| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:13.19 | Unknown | Good evening. And welcome to the regular City Council meeting. for Tuesday, May 20th, 2014. Lily, would you please call the roll? |
| 00:00:30.05 | Unknown | Good evening. Councilmember Weiner. |
| 00:00:33.76 | Unknown | Usually you start at that with... |
| 00:00:36.09 | Unknown | Councilmember Pfeiffer. Here. Councilmember Weiner. |
| 00:00:40.41 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:40.43 | Unknown | President |
| 00:00:40.87 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:41.16 | Unknown | Council member Liam. |
| 00:00:42.49 | Unknown | HERE. |
| 00:00:42.96 | Unknown | Vice Mayor Theodorus. |
| 00:00:44.12 | Unknown | President. Thank you. |
| 00:00:44.58 | Unknown | Mayor Withey. |
| 00:00:45.73 | Unknown | here. This evening, let's see. What beautiful would you lead us in the pledge this evening? |
| 00:00:59.62 | Unknown | I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. |
| 00:01:14.25 | Unknown | Thank you, Rob. |
| 00:01:14.97 | Unknown | Thank you. Mmm. There was no closed session this evening, and therefore no public comment on closed session items. Could we have approval of the agenda, please? |
| 00:01:32.39 | Unknown | some will be |
| 00:01:33.40 | Unknown | Second all in favor aye opposed aye |
| 00:01:35.63 | Unknown | Aye. |
| 00:01:37.53 | Unknown | Amen. Item two is communications, and this is the time for the Council to hear from citizens regarding matters that are not on the agenda. And except in very limited situations, state law precludes a council from taking action or really engaging in any discussions concerning these items. So is there any member of the public who'd like to make a comment on any matter that is not on the agenda this evening? |
| 00:02:19.01 | Michael Racks | Hello, I'm Michael Racks, local architect, and I'd like to comment on What just happened here in this effort to get a new member on our planning commission. I spoke to John McCoy today, who submitted an application I talked to him in advance because I think he could be a good candidate to be considered. I think we need more than one architect on our planning commission since it serves also as a design review board. And if Bill ever has to recluse himself, which has happened, suddenly we get a deliberation on design matters with no architect present. And I think we may not arrive at the right decision sometimes because of that. I asked what happened, and he said that Ordinance 2.58.080 is being interpreted in a way that no member of a city board commission committee on behalf of a business client or customer shall attempt to influence the decision. before such boards. Also, it says no member of a planning commission or historic landmarks board on behalf of a business client or customer shall attempt to influence the decision by any board well and good, But then it goes on to say, but not limited to contacts with or appearances before such body or before the city staff assigned to such body. And he was told that if you are an architect in town and serve on the board, you'll never be able to present a project here in town, nor speak to a member of the staff about your project. that makes no sense whatsoever. If we interpret this ordinance in that manner, we'll never be able to have a local architect serve on our board. And we might be able to get an architect who never does business here on our board, but then we would lose any local perspective. So I think this is being misinterpreted. I'd ask you to speak to legal council about this. I think that It... doesn't mean never appearing before the board, never speaking to staff. It only, I think, means in the context of where you're attempting to influence a decision on behalf of a client. So it's being misconstrued and it's hurting our opportunity to get a local architect on our board Thank you. John withdrew his application, which is unfortunate. I'm hoping you'll look into this, you'll get it interpreted correctly, and let John know so he can reapply. Thank you. Thank you, Michael. |
| 00:05:23.73 | Unknown | Is there any other member of the public who'd like to make a comment about any matter that's not on the agenda? |
| 00:05:33.58 | Jeffrey Chase | Yes. |
| 00:05:36.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:05:36.03 | Unknown | Jacob. |
| 00:05:40.55 | Jeffrey Chase | Hello, Mayor. Hello, Councilmembers. Good evening. My name is Jeff Jacob Chase. |
| 00:05:42.91 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:05:48.03 | Jeffrey Chase | And I've heard some mention of the Brown Act when people have been speaking here, and I'd like to just read a little bit from that. This is the preamble of the Brown Act. It says, The people of the state do not yield their sovereignty to agencies which serve them. The people in delegating authority do not give the public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. So that would be the city council and the mayor. Um. And. This is a, Uh, number 549542 of the Brown Act. It says... No action or discussion shall be taken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda, except that members of the legislative body or its staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their right of public testimony. So you are allowed to speak. and we can do a brief interchange. It says that you're not allowed to vote or discuss it among yourselves. So this is... The Brown Act. The Brown Act is meant for the citizens to use the instruments we have created, which is the city council to fulfill our Public will. So I'm just going to keep it at that. And I thank you for listening. |
| 00:07:26.56 | Unknown | Thank you. Is there any other member of the public who would like to comment on any item not on the agenda? Okay, seeing none, we'll move on. |
| 00:07:43.28 | Unknown | So our next item are the minutes of the previous meeting. Do I have a motion to approve as submitted? So moved. |
| 00:07:56.33 | Unknown | Second. |
| 00:07:57.26 | Unknown | All in favor? Aye. Opposed? None. |
| 00:07:58.64 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:08:01.96 | Unknown | Item four is the consent calendar. Um, Do I have a motion to approve the consent calendar? |
| 00:08:12.41 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor, I would like to pull item 4A for a roll call vote. |
| 00:08:18.01 | Unknown | We can certainly vote separately on 4A. Any other comments? No? Any member of the public like to comment on any item on the consent calendar? Okay, seeing none, we'll need two motions. |
| 00:08:39.49 | Unknown | I move that we approve items 4B and 4C of the consent calendar. |
| 00:08:47.26 | Unknown | Sir. |
| 00:08:47.91 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:08:49.84 | Unknown | All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay? |
| 00:08:56.69 | Unknown | And, um... And I'll move that on item 4A, I move that we waive further reading, read by title only, and adopt ordinance number... 1218. QUOTE, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAUCALIDO SETTING FEES FOR SEWER SERVICES provided by the city effective fiscal year. 2014-15 and amending the Sausalito Municipal Code, close quote. |
| 00:09:27.44 | Unknown | Do I have a second? Second. Lily, will you take the roll, please? |
| 00:09:32.30 | Unknown | Councilmember Pfeiffer? No. Councilmember Weiner? |
| 00:09:35.18 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:09:36.33 | Unknown | Councilmember Leon. |
| 00:09:37.66 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:09:38.56 | Unknown | Vice Mayor Theodorus? Yes. Mayor Withing? |
| 00:09:40.18 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:09:40.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:09:41.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:09:41.38 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:09:43.48 | Unknown | That carries 4-1. |
| 00:09:43.62 | Unknown | carries a lot. Thank you. Item 6 is... Thank you. the discussion of the housing element horizontal mixed use and vertical mixed use programs. And this... I believe, Lily, you are going to introduce our guests and... Proceed. |
| 00:10:12.29 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:10:12.31 | Unknown | Thank you, Mayor Withey. I'd just like to introduce that we have with us this evening Jeff Bradley from M Group. We also have Karen Warner from Karen Warner & Associates. And our special guest this evening is Melinda Coy from the State Department of Housing and Community Development. And she'll be here to answer technical questions that may come up from the Council and the public this evening. So with that, I'll hand it off to Jeff for his presentation. |
| 00:10:40.07 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you, Willie. Good evening, members of the council. We're here tonight to receive your direction on two key housing element programs that you'll hear a lot about tonight. What we call the HMU, Horizontal Mixed Use Program, and the VMU, the Vertical Mixed Use Program. Just a little background before we jump into it. Just about a month ago, we were before you, and we heard from numerous residents with serious concerns about these two programs. And I'd just like to summarize the concerns we took away regarding the HMU and VMU programs. Potential loss of primary views from private residences. Future impacts to available street parking already in short supply. Potential increase in traffic. Decrease in property values. Loss of neighborhood businesses. Changing character of the neighborhood, namely the Spring Valley neighborhood. Also, voiced concern regarding the density bonus provisions, which could potentially allow taller view blocking developments. And finally, potential loss of second floor commercial uses over time due to the VMU proposed draft ordinance. The direction we received from the council at that time was to continue to take comments from the public. work with the subcommittee, and bring back more options for the council to consider and to look at all possible alternatives. Just a couple weeks ago, we met with subcommittee on May 13th and heard from over a dozen residents with similar concerns. The recommendation as summarizing your staff report from the subcommittee very strongly made was to not allow the existing adopted certified housing element to go into noncompliance. That was the number one item. The second item in summary was to carefully consider all the options that will be presented to you tonight that are also contained in your council. Packet. At this point, I'd like to turn it over to Karen Warner. We have a fairly detailed presentation, and I'd like to ask if we could hold questions to the end so we can stay on track and on target, get through our portion of it, and then have an exchange of questions at the end. Thank you. |
| 00:13:06.34 | Karen | Thank you, Jeff. |
| 00:13:06.46 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 00:13:06.95 | Jenny Reinders | Yeah. |
| 00:13:06.96 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:13:09.49 | Karen | As Lily said, we're extremely fortunate to have Melinda Coy from HCD with us, because she is a wonderful resource for really all these kind of difficult angles and questions that we have regarding the HMU and VMU. So as I did last week with the subcommittee, In my presentation, I'm going to intersperse some questions based on what we've been hearing and let her respond directly so hopefully that'll get some of these answered up front. And I'm going to actually turn it over to her now just to set the context of the housing element and HCD's role in the housing element. |
| 00:14:00.41 | Melinda Coy | Good evening. Thank you for having me here. We're very happy to be able to answer questions on the particulars of housing element law. Just a brief context of housing element and why it is different than the other elements of the general plan. is that the legislature has declared that housing is of vital statewide importance. They put particular emphasis on the access to affordable housing for all economic segments of the population because of its direct impact and correlation with the economic prosperity of the state and the need to have housing and jobs and housing near job centers and housing near jobs so that we can attract more businesses to the state. That was one of the reasons. The other reason is that There's many special needs populations and members of the members that don't necessarily get heard. And so the legislature has put into statute the housing element law in which it is actually reviewed by the state to ensure that that piece of the general plan meets all of the statutory requirements that are in the state government code. So my role is that once a jurisdiction has drafted a housing element prior to adoption, they send it up to the state for review. And I review it for compliance, again, with those state statutes. In addition, I also consider third-party, I'm required to consider third-party comments, comments directly received to the state related to specific housing elements. And in this case, in Sausalito's case, we did. As well as have the ability to go out and consult with other groups as well if there are questions. That is the HCD's role, and then we create findings. We make findings. Yes, the housing element met the statutory requirements, or no, and this is what the city needs to do in order to make the Housyama into compliance. The Housyama is then given back to the city who considers changes and our findings and then changes are made and then adoption is heard. And then it gets sent back to HCD for final review and certification. have. one of the things that we do at the state is that the state statute recognizes that all the jurisdictions in California have very unique characteristics. And so there are pieces of the statute that are very prescriptive, ones that we have no control over as far as being able or latitude to be able to really work with the city on. But then there's... lots of the parts of the statute, specifically the sites inventory and addressing provisions of adequate sites that are are able to actually work with the city. And in Sauslo's case, we work really hard. Sauslo is a very unique jurisdiction. both with the liveaboards as well as the ADUs and the small sites. It's a very impacted jurisdiction related to hill sites, and all of these things were taken into consideration as we worked back and forth with staff and the city on being able to address the housing element requirements in context of Sausalito. So that's kind of the context of where we're at, and the fifth cycle is due next year. Thank you. |
| 00:18:19.13 | Karen | Thank you. |
| 00:18:20.43 | Melinda Coy | Thank you. |
| 00:18:21.26 | Karen | So, Just a little background on the history of the VMU and HMU and how we ended up where we are today. Um, Lots of public meetings. So the city's last housing element cycle, which was 2009 through 2014, and was just adopted in 2012, Prior to submitting the draft element to HCD and receiving their feedback on our approach to the site strategy in particular, which was April 2012, we had 42 meetings with the Housing Element Task Force. We had a mobile candidate site meeting to eight or nine different sites that were being evaluated for potential rezoning. We had seven meetings before the city council. a joint council planning commission meeting a separate planning commission meeting, and three public workshops. So all of this went into the development of the draft housing element. Then we got the first letter back from the state, and I'll talk about that in a moment. But from that point forward, then, we needed to adjust our site strategy to address the state's concerns so we could be in statutory compliance. And there was, you know, a whole other round of meetings with the task force, the council, the planning commission leading up to adoption of the element. and so The... When the city's last element, the prior cycle, so we're in now what is the fifth cycle? Well, the fifth cycle is due in January, where you've adopted your fourth cycle. but were in the implementation period for the fourth cycle. The third cycle, which was the 1999 through 2006 element, the city was unable to adopt that, due to controversy of site rezoning. So then the fourth cycle element. the city had again major community concerns over site rezoning An M group was brought on in the fall of 2011 to help look at alternatives to having to rezone sites to meet your requirements. We had a community workshop in December of 2011, and out of that community workshop, Um, there was direction to pursue a balanced, low-impact approach to address the RHNA. to focus on infill rather than large vacant lots and open space for rezoning, and to explore the concept of mixed-use infill in commercial districts. So with that direction, we developed the draft element in February 2012 that we called it the three-stooled approach to the sites, which was a combination of ADUs, both an amnesty program for existing ADUs and an ordinance permitting new ADUs, live-o-ards, and infill sites under your existing zoning. This element then, as Melinda said, the State is required to review all draft elements, and we received the comment letter from the State in April 2012. And, um, It... had a concern that the element was overly reliant on liveaboards and second units to address the city's lower income regional share. and that the element lacked adequate sites for higher-density housing to meet the needs of families. And I'm just going to ask Melinda to elaborate a little bit on the basis for those findings. |
| 00:22:47.66 | Melinda Coy | So, as I was speaking before, one of the unique characteristics of Sausalito is the liveaboards and the – what was previously undocumented ADUs. The city did not have a second unit ordinance. In fact, it had one that said, we do not allow ADUs at all. Because of that strategy – because of looking at what is actually in the existing housing stock and the need to bring those undocumented and uncompliant housing units into the housing stock, The city proposed both to rely on liveaboards and bringing in existing liveaboards into the housing stock as well as existing second units. This is one of those situations that we were speaking before of where it was very unique to Sausalito. There has been no other jurisdictions in the state that have been allowed to rely on previously existing units or undocumented units and the amount of work that staff had to go through in order to be able to demonstrate that they were never counted in the housing stock in the first place, was very critical to the city being able to allow to rely on those to meet their arena for the fourth cycle. And... But beyond just the needs of liveaboards or the second units, and again, those were all existing, The housing element didn't have any real opportunities for new families or new construction. And specifically for multifamily or high-density housing, the housing element requires that you have a variety of housing types, both for rental and sale. One of those things is specifically multifamily housing and that you address the needs of special needs populations, which includes large families as well as single females without single female households. Okay. So that was one of the primary concerns with the housing element. In addition, we received third-party comments from public advocates who were also very concerned about the infill strategy. One of the things that you have to demonstrate not only is whether or not a particular site is appropriate pursuant to the density, but whether or not it is also suitable for development for what you're proposing for affordable. And if you're proposing it for affordable housing, that it would be large enough to accommodate economies of scale that would that could accommodate an affordable housing project. So that was another concern that was raised in this letter. |
| 00:25:58.29 | Karen | And so with the state's letter, along with public advocates, which was a third party commenter, Um... We, went to work, and the state recommended that we coordinate directly with public advocates to come up with a workable approach. And our mantra was, we don't want to rezone large sites. We want to stay with a low-impact strategy. So public advocates has done a lot of work in Northern California using different sorts of overlays. So that's where we really moved to the mixed-use overlay concept. So the first round, and this was very much an evolving process, the first round was the MUO, mixed juice overlay. where we were to allow 100% residential on select commercial sites. Initially this was applied to four sites in Sausalito. Based on community and decision-maker input, the MUO was refined, and it was basically bifurcated into the horizontal mixed use, which is, as you know it, is to allow 100% residential on sites in exchange for provision of a certain percentage of affordable units and a certain percentage of units for families. and then a separate vertical mixed use that applies to the CN1, CR, and CC commercial districts that encourages residential on the second floor and has an affordable component. So that was kind of the evolution of how we were addressing both the state's concern and public advocates' concerns. and coming up with sites for horizontal mixed use and the vertical mixed use. So, the element was revised with those programs in place. 8A was the VMU requirements, and 8B was the HMU incentives, because the HMU is an overlay. It's not mandated. The public advocates felt that the HMU should be more extensive, that the two sites were really, you know, fairly limited to provide, you know, 100 percent residential. After a lot of back and forth, the state agreed, given Sausalito's unique character in such small sites, and this just being one of the three legs of the stool, because you have the ADUs, the liveaboards, and this is the infill strategy. in their August 16th, letter to Sausalito, they found that the city's element was in compliance and that the two HMU sites did satisfy the need for family housing. |
| 00:29:08.65 | Karen | And just because this question has come up, affordability and what it means in Marin County and affordable housing cost is defined as spending no more than 30 percent of your income towards housing including utilities parking you know whatever other fees so for a one-person household In Marin County, the median income is $72,100, which is quite high compared to many other counties in the state. And then when you look at that, Let me see if I can get this laser. |
| 00:29:52.09 | Karen | This one's better. So one person, household. is 72,100 median, and then when we look at very low income, for example, it's approximately 50% of that. Um, That's $39,600, and the maximum affordable rent to a very low-income one-person household is just $990. So this just gives you kind of a concept of what the affordable rental costs are for different household size and different very low, low and moderate income households. The VMU and HMU program, again, were designed to provide adequate sites with realistic development potential for multifamily rental housing as required under the Variety of Housing Types section of the statutes. The VMU purpose is to further encourage the provision of second-story residential and commercial zoning districts, including mixed income units. The HMU purpose is 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 by allowing ground floor residential. So that's the evolution of VMU-HMU. What are the consequences of not adopting the HMU program, since that is the one of particular community concern? our original site strategy in the element that was adopted. You can see we have – Jeff did this as a bucket – of how we come to the capacity for 311 units. And it's a combination of units that were built during the planning period. ADUs at 8%, commercial zoning at 16%, commercial zoning meaning where we can have the VMU, HMU, liveaboards at 30%, and then residential zoning at 40%. When we've gone back now and updated this, there's been some shifting. primarily relating to the liveaboards, because some of the marinas that we were hoping to be able to count in this last cycle are not going to be able to be counted since the CUP has not been completed. So, You can see that the commercial zoning is still a very important component to meeting the overall unit capacity. And then this just compares what was in the adopted element versus where we are at now towards your RHNA in terms of the site's inventory. |
| 00:32:57.12 | Karen | So this is that last bar chart in detail. And the... issue is, in our very low-income arena, which is 45 units, we have a zero buffer. Twenty-eight of those 45 RHNA units are in the commercial district capacity. Sixteen of those are the two HMU sites. So you can see the issue with removing the HMU in terms of negating the process. the RHNA capacity. One of the questions that has come up is Well, we're counting VMU in the very low income if we get rid of the HMU and just have VMU . why can't we continue to count these? And I'm going to turn that over to Belinda to respond to that. |
| 00:34:03.63 | Melinda Coy | As was shown before, one of the concerns was the size of the parcels and being able to facilitate housing, development of housing affordable to lower income. So one of the components that the HMU strategy that the city adopted, or the program that they adopted in the housing element, was to address the issue of the small sites. By having the HMU allowing it to go 100 percent residential, an affordable housing developer would be able to, or somebody who wanted to build affordable housing, would be able to take advantage of the whole site and would not have to deal with other constraining factors such as financing for commercial as well as residential, thus making that small of a site for eight units. And I will tell you that it is very, very rare that a city goes down that far as far as the capacity on a site to accommodate their low and very low. The only way that the city was really able to demonstrate that that was suitable was through the ability to do 100% residential on those sites. |
| 00:35:30.36 | Karen | And just the consequences of not adopting the HMU program or a replacement, you have what's called a RHNA carryover. So those 16 HMU very low-income units would be carried over into your future element. and pursuant to AB 1233 in the statutes, when you have arena carryover, there's a lot of strings attached. It's not just carrying over those 16 units in this instance, but the rezone sites have very specific requirements. The rezoning has to be completed within the first year of the planning period. So for ABAG jurisdictions, that means the rezoning would need to be done by January 2016. Um, the site needs to accommodate a minimum of 16 units on one site. So given the city's densities, that would require a 24,000 square foot site in Sausalito to accommodate 16 units. At least 50% of rezone sites in arena carryover must be 100% residential, so they couldn't be mixed use. And the housing needs to be allowed by right without a discretionary permit or CUP. Just as a reminder, in the last housing element period, there were a series of sites that were looked at for rezoning. Four of those would meet that 16-unit size threshold. And there's a map on the wall of those as well. Again, the consequences of not adopting the HMU program and is the city's element would not be certified. Your current element would be decertified and your future element would be short on sites, and there's a handout that's in your council packet, and it's available for the community that's from the Marin Housing Element Workbook that really goes into this in detail of the impacts of not having a state-certified element. And as we've talked about, the arena becomes cumulative, so we have the 16 very low-income units that carry over. Plus, your new RHNA includes 40 very low and low income units. So you would have to look at sites for a total of 56 lower income units. Where if you don't have the carryover, these 16 units are met on sites in this cycle. And those same sites can be used to meet the 40 in the future cycle. Um, the Marin Housing Workbook talks at length about the risk of litigation. when you don't have a state approved element. the loss of local control over future affordable housing approvals, ineligibility for state housing funds. So it's not a good position to be in. And the last thing I wanted Belinda to comment on is the an example of a Marin jurisdiction that has faced arena carryover and a site rezoning issue. |
| 00:39:18.01 | Melinda Coy | Well, I was going to talk about the city of Fairfax. I'm the reviewer or the person who reviews the housing element for the majority of the Marin County jurisdiction, so I'm very familiar with... Um, what is going on in Marin County. Fairfax did not have a certified housing element last time around. They had a carryover. When they redid their general plan originally, they did not account for this carryover. there became issues related to having to rezone additional properties than what was originally intended by their general plan update. Those properties again have to be by right and there's certain consequences along with that. So they did have a program in their housing element that committed to do that and they |
| 00:39:54.22 | Unknown | you |
