| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:02.04 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 00:00:02.06 | Joan Cox | Oh, my God. . with liberty and justice for all. |
| 00:00:06.78 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you, Chuck. |
| 00:00:09.63 | Unknown | What? |
| 00:00:09.84 | Mayor Kelly | Okay, this time we... |
| 00:00:10.93 | Unknown | I'm not able to ask that question. Thank you very much. |
| 00:00:13.94 | Mayor Kelly | I need a motion on the agenda. Thank you. |
| 00:00:16.45 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 00:00:16.57 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 00:00:16.60 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 00:00:16.87 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 00:00:16.97 | Councilmember Ford | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:00:17.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:18.43 | Mayor Kelly | Yes. |
| 00:00:21.18 | Councilmember Ford | That was me, Mr. Mayor. |
| 00:00:22.63 | Mayor Kelly | Oh, a motion? Yes. |
| 00:00:25.19 | Councilmember Ford | Yes, actually I do. I have a motion on the agenda. I move that the council remove the action items to approve the draft document tonight. Um, Tomorrow night or on January 30th and give this document a standard 30-day review period through the proper city boards before sending it to the state. And the reason for my making this motion |
| 00:00:53.90 | Mayor Kelly | motion. Let's have the motion and give a second before we go forward with the discussion. |
| 00:00:57.90 | Councilmember Ford | All right. |
| 00:00:58.76 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 00:00:59.04 | Councilmember Ford | you |
| 00:00:59.13 | Mayor Kelly | Would that have a second? |
| 00:00:59.68 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:01:00.02 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | second. |
| 00:01:01.37 | Councilmember Ford | Okay, so the city needs to get the draft document right the first time so that the process runs more smoothly and quickly. The proposal to fast-track this process through the city's boards is simply wrong and woefully lacking in transparency. It's my understanding that the Housing Element Task Force was asked to give approval of the document at its meeting on January 17th, Martin Luther King holiday, without having a final draft. The Planning Commissioners and the City Council members received this late Friday afternoon. We have had three days to review this lengthy draft. With this fast-track approach, the Planning Commission will not review as a separate body and will not have proper discussion and a vote as their own entity, and the City Council will not have the benefit of the Planning Commission's review of the specific effects of this document on our Planning Department and City's zoning. I, for one, value this input and time to reflect on it. I value the time to hear the concerns of the residents. |
| 00:02:11.66 | Mayor Kelly | Anybody else care to comment? |
| 00:02:16.06 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor, may I comment? Thank you. I concur with Council Member Ford's recommendation, her observations. In fact, I tried to Uh, test the link to the housing element draft and it didn't work. And this has all been very, I think, last minute. And I feel that it's rushed through. I think we have a standard procedure where the Planning Commission would review it. The public would have an ample time to review it and provide feedback. We would have benefit of Planning Commission input. the city council would be able to again hear from the public have a 30-day public comment period, and then review the comments again. And I think that is really critical that we put our best foot forward when we send this draft to the Housing and Community Development Department in Sacramento. We don't want to waste their time. We want to send them the right draft that the public is behind. And that is my recommendation. |
| 00:03:26.56 | Mayor Kelly | Any other comments, Jonathan? |
| 00:03:29.47 | Vice Mayor Leone | Yeah, I don't – seldom do we debate the action suggested recommendations from staff as part of a motion for the agenda. So I don't know if that's actually part of what the agenda – it's a comment on the agenda. It's a comment on the item itself. So I think the action items we'll discuss when we get to the point of taking action. |
| 00:03:35.78 | Unknown | THE END OF |
| 00:03:52.87 | Mayor Kelly | Well, we could do a couple of things. We could delay it to the end of the meeting, or we could vote on it now. |
| 00:03:58.98 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 00:03:59.08 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 00:03:59.10 | Vice Mayor Leone | Don't know what we're going to work |
| 00:03:59.77 | Councilmember Ford | Point of order, Mr. Mayor. I believe that if a motion is on the table, we need to vote on it after discussion. So I would call for the vote. If there are no more comments, but I see we have a planning commissioner who wants to comment. |
| 00:04:08.28 | Unknown | you |
| 00:04:16.21 | Mayor Kelly | Well, I think this is a council situation. Mary, would you like to weigh in on that? We have to take public comment, I guess, right? |
| 00:04:25.69 | Mary Wagner | You do. You know, you're approving your agenda at this point. It's up to the council if this |
| 00:04:30.38 | Mayor Kelly | Right. I mean, it's... |
| 00:04:33.41 | Mary Wagner | is the point at which you would like to do that. |
| 00:04:35.35 | Mayor Kelly | Okay, I'm going to make a counter motion. The counter motion is to approve the agenda as listed. Can I have a second? Thank you. Okay, we vote on the second motion first. |
| 00:04:46.58 | Vice Mayor Leone | Point of clarification. So this is a joint meeting, right? So both bodies have to vote separately would be my just common sense approach to it. |
| 00:04:55.53 | Mary Wagner | We'll both have to vote on the agenda, approve the agenda. |
| 00:04:58.28 | Vice Mayor Leone | Yeah. Yeah. |
| 00:04:59.88 | Councilmember Ford | Okay. |
| 00:05:00.59 | Mayor Kelly | All right, second motion is first. What did you call a roll? |
| 00:05:04.94 | Councilmember Ford | What, excuse me, I have a comment. Thank you. The motion is made and then there's discussion, but could you clarify the motion that you have on the |
| 00:05:14.39 | Mayor Kelly | to approve the agenda as written. |
| 00:05:17.30 | Councilmember Ford | Okay. I would like to say that |
| 00:05:19.42 | Mayor Kelly | to |
| 00:05:19.96 | Councilmember Ford | and then, |
| 00:05:20.44 | Mayor Kelly | This is a motion. Well, are we going to discuss that? We have three minutes. |
| 00:05:23.15 | Councilmember Ford | We have three minutes. We have a discussion. |
| 00:05:28.65 | Mayor Kelly | One minute. We're down to one minute. |
| 00:05:30.39 | Councilmember Ford | Okay, alright. The City's affordable housing document should be the final and fully vetted document describing the City's agreed upon plan, as with any other document submitted up the chain of command for approval. What is the State's draft document? should be the city's final document. then all that remains to be done is to comply with or negotiate with the state's objections or demands. If this document is not thoroughly vetted through the proper boards with the Planning Commission's vetting being critical, then we do not have a fully vetted document, we do not have a final document, and the residents have been given no time to give their input. |
| 00:06:17.42 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 00:06:21.08 | Mayor Kelly | Mary, I'm not clear about how we're going to vote here. So this is a joint agenda. |
| 00:06:26.94 | Mary Wagner | The council will take an action to approve the City Council agenda. The Planning Commission will take a separate action to approve the Planning. I know it's one agenda, but it's the agenda for both of your meetings. So the council would take a vote on their agenda and the Planning Commission would do. |
| 00:06:31.41 | Mayor Kelly | Right. |
| 00:06:36.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:06:36.49 | Mayor Kelly | Okay. |
| 00:06:37.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:06:37.81 | Mayor Kelly | All right. |
| 00:06:38.58 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:06:38.60 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 00:06:38.62 | Unknown | Council would take it. |
| 00:06:42.97 | Mayor Kelly | Okay, so let's, is there any other comments? |
| 00:06:46.13 | Unknown | I guess I'd just say we vote too. |
| 00:06:48.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:06:49.98 | Unknown | two different ways, where does that put us? Not knowing how anybody, you know, it's been voted. |
| 00:06:51.61 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:06:54.48 | Mary Wagner | Not knowing now anybody if there's another, you know, there's a vote. The only point about it is being asked to take action tonight is the City Council. City Council. The Planning Commission's not taking any action. So technically the action item is not a Planning Commission item. |
| 00:06:58.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:06:58.70 | Unknown | Thank you. I'm sorry. |
| 00:07:07.96 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:07:09.20 | Mayor Kelly | you |
| 00:07:09.25 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:07:09.31 | Mayor Kelly | You just agreed to attend a hearing. |
| 00:07:10.66 | Unknown | So all we would be agreeing to is hearing the report, essentially. |
| 00:07:12.62 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:07:12.72 | Mayor Kelly | I agree too. Correct. |
| 00:07:16.22 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:07:16.30 | Mayor Kelly | All right. All right, seeing no other on the table, would you call the roll? for the vote. |
| 00:07:23.19 | Unknown | Councilmember Pfeiffer. |
| 00:07:25.95 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Just to clarify, we're voting on Mayor Kelly's motion first. No. |
| 00:07:31.39 | Unknown | Councilmember Weiner? Yes. Councilmember Ford? No. VICE MAYOR LEON. Yes. Mayor Kelly. |
| 00:07:39.13 | Mayor Kelly | Yes. All right, so the agenda is approved. |
| 00:07:42.69 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:07:43.00 | Vice Mayor Leone | Thank you. |
| 00:07:45.17 | Jeremy Graves | Do you want to clarify what the |
| 00:07:48.67 | Vice Mayor Leone | All we are voting is to continue basically this meeting. Point of order. Because we haven't, no one has made any action items. Point of order, Ms. Smith. |
| 00:07:51.65 | Councilmember Ford | The meeting. The meeting. No one has made any action items. Point of order, Mr. Mayor. Excuse me. Point of order. Must be recognized by the chair. |
| 00:08:01.32 | Mayor Kelly | All right, we are to the first business item. Oh, I'm sorry. I got a vote. |
| 00:08:05.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:08:08.07 | Mayor Kelly | Mr. Chairman of the Planning Commission? I'm sorry. You need to call for a vote to approve the agenda. |
| 00:08:15.02 | Unknown | Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood the earlier comment. It was just a vote of the Council. However, do we have somebody here on the Commission to make a motion which is identical to the one that has been approved by the Council at this time? |
| 00:08:15.23 | Mayor Kelly | I don't know. |
| 00:08:18.67 | Mayor Kelly | I don't know. However, |
| 00:08:27.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:08:28.04 | Unknown | Lawrence. What? Would ours be slightly different? Yes. The motion I would make would be to hear the presentation by M Group, which I think is our portion of the meeting, and to listen to public comment. |
| 00:08:30.37 | Unknown | and I think that's a good question. Yes. |
| 00:08:41.64 | Joan Cox | And, and to provide direction to staff on modifications. |
| 00:08:48.64 | Unknown | Sure. of the Fine. I'll make that motion. Do you have a second? |
| 00:08:53.15 | Unknown | You have a second? |
| 00:08:53.84 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:08:54.26 | Unknown | back. |
| 00:08:55.71 | Unknown | All in favor? |
| 00:08:58.04 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:08:58.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:08:58.17 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 00:08:58.26 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:08:58.28 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:08:58.29 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:08:58.33 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:08:58.43 | Unknown | Mark. Hi. Hi. |
| 00:09:00.98 | Unknown | you passes unanimously. |
| 00:09:03.98 | Mayor Kelly | All right, so we have an approval of your motion. So now we're to the first business item, and the presentation will last about 60 minutes in total. And Jeremy? There will be public comment after the presentation. Well, questions first from the commission and from the council to staff. And then we'll move to public comment, and we'll talk about that later. |
| 00:09:33.97 | Jeremy Graves | Thank you, Mayor Kelly. Mayor Kelly, members of council, Chair Stafford, members of the Planning Commission, staff, and Ladies and gentlemen. I'm Jeremy Graves, I'm the Community Development Director, and I will be kicking off the presentation tonight. We have a team presentation. But with my introductory remarks, I'd like to note that beginning in February 2009, almost three years ago. The council directed staff to initiate the housing element update. We have assembled a well-qualified team. to prepare this housing element update. Our project manager is our associate planner, Lily Shinsing. And the city has retired the M group. or retained the M group to head up our assistance. And Jeff Bradley with the M group is the principal. And the M group has, in their local work in Marin County, prepared the housing element and general plan update for Belvedere. Heather Hines is a principal with the M group. Karen Hong is an associate planner with the M group. And as an affiliated firm with the M Group, Karen Warner Associates, has been retained. Karen has authored over 100 housing elements statewide and has a strong working relationship with the State Department of Housing and Community Development. and has an excellent track record of achieving certification from the Department of Housing and Community Development. |
| 00:11:08.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:11:10.37 | Jeremy Graves | We also have an excellent public participation program. We've had over... We've had three public workshops in February of last year, July of last year, and December. We had between 50 and 100 members of the public attending these workshops. In the last workshop, we sent notification postcards to all residents and property owners within the city. We also have held 46 task force meetings over the last three years. We've had articles in the MarinScope. We've had regular updates on the city's website. We have an email mailing list, which has grown to over 180 addresses. We've had outreach to citizens groups, including Think Sausalito. We've had meetings with the HCD staff in Sausalito and Sacramento. I believe we have a well-prepared document which is responsive to the community and task force concerns. It emphasizes accessory dwelling units and liver boards and proposes no rezoning. As Lily will explain in a moment, after the Planning Commission and City Council provide direction on any modifications to the document, the staff requests City Council authorization to forward the document to the State Department of Housing and Community Development. HCD, or the Housing and Community Development Department, has 60 days to review our draft document. Following the conclusion of that 60-day period, we will get comments back from HCD, and the city will need to address those concerns. make revisions to the document as necessary, and then initiate public hearings in front of the Planning Commission for a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council on amendments of our general plan to adopt our new. housing element. The City Council then will hold its set of public hearings on the housing element. and hopefully eventually resulting in adoption of the housing element. The city staff will also prepare an environmental review document that will be the companion document and move along through the public hearing process from the Planning Commission to the city council. I reviewed these steps to emphasize that while it seems we've been in this process for a long time, We really, in some aspects, are only at the beginning. We're trying to get to first base right now. We have quite a ways to go. What we're asking the City Council for his authorization to move to first base And we still have to get around the basis to home plate with an adopted housing element and HCD certification. At this point, I'd like to turn the presentation over to Lily Shinsing. She will review the staff report, and then she will hand the presentation over to Jeff Bradley with the M group. Thank you. |
| 00:14:07.07 | Lily Shinsing | Good evening, Mayor Kelly, council members, Chair Keegan, planning commissioners. |
| 00:14:14.50 | Unknown | you |
| 00:14:17.94 | Lily Shinsing | Just a brief overview of tonight's meeting. First, I'll provide a summary of the Housing Element Task Force's work to date on the Housing Element update. Then I'll give a brief overview of the housing element review and certification process. Then I'll hand it over to M Group for a presentation on the draft housing element. There will then be time for city council and planning commission questions, then public comment, and then we'll conclude with city council and planning commission direction and action, if appropriate. |
| 00:14:56.82 | Lily Shinsing | From December of 2009 through last Monday, the Housing Element Task Force has held 46 public meetings and three community workshops on the Housing Element update. Last Monday, the task force voted on a 5-2 vote to recommend City Council and Planning Commission review of the draft element. The element contains a four-pronged approach to accommodate the mandated 372 housing units. The first prong is utilizing units that were built or issued building permits since 1999. The second is the creation of provisions for accessory dwelling units, or ADUs, and also providing amnesty for illegal ADUs. The third is counting liveaboards as housing units and affordable housing units. And the last is a capacity study which looks at the existing development potential of the city without any changes to the way the city is zoned today. briefly highlight three recommendations by the task force. Notably, the task force is recommending a no rezoning and no affordable housing overlay zone approach to this housing element. This means that the draft housing element has all existing zoning designations in Sausalito to remain the same as they are today. That is, for example, an R2 parcel, which is a two-family zoned parcel, will not be rezoned to an R3, which is a multifamily parcel, just for example. Also, the task force, in their review of the implementing programs, removed three of the programs recommended by staff and the consultants. Lastly, the task force is recommending that the public institutional zoning district be selected as the zoning district for an emergency shelter by right. And the consultant will go into more detail about what this means. |
| 00:17:02.89 | Lily Shinsing | So briefly, we wanted to describe the review, adoption, and certification process for the housing element. The review process involves the preparation of the draft housing element, which was done by the task force from December of 2009 through today. Throughout the review process, staff updated the council on the progress of the housing element. Last Monday, the task force recommended the City Council and Planning Commission review the draft element, which is what we're here tonight to talk about. Next, after the review, the City Council would authorize staff to submit the draft element to the state for their review. |
| 00:17:45.06 | Lily Shinsing | The state would receive the draft element. They have 60 days to provide comments on it. and then they send it back to the city. After we receive comments on it, the staff and the consultant would then prepare a response to comments, and the task force would revise the draft element accordingly. Next is the actual adoption and certification process. First, where the Planning Commission would hold hearings on the draft element, and eventually, after those public hearings are over, recommend City Council adoption of the element. And then City Council would hold separate hearings on the element. and eventually, hopefully adopt it. Lastly, the city would submit the adopted element to the state, and if the state finds that it conforms to the law, they would certify it. |
| 00:18:36.48 | Lily Shinsing | Tonight's staff is recommending two separate actions be taken. The first is that the Planning Commission and City Council review the draft element. in your packet tonight and provide direction to staff on modifications. The second action is that the City Council either authorize staff to submit the element to the state for a 60-day review tonight or continue the city council discussion to the next regular council meeting, which is tomorrow night. or continue the discussion to the special meeting on January 30th. |
| 00:19:12.90 | Lily Shinsing | And with that, I'm going to hand it off to Jeff Bradley with M Group to present the draft element. |
| 00:19:28.66 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you, Lily. Good evening, Mayor, Commissioner, Chairman, and Commissioners and Councilmembers. My name is Jeff Bradley with Metropolitan Planning Group. |
