 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 05:21:54.50 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 05:21:54.95 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Sobieski? Yes. Vice Mayor Woodside? |
| 05:21:57.72 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 05:21:57.79 | Walfred Solorzano | Mary Cox. |
| 05:21:59.07 | Steven Woodside | Yes, I really want to thank my fellow council members. This was hard work, and we really worked hard to work through the challenges that each of us perceived in this. And I think we ended up with a better work product as a result. So thank you to all of you. Okay, that motion carries unanimously. Congratulations and thank you to those members of the working group and others that have volunteered their time and really advanced this important work. All right, we're gonna move on. I do want to announce that we will not be hearing tonight the three consent items that were removed from the consent calendar. I am going to put them on as business items at our next meeting. Um, I don't think any of them are particularly time-consuming, hopefully. uh, The next item on our agenda this evening is item 5B. Well, I'll ask the council. Do you want to consider items 5B and 5C this evening? So, and if we remove one, I certainly think we need to hear 5C. which is implementation the staff report on implementation 5b is on here because I promised to council members that I would bring this before |
| 05:23:09.83 | Aditya Padala | Thank you. |
| 05:23:18.20 | Steven Woodside | our council this year. So, um, That's why 5B is on here this evening. |
| 05:23:23.97 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. think it would be doing 5b any justice hearing it at this hour but i defer to councilmember so yes because he and i are the two that had requested that we give this an opportunity to be heard i agree we need to hear 5c given the public comment and interest I'm happy. |
| 05:23:42.03 | Steven Woodside | to hear both. I'm just asking. |
| 05:23:43.87 | Ian Sobieski | I mean, we're going to have to public comment anyway. |
| 05:23:43.88 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 05:23:46.63 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |
| 05:23:48.10 | Ian Sobieski | The decision might be just to continue the item, but instead of just deciding before we've talked about it. |
| 05:23:52.59 | Steven Woodside | We're not deciding tonight. We're giving direction tonight on 5B. |
| 05:23:56.22 | Ian Sobieski | I know what we decided to do might be continue the item to the future. So I'd rather hear it and, and, uh, if we can. But I mean, I'm one voice, so if my colleagues don't want to hear it tonight, then... He does want to hear it, too. |
| 05:24:12.26 | Steven Woodside | He does want to hear it tonight. We have to take public comment on it. But not everyone will give public comment if we're continuing it from tonight. |
| 05:24:20.01 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, I would like to hear it. |
| 05:24:23.57 | Steven Woodside | Vice mayor. |
| 05:24:25.01 | Vicki Nichols | Yikes. Okay. |
| 05:24:26.64 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Councilmember. Let's see. It's 1030 now. So we're looking at past midnight. No, I'm punning. I'm saying pun it so that we're not so late. That's just because... Nope. I'm... Pun it so that we have a reasonable hour at a reasonable time at a reasonable date. But not to say it's not an important item. I think, well, because I think it is an important item. |
| 05:24:55.25 | Steven Woodside | It's a really important item. I think it's going to take a lot of time to discuss. Bob Silvestri, who wrote in, is not available to provide public comment this evening, although I asked him if he could be. |
| 05:25:04.44 | Ian Sobieski | Well, I have a clear proposal to make, so I would love to make it and see if there's quick adoption. If not, we can just... kick it forward after we reject my proposal. That's why it can take a lot of time to discuss or not. |
| 05:25:19.11 | Steven Woodside | Listen, I promised I would bring it this year. I'm not gonna remove it as tired as I am. We're going to move on to item five B. Discussion and direction regarding release of a request for proposals to develop a specific plan and zoning regulations planning for development of housing and preservation of maritime uses, Our city manager, Chris Zapata, thank you for your effort to put together this item. |
| 05:25:43.81 | Chris Zapata | Thank you, Mayor. I want to just give a little bit of context to this. Sausalito and all city governments are required to do many local plans. Some they do on their own. Some are required by the state. And so one example of that is obviously our general plan. There are specific plans that we have. We also have what I call an appetite to look at the future and what's coming with the next cycle of regional housing need assessments. And so trying to be proactive. One of the things we heard from the council is we need to do a better job of planning. And so what the plan that is being brought before you is, is what I call a draft draft draft because we're guessing as the staff as to what you really want and so what what I would suggest to you is that there are some documents that inform what it is that you want to do there are a lot of moving parts to this that involve not just the city but different stakeholders apologize for my microphone and so one of the things that we saw and I saw was that really a high wire balancing act. how do you protect the marine ship and the maritime and all of that. And how do you enhance your housing opportunities in the future? And how do you meld in all the things that are infrastructure related that cost money? And who are the partners that would be involved in something of this type of undertaking? So for me, it was a little fuzzy in terms of what it is you really want. So I'm really looking forward to hearing the direction of the council and what they want to do in terms of this particular exercise. I don't have a specific boundary. What we suggested was roughly the northern boundary of the city along the shoreline to a little north of Johnson Street, where we believe there's a lot of interest by the council to kind of figure out what to do. We know that we have some existing planning going on that involves the shoreline adaptation plan. We have a technical grant from the Economic Development Administration that would involve some infrastructure planning. So all of these moving parts that are in place, the uncertainty about the boundaries, I'm looking forward to getting direction from you. I'm sure our staff is as well. So anything that strengthens and supports the waterfront is one of the objectives that we heard. It involves liveaboards and houseboats and welcomes them in terms of how we unfold any future planning process. Transportation is a big part of this, you know, whether it's vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, or boats. There's a need for lots of consideration about that. Obviously, when you talk about something of this scale, there is immediate cost for someone to do this. And, you know, I think the The idea that we spent a significant amount of money on the recent consultant for our regional housing needs assessment, we spent over a million dollars. The question is, you know, what would this cost? That's unknown to me. And then certainly as we talk about the fixes that involve, you know, how we enhance our maritime, our housing situation, the people that do business there and sell things and make money for the city. How would that be financed and what tools would we use to do that? So there's enough thought that we put in there that involves, you know, someone that's doing this should bring forward what are financing tools that we could use to achieve the goals of this plan. So that concludes my report. Happy to answer any questions. |
| 05:29:28.05 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, City Manager, and thank you for including as attachments some of the prior actions taken by prior councils regarding specifically the marineship area. And I think there, you know, one of the areas for discussion is what is the scope of this master planning effort that we are undertaking? This was what's on our agenda was influenced by the vice mayor who wanted to ensure that we included the waterfront area. You know, we received feedback from Bob Silvestri saying that it. that that's too piecemeal that we've already abandoned the Marin ship specific plan. Um, but. What has changed since that decision is the composition of the council. There was a 3-2 vote on the council not to have housing in the working waterfront area of the marineship. three years ago, two years ago, that position changed and we now have at least three council members who envision some amount of some sort of housing in the marine ship working waterfront area. And so rather than spot zone or piecemeal, uh, We are bringing forward this. concept of a request for proposals to get some expert advice about what we could do where. And so with that, unless there are questions by the council, I'm going to open it up for public comment and then bring it back here for discussion. I have no speaker cards on this. |
| 05:31:13.26 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. Yeah, we're covering this and then we're covering 5C, Summary of Next Steps on Implementation of Housing Element Programs 4 and 8. That's it. We're not going to hear 5D, E, or F this evening due to the lateness of the hour. Alice Merrill, come up. I have there's public comment and then |
| 05:31:37.33 | Jill Hoffman | But I thought we were going to ask questions before we get into public comment. I didn't ask if there were questions. I did, but then you... |
| 05:31:39.89 | Steven Woodside | Before we get into public comment. I asked if there were questions. |
| 05:31:43.27 | Jill Hoffman | There was someone yelled out from the |
| 05:31:43.79 | Steven Woodside | Someone yelled out. I already opened public comment. |
| 05:31:47.64 | Jill Hoffman | No, he yelled out before. |
| 05:31:48.70 | Steven Woodside | Right. |
| 05:31:48.92 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 05:31:49.02 | Steven Woodside | No, I wouldn't public comment before he yelled out. |
| 05:31:53.26 | Alice Merrill | Maybe she could just say what she needed to say. I would really appreciate hearing what you have to say before I have a public comment. I don't know what you're thinking. And that's not fair. You guys have these great ideas, and I don't know what they are. And I truly don't think it's fair for us to have to comment now. |
| 05:32:08.95 | Aditya Padala | You don't know what it is. |
| 05:32:15.65 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 05:32:15.67 | Alice Merrill | Thank you. |
| 05:32:15.89 | Steven Woodside | I agree, but we don't know what we think either because the Brown Act does not allow us to discuss this amongst ourselves. |
| 05:32:25.25 | Alice Merrill | So, Thank you. |
| 05:32:25.64 | Steven Woodside | to support the community. |
| 05:32:25.81 | Alice Merrill | you |
| 05:32:25.88 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 05:32:25.93 | Alice Merrill | That's it now. |
