| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:04.13 | Mayor Withee | Good evening, everybody. Welcome to the adjourned regular meeting of the Sausalito City Council. Today is Tuesday, July 15. Lily, would you call the roll, please? |
| 00:00:20.55 | Lily (staff) | Councilmember Pfeiffer? Here. Councilmember Weiner? |
| 00:00:23.34 | Mayor Withee | President. |
| 00:00:24.08 | Lily (staff) | Councilmember Leon. |
| 00:00:25.50 | Mayor Withee | here. |
| 00:00:26.29 | Lily (staff) | Vice Mayor Theodores. |
| 00:00:27.47 | Mayor Withee | President. |
| 00:00:28.41 | Lily (staff) | Mayor Withey. |
| 00:00:29.33 | Mayor Withee | here. And Mike Rogers, will you lead us in the pledge this evening? |
| 00:00:38.93 | Unknown | to the lives. United States of America. Thank you. to your God's life. which stands. Amen. Thank you. Amen. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:00:53.09 | Mayor Withee | Thank you, Mike. |
| 00:00:58.32 | Mayor Withee | The council met in closed session to discuss one matter, conference with legal counsel. Is there any public comment on closed session items? Okay, seeing none, could we have a motion to approve the agenda? So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Seeing none. Okay, we have... |
| 00:01:24.24 | City Clerk | I... |
| 00:01:33.16 | Mayor Withee | an evening discussing our housing element, and there are two public hearings. The first public hearing is a general plan amendment to adopt a focused housing element amendment, and I'm We won't discuss the details in the heading, but go straight into it. So Lily, or you are starting off? |
| 00:02:07.20 | Lily (staff) | Thank you. I'm just here to introduce, we have with us Jeff Bradley with the Metropolitan Planning Group and Karen Warner with Karen Warner and Associates, and they will be guiding you through the staff report, and they have a presentation tonight. |
| 00:02:23.97 | Adam Politzer | Thank you, Lily. Thank you, Mayor, members of the council. I'll be taking the first agenda item, taking the lead, and Karen will take the lead on the second agenda item. One moment. |
| 00:02:50.62 | Adam Politzer | Some quick background. As the Council is aware, the existing housing element adopted in 2012 contained a program to encourage mixed-use development on certain sites. That program had two components, the vertical mixed-use program and the horizontal mixed-use program, otherwise known as the HMU. The HMU generates significant controversy in the community. The HMU had been proposed for two specific sites on Bridgeway, 1901 and 2015 Bridgeway. Thank you. made significant controversy in the community. The HMU had been proposed for two specific sites on Bridgeway, 1901 and 2015 Bridgeway. As a result of that controversy and neighborhood concern over the long-term impacts of that program, the council directed staff and the consultants to take a really hard look at all possible alternatives. We looked at several different alternatives, including relocating HMU to different properties to modifying the HMU program. However, we also took a good hard look at our original R3 zoning district analysis. The R3 zoning district allows for multifamily residential development. So we went back and looked at all of the R3 sites. To put it into context, there's nearly 3,400 parcels in the city, separate, discrete parcels of property. Almost 600 of these, 589 are zoned R3. And the key was to identify sites that were at least 12,000 square feet that could support a theoretical eight-unit project as potential replacements for the two HMU sites on Bridgeway. We found 17 of these sites. The majority of those were not eligible as candidate sites for the sites inventory for a variety of reasons. However, we did identify one site that was over the original filters in that it was over a 40% slope and it had three existing units on it. However, upon closer analysis, we found that the units were very small. They were older units. And while the site was steep, it was just barely over the 40% at 40.8%. And the property also enjoys double frontage on both Bridgeway and Ebtide that would help mitigate some of the site planning challenges of developing a multifamily parcel on a site such as that. |
| 00:05:22.33 | Adam Politzer | So this parcel, as you can see, is nearly an acre, three-quarters of an acre. It maxes out at 21 units, which is big enough to take the place of both of the eight-unit HMU parcels on Bridgeway. No zoning changes are required. This strategy is consistent with our original low-impact strategy of identifying properties within the community that under their existing zoning, with or without the housing element, have a certain level of development capacity associated with them. |
| 00:05:30.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:05:56.46 | Adam Politzer | So based on those two major changes, elimination of the HMU program, addition of the 330 Ebtide site, we work very closely with staff to develop what we're calling a focused amendment to the city's existing housing element. That's five major components, adding the 330 Ebtide Avenue site, removal or elimination of the HMU program, reflect progress as required by HCD, which is Housing and Community Development, of the ADU permits. also reflect the current status of the LiveAboard programs, and also minor text revisions as required. |
| 00:06:37.13 | Adam Politzer | I'm just going to very quickly walk you through the changes. While the changes themselves were fairly minor, they are scattered throughout the document. So within Chapter 2, which is the housing plan, we rewrote Program 8 to allow small second-story commercial in VMU, which was also in response to community concerns, to allow for continued diversity of land uses on those upper levels to encourage small commercial uses, elimination of the HMU program, update program 10 for the accessory dwelling units and the significant progress the city has made, update program 11 on where we are at currently with the Live-A-Board programs, and update program 20 to reflect the adoption of the multifamily standards in the multifamily zones. Chapter 4, Housing Resources. We updated the residential sites inventory, as shown on the slide for all four of those items. Appendix B, which is our housing constraint section, revises the analysis under land use controls, reflecting the elimination of the HMU, then reflect revisions to the VMU ordinance. and also to update the multifamily and the multifamily zones program. Appendices C and G is really both the analysis and the chart showing the vacant and underutilized |
| 00:08:06.57 | Adam Politzer | Fortunately, these changes were also considered as a focused amendment by HCD, and they were able to provide a very expedited review, and we received a HCD compliance letter dated And that same letter also removed the conditional approval that the city had received back in 2012 before the housing element relative to HCD needing to see the documented progress on the accessory dwelling units and the liveaboards. The next housing cycle for this new planning period, which goes for eight years, from 2015 to 2023, can proceed and the city remains eligible for streamlined review. |
| 00:08:50.04 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 00:08:51.86 | Adam Politzer | We went to the Planning Commission last week, and Planning Commission recommended that the Council adopt the focused housing element and adopt the addendum to the initial environmental study and negative declaration. |
| 00:09:07.56 | Adam Politzer | The environmental review was based on an addendum to the initial study in the NGDEC that was done in 2012. The addendum found no significant impact on the environment. |
| 00:09:20.62 | Adam Politzer | recommendation from staff and consultants is to adopt the focus housing element, adopt the addendum to the initial study, and make including minor text changes within the housing element as identified. terms of next steps We are in this box here. We met the July 15th date. Our backup date was July 22nd, but thanks to the expedited review by HCD, we're here tonight. If the council is able to adopt the element tonight, we can then forward it to HCD for formal approval based on the adopted element, and then we would receive the compliance letter. Thank you. We're happy to answer any questions. |
| 00:10:16.00 | Mayor Withee | Thank you, Jeff. |
| 00:10:19.73 | Mayor Withee | So let's open this up for questions by the City Council members. I'd like to ask that we ask a question, a reasonable follow-up, and then yield to see who else may have questions. And I'm sure we'll be able to get everything answered. |
| 00:10:26.80 | Unknown | Member? |
| 00:10:41.60 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And Mr. Mayor, I have a process question. Please. Do we want to, because we're talking about VMUs and HMUs and liveaboards and HMUs, do we want to start with the HMU and then work logically from that bullet list? |
| 00:10:44.12 | Mayor Withee | please. |
| 00:10:57.87 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Or do you want us to jump all around different programs? No. |
| 00:11:03.12 | Mayor Withee | No, it would be nice to do it in some logical order if we can find it. So do we have a If you could go back, someone please, in the presentation to... |
| 00:11:19.76 | Adam Politzer | Slide six. |
| 00:11:24.36 | Mayor Withee | Okay, so those probably are a good agenda for questions. |
| 00:11:28.94 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. Okay. Should I start? Yeah, please do. Okay. So we're going to start with the Ebb Tide site. So this question, I think I already know the answer to, so I'm asking it more for the benefit of those watching and listening. Just to clarify that adding 330 Ebb Tide on this list does not upzone it, put an overlay on it, change the zoning, rezone in any way, or make any changes to the way we current, what could currently be built on that site, |
| 00:11:30.84 | Mayor Withee | Yeah, please do. |
| 00:12:05.01 | Adam Politzer | That's 100% correct. |
| 00:12:07.19 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Do you want to, so it's zoned R3 right now, The only reason, the only difference is that we're counting it this time. Thank you. |
| 00:12:17.25 | Mayor Withee | All right. |
| 00:12:17.42 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay, thank you. |
| 00:12:20.10 | Mayor Withee | Okay, does anybody else have any particular questions on the Ebtide site and its addition? No? Okay. Any questions on the HMU program that we're eliminating? I don't think so. |
| 00:12:41.13 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Good riddance. |
| 00:12:41.33 | Mayor Withee | Good. Right. So. Yeah, the housing element contains required updates, and perhaps I will throw in a question about that first. For both the ADU and the liver boards, and we'll talk about each separately, but a more general question for you is, if this is a focused amendment that dealing with the modifications to Program 8, why are we reporting and updating on anything to do with ADUs or Liberal Boards? What's that got to do with |
| 00:13:34.18 | Karen Warner | The conditional compliance letter the City has on the adopted element relates to providing adequate sites for the arena, which were reliant in part on the ADU program and the Live Aboard program. In order to get rid of the conditional compliance and allow the city to move forward with the streamlined review on the updated element, we needed to demonstrate the city's progress on those two programs, which we were able to do successfully. Therefore, the conditional compliance was removed on this approval letter on the amendment, and the city can move forward with the streamlining. If we didn't report on those currently, then when the city went to do the streamlining we would have to do it then and it would be a much more involved process. So this amendment gave us the opportunity to do that reporting that the state had been asking for as part of that conditional compliance. The city was supposed to report a year after, but the ADU ordinance was only adopted a little over a year ago, so the timing actually was to your benefit. |
| 00:14:53.93 | Mayor Withee | Okay, so for sort of follow-up question, just to make sure I understand here, if we had not been doing a focused amendment to remove the HMU from our housing element and add the Eptide site to our site's inventory. Would we really then still have to provide this update to HCD in order to move forward for our next year? |
| 00:15:21.52 | Karen Warner | Yes, yes. We would have to do that because the first criteria for the streamlined review is an existing HCD-approved element, and yours is only conditionally approved. So we would have had to go through that hoop to prove to HCD satisfaction that you'd met that condition. |
| 00:15:40.07 | Mayor Withee | Okay, thank you. Does anybody else have any questions on the ADUs? |
| 00:15:44.02 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Thank you. Well, This goes with it and it overrides. On the compliance, I believe you said that on July 9th we received a compliance letter that removed our conditional approval, but then I think when Jeff went through the it said that if we do these things, we'll get it. So I just want to see where we are on that approval. |
| 00:15:58.38 | Karen Warner | I just want to see where we are on that. Right, and compliance. Um, official compliance is once you've adopted. But they use the term compliance on your draft amendment saying if you adopt as you presented the draft, you will be in compliance. |
| 00:16:18.04 | Mayor Withee | Anybody else with any specific questions on ADUs or then LiberBoard? |
| 00:16:25.94 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I have a couple questions. Thank you. So I know the last time I was asking about ADUs, we had a number in the queue for approval. And do we have an update on those numbers? And my second question as a follow-up is, will we, it's my understanding, we will be able to count ADUs. And FYI, for those of you who don't know, ADUs stands for Accessory Dwelling Units, and it's the second unit. Will we be able to apply, if we have some in the queue now that are not approved in December, will we be able to apply those ADUs towards the next housing element? |
| 00:16:26.29 | Mayor Withee | I have a couple questions. |
| 00:17:08.39 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | for very low and low income. |
| 00:17:11.14 | Karen Warner | So in the amendment packet, we included for both for the council and the commission as well as for HCD, the hot off the press latest and greatest ADU status. So we have a listing of, for new ADUs, we had six that have been approved. So that's what we've counted towards this cycle currently, with two other applications pending for new. And then for the amnesty ADUs, we have 14 that have gone through the permitting process that were not previously counted in the census. And that's the criteria in terms of whether you can credit them towards your RENA. So there were an additional five that were granted amnesty under the program, but they had been previously counted in the census, so we don't worry about them for RENA purposes. |
| 00:18:23.96 | Karen Warner | 44 additional amnesty ADUs somewhere in the process. So you're right, we can and because as we talked about before, this 2014 is a floating year. It's both in your existing cycle and your future. So whatever benefits you, you know, in terms of which period to count it in, you most definitely will count those. |
| 00:18:55.38 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So just to paraphrase, the answer is yes, we can count them in this housing element in very low and low income, and we can count them in the next housing element for very low, low income. |
| 00:19:06.62 | Karen Warner | Right, but you can't count the same one. Thank you. |
| 00:19:09.69 | Unknown | Right. |
| 00:19:10.01 | Karen Warner | Thank you. Okay. |
| 00:19:14.10 | Unknown | ADU questions, ADU questions, no? I have a follow-up question. |
| 00:19:17.45 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I have a follow-up question. So can you point us to, I know that some language was inserted that changed the liveaboard. Can you point me, I just got this on Friday, so I've been working through voluminous documents. What page is the new phrasing for the ADUs? Is that the blue paper? Thank you. |
| 00:19:43.86 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Okay. |
| 00:19:49.18 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:19:49.23 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah, I know, there are a lot of different changes. |
| 00:19:49.25 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Yeah. |
| 00:20:00.38 | Karen Warner | So, Are you referring to the changes that the Planning Commission reviewed or the changes that the minor technical changes that came after the Planning Commission review? |
| 00:20:17.53 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I guess I'm interested in kind of an overview of the changes that HCD has asked. Did HCD ask for any changes? |
| 00:20:22.86 | Karen Warner | that Sure. |
| 00:20:30.91 | Karen Warner | Well, as we discussed, we updated the status of the Live-A-Board program like we did the ADU. And then in addition to that, on the glue sheets of paper. Attachment three. So I need actually, let me get that. |
| 00:21:07.87 | Karen Warner | So attachment three, HCD asks for further clarification on the liveaboards. So on the first page of attachment three, which is Roman numeral 4-13, it's stating what we've shown in the table above, which is the in terms of crediting the undercounted liveaboards towards URENA, we are just crediting those that have the city permits in place. So a total of six. |
| 00:21:47.54 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So a total of Sorry to interrupt. Really quickly, before we jump into the liveaboards, could you just clarify my ADU question? Were there any changes to the ADU, like parking requirements, tandem, anything else? No. Okay, thanks. No. So I guess we can move on to the liveaboards. |
| 00:22:00.58 | City Clerk | anything else. |
| 00:22:08.18 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So you were saying they are only counting those that have the BCDC permit? |
| 00:22:11.96 | Karen Warner | and the city permit. So on our table 4.4, and this is the same level board update that we provided Council probably in January, and we'd been using this six-unit number in all of our updated RHNA analysis tables. We've identified as, you know, we have, you know, since the last element, the 2000 census undercount of 38 live aboard units. We needed to, bring those into the city's housing stock through local permitting. That process did not occur on Pelican and Sausalito Yacht Harbor, so they cannot be counted because they aren't officially in the city's housing stock as permitted. The Schoonmacher Marina, six that were undercounted there in the census are legal non-conforming uses, so they are permitted. So those are the six that are counted in the city sites inventory. And so the statement that is added there was a clarification that the state requested be made. |
| 00:23:32.86 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And what about Galilee? I see the reference. It's been Galilee. |
| 00:23:36.01 | Karen Warner | It's been counted, yeah. |
| 00:23:38.15 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | When you say it's been counted, you mean it's counted in this housing element? |
| 00:23:41.85 | Karen Warner | it was counted as credit towards your housing element, yes. |
| 00:23:45.88 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yes. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:23:47.07 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 00:23:47.08 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. And then the statement that concerned me was the one that suggested, and I hope I'm interpreting this wrong, that we won't be able to count them in the future, in future housing elements. Thank you. |
| 00:24:02.86 | Karen Warner | with. |
| 00:24:03.20 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So could you clarify that a little bit for me? |
| 00:24:03.21 | Karen Warner | So could you clarify that a little bit for me? Yeah, let me clarify that because that's definitely not the case. So on the next page on this attachment, which is page C11, |
| 00:24:10.66 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:24:11.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:24:19.26 | Karen Warner | Again, the state asked us to clarify, which is what's already been presented in the table, that the 2010 census, because the census blocks are much different in configuration, much larger and include many more housing units, we aren't able to isolate any undercount for the 2010 census, which is the basis of the census. your arena for your future housing element. So the statement here is that your housing element for this upcoming cycle will not include a liveaboard undercount. And then we've added the clarification that this only refers to the 2010 census, and doesn't limit the city's ability to analyze and utilize any future discrepancies commencing with the 2020 census. And that's, again, there's two pots when we're talking about liveaboard. There's the undercount, and then there's the future capacity. So the future capacity we will be counting in your updated element. |
| 00:25:34.20 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So future capacity, I know that right now we allow 10% live aborts per marina. Right. And so we're not, right now, we're not, |
| 00:25:38.86 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:25:38.93 | Karen Warner | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:25:39.10 | Unknown | you |
| 00:25:47.91 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | How do I put this? Our ability to count the future capacity in the future means that we could potentially maximize that 10 percent per marina. if they are permitted, is that what I understand? Exactly. Right, exactly. |
| 00:26:00.73 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 00:26:00.75 | City Clerk | Exactly. Right. Exactly. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:26:08.07 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah. |
| 00:26:10.45 | Councilmember Leon | Can I see you clarify that because it's a little, what you, I thought what you said might be a little easy to be easily misunderstood. So if additional marinas that are not currently So basically, the 10% allocations for those that are permitted, that capacity already exists per this. If you went greater than 10% in these existing permitted marinas, then you could add that additional capacity to your liveaboard numbers, |
| 00:26:40.25 | Karen Warner | Well, only if there was an expansion of a BCDC permit beyond 10 percent. That's what I'm saying. |
| 00:26:44.30 | Councilmember Leon | That's what I'm saying. So it's not like any of these, unless the percentage changes or there are other marinas that don't currently have permits for... there won't be additional capacity added. |
| 00:26:55.95 | Karen Warner | The one exception is the Sausalito Yacht Harbor, because they have a 5% |
| 00:27:05.70 | Councilmember Leon | Self-imposed care. Right. Right. |
| 00:27:06.98 | Karen Warner | Right. They can increase to 10%. City's been in contact with them. BCDC's been in contact with them. they can increase to the full 10%, which is 31 additional births. |
| 00:27:19.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:27:19.78 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 00:27:19.98 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 00:27:20.90 | Karen Warner | but they need to go through the local city permitting. So that will be a program in the future element where we would be looking at, you know, 31 additional live aboard spaces there. |
| 00:27:30.47 | Councilmember Leon | Right. So that's the only existing permitted marina that could increase the capacity under the current 10% law. The rest of your capacity has already been counted except for that one marina. Yes. Unless they're either new marinas or existing marinas that don't have permits for liveaboard. |
| 00:27:34.09 | Karen Warner | Perfect. |
| 00:27:42.15 | Karen Warner | Except for that one marina. Yes. |
| 00:27:49.74 | Karen Warner | in this current element. We do have a future liveaboard capacity that we're counting of 24 liveaboards. And that's two marinas that, again, are in the marineship, so they have the local permitting necessary. They have the BCDC permits. The existing number of liveaboards there, are in total 24 less than what is permitted by the 10%. So we're counting that potential increase of 24 in this housing |
| 00:28:24.89 | Councilmember Leon | In this housing only. In this housing only. Right. So there's the only potential additional capacity of what's permitted currently is in that one |
| 00:28:33.97 | Karen Warner | Right, for the future element right now. Right, for the element we have to finish by. Somebody else could come and go through a process and get permitted, but right now that's really the only one. |
| 00:28:36.05 | Councilmember Leon | right now. Right. For the element we have to finish by. Right. |
| 00:28:44.52 | Councilmember Leon | Right, so I just want to make that so that it's clear there's no more magic to be had in the undercount in the capacity versus occupancy in the existing permitted marina liveaboards. Right. Okay. Okay. |
| 00:28:46.17 | Karen Warner | that's cool. |
| 00:28:56.10 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor, I do have a follow-up, and thanks for that clarification, because that wasn't my initial interpretation of what you said earlier. If we looked at 10% of the liveaboard capacity right now in Sausalito, 10% per marina, I thought the number was something like if it was maxed at that 10%, is it like 90% or potential count? |
| 00:28:57.03 | Councilmember Leon | Yeah. |