| 00:40:16.75 | Melinda Coy | I know that there's been some talk about that particular – about repealing that, but So that's just an example of one of the Marin County jurisdictions who had to do a rezoning pursuant to the carryover. |
| 00:40:38.03 | Karen | So we've been really scratching our heads and coming up with all kinds of options and strategies to try to address what we're hearing from the community with the concerns and yet maintain compliance. What Jeff is going to present to counsel and is in your counsel staff report are the different modifications that we're suggesting that the Council can consider to help address the site's issue and the HMU concerns. |
| 00:41:22.39 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you, Karen. To help follow the next part of the presentation, it's in your staff report, but there's also a standalone pinkish-red handout that has options number one through six, and it's also available at the front here for anyone in the audience. Quick summary of what we're going to be talking about. So the first option for your consideration is a is regarding the density bonus ordinance, which is one of the one of the packages of ordinances that's required to be adopted by the city to be in compliance with state law. So technically it's separate from the VMU and HMU program, but we heard a lot of concerns from the community about the possible interaction of the HMU program in particular with the density bonus ordinance, which of course is both a local ordinance as well as state law. |
| 00:42:15.30 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:42:19.95 | Jeff Bradley | So this system seeks to create two tiers of incentives or concessions that applicants may request, which is allowed under both sets of ordinances, both local and state. So the first tier. |
| 00:42:37.78 | Jeff Bradley | is basically anything, any development regulation that is seeking relief from other than building heights or impacts to primary views. So the first category is things like lot sets, building setbacks, lot sizes for someone who's creating a differently shaped parcel than what currently exists, deviations from common and or private open space. The Planning Commission could review and approve incentives or concessions in this category. The next one would become particularly important for a project that is seeking to build a certain number of units but also avoid blocking people's views. They may desire to spread the building out more on one level, thereby going over the maximum building coverage of 70 percent. That could be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. By the same token, the maximum FAR is fairly low at 50 percent. It's actually less than the building coverage, which is a little unusual. So that's an area someone might seek relief from. And also for a site that's purely zoned residential, an applicant could request approval of mixed use zoning if it made the project feasible. Tier 2 requires a higher level of review and approval by the council. And that's anything involving reduced parking above and beyond the reduced parking ratios that are already included in the state density bonus law and would be reflected in the local ordinance as well. Building heights would require review and approval by the council. And the third bullet there at the bottom of the slide is any change that would impact primary views contrary to the design review findings of the city's municipal code. |
| 00:42:43.43 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:42:50.40 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:43:19.09 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:43:19.20 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:43:19.22 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:44:05.57 | Unknown | THE END OF |
| 00:44:20.02 | Unknown | you |
| 00:44:24.49 | Jeff Bradley | And that change has been incorporated into the draft density bonus ordinance that will be reviewed and looked at by the Planning Commission tomorrow night. But it came out of this concern about the interaction of these two programs. |
| 00:44:41.15 | Unknown | Jeff, I know you didn't want interruptions or questions, but just to clarify, this council last two weeks ago reviewed... |
| 00:44:41.99 | Jeff Bradley | Yes, sir. |
| 00:44:51.61 | Unknown | this and sent it off to the Planning Commission, right? MR. Correct. MR. So you're just doing this to remind us that this exists? MR. Absolutely. MR. Okay. Sorry for interrupting. |
| 00:44:55.04 | Jeff Bradley | Correct. |
| 00:44:59.69 | Jeff Bradley | Absolutely. No problem, thank you. Option number two. is dealing with the VMU program, which as a quick reminder would require that any new development in the three primary commercial zones, CC, CN1, and CR, any upper level uses be residential. We heard testimony at the April 22nd meeting. |
| 00:45:07.47 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:45:07.57 | Emmett Yeazell | Thank you. |
| 00:45:16.15 | Unknown | you |
| 00:45:16.18 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:45:16.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:45:30.47 | Jeff Bradley | indicating that that would potentially become a serious constraint to the provision of upper-level commercial uses that Sausalito is known for, small offices, small businesses, startups, artist studios, things like that that add local color. So we've consulted with HCD Melinda, and we talked that through, and we found that the VMU policy can still be effective without having that hard requirement that anything on the upper level be residential. So we recommend the council seriously consider removing the requirement that the upper levels be exclusively residential. The ordinance would still reflect the option and have a set of incentives to try to create those opportunities for additional housing upstairs. The third option has to do with the bedroom requirements for the HMU. As you recall, the HMU was seeking to provide family housing opportunities. Well, what's a family? Basically anyone, more than one or two people. So we started out trying to provide three-bedroom units in a certain percentage of the developments through the draft ordinance. In talking that over and looking at all the different issues, we found that even a two-bedroom unit can be considered providing family housing for up to a three-person family, which by Sausalito standards is a good-sized family. And so the proposed change there would go from 30 percent three-bedrooms to required 25 percent two-bedrooms in the HMU. |
| 00:46:43.85 | Chris Skelton | Bye. |
| 00:46:46.88 | Unknown | when you're shooting. |
| 00:47:10.81 | Jeff Bradley | Option number four is derived from the idea that by requiring that half of the units in these small developments be affordable, the ordinance would essentially push projects and applicants into the density bonus provisions at the highest levels. Because under the density bonus ordinance, the maximum density incentive that could be granted or bonus would be 35%. So by requiring 50%, right off the bat, applicants would be entitled to three incentives or concessions. So in an effort to reduce that and pull it back and bring it down to a lower level, we recommend that the council consider reducing or eliminating that requirement. |
| 00:47:38.03 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:47:38.05 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:47:38.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:47:51.21 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:48:01.54 | Jeff Bradley | And so that, as in the handout, that puts the burden on the property owner to voluntarily incorporate affordable units in order to request a density bonus and concessions and incentives. |
| 00:48:14.50 | Jeff Bradley | So these last two are a little more significant changes. You could view the first four as sort of tweaking some of the ordinances that are before the city. These last two are more substantial. Number five would shift the overlay concept to sites in the CN2 district. It would take the HMU off both of the CN1 sites at 1901 Bridgeway and 2015 Bridgeway, and the council could select two or more or equivalent sites depending on how the math worked out in the CN2 district. Six is a version of that where one site on the two current sites we're looking at, one site could be removed, and one site could replace it in the CN2. |
| 00:49:14.34 | Jeff Bradley | So just a quick orientation. The 1901 site, also known as the 7-Eleven site, is at this corner. And the Olive site is on the opposite corner, bookending that CN1 zoning district area. The CN2 site is to the north and is that triangular-shaped site, a series of parcels backing up to the park. |
| 00:49:46.89 | Jeff Bradley | And so we We spent some time analyzing these sites. to get our head around what some of the possibilities were. And there's five parcels, starting at the corner and working your way up. you |
| 00:50:03.29 | Unknown | you |
| 00:50:04.54 | Jeff Bradley | have a variety of small retail and service businesses, including restaurants, beauty shops, nail salons, things of that type. And we identified, based on the size of the parcels, There's really four feasible sites. And this is the largest one here of nearly an acre, also known as the Tommy walks. Thank you. That's the largest parcel. |
| 00:50:38.83 | Unknown | just probably |
| 00:50:42.31 | Jeff Bradley | And then going down from there, they get progressively smaller to where to be a viable site, these three parcels together would really have to be considered as a site. In terms of density, we looked at one unit per 2,000 square feet of land area. The buildings were built in the late 50s to the early 70s. The FAR in this area is 35%. |
| 00:51:10.86 | Jeff Bradley | And we looked at the capacity of each site, and we found that the three parcels at the corner could yield 13 units at the 2,000 square foot density standard. |
| 00:51:16.93 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:51:25.24 | Jeff Bradley | 11 units on this site, nine units on the Shell gas station car wash, and 21 units on the largest site at the corner. |
| 00:51:40.15 | Jeff Bradley | So this would involve creating essentially a new residential overlay similar to the HMU district, but with some slight changes. It would specifically allow residential in the CN2 where it's currently not allowed. This is the only piece of CN2 in the city. It would set the density range at one unit per 2,000 square feet, there would be no change to the FAR, the lot coverage, setbacks, or building heights. Obviously, the density bonus provisions would apply, and applicants or property owners could seek changes to those requirements. |
| 00:52:23.02 | Jeff Bradley | In terms of the density, we stepped back and looked at all the density ranges in the city's zoning district and found that 2,000 square feet kind of filled a gap between the one unit per 1,500 square feet of land area and the 2,500 square feet and up and still met the default density of 20 units breaker. |
| 00:52:48.36 | Unknown | 20-units break. |
| 00:52:50.74 | Jeff Bradley | where by default, based on the planning parameters, units on that site could be considered affordable as part of the housing element. |
| 00:53:04.51 | Jeff Bradley | So this is another summary of giving you an overview of the sicks. |
| 00:53:16.68 | Jeff Bradley | I have a planning commission meeting tomorrow night on the other ordinances that the council authorized to move forward, including the reasonable accommodation ordinance, the density bonus as the mayor mentioned, and the special needs housing ordinance. And then depending on council direction on these options, we can either return to the subcommittee or return to the planning commission. The two tracks that we've been talking about, we're still on track one here with the Zoning Ordinance Amendments. We snuck in an extra council meeting here tonight. And then track two for the housing update itself is still moving along with the next major milestone being a second community workshop. As always, Lily is your staff contact. |
| 00:54:14.88 | Jeff Bradley | And let's turn over Karen real briefly. Make one... comment. |
| 00:54:26.24 | Karen | The nice thing about having a state sitting next to you is they can say, well, gosh. We have not presented all these options in detail in writing to the state for review. So the idea of eliminating the affordability requirement, so number four, would be an issue. Reducing it is we would need to look at, but actually eliminating the affordability requirement in the HMU and or the VMU would be an issue because those are specific programs to facilitate affordable housing that the city needs to meet that statute. The other one that needs to be explored further is the impact of, let's see, number two, If the, in the VMU, if there's no longer a requirement for second story residential, but there's the option to do commercial, that would impact our site's capacity. So we would need to reevaluate that. So I just wanted to make that clear that those are not absolutely, you know, a done deal that we need to pursue it further. |
| 00:55:53.62 | Unknown | Jeff, does that end your presentation or? |
| 00:55:58.85 | Jeff Bradley | Yes, we'd be happy to answer any questions Council may have. |
| 00:56:03.12 | Unknown | Okay, great, thanks. So we're going to... Now have time for this council to ask questions, and I think we'll let perhaps staff determine who might be the most appropriate to answer any particular set of questions. If council indulge me, I'd like to ask a couple first. And I would like to ask a couple first. Basically, what I'd like to recommend, by the way, is that we go around Um. Uh, the dais here asking a question and then a reasonable follow up in response to the answer and then move on and eventually everybody here will be able to get their questions answered. With that, I've now forgotten what my question was. No, I've not. Option. 6 is or options five and six, would... potentially remove one or other of the sites or both of the current HMU sites and move it to the zone which doesn't currently allow residential. Now, in that case, we'll be substituted. If we did that, and the site's analysis said, yes, it was the right configuration, and yes, it was allowable from a technical perspective, what would actually we have to do to substitute a program into a housing element that at the moment only has seven more months to run, six more months to run. So does this mean that we actually would have to do all the work to get that second program in place or those other sites in place before the end of this year? That's my question. If we decided to go with a different site, |
| 00:58:24.88 | Unknown | Thanks, sir. I think you have a good chance. |
| 00:58:28.21 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:58:28.28 | Unknown | Cheers. |
| 00:58:28.93 | Melinda Coy | The microphone just happened to be over here. All right. |
| 00:58:29.00 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 00:58:30.27 | Unknown | I happen to be over here. All right. It's yours now. |
| 00:58:35.67 | Melinda Coy | So there's a couple options. One is, well the first is that the importance is to get the, whatever the decision is as far as what sites you're going to either put this on or identify alternate sites or reason, whatever you decide to meet these requirements, that it needs to be done before the next planning period. So it needs to be done before the end of January, essentially, but probably more like the end of December. So whatever action that's done, it needs to happen by then. As far as having to open up the housing element all again and re-adopt the housing element for the current cycle, what we have done in the past, there's a couple options here. Because this is a program, the city can send us a letter and saying, hey, this is what we've decided on, this is what we're adopting. And instead of this site that we wanted to put it on originally, we're putting it on this site and as long as the site is okay pursuant to the other requirements, the statute is feasible, if there's, it says most of the sites that are being considered have some sort of, have some sort of existing use on it, we look at the existing use, things like that, then we would just be able to send you a letter back that says great, that's fine, and not have to |
| 00:59:21.62 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:00:03.86 | Melinda Coy | reopen everything again. Another option that we've done is just do a what we call a specific review and we just look at the changes. We don't open up the rest of the the rest of the document. So we can work with you on that. That's not a problem. |
| 01:00:22.74 | Unknown | So my follow-up question is, so it's really on the same timing as the adoption of the program unchanged that we promised in 2012. |
| 01:00:33.22 | Melinda Coy | Right. Exactly. |
| 01:00:36.26 | Unknown | Okay, which is the process we're now in. Okay, thank you. |
| 01:00:41.69 | Unknown | here. |
| 01:00:42.57 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:00:42.85 | Unknown | I'm not. |
| 01:00:42.92 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 01:00:42.97 | Unknown | If I could go back a couple slides, and I could ask a question about essentially the So, you My understanding is these numbers are |
| 01:01:07.39 | Unknown | Wait. You had it before. No, the other one was better. The other one had the number of units. We'll go down the units, yeah. |
| 01:01:13.60 | Unknown | Yeah. The other one had the number of units. Yeah. I don't think anyone's really in love with the top of Dario's There it is. Okay. So one of the things, and I forget which one of you folks said this, was that |
| 01:01:24.03 | Unknown | Thank you. Okay. |
| 01:01:32.35 | Unknown | Thank you. the alternative of using as the vertical mix use, okay? And how... that alone on some of these sites would not be sufficient. So building a second story on a one-story site, regardless of where it is, with a vertical use rather than the whole top and bottom floor being residential would not suffice. And so I'm wondering what drives that. This site in particular – these lots are particularly suited for a second story. They don't block any views. There's no real neighbors to – in terms of next to you, there's a park there. And in some ways, they don't actually be. beneficial to have a second story for the park, but why we couldn't just use some of the vertical mixed unit allocation in these lots to apply to – if we wanted to reallocate these sites and sort of spread the love throughout the town rather than in one concentrated area. |
| 01:02:43.43 | Karen | I'll start and I'll let Melinda add on. There's a couple concerns with the vertical mixed use. And when we were working with the public advocates, they were very concerned and, you know, they represent nonprofit builders that it's difficult to obtain financing for a mixed residential commercial structure. So that's viewed as a constraint to affordable housing. So, you know, if these sites are ever to be built with affordable, most likely you're going to have a nonprofit builder that's going to want to do 100% residential. So that's one of the components. The other component is the need to provide for family housing. And the family housing component of our horizontal mixed use, and as we're suggesting now, you know, modifying it so it's not 30 percent three-bedroom units, but rather it's 25 percent two-bedroom units, that's key because our other parts of the stool are the ADUs and the liveaboards that are very small. And the vertical mixed use doesn't get at that family component. So those are kind of the two things why the vertical doesn't replace the horizontal. |
| 01:04:11.77 | Unknown | Just to clarify, so how does it not – I understand the potential impediment of financing. It's a more complicated development. |
| 01:04:18.14 | Mike Rogers | Thank you. |
| 01:04:18.16 | Karen | Right. |
| 01:04:18.50 | Mike Rogers | Thank you. |
| 01:04:18.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:04:19.49 | Unknown | That's not to say it can't be done. It's been proposed in a lot of areas, especially shopping centers throughout Marin County to put residential |
| 01:04:23.31 | Karen | Sure. It can be, but it's not as easy. I understand. It's a little bit. |
| 01:04:29.00 | Unknown | I understand. So – but how does having – how does living on the second story preclude families, besides, you know, handicap acts, ADA, you know, abilities? How does having just a unit on one floor that happens to be the second floor – |
| 01:04:31.04 | Karen | That is. |
| 01:04:41.96 | Karen | And it's not that it's just the second floor. It's – and the other thing that I think Melinda will probably jump in and say is the site capacity is reduced when you aren't doing two floors of residential, you're only doing one floor, right? So the overall capacity for residential units is smaller, which is what is so important in terms of having sites that are viable for development. But it's not that family housing can't be built on the second story, it's that you're not going to tend to have the larger unit sizes. |
| 01:04:57.14 | Unknown | Right. |
| 01:05:21.28 | Unknown | because |
| 01:05:23.10 | Melinda Coy | I'll jump in here. I think partly your current VMU, the way it's proposed, doesn't have any provisions specifically to address Um, So unless you put those provisions in there, you know, that's one of the things. And I would say, as I was saying before, it's a matter of size, capacity, and being able to look at the constraints related to having a small site. So the larger the site, the less the whole, you know, vertical mixed use versus horizontal mixed use comes into play. So maybe the far, the one-acre site might be an alternative where you can rely more on the vertical mixed use I would have to talk with speak with some developers who really kind of have more of an insight on that kind of thing. Whereas the smaller sites, the 9, 11, 13 currently are about the same size as what's being proposed which was the same situation that the city was in, why the vertical mixed use alone on those sites was not sufficient in order to show the suitability of the size of those sites. |
| 01:06:38.56 | Melinda Coy | Thank you. |
| 01:06:38.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:06:39.88 | Unknown | for the question. So you're basing this on that it's one unit for 2,000 square feet? Is that what |
| 01:06:41.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:06:41.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:06:48.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:06:48.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:06:48.76 | Unknown | Thank you. Okay. Thank you. |
| 01:06:52.33 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:06:52.38 | Unknown | And that is where I, that Shell station is 18,000 square feet. But to clarify on that. |
| 01:06:59.64 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:06:59.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:06:59.67 | Unknown | How do you know? |
| 01:07:00.03 | Unknown | that. |
| 01:07:00.28 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:07:00.35 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:07:00.38 | Unknown | Thank you. I'm sorry. Bye. Bye. |
| 01:07:03.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:07:03.05 | Unknown | Lot 21 is possibly big enough for a VMU overlay. And I guess part of that question would be, |
| 01:07:03.07 | Unknown | On lot 21, |
| 01:07:09.86 | Melinda Coy | Thank you. |
| 01:07:11.13 | Unknown | Since we can do a special HMU overlay, can we do a special VMU overlay and have a separate, or do they all have to be the... See you next time. |
| 01:07:17.73 | Melinda Coy | No, the city can do whatever it – the land use control is completely in the city's hands. You can do whatever as long as it meets the statute. |
| 01:07:18.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:07:26.44 | Melinda Coy | Like I said, I would have to go back and speak with some developers to get a little bit more insight on that. But because it's a larger size, it can accommodate a larger project, as long as you can still meet that 21. And it probably gives you a little bit more leeway there. |
| 01:07:45.86 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor. Thank you. To understand our options, I'm interested in getting clarity around some of the definitions that I'm hearing. Specifically, I know that the intent here is to satisfy the variety of housing types. Is that correct? With respect to multifamily and family housing or multifamily. Both, right? Right. Okay. And you're defining the multi-family, you're saying the criteria is the eight unit density? per project, is that, did I get that right? Or do you define it in a different way? |
| 01:08:27.27 | Karen | define it in a different way. The minimum site size that the state has gone down very low for Sausalito as a viable site is eight units. |
| 01:08:39.34 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:08:39.83 | Karen | Yeah. |
| 01:08:40.01 | Unknown | you So, and that satisfies the multifamily. Criteria. Yes. And Then the family housing last, a couple weeks ago, was three bedroom, but now it's two bedroom. Is that correct? |
| 01:08:54.41 | Karen | Well, that was one of the things that is being presented for Council consideration. |
| 01:08:59.70 | Unknown | Okay, good. So, um... I want to go back to if those are the assumptions that were We're using And I go back to the multifamily ordinance that we passed just a few months ago. that multifamily ordinance actually protected existing rental stock, because right now we have rentals that are, you know, being eaten up by single family homes on multifamily lots. And so it protected existing rental stock. And it also, we know that based on the analysis done by city staff earlier, that up to, I guess, 60 units could be potentially placed on parcels that are 10,000 square feet or greater that were identified right now. So clearly, if the state is able to accommodate of, Our site requirement for multifamily for a variety of houses with eight units I'm looking at the underdeveloped parcels opportunity with the multifamily ordinance that was passed. And I can't, I'm trying to understand why that does not meet that standard. |
| 01:10:30.71 | Unknown | not only for family housing but for multifamily housing. |
| 01:10:39.17 | Jeff Bradley | One way of looking at the information councilman, councilperson Pfeiffer, is currently we have 16 sites in our inventory that are zoned R3. So that's our highest density multifamily zoning district. Only one of those is over 12,000 square feet, and that's the site at 1757 Bridgeway that has an approved and expired project on it and is in application for a new entitlement in my understanding. |
| 01:11:09.47 | Unknown | So... |
| 01:11:10.25 | Unknown | Jeff. |
| 01:11:10.52 | Unknown | Jeff, I have different data here. Excuse me, Mayor. |
| 01:11:10.91 | Jeff Bradley | Bye. |
| 01:11:10.94 | Unknown | Bye. I don't know. Thank you. |
| 01:11:11.47 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 01:11:11.50 | Unknown | I did not hear. Could you please let Jeff finish his answer? |
| 01:11:19.01 | Jeff Bradley | So just to summarize, we have very few available multifamily parcels, just 16. And of those 16, we only have one that's of a size over the eight-unit threshold that's been identified. That's it. Thank you. |
| 01:11:36.76 | Unknown | So thank you, Jeff. In response, I would say that you're looking at R3 zones. What about R2 and R2.5? Because the data I have, It's saying for lots 10,000 square feet and greater we're looking at a total number of potential units of 188, and then they were, I guess, screened down to 60. And so if the state is defining the criteria we have to meet for a variety of housing types. I'm just having a hard time understanding why that multifamily ordinance that we passed a few months ago, which was very controversial, I might add, and was a fight to get through, does not meet both those requirements because we know Also, that the state has said there is no legal requirement within a variety of housing types to require certain unit sizes within certain income levels. If we're looking, though, at multifamily and the family housing, that would still fit the bill. |
| 01:12:51.84 | Jeff Bradley | One of the issues with the R2-2.5 zoning district is that zoning district does not allow development at the same intensity as the R3 and the commercial districts we've been talking about, allowing one unit per 1,500 square feet. For the R2-2.5, it jumps up to one unit for 2,500 square feet, which is just under the default density of 20 units per acre that we've utilized to meet the, by definition, affordability standards. So there are more in number of those types of parcels, definitely, but the great majority of them do not meet the default density. A quirk of the municipal code is that if you have a very small R2-2.5 parcel, you're actually allowed two units just by write. And so for those very small parcels, it does actually meet the default density, but it doesn't meet the unit criteria, obviously, because we're dealing with parcels that are less than 5,000 square feet. They're tiny. |
