| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:17.95 | Serge Avila | We initiate our audio sequences. |
| 00:00:22.64 | Serge Avila | on your sequence is thinking. Let me admit on the public. |
| 00:00:33.22 | Serge Avila | to, |
| 00:00:37.48 | Serge Avila | Madam Mayor, all the public is back in the room. |
| 00:00:41.02 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, great. Thank you. Well welcome everybody. We're coming back from closed session. for the city council meeting for city of Sausalito on June 14th. 2022. We do not have any closed session announcements, so we will move right into approval of the agenda. Any comments or a motion and a second? |
| 00:01:01.71 | Councilman Cleveland | I can motion to approve the agenda. |
| 00:01:03.92 | Serge Avila | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:01:04.24 | Melissa Blaustein | Like that? Second. Please call the roll search. |
| 00:01:09.17 | Serge Avila | Councilmember Sobieski? this. Councilmember Blu-Lenol. |
| 00:01:13.12 | Councilman Cleveland | Yeah. |
| 00:01:13.91 | Serge Avila | Council member Hoffman. |
| 00:01:16.91 | Councilman Cleveland | Yeah. |
| 00:01:18.25 | Serge Avila | HERE. Vice Mayor Blomstein? Thank you. |
| 00:01:22.30 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes. |
| 00:01:22.60 | Serge Avila | Thank you. And may Eric Hellman. |
| 00:01:24.39 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes. |
| 00:01:25.52 | Serge Avila | Motion passes. |
| 00:01:26.65 | Melissa Blaustein | Great, thank you. Okay, we'll go ahead and onto item one, which is special presentations and mayor's announcements. Item 1A is a proclamation of the city of South Dakota to recognize, acknowledge, and observe Juneteenth day as a public holiday. I see we have a staff report. I don't know if city manager will be providing this or. |
| 00:01:53.19 | Chris Zapata | Mayor, I didn't anticipate putting a staff report or a presentation together, but if you'd like me to speak to it, I can. |
| 00:01:59.79 | Melissa Blaustein | Actually, I would love to say something to this, so I just want to thank Our community this weekend had the opportunity to attend a performance of Dr. Cindy Acker's Words That Made the Difference, Brown versus the Board of Education, right here in Dunphy Park. And this performance honored Juneteenth, which is, as you know, the annual holiday commemorating the end of slavery in the United States. I want to share with everybody, we hosted this play a week before Juneteenth. itself so it's not conflict with the Juneteenth Festival and Marin City's Rocky Grand Park this upcoming Sunday, June 19th. And I hope everybody can attend that as well. But I was particularly interested that thanks to our communication director at the chambers that we selected a play focusing on Brown versus Board of Education. It's a really impactful and powerful way to remind ourselves that emancipation was only the beginning of the struggle to end systemic racism that continues to this day. And Sunday was even more meaningful because, as many of you know, on that day in 1967, the Supreme Court decided Loving v. Virginia and overturned unconstitutional bans against interracial marriage. So we still have quite a long way to go, but I was honored to attend the play Welcome, Marin County Commissioner and Festival Organizer, Ashala Diana Marcus Esaucelito. and introduce Dr. Cindy Acker, the playwright and director of Words That Made the Difference. It was really, really an excellent performance. So huge thank you to Carly and Brian in the Parks and Rec Department who really pulled this off flawlessly on a very windy day. And of course to Abbott Chambers and our city manager for making this happen. So thank you for the opportunity just to say a few words. Any comments or questions from City Council? colleagues. Yes, please. |
| 00:03:40.81 | Councilmember Hoffman | I do have a bit of trivia. Thurgood Marshall was the attorney for the plaintiffs in Brown versus Board of Education. He of course became our first African-American Supreme Court justice. He was also the attorney for Joseph James, the civil rights case from our own Moran ship. shipyard with regards to union membership of African-Americans. great case and a great outcome and a great thing. Thank you. |
| 00:04:04.75 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:04:04.80 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:04:04.89 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:04:04.90 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:04:04.97 | Melissa Blaustein | that. I still get chills every time I watch a Supreme Court hearing. I guess that's why I went to law school. Any other comments or questions? I guess then we'll open up to public comments. Okay, Serge, will you please let folks know how to make public comment? Oh, well, do you have questions or we'll come back up to council. Okay. |
| 00:04:23.03 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | just want to make sure we're going to read the proclamation. |
| 00:04:25.48 | Melissa Blaustein | Absolutely. |
| 00:04:25.86 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Thank you. |
| 00:04:25.93 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah. Okay, any questions? |
| 00:04:36.49 | Serge Avila | Madam Mayor, my apologies. Would you like me to read how to provide public comments? Yes, sir. Video or audio public comment participation is submitted to two minutes per speaker. If you would like to make a comment, please raise your hand in the Zoom application and you will be called upon when is your time to speak. To raise your hand from the phone, press start nine and each speaker will be notified when the time has elapsed. It looks like we do have a few commenters and Thank you. Jacob, you're being unmuted and I appreciate the video. Right. |
| 00:05:10.36 | Melissa Blaustein | Welcome, Jacob. Thank you. |
| 00:05:13.16 | Jeff Jacob | Oh, hello. Hello, Madam Mayor. What? and city council |
| 00:05:22.39 | Jeff Jacob | I just want to, we're talking about another city attorney coming on, right? Is that correct? |
| 00:05:29.03 | Melissa Blaustein | No, sir, we are talking about a proclamation around Juneteenth. |
| 00:05:34.61 | Jeff Jacob | Oh, yes. What I'd like to say about that, and the city attorney, I hope, is listening as well, is that we... have won here at Marin ships, the first civil rights victory since Thurgood Marshall. on this waterfront and that was the original TRO for Camp Cormorant and even though we've lost a few battles since then The flag is still up. And the battles continue. to save the natural anchorage of Richardson's Bay. from becoming vote free. and to allow working people Poor people. African Americans. and Jewish radicals. to also live in this city and not That's right. And artist and artist. to live in this beautiful world. City of Art. Thank you very much. |
| 00:06:34.67 | Melissa Blaustein | Great, thank you very much. Any other public comments, sir? |
| 00:06:37.88 | Jeff Jacob | Thank you. |
| 00:06:37.89 | Serge Avila | I don't care. Madam Mayor, we have no other hands raised. |
| 00:06:41.22 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, great, then I'm gonna bring it back up to the City Council and go ahead and read the proclamation. This is a proclamation to recognize and acknowledge and observe Juneteenth Day. Whereas Juneteenth or June 2nd, you can say commemorates the traditional observance of the end of slavery in the United States and is observed annually on June 19th. And whereas President Abraham Lincoln declared that Giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free. honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve. We shall nobly save or meanly lose the last best hope of earth. And whereas on January 1st, 1863, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation declaring that all persons held as slaves within any state or designated part of a state The people wear off shall then be in rebellion against the United States. shall be then, thenceforward and forever free. And whereas President Lincoln correctly believed slavery to be in violation of the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and that its abolition represented a new birth of freedom for the United States. And whereas more than two years would pass before the news reached African-Americans living in Texas, when on June 19th, 1865, Union Major General Gordon Granger and his regiment arrived in Galveston and spread the word that slavery had been abolished. And whereas the following year, the first official Juneteenth celebration took place in Texas and continued across the United States throughout the years, And whereas throughout our nation, Juneteenth is the oldest nationally celebrated commemoration of the ending of slavery and celebrated annually as a historical and memorable tribute to our country's African American heritage. And whereas Juneteenth is an important opportunity to honor the principles of the Declaration of Independence and celebrate the achievements and contributions African Americans have made and continue to make in Sausalito, Marin County, California, and across our nation. And whereas the mayor Representing the citizens of Saucyote, I am proud to join our nation in honoring Juneteenth in an effort to promote and enhance the unity and spiritual strength that brought African Americans out of slavery and sustained their dignity and prosperity to the present day. Now, therefore, I do hereby proclaim June 19th, 2022, as Juneteenth Day, a public holiday in the city of Sausalito, and call upon the people of our city to join in this observance. Thank you everybody. Let's hear comments. I see the vice mayor has her hand up. |
| 00:08:58.85 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Yeah, thank you for acknowledging and issuing the proclamation. I'm really happy to see that this is going to be not just a proclamation, but a recognized holiday that will allow us to... take time away from work to really think about and remember the importance of this and I'm really pleased to just see it talked about it also I want to acknowledge and thank Park and Rec and Abbott for the June 12th performance. And I... I'm really happy that we were able to put that together and encourage folks to get to Marin City on Sunday for their celebration, if at all possible. |
| 00:09:32.67 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you, Vice Mayor. Any other comments before we call the vote? on declaring the city holiday for Juneteenth. Okay, well then I would go ahead, I'd like to make that motion that we declare the city holiday for June 2. Do I have a second? SECOND. Thank you. Surgery, please call the roll. |
| 00:09:54.17 | Serge Avila | Council Member Sobieski? Yes. Councilman Rick Lennon. |
| 00:09:58.03 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes. |
| 00:09:58.91 | Serge Avila | Council Member Hoffman. |
| 00:10:00.21 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes. |
| 00:10:00.92 | Serge Avila | Vice Mayor Blausdean. |
| 00:10:02.60 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:10:02.62 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes. |
| 00:10:03.45 | Serge Avila | and Mayor Kelman. |
| 00:10:04.56 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes, thank you. Thank you, everybody. Let me also have two other questions. announcements I want to make. The first, and Chris, maybe I'm going to get the date wrong, but I believe Southern Rind Fire is going to be coming to the next Planning Commission meeting. And so Community Development Department asked us to announce that Southern Rind Fire will be there making a presentation. And then I believe also on Monday, June 20th, Community Development Department is hosting an interactive session via Zoom on parklets in coordination with the chamber. So I just wanted to make sure everybody knew about that Thank you. That said, we'll move on then to item number two, which is the action minutes of the previous meeting. We have two sets of meeting minutes, June 6th and June 3rd, 2022. Any changes or a motion? you |
| 00:10:57.18 | Councilman Cleveland | QUESTION TO THE |
| 00:10:57.77 | Melissa Blaustein | Oh, pardon me. Pardon me. Sorry. I do believe we have to take public comment. Any comments? |
| 00:10:57.82 | Councilman Cleveland | Thank you. |
| 00:11:03.69 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, sorry, I'll hold that motion. Thank you for that. Serge, any public comments on the meeting minutes? |
| 00:11:11.03 | Serge Avila | Madam Mayor, I see no hands raised at the moment. |
| 00:11:13.93 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, then we will close public comment and |
| 00:11:16.21 | Serge Avila | I'm not. |
| 00:11:16.50 | Melissa Blaustein | Councillor Ramos. Make a motion again. Thank you. See you again. Thank you. Serge, please call the wall. |
| 00:11:27.08 | Serge Avila | Council members of the committee? Council member Luggenau. |
| 00:11:33.76 | Councilman Cleveland | Thank you. |
| 00:11:33.80 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:11:35.11 | Serge Avila | Council member Hoffman? Yes. Vice Mayor Blauske. |
| 00:11:39.35 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:11:39.37 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes. |
| 00:11:40.11 | Serge Avila | Mary Kelman. Thank you. |
| 00:11:41.07 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes. |
| 00:11:41.79 | Serge Avila | Motion passes. |
| 00:11:43.31 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Okay, we're gonna move on to the consent calendar. And number three, so matters listed under the consent calendar are considered routine and non-controversial, require no discussion, are expected to have unanimous counsel support It may be enacted by the council in one motion. There'll be no separate discussion of consent calendar items. However, before the council votes on a motion to adopt the consent calendar items, council members, city staff, or members of the public may request that specific items be removed from the consent calendar for separate action. Items removed from the consent calendar will be discussed later on the agenda. and public comment will be heard on any item that was removed from the consent calendar. So tonight we have eight items, item 3A. adopt a resolution authorizing an agreement for community development leadership and housing element services with four leafs. Amendment 3B adopted a resolution authorizing the city manager to award the construction contract for the base bid plus the bid alternative for the Safe Pathways to School Nevada Street project. Item 3C, accept the staff report and adopt a resolution adopting a list of projects for fiscal year 2022-23 funded by Senate Bill 1. Item 3D, adopt a resolution to authorize city staff to conduct transactions with the local agency investment fund Thank you. Item three E. Adopt a resolution authorizing the city manager to approve the sole source purchase of virtual machine hosts and storage area equipment through Marin IT. M3F adopt a resolution authorizing the city manager to approve the sole source purchase of network switches and for that chases equipment through Marin IT at a cost not to exceed $172,000. item 3G adopt a resolution proclaiming June LGBTQ plus pride month and retroactively approved to fly the rainbow flag in June and item 3H, adopted resolution authorizing an additional $42,384 in reserve funds for the landscaping and irrigation portion of the Safdie Park Improvement Project. Any... comments from council members or questions. |
| 00:13:37.09 | Melissa Blaustein | I have an item that I would like to recommend we remove from consent. which is item 3A. which is the resolution authorizing agreement for community development leadership and housing and services with 4Leaf. Anybody object to a brief discussion about that contract? Okay. All right, why don't we go ahead and open public comment on consent calendar? items search. |
| 00:14:03.60 | Serge Avila | Madam Mayor, it looks like we do have one public commenter. Jacob, you're being unmuted and has to share your video. |
| 00:14:11.80 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 00:14:16.17 | Jeff Jacob | Thank you again. I'm going to comment on... We are. |
| 00:14:23.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:14:27.03 | Unknown | you Well, Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:14:36.06 | Jeff Jacob | Thank you. |
| 00:14:38.36 | Melissa Blaustein | Mr. Chase, we're gonna pause you because your connection is- |
| 00:14:39.61 | Jeff Jacob | because your connection is- 7,800 for a housing element in Seattle. |
| 00:14:49.90 | Ian Sobieski | Just a point of order, Mayor, if we're pulling that item off consent, and then we do public comment at that time, or do we take public comment now? |
| 00:14:53.21 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:14:58.29 | Melissa Blaustein | You are correct in that format. The item right now is to see if anybody else has comments on their consent calendar. for the public comment. |
| 00:15:07.04 | Ian Sobieski | I'm just guessing from the hands that are raised, those are comments on 3A. And so I want to direct them that way. |
| 00:15:14.83 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, Mr. Chase, Sounds like you are perhaps still made a public comments Serge, let's move on and- |
| 00:15:25.07 | Jeff Jacob | Hello. |
| 00:15:25.39 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Yes, sir. |
| 00:15:27.36 | Jeff Jacob | M. Yeah, I'd like to speak on 3A, if I could. |
| 00:15:32.00 | Melissa Blaustein | So as Council Member Sobieski was just explaining, we will have more in-depth conversation about that. It is coming off of consent, and we will be moving it to later in the agenda. So if you have a substantive comment about that, you will have an opportunity to live later this evening. |
| 00:15:47.70 | Jeff Jacob | Okay, thank you. |
| 00:15:48.79 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, thank you. Um, Mr. Pierce? |
| 00:15:55.00 | Melissa Blaustein | MORGAN? Sure you were. |
| 00:15:58.67 | Morgan Pierce | Good evening. I hope everybody can hear me and see me. THE FAMILY. Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of council, city staff, and members of our community. My name is Morgan Pierce, and I'm president of Saucy-Do-Beautiful, and I'm speaking on its behalf this evening on item 3-8. First of all, I'd like to thank city manager Chris Apata, director of public works, Chris McGowan, and their teams for their tireless efforts. and seeing this important community project to fruition. for generations Southview Park has served as a recreational heart to roll down. key witness to any real for picnics, play dates, and possibly first kisses. And we look forward to continuing to inspire generations to come. Today's revitalization of Southview Park is a testament to the great successes we can realize when it's also the city government that its citizens work together to improve our incredible city. Salsa Beautiful strongly supports the approval of this resolution so that the work at Southview Park may be completed in a timely fashion and it may continue to serve the many residents and visitors who've created wonderful memories there. Thank you so much. |
| 00:16:56.78 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you, Morgan. Any other comments on the consent calendar? |
| 00:17:00.90 | Serge Avila | Madam Mayor, we have no other hands for you. |
| 00:17:03.40 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, so we have a very full agenda tonight. My comments on that item are minimal, but if everybody's okay with it, I'll just move it toward the end of the agenda for tonight, unless anybody has burning desire to hear my comments on item 3A. Oh. Okay, so with that said, would anybody like to make a motion to approve the consent calendar with including the removal of 3A? |
| 00:17:28.69 | Councilman Cleveland | Yes. Mayor, I'm sorry, but given the length of the agenda, I'm worried that we're gonna get past 10 before we hear this item. If it is quick, maybe we should just take it now. |
| 00:17:38.35 | Melissa Blaustein | I WOULD. |
| 00:17:38.53 | Councilman Cleveland | I would. Thank you. |
| 00:17:39.06 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:17:39.22 | Councilman Cleveland | Yeah, I would certainly appreciate that if everybody will indulge my- I know we- our community development department needs- to be moving forward. So maybe we should just Right. |
| 00:17:50.06 | Melissa Blaustein | Totally fine by me, thank you for that. Everybody's okay. then we will hear that right after we approve the consent. So that would be item four. become item 4A and then we'll move SB9 down. So, um, Can I get a month? |
| 00:18:02.51 | Councilman Cleveland | I make a motion to approve consent items B through H. |
| 00:18:08.47 | Serge Avila | Second. |
| 00:18:11.39 | Councilman Cleveland | Thank you. |
| 00:18:11.40 | Melissa Blaustein | Please call the roll, sir. |
| 00:18:13.11 | Serge Avila | Councilmember Sobieski? Council member, it will be known. |
| 00:18:16.74 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes. |
| 00:18:17.48 | Serge Avila | Council Member Hoffman. |
| 00:18:19.08 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:18:19.10 | Serge Avila | Yes. Vice Mayor Blavstein. |
| 00:18:21.44 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes. |
| 00:18:22.24 | Serge Avila | Mayor Kellman. |
| 00:18:23.10 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes, thank you very much. |
| 00:18:24.25 | Serge Avila | MESTION PASSED. |
| 00:18:25.41 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, great. So we're going to go ahead and move on to the, I know we pulled off of consent. This is the four leaf contract. Thank you to my colleagues for giving me an opportunity to pine on this. So we've all been talking about the length and duration and costs associated with consultant agreements. And so I understand that this is a necessity right now. We do need to get somebody in the director role and supporting role expeditiously. However, I wanted to make sure that we as a community were protected in terms of our ongoing search for community development director, our costs associated with community development and housing element planning services, and any other sort of consultant direction. And so to that end, I had shared with Dan from Four Leaf as well as our city manager, a series of red lines that included some of those provisions and some of those safeguards. Unfortunately, I didn't get a chance to do it until later and so you guys don't have the benefit of this. But they include things like if there are errors in the work caused by the consultant staff, the hours incurred to correct said work shall not be charged. It includes a more thorough description of the work to be performed by the consultant. It talks about conflict of interest, section 12. I added language consultant acknowledges that having a staff member serve as a community development director creates an inherent conflict of interest and therefore the consultant certifies a staff person acting as a community development director shall to the best of the ability to make decisions that are in the best interest of the city of sausalito even if those decisions are not in the interest of the consultant. And so my edits were really designed to better articulate our rights, protections for us, as well as outline the rules responsibilities. I have shared this with the city attorney as well. And again, I guess the question might be, whether you are amenable to reviewing the the edits or allowing me to submit my edits and have the city manager and city attorney opine as to what might be feasible or if none of the above I just merely wanted to put on the record that I do think that this agreement should be updated with some of those safeguards but I understand that it might not be possible at this time. So thank you for hearing me out. Any questions or comments? |
| 00:20:47.63 | Councilman Cleveland | I guess the only comment I would make is I would be amenable to having, . and Chris make the ultimate decision Mary and Chris make the decision on what edits are appropriate or not, if they are in line and as long as they're in line with your... WHAT YOU JUST SAID, SO THAT WE CAN this forward if that's amenable to the CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY. |
| 00:21:16.30 | Melissa Blaustein | Mary, the city attorney has weighed in initially to my comments. So like I said, everybody, Dan and city manager and Mary have all seen them. So. Um, Mary, do you want to comment or city manager? |
| 00:21:29.97 | Chris Zapata | I would like to say something, Mayor. Thanks for your review. and your, um, pulling of the same on the agenda since we have received a number of questions about the contract. I just want to say that we really are one factor in this agreement. Anything that we put down has to be agreed to by Fort Leif. And so, you know, I can't speak for them, but we can certainly present what you want us to present if, in fact, the Council does ask that to go forward. |