| 05:32:26.67 | Steven Woodside | out. |
| 05:32:26.75 | Alice Merrill | you |
| 05:32:26.80 | Steven Woodside | We're not allowed to until after we hear from the public. That's just the way the Brown Act is set up. So we don't know what each of us is thinking either. |
| 05:32:34.85 | Alice Merrill | I don't believe that, but okay. So here are my notes. Don't cave to the landowners. They are sitting there waiting doing this until they finally you finally cave and don't cave to them. They knew what they were buying. They either brought it up 100 years ago after the war or their family has moved it through or whatever, but they knew what they were buying. It's too bad this Pacific plan was dissolved. it did help a little bit to keep it to keep it in what it, WELL. you know, historically became when it became marinship. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS. I... I just... I know that very often... Oh, I have 15 seconds. I know that very often... um, It was ignored. The requirements were ignored. So all kinds of things went up. This shouldn't have gone up. That was the whole picture was never really respected. And, um, If you're gonna put, We're housing in I can deal with workforce. That's fair. Workforce, we got a lot of kids who come here to... be on the boats and to be working in the friendship and to learning the trades and that's great but you start putting fancy housing in you start caving to the landlords And it's gone. It's within A few years. Thank you. |
| 05:34:13.99 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 05:34:15.78 | Alice Merrill | Thank you. |
| 05:34:15.82 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. All right, Councilmember Hoffman, your questions. And then I'll continue public comment. THE END OF |
| 05:34:21.98 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, my question is, I guess. I'm not really clear also on what the scope was and what we were supposed to talk about. So in the description in the staff report, it referenced housing, but are we talking about more than what the 12 sites that we just approved for Measure K? Yes. So we're envisioning more than the 380 units that we just approved for Measure K that are all in the Marin ship. |
| 05:34:49.40 | Steven Woodside | Yes. Yes, there is a majority of the council now. as of last year's election, that would like to see housing at least on the Berg property. And so, so this is about the Berg property. It's not just about the Berg property. It's the, there are, I don't know what other people want because I haven't been able to discuss it with them, but I know they're based on campaign statements. I know there is a majority of the council now. |
| 05:35:13.63 | Vicki Nichols | But I- |
| 05:35:14.00 | Aditya Padala | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 05:35:20.11 | Steven Woodside | that did not previously exist that would like to see housing in the Marinship specifically on the Burke property. right? Okay. NO. |
| 05:35:33.68 | Joan Cox | If I could just say that we have not, as a group, discussed any of this. Right. |
| 05:35:39.84 | Steven Woodside | This is the opportunity. |
| 05:35:40.97 | Joan Cox | It's not the opportunity. |
| 05:35:41.34 | Steven Woodside | I have the opportunity to discuss everything. Jill said she had questions. I'm here to address questions. |
| 05:35:42.71 | Joan Cox | discuss everything. Yeah. |
| 05:35:48.44 | Joan Cox | But we've had a discussion characterizing what three of us have not yet even had a chance to discuss. So please don't. |
| 05:35:54.89 | Steven Woodside | You three have announced it publicly. |
| 05:35:58.30 | Joan Cox | No, that's not true. That is true. |
| 05:35:59.58 | Melissa Blaustein | I don't think it's fair to characterize that we want to have a master plan for the marineship to say that it comes down to one property. Yes, we've all vocalized that we're in favor of housing in the marineship. |
| 05:36:10.18 | Joan Cox | But that's not the only issue. But that's something |
| 05:36:11.56 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 05:36:11.61 | Steven Woodside | that's not the only issue with this. Agreed. But the whole reason for the master planning effort is to ensure that we undertake this discussion in a, in a thoughtful and expert. Is that why we're hearing it at 1040 on, after a package? We're hearing it because I promised two council members that I would put it on the agenda this year, and it couldn't be on the agenda until after the |
| 05:36:12.03 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 05:36:12.10 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 05:36:12.14 | Unknown | with this. |
| 05:36:34.17 | Steven Woodside | Measure J and K election. |
| 05:36:37.80 | Ian Sobieski | to support the board. |
| 05:36:38.48 | Steven Woodside | THE END OF |
| 05:36:38.65 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 05:36:38.70 | Steven Woodside | THE CITY IS GOING TO BE |
| 05:36:39.08 | Ian Sobieski | I'm the footboarder, man. |
| 05:36:39.86 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 05:36:39.96 | Ian Sobieski | I think especially at the late hour, it would be helpful just to keep to our discipline and you open public comment. Could we finish public comment and then have a discussion? |
| 05:36:41.16 | Jackie Winkle | Thank you. |
| 05:36:41.18 | Steven Woodside | Wait. |
| 05:36:47.91 | Steven Woodside | So, Member Hoffman has an |
| 05:36:49.03 | Jill Hoffman | questions. She wanted to ask questions. That was it because we had started off about, I can't remember what it was, and I was just trying to figure out the scope of what we were talking about because it didn't mention housing in the staff report, but I wasn't clear We were talking about something in addition to the sites that we just approved. And I thought we were going to talk about, okay, now what are we going to do with those sites that we just approved with measure J? But we're not even talking about those. We're talking about new and more sites. Okay. Got it. |
| 05:37:14.76 | Steven Woodside | you Okay, I'm going to resume public comment. I have no other speaker cards from the audience. So city clerk, are there any... SPEAKER 1, 2, 3, 2, 1. |
| 05:37:26.45 | Walfred Solorzano | We have about eight speakers. |
| 05:37:28.82 | Steven Woodside | Okay, we have eight speakers. Council member, I apologize. I am tired and I'm not as disciplined as I should be. So apologies for that. I'm doing my best. |
| 05:37:30.25 | Walfred Solorzano | I'm going to help them out. |
| 05:37:37.74 | Steven Woodside | Okay. |
| 05:37:38.03 | Walfred Solorzano | Go ahead. Sandra Bushmaker. |
| 05:37:41.08 | Steven Woodside | Welcome back, Sandra. Thank you. |
| 05:37:42.77 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 05:37:44.00 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 05:37:44.90 | Sandra Bushmaker | Even Chris Zapata. said in writing the staff report that the scope is fuzzy. This is a fuzzy subject and yet, You are being asked to do a request for proposal for a master plan. I think that RFP is extremely premature. Like council members have said, they haven't even, you haven't even... discuss this. So why are we doing a request for proposals at this premature stage? Even Bob Silvestri said that an RFP was pre pre, uh, premature. By the way, his letter did not show up on the final draft of the agenda, just FYI. It was there on the previous draft. was not on the final draft. So I just want to make sure that his letter gets into the packet. Thank you. |
| 05:38:38.21 | Steven Woodside | Girdra, can I ask that you ensure that all of the letters we received get uploaded to the agenda packet? Thank you. Who's next, city clerk? |
| 05:38:50.42 | Walfred Solorzano | Craig Merrilees. |
| 05:38:53.07 | Jackie Winkle | Welcome, Craig. |
| 05:38:59.94 | Craig Merrilees | Sorry. |
| 05:39:02.17 | Steven Woodside | Craig, are you able to unmute? |
| 05:39:04.97 | Craig Merrilees | Oh, I'm muting now. |
| 05:39:07.43 | Steven Woodside | I know. |
| 05:39:08.75 | Craig Merrilees | Thank you, Mayor Cox, Vice Mayor Woodside and Council members. It's late. We're all tired. I was surprised to see Item 5B on the agenda, but took some time to read the three letters I saw that accompanied the, uh, that proposal and each of the letters raised thoughtful concerns, but I was especially impressed by comments submitted by Marin's well-known planner and developer, Bob Silvestri. On his first page, Silvestri says, quote, in my professional opinion, the method proposed by staff to create and publish an RFP would be both premature and counterproductive, end quote. He adds that, quote, a comprehensive master planning endeavor does not start with an RFP. In fact, it's likely... premature and counterproductive end quote he adds that quote a comprehensive master planning endeavor does not start with an rfp in fact it's likely to be the last step end quote on the following pages he states no competent planning uh, firm would respond to this kind of RFP. that staff has presented it's simply too vague and lacking information required to do so Silvestri's conclusions on the final page are even more concerning. Quote, in my opinion, he says, for Sausalito to circulate a master planning RFP at this time would be a waste of time and money. End quote. He concludes by saying, quote, it's not an overstatement to suggest that these first steps, missteps at this time could ignite, invite media consequences, negative consequences that could seal the fate of the working waterfront for the worse. Silvestri is well known for his skills and experience and being frank when he sees deficiencies. In this slide, I hope the council will proceed carefully and seriously consider Silvestri's constructive criticism. Thank you very much. |
| 05:40:57.17 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. City clerk. |
| 05:40:59.43 | Craig Merrilees | learn a new |
| 05:41:00.02 | Walfred Solorzano | Dylan? |
| 05:41:00.26 | Craig Merrilees | you |
| 05:41:00.31 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 05:41:00.90 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 05:41:00.94 | Lorna Newland | Welcome. |
| 05:41:01.19 | Steven Woodside | back, Lauren. |
| 05:41:01.96 | Lorna Newland | Yeah. Thank you. I do agree that the city Manager's proposal or his talk was pretty limited and you guys haven't even, the council hasn't even discussed this. So I had looked at those earlier and some of my points have to do with the working waterfront does not want to displace any artisans or people in the maritime business. But yet that's what Measure K is doing at MLK. 13 artisans and maritime tenants also represent 30 livelihoods. They're people with family businesses and that. So that's happening there, but Sensible Housing Sausalito said that they're looking at sites that won't displace artists, harm the working waterfront. I don't want to harm the working waterfront. I don't think artists or working waterfront should be Um, impacted. However, as Councilman Sobieski showed us videos months ago. There are so many... Um, Empty lots. There are so many derelict RVs and things that should be cleaned up. And Carlo Berg, years ago, wanted to put in a senior housing or a memory care on his property. And somebody at the working waterfront said, oh, no, they're going to cause too much noise. And there's a parking lot all the way around it. Look at the Plan B, you have the housing that you need. You don't need to even displace artists that you're doing. And there's all this land down there. You know, the war ended a very long time ago. We're not looking to, I wouldn't want to displace anybody who has a business down there. But there is plenty of land down there to do it. There's also, how about the land that the city owns where the former or the temporary property All those trailers next to, I guess, the joinery in that area? How about that? |