| 01:13:27.11 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:14:00.53 | Unknown | Well, I'm referring to the study that was done that showed parcels of 10,000 square feet or larger. You quoted the R3 zones. I know that the Rotary Housing Project, I believe, was built in the R2 zone. So again, I'm just confused. |
| 01:14:16.43 | Unknown | Thank you. So, Melinda, before you answer that, I'd just like to remind you that we're trying to spread the questions around. So let's – Melinda, please. |
| 01:14:21.43 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:14:29.90 | Unknown | Excuse me, Melinda, just one minute. Mayor Withey, I need to say that I have asked less questions than Council Member Leon asked when he was going through his list. |
| 01:14:30.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:14:45.03 | Unknown | Thank you, Ms. Corley. I'm not. I'm not. |
| 01:14:45.88 | Unknown | I'm not going to argue with you. Melinda, please |
| 01:14:49.84 | Melinda Coy | Melinda. As you can see here, So there are multiple requirements in housing element law. It's kind of a jungle in there, right? The R2, the city chose to use the default density standard in order to demonstrate zoning that's appropriate for lower income housing. The default density for Sausalito is 20 dwelling units per acre. Those sites that are your required, the R2, R2.5 do not qualify under those standards to meet your affordable housing needs. Therefore, they wouldn't, they couldn't be used to meet your RENA. for low and very low. So it could, they could possibly, I don't know the ins and outs of what it is or anything like that, meet other requirements in the housing element law, but not this requirement in the housing element law. |
| 01:15:45.46 | Unknown | Dad? |
| 01:15:45.87 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:15:46.21 | Melinda Coy | Bigs, another. |
| 01:15:46.97 | Unknown | questions. |
| 01:15:47.76 | Melinda Coy | you |
| 01:15:47.81 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:15:49.26 | Unknown | um, Thank you. So I just wanted to clarify, and I know a lot of this is, you know, moving targets to answer because you're either hearing about them for the first time or we haven't presented enough data for you to actually have a solid point of view on it. So if in the – just so I can knock it out of my head as a possibility here or maybe not. So if we included some sort of an inclusionary requirement in the district that we were talking about before, so that it was less optional and more a requirement for a second story residential, And instead of 54 single units, went by, I forget what standard you're using for multifamily, what square footage per unit. But so it would come down to some number of multifamily |
| 01:16:36.11 | Unknown | using. |
| 01:16:47.85 | Unknown | Could that be a possibility of something that we might be able to propose? So if you had the inclusionary requirement, even though it was vertical mixed use, not HMU, |
| 01:17:01.10 | Melinda Coy | inclusionary you can't That's a... You can use inclusionary to encourage a variety of – or encourage or facilitate housing. You can't use it in terms of numbers. Inclusionary doesn't count towards meeting any kind of density requirements pursuant to meeting your RHNA or planning for your RHNA. So there's – again, it's multifaceted. But does that answer – I want to make sure I understand what you're asking. |
| 01:17:27.31 | Unknown | Right. |
| 01:17:31.86 | Unknown | Yeah, no, I think so, but let me just make sure, because I want to make sure I put it off my list of things. And so if you indulge me. So even if we required the second story to be residential in the lots at the north end of town, the commercial district, the CN2, |
| 01:17:34.12 | Melinda Coy | Okay. |
| 01:17:48.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:17:48.21 | Chuck Ortman | and |
| 01:17:48.41 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:17:50.88 | Unknown | Thank you. that could not be, we would not be able to count that towards our arena numbers if, you know, We have. |
| 01:17:58.30 | Melinda Coy | It would be the same considerations as your regular VMU right now. The banana. |
| 01:18:03.76 | Unknown | The financing problem. Yeah. |
| 01:18:04.85 | Melinda Coy | Yeah, exactly. So again, you know, it goes to the economies of scale needed to actually do a project. And again, how big the site is and things like that. Thank you. Inclusionary requirements are great to facilitate, and that is one of the requirements of housing element laws, to have programs to facilitate housing, affordable to lower income housing. But in terms of meeting your RHNA numbers, it's not one of the things that you can use to meet your RHNA numbers. |
| 01:18:20.24 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:18:38.18 | Unknown | Thank you. I'd like to ask just a clarifying question, a sort of fairly basic one about the HMU program Is the HMU overlay on whichever sites we were to choose mandatory? |
| 01:19:02.94 | Karen | Thank you. No. So could you explain that? |
| 01:19:04.44 | Unknown | So could you explain in whose control it is, whose option is it? |
| 01:19:11.31 | Karen | it's the property owners option So unlike the VMU, which would be, you know, part of the zoning district, it would be a requirement. Um, the HMU is an option, it's an overlay. So if you choose to do ground floor residential, or I should say, if you choose to Um, provide the affordable units and the mandatory two or three bedroom units, then you are permitted to provide and develop the ground floor with residential, but you're not |
| 01:19:54.08 | Unknown | Thank you. Council Member Fyfer. |
| 01:19:58.64 | Unknown | Thank you. I have a follow-up question regarding small parcel sites and the multifamily requirement. So I believe across the street there's a rotary housing project. It's very nice. It's low to scale. It fits in with the neighborhood. And is that – how many units are in that site? And what zone was that built in? |
| 01:20:28.12 | Karen | I know that is a 10 unit project. 10 units? Yes, and it's in the R3. And that was the project we were able to use |
| 01:20:31.23 | Unknown | 10 units. |
| 01:20:38.97 | Karen | as the justification for going down to eight units, even though it's not 10, as the viability in Sausalito of doing an affordable project on a very small site. |
| 01:20:53.47 | Unknown | Okay. So, Mr. Mayor, I have a follow-up. So, eight units, and then I heard, Jeff, you said that there were how many parcels identified in town in the R3 area? One. One. And so, What is the bar in terms of the multifamily meeting that multifamily statute? Is it one project? Is it multiple? If it is multiple projects, I still don't understand why the VMU isn't doing what the HMU does in terms of meeting that requirement for multifamily. |
| 01:21:34.66 | Melinda Coy | Again, I think there's multiple requirements. It's not just a variety of housing types. So while the VMU may provide opportunities for multifamily, What it doesn't do is justify the ability to build affordable housing or housing affordable to low income to make those sites suitable for meeting your arena. It's completely two different separate requirements in the statute. So there's like what the HMU did or the proposed HMU that the city approved. for the housing element purposes did is it met a series of requirements in the housing element law. So it wasn't just the variety of housing types. It was also demonstrating the suitability of smaller sites, the ability of those small sites to accommodate lower-income housing. It was also to facilitate and encourage a variety of housing types or encourage housing for sorry, special needs populations such as families, which is another requirement. And it was a program to facilitate housing for low, very low, and extremely low income households, which is another requirement. So that's four different requirements of housing element law that the HMU specifically addressed. So by taking away the HMU, there's still those other – for one or the various reasons, there's still other requirements that it was addressing. |
| 01:23:15.30 | Unknown | But the VMU does not address or could not address those as well? Correct. And why? I don't, I still don't understand why when I look at the requirements. |
| 01:23:19.60 | Melinda Coy | Bye. Bye. |
| 01:23:26.03 | Melinda Coy | Requirements. again because so specifically the VMU is on parcels that are very small. And so it constrains the development of housing. In order to demonstrate the viability of that size, so that those two parcels which have eight units, to be suitable to accommodate your lower income arena, the horizontal mixed use was proposed because you can do 100% residential, which then therefore, facilitates the ability to do affordable housing, thus making those sites viable. Without the HMU, those sites would no longer be viable to meet your RENA for lower income. |
| 01:24:11.66 | Unknown | Male Speaker 1 of the United States. bear that in mind |
| 01:24:31.15 | Unknown | Go ahead. |
| 01:24:32.22 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:24:32.47 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:24:32.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:24:32.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:24:32.54 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:24:32.64 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:24:32.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:24:32.74 | Unknown | I have a question of staff, actually. So right now, we have the two proposed sites in the Spring Street Valley. And the Olive Street site, which I can't remember the actual Bridgeway address of the city. |
| 01:24:32.82 | Unknown | MR. |
| 01:24:50.15 | Unknown | 2015. Right now that's being allocated eight units, I believe. Is that correct? And are those multifamily or single or a mix of the two? |
| 01:25:08.38 | Jeff Bradley | Because of the provision for allowing horizontal mixed use, they're considered to be future possible opportunities for multifamily. |
| 01:25:17.09 | Unknown | Okay. And to, based on the square footage of what, would be required, we're assuming here, to meet that number of units. Would the envelope of that building have to change the size or the footprint? |
| 01:25:33.81 | Jeff Bradley | existing building housing 7-eleven and the no 2015 oh I'm sorry 2015 the all wasn't a part of a payment office building 2015 now we're from |
| 01:25:37.32 | Unknown | No, 2015. |
| 01:25:42.01 | Unknown | It wasn't a part of the building. It became an office building. 2015. And now we're proposing making it, you know. |
| 01:25:47.61 | Jeff Bradley | Right, sorry, I flashed back on the wrong site. That site is It has a fairly substantial building on it. It's three stories. It's over 10,000 square feet. It has 10 covered parking spaces. It has 11 uncovered parking spaces. It appears to have been built as an apartment building and then converted into an office building. It has 12 separate office tenants, businesses in there now. So to fit 8, 9, 10, 11 units in that building would, by the square footages, would be feasible. Obviously there would be some building code updates to bring that building into the modern era and allow |
| 01:26:35.12 | Unknown | So for what we're assuming here, it wouldn't have to change the envelope of the building necessarily to meet what we're assuming. |
| 01:26:42.49 | Jeff Bradley | Correct. |
| 01:26:42.81 | Unknown | Thank you. for that particular site. |
| 01:26:46.02 | Unknown | Thank you. Any more questions up here? |
| 01:26:50.91 | Unknown | Yes, Mr. Mayor, I have a couple more. Thank you. Sure. |
| 01:26:53.58 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:26:55.18 | Unknown | So, um... Okay, so I'm looking at this proposal. And I'm seeing a very very small number of ADUs. in terms of percentage, very tiny. And I'm seeing a large number now in the commercial district. If I go back to December 3rd, 2011, Now, the M group, you have a lot of experience in housing elements. You've seen a lot of things. You've weighed, you've certainly looked at the issue of variety of housing types before. You've certainly looked at and had prior housing elements certified by the state before. And if I look at what was initially proposed by the M group, in December of 2011, I see. uh... eighty three eighty years I see an additional 22 homes counted as having been already approved and built. These are not ADUs. These are just regular homes, presumably multifamily. And, uh, |
| 01:28:24.79 | Unknown | That's actually the other Rotary housing site. |
| 01:28:27.54 | Unknown | Okay, okay, is that, okay, yeah, okay, the other rotary housing site, good. So I guess my point here is when I look at the proposal from 2011, we have more than achieved our requirement for affordability in terms of our very low and low income. And the commercial zone capacity at that point was just, you know, 17, and that was giving us a buffer of 57% for the very low income. So if we take that buffer away, And we just look at what the initial proposal was. then I'm not seeing – I'm seeing the multifamily requirement met. I'm seeing the affordability aspect met. and I'm seeing the family housing met. It appears what happened between December 3, 2011 and today was – and I've heard this earlier – was the letter and the feedback, the opinion from public advocates. Is that correct? |
| 01:29:49.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:29:49.84 | Karen | Well, and just to clarify, Linda, what we're showing here is the actual ADUs, okay? And that's what we get to credit. So this is what's been approved. Okay. Thank you. And anything else in 2014 in terms of ADU approvals, we can credit as we see fit towards this cycle or the next cycle. The element that was sent to the state in December 2011 had 64 ADUs, 93 liveaboards, and the commercial component was smaller because it wasn't this overlay. |
| 01:30:00.81 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:30:27.52 | Karen | And that's the feedback that we got in the letter, separate from the public advocates letter, the letter from HCD that said, over-reliance on ADUs, you've never had um, an ordinance in place And the city, ultimately adopted in its element 24 ADUs, 12 new, 12 existing. Well, and you're already up to 14, so we'll probably – we'll come close to that. but the modification of what was sent in December 2011 versus what we have here is the difference in what was approved by the state. |
| 01:31:12.31 | Unknown | Thank you. And my recollection of the HCD letter you're referring to was incorporating the feedback that you received during the review process from public advocates. Is that correct? |
| 01:31:25.82 | Melinda Coy | Yes, we did incorporate, but not in terms of the ADU situation. The ADU, that was that is something that is a finding that we made. Not dealing necessarily with, while we may have agreed with public advocates, it is actually particularly to a finding that we made in relationship to the feasibility and methodology used in order to estimate how many ADUs could be done in a two-year period given track records, trends, and whatnot, I will tell you that what was approved in the housing element was really as far as we could, given that there was no track record and what was going on around in this area. that that was as far as we could go. As far as the Rotary housing goes, if I remember correctly, and Karen, you can correct me if I'm wrong, Those were used Remember we were talking about the 1233 and the carryover? Well, those were used in order to make sure that the city didn't have a carryover from last time around. Otherwise, you would have had to incorporate last time as around RHNA and this time as around RHNA. So those were already incorporated in the housing element in terms of meeting your obligations from the third cycle. So those have all been accounted for. |
| 01:32:46.39 | Unknown | So, Mr. Mayor, follow-up question. Thank you. So you mentioned we can't necessarily count the ADUs because they haven't been built yet or within the two-year, I thought the intent of the housing element was for us to, the city, to set the table. In other words, to allow the ability for these to be created. And I doubt that even with the HMU, you would see something done in two years. |
| 01:33:19.21 | Melinda Coy | So basically the requirement for second units, and if you'll indulge me for a second. So in order to count second units, second units, the housing element requirement is that you provide sites to accommodate new housing and housing. And then there's some alternatives then to providing actual sites. One of those alternatives that the statute allows for is second units. There's also a couple other exceptions, but this is an exception process to the what is intended by housing element statute for sites inventory. The housing element statute then lays out what are the requirements in order to be able to count units and future units, future second units. One of the requirements is that it's based on trends. City has no trends. So what the city did was mostly because there was no ordinance that allowed second units. So they did the survey and looking at existing and again, The city was able to demonstrate that there was a number of ADUs that were not ever counted in the census. I mean, this is a very strict, strict high bar standard. One of the other requirements is based upon affordability. affordability or potential affordability, which is also done in the survey. And then also to, and then there's a provision actually in statute is to HCD satisfaction or to what HCD recommends. So that's specific in the statute related to second units. So by applying all of those standards in order to calculate the methodology and determine the methodology on what, how many ADUs both existing and new, existing pursuant to the amnesty program. And that was, all of those factors were taken into account. And so what you ended up with, that you adopted, is based upon all of those requirements. What was originally sent to HCD did not meet all those standards. |
| 01:35:31.29 | Unknown | you And I recall that there is an opportunity in the next cycle to count more ADUs, correct? Because we've established the trends. |
| 01:35:39.10 | Melinda Coy | Correct. Exactly. Now that you've established the trends, you can go forward and based upon those trends actually have some data in which to support your methodology. |
| 01:35:53.24 | Unknown | Okay, time check, how are we doing on questions? |
| 01:35:56.75 | Unknown | I just said two of the... |
| 01:35:59.08 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:35:59.40 | Unknown | Thank you. I just have two left. |
| 01:36:00.24 | Unknown | You have two questions? Thank you. |
| 01:36:01.63 | Unknown | Please go ahead. |
| 01:36:01.65 | Unknown | Please. Go ahead. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:36:06.30 | Unknown | Can I ask one and then somebody else can take a turn? One of the options that's been used in other communities, as you're well aware, is sort of charging a development fee in order to sort of bank money to encourage affordable housing. Is that another option that we didn't consider that in this – well, maybe we did. I wasn't on the Housing Element Committee. But is that an option that we could also pursue either in this cycle – the current cycle or the future cycle? But would it help us – no. |
| 01:36:10.40 | Unknown | Somebody else can tell you. |
| 01:36:37.28 | Melinda Coy | It wouldn't help you with your numbers, but it is definitely something that jurisdictions have used and meets those requirements in the program requirements for encouraging and facilitating housing. |
| 01:36:51.36 | Unknown | Okay. Can I sneak the last one in? Go on. So that – and Jeff, I don't know if you can answer this question. So there – and this is – or Lily, for that matter. There's a couple – there are two sites that were – I believe they were identified in the original site concept, both the – and help me with the addresses here. The site between here and the 7-Eleven, that kind of has the buildings that are boarded up. It's in R3. 1757 Bridgeway. 1757 Bridgeway. And I believe the CN District in Old Town was also considered, including the Valhalla, for that matter. So could you comment on either one of those sites as far as, again, the idea of this – and that's why all these people are here – is you have two sites in one part of town. And that was the problem in 1999 through 2006 before this group sat up here. We had a bunch – there were a bunch of sites that the council at the time put in one part of town instead of – and what we tried with the rest of the programs is kind of spread them out throughout as much as possible given the site – I mean, the size of the lot requirements here. So – but for those two sites, could those be considered as also alternatives to, say, |
| 01:37:00.96 | Chuck Ortman | Sure. |
| 01:37:21.16 | Unknown | 1757, Birdroy. |
| 01:37:23.40 | Chuck Ortman | So, |
| 01:38:17.27 | Jeff Bradley | The short answer is no, simply because the 1757 Bridgeway site is already in the existing site inventory with a total of 11 units. And the CN sites in Old Town were smaller and were only providing six units each. And that's one of the factors that led to them being removed in addition to community opposition. |
| 01:38:43.00 | Unknown | Could I ask one last question? |
| 01:38:51.63 | Unknown | And it's really a direct follow on from what you're saying. Um, Could you comment on this magic number of eight? What I gather is actually an unusually low number for many cities. to have been allowed to use only an eight dwelling unit parcel in this type of, with this type of overlay. Could you comment on that and also at the same time remind people about how default density falls into this in connection with small sites? I'm sorry for that compound question. I hope you've got what I'm trying to ask. |
| 01:39:44.04 | Jeff Bradley | Yeah, I'll take a short crack and turn it over to Melinda. In my view, the magic number is really 16 units because if you go into a rezone situation like Karen covered, the minimum site size is 16 units. And so that in the statute is sort of established as a minimum project size. And in our situation, I think we were able to show, because of our small parcels and our track record of providing small projects with a few number of units. We were able to show, because of our small parcels and our track record of providing small projects with a few number of units, we were able to cut that in half down to eight. Melinda might have a better answer. |
| 01:40:18.38 | Melinda Coy | might have a better |
| 01:40:24.14 | Melinda Coy | the Thank you. The 16 units are those two eight and eight. It was with the provision of being able to do 100% residential to be able to facilitate it. So there's two different parts of the site's inventory statute. There's several different parts of it. One of them is that you provide zoning or that the sites that you've identified to meet your arena for low and very low meet, have zoning in place that facilitates housing affordable to low income. In the statute, it gives you one of two options in order to demonstrate that zoning. And the proxy the statute uses for affordability is density. And so the two options are there's an established density that is established by the statute based upon population sizes. And if you have zoning that allows that number, then it's automatically assumed that the zoning itself is sufficient to accommodate lower income. I'm not talking about the site suitability, but just the zoning. And that, for Sausalito, is 20 dwelling units per acre. Fortunately for Sausalito, you have a lot of different zones, you actually go up to 29, so that's that was a no-brainer that you could use that. The other option that you could use is doing an extensive analysis related to what the zoning is and what is lower than 20. If you want to use a density that's lower than 20, you have to do an analysis to basically demonstrate that it's appropriate. And I'll tell you based upon conversations in this area, because we did this in Marin – or I'm sorry, in Novato. Novato actually has a default density of 30. Based upon the price of land, 23-24 was the minimum. So you actually have a default density that's really even lower than what's typically feasible. So that's one provision. So when you're looking at a site, the first thing you want to look at is what is my zoning. Second, we want to look at is what is the suitability, and that will determine capacity. Capacity, you're just talking about the numbers on the site. And one of the things related to that is the size of the parcel. So the smaller the parcel, when it's little, the more difficult it is to develop for affordable housing. Similarly, an opposite. large parcel, and we have this issue in a lot of different jurisdictions, large parcels, 10, 15 acres plus, also do not facilitate development for affordable housing, and so you would have a program there to subdivide. So on one hand, you have the large. On the other hand, you have the very small. And so in order to make those suitable, you have to have programs in place in order to facilitate the development. And that's what your HMU program that you chose to do. Instead of doing rezoning, AAHOs, there's a variety of different methods that you could have done, but that was the one that you chose. |
| 01:43:51.41 | Unknown | Okay, thank you. |
| 01:43:53.12 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor, I have about two questions here. Might be three. Thank you. Melinda, you mentioned Novato. That triggered a memory. Novato, when they were going through their housing element, they, I believe they disagreed with HCD's opinion on the required density. |
| 01:43:53.13 | Melinda Coy | Mr. Mayor, I have a question. |
| 01:44:13.60 | Melinda Coy | That's... |
| 01:44:14.02 | Unknown | Correct. |
| 01:44:15.09 | Melinda Coy | And they were at 30, and then they went down to... |
| 01:44:16.89 | Unknown | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 01:44:20.28 | Melinda Coy | They wanted to do it at 20 min-max, but in the end they chose 23. Yeah, they chose 23. |
| 01:44:23.91 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:44:24.10 | Unknown | Thank you. an example where HCD said we want you to be at 30, and they came in and said, |
| 01:44:32.20 | Melinda Coy | We didn't say we wanted you to be at 30. That was their default density. That was that option. Your default density. That's the default density. And they wanted to do an analysis to show less, and they did. And it's actually a very extensive analysis that has become somewhat of a standard. Good. |
| 01:44:32.22 | Unknown | She didn't say we were Oh. That was that option. You're deep sat down. |
| 01:44:37.97 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:44:41.02 | Unknown | So, |
| 01:44:41.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:44:42.51 | Unknown | And it's actually it. |
| 01:44:49.63 | Unknown | Good, good, yeah. So I just, you mentioned Novato, and I thought it was a good example of where HCD said this is the default density, and the city disagreed, and they did the analysis and proved that way. |
| 01:44:51.42 | Melinda Coy | Yeah. |
| 01:44:59.22 | Melinda Coy | Again, the default density is only an option. It's an option to choose. And so the other option and what was required in the statute has been always required in the statute is the analysis. The default density was put in there to give city certainty in that. So again, Nevada could chose to have gone with the default density or they could have chose to have gone with the analysis. They chose to go with the analysis. We don't care either way as long as you can demonstrate the feasibility. |
| 01:45:11.20 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:45:15.65 | Unknown | than that. |
| 01:45:20.85 | Unknown | that if you're not going to be a good person, You know. as Yeah, because it sounds like if a city disagrees with HCD's views, an analysis is a logical option. |
| 01:45:28.04 | Melinda Coy | Thank you. Um... |
| 01:45:39.07 | Unknown | My next question, actually a follow-up with Jeff, is you had mentioned one parcel in the R3 zone. And, um... I'm looking at the underdeveloped parcels analysis or document from the city And I believe this was from 2011. And it identifies 158 R3 parcels that are viewed underdeveloped and an estimated number of potential units at 338. Now presumably all those are not just studios, right, that we're looking at at least some two bedrooms. Can you comment? |
| 01:46:29.19 | Jeff Bradley | I think that was very early work. And once we applied our filters, such as the size of parcel, slope, access to parking, access to a public street, We cut that down significantly to the 16 sites that are currently in technical appendix G of the housing element. |
| 01:46:51.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:46:52.58 | Jeff Bradley | which is significantly less than the numbers you cited. |