| 00:22:01.38 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:22:01.41 | Mary Wagner | Mary, anything to add? I think the city manager covered it. I think some of them are relatively straightforward additions. Perhaps the recital indicating that the city is undertaking a search for The permanent director and for leave Mr. Purchard have agreed through this agreement to provide those services on an interim basis until the position is filled. And of course the city and the consultant have the ability to terminate the contract. I think some of the revisions to the scope of work particularly need to be reviewed and approved by 4leaf because they directly impact on how they provide their services. |
| 00:22:43.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:22:43.16 | Melissa Blaustein | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:22:44.14 | Mary Wagner | Bye. |
| 00:22:45.45 | Melissa Blaustein | 100% fine by May. So I accept Susan's suggestion if my colleagues are amenable to that. Okay. Great. Thank you. |
| 00:22:55.02 | Councilman Cleveland | Yeah. |
| 00:22:55.28 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:22:55.29 | Councilman Cleveland | to the next one. |
| 00:22:55.43 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:22:57.77 | Councilman Cleveland | I had just wanted to ask one question for the record. that the title of this item may have caused some confusion. And I just wanted to clarify, or ask if we could clarify that the housing element services are really replacing the role of staff, of city staff, And this is not an addition to the very expensive and extensive contract that we have with DeNovo, for the actual housing element preparation. having four leaf, act as staff support. as our own staff would have done in the housing element process. Is that correct? |
| 00:23:39.88 | Chris Zapata | That's correct, council member Cleveland knows. |
| 00:23:42.69 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, thank you. um, Great clarification. Dan, did you want to add something to that? |
| 00:23:47.74 | Dan Hortert | I just wanted to confer that is correct. It's a housing policy planner, Luke. that we would basically replace I've heard that. Thank you. |
| 00:23:57.01 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah, and I think one of my red lines is that to articulate that and clarify that. So thanks for picking that up. Okay. |
| 00:24:06.03 | Mary Wagner | so I don't do we need a motion Mary or uh we do madam mayor and if I may just make a suggestion that you know you move approval of the um adoption of the resolution and approval of the agreement with such modifications as are agreed upon um between the city and the consultant and are subject to the approval of the city manager and the city attorney. And that provided that they don't impact the financial aspects of the agreement, I think was an important clarification. |
| 00:24:33.98 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Anybody, thank you for that. Anybody like to make that motion? You don't have to repeat it. Just say what she said. Madam Mayor, did we take public comment and I dismissed it? Oh, you know what? Thank you. |
| 00:24:42.18 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:24:42.25 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:24:42.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:24:43.92 | Melissa Blaustein | I think probably what Susan's gonna remind me of. Yeah, okay. Why don't we open up public comment? And I do see one hand up. |
| 00:24:54.04 | Serge Avila | Mestachia, you've been unmuted and I have to share your video. |
| 00:24:59.05 | Nastassia | Can you guys hear me? Let me try this video. Hi, Council, hi, Mayor Kellman. My name's Nastassia and I am a resident and a member of the Planning Commission and a HIAC member. Thank you. I first wanted to thank the consultant. Thanks to Dan for stepping in. as our interim CDD. So I really want to be clear that my comments are totally general and not for any specific consultant that we're working for. I'm grateful that they're here. I think just in terms of the concept of consultant, starting to It's a little bit difficult to keep keep going with consultants moving forward, I think there's a little bit of frustration across town. just We need some permanent staff. So I think it was great to hear some of your edits, Mayor Kelman, and I think to city attorney Mary Wagner's point, as long as there is a, ability for us to exit. So we can really move forward with a strong, stance on hiring somebody permanent because I can already see the knowledge that Dan has built in the last few months, and he's gaining ground. And it's just disappointing to know that's all going to go out the door when the contract is over. So I think we just want to be mindful of where we're spending our money and retaining our staff and making it a great place for people to come to work, want to be part of our town, want to be part of our community, and just move away from consultants. When you hear talks of furloughs or hiring freezes and police and those kinds of things, and then you see the exorbitant spend we've got with consultants, it's a little hard to swallow. So really excited to hear that there's going to be some red lines that will give us some protections if they're amenable to go through, but appreciate the protections and just wanna say thank you for the work to the consultants and looking forward to getting some permanent staff members. Thank you. |
| 00:26:53.11 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you, Commissioner Seid. |
| 00:26:54.09 | Nastassia | Thank you. |
| 00:26:55.09 | Melissa Blaustein | Any other members of the public wish to comment? |
| 00:26:59.09 | Serge Avila | there are no further hands rates. |
| 00:27:01.72 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, we'll go ahead and close public comment. Thank you for the reminder. And when somebody make the motion, |
| 00:27:07.37 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:27:07.61 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:27:07.67 | Mary Wagner | that Mary laid out. Mayor Kellman, I apologize. I see Ms. McDougall's got a checkmark next to her name, and I don't know if she was hoping to speak on this item. So apologies for interrupting. I believe she was trying to speak on this. |
| 00:27:07.74 | Melissa Blaustein | All right. |
| 00:27:20.18 | Mary Wagner | during public comment on closed session items? Thank you. |
| 00:27:22.74 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:27:22.85 | Mary Wagner | THANK YOU FOR THAT. |
| 00:27:24.06 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 00:27:24.77 | Mary Wagner | especially, |
| 00:27:25.02 | Babette McDougall | Welcome back. Thank you for your patience. Oh, thank you. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for acknowledging me. My God, I'm jumping up and down in my chair saying, what about me? |
| 00:27:37.98 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:27:41.04 | Babette McDougall | Well, first of all, I want to say The sooner we return to the real place known as the council chambers, the happier I will be and the happier I know a lot of my neighbors will be. THERE IS NOTHING THAT CAN DO BETTER THAN A FACE-TO-FACE The frustrations of this technology proves that abundantly. That's number one. I raised in a letter that I sent in I don't know anyone that has actually received seven days notice on any of the council meetings for a long time now. I'm still looking now as I speak to you without an agenda in front of me. I never did get an agenda. Maybe it's somewhere in my computer and I just don't know where to find it. So this just speaks to this fact that you cannot represent this town appropriately if they cannot be in touch with you as they expect they ought to be. I am so grateful to see Mary Wagner still in the picture. because there's somebody that's been on the team for a while and actually contains institutional memory. And I'm glad to see all the new faces. I think it's wonderful. The lack of institutional memory is starting to prove grave, as in, you know, it's going to kill us if we're not careful, that kind of grave. And I don't over dramatize this moment. But a half a million dollar contract for the kind of consulting work that you seek right now. All I think about is when was the last time we convened an event saying thanks to the volunteers for all the work they do in town? probably since before COVID. And as a result, so many of you have no idea just what kind of talent resides in this community and usually steps up when the task is needed. And I, in my recent letter to you, point out the facilities for new public police station, new fire station, And that all became a labor of love for the entire- |
| 00:29:43.04 | Serge Avila | Ms. McDougall, your two minutes have elapsed. |
| 00:29:46.18 | Babette McDougall | I realize that. And I think if you ask someone like Mary Wagner, |
| 00:29:47.45 | Serge Avila | Thank you. |
| 00:29:50.16 | Babette McDougall | to apprise you of what went on in recruiting the town, then you'll find that you don't need these very expensive consultant contracts You can't. |
| 00:30:02.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:30:03.33 | Melissa Blaustein | Looks like you have been muted. Ms. McDougall, thank you so much for joining us. It was a pleasure to see you. And thank you also for the written comments. And Mary, thank you for seeing me. book. Okay, yes, can I. |
| 00:30:18.14 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, since some people have brought up the cost of the contract, I'm not thrilled by it either, but it needs to be pointed out just so people know that this is a stopgap measure because of really a step backwards in our... planning department. one of the first things Chris did was to start building that department when he got here um and uh that was a step forward but sometimes in life you take one step forward and two steps back and that is what happened in that department unlike by the way finance where things are getting better and parks and rec where things are getting better So the point of this is to say, while contract headline price is what it is, we actually don't have employees. That's why we need the consultant. So it isn't the net cost. I think when I asked Chris what the net cost is, it's not as efficient as having employees, but it's not as expensive as the headline cost is. it's a little bit more expensive than if we actually had employees. which is of course our goal to move and hire those people and get that department straight But this is a stock gap to to step into the breach left by a lot of recent departures. |
| 00:31:24.19 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you for that, Councillor Osibisky. Okay, anybody have comments or wish to make the motion? |
| 00:31:32.31 | Councilman Cleveland | I have one comment and then I'll make a motion as stated by the city attorney. I mean, I guess my only comment to some of the public comments about the importance of staff is I completely agree. And I think one of the things that the turnover in the Community Development Department has highlighted is that we need to model leadership and respect. at both the city council level at I THINK OUR CITY MANAGER IS MODELING THAT AT OUR APPOINTED BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. and to really value and acknowledge the staff that we do have. to make sure that they feel valued and that this Sausalito is a place that they can make a career. So I think we need to renew take a look inward and move forward. I with some clarity and leadership on that front as we rebuild our community development department. So I'd like to ask our residents also that they show respect to our staff and Hopefully we can rebuild it better than ever. So with that, I'll make a motion as stated by our city attorney with the comments. as we started off from the mail. |
| 00:32:45.82 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. So long. Thank you. Search, please call the roll. |
| 00:32:50.98 | Serge Avila | Council Member Sobieski? Council member Rubenau. |
| 00:32:54.39 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes. |
| 00:32:55.32 | Serge Avila | Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 00:32:57.48 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes. |
| 00:32:58.40 | Serge Avila | Vice Mayor Blavisky. |
| 00:32:59.94 | Melissa Blaustein | YES. |
| 00:33:00.60 | Serge Avila | Mayor Kellman. |
| 00:33:01.60 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes. |
| 00:33:02.40 | Serge Avila | Motion passes. |
| 00:33:03.45 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, thank you so much, everybody. We'll go ahead and move on now. to our public hearing items in 4A. This is the conduct of public hearing, waive the first reading, and introduce ordinance number 1288 or 1288, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Saucydeo amending the City of Saucydeo Municipal Code to add a new chapter 9.70 to Title IX, subdivisions amending section 9.70. 10.44.080 and adding new section 10.44.350 to chapter 10.44. specific use requirements. I will stop trying to read the introductions very long and go ahead and hand it over to our Interim Community Development Director, Director Hockert. Welcome, thank you for your patience. |
| 00:33:45.07 | Dan Hortert | Thank you, Mayor, members of the council. Can I share my screen, sir? |
| 00:33:51.71 | Serge Avila | Yes, you may. |
| 00:33:52.84 | Dan Hortert | Thank you. |
| 00:34:02.02 | Dan Hortert | Good evening, Dan Hortert, Interim Director of Community Development. This public hearing is for Senate Bill 9, known as the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency, or HOME Act. Um, This bill was signed into law by Governor Newsom September 16th, 2021. became effective January 1st, 2022. Really the primary requirements that come out of it are ministerial approval, of two dwelling units or a duplex on a single parcel and approval of a parcel map for an urban lot split on residentially zoned parcels. On November 6th, 2021 Council adopted resolution 6108, which was in your packet. directing the preparation of interim guidance rules and regulations to implement Senate Bill 9. Council directed staff to prepare the interim guidance and provided a timeline for presentation of the implementation ordinance. The interim ordinance that was developed was compliant with SB 9 requirement. It added objective design and development standards in conjunction with SB-9 statute. On the objective standards currently in place by the city council resolution number 6059 and they will be replaced should the city council adopt ordinance 1288. |
| 00:35:37.74 | Dan Hortert | So here's a little background on the type of parcels. You may have seen this before, but I wanted to reiterate, The city has 1,022 parcels zoned single-family residential Of those R120, the largest of the three R1 lots are 65 parcels. Um, Of the R16 lots, there's 831 parcels. In R18, there's 126 parcels. 77 of those parcels are exempted due to being in very high Fire severity zones leaving 945 parcels. that may be eligible depending on its case to case basis. that they're in a wetland or evidence of a floodplain habitat for protected species and so forth, or located in historic district there, are not allowed in those districts. There are no parcels counted within a historic district of those numbers above. So the Planning Commission appointed a working group consisting of Vice Chair Junius, Commissioner Luxembourg, in coordination with city attorney's office. Coordination resulted in a report of the working group presented at the May 4th, 2022 planning commission meeting, which led to the recommendation that city council approve the implementation ordinance 1288. |
| 00:37:00.68 | Dan Hortert | So I'll give you a little bit of the, um, of the nuances of the ordinance. It follows the state mandate pretty closely with some exceptions. The maximum 1200 square foot units may be developed as one of those exceptions. The maximum height of the structure is 16 feet, which is pretty standard. because of the mandated four foot side and rear setbacks by the state. Otherwise, the maximum height of the underlying zoning, which is typically 32 feet, if the setback standards of those districts are met. Those are typically five and 10 on the side and 15 and 20 on the rear. All right. The new ordinance also requires decks and balconies to be a minimum 15 feet from the property line and included in the overall footprint of the proposed structure. And of course, this is in the state statute as well, but it precludes the ordinance from allowing for short-term rental. |
| 00:38:03.07 | Dan Hortert | Additional standards for two unit developments included in the in ordinance 1288 A structure with walls within eight feet of the property line, if it's a single story wall with windows, It must have a solid six-foot fence. or clear story or opaque windows. For a second story wall, for those that are set back a little further, Um, It must have a clear story or opaque windows on that wall. Um, In addition, applicable utility and sewer connections must be met. |
| 00:38:39.58 | Dan Hortert | Sorry, I didn't flip that slide. Urban lot splits is the other part of the SB9 ordinance. All newly created lots shall have a minimum 20-foot frontage along public-private streets. IF A FLAG LOT IS developed then the frontage shall be a minimum of 10 feet. The smaller of the two resulting lots cannot be less than a minimum than 40% of the original lot size. and it restricts dwelling units to 1200 square feet on the number of units per lot. to do. |
| 00:39:19.26 | Dan Hortert | Because of the ministerial review, projects under SB9 are exempt from CEQA, processes. And so here's a little schedule. Tonight, June 14th, City Council public hearing with the introduction and first reading of the ordinance. It's expected that it would come back on the 28th for the second reading and adoption of the ordinance. And then the effective date would be July 28th. 30 days after the second reading. So staff is recommending that, and I'm gonna read this now, We'll waive the rating and introduce my title ordinance only ordinance number 1288 amending the city of Sausalito Municipal Code to add a new chapter 9.7 to Title IX subdivision amending section 10.44.080 and adding a new section 10.44.350 to chapter 1044 of the specific use requirements of the zoning ordinance. for the implementation. of government code section 65852.21 and 66411.7 related to allowing one additional primary unit and urban lot splits on residentially zoned property. I didn't go through that too quick. I sometimes do. both Vice Chair Junius, well, I didn't see Vice Chair Junius in the audience, but I did see Commissioner Luxembourg and Sergio were both here who worked diligently to get the ordinance to where it is in your packet tonight. for any questions. |
| 00:41:03.19 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you, Director Hortert. I see the Vice Mayor has her hand up, so let's start there. |
| 00:41:07.64 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Thank you. I have thank you very much for your hard work on this and also the the Planning Commission working group has come a long way since we heard it at Legislative Committee. There were a lot of. updates, some of which I have a few questions about. So if you look at page four of the ordinance section I with requirements for the owner of the parcel to sign an affidavit around their residency and their residency requirement or time spent in the parcel. I have a couple of questions. The first would be for Mary. well, perhaps Mary Ann Dan, is this a requirement under SB 9? And the second would be, is this even legally defensible under SB 9 to require And my, my, Oh, sorry, go ahead. Sergio, I guess, would be taking that. |
| 00:41:50.34 | Mary Wagner | Thank you, Vice Mayor Blauskain. My partner Sergio Rudin is here this evening. He's been working on this item with your planning staff and the planning commission. So I'll let him address address that. |
| 00:42:01.58 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, so that requirement is actually straight out of the SB9 statute. The statute allows us to require affidavit of owner intent with respect to occupying the parcel. But the city is not allowed to go any further than that, so. |
| 00:42:21.56 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | So what you're saying, when you say we can't go any further than that, we can't enforce it, but we can say you have to live on the property for three years. I MEAN, WE CAN'T. |
| 00:42:29.89 | Sergio Rudin | We can require an affidavit as the statute points out, you know, demonstrating that the owner at the time of submission intends to occupy the parcel for that required period of time, but the city can't actually impose a condition of approval on these projects stating that the person has to, you know, live in that parcel for three years. |
| 00:42:50.41 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Okay. Okay, I was just trying to understand where that requirement came from and whether or not it had any legal Because similarly with our short-term rentals, where we've seen that we're getting revenue from them, even though they're... not legally defense, not legal. I'm just wondering where that came from. Okay, that's fine. That was my first, I have other questions, but I'll let others go ahead. |
| 00:43:10.51 | Melissa Blaustein | Well, you know, I don't see any other hands up. So if you want to continue. |
| 00:43:17.94 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Yeah, the other question was about the off-street parking spaces, where it says a minimum of one off-street parking space should be provided on each parcel, except no parking shall be required where the parcel meets the instances. Located within one-half a mile of a high-quality transit corridor. So, in Sausalito, which ones are our high-quality transit corridors as designated, according to SB9, just so that we understand. for the sites. |
| 00:43:41.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:43:42.27 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Or do we have a designated high transit corridor beyond where the Spencer bus station is and the ferry? Are those the only two that qualify for skipping parking? given just the requirements of 1200 square feet and then the 800 square feet units, and then also including a parking lot, and remaining legally defensible under SB 9. I'm just wondering about that too. And did that come from the Planning Commission Working Group or is that something we added that is from the SB 9 itself? |
| 00:44:08.28 | Sergio Rudin | No, that is something that is directly out of the SB9 statute as well. Um... the sp9 statute prohibits uh off-street parking requirements when a parcel is located within one half mile of the A walking distance of a high quality transit corridor as defined in a particular section of the public resources code or a major transit stop as also defined in the public resources code. Um, So there are specific requirements in the public resources code with respect to Let me just pull up that exact definition. |
| 00:44:51.41 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | But for the most part, we would still be able with these SB9 properties to continue with our parking requirements as per regular, except for those within a transit corridor. Within a mile, half a mile. |
| 00:45:04.03 | Sergio Rudin | Yes, and I will say that at least for the purposes of SB 9, it defines a major transit stop as an existing rail or bus rapid transit station, a ferry terminal served either by bus or rail transit service, and the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service of 15 minutes or less. Okay. |
| 00:45:24.43 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | So that's actually a lot of town, but yeah. okay great thank you i just wanted to clarify some of those points to understand what would and would not be. And then I also appreciated, I just wanted to say, I know you included some information in the staff report about whether or not these would be eligible under ARENA I don't think it's immediately clear, but from your legal expertise, can you just clarify what you think with regards to whether these SB9 units will qualify for that? |
| 00:45:51.14 | Sergio Rudin | What I have been hearing, and I think that this might be another question you can raise in the subsequent agenda item for the housing element and discuss with the city's housing element consultant. But what I've heard through the grapevine is that generally HCD does not let jurisdictions make assumptions with respect to potential development under SB9 unless there's demonstrated owner interest. So, basically jurisdictions don't just get to count the fact that they've had that they may get increased additional density under SB9 in their single family zoning districts for purposes of meeting their RENA requirements. |
| 00:46:28.89 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Okay, thanks for clarifying. I appreciate it. MY QUESTIONS. Thank you. |
| 00:46:33.97 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you for that, Vice Mayor. Council Member Cleveland also. |
| 00:46:37.01 | Councilman Cleveland | One comment, one question. I think in our staff report, I think we're counting about 50 SB9 units, if I understood correctly. But we can ask Beth that once we get to that item. And then secondly, The 1200 square foot requirement, I'm just curious where that came from. I don't believe that's in state law. And so I'm wondering what the theory there is |
| 00:47:00.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:47:04.97 | Councilman Cleveland | I don't think that was in our interim guidance either. |
