| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:01:18.52 | Unknown | Maybe I can. |
| 00:01:33.13 | Ray Withey | Good evening. And Welcome to the housing elements subcommittee meeting of Tuesday, May 13th. Now, I'm going to introduce everybody here. And But before I do, let you know that Um, We have This meeting being recorded this evening, and so will be available. for subsequent reference We also have a very capable backup. present this evening. um, Let me introduce the subcommittee and which consists of I'm... Ray Withey the mayor I wasn't the mayor when I was appointed to this subcommittee. I was just city council member. Tom Theodoris is the vice mayor. He wasn't the vice mayor either when he was appointed to this committee. But our two planning commissioners who were part of this committee were planning commissioners when they were appointed. Commissioner Susan Cleveland-Knolls and the chair of the planning commission, Joan Cox. So this was a subcommittee that the city council formed in order to pick up from where we left off with the 2012 housing element and take it through. We're going to learn a little bit about that tonight. Okay, now we also have our consulting group Karen Warner from Karen Warner Associates and Jeff Bradley from the M Group. Both Karen and Jeff have been working with us since 2011, I think, working on the housing, about the same time that I've been involved in it. Susan and I joined the Housing Element Task Force on exactly the same day, if I recall. Um, Joan has been there from the beginning. Also present tonight, and we thank her very much, is Melinda Coy. And she is from... ah The HCD, the Department of Housing and Community Development, if I got that right. Yes, okay, from the state of California. What you will learn tonight as we go through our discussion is that Uh, Ms. McCoy has been working with us, with the city, for quite a number of years on our housing element and helping us get through the regulations that exist by law, by state law. And so Ms. McCoy has been working with our consultants and our staff for, before we even adopted the 2012 housing element. And then finally, of course, our city staff are here. Jeremy Grace, our community development director. Lily Shinsing, who's our analyst in administrative services who's been focused on the element. And Mary Wagner, our city attorney. So I'm going to pass it over now to the staff. I'm going to, we have a lot of ground to cover. And we're going to give you the opportunity later on in the program to ask your questions of us. But I think in particular you're probably interested in asking questions of Ms. Coy. And so we will give you the opportunity to do that. We want to make sure, especially as tonight there could very well be people who are tuning in to understand what we're doing here, that we give enough background to everybody that they can understand the context of tonight's discussion. So unless I've forgotten anything, which Lily hopefully you will tell me if I have, |
| 00:06:06.56 | Unknown | Just a reminder, because we are recording the meeting, it's really important that everyone from the public use the microphone during speaking, and so don't speak from the audience, but to use the microphone so everyone can hear what you're saying. |
| 00:06:19.42 | Ray Withey | And You know, we have meetings where The city council meetings are very formal. We've had meetings where we've tried to make it more of a conversation. Please recognize that we need a little bit more formality tonight so that we can get the whole agenda covered. But you are going to get your chance to ask all your questions. |
| 00:06:38.65 | Unknown | So, |
| 00:06:45.98 | Ray Withey | Okay, so Lily or Karen or Jeff or Jeremy or whoever, off we go. |
| 00:06:53.94 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 00:06:54.11 | Ray Withey | you |
| 00:06:54.36 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you, Mayor Withey. We're here tonight to talk about some of the implementation programs coming out of the adopted housing element. |
| 00:07:05.80 | Jeff Bradley | In way of immediate background, the last meeting in this room with the City Council and the public took place on April 22nd. And there was a lot of people here. I estimated 40 or 50. And we took a lot of comments at that time. We want to continue to take comments and garner ideas from the public at this meeting as directed by the City council, bring back more options for council consideration and subcommittee consideration, and look at all alternatives that we can reasonably identify to be effective for both the subcommittee and the council. |
| 00:07:47.75 | Jeff Bradley | Karen will provide a brief history of the VMU HMU program and how it evolved from the original beginnings to what we have for you tonight. And then she'll hand the presentation back to me. We thought in between the presentation going back between Karen and myself would be a good opportunity for any questions from the subcommittee. |
| 00:08:11.84 | Ray Withey | Thank you, Jeff. |
| 00:08:13.00 | Karen Warner | Great. So just to put it in context how the HMU, VMU evolved, and it was an evolution. The city's prior housing element for the 1999 through 2006 period was not adopted. And it was approved, the draft was approved by the state, but when it came to adoption, there was controversy over rezoning sites for higher density residential. So it was not adopted. Thank you. The next housing element cycle, the one that we're in the midst of now, 2009 through 2014, We were hired in the fall of 2011 in the midst of another rezoning controversy. and at the time there were a series of eight or nine primarily large vacant open space type sites that were being evaluated for potential rezoning to multifamily. So that's where we started. We had our first community workshop on December 3rd of 2011. And from that community workshop, we heard loud and clear that the community really wants to focus on infill rather than large vacant lots and open space to meet its regional needs. We were, and even in going into this, we knew that there was a strong desire to pursue a balanced approach with using to the maximum ability possible accessory dwelling units, live aboards and then to a lesser degree infill. and one of the areas that we received input on at that first community meeting was to explore the infill in commercial districts. So that's really kind of how we started on that path. M-Group uncovered every parcel in all of Sausalito to look at what is the infill potential under existing zoning. So we were looking at not increasing any densities, If there's one unit built on a site that can accommodate six, that would go in our site's inventory as a potential. So that was really the infill strategy was to look both on the multi-family zoned parcels that were underutilized based on what could be built under zoning, as well as in your commercial districts, which most three of your commercial zones allow for second story residential. So we crafted the housing element Um, In working with the Housing Element Subcommittee, a lot of meetings went into this, and we sent the element up to the state, And they have 60 days to review a draft housing element. And we received the HCV comment letter in April 2012 with many comments. It was a rather lengthy letter, but the two really pertaining to sites were that the element relies primarily on livable boards and second units to address the needs of lower income. and that the element lacked adequate sites for higher-density housing to meet the needs of families. And I'm going to ask Melinda maybe to elaborate a little bit more on those findings in the first element. |
| 00:12:12.56 | Melinda Croy | I'd like to give a little bit of background on the state's role in all of this. I think that would be helpful. The statute, the housing element is a very unique part of the statute in that it is the only element of the general plan that is actually reviewed and certified by the state in terms of requirements. It's mostly because the state has said that, the state legislature has declared that housing is of statewide importance and there's, and the need for affordable housing, especially throughout the state, is critical to the success of California. And so through those particular legislative intent, our department at ECD was given the responsibility to both advise local jurisdictions as well as review local jurisdictions housing elements for compliance. our department, ECD, was given the responsibility to both advise local jurisdictions as well as review local jurisdictions housing elements for compliance with statute. And one of the things that, and I've actually been on board with the Sausalito housing element since what, Lily, like 2010 or so, when the first round before M Group actually came on. So I'm very familiar with what is unique about Sausalito. The housing element itself has some very specific requirements that all jurisdictions are required to meet. However, in some of those requirements, there are areas in which uh some latitude to be specific for the community can be taken. Because of course Sausalito is not like San Rafael. San Rafael is not like San Francisco. So it wouldn't make sense to have a statute that was one size fits all and everybody's required to do exactly the same thing. But everybody's required to actually meet all of the requirements. So in my role to review the housing element, I'm both responsible both for the city and being able to review the city's element in compliance with the statute, but also... to third party commenters and advocacy groups and folks who represent the interests of people who don't usually have a voice. So all of the interests go along with in the review of the housing element. With Sausalito, It's been a very interesting journey. At the beginning it was a lot of questions about the rezoning and then switching to the liveaboard and the ADUs. One of the requirements in housing element statute is that you have to have zoning for a variety of housing types. What that means is that you have to have zoning to meet multifamily needs, and multifamily being like a multifamily structure that can accommodate multiple households. You have to have household sizes that accommodate all of the different community groups. What's unique about Sausalito is the presence of liveaboards and – There's no other California city, I think. I think there was maybe one other, like Miranda Del Rey, that actually used Live-A-Boards, or had Live-A-Boards. It was a very unique circumstance here at Sausalito that we were able to be able to utilize this, especially the ones that had not been previously counted in the housing stock because we recognize, along with your city council. the importance of the liveaboards as a housing stock. So that was one component of it. The other was the ADUs. Accessory doling units through a through a survey was found that there was a lot of actually accessory dwelling needs that had not been permitted because they were not, second units weren't allowed. And so the interest in that sparked a lot of interest in pursuing the ADUs. However, as Salcelito has never had an ADU ordinance before, you can only project so much as far as what would realistically be – realistically be able to to accommodate and you do have the responsibility to meet all the regional housing needs. Now when we're talking about meeting the regional housing needs, it doesn't mean you have to build those units. It means you have to plan for those units and part of the planning is, like I said before, for a variety of housing types. within the site's inventory. There was Plenty of capacity for small families, one single person, two person families. But. really no capacity for anything larger than a two person or three person family. And that's an issue with state law. And so one of the strategies in order to meet that particular requirement of the statute was to develop this overlay. Most jurisdictions don't do an overlay. Most jurisdictions just flat out rezone. They find a site and they rezone it straight. But that didn't seem to work for Sausalito for a number of reasons. And so working with some people who have a lot of experience in overlay zones in communities of this size as well as larger the committee and the M group came up with the overlay strategy. It's not something that we require, but it's a strategy that you can meet this requirement with. And so we consulted and worked really hard with them on that. So that's kind of like in a nutshell of where this is all coming from, from the state's trying to meet that requirement of variety of housing types to meet for all different segments of the population. and the overlay strategy to accommodate that particular requirement and also provide the public benefit to the city of Sausalito. THE FAMILY. |
| 00:18:25.02 | Karen Warner | Thank you. So Melinda's given you some background and how we were looking to address their concerns about having an over-reliance in our site strategy. on housing that served one and maybe two-person households to broadening it out to family households. In addition to HCD's letter, we had a letter from public advocates, which is an advocacy group active throughout Marin County that represent lower income populations. And their letter, in addition to echoing many of the items that HCV brought up, indicated that the small sites within our infill strategy really can't realistically accommodate affordable housing. So if you're a nonprofit developer Um, trying to get funding and you're looking at, you know, a site that accommodates six units, that's really not feasible. we were and scratching our head on how to modify our approach without rezoning and through our discussions with HCD and public advocates, started exploring this overlay concept. So looked at several different jurisdictions that have used affordable housing overlays and and we crafted and initially it was called the mixed-use overlay Um, that would allow 100% residential. So that's what we're calling horizontal mixed use now. on select commercial sites. So that overcomes the issue of being required to build ground floor commercial to get your residential, which is what our mixed-use program had previously been. And that was viewed as a constraint both by the nonprofit groups and the state in terms of, you know, a hurdle to development. And so this mixed-use overlay concept initially applied to four sites. And then, based on several additional community meetings, The decision makers ultimately decided to bifurcate this into a horizontal mixed use and a vertical mixed use. And I think you're all familiar with those now, but the vertical mixed use essentially applies to all your commercial districts that currently allow for residential. and gives incorporates an affordability requirement essentially to do second story residential. The horizontal mixed use were limited to two sites with a minimum of eight units and that was really the smallest project that we could justify as being viable for affordable development. We were able to look at another affordable project, the Rotary Place in Sausalito as an example of an affordable project at that smallest scale. So that was how the horizontal and the vertical mixed use evolved. That became the focus of the infill site strategy in the revised draft housing element, which was completed in June 2012. And that's the current program 8A, the vertical mixed use requirement in commercial districts and the program 8B the horizontal mixed use incentives in commercial districts because the horizontal is an option, not a requirement. The input from public advocates was that they felt the horizontal mixed use should be more extensive, that if the city is going to use this overlay concept and not rezone larger sites for all residential, it needs to do so on more than the two sites. We worked hard and HCD ultimately confirmed that we had adequate sites with the two HMU that we had identified because that was one leg of the stool. because we had the ADUs and thank goodness we've had a very successful ADU amnesty program and new new ADU programs. So that has come to fruition and we have the Live Awards. The comment letter then that we received on the revised draft element in August 16, 2012, Um, identified that the housing element compliance was based on this Program 8 to adopt flexible development standards for multifamily housing in mixed use districts. So that the compliant housing element was reliant upon implementation of this vertical and horizontal mixed use. And just to kind of reiterate in another way, what was the VMU program designed to do? Overall, it was to provide adequate sites with realistic development potential for multifamily rental housing as required under the variety of housing types statute. The VMU purpose was to further encourage the provision of second story residential and commercial zoning districts, including mixed income units, The HMU purpose was to allow ground floor residential on designated commercial sites to better accommodate family housing and help retain neighborhood character by reducing the need for increased building heights. The concept being, you know, by allowing ground floor residential, the need to go up is not as significant. |
| 00:24:41.20 | Jeff Bradley | This might be a good spot for questions from the committee on what you've heard so far. |
| 00:24:47.85 | Ray Withey | you Could you just back up a little bit and for everybody's benefit explain why the infill strategy Um... could work at all. we've had for years you know sites that were developable but nobody ever thought of saying well these sites could be you know, possible affordable housing site. So why does the infill strategy work? Could you explain the default density concept? And then secondly, just to reiterate once again that it wasn't quite enough to me. the full regulation around a variety of housing types. just before we go on. |
| 00:25:42.64 | Karen Warner | Well, a couple of things. The default density is 20 units an acre for Sausalito, which means where we can show site availability with a minimum 20 unit an acre density, we can automatically credit that towards the very low and low-income RHNA. except, as we learned, when we have very small sites. So there's that caveat and this was really my first experience in really bumping up against that. I said, we have this default density. the viability of developing these very small sites was challenging. and And so while we through the VMU were suggesting increasing the requirement for CUP So from four to seven to make it easier to build. really to overcome the hurdle of these relatively small sites is to look at sites with a minimum of eight unit potential and allow for the hundred percent residential Sorry? |
| 00:26:50.78 | Ray Withey | Thank you. |
| 00:26:50.93 | Unknown | Other questions from the Commissioner? |
| 00:26:50.95 | Ray Withey | Yeah. |
| 00:26:50.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:26:51.12 | Karen Warner | Bye. |
| 00:26:56.47 | Unknown | I heard Melinda Coy state that our infill strategy did not accommodate anything larger than a two-person or three-person household. And I know that as part of our housing element, we promised to enact a multifamily, ordinance that would preserve the multifamily nature of the zones in which multifamily housing is planned. And so we did that to ensure that instead of having single family McMansions built on these particular sites, that we would preserve the multi-family nature of these sites within Sausalito. Um, in order to really ensure a mix of housing needs could be met. And my question is why was that not sufficient? Why do we need to have the high density development all on one site rather than the spotted less impactful multifamily development interspersed throughout Sausalito. |
| 00:28:06.62 | Melinda Croy | Well, there was a couple of things that were going on with Sausalito specifically that came into play here. One of the things is that as a community, again, what you decide and how you decide it, as long as it meets a statute, is totally in the community's control. Um, But there was a limited amount of already existing zone sites. Thank you. And it was, from my understanding from our conversations, I came down here a couple times. We met and went and looked at all sorts of different sites. The real emphasis at the time from the community was we don't want to rezone any of the sites. We want to be able to accommodate it on the existing zoning. So the opportunities with the existing zoning were quite limited. So the sites that you did come up with are still particularly small. They're not large sites at all. And, But because you have some examples of affordable housing at that small scale, you're able to demonstrate that that is a viable for affordable housing. Now, affordable housing is very interesting on what makes it feasible versus not feasible. And this is where we're talking to really kind of the small site. idea. and that it really requires an economy of scale in order to actually develop. So without a tremendous amount of subsidy, you need a certain amount of density and capacity in order to actually make affordable housing work. With vertical mixed use, one of the constraints, she talked a little bit about constraints, and one of the parts of the housing element, that's another requirement of the housing element separate from the site's requirement. is that you look at constraints to development. Look at what is existing in the zoning code, in the regulations, in the sites availability, and what constraints development. And one of the things is with vertical misuse, well it's a really great tool, and in fact it's been successful in lots of different places, but not necessarily for affordable housing. Because of the financing, available for it. for some reason, the financing companies, the commercial component with the commercial on the bottom and the residential on top, they get all confused and they don't like it. it becomes somewhat of a constraint for building affordable housing. And when, when the actual objective is to preserve affordable or preserve opportunities for multifamily, you want to make sure that there are, a variety of different strategies so that that can actually be achieved. |
| 00:30:53.83 | Karen Warner | Did I answer? Thank you. And Joan, I've thrown up this chart here, and I'm pointing the laser the wrong way. So the multi-family development and multi-family districts applies to the R2-5, the R2-5, |
| 00:30:57.73 | Melinda Croy | Yeah. |
| 00:31:10.51 | Karen Warner | 2.5 and the R3. The art... We're already assuming the affordability on this based on the maximum permitted density. So the fact that you adopt the ordinance is great. It facilitates the ability to provide for multifamily on multifamily properties, but it doesn't get us any more units than we already counted. Thank you. |
| 00:31:37.29 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:31:37.37 | Karen Warner | Well, |
| 00:31:37.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:31:37.91 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 00:31:38.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:31:38.35 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 00:31:38.37 | Unknown | 11. |
| 00:31:38.81 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 00:31:38.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:31:38.97 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 00:31:39.14 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:31:39.16 | Karen Warner | Okay. |
| 00:31:39.18 | Unknown | very low, I guess. |
| 00:31:40.04 | Karen Warner | you |
| 00:31:40.11 | Unknown | you |
| 00:31:40.58 | Karen Warner | That... That is... an R3 site that accommodates a minimum of eight units. So any R3 sites that were smaller than eight units were not deemed viable for affordable development, lower income, so they got pushed up to the moderate. |