| 01:46:55.59 | Unknown | excited. That's interesting because wouldn't you agree that in Sausalito we are vertical living here in terms of our slopes and our hills and that we do have scenarios in which homes, in fact, multifamily projects are built into slopes. The comment or the question I have regarding access to parking, that's kind of interesting considering one of the incentives. are built into slopes. The comment or the question I have regarding access to parking, that's kind of interesting considering one of the incentives. you know, for the multifamily, the affordable overlay is a reduction in parking requirements. So I'm wondering if we might take another look at that in terms of our analysis to see about the viability of R3 and potential for multifamily, you know, requirements to meet that variety of housing types. because I think it would be well worth it. |
| 01:47:53.74 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:47:56.89 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor, we usually take our break around 9. So is it possible to take a quick breather? |
| 01:48:03.91 | Unknown | I was... Oh, great! In fact, we actually had an agreement that we'd shoot, which you wanted, that we'd shoot for 8.30. That's why I was mentioning it. |
| 01:48:04.37 | Unknown | Oh, great! |
| 01:48:05.06 | Unknown | I don't know. |
| 01:48:05.43 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:48:05.45 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:48:05.53 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:48:13.45 | Unknown | No, I actually said nine. I actually said nine. So, um... |
| 01:48:14.17 | Unknown | I actually said nine. I actually said nine. Thanks. How much longer is Melinda going to stay? Thank you. I just wanted to thank you for coming in case you do leave early. Thank you. |
| 01:48:24.55 | Unknown | Thank you. I think you've agreed to stay for the duration, haven't you, Melinda? Okay, so we're going to take a five-minute adjournment. Thank you. |
| 01:48:31.96 | Unknown | Oh, okay. |
| 01:48:32.65 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:48:33.07 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:48:46.98 | Unknown | Okay, let's resume. And we are going to open... this topic up for a public comment. Now, in the We've had... several Um. Subcommittee meetings, in which a lot of you were present, we allowed a lot of flexibility But we've got a city council meeting here tonight, so I just need to remind you that Um, When you're making comments, please address. Us, up here at the City Council, if you have three minutes, I'm going to strictly enforce it. Can I just have a show of hands? How many people want to talk? Okay, so there's a fair number. three minutes, I'm going to be pretty strict on the three minutes, and if you have a question that's in the middle of your comments, hold answering that question and pass it off to staff at the end of your three minutes if we can. But we're not stopping the clock. Okay? So, Sorry? And, you know, can we try and keep the applause down? There is no need. I've heard a lot of your comments. Everybody wants to hear. So if we could just operate with a degree of decorum, that would be very helpful tonight. Okay. |
| 01:50:18.14 | Emmett Yeazell | Thank you. |
| 01:50:18.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:50:18.20 | Emmett Yeazell | Bye. |
| 01:50:18.35 | Unknown | I'm not. |
| 01:50:18.59 | Emmett Yeazell | Thank you. |
| 01:50:21.68 | Emmett Yeazell | My name is Emmett Yeazell. I live at 21 Miller in Sausalito, unlike the cab companies who think it's in Mill Valley. |
| 01:50:34.10 | Emmett Yeazell | I have a very big question, and I want to be very familiar. Linda, Thomas, Ray, Jonathan, Herb. |
| 01:50:45.03 | Emmett Yeazell | Do you understand fully. what is before you with the HMU situation. There are a lot of experts. Last Tuesday, I believe, we had a whole panel of people My question is not for the consultants, not for the panel, and not for the attorneys. It's directed to each of you individually, and I'd like you to respond because you can. you understand exactly what you're voting for or could vote for. And I'd like a show of hands. |
| 01:51:33.64 | Unknown | We're not doing that. That's out of order. So if you – We're going to vote for the city. If you would like to – You're going to vote for the city. |
| 01:51:38.87 | Emmett Yeazell | So if he for the city. You're going to vote for the city. And I'd like to know if you understand Fully. what you're voting for because you're going to vote for us and this is not out of line since you're going to vote for us. I'd like a show of hands who understands completely what you're voting for. |
| 01:52:07.74 | Emmett Yeazell | Thank you. |
| 01:52:08.09 | Unknown | I understand, and it's very scary, Emmett. |
| 01:52:08.13 | Emmett Yeazell | I know. Amen. |
| 01:52:12.85 | Emmett Yeazell | The question is to the Council. |
| 01:52:21.54 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:52:21.56 | Emmett Yeazell | You know, it's not Emmet. If you're going to vote for us, It is appropriate. |
| 01:52:28.48 | Unknown | We fully understand what we do whenever we vote, and it's inappropriate for you to ask at this point, and it's because you're asking us to vote before we finally have our adjudication. |
| 01:52:39.11 | Emmett Yeazell | That was not... My question. That was not my question. |
| 01:52:49.93 | Unknown | I'll give you an answer of sorts. And it might not make you happy, but I'll give you an answer. So We're still in the – we're trying to get our heads around this as much as you are, right? Maybe we've had a little more time to get our heads around it because it's come back and forth, and some are more intimately familiar with the details than others, for sure, who have – people have been involved for longer periods of time. For me, you know, I believe in our actions tonight, voting on anything isn't really – we're not prescribing adoption of anything tonight in my read of the staff recommendations. There's a directive to go off and pursue strategy ABC or what have you. As far as do I – can I consider myself an expert in housing law or, you know, can I do Melinda's job? No. I'm not – I'm trying to do my best to represent the community's interests and balance that with what we're being prescribed by the state to do. Um, So I can't be more honest with you than that. I can't claim to know everything about housing, but I'm trying my best to understand the implications of all this. And from my time on the Planning Commission, I think I've got a better handle |
| 01:54:02.00 | Chuck Ortman | I'm not sure. |
| 01:54:06.42 | Unknown | on some of it. um, a good chunk of it because a lot of it's zoning. But as far as the, there's a lot of, Inside baseball. There's a lot of... moving parts, and there's some parts that we can't control because it's governed by state law. And we can put sort of checks and balances in there, like two-level reviews and things like that, but at the end of the day, say for the density bonuses, that's governed by state law. And you should call Mark Levine and give him hell. He's running for office in a few weeks. So he's not going to vote. |
| 01:54:44.49 | Emmett Yeazell | He's not. |
| 01:54:45.96 | Unknown | Okay. No, not tonight, but that's where that law can be changed. |
| 01:54:49.65 | Unknown | And Mr. Mayor, I'd like to respond briefly. Okay. And then I fully, I know, excuse me, you gave Council Member Leon time. I would like to have some time. |
| 01:54:52.71 | Unknown | Okay. So, wait. |
| 01:54:54.45 | Unknown | What's up? |
| 01:54:54.53 | Unknown | you |
| 01:54:54.62 | Unknown | Excuse me. I would like to have some time. I'm going to do so. Thank you. If you give me the courtesy to also say something. |
| 01:55:01.08 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:55:07.29 | Unknown | I have a... We open this up for public comment. Okay, and I realize that you're mad. Um, |
| 01:55:13.94 | Emmett Yeazell | No, I'm inquisitive. |
| 01:55:15.12 | Unknown | OK, fair enough. You know me. I know you. We, come on. Um... Partly in public comment, We're giving everybody the opportunity to talk. And this is just not the time for us to now start engaging in a debate. That occurs after we've heard public comment. So if you are willing to hold your question until we then bring it back up here for discussion, I'll tell you exactly what I think. But right now, I'm trying to receive public comment. Okay? |
| 01:55:48.90 | Unknown | Find a receipt. |
| 01:55:50.30 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:55:50.37 | Unknown | comment. Okay. |
| 01:55:52.40 | Unknown | Okay, Linda, as |
| 01:55:52.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:55:53.22 | Unknown | So, |
| 01:55:54.62 | Unknown | Council Member Leone spoke for a minute or two. Please go ahead, but we're trying to get public comment right now. |
| 01:56:01.52 | Unknown | Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Emmett, I completely understand what you're talking about. I completely understand the HMU. I'm very concerned about the HMU. In my mind, it is not the right fit for Sausalito. I believe it decimates our walkable communities, and I believe it is absolutely not the right thing. |
| 01:56:23.66 | Unknown | Okay, so now let's try and get back to public comment. You have three minutes. |
| 01:56:33.28 | Chris Skelton | Thank you. Good evening, council members, staff, Linda Coy. Thank you for joining us again this evening. My name is Chris Skelton. I'm an attorney representing a coalition of concerned citizens. I submitted a letter this evening. I hope that everyone has had an opportunity to read and review it. I won't waste my two minutes and 45 seconds running back through it. Instead, I'll try to distill for you what I believe is the most challenging aspect of tonight. Melinda herself said that housing element law is a jungle. And in order for you to fully understand the consequences of playing in this jungle, I think we need to identify what is at stake with the HMU. |
| 01:56:37.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:56:42.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:56:42.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:57:15.83 | Chris Skelton | The HMU does not accomplish any residential development beyond what is already zoned for at those sites. It's a misnomer that you have to have 100% residential development there. the HMU, as I said, can be distilled down to a mechanism of planning for economic success of developers at the expense of the local neighborhood. Thank you. Melinda said that these sites are not feasible because of economic constraints. considering the financial Viability of a project is an execution issue and not a planning issue. The housing element is a planning document, not an execution document, You've been well reminded that there is no project before you tonight, so you can't pass judgment and grapple with the real issues. of how a development will take shape. There is no need. to implement this execution aspect into this planning document. Housing element law, as identified by the government code, requires analysis of governmental, natural, and environmental constraints. I would suggest to the Council that in developers, Financing does not fall within the category of constraints that a local jurisdiction must resolve in presenting its housing element to HCD. |
| 01:58:46.02 | Unknown | must be. |
| 01:58:52.62 | Chris Skelton | I challenge you to challenge your consultants to confront HCD on this issue, and to preserve the commercial neighborhood character of Spring Street. In my limited time, In 2012, your consultants and staff approached this problem with a multi-pronged solution. There is no silver bullet for this, but I can tell you that the HMU would kill this neighborhood commercial district. Those are facilities that are utilized by the neighborhood, and taking them away will destroy that community character. if I leave you with this thought. When providing guidance to the PC, as I recognize you're not actually making a vote tonight, I would ask you to ask yourself if you're representing the interests of your residents or the interests of developers. |
| 01:59:52.78 | Unknown | Thank you, Chris. |
| 01:59:59.87 | Jill Hoffman | Good evening, council members. Melinda, thanks for coming back. I know it's a long drive from Sacramento, and it's very helpful, actually, to have you here. So thank you for coming. As you know, my name is Jill Hoffman. I live on the Spring Street neighborhood. And I've talked several times before this council and at various planning commission meetings about our community and the historic nature of our neighborhood. And so I'm not going to go back into that, but I will point out that when HCD is looking at our town, we're a 150-year-old historic seaport town of two square miles. AND WE HAVE TRANSIT RUNNING DIRECTLY THROUGH OUR TOWN. THERE'S NOT A HOUSE IN TOWN THAT ISN'T WITHIN A MILE OR A HALF MILE OF THAT TRANSIT CORRIDOR. SO WE ARE DISTINCT FROM ANY OTHER COMMUNITY PROBABLY THAT YOU LOOK AT IN CALIFORNIA. Do we ask for concessions from THE ACD GUIDELINES, WE ASK FOR THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE NECESSARY AND THEY'RE PROPER IN THIS I haven't also heard that we've had a an adequate investigation into the new multifamily ordinance and how we might be able to meet low and lower income and lowest income units with infill. I, as a homeowner in one of those units, in one of those lots that can now build a second unit, I would be thrilled now to build another unit in the back of my PROPERTY AS A STUDIO APARTMENT THAT WOULD BE ADEQUATELY I'm well within the very low income, and I know that I have neighbors the same, and I know that if ADU policy was modified just a bit to allow parking, because I understand that many of the parking – Jeremy, you can speak to this because I think you spoke to this at one point – a lot of the parking reasons were why those ADU applications in the amnesty program were denied. With that, I think with A VERY HARD LOOK AT THE MULTIFAMILY ORDINANCE AND THE LOT SIZES AND THE LOTS THAT ARE AVAILABLE AND HOMEOWNERS THAT ARE WILLING AND WE COULD GATHER LETTERS OF INTENT. I GUARANTEE YOU WE WILL GET 16 LETTERS OF INTENT FROM HOMEOWNERS FOR LOW INCOME OR VERY LOW INCOME UNITS IN THEIR HOMES IF YOU GUYS WILL AGREE TO WAVE ONE PARKING UNIT. SO ANYWAY, AGAIN, I'M JILL HOFFMAN. I HOPE YOU CONSIDER THOSE FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND COMPLYING WITH HCD BECAUSE I I don't think there's anybody here, I'm Jill Hoffman. I hope you consider those for the Planning Commission and comply with HCD because I don't think there's anybody here, certainly not from Spring Street, that isn't an advocate for affordable housing. It's all over our neighborhood. Thank you. |
| 02:02:21.74 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:02:26.61 | Unknown | Who would like to go next? |
| 02:02:32.08 | Chuck Ortman | My name is Chuck Ortman. I live at 2111 Bridgeway. However, to get to my house, you have to go up Olive Street to access my house. I don't think anybody on the council lives on Olive Street. And I don't know if you've even been there. But I can tell you that Olive Street is very narrow. very steep and now cars park on both sides of the street. Today, I came down the street. There's not enough room for a car to pass one another, a car to come up the hill and go down the hill. came to Bridgeway to turn left The car came to turn. Right. was going south on Bridgeway to go up could not come up. Car backed up behind him, started honking at him. I had to back up the street to a driveway |
| 02:03:14.15 | Unknown | I have. |
| 02:03:17.63 | Chuck Ortman | park into the driveway, let that car come up, and then go back down again. We're talking about putting an apartment in there where there will not be parking for every car in that building. They'll be parking not on Bridgeway. They'll be parking on Olive. |
| 02:03:28.81 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:03:31.06 | Chuck Ortman | which is going to make it even worse and more dangerous for the people that live there and drive there. I... I worked for 44 years in federal law enforcement and I retired three years ago and moved to Sausalito. And me and my wife, we love it here. But now I feel like we're being put in a position where we're going to be living in an area that's not going to be very safe for us. And if this happens, we may have to decide to leave. Thank you. |
| 02:03:58.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:04:03.93 | Unknown | Please, who would like to? And if you could start lining up to speed up this process, that would be helpful. |
| 02:04:13.19 | Jenny Reinders | Good evening. My name is Jenny Reinders. I own 511 Olive Street. It's the house that I grew up in. I was there when it used to be an apartment house. They used to have a swimming pool and we used to sneak over and swim. I'm really, really thrilled at the idea that 2015 might be reconsidered and taken off of the high density housing proposals and I'm really begging you to please consider doing that. We are so impacted. of the high density housing proposals, and I'm really begging you to please consider doing that. We are so impacted with parking already, but at least the offices, those people go home at 5 o'clock, which works out well. Then there's the shift of everyone else coming home to the block. We have the restaurant at the bottom of the street. The neighborhood is lovely as it is, but really how much more can we squeeze into it without severely impacting the quality of life? No one here, I think, is against affordable housing, but everyone should have reasonably nice housing. And I just don't think that 2015 or the 7-Eleven sites are going to provide that. Thank you. |
| 02:05:28.95 | Michael Racks | I'm Michael Rex. I am glad to see that staff is recommending option two on allowing – continuing to allow office use on second floor in our neighborhood commercial in Caledonia streets. That's a good thing. I don't know if the state knew that we don't allow office use on the ground floor in Caledonia Street, so we'd be banning completely office use in any new project. So that's a change that needs to occur, and I'm glad it's in there. And I think that's a very important thing to note. If we have to go back and revisit the numbers, there's probably some opportunity to have residential on the second floor in the back on some of these deeper lots, but having office on the second floor in the front. We don't have to. have no residential on the second floor on many of those lots. On the horizontal, I'm terribly concerned, and I spoke last time about it, losing retail and community-serving uses on the ground floor. It's inconsistent with our general plan. It's not mixed use to have 100 percent residential. Again I think you can fit some residential on deeper lots behind the stores, but 100 percent doesn't make sense. We'll lose our resident serving uses. If it's a financing problem, well, let's get more creative on financing. I heard it's possible, it's just difficult. Well, difficult doesn't scare us, particularly when it's an important need. So I want to ask that you not allow 100 percent residential on the ground floor in our commercial zones. And then lastly, I'm not sure to what extent we looked at our public lands, where we can do an eight-unit project, the bluff behind MLK, the parking lot behind. I know we've talked about this from time to time behind our city hall. Maybe there are some places where we can fit eight units without screwing up our commercial zones. |
| 02:07:37.18 | Andy Koster | Mr. Mayor, Mr. Vice Mayor and Council Members, thank you very much for hearing me tonight. My name is Andy Koster, and I live at 534 Spring Street. That's the corner of Spring and Pearl. And I spoke last week. I just basically wanted to reiterate with you briefly that I'm against the development at the 7-Eleven site. I'm very concerned about the close-knit community nature of our neighborhood disappearing. I live and work within a two-block radius there, and I just wanted to stress that the parking really is an issue. With sailors on the street, at the bottom of the street, and Fred's on the weekends, it's tolerable as it is now. We can deal with it. I really worry, though, you add in those units, and if you're not providing parking spaces for them, what that's going to do to that neighborhood, it already feels pretty packed. And that concerns me, and I just wanted you to be aware of it. Thank you for hearing me tonight. Thank you. |
| 02:08:41.64 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:08:45.31 | Susan Samels | Susan Samels, 145 Prospect. I first of all would like to applaud Linda for delving into some potential alternatives to meeting our numbers and whatnot, and I'd like to urge the City Council and the Planning Commission tomorrow |
| 02:08:46.03 | Unknown | one. |
| 02:09:03.53 | Susan Samels | to basically find a minimal impact solution to this for all the different areas in the community And I was a little appalled to arrive tonight and then find out that somebody's talking about 28 units at the fire station on Spencer. And I would just like to say, you know, that that's not really a commercial area at all. I mean, that might be zoned commercial, but it's a residential area. And I find it hard to imagine that a 28-unit building could be built there that would be in keeping with the neighborhood. So again, I'd like to urge you to find minimal impact solution to this problem. |
| 02:09:46.43 | Unknown | City Council and city staff, and I really appreciate everything. I know you're all in between a rock and a hard place, but I'm still environmentally conscious about this whole thing. I grew up in California, and back in the 70s, we had a drought, JUST AS WE ARE being threatened to have a drought now, and the state stopped building. And as I'm sitting here, and I'm ignorant, and I apologize for that. I don't know enough. But all I can hear is, okay, who's running this? The special interest developers? Because that's what it sounds like to me. I'm trying to understand it. And so I would urge all of us to start letting the state and these developers know that It is important environmentally what we're going to hand our children and our children's children. We're responsible for the next seven generations. What are we going to hand them? A town that's no longer a town. It's just going to be polluted and full of city and cement. I'm worried about that. So I really urge you, please, to consider all of this. And we need to let the state know that we are the state, and we need to take matters in our hands and say, come on, this is enough. No more building right now. Thank you. |
| 02:11:04.09 | Jeffrey Chase | Hello again, council and citizens. I'll call myself Jubilee Jake for this comment. A couple weeks ago, the Jewish people looked at a portion of the Torah. called Jubilee. And at the end of Jubilee, when the rules for the land, for the land being redeemed, are given... it says this. It says, we are nothing but strangers and sojourners on this land. We all know this land was not created by our hands. Okay. Right now at the moment, 60% of The people who work in Marin are coming from outside this county to work. they're bringing cars and they're polluting. They're causing the carbon level to go up. In a few days, I'm going to be going to New Mexico to join the climate march. I'm leaving my sailboat offshore. of Sausalito to do this. I'm talking here to the smallest level of government that I can deal with. The climate issue is going to be not an easy thing to do, but we've got to deal with it here. And one way we're going to have to deal with it is to have the Jubilee Spirit, which is Equality. And the equality is not just of us given an equal opportunity. It's given an equal opportunity by being given a place to lay our heads. Okay, every holy text in the world says this. So I'm going to quote just a little bit from the, this is a portion for this week. We're a couple portions past Jubilee now. This is the Haftorah. The Torah is numbers. It's kind of technical and what it talks about is that each member of the tribe is given an equal amount of land. And this is in the rural areas now. So if Sausalito wants to consider itself a rural area, this is at least the law of this very ancient book called the Bible. Okay? In the cities, this is not the law. In the cities, obviously, we have a different issue, that people live in apartments, they live in small houses, they don't live on farms. So I'm just going to read this. Um... This is Hosea 2. It says, I will pursue my lovers who give me food and water, wool and flax and olive oil and wine. Therefore, I will block her way with thorns, and I will put up a hedge so she can't find her pass. She will pursue her lovers but not catch them. She will seek them but she won't find them. Then she will say, I will go and return to my first husband because things were better for me then than they are now. But now I am going to woo her, says God. I will bring her out to the desert, and I will speak to her heart. So I'm speaking to your heart now, and I'm saying please, please recognize that we all have a stake in what's going to happen here on this planet Earth. And we can do it on a local level, so thank you. |
| 02:14:08.33 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:14:18.52 | Unknown | My name is Flora Rogers and I have lived on Spring Street for 83 years. And I'm here to tell you, Sacramento or City Council is not going to pull the wool over our eyes and ruin our beautiful city. Do you all realize the traffic and noise it's going to create? Already I can't get out of town on the weekends, meeting traffic and rude bikers. My husband and I have extremely low rentals on Spring Street, and even have a handicap unit. I HAVE FOUND A GREAT LOCATION FOR HIGH-DENSITY HOUSING IN COUNCIL'S FRONT YARD. WOULD YOU LIKE THAT? I'm going to fight this to my dying day, which I hope doesn't come too soon, because I still have a lot of fight left in me. Thank you. |
| 02:15:10.65 | Unknown | Thank you. High patent. |
| 02:15:14.07 | Pat | Hi, I can't follow that, so let's go home. I do have a little tale to it. I heard tell last meeting that after it was over, you were going to drive back to Sacramento, and it was late. And you said to somebody, where can I find a cup of coffee? And the answer was, there's no place in town at this time of night except for 7-Eleven that could serve your needs. Um, I have a couple of questions. One is there's some talk in these suggested alternatives of various levels of review. And whether to the Planning Commission or to the City Council regarding bonus densities in parking and incentives, I haven't seen and I'd like to understand exactly how reviewy those reviews are. A hearing and a review is worthless unless somebody can say no. So for example, if I may blather on, Jonathan asked the question, could 2015, for example, be converted to housing without changing the shape of the building? It's a big building, 12 units, whatever. And he said yes. Well, should a developer come along? nonprofit. buy the thing and show up and say, I'd like to put in housing, but I can't cut it without a fifth floor. And that goes to Planning Commission or City Council Review. And he says, I can't cut it without not having parking requirements. You know, I'd like to put 20 units in there, but I don't want to have parking for the 20 units. Can I have a waiver on the parking requirement? Are these reviews that you're talking about rubber stamps, pro formas, or are they actually a forum where the planning commission or the city council can say, that's a big building, it shouldn't have anything added to it, or there's a parking problem in the neighborhood, we don't think that's the appropriate waiver. That's number one. Number two is it seems clear that what's happening here is that HCD feels that we need two, at least eight units solid multi-family housing opportunities in town. someplace. Am I right? I'm sorry. Could you ask her if I'm right? |
| 02:17:47.85 | Unknown | Is she really... |
| 02:17:48.04 | Pat | Thank you. |
| 02:17:48.07 | Unknown | Is she right? Is she right, two multifamily units, eight units each? |
| 02:17:59.72 | Melinda Coy | It can be in one site for 16 units. It could be in two, eight unit sites. It's the capacity that matters. And then, of course, the suitability of the sites themselves. |
| 02:18:15.16 | Pat | I would like to... Thank you. So I'm right. In effect, yeah. |
| 02:18:15.41 | Melinda Coy | Thank you. |
| 02:18:16.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:18:23.48 | Pat | We're going to need to find a place to rezone. if we are going to be in compliance without convincing HCD of a different approach. And I would hope that you can find the ability to satisfy these requirements without sacrificing neighborhood-serving qualities that are in very short supply and likely to be decreasing in availability, not increasing. Thank you. |
| 02:18:57.60 | Unknown | Thank you, Pat. Thank you. Pat asked a very specific question there about, I think, how the density bonus tiering was going to work and did the planning commission or city council have really any teeth there. That's quite a technical question. Do you want to answer that? That is worth an – that definitely should be answered tonight. So do you want to answer that now? Sonia, do you mind wait, pause in for a minute, if I ask the staff to answer that specific question before we lose it. |
