| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:02.60 | Unknown | okay I'd like to call the meeting to order Debbie would you call the roll |
| 00:00:08.48 | Unknown | Council member Pfeiffer? you |
| 00:00:10.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:10.04 | Unknown | Here. Councilmember Ford? Here. Councilmember Weiner? |
| 00:00:13.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:13.35 | Unknown | President, |
| 00:00:14.41 | Unknown | Vice Mayor Leon. And Mayor Kelly. |
| 00:00:17.21 | Unknown | Here, Fritz Warren, would you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance? |
| 00:00:22.64 | Unknown | I go first. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. |
| 00:00:25.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:25.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:25.78 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:25.93 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:27.25 | Unknown | of the United States. |
| 00:00:28.13 | Unknown | of America. |
| 00:00:29.56 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:00:30.95 | Unknown | Thank you. . |
| 00:00:41.17 | Unknown | All right, we have a motion to approve agenda. |
| 00:00:45.32 | Unknown | So moved. |
| 00:00:47.96 | Unknown | All right. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? None. |
| 00:00:50.23 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:00:50.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:53.96 | Unknown | All right, we'll move right into the first item of business and the only item of business. And Jeremy? I'm not going to be a |
| 00:01:09.02 | Jeremy Graves | Good evening, mayors, members of council, staff, and members of the public. I'm Jeremy Graves. I'm the Community Development Director, and I have the honor of kicking off tonight's presentation. Tonight's meeting is a continuation of the extensive public participation process for the housing element update. We are approaching our 50th public meeting. At the conclusion of last Monday's joint planning commission city council meeting, you decided to continue your discussion to tonight. Since then, staff has prepared a summary of the comments that were provided by the council, the planning commission, and the public at last Monday, and then also provided responses to those comments. The planning commission held a special commission meeting on Thursday to review the document and to provide comments to the council and those comments from the planning committee. The Planning Commission held a special commission meeting on Thursday to review the document and to provide comments to the council. And those comments from the Planning Commission are included in your staff report. As Jeff Bradley of the M Group will be detailing, the Planning Commission recommended three minor modifications to the implementation programs of the housing element, plus designation of the public institutional and the industrial mendship zoning districts for the emergency shelters. In contrast, staff and consultant continue to recommend solely the industrial marinship or a portion of that district for emergency shelter designation. If you decide to go in that direction, a portion of the industrial marinship could be defined during adoption of the emergency shelter regulations at the implementation phase. What you are reviewing tonight is the same element that you reviewed last Monday night at your joint meeting. In crafting the goals, policies, and implementation programs, the staff and the consultant have sought to retain maximum flexibility for the city while meeting the minimum standards for the Department of Housing and Community Development. In summary, we have a well-prepared document that is responsive to the community task force and planning commission concerns. It provides an emphasis on accessory dwelling units, liver boards. It contains no rezonings and provides maximum flexibility for the city. The recommendation of the consultant and the staff is for the council to authorize the staff to forward the draft housing element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for a 60-day review period. At this point, I'd like to hand off the presentation to Jeff Bradley of the M Group. with Jeff tonight are his team members Heather Hines and Karen Hong and then also at the staff table is Sit with Jeff tonight are his team members, Heather Hines and Karen Hong. And then also at the staff table is Lily Shinsing, our associate planner, who is the project manager for the housing element update. Ciao. |
| 00:04:12.97 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you, Jeremy. Jeff Bradley with Metropolitan Planning Group. Pleasure to be back here before you, Mr. Mayor and council members. |
| 00:04:13.22 | Jeremy Graves | Jeremy. |
| 00:04:22.10 | Jeff Bradley | we can... fire up the old projector |
| 00:04:46.69 | Unknown | Did you get it? |
| 00:04:51.68 | Unknown | I've seen new lights. |
| 00:04:55.23 | Jeff Bradley | I see something happening there. |
| 00:04:55.26 | Unknown | I see. |
| 00:04:56.78 | Unknown | We're beginning to see the light. |
| 00:05:00.20 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:05:00.22 | Jeff Bradley | So, |
| 00:05:32.15 | Jeff Bradley | So there's...I just want to start off with a quick overview of some of the documentation that we've changed since our last meeting. We've made Appendix G much more readable. It's printed out on several pages now for easier legibility. That's the list...that's simply the listing of all the sites that go into our sites inventory. It is important to note that... Once upon adoption and certification, this appendix would reside at City Hall. It would not be published as part of the document. Some members of the public expressed reservations about the level of detail in there, because these are people's properties and people's homes. And the task force agreed that we would simply publish a list of parcel numbers and addresses rather than all the detail. But it is important that we have the detail in there for now as part of the review process with HCD so we can document the level of analysis that went into that. And then also there is the memo summarizing the topics and changes proposed by the Planning Commission on Thursday. |
| 00:06:38.80 | Jeff Bradley | This is simply the first page of that Appendix G. It has the explanation at the top about how this would be separated from the document upon certification and kept on file at the planning offices. And then has the various data cells that have the information about each of the parcels. |
| 00:07:03.04 | Jeff Bradley | This slide was to kind of give more of a holistic overview of all the goals and policies that we've been going through sequentially. This shows visually how we have seven goals, and each one of them is all related to providing a housing element that both has a balanced approach to meeting the needs within the community and is able to overcome the various regulatory hurdles that are present for a housing element. |
| 00:07:04.74 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:07:04.84 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:07:04.96 | Unknown | So, let's go. |
| 00:07:33.19 | Jeff Bradley | And then each goal obviously has policies that go along with that. And this indicates the numbering system used for the policies within the document. And then we get down into the program level where we have the programs that implement the policies. And the numbers in bold text are the primary programs that support those goals. We've shown some that have been struck out with strike out text that have been eliminated by the task force. And then in lighter text underneath shows additional supporting programs that support those goals. |
| 00:08:16.44 | Jeff Bradley | So as mentioned by Jeremy, we met with the Planning Commission on Thursday at the fire station and had a very good discussion about the document, again, focusing on the implementing programs. |
| 00:08:31.33 | Jeff Bradley | And really there was four or five programs that took up most of our time. Program five is the condominium conversion regulations. And this is an existing program the city has, an existing ordinance that regulates condo conversions. And 90% of the discussion has been about the threshold that projects are subject to this ordinance. Currently the threshold is projects with five units or more. Originally, we had recommended that this be lowered to two, simply because that would more accurately reflect the very small projects that we see here in Sausalito. The task force recommended that to four units. essentially excluding a project's less than four or less. |
| 00:09:21.50 | Jeff Bradley | And to build upon Jeremy's comments, it is important to note that many of the programs, including this one, have a great deal of flexibility built into them. It allows the city to continue to evaluate and explore this concept. Nothing in this housing element would set this in stone. |
| 00:09:43.87 | Jeff Bradley | Program 17 is a recommendation that the city consider an inclusionary housing requirement. Typically inclusionary housing would require 10, 15 percent of units in new developments to be provided at various affordability levels. And once again, this program would require additional meetings of a task force or some other subcommittee to really flesh out the requirements. |
| 00:10:17.44 | Jeff Bradley | So those previous two programs we discussed got a lot of clarity on it. The Planning Commission generally agreed there was a lot of flexibility built into it, but they didn't actually recommend any changes. These next three, I believe, they actually recommended some text changes to the document, which we think fully makes sense and build upon what we have here. So Program 12 is the affordable housing development assistance. And there's some clarifying language. Rather than saying the following are among the types of incentives that may be provided, the Planning Commission recommended the following are among the types of incentives that will be considered upon request. And additionally, density bonus at referencing back into the document itself as described in Program 19 of this document rather than just a Thank you. simple description of the density bonus. Program 21 is a program encouraging that multifamily development in multifamily zones come up to a certain density threshold within that zone. The planning commission recommended actually stronger language rather than promote and incentivize. They said why don't you just simply say require the development of two family and multifamily developments within the zoning districts. |
| 00:11:40.24 | Jeff Bradley | Program 23 goes into a longer discussion, so I'll save that for next. Program 28 is an issue known as universal design and visibility, this is the idea that focused mostly on housing, that all new houses built and even existing homes that should be built in such a way that people with disabilities can at least visit the houses. American with Disability Act, ADA, is very strict and provides for that in commercial buildings and multifamily buildings but single family homes are actually exempt from it. So you can build a brand new house with steps and doorway widths that don't actually allow a wheelchair in, for example. And so the Planning Commission recommended a slight change. We had said visibility can be achieved at little cost by utilizing two simple design standards. And that's really only a true statement if we say visibility can be achieved in new construction. That was the change there. |
| 00:12:47.83 | Jeff Bradley | So circling back to the emergency shelter issue, we asked the question, of the Planning Commission for recommendation on either the public institutional zone, which the task force was recommending, or the industrial marine ship zoning district the staff and the consultants thought was the best choice. And they surprised us by saying, well, why don't you just do both? So that's the recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Council. |
| 00:13:21.70 | Jeff Bradley | And we had a good discussion about this issue at the Planning Commission, and they agreed that there was pros and cons to both. |