| 00:47:08.48 | Sergio Rudin | Now, this was... based on a decision of the and recommendation of the Planning Commission working group and ultimately a decision of the Planning Commission. So perhaps Commissioner Luxenberg can speak to that. |
| 00:47:25.07 | Melissa Blaustein | Great. I do recall, Councilman of Cleveland, I can't remember if it was when you were on legislative with me, but we... had an extensive discussion about the size limit, do you recall that? |
| 00:47:40.97 | Councilman Cleveland | I think by the time this went, no. Well, I mean, I definitely remember discussing whether we could address size, and I thought we decided not to, and I don't think our interim guidance did. So I'm just curious where this came from. |
| 00:47:48.21 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah. |
| 00:47:56.00 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, yeah, let's hear from Commissioner Luxembourg, if you don't mind, Jeffrey. YOU'RE ON MUTE, THOUGH. |
| 00:48:05.77 | Commissioner Luxembourg | I couldn't unmute, so now I can. Yes, what we got from the city council had an 800 square foot maximum in the original draft. We analyzed that at length and felt that that would now allow for, let's say, a two-bedroom apartment or possibly even a small three-bedroom apartment. we felt that we should have something larger than 800 square feet. And so we came up with 1,200 square feet because that's a reasonable size for two bedrooms and possibly three-bedroom apartments. Based on the fact that it's ministerial, we felt there needed to be some sort of limit. So we felt increasing it by 50% from 800 to 1,200 and allowing two-bedroom and possibly small three-bedroom apartments Thank you. needed to be some sort of limit. So we felt increasing it by 50% from 800 to 1200 and allowing two bedroom and possibly small three bedroom apartments would solve some of the issues. And therefore we came up with the 1200 square feet, which is used in other communities. |
| 00:49:04.87 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Does that help Councilman Clemenas? Thank you. |
| 00:49:08.60 | Councilman Cleveland | Yeah, it helps. You know, I just, I think we need to be considerate of decent family sized housing. I don't remember the 800 square foot. That might've been a recommendation from the legislative committee, but in any case, I, |
| 00:49:24.97 | Melissa Blaustein | I, |
| 00:49:25.90 | Councilman Cleveland | you know, I'd be amenable to increasing that, but we can talk about that when we get to comments. |
| 00:49:31.63 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Luxenberg. Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 00:49:35.90 | Councilmember Hoffman | I just want to go back to the SB9 thing and call out for our consultant for the housing element. I know she's on the line that that's something that's gonna come up. I did see some analysis in the report in the housing element the long one, the 69 page one. |
| 00:49:49.05 | Unknown | us. |
| 00:49:52.05 | Councilmember Hoffman | that there was a um there's a calculation of 130 units but it was the parentheses was entitled comma ADU and comma SB9 so you know I think we would want to talk about that more so |
| 00:50:09.38 | Melissa Blaustein | All right, any other questions for staff on this? |
| 00:50:11.80 | Ian Sobieski | Yes, I did have one question for Mr. Luxembourg, if you don't mind, Mayor. Just following up on Susan's question, the 12, I get the rationale where you got 1,200 square feet from, |
| 00:50:11.91 | Melissa Blaustein | I did have |
| 00:50:22.60 | Ian Sobieski | but particularly since we have some motivation to try to encourage this activity to take housing pressure off of other areas in town. Was any analysis done in this effort by the working group? to see if a different maximum threshold would be more encouraging for lot splits and the building and housing Was that a factor in the analysis? |
| 00:50:52.58 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah, Commissioner Luxembourg? |
| 00:50:59.65 | Melissa Blaustein | You are, yeah, there you go. |
| 00:51:00.87 | Commissioner Luxembourg | No, I could not because the host has to allow it to happen. We did not go through an extensive analysis of a range of square footages. We felt that that was a reasonable amount, and it's hard to know what. We did go through an analysis of, I developed some diagrams of what this would look like with different frontages and different square footages for different lots and given the lot size. So we did look at that and how in 12-unders, what it seemed to be a reasonable amount for these other districts that we were talking about. But we did not go through a sort of a pro forma analysis to determine what the real estate market would bear for different costs of different land. Thank you. |
| 00:51:51.17 | Ian Sobieski | call-up question only is, um, There are a lot of fixed costs with new construction, from permits to everything else to design. They get amortized over larger square foot, so your cost per square foot goes down with larger structures. And I was just wondering if that was part of your analysis at all. That was not part of the analysis, no. |
| 00:52:10.39 | Commissioner Luxembourg | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:52:10.99 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:52:11.53 | Commissioner Luxembourg | Thank you. |
| 00:52:13.52 | Melissa Blaustein | All right, any other questions for commissioners or staff? Okay, so we'll go ahead, yeah, Vice President. |
| 00:52:21.14 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | I just had one more question also with regards to that. So my understanding was that it had to be at least 800, the structure had to be, no less than 800 square feet, and that's why the units, the lots had to be at least 1,200. And that, at least that's what we had discussed in legislative committee, otherwise I would have, probably pushed for, you know, a larger lot size or a smaller unit size. Is it any size under 800 square feet on the lot? So that for instance, if you do a lot split and add an ADU or if you like, could you kind of clarify? what is and isn't allowed under that square footage. |
| 00:52:53.43 | Commissioner Luxembourg | You just correct it. There's no requirement that it happened to be a minimum of 800 square feet. If somebody wants to build a 600 square foot unit, they're allowed to do that. What the law says is you can't exclude something less than 800, but it doesn't say you have to build 800. So if somebody wants to build a small, takes their house and makes a small two unit development on in a single family zone. And they put a 600 unit in and don't wanna do an ADU and would rather use the SB9 they're allowed to do. |
| 00:53:27.26 | Unknown | But if you're... |
| 00:53:27.36 | Commissioner Luxembourg | Yes. |
| 00:53:27.73 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. |
| 00:53:28.29 | Unknown | Oh, sorry, go ahead. I'm sure do. |
| 00:53:31.24 | Sergio Rudin | All right. Yeah, under SB 9, basically the minimum lot size for an urban lot split has to be at least 1200 square feet. That's set forth in the statute. Additionally, one of the features of the statute is that with both urban lot splits and the two-unit residential development provision of SB9. The city is prohibited from imposing any sort of objective standards that would prohibit applicant from constructing up to two dwelling units on those lots that are a minimum of 800 square feet so the commissioner is correct that there's not a minimum size requirement it's a cap on what sort of restrictions the city can impose |
| 00:54:10.02 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | But we're maxing it out at 1,200, so it would be hard to put two 800 square units foot structures on a 1200 foot lot, wouldn't it? |
| 00:54:18.95 | Sergio Rudin | So with respect to urban log splits, basically... the way that the statute is uh, created is that it creates a minimum lot size of 1200 square feet. However, you're supposed to split the lot, you know, essentially close to in half. So your minimum lot size in the city for most lots is going to result if you split them into lots that are bigger than 1,200 square feet on average. And maybe Dan can answer that. being our planning person for this ordinance. |
| 00:54:53.34 | Commissioner Luxembourg | Actually, if I could just add quickly, just to remind the council, these are for R1 lots. And R1 lot, minimum lot size is 6,000 square feet. And there are some non-conforming lots. But in a typical 6,000-foot lot, you can go to 40% of that. And you're not getting down to 1,200 square feet. So you would be able to get two 800 square foot units on a, in most single family zones. |
| 00:54:53.76 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah. Bye. |
| 00:55:03.72 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:55:23.70 | Commissioner Luxembourg | depending on the configuration. So Dan, you might have other comments as well. |
| 00:55:27.70 | Dan Hortert | No, those are my sentiments exactly. The minimum lot size is 6,000 square foot. That's why I showed that slide again for the 6,000, 8,000 and 20,000 to show you the makeup of the type of lots we do have in South Salinas. |
| 00:55:43.36 | Sergio Rudin | And additionally, the state statute works that if you can't build them side by side, you have to allow to build them vertically. Thank you. |
| 00:55:51.84 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:55:51.88 | Sergio Rudin | I'm sorry. |
| 00:55:54.59 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay. I don't see any other hands raised from my colleagues. So go ahead and open up public comment. And I do see one hand raised. |
| 00:56:06.97 | Serge Avila | I'm glad you've been unmuted and asked to share your video. Thank you. |
| 00:56:11.98 | Babette McDougall | Can, are you able to, we hear you? Yes. Okay, can you see me or hear me or? We can hear you. We do not see you. Oh, okay. So start my video, try that. Hi there. So I just wanna make one comment and that is again, repeat what I said earlier. The sooner you engage your citizens, the better off we all will be. The remarkable amount of detail and minutiae that I, for years was a regular attendee of city council meetings until recent years. And I'm accustomed to hearing the usual ebb and flow of debate and discussion. And I must say that the fact that you are being called upon to get into this level of detail at these kinds of forums is very telling And the sooner we reach into our institutional memory in this community, former city planners, former commissioners, planning commissioners, former other volunteers for the other types commissions and Teams that work around the town to keep it moving. then the sooner we can start putting together citizen involvement things will go so much smoothly, more smoothly, if the citizens know What is ahead of them? It sounds like SB9. is far more sweeping. And then I have an ADU and I had to come back to the city more than once, once the rules of the game changed it forced me to, spend more money on my ADU. But that's okay. It's a great thing to have. The point is, there's a lot of people in this town that ask a lot of questions about it with this new legislation coming down the pipeline. The more we AND I'M HAPPY TO HELP OUT WITH THIS. Mr. City Manager, you know, I would get on the phone. I'm a Woman's Club member. I'm happy to... talk with Sandra and others to try to get folks to come up COME FORWARD AND ROLL UP THEIR SLEEVES, AS I'VE SEEN THEM DO OVER THE PAST YEARS. and not just like the other public buildings, but this is citywide, this affects us all. |
| 00:58:24.56 | Unknown | Thank you very much. |
| 00:58:29.81 | Babette McDougall | So thank you so much. |
| 00:58:31.16 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:58:32.49 | Babette McDougall | THANK YOU VERY MUCH. |
| 00:58:32.92 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:58:32.97 | Babette McDougall | Yeah. |
| 00:58:33.19 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:58:34.97 | Serge Avila | Our next speaker is Sandra Bushmaker. Sandra, you've been unmuted and asked to share your video. |
| 00:58:41.07 | Sandra Bushmaker | I just have a quick question for staff. If a lot split occurs under SB9, And the The configuration requires a vertical buildup Does the 32 foot height limit still remain in effect? Thank you. |
| 00:58:59.73 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you, Senator. Let's hold any discussion of that point and take additional public comment, please. |
| 00:59:06.19 | Serge Avila | Our next speaker is Jacob. Jacob, you're being unmuted and as to your video. |
| 00:59:15.93 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:59:16.69 | Serge Avila | you |
| 00:59:24.94 | Jeff Jacob | Hi, this is Jeff Jacob, Jacob and Mirchem Zalman. here at Kane Shifts. What we're talking about. Here is There are more people in California, and there needs to be a place for them to live. They're here. whether they were born, or they came from another state or another country. They're here. The one thing. that not building provides is a raise in property values. So even no matter whether Albert Einstein Or until the Hun moves in next door. the property value will go down. Pennies, dollars, tens of dollars, hundreds, thousands. for every person that comes in. So what I'm looking at right now is a bet that City Council Institutional Memory laid on office buildings. They have been empty for many years now. The parking lots are empty as well. . I would like for someone to carry... A vacancy tax. They're doing this in San Francisco. and other places around the Bay Area. So places cannot be left empty. I never understood during the while you would look at pictures of closed places where people were living outside. And now I know. property values. So human values... Must. supersede property values or we don't have a livable city. A combination of different people, different colors, different incomes even. Not a millionaire's only paradise that cannot work and it will not work. And Sausalito has such a rich history. of such a variety of people that that must be kept. Thank you very much. |
| 01:01:27.61 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your comments. Okay, this is again on SB9 specifically. So I see we have one more hand up. |
| 01:01:37.56 | Serge Avila | And Cloris Henry, you've been unmuted, and I have to share your video. |
| 01:01:49.85 | Melissa Blaustein | Welcome, you are on, you're muted right now. |
| 01:01:53.63 | Cloris Henry | Thank you. My name is Cloris Henry. I'm the Chief Operating Officer for the Le C. Francais of San Francisco. And... We leased the buildings three, four, and five at 100 Ebtide. Ms. Regina. |
| 01:02:07.13 | Melissa Blaustein | And sorry to interrupt you. We're taking public comment on SB nine. which is item 4B. So we welcome your comments. on this item right now. And if it's on something not on the agenda, we'll have a moment at the end of the agenda. |
| 01:02:21.08 | Cloris Henry | SB9, I will wait. Thank you. |
| 01:02:23.24 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Okay, Serge, any other hands raised for SB9? |
| 01:02:29.99 | Serge Avila | Madam Mayor, there are no further hands breaks. |
| 01:02:32.26 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, well, so then we will close public comment, bring it back up, to the council who would like to lead on. |
| 01:02:40.96 | Councilman Cleveland | I don't know how much, oh, go ahead. No. I'm happy to go ahead. I was just going to say, I don't know how much discussion people have, but I want to appreciate the work of the working group. And I think this carries over most of our interim guidance in a productive way. I would like to keep an eye on it's it was 1200 not 1200 square feet of the lot but 1200 square foot units so I'd like to keep an eye on that and see whether it's worth considering expanding that at some point, but I think it's a good place to start. We can gauge the interest and maybe |
| 01:03:12.57 | Lydia | Amen. |
| 01:03:12.79 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:03:14.61 | Councilman Cleveland | look into some of the issues that Councilmember Sobieski raised. So if there aren't any other comments, I'd be happy to make the motion to approve the ordinance on first reading as read into the record by our community and community development director. |
| 01:03:30.07 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you for that. I'm in favor of that as well, but I welcome comments from council members. Thank you. |
| 01:03:36.30 | Councilmember Hoffman | I was just going to also thank and point out the incredible talent that we had on the working group, which is Vice Chair of the Planning Commission, Junius, who's a land use and real estate attorney for 22 years, in San Francisco and Commissioner Luxenberg, who's a former planning director himself, and holds advanced degrees in city planning from University of California and has 35 years of experience in construction project management and city planning. Those guys did a tremendous amount of work, tremendous amount of work, you can't imagine, on this thing. And hours and hours. And also the unanimous vote from the Planning Commission on this draft. I'm ready to second. if that's appropriate. And thank you so much for everybody who's been working on this, Sergio and the whole team. Okay, thank you. |
| 01:04:23.97 | Melissa Blaustein | both and agree tremendous effort uh we had looked at this in legislative and so I know what heavy lift this was so thank you so much for for digging in um we do have a motion pending so uh we should uh call the roll on that uh do we have any other motions |
| 01:04:40.35 | Vicki Nichols | Okay. |
| 01:04:40.96 | Melissa Blaustein | So we have a motion by Councilman Cleveland-Knowles, a second by Councilman Huffman. Can you please call the roll, sir? |
| 01:04:49.31 | Serge Avila | Council member Sobieski. Yes. Council member Lula-Norv. |
| 01:04:53.09 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes. |
| 01:04:53.99 | Serge Avila | Council member Hoffman. |
| 01:04:55.25 | Melissa Blaustein | us. |
| 01:04:55.93 | Serge Avila | Vice Mayor Blomstein. |
| 01:04:57.43 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes. |
| 01:04:58.17 | Serge Avila | American. |
| 01:04:59.17 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes, thanks very much. you Okay, great. Well, well done, everybody. Moving on then to business items, item 5. Item 5A is the sixth cycle housing element update and selection of draft opportunity sites we will have. Beth from DeNovo and Dan from Community Development Department. So I suspect I'm turning this over to Beth. Welcome. |
| 01:05:28.87 | Beth (Consultant) | Good evening, Madam Mayor and members of the council. It's a pleasure to be here tonight and to go over the draft opportunity sites with you. |
| 01:05:34.74 | Unknown | I love you. |
| 01:05:39.89 | Beth (Consultant) | I will jump straight into my presentation here. |
| 01:05:44.78 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 01:05:44.83 | Beth (Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 01:05:44.97 | Melissa Blaustein | And Beth, can you also just lay the, |
| 01:05:45.03 | Beth (Consultant) | AND THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING TO |
| 01:05:47.90 | Melissa Blaustein | lay the groundwork and provide some clarity on what we're here doing. Yes. |
| 01:05:51.40 | Beth (Consultant) | Yes, yes. And my first couple of slides do exactly that. So let me just share my screen. |
| 01:06:08.73 | Beth (Consultant) | Thank you. So I'm forwarding here. So the item before you is the recommendation from the city council regarding the draft opportunity sites to consider for further evaluation and the draft housing element update and in the draft environmental impact report or draft EIR that will be prepared for the draft housing element. So I would like to clarify, none of these sites are being proposed for adoption or final recommendations tonight. So we're asking for you to identify sites that will be further evaluated through the housing element and through the environmental review process. So there will be additional meetings and additional public review periods. Specifically, there will be more city council, planning commission, and housing element advisory committee or HEAC meetings to receive input on the housing element update and including the sites and those will include the HEAC's review of the draft housing element Following their review, it will go out for a public review for a 30-day period where the public will be invited to comment. Following that review period, revisions will be made to the element and will be submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development or HCD for a 90 day review period. And often during that period, we'll also get some more public comments. Once we get comments back from the state, There will be revisions made to the housing element. Those will be provided to the planning commission for review at a hearing and to the city council for review. And so that will be the adoption draft housing element. And so we anticipate that there will be multiple opportunities for additional public input and once the draft housing element is available for review we will also hold another town hall so the Draft housing element will include a housing plan. It will include the programs and policies that the city will undertake during the eight year RHNA cycle. And it will also include the inventory of sites. So we'll present that to the community to provide the community with an opportunity for input. And then we'll also have one additional town hall. We anticipate after getting the state's comments on the housing element, we've been seeing a lot of comments from the state on all of the Southern California Housing elements, they're currently just wrapping up their sixth cycle review with the state And so we anticipate that we will get detailed comments from the state and that it will be worthwhile to take those comments and the proposed revisions to the community. So there's a clear understanding of why specific provisions are being made to the element are being recommended to the element before that document goes to the planning commission for its recommendation and then to the city council for adoption. So there will be. You'll be seeing me again and again and again. through this process. It's a very, very public and very detailed process. So a lot of effort has been expended to date to identify some draft opportunity sites. The Housing Element Advisory Committee, city staff, and then our consultant team have worked together to identify a number of draft opportunity sites. So when you're looking at the figures that accompany the staff report tonight, so those would be an attachment D. You'll see focus area sites that are shaded pink and they have a yellow outline. And so these sites are highlighted for your consideration. These meet the minimum acreage that's necessary to accommodate the very low and low income regional housing need allocation or RHNA. There are other sites that are shown on your figures to increase capacity, and those are highlighted pink. And so those are anticipated to be rezoned to provide additional capacity for housing development. And those sites that are not outlined yellow but are shaded pink don't meet the minimum acreage for the very low and low-income arena, but they can be planned to accommodate single-family and small-scale multifamily uses. A portion of those may be affordable to lower-income groups, but they're not counted toward your arena due to the state's requirements and how the state counts those units. The sites that are identified in the blue shading are sites that have existing zoning and capacity to accommodate units. So without any changes to your zoning, those sites that are shaded blue already have capacity and can accommodate some growth. Based on community input, identify that areas within the Marin ship that are designated W or the waterfront zone sites need to be removed. So those have been removed from further consideration. There were a number of paper streets in the southern area of town those have been removed as well. And paper streets are streets that are shown as a street on a parcel map, but haven't actually been approved as a street. So to a lot of too many communities, those look like, you know, open space or vacant land. And so they aren't really thought of as being a street, but they they could be improved as a street based on the assessor data. Also water based sites. So there's a lot of interest in liveaboards and houseboats and those opportunities, which have been an important part of Sausalito's culture and your housing stock. And those have been reviewed. Bay Conservation and Development Commission, or BCDC regulations, they prohibit new fill and they limit the number of live aboard and houseboat births to 10% per marina. During the fifth cycle, the city had a program in place to increase the capacity at its marinas and to legalize a number of of the units and that the city did not have a lot of success during the fifth cycle and implementing that program so we don't really want to rely on those sites for this sixth cycle. So we'll be including a program in the housing element to really focus on getting those sites ready for the seventh cycle so you can do do your work with PCDC during the fifth cycle. Also in developing these sites, the HIAC considered public input at each of its meetings. And then the HIAC also reviewed the community input that was provided at the two town hall meetings. So those meetings were available online for the HIAC to review. And then the HIAC also was provided with a summary of community input at the second town hall meeting. |