| 02:19:44.36 | Jeff Bradley | First off, under the density bonus law, the maximum density bonus is 35 percent. So these two sites we're talking about are maxing out under the local zoning at eight units. Eight times 1.35 is 10.8 units. We round up to 11. So we have a max. Under no circumstances could anyone ask for more than 11 units under the density bonus law. Does that make sense? And then in terms of what leverage or teeth does the Planning Commission or Council have, it really comes down to the incentives being requested by the property owner or applicant. And there's really three – under three – there's three findings where the decision-making body, whether it was the Planning Commission or the Council, could deny the request for the incentives or concessions. And the first one is the applicant fails to show that the incentives or concessions are required in order to provide for affordable housing costs. So typically that would involve the applicant preparing a financial pro forma. City staff would review it. City could require a third-party peer review from a financial consulting firm to validate those assumptions. The second finding that could lead to denying the concessions or incentives would be that the concessions or incentives would have what's known as an adverse – a specific adverse impact as defined in state law, and that is upon the public health and safety or on the physical environment or on any real property that's listed on the California Register of Historic Places. And there's no feasible mitigation to deal with those specific adverse impacts. The third and final finding would be that the concession or incentive would be contrary to state or federal law. |
| 02:21:44.93 | Unknown | Please, Sonia. |
| 02:21:47.04 | Sonia Hanson | Council. Consultants. Melinda, how was the temperature this morning? |
| 02:21:52.46 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:21:54.78 | Sonia Hanson | Good. Sonia Hanson. I live on Spring Street, and I just want to clarify one thing. When Chris was up here, he mentioned Spring Street. It is not just Spring Street that we're concerned with. We're concerned with First of all, the neighborhood is Spring, Easterby, Olive, Pearl, Woodward. It's a large neighborhood. But more importantly, we're concerned for the town. |
| 02:22:22.97 | Sonia Hanson | Removing commercial use. is anathema to having a town. That's what defines a town. Otherwise, we live in a suburb. One of the proposals here, the two sites actually that you're proposing for an HMU remove commercial use. We just heard that the site at Olive and Bridgeway has 12 businesses. Occupied. We would remove those 12 businesses. We would remove the 7-Eleven and the laundromat, which by the way, most of the people that are liveaboards, which we have qualified for housing in this town. That's where they go to wash their clothes. It's the nearest laundromat. only other laundromats in Southbound and the other ones in the county. So, This flies in the face of what my understanding, the housing element, one of the things it's attempting to accomplish, is putting housing. in communities that are near services. It's putting it near services and this particular plan takes the services away and puts the housing there. It's insane. I'm sorry. It makes no logical sense. the HMU. I can't imagine it making sense anywhere, but certainly not in this town. We have three small community neighborhoods. or commercial neighborhoods. And we're talking about one commercial neighborhood losing most of its commercial space. It's nuts. So, I don't know what the answer is, but the HMU is not the answer, and I don't think it's the answer anywhere in town. And if we have to work to find another answer, I'd say we better get to work and I will work on it. You'll all work. We all have the same concerns. I have one final question or one final point. Low income housing. I want to be clear about how many low-income housing units would be in the eight-unit There's two eight-unit sites, which we've just heard with a 35% density bonus will go to 11 sites. Of those 11 sites, how many have to be low income? Can someone ask the consultants a question for me? |
| 02:24:38.20 | Unknown | Well, I think it's very clear in the draft ordinance, but Karen, could you? |
| 02:24:38.37 | Sonia Hanson | I think- |
| 02:24:46.84 | Karen | in If one of those eight-unit potential HMU sites took advantage of the density bonus. Right. So it could have 11 units. And under the way the HMU is currently drafted, 50% of the units would need to be very low and low. |
| 02:24:57.86 | Unknown | Right? |
| 02:25:11.26 | Sonia Hanson | Thank you. However, that is a local ordinance. My understanding is the state ordinance would actually, I would think, trump that, and it doesn't have to be 50%. Can the city of Sausalito actually say we're demanding 50%? Sure. Absolutely. And the state ordinance doesn't trump that. |
| 02:25:33.15 | Karen | Thank you. |
| 02:25:33.16 | Sonia Hanson | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:25:33.40 | Karen | Well, the state ordinance is less restrictive. The city can adopt something more restrictive. |
| 02:25:38.92 | Sonia Hanson | . |
| 02:25:39.09 | Karen | So. |
| 02:25:40.03 | Sonia Hanson | So if there are 11, that would mean five would be? Right. And the rest would be market rate. |
| 02:25:42.01 | Karen | Right. |
| 02:25:46.02 | Karen | However, if a nonprofit developer built on the site, most likely the whole thing would be affordable. |
| 02:25:55.32 | Sonia Hanson | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And once again, please, the HMU is not the answer. |
| 02:25:58.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:25:58.51 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:25:58.95 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:26:09.41 | Unknown | time. |
| 02:26:10.22 | Mike Rogers | I'm Mike Rogers. I've spoken to you before. |
| 02:26:11.56 | Unknown | And my question is, |
| 02:26:16.42 | Mike Rogers | I WON'T READ IT, BUT YOU ALREADY HAVE THIS IN YOUR POSSESSION. I URGE YOU TO READ IT AGAIN, TALKING ABOUT THE 1901 BRIDGWAY AND 2015 BRIDGWAY BUILDINGS, THE 711 AND OLIVE STREET. I believe that we should remove them, and we need to remove the HMU out of it, because we need to retain our local businesses. We've already said that, so I won't go any further into that. But I do want to say that we're, as a property owner here, We're extremely concerned about our views, the traffic, parking, noise, and our property values. We don't want to lose our spring valley. business district, our 7-Eleven laundry. We don't want to have only bedrooms in Sausalito. We need and want our businesses. |
| 02:27:07.23 | Mike Rogers | uh, As Ms. Coy mentioned, you know, all cities have special characteristics, and Sausalito is very unique. To take away our businesses and to allow developers to come in and build taller and block our existing businesses. residents' views is just unacceptable. Thank you. The public advocates firm that we keep referring to They don't live here. We do. They're not concerned, and we do, and we're not concerned with them and their financing. We want to preserve our views on our neighborhoods and our businesses. It's been said here we keep saying that we want to talk to developers. I believe we need to take in the needs and desires of our existing property owners and taxpayers. those of us that are here and built the city. |
| 02:28:04.47 | Mike Rogers | It seems clear to me that Sausalito is too small to meet state requirements unless we start filling in the bay. And this is just not going to work. When World War II came, Saucido took the shipbuilding industrial side and the high-density housing went into Marin City. I know that's county land, but at that time, it did not matter to the state. As mentioned, SASU is very unique, and I suggest that the state allow us to use the Marin City again to meet our needs. |
| 02:28:38.03 | Mike Rogers | I don't want to put that in somebody else's neighborhood, but high density housing has no place in Sausalito. We only have Bridgeway. As someone's already mentioned, Bridgeway is our only and flow here to town most of its a one-lane road in each direction we can't put in high density it's just gonna ruin the city I'm not against housing. I'm not against development. Thank you. And as I stand here, I'm not just one individual, one property owner. I think I've already mentioned that our family owns 25 houses and five other lots. So we're representing 30 different properties here as I speak before you. Imagine 30 people here, not just me. Thank you. |
| 02:29:15.39 | Susan Shea | Imagine. |
| 02:29:19.61 | Unknown | Thank you, Mike. |
| 02:29:21.57 | Susan Shea | Good evening. Again, thank you for coming all the way down from Sacramento, and good evening to everyone. My name is Susan Shea, and I live on Spring Street. And I just wanted to offer two suggestions. One is, The idea that vertical of 40% in Sausalito is appropriate is outrageous to me. I mean, most of these houses are hanging out over a cliff. that is, I don't know. How many percent? for |
| 02:29:55.39 | Andy Koster | Thank you. |
| 02:29:55.54 | Susan Shea | Thank you. But my second out of the box idea is, has anyone approached the BCDC, San Francisco BCDC, about increasing the percentage of river boards from 10% to a higher percentage in the marinas. It's been the same percentage since 1984. And I'm not sure if anyone's looked into asking them to increase the percentage of liveaboards that we can actually count, because as everybody knows, there's more than 10 percent of liveaboards in any one of these harbors. Thank you. |
| 02:30:38.13 | Steve Hoffman | Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Council Members. My name is Steve Hoffman. I live at 518 Easterby Street. I do want to echo – or I should say I probably won't echo everyone's comments tonight about the impacts of the VMU and HMU with VTR community. One area that I didn't quite hear a lot of people say was the actual financial impacts. A lot of the homes there have those great views. That's why we live here in Sausalito. If you look at the totality of the impacts in our area, you're talking millions of dollars. And if I heard correctly, for the very low and low income, we're probably talking a grand sum of 10 units. Is that correct? I mean, the financial impacts that to us, we could send those families to the south of France and let them live a good life for what they're doing to our community. But it's not about low income. It's all about high density. And last week when we had Melinda here, there was a number of questions about density, variety of housing, affordability. Once we started diving down into these terms, it became as clear as mud, as I'm sure it is for all of you right now. So we had the attorney, Chris, come up here earlier, point out a number of key things. because things are not so clear. But one of the things I kept on hearing throughout Melinda's comments as well as Karen Warner's is the concern about public advocates, the developers, and their interests. And nowhere did I hear any comments about the citizens. And I really don't understand who works for who and what are these organizations that – what power and – comments about the citizens. And I really don't understand who works for who and what are these organizations, what power and sway do they have over the state? And specifically, I have some specific questions. I heard, Melinda, you say that density is a proxy for affordability. Is there specific code that you can cite that talks about that? So that's one question. Again, about the developers and public advocates, are there guidelines and regulations that ACD has to follow? Because, again, it seems like they have undue influence. And I'd be interested to hear your comments on those two questions. or I will submit written questions, and you can comment on them, or if one of the council members would address this for me. |
| 02:33:04.15 | Unknown | MR. No, I'm sure the staff will be happy to address that. Have you finished – are your comments finished? |
| 02:33:05.72 | Steve Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:33:10.31 | Emmett Yeazell | Bye. |
| 02:33:10.33 | Steve Hoffman | Thank you. opposed to the |
| 02:33:11.07 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:33:11.29 | Emmett Yeazell | Thank you. |
| 02:33:11.44 | Unknown | Yeah. OK. Thank you. |
| 02:33:14.44 | Emmett Yeazell | Is there |
| 02:33:15.77 | Unknown | Any, why don't we actually, if you can, Jeff, Karen, or Melinda address this last comment about the questions that Steve asked there. |
| 02:33:32.84 | Melinda Coy | Bye. It's technical stuff. So in terms of the density for proxy, as a proxy for affordability, that's in the housing element statute under the zoning for a variety of housing types. And I can give you the government code related to that. And that is in concern with how do you determine whether or not the zoning is appropriate. In terms of the requirements in relationship to considering third-party comments, that is also in the statute that we are required to consider that as part of our review. I will say that what Public Advocates does, as well as other groups similar to this, is that they don't just represent the they don't represent developers necessarily. They represent the interests of folks who are special needs, low income, and their needs, which generally are not not spoken of, and they don't actually have, usually have such a strong voice. And so in our review requirements, we are required to look at their comments and consider them, and as I've said tonight, you know, some of their comments we agreed with and some of their comments we did not agree with. And so we incorporated to the extent that it was appropriate with statute and housing element law, you know, what their concerns were. As we do for any third-party comments that we receive at the state, whether it comes from advocates or local citizens or whomever provides us those comments. |
| 02:35:24.94 | Unknown | Thanks, Melinda. Is there any other person here who would like to comment? Yes, please, sir. |
| 02:35:36.29 | Unknown | Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Councilmembers. City staff. This has been an incredibly hot issue. I know that you probably deal with a lot of different city business, and whether this is something that you see on a regular basis with this kind of community output. TO ME, IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT. The most important thing that I see here is that we want to get a deal done. That's pretty much bottom line. what we need to do is count THE NUMBER OF UNITS that are available right now in the two spots that they're talking about. Okay, the two places on Bridgeway which are not being accepted by the state because the city or the state does not think that it's going to be financially feasible. for them, for the developer, to accomplish what they need to accomplish. I'M SORRY IF THAT'S NOT THE CASE. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT THERE'S STILL EIGHT UNITS IN EACH ONE OF THOSE LOCATIONS WHICH GIVES US 16 UNITS. LET'S GET THE DEAL DONE. THE STATE'S FLEXIBLE. THE STATE HAS SHOWN ITS FLEXIBILITY Um. I think that this council has shown its patience Um... This is not a divisive issue within the city. This is not about Old Town, Midtown, New Town, North Town. This is about the city of Sausalito. If we open up, DOOR. for HMUs and changing the ordinances Where's it going to stop? Who's going to get hurt in the long run? So we're here as members of the community probably way out of our league. DEALING WITH seasoned politicians and state representatives. BUT WE REALLY CARE ABOUT THE CITY OF SAN SOLIDO, Right now, we are at a pivotal point. We got state mandates coming down from Sacramento associated with probably state grants, at least that's what they're showing in the newspapers. Development will happen. We're not opposed. to development. Let's do it right. Let's do it so that it's in conjunction with what the community can really have. in the future. There's a lot of different ways to look at this. It's not a quick fix. We don't expect it to be a quick fix, but we do appreciate your Patience with it. There's been a lot of emotion back and forth. Thank you. Thank you very much. for your time. |
| 02:38:36.62 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:38:40.99 | Unknown | Is there anybody else who'd like to say something? Okay. I'm going to close public comment and bring the discussion back up here. |
| 02:38:58.54 | Unknown | Let's put the microphone back on. Could I make a suggestion? to my colleagues here that |
| 02:39:10.28 | Unknown | One of the things that was in the staff report was to basically say an alternative which the subcommittee considered was to reopen and rediscuss certain sites that were which are larger sites and could accommodate 16 units. Butte Street, the fire station, number two, and others. Okay. And You know, when I... first got involved with this as an element, that was a very, very divisive. time, and there were, because these sites were going to have affordable housing overlays on them, which was the only way to make it work. That just didn't seem to work, for me at least. What staff and consultants last week at the subcommittee meeting put forth is if you don't want to do the HMU. And you want to, or If... perhaps find some smaller sites such as in CN2. and you let the housing element go out of compliance, then We learned last week. that next year and in 2016, we would have no choice and in fact Some of those sites that we took off the list, like the fire station, like Butte Street and actually could be we would have no choice but to come back and actually use those sites. And I don't think that's right. So I'd like to make the suggestion Oh, and the one thing the staff actually, there was a lot of information out of the subcommittee meeting. What are the... the subcommittee strongly recommended is that we do not consider. those other sites. And that what we do is restrict ourselves to the options that are on this sheet. So I know people are worried about the fire station up at Spencer, they're worried about Butte Street and other things. That is high density housing. And I'd like to propose that we, to make our discussion simpler here, we focus on these six options and not extend it to those sites. Now, maybe someone wants to extend it to those sites up here, but I doubt it. |
| 02:41:55.68 | Unknown | So who wants to go... |
| 02:41:56.88 | Unknown | you And that is |
| 02:41:58.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:41:58.28 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:42:00.22 | Unknown | All right. |
| 02:42:01.40 | Unknown | Well, sorry, I... Thank you. |
| 02:42:03.27 | Unknown | is a question that we don't discuss these other four sites. |
| 02:42:06.39 | Unknown | Well, we take it off the table. This is not an option we're going for. That's what I'd like to |
| 02:42:11.67 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor, I think it's unanimous that those are off the table. |
| 02:42:15.76 | Unknown | You're going to ask me to raise my hand. |
| 02:42:18.71 | Unknown | Sorry. |
| 02:42:21.17 | Unknown | Okay, so I mean I think it's important to say that because then we, our conversations won't go sort of spiraling off into other areas. So then I would like us to focus on the six options, some of which are not mutually exclusive, and see if we can reach some sort of view on how to proceed. |
| 02:42:47.13 | Unknown | Well. |
| 02:42:47.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:42:48.83 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor, I have a comment. |
| 02:42:49.58 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:42:49.61 | Unknown | I'm sorry. Yeah. This is probably one of the hottest... things I've had to do in the eight years that I've been here. and I am, I've been a resident of this town for 37 years. I had my shell station down at 2901 Bridgeway for 33 years. I still own the land. I'm in the process of selling that. and I'm selling it back to Shell Oil. One of the reasons is because I care about my community. I could get more money for it selling it to someone else. But I know one thing. To depend on one gas station in this town, especially with the prices that he's charging. |
| 02:43:34.75 | Unknown | He's charging. |
| 02:43:36.47 | Unknown | is the worst thing that I could do. So I'm aware of that. Three years ago, I mentioned that that strip where Tommy's walk all the way up to Scott's should have been looked at. because it's really one of the places that we can build these units and not have an effect or have very little effect. on us. It's on the Bridgeway corridor. It doesn't block anybody's views. and it's really an excellent spot. that we're able to go back to that Yeah, we go. I'm hearing that we could put in as many as 54 Is that right, 54 units? How many units was that? 54. And with that, is it possible that we could remove The 7-Eleven, at least. And the olive is my question. |
| 02:44:40.04 | Karen | if they were allowed as an HMU type overlay so that could have ground floor residential yes |
| 02:44:50.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:44:55.72 | Steve Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 02:44:56.92 | Unknown | This is I think Pat asked this question in some ways for and again I'll if the staff could chime in city staff to chime in as well for the number of single and multi-family units that this is plan contemplates on the 2015 site. And I think she asked this question one way, and I'm going to ask it another way. someone came to that – the appeal of that site – no, it's not an appeal. Thank you. The only source of comfort I have with that site is that if you could accommodate what we're planning there without having to change. the size of the building. And so what I – I'll ask it again, and maybe you'll give the same answer, is there are parking issues and other things that we would have to address. could it – I think what people are concerned in that neighborhood, like most neighborhoods, with anything being built is blocking their views. And this – and Spring Street Valley is a very – in my experience, it's very susceptible to that because most of the construction is fairly low in nature, and the hill isn't super steep, so you can't, if you do one building, it kind of has to domino up the hill in order to have a view if you raise a building in height, from my experience, in that valley. So whether it's – so at least for the Olive Street side, I'd like to get – I know we don't have a plan for specific construction in front of you. could someone build something there, nonprofit, for-profit, whatever the case may be, that would go over the 32-foot height limit or the current height of the building there is sort of my question for that particular site. |
| 02:46:52.63 | Unknown | And whether the checks and balances that you mentioned in Pat's answer to Pat's question, would that be hold in force between that height restriction? |
| 02:47:04.62 | Jeff Bradley | The building now, as you view it from the bridgeway frontage, as measured from the sidewalk, I would assume is very close to the 30 or 32 feet because it's a full three stories. Right. However, as viewed, if you go up Olive and stand in the driveway of the house right behind it, it appears to be a one-story building because of the way the slope goes up and essentially the hill has been removed where that building is. It's been created a flat pad at the ground level. |
| 02:47:15.26 | Unknown | Right. |
| 02:47:36.40 | Unknown | That's why I'm asking because we do average grade height, and from that particular lot, from your guesstimate. Is there the potential that building could go up another story to accommodate the units that this plan is trying to place on this site? |
| 02:47:57.39 | Jeff Bradley | Well, currently the building is very close to 10,000 square feet. So divided by 10 or 11 units, it's very close to 900 to 1,000 square feet per unit, if you're just looking at the building itself as it exists now. |
| 02:48:15.28 | Unknown | my question really so I'm not saying you is you know is there a possibility for another story on that building |
| 02:48:18.32 | Jeff Bradley | you know, is there a possibility Bye. Oh, yeah. By zoning code, by the way we measure height, would you be allowed to put another level in that building and still meet the 32-foot height limit? Is that the question? Yes. |
| 02:48:31.04 | Unknown | Well, I... Okay, so that's something we should sort of get to some resolution. We can't do it tonight, obviously, but that's something we should do. |
| 02:48:40.68 | Unknown | Could Lily or Jeremy sort of help here at all? |
| 02:48:44.84 | Unknown | I understand the question. I don't know the answer because I don't know It's a technical answer because you have to know the grade where the building touches on the lowest point and the grade where the building touches on the highest point. What complicates it even further is the average national grade is measured by the grade that existed I think in 1964 or 1968. So we have to figure out when that excavation occurred. to find out if the grade was prior to that date or not. So I can't give you the answer right now. |
| 02:49:18.02 | Unknown | And Mr. Mayor, can I weigh in? Because I believe there was a recent court case where the affordable housing developer could not establish the case that he needed to take it a certain height in order for it to pencil out. And it's my recollection that the court allowed him to exceed at least local height requirements because he could establish that financial need. That's my recollection. |
| 02:49:54.12 | Unknown | MS. Mr. May, the question that I heard from Council Member Leon was if another level could be added on that building under the current zoning ordinance and not adding on the layer of the state density bonus law, which – MR. |
| 02:50:08.87 | Unknown | Which... Thank you. |
| 02:50:13.49 | Unknown | So with the state density bonus law, there needs to be a relationship between whatever concession that the person, the property owner, is proposing in the financial feasibility of developing the project. So without having that in front of us, I don't think we can answer that question. |
| 02:50:38.50 | Unknown | But, you know, increases to height is a concession that a property owner can ask per the state density bonus law. And that's why that's in that tier two level as in the draft ordinance. |
| 02:50:51.80 | Unknown | And, Lily, just to clarify, right at the moment, um, a property owner could come in and at least apply for a project on that site right now ask for the state density bonus and propose a project that could attempt to put 11 units on it, except they wouldn't be able to use the ground floor for any of those residential units. Is that correct? |
| 02:51:23.52 | Unknown | That's correct. The ground floor would have to be commercial. |
| 02:51:25.83 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:51:25.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:51:26.03 | Unknown | Thank you. so But right now they could come in and do that. Us. ask for that and try and seek the concessions under a state density bonus law. |
| 02:51:37.16 | Unknown | That's crap. |
| 02:51:37.78 | Unknown | Right, so the HMU doesn't affect that. ability to apply. No. Right. |
| 02:51:42.93 | Unknown | No. But it does affect the financial feasibility, according to what we've heard, in terms of the viability for the developer to do it. and incentivizes the developer to do it. |
| 02:51:56.19 | Unknown | On our tiers, when the developer would ask for an incentive, Thank you. I take it... for a height Um, deviation. go to the city council. And I guess the question is, if the city council felt that they didn't need it, could the city council deny that height request? |
| 02:52:18.79 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. It really goes back to the three findings out of the state density bonus law, which I like to take with me everywhere. Do you want to repeat that or can I just reference it by that? Would you like me to repeat the three findings that the council could deny the request? Go ahead. Okay. Please. The concession or incentive is not required in order to provide for affordable housing costs as defined by the health and safety code for rents at the targeted rate level. The concession or incentive would have a specific adverse impact, which is a defined term, upon public health and safety or the physical environment. |
| 02:52:42.44 | Unknown | Go ahead. |
| 02:53:03.45 | Jeff Bradley | or any real property that is listed on the California Register of Historical Resource, so a historic building. And there's no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households. And third and finally, the concession or incentive would be contrary to state or federal law. In other words, it would be blatantly illegal, what they're asking for. |
| 02:53:31.48 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. Put it that in in layperson's language if they came before the City Council and And the city council felt that it would affect the environment, which it certainly would. And they had other ways to, uh, create the project, the city council would have the power to deny the request to have a higher Building height. |
| 02:53:55.38 | Jeff Bradley | Correct. You would just want to make sure your finding was based on substantial facts and the record and the city attorney would make sure you were doing that. |