| 00:29:02.63 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 00:29:18.61 | Karen Warner | We worked extensively with BCDC to get the actual, because it's not exactly 10% for every single marina. So we have the actual number. They dug through all their files and they got the actual permitted for each and every marina that has permits in Sausalito. So we're working with that actual number. |
| 00:29:27.65 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So we. |
| 00:29:27.97 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:29:37.88 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | What's that number? |
| 00:29:39.26 | Karen Warner | I would have to look it up and look it to you. |
| 00:29:40.58 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Well, let's, for just argument's sake, for clarity's sake, let's say that number was 30. What I'm asking for is, I know in this housing element, we're saying we can only credit like six or, you know, or a certain number of these liveaboards. Is that correct? |
| 00:29:44.04 | Karen Warner | Yeah. |
| 00:30:01.15 | Karen Warner | that were under counted per the 2000 census. |
| 00:30:03.87 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah. So I guess I'm just, what I'm struggling with is that we're saying that in the future housing element, we can't count more live awards, even though it sounds like we are looking at future capacity with those 24, you know, now. Is that correct? Yes. So we've already met our RHNA count. We've already met our numbers. And, you know, is that 24 that we're counting towards the RHNA? |
| 00:30:30.78 | Karen Warner | Yes, let's look at the slide. |
| 00:30:31.83 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | It is. |
| 00:30:36.65 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | This is important to me because it plays to minimal impact when we're looking at future housing elements and this speaks to infill in our marinas. |
| 00:30:51.88 | Karen Warner | So if we look at the existing liveaboard, |
| 00:30:59.39 | Karen Warner | line. As I mentioned, we had 38, but 32 of those don't have the local city permitting. Can't be counted. Okay. So that was an undercount from the 2000 census. the 2010 census, and I have the map if we want to look at it, the boundaries are much bigger for each of the blocks where the marinas are, and we can't isolate any undercount. So that's what the narrative is saying, that in this next element, where the arena is, the baseline is the 2010 census, we aren't able to show any undercount. future housing element 2020 census, boundaries may be different. You can revisit it then. But in terms of an undercount in this next element, and HCD has made that very, very |
| 00:31:47.50 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So we can't, so that 38 that you've crossed out, even though they're here, we can't count them for the next housing element? |
| 00:31:55.39 | Karen Warner | No. No. because we can't document per the census that they haven't been counted. |
| 00:32:02.75 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | But we can't document that they have, I mean, |
| 00:32:06.79 | Karen Warner | Well, the burden of proof, unfortunately, is that the city would have to document that they haven't. And for the future element, I mean, for the future, we had 55. Now we have 24 that have the city permits that we'll be able to count in this cycle. The balance is 31, which is the Sausalito Yacht Harbor that could go from 5% to 10%, which is what we'll be looking at for the future one. |
| 00:32:33.85 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So when we say the future, that 31, could that be in the next housing element? Yes. OK. Yes, exactly. So we're not completely closing the door for the next housing element. We still have 31 potential units that we could count if Saucido Yacht Harbor said, we're going to go from 5% to 10%. That's exactly right. OK. |
| 00:32:37.77 | Karen Warner | Yes, exactly. |
| 00:32:47.18 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 00:32:50.37 | Karen Warner | Yes. |
| 00:32:52.68 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. All right. |
| 00:32:53.29 | Mayor Withee | Could I ask a follow-up clarifying on that specific point? In order to count that 31 for the next element, do we have to have done the permitting before the element is filed and certified by HCD? |
| 00:32:53.41 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 00:33:14.20 | Karen Warner | We're going to have to have a pretty tight program with a pretty concrete timeframe for that permitting to have occurred. And it may be another one of these if we're going ahead and counting those 31 units in, you know, the site's inventory, in advance of that permitting occurring, It may be another one of these where the state says, if you needed that for your sites, which you may not, but if you did need that for your sites, they may say your element is conditionally certified based on your implementation of this. If you don't need it for your sites, which you very well may not, because your RHNA is so much lower, then it wouldn't be a conditional compliance. |
| 00:34:05.43 | Mayor Withee | So we're getting a little ahead of ourselves because we're going to be discussing this when we talk about the future housing element in September, October timeframe. |
| 00:34:14.83 | City Clerk | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:34:18.75 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And if we, one more question, Mr. Mayor. So if, and if we don't count the 31 units in the next housing element, can we potentially count them in the 2022? |
| 00:34:20.54 | Mayor Withee | Please. |
| 00:34:32.82 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | assuming that the next cycle is sent. Yes, right. So in other words, there's no limit. |
| 00:34:33.46 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:34:33.51 | Karen Warner | Yes. Yes. Okay. So in other words, there's no limit. It's an easier task to show capacity for future liveaboards than it is to say, to prove, to document adequately that there was an undercount in the census. |
| 00:34:52.99 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. And quick question on Pelican Harbor. What if Pelican Harbor gets a permit? Would we be able to count them? It's my understanding we didn't count Pelican Harbor in this round. And they're here. Right. So if they got a permit, could we count them in the next housing element? |
| 00:35:07.55 | Karen Warner | Right. |
| 00:35:17.71 | Karen Warner | In terms of because this is a coder year. |
| 00:35:21.39 | Leslie Hale | Because there's just a coder here. |
| 00:35:24.83 | Karen Warner | You could count them in terms of future capacity, but not the RENA undercount. Why not? Because it's a floater? |
| 00:35:30.72 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Why not? Because it's a floater year? It's kind of connected? |
| 00:35:32.96 | Karen Warner | Well, because it's... the future housing element, RENA, 2014 to 2022 is based on the 2010 census. And if we look at these maps we put together. |
| 00:35:58.60 | Karen Warner | Let me see. This is an example, and we just highlighted this particular census block. So this is the 2000 census and it's block 1000. That's as small as you can get down that's public data from the census. And in that block exists both Sausalito Yacht Harbor and Pelican Harbor that were counted to have 40 existing liveaboards. The 2000 census shows only eight units in that census block. So, 40 existing live boards we know about. Census only counted eight, so we know there's that 32-unit undercount. That's where that 32-unit number came from. We aren't counting those towards your arena because they don't have city permits. When we compare it with the 2010 census, this same block is now renumbered, 1039. It's much, much larger, more than twice as big. Sausalito Yacht, Pelican Harbor, still there, 40 liveaboards, but the 2010 census identifies 62 units. So we can no longer say there's, you know, definitively that there's an undercount. So that's kind of, and this is the same in, in the past, in the all of the census blocks where there's marinas. The unit count for the 2010 census is much, much bigger. |
| 00:37:28.91 | Mayor Withee | Okay, is there any other questions up here on the liver boards? And any other questions generally before we open this up for public comment? |
| 00:37:45.87 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I have to think about this. I might have questions after. |
| 00:37:50.21 | Mayor Withee | Okay, so at this point then, let's open this up for public comment. |
| 00:37:56.69 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:37:56.89 | Mayor Withee | I guess. |
| 00:37:57.16 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | A quick question. Were we going to discuss the VMU program? Were we doing public comment first? Is that going to be just later? |
| 00:38:05.61 | Mayor Withee | The EMU program is in the next agenda, isn't it? |
| 00:38:11.17 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And what about Butte? Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:38:16.06 | Councilmember Leon | That's in the emergency shelter discussion, I believe. Is that correct? |
| 00:38:16.30 | Mayor Withee | in the |
| 00:38:19.81 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | No, Butte is regarding a lot of people don't want to see Butte kept on the list in the housing element. |
| 00:38:26.62 | Mayor Withee | But, I mean, let's just put it aside for a second. If you look at item 2B, introduce and read by title only, da-da-da-da-da-da, a.k.a. vertical mixed-use regulations. So that's actually part of agenda topic 2B. |
| 00:38:50.57 | Mayor Withee | But yeah, so for VMUs. For Butte, that relates, I think, to the site's inventory, and so that would probably be more appropriately discussed now. |
| 00:38:51.68 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 00:38:51.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:38:51.87 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 00:38:51.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:39:03.45 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So now, okay, so I do have questions regarding the Butte parcel. Mr. Mayor? Please, go ahead. OK. So. |
| 00:39:10.13 | Unknown | Please. |
| 00:39:17.11 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Why is Butte still on the list? Because we have a letter from the Butte Task Force that says it should be removed from the list. We have a vote from our city council stating the intention to donate the city's parcel for open space. And we know a resident group is working on that goal for open space. So it seems to me we are, you know, being very misleading to keep that on the list, and I'm wondering why it's still on the list. |
| 00:39:57.31 | Adam Politzer | Essentially, we recommend that the city keep it on the list because our list is simply a collection of those sites under the existing zoning and general plan parameters that the city has in place today that have some development potential. And the Butte Avenue site is a very large vacant site, and we do not have too many large vacant sites here in Sausalito. It has multi-family zoning in place. Obviously there is a lot of discussions afoot within the community about the future disposition of that site but we feel it would be premature to take it off the list at this point. It would be a natural place to have that conversation as part of the next housing element where we're generating a new sites inventory list and dealing with that lower arena number of 79 for the city to decide which sites they want to have on and off the list based on change circumstances. |
| 00:41:00.00 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I have two follow-up questions. |
| 00:41:02.60 | Mayor Withee | Yeah, can we just rotate a little bit? |
| 00:41:04.05 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Please. |
| 00:41:04.27 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 00:41:06.14 | Councilmember Leon | So to clarify that, in this, in the prior adopted housing element, the 2012 housing element, are we, is that plan relying on that site providing Thank you. units that apply to our RENA numbers. |
| 00:41:30.36 | Adam Politzer | Yes, it is in our inventory as providing 16 above-moderate units within the R2-5 zoning district. |
| 00:41:41.23 | Councilmember Leon | I'm just asking for clarification. And then that, in the jargon of housing element, what type of unit does that mean? |
| 00:41:48.03 | Adam Politzer | and then |
| 00:41:48.30 | Unknown | that. |
| 00:41:48.38 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 00:41:48.41 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:41:54.09 | Adam Politzer | Those are essentially market rate units. It's within those four income categories. It's the high end of the incomes. Okay. But the city is – we talk mostly about the lower end of it, but the city is required to provide housing opportunities within each of those four categories. |
| 00:41:56.18 | Councilmember Leon | MR. Yes. |
| 00:42:00.82 | Councilmember Leon | Thank you. |
| 00:42:00.85 | City Clerk | Okay. |
| 00:42:10.64 | Councilmember Leon | And if that was removed, we'd have to replace that with something that would provide 16 additional above market, above, or market rate based units? |
| 00:42:21.95 | Adam Politzer | Currently, the above market category, RENA, the Regional Housing Needs Allocation or Planning Target, is 56 units, and we're showing 58. So we have just two over. |
| 00:42:46.33 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I have a follow-up. So I'm very concerned about this. This is the first time I'm hearing that Butte is being counted as part of our arena. I, especially for, with regards to the above moderate units, we, with the passage of the multi-family ordinance, We... ensured that additional homes or units could be built on R2 and R2.5 parcels. So clearly we have created an opportunity for capacity to accommodate additional homes. And I know that a number of those R2, R2.5 parcels are large parcels and would presumably accommodate certainly above moderate homes. I know a couple that just popped up in my neighborhood three doors down. So, I think we need to take a close look at this and revisit the impact of the R2 and R25 to accommodate that 16 above moderate unit. Butte should not be should not be on this list, especially if it's being counted towards our arena. It's just misleading. I mean, isn't it true that if we keep Butte on this list, if a developer comes like the next week and says, you know, I'm going to buy this and I'm going to buy this and it's by right, we have to say yes, you get to build? |
| 00:44:23.39 | Adam Politzer | No. No. |
| 00:44:24.54 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. |
| 00:44:24.66 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 00:44:24.68 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. |
| 00:44:26.55 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | It's in our, it's listed in our- We own half of that. The city owns half of that. I know, I know. The city owns half of it. |
| 00:44:26.84 | Adam Politzer | It's listed in our... |
| 00:44:28.04 | Councilmember Leon | that the city. |
| 00:44:28.96 | Adam Politzer | I know. |
| 00:44:29.81 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:44:29.93 | Councilmember Leon | Thank you. |
| 00:44:32.96 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I mean, we're putting it on our housing element. To me, it's my understanding that when we're identifying it as part of our arena, there is a |
| 00:44:40.12 | Unknown | China. |
| 00:44:42.62 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | a developer What's it called? The developer's solution. You know what I'm talking about. There are rights. I've looked into this. I don't have it in front of me right now. You're saying, okay, so you're saying we can put Butte On our list of housing elements, and we don't have any legal binding requirement to build if a developer comes up. |
| 00:45:08.28 | Adam Politzer | The features of the site that gives the site development capacity is not its listing within the housing element site's inventory. The features of the site that gives it development capacity is the general plan designation contained within the general plan and the zoning capacity, the zoning district designation. It is zoned R25 and is actually the only R25 zone parcel within our site's inventory. |
| 00:45:34.81 | Lily (staff) | Mr. Mayor, if I may also. |
| 00:45:36.55 | Adam Politzer | Please. |
| 00:45:36.85 | Lily (staff) | It's the same concept as adding the 330 Ebtide site to the site's inventory list. Adding the 330 Ebtide site doesn't change its zoning, it doesn't change development standards, it doesn't obligate the property owner to build, it doesn't require the property owner to build. It's the same concept. |
| 00:45:53.90 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay, just to follow a question on that, it's the same concept except for 330 Ebtite is an established parcel with three units already on it. It's been there for many years. I mean, we kind of know where that's coming from. Butte is Greenfield. That's open space. It's prime for a developer to come in. |
| 00:46:11.50 | Mayor Withee | See you. for a developer to come in. Excuse me. Sorry for interrupting, but just for clarification, it's not open space. |
| 00:46:19.34 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | It's zoned R2, but it has no units on it. The community views it as a parcel of open space, the same way we viewed the open space for Woodward. So my question is, couldn't we go back and look at the available units that we have generated as a result of the multifamily ordinance to identify opportunities in our underutilized parcel inventory that the city analysis did to accommodate that 16. Rena, I can think of five off the top of my head that would accommodate. |
| 00:46:58.68 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. |
| 00:47:01.89 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:47:01.95 | Mayor Withee | Let the question be answered first. |
| 00:47:03.83 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Jeff, I'll be back. Thank you. |
| 00:47:05.53 | Councilmember Leon | Can I ask the staff a question about this particular thing? So the multifamily housing ordinance, I don't think that was the actual name of it, but whatever it was called, is, |
| 00:47:05.61 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:47:05.72 | Lily (staff) | Thank you. |
| 00:47:19.06 | Councilmember Leon | that My understanding of it, and please clarify the right answer here, is that it maintained the existing capacity or potential supply of what's there. It didn't create additional capacity. capacity to build. |
| 00:47:34.27 | Lily (staff) | That's correct. It did not change the density allowed on any parcel in Sausalito. If I may, what it did is it change the development standards so that single family houses on multifamily parcels would have to be smaller than what they were allowed last year, essentially. |
| 00:47:54.50 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 00:47:54.55 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I'm not sure if you're not sure |
| 00:47:54.57 | Lily (staff) | Okay, but as a So I know. |
| 00:48:13.54 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | With the multi-family ordinance, it seems to me that we are protecting we're preventing McMansions and we're protecting that extra space to allow for the development of extra homes. It seems like we're increasing density, but we're not taking credit for it in the arena. |
| 00:48:34.02 | Mayor Withee | Or, yeah. |
| 00:48:34.28 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:48:34.29 | City Clerk | If you're not. |
| 00:48:34.38 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:48:36.22 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:48:37.43 | Adam Politzer | The policy thrust of the multifamily development within the multifamily zones was to discourage the construction of a single family home on a property that was zoned for two, three, four, or five homes, because that would essentially negate the zoning value of those properties in terms of this type of analysis and the goals of the city in terms of providing multifamily housing. Furthermore, there was a built-in incentive to actually build single family homes in the multifamily districts because of the way the zoning district standards were set up. You could actually build a larger home on a 6,000 square foot multifamily parcel than you could on a 6,000 square foot single family parcel. So the city's policy direction was really to reverse that trend. It didn't actually create, based on our type of analysis where we look at the underlying zoning, if we see a site that allows for four units, we're going to count it as four units even though there might be this wrinkle within the zoning ordinance that might incentivize someone to build just one big house on that. So the policy direction was really just to even that out. |
| 00:49:44.36 | Mayor Withee | it. |
| 00:49:49.22 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. Vice Mayor Theodore. |
| 00:49:51.28 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Just on the Butch Street property, either putting it, leaving it on the list or taking it off the list. Does it make any difference to what anyone can do in terms of BUILDING, ZONING, ANY OF THE THINGS, ANY OF THE WORDS ACTUALLY COUNCIL MEMBER PFEIFER DESCRIBED WITH 330 EBTIDE. Is there any difference if we took it off, any other, or if we left it on, any difference in terms of what can be done there, what can be developed, what can't be developed? |
| 00:50:16.78 | Adam Politzer | No. |
| 00:50:18.50 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | And the other thing is, in terms of it being on the list and the effect of placing it on the list, is that identical to what 330 Eptide is in terms of the effect on the property? That is, neither one have any changes in ability to develop and that type of thing. Correct. |
| 00:50:35.95 | Mayor Withee | Yes, Councillor Noir. |
| 00:50:37.11 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay, thank you. Yeah, and again, I understand it doesn't change the zoning at all, and I understand nothing changes for Butte. Again, my concern is the nature of the Butte parcel being open space. Nothing's on it. So a follow-up question. In the 2010 city analysis of underdeveloped parcels, I don't have the R2 zones in front of me but I've got the R3 parcels they identified 158 R3 parcels that would yield 338 potential new units so that's 338 potential new units on the R3 zones surely some of those would be above moderate |
| 00:51:23.92 | Mayor Withee | Before you answer that question, what is the piece of paper you're reading from? |
| 00:51:30.47 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | These are my personal notes from all the data that I've received since 2010. |
| 00:51:32.90 | Mayor Withee | Okay. |
| 00:51:33.74 | Councilmember Leon | Thank you. |
| 00:51:34.55 | Mayor Withee | Fair enough, so this isn't a document |
| 00:51:35.39 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:51:35.41 | Councilmember Leon | is. |
| 00:51:36.16 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:51:36.22 | Councilmember Leon | documents. Are you quote, is those figures quoted from a document |
| 00:51:37.25 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. |
| 00:51:39.87 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yes, the 2010 city analysis of underdeveloped parcels. |
| 00:51:43.80 | Mayor Withee | That was my question. What was the document you were reading on? Thank you. Okay. Sorry, Jeff. I wanted to. |
| 00:51:46.30 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah. |
| 00:51:46.55 | City Clerk | you |
| 00:51:49.57 | Adam Politzer | No problem. Thank you for that clarification. We have reviewed the 2010 sites analysis that was prepared by staff at the time, and our view was that that analysis was essentially the opposite of our analysis. It sought to identify the maximum amount of units that could be built within the city, within the zoning districts. Our analysis was to seek how many units could realistically, within the planning period, be reasonably foreseen to be developed. So as we've discussed before, we had eight filters that we applied to the parcels to try to build a case, a legitimate viable case that we had a body of parcels that could support a certain amount of development. And each parcel had to pass the test of strict scrutiny of, you know, is it not underwater? Is it not hanging off a cliff? Is it served by utilities? Does it have frontage on a public street? Real basic things you need to show that a parcel is ripe for some form of redevelopment. The 2010 study went completely the other direction and just was like a maximum total build out of the city that we couldn't use for our purposes. |
| 00:53:04.21 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | It is, it was, thank you, Jeff. But wasn't it? |
| 00:53:05.59 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. Council. Are you one more clarifying question? Yes, yes. Thank you. |
| 00:53:09.61 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | question so what what I'm hearing is it was your opinion that those units were not those potential new units were not viable to count but it was city staff opinion that they were I don't think they got I don't |
| 00:53:24.26 | Adam Politzer | I don't think they got, honestly, I don't think they got to that point. I think it was a pure exercise of what is our zoning districts? What are our parcels? What's the interplay between the two? And I don't think they ever got to the point of filtering it down to a body of parcels that you could reasonably say had development potential. |
| 00:53:40.47 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Well, I recall a different conversation. But anyway, so it looks like we just disagreed. |