| 00:19:43.76 | Jeff Bradley | to give you a focused overview of the document highlighting those areas that have received the most discussion and scrutiny and hopefully allow you the opportunity to dig in deeply on those topics and any others that you've discovered while reading the document. This is our cover that I think sort of captures the flavor of the community. So the topics I'd like to focus on during my portion of the presentation include the setting the context for our discussion tonight and the document overall, our strategy in working with the task force and the staff and the community for meeting what we call the RENA, the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. That's the number of housing units the community receives from ABAG. Karen Warner will discuss the goals, policies, and implementation programs that we've developed. And finally, we'd like to go into some detail on the emergency shelter zoning issue that we've been wrestling with at the most recent task force meeting. |
| 00:21:01.18 | Jeff Bradley | So I won't go too deeply into the demographic trends, but simply point out some facts that have sort of focused our efforts and we thought are noteworthy throughout this process. The most recent census data is just now trickling out at the local level for 2010, so we're able to take advantage of that in some areas. Sausalito was a bit unique in that it experienced a population decrease between 2000 and 2010, so approximately 4%. It's obviously an aging population. The median age is just over 51 years, so we're all getting older. something that quite jumps out, nearly half the households are single-person households. That's a higher number than you'll see just about anywhere. And very few families with children, just 10%. So in looking at the demographic picture, we find that a certain number of trends are supported, including smaller units close to transit, ADUs, shared living arrangements, and senior housing, obviously. |
| 00:22:17.02 | Jeff Bradley | The element identifies seven different special needs households. Three of them are listed here, seniors, persons with disabilities, and marine workers. Additionally, we have large households, single parent households, farm worker, which includes fishermen, fisheries workers, and also individuals and families who are homeless. |
| 00:22:49.59 | Jeff Bradley | Just briefly, we're frequently asked, you know, what happens if we just don't do anything with this? And really there's three separate categories that these can be summarized in terms of consequences of noncompliance with the applicable housing element laws. And can be categorized as legal issues, fiscal impacts, and what I would consider a planning issue. So just to go through those one at a time, under legal responsibility, failure to have a certified housing element calls into question the entire planning program for the city. Fiscal impacts include having to pay legal fees. Quite possibly, cities become ineligible for state housing funds and related infrastructure funds and for example CDBG and infill incentive grants and housing related parks. |
| 00:22:52.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:22:52.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:22:52.81 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:23:31.54 | Unknown | Oh. |
| 00:23:44.47 | Jeff Bradley | And finally, the planning issue is, as Sausalito has experienced, the numbers from your previous planning cycles carry over into the future, which we've had to deal with in our current cycle. |
| 00:24:00.48 | Jeff Bradley | So this is the part where we really dug into the community and looked at basically every parcel in the town, both on maps and aerials and visiting the sites on foot to really try to unlock and identify their existing development potential because we believe this is a low impact strategy that can be used to really demonstrate to HCD that the city has the capacity to provide housing. So it's really a mix of strategies to fulfill the arena. As I mentioned, it is a two-planning period exercise. We have 1996 to 2006 and 2007 to 2014. So we're looking to show through the plan that the city can accommodate up to 372 units between those two planning periods. This analysis really built on work that had already been completed by staff and the numerous task force meetings going back to 2009 takes into account Sausalito's unique geographic demographics. You don't find too many communities that have the physical constraints that Sausalito has and has the unique demographic features that we've talked about. Really looked at your existing development constraints, both physical and regulatory, looking at your zoning ordinance and seeing what really can be built, what has been built in the past, and try to project that forward. Looked at all the sites on the ground and received a lot of community input, both at official public meetings and when we were out walking around looking at sites. We also learned a lot about the community. And so our approach on every housing element we work on, but specifically when we met with HCD here in town, they were also looking for what we call a balanced approach. The concern, the implication, the opposite of a balanced approach would be an approach that relies on one or two strategies to the exclusion of others. So we looked at, like Lily talked about, a five-prong approach with looking at really five different major ways to demonstrate we have housing capacity within the city. And the first one is quite simply units that have already been built during this planning period because we have this long planning period spanning over many years. The city has built some units and approved some units that haven't been built. We can count those. It turns out two other communities have done this, so it's not as out there as some of the planning people would look at it and say, you know, you can't count liveaboards. They don't take up space on land. And that's not normal. It's been done before. And we feel confident it's a very viable strategy. This slide is called commercial zone infill capacity. I like to think of that simply as mixed use capacity within the town. This is basically utilizing those areas in town under your existing zoning that allow residential uses on the upper floors. ADUs, which we've talked about a lot, and finally, just that amount of development that can be approved under existing procedures in the existing zoning districts. Your R1s, your R2s, your R3s that cover a big portion of the town. So when we talk about our approach, our strategy, our infill strategy, we're really looking at about 90 different parcels scattered over the city, not changing anyone's zoning, not doing any overlays, but looking at what's contained within the development potential for your existing parcels. So as I mentioned, this RHNA, which is actually 99 to 2006, I think the last slide had. 96 to 2006. It's 372 units, which sounds like a big number, and it is for a community this size. we're hearing information going forward, the next cycle that'll start will be quite a bit lower than that. the, So those five different strategies I just discussed, we're showing we can provide 427 units from a planning point of view, and this provides what we call a buffer of 15%. We feel it's a good practice to not come in exactly on the number, but show that we have a little safety factor built in. So during the first planning period, as this sort of pyramid shows, 12% of the units are units that the city has already approved or built. 40% is the commercial and residential infill capacity. 17% is ADUs and 31% is liveaboards. |
| 00:29:18.42 | Jeff Bradley | And so what this slide shows... So it looks a little complicated, but I'll try to simplify it. Since we're dealing with two separate planning periods, on the left, we're basically looking at stuff that could be demonstrated to have occurred in the past. So we can't count anything that requires new policy, new ordinances, such as the ADUs and the Livaboard. So all of the ADUs and Live Aborts get counted in the current cycle, which is on the right, which is the 2007 to 2014. and you see 0% on the left, because we can't go back in time and put in those policies. And then the 20% approved units on the left is simply based on the calendar of when those units were actually approved or built. We count those come up to 20%, and on the right it's 5%. And then so on the left we rely on 80% for commercial residential infill capacity. And on the right, because we've done so much with the ADUs and liveaboards, we don't need to count anything on the bottom. See if this works. |
| 00:30:36.15 | Jeff Bradley | So the infill strategy is really coming into play under the first cycle. And on the second cycle, we're really using the ADUs and the liver boards. |
| 00:30:50.44 | Jeff Bradley | So this is the point. We're handed over to Karen Warner, and she's going to walk you through the goals, policies, and implementing programs. |
| 00:31:17.78 | Karen Warner | Good evening, members of the council and commission and many of the task force here as well. I'm losing my voice. My suit case was lost on the plane, so... But I know this stuff, it'll be fine. So, arrow on the right. The draft housing element is structured around seven overall goals. The first five are straight out of the housing element statutes. It's what you're required to have in your housing plan. So to structure your housing plan policies and programs around those five statutory requirements makes it easy. So that's what we've done. The last two are in addition to what's required under state law, and it's promoting environmental sustainability and encouraging community involvement. And those were added because that is really what is locally important here, and you'll see as we go through this. |
| 00:32:29.45 | Karen Warner | The document has a total of 34 programs, 37 if you count the three additional ones that have been removed. which sounds like a lot. But when you break it out, 20 of those programs are really existing programs that we've taken you know, just articulated what you're doing, expanded them in some way, or it's something that's in process. then the balance, the 14, are new programs. And we did a lot of research of what's been going on with other communities in Marin County, other communities that I've worked with throughout the state, and really tried to come up with something tailored that fits the Sausalito community. The bottom two items, some of this is out of our hands. So there are nine programs that are actually required by the state. There are two programs that are required to meet your RHNA needs, which are the liveaboards and ADUs. So of our 34 programs, that's kind of how it breaks out. |
| 00:33:45.44 | Karen Warner | What I'm going to do is briefly discuss each of these seven overarching goals, which are the issues, the themes, the organizing principles of your element. I'm not going to read all the policies, I'm not going to read all the programs, but I'd like to kind of set that context and then I'll highlight a couple of, you know, one or two programs under each one of those goals that either are new or had a lot of discussion with the committee. And then when we get to the Q&A, I'm sure you'll want to ask more. The first goal deals with preserving what you have now, so your existing housing stock and your existing neighborhoods. And so there's a series of policies, and each one of these has one or more programs that implement them. So one of the additions we made this last go around is after each policy we indicated in parentheses which programs implement that. But these are policies, and then you'll see the programs that follow. that deal with maintaining the great housing that you have currently. and A couple that I'd like to point out that are kind of new and exciting. The Residential Rehabilitation Loan Program is something on the books that Marin Housing offers. and in speaking with them learned that the liveaboards and houseboats in the community that are permitted through BCDC are eligible for this program. This is $35,000 to improve health and safety issues, et cetera. So the program in the element says we're going to publicize this. We want to get the word out that there's money out there for improvements. Associated with that is energy retrofit programs, and that's through PG&E. And so it's just kind of getting the word out. and The other one I wanted to highlight is your historic design guidelines, which have been recently adopted and the city becoming a locally certified government and the access that gives Sausalito to state funds for historic preservation and technical assistance. |
| 00:36:17.19 | Karen Warner | The next goal we call encouraging diversity in housing, and this is the part of the housing element statute that says, Jurisdictions need to provide opportunities for a range of housing types. And Jeff has mentioned when we met with the state they said, You can't do it all through ADUs. You can't do it all through liveaboards. You need a range. You have a range of needs. You need a range of housing types to address those needs. So this is essentially the goal that addresses how you're going to provide the housing to meet your regional housing needs. |
| 00:36:59.72 | Karen Warner | So I think that the biggest item here is the accessory dwelling units. It's a two-component program. The first is to adopt regulations to allow new accessory dwelling units by right, which is a state law, and Sausalito had adopted an ordinance that didn't allow them by right. So this is going to have you actually encouraging new ADUs um, Establishing development standards and design guidelines with a task force to make sure that what you're getting is going to fit in with the community. The other piece of that is to legalize existing ADUs, of which the survey shows there are many, many, many here, and And permit them, bring them into the housing stock, make sure that they're safe, and be able to have these as part of your housing that's meeting an important need for the community. Both of those components provide a significant part of how you're meeting your regional housing needs. |
| 00:38:21.68 | Unknown | Please. |
| 00:38:23.40 | Karen Warner | The other WOW program is the Live Aboard Housing. While there are two other communities that have used this that the state was surprised, said you approved these elements where they've been used before, this is going to be the first element that really, really uses it. The other two had... houseboat marinas with a few numbers. This we've gone through extensive efforts to identify which marinas have permitted liveaboards through BCDC. How many have been counted in the census? Not very many. and documented the undercount And, The program essentially is to, the next step is for the city to follow on with the conditional use permit for these marinas with liveaboard housing. um, to ensure that there's ways for residents there to be part of the community in terms of receiving mail, because most of them don't have on-site mail. um, to let them know about things like rehabilitation assistance, but really make it part of the Sausalito community. |
| 00:39:45.92 | Karen Warner | The third goal is enhancing affordability. So this can be, you know, market rate housing is not affordable in Marin. And, So how do you enhance affordability that can be on existing housing or new development? So incentives, I'm sorry I'm switching between policies and programs. The affordable housing development assistance is essentially what type of incentives can the city offer to make housing affordable? Well, what it's done in the past is provided fee reductions. You can provide flexible development standards as you've done in the past. You've reduced parking for senior housing, for example. if some of the other programs that are in here generate funds for affordable housing. The next program is establishing a local affordable housing fund. That money would be put aside in a fund. and that would go into how you assist development of affordable housing, providing money of course. The last program on here, inclusionary housing regulations, there was a fair amount of discussion on this. And this is a local regulation that about a third of the jurisdictions in the state actually have where The city decides a certain percentage of units that would need to be set aside as affordable in new development. The city has complete authority over how the inclusionary housing is structured. They could say it's only for developments of five or more units or, you know, ten or more or what have you. there's an option for paying an in lieu fee instead of providing the affordable housing units. And so that would be money that would be put into the local affordable housing fund and could be used to support affordable projects. The fourth goal is reducing governmental constraints. This deals a lot with zoning. How do you ensure that your zoning standards and processing procedures aren't hindering development? So you can see a couple of these were removed by the task force, and all of the programs here were identified as whether they were strongly recommended a little bit more flexible. So the ones that the task force removed were in the a little bit more flexible category. Number 21 is multifamily development in multifamily zones. This is something the state will be very interested in and it's something the Planning Commission has been working on, which is to... protect the limited amount of multi-family zoning the city has. to ensure that it's built with multifamily housing and not single-family housing, or if it is developed with single-family housing, to have some sort of offset, be it a fee, be it a requirement to show that you could add an ADU. But the concept is to protect your multifamily zones for development with multifamily use. 23 is zoning text amendments for special needs housing. This is under SB 2. It's requirements for, and this is really something that's kind of black and white in the statute. It's requirements that the zoning treat transitional and supportive housing as a residential use. It's requirements that require identification of a zone where emergency shelters would be permitted by right. And it's requirements to provide zoning for single room occupancy. So that program addresses that. And there was a lot of discussion at the last task force meeting on the appropriate zoning for the emergency shelter and so that's going to be a separate item that Jeff's going to discuss in a moment. The fifth goal is promoting equal housing opportunities, which is fair housing, but we've really expanded this to address special needs. which includes seniors and persons with disabilities and marine workers and homeless housing. So providing equal housing opportunities for all the special needs populations one of the exciting programs. is the home sharing. program because again, as Jeff has mentioned, almost half of your households are single-person households. And of your seniors, senior households are a quarter of your population. close to 350 seniors that live alone in a single family home in Sausalito. That's from the 2010 census. So that's a really that's a population that might not be able to remain in their single family home alone. the opportunity to allow people to remain in their homes by bringing on another be it another younger senior or another person that can help out around the house is very significant. And there's a group that Marin Housing uses that does this. They do extensive interviewing and they match up the senior and the tenant and they do follow up. So that's a really great opportunity in Sausalito. The other part of that that can kind of tie in is your new Sausalito Village Senior Services organization. So it's just like the two of those together I thought was really great. Environmental sustainability. the city will be developing local green building regulations. looking at what the state has as a guideline, but involving the local building folks as well as the citizenry to adopt building regulations that are green and meet the state standards. And then lastly, but not leastly, is promoting community involvement. We've had this process, and when I heard the number of task force meetings, I don't think I've ever had a housing task force that has had 46 meetings. So it doesn't end, even when this is adopted, it does not end. Um, there's going to be a lot of implementation And so the first program, community participation, is Many of these programs are going to involve the public, so defining the ADU standards, for example, and publishing as drafts of different programs are being developed. It's going to be an ongoing process, and so this, I think, kind of tries to capture that essence. And that's it on the goals, and I'm going to turn it over to Jeff to talk about the emergency shelter zoning. |
| 00:47:53.20 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you, Karen. |
| 00:48:00.02 | Jeff Bradley | Okay, so the state passed a law called Senate Bill 2 a while back and it is contained in the government code now. And basically it requires every city and county in the state to identify at least one zoning district in your community that can allow an emergency shelter as a listed what we call by right use, meaning no use permit would be required. And just to be clear, an emergency shelter is a homeless shelter, generally considered to be undesirable land use in most communities. but obviously serving a very important need for folks that are homeless. So the regulation does allow cities to apply what they call objective standards to this use that would be approved administerially. And I'm just going to summarize this detail here. So things like maximum number of bedrooms could be regulated based on an objective standard. The parking situation could be regulated just like any other land use. Proximity to other shelters can be taken into account as long as it's not required to be more than 300 feet from another shelter. The length of stay may be regulated. And details such as lighting and security plans can be required. So our challenge was to identify this one zone in the community and come up with a recommendation. This table simply lists all of the zoning districts in Sausalito and then on the right it lists the total acreage of the zoning district. The total acreage is important because we need to demonstrate sort of at a high altitude point of view that the zoning district selected has the capacity to contain this theoretical future homeless shelter. So the homeless count in Sausalito from 2009 was 10 homeless people. In 2011, the actual homeless count was 30. So the planning number we're working with is 30 homeless individuals. So we need a zoning district that's significantly sized enough that the folks at HCD couldn't say that we picked a little tiny spot on the map and said it could go there. So the two zoning districts we've highlighted here are the industrial marine ships. and then which is 89 acres of the community. And then the next one listed is public institutional, which is 64 acres. So they're both what we considered good enough size to make a fair argument that the shelter that the land use of a shelter could reasonably be accommodated within either one of those |