| 05:43:09.35 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, Lorna. Sorry, but your time is up. City Clerk. Fred? Brad? |
| 05:43:16.26 | Walfred Solorzano | Oh, Fred. |
| 05:43:17.06 | Steven Woodside | Fred Moore. |
| 05:43:18.04 | Jackie Winkle | Thank you. |
| 05:43:18.18 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |
| 05:43:18.89 | Fred Moore | Good evening, Council, and I apologize for the late hour, but thank you again for your hard work and hanging in there. I've always been convinced that the marineship is a jewel of the city and has so many opportunities, but putting it on a piecemeal basis is not productive for anybody, and a master plan makes total sense. but I would throw out for your consideration whether this is something more that should be shifted down to the planning commission for them to look at the potentials of how to work with some sort of master plan, whether they hold study groups, work with city staff. And then once they put together something more definitive, that that comes back to you. And then you can decide from a policy standpoint how to go forward with some sort of RFP. But I think this is a planning tool and hopefully you have enough faith in the planning commission and the staff that they can come back with some good tools for you to evaluate how to go forward with an RFP. Thank you very much and hopefully you guys can get home soon. |
| 05:44:20.23 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Not likely. Who's next, city clerk? |
| 05:44:25.06 | Walfred Solorzano | Vicki Nichols. |
| 05:44:27.23 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 05:44:27.26 | Vicki Nichols | Hi, Vicki, welcome. Good evening, Mayor Cox. I know you're tired. I'll be quick. I admit I have not been able to attend meetings as frequently as I might. But I'm, I'm a little bit, um, confused. Did we not migrate over the whole friendship specific plan in our general plan, in our zoning, And if that's not the case, has it been changed? um, You know, I worked on the house on the, General plan. I know that word was used a lot about migration and then things would be looked at differently. I'm not opposed to any studies or anything. I'm just trying to understand. What's enforced down there now And I do think that a planning RFP is premature. And I can also tell you that when the broader community gets a wind of this, you're going to have much more interest than just several people this late at night. Thank you. |
| 05:45:39.10 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. City Clerk. Next speaker is Aaron Nathan. |
| 05:45:44.01 | Steven Woodside | Welcome back, Aaron. |
| 05:45:45.19 | Aaron Nathan | Hi there. So I just did want to comment on the RFP itself. There are a bulleted list of the elements that it's trying to achieve. And one of the things I think that's missing there is how we actually help promote further innovative businesses. I would encourage folks to look at the working waterfront video that highlights some of the innovative businesses that are in the Marin ship that candidly I didn't know existed. C&C shops, etc. And I think that having a plan that both considers housing as well as how we attract these innovative businesses that will ultimately help the tax base and help pay for a lot of these environmental cleanups, sea wall buildup, et cetera, is really important. Whether or not that happens through an RFP process or some other process, I leave to the experts here. But I do think that we should really consider how we attract those types of businesses to sustain the working waterfront as technology moves forward. Thank you. |
| 05:46:51.83 | Walfred Solorzano | City Clerk. Curtis Havel. Well, I think that's a good thing. |
| 05:46:54.55 | Steven Woodside | Welcome, Curtis. |
| 05:46:56.88 | Curtis Havel | Good evening. Thank you for having me. Can you hear me okay? |
| 05:47:00.07 | Steven Woodside | Yes. |
| 05:47:00.46 | Curtis Havel | Thank you. Great. |
| 05:47:00.86 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |
| 05:47:01.79 | Curtis Havel | Hey, I just, I wanted to say, I really appreciate this item on the agenda. And I, I really appreciate y'all starting this conversation. I think it's super important. It's got to start somewhere. I realized that. conversation has already started and it's been going on for decades, but Um, I really do appreciate your work in continuing that conversation. And I think it's an important one to have. So I'm, um, yeah, I'm supportive of all your efforts and, uh, Yeah, let's not let the fear mongers get us down. Thank you and have a good evening. |
| 05:47:34.06 | Steven Woodside | Thanks. City Clerk. |
| 05:47:36.28 | John DeRay | John. John. |
| 05:47:41.41 | Barbara Barron | All right. |
| 05:47:42.02 | John DeRay | John DeRay, I read the RFP. I'm a little confused. I don't understand why this process is actually starting now. As we've just approved zoning changes with Measure J for 378 units, 292 which are in the Marinship. Our city attorney was quoted in the Chronicle a few days after the election mentioned that measure J would allow up to 530 units to be built. I presume this has to do with the density bonus. So if you apply that to the 292 units in the Marin ship, that means it could be 409. And if you apply that analysis from the city attorney, and I could be wrong on this, he could opine. Our total could be 1,292 units when you look at density bonus. So my point is that we don't know how many units we will have in Sausalito until some of these applications come in. So I think we're a little bit premature. Secondly, the RFP itself demands extremely broad objectives without prioritization. The RFP simultaneously requires a consultant to address housing needs for seniors and live aboards, preservation of maritime uses, infrastructure challenges, sea level rise protection, business and retail vitality, environmental and ecosystem concerns, multimodal circulation stakeholder engagement with federal, state, regional, and neighborhood groups, all in one integrated plan without identifying which outcomes are mandatory, which are negotiable, and which have funding behind them. Lastly, I wanted to get an idea what this would cost, and I put it into one of the AI tools, the RFP, and what I got was given the scope described through the RFP, this level of work typically costs $300,000 to $1.2 million in California coastal communities, depending on complexity. So take that for what it's worth. Thank you very much for your time. |
| 05:49:42.12 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. City Clerk. Cindy Rose. |
| 05:49:45.92 | Cindy Rose | Welcome back, Cindy. Thank you This is Cindy Rose I am I just want to comment just from listening to the, the other, the rest of the public about I guess I'm not sure what the definition is of a working waterfront. And I don't know the history of the commercial fishing industry here. and in San Francisco, but I do find that there's different standards quality of fish and I do like to eat my fresh fish. And in Looking at, I guess some of the development that has been done along the waterfront in the last recent years, I'm not sure. how the money compares to the money that just went back spent on Bridgeway. And I understand. talking with some people that that do go out to fish that even though there's a public dock that appears to have been improved, there's not a place for trailers for their boats. And And so anyways, I would like the city to think about, you know, how can we get fresh fish you know, to our restaurants and to our community. in a clean and sanitary manner. |
| 05:51:08.01 | Steven Woodside | That's my comment. |
| 05:51:08.03 | Cindy Rose | Thank you. |
| 05:51:09.41 | Steven Woodside | Thank you very much. City Clerk. |
| 05:51:11.89 | Walfred Solorzano | No further public comment. |
| 05:51:14.05 | Steven Woodside | Okay, I'm going to close public comment and bring it up here for discussion. I guess Councilmember Sobieski would like to lead off. Yeah, thank you. |
| 05:51:23.22 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. Here from the vice mayor. Thank you. And thanks for hearing this at the late hour. If we had delayed it, then the RFP in its best form by staff would have been sitting out there unengaged with by all of us and by the community. And what if I think this is an opportunity to bring it home and get on the same page about moving it forward with an exciting possibility. I hate hearing some of the comments that make it seem as though this effort is all about housing. And it's really not. It's about the fact that our working waterfront has been... in decline. Ian Moody, his operation is gone. There's no way to fix many of our houseboats. The number of maritime workers is not expanding. We don't have new boatyards being put in town. We don't have more fishing fleet in town. The number of recreational uses and waterfront access isn't increasing. And this at the same time as that area of town is some of the quietest in town. While we're looking for places to put housing and squeezing it in, we literally have empty fields and dry storage yards. So my comments can best be summarized by the motions I was going to propose, which I'll introduce one after another. But just to summarize them, what I was going to move, I will issue, make a motion not to release this draft RFP. Instead, we should direct staff to return within 90 days with a roadmap document that informs the city of the steps needed to develop an urban plan for the 215 acre marine ship. Our staff are not professional urban planners, but this is a profession. There are urban planners. So much like we had the peer group for the previous item that developed ViewSync and much as we had the local professional group, the city should hire and pay on a time and materials basis. let's say up to three professional urban planners to advise them on the development of such a roadmap so that we can be informed and the community can be informed about what an urban plan is. John DeRay brought up the multitude of goals that is outlined in the RFP. And he's confused about how all that can be possible. It is complicated. It is in fact trade-offs. And what's evident is that most of us being lawyers or engineers and entrepreneurs are not urban planners. And so we're skeptical about it, but we need a professionally, developed urban planning document. My other motion would be to reiterate- Well, you've made one motion. I'm not making these motions. And these are my comments. I'm just highlighting what my motions will be, is to move that the goals of the Marine ship include, number one, revitalizing the working waterfront, increasing more boat workers, more boat work capacity, increasing maritime activity, preserving airspace, and protecting the security of artisanal boatwork and boat workers, artists and artwork. while providing housing for those workers in that area. comprehending sea level rise and financing all this without new taxes by liberalizing the economy there so that without raising tax rates, we can increase tax revenue. So those are two of the motions I would make and summarize sort of my point of view. |
