| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.03 | Joan | because the actual telephone call is about 15 seconds behind the webcast. |
| 00:00:08.42 | Karen Warner | Or |
| 00:00:09.06 | Joan | 15 seconds ahead. |
| 00:00:09.65 | Karen Warner | the head of the bed. |
| 00:00:10.56 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 00:00:10.70 | Karen Warner | I'll watch it without the volume. |
| 00:00:20.75 | Ray | Good evening and welcome to... our meeting of the Housing Element Subcommittee. This is on Thursday, September the 11th. Lily, would you call us to order, please? |
| 00:00:37.71 | Lily | Good evening. Planning Commissioner Cluland Knowles. Here. Planning Commission Chair Cox. Here. Vice Mayor Theodorus. Present. Mayor Withey. |
| 00:00:46.27 | Ray | President. |
| 00:00:47.63 | Lily | Thank you. |
| 00:00:47.67 | Ray | Here. So we have really one substantive. agenda topic, which is the review of the 2015-2023 draft housing element. This is track two, phase two, track two of our housing element work that we've been doing this year. So, Lily, without further ado, why don't I hand it over to you and I'll let you direct which how our consultants or you will handle the presentation |
| 00:01:29.84 | Lily | Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So we have the subcommittee review of the draft housing element, which will be handled by consultant from M Group, Jeff Bradley. We also have Karen Werner on the phone with us tonight. Can we – let me turn up the volume. |
| 00:01:47.20 | Karen Warner | Okay. |
| 00:01:47.84 | Ray | Good evening, Karen. |
| 00:01:51.31 | Karen Warner | And I've got the video. I'm watching you. |
| 00:01:55.27 | Lily | Fantastic. I'm glad to know it's working. And then after the presentation and the discussion, then we will talk about next steps and next meeting dates. those sorts of good things. So with that, I'll hand it off to Jeff. |
| 00:02:13.24 | Jeff Bradley | Thanks, Lily. Jeff Bradley with Metropolitan Planning Group. I'll give the bulk of the presentation. Karen Warner will jump in in the middle to update you on the changes to Chapter 2. In terms of just setting a little context for folks who haven't engaged on this in a few months, the subcommittee will recall that the existing 2009-2014 housing element was adopted back in October of 2012. We then engaged on what we call Track 1 to implement several programs and ordinances that were called for in the adopted housing element. As a result of that process, several programs were changed or eliminated, including the HMU program, the horizontal mixed-use program was eliminated, and we added a site at 330 ebb tide to make up the difference. That necessitated a strategic amendment, focused amendment we called it, to the previously adopted housing element. So the City Council went ahead and readopted that in July of this year and HCD certified that very quickly. And that allowed us to go forward and focus on the draft of the new housing element, which will cover the eight-year period from 2015 to 2023. And there is a draft available that the subcommittee obviously received some time ago and is available for public review as well. |
| 00:03:45.95 | Jeff Bradley | So this is a slide that shows what we call Track 1 up here, a collection of ordinances that needed to be adopted before we could get on Track 2, which was simply the process to update and take through a public review process of what we're calling the new housing element for this next eight-year period. We're here on this housing and Allent Subcommittee meeting on September 11th. The committee has seen a couple of chapters at earlier meetings back in March. We checked in with the council in April. But the work to revise the prior current element took up a lot of time this summer, took multiple council meetings to get the changes incorporated into the document in response to the community participation process. Some of these meeting dates may move around a little bit, so there's a – there's a A communication on the bottom here to please contact Lilly to be placed on the email list to be notified if any of these future meeting dates change for any reason. We are shooting for a due date of January 31st of next year coming up pretty quickly. There is a 180-day period beyond that that the city can request an extension, but that is the official due date. The purpose of tonight's meeting is simply to review the draft of the 2015-2023 housing It has been prepared in track changes and the changes are redlined, meaning when it's printed in black and white, means the new text is underlined and the deleted text is struck out with actually a black or gray line. But the overall approach is to do a very surgical strike on the existing element and just change those things that need to be changed due to changing conditions, changing numbers, the fact that the city has implemented a number of policies and programs and ordinance changes as called for in the existing housing And because the city has completed all those Track 1 changes, we are eligible for what's called Streamline Review with HCD, where they will literally just look at our track changes and nothing else. |
| 00:06:27.53 | Jeff Bradley | Just a quick reminder of how the document is organized. Chapter 1 is the introduction. Chapter 2 is really the meat of the policy document. It's called simply the housing plan. Chapter 3 is the housing needs summary, a fairly detailed look of the housing situation in the community and what those actual housing needs are. Chapter 4 is housing resources. Appendix A is a housing needseds Assessment. Appendix B is the Housing Constraints, both physical constraints, governmental constraints, and other constraints on the provision of housing of all types. Appendix C is Vacant and Underutilized Sites, which is simply a listing of those sites in the community that have some reasonable development potential for new housing. Appendix D is evaluation of the city's accomplishments. Appendix F is the housing element glossary, very useful as there are a lot of acronyms and specialized terms within the housing element. And Appendix G is the site inventory. |
| 00:07:32.03 | Jeff Bradley | So chapter one is the intro. Minor changes only, the committee will recall. We had changed this a little bit, but we brought it back and the committee's feedback was, hey, we like the existing language, let's stick with that. So we changed it back to what we had in Forest Hill. You'll see very little changes in chapter one. Thank you. Chapter 2, I'm going to turn it over to Karen Warner on the phone. |
| 00:07:53.39 | Karen Warner | Okay. Can you all hear me? Okay. So the housing plan probably looks very familiar to you. Um, We actually did review this with the subcommittee on March 19th. and then again on March 31st, Um, That obviously was prior to Council's adoption of all the implementing ordinances, so it's somewhat different than what you saw back in March. and it and again very familiar because it very little change from what and with just adopted with the that housing element for that two thousand nine twenty fourteen period So what I want to touch on here, and then I think what we'll do is, um, open it up for comments after we finish this chapter, and then we'll do the same as we move on. Um, But the first thing, Program eight, mixed use zoning. This is exactly what was adopted in your amended element. and it reflects adoption of the Vertical Mixed Youth Ordinance including the allowance for the small second story commercial. |
| 00:09:12.49 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 00:09:16.74 | Karen Warner | and it reflects elimination of the horizontal mixed use. Program 10, the ADU program. reflects adoption of your ADU ordinance. It establishes a goal for two new 80 years a year, so 16 over the eight year planning period. and it reflects an initiation of a new amnesty program in 2015 and a goal for 24 amnesty ADUs over the planning period. Program 11, Junior ADUs. This is a new program. I believe we've discussed it, but it wasn't in the March version that you reviewed. and and the and that that they really talked about this the concept of within existing single-family homes, repurposing, existing unused space such as a bedroom or a den or something. into an independent living unit with its own bathroom, small kitchen facility, and exterior entry. Um, And so the program here... is to evaluate standards for junior accessory dwelling units and seek to adopt an ordinance by 2016. Next slide. Um, Program 12 is Live Aboard. And so for this, cycle. and the action and deliver board agran is coordinate with Sausalito Yacht and Pelican to obtain the local conditional use permit um, Thank you. so that they will have both local permits and BCDC permits. and then to coordinate with Sausalito Yacht to increase their liveaboard capacity from 5 to 10 percent. accommodate thirty-one additional level board So this is the 31 that you'll see when we get to the... the site capacity table where we show future liveaboard capacity. and to these 31 future liveaboard units were not counted in the the last housing element. And We have a date here for... this, local permitting and BCDC permitting to occur of 2016. because we are including this in the site's inventory, that will be something the city needs to report on annually to HCD. Um, and to the extent that this occurs and that will continue to be part of the site inventory. but if this doesn't occur by 2016, then it would need to be removed. Program 20 is the density bonus, which reflects the ordinance adoption and the prioritization of the Tier 1 incentives. and and then just as a side note, previous program which was the multifamily development and multifamily districts. and program twenty one the special needs zoning those programs have been eliminated because they've been implemented. Next slide. |
| 00:12:53.28 | Karen Warner | Program 22, Sausalito Senior Services. This now reflects the establishment of the Age-Friendly Sausalito Task Force. and the development of a strategic plan of action for seniors by 2016. Program 24, reasonable accommodation, reflects adoption of the city's local ordinance. and Program 25, Housing for Marine Workers, Um, establishes procedures, it doesn't establish procedure, it calls for the establishment of procedures for um, the low and moderate income occupancy requirements by 2017. AM. So with that, why don't we open it up for comments from the subcommittee on the housing plan. |
| 00:13:51.09 | Unknown | the |
| 00:13:51.16 | Ray | So before we get going here, Lily, some guidance from you. Do you want us to sort of do a page by page thing? Do you want us to comment at the sort of more 30,000 foot level on each of the programs that Karen's outlined here? What's our best way to proceed, do you think? |
| 00:14:03.22 | City Clerk | thing. |
| 00:14:16.67 | Lily | The more specific you can be, the more helpful it will be for us. So if you have typos or you have certain words that you want inserted or deleted, that would be best. If you have questions that we need to answer, we'll try to answer them tonight. If we can't get you an answer, we'll answer them at your next meeting. Does that help, Mr. Mayor? |
| 00:14:40.94 | Ray | Sure. Karen seems to have focused us on Chapter 2, but what about Chapter 1? |
| 00:14:46.71 | Jim | Okay. Thank you. And, you know, I might recommend that we do certain things at a higher level, for example, these programs, as Kara suggests, because if we make a – Major change in the program, we don't have to worry about the wordsmithing of it, so I would suggest if anyone has any questions on these, particularly the new programs that are here. |
| 00:14:56.25 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 00:14:56.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:14:56.30 | Ray | Yeah. |
| 00:15:04.82 | Ray | Yeah, good comment. |
| 00:15:06.49 | Susan | Yeah, I'd really appreciate a fuller and more detailed discussion of the junior ADUs. I don't, this is the first time I really remember seeing that. |
| 00:15:17.24 | Joan | Yeah, I don't recall ever discussing that before. I'm not sure why you think we've talked about it before. Maybe you guys have just... |
| 00:15:24.12 | Unknown | I've just- |
| 00:15:25.54 | Joan | The junior ADUs, yeah. |
| 00:15:29.69 | Susan | I think it came up, is this the concept that came up? |
| 00:15:29.88 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 00:15:30.03 | Karen Warner | I think it came up. No, we didn't. I thought that we had, and I thought that you had a presentation from from Lilypad Homes. that. I'm happy to talk about that in further detail if you like. |
| 00:15:46.45 | Joan | We have not had a presentation from Lily Pad Homes. |
| 00:15:49.37 | Jim | It may I prefaced I think we have our housing element, things that we make commitments to the state to do. And then there are good things to do in our community. And I think these junior accessory dwellings are a good idea, but we have a lot of things that we have to do. And then there are good things to do in our community. But I'm a little bit reluctant without a full exploration of it to commit to it in the housing element unless we have to. My understanding is they won't help arena numbers. And we can have them, but if we commit to it, for example, Um, it says that because these units are established within existing improved square footage of the home, no additional parking is necessary. Now, we need to explore whether, what the impact will be on these things. Because again, I'm strongly in favor of shared housing, this type of thing, but to commit to it, when we may not need to is to the state, then it ties our hands going forward. |
| 00:16:43.91 | Ray | Yeah, I... For maybe I could add some clarity here. I got a feeling that this came up during some discussion of city in City Council meetings of the house and element actually from primarily the audience and our resonance This was not discussed as a specific topic in front at this committee |
| 00:17:11.01 | Joan | I would agree with Vice Mayor Theodorus that I think it's a laudable program. I would love to see if this program can replace some of the programs we're less happy with, such as VMU. Um, or I would also love to see it if we can show a buffer for our seventy-nine required units I would love to eliminate our sites inventory on pages seven to nine of appendix C if that infill strategy is no longer so crucial to meeting our RENA numbers. But... That being said, I completely agree that whether or not It counts as a new unit it will definitely have a parking impact that I think we would be irresponsible not to consider in evaluating that program. |
| 00:18:14.64 | Ray | So with all of that, Should we, I think your idea of each of the, maybe we could then go back to the slides and look at each of the programs, do the high-level stuff, then loop back and start drilling down for, |
| 00:18:32.21 | Joan | Yeah, I wrote down some comments as we were going through. I did have a question, which is, if we add programs, I mean, we are putting forth, as I understand it, this expedited housing element. So my understanding was that we weren't going to make many revisions to it in order to qualify for this expedited process. So can you, can someone explain a little bit more about the parameters for this expedited process? How much leeway do we have to make revisions, and can we eliminate programs that the community is not in favor of? |
| 00:19:12.12 | Karen Warner | Do you want me to take that, Jeff? |
| 00:19:14.23 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 00:19:14.25 | Jeff Bradley | Yeah, go ahead, Karen. |
| 00:19:16.41 | Karen Warner | Sure. Thank you. And I wanted to mention this in the beginning, even though we're showing the subcommittee a red line version of the housing plan, for example. the only sections that are redlined for HCD that are eligible for streamlining are the housing needs assessment, the housing constraints, and the sites inventory. So... what they receive on the entire housing element will only have red lines in those sections. Okay. In terms of the streamlined review, and This is a very focused update for Sausalito. But should the city want to make changes to programs, that in no way impacts its ability to undergo the streamlined review by HCD. |
| 00:20:19.94 | Joan | So then we could eliminate VMU, for example. |
| 00:20:24.21 | Ray | Well, Joan, you've got to be careful with that comment. I know. Because, you know. |
| 00:20:26.27 | Joan | I know. You know, I'm being a little bit facetious. |
| 00:20:29.59 | Ray | If it were possible to meet our requirements. |
| 00:20:32.23 | Joan | We need our requirements. MS. Yes. |
| 00:20:33.93 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:20:34.29 | Ray | I had to beat our state law by elimination of it. Right. We have the ability to do so. Okay. But there's a big if there. |
| 00:20:35.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:20:35.97 | Joan | Correct. Right. But there's a big if there. Yeah, for sure. Um, So then one of the overarching concerns I had in reviewing this element is that the M group has added deadlines in many places throughout the element, including deadlines for the end of 2014, deadlines in 2015, that we not impose those deadlines on ourselves, that we have an eight-year element, and let's pace ourselves and proceed to the deadline of the deadline. We have an eight-year element, and let's pace ourselves and proceed to the deadline of the deadline. We have an eight-year element, and we have an eight-year element, you know, thoughtfully and carefully and not in this, you know, race track fashion that we've been forced to do. for our last element because we had to implement so many programs so quickly after we adopted the element. |
| 00:21:49.43 | Susan | Yeah, I agree. I had the exact same comment. I thought there were some pretty aggressive timeframes mentioned in the housing element, which is, you know, we're committing to, and that either it should be a time period, you know, 2015 to 2018, or just remove them, because we are committing to do them in the eight-year period. So I wasn't exactly sure if some of them were legally required to be done sooner, and if so, then we can discuss that, but otherwise I didn't like the time. |
| 00:22:14.47 | Jeff Bradley | I'm not. |
| 00:22:18.27 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 00:22:18.29 | Susan | Thank you. |
| 00:22:18.30 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 00:22:18.74 | Susan | Thank you. |
| 00:22:18.83 | Karen Warner | and |
| 00:22:18.98 | Susan | Yeah. |
| 00:22:18.99 | Jeff Bradley | Bye. |
| 00:22:19.06 | Susan | Yeah. |
| 00:22:19.08 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 00:22:21.34 | Karen Warner | respond to that and we can certainly extend certain dates, although we did review these dates with staff, and I think they felt comfortable with them, but you can certainly look at them in a comprehensive way and make sure there's not too much on the plate. But part of SB-375 is, requires the housing element to have this measurable progress. So the state's review is really looking for concrete deadlines. But certainly we want to make sure they're realistic for you. |
| 00:22:55.80 | Joan | I mean, we can show progress through our annual reports that are required. |
| 00:22:59.70 | Karen Warner | So that's exactly what you're doing, but they want you to have measurable Um, milestones |
| 00:23:05.00 | Joan | Milestones. |
| 00:23:05.99 | Karen Warner | and timeframes for implementation. The easiest way when we get to it to really look at the deadlines as a comprehensive package Thank you. If you look at the implementation program, table. which is on page 2-35. and the last column gives you the time frame for implementing each of the programs. |
| 00:23:29.26 | Joan | Yeah, so I circled a bunch of those with |
| 00:23:31.84 | Karen Warner | Okay, and that's fine. That's what we want to hear. |
| 00:23:33.52 | Joan | Okay. |
| 00:23:37.55 | Jeff Bradley | It is important to keep in mind that a lot of these programs need time to work. So what we did last time of a flurry of implementation within six months of the expiration of the planning period doesn't really satisfy the intent of actually having effective programs that then people can take advantage of and utilize to provide what the program is asking |
| 00:24:00.82 | Joan | Can I ask one more question? I'm not sure. My other question has to do with our deadline. So we've been working with this January 31 2015 deadline for quite some time. We keep hearing from members of the community that that's an artificial deadline. It's not really mandatory. The real deadline is May 31. Can you comment? What do we lose? Do we lose the ability to streamline if we don't get this by January 31? And, you know, there are, there are, I received correspondence today that said that, you know, it's one agency that has the January deadline and another has the May deadline. |
| 00:24:41.56 | Karen Warner | Let me clarify that. and and that i think that there's a hundred and eighty day and grace period, it's actually 120 days, so essentially four months. And, um, |
| 00:24:55.34 | City Clerk | Thank you. Bye. |
| 00:24:58.06 | Karen Warner | Yes. So the deadline is and that's a parley for a bag it's january thirty first it's um... 120 day grace period. For streamlining, certainly. You need to get the element into HCD for draft review before January 31st. |
| 00:25:23.24 | Karen Warner | And I have, experience with this and that the gag region because i had several and cities I was working with. that needed to take advantage of that extended Grace period. and they got their draft elements into HCD, and past the initial deadline and so they were no longer eligible for streamlining so that's obviously consideration. But then you would need to have it adopted. by May 31st, and I haven't done the math because it is actually 120 days. to the date, You know, maybe it's May 30th, I don't know. um, and then and submitted to the state you know, shortly thereafter. And then you're still on the eight-year cycle. |
| 00:26:23.90 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 00:26:23.92 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 00:26:23.95 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 00:26:24.85 | Ray | Yeah, I think what Karen's just said is important. And it's also important to recognize that if, in fact, something comes up during this process where we really think we need an extension, then that's a consideration to make. But it shouldn't be our planning. |