| 01:12:03.27 | Beth (Consultant) | And so there's about 46 slides in my presentation. I think I'm gonna go through about 15 of them and then have a pause and then we'll get into the city council comments. So just, there's a lot of talking. So I apologize in advance. So, When we're talking about accommodating the sites and the draft opportunity sites, we're really looking at what RHNA remains to be accommodated when we account for the capacity the city has with your approved projects, with projected units, and with the sites with existing capacity. So how many sites need to be rezoned to increase capacity for the full RHNA. And so when we're talking about accommodating the RHNA, we're looking at this, oh, and I apologize. Oh no, that's parts. My sixth and seventh cycle, they're spinning in my head. So we're talking about the sixth cycle RHNA, which is from 2023 through 2031. And that's allocated by the by ABAG. Association of Bay Area Governments and the city's been allocated 724 units and 200 in the very low income group 115 in the low income group. 114 in the modern income group. and 295 in the above moderate income group. And attachment A of the memo that you were provided does include an overview of what each of those income groups means. So what's the income associated with household sizes by income group, as well as affordable sales prices and affordable rents. We anticipate that as the state reviews, your housing element reviews the site, and as you review the sites and you review the environmental report, some of the sites may be flagged to come off of the inventory. And so we're recommending that a 25% buffer, 25% or so buffer be provided to give the city some flexibility when you go through the state review and then through the environmental review process in removing sites later in the process. And so with that buffer, we recommend identifying sites to accommodate about 906 units. So as I mentioned, the city currently does have some capacity and attachment E of your staff report describes the methodology for some of these assumptions. So we're looking at the arena that you have assigned plus the 25% buffer. And then when we consider the city's current capacity, there are approved and entitled projects. So those are developments that have received approvals but have not yet been issued building permits or have not yet requested building permits. And then there are also projected ADU units. So ADUs are accessory dwelling units. And we've projected based on the city's past performance about how many ADU units we anticipate during the sixth cycle And then we've also projected SB9 units on underutilized lots of the SB9 units you were just speaking of. And so, We've projected those units based on the property owner interest survey that was performed as part of the community surveys with. let's see, a few months ago at this point. And so we've made some assumptions based on that information. And so we anticipate between those three sources, there would be about 144 units accommodated Looking at the city's existing capacity sites, which are sites that have current zoning in place, but no approved projects. There are about 126 units that can be accommodated. And I will note that the HIAC number seven memo identified additional existing capacity sites. And when we went back through those, some of those we had anticipated property owner interest and there was not property owner interest. So we've corrected that and that's reduced the existing capacity sites by a bit. So with all of that taken into account, The city's remaining RHNA would wear including the 25% buffers for 636 units. When we look at it without the buffer, the remaining arena would be 454 units. So what you would absolutely have to meet for HCD. And HCD will also look at all of our assumptions for the existing capacity sites, the ADU projections, the SB9 projections. So they will also be surveying those, looking at those in detail. So there may be some of those units may be adjusted through this process as well. So the materials you've been provided identify all of the sites that were recommended by the Housing Element Advisory Committee for consideration in the housing element update process. And so you have a number of figures that show the zoning for those sites, the aerial photos, the sites by neighborhood, and then some of the environmental constraints identified for the sites as well. So when we're looking at these sites, we wanna make sure that the sites meet the state's suitability criteria. So in order to meet that, we have to look at several factors. The existing site condition, so sites that are non-vacant or underutilized, which can have a parking lot on it, any improvements, flags those sites as being non-vacant. And so HCD requires additional analysis for non-vacant sites, particularly if the city relies on More than 50% of its very low and low income regional housing need allocation to be met through non vacant sites. We also have to look at the realistic capacity. The state does not allow the city to assume that sites develop at maximum density, nor does the state take into account the additional development that could occur on sites under state required density bonuses. where if an affordable project comes forward and requests a density bonus, there are provisions of state law that allow those sites to develop at higher intensities. We also look at the site size and ownership. Large sites require special programs, smaller sites don't meet the very low and low income arena need but can be used to meet the moderate and above moderate and then specifically when we start looking at some of the site requirements for the lower income groups we look at the size so sites that are going to be rezoned to accommodate the very low and low income arena have to be typically at least a half acre to 10 acres in size we do have a few smaller sites that are city-owned that we anticipate can meet this need because the city can of course make a commitment that those sites will be available during the housing element period and can provide some incentives for those sites. There has to be adequate density for affordable housing development that's assigned to those sites. And there also has to be a reasonable expectation for development. So if there are existing uses on the site, we have to reasonably assume that those uses could either be discontinued or be incorporated into a new development. And when the state is looking at the assumptions, if you're using any assumptions for either lowered, for atypical development types or smaller sites, other, any special provisions, the state's going to want to see that there's a demonstrated history of successful development during the previous cycle or the fifth cycle of those types of uses. So when we look at the city's existing affordable housing, which can give us an idea of densities that have been successful in Sausalito and accommodating very low and low income groups, the city does have three affordable housing projects, Rotary Village, B Street Housing, and Rotary Place. And those are all smaller projects. They range from about six units to 22 units in size. And those are developed at densities of about 40 to 71 units per acre. So when we're looking at the sites for the city's regional housing need allocation for the very low and low income group, we're anticipating that those sites will need to accommodate a minimum of 25 units per acre and up to 49 to 70 units per acre to accommodate the arena. And those numbers may be adjusted depending on where we end up with the final date. |
| 01:19:31.96 | Unknown | I'm sorry. I'm sorry. |
| 01:19:48.11 | Beth (Consultant) | number of sites and sites we have identified. The majority of sites are in the 49 unit per acre recommendation. There are some sites in the 70 unit per acre recommendation as well. And when we're looking at the different housing types that would occur on the sites that are identified for rezoning, there are several housing types that we're anticipating. So some smaller scale multifamily projects, projects like duplexes, fourplexes, sixplexes. And these are some examples of these scales of development that are currently in Sausalito. In larger scale multifamily development, this can be multifamily apartments, townhomes, condominiums, and the city also has a number of these types of uses as well. included some examples, the terraces, the Anchorage, Point Sausalito, and a five Rodeo Drive in the city as well. We also anticipate that a portion of these sites would be developed with mixed uses. So mixed uses are where you have residential development, either in a portion of a building or on a portion of a site and then non residential use such as retail office. Recreational or other uses other than residential in concert with that residential use and there are multiple examples of. mixed use in Sausalito, as well as in some neighboring communities such as Mill Valley. |
| 01:21:09.99 | Beth (Consultant) | So cutting down to the recommendation before the council tonight, table four of the staff report recommends specific draft opportunity sites for council consideration. And in looking at those draft opportunity sites, I want to make sure we flag a few issues for your consideration. So as I mentioned, we have the arena to be accommodated both with the buffer and without the buffer. And so the recommended opportunity sites would allow for about 817 units and would be adequate to meet the RHNA for all income levels. You will notice that the above moderate income number is lower than the RHNA. But the excess capacity from these lower income levels would be affordable to the above moderate income group as well. And so we can be counted in that direction. So those are all going to be adequate to meet the arena. The city, however, has some constraints to development and a number of those constraints I know you're well aware of. There are sites that are subject to the fair traffic initiative, which constrains the floor area ratios and rezoning sites to allow for increased floor area ratios or densities in specific zoning categories. And so there are also sites that require voter approval per and Ordinance 1128, those are the city parking sites, the MLK site. So when we're looking at what the city's capacity is with those recommended draft opportunity sites, we also did a calculation that looks at the, Opportunity sites when we remove all of the sites that require voter approval. And that would result in 312 units accommodated on those sites. And those would not be adequate to meet the full arena. It would be adequate to meet the modern income arena, but all of the other income levels would not be met. So we anticipate that either The city will need to have a ballot measure to accommodate the sites that are identified. on the sites requiring voter approval, or we will need to identify additional sites. We've come to the city pretty closely and the HEAC looked at a lot of areas. So there aren't a lot of, gems in the rough, but if there are, we would need to identify those. Or we would increase the number of units on the sites that are already identified. And that would be the most likely thing to occur, particularly to meet the very low or low income arena, because the sites that we need to use to meet those lower income groups do need to be at least a half acre, and they need to accommodate a certain number of units. And so we're not going to be able to demonstrate that a bunch of small individual parcels throughout the city will be able to meet that arena. So. we would anticipate really bumping up the assumed densities on a number of sites that don't require the voter approval or aren't subject to these constraints. And with that, I'm going to now go through some of the capacity neighborhood by neighborhood. Following that, I'll break and ask for some questions. So I'll just quickly go through each of the neighborhoods. before we get into the city council recommendations by neighborhood. So going through and I'm starting at the southern end of the city and working toward the north in general. In Old Town and Hurricane Gulch, we've identified 45 units to increase or 40 sites to accommodate 45 units with rezoning to increase capacity. And there are also there's also existing capacity for about four units on sites in that neighborhood as well. IN THE HILL, WE'VE IDENTIFIED sites to accommodate about 85 units with zoning to increase capacity or rezoning to increase capacity. And there's existing capacity for about 66 units in that neighborhood. And when I'm discussing these neighborhoods, I should mentioned also the neighborhood boundaries are based on the adopted general plan so your adopted general plan does establish specific neighborhoods in the city and so we've adhered to those boundaries in developing all of our projections and in allocating the units by neighborhood in the Newtown area. We've identified sites to increase capacity to accommodate 91 units. And then there's existing capacity on sites with existing zoning for about 35 units, so about 126 units in Newtown. in the Monte Maravista and Toyon Terraces area. We have not identified any opportunity sites to increase capacity and have identified sites with existing capacity to accommodate about 20 units. In the Spring Street Valley neighborhood, we've identified sites to increase capacity to accommodate 12 additional units, and then existing capacity sites that can accommodate 12 units as well for a total of 24 units. |
| 01:25:53.81 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:26:07.21 | Beth (Consultant) | In the Marinship neighborhood, There aren't sites with existing capacity, but we've identified sites with the potential to increase capacity to accommodate about 193 units. |
| 01:26:22.21 | Beth (Consultant) | In the Nevada Street Valley area, we've also identified there aren't a lot of sites with existing capacity with existing zoning, but the sites to increase capacity would accommodate about 309 additional units. And then in Wolfback Ridge, the existing capacity sites would accommodate about 10 units, and there are no sites identified to increase capacity. And in this neighborhood, that was due primarily to the lack of public sewer. And so with that, I will pause and hand it back over to the mayor under the city council. |
| 01:26:58.19 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you, Beth. That was a big lift. So thank you very, very much. And a huge thank you to my colleague, Council Member Cleveland Knowles for serving on the HEAC with me and the HEAC members to which are planning commissioners for their hard work. And this has been a lot of work here. Can I just ask you a quick clarifying question from the slides? You talked about interest from property owners. What documentation validates interest? |
| 01:27:26.72 | Beth (Consultant) | So we had sent out a survey So when we first went through this process, there was a community-wide survey. So we had a number of property owners respond to the survey indicating interest in having their site resound to increase capacity. And then we also used that data to identify ADU potential and SB9 potential. We also, for the non-vacant sites, we sent out several mailings. So we sent out two mailings to identify additional interest for those. And so we received, and those included a survey so that people could return, you know, respond and say they were interested or not interested. We made it really easy, just some quick check boxes. And so we've accumulated all of that information to identify the property owner interest. Once we've identified specific sites, we'll also work to further contact those property owners as well. |
| 01:28:05.25 | Unknown | you |
| 01:28:16.86 | Beth (Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 01:28:16.98 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, and then I just want to clarify also, When I looked at your slides, it seemed to suggest that density is equivalent to affordability. I want to confirm that that is not the assumption here. |
| 01:28:31.62 | Beth (Consultant) | The state ties density to affordability when looking at the very low and low income sites. So they're going to want to see specific densities accommodated. You can have affordable units on any site in the city. So we'll have sites that could accommodate ADUs. Those can likely be, you know, a number of those are going to be affordable. Similarly, some of your SB9 units will be affordable. You also may have developers who do, you know, multifamily or mixed use housing, and those may be affordable at moderate income levels. We'll also see some affordable units through your inclusionary housing requirements. So there are many opportunities for affordable units throughout the city. We only are counting, however, ones based on density for the state's requirements or where we've made those assumptions for ADUs or SB9 units. |
| 01:29:16.98 | Melissa Blaustein | So the city can only control affordability on the city-owned sites, right? Not on a privately owned site. Do we take that into account in, how we're measuring the number of affordable units So, |
| 01:29:30.03 | Beth (Consultant) | We, have added a portion of those sites that are identified to accommodate the very low and low to also have some moderate so there's a little cushion there so we haven't assumed that all of those sites will develop only with affordable units however We haven't identified twice the number of sites so that if those sites don't develop with affordable units, then, you don't have to rezone. So there likely will be Be the need to keep an eye on your sites as development occurs throughout the planning period. |
| 01:30:03.96 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. All right, and then let me just offer up to my fellow council members, Council Member, Sobisky and I had asked a number of legal related questions. about how development agreements might work or exactions on developers and such. The city attorney did prepare an excellent sort of Q&A based on some of those questions that I had noted from our exchange. It is in your inboxes. I'm sorry to say you didn't get it sooner. Councilman Cleveland Knowles was on the exchanges, but everybody else did not. So he is here. Sergio is here. If we have questions, he can respond to them. And I let him know we may bring up some of those questions as well. Okay, so right now we're taking council member questions for staff, so I will... Turn it over to Councilman of Cleveland. |
| 01:30:51.55 | Councilman Cleveland | I just had a kind of procedural question. Beth said you had 46 slides and I'm wondering what is left, just so I'm kind GREAT QUESTION. I mean, I don't think we got your presentation ahead of time. So I'm just wondering, so you've gone through pretty much all of our, the HIAC process, recommendations, neighborhoods, What are we going to talk about after this? |
| 01:31:14.89 | Beth (Consultant) | So the remaining slides will take you through the recommendations of the staff report for each neighborhood. So the staff report includes recommendations and it groups the sites for each neighborhood based on potential conflict areas. And so we will go through and I can just forward quickly to an example. So, you know, for example, we'll go through Old Town Hurricane Gulch will identify the sites, I don't know, you know, recommended in the council and then go through each of those areas to get council feedback so. We are anticipating that there will be public comment after this discussion, and then we'll go through each of those subsets of sites. bunch by bunch to get council direction and provide public comment on each subset of sites. And those are all the additional slides. |
| 01:31:59.76 | Councilman Cleveland | Okay, so we're gonna, have our questions right now, then we're going to take public comment, and then we're going to go into kind of decision making mode. And some of us will be recused from various sections of that. Is that correct? |
| 01:32:11.93 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:32:13.19 | Councilman Cleveland | So the main presentation is where we're just going to, you're going to use slides to get us. Yes. THAT'S HELPFUL. THANK YOU. I guess my only I have a question. right now is you showed a slide that The draft opportunity sites right now are about 900 |
| 01:32:31.31 | Unknown | you |
| 01:32:34.25 | Councilman Cleveland | Units. that we need 800 with the buffer. |
| 01:32:38.94 | Councilman Cleveland | et cetera, you had kind of a, I don't know what slide number it is, AM I CORRECT? that if we were to move forward just with all the recommendations that you have in a bucket, TONIGHT. |
| 01:32:52.58 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:32:53.84 | Councilman Cleveland | we would have kind of a buffer on top of the buffer. So once the environmental analysis is done, we would still be able to subtract some universe of the sites that we've looked at. that we've analyzed environmentally. and still have the recommended number of Yeah. SITES TO MOVE ON TO HCD. |
| 01:33:19.93 | Beth (Consultant) | Thank you. That would be our anticipation that there would be more than enough sites. |
| 01:33:24.56 | Councilman Cleveland | Okay, but if we whittle it down too much, then we will only be studying THE number of units that we need. And I think it looked to me like it was about 100 units over |
| 01:33:39.98 | Beth (Consultant) | If there's a little more than 100 units over. Can you just go back? Can you go back to that slide? Yeah, and I can go back. There's a couple of slides. I will go to this one. |
| 01:33:42.65 | Councilman Cleveland | Can you just go back, can you go back to that slide? |
| 01:33:50.10 | Beth (Consultant) | it. |
| 01:33:55.20 | Beth (Consultant) | So there's, This slide that shows the, you know, the buffer amount and then your recommended draft opportunity sites. And yes, those exceed the minimum, Rena. and the Arena Plus buffer. |
| 01:34:09.70 | Councilman Cleveland | So the rena plus buffer is 636. Right now we've got 817. So this will give us another bite at the apple after the environmental review to further Uh, slim down our recommendations, but we've got about a hundred |
| 01:34:26.59 | Unknown | RUN. |
| 01:34:30.74 | Councilman Cleveland | 80 units over right now, is that correct? Correct. Yes. All right. Okay, thank you. That's the only question I have. |
| 01:34:38.00 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 01:34:38.03 | Councilman Cleveland | Thank you. |
| 01:34:39.11 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. So on my screen, it's Councilman Sobieski, then the Vice Mayor, and then Councilman Hoffman. I agree. Are you guys OK with that? All right, Kelsper Sobieski. |
| 01:34:47.97 | Ian Sobieski | Vicky Mayor. I thank you, Beth. So let's talk a little bit about SB9, if you would. Just this guidance. that SB9 bot split units don't count for the purpose of re-nup. unless you have an affirmative statement of interest from the property owner that they intend to or intend or are interested in building housing. Where is that guidance from and how solid is it needed? |
| 01:35:14.85 | Beth (Consultant) | And so this is definitely an emerging issue since SB 9 just kicked in in January. And so the state is just beginning to review housing elements that are relying on SB 9. So I think it will continue to evolve and you'll probably be in one of the sets of jurisdictions that that is using SB 9 quite not heavily, but using using plenty of SB 9 units so. We anticipate that we have the property on our survey that identifies interest, so it doesn't necessarily, we used that to identify the percentage of underutilized sites that could be developed pursuant to SB9. So we didn't specifically say we have five property owners that want to develop an SB9 site. We're only counting those five property owners. We said we have five out of 150 property owners that want to develop SB9 sites. We're going to take that, extrapolate it to the city's larger body of underutilized sites and assume that that percentage would develop if the city affirmatively markets and identifies these opportunities. If the city encourages development of SB9 sites, we're anticipating we'll see more of those units develop. |
| 01:36:21.05 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 01:36:21.10 | Beth (Consultant) | So. |
| 01:36:21.47 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 01:36:21.49 | Beth (Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 01:36:21.79 | Ian Sobieski | We met was, uh, why can we not count sites that are of right to be split and developed? but we don't have any indication of whether the owner would want to develop those sites. |
| 01:36:34.30 | Beth (Consultant) | Why can't you count those? |
| 01:36:35.61 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 01:36:36.54 | Beth (Consultant) | Because the state wants to see sites that are realistic. And so they're not anticipating that every site that has the ability to be developed would be developed during the sixth cycle. |