| 00:53:47.46 | Adam Politzer | It's like we just disagreed. Well, and the methodology was totally different. We looked at every parcel in detail and ran numbers on them and visited them and looked at them on Google Earth and the assessor records and the GIS records. That study was a sampling study where they took the 3,400 parcels or looked at the, for example, the 600 parcels in the R3. They took a 10% sample, looked at those, and then extrapolated that across the entire inventory of parcels. So it was not a methodology that we could use within the housing element. |
| 00:54:20.97 | Shanford Laird | Well, I just disagree. |
| 00:54:21.78 | Adam Politzer | Thanks. |
| 00:54:22.27 | Councilmember Leon | Thank you. |
| 00:54:22.31 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 00:54:22.34 | Councilmember Leon | I just disagree. Councilmember. So. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Because, and this is my, is there anything that would preclude us, because we're in the current cycle that we have to, where the goal is to complete it by the end of this year and have it, you know, it goes to the, I forget when we have to submit it, January or something like that, to, is that correct, to? Yes, the new element. We're amending the current element in these actions here. Is there anything, because of how we've placed it in this current housing element, removing it in the next housing element update, which is again at the end of the year? |
| 00:54:46.81 | Mayor Withee | Is there anything new relevant? |
| 00:54:48.93 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:54:49.19 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 00:54:49.22 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:54:49.26 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 00:54:49.34 | Unknown | things. |
| 00:55:07.31 | Adam Politzer | No, there's the new housing element starts a blank sheet of paper, essentially, a new housing allocation for the city that is much lower than the allocations you've been dealing with up till now. And that would be the ideal time to look at it in our view. |
| 00:55:25.81 | Councilmember Leon | And also if we changed, can I clarify that? If the zoning on that site was changed, let's say it was changed to open space, you could no longer count it in any scenario anyway because it's not zoned for housing. Correct. |
| 00:55:38.51 | Adam Krivac | Thank you. |
| 00:55:40.20 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. Is there any more questions on the Butte Street site? |
| 00:55:46.93 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | No, I'm just incredulous. |
| 00:55:49.92 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. |
| 00:55:50.93 | Unknown | Any other questions? |
| 00:55:52.28 | Mayor Withee | No, okay, so let's open this up for public comment then. Now, folks, those of you who wanna talk, you've got three minutes, but could I remind you that you need to restrict your comments to this particular topic. We're going to be talking later on about some of you. I don't know why each of you may be here for different reasons. And some of you may be here to talk about VMU. Some of you may be here to talk about emergency shelters. Some of you may be here to talk about other aspects. That's the next agenda item. So if you want to talk about emergency shelters, hold off at this point. Okay? So we're here talking about the focused amendment agenda topic and the topics we've just been discussing. Okay? So who would like to... So we're here talking about the focused amendment agenda topic and the topics we've just been discussing. So who would like to actually... Yeah. |
| 00:56:48.01 | Councilmember Leon | Can I suggest you bring up those bullet points again so we know what those focus are? |
| 00:56:51.09 | Mayor Withee | Yeah, excellent idea. Who's controlling the? Yeah, okay, so really that's the scope of our public comment, these agenda topics. |
| 00:57:05.23 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | along with Butte. |
| 00:57:06.48 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. Along with you, yes, of course. Yeah, for this item. And you're all going to have the chance, those who want to, to come up and give public comment on the next agenda item, which is going to contain possibly what you're here for. OK? So who would like to? comment on this, the topic that we're talking about now, which are these agenda topics plus Butte Street. OK, please, you can either line up or don't be shy. Just forget, whoever wants to go first. |
| 00:57:48.89 | Jenny Reinders | Good evening. I'm Jenny Reinders. I'm sorry I didn't quite understand our undercount on the liveaboards. Because I know people who live down on the boats and that's the ultimate in low-income housing, which Sausalito has, of course, historically been famous for. So I wonder if you could at some point explain that to us. It's because of the census? If they weren't recorded in the census, we don't get credit for those people who are living on sailboats or houseboats. |
| 00:58:22.24 | Mary Wagner | Yeah. |
| 00:58:26.71 | Jenny Reinders | In the future, is there a way for us to participate in that census gathering and help the city get our future counts? Thank you. |
| 00:58:35.24 | Mayor Withee | Would staff like to answer that question, please? |
| 00:58:42.43 | Councilmember Leon | is a confusing issue so you're not alone confusing still as we even as we discuss it for the 10th I think the key is |
| 00:58:49.24 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I think the key is to protect that diversity in our housing elements. |
| 00:58:53.64 | Councilmember Leon | well. |
| 00:58:56.24 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:58:56.27 | Karen Warner | So, The arena. in 99% of the cases is looking at new development, because it's projections of growth. In certain circumstances, and in Sausalito we've been very fortunate to be able to take advantage of these circumstances. if we're able to demonstrate that there are existing units that were not counted as part of the baseline RENA, which is developed by ABAG here, and the way you determine that is that they weren't counted in the 2000 census for your existing RENA, then we're able to count those in the site's inventory. And the two instances where we've been able to do that is through the ADU Amnesty Program. You're one of the two instances where two jurisdictions in the state now that has been able to do that, to get RHNA credit for existing units. and then the other is liveaboards. And it's not that the existing liveaboards that are there aren't a huge contribution to the city's affordable housing stock. And we've spent a lot of time researching this. And you know, developing a rich narrative in the element and program about the liveaboards in Sausalito and how they're such an important part of your housing. Then there's RHNA credit. So there's certain rules for RHNA credit. And as I said, there's two buckets. There's counting what we can demonstrate was not previously counted in the 2000 census. and has BCDC permits and city permits. So we were able to show in the 2000 census that there were 38 liveaboards that weren't counted. However, only six of those have both BCDC and city permits. So for RHNA credit, that's what we're going to count in this element. For the other bucket, and this is the 2010, but the other bucket is live aboard capacity. So this is where you have three marinas that have Sausalito Yacht has potential capacity for 10 percent and they're only using 5 percent. Schoomacher has its 10% at BCDC has authorized 20 liveaboards, they only have 16, so there's unused capacity of 4. Clipper has BCDC permits for 72, they're using 52. So there's an unused capacity of 20. So in total, you have Currently, unused capacity of 55. For this cycle, we're discounting the 24 because they have all the permitting in place. This Sausalito yacht needs to go through additional city and BCDC permitting to get that extra 5%. So it's, liveaboards are very important to the city's housing, to the city's housing element. When it comes to RHNA credit, there's, you know, just certain rules that we have to follow. |
| 01:02:40.20 | Mayor Withee | Could I remind – thank you, Karen. Could I remind my fellow council members that we're right now in public comment time? So we'll have staff answer any questions that members of the public ask, and then if we want to ask more questions, we'll bring it back up here. So is there – anybody else? Mike. |
| 01:03:00.13 | Mike Rogers | Good evening, everyone. I sent in a late letter, very short. I'm not sure if everyone got a chance to look at it. I contemplated last night for many hours going over all the documentation that has been provided, and I thought I came up with what might be a simple solution, although I found out that with state things aren't that simple. But I thought since it's so short I'd just read it. And it has to do with the housing element and state density laws, and specifically the bonus provision that allows for exemptions that most builders would use for height, parking, and traffic. So here we go. Just a quick note regarding the housing element. When I talked to Sausalito residents, property owners, voters, and taxpayers, including council members, Housing Element Committee members and Planning Commissioners The consensus is that no one wants a repeat of what happened at the Wind Cup site at Cordo Madero. Though we must comply now with state density laws until we can get the state to amend them, and I'm working on that also, the bonus provision is what gets everyone stirred up in our neighborhoods. I would like to suggest that tonight we add a few sentences somewhere in our housing documents pronouncing the city of Sausalito's preference that everyone, including builders, developers, and nonprofits, strive to follow all current Sausalito local zoning and building codes and Sausalito building traditions, especially with regard to height, parking, and traffic. This may keep someone from even thinking about overbuilding a site in Sausalito and yet still comply with HCD. These are the same zoning and building codes that all of us taxpayers have already complied with to keep our beautiful town the quaint and desirable community that we all enjoy and want to live in. I don't know if that's possible, but If we can, I think it'd be something that all the citizens in all of our neighborhoods, not just Spring Valley, would like to see included in our housing element documentation. |
| 01:05:05.02 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. Is there anybody else from the public who'd like? Could we put our five bullet points back up, please? Because this is our subject matter we're talking about. Hi, Steve. Good evening. |
| 01:05:19.47 | Unknown | Howdy. Thank you. |
| 01:05:21.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:05:21.75 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, Council members and staff. The public was very outspoken about their displeasure with the VMU and the HMU programs. And we all rallied together. We got the HMU eliminated from our housing element plan. We still have the VMU. It's still intact. We understand that there's not an arena number associated with it, but the state indicates that we need to have – promote programs for affordable housing. There's not a fixed number assigned. We all know that there are certain properties in town where you're going to have issues with views and parking. So I would encourage the city to take – be proactive and reduce the likelihood of any types of litigation from residents and remove those parcels that we already know that are going to be an issue out there. So we know that the parcels in the Spring Valley, the ones down in the south side of town, the ones that are, I guess, at CN and CR and CC, those properties that are zoned, that we just go ahead and be proactive and remove those programs from the VMU inventory. So thanks. |
| 01:06:35.54 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. |
| 01:06:35.63 | Unknown | Thank you. Anybody else? |
| 01:06:43.71 | Shanford Laird | Shanford Laird 501 on Lima Street. On the Butte property, there was a lot of meetings about it. and eventually the City Council appointed a task force and they are supposed to be raising the money to buy out the private half of that property The other half of it does not belong to the city council, it belongs to the taxpayers. in Sausalito. And so therefore, when it comes that they're gonna have the money to buy out the private person which they're going to. then it will go out to vote, I should rather imagine. |
| 01:07:25.37 | Mayor Withee | Thanks. Thank you. That's it. |
| 01:07:29.90 | Nancy Osborne | Nancy Osborne, I live on Kendall Court. And I came in late and I may have missed this discussion, but since one of them is to add 330 for ebb tide. AND THEN THERE'S THIS LETTER FROM THE OWNER ASKING FOR IT TO BE WITHDRAWN. I just wondered, did I miss discussion on that since I was a little late getting here? Does his request not count? |
| 01:07:54.20 | Mayor Withee | Would someone like to address that, please? |
| 01:08:01.57 | Lily (staff) | So as staff and the council have stated previously in the meeting, adding the 330 website site to the list of vacant, underutilized sites in the city, the inventory of those sites does not change the zoning of the site. It does not change the development standards of the site. It does not obligate the property owner to build anything on the site or rebuild anything on the site. |
| 01:08:09.77 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 01:08:23.46 | Lily (staff) | It doesn't mandate that the city build anything on that site. It doesn't change anything on that site. The city is taking credit for the number of units that the site is currently zoned for. |
| 01:08:33.73 | Mayor Withee | Thanks. Any other member of the public like to talk on either of these topics or viewed? No, going gone now? Okay, so I'm going to close public comment. I imagine there may be a few more questions from us before we move into our comment period. But could I remind, again, my fellow council members that, you know, under the rules we're operating by, questions are supposed to be clarifying technical questions of staff, not commentary. Okay. |
| 01:09:16.21 | Mayor Withee | Council Member Pfeiffer. |
| 01:09:18.06 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. So here's my technical question. We had a resident just now mention the density bonus. And I know that has gone through counsel. Is there any ability to make some changes to that, to add some of the language that the resident mentioned? |
| 01:09:18.10 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. |
| 01:09:47.68 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | When will we be submitting that, I guess is the question. Is that part of the general plan amendment thing? |
| 01:09:59.54 | Karen Warner | It's... So I wasn't interpreting it to be language suggested for the density bonus ordinance that's been adopted. I was seeing that as more language in the housing element to talk about the city's policies to maintain your existing character and scale. And I heard that and I said, that's a really good, you know, policy, goal, that we want to integrate you know and and loud and clear in the element update i wouldn't suggest trying to weave that in quickly you know in this since we're just doing this focused amendment but um |
| 01:10:42.31 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Just to clarify, his letter says the state density laws, until we get the state to amend them, the bonus provision is what gets everyone stirred up. So I think the resident was referring to the bonus, the density bonus. So I know that that was on the last agenda, and I was just wondering where that stood and if there was any ability to get the language in. |
| 01:10:50.35 | Karen Warner | I THINK... |
| 01:11:04.51 | Mayor Withee | Oh, it's city attorney. |
| 01:11:05.90 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 01:11:05.96 | Mary Wagner | So, Mr. Mayor, Council Member Pfeiffer, you're correct. So the city's density bonus law ordinance or density bonus ordinance has been given first and second reading by the City Council So if you were looking to modify that ordinance any further, we would need to – Thank you. Yeah. go through the process again, which would potentially include the Housing Illumit Committee, would then include the Planning Commission and the City Council. I think, um, Karen Warner's interpretation was similar to my own, that this was language that they were suggesting be added to the element and is certainly something that should be looked at in connection with the next housing element cycle, which is going to begin public hearings as early as September, I believe, September 2014. |
| 01:11:55.10 | Mayor Withee | Council Member Leung. |
| 01:11:58.39 | Councilmember Leon | Correct me if I'm mistaken, but the... different tiered language that we adopted referred to the current terms of, referred to the density bonus. What did that refer to? Let me ask you that. The tiered. |
| 01:12:14.83 | Mary Wagner | So in the density bonus ordinance that the City Council adopted, it included tiers of incentives and the level of review that it would, was required. for different types of incentives. modification to a height requirement that exceeds the zoning, current zoning regulations would require review by the City Council. Other types of incentives or concessions that a developer could ask for would require review by the Planning Commission. So there was a built-in tiering to try and address the view issues and the height issues that had been raised by the community. |
| 01:12:54.45 | Councilmember Leon | Thanks. Yeah. Please. As far as building codes go, which are state building codes, you'd have to comply, does the density bonus allow you to get around whatever? It's still, the state building codes apply no matter what. So as far as local codes, whether it's zoning, height, parking, that's kind of what this tiering was. The subcommittee on housing element subcommittee came up with that as a way to |
| 01:12:56.92 | City Clerk | you |
| 01:12:56.97 | Mayor Withee | that. |
| 01:13:25.49 | Councilmember Leon | the right way to phrase this, increase the level of review of the data of a project that proposed using the density bonus. Is that correct? |
| 01:13:41.33 | Adam Krivac | Correct. you |
| 01:13:42.29 | Councilmember Leon | which in a sense is kind of how the process works now with our, when we have a heightened review for anything, it's an increased level of review once you start bumping up against special requests in some ways, some one way to phrase it. Council Member, please. |
| 01:13:56.87 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. And with respect to those tiers, I remember one of the questions I had was the teeth that those tiers carried. In other words, the Council's legal ability to hold a developer to those tiers. Could you comment on that? |
| 01:14:19.62 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, sure. Council Member Pfeiffer, I know we had this conversation a few times while we talked about the density bonus, and I'm not sure what you mean by teeth. What we talked about previously was that the Council has to make certain findings if it's going to deny particular incentive or concession that's been requested. by a developer. The state density bonus law is very clear that the developer gets to ask for whatever consentions or incentives that they believe is necessary for the project. we then require that they show that that is necessary for the economics of the project in order to provide the affordable units. So I don't have that in front of me this evening because it's actually not on your agenda, but there are certain findings that have to be made, and I know that we went over that in depth when you were talking about the density bonus ordinance. |
| 01:15:13.10 | Mayor Withee | Right. Can I sort of follow up on the comment you just made there? I mean, we're not talking about density bonus tonight. This is not on the agenda. I understand the helpful comments from Mr. Rogers on this, and we can discuss that about perhaps in the future housing element, but we've just had two public hearings on the density bonus. and we're not going to redo the hearing. We're here. It's not on the agenda. |
| 01:15:49.26 | Mayor Withee | So is there any more questions before we go into our comment period? |
| 01:15:53.36 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yes, Mr. Mayor, I have a question relating to the liver board table 4-6 that you had us. I just wanted a clarification. |
| 01:16:09.16 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah. Okay, so... The far right column, |
| 01:16:22.51 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | you were saying we can only count 24 for this housing element. Just to clarify, does that mean we can never count Are there going to be some units here that exist that we can't count in the future? It's my understanding we can count the 31 Saucito Yacht Harbor in the future if they get permitted. Is that the only number up there that we can count in the future? |
| 01:16:44.68 | Karen Warner | Exactly, right. So if that first column changed, so the first column is, again, the specific number that is permitted under the BCDC permit. |
| 01:16:56.51 | Mayor Withee | By the first, you mean the left column. The left. |
| 01:16:58.35 | Karen Warner | The left, the authorized little boards under the BCDC permit. |
| 01:17:01.22 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. |
| 01:17:03.90 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | That's the 10%. |
| 01:17:05.44 | Karen Warner | Or exactly what they have on the CDC file. It might be nine, it might be 11. Oh, I see. Oh, interesting. |
| 01:17:05.91 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | you |
| 01:17:10.23 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Oh, I see. Oh, interesting. So it's not necessarily 10%. |
| 01:17:13.82 | Karen Warner | It's close. So this would need to get bigger. for there to be additional capacity, except for the ones we're counting here or this one that we would count in the future. But right now, Pelican is permitted for nine, they have nine. Galilee permitted for 38, they have 38. And these are the only five with BCDC permits. |
| 01:17:45.78 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay, so then the answer to my question, I guess what I'm trying to, here's what I'm trying to ask. I'm trying to ask if I'm interested in looking at the density we already have in town, and I'm trying to count that density as much as possible that's already here, so we don't have to add more density. And so that's my question. And the Liveaboards has an extra kind of element in the diversity aspect. They haven't been counted forever, and for the first time we have the opportunity to recognize them. So, again, in this far right column, we're only counting 24, and the 31 that's up there we could count in the future, and that's basically it. Okay. |
| 01:18:32.88 | Karen Warner | Thank you. Right. Unless there's two scenarios. Unless you have a new marina or unless you have a marina that becomes permitted that's or if in the 2020 census the blocks are, again, more linearly defined and we can show an undercount. |
| 01:18:58.40 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Oh, okay, thank you. |
| 01:18:59.31 | Karen Warner | So, yeah. |
| 01:19:01.74 | Mayor Withee | Okay, any more questions from us? No? Okay. So let's move on and discuss this and get to whatever action we need to get to, if any. um, Who would like to go first? |
| 01:19:25.99 | Mayor Withee | I'm looking around. Nobody wants to speak. |
| 01:19:34.88 | Mayor Withee | No? |
| 01:19:35.17 | Councilmember Leon | Thank you. |
| 01:19:36.30 | City Clerk | Go. |
| 01:19:37.18 | Councilmember Leon | Bye. |
| 01:19:37.41 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 01:19:37.56 | Councilmember Leon | Thank you. |
| 01:19:37.61 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 01:19:37.68 | Councilmember Leon | Thank you. |
| 01:19:37.70 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 01:19:37.73 | Councilmember Leon | Thank you. |
| 01:19:37.75 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 01:19:37.80 | Councilmember Leon | Thank you. |
| 01:19:37.82 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 01:19:37.93 | Councilmember Leon | Thank you. |
| 01:19:38.03 | City Clerk | over the point of the twist. |
| 01:19:39.45 | Mayor Withee | Yeah. Lily, could you go back to the bullet points for us, please? |
| 01:19:40.01 | City Clerk | Uh, |
| 01:19:49.75 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. |
| 01:19:50.03 | Councilmember Leon | Thank you. |
| 01:19:55.21 | Councilmember Leon | Sure, I'll speak, since no one else will. I think adding the 330EB type site is appropriate. It's a good solution to some of our issues, but that are created by eliminating the HMU program. Again, as I have said in prior meetings, eliminating the HMU program is a good thing. I was not a huge fan of it, but at the end of the day, we're trying to accomplish a task. |
| 01:19:58.03 | Unknown | No one else will. |
| 01:20:26.48 | Councilmember Leon | minor text provisions. I don't have a lot of comments on it. As far as Butte goes, I think once either there's some outcome from the... I think it should be removed in this current housing cycle that we're in now. because there's no intent, I think, from the city to develop it in the future. And I think between now and the end of the year when this current housing element cycle is completed, not the amendment, but this current one, because all this is an amendment to our priorly adopted housing element. Um, I think in there, it will shake itself out one way or another in the next six months, whether money can be raised to purchase it, purchase the private half of it versus the city's half of it. So to me, I think down the road it should be removed, but this isn't the right moment to do so, because we'd have to come up with some more market rate housing. to fill the void if it was removed at the current moment. What we're doing now changes none of the zoning to that lot. Thank you. Um, and certainly none of the city's intentions are what it as a part owned. The city's government certainly belongs to the people in |