| 00:13:33.12 | Jeff Bradley | THE FAMILY IS quite a bit of discussion about the commercial districts and the viability of accommodating the shelters. The general consensus was that they were less viable simply because they were so small and so well integrated with the residential neighborhoods. We talked about overlay districts and the concern there was that we would be back to essentially rezoning property for that purpose. We talked about the objective standards that can be developed to regulate any such shelter that would seek to take advantage of these provisions. And finally, we talked about the idea of rather than stipulating the entire industrial area of the Marin ship, creating a sub-area, if you will, of the industrial area. For example, some distance from Bridgeway, 200 feet, 500 feet, 1,000 feet, which would become that zone. |
| 00:14:27.17 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:14:31.74 | Jeff Bradley | So as we talked about Thank you. A week ago, Monday, the emergency shelters were looking for one zoning district that can accommodate this use within the city. the city may obviously adopt development standards like they do for any other land use such as retail or restaurants or warehouses and regulate the parking and the hours and the significantly for a homeless shelter, the maximum number of beds or persons permitted to be served nightly by the facility. It is important, I believe, to keep in mind that when we talk about regulating the number of persons, that really should be based on an objective standard, such as square footage per person, rather than just a blanket limit that would be applied to every property, regardless of the size of the property. We had been asked to do more research about the churches in town. Staff called all four churches and talked to folks at the churches. And there is one church that provides services to homeless, but it's limited to hot meals on Friday nights. And the other three currently don't provide any type of sheltering or meals or anything like that. |
| 00:15:50.60 | Jeff Bradley | This is a slide we had last week where we had looked at what some of the other cities were doing, and the council said, hey, what about the other cities? So we flushed it out with the remaining cities in Marin County, and so just quickly, we're Puerto Madero allows emergency shelters in the public and semi-public zone and by right in churches and similar places of worship subject to compliance with specific standards. That's from a draft document. Novato has not yet decided on this issue. They obviously are currently undergoing an update process. San Anselmo will allow emergency shelters as a permitted use in this area along Greenfield Avenue in limited commercial zoned areas along Sir Francis Drake Boulevard where the property is located within one quarter mile of a transit stop. So you can see they're getting into identifying a zoning district, but then they're adding some modifiers to that, similar to what we were talking about with Bridgeway. And then Ross allows emergency shelters and transitional housing as a permitted use in the civic district. And then we just wanted to put up some of the factors that are typically used by cities looking at this issue and also supported by the HCD standards. And that is proximity to transit and main thoroughfares are relatively flat. And the assumption there is that's buildable land. Proximity to health services and grocery stores. And sufficient available sites in the zoning districts to accommodate an emergency shelter. |
| 00:17:29.71 | Jeff Bradley | This is the same slide from last week where we simply show the relative acreages in each zoning district, and both of the districts we're talking about here are pretty good size. |
| 00:17:43.12 | Jeff Bradley | So this is a map of the public institutional zone. I just wanted to quickly walk through these so everyone's clear what we're talking about. So going from left to right, the pink area obviously is the PI zone that we're talking about. This is the ferry terminal and related parking. This is the Spinnaker site. It's the existing police and fire station complex. The vacant Spencer Fire Station. City Hall and the park. This is public institutional within the Marine Ship area occupied by the Bay Model and the U.S. Veteran Affairs Machine Shop. This is the post office also located within the Marine Ship. This is the PG&E substation. This is the two schools, Bayside and Wellop Creek. This is the Public Works Corp Yard on the corner. And then most to the north, we have MLK Junior Park and also two schools, the Marine School and the New Village School. So as you can see, these sites are scattered throughout the city geographically. Some of them are large, some of them are small. and have a high amount of exposure to the existing residential neighborhoods, the majority of them. |
| 00:19:14.96 | Jeff Bradley | By contrast, the industrial marineship zoning district is isolated in one area. mostly segregated from the rest of the community by Bridgeway, made up of multiple parcels, but a single continuous zoning district. |
| 00:19:42.95 | Jeff Bradley | So just a... A quick comparison between the two zones, as we mentioned, they're both over 60 acres in size. The marine ship approaching 90 acres. Public institutionals scattered. The industrial is concentrated in one area. In terms of looking at the actual land characteristics. Many of the public institutional parcels have fairly steep slopes. Some of them are flat. The marineship property is mostly flat, obviously. In terms of accessibilities, many of the parcels within the public institutional are near bridgeway and near transit. Some are a little more remote. And then the marineship property, excuse me, zoning district is near bridgeway with the assumption that folks would have proximity to transit. And then in terms of sensitivity of surrounding uses, obviously this is a bit of a judgment call, talking once again about the relationship to the residential uses between the two sites. |
| 00:20:50.10 | Jeff Bradley | That concludes the presentation, and myself and Heather Hines and Karen Hong and city staff obviously are here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. |
| 00:21:00.69 | Unknown | too. |
| 00:21:03.19 | Jeff Bradley | Any questions? |
| 00:21:04.15 | Unknown | Thank you. Council Member. |
| 00:21:07.87 | Unknown | And it's me. |
| 00:21:08.80 | Unknown | you |
| 00:21:10.18 | Unknown | Um. I have one question of our consultant. Will we, the city, have a chance to explore further the homeless shelter requirements and explore further what we might want to do with those? For instance, if we wanted to say we want several of no more than 10 people, is that possible? |
| 00:21:44.74 | Jeff Bradley | The short answer is yes. The program involves specific language that would encourage the evaluation and consideration of one or more alternatives. We're focusing on one alternative, either the marineship or the public institutional zone. But as part of that decision-making process and development of specific development regulations, the city could look at different strategies to minimize the possible impact. |
| 00:22:12.84 | Unknown | And so after this comes back from the state, after their 60-day review, if we decided, well, whoops, maybe we don't want to include the marinship in this plan after further discussion at the planning commission level, is that possible to do at that point? |
| 00:22:32.34 | Jeff Bradley | Yes, I think as long as the city is moving in the direction of selecting one or more zoning districts that meets the requirements, the state isn't overly invested in what that particular zoning district is called. |
| 00:22:49.40 | Unknown | Thank you. Oh, |
| 00:22:52.27 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor. So my question is for Jeff. When you contacted the churches, did you ask them if there was looked at the feasibility of perhaps offering emergency shelters? I know some of them have very large basement and community meeting areas. I think that's the idea that Corte Madera has pursued with their churches. In other words, I know they're not offering that now, but is there a potential for that? |
| 00:23:26.66 | Jeff Bradley | We were on a very short fuse to obtain that information, and I believe Lily made those calls. So I'll let her shed some light on that. |
| 00:23:35.98 | Lily Shinsing | I didn't specifically ask that question. Some of the churches, I can't remember exactly which ones, volunteered that they were interested in the rotating program that some jurisdictions in Marin are participating in, but for whatever reason, haven't made that step. |
| 00:23:54.86 | Unknown | Okay, thank you. Mr. Mayor, I have a few more questions. So the other question I had was an earlier slide. It was on the visitability slide for, I guess, ADA, and it said for new construction. And I just wanted to clarify, was that requirement for It's a new construction. Was that greenfield, like, you know, ground up building, designing a new home? Thank you. you Thank you. Or was that for like someone wants to remodel their kitchen and they now need to consider visitability requirements and that? |
| 00:24:38.47 | Jeff Bradley | In this context, it was really making a distinction between remodeling activity, like you just described, and building a new house from scratch. |
| 00:24:48.44 | Unknown | Okay. Thank you. And so this is a new house from scratch, new construction. Correct. Great. And my next question is, I know that filters were applied when, you know, you came on board and all of those, our open space was being considered for development. And one of the filters was, I believe, steep slopes, topography, and that was the reason you ruled out Sausalito Boulevard. I noticed that there were very steep slopes. topography in Lincoln, as well as the creek. Were those factors considered at that site? |
| 00:25:25.90 | Jeff Bradley | Yes, we applied the filters without any kind of site-by-site discretion. In other words, we ran all the sites through the filters. And the filter we used for slope was 40 percent. And the slope information we have on the Lincoln Butte site you referenced has an average slope of 30 percent. That doesn't mean that some of it might not be over 40, but the way the county of Marin calculates the slope and populates the GIS data is an average slope. And so for that criteria, that site is still within our inventory. |
| 00:26:08.21 | Unknown | Okay, and one more question. I know that, or two more, a couple vacant, several vacant parcels you helped roll out, and I was wondering, is it, Um, is it common practice to document those parcels and explain the constraints and why they were ruled out just so that we take those off the table for the future. like our open space and a lot of the |
| 00:26:40.24 | Jeff Bradley | Typically, you don't spend a lot of time within the document talking about sites that are not advantageous in terms of meeting the goals of the housing element. Within the context of Sausalito, we had talked quite a bit, both with staff and the task force, about the advantages of documenting some of the reasons why some of these sort of high profile sites were eliminated from analysis. |
| 00:27:11.91 | Jeff Bradley | Currently, as it stands, the only place that is clearly documented is within the task force actions and through the minutes. Because the task force was very deliberate about removing sites, as you recall, as we went through the meeting process. But within the document itself, we don't have anything in that regard. |
| 00:27:31.32 | Unknown | Would there be an advantage to, you know, kind of clarifying once and for all so that, because sometimes these housing elements have a way of coming back? |
| 00:27:41.21 | Jeff Bradley | Right, and that's exactly the conversation we had. We wanted to avoid a situation where the city was kind of going through the same time-consuming process, you know, every five or seven years on certain sites. We could definitely include an appendix that says, hey, these half-dozen sites at first blush looked like good candidates for housing development, but for the following reasons, they were removed. It's not to say that future task force or councils obviously could revisit that, but it would at least provide a marker in time for what the thinking was. |