| 00:32:01.62 | Unknown | And I guess the other aspect of that, and this was raised at the city council meeting, is whether this multifamily housing that we're required to identify in our housing element must be affordable. So there was a question raised and there's an understanding by some people that it need not be affordable, that it need only accommodate multifamily. |
| 00:32:25.75 | Melinda Croy | So that's when it comes into what the community and the City Council would like to see from the multifamily. There is no requirement in statute that any particular site be specifically designated for affordable housing. Essentially the proxy that's used in the statute for affordability is this density idea. Now, when this overlay was being, my understanding was when this overlay was being first thought about was that if they were going to provide these incentives, the greater density, the opportunities for development. the city wanted you know a bit of bang for its buck right? It wanted some sort of public benefit out of that and so the affordable component got put into that as part of this well if we're going to let you have these incentives, if we're going to offer these things to you, we want something in return. We want some sort of some sort of guarantee that we'll get some affordability out of it because that's what the goals are. So that's my understanding of how that came about within the city. And that's very common. There's many cities that are doing affordable housing specifically overlays versus just straight overlays. But I think Nevada just created one that was specifically an affordable housing overlay. If you have a certain amount of affordability, you get the greater density. for that very reason. But that is completely in the city's control over how they want to frame and how they want to do that. Where the statute comes in is They want to ensure that the city is setting the table, right, for the development to occur, which includes the density and the regulations and everything involved so that should a developer come in, it's in place to be able to provide the affordable housing. |
| 00:34:25.43 | Unknown | Okay, one more question. So Karen made reference to our very great success with our Live Aboard and our ADU strategy, greater than we had even anticipated. And of course those strategies do address the very low and low income brackets of potential residents. Having had such great success with those programs, Is there a way that we can demonstrate we no longer need this HMU overlay? |
| 00:34:59.33 | Melinda Croy | No, because it's satisfying a different requirement in the statute, which is the variety of housing types. It's not – so you're going to want to – it's kind of difficult because with the housing element law, everybody focuses on the arena. What's our numbers and how can we meet our numbers? But there's quite a bit of other requirements in the statute, and one of these is zoning for a variety of housing types. So specifically the HMU and the VMU proposed overlay was specific to address that particular piece of statute, not necessarily the RHNA statute. And it And also just to kind of like, you know, it was also in preparation, I believe, for the next round, which you're coming up with, because the lip-aboard may not be they've already been credited so you can't use them again. |
| 00:35:49.97 | Unknown | Well, but our number is also, I mean, our number the last time was punitive because of our failure to adopt a prior housing element, and so |
| 00:35:50.39 | Melinda Croy | So. our number the last time |
| 00:35:59.81 | Unknown | Now our number is much more within manageable standards. But. I thought I heard you say that by designating higher density, the city wanted affordable units in return. But. because we've been able to identify those affordable units in other categories of housing, the ADUs and the liveaboards, and because by enacting this multifamily ordinance we have preserved the multifamily housing stock that does exist in Sausalito. That's why I'm questioning why we still have to identify the multi-family, the low income, multifamily on one site. the high density low income for multifamily on one site. |
| 00:36:46.88 | Melinda Croy | It's... Again, it is because of the variety of housing types requirements. So that requires that you have a variety of housing opportunities for all income groups. Again, this is divorced from Marina. and meeting your RENA requirements. So I'll give you an example of another community that used, relied basically almost 100% on ADUs, which is Hillsborough. |
| 00:37:02.06 | Unknown | you |
| 00:37:14.48 | Melinda Croy | Hillsborough is a very affluent community here in the Bay Area. And they have a very interesting zoning in that they only have one zone. They don't have commercial zoning. They just have one zone, and the entire city is on this one zone. However, in order to meet this affordable, and they have actually great success with ADUs, and they rely on it very strongly to meet their requirements. However, they still have a requirement to provide opportunities for multifamily housing, to allow for a variety of housing types to meet the needs of the community. So how they did it was they did it through these overlays and things like that. Again, it's getting down into the weeds a little bit. a very complicated statute, but that's a very specific part of the statute in which this addressed. In addition, the public advocates, the third party commenters and the people who we have to consider as part of our review also raises as a specific issue that there were not any opportunities for affordable housing developers to come in and build in Sausalito. |
| 00:38:23.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:38:23.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:38:23.47 | Melinda Croy | Thank you. |
| 00:38:24.33 | Ray Withey | Um... either Melinda or both Could you help clarify one thing to pick up on Joan's questioning? Thank you. Um... We have... You're stating that the VMU and the HMU program, let's just pick on the HMU program because... um, That's been of significant concern for the community. The HMU program you're saying was clearly to help with fulfilling this requirement for multiple different a variety of, I'm not using the correct words of the statute what we've been talking about. |
| 00:39:13.55 | Unknown | Right. |
| 00:39:20.34 | Ray Withey | And yet, We have also associated 16 affordable or low or income, I don't know which, what's the split between very low and low, but income units associated with it. So it's not only jest. Um. Um, the variety of housing types you also made the point that it's within the city councils purview to simply put a program like that in place to address the multiple types of housing types and it doesn't necessarily need to be affordable, but we have 16 units which we're going to learn in the next part of our discussion that if we don't nail down, we're going to have to carry forward with significant punitive measures. So help us understand what appears to be a discrepancy between what you're saying. |
| 00:40:19.69 | Melinda Croy | I was actually responding specifically to the question of related to the ADUs being of greater number than you had anticipated and could you substitute them out? That's what I was specifically referring to. in the statute, I'm sorry, in the housing element itself. It. Lists out. specific sites and the strategy the city is using in order to accommodate the arena. Um, If the city wanted to, at this point, go back and open it all up, it would have to come back to HCD. get recertified and go through the whole process within the current planning period, if that was the case. Or you can, you know, with the next, with your success with the ADU, carry that over and look at, you know, well, we were this successful with the ADUs last time. We're going to build upon that success for the next time around. That's in your purview, but specifically in this housing element, 16 units were assigned to these VMU and HMU sites to But specifically in this housing element, 16 units were assigned to these VMU and HMU sites to accommodate your arena. |
| 00:41:25.20 | Karen Warner | and and and those 16 units and are part of this this 28 capacity here which is so essential for the very low income because we have a zero buffer and very low income for the arena. |
| 00:41:41.65 | Ray Withey | So I just want to make sure we've clarified that the HMU program wasn't simply to provide for a variety of housing types. It also included double duty and also included providing for meeting 16 of our very low RHNA numbers. |
| 00:41:53.46 | Unknown | All right. |
| 00:41:54.03 | Unknown | Oh, yeah. |
| 00:42:06.07 | Unknown | And so having promised that, even though we have met arguably those 16 through alternate waste, through our ADUs, No, we haven't met the very low. |
| 00:42:17.05 | Karen Warner | I know. No, this is where we're at now, Joan. including the latest and greatest on the ADUs. So we still have a zero RHNA buffer and a very low income. We may have a total RHNA buffer of 79, but that's from the moderate. Very moderate. Yeah, yeah. |
| 00:42:36.47 | Unknown | Very moderate. |
| 00:42:37.30 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:42:38.80 | Karen Warner | unfortunately. Okay. |
| 00:42:42.43 | Ray Withey | Okay, why don't you go to the next stage? |
| 00:42:44.12 | Karen Warner | Okay. The next set of slides briefly are the consequences of not adopting the HMU program. And as we've been talking about, this is an update of your sites and RHNA buffer for your existing element. and You can see we have no buffer under the very low. We only have a two-unit buffer now under the low. because of some shifting around with the liveaboards primarily. So what happens if the 16 very low income units from HMU are off the table, then we have a negative 16 which causes a RENA carryover penalty, and that's under AB 1233 statutes. So this RENA carryover then of 16 very low income units has specific specific requirements when you have arena carryover. The site to make up that deficit must be re-zoned within the first year of the next planning period. So your next planning period starts January 2015, so the re-zone site would need to be in place by January 2016. The site has to have An individual site has to have at least a 16-unit capacity. So we're not talking about smaller scattered sites, but just the way the statute's written, to make the development viability, the site has to have at least a 16-unit capacity, which is exactly the shortfall that we're talking about, which looking at your R3 zoning at 1,500 square feet per unit equates to about a 24,000 square foot site. Okay. The rezone site can have at least half of the rezone site to make up your shortfall of 16 very low income units needs to be 100% residential. So it can't be met entirely in commercial mixed use areas. And then finally the housing needs to be allowed by right. It can't require a CUP. Um, |
| 00:45:20.70 | Karen Warner | The housing has to be permitted by right. It can't require a conditional use permit. And then you've probably heard a lot of this before, you know, why is it so important to have a state certified element? We didn't have one in the last period, nothing happened to us. And we provided a handout from the Marin County Housing Workbook that I think does a really good job of just kind of outlining the why it's important to have a state approved element. So in your case, not having a state approved element because the HMU program was dropped, again, you would face this cumulative RHNA. So that 16 very low-income units attributed to HMU currently would be added to the 40 very low and low income units of your future arena for a total of 56 lower income units for your next housing element cycle. So that's a significant number. Now, some of those can be met through ADUs, but again, you're going to have to find that many more 20-unit maker sites. There's always the risk of litigation. If your housing element is not approved by the state, we know that there are groups watching Sausalito. And not having a state approved element can invalidate your general plan. There's the, it's called the anti-NIMBY ordinance, the loss of local control over future housing, which is what happened in Corte Madera, where If you don't have a state certified housing element and there's an affordable housing project that's proposed in the city, regardless of your zoning, the city doesn't have the ability to deny that or has very limited provisions in which to deny that. And then lastly, If you don't have a state approved element, you don't have access to various state housing funds, related infrastructure funds, and what have you. And I'm going to let Jeff walk through this flow chart that kind of says this in a more simplistic manner. . |
| 00:47:40.39 | Jeff Bradley | So this flow chart basically shows what Karen walked through on the PowerPoint in a in a hopefully easier to read format for quick review. Track A is city adopts the HMU program as is, or an equally effective alternative, we go straight into the streamline review for the next housing element. Obviously there's only two boxes on this side. Track B is if the city does not accept, does not adopt the HMU program, or some equally effective program, things get a lot more complicated and we go through the steps that Karen outlined. That's just for quick reference. |
| 00:48:26.56 | Unknown | Karen, can you flip back to that slide with the number? Yes. |
| 00:48:29.75 | Karen Warner | Yes, this one. |
| 00:48:30.87 | Unknown | Yes, so you said that our arena would become cumulative and then we would have to... identify 56 very low or low income units and how many Do we currently have, we've been working on a new housing element. How many do we presently have identified? of very low or low |
| 00:48:51.81 | Karen Warner | You mean in terms of sites and units? In terms of new units? |
| 00:48:53.38 | Unknown | In terms of you... THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:48:54.97 | Karen Warner | it. |
| 00:48:55.05 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:48:55.34 | Karen Warner | you |
| 00:48:55.42 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:48:55.44 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 00:48:55.45 | Unknown | you |
| 00:48:55.62 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 00:48:55.66 | Unknown | We're here. |
| 00:48:55.81 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 00:48:55.84 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 00:48:55.93 | Karen Warner | WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO |
| 00:48:56.08 | Unknown | We have just the right amount. So we have no buffer. WE TAKE A LOOK AT THE This would, so, We have 40, we don't have anywhere to put the 16. Right. So it goes back to what you were saying. We'd have to find one site that could hold 16. Yeah. As we couldn't even at that time do two sites that hold eight. Right, exactly. |
| 00:49:08.11 | Unknown | . |
| 00:49:08.16 | Unknown | Right. |
| 00:49:09.86 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:49:09.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:49:09.92 | Unknown | You were saying we'd have to find one site |
| 00:49:20.60 | Ray Withey | And it has to be done in the first year. In one year. In one year with these restrictions. |
| 00:49:23.01 | Unknown | In one year. |
| 00:49:23.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:49:26.42 | Ray Withey | Okay. |
| 00:49:26.93 | Unknown | Could I ask a question? Could you go back to the first consequence of not adopting the HMU slide? |
| 00:49:35.48 | Unknown | So does this assume, it seems like the two options are adopt HMU or not, but what if there was a decision to adopt only one site? So, for example, eight units. Would this slide change or does that stay the same? |
| 00:49:54.23 | Karen Warner | You would have a shortfall if there wasn't something to offset those eight units on the... You'd still have a shortfall of eight. |
| 00:50:02.55 | Unknown | It's. Bye. |
| 00:50:04.03 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 00:50:04.19 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:50:04.20 | Karen Warner | But I'm just wondering. |
| 00:50:04.22 | Unknown | But I'm just wondering, is the penalty still 16 units and 24,000 square feet? Yes. So it's not the 16 units isn't actually related to our 16 specific units. This is just something statutory. It's just coincidental. Correct. It's just coincidental. Okay. |
| 00:50:19.63 | Karen Warner | It's just coincidental. Okay. Thank you. That was my great question. Well, actually, there is a lot of 16s floating around. |
| 00:50:22.01 | Unknown | Well, actually, |
| 00:50:26.29 | Karen Warner | This actually refers to the shortfall of very low income units. So if you kept one HMU, you took one away, then you would be down eight units. There's two. |
| 00:50:39.40 | Ray Withey | There's two 16s on that. |
| 00:50:42.24 | Karen Warner | You would need to have a site with at least 16 unit capacity. |
| 00:50:46.17 | Unknown | You would need to have a site. Even though our shortfall would only be eight, we would have to identify a site with at least a 16-unit capacity. |
| 00:50:51.45 | Karen Warner | It would only be eight. |
| 00:50:56.33 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:50:56.35 | Karen Warner | unit capacity. |
| 00:50:56.97 | Unknown | to get the best. |
| 00:50:57.16 | Karen Warner | Yeah. |
| 00:50:57.17 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:50:57.66 | Unknown | within the first year, by January 2016. |
| 00:51:01.78 | Unknown | Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. |
| 00:51:10.27 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. adoption of the new housing, and we have to zone it. |
| 00:51:15.80 | Karen Warner | Right, yes. So you have to identify the site in the new housing element, and then the rezoning has to occur by that January 2016. |
| 00:51:25.10 | Unknown | Do you know how many sites Corte Madera was short? that resulted in their loss of local control and the and the development that's over there? |
| 00:51:34.06 | Karen Warner | Actually, they're one of the case studies in that Marin County housing element workbook, so I don't know if it gives that level of detail. keep going |
| 00:51:45.72 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:51:49.55 | Ray Withey | OK, well, while you're finding that information, Karen, Jeff, What were you planning to do next? |
| 00:52:02.21 | Jeff Bradley | next. Are we done with questions from that previous section? I know. |
| 00:52:08.67 | Unknown | Thank you. Yeah. |
| 00:52:12.69 | Jeff Bradley | you |
| 00:52:12.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:52:13.03 | Jeff Bradley | Okay, this... |
| 00:52:13.16 | Unknown | Okay, this... |
| 00:52:14.97 | Jeff Bradley | This next portion of the presentation deals with ideas and options as directed by council to the existing draft HMU ordinances. Before I jump into the details, I wanted to step back and give an overview. We have three options before you. We identified many, many options, but after much careful analysis and consideration, we've really narrowed it down to three viable options, we feel, to accomplish the goals of the city and meet the statutes. The first option is to require... Thank you. is to basically have fairly minor revisions to the existing HMU ordinance as we know it. The section option is to essentially leave the HMU ordinance as it is drafted currently, but switch it to a different site. you |
| 00:53:17.20 | Unknown | you |
| 00:53:19.40 | Jeff Bradley | Consider alternative sites from what you have before you. The third option is consideration of the rezone sites that we've referenced. And from that original list of nine sites, there's really only four sites that meet the requirements as outlined. The 16 units, they'd have to be rezoned to R3 to have the minimum density for the default density of 20 units per acre. So, just wanted to give that overview before I jump into the details. So, option number one, potential modifications to the HMU program. We came up with two ideas, and we're open to more, of course. The first one is instead of requiring that 30% of the units be three-bedroom to serve families, in order to facilitate smaller buildings that would be potentially less impactful to primary views, we would recommend requiring 25% of the units be two bedrooms. So they'd be smaller, but they would still serve families. They wouldn't serve large families, but they would serve families as required. A two-bedroom unit can be assumed to serve a three-person household, for example. Okay. The second item would be a look at ways to encourage and incentivize single-story development, specifically at the 1901 Bridgeway site. The existing site is an existing commercial shopping center, single-story, where the houses directly behind it are able to enjoy views across the top of it. We believe development regulations could be crafted to encourage a similar development pattern, but for housing. If there's a small portion of the site that could be developed with two stories and not block anyone's primary views, that could be allowed. But the basic idea would be to take full advantage of the parcel at the ground level and allow for single story, primarily single story development, to discourage a design that would block views and be detrimental to the neighborhood. |
| 00:55:14.21 | Unknown | a point. |
| 00:55:41.59 | Jeff Bradley | An additional feature of that item is the work that the committee has done on the density bonus, which clearly created a two-tiered system with a second tier requiring a higher level of review by the city council, really discouraging folks to go there to stick to the tier one items that can be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Any height, any request for a height increase above and beyond what the city would normally allow would trigger that Tier 2 review. The density bonus ordinance itself isn't before you tonight, but we'll be going to the Planning Commissioner for review on the 21st. |
| 00:55:42.12 | Unknown | you |
| 00:56:10.76 | Unknown | you |
| 00:56:21.75 | Jeff Bradley | This brings us to option number two, which is to consider alternative sites where the HMU as a tool or a strategy, as Melinda mentioned, could be utilized. This map simply shows all the commercial sites in Sausalito, with the exception of any commercial sites in the Marin ship. So we have the two areas of CN1 that we know so well. We have the central commercial here, and we have the commercial residential in the middle. Way off to the side here, we have this pie shape of CN2. And this is the site that is subject to the fair traffic initiative. The current zoning for CN2 does not allow residential, unlike the other zoning districts shown here. So it would require a change to the zoning district to allow residential where it's currently not allowed. but we feel there may be an opportunity based on the language of the Fair Traffic Initiative to allow residential but not increase the FAR. you is the fair traffic initiative is basically a prohibition on the city increasing the FAR of any commercial parcel without a vote of the people. However, these sites have similar characteristics to the other bridgeway sites that were identified for HMU. There's five parcels in this block. They range in size from just under 12,000 square feet on the corner here, which is the smallest one, all the way up to just over 42,000 square feet, almost a full acre, which is hard to come by. |
| 00:58:03.93 | Unknown | you |
| 00:58:17.34 | Unknown | the Shell gas station. No, that's Tommy's Walk. Oh, but it goes to the Shell. Yeah, it goes to the Shell. I thought I was talking about that. The pie shape is Tommy's Walk, yeah. |
| 00:58:19.28 | Unknown | Tommy's walk |