| 01:21:33.14 | Mike Rogers | Thank you. |
| 01:21:39.18 | Councilmember Leon | in an indirect way, to develop that site. My personal life, no, I'm intent to develop that site between in the foreseeable future. |
| 01:21:55.26 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | I think we should go forward with the amendment. I think that the 330 Eptide fix to the HMU program which go hand in hand and are about as clean and as desirable as we could get. We discussed the ADU permits and living boards and believe me I spent hours and hours before you know these meetings and if you're confused it's very difficult, very difficult. understand that basically it's how it's counted There really makes no difference. We've met. We're at the current cycle. We've met all our RHNA numbers. We have no issues with it. And really, going forward, and we'll find out in more detail in September that we're going to have a low number. a major difference. Of course we count everything we can and just the method of counting that we can and of course not major text revision. Really, on Butte, we have made you know, agreement with HCD that we list properties that meet certain attributes. And the Butte Street does. As we've said regarding Ebtide, and as we've said over and over regarding Butte, having him on the list or taking him off the list will make no difference whatsoever to any development capabilities or rebuilding or all the other terms. I mean, this council, just several months ago, we've said we'll protect Butte. We have the intention to donate it for open space. The city owns it. Nothing can happen to it. But I mean, just but to take it off a list just because someone wants it off the list and then we have to go out and go through this whole process for other properties when it's first of all not appropriate with the ATD, what we've told them, we have to amend our our housing element. There's just no purpose to it. We can look at it at the next housing element to see what we can do with that. So I would propose that we go forward with this focused amendment. |
| 01:23:45.42 | Councilmember Weiner | Well, I'm very happy that we've been able to eliminate the HMU. I think that was something that really was a sticking point. The adding of 330 Ebtide is a plus that created us to eliminate the HMU. The ADUs and the liveaboards, as we move ahead. I think that will. Is it true that we were one of the first on these liveaboards? Okay. So now, and one of the reasons that the number was low is because we were the first ones and the only ones and didn't have a track record. So hopefully now that we have a track record that maybe in the future we could look at that. As far as the Butte property goes, when I was mayor, we formed this committee. to look into the avenues that it wouldn't be developed. I'm not in favor of any development there. In fact, if you know the history of that, There were two pieces. And one was willed to the city. And that was two brothers, so you know what intention was meant at that. So I really think in the future that hopefully that we can remove that, but for now I'd like to leave it on. And in my opinion, I don't think or I don't look into the future of anything being built there. |
| 01:25:24.73 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. Well, this has been a long road for me. I remember in the beginning, back in 2009, 2010, and I was told that we couldn't count liveaboards and we couldn't count second units. And so I took my video camera and I went down to the liveaboards and I interviewed them, went with city staff to Sacramento, showed them Sacramento the videotapes, and we got buy-in. We got buy-in for liveaboard. And we then we went forward with city staff and surveyed the entire town. It was the first time in Saucedo history that the liveaboards were surveyed and the ADUs were surveyed. And, you know, it was a great team, great effort with staff, and just a wonderful outcome. Because at the end, we're counting liveaboards and we're counting ADUs. That said, I'm very unhappy with the limitations, the language that HCD has placed on us with regards to limiting how we count liveaboards in the next housing element. And I'm also very concerned with keeping Butte on this list. There's absolutely no reason to keep Butte on this list. And I don't see it as similar to Ebtide. tide is already it's got three units on it and it's a very different scenario then And I don't see it as similar to Ebtide. Ebtide has got three units on it, and it's a very different scenario than something that is completely undeveloped and a wildlife habitat. So I'm very concerned with leaving Butte. I don't see it as being a heavy lift to take Butte off, considering all the analysis we have with all of the hard data we have to compensate. And just like we did with the HMU when I was fighting that, and I said, take a look at R3 zones again. I want to take a look at those R3 zones. And the residents asked the same. The residents demanded that. And thank goodness the consultants went back and they looked at it and, you know, thank you consultants, hooray. You know, they found another, you know, R3 parcel that could be counted. So it was a win-win-win. So I support adding 330 Ebtide. It doesn't change anything for that. I'm thrilled we can eliminate the HMU program. You'll recall I did not vote for that. You know, I'm happy we can continue to count the ADUs in the next housing element. Not happy with the live boards. Very unhappy with keeping viewed on. So I would say that I consider this housing element still a high-impact, high-density housing element. We are 63% over quota, including 70% over quota for a low income. To me, I think this is a high-impact housing element, and I wish we could have tread a little softer in town with this one and had a little less of an impact. |
| 01:28:34.19 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. Very briefly. You know, obviously adding Ebtide and removing the HMU program is obviously the thing we're going to do. I think it's been very helpful, all of the input that we received from our residents on this, so that we were able to actually re-look at this and craft it. It was an important contribution. It's the way the process is supposed to work. And so we should all be congratulated on that. The process worked. the There were initially three legs of our program. Council Member Pfeiffer has correctly said early on, the pushing ADUs and liver boards, those two strategies became an important part of our housing element. But there was a really, really important third component, which is our infill strategy. And it's the infill strategy that drives, in addition to state law requirements, that drives our site's inventory. Because what that is saying, what our infill strategy is, is simply saying let's look at what is underdeveloped and count it. Don't have to build it. Don't have to do anything. Don't have to rezone anything. We just count them. That was a contribution, again, suggested by some members of the public way back in 2011, which brought the M Group in, who then pursued that strategy very successfully. So that's really important. I know people get really worried about the site's inventory, but all it's saying is this site is underdeveloped. |
| 01:30:14.76 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:30:40.53 | Mayor Withee | and therefore let's count it. With regards to Butte Street, I think that we have made very clear that it's our intent to eventually get this to open space and we've got to find a way to do that. I would like to see Butte Street removed from our site's inventory for the next housing element. I agree with most of my colleagues here that it's premature to take it off. Now, we sometimes forget that the current housing element we're talking about is expiring in six months. Okay? We've got a new housing element. That's what we'll be doing in the fall. So, thank you. Yes. Yes, everybody has had their three minutes. Thank you. |
| 01:31:40.74 | Councilmember Leon | So if I can have my one minute. So I agree with the mayor. You know, the process is an iterative one. It's not here's the book, adopt everything in the book and go with it. It was an iterative one at the committee level. It's an iterative one that the committee suggested to the Planning Commission and what has come comes to the council and you folks have interacted and others at all those different levels. And then it comes here for improvements. That was true of the housing element itself. We're amending these because we're implementing programs that were called for in the original housing element. And so we're tweaking them and going back and amending that housing element. |
| 01:31:42.36 | Mayor Withee | One minute. |
| 01:32:06.85 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 01:32:24.50 | Councilmember Leon | So I agree, the process is work. As far as liveaboards and second units, liveaboards, the prior adopted housing element, which I think is 1998, called for the adoption of a, end quote, an ordinance for legalizing existence second units. And that was policy H-23, program H-231. And policy H H25 recognized and called for the adoption of a liveaboard housing component as well. So these are not new ideas, they're just ideas since we didn't have another adopted housing element since then that the city has not implemented. |
| 01:33:02.59 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | implemented. Mr. Mann? Yes. I do have a quick rebuttal. So the 1998 housing element, of course, was never certified by the HCD. The legalizing, it was 1995. And although the legalized existing second units and the liveaboards were identified as ideas, they were never established. And it was very clear that I was told point blank that we could not count liveaboards and we could not count second units. I was told that very directly. And so I'm very happy that this housing element is counting them. I'm a little bit concerned about the comment that this is a three pronged housing element because I believe that that is something that was pitched to the public, and I don't think it's true. We were told that this was going to be a liveaboard, ADU, and mixed-use housing element, but when you look at the percentages |
| 01:33:05.03 | Councilmember Leon | Mr. Mann? Yes, rebuttal. |
| 01:33:12.93 | Unknown | The legalized... |
| 01:34:03.00 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | If you add up all of the existing second units, future second units, existing liveaboards, future liveaboards, All of that is 18%, whereas mixed use is 19%. So this, in my opinion, and then the rest are new developments with R2 and R3s. So I don't see this housing element as a three-prong where we have this equal number of liveaboards and second units and existing kind of infrastructure. That's where the high density, that's where I'm concerned. I'm particularly concerned with Butte and especially the VMU program, but we'll talk about that later. |
| 01:34:43.87 | Mayor Withee | please. |
| 01:34:44.14 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Thank you. not a rebuttal, but one thing I think we've forgotten since on this stage, and I hope we move to a motion soon, but Mr. Rogers had his language, and I think we decided, well, not decided, this council hasn't yet, but the consultant suggested that that should really be maybe an overriding statement in one of it, and I think we should have staff take a look at it to see where it fits, maybe with Mr. Rogers. Actually, the way I read it, I don't think it's limited to density. I think this was an overriding thing, but I think we can go forward with that as well. And that's part of this section. |
| 01:34:56.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:34:56.09 | Jenny Reinders | Yeah. |
| 01:34:56.22 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:35:11.21 | Mayor Withee | I'm not sure. |
| 01:35:17.75 | Mayor Withee | Okay, so we're looking for a motion, which looks like it's a really long one. |
| 01:35:25.18 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Do we need to read it? |
| 01:35:30.22 | Lily (staff) | Ms. Jameer, we also wanted to bring your attention to this blue paper here. So these are additional minor clarifications that could be added to your attachment three, which are the minor clarifications. And so this is just a footnote indicating that that sentence refers only to the 2010 census and wouldn't limit the city to analyze and utilize any future discrepancies with the 2020 census. So we'd be recommending you incorporate this language as well. |
| 01:35:30.60 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Mr. Maria Rialto. |
| 01:36:07.60 | Mayor Withee | So just to be clear, that is on this blue sheet. your highlighted box, you're suggesting that we add the, sorry, you've got two highlighted boxes. In the first highlighted box with just the one sentence at the end of the paragraph, you're suggesting we add, for clarification purposes, the words in the lower, at the box at the bottom of the table. Is that, am I interpreting this correctly? |
| 01:36:39.53 | Lily (staff) | To clarify, we have an attachment three, which has three different pages that have highlighted boxes. We're recommending that you include those minor clarifying statements in your motion tonight. In addition, we've modified one of those pages with additional clarifying comments. So the motion we would recommend is for all of the clarifying statements that have been presented tonight. |
| 01:36:58.73 | Susan | No joke. |
| 01:36:59.19 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. |
| 01:37:05.48 | Mayor Withee | Okay, thank you. Okay, do we have a motion? Thank you. |
| 01:37:08.67 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Do you have the motion? The staff is recommending it. Is that attachment one? Is this the one with section one and section two? Thank you. |
| 01:37:28.40 | Lily (staff) | We have it up here on the screen. |
| 01:37:28.42 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | have it you So I move that we adopt the Focus Housing Element Amendment in attendance in the initial environmental study negative declaration and that we also adopt the non-substant clarifying modifications that was just referred to. |
| 01:37:41.24 | Unknown | to be |
| 01:37:51.37 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. |
| 01:37:52.02 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And Mr. Mayor, I have a question. Yes. Per Rosenberg's rules of order, if someone makes a motion, we can have discussion. And we did not discuss the addendum to the NEG deck. That was not on the bullet list, and I didn't realize we were talking about that now. I do have some questions about that. |
| 01:37:52.06 | Mayor Withee | AND I WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT Yes. |
| 01:38:13.24 | Mayor Withee | Mary, could you comment on that? |
| 01:38:20.44 | Mary Wagner | Sure. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um... As you will recall, when the Council adopted this housing element, you first adopted a negative declaration. So staff went through the process of reviewing these proposed modifications to the housing element to see if it had any impact on the conclusions or analysis in the negative declaration in The outcome of that was in the addendum that was in your staff report. That was also reviewed by the Planning Commission. And staff's determination is that there's nothing in this amendment that has any impacts on the environment and no modifications to the mitigated neg deck, or excuse me, the initial study negative declaration are required. |
| 01:39:05.55 | Mayor Withee | And did the Planning Commission come to the same conclusion? |
| 01:39:11.07 | Mary Wagner | Yes. Yeah, they did. |
| 01:39:11.56 | Mayor Withee | Yes. Thank you. And they also passed a resolution on this? That's correct. Okay, thanks. |
| 01:39:16.84 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:39:16.87 | Lily (staff) | That's great. |
| 01:39:19.13 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So, Mr. Mayor, I do have a question for staff about this. So my question is, as you know, I was not happy when we avoided the environmental impact report and did a NEG deck instead. And the reason was because it was based on the 1995 housing element that used a 1986 sewer infiltration study that didn't even include a study of all of the city's sewer lines. and to me that's inadequate given we were sued under the Clean Water Act in 2000 infiltration study that didn't even include a study of all of the city's sewer lines. And to me, that's inadequate, given we were sued under the Clean Water Act in 2008 and had to settle with Riverwatch and have EPA mandates right now. And we've had a huge sewer fee increase the second in five years. That just happened a couple months ago. So given that, I noticed that one of the criteria is that no substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions, et cetera. And I was wondering, I know that since we voted on this, that there have been a lot of major spills in Sausalito, and I'm wondering, and some ongoing discovery with respect to the impact on our sewer lines. And so I was wondering if that opened the door for potentially revisiting this with respect to a full environmental impact report. |
| 01:39:20.53 | Mayor Withee | Yes. |
| 01:40:39.15 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:40:45.06 | Mary Wagner | So, Mr. Mayor, when Under CEQA, when you're looking at modifications to a previously approved project, you're doing just that. So we're looking at the changes that are being proposed and that you're considering tonight. none of which, in staff's opinion, have any effect or relationship to the issues which Councilmember Pfeiffer just stated regarding sewer, sanitary sewer overflows. as you clearly pointed out, we're not changing anything under the existing zoning. We're not providing for any new So that was staff's perspective in reviewing the the initial environmental study negative declaration. And it's very clear to staff that there's no modifications that are required based upon this project to the NEGDEC that has already been adopted and a significant period of time has passed since then. |
| 01:41:51.63 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. |
| 01:41:53.61 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I have a follow-up question for legal counsel. |
| 01:41:55.67 | Mary Wagner | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:41:55.70 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. you |
| 01:41:56.10 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 01:41:56.69 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So I know that one of the arguments I heard when this was voted on was that the individual projects that are going to be springing up from this housing element will be subject to their own individual EIRs. Is that correct? |
| 01:42:20.49 | Mary Wagner | No, Council Member Pfeiffer, it's not correct. They won't be subject necessarily to their own individual EIRs. They will be subject to review under CEQA, however. So you would do... to determine what, if any, the environmental documentation is required, which could range from one, it's not a project, two, It has an exemption. a NEGDAC, a mitigated NEGDAC, or an EIR. |
| 01:42:47.37 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And I understand that there have been recent changes to CEQA that have streamlined CEQA. Can you comment on that with respect to traffic congestion views, et cetera? |
| 01:42:55.23 | Mayor Withee | So. We're getting really off topic, Council Member. |
| 01:42:59.67 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | No, it's directly related to the NGDUK. CEQA, she brought it up. The California Environmental Quality Act. |
| 01:43:05.07 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. |
| 01:43:05.09 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Thank you. |
| 01:43:05.14 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. |
| 01:43:08.80 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | May I just a clarification? Sure. Isn't it that what we're proving is whether this amendment, it's a negative relative to the amendment, and this amendment is adding one thing to the risk and taking the nation's use. So that's not. We should look at what the scope is. The thing on the full negative has been done way back when the plan was originally. |
| 01:43:33.02 | Mary Wagner | So, |
| 01:43:33.24 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:43:33.96 | Mary Wagner | MS. That is correct, and I apologize if I didn't state that clearly. when I began the discussion. I think that's a good question. and when you look at what is being proposed by this action that you're taking tonight, staff believes that it's adequately and thoroughly discussed in the addendum and that no changes are necessary to the negative declaration. |
| 01:44:07.21 | Mayor Withee | Okay. There's a motion on the table from the Vice Mayor. I'm going to second it. |
| 01:44:17.53 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I move to make an amendment to remove Butte from the list and to do a full EIR. |
| 01:44:28.32 | Mayor Withee | Do I have a second for Council Member Pfeiffer's motion? |
| 01:44:32.69 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 01:44:34.73 | Mayor Withee | Of who? |
| 01:44:35.57 | Councilmember Leon | Thank you. on that amendment. If Butte was removed, what would you replace it to provide the market rate housing? |
| 01:44:42.91 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I would replace it with the 2010 underutilized parcel analysis that the city did, identifying 338 units. |
| 01:44:50.05 | Councilmember Leon | Which, and Mike, we just discussed this earlier, the consultants clarified that that was not |
| 01:44:56.08 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | It's a methodology that other cities have used, and I don't see why we wouldn't use it here. |
| 01:45:02.32 | Councilmember Leon | City's offhand of new things. |
| 01:45:04.87 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I don't know, but our city staff did it, so obviously there's credibility there. |
| 01:45:14.57 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I mean, you want me to do I'm looking at something that's a high impact, high density solution. And you know that I can't design solutions just off the top of my head from the dais, but it's clear based on the analysis that we have a roadmap to a more minimal impact strategy. And I've proven that, frankly, with the questions that I've asked before and some of the other issues that have turned out to be right. |
| 01:45:46.13 | Mayor Withee | Okay, we have... Council Member Pfeiffer did not get a second to her motion. So could we call the vote, please? |
| 01:46:00.15 | Lily (staff) | Councilmember Pfeiffer? No. Thank you. Councilmember Weiner? |
| 01:46:03.63 | Mayor Withee | Yes. |
| 01:46:04.69 | Lily (staff) | Councilmember Leon. |
| 01:46:06.06 | Councilmember Leon | Thank you. |
| 01:46:06.07 | Mayor Withee | Yes. |
| 01:46:07.14 | Lily (staff) | Vice Mayor Theodorus. |
| 01:46:08.22 | Mayor Withee | Yes. |
| 01:46:09.70 | Lily (staff) | Mayor Whitting. |
| 01:46:10.39 | Mayor Withee | Yes, this matter is closed and passed 4-1. Thank you. |
| 01:46:17.89 | City Clerk | Okay. |
| 01:46:19.64 | Mayor Withee | microphone. It's 10 minutes to 9. I suggest a five-minute break before the next agenda item. Thank you. |
| 01:46:29.70 | Karen Warner | removed from the element. The Live-A-Board program has been updated as part of the amendment that you just adopted, and then the special needs is what we're also focusing on here. |
| 01:46:52.06 | Karen Warner | And then this just is what has been accomplished, is the ADU program update. The density bonus has been adopted. The multifamily standards have been adopted, and the reasonable accommodation. |
| 01:47:12.93 | Karen Warner | Karen, I'm sorry. |
| 01:47:13.07 | Mayor Withee | Karen, I'm sorry for the interruption again. If you could just go back to that last slide. Presumably this was a presentation for the Planning Commission because action has been taken by the City Council |
| 01:47:13.96 | City Clerk | for the info. Thank you. |
| 01:47:27.24 | Mayor Withee | as well. |
| 01:47:28.86 | Karen Warner | Yes, you're right. That should have been updated by Planning Commission and City Council. Thank you. Okay, so what we're calling the Special Needs Housing Ordinance addresses both what's required under Senate Bill 2 addressing emergency shelters and transitional and supportive housing, as well as providing for single room occupancy units, which is a separate provision of housing element law. The emergency shelter provisions of Senate Bill 2 require that a zoning district is identified where emergency homeless shelters will be permitted by right without a conditional use permit or discretionary review, design reviews permitted. And the adopted housing element and now the draft ordinance before you identifies the public institutional district as the zoning district that would permit the shelters by right. The SB 2 identifies these various standards that may be regulated in the ordinance. Otherwise, shelters need to be subject to the same review processes and development standards as other uses within the zone. So we've worked long and hard and gone through many refinements with our work with the Housing Elements Subcommittee as well as the Planning Commission and input from the public to define standards as we're permitted under the law to regulate any future shelter as we're permitted to regulate. So the... At the last City Council meeting, we came to the discussion point of narrowing down the PI zone and creating an emergency shelter overlay so that only And publicly owned, well, city owned sites that are zoned PI and sites owned by the school district would be within this emergency shelter overlay and be then permitted to have shelters by right. So that's the way we have proceeded and the Planning Commission has agreed to that. So the table, in the ordinance has been amended to identify the overlay zone and the ES designator. There's been a new section added to the zoning district to identify the overlay zone and approval requirements. And then the other component of the code that's amended is the definition related to emergency shelters. And this is the zoning map that identifies the... publicly owned, PI zoned properties. I shouldn't say public now. City or school district owned PI properties. |
