| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.55 | Mayor Withing | Good evening and welcome to the regular meeting of the Sausalito City Council, Tuesday, June 24th. Lily, would you please take the roll for us? |
| 00:00:12.62 | Lily (City Clerk) | Good evening. Councilmember Pfeiffer? Here. Councilmember Weiner? |
| 00:00:16.25 | Mayor Withing | President. |
| 00:00:17.01 | Lily (City Clerk) | Councilmember Leon. |
| 00:00:18.09 | Mayor Withing | here. |
| 00:00:18.76 | Lily (City Clerk) | Vice Mayor Theodores? |
| 00:00:19.82 | Mayor Withing | President. |
| 00:00:20.43 | Lily (City Clerk) | They're with you. |
| 00:00:21.19 | Mayor Withing | here. And I'm going to ask Robbie Hoffman to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance tonight. |
| 00:00:30.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:31.28 | Mayor Withing | Yeah. |
| 00:00:33.27 | Councilmember Weiner | with allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. |
| 00:00:47.33 | Mayor Withing | Thank you, Robbie. |
| 00:00:53.66 | Mayor Withing | We had no closed session this evening. Could, moving on to item E, could we have approval of the agenda, please? So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? |
| 00:01:07.60 | Councilmember Leone | Bye. |
| 00:01:12.29 | Mayor Withing | Action minutes of the adjourned regular City Council meeting of May 20, 2014. Could I have a motion to approve as submitted, or are there any suggested changes or corrections? So moved. |
| 00:01:28.57 | David Javid (M Group) | Thank you. Second. |
| 00:01:31.58 | Mayor Withing | All in favor? Aye. Opposed? None. Okay. So our... |
| 00:01:32.47 | David Javid (M Group) | Thank you. |
| 00:01:39.90 | Mayor Withing | Evening is devoted to the housing element. And we're going to start off with our business item this evening. which is a discussion Thank you. of the housing element implementation programs 8A and 8B |
| 00:01:59.45 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:02:02.56 | Mayor Withing | the HMU and VMU programs. We are handing over this stage to Lily Shinsing, our administrative analyst. |
| 00:02:56.97 | Unknown | you |
| 00:03:41.97 | Councilmember León | There's always the time-honored tradition of just turning it off and on again and hoping |
| 00:03:46.04 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:03:52.52 | Mayor Withing | So our technical problems have coincided with a sweltering hot evening. |
| 00:04:20.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:04:21.04 | Unknown | Thank you. It's over. That's what you mean? Oh, yeah. When school gets up, it's different than when I was a kid. You played all the time. Summertime. Yeah, now it's some school's out. |
| 00:04:28.60 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:04:34.86 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:04:38.30 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:04:39.70 | Unknown | Mmm. |
| 00:04:46.35 | Unknown | Relax. Meeting in jail. |
| 00:04:47.02 | Unknown | Relax. Meeting in jail. |
| 00:04:54.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:04:55.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:04:56.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:05:39.98 | Councilmember Weiner | I feel like I'm in a ballgame and the lights went out and waiting for them to come back. |
| 00:05:43.42 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:05:43.99 | Unknown | There it's coming. Let's see if it's still purple |
| 00:06:09.56 | Unknown | We let. |
| 00:06:33.64 | Unknown | Wait. |
| 00:06:53.28 | Unknown | Two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Eight on that side. One, two, Jenny, sneak in now. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve. Oh, still purple. |
| 00:07:17.53 | Unknown | Still purple. |
| 00:07:18.14 | Councilmember Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:07:18.32 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:07:18.34 | Councilmember Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:07:18.46 | Unknown | . |
| 00:07:19.93 | Councilmember Weiner | PIPPLE IS BLOCKING. |
| 00:07:21.56 | Unknown | Our eyes believe us, right? |
| 00:07:22.00 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:07:23.86 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:07:23.89 | Councilmember Weiner | Pruples in anyway. |
| 00:07:25.11 | Unknown | you |
| 00:07:25.24 | Councilmember Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:07:25.30 | Unknown | Yeah. Can you check the cable sometimes? Um... and we'll have a good connection with BGA. in the back of the wall. you |
| 00:07:35.67 | Jenny Flynn (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 00:07:35.81 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:07:47.40 | Unknown | you |
| 00:07:48.68 | Unknown | I always ask you a problem. |
| 00:08:17.79 | Councilmember Weiner | So you got to hang around Sausalito. You've been hanging up at the Civic Center too long. |
| 00:08:20.53 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. I mean, I think we should just go ahead in purple and... |
| 00:08:24.78 | Councilmember Weiner | I see. |
| 00:08:25.34 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:08:43.68 | Karen Warner | Okay, well, I think we're going to make the best of it, and if we get white PowerPoint in the midst of this, then that's great. But my name's Karen Warner. I'm working with M Group on the housing element update and the ordinances, and I'm very pleased to be- |
| 00:09:02.93 | Unknown | Is your microphone? Thank you. |
| 00:09:04.99 | Karen Warner | I believe so. You need to get closer to the mind character. |
| 00:09:05.94 | Unknown | You need to get closer to the mic, Kevin. |
| 00:09:08.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:09:10.70 | Karen Warner | Okay. Is that better? Yeah. Okay. I'm very pleased to be here in person this time and not on the Skype. And I'm especially pleased tonight because we are able to present what I think will be a very... |
| 00:09:12.82 | Unknown | Thank you. . |
| 00:09:31.69 | Karen Warner | welcome alternative that we have been working extremely difficult on that meets the concerns of HCD with the HMU, with the alternatives that we had been looking at with the HMU. |
| 00:09:36.95 | Unknown | It's just now. |
| 00:09:49.83 | Karen Warner | And I think it will help address the concerns of the Spring Street neighborhood and the concerns of the loss of neighborhood commercial in some of the other options. So before we get into that, just to back up a minute, the last time we were before the City Council on May 20th, we were directed to pursue a VMU option on the CN2 sites, which we did and determined that that was not viable. |
| 00:10:11.35 | Mary Wagner | Last time. Okay. other duties all the same. Thank you. you |
| 00:10:34.85 | Karen Warner | We were directed to evaluate an HMU option on CN2 sites, which we did that analysis and brought it to the subcommittee. and we were directed to consider removing one or both of the existing HMU sites on Bridgeway and and explore the option have and modifying the VMU requirement for second story and residential |
| 00:11:00.10 | Unknown | Thank you. I think it's a while ago. |
| 00:11:01.78 | Councilmember León | Yeah, it's a wall that you just stepped on or something. Look in the back of the computer itself. Yeah. Rather than the thing. When you walked across and moved up to white. |
| 00:11:02.97 | Councilmember Weiner | You just stepped on us up Yeah. When you walked across and moved up to white, |
| 00:11:13.26 | Unknown | No, I'll... |
| 00:11:15.15 | Councilmember Weiner | He's got a big foot. |
| 00:11:15.18 | Unknown | He's got a big... |
| 00:11:15.81 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 00:11:17.53 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:11:18.74 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:11:20.31 | Karen Warner | Oh wow, here we go. |
| 00:11:22.22 | Unknown | Nice. |
| 00:11:26.52 | Unknown | I can't be light. |
| 00:11:27.49 | Karen Warner | This is going to be a good meeting. |
| 00:11:29.58 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:11:29.59 | Mayor Withing | What? |
| 00:11:30.49 | Karen Warner | worse |
| 00:11:31.04 | Mayor Withing | We're still having trouble hearing you. So I don't know if your mic is not working or if you're allowed to... I can tell you really close here. That's better. Okay. |
| 00:11:33.31 | Karen Warner | I don't think I'm going to. |
| 00:11:39.96 | Karen Warner | you All right. |
| 00:11:44.61 | Karen Warner | So, um... Do you want me to say this again with the... No, no, continue. |
| 00:11:48.56 | Unknown | No, no, continue. Thank you. |
| 00:11:50.08 | Karen Warner | Okay, so that was the council direction from the May 20th meeting. and then we took that to the housing on subcommittee on June 13th and presented the option of allowing second story commercial in the vertical mixed use and and allowing, modifying the HMU program, with the first preference to be to reevaluate all of the R3 parcels that had been evaluated as part of the sites inventory. focusing in on our three parcels that could accommodate a minimum of eight units, because bare minimum threshold for site suitability. And And then the subcommittee also directed us if the R3 analysis didn't come up with anything, There were recommendations to modify the HMU. to modify the three bedroom requirement to a two bedroom requirement, to consider one or more of the CN2 sites for HMU, and then to consider a residential overlay. |
| 00:13:09.97 | Karen Warner | So what we were tackled with in terms of coming up with alternatives to the HMU was still meeting these basic the basic purpose of these programs, which, as you recall, the VMU-HMU program is to provide adequate sites with realistic development potential for multi-family rental housing, which meets the statutory requirement for a variety of housing types. the VMU purpose is to encourage the provision of second story residential and the commercial zoning districts including an affordability requirement which gets us mixed income housing The HMU purpose was to allow ground floor residential on designated commercial sites to accommodate family housing and retain neighborhood character by reducing the need for increased building heights. |
| 00:14:08.13 | Karen Warner | And as you recall, the consequences of not adopting the HMU is, as you can see on the very last line, is our RENA balance. And we have a zero buffer in the very low income and just a two-unit buffer in the low income. And under the commercial district capacity, 28 of our very low income units were derived from HMU and VMU. So any removal of those needed to be replaced. And if the HMU wasn't adopted, then we face the carryover of 16 very low-income HMU units. We would need to rezone a site of significant size to accommodate 16 units, equating to about a 24,000 square foot parcel, which is half an acre acre and various other limitations when you are you're dealing with arena shortfall and having to make that up And then, of course, we've talked many times about the importance of having the state certify your housing element and why we want to maintain an incompliant element for Sausalito. And. So the subcommittee recommendations, as I mentioned before, the first was to modify the vertical mixed use to allow small commercial uses, and that's what we've incorporated into the draft VMU ordinance to allow commercial uses of up to 1,000 square feet on the upper stories so that there's more flexibility in your commercial districts to have a limited amount of upper floor commercial. And then the second recommendation of the subcommittee was to really dig back into the R3 sites analysis to see if we could identify a replacement site for the HMU parcels, which is what we did. And I'm going to turn this over to David Javid of M Group to talk about that whole process. |
| 00:16:36.35 | David Javid (M Group) | Thank you, Karen. So as Karen mentioned, the task was to look for alternatives for the HMU site. And we went through and looked at all the R3 sites. As you can see here, nearly 590 sites looking through the criteria of ensuring that there are at least 12,000 square feet so they can reach that 8-unit threshold. and they need to be considered vacant or underutilized as well. And we narrowed that down to 70. so they can reach that eight-unit threshold. And they need to be considered vacant or underutilized as well. And we narrowed that down to 17 sites that were viable, which is essentially less than 3 percent of the R3 |
| 00:16:43.20 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:17:09.62 | Unknown | as a Thank you. |
| 00:17:13.57 | David Javid (M Group) | sites. From there, we continued to narrow it down. From those 17, we had multifamily sites. We had one single-family property, a church, and one parcel that was actually underwater. And that helped us narrow it down to this one site here at 330 Eptide, which is approximately 32,500-square-foot site that would essentially accommodate up to 21 units. Currently there are three units on the site, two single family and one cottage. There is also a garage that's along Bridgeway. We'll take a look at a couple pictures. This one does have a 40.8 percent slope threshold which is slightly outside outside of the forty percent threshold we use previously but I'm through conversations with with you on with a CD we found that that would be okay for a viable site and again with a maximum unit threshold of twenty one units I without the density bonus So just real quickly, we want to include a couple pictures for those who haven't seen the site before. This is from Bridgeway, essentially looking up the hill. This is the garage that's along Bridgeway. This is off of Eptide, looking down the hill. You can get a glimpse of the unit there and some trees in the area. This, again, is one of the other units that you could see from Eptide. And this is the upper edge along Eptide as well. |
| 00:18:15.71 | Unknown | So, you know, |
| 00:18:16.03 | Councilmember Leone | for |
| 00:18:16.25 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:18:42.22 | David Javid (M Group) | So that is essentially our third option that I'll now let Karen walk through what the next steps will be for. Thank you. |
| 00:18:55.92 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 00:18:59.73 | Karen Warner | So when this potential site was uncovered, we put a package of materials together on it and sent it to Melinda Coy at HCD to discuss this with her as a, whether it would be a suitable replacement for the HMU sites. And we had an in-depth discussion and went through the different criteria that we're looking to replace with HMU and it was her determination that this would be a suitable replacement for for both of the HMU sites and However, because the site was not identified in the city's existing element, even though it's no change to zoning, it's R3, and because it would involve presumably removing the HMU program from your element, we need to amend your adopted element to add this Ebtide site and to remove the HMU program. and so and She said that could be done in a very expedited fashion. and I've gone through and identified specifically what in the element needs to be modified, if that's the direction that we receive from counsel. The other benefit, she said, to amending the element is we would incorporate the updated success of the city's ADU program. Um, and the status of the liveaboards and your conditional compliance would go away. So you would have a compliant element. The preferred option that we're suggesting to Council is to direct staff to go forward with the amendment to the element. The State would take about two weeks to get us back a letter indicating that the amendment With these changes, your current element remains in compliance, and then that element would need to go through a public hearing before the Planning Commission and readoption by counsel. |
| 00:21:34.31 | Karen Warner | Um, Just to go back on the numerous other options that we looked at with the subcommittee, Um, if the and and tie option isn't the direction that the council chooses um, option number one which is part of what's being recommended is to make the modification to the VMU program to allow second story commercial up to a thousand square feet. Option number two is to make modifications to the HMU program as we indicated to reduce the three-bedroom unit requirement to a two-bedroom unit requirement. Options 3A and 3B. is to remove one or both of the CN1 sites from HMU and replace them with one or more sites in the CN2 district and option four was the creation of the residential overlay was presented at the last subcommittee meeting and apply that to the 3001 Bridgeway site that allows for up to 20 or actually requires a minimum of 20 percent of the street frontage to be committed to commercial use. |
| 00:22:53.96 | Karen Warner | So staff recommendations are, again, to modify the VMU program, and to direct staff to initiate an amendment to the existing housing element to remove the HMU and incorporate in the Ebtide site. |
| 00:23:07.43 | Mayor Withing | you |
| 00:23:07.54 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:23:12.12 | Karen Warner | And that concludes our presentation. |
| 00:23:14.78 | Mayor Withing | Thank you, Karen. So I'd like to now have RSAS any clarifying questions of the staff and What I'd like to suggest is We limit it to a question, a reasonable follow-up, and then yield to our colleagues. And if you'll indulge me, I'll go first. So... for just, could you help us understand how, how Um... the identification of a site and not changing the zoning allows us to be able to count some of the potential unit capacity there as affordable. How does that work? Because it's there. We're not changing the zoning. It's just sort of sitting there. So could you help us understand that? |
| 00:24:12.50 | Karen Warner | Right. |
| 00:24:17.15 | Karen Warner | There's something in housing element statutes referred to as the default density. So, um, Mill Valley is within the 20 unit an acre default density. and where you have sites zoned at a minimum of 20 units an acre. There's essentially no questions asked, assuming that the site meets the suitability criteria of it's large enough, The slope's not like this. And then when you deal with an underutilized site, which is a lot of the discussion I had with HCD on this particular site, it's to be able to demonstrate that the existing uses, are, are truly underutilized, so they're economically significantly underutilized, they're older, um, the valuation is low relative to the value of the property. and So that's why without... actually changing the zoning, and it was the same process we went through initially on the site analysis, is using your existing zoning through the infill strategy, identifying those sites that were either vacant, very few, or underutilized. |
| 00:25:36.82 | Mayor Withing | Thanks, I have no follow-up questions. So who would like to? Please. |
| 00:25:42.79 | Councilmember Leone | Karen, I don't think we're going to have a lot of objection to taking away the HMU, but substituting 330 Eptide, I just want to be clear. So adding it to our list, okay, we do no rezoning, but by adding it to our list and including it in our housing element, does it give anyone any greater ability to develop on that property than they already have at this point? |
| 00:26:07.73 | Karen Warner | No, it really doesn't, which was of what I was trying to present to the state as to why do you need to amend your element to include it because it's already permitted under zoning. But I think combined with the fact that you have the HMU program in there, and that needs to be removed. But no, there's no change in development potential by putting it on the list. |
| 00:26:33.59 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Well, I want to thank the M Group and city staff for the due diligence with this because it was very exciting and I think you made a lot of certainly me happy and council and residents. So I guess a follow-up question I have, and I'm certainly very much in favor of using the uncovered parcel at Ebtide. It doesn't change anything, doesn't change the zoning, it doesn't alter anything that would normally happen. And I think it's a great solution. My question is, How is the VMU required now, now that we have uncovered this wonderful opportunity to accommodate um, the multifamily and the family housing, et cetera. What is the reason we still have the VMU program? |
| 00:27:32.40 | Karen Warner | The VMU program, for a couple of reasons. So there's, remember when Melinda Croy was here, she was talking about the, um, the different statutory components that the HMU program was meeting, for example. So we have no more HMU. One of the statutory requirements is having programs in place to facilitate the development of affordable housing. So with the VMU program, by requiring one affordable unit that's meeting that statutory requirement because we don't have the HMU anymore. Um... We have identified a suitable R3 site to replace the HMU program, but we don't have that program component of, you know, how is the city actually facilitating development of affordable. |
| 00:28:37.82 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Ms. Murray, I have a follow-up question. Thank you, Karen. So just to paraphrase what you're saying is that under the statute, a variety of housing types to facilitate the development of affordable housing. And you said the VMU meets that by requiring at least one affordable unit. How many programs does this statute require a city to have in its housing element? Because we have the Live Aboard program, we have the ADU program, we have passed the multifamily ordinance, which one could argue promotes smaller units, which would be more affordable. So I'm just curious as to how many, you know, what's the bar? How many programs are expected of a town, especially the size of Sausalito? |
| 00:29:33.95 | Karen Warner | There's no absolute, but typically, and it's not under the variety of housing types in the statutes. It's actually under the program requirement. Typically, cities under that would have programs that either they have an inclusionary ordinance or they have programs for direct financial assistance. Thank you. and so the VMU and HMU really were the only programs that were and in the element that directly speak to that and the second units that are that a to use deliver boards and are affordable you know, based on their size, and, you know, they may or may not necessarily all be affordable, but it's not an actual program that, the city is using to facilitate development of affordable units. |
| 00:30:31.26 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Bye. you |
| 00:30:34.92 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So just to clarify, can I clarify that before we move on? So just to clarify then, what you're saying is that the VMU, the reason we're having the VMU program right now is not about the variety of housing types statute. It's not about the arena. It's about this program requirement. |
| 00:30:38.60 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:30:38.61 | Karen Warner | One last question. |
| 00:30:39.19 | Unknown | you |
| 00:30:59.39 | Karen Warner | to facilitate more affordable housing. I would say that's the gap that it's filling. |
| 00:30:59.47 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | to facilitate more affordable housing. |
| 00:31:06.91 | Karen Warner | If we didn't have the VMU requirement, could we still count those VMU units the same way that we were on the RENA table? I'm not sure. Now that's where it kind of comes into the, well, if you don't have an affordability requirement, are we gonna let you count? Um... this second story residential that may or may not happen towards lower income units. |
| 00:31:30.91 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Because right now we do allow a residential at the second, I mean, in some areas we could. So is that a conversation you've had with HCD yet? |
| 00:31:32.26 | Karen Warner | All right. |
| 00:31:35.90 | Karen Warner | I agree. Thank you. |
| 00:31:39.73 | Mayor Withing | Council Member Pfeiffer. One question, one follow-up. |
| 00:31:43.30 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I'll circle back to me and I'll continue. |
| 00:31:45.84 | Mayor Withing | And so could I remind my colleagues up here, this is the time to ask technical questions for clarification, not to make comments. |
| 00:31:57.69 | Councilmember León | Just a quick question, and I don't know if you can answer this. this particular property, 330 Ebtide, kind of slipped through the initial screening. Is that probably just because of the slope percentage being a little high? Did that was it? |
| 00:32:15.95 | Karen Warner | Yes, it didn't meet the slope threshold. |
| 00:32:16.44 | Councilmember León | Thank you. |
| 00:32:20.66 | Councilmember León | Right. |
| 00:32:20.98 | Unknown | . |
| 00:32:22.19 | Karen Warner | And it has existing occupied units on it. But, I mean, it didn't need the first cutoff, which was the slope. |
| 00:32:30.53 | Councilmember León | Okay. Were there other properties that are at the margin like that? You know, this is a fraction of a percent off just in terms of the next go-round of |
| 00:32:31.00 | Karen Warner | Were there other... |
| 00:32:42.00 | Unknown | . |
| 00:32:42.04 | David Javid (M Group) | Thank you. |
| 00:32:42.05 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:32:43.20 | David Javid (M Group) | Just looking at the list. No, that was it. Sorry, that was the closest. Yeah. Yeah. |
| 00:32:46.37 | Councilmember León | Sorry, that was the... |
| 00:32:54.44 | Councilmember León | Thank you. |