| 00:51:15.84 | Jeff Bradley | And so the task force asked us, well, what are our neighbors doing? What are the other communities doing? because obviously we're all in the same boat with this issue. So Marine County, they selected the planned commercial and retail business zones. So actually two zones, the CP, what they call the CP and the C1. Fairfax selected the central commercial and the public and quasi-public districts, also two zones. Tiburon selected basically all their commercial zones. Thank you. Larkspur selected the administrative professional and general commercial zone. Belvedere selected the recreation zone, which is essentially a park zone. San Rafael actually created a new district, which they called the emergency shelter overlay district. And that was placed over some existing zones, including light industrial and office. That's currently under consideration by the city. |
| 00:52:24.28 | Jeff Bradley | So the task force recommended the public institutional zone. So this map is simply your basic standard official zoning map that we've completely changed. Everything that's not public institutional has been grayed out, and the public institutional has been turned this purple color. And then labeled with the existing land uses. So that kind of gives you an overview. And what pops up is, you know, we're were basically scattered quite around the city in different locations. |
| 00:53:06.18 | Jeff Bradley | And so this map, same base map, but the marine ship industrial zone has been highlighted with this brown color. So staff in the M group is recommending this industrial zone. We believe you'd have less potential land use conflicts if you had a homeless shelter who wanted to come in and locate under this zoning district than if there were potentially these different areas scattered throughout the city under the public institutional zone. |
| 00:53:49.91 | Jeff Bradley | And that brings us to the end. |
| 00:53:55.96 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you very much for your presentation. Thank you. If you'll just remain up there for a minute and the rest of you will be ready to take some questions. So let's start with the Planning Commission. |
| 00:53:57.70 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 00:53:57.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:54:09.97 | Mayor Kelly | And they should be just questions, not statements, please. We'll have time for that later. Thank you. |
| 00:54:15.81 | Joan Cox | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 00:54:16.10 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 00:54:16.32 | Joan Cox | Thank you. Can you explain to us how the homeless number went from 10 in 2009 to 30 in 2011? |
| 00:54:22.22 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 00:54:22.26 | Unknown | 10. |
| 00:54:27.77 | Jeff Bradley | We can try to explain briefly The procedure, every two years, Marin County conducts what they call the point-in-time survey. So, our understanding is this occurs in Marin County every two years in late January under the theory that that's the coldest time of the year and all the accommodations that exist will be full because it's cold, and then all the remainder will be living outdoors somewhere. And so they physically conduct a count, and obviously it's going to fluctuate from year to year. it's cold, and then all the remainder will be living outdoors somewhere. And so they physically conduct a count, and obviously it's going to fluctuate from year to year, or every two years in this case. So the first time they came up with 10, and then the second time, most recently, in 2011 of January of last year, 2011, they came up with the 30 number. |
| 00:55:17.88 | Joan Cox | And the Government Code section 65583 allows a municipality to meet its emergency homeless shelter obligation through a multi-jurisdictional agreement. Was that considered for Sausalito's plan? |
| 00:55:38.21 | Jeff Bradley | Yes, we did look at that. It has a lot of hurdles, and the most significant one, we believe, for Sausalito, is that it's required to be implemented. And when I say implemented, I don't mean contained within a housing element, but actually a physical facility has to be constructed and operational within the first two years of the planning period. So for us, we kind of missed that opportunity to really even be able to go down that route. |
| 00:56:12.26 | Joan Cox | But under the government code, it can be an already existing shelter. I'm looking at the government code on my iPod. It can actually be an already existing shelter so long as a multi-jurisdictional agreement is entered into. Is that not true? |
| 00:56:30.86 | Jeff Bradley | Well, I have spent some time reading that code, and... That's not the way I read it, quite frankly. |
| 00:56:40.70 | Joan Cox | Okay, and we had asked you on the task force, the members of the task force had asked you about Mill Valley and I still didn't see Mill Valley up there. |
| 00:56:46.91 | Jeff Bradley | I saw it. |
| 00:56:47.33 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:56:49.29 | Joan Cox | on your analysis of neighboring jurisdictions, were you able to contact Mill Valley and explore the possibility of |
| 00:56:54.53 | Karen Warner | Yes. Um, |
| 00:56:57.91 | Joan Cox | entering into a multi-jurisdictional agreement with Mill Valley. |
| 00:57:01.03 | Karen Warner | Right. Mill Valley isn't up there because they have not started their housing element yet for this period. The fireside apartments is not an emergency shelter. It does not qualify. It has 10 of its 50 units that are permanent supportive housing. So it's not an emergency shelter. um, And in the Attached to the Staff report, we included... HCD's got a large technical assistance paper on SB2. we included the page on the multi-jurisdictional agreement And... my reading of it and my understanding of it from discussing it with HCD, A, it has never been used by anyone yet. because of this, you have to have it within two years. but my reading is that it needed to be new and maybe you know, maybe there's some wiggle room with that. HCD is hoping that this is used the next cycle, but you really have to have something kind of underway Um, And it may be an opportunity in the next cycle. But for this right now, I don't think you're able to qualify for that. |
| 00:58:25.86 | Joan Cox | Um, Mr. Bradley, you initially, during the last community workshop, you recommended the public institutional zone as the site for emergency housing. What had you changed your mind? |
| 00:58:28.51 | Karen Warner | MS. |
| 00:58:40.07 | Jeff Bradley | Um... Thank you. One of the benefits of the public institutional zone is simply that most of those sites by definition are owned or controlled by the city and that's attractive to some communities to have that level of partnership of a potential homeless facility that is coming in. The city by definition would be a party to that project if it ever came to that. The more I looked at the zoning map and looked at how your public institutional sites are really scattered around the community and thinking about if you drew a three or 500 foot radius around each site, how many folks you would pick up within your community. |
| 00:58:50.42 | Unknown | by the city. |
| 00:59:22.92 | Jeff Bradley | In talking to staff, it started to make sense to go more the industrial route, where it's really one chunk of land area within a more well-defined area, kind of on the other side of Bridgeway from the mass majority of the homeowners and residents. |
| 00:59:40.97 | Joan Cox | Amen. In recommending the Marin Chef site, Did you consider the fair traffic initiative and the MarinShip Specific Plan I'm not sure. earlier, Thank you. Karen Warner made reference to the homeless shelter being residential. |
| 00:59:58.39 | Unknown | . Thank you. Mm-hmm. |
| 00:59:59.10 | Joan Cox | residential use which is prohibited unless already existing in the marine ship |
| 00:59:59.13 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:00:03.23 | Joan Cox | specific plans. Your staff report refers to the homeless shelter as a hotel in the Mariners. Um... in the marine ship industrial zone, something that has certainly precluded by the traffic initiative in the marineship specific plan. Did you consider those ordinances in your recommendation of the ideal site for a homeless shelter. |
| 01:00:31.06 | Karen Warner | Let me clarify for a second the... sorry, the residential uses I was referring to under SB2 are not emergency shelters. That's transitional housing, so that's longer term stay, six months to two years, and supportive housing. That's permanent, affordable. Those need to be treated like residential use, but emergency shelters are not treated as a residential use. In fact, they're typically treated as a commercial use. |
| 01:01:03.54 | Jeff Bradley | And we did look at both the text of the original fair traffic initiative, which was, I understand, a voter-approved initiative, and then also the implementing language from the zoning code throughout this process because it covers a large area of the town, and we needed to understand what the implications of that were before we really got into the detail on this analysis. And we believe that allowing emergency shelters by right in the Marineship would be consistent with the fair traffic initiative. |
| 01:01:40.63 | Joan Cox | And you've stated that this housing element requires no new zoning. would the allowance of emergency shelter hotels in the Marinship require a change to our existing zoning. |
| 01:01:57.76 | Jeff Bradley | We've we've been Our strategy has been to achieve a certified housing element that the community can support and the council can approve with no rezonings, which I will distinguish between changes to the zoning. Because obviously to implement the ADU strategy, we need to, the city needs to change the zoning. Currently the zoning simply doesn't allow ADU, so that's a change in the zoning text. The emergency shelter is in a similar category. You would have to change the zoning text for the marineship industrial area to have that be listed as an allowed use. There are a number of programs that do changes to the zoning text in different areas. But the overarching theme has been to avoid actual rezonings of property from one zoning district to another. So I just wanted to make sure we're talking about the same thing. |
| 01:03:05.11 | Joan Cox | So there would be rezoning, would there be rezoning required in order to accommodate an emergency shelter in the Marin ship? |
| 01:03:12.89 | Jeff Bradley | No, you would need what we call a text abitment. |
| 01:03:15.81 | Mayor Kelly | Commissioner Cox, could we allow someone else to ask a few questions? Absolutely. Okay. |
| 01:03:18.58 | Joan Cox | Absolutely. |
| 01:03:20.60 | Mayor Kelly | Anybody else on the Planning Commission care to ask questions? |
| 01:03:26.41 | Unknown | Well, I have a question. Oh, I'm sorry. |
| 01:03:33.51 | Unknown | And it concerns the in lieu kind of provisions that I see sprinkled throughout the implementation programs and which I understand are if you don't provide something, then you can give money instead. Well, how is a value assigned to that? In other words, how do you decide how much this particular applicant or whoever is going to pay and to whom and what's that all about? |
| 01:04:11.21 | Jeff Bradley | The policies and programs that refer to in Luffy simply encourage the city to go down that route of evaluating that type of program. The details have not been set here. And as part of that recommendation, what's called a nexus study is called for in the housing element for those types of programs that would be creating the in Llieu fee. It's under state law. You can't just charge a random number that someone pulls out of the air. It has to be based on what the actual cost of the thing is that the in-lieu fee is paying for. And then even once that number is established, typically by a fiscal consultant, the city has discretion to set the fee lower than that, but not higher, because that would be considered not having a nexus if it were higher. Is there anything, Karen, you want to add to that? |
| 01:05:08.38 | Karen Warner | And typically the next study will show the affordability gap So if you had an inclusionary program, and you were looking at in option foreign and in lieu fee, and the inclusionary requirements said you had to provide 15% moderate income units. The affordability gap analysis would look, what is the price difference to a market rate versus a moderate income unit, and that's the gap. And then there's all these complicated calculations on turning that into the maximum supportable in lieu fee. than typically city councils Take that. and they cut it way down because that gap is usually quite high. But there's usually parameters in terms of, you know, looking at what all different jurisdictions have for different types of fees, and that kind of helps you guide on what you can support. |
| 01:06:13.66 | Unknown | And I'm not clear what a nexus study is. |
| 01:06:20.05 | Karen Warner | It just is demonstrating that basically the legal relationship between charging a fee |
| 01:06:20.07 | Unknown | It just is. |
| 01:06:27.36 | Karen Warner | and the impact that something is creating. So in inclusionary zoning, the nexus is showing the development of market-rate housing is actually creating a demand for affordable housing. the increased demand based on services in the community and lower income people that fill those service jobs, and all sorts of things like that. |
| 01:07:00.85 | Joel Paul | Thank you. |
| 01:07:01.19 | Unknown | you |
| 01:07:03.03 | Mayor Kelly | PASSED. |
| 01:07:03.11 | Joel Paul | Thank you. |
| 01:07:03.13 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 01:07:03.25 | Joel Paul | Thank you. |
| 01:07:03.37 | Unknown | Thank you. I'd like to ask Mr. Mayor, two more questions if she would like to ask if that'd be possible. |
| 01:07:09.07 | Mayor Kelly | Sure, I just wanted to give other people a chance to answer this. |
| 01:07:10.71 | Unknown | I'll let her take my time if that's possible. |
| 01:07:15.53 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 01:07:15.59 | Joan Cox | Mr. Cox. Thank you. |
| 01:07:18.17 | Unknown | Um, |
| 01:07:18.71 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:07:20.02 | Joan Cox | We have... Through your infill strategy and ADUs and the liveaboards, you've identified 427 units. which is 15% more than the 372 units were required to identify. Um, And indeed, those 372 is only that high because It's for two planning periods. Once we adopt a housing element, we can carry over to the next element any undeveloped units towards that element's requirement. |
| 01:07:51.50 | Jeff Bradley | Correct. And thanks for pointing that out. I had that in my notes to mention that. It is important to realize one of the huge advantages of having a certified housing element is it allows you to do exactly what you described. And that once this planning period is over, the one we're in now, in 2014, and you start planning for the next one with this much lower number, hopefully, It's not like we have to go out and find new capacity somehow. You can reuse a lot of this what I'll call built-in development potential within the community in that future cycle because it's still there. The conditions are still present through your general planning and your zoning that allows that development. It becomes less of a zero-sum game once you have that approved document. You essentially get to start over at zero and show what you have, including what you've built during that planning period and what you still have available on the ground. |
| 01:08:52.55 | Joan Cox | I have it on good authority from our representative to RENA that our next number will be 90. or at least that's the draft number. At the rate of 90 per planning period, our 372 units could last us for four planning periods or 28 years. Correct. |
| 01:09:11.94 | Jeff Bradley | Well, the one category that you wouldn't sort of get credit for would be these approved and built units because those were approved and built during this planning period and the previous one. But then you'd have a theoretically, or hopefully in the next planning period, you'd have a new category of approved and built units that you would count. So technically you wouldn't be counting those same, I believe 51 units we've had to date in that category. |
| 01:09:38.79 | Karen Warner | Right, and actually there's one other, two other exceptions. the existing ADUs, the existing liveaboards. The reason we're getting credit for those is they haven't been recognized by the census. we're bringing them into the element and they're recognized we can't keep counting as like the new you know, live aboard capacity, the new ADUs. |
| 01:09:58.95 | Joan Cox | THE FAMILY. My question is, with this kind of a buffer and with this 372, which we'll never have to meet that number again, assuming we continue to file our housing elements on time. Why do we need all these inclusionary fee programs in which we're Um, and defining our residents who want to do development of three or four units without including a low income unit. Since we've already identified all these other low income possibilities, why do we also need these inclusionary programs that tax our residents? |
| 01:10:41.01 | Jeff Bradley | Another very good question. It goes back to that balanced approach. We focused a lot on the numbers on this assignment because obviously that was a big part of the challenge and the fear that people had that these big numbers were going to come in and really change the community in a material way. And we've demonstrated through this multi-pronged approach that we can deal with those big numbers in a low impact way. But a part of the balance is actually, okay, you've satisfied the numbers game. You've shown how that works in your community. It meets all the criteria. Once projects actually do start to get built, What tools does the city have? to sort of tease out those levels of affordability that really get to providing housing at all those different income groups. And obviously in a location like this, in the Bay Area. That's challenging. If left to pure market forces, there would be very little affordable housing built. And so cities typically, they want to have a seat at that table when the nonprofit developer comes in, or even a for-profit developer who wants to do some affordable housing as a component of a market rate project. The city needs what I consider tools to both influence those projects and make them feasible. And that can take, the city has Well, going through this process, we might feel like the city has had some of its discretion taken away from Sacramento. But once we get through this process and we go back to a normal local decision-making process, the city really has absolute land use control within the policies and procedures you've set up. And so unless you have policies in your document that allow the city to be proactive to pursue affordability, a lot of times it just doesn't happen. |
| 01:12:37.41 | Mayor Kelly | All right. Anybody else on the commission? |
| 01:12:42.40 | Unknown | Yes, I'd like to follow up on this comment about the programs. And I won't go through. I've just counted up 26 tabs in this report, each of which I think is worth talking about, but we'd be here all night. And this meeting is not about... understanding everything that's in here because there's not enough time. So I won't bother. I'll just follow up on what Commissioner Cox brought up. And it seems to me that why because she said when we have our quota, solved with ADUs, liveaboards, and infill why are we including things like program number five, Number 12. Number 13. Number seven. Um, all of which are programs which are incentive programs And from my point of view, and this is probably the negotiator in me, Why don't we take those out now and let HCD tell us to put them in? |
| 01:14:01.23 | Karen Warner | So the programs that you mentioned deal primarily with incentives for new development. we took away the affordable housing overlay. So without that affordable housing overlay, you, and the state said this when they met with us, you need to have incentives, incentives, incentives. Um, So the categories you mentioned of the sites, the ADUs and the liveaboards, those are really for single person households. You don't have anything for family households except your sites. So the infill strategy on the sites is the only place, and your family households are only 10% now. family households with kids, those sites are the only place where you can really get the possibility of some family housing with some affordability. So the state's looking for incentives. The incentives are focused on the sites, not the liveaboards or the ADUs. And it doesn't mean that it has to be these incentives. |