| 01:51:08.37 | Karen Warner | The other component of the special needs ordinance addresses transitional and supportive housing, which are required to be considered a residential use of property subject to the standards of the zoning district. So the ordinance adds transitional and supportive housing to the definition section regulates as a residential use. Examples of transitional housing might be housing for victims of domestic violence. And transitional housing is housing that's not permanent, so it stays anywhere between six months to two years. And it's just that. And it's just that. It's people transitioning into permanent housing. Where permanent supportive housing, an example, is housing for persons with developmental disabilities. So this is, you know, long-term housing for persons with special needs. Typically, they're subsidized affordable units with various support services necessary to allow those individuals to live independently. Then the last component of the ordinance is the single room occupancy units. The housing element law requires, just like the multifamily rental housing, the zoning ordinance needs to specifically identify where SROs can be permitted. And so we've identified the CC, CR, and CN1, commercial zoning districts, for SROs with the requirement for a conditional use permit, since they're somewhat of a unique use. So that's the special needs ordinance. The second ordinance that we're looking at is the vertical mixed use amendments, which now has been any reference within that to HMU has been removed. the VMU ordinance, as you know, and it's been before you previously, is to to encourage second story, residential within the CC, CR, CN1 zoning districts. and to It ends. integrate a small number of affordable units within this market rate development. So the VMU ordinance would require one affordable unit for small projects or projects with six or more units, it would be 20 percent. And the units would be affordable to low income if they're rental or moderate income if they're The VMU ordinance also will increase the threshold required for conditional use permit for upper level residential to seven or more. We're currently, I believe it's four or more. |
| 01:54:33.69 | Karen Warner | And, oh, this is one at a time here. So the Planning Commission's recommendation was to adopt the emergency shelter ordinance within the overlay with the modification that the Spencer Fire Station No. 2 site be removed. And as discussed in the staff report, this site is, while it is publicly owned, it is quite different than the other city-owned sites in terms of its accessibility. both from a transportation standpoint and lack of services nearby, so it really wasn't viewed as a particularly good site if a shelter provider was looking for a site. So we felt comfortable removing that. The Planning Commission also recommended limiting emergency shelter stays to 90 days unless the shelter resident has been accepted into a residential treatment program or other specified circumstances. So we have actually incorporated language into the ordinance that the defines what the parameters are for an additional extension of up to 90 days. And again, as you recall, this is something that when we submitted the draft ordinance to HCD for review, they had concerns that we were at that time limiting stays to 90 days, and they were concerned that that might be a constraint. They suggested that we consult with Homeward Bound, who is a major homeless service provider in Marin. about that issue. indicated that for some of their clients that would be an issue because they're just, you know, starting to get on their feet or they may have other extenuating circumstances. So in kind of a balancing act in terms of not wanting to automatically allow for the total 180-day stay but wanting to accommodate special circumstances, we've indicated that the shelter provider can allow for up to 90 days for medical emergencies, for residents that have secured a job and they need to have some additional time to get finances together. And then, we have to Thank you. occupants that are in the process of negotiating a lease for permanent housing, or occupants that have been accepted in a residential treatment program. |
| 01:57:45.41 | Karen Warner | And then the Planning Commission also directed staff to explore the concept of limiting occupants of the emergency shelter to recent Sausalito residents. So, we, as you've seen, we've updated our shelter matrix, zoning standards matrix for the jurisdictions within Marin that have adopted ordinances. And that was one of the things we looked at. were any of the ordinances restrictive in indicating that occupants of shelters in their jurisdiction would be limited to city residents, and none of them had that provision. The attorney has consulted with other legal counsel on this and feels that that would unconstitutional and from a fair housing standpoint, I know that cities are not able to restrict occupancy to affordable housing to city residents. So we are not recommending that after viewing that further. We received numerous letters on the shelter provisions, and before we discussed some of the recommendations in those letters, we wanted to kind of make this overall assessment. Many of the letters were looking at specific shelter operating policies. And what we're tasked with doing for the city is adopting an ordinance that complies with SB2, that's the umbrella of how you would regulate individual shelters when they come in. Um, when, if and when a shelter did come in, It could, in itself could have more restrictive operating procedures. the Mill Street shelter in San Rafael, for example, is a 55-bed shelter, and some of its beds are on a night-to-night basis, and some of its beds allow for longer stay. But the City of San Rafael's SB2 ordinance doesn't limit that in any way. Their ordinance allows stays for up to six months. So that's, I think, an important distinction. So when you're setting your, you know, your city zoning standards for shelters, they need to not be overly constraining Whereas an individual shelter that comes in can have more narrowly defined, you know, depending on who they're serving, They're going to have a management plan that the city is going to require and going to review that will be fine-tuning its individual standards. So other revisions that were evaluated based on input from the community and written comments. The first one dealt with limiting the length of stay, and the recommendation was essentially what, as I mentioned, the Mill Street shelter in San Rafael has, which is 40 percent of the beds for a maximum of 30 days, and 60 percent of the beds for 90 days. Our recommendation is, as we have indicated in the revised shelter language, that you have provisioned for 90 days with the under special considerations as I went through, you know, medical emergency, having a job, having you know, a place that they're going to rent, allowing for some continuance beyond the 90 days. A second recommendation that we received in writing was to specify in the ordinance that the shelter beds would be allocated on a first come, first serve basis. And this, again, goes along with the concept that an individual shelter may do this, again, for a portion of its beds, but the city's ordinance needs to be broader than that to accommodate different needs. |
| 02:02:36.28 | Karen Warner | and environmental review. The proposed zoning ordinance amendments are exempt from environmental review. and staff's recommendations are to conduct the public hearing on the housing element implementation amendments for the two ordinances. Introduce and read by title only the Housing Element Implementation Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Special Needs Housing and the Vertical Mixed-Use Regulations. and continue the second readings to July 22nd. |
| 02:03:11.69 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 02:03:12.09 | Mayor Withee | Thank you, Karen. |
| 02:03:12.11 | City Clerk | THANK YOU. |
| 02:03:15.26 | Mayor Withee | So let's open this up for questions from us and reminder that these are technical clarifying questions, not commentary. So let's start at the other end. |
| 02:03:33.37 | Councilmember Leon | No. |
| 02:03:34.59 | Mayor Withee | Council Member John. |
| 02:03:35.40 | Councilmember Leon | Thank you. Can we go back to the overlay map, please? |
| 02:03:46.11 | Councilmember Leon | So there's nothing, just as we were discussing in the last session on this, The overlay, even though we only have one public institutional district, the overlay doesn't have to apply to every single property in that district. So there's no compelling reason that as we removed some properties last time, we can fire station two, which is kind of an outlier in any shape or sense. There's no reason why we can't remove that in this process. given that square footage-wise, most of the other properties can supply a much greater potential supply if needed to meet our requirements. |
| 02:04:28.50 | Karen Warner | It's our opinion that you will still have adequate capacity removing that. The state will look at this when we submit your new element and will need to show where the overlay exists. But we feel pretty confident that you'll still be fine without that. |
| 02:04:50.12 | Councilmember Leon | I think that's a good question. |
| 02:05:07.45 | Karen Warner | But it's similar to your sites analysis. You have to look at the viability of those sites for provision of a shelter within the planning period. So would City Hall go away within the planning period? Probably not. So, I mean, it's that kind of analysis. |
| 02:05:27.55 | Councilmember Leon | Right, so under that, my understanding of the criteria that you've outlined both in your presentation here, prior station two doesn't quite meet those criteria as well as the. For accessibility, right, yeah. |
| 02:05:36.37 | Karen Warner | For accessibility, right. |
| 02:05:42.56 | Mayor Withee | Bless me. |
| 02:05:43.71 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Yes, I'd address this to our city attorney. Karen just alluded to the idea that we're not able to, or in our legal opinion, it's not that we're not able to limit those that come to the shelter to people from Sausalito. I'd like you to maybe expand on that a little bit for everyone here since that's, and secondly, whether this has been done in any of the other Marin cities that have adopted an emergency shelter ordinance. |
| 02:06:12.87 | Mary Wagner | Sure. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. So taking those in reverse order, because the first answer is shorter than the second answer, the ordinance that we reviewed from other Marin County jurisdictions, none of those municipalities had a limitation on residency. So, you know, it's a constitutional analysis when you look at imposing residency or citizenship requirements, and it's a privilege and immunities clause analysis. So it's a two-part test, as the constitutional issues often are. And so we have to do that. And the first issue that you look at is whether or not it's a substantive right, if you will. And then if it is, you have to have a compelling reason So the right here would be the availability of an emergency shelter. And then you have to look at whether or not there's a compelling reason for the jurisdiction to impose that residency requirement. So that's a fairly high bar. Um, And that's why we came to that conclusion. I think that the other provision that you need to look at, or the other constraint, if you will, is similar to what Karen was discussing about making sure that you have – you're not imposing constraints on the sites from your zoning standards or your zoning requirements. So I think there's three components that we looked at. What are other Marin County jurisdictions doing and other jurisdictions in general? What's the kind of constitutional analysis? And then how would HCD view that type of a |
| 02:07:50.16 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | And San Rafael doesn't have such a limitation, but shelters, well, and I guess you can confirm that, but shelters can put such a limitation, I understand. But that's where there's some confusion. The municipality cannot impose that restriction in its zoning law, but shelters may have something that restricts who can come there. Is that correct? |
| 02:08:11.74 | Mary Wagner | San Rafael's zoning ordinance that it adopted in accordance with SB2 did not include a city residency requirement or a county residency requirement. The operating procedures that we've been provided with for the Mill Street facility does include that it's limited to Marin County residents or Marin County occupants. The analysis that we went through indicates that it's potentially problematic for the city to include a restriction in the zoning ordinance that's limited to residency. |
| 02:08:47.23 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. Let me quickly ask one. A number of folks have asked I think quite reasonably. Sometimes we call it a homeless shelter. Sometimes we call it an emergency shelter. Is there a difference? Is there a difference? What's the actual language in SB2? Are we just pulling out of the statute? Or could you just add a little bit of color on that? Thank you. |
| 02:09:21.28 | Mary Wagner | It's defined in the statute as emergency shelters, I believe, but I'll let Karen address that also. |
| 02:09:36.45 | Karen Warner | I know, of course, I'm looking at the statute now and can't find the definition. And the definition that we have incorporated into Um... your Zoning Code Amendment is the statutory definition of emergency shelter. But it is distinct from if there's a natural emergency, you know, a flood, an earthquake, where people are going and congregating in an emergency situation like that. |
| 02:10:10.46 | Karen Warner | that you're |
| 02:10:12.38 | Mayor Withee | Yeah, I'm not quite sure. I followed that very last piece, but yes. |
| 02:10:12.95 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 02:10:12.97 | Lily (staff) | Mr. Mayor. I could read the definition of emergency shelter if you'd like. Please. So it's housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay. |
| 02:10:19.06 | Mayor Withee | Thanks. |
| 02:10:35.78 | Mayor Withee | Okay. Moving along, Council Member Feiffer. |
| 02:10:42.03 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. So I recall that when the consultants first joined this project with Sausalito and we were looking at various land parcels around the town, one of the things you looked at was constraints. and you looked at constraints to be able to systematically remove certain sites from consideration. And I was wondering if the same approach was being used with respect to the PI zones, because you probably have seen one of our residents has identified the deed for Spencer. And this, to like a big constraint the deed said that the property is restricted from having any direct access to the contiguous state land which means that vehicle access is limited to Spencer Avenue only and they've only got three or four spaces directly in front of the big main doors. So I was wondering if you could comment on that as a possible constraint from counting Spencer as a possible site. |
| 02:11:59.81 | Karen Warner | Well, and that is why part of the Planning Commission's recommendation was to remove Spencer, and that is what staff's recommendation is also, and the language that is in the staff report is more general. It talks about accessibility. |
| 02:12:20.01 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay, just wanted to confirm that in case. Yeah. Okay, thanks. |
| 02:12:24.48 | Councilmember Leon | Perhaps it might be ease the process if we just maybe did a consensus vote on fire station two so we don't have to have any other questions. |
| 02:12:32.98 | City Clerk | That would be great. |
| 02:12:36.63 | Councilmember Leon | Well, I'll just make a motion. We don't have to vote on it. How about that? So I'll make a motion to remove Fire Station 2 from the overlay district for the emergency shelter overlay zone. So I'll just put that motion out there. |
| 02:12:53.94 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. And a second. |
| 02:12:56.68 | Mayor Withee | Okay, so we got the motion out there. Is there any more questions before we open this up to public comment? |
| 02:13:02.46 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I have some questions. |
| 02:13:08.00 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay, so did we mail... I'm looking at these sites, and I'm wondering if we mailed residents that live within 300 feet. Uh. or in the neighborhoods of these areas, notification that these sites were being considered We did. I know you mailed everybody about the housing element in general, but did you specifically say homeless shelters are being considered at these sites? We did. |
| 02:13:41.09 | Lily (staff) | Thank you. |
| 02:13:41.55 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay. |
| 02:13:44.77 | Lily (staff) | They're referred to as emergency shelters and homeless, in parentheses. |
| 02:13:47.35 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Homeless in parentheses. Okay, well it's different to say emergency shelter because emergency shelter doesn't necessarily. So my question is, were you specific? Did you say homeless shelters? |
| 02:13:56.33 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 02:13:56.35 | Lily (staff) | So my question is, |
| 02:13:56.70 | City Clerk | Yes. |
| 02:14:02.72 | Lily (staff) | The notice included the word homeless in it. |
| 02:14:05.59 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Homeless, okay, but not homeless shelters. It's important. |
| 02:14:12.07 | Mayor Withee | Okay, Lily, I think you just said that emergency and then parentheses homeless shelter was the words in there. Correct. Okay. So I was just clarifying what Lily had said, previously said. |
| 02:14:13.44 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I think. |
| 02:14:20.80 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Correct. Okay. I have another follow-up question. So I know that it's optional how large the homeless shelter is in terms of beds. And last time I raised the point that Tiburon had 10 beds. So, The response I got last time was that it was 20 beds because the census in 2010 had a count of 30 homeless in Sausalito. So I was surprised by that number, but okay, 30. And I was looking at some of the research in homeless populations, and it appears, and this is really counter to what I expected to find, but that the homeless population at least according to the survey has gone down from 1770 and 2009 to 933 for Marin County in 2013. Now precariously housed, that population has increased, but the homeless population has decreased. And if that's the case, I was wondering if it impacted, you know, the fact that, first of all, the... It's optional for us anyway. It's a judgment call as to how many beds we assign this. If Marin County has demonstrated a consistent trend downward in the homeless population, If we were to apply that to our population, we would have 17, and it's certainly, that's a 67% population to bed ratio before with the 30, so we could make a very strong case, I think, for 10 beds. |
| 02:16:20.17 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | What is your comment on that? |
| 02:16:27.65 | Mayor Withee | Karen, at some point, that piece of paper you got in your hand, do we have that on a slide by any chance? |
| 02:16:27.68 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 02:16:27.70 | Karen Warner | Karen, at some point. |
| 02:16:33.05 | Karen Warner | Ooh, I don't think so. |
| 02:16:35.92 | Councilmember Leon | Do you have the comparable survey numbers for Sausalito for 2013? |
| 02:16:41.21 | Karen Warner | Um... |
| 02:16:45.67 | Karen Warner | Okay, anyway, answer your question first. |
| 02:16:45.74 | City Clerk | Okay, anyway, answer your question first. |
| 02:16:49.42 | Karen Warner | The 2013 homeless count for Sausalito. |
| 02:16:55.94 | Lily (staff) | Thank you. |
| 02:16:56.05 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 02:16:56.08 | Lily (staff) | I can't look in the general plan. |
| 02:16:58.06 | Karen Warner | Okay. |
| 02:16:58.07 | Lily (staff) | Okay. Okay. |
| 02:16:59.03 | Karen Warner | Well, it's based on the census. Well, actually it's not. No, no, no. Oh, it's not. Oh, okay. So it's the point in time homeless count that Marin County does. So every two years. Yeah, that's what I'm looking at. Every two years. I'm looking at the numbers. And so on this matrix where we've looked at jurisdictions in the county that have adopted SB 2 zoning. We also included information on what their homeless count was in 2011 and 2013. |
| 02:17:00.25 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So on this. Well, it's based on the census. Well, actually, it's not. No, no, no. Right. That Marin County does. So every two years. Yeah, that's what I'm looking at. Every two years. |
| 02:17:33.07 | Karen Warner | And I used to know this off the top of my head, but I believe Sausalito's was 29 and then maybe 22. Four. |
| 02:17:47.50 | Lily (staff) | 2011 was 30, and I can look to see. |
| 02:17:49.71 | Karen Warner | Okay. And it did go down slightly, as most of these did. In terms of the capacity reducing to 10, what we are required to have in terms of zoning is enough capacity to meet that need. |
| 02:17:51.30 | Lily (staff) | And it did go down. |
| 02:18:12.59 | Karen Warner | So if you limited it to 10, which HCD has directly told me they view as a constraint, Now, I'm not saying that these other jurisdictions that have 10 have had the state reviewed, there. element, I mean their standards, but HCD views 10 as a constraint for a shelter provider to be able to provide a viable shelter. But that aside, if the city of Sausalito had a limit of 10, and your number was 30. we would have to be able to have at least three viable sites on these city-owned sites for, you know, three different shelters. And that's a higher bar than if we have a 20-bed capacity. And as you can see on this chart, LARP Spur has 20. San Rafael does not have a number. It's based on the building code. Tiburon has 10, but their homeless count was only 2 in both years. Marin County has 40. Mill Valley has 20. Novato has 30. So given that Sausalito's count is essentially the third highest in the county behind San Rafael and Novato, the number of people have been In my opinion, 10 would be a red flag to the state. |
| 02:19:48.64 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So I have a follow-up question with what you recently said. And I'll save my comments for the comment period regarding the population count, because I know we have a lot of transient movement through Sausalito from San Francisco. But you mentioned if we reduce the bed count to 10, we would have to identify three viable sites. Right now, we have identified a whole kind of blanketed territory for PI. And based on prior questions I asked about this, from a prior session, it's my understanding that at this time anyway, |
| 02:20:24.62 | Unknown | . |
| 02:20:24.67 | City Clerk | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:20:24.74 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:20:27.62 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | that they could set up, we could wind up with homeless shelters, you know, throughout this territory. Correct? In other words, we are identifying the PI zone. We're not identifying one, at least right now, we're not identifying one building or one structure. And because we've identified the PI zone, I was told last time I asked this question that there is no limit to the number of homeless shelters that could be established based on the way it's currently structured. So, |
| 02:21:03.69 | Karen Warner | Now we are limiting to the overlay, so it is a smaller subset of the PI zone. And, right, I mean, a shelter could come in and meet the standards, and there is no limit. The test, though, that the city will have when you present this to the state and your next element is they're going to look at the sites that are within this overlay, and they're going to say, Okay, if you're limiting it to 10 and your number is 30, Um, are there really three viable sites within here? You know, there's school, there's, you know, developed police station, developed, you know, so, Yeah, so... |
| 02:21:51.48 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah, so I guess you've just answered my question that we could wind up with five sites with 20 bed count is my point. Because we've got no limit right now, even though we've reduced the size of the overlay, |
| 02:21:57.05 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 02:21:59.49 | City Clerk | B. |
| 02:21:59.95 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:22:05.50 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I mean, we still have multiple structures, correct? |
| 02:22:07.24 | Mayor Withee | So... Council Member Pfeiffer, what's the question there? |
| 02:22:11.46 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Oh, I'm just asking to confirm my understanding of what we have today, which even though we've reduced the size of the PI, we've reduced that overlay size, we still have more than three sides in there and potentially A homeless shelter could be you know, or an emergency shelter could be established in each side, correct? in that PI overlay. Theoretically. |