| 00:32:55.52 | Mayor Withing | Um... If I may ask one question around the relationship of this to then our next housing element, No. If we then proceed to you um, get our next house and elements certified by the deadline, whenever, January 15th or whenever it is. Assuming that nothing happens to this site between now and January 15th, can this site be still used for our next housing element? |
| 00:33:39.77 | Karen Warner | Absolutely. Yes. |
| 00:33:42.55 | Mayor Withing | And so why is that? |
| 00:33:45.92 | Karen Warner | A site is an available site until it's developed. So you don't, if you had arena carryover. then you would be dealing with double the number of sites that you needed to identify. as long as a site remains available it continues to be in your housing element inventory |
| 00:34:12.28 | Councilmember León | Nice question. So... Male Speaker 1 of the United States, |
| 00:34:29.09 | Unknown | Right. |
| 00:34:32.40 | Councilmember León | which we didn't use in this plan because there were reasons not to or time constraints or what have you. But those are not off the table as far as solutions versus spot zoning or identifying specific properties for affordability or unit size. Does those deal with more of the affordability side of it or are we going to be faced with the same decision in a few months about Having sort of... four sites identified for the next housing element. |
| 00:35:03.57 | Karen Warner | you wouldn't need to make any changes to the size inventory that you adopt for your current element, for the next element. |
| 00:35:13.02 | Councilmember León | So we won't have to identify a particular property. You won't have to. |
| 00:35:15.26 | Karen Warner | You won't have to make any change to it. |
| 00:35:16.49 | Councilmember León | unless we adopted some program that highlighted some particular scenario that could only be accommodated. You know, like say we had, and made live-aboard requirements versus just caps, which is what we have now. That would, that may or may not be something that would, that's not necessarily, as you said, an affordability scenario, that's more of a, |
| 00:35:30.25 | Unknown | THE FAMILY IS |
| 00:35:39.05 | Councilmember León | structuring the size of something toward affordability. Does that make sense? |
| 00:35:43.83 | Karen Warner | Right, right, but on the liveaboard front, The state has kind of said, you've reached the cap on that. So I wouldn't necessarily go down that path. |
| 00:35:56.40 | Councilmember León | So if we, like the said, marinas don't allow liveaboard, so if we required them to have liveaboard, would that count to, you're saying that we can't, |
| 00:36:06.63 | Karen Warner | and it gets complicated with the liveaboards |
| 00:36:08.97 | Councilmember León | Okay. |
| 00:36:11.52 | Mayor Withing | Council Member Pfeiffer. RETURN B. Returning. |
| 00:36:15.81 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah, thank you. So would programs that provide offered educational materials on like Section 8, you know, housing in that application, would those types of programs, educational programs regarding services, would that come into play as |
| 00:36:39.32 | Karen Warner | Yeah. |
| 00:36:39.38 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | . |
| 00:36:39.45 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 00:36:39.52 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | It's. |
| 00:36:39.99 | Karen Warner | actually assisting in the development of new affordable units. |
| 00:36:42.44 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Amen. Okay. |
| 00:36:52.75 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So you'll have to come back to me. I have follow-up questions, but I don't think it's fair. So is there anybody else? |
| 00:36:55.21 | Mayor Withing | Okay. So is there anybody else who has any questions? Well, should we take public comment first? Yes. |
| 00:37:02.94 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yes, as long as I can ask a couple questions afterwards. Of course. Thank you. |
| 00:37:06.08 | Mayor Withing | Of course. So at this point, why don't we open it up for public comment? Could I have a show of hands, how many people want to actually talk on this issue? |
| 00:37:17.18 | Unknown | Shall I have a shallow hand? |
| 00:37:21.57 | Mayor Withing | Okay, not that. Many, okay. Eat. I'd like to remind you, you can please come on up. If you want to line up, that's good to speed up the process. And I'd like to remind you, you have three minutes. And please try and stay in that time frame. Don't be shy, who wants to go first? Thank you. Thank you. Certainly not |
| 00:37:55.17 | John Flavin (Public Commenter) | My name is John Flavin. I understand the comment made about the VMU, but I still don't see it as being necessary. When I wrote the letter to the housing subcommittee, I referenced a report by a senior attorney advising city councils who said, beware what you promise. And I think that's what's happening here. These overlays are dangerous, and I think they can be abused. And I think we shouldn't do it unless we absolutely have to. I didn't hear anything that said we absolutely have to. It's kind of a nice thing. It sort of fills out a block. But I think it's very important that we not overpromise in this housing element. number of housing elements piling up behind. and we're going to be in this all the time. So I think to overpromise at this stage IS A MISTAKE. I don't think you need to. I think you satisfy all the requirements. And I don't see really, I think we could come up. We have enough low-income housing in this market. I mean... You know, the whole Spring Street area, there is low-income housing there. You may not recognize it as that, but that's what it is, and it's because of two families that we have. So I think there are a lot of programs here that go unrecognized. So you're going to overpromise, and I think you're going to regret it. |
| 00:39:22.28 | Mayor Withing | Who is next? I don't think anybody actually wants to talk tonight. |
| 00:39:27.88 | Steve (Public Commenter) | Hawks and I. |
| 00:39:31.66 | Mayor Withing | Hi, Steve. |
| 00:39:31.96 | Steve (Public Commenter) | Good evening, Mr. Mayor, council members and staff. Again, I'd like to thank everybody, especially the M Group, for identifying that property. You're our heroes tonight. 330 Ebtide means a lot to our community. Going on, we know there's a few steps away from making this finalized. So obviously the community is expecting the council members to vote based upon the recommendations of the M Group as well as the wishes of the community. And finally, just to kind of echo Mr. Flavin's comments regarding the VMU, we actually have programs or ordinances in place to promote low-income housing. We've passed the ADU policy. We have liveaboards out there. We've also initiated the multifamily ordinance that promotes more than one or two units on R2.5 and R3 zones. So I don't see it for need. It's not clear cut to me why we need a VMU. So I'm asking the city council also remove that from the housing element plan as well. Thank you. |
| 00:39:32.15 | Councilmember Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:40:40.05 | Mayor Withing | Thank you, Steve. |
| 00:40:45.08 | David Schoenbrunn (Public Commenter) | Good evening, I'm David Schoenbrunn. I've lived in town for six years, but I haven't been before you. you My work is in transportation and specifically reducing the climate change impacts of transportation. Housing is very closely related to that, and so I want to express a point of view that's apparently very different from what you've been hearing so far. In particular, this VMU proposal to allow commercial units in upper stories makes no sense to me from a housing standpoint. point. There's a house. this VMU proposal to allow commercial units in upper stories makes no sense to me from a housing standpoint. There's a housing crisis going on in Marin County. particularly affordable housing. There was a traffic initiative that prevented conversion of residential to commercial. The idea that you would go and adopt an ordinance to specifically allow commercial where residential is now makes no sense to me whatsoever. Also, I'm hearing people say, do the absolute minimum in terms of what the state requires. Frankly, as a city council, I think you ought to do more. And so, Part of the problem here is the Valhalla. I miss the early information about that and I have not been part of that process. But it is apparent to me that by not using the appropriate zoning for that property consistent with the building across the street, we are wasting an incredibly valuable housing opportunity site I don't know that it's too far gone for this comment to be considered by you, but quite frankly, It breaks me up to see a site that great that is right next to a bus stop. Um, I have to tell you, I'm out there advocating transit-oriented development. I tell people I live in the best transit-oriented development in Marin. I live in downtown Sausalito. I walk three minutes to the ferry or to the bus. That's where it's at. on and so I want to ask you to go in an opposite direction from what you've heard recommended to you and not proceed with this VMU change. I have no opinion on the other elements. Thank you. |
| 00:43:17.67 | Mayor Withing | Thank you, sir. |
| 00:43:25.48 | Mayor Withey (Public Commenter, likely different from Mayor Withing) | I'm Mayor Withey and City Council and the committee members. I just want to say something in the long range. I'm sorry I'm not a public speaker. I'm actually going to have to read this, otherwise I won't get through everything. But I wish to appeal to City Council to take a stand against the California legislators and the special interest groups who drive them that support the incorrect belief that California can continue to sustain a higher population of people and all the building it takes to house them. But we all know that this isn't true. California is in the beginning throes of a drought right now, and we, the people, should not be agreeing to build anything at the moment until it's proven that the impact of bringing more people and higher density building into California is sustainable. If you lived here in the 70s, then you'll recall the drought and the impact it had on all of us. And you know we didn't have the population in the 70s that we do now. It's time to say no to new development. It's time to improve our way of thinking, to make do with what we already have. Why would California sue us for taking a stand to get something we all know to be an illogical move in this decade? What is California going to hand to its children? California is a wonderful place to live in, but if we don't take a stand now, that may not be the case in the future. And I will repeat myself and say that our generation is responsible for what we will be handing to future generations. Wake up California, and that means every single one of us If we place the environment that sustains us foremost in our decision-making process, the smart developers will figure out a way to make it work for everyone. And I truly believe that, and so should you. I know you've all worked hard, but I'm imploring imploring you not to allow any high density building into the city of Sausalito It's not right for our town, for our state, and especially for our environment. And if you want the California state to come in and see low housing income, you know, we have the Rogers, the Perrys, the Majora's to thank. There's a lot of us low-income folks that live there that I couldn't live there without them. So thank you very much. |
| 00:45:34.74 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. |
| 00:45:45.83 | Riley Herd (Public Commenter) | RYLEY HERD, RYLEY HERD, Good evening, Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Riley Herd. I continue to represent a number of concerned citizens. I'm here to say we're very pleased with the location of the R3 site, so thank you for the hard work that went into that. 40% slope in this city is in no way extreme or undevelopable, and I think the hillsides are proof of that. It's great that 330 Ebtide is already zoned for multifamily residential housing, so instead of trying to put a square peg through a round hole in a commercial district, we're looking to the zoning districts that were already anticipated for this type of housing. So we would really encourage you to scrap the HMU program and select this site. Particularly because our HCD staff member has said you're still getting certification without the HMU. I'd like to follow up on something that Mr. Schonbrunn just said, and that's transit-oriented development and just a reminder of why the HMU doesn't fit with that. The CN zone serves a very specific purpose. It's a neighborhood-serving commercial use that prevents you from having to get in your car and prevents a bedroom community from... going all the way down Bridgeway. So it's really important to retain that so that people don't have to get in the car. So sometimes there's two sides to the coin of transit-oriented development, and this is one of those cases. And I think the spring in all its sites really exemplified the problems with HMU. In regards to BMU, I think that the staff should be asked to provide and perhaps even read aloud the citation to exactly what it is we're trying to achieve. If it's the RHNA numbers, then let's look at that. If it's simply a call for programs to facilitate development, I think there are much better ways to do it than VMU. I would suggest that that be a first step, but as a last resort, that the council do follow your subcommittee's recommendation, which is allowing some commercial use on the upstairs in these commercial zones. This is not taking away residential use that previously existed. So in conclusion, HMU is not a good fit anywhere. please use 330 Ebtai and And also, please take a hard look at the VMU and make sure that we 100% must do this. That's the only things that should be done. Thank you. |
| 00:48:35.46 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. Is there any other member of the public here who'd like to talk? |
| 00:48:41.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:48:43.19 | Mayor Withing | Don't be shy. |
| 00:48:51.74 | Mike Rogers (Public Commenter) | Good evening, I'm Mike Rogers, we've talked before. I had some prepared remarks, but I have a question with all of the new things coming up tonight and that I've read on the internet. I like the 330 upside solution and removal of HMU would be fantastic, but I'm unclear about the 711 and Olive Street sites, if they would be removed from consideration or not. I haven't heard that, I didn't see that underneath the slides or anything. Would those be, if we go with the 330 Eptide, would we be removing the 7-Eleven and Olive Street sites as we did with the other sites in Sausalito that had been looked at previously? |
| 00:49:34.22 | Mayor Withing | Could we let the staff answer that question? |
| 00:49:46.57 | Karen Warner | Those two sites would remain as CN1, and at least the way the element is written today, all CN1 sites are part of the VMU program. So yes, they remain as a VMU. |
| 00:50:09.91 | Mike Rogers (Public Commenter) | So in that case, I still recommend, as I have continually since I've been talking at all of these meetings, that we remove the 7-Eleven and all street sites however you need to do it. If you need to remove the BMU to do it or whatever you need to do, again, our bay views are most important to us, and the traffic pattern and the parking, that would be unimaginable as it's already starting to be now. To include those two sites would be very bad, to say the least. So again, I request that those sites be removed from consideration either for this element and for any future elements also. I don't want to see it included again in the next one coming up for your next round either. For all the reasons that we've talked about and I've written letters and you've all talked about before. Would I need to go any further than that? |
| 00:50:56.33 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:50:56.43 | Unknown | . |
| 00:50:56.58 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:50:56.63 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:50:56.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:50:56.90 | Unknown | years. |
| 00:50:57.36 | Unknown | you |
| 00:50:57.41 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:50:57.75 | Unknown | you |
| 00:51:06.98 | Mike Rogers (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 00:51:08.12 | Mayor Withing | Thank you, Mike. Thank you. Hi, Susan. |
| 00:51:11.96 | Susan Sammels (Public Commenter) | Hi, Susan Sammels. I just want to say that I'm against high density housing as a solution to climate change. I personally would strongly disagree with that as a solution to that problem. And I second the remarks of John Flavin that we should be doing the minimum because I'm also very against what the state is imposing on communities. And I think we need to keep our options open for the future. |
| 00:51:28.81 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:51:28.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:51:28.90 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:51:28.91 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:51:28.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:51:41.76 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. |
| 00:51:45.69 | Mayor Withing | Is there any other member of the public? Yes, please. |
| 00:52:05.08 | Jenny Flynn (Public Commenter) | Hi, I'm Jenny Flynn. I live at 411 Litho Street. |
| 00:52:05.13 | Unknown | I am |
| 00:52:09.13 | Jenny Flynn (Public Commenter) | I just want to agree with what Riley Hurd said about the vertical mixed-use program. When I bought my house across the street, I was very careful to go make sure what the height limits were and the buildings in front of me. And also I was very concerned about rear yard setbacks and anything else that could affect my property values. So I'm not too sure if the buildings at 333 Caledonia are on the sites for vertical mixed use or not. But if they are and exceptions were allowed for buildings there, it would really affect my property values. So again, I hope you'll really consider taking VAMU out of the mix here. Thank you. |
| 00:52:49.86 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:52:50.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:52:50.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:52:55.33 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. |
| 00:53:03.74 | Unknown | Sorry, Flora. I'm Lorette Rogers. Sausalito citizens have spoken loudly and consistently regarding the preservation of the character of our neighborhoods, our views, our parking, our traffic, our neighborhood businesses, and just the wonderful sense of community there. I really appreciate all the hard work and sticking to it to find this 330 Ebb Tide site. I want to strongly urge you to remove the HMU and VMU from the 7-Eleven sites and the 2015 Bridgeway sites. And just, you know, from the Rogers-Majoros families, you know, we want to preserve the legacy of what we have for our children and continue to provide low-income housing for our tenants. And so really appreciate your consideration and urge you to make this move. Thanks. |
| 00:54:04.76 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. |
| 00:54:08.55 | Nancy Osborne (Public Commenter) | I'm Nancy Osborne. I live on Kendall Court, which is in the north end of town. And I don't want to talk our neighborhoods against yours, but I don't think a single one of you lives in the north end of town. And I'm not sure any of you have an idea of the quality of life that is degraded with the amount that's gone on. I'm certainly in favor of the site that's been found on Ebtai. That's another north part of town. So are the malls, the small malls. I don't know how many of you come to Kitty's and have a hard time even finding a parking place at one of their slow evenings. I don't know how many of you know that we are in a real bottleneck as far as even getting out of town. Those of you in the southern part of town can whip out the other, well you never whip out of this town, but anyway, you can use a northern exit, a couple of them, |
| 00:55:04.16 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:55:07.16 | Nancy Osborne (Public Commenter) | but we're pretty much want to go out either bridgeway or from our house, go up on Rodeo, And you can't get into traffic after about 3.30 in the afternoon. And so I just have to echo all of those that say, let's keep our quality of life that we have in Sausalito as much as possible. Let's go ahead with this ebb tide, because I hope it will be a very low impact from the residents that it will attract. But going on and looking at all of these small business people and what would happen if they have to give up some of their parking to attract residents upstairs, I think the whole HMU, VMU situation is just something that Sausalito can do without. Thank you very much. |
| 00:55:58.59 | Mayor Withing | Thank you, Nancy. |
| 00:56:05.87 | Mayor Withing | Anybody else would like to comment? We're going to be winding this up. Last chance. Okay, so we're going to close public comment and bring this up here. Let's carry on with very briefly with some question times before we questioning. before we then make this a comment period. Let's remember again, clarifying technical questions. It's Rosenberg's rules. |
| 00:56:37.44 | Councilmember Leone | Can I go? |
| 00:56:38.15 | Mayor Withing | Please. |
| 00:56:38.69 | Councilmember Leone | Thank you. The two sites that are currently HMU sites, the 7-Eleven and the Olive Street But of course, people can build now and they can go up But let us know exactly What change would adding a VMU overlay on that make to what can currently be done right now? on those two sites. |
| 00:57:01.25 | Karen Warner | from a development capacity standpoint, you Zero. So all the VMU program is, is really It's to try to Better encourage second story residential. And the way it had originally been written was to only allow new second story uses to be residential no commercial and and since we heard back from the community and it's important to have the mix we're suggesting allowance for small commercial and the other component of the VMU is the affordability component but in terms of development capacity the 7-11 site, the Olive Bridgeway site today, can build to the same, you know, FAR density as it could with the VMU. |
| 00:57:55.37 | Councilmember Leone | So just to clarify, so the only difference, if we were somehow to get rid of the DMU, program on those two sites was that would be relating to the mix that The development capacity is exactly the same, but the mix of whether what they build is residential or commercial is somewhat different. Okay, thank you. |
| 00:58:07.52 | Unknown | to the next one. |
| 00:58:07.54 | Unknown | Right. |
| 00:58:08.21 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah. |
| 00:58:08.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:58:08.43 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And then, you know, the |
| 00:58:12.30 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Right. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:58:14.24 | Councilmember Leone | Thank you. |
| 00:58:14.34 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay. |
| 00:58:14.45 | Councilmember Leone | . |
| 00:58:16.23 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor. |
| 00:58:17.51 | Councilmember Leone | Okay. |
| 00:58:18.24 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yes, so although the development capacity is the same, wouldn't you agree that providing this overlay, this VMU framework, kind of this overlay, presents a a framework for layering like financial assistance. In other words, if we start doing programs where we are doing in lieu fees for development or what have you, that it raises the likelihood that high density development will happen. |
| 00:58:59.36 | Karen Warner | I wouldn't agree with that because we're talking about one affordable unit. So it's not like we're saying, The HMU I think has had more of a potential for that because you would have, you know, perceivably a 100% residential project. But with the VMU, You're talking about one affordable unit unless it's a sixth unit or greater project, which are going to be very, very few. in which case you have to have 20%. So I don't see it as, incentivizing you know, Thank you. doing you know, bringing in outside financing for, you know, providing one affordable unit. |
| 00:59:47.35 | Unknown | Thank you. uh, |
| 00:59:50.53 | Councilmember León | I have sort of a two-part question. If you want to answer it in two different things, that's fine, and I'll wait for the second part. But as far as the vertical mix use, so if you could just, A, give me a tutorial over of two of the two reasons why I think it's in the plan and one is just understanding that it would be apply in any commercial neighborhood one district is that true throughout Sausalito or is it just at these where wherever there's a CN1 district this would apply. |
| 01:00:23.23 | Karen Warner | it's CN1, CR, and CC. |
| 01:00:26.40 | Councilmember León | Right, so downtown, Old Town, or not downtown, the core downtown, Old Town, and in the other neighborhood district in the 7-Eleven area, Spring Street Valley, it would be in those areas, is that correct? |
| 01:00:27.06 | Karen Warner | Outtown. |
| 01:00:38.82 | Lily (City Clerk) | Right. Yeah. |
| 01:00:43.46 | Lily (City Clerk) | in addition to Caledonia Street. |