| 01:15:15.07 | Mayor Kelly | I'm starting for air. |
| 01:15:16.42 | Unknown | I'm not. Thank you. |
| 01:15:21.96 | Karen Warner | So that's kind of what we're looking at, is what type of incentives |
| 01:15:22.43 | Unknown | That's it. |
| 01:15:28.30 | Karen Warner | you can do to help facilitate development on those infill sites. |
| 01:15:31.93 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. It sounds like what you are saying is that the incentives are not to build housing, the incentives are to increase our 10% of OF FAMILY population. In other words, the incentive is to change the demographics. |
| 01:15:48.22 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:15:51.52 | Karen Warner | That's not what I was trying to say. That's what it sounded like. |
| 01:15:53.41 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:15:53.50 | Unknown | what it sounded like to you. |
| 01:15:56.97 | Karen Warner | The incentives are to facilitate development on your infill sites. |
| 01:16:03.28 | Unknown | in other words. |
| 01:16:03.65 | Karen Warner | Part of what has come out of our meetings and the community workshop is that demographic of few family households with children, and that's one way to address that. |
| 01:16:16.36 | Unknown | I have one other comment, and that is that on page 3-9, Thank you. where you talk about the the arena of 1999 to 2006 Um, I know that the city dropped the ball. and didn't have a chance to respond to the notion that about 30% of this 207 number was in what was known as the sphere of influence. That sphere of influence is no longer part of the new one. |
| 01:16:58.33 | Unknown | you |
| 01:16:58.52 | Unknown | And so therefore we cannot Thank you. Um, recognize those units that were built in the sphere of influence that might have reduced our total numbers. but there's no reference to that in this report. It seems to me that you ought to at least reference somewhere in here, the fact that we got screwed. |
| 01:17:28.60 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:17:41.66 | Jeff Bradley | Comment noted. |
| 01:17:43.94 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. All right. Let's start with Councilmember Ford. |
| 01:17:46.10 | Unknown | Oh, wait. |
| 01:17:54.32 | Mayor Kelly | All right, we'll start with Council Member Pfeiffer. |
| 01:18:00.16 | Mayor Kelly | We have, by the way, three minutes. Is it? |
| 01:18:03.40 | Joan Cox | comments? |
| 01:18:03.89 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 01:18:03.92 | Joan Cox | . |
| 01:18:04.01 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. This is just a question. |
| 01:18:05.14 | Unknown | Bye. Sure. |
| 01:18:07.60 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you, Mayor Kelly. So my first question regards the emergency shelters. And you have in their slides, you talked to Fairfax, et cetera, and other cities, but I didn't see Cordo Madero up there. And I talked to Cordo Madero, And it's my understanding that they're using churches to address their homeless requirement for the housing element. and that you know, it's an existing thing. And I know our churches serve the homeless and they have some, very helpful programs. So I'm wondering if why we didn't explore that a bit more and is that is a feasible option for us to pursue. |
| 01:18:57.57 | Jeff Bradley | We had a very similar situation in Belvedere where it turned out sort of under the radar an existing church was providing homeless shelter for folks in Belvedere. And so it was logical. We thought, well, let's use the zoning district the church is in. But unfortunately, the church was in a pretty standard R1 district, which was not considered viable from the community's point of view. |
| 01:19:34.56 | Jeff Bradley | So because of that experience, we didn't really go down that route in Sausalito because what we're really after is a specific zoning district rather than... a specific piece of property that may have what's typically more of a rotating usage for the churches, and it's It's similar, but it's just different enough where it doesn't really satisfy this requirement typically. |
| 01:20:11.70 | Vice Mayor Leone | Can I ask a question, I'm just letting you run it? Is it... Thank you. Is there a couple uses like this in Saucido that don't have, that are uses and not zoning categories? Like hotels is one. A lot of the hotels aren't actually people. It was a surprise to me back 10 years ago that they weren't zoned hotels. They're residential property. So in the desire not to touch the, create new zoning categories, that would qualify as creating a new category by changing, by developing, say, hotel, as one category, and that could be also a spot. Because right now we don't have that. And the same thing for a church. The churches are in residential zones. that would trip that wire of, okay, we don't want to touch the zoning ordinance, but it might do so in a way that actually is beneficial. Is that something that, I don't know what was discussed at the housing. |
| 01:21:05.26 | Jeff Bradley | I think it's fair to say that this issue of complying with SB2 and emergency shelters is definitely worth it to be as creative as possible. I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't look at that because it would be a rezone. I think if that's a direction the council and planning commission would like us to look at, we could definitely go down that road. |
| 01:21:11.32 | Vice Mayor Leone | So... |
| 01:21:11.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:21:32.13 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. And Mr. Mayor, thank you. Mr. Mayor, I have a couple more questions. So also regarding the chapter on non-governmental constraints, I seem to recall an earlier version of that chapter that included the endangered species in Sausalito and endangered plants in our proximity to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. And... When I looked at this, I just saw... I did not see that. So did I miss it? Is it still here? |
| 01:22:27.46 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | in the appendix. |
| 01:22:28.40 | Karen Warner | Appendix B1. Appendix B, and it starts on page B1, is the endangered and threatened species. |
| 01:22:46.98 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Oh, thank you. Okay, and that leads me to my concern regarding, I noticed that you had removed the not doing CEQA for the infill. So I guess when I look at all these policies and I look at all of this stuff, especially this very, very teeny font, the last page, which includes Lincoln, which is the Lincoln Butte vacant site. It just seems that a CEQA would be a requirement for this entire and certainly for the Lincoln Butte site. And I was wondering... why that was something that is not a part of this element? Or is that something that you would recommend? |
| 01:23:44.77 | Jeff Bradley | Yes. The plan going forward would be after submitting the HCD and after we received their comments we would come back to the task force, back to the planning commission, back to council for the adoption process. During the adoption process, staff would prepare probably a mitigated negative declaration. M group would peer review it per per our agreement with the city, and that would be your environmental document for the housing element as a policy document. If any property listed in this document or any property not listed in this document were to come in for development review, it would go through what we call the normal CEQA process. The policy you saw struck out was an idea that for certain types of projects, the city could use what's known as a CEQA exemption. That's not not doing CEQA. That's using a certain part of CEQA that allows small projects without impacts to not have to do the full-blown initial study or EIR that we see with big development projects. |
| 01:25:03.60 | Jeff Bradley | It was a policy that we had recommended as a consulting group |
| 01:25:05.44 | Unknown | He recommended us. |
| 01:25:09.53 | Jeff Bradley | But at the end of the day, the task force decided to take it out, and I agree with them because it was creating the impression that we were suggesting that the city would somehow change the California Environmental Quality Act, which obviously the city can't do. So we're fine with that change and all the other changes that the task force has suggested. I think it's, CEQA's confusing enough without adding another layer of confusion on top of it. |
| 01:25:40.12 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | With the policy recommendations, such as, for example, the new, our new ADU policies, which would potential, has the potential to increase some density. in the neighborhoods. Wouldn't it be prudent to do a CEQA for the entire housing element? particularly with regards to the Lincoln Butte site. because it has a stream going through that property, a lot of wildlife. reside in that area because they've been forced out you know into that concentrated and there's not a lot of open space in Sausalito So why wasn't that looked at in terms of |
| 01:26:25.01 | Jeff Bradley | Sure. I think it's important to distinguish between a policy level CEQA review and a project level CEQA review. Quite simply, if you were to do a project level review on a policy document, you would never get it done. The whole point of having a policy document is to be able to be up at 30,000 feet looking down at the community on a big picture basis, and that's the basis that the CEQA review is on. Part of that CEQA review will be to make it very clear that if anyone actually wants to build something on the ground, they do what's known as project level CEQA review, where you hire the biologist, you hire the geotech, you hire the hydrology guy, you do a full-blown technical review if it's warranted by the facts of the project and do the project level CEQA review. |
| 01:27:17.26 | Jeff Bradley | It would not be productive for the city to try to get down into that level of CEQA on an element of your general plan, in my opinion. And that's generally accepted CEQA practice as well. |
| 01:27:34.37 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Those are my questions, Mr. Mayor. |
| 01:27:36.58 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 01:27:36.59 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 01:27:37.00 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 01:27:37.02 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 01:27:37.03 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 01:27:37.37 | Jeff Bradley | you |
| 01:27:37.47 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. Well, I have many questions on this document. It's about 200 pages, as best I can figure. |
| 01:27:42.80 | Unknown | It's... |
| 01:27:47.19 | Jeff Bradley | If I may, through the mayor, may I rejoin my colleagues so we can appropriately rally the questions? Yes. |
| 01:27:52.91 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 01:27:53.01 | Mayor Kelly | the question. Thank you. |
| 01:27:54.53 | Councilmember Ford | Sure. I would just start by adding to Mr. Werner's comments that in addition to his numbers, I would question |
| 01:28:05.08 | Lily Shinsing | Thank you. |
| 01:28:06.07 | Councilmember Ford | Number 14, 17, 18, and |
| 01:28:13.69 | Mayor Kelly | Do you have questions about them? |
| 01:28:14.93 | Councilmember Ford | 23, yes, I need to know in more depth what they are. But I don't believe, as he said, there's enough time in the evening to address those, so let me go to my other questions. I would like to add Ross to the list of cities that you looked at in terms of homeless shelters. What did Ross do to provide for the homeless? Do we know? |
| 01:28:21.84 | Mayor Kelly | THANK YOU. |
| 01:28:26.34 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:28:47.50 | Karen Warner | We didn't survey everyone. It's unfortunately a lot of cities, unlike Sausalito, don't put their elements on their website. So, but we can certainly, as well as Corte Madera, to find out what zoning they've done. |
| 01:28:47.74 | Councilmember Ford | We didn't see that. |
| 01:29:04.39 | Councilmember Ford | Okay. And did you consider, my understanding is that the Baptist Church already has a homeless shelter. Did you consider that and do you know how many people that houses? |
| 01:29:13.19 | Karen Warner | Thank you. Bye. |
| 01:29:20.66 | Karen Warner | To clarify on the church issue, |
| 01:29:30.08 | Karen Warner | If you were able to show that there was a church providing homeless services, you would need to be able to show that it was meeting your complete need, so your need of 30. And if you were able to do that, again, no jurisdiction has done this, then you would still be required to provide zoning for emergency shelters, but you could do it with the CUP. So we can certainly augment the discussion of how homeless are provided for in the community by looking at what the Baptist Church is doing. I don't think it's going to meet the SB2 |
| 01:30:01.41 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 01:30:14.53 | Karen Warner | zoning requirement for shelters. |
| 01:30:16.62 | Councilmember Ford | Okay, well I would ask that we do that because I think that it's important to know what we have going on already in the town and given that we had 10 and 30 as |
| 01:30:16.64 | Karen Warner | Okay. |
| 01:30:22.29 | Karen Warner | Are you ready? |
| 01:30:29.39 | Councilmember Ford | For 2009 we had 10 people, for 2011 we had 30. Why don't we average those numbers? |
| 01:30:36.04 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:30:39.15 | Councilmember Ford | The state has the latest. |
| 01:30:39.64 | Karen Warner | I'm serious. Yeah, the state has used the latest one. And, you know, there's a lot of... |
| 01:30:41.97 | Unknown | This is... |
| 01:30:42.37 | Sonya Hanson | Thank you. |
| 01:30:47.70 | Karen Warner | It's difficult to count the homeless, as you can imagine. So there's significant variability. |
| 01:30:53.76 | Councilmember Ford | Okay, and also before I leave that subject, hotels in the Marin ship for the homeless. can you describe um what you mean by that uh what would a hotel look like, or am I misunderstanding? Are the hotels only for transients, or are they for the homeless as well? |
| 01:31:17.66 | Karen Warner | I'm not quite, I think we were talking about the emergency shelter being like a commercial hotel use, but it's not that it would be |
| 01:31:25.81 | Unknown | HOTEL. |
| 01:31:27.39 | Councilmember Ford | Exactly. |
| 01:31:30.73 | Karen Warner | a hotel for the homeless. It would be a shelter. |
| 01:31:32.45 | Councilmember Ford | it would be a shelter. I see. And then a follow-on question, did you look at our commercial areas for the homeless shelter? I do know that we have one building downtown that is in the commercial district that might be able to provide some housing there right at the Excelsior |
| 01:31:56.03 | Karen Warner | There's... |
| 01:31:57.72 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 01:31:57.73 | Karen Warner | that wasn't something that was looked at because, again, you're talking about an entire zone. So if you say, not a site, but an entire zone. So if you said, you know, the commercial zone and you show capacity at this one particular location, |
| 01:32:07.42 | Lily Shinsing | Yes. Zone. |
| 01:32:16.01 | Karen Warner | shelter could go anywhere within that commercial zone. |
| 01:32:18.54 | Councilmember Ford | Sure, I understand. Thank you. |
| 01:32:20.92 | Karen Warner | THANK YOU. |
| 01:32:21.04 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 01:32:21.06 | Councilmember Ford | Did you... |
| 01:32:22.03 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 01:32:22.05 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 01:32:22.15 | Karen Warner | No, that wasn't something that the task force discussed. |
| 01:32:23.42 | Councilmember Ford | at the task force to scan. Okay. |
| 01:32:28.68 | Councilmember Ford | And do you say we need a shelter for 30 people? Does it have to be in one spot or can it be in multiple? |
| 01:32:39.30 | Karen Warner | No, you just have to have capacity for that. Okay, thank you. |
| 01:32:41.81 | Councilmember Ford | and the |
| 01:32:43.58 | Karen Warner | Okay. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:32:46.00 | Councilmember Weiner | Okay. Questions? No, I've been to the last meeting for the last year. |
| 01:32:50.60 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor, I have one more question. But does Council Member Leon have a question? |
| 01:32:53.81 | Councilmember Weiner | No comment. . |
| 01:32:55.30 | Unknown | Bye. Go ahead, wait, oh, go ahead. |
| 01:32:57.71 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I'm sorry, I forgot this one question. So regarding your conversation regarding HCD and... multi-families or, you know, zoning and the comment about changing our demographics here. Um, It is my understanding that HCD simply dictates the number of units required for ARENA, 372. It does not dictate the size of those units. Is that correct? |
| 01:33:33.77 | Karen Warner | you're required to provide the zoning for the range of housing types. So if a jurisdiction... in the old days, jurisdictions used to have senior zoning, which is now illegal in fair housing law. But if you had senior zoning and you weren't providing any zoning for the other types of needs in your community, Um, then the state would point that out. The state has said nothing about families. That's something that we have heard from the community. So that's, you know, it's, but they are requiring the numbers and then the range of types to meet your needs. |
| 01:34:12.92 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So in other words, this is the comments made regarding Family housing is coming from the M group and what you're hearing. It's not an HCD mandate. And that was my question. Thank you. |
| 01:34:23.65 | Unknown | Thank you. you |
| 01:34:37.20 | Vice Mayor Leone | Thank you. Thanks for answering, standing up for an hour basically there. So thank you for that. |
| 01:34:41.37 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:34:41.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:34:41.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:34:45.94 | Vice Mayor Leone | One, and then some specifics. How would you characterize, other than the live awards, which are very specific, site-specific, the recommendations that you're making, and then you can see that, and then you can see that. how do they differ here than what you've seen in other communities? You've done both firms. I've done a large number of these. Would you see anything else besides the liverward aspect that kind of leaps out? Are we doing anything out of the ordinary or peculiar here that sort of raises this is either unique or won't stand the test of going through the HCD process? |
| 01:35:21.62 | Unknown | it. |
| 01:35:32.50 | Vice Mayor Leone | So either end, one thing that's more creative than others, or one thing that may be creative that just won't fly, or just strange and gentle. |
| 01:35:34.58 | Jeff Bradley | Sure. |
| 01:35:40.50 | Jeff Bradley | I've got to consider your audience. One thing that's all unique is typically when we do our sites analysis, looking at under existing zoning, we focus on a piece of properties that you would drive by and you think, boy, you know, someone's going to build something there someday. It's a vacant acre or two or five or ten or whatever. |
| 01:36:01.31 | Unknown | you know. |
| 01:36:05.21 | Jeff Bradley | in Sausalito because of the fine grain scale of the community We're talking about little itty-bitty parcels. And so we haven't made a huge deal of that within the element. but we've tried to tie it in to these these demographics and these trends that we're seeing so that it makes sense. So when we talk about a three-unit project, Um. you know, we justify that based on what we found. But the fact that we're even talking about a three-unit project within the context of a housing element is a little unusual. Usually a small project would be, you know, 10 to 20 units. |
| 01:36:42.92 | Vice Mayor Leone | I... Okay. My memory of the, and just in reviewing it before tonight, of the, is in 1989 the last approved housing element, is that the right date? Do you know? 95. 95. 95. 95. That there were the mentions of the LIVA boards and ADU of adopting new changes to the ordinances to allow those. One was to make just the 10% legal, and the other was to consider amnesty and other ADU construction. So we're sort of continuing on some of the stuff that was done many years ago. not maybe fully implemented. So they're not They may be new in the implementation stage in this current go-around, but not new in concept asosceles. Thank you. |
| 01:37:34.58 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:37:34.93 | Vice Mayor Leone | Thank you. Um, The church comment, I think, is something it might bear. Creating these specific zones that are, if you can do it in a way that avoids spot zoning challenges from a legal perspective, which might you be difficult in that There aren't. zones of hotels next to each other in Sausalito. and churches, that may be an alternative, just to be able to sprinkle the shelter concept further throughout the town. so it doesn't necessarily over concentrate it in one area, as well as the public institution. So you have more options and the impact is spread. The – just a couple of things. This is just from too many years on the Planning Commission, too many years doing this. The condo conversion language that's in one of the programs, one of the problems we've had, and this may be something that gets to the implementation stage, is the 5% of what? because you have a housing stock number and then you have no way to gauge the rental units, because the way the internet has sort of broken down the rental process is it's just, you know, most of it is on Craigslist, which a lot of people list things four times on Craigslist for the same property. So that may be something when we get to the implementation stage, we have to come up with a better measurement of 5%. |