| 01:36:45.62 | Ian Sobieski | I'm just trying to understand where that guidance is from. Is that in a legal opinion from HCD? Is it from the... San Francisco Chronicle, what's the source of that and the guidance of it? |
| 01:36:56.91 | Beth (Consultant) | And let me actually pull up just really quickly what the SB9 guidance specifically is. |
| 01:36:57.20 | Ian Sobieski | Wait, let's go. |
| 01:37:02.95 | Beth (Consultant) | is because it's very, there's brief guidance by the state and it's not very detailed at this point, but there is an SB9 fact sheet that was published by the state Let me just pop that up and identify exactly what that says versus what our other assumptions have been. And so... to use projections toward SB9 the state's requiring and this is this is a fact sheet issued by the state would you like me to |
| 01:37:32.45 | Ian Sobieski | Very useful. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were trying to show us. If you're gonna read it. |
| 01:37:37.78 | Beth (Consultant) | I'll just read it. So the housing element must include a site-specific inventory of sites where SB9 projections are being applied. must include a non-vacant sites analysis demonstrating the likelihood of redevelopment and that the existing use will not constitute an impediment to development, and then identify governmental constraints to the use of SB9, such as fees, land use requirements, zoning, your objective design standards that will likely be adopted right around the time of the housing element or a bit before. And then also include programs and policies that establish zoning and development standards. |
| 01:38:03.01 | Unknown | Thank you. I'm going to go. |
| 01:38:13.84 | Beth (Consultant) | There's not a specific requirement that you have to limit it in the state's fact sheet that you have to limit it based on property owner interest. But when the state has been reviewing elements, they have not been identifying that it's realistic to assume development of a higher rate than where you can identify interest. So. |
| 01:38:36.09 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, and- And- Based on practice, and is that practice what you're seeing in Southern California or somewhere else? |
| 01:38:43.27 | Beth (Consultant) | That's what we're seeing in Southern California. |
| 01:38:45.28 | Ian Sobieski | that they're not getting hcd uh confirmation of their housing plans if they rely too heavily on SB 9 without affirmative voter interest, is that what you're saying? |
| 01:38:55.41 | Beth (Consultant) | Without our interest or without documenting why it's reasonable to assume a higher number of SB9 units. |
| 01:38:55.71 | Ian Sobieski | All right. |
| 01:39:03.03 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. but it's not affirmatively stated in that fact sheet that you just said. |
| 01:39:08.67 | Beth (Consultant) | Correct. |
| 01:39:09.23 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. Thank you. So tell me what happens next in this, what we're actually deciding today, there's not a small number of people who are judging from all the letters we've received. We believe that in today's meeting, we're actually voting to tear down city hall and build high density house. Can you please clarify exactly what's this is you said earlier that we are improving a site for you to do some more work on. And I believe that some more work is an environmental review. And that's the main work product is you're going to do environmental review on a couple of these sites, on all of these sites. But what is that environmental review? What's the work product that comes out of it? |
| 01:39:47.05 | Beth (Consultant) | It will be a programmatic environmental impact report or EIR. So it will be, you already have your programmatic EIR prepared for the general plan update. So it'll be something similar to that, that looks now at the increased capacity of your general plan with these additional sites that would be associated with the housing element update. So there will be the EIR. There will also be an actual draft housing element document that will include a lot of population demographic data, housing data. It will include a review of your fifth cycle housing element and its implementation and a discussion of how Thank you. how fair housing issues affect the city and then how the sites that are selected either improve or don't improve fair housing or affirmatively furthering fair housing. So you'll have two documents. |
| 01:40:33.60 | Ian Sobieski | there's any of that environmental review of specify and talk to the negative environmental impacts of let's say a high density housing and rotation x traffic. congestion. noise, parking. pollution, any of those things. |
| 01:40:51.29 | Beth (Consultant) | So we won't necessarily go parcel by part, much like the general plan EIR didn't go parcel by parcel through the city. We'll look at the sites more collectively where there will be various environmental issues that will be associated with sites of a certain type or in certain locations. So we'll definitely discuss it environmental issues by location, but we won't necessarily analyze each site by, you know, having a specific analysis for each site. |
| 01:41:17.36 | Ian Sobieski | I THINK THAT'S |
| 01:41:18.03 | Councilman Cleveland | Thank you. |
| 01:41:18.64 | Ian Sobieski | hit that. Thank you. |
| 01:41:19.40 | Councilman Cleveland | Can I just interrupt? I think this would be relevant to council member Sobieski's |
| 01:41:20.55 | Beth (Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 01:41:25.24 | Councilman Cleveland | I think you told us at the HIAC meeting that you had the budget for I think it was six, but it might've been eight kind of mock-ups of different sites. that would also be able to accompany the review. Maybe you could just talk a little bit about that budget |
| 01:41:42.91 | Beth (Consultant) | Yes, and so we initially had a budget for doing some visualizations of, I believe, it was six sites. We've put that aside, however, because through the odds project, OptiCoast, the city is now working with OptiCoast and they will be doing the visualizations for six sites. And then we're also getting two visualizations through the Marin County effort. So we won't be tapping into all of that additional. We had a contingency budget for some of that visualization. So we won't be tapping into that and those will be developed, but you will have for eight sites, two different firms preparing visualizations. So we'll take examples of sites that are steeply sloped sites, sites with specific sites in flatter areas, sites that are sensitive, where we've heard a lot of community input. And we will be getting examples of what the recommended housing types would look like on those sites. |
| 01:42:36.01 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, but for a particular site, let's pick on City Hall since I mentioned it, and it's much beloved and there's a lot of concern about it. you could imagine one, you can imagine no development of course. 14 townhouses over underground parking just in the parking lot. And you could also imagine tearing the whole thing down and building the high density housing that's shown up in a couple of illustrations. Are you gonna look at, those two different kinds of implementations, or is it and the environmental impacts thereof, both to the community and otherwise? Or are you looking just at, let's say, one of those ideas? |
| 01:43:13.36 | Beth (Consultant) | we will be looking at So, The housing element doesn't entitle any projects and it doesn't have any specific development projects associated with it. So the housing element in and of itself won't result in development of City Hall. So it will create the path forward for the city to allow for development of the City Hall site should the city include that site. So we won't be assessing a specific development at City Hall, but we will be looking at what would the environmental implications be of allowing, say, 37, 50 additional units at City Hall. So we'll be looking at kind of a more general |
| 01:43:41.45 | Unknown | HALL. |
| 01:43:51.44 | Beth (Consultant) | general approach. We may end up looking at several, and this really depends on when we get to the alternatives analysis, we'll be looking at the development associated with the recommended rezoning. So for City Hall, it would be a mixed use. And it could be a replacement of City Hall, or it could be something where you have additional development occur on your existing City Hall site, say replace the parking, or be podium-style housing above parking. So there could be several different iterations. And so we'll have to look at our assumptions when we're going into the environmental impact report process to make sure that we have appropriate assumptions in place. And then we also can look at alternatives. So for various sites, we can look at reducing density, we can look at an alternative that removes some of the sites, and we can look at how that affects the overall environmental effects of housing element adoption. |
| 01:44:43.17 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, let me say back to what I think your answer was, is you're actually gonna look at a range of options versus many of these sites? from low density to high density to, well, low density to high density, I guess. |
| 01:44:54.68 | Beth (Consultant) | We'll be looking at the recommended density. And then through the alternatives, we may look at alternative options to some of the sites. Some of the sites we may not, though. So there may be alternatives to sites that are reviewed through the alternatives in the EIR. So typically, the alternatives analysis in the EIR is intended to reduce significant environmental impacts. So where we identify significant and avoidable impacts through the environmental analysis, will be targeting sites or changes to those sites that could reduce those environmental impacts. So where we identify significant and avoidable impacts through the environmental analysis, we'll be targeting sites or changes to those sites that could reduce those environmental impacts. |
| 01:45:25.30 | Ian Sobieski | I'm sorry to belabor it, but I'm still confused as to how this process works going forward. Again, I have a site where you know, the nominal use is very high density, has a huge impact. very different environmental. First off, you said you're not doing site by site environmental assessment. So how are you assessing whether it has huge environmental impact And then if you haven't done that work, how can you even begin to talk about having less of the thing you didn't measure. |
| 01:45:52.69 | Beth (Consultant) | So it's a complicated question when you look at programmatic EIR. So this will be much like your general plan EIR, where you had a number of sites that had changes to density or changes to what kind of growth could occur, but you didn't necessarily analyze those site by site. So for traffic, you looked at traffic community-wide, and you looked at how would traffic be affected. In the case of, you know, now that we're in the era where we're looking at VMT, we'll be looking at the, you know, VMT, vehicle miles traveled analysis. And then we can pull out an individual site. So when we work, |
| 01:45:58.75 | Trisha Gelman | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:46:25.51 | Beth (Consultant) | with the traffic consultant to identify alternatives, we will work with them to identify, okay, are there any sites that are triggering any, if we have VMT impacts, are there sites that are triggering those impacts and how can we address that? |
| 01:46:38.34 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. Why is the post office site on the list if it's not owned in the you know, the course master didn't say he wants to develop housing. So why is it a site? |
| 01:46:47.05 | Beth (Consultant) | So that one was actually removed from the recommended sites list. We'll go through that because we didn't get any feedback from the post office. That would be a site, however, where I know the city has worked in the past with the postmaster to identify the potential to develop that site that you could you could recommend to keep on the list and we can keep working with them. There are going to be many sites on the HEAC recommended list included many sites where we did not confirm property owner interest. They cast a broad net. |
| 01:47:14.03 | Ian Sobieski | that's going to be a little bit I'm sorry. |
| 01:47:16.70 | Beth (Consultant) | And so that's why we have a lot of those sites. |
| 01:47:19.06 | Ian Sobieski | So we have sites on the list that don't have donor interest indicated. That's also interesting to hear. So what happens if we just, help confirm for me if we missed our RENA number December comes, January comes, we don't have a housing element that's certified base CD. we don't identify enough sites. What happens in February and March? Is it anything bad happen? |
| 01:47:42.62 | Beth (Consultant) | Typically not. Most of the Southern California cities don't have a certified housing element. Those were due in October. So, so far nothing bad has happened, you know, conceptually, and I'll let the city attorney chime in, you know, you could be sued for not accommodating your fair share of housing. But in the short term, HCD realizes that this is a difficult process and you won't have anything happen right away. |
| 01:48:09.13 | Ian Sobieski | What happens longer term? What's the threat? Why do we care? |
| 01:48:14.58 | Beth (Consultant) | So say two years into the cycle, you haven't adopted a housing element, then you're very much at risk of either having the state attorney general. The state has developed a task force to encourage and enforce housing element compliance. And so you could be targeted by them and you could be subject to, and I see Sergio, I will let Sergio take over. |
| 01:48:38.61 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, so there are a number of penalties that may kick in if you fail to meet the required deadlines. And the first penalty is to accrue if... HCD certification is not in place by May 31st of 2023. basically, as part of your housing element, You know, typically there's a program for rezoning if you don't have existing sites and you normally have three years to complete that process of rezoning. If you fail to meet timely certification requirements, basically the timeframe for completing your rezoning gets shortened to one year. Um... Additionally, one of the more meaningful impacts is basically either the attorney general, a developer, a housing advocate group, or even potential residents of the city can sue the city seeking a writ to compel the city to adopt a housing settlement that's in substantial compliance with state law. Um, Now, additionally, The court can order a variety of remedies, which include suspending the city's ability to issue building permits, approve zoning changes, variances, or subdivision maps, basically, until a compliant housing element is adopted. Additionally, there's potential imposition of attorney's fees for any successful litigants, so these are pretty sizable requirements. Lastly, there are provisions in the state law that basically subject the city to monetary penalties for refusing to comply with court orders requiring compliance with the state housing laws. basically you can start accruing significant penalties to the state. |
| 01:50:19.42 | Ian Sobieski | My last question is maybe for you, Sergei, or Beth, whoever wants to answer it. I think it is a step forward. We get a certified housing element. it identifies the requisite number of 800 units. The city doesn't build housing, of course. All we do is provide the environment for housing What if it so happens that even though we've identified 800 units to be built, only 50 get built after four years, five years, six years? um, My understanding is that there are some very substantial penalties that accrue if we don't actually build. the housing that we're required to build. Can you please? And if so, what are those penalties? either appeal. |
| 01:51:05.54 | Beth (Consultant) | I would say one of the primary penalties in this, the city is currently experiencing this with SB 35 is if you're not meeting your prorated share of their regional housing need allocation, then the city is required to allow development projects by right and only only subject to. Subject or objective objective design and development standards. And so this the city currently has several SB 35 projects. And so if you're not accommodating your fair share, that would be the first step. If you're developing a lot of uses on your sites identified to accommodate your arena. Then when you go to do your seventh cycle, you're going to have a really hard time demonstrating how you complied with your sixth cycle plan to accommodate the arena. |
| 01:51:51.32 | Sergio Rudin | Yes, so yeah, HCD does keep track throughout the course of the housing element as a result of reports the city's required by housing element law to submit. I think Beth touched on one of the big potential penalties. I think one of the other issues is that if you are allowing development, and this is one of the reasons why the buffer is important, is if you're allowing development on sites identified in the arena or in the site's inventory for a specific amount of density and you're approving development at much lower densities, if you don't have that buffer, state law may require you to complete additional rezonings in the city to ensure that you maintain that capacity for other development. So. That's awesome. |
| 01:52:33.91 | Ian Sobieski | I'll ask you to rip off of the mayor's question about affordable housing and density. So the presumption in the Thank you. the maps I've seen is that affordable housing has to be dense and often if not exclusively on city owned property because of the economics they're in. But did you look at the potential trade-off When you upzone private property to a more valuable use, you create value which could, as could in exchange for that upzoning, be carved back as a subsidy, which could be used for more, spread out smaller affordable housing units that of course don't pencil out in the particular location on private property, but would be subsidized by the increase in value that we are providing by upzoning private parcels for higher and better use? |
| 01:53:25.26 | Beth (Consultant) | No, the closest thing the city has to capturing that is your inclusionary housing requirement, which would ensure the development of those parcels includes an affordable component. And then you can also have, you know, a more stringent inclusionary requirement. You could also have an affordable housing fee where you have a, A B 1600 nexus fee that requires each market rate development to pay its fair share of affordable housing needs, but no, we did it, we didn't include a fiscal mechanism to to collect the benefit to the owner and distribute that to affordable units throughout the city. |
| 01:53:50.03 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:54:00.60 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. Yeah, and as Beth touched on, usually the most legally defensible and constitutionally permissible way to do that is by the general imposition of an affordable housing requirement city-wide. That is triggered based on, say, a percentage of the number of units that are constructed or, say, affordable housing linkage fees that apply to all development. So, of course, if someone is allowed to develop more on a particular parcel as a result of upzoning, then they would have to pay more as a result of having a bigger project, if that makes sense. |
| 01:54:31.63 | Melissa Blaustein | So, so sort of just to put another way, we cannot exact a fee for upzoning. |
| 01:54:36.24 | Sergio Rudin | Generally, no. Not for that specifically. |
| 01:54:40.31 | Ian Sobieski | Well, I'm sorry, but I just have to ask then. CD, what is it, Community Development Agreement, CDAs. I thought that's whole, the whole premise of that was to extract public benefit in exchange for um, for deals you do with private developers. Land swaps, public benefits like that, the building infrastructure. uh subsidies of one kind or another so surely you could up zone one property and and require that owner to build a certain number of affordable units, for instance, on his property or buy an adjacent property and build affordable units? No, as part of the CDA? |
| 01:55:17.60 | Sergio Rudin | That depends. I think a lot of the authority to do those types of things were under formal redevelopment law, and with the dissolution of development agencies and redevelopment agencies, a lot of those tools went by the wayside. but you know, it depends on exactly who owns the parcel and the property. generally with respect to you know, redevelopment there are there are some tools that that can be used And it depends on whether or not you're creating an upzoning as a matter of you know, just general right, for example, in order to meet the city's Reno requirements, you know, you'd have to be completing rezoning. It'd be difficult to extract concessions or exactions because you would be doing that regard, you'd be doing that zoning regardless of whether or not that person wanted it. if that makes sense. |
| 01:56:06.71 | Ian Sobieski | Yes. |
| 01:56:06.94 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. |
| 01:56:07.04 | Ian Sobieski | The boss already |
| 01:56:07.97 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah. |
| 01:56:08.04 | Ian Sobieski | So |
| 01:56:09.35 | Melissa Blaustein | And Sergio, didn't you also explain today that the council members have this, that the city likely wouldn't have authority to require exactions for development beyond mitigating impacts of a particular proposed project. and talked about are the Nolan Dolling Doctrine. a governmental exaction imposed must have a nexus. And so that adds to the complexity is that, Is that accurate? |
| 01:56:30.10 | Sergio Rudin | Yes, yeah, basically there are constitutional limits on what sort of exactions that the city can impose on development. And yes, they do generally need to have a constitutional nexus to... Um, you know, whatever you're exacting needs to have an access to what the impacts of the project are. And, you know, it has to be a reasonable... exaction and can't be disproportionate to the impacts of development. So, you know, the city can require developers to pay for their fair share of you know utility improvements sewer water infrastructure you know uh road impacts and things like that you know if you need to construct new public projects or facilities to serve that development. Typically, that development has to pay at least a share of it. Yeah. that development is going to be the only one served by that, then they can pay, city can typically require the developer to pay for all of it. |
| 01:57:22.26 | Councilman Cleveland | Thank you. |
| 01:57:22.27 | Sergio Rudin | So. |
| 01:57:22.29 | Councilman Cleveland | That's all outside the development agreement context. |
| 01:57:25.14 | Sergio Rudin | Yes. |
| 01:57:25.56 | Councilman Cleveland | Law applies, yeah. |
| 01:57:27.59 | Melissa Blaustein | Let's take a pause for a second and let's move to another council member and then we can circle back if there's more questions on this. So why don't we move to the vice mayor? |
| 01:57:36.30 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Thank you. And those were a lot of really great questions, Council Member Sobieski. So I'm quite glad that you had so many and you covered some of my questions as well. and I really appreciate how much work has gone into this, and especially I really want to thank all the members of the HIAC and the mayor and Councilmember Cleveland Knowles for the additional time we've spent on all of these sites and all of the meetings. Some of those meetings are six hours long. So it's been a lot of work and effort. I was reading the first couple, I mean, I went through the 65 page staff report. And I had a couple of questions and concerns AND I THINK THAT'S A Frankly, it was quite frustrating that the sites were written with numbers without specific names for each of the sites for some of the feedback. And so I ended up going through a table and actually writing down each of the numbers for the sites. And so I'm just I hope members of the public were able to follow along and we'll get to it piece by piece so that it's a little more understandable. But in going through it, I was surprised to see that your recommendation is to remove some of the sites, some of the draft opportunity sites because of the scope of work. I went back, is that because we just don't have it within our existing contract with DeNovo because I went back through our contract to try and see what the scope was to better understand because I'm at a loss for why if we maybe have 887 units, including the 130 SB9 units, we would want to decrease the opportunity sites. |