| 00:28:14.28 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:28:14.30 | Jeff Bradley | Okay. Is that what you were thinking? |
| 00:28:14.97 | Unknown | Is that what you were thinking? Well, I was thinking of just, you know, in some way documenting the constraints and the fact that these sites were considered not conducive to development. Just so that we don't keep rehashing, you know, the controversial nature of going through the same thing. |
| 00:28:21.50 | Jeff Bradley | Right. |
| 00:28:25.30 | Unknown | Right. |
| 00:28:29.37 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:28:29.38 | Jeff Bradley | Right. |
| 00:28:34.04 | Jeff Bradley | Right. And one of the biggest filters we applied, and it was really a theme through the whole document, is simply that we were looking at what's possible under the existing zoning and general plan of the city. And so a lot of the sites were, some of the sites had, for example, open space zoning. So right off the bat, those didn't make it through the filter. But there were some other ones that would, it wasn't quite as intuitive as why it was taken off until you got into the other levels of filtering. |
| 00:29:06.32 | Unknown | So, but they were removed for various reasons and constraints. Correct, absolutely. So that's just an interest of mine and I think anything we can do to clarify that. |
| 00:29:09.63 | Jeff Bradley | some constraints. Absolutely. |
| 00:29:11.25 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:29:17.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:29:17.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:29:17.68 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:29:17.85 | Unknown | you know these should not be a woodward, rodeo |
| 00:29:17.93 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:29:21.43 | Unknown | you know, all of those milk hay. The other question I had was the in-lieu fees for program 13. Do we know what this would look like or what percentage that would be or what? |
| 00:29:39.60 | Jeff Bradley | The biggest determinant of what the in-lou fees would be would be a nexus study that would be prepared by the city or for the city. And the nexus study would really establish the rational relationship between the impact you're trying to mitigate and what that in-lou fee would be. |
| 00:30:00.47 | Unknown | Is the Nexus study, is that a project by project, like a case by case? No. Or is that just... |
| 00:30:04.68 | Jeff Bradley | No. There'd be one, for example, if you were to update your zoning code to require an in-lieu fee and it says pay the in-lieu fee as adopted by the council from time to time, and then you go look at that schedule of fees. when you set that fee schedule for that purpose, the NEXUS study would be a global analysis of all the factors that go into setting that fee. And so it would be done once up front and maybe updated every five, seven years. |
| 00:30:35.61 | Unknown | And when would that take place? |
| 00:30:37.89 | Jeff Bradley | Within our implementation matrix, I believe we call it out within the 2013 timeframe. |
| 00:31:04.77 | Unknown | And a related question, is there a reason we don't do that now, just to have that data |
| 00:31:13.71 | Jeff Bradley | of a... Absent an in-loop fee program, there's really no need to do the Nexus study. |
| 00:31:23.47 | Unknown | But I mean, if we were going through with this in lieu of the |
| 00:31:27.79 | Jeff Bradley | Right. Upon adoption of the housing element, that would definitely be a work plan item to get that NEXUS study done. |
| 00:31:35.90 | Unknown | Okay, so are there any scenarios in which that would be in place before a housing element would be approved? |
| 00:31:47.39 | Jeff Bradley | Um, Typically, no, because unless there was some supporting policy language in the housing element, there would really be no basis for an in-lieu fee program. The city might have a park in-lieu fee program, and typically that would be based on fair market value of land that the city has to go out and acquire to provide park space. So it might be something of a similar nature the city has gone through in the past, but this would be specific to the cost of housing. |
| 00:32:05.21 | Unknown | City House. |
| 00:32:16.25 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. And my last question is, I noticed one of the bullets in the new ADU policy mentioned the possibility of parking reductions if near transit. And that gave me cause for concern, and I was wondering why that that was, I mean, as you know, I very much support the... second unit strategy of ADUs and in fact it's state mandate that we need to have a second But I would imagine a new I guess my question is why is there an assumption that people living near transit would not require parking? |
| 00:33:05.71 | Jeff Bradley | Originally we had a more general policy language to encourage or allow parking reductions for any ADUs, and we heard a lot at both the task force meetings and then real directly and loudly at the community meeting on December 3rd about some of the very real constraints some of the streets have. by adding one additional car on the street for an ADU resident could potentially have some blockage issues with the emergency vehicles trying to get through. And so we went back and thought, well, how do you balance these two things of trying to facilitate the ADU creation, allowing a little flexibility, but not creating a problem up in the areas that are most congested at the street level. And so we came up with the idea of, well, how about make it more limited or focused on those areas that can demonstrate some locational relationship to transit. And so that was kind of a qualifier to make it less of an overall blanket statement and more focused on properties closer to transit facilities. |
| 00:34:18.86 | Unknown | Thank you. What? Right. |
| 00:34:23.37 | Unknown | No, I was there Thursday. I got most of my answers. |
| 00:34:35.88 | Jeff Bradley | If I may, the question Councilmember Pfeiffer had regarding the timing of the next study, it is 2013. |
| 00:34:44.38 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:34:46.10 | Unknown | I just had a – I'm assuming in general that a lot of the details of the various programs And implementation strategies will be, you know, those come much later to the game when you get to the, not even at the state level, those are in the implementation stage of the city. So a lot of the details can be hashed out in this forum or planning commission or in a variety of public forums. |
| 00:34:54.45 | Unknown | strategy. |
| 00:35:09.59 | Unknown | But one thing I was that given that the changes that are proposed for the shelter language is just some clarification from what you had talked about last time. With the, I believe the wording that was used was to label, I know you clarified it later, sort of hotels. You were clarifying that wasn't commercial hotel, it's a temporary stay, whatever. How would that actually be implemented? You would create a new zoning definition, is that correct? A new zoning area, not an overlay, but within those certain zones, that would be a permitted use? Is that what the... |
| 00:35:52.88 | Jeff Bradley | Correct. Typically what happens within the implementation phase is first you'd have to define emergency shelter in your definition section within the zoning code. And then within at least one zoning district you'd have to list it, the city would have to list it as an allowed use, sometimes referred to as a by-right use. |
| 00:36:13.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:36:14.00 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 00:36:14.04 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:36:14.05 | Jeff Bradley | . |
| 00:36:14.41 | Unknown | So, and the implication of that and I'm not saying I'm against that, but depending on the location, obviously, is If it's a permitted use, then I come in for an application to construct something. So let's say it's public institutional, and this site is public institutional. someone could have propose a project, you obviously have to get the owner's permission, I would imagine, to build something on their property, in this case the city. Um, to propose such a use and then it's up to the owner of that property. If it wasn't the owner proposed, so it's public institutional, the owner is always the city. to do that. So it's not, even though it's by right, it's the owner of the property has some impact to it because there's some people that approached me over the time since last weekend and said that someone could just come in and they have to allow you to build it because you said it was permitted use. Obviously that's not the case. But at the end of the day, you'll have to accomplish accommodating that type of use through the planning period. Is that essentially what you're, what we're saying as a city going forward? I think that clarifies some things. |
| 00:37:27.04 | Unknown | you Okay, I have a couple questions. How many people attended the Planning Commission meeting? Just roughly. |
| 00:37:33.96 | Jeff Bradley | We had about 10 to 12 at the beginning, and then we dwindled down to about five public members, not counting council people or task force members that were attending. Did the Planning Commission take any action? |
| 00:37:39.39 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:37:39.68 | Unknown | you |
| 00:37:46.73 | Unknown | it. |
| 00:37:51.37 | Jeff Bradley | It was agendized for review and comment, but we ended up with something pretty close to a recommendation, a consensus recommendation from the Planning Commission to adopt the element with the changes outlined tonight. |
| 00:38:09.51 | Unknown | OK. And I'm just curious, Lily, when you contacted the churches, particularly the one that had the hot meals, did they say or did any indication about how many people attend the hot meals on any Friday night? You can ask Robin. |
| 00:38:25.05 | Lily Shinsing | I don't think that she did. |
| 00:38:28.89 | Unknown | I'll ask Robin. |
| 00:38:40.22 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:39:00.80 | Unknown | Okay, so the Presbyterian does a hot lunch and the other church is the the Catholic Church, which also provides meals. Okay, so that's for the record. Yeah, thank you. Okay, we'll close, we'll go to... |
| 00:39:15.41 | Unknown | this is a clarification, but not to Robin's point, but At one point, many of the churches in Marin County were discussing this rotating plan where one night a week, a church in each particular municipality or each night would host this and it met some problems in some communities like Ross. But that hasn't yet been finalized in Sausalito, if I'm not mistaken, is that correct? |
| 00:39:24.47 | Unknown | where we're going. |
| 00:39:24.76 | Unknown | Thank you. INCHGREDIT. |
| 00:39:40.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:39:41.38 | Unknown | So there will always be some place to go in Marin. |
| 00:39:44.76 | Unknown | Okay, we'll close questions and open it to public comment. How many members of the... probably want to address this issue. Okay. Thank you. Come on up. Go faster if you would line up against the wall a bit. That would be helpful. |
| 00:40:03.77 | Unknown | We'll give three minutes to each person. |
| 00:40:06.52 | Kim Stoddard | Could we go to Program 21? It's one more. Thank you. |
| 00:40:21.78 | Kim Stoddard | It's the other way. |
| 00:40:30.25 | Kim Stoddard | Hi, my name is Kim Stoddard and I was on the task force. And I have some concern about the change in the wording in Program 21, where they've added developed standards within the zoning ordinance that required the development of two-family or multi-family developments. when we sent out the questionnaire to a lot of the people in the community answered, and a majority of the people did voice concern about traffic and other issues. The density was a major, major concern. And we're talking about over 125 acres in Sausalito. And to require those neighborhoods to have two units or more in any new development, I think you may want to Take the teeth out of that a little. It seems a little... Harsh to me. |
| 00:41:29.20 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:41:29.21 | Sam Penrose | Thank you. |