| 01:38:56.08 | Karen Warner | We actually addressed that. Oh, good. Because I have never seen a kind of conversion ordinance with that measure. How do you measure it? So we suggested changing that measurement to a vacancy rate measurement of 5%. |
| 01:38:57.97 | Vice Mayor Leone | Oh, good. |
| 01:39:11.35 | Karen Warner | So if your rental vacancy is below 5%, that's the threshold of when you wouldn't allow kind of conversions. |
| 01:39:18.04 | Vice Mayor Leone | And you get that from like a subscription to some local real estate to determine the vacancy rate to get a targeted enough vacancy rate measure. Yes. |
| 01:39:27.27 | Karen Warner | Yes, the postal surveys now are doing vacancies again. |
| 01:39:31.03 | Vice Mayor Leone | Oh, okay. That's a good idea. That's why I like that. |
| 01:39:33.22 | Karen Warner | Yeah, they didn't for a while, but they are again. |
| 01:39:36.18 | Vice Mayor Leone | Hopefully they're charging for that so they can remain in business for Um, I think the down zoning or what you're calling here the keeping multifamily, multifamily is incredibly important. It was a loophole that was exploited during the last real estate boom to be able to convert multifamily lots into single-family homes at the density of a multifamily building. I think that encouraged a lot of demolition of multifamily in Sausalito. because I can't recall the, except for actually some of the people who did that did include some units. Mike will give you some credit for that. But at the same time, I haven't seen a multifamily construction in Sausalito beyond one additional unit in ten years. We need to strengthen that language to prevent the degradation of the multifamily stock. |
| 01:40:26.60 | Mayor Kelly | Point of order, Mr. Mayor. Well, I think he's trying to see |
| 01:40:29.69 | Vice Mayor Leone | So I'm trying to get to see if there are other implementation plans besides the… |
| 01:40:29.70 | Councilmember Ford | So I'm trying to get to see if there are other implementation |
| 01:40:32.37 | Unknown | Besides the |
| 01:40:33.37 | Councilmember Ford | to be. Yeah. |
| 01:40:34.23 | Unknown | and |
| 01:40:35.04 | Vice Mayor Leone | Thank you, Mayor Ford. Discussion. The trying to get to the point of asking you if there are other ways in the implementation stage that you can recommend besides just that down zoning approach that would protect the multifamily stock. Maybe that's something that we can get to at the implementation stage, but I think that's |
| 01:40:35.63 | Unknown | for discussion. |
| 01:40:56.54 | Vice Mayor Leone | THE My understanding of sphere of influence is the other entity has to agree to allow you to use their some of their quotient of meeting affordable housing for you to count it as part of yours. And I doubt there are very many jurisdictions that would allow you. Is that true? |
| 01:41:22.49 | Karen Warner | And that kind of sharing process, there's only a certain timeframe when that can occur, which is when the regional housing needs are being developed, which is what's starting to happen now in ABAG. Once it's adopted, there's kind of that sharing option is behind you, but it is something to look at. Thank you. |
| 01:41:42.72 | Vice Mayor Leone | Yeah, I think the county basically told us in my discussions with the county, they're not going to let you share the houseboats or any of the other stuff. |
| 01:41:42.96 | Karen Warner | I think the county. |
| 01:41:49.25 | Unknown | It's really good. |
| 01:41:54.67 | Vice Mayor Leone | And my general question, before I get to this, when we get back to comments, is, you know, some of this is meeting numbers, and some of this is passing a straight-faced test, in that you're sort of clearing the, setting the table to allow forces to do things, but you also have to. and this gets to the incentive thing, don't you have to actually, some of this comes down to common sense, provide these incentives to make it somewhat accomplishable in some fashion rather than just, and is that where a lot of these programs that provide the incentives come in, where you're sort of trying to pass the straight face test with the state and saying, I'm not just putting forward a plan, I'm putting forward means to implement that. Is that what a goal a lot of the incentive programs are? |
| 01:42:37.73 | Karen Warner | And you actually have to report on your element annually now? And that there's certain programs in particular, like the ADU Amnesty Program, we're counting |
| 01:42:41.19 | Unknown | No. |
| 01:42:41.45 | Unknown | you |
| 01:42:41.65 | Unknown | you |
| 01:42:50.10 | Karen Warner | I think it's 26 units that we're anticipating. We don't know. You might get a lot more, and then that would be great. And so there's where before, like you said, in the 1995 element, it said you're going to adopt ADU ordinance. You can't really do that anymore. There's much more ongoing review. It has to be concrete. Yeah. And you have to. OK. |
| 01:42:53.35 | Unknown | We don't know. Great. |
| 01:43:09.09 | Vice Mayor Leone | Thank you. It has to be concrete. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. |
| 01:43:13.38 | Mayor Kelly | you I just have one question. On number five, the condo conversion thing, didn't we change that to five units from, it was mentioned three or four a minute ago? It's five or more units requires the conversion. Yeah. |
| 01:43:33.91 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:43:34.03 | Karen Warner | We, um, |
| 01:43:34.89 | Joan Cox | That was a motion I made, but it was not passed. Roll it. |
| 01:43:39.38 | Karen Warner | It was It was to evaluate extending the condo conversion, which is currently at five, down to two. So two, three, and fours would be captured with the option of paying an in-lieu fee rather than providing affordable units. That was raised from two to three. And then there was a discussion about increasing it to five, but the majority of the task force left it. |
| 01:44:15.83 | Mayor Kelly | Okay. All right. That's all. All right. Seeing no more questions, I'll close the ask for public comment. How many people want to speak on this issue? How many hands? I'm going to hold you to this, okay? Because I'll let you have more time if only a few people want it. And I see about five people out there. Is that it? All right, then we'll have three minutes of commentary available. So first person up. |
| 01:44:51.60 | Joel Paul | My name is Joel Paul. I'm resident of Sausalito, 77 Lincoln Drive. I think one of the things that's clear this evening is that there's a lot of questions on the table and a lot of complexity here to this report. I must confess that I have not had an adequate opportunity to read the report. I only got the report today at 2 o'clock from the city. Since the report was not downloadable easily on the web, it wasn't available until Friday night late, and then when I realized it was several hundred pages long, and for those of you who haven't had a chance to see this report, it's really quite something, I found that it was almost impenetrable in that you cannot find in this report any identification of those sites for development. I had to use this magnifying glass to actually find the list on the last page that showed that Jude Street and Lincoln are still targeted areas for development. And my point here is that public accountability requires some kind of notice and some opportunity for deliberation and serious comment. The Brown Act requires at a minimum that you give the public a meaningful description of what is at stake, and I do not think that a reasonable person looking at the agenda for this evening's meeting would have any idea of what was at stake here. |
| 01:46:12.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:46:19.09 | Joel Paul | Therefore, I think that there's a genuine risk that if the council decides to go forward tonight, that it leaves itself open to some kind of legal challenge. I appreciate that there have been a lot of other public meetings, but as we all know, at every meeting we've gone to, we have been told something else. We have been given different lists of sites and numbers of units to be developed and changes that have occurred from meeting to meeting, even hour to hour. The one consistent theme that has been expressed at every single public meeting I have attended is the need for public participation. And I'm afraid that tonight we have failed to achieve that. Six years ago, we got to this point in the housing element when the planning committee tried to ram a proposal through the council to build 400 units in the north end of town one block from the Bayside School. The Council sided with the residents that there was insufficient notice and comment. And this time the council promised us that there would be transparency. but I regret to say that here we are again. The city staff says that there will be time for public comment after the state opines on this plan. That excuse is at best facetious. No one seriously thinks that after the state approves the plan, it's going to be reopened to the public for amendments. Don't insult our intelligence. It's a mistake to try to railroad the housing element through in this manner. It makes a mockery of the process, And it denies the public the opportunity for reflection and comment. I urge you to postpone your decision and give us 30 days. |
| 01:47:55.04 | Unknown | And it's nice to public the opportunity for reflection and comments. |
| 01:47:58.48 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:47:59.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:47:59.68 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 01:48:03.64 | Unknown | What? |
| 01:48:04.47 | Mayor Kelly | you |
| 01:48:04.54 | Unknown | you |
| 01:48:08.40 | Mayor Kelly | All right. All right. Thank you. All right. That's not fair to the people who might want to disagree with someone. So please hold your applause. At the end. will applaud altogether. Okay? So please withhold applause. Next, please. |
| 01:48:36.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:48:36.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:48:36.92 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:48:37.04 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:48:37.85 | Unknown | ditto, but I've got a simple question, as I just got this tonight, and I thought I just heard you say that the shelter should go... in the marine ship. but on page B12 and B11, you state the shelter should go in the institutional part of town. So what you stated verbally tonight is diametrically opposed to what's written in this report. So which is it? |
| 01:49:05.61 | Mayor Kelly | Wait a minute, you should address the council. Thank you. |
| 01:49:07.87 | Unknown | So we... |
| 01:49:08.12 | Mayor Kelly | Which is it? What it is is the task force approved the public institution. It did not approve. They are recommending that we should put it in the Marinship, but the task force that approved public institutional. |
| 01:49:24.41 | Unknown | So what are you voting on tonight? |
| 01:49:26.50 | Mayor Kelly | we're voting on public institutionally. Except there's an item in here to change that. |
| 01:49:29.98 | Unknown | to change that. |
| 01:49:30.70 | Mayor Kelly | something different. Okay. Do you have more to say? |
| 01:49:31.65 | Unknown | What? |
| 01:49:33.81 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 01:49:33.86 | Unknown | Well, I'm confused as to which one you're going to vote. |
| 01:49:35.38 | Mayor Kelly | Which one you're going to vote on? We're going to vote on the element that's before you. |
| 01:49:36.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:49:41.55 | Unknown | So his presentation was irrelevant to what you're voting on? Where? Do you have more? |
| 01:49:48.32 | Mayor Kelly | to see. |
| 01:49:48.59 | Unknown | about. |
| 01:49:49.01 | Mayor Kelly | Well, I'm confused. |
| 01:49:49.03 | Unknown | Well, I'm confused because you're voting on something that we just got tonight and didn't have a chance to read, and his report is saying something exactly opposite. |
| 01:49:58.36 | Mayor Kelly | THE OPPOSITE. IF YOU HAD READ THIS STAFF REPORT, YOU WOULD FIND IN HERE THAT HE IS RECOMMENDING that it be changed from public institution to the marineship. There is a paper in there. |
| 01:50:06.10 | Unknown | There's a panic. I didn't have a chance to speed read 200 pages in the last hour. |
| 01:50:08.15 | Mayor Kelly | speed read 200 pages in the last hour. Thank you. |
| 01:50:10.86 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:50:10.95 | Mayor Kelly | All right. Excellent. Any more comment? Public comment? |
| 01:50:21.44 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 01:50:21.46 | Joe Lemmon | Joe? My name is Joe Lemmon. I've lived in Sausalito since 1983 and I'm really impressed by everybody's engagement in this process. I think it's on balance probably a good thing. I can't help but think that we're kind of missing the point of the whole issue here. isn't the issue that we should allow affordable housing in our community and try to account for that somewhere along the line? The whole. The thrust of this is how to circumvent the state's goal in accomplishing that. not that many years ago when people were saying, yeah, we don't want people of different races to go to the same schools where our children are going. People sat in rooms like this and used arguments, frankly, that sound awfully similar to that. How do we work around government is asking us to do here. If you imagine going to another community and you said, We're going to have... Thank you. the city divided in this way. There are rich people who live up on the hill and the poor people get to live in a boat. I happen to work with a lot of those people on a daily basis. And I can tell you that not only In many instances, can people not stand up in their boat They can't sit up in their boat. When people sit in their cars and listen to the radio, You think that this is, you know, noble way of life, we say you can't live on the land. That's effectively what you're saying here. 30% of our affordable housing is going to be relegated floating in a boat, subject to the whim of BCDC, withdraw it at any time. Furthermore, we have people up here who I believe in their hearts to be environmentalists. What if you have eelgrass that goes and floats into these marinas? And now you're disqualified from having that as housing. I just would request that we turn the debate around to say What can we do to accommodate people? So that someone can have a family. You can have a job. We're saying if you're poor, A single person gets to live on a boat. You can't have children. You can't have a spouse. And the applause to celebrate, gee, how can we not have affordable housing in our community. I don't know. I just suggest that we rethink the beginning point of this analysis. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:52:40.36 | Mayor Kelly | Anyone else want to address the counsel in this meeting? |
| 01:52:42.91 | David Kleiman | David Kleiman, 806 Butte Street. I speak strongly in favor of affordable housing in our city. And I want to applaud what Joel Paul spoke to regarding the flawed process that is in front of us. I think even witnessed the housing element final meeting last week and the embarrassing the embarrassing lack of understanding of the majority of the members about what was put in front of them and the inability to understand this document. I've been to most of the housing element meetings since the summer of last year, and it is never apparent to me why changes are made We had, I believe, nine sites at the beginning. We're now down to two. YouTube. and Bridgeway. And at every meeting, we expected, oh, another one is going to come off, and another one is going to come off, with no witness or understanding why that never happened. So now we're down to two, and the ADUs and the liveaboards, and it just doesn't seem logical, the process that we have gone through. I challenge the city council and the Planning Commission to understand this 200-page document in the amount of time that you have been given to read it, and I urge you to take this responsibility seriously. We have elected you, we vote, and you obviously have a very disconcerned public in front of you. Please think about the unintended consequences of putting this forward without a true understanding of what is in it. Thank you very much. |
| 01:54:40.31 | Mayor Kelly | Does anyone else care to speak on this matter? Please hold, please, please, please. |
| 01:54:49.64 | Unknown | That was not a clause for me. |
| 01:54:51.88 | Mayor Kelly | Oh, that's for sure. |
| 01:54:53.52 | Unknown | for sure. I'm sorry. One thing that I noticed here, mentioning home sharing and This would mean that a single occupancy house could share with some of the homeless or the particular individuals that can't afford to live here that would be able to share and my question is There is an organization apparently in Sacramento that is called Housing Community Development. Do they screen the people that are going to share with some little old lady here in Sausalito? Or are we going to get... Will the person... develop problems with Amen. drugs or with drinking or whatever. Is that screened in Sacramento? before these people will be sharing with the little old ladies in Sausalito. Thank you. |
| 01:56:11.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:56:14.74 | Ken Herisny | Hi, I'm Ken Herisny, a resident of Sausalio. And I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be addressing this now, if this is regarding the planning or if we're to the city council meeting. But they sort of relate. So I'm going to make my comment now, which is in the last couple of meetings we've asked the council to consider the option of putting to a vote of the people. any Uh... disposition of city land. And I think that I, but we haven't had a response to that, and I'm going to request it one more time. And I think this is an example of You have a process here that is almost incomprehensible. and people don't have the time to be totally involved. You can't go to 40 meetings, even if you're very interested. The only thing that people probably could do was know at the end of the day if something was put before him, regarding a particular piece of property that was going to be disposed of or sold or rezoned by the city, if that, not the rezoning, excuse me, if it was going to be sold or disposed of in a long-term fashion by the city, if that would be put to the vote of the people. So I request again that you consider that as an option. Thank you. |
| 01:57:28.94 | Mayor Kelly | Does anyone else care to address the council? |
| 01:57:31.62 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:57:34.84 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 01:57:39.11 | Councilmember Weiner | You can fight over that one later. Later. Later. |
| 01:57:42.02 | Sonya Hanson | Later, later. |
| 01:57:43.57 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:57:43.62 | Councilmember Weiner | Yeah. |
| 01:57:43.84 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:57:43.91 | Sonya Hanson | That's it. |
| 01:57:43.92 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:57:43.99 | Councilmember Weiner | Yeah. |
| 01:57:44.14 | Sonya Hanson | Thank you. |
| 01:57:44.24 | Councilmember Weiner | Thank you. |
| 01:57:45.73 | Sonya Hanson | Sonya Hanson, Spring Street. I always come up here and talk about the same thing, process. And I don't know if this is a really great document or not a great document, but it did just come out Friday. I just went to the library to see if I could look at a copy. There's not even a copy in there. So I guess what I'm requesting is that we do have a 30-day period for people to look at what it is that is being put forward. |
| 01:58:00.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:58:10.13 | Sonya Hanson | Yeah, thank you. |
| 01:58:14.94 | Mayor Kelly | The lady in the back. Thank you. |
| 01:58:18.25 | Susan Shea | Thank you. |
| 01:58:18.26 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 01:58:18.41 | Susan Shea | you |
| 01:58:18.58 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 01:58:18.62 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:58:22.48 | Susan Shea | Good evening, my name is Susan Shea and I live on Spring Street. and have lived in town for a number of years. And I think that this housing element process brings up many, many issues, at least for myself, about the process of how government has been going in Sausalito. And it seems to me that in a small town like this, we should be able to as a group of 7,000 citizens understand what it is that we're trying to do with this housing element. And frankly, having gone to some of the meetings Every time I went there was different Answers, information coming from different places, hard to know how it was vetted. etc, etc. So from my point of view this is something I'm very interested in. because I'm interested in the process of democracy, especially on the local level. And. Please give us 30 days. to at least get it downloaded so that we can read it. Thanks. |
| 01:59:30.17 | Mayor Kelly | Anyone else care to speak on this matter? We had about five or six people raise our hands now, so this is serial testimony. Go ahead. |