| 00:58:31.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:58:32.90 | Ray Withey | So, excuse me a second. Nobody can hear you. So it really doesn't help at the moment to be shouting out questions. We're gonna give you opportunity to ask questions. the staff to finish his presentation. So Jeff, could you please just point out where the Shell station is, and all the way through to where Tommy walks is, so we know what we're talking about. |
| 00:59:01.15 | Jeff Bradley | This is the major landmark, the Shell gas station car wash combo, right in the middle of the site. This is a multi-tenant retail building built in the late 50s. There's a two-story office retail building at this location with a restaurant on the street, single story. And then the corner here is occupied by single story small retail tenant buildings. |
| 00:59:28.59 | Ray Withey | Okay. |
| 00:59:34.90 | Jeff Bradley | So obviously these parcels back up to a very large open space feature, namely Martin Luther King Jr. Park. The nearest residences are a bit removed and a little bit up on a hill there, and the The thought is there would be less but immediate land use concern and potential for view blockage that we're finding on the 1901 Bridgeway site in particular. |
| 01:00:10.74 | Jeff Bradley | And so our third option is going back to the short list of sites large enough in Sausalito to be considered for rezoning. And this will be familiar to the committee as these were initially on the table back in 2011, starting with the Spencer Avenue fire station, a vacant, disused, former city fire station site with close proximity to the highway. Starting with the Spencer Avenue fire station, a vacant, disused, former city fire station site with close proximity to the highway and the park and ride lot. Partions of the lot are steeply sloped and vegetated and would present some challenges for development. This is the Rodeo Avenue site. |
| 01:00:58.78 | Jeff Bradley | which is just over half an acre and could yield a maximum of 17 units. The Woodward Avenue site is not a parcel in the conventional sense of the word. It's more of an excess right-of-way city-owned that could be conceivably used for development with a potential of about 17 units. and the Butte Avenue site is fairly large, over an acre, and has a potential of 38 potential units. So these were the options that when we first started in 2011, we were specifically trying to go away from and come up with strategies that didn't require wholesale rezoning of properties and, you technically it is an option and the council asked us to identify all available options and it would satisfy the state mandates but obviously in terms of community acceptance there's definitely issues |
| 01:02:06.18 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:02:12.68 | Jeff Bradley | And this brings us to the portion where if folks from the audience, from the public, where the committee members have questions of Melinda, she's already answered a lot of questions, but if there's any others, staff have requested folks from the public to send some in this afternoon over the last couple days, we may have received some of those, and we can take it from there. |
| 01:02:36.24 | Ray Withey | So what we're going to do is... ask if there's any questions from us at this point. Any questions that you think logical to at this point for clarification to ask of Melinda Croy. and Then I will open this up for public comment and questions of either staff or Ms. McCoy. and we'll take it from there. |
| 01:03:12.13 | Unknown | If we were to seek to develop an alternative HMU strategy, such as one of the alternatives described by Jeff Bradley, what would be our deadline? for doing that because the current housing element that we're talking about expires December of this year. |
| 01:03:31.40 | Melinda Croy | it would be the same deadline as your current to adopt your current HMU. It's the same. |
| 01:03:37.27 | Unknown | So by the end of this year, we'd have to do |
| 01:03:39.64 | Melinda Croy | Right. |
| 01:03:41.34 | Unknown | And would that include the rezoning that would accompany or would it simply be identifying |
| 01:03:47.91 | Melinda Croy | No, it would require the adoption of the HMU, which would be at the time rezoning of those sites. Yes. |
| 01:03:55.82 | Unknown | And have you discussed with Jeff Bradley these alternative strategies that he's identified, and do you believe HCD would sign off on those? |
| 01:04:05.69 | Melinda Croy | We discussed some of the alternatives related to changing up of the HMU. There are a couple concerns in relationship to the density, how density bonus law would interact with it, specifically with the the view requirements going to tier two and And we're currently vetting that with our legal team. We only found out about that kind of like on Friday, so we haven't had an opportunity to really vet it fully internally. But we're happy to actually look at different options. We talked about putting the HMU on the commercial sites, the C2 sites, and that would be fine. as it stands right now. The CN2, sorry. |
| 01:04:54.24 | Ray Withey | The CN. |
| 01:04:55.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:04:57.65 | Melinda Croy | And as far as the rezoning, We didn't really talk about that, but at the time, in 2011, those sites were fine on the rezoning. There is another strategy that you could do with those rezoned sites and put, instead of an HMU actually put an affordable housing overlay on it like Novato's, which is what they did. They didn't actually rezone the bottom base of the sites. You could still develop with that the base of the sites, but you can also take the alternative and use the affordable housing overlay And, um, and be able to develop it at density if you met certain requirements. So that would be another option to consider on those sites if you wanted. |
| 01:05:47.08 | Ray Withey | And just to be clear, correct me if I'm wrong, back in 2011, it was in fact an affordable housing overlay on those initially nine sites, four left, that was being considered. and eventually got rejected in favor of our infill strategy. |
| 01:06:07.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:06:08.76 | Ray Withey | But then we had the subsequent pushback that resulted in HMU and VMU. |
| 01:06:11.29 | Unknown | Thank you. Bye. Thank you. |
| 01:06:13.37 | Unknown | Let's go, catch up. |
| 01:06:14.60 | Unknown | Could we just review what the difference between an affordable housing overlay and our current HMU would look like so that everyone understands that? |
| 01:06:25.35 | Melinda Croy | Thank you. |
| 01:06:25.37 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:06:25.42 | Melinda Croy | Sorry, using all sorts of zoning jargon. So affordable housing overlay is basically a residential strategy to ensure that you can get to higher densities or what we're talking about, those economies of scale to support an affordable housing development. on sites without actually having to modify the underlying zoning. So it is a zone change where you can have the option to go to this overlay, but you can still have the option to go with whatever's underneath it, whatever zoning's underneath it. The idea with affordable housing overlays is, goes back to that idea of, if we're going to allow this higher density, basically, you know, increase the land value for the higher density, then we're going to require something out of it, basically. Being able to have opportunities for folks who, are low or very low income or even moderate income, depending on how you want to make the affordable housing overlay. There's lots of options there. And. And to require a certain percentage of that development to have those in it in order to take advantage of this higher density. So that's an affordable housing overlay. It's strictly a residential strategy. The horizontal mixed use and the vertical mixed use. So there's a difference between vertical mixed use and horizontal mixed use. Vertical mixed use requires some sort of mix of uses in the building. However, the city designs however they want, you know, if it's where they want the uses to be, et cetera. But the idea is that it's allowed, it has to be within all one structure. And that tends to be a constraint to actually building affordable housing for the reasons I talked about before with financing and things like that. Although it has been done, it's not as viable. The horizontal mixed use says, well, we need, we want a mixed use area. We want commercial and we want residential, we can have a mix of uses across an area. It's where we can have all residential here, right next to all commercial here. Essentially being able to provide resident, have that kind of walkable community type of feel so that the residents support the commercial along the way. It's easier to develop because you're working with a single residential structure versus having to have a mix of uses this way. So mixed use has a commercial component in it, whether it's vertical or horizontal. AHL is just strictly a residential option. Is that helping? Thank you. |
| 01:09:11.65 | Ray Withey | Any other questions? Is there Lily? |
| 01:09:17.37 | Unknown | I just wanted to let the committee know that I discovered a printing error in the importance of housing elements certification. So I've reprinted those documents for you. It's available up here. Just get rid of the first one that you grabbed. It should be a three-page document, not a two-page document now. And I'll distribute that to the committee right now. |
| 01:09:33.83 | Ray Withey | Okay. So we were now going to move into Comments. questions by the public or Q&A, we've had a sort of ongoing Q and A with you. Melinda, and you've helped us understand the story that we've gone through since 2011 from your perspective. So if there's no other questions from us, I'm going to open this up to... Questions from... public and Um... If your camp, Questions are also Comments that's fine But you're going to be limited to three minutes, so We welcome your questions. |
| 01:10:36.55 | Ray Withey | I think we should, depending upon how it goes, I think we should start trying to respond to each individual question. But if it gets to the point where the questions are sufficiently detailed that we need a We need to actually listen to the whole story then. So let's take it from here and see how we go. |
| 01:10:58.81 | Unknown | Thank you for coming down. Pat Zook, I live in South Dakota. I have a couple of questions, and I hope the answers won't. Drop me. First of all, has anyone looked at the comparative sizes of the North Bridgeway and the 7-Eleven sites? They seem to me to be quite different in terms of potential capacity. |
| 01:11:29.32 | Jeff Bradley | yes yes thank you um the sites the north end the small site is called thousand square feet which is exactly the same size as the other two sites or further south on 1901 and 2015 bridgeway but from where the sites get progressively bigger to get that that pie-shaped parcel at the very north tip which is nearly an acre just |
| 01:11:54.09 | Unknown | Okay, to restate what you're saying and you can tell me if I'm right or not, the smallest site would be an adequate substitution for the loss of the 7-Eleven site? |
| 01:12:07.24 | Jeff Bradley | Not quite, because it's actually 11,500 square feet, but every other site with the exception of that site would be. |
| 01:12:16.79 | Unknown | So one would not need to redo the whole North Crescent. One could take a site. |
| 01:12:16.84 | Jeff Bradley | So, |
| 01:12:23.56 | Jeff Bradley | and swap it out. |
| 01:12:23.57 | Unknown | and swap it out. Secondly, you talked about mixed use. And is the concept that, for example, the 7-Eleven site, which you are hopefully somewhat familiar, that one would not lose all the retail or one should not lose all the retail because this is supposed to be mixed use. That one would take a portion of that site and put housing on it. |
| 01:12:37.86 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:12:54.67 | Melinda Croy | Thank you. It depends on how the mixed use is structured. Again, if we're talking about horizontal mixed use, you're talking about a wider area. where some portion of that area is commercial and some portion of that area is residential. But it doesn't have to be in the same parcel. that's what horizontal mixed use means. |
| 01:13:18.43 | Unknown | Well, let's talk Sausalito and let's talk 7-Eleven, and that's one parcel. |
| 01:13:22.19 | Melinda Croy | That's one parcel, right. |
| 01:13:23.26 | Unknown | And so if one were to have the developer purchase that and want to use it, if we put the... |
| 01:13:23.53 | Melinda Croy | Thank you. |
| 01:13:30.30 | Melinda Croy | Thank you. |
| 01:13:30.35 | Unknown | Thank you. HMU on there. |
| 01:13:33.74 | Melinda Croy | They could do 100% residential. |
| 01:13:35.97 | Unknown | They could do 100% residential. What happened to the mixed part of that calculation? |
| 01:13:37.30 | Melinda Croy | Right. That would be in comparison to the other surrounding uses. |
| 01:13:39.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:13:47.19 | Unknown | As in? I don't know what's around there. |
| 01:13:48.52 | Melinda Croy | I don't know what's Thank you. THE FAMILY. |
| 01:13:51.44 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 01:13:53.03 | Melinda Croy | Yeah, so there's commercial around there, and there's residential. There's a mix of uses in that area. |
| 01:13:55.59 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE There's a mix of uses in that area. Sailors. Is that what we're doing? |
| 01:13:59.86 | Melinda Croy | Yeah, so there's a mix of uses in that area. So that is an area mixed use, not a specific parcel mixed use. you |
| 01:14:07.17 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:14:07.18 | Melinda Croy | Thank you. |
| 01:14:07.20 | Unknown | I see. Um, |
| 01:14:14.93 | Unknown | done. |
| 01:14:17.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:14:29.10 | Unknown | Thank you. Good evening. My name is Chris Skelton. I'm an attorney representing a concerned neighborhood group regarding this matter. Melinda, Karen, Jeff, thank you very much for your presentation. Commissioners, council members, thank you very much for hosting this meeting. Earlier this afternoon, I had submitted a list of approximately 20 questions. I'm not sure if you had an opportunity to review it or not. We didn't get those. If not, I hope with. We didn't get those. If not, I hope with. of approximately 20 questions. I'm not sure if you had an opportunity to review it or not. If not, I hope with your permission, I may be given a little bit of leeway regarding the three-minute rule. |
| 01:15:00.46 | Unknown | . |
| 01:15:00.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:15:00.69 | Unknown | I think it's not. |
| 01:15:09.18 | Unknown | So, |
| 01:15:12.34 | Ray Withey | I certainly can give you some leeway, but I also |
| 01:15:15.86 | Unknown | I don't want to take up every one. Recognize. You must recognize. |
| 01:15:17.00 | Ray Withey | recognize, you must recognize, surely, that you know, I hope you're not going to try and ask 20 questions that you submitted only in the middle of this afternoon. |
| 01:15:29.13 | Unknown | Certainly not. But I do also want to take this opportunity to not only educate the public, but also hopefully disseminate some important information as well. something for you all to chew on as you continue to look forward towards these upcoming weeks. I think first I'd like to open with a comment, and that is that the HMU overlay is not appropriate in this location. The two sites that are called out really are commercial neighborhood serving sites. And I heard Melinda just speak about the importance of having this neighborhood serving commercial purpose. The Launder Mountain 7-Eleven certainly are integral parts of that neighborhood. And while there is an argument to be made that there are other uses in that area, we heard about sailors and potentially a nail salon down the road. In the immediate serving neighborhood, those are really the two cornerstones for the commercial. To apply the HMU to this circumstance would, as Melinda just said, allow the opportunity to completely remove those commercial uses. I think something that's important that hasn't been raised yet is that there is already a base zoning designation that allows for up to eight units on those parcels. applying the overlay does nothing to change the type and variety of housing opportunity on those sites. Similarly, the Sausalito Municipal Code already has density bonuses and incentives built into it that are readily available to any developer who chooses to go about presenting a project for those sites. The HMU is not necessary to accomplish that. Um. So I hope that as you continue to mull over application of the HMU and engage HCD in this conversation of satisfying our housing element, you'll consider that. |
| 01:17:56.08 | Ray Withey | I'll give you some latitude. |
| 01:17:57.60 | Unknown | OK, thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:17:59.40 | Ray Withey | some gratitude. |
| 01:18:00.53 | Unknown | Um... Sorry, we've been all over the board this evening. One of the questions I have for, I think, Melinda, and I've wrestled a lot with it, is what is the actual connection between the affordability aspect and the variety of housing? |
| 01:18:10.40 | Ray Withey | We'll give you another three minutes. |
| 01:18:23.58 | Unknown | In terms of variety of housing, we've already identified that there's the multifamily ordinance, there are the liveaboard, there's the ADUs, and then on top of that, there is the actual base zoning. So variety of housing seems to be checked off. I'm not sure I understand the affordability aspect in the context of the government code section. And specifically, under what housing element law are you looking towards in the housing in promoting this economy of scale. |
| 01:19:03.24 | Melinda Croy | All right, so I think you're referring to the size of the parcel, that question. So the Horace-Lontal mixed use for my- |
| 01:19:10.68 | Unknown | As applied just to these two parcels. Right. |
| 01:19:13.65 | Melinda Croy | Right. The application of these parcels to those cities or to those sites is entirely in the city's discretion. I had no – it's up to the city on where they want to apply their land use. It's not a state. a state. something that we dictate. My understanding is that the HMU, not only did it provide for a variety of housing types and make it affordable, it also went to incentivize being able to build on small sites. And those two sites are very small in order to be able to build for affordable housing. And so in communication with us as well as the advocates who promote affordable housing, and In order to make those sites available to meet those low and very low, as per the RHNA that's on the sites inventory, the strategy was to provide this horizontal mixed use to allow 100% residential, which is easier to build to allow to get to those economies of scale without having the other kind of constraints involved. There's more detail there, and I'd be happy to talk with you offline about the specifics of how those mixed-use verticals works, but honestly, the city is going to be much better in answering those questions on the specifics of their own ordinance. |
| 01:20:46.72 | Unknown | I think where – I guess where my confusion lies is we've been talking about economy of scale, and I think in the earlier part of the presentation we had said something about six units doesn't pencil out. It's sort of what the standard is across the board for affordable advocates. And so eight units seems – For Sausalito specifically. For Sausalito. Eight units would pencil out. And if the base zoning already allows for the eight units, I guess I don't understand what the HMU overlay would do to... |
| 01:20:57.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:20:57.52 | Melinda Croy | Thank you. |
| 01:20:57.53 | Unknown | Right. |
| 01:20:57.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:21:05.57 | Melinda Croy | for Sausalito specifically. |
| 01:21:18.98 | Melinda Croy | Because right now it requires vertical mixed use. It requires a commercial component, poses a constraint to be able to be developed for affordable housing because of the financing and other involved things and honestly, Um, within our discretion, we pushed that eight units. I mean, that's as small as we were able to go. realistically um, it would, you know, 10 units maybe. You know, in this area, it's very expensive to build. But given the arena, given Sausalito's particular conditions and everything that was going on in this city, we were able to justify eight units and work with the advocates so that they would agree on that that would be okay. and be able to just, because they have all the knowledge on what it takes to build affordable housing. |
| 01:22:19.02 | Unknown | Yeah. Does the eight units take into consideration the density bonus that's afforded? |
| 01:22:24.76 | Melinda Croy | No, it cannot. you |
| 01:22:26.01 | Unknown | Okay. Okay. Um, Let me see really quickly. One another point of confusion is the discussion of overlay versus rezoning. And I was hoping maybe you could distinguish, it seems like overlay is sort of optional, whereas rezoning is you're changing the actual underlying zoning designation. Could you speak The HMU, it sounds like, is gonna be an overlay zone. The VMU, it sounds like it's no longer optional. Is that right? Am I jumping the gun by going into VMU? Are we going forward? Thank you. |
| 01:23:09.92 | Melinda Croy | I think a staff would be probably better to answer that question. |
| 01:23:12.15 | Ray Withey | to that question. Um, |
| 01:23:14.85 | Unknown | And I guess my question is more generally, you can talk in 10,000 feet about overlay versus rezoning. |
| 01:23:20.04 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:23:24.90 | Jeff Bradley | So, Chris, my understanding of your question is the VMU is not an overlay. It's built into the base zoning as a program feature. And the HMU is by design an overlay. And what's the difference? Is my presumption correct? I think you touched on it. Yeah, the VMU has mandatory components because it's built into the base zoning and the HMU is considered 100 percent voluntary on the part of the property owner or the applicant or whoever is looking at that property. Does that answer it? |
| 01:23:42.28 | Unknown | Thank you. I think you touched on it. |
| 01:23:46.10 | Unknown | everybody. |
| 01:24:01.77 | Unknown | Does it? it. I think so. Yeah, so the VMU is not actually an overlay. It is a rezone. |
| 01:24:04.44 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 01:24:11.56 | Unknown | So, it's a good question. |
| 01:24:11.61 | Jeff Bradley | So. It's taking the existing three major commercial zoning districts and making text changes to the districts, essentially changing some of the development standards and regulations, versus a rezone in regards to housing elements and HCDs. Part of Lance is when you're taking a piece probably that's zoned for commercial or open space and rezoning it to residential would be a classic rezone. |
| 01:24:13.33 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:24:13.47 | Unknown | It's 10. |
| 01:24:40.44 | Unknown | One thing that I've heard floating around in the community is that suddenly there are going to be 50-foot tall buildings sprouting up all over Sausalito. With the rezoning, or sorry, with the sort of zoning tax amendment or the overlay, is there any plan to change the development standards in the month? |
| 01:25:02.41 | Jeff Bradley | No, no. Our whole approach was predicated on working with the existing development standards. In Sausalito, the majority of both the commercial and residential zones maxed out at 32 feet. |
| 01:25:16.92 | Unknown | One other sort of global question is maybe procedural for Melinda. The housing element, correct me if I'm wrong, it's sort of like a living, breathing document, and it gets amended and updated every cycle. Is that kind of accurate? MS. True. Yes. |