| 01:58:58.68 | Beth (Consultant) | And that was mainly the focus of our recommendation is we do want to stay, you know, we don't want to come back and ask for more money and take more time out of the process. So there are a number of sites where we didn't have property owner interest. And I can provide some information on why some of the sites were removed. We anticipate that they'll be less likely to develop. They aren't sites that would necessarily meet your lower income arena. I'm going to go to the The traffic consultant was very specific when they made their assumptions that they were looking at 20 sites and we're going to be asking them to look at a lot more than 20. So we're hoping to already get some additional work out of them. So we really tried to winnow it down so that sites that we don't really anticipate will move toward your goal. your six cycle arena would be really significant that those aren't being evaluated. And we also, oh, go on. No, go ahead. And I could go out and you know all night about housing. But we also anticipate that this housing element will really include a more robust program to look toward the seventh cycle. So there are a lot of sites that have been identified that might have additional capacity and so that you can really develop some community-wide strategies for accommodating housing by looking at some of those sites and looking at those in context of the sites that end up being approved for this element as well. |
| 02:00:17.30 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | But from what I'm seeing in the staff report, even though we have a recommended units that barely reached the threshold, you're asking us to remove some of them. |
| 02:00:26.01 | Beth (Consultant) | And some of those are sites that accommodate just a couple of units. And you may want to put those back in. And that is absolutely fine if you want to do that. Let me pop up the table that goes through those sites that might actually help here. |
| 02:00:45.13 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | I mean, I was trying to also in regards to that, you know, some of them do only have, and this is, again, I had to go back through. and see which parcels had how many units and what the names of the units were. And one of them like had one unit and it's one that we'll discuss. Like it's one parcel with one unit. And so, if that's what you're looking for for us tonight to remove some of those then that should be a little more clear, but I I guess i'm wondering about about the. the process given that we need to have all of these sites and we need to have that buffer and we can't include SB 9. Are you asking us to remove them because within our scope of de novo's contract, we, can't review all of them. |
| 02:01:25.80 | Beth (Consultant) | No, that's not the entire reason. So no, we definitely looked at that and were thoughtful about that. But we also anticipated that some of these parcels may not be as likely to develop during the sixth cycle. We have some that we haven't heard back from the property owner. They've been reached out to a couple of times. some that have no access, there are some that, you know, would be more likely to develop in a longer term with they might require some more intensive plans. Some of them, you know, have access issues. As I mentioned, a couple of the sites are actually shown as part of the Dempsey Park improvement project. And we hadn't realized that until that was brought to our attention pretty, pretty late in the process. And then one of the sites was, was removed by the HIAXO on my list here, but you know, we, we had a number of factors we considered when trying to winnow it down to something that's a little, a little more narrow and more realistic for the city to consider. Because I know if we give all of these sites to the state and we include some of the sites that we know are less like, that are more constrained or less likely to develop, then you're just going to have the state comment on your draft housing element and kick it back to you. |
| 02:02:18.26 | Unknown | because- |
| 02:02:31.14 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | but as Councilmember Sobieski noted we don't have a visualization or like a larger picture for what all of these sites look like so we're just kind of pulling them and then and then. because it's too onerous for the EIR. trying to understand for our big picture vision for housing we we like maybe won't develop them so we're taking them off it wasn't like what you're saying about which ones aren't developed etc wasn't immediately clear to me from the from the staff report so i'm just trying to get a sense and i'm also wondering in the direction of the staff report you said um you know if we don't meet the requirements we'll have to increase the the size of the build or the number of sites so on some of them we're suggesting increasing under the general plan to 49 square mile or 49 sorry 49 units per acre so you're suggesting if we can't include all these opportunity sites that then we would increase it to what 77 units per acre or like any given number |
| 02:03:23.03 | Beth (Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 02:03:23.89 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Thank you. |
| 02:03:23.90 | Beth (Consultant) | And that would really depend on what ends up being removed and what you have to accommodate. With the sites that are recommended to be kept, you would not have to do that. If some of those sites are removed, then you may have to increase your capacity. And that would mean higher density at that location. at individual locations or additional sites that have been previously dismissed. |
| 02:03:49.16 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | And if we just this might be a legal question, Sergio, but if we do that on one site, for instance, with a specific square footage, is it then required at all of the same existing sites with this that square footage? from a zoning density capacity standpoint. |
| 02:04:04.00 | Beth (Consultant) | And I can answer that. You can customize your rezoning program for individual sites. So every site does not have to be rezoned to the same density. So you can have some sites that are one density, you know, 70, you can have some that are 49, you can have some that are less, you can have some that are mixed use. So you have, there's a lot of flexibility in that. |
| 02:04:22.27 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | have we done any sort of assessment of the like typical density for a more affordable housing um duplex or an affordable housing larger scale density project in Marin County. because the rotary sites that are used as examples are kind of unique because thanks to our rotary club, those were mostly funded entirely by the nonprofit. Um, |
| 02:04:45.41 | Beth (Consultant) | And so a lot of sites that end up in Marin County, the recent tax credit sites, are at higher densities. So you're seeing higher densities than the 70 units per acre typically. And a lot of those affordable projects do receive a density bonus. So one of the things we will point out in the draft housing element when it goes to the state is that projects that go for low-income housing tax credit funding, community development block grant funding, a whole bunch of the funding mechanisms that are available at the federal and state levels. Typically, you know, have our affordable housing developers that are aware of the various incentives. And so some of those projects might request a density bonus. THAT THE DENTY IS NOT |
| 02:05:20.97 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | A intensity bonus doesn't count towards our arena. Bye. and we don't know but, What is the HCD require for us to demonstrate that this is affordable housing? That it has a half an acre and that's it? |
| 02:05:34.21 | Beth (Consultant) | half an acre, a minimum of 20 units per acre, but then they also look at whether or not it's realistic that that site could be developed with affordable housing. And at 20 units per acre, you're not as likely to see affordable projects, just given the city's track record for affordable units. And as you noted, you know, the projects of the city aren't necessarily all subsidized with a ton of mechanisms that have been worked on by community entities. And so We're... we're really looking at |
| 02:06:05.09 | Beth (Consultant) | Yeah, we're really looking at being at your previous densities. |
| 02:06:12.23 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Okay, so in any event, it seems like in order to meet our RENA numbers, we're going to have to increase our per acre. across the board. Well, |
| 02:06:22.36 | Beth (Consultant) | on the sites identified for rezoning. Not citywide. So all of your R3 sites wouldn't increase in capacity, it would just be the select sites. Okay. |
| 02:06:32.63 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | And it is, as you mentioned, zone by site by site so it would change wherever we wanted it to change to i'm just trying to i'm just I feel like given, I don't have, we don't have enough information about each of the sites to be able to say. I'm not sure. Absolutely yes or absolutely no and so I'm a little bit concerned and I'm trying to get to the bottom of why we would remove some of the ones that are getting us to a comfortable buffer level or why that's the direction from you. And I'm just trying to understand if that's because of our scope of our work with DeNovo or if it's because of what is realistic for us as a community as we're building that the housing element because that's a conversation we'd have to have if we need additional budget or if you know, because this is something that's going to impact the lives of people in our community and our community for decades and so I really want to get it right. So I'm just trying to understand that. |
| 02:07:21.67 | Beth (Consultant) | Understood. And mainly sites that we anticipated weren't as likely to be developed during the cycle and would help us just narrow the scope of our analysis. So we considered both, but we didn't remove sites that are necessary to get to the arena. So you have a number of sites that meet, particularly for your lower income units, that meet that half acre minimum and that would accommodate a significant number of units. And those were generally not removed. |
| 02:07:52.49 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Okay, but this is from, but from what you've prepared for us tonight, you're not asking us to remove additional ones, or you are? Because the staff report says you are. Okay. So, no, no, we're not, we're, |
| 02:07:58.24 | Beth (Consultant) | No. No, no. We have a recommendation for you. You may remove additional ones, you may add additional sites. So as we go neighborhood by neighborhood, group by group, you can weigh in on those sites. |
| 02:08:01.82 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Yeah. |
| 02:08:12.06 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | All right, I'll have a lot more questions about each specific site and how we got to each site when we go through it, but I'll give the time to another council member, I know we all have a lot of questions and the public hasn't even weighed in, so. THANK YOU, BETH. |
| 02:08:27.76 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Thank you. |
| 02:08:27.97 | Councilmember Hoffman | Vice Mayor, Council Member Hoffman. So, um, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT Sorry if I missed it. but it may have been in one of the other questions. But what are the penalties for sites that we've identified, but a failure to build? What if any other penalties? |
| 02:08:45.98 | Beth (Consultant) | IF ANY OTHER. It's like a weird... |
| 02:08:48.21 | Councilmember Hoffman | Oh, go ahead. |
| 02:08:48.97 | Beth (Consultant) | There's one penalty, One significant one, I would say, and that is that the sites that are from two previous cycles that have been that are underutilized or Two previous cycles that are vacant, one previous cycle that are underutilized that haven't been developed, or and you're reusing those sites in your next cycle, you then have to have a program to allow development by right pursuant to, you know, certain factors that the state requires. So those reuse sites, you have less authority, you have less discretion over whether or not you approve affordable housing on those. The other problem is if you're not seeing development and you're not meeting the RHNA, As we discussed earlier, you also have the SB35 penalty. |
| 02:09:37.50 | Councilmember Hoffman | So in the current plan that we have before us, are those sites that are Those if any sites that are this is their second cycle for inclusion in our housing element Are those identified in any other way? Thank you. |
| 02:09:49.84 | Beth (Consultant) | Those are identified in the notes column on the attachment C. There's only a couple of those sites. I think it's 86 and 87. There are also, there's a office building site that's a carryover, but we aren't assuming that that would be affordable this time around. So there are some sites, but not too many. |
| 02:10:08.43 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay, so my request that I would have is that when we go through this and we look at this again, I would like to have those sites clearly identified because to me, high vulnerability sites for us losing control over. If we can not identify those, we might want to consider that, or that might be part of our consideration process. I Because SB9, you know, those units are still in flux. And I don't believe that I've heard you say that there's been any sort of hard you know, hard requirements issued by HCD. You said there's been an advisory and there haven't been any as we know, I don't think so far, any, um, certification failures based on SB9 identification identification of SB9 units. I'd like us to think about what our strategy is for including more of those units in the next time we come and look at sites. Because if, TO ME, they've been legislatively rezoned, which is what happened, that it's hard for the state to come back and say, you know, defend that, and say, well, even though we legislate and rezone these sites, we're not going to allow you to use them in your housing element. And so I'm glad that you're looking at what's going on in Southern California because I think that will give us some guidance going forward with ours. but also developing a strategy based on the advisory so that we can meet those elements that they put forth in their, put forth in that advisory, they don't seem to be very onerous. So it seems to me that we could develop a strategy and bring in more of the SB9 units, because they're already rezoned. My third question is, With regard to inclusion of the excess units that we refer to as buffer, So there's no requirement to include buffers, correct? It's just, it's a good strategy because you want to have excess units in case some units fall out, right? |
| 02:12:09.64 | Beth (Consultant) | So yeah, there's no requirement to include the buffer and there's no anticipation that the full buffer would be re-zoned. So these would be sites that will be reviewed and analyzed. And then when you go to re-zone the sites, there's going to be a specific program in your housing element that requires you to re-zone X acres at X densities. And you will have to re-zone enough to meet the arena. You won't have, there won't be a recommendation to re-zone to meet the buffer. you'll then have those parcels they've gone through the CEQA process and they'll be available if the city later You won't have, there won't be a recommendation to rezone to meet the buffer. You'll then have those parcels. They've gone through the CEQA process and they'll be available if the city later decides you want to introduce any of those sites at a later date. But they wouldn't all be rezoned. I wouldn't anticipate they would all be rezoned. I mean, the city could, of course, rezone them all if you wished. |
| 02:12:50.85 | Councilmember Hoffman | So our buffer sites identified differently in our housing element plan. In other words, we, submit the plan we say all the sites you know highlighted in green are our plan and then these other sites are buffers |
| 02:13:06.60 | Beth (Consultant) | No, not necessarily. |
| 02:13:07.14 | Councilmember Hoffman | It's all one plan, right? |
| 02:13:08.35 | Beth (Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 02:13:08.47 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:13:09.25 | Beth (Consultant) | So, We're developing the plan for your review. This will go to the HEAC again. It will go out for public review. And we anticipate that when it goes to the state, some of those sites may be removed. We also may have a table that has kind of second tier sites. And we have sites that we identify as part of the inventory. And then we have additional opportunity sites. So there's multiple ways to identify them. But we probably will be clear when we submit it to the state that the city is not rezoning for 817 units or 180 more than you're required to. |
| 02:13:43.22 | Councilmember Hoffman | So that brings me to my question of |
| 02:13:43.94 | Beth (Consultant) | . |
| 02:13:43.99 | Sergio Rudin | So. |
| 02:13:45.32 | Councilmember Hoffman | Oh, go ahead, Sergio. |
| 02:13:47.13 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, I think with respect to the buffers and the reason why it's important for the council and for the public to understand why they are advisable is it's not that there's a legal requirement to have a buffer. The issue is that if you zone for exactly what your arena requires, The issue is under applicable law, when you say you've zoned a property, say for up to say 20 units, we can't actually mandate that a developer who comes to that site build 20 units. If the developer wants to build say 17 or 15 units, the city has to approve that project. And the issue is, is that if you've created a housing element, that. does the bare minimum to meet your arena. there's a provision of state law called no net loss that kicks in so once If you have a site identified in your housing element for 20 units and a developer, proposes and the city approves 15 units on that site, the city is required to rezone somewhere else in the city to make up that five unit difference. So having the buffer upfront and having studied it under CEQA basically allows the city to avoid having issues with that later down the road. |
| 02:14:56.20 | Councilmember Hoffman | So let me ask you the consequences in future housing element cycles of units or not units, but I'm sorry, whatever sites, they're included as buffer. We just talked about the consequences of including a site in your housing eminent cycle. not being developed, including the next cycle not being developed, now you're creating if I understood this correctly, I'm not an expert. Now you're creating, a lot of risk and vulnerability that someone's a developer is going to be able to come in because you've gone you've used the site in two cycles right And, um, and no one's built on it. Am I understanding that correctly? I mean, that's the vulnerability of including |
| 02:15:38.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:15:38.35 | Councilmember Hoffman | BUFFER STRIP. |
| 02:15:38.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:15:38.52 | Beth (Consultant) | For sure. |
| 02:15:38.94 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:15:39.55 | Councilmember Hoffman | Right? |
| 02:15:40.24 | Beth (Consultant) | So when your housing element is brought to you for adoption, it will include a table that identifies enough units to get to their regional housing need allocation. Your additional capacity from buffer sites won't be included in that. And so you won't be penalized for that additional capacity. And those sites may not be rezoned at that time. You could rezone them at that time, but they wouldn't be part of the inventory. Or you could re-zone them later as you look at your no net loss requirements and as you have the need for those sites, you could have those available. So there's several strategies to implement or to use those sites that won't penalize you for having the same site show up in multiple cycles. |
| 02:16:18.45 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay, I would like to have that called out, right? And I'm just giving direction, right? For when we move through further. the consequences of including you know, an excess of sites for our housing and what, what the consequences and risk is. So what I, I thank you for your explanation, but to me, Um, you know, the consequences seem to be the same, right? Like you can adjust somehow, but you're still creating vulnerability and risk for including sites in multiple cycles. You're saying no. That's fine. Okay, that's fine. That's great. So just include that in the next report and an explanation, maybe a footnote or something, or talking about buffer sites and how to call it down. Thanks. So thanks. Like I'm not an expert, right? Sorry. |
| 02:17:00.32 | Councilman Cleveland | Okay. |
| 02:17:04.30 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:17:04.33 | Melissa Blaustein | So anyway, thanks. Thanks, Councilman Hoffman. Actually, Sergio, maybe you can just lend a little bit of a little bit more color on that. So I think you also shared that if a property is designated in the housing element and we fail to, what's the trigger? If we fail to get it approved, Then they have a by right ability to build, is that accurate? Can you explain that? |
| 02:17:33.09 | Sergio Rudin | No, so that really is to the city's program of rezoning. So if the city as part of its sites inventory proposes certain sites at a certain density, and that is not in conformity with the existing zoning, basically the city needs to rezone to allow that development, right? We need to have our zoning in conformity with our housing element and our general plan. So if the city fails to timely complete its rezoning within the three-year period provided after the adoption of the housing element. then the penalty is that the city has to allow non-discretionary approval of housing on that particular site. in conformity with what is proposed in the housing element and any sort of objective standards that are and objective standards and zoning that are in place that are in conformity with that housing element requirement. So and the only way that the city could disallow I'm not sure. proposed project on that site would be if it made very onerous health and safety findings that were supported by substantial evidence which is very difficult to do so basically it that's a rezone. So once the city has a site's inventory, that doesn't mean that people can immediately go and propose projects on that site. the city first has to rezone to allow development on that site in conformity with the city proposed in its housing element. So basically it's, It's a requirement that the city timely complete the rezoning. |
| 02:19:15.03 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, thank you for that clarification. Very much appreciated. Council Member Cleveland-Loson. |
| 02:19:20.08 | Councilman Cleveland | THE END OF Yeah, this is more of a comment, I guess, or just a procedural issue. I feel like It would be really helpful. I mean, we are right now just at the draft opportunity sites to move on to analysis and a programmatic EIR. Like, that's what we're trying to do right now. I think a lot of the questions and the concerns I think that the concerns, especially the legal issues that are being raised tonight, of the approvals and decision making. And I think at some point it would be really helpful to get from our legal team and consultants kind of at each point, what What are our risks and upside and downside of making each decision? And I think that they're all getting kind of mushed together tonight. in a way that's, it's kind of confusing, I think, about at what point do we need to worry about these various penalties and mechanisms. So I think it would be helpful for me and I think really for the public and perhaps other council members to have that kind of more neatly drawn out in a timetable so that we understand, you know, we're trying to get right now to the draft opportunity sites. And then we have to just submit things to HCD. So we're not gonna submit that whole group |
| 02:20:26.85 | Unknown | Drawing out. RIGHT? |
| 02:20:37.70 | Councilman Cleveland | We're going to submit a smaller one. And we're going to have this buffer that Jill was just talking about. and what's the upsides and downsides of the buffer, et cetera. area at each point, we kind of get a preview of what we're going to have to worry about. |
| 02:20:51.74 | Lydia | And |
| 02:20:52.19 | Councilman Cleveland | what risks we're taking. by being over-impulsive or under-impulsive, et cetera. Anyway, I don't know. I don't know if that's helpful, but I do feel like a lot of the process is getting kind of conflated. |
| 02:21:06.44 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:21:06.79 | Councilman Cleveland | you it's hard to tell what penalties occur at what point. |
| 02:21:12.48 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you, Councillor of Criminals. we can work with, as the liaisons, we can work with city attorney to frame that. I want to mention a process thing that I think, um, It's a holdover from something Council Member Sobieski had said at a prior meeting, which is we're about to embark on a neighborhood by neighborhood effort. which feels to me just inherently siloed and piecemeal. And I think we noted the last HEAC meeting that we didn't have an alternative. There were three alternatives presented and we were told none of them would work. And so I guess, Beth, I'm wondering, How do we get to something we're doing a programmatic ER, it feels like we should have some type of master plan, right? And the only, honestly, the only master plan I've seen was submitted by a citizen group Sensible Housing Sausalito put together a really extensive, over a thousand units identified. And that's just the way my brain would work through this is to have the whole plan in front of us. And I know now we're gonna go, you know, neighborhood by neighborhood, but it just seems like a lot of the issues we're about to encounter could actually be avoided and more in alignment with the programmatic EIR if we actually were looking at something like this plan that is in the public record. So what are your thoughts on that as a consultant to us, how do we get there so we can think about things more holistically? And have you looked at that plan? Do you have an idea for another plan? How should we be thinking about that? |