| 01:00:45.34 | Councilmember León | And Caledonia is CN1? CR. CR, right. So it's not just a pocket. It is spread throughout. Yes. Yes. Right. And as far as the – you mentioned there's been some questions about what we have to do and what it's nice to do. Is there a requirement in – and obviously the whole thing is subjective because it's putting it – there's no – it's up to the state to say we bless this one way or the other. There's no formal requirements there, but there are some formal requirements, but at the end of the day they have to agree with it in subjective and objective forms. |
| 01:00:47.39 | Lily (City Clerk) | CR. |
| 01:00:52.93 | Karen Warner | Yes. So, see you. |
| 01:01:15.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:01:15.05 | Mike Rogers (Public Commenter) | other. |
| 01:01:20.67 | Mike Rogers (Public Commenter) | Right, interpretation. |
| 01:01:21.97 | Unknown | subjective and objective form. |
| 01:01:25.97 | Councilmember León | that is there a requirement to have some sort of an affordability program in your housing element and is this the only piece in ours that addresses affordability directly? |
| 01:01:37.72 | Karen Warner | right so I just pulled out the statutes so 65583 section C identifies the six components of the overall housing plan that need to be addressed. 65583 is the component, assist in development of adequate housing to meet affordable housing needs. and When we first submitted the city's draft element to HCD, we didn't have a VMU or an HMU. we talked about and the fact that your current commercial allows for second story residential. We talked about, you know, some incentives to make that easier to do, reducing the CUP threshold, and that was not enough. You know, the state clearly said that is not enough. And that's where you know, part of the VMU came from. What can you do to really try to A encourage so you get some second story residential and why we can count know, 51 units under the commercial district capacity and is largely because the VMU is trying to incentivize that, and then the affordability component of, you know, one unit being affordable and it being spread throughout the city. So I think the VMU serves both the Rhena piece, And if you look at the commercial district capacity in red, and you'll see 28 under very low and 2 under low. Those are all the larger... commercial properties of eight-unit capacity. I believe there's one that's a six-unit capacity we squeezed in. If those no longer have VMU, they will not be in that category, and we will have a deficit in the RHNA. |
| 01:03:42.12 | Councilmember León | Just a butterfly because you brought, just trying to make sure I get. So it's not, A, it's not site-specific. It's district-specific. Right, right. So in terms of removing specific addresses, that's not the way it's drafted currently. You'd have to go back to a different way of doing it. Right. |
| 01:03:50.96 | Karen Warner | Right, right. |
| 01:03:58.47 | Karen Warner | Right. |
| 01:04:01.76 | Councilmember León | And it does, And that sort of just makes sure you answer my other question. So as far as an affordability component, this is what the only – is this the only program that directly addresses affordability other than size of structure or size of unit? because it's a drag-along for an inclusionary unit. |
| 01:04:20.42 | Karen Warner | Is it the only... Is it the only program that addresses affordability or is it |
| 01:04:25.89 | Councilmember León | directly, you know, versus saying, |
| 01:04:29.28 | Karen Warner | your other programs and you know we talk about doing an inclusionary study see that's not anything in place you don't have you know money you don't have a trust fund, Um, you don't have any other programs to facilitate the development of affordable units and and that's specifically what that spread the statute is there's other parts you know like with section eight that's that's conserving affordability so this is you know producing now |
| 01:05:00.86 | Mayor Withing | you |
| 01:05:05.24 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor? |
| 01:05:05.77 | Mayor Withing | Yes, Council Member Pfeiffer. |
| 01:05:07.07 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So section 65583 to whatever. C2. C2. Right. It mentions units per acre. And I know you mentioned that Mill Valley was 20 units per acre. And I know that when HCD was here, there was a reference to Sausalito using 23 units per acre, is that correct? |
| 01:05:35.01 | Karen Warner | Or, is that correct? Novato. |
| 01:05:37.63 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay, well. Novato did too, but I also heard that, I mean, what is, is Sausalito using 20 units per acre then, or 23? you Because I also heard that Sausalito was also using 23. |
| 01:05:47.84 | Karen Warner | that he always... No, the default density for Sausalito is 20. |
| 01:05:55.21 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah. |
| 01:05:55.67 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 01:05:55.72 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 01:05:55.78 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 01:05:55.80 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay. |
| 01:05:56.48 | Karen Warner | Okay. |
| 01:05:57.05 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | All right. So I don't have a question. |
| 01:06:03.39 | Mayor Withing | OK, so if there are no more questions, let's Given the discovery. |
| 01:06:11.04 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 01:06:11.38 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:06:12.96 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I guess that's one thing. |
| 01:06:17.32 | Unknown | Please. |
| 01:06:17.87 | Unknown | I didn't. |
| 01:06:18.08 | Councilmember León | So if you – just not to hammer this to death, but if we took out the vertical mixed-use component, which one could debate whether having the inclusionary aspect of office or not goes either way. It depends on your point of view on the second story. It's worked out rather well on Caledonia Street where we don't allow new office use on the second floor. But, you know, every neighborhood is different. We would have to come up with some other program in our amendment to meet both the total number of units as well as the affordable nature of some of them. |
| 01:06:54.86 | Karen Warner | If you took out the VMU, I feel fairly confident that you'd have a shortfall and you're very low and low in terms of the arena. Those would get moved and probably the capacity would need to be reduced, since you're not having really any incentive to do the second story residential. Thank you. |
| 01:07:18.81 | Unknown | Hmm. |
| 01:07:19.23 | Karen Warner | And then you would have the lack of adequate programs to assist in the development of new affordable units. |
| 01:07:19.25 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:07:29.49 | Councilmember León | It's half of your level of housing. Okay. Thank you. |
| 01:07:34.32 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Right. you |
| 01:07:35.30 | Councilmember León | Thank you. |
| 01:07:35.41 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. I need a follow-up question on that. So I thought that when I asked the question earlier and asked if it was a RENA issue, and you said it was actually a program |
| 01:07:37.10 | Unknown | Yeah, please. |
| 01:07:46.18 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | issue. And so now I'm hearing it's a RENA issue. |
| 01:07:49.74 | Karen Warner | I think you were referring to a variety of housing types, so I didn't want to get into that aspect. But in looking at the table, it does become an arena issue. |
| 01:08:02.36 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | How many units are we looking at with respect to RENA? |
| 01:08:06.77 | Karen Warner | So under the commercial district capacity, we have 51. That's all VMU. because the HMU, you know, if it goes away, it becomes VMU. And without the affordability requirement, without the |
| 01:08:19.63 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:08:25.60 | Karen Warner | Um, the encouragement for second story residential of the VMU program, the capacity member would need to be reevaluated. So the members would reduce and the affordability would most likely get pushed over to moderate. |
| 01:08:43.22 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So the fact that we're using 330 ebb tide, you're not making the assumption that the state – you can't make the assumption that the state density bonus might apply and they might include affordable units. with the very low income. |
| 01:08:57.07 | Karen Warner | the very low income units. You can never make that assumption, no. |
| 01:08:59.59 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And so, |
| 01:09:01.04 | Karen Warner | CD doesn't look at that? No, you can never assume someone's going to use a density bonus. |
| 01:09:02.74 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | No. |
| 01:09:06.27 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay. |
| 01:09:06.77 | Karen Warner | I mean, there's only been seven density bonuses in Marin in the last decade, so. |
| 01:09:11.97 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay, and I notice on the HCD website, that they were talking about counting ADUs and the aspect of a track record, which we heard. But it also said in lieu of a track record, if the city council takes regulatory action, regulatory relief for that. And so it seems to me that we have taken regulatory action with, I mean, above, I mean, we've passed a new ordinance with the, for new ADUs. We have created an amnesty program for existing ADUs. And we've, we, based on the numbers I received from staff, there are a lot right now kind of going through the funnel in that. And I'm not counting the ones who didn't apply because of, you know, following verbal discussions. They just didn't follow up. So, I guess my question is, If you look at the HCD website, it says either or. If you don't have a track record, you take the regulatory relief, and then you can count it. And... in hearing HCD it sounded like she was saying, oh, you don't have a track record therefore you cannot count it. That doesn't make sense to me because it seems to contradict their website, and I was wondering if you could comment on that. |
| 01:10:34.12 | Karen Warner | Well, we are counting it. We're counting 20 ADUs. If you look at this, and that's based on what has occurred, we will maximize the number that we can count during this cycle. We will base the tremendous track record you've had and project that forward to the next cycle. So absolutely. But again, it's a three-legged stool. We can't, you know. |
| 01:11:00.07 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Well, I know we're counting them, but I was told that there was a limit, a cap, on how many we could count in this cycle because we didn't have a track record. And that was on, I mean, this is what she was doing. |
| 01:11:11.43 | Karen Warner | No, no. We're counting what's actually. So the new ADUs, we have six, and those are ones that have permits or are close to getting their permits. As of the last updating of this chart, which is, you know, a few weeks old, we had 14 that were amnesty ADUs. |
| 01:11:32.26 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So you're saying, but I know we've got 40 in line for, you know, being reviewed. Or that's what the email that I saw. And I guess my question is what you're saying then, if we had more approved, we could count more? We could count, we could max that up? |
| 01:11:48.54 | Karen Warner | So the flexibility that Melinda Coy has offered the city is because 2014 is both in your prior housing element and in your future housing element, RENA. And we are getting a lot of these amnesty applications that will help you. So in the year 2014 for your ADUs, you can choose whether to count them in this current cycle or the future, but you will absolutely count every every permit. |
| 01:12:21.92 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Every permit, yeah. In other words, if we had... if we had those applications come through, then we could apply that to that number. |
| 01:12:34.51 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | If we had the ADUs, it goes through the... Great. Because, I mean, based on the numbers that I'm seeing, you know, and I'll reference the email that I got, but it seems to me that we have you know, more than enough to meet that from a very low income. So thank you. |
| 01:12:59.16 | Mayor Withing | Um, I need to ask Karen to clarify her comment. because what council member Pfeiffer is just actually believes that you've answered is that because of our ADU track record, we don't need to employ the VMU program. MS. Right. Right. MR. That is what, Councilmember Pfeiffer, has just asked you. MS. Right. MR. Right. Thank you. |
| 01:13:21.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:13:21.74 | Karen Warner | Right. |
| 01:13:22.87 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:13:22.92 | Karen Warner | Right. |
| 01:13:23.60 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:13:24.74 | Karen Warner | Okay. |
| 01:13:25.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:13:25.99 | Mayor Withing | Thanks. So could you clarify your answer? |
| 01:13:26.04 | Karen Warner | Thanks. Right. While you will certainly count all the ADUs that receive their permits in 2014 in whichever cycle is most beneficial to the city, Um, it will not replace the VMU. |
| 01:13:45.03 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And Mr. Mayor, if I could just clarify, actually the question was specifically targeting the because when Council Member Leon was discussing the VMU with respect to Um... the program requirement. it bled into the requirement for RENA and you said, that we would lose all of our very low income. you know, units or a sizable chunk because a lot of that number is currently being accommodated with the HMU. And so that's why I asked the questions, and my questions were specifically targeted at the RENA. Okay. Thank you. |
| 01:14:25.46 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. Is there any other questions before we move into the comment period? Okay, so then let's move into the comment period. |
| 01:14:38.45 | Councilmember León | Well, I'll just – I'll lead off. So I think it's good to put the horizontal mixed use aside. I'm not a fan of it, and I wasn't a fan of it. I understand why it was considered, because it does kind of go contradictory to these neighborhood commercial district concepts in general, and there are various things that flow off of that traffic or being able to walk to certain things versus having to drive. So I think that's good that we found solutions that removes that particular component. From what I understand from what we've talked about in prior meetings and tonight as well, Um, The concept of the vertical mix use is being spread throughout the town. It's not concentrated in one area. and that development capacity of any particular property is not being increased through anything we're doing So to me, those are all good things. This is never going to be perfect. It's never going to make everybody happy. But I think this is a good compromise. And what I would say to folks in the Spring Street area is that, you know, the story polls went up in your neighborhood, in a sense, about this issue, and you came out. And, uh, and you made your opinions known, and how this has flowed on... Here, you know, there was a committee that had many public meetings, as some of you are aware, over long periods of time, and these ideas have bounced around. And then they put forward their best guess as to what's going to solve this problem. and then it comes here for you to comment, even though those other hearings were also open public hearings and could have commented. So... I think at the end, a different solution was crafted, and it's not sort of win or lose. We crafted a better solution in a group setting of thinking this all through. So I appreciate your comments and your energies coming out. I think this is a good – it's not perfect, but a good compromise because we'll never get to the perfect solution for the current scenario. There are some things legislation in the works in Sacramento to possibly change. sort of some things around this whole process that could impact the next housing cycle. We'll see how quickly they go through. But we still have some other tools that we've talked about tonight and in previous meetings that we can do that could hopefully offset any need for kind of a huge project like the Cup Factory site in Quartamadera in Sausalito. We don't – I think no one – I don't care what affordability is in that site. It's just an ugly building, no matter who lives in it. That, at the end of the day, I think we all can agree. We don't want to have just a bunch of ugly buildings, no matter what's going on inside those buildings, whether it be or affordable units or just market rate. So thanks to all of you for coming out. My personal opinion is that, you know, this is the public process at work, and we made it a little bit better working together. |
| 01:17:39.66 | Unknown | better. |
| 01:17:42.95 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. |
| 01:17:43.86 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor, can I speak? So this is not the first time that Sausalito has had a housing element that HCD Sacramento said, good job, we like this. It also happened in, I believe, 2004. And the entire town turned out, half the town turned out and said, we can't do this. and We have to listen to the people. Why would we do more than what the law requires? What we found out today is that we have this VMU program not because of Rena. In fact, From what I'm looking at, the latest communication from city staff, we've got 61 existing ADU applications. 13 have been approved, 4 were not. That's 44 currently going through the pike, and those are existing ADUs, all of which can apply. to arena We have, and these are existing, this is density that's already in the hills, already straining our sewers, our roads. So we might as well count them. |
| 01:18:54.82 | Unknown | You might as well |
| 01:18:57.08 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And the VMU program If. this is only there, not because of RENA, not because of the variety of housing statutes, but because it's a program, Let's take a look at other programs. Let's look at other options. That's the first time I'm hearing that the VMU is here for just because it's a program. We've got to have other options here. Because this VMU, as has been pointed out, goes through town. That's high density end to end. That could dramatically change the small town character of our town. It goes from Old Town obstructing views in Old Town, traffic problems, parking problems, all the way to our historic downtown through Spring Valley. And it doesn't need to be. It doesn't need to happen. We have options. Are we doing this right or are we doing this easy? In my opinion, right now, We need to stop. Listen to the people. and look at all of our options. And we haven't done that yet. There is no need for this VMU. I ask my fellow council members to reconsider to ask staff to go back and explore other programs and to adhere to a housing element that preserves our small-town character and that has minimal impact to our environment, because what we're doing here tonight is going to have long-term ramifications down the road. and it will change Sausalito in very fundamental ways. |
| 01:20:43.49 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. You're fine. |
| 01:20:46.40 | Councilmember Leone | Bye. |
| 01:20:46.43 | Mayor Withing | Bye. |
| 01:20:46.90 | Councilmember Leone | I'll go. |
| 01:20:51.05 | Councilmember Leone | Well, it's good that we eliminated the HMU because although it's... just provided for housing on the bottom, on the lower floors, it added incentives that could possibly increase the density. But the thing we have to pay attention to on the VMU is that we get worried about these programs and fighting against the state and not letting them impose anything on us. And it's a very simple change on the VMU. All it's doing, it's not increasing density in any way, and the same thing on the two sites that most of you are here for. It's not changing density in any way. All that it changes, minor, actually, because we have mix, is what's going to be on the upper floor, whether it'll be commercial or whether it'll be residential or mix, which is a good compromise. And it's very important that we keep a mix when we have these neighborhoods. That's what you've told us. Vertical mix use is mixed use. That's what we want. And I can tell you, I actually live right next to a VMU. I live downtown, and my property goes lengthwise, and I have three apartments that go to Bridgeway. And so they're all affected by VMU. And if there were. And I have a residence and I have offices. So I know what they're like. And it's important to have residents, especially downtown, because it makes a difference when... You know, at night, offices go home. You want someone there to give the neighborhood. My neighbors work with us, and we have neighborhood block parties, and we interact as real neighbors, making it real neighborhoods. They're the ones that are concerned. Downtown, we have problems about whether... Owners will make improvements on the facades, but when you have People that live there, they're more interested in that. Burglaries, there are people that live there because it's a real neighborhood, especially downtown. And less traffic during the day, which we need. But probably the most important part of having people in these commercial areas and not just have all commercial is you exemplify it right here. There is not one business owner here. It's all residents. And if you have... of VMU, when you put residents in these things, you make any changes to density, that makes a big difference because residents are going to come out and stop that. There's not one business owner here because it's not going to matter to them. So it's really important that we keep this as mixed use. And the thing to really bear in mind is that this... is not adding anything. I think we have to be really careful. HMU did add these incentives. There are no other incentives. It's the same density. The difference is whether you have a residence up there or a commercial, and this is a great compromise because we allow commercial, small commercial, we allow a residence, so that adds to the... the community feel. That's what we really want. And I think historically, I think that's the way it was done. When you go downtown, they had Businesses on the bottom and they had residents on the top and that's what we're looking at so I would say, and at this point, I think we have, I think it's really important to understand, we had some problem with the HMU, but this is a great infill strategy. There are no wind cups. And I think people, I'll just stop right there. Thank you. I'll stay by the bell. |
| 01:23:55.58 | Councilmember Weiner | Okay. Well, after that, I really don't. There's not much more to say. I think it's great that the HMU is going to be removed. That's the best news I've heard. And I think that... I think we move ahead with this plan. In 2015, we could always go back. always go back and change things. That doesn't mean what we do as we move forward, that that's going to stay. And don't mumble that, oh, no, it doesn't happen. It does happen. we listen to you we got rid of the HMU and that doesn't mean that we can't look at this to see what other sites unfold if you look we looked at CN2 down where the shell station is and they looked at it and said well it was too small to fit into that but if you really look many many years ago That was owned. Dario's Pizza, the property next door, and the Shell station were owned by the same people. So that doesn't mean in the future that some of these properties can be changed, especially the commercial ones, and allows us to make these changes to even make it that we remove maybe the 7-11, remove the 2015 bridgeway. So... Even though you think it's over, it isn't over. It's never over. |
| 01:25:22.74 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. So, I want to make my position quite clear on the housing element and housing element law. I actually... don't think particularly that the way the state and the policies that the state have adopted through its House and Aliment Law and the mandates that it imposes on local government is at all very thoughtful. I don't think they actually probably work very well. But they're the law. and I know many of you disagree with me on this. But in my view, we need to strive towards finding the lowest impact housing element that will be certified by the state. I am delighted that We have strong indications from HCD that by removing the HMU program, because we have identified this larger site and relaxed its constraints a little that we can include it and get rid of the HMU. Thank you. It's very clear that that was going to have an impact on some of the commercial neighborhoods. There's no question. Uh, But at the time, in 2012, the City Council at the time thought that that was the lowest impact strategy that could be certified. Now we have a strategy that is and the Uh, than that, as Council Member Leone said, not perfect. but it's never going to be perfect. I believe her that we need to get our housing element certified, get the next housing element certified, and move on. We have wasted, we have put a lot of money into this. We could have built streets with this money. We could have built, we could have repaired sewers with this money. We have, and partly that is the state's fault that it's forcing local governments to do But in the end... But you need to strike a balance and find a balance that complies with the state law and tries to find the least impact And then roll up your sleeves And like me, put your energy into actually changing the people in Sacramento so that these laws change. I'm a supporter of where we've got to tonight. I think we need to move forward with this. It's the lowest impact strategy I can see at this moment in time. Okay, so that's ended the three-minute comments. If we want to have rebuttals of one minute each, then please go ahead. |