| 01:59:38.89 | Unknown | Good evening Mr. Mayor, member of the City Council and the planning commission Mauro Dossolini, 1901 Anchorage, basically at the Butte Street where one of the sites chose a witness every morning and every day driving down. the site that you are proposing to build housing. And just looking, it's clear that nothing should be built there. It's a funnel that collects the water that come down from the hill, and it's also full of animals, really, really full, I mean, they have to stop the car to let them drive through. So, Before we even talk, otherwise we are all wasting our time, I think a full environmental report should be done specifically for this site. Now to answer to the gentleman who was saying why we don't push to build a fortale house in this town, Well, I think what is stopping it is the way the process is being approach already seeing that you know that table over there there are two of the major town next to us missing it doesn't make me lose all the trust in all we are doing i mean who decided to forget two town that are next to us and why so this is very considered i'd like to point it out to them about 10 years ago the majority of you were, you know, joined our group asking the city council at that time to wait because there are people that are against this project. We are talking about the police and fire department. They were against, so please stop and analyze better. Well, it's the same situation, all those people clapping even if our mayor were bullying around and ask them to don't clap or to shut up All the clapping of these people, yes, that is where my feeling, all the clapping of these feelings has clear symptoms that they are not happy with what we are doing. So take your time to not prove anything this time. One more meeting, we have plenty of time. We are still young for this project. Thank you very much. |
| 02:01:47.18 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:01:49.69 | Sam Penrose | My name is Sam Penrose. I've been a houseboat owner for 12 years. My wife serves on the Willow Creek Academy Board. I would like to speak first off in favor of civility, in favor of a lack of hostility, in favor of the assumption that the motives of the other people we're working with are perhaps not entirely directed at undermining our own well-being. I would like to speak in favor of affordable housing. I would like to speak in favor of saying yes when you are not sure. I would like to speak against or in favor of the idea that It's okay if not every one of us has the control to stop any change that happens around us. And I would like to speak in favor of resolving this element quickly and effectively. If folks here have concerns, if the process has been wrong, then let's address it. but let's address it in a way that brings resolution quickly. that brings us in compliance with state law. and that addresses the very serious issues of justice and of the environment that are here. We are not just citizens of Sossoito. We are human beings. We are also citizens of California which has passed AB 32 a very aggressive, and it has to be aggressive, plan to take our responsibility for climate change. if we can't accomplish the change on the scale that is called for by this element. Our chance of fulfilling our duties under AB 32, nothing. And the real question is, can the city of Sausalito and can we as citizens participate in that level, or are we going to take a pair of binoculars up to our eyes and turn them So, I don't actually know. Thank you. what the best way to move forward is with the element plan, but I encourage you to do so promptly and effectively. Get it through the process. Thank you. |
| 02:04:07.66 | Vicki Nichols | Hi, I'm Vicki Nichols, 117 Caledonia. I have been to some of the meetings and I think what I'm hearing tonight is nothing substantive because people are saying they haven't had enough time to see this document. But I'd like some clarification because I've seen this at least three times. So as a suggestion, would it be possible as we're going forward to highlight the very few things that you've changed? This document has pretty much been the same for the last three meetings. So it isn't that we've just gotten this whole thing two hours ago. I think that might be helpful. A good part of this has been It's been around. It's been in the meetings. People do want to feel like they've had a chance, and so if they know that it's, you know, if they have a chance to read it. I don't know where the 30 days comes. It is an environmental document. It isn't anything like that. Maybe that's arbitrary. I don't know. But I think we might get more satisfaction from the community if we give more time and we specifically call out what these changes have been. They have not been substantive. They've been changes that your housing committee has suggested, very, very minor changes, but this has been around for at least three meetings. Thank you. |
| 02:05:36.17 | Mayor Kelly | All right, does anybody else care to address the council on this matter? Thank you. Yes, ma'am. |
| 02:05:44.22 | Mary Arnold | Good evening. I've been here before. Mary Arnold in Sausalito. Just a couple questions. On the elder or the home sharing, I guess, and I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing. I have gone through it and I'd like to go through the document again. But one of the questions I have is would this be voluntary or is it obligatory or is it something where if it's done you can count it? And then I guess one of my other questions on that would be, and I don't know how we get the answer, is as you look at just the, our entire environment, all of the comments that come up in the newspaper and the news reports on elder abuse and how you have people who come in and take advantage of individuals that they're supposed to really be helping. And I'm not saying this is going to happen, but I'm just saying if it's voluntary and if there's something to manage that, that seems to be a viable opportunity, but I think that's given the people who we might find taking advantage of that option. we have to be particularly protective of them, particularly if they are the senior And then the other question I had is on this technical appendix G, Is it possible to put that out so that we could look at it and just see the entire information? Because I think it's in PDF and I tried to export it and put it into Excel and finally I just gave up. Because I guess I'm not quite that good even though I've... That one, yeah. |
| 02:07:12.27 | Vice Mayor Leone | I can't read this either. No, I think it would just be good. |
| 02:07:13.56 | Mary Arnold | No, I think it would just be good. I think it could answer some of the questions that have come up this evening in terms of information sharing and being able to get all the data. And I think the other questions I had have been brought up by other people, so thank you very much for your time. |
| 02:07:28.24 | Mayor Kelly | Staff, could you, Karen, answer her question about the Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:07:36.03 | Karen Warner | Yeah, a couple questions on the home sharing, completely optional. Um, Voluntary. Um, Many cities actually form their own home sharing programs. Sausalito has the staffing or capacity for that at this point. So what we're suggesting is tapping in with the one that's called Home Connection of Marin, associated with the County of Marin Housing Authority. And the information that I gleaned from their website and speaking with them is they do extensive interviewing and background checks because they want a successful match. So, and again, having your Sausalito Senior Village involved in that would facilitate its implementation. |
| 02:08:36.58 | Mayor Kelly | Can they count it? Do we get to count it in some way? Count it. |
| 02:08:40.19 | Karen Warner | count it. For RHNA, no. But as you can see, the element is a lot more than the RHNA numbers. |
| 02:08:41.05 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 02:08:48.86 | Mayor Kelly | or anyone else care to address the council? Seeing none, we'll bring it back up here. I'd like to start with the Planning Commission in three minutes apiece. If you can take less, that would be great. But if you can't... |
| 02:09:13.39 | Mayor Kelly | Somebody going to leap in? I will see. |
| 02:09:15.76 | Unknown | what was said at the Housing Element Task Force. And I would agree with some I guess I'm going to weigh in on the side of the city, and I'm going to let the City Council decide what that might be, or if at all. But I tend to believe that a little extra time to consider this for the public would be a good thing in this particular case, given the volume of the document and the fact that the final actually just did come out like this last week, if at all. |
| 02:09:44.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:09:45.02 | Unknown | But I want to say, as was commented by another member of the Housing Element Task Force, is upon making our recommendation, which wasn't unanimous, and I agree with the comments that this is a good working document, The task force went to extreme lengths to try to balance the various tensions that occur in trying to put all of these elements together, trying to make sense of all the technical aspect of it and the legal implications. I think Joan probably commented during that meeting that the point's been made that, well, you know, more time and we can look at unintended consequences, and they might occur to us. You know, maybe it's not persuasive to me that much more time is going to do that particular thing. But I think this is a good document. It's a good place to start. I think one of the reasons people articulate the idea that it changes every time, well, because for the last, at least six months when we started putting these elements together, but longer. As we take public input, we have been making changes to the document based on that input. And that has happened the whole period of this process, I think it's important to keep in mind that And the people who started by being extreme, and we've got some groups here that we've liaised with on this, they may still have concerns about it, but I think my impression has been we have largely tried to address, I know we have at the task force level, the concerns that have been expressed. And the document has changed. And the document will continue to change. |
| 02:11:45.28 | Unknown | continue to change. |
| 02:11:47.52 | Unknown | until it finally goes up to HCD, and then it is going to continue to change some more. All of us are in a constant period of trying to catch up with this thing. but it's based on comments that are made from the public The Housing Element Task Force duties are done, but Planning Commission, City Council is an evolving document. I think it's a good one for where we are in the process. I would like to congratulate M Group for their part in helping out with this. I think they were critical to putting together what we have now, and I think |
| 02:12:11.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:12:11.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:12:12.01 | Unknown | you |
| 02:12:21.90 | Unknown | I support this document strongly. you Thank you. |
| 02:12:28.76 | Mayor Kelly | I'm sorry. Well, you have one support. One better than none. That's right. All right. Someone else on play? |
| 02:12:31.67 | Unknown | I did. |
| 02:12:32.00 | Joan Cox | That's right. |
| 02:12:33.83 | Unknown | you |
| 02:12:37.27 | Joan Cox | Okay. I also want to commend M Group. You know, I think the work that M Group did to identify 427 people uh, units using ADUs, liveaboards, existing construction, and particularly the infill strategy was heroic because it enabled us to meet what appeared to be an impossible number Um. in a city of 7,000 were identifying 372, actually 427 new units, which is extraordinary. That being said, I am concerned regarding process and I am concerned regarding some of the programs proposed within this substantial document. I will say to the public, you know, I've read this document many, many times, except on Friday. All of the red line changes in this document to chapters three, four, and all of the appendices were never seen by the Housing Element Task Force. So those changes are substantial. There are ten brand-new pages in the chapters and in the appendices that the Housing Element Task Force which supposedly was responsible for authoring this document, never saw. So the process has been rushed in the end. And I think that um, Planning Commission, the City Council, and the residents would benefit from having some additional time to carefully consider these programs. I'm going to reiterate the motion that I made as a member of the Housing Element Task Force and that I alluded to earlier this evening that this element continues to include programs that are, in my opinion, not necessary to its approval by HCD, and those include programs 5, 12, 13, 17, and 17. I also would urge that the Council not re include the programs that the task force removed And those were programs 20, 22, and 33. I would urge that the council endorse the task force approach to those programs and similarly endorse the task force decision to place emergency shelter in the public institutional zone rather than in the marine ship. I, make that recommendation with the caveat that um, the M group and the staff consider carefully the suggestions made by Council Members Leon and Ford that we consider churches and other potential spots for the emergency housing. I think that we've done extraordinary work. I would urge us not to allow these new programs to accomplish through the back door, what we avoided in terms of avoiding any new zoning. I think we've accomplished a great deal on its face. |
| 02:15:47.84 | Mayor Kelly | deal on its face. Thank you. Next, Lenny. |
| 02:15:53.80 | Unknown | Thank you. I just have a few very brief comments. I, too, feel that I have not had an adequate opportunity to study this document, much less master it. I will say, however, that I feel fortunate in having my two colleagues to my left who have spent many hours, days, nights, weeks as the chair and vice chair respectively of the Housing Element Task Force. And I feel comfortable in supporting their positions, which I noticed are not exactly the same. But hopefully we'll be able to come to a reconciliation of sorts there. So that's the extent of my confidence. |
| 02:16:31.10 | Unknown | But... |
| 02:16:42.82 | Mayor Kelly | Okay. Bill? Roger? |
| 02:16:49.01 | Unknown | I also want to commend the M Group. I think that this whole business of producing housing elements is is a daunting kind of a job, and each community, I'm sure, is very different, and each community has its factions that operate. in contradiction to each other. This is a town of 7,068. people and it has 14,120 points of view because everybody has two. But I would, as I said, I have a lot of little tabs in this report. |
| 02:17:21.80 | Unknown | Thank you. TODAY. |
| 02:17:30.57 | Unknown | And I would urge you to go through the report and have somebody in your firm who has not had anything to do with reading it or writing it. Read it. because you will read what you want to see or what you think is in there. There are a lot of contradictions in there. the use of the 2000 Census numbers in some cases, the use of the 2010 others. There's a reference to the number of disabled people in Sausalito which says that it's 1728 in one place and 1748 someplace else, says that it's 17% That's really 24%, which means that every fourth person here in this room is disabled. It may be dysfunctional. But we're not all the same. |
| 02:18:19.04 | Unknown | I don't know. Bye. I'm sorry. Bye. I'm not. THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:18:22.60 | Unknown | Um... |
| 02:18:22.70 | Unknown | So there's some |
| 02:18:24.27 | Unknown | So there's some question in those numbers. And I think that the table that identifies the homeless count which is... you not scientific in any stretch of the imagination. would benefit from instead of being percentages of all of Marin County, if you took them as percentages of the population of the town, and compared them you would find that there the two that are at the top. that are almost equal or San Rafael. in Sausalito. and Sausalito has 20 times, per population. that of Tiburon. and a number of others, 15 times Novato, five times what's in Fairfax, so there's something wrong with those numbers when you look at it from that point of view. Um, So I would urge you to go through that report and clarify whether you're using 2000 Census, 2010 Census, and questions. some of those numbers. A-Bag was wildly out. of the line when they said that The 2010 population of Saucyuta would be 7,800 people. or 700, whatever it is in here. So ABAG was wrong also in their numbers. And it should be pointed out to us. |
| 02:19:55.55 | Mayor Kelly | Okay. Richard? |
| 02:19:56.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:19:56.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:20:01.70 | Unknown | Well, I would also like to commend the task force. It's a rather incredible document. There's a lot of information in here, and I would agree that it would be nice to have a little more time to digest it. There's a lot of information. And there's so much detail, I think, that needs to be kind of resolved. And so I think, you know, collectively we need time to do that. I have noticed that what I really like is the spirit of this document and the intent that it represents. And I feel that there seems to be a kind of tendency for people to try to figure out a way around it. Try to figure out how to not fulfill all the requirements. And they're very clearly spelled out. And I think the intent of the whole effort is really to address the housing here in Sausalito. And I think we should support that concept 100%. |
| 02:21:29.52 | Mayor Kelly | All right, thank you. All right. Councilman Pfeiffer? |
| 02:21:39.61 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So first of all, I want to say thank you to the M Group because you had a daunting challenge, and I know you guys work very hard. And I also want to acknowledge the Housing Element Task Force. And I want to thank everyone who came here tonight because seeing you here, you're engaged, you do make a difference. We see you and we hear you. And I also know that there's no one here who is against affordable housing. This is about concern, and the concern is that we're going to be able to get to the public. regarding the environment, regarding meeting the needs that we know we need to meet, while at the same time making sure we have that balance. I am very concerned over the rush to send this draft to Sacramento. without a first allowing for the 30-day public comment. I think that sending the draft to HCD and then telling the public to weigh in, knowing that Sacramento already has the draft, seems to me backwards. I'm also concerned about not doing CEQA on the Lincoln Butte site before including it on this list. I personally do not think Lincoln and Butte should be on this list. I also believe that we need to do a full CEQA on the whole housing element because we have so many recommendations in here. The cumulative effect of all of these in such a small town where 1.7 miles long is just To me, it is very... of great concern. Uh, Waiting 30 days, going through the process, sending it to Planning Commission, then to Council, waiting 30 days for public comment, going to Council. You know, we're already late. Other cities in Marin are late. HCD knows we're working hard on this with the M Group. 30 days is not going to make a difference. It will make a difference to our public. It will make a difference to the quality of this housing element and it will make a difference, I believe, to the environment. I have a lot of concerns regarding many of the programs here, 5, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23. We don't have time to go into all of these. I also want to reiterate what I raised earlier regarding the emergency shelters, the churches strategy, talk to Corte Madera. They have a very, from what I, when I interviewed them, it seemed like a very successful program. And it's spread across, you know, their town. We have different churches involved in helping the homeless today. I also would ask the council to include on the future agenda, prior to adopting this housing element, a discussion of city-owned property and putting to a vote of the people city owned property before the use is changed, before it's sold, or leased. And... |
| 02:24:43.97 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you for your comments. Next. John, you're here. |
| 02:24:55.79 | Vice Mayor Leone | Thank you. It's funny, Joe Lemon, who I disagree with on virtually a lot of things regarding the marinship, and certainly I don't agree about putting housing in the marinship, but was arguing for the concept of being an inclusionary community. I think we all, to a certain degree, some degree or another, have a are wary of change. And that's one of the reasons why I personally got involved in the planning process 10 years ago. And I've heard many complaints about how thwarting to change the planning process is. And it is. And that's why. to safeguard against rapid change. in any project that would come through to propose a unit or multi-units would have to go through that planning process which so many people claim is so onerous. Um. So you have your safeguards through that process. I think the idea that all of a sudden Sausalito will change overnight because of the adoption of this, there are no really significant changes to the zoning of Sausalito contemplated by this document. As far as eliminating some of these programs, some of the ones that people keep saying should be eliminated have been eliminated already. And the only one I have a question with is just clarifying the condo conversion thing. So it seems like there's some disparity. tend to go down to a lower condo conversion number because not a lot of condos convert in Sausalito in the course of a year, particularly now versus four or five years ago. Um, to maintain rental stock. But 12 is enhancing affordability of housing, which gets to the heart of this. Why would you want to eliminate that? Or a fund that helps pay for the construction of affordable housing, why would you want to eliminate that? That's 13. Or 17 is inclusionary language to encourage and give people incentives to build affordable housing, like parking incentives or whatever, Why would you want to eliminate that if you're for affordable housing? And it also gives the city some teeth. What the city has none of in its current zoning ordinance is teeth to require these things if you're coming in for a multi-unit building or a large project. So these things, if you're for affordable housing, which folks say they are here, You don't want to eliminate those programs. I think the church suggestion is one we should consider for the next time we look at this. The county and the MEA, the Energy Authority, has some energy programs we should include in this as well. I think the downzoning is very important. We should try and focus on that. It was abused not so long ago. And the lymphoboards, I think in the grand scheme of things, we should consider removing our own limitations to some of the the creation of Live Abords. People choose to live aboard. We're not trying to force them to live aboard. We want to encourage people of any means to live in Sausalito. And so it's an important part of that. |