| 05:54:32.27 | Steven Woodside | Thanks. Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 05:54:35.90 | Jill Hoffman | So let me just start off by saying, |
| 05:54:36.59 | Steven Woodside | Um, |
| 05:54:40.23 | Jill Hoffman | Ian Moody's Houseboat shop is just being reopened. So it's going to reopen this month. So the houseboat servicing and houseboat building is coming back to the working waterfront. And ever since I've been on the council, there's been this, this effort to characterize waterfront as declining and it has never been true. So when I first got on the council, it was characterized the myth of the working waterfront. Um, never has it been true. And we even did a study. um that that certain members of the council when i was first on the council was going to prove the fact there was a declining waterfront and what it in fact showed was that a substantial portion of our sales tax came from the working waterfront and it's only improved. And during COVID, and during times when certain economic factors outside of California and outside the United States depresses our economy, our working waterfront sustains us. And so during COVID, 40% of our sales tax and maybe even higher of our income came from the working waterfront. This is a really important sector of our income comes from that area. though sadly neglected and many times under attack by other areas of town that want to build housing in that area. So or convert the industrial areas into housing areas. And so, I mean, I don't want to underplay the fact that there are certain types, some areas that may be amenable to housing, and that's what Measure J was all about. And that was a very concerted effort to look at the areas and what are lots that can be easily converted, or not easily, but by negotiation, converted from the former Marinship specific plan into housing areas. And landlords that were amenable to that. And we went forward and that was a negotiated and it was largely uncontested, so that's why we have I think 10. 10 sites and almost 400 units in that area. That is substantial for new housing in the Marinership. And I'm very proud of that. And I'm very proud of our city for passing that almost uncontested. I think that we can look at ways to look at this. I don't think we should go forward though, until we have our shoreline adaptation plan back. just our last city council meeting, we had half a million dollars in two years of a shoreline adaptation plan that we did not accept because we did not agree with what came back to us. And most of the owners and operators down there along our entire waterfront, the same footprint that is on this RFP is over late. And so why would we go forward on a new RFP for a new plan when we don't have that shoreline adaptation plan with the direction back to our staff was to go back to that consultant with almost the same direction. I would say we wait for that before we do anything else. At least that's what I'm thinking right now. Vice Mayor. |
| 05:57:46.75 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 05:57:47.44 | Joan Cox | From my perspective, we've been waiting more than 80 years for a plan that's viable in the marineship. And we can continue to wait. But we now know a lot more than we knew 80 years ago. There has been significant development in the Marin ship without a plan. There are existing marinas. There are existing shipyards. There are existing office buildings. There's a whole number of things that have propped up over the years. The problem is the infrastructure is deteriorating. Some of the shipyards are deteriorating. How we refurbish them for the viability of the shipyards and the workers there is a major concern of mine. I don't have an answer tonight, but I think we need to at least start having the conversation that looks at all of the things that could happen in the marineship, decide what it is that we think is best for our community and everyone who lives and works here. It's complicated and it requires more than piecemeal planning. And I think that's sadly what's happened. It's no one's fault. It's just the way things have happened over the last 80 years. There have been fits and starts. There have been an effort to do more in the marineship than currently exists. They fall back. There's now limitations on what can be done that, frankly, to me, don't make any sense. But, you know, I'm just one person. I work there. I helped build the Matthew Turner. We all value the shipyards, at least I believe everyone on this dais does. And we don't want to see them deteriorate. And they need help. Some of them need real help. They're not going to last forever. How is that going to get paid for? Who's going to support the infrastructure that will enable them to survive and thrive? To me, the key to Sausalito is the water. That's one of our defining features. So the waterfront. And preserving it, the marinas and the shipyards, to me, is something worth preserving. And in, In my experience elsewhere, one way to do that is to actually set aside land in trust for that exclusive purpose. That's hard to do. But it can be done. It's been done in in this county, the first agricultural land trust. we need to think about these things more broadly. Now we can't, um, solve it all in one session, but we need to have the conversation. Now, I think Many people would read into what we heard from the city manager as a proposal, but it's not. It's pieces of information where he is seeking direction because he doesn't know where we stand. And frankly, we don't yet know where we stand. And we need a process that will get us at least to the conversation so that we can make some decisions that are forward thinking. I don't want to be misunderstood as advocating just one thing in the marineship. I don't. I think preservation is important of many of the activities that take place there and being able to have them survive against sea level rise, economically and otherwise. So. |
| 06:01:08.21 | Steven Woodside | Councilmember. |
| 06:01:12.49 | Melissa Blaustein | I think that everyone on this dais would like to see a continued thriving working waterfront in Sausalito. And much of the conversation has been framed around one side or another housing, no housing, and what the effort or discussion around a master plan was really based in. And the reason that Councilmember Sobieski and I voted for initial master plan in the first place is because we're trying to get to the bigger picture of how do we ensure that not only the working waterfront thrives, but our community as a whole thrives. And this part of our community that we cherish is able to continue while also providing for all of our residents as we evolve as a community. We've seen so much feedback from folks who are beginning to dial into the repercussions of our housing element, where there are sites, where there aren't, and it's bringing up, of course, a lot of tension and a lot of questions about why didn't we put more sites in the Marinship, for example, or why did they go here or there? Part of that problem is that every time we start to have a conversation about what's next in the Marin ship, there is a real I think rightfully so dedication to wanting to preserve the working waterfront. And I'm not someone who believes that preserving the working waterfront means no housing whatsoever in the Marinship. And I think our community agrees based on their resounding support for measure J, we saw I think something like 70% of our community vote in favor of that. The reason that we want and need a planning discussion around what our future looks like is because. doing nothing is really not an option. We are up against sea level rise. We are up against an affordability crisis, a housing crisis, and of course, areas that desperately need revitalization and infrastructure improvements, and artists who need to be able to have an opportunity to continue to work and to build. And if we don't look at the best practices from a master plan standpoint, then we're going to, to Council Member Woodside's comments, keep doing things piecemeal. So I think what was trying to be achieved here, at least from the perspective of what Council Member Sobieski and I worked on when we considered Bob Silvestri's master plan, was taking a higher 10,000-foot look and moving forward with things that were pragmatic and a lot of time and effort was put into that. And again, it didn't move forward. So I am hoping I don't think that a strong an RFP right now in the form that it's in makes sense. I really appreciated Bob Silvestri's letter was some really pragmatic requests, but I do think we need to commit in the year ahead and in our strategic plan |
| 06:02:51.48 | Aditya Padala | housing. |
| 06:03:51.15 | Melissa Blaustein | to really answering some of the questions that have come up as a result of both this staff report item and the last year's discussions around where we are putting housing in this housing cycle because before you know it we'll be planning for our next housing element and there's going to be more need so we have to do something if it's not immediately this form of the rfp i'd like to kind of hone in on councilmember sobieski's some form of his motions |
| 06:04:21.21 | Melissa Blaustein | um, |
| 06:04:21.74 | Jill Hoffman | Bye. Thank you. |
| 06:04:22.78 | Ian Sobieski | and |
| 06:04:22.98 | Jill Hoffman | But we're going around again. All right. |
| 06:04:25.69 | Ian Sobieski | you haven't gone yet but i |
| 06:04:27.18 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 06:04:27.58 | Unknown | Thank you. Oh, thank you for that. |