| 01:25:39.19 | Melinda Croy | True. Yes. |
| 01:25:43.01 | Unknown | I'm confused about the discussion we were talking about having to go back and amend the prior housing element. So the 2007 housing element has been certified, correct? |
| 01:25:52.91 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:25:53.15 | Melinda Croy | Thank you. |
| 01:25:53.18 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:25:57.34 | Melinda Croy | Correct, it has been certified. So what you're referring to there is the period for its certification is 2007 to up to the beginning of the next cycle which is January 31st, 2015. So if there are changes within the element, specifically, especially the sites inventory where things have to get switched out, then it's an actual amendment to the statute, and the statute requires that any amendments or draft amendments have to be reviewed by HCD for the housing element. I could give you the government code later, I don't have it off my thing if you want that. But basically, anytime the housing element's amended, you're supposed to send it to HCD to ensure that your element continues to meet the statutory requirements. |
| 01:26:47.40 | Unknown | Okay. And |
| 01:26:49.88 | Ray Withey | So Chris, where do you think you are in? Sausalito. |
| 01:26:52.92 | Unknown | Sausalito. |
| 01:26:53.56 | Ray Withey | You absolutely are, and welcome. I want to make sure everybody else has an opportunity to speak. Now, I know that you're representing a large contingent of this community, and that's why I'm giving you a fair amount of latitude to sort of help articulate their questions. But what I'm suggesting, if you could just restrict yourself to one or two more, then I want to make sure everybody else has an opportunity to talk. And if we still have time, we'll invite you back to fill in more questions to the community. |
| 01:26:56.99 | Unknown | Oh, no. |
| 01:26:57.07 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:26:57.12 | Unknown | I'm not a good argument. I'm not sure. |
| 01:27:32.65 | Unknown | Okay. I totally understand and definitely appreciate the leeway and also the public's time in humoring some of my questions here. |
| 01:27:43.77 | Ray Withey | Well, you're here for them. |
| 01:27:46.41 | Unknown | Um... |
| 01:27:50.26 | Ray Withey | Then I've got a couple of questions for you. |
| 01:27:54.53 | Unknown | I'm all yours. You know, I think maybe since I submitted these earlier this afternoon, perhaps it would be easier if they got circulated to Melinda and I was able to enter that dialogue perhaps offline and get some of them sorted out. I... |
| 01:28:16.05 | Ray Withey | Yeah, I've just received a copy of your questions, and there are some pretty detailed questions that came in this afternoon. |
| 01:28:18.21 | Unknown | And therefore, some pretty detailed Yeah. I do have one other, I guess more of a policy question for the subcommittee. It's regarding, The... purposes. I called out in 1024.020 of the municipal code. So that section basically breaks down and says, hey, these are some of the other purposes of these different zoning sections. And it happens to call out each one of the commercial sections individually. One of the unique aspects that I gleaned from it, and I hope that you all will consider as you continue to roll forward either recommendations or mull over the process, is that the CC district and the CR district both identify in some manner residential use. But absent from the CN district is any reference to a residential use. I don't have access at this time to sort of the legislative history of when this was adopted and how the process unfolded for identifying these additional purposes. But I guess I'd leave you with this. |
| 01:29:40.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:29:40.09 | Unknown | you |
| 01:29:40.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:29:40.30 | Unknown | Thank you. people before us called out this and zoned these two parcels for commercial neighborhood uses, laundromat, 7-Eleven, commercial uses that serve the surrounding neighborhood. The municipal code specifically is silent on commercial neighborhoods having commercial neighborhood zone properties having a residential use. To allow the HMU overlay on these two parcels would enable a developer to obliterate commercial use and instead, implement only residential use, which seems to be A runaround of the municipal code. And so I hope that that you contemplate this and think about whether or not The HMU is really necessary, and I know Melinda had said that that Program 8 was a condition that needed to be satisfied for the housing element, but whether that's the appropriate way to satisfy the housing element and perhaps an opportunity to think outside the box for other actions. |
| 01:31:01.30 | Ray Withey | And that's why we're here tonight. So thanks. My couple of questions for you, if you will indulge me. |
| 01:31:03.85 | Unknown | Thanks. |
| 01:31:07.46 | Unknown | Of course. |
| 01:31:07.80 | Ray Withey | Thank you. Okay. So you made a couple of comments earlier, and I want to confirm that. done. sort of everybody understands them. that site is currently zoned for eight residential units. Is that correct from your assessment? |
| 01:31:22.03 | Unknown | That's my understanding that the base stone is eight units. |
| 01:31:23.44 | Ray Withey | Yeah. Okay. Okay. And currently by state density bonus law, a state density bonus application could be applied which would put an extra density on that unit. About three. You don't know the number. It's about three actually. |
| 01:31:35.31 | Unknown | I can't. about free. I think it's a misnomer. I don't actually think it's a state density bonus. I actually think it's a local density. No way, not at all. Okay, pardon me. I thought it was the density bonus that the local ordinance has adopted. |
| 01:31:45.13 | Ray Withey | No way, not at all. |
| 01:31:50.55 | Ray Withey | Melinda, could you perhaps help explain that? |
| 01:31:53.18 | Unknown | help explain that. Thank you. |
| 01:31:55.56 | Ray Withey | Yeah. Could you help explain that for us, please? |
| 01:31:58.38 | Melinda Croy | Yeah. Um, The government code has state density bonus law. As part of that, every local jurisdiction has to adopt an ordinance in accordance with that statute. So while the city of Sausalito has the ordinance and it's in their zoning code, it's reflective of what the state density bonus law requires. |
| 01:32:22.59 | Unknown | Does the state density bonus say it has to be 30% or can the local jurisdiction say I want it to be 30% or I want it to be 100% or I want it to be 10%? |
| 01:32:32.09 | Melinda Croy | It has to be, it has to allow, there's a scale that's associated with it so depending on what the affordability is and the percentage of affordability you get different kinds of density bonuses. It says that you have to have at least 35% or can go up to 35% depending on the scale. But it doesn't limit it there. You can go up to 100% if the jurisdiction wanted to. But there is a bar, a minimum bar. |
| 01:32:59.85 | Unknown | There's a floor, not a ceiling. Exactly. And it's the local ordinance that sets the ceiling. Correct. |
| 01:33:01.37 | Melinda Croy | Exactly. Correct. |
| 01:33:05.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:33:05.10 | Melinda Croy | Thank you. |
| 01:33:05.74 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:33:06.47 | Ray Withey | Okay, that was it. Thanks, Chris. Can I ask a question? |
| 01:33:08.17 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:33:08.19 | Unknown | Can I ask a question? |
| 01:33:09.10 | Unknown | . |
| 01:33:09.18 | Ray Withey | Please. |
| 01:33:09.34 | Melinda Croy | Thank you. |
| 01:33:10.23 | Unknown | So your suggestion that this committee not consider CN would then |
| 01:33:16.10 | Unknown | you're saying. |
| 01:33:18.68 | Unknown | in addition to taking the two bridgeway sites off the table, would also take the entire other sites on the northern end of town. off the table as well, And so my question to you is, given our dilemma of having to identify 16 units, what is your proposed alternative solution? |
| 01:33:40.47 | Unknown | I hope to come back on the 20th with a more complete proposal. Okay. |
| 01:33:46.78 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:33:47.61 | Ray Withey | One last clarification. Jeff Garren, could you, we've talked about the fact that if we did not implement an HMU program then 16 low or very low or low I can't remember the ratio, units would have to carry forward to the next cycle with the penalties and the sonorous provisions that you described. If we took the VMU off the table, which I heard from was another proposal, how many more units would have to be carried forward in a similar manner with those penalties applied. |
| 01:34:33.03 | Karen Warner | Oh, I got it. Which direction am I going here? |
| 01:34:36.06 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor, I think you're jumping ahead of me. I don't know if I went that far yet. Thank you. |
| 01:34:42.40 | Karen Warner | Yes. |
| 01:34:42.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:34:42.70 | Karen Warner | Thank you. So this table shows the commercial district capacity at 51 units, which is inclusive of VMU and HMU. So if the VMU and HMU were negated by the because your zoning does accommodate residential currently in the three commercial districts, we could have some you know, that would have to be evaluated. But I think the affordability wouldn't be there because we aren't providing the incentives. |
| 01:35:26.65 | Ray Withey | Okay, so that would further compound the problem of the carry forward. Okay. Chris, thank you. Let's hear from... the community some more and we will definitely get back to you. with the questions that you submitted. yes sir if you could state your name and place. |
| 01:35:54.79 | Unknown | I'm Rick Johnson, and I live in the Spring Valley neighborhood. Thank you. And I have addressed this council and committees before. But Mr. Mayor, Mr. Vice Mayor, committee and city staff, thank you for all the work that you guys are doing, Melinda, thank you for coming down. This has been very complicated, very complex. There's a lot of issues. I have a comment that I would like to read, but I also have some questions. So if I have questions and the answers take some time, does that take up my three minutes? |
| 01:36:31.02 | Unknown | No. |
| 01:36:31.84 | Unknown | Okay. All right, what Melinda or anybody that could answer, what is a low income, what is that number? Do we have a number for that? |
| 01:36:45.67 | Melinda Croy | If you give me about two seconds, I can look it up. |
| 01:36:48.59 | Unknown | Okay, because I think the low income in red in Marin is right around $80,000. |
| 01:36:58.84 | Melinda Croy | Let me look up the current number. I can do it in like two minutes. |
| 01:37:02.06 | Unknown | Okay, and then another question that I would have, on the zoning laws and the incentives is Doesn't the city lose the ability to control that? once the developer comes in and says, I demand my three exceptions. So Karen, you had said several times a second story. And I believe that may be kind of underutilizing what exactly is possible for a developer who wants to come in And. get full advantage of the property. which in this case would be 11 units. and I actually did the math. And if you did it at regular rates based on a low income on the bottom floor, and let's say we go up four stories, which I think as possible. you're going to have $324,000 of rental income in a period of a year. for an 11 unit piece. based on four units on the bottom, three on the second floor, two on the top, third and two on the top. I'm just throwing out numbers that are based on what total rents are. So if $80,000 is low income, obviously they're going to be able to pay $2,500 a month a month. And I use the top rent at $3,000. |
| 01:38:38.11 | Melinda Croy | So low income for a family of four, it adjusts per number of people in the family. So the area median income for Marin County is $103,000. Um... low income. and for a family of four is ninety thousand dollars for a family of two it's seventy two thousand |
| 01:39:03.35 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:39:03.44 | Unknown | I'm going to wake up here soon. |
| 01:39:04.60 | Unknown | We're not here arguing about low income. I mean, that seems to be the popular term that's being bandied about. The reason why I'm here is because we have a community that we're concerned about. |
| 01:39:20.94 | Ray Withey | Yeah. |
| 01:39:21.56 | Unknown | Okay, we have a community that we're concerned about. And it's not just our community, it's the entire city. But getting back to the question I had regarding the city losing its ability to manage the 32-foot height limit, does the city lose that ability if the developer requests it as an incentive? |
| 01:39:46.03 | Jeff Bradley | Under the density bonus laws, which are both the local and the state laws that are complementary to each other, developers or applicants can request up to three incentives, as you said, including height. But the caveat and the holdback is they have to demonstrate and prove that they need that additional height or whatever the incentive is to make the affordable units financially feasible for the project to pencil out as a whole. |
| 01:40:15.44 | Unknown | Okay, but it's still possible. |
| 01:40:16.91 | Jeff Bradley | Yeah, a developer could come in and ask for 10 stories if they wanted to, but they'd be bumping up against the 11 units. It could be the absolute max you could place on the property with the density bonus and a host of other development regulations. So they'd probably have to use their two or three concessions wisely and not go crazy with the height. |
| 01:40:40.93 | Ray Withey | Before you move on, I think we need some clarification there. you |
| 01:40:46.12 | Jeff Bradley | Sorry. |
| 01:40:46.61 | Ray Withey | Thank you. Sorry, we need some. |
| 01:40:48.30 | Jeff Bradley | Right. Within the 32-foot height limit, that accommodates two or three stories. And my 10-story example is probably too extreme. I'm hearing from my colleagues on the committee. But to your point, the developer could request something more than 32 feet or more than two or three stories, but they'd have to prove that it was needed to make the project feasible to make those affordable units to be absorbed into the project |
| 01:41:20.92 | Ray Withey | And Jeff, I'm sorry, sorry. This is for purposes of clarification. And just so that we're clear, |
| 01:41:22.73 | Jeff Bradley | I just said this is for purposes of clarifying Thank you. |
| 01:41:26.35 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:41:29.83 | Ray Withey | That has nothing to do with HMU. A developer could do that today. |
| 01:41:35.47 | Unknown | Well, the difference that HMU makes is if a developer did that today, they would be required to build on top of the 7-Eleven. And so they would have to go up at least two stories above the 7-11 in order to accommodate the 11 units to which they would be entitled. What HMU does is allow them to do that development on the ground floor. instead of having commercial on the ground floor, And so our intention was to minimize the impact to the neighborhood by having the city be able to demonstrate that it is feasible for a developer to build within the 32-foot limit and still accommodate 11 units without going so high and without going higher than two stories. That's the difference that the HMU overlay makes. |
| 01:42:27.39 | Unknown | I agree. I understand that. But without the HMU, the developer is not going to move in there because it's not viable. That's what Melinda has spoken to tonight. |
| 01:42:39.10 | Unknown | She has said it is easier to get financing for residential than for mixed |
| 01:42:41.78 | Unknown | than for mixed use. Okay. Okay. Well, there's some other questions, but let's go ahead and just move on. I have a comment that I'd like to read if I could so I don't take up everyone's time. And thank you very much for your time. Okay. I'm here on behalf of myself, my family, my community, and my city. to ask once again that the VMU and the HMU be removed from the Sausalito City Housing Element. Sacramento and ABAG have handed down building quotas at the expense of every community, as you see in the newspapers every day. Never. Has any legislation been so contested by so many in every township and city? It's in the Chronicle. It's in the IJ. It's everywhere. People are up in arms. It's a problem, and it's created actually by legislature in Sacramento. I understand you're implementing Law. But... according to what Melinda has said, a lot of that is based on demographics and can be adjusted, therefore. Sacramento. Okay. On this note, I would like to mention that when Sacramento and ABAG devised these quotas, it was well before the current drought. If there was not enough water for the current residents who are already being asked to conserve, why are we building more unsustainable infrastructure to strain an already overtaxed situation? SACRAMENTO AND ABAG MAY SURELY BE PRESSED TO REDUCE THESE NUMBERS IN THE COMING YEARS. WHY PLACE COMMUNITIES IN AN ADVERSE POSITION WITH CODES AND ORDINANCES THAT MAY NOT NEED TO BE AND ONLY FAVORS DEVELOPERS WHO REALLY HURT THE COMMUNITY AND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WAS ELECTED TO SERVE. It is my understanding that the cycle ending in 2014 has already been met. I MAY HAVE BEEN MISTAKEN ON THAT BECAUSE OF THE 16 UNITS, BUT IF THE 16 UNITS ARE 8 AND 8, WHICH ARE ALREADY AT BRIDGEWAY AND AT 7-ELEVEN, Why can't they be counted for those 16? because they can't be financially viable for a developer? Is that the purpose? That doesn't sound like that's something that really benefits the community but does benefit the developers. We have those 16 units. All we have to do is say, Those are the 16 units. We don't need the HMU. |
| 01:45:12.09 | Melinda Croy | Let me respond to that. Actually, in order to count those 16 units, The HMU, we have to provide incentives in order to show that they're viable for affordable housing. That's the small site issue. So not only is it the density, when you're looking at the housing element and whether or not a site is suitable for development, one of the things that you look at is the size of the site. So suitability is one component. Zoning or density is another component. And so all of those components get put together to answer the question of do we have enough sites at appropriate densities that are suitable for development. So the issue with these two sites and why the HMU was proposed was because without the HMU, those two sites would be too small and would not have the appropriate incentives to be able to be developed by affordable housing developers or for affordable housing due to economies of scale. In other words, those sites you would not be able to use towards your lower income. You could only use them towards your mod or above mod. So the city would not have had enough sites to meet the arena. |
| 01:46:31.39 | Unknown | The lower income is $90,000 a year of income, correct? |
| 01:46:35.52 | Melinda Croy | Correct, but that's again not what the statute doesn't take into account specifically and ties the income to that, to the density and the site itself it's When you're talking to affordable housing developers, what are their targets? And it is $90,000 here in Marin County for a family of four. So you're talking about three or four-bedroom units. And here are two bedrooms. Right. |
| 01:47:08.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:47:09.39 | Melinda Croy | Correct. So that's what I'm saying is in order to develop, in order to get that small of a site to be able to be appropriate and for affordable housing to meet those low and very low income, that's why the AHMU was proposed and the program was put forth. Otherwise, you're gonna be able to use those sites to meet that low income, those lower income requirements. So does that give you a little bit of background of why? |
| 01:47:38.90 | Unknown | Can I give you a little bit of background of why? I understand what you're saying, but that doesn't give us the flexibility that you're saying that every demographic has. |
| 01:47:46.89 | Melinda Croy | you do have flexibility in how you meet those requirements. One of the requirements, and that's the way the city chose to meet the lower income. So that's... |
| 01:47:57.74 | Unknown | Let me just finish this. That's not on the seat. |
| 01:47:58.55 | Melinda Croy | That's not on. |
| 01:48:00.82 | Ray Withey | So if you could finish up your statement, sir, that would be helpful. That's what I'm trying to do. Thank you. |
| 01:48:02.77 | Unknown | That's what I'm trying to do. The VMU and the HMU are not required by Sacramento as we all learned IN THE LAST FULL COUNCIL MEETING, AND THEREFORE I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST for all the citizens of this great city that you do the right thing and remove these two elements. |
| 01:48:19.91 | Ray Withey | Thank you. Bye. |
| 01:48:21.26 | Unknown | Woo! |
| 01:48:26.07 | Ray Withey | um Thank you. No. There's a number of you who want to talk. understand, you want to applaud and all of that good stuff. If you could Just keep some decorum. That would be very helpful. Sir, you made a statement at the end there, which I feel I must ask just one last time. The statement was made that Sacramento in its last... in its communication somehow indirectly with the city council several weeks ago, that it is stated that Sacramento does not need us to implement a VMU and HMU program. Is that correct or not? |
| 01:49:12.78 | Melinda Croy | As it stands in the housing element, they have to. That's what the council decided. That's what was adopted into your general plan, and therefore you have to implement that program. |
| 01:49:24.64 | Ray Withey | Thank you. |
| 01:49:30.50 | Unknown | Good evening, Mike Rogers. I do 107 Pearl Street. I own a house on 107 Pearl Street. And we have, my family has 20 other, for the purpose of, we're here for Ms. Poi. My family has 20 houses within this area right behind these two building sites that we're discussing, the 1901 and the 2500-2015 Bridgeway building. So it's very important that we get our point across here that these two building sites are at the bottom of a hill. We're behind it, along with the rest of our neighbors. And if we build any higher than what these two buildings are right now, they're going to block our views. And that's going to not only ruin the views that we have that we enjoy right now over the bay, but it's also going to depreciate our houses. They're not going to be as valuable as they are, which means that you're not going to be able to collect as many taxes either because we're going to have to request tax reductions for devaluating our houses. Also, we've talked about a lot of things this evening, taken a lot of notes. I had some prepared remarks, but I kind of have to go off my remarks that I had planned on because Jeff has mentioned a few things. Number one, he said that we have the 32-foot height limitation, but that because of state density bonus laws that we can go, they can go higher. And I think this is one of those laws of unintended consequences. If we leave these two buildings as building sites for developers to come in, they're going to build as high as they want. They're going to ask for that bonus. This is something I've mentioned to you guys before, but because we have HCD here, I think she needs to hear that unintended consequences in a small city, a Sausalito, with a very limited population, We're on a peninsula. We're restricted by the Bay, by the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. and the county of Marin, we don't have space to build large projects for so-called low-income people. Low-income to me is not $90,000. I mean, that is absolutely ridiculous. And the state has to recognize that. I mean, give me a break. and have been there for many years, and they're not able to do that. And they're not able to do that. My family's been there since the 1920s. We've been in this town since the 1920s for five generations. If you're going to allow a developer to come in and put a larger, taller building to block our views from existing neighbors, taxpayers, that is absolutely wrong. And the state has their laws that we have to follow, but the laws can be changed and they can be bent. Not all cities want to be in Los Angeles or San Jose. We're not that big. Again, we're a very small community. We don't have the space to do what you guys want us to do. And I request, again, that we remove these two sites from whatever you want to do here and we can't do that. and also remove the HMU and VMU. That's going to destroy our city. We are a small city built with small businesses and small houses. We're only 1.5 is our average house size capacity in Sausalito. We're not families of three and four people. We don't need multifamily units. These two sites are the wrong place in Sausalito. Absolutely. |