| 00:26:44.57 | Joan | I wholeheartedly agree. |
| 00:26:47.29 | Jim | And I agree with that. We've been working on the schedule for a long time. The consequences are dire if we miss the time. And we just should go as quickly as we can. I mean, we just go through it, and there's no reason if we need additional time, we'll ask for it. |
| 00:27:03.98 | Joan | And keep in mind, we have done a lot of work on this already. We, as a subcommittee, have already reviewed a prior draft have already given direction to staff. And then we tabled this in order to address the implementation aspects of the prior element, which was a higher priority. So it's not like we're trying to do everything in three months. We've done a lot of work already. |
| 00:27:26.19 | Ray | Bye. and That's why I think it's also really important that we try and minimize any changes, other than the obvious changes due to the fact there's another cycle, demographic changes, all the things that need to make it contextually sensible. Um... But the less changes we can make, We've been talking about this for over two years, for goodness sake. So, you know... Yeah. and the other comment I just wanted to make Joan, you you sort of alluded to the fact there appears to be a bit of a rush, but You know, let's remember, part of the reason why we crammed a whole bunch of ordinance amendments in the last six months is because We had to. We were years and years late. in getting our housing element approved. The previous housing element wasn't even approved. We were two behind. |
| 00:28:24.20 | Joan | Yes. |
| 00:28:24.20 | Ray | That is a factor that we must remember. |
| 00:28:26.03 | Joan | And no criticism of staff for that. |
| 00:28:28.64 | Ray | Not at all. |
| 00:28:29.27 | Joan | I just would like us to be able to slow down a bit and give You know, some of us have been attending meetings twice a week Thank you. for you know a long time. just to give us and the staff time to be thoughtful, as I said, in the manner in which we carry these things out. |
| 00:28:47.41 | Ray | So, how are we going to... Let's get back to the substance. |
| 00:28:48.88 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 00:28:48.89 | Jim | Let's get back to the substance. In the substance, so I recommend getting back to, and I agree with the comment of, we should be putting only the changes we need to to comply with the law. And I would start with programs and say, what are programs that we need to do? but, meet and have a legal housing element. And if we don't need them, it doesn't mean we can't adopt them in some fashion as a city, but that we shouldn't put them in the housing element. And that's where the junior accesses, accessory dwelling units kind of stuck out. And I think some of the others, if they're, so I, I'd like the consultants to tell us what's been added and we should go through and, and make a determination. What's been added, why, and we should decide as a group, should we have that in, and then we could, what's remaining we can go through. |
| 00:29:38.71 | Karen Warner | Well, that's the only new program is the junior second unit. but nothing else is in the program. |
| 00:29:45.59 | Joan | Well, That is correct. It's the only new program. You have... ratcheted up some of the requirements for some of the existing programs, and we can discuss those. I mean, I've noted those in my page-by-page comments, so we can discuss those as we come to them, but I agree, that's the only wholesale new program. Right. |
| 00:30:07.58 | Susan | Yeah, I'm generally comfortable at a high level with all of the programs outlined in this draft. We reviewed this draft earlier, and except for the junior accessory dwelling units, which I am not sure that is a good idea to commit to in the general plan, the housing element at this point, without further public input, I don't have other sort of high-level comments I would like to maybe talk a little bit about the new language related to the accessory dwelling unit program and the new Not moratorium, but... Amnesty. Thank you. So that, you know, we've talked about that and we agreed on it, but otherwise I don't have big comments on this section. |
| 00:30:57.73 | Joan | Thank you. I for chapter one I have some typos for chapter two. I have some substantive comments. I um in terms of the overarching programs that we just went through, I would like to answer the question, if we add Program 11, can we eliminate a different program that is less desirable to the community. And I know I keep bringing up VMUs. I know it's a broken record, but this was something that we got the most community feedback about. and our RHNA number has substantially decreased down to 79. And Karen, I know I'm a broken record because I've asked you this a gazillion times already, Thank you. Um, |
| 00:31:47.11 | Unknown | So it's Israel. |
| 00:31:47.97 | Karen Warner | question |
| 00:31:49.10 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:31:49.69 | Karen Warner | Can the junior ADU program replace the VMU program? |
| 00:31:56.00 | Joan | Well, |
| 00:31:56.26 | Karen Warner | Yeah. have a low arena. |
| 00:31:58.41 | Joan | Can the junior access ADU program in conjunction with the additional liveaboards, additional ADUs that we are projecting as a result of continuing the amnesty program. um, can those together um, ameliorate the need for this VMU. |
| 00:32:26.61 | Karen Warner | No. There's several things that the VMU does that Those other programs in aggregate don't address. So right now the VMU is the sole program in the housing element that facilitates the construction of affordable deed restricted housing. So the statutes require programs that assist in the development uh... housing for extremely low, very low, and moderate. So VMU is the only program that does that. DMU addresses the needs of families by requiring two bedroom units for the deed restricted. and the ADUs and the LIBA boards aren't addressing the needs of families. and The VMU addresses the requirement for providing multifamily rental housing. the ADUs and the liveaboards are not multifamily rental housing. and the VMU addresses a significant portion of the city's site requirement under the arena with 51 um, unit. attributed to Commercial sites. with the VMU. If the VMU was eliminated, a small fraction of those could be counted because there isn't the same sort of Um... incentive for development and the city doesn't have a track record recent track record of developing residential mixed use in the commercial districts. So my answer would be Right now you could not eliminate the VMU. |
| 00:34:12.69 | Jim | Amen. Is there another reason? So if we can't use the junior accessory dwelling units to substitute for the VMU, is there any other reason to have it in the housing element? |
| 00:34:26.00 | Karen Warner | It's completely optional, and I apologize. I didn't think the subcommittee had discussed it, but I thought, There had been a discussion at one of the many meetings we had. |
| 00:34:37.83 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:34:38.93 | Karen Warner | And, no, it's completely optional. So... you know, this is something that Um, Several of the jurisdictions in Marin are looking at I think Nevada was kind of the lead right now in trying to develop a local ordinance, but I know the county and San Rafael are pursuing this, but it's certainly nothing that and that you need to have in the element. And like you said, if it's something you do pursue in the future, that doesn't mean you necessarily have had to have it in the element. |
| 00:35:13.64 | Jim | Can we, is it possible that we because it is a good idea to explore this is it possible to have this language and have our objection to explore whether it's a good idea uh... the part that bothers me seek to adopt standards by two thousand sixteen uh... i don't mind having it in there it's something like we have other things that we take a look at it it's a great idea but we're not making any commitment and if we do that i do think we need to amend this statement about parking because it's it says categorically no additional parking necessary i don't think we |
| 00:35:27.82 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:35:27.97 | City Clerk | I don't mind... |
| 00:35:43.93 | Jim | want to |
| 00:35:44.20 | Karen Warner | So basically to soften up the language, and that's, I think, a great idea. |
| 00:35:49.06 | Joan | And that part of the exploration would be an exploration of parking impacts. |
| 00:35:54.04 | Karen Warner | Yeah. |
| 00:35:55.26 | Ray | I mean, technically, I think in our ordinance current as it stands, one could argue that no additional parking would be required. But as we analyzed it, I don't think politically that would be the result. Thank you. |
| 00:36:08.81 | Jim | Correct. |
| 00:36:08.91 | Ray | Thank you. |
| 00:36:08.94 | Unknown | Correct. |
| 00:36:14.00 | Joan | I totally agree. Okay, that covers my comments on the picture. |
| 00:36:16.42 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:36:21.85 | Ray | Program 11. |
| 00:36:23.39 | Joan | Thank you. on the big picture that we've gone through so far. I do have some specific comments to the red lines. |
| 00:36:27.74 | Jim | To the red lines. I think. |
| 00:36:30.22 | Ray | Before you do that, is it on the junior ADUs or something else? No, it's on the ADUs. Are staff, consultants, are you got the appropriate guidance at the moment? We'll obviously at the end take public comment and that guidance could change, but at the moment that's a preliminary guidance from the committee. You have that clear direction? Yes. Thank you. Yes. Tom. |
| 00:36:33.98 | Jim | No, it's not. |
| 00:36:51.47 | Unknown | Yes. Yes. Thank you. |
| 00:36:54.28 | Jim | Thank you. The other thing, and can we go back to where you talk about the liver boards? Thank you. the slide on the left. Okay, now, I just want to make sure that we're not committing to anything. on that as well that we don't need to commit update marina permitting which is which is fine But to increase live and work capacity to accommodate 30, 31, I mean, again, it goes back to the same idea that we don't while certain things may be good ideas, we do not want to commit to anything that we may not be able to live up to or impose any other obligations on ourselves. |
| 00:37:32.41 | Joan | Well, this is part of our low and very low rena number and while we have a substantial buffer for the rena number in the table that is in the new housing element for other categories I'm not sure, Karen, can we afford to not have these 31? |
| 00:37:48.47 | Karen Warner | Right, no, I had been looking at that as well. So the 31... units that we're accrediting, 17 are low. And 14 are moderate. you know, based on the Live Aboard survey. and I think that You've got enough buffer in the low and certainly in the moderate. |
| 00:38:13.53 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 00:38:14.37 | Karen Warner | that if this did not occur, and with the and the element and make that that the short |
| 00:38:24.18 | Jim | Thank you. As long as we don't impose obligations on ourselves that we might not be able to meet or increase our obligations, that's right. |
| 00:38:31.65 | Joan | I think we have to make it clear that if we want to count these 31 liveaboards, we have to have that work done by 2016. |
| 00:38:40.99 | Karen Warner | Right, exactly. So this one does have a shorter time frame. As you know, that had been in the prior element before we did the amendment. um, But I think that because you have enough buffer, you won't be in, you know, you'll be reporting annually to the state, and if this doesn't go forward, |
| 00:38:58.08 | Unknown | and it's... |
| 00:39:03.33 | Karen Warner | and you would be indicate that you still have adequate buffer and you don't need to identify additional sites. |
| 00:39:11.66 | Joan | We have a buffer of 61 on the low. And so if we lose those 17, we would still have a significant buffer. |
| 00:39:20.37 | Karen Warner | Right, we have 47 unit buffer on the low. Now a lot of those are ADUs, |
| 00:39:27.27 | Joan | Wait, wait, I'm looking at the table, at the redlined table on page, chapter four, page four. |
| 00:39:34.29 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:39:35.51 | Joan | And this is saying that you have, we used to have a 47 buffer on the on the very low, which is now 53, And we, but that the buffer for low is 61. |
| 00:39:47.79 | Unknown | That's not the buffer. That's the total capacity. |
| 00:39:51.27 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 00:39:51.30 | Unknown | Oh, those are the totals. Where are the buffers? Where are the buffers? |
| 00:39:56.69 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 00:39:56.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:39:57.80 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:39:57.97 | Karen Warner | It's all crossed out. It's hard to read, isn't it? |
| 00:40:00.94 | Joan | Yeah. |
| 00:40:02.02 | Karen Warner | And But I can tell you what it is. I'm looking at it online. not So the buffer right now with 53 unit capacity is very low. versus Arena of 26, the buffer is 27, very low. |
| 00:40:21.44 | Joan | And can you go ahead? Oh, okay. And then it's 47 low. |
| 00:40:26.49 | Karen Warner | I'm going to just tell you what the buffers are since it's all crossed out. |
| 00:40:30.01 | Joan | If you could take a moment, yeah. |
| 00:40:32.80 | Karen Warner | Yes, so very low is 27. Low is 47. Moderate is 101. Above moderate is 12. And overall it's 187. |
| 00:40:50.35 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:40:50.36 | Joan | So, |
| 00:40:50.80 | Karen Warner | So it's like it is there. It's just crossed out for some reason. |
| 00:40:54.36 | Joan | So another question that has been raised a bunch by the community is why Are we submitting a housing element that has such large buffer numbers? |
| 00:41:06.82 | Karen Warner | Well, I mean, this is a perfect example of, the liveaboard program, for example. So if that CUP and the CUP BCDC permit to increase the capacity in the South Florida yacht doesn't happen. and those 17 low income units go away and 14 moderate income units go away. You don't need to amend your element and identify an additional site. The ADUs were pretty aggressive on with 40 identified. If you don't. provide 40, you still have somewhat of a cushion. Yes. Some of your types develop with less than, and we're really talking about very low and low. The moderate's not an issue, because we've got 101 unit buffer there. give some of the sites For example, R3, we've got 21 units identified for very low and 11 for low. if some of those develop, Um, with fewer units. and then you're not faced with identifying an additional site. |
| 00:42:29.72 | Ray | If I may, could I just make a comment about this? Because I do get a lot of questions from folks about this buffer. You know, one of the, I think, well, actually, one of the great contributions that the M group provided some years ago, and one of the things that we have been fortunate is that One of the core strategies is our infill strategy, which means we calculate, estimate, future build-out capacity that's there under our current zoning. We have to do nothing other than count them, as I've said a number of times. So the buffer just is. It's there as a result of that infill strategy. The question, I think, should be more focused is, |
| 00:42:57.26 | Unknown | MAKING A LITTLE BIT OF |
| 00:43:27.30 | Ray | Is there any components of the buffer that's created by our active changing of programs rather than just counting infill? And often much of the buffer, especially in the higher income levels, are due simply to infill. And unless you... you know, decide you're going to totally change your criteria. They're just there. Right. So, The Liverboard one is an example of where there's a buffer there created by infill or by EDUs, but If we're not careful, if something doesn't happen, then we could be below. The fact that there's high numbers for moderate is just because currently our development capacity says, there is that number there. And I think it's important for us to try and get that across in a better way than we have been, because it's not fully appreciated, I think. |
| 00:44:25.13 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:44:25.82 | Joan | And the other thing, oh, sorry. |
| 00:44:25.86 | Unknown | And the other one- |
| 00:44:29.18 | Ray | Thank you. |
| 00:44:29.42 | Joan | The other issue is that various members of the community continue to object to our having this site's inventory. specifically listed where all of the units are specifically listed in appendix C, pages 7 to 9. With these huge buffers now, and with programs in place so that we're not scraping by within our element. must we still include this site-specific sites inventory in Appendix C or can we now rely on a description of our strategy for identifying what, the number of those infill units. |
| 00:45:11.34 | Ray | I know, Susan, you had a question, but could we get a specific answer on that? My understanding is the site inventory is mandated by state law. |
| 00:45:18.09 | Jeff Bradley | It's my understanding. inventory is Yeah. Correct. It's required to have a discrete listing of each site. |
| 00:45:27.03 | Ray | THIS IS NOT A |
| 00:45:28.01 | Susan | I didn't have a question. I just wanted to add on to what you were both saying, which is I think the buffer, the best rationale for the buffer that I've heard is that it gives the city flexibility and increases local control in an area of the law where people perceive that we don't have a lot of local control. And I think that that, to me, is a very compelling argument to retain flexibility in the event that one of our strategies either doesn't work or becomes unacceptable for some reason. So I agree that the point of getting that across and making sure that local decision makers retain as much flexibility as we can in a highly regulated area is a very important goal. |
| 00:46:24.24 | Ray | OK, should we high level stuff or anything else that we need to do? Shall we start going page by page? I had probably one last high-level question, which was on Program 10, the ADUs, on the proposal for suggesting a new amnesty. |
| 00:46:34.73 | Unknown | Shall we? |
| 00:46:49.20 | Ray | Period. Are the ADUs that we would estimate could be generated by a new amnesty program, are those required for our RENA numbers? |
| 00:47:08.08 | Karen Warner | Can you repeat that, Ray? Yes. I didn't quite catch the last part. |
| 00:47:09.99 | Ray | Yes. Yeah, no, the question is, obviously we have talked about at this committee and it is now in the draft housing element in front of us, the concept that we would, the previous amnesty program expired. It was successful. we have in the element proposed a new amnesty period And my question is, the ADUs that would be generated by that new amnesty period, presumably existing illegal ADUs that would become brought into the fold, so to speak, by this new amnesty program. Does that actually provide, are those numbers needed to meet our RENA requirements? |
| 00:48:00.49 | Unknown | than needed. |
| 00:48:01.94 | Ray | Well, okay, do they just fall into the buffer, or are they part of what we need to make the numbers in the very low or low or whatever? |
| 00:48:15.05 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:48:15.09 | Karen Warner | That's a very good question. As you know and as it says in the narrative of that program, and at the cake and and the your current and the program at the end of march you had forty-four applications for 44 amnesty units. that were somewhere in the process. now clearly Some of those won't go forward. They won't do the necessary code enforcement, building structural improvements to bring you brought up the code. Some of them won't count because You know, they will have already been counted in the census. But a number of those will definitely count. |
| 00:49:04.60 | Ray | Yeah. |
| 00:49:04.65 | Unknown | . |
| 00:49:04.68 | Ray | Karen let me be more specific table |
| 00:49:11.94 | Jeff Bradley | Ray, may I? 4-1. |
| 00:49:13.53 | Ray | 4-1. Page 4-4. |
| 00:49:16.34 | Jeff Bradley | I hate you. I think what Ray's getting at is if we eliminated the 24 amnesty ADUs, would we still have adequate buffer in the... |
| 00:49:24.63 | Karen Warner | And so what I'm saying is that number 24, is inclusive of both. some of these that are already going through the process, and we don't know how many of those will, you know, meet the criteria. in addition to a future amnesty program. |
| 00:49:43.80 | Ray | So there is a component of that number which is estimated to result from a new amnesty program. |
| 00:49:43.84 | Karen Warner | So the. |
| 00:49:50.96 | Ray | Thank you. I'm not necessarily objecting to a new amnesty program, just trying to understand, in the spirit of let's add nothing new, you know, is, |
| 00:50:03.02 | Susan | Well, going back to Going back to Tom's earlier comment, I mean, I suppose one possibility would be to be less committing of adopting another amnesty program if it's not absolutely required. I'm generally supportive of extending the amnesty program, so I don't... I don't have a strong opinion about it, but I would be willing to have less definite language, explore the extension of the amnesty program if other committee members... |
| 00:50:38.22 | Joan | Another way to narrow it is right now the way the amnesty program is written is that it refers to ADUs that were constructed prior to January 2014. what we could do is relate this amnesty program back to our prior amnesty program and have it relate to, because we, the way that we wrote it before was that the amnesty program commenced at that point when our statute changed and no longer prohibited ADUs. And so I think it was January of 2020. 12. or 2013? |
| 00:51:13.98 | Lily | The amnesty program was adopted in November of 2012. The ordinance made it such that any unit that was created after January of 2012 did not count. |