| 06:04:30.52 | Steven Woodside | I will respectfully disagree with the vice mayor that the marineship has essentially been rudderless for 80 years. since the city council adopted the Marinship Specific Plan in 1983. which had a specific purpose at that time. Something unfortunate that happened following the adoption of that plan is that we had a huge landowner who proposed a project that fits squarely within that plan that inexplicably was denied by our city staff. Even though it completely fit within that plan, and it included a shipbuilding school, some housing, it completely, it didn't not include housing. It fully fit within the Marinship-specific plan. But because it fit within but went to the borders of that Marinship-specific plan, staff were. denied it. And that unfortunately was short-sighted. We would have a very different working waterfront today if that plan had been allowed to move forward. To answer Vicki Nichols, the General Plan Advisory Committee transferred over the protections contained within the Marineship-specific plan while retiring the remainder of the marineship-specific plan pending adoption of new vision by the City Council. Following a very broad based community workshop in September of 2019, the city council unanimously adopted a marineship vision statement on November 12 of 2019 that statement is contained. on the city's website currently, and it is attachment to the staff report this evening. I would like to see us address the infrastructure needs in the Marin ship. I think the best way to do that is to create an enhanced infrastructure finance district that would entail a public-private partnership where the city would partner with the landowners to address the infrastructure needs that would then be paid for by those landowners over a 30-year period through their tax bills. um, We, could alternatively adopt a Another business improvement district comprised of the Marin ship landowners that would, you know, the city could participate in and the and partner with collaborate with the landowners. to plan their best future. The reason we did not identify marinship sites for low income housing is that there is no city owned land of suitable size where the city could insist on the development of affordable housing. I'm not aware of any landowner in the marinship who would offer at least two acres of their land. on which to cite a 100% affordable housing project. That's why we identified the MLK site. |
| 06:07:39.76 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 06:07:39.77 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |
| 06:07:39.91 | Ian Sobieski | Thanks for acknowledging me. So, and thanks for everyone's comments. Back in 2023, in May of 2023, I would direct the public's attention to the records of that meeting. We had a gentleman named Bob Silvestri here, and we considered hiring him for $25,000. And he was going to take $25,000 and actually go and apply for grants. And he was going to build an urban plan step by step. And that was partly educating all of us about what an urban plan is. And honestly, people are so scared to death of losing the thing they love that they lived up to the cut off your nose to spot your face, old proverb, because we are missing a huge opportunity to have our cake and eat it too, to have housing for workers, housing for seniors, an enhanced waterfront that's open to everyone, small children and mothers and fathers, as well as workers who are able to walk to their jobs, having more maritime activity, allowing fishermen to sell fish off their boat, which they currently are prohibited from doing, to allow CB shades that manufacturers' clothes in the Marin ship to sell their clothing from their factory store, like Heath Ceramics. They can't do it today. Heath Ceramics can. They can't do it today because of our rules. All these are possibilities. And we can figure out how to do that by doing the thing that John Dere actually was lamenting seemingly impossible. All of that list of different goals, we want to achieve those goals. And in fact, there is a tension perhaps between them. There are trade-offs like there are in any adult life, but we can only engage with them if we engage with them and make those trade-offs and do it in a professional way. That's what urban planners do. It's their profession. So you're lawyers. I'm an engineer, entrepreneur. We all have the thing we're good at. And if we also try to pretend that we're urban planners, well, then we don't get anywhere. And I don't know that we've had any urban planners on the dais. So how about we hire some? That's why I would like to make the following motion, which is I move that the council not release the draft RFP and instead return within 90 days with a roadmap document that informs the city of the steps needed to develop an urban plan for the 215 acre marine ship. Staff are directed and authorized to engage up to three urban three professional urban planners to help advise and develop this roadmap. on a time and materials basis for up to 50 K. That's my motion. |
| 06:10:05.74 | Steven Woodside | I'll second it. Okay, the... So, we specifically, the agenda setting committee specifically included the working, the waterfront and not confined to the marineship, and that was at the behest of the vice mayor. So, did you want to see an expanded area other than the 250-acre marineship be the subject of the urban planning effort that the council member will be able to do? |
| 06:10:33.67 | Joan Cox | I thought it made sense to include the north part of the waterfront that goes a little bit beyond the existing marine ship boundary, if you will. |
| 06:10:42.41 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, I'm sorry. My understanding of the marine ship's definition is it's between Galilee Harbor and the north end of town, east of Bridgeway. That's the 215 acres of the marine ship, as far as I understand it. So that includes the waterfront and everything between Galilee and Mike's Bikes. East the Brickway. I'm sorry. |
| 06:11:01.63 | Joan Cox | All right. |
| 06:11:01.65 | Ian Sobieski | I'm just. |
| 06:11:02.07 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 06:11:02.12 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 06:11:02.14 | Joan Cox | sure of that. |
| 06:11:02.73 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 06:11:03.27 | Steven Woodside | Well, we can certainly define it in that manner for purposes of the motion. |
| 06:11:05.63 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. That's how I would define it for the purpose of my motion. |
| 06:11:08.31 | Joan Cox | Right. I think what we're looking at, for example, is access to the water as one component. Where is there access now in that area? It's pretty limited. And maybe there are some opportunities for expansion in partnership with private owners of land there. Who knows? I don't have an answer today. But I think that portion also has something else in common, and that's with respect to sea level rise. It's at that part of Richardson Bay that |
| 06:11:08.58 | Ian Sobieski | I think. |
| 06:11:38.25 | Joan Cox | behaves differently in storms than perhaps the waterfront way down south. Yes. So, I mean, if we want to say 250... 15 acres of the Marin ship and as far south as what? |
| 06:11:55.43 | Ian Sobieski | Well, I can revise it. I said urban plan for the 250-acre marineship. I can refer that to the land east of Ridgeway, north of Galley Harbor, and south of Mike Bikes. Okay. Is that... |
| 06:12:06.01 | Steven Woodside | Is that revision acceptable to you, Ms. Seconder? |
| 06:12:11.41 | Jill Hoffman | OK, excuse me, we're including areas outside of Sausalito? Thank you. |
| 06:12:15.76 | Ian Sobieski | It's... |
| 06:12:16.25 | Jill Hoffman | Mike Spikes is outside of the world. |
| 06:12:17.77 | Ian Sobieski | I know, I'm trying to pick landmarks, so I don't know exactly what the- The northern border of the city. |
| 06:12:20.66 | Costas Casares | Thank you. |
| 06:12:22.88 | Ian Sobieski | East of Bridgeway to the northern border of Sausalito, north of Galilee Harbor. So urban plan for the area north of Galilee Harbor and east of Bridgeway up to the city limits. |
| 06:12:35.24 | Jill Hoffman | Councilmember Hoffman. I have some comments about the motion, but at this point, I just want to point out that We had a presentation at EDAC yesterday about the businesses that are happening in, currently in the Marineship. And so I think it might be helpful. to invite them the presenters to come to THE CITY COUNCIL TO UNDERSTAND SO THE COUNCIL CAN UNDERSTAND the ecosystem of current businesses that are happening there with the blue economy type businesses and the technology businesses that are there because it seems like perhaps the |
| 06:13:16.88 | Jackie Winkle | City Clerk, I don't see the clock going. Oh, sorry. |
| 06:13:20.18 | Jill Hoffman | The council may not be aware of those businesses. The other part is, um, you know, if we're talking about additional housing in the Marineship, in addition to the Measure J sites that we just approved, you know, I'm concerned about that, that we're talking about overbuilding along that corridor. Because if we're talking about, in addition to... you know, the 12 sites that were just, you know, just approved with measure J and all of those units. And then we're talking about additional sites, housing sites, along that corridor. That definitely indicates to me that we're in, you know, pressing. quite a heavy housing load into that corridor and you add in density bonus on top of what we've already got with the 331 units that are just at Harbor Drive going north. And let's just remember that that's 331 units that were within two to three minutes of all of the working waterfront. So when you talk about workforce housing, it's it's there. We just approved it with Measure J. And so If we're talking about what we're doing in the Marinership and for housing, I would like that part of this focus would be Let's get some housing built there now. I mean, I think that would should be our focus and how are we attracting builders for the housing and we just approved instead of, you know, pressing into sites. you know, that aren't even approved yet or may need further, um, zoning, rezoning, or further, you know, ballot measures even. So that's my concern as we move forward. |
| 06:15:06.72 | Jill Hoffman | you |
| 06:15:06.74 | Steven Woodside | Thanks, Vice Mayor. |
| 06:15:11.72 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 06:15:11.75 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 06:15:11.79 | Steven Woodside | I guess. |
| 06:15:11.97 | Unknown | SHOW. |
| 06:15:12.02 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 06:15:12.11 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 06:15:12.48 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 06:15:12.51 | Ian Sobieski | I hear you. |
| 06:15:13.15 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |
| 06:15:13.22 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 06:15:13.51 | Steven Woodside | you |
| 06:15:13.59 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 06:15:13.66 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 06:15:13.68 | Unknown | you've all |
| 06:15:14.27 | Steven Woodside | So I, I, um, I just wanna correct the record. So Bob Silvestri, didn't offer to build an urban plan for $25,000. He asked us to pay $25,000 for work he had already performed. So that was one of the challenges with that presentation. in early 2023. I adore Bob Silvestri and I hope he'll continue to participate with us, but that was one of the challenges with what he was offering in 2023. Um, You know, I'm in favor of seeing a step-by-step proposal that we can consider and continue to mold clay. I agree with Council Member Hoffman. We don't necessarily need to identify more housing now. If we do, it will not count towards our next housing element, RENA. So the danger of identifying more housing now is that we won't get credit for it in our next RHNA cycle. We have the housing we need in the current RHNA cycle. So that's the danger. of identifying new housing now. We need to Um, time. the manner in which we identify additional housing. I will disagree with Councilmember Hoffman that we have identified workforce housing in the Marinship sites north of Harbor Drive. There is no requirement that any landowner DEVELOP. affordable housing. they, can take advantage of density bonus if they do so. But the challenge? of any. privately owned developed potential is that developers tend to seek highest and best use, which is not affordable housing. |