| 02:22:40.52 | Karen Warner | But when you look at the viability on each of those sites within the overlay, it's |
| 02:22:40.84 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | but when you look at it. |
| 02:22:48.13 | Karen Warner | You know, they aren't, most of those sites have existing structures. |
| 02:22:51.69 | Mayor Withee | Yeah, before I let you ask your question, I just want to, just as an aside here, for anybody in the public, the thing that we're looking at here is, yes, we do, is a comparison of the, and so if you don't have one, we've got plenty of copies. Okay, thanks, Jeff, for handing that out. |
| 02:23:02.08 | Councilmember Leon | here. |
| 02:23:14.75 | Councilmember Leon | So, except for the |
| 02:23:15.16 | Mayor Withee | Yeah. |
| 02:23:21.35 | Councilmember Leon | the Nevada Street School site. The remaining one, two, three, four, five, six sites are owned by the city of Sausalito, is that correct? Absent, you know, if we remove, which I think we're going to do, the fire station too. So, but a someone who wanted to create a new homeless shelter, regardless of their intention, or if it's private, public, whatever the entity that does that, would have to get the city of Sausalito to propose such a, facility, and the city would not be compelled to use its property to do so. Is that correct? |
| 02:24:08.35 | Karen Warner | I think Mary spoke to this last time. |
| 02:24:17.53 | Mary Wagner | Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, Council Member Lee, and we did have some discussion about this at the last meeting. So, the city... have two hats on your landlord or property owner hat and your regulatory hat so in order to locate a use on a site that's owned by the city, the developer, if you will, for lack of a better word, would need the city's permission. Yes. |
| 02:24:42.73 | Councilmember Leon | the city could determine the number of these and which site they go on if it so chose. |
| 02:24:51.95 | Mary Wagner | Again, the city as the landowner would have to allow that site to be located. |
| 02:25:00.58 | Mayor Withee | Any other sort of clarifying questions, technical questions, before we open for public comment? |
| 02:25:07.57 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor, I have a couple more. Yes, please. So I understand your last comment I just wanted to clarify too because you said that you implied that there are some sites that HCD would not view as, or they would view as constraints because they already have a service like the police station or the fire station or City Hall. Did I hear that correctly? |
| 02:25:08.65 | Mayor Withee | Yes, please. |
| 02:25:39.24 | Karen Warner | they will look at the sites that are included within the overlay and make a determination whether that's sufficient capacity. |
| 02:25:50.53 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | The reason I ask is Belvedere, I believe, identified their park and rec building as their emergency shelter, and that was okay with HCD. And that's already- |
| 02:26:00.16 | Karen Warner | HCD has not reviewed Belvedere's ordinance. |
| 02:26:03.44 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | or maybe it was |
| 02:26:04.03 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 02:26:04.35 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 02:26:04.52 | Karen Warner | Thank you. the ordinance is the next update of your elements. So Belvedere adopted their ordinance after |
| 02:26:06.54 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | No, it was Balvadere. |
| 02:26:17.56 | Karen Warner | adopting their last element. When the new element goes up, if you want to do the streamlined review, HCD will require that as part of the review. |
| 02:26:27.05 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Well, I talked to the person who is in planning in Belvedere, and this is what I was told, is that she talked to HCD and it was approved. Okay. She said it was okay. They could count that. |
| 02:26:35.42 | Karen Warner | you |
| 02:26:35.60 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:26:40.21 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I guess my read on Sacramento is that if the site... Question. Well, I want to confirm that we're not necessarily establishing a constraint by identifying a site that already has a use, because this is an emergency shelter as well, I mean, in terms of the function, correct? |
| 02:26:44.65 | Katie Gray | I'm not sure. |
| 02:27:06.50 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 02:27:07.83 | Karen Warner | Again, it's going to be up to the state's evaluation of the sites. It's for SB2, for site viability, you are looking at both sites that could be developed with a new shelter and sites that could... be a reuse of an existing building. |
| 02:27:32.15 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I have a question, Mr. Mayor, about the... Please, go ahead. Okay. So regarding length of stay, HCD asked us to talk to Homeward Bound, and we did. And one of our residents also talked to Homeward Bound and found out that Homeward Bound does not require a length of stay. Well, they said that they provide stays of one night and up to 30 days. So that seems to me to be a reasonable, viable alternative for Sausalito. Can you comment on that? |
| 02:27:33.80 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 02:27:33.91 | City Clerk | Please go ahead. |
| 02:27:35.07 | Katie Gray | Thank you. |
| 02:28:05.06 | Karen Warner | So that's kind of what I was attempting to do in describing the difference between your overarching standards in your ordinance versus the standards of a specific shelter. So that's the Mill Street Shelter Standards. Homeward Bound also has other shelters with different standards. the requirement that a city adopt standards that are not constraining to a variety of different shelter types. |
| 02:28:41.62 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I mean, to me, from what I'm looking at, HCD asked us to talk to Homeward Bound. We did, and there are various options. We pick an option that fits our small town, and how is that a constraint? |
| 02:29:02.72 | Adam Politzer | Karen and I worked on the Belvedere housing element, and they went through a similar analysis and picked the equivalent of the public institutional zone, which included City Hall, the Police Department, and the Recreation Department all-in-one structure building. But as part of that parcel, it also included a fairly large park, and they had a very low homeless count in the single digits. So I believe they were able to make a straight-faced argument that that could satisfy their need. And we were also able to point to an actual homeless shelter in the city of Sonoma that was built in a park next to a police station and was fully functional. I think a challenge here in Sausalito is we have a larger homeless count and so we need to be careful about which sites we deselect from a public institutional zone because it's important to remember the state statute requires the city to select a single zoning district that is allowed by right the emergency shelter, and the more we chip away at that, the closer they're going to look at the viability, as Karen has mentioned. |
| 02:30:09.49 | Mayor Withee | I can see there's a lot of, a number of people who want to talk or want to make public comment. I'm wondering whether we should suspend questions for a short while, and we may actually have asked them all, and hear from the public. So once again, is there anybody from the public who wants to talk on this topic? Again, you've got three minutes, and whoever would like to. We have George at the back, Susan wants to talk, and others some. Thank you. |
| 02:30:49.27 | Unknown | Welcome, George. GEORGE STRATEGUS, 21 Channing Way. I first of all wanted to Thank you for your taking on the very challenging issues of housing elements and working with the state. I mean, this started back in 95, and you guys are getting down to the real heavy work, and I really appreciate it. In the area of homeless shelters, that's the subject that we all in the state of California have to face, and we do have homeless people in our community. And I want to make sure that as we go down that path that we just don't have push zones and so forth in places and not really take it seriously. Along that line, when I was reviewing what you're doing, et cetera, to me the shelter concept at Spencer was of great concern to me because it doesn't meet, the needs of homeless people and of people in need. And I've spent a lot of time in San Rafael and know a lot of the homeless people in our community. And to make them hike up the hill every night to go to sleep is almost cruel. So for the public record to assist you, because I don't think that you're considering it at this time, I want to make sure that we have on the public record my thoughts to assist you in case the state contests your opinion. Number one is having grown up in that neighborhood and lived as a person without a car until I was 21, I will tell you that the Spencer property is a food desert. To get a meal, a snack at any time of day means either you're going to walk a long way or etc. The other thing is that it's remote. It's really a remote location. There's no sidewalks. to anywhere from that location. there's no handicap access anywhere to that location, not even between the one bus station in the other, there's no way for a wheelchair or a person to walk on a sidewalk or public access. So if you were to build a homeless shelter there, you would need... to make all those improvements simply to meet the minimum needs of that community, especially disabled citizens. Spencer Avenue is a danger zone. And if you look at your police records, you'll see that there's been enforcement going on now for the last three or four years trying to prevent the possibility of someone being hit on that road since there's no sidewalks and people's speed on that street. So that's very dangerous for a homeless shelter. There is a...there are no...there's nothing to do up there. There's no opportunities. It's a beautiful place, beautiful view. It's boring. And if I were a homeless person, the last thing I would want to be is stuck up there with nothing to do except look at the view. There are no jobs. Oh, is that it? Okay. Well, anyways, in summation, there's no jobs, and there's no opportunities. It's bad weather. And then all those things have to be mitigated, which means we'd have to put in sidewalks. We'd have to do all sorts of things. So I would encourage you to continue down the path of removing that from your list and make sure that the homeless shelters we do provide, provide access and really work to help people. Thank you. |
| 02:33:59.25 | Adam Krivac | Thank you. |
| 02:34:22.03 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. |
| 02:34:22.04 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:25.13 | Mayor Withee | We've got the microphone. Thank you, George, very helpful comments. Who would like to add them? |
| 02:34:35.49 | Adam Krivac | Good evening, Adam Krivac, 840, Lima Street. Mr. Mayor, Mr. Rice Mayor, Honorable Councilman, I wonder how... I have only a question. Not to comment. wonder how the churches homeless shelter program fits into this program. churches provide services, they alternate, they accommodate people overnight, They feed people. And MR PALLADINO- Yeah. They feed large number of people actually. alternatively. Did you check on those figures and are those figures reflected somewhere in your requirements for accommodations? Can you deduct those? or Is that unreliable because it's voluntary? |
| 02:35:33.41 | Mayor Withee | Thank you, Adam. Would someone like to address Adam's question? |
| 02:35:39.84 | Lily (staff) | Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So Mr. Carvazzi is referring to the REST program in Marin County, which is a rotating shelter program that is volunteer-based and utilizes existing churches in Marin County. That program is temporary in nature. It provides services during the winter months in Marin County. The SB2 requires the city to select a zoning district that can accommodate a permanent shelter. And so that program doesn't get at what we're required to do as a city. |
| 02:36:19.68 | Mayor Withee | Thank you, Lily. Susan. |
| 02:36:25.16 | Susan | So I just hope that you will remove the Spencer F. Fire Station. It's not a good location for reasons that I've detailed in a letter and everybody else has mentioned and you all know. So please do that. And also, I thought that the idea, although I didn't stay for the whole Planning Commission meeting last week, I thought what I saw in the presentation about limiting the homeless shelter to Sausalito residents only was an interesting one. If it's not constitutional, fine, but maybe there could be some language that Sausalito residents are given priority. and I hope that we can find a way to try and limit the bed numbers. Vivian was pointing out that if we have 20 homeless people and they're only allowed to stay 90 days, then the homeless shelter is only going to be in effect for 90 days out of the year. We don't actually really need 20 beds for 20 homeless people for an entire year. And, yeah, those are my main comments. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:37:48.29 | Rick Oliva | Hi, Mr. Mayor and City Council members. My name is Rick Oliva. I live right across the street on B Street. And I did get this notice in the mail, public notice, and it says, Emergency Homeless Shelter Zoning Ordinance. So is it an emergency shelter where people come when there's a storm and we need to put people in a safe place? Or is it going to be a homeless shelter that's going to be permanent? Very confusing. Number two, don't use San Rafael as an example of somebody to follow. I do business in San Rafael and it's a complete disaster as far as dealing with homeless. The Ritter House is there. They have a conditional use permit that the city is supposed to monitor. And I've actually been in city council meetings where staff members are looking at council members. Council members are asking staff members, well, was this supposed to be implemented or not? And it's not being implemented. So I would probably encourage you to use Tiburon or Belvedere as a more realistic example instead of the city of Santa Fe with its much higher population as a way to go about selecting homeless shelters. you know they do have an impact on the area and i'd like i said this notice is not clear it says emergency homeless shelter so which one is it so i'd like to have more clarification and discussion on that uh... maybe another notice needs to go out and say this is about homeless shelters that will be permanent and when you select these sites any nonprofit organization can come by and put a homeless shelter there and you can't stop it. So maybe staff can clarify that. It's any nonprofit organization can come by and put a homeless shelter there, and you can't stop it. So maybe staff can clarify that. That would be nice to hear, and it would be nice that the public understand what this law really means because there's a lot of confusion there. So thanks, and thanks for your interest in trying to move this process along. I know it's a process, and I know you have to abide by the law, but I think citizens should definitely have input and understand when you're sending notices out what they actually mean. So better clarification is what I recommend. And I think obviously more meetings need to be held with people who've been noticed in these areas exactly what the intent of what you're trying to do is going to be. Okay? Thanks for your hard work. |
| 02:40:12.91 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. Yes. |
| 02:40:22.98 | Katie Gray | I might be speaking from total ignorance, but I find some... |
| 02:40:27.44 | Mayor Withee | Could you state your name? |
| 02:40:29.33 | Katie Gray | Oh, my name is Katie Gray and I live on Spencer Court. |
| 02:40:32.58 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. |
| 02:40:32.89 | Katie Gray | It has nothing to do with where I live, |
| 02:40:33.09 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 02:40:35.10 | Katie Gray | IT HAS TO DO WITH MY ignorance of what is the definition of a resident. if a resident, do you have to have an address to be a resident? Or do you have to drift into town and say I'm a resident and then somebody comes along and counts you as the number of homeless residents and says, well, then Sausalito has to have X number of beds for these people. I think that's very confusing. Thank you. |
| 02:41:07.28 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. Could you, I don't know, Karen, Lily, clarify again how the homeless count is done and maybe to help answer that question? |
| 02:41:23.85 | Karen Warner | Sure, and I was able to pull up the 2013 Marin Point in Time Homeless Count. and we should make that available on the city's website because it goes into the methodology. And it's a point in time count, so it's a certain day in January. There's all kinds of volunteers and, you know, churches and service providers that are out. And there's various categories, as you said. persons that are in street locations or in places that aren't fit for human habitation. There's persons that are precariously housed. But in terms of, so it's not really that they're a resident. It's on that point in time count day that the numbers that we're using, because this is what, you know, it's the best information that's available, is the table in the point in time count that lists the number of residents. when the homeless individual is asked, where did you sleep last night? So the response is to that question. And so for the 2013 count, where in 2011 there were 30 that said Sausalito was where they slept last night, in 2013 there were 23. And so that represents 6% of the homeless that responded to that question. So that's the barometer that's used. |
| 02:43:08.38 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. We're still in public comment time. Any other member of the public like to? Yes, please. |
| 02:43:15.14 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 02:43:17.56 | Mayor Withee | And if you could state your name, that would be great. End address. No, you don't have to, but, you know. |
| 02:43:26.75 | Leslie Hale | My name is Leslie Hale, and I do feel quite misled by the public notice that was sent to me, speaking of emergency homeless shelter I agree with that comment but I would like to read a letter that was sent by Edward McCann, who lives with me. |
| 02:43:46.16 | Unknown | again. |
| 02:43:48.44 | Leslie Hale | He could not be here tonight. Implementation of SB2 provides the opportunity for the city government to regulate a specific number of items in its operation of an emergency shelter, specifically including the number of beds and the length of stay for Sausalito's homeless. At the last City Council meeting, after hearing from the consultant and staff that they were directed to HCD to contact Homeward Bound of Marin and to ensure parity With the emergency shelter standards of operation, Councilman Leon stated he wanted to leave it to the experts who are homeward bound to determine reasonable standards of operation. It was reasonable to assume that Councilman Leon and the council who voted with him were intending that these standards be included in our city ordinance. The potential future emergency shelter is meant to house the homeless of Sausalito first and foremost. And the draft ordinance before you state Sausalito's zoning will provide no more than 20 beds based on Sausalito's recent census of the homeless. The experts from Homeward Bound, the Mill Street Emergency Shelter, require, in fact, that occupants granted emergency shelter at the Mill Street Center must provide some proof of residency in Marin County. Hence, it is only reasonable that in complying with SB 2, with its emergency shelter for the homeless of Sausalito, that homeless persons seeking potential shelter therein provide some sort of proof of Sausalito residency or be vouched for as being a resident. You have provided draft language that the council might use as a starting point, which has been sent to the Planning Commission and the City Council members and the staff. It's also true that California does provide ID at a reduced rate to the homeless. Further, the length of stay of provisions above The experts at Homeward Bounds Mill Street Center Emergency Shelter, through their public information, disclose that 60% or 35 of their 55 beds, as stated earlier, are available for night-to-night stays, and 40% or 20 beds are open to residents for up to one month. The short-term aspect is designed to provide short-term shelter and to provide motivation for the homeless to improve their situation, accepting support as it's offered. |
| 02:46:42.28 | Mayor Withee | Thank you very much. Bevent. |
| 02:46:49.91 | Vivian Wall | Hello, Vivian Wall, 94 Cloudview Road, Mayor and City Councilman. I'd like to echo a lot of the comments from our neighbors here in Sausalito. And just to really go back and ask the question, if we have 20 homeless people and they can only stay 90 days or maybe 180 days, then why do we need 20 beds? Can we get an answer to that question? Or maybe I should just finish my comment and then you can answer it. The other thing I was going to say, I tried to Google Map the street down, Spencer, and Google Map has an option for walking, and if you hit that walking button, it says that it is not a walkable street. So, you know, I don't know that it's fair to assume that people who have no home also have a car. So it just seems entirely an ill-suited location for a homeless I guess the one other point that I would make is that I think the homeless would be happier in walking proximity to the life of Sausalito. I would also like to point out that the police patrol bridgeway and to the extent that there are issues, which there are issues in San Rafael at the homeless shelter there, I think putting it in some greater. the extent that there are issues, which there are issues in San Rafael at the homeless shelter there, I think putting it in some greater proximity to where the police naturally are would be helpful to everybody involved. So thank you. |
| 02:48:30.06 | Mayor Withee | Thanks a lot. And Karen, could you address the specific question that Vivian asked there? |
| 02:48:38.65 | Karen Warner | So the question is... |
| 02:48:41.25 | Mayor Withee | The question was, as I let me paraphrase, was that if we've got 20 people, 20 plus, 24 people or whatever, was the last count on this sort of spot count methodology. If there was 24 and the maximum stay is 120 days, let's say that, then why do you need one shelter that accommodates 20 beds? I think. Was that the question? Yeah. |
| 02:48:43.44 | Karen Warner | Right. |
| 02:48:53.72 | City Clerk | MOTIVATED. |
| 02:48:53.98 | Unknown | of the |
| 02:49:16.59 | Karen Warner | And there's several different ways to answer this. the zoning is for a permanent shelter, so it can't be, you know, like a temporary winter shelter. So whatever the zoning is accommodating, it has to be available for year-round. Clearly, the point-in-time count is a point-in-time. The homeless are in and out. Those, as I'm certain in almost all jurisdictions, the count is an undercount because there's many, many homeless or people on the verge of homeless that are not visible. But it's not as if that's a frozen number, that those exact same 23 are always here and there's no more, there's no fluidity. So I think Right, right. Okay. So that would be the way I would view it. |
| 02:50:13.52 | Mayor Withee | Okay. Thank you. Any other member of the public like to comment on this item? Bye. |
| 02:50:29.54 | Mike Rogers | Good evening again, Mike Rogers. I have nothing against, I wasn't here tonight to talk about homeless people or emergency shelters. I have nothing against emergency shelters, but just in listening to the conversation here, I question their point in time homeless count. in Dunphy Park, for instance, and I said, where do you live? I'm like, where did you sleep last night? I'd say, in Los Alitos. But I remember an article in the MarinScope maybe a year ago where I believe it was our police chief was dealing with some homeless people and that they were actually liveaboards. or anchor outs. And just to make sure our numbers are correct here for Sausalito, a lot of anchor outs are not anchoring in Sausalito, they're anchoring in the County of Marin. So our numbers may be skewed for Sausalito and County of Marin. So maybe people asking the question, really, they're not thinking, I'm in Sausalito, I slept on a boat last night, but I don't know where the county line is. I'm actually an anchor out, so I should be a county and Marin number. And I see a number, Marin County numbers section here. And when I look at Larkspur and Ross and Tiburon and Mill Valley and how low their numbers are, the thing that I look at that makes us different, and we've already established this with our housing element, is we have liveaboards and anchorouts in Sausalito. That's already established with HCD. So, you know, I just question the point in time homeless count. Do these people actually live – do they actually sleep in Sausalito or do they actually sleep in the county? And maybe we can reduce our bed count based on that. And I'm not saying maybe we necessarily need to do that, but as a, you know, I might be homeless one day, you know, who knows, whatever our circumstances might be. But I just question the homeless point in time count and how accurate it really was and how that might work for what we're doing here. Thank you. |
| 02:52:30.06 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. Anybody else? |
| 02:52:36.59 | Mayor Withee | Now, this is your last chance, because I'm going to close public comment. Actually, one thing I should perhaps You know, the staff presentation covered a bunch of topics, including VMU. And so I just want to remind you and give you the opportunity, if anybody wants to say anything about the VMU, then we should, I'll extend the public comments. |