| 00:51:26.06 | Joan | THE END OF THE END OF THE did not count. So that's another way that we could ensure, because we've had an ADU program in place since November of 2012. So we should not necessarily allow amnesty to people who built an illegal ADU when we had an ADU program in place. but rather have the amnesty program continue the requirement that it have been built prior to January of 2012. |
| 00:51:57.22 | Ray | Totally agree with that. Totally agree. |
| 00:51:59.51 | Joan | And that way we, continue to go after the those homeowners who we do want to bring into compliance. And there are advantages to the city of bringing them into compliance beyond being able to count them towards our arena. . |
| 00:52:18.38 | Ray | That change would completely satisfy my concerns. |
| 00:52:24.86 | Susan | Yeah, I agree, and it fits much more with the concept of amnesty. |
| 00:52:28.77 | Jim | And can we also incorporate Susan's comment of making it less committal, I mean, to the way that we explore or whatever? |
| 00:52:36.06 | Joan | Well, I think if we're going to do it, we need to get it going on it. And we already have it written because we wrote it. already. So all we have to do is prove it again. |
| 00:52:46.96 | Lily | It's just a council resolution. We built that into the ordinance. |
| 00:52:49.63 | Joan | Yeah. So it's not a lot of work for staff to get it going again. |
| 00:52:53.38 | Lily | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:52:53.93 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 00:52:53.95 | Lily | Thank you. |
| 00:52:53.97 | Joan | Yeah. |
| 00:52:54.32 | Lily | Thank you. |
| 00:52:55.89 | Ray | Okay, good. So that was the other high-level thing. Should we start doing page by page? |
| 00:53:02.47 | Unknown | You're going to take public comment? |
| 00:53:03.70 | Ray | Thank you. Yeah, I mean, we get some guidance from my colleagues here. Should we take public comment now at this high level stage? Should we wait till we turn the pages? Why would you? |
| 00:53:09.30 | Unknown | you Thank you. out. |
| 00:53:10.05 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 00:53:14.28 | Ray | Any thoughts? Get some more under our belt. Yeah, I would like to get a bit more under our belt before I take public comment. |
| 00:53:19.03 | Tom | Thank you. |
| 00:53:22.65 | Joan | Do you want me to lead off? |
| 00:53:23.43 | Ray | Oh, please. I know you for... And as you have the hard copy there, and I'm relying on electronic, I will... |
| 00:53:27.29 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:53:27.31 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 00:53:27.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:53:31.73 | Ray | Thank you. |
| 00:53:31.76 | Unknown | you |
| 00:53:31.85 | Joan | All right. |
| 00:53:31.90 | Ray | Bye. |
| 00:53:31.97 | Unknown | She'll get all the typing. |
| 00:53:33.27 | Ray | Yeah. |
| 00:53:33.30 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:53:33.37 | Susan | Thank you. |
| 00:53:33.74 | Joan | All right, so page 1-2. |
| 00:53:37.10 | Ray | You've caught my typos as well. Thank you. |
| 00:53:39.75 | Joan | Um, |
| 00:53:39.83 | Ray | . um, it. |
| 00:53:41.05 | Joan | the paragraph right before paragraph C, It has, in the third line, it says, for both the current, the word both needs to come out. And at the end of that line, the word period needs to be singular, not plural, since we're only talking about one planning period. |
| 00:53:58.55 | Ray | I think the word current needs to come out as well. I think it's simply for the- |
| 00:54:01.74 | Joan | Sure. Yep. |
| 00:54:03.74 | Ray | the 2015-24 RENA planning period. |
| 00:54:08.00 | Joan | Yep, 2023, 2015, 2023, RENA planning period, period. Okay. Top of 1-3, second word, without a comma, I always like to use the word that instead of which. That's, I mean... |
| 00:54:09.55 | Ray | 2015, 2023, RENA planning period. |
| 00:54:12.45 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:54:23.88 | Joan | Yeah. Okay, page 1-4, the first bullet, um, It says amended housing element law and requiring, I would say by requiring jurisdictions to support And in the third bullet, the last line, jurisdictions that fail instead of who fails, since a jurisdiction is not a person. in the third paragraph on page 1-4. I would say that we... in the first line I would say we implemented and approved a certified 2009 instead of drafted a certified housing element. |
| 00:55:07.36 | Unknown | I love it. |
| 00:55:07.97 | Joan | you I would say that we approved it. |
| 00:55:13.96 | Joan | And then on You know that on page 5, the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 line down, you still have a TBD. I think we're getting pretty close to being able to fill in an actual number for those meetings since we have a discrete number of meetings. planned. |
| 00:55:33.49 | Ray | Yeah. Could I just jump in there? Yeah. |
| 00:55:35.41 | Joan | Yeah. |
| 00:55:38.02 | Ray | I want to make sure that we're not mixing apples and oranges here. You know, we need to, I know some of our meetings were covering both elements, but some of our meetings were really focused on the prior element. So I don't know how that can best be handled. |
| 00:55:54.28 | Lily | The prior. The prior element. We can do that. |
| 00:56:00.11 | Ray | Yeah. |
| 00:56:01.67 | Lily | Okay. Yeah. |
| 00:56:02.24 | Jim | Thank you. |
| 00:56:02.26 | Lily | you |
| 00:56:02.29 | Jim | and then, |
| 00:56:02.61 | Ray | Thank you. |
| 00:56:02.63 | Jim | Do you want to note the meetings for both? You know, we had X meetings, 45 meetings, 32 were on such and such and so and so. Because many of the meetings, certainly at the end, were in overlap. Is that 45? Is that the current count? |
| 00:56:18.07 | Joan | No. |
| 00:56:18.95 | Jim | That was the prior For the prior. For that. Where did that number come from? Is that prior and this one or? |
| 00:56:21.48 | Lily | Bye. |
| 00:56:25.63 | Lily | That's in our adopted housing element right now, so that was all of the meetings that had taken place before the council adopted the 2012 housing. |
| 00:56:28.89 | Jim | Thank you. |
| 00:56:33.34 | Jim | But then you only have two community meetings. So if you counted more, there were a lot more community meetings. I was just confused. |
| 00:56:39.13 | Lily | So just for clarification, so the prior element had over 45 public meetings and three community workshops. See where three was struck out? Okay. We know that there are going to be two community workshops on this effort, so we added in two, and we added the TBD because we don't have that number right now. |
| 00:56:44.70 | Jim | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:56:45.09 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 00:56:47.80 | Jim | of the |
| 00:56:47.97 | Unknown | We know. |
| 00:56:48.28 | City Clerk | NO. Thank you. |
| 00:56:50.84 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:56:50.87 | Ray | Exactly. |
| 00:56:51.18 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:56:56.88 | Ray | I mean, I think it's fair to acknowledge the number of public meetings on the last element because we're essentially putting the same element forward. So much of the discussion has been already done. I agree. I think... I agree. |
| 00:57:02.64 | Lily | Monday. |
| 00:57:02.97 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 00:57:08.78 | Joan | i think that even if it's just in a footnote you should note that This we're using the streamlining process because we're using the streamlining process, many aspects of this housing element are closely resemble the prior housing element. And for that housing element, we had 45 meetings and three community workshops. |
| 00:57:29.35 | Jim | And during the period of time, because also because it was, you know, we had them in this later period of time from 2009 to 14, so that should be noted as well. |
| 00:57:39.61 | Joan | In that same paragraph, we say that the we say that the Housing Element Subcommittee is comprised of city council representatives, planning commission representatives, and city residents. We don't have city residents on this subcommittee, so we need to take out those three words. |
| 00:57:57.97 | Ray | Yeah, and I think there needs to be a clarification that there's an implication. It's not directly said, but it's implied because it's not clarified that this is the same committee as the House and Element Task Force. It's not. This is a separately constituted body. |
| 00:58:18.99 | Joan | although we have three out of four. |
| 00:58:21.59 | Ray | We do indeed. We do. |
| 00:58:21.83 | Jim | We do indeed. Members. We do. Good point, because there were residents on the other one. |
| 00:58:25.29 | Ray | Yes, and that's the point. There were residents in the- |
| 00:58:26.72 | Jim | Thank you. |
| 00:58:26.74 | Joan | Right. |
| 00:58:26.98 | Jim | Yes. |
| 00:58:27.03 | Joan | At the time, our mayor was a resident. |
| 00:58:29.32 | Ray | That's true. Representative. That's true. |
| 00:58:29.66 | Joan | Yeah. that's true Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:58:33.56 | Unknown | That's your... |
| 00:58:34.03 | Joan | . |
| 00:58:34.20 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:58:34.22 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 00:58:34.59 | Ray | I know. As was. Look at the mess I got myself into. |
| 00:58:34.74 | Joan | As was I got myself into. As does our planning commissioner. So the two residents who were on have now taken city office. Okay. In the next paragraph. I would say the second workshop was aimed, I would add the draft 2015 to 2023 housing element, just to be clear. And since we have had mixed purpose workshops, I would just distinguish the fact that our second workshop is solely devoted to this current 2015 to 2023 housing element. |
| 00:59:06.77 | Unknown | TO |
| 00:59:13.06 | Joan | And my last change for chapter one is the third to the last line. It says to reallocated. and I would say to reallocate RENA to neighboring communities. Mm-hmm. |
| 00:59:34.32 | Joan | Do you all want to go through your chapter one or you want me to continue on? |
| 00:59:37.63 | Tom | Well, we should jump in, I would think. Yeah. Let's just go through, and if anyone has any other... Yeah, Joe, I've got my comments. |
| 00:59:39.30 | Jim | you Let's just |
| 00:59:44.25 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 00:59:44.33 | Ray | Thank you. |
| 00:59:48.47 | Joan | Okay, I don't have much for Chapter 2. My first comment for Chapter 2 is on page 12. And we refer there to historic design guidelines, but we've changed that name to historic preservation regulations. That's in the middle of page 12. |
| 01:00:16.63 | Joan | And then on page 13, this is where some of these deadlines come in. for the objective by 2016. evaluate strengthening the current So unless there's a specific reason why we have to do it by 2016, we have to do it by We have a bunch of things we're going to do by 2016, so I'd like to give us some more latitude on that. |
| 01:00:44.22 | Ray | Joan, just before you proceed, I suddenly got lost. Is that – are you – the page numbers you're quoting, are you like saying page 2-12 or is it page 12 of 225? No, page 2- – So it's 2-12. Okay. |
| 01:00:58.63 | Joan | No, page 2-3. Yeah, and this is 2-13. Yeah. |
| 01:01:04.13 | Ray | Yeah, okay, thanks. |
| 01:01:05.69 | Joan | Thanks. And in the middle of that page, the objective says, by 2016. Karen, is there any reason for that? Deadline. |
| 01:01:15.46 | Karen Warner | Well, it kind of, no, no, that's something the city has flexibility with, but it goes, hand in hand with the program to evaluate inclusionary housing. |
| 01:01:29.16 | Joan | Which is my other big issue in this element. |
| 01:01:35.98 | Karen Warner | but maybe we flag this. And then if you have a change to the timing on the inclusionary housing, we kind of try to link those two. |
| 01:01:45.95 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 01:01:46.03 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:01:47.91 | Joan | Well, for a placeholder, I would simply say within what you've been doing with the rest, which is, you know, within – um, somewhere you have language that says with between 2015 and 2023 or something like that. |
| 01:02:08.78 | Karen Warner | Well, but this is a little bit more of a, whenever we're talking about potential code amendments, we need to have a little bit tighter time frame. I mean, we could say within the first four years of the pandemic. |
| 01:02:21.93 | Joan | Okay, that's fine with me, yes. |
| 01:02:27.02 | Karen Warner | So that's essentially 2018. |
| 01:02:29.96 | Joan | And I'm going to go back to the historic preservation guidelines. We said that we – that's on page 2-12. We said we were going to do that by early 2015, but I know we have a committee that's working on that. Are we still on track, Lily, to finish that by early 2015? I consulted with Jeremy on that date, and he was comfortable with it. Okay. Another reason for my concern is we are going to have a turnover in our staff. And so I just want to make sure we're not... setting impossible doors. |
| 01:03:01.50 | Jim | Yeah, you know, and on all of these, I mean, I don't know what the penalties are for, you know, go 15 or 16, but I agree with this general question. statement that we should give ourselves time to the degree we can do time. And maybe one of them we can go on each of these programs, but Maybe staff and consultants and all of us can go at the very end and look, did we pile all of them in 2017? They should be spread to the degree they could. Thank you. |
| 01:03:24.70 | Ray | I mean, certainly, even if you kept it 2015, you don't need the word early there. Thank you. |
| 01:03:30.51 | Jim | No, and I think we may slip a little bit on that. |
| 01:03:34.42 | Ray | Yeah. |
| 01:03:34.62 | Jim | Thank you. |
| 01:03:34.68 | Tom | Thank you. |
| 01:03:35.97 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 01:03:36.03 | Susan | Okay, on page 20, on page 2-15. So can I make a comment on 2-14 and the description of the vertical mixed use? |
| 01:03:40.41 | Unknown | Make a comment on... |
| 01:03:46.62 | Susan | It doesn't really discuss what happens with a conversion of upper story commercial to It talks about new construction and it talks about conversion of existing upper story residential to commercial is prohibited. But it leaves out if you're converting upper story commercial to residential. And I just think that should be |
| 01:04:20.69 | Unknown | Does it... |
| 01:04:21.98 | Karen Warner | Isn't that the bullet that says conversion of upper story residential to commercial is prohibited and then it gives the exception? |
| 01:04:28.02 | Susan | Yeah. Yeah. following. I'm sorry, where is that? What bullet? |
| 01:04:34.73 | Lily | Yes. |
| 01:04:35.04 | Jim | Thank you. |
| 01:04:35.14 | Lily | Thank you. |
| 01:04:35.24 | Karen Warner | Okay. |
| 01:04:35.46 | Lily | I'm gonna get you on here. |
| 01:04:36.59 | Susan | Um, 215. Not the last |
| 01:04:38.97 | Jim | and the one before the last one. where it has A, B, C, and D, the bullet before that, the conversion of existing upper storage residential uses |
| 01:04:47.71 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 01:04:47.73 | Susan | Thank you. |
| 01:04:47.86 | Joan | commercial uses is |
| 01:04:49.03 | Susan | Right. |
| 01:04:49.16 | Joan | Yeah. |
| 01:04:49.18 | Susan | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:04:49.23 | Joan | It's not a good thing. |
| 01:04:49.58 | Susan | Thank you. I'm talking about the conversion of commercial to residential. |
| 01:04:56.50 | Jim | commercial to residential, okay. Thank you. |
| 01:04:59.20 | Susan | So are there conditions on that? For example, so it talks about new construction needs to be affordable. |
| 01:04:59.25 | Jim | Thank you. |
| 01:04:59.35 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:04:59.42 | Jim | Bye. |
| 01:04:59.47 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:04:59.52 | Jim | . |
| 01:05:02.86 | Jim | Thank you. |
| 01:05:02.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:05:02.93 | Jim | Thank you. |
| 01:05:02.97 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE Thank you. Mm-hmm. |
| 01:05:06.49 | Susan | Thank you. But what if you're taking existing office space and converting it to residential to those but you're not constructing anything? |
| 01:05:13.33 | Jim | That's allowed, it's not prohibited, right? |
| 01:05:15.81 | Susan | Okay. I think it should be clear if these conditions about affordability apply. |
| 01:05:16.30 | Jim | I just... |
| 01:05:19.89 | Jim | Thank you. |
| 01:05:19.91 | Joan | Well I think that's already allowed and this isn't the purpose of the VMU |
| 01:05:21.04 | Susan | Thank you. |
| 01:05:25.12 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:05:25.24 | Susan | Thank you. |
| 01:05:25.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:05:26.02 | Joan | Okay. |
| 01:05:26.44 | Unknown | Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry, you just... Thank you. |
| 01:05:29.97 | Susan | Anyway, if it's not part of the VMU and we're going to follow our existing zoning code so you don't have to provide new affordability, I think that should just be said. |
| 01:05:37.02 | Unknown | Well, I'm going to turn the staff on this. |
| 01:05:39.06 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. That was actually the example that I think sort of spawned this policy, was the idea that we had some existing second and third floor spaces that were commercial existing and can be converted in a very low impact way in terms of view impacts and change in the silhouette of the building to residential. So in my view, that would be sort of the classic view of view example. So I think this first bullet should be changed to the new construction or conversion of existing space to residential. |
| 01:06:06.79 | Joan | Well, I think we have to be consistent with what our VMU ordinance actually says, because it's already been adopted. Right. So I think I agree. |
| 01:06:13.59 | Jeff Bradley | IT'S NOT A GOOD IT'S NOT A GOOD I think we picked it up in the ordinance because we drilled down into these details and all those subcommittee meetings. |
| 01:06:19.05 | Joan | So let's do this. Why don't we just suggest to staff that you compare this language to the actual ordinance that was adopted and be sure that it's... That it comports. That works. And this language is repeated verbatim later in this element, so you're going to have to do it twice, and I'll tell you when we come across it. |
| 01:06:27.59 | Jeff Bradley | That works. |
| 01:06:27.97 | Unknown | That works. |
| 01:06:37.67 | Karen Warner | It's in the constraint section. No, I know where it is. |
| 01:06:40.93 | Joan | Well, isn't the constraints and appendix, it's elsewhere in the actual element too. |
| 01:06:48.18 | Karen Warner | Okay. |
| 01:06:49.26 | Joan | Um... |
| 01:06:52.92 | Joan | Yeah, it's in the, I think it's in the program's descriptions or something. Anyway. . the other on page fifteen within the same program It used to say and D. and now D is gone, but the and is still at the end of C. |
| 01:07:08.53 | Unknown | Oh, good counting. |
| 01:07:11.25 | Joan | So the and needs to, but you're probably going to rewrite this whole thing anyway to comport with the actual ordinance. With respect to the objectives for VMU, I would like to add at the end of that description the three words, in designated areas. since you've taken out the description of exactly what precise areas it's allowed, I just want to be clear that it's not allowed throughout Sausalito. It's only allowed in certain designated areas, which are described earlier on in this section. |
| 01:07:47.33 | Karen Warner | So it does say implement VMU requirements in designated Oh, I see. |
| 01:07:52.37 | Unknown | Oh, I know. |
| 01:07:52.68 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 01:07:52.81 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:07:52.83 | Joan | See you. you |
| 01:07:53.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:07:53.32 | Joan | you |
| 01:07:53.40 | Unknown | Yeah, yeah. |
| 01:07:53.91 | Joan | you |
| 01:07:53.94 | Unknown | We'll be right back. |
| 01:07:53.98 | Jim | Okay. |
| 01:07:53.99 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 01:07:54.09 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:07:55.49 | Jim | All right. But, I do have a comment on that, on the objectives. It says implement them, but then it said to facilitate the provision of mixed income, why are we adding some different requirements? Why don't we just say, implement VMU requirements of this section. |
| 01:08:12.57 | Joan | implement residential use above ground floor commercial or something. |
| 01:08:16.77 | Jim | Yeah. |
| 01:08:21.11 | Jim | It makes it sound like it's something different. They did mix this up. |
| 01:08:22.60 | Joan | They did make them come because there is an affordable requirement. in it so I understand because a minimum of one unit has to be affordable. |
| 01:08:35.81 | Karen Warner | It's kind of what we do on several things. So for example, under the objective for ADUs, we say implement the ADU regulations to facilitate provision of ADUs for seniors, caregivers and other lower and extremely low income households. So it's kind of giving the context of, you what the program is serving to accomplish. |
| 01:08:58.20 | Jim | But... Maybe I'm off here, but shouldn't it be our objective is to implement the VMU requirements specified in this section B, mixed use zoning? I mean. rather than try to describe it a different way, we're basically saying we're gonna implement These aforesaid Yeah, I don't think. |
| 01:09:14.60 | Joan | Yeah, I don't think, because we're streamlining, Karen, and because HCD isn't going to read this, they're only going to read needs assessment constraints and site inventory, I don't think we need to sell this any further. |
| 01:09:26.98 | Karen Warner | No, no, no. They are going to read this. In its entirety. The sections that I mentioned that are redlined, they will only read the redline changes, but they'll read Just in its entirety, the housing plan. |
| 01:09:43.58 | Jeff Bradley | I think the thrust of your comments is correct, though, because this was drafted before the ordinance was adopted. And if you look at the table where we summarize the program, we say implement VMU requirements in designated commercial districts and monitor effectiveness in providing housing. That's better. We don't need to go into all this detail because this was sort of guiding the development of a future ordinance that we now have. |