| 01:53:02.57 | Ray Withey | Absolutely. Thanks, Mike. There's a number of people behind you who want to speak as well. But thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:53:07.48 | Unknown | as well. |
| 01:53:07.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:53:08.08 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:53:08.12 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:53:08.76 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:53:11.07 | Unknown | Good evening. Thank you for allowing us to question. talk and speak in this democracy. The last time I was here, I came as a canary in the coal mine. I have no idea what I'm doing, but I've lost my feathers simply because there's no oxygen left in the mine shaft. So I have just three comments. I usually say the word fuck. But since we're being recorded, I'm not going to. This is... so clear that this is not about low-income housing. |
| 01:53:57.43 | Unknown | The fact that the Rogers and the Majora's have rented under market value for 40 50 60 years And then this would allow somebody to go down to the 7-Eleven, build up, and then charge $2,000, $3,000, $4,000 a month. What the? F do you think is going to happen to the rents behind there? Why would the Majora's and the Rogers put up with some developer coming in making |
| 01:54:35.77 | Unknown | M-hm. |
| 01:54:36.22 | Unknown | $350,000 a year on a building when these guys are barely covering Yes, they own it and they get rent, da-da-da-da, but they are providing The low-income housing in this goddamn town. and you're about to put them out of business. And I happen to live in their neighborhood. I do not live in one of their houses. |
| 01:55:01.30 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:55:01.38 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:55:01.42 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:55:01.50 | Unknown | So I have no... dog in this race. But I will say as my final comment is this fucking thing is all about developers. and their goddamn bottom line and they're wanting to get into Sausalito and build, build, build, build. Thank you. |
| 01:55:27.49 | Ray Withey | Thank you. |
| 01:55:29.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:55:29.73 | Ray Withey | Stop. |
| 01:55:29.99 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:55:30.02 | Ray Withey | Yeah. |
| 01:55:30.04 | Unknown | Good evening, subcommittee members. Mrs. McCoy. A lot of good discussion here tonight. A couple of things. We found out that we not only have arena number, but we also must meet a variety of housing needs. And as part of that, how many units constitutes a variety? Is it 16 units? Is that what we're saying? That's a variety? |
| 01:55:53.73 | Melinda Croy | There's no specific number attached like the RHNA is attached to income categories. The statute says that you have to have zoning and availability of sites for a variety of housing types. the way that it was described in Sausalito's housing element, given Sausalito, it's very specific to each community. So given what's described in Sausalito, that is what was found to be appropriate as far as what is needed, considering the ADUs and the liveaboards at the time. |
| 01:56:27.07 | Unknown | So we meet the variety. There's no state mandate that says we have a specific variety that we have to meet. We meet the variety. Is that correct? |
| 01:56:34.30 | Melinda Croy | with the HMU, with the HMU proposed HMU or VMU, you know, both of them. That's why. |
| 01:56:41.72 | Unknown | Yeah, and HMU and DMU is not a state requirement, right? |
| 01:56:45.96 | Melinda Croy | Correct. They can provide a variety of housing types in a different way. That was the way that the city chose to provide that variety of housing types. The other way was the rezone. |
| 01:56:53.75 | Karen Warner | The other way was the reason. Yeah. right but I think Melinda in in the statute when it's referring to variety of housing types it identifies specific types of housing and inside family rental is what we were missing right that's the piece that we were missing |
| 01:56:56.34 | Melinda Croy | Right. |
| 01:57:03.51 | Unknown | Correct. That's the pace that we're missing. We've got farm worker housing, and we also have multifamily rental housing. Correct. That's correct. |
| 01:57:12.87 | Melinda Croy | Correct, that's correct. Multi-family rental is the opportunities for that. |
| 01:57:16.91 | Unknown | opportunities for that. The state doesn't really care how we accommodate that multifamily housing, is that correct? |
| 01:57:25.28 | Melinda Croy | That would not be correct. Again, it's dependent on the situation in each community on what is needed in the community, what's appropriate, and the housing element, which is developed by the city and how they go about and what is needed. |
| 01:57:27.77 | Unknown | It gives you a lot of money. |
| 01:57:44.18 | Melinda Croy | along with You know, the variety of interests and the variety of income groups, the variety of housing types, the variety of people, that constitutes what would become the variety that you need to address. In this particular case, there was no opportunities originally planned for having availability of multifamily housing, rental housing that could be accommodated for lower income households. So for rent, that's why, and you needed additional sites to meet your regional housing needs allocation. So all of this discussion happened when they were doing the housing element. So that's, I mean, it's complicated, I should say. |
| 01:58:29.03 | Unknown | You also mentioned several points. You talked about high-density housing. Consistently use that term. Can you define high-density housing? |
| 01:58:29.13 | Melinda Croy | Thank you. you |
| 01:58:32.39 | Melinda Croy | I'm going to... |
| 01:58:36.84 | Melinda Croy | High density housing is multifamily housing usually at, if you're talking about affordable housing, the default density standard, which is 20 dwellings per acre or thereabouts, up to 20 dwellings per acre. For Sausalito, that's specific to Sausalito. So higher density housing is not two dwelling units per acre, five dwelling per acre, eight dwelling units per acre. It's some sort of, it's a higher density that will allow for economies of scale. |
| 01:59:03.03 | Unknown | So there is a specific formula that states that how many units must be, and you're saying it's a state requirement, we have to have a certain number of units, her whatever. |
| 01:59:13.41 | Melinda Croy | It's a density question. And again, I don't want to go too much into the weeds because otherwise it's going to get confusing. |
| 01:59:15.40 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:59:22.81 | Melinda Croy | the city has an option when they're doing the housing element of using the default density standard which is a certainty standard |
| 01:59:29.19 | Unknown | you |
| 01:59:29.36 | Melinda Croy | essentially saying if you have densities at this high at this height and it's set by population and where you are and then we don't question the zoning for lower, the actual zoning itself, if it's suitable to, not suitable I should say, but if it, if it's suitable in number to accommodate economies of scale, essentially. Otherwise, you have to provide an analysis on whatever lower density that you're trying to demonstrate will meet the statute or meet that appropriate zoning for lower income households. So in this case, the city chose to go along and go and do the default density. |
| 02:00:12.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:00:12.68 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:00:12.73 | Unknown | And then we talked to, Ms. Cox talked earlier about the multifamily ordinance, and I really wasn't clear why we can't use, because we have 10,000 foot square, 10,000 foot square parcels out there that could potentially accommodate multi-units now if they can't build a McMansion on it. So they can now put multiple units. How come that does not satisfy any of the housing requirements, the reunion numbers? |
| 02:00:24.20 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:00:37.28 | Melinda Croy | I'm gonna actually refer this over back to Karen. I'm not entirely positive what This wasn't one of the site's options. |
| 02:00:45.67 | Karen Warner | We have. accounted for that. and only where the density is the minimum 20 unit an acre density, which is your R3, your R2 doesn't hit that density, can we attribute it to lower income. |
| 02:00:53.99 | Melinda Croy | Thank you. |
| 02:00:54.14 | Unknown | you |
| 02:01:00.60 | Karen Warner | but only where the sites can accommodate a minimum of eight units. can we also attribute 20-unit and acre parcels? So we have looked at the build-out potential on all of your underutilized multi-family sites. |
| 02:01:09.43 | Unknown | So, so. |
| 02:01:14.84 | Unknown | Yeah, so there was like 764 potential units that was studied on by the city in 2011. Potential units is what they came up with for the city documentation. So what I'm hearing is you must have, is it eight units on each site to meet the state requirement? Is there... |
| 02:01:34.67 | Karen Warner | the small sites constraint. And again, as Melinda stated, eight units is smaller than she's probably ever accepted. It's smaller than I've ever worked on. I mean, usually we're talking about sites with at least 16 units, but yes. |
| 02:01:39.48 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:01:39.80 | Unknown | . |
| 02:01:51.44 | Unknown | But it's not a hard, fast state requirement. I guess my time is running out here, but what I want to say is, you know, a few years back when we had the liveaboards that was poo-pooed and shot down, you guys actually fought for that and won it. The people at the time got that going. I want the state, I want the city to work forward and look at using the multifamily density law ordinance, I should say, to our favor to look at seeing about getting, meeting our rena requirements and our variety of housing via that method. Thank you. |
| 02:01:51.95 | Unknown | I love it. |
| 02:01:52.19 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 02:02:23.96 | Ray Withey | Thank you. |
| 02:02:26.93 | Unknown | Yes, sir. My name is Bill Meehan. I live at 2107 Bridgeway. I hate public speaking. So I'm going to let other people who are better at it make the variety of points and ask the technical questions. I'm concerned. that our neighborhood not get congested. And I believe, as best I can figure out from what I've followed, I believe that the consultants and the staff have said that they are considering other they are considering alternatives to 1901 and 2105 Bridgeway. uh... My question, which is actually the one I sent in, is would the city council, not city council, would the committee confirm that My impression is correct. |
| 02:03:33.61 | Ray Withey | the impression that we are looking at alternatives? Is that? |
| 02:03:42.33 | Unknown | The committee, please. You, Mr. Mayor, please. OK. |
| 02:03:45.88 | Ray Withey | OK. I will tell you the way in which we, I think, the presentation. I just want to know what you're doing. Well, I think you've witnessed it. |
| 02:03:46.57 | Unknown | Bye. Bye. |
| 02:03:51.04 | Unknown | The presentation? The President. |
| 02:03:55.54 | Ray Withey | Because in the presentation, why I pointed to our consultants or the staff is to reaffirm the presentation that they gave. which was, first of all, an explanation of how the HMU program arose. number one, The consequences of not adopting that program or what other programs could be adopted to supplement, to it. as an alternative. I think we... the staff or consultants said one alternative that the City Council could possibly consider is put in residential use with certain constraints on some one or more parcels of the CN2 zone. That's down in the north end of town. The other is to go back to the discussions we had in 2011 and pick and look at some sites that we previously had rejected for affordable housing overlay. And it looks like if we didn't do HMU, and we didn't do HMU or whatever on the CN2 zones, we would actually have to rezone and upzone certain other sites. Those are the options that I heard today from staff. So yes, you're correct. Those are the options that we are |
| 02:05:27.34 | Unknown | That you are considering alternatives to 1901 and 2100. |
| 02:05:28.90 | Ray Withey | That was... |
| 02:05:32.90 | Ray Withey | that was presented by staff, and as soon as public comments are ended, I'm sure we're gonna have a discussion up here about those alternatives. |
| 02:05:39.38 | Unknown | alternatives. Oh, great. Thank you very much. One last – one last – oh, yes? |
| 02:05:45.11 | Unknown | We are not the decision makers. We were directed by City Council to identify if there are any alternatives, and that was in response to the concerns raised by this group of people. It's our job to identify and perhaps even prioritize what some of those alternatives might be in our opinion but it is ultimately the decision of the City Council. |
| 02:06:08.98 | Unknown | I was at the city council meeting and I heard them |
| 02:06:12.91 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:06:13.16 | Unknown | Say that, and I was just, the main reason I came tonight was to make sure that you were doing it. I'm sorry to say. |
| 02:06:23.02 | Ray Withey | So I'm guessing that how we will end up our meeting tonight when public comment is ended is that we will have a discussion and see if after what we've heard this committee can make a recommendation. |
| 02:06:23.03 | Unknown | So, |
| 02:06:37.63 | Ray Withey | set of options or whatever to the City Council for its subsequent meeting |
| 02:06:41.95 | Unknown | Thank you very much. Can I, one very quick other thing. Jeff keeps saying that 1901 is the bone of contention here, and it's not just 1901. It's the whole neighborhood, which includes 1901 and 2105. But that's a comment and not a question. Thank you very much. |
| 02:07:01.59 | Unknown | Thank you very much. |
| 02:07:02.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:07:10.05 | Unknown | Vince Majora, resident of Sausalito. I came here tonight to vent, not to ask questions. |
| 02:07:18.20 | Unknown | . |
| 02:07:19.88 | Unknown | Listening to Melinda Coy, It seems like there's flexibility in Sacramento, and I think Thank you. The city should work on that. We're talking about high-density housing, PMU, HMU, when we're going through a drought. There's not enough water for fish, farmers, or residents of California. Many years ago we were going through a drought and Marin Water District stopped all billing This might happen again. City of Sausalito and their developers need to come up with a common sense housing development You stated that the city is working closely with the community in 2009 to 2012. That wasn't true. You never said that you wanted to build high-density housing at 711 Olive Street or the market You did the same thing on the sewer increase. You said it would be about $50 increase minus $290, 94 percent increase. Our sewer treatment plant is old, outdated, and to its capacity. Who is going to pay for a new plant when you're putting in high-density housing plus marineship Building high-density housing at 711 and Olive Street would block views, reduce property values. I'm asking you to remove HMU-BMU from the housing element. If not, our next step will be a referendum, and we learn from the residents of Fairfax from their mistakes, what they did on the referendum. |
| 02:09:07.82 | Unknown | plus challenge you not to remove the HMU will challenge you in court. That'll be our next step. |
| 02:09:19.19 | Unknown | Ray, when you asked Jeff about the 7-Eleven and HMU and the developers not going to the second floor, Jeff did not answer your question until you pushed him on it. A developer won't come in there and just put one or two stories in there. They're going to maximize what they can get away with. And I just hope that things will work out. Thanks. |
| 02:09:46.16 | Ray Withey | Thank you. Hi, Joe. |
| 02:09:48.35 | Jill Hoffman | Hi, good evening, I'm Jill Hoffman. resident, voter, Sausalito. Lynn, I just have a few questions for you. I think we've gone around a couple times, and I don't think it's clear, but let me just, so I'm going to pinpoint some questions. My first is, is it correct that there's no state requirement for a certain size unit for low income? |
| 02:10:11.42 | Melinda Croy | That's correct, yes. |
| 02:10:12.43 | Jill Hoffman | That is correct. So we're all clear there's no size for a low-income unit. |
| 02:10:19.75 | Melinda Croy | Correct. |
| 02:10:20.28 | Jill Hoffman | Thanks. Okay, my next one. There's no requirement that the units be grouped together. Is that correct? |
| 02:10:27.43 | Melinda Croy | That's multifamily, and there is a requirement that you have multifamily. It's usually five or more is considered multifamily. |
| 02:10:33.37 | Jill Hoffman | It's usually five or more, but in a town the size and scale of Sausalito, |
| 02:10:38.37 | Melinda Croy | That's what's defined as multi-family, is five or more units. |
| 02:10:42.64 | Jill Hoffman | five or more units on one side. |
| 02:10:44.54 | Melinda Croy | in a building, or connected. That's what multi-family is, it's connected. And in terms of the size for affordability, when you're talking about, that's a completely different requirement. Okay. |
| 02:10:56.10 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. So within the requirements of the context of what we're talking about tonight, it's also correct that Hillsboro doesn't have any five-unit low-income multifamily. Am I correct on that? |
| 02:11:00.29 | Melinda Croy | Okay. |
| 02:11:06.60 | Melinda Croy | No, they do. |
| 02:11:07.61 | Jill Hoffman | They do. I thought you said they did it all with ADU. |
| 02:11:10.18 | Melinda Croy | Yeah, no, they're doing for the RHNA, they have all ADUs, but for the variety of housing types, they have overlays for multifamily to allow multifamily five or more in various areas. And in fact, I think they're going forward with a proposal right now on that. |
| 02:11:25.08 | Jill Hoffman | But do they currently have any buildings in their town that have five units? |
| 02:11:28.96 | Melinda Croy | Mm. Of low income housing? Of low income housing, no, they don't. |
| 02:11:29.97 | Jill Hoffman | of low-income housing. So let me ask you this. |
| 02:11:36.30 | Melinda Croy | but they're required to plan for it. Which is what the housing element does, it's a planning document. |
| 02:11:38.86 | Jill Hoffman | Right. |
| 02:11:42.69 | Jill Hoffman | And the units, they don't have to be built by affordable housing developers, is that right? |
| 02:11:48.38 | Melinda Croy | for in what context? |
| 02:11:50.27 | Jill Hoffman | in any context. |
| 02:11:51.93 | Melinda Croy | If you're talking about an overlay, it depends on how the city establishes the overlay. That's the rules of how the city establishes it and what their objectives are. |
| 02:12:02.17 | Jill Hoffman | But it has to be. It can't be. residents who get together and decide we want to get together and get financing, it has to be a low income |
| 02:12:10.62 | Melinda Croy | Oh no, no, no, no, you can resident, anybody who wants to build affordable housing can build affordable housing. |
| 02:12:13.29 | Jill Hoffman | housing can build affordable housing. It doesn't have to be an affordable housing advocate |
| 02:12:17.12 | Melinda Croy | Oh, no, no, no, no. Yeah, anybody who wants to build affordable housing can build affordable housing. And has the financing. |
| 02:12:21.09 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 02:12:23.23 | Melinda Croy | We're about to do it. |
| 02:12:25.49 | Jill Hoffman | The other thing, the last question that I have, well, actually, it's not my last question, but last question I have for you specifically is that we have until December of 2014, to present you with our plan that may have amendments but, we have until then. We don't have to because the question was do we have to implement the VMU? And the HMU, let me finish my question. The answer to that, I believe, is no, we don't have to implement it. What we're doing right now is a public comment. We're doing the revisions, we're doing the analysis of the plan with input from the community. And then we come back to you and say, is this acceptable? |
| 02:13:09.55 | Melinda Croy | No, that discussion already happened with, two years ago with the housing element. And we've already said, yes, what you're planning, City of Sausalito, with the VMU is acceptable for the state. If the city wants to amend the housing element, |
| 02:13:19.47 | Unknown | All right. |
| 02:13:29.11 | Melinda Croy | to provide a different alternative They would have to do it prior and implement everything prior to the next planning period. So, yeah, everything would have to be implemented. By December 2014. Yeah. Exactly. The city's already made that decision. So that's what's. |
| 02:13:39.00 | Unknown | So. Thank you. |
| 02:13:41.51 | Jill Hoffman | by December 2014. Yeah. So, Right, but we can come back to you and say, we've looked at this, we're doing an amended plan in 2014. As long as it complies with the numbers, as long as we get the numbers right, |
| 02:13:57.51 | Melinda Croy | The numbers and also the other parts of the statute. So it's not just the numbers, it's all of the different requirements of the statute. |
| 02:14:02.62 | Jill Hoffman | Oh, yeah. Okay, so we have a new, and you're telling me that, and I think you just said that no one talked to you about the new multi-family ordinance that was just passed. Is that right? Prior to this meeting? Because my understanding was that the last city council meeting that that was supposed to be part of the analysis. Okay. Maybe I listened to it wrong today, but I thought that we were supposed to be looking at, you know, different types of opportunities for capturing possible potential sites |
| 02:14:28.78 | Unknown | Right. |
| 02:14:36.14 | Jill Hoffman | During this cycle, I'm just talking about this cycle. |
| 02:14:38.30 | Melinda Croy | I am not, I mean, what the sites, what I evaluate |
| 02:14:42.21 | Jill Hoffman | evaluate. |
| 02:14:43.04 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:14:43.19 | Jill Hoffman | Bye. you |
| 02:14:43.41 | Unknown | It's right. No. If you could have heard on second, |
| 02:14:44.57 | Ray Withey | If you could hold on a second, Jill. Karen, could I ask you to clarify this for us, please? |
| 02:14:46.87 | Melinda Croy | you |
| 02:14:46.90 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:14:46.92 | Melinda Croy | Thank you. |
| 02:14:46.97 | Karen Warner | Yeah. ask you to clarify So the multifamily ordinance was anticipated in the city's adopted element. It's program number 20. We put as much detail in there at the time when the city adopted that. We have not drafted the new housing element yet, so it's not a part of that. |