| 02:53:59.93 | Unknown | is that the word. |
| 02:54:00.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:54:05.32 | Jeff Bradley | And you would. be comporting with state law. |
| 02:54:12.17 | Unknown | I have a question actually for, I don't know who wants to take this. So I heard that the reason we couldn't count more ADUs this cycle towards the very low and low RHNA was because we didn't have that track record of success. But I also heard that in the next cycle we could count more ADUs towards that very low, low arena. And specifically, I'm speaking to Sausalito's needs, the fact that the majority, vast majority of our population is 1.5 people per household. And I guess my question is, if we did not pass these, the HMU program, and we allowed the a housing element to move forward in terms of creating a new strategy for all the cycles into one housing element, Could we then count more of the ADUs towards the RHNA, the very low and the low RHNA? for ADUs. |
| 02:55:29.74 | Melinda Coy | You can count more if you can justify pursuant to the trends. So basically it's typically what trends are is how many units per year and then being able to carry that forward per year type of thing. However, it still wouldn't meet the other requirements that this currently is doing. So, you would still have the same problems. |
| 02:55:59.17 | Unknown | Well, you're referring to the other requirements |
| 02:56:01.03 | Melinda Coy | you're talking about the multifamily. Right, the need for a variety of housing types, multifamily and for families. Yeah, but there's no affordability |
| 02:56:09.97 | Unknown | element in the multifamily. So we could meet the RENA with, assuming we established the trends, we could meet the RENA with the ADUs. We could then establish the more other low impact strategies for the multifamily because then the affordability aspect would not be part of that. |
| 02:56:29.26 | Melinda Coy | It would have to come down to what you're proposing, and I'd have to take a look at it, honestly. It's theoretical. |
| 02:56:37.48 | Unknown | No. I just wanted to know the legalities of it, and thank you. |
| 02:56:39.35 | Melinda Coy | I just... |
| 02:56:50.00 | Unknown | Okay, so we're in our discussion period up here. Councilmember Weiner has already spoken. Council Member Leone, to you. |
| 02:57:07.00 | Unknown | you |
| 02:57:08.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:57:08.75 | Unknown | Right. I think we have a couple, a variety of things that we need to kind of do. There's six potential alternatives that you're asking us to consider tonight. And then I'd like to have some clarity as to what the next steps of these are. But can we go to the six? |
| 02:57:10.74 | Unknown | So I think- |
| 02:57:40.66 | Unknown | So the two-tier system of concessions really applies to both the HMU and the VMU programs. |
| 02:57:52.67 | Karen | It applies to any project with five or more units, yeah. |
| 02:57:55.34 | Unknown | a project with five or more units, yeah. Okay. All right. So, you know, in my mind, if that has teeth, which we've been told tonight that that does, then that – we should move forward with, you know, pursuing that option. And, you know, I don't know if that changes any – you know, that wasn't in the original – it was? Okay. All right. So that one I don't have a lot of problems with as long as there's the ability actually – it's not just lip service as far as the review concept. I'm a little unsure – again, I think number two comes back to the argument about whether housing on the second floor is financially feasible, and that I think you could make a case either way. |
| 02:58:45.22 | Unknown | So that I think we have a decision to make up here about. The two bedrooms versus three bedrooms, I think that's kind of a given. It makes sense if that's what the state is willing to do. The affordability, that one I'm not quite sure how that That is a change, the desire to change that is to move it further away from the opportunity for a developer to trigger the density bonus. Is that correct? |
| 02:59:18.11 | Karen | Right. And, um, |
| 02:59:22.35 | Unknown | Couldn't they trigger that themselves anyway if they wanted to? |
| 02:59:22.42 | Karen | and they do it. MS. I think we need to take off the table the eliminating the affordability, because Melinda has said the HMU is, you know, filling your programmatic requirement for affordable housing. |
| 02:59:39.71 | Unknown | Of. |
| 02:59:39.88 | Karen | So the option would be to reduce the current affordability requirement, which is 25 percent very low, 25 percent low, which automatically qualifies an applicant of, you know, a five or more unit project for a 35 percent density bonus and three incentives. If we reduced it to 5% very low. and 10% low The density bonus is only 20% rather than 35, and the incentive is just one. So you go from... Um... an 11-unit maximum, you know, project on an 8-unit site to a 10-unit maximum and just the one incentive. |
| 03:00:34.34 | Melinda Coy | You still could do a lot of units if they ask for the 435. Yeah, they can still ask for the 435. |
| 03:00:38.93 | Karen | They can still ask for it, but they're not automatically. |
| 03:00:42.03 | Melinda Coy | No, they automatically get it. If they qualify for the full density bonus, they get the full density bonus. |
| 03:00:50.17 | Karen | But in terms of what the HMU affordability is requiring, they wouldn't qualify for it unless they went above that. So that was kind of what that's saying. |
| 03:01:02.59 | Unknown | But rather than debate that, because I think it kind of has two pieces to it, the affordable nature and then what the density bonus – I don't have a problem with the affordable nature of it. I think none of these projects pencil out from a financial standpoint any way you look at them, because the land is so expensive. So it has to be someone who's willing to lose money doing something like this. So whether that's a nonprofit or however you want to structure it. If the affordable – so to me, I don't – I'm having a little trouble kind of getting my head around why you'd want to reduce the affordable number of affordable units. But if you can already get that bonus – density bonus anyway just because of what state law is currently. Okay. |
| 03:01:52.50 | Jeff Bradley | If I may, through the mayor, just respond to Councilmember Leon. The genesis of that was really listening to the neighborhood saying, you have this HMU program that has a built-in affordability provision, and we also have this density bonus law we're stuck with from the state, and you're basically de facto putting people into the highest ranks of the density bonus provisions. So the attempt was to dial that back, knowing that it's voluntary, like you said, but in terms of the basic requirement, it would start out at a lower level and not trigger as many incentives or concessions. |
| 03:02:29.56 | Unknown | Before you can continue, I'm just a little confused as to Karen, whether you're saying that in your discussions with the state that you no longer think option four is a what? Is it option four? Yeah. Option four is viable. I couldn't really understand what you were saying. |
| 03:02:46.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:02:50.15 | Unknown | saying is it viable or is it not viable? |
| 03:02:52.07 | Karen | eliminating the affordability is not viable therefore |
| 03:02:55.38 | Unknown | Therefore option 4 is not viable. |
| 03:02:57.57 | Karen | Well, but option four has either reduce or eliminate. So I think we just say the option is to reduce. |
| 03:03:03.12 | Unknown | I think we just say. to reduce. Male Speaker 1.: So the option is to reduce. We can't eliminate. Female Speaker 1.: Right. Sorry for interrupting. |
| 03:03:12.61 | Unknown | No, no, no. It's – that one's, like I said, a little confusing. So between the last two, because they're kind of a little bit of a play on – there's similar concepts, five and six, about – I think we do need to investigate the alternate sites. It would be just like 7-Eleven, I don't want to lose Tommy's walk or I'm not sure if you're you know. If you're the people who go to CrossFit, that whole thing, they don't want to – there's Um, services and businesses on the ground floor. I'm wondering if we can craft a package and it will require a little bit more work from the city's part and just a lot of feedback from the state. where we're putting financing is the problem here with the BMU concept. Then if we combined a couple of programs, including, you know, a development fee to fund an affordable housing fund and other things, that maybe we could put together a package that might be acceptable to the state that would at least allow us to shift things off the 7-Eleven from my point of view. |
| 03:04:24.82 | Unknown | Can we agree? I'm listening to this, and I've been listening to it since, frankly, 2009. And you need to listen to it. People don't want this stuff. They don't want this high density, HMU that's going to gut their walkable communities, remove their businesses. They don't want it, guys. And what I just heard from the state was that if we took, we have options before us. we could step back from the strategies we've used to meet the a variety of housing statute using the HMU. And we could say, you know what, that's not going to fly here. Let's step back. Let's take a look at what will. We know that we can move, we can step back away from the current strategy, let it roll forward and revisit our trends for ADUs, take an analysis on the R3 zones. build a case for the multifamily, go back to the multifamily ordinance, do further analysis in terms of that impact. and come out with something that is truly something that the people of Sausalito support and meets our housing needs, meets our affordable housing needs, and meets our housing needs the variety of types. There's a path to success here. And it doesn't have to be this hard. We've just heard that this is a viable option. So, you know, I just want to ask, do we have, at the very least, |
| 03:06:11.15 | Unknown | What survival option? |
| 03:06:13.58 | Unknown | Bye. Okay. The reason why, okay, so there are two things. There's the RHNA. and then you've got the variety of housing types. The variety of housing types are the number of housing types are the multi-family, the family housing, okay? Those don't necessarily intersect. In terms of meeting the statute, the provisions, if you look at the checklist that the HCD uses, And so, were the reasons we couldn't meet If we look at the needs of our community in terms of very low and low income. We have average 1.5. people per household. The ADUs are widely popular. They've been illegal here forever. Up until what, last year? They were illegal. And so we have a dearth of these out there. We. We've established a track record of success. We've shown that this is successful. And so what we can do is step back from the current housing element, look at our both cycles from 99 to 2022 and count more ADUs towards those very low and low income arenas, we can do that. And then, can I keep going to explain the option? And then... We can do an analysis on the R3 zones, which I've already pointed out in prior city staff documents. They have identified I'm going short-term memory here, but over 100, well over 200 units in potential, and we could meet our multifamily |
| 03:07:51.55 | Unknown | I love you. |
| 03:07:51.57 | Unknown | So, I'm going to go. |
| 03:07:51.69 | Unknown | Correct. |
| 03:07:51.89 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:07:51.94 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:07:57.34 | Unknown | variety of housing statutes in that strategy. And then, if need be, if we had to, we could revisit the VMU. and say Do we have to do this? Where might it make sense? Look at a place that would be the most minimal impact from what I've heard here, and we're done. |
| 03:08:22.52 | Unknown | Okay. We're done. |
| 03:08:22.65 | Unknown | Yeah. We're done. |
| 03:08:25.67 | Unknown | Okay, so I heard from the M Group and I heard from Melinda McCoy that that strategy, Melinda McCoy, my apologies, that that strategy you've just outlined would not work. Could you please? address Councilmember Pfeiffer's because she's basically saying let's forget about, let our housing element become decertified Let's carry it all forward. and then let sometime in the next X number of years, |
| 03:09:02.73 | Unknown | No, in the next, literally the next six months, Mary Whitney. |
| 03:09:05.43 | Unknown | Okay, the next six months. Okay, the next six months. |
| 03:09:07.90 | Unknown | Or the next year, if need be. |
| 03:09:10.31 | Unknown | Okay. Well, it matters. |
| 03:09:12.05 | Unknown | Okay, well, we'll defer to them. But the point is we've established trends where we hadn't before. |
| 03:09:14.00 | Unknown | MS. But the point is we've established trends where we hadn't before. MS. Please explain again, because I think you explained it very well earlier, why the strategy that Councilmember Pfeiffer has just outlined is not acceptable to the state. Now, if she's right, I'll go for it because I don't want to put, you know, |
| 03:09:32.80 | Unknown | and i'm right and we've heard from the land use attorney |
| 03:09:36.19 | Unknown | Can we actually hear what the state thinks about this before we declare you right on this? |
| 03:09:47.52 | Melinda Coy | First of all, in concern of the land use attorney who was talking about the economics and stuff like that, he's actually not correct there. There is other requirements that he doesn't talk about which is the non-governmental constraints section which does talk about financial business. The issue is that the city did not have sufficient sites. They need these sites in order to accommodate their current arena so that they would roll over if if you're going to do to They would roll over to the next cycle, these 16 units. You would have to find a site within one year to accommodate that. and pursuant to what we were talking about before, meeting all of the requirements. Now, the analysis there and everything else related to that is a little complicated, but This was the strategy that the city went with, with this housing element that was certified, and it's what got you sufficient sites for this time around. In terms of the ADU strategy, I defer to Karen as far as what kind of trends you are looking at. I haven't looked at the numbers. So considering how many, and it's not just new ADUs, but looking if you want to count continuing to count existing ADUs, there was a finite number of those that were going to be accounted for. So it's a little complicated. but this was the strategy that the city accounted for. It's a little complicated. But this was the strategy that the city went for in order to get certification from the state. |
| 03:11:36.04 | Unknown | So I didn't hear a no. |
| 03:11:39.08 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:11:39.11 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:11:39.13 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:11:39.15 | Unknown | I mean, |
| 03:11:39.20 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:11:39.21 | Melinda Coy | I mean, |
| 03:11:39.72 | Unknown | I did. |
| 03:11:39.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:11:39.85 | Melinda Coy | Thank you. |
| 03:11:39.92 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:11:42.42 | Karen | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:11:42.60 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:11:42.62 | Karen | Thank you. |
| 03:11:42.67 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 03:11:42.72 | Karen | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. MS. Well, and I think |
| 03:11:44.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:11:44.87 | Unknown | And |
| 03:11:45.47 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:11:45.61 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:11:47.97 | Karen | We will certainly maximize the number of 80 years that we can count. And in this period right now, Just since you've adopted your ADU ordinances, we have 20. And so. We will probably get a few more that will count. but we can't go beyond that for this cycle. So it's not that we're going to be able to take away some of our you know, commercial district capacity because we're going to have so many more ADUs in this cycle. If we take away that commercial district capacity through the HMU, Then we have the carryover and the requirement in the next cycle to rezone a site that accommodates 60 units. |
| 03:12:32.49 | Unknown | Could you repeat that, Karen, please, and expand on it? |
| 03:12:36.10 | Unknown | and i want to end and then i'll follow up with the clarification |
| 03:12:38.29 | Unknown | And may I in what we're discussing I think councilman Merv Pfeiffer she has a proposal that would we're talking about HMU the HMU on this plan and the question is and I'd like it to be responded that way, is what Councilmember Pfeiffer proposes, would that allow us to eliminate our HMU? I think that's correct. |
| 03:12:59.03 | Unknown | And if I could clarify my proposal before you answer. |
| 03:12:59.05 | Unknown | And in before you answer. |
| 03:13:03.03 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:13:04.19 | Unknown | Yeah, because I think, you know, you're here. Look, I want to get this done, too. And I know what's going to happen if. |
| 03:13:04.21 | Unknown | Yeah. So if you're answering you |
| 03:13:12.94 | Unknown | We don't. So. What I'm suggesting is that the path that we're on is not going to work. And so we've got this housing element that is conditionally certified, conditionally based on passing the HMU, evidently, and the VMU program. we don't do that We fall out of certification. Those Rhena numbers roll forward No, I mean, hear me out. Those roll forward. So now we're looking at a big bucket. We've got the RENA. We've got all these income levels. We've got the multifamily. But we've got strategies. We've already done our homework. on the ADU count and on the liveaboards, we've got a track record of success. We have done, we know we can go back to the R3, and analyze those to meet the multifamily variety of housing statutes. And if need be, if need be, we revisit the VMU in Um, areas that would constitute the most minimal impact. And then we submit that, which represents all the cycles to 2022. |
| 03:14:38.38 | Unknown | So could you describe what would happen if that scenario, if we pursued that scenario? |
| 03:14:40.42 | Unknown | Right. |
| 03:14:40.74 | Karen | Yeah. |
| 03:14:40.77 | Unknown | Right. |
| 03:14:41.09 | Karen | Right. |
| 03:14:45.65 | Karen | and there's a couple different pieces. So we've talked about this with the RHNA carryover, so you have 16 more units that gets added to your what was it, 40 very low and low, so you have 56. to plan for for the next cycle, but those 16, the zoning has to be in place within the first year and they all have to be on one site. So the ADUs won't help with that, you will have to have a rezone site for those 16. |
| 03:15:15.33 | Unknown | So could I just pause there and |
| 03:15:15.38 | Karen | So could I do that? |
| 03:15:17.83 | Unknown | Could you tell me how many sites Therefore, by state law, we have at our disposal to put 16 units on in the first year, because that's what we would have. We could no longer have the option to put eight units on. We would have to go and find one site to put all 16 units on. |
| 03:15:38.99 | Unknown | Exactly. |
| 03:15:39.26 | Unknown | Is that correct? |
| 03:15:40.54 | Unknown | Right. They couldn't be a VMU. |
| 03:15:41.18 | Karen | but they |
| 03:15:43.19 | Unknown | . |
| 03:15:43.28 | Karen | No. And why couldn't they be? And only half of them |
| 03:15:43.87 | Unknown | And why couldn't they be? |
| 03:15:47.83 | Karen | no more than half can be mixed use of any sort. So you have to have an A16 unit, 100 percent residential site, and that map that just moved away shows the four sites for rezoning that were looked at that meet that criteria. So it would mandate a rezoning. Okay. So we're not talking about it. |
| 03:16:07.51 | Unknown | Uh, |
| 03:16:10.33 | Unknown | So basically your strategy is actually forcing us to put 16 units on one of those four sites. That is what your strategy does. |
| 03:16:14.07 | Karen | Yeah. |
| 03:16:14.50 | Unknown | THE END OF |
| 03:16:20.03 | Unknown | on one of those sites. Okay, so that is not... what my understanding and what I've reviewed and what I've heard from more than one lawyer on this topic would require us to do. That's not what I'm hearing. So I'm... |
| 03:16:39.11 | Karen | So I'm... When you have arena carryover... That's exactly what you have to do. And it's – your arena carryover is 16, but there's also the mandated under AB 1233 that the rezone site accommodates a minimum of 16 units. So that's what you're left with. |
| 03:16:58.34 | Unknown | Thank you. So if So obviously I'm going to have to I'm just going to go with this and assume. So if that's the case, then I guess I would go back to what we're dealing with right now with the current conditionally certified housing element. And I would say, I still don't understand why we can't meet the multifamily variety of housing types with the VMU. I see VMU opportunities for two bedroom sites, I mean units, in the VMU program. And that's what I'm hearing is the reason why we need the HMU. |
| 03:17:43.34 | Karen | when we meet the HMU. And you know, some of this is That's what HCD does. They are interpreting the statutes, and they have made a determination in reviewing the VMU program that that's not fulfilling the variety of housing types. |
| 03:17:59.63 | Melinda Coy | Actually, it's not the variety of housing types that's the issue with the VMU. It's the small sites issue, the suitability of the small sites, those sites of eight units. That's the issue that the HMU is covering, is the... not the issue of the variety of housing types, it's the issue of the feasibility of the sites that you've identified in the housing element in the VMU area in order to be able to provide, to meet your RHNA in those cases. So that's why you originally, that's why I believe the HMU was proposed when you were discussing it, was so to make those sites suitable so you wouldn't have to, because you didn't have other sites that were larger. |
| 03:18:58.37 | Melinda Coy | then if the HMU was a VMU, just straight VMU, the problem is that that did not make the site suitable for to meet the, because of the size of the site. |
| 03:19:16.02 | Melinda Coy | Thank you. |
| 03:19:16.04 | Unknown | Okay, I can't. |
| 03:19:16.56 | Melinda Coy | Thank you. |
| 03:19:16.61 | Unknown | Okay, so we're still in the comment period up here. We got into questions. We're going around in circles, quite frankly, because we're asking the same questions over and over again. We don't apparently like the answers to the questions we're hearing, so we're just asking the question again, and that isn't actually helping us. |
| 03:19:29.92 | Unknown | No, that's not it. and that is, No, that's just not true. |
| 03:19:37.70 | Chris Skelton | Okay, so... |
| 03:19:40.50 | Unknown | Yes. OK. So would you? Thank you. Vice Mayor, would you like your three minutes? |
| 03:19:43.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:19:44.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:19:44.44 | Unknown | THANK YOU. |
| 03:19:44.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:19:44.54 | Unknown | or three years. |
| 03:19:45.03 | Unknown | Yes, I like my three minutes. |
| 03:19:45.26 | Unknown | Yes, I like one. |
| 03:19:46.11 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:19:47.54 | Unknown | So thanks for everyone sticking with this. And we've been together a number of meetings. And I think we all know a lot more housing element law than we'd like. and certainly uh... You know, this is something I've spent quite a bit of time on. I know a lot of you. Concern and have sleepless nights and I do too and we've certainly spent a lot of time of working on options with this and work with our staff with our Consultants a couple of things before we get to the options though I'd like to like to just point out some of it's very basic, but I is on these things. We're talking about planning. There are no developers or builders here. We're talking about building. We certainly, we got a letter from the owner of the 7-Eleven lot, Mr. Needleman, I believe, arguing he didn't want the VMU because he would not sell and develop this under any circumstance. So one thing I want everyone to understand when you're losing sleep and when I lose sleep is they can't develop that lot without Mr. Needleman having him develop it and so and and so nothing can happen that doesn't mean that That's the starting point. Certainly under current zoning, they also, and people have seemed to have been able to sleep for a lot of years, they could have built up and had eight more units on this forever. The HMU adds a little bit of something to it, adds a little more incentive, but they could have always built eight units and gone for a higher... Uh. Uh, height on the buildings. And so that was there. And I agree with you. It's something to be worried about, that there's a little bit greater chance. But it's only marginally greater than there is now at it. But the most important part of this is if we don't do this housing element now or by the end of the year, and we could talk about the streamlining we lose and all the extra spaces we have, but one of the most important parts is we lose local control. Someone could litigate. Not only could they build on that lot on 7-Eleven without Tier 1 and 2 restrictions and all our other restrictions, but they can build all over Sausalito because we wouldn't have a housing element in place. So we would be hurting ourselves. Now, we have options. I certainly would like to mitigate this so that everyone's happy with it. But I think at the end of the day we have to understand these basic things and understand we're going to need to have a housing element. We could also work on these things after the housing elements in place and change some of them. On the current options, Uh, which we worked on, I'd say, we should go for all of them at this point. I think the thing that, in the end of the day, because... The density bonus is something Basically, we have that tier two system, which would protect us if we have, Um, any, um, Thank you. that came up the VMU we certainly should give ourselves the options and on the on the overlay districts we certainly should look at I think this is going to probably be our greatest shot may have just a couple more seconds, is take a look on the parts over on the Tommy Walks and what we had as Lot 21. Anything you do, somebody's going to have a problem, but certainly there are less residential close to it. There won't be the height and view restrictions, so we can take a look at it. And finally, we're going to send this to the Planning Commission to have them explore all these options. That's what I'd recommend, but... |
| 03:23:08.91 | Unknown | Finally. |
| 03:23:09.20 | Unknown | . |
| 03:23:09.22 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:23:15.36 | Unknown | We're still working on this, and it's a work in progress. So I'd recommend, and I know you had your lawyer do this, send in anything in writing that's a possible option. We're going to explore everything. And Council Member Pfeiffer, maybe you could write up your possible options. We're going to go through all this. We're still working on all the options. The only thing is, as we get closer to the time that we have to have a housing element, comply with our housing element, we have to let go of options that aren't going to work. One of the options that is not going to work is that we just say we're going to walk away from HMU. It won't work. |
| 03:23:48.85 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor, I have a comment. |
| 03:23:50.31 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:23:50.32 | Unknown | I have a comment. Now, if you had your three minutes, |
| 03:23:55.86 | Unknown | you |
| 03:23:55.92 | Unknown | Typically we have rebuttal of 30 seconds. But I haven't spoken yet. Oh, I... |
| 03:23:58.03 | Unknown | But I haven't spoken yet. |
| 03:24:07.10 | Unknown | Okay. This is... You know, it's a tough problem to solve. A couple of principles. I think we're better off with a certified housing element than without one. I think that We are better off in compliance with state law. We... of in part got ourselves here because Um, Basically, we're late at doing this. you know, The current housing element that was adopted in 2012 Okay. which was our commitment to the state as to what we were going to do, required these programs to be put in place. The consequences of not putting them in place and letting our housing element go out of compliance is I think when you look at the whole of Sol Solito, |
| 03:25:11.66 | Unknown | wholeness. |