| 01:28:15.44 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I do have consideration from my fellow council members. So we apparently need this, according to staff, there's a case that, an argument that VMU is needed to meet the programs, but it doesn't say how big the program has to be. Why does it have to be end to end? Vice Mayor Theodoris mentioned he liked the idea, if you're downtown, if you could pick two parcels downtown and spare Spring Valley and Old Town. there's no reason why we have to put this overlay Everywhere. A program can be Small. It just, it, it, There's no reason for us to bring this high density end to end. And the second point I want to say is I've heard, oh, this isn't changing density in any way. Where have we heard this before? I have heard so many things that when I do my due diligence and I do my research and I do my reading and I talk to other lawyers and I look at other housing elements and I find out that that's not the case. I believe the VMU is a dangerous, treacherous area. I think we're getting into muddy waters with it. And I think it's a framework for high density. And there's no need for it. There is no need. So I would recommend... And I would make a motion that we limit the VMU program. Actually, my first motion is that we direct staff to go and explore other programs that would replace the VMU. Do I have a second? |
| 01:30:01.90 | Unknown | What's the question, Steph? uh... Thank you. |
| 01:30:04.77 | Councilmember León | So just to clarify, you know, in my memory, in both the CN1 districts and the CC district and in the CR district, there already is mixed use on the upper floors. It's just a remnant of history of what happened with each individual property rather than being zoned that way for all time. So it required one thing or another. So as far as what's changing. |
| 01:30:04.79 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:30:04.82 | Unknown | Uh-huh. |
| 01:30:32.82 | Councilmember León | What's actually changing? as far as having either residential or commercial on the second floor in any of the neighborhood commercial districts, which are 7-Eleven, Spring Valley area, the CR, which is Caledonia Street, the CC, which is the historic district, and the CN1, which is at the other – in Old Town. What's actually changing here? |
| 01:30:50.64 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:30:50.67 | Unknown | We've seen it. |
| 01:30:57.41 | Karen Warner | so what is changing is and Thank you. limit second story or upper story uses to a maximum of a thousand square feet of commercial. Okay? |
| 01:31:15.31 | Councilmember León | So, for new construction. Is that right? |
| 01:31:17.27 | Karen Warner | Yes. And then there's an affordability component when residential is provided, that there needs to be one affordable unit. Unless there's six or more units provided, there's 20% affordable units. And that's all that's changing. |
| 01:31:35.97 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. Okay. Does anybody else want to say anything? |
| 01:31:42.14 | Councilmember León | MR. Yeah, so I could just – MR. One minute. MR. The reason why you asked that question is you can make an argument by having mixed – I mean, we heard the opposite argument being made about why you should have the horizontal mixed use, that it – by not having – |
| 01:31:42.68 | Mayor Withing | One minute. |
| 01:31:53.24 | Councilmember León | homogenous type of development on a site, it makes it harder to actually accomplish development on that site. Well, why not? The same thing applies if you have it on the second floor. It doesn't make a difference if it's on the first and the second floor. It's not necessarily conducive to a certain type of developer or development coming in and – because that's the way it is right now. And we haven't seen this sort of bloom of mixed use high density development in Sausalito. I mean, I can't recall in the last 15 years my involvement on the planning commission in here, a single multi-unit building, more than two units being constructed in Sausalito, so other than the senior housing projects. There may be a couple condos, but that's about conversion, so that's about it. Anybody else? |
| 01:32:48.53 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We all know this VMU changes everything. And it changes everything from end to end. There's no need to make this program huge. There's no need to include Caledonia Street, Spring Valley, Old Town, there's no need. we can make this program one parcel There's just no need. And I agree, the lowest impact housing element. that HCD will certify. Well, they haven't. set any parameters around how big this program should be. In fact, we haven't even researched what other programs are out there that might be more minimal impact than the VMU. So I think this is hasty. I would I would move to limit, I have another motion, it won't be seconded, but I'll move to limit the VMU program. in Sausalito. |
| 01:33:49.41 | Councilmember León | a little bit too black. |
| 01:33:52.60 | Mayor Withing | Do we have any seconds for Council Member Pfeiffer's motion? |
| 01:33:55.49 | Councilmember León | First motion. I understand the motion, the second motion. |
| 01:33:58.88 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay, I'll be more specific. I recommend that I move that we direct city staff to revisit revisit the VMU program to reduce its applicability to one or two parcels. |
| 01:34:19.57 | Councilmember León | which parcels would |
| 01:34:20.46 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I don't know. I'm directing city staff to do the research and come back. We already know that there are at least two parcels out there that would impede views and impact many, many people. |
| 01:34:20.50 | Councilmember León | Thank you. |
| 01:34:33.32 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And so presumably we would not pick those. because... There will be a dogfight there. And why go there? We don't have to. You know, we just don't have to. |
| 01:34:52.04 | Unknown | Can I ask? |
| 01:34:52.96 | Councilmember León | So my understanding from what you presented tonight in previous meetings and my understanding of your conversations with the HCD is that there are multiple reasons for having the vertical mixed use and having two sites, two spot zoned as vertical mixed use, as was the case with the HMU, would not meet – not get them to certify this. Is that correct? |
| 01:34:53.52 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:35:05.57 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:35:21.58 | Councilmember León | or is that a good approximation of the conversations that you've had? DR. That's correct. |
| 01:35:25.06 | Karen Warner | That's correct, right. Right. |
| 01:35:28.57 | Mayor Withing | Karen, could you put your microphone on? Nobody heard that answer. |
| 01:35:32.15 | Karen Warner | That is correct. |
| 01:35:33.89 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So just to clarify that question, you're saying that there is more reason to include the VMU beyond the fact that we are meeting this program requirement now? because we've just made the case that we have a slew of ADUs in line to get approved that would meet the RHNA, so we know that's not an issue. you |
| 01:35:56.24 | Karen Warner | I agree with that. |
| 01:35:56.26 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So... I, |
| 01:35:57.04 | Karen Warner | I don't believe you would have – okay, as I mentioned before, under the commercial district capacity, we have 51. So HMU is gone. That's all VMU. If we take the affordability requirement away, so there's, you don't have a program now that's directly Um, you know, a proactive program to provide new affordable housing Not only is the 51-unit number going to decrease, because your capacity is going to need to be reevaluated on all of these sites in terms of what's realistic for residential, but the affordability will get moved over to moderate, most likely, and you're not going to have enough ADUs to make up that shortfall. |
| 01:36:54.21 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Well, we have 44 in line right now being processed for approval. Yes, for, yeah, very, very low income, ADUs. |
| 01:37:04.62 | Karen Warner | Well, ADUs, if you look at the affordability distribution, so for example, under the |
| 01:37:04.71 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | It would be. |
| 01:37:12.42 | Karen Warner | they don't all get counted for very low. It's based on the survey. So it's a percentage. |
| 01:37:16.49 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I'm sorry, the ADUs I'm mentioning, the 44 units, are not up here. |
| 01:37:20.86 | Karen Warner | They're not up here. Right. But we base the affordability on any ADUs, Amnesty, Future, based on the affordability in the survey. So they're distributed. |
| 01:37:20.89 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | They're not a... |
| 01:37:31.64 | Karen Warner | based on the percentages towards very low, low, and moderate. |
| 01:37:36.15 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Well, a quick look at the applications would tell us the size of the ADUs and would tell us the affordability of that unit. So clearly, and the city survey that was done in 2010 indicated that the vast majority would fall under the very low |
| 01:37:45.09 | Karen Warner | So clearly, And in the school. |
| 01:37:57.10 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | income uh, quadrant for the Rhena. So we actually have a city survey that backs that up. |
| 01:38:03.87 | Karen Warner | And that's exactly what this is based on. And I don't have the percentages, but as you can see, under existing ADUs, we've got four credited to very low. 8 to low and 2 to moderate. That distribution of those 14 is based on the survey. The issue, as you know, with over counting ADUs and minimizing the infill strategy is our three-legged stool. Our infill leg is going to be far too short. |
| 01:38:37.82 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | to me this is not a three-legged stool. This is when you've got 51 on a VMU and you've only got four for existing ADUs, that's a real lopsided stool. I mean, to me, this is high density. I would take exception to the assumption that the ADUs being processed by the ADUs would have that distribution. And we are not yet counting the new ADUs that are being that have submitted applications as well. So the 44 were just existing ADUs. that are seeking amnesty. not counting the new ADUs. |
| 01:39:20.74 | Karen Warner | We have six new ADUs that are counted there. |
| 01:39:24.33 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah, but there are additional new ADUs in the pike. So I guess what I'm saying is, folks, I see there's just no reason to do this VMU. There's just no reason. And we're carpeting the town. We're making mini neighborhoods in neighborhoods. |
| 01:39:28.95 | Unknown | I guess what I'm |
| 01:39:42.37 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | you know, with this VMU. And our small businesses need Affordable offices as well. I mean, that second floor allowing commercial businesses allows businesses to survive in town. |
| 01:40:00.65 | Councilmember Leone | I just want to be clear. On the VMU program, is there any change in density? Is it only, as we said before, there is a change in use, whether it goes from commercial or residential. By the way, I understand... We have different ones. Caledonia has a different rule already. They only allow residential above and such. Is that correct? |
| 01:40:21.08 | Karen Warner | Right. There's the VMU, as I as I mentioned, it's only to IN you know, more encourage the second story residential, but now allowing up to 1,000 square feet of commercial on the second story and to have the affordability requirement. But no change in density, no change in FAR, no change in parking, you know, nothing like that. |
| 01:40:41.77 | Councilmember Leone | And again, going back to the two apostles that most people are here for, Would it make any difference in being able to put – in terms of height? No. Not at all? No, no, no, no. |
| 01:40:50.48 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 01:40:50.51 | Unknown | No, not at all. Thank you. |
| 01:40:51.91 | Councilmember Leone | Thank you. |
| 01:40:51.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:40:52.11 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. Okay, so I think we've exhausted this topic. |
| 01:41:03.19 | Mayor Withing | Excuse me. Okay, so could I – is there any second for Council Member Pfeiffer's motions? Okay, could I have an alternative motion? |
| 01:41:20.19 | Councilmember Leone | I'm not sure. I moved to direct staff to modify the VMU program. Actually, should you put it up here or? |
| 01:41:34.47 | Councilmember Leone | I MOVE TO DIRECT STAFF TO MODIFY THE VMU PROGRAM. It's try it again. Right. I moved a direct staff to modify the VMU program and program 8A in the housing element to allow upper four commercial. Thank you. I want to be clear that it's per the report that would be both a mix of upper floor and residential. Take it. Okay. it would allow both. both commercial and... Okay. Is there anything... and proceed with public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council on the modified VMU program. |
| 01:42:10.43 | Mayor Withing | Do you need separate motions here? No, we don't need separate motions. |
| 01:42:14.38 | Councilmember Leone | Zoom off. |
| 01:42:15.01 | Mayor Withing | Yeah. |
| 01:42:18.19 | Councilmember Leone | And number two, direct staff to initiate an amendment to the 2009-2014 housing element to remove the HMU program. Program 8B in the housing element. 330 Ebtide Avenue to the sites inventory. Proceed with a focused review of the draft housing element amendment with the State Department of Housing and Community Development. proceed with a public hearing before the Planning Commission and upon receipt of HCD's compliance letter on the amendment. Proceed with a public hearing before the City Council And upon adoption, submit the adopted housing element to HCD. |
| 01:42:56.40 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. Do I have a second for that motion? I'll give you a second. |
| 01:43:00.74 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor, I just want to clarify. |
| 01:43:02.76 | Mayor Withing | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:43:03.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:43:03.13 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | that Item one is just modifying the VMU program, not removing it. And item two is removing the HMU program and replacing it with 330 Ebtide, correct? |
| 01:43:17.07 | Mayor Withing | That is what I'm saying. |
| 01:43:18.39 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So, no, and my question is can we split those? Can we have two separate votes? Because I would vote yes on two and I would vote no on one. |
| 01:43:28.01 | Mayor Withing | I'm perfectly okay having two separate votes. unless we want to have a vote to make a decision, but I don't think we need to go that far. Okay, Lily, could you do the roll call on |
| 01:43:37.12 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:43:37.17 | Unknown | I don't know. |
| 01:43:37.24 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:43:43.68 | Mayor Withing | First item one and then item two, please. |
| 01:43:46.62 | Lily (City Clerk) | For item one, Councilmember Pfeiffer? |
| 01:43:52.66 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Get back to me. I need to think through this. |
| 01:43:55.09 | Councilmember Weiner | Yes. |
| 01:43:57.64 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | come |
| 01:43:57.98 | Lily (City Clerk) | Thank you. |
| 01:43:58.03 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Remember Leon? |
| 01:43:58.97 | Lily (City Clerk) | Bye. |
| 01:43:59.04 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yes. |
| 01:43:59.71 | Lily (City Clerk) | Thank you. |
| 01:43:59.75 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | you |
| 01:43:59.78 | Lily (City Clerk) | Thank you. |
| 01:44:00.44 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Bye. |
| 01:44:00.96 | Lily (City Clerk) | you |
| 01:44:01.05 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Mayor Theodora. |
| 01:44:01.91 | Lily (City Clerk) | Yes. |
| 01:44:01.98 | Mayor Withing | Yes. |
| 01:44:03.04 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I think. |
| 01:44:03.26 | Lily (City Clerk) | Thank you. |
| 01:44:03.27 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 01:44:03.36 | Mayor Withing | Yes. |
| 01:44:05.33 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | What I'm struggling with is I hate the VMU program, but I like the fact that this is requiring upper floor commercial, but I think it's still muddy, so I'll say no. So that carries for one. |
| 01:44:16.82 | Lily (City Clerk) | Thank you. |
| 01:44:17.15 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:44:19.51 | Lily (City Clerk) | And the second item, which is the removal of the HMU program and the 330 Uptide Avenue site to the site's inventory. Councilmember Pfeiffer. |
| 01:44:30.38 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yes, and thanks again city staff and the M group for identifying this. |
| 01:44:36.11 | Lily (City Clerk) | Councilmember Weiner? |
| 01:44:37.72 | Councilmember Weiner | Yes. |
| 01:44:38.95 | Lily (City Clerk) | Councilmember León. . |
| 01:44:40.10 | Councilmember Weiner | So, |
| 01:44:40.21 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. |
| 01:44:41.19 | Lily (City Clerk) | Vice Mayor Theodore? Yes. Mayor Withing. |
| 01:44:43.96 | Mayor Withing | Yes, thank you. |
| 01:44:44.79 | Lily (City Clerk) | Thank you. Carries 5-0. |
| 01:44:47.18 | Mayor Withing | Okay, I will call a five-minute recess. Thank you. |
| 01:44:57.11 | Mayor Withing | Okay. The next items on the agenda are public hearings and We have 3 to 4. Um. matters to consider. uh, Because of the subject matter, I think the staff agree it would be sensible for us to hear these in separate chunks. and to solicit public comment on each one. It could drag us out a bit, but, you know. |
| 01:45:39.19 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:45:39.95 | Mayor Withing | . So these are very distinct matters that need explanation, and that's, I think, the staff recommendation that we do so. So are we okay with that up here? I think it makes sense. Okay. Okay. Okay. So with that, over to Lily or Karen or however you guys are running this. |
| 01:45:53.16 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:46:06.80 | Mayor Withing | And Karen, could you get really close to that microphone? |
| 01:46:10.02 | Unknown | Okay, here it is. That was perfect. Okay. |
| 01:46:10.33 | Mayor Withing | you Okay. |
| 01:46:12.37 | Councilmember León | Ha ha ha. Thank you. |
| 01:46:13.30 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:46:13.33 | Councilmember León | Thank you. i have the same problem i was told we have to stop |
| 01:46:15.71 | Unknown | you Bye. |
| 01:46:18.27 | Karen Warner | Okay. Phase two, we are on to the ordinance implementation. Project overview, we are on the Track 1 Zoning Ordinance Amendments, and we are tonight at the Circle City Council hearings to adopt. |
| 01:46:42.57 | Karen Warner | So you've seen this slide many times before. The housing element has several programs that we're in the process of implementing. And tonight we have before you three of the ordinances. and the three ordinances we have before you are required for the streamlining of the housing element through HCD. The density bonus ordinance, the reasonable accommodation ordinance, and the SB2. ordinance addressing emergency shelters and transitional housing, Tonight we will only be... focusing on the emergency shelter component, the transitional and supportive housing and SROs is going back to the Planning Commission and we'll be back to you shortly. So first, the density bonus, it's mandated in state law. You used to be able to just go under the state statutes. You didn't necessarily have to have a local ordinance. Well, that's changed. You have to have a local density bonus ordinance, which the city did. And what we're doing is updating it to make it consistent with current state law, which essentially grants density bonuses ranging between 5 to up to 35% in exchange for providing a certain percentage and affordability of units. In addition to the density bonus, the statutes provide between one, two, or three concessions or incentives. and density bonuses only apply to projects with at least five units. |
| 01:48:21.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:48:25.93 | Karen Warner | An example of a density bonus that is eligible for the maximum 35% increase would be a 10 unit project that included 20% or two units that were low income. So, de-restricted minimum of 30 year affordability for low income units. With that, the project would be eligible for a 35% density increase |
| 01:48:37.04 | Unknown | 20. |
| 01:48:37.34 | Unknown | . |
| 01:48:53.73 | Karen Warner | which gets rounded up, so a 10 unit project could be increased to a 14 unit project. |
| 01:49:03.85 | Karen Warner | What we did in this largely actually came out of the HMU discussion, maybe I shouldn't ever mention that word again in Sausalito, I don't know. in the attempt to protect the views. And so while there's not a whole lot of discretion jurisdictions have with density bonus, and there is the ability in the and concessions and incentives to establish tears in you know which incentives the city is and preferring to offer versus those that are the least preferred incentives. And so that's what the draft ordinance that the Planning Commission recommended approval of has, is this system of tiering. and the second tier Concessions would be required to undergo city council review in addition to planning commission both tiers of incentives and concessions would be required to have a pro forma demonstrating that the incentives are necessary for the affordability of the project. And this identifies what the two tiers consist of. The first tier, which would just require review decision by the Planning Commission, is minimum, reduce minimum setbacks, reduce lot sizes or dimensions, reduce common private open space. Allowance for an increased maximum building coverage or maximum floor area ratio and approval of mixed use zoning if it reduces residential development costs. Tier 2 incentives that would have another level of discretion through the City Council and are clearly stated then in the draft ordinance to be less preferred are reductions in parking beyond the state alternative parking standards. increases in building heights and any other regulatory incentives or concessions that aren't compliant with the municipal code, such as impacts to primary views. So staff's recommendation is to introduce an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Sausalito amending the applicability requirements, incentives, concessions, approval requirements, and other criteria for density bonus projects and continue the second reading to July 8th. |
| 01:51:47.81 | Mayor Withing | Thank you, Karen. Okay, any clarifying questions from the dais? |
| 01:51:57.66 | Mayor Withing | Okay, Councilor Pfeiffer. |
| 01:51:58.14 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I noticed in the staff report package that Planning Commissioner Keegan voted no on this. And I was wondering if you recalled the reason why. The Planning Commission minutes just show action minutes and don't provide reasons. And I didn't have time to hunt through the video stream of the Planning Commission. |
| 01:52:30.72 | Lily (City Clerk) | My recollection is that he stated that he didn't have enough time to review the ordinances. There may have been other reasons, but that's what I remember. |
| 01:52:37.03 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | They're Okay, thank you. |
| 01:52:42.32 | Councilmember Leone | I just, Karen... I just want to be clear. You said these are required by law for streamlining, but my understanding is these are required by law, period, correct? |
| 01:52:51.72 | Karen Warner | right exactly |
| 01:52:52.12 | Councilmember Leone | Exactly. We have to have these. Right. This helps us with streamlining. We have them. But even if we didn't go for streamlining, we have to do this. |
| 01:52:53.52 | Karen Warner | Right. |
| 01:52:58.75 | Karen Warner | Exactly, exactly. |
| 01:53:01.13 | Councilmember Leone | Thank you. And, Maybe one follow-up. Just go for another. |
| 01:53:04.56 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:53:04.68 | Karen Warner | Hold on. |
| 01:53:05.15 | Unknown | Thank you. Yeah. |
| 01:53:07.21 | Councilmember Leone | And I'd like to know the The state law provides for density bonus. And even if we didn't have a density bonus law, we would have we would be subject to the density bonus. provisions. But what I'd like to know is, Thank you. In this proposed ordinance, what is different than what is required by law? Is there anything additional? We know the tiers are somewhat different, but anything else other than what's required by law? |