| 01:09:49.30 | Joan | Yeah. |
| 01:10:00.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:10:00.71 | Joan | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:10:00.79 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:10:00.86 | Joan | That's better. |
| 01:10:06.66 | Joan | Yeah. Right. |
| 01:10:07.91 | Ray | So generally, there may be other places where that occurs you might want to Thank you. |
| 01:10:13.85 | Joan | huge |
| 01:10:14.04 | Karen Warner | see. |
| 01:10:14.55 | Ray | Can you see it as you go through? |
| 01:10:15.71 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 01:10:15.76 | Jeff Bradley | Correct. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. |
| 01:10:17.78 | Karen Warner | that that that that that |
| 01:10:21.70 | Joan | Yeah, I have some specifics in later chapters. Well, what you do is... |
| 01:10:24.91 | Ray | What you don't want to do is add language which is slightly different and therefore confusing to what you've previously described. And therefore, which is the, you know. |
| 01:10:35.05 | Joan | And I think the point is well taken. This was initially drafted as an objective for an ordinance to be adopted, we've now adopted it. So we can easily now say exactly what it is. |
| 01:10:43.40 | City Clerk | So, |
| 01:10:46.32 | Joan | Yeah. Okay, page 2-16, second to the last line, I prefer the word that to which once again. Okay, at the top of page 17. Um, The first line. the city's adopted regulations providing for an amnesty program to |
| 01:11:09.93 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:11:12.39 | Joan | Wait, the cities? to provide for an amnesty program to enable the legalization So I think instead of provided, it's provide. |
| 01:11:26.03 | Unknown | I guess. |
| 01:11:26.20 | Joan | I guess provided is okay, yeah. For an amnesty program, to enable, the word to has to be inserted between program and enable. |
| 01:11:26.72 | Unknown | Bye. Thank you. |
| 01:11:34.43 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:11:35.93 | Joan | And in the footnote at the bottom, we have an effective date of January 1, 2014. As we discussed earlier, we think that should be 2012. |
| 01:11:49.94 | Joan | I have a bit on page 2-18, I have a big exclamation point next to the junior accessory dwelling So you're clear on our direction with respect to that. |
| 01:12:02.66 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:12:03.31 | Joan | further discuss it, on page 2-20 the first bullet under liveaboards |
| 01:12:16.21 | Joan | um, in the table that we're counting, we're counting the 31 Sausalito Yacht Harbor. Why can we not count anything for Pelican Harbor? |
| 01:12:32.95 | Karen Warner | Why can you not count anything for which? |
| 01:12:35.23 | Joan | for Pelican Harbor. This |
| 01:12:37.90 | Karen Warner | We already did. |
| 01:12:39.35 | Joan | Oh, because it's already counted. |
| 01:12:41.26 | Karen Warner | Yeah. |
| 01:12:41.80 | Joan | I think we need to say that somewhere because And it might not be here. There's a place where we discuss it a little later under the programs. |
| 01:12:45.64 | Karen Warner | Bye. |
| 01:12:49.95 | Unknown | Discussion? Sure. |
| 01:12:51.15 | Joan | Yes. But I think we need to be clear. that we are seeking to count Sausalito Yacht Harbor. Somehow we are clear those have not previously been counted. but we think that the Pelican Harbor already has or something. |
| 01:13:06.81 | Karen Warner | Pelican and Clipper. |
| 01:13:09.07 | Joan | Well, you already say that Clipper and Schoonmaker have been counted. You say the city has recognized. You don't say in this paragraph right here, that the city has recognized the liveaboards in Pelican Harbor. |
| 01:13:28.52 | Joan | Or if they haven't, you don't say why we can't count them. |
| 01:13:31.10 | Karen Warner | I was getting that one confused. Um... pelican isn't in the uh... isn't in the Marin ship, so it has not been counted because it doesn't have a See you, Pete. |
| 01:13:47.14 | Joan | All right, so you have a goal here as to get them the CUP. So why can we not also count the new liveaboards not previously counted in Pelican Harbor. Why are we constrained to the 31 in Sausalito Yacht Harbor? |
| 01:14:07.17 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:14:07.18 | Karen Warner | The Pelican doesn't have additional capacity. So when we look at the site's inventory, we can look at that in more detail, but it didn't have additional capacity. |
| 01:14:20.47 | Joan | Right, but their existing liveaboards are not currently in Sausalito's housing stock according to the way this is worded, this second bullet. So once they get the required CUP to bring them into the housing stock, why could we then not Count them as new units. |
| 01:14:42.72 | Unknown | i think that ship has sailed |
| 01:14:44.29 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 01:14:45.98 | Joan | Okay, I'm just not clear why it has sailed for Pelican and not for Sausalito Yacht Harbor. |
| 01:14:50.40 | Karen Warner | Right, right, because Sausalito yacht has extra capacity. It's like a future site capacity. |
| 01:14:57.27 | Joan | It's 5% to 10%. Thank you. |
| 01:14:59.33 | Karen Warner | Yeah. |
| 01:14:59.46 | Joan | Okay. |
| 01:14:59.55 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 01:14:59.60 | Joan | you Okay, I think we have to make that a little more clear, because I know a lot about this, and it was not clear to me, so. |
| 01:15:06.53 | Ray | There's two variables being mixed here, I think. |
| 01:15:08.71 | Joan | Yeah. So I think we just have to add a sentence here and maybe also that the reason that the Sausalito Yacht Harbor 31 units can be counted is that it's an increase in capacity and not already existing. Okay, at the top of page 2-21, we quote the 2000 census. I'm wondering why we don't. I'm not sure this sentence is still accurate. It says, the majority of the city's Liverpool community was not counted as part of the, two thousand census but we now have a twenty ten census and i thought you told me that a lot of them were counted in the 2010 census. |
| 01:15:53.80 | Karen Warner | Okay, so that's why we eliminated 2,000. Can you see that that was eliminated? |
| 01:15:58.68 | Joan | Yep. |
| 01:15:59.62 | Karen Warner | OK. And In the 2010 census, because of that way that uh... blocks are now configured, we can't tell when we are the others. |
| 01:16:14.39 | Joan | So maybe we need to take this sentence out about them not being counted and just talk about the fact they don't receive mail on site and that we're going to coordinate to get them notices of various things. |
| 01:16:34.22 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:16:35.01 | Joan | Okay. |
| 01:16:39.28 | Joan | All right, here we come to my next issue. This has to do with our Um, in lieu of fees. So we've added language at the top of page 22, 2-22, We've added language to say actively pursue public and private funding sources for affordable housing and support developers in securing outside funding sources. When I saw the word support developers, I had a conniption. i think this added language just needs to come right back out |
| 01:17:14.72 | Jim | And why was that added? Yeah. |
| 01:17:16.62 | Joan | I don't know who added it or why. I don't think we need it. |
| 01:17:19.31 | Jim | I'd like to know. |
| 01:17:19.32 | Joan | I, |
| 01:17:20.27 | Jim | I'm sorry. you know, we usually don't add things unless they're necessary. So I'd like to know why it was added. I mean, I tend to agree with your comment, but I'd like to know what the source of it was. |
| 01:17:32.50 | Jeff Bradley | We added it as part of our update of the draft. |
| 01:17:36.48 | Joan | Okay, I think. Yeah. |
| 01:17:39.05 | Ray | So let's take it out. |
| 01:17:43.74 | Joan | And I think that, okay, I think where you're adding things for us to do, it's something that you should seek guidance from us or alert us to. If I hadn't read this word by word, we wouldn't have. Who knows if this would have been noticed? I think it's really important. that that you carry out |
| 01:18:02.42 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:18:03.10 | Joan | Anyway, I'm not going to talk about process. |
| 01:18:05.48 | Jeff Bradley | If I may, to the mayor, if you look at this in context, the objective is to develop an affordable housing fund. Once you have an affordable housing fund, you have to do something with those funds. You can't just sit on them indefinitely. |
| 01:18:07.10 | Joan | Amen. |
| 01:18:18.37 | Joan | I didn't want this program in the first place. I was told we had to have it. But I think that's a good thing. But... You know, we meet our affordability requirement in a variety of other ways. So we don't right now have a source. We aren't receiving funds that go into this because we haven't done any in-lieu fees in Sausalito. |
| 01:18:41.35 | Jeff Bradley | If there's no intention of developing an affordable housing fund, you should eliminate the entire |
| 01:18:45.71 | Joan | I would love to eliminate the entire program. I tried to get it eliminated. for our last element We have a huge, and was told because we didn't have a buffer that we needed to, you know, But now we have a big buffer on our very low and our low. income housing. We are We have come up with a low impact way to accommodate the very important need in Sausalito for affordable housing. This, local affordable housing fund speaks to me about putting a whole lot of affordable housing in one place. And I think our strategy for Sausalito has been a low impact strategy that's spread out throughout the community, through the ADUs and the liveaboards. So, |
| 01:19:33.11 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:19:33.12 | Karen Warner | it this is really The Fort Worth Housing Fund goes hand-in-hand with, The inclusionary housing program. essentially If you adopt an inclusionary housing program, It's, in lieu of impact fees, then you would need to have an affordable housing fund. |
| 01:19:56.53 | Joan | And that's my other... That's program... 8 on page 2-23 that's the other program that I'd like to see us eliminate. Amen. |
| 01:20:05.02 | Ray | 18, Joan. |
| 01:20:06.22 | Joan | All right. It's 2-23. |
| 01:20:07.23 | Ray | It's too. |
| 01:20:09.15 | Joan | Oh, program 18. Correct, yeah. |
| 01:20:11.23 | Karen Warner | program 18, right. |
| 01:20:12.48 | Joan | The red lines, it's hard for me to... |
| 01:20:12.81 | Karen Warner | Red lines. They go hand in hand, so that's a policy decision for the city to make. |
| 01:20:18.76 | Joan | I mean, someone has said, based on the study's findings, by 2016, develop and adopt inclusionary housing regulations. I don't have, I haven't, I wasn't aware that we'd given direction that we wanted to do that program so quickly I thought when we put this program in our housing element, it was for exploratory purposes. Um, We were going to do a study. Now someone has added an obligation for us to actually adopt regulations regardless of what the study may show. So- |
| 01:20:55.68 | Unknown | It's just... |
| 01:20:56.98 | Karen Warner | As you can see on that program 18, The only thing that is added are the dates. again because SB 375 We need to be more concrete in our time frame. So, No other language was added to the inclusionary program. It always did say develop and adopt inclusionary regulations. |
| 01:21:22.05 | Joan | So. Again, my personal view is this is not needed We already have a mix of affordable housing throughout Sausalito. We already have the Rotary Club here in Sausalito that is committed to developing, you know, housing for seniors, which is affordable |
| 01:21:43.15 | Jeff Bradley | That's exactly the kind of group this policy would apply to. |
| 01:21:46.84 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 01:21:46.86 | Susan | Can I just make a comment? I don't feel strongly about the newly added language on policy 14. But I also think that an affordable housing fund could be valuable. I was going to mention Rotary. You know, those funds could go to Rotary. And secondly, depending on how the programs are structured and what the justification for them are, the funds don't need to go to developers. They can go to down payment assistance. They can go to other programs that support individuals and enhancing their ability to pay for housing. So, you know, I think that a fund could be valuable, and I don't think it needs to be associated with funding of developers. So I would be supportive of removing the language. |
| 01:22:38.23 | Jim | But... |
| 01:22:39.88 | Susan | Oh, and then just as a second comment, just following up on the inclusionary housing regulations, I'm generally supportive of the city pursuing a policy, but I do think that we need, again, to keep our options open to listen to public input and figure out if it's a good fit for Sausalito. Again, yeah, so, I mean, I, I think we have different opinions about the ultimate goal there, but I agree that committing to it without having had a public process is not necessary from a housing element perspective and could be problematic. |
| 01:23:21.70 | Jeff Bradley | for the inclusion area. |
| 01:23:23.54 | Susan | Yeah, I'd like to keep the policy in, but with slightly modified language. I mean, we're... |
| 01:23:26.03 | Joan | But take out these. Slightly modified. I mean, we're saying that we're going to do the study in 2015, and by 2016 we're going to adopt regulations Yeah. we have an eight-year process here Um, and we have a lot of new We have a lot of new programs to promote affordable housing stock, our ADUs, et cetera. So I'm wondering why we need to rush into this. Let's see how effective these programs are and then figure out what other gap needs to be filled, perhaps. |
| 01:24:04.58 | Joan | but I agree with Susan I like the thought of giving down payment assistance or something as opposed to funneling money to developers. |
| 01:24:15.19 | Susan | Right, so if we leave the language in Policy 14 as is, I think it's open, it's broader. |
| 01:24:22.85 | Joan | Without the, without the. Without the new language. |
| 01:24:24.12 | Susan | about the new language. |
| 01:24:25.03 | Jim | with. Bye. |
| 01:24:27.93 | Tom | Thank you. |
| 01:24:27.95 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 01:24:27.97 | Jim | May I, though? I mean, on this one, I mean, are we actually going to... Do we have the bandwidth and staff to even do this? I mean, are we going to do... And is there a call for it? And it does, I mean, when you read even without the new language, it puts definite obligations on us to go forward with it. I mean, so we should look at whether we really are planning to do this, Or do we need it? And if for some reason we need it because it was in the last one, I would look at consider doing it because this says we're going to do this. And frankly, it's not on the council's priority calendar. I don't see it coming up anywhere close to it. We shouldn't be agreeing anything that we're probably not going to do. |
| 01:25:08.04 | Joan | A lot of Marin County cities do do this, but a lot of Marin County cities are a lot larger than Sausalito. Yeah. |
| 01:25:13.90 | Jim | Thank you. |
| 01:25:14.08 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:25:14.10 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 01:25:14.22 | Unknown | you |
| 01:25:14.35 | Jim | Maybe we could say if funds become available or circumstances change, we can explore. I don't mind that, but, I mean, this is fairly definitive about what our obligations are and that we should do this. |
| 01:25:26.10 | Ray | I, let's sort of parse this out a little bit because the commitment we're making is that a... Nexus and then Luffy study will be done. Thank you. |
| 01:25:38.86 | Unknown | Yep. |
| 01:25:38.89 | Ray | Yep. That's our commitment. So certainly in terms of planning, I mean, there's nothing on the books until at least the second half of 2015 because we haven't planned beyond the middle. So has there been any discussion at the staff level about doing this study? |
| 01:25:59.68 | Lily | Not at this point. |
| 01:26:00.88 | Ray | Yeah. |
| 01:26:01.87 | Joan | I mean, the way 14 is now written is upon adoption of a program that generates in lieu housing fees. Right. So I don't have a problem with that. |
| 01:26:08.07 | Ray | Right. No, I'm actually jumping to 18. I'm up to 18 because they need to be read together. |
| 01:26:10.63 | Joan | You're up to 18. I'm up to 18. Yes. And I think 18... should just take out the deadlines. or put the deadlines in 2022 and And then for 20-23 say, if appropriate you know develop and adopt whatever inclusionary housing regulations may be appropriate. |
| 01:26:34.73 | Ray | I mean, it does say based on the study's findings. Yeah. I mean, but that does imply that the findings will just tell you what to do, not if to do it. |
| 01:26:37.14 | Joan | Yeah. |
| 01:26:42.10 | Unknown | No. |
| 01:26:42.31 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 01:26:42.34 | Unknown | . |
| 01:26:42.43 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:26:43.28 | Joan | Exactly. |
| 01:26:43.69 | Ray | Please. |
| 01:26:43.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:26:45.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:26:45.56 | Karen Warner | Why don't we take out the date based on the study's findings And then in the beginning, |
| 01:26:53.71 | Unknown | And then... Good evening. . |
| 01:26:57.73 | Karen Warner | Yeah. |
| 01:26:57.75 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:26:57.78 | Karen Warner | Thank you. again we could say you know within the first four years of the planning period |
| 01:27:04.82 | Joan | That's fine. |
| 01:27:05.71 | Ray | We would do the Nexus study. |
| 01:27:07.55 | Joan | Right. |
| 01:27:08.94 | Ray | I'm more comfortable with that. |
| 01:27:10.45 | Joan | And then can we revise that second sentence to simply say, based on the Senate's finding, develop and DOPT WHATEVER INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REGULATIONS MAY BE APPROPRIATE, STRUCTURED TO OFFER INCENTIVES OR SOMETHING. |
| 01:27:26.67 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 01:27:33.19 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 01:27:34.33 | Ray | And so with that, Program 14 is okay. |
| 01:27:39.36 | Joan | Yes, with the last sentence removed. |
| 01:27:40.95 | Ray | Where's the last sentence? . |
| 01:27:43.72 | Joan | Okay. |
| 01:27:44.12 | Ray | Karen okay? |
| 01:27:44.15 | Joan | Karen. Thank you. |
| 01:27:46.50 | Jim | Thank you. |
| 01:27:46.57 | Joan | Yes. |
| 01:27:47.24 | Ray | Okay. |
| 01:27:47.97 | Jim | Thank you. |
| 01:27:48.07 | Joan | Yeah. |
| 01:27:48.19 | Jim | . |
| 01:27:48.24 | Joan | Bye. |
| 01:27:48.29 | Jim | Right. |
| 01:27:48.51 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 01:27:48.54 | Jim | Yeah. |
| 01:27:49.37 | Joan | Yeah. |
| 01:27:49.39 | Jim | where we are in the future. |
| 01:27:50.23 | Joan | 16. Haven't gotten there. I'm just about to. |
| 01:27:52.00 | Jim | I'm just about to. Okay. |
| 01:27:53.89 | Joan | I'm, yeah, you go ahead on 16. I have a comment too. |
| 01:27:56.20 | Jim | I have a comment, too. On 16, it's really the same thing on the objectives. It's added, and maybe we need to get clear. It just adds, and it's not a particularly onerous provision, but it says, pending adoption of a local inclusionary program, contact Moran Housing Authority regarding participation in the below market rate. Same comment. Why would we? Unnecessary. It's unnecessary. And our commitment is not to add things unless they're necessary. And if we say it, even though it may only be a phone call, someone's got to go ahead and make that phone call. |
| 01:28:13.13 | Joan | market. |
| 01:28:13.53 | Ray | Same comment. |
| 01:28:14.24 | City Clerk | Bye. |
| 01:28:14.26 | Ray | All right. Unnecessary. |
| 01:28:31.99 | Joan | I agree. I think there's consensus up here on that point. to take out the last sentence in the objective for Program 16. |
| 01:28:39.84 | Unknown | Well, |
| 01:28:40.31 | Joan | I also think the word potential needs to come out. I think it's part of the I think it's a grammatically. Wrong. |
| 01:28:51.55 | Ray | JEFFREY BROWNMANN, Jeff, you're looking uncomfortable. Thank you. |
| 01:28:53.91 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you for noticing. That last sentence for program 16 is really, if you do have a local inclusionary program, in order to reduce the burden on staff, you basically want to turn over the administration of that so you can participate in the countywide BMR program. So anyone who signs up for a BMR goes through that program and Sausalito isn't administering a little micro program on its own. |
| 01:28:53.97 | Ray | Bye. |
| 01:29:19.16 | Ray | Agreed, but why do we need to say that? |
| 01:29:19.18 | Jeff Bradley | Agreed. |
| 01:29:21.52 | Susan | Or we can do that. |
| 01:29:22.03 | Jim | anyway. |
| 01:29:22.31 | Jeff Bradley | We'll be right back. |
| 01:29:22.47 | Susan | you. |
| 01:29:22.48 | Ray | We can do that in a way. |
| 01:29:23.29 | Susan | Yeah. |
| 01:29:25.67 | Jim | Thank you. We're going to be at, why are we adding things? I mean, if there's a reason that it needs to be in there, we should have it in there. If it's not, no matter how easy, we shouldn't have it in there. |
| 01:29:33.45 | Jeff Bradley | No matter how easy. The reason is to alert the reader that that possibility exists and that the city doesn't have to go it alone to set up a BMR program from Stratford. |
| 01:29:42.38 | Joan | But now we've changed the inclusionary program to doing a study and possibly adopting So this sentence becomes less relevant at this stage. |
| 01:29:52.89 | Ray | And does the HCD care what our method of implementing it is? |
| 01:29:57.99 | Jeff Bradley | Well this is the audience is more than just HCD. Of course. It's city staff, it's the development community, both for profit and non profit. It's the residents who live here trying to figure out what's going on. So I know we talk a lot about HCD and satisfying their requirements but there's also the whole broader audience that we talk about. |
| 01:30:00.37 | Ray | Of course. |