| 02:15:02.75 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:15:11.96 | Jill Hoffman | That's not a part of the new one. But there's no prohibition to talking about this cycle. |
| 02:15:17.73 | Karen Warner | It will be a part of the new one because it |
| 02:15:19.89 | Jill Hoffman | because it... I'm not talking about anyone, I'm talking about this side. |
| 02:15:21.55 | Karen Warner | It is in this cycle. It is. It's program 20. The site's in. |
| 02:15:21.92 | Unknown | It is in this. It is. It's program 20. The site's inventory already, what Karen said earlier is that the site's inventory |
| 02:15:25.61 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:15:25.72 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 02:15:27.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:15:27.42 | Karen Warner | Karen said, |
| 02:15:28.30 | Unknown | Really? |
| 02:15:31.15 | Unknown | that that they put together for us. included the multifamily homes available on the So if you go back to your table, Lily, you'll see that |
| 02:15:46.86 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:15:46.88 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:15:49.27 | Unknown | in R3 district capacity. the multifamily are 50. or sorry, 27. So the R3, that's what the multifamily ordinance affected. Those have already been counted. And the issue is that in the existing housing element, the HMU accounted for the HMU overlay. was, was used for the purpose of identifying low income and what has been identified in the R3 district is not low income because the sites are not large enough to accommodate at least eight units on any given site. Koi explained, Usually you have to accommodate more than eight units, but for Sausalito we got an exception because we are so small. And we are so constrained, but still our requirement is that we have to identify sites that will hold at least eight units. |
| 02:16:54.33 | Mary Wagner | Mr. Mayor, point of clarification? Yes. That ordinance which modified the single-family development standards and multifamily zoning districts applied to the R2, 2.5, and the R3, not just the R3. |
| 02:16:56.22 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:16:56.47 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:16:56.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:17:07.37 | Ray Withey | Thank you, Mary. |
| 02:17:09.87 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, so, I'm looking at a technical land study from April 2011. and it shows 426 for R2 and 338 for R3. possible units that can be built on, that now can be built on, that couldn't be built on previously because of the multifamily ordinance. So my question is, hypothetically, If the city came back to you, Melinda, and said, you know, 16 new units available because people that have current houses that they can now build on their lots and they can build a new multi-family unit on there. and we can account for Because of the... vagaries and the analysis of the small community in Sausalito that we now more than meet the low income number because the low income number is what we're shooting for, right? Thank you. The 11th of our |
| 02:18:06.09 | Melinda Croy | The low income number, I guess, is what the concern is here. It's more complicated than that because if you're going to identify sites that have existing uses on them, which is what they did already in their analyses, there's a series of analysis that you have to do to demonstrate its suitability and availability within the planning period. So not knowing the specifics of the sites that were not included in the housing elements, their size, what's currently existing on them, and all of that kind of stuff, I wouldn't be able to say yes or no because it would say it depends. |
| 02:18:42.36 | Jill Hoffman | because Understood. It depends. But if we did that and went back and found those units and captured those units and went back to you and said, and plus the HMU and the BMU don't give you any more |
| 02:18:46.51 | Melinda Croy | If we do that, if we do that, |
| 02:18:54.97 | Ray Withey | . |
| 02:18:56.21 | Jill Hoffman | they don't meet the low income unit, uh... jill |
| 02:18:58.68 | Ray Withey | Jill, if I could just put you on hold for a second. Sure. Lily. |
| 02:19:02.14 | Jill Hoffman | I'm not sure. |
| 02:19:02.86 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor, may I provide clarification on what the single family standards and multifamily zoning districts ordinance did? It took a look at the R2 2.5 and the R3 zoning districts and it said for single family units in those districts which are allowed, there are reduced development standards |
| 02:19:05.02 | Ray Withey | Please. |
| 02:19:22.37 | Unknown | So, for example, the floor area, the building coverage of those units, similar to single-family residences in single-family residential zoning districts. So it didn't provide additional opportunities for more dense housing in multifamily zoning districts. It provided reduced development potential for single-family residences in those zoning districts. |
| 02:19:38.35 | Unknown | and we're going to have a |
| 02:19:40.21 | Jill Hoffman | That's right. |
| 02:19:45.74 | Jill Hoffman | Right, so you could build low income units |
| 02:19:46.48 | Unknown | which is... |
| 02:19:46.79 | Melinda Croy | Thank you. |
| 02:19:50.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:19:50.72 | Melinda Croy | No, which means that from her explanation, there's not increased density or increased availability on those sites. There's no increased capacity, so you wouldn't be able to count increased capacity. |
| 02:20:04.56 | Jill Hoffman | So we're looking for one five-unit building somewhere in Sausalito to meet that portion of the, of the, Okay, then let me ask you one last question then, because I think we're getting down in the weeds and maybe we need to talk with our people about how to do this. So my last... Thank you. One last question. |
| 02:20:21.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:20:21.99 | Ray Withey | One last question. |
| 02:20:23.25 | Jill Hoffman | I'm way over my line right now. Okay, so if there are building permits outstanding for buildings in Sausalito, that have not yet been constructed, but they are issued. Is there any prohibition for including those and perhaps an amended plan that we would give to you with an analysis of why we feel that this complies with the requirements. |
| 02:20:43.52 | Unknown | What's your favorite? |
| 02:20:54.73 | Melinda Croy | You have to count them based upon their affordability. |
| 02:20:57.66 | Jill Hoffman | And you've told me, though, that affordability is not mean |
| 02:21:00.97 | Melinda Croy | Once it's a building per- Size. Right, correct. But the thing is, |
| 02:21:01.16 | Jill Hoffman | It's a building per... Bye. |
| 02:21:05.95 | Melinda Croy | you Once you count it as a project, which is what you're talking about, projects that have building permits which haven't been pulled yet or building permits that have been pulled, That you have to count pursuant to the affordability. The whole density thing, everything else goes out, it does not apply to a project. it has to be counted based upon its actual affordability. |
| 02:21:31.48 | Ray Withey | Thank you, Joe. |
| 02:21:31.57 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, Joe. But even the Bridgeway units don't meet that number, right? Because the Bridgeway units are only to Right. Either one of them. Because you put those two together, you still don't have 16 low income units. You only have two or four. Is that right? Am I correct on that? |
| 02:21:49.94 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. |
| 02:21:53.55 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:21:53.65 | Jeff Bradley | Jeff, |
| 02:21:53.70 | Ray Withey | I'm sure. Could you use the microphone? |
| 02:21:54.11 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:21:54.26 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 02:21:54.33 | Jill Hoffman | Use the microphone. |
| 02:21:55.04 | Jeff Bradley | Please. I'm sorry. You're referring to the two HMU sites? |
| 02:21:58.70 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. you So what's the purpose of the 2-H and E-Sect? They're not 16 low-income units. Our target is low-income units. There's no requirement for the size for the low-income units. |
| 02:22:05.05 | Unknown | Well, that, |
| 02:22:10.72 | Jill Hoffman | The requirement for the size of the building is eight units, |
| 02:22:16.76 | Melinda Croy | What do you mean requirements for the size? Are you talking about number of bedrooms? Are you talking about... |
| 02:22:21.55 | Jill Hoffman | I'm talking about size, I'm talking about number, however you want to slice it. Does it have to be certain? |
| 02:22:24.94 | Jeff Bradley | HMU has requirements for 30% of the units to be three-bedroom. This is the draft ordinance and also the adopted housing element. And it has a requirement that 50% of the units be affordable, defined as 25% affordable to very low-income households and 25% affordable to low-income households. |
| 02:22:31.56 | Jill Hoffman | Correct. |
| 02:22:31.98 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:22:44.74 | Jill Hoffman | Right, but back to my comment, which was, there's no requirement that low income be a certain size, right? So this is a fiction that the city has come up with, enforcing low income to three bedroom or two bedroom. No, it's actually... |
| 02:22:54.54 | Melinda Croy | No, it's actually addressing a completely different requirement of the statute, which is the A, variety of housing types, and B, special needs housing. Right, but you have the higher resolution |
| 02:23:02.17 | Jill Hoffman | Right, but you're now progressing down into certain parts of the statute that aren't answering my question. Well, yes they are. |
| 02:23:06.82 | Melinda Croy | Well, yes, they are, because what the city did here... which satisfied the statute is they put this ordinance in place which meant various parts of the statute. It wasn't just one part of the statute, it was multiple parts of the statute that it was put in place to address. One of them was the special needs housing. One of them was the size of the parcel in order to accommodate a certain amount of housing for a number of units. to accommodate to afford economies of scale for affordability. One of them was a variety of housing types. So there's multiple capacities and multiple facets to this particular program. It's not just about the numbers. So when you're talking about does the housing element have a requirement that low income has a certain size, Yes and no, it depends on the specific needs of the community. |
| 02:24:05.67 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, so we come back to you and we refigure our needs and say this now meets our needs. We're just talking about one very small section of the housing element, the current housing element that we're talking about amending and providing an analysis about why we think this better meets the needs for both the low income requirement |
| 02:24:28.15 | Melinda Croy | . |
| 02:24:28.23 | Jill Hoffman | The affordable housing part of it. |
| 02:24:28.25 | Melinda Croy | What? What, though? I mean, what you're proposing, so. |
| 02:24:32.51 | Jill Hoffman | what you're proposing. I've been trying to look at those solutions, but the in-group and the, you know, they keep glomming on to the HMU and the VMU, which it seems like that's, That's more affording an ability for a developer to come in to build market rate apartments as opposed to complying with the... |
| 02:24:48.34 | Melinda Croy | Correct. |
| 02:24:51.79 | Melinda Croy | But that's why they have the requirement that a certain percentage in order to have that is affordable. |
| 02:24:57.66 | Jill Hoffman | I'm saying let's do away with that and come up with something that actually meets the needs of the state. |
| 02:25:01.86 | Ray Withey | Okay. Thank you, Joe. Sure. |
| 02:25:05.14 | Unknown | Sorry. |
| 02:25:05.74 | Ray Withey | That's okay. |
| 02:25:09.67 | Unknown | My name is Leslie Majora and I've been a long time resident on Spring Street and What exactly is the area of Sausalito? Does anybody know? |
| 02:25:26.19 | Unknown | 1.77 square miles. I look at the areas that can actually be built upon, and what we're taking away basically are our commercial areas that we shop in. And why do we want to do that, to put more people more people in Sausalito. We don't need more people in Sausalito. You know, as my husband said, we have a strained sewer system. we have water restrictions, and the state is just creating more and more people? Is it going to be another Los Angeles? from Sausalito all the way to Santa Rosa and beyond. I mean, I don't know. So. |
| 02:26:18.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:26:18.69 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:26:18.78 | Unknown | . |
| 02:26:25.95 | Unknown | My comment is, Let's get rid of the HMU and the VMU. We don't want it. We don't want it in our neighborhood. We haven't even heard about See. south end of town that you considered back in 2011. I don't even know. I'm sort of a newcomer into this whole, you know, So anyway. Yeah. I think we all agree, let's get rid of it. It's not in our community. |
| 02:26:59.43 | Unknown | And can I just ask, everybody's saying get rid of HMU and VMU, but We explained the consequences given that this is in our housing element. If we get rid of VMU and HMU, We now are, we have to identify where 30 low and very low income units could be placed. in groups, in a group of at least eight units per parcel. |
| 02:27:29.53 | Unknown | So my question to this group, and I really, as a member of the Housing Element Committee, I would really love some feedback. is how do we meet the current requirement if we get rid of HMU and VMU, because that's our job. That's our job is to figure that out. I'm asking the community for your feedback. |
| 02:27:49.83 | Ray Withey | Good. And the consultant told you tonight What those options? |
| 02:27:54.75 | Unknown | The options are Spencer. |
| 02:27:55.81 | Ray Withey | Mr. Roday? |
| 02:27:56.89 | Unknown | Rodeo. Woodward, Lincoln, or CN2. which your lawyer said we shouldn't use any CN. So, I mean, that leaves us to those four options. I mean, I'm asking you, I would welcome the feedback, because I personally am struggling with this. |
| 02:28:15.06 | Unknown | Thank you. I'm Laurette Rogers. I'm part of the Rogers-Majora family for 40 years, actually. I have my own Sausalito roots with my family. I'm a third-generation Marinite, and my mom worked at the bank in the 40s in Sausalito. My dad worked at Schoonmaker. I worked at the Marine Mammal Center. Lots of Sausalito roots. I'm just really distraught over what's going on about this. And I was a fourth-grade teacher, so I have a couple of questions for you all, if you don't mind raising your hand. I just wanted to ask, how many of you are a resident of Sausalito? Raise your hand if you are. Oh, none of you are? Okay. Okay. Oh, okay. Oh, I thought you were going to raise your hand. Okay. And I wanted to ask also, how many of you have actually been on Olive Street? Not driven by, but have actually walked up it or driven up it. |
| 02:29:06.33 | Unknown | of you have asked. |
| 02:29:13.20 | Ray Withey | We're actually not gonna answer those kind of questions. All right. |
| 02:29:13.21 | Unknown | Thank you. Okay. All right. It's such a small street, and having 22... cars go out into it every day is just preposterous. Melinda, one of the sites here, 2015 Bridgeway would actually empty onto this very tiny street. It's really absurd. These two sites, 1901 and 2015, do not belong in the HMU. They need to be removed. I just wanted to point out one other thing, too. Jeff, if you don't mind going to the beginning of your slideshow. if you wouldn't mind. I just wanted you to see, take another look at this, because you'll notice that all these slides, the first seven slides, are all of southern Sausalito, very beautiful. But it's just interesting to me, and it really struck me. Can you flip through the first seven, please? South, south, south, south, south. Very beautiful, but we don't get into the north, south, south, south, south, south, south. But we don't get into the north, south, south, south, south, This is our legacy. This is our home since the 1920s. What you're doing, and especially these two sites so close together, really is going to affect this entire community It may not be your home, but it's our home. And we're really asking you to take another look. You know, it's not going to be easy. I agree. And my husband has an idea here. Let's get a cruise ship or a big boat and anchor it here and have that suit the needs. You know, let's do that. That's maybe a terrific idea. You have to remember the public advocates don't live in Spring Valley. And we're not Corte Madera or Hillsboro. And remember that the 1901 or the 7-Eleven building can block views just as much as 2015. We have to remember they're both dangerous that way. And we like our mixed commercial. We like having a little store there and a laundromat. Please remove these two sites from the HMU. I know it's going to be hard, but we really appreciate it. This is really important to us, so please. Do this. Thank you. |
| 02:31:17.13 | Ray Withey | Thank you. |
| 02:31:20.57 | Unknown | Sonia Hanson. Nice to meet you, Linda. First question I have for you is, how hot was it when you left Sacramento? |
| 02:31:28.03 | Melinda Croy | I will tell you, it was hotter when I got out of the car and I was surprised. |
| 02:31:32.33 | Unknown | Wow, hotter here. Yes. Okay. That's a first. Okay, first, a lot of us are not looking to rob Peter to pay Paul. This is an issue for the whole town. We're all concerned. I think this, the HMU and the VMU, I will just sort of paraphrase my partner, it sucks. |
| 02:31:32.36 | Melinda Croy | Wow, hotter here. Yes. Okay. That's a first. . . Okay. |
| 02:32:00.07 | Unknown | I don't know what the answer is. We're all working on it. We have a lawyer working on it. We're looking at other options, and we will be coming to you with what we hope are some answers, and I will be coming to you, Melinda, and saying, does this work? Second, I would just like to understand there are 16 units we're talking about at those two sites. with a high density bonus that will be 22 units and who's going to do this without the high density bonus that's not going to How many of those are required to be low income? 50%? 35%. with a high density bonus. |
| 02:32:39.68 | Unknown | Well, |
| 02:32:39.90 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 02:32:39.93 | Unknown | low and very low how many of those will be low |
| 02:32:43.29 | Karen Warner | Under the HMU requirement if they're built under the HMU requirement with the high-tech |
| 02:32:49.82 | Unknown | with 100%. Thank you. |
| 02:32:50.51 | Karen Warner | with the |
| 02:32:50.97 | Unknown | and it's not. |
| 02:32:51.04 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 02:32:51.61 | Unknown | Please. |
| 02:32:52.03 | Karen Warner | Okay. |
| 02:32:52.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:32:53.03 | Karen Warner | the way it's going to get built. |
| 02:32:53.97 | Unknown | you |
| 02:32:54.02 | Karen Warner | Okay. |
| 02:32:55.34 | Unknown | They don't get devising the literature. |
| 02:32:58.43 | Karen Warner | It would still be 50% would be very low and low as written under the HMU. |
| 02:33:04.05 | Unknown | with the density bonus not 35% because that's what I'm reading everywhere |
| 02:33:11.20 | Karen Warner | Well, to be able to have the benefit of the ground floor residential you're required to provide 50 percent very low and low that automatically gets you the benefit of up to a 35% density bonus. |
| 02:33:27.08 | Unknown | And with the density bonus, it would still be 50% lower, very low income. |
| 02:33:31.67 | Karen Warner | Yes. |
| 02:33:32.19 | Unknown | you So in other words, the 22 units would be 11 units of lower, very low. The rest would be market rate. |
| 02:33:36.92 | Karen Warner | Of restriction. |
| 02:33:37.76 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:33:37.85 | Karen Warner | Yeah. |
| 02:33:37.88 | Unknown | And... |
| 02:33:38.00 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 02:33:38.24 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:33:38.35 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 02:33:38.61 | Unknown | Isn't it 50% of the 16? |
| 02:33:38.86 | Karen Warner | Isn't it 50% of the 16? Unless it was built by a nonprofit developer and they were building an affordable project, getting outside funds, then probably the whole thing would be affordable. |
| 02:33:50.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:33:50.99 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:33:51.70 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 02:33:51.72 | Unknown | Isn't it 50% of the 16, not 50% of the 22? The 22 includes the density bonus. These sites are identified for eight units each, which is a total of 16. So the 50% is 50% of the 16. not 50% of the 22 that occurs once you add the density, correct? Right. |
| 02:34:13.25 | Unknown | Okay, thank you. So 22 units would result in eight units that would be low and very low. |
| 02:34:20.32 | Karen Warner | That would be required under the HMU. Again, if it was built by an affordable developer, it would be much greater than that. |
| 02:34:28.49 | Unknown | then let me... Put this question out there. If it's built by a low income developer, they're going to come forward with figures showing that to make it low income, They need lots of concessions. And those concessions, I would think first of all would go Amen. which means we are looking at, I don't know, do you know what the very highest level is as far as state code. Is it 50 feet? Is it 60 feet? Is it 70 feet? I don't know what it is. Thank you. |
| 02:34:55.30 | Melinda Croy | I think earlier, and your city attorney can actually answer, as far as destiny bonus is concerned, it's essentially the incentives that they can ask for are ones that Um, make it so that they can actually have the affordability. And that is within the development standards. So if they need the incentives or is actually concessions in the development standards in order to build those 11 units. So if they don't need that height to build the 11 units, if you could build the 11 units within the footprint or with maybe greater setbacks or less setbacks, you know, a variety of different kinds of consent. That is... the frame or the building of it is how you would determine the necessity for affordability. Thank you. I mean, for 11 units, you're not going to get up to five stories. I mean, that's just not going to happen. So you probably, when it's 11 units, what were you estimating? Did you... It was two stories, right? It's just two stories. |
| 02:36:00.32 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:36:00.42 | Melinda Croy | Thank you. |
| 02:36:00.63 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:36:00.66 | Melinda Croy | But at the end, |
| 02:36:01.03 | Unknown | That, I know, is what the supposition is. Right. If I were a developer and I could show numbers that said I needed to go to three stories, especially in that site, because guess what? It's all about bay views. |
| 02:36:02.97 | Melinda Croy | Right, for 11 minutes. |