| 06:17:02.35 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, that's why I, hearing your comments and my colleagues, You know, triple under underscores the need for my motion, which is we're looking for professionals to help educate us about what an urban plan is you talk about EFI D financings. Aaron Nathan, who gave public comment earlier somewhere kept talking about tax incentives to encourage affordable housing. You've been talking about affordable housing with that could come from tax incentives, it could be permitting reform. Yes. |
| 06:17:30.47 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 06:17:32.24 | Ian Sobieski | We need to provide water access for families to actually engage with the waterfront, but the concern is from some people who are worried that that might displace, you know, hard labor maritime work because they presume that if you have a playground next to a, it doesn't make sense to have a playground next to a, you know, a sanding operation. the current paralysis is how we have activity in the Marine ship, but nowhere near as much activity as we could. In the maritime trades, we could have more. And part of the reason we don't have more is everyone's frozen in place. So the notion here is not to release an RFP and have a get a plan back. Thank you. The stepwise approach is just like we did with the peer group and with limited professional group is to have three urban planners hired by the city to help develop the urban planning roadmap that we will then begin to implement step by step. |
| 06:18:27.35 | Steven Woodside | question. I am. Given the lateness of the hour, I am calling the question. So, uh, I'm calling the question. |
| 06:18:27.88 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 06:18:28.11 | Melissa Blaustein | Bye. Yeah. |
| 06:18:38.32 | Jill Hoffman | With regards to the sites with Measure J, I don't believe anybody approached any of the landowners down there about doing affordable units. I approached every landowner. About doing every single one. Absolutely. About doing senior units and that they wouldn't have to do parking? |
| 06:18:50.01 | Aditya Padala | Thank you. |
| 06:18:50.03 | Steven Woodside | Every single one, absolutely. |
| 06:18:56.01 | Jill Hoffman | Because Beth talked about that in February. And she said that no one had approached them. Because that's on the tape. It's on the tape. I'm going to go. |
| 06:19:04.19 | Unknown | I understand Beth's perspective. |
| 06:19:04.21 | Jill Hoffman | I understand Beth's perspective. It's on my perspective. It's on the tape. When we were talking about moving The Measure K site. And she said, you could easily move it to site 303 And you could ask the property owner and the property owner would probably do that because it would relieve their need to do parking. |
| 06:19:25.25 | Steven Woodside | I met with the property owners. before they bought the property. The new property owner. Yeah, the new property owners. Before they bought the property, it was with the assistant city manager. |
| 06:19:36.03 | Jill Hoffman | after before February. Yeah. but the cell was after February. Yeah. |
| 06:19:42.77 | Steven Woodside | I can't. |
| 06:19:43.19 | Jill Hoffman | spoke with them before they purchased. |
| 06:19:44.71 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. All right. The question has been called city clerk. |
| 06:19:50.97 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Blostein. |
| 06:19:52.62 | Steven Woodside | Yes. |
| 06:19:53.04 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 06:19:53.06 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 06:19:53.87 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 06:19:56.00 | Jill Hoffman | Yes, and this is to come back with an RFP, yes. It's to come back with a step-by-step proposal. |
| 06:20:01.03 | Steven Woodside | plan. Thank you. |
| 06:20:03.25 | Joan Cox | Roadmobile. |
| 06:20:03.61 | Steven Woodside | A roadmap, a roadmap, not even an RFP, a roadmap. |
| 06:20:04.52 | Joan Cox | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 06:20:06.81 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |
| 06:20:06.98 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 06:20:07.01 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 06:20:08.04 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Sobieski. Yes. Vice Mayor Woodside. Yes. I'm Eric Cox. |
| 06:20:12.23 | Steven Woodside | Yes, that motion carries unanimously. Thank you again to the city staff for really investing the effort to bring forward a very difficult and amorphous issue for our constituents. |
| 06:20:21.14 | Ian Sobieski | Can I make one other motion? It is that the sense of this council is that among other goals of any urban plan is to increase the working waterfront activity in the marinship. |
| 06:20:38.77 | Ian Sobieski | That's it. I just wanna make sure that that's very clear. |
| 06:20:42.64 | Joan Cox | I can second that. |
| 06:20:45.44 | Steven Woodside | I don't understand the motion. |
| 06:20:46.13 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 06:20:46.28 | Joan Cox | Yeah. |
| 06:20:47.36 | Ian Sobieski | You know, it is just a sense of the council that the goal- |
| 06:20:51.40 | Steven Woodside | How about we just give direction? |
| 06:20:54.11 | Ian Sobieski | It's just I well, it was really just wanting to underline that Our goal is to enhance the working waterfront activity in any kind of urban plan. There are other goals as well, but that was the form of my motion. |
| 06:21:05.86 | Jill Hoffman | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 06:21:06.03 | Steven Woodside | direction. |
| 06:21:06.50 | Jill Hoffman | you |
| 06:21:06.65 | Steven Woodside | I support those directions. Yeah, I'll support that as direction. All right, fair enough. Okay, so we have consensus on that direction. Okay, we're gonna now move on to item 5C, summary of next steps on implementation of housing element programs 4 and 8 based on the likely passage of measures J and K. I do want to advise members of the public that I will take public comment on items 5D, 5E, and 5F that were continued to our next meeting. Okay, welcome Assistant City Manager. |
| 06:21:41.74 | Brandon Phipps | Good evening again, council members, and thank you for sticking with us at this late hour. |
| 06:21:46.65 | Steven Woodside | I really don't have a lot of choice. |
| 06:21:51.15 | Brandon Phipps | I'll provide a brief overview of the next steps associated with the implementation of programs four and eight. These steps are triggered by the likely passage of measures J and K on the November ballot and position the city to meet its statutory obligations under the housing element. Next slide, please. Okay, election results. I was able to review the Marin County Elections webpage prior to this meeting and confirm that the county has in fact released its official final election results. Based on the final election results, Measure J has passed with 75.44% of votes in support, and Measure K has passed with 54.59% of votes in support. Once more, I'd like to thank the community for their participation in the election. While we await certification again, those results will not be certified until December 16. These early results allow staff to move forward with planning and preparation to implement housing element programs that are tied to these measures. Next slide please. Okay measures J and K represent a critical part of the city's rezoning program under the state housing element we have to plan for 724 units. And do that rezoning by January 30th, 2026. Measure J rezons 12 opportunity sites. Measure K authorizes the rezoning of no more than two acres of MLK for up to 50 units of housing with a priority for senior housing while preserving our park uses and educational uses. Together, these measures enable the successful implementation of Program 4. This is ensuring that we maintain an inventory of suitable housing sites to accommodate the densities in the housing element. And Program eight, which focuses on public property conversion to housing, affordable housing. Both programs were key components of the housing element that was approved earlier this year. Next slide, please. Okay, program four requires the city to ensure that our inventory is sufficient to meet the RHNA. 724 units, as stated, after accounting for all of our approved projects, pending projects, ADUs, other pipeline units, we must still plan for 372 units through a rezoning. The housing element identified opportunity sites such as our H 29, H 49 and H 70 zones, as well as mixed use equivalents and measures J and K complete the rezoning of the remaining voter restricted sites and allow us to remain on schedule for our rezoning deadline. Sites that were not subject to voter restrictions were brought before city council this evening. Thank you, council for your approval of that item. Next slide, please. In terms of next steps, the city will continue to track process towards our RHNA targets through the annual progress report. That's the APR that we submit to the Department of Housing and Community Development each spring. We also maintain and update our inventory of residential opportunity sites on an annual basis. That's one of the things that we've committed ourselves to. And once the election results are formally certified, staff will finalize the updated inventory and publish it on the city's website. In the future, if there is any shortfall in meeting the arena, the city will conduct community outreach to identify alternative sites for rezoning and make any necessary housing amendments for state review. With that in mind, I'm going to read directly from Program 4 in the city's housing element. If there is a shortage to accommodate the arena, the city will identify additional sites to be rezoned, To accommodate the RHNA in accordance with government code section 65583-2HI, sites to be considered shall include sites that are, one, city-controlled, or two, a minimum of half an acre and either vacant or meet the methodology and criteria for non-vacant sites provided in the housing elements background report. So that gives you some indication as to what will be occurring in the case that we do trigger a known net loss requirement. I'll say with the passage of measures J and K, we have not triggered that requirement. So as we've discussed, |
| 06:26:03.75 | Aaron Nathan | The |
| 06:26:03.82 | Brandon Phipps | throughout this evening, we get to implement what we said we were going to do. We get to finally implement the plan that we've worked so hard on. Next slide, please. |