| 01:53:37.02 | Karen Warner | I'm going to have to pull out the draft ordinance. The modifications were you know, with the work with the subcommittee, and to give greater definition to the city's benefit so it's it's nothing that is anymore stringent than state law so there are you know some some minor and clarifications in in wording and then the tearing of course |
| 01:54:03.06 | Councilmember Leone | But nothing that gives developers any greater incentives than is required by law? |
| 01:54:06.03 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 01:54:06.05 | Unknown | Oh, yeah. |
| 01:54:07.08 | Karen Warner | I'm going to go. |
| 01:54:09.22 | Unknown | No. |
| 01:54:10.77 | Councilmember Leone | I have this memory of you. |
| 01:54:11.65 | Councilmember León | So in the state law, and we just don't have it, and you're looking for it, so it's not just a density bonus of 35 percent, for example. It's these other concessions to other requirements about lot size. That's all part of the current state law. Is that correct? Right. Like everything that's in the staff report you had reduced lot setbacks lot sizes building increase building coverage increase if you're all that's already in the state |
| 01:54:34.38 | Unknown | Oh, everything is good. |
| 01:54:34.97 | Unknown | and the staff report. |
| 01:54:35.70 | Karen Warner | Right. |
| 01:54:44.66 | Karen Warner | Yes, yes. |
| 01:54:47.07 | Councilmember León | And just having a it would require review and decision by planning commission but in a sense if it's required by state law how would that you know the players is is no you can't have uh... smaller lot size then the applicants is will say well that i can what have you |
| 01:55:09.79 | Karen Warner | so and that's essentially part of what that planning commission review would be because for those and incentives or concessions. If the city is to deny them, they need to be able to make findings, one of which is, you know, it's against state or federal law, or another is that it's a public health and safety hazard. But the more Typical finding that could be made is that concession or incentive is not necessary for the affordability of the project So that's why the city is requiring the pro forma so that you have that information |
| 01:55:50.37 | Councilmember León | Okay. So all of these things in both tiers are what's in the state law, there's nothing additional being added? |
| 01:56:00.75 | Councilmember Leone | Thank you. |
| 01:56:00.77 | Mary Wagner | No. |
| 01:56:01.27 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 01:56:04.36 | Councilmember Leone | We currently have a density bonus ordinance Yes, the city does. And how long have we had that? |
| 01:56:07.62 | Karen Warner | Yes, the city does. Wow. |
| 01:56:10.69 | Councilmember Leone | 2002. 2002. And then can you tell us how many times it's been taken advantage of so far? Yeah. |
| 01:56:11.13 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:56:12.21 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 01:56:12.24 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:56:12.31 | Councilmember León | Thank you. |
| 01:56:12.36 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:56:17.88 | Councilmember León | and it's just a... |
| 01:56:19.04 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:56:19.31 | Councilmember Leone | Never, no. |
| 01:56:19.35 | Mary Wagner | No. |
| 01:56:19.61 | Councilmember León | Thank you. |
| 01:56:19.82 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:56:19.85 | Councilmember León | Thank you. |
| 01:56:20.17 | Mary Wagner | No. I think just the senior housing. I don't even know if they got one. They did? |
| 01:56:20.54 | Councilmember León | Thank you. |
| 01:56:26.72 | Lily (City Clerk) | They used the provisions that were in the senior housing overlay district in the zoning ordinance. |
| 01:56:33.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:56:33.69 | Councilmember León | I remember asking them for a pro forma and they, |
| 01:56:36.93 | Unknown | That was not smart at the time. Mr. Mayor. |
| 01:56:40.71 | Councilmember León | Thank you. |
| 01:56:40.84 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor. Yes. So regarding the Tier 1 and the Tier 2 in terms of encouraging developers to pick from the Tier 1 list of incentives before going to Tier 2, what is – or does case law exist right now that would give teeth to the Tier one, tier two structure. In other words, if a developer said, I'm just going to pick from tier two, because I want to build high, high, high to get those Sausalito views. And that's my incentive. In other words, is there... Is there something that... has been decided in the court of law that gives teeth to this strategy, the Tier 1, Tier 2. |
| 01:57:38.19 | Karen Warner | I'm not familiar with any case law on the topic. |
| 01:57:42.39 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay. |
| 01:57:42.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:57:43.01 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 01:57:43.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:57:43.91 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 01:57:43.92 | Mary Wagner | Council member Pfeiffer, Mr. Mary, if I may, nor am I, but what we're trying to do is add more information incentives to the ordinance to provide a different structure for the different types of of incentives or concessions that can be asked for. So the statute is very clear but it's up to the developer... on what incentives or concessions they desire. And it's not a limited list. It says, you know, including specific things. and then the terms are defined. So, um... I think it's important to clarify that what we're trying to do is not is to create a structure whereby other certain types of concessions and incentives are allowed to go through the planning commission review. others require city council review that's the purpose of the tiers |
| 01:58:38.12 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And just point of clarification, I asked the question because I wanted to understand was this just window dressing that was being designed to make us feel better, to give us the illusion that we could frame the types of incentives that we would give a developer? Or is this actually something that would win in a court of law if a developer said, sorry. I want this incentive, not that incentive. |
| 01:59:03.59 | Mary Wagner | As Karen indicated, If the city... wants to tell a developer that an incentive or a concession that they have requested is not available. appropriate body, whether it be the Planning Commission or the City Council. would have to make the findings that are listed in the statute in order to deny that incentive. |
| 01:59:26.56 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I'm done. |
| 01:59:27.74 | Mayor Withing | it. Um... you I... Thank you. have, you know, in studying this and working with the subcommittee and the need to implement this ordinance. Could you tell me, it sort of seemed to me that this was Um. a no-brainer. We're trying to actually protect the city here, it seems. So is there a reason, is there a, Can you think of an advantage that we would have by not adopting a density bonus ordinance? I mean, we're trying to further restrict state law in a sense, or modify state law so that we add a layer of local control. We don't have local control if we don't have it. So if we don't have a density bonus ordinance. So what would be the possible benefit, Sol Solito? Can you give us some examples of why we shouldn't do this? |
| 02:00:31.96 | Karen Warner | Um... by not having Well, you have a density bonus ordinance now, but it's not current. It's not updated per SB 1818. So a developer could come in right now and, by default go under exactly what the state law is, no tiering. Um... Thank you. By not adopting an updated local density bonus ordinance, you won't be eligible for housing elements streamlining, which reopens all of the site's analysis, reopens all the constraints analysis. So those are two major issues that would occur if you didn't adopt one. So I personally can't think of a reason why you wouldn't update it. |
| 02:01:24.50 | Mayor Withing | Questions up here before we open this up for public comment? So. Nope. Okay, so let's open this up for public comment. I see Riley is itching to get up there and perhaps answer my question. |
| 02:01:40.38 | Riley Herd (Public Commenter) | I am itching to get up here. My name is Riley Hurd. I still represent a number of citizens. This is where the VMU program you just passed, this is where the rubber hits the road. Let me tell you why. VMU requires upper floor to be residential, mostly, in a commercial zone, and it requires at least one low-income unit. So on certain sites, 7-Eleven, Valhalla, where this will push it to five or more or encourage residential, VMU can result in increased density and concessions being granted. So I wanted to point that out. I'd like to follow up on the letters that I sent to you requesting an amendment that the FAR section of this ordinance address the fair traffic initiative. Since writing those letters, I've worked very closely with staff who's been very accommodating with my phone calls and emails, and I would like to propose a much simpler amendment, and that is that the FAR be moved to a Tier 2 consideration that must go to the council. And your ordinance says that things in that tier are of much greater importance and should be less easily let go of. And I think that it would respect the Fair Traffic Initiative to recognize that the people have said FAR is very, very important and belongs in the most restrictive tier. And by not doing an amendment that references the fair traffic initiative itself, you don't get into the hierarchy of state housing law versus a people's initiative, and you don't have to resolve a possible conflict that could come from an FAR concession that exceeds the limits set forth IN THE FAIR TRAFFIC INITIATIVE. but one editorial comment would be that the density bonus and concession law, if that's able to trump an initiative that was passed by the voters of your city, I think we can agree that the charade of retained local control is over. So I would ask that you please make FAR a Tier 2 concession that must go to the Council. Thank you. |
| 02:04:06.36 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. Anybody else like to comment on this particular item, the density bonus ordinance? Okay, seeing none. Let's bring it back up here for comment and discussion, unless there are any further questions at this point. |
| 02:04:27.37 | Councilmember León | I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE |
| 02:04:31.18 | Unknown | individuals. |
| 02:04:35.15 | Councilmember León | When I read the state statute, it's somewhat similar in some ways to some aspects of CEQA in a sense that if you can't mitigate some impacts, that you can make a finding that this doesn't comply because you can't mitigate the impact that something – you know, one of these concessions might generate an impact that you can't mitigate in some other fashion. |
| 02:05:04.36 | Councilmember León | Is that a... Fair enough analogy, because, you know, Because that gives you a lot of latitude in a certain – if, like, say, height and view blockage, if that's something you can't mitigate, then you could make the case – it That that's something you have the power to. |
| 02:05:26.11 | Karen Warner | Yeah. I think it's a pretty high bar. It says the concession or incentive would have a specific adverse impact as defined in paragraph 2 of subdivision D, section 6558.9.5. upon public health and safety, or the physical environment, or on a property listed on the California Register. |
| 02:05:51.54 | Councilmember León | Okay, so it clarifies your ability of what mitigation can accomplish. |
| 02:05:57.75 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:05:57.77 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah. |
| 02:06:01.62 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Ms. Tamir? Thank you. Does staff for the M Group have a comment on what we heard from Mr. Hurd regarding the FAR and the tier allocations? |
| 02:06:18.61 | Mary Wagner | Yes, we concur that you could move FAR from Tier 1 to Tier 2, if you so desire to. |
| 02:06:26.12 | Councilmember León | And, Mary, refresh my memory about the Fair Traffic Initiative is the only I just can't remember it off the top of my head, is the only... |
| 02:06:35.38 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:06:35.54 | Unknown | I know. |
| 02:06:35.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:06:39.35 | Councilmember León | Besides, it regulates a lot of things, or it imposes a lot of standards to meet, like certain traffic safety, you know, grades and things. Are there other – is it just FAR? It's just FAR in those sites? Thank you. |
| 02:06:55.52 | Unknown | Correct. Okay. |
| 02:06:56.26 | Councilmember León | Thank you. |
| 02:07:00.06 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. |
| 02:07:00.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:07:00.17 | Mayor Withing | Okay, who wants to go first with the comments? |
| 02:07:02.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:07:03.95 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I have one more question. My microphone. So one of the questions came up, which was, is there any negative effect in adopting this? And one of the things I heard through the grapevine was that there is a lot of controversy around this new state density. |
| 02:07:08.49 | Mayor Withing | My microphone. |
| 02:07:29.86 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | bonus law and that it could be changed because there's such a big public outcry throughout California about this. And so is it – I guess there's one argument that says don't pass a local ordinance because this state law might be, you know, overturned or changed and made less onerous than it is right now. Does that carry any weight? I just had to share it to get your opinion. |
| 02:08:02.39 | Karen Warner | Well, it's not a new law, SB 1818. It's 1978, right? Well, I mean, no. |
| 02:08:05.73 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yes. Right. |
| 02:08:07.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:08:09.61 | Karen Warner | The most recent overhaul of it is probably a decade ago. |
| 02:08:11.74 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:08:18.49 | Karen Warner | As I said, there's only been seven density bonuses in the county over the past decade. It's not used very frequently. Again, if you don't, you have a local ordinance on the books. So even by not updating it, someone can come in and default with the state statutes. |
| 02:08:44.66 | Unknown | Thank you. That's right. |
| 02:08:45.85 | Councilmember Leone | Oh, definitely. And I guess this would be for Mary Ann Karen. And if the state law were to be changed and possibly lessen the destiny bonus, would anything prevent us from immediately coming here and passing a statute that would be in compliance with the lower standards? |
| 02:09:02.30 | Karen Warner | No, that's exactly what you'd want to do. . |
| 02:09:08.39 | Mayor Withing | Does anybody want to comment on this, or should we go straight to a motion? |
| 02:09:13.05 | Unknown | . |
| 02:09:17.77 | Mayor Withing | I would move to FD. |
| 02:09:18.63 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I would move to F2. I would move to F2. I was going to move that. So I second. |
| 02:09:25.18 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. |
| 02:09:25.20 | Councilmember Leone | Thank you. |
| 02:09:25.79 | Mayor Withing | So. |
| 02:09:26.50 | Councilmember Leone | I'd go to motion with that. We would change the FAR to... |
| 02:09:28.93 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. So then could we have a formal motion? This needs to be read out in full as this is a hearing. |
| 02:09:36.34 | Unknown | Is this a deal? |
| 02:09:37.58 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. Yep, that's the one. Who wants to... Uh... |
| 02:09:41.60 | Unknown | Oh. |
| 02:09:44.32 | Mayor Withing | It's up on the |
| 02:09:45.52 | Councilmember León | Okay, good. So I'd like to introduce and read by title only an ordinance of the City of Council of the City of Sausalito amending the applicability requirements, incentives, concessions, approval requirements, and other criteria for density bonus projects, and continue the second reading to July 8, 2014 with the change to the existing proposed language such |
| 02:09:45.55 | Mayor Withing | Yeah. |
| 02:10:11.87 | Councilmember León | the review of concession of floor area Ratio be moved to Tier 2 requiring both Planning Commission and City Council review. |
| 02:10:23.62 | Mayor Withing | Second. Lely, would you call the roll, please? |
| 02:10:30.13 | Lily (City Clerk) | We just want to clarify that that does include the typos that we identified on this pink sheet in front of you here. |
| 02:10:36.43 | Councilmember León | No, we want typos. Sure. Thank you. Including the typos. Thank you. |
| 02:10:39.38 | Lily (City Clerk) | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:10:41.89 | Councilmember León | It's... Thank you. |
| 02:10:42.13 | Lily (City Clerk) | Thank you. |
| 02:10:42.16 | Councilmember León | Thank you. I mean, not including, correcting the typos. |
| 02:10:43.41 | Unknown | Correcting the typos. |
| 02:10:46.11 | Councilmember León | Thank you. |
| 02:10:47.53 | Lily (City Clerk) | Councilmember Pfeiffer? Yes. Councilmember Weiner? |
| 02:10:50.85 | Councilmember Weiner | Yes. |
| 02:10:51.31 | Councilmember León | Thank you. |
| 02:10:51.92 | Lily (City Clerk) | Council Member Leon. |
| 02:10:53.60 | Councilmember Weiner | Yes. |
| 02:10:53.88 | Councilmember León | Thank you. |
| 02:10:54.60 | Lily (City Clerk) | Vice Mayor Theodoros? Yes. Mayor Withey? Yes. That carries 5-0. |
| 02:10:56.69 | Councilmember León | Thank you. |
| 02:10:56.74 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. |
| 02:10:56.95 | Councilmember León | We'll be right back. Thank you. |
| 02:10:57.86 | Mayor Withing | Yes. Thank you. So our second topic is the... establishing written procedures, et cetera, for a reasonable accommodation consistent with state and federal statutes. And Karen, is it you again? OK, remember, get nice and close to that microphone. |
| 02:11:22.24 | Karen Warner | to that much. You just gave the presentation, but I don't have anything else to say. So yes, this establishes the written procedures to grant a reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities. And the procedures address accommodations to zoning, permit processing, and billing regulations. And the staff's recommendation is to introduce and read by title only an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Sausalito. establishing written procedures for requesting and granting a reasonable accommodation consistent with state and federal statutes, and continue the second reading to July 8, 2014. |
| 02:12:06.64 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. Do we have any questions of Karen or staff about this? |
| 02:12:16.02 | Councilmember León | No, this is a got to do. |
| 02:12:16.55 | Mayor Withing | I mean, this is – I don't... Councilmember Pfeiffer? No? |
| 02:12:24.66 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | This is about disabilities just for the audience. Right. |
| 02:12:27.60 | Mayor Withing | Right. Okay, then I'm going to open this up for public comment. Is there any member of the public who'd like to comment on this particular agenda topic? Seeing none, let's bring it back up here and let's make a motion. Thank you. |
| 02:12:46.99 | Councilmember León | So I'll move to introduce and read by title only an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Sausalito, establishing written procedures for requesting and granting a reasonable accommodation consistent with state and federal statutes and continue the second reading to July 8th, 2014. |
| 02:13:02.18 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I'm sorry to interrupt. I do have a clarification. |
| 02:13:06.95 | Councilmember León | Thank you. |
| 02:13:06.97 | Unknown | Go ahead. |
| 02:13:08.25 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I wanted to wait until he finished reading the motion. The reasonable accommodation specifically refers to the disabilities. We're not also including the transitional special needs or the emergency. Okay, good. I just wanted to make sure. Thank you. |
| 02:13:27.22 | Mayor Withing | Do we have a motion on the table? Do we have a second? Okay. I think we could do this by simply all in favor. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? None. That motion carries 5-0. |
| 02:13:28.42 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:13:29.41 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So. |
| 02:13:29.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:13:34.34 | Unknown | Bye. Bye. |
| 02:13:41.77 | Mayor Withing | Okay. Our third topic... in which there would be two actions to follow. But our third topic is relates to emergency shelters and transitional and supportive housing. And Karen, maybe there's not much for you to say. Please do so anyway. |
| 02:14:07.30 | Karen Warner | Sure. This is a requirement under SB 2. |
| 02:14:07.84 | Mayor Withing | Yeah. |
| 02:14:11.90 | Karen Warner | to identify a location, a zoning district, where emergency shelters will be permitted by right, which means without a discretionary approval, a CUP, and through the housing element process and the public institutional zone was identified and as the zoning district where shelters would be permitted subject to design review procedures and code standards and this is a map of all the the p is owned and parcels in the city and would potentially allow for and i'm going to see shelters and also and this requires that only listing the and shelters as a permitted use as you see in the top table under that the p i district but also amending the marineship-specific plan where the PI sites are located to allow for shelters. |
| 02:15:22.63 | Karen Warner | We're not covering this one tonight, so I'm going to skip over it, but the other components of SB2 are the transitional and supportive housing, and then separately the single room occupancy units, and that will be coming back before you. The Planning Commission looked specifically at the emergency shelter standards, which we've identified pursuant to what you're able to regulate under SB2. We've spent a lot of time with the Housing Unlet Subcommittee on defining standards that we thought pull weren't overstepping what you could do under SB 2 and giving the city as much discretion as possible in regulating a potential future shelter. So in reviewing those standards, the Planning Commission recommended several changes. The first, which was to include employees, independent contractors, and or other on-site personnel in the parking calculation for on-site staff. So to be more specific, and we've incorporated that recommended change of the ordinance. Secondly, the Planning Commission was interested in our evaluating limiting emergency shelter stays to 90 days over a one-year period where previously it had indicated a 90 day limitation with the option for an additional 90 day extension and that's that's one of the things that defines an emergency shelter is no more than a six-month stay over a year period and we consulted with HCD on this because they review SB 2 ordinances and we wanted to make sure you know this sort of a restriction wouldn't be deemed and a constraint and they requested that we consult with a local homeless service provider, Homeward Bound, and they provided a request for the a pretty lengthy discussion with Lilly explaining why it really is necessary to allow the extension. So we weren't recommending that that change be made. Thirdly, the commission asked the city to research adopting findings to allow denial of a shelter application once the homeless population is served. And the city attorney reviewed that and felt that based on the specificity in the statutes in terms of what can and can't be regulated, that this would not be permissible. So we weren't recommending that change. And then lastly, Commission recommended that a checklist was prepared for Community Development so that in the future if a shelter application came before them, all the standards were there. And Lily has already done that, so that's already in place. So staff's recommendation is to introduce and read by title only an ordinance of the city council of the city of Sausalito allowing emergency shelters as an allowed use and the public institutional zoning district and establishing development and management standards for emergency shelters and continue the second reading to July 8th, 2014. |
| 02:18:51.54 | Mayor Withing | Thank you, Karen. I'm sure we're going to have some questions up here. If I may, I'll kick off with one. Could you clarify, first of all, the public institutional zone was chosen by the City Council in 2012. And the task force regarded its role as just implementing that decision. Kachoo! clarify what our obligations are with respect to this. Having picked a zone and put an ordinance in place, do we actually have to do anything proactive to build a shelter, to do anything with a shelter? Or is this a good idea? providing the rules and regulations that should somebody come forward Right. um then we've got it appropriately zoned. Is the Planning Commission involved? if that needed a design review permit, Would it still go in front of the Planning Commission to get a design review permit? Bit of double question, but you get the gist. Yes. |