| 02:22:49.51 | Beth (Consultant) | So I have looked at that plan and they've put a lot of thought and effort into coming up with kind of different different levels of housing and different locations and methods of providing housing in the city. And it's a very worthwhile plan. In terms of what we're doing right now is we're trying to get to the sites so we can get you a housing element which will have a housing plan in it will have an inventory of sites it won't necessarily be the. It won't be a master plan for housing. So I think one of the things the city really wants is a longer term plan for housing and kind of what will happen where and how can you be ready for the sixth cycle, seventh cycle and subsequent cycles. And so you really are looking for something that's a little bit broader than the housing element, which really focuses on narrow requirements for sites that the state that the state has identified. But one of the things we're anticipating doing is when we, you know, we'll provide you with a housing element, we'll have an inventory of housing sites and we'll have information that presents those sites. So you can look at, you know, areas identified for mixed use, where some of the higher intensity areas are and it will provide that a bit more holistically. But until we, get feedback on the sites, We have a hard time. We could come up with 500 different plans. There's so many sites that have capacity. And so our recommendation tonight is the first step towards getting towards a slightly narrower group of sites so we can start developing a plan for you. Thank you. Well, we'll see how this |
| 02:24:17.97 | Melissa Blaustein | I think it's... We've done it before the HEAC. It's definitely a big process. So, um, you're not even done with your presentation because now we're gonna go a neighbor by neighborhood. And I'm thinking that we should probably take public comment neighborhood by neighborhood. Cause I suspect some folks will have kind of a duplication in their comments. we're gonna go ahead and structure it that way. So why don't we go into the first neighborhood. I will also note for the public, Each council member has been given a recusal mask And each of us do have sites that we have to recuse ourselves from. So if you will just bear with me, I have a script that I will try to adhere to, but I welcome help. If I haven't recused you and you should be, please chime in or Beth if I've missed something or Mary and Sergio if I've missed something, please let me know. So with that, I think we're going to go to discussion of the opportunity sites in the Old Town Hurricane Gulch area. I'm not sure. So why don't we start there? Sites with conflicts, which are groups one and two, and sites with no conflicts, group three. Vice Mayor Blaustein is conflicted on sites five and 10. And council member Cleveland Knowles is conflicted on sites eight, nine, 10, 12, and 13. |
| 02:25:40.89 | Mary Wagner | And just for purposes of the record, Madam Mayor, I just want to clarify that that's based on the proximity of personal residences to the sites in question just so each council member doesn't have to state that every time we'll put that on the record right now. Okay. |
| 02:25:56.65 | Melissa Blaustein | And so this is easier for us to handle the recusal. So thank you for that. Council Member Cleveland Knowles, do you want to add to the process? |
| 02:26:03.37 | Councilman Cleveland | Yeah, I was just wondering, I don't know how other people feel, but I was wondering if we could just take public comment. in one go, I think it might be easier to collect all that. IT'S JUST I THINK It feels like it's going to take a really long time. through it for other lives. |
| 02:26:18.64 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Yeah, I would agree with taking it all at the same time, just given how much public comment we were going to hear. almost 9 30 or almost 10 o'clock and some folks might not have the opportunity and so |
| 02:26:30.76 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, I am totally fine with that. So excellent idea. Thank you for that input. then we won't go to neighborhood neighborhood. Pardon me. We are gonna go actually with one fell swoop. Thank you. |
| 02:26:47.35 | Melissa Blaustein | So sorry, Beth, what do you think of that process? |
| 02:26:47.40 | Beth (Consultant) | Those surgeries. |
| 02:26:51.75 | Beth (Consultant) | So by one fell swoop, you mean that you'll collectively make a motion for all of the sites except for the sites with conflicts and that you'll- |
| 02:26:59.82 | Melissa Blaustein | This is for public comment only. Yeah, let me ask Council Member Sobieski and Council Member Hoffman, how do you feel about that? It will become quite big and we might lose track of some things. So Council Member Sobieski, your thoughts? |
| 02:27:15.39 | Ian Sobieski | I'm still thinking about it. feel that, let's see. I'm guessing some people want to make comments on individual sites. So I would suggest that when the public is making a comment about a particular site, that we pull up that site map so that their site, at least, can shown and in so doing, you and everyone else probably get a pretty strong tour de force in all the different sectors and then So maybe we could indeed do it that way, all in one full suite, but just when the public comments are associated with particular sites, we ask Beth to pull them up. the map for that. And then, yes, that would work. |
| 02:27:55.88 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. man. Mayor. actually based on the way that the FPPC regulations on recusals are written, I would strung on the sites in the groupings that were proposed. It's fine to have one big public comment period where the members of the public are invited to speak on things not related to specific sites. you want to get all of those public comments out of the way, that's fine. But due to the need for council members when they're accusing to have absolutely no part in the decision making, you know, it's usually safer to have a public comment period that's specific to that particular decision. |
| 02:28:36.26 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, well then thank you for that. I know that he took public comment area by area. I'm sorry. Councillor Hoffman, do you want to BOISER. |
| 02:28:45.03 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. How many maps do we have? I mean, how many? We're going to go by neighborhood by neighborhood, right? Right. Correct. |
| 02:28:55.93 | Beth (Consultant) | Correct. |
| 02:28:56.93 | Councilmember Hoffman | And we have seven neighborhoods, right? |
| 02:28:59.14 | Beth (Consultant) | Bye. |
| 02:29:00.44 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:29:01.28 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:29:02.30 | Beth (Consultant) | Yeah, you have about six neighborhoods, I think, that have proposed sites in them. And each neighborhood has anywhere from one to three groups of sites. So you have about. 16 to 18 groups of sites you'll be asked to vote on based on the various recusals. |
| 02:29:20.12 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah, I think we have to go neighborhood by neighborhood based on their accusal structure and it mirrors what we did at the HEAC. I very much appreciate the suggestion from the Vice Mayor and Council Member Cleveland Knowles But let's go with the first idea Site by site. So let's do this. I see some hands up. If you want to talk generally about the process, now's your time. But if you wanna talk about any specific sites, please do wait till we get to the neighborhood. So again, this is just general comments. I'm gonna be unfortunately somewhat strict in asking you to hold your comments if they're not pertaining to what we're talking about at the moment. So Serge, can you please Go ahead and let us know who we'd like to speak |
| 02:29:59.57 | Serge Avila | Sure, our first speaker is Pat. Pat, you've been unmuted and I'll show you a video. |
| 02:30:08.08 | Pat | unmute. I'm there. Oh, my goodness. |
| 02:30:10.42 | Serge Avila | there. |
| 02:30:11.28 | Pat | I'm there. several comments number one on the graphics i'm aware of a private effort that has uh created an interactive um module where you can press on a number and get an actual description and a location of the site that would have been very helpful with regard to these materials here if a private effort could do that at no cost i would hope that our consultants could do that as well Number two, as far as SB9 is concerned, The notion of property interest, does property interest equal property commitment? I may have an interest in developing my one third of an acre property, but if I evidence that interest, is that a commitment of one sort or another? And I, and I think perhaps if that was clarified, that question could be re circulated, to people in the community. Number three, the one half acre sites that are a requirement. for low income housing, how can we require First of all, it is clear to me that the one half acre and larger properties in Sausalito tend to be on the waterfront, in the waterfront and industrial zones. The notion that those properties would be developed as low income housing is Interesting. I would be wondering how one would enforce the notion that those kinds of properties, which have astonishing views and access to various resources, would be low income or moderate income. if we were to up zone them. To housing. Number four. I wanted to echo Jill Hoffman's concern about buffers. and whether ask the question as to whether or not A buffer. identified. gain some sort of entitlement in this current housing plan. My floor. |
| 02:32:12.63 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you, Pat. Sorry, we're not here to interrupt, but thank you very much for this comment. |
| 02:32:14.55 | Pat | THE CITY. |
| 02:32:19.18 | Serge Avila | Our next speaker is David Sudo. David, you've been unmuted. Nice to share your video. |
| 02:32:26.28 | David Sudo | Good evening, City Council. Um, I had some great questions from City Council. that they were asked, so I don't have to ask them. either. My question, it sounds like the consultants and staff are vetting properties to see if they're economically feasible for the densities uh, My question is, is who's vetting properties that would require a measure especially Martin Luther King and the, Thank you. waterfront properties that would require a voting measure what's the likelihood that that's going to pass? what would be the catastrophic . if those measures didn't pass and we had to up zone all the remaining places because we're relying, it looks like we're relying heavily on some of those areas. Even I think city hall would eventually probably end up as a measure. for just you know, past experience. That's my comment. Thanks. |
| 02:33:32.53 | Melissa Blaustein | THANK YOU, DAVID. |
| 02:33:37.68 | Serge Avila | Our next speaker is Sandra Bushmaker. Sandra, you've been... unmuted and ask to share your video. |
| 02:33:50.84 | Sandra Bushmaker | I'm back. I'll be very quick. I know this is a long evening. I have two points. One, I share the concerns about the 25% buffer and whether or not once identified, those buffer points become a vested right for development. along with the other issues raised by Council Member Hoffman. And secondly, in the flurry of questions, I heard Beth say that density bonuses do not count toward RHNAs. RENA numbers so as we look at these projects we have to realize that since a developer can ask for a density bonus on these prop on the low income and very low income projects we are going to see increased numbers of units which do not count toward the RENA and I would just like confirmation that I heard that correctly. Thank you. Thank you, Sandra. |
| 02:34:46.61 | Serge Avila | Our next speaker is Vicki Nichols. Vicki, you've been unmuted. I'll have to share your video. |
| 02:34:54.78 | Vicki Nichols | hi good evening thanks for the discussion i'd just like to clarify two things my understanding is that the One of the onuses on not getting a housing plan developed by the time we're supposed to, is that we don't have the three year period to do the upzoning that's required. It would be required within one year. So that is a consequence to me. THE FAMILY. And I had another point, which I've now forgotten, but some of this stuff is just about process. I hope that, and I appreciate that we can go through these neighborhood by neighborhood so you can really get public input on the various sites. These are opportunity sites. This is not the final inventory. I don't think You know, there's, this much alarm in the process at this point, I have confidence there's gonna be more chance for input. So we need to get to identifying the opportunity so the analysis can be done or we're going to be late. So let's not be late. Thank you. |
| 02:36:04.20 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you, Vicki. |
| 02:36:06.58 | Serge Avila | We have John, John you're being unmuted. And that's the chair of your video. |
| 02:36:13.72 | John DeRay | Thank you. I had the same question that Sandra had. Once we designate our 724 units, I guess my understanding now is that forget about the buffer. But MR. density bonuses kick in on top of that 724. number and our number can be significantly higher at the end of the day than the 724. So that's my one comment. I think that's what I heard. And secondly, there's talk about being forced to upzone and I'm wondering if we can be forced to upzone from a commercial zone to a residential zone. I understand you can't answer that question, but I just wanted to put it out there. Thank you. |
| 02:37:06.32 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Okay, Serge, any other members of the public wish to speak on a general? |
| 02:37:13.10 | Serge Avila | Madam Mayor, there are no further hands raised. |
| 02:37:15.62 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, so back over to Beth. Let's start with the first neighborhood. |
| 02:37:24.46 | Beth (Consultant) | All right, let me just pop open my screen again. So... Oh, and that is not the first neighborhood. |
| 02:37:29.98 | Melissa Blaustein | And that is not true. |
| 02:37:32.61 | Beth (Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 02:37:32.63 | Melissa Blaustein | Beth, let me pause while you do that. I do see that Beth McDougall has her hand back up. It's down now. Okay, so back to you. |
| 02:37:40.12 | Beth (Consultant) | So Old Town Hurricane Gulch, first we have a group one, which is site 10. And for this site, as you had mentioned, we have a couple of council members that are conflicted. So at this time, we will ask you to recuse yourself and turn off your video. And you can of course attend and comment as a member of the public. |
| 02:38:02.87 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, so that sites with conflict that's group groups one and two, and I read the conflicts out before. |
| 02:38:10.31 | Councilman Cleveland | Yes. |
| 02:38:10.63 | Melissa Blaustein | And so. |
| 02:38:11.41 | Councilman Cleveland | Thank you. Do you want us to ask to be refused or do you want us to turn our camera off? |
| 02:38:18.73 | Mary Wagner | I think you just turned your camera off now. Actually, council members, if you could just state you're recusing yourself from participation on these items, that would be helpful. And then just turn your camera off. And as Beth indicated you can return during public comment time if you would like. And then as the council deliberates and wants to take action, you would again turn your camera off, the virtual equivalent of leaving the room. |
| 02:38:44.05 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | I'm recusing myself from these housing groupings due to the address of my personal residence. |
| 02:38:52.38 | Councilman Cleveland | So I'm sorry, I don't think I am reacuse from site 10. Janelle, do you have that on your... |
| 02:38:58.03 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes, just reading the script, it says 8, 9, 10, 12, and 13. All right, then I will recuse myself. Thank you. |
| 02:39:04.53 | Beth (Consultant) | Okay. So with that, we'll jump into site 10. So site 10 is a vacant parcel. It's pretty small, 0.08 acres, located at 18 West Court, and it's identified to be |
| 02:39:16.51 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 02:39:19.65 | Beth (Consultant) | Increased in intensity to about 49 units per acre would accommodate about three units. |
| 02:39:24.07 | Unknown | units. |
| 02:39:26.11 | Beth (Consultant) | Oh. I can see it. Sounds good. There you go. I apologize. No problem. |
| 02:39:34.72 | Melissa Blaustein | Exactly. |
| 02:39:34.97 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. |
| 02:39:36.90 | Beth (Consultant) | So here we go, site number 10, located at 18 West Court, and this is in the Old Town Hurricane Gulch neighborhood. It is a vacant site, and it would accommodate about three units, and it's.08 acres, and we would anticipate increasing the Zoning to accommodate about 49 units per acre. So it would be in line with the B Street and other affordable housing projects that are well, with the city's range of affordable housing projects. |
| 02:40:02.36 | Ian Sobieski | Just since this is the first one and we might all need to learn how this works, the current zoning on that parcel would accommodate what? A single-pay my home? |
| 02:40:11.09 | Beth (Consultant) | And let me pop that up because I do have that and I think it would accommodate a single family home, but I suppose not. |
| 02:40:16.82 | Melissa Blaustein | I have not. whereas R2, |
| 02:40:18.76 | Beth (Consultant) | R22.5 and so we've we've calculated that for each of the sites so let me just go to the specific site so I give you the correct |
| 02:40:19.35 | Melissa Blaustein | TO YOUR POINT. |
| 02:40:28.11 | Beth (Consultant) | information. So we had anticipated I did not put it in that table. Let's see, there we go. |
| 02:40:42.56 | Beth (Consultant) | Sorry, I just have to make sure I'm looking at the right column when I look at sites in our large spreadsheet. So, yeah, the realistic capacity would be about one unit based on the parcel size and the allowed density. |
| 02:40:54.20 | Ian Sobieski | even under SB9, which That's great. |
| 02:40:56.56 | Beth (Consultant) | So SB9 would allow for a few more units And I'm trying to remember why this one wasn't flagged as an SB9 site, because we did flag all of, so we have a list of all of the city's SB9 sites, and we had cross-referenced that, and all of these sites that were identified by staff as being potentially developable under SB9, we flagged. assumed if they were vacant four units, if they weren't flagged. And so we'll double check that. If it is an SB9 site, we'll change the assumption and that would allow four units instead of three. |
| 02:41:29.94 | Ian Sobieski | but presumably not, the whole point here is though it doesn't say, The status quo default is one unit, and by changing the zoning under the RHNA, under this housing element process, we're proposing up zoning it to three. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:41:52.69 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:41:52.71 | Beth (Consultant) | So Beth, are there other sites in group one? So group one is just site 10. And so you can ask questions. You can take public comment and then provide direction. |
| 02:42:03.44 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, so I'm gonna try to create some type of a streamline. I don't know if it'll work, but okay. So do we have any members of the public who want to speak on group one site 10? |
| 02:42:18.76 | Melissa Blaustein | All right, so Serge, I don't hear you, but I don't see any. |
| 02:42:23.56 | Serge Avila | Sorry, Madam Mayor, There are no members of the public THEY'VE LIKED TO GET ANY COMMENTS. |
| 02:42:30.68 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, and then city attorney, do we have to, vote on this since we're the only ones who can vote on it or um How are we doing this each time? |
| 02:42:45.66 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, I think you just need to give direction to staff. If you want to do that via vote, that's totally appropriate. The big restriction is with respect to recusals, you know, you have to make a decision on it. And then once you make a decision on it in whatever form you'd like, you can't reopen discussion or go back to that site. you know, so It keeps moving forward and basically, you know, once we make decisions on Old Town and Hurricane Gulch sites and we invite the recused council members back. We can't revisit that discussion. |
| 02:43:17.59 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay. Okay, so that's just for, hey, Councillor Hoffman, |
| 02:43:21.03 | Councilmember Hoffman | Yeah. Oh. Let me just throw this out, streamlining-wise. Unless one of us here says, I'd like to make a motion to take it off. If there's no motion, then we just move on, right? Do we have to vote to leave it as is? I mean, the only motion or vote we would want entertain is whether or not we want to take it off. And if, if there's three now, there may be other sites where there's five, if no one makes the motion or no one indicates an intent to remove them, we just move on, right? We don't have to vote on every side, right? |
| 02:43:55.66 | Melissa Blaustein | That seems fair to me. We did vote at HEAC, but I'm not hearing this city attorney mandate that. So let's implement that right away. Group one, site 10. Going once, going twice, Cezanne, next one, Beth. |
| 02:44:09.97 | Beth (Consultant) | All right, and so this next one is group two, sites eight, nine, and 11 and 12. And this one, we have a vice mayor blasting is not conflicted, so she can come back in. And council member Cleveland Knowles is conflicted on this group. I'm going to continue to ask to be recused and keep my microphone and video off. |
| 02:44:27.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:44:31.85 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:44:32.29 | Beth (Consultant) | Thank you. And so these are four sites. Sites eight and nine are both vacant, both designated or zoned are 2-2.5. They would accommodate five and seven units respectively. And under the existing zoning, they would each accommodate Let's see. eight and nine, they would accommodate two and three units. So an increase of, |
| 02:44:58.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:45:02.30 | Beth (Consultant) | three units for site eight, two units for site nine. Sites 12 and 13 would each accommodate one unit and the same under existing zoning. The reason we've identified these and we may want to remove them is site 13 is a, or site 12 is a vacant lot and they're kind of in a little common area. So we try to keep vacant sites wherever we can, but it's a little development and so they're, They appeared to be, when we looked at them under closer scrutiny, perhaps not the best sites to include in your element. So we can keep them and look at them through the EIR, or we could remove them now, or you could remove them now. So they would each accommodate one unit. So sites 8, 9, 12, and 13. And 8 is on Main Street and Crescent Avenue. 9 is on Lower Crescent Avenue. And then sites 12 and 13 are both off of Prospect Avenue. |
| 02:45:58.85 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you, Beth. You know, I think I'm agreeing with Council Member Sobieski that moving forward, our table should reflect the current capacity and the proposed capacity. So we can... I think you got that already. Okay. Any public comment on Group 2, Sites 8 and 9? |
| 02:46:14.35 | Serge Avila | Madam Mayor, there are no hands raised. |
| 02:46:14.73 | Melissa Blaustein | there. Okay. Any comments from council members on this group? |
| 02:46:19.38 | Ian Sobieski | I was confused by Beth's directions. She said here are the proposals but actually up here switching it up here at the 11th hour we wanted to take 12 and 13 off but presumably HIAC looked at this quite extensively and put it on so we're a little bit confused um Should we refer these perhaps back? But we don't want to prove something that you, is a waste of time and money to do an EIR on that you don't have. should we do? Should we perhaps refer them back to HIAC for affirmation or not? |
| 02:46:47.19 | Beth (Consultant) | I would remove them. I think they did not, we looked at a lot of sites closely with HIAC and these two sites weren't really called out and weren't specifically voted on by HIAC. They were part of kind of a group effort. And so I think they did not, some of the red flags we saw when we looked again we weren't noted by HIAC, and it's not a significant reduction in your units. And I think they would, HCD would flag these sites as not being realistic. So that's why I would recommend to remove them. |