| 03:25:14.51 | Unknown | all the residents of Sausalito, puts the city in some jeopardy. as the vice mayor has explained, and I'm not prepared to sign up for that. So I believe that, yeah, we need to continue to explore all the options, but time is running out. And our subcommittee, which has been working on this with the consultants and with Ms. Coy, Um, have basically run out of options. The work that we've done is ended up with what you see on this piece of paper. Now, if there's some more, I'd love to hear it because, you know, Not all of the options are, you know, some are less palatable than others. Part of the... strategy of the housing element of 2012. was that it basically, if you like, spread the the requirements that we had to adopt the housing element and its regulations and law across all the neighborhoods, all the areas of Sausalito with the ADU program throughout all the residential neighborhoods, live boards, on the waterfront, And then in our commercial zones, adding some overlays and changing the character, admittedly changing slightly the characteristics of the neighborhood |
| 03:26:45.62 | Unknown | . |
| 03:26:48.13 | Unknown | in order to encourage residential in there. I'm actually quite worried about that. I actually completely resonate with the concept of the neighborhoods want the commercial areas. You know, I go to 7-Eleven. |
| 03:27:02.29 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:27:03.17 | Unknown | you know, And I also know the Spring Street Valley, that whole neighborhood, really quite well, actually. Um, I spent a lot of time campaigning there, so a lot of you voted for me. You know, I've walked every one of those streets and probably knocked on every door back in 2012. OK? It's a lovely neighborhood. I would like to propose that We need to get some next steps out of this, and I would like to propose that um, We send this back to the staff, the subcommittee. as needed, working with the consultants and HCD to ask the question whether we can move This is my personal proposal. It's essentially number six. which is to remove the HMU overlay from one of the CN1 sites and to pick one CN2 site for those eight units. to also adopt the option number 1, 2, and 3. So that's my proposal. Um... if and we direct it back to the subcommittee to work on, because there's now some work to do. Because if we were going to use a CN2 site, we've got an ordinance to write, which we haven't got a draft of Now, if we don't want to do that and stick with the Bridgeway sites up near the 7-Eleven and keep both there, Thank you. then Oh. I think that is actually putting a lot of stress on that neighborhood, and I'd like to sort of divide it up and put one of them down in CN2. |
| 03:29:07.12 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor, |
| 03:29:07.93 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:29:08.87 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:29:08.89 | Unknown | I'd like to make a comment, if I may. So earlier we heard, Melinda, you said that the HMU was not involved with the, was not just about the multi-family ordinance, on May 13th when Actually, Joan's here. Good timing. Joan Cox, our Planning Commissioner, asked you HCD, Melinda, about the ADU and live-award strategies addressing the low and very low income brackets, very successful, can we demonstrate we don't need the HMU? And your response was no, because the HMU is satisfying a different requirement in the statute, which is a variety of housing types. So the HMUs and VMU proposed overlays was specific to address that particular piece of statute, not necessarily the RHNA statute. Again, it is because of the variety of housing types requirement. |
| 03:30:00.61 | Unknown | I'm going to be a little bit |
| 03:30:07.04 | Melinda Coy | So they're confused right I understand her question was actually in relationship to going back and opening up the current housing element in relationship to adding more AD is not for the next housing element. which was what you're you were asking about later. So hold on a second. |
| 03:30:24.59 | Unknown | Later. |
| 03:30:26.53 | Melinda Coy | Um, And... like I said before, the HMU, variety of housing types as well. So her proposal was that when she was talking about it from my understanding. was that to open up the current housing element, add more ADUs as it is for the current arena, Um, as proposed and whether or not you can remove the HMU then. And the answer is no, because again, the HMU was the HMU satisfied multiple different kinds of strategies. So it wasn't just a variety of housing types, it was also It was also the program, and I went back and looked at my notes from my review afterwards as well. It was also the program requirements related to encouraging and facilitating very low-income housing. There was multiple different strategies that was in place for. So specific to her question, getting rid of it for that purpose wouldn't satisfy the other things for your question, which was if we get rid of it for future or for the other issue, then and just go to VMU, which was your question, was just, can we just go to VMU, was your question. And the answer is no, because one of the things that the HMU did was make the sites that you've identified in your current housing element viable. So, again, there's like four different things that that particular program did. And I'm not saying that, you know, I mean, that was what the city ended up doing in order to satisfy those four different requirements. I mean, you could have chosen different things and we would have evaluated those things, you know, but that's… |
| 03:32:12.64 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:32:12.66 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:32:12.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:32:12.98 | Unknown | you |
| 03:32:13.82 | Melinda Coy | That's the result of the process that you went through. |
| 03:32:17.84 | Unknown | And I... I guess my motion would be to remove the HMU program from this housing element and explore minimal impact options that are not going to devastate our businesses on the ground floor. |
| 03:32:38.78 | Unknown | Can I get a clarification? Can you say exactly what those minimum impact options are? |
| 03:32:44.01 | Unknown | Well, I've heard different things, and I could quote other parts here, and I'm hearing... uh, that certain strategies from other other opinions, of other legal opinions actually, lawyers with experience in land use who are telling me that there are other options such as the VMU does meet the requirements that we need to meet. And I am hearing, so I'm hearing other opinions and also I'm looking at these R3, the underdeveloped parcels, not the vacant open space, not that, not the open space, but the underdeveloped parcels that currently exist. Those types of things, like the rotary housing complex across the street, low scale in the fabric of the community. Those are the things we should have been looking at actually, you know, All along. And I really don't, I mean, this HMU is just not going to fly here. And there's got to be other solutions. There are always other solutions. |
| 03:33:45.64 | Unknown | But... But Linda, all those, the things that you're talking about in the R2s and R3s, that is our infill strategy. That's actually the core of our housing element. It just happens that there's a lot of small sites and HCD is not willing to actually just rely on that strategy. That strategy we put in front of HCD in February, January, I don't know when, of 2012. And it was rejected. |
| 03:34:24.16 | Unknown | Actually, Mr. Mayor, we did not submit this part. You heard from the M Group say that they whittled 338 are three potential additional units down to one site because of the filters they put on it, like access to parking and slope and things like this. And I'm saying we need to go back and do further analysis on that. |
| 03:34:38.64 | Unknown | Which one's the other? |
| 03:34:51.67 | Unknown | Yeah, they did their job over a many-month period to produce the low-impact strategy that we put in front of HCD was rejected again. |
| 03:35:01.90 | Unknown | You asked me for... We did not submit this strategy. We did not submit this. |
| 03:35:09.25 | Unknown | Because it wouldn't have even got past, it would have been Well, you know what? |
| 03:35:12.90 | Unknown | Well, you know what? If Novato had listened to HCD say, no, I'm sorry, the default density is 30 units, and not pushed back, you know, to get this done, as opposed to referendums and turning this around, then Nevada would not have a certified housing element today. |
| 03:35:35.41 | Unknown | May I recommend? We're still going to push this on. If you have other recommendations, but we, as you said, you've been going through it since 2009. If you have a recommendation, please do it in writing. If there's a law firm that has a different opinion, rather than odd discussions with law firms, let's see it in writing. We're going to follow every lead. We want to make this work as great as possible. The only way we can do it, though, is if we have something hard in front of us. We've had the Housing Element Committee with Mayor Withey and I and Commissioner Cox there. We've spent hours and hours. We've gotten to this. We welcome other possibilities, but we can't go around in circles with things that unless... So if you have something, we would welcome it, but we needed to see it in specifics so that we can run it past our HCD and our consultants. |
| 03:35:51.32 | Jeff Bradley | Bye. |
| 03:35:51.34 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:35:51.66 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 03:36:26.15 | Unknown | I've said it on numerous occasions. I'll do it again. |
| 03:36:29.50 | Unknown | Yeah, we love it. May I have a comment on the proposals, though? I would include... |
| 03:36:33.36 | Unknown | I'm not. |
| 03:36:33.44 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:36:33.53 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:36:33.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:36:33.75 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 03:36:34.32 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:36:36.25 | Unknown | Please. |
| 03:36:36.60 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:36:36.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:36:37.02 | Unknown | Exactly. |
| 03:36:37.22 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:36:37.24 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 03:36:37.38 | Unknown | I would. |
| 03:36:38.84 | Unknown | Option five I think we need to look at both five and six because I think those because we might be able to get... And Council Member Leon was talking about, now I may be getting just laid out into the VMU overlay. I know you said VMU, but I think We talked about because that Lot 21 was bigger. that we might be able to explore possibly having both commercial and residential. Include that as another option. |
| 03:37:03.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:37:04.86 | Unknown | To explore. This, |
| 03:37:07.92 | Unknown | I'm not quite tracking that. Okay. Sorry. |
| 03:37:09.47 | Unknown | Okay. Sorry. Okay. Back a couple hours ago, we talked about on the Tommy Walk property that there was some possibility and I think I know everyone's getting a little tired there. We talked about that because it was a larger lot that there might be a possibility that we could have commercial and residential on top and that would ALLOW US, MIGHT ADDRESS OUR need for larger family and if that's a possibility I'd like that to be explored |
| 03:37:37.30 | Unknown | Yeah, I recall that. |
| 03:37:41.74 | Unknown | because that would give us another option down there. |
| 03:37:42.67 | Unknown | Thank you. And you asked me for my opinion about direction and what you would like to explore. I had a motion on the slide. the table I don't have it in front of me now but it was basically I would direct staff to explore options that removed the HMU and provided other minimal impact strategies, such as further analysis of the underdeveloped R3 zones parcels to meet the multifamily variety of housing types requirement. |
| 03:38:30.12 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:38:30.15 | Unknown | Well, that's the time. |
| 03:38:31.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:38:31.70 | Unknown | They've already said that. |
| 03:38:32.36 | Unknown | They've already said that. |
| 03:38:33.04 | Unknown | MR. Well, you've already said that. |
| 03:38:33.59 | Unknown | that we've |
| 03:38:33.75 | Unknown | with- |
| 03:38:33.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:38:34.08 | Unknown | They've done that already. Right. That was the result. That was actually what we directed staff to do last time. |
| 03:38:34.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:38:34.22 | Unknown | They've done that already. |
| 03:38:40.68 | Unknown | last time. |
| 03:38:41.98 | Unknown | And they came back with the info. You don't like the answer, so you're saying, go do it again. |
| 03:38:49.91 | Unknown | I... I am finding assumptions that have been made, such as the assumptions regarding access to parking as a reason to whittle down over 300 potential units to one. Yeah, I have a problem with the answer. |
| 03:39:12.68 | Unknown | So just for the sake of time and people's sanity, so the |
| 03:39:16.03 | Unknown | Please. Thank you. Thank you. Whichever comes first. |
| 03:39:20.69 | Unknown | So as far as investigating all of these six options and the variation that you mentioned that we talked about earlier, that's fine. I'm not sure where 4 or 2 gets you at the end of the day. I understand a little bit better now that you've explained it what 4 does, so I'm happy to entertain 4 as well in terms of the – you a little more check and balance, you know, less potential incentives to create something that's taller or beyond the scope of what we would normally be approved under our zoning ordinance. I think number five, I don't know if we can accomplish that, but it's worth looking into if, you know, I'm assuming that they've already looked at it, but we can look at it further. And I'm still not – the VMU one, I think, is where it really gets fuzzy for me. |
| 03:40:22.62 | Unknown | That one, I mean, I think it's just rather than requiring them to have residential, you're giving, we have the option. It's pretty basic. I mean, it just loosens it up in that sense that we can go commercial or residential. |
| 03:40:35.72 | Unknown | Number two? Yeah. No, I hear you there. But that's the way it seems fine with it. But I don't think it doesn't give us anything. |
| 03:40:36.39 | Unknown | Yeah. THE FEDERAL. |
| 03:40:40.04 | Unknown | the best you can see. |
| 03:40:40.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:40:44.97 | Jeff Bradley | Just to clarify through the mayor, we would need to do some further work on that one, number two. It really should read, explore the possibility of modifying the requirement. As Karen mentioned after I presented this several hours ago, removing it completely would potentially take some of those sites out of our inventory, and so we might have to come up with additional incentives to encourage it. But look at the same issue but with a slightly different tack on it. |
| 03:41:20.96 | Unknown | Yeah, I would add for the VMU concept versus – the HMU is not, I think, palpable to – it's not desirable. But I think on the Olive Street location, that has the least impact is it's just office in terms of the ground floor. That's all the HMU really addresses, right? So 7-Eleven is a different story. It's a different story in these lots. At the north end of town. It's the same story in Caledonia. It's the same story in Old Town. So it would impact the ability for businesses to exist on the ground floor. And you can get into some of the arguments that were made about walkability and all kinds of good stuff since we're trying to get people in general to get people to get walk to transit and all that stuff. So I would look at all of these, and I would revisit the VMU, and, you know, it's back and forth. There's no silver bullet here, unfortunately. So with the VMU, if the real problem is financing at the end of the day from a feasibility standpoint, you know, maybe we can package some incentives and development fees that other communities have done to perhaps alleviate that I know there's the operating risk which is you know a lot of these I know ecumenical and other folks don't like to operate non-housing based because there's one thing to build it's another thing to it, just like we as a city try to stay out of operating certain things because that's not what we do. Certain things. No offense. But I think we could revisit that one and just try and see where it goes and see if we can find some way. |
| 03:42:53.81 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:42:53.91 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:42:54.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:43:03.49 | Unknown | We don't want to play the game that Corte Madera or Santa Rosa or other towns have played where you just kind of say… Too bad because it – We don't want to lose, if the whole thing is about local control, you will lose it. and you'll lose every aspect of it, not just for these projects, but who approves my water heater will go to the state. and until we get in compliance. So it gets to be – if you desire local control of your planning and zoning process, if you want to change the laws at the state level, As I said before, and I know he's not voting on it tonight, Hey, there's a primary election in a few weeks. contact your state assemblyman and get on him because that's where you can tackle the special interests not the affordable housing piece, but the just let's build a lot of units in California and moderate and above. Right? That's what drives the big piece of this is just I want to build the building industry in California. The affordable part, I would argue with you there. I think that's great. I think that's what we haven't saw with the Rogers and the Majora's are doing on their own volition to a certain degree. And that's what makes this community a little different from other communities in Marin, among other things. So that I think we need to incentivize. And if we can do that through whether it's... I mean, I wasn't May. I was on the city council, but the city tried to incentivize that by donating public property in the last go-round. And it's... It just so happened that most of the city property you could donate, is right around the school. you know, in MLK, Not MLK, yeah. Bayside. And so, and at the same time, The school system wanted to build teacher housing, and then it just exploded, and people were in here protesting, and that's why they walked, the city council at the time walked away from it. What we're trying to do is spread it out, so let's spread it out. Let's not hammer this community with two. It's not your fault. It's not – it's just one of those things that – this is how it played out. Let's see if we can correct it, work with the state hand in hand rather than a confrontational way, and hopefully we can solve it. And then move on to the new housing element, which we're going to have some – you know, come up with some more tools to solve the issues there. But at least we will have the track record on the ADU front to do that. We have the opportunity to add additional live aboard capacity. Again, live aboard to the people in Marina is not the folks who are anchor outs, because that's not in Sausalito's jurisdiction. And then tackle the multifamily with a different strategy that we'll have to do. And then if we let it roll over, there's a lot of downside, and you're going to have to go through this twice in the next eight years rather than once. So, |
| 03:46:09.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:46:10.06 | Unknown | So I would say pursue all these. I'm not necessarily – it's a dialogue, right, with HCD and trying to solve where the holes are to make it an acceptable and feasible housing element. |
| 03:46:18.23 | Unknown | you |
| 03:46:26.77 | Unknown | I agree with all that, but we've had a dialogue with HCD for the last three and a half years. |
| 03:46:33.26 | Unknown | Right. |
| 03:46:33.79 | Unknown | there, but we haven't, I think, to the staff's credit, the consultant's credit as well, we haven't – these other alternatives are relatively – |
| 03:46:33.82 | Unknown | there but we have |
| 03:46:43.10 | Unknown | Right. So I want to try and figure out practically how to advance this so that we can actually make a decision. Because, again, if we're going to go with number – |
| 03:46:59.03 | Unknown | Five or six? |
| 03:47:00.64 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:47:00.82 | Unknown | Thank you. Right. We've got ordinance to draft. We have... To get it to the subcommittee, we've got to bring it back here. And then we've got to send it to the Planning Commission. Right? And we've got to get all of this done before the end of the year, fully adopted. |
| 03:47:22.84 | Unknown | I agree. THE CITY. |
| 03:47:24.35 | Unknown | So we don't have a lot of time. |
| 03:47:26.03 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:47:26.56 | Unknown | So I want some clear, practical steps that we're gonna take so that the staff can act and quickly come back to us. and then on to the Planning Commission. |
| 03:47:37.83 | Unknown | I think one in three, options one in three, is something we could agree to tonight. I think we might have been able to do VMU, but I think Jeff told us that he's got to take a look at that and what it would do to our numbers. And then we should have really... The consultants come back and staff come back on 2, 5, and 6 to see what's... feasible and whether we can do this VMU overlay. That's what I propose. But I think that we send, I think one and three, we just agree that that would be sent on because I don't see there's any... Disagreement on that. Maybe I'm wrong. |
| 03:48:14.82 | Unknown | Before we proceed, could I have staff weigh in on this? I mean, you've got to manage through this process. So I don't know, Jeremy or Lily or anybody? Yeah. |
| 03:48:29.11 | Unknown | Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you. |
| 03:48:32.03 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor, I have a comment. |
| 03:48:33.42 | Unknown | Can you just pick up the microphone? |
| 03:48:35.47 | Unknown | Well, I thought you were going to speak. |
| 03:48:37.58 | Jeff Bradley | Um, Mr. Mayor, I felt pretty strongly we need some firm direction tonight given our deadlines to get this done. I think we hear you loud and clear on one through four. And I think we really need direction between five and six so we can develop that option further and bring it back to the subcommittee. |
| 03:49:04.43 | Jeff Bradley | Seventh. |
| 03:49:09.97 | Unknown | Can you look at the numbers? |
| 03:49:15.32 | Unknown | and all the conversation. |
| 03:49:16.53 | Unknown | of population. |
| 03:49:25.81 | Unknown | Thank you. Why wouldn't they be able to assess both of these and make a pick? Yeah, thank you. Yeah, thank you. These are the same thing. |
| 03:49:33.17 | Unknown | Yeah, these are so hard. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:49:35.90 | Unknown | or just assess one of them. Yeah. Yeah, and then you say what they are, and they probably just can you get more on the other side. Right. And then we decide whether we want to split it up or put it on one side. |
| 03:49:36.73 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:49:38.17 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:49:38.45 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:49:38.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:49:38.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:49:43.46 | Unknown | Right, I think you... On the other side. |
| 03:49:51.28 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:49:57.74 | Unknown | Can I make a suggestion? So I think with one and three, you can send those on to the Planning Commission. They're not, and I think you tweaked one of these. I've, well, there was three or four. I can't remember. |
| 03:50:08.94 | Unknown | What are you using the HMU? is. Thank you. the bedroom size percentage requirement in the HMU. One is in the density bonus regulations that are going to the Planning Commission tomorrow night that are gonna apply citywide. That's already going. |
| 03:50:26.06 | Unknown | That's already going. Thank you. assorted |
| 03:50:27.54 | Unknown | Correct. You guys directed that we bring that back at the last city council meeting. |
| 03:50:27.56 | Unknown | Correct. |
| 03:50:27.90 | Jeffrey Chase | Thank you. |
| 03:50:32.92 | Unknown | And that's just a modification of state law, like putting the two-tier |
| 03:50:36.79 | Unknown | Well, it's... |
| 03:50:36.81 | Unknown | Thank you. on the density bonus language of state law for local review. |
| 03:50:40.47 | Unknown | It's developing the process through which developers can ask for certain types of incentives. So correct. It's taking state density bonus law. And, um, providing process for it in Sausalito. |
| 03:50:53.60 | Unknown | I don't know. And it's my understanding, everybody should want us to do that. because if we don't incorporate it and have our own density bonus law, then the state rules. With no local control. |
| 03:51:06.39 | Unknown | With no... And, Mr. Mayor, we had had a discussion about whether that belonged in the HMU itself, And the decision was that it belongs in the density bonus law because it is a concern citywide. |
| 03:51:16.73 | Unknown | It is. And Mr. Mayor, I do have a clarification. What I'm grappling with about number two, the two-tier system, and by the way, when I say – I believe Planning Commissioner Joan Cox worked on this, the two-tier thing. Anyway, thank you very much, Joan. the thing that I'm I'm grappling with is with this two-tier system is the teeth that the city has. You know, in terms of, you know, going up against a developer who says, well, I disagree with this two-tier system, and I'm just going to – I think the state density law is clear enough, and I'm going to just follow that. I mean, do we have a legal – Is there case law out there with respect to crafting these local ordinances to create tiered systems with the density bonus law that have stood up in court? |
| 03:52:28.16 | Unknown | It's for anyone who knows the answer. |
| 03:52:28.62 | Unknown | for anyone. Thank you, Councilmember Pfeiffer. I have not seen a specific opinion that addresses the tier system that the city is currently proposing, but a number of jurisdictions have utilized this process. It just determines who is the decision maker on whether or not that incentive is allowed. So I believe that it is I just fight and that the city it's defensible |
| 03:52:55.91 | Unknown | I guess I'm – I – I see the logic in it and I would like to think it It holds water. I'm just concerned that it might introduce a false sense of assuredness, you know, to folks regarding the state density bonus when it hasn't been tested in the courts. That's the only thing I'm nervous about. |
| 03:53:16.39 | Unknown | But the reality is it's better than what is currently the law. Right now the law is the state density bonus, and if you don't adopt this, you're – |
| 03:53:25.03 | Unknown | No, no, I understand. I understand. I guess what I'm saying is that I can... |
| 03:53:26.48 | Unknown | I understand. |
| 03:53:33.32 | Unknown | I guess if we're making decisions about our housing element based on the assumption that we don't really have to worry about height because we've got our two-tier system, only to discover down the road that we actually do need to worry about height because our two-tier system has not stood up in courts, then, in other words, our faith in number one, this two-tier system for the density bonus ordinance, will shape our decision-making and also the resident's interpretation of what our decisions mean. So that's my logic. That's why I'm questioning. |
| 03:54:13.28 | Unknown | Can I handle this one? So the reality is of planning and zoning is that it's about rules and process. And all this does is – and you could propose whatever you want on any piece of land and try and shove it through the process. It just may not be approved because it doesn't – follow the process and or the rules, there's always an option. We could sit here and approve basically anything ourselves if we wanted to. But. you're trying to create a process incentivize or discourages someone from doing X, Y, or Z. And that's what this does. It adds another layer of process. It's not the answer to the question before. It's not 100% surety to discourage anything. Our existing zoning ordinance law doesn't necessarily provide 100% ability to prevent anything. That's just the nature of the law on this stuff. |
| 03:55:09.67 | Unknown | Before we proceed with this discussion, it's 11.15, and I think we would like Melinda to thank you very much for coming again two weeks in a row. You thought the last three-hour meeting was a long one. Well, we're already four and a quarter hours into this one. So look, thank you very, very much. Your presence has been very helpful. So thanks a lot. |
| 03:55:26.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:55:26.58 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:55:39.02 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:55:39.04 | Unknown | That's very helpful. |
| 03:55:39.56 | Michael Racks | Thank you. |
| 03:55:46.60 | Unknown | Yeah. left |
| 03:55:49.21 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 03:55:49.30 | Unknown | Seven. |