| 02:20:01.54 | Karen Warner | Thank you. Yes. Hold on. Yes. It's the old setting the table. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So you're putting the zoning in place, but you're not in any way and committing or suggesting in the element that you're going out and seeking and a service provider to to build a shelter and and yes because it would be subject to design review it would go before your planning commission is my understanding If there was a design review permit required. |
| 02:20:34.51 | Lily (City Clerk) | If there |
| 02:20:34.66 | Mayor Withing | there was construction that triggered it. Yeah, of course. |
| 02:20:34.97 | Karen Warner | Yeah, of course. |
| 02:20:35.98 | Lily (City Clerk) | I figured it. |
| 02:20:36.45 | Karen Warner | you |
| 02:20:39.15 | Mayor Withing | Okay, any other questions? |
| 02:20:41.01 | Councilmember Leone | Well, we're required by law to have this emergency shelter ordinance, correct? And but having that in place, does anything require us? Because most of this in the zone, the PI zone is owned by the city. Does anything require the city? to If someone requests this to build a shelter, Does anything require us to build such a shelter? |
| 02:21:02.17 | Karen Warner | No, no, the city's not required to spend any public money in building a shelter. That would be fairly unusual, in fact, for a city to actually build a shelter. |
| 02:21:14.52 | Mayor Withing | Council Member Pfeiffer. |
| 02:21:15.30 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. Okay. So I have a few questions, so I'll just ask the first, and then I'll yield to the rest of the council, and I guess they'll circle back to me. So my first question is – I noticed item number three on the prior slide. It says, um... Limit emergency shelter... Number three, adopt findings. to allow denial of a shelter application when its homeless population is served and staff does not believe this is permissible. So I guess my question is when I look at that map and I see our PI zone and it's so huge, I mean it's large and it encompasses a large part of this town. Is it feasible that we could have emergency shelters pop up by right in, let's say, all of those areas if there was someone who wanted to do it? Or is there a limit on just one? |
| 02:22:25.63 | Karen Warner | no no there's there's no limits and But again, Because it's publicly owned, the city controls the land. So there's nothing compelling the city to donate the land to a shelter provider to, you know, coordinate with a shelter provider to build something on that. |
| 02:22:49.36 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | But when we designate the PI zone for this emergency shelter area, aren't we Thank you. Thank you. basically tying our hands from a city perspective and saying that they can do this by right. |
| 02:23:06.39 | Councilmember León | The A is us. |
| 02:23:08.39 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Well, whoever wants to put this in, I guess I'm confused because we're passing this ordinance that designates the PI zone as potential emergency shelters, homeless shelters, and we can't limit the number of potential homeless shelters, and they could go multiple different places, correct? |
| 02:23:34.35 | Mary Wagner | Mr. Behrer, if I may. So the statute, as you've been informed, requires that you allow them in a particular zoning district of rights. So the use is allowed of rights. You can't require a conditional use permit or some other type of permit. And again, it doesn't mean that the city... as a property owner has to allow the property to be used for that purpose. So in your example if particular shelter was already developed and the city council didn't feel that another shelter was appropriate, you wouldn't have to allow it. because you're acting both as the landowner and the regulatory body. |
| 02:24:11.93 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. So just a follow-up question. So this is not like the state density bonus where it's automatic, you know, it kicks in. Correct. Okay. |
| 02:24:18.85 | Mary Wagner | Yeah. |
| 02:24:18.97 | Councilmember León | Yeah. |
| 02:24:18.98 | Mary Wagner | Yeah. |
| 02:24:19.07 | Councilmember León | Thank you. It is like the state density bonus in that you can't force the owner of the property to do something They don't want to do with the owner has to elect to do whatever action they want to do it says you're setting requirements along that it's not saying that |
| 02:24:32.14 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:24:33.00 | Councilmember León | I'm not requiring you to build an emergency shelter on your house. That's where your house is. I can't force you to do that. I can't make you apply for a density bonus. |
| 02:24:37.16 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:24:37.19 | Mary Wagner | else is. |
| 02:24:41.88 | Councilmember León | So. |
| 02:24:42.18 | Mary Wagner | That's also correct. So we couldn't require a property owner to request a density bonus. |
| 02:24:43.45 | Councilmember León | I couldn't. |
| 02:24:47.55 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you very much. I have a follow-up question. |
| 02:24:50.10 | Mary Wagner | Yeah. |
| 02:24:50.84 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So I noticed that our emergency shelters would allow 20 people, and I'm just wondering where we got that number. I noticed Belvedere has three. Tiburon, which is much larger than Sausalito, has 20. So I'm just wondering how we wound up with 20. |
| 02:25:11.46 | Councilmember León | Did you read the staff report? It's from the survey that was done in 2011 that ran homeless. |
| 02:25:17.49 | Mayor Withing | Could we have staff answer that question, please? |
| 02:25:20.15 | Councilmember León | I'll read the stand for four. |
| 02:25:22.80 | Karen Warner | We felt that, and this was something I learned later, that a number smaller than 20, given the homeless count that has been done in Sausalito, wouldn't be addressing the need and that mandating a smaller shelter and would make it far more difficult to build. HCD hasn't necessarily reviewed those other shelter ordinances. and in a subsequent conversation I had with HCD they specifically mentioned a 10-bed threshold as being overly constraining and not something they would approve. And so I thought, well, I'm certainly glad that we didn't limit it to 10, especially when you've had a count of 29 in the past. |
| 02:26:20.36 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Well, that's interesting because I got that wrong. Tiburon is 10. 10 people. |
| 02:26:30.98 | Karen Warner | Well, I'm not, I don't want to speak to anyone else's ordinance and, you know, the review by the state, but that is something that was told to us would be constraining. Yeah, I don't get that. |
| 02:26:45.47 | Mayor Withing | I don't get that. Okay. Could I ask a question, please? Um... Thank you. Thank you. There's got to be some nexus between some form of homeless count that was made by, in some way, and the size of the shelter that we allowed. And you mentioned the number 29. I believe that there was, that was the count upon which we then based a shelter number. I would imagine that Tiburon and Belvedere may have smaller numbers in that regard. Is that correct? I mean, there is a basis there or something. |
| 02:27:30.29 | Karen Warner | because it exists there or something. Yes, absolutely. |
| 02:27:34.63 | Unknown | I, go ahead. I just wanted to go on. I do it. |
| 02:27:39.98 | Councilmember Leone | I do it. you know, reading the staff report, I understand the, uh, or the 20 beds. But considering that in the PI, the city owns most of the property, Thank you. you Is there anything limiting if someone came to us and asked for 20 beds and we said, no, we're going to only have 10 beds because from a property owner's point of view, |
| 02:28:07.64 | Councilmember Leone | Meaning, do we have to say, is it 20 or nothing? Or as a property owner, we'd say, yes, we'd consider having it. We could say, no. But can we say, well, we prefer you to build something smaller? |
| 02:28:27.30 | Karen Warner | I'm not an attorney, but Yeah. If the city was going to allow a shelter on its city-owned property and you were not going to allow what your ordinance said for the maximum capacity to be, but you were going to allow the land to be used for a shelter, that might be constraining. |
| 02:28:55.48 | Councilmember León | Yeah, I had a question if you could step a couple slides back, because if you just educate me a little bit. So on – no, wait, the one that you said was coming down the pipe. okay so the sr the single room occupancy units and the transitional supportive housing Um, are coming down the pike. And are those already – and refresh my memory because we didn't talk about it in the staff those are not confined to a specific zoning district. Is that correct? |
| 02:29:25.79 | Karen Warner | So SROs, yes. Okay. So SROs are a specific building type, and they would be limited to the CCCR and CN1 with the CUP. |
| 02:29:28.67 | Councilmember León | Okay. |
| 02:29:38.02 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:29:38.46 | Karen Warner | So that's something under the housing element statute, variety of housing types, you have to say where you're going to allow that. Transitional and supportive, those are not a housing type. They can be apartments. They can be single family homes. They can be group housing. |
| 02:29:45.82 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:29:46.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:29:56.87 | Karen Warner | And the statutes require that they be treated the same as a residential use. So there's language that we've drafted that, you know, indicates if they're structured as an apartment, they're treated as an apartment or, you know, |
| 02:30:14.03 | Councilmember León | Okay. All right. But it's not, neither of those are reliant on the PI district in going forward? Not at all. No. |
| 02:30:18.69 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Not at all. THE END OF THE you Mr. Mayor, thank you. |
| 02:30:23.01 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. |
| 02:30:23.11 | Unknown | . |
| 02:30:23.19 | Mayor Withing | member I'm sorry. I think the vice chair was first. Oh, okay. No worries. I'm trying to sort of figure out who wants to go first. You forgot my name. No, no, no, no. He forgot my name. I forgot his name. No, I suddenly remember. |
| 02:30:27.85 | Unknown | Just kidding. |
| 02:30:28.26 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Oh, okay. Oh, okay. No worries. |
| 02:30:36.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:30:36.76 | Councilmember Leone | Yeah. He forgot my name. I forgot his name. No, I suddenly remember. I should call it the license. |
| 02:30:43.02 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. |
| 02:30:43.04 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:30:43.06 | Mayor Withing | There. |
| 02:30:43.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:30:44.54 | Councilmember Leone | This is for staff. There's been some... emails going around the city that this is some implementation of the rest program. And I'd like to address that so the public understands what this is versus what the rest program is. |
| 02:31:03.64 | Lily (City Clerk) | So the REST program is a program in Marin County that allows for overnights, it's a rotating shelter during the winter months. I think there's five months in the winter. We're different churches in the county. volunteer to be the overnight shelter, I think, for a particular month. I'm not sure on the details. And so that's the REST program. This program is different in that this is a permanent homeless facility for temporary shelter of up to 180 days. |
| 02:31:37.12 | Councilmember Leone | So, This has nothing to do with the rest program. That's correct. |
| 02:31:39.30 | Lily (City Clerk) | That's correct. |
| 02:31:39.86 | Councilmember Leone | . Council Member Pfeiffer. |
| 02:31:42.08 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. Could I see that map again of the PI zone? |
| 02:31:42.10 | Councilmember Leone | Thank you. |
| 02:31:49.33 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. So I noticed that one of the development standards is that On-site parking shall be based on one space for every four beds. And I'm curious as to how you came up with that. given that the PI zones are scattered in neighborhoods as well, where parking is at a premium? |
| 02:32:23.41 | Karen Warner | There was a matrix in an earlier packet on this that was presented. where we surveyed the standards for all the jurisdictions that had adopted standards in Marin. And one per four beds was the most stringent. I don't, Personally believe if you did anything more stringent than that that the state would approve it |
| 02:32:57.68 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:32:57.77 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:32:57.80 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:32:58.88 | Karen Warner | We were, you know, based on the the Planning Commission recommendation we did more carefully define what – employees and staff and independent contractors, parking ratio would be. So it's not just the one to four beds. |
| 02:33:24.30 | Mayor Withing | Is there any other questions? Yeah? |
| 02:33:26.54 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Anybody else? |
| 02:33:28.40 | Councilmember León | So that's sort of a question slash comment. The properties in the marineship, the Army Corps and the VA and the post office that are owned by some part of the federal government, those are the only ones in the marineship that are zone PI. So, If you wanted to avoid the amending the Morianship Plan for this specific purpose, just because you didn't want to amend the Morianship specific plan, let's just say, has there been some thought |
| 02:34:12.76 | Councilmember León | And this was not a stroke of genius to label the PG&E station public institutional either, and I happened to be, you know, It surprised me to remember that that's where we stuck it back in the day. So it's possible, like we were just going through with the housing element discussion to sort of piece apart the public institutional classification Instead of one just PI in general, you could piece it apart into different subsections of public institutional if you so chose, if it served a purpose at the end of the day. |
| 02:34:50.17 | Karen Warner | Yes, you could definitely do that. And in fact, I know I've worked with a couple jurisdictions that have adopted an overlay so that only, and in fact this is what San Rafael just did, only a portion of a district is applicable for shelters by right. But the thing that's important is because you're up against this deadline that this needs to get adopted right away, any sort of change in your PI zoning to bifurcate it might impact that timing. |
| 02:35:21.83 | Unknown | Hmm. |
| 02:35:31.70 | Councilmember León | Okay. For example, here, if you wanted to say, well, PG&E is not necessarily a public entity that the public can exert general control over, as we see every day. So what they decide to do with their property is really not within our control versus perhaps to some degree the U.S. government and to a larger degree, City of Sausalito or the school district maybe more. I mean, so there may be some desire to maybe piece some of these apart. |
| 02:36:06.47 | Councilmember Leone | Well, I'd like to follow up on the timing issue because we are going to amend the housing element for the HMU. So I'm a little confused. why we could Why this couldn't happen, I mean, if we considered it, why we couldn't consider changing and having an overlay, why there wouldn't be time to do that. |
| 02:36:37.23 | Karen Warner | And I... |
| 02:36:37.77 | Mayor Withing | Do you need a minute to sort it? |
| 02:36:39.22 | Karen Warner | what Well, I think we're talking about maybe two different things. and I'm not sure exactly what you were suggesting was the overlay approach. The overlay approach would be something that |
| 02:36:54.80 | Councilmember León | It wouldn't surprise me if you didn't understand what I said. No pride of authorship here. |
| 02:36:59.54 | Karen Warner | The overlay approach could be done in conjunction with your housing element adoption, no change to your zoning. if you were going to take certain zone, certain properties out of the PI and create a PI2, that is another process and that's what would, you know, be concerning with the timing and all of that. Thank you. |
| 02:37:19.62 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:37:24.21 | Councilmember Leone | Let me... |
| 02:37:31.70 | Mayor Withing | Okay, I'm going to adjourn for two minutes. Why don't you guys have a discussion? Thank you. |
| 02:37:40.06 | Councilmember León | to so that way might actually guide if you may place place may I may so |
| 02:37:43.33 | Unknown | Please, please, please. |
| 02:37:53.57 | Councilmember León | How do I phrase this the right way? I'm getting in trouble. So first of all, I'm all for having shelter for the homeless. So what I'm trying to figure out is – Given that this is a broad district in terms of total number of square feet in acreage for Sausalito Is there a possibility, if we don't have the time now to, you know, before the end of the year to do, whether it's an overlay or rezoning, to what we were discussing a couple meetings ago regarding sort of the fair traffic initiative was that if you change your zoning after the fact of adoption, so like you split this into different zoning districts like CN or CN1, CN2, which is what we did to the CN district and how it applies to the fair – that's not why it was done, but that's how I guess your interpretation of the Fair Track initiative is applicable. Um, that you could at a later date go back and kind of parse this apart so that the PG&E Power Station is not part of this district. And you created a sub-district, sub-classification like the PI or PI2 or P whatever it is and sort of parse this, you know, do this in a little more thoughtful fashion. And it's not blaming you or us. It's more blaming, you know, I guess I'm the only one left who worked on this map, you know, 12 years ago. But, like, the hotels are still zoned residential. We didn't change the zoning for the hotels to a different classification, whereas that was probably the smarter thing to do, right? |
| 02:39:21.47 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:39:21.49 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:39:21.58 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:39:38.82 | Councilmember León | you know, 12 years ago. So the same thing here. The question is, would it be possible after the fact, if we wanted to clean this up a little bit, |
| 02:39:40.15 | Unknown | So the same thing. |
| 02:39:46.74 | Councilmember León | and refine it, could you do it after the fact through an overlay district or a change in zoning subclassifications to this district? |
| 02:39:54.62 | Mayor Withing | So why don't we have staff answer that and also tell us what they figured out in their deliberation outside? |
| 02:39:59.63 | Councilmember León | . |
| 02:39:59.66 | Karen Warner | Sure. you could change the zoning after the fact, and limit, you know, if we're talking about creating a subzone of the PI, the criteria that you need to still meet now is whatever is left in your p is you know about that is it adequate size to meet the need and one thing that and lily quickly left in our housing element |
| 02:40:26.58 | Unknown | Right. |
| 02:40:32.30 | Karen Warner | Um, the homeless count was in 2011 was thirty and saw salito to into bronn and zero in belverde are so the size of a shelter |
| 02:40:43.08 | Unknown | the size of the shelter. Because they dropped them off here. Right. |
| 02:40:45.06 | Karen Warner | something like that. In terms of the overlay concept, I've been involved with two jurisdictions that have done that, San Rafael most recently, where a portion of a zone district in Mary just looked at HCD's technical assistance paper. and that specifically says an overlay zone can be identified and for your shelters by right and that can be done, you know, as part of the adoption of this ordinance, and it would be a matter of, you know, drawing the line on the map that this is, you know, where the overlay is. But that would require taking this ordinance back to the Planning Commission. |
| 02:41:30.89 | Councilmember León | So whether it's through, sorry, if I could. whether it's through an overlay or a zoning change now or an overlay or a zoning change later, it could be accomplished as long as it's an arm's length or straight face passing the adequacy test to supply instead of 2.8 million square feet of area for homeless shelters, it's some smaller subset of number. |
| 02:41:45.50 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:41:51.93 | Unknown | years. |
| 02:41:54.29 | Councilmember León | would still accommodate 30 people or a 20-person bed site? That's what I would suggest we do for expediency sink. |
| 02:42:03.24 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. |
| 02:42:04.49 | Councilmember León | Thank you. |
| 02:42:04.50 | Mayor Withing | Yeah, we're still in the question phase up here. |
| 02:42:07.03 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 02:42:10.12 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So I was just curious about the 90-day stay period. I know Anchorage has a 30-day in, 30-day out kind of thing to keep a rotational aspect. And I was wondering if you could do Uh, that is something we should entertain, having a 30-day, you know, if you have the 90-day time limit per year, but, you know, kind of sparse that into three different chunks. kind of 30 days in, 30 days out, come back. |
| 02:42:46.94 | Karen Warner | Well, and based on our discussions with Homeward Bound they felt ninety days was too constraining that there should be the ability to and stay six months and which is the definition of an emergency shelter and so we're suggesting ninety days with that option for ninety-day extension upon the approval by the shelter administration and it and that's and not consecutive days it's you know cumulative over when your period |
| 02:43:22.62 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So with regards to the 90-day extension, is that extension required – is that part required by law? |
| 02:43:35.51 | Karen Warner | Again, We asked HCD's opinion whether the 90-day limit was you know, acceptable. They had concerns. We consulted with the Homeward Bound. They had concerns. So it's viewed as a constraint limiting it to 90 days, and that's why we're not recommending it be limited to 90 days. |
| 02:44:04.40 | Mayor Withing | Do you have further questions? |
| 02:44:06.14 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 02:44:06.17 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And no. So basically, it sounds like it's an opinion. OK. |
| 02:44:13.85 | Mayor Withing | Why don't we open this up to the public at this stage? And we can still have a few questions afterwards. So does any member of the public like to comment on this item? I think there's somebody behind you first, sir, and then... No, please, madam, please. Yes, you're first. |
| 02:44:33.37 | Councilmember León | You almost got in trouble there, man. Yeah. |
| 02:44:37.12 | Unknown | evening and the biggest man our business civil utility um... just a couple of things i want to one was i think it's important to recognize that we have a homeless people sleeping in the bushes and our post office now almost every night i see these folks uh... i've seen at least three camp and some regular basis in the field next to dumpy park and And when I was living in the houseboat, there was always people, well, very often people sleeping in the bushes across from my boat. So I think we have to recognize that this is a real issue, that people do come and sleep in South Lido and maintain a homeless status here. and it's to the benefit of our community, I think, to encourage these folks, if they are insistent on being here, to have a place of safety and comfort to go. And that also gives us an enforcement opportunity, which will make our community more attractive for visitors and so forth. The other thing that I think we need to think about is that an emergency shelter is not just for homeless people. It's for emergencies. And there's a number of emergencies that can happen here, both natural and man-made, fires, tsunamis, earthquakes, whatever. And there is a law also that was passed last year and that, in fact, was initiated by the Moran County Commission on Aging's representative to the senior legislature. It was passed into law, and it's requiring the state to... It states that too little state emergency plan is dedicated to senior citizens and people with disabilities. And it's requiring the state to come up with rules for local governments by the end of next July of 15, |
| 02:44:39.89 | Unknown | I already know. |
| 02:46:46.50 | Unknown | regarding evacuating, mobilizing, and otherwise housing in emergency capacity of seniors and people with functional disabilities. So this is coming down the pike, and it's something we should be considering in our planning as we're looking at such things as emergency shelters and how they can be used overall, not just for folks that are chronically homeless in our community. So I'd just like to ask you to think about that. |
| 02:47:21.13 | Mayor Withing | Thank you very much. Sir. |