| 02:53:05.01 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor, point of process, I'm wondering if perhaps because we have spent all of our questions around the homeless shelter, perhaps we get public comment and then discuss that, and then we ask questions about the VMU and open it to public comment specifically for the VMU. |
| 02:53:23.11 | Mayor Withee | Well, we have talked about the VMU about 20 times, so if I know exactly who in the audience might want to talk about it, so I think we need to ask questions, yes. So anyway, does anybody in the audience want to talk about the VMU program? Yes, please. |
| 02:53:47.58 | Jenny Reinders | Hi again, Jenny Reinders. I was under the impression that we were going to have a separate period to discuss the VMU. because I'm not clear on If the VMU is part of our housing element, how does that affect the people on in our little business area that might have offices up above? Have they been notified that... First of all, how will it affect them? Will they be able to have office space above their business? And have they been, have the property owners and Perhaps office dwellers been notified of this possible change? |
| 02:54:26.41 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. |
| 02:54:27.17 | Jenny Reinders | And that was my question. |
| 02:54:28.61 | Mayor Withee | Okay, thank you, Lily or whoever. |
| 02:54:33.13 | Lily (staff) | So to tackle the change in allowable commercial uses above the ground level, today's zoning ordinance allows for both residential and commercial above the ground level in the CC, CR, and CN1 zoning districts. The VMU regulations would modify that requirement such that only residential is allowed above the ground floor. However, an exception could be approved by the Planning Commission allowing small commercial spaces up to 1,000 square feet above the ground level. The second question regarding notification, yes, the property owners were notified. As far as tenants of those spaces, the notification did not specifically go to individual business tenants, but a notice did go to all property owners and occupants. Okay. |
| 02:55:34.01 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. |
| 02:55:36.02 | Lily (staff) | That's correct. The current use of those spaces is not effective. We're talking about potential future uses on the upper levels in those districts. |
| 02:55:47.65 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:55:47.87 | Councilmember Leon | Thank you. |
| 02:55:51.93 | Councilmember Leon | If a property owner had, even in a multi-tenant building, a permit for office use on the second floor currently, and a new tenant moved in that was in office use, that could carry through. |
| 02:56:06.85 | Lily (staff) | Correct, they would be subject to the non-conformity provisions of the zoning ordinance, and that would |
| 02:56:11.80 | Mayor Withee | Um, Could I ask, is there any other member of the public who wants to make a comment about the VMU? Okay, seeing none, I'm closing public comment. And now I think if there's more clarifying questions on any topic, on the topics under discussion, then please. |
| 02:56:30.02 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Mr. Amir, I'm thinking because the homeless shelter is top of mind, and I think that we have a number of people who also want to see closure on that, perhaps we could continue that discussion and then go to the VMU with the questions? Yes, yes. Okay. I just want to make sure public comment is closed. Right. Okay. So I do have a couple more questions with regards to the homeless shelter. So my first question is with respect to the comment of the overlay. And I heard comment about parks. And so when I'm looking at this PI zone, I'm not sure if I'm looking at this. |
| 02:56:41.61 | Leslie Hale | Thank you. |
| 02:56:41.63 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. |
| 02:56:41.73 | Leslie Hale | Thank you. |
| 02:56:41.90 | Mayor Withee | to the VMU with the questions? Yes, yes, yes. I just want to make sure public comments closed. |
| 02:57:11.75 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I think we're naturally going to the structures that are already standing and that's where my concern has been. You know, I'm concerned about some of these structures that are in neighborhoods. And so, but then I heard the comment about parks. So is it that parks and just regular residential homes in the, or in the, Anything in the PI zone is open to a potential homeless shelter or are these specific site buildings that are on this list? I think it's limited to what city owns. I just want to clarify that. |
| 02:57:52.74 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | city-owned structures in the PI zone. Is that correct? |
| 02:57:55.71 | Lily (staff) | Is that correct? It's city owned sites in the PI district. So if we look at this site right here, which I'm circling on the screen, |
| 02:58:01.20 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | to the own side. |
| 02:58:02.06 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 02:58:06.24 | Lily (staff) | This is the City Hall site right now. So City Hall, the parking lot's up here where my mouse is. The building's right here in the middle. And the park is in the front here, so the entire site. that that type of use would be allowed on this site. |
| 02:58:22.04 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay, and now what about the ferry landing? Because that is part of this as well, correct? Same answer. Okay, so it's the whole area. That's correct. |
| 02:58:30.24 | Lily (staff) | Same answer. |
| 02:58:37.36 | Mayor Withee | Okay, anybody else have any other questions? |
| 02:58:42.35 | City Clerk | you |
| 02:58:43.87 | Mayor Withee | Okay, so let's move into our comment period and... |
| 02:58:52.53 | Mayor Withee | and look to take some action. |
| 02:58:54.98 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor, oh, you want to start on that end? No. |
| 02:58:57.63 | Mayor Withee | No, I'm happy to start whichever end. |
| 02:59:00.88 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Um... Thank you. I will say that I'm very concerned. I don't think there's been enough public outreach, regardless of where you land on this. The mailer that went out, I think it was staff's good intentions, but I think that it did not communicate and it left a lot of room for misinterpretation to the folks who received it. I think we need to do more outreach before we take this very important step. I think that it is only fair, and if we apply the Golden Rule, if we were in their shoes and we weren't up here on this dais, we would want the same thing. We would want to know what could happen in our neighborhood. I think that 10 beds is generous. is generous I think that especially since our the population went down now we're at 20 I think that 10 beds is generous. I think that especially since the population went down, now we're at 23. I think that 10 beds is good, especially since we cannot We can't legally limit the number of the homeless sites or shelters, and right now we have kind of a large PI zone identified. And so I also look at the logic that was presented earlier about the number of beds and how long they can stay. So I would reduce the bed count to 10. I would also have it mirror the homeward bound with the night-to-night and the 30-day limit. I would also have, for the 90-day, I would actually leave it at a 30-day limit. I would also remove the sites that are nestled in neighborhoods. I don't think that that makes sense. And I would also look at this with the filter of the emergency aspect of it. I would go to the ferry landing. I would go to, I mean, a lot of times the roads are blocked and we can't have access. I'm not suggesting that's the right answer, but I'm just saying that we've been looking at this from the perspective of homeless, but we should also keep in mind it's called an emergency shelter. And so, um, emergency sites. So anyway, Oh, what else? Yeah, I guess that's it in a nutshell. I think that we, There was a comment that HCD might see this as certain things as a constraint. Constraint doesn't mean that HCD would say no. A constraint means that HCD sees it as a constraint. But they would look at the cumulative package we would be providing and the latest data, and I think that that would be a strong case for us. I'm concerned with the homeless. the homeless count in that we do have a transient nature where people get off the bus from San Francisco, travel through, might stay one night, but they keep going, and they go to the main homeless shelter in San Rafael. So I think those numbers may have been a little bit influenced |
| 03:02:15.77 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. |
| 03:02:20.80 | Councilmember Weiner | Well, I'm glad that we moved the fire station off the list. As far as the shelter goes, the only shelter that that could be is when you're trying to get a taxi when you get off the Marin Airport and you can't get one. You might have to stay there. Okay. On a foggy night, I think some of you know what it's like up there when you're waiting for someone to come up and get you. |
| 03:02:40.58 | Unknown | there, |
| 03:02:43.68 | Councilmember Weiner | We made sure that the sites that we picked were city sites, sites that the city owns, not individuals, not others, so we could so to speak, control our destiny of what goes there, of what we want to put there. Our proximity to San Francisco naturally creates. I don't know if you remembered about five years ago, they were telling, they were, the police in San Francisco were driving him up to the bridge and telling him to go over to San Francisco. We are the first ones closest to San Francisco, and that's one of the reasons that we do pick up a lot of the transit. Mill Valley. Mill Valley has 20 beds. Their population is 14,000. over there in Tiburon They couldn't make it over there. walking. So I don't compare it with that. I compare it with Mill Valley. I think we've attempted to put these in places that, as I said, that we can control what happens in the future. |
| 03:03:57.78 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Thank you. |
| 03:03:57.87 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. |
| 03:03:58.04 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Thank you. |
| 03:03:58.93 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. |
| 03:04:02.41 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Okay. I've been... Um, things to keep in mind. We have to pass this as part of the element. It's dictated by SB2. And most of the provisions are dictated by SB2 as well. The other thing that we need to keep in mind is this is not a new concept to South Salido. We passed this, essentially this form, in our housing element. And we're merely we're implementing it at this point. So a lot of this has been there. It's been part of our housing element. These aren't new concepts. By the way, fire station, too, I think we all agree. That's, you know, Council Member Leon put that on the table before. I mean, that's fine. We're going to take that one off. A couple of the things, I think, and I appreciate the input from all the residents on this, the Sausalito, limited to Sausalito and such, but it's been addressed. We can't do it if it's illegal. This is something that shelters themselves might be able to do, but we can't as a government entity when we do that. Um, The other part is, One thing I want to relate to, it was a novel concept, and I had to think about it again when someone said, well, there's only 20 homeless people, but it's like counting how many people were on the ferry. There might be an average of 250 people on the ferry. They're not the same people every time, and homelessness is somewhat like that. And the whole idea of these shelters are to move people into permanent housing. And so there may only be 20 at any time, but these people hopefully are getting services moving on, and unfortunately they're replenished by other homeless people. That's why you can't just limit it, and it's not the same 20 people each time. So I think with the changes that are recommended by the Planning Commission and the dictates of SB 2, I think we need to go forward with this. |
| 03:05:54.69 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Thank you. |
| 03:05:54.71 | Councilmember Leon | So as I stated earlier and you reminded us, I think we're all on the same page, Fire Station 2 is kind of an outlier site. isn't super practical for this purpose in a lot of different ways. With that, I think this is the introduction and first reading, right? So the city has the capability of sending out another notice if we direct, if you wanted to make sure things were phrased a certain way. It's, you know, what? |
| 03:06:29.41 | Lily (staff) | So the second reading is next Tuesday. |
| 03:06:32.36 | Councilmember Leon | Right. So if we wanted to just send out essentially the same thing, but change the wording of those two phrases, is that possible to drop in the mail, you know? |
| 03:06:40.95 | Lily (staff) | It's possible to get in the mail by this Friday. Mr. Mayor, if I may, I can read you what the notice said, if that helps the council. and I'm just reading the particular part related to the Emergency Homeless Shelter Zoning Ordinance Amendment Modifications to Municipal Code Sections 1044, 1028, Table 10, 20-1, and the Zoning Map Pursuant to State Law, to create an emergency shelter overlay zoning district to allow emergency homeless shelters as a principally permitted use on City of Sausalito-owned and Sausalito School District-owned sites in the public institutional PEI zoning district and establish approval requirements and development standards for emergency homeless shelters. The City of Sausalito-owned and Sausalito School District-owned sites in the Public Institutional Zoning District include, but are not limited to, the Spencer Fire Station site at 300 Spencer Avenue, and it lists the APN, City Hall at 420 Litho Street, lists the APN. Police Station on Caledonia Street, APN. Fire Station on Johnson Street, APN. City Corporation Yard on Nevada Street, APN. The School District Site on Nevada Street, APN. And the MLK site on Coloma Street, APN. These amendments are categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to an elicit section. |
| 03:08:15.06 | Mayor Withee | Thanks, Lily. Justin, for fairness, you were only 30 seconds into your three-minute comment period when Lily helpfully read that out. So you do have two minutes, 30 seconds left. |
| 03:08:21.50 | City Clerk | Three-minute comment. |
| 03:08:26.82 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 03:08:26.84 | Councilmember Leon | You do have two minutes, 30 seconds left. |
| 03:08:29.22 | City Clerk | Thank you. Okay. |
| 03:08:29.98 | Councilmember Leon | Thank you. |
| 03:08:30.01 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 03:08:30.03 | Councilmember Leon | Yeah. I don't have a lot more to say. I would say that in addition to the moment in time count, which is, again, done by volunteers and to the best of their ability, but they're not like beating the weeds for people because they're trying to respect the privacy of folks at the same time having participated in Homeless Connect and some other activities. It's kind of a fine line balance. But the thing to also remember, I think, I can't remember who phrased this, is that we have a significant amount of precariously housed folks, I guess is what you would say. Our, you know, 5.6% of our population of 7,000 people are below the poverty level in terms of income. And that translates to about 400 people. And our rate of that is almost double Mill Valley, much higher than Cordova D'Ara Larkspur and getting towards what San Rafael is. So the fluidity of even our local population, one small mistake, and that tends to be my experience in volunteering for this type of stuff, is one small mistake, too many tickets. If you're at $11,000 of income a year, you're back in your car if you get too many tickets. And by the grace of God, don't go I. So I think we do have an obligation, a moral obligation to provide, not only for the homeless folks in Sausalito. We all know at least somebody. How many of you, again, I say this last meeting, have bought a painting from Beau or have interacted with other folks? And a lot of these people don't have IDs. Having, again, volunteered for these things, a lot of people, one of the things they get at the Homeless Connect is try to get an ID from the DMV because they may not have, they don't have it. So I don't think we should – I think the residency requirement, I think, is not the best path to tread at this moment in time, specifically if it's going to open us up for legal challenges. I think that would be an unfortunate waste of our financial resources as a city. And the proposal on the stay length, as staff has recommended, I'm comfortable with that. And I believe we can always go back, because these are not, these restrictions are going into zoning ordinance, these guidelines, we can amend those at any time. We don't, or change the language, you know, the proper process of going before the planning commission and other things for that. But if we find that there's a need to change those, we can change those without touching the housing element. It's just in our own local zoning ordinance, and we amend that. We've amended that a couple of times in the last year for various purposes. So there's always that opportunity to massage that language as need be over time. |
| 03:11:24.01 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. I don't really have much to add. I said last time we talked about this, that we have a legal requirement to do this and we're not gonna put the city at risk by just saying no to the state, number one. And number two, to echo what Council Member Leon said, if you just ignore what the state demands, there is a, I believe, also a moral obligation to actually comply with the law here and their suggestions. So I'm, every city is struggling with this. People are worried, and I understand that. Let's remember that by enacting this ordinance, we're not building shelters. We're not saying we're going to build a shelter in X. What we're doing is complying with the law and amending our zoning ordinance so that one could be built there or could be used there. The other point I wanna make is that, We're in control in large measure because of the nature of the PI Zone and our ownership of it. Obviously, the school district is another. But if somebody came along and wanted to actually build a new building as a shelter rather than repurpose an existing building, they would still have to go through design review for a new building if in fact that building demanded design review. So it's not like we are, we bypassing the discretionary review process in that particular case. So that's really all I have to say. So one minute rebuttal period on this topic. |
| 03:13:45.08 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | on this topic. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move to define the emergency shelter as a designation of a 10-bed shelter with a night-to-night stay basis and a limit of 30 consecutive days. |
| 03:13:59.90 | City Clerk | Thank you. you |
| 03:14:00.95 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. |
| 03:14:00.98 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 03:14:02.31 | Mayor Withee | So that's the second motion on the table, right? We have a previous motion and a second, I believe. And so is there a second to Councilmember Pfeiffer's motion? |
| 03:14:15.20 | Councilmember Leon | clarify, I need to amend my earlier motion to include, you know, read the whole thing. Sorry, I already shut it down because I didn't |
| 03:14:23.81 | Mayor Withee | Fair enough. No, that's fair enough. Okay, that's fair enough. Mr. Mayor, I do have a rebuttal. Yeah, yeah. So there is no second to your motion. Okay. |
| 03:14:24.05 | Councilmember Leon | Right. No, that's fair enough. . |
| 03:14:25.94 | City Clerk | I'm sorry. |
| 03:14:26.39 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:14:26.41 | City Clerk | Mayor, I do have a rebuttal. |
| 03:14:27.59 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:14:32.77 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay, so there was a comment about the methodology that was used for the the homeless count. And actually, more than 50 agencies are involved, and it includes homeless people interviewing each other, and it also includes a team of people interviewing inmates. So it's a very rigorous and very well-participated process. So I just wanted to comment on that. I also want to comment on the outreach. This is really, I really I'm very concerned. Again, I'll am very concerned. Again, I'll echo that I'm, it sounds like we're going to do a second mailing. I will move to do a second mailing to those located in the PI zone. some time this week so that prior to the next hearing? |
| 03:15:29.18 | Councilmember Leon | You would move to notify property owners adjacent to the PI zone because the PI zone is us It's the city |
| 03:15:33.15 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay. I move to notify the property owners adjacent to the PI. impacted by this overlay. |
| 03:15:48.25 | Mayor Withee | impact. You indicated that we could if council needed Get this, get a mailing out. |
| 03:15:59.24 | Lily (staff) | It's physically possible. Just a reminder to Council, there have been two notices One is sent in advance of the May Planning Commission. hearing on the emergency shelter and another set in advance of both the July Planning Commission hearing and this hearing as well. |
| 03:16:17.58 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | One thing I would recommend that perhaps we change the wording, I think what happened was people saw emergency homeless shelter and they thought it was a shelter in case there is an emergency and people are homeless and they need to stay because it's an emergency. So I think what we would do is we would change the wording. then we would change the wording to be homeless shelter, and emergency shelter, you know, or emergency. We would make it clear that this was something that could be a homeless shelter, and it would be permanent, because that, to me, people need to know. |
| 03:17:00.38 | Mayor Withee | Is any other council member thinking that we should send a mailing address? |
| 03:17:03.82 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | you |
| 03:17:03.97 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Thank you. Well, one thing is, my understanding is this is a term of art from SB2, emergency homeless shelter. And I mean, It's really what it says. I mean, it's emergency shelter. It's not for permanent shelter for homeless. It's for their emergency. You can say it different ways, but when you say emergency homeless shelter and you specify it the way it was, they're on notice. This language has been in our housing element. It's been in all the planning commission. I don't really see it as necessary. I mean, how else are you going to define it? If you define it a different way, you're going to be misleading in another way. |
| 03:17:45.57 | Councilmember Leon | uh... and even if it's given that you're only talking about you're not talking about a huge number of properties, 300-foot notice, because we're carving out Spencer, so it's just the remaining whatever, seven properties, whatever it is. But there's a chance they might not actually receive it by Tuesday. That's the more, you know, given the... Okay, the post office sometimes will get there the next day, sometimes will get there whenever. But the... if staff can accomplish it i'm personally in favor of it the one uh... point of clarification i wanted to make as far as what council member five percent about the rigorousness of this moment in time count. My comment is more literally, they don't beat the bushes. There are people living in bushes, and if somebody doesn't want to come out from a bush, they don't make them come out to be counted. So it was a literal comment, not that it wasn't done effectively or efficiently or professionally. |
| 03:18:52.72 | Councilmember Leon | Thank you. |
| 03:18:52.73 | Mayor Withee | Okay, would someone remind me or help me where we are with devotions? So if all of you... |
| 03:19:00.44 | Councilmember Leon | I'll amend my prior motion to introduce and read by title only an ordinance of the City of Saus-Ladu. City Council of the City of Saus-Ladu to establish an emergency shelter overlay zone and development and management standards for emergency shelters in the emergency shelter overlay zone and to allow transitional and supportive housing as a principally permitted and conditionally permitted use in the CCCR and CN1 zoning districts and to allow single room occupancy units in the CCCR and CN1 zoning districts as a conditional use. with the conditions that have been presented in the staff report, which included the removal of Fire Station 2 from the list of city-owned properties and school district-owned properties that are subject to the overlay. |
| 03:19:60.00 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | And do you, the notice provision one, do that separately or protocol? |
| 03:20:04.42 | Mayor Withee | I think I want to do that separately. |
| 03:20:06.46 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Thank you. Yes. Yeah. Oh, second. Thank you. |
| 03:20:10.20 | Mayor Withee | Okay. Good night. |
| 03:20:12.70 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And I have an amendment to remove, let's see, we're already removing Spencer. Yeah. So I make move to amend to remove the Public Works Corporation Yard, City Hall, the Power Station. Yeah. |
| 03:20:19.70 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 03:20:32.23 | Councilmember Leon | the power station last meeting. |
| 03:20:35.67 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Oh, good. Okay. The Public Works Corporation Yard and City Hall. |