| 06:26:12.70 | Steven Woodside | I'm going to stop you there because we had a lot of public comment asking Councilmember Sobieski had said, what would we have done if measures J and K didn't pass? And you've just read. what measure four required us, what program four required us to do if, um, measures J and K had not passed, and that is to identify other city-controlled sites that could be suitable for housing to make up. that shortfall. the Housing Element Subcommittee was working with staff in advance of the election to ensure that staff was prepared to undertake that effort. Is that right? |
| 06:26:52.79 | Brandon Phipps | Absolutely, Mayor. Yes, we were poised with your collaboration to engage in that process if we triggered a no net loss requirement. We continue to be poised to do that as we move forward with the requirements of program four, which... in part require us to do rigorous tracking of what units we build and deliver in the city. |
| 06:27:13.50 | Jill Hoffman | follow up on that. And what would have been required if just measure K had not passed? We still would have been compliant under the RENA, correct? Not under program eight. Well... I don't know. Thank you. |
| 06:27:26.37 | Brandon Phipps | Yeah, so thank you for the question. You know, that is a bit of a wrinkle. However, it is the case that I think objectively, if Measure J did not pass, we would not. Excuse me, if Measure K, excuse me, did not. |
| 06:27:37.58 | Aditya Padala | Thank you. |
| 06:27:37.61 | Unknown | THE FAMILY IS THE FAMILY. |
| 06:27:37.85 | Jill Hoffman | SHOT. Thank you. |
| 06:27:41.24 | Brandon Phipps | did not pass we would not be in compliance with program eight and what was it |
| 06:27:44.87 | Jill Hoffman | And what would the issue have been with program eight? |
| 06:27:47.74 | Brandon Phipps | it's that we had selected 8. Well, here they are. We had selected a few sites that were publicly owned Some sites that were city owned that would be rezoned in our approved housing element. The main site under, I think, discussion most recently is site 84. That's the MLK site. So without the rezoning of the MLK site, we fail to implement a portion of our housing element. |
| 06:27:57.19 | Unknown | Yep. |
| 06:28:13.91 | Jill Hoffman | And so what would we have done? we would have had to amend program eight and delete site 84 And we would have had to have done that by January 30th. |
| 06:28:24.51 | Brandon Phipps | That would be one of the steps. We would also have to amend program four in the city's housing element to accommodate the units that we've lost through the The no net loss procedures that I just described directly from the housing element. If there's a shortage, we'll identify alternative sites through a concerted public process. |
| 06:28:37.74 | Jill Hoffman | THE HOSPITAL. |
| 06:28:42.29 | Jill Hoffman | And that would have been the recalculation of the numbers and the site. |
| 06:28:46.58 | Brandon Phipps | Um, It would require us to recalculate our arena to ensure that we meet it. |
| 06:28:53.09 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. Yes. And you and I did that. And if we would have lost the measure case sites, we still would have met the Reno requirement and we still would have had about a overall 20% buffer. Or surplus. |
| 06:29:05.56 | Brandon Phipps | So I'll go back to one of the elements of my previous response, which was, in all cases, we would have been non-compliant with Program 8 in the city's housing element if Measure K was to not pass. |
| 06:29:21.06 | Jill Hoffman | which is what we just talked about, and meaning that we would have had to amend this program And meaning we would have taken site 84 off because we hadn't been able to pass it and then we would have amended our overall at the same time and just with the recalculation backing out those numbers. |
| 06:29:39.13 | Brandon Phipps | I would agree with your assessment, but for the comment on time, one of the issues, and let's just step back. We've been working on this housing element for a number of years. So as related to time, this is not a short run process. This is what I've noticed in the past three years. But additionally, and this is, of course, within that three years, there's required environmental analysis that needs to be done. It won't take three years, but it's going to take months. and based on, you know, political... within that three years, there's required environmental analysis that needs to be done. It won't take three years, but it's going to take months. And based on, you know, political considerations in the city, feedback from our community, um, comments from outside bodies and agencies, that process could have could be even longer than that. |
| 06:30:18.97 | Steven Woodside | And indeed, we reached out to HCD to inquire whether we could obtain an extension of time beyond the January 31st deadline to adopt our program of rezoning. and we were told it was not certain, we would be granted that extension of time. Isn't that right? Indeed, Mayor. And had we not been granted that extension of time in the event that Measure K had not passed, we would be facing Builder's Remedy. Is that not true? |
| 06:30:46.81 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. |
| 06:30:46.85 | Steven Woodside | And. |
| 06:30:46.90 | Brandon Phipps | That is, you know, kind of the scary consideration that we've been trying to fight off for the last, well, for the last two years, I'd say. That's one of the biggest concerns that we have is losing local control if we don't comply with state housing element law. |
| 06:31:02.29 | Joan Cox | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 06:31:02.34 | Steven Woodside | Vice Mayor and then back to Council Member Hoffman. |
| 06:31:05.26 | Joan Cox | and, And with respect to if Measure K had not passed, that would have fallen off. And it would have been up to all five of us to determine what to replace it with. And that could have included a great number of other sites that were not deemed acceptable in the first round, but might have been up for grabs in the second round. I'm not saying it would have been chosen, but it would have been up to all five of us, not just any single one of us. |
| 06:31:33.12 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. |
| 06:31:33.29 | Joan Cox | . |
| 06:31:33.37 | Brandon Phipps | Absolutely, Vice Mayor. And I would just politely add to that, that following council's approval of an amended housing element with some alternative sites, we also need HCDs by it. |
| 06:31:44.59 | Jill Hoffman | But if we still met our RHNA numbers and we still had a 20% surplus, why would we have had to have had an alternate site? |
| 06:31:52.78 | Brandon Phipps | Based on our lack of implementation of program eight, |
| 06:31:56.63 | Steven Woodside | And we didn't meet the numbers in all categories. We would not have continued to meet our number in the very low and low-income categories. |
| 06:31:56.68 | Jill Hoffman | We didn't. |
| 06:32:04.19 | Jill Hoffman | No, we did. We would have had a 10 surplus unit in the extremely low, and we would have still had a 27 surplus units in the low income. So we would have had 23% in the low income and a 5% surplus in the extremely low. So you put those together, which HCD does, in the low and extremely low, and we still had a 27% surplus even without, even without the case site. if K didn't pass. So we met every category. We exceeded every category. even if Measure K didn't pass. So there would have been no reason to have another site. So I can't imagine that we would be thrown into Builder's Remedy under any circumstance because we still exceeded ours, our arena. by a healthy surplus. There are other cities Mill Valley, I believe, Belvedere is another one. that is within a 20% surplus range. So, I can't imagine that one, HCD wouldn't have given us an extension because we passed Measure J and we've met the other three requirements. We've we've we're going to finish Johnson Street. Site 73 is fine. in the corporation yard is fine. So the only one we don't have is MLK. We would not have had. So I disagree with, I mean, it's just a fact. I mean, I don't even know that we need to disagree. Thank you. |
| 06:33:31.33 | Steven Woodside | Well, HCD's response to the working group is a fact. that. |
| 06:33:35.36 | Jill Hoffman | I |
| 06:33:35.97 | Steven Woodside | THE FAMILY IS THE FAMILY. |
| 06:33:36.04 | Jill Hoffman | So they may not have, you know, |
| 06:33:36.14 | Steven Woodside | So they- call. |
| 06:33:41.74 | Jill Hoffman | I don't know that that's a fact. It's just, it may be a response that they gave you, but I don't think that that's, an accurate representation of what actually would have happened. Had we gotten there, I can't imagine that it wouldn't be defensible from us as a city. If HCD, if we got to them and said, Hey, we passed measure J that's you know, whatever. 12 sites and almost 500 units. I don't know that we need to |
| 06:34:12.45 | Steven Woodside | I don't know that we need to rehash the election debate tonight. We're actually now looking at the implementation of measures that... |
| 06:34:18.48 | Jill Hoffman | I just want us to be accurate when you're saying that we would have gone below any of these categories. We would not have gone below any of the categories. We would have gone below the buffer required by HCD. We absolutely, 100%, would not have gone below the buffer. |
| 06:34:31.37 | Ian Sobieski | We're still in the question time, aren't we? |
| 06:34:33.97 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 06:34:33.99 | Steven Woodside | Yeah, we're still in question time. |
| 06:34:35.33 | Ian Sobieski | I actually have. |
| 06:34:35.35 | Steven Woodside | Bye. |
| 06:34:35.69 | Jill Hoffman | By the way, HCD does not require a buffer. It's recommended. We have arena that is required. That's the only thing that's required. HCD. |
| 06:34:46.35 | Steven Woodside | Anyway, this is not the time for a debate. Good question. |
| 06:34:46.79 | Jill Hoffman | Anyway. |
| 06:34:47.01 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 06:34:50.30 | Joan Cox | I had a question. I was going to ask a question. |
| 06:34:53.53 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 06:34:53.56 | Unknown | That was the vice mayor's turn. Great. |
| 06:34:54.93 | Joan Cox | Thank you. um, Did HCD tell us that they have never granted an extension? |
| 06:35:02.13 | Steven Woodside | of time. |
| 06:35:03.67 | Joan Cox | don't recall. |
| 06:35:06.71 | Steven Woodside | I get it. |
| 06:35:06.84 | Unknown | I do. |
| 06:35:06.98 | Unknown | to be able to get the |
| 06:35:07.28 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 06:35:07.67 | Unknown | you |
| 06:35:07.69 | Steven Woodside | Exactly. |
| 06:35:07.70 | Unknown | was on the |
| 06:35:08.26 | Sissy Damner | They told us that. |
| 06:35:09.42 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 06:35:09.52 | Sissy Damner | Bye. |
| 06:35:09.64 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 06:35:09.66 | Sissy Damner | Thank you. |
| 06:35:09.81 | Unknown | Yeah, no, they, they told us they have never granted an extension of time to increase the rezoning. for 65585 for the government code. I also am unaware of any housing element HCV has certified a housing element that does not include a buffer. meet known laws requirements. And frankly, the other thing that they told us was that The reason they certified the city's housing element was because it included significant commitments by the city, including in Program 8, to undertake city-sponsored housing. And were it not for the requirements of Program 8, that HCB likely would have probably scrutinized much more closely the assumptions the city made in program four with regards to collection of sites. |