| 01:30:13.14 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 01:30:13.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:30:13.36 | Joan | audience for a week we passed but we did this housing element past muster with public advocates housing without this sentence in it and without these additional sentences. The red it's the red lines that we're objecting to and we we passed muster in our last cycle without these additional this additional verdict that there's a theme |
| 01:30:35.69 | Ray | There's a theme here that we, I think, have complete consensus up here, is our guidance to you is no unnecessary words, no unnecessary word changes that might feel good, might be you thinker what we would probably do. |
| 01:30:37.86 | Joan | Yeah. |
| 01:31:01.20 | Ray | I've learned in this process from the last time, the less words the better. |
| 01:31:01.44 | Susan | Thank you. Bless you. Yeah, I think we need to really remember this is a general plan, and there's a very long and onerous process to amend it, and... I don't think we're disagreeing at all with the recommendations or the direction. It's just that it doesn't need to be in this document. |
| 01:31:14.11 | Joan | you know, |
| 01:31:21.35 | Joan | And we are, this is a streamlined process. We really don't want to reinvent the wheel here. |
| 01:31:30.87 | Joan | Okay. |
| 01:31:30.92 | Susan | Okay. |
| 01:31:32.91 | Joan | Thank you. Next, Program 17, in the first line of the objective, the word at, as, should be at. It's just a typo. We will provide brochures at City Hall. |
| 01:31:47.46 | Jeff Bradley | Mr. Mayor, would it be appropriate if all the typos could just come to us as a hard copy and we could make them all just in the interest of time? Can you just go through them? |
| 01:31:58.91 | Joan | Lily told me I had to go through them. I was perfectly happy to transmit them as a, |
| 01:32:03.89 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 01:32:03.99 | Joan | Okay, thanks. |
| 01:32:04.27 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 01:32:05.60 | Joan | I have them all written here, but... Can you repeat that one? I'm sorry. Okay. In the objective for Program 17... |
| 01:32:08.38 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:32:12.35 | Joan | The first line, It should be at City Hall instead of as City Hall. |
| 01:32:21.21 | Joan | Okay, we've already talked about the changes to the objective for program 18. on page. 2-24. Do you have those in mind, Lily? Um, on for program two dash nineteen I have the same issue with the by 2015 adopt a resolution I don't have any problem with adopting the resolution, But I'm worried about our bandwidth to get that done in 2015. |
| 01:32:54.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:32:55.24 | Unknown | Right. |
| 01:32:55.43 | Karen Warner | All right. This is... |
| 01:32:56.59 | Unknown | that |
| 01:32:57.00 | Karen Warner | something that we need to have Um, pretty short timeframe for because this is the way you're meeting the statutory requirement of incentivizing extremely low income units. So if we don't say 2015, I'd say it needs to be pretty soon thereafter. |
| 01:33:17.59 | Joan | What do you think we need to say, Karen? |
| 01:33:19.26 | Karen Warner | and I'll see you next time. It's just a resolution. It's not an ordinance. |
| 01:33:21.97 | Joan | I know, but when do you think we need to do it? |
| 01:33:25.37 | Karen Warner | I think 2015. |
| 01:33:28.03 | Jim | But again, we're... |
| 01:33:29.18 | Karen Warner | It just needs to get done. |
| 01:33:29.90 | Jim | I keep coming back to a philosophical... |
| 01:33:32.15 | Karen Warner | For the last element, as the way you're meeting ELI, |
| 01:33:32.18 | Jim | I'm a good friend. |
| 01:33:35.64 | Jim | All right. |
| 01:33:35.98 | Karen Warner | And Incentive. |
| 01:33:38.48 | Jim | May I address it again, we keep coming back to it, but I think it's important since we have much to go, Is there a way on something like this that we have a checklist of what needs to be done rather than having it in the plan. I think, you know, for me, and again, I'm still trying to get a handle on whether we need to have this for HCD. If we don't, and you're just saying we need to remind staff, I don't want to remind staff with changes in the housing element. I think we can make a list of things that should be done. |
| 01:34:09.41 | Unknown | The housing element. |
| 01:34:13.80 | Jim | But I don't know. I'm perfectly happy of saying adopt a resolution because, frankly, I'm not sure staff's going to sit and look at the housing element as their checklist. There should be a separate checklist anyway. |
| 01:34:24.43 | Ray | Well, we do have a summary table with all the deadlines. We do. Yeah. Which is picked up from these words. Yeah. Okay. |
| 01:34:27.31 | Joan | With all the deadlines. We do. |
| 01:34:33.39 | Joan | And that's, we're about to get to that. That's on pages, you know, that starts on page. |
| 01:34:33.46 | Unknown | AND I'M GOING TO BE |
| 01:34:33.51 | Ray | Yeah. |
| 01:34:33.52 | Unknown | That's we're about to get. |
| 01:34:34.59 | Ray | Thank you. |
| 01:34:34.69 | Unknown | to the next day. |
| 01:34:40.41 | Joan | 40, 35, and we're about to get to that. Okay. For Program 20, density bonus, I'm a little concerned we use the words incentives and concessions interchangeably. And I think I'd like us to use the word that is used in the density bonus statute. Thank you. and be more precise. because I'm not sure that we are offering incentives really what we're doing is we're complying We have. We have... established a tiered system to comply with the density bonus obligations in statutory law. But so I'd like, I'm not sure, I didn't know exactly how to wordsmith this, but I don't like the way it's written with the interchangeable use of incentives and concessions. |
| 01:35:43.47 | Karen Warner | Right, and I totally see what you're getting at. In the statute, it says, lump those two together. So essentially it would be everywhere We say incentive. We say concessions. So it would be required incentives and concessions, and we would just keep repeating those two words together. |
| 01:36:05.21 | Joan | Okay, and then the title also says, Density Bonus and Other Incentives for affordable housing. Now they're... |
| 01:36:14.39 | Karen Warner | and other incentives and concessions. |
| 01:36:17.00 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 01:36:17.03 | Unknown | Yeah. Okay. |
| 01:36:22.84 | Ray | And did we match those? Did we follow that mantra in our ordinance? |
| 01:36:29.27 | Joan | I'm pretty sure we did, yeah. So I guess this is another one to be sure that this. Cross check with other ones. That the language of this comports with the language of what we actually adopted. |
| 01:36:30.74 | Ray | Thank you. Cross check with all of them. |
| 01:36:42.53 | Joan | All right, moving on to Program 22, Sausalito Senior Services. We, again, in the objective have, by 2016, explore options to develop a citywide plan of action for seniors. That's a brand new, I think that what we had already that's brand new language. I don't think we need it. I think this city council and this city already actively supports the Sausalito Village, I'm not clear, and I like the fact that you take credit for that in the verbiage above that you've added, but I don't know why we have to include this last sentence in the objective. |
| 01:37:24.06 | Ray | Could we get some background? Where did this concept come from? |
| 01:37:28.89 | Jeff Bradley | Karen added that one. |
| 01:37:30.85 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 01:37:30.86 | Jeff Bradley | No. Karen, why'd you add that one? |
| 01:37:34.20 | Karen Warner | Right, right. And so I think, you know, a lot of what you're commenting on is our trying to comply with the SB 375 and what HCD is looking at in the element updates, which are milestones. And so, you know, we were... and it's that task force is developing this plan of action. So I think, okay, great. You know, let's put that milestone in there. |
| 01:38:02.57 | City Clerk | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:38:03.35 | Karen Warner | And if the date isn't appropriate, you know, if it's further out, that's fine, but my understanding is That's, That's it. you know, what they were working towards. |
| 01:38:18.81 | Joan | And who gave you the date? Does the task force have a timeline by which they're going to accomplish certain things? obviously city council is adopted the task force but I don't know what their Timeline is I mean if you even take out beat by 2016 and just say explore options |
| 01:38:41.35 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:38:41.44 | Jim | We go through the philosophical thing. We're going over and over. A, no unnecessary words. B, no unnecessary commitments. Now, if you tell us they're necessary, we'll consider it. |
| 01:38:41.48 | Unknown | We were. |
| 01:38:41.74 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 01:38:49.92 | Karen Warner | now if you tell us they're necessary we're going to take out date and then see what type of comments we get from the state you know they may ask for more concrete commitment, but we can go in, open, and, you know, see where it lies. |
| 01:39:08.15 | Joan | I mean, we didn't have SB 375 already existed when our last housing element was adopted, and we didn't get dinged for not having these milestones in that element. |
| 01:39:20.60 | Susan | Yeah, that was my comment. And I think we have left dates in some of the important housing... Sure. Live aborts....polices, but for this particular one and some of the other ones that aren't kind of really necessary to meet the concrete goals, I feel like the dates shouldn't be important to HCD. So I agree with Karen's proposed strategy. |
| 01:39:48.12 | Ray | Yeah, and then if HCD doesn't come, sorry. |
| 01:39:48.43 | Joan | And then if HCD doesn't come, sorry. Take the date on that objective. Yeah, I don't mind the objective since we have a task force that's already undertaking this work. Okay, Karen, so you'll be relieved to hear I don't have any issues with Program 23, 24, 25. |
| 01:39:58.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:40:08.81 | Joan | or 26 or 27. |
| 01:40:11.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:40:11.97 | Joan | Thank you. Okay, my next issue is with Program 28 on page 2-31. We say that we're going to adopt local green building regulations in 2014. i sit on the planning commission I'm not aware, I'm pretty aware of what's coming to us, but I'm not aware of any green building ordinances coming to us this year. Thank you. |
| 01:40:33.70 | Lily | Thank you. |
| 01:40:33.77 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 01:40:33.89 | Lily | That's again a date I double checked with Jeremy and he confirmed. |
| 01:40:36.88 | Joan | . |
| 01:40:39.19 | Tom | Uh, |
| 01:40:39.41 | Joan | Thank you. Well, here's the thing. Even if they're presented to us this year, I don't know if it's going to be adopted this year, so. Who has been drafting the green building ordinances? |
| 01:40:53.14 | Lily | planners who are no longer in the planning department, but they have been working on them. But I did check that date with Jeremy. I think we can ask Karen if that date moves to 2015. Would that be okay? Yeah. Okay. |
| 01:41:06.09 | Joan | Yeah, let's at least move it to 2015. |
| 01:41:15.11 | Joan | Is that okay with you, Karen? Thank you. |
| 01:41:16.97 | Karen Warner | Yeah, yeah, no, that's fine. |
| 01:41:18.03 | Joan | Okay. OK. |
| 01:41:25.41 | Joan | Program 29. Um, I really like the language you added about the Sustainability Commission. But, I'm not sure we're on, I don't know, we're going to adopt a climate action plan by the end of 2014. |
| 01:41:42.50 | Ray | Actually, that is probably more on target than the green regulations. Okay. If that's – I'm not – To be honest. |
| 01:41:45.59 | Joan | I'm not up on that, so if that's a good date. |
| 01:41:52.02 | Ray | Well, actually, we have a member of the Planning Sustainability Commission in the audience now. I mean, we were just talking about that in the meeting I came out of to chair this. You know, we're adopting, we're taking the, we basically, a ordinance template. |
| 01:41:52.04 | Joan | I'm going to get to the |
| 01:42:13.69 | Ray | Now, can it get done in 2014? |
| 01:42:17.79 | Joan | WITH THE CITY. with everything. |
| 01:42:19.97 | Ray | I mean, it's got to go through the hearings. The calendar's getting short is the problem. |
| 01:42:24.47 | Joan | I mean, for safety, why don't we just say in 2015, Or by the end. |
| 01:42:28.82 | Ray | But if you just hear by and we do it in 2014, great. |
| 01:42:30.65 | Joan | Yeah. Then we can toot our own horns. |
| 01:42:35.19 | Ray | Yeah. |
| 01:42:35.42 | Joan | instead of |
| 01:42:36.11 | Ray | But this is something that is. imminent but may not quite make it |
| 01:42:38.43 | Joan | Iminent. |
| 01:42:42.07 | Ray | at 20 for City Council level you know so let's not think about when |
| 01:42:42.65 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 01:42:47.03 | Ray | they'll be ready at a community development. It might start going through the process because who knows what will happen as we start going through the process. |
| 01:42:53.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:42:53.83 | Jim | Thank you. |
| 01:42:53.85 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. |
| 01:42:54.04 | Jim | Thank you. May I again, and I'm just struggling with some of this... Why in our last housing element we didn't have so many of these dates and now we're adding these dates? in the updated one. And of course when we report, we do our reports and we can say we did these things. Like if you just took the last one and said, we will do a climate action plan and then we report we did, I'm still confused about why this Thank you. add so many more commitment dates than our last housing owners. |
| 01:43:19.79 | Karen Warner | Well, because the last element you were adopting less than a year before the end of the period. This is an eight-year planning period, so that's why you know we're looking at what's going to occur during those eight years. |
| 01:43:35.24 | Joan | Well, let's leave ourselves some things to do in the second half of the planning period. |
| 01:43:35.58 | Karen Warner | Bye. |
| 01:43:40.81 | Joan | Okay, I'm... |
| 01:43:41.27 | Karen Warner | So do you want to put an action plan in 2015? |
| 01:43:42.16 | Joan | I'm joking. Yeah. We're in 2015. Yeah. |
| 01:43:46.82 | Karen Warner | to the next episode. |
| 01:43:48.69 | Jim | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:43:48.91 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 01:43:49.00 | Jim | Thank you. |
| 01:43:49.02 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 01:43:49.03 | Jim | Thank you. |
| 01:43:49.23 | Joan | We only have a few minutes. |
| 01:43:49.98 | Jim | Thank you. |
| 01:43:50.03 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 01:43:50.05 | Jim | Thank you. |
| 01:43:51.55 | Joan | Okay. now i'm up to page thirty two dash thirty five and so i've circled the dates in this table karen we've given you specific feedback now the table needs to be brought up to date to comport |
| 01:44:02.18 | Karen Warner | Right. Exactly. Exactly. |
| 01:44:06.04 | Joan | with that feedback. So I'm just gonna quickly tell you the, Um... Bye. So number three, we need to make sure that date, number five, The date. Number. See I love Number six and number seven, within the 2015 to 2023 planning period. I would love it if we could say that for everything, but I understand. |
| 01:44:32.94 | Karen Warner | Because there's no action associated with those. |
| 01:44:35.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:44:36.47 | Joan | Um, |
| 01:44:37.02 | Jim | Thank you. |
| 01:44:38.66 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 01:44:38.68 | Jim | Okay. |
| 01:44:38.85 | Joan | Okay. |
| 01:44:39.19 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:44:41.95 | Jim | I'm a chart, I'm a historical. design regulations. And we have to go back. and preserve and maintain the structures. Pursue state grants for historic preservation actions. I mean, we don't have anything planned to do that. |
| 01:44:57.41 | Unknown | Exactly where are you, Tom? |
| 01:44:57.55 | Jim | Exactly where are you Tom? I'm now on 235. |
| 01:44:58.78 | Ray | Thank you. |
| 01:45:01.91 | Jim | And we've- |
| 01:45:02.39 | Joan | Oh, I see. In the second column. Program summary. |
| 01:45:03.52 | Jim | And in the second column. Program Summary. And then if you look, there are two sentences. The second sentence is, Pursue State Grants for Historic Preservation Actions. We're not going to do that. I mean, we don't have a plan to do that. We just have to make sure Now, you could consider pursuing grants. And we may. But I... |
| 01:45:22.81 | Ray | We'll see you next time. |
| 01:45:22.89 | Tom | Thank you. |
| 01:45:22.94 | City Clerk | Amen. |
| 01:45:23.70 | Ray | But I'm sure our public works or community development will be scouring looking to see if grants are available. |
| 01:45:30.32 | Jim | Well. Okay, I guess if you say pursue, I mean, all right, explore pursuing meditation. |
| 01:45:35.80 | Joan | And we do say, so if you go back to 2-12, we do have that sentence. The city will utilize the recently obtained certified local government status to pursue funds for historic preservation, including funding for preservation of historic wooden boats being used as housing. |
| 01:45:51.75 | Jim | Well, it's a commitment for us to do that, and we have to have Yeah. |
| 01:45:54.97 | Joan | I think I, that is within our prior That is not new language. That was in our previously adopted, and I think that's a laudable... |
| 01:46:02.58 | Jim | Yeah. |
| 01:46:05.05 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 01:46:05.06 | Jim | OK. |
| 01:46:05.50 | Joan | Goal. |
| 01:46:05.94 | Jim | Thank you. Because if it was the last one, we should be |
| 01:46:08.44 | Joan | But I think the date has to be updated because we're... |
| 01:46:08.45 | Jim | Thank you. |
| 01:46:10.95 | Karen Warner | What we said when we were looking at the program was to take out the word early. And it was update regulations in 2015. |
| 01:46:20.84 | Joan | Okay, I know we have a committee already working on that, so that's probably doable. All right, number five, we have Um... This is the condominium conversion regulations. |
| 01:46:32.45 | Karen Warner | So if we're talking about the inclusionary in the first four years of the planning period, that's the same timeframe for this. |
| 01:46:41.11 | Joan | right perfect so I would say for number five let's change that date first four years For number 10, the second column, where you describe the objective |
| 01:46:56.72 | Unknown | . |
| 01:46:57.15 | Joan | Um, I want to add the word existing after the number 24. So it's 24 existing. ADUs. |
| 01:47:07.36 | Karen Warner | Yeah. |
| 01:47:09.15 | Joan | Just to be clear that those are already existing, not new. uh, Program 11. that we're going to have to do |
| 01:47:18.28 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 01:47:19.65 | Joan | Program 12, okay, I already know why that 2016 date needs to stay because we don't get to count the 31 if we don't get that done by… Okay, program 15. This is where we don't want to contact NPH, so we're going to change that, and we're going to take out that time frame. |
| 01:47:51.37 | Susan | Can we talk about that? Did we? I don't think so. I think you're thinking about number 16. We're taking out the new language. We didn't talk about Policy 15. |
| 01:48:04.30 | Joan | yes we did we said we're taking out the last sentence which says |
| 01:48:07.79 | Susan | Mayor's board. |
| 01:48:09.18 | Joan | Well, I'm I'm looking at oh 15 I |
| 01:48:15.71 | Susan | I think you're looking at 16. |
| 01:48:18.10 | Joan | I'm sorry. |
| 01:48:18.14 | Susan | Sorry. Thank you. |
| 01:48:19.37 | Joan | So... This says explore part 15 says explore partnerships. It doesn't say contact NPH. And but in the. And all it says is that NPH serves as a resource. Here you have as a timeframe contact NPH in 2015, but we don't have that as part of our Program 15. |
| 01:48:42.07 | Unknown | Right, understood. |
| 01:48:46.18 | Joan | Okay. The inclusionary housing, 18 and... Uh, We've discussed the revisions to that. I think we're going to take out We're going to change 2015 for starting the nexus, and we're going to take out 2016 altogether. That's program 18. |
| 01:49:13.02 | Unknown | Right. |
| 01:49:13.64 | Joan | Okay. |
| 01:49:20.03 | Joan | We, for 19, we changed that date. For 22, we changed that date. |
| 01:49:31.34 | Joan | For 23, |
| 01:49:32.88 | Karen Warner | actually and maybe and Jeff or Lily, you caught this. What was the change to the date for 19 for the ELI? Because I think that is something in this requirement. |
| 01:49:49.70 | Joan | We took out by 2015... |
| 01:49:52.84 | Karen Warner | We need to have a date in there for this. This is one of these clients' issues. |
| 01:49:58.88 | Lily | My notes were to extend it. |
| 01:50:00.97 | Joan | beyond 2015. What date must we have, Karen? |
| 01:50:06.27 | Karen Warner | I really think you need 2015. because you're really not complying with the statute, to incentivize ELI units until this is in place. If you want to put 2016 and see what the state says, that's fine, but I wouldn't go beyond that. |
| 01:50:22.79 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:50:27.53 | Karen Warner | Is that what you want to do? |
| 01:50:30.27 | Joan | I'm looking to my fellow Committee members. |
| 01:50:33.53 | Susan | Does the fee waiver provisions, I think it was in the VMU that we've already adopted, could that count towards this? |
| 01:50:42.27 | Karen Warner | This is different because it's specifically targeting extremely low income. |
| 01:50:48.81 | Susan | Thank you. |
| 01:50:48.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:50:49.29 | Karen Warner | And the element needs to show that you have a program to incentivize the new production of ELI. and the VMU doesn't specifically address ELI. I mean, it could be, but |
| 01:51:01.98 | Joan | And liveaboards could be. |
| 01:51:04.59 | Susan | Okay, thank you. But at least we have an outline of a fee waiver program. But yeah, let's try 2016 and we can move it back if we need to. |
| 01:51:13.91 | Joan | Is everybody okay with 2016? |
| 01:51:16.19 | Susan | Or we could say 2015, 2016. |