| 02:36:11.70 | Unknown | and Those of us behind it, Who cares? I mean, I'm just saying that we don't know. Once the lid comes off of this, it comes completely off. And that's the point I'm hoping all of you understand It is our community. You're on the south end of town, you're not experiencing any of this, we are. and we're expecting you to represent us and we're not feeling represented at this point. One other thing. I'm not going to ask Melinda this question. We live in a neighborhood where we have very low and low income housing. They're single family houses and duplexes. And the rents charged there are all below $2,000 a month. Most of them significantly below that. Does that not count? That's been true for 60 years and it continues and there is no intent to change that. However, can I just finish? If I were the Majority and the Rogers and the Perrys and this is what this town was doing to me, you better believe I'd be looking at the rents I've been charging all these years because they are about to get screwed big time. So, |
| 02:37:13.19 | Melinda Croy | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:37:13.63 | Unknown | Does it count at all? |
| 02:37:14.41 | Melinda Croy | Thank you. It's already included in your housing stock. The RHNA is for future growth. It's for household growth. It's not for existing. |
| 02:37:21.75 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:37:21.76 | Unknown | Thanks for it. |
| 02:37:26.72 | Unknown | Exactly. Okay. Thank you. |
| 02:37:29.68 | Melinda Croy | Thank you. |
| 02:37:29.69 | Unknown | Ruth, it's already happening. So, in other words, they are screwed. All right. |
| 02:37:29.71 | Melinda Croy | It's already happening. |
| 02:37:34.43 | Unknown | I think I'll leave it at that. It's not a pretty picture and Yeah. I am encouraging you to look at a different way to solve this problem because we're not going away and our lawyer's not going away and we will work with you, but this is not the answer. And we don't want to spread it in town. That's not the answer either. Our intent is not to move it from in front of us to in front of somebody else. Thank you. |
| 02:38:01.79 | Ray Withey | Thank you. |
| 02:38:08.12 | Unknown | Hello again. |
| 02:38:10.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:38:11.31 | Unknown | I want to piggyback just on a couple of comments and ask a couple more questions. |
| 02:38:11.48 | Ray Withey | I'm not sure. |
| 02:38:16.79 | Ray Withey | Yeah, you've already actually spoken, so I'm going to let whoever's left to speak, and then I'll let you ask a couple of wrap-up questions, Chris, all right? Thank you. |
| 02:38:27.88 | Unknown | Thank you all for your time this evening. I really appreciate you educating us and giving us the opportunity for feedback. My name is Endy Koster, and I live at the corner of Pearl and Spring Street. So I'm right there in the neighborhood, and I rent from the Majors, and I can attest that they do actually provide low-income housing to so many of us who would not be able to live in that neighborhood or on the streets were it not for their generosity. And for that I'm forever thankful, and I I hope that you take that into consideration when you consider what will be happening to that neighborhood if this development moves forward at the 7-Eleven site in particular – for me, at least. I have very practical concerns about what will happen there if that takes place, which include the parking, which in my mind is already an issue on Spring Street and Pearl, largely due to sailors, which is fine by me. We all like sailors. But there are definitely nights where I already feel it's pretty maxed out. I've had several nights where people have parked in blocking our driveway. And so that concerns me. I work down at 20 Liberty Ship, which is Butler Shine, Stern and Partners, which is the ad agency down on the water. So I am fortunate enough to both live and work in the area. We have about 150 employees down there at Butler Shine, and a lot of people use that immediate area during lunch. I personally use the services at 7-Eleven and at the laundromat for our larger rugs and such. And so that does get used. It gets used by quite a lot of people in the community. I like the idea of being able to walk to things, and the – and walkable community feel was something I heard up here, as I'm quoting back to you. That's there. I want that to be preserved. It's really important. This community on Spring Street and Pearl, all the way up Spring Street, those are very close-knit people. A lot of people have been on the street a long time. Everybody knows each other. So I walk up that street, I know everyone. And... Understandably, I think we're all very concerned about what's going on in the neighborhood. And, yeah, people are concerned about their views. Certainly, the views from our place would be affected. That's not so much bothers me, but I don't think it's fair to the people who own the house, who so generously rent to me. Um... I really, it really bothers me actually, the thought that the Rogers and Majora families who have contributed so much to Sausalito, to the community of Sausalito, and that neighborhood in particular, would have this situation where they now have to look at the possible development of something huge going up down to 7-11. So I've made my point. Thank you very much for listening to me. And well, thank you. |
| 02:41:43.76 | Ray Withey | Thank you. Okay, is there anybody else other than Chris who wants to say something else? Yes, sir. you rub mutual, |
| 02:41:52.28 | Unknown | on 501 Easterby Street. |
| 02:41:53.85 | Ray Withey | Hi, Rob. |
| 02:41:55.37 | Unknown | I'll be quick. I think a lot of pressure was put on us. We've got to do this because there are all these dire consequences. And I just think, I mentioned this at the City Council meeting last time, the statute actually contemplates, it has a section that says if a city disagrees with HCD, it can make findings that it substantially complies with the law |
| 02:42:20.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:42:21.02 | Unknown | And that means finding a solution that's suitable for our community. So we don't have, and I'm not against affordable housing. I don't like density. And all the boxes on the hillside made of ticky-tacky. You know, San Francisco made that song famous when I was a kid. |
| 02:42:36.23 | Unknown | sample. |
| 02:42:39.86 | Unknown | And they got away from it pretty well. and we don't want that to happen to us later. So there's a code section, it's government code 65585F2. You can do it. if you really want the legacy to take out the HMU and the VMU, and I'll stop there. |
| 02:42:58.22 | Ray Withey | Okay, thank you. Melinda, do you have something? |
| 02:43:00.33 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:43:00.38 | Melinda Croy | I'll respond to that. Yes, there is that section in the code, however, that does not, it would mean that you would not be in compliance for statute. You would not be in compliance with |
| 02:43:13.34 | Unknown | What is your opinion of what the statute is saying? For purposes? Hold on a second. Hold on a second. |
| 02:43:16.24 | Melinda Croy | for purposes, hold on a second. Hold on a second. |
| 02:43:19.17 | Ray Withey | Rob, could you let Melinda finish her answer? |
| 02:43:21.57 | Melinda Croy | For purposes of what was laid out here, And the statute also has a section that says that if we find you in compliance, you have the presumption of validity in terms of being sued in lawsuits. So the consequences, if you're not found in compliance by HED, still apply. So all of them. |
| 02:43:42.72 | Unknown | And the consequences of adopting the HMU and the VMU, I think have been made pretty clear. |
| 02:43:47.93 | Ray Withey | Thank you. Thank you, Rob. Is there anybody else? OK, Chris, couple of questions that you feel that some Clarifying questions, following. |
| 02:44:01.67 | Unknown | I think Jill had brought up and also Sonia. The HMU contemplates 16 units for the base zoning. Fifty percent of those would be affordable. And I guess I'm still confused about the The 16 number that floats around for the low income, how is that being satisfied by the eight units that would be And maybe there are too many numbers for a lawyer to be contemplating. |
| 02:44:37.37 | Melinda Croy | All right. Well, I think I understand actually where he's going with this. The 16 units is actually a requirement if you have to rezone, the 16 units per site. Is that what you're referring to? |
| 02:44:52.76 | Unknown | No, so I think there's a bucket that says we have 16 affordable. No, Karen said. |
| 02:44:55.65 | Melinda Croy | No. |
| 02:45:00.00 | Unknown | No, Karen said if we were out of compliance, we would have to, it would add back into our RENA number 16 low and very low units if we didn't, if we removed. |
| 02:45:01.35 | Unknown | I guarantee. |
| 02:45:12.02 | Unknown | this HMU overlay, and his question is So, and I think the answer to your question is eight of those 16 units would be low and very low and the other eight would not be, but they would still have to be units that would be identified elsewhere in Sausalito. |
| 02:45:28.45 | Unknown | So maybe I should clarify. How many low and very low units are coming from the HMU site? |
| 02:45:41.19 | Karen Warner | So eight on one of the HMU sites and eight on the other HMU site. That's the base zoning capacity. |
| 02:45:50.78 | Unknown | So that's the low and very low? |
| 02:45:53.08 | Karen Warner | No, no, that's the capacity and of those under HMU, 50 percent. Okay. No, but Karen. But the way we count them in our sites analysis is based on the density. |
| 02:45:59.69 | Unknown | Thank you. But- |
| 02:46:06.08 | Karen Warner | Not on the fact that the city's ordinance would actually mandate in the real world, that 50% of them be very low and low. |
| 02:46:16.33 | Unknown | I think the confusion, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I think the confusion is that for purposes of the planning, We are Sausalito is able to count a full 16 units as affordable until Thank you. |
| 02:46:30.52 | Unknown | Because of the density. Yes, because of this density. |
| 02:46:30.74 | Unknown | The units, yes, because of this default density provision. And we're able to do that unless and until and unless the property is actually developed. At the time that it is actually developed, whenever that happens to be, then the actual If they're all affordable, we get credit for 16. If only eight of them, then we only get credit for that, and we'll have to, at our next housing element cycle, we would need... |
| 02:47:01.06 | Melinda Croy | Thank you. |
| 02:47:01.08 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:47:01.10 | Melinda Croy | . |
| 02:47:01.17 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:47:01.42 | Melinda Croy | to plan again so I think that's the distinction. |
| 02:47:01.43 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:47:01.45 | Unknown | to plan again. So I think that's the. |
| 02:47:07.88 | Melinda Croy | The housing element is a planning document. Yep. There is no required to build. |
| 02:47:12.40 | Unknown | Yep. Okay. |
| 02:47:13.16 | Melinda Croy | Okay. So, if Um, If the sites get developed with only 50%, you've already met the statutory requirement to build. As long as it's at the same capacity as what's assumed in the housing element, which is 16 units, you're fine. You're fine. You wouldn't have to carry over the remaining eight or anything. It's not that simple. |
| 02:47:37.13 | Unknown | Oh, great. I thought at a previous meeting, Karen, that you had said something different than that. So that's great to know. Thank you. |
| 02:47:42.10 | Melinda Croy | Yeah, that's a no net loss statute. We can talk about it later. |
| 02:47:46.02 | Unknown | Okay, no, that's helpful. Okay, but that's the difference I think is the plan for versus the plan for. |
| 02:47:49.53 | Melinda Croy | Thank you. |
| 02:47:49.58 | Unknown | So because of the density at this point, we would be able to pencil them as the 16 units on paper. So it plays out. So... |
| 02:48:00.63 | Unknown | but I was incorrect that that would ever change and that we would ever have to provide for them again. So I spoke incorrectly. |
| 02:48:04.72 | Unknown | Yeah, the addition of the... So I've spoken correctly. Yeah, so eight's the floor. Like we went back with 50%. Eight of the 16 units is going to be the floor. You know, the sky's the limit up to 100%. And so on paper, because of the density of those two properties, those two properties can be attributed to the 16 low, I'm sorry, very low to low units that are needed, right? That bucket fills that bucket. |
| 02:48:35.95 | Mary Wagner | Mr. Mayor, can I see if I can summarize it and see if Melinda or Karen can correct me? Please do. The city was required to provide a certain number of very low, low, moderate income units in its arena. The city was able to show that this... |
| 02:48:41.60 | Unknown | Please do. |
| 02:48:51.33 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:48:51.41 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 02:48:51.43 | Unknown | Excuse me. |
| 02:48:51.71 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 02:48:52.03 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:48:53.52 | Mary Wagner | I'm talking really loud. It's not coming out. I'll try and talk louder. |
| 02:48:55.24 | Unknown | It's not coming out. |
| 02:48:58.02 | Mary Wagner | Let me start again and see if I can summarize. And I'm asking Melinda or Karen to jump in if this is incorrect. the city received a read a number it demonstrated its ability to provide those units in a variety of ways one of which was eight units on the 7-11 site, eight units on the Bridgeway site. Because of the density of those sites, which are already allowed to be developed with eight residential units, we're allowed to count those toward 16 of the arena number for low and very low does those units once this program is implemented have been accounted for they don't carry forward they don't go anywhere else we've met our read a number for this planning cycle we then have to address our new read a number in the next planning cycle Thank you. |
| 02:49:41.66 | Melinda Croy | And you can use those same sites in the next planning cycle, as long as they haven't been developed yet. |
| 02:49:48.09 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:49:48.45 | Melinda Croy | And just to clarify one thing that she said, because I know you're going to jump on this. She said that already, that because they already were zoned for eight and eight, that they can count them for the low and very low. The issue wasn't so much that, it was because of the small sites In addition to having the correct density, they also, doing the HMU or offering the HMU, made them available or showed that the site itself was suitable for low income because of the size of the site. So that's the nuance and it's a planning document. |
| 02:50:29.49 | Unknown | Yeah, so you saw exactly where I was going and I think where the confusion was, and I think probably still remains a little bit. So how flexible is the constraints analysis? So, I mean, the big thing is that because... I want to let you... |
| 02:50:51.44 | Melinda Croy | I want to let you know that we went as far as we possibly could with Sausalito. I mean, we really, really went as far as we possibly could. |
| 02:51:04.00 | Ray Withey | So Chris, we're sort of repeating ourselves a bit here. Last question, please. |
| 02:51:04.10 | Melinda Croy | you |
| 02:51:04.18 | Unknown | So, |
| 02:51:04.43 | Melinda Croy | Thank you. |
| 02:51:04.47 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:51:04.57 | Melinda Croy | I'll see you next time. |
| 02:51:04.70 | Unknown | Oh. |
| 02:51:04.72 | Melinda Croy | Oh. |
| 02:51:04.74 | Unknown | Thank you. of repeating ourselves a bit here. And then I'll wrap it up. Last question, please. So there are a couple different aspects. There's the variety of housing types, and then there's the affordability aspect, and we want to keep those separate. Is there a requirement, a law, a policy, a guiding document that designates how many affordable units, I call those, and how many units in the bucket per housing type? So in Yeah. |
| 02:51:41.07 | Melinda Croy | No, it depends on the community as far as the variety of housing types. Again, you're mixing them up. So don't mix them up. |
| 02:51:48.02 | Unknown | Okay. you Yeah. So there's no predetermined number of affordability is not connected to housing type, right? |
| 02:51:50.05 | Melinda Croy | Thank you. |
| 02:51:50.18 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:52:02.96 | Unknown | By law, we have to demonstrate. |
| 02:52:04.41 | Melinda Croy | You have to have availability for zoning for a variety of housing types pursuant to law. You also have to have sites to accommodate your arena. In this case, the sites that were identified in the housing element, these sites satisfied both at the same time, among other requirements in the statute. |
| 02:52:09.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:52:09.13 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 02:52:09.35 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:52:10.45 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:52:29.27 | Unknown | in theory |
| 02:52:30.30 | Ray Withey | Chris, we're going to need to wind up. |
| 02:52:33.47 | Unknown | Okay, okay. I know that you guys had asked for a suggestion earlier, and I'm often reluctant to throw something off the cuff because we are recorded, and I hope that I can reserve the opportunity to present alternatives at a later date. However, Rob did bring up the government code section that Melinda is familiar with. And that was asked and answered. Yeah. So. However, Rob did bring up the government code section that Melinda's familiar with. And that was asked and answered. Yeah. And here's the thought. I would suggest that as the subcommittee, you challenge the staff and contractors and, excuse me, consultants. |
| 02:52:36.03 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:53:00.16 | Ray Withey | And that was asked and answered. |
| 02:53:23.11 | Unknown | to modify their sites analysis to demonstrate that we can satisfy not only the RENA numbers, but also the variety of housing types. It's been raised by everyone in this community that the housing type is satisfied. We don't need the HMU to do it. And we still have many months to accomplish that. If it's not deemed satisfactory, the amendment to the existing housing element, |
| 02:53:44.39 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:53:57.20 | Unknown | the council still has an opportunity to support its submission with findings. Thank you. So that's another option. |
| 02:54:04.32 | Ray Withey | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:54:07.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:54:08.54 | Ray Withey | Okay. It is We've been at this for three hours. Melinda, I do appreciate the fact that you've been willing to be here for this length of time. We're closing public comment and bringing it back up here. Um, And I'm going to... actually set the scene because I think this could speed us up a little So Yeah, let's take a two-minute break before we have our discussion. Yeah, yeah, sure. Okay. Okay. |
| 02:54:53.26 | Ray Withey | Okay. All right. Well, that was... I think a very informative discussion. No. um, We are... We had a very specific instruction from the City Council. which was to ask our consultants to review options Look at the HMU program. Was there any modifications we could make to it, or was there any alternatives we could put in place? We heard from the M group that, and they presented... some possible options Some of the options were in the context of um, Modifying the HMU program... and doing nothing else. um, changing the SWITCHING OUT THE HMU PROGRAM to sites in the one or more parcels of the CN2 zone. or consider going back to some of the larger sites that we previously Um, eliminated for a variety of different reasons because they were done in the context of a affordable housing overlay, which was the only way to make them affordable because of their size. So I think for us, um We need to be able to... give staff and the consultants some guidance so that when we report back, when they report back for this committee to the full city council, which is going to be a meeting next week. next week, March, May, I wish it was March, May 20th. So what we want to get to is what our consensus, if there is one, of what our recommendations are to the City Council. And I would like to put a few STORE POSITIONS OUT THERE FOR US TO TALK ABOUT SO THAT WE CAN PERHAPS TALK ABOUT IT MOST EFFICIENTLY. First is, It is my personal belief, a very strong belief actually, but maybe it's not the belief of all of you, that we should not, and we would recommend to the City Council, that we should not let our housing element go out of compliance. And therefore, we either have to adopt the HMU program or we have to find an alternative program to substitute it. So, I mean, I think that's a bedrock principle, because if we can agree on that, then we're sort of, there's no point talking about options, because we're saying we're going to do nothing and let our housing element go out of compliance. |
| 02:57:52.73 | Unknown | Because, |
| 02:57:57.47 | Ray Withey | with the consequences that we heard. So, and then if Depending upon where we get with that, we then say, well, of the three options, The HMU as is or with a slight modification, switch into CN2 or the other sites, Um... If we want to rank order those preferences or something like that to the City Council, that's the area of discussion. But I think we've got to confirm up front that we're agreeing or not. that we want to find a program, and we're not going to let our housing element go out of compliance. |
| 02:58:36.47 | Unknown | I would agree with you on that, Ray. I want to say that there's one other consequence of our housing element going out of compliance, and that is that we can't avail ourselves of the streamlining process that we are now, which will allow us to keep our, which will allow us to have a new housing element that will last eight years. And so we won't have to address any of these issues for eight years. And if we allow this housing element to go out of compliance, we automatically, as I understand it, would not be eligible for that streamlining. |
| 02:59:08.80 | Karen Warner | Thank you. So the streamlining, you're correct, you would not be eligible because it would be found that this element wasn't in compliance. The eight-year versus the four-year is just a timing. So as long as you adopt your next element on time, or within the 120-day buffer of on time, you know, January 31st, 2015, even if it's not in compliance, you still get the eight-year period. Okay. |
| 02:59:41.45 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:59:41.47 | Karen Warner | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:59:42.26 | Unknown | So I just wanted to make sure add that that is another consequence, but for me personally, I think, um, The fact that... Thank you. at a minimum we would have to identify one site that could hold 16 units if we don't stay in compliance with this housing element means that we are, in essence, as Sonia objected to is we are transferring the burden from one area of town to another because somewhere We would have to find a site that could accommodate 16 units, and as far as I know, there are only four, and those are the four sites that we examined two years ago. there are only four sites that could hold those 16 units. And those are the four sites that we looked at nine years ago with the possibility of upzoning and converting those to imposing an affordable housing overlay on those units, which would result in the possibility of high density development there. And when we went on our sites study we were met with a number of people at each of those four sites, Spencer, Rodeo, Woodward, and Lincoln. At each of those sites, there was a congregation of folks waiting for the bus to arrive to explain to us why That site. was inappropriate. for high density development. So I think we all agree that high density development is a dirty word in Sausalito. would be in favor of finding of either modifying the HMU to appease the issues raised by the neighbors or finding another site, but I'm not in favor of letting our housing element go out of compliance because the consequences to us will be even greater than what we're faced with with this dilemma, in my opinion. |