| 02:28:01.09 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 02:28:06.58 | Councilmember Weiner | Well, when I took on the task force a year ago, I really was not sure what direction we were going to. I think we've gone in the right direction. And I really want to acknowledge, and I believe that there's out of the eight members of the task force, six of them are here. And that's Joan Cox. Great job. Kim Stoddard, thank you very, very much. Steve Flavhaive is not here. Active member. Stand bare. Mike Kelly. Susan Cleveland Knowles, who is not here. Ray with thee. and Chris Fisher. All of these people live in this community. They're all residents. They really... We're very dedicated to this. They put a lot of time, effort. And by the way, these are very, very bright people. |
| 02:29:00.86 | Unknown | . |
| 02:29:01.43 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:29:05.75 | Councilmember Weiner | in many ways a lot brighter than me as far as their abilities to even read these tasks that have been put on them. M Group, your timing was right. Our timing was right. I think you came in at the right time to solidify that this task force was going in the right direction. And I really want to acknowledge you for all your work and your effort. And I really feel that Although it's not perfect. and I don't know of anything that is. I still feel that we're tackling this housing task force in the right way. And I really feel that except for some minor changes that could be taken care of in a in a very short period of time, I think that we've... we've gone in the right direction. So thank you very, very much. And thank you, M. Gruber. |
| 02:30:10.17 | Councilmember Ford | I'll start also by thanking the M Group and our housing task force. I think that your focusing on ADUs and liveaboards is to be commended. And the fact that we have more than enough units to meet the housing requirements is very commendable. So I want to thank you for that, and I thank you for the process that you have adhered to up to this point. At this point, I have to say, that this process has become opaque. We want transparency in this town. We want the residents to have a say. We want the the processes that we have in place to be honored and to be adhered to as we move through our housing element. This will change the general plan. If there is any report that needs scrutiny, This report does. We have, the council is trying to rush this through. We saw the council try to rush through the sale of city property and the fire annexation. This is one of three. We need to stop I am, thank you. The rushing this through is unacceptable. This needs to be reviewed once again by the Housing Element Task Force, as there were 10 pages, evidently, I'm hearing, that they did not see. It needs to be reviewed by our Planning Commission. so that they can give their feedback to us on how this is going to affect our planning. and our zoning. And we as a city council need that expertise from them. So the people who were here tonight, I say thank you. Thank you for coming and speaking out. It's very important to help us stay on track. And In my opinion, this needs to go through a 30-day process, and it needs to be fully vetted before we send it to state, because once it goes to state, we're not going to have a chance to change it, except for what they come back with. Joel Paul was right. This is a clear example of how opaque this has become at this last minute. No one can read this. 0.2 typeset, I don't know, but a magnifying glass is required. |
| 02:32:47.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:32:50.72 | Councilmember Ford | So. This, there are many questions here tonight. I think M Group needs to go back and make the changes recommended. Our housing committee needs to review it, planning and the city council. And I do believe this can all be done within 30 days and that's reasonable. And I've heard no one give a good reason. for not giving the 30 days. |
| 02:33:13.92 | Unknown | for not |
| 02:33:24.31 | Mayor Kelly | In 2006, a group of some of the same people who are here tonight came and upset our housing element and the council cave. Thank you. They did not, they said the same thing. It wasn't transparent, there weren't enough hearings, We've had 46 hearings, 46 times we've been to the table. I've been on those hearings. The rest of these staff members have been in the hearings. We've had Three workshops, 100 and some odd people attended the last workshop. They broke out into groups. They went over every element of this thing. We gave them a draft. This document will never be done. It's going to never be done. Even when it's certified by the state, we have to implement it. And implementing is going to be changing it because there's going to be things in there that we didn't think about. If somebody brings up a better idea, we figure that out and we do it and so on. So it's a living, working document. The task force voted 5-2 to pass this on. There were two dissenting votes, Flay Hive and Cox. and they were over the issues that we've talked about tonight, number 5, number 12, number 17, and so on. those items are included. And when a majority votes to include something, the minority loses. And I have certainly been in the minority plenty of times. And on this document, I hope I'm in the majority because I want a certified element for this city. It's been something I've worked on since the day I got on the city council. The staff, the state, the M group has done a terrific job. They came into what was turning into a very disorganized process, helped us organize it, and they put it all together Our staff has done a magnificent job. Lilly has sent out document after document after document And anybody who wanted to get those documents could get those documents. They've been available always and at all times. Jeremy's done a terrific job. It's just been a real, effort on the part of a whole bunch of people. And now we're at that point where we can tip it into the state, finally get a certified element here, And we have certain people who want to destroy that process. And let's look at it in another 30 days. And by the end of another 30 days, It's going to have the same stuff in it. And we're going to be having the same argument again. So I want to see this document go on to the state. I want to see them put some revisions to it. We're going to be working on it until the day we turn it in. And at that point, the state will have it. It's still a living document. We can still put things in that document, change things. They're going to come back to us. It's going to be a back and forth and back and forth. And every one of you who say, that you haven't seen it, or you don't know about it. have got responsibility to now sign up and take a look at everything that happens from here on out. We've got six more months. of time that this document is going to be in transition, and you need to be involved if indeed that's what you want to do. |
| 02:36:12.35 | Unknown | So, |
| 02:36:13.27 | Mayor Kelly | So this is the end of my 11 seconds. I've got nine seconds. I'm going to propose that we pass this on to the City Council for tomorrow night and that we vote on it tomorrow night as a document. All right, so... |
| 02:36:32.10 | Vice Mayor Leone | you |
| 02:36:35.12 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:36:35.14 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 02:36:35.20 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:36:36.03 | Vice Mayor Leone | I think it's maybe a compromise here would be to continue the council discussion to the 30th and to give both planning commissioners and members of the public and the M group and staff some time to respond to some of the comments tonight. |
| 02:36:55.59 | Vice Mayor Leone | Did we interrupt you when you guys were talking? Can we have the same decorum, please? Thank you. So I think a compromise would be to continue it to the 30th, which is a week from today, I believe. Yeah, a week. And to have some people who haven't had a chance to digest it. I wasn't aware it wasn't downloadable. That's rather unfortunate for people with such a big document. Get feedback from people who really are interested in giving feedback versus creating delays, and then go from there in terms of whether there's substantive changes that should be incorporated or whether to |
| 02:37:09.78 | Unknown | And- |
| 02:37:36.02 | Vice Mayor Leone | to include them that night and vote on it as a document. |
| 02:37:40.24 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 02:37:40.26 | Councilmember Ford | this move. Mr. Mayor, I still find one week to review this document impossible. |
| 02:37:51.38 | Mayor Kelly | The... Thank you. |
| 02:37:52.04 | Councilmember Ford | Wait a minute, we're in the motion. I'm in one minute. We're in the motion. No, I'm, no, we're in the discussion stage. I beg to differ with you. Okay, I want to report it. |
| 02:37:52.98 | Mayor Kelly | I'm in one. Yeah. |
| 02:37:54.70 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:37:59.75 | Mayor Kelly | I want to refer to the protocols that we all agreed on, which was that we would make a motion and then have a debate on the motion. So we did it a little differently tonight in that we had comments ahead of that, but now I'd like to have a motion on the table and debate the motion. And as you know, we can have three motions on the table. |
| 02:38:06.97 | Councilmember Ford | I can't find. |
| 02:38:14.36 | Councilmember Ford | Okay. Absolutely, but Vice Mayor Leon got his one minute, and so I was just asking for |
| 02:38:21.60 | Mayor Kelly | That was it. Thank you. |
| 02:38:26.46 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you very much. But let's get the motion on the table. |
| 02:38:28.17 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you very much. |
| 02:38:31.30 | Vice Mayor Leone | I'll make the motion to continue the item until the Special City Council meeting on January 30th. And that would be the sole topic of that meeting's discussion, to allow the public and the staff staff, M group, whoever wants to lob some comments in to do so. and to to do so, and if that gives staff enough time to collect comments and hopefully respond to them, they'd have to get comments by very quick turnaround time in order to respond to them because we send these packets out in a few days so you really have to take it on your word that you're going to write them. Or we can discuss the comments that we receive at that meeting. It might be a more feasible strategy. Is that what you're going to say? By the time you're reading your mind? Am I laying eggs in your brain? I don't know if anyone saw that movie. What movie was that? Dinner with Fool Schmuck. |
| 02:39:16.44 | Unknown | Let me stay. |
| 02:39:17.96 | Jeremy Graves | He's finished. |
| 02:39:18.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:39:18.67 | Jeremy Graves | Am I laying in? |
| 02:39:23.62 | Jeremy Graves | There have been some comments tonight that we could respond to, but recognize that this is the same situation that if we would get out a revised draft later this week, and then some pages would change, and so we face the same situation we face right now. There have been a scattering of comments. I'm not sure if it's best to revise the document at this point. Maybe we could give some commentary on those comments within the next week, and then the council could give direction on those comments at your next meeting with direction, if you wish, to move the document on to HCD subject to the modifications identified in one week from now by the council. |
| 02:40:13.85 | Mayor Kelly | So what would you produce between now and the 30th? |
| 02:40:17.33 | Jeremy Graves | essentially a memo that evaluates some of the suggestions and comments we heard tonight. |
| 02:40:20.27 | Mayor Kelly | Yeah. |
| 02:40:24.03 | Mayor Kelly | Yeah. M Group, if you don't mind, I would just like to feel out what the process would be. Certainly. |
| 02:40:30.24 | Councilmember Ford | like, |
| 02:40:31.39 | Mayor Kelly | Yeah. |
| 02:40:33.01 | Jeff Bradley | Mr. Mayor, we came into this meeting with the understanding that there was a potential to do exactly what you're discussing, namely continue this item a week from today. And we're prepared to deal with that. |
| 02:40:49.10 | Mayor Kelly | Okay. All right. So do we have a second for the vote? |
| 02:40:54.00 | Unknown | Well. |
| 02:40:55.03 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 02:40:55.05 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:40:55.06 | Councilmember Ford | I have another question for staff, if I may. Well, if you do this, will that, if you do your revisions and you prepare for our 30th meeting, does that give you time to give this to planning so that they can review it? And what about the 10 extra pages that the task force didn't review? |
| 02:40:55.18 | Unknown | you |
| 02:40:55.35 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 02:40:55.55 | Unknown | been a good job. |
| 02:40:56.68 | Mayor Kelly | Just there, if I may. |
| 02:40:58.18 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:41:11.78 | Joel Paul | No. |
| 02:41:17.62 | Jeremy Graves | The 10 extra pages to clarify those, the task force requested the staff and the M group to make some updates in the transition from census data from 2000 to 2010. And from a staff perspective, those modifications were extremely minor. |
| 02:41:38.41 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 02:41:38.47 | Jeremy Graves | Okay. |
| 02:41:38.97 | Councilmember Ford | there are some between using the sensor |
| 02:41:43.04 | Unknown | for 2000. |
| 02:41:45.82 | Jeremy Graves | As a practical matter, those are background issues that are from the staff perspective what the council and commission should be focusing on are the policy items that Karen Warner went over, the goals, the policies, and the implementation programs. Those are the commitments that the city is making to itself and to HCD to move forward on, or is proposing to HCD that the city would move forward on if and when the document is certified. The background documents, whether there are, we have 600 individuals who are in this category, or 700, do not particularly swing the policy. |
| 02:42:32.80 | Unknown | OK. |
| 02:42:32.99 | Mayor Kelly | Okay. |
| 02:42:33.00 | Councilmember Ford | OK, but this is a public... |
| 02:42:33.58 | Unknown | That's... |
| 02:42:33.88 | Mayor Kelly | We're debating now. So any more questions? No. Okay. All right. So we have a motion on the table. Do I have a second? |
| 02:42:35.03 | Unknown | What? |
| 02:42:35.64 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 02:42:35.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:42:39.67 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 02:42:39.69 | Councilmember Ford | No. Thank you. |
| 02:42:44.75 | Mayor Kelly | How's that? All right. |
| 02:42:46.25 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor, I have a substitute. |
| 02:42:46.28 | Mayor Kelly | Mr. Mayor, I have a substitute. Now we'll go to one minute responses on the motion. |
| 02:42:51.15 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor, process clarification, if I'd like to make a substitute motion, would I make that now or would we have some discussion? |
| 02:42:57.71 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 02:42:57.96 | Unknown | So, |
| 02:42:59.35 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So I move a substitute motion to send this to the M group for revisions, the planning commission for review and public hearing, and then to allow a 30-day review cycle, and then to the city council for review and public input. The reason behind my substitute motion is that I believe that seeking public comment |
| 02:43:27.39 | Mayor Kelly | We don't need the reason because all we need is the motion. |
| 02:43:29.57 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Oh, Rosenberg said that we're supposed to state the purpose for the substitute. |
| 02:43:33.60 | Mayor Kelly | We get it. You said it already. |
| 02:43:36.20 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Point of order. |
| 02:43:36.22 | Councilmember Ford | Point of order is that we discuss this motion, if I recall. |
| 02:43:36.98 | Mayor Kelly | No. |
| 02:43:43.59 | Mayor Kelly | if I recall. But we need a second first. |
| 02:43:45.99 | Councilmember Ford | All right, I'll second. |
| 02:43:47.34 | Mayor Kelly | Now, let's begin a one-minute round of discussion. Three minutes. One, and we've already had three. So we'll just keep going. Not on this motion. |
| 02:43:50.48 | Councilmember Ford | Three minutes. |
| 02:43:54.97 | Councilmember Ford | Not on this motion. |
| 02:43:56.08 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. It doesn't start. It doesn't start. We did the three up front. And the way the protocol works is we go down to one-minute rebuttals. |
| 02:44:05.18 | Councilmember Ford | No, we have three minutes. I will ask our city attorney, but we have three minutes for discussion of each motion each, and then we have one minute for rebuttals each for as long as it takes to finish the discussion. |
| 02:44:20.23 | Mayor Kelly | for as long as it takes to do Let's wait a minute until she can look down. |
| 02:44:23.25 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:44:28.72 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 02:44:34.39 | Mary Wagner | The protocols that the Council adopted indicate that members will each be given three minutes to discuss the motion and thereafter one additional minute. The variance from your process here is typically you wouldn't start any discussion until you had a motion on the table. |
| 02:44:48.04 | Mayor Kelly | first on the table. So I failed. All right, we'll go for three minutes. It's going to take a long time. |
| 02:44:57.88 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you very much, Council Member Ford, and thank you, Mr. Mayor. So the reason for my substitute motion is that I believe we've come so far and that to punt and rush this through when, you know, we're hearing very loud and clear from the public that we need more time is the wrong thing to do. I think that sending this to asking for public comment after we've already sent it to Sacramento HCD turns public comment into window dressing. I mean, we all know that when Sacramento reviews this and spends the time to review it and then sends back their other comments, they're commenting on that document. They're not expecting us to listen to public comment, make new changes, and then submit a new document to HCD. I ask my fellow council members, please don't... Disregard what you're hearing tonight. People are sincere. They want to see a certified housing element. They want to see change. But they want to be included in that process. And I believe that having a final draft before us is different from having something in a task force level that changes every week. now we're at the city council planning commission level and I ask my fellow council members to seriously level that changes every week. Now we're at the City Council Planning Commission level, and I ask my fellow council members to seriously consider the feedback that you're hearing tonight and the input from people. Please give due process, allow them to be heard, and give them a voice. |
| 02:46:43.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:46:43.24 | Mayor Kelly | Would you please, please, please vote. Hold the applause. It doesn't affect us. It just takes time. Carolyn? Carolyn? |
| 02:46:52.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:46:52.86 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 02:46:52.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:46:53.03 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 02:46:53.12 | Unknown | All right. |
| 02:46:54.82 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I believe it's absolutely critical that we have the 30-day process, and I have heard no adequate reasons for not doing so. I've heard that you want to rush it through before someone changes their mind or someone stalls it. What you have here tonight is a group of people |
| 02:47:09.79 | Unknown | you |
| 02:47:18.70 | Councilmember Ford | asking for input. to disregard and be so disdainful to their request. is absolutely appalling to me. We need to give our residents the 30 days, the time to review this. We need to give our planning commission the time to review this. I don't know how many new proposals here, new programs. that are going, some of them are going to add fees to our already high fees that we have in planning. And we, I notice that many of them provide for high density housing. This town has fought against high-density housing for years and years and years high density building. We don't have the road system to support it. We have a traffic initiative for that very reason. We have just heard about the homeless issue and where we should put homeless housing. We need, M-Group needs time to answer our questions. The task force needs time to review that, and we need to get our input from the planning commissioners. The planning commission has a good deal to say about this. They are the ones, or should have, they are the ones who decide... and recommend zoning changes to our City This again, is a general plan Change. It's a change to our general plan. I don't know, and I challenge you, Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilmember Weiner. to say what |