| 03:20:41.12 | Mayor Withee | So you're not leaving much there, are you? Is there any second to that amendment? |
| 03:20:46.08 | Councilmember Leon | you can still put a shelter in the Spinnaker restaurant |
| 03:20:53.14 | Mayor Withee | There is no second to that motion. Okay, I want to come to the notice after, but let's call the vote on this amended motion of Council Member Leone's, which I think the Vice Mayor seconded. Would you call the vote on that one, please? |
| 03:20:53.49 | Councilmember Leon | There is... Thank you. |
| 03:20:55.61 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Thank you. |
| 03:21:11.21 | Lily (staff) | Just for clarification, I have Councilmember Pfeiffer seconding that original motion. She asked for him. |
| 03:21:17.13 | Councilmember Leon | She asked for an amendment to the Oh, to the original motion. The original motion. That is correct. Well, she didn't get to ask. |
| 03:21:20.74 | City Clerk | You. |
| 03:21:21.03 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | The original motion, that was the motion to remove the Spencer fire station, but not for the whole kitchen. The second was? Vice Mayor. Okay, thanks. |
| 03:21:24.05 | Lily (staff) | Thank you. |
| 03:21:28.30 | Lily (staff) | Thank you. So the second was? The vice mayor. |
| 03:21:37.55 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Councilmember Pfeiffer? Are we voting to remove Spencer? |
| 03:21:42.76 | Councilmember Leon | Thank you. |
| 03:21:42.85 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | We'll be right back. |
| 03:21:42.93 | Councilmember Leon | Moving Spencer is part of the broader motion. |
| 03:21:42.95 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | We're... |
| 03:21:43.02 | Nancy Osborne | Thank you. |
| 03:21:43.03 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. Oh, so we're voting on the whole thing, right? |
| 03:21:47.32 | Councilmember Leon | Thanks. |
| 03:21:48.03 | Lily (staff) | Thank you. |
| 03:21:48.10 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | No. |
| 03:21:48.55 | Lily (staff) | Thank you. Councilmember Weiner. |
| 03:21:51.45 | Councilmember Leon | Yes. |
| 03:21:51.57 | Lily (staff) | Thank you. |
| 03:21:51.89 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. |
| 03:21:51.91 | Councilmember Leon | Thank you. |
| 03:21:52.35 | Lily (staff) | Councilmember Leon? |
| 03:21:53.60 | Councilmember Leon | Yes. |
| 03:21:53.65 | Lily (staff) | Yeah. |
| 03:21:53.72 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. you |
| 03:21:54.31 | Lily (staff) | Vice Mayor Theodorus? Yes. Mayor Withing? |
| 03:21:56.33 | Mayor Withee | Yes. Yes. Carries 4-1. Okay, and with regards to the... |
| 03:21:58.90 | Lily (staff) | Thank you. It carries 4-1. |
| 03:22:06.34 | Mayor Withee | notice. I'm not sure it's necessary. but I think we should do it anyway. So I think we'd be satisfied to just direct staff to do that. And we don't need a motion, I would have thought. I mean, staff's going to do it, right? |
| 03:22:24.06 | Lily (staff) | Mayor Withee, if I could get some clarification on what exactly you would like in the notice, that would be helpful. |
| 03:22:28.63 | Mayor Withee | Yeah, I think the idea is a notice to all properties that are within 300 feet of the border of each one of the PI zone sites. Was that what people wanted to do here? PI overlay. PI overlay, sorry, PI overlay sites that are included |
| 03:22:45.74 | Councilmember Leon | PI overlay. |
| 03:22:51.02 | Councilmember Leon | in this. Yeah, and just to clarify, if you need clarification on wording, is that what you're asking for? |
| 03:22:52.32 | Mayor Withee | Yeah. It just. |
| 03:22:56.80 | Lily (staff) | I'd like that first clarification. So this notice will not include the Spencer Fire Station neighborhood. |
| 03:23:01.60 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | . |
| 03:23:02.30 | Councilmember Leon | That's correct. |
| 03:23:02.78 | Lily (staff) | Thank you. |
| 03:23:03.41 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So the wording, in my opinion, should be very clear. Homeless shelter. And... permanent. And permanent homeless shelter. |
| 03:23:15.58 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 03:23:19.93 | Mayor Withee | as required under state law. |
| 03:23:24.25 | Lily (staff) | So just... |
| 03:23:26.87 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | We have to have an accurate description of what we have. So if you want to have several terms to describe what we're doing, that's one thing. But to say a permanent homeless shelter is misleading. It's confusing and misleading. |
| 03:23:33.38 | Mayor Withee | Right. |
| 03:23:41.21 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Thank you. |
| 03:23:41.23 | Councilmember Leon | Okay, so you |
| 03:23:41.99 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Thank you. |
| 03:23:42.05 | Councilmember Leon | I think maybe I think what you're getting at and I'm not sure if this gets there |
| 03:23:48.26 | Vice Mayor Theodorus | Say a few things. I'm homeless. I'm not just private. Okay. |
| 03:23:49.60 | Councilmember Leon | So you're saying a temporary occupancy, because it is temporary, right? |
| 03:23:57.29 | Karen Warner | often... is use year-round homeless shelter. Thank you. |
| 03:24:05.68 | Councilmember Leon | But I think with, I believe the other thing that Tom's getting at is that if you say temporary, if you say permanent homeless shelter, it applies to not only the shelter permanent, but the person is a permanent occupant. So you can say year round, |
| 03:24:17.20 | Unknown | person is a permanent occupant. Thank you. |
| 03:24:19.13 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 03:24:19.31 | Unknown | So, |
| 03:24:24.11 | Councilmember Leon | homeless shelter for temporarily |
| 03:24:28.95 | City Clerk | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:24:31.43 | Councilmember Leon | A homeless. I mean, I would keep the whole phrasing that you have, but inside that, so it's clear and not mixed in too much, you have this different phrasing. |
| 03:24:35.61 | City Clerk | I would keep the whole |
| 03:24:36.93 | Karen Warner | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:24:43.44 | Karen Warner | What? I mean, the definition of the homeless shelter under Health and Safety Code is Thank you. maximum stays of six months. So that's what makes it an emergency shelter. So it's not, once you're longer than six months, then you're getting into transitional housing or something else. |
| 03:25:05.70 | Councilmember Leon | Okay, so would it be accomplished the goal here to say you're sending notice of the second reading, blah, blah, blah, for a permanent homeless shelter with a maximum stay of six months. I'm very concerned about that language. |
| 03:25:32.13 | Unknown | is to make sure. |
| 03:25:42.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:25:42.35 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 03:25:42.46 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:25:42.47 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 03:25:42.49 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | That may or may not be truer, but I'm very concerned about that language. Thank you. |
| 03:25:47.74 | Councilmember Leon | What part of that? |
| 03:25:49.00 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. |
| 03:25:49.27 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Well, of course, I was the one who made the motion for the 30-day maximum consecutive day stay. |
| 03:25:59.64 | Mayor Withee | Right, but we've just... We've already passed that. We've already passed the order. |
| 03:25:59.99 | Councilmember Leon | We've already passed the order. So if you want to adjust the language, you have to have an idea of what the language should be. If you have no idea, you can be concerned, but if you don't have an idea of what you propose, it's not quite as helpful. |
| 03:26:11.40 | Mayor Withee | Can I make a suggestion that you use the language that you've used and then you have clarifying sentence or sentences that add a little bit of, flesh on what we've just passed tonight. so that, you know, we're not trying to To Tom's point, we're not trying to confuse by not clearly upfront stating this is SB2, state requirement, and what they call it, which is an emergency homeless shelter, and then just some clarifying sentences that it's for A, B, C. And I think that should be enough direction. Lily? Lily? |
| 03:26:59.05 | Lily (staff) | you. So what we've heard tonight is to use the phrase year-round instead of permanent. And then I was thinking that the definition of an emergency shelter, which is housing with minimal support services for homeless people that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person, could be added to clarify that that is what an emergency homeless shelter is. And then I'd also like clarification on if we're adding the supportive and the transitional and the single room occupancy units in this notice as well, or if this notice is limited only to that portion of the special needs ordinance related to the emergency overlay. Okay. |
| 03:27:43.74 | Councilmember Leon | My personal concept would be we haven't really received any comments about the single occupancy. I think it's pretty clear and it's much more clearly stated in the notices you've already sent out to people within 300 feet of the CCCR and CN1 districts, which includes me. I got that notice. So it's not quite as... Thank you. it wasn't as potentially misunderstood a labeling as what may have been read in the emergency shelter language, which I would agree with. So that would be a little smaller number. potential mailings to need to deal with. |
| 03:28:32.37 | Adam Krivac | clarify the purpose of the mailing is for the homeless shelter sites yes |
| 03:28:36.10 | Mayor Withee | Yes. |
| 03:28:37.03 | Councilmember Leon | Thank you. |
| 03:28:40.81 | Mayor Withee | Okay. Thank you. Um... |
| 03:28:43.02 | Councilmember Leon | Thank you. So you need another motion for the VMU? |
| 03:28:47.36 | Mayor Withee | Yeah. Was there, as promised, let me just, good evening. As promised, was there any clarifying questions from Council on the VMU? We've only been talking about it for two years, but |
| 03:29:04.92 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah, and it's been changing as much as well. So... |
| 03:29:10.04 | Mayor Withee | for the better. |
| 03:29:12.79 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. the better if you, I mean, Okay, I guess here's my question. My question on this, it's my understanding we have the VMU only because we don't need it for the RHNA. We don't need it for the variety of housing types. We need it for a program for affordable housing, and yet only one affordable unit is allocated per VMU site. And so I was wondering if the state does not clarify. I mean, we could wind up having a lot of you know, high income two, three stories, you know, up and down, you know, bridgeway facing the waterfront with this VMU. So, My question is, Can we limit the VMU in scope? Can we reduce its size or can we remove the parcels that are targeted for the VMU that we already know will have primary view impact if even just a second floor is built. In other words, we know that certain sites like 7-Eleven and there's a parcel in Old Town and all of the Bridgeway, we know that if those were were built out that those neighborhoods would really impact a lot of people. And so could we remove those sites from the VMU program? |
| 03:31:03.39 | Mayor Withee | Okay, so Karen, I think we had the same discussion last time. Our Community Development Director has put the standing city manager for tonight's meeting has put up, I think... |
| 03:31:22.61 | Councilmember Leon | Thank you. |
| 03:31:27.47 | Councilmember Leon | Adam, you look a lot better tonight. I don't know what you did with your whole look and outfit, but you're looking much more snappy. |
| 03:31:30.52 | Councilmember Weiner | The whole look and outfit. |
| 03:31:34.08 | Mayor Withee | Happy. |
| 03:31:34.55 | Councilmember Weiner | Thank you. much more relaxed. |
| 03:31:36.51 | Mayor Withee | So Karen, could you answer Council Member Pfeiffer's question? Thank you. |
| 03:31:42.30 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 03:31:45.52 | Mayor Withee | Because the implication in her question was that we're not implying this has nothing to do with ARENA numbers, and that is not what you said before. |
| 03:31:52.88 | Karen Warner | Right. So I've |
| 03:31:53.28 | Unknown | So that's not good. |
| 03:31:56.52 | Karen Warner | I've clarified this with Melinda Coy at HCD about the need for the VMU, which she confirmed it's, you know, right now it's your program, now that the HMU is gone, that really meets that statutory requirement for facilitating development of affordable units. I said, what about from a RHNA standpoint? because the VMU is facilitating residential development in these commercial districts. We've counted, we've maximized in our sites analysis every commercial site that has potential for residential. So we've done, you know, we've been very generous in our assumptions there. Without the VMU, the way the state would look at it, it's similar to other mixed use zones where in there, when cities don't have a track record of a lot of recent residential development, they reduce the capacity significantly. So she said they would probably look at a reduced capacity, in our commercial districts. where we have 51 units now based on maximum capacity under the VMU, Um, by 75 percent. That's if we completely got rid of the VMU. So what this shows is if the VMU was no more, but you still had the mixed use options in your commercial districts and the capacity is reduced from 51 to 12 basically on those sites. And that puts us in the negative, obviously, under the very low income. even without this drastic We don't have a whole lot of buffer right now in the very low. We only have a two-unit buffer. So if we start carving out some of the sites in this cycle, now your next cycle, your RHNA is much smaller, as you know. and you may want to consider if there's certain criteria where you're narrowing down some of the areas for the VMU. Um, that is something that you can certainly evaluate. But I think the buffer you have now is two units in the very low income |
| 03:34:41.48 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So I have a follow-up question because the last time we talked about this, I was told that the VMU was being used for the program purposes, not for the RENA. That has changed, and it changed because you talked to HCD and you clarified this with |
| 03:34:57.04 | Karen Warner | Well, We had this discussion at the last meeting, and initially I focused on the program piece because I knew that was the key thing that this needs to I... said, I don't think it impacts the RHNA. But then later in the evening, I did indicate that we're going to have to re-evaluate the capacity. So that's where, and I know that, because I've worked with many jurisdictions that have mixed-use areas, and the state won't let us count maximum capacity. So that's kind of a given. |
| 03:35:42.57 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So we're talking about removing like three sites. You're saying that even those removing those three sites would have an impact that would That would not. |
| 03:35:52.76 | Karen Warner | But with only a two-unit, very low-income buffer, |
| 03:35:57.95 | Councilmember Leon | What sites are we talking about? |
| 03:36:00.37 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Well, yeah, but we do have 40 ADUs in the queue as well. |
| 03:36:04.77 | Karen Warner | But this is for this element that you're adopting. |
| 03:36:09.45 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah, but they're in the queue right now. Yeah, but we've been down. |
| 03:36:11.00 | Mayor Withee | Yeah, but we've been through this discussion with Council Member Piper. No, excuse me, I'm talking to the consultant. I understand. |
| 03:36:13.95 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | No, excuse me, I'm talking to the consultant. I understand. |
| 03:36:20.67 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | because we've clarified that there's no limit on ADUs if they're in the queue and they get approved in 2014. So, and that would be the very low or low income bracket. So I don't see, I could see where we could remove those three sides from the VMU program and not have a negative impact. I would be more concerned if we didn't have 40, that's four zero ADUs, you know, in the queue waiting for approval and review. |
| 03:36:59.85 | Councilmember Leon | I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. |
| 03:37:00.09 | Mayor Withee | you |
| 03:37:07.77 | Councilmember Leon | current housing element and getting credit for the update of what have actually been approved, right? So that's, that I think sounds like the yardstick that HCD is using here. It's approved some units to update your arena numbers, right? Not ones that may or may not be approved in the queue. Is that your understanding or is that not accurate? |
| 03:37:30.16 | Karen Warner | So the Housing Allen Amendment that was just adopted. if we we would have to go back, go through another process with HCD and get their input on that. And But the housing element amendment that was just adopted, the numbers work out quite nicely with the ADUs. So from this point forward, the housing element ADUs in the pipeline. you would be better off counting towards your future cycle because you don't need them. If you went back and carved out some of your VMU sites and tried to say, We're going to hope that these get permitted this year. you're putting yourself in a pretty challenging position. |
| 03:38:31.23 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | What we're looking at, is it 13 units now that the VMU program is accommodating? because I'm seeing a negative 13 up here on the chart. Is it 12 or? What are you expecting for the VMU? How does the VMU impact the RHNA? |
| 03:38:52.26 | Karen Warner | It's all of the units under the commercial district capacity, the 51. And so if it was removed, then we would need to reduce the capacity for residential and near commercial districts. |
| 03:39:05.89 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay. And we're talking about three sites. So no, we're not talking about removing the entire of the immune. In which three sites? Olive and Bridgeway, 7-Eleven, and the parcel down by, you know, it's the three sites that we're being impacted with views. |
| 03:39:10.48 | Karen Warner | In which three sites? |
| 03:39:19.36 | Karen Warner | So those are all the bigger sites. that we're counting in the very low income category. |
| 03:39:30.23 | Mayor Withee | What's the third site? It is one in |
| 03:39:31.31 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 03:39:31.34 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | It is one in Old Town. It was the one that was impacting a lot of views. I don't know the... parcel, you guys should remember. |
| 03:39:41.13 | Councilmember Leon | Thank you. So my understanding of this, what we're talking about in this agenda here, the vertical mixed-use regulations, is it doesn't increase the potential density of units and or potential FAR or height limit or any of that. That's all restricted, but this is just restricting the amount of new commercial space that could be used to |
| 03:39:42.19 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:39:43.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:39:43.59 | Mike Rogers | Yes. |
| 03:39:44.05 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:40:09.98 | Councilmember Leon | that can occupy the second story of buildings in the CCCR and CN1 zoning districts. Existing zoning permits run our grandfathered and create a nonconforming condition that will run |
| 03:40:18.45 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:40:18.49 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 03:40:18.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:40:25.86 | Councilmember Leon | with the property. So it's only for change of use in the second story of of either existing or new structures. It has nothing to do with the size, density, height of any of these properties in these districts. Is that correct? |
| 03:40:46.33 | Lily (staff) | That's correct. An extreme situation would be if someone wanted to completely tear down an existing three-story building, then they would be subject to these regulations where they would have to have commercial on the ground floor, like today's codes, but on the upper levels, they would be restricted to residential uses with the affordability component and the ability to get an exception for the small commercial space. |
| 03:41:10.34 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Well, Lily, I have a follow-up question on that density question. If I was a developer and a lot of these parcels, you know, have been owned by, you know, the owners for years, decades, if I were a developer and I bought two parcels, then, you know, potentially two small parcels together would perhaps make me eligible for the density bonus. And it would impact, you know, how much I could build, correct? I mean, |
| 03:41:38.69 | Lily (staff) | Thank you. And that situation exists today under today's regulations as well. |
| 03:41:42.91 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | But the VMU program, it encourages residential over commercial. It requires residential over the commercial. It requires residential. |
| 03:41:50.52 | Lily (staff) | or the commercial. for new uses. |
| 03:42:01.53 | Lily (staff) | Just also a clarification, the density bonus ordinance, again, applies to only projects that are five or more units. Okay. That's why I raised the two units. Okay. Put this together. |
| 03:42:08.75 | Mayor Withee | That's why I raised the two units. Okay. I'd like to make a motion, which is to introduce and read by title only an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Sausalito to encourage and incentivize the development of residential uses above commercial uses within the CCCR and CN1 zone-in districts, paren, aka vertical mixed-use regulations. Do I have a second? |
| 03:42:34.77 | Councilmember Weiner | I'll second. |
| 03:42:35.45 | Mayor Withee | Thank you. Okay. |
| 03:42:39.36 | Mayor Withee | OK, Lily, would you call the vote? |
| 03:42:41.54 | Lily (staff) | Councilmember Pfeiffer? Councilmember Weiner? |
| 03:42:45.60 | Mayor Withee | Yes. |
| 03:42:46.65 | Lily (staff) | Councilmember Leão. |
| 03:42:47.66 | Councilmember Leon | Thank you. |
| 03:42:47.68 | Mayor Withee | Yes. |
| 03:42:48.78 | Lily (staff) | Vice Mayor Theodoris? Yes. Mayor Withey? |
| 03:42:49.87 | Mayor Withee | Yes. with you. Yes. |
| 03:42:51.71 | Lily (staff) | It carries 4-1. |
| 03:42:52.96 | Mayor Withee | And this matter is closed. |
| 03:42:58.38 | Mayor Withee | Um... We have just a couple of our standard things. |
| 03:43:04.94 | Councilmember Leon | Mr. Mayor, unless there's a member of the public for any of these remaining items, I would move for adjournment unless there's any other matters of significance, since we'll meet again next Tuesday. |
| 03:43:17.67 | Mayor Withee | Yeah, and I would support that motion, except I do believe that we... Communications on matters not on the agenda, which is at the very end of our agenda here. |
| 03:43:30.32 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And Mr. Mayor, I do have some future agenda items. |
| 03:43:30.34 | Mayor Withee | MISCO. |
| 03:43:33.72 | Mayor Withee | I have to do it. |
| 03:43:35.40 | City Clerk | I'm sorry that I'm sorry. |
| 03:43:37.53 | Mayor Withee | Yeah. |
| 03:43:37.93 | City Clerk | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:43:38.37 | Mayor Withee | Okay, so we're going to skip committee reports, future agenda items. Council Member Pfeiffer. |
| 03:43:45.56 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah, and I know you skipped committee reports, but I have to just say that the chair of the Butte task force did write a letter That's in your packets asking that the Butte site be removed from the list So I just wanted to give an update and residents are raising funds not the the city task force for the private site Okay, future agenda items um The Marin City PDA, again, I've asked for this, and I don't, I was wondering if there could be some clarity as to when this will be put on the agenda, because it's of interest. |
| 03:44:30.97 | Mayor Withee | Sorry. My understanding is that the, as our city attorney has just said, city managers reaching out to folks and... Realistically, this is not going to get on the agenda until the earliest September, because it's not next week. but it is definitely being worked on. but that's not my view, that's the city manager's. Ciao. Okay. Um, |
| 03:45:12.18 | Mayor Withee | Anything else? Is there any other reports of significance? We do have to take public comment. Is there any member of the public present who would like to speak on any matter that is not on tonight's agenda or was not on tonight's agenda? |
| 03:45:30.58 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 03:45:32.40 | Mayor Withee | So we could say that there's definitely not anybody who wants to do that. Entertain a motion to adjourn. So move. Okay. |
Mike Rogers — Neutral: Suggested adding language to housing documents encouraging adherence to local zoning and building codes (height, parking, traffic) to prevent overbuilding while complying with state density bonus laws. ▶ 📄
Steve — Against: Urged proactive removal of problematic parcels from the VMU inventory to reduce litigation risk, referencing community displeasure with VMU/HMU programs. ▶ 📄
Shanford Laird — Neutral: Noted Butte Street property task force is raising funds to buy private half, implying eventual open space use, but acknowledged city/taxpayer ownership. ▶ 📄
Nancy Osborne — Neutral: Questioned why 330 Ebbtide is being added despite owner's request to withdraw, seeking clarification on the implications. ▶ 📄