| 03:01:54.26 | Unknown | what we all are. And someone said that the north end of town is not represented here. in the north end of town, so I want you to know that you are represented. |
| 03:02:08.94 | Unknown | Go ahead, John. Oh, okay. |
| 03:02:09.14 | Unknown | Go ahead, Tom. |
| 03:02:11.32 | Unknown | Um... You know, this is a hard issue, obviously, wherever we all live when this comes up. And I really appreciate it. I hope you know that we all take this very seriously. We understand, and we thank you for all your Uh... participation and for participating, and this is not over yet. by a long shot. I do want to emphasize, and we all know this, this is only planning. This is not a development, people talk about it like, 7-Eleven is going away tomorrow. This is a planning overlay. Yeah. you know, You have an owner who doesn't even want this, and you can't have development unless an owner participates. But we understand that even And they can already develop the units on each of these. But to increase the possibility just a little bit is something that people lose sleep over. And we want to mitigate that and avoid that as much as we can. But I think it's really important... and we've gone through it many different ways, that we need to pass and implement the housing element by the end of the year. We have some time, but not very much time, because we have to implement this housing element. We, the ramifications, we've gone through them. There's the streamlining and renunt numbers. But I'd like to emphasize that if we don't have a housing element, We open ourselves up to litigation where we suspend and we don't have the power to restrict these things So without the housing element, we may be more exposed on your site than with the housing element. Not only that, we would expose the entire city to it. So we have to keep that in mind when we're Passing this housing element. I'm gonna agree with Ray and Joan here that we need to pass this housing element if we don't find something. We always can go back and substitute out when we find the right thing. And I agree we should look at The mitigation measures relating to the HMU here, particularly relating to the views, and we don't have time tonight, but we went over a little bit, already in the in the density bonus provision, I believe, There are mitigating provisions that Certain other incentives have to be used before they go up But also we want to take a look at CN2, which on the north end of town, That may be a solution. The problem with that is It's a longer-term solution. We have to look at possibly rezoning it. We have the fair traffic initiative. But that's something we certainly can look at. We may have time to explore that before the implementation or after it. But I think the key is that we do have to have a housing element in place. I think the idea that we can go without a housing element is not going to work. |
| 03:04:51.93 | Unknown | Yeah, I would echo Tom's comments about appreciating everybody's comments and the thoughtfulness that they are made with. It is a difficult issue and we've been struggling with this for many years. I just strongly echo, and it's late and I'm not going to go over all of the different issues the reasons stated by the three other committee members that it's really vital that we keep our housing element in compliance. I was on the task force that had to come up with a solution for 379 units. And it was a very long and difficult process. And I really do not want to put the city in that position again. In terms of options, I really, at our last committee meeting, I heard a lot of people talk about the CN2 sites at the north end of town. And I agreed with the comments made. at that meeting that in many ways those sites are very suitable for housing. And I'm really kind of saddened tonight to hear that from the attorney that that is not something that would work. I actually would like to explore that further and make that recommendation to the city council to look into that. |
| 03:06:21.68 | Ray Withey | Could you just clarify that? Because I didn't hear that. |
| 03:06:24.80 | Unknown | He's a good friend. |
| 03:06:24.97 | Unknown | said that no CN that he did not want to see the attorney Chris. |
| 03:06:27.80 | Ray Withey | not want to see the attorney. Thank you. Okay. |
| 03:06:30.60 | Unknown | said he did not want to see any CN converted to residential, that CN should remain |
| 03:06:30.64 | Ray Withey | Thank you. |
| 03:06:34.70 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 03:06:35.02 | Unknown | I'm sure. |
| 03:06:35.56 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:06:37.20 | Unknown | mixed-use commercial and residential. So that may not be the |
| 03:06:41.03 | Unknown | That may not be. |
| 03:06:41.62 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 03:06:41.74 | Unknown | you |
| 03:06:42.52 | Unknown | I said, word for a paper in my mouth. Not for you speaking. Okay. |
| 03:06:47.53 | Unknown | Please, I'll let you clarify that. I simply read the zoning code and offered you an interpretation of it. I did not advocate for or against. Okay. |
| 03:06:50.53 | Ray Withey | I see. |
| 03:06:50.78 | Unknown | I'll be right back. |
| 03:06:51.00 | Ray Withey | Bye. |
| 03:06:51.04 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:06:51.17 | Ray Withey | . |
| 03:07:00.91 | Unknown | I think he said that this committee would not want to adopt something that was inconsistent with the municipal code. So, Anyway, if I misunderstood you, that's fine. But I believe that's what you said. |
| 03:07:14.07 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 03:07:14.21 | Unknown | So in any case, I do think that's an option that we should pursue. I am, and you know, just in terms of thinking about it, there may be perfectly good reasons that that's not an appropriate solution, but that we should pursue that further. I am more concerned, I am less concerned about the Olive Street Bridgeway site. I think it's already fairly built out as it currently stands, and that the impacts of that particular site are less impactful than perhaps the 7-Eleven site. I think that's, you know, at this point, all. I was not completely convinced that modifying the HMU more than we already have through our density bonus where we have really tried to put height at the bottom tier of... desirability, I'm just not sure there's much more we can do with the state density bonus law to modify I The HMU. I'm happy again to hear more about that, but I didn't really think that that would be a very successful venture. |
| 03:08:32.49 | Ray Withey | Well, the only thing I heard there was to possibly reduce the requirement from three bedrooms to two bedrooms, therefore tending towards smaller units, therefore tending towards less. |
| 03:08:48.08 | Unknown | Yeah, and that would be fine with me. |
| 03:08:50.85 | Ray Withey | Okay. So I'd like to make a recommendation here that First of all, we're recommending that Um. We... DO NOT LET OUR HOUSING ELEMENT FALL OUT OF COMPLIANCE, AND THEREFORE WE HAVE TO ADOPT a program that satis, the programs that we, to satisfy, to ensure that doesn't happen. Our choices that we've been presented with are the HMU program, Um, or possibly Um, on one or other or both of the current sites that have been designated. or a strong consideration of the CN2 site, the CN2 area for Um... the city to immediately rezone and one or more of the parcels on that to provide the the numbers and the diversity that we're looking for. There are two options, the HMU, as is or slightly modified Um... and or the CN2. or the other side. |
| 03:10:08.65 | Unknown | MS. For the other sites. |
| 03:10:09.47 | Ray Withey | For the, yeah. |
| 03:10:10.35 | Unknown | Or the other four. Or the other. |
| 03:10:11.14 | Ray Withey | Or the other four sites. And I'm recommending that we do not recommend to the City Council the other four sites. Three of the four of us have gone through that with the housing element and it's just not going to work in the timeframe. So I'm going to sort of stick my neck out and say, that we should consider. We recommend to the City Council TO BASICALLY Um, go with the HMU program as is or slightly modified on one or both sites, or CN2 and that we quickly move to do what we need to put in place so the CN2 replaces the HMU program. |
| 03:10:49.58 | Unknown | So can I? Yeah. |
| 03:10:50.78 | Ray Withey | Thank you. |
| 03:10:51.35 | Unknown | Go ahead, John. |
| 03:10:51.90 | Ray Withey | That's just a suggestion. I'm throwing that out there. And if we can get an agreement, we can close up tonight. |
| 03:10:53.47 | Unknown | Yeah. And if we can get it. I just have a quick. add on to that I'm in agreement I just want to make sure that if we go we have not had public comment on the CN2. |
| 03:11:05.63 | Unknown | Right. |
| 03:11:05.95 | Unknown | So I want to make sure that we also recommend to the City Council that if we move you know, we need to move quickly, and I understand that, but that it is very important that we have full notification of everyone within that area of town so that we don't run into problems later so that people there have the opportunity to fully vet that proposal. So that would be just a kind of modification of your... |
| 03:11:35.13 | Ray Withey | So, and that's... Yeah. And I think we... I think we all agree with that. |
| 03:11:42.32 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:11:42.37 | Ray Withey | I mean, the process is going to be this is going to report back next week to the City Council. The City Council isn't going to adopt anything or do anything there. It's just going to start pushing it out back to staff that if we've got to rewrite a new ordinance for CN2, we'd do that, a draft. And then we would go through all the formal hearing processes with the Planning Commission, City Council council again, in which there would be the transparency, well, continued transparency. outreach to that community. Is that? Yeah. |
| 03:12:19.83 | Unknown | So I think we should immediately move to revise the HMU program. to the extent we can. immediately try to minimize the impact of that program wherever it may land. So I think that's the first thing we should just outright do. regardless of whether we identify an alternative site or these good people identify an alternative site. Um, I will tell you, having been a member of the Butte Street Task Force and the Task Force for the incursion of the French School at MLK, that if this committee looks to move the HMU overlay to CN2, you will have the terraces of Sausalito and Eden Rock and the Anchorage and Harbor Point. You will have the exact same type of concern raised as this neighborhood has raised. And so we as a group, We have to decide, and this is what our goal has been the entire time, is to decide where is the least |
| 03:13:32.61 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:13:34.40 | Unknown | Who is impacted least? by the decision that is made. You know, the concerns over there, of course, are traffic. and parking, just as they are for Spring Street. So, and of course that's why the Fair Traffic Initiative was passed. The north side of town, that side of town, has some of the most high density development of anywhere in Sausalito. this issue from Spring Street to CN2 you know, is kicking the ball down the road. So I don't know what the neighbor... |
| 03:14:11.16 | Ray Withey | Not sideways, but bridgeways. |
| 03:14:13.01 | Unknown | Thank you. But... |
| 03:14:13.33 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:14:13.37 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:14:13.53 | Unknown | Yes, exactly. I don't know what the feedback from that neighborhood will be. I'm just saying we will face I we will face consternation from whatever we do, wherever we do it. I would like to see us identify an alternative site if we can. If these folks can come up with an alternative strategy with all their bright ideas and minds and creativity, I would love to hear it. |
| 03:14:45.88 | Unknown | I agree with your comments, and I think that's one of the reasons that I suggested possibly a mix of retaining the Olive and Bridgeway site and then... you know, some units but not the full 16 at the north end in order to not, you know, to have the least impact given our constraints. So that's just one thing I'd like to keep open is not one or the other. And obviously if there are other places, that's great. But... |
| 03:15:14.89 | Unknown | if there are other, |
| 03:15:19.90 | Unknown | You realize there's a minimum of 16. |
| 03:15:22.72 | Unknown | No, not if we comply. |
| 03:15:23.65 | Unknown | to you. |
| 03:15:23.72 | Unknown | Not if we comply. |
| 03:15:25.02 | Unknown | No, I think, didn't we go through this? I thought we, I thought there was a minimum. |
| 03:15:25.34 | Unknown | you |
| 03:15:25.42 | Melinda Croy | Thank you. |
| 03:15:25.44 | Unknown | It's choosing. |
| 03:15:26.06 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:15:26.08 | Melinda Croy | Thank you. |
| 03:15:26.11 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:15:29.51 | Unknown | That's only if we fall out of compliance with our current policy. |
| 03:15:31.57 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:15:32.04 | Mary Wagner | There's another component to that, Mr. Mayor, that may come into play, and either Karen or I can address that if you would like. |
| 03:15:32.75 | Unknown | complaint. |
| 03:15:39.16 | Mary Wagner | THE FAMILY IS |
| 03:15:39.24 | Unknown | Neighbors. |
| 03:15:40.85 | Ray Withey | Well, you're better now considering. What's the other consideration? Sorry. |
| 03:15:45.72 | Mary Wagner | Well, let me try and summarize it, and Karen, please jump in if it's incorrect. If you're substituting in a site that has to be rezoned, it has to be, it's not the 16 units that transfer. You'd be using it to satisfy your eight units, but it has to be able to accommodate 16 units. It's a different statute. |
| 03:16:00.61 | Unknown | 16. |
| 03:16:10.63 | Mary Wagner | than the penalty statute. but it has the same requirement that the site be able to accommodate 16 units. |
| 03:16:18.11 | Ray Withey | Yeah. Thanks for that. You're my different. |
| 03:16:18.88 | Mary Wagner | But I thought... |
| 03:16:19.74 | Unknown | Bye. Linda tonight said, |
| 03:16:21.50 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:16:21.51 | Unknown | that HCD would consider a swap of an eight for an eight. |
| 03:16:25.13 | Karen Warner | And I think if it could be done in a way, and clearly, she's trying to be as flexible as possible. If it could be done in a way that it's not a true rezone, but it's expanding You're seeing to, with an overlay, to allow residential, then it wouldn't trigger the reason. Yeah. |
| 03:16:53.12 | Ray Withey | Okay. So do we have... pretty much consensus in terms of what We're recommending to the city council. as staff at know what we're recommending to the city. Okay. So I will have a go, and please, my colleagues here, correct me when I make the inevitable mistake that will be made. First of all, we are recommending, I hear quite strongly, that we do not let our housing element go out of compliance, and therefore we need to Either... follow through with the HMU program as is or slightly modified and or find an alternative site or sites to do so. All we heard tonight as was the CN2 or to revisit four of the earlier sites for which we're which we had previously considered for an affordable housing overlay. We're suggesting that we, at the moment, the only thing that we've heard from staff and our consultants tonight are either the HMU or doing something with the CN2. Now, if there is something that meanwhile comes out that we can figure out is an alternative we don't have it on the table we've not heard of it on the table Then obviously we would recommend City Council look at it, but at the moment that doesn't exist Now, is that clear what we're recommended? Oh, first of all, is that... That's the first thing we're recommending. Is that... That's... That's... That's... |
| 03:18:41.41 | Unknown | for |
| 03:18:41.48 | Unknown | That's the first thing. |
| 03:18:42.32 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:18:43.94 | Unknown | That's number one. |
| 03:18:44.29 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:18:45.07 | Ray Withey | Okay. |
| 03:18:45.76 | Unknown | Well, also just a modification. I think everyone preferred. |
| 03:18:45.80 | Ray Withey | Thank you. Yeah. |
| 03:18:49.63 | Unknown | exploring the CN2 over going back to the affordable housing |
| 03:18:55.06 | Unknown | right so we we want to take the four alternate sites off the table and |
| 03:18:55.31 | Unknown | That's rejoining. |
| 03:18:59.99 | Unknown | and |
| 03:19:00.83 | Unknown | Confine it to |
| 03:19:00.93 | Ray Withey | Thank you. |
| 03:19:00.95 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:19:01.27 | Ray Withey | THE END OF |
| 03:19:02.91 | Unknown | either moving either... you know staying where it is or moving to CN2 or identifying some other site but not |
| 03:19:11.58 | Mary Wagner | you |
| 03:19:12.83 | Unknown | upzoning any of those four sites. |
| 03:19:15.78 | Mary Wagner | Understood. And Mr. Mayor, just for clarification, because we're working on such a short timeframe to get the staff report done for the City Council. |
| 03:19:18.43 | Unknown | Please remember. |
| 03:19:22.23 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:19:22.52 | Mary Wagner | I'm envisioning just what you've discussed, the committee met, and considered alternatives, discussed your primary recommendation is that the city adopt either the HMU or a program that meets the same requirements of the HMU so that the element doesn't fall out of compliance. And then we can go through potential modifications to the HMU at its currently proposed locations, analyze the moving of the HMU to the CN2, and say that the committee recommended that both of those be looked at. I think we need to lay out for the council in the staff report that another alternative is the rezoning of the four sites that were previously considered. but it's the strong recommendation of the committee that that not be the options that are pursued for all the reasons you've stated, the work that was done on those sites previously. I just wanted to be clear that we think it's necessary to put that out there and then indicate that the committee didn't support that. |
| 03:20:11.88 | Ray Withey | Yeah. Yeah. |
| 03:20:15.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:20:15.77 | Ray Withey | Yeah. everybody okay with that? |
| 03:20:18.05 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:20:18.07 | Ray Withey | Thank you. |
| 03:20:18.08 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:20:18.12 | Unknown | I am. Do we have consensus here that we do want to modify the HMU ordinance as suggested by M group in its presentation tonight, which is to require 25% two bedrooms instead of 30% three bedrooms. |
| 03:20:36.77 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:20:36.78 | Unknown | Yes. So that it comprises smaller units, gives developers less leverage wherever it may land. |
| 03:20:37.69 | Unknown | So, |
| 03:20:37.95 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:20:38.99 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:20:42.94 | Jeff Bradley | Yeah. |
| 03:20:43.01 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:20:43.03 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 03:20:43.13 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:20:46.79 | Unknown | Jeff. |
| 03:20:47.62 | Jeff Bradley | Is it fair to say there's a follow-on provision that would say if one or more of the CN2 sites is found to be viable, then to circle back and drop the 1901 Bridgeway site but not the Olive Bridgeway site? |
| 03:21:01.12 | Ray Withey | Thank you. I think that I don't know that we've actually said that up here. |
| 03:21:08.29 | Jeff Bradley | So that was a |
| 03:21:09.15 | Unknown | That was a suggestion of Susan, but we did not align on that suggestion. |
| 03:21:11.82 | Jeff Bradley | Okay, that's why I wanted to clarify. |
| 03:21:13.03 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:21:13.15 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 03:21:13.18 | Unknown | I think we have to see what happens and what develops on the CNTs. Let's address that right now. |
| 03:21:18.97 | Ray Withey | Are you okay with it? Oh, yeah. |
| 03:21:22.83 | Unknown | And I think we were also, I thought there were a few maybe small adjustments we could make on the height limitations, the HMU that we're still exploring, so we certainly should still explore those. Well, that's in the density bonus. |
| 03:21:34.11 | Unknown | Well, that's in the density bonus. It's in the density bonus statute. |
| 03:21:36.30 | Unknown | Well, density bonus, and I think we had a couple. But anyway, we should explore all the possibilities on limiting height restrictions and all. Agreed. |
| 03:21:46.09 | Jeff Bradley | I have that item as follow through with HMU as is or with modifications to address view impacts. |
| 03:21:58.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:21:59.72 | Ray Withey | Okay. there anything else that we want to add? Nope. No. So we're done. So we're calling this meeting close. Thank you. |
Chris Skelton — Against: Argued HMU overlay is inappropriate for commercial neighborhood-serving sites like 7-Eleven and laundromat; claimed existing zoning allows up to 8 units and density bonuses are already available, making HMU unnecessary. Questioned connection between affordability and variety of housing. ▶ 📄
Rick Johnson — Against: Expressed concern about community impact, questioned low-income thresholds, and argued that VMU and HMU are not required by Sacramento, requesting their removal from the Housing Element due to drought and infrastructure strains. ▶ 📄
Mike Rogers — Against: Opposed HMU/VMU due to potential view blockage and property devaluation for neighboring properties; emphasized Sausalito's small size and limited space, stating the laws should be bent to suit the community. ▶ 📄
Unidentified Speaker (emotional comment) — Against: Criticized the process as favoring developers over existing low-income housing providers like the Rogers and Majora families, arguing that new development would raise rents and harm the community. ▶ 📄
Sonia Hanson — Against: Stated HMU and VMU 'suck' and are not the answer; urged looking at different solutions, and highlighted that 50% affordability requirement under HMU would result in 8 low/very low-income units out of 16, with density bonus potentially increasing units. ▶ 📄
Jill Hoffman — Neutral: Asked detailed questions about state requirements for low-income unit sizes, multifamily housing, and whether the city could use the multifamily ordinance or existing building permits to meet RHNA numbers, suggesting alternatives to HMU/VMU. ▶ 📄
Leslie Majora — Against: Opposed HMU/VMU due to Sausalito's limited space, strained sewer system, and water restrictions; urged removal of the programs to preserve commercial areas and avoid overpopulation. ▶ 📄
Laurette Rogers — Against: Highlighted the small scale of Olive Street and traffic concerns; requested removal of 1901 and 2015 Bridgeway from HMU, emphasizing the legacy of the neighborhood and impact on views. ▶ 📄
Endy Koster — Against: Expressed gratitude to Rogers/Majora families for providing low-income housing; raised practical concerns about parking and neighborhood disruption if 7-Eleven site is developed, urging preservation of walkable community feel. ▶ 📄
Rob — Against: Cited Government Code 65585F2, suggesting the city can make findings of substantial compliance to remove HMU/VMU without state approval, arguing for solutions suitable to Sausalito's community character. ▶ 📄