| 01:51:19.26 | Joan | By 2016, I think. |
| 01:51:24.49 | Ray | I mean, if HCD has an objection to this, they can flag it. |
| 01:51:29.38 | Joan | They'll let us know. We'll give them a few things to talk to us about and then we'll make those. Okay. 22 we decided not to require it by 2016 but we are gonna Okay 23 Beginning in 2015, |
| 01:51:54.07 | Joan | I don't think we need a timeframe. We're already doing this actually. What did we say? Yeah. If there's an ongoing |
| 01:52:03.18 | Jim | an ongoing commitment and they want dates, I don't mind that. I mean, if it's – nothing that we additionally do. |
| 01:52:08.53 | Joan | I mean, you've added a date here. There is no date in the description |
| 01:52:11.60 | Karen Warner | Right, yeah. Again, there was a date in the prior element of 2012. |
| 01:52:16.26 | Unknown | Oh. |
| 01:52:17.39 | Joan | So I think staff is going to need to do a little bit of work to get this up get this internally consistent and and comport with direction you've been getting from us tonight I don't have a problem with 2017 for program 26. What do you all think? This is for the housing for marine workers? I think that's a great one. Yeah. Yeah. |
| 01:52:38.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:52:39.62 | Unknown | Thank you. Yeah. |
| 01:52:43.68 | Joan | Local green regulations, I think we said by 2015, just to end this. And then the – that's program 28. Program 29. |
| 01:52:44.17 | Unknown | Go, go, green. |
| 01:52:55.83 | Joan | I think we changed that 2015 to 2015 |
| 01:53:03.27 | Ray | and therefore remove end of. |
| 01:53:07.65 | Joan | What? |
| 01:53:08.20 | Ray | and therefore remove end of. |
| 01:53:10.23 | Joan | Yes, remove end of. |
| 01:53:11.93 | Ray | So it's just in 2015. |
| 01:53:13.57 | Joan | Yeah. in instead of by end of 2014, just in 2015. Right. Then for $30,000... |
| 01:53:20.35 | Ray | Or by 2015, one of the other. |
| 01:53:23.68 | Joan | For 30, You have ongoing and then provide public review. So there's a typo in the timeframe. So I think ongoing comes out. |
| 01:53:35.24 | Karen Warner | Right. |
| 01:53:39.86 | Joan | And then the Staff Affordable Housing Training and Education, you have beginning, that's program 33. You have beginning in 2015. I don't know what plans you have to start training staff in 2015. But if staff has that underway, that's fine with me. But I don't know what, I don't know if that's an accurate statement right there. |
| 01:54:04.75 | Tom | Well, |
| 01:54:05.44 | Jim | We're going to be adding a lot more staff, and they're going to have to be trained in this. So I think that's one of the ones that's pretty basic. We know we're going to do that. |
| 01:54:12.88 | Joan | Okay, and that is it for chapter two. |
| 01:54:14.03 | Jim | Yeah, I would agree with that. |
| 01:54:15.79 | Ray | Thank you. |
| 01:54:15.82 | Jim | Thank you. |
| 01:54:15.84 | Ray | Thank you. |
| 01:54:16.02 | Jim | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:54:18.11 | Joan | Okay, Lily's breathing a big sigh of relief. Thank you. I'm sorry, this is what we were charged to do. All right, so do you want to take public comment? Do you want to take a break? |
| 01:54:30.74 | Ray | Yeah, do you get what you asked for? We'll be right back. |
| 01:54:35.99 | Joan | And should we talk about how long we're going to go? We're already at 8.30. |
| 01:54:39.55 | Ray | Yeah. And we need to take public comment. We need to take public comment. Let's just stand back a second and ask Lily and the consultants, where are we, and what's your estimate of what we need to do? And from us, how much comments do you think we've got on the rest of the text? |
| 01:54:41.03 | Joan | And we need to take public conference. |
| 01:54:59.41 | Joan | So I will say my comments are much reduced for chapters. They get a lot reduced, don't they? Three and four. |
| 01:55:02.95 | Ray | Chapters 3 and 4. |
| 01:55:06.01 | Unknown | And we should plug it. It was locked here. |
| 01:55:08.22 | Ray | No, I definitely want to slog through it, but... Thank you. |
| 01:55:11.56 | Joan | I have maybe 10 comments for all of chapters 3 and 4. |
| 01:55:17.23 | Susan | I have very minor comments. Yeah. |
| 01:55:19.39 | Ray | Okay. Does anybody want to take a break? |
| 01:55:24.11 | Unknown | I'm good. Public comment then a break? Yeah. I want to hear what the public has here. |
| 01:55:26.53 | Ray | Yeah. |
| 01:55:27.03 | Joan | I want to hear the voice. Yeah. |
| 01:55:28.42 | Ray | I think this is a good time for public comment as we've got through the meat of this. We'll have a public comment, a very short break, and we'll then commit to finish as efficiently as we can. |
| 01:55:28.47 | Joan | you |
| 01:55:28.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:55:38.44 | Unknown | I'm finished. |
| 01:55:38.96 | City Clerk | Bye. |
| 01:55:39.05 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:55:39.11 | City Clerk | Yeah. |
| 01:55:41.90 | Ray | Okay, so I'm opening this up for public comment. Does any member of the public like to comment on our current draft? No, I'm a joke. |
| 01:55:53.22 | Joe Burns | Hello, Joe Burns, is that on? Joe Burns, Sausalito, Attorney Street, Sausalito. I'm just kind of in general on number 14 with the supporting developers. I know developers is a really, really bad word in city councils and city meetings, but when you create a VMU or an ordinance like 1224 that requires the conversion of commercial to residential in a single building of a mom and pop, you're creating a developer. And so developers aren't just the big conglomerates that come into towns and pad grade. They're also small business owners or individual property owners that are heavily impacted by an ordinance that can reduce their property value greatly by taking a commercial use and putting an affordable use on top of it. So having some type of fund other than the incentive program that could help is not a bad thing. And I think the word developers throws that off course but again developers aren't evil. They're mom and pops. They're out amongst us. So that's all generally. Thanks. |
| 01:57:04.69 | Unknown | Thank you. I mean, it could be property owners. |
| 01:57:07.17 | Ray | Thank you. |
| 01:57:08.37 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 01:57:08.38 | Joan | because you |
| 01:57:09.19 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:57:10.22 | Joan | It could be property owners instead of developers. I think we ended up taking out that sentence. And we are going to do a study to find out the nexus, so we'll have an opportunity to address this at a future time. |
| 01:57:21.07 | Ray | Yeah. Thanks for your comment, Joe. Any other member of the public? John. |
| 01:57:28.97 | City Clerk | I'm not sure. last time that's what got controversial was the number of units and where they were going to go this meeting was advertised as a one more opportunity for public input and i guess this is it i gotta tell you after two hours on on camera just droned out I mean, this is not really a public involvement process, and that's why you don't see anybody here. This thing was advertised essentially as we have an element, we had some excess, we got 79, we're probably just going to fine-tune our existing element and throw it in. But there's a lot of stuff going on. There's a lot of changes going on in this. You're not talking 79 units. You're talking 200 and something units. And yes, I take your point that a lot of this is just there. but it's not being explained to anybody. So if everybody goes back and they hear, oh, they're talking about VMU again, or they're talking about 200 and something units there's going to be a big outcry. |
| 01:58:32.22 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 01:58:33.10 | City Clerk | So I understand, but I hate to see this thing get to the city council and then explode again and see Riley Hurd representing a bunch of neighborhoods about defending themselves. You're not doing yourselves a favor here by not making this clear to a resident as to what is going on. If you dig through all of this, you probably can understand it. It doesn't help that you really don't understand what the excess is. I mean, I understand it was a block out, but I would hope that they could correct that and redistribute that page or send it back out to people so they can actually see what the excess is. Because this is where things got very, very emotional. And VMU in three letters that can create a riot, and you've got that going on and I wasn't aware that there was VMU legislation passed. I thought that all had been put on the back burner last time because of the not requirement because of the R3 substitution. So all of a sudden, we're talking VMU, which is a it's another whole bale, you know, ball of wax. So you're not doing yourselves any favors the way you're presenting this. You're presenting, this is what I would call a bureaucratic nightmare. It reminds me why I went into litigation and not contract law. Because this is, you know, just, it's horrific. But no one, I mean, if they had to listen to all this or go on for two hours, people were going to say, What did happen there? and you're not doing yourselves any favor when it ultimately gets to the rubber meat in the road, people are gonna once again feel like they've been surprised. I mean, the way this thing was advertised, We anticipate that due to the buffer was put in place in the last housing element The city will be able to show that we can accommodate the 79 units throughout program Which are already in place well you're talking new programs in some of these cases. I mean, maybe they're not consequential new programs. but they're new programs. And if you don't explain that to people early on, this workshop should be based on what do people want to hear, not necessarily what HCD is ultimately going to see from you. Thanks. |
| 02:01:06.52 | Ray | Thank you, John. We will take a break. I'd like to just make one comment about what you've just said. First of all, there is a public workshop on September 20th, which is a workshop. Tonight is not a workshop. Tonight is a committee meeting to give feedback to the consultants on the actual language of the draft element. and other than the program with regard to junior ADUs, which actually you suggested to the City Council back some months ago for consideration, that's the only new program here. |
| 02:01:14.07 | Unknown | I'm not. |
| 02:01:45.77 | Ray | There is no new program. Thank you. John, did you want to add anything? |
| 02:01:50.45 | Joan | and I'm not sure what you're doing. I feel responsible to the residents I've raised all kinds of new language that was added that I think was overly taxing of staff and the residents I mean, I would love a thank you for spending hours reading 250 single-spaced pages to be sure that this new housing element that will be in place for eight years and will govern the residents' development opportunities is appropriate and proper and comports with the previous direction that's been given to staff. And in fact, the staff has been I believe that there were some missteps in this and that we, through careful review and scrutiny, have identified those missteps. and I think it's a good thing. It's a good thing. Um... the revisions that are unnecessary or that add additional burdens to staff or to the residents, you know, that's the most challenging part of this evening for me. |
| 02:03:16.82 | Ray | Well, we're going to, Joe, do you want to quickly ask something? |
| 02:03:18.81 | Joe Burns | From someone who chose to be here to people who have to be here. Thank you. |
| 02:03:23.95 | Ray | Okay, we're going to take a couple-minute break, and we'll resume our deliberations. Thank you. |
| 02:03:36.09 | Ray | Okay, we are now on Chapter 3, I believe. |
| 02:03:43.51 | Jeff Bradley | Oh, yes, sorry, I'm not carrying back. Chapter 3 is the Housing Needs Summary. It's a fairly short. It's a fairly short chapter that describes existing and future housing needs. The future housing needs are memorialized through the regional housing need allocation process, which as we've discussed has yielded a number less than half of the previous RHNA we were dealing with. We have 79 units to plan for instead of 165. And this shows you the income category of extremely low and very low |
| 02:04:03.20 | City Clerk | HOUSE. |
| 02:04:27.69 | Jeff Bradley | Usually you see these numbers grouped together, but for this slide we broke it out. But in terms of RHNA, it's really 26 very low. Low is 14, moderate is 16, and above moderate is 23. And these are the corresponding income groups that we've talked about in the past. And this is our only slide for Chapter 11. Chapter 3. Jeff, can I just? |
| 02:04:56.11 | Ray | Jeff, can I just interrupt you a second? If you could go back, you made the comment that you normally see in the RHNA numbers are presented as very low, low, moderate. So where does the extremely low come from? And I notice it's only, is it, it's, so why have you broken it out right now? |
| 02:05:16.49 | Jeff Bradley | Extremely low, by definition, is 50% of the very low category. So in our other tables, you'll see the 26 here for very low. And so when you see that, you know that, okay, half of that is actually extremely low. But the wrinkle here is that you don't actually have to provide capacity units or opportunity site units for the extremely low. You just have to provide supportive policies, such as that fee reduction for the extremely low, you just have to provide supportive policies such as that fee reduction for the extremely low income units. |
| 02:05:46.53 | Ray | Okay, got it. Yeah, I understand. Thank you. |
| 02:05:49.70 | Jeff Bradley | . |
| 02:05:49.75 | Ray | Thank you. |
| 02:05:49.79 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 02:05:49.82 | Ray | Thank you. |
| 02:05:51.59 | Jeff Bradley | Chapter 4 is the Housing Resources Chapter. And this shows what we've been talking about previously tonight with the RHNA targets, with what we're able to show through our residential sites strategy, which includes the infill strategy, which I calculated tonight is 73% of all of our units is in the infill strategy, if you look at both the residential and commercial sites. And then the remainder is the liveaboards and the ADUs. |
| 02:06:31.16 | Jeff Bradley | And the Appendix A is very factual. It's just updated to reflect the new data that we have for population employment, housing conditions, household characteristics, housing costs, and special needs housing within the community. Appendix B is the housing constraints. This has been updated to reflect the new VMU requirements the city adopted, the new density bonus ordinance, the ADU regulations that have seen a lot of success and utilization from the community, and the adopted emergency housing ordinance. no changes to the vacant and underutilized sites, inventory. In terms of evaluation of the accomplishments of the city under the existing housing element, we assessed the 34 programs as required and pointed out those things that the city has already done, such as the density bonus, the emergency shelter ordinance, reasonable accommodation ordinance, and the vertical mixed use. In terms of progress within the previous planning period, we were able to show The goal is a restatement of the RHNA simply, and in the progress we were able to show about a third, about 30 percent of the RHNA was actually either built or under construction. And then for the conservation objectives, we're simply identifying existing housing resources within the community in the different income categories and the fact that all of them have maintained their status as affordable housing. No changes to the glossary. Didn't invent any new acronyms as much as we wanted to. And Appendix G is the site inventory. Also no changes. This is the detailed matrix table of a site inventory at the very end of the document. |
| 02:08:25.97 | Ray | Can I just... Question you on that. Didn't we re-examine the filters and decide to add our ebtite site, and so there is a change? |
| 02:08:41.90 | Jeff Bradley | Well, we viewed that as a non-change because we adopted that and recertified it. Fair enough. Yeah, fair enough. My mistake, my mistake. |
| 02:08:43.15 | Unknown | It was the 40th. |
| 02:08:44.04 | Jim | I'm going to be at 39. |
| 02:08:47.60 | Ray | Fair enough. Fair enough. My mistake, my mistake. Well done. |
| 02:08:51.53 | Jim | Yeah. |
| 02:08:51.56 | Jeff Bradley | Bye. |
| 02:08:51.58 | Jim | Bye. |
| 02:08:51.77 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 02:08:51.85 | Jim | Thank you. |
| 02:08:51.89 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 02:08:51.99 | Jim | Thank you. |
| 02:08:52.09 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 02:08:52.10 | Jim | What did we do with Butte? |
| 02:08:52.93 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. Butte we left on because we had that discussion. I can't remember if it was in front of this body or the council. It was in front of the city council. It was in front of the city council about how there's a lot of movement out there and a lot of discussion, but nothing has actually changed about that site. The zoning is still the same. And the staff and consultants position was to keep it on until something concrete causes it to be removed. To add a little bit. |
| 02:09:01.27 | Joan | It was in front of the city council. |
| 02:09:18.77 | Ray | To add a little bit of color to that, I think at the City Council meeting we did ask the question whether it was appropriate to consider taking it out for this new element. |
| 02:09:19.71 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. Sorry, Tom. Go ahead. |
| 02:09:30.97 | Joan | No, I thought that the discussion was whether, so the request by Councilmember Pfeiffer was to take it out of the 2009 to 2014 element. Correct. |
| 02:09:40.57 | Ray | Correct. |
| 02:09:41.26 | Joan | Which totally we knew that it wasn't going to change status in that time frame, and therefore it was entirely appropriate not to remove it. Correct. |
| 02:09:49.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:09:49.04 | Ray | Correct. |
| 02:09:49.56 | Joan | But I don't think a discussion was had, or if it was, I didn't hear it, regarding this |
| 02:09:53.85 | Ray | No, it wasn't. All I heard was a question from a number of other council members of should we consider it for the new element, taking it out for the new element? with no conclusion. |
| 02:10:07.08 | Joan | And my feedback would be, yes, do take it out, because we definitely – have a goal of removing it. from at the city council has already expressed. and intention to ultimately remove it. So I feel as though because that will happen in the next eight years, it is disingenuous to continue to include it in the site's inventory. Thank you. |
| 02:10:31.52 | Jim | I think. I'd like to ask. Do you guys need us to pause a minute? |
| 02:10:34.65 | Joan | Do you guys need us to pause a minute? |
| 02:10:37.49 | Jim | Because, you know, my view is if we should keep it in to have an integrity of the element, I'd like to keep it in. Because it makes no difference to the property. I don't want to do it for political reasons. But if there, you know, so I would like to know why it's in there. And what is the appropriate thing to do, listed or not listed? |
| 02:10:48.51 | City Clerk | you |
| 02:10:54.90 | Jeff Bradley | I'm not sure. The Butte Street property is zoned R-2-5, which is one of the lower density zoning districts right below R-1 in terms of the hierarchy from dense to least dense. And it yields a maximum of 16 units based on our analysis. Our above moderate, RENA is 23. And within our total inventory, we only have 35 above-moderate units. So if we took the... Let me double check my math here. 39. |
| 02:11:36.33 | Joan | We've always been told that wasn't, well anyway, continue. I'm sorry. I don't want to interrupt you. |
| 02:11:43.28 | Ray | Yeah, but Jeff, while you're doing your math... It would... We have so much of a buffer in the lower, you can carry them forward-upper. That's right. You can do it the opposite way. Correct. So we have a huge buffer for moderate. |
| 02:11:50.66 | Jeff Bradley | That's right. And do it the opposite way. Correct. So we have a huge buffer for moderate. I wanted to point out you'd have 19 moderate units where you need 23. However, we have a very large buffer in the moderate that we could use to cover that. Bye. |
| 02:12:06.22 | Susan | Because it's not a site that's in the default density. |
| 02:12:09.95 | Jeff Bradley | Right. It's not in the default density for the low income categories or for the moderate income categories. |
| 02:12:16.63 | Joan | I just think since it is the intention to remove it in this cycle, We know that. City Council has already stated that. I was all in favor of keeping it in the last element. but I'm equally for the same reasons because we don't ultimately intend that it be utilized towards this site's inventory. We know that's the direction that City Council has given, then it's not appropriate to include it in the |
| 02:12:42.06 | Jim | I'm not so certain that we made a definitive decision on it. I mean, but... No, we didn't make a decision. We didn't. I mean, I think you're saying that they expressed their intention. I'm not sure. No, there was no intention. It was with considerate. Right. And now, having said that, I just want to get clear where I think the Council's intention was. If we, we might want to consider it here because if we don't need it, |
| 02:12:47.78 | Joan | No. |
| 02:12:48.59 | Ray | We didn't make a decision. No, there was no intention. Right. |
| 02:13:05.87 | Jim | and it's a political issue and it's appropriate to keep it off. I don't want to do, you know, we talk about, well, if the intention is to, I have it the... land, that's the wrong intention. On the other hand, if we're listing all kinds of properties and we take it off, that also might not be appropriate. So I'd like the guidance. If it's a discretionary thing, let's take it off earlier than later, I think. Yeah, because you don't. And then why fight the political battle? Exactly. |
| 02:13:27.23 | Ray | Yeah, because you don't... Yeah. Exactly. I think the one discussion we did have in front of some audience, I can't remember which one, a rationale for, there was very clear that we shouldn't take it off for the last element. Right. I mean, that's a given because of, you know, the timing, where we were, |