| 00:41:29.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:41:29.43 | Sam Penrose | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:41:29.94 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:41:37.11 | John Sweeney | John Sweeney, resident Sausalito. I'm... interested in the commentary regarding what is referred to as the emergency shelter or homeless shelter. Last Monday we did discuss this And apparently the state will provide some kind of credit for having an emergency shelter. I'd like to know what that, how that credit works. Does it mean that we have less housing necessary or what? Uh, Also, there is a question regarding the the consist of the shelter? Is it like a little motel or... Whatever. It has sleeping facilities. Does it have cooking facilities? and also who pays for it. probably the taxpayers. Um, Also, I think, We may be getting an overflow from San Francisco of people that walk across the Golden Gate Bridge and use us as a homeless shelter. And what do they do during the day? This can be a problem in San Francisco. They hang out somewhere. They bother the tourists. So these are all questions that I would like to have discussed. Thank you. |
| 00:43:16.64 | Rick Johnson | Hi, my name is Rick Johnson. I'm resident of Sausalito. Thank you. and this is my first time to a council meeting. And the reason why is because I've always had a lot of faith in the council being elected to do what we would expect them to do, which is best for the city. The concerns I have with The housing issue are Zoning changes. and how those zoning changes could impact later on anything that could possibly be near and dear to my heart, and that's Schoonemaker beach and the area behind it. That's all part of the Marin shift. And that to me is a very, very important thing for the city to keep as it is. Not just the beach, but the paddleboard and the kayak rental. There's a certain feeling there that the city has. that it would be a shame to lose. I know that's all business park in there and we're not talking about you know, housing. I do believe the gentleman in front of us, or actually both people in front of me, I'll raise very good points with the density. traffic on Bridgeway, which is already a problem. And then secondly, from San Francisco, the homeless shelters could be used as they were in 1968. when everybody was kicked out of the parks. And they all came here and built houseboats. So. That's all I have to say right now. Thank you. |
| 00:44:59.95 | Jeff Wuznett | Hi, my name's Jeff Wuznett. I live at 211 Bridgeway. And first I want to say a very strong thank you to the task force and staff and City Council and the Planning Commission. This is quite a challenge and you guys have done a really good job. balancing things and trying to keep things moving, yet listening and taking input. Congratulations. One thing I wanted to address or just talk about was the parking issue. I know that Parking is an issue all over South Salido. The concept that transit availability will limit the number of cars in that area, I think is a little facetious. You just can't do everything in transit. You've got to have a car in order to do a lot of different things. You can go to work, you can come back, but sooner or later you need a car. And sasurro is hugely in terms of parking. There's very, very few parking spaces available. And even the addition of one or two cars in many regions, even if they're not blocking emergency site vehicles, You can't find space. If you can't park, you park somewhere you're not supposed to park, you get a nice ticket, or you get towed. It's really tough, so please, please consider that as far as your deliberations. Or perhaps consider some mitigation in terms of those people that have parking off-street and choose not to use it. Perhaps there's some programs that can be introduced there to encourage people to get off the street to free it up for those people that don't have any choice. Thanks. you |
| 00:46:32.32 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:46:37.45 | Michael Rex | Hello, I'm Michael Rex, local architect. I'd like to comment on the inclusionary housing regulations. In fact, if I can have you refer to page 22 of section 2. Uh, It's item 17. The first paragraph has states that the majority of regulations in other communities allow for payment of a housing in Luffy as an alternative to providing the required affordable units on site. And the way this is written, it kind of seems like either or. Either build the units or pay a fee. Many communities have found that oftentimes The fee is paid instead. It's oftentimes fees less than what it costs to build the unit. And I think we want to encourage that we actually get the units. So I don't think it should be an either-or. I think there should be a weight given to it. And I'd like you to amend that one paragraph, and I would suggest that for projects that require inclusionary affordable units, when it's demonstrated that it's not feasible, or not practical to provide the units on-site or even off-site, then as an alternative they could pay an in-lue fee. I think it's important we wait towards building the units rather than paying your way out. And the last thing, I do think staffs, and the idea of sending this to the state for their initial feedback to see what their issues are before we go through a hearing process is wise. Kind of test the water first and then we could, through the hearing process, figure out how to deal with whatever feedback they come back with. |
| 00:48:14.40 | Unknown | We'd like to. |
| 00:48:20.34 | Michael Rex | I think that's all we're doing here, and I encourage you to do that. Thank you. |
| 00:48:24.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:48:29.28 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor and Council Members, I'm Nancy Osborne, I live on Kendall Court. And first of all, I want to just amend Robin's amendment. because there is a weekly lunch and hot lunch served at the Presbyterian church. three churches alternate. monthly, so the Presbyterian, Catholic, and Episcopal churches each take a month, so every three months. And I've served at those many times, and they average, usually between 20 and 30 people, depending on the weather. And most of the food is provided by St. Vincent's, augmented by volunteers. But we come to find that A lot of those people, very few of them are truly homeless. Most of them live on boats. That seems to be the majority. So, but I have another question and that is the distinction between the word emergency housing and homeless housing. They get used interchangeably here, having been on disaster planning, EU and ZEGAL, the committee, in that case emergency housing was something entirely different was set up The Red Cross looks over it, I'm still not sure, but there were certain places designated as probable emergency shelters and they weren't to house 30 people, they were to house the whole, you know, a huge population. and had very specific requirements. So I feel that when you talk about emergency housing, if that's what it's titled, It needs to be separated from a disaster housing. I find it very confusing, and even here, People have used the terms interchangeably. And then my only other comment, and I certainly hope it doesn't happen, but I see that during this draft process draft review, there will be consultation with HCD and actually phone calls staying very much on top of it. I wonder how early in that process those communications Do you feel you will know whether We have. We're in trouble with the ACU and the living boards and if so, Does that mean we go all the way back to affordable housing overlay zones and those what I consider terrible things that were other alternatives, but I just kind of wonder what the timing is on during that 60-day period is knowing where we stand. Thank you. |
| 00:51:12.34 | Joel Paul | My name is Joel Paul. I'm a resident of Sausalito. This is a complicated, multi-layered housing element with a mountain of incentives for developers. to build market-priced, multi-unit, high-density housing for high-income people in excess of the state's arena. This is not about economic development or economic diversity. Pro-development groups and members of the Council are pushing the false premise that this will add economic diversity. and they are trying to characterize preservationists like myself as people who are trying to keep other people out of town, and nothing could be further from the truth. Of the 372 units that are covered by the plan, less than one-third would be for low-income households. Two-thirds are for people who earn more than the average median income in Sausalito, which is above $100,000. Nearly half of all of the units are designated for people who earn more than 120% of the average median income in Sausalito. In other words, a plan that masquerades as adding to economic diversity will in fact raise our median income. |
| 00:52:34.98 | Joel Paul | What is really disturbing has been the lack of transparency and civility that has characterized this process, particularly last week. The male majority on the Council has tried to intimidate the opposition Last week, They were condescending and rude to the women on the Council and to members of the public. Repeatedly last week, the mayor tried to cut off discussion. The notice for the meeting last week and this week failed to meet the minimum requirements of the Brown Act. in that the agenda must give a reasonable person notice to the subject being discussed 72 hours prior to the meeting. Most alarming has been the efforts by two members of the council. and some off-duty members of the fire department to physically intimidate people gathering signatures for a ballot vote. I would ask the city attorney to advise the council about the application of 42 U.S. Code 1983, which prohibits any official or person acting under the color of state law from depriving another person of exercising their rights protected by the federal constitution. |
| 00:53:48.03 | Joel Paul | Finally, I would ask the council to consider what I've asked only five times before, that they consider submitting the question to the public about the disposition of public land before they dispose- |
| 00:53:58.72 | Unknown | Excuse me, the topic here is The topic here is the housing element |
| 00:54:03.41 | Joel Paul | And part of that includes Lincoln View. And the Lincoln View property is owned by the city. It does not include anything to do with disposition, sir. Lincoln View is listed on Agenda G. Sir. It's part of Agenda G. Look at it yourself, Mike. |
| 00:54:05.33 | Unknown | and the link to your property is owned by the city. Sure. on the picture. |
| 00:54:13.28 | Unknown | You've got 12 seconds left. |
| 00:54:15.00 | Joel Paul | Well, I'm done. I hope that tonight the council can add more light and less heat. |
| 00:54:19.34 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:54:27.28 | Sam Penrose | My name is Sam Penrose. I moved into the houseboats 12 years ago. I'd like to thank everyone who served on the various committees and commissions very much. This is difficult work, and I really, really appreciate it. I'd like to speak briefly in favor of the element in general, in favor of the work you've done, in favor of this change to Program 21 that increases density, in favor of thinking not just in terms of what are the interests of the current residents of Sausalito, but what are our responsibilities as members of California, as citizens of California and the world, and generally against worrying placing too high a value on parking for existing residents and in favor of placing a great value on getting more housing into Sausalito and the Corbay area. Thank you. |
| 00:55:22.41 | Unknown | Thank you. Anyone else care to address the council? OK, seeing none, I'd like to come back to Jeff and ask you to answer a few of these questions that were asked along the way. The one that I think is I'd like to ask first is the communication with HCD and what your level of communication has been, what they do or do not understand about what we're doing here tonight, and what you see as risks and potentials going forward. |