| 02:47:30.26 | Edward McCann | thank you mayor council people lawyers my name is edward mccann ten cloudview road The draft ordinance before you states that a resident of the emergency shelter shall stay no more than 90 consecutive days in a 365-day period, with provision for extensions up to 180 days total. The length of stay written in this ordinance is arbitrary and opinion and has no basis in California law. SB2 specifically and clearly left it to the local government to apply written objective standards to eight specific items, of which item six was like to stay that's up to the local government the city council should not sign this ordinance is submitted by staff which overrides the concerns and dismisses the content of the planning commission's draft ordinance The draft ordinance you have tonight perpetuates the conversion of a short-term one-night stay to a six-month stay, not because it was a legal requirement, but it was based on the benevolence of the consultant and staff who concluded it was fairly common in other jurisdictions. In other words, because it looked nice. At the May 21st planning meeting, the consultant introduced the notion of a one-night stay by saying, an emergency shelter is something that's just open in the evening.'s just a one night stay it's not a long-term thing it's on the video i couldn't believe it either a speaker from the floor addressed the claim that the emergency shelters would be a one night stay was a misrepresentation and clearly contrary to what was written in the draft resolution which was in fact 180 days 90 plus 90. |
| 02:49:01.40 | Edward McCann | Whether the consultant misspoke, which is possible, or it was misrepresented, or it was sugar-coated so that people could think it felt good, is was misleading and the entire concept of length of stay is largely opinion threats from the hcd et cetera neither the consultant or staff disclosed that ordinances throughout the state shows significant variation of the length of stay. Newport Beach is a fourteen day maximum stay Placentia has forty five days others have a hundred and twenty days other cities have different duration for those who are residents of those who are not residents who need this homeless shelter several cities have chosen not to include the length of stay in their ordinance resumably to retain flexibility moving forward the planning commission finally agreed to amend the proposed staff to ninety days as a maximum based in my opinion having been there on a misrepresentation of that this was the time frame required by law, a question that Mrs. Feitman just asked. So the staff has since decided to prepare their own draft, now in front of you reintroducing this notion of a six-month duration. If the shelter is really something that's open in the evening to provide a one-night stay and a long-term thing, then the ordinance should reflect that. |
| 02:50:07.58 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 02:50:11.51 | Edward McCann | and the duration allows for the matter of local government. A one-night stay duration may not be long enough, but a six-month and even three-month stays may be too long, given that emergency shelter is defined by law as a place providing minimal support, not a treatment and recovery facility requiring a lengthy stay. The definition of what an emergency shelter is is a place where it's six months or less, not that it has to be six months. Thank you very much. |
| 02:50:37.30 | Mayor Withing | Thank you, sir. |
| 02:50:48.24 | John Flavin (Public Commenter) | John Flavin again. I shared Councilman Leone's questions about this is a site map, but it seems to be more like for government sites, not necessarily for the purposes of specifically in emergency shelters. I mean, do we realistically believe that we can tell the federal government to hand over the Army Corps of Engineer building or the machine shop for that matter? How cooperative has the VA been with us so far? The other question I have is there is a growing body of research that shows proximities to highways can be very negative for your health. And I thought, I know schools have limits as to how close to highways they can be located. I thought the same rule is applied to emergency shelters, homeless, things and the like. |
| 02:51:27.07 | Unknown | It says, Thank you. |
| 02:51:36.77 | John Flavin (Public Commenter) | and I know there's a couple of sites up here. The research that was done by the National Institute of Health |
| 02:51:37.06 | Unknown | I know that |
| 02:51:43.35 | John Flavin (Public Commenter) | determined that it was a 200-meter distance from the highway. Anyone living within that for an extended period of time was subject to cardiac and pulmonary issues. I know they've moved schools. You cannot put a school near a highway, and I'm wondering if that same doesn't apply here. And remember, Bridgeway, under the Regional Transportation Authority, or whatever, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Bridgeway constitutes a major artery. So I'm just curious, I mean, when you look at this map, it seems like, as Councilman Leon said, there are a lot of sites on here that aren't just not feasible. And the second part of it is, I just can't imagine subjecting someone who has got all the reasons to be homeless and then put them in an environment that's just not healthy. |
| 02:52:04.39 | Unknown | I don't know. |
| 02:52:24.05 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:52:24.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:52:24.17 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:52:24.19 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:52:24.24 | Unknown | said. |
| 02:52:40.57 | John Flavin (Public Commenter) | So I think you've got to look at this map a lot more carefully. So we come up with a realistic thing and not something that's just filling out a check block in the state's requirements. |
| 02:52:52.39 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. |
| 02:52:57.58 | David Schoenbrunn (Public Commenter) | David Schoenbrunn. I'd like to associate myself with the comments of the first speaker. And as somebody that actually works in air quality, I want to tell you that the comments that you've just heard alleging health effects from highways are very important. That happens to be a meme currently circulating by Tea Party people that know nothing about air quality. As a matter of fact, the issue about highways has to do with diesel particulates that are the result of heavy-duty trucks. We simply don't have that many heavy-duty trucks. Our buses have particulate traps on them, and so the comment that there are health effects is entirely spurious. This is an extremely wealthy community. I find the comments here about doing everything possible to resist having an emergency shelter very unseemly. Thank you. |
| 02:53:51.19 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:53:51.23 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. |
| 02:53:51.46 | Unknown | MIRROR. |
| 02:53:56.51 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. Is there any other member of the public who would like to comment on this topic? Okay, then public comments closed. And let's... bring this up here, I think we would need staff to do some clarifying of, it seems like one big topic here is the extension, the length of time in the extension, and you know, I'm confused, so I think maybe somebody could craft a more specific question about that. Um, So Karen, could you have another go at this? And you heard the comments from the public. Could you respond to those specifically about the duration of the and the 90 versus 180 or even less than 90. How come Newport Beach has 15 or whatever, or whatever, 14 days so how come that is A. adopted ordinance, presumably quite a while ago, I don't know. So help explain. |
| 02:55:09.53 | Karen Warner | Right, and similar to the ordinances that we reviewed in Marin that have some thresholds for size limit, for example, that wouldn't pass muster with the state. I can't comment on any of these ordinances, whether they've been reviewed by the state. My guess on a 14-day |
| 02:55:19.62 | Susan Sammels (Public Commenter) | threshold. |
| 02:55:34.03 | Karen Warner | limitation would be that that's referring to consecutive days not total in a year period because that would be extremely constraining the night-to-night comment is emergency shelters are closed during the day and the way most of them operate is and you need to show up again every evening you know be at five o'clock and you're on a list and you're not guaranteed a stay the next night. So that's where the night-to-night comment comes in. many, many ordinances that do specify length of stay, which I would say the majority that now have been done, consistent with SB 2. and because that is one of the things you're allowed to regulate. why wouldn't you regulate it if you are allowed to? Many, many do just specify six months in a year period. So even having 90 days with the option for a 90 day extension is more restrictive than I would say the majority of ordinances that I've seen that have the six month limit. Our experience, as I've said, is that HCD thought it was a constraint. They asked us to speak with the largest homeless shelter provider in Marin, which we did. They concurred it was a constraint, and so we're not recommending it. |
| 02:57:17.32 | Mayor Withing | Okay, thank you. Is there any other questions of staff before we move into our comment period? Nope. Okay. Thank you. you Who wants to go first? |
| 02:57:30.15 | Councilmember Leone | Well, we're required to have it. And as I ask staff many times, we're required to have this, but we can say no as property owners. And the thing that, And once we have control, local control, then a lot of the other terms aren't quite as important. But I am concerned that there are many of these properties in the marineship that are owned by the federal government or PG&E. We also have to amend the marineship specific plan. So I agree with Councilman Leona. I think we should take another look at What properties are included? I think we should have an overlay. I think they should be limited to... City-owned properties. I think we should do it now. I don't think there's any reason. that we should defer this. I think we have time to do it. We put it over and do that. Um, So that would be what I'd recommend. In the course of that, we could take another look at the Days in a... It's hard for me to believe that when we're the property owner, And someone comes in and we said, well, we'll give you something a little less that that wouldn't work. But we could look at some of these other constraints on the days and such. But my main concern is that we have local control and that The properties that are included in this are properties that are under the control of the city of Sausalito. |
| 02:58:48.80 | Mayor Withing | Council member 5. |
| 02:58:50.05 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah, I would support the overlay to narrow this down. I concur with the statements that were made with respect to the hazards of being near traffic. You just look at the CDC, Center for Disease Control website. You look at the EPA. They've all done studies. The results are clear. They show correlations with asthma and diminished lung capacity. There are also articles about environmental racism with respect to putting minorities and low income populations near traffic. And so I have no problems with the data. stating that I for one am very uncomfortable with that. I'm not opposed to homeless shelters. I'm opposed to what's here before me tonight. I'm seeing 20, a capacity for 20 when I don't see the need for that. I know that We have a transient homeless population that moves through Sausalito, they come I see them come from San Francisco. sometimes by bus, So I know I remember the 2010 census. I remember having issues with the methodology and some of the conversations we had. but I don't have that in front of me. So I think 20 is too much. I also have an issue with the parking, one space per four individuals. I don't think that's a good idea. And I most of all have a real issue with 90 days. I just think that that is way too long for such a small town. And I'm just very concerned. I'm very concerned about what I'm seeing before me. I think it's based on opinions rather than what we are required to do, just like I think certain elements of the housing element. |
| 03:01:08.90 | Councilmember Weiner | Well, here we go again with doubt and fear. it's an obligation for us to be able to have these facilities And the difference is if you look at Tiburon and Belvedere, first of all, the homeless couldn't make it over there. They couldn't walk that distance. We're a drop off point. We're at proximity to San Francisco. out in the water. Southern Marine basically should I really honestly thought 20. was a low number. for what we have here. This is not Tiburon. And this is not Belvedere. This is Sausalito. and We have that problem now. I keep on hearing everybody telling me people are living in the bushes. That's a problem that we have to address and not all of a sudden hide it. And hope that it goes away. So I think it's an important step And it shows our humanness by doing it. |
| 03:02:23.49 | Councilmember León | Yeah, I agree with certainly some of the things that Herb said. I think it's our responsibility as human beings to help take care of others. I think because this is a state law, you're not creating a magnet scenario where you attract people, which has been kind of the concern in the past that if you had a facility of this type that you'd become a magnet. But the idea here is to make everyone do it so everyone is equally providing the appropriate services. As far as the – I think that's a good question. As far as the PI district as a whole, you know, I'm sorry I brought it up to a certain degree, but I think if it's something we can take care of after the fact, then I'm more than willing to wait to do it because we could do it as part of, you know, the next housing element sub-cycle, I think it sounds like, which is, you know, by the end of this year, not so far off. And we probably have some zoning cleanup to do with other things as far as the zoning map goes. So I'm not – my concern is not where these are cited so much as just the – |
| 03:03:06.03 | Unknown | What it all is. |
| 03:03:40.98 | Councilmember León | your ability to influence as a property owner, as you pointed out, Tom. So whether it's the school district or the city versus PGA kind of thing. So if we can take care of that after the fact, I'm more than willing to wait to do that, because that's more of a clean up, because I don't think overnight we're going to have 2.7 million square feet of homeless shelters in Sausalito being proposed. So I think we're setting the table for something that needs to take place, having participated with Homeward Bound and with the homeless projects here, it's underestimate of 20 people who were – 20 or 30 people who – you know, these are people we know. You know, how many people have bought paintings from Bo? You know, how many people have – I remember Annie, and she would sit in this audience every night. These are people. These are not faceless, nonexistent human beings. These aren't statues. These are human beings. So we have to do our part in providing a safety net for folks. That's my opinion. Are there some pitfalls to it? Certainly. Do I want to regulate how long the stay is? I don't know what the appropriate stay is. Consecutive days and or in a year. I don't. I'll trust the opinion of somebody who knows. And that's homeward bound in Marin. So I'm willing to live with their opinion as an expert on the subject. |
| 03:04:11.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:05:20.57 | Unknown | . |
| 03:05:21.94 | Mayor Withing | i pretty much agree what with some Council Member Leon has just said, we really do have homeless people here. And beyond that, we actually have by law to do this. So the only, I think the question is whether we want to clarify and consider overlay on this PI zone to clean it up a bit now or later. And I too am. thinking we could do it later, although if we can, if, and I'd like to ask a question of staff, if it were possible to do it in this cycle quickly, then I'd be in favor of that as well. tell us what would be the procedure if we decided to, you know, Does this need to go back to the subcommittee? Does this go straight back to the planning commission? How are you going to figure out what to leave out versus what to leave in? We could end up with a whole bunch of work here that didn't get us very far. So how would you see the process work? |
| 03:06:44.56 | Lily (City Clerk) | So if we got clear direction tonight from the council, Mr. Mayor, on which sites you wanted to include in the overlay, what I've heard so far is potentially just sites that are owned by the city. That would be something that we can take we'd have to go back to the Planning Commission for that overlay. We can take that to the Planning Commission along with the VMU ordinance that we're planning on taking to them in July. And we have enough time to notice that hearing for that that meeting, and then you could take action on that revised ordinance in July as well. |
| 03:07:21.77 | Mayor Withing | How about drafting the documents? Thank you. How about the drafting of this? Is there much work, staff work here? |
| 03:07:26.42 | Lily (City Clerk) | So... Because there's much work. Thanks. work here again if there was clear direction tonight on what you wanted to see to send back to the Planning Commission then we could bring that back to the Planning Commission for the recommendation. |
| 03:07:42.14 | Mayor Withing | See, because what I'm hearing is that |
| 03:07:48.94 | Mayor Withing | With the control as the property owner, that's fine. and we're comfortable, but for those Um, for which? were clearly not the property owner or It's not even a public Oh. |
| 03:08:03.79 | Unknown | Anthony. |
| 03:08:04.09 | Mayor Withing | got an entity such as the federal government, which I'm okay with, But PG&E, I don't know about. If we could eliminate the non-government site. |
| 03:08:16.58 | Councilmember León | Yeah. At a minute. |
| 03:08:18.97 | Mayor Withing | So that we had a bit more control here. |
| 03:08:22.08 | Councilmember León | There's some accountability in there. |
| 03:08:23.73 | Mayor Withing | Yeah. Would you feel comfortable? Oh, yes. |
| 03:08:27.50 | Councilmember León | Oh, yeah. |
| 03:08:28.69 | Mayor Withing | Yeah. AND SO, I'm leaning in that direction if we could do it in the time frame. Other than that, we'll clean it up in the next cycle. |
| 03:08:40.57 | Councilmember Leone | And bad. We're going to have two of the planning commission didn't get to the SROs and the, what was the other part? which is not... |
| 03:08:47.93 | Councilmember León | Which is – |
| 03:08:48.84 | Councilmember Leone | Transition housing. They're really one bundle. So for me... I'd certainly prefer to do in this cycle because it doesn't sound that difficult. We're not that under a guideline. To limit it to city-owned properties and do an overlay rather than the PI's own. |
| 03:08:57.48 | Unknown | All right. |
| 03:08:57.79 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:09:01.92 | Councilmember Leone | Thank you. And also, I'd like to... See the end, February. |
| 03:09:05.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:09:05.03 | Councilmember León | Yeah, in school districts. In school districts. |
| 03:09:06.82 | Councilmember Leone | A SCHOOL DISTRICT, NOT FUTTING. |
| 03:09:07.61 | Councilmember Weiner | Yeah. |
| 03:09:07.96 | Councilmember León | . |
| 03:09:08.00 | Councilmember Weiner | Thank you. |
| 03:09:08.43 | Councilmember León | I would just make it public entity-controlled property, so there's a way for citizens to direct their... |
| 03:09:14.85 | Councilmember Leone | Well, I'd actually, we'll have this discussion, I'd probably do it with city properties and possibly school on, you know, we wouldn't, we've dealt with the federal government before and we know that we have very little control of that and PG&E. is even beyond that. They're beyond the Fed. |
| 03:09:30.56 | Mayor Withing | But you also have to do the analysis as to figure out |
| 03:09:33.49 | Councilmember Leone | Yes. Thank you. |
| 03:09:34.74 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. |
| 03:09:34.76 | Councilmember Leone | Thank you. |
| 03:09:34.84 | Mayor Withing | if there's a |
| 03:09:35.57 | Mary Wagner | And, Mr. Mayor, if you look at attachment S in your staff report, there's an actual S as in SAM. |
| 03:09:44.24 | Councilmember León | right scuttles for footage and it has the is honest right |
| 03:09:46.15 | Mary Wagner | it has the is I'm a strike the identifies the sites existing use the APN's the owner and the personal size so if you were to kind of carve out and tell us which to take off, which to include. That would be. helpful. And with respect to getting something back to the Planning Commission, as staff would bring the same standards and requirements that are currently in the draft that you have in front of you unless you gave us direction to make modifications to that |
| 03:10:20.12 | Councilmember León | All right. So I would – just to throw something for discussion. I would say anything that's controlled by the city of Sausalito, which includes now the MLK school, right? Now we own it in title versus the school district. the school district, which is Bayside and Willow Creek, And I would include the U.S. government sites with the exception of the post office, because we know that's for sale at the moment. But I don't know how you. So basically carving out PG&E substation and the post office. |
| 03:11:04.03 | Councilmember Leone | Well, I'd go back to mine. I would limit it to the school district and city properties. We have no control of the federal government. We have no control of PG&E. I think what we're looking at is, you know, and again, we want to be reasonable, but we literally have no control. And I don't see any reason to put them on. We've dealt with the machine shop stuff. We know where we are. You can see what's going on with the PG&E and the latest statutes. And from my look at this list, it looks like there's plenty of property. So in the end, I guess the consultants have to tell us that. But we're only taking off four or five. |
| 03:11:26.66 | Councilmember Weiner | thought. |
| 03:11:35.20 | Councilmember Leone | I think from this, if we take out the federal and PG&E. Thank you. |
| 03:11:40.56 | Councilmember León | Again, I would... |
| 03:11:42.00 | Councilmember Leone | Thank you. |
| 03:11:42.17 | Councilmember León | I'm not saying there isn't logic to what you're saying. I'm just saying that since it's – these facilities have multipurpose uses, and the Army Corps is one of our sort of partners in emergency operations. So that's why I would keep the – those two sites as – because it's not just homeless categories, right? |
| 03:11:43.52 | Councilmember Leone | to what you're saying. |
| 03:12:02.21 | Councilmember Leone | Well, we're looking, I mean, this is as of right, we could always allow them to have an emergency shelter. This is what can be done as of right. So we're complying with the law. |
| 03:12:11.12 | Mary Wagner | And, Mr. Vice Mayor, Mr. Mayor, the federal government could put an emergency shelter there tomorrow if they so choose whether your zoning regulations allow it or not. |
| 03:12:19.16 | Councilmember Leone | Right. |
| 03:12:21.20 | Councilmember Weiner | Thank you. |
| 03:12:21.22 | Councilmember Leone | So, |
| 03:12:21.89 | Councilmember Weiner | you It doesn't matter. |
| 03:12:23.04 | Councilmember Leone | Put them on. |
| 03:12:23.71 | Councilmember Weiner | Thank you. |
| 03:12:23.90 | Councilmember Leone | Well, I would take them off. That's a logic. Well, I would take them off. |
| 03:12:23.95 | Councilmember Weiner | Yeah. I'm glad. whatever they want. |
| 03:12:27.04 | Councilmember Leone | anyway. Well, I'd like to be able to, I mean, my logic in this is when I |
| 03:12:31.12 | Councilmember Weiner | in this is |
| 03:12:33.33 | Councilmember Leone | represent to the public that We're passing the statute. It's saying that we have control over the properties that are Our... controlled by the statute. And I'd like to be able to say that and to add the federal government. And it just turned out why have them when you can just as easily, if they can build shelters anyway, why have it controlled this way? |
| 03:12:54.04 | Councilmember Weiner | Well, my question to you then is, you know, Would you be against it if they came in and built? Federal government built a share, and they could anyway. I mean, would you be against it? |
| 03:13:04.80 | Councilmember Leone | I don't know, I'd have to see what they were doing. |
| 03:13:06.66 | Councilmember Weiner | Okay. |
| 03:13:12.31 | Unknown | So... |
| 03:13:13.26 | Councilmember León | So we need something on the table. I'll make a motion just to get the process moving. So I'll make a motion. Where's the motion I'm supposed to be making? And then I'll amend it. |
| 03:13:14.05 | Unknown | something on the table. Amen. |
| 03:13:22.96 | Unknown | All right. |
| 03:13:23.32 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:13:23.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:13:27.47 | Councilmember León | I don't think we don't need a motion because we're going to send this back through to we don't have to have a motion, right? This motion, I'm saying. |
| 03:13:28.21 | Mayor Withing | I don't think it's good. Actually, we don't need a motion because we're going to send this. |
| 03:13:30.77 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:13:30.84 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. |
| 03:13:35.41 | Councilmember León | Thank you. |