| 02:13:45.56 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:13:51.15 | Ray | Um... But I do recall some discussion at one meeting where I think it was Karen actually who suggested that there is a rationale for taking it off in the new element which would be because of the joint ownership or the partial ownership that could be a sufficient enough constraint that there's a justification for taking it off which doesn't apply to any of the other things. |
| 02:14:17.49 | Jim | Yep. Thank you. Because we don't want to set a precedent that just because someone doesn't like it, |
| 02:14:20.04 | Ray | event. |
| 02:14:22.96 | Jim | on the list that we're going to take it off. It lists all the properties unless there's a reason not |
| 02:14:24.83 | Ray | It's really important. It's really important that we don't start messing around with the sites inventory and appear arbitrary and just respond in some political pressure. But this is different. This is different because of the joint ownership and the constraints to the development. |
| 02:14:33.59 | Jim | I agree. |
| 02:14:34.31 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 02:14:42.77 | Ray | because of that. |
| 02:14:45.22 | Jim | Jeff, do you agree with that? |
| 02:14:47.95 | Jeff Bradley | Yeah, I don't think that would cause any upset. I don't think that would cause any upset for the new element. |
| 02:14:55.76 | Jim | No, I mean, having said that, |
| 02:14:55.80 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 02:14:58.78 | Jim | Can we do it at this committee or? We could make a recommendation. |
| 02:15:00.71 | Ray | We could make a recommendation. This is a city council thing, I think, really. We could make a recommendation or we could. |
| 02:15:03.71 | Jim | Yeah. |
| 02:15:04.39 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 02:15:04.49 | Jim | We'll be right back. |
| 02:15:04.54 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 02:15:04.67 | Jim | Make a recommendation or we can. |
| 02:15:06.44 | Joan | Planning Commission will look at it and then City Council will look at it. |
| 02:15:06.78 | Jim | the planning commission will look at it. Well, but before we get to work, maybe we should take it off the list. That's our – because we're making edits. We should take it off the list at this point and then – As a recommendation. As a recommendation. |
| 02:15:15.93 | Joan | As a recommended red line. It'll show as a red line. And perhaps you include it in your summary overview that you did for us tonight so that we're not hiding the ball on anything. |
| 02:15:18.88 | Jim | Red line. |
| 02:15:27.55 | Ray | Lily, do you guys have a view on this? |
| 02:15:35.01 | Lily | Thank you. |
| 02:15:35.03 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 02:15:35.06 | Lily | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:15:35.25 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 02:15:35.37 | Lily | Without a person. |
| 02:15:35.70 | Joan | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:15:35.79 | Lily | you |
| 02:15:35.84 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 02:15:39.11 | Joan | Okay, so do we want specific feedback on Chapters 3 and 4? |
| 02:15:42.19 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:15:42.59 | Joan | Okay, so I'm gonna disclose for the record, |
| 02:15:45.97 | Unknown | and I'm going to be |
| 02:15:46.03 | Joan | Appendix D is all new. There's no red line because it's a brand new appendix because it's a report on what has happened. I have not thoroughly reviewed Appendix D. I promised to do that before our next meeting, I have not. I was just exhausted by the time I got through all this. in appendix A It's largely factual. I had one issue in a footnote on page A13. I'm going a little backwards just to get rid of the appendices and then I'll do chapters. Page A, it's appendix A, page 13. |
| 02:16:17.49 | Unknown | I'm sorry. CHAPTERS. SHELTER SILVERMANN. CHAPTERS. |
| 02:16:24.59 | Joan | It's, |
| 02:16:33.30 | Joan | Okay, this is the bottom of the page underneath the table. |
| 02:16:38.12 | Jim | It's a |
| 02:16:41.52 | Joan | It's A-13, page A-13. |
| 02:16:42.09 | Jim | . 13. |
| 02:16:43.98 | Ray | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:16:46.60 | Jim | Thank you. |
| 02:16:46.65 | Ray | Thank you. . on your iPad. Tom, that's 105, 104 of Tutupa. |
| 02:17:03.25 | Tom | Thank you. |
| 02:17:03.27 | Ray | Yeah, that's easy. |
| 02:17:04.16 | Tom | Thank you. . |
| 02:17:05.95 | Ray | Thank you. |
| 02:17:05.97 | Tom | I'm on 104. |
| 02:17:07.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:17:07.50 | Joan | Okay, so underneath that table, |
| 02:17:09.53 | Tom | Okay. |
| 02:17:10.86 | Joan | Okay, there's a sentence here that just, again, struck me oddly. During the past decade, Sausalito has seen a net loss in over 400 multifamily units in small properties with two to four units and an increase in over 400 single family attached units. I've been on the Planning Commission for six years. I don't see how that statement is factually possible. And it. Completely, we have not lost... 400 multifamily units in housing stock. I have no idea where that statistic came from. But, and even if we think we have extrinsic evidence for it, I think it's a huge In Lightning Rod, I see no reason to include this fact, even if it is true, which I don't believe it is. |
| 02:18:00.04 | Jim | Well, where did it come from? Let's back up and say, |
| 02:18:02.80 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 02:18:02.84 | Karen Warner | Thank you. So... |
| 02:18:03.83 | Jim | where to come. |
| 02:18:03.87 | Karen Warner | Thank you. where to come from. If you look at the table on the next page, it a late that and and Um, It's... from the comparison of the 2000 census and the 2010 census. And so if you look at the table, it you know it shows this Um, THIS. increase and attach single family From 423 in 2000 to 824 in 2010. And then, At the same time, if you look under multifamily, under two to four units, |
| 02:18:47.84 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 02:18:48.03 | Lily | it. |
| 02:18:48.26 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 02:18:48.75 | Karen Warner | it shows a decrease from 1353 in 2000 to 900 in 2010. So what we're saying is we have to include this data here. It's required to include the breakdown of your housing unit. Um, Housing stock by Unit Mix. |
| 02:19:08.58 | City Clerk | Isn't it, Nick? |
| 02:19:09.65 | Karen Warner | But clearly there's miscategorization going on. And so that's essentially what we're saying in the narrative is that you know, There's been some... you know, recategorizing between the censuses of multi-family, two to four, into a tax. |
| 02:19:31.80 | Susan | Yeah, if you look at the, there's a star under. I see, I know. |
| 02:19:35.33 | Joan | I see. I know. I saw it. We say it's recategorization by Department of Finance. I think we have to go further than we have in this... First of all, We didn't explain the table in the prior element. If you look at the red lines, why do we have to explain the table? Why can't we just put the table and put the footnote? We don't have to call out in our narrative The fact that this, table shows this remarkable change and we think it's because of recategorization. Just leave the language that was there before that says table A7 below shows the details and summarizes the change in housing types. |
| 02:20:15.81 | Ray | I mean, even if you... that to make the statements as if it's fact when it's due to reclassification is just misleading and plain wrong. |
| 02:20:28.87 | Unknown | to do. |
| 02:20:30.00 | Ray | I mean, it's just wrong. |
| 02:20:31.29 | Joan | And it's going to, you know, we already have huge sensitivity over our quote unquote low stock of multifamily housing to announce to HCD in the way that this narrative does that we've had a net loss of 400 puts a a bullseye on us, I feel like. |
| 02:20:50.63 | Ray | Well, it's a misleaning statement. Yes. |
| 02:20:52.13 | Joan | Yes. |
| 02:20:52.97 | Ray | Because the only reason you're making that statement is due to reclassification. But in making the statement, you don't state it's due to reclassification. It's completely misleading. |
| 02:21:03.05 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:21:04.70 | Karen Warner | So you think it's better if we just take the narrative out and just let the footnote on the table kind of speak for itself? |
| 02:21:12.51 | Joan | Yeah. |
| 02:21:13.48 | Susan | Thank you. |
| 02:21:13.56 | Unknown | That's it. |
| 02:21:13.73 | Karen Warner | Okay, that's fine. |
| 02:21:13.76 | Susan | I'm sorry. |
| 02:21:13.96 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:21:16.17 | Joan | Okay, that was my only comment on Appendix A. |
| 02:21:16.44 | Karen Warner | That was my... |
| 02:21:19.28 | Joan | Most of the rest, as Jeff said, looked very, looked very factual to me. So... I didn't have. That was the thing that jumped out at me. |
| 02:21:40.20 | Joan | Okay. The one other thing I had an issue with was advertising the number of foreclosures. in Sausalito. Again, I'm not sure that we have to advertise the fact I think the Marin Journal thing is fine. But I don't think we need to say that RealityTrack shows 10 properties in Sausalito or in pre-foreclosure. I don't know what that accomplishes. |
| 02:22:07.69 | Karen Warner | What page are you on? |
| 02:22:08.71 | Joan | Page A-36. Sorry. Sorry. |
| 02:22:29.48 | Joan | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:22:29.70 | Tom | PAY. |
| 02:22:30.04 | Joan | later from the year. From 105, so it's like 125. |
| 02:22:31.00 | Tom | Thank you. The Press- I'm sorry, I'm on E9. |
| 02:22:35.42 | Joan | Maybe. This is A36 that I'm talking about. |
| 02:22:38.96 | Tom | Oh, I jumped ahead a little bit, looking at this. |
| 02:22:43.39 | Ray | is... |
| 02:22:43.92 | Tom | Yeah. |
| 02:22:44.33 | Ray | Thank you. Is there a response needed? Thank you. |
| 02:22:48.25 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 02:22:48.26 | Ray | from |
| 02:22:48.28 | Karen Warner | from. |
| 02:22:49.61 | Ray | I mean... |
| 02:22:50.42 | Karen Warner | So you'd like to strike that sentence? |
| 02:22:54.18 | Joan | If we have to, I see that foreclosure seems to be a required category, so I think Um. You know, the first sentence, the first paragraph is much more general. This specific thing about ten properties in Sausalito are in various states of foreclosure. I just don't know why that's necessary. |
| 02:23:15.06 | Jim | It's... Temporal statement, and it's a current statement. |
| 02:23:19.95 | Jeff Bradley | Is that required, Karen, to report? |
| 02:23:20.14 | Joan | request. |
| 02:23:20.44 | Jim | All right. |
| 02:23:20.48 | Joan | All right, Karen. |
| 02:23:20.97 | Unknown | THE CASE. |
| 02:23:21.47 | Karen Warner | I mean, maybe if we put it in the context. |
| 02:23:21.71 | Jim | Thank you. |
| 02:23:23.92 | Karen Warner | of, you know, it's a very small percentage of your overall ownership housing. Because usually, you know, we're We're presenting the regional situation, then we're presenting the local data. |
| 02:23:37.91 | Joan | But in the last housing element, we only talked about Marin County. We didn't specifically talk about Sausalito. So I don't know why we have to... |
| 02:23:47.53 | Karen Warner | Thank you. I'm just saying usually you like to include the local information, but if you'd rather strike it, that's fine. I'm sorry. |
| 02:23:56.03 | Lily | I see a reference to Sausalito in the Shirkout text. Oh, I see. |
| 02:24:01.53 | Joan | Oh, I see. Five occurred. 205 in Marin County, five of which in Sausalito. Yeah. I WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE |
| 02:24:17.65 | Susan | I don't feel strongly about it. I think it's fine to keep it in. I mean, it's a fact. But I really don't feel strongly about it. |
| 02:24:26.58 | Jim | Yeah, it's not necessarily a murder. |
| 02:24:31.35 | Ray | I can go either way. Again, is it necessary? If it's necessary, keep it in. If it's factually, as long as it's factually correct, fine. But if it's not, not necessarily. |
| 02:24:38.74 | Jim | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:24:39.43 | Joan | I mean, it includes pre-foreclosure, which varies from day to day. So, you know, pre-foreclosure is you're two months late. So people get up to speed, you know. So by the time we publish that, this, that number could very well be wrong. |
| 02:24:40.63 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:24:40.78 | Jim | Thank you. |
| 02:24:40.97 | Unknown | and, |
| 02:24:41.19 | Jim | It includes. |
| 02:24:41.90 | Ray | Thank you. |
| 02:24:41.93 | Jim | Thank you. |
| 02:24:41.97 | Tom | Yeah. |
| 02:24:42.12 | Ray | Thank you. |
| 02:24:56.82 | Jim | And I just can't see, you know, this is an eight-year document, and it's one point in time about foreclosures on a website. I don't see the necessity myself. |
| 02:25:09.83 | Ray | Okay. Before you go on, I want to go backwards. I have a comment on page A14 going on to 15, and there's, I think, another reference to it is elsewhere, which I can't find. |
| 02:25:09.86 | Jim | Okay. |
| 02:25:12.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:25:20.24 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:25:20.51 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 02:25:25.37 | Ray | So this is the bottom of page 14b, age and condition of the housing stock. and We've got Sausalito's housing stock is old, approximately 83% of the month. More than 50% were built before 1960. So more than 50% of the homes in Sausalito were built before the 1970s major change in building codes and seismic regulations, etc. Then we go on and say on... under the tables on page 15 despite the advance age of the Hausenstock The general condition of the units is very good. you into ongoing repairs, maintenance, rehabilitation, and reconstruction. What? What data do we have to justify that statement? |
| 02:26:23.55 | Ray | That would imply that we have basically upgraded a vast majority of the 50% of the homes that were built that are over 50 years old. |
| 02:26:38.20 | Joan | that's why i'm at the planning commission still midnight every week i mean |
| 02:26:41.66 | Ray | I mean, even if you extrapolate, even if you counted up the number of building permits, you'd never end up with that number. So where did that data come from to actually validly make that statement? |
| 02:26:53.08 | Jim | Which one? Say that again. The statement is on just before. Yeah, despite is in very good condition. |
| 02:26:54.03 | Ray | So the statement is on just before |
| 02:26:59.31 | Joan | Thank you. Yeah. |
| 02:26:59.53 | Jim | Thank you. |
| 02:27:00.29 | Joan | even though half... half is over 50 years old and |
| 02:27:05.42 | Ray | years old. Yeah. |
| 02:27:07.12 | Joan | Another 25% is even older than that. |
| 02:27:08.31 | Ray | Yeah. Right. |
| 02:27:11.06 | Joan | pre-1940s. |
| 02:27:16.41 | Jeff Bradley | We're not sure where it came from. I've come from the original document that the staff and the committee had worked on that we folded into some of the appendices. However, when we were doing the sites analysis, we had access to all of the county data on a parcel by parcel basis. And all of the – not all of them, but the trend was that the improvement values were all fairly high. There wasn't a lot of buildings with low improvement values, which sometimes is a stand-in for properties that are just in really bad shape. And I think also in talking to Lily and Jeremy and the building department, just the sheer volume of renovation over the years, maybe because the houses were so old to begin with, people have had to, by necessity, upgrade them. |
| 02:27:29.89 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 02:27:29.91 | Unknown | Thanks. |
| 02:27:30.19 | City Clerk | or something. |
| 02:28:05.68 | Jeff Bradley | Because on top of the 50% built before 1960, another 25% were built Before 1940. Before the 40s. So you have 75% of all the structures are just, you know, fairly old. I don't know. |
| 02:28:18.17 | Unknown | I don't remember. |
| 02:28:18.91 | Jim | No, I... But I have to say, when you look at this paragraph, the last sentence says, the city's building official has reported there are five dwellings in Sausalito, Thank you. that are in need of a parent Not currently under permit. what date and what, I mean what, I mean this is why more we call her a document with that. |
| 02:28:35.82 | Joan | Certainly we know there are more than five. And I personally wear more than five. |
| 02:28:38.96 | Jim | . I know it was there before. But it has no point in time for one. |
| 02:28:44.63 | Ray | Yeah. if it were relevant. DAVID B. Right. And if that was the case, if this is not red line, that was the case of the last element. So did we do anything about it? |
| 02:28:51.83 | Unknown | Yeah. about it. |
| 02:28:54.53 | Ray | Thank you. |
| 02:28:58.11 | Jeff Bradley | I think the point of that sentence is whether that was this year or five years ago, that's just a very low number. |
| 02:29:04.46 | Joan | Then let's say that, just say a very low percentage. |
| 02:29:08.18 | Jim | By the way, he doesn't know. |
| 02:29:08.20 | Lily | By the way, |
| 02:29:08.71 | Joan | Yeah. |
| 02:29:08.83 | Lily | Thank you. |
| 02:29:09.65 | Jim | Yeah. |
| 02:29:09.92 | Lily | Yeah. |
| 02:29:09.96 | Jim | Yeah. |
| 02:29:09.97 | Lily | Thank you. |
| 02:29:10.01 | Jim | Yeah. |
| 02:29:10.02 | Lily | Bye. |
| 02:29:10.04 | Jim | How does he know? |
| 02:29:10.65 | Lily | you Thank you. I think the intent also, my understanding, the intent of in need of repair is substantially in need of repair. Where you can't. The billy's official would go out and tie it or something. So does red tag. Well, I mean you've got. It doesn't make any sense. |
| 02:29:12.73 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 02:29:16.03 | Jeff Bradley | Thank you. |
| 02:29:19.29 | Jeff Bradley | where you can't. The delayed official would go out and |
| 02:29:20.99 | Joan | I mean, you've got, but again, we can sit here and call out some properties that probably should be red tagged. So, okay. All right. That's it for me on appendices, on the appendices for tonight. I will have comments on D. |
| 02:29:41.63 | Susan | Yeah, and I did not review Appendix D either, so. |
| 02:29:45.50 | Jim | in. you The Pressure on the Pressure on |
| 02:29:46.56 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 02:29:46.59 | Susan | So, |
| 02:29:46.91 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 02:29:50.78 | Susan | Thank you. |
| 02:29:50.80 | Joan | No, D is a report of what's already been done. |
| 02:29:53.97 | Jim | Thank you. |
| 02:29:56.08 | Joan | So it just says progress. So it doesn't have a lot of. |
| 02:30:00.41 | Jim | No, but it also talks about date, you'll see in here about things being done. I mean, I went through this and it was similar. |
| 02:30:09.32 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:30:09.80 | Jim | for example, it says here, if you look at 29, it says, yeah, I'm just pulling this as an example. It says progress. It says the Cal, the green building code will be incorporated in the local adoption of the |
| 02:30:14.99 | City Clerk | This is an example. |
| 02:30:16.02 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:30:22.74 | Jim | Uniform Construction Code by the end of 2014. |
| 02:30:25.22 | Joan | That's California. That's not us. That's the California Green Building Code. |
| 02:30:28.97 | Jim | Okay, but I think there are dates. Okay. Okay, we should just check this for now. |
| 02:30:30.91 | Joan | Okay. Okay. this for we'll check this so we you have our commitment to carefully review appendix d |
| 02:30:38.32 | Ray | And so then how are we getting feedback? |
| 02:30:41.10 | Joan | Well, we have another meeting, right? September 22th. But I'm happy to give it in writing too. |
| 02:30:49.30 | Susan | Yeah, I was going to say I think some of these comments could be you know, better conveyed in writing and others we need to discuss. I mean, I think |
| 02:31:01.10 | Joan | Lilly had wanted me to call out all the comments on the record. |
| 02:31:04.88 | Ray | Larry, could you explain what you explained? |
| 02:31:06.85 | Lily | Thank you. Thank you chair Cox I had actually forgotten at that point that we had scheduled this September 22nd meeting as a placeholder So if we're going to have that meeting and we can have the comments in advance that I can just Distribute to the full subcommittee and you can review them and sit and agree with them Then that's that's totally fine. What we can't do is have a subcommittee member give me comments and have me incorporate them Into the document without the subcommittee reviewing |
| 02:31:28.00 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 02:31:28.01 | Jim | Thank you. |
| 02:31:28.20 | City Clerk | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:31:29.45 | Jim | Thank you. |
| 02:31:29.68 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 02:31:33.70 | Jim | What? Now, would there be another reason to have the September 22nd meeting if we didn't have this? maybe we should just plow through it and get it done. Is there another reason to have that meeting? |
| 02:31:41.38 | Unknown | Maybe we should I want to hold it. |
| 02:31:47.01 | Jim | is I'd hate to have that meeting just for this, which shouldn't have too many problems because they're factual. I'd rather go. |
| 02:31:51.45 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:31:51.47 | Joan | There are three problems. |
| 02:31:53.42 | Jim | through it and get it done than have another meeting that's not necessary. |
| 02:31:57.12 | Joan | Can you distribute to us the comments to Appendix D online? and then we can respond if we have any objections to them. Keep in mind, this is going to go to the Planning Commission and to the City Council, so it's not like this subcommittee is making the decisions. |
| 02:32:16.54 | Lily | The decision by the subcommittee to incorporate XYZ changes needs to be made at a subcommittee meeting. Another reason to have the September 22nd meeting is to address issues from the Q&A. |
| 02:32:28.83 | Joan | Address issues from the... Exactly. |
| 02:32:30.33 | Lily | Exactly. Yeah, that happened this year. |