| 00:55:50.98 | Jeff Bradley | you Sure. One of the first things we did working closely with staff was to schedule a meeting with our HCD reviewer before we really did anything else. I think that happened probably within two weeks of our initial engagement back in late September, mid to late September. And we're fortunate in that our reviewer has been assigned all of the cities in Marin County, so she is very familiar with the lay of the land throughout the county and the challenges of complying with the state law in this area. And so we invited her down to Sausalito, and she came down, and we met with her in that room back there for a good stretch of time and kind of laid out our general approach. And then we took her out on a site tour to actually look at all the constraints we're dealing with and look at some of the sites that we were considering for inclusion in our inventory. And she stressed, and we've and we've talked about this before in some of the previous meetings with the council, a balanced approach. And she cautioned against over-reliance on any one strategy and having a package of policies that support the approaches that you do have. And so we've kept that in the forefront throughout the process and have used that as sort of a guidepost as we've worked with the task force and the community to develop these policies. We feel very confident that we'll get a generally positive reading from HCD, but there could be some areas where they want to see some massaging or tweaking of some of the language, and obviously we'll have to deal with that. But I don't see a full-blown, you know, back to the drawing board kind of reaction. |
| 00:57:48.67 | Unknown | The issue of disaster emergency housing and homeless emergency housing, is that as clearly defined as it can be? |
| 00:57:58.51 | Jeff Bradley | I agree it's confusing. Unfortunately, we're kind of stuck with this emergency shelter terminology that is coming out of the statute. But I personally like to say emergency shelter slash homeless shelter so there's no confusion about what we're talking about. But we clearly are talking about a homeless shelter for short-term stays for folks that have no other housing options. |
| 00:58:24.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:58:24.87 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:58:24.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:58:24.92 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:58:24.93 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:58:24.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:58:25.04 | Unknown | Thank you. And is it true that we're asking for no zoning changes, no change in our general plan or in our zoning ordinances, except for definitions within the code? |
| 00:58:39.87 | Jeff Bradley | There are no rezonings proposed, for example. There are some what I would call very targeted text amendments, like we talked about last week, where after the city goes through this additional program development, whether it's with ADUs or liveaboards or some of these programs that require different mechanisms to be set up, those will require some amendments to the zoning code itself. But no rezonings of property or increasing densities. No map changes. Thank you. |
| 00:59:13.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:59:13.55 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 00:59:13.59 | Unknown | Thank you. Does anybody else want to clarify anything that was said to the public with the |
| 00:59:19.53 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor? Thank you. |
| 00:59:21.91 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:59:21.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:59:22.28 | Unknown | Just these are clarifications? These are clarifications, just things that were said that, you know, |
| 00:59:28.10 | Unknown | Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So my question is a follow-up to what was mentioned regarding Program 21 on page 2-26 regarding density. And the concern was expressed with respect to the change from promote and incentivize to require with respect to higher density in the multifamily zones. And I'm reading here it says by the establishment of minimum density thresholds and or varied development standards on a sliding scale. Does that mean that... per her concern that we're looking at in the R2-5 zoning area that if someone were to put two units that the density size of those units could increase from what is currently allowed? |
| 01:00:28.49 | Jeff Bradley | No, the dynamic there, it's a little technical, but I'll do my best to explain it, and Jeremy or Lily will bail me out as needed. Currently, the R2 and the R3 zones have a higher FAR than the R1 zones. And so the assumption is, you know, you're building a 2, 3, 4-unit project, and typically those are going to have higher lot coverages, higher total floor area ratios, also known as FAR, to allow that type of building. So instead of a limit of, say, 35%, it's maybe 60%, 65% or 80%. And so what can happen and what has happened is someone can come in and obtain one of those properties, properties, maybe demolish a small building or two on it, and build one large house at this higher FAR limit. Whereas if you had applied sort of the normal single family density limit or FAR requirement, it would be more of a normal size house. And so there's actually an incentive to do the opposite of what a pure housing plan would seek to happen, that people actually incentivize to build less, bigger, more expensive units. |
| 01:00:54.80 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:01:42.32 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:01:42.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:01:42.86 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:01:42.88 | Unknown | So |
| 01:01:42.96 | Unknown | . |
| 01:01:43.03 | Unknown | Yes, good. |
| 01:01:43.97 | Unknown | That's what I expected. |
| 01:01:45.21 | Unknown | I'm... |
| 01:01:45.28 | Unknown | Honey. |
| 01:01:46.49 | Unknown | That was |
| 01:01:47.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:01:47.62 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:01:47.74 | Jeff Bradley | comment. |
| 01:01:48.19 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:01:48.57 | Unknown | If I may, if I follow up with, excuse me, I'm sorry, Council Member Leon. It's the same issue, and I understand what you just said. And my question was actually different, because I understand the problem where people are coming in and they're building these big. |
| 01:01:51.50 | Unknown | Council members. |
| 01:01:52.09 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 01:02:03.06 | Unknown | single family McMantins on duplex lots and I understand that my question was is Program 21. You mentioned that currently the duplex zoning has a higher FAR and it can go to like 65 I guess currently it goes up to 65% of the lot. 65%. So does Program 21 increase that density? Does it go higher than 65%? I just want to clarify because that's what I heard, the concern. |
| 01:02:32.57 | Jeff Bradley | No. The idea that is being put down on paper here with the idea that there would be further evaluation and policy development on part of the city is that The basic development standards would remain the same But in order to obtain what is now the maximum, you'd have to build closer to what the maximum density would be. So when we say sliding scale, maybe if you build one unit, you get 35% FAR. If you build two units, the FAR goes up to maybe 50. And if you build the max of three units, maybe then it hits the actual maximum of 60%. So that's the link to the sliding scale language. I see. |
| 01:03:12.11 | Unknown | I see. |
| 01:03:15.79 | Unknown | I see. So we're not looking at anything that takes it higher beyond what we currently? Correct. OK. Thank you. |
| 01:03:21.72 | Unknown | Correct. Okay, try it. I mean, that's been the problem. It's not that they're maxing out the entitlements. They're maxing out the entitlements for a single family house against multifamily entitlements. And that's where it's run into, where you get a big single family house on what was supposed to be a multifamily lot. |
| 01:03:40.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:03:44.82 | Unknown | Right. |
| 01:03:45.04 | Unknown | So, I mean, maybe the wording could be phrased a little differently here because you wouldn't want to institute some sort of a taking, right? That's something we have to be careful about. But the wording here is more that if you consult a single family on a multifamily high a lot, excuse me. |
| 01:03:48.70 | Unknown | personal. you |
| 01:04:01.84 | Unknown | lot that you get the entitlements of a single family home. If you want to construct a multi-family, then you get greater entitlements because that's what it's zoned for. That would be my recommendation. It's been somewhat of a problem. I had a couple of questions just to follow up on some points that were raised. In terms of the categorization of different 372 units and some being most of it is a good portion of it is market rate. or thereabouts housing, right? There's nothing in this plan that changes the incentives to build market rate housing one way or another, as far as I can see, unless there's some different language in here that I didn't read. |
| 01:04:55.12 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:04:55.14 | Unknown | The zoning is remaining the same. The market forces will drive the construction to market rate housing. And I think the fraction, maybe Joel is correct, in terms of the fractions, I can't remember the numbers offhand, I think you said a third. |
| 01:05:01.53 | Unknown | I think. |
| 01:05:09.72 | Unknown | You know, the amount of that is There's a couple of different, there are a lot of different bands, right, of income levels, of the low market rate. and there's, you know, the I can't remember the definitions off the top of my head, but there's like four bands, if I'm not mistaken. So you can debate where you start getting into what's affordable and what's not, but The parts, there's nothing in here that encourages, besides what's in the existing zoning ordinance, the construction of market-rate housing. It is what it is. |
| 01:05:44.65 | Jeff Bradley | Correct. And I think the best place to look for hard data on that topic is Section 4-2, Page 4-2, which is simply a table of the total housing plan during the planning period, which is defined as this double planning period of 1999 to 2014, 372 units. And if you look at those four categories, very low, low, moderate, and above moderate, above moderate is the highest single number of units. It's 160 units, but it's still only 43% of the total. And our strategies with the buffer that we've recommended, we come up to 427 units. And just based on where the units fall, based on the methodology that we used and that's accepted by the state, actually 86% of our units are falling in the three lowest income categories. So this element is, like all housing elements, really encouraging those sectors of housing affordability that, left to their own devices, tend to not happen. And the market rate units are the predominant development type that you see absent some policy direction from the city. |
| 01:07:06.84 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:07:12.90 | Unknown | Okay. Michael Rex's point about the in lieu fees, and you kind of mentioned it to your last, is more how the city government sets those levels. Some governments have set them at a level which incentivizes the payment because there is such a discount versus the cost of construction. That would be. I'm not a huge believer in Lufies for actually making an impact on this, especially in high-cost areas. They tend to not give you enough money to actually accomplish something. especially in the number of units that are constructed in Sausalito in the course of a limited period of time, it'd be a long time before you accumulated enough funds to actually accomplish something. is in the implementation stage or would it be in this document that we would I guess you don't want to take Dean Luffy off the table as a, option, but you don't want to you know, as Michael said, create such a dynamic where it becomes a way out rather than a way to implement |