| 03:55:51.35 | Unknown | That was... Thank you. Bye. |
| 03:55:55.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:55:55.20 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:56:01.18 | Unknown | So thanks again, Melinda. |
| 03:56:02.83 | Unknown | And Melinda. |
| 03:56:06.37 | Unknown | Okay, I think as we are at 1115, I want to be able to give some clear direction to the staff and to the M group. And Jeff? Bradley has specifically asked that he wants some direction We're saying we want a little bit more analysis In particular, I mean, have you worked up the numbers on the CN2? Do we even know what's doable there, for instance, Jeff? Or do we need to actually get some more analysis then? |
| 03:56:37.96 | Chris Skelton | Bye. |
| 03:56:42.01 | Jeff Bradley | We have the numbers for the CN2. Thank you. Um, The slide with the parcel 21 is actually the number of units that could be accommodated on the site. So you have 21. This is prior to any density bonus, so 21 units, 9, 11, and 13. So any one of these sites could take the place of any one of the other two bridgeway sites if you wanted to drop one of those sites and pick up one of these sites. That's what's envisioned by option six. Or the largest site could take the place of both of the other two HMU candidate sites |
| 03:57:25.99 | Unknown | Yeah. So again, this is where it requires you guys to negotiate on the city's behalf with Melinda, I guess. Is there a possibility – because I don't think anyone relishes the HMU anywhere in Sausalito. The idea here is to try – except for – to me, 2015 is the best compromise just because it is – what's better, office or residential? I understand what the people in the community are saying, and I think we need to tackle the parking problem in that neighborhood permit-wise, permit parking-wise, to discourage the office people from parking in that neighborhood, but it's up to these folks to – it becomes a pain in the neck living in one of those districts who has parking permits, so that's something you can choose if you want. I'm happy to do it. And then there's enforcement issues and all that good stuff. But the combination – to me, number five or six – which one's the combination? Six. It's probably the most potentially feasible of the options, and it gives you the more flexibility to put a – can you go back to that site, the other one? It gives you the possibility to have a package of things directed at this site, not just HMU, and see where the state will come out on it. Put it on their lap to say no. |
| 03:58:26.39 | Unknown | 6. |
| 03:58:48.14 | Unknown | you know, about, Um, I think that's a good question. what they would want to do. because then I won't explain it but the and see where we can go with this site. What package of options we can go with this site to produce eight multifamily or eight and some function of multifamily on these four lots. Number – the Dario's lot to me is the most logical because it already has office on it in the back, which is not, I think, the most desirable use of this property versus It's not a residential serving site. except for Dario's. But that being said, that building in the back could certainly accommodate – could be altered and accommodate all living units on both floors. So anyway, you know, if you Thank you. without the ability to sit in the room with you and haggle with Melinda or whoever, I would say this is where you sort of trade cards and see what we can get. with number five because we're not going to get away without any designated sites. Well, how about this? |
| 04:00:01.22 | Jeff Bradley | Well, how about this, with permission from the mayor and the council. How about council direct staff and consultants to pursue VMU on any or all of these parcels as the first option? And if HCD accepts that, then we go down that route. If they don't accept that, direct us to pursue HMU on one, at least one of these parcels to substitute one of the other candidate sites. |
| 04:00:27.75 | Unknown | you |
| 04:00:27.78 | Jeff Bradley | Yeah. |
| 04:00:27.80 | Unknown | Yeah, I would take 7-Eleven off the list for now, and if you can make this package work. I think that's the lot that really needs to be done. |
| 04:00:35.50 | Jeff Bradley | get the lot either via VMU preferred fallback position HMU good off the list |
| 04:00:40.56 | Unknown | get it soft the list from the for the HMU I mean |
| 04:00:45.37 | Jeff Bradley | Right. But in terms of this – in terms of the CN2 sites, we would pursue – |
| 04:00:48.73 | Unknown | I would say VMU on the three sites, and then HMU on the one that accommodates 11, the Dario's. |
| 04:00:55.00 | Jeff Bradley | Well, our first attempt would be to just go straight VMU. |
| 04:00:56.32 | Unknown | DR. DISCO VMU. DR. DISCO VMU. DR. ANDY STRAIGHT VMU. |
| 04:01:01.96 | Jeff Bradley | I do. |
| 04:01:11.59 | Jeff Bradley | But if that effort failed, we'd revert to an HMU program on one of these sites. |
| 04:01:15.96 | Unknown | Yes, I would, and I would encourage that one. |
| 04:01:18.17 | Unknown | And can we actually say that if we are forced to go down an HMU path, is it our preference to drop the 7-Eleven site, have the 2015, is it? Yes. 2015 Bridgeway site, and then seek this versus – is that what we're baking in? If the HMU won't work, are we – |
| 04:01:34.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:01:34.78 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:01:35.08 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:01:42.15 | Unknown | Or we THE END OF |
| 04:01:44.21 | Unknown | Thank you. Or we can... |
| 04:01:44.92 | Unknown | my comment is that that's what I'm trying to say I'd like us to keep on the table for this council taking off both the 7-eleven and 2015 if it works I'd like to see how it looks on the other so there's a possibility as they've said you know we might be able to take them off both and put them on site 21 I'd like to keep that option on the table because yeah no that's a possibility |
| 04:02:00.92 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:02:00.93 | Unknown | you |
| 04:02:01.07 | Unknown | Thank you. Mm-hmm. Yeah, no, that's a possibility. |
| 04:02:05.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:02:05.41 | Unknown | So... |
| 04:02:05.49 | Unknown | And what about the option of taking off both the HMUs from the 7-Eleven side and Olive and Bridgeway and looking at VMUs? I mean, why not look at that in the R3 parcels analysis? |
| 04:02:06.01 | Unknown | What about the... |
| 04:02:17.29 | Unknown | That's right. That's right. No, not R3 on these parcels. We already have to do it. Well, for the multi-family, you know. This is commercial. |
| 04:02:19.78 | Unknown | Well, for the multifamily, you know. No, I understand the VMU is commercial. I'm suggesting to add the R3. Those are the four sites that work |
| 04:02:29.23 | Unknown | Those are the four sites that work – the only four sites that would work for – in the R3 zone. That's my understanding for what you're saying. We've – yeah. We've been through this. |
| 04:02:37.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:02:38.08 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:02:38.13 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:02:38.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:02:38.35 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:02:38.36 | Unknown | Right. |
| 04:02:38.40 | Unknown | Thank you. Yeah. OK, look, I disagree. |
| 04:02:42.63 | Unknown | I'm just going on what these guys are telling us, right? I understand. I have to trust them as professionals that they've done their homework. |
| 04:02:45.26 | Unknown | I understand. I have to trust them as professionals. |
| 04:02:47.97 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So we've got some idea of either drop in HMU completely in the Spring Valley neighborhood, moving it to CM2, if a VMU. if a VMU option for the CN2, which could satisfy all those numbers, doesn't work. Thank you. |
| 04:03:09.50 | Unknown | Again, it's going to create the same issue we're having here in Spring Valley, that whoever likes Tommy's Walk or lives in this neighborhood is going to say, don't take away my commercial. So I just think that feasibility is probably less than you're hoping. But you can explore it. If we can get all VMU on this site with some other incentives, then let's go for it. But I do think that staff – Sausalito planning staff needs to answer the question, if 2015 was to accommodate the number of units this plan is supposing, could it be done in the current building envelope? That won't take a lot of analysis. You just need a couple of data points, and the community wants to know, not just me, |
| 04:03:27.62 | Unknown | But you can expect. before. |
| 04:03:30.07 | Mike Rogers | Amen. |
| 04:03:30.20 | Unknown | that you will. |
| 04:04:03.73 | Unknown | You know, what's this impact going to be? |
| 04:04:07.85 | Unknown | So for clarity, you're talking about removing the HMU from the 7-Eleven and the Olive and Bridgeway sites. Thank you. |
| 04:04:14.32 | Unknown | Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:04:16.27 | Unknown | Thank you. There's the possibility it might be removed from the olive site. from the left wing of 711. |
| 04:04:21.44 | Unknown | from the |
| 04:04:24.07 | Unknown | . Well, we have to explore. We can explore these. See what's out there. |
| 04:04:27.26 | Unknown | before. |
| 04:04:31.44 | Unknown | So to explore removing the HMU from the 7-Eleven and the Olive and Bridgeway site and to take a look at putting VMU in the CN2. Is that what I heard? |
| 04:04:46.28 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:04:48.01 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor, can I see if I understood what I think is what we're being asked to do? Yeah, yeah. Right now, I've heard that you're interested in staff pursuing CN2. And to look at CN2, let me just get it out, and then you can... |
| 04:04:48.98 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 04:04:49.01 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:04:49.40 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 04:04:51.59 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:04:51.90 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 04:04:53.11 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:04:53.13 | Unknown | Yeah, yeah. |
| 04:05:03.00 | Unknown | jump on where I'm missing it. But so you look at CN2, look at first doing a VMU in the CN2. see what and work with the subcommittee, work with HCD, the consultants, city staff, to figure out just how far we can go with the VMU on those sites. Then we would come back and say, you know, here's what we've found out. And then you would have THE BEST OF potential to with the goal of replacing Certainly the 7-Eleven site is what I'm hearing. and potentially the olive site. with those sites in the CN2 if the numbers work both for the FAR, because we're restricted on the total FAR on those parcels, and then with the ability to craft it so that it meets the multifamily housing component that we've talked about a lot tonight that the HMU is serving. So I'm hearing direction to pursue that. Then we would bring that back. through the committee then the question is does it come back here or does it go to the Planning Commission |
| 04:06:04.78 | Unknown | You've got to come back here, and you've got to notice that end of town. Yes, sir. You know, it's not – no, sorry. But, I mean, you've got to let them know that we've just pushed – you know, we can't – I mean, let's be direct here. We've got to. |
| 04:06:05.81 | Unknown | and you got a notice Yes, sir. Yeah. You've got to let them work. |
| 04:06:11.04 | Unknown | I know. I mean, You've got to get it in for me. |
| 04:06:18.48 | Unknown | Bye. No, I mean, and not, I wasn't trying to, you know, you, Mary, go down and knock on every door. All right. So we got to let these people know. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, we've essentially been shifting this responsibility all over town. We've tried everywhere except this neighborhood to house – |
| 04:06:25.64 | Unknown | Oh. |
| 04:06:25.79 | Unknown | I mean, we've essentially... |
| 04:06:26.51 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:06:34.16 | Unknown | multifamily housing, right? So we tried in Old Town. We've tried it in Bayside area, and we've tried it at the – but I would encourage you as part of your analysis that the staff needs to make sure, because we've already been told somebody's going to come back and tell you that this fair traffic initiative does apply to the CN2 district because the city split the CN district into two districts, and whatever carried over from the prior CN district should apply here. |
| 04:07:09.46 | Unknown | No disagreement there, Councilmember Leon. That's why we're keeping the FAR at the.35. |
| 04:07:17.49 | Unknown | Let's not debate that. I would encourage you to investigate that further, and you know who to talk to about |
| 04:07:18.50 | Unknown | I would encourage you to investigate that further, and you know who to talk to about it. And just do that before it comes back to the council. |
| 04:07:24.33 | Unknown | Right. Now, Mayor's summary of what she thinks the direction to staff, do you agree with that? Are you comfortable with Mayor's summary? Yeah, bring it back here. And I think I missed a comment. |
| 04:07:24.95 | Unknown | No. |
| 04:07:34.40 | Unknown | Yeah, bring it back here. |
| 04:07:35.38 | Unknown | And I think I missed a component, though, which is if the VMU is not going to fly, look at HMU in that CN2 district. |
| 04:07:42.32 | Unknown | right or on a particular number of sites that make the numbers because we don't want to put it all right because we want to have a cycle with a traffic |
| 04:07:44.90 | Unknown | on a particular site. |
| 04:07:49.77 | Unknown | you want to draft a cycle with a traffic's appropriate |
| 04:07:52.64 | Unknown | in the world. |
| 04:07:52.85 | Unknown | you |
| 04:07:53.40 | Unknown | And option two, we're going to explore that as well to see if there's potential that we leave it there. Yeah. Okay. |
| 04:07:59.92 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:08:00.91 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:08:01.18 | Unknown | So is everybody clear on what the direction is? Yes, yes. Yes. |
| 04:08:07.38 | Unknown | I didn't hear you take any of them off the table, any of those options. No, technically, no. I think you need more information on 4, on how those numbers actually work, and you may not even want that. We know we can't eliminate it completely, the affordability component in the HMU. |
| 04:08:10.23 | Unknown | any of them. |
| 04:08:10.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:08:11.02 | Unknown | Not technically, no. |
| 04:08:12.30 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:08:24.67 | Unknown | Looking at the body language and the discussion going on there, I didn't think that HCD was too keen on that one. But I may be wrong. Thank you. |
| 04:08:24.98 | Unknown | I don't know. |
| 04:08:25.21 | Unknown | I'm not. |
| 04:08:28.64 | Unknown | See, |
| 04:08:28.87 | Unknown | to be able to get the |
| 04:08:33.83 | Unknown | Nor is it really the right thing to do from a moral standpoint. to take away the incentive or the requirement to provide housing. I mean, let's not forget, and sorry it's late, you know if you do the numbers of you'd have to make twice the minimum wage to even meet the very low income standard for a one-person household. We're saying you can't live here. You can't work at Fred's or whatever. Sorry. So if there are ways to allow people to do that, we should pursue them. |
| 04:09:05.29 | Unknown | if there's a |
| 04:09:05.75 | Unknown | There are ways to allow. I was only several days ago talking to a teacher who works here and can't live here. |
| 04:09:17.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:09:17.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:09:17.93 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:09:18.13 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:09:20.83 | Unknown | you |
| 04:09:20.90 | Unknown | You chose the wrong profession. |
| 04:09:22.15 | Unknown | this is the |
| 04:09:22.18 | Unknown | as a teacher Bye. |
| 04:09:23.25 | Unknown | Thank you. Okay, I think we are... given clear direction, and after some work, |
| 04:09:36.69 | Unknown | Everybody fine there? Okay, good. Let's move on. Where are we? |
| 04:09:43.48 | Unknown | That's at the end. |
| 04:09:51.97 | Unknown | . I hope you're going to do that. |
| 04:09:55.65 | Unknown | Yeah, I am, actually. |
| 04:09:55.92 | Unknown | Yeah. Yeah. |
| 04:09:57.40 | Unknown | And I wanted to make sure, Mayor Withey, that it was clear that my motion was to direct staff to remove the HMU and to explore minimal impact strategies, including the R3, R2 analysis linked with the multifamily ordinance and the VMU to meet the multifamily ordinance. I mean, to meet the variety of housing types. That was my motion. |
| 04:10:00.79 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:10:00.83 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 04:10:34.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:10:35.77 | Unknown | Okay, thanks. City Manager, information for Council. |
| 04:10:42.79 | Adam Politzer | Just two quick items. One, just a reminder of the MCC MC dinner in Fairfax on Wednesday night and then second is that tomorrow |
| 04:10:51.47 | Unknown | Is that tomorrow night or next Wednesday? Next one, Steve. |
| 04:10:55.79 | Adam Politzer | The next one said 28th. |
| 04:10:58.12 | Unknown | 28. |
| 04:10:59.89 | Adam Politzer | Yeah. Um... And then as you... look towards the future council meetings just as we had tonight's meeting and we're going to continue tonight's meeting to the next next Tuesday I would pretty much reserve every Tuesday night between now and and the end of the year because we haven't got into the budget process, and that's going to start the end of this fiscal year or – Okay. MR. Maybe every year at this rate because we have a lot of big items to get to the end of the year, as you guys already talked about, just on this particular subject. But at least between now and June 30th, I would reserve the Tuesday nights the mayor and the vice mayor and the agenda-setting committee next Thursday will look at the next month's schedule. But we have a lot of items the next Tuesday night's meeting. |
| 04:11:24.98 | Unknown | at the end of June. This school year? This year. Okay. |
| 04:11:57.50 | Adam Politzer | Uh, Being conservative, we're going to be done at 12 o'clock. and that's with we have a major appeal. On that night, we have the budget, we have the priority calendar, And I think there's one other big item that I can't and tour bus, the beginning of the tour bus ordinance that we'll be bringing back to the council. So we're scheduled to go to midnight tonight. You see under city manager, that was supposed to be at 925. So – and we had one item tonight. It's a big item, a lot of community participation, which was great. But I think we'll have community participation at next week's meeting, too. So I just want you folks to kind of circle those dates, and we'll get back to you once the calendar materialized. |
| 04:12:46.44 | Unknown | And Adam, you said the tour bus ordinance would be what date? |
| 04:12:50.39 | Mike Rogers | Thank you. |
| 04:12:50.42 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:12:50.44 | Mike Rogers | I've seen. |
| 04:12:50.84 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:12:50.88 | Mike Rogers | excuse me. |
| 04:12:51.30 | Unknown | Next Tuesday, great. |
| 04:12:51.31 | Mike Rogers | next Tuesday, |
| 04:12:55.08 | Unknown | Thank you. Is there any public comment on the city manager report? Seeing none, Council Member Committee reports in terms of the late hour. We keep skipping this one, but I think we're going to have to tonight as well. Thank you. At some point, we really should talk about some of the committees that |
| 04:13:15.23 | Unknown | I'll give a quick one on – and correct me if I'm wrong. I'll try to be brief on the historic Landmarks Board slash legislative committee. And we're powering ahead with a variety of options that are underneath some of the council's priority calendar items from the last priority calendar. And I encourage us when we go into the next – priority calendar, whatever the number turns out to be, to carry those through, because it's going to require a little bit longer time, especially with Jeremy leaving and turnover in staff and whatnot. It's going to require a little bit more time to get to the finish line. And more outside help, which means money. |
| 04:14:01.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:14:01.87 | Unknown | Okay. Any public comment on, no, we have no public, so that's easy. Future agenda items. Any. |
| 04:14:08.40 | Unknown | public service. |
| 04:14:09.28 | Unknown | That's easy. |
| 04:14:10.91 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:14:17.16 | Unknown | Anybody have any comment there? No. Okay. Next item is appointments to, first of all, the Planning Commission and then the Business Advisory Committee. I need, unfortunately, to quickly get my iPad going because I forgot. So let's start off with the Planning Commission. We have, we're at a very interest, this is a personal observation, we are at a very interest in time. We have, we have, to We have three of our planning commissioners who have reached the end of their terms and two of them being completely termed out. Um... So that's the first thing. So we've gotta act. The second thing is that, There is a lot going on in the planning world here, such as what we're talking about tonight, for example. We also have Jeremy leaving, we have new planning staff, we have a new planning director to hire, which is probably one of our, you know, one of the biggest hires we've got to do this year. So I personally would like to see some continuity on the Planning Commission. And those who are currently termed out have offered for a period of time to stay on. So I'd like to propose that we actually do nothing with the Planning Commission and accept the offer of the three planning commissioners to keep going for an undefined time until we find good replacements for them, and in particular as we get through this next short time period. where their knowledge would be helpful. So that's my recommendation that we actually... Now Mary, do we actually have to formally do anything for Joan and Stafford to keep going? |
| 04:16:33.76 | Unknown | So, |
| 04:16:34.17 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 04:16:34.20 | Unknown | MR. I think the action we take is to keep interviewing candidates for all three seats until we find candidates that are suitable to replace them, and we don't need to take action other than that at the moment. |
| 04:16:48.81 | Unknown | And I'd also just like to thank them for offering to continue because, you know, they're doing important work and we've got a lot to do. Thank you. |
| 04:17:00.07 | Unknown | And Mr. Mayor just to clarify you know that's consistent with what the city's practice has been and that question has come up in the past and we've Consistently indicated that that's allowable and the decisions are still enforceable |
| 04:17:03.83 | Unknown | Good. |
| 04:17:11.42 | Unknown | Excellent. By the way, just before I forget, I just wanted to – we'll move on to the BAC in a moment, but I just wanted to – on consent. Today we accepted Carolyn Kernett's resignation from the Historic Landmarks Board. She's starting a new life in a different town, getting married, We wish her all the very best there and thank her very much for her service on the HLB because she's done some really fantastic work. Moving on to the BAC. Yeah. That's what I'm for. BAC has constituted itself and we've been reconstituting it in various ways. There is one category of members that is nominated by the Chamber and we introduced last year if you remember that we would confirm the Chamber nominations. Jeff Shrash has been termed out since the end of the year approximately. He's been staying on. And the Chamber has asked us to confirm Ewan Taylor, who is the general manager of sort of interview committee decided would be a good replacement for Jeff to represent hospitality on that committee. So I think we should move forward and affirm his appointment. Is do we have consensus on that? |
| 04:19:00.03 | Unknown | Just to clarify, Mary, for the Chamber members don't have to be Chalice Leader residents, right? That's my memory of it. That's correct. They do not. That's correct. |
| 04:19:02.83 | Unknown | . |
| 04:19:10.50 | Unknown | Thank you. you |
| 04:19:10.68 | Unknown | Thank you. Correct. They do not. That's correct. |
| 04:19:14.09 | Unknown | Oh, he lives here anyway. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:19:15.25 | Unknown | Yeah, but Jeff was not a resident. |
| 04:19:19.76 | Unknown | Well, Thank you. |
| 04:19:24.40 | Unknown | We also have our duty to, we have one, technically one vacant term, one vacancy for the city residents who were appointed by the committee. In actual fact, and Mary, I need some help here, there's actual fact two vacancies. openings because Adam Kravatsky has turned out. And so the question is even though in the staff report it indicated that we were only one, Adam's eager to get off and to find a replacement. So can we do that? |
| 04:20:11.43 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor, you've only agendized it for one, so I mean we really |
| 04:20:16.53 | Unknown | That's all we can do. |
| 04:20:17.51 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:20:18.00 | Unknown | Peace and what? |
| 04:20:19.87 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:20:19.95 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:20:19.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:20:20.48 | Unknown | Oh, you see, we didn't. |
| 04:20:20.93 | Unknown | You see, And this is... Okay, we'll do it next week. Will you go next week? No, you can do it next week. |
| 04:20:26.70 | Unknown | Yeah, okay. So why don't we put both of those off until... |
| 04:20:30.92 | Unknown | you could do one or you could do two next week so who'd you |
| 04:20:33.42 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:20:34.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:20:34.47 | Unknown | Do you want to make it? So who do you want to put on that? I think Shine. |
| 04:20:37.84 | Unknown | I think we agree to that and Martha would replace Adam, I think. |
| 04:20:43.49 | Unknown | Okay, so in that case, again, we have interviewed a number of people for the city resident position, as has the interview committee of the BAC or informal group. And so I'd like to put forward the name of Shai Froelich. |
| 04:21:05.48 | Unknown | Is that the person from Kabbalah Point? No. That's Ewing. |
| 04:21:07.51 | Unknown | No. |
| 04:21:10.19 | Unknown | We interviewed him. Oh, that's the chamber's thing. |
| 04:21:12.28 | Unknown | That's the chamber thing, okay. This is a person we interviewed on April 20th, and the members of the BAC would like us to appoint. And I'm putting forward his name. |
| 04:21:27.40 | Unknown | Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, I'll just... |
| 04:21:30.74 | Unknown | to abstain because I didn't actually interview him. |
| 04:21:32.75 | Unknown | Fair enough. |
| 04:21:35.38 | Unknown | Thank you. I |
| 04:21:36.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:21:36.08 | Unknown | . |
| 04:21:36.14 | Unknown | the president. |
| 04:21:36.78 | Unknown | I'm going to clean him. |
| 04:21:36.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:21:38.64 | Unknown | Oh, wow. Mr. Mayor, I call for other nominations. Yeah. |
| 04:21:40.61 | Unknown | Yeah, and is there any other nominations tonight? No. Okay, so I think one abstention and... All in favor? All in favor? Aye. Oppose? Okay, and we will agendize the final BAC appointee for next week. |
| 04:21:54.98 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 04:22:08.02 | Unknown | And, Mr. Mayor, just to clarify the planning commission, so we had two termed out and three reached the end of their term. So when you say keep the planning commission the way it is, I think that's great. So when you say three reached the end of the term, do you mean you're reappointing those three to the next term? No, we don't need to appoint them. Oh, we don't need to report. Okay, just wanted to clarify. Right. Thank you. |
| 04:22:08.80 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 04:22:09.15 | Jenny Reinders | Thank you. |
| 04:22:23.24 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:22:23.26 | Unknown | We don't need to report them. Oh, we don't need to report them. Right. |
| 04:22:27.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:22:27.68 | Unknown | All their terms are over. We could appoint three, two, or one at any time. |
| 04:22:38.45 | Unknown | Okay, there are... Obviously, no public comment. There's no other reports of significance. And so I'm calling for an adjournment tonight, and this is an adjournment of this regular City Council meeting. So we're adjourning to and continuing this meeting until May 27th, with the open session due to commence at approximately 7 p.m. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. |