| 02:32:31.80 | Joan | Thank you. any more. We're going to have one anyway. |
| 02:32:33.23 | Tom | Thank you. |
| 02:32:33.27 | Lily | Thank you. |
| 02:32:33.30 | Tom | Thank you. |
| 02:32:33.32 | Lily | Thank you. |
| 02:32:33.40 | Tom | Thank you. |
| 02:32:33.69 | Joan | Okay. |
| 02:32:34.57 | Ray | So we're going to reserve comments for appendix. We can still provide stuff in advance. I will try in advance. |
| 02:32:40.30 | Joan | I will try and provide it in advance. |
| 02:32:42.35 | Ray | To make the meeting more efficient. |
| 02:32:43.43 | Joan | To make it more efficient. So I only have a few comments for chapters three and four that I think we should address tonight. to make sure we have consensus on the issue. |
| 02:32:53.11 | Ray | Yeah, Susan, did you have a comment you wanted to make? |
| 02:32:53.43 | Joan | Susan. Not the typo. |
| 02:32:54.46 | Susan | So, no i just so we will all distribute comments by a certain date and then at that meeting we can just say i have no issues with any fellow commissioner comments is that Thank you. |
| 02:33:09.31 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:33:09.40 | Susan | Okay. |
| 02:33:09.43 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:33:10.73 | Susan | That's great. Okay. And if I think if I have anything that's substantive, I'll just flag it in my communication to Lily, different from any typographical. And do we have a date that we need to get those comments if the meeting is on the 22nd? |
| 02:33:29.61 | Lily | Let me look at the calendar and get back to you at the end of the meeting. |
| 02:33:36.09 | Joan | So I'm just going to do substantive comments in chapters three and four. Page 3-2. Table 3.1. |
| 02:33:44.36 | Tom | I'll be there. |
| 02:33:55.84 | Susan | So we're not doing typographical errors. |
| 02:33:57.84 | Joan | No. |
| 02:33:59.21 | Susan | You can, if you want. I mean, now that we're. |
| 02:34:01.44 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 02:34:04.34 | Susan | I do want to get through all our comments on chapter three and four. tonight or? I have very few of any nature, so maybe we should just. |
| 02:34:10.70 | Ray | May I have a... |
| 02:34:11.19 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:13.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:13.03 | Joan | of any nature. |
| 02:34:15.07 | Ray | No, let's just plow through and do that. 3-2. Let's do everything. |
| 02:34:16.15 | Susan | Thank you. |
| 02:34:16.19 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 02:34:16.25 | Susan | Thank you. |
| 02:34:16.29 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 02:34:16.32 | Susan | Bye. |
| 02:34:16.36 | Joan | Bye. |
| 02:34:16.41 | Susan | 2-2. |
| 02:34:16.93 | Joan | Yeah. |
| 02:34:16.95 | Susan | Thank you. |
| 02:34:16.96 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 02:34:17.23 | Susan | Thank you. |
| 02:34:17.28 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 02:34:17.30 | Susan | We'll see you next time. |
| 02:34:17.98 | Joan | All right, on 3-1, in the third paragraph, |
| 02:34:28.14 | Ray | No, I'm not there. |
| 02:34:29.03 | Joan | Well, in the second paragraph, the age breakdown of, I should say, the community's population |
| 02:34:36.34 | Ray | 51. |
| 02:34:37.84 | Unknown | Thank you. THE END OF |
| 02:34:39.17 | Ray | I'm showing you. |
| 02:34:39.26 | Joan | I'm showing you. Okay, it's 51 on your thing. |
| 02:34:39.95 | Tom | Okay. YOURSELF. Thank you. I'm just going to do this a whole lot. |
| 02:34:44.08 | Joan | And then in the next paragraph, it says 4581 of Sausalito's, that T.O. needs to come out, 7,061 residents. third lying down, Second paragraph. The word to, T-O. comes out. And Susan, you had something on that? |
| 02:35:03.03 | Susan | That was that. |
| 02:35:04.00 | Joan | Oh, okay. |
| 02:35:04.70 | Susan | Yeah. |
| 02:35:05.36 | Joan | Then on the next page, 3-2, Thank you. in the first column of the first table, There are changes in the percentages, but no changes in the raw data. That did not make sense to me. |
| 02:35:25.39 | Joan | So, Existing housing needs in Sausalito, Table 3.1, Everything is redlined except the first column of data I know that we've had a change from our last housing element in owner-occupied and renter-occupied units But this data reflects no change. |
| 02:35:51.58 | Lily | Karen, do we need to look at that and get back to the subcommittee? |
| 02:35:54.92 | Karen Warner | that |
| 02:35:57.79 | Lily | Was it a yes? |
| 02:35:59.21 | Karen Warner | Yes, I'll need to look at that. |
| 02:36:00.95 | Lily | Okay. |
| 02:36:01.42 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 02:36:01.44 | Lily | Thank you. |
| 02:36:06.85 | Joan | on page 3-7. You are counting junior accessory dwelling units, but we're not going to adopt that program right now. So the reference in the second paragraph on page 3-7, should probably eliminate the reference to junior accessory dwelling units. |
| 02:36:32.88 | Jim | Well, we do, we're going to have, |
| 02:36:37.18 | Joan | Well, it says... A program but without much... This says, our housing element sets forth several programs which seek. We're going to explore... |
| 02:36:37.45 | Jim | A program but without much teeth. This says, |
| 02:36:45.83 | Joan | the junior housing but it's not currently a program |
| 02:36:49.13 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:36:49.45 | Joan | because we're not adopting it right now. |
| 02:36:58.98 | Susan | Wait. Okay. Have you gone to page 3-5 yet? Yeah, go ahead. That's the page that also discusses the housing adequacy that Ray had brought up. So it uses the exact same language on page... |
| 02:37:07.15 | Joan | Okay. |
| 02:37:16.51 | Joan | on page. you. Yeah, so page 3-5, the same investigation that you're going to do with respect to Appendix A, will apply to these paragraphs on 3-5 regarding the age and adequacy of Sausalito's current housing stock. |
| 02:37:40.06 | Susan | the |
| 02:37:40.22 | Joan | sense |
| 02:37:40.76 | Susan | you And then I had another comment on that page, 3-5. The struck out language says that there was overcrowding in 52 households. that were renter households and nine owner households. So 61 at some point in time, 2,000. And the new language says there are currently 15 overcrowded housing units in Sausalito, all of which are owner-occupied. That just seemed like such a big change to me. I didn't understand it. So I just wanted to verify that that current information is correct. |
| 02:38:16.24 | Karen Warner | Right. It's the... It's the American Community Survey which is unfortunately just a sampling, so the data is somewhat suspect, but that's the best data we have. And it only shows 50. in overcrowded households in Sausalito, all of which are owners, all of which were identified as severely overcrowded with more than 1.5 persons per room. |
| 02:38:44.55 | Joan | How about if we added a footnote describing the challenges of this data and the fact that it is a sampling. |
| 02:38:54.12 | Susan | Yeah, that's fine. It seemed really strange to me. But thank you for the explanation. And a footnote would be fine. It would be good. |
| 02:39:01.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:39:08.65 | Joan | All right, I'm up to page... |
| 02:39:15.52 | Joan | Well, I'm done with Chapter 3, unless anyone else has other comments on Chapter 3. |
| 02:39:21.20 | Unknown | Mm-mm. |
| 02:39:21.58 | Joan | Thank you. Okay. |
| 02:39:23.65 | Susan | Okay. Thank you. |
| 02:39:24.38 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 02:39:24.44 | Susan | No, I'm good. |
| 02:39:25.03 | Joan | Thank you. Okay, not many comments on Chapter 4. |
| 02:39:32.21 | Joan | You've already picked up on the comment I had on the table on page 4-4, which is that the buffer numbers are all crossed out. So this table was difficult to read as redlined. And this is the other place that I believe we should explain why Sausalito Yacht Harbor Footnote 1 talks about the increased live aboard capacity in Sausalito Yacht Harbor, but when I read it I said, well, why not Pelican Harbor? So this is another place where I think that explanation that the Pelican Harbor increased, the Pelican Harbor CUP numbers have already been counted. |
| 02:40:25.26 | Joan | Did we lose Karen? |
| 02:40:28.96 | Jeff Bradley | Can you there? |
| 02:40:30.86 | Karen Warner | Yes. |
| 02:40:31.54 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:40:31.57 | Karen Warner | I'm sorry. |
| 02:40:31.64 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:40:31.66 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 02:40:31.76 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:40:31.77 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 02:40:31.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:40:31.86 | Karen Warner | and |
| 02:40:32.74 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:40:33.26 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 02:40:33.29 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:40:33.31 | Karen Warner | Do you, I think, I can certainly add it in the footnote. I think it might make more sense in the narrative. of the liveaboards under this section. |
| 02:40:43.62 | Joan | OK, that's fine with me. |
| 02:40:45.65 | Karen Warner | Thank you. I think, you know, because the table footnotes are really just to say this is what these numbers represent. |
| 02:40:53.19 | Joan | Yeah. |
| 02:40:53.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:40:54.18 | Karen Warner | to explain why certain other things weren't counted. |
| 02:40:58.05 | Joan | That's fine with me. |
| 02:40:59.50 | Karen Warner | Okay. |
| 02:41:00.01 | Joan | Thank you. On page 4-7, the first bullet. describes your site survey and you say parcels of 40 percent average slope or more were excluded, well that number actually changed to 39 percent or more because we included the ebb tide site. |
| 02:41:21.29 | Karen Warner | Look at the footnote on the bottom of the page. |
| 02:41:24.53 | Joan | Oh, okay. |
| 02:41:25.28 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:41:27.67 | Joan | Okay, perfect. |
| 02:41:29.05 | Unknown | you |
| 02:41:31.87 | Joan | Perfect. Why did that not, oh, I didn't see it. Yeah, I just didn't see that. Okay, perfect. I guess I got distracted by the pictures. Okay. |
| 02:41:39.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:41:39.88 | Joan | And then on page 4-9, It says, in July 2014, City Council adopted the following provisions. to implement the VMU program, but I thought we didn't actually, oh, I guess it was July 2014, yeah, okay. But the same typo, so this is where that language was repeated, Karen, describing |
| 02:42:03.81 | Karen Warner | Right, right. And I think it's also repeated under the constraint, so all three sections will be consistent on whatever changes we make. |
| 02:42:12.65 | Joan | Yeah. |
| 02:42:16.48 | Joan | Okay, and then on page 4-11, |
| 02:42:29.31 | Joan | uh... it says at the very bottom we talk about that Only that liveaboard capacity not previously counted can be credited towards the city's 2015-2023 RHNA. I, this is a place where I said we should add one more sentence explaining that and the other thing that we have to do not. the granting of a CUP can result in counting of liveaboards. Just that explanation here, too, Karen. |
| 02:43:17.84 | Joan | and you do a good, on page 4-15, you have asterisks in the table 4-4.4. You have asterisks next to Schoonmaker and Clipper and say, The unused liveaboard capacity in these two marinas has been counted and cannot therefore be counted in 2015. But isn't that also true of Pelican Harbor? |
| 02:43:52.37 | Karen Warner | I think I... I corrected myself earlier, Joan, and I probably didn't say it more I need to clarify. Tell us can... It can't be counted because |
| 02:44:08.50 | Joan | you |
| 02:44:10.17 | Karen Warner | It doesn't have the local CUP, so it has not been counted previously. |
| 02:44:15.74 | Joan | But you said we can't count it even when it gets the CUP. |
| 02:44:21.12 | Karen Warner | Yes. |
| 02:44:21.41 | Joan | Thank you. So I think we need a different asterisk explaining why. |
| 02:44:25.90 | Karen Warner | Okay. |
| 02:44:27.42 | Joan | That's my point. |
| 02:44:28.77 | Karen Warner | Right. It probably wouldn't go here because this is talking about future additional liveaboard capacity. And so that last column. you know, the thirty-one in Sausalito yacht we are counting Instagram. Schumacher and Klipper are the only other two that have future liveaboard capacity. They've already been counted, therefore they're not being counted again. So what you're referring to is going to go in the prior section somewhere where it's talking about existing liveaboard. |
| 02:45:04.88 | Joan | Okay, it just came up for me. I see now that the final column already says additional live aboard capacity zero. So. |
| 02:45:14.01 | Karen Warner | Thank you. |
| 02:45:14.16 | Joan | Yeah. Okay. |
| 02:45:17.32 | Karen Warner | Put it in there somewhere. |
| 02:45:18.65 | Joan | Okay. And then I had the same question I had the same question on 4-23, where you're talking about Saucido Yacht Harbor 31 liveaboards. If you've already explained earlier, I don't think you necessarily need to explain it again there. The fourth bullet talks about the 31 liveaboards from the unused capacity in Sausalito Yacht Harbor. |
| 02:45:49.60 | Joan | But as I read that, I had the question, why not Pelican? |
| 02:45:57.12 | Joan | Okay, 4-28-1. And this is my last comment. |
| 02:46:02.10 | Susan | Thank you. |
| 02:46:02.24 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 02:46:02.76 | Susan | So on page 4-16, there is a witch. I am shocked, Joan, because this... |
| 02:46:07.23 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 02:46:07.32 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:46:07.57 | Joan | THE END OF |
| 02:46:09.43 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:46:09.46 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:46:09.51 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:46:09.61 | Unknown | I am at the show. |
| 02:46:10.41 | Unknown | Fuck. |
| 02:46:10.79 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:46:10.96 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:46:11.03 | Unknown | Joe. |
| 02:46:11.55 | Unknown | That I missed it. |
| 02:46:13.93 | Susan | I share the show and paragraph C. I see it. |
| 02:46:15.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:46:15.50 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:46:15.67 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:46:15.75 | Unknown | Right. |
| 02:46:15.97 | Unknown | So, |
| 02:46:16.23 | Unknown | and |
| 02:46:17.04 | Joan | I see it. |
| 02:46:19.55 | Susan | I think I'll see. Page 4-16. |
| 02:46:30.13 | Joan | But I do have a change on 4-28, which will be my last change. |
| 02:46:37.74 | Joan | and that is the date for the adoption of the green regulations. So it says by the end of 2014, We changed that to be in 2015. |
| 02:46:47.99 | Karen Warner | Or we just said by 2015, yeah. |
| 02:46:54.55 | Joan | I mean, by 2015, you could say by the end of 2015. If you say by 2015, it could be argued that you mean by... |
| 02:47:03.06 | Karen Warner | How about we say in 2015? |
| 02:47:03.12 | Joan | Yeah, that we Oh, that's what I, yeah, perfect. |
| 02:47:08.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:47:16.20 | Unknown | Okay, there you have it. |
| 02:47:28.76 | Ray | So where does that leave us for tonight? I think we're done now. |
| 02:47:32.50 | Unknown | We're done. |
| 02:47:33.62 | Susan | Thank you. So, I mean, as far as I understand it, we've finished our comments on chapters one through four, but we are reserving the ability to look at the appendices, specifically appendix D, before our next meeting. |
| 02:47:50.29 | Jim | I thought it was, we did everything except. Okay, that's fine. That's my understanding. |
| 02:47:53.34 | Susan | That's my understanding. |
| 02:47:54.90 | Ray | Yeah. |
| 02:47:55.37 | Jim | Thank you. |
| 02:47:55.40 | Ray | This. |
| 02:47:55.82 | Jim | Thank you. |
| 02:47:56.26 | Susan | Okay. |
| 02:47:57.53 | Ray | Okay, and do you have a date you want us to get you? Comments, if we can get them ahead of time? |
| 02:48:03.65 | Lily | So that would be great by on the 18th, which is a week from today. Okay. |
| 02:48:10.89 | Susan | Okay. |
| 02:48:11.23 | Ray | Thank you. |
| 02:48:12.65 | Susan | Bye. Thank you. |
| 02:48:13.00 | Lily | Thank you. |
| 02:48:13.04 | Susan | I'm sorry, Lily. That's our planning commission hearing, and we have a pretty – Yeah. |
| 02:48:20.97 | Joan | going to go to midnight that night so could we make it that the 17th Friday or the 17th is our huge Planning Commission meeting with huge issues to review and consider Valhalla and Woodbridge |
| 02:48:22.92 | Susan | So, |
| 02:48:37.03 | Susan | Thank you. |
| 02:48:37.05 | Joan | Woodrow, yeah. |
| 02:48:37.76 | Lily | You're sending me your comments, then I'm just forwarding it on to the rest of the subcommittee, right? |
| 02:48:38.40 | Susan | I'm sorry. |
| 02:48:38.48 | Joan | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:48:38.55 | Susan | Thank you. |
| 02:48:38.57 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 02:48:41.42 | Susan | Yeah. Yeah, and I could have them done by noon on Friday. Okay. |
| 02:48:46.11 | Lily | Okay. |
| 02:48:47.83 | Susan | Yeah. |
| 02:48:48.54 | Lily | Okay, noon on Friday the 8th and 19th. |
| 02:48:51.83 | Ray | Okay. We do actually technically have another agenda item, which is next steps and meeting dates, and we do have the workshop coming up. One request that I think we have of you guys is we'd like to discuss whether we can see the PowerPoint presentation for that workshop ahead of time. and have the opportunity perhaps to comment on it. |
| 02:49:31.24 | Lily | Do you want to Form a subcommittee so that we can do that. |
| 02:49:39.32 | Susan | Can we just have an... |
| 02:49:39.47 | Lily | I just have a... |
| 02:49:42.24 | Unknown | We can designate. |
| 02:49:42.32 | Susan | We can designate. Oh, right, because we can't have an email, right. |
| 02:49:43.33 | Lily | All right. |
| 02:49:48.43 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:49:48.46 | Susan | Thank you. |
| 02:49:49.44 | Ray | Two. Two volunteers? Who are the two volunteers who'd like to do this? |
| 02:49:49.85 | Susan | Thank you. |
| 02:49:50.00 | Unknown | . |
| 02:49:50.03 | Susan | Okay. So what will the timing be? |
| 02:49:56.38 | Tom | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:50:00.53 | Susan | I can look at it, but I don't need to look at it. |
| 02:50:03.45 | Unknown | So... |
| 02:50:05.64 | Susan | but it, |
| 02:50:06.94 | Unknown | Whoa. |
| 02:50:07.52 | Susan | What's the timing and the turnaround? |
| 02:50:09.96 | Lily | Well, it's nine days from today. They'll have the PowerPoint ready on Monday or Tuesday next week. |
| 02:50:10.06 | Susan | Well, Thank you. |
| 02:50:13.24 | Joan | I'm ready. |
| 02:50:13.44 | Susan | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:50:16.46 | Lily | And then the workshop's on Saturday. And our Planning Commission meeting is Wednesday. |
| 02:50:20.88 | Joan | Thank you. |
| 02:50:22.48 | Jim | Well, I'd be happy to look at it a few days. |
| 02:50:25.89 | Joan | I would like to look at it. It's a... |
| 02:50:30.75 | Ray | And you need a form of subcommittee. |
| 02:50:33.47 | Joan | We're not a Brown Act committee. Oh, that's right. We're not a Brown Act committee. We're not a Brown Act committee. |
| 02:50:36.81 | Susan | We're not a |
| 02:50:39.04 | Lily | and you like. |
| 02:50:39.49 | Joan | We have. |
| 02:50:39.55 | Lily | Yeah. |
| 02:50:39.66 | Ray | We have been, but we're not. No, fair enough. We have been treating it as such. Okay. |
| 02:50:39.97 | Lily | Yeah. |
| 02:50:40.03 | Joan | I've been. Yeah, yeah. |
| 02:50:40.96 | Lily | WORK. |
| 02:50:41.03 | Joan | Yeah. |
| 02:50:41.40 | Lily | Thank you. |
| 02:50:45.97 | Ray | But you can surely send it out to all of us. It's whether you can receive comments and accommodate it back without a subcommittee just directing you to do that. Right. It's the latter point that's the issue, not the sending it out, right? |
| 02:50:57.70 | Unknown | Right. |
| 02:51:02.36 | Ray | Okay. |
| 02:51:04.43 | Susan | But I think if I understand the Brown Act concern, it's that she can only get comments back from two |
| 02:51:11.83 | Ray | Thank you. |
| 02:51:11.84 | Susan | Thank you. |
| 02:51:11.98 | Ray | Thank you. |
| 02:51:12.00 | Susan | Thank you. |
| 02:51:15.96 | Susan | So two people should still be designated, even if... |
| 02:51:17.90 | Lily | Even if we all receive it. That's my concern. And when I have an opportunity to talk to Mary next week, I can confirm that. And if I'm misunderstood, I'll welcome comments from everyone. |
| 02:51:28.19 | Ray | Okay. |
| 02:51:29.19 | Lily | I just want two people on the committee. |
| 02:51:29.34 | Susan | I just want two people on the committee to look at it. I'm happy to comment, but I don't need to. |
| 02:51:31.69 | Ray | Thank you. |
| 02:51:31.70 | Lily | to |
| 02:51:32.09 | Ray | I know. Bye. Right. Well, I'm happy to be one of them. To actually sit down with you, Lily, and go through it. If somebody else wants to volunteer with me. |
| 02:51:47.70 | Susan | Do you want to do it, Jim? Because if you don't, I'd be happy to do it. Bye. |
| 02:51:51.94 | Joan | I would like to do it just because I'm planning to attend the workshop. |
| 02:51:58.67 | Susan | Okay. |
| 02:52:01.20 | Unknown | Okay. Got it. |
| 02:52:05.89 | Ray | All right. Okay. |
| 02:52:06.38 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:52:09.22 | Ray | So that's it. So we will, having realized that our diligent. fellow committee members have not only read countless amounts of material, but has also faithfully read or reminded themselves of their strung and white elements of style. We'll call this meeting adjourned. Thank you very much. |
| 02:52:37.84 | Unknown | Thank you very much. |
John (last name not specified) — Against: Criticized the process as lacking public involvement and clarity, expressing concern that residents will be surprised by changes like VMU and unit numbers, leading to potential public outcry. Urged better communication to avoid litigation. ▶ 📄