| 01:08:22.66 | Jeff Bradley | Correct. And it is a little bit of a tricky area in that most cities do like to see the units actually built as part of the developments because it just takes the burden off the city of having to go out and facilitate some other affordable housing mechanism. The tricky part is, absent an in-lieu fee mechanism, HCD could come back and say, you're forcing every single guy or gal who walks in the door to put a unit in their project. And in Sausalito, where we're talking about very, very small projects of two, three, four units, in most cases, it sometimes, quite frankly, is just infeasible. And so the in-loop fee is really seen as a relief mechanism for those projects that can't or won't include one in their project. And it is also very important so that you capture, you know, for example, if you had a 12-unit project and you required 10% of the units to be affordable, you know, that would be 1.2 units. Even if he provides one unit in the project, you want to get the fee payment for that.2 unit. And if you don't have an in-loop fee program, that.2 is just kind of out the door. So the in-loop fee mechanism, I agree with Michael Rex that it shouldn't be a pure discretionary decision on the part of the developer whether they provide the unit or pay the fee. There should be some discretionary decision making there by the city and some policy thrust to encourage the units in the project on the ground. But there really needs to be some mechanism for some projects to have that discussion about paying the fee or providing the unit. |
| 01:10:05.60 | Unknown | I have one more clarification. I think it's important because several of these programs have been mentioned tonight and we seem to be getting into the nitty-gritty of the programs a bit. It's important to reiterate that each of these programs will be discussed and go through the process where the public can give input and be reviewed by the Planning Commission. |
| 01:10:05.67 | Unknown | . |
| 01:10:05.72 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 01:10:05.84 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:10:05.85 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 01:10:05.97 | Unknown | you |
| 01:10:06.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:10:06.29 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:10:06.60 | Unknown | MOTIVATED. |
| 01:10:38.10 | Unknown | Each of these programs will go through that. And it might be helpful to know you know, when they're scheduled. Are they all scheduled for 2013? Or are we spacing them out a bit? How is that planned? |
| 01:10:57.22 | Jeff Bradley | Many of the programs are simply restatements of existing programs from your existing housing element. Some of them are new programs, but they're something the city already does as part of their day-to-day business. We're calling it a new program, but it's really existing practice. So really we're down to what we'd identified as 14 new programs. And of those, some of them are essentially set if this document is adopted by the council. There's, I would say, three or four that have received most of the discussion, such as the condo conversion ordinance, the housing inclusionary requirements that recommend additional evaluation and review by the city. I wouldn't want the council to think that every single one of these has like a working group attached to it and requires additional meetings. It's really a subset of those new programs that call for additional work by, for example, for one point there was talk of forming a new housing element subcommittee just to work on the ADU regulations and policies. But not all the programs have that level of work required for them. |
| 01:11:03.21 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:11:03.38 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:11:20.97 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:11:58.93 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:12:21.58 | Unknown | I'm concerned not about the existing programs so much as the new ones. Are they all slated to be addressed in 2013? |
| 01:12:31.15 | Jeff Bradley | We have a table on page 2- – it's a long table, and it starts on 2-36, and it goes on for four or five pages, eight pages. And it's basically an implementation matrix, and it has the time frame on the far right hand side for every program. And we tried to spread them out. |
| 01:12:57.14 | Unknown | man, you |
| 01:12:57.59 | Unknown | I see. |
| 01:12:58.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:12:58.40 | Unknown | AND WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO |
| 01:12:58.60 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:13:01.79 | Jeff Bradley | One of the issues we're having is even though this is a very long planning period, starting going back to 1999, in terms of implementation, assuming this document gets certified and adopted sometime this summer, we're really down to two years within the planning period to implement a lot of these policies. So we've tried to, within that planning period, spread out the workload so that the city is not overwhelmed with a bunch of program development all at the same time. |
| 01:13:32.81 | Unknown | Hey. Thank you. |
| 01:13:33.97 | Jeff Bradley | Okay. |
| 01:13:34.35 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:13:34.68 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor? Yes, sir. Thank you. So, we had a member of the public express concern regarding Schoemacher Beach, and of course that refers to the Marinship area. |
| 01:13:35.49 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 01:13:46.93 | Unknown | And I may have, I'm not sure if I have the latest wording since the Planning Commission and a couple of iterations. But I'm looking at in section, I think it's section 3F, Marine Workers. And it I think I attended the last housing element task force where they kind of did some rewarding, but currently it reads support of similar and other affordable housing options would help workers to live near work opportunities, and that sounds like it might open the door |
| 01:14:34.08 | Jeremy Graves | What? I'm sorry. Which page? |
| 01:14:35.85 | Unknown | Well, I have it on page 3-7. So it's? |
| 01:14:37.93 | Unknown | I have it on. |
| 01:14:45.27 | Unknown | which might have changed because of the version that I have here. And it's F Marine Workers. And the last sentence suggests that there could be... I just wanted to clarify that that sentence does not mean that there could be housing in the Marin ship. That we are looking at marine workers with respect to liveaboards. |
| 01:15:16.73 | Jeff Bradley | So I'm just going to read it, make sure we're talking about the same thing. Support, so this is Section F, last sentence of this paragraph. Support of similar and other affordable housing options would help workers to live near work opportunities and showcase the skills of local marine workers. That one? Yeah. Originally we referenced specifically liveaboards, but it gave the impression that marine workers had to live on liveaboards, and so the task force recommended that we make it a little more broad with the idea that if you're a marine worker, you don't have to live on a liveaboard. But we didn't want to say anything that implied that we were proposing housing within the marine ship, and so this is what we came up with. |
| 01:15:33.52 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. Thank you. |
| 01:15:38.55 | Unknown | it |
| 01:15:42.68 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:16:00.58 | Unknown | I think that makes sense, you know, because the marine workers may not be living on boats. But I'm wondering if we couldn't add something just to clarify, you know, the concern that, you know, we're not opening things up. in the Marin ship. that we're not going towards a zoning change. |
| 01:16:24.29 | Jeff Bradley | Okay, Lily pointed out we have a corresponding program, number 29, that has similar language, and we changed it there so we could make that same change in this descriptive paragraph. |
| 01:16:36.68 | Unknown | So program 29, I believe the wording change was to refer to elsewhere in Sausalito. My recollection was correct from the Housing Task Force meeting. That's not the same as saying not in the Marin shift. |
| 01:16:48.86 | Unknown | you |
| 01:16:48.91 | Jeff Bradley | This is... |
| 01:16:52.86 | Jeff Bradley | This one may not get us there, but this one, this track change version for the actual program language has support of similar and other affordable housing options would help workers to locate in Sausalito and showcase the skills of local marine workers. We could say something to the extent of consistent with existing zoning. |
| 01:17:10.21 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:17:13.62 | Unknown | Good morning. Yeah, that would be good. Just to clarify that it's not, we're not talking about, you know, the new development |
| 01:17:22.70 | Unknown | Does that sound wrong enough as it's written the second time? If it's not. Because it doesn't, the zoning is, we're not changing the zoning to allow |
| 01:17:28.27 | Unknown | I mean... |
| 01:17:32.22 | Unknown | Right. |
| 01:17:32.69 | Unknown | Right. So it would be fine this way. |
| 01:17:32.92 | Unknown | Right. Right. I mean, if he added that, it sounds clear to me. Yeah. |
| 01:17:35.20 | Unknown | Okay. Thank you. |
| 01:17:38.27 | Unknown | Thank you. All right. Any more comments, questions? Thank you. |
| 01:17:44.25 | Unknown | One last clarification just so people are on the same page. As far as the designs of these shelters over to be designed at the time they're constructed, But typically, they're not Correct me if I'm wrong. well maybe you should just tell me what they're usually designed for as far as cooking facilities or whatever else. They're not permanent dwellings, they're temporary. |
| 01:18:01.12 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:18:06.83 | Unknown | they're not necessarily meant to be, this is my unit with a stove, or you tell me what the reality of it is. |
| 01:18:13.74 | Jeff Bradley | Correct. Emergency shelters are typically designed to provide strictly overnight accommodations. Some shelters don't even allow people within the shelter except during essentially sleeping hours. So you don't have a lot of amenities associated with a normal residential living area. |
| 01:18:36.26 | Unknown | And just a clarification, am I correct that there's no obligation of the city to build these shelters? Correct. Thank you. All right, seeing no more questions, we're going to bring this up here, and I'm going to make a motion that the staff recommends City Council to authorize, or rather the City Council authorizes staff to submit the draft housing element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for its 60-day review. Can I have a second? |
| 01:19:04.12 | Unknown | I'll say. |
| 01:19:04.93 | Unknown | Thank you. Do we have discussion? Three minutes and one-minute rebuttals. Who would like to go first? |
| 01:19:13.75 | Unknown | We had discussion. Thank you. |
| 01:19:15.76 | Unknown | for discussion. |
| 01:19:16.59 | Unknown | I would just get back to this language here, which I'm all for closing this loophole down, but I think what you really want to get to is what was discussed, that if you build a single family, you get single family entitlements. If you build multi-family, you get multi-family entitlements. And maybe reword this as such, but I would also, if you want to make it stronger, you would say discourage the construction of single family homes and multi-family lots. |
| 01:19:40.97 | Unknown | Oh. |
| 01:19:41.06 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:19:41.38 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:19:42.73 | Unknown | but when they go through the approval process, your entitlements match what you're building, you don't over-incentivize the McMansion kind of thing. I... I think that was my main language as far as language changes here. I think some of the languages that were brought up in Lufies, if we could change that before submittal. Sorry, I'm out of it from a cold. and then the rest of them I'll think of later. |
| 01:20:22.18 | Unknown | Okay. That was not his 10 minutes. and staff what to put in the report. So anybody else want to? |