| 03:13:35.43 | Mayor Withing | but I think staff needs clear direction. |
| 03:13:37.07 | Councilmember León | right in a clear direction okay thanks your eyes told the whole story |
| 03:13:37.62 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. direction. |
| 03:13:40.41 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Your eyes told me. Bye. Thank you. Well, I would like to move that. Oh, you started and you're interrupting me. |
| 03:13:45.05 | Councilmember León | Thank you. I already started, and you're interrupting me. Yes. So I'd like to move that we – and we're directing this back to the Planning Commission. Is that correct? Um, Well, you tell me what the... |
| 03:13:59.23 | Mary Wagner | To keep in the same schedule that's currently proposed, we would bring it to the Planning Commission in July. |
| 03:14:05.49 | Councilmember León | Sure. that we We present to the Planning Commission an emergency shelters ordinance. That includes what's been provided by the staff with the clarification that sites for the overlay, that an overlay be emergency shelter overlay be created on what is currently zoned public institutional in our zoning ordinance for the sites in attachment S. with the exception of the electrical power station and post office. I think that's – it's not where you want, but I'm just putting that out there. So – and I have my reasons, which – or devious. |
| 03:15:09.93 | Councilmember Leone | or devious a friendly amendment to take the rest of the law |
| 03:15:17.20 | Councilmember León | Well, I think... And I've rethought this as we discussed it tonight because as I read it again today, it made me think, well, it, um, A, that it's a big chunk of change in terms of square footage throughout the whole town, but B, it's not – this zone in particular isn't adequately – designated into subcategories. So rather than try and accomplish that tonight, to a broad extent, and while we don't control the federal government, I think we have exhibited some ability to influence the federal government with terms of the machine shop goes. to a certain degree. It's not you can't tell them what to do, but you push them in a direction, and then you get people on board, and you hope it happens. We'll see if it pans out that way. But I think also those sites are not inappropriate for emergency shelters. They're actually, in terms of handling a large number of people in the case of an emergency, those two buildings are, you know, one and the other one is rehabilitated, are actually – I'm not just thinking about the homeless because they would accommodate more than 20 people. For an emergency, those two sites – and I'd rather not make that on the fly, a decision. as far as an emergency shelter, not just a shelter for homeless people that we might Wade through that one later. Because we don't have space like that. |
| 03:16:46.93 | Councilmember Leone | Well, again, we decided the federal government can do what they want in response to people, which is, you know, and theoretically I'd like to be able to, I think from a perspective, purely... point of view of what this statute should cover is things that we can control. And so this is not against emergency shelters. We're getting into theoretical. But the federal government could sell any of these buildings and do what they want, including the machine shop. The VA may get tired of us. Chris Gallagher may move on to something else, and the Bay Model could be controlled by someone else. These are things we can't control. I'd like to be able to tell the public that we're doing something that we can control. And if anyone asks why it's taken off, the federal government can do these things. I agree that these may be more appropriate places, but they're probably not appropriate for our statute. What are we What are we even doing zoning for emergency shelters there when we can't make them do it or not make them do it? And so that's my opinion. I'd go with only city-owned and school-owned property. |
| 03:17:43.49 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:17:57.21 | Councilmember Leone | As for a friendly amendment, he wasn't smiling. |
| 03:18:05.58 | Councilmember León | So that's my friendly amendment. If everybody else is in favor, I'll amend it. |
| 03:18:06.36 | Councilmember Leone | So that's. |
| 03:18:10.33 | Mayor Withing | I have to admit that there's logic to just doing city-owned property. |
| 03:18:11.91 | Councilmember León | Go. |
| 03:18:18.19 | Mayor Withing | I take your point about the Bay Model. But Baymold is still going to be there if the government owns it, and it's always going to be for emergency use. So we're not actually cutting it off for emergency use, are we? |
| 03:18:28.36 | Councilmember Weiner | So we're not actually cutting it off for emergency. Well, you're talking about also the engineers, and don't forget, they're in charge of the cleaning of the bay, so they're not really... So, yes. |
| 03:18:40.14 | Mary Wagner | MS. Mr. Mayor, I apologize. One other point of clarification, and this is actually applicable to the post office site currently. When those, um, If and or when those properties change ownerships, they would also apply for a zone change designation. So if someone comes in to modify all or a portion of the post office site they would also apply for zoning designation change from PI to whatever it is, commercial or whatever the other applicable designation would be. |
| 03:19:06.64 | Unknown | commercial. Thank you. |
| 03:19:11.58 | Mary Wagner | One other point of clarification, if I may? Please. To the extent that you're asking the Planning Commission to look at something that they haven't looked at already, that would be this overlay concept and the limiting the number of sites, they would not need to re-look at the development standards that they've already looked at and weighed in on. So we would only be bringing back to them things that they haven't previously considered. |
| 03:19:32.41 | Mayor Withing | In fact, I would specifically request that they don't reconsider things that they've already reconsidered. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:19:38.56 | Mary Wagner | And that's consistent with the statutes, the government code statutes, and the zoning ordinance requirements related to amendments to your zoning ordinance? |
| 03:19:47.59 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And I would move to make an amendment to remove the Spencer Fire Station because of its proximity to the highway. And I would move to remove the power station and the Public Works parcel because of the parking congestion in those neighborhoods. |
| 03:20:16.97 | Mayor Withing | Okay, folks, where, so is there? |
| 03:20:19.06 | Councilmember León | So I'll accept Tom's amendment, and you can ask for a second. |
| 03:20:23.27 | Mayor Withing | Is there a second to Council Member Pfeiffer's motion? Okay. You're accepting the amendment to restrict it to city-owned property. |
| 03:20:33.42 | Councilmember León | City and school district. |
| 03:20:34.94 | Mayor Withing | City and School District, you're okay? |
| 03:20:37.64 | Councilmember León | Okay. Yeah. Thank you. |
| 03:20:38.28 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. |
| 03:20:38.32 | Councilmember León | Thank you. |
| 03:20:38.37 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. Okay. And so do we have a second to that motion? I'll second. Okay. Lily, will you call? And you have clear direction? |
| 03:20:48.97 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. Yeah. Motion by Councilmember Leone with an amendment by Vice Mayor Theodorus and then a second by Councilmember Leone. Thank you. |
| 03:20:58.18 | Mayor Withing | Councilmember Pfeiffer's did not get the second motion to bet it so that it |
| 03:21:03.85 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | But it will be reflected in the minutes, even though it wasn't seconded? Yes. |
| 03:21:07.16 | Mayor Withing | Yes. I think we've now established a pattern. |
| 03:21:10.94 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yes, yes. Okay, sure. |
| 03:21:13.59 | Mayor Withing | okay to show we um... take the role please uh... could you |
| 03:21:18.60 | Lily (City Clerk) | Thank you. |
| 03:21:18.62 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Council Member Pfeiffer? Come back to me. |
| 03:21:20.98 | Lily (City Clerk) | I got this. Councilmember Weiner? |
| 03:21:22.97 | Councilmember Weiner | Yes. |
| 03:21:24.42 | Lily (City Clerk) | Councilmember Leone? |
| 03:21:25.92 | Councilmember Weiner | Yes. |
| 03:21:27.20 | Lily (City Clerk) | Vice Mayor Theodorus? Yes. Mayor Withey? |
| 03:21:28.32 | Councilmember Weiner | Yes. |
| 03:21:29.70 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:21:29.92 | Councilmember Weiner | Yes. |
| 03:21:31.31 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | No. |
| 03:21:33.60 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. |
| 03:21:33.62 | Councilmember Weiner | Okay. |
| 03:21:34.87 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I do have a motion, Mr. Mayor. |
| 03:21:37.43 | Councilmember Weiner | in the |
| 03:21:37.70 | Unknown | a second. Yeah. |
| 03:21:39.17 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I have a new motion, Herb. This one probably won't get a second either, but I'm still going to make it. |
| 03:21:39.19 | Unknown | I have a new... Thank you. Thanks. |
| 03:21:40.37 | Councilmember Weiner | . |
| 03:21:40.43 | Mayor Withing | Oh. Thank you. |
| 03:21:44.96 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Um... |
| 03:21:45.21 | Mayor Withing | I don't know procedurally whether actually you can now, as this letter is enclosed. |
| 03:21:49.73 | Councilmember León | The majority of people who made the prior motion to open. |
| 03:21:52.74 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Where do you? This is not, this is a separate motion. This is not about the overlay. This is about the emergency shelter. I am within my rights to make a motion. |
| 03:22:01.61 | Councilmember León | Thank you. |
| 03:22:01.63 | Unknown | Okay. Good. Okay. Sure. Please. I am within my right of the right Thank you. no and i didn't |
| 03:22:05.34 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And I would move that the emergency shelter size be reduced from 20 to 10, and that the parking requirement increase from one parking space per four persons to two parking spaces per four persons. |
| 03:22:22.86 | Mayor Withing | Is there a second? |
| 03:22:26.88 | Councilmember León | Didn't you just direct – in sending everything that was in the staff report with the only change of being restricting it to – to the school district and city owned property. We already voted on all those things. So you would have to reopen the vote on these particular items to, |
| 03:22:46.65 | Mayor Withing | That's correct, but we can get... Is there a second anyway? |
| 03:22:50.58 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I can – we can provide additional framing for the Planning Commission. There's nothing wrong with that. That's fine. |
| 03:22:54.50 | Mayor Withing | Yeah. There's nothing wrong with that. That's fine. Is there a second on Councilmember Pfeiffer's motion? |
| 03:22:57.11 | Councilmember León | Thank you. |
| 03:22:57.17 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Is there... Second. |
| 03:23:01.33 | Councilmember León | It's an improper motion, so there shouldn't be... |
| 03:23:03.63 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | It is not. That's okay. |
| 03:23:03.66 | Councilmember León | Thank you. |
| 03:23:04.27 | Mayor Withing | That's okay? There is no second. Okay, so this matter is now closed. |
| 03:23:05.50 | Councilmember León | to say. |
| 03:23:05.79 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Bye. |
| 03:23:05.86 | Councilmember León | Thank you. |
| 03:23:05.98 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay. |
| 03:23:06.94 | Councilmember León | Thank you. |
| 03:23:09.20 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:23:09.74 | Mayor Withing | Okay. Right. We are now moving on. That's the end of the public hearings. We are now moving on to communications. |
| 03:23:24.28 | Councilmember Leone | Communication. but before... at least. Marin ship I take it well our last discussion handles the item on the Marin ship I'm sorry. |
| 03:23:32.96 | Mayor Withing | Yeah. |
| 03:23:32.99 | Councilmember Leone | Yeah. |
| 03:23:33.78 | Mayor Withing | These two items were really together. They were separate actions, but one subject. |
| 03:23:38.93 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:23:43.05 | Mayor Withing | Okay. We're good? Okay. Thank you. Communications. This is the time for the City Council to hear from citizens regarding matters that are not on the agenda. And as you know, except in very limited situations, state law precludes the Council from taking action on or engaging in construction. discussions concerning these items. Is there any member of the public who would like to make a comment on an item not on the agenda? |
| 03:24:14.52 | Unknown | a little risky because what I'm actually going to comment on is the Marin County Housing's 2013 report on homelessness in the county. And just for your information, I was just reading it. And in 2013, the homeless count in South Lido, completely unhoused in any way, living outside was 23. And there were 19 people countywide that didn't say where they were housed. And the precariously housed count in South Salido was 18. And it was 6% of countywide persons who said this. And anyone who's interested in reading this report, I'll be glad to give you the URL. I just thought it was something of interest to the community. |
| 03:25:05.91 | Councilmember León | Maybe we can post that on the – give that to city staff. They can post it on the website underneath the appropriate heading. Thank you. Thank you, Sybil. Sir. |
| 03:25:11.68 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. |
| 03:25:11.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:25:11.71 | David Schoenbrunn (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 03:25:14.97 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. |
| 03:25:17.74 | David Schoenbrunn (Public Commenter) | David Schonbrunn. In reading the letter from the Ragianti firm, I noticed the reference to the Fair Traffic Limits Initiative. As somebody that works in transportation and lives on Bridgeway, traffic right now is much less than I remember it being a good while ago. And this is because the city has had a truly major policy success in installing bike lanes. the amount of tourists that arrive by bike rather than by car I believe, has truly shifted the situation of traffic in Sausalito. And I think it would be appropriate to revisit this ordinance. It was an initiative. And look to see how is traffic now compared to what it was back then and see if this whole issue needs to be looked at again. Again, we're in a different world. My work is all about reducing driving and we're seeing it actually happening here. And so if the circumstances change, perhaps policies need to change. And that could be something that went back to the voters or whatever, but the first step is assembling facts. And so I ask that you have staff add that to their work program. Thank you very much. |
| 03:26:51.14 | Mayor Withing | Thank you, sir. Thank you. Okay. City Manager, information for Council. |
| 03:27:03.41 | Unknown | I'm going to pass. I think we've had at least three weeks in a row, Tuesday night meetings. We've covered a lot of territory in that time, priority calendar, budget. housing element. But just to share with you, our next meeting will be July 8th. So we'll take the week of 4th of July off and enjoy celebrating our country's liberties and enjoy the community fun. You received an email from our special events producer, And just checking on who's planning on riding in the parade. And if they need help, finding a vehicle, so please Respond back to her. Timely. And there is always a shortage of vehicles, so if you have a friend, or a neighbor that would be Happy to drive you. Then we encourage you to. to do so. But if you need help, we want to make sure everyone has a ride. and enjoys the festivities. Thank you. We have MCC-MC tomorrow night in Larkspur. I'm at the Legion of Honor. So hopefully everyone that's not the American Legion. American Legion. Legion of Honor, American Legion. |
| 03:28:16.36 | Unknown | there. I can't really do. Thank you. But... |
| 03:28:23.02 | Unknown | But rather let's have it over there. That would be pretty nice, wouldn't it? |
| 03:28:27.76 | Unknown | . |
| 03:28:27.86 | Unknown | So anyway, I'm going to leave it there. If there are questions from council, I'm happy to answer them. There are some council reports that some may want to share on the Muir Woods meeting and other activity in town. |
| 03:28:28.76 | Unknown | So anyway, I'm going to... |
| 03:28:30.02 | Unknown | leave it there. |
| 03:28:45.33 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. Any questions of the city manager? Any public comment on the city manager report? Okay. Council member committee reports. Does anybody have anything? |
| 03:28:59.22 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I will just say that I attended the Muir Woods event, and it was standing room only, and people were very upset and very concerned over what was going on. And so I look forward. I'll raise this in future agenda items, but I'm looking forward to that. hearing from them because I'm very concerned over it. |
| 03:29:22.56 | Councilmember Leone | because on that point that was held last Wednesday and it was a It was videotaped by the Media Center of Marin, and it's up on their site. I actually have the site, and I can forward it to our staff. And I highly recommend that everyone take a look at that. It was two and a half hours. They had the park service. They had our two county supervisors, well, certainly Kate Sears, and we had Steve Kinsey, two of the supervisors. The public had two and a half hours to ask all their questions. So I would highly recommend, because I think a lot of the myth and a lot of misinformation that's gone around is answered in that time. So I think it's a really good thing for people to do. And I will forward that on... the media center Videotape of it. Highly recommend it. |
| 03:30:18.62 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I just will follow up with I'm not sure what you mean by the myth and misinformation, but I will say that everything that I had heard from the representatives from Mill Valley was held true from what I saw. |
| 03:30:31.80 | Councilmember Leone | I watched the whole thing and I would just I respectfully completely disagree with that. |
| 03:30:37.11 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay, well then we'll have to agree to disagree. |
| 03:30:39.42 | Unknown | to disagree you |
| 03:30:42.83 | Mayor Withing | Is there any other committee report? Just as a follow-up from what we discussed last week with regards to marine clean energy and AB 2145, it came out of the Senate Energy Committee yesterday with a positive vote except Well, I'm sorry. A positive meaning it was move forward to vote on the full Senate floor. However, they did modify the provision to take the opt-in, opt-out provision out of it and to restore it to its current status quo. It, however, did restrict the size of expansion of a CCA to within three contiguous counties from the area that it actually started. So that was a pretty decent outcome for marine clean energy and for CCAs, and we'll see what happens on the Senate floor. |
| 03:31:49.67 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor, I have a quick comment, a correction actually at the last City Council meeting. I was under the impression that MCE, their employees had pensions under CalPERS and they don't, so I stand corrected on that. I just wanted to clarify. Thank you for that clarification. |
| 03:31:50.55 | Mayor Withing | Quick comment. |
| 03:32:02.72 | Mayor Withing | Thank you for that clarification. |
| 03:32:04.59 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:32:04.84 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:32:04.96 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:32:05.03 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. Okay. Any public comment on the committee reports? See, none. Let's move on to future |
| 03:32:11.46 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I have. Mr. Mayor, I do have a committee just to comment on I'm on the Butte task force and frankly there's been nothing since, you know, and I've asked |
| 03:32:15.37 | Mayor Withing | Just a comment on. |
| 03:32:22.12 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I inquired the chair as to, but I guess we're in a holding pattern and I'm, you know, I'm not the chair, I'm just the liaison, so I'm kind of in wait mode. But it does beg the question as to potentially, you know, why don't we remove Butte from the list, you know, in the housing element? Because I think Butte is, if we're sending it back and we're doing those revisions and it's, you know, the council's intent, you know, for open space, why wouldn't we remove Butte from the list? Anyway, perhaps that's something we could direct staff to follow up on. with the consultant. |
| 03:33:05.19 | Mayor Withing | Well, perhaps at some point we could get – we could figure out when is a reasonable time period for the Butte Street Test Force to report back. Maybe the full? I don't know how far they are in their proceedings, so we just don't know. |
| 03:33:20.82 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So we're going to... Thank you. |
| 03:33:21.84 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. |
| 03:33:21.91 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay, the reason I mention it as part of the task force is because we're redoing the housing element anyway, right? And if we're redoing the housing element anyway, now is the time to remove Butte. Now would be the time to do that. |
| 03:33:36.64 | Mayor Withing | Butte still currently zoned R3. |
| 03:33:41.33 | Lily (City Clerk) | Thank you. R2-5. |
| 03:33:42.67 | Mayor Withing | R2, sorry, R2 point whatever it is. Yeah. Okay. Future agenda items. Anybody have anything they want to add to the agenda? |
| 03:33:55.24 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:33:55.27 | John Flavin (Public Commenter) | you |
| 03:33:55.33 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:33:55.34 | John Flavin (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 03:33:56.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:33:57.26 | Mayor Withing | Council member Fiefer? |
| 03:33:58.48 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | No, I was just going to say the – I guess you've already confirmed that we're going to have the Marin PDA on the – is it the July agenda? |
| 03:34:10.63 | Mayor Withing | I honestly don't know when that is, whether we've actually been able to schedule that yet. |
| 03:34:15.73 | Councilmember León | we were going to just shoot for it. |
| 03:34:16.98 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:34:17.18 | Mayor Withing | Yeah. |
| 03:34:17.55 | Unknown | Yeah, we are looking at the earliest, the 22nd of July. That's what we shared. We've reached out to our friends in Marin City. I invited them. to let us know when they're available. We've also reached out to Kate Sears' office to see if someone from the county would like to join us. |
| 03:34:37.51 | Mayor Withing | Thank you. |
| 03:34:37.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:34:37.75 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:34:40.01 | Mayor Withing | Okay, any public comment on future agenda items? Seeing none. I imagine there are no other reports of significance, and so would welcome. Motion to adjourn. So moved and we are adjourned. You can go home now. Five minutes to 11. |
| 03:34:54.17 | Unknown | You can go home now. Five minutes to 11. |
Steve — Against: Supported removing HMU and using 330 Eptide. Opposed VMU, arguing existing programs (ADU, liveaboards, multifamily ordinance) are sufficient and VMU is not clearly needed. ▶ 📄
David Schoenbrunn — Against: Opposed VMU change allowing commercial on upper floors, arguing it contradicts housing crisis needs. Criticized doing the minimum and expressed regret about missed housing opportunities like Valhalla. ▶ 📄
Mayor Withey — Against: Urged council to oppose all high-density building due to environmental sustainability concerns (drought, population). Argued for preserving the environment for future generations. ▶ 📄
Riley Herd — In Favor: Supported scrapping HMU and using 330 Eptide. Urged careful examination of VMU necessity, suggesting it may not be needed. Recommended limiting VMU to allowing some commercial use upstairs if required. ▶ 📄
Mike Rogers — Against: Supported removing HMU and using 330 Eptide. Requested removal of 7-Eleven and Olive Street sites from VMU consideration due to impacts on views, traffic, and parking. ▶ 📄
Susan Sammels — Against: Opposed high-density housing as a climate solution. Advocated doing the minimum required by the state to keep future options open. ▶ 📄
Jenny Flynn — Against: Expressed concern that VMU could affect property values, especially regarding height limits and setbacks near her property on Caledonia Street. ▶ 📄
Lorette Rogers — Against: Urged removal of HMU and VMU from specific sites (7-Eleven, 2015 Bridgeway) to preserve neighborhood character, views, parking, traffic, and community feel. ▶ 📄
Nancy Osborne — Against: Supported the Eptide site but opposed HMU/VMU, citing degraded quality of life in north Sausalito (traffic, parking). Argued Sausalito can do without these programs. ▶ 📄