| 06:36:02.31 | Steven Woodside | Okay, that's enough on this. We're talking here tonight. Are there questions, further questions concerning the implementation? And we haven't even let the Assistant City Manager finish his presentation. So are there any other questions of the regarding the content he has presented thus far. Seeing none, continue. |
| 06:36:23.86 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you very much, Mayor. So... We have included a number of publicly on sites in program eight of the city's housing element. This includes the corporation yard, MLK Park. 429 1⁄2 Johnson and the Sausalito Marin City School District property, a portion of it. The housing element anticipates that city-owned sites will be made available through long-term ground leases, or in certain cases, through surplus property processes consistent with the Surplus Lands Act. And just want to double down on that. To clarify, the city does not intend to sell any of its city-owned property as a part of these efforts. We will strike ground leases or long-term leases with any development partner. For projects located on city-owned land, the housing element also commits the city to considering financial incentives, such as fee waivers, fee deferrals, priority processing and support for grant funding opportunities. Next slide, please. Okay, here's our major milestone timeline associated with Program 8. We're here tonight with a December 2 presentation summarizing our next steps. The statutory rezoning deadline of January 30th remains our primary near-term requirement, which we are on track to accomplish. For site 84, MLK, staff anticipates preparing and issuing a notice of availability in March of 2026 after final certification of the election results. You'll see that we were required to draft an NOA earlier this year, which we have also done. for the corporation yard. The first step is identifying a replacement location by mid 2026 with formal relocation occurring by the end of 2027 that will make the current site available for housing beginning in 2028. We're also an ongoing discussions with the Sol Solito Morinsky City School District regarding site 73 that's the portion of the school district site. A commitment from the district is needed by late 2026 to keep that site in the development pipeline if the site cannot be made available. The city will need to identify and rezone an alternative location by mid 2027. |
| 06:38:40.01 | Steven Woodside | for how many sites? No. |
| 06:38:41.83 | Brandon Phipps | How many units? Off the top of my head, I'd have to look at Appendix D1 for Site 73 in the housing element, which is attachment two to this agenda item. and I don't have that available. Can somebody help me out with that? |
| 06:39:02.55 | Sissy Damner | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 06:39:04.27 | Brandon Phipps | 73, yes, and I'd recommend looking in Appendix D1. |
| 06:39:30.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 06:39:38.48 | Brandon Phipps | And what's the income category, Mayor, just for the record? |
| 06:39:49.04 | Unknown | 15th July slash VL8 forward |
| 06:39:53.02 | Jackie Winkle | Thank you. |
| 06:39:53.04 | Unknown | you Thank you. |
| 06:39:54.00 | Jackie Winkle | four median, zero above minus. So 15, very low. |
| 06:39:59.88 | Steven Woodside | Sorry, 15 very low income, eight low income, four moderate, zero above moderate for a total of 27 units realistic capacity. |
| 06:40:08.58 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you for looking that up. |
| 06:40:11.47 | Steven Woodside | Thank you for answering my own question. |
| 06:40:13.98 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. myself |
| 06:40:14.89 | Michelle Dumas | Bye. |
| 06:40:15.01 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Can I just get a follow up on that? Why is that? That's a large site. Why? What did you say? 23? 27, that's a big site. Yeah, yeah. Because we don't own it. |
| 06:40:23.87 | Steven Woodside | Because we don't own it. We can't control what the school district decides to do. And in earlier meetings with the school district, that was the capacity identified, the realistic capacity identified. |
| 06:40:33.61 | Carolyn Revell | it. |
| 06:40:34.92 | Brandon Phipps | And council member agree that school district site is fairly large. It's only a portion of the site identified. |
| 06:40:41.76 | Steven Woodside | The rest is devoted to the campus. Correct. |
| 06:40:43.85 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. |
| 06:40:43.87 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 06:40:50.84 | Melissa Blaustein | How many units of the corporation yard, Brandon? |
| 06:40:54.62 | Brandon Phipps | I'd have to look at appendix D1 of the housing element for the corporation yard site. |
| 06:40:58.26 | Steven Woodside | What site is that, Brandon? |
| 06:41:01.67 | Brandon Phipps | Let's see. |
| 06:41:07.98 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. 75. |
| 06:41:10.97 | Melissa Blaustein | Site 75, but not 75 units. |
| 06:41:13.45 | Unknown | Oh, it's site 75. I wanted to know the site so I can tell you what the table says. |
| 06:41:27.66 | Unknown | No, the table goes from 73 to 86. to 85. |
| 06:41:41.78 | Steven Woodside | Oh, here's 75. It is 31 units. |
| 06:41:45.73 | Vicki Nichols | THE FAMILY IS NOT ABLE TO |
| 06:41:48.31 | Steven Woodside | The challenge with site 75 is we've not yet we've interviewed a couple of developers |
| 06:41:54.90 | Melissa Blaustein | Karen Hollweg, Right I was going to bring up that just to clarify, we, while we do owns the corporation yard mayor Cox and I have met with a number of 100% affordable developers who have told us that it doesn't pencil to develop only 31 sites so there is real concern with regards to whom. would be willing to take on the project, given the size. And in fact, in our experience and speaking to 100% affordable developers, it's often quite difficult to receive buy in for fewer than 50 units. |
| 06:42:28.41 | Jill Hoffman | Let me let me follow up on that. I think but There's two sites at the corporation yard. Are you looking at, there's two lots, and the units that were apportioned at the corporation yard were larger units. So you got 50 units out of the MLK site because you put 50 units of senior units, and you assumed that they were going to be very small units because they were all senior units. And so I think you have a smaller site at MLK, but you apportioned all very small studio units. No. |
| 06:43:05.69 | Steven Woodside | The acreage at the corporation yard is 0.61 acres. The acreage at MLK is two acres. The proposed zoning at the corporation yard is 70 units per acre. So that is the largest density housing in our housing element. And it's still only penciled out to 31 units realistic capacity. |
| 06:43:28.82 | Jill Hoffman | but you said MLK is 0.61 acres? |
| 06:43:31.05 | Steven Woodside | No, MLK is two acres. Okay, sorry. And so that was the minimum that we were notified that we need |
| 06:43:31.54 | Jill Hoffman | I don't know. |
| 06:43:37.92 | Steven Woodside | we would need to annex a portion of the Willows HOA, which is next door to the corporation yard in order to have a site large enough to uh, pencil out according to the developers with whom we met. |
| 06:43:52.73 | Melissa Blaustein | I can also mention that when I was mayor, we had a conversation with the state who had offered to develop it for 100% affordable, but that would require us giving up the ability to have certain protections with regards to what the build out would look like. So in order to be able to have that sort of control over it, the decision was made to not move forward with that opportunity. So I'm actively seeking other ways that we can receive a hundred percent affordable development there, but given the capacity that that's part of the reason why measure K and the MLK site was, was so important. |
| 06:44:26.82 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you for the insight and memory on that. I will also note that there are some environmental concerns associated with that site, as I believe the corporation yard is also a riparian area. So just an additional addition. |
| 06:44:41.44 | Steven Woodside | Please continue. Thank you. |
| 06:44:42.67 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. Okay. Um, let's see. So I did discuss the school district site. We will need to identify and rezone an alternative location by mid 2027 if we don't get a commitment from them to have that site developed at the densities in the housing element and next slide. That concludes my presentation. |
| 06:45:02.88 | Steven Woodside | Thank you very much. |
| 06:45:03.78 | Brandon Phipps | Here for questions. |
| 06:45:05.18 | Steven Woodside | So I do just want to. I want to reemphasize, the Surplus Lands Act does not only apply to the sale of property. It also applies to a long-term lease of property, which is the mechanism that the city has aligned upon for development of city-owned sites so that it can continue to main control maintain control over those sites, correct? |
| 06:45:26.73 | Ian Sobieski | that's the best. |
| 06:45:26.90 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. |
| 06:45:27.03 | Ian Sobieski | Okay. |
| 06:45:29.92 | Steven Woodside | All right. Any other questions of staff? |
| 06:45:32.11 | Ian Sobieski | The bit about the schools was, uh, until, um, that I'm being reminded of. So that's an affordable site at the school. and I think that's a good thing. |
| 06:45:40.01 | Brandon Phipps | Yes, partly because it is publicly owned. We're able to allocate greater densities of lower income. And so we need to cooperate with the school district? |
Michelle McCullough — Neutral: Attempted to ask questions about Measures K&J backup plans, developer references, and campaign funding transparency, but was redirected to speak under the relevant agenda item (5C). ▶ 📄
Nicole Beck — Against: Expressed disappointment about 'bait and switch' tactics regarding the November election and development height promises, but was redirected to address concerns under agenda item 5C. ▶ 📄
Sandra Bushmaker — Against: Urged the council to send a letter opposing Plan Bay Area 2050 due to excessive population projections and substantial environmental impacts, requesting it be placed on a consent calendar for timely submission to MTC. ▶ 📄
Babette McDougall — Against: Criticized MTC for hoarding infrastructure tax dollars in rainy day funds and overreach, supporting opposition to Plan Bay Area 2050 and questioning who authorized commitments on Sausalito's behalf. ▶ 📄
Eva Crisanti — Against: Criticized the mayor for laughing at Mr. Morgan's comments and presented data showing Sausalito Police arrested Black individuals at over eight times their demographic rate over 32 years, expressing frustration this disparity hasn't been agendized. ▶ 📄