| 01:20:27.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:20:27.50 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:20:27.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:20:31.43 | Unknown | Yes, so I'm sorry. |
| 01:20:32.26 | Unknown | advice. of the |
| 01:20:34.85 | Unknown | So that was just a clarification of your motion, and you're content with that clarification? I am content with that clarification. And you accept it as well? Yep. |
| 01:20:35.36 | Unknown | So, we're going to be right here. That was the chartification. Right. I'm content with that kind of thing. So... |
| 01:20:46.16 | Unknown | Thank you. Does that okay with you? |
| 01:20:47.34 | Unknown | So are there any other motions, I guess, to the next question? |
| 01:20:47.49 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:20:47.95 | Unknown | All right. |
| 01:20:50.73 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor, just so that we make sure we understand what the motion was. was the motion to include the changes that were recommended by the Planning Commission and the members clarification on a further change that was being recommended to that program 21? |
| 01:21:01.36 | Unknown | being recommended. I think we want to make some more clarifications. I would like to... Well, you go ahead. I think I'd like to... |
| 01:21:05.41 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:21:13.73 | Unknown | consider eliminating the marineship. We can always add it back in later. I think we have to. |
| 01:21:18.83 | Unknown | This is for the shelter land. Yeah. |
| 01:21:19.91 | Unknown | Yeah. Let's err on this side of caution and just leave it PI. |
| 01:21:24.97 | Unknown | I think the Corte Madera language, if we could flip back to that, is actually, and it leaves it up to the churches, it's not a requirement that the places of worship adopt this, but if this language is at the top, if they so choose, |
| 01:21:27.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:21:29.95 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:21:30.03 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 01:21:38.86 | Unknown | um, I know some of them have thought about it over the years, but right now it's precluded. |
| 01:21:44.60 | Unknown | Right. |
| 01:21:45.90 | Unknown | this is something that gives them the |
| 01:21:47.43 | Unknown | So, |
| 01:21:47.89 | Unknown | the option as well as the, we don't have a semi-public zone but just the public institutional I would call them all places of worship rather than We should be as PC as possible, I suppose. Yeah, that's the regular one. But we don't have a lot of designated places for it. |
| 01:22:00.36 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:22:00.41 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:22:00.68 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:22:04.17 | Unknown | So there were |
| 01:22:04.80 | Unknown | Whatever the zoning language is in the current zoning code. |
| 01:22:04.81 | Unknown | you |
| 01:22:04.90 | Unknown | Whatever. |
| 01:22:07.94 | Unknown | So are you suggesting it would be PI and places of worship? |
| 01:22:12.64 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:22:12.80 | Unknown | They're similar. |
| 01:22:12.86 | Unknown | FIGHTING. |
| 01:22:13.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:22:13.25 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:22:13.30 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:22:13.32 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:22:13.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:22:13.40 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:22:13.45 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:22:13.56 | Unknown | under this program. |
| 01:22:13.72 | Unknown | What is this? |
| 01:22:14.03 | Unknown | program. |
| 01:22:14.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:22:15.02 | Unknown | Obviously, the places of worship aren't in the PI, so it would be... |
| 01:22:18.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:22:19.46 | Unknown | Right. In addition to? Okay. Yes. |
| 01:22:22.11 | Unknown | . |
| 01:22:22.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:22:22.19 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:22:22.45 | Unknown | As to the Planning Commission items, there were three, I believe, Program 12, 21, and 23. Mm-hmm. Okay. There were three Planning Commission recommendations that I would include, which would be 12, 21, and 23, with exclusion of marineship from number 23. |
| 01:22:31.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:22:45.15 | Unknown | and the inclusion of churches. you |
| 01:22:47.41 | Jeremy Graves | Yeah. |
| 01:22:48.23 | Unknown | Thank you. How do you define them? Yeah. Thank you. And, um, I think that's it, right, Jeremy? |
| 01:22:59.25 | Unknown | I just put it through those slides, so clarifying one at a time. |
| 01:23:00.92 | Unknown | Thank you. HAD A LITTLE BIT. So much. |
| 01:23:03.54 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:23:04.10 | Unknown | Lily? Oh, good. |
| 01:23:08.65 | Lily Shinsing | I just had a question about Council Member Leon's. When you were talking about the in-lieu fees, we didn't quite catch that. |
| 01:23:15.17 | Unknown | Oh, right. Sure. I don't think it was a planning commission point. It's a point that was raised tonight. So as far as the exact language that you should adopt, Can you read the current section of Red O'Hamm in front of you where we discussed, I know you read earlier of Dan Luffy, because you responded to Michael's point. |
| 01:23:49.14 | Jeff Bradley | Were you referencing the sentence, the majority of these regulations allow for payment of a housing in-loop fee as an alternative to providing the required affordable units on site? |
| 01:23:59.31 | Unknown | So this is still, you would come up with a program later to implement this, right? Right. So I think the proper language that we might adopt that would give us the flexibility to craft it as we see fit in the public process would be something to the effect that Fossilito encourages the development of these affordable units, but in cases where it would encourage the, because this is the whole idea of sprinkling them throughout town. |
| 01:24:02.72 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 01:24:02.74 | Jeff Bradley | to employ. |
| 01:24:03.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:24:04.19 | Jeff Bradley | Right. |
| 01:24:28.39 | Unknown | Um, but in cases where there is either some hardship or some other site-specific that age. or constraint. that in the Luffy will be considered um, And that in loop, he would be set through the normal nexus process. |
| 01:24:48.42 | Unknown | Thank you. Mr. Mayor, could I suggest... |
| 01:24:52.37 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 01:24:52.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:24:52.99 | Unknown | Just one minute. |
| 01:24:56.03 | Unknown | May I suggest, and I think all these comments are good, but since they are going to be going through the public, through the process, that we leave this to public comment, the Planning Commission, and then we'll be seeing it once again before it's final. So I think we could spend a lot of time here tonight going through the various programs, and I think we should just leave that for the future. |
| 01:25:23.30 | Unknown | My motion is to pass this on to HCD with the changes we've just said. |
| 01:25:29.42 | Unknown | And I second that. |
| 01:25:30.42 | Unknown | I should. |
| 01:25:32.11 | Unknown | I second the amended motion. I believe you had it amended. |
| 01:25:34.15 | Unknown | I believe you had Thank you. |
| 01:25:36.04 | Unknown | to us. |
| 01:25:36.34 | Unknown | Yes, yes. We're going to see it then. Yes, I know. That's what I'm saying. Let's not get into the nitty-gritty changes here now. No, no, no. |
| 01:25:36.36 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:25:36.97 | Unknown | Yes, I know, that's what I'm saying. |
| 01:25:39.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:25:39.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:25:41.83 | Unknown | No, but I just wanted to include the Planning Commission's ideas in there because they agreed. I think we all agreed, and then there were a couple of minor changes that we just talked about. Of course. I mean, we've got a lot of chance, as you know, to go after that. |
| 01:25:45.67 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 01:25:53.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:25:53.98 | Unknown | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 01:25:55.58 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor, I have a clarification for the M group, a question. |
| 01:25:56.78 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 01:26:01.18 | Unknown | So did I understand you to say that our RENA allocation was 372, but the number of units in this housing element is 427? |
| 01:26:15.46 | Jeff Bradley | That's correct. |
| 01:26:16.37 | Unknown | And did I understand you to confirm that our RHNA allocation was 25% very low income bracket and that this housing element takes that to 86%? |
| 01:26:32.65 | Jeff Bradley | No, the percentage I referenced was 57%, and that included very low, low, and moderate. |
| 01:26:39.73 | Unknown | 57% for RHNA. |
| 01:26:42.68 | Jeff Bradley | 57% of the 372. |
| 01:26:46.05 | Unknown | and that this takes it to 86%. |
| 01:26:48.97 | Jeff Bradley | The, uh, the, correct. |
| 01:26:49.55 | Unknown | Okay. Thank you. |
| 01:26:53.55 | Unknown | Okay, we have three minutes for each person. Can we speak their piece? Mr. Mayor? |
| 01:26:58.56 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor? Sure. First of all, I would like to thank the Planning Commission for holding a special meeting. I regret that they weren't given the standard time to review the document, but nonetheless, I think their input has been extremely valuable. Although the process was seriously flawed, the final report reflects the use of ADUs and liveaboards that Councilmember Pfeiffer has pushed so hard for, which I wholeheartedly support, and which I believe most of the residents support. There are no affordable housing overlay districts or major zoning changes, and this is wonderful. The consultants have included the programs they feel are necessary to get the document approved based on our unique approach of using ADUs and liveaboards. The programs will be developed and approved through the standard process with Planning Commission review, public input, and this process will also be applied to the homeless shelter. And I think the comments brought forward here tonight have been very good, and I expect that the public will continue to be involved in the process. Nothing can happen to the Butte-Lincoln site under the new housing element that couldn't happen right now. Any proposed development for this property must go through the standard process with CEQA review. So that is reassuring. Um, Sausalito got all of this largely because of Councilmember Pfeiffer's tenacity about ADUs and liveaboards. We got the consultants who thought it could be done largely due to her research on which consultants had the courage and competence to address the housing element with creativity and sensitivity for our specific circumstances. I would like to thank staff and particularly Joan Cox and the Housing Element Task Force for their hard work, perseverance, and support of this approach. The residents who tirelessly participated in the process and certainly thank Sausalito, I also thank. And again, the Planning Commission for fixing our flawed process by holding their own special meeting. And finally, a big thank you goes to our consultants for having the creativity and courage to push for this unique plan tailored to our community. Thanks. |
| 01:29:49.65 | Unknown | Next. |
| 01:29:52.89 | Unknown | Yeah, I also agree. I want to thank the Planning Commission for its import. M group. for doing an excellent job. but most importantly, Thank you. the Housing Task Force. Kim's here. Ray's here. You've done an outstanding job. You came in about a year ago. And, when in my opinion, the task force was really in somewhat of a disarray. I think you've all worked together, and it's a group of eight people that live in this community. Let's see if I can remember their names. Get Mike Kelly, Kim Stoddard, Ray Withy, Susan Cleveland Knowles, Chris Vischer. You might have to help me out on a couple, but it'll come to me. Steve Flehi, Joan Cox. |