| 02:49:14.23 | Unknown | So, |
| 02:49:14.26 | Unknown | Let's go. |
| 02:49:16.54 | Councilmember Ford | The reason is for moving this so quickly. What is in this document that we don't know about? |
| 02:49:27.32 | Mayor Kelly | Well, I hope you read it. |
| 02:49:28.74 | Councilmember Ford | I haven't had time to read it, to tell you the truth. I have not had the time to go through this page for page because I got it Friday evening, and Sunday was, frankly, football game day. So there you go. |
| 02:49:29.02 | Mayor Kelly | I haven't had. |
| 02:49:42.41 | Unknown | There you go. |
| 02:49:45.82 | Mayor Kelly | for each other. Okay. Herb Johnson. Okay. Herb Johnson. |
| 02:49:45.86 | Unknown | for each other. Okay. |
| 02:49:50.73 | Vice Mayor Leone | I'm not going to. Thank you. you Thank you. I think you take it as it comes here, and let's just see how substantive the comments are. I think you're probably not... You're never gonna satisfy everybody. That's just the nature of the legislative process. to be honest, and there are things in here I like, things in here that I think are not the greatest but I'm willing to live with, and that's compromise, and that's the way the world works. us, particularly in the legislative process. But I think if people have genuine comments, let's give them some time to go home. And if they didn't read it because they wanted to watch football, that's their prerogative. But I think as a council person, they have a different set of responsibilities. But, you know, which I read on Sunday while I was watching a football game. So you can, if you multitask. But plus, this is not rocket science. It's dance, but it's not rocket science. It's not a page turner by any means. At the end of the day, if you're If you want to incorporate an idea that you want to make it of people of different means, And I said this when I ran for both times. that if you want to have diversity of economic means in Sausalito, you have to have mechanisms that allow that to happen. You can't speak to it and not act on it. Do we need to act on it tonight and not let you folks or People in the Housing Task Force or the Planning Commissioner submit comments? But if you're earnest and you really do care about making comments on it, you'll make the time to make comments. That's my personal point of view. And I've been straight up with you each time I run. |
| 02:51:31.43 | Unknown | And |
| 02:51:35.98 | Vice Mayor Leone | in order to and have a diverse community. We don't have a diverse community racial but from an economic means we do. compared to many cities in Marin. and to make that a fact of life and to perpetuate that and to keep people being forced out, whether they're aging and on a fixed income, whether they're have a, have limited means. you have to adopt policies that enable that to happen. And that's my point of view about this whole process. So I think let's, I would urge my fellow council members to realize you don't have the votes. I made a motion. If you wanted to not sit here all night and argue, you're gonna take that motion and you're gonna adopt it because we have two people who wanted 30 days and you folks are willing to act more quickly, Neither of them are wrong or right. It's just a philosophy of how you move. Let's move into the middle, give it a week, see how substantive the comments are, and then go from there. So instead of wasting the public's time, let's do that. |
| 02:52:43.05 | Councilmember Weiner | you I, uh... I came on this council. six years ago. |
| 02:52:52.45 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:52:53.50 | Councilmember Weiner | I think most of you know my background. I came from a business background And from that business, I was in Sausalito in business for 33 years, opened up multiple places in Marin County and Sonoma County. and the peninsula. And one thing I did learn about the difference between business and government is And I totally respect the idea of process and transparency. Nowhere in government does it teach you about results. me coming from the business world that results are very important and That's what leadership is. We don't have it in Washington, D.C. We don't have it on the state level. but we can have leadership in our small little community, and that's what you elected me for. is to be a leader, all right? I'm here every single day. I went to just about every meeting in the last year for that task force. I read this document Friday night. Saturday. Sunday. even during the game, because that's how much work It took for me as a layman to really absorb this. and understand that. but I do know that our leadership that I have tells me to move these things forward. Get it done. All right? If you want to wait till... 10 days, fine. But we've done our homework. We have done. There were some changes, but as you look at them, minor. Thank you. All right. but I do not want this community to get the attitude not in my backyard. We should be leaders in this community. We should, and we're an aging community. It's about time that our aging community started using their wisdom instead of what they feel is best for them and not around them. |
| 02:55:00.84 | Councilmember Weiner | Thank you. |
| 02:55:00.85 | Mayor Kelly | So since the advent of this task force, there's been an attempt to try to make a plan that wouldn't work. The council had to reorganize the task force in order to get a plan that would work. We did that. We got the group on board. and the task force has performed admirably. What we're hearing tonight is an attempt to circumvent the task force and have this thing go back to the Planning Commission, back to the City Council, and go through the same process it's already gone through. And I guarantee at the end of the day, it'll look almost exactly the same. There is no high density in Sausalito. The only lot on here that's being called out as a potential development lot is already zoned in such a way that at least 18 to 24 units could be built on its two acres. It's owned by a private party and they could start construction as fast as they can get a permit through the city. It's zoned properly. There is no change in the general plan as relates to zoning. There would be text amendment changes which would allow this to be implemented and go through. Then we get to the fact that The consultant and staff will Prepare responses to the state's comments after 60 days that the state has to review it the task force will revise the element to address the state's comment and forward to the Planning Commission. the Planning Commission will hold noticed public hearings These hearings may stretch over multiple meetings The Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council THE CITY COUNCIL WILL HOLD Noticed public hearings. These hearings may stretch over multiple meetings, After adopting at the conclusion of the public hearings, the council may amend the general plan by adopting the housing element. And that actually has amended the text of the general plexus. We're not changing the zoning in Sausalito. No zoning changes are happening in Sausalito. After the council adopts a housing element, the adopted element is sent to the state for concurrence in the state and so on. So there's lots of public hearings going to be held on this document over and over and over. And plenty of time for all of you to weigh in. Read it every time. It's going to be a real boring, snoozing process, but it's a process. And that's what you've had to date. So I think that we're prepared to, I'm prepared to give a week to this. If that helps calm some of you to read it and find that what you're fearful of doesn't exist in the document because this task force has given rise to the things that were fearful and took them out. And I watched the meetings go from 120 down to seven last time. because all the scary things are gone. So I Thank you. I just don't see any reason why we should delay this, but I'll delay it for a week. |
| 02:57:36.07 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor, may I comment? One minute. Thank you. So we are not circumventing the task force, but we are circumventing public input if we do not allow ample time to review this very important change to our general plan. Because it is a change to our general plan, it requires the highest level of transparency. With respect to leadership, I believe in service leadership. There is leadership at every level. Every person in this room is a leader. We need to listen. What have we got to lose by waiting four weeks? Nothing. We've got nothing to lose by giving this the 30 days for public input. We have a planning commission full of expertise. Let them do their job. Let them review this with the public. participation that is required to get full review and full input. And then let's send our best effort to Sacramento. Let's not waste taxpayer money having HCD review a document that will change per public input, if indeed we will allow change for public input. |
| 02:58:46.84 | Councilmember Ford | Mr. Mayor. I'd like to follow up on Councilmember Pfeiffer's point. I still have not heard a good reason for moving this quickly through in seven days. I do think that the process took a long time, but considering that it took a long time, it deserves some time to review. Um, We... We're, True. We're not doing rezoning. That's true. in the sites as you mentioned. Mayor Kelly. However, The new programs that have been added here. have not been properly vetted. The devil is in the details. That needs to happen. And there are, in looking at these, it's hard to know what some of this means. It's a sketchy explanation and it needs to be ferreted out. Thank you very much. |
| 02:59:55.04 | Mayor Kelly | Any other comments? |
| 02:59:55.05 | Councilmember Ford | Mother. |
| 02:59:56.57 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor, I- |
| 02:59:56.59 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 02:59:56.60 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 02:59:56.72 | Councilmember Ford | THE FAMILY. |
| 02:59:56.93 | Mayor Kelly | Mayor, I've... Wait a minute. Wait. You've had a minute. You've had a minute. Do you want a minute? No. Do you want a minute? No. Okay. How many more minutes do you guys want to talk? Thank you. |
| 03:00:06.61 | Councilmember Ford | I don't know, obviously Council Member Pfeiffer wants to talk. |
| 03:00:06.68 | Mayor Kelly | I don't know. Yeah. |
| 03:00:08.00 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Bye. |
| 03:00:08.01 | Mayor Kelly | Bye. |
| 03:00:08.03 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:00:08.11 | Mayor Kelly | like |
| 03:00:10.43 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor, I just have one more comment that I forgot to drive home. I had heard mention that there was a site already zoned residential. I presume you're referring to Lincoln Butte. and you said it was owned by someone. It's my understanding it's a 50% ownership that is not split by property lines, it's integrated. I believe again Lincoln Butte needs CEQA, full CEQA review, and I believe again that this housing element needs full CEQA review to understand the impact of all of the little components in all of our neighborhoods because I think it could have tremendous, tremendous impact environmentally. |
| 03:00:51.97 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 03:00:53.19 | Councilmember Ford | One more point. Two more statements. One, I am tired of hearing about how the Council should take leadership, should be involved in leadership. You know, we all have been leaders in our lives. At least I have quite a bit of experience. And there is a time when you must look to the people who you are serving and ask what they want. And if there's ever a time for doing this, it's on this housing element that is so important to our community. So need to do that the second bit I'd like to address is vice mayor Leone's business about how important affordable housing is well of course it's important there's no one in this room saying that it's not important that's not the issue let. Let's not get sentimental and maudlin over something that is not even on the table that we're talking about. What we're talking about is time to review this important document. |
| 03:02:05.09 | Vice Mayor Leone | I'll just respond to that. I'll take that. You should have taken the time. You had the time and you chose not to take it. There were two years of your elected time to review the process and then you had the weekend to review the time and you didn't. You just admitted you didn't. |
| 03:02:18.22 | Councilmember Ford | Because... |
| 03:02:23.74 | Councilmember Ford | All right. I will respond to that, Mr. Mayor. No, this could go on to a little bit. I'm not going to sit here and be personally attacked. You should call people who do personal attacks. It's part of our Risenbergs and rules. |
| 03:02:27.47 | Mayor Kelly | What? |
| 03:02:33.86 | Mayor Kelly | No. It's part of our Rosenbergs and rules. Wait, wait, wait, wait. I'm running the meeting, OK? I cannot stop, and you can't either, anybody who wants to make a statement, whether it's good, bad, or ugly, it's freedom of speech. So what I can do is hold everybody to a minute. And we can stay here until midnight doing minutes back and forth while you refute his charges and I refute her charges and so on and we go. Or we can take a vote on this because that's really where it's going to come down. |
| 03:03:04.17 | Councilmember Ford | I want a minute. And I will say this. We, this is about Rosenberg's Rules of Order. Anyone who makes personal attacks on another council member needs to be called for it, and that needs to stop now. And it is up to the mayor to do that. It is in accordance with Rosenberg's rules of order. |
| 03:03:21.00 | Unknown | That's funny. |
| 03:03:25.79 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:03:25.87 | Mayor Kelly | Wait, wait, wait. |
| 03:03:27.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:03:31.31 | Mayor Kelly | Are we done? |
| 03:03:32.20 | Vice Mayor Leone | I hope so. |
| 03:03:32.91 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. Okay, I'd like to call the question on the second motion. The second motion was made by Council Member Pfeiffer, and it was 30 days and other items like CEQA and stuff. Can you stand? Whatever, yeah. You want to read back the motion? Does somebody have the motion? |
| 03:03:48.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:03:49.51 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:03:49.94 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:03:49.97 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:03:50.04 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:03:50.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:03:56.97 | Councilmember Ford | Give him. |
| 03:04:02.96 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:04:02.98 | Mayor Kelly | I can repeat. |
| 03:04:03.59 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:04:03.72 | Mayor Kelly | . |
| 03:04:03.79 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | We'll be right back. |
| 03:04:03.81 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:04:03.84 | Mary Arnold | Thank you. |
| 03:04:03.86 | Mayor Kelly | you |
| 03:04:03.91 | Mary Arnold | Thank you. |
| 03:04:03.92 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:04:04.03 | Mary Arnold | Thank you. |
| 03:04:04.09 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:04:04.18 | Mary Arnold | . |
| 03:04:04.42 | Lily Shinsing | you |
| 03:04:04.48 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:04:04.97 | Mayor Kelly | Can you read the motion back, the second motion? |
| 03:04:06.14 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | My substitute motion. |
| 03:04:07.98 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:04:08.11 | Mary Arnold | Probably not, but the basis is that Thank you. |
| 03:04:13.12 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:04:15.26 | Lily Shinsing | Thank you. |
| 03:04:15.30 | Mayor Kelly | Absolutely. |
| 03:04:16.51 | Lily Shinsing | Go for it. |
| 03:04:22.52 | Lily Shinsing | The motion was to send the document back to the Planning Commission for review and public hearing. There There would be a 30-day review period started at that point, and then it would go back to the City Council for review and public input. |
| 03:04:36.44 | Mayor Kelly | Okay, that motion was made and seconded. Would you call the roll? |
| 03:04:41.45 | Unknown | Councilmember Pfeiffer? Yes. Councilmember Weiner? No. Councilmember Ford? Yes. Vice Mayor Leone? No. Mayor Kelly? |
| 03:04:47.53 | Mayor Kelly | Yes. |
| 03:04:51.33 | Mayor Kelly | No. So now we have the first motion on the floor, which was to continue this until the 30th, and at that time have a public meeting of the council and vote on this issue. One way to do that. Okay, that was made and seconded. Would you call a roll? |
| 03:05:13.20 | Unknown | Councilmember Pfeiffer no councilmember Weiner yes councilmember Ford |
| 03:05:14.50 | Mayor Kelly | No. Thank you. |
| 03:05:16.54 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:05:16.64 | Mayor Kelly | you |
| 03:05:18.38 | Unknown | No. Thank you. Vice Mayor Leone |
| 03:05:21.72 | Vice Mayor Leone | Just to clarify, the action to be taken is just continuing the item. So, yes. |
| 03:05:26.95 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:05:31.08 | Vice Mayor Leone | Thank you. |
| 03:05:31.17 | Unknown | Mayor. |
| 03:05:31.19 | Vice Mayor Leone | or Kelly |
| 03:05:31.62 | Mayor Kelly | Bye. Yes. All right. That brings the meeting to close. And do I have a motion to adjourn? Thank you. |
| 03:05:38.97 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:05:39.37 | Mayor Kelly | THE END OF |
| 03:05:39.40 | Councilmember Ford | I have to close. |
| 03:05:40.30 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:05:40.37 | Councilmember Ford | you |
| 03:05:40.45 | Mayor Kelly | Oh, you have to close your meeting. |
| 03:05:40.64 | Councilmember Ford | Thank you. |
| 03:05:42.75 | Mayor Kelly | you So... I'm sorry. |
| 03:05:47.10 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion. |
| 03:05:49.99 | Mayor Kelly | We don't have an agenda item for a motion. We don't have a phone call. Mr. We're done. |
| 03:05:59.23 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | No, it's the Saints Project Matter. Okay. Is it the same motion? It's the same, no. It's regarding putting on the agenda the city-owned property, putting it to a vote before we... Do I have a motion to adjourn? |
| 03:06:03.70 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 03:06:11.23 | Unknown | Do I have a motion to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting? So moved. All in favor? Aye. Aye. We're done. |
| 03:06:16.01 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | you |
| 03:06:16.04 | Mayor Kelly | Hi. It's they're adjourned. Okay. I have a motion for adjournment. Second, second. So moved. Adjourned. |
| 03:06:35.16 | Unknown | I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. . Bye. . |
Unidentified Speaker — Against: Expressed confusion over conflicting recommendations for emergency shelter zoning (public institutional vs. marine ship) and noted insufficient time to review the 200-page document received recently. ▶ 📄
Joe Lemmon — In Favor: Advocated for affordable housing and criticized the plan for relegating 30% of affordable housing to liveaboards, which he described as substandard and unstable, urging a rethink to genuinely accommodate diverse residents. ▶ 📄
David Kleiman — Against: Spoke in favor of affordable housing but criticized the flawed process, lack of transparency, and unexplained changes in site selections, urging council to delay for proper understanding and avoid unintended consequences. ▶ 📄
Unidentified Speaker — Neutral: Questioned the screening process for home-sharing programs, expressing concerns about safety and potential issues like drugs or alcohol for seniors sharing homes. ▶ 📄
Ken Herisny — Neutral: Requested the council consider putting disposition of city land to a public vote, citing the complexity and lack of public involvement in the housing element process. ▶ 📄
Sonya Hanson — Against: Requested a 30-day review period for the public to examine the document, noting it was only released on Friday and not even available at the library. ▶ 📄
Susan Shea — Against: Expressed concerns about government process transparency in Sausalito, urged a 30-day delay to allow residents to download and review the housing element document thoroughly. ▶ 📄
Mauro Dossolini — Against: Opposed development at the Lincoln Butte site due to environmental concerns like water drainage and wildlife, called for a full environmental report, and criticized the omission of neighboring towns in the analysis. ▶ 📄
Sam Penrose — In Favor: Spoke in favor of civility, affordable housing, and prompt resolution, supporting the element as a step toward compliance with state law and environmental responsibilities under AB 32. ▶ 📄
Vicki Nichols — Neutral: Suggested highlighting changes in future drafts to improve public understanding, noted the document has been similar over recent meetings, and recommended more time for community satisfaction. ▶ 📄
Mary Arnold — Neutral: Asked about the voluntary nature and safety of home-sharing programs, and requested Appendix G be made more accessible for public data review. ▶ 📄