| 01:30:56.66 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:31:00.97 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:31:01.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:31:01.94 | Unknown | and stand bare. Eight people. that live in this community, residents of this community. And they're the ones that really, really work very, very hard through all of the 46 meetings and all the other meetings to really make this come to this point. M group came in at the right time. and really did a great job. But once again, I go back to that task force and they really worked hard on it. Not individuals, but a task force that worked all together, and that was the purpose of it. So thank you. |
| 01:31:38.97 | Unknown | Council Member. from |
| 01:31:45.80 | Unknown | Um... Thanks for calling all those folks out. Everyone put in a lot of hard work. And I think it's, in my mind, it's important not to forget having been part of the Project Homeless Connect that we've hosted here at least twice, that there's a spectrum of people in need. Yes, there are people who are truly homeless and living on the streets, but in that spectrum, There are people who are just trying to restart their lives after some very serious problems, living out of their car, and some of it is just they want to get back on their feet and they can rejoin the community. And there are others that are just living at less means than most of us in this particular town. And we owe it to ourselves and to them, both as members of the human race and as the kindness of our hearts to help them both whether they're living on a fixed income or they're struggling to make ends meet, to bring them into our community and to welcome them. And I think this document, to the best of our ability, does that. Most of the policies in here are policies that existed before, and they've been tweaked and updated to the current day, including the LIPA boards and ADUs. They were part of the last approved housing element, and they were part of even the draft housing element that both the... people of Sausalito and the state did not support. that never went into effect in this skip cycle that we had. So those policies have existed, and they are not, they're a big part of this, and there's been some good work that were done there, but they're not the only part of it, and that's the important part, that there's a lot of incentives, there's a lot of means to create the possibility that some of these units will be, that these units will be constructed over time in a way that has less impact throughout the city. |
| 01:33:40.10 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:33:40.22 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:33:40.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:33:52.75 | Unknown | And I think the city learned that going through the last round of the housing element, what was it, six years ago. So I think it's a good start. We'll have many more bites at the apple here, and I'm sure there'll be things that the state likes and doesn't like, and we'll have to react to that and do so in a way that works for our town the best. And I hope the kind of... Us and them or the not in my town, or people just trying to make this into more of an issue to stand on, I hope that subsides. And we realize that this is just something that we all need to do because it's the right thing to do. |
| 01:34:42.69 | Unknown | Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I want to thank so many people because this has been such a long journey. I want to thank City staff and Lily for the tireless work, the long hours. I want to thank Heidi Burns who worked on this in the beginning. Lily, I remember standing in the sweltering heat, folding hundreds of second unit surveys with Kim and Steve Flayhive and Chris Vischer and city staff all came together. Jeremy, thank you very much for your contributions. And just getting that out despite the odds. First ever survey of second units and the Housing Element Task Force just did a fantastic job. I want to thank the liveaboards. I want to thank the Marina owners who opened up to us and talked to us and were so receptive to our interviews. I want to thank the staff and the staff Let's see. I don't want to forget anybody. The Planning Commission for rearranging their schedules to review this housing element, even though they were not part of the original review process once we finished that joint meeting. I'm also very happy that the Planning Commission recommended CEQA for Lincoln Butte and CEQA for the whole housing element. I think that's very important for environmental impact. And I want to thank most of all, all of you, all of everybody who's here, all of the residents who got involved in the process and are responsible for bringing the M group here for us and who are responsible for making this housing element more than it was on the track to be. Having said that, I do have, I still have some concerns. I think many parts of it I really like, but parts of it I really like, but I still have some concerns. I think many parts of it I really like, but I still have some concerns with respect to, for example, Lincoln Butte. I have some concerns from the beginning I've expressed the use of our churches for the homeless shelters. I think the homeless, the churches have done so much in outreach for the homeless and have such strong programs with their hot meals and I know that they're interested in serving the homeless in Sausalito. And I would have liked to see that a little bit more concrete in submitting this to the state as opposed to looking at the PI zones. And I also think that one of the things we got from the Planning Commission review is |
| 01:37:47.48 | Unknown | is a stronger... Thank you. Before you call the vote, just a clarification. Wait, I'm talking. It's my church. Oh, okay. I just wanted to clarify that we did put the churches, I thought. The churches are in. |
| 01:37:52.63 | Unknown | with. |
| 01:37:52.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:37:52.90 | Unknown | I'm talking smudger. |
| 01:37:58.23 | Unknown | The churches are in. Yeah. You know, I've thanked everybody before at the task force level at the last council meeting. And so I'll just say it again. Thank you to M Group. Thank you to staff. |
| 01:37:59.64 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:38:11.67 | Unknown | labored and of course thank you to the task force and all the work that went on. I want to make sure that we all understand something, that we have prepared a housing element which is, in my view, fully balanced, but with a preponderance of the kind of special things that occur in Sausalito, such as the ADU possibilities, which are now by law banned in the city, but will not be in the future. And we've also included the liveaboards. probably I think were the single largest Marina facility if you count all the berths here and around the whole bay. So it was appropriate that we have liveaboards be a part of it. When I worked on this in 2006 with Paul Albritton and others, we had ADUs and liveaboards on the menu. We just collapsed in the face of enormous political pressure at the end without the resources or the will to go on and have our element certified at that time. Now we're moving forward and we're not to be deterred. CEQA, by the way, is not required of any housing element either at the ABAG level or at the city level. CEQA applies to individual specific projects at the project level. So there is no requirement for CEQA here, nor is there any contained in our elements. Um, The task force had a tough time. It started out trying to do the entire program in liveaboards and ADUs. And it was clear to me that that would not work in this city. would throw our plan out and then it would be doubly hard to get it done. So we reorganized the task force as it was failing and brought it to a different level of supervision and purpose. And at that point, the task force began to consider what to do. We decided to hire a consultant. We went out and publicly surveyed seven, eight, several firms, and we ended up with a citizen's task force that picked the M group. And the M group has been terrific. Everything that might have been said about them before is true to an exponential power. They've done an enormously wonderful job. This is, so what was said tonight by Joel Paul I must take exception to. It is ludicrous and misleading to suggest that this plan encourages market rate development and that it's designed for developers. It's the opposite. The plan encourages affordable housing that would otherwise not likely get built. And by the way, none may get built in the city. It is the truth. And then last but not least, Thank goodness we've created a balanced approach, which is likely to gain approval with minimal changes, and our city can move on to other important issues. Thank you. So let's go for the vote. unless somebody has a rebuttal. Okay, call the roll. |
| 01:40:57.78 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor, I would like to comment. |
| 01:40:59.84 | Unknown | THE END OF THE |
| 01:41:00.11 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:41:01.33 | Unknown | briefly. I just want to acknowledge |
| 01:41:04.74 | Unknown | One minute? |
| 01:41:05.97 | Unknown | Yes, thank you, sir. I'd just like to acknowledge that this housing element has the first ever survey of second units in the history of Sausalito, as well as the first ever survey of liveaboards in the history of Sausalito. And I think that that's an accomplishment. And I just wanted to state that for the record. Thank you. |
| 01:41:28.84 | Unknown | Call the roll. |
| 01:41:41.19 | Unknown | Council member Pfeiffer. |
| 01:41:44.71 | Unknown | I have to say that I want to see CEQA as part of this. I think that's critical. And I think that we need more clarity with the churches as a solid program going forward. And I feel that we're rushing this, I have to say. I think just one more meeting would get us there. So I would say no. |
| 01:42:11.27 | Unknown | Councilmember Ford. |
| 01:42:12.61 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 01:42:13.94 | Unknown | Councilmember Weiner. |
| 01:42:15.41 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:42:15.43 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 01:42:16.88 | Unknown | Vice Mayor Leong. |
| 01:42:18.95 | Unknown | It's a good thing. |
| 01:42:18.99 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:42:19.04 | Unknown | as a |
| 01:42:19.91 | Unknown | Mayor Kelly |
| 01:42:20.71 | Unknown | Yes. All right. More business to come before this body, so I move adjourn. |
| 01:42:27.81 | Unknown | Second. |
| 01:42:28.86 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you all for coming out tonight. |
John Sweeney — Neutral: Asked for clarification on how state credit for an emergency shelter works, the shelter's facilities, funding, and potential overflow from San Francisco. ▶ 📄
Rick Johnson — Against: Concerned about zoning changes impacting Schoonmaker Beach and the Marinship area, and echoed worries about density and traffic. ▶ 📄
Jeff Wuznett — Neutral: Thanked task force and staff, but raised parking as a critical issue, suggesting programs to encourage off-street parking. ▶ 📄
Michael Rex — In Favor: Recommended amending inclusionary housing language to prioritize building affordable units on-site over paying in-lieu fees, and supported sending the draft to the state for initial feedback. ▶ 📄
Nancy Osborne — Neutral: Clarified church meal programs, expressed confusion between 'emergency' and 'homeless' housing terminology, and inquired about timing of HCD feedback. ▶ 📄
Joel Paul — Against: Criticized the plan for incentivizing market-rate, high-density housing over affordable units, and alleged lack of transparency, civility, and procedural issues in the process. ▶ 📄
Sam Penrose — In Favor: Spoke in favor of the element, increased density in Program 21, and the responsibility to provide more housing, de-emphasizing parking concerns. ▶ 📄