| 02:47:15.46 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:47:15.48 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Vice Mayor and then Council Member Hoffman. And just that wasn't conveyed at all to the housing element. they they like when the housing element voted on this group they voted for this this group as a whole correct |
| 02:47:27.58 | Beth (Consultant) | They voted on, there were multiple iterations of the sites, and so they didn't necessarily vote on 8, 9, 12, and 13, but 12 and 13 were included in the sites they looked at. And they voted for it. |
| 02:47:38.38 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | IT'S NOT A LITTLE BIT. |
| 02:47:38.42 | Beth (Consultant) | them. Yes. |
| 02:47:42.39 | Councilmember Hoffman | That's what we're having. So let me ask a question, Beth, about the EIR and costs, because I'm a little hesitant, you know, to also start removing sites that are included at this point, right? So I understand this is not the final word, right? Like this is not, this is just, what are we gonna have the ERA? for these two sides, it's not gonna increase the cost of the EIR as I understand it, right? This EIR is kind of like a blanket, right? |
| 02:48:10.61 | Beth (Consultant) | Yeah, these two sites wouldn't be. It's more of the larger sites where there's a huge change in the capacity. |
| 02:48:16.36 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay, so what I would suggest then is that I understand and appreciate your input and trying to clean things up at this point, but for those of us who haven't lived you know, housing for the past six months, you know, and we wanna be, you know, we wanna be efficient tonight and we also, want to be inclusive, I think, of sites at this point, knowing that later will be crunch time like later will be a very close magnifying glass look at each site and whether or not it's actually required for us to be certified to meet our minimum requirement under state law to be certified So, That conversation is gonna come up later. So I think as we go through this, for the council, the way to approach this, I think, is maybe let's have a presumption of inclusion maybe at this point. |
| 02:49:06.95 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:49:10.70 | Councilmember Hoffman | And unless you know, unless there's a very good reason, because I know there are some sites that we want to take a closer look at later. BUT, understanding it's not gonna increase the cost of EIR, right? So inclusion isn't gonna, you know, Anyway, those are my comments on this just generally and with regard to these two sites. So I would lean more toward including sites and try not to go through and cherry pick sites at this point unless there's a big issue and I know there will be issues with some other sites tonight. That's why not. Appreciate that thought, Vice Mayor. |
| 02:49:47.23 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | I would completely echo what Council member Hoffman just said. I don't think at this point we should be cherry picking small sites off of what has been considered and given that we have six different site areas to go through and public comment on each the assumption of inclusion because I personally am not comfortable removing sites at this point and knowing that it's included in the IR we should just CONTINUE WITH THE PRESUMPTION OF INCLUSION. |
| 02:50:11.95 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay. Excellent. Thank you all for your thoughts. Then we will move on. We'll welcome Council Member Rubenel's back, I think, Beth. Is that right? |
| 02:50:19.21 | Beth (Consultant) | Thank you. That is correct. |
| 02:50:20.93 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay. |
| 02:50:22.03 | Beth (Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 02:50:22.26 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:50:22.40 | Beth (Consultant) | getting to the, THEIR THIRD GROUP IS SITES Three, four, 100, and 101. Site three is 0.04 acres, a pretty small site, and it accommodates one unit under the existing zoning. The change in zoning would allow for an additional unit. Site four is vacant, located on Sausalito Boulevard. It would accommodate two units under existing zoning, and the rezoning would bump it up to five units. And all of these sites are zoned R2-2.5. Site 100 is located at 66 Marion Avenue, and the owner is interested in multifamily and residential uses. And then site 100, and it has a single family unit on it. Site 101 also has a single family unit located at 357 Sausalito Boulevard. And the owner there is also interested in multifamily and ADU uses. So, And those sites are 100 would accommodate 12 units and under the current zoning, it would accommodate six units and then site 101 would accommodate 13 units and under the current zoning of accommodate about three units. |
| 02:51:36.95 | Melissa Blaustein | thank you beth i'll just note that um the slide says group three is uh sites 4 100 101 it should also have uh three |
| 02:51:43.81 | Beth (Consultant) | Three on it. |
| 02:51:44.58 | Melissa Blaustein | . |
| 02:51:44.67 | Beth (Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 02:51:44.70 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:51:44.77 | Beth (Consultant) | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:51:45.48 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay. Let's take any public comment. And then we'll have the council members opine. Any public comment on group three? Set number 34100 101. |
| 02:51:57.12 | Serge Avila | Madam Mayor, I see no hands raised. But pardon me, Senator Bushmaker, just put her hand. Sandra, you've been unmuted and I see. Share your video. |
| 02:52:09.29 | Sandra Bushmaker | real quick, 357 and 359 is one building, two units, Sausalito Boulevard, site number 101. It's not a single family home. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:52:21.98 | Melissa Blaustein | THANK YOU. Okay, Council Member Sobieski and then the Vice Mayor. |
| 02:52:26.94 | Ian Sobieski | through this process, a question occurs to me that I don't have the answer to. just pick one of these sites four. Site four I think you said is two units and we're going to upzone it so it can be five in this suggestion. So that is well and good, but that's what we're trying to do here, meet our RHNA number. The neighboring units, the neighboring properties are currently this zoning that only allows one or two units. Is that correct, Beth? |
| 02:52:53.04 | Beth (Consultant) | Generally, some of the sites, some of the parcels are larger and might accommodate a few more units. |
| 02:52:58.58 | Ian Sobieski | So what's the role in this entire process of going to already built properties that might have some interest redeveloping themselves to I THINK Increase the number of units as a way of meeting our arena number |
| 02:53:12.70 | Beth (Consultant) | So we did at the beginning of the housing element update, we had a community survey and we asked for interest from property owners in increasing their number of units. And we did include those sites for the HEAC to consider. And then we also identified a number of sites that could accommodate additional units based on we had very specific methodology we developed with the HEAC where we looked at the existing zoning. We looked at the parcel size, a bunch of characteristics, and we identified a number of underutilized parcels that could accommodate additional units. And we did reach out to property owners for some of those parcels that could accommodate, I think, three, three plus units. some various, I don't remember all of the assumptions we made at this time, but we, so we did reach out. We got a number of responses back, a number of property owners weren't interested. And then a few were. So the ones that were interested were then, you know, continued highlighted for HIAC consideration. |
| 02:54:06.80 | Ian Sobieski | Okay. All right. Well, just one more question if anyone would indulge me. I don't know how aggressive that outreach was, but that's a pretty significant offer to change the zoning of one's property. And it seems as though a single outreach or, you know, there's lots of spam and mailboxes, both virtual and physical. Um, And if we're struggling and making important trade-offs around development in areas that's super impactful to communities, I'm wondering if Is it not, does it not behoove us to be a little more aggressive in educating our property owners about the possibility of of some modest improvement of density on their properties, like we're approving here. |
| 02:54:54.59 | Beth (Consultant) | So these sites would likely be counted more toward the moderate and above moderate income group and not toward your very low and low income group. The majority of sites where we're seeing a lot of concern from the community are sites that meet that minimum size requirement for the very low and low income group. So if we were having a harder time meeting the I'm not sure. moderate and above moderate, yes, we would want to cast a bright a broader net and continue to do some outreach, but we've we've got enough units to reach that. And so the real issue is the very low and low. in terms of looking at individual sites and really doing more outreach. |
| 02:55:29.73 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 02:55:30.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:55:32.48 | Beth (Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 02:55:32.50 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, so... Any comments or requests to remove? Not hearing any, then we will move on. to the next group from the Hill. All right. Sites with conflicts are groups one and two. |
| 02:55:46.67 | Arthur Bruce | Bye. |
| 02:55:50.42 | Melissa Blaustein | So it looks like Vice Mayor Blaustein is conflicted on sites 19 and 20 And Council Member Sobieski is conflicted on sites 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 103, and 104. Councilor Sobieski, do you want to state a recusal? |
| 02:56:10.24 | Ian Sobieski | Oh, yeah. I'm going to go walk the dog. See you guys later. |
| 02:56:12.34 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Thank you. I'll be back. |
| 02:56:17.08 | Beth (Consultant) | Okay, Beth, over to you. all right and so uh and site one also had a vice mayor of blaustein conflicted on it group one so site 20 |
| 02:56:26.17 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | So I was just informed by the city attorney that because I'm a month to month renter, these conflicts of interest don't apply to me. So I will stay for this for site 20. |
| 02:56:37.26 | Beth (Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 02:56:37.38 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Thank you. Welcome back. |
| 02:56:39.40 | Beth (Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 02:56:39.44 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | I'm sorry. |
| 02:56:39.49 | Beth (Consultant) | ONWARD DEATH. |
| 02:56:39.61 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Right. |
| 02:56:40.21 | Beth (Consultant) | All right. So site 20 and let me just scroll to the, um, the hill in my, the attachment C that you all have the worksheet as well. So I have the correct information for these various sites. |
| 02:56:49.73 | Councilman Cleveland | That's it. |
| 02:56:53.88 | Councilman Cleveland | for these very sites. We can take all of these together. We can just take all the ones. |
| 02:56:58.03 | Beth (Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 02:56:58.05 | Councilman Cleveland | Thank you. |
| 02:56:58.57 | Beth (Consultant) | Yep. Sites 2, 21, 22, 23, and 24. Yes. So, and I just have them allocated on my spreadsheet. So, or on my screen. So, I'll go through site 20, which is a vacant site, 0.05 acres. The increase in zoning would accommodate two units, and the current zoning would accommodate one. It's located on Bridgeway. |
| 02:57:03.06 | Councilman Cleveland | Oh, God. |
| 02:57:21.58 | Beth (Consultant) | And then we also have sites We'll scroll to the next group since we can do them all in one. Sites 21, 22, 23, and 24. Sites 21 and 22, the property owner was interested in additional units. These are both multifamily properties, so there is the potential for additional units currently under the... ADU. provisions of state law, but there's also the additional, you know, potential for one more unit, one net unit on each of these parcels with the rezoning and then We also have sites 23 and 24, which are both vacant, and those are on 10 Reed Lane and 10 Excelsior Avenue. Those would each accommodate two units under existing zoning and a potential for three units with the. that increased density that would be allowed with the rezoning. All right. And then the next batch. This is the next batch. So this is groups one and two. |
| 02:58:23.56 | Unknown | So this is groups one and two. |
| 02:58:25.46 | Beth (Consultant) | Okay. sites. 20. 20. 21, 22, 23, and 24. |
| 02:58:33.61 | Melissa Blaustein | I thought there was a Oh, it's group three, pardon me. Okay. Any public comment on this batch from the health? Serge just confirmed no public comment. |
| 02:58:45.71 | Serge Avila | Madam Mayor, that is correct, there are no hands raised. |
| 02:58:48.35 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, thank you. Any comment from council members? Okay. Seeing no comment. on. |
| 02:58:54.69 | Beth (Consultant) | because of the... |
| 02:58:54.93 | Melissa Blaustein | Thanks, Beth. |
| 02:58:55.35 | Beth (Consultant) | Thank you. All right, and I think council member Sobieski was optimistic with the time you might take on this one with the, oh. Quickly walk the dog. Yeah. All right. So we are now onto group three, no conflicts in group three. These are site 14. 31 and 32 and they are not located. close to one another, which is why we've clipped them out for our two, two close ups. Site 14 is a former fire station number two. It is So almost one acre in size located on Spencer Avenue, 300 Spencer Avenue. It's currently. and zoned um public institutional, And then it would allow 38 units with the rezoning Sites 31 and 32 are adjacent to one another. The HEAC did raise that this parking lot also might be owned by the same property owner. And so we did look into the ownership and that it is the same property owner. And so we could include this strip here as well that's not highlighted and that would expand the site. So sites 31 and 32 are both parking areas they would accommodate 10 units and 27 units. And we did anticipate using a mixed use designation on these sites, given that they're along the waterfront kind of in a more central area of the city and these are both sites that would be affected by the fair traffic initiative so if these sites were selected they would be included in the ballot measure to get community community approval on your voter approval. to include those for the rezoning. |
| 03:00:36.06 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, did the HIAC consider Site 14? I don't remember us looking at Site 14. Yes, Site 14 was considered by the HIAC. |
| 03:00:44.63 | Beth (Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 03:00:44.65 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:00:45.37 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:00:45.44 | Councilman Cleveland | Bye. |
| 03:00:46.40 | Melissa Blaustein | THE END OF |
| 03:00:46.71 | Beth (Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 03:00:46.76 | Councilman Cleveland | Thank you. All right, so let's take- Can I have a question? Yeah, please. |
| 03:00:47.23 | Beth (Consultant) | Bye. |
| 03:00:47.26 | Melissa Blaustein | All right. |
| 03:00:48.16 | Beth (Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 03:00:48.21 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:00:49.56 | Councilman Cleveland | Where should go? Oh, sorry. I see Ian's hand is up. |
| 03:00:53.10 | Ian Sobieski | I was just wondering about if you could talk about Site 33, which looks like a water lot and how does that work? |
| 03:01:00.16 | Beth (Consultant) | Site 33 is a water-based housing. And we had shown, I think we did not recommend that that one be included. Based on the city's past performance with water-based housing during the fifth cycle, you're not likely going to get a lot of Um, approval from ACD or, or |
| 03:01:20.88 | Ian Sobieski | I'm sorry, yeah, you answered my question. So it's actually only even though we see it there's in pink, it's only if it's surrounded by a yellow line. And it's actually one of the sites that would |
| 03:01:30.13 | Beth (Consultant) | The recommended sites are actually just the ones that are numbered. So we have some additional sites that we had not included in our recommendations. |
| 03:01:37.42 | Ian Sobieski | It's just 1431 and 32. I apologize. |
| 03:01:40.54 | Beth (Consultant) | And |
| 03:01:40.98 | Melissa Blaustein | I thought with 33, there was a smidge that was actually... Land. There was. |
| 03:01:45.68 | Beth (Consultant) | There was. Thank you. There's a small portion that's on land on this site. So that, yeah, there is a small portion and you could, whoops, I apologize. And so you could include it. It's under the same ownership as 31 and 32. So you could include 33 as well. So you could have just kind of a larger area. And we'll just note when we send it to the state what the exact assumptions are. So yeah, it definitely could be increased. And also for the veterans, |
| 03:02:10.96 | Melissa Blaustein | of the non-HEAC council members, we did have a robust conversation about wanting to signal to HCD, BCDC, whomever was watching that we do want water-based housing. And so we did want to include it as that signal. So I think it's important for other council members to know that as well. |
| 03:02:27.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:02:29.31 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, Council Member Cleveland Knowles, and then we'll take public comment. |
| 03:02:33.49 | Councilman Cleveland | Yeah, I just wanted to ask Beth if she could remind us when we will factor in things like leases Wow. 31 and 32 are the subjective long term. |
| 03:02:46.84 | Beth (Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 03:02:49.98 | Beth (Consultant) | 31 and 32 are both privately owned, so they're not the subject of city leases. As far as Heidi did some additional research, so those are not. |
| 03:02:55.28 | Councilman Cleveland | I'm so sorry. Yeah. |
| 03:02:59.83 | Councilman Cleveland | Okay, well, okay, so maybe not for these sites then. I'm sorry. |
| 03:03:03.77 | Beth (Consultant) | But for other ones, we have identified where we have, the city staff provided us with some lease information. So we have that. And then we also have flagged those for the city staff to continue to review. So we may get some additional feedback from them as we're developing the housing plan and the housing element. And we'll add that additional information as we receive it. |
| 03:03:23.41 | Councilman Cleveland | Thank you. Okay, thank you. But that would just mean that some potential sites are going to like we'll be going down from our number that we approved tonight. |
| 03:03:31.76 | Beth (Consultant) | Correct. Some sides may. |
| 03:03:35.31 | Melissa Blaustein | And Beth, I just found my notes on 33. There's a building on 33. It's not a strip of land. It's actually a building. Okay, let's go ahead and take public comment. I see three hands raised. |
| 03:03:47.22 | Serge Avila | And Madam Mayor, just for the record, I received an email from Ms. McDougald stating that she would like to make a comment. So I'm gonna call on her first. She does not have her hand raised. However, she's got a check mark right next to her name. |
| 03:04:03.79 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, great. We are taking public comment on the Hill properties only. So please limit your comments to that. |
| 03:04:04.15 | Serge Avila | I don't know. |
| 03:04:11.06 | Serge Avila | Sure, Ms. McGuigal, you're being unmuted and asked to share your video. |
| 03:04:27.77 | Serge Avila | Try again Ms. McDougall you're being unmuted and I asked to share your video. |
| 03:04:32.48 | Babette McDougall | Can you hear me now? Yes, we can. Okay, great. I said, thank you for that. I don't know why I don't see the little mechanisms that allow me to just make a usual request. I don't know what's missing here, but something is on my screen. Anyway, I would like to simply say, to see the tremendous amount of minutia that you folks are going through, and I don't even know what the ultimate outcome is thought to be, at this point, but it raises a lot of questions. Number one, I will tell you, that personally I did not receive any information from the city asking if I might be interested And in fact, everyone that I've spoken to in my neighborhood about just the issue of City Hall being torn down. Everybody said, well, why don't they come to other property owners? Why do they want to focus on City Hall? I said, I don't know. It turns out nobody got a notice around here. about your interest in looking. I happen to know people who own property in this neighborhood that would love to sell and see it. though for something other than what it is now, which is an R1. So, I just want to make the point that I don't know how thorough you guys have been, but just the way you're sort of waddling through the water here, and I can't quite tell what the ultimate goal for this whole exercise is supposed to be. |
| 03:05:55.98 | Unknown | you |
| 03:05:56.35 | Babette McDougall | And so with that, I withdraw, thank you. Thanks very much. surgery. |
| 03:06:00.68 | Melissa Blaustein | I had one. |
| 03:06:06.49 | Melissa Blaustein | So is our next public commenter? |
| 03:06:09.27 | Serge Avila | Sure, Madam Mayor, it looks like our next Public Commentary is Michael. Michael, you've been unmuted. Nice to share your video. |
| 03:06:20.83 | Unknown | Hi, good evening. |
| 03:06:22.60 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes, welcome. |
| 03:06:23.89 | Unknown | I'm not sure if my video is working. But I just wanted to comment on site 14 and to just raise some concerns given the relative size of the number of units relative to the overall housing elements. So this is over 30 units. So the loss of those units, whether through a failure of the environmental or state review, or a failure to actually develop that site would have a pretty significant impact on the overall housing element. And it's just a bit concerning given, you know, based on the objective characteristics of that site, it seems that it is relatively likely, compared to other sites, to fail environmental review or state review or fail to have actual development, given that all but a tiny portion of that site is an extraordinarily steep hillside, which would not seem to be either practically or economically feasible for development. And it also, if you look at the maps, is noted as a site that is, at least part of it, is a high landslide risk and the entire site is in a high fire risk zone. So, you know, of all of the sites in the overall housing element that have more than 10 or 20 units, this would seem to be the one at the greatest risk of environmental or state challenge, or just a failure to have economically feasible development in the future. And so the overall impact of that loss on the housing element as a whole is concerning. And I just wonder if we're putting a lot of eggs in a basket that's likely to fail. Thank you. |
| 03:07:49.41 | Babette McDougall | Well said, better than I could have said it. Where are we going with this? |
| 03:07:52.58 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:07:52.60 | Serge Avila | Our next speaker is... Pat, Pat, you've been unmuted and I should share your video. |
| 03:08:00.85 | Pat | Thank you and I would like to reiterate some of the comments about the Spencer Street site number 14 although I don't oppose some development of it I think designating it is a 38 unit development site is really problematic. In addition, I think you should probably back pocket 25 26 27 and 28. Um, I don't think developing housing should be divorced of any other consideration. And those sites have other considerations. I'm not sure about 31 and 32. I thought those were city leases. I obviously could be wrong. If I am wrong, I'm wrong. Um, Have at it. but My comments rest. Thank you. THANK YOU, PAT. |
| 03:08:53.94 | Serge Avila | Our next speaker is Alice Merrill. Alice, you've been unmuted. as we share your video. |
| 03:09:01.95 | Alice Merrill | Okay. Thank you. I'm here. I've done those things. Can you guys hear me? Yes, we can. Okay. I have a question, and that is when there's a blue... color, right next to a pink color. I can't remember what the blue color means, because sometimes they're tucked in around the pink ones. And does that mean something that was looked at and and given and decided not to do anything with or? Cause sometimes like in the last few, this doesn't happen. were blue places that weren't just talked about but why are they marked up that's what I'm curious about mostly and I agree with the fellow who talked about 14 it's pretty steep. There are a lot of reasons why. anything more than Two apartments would be. too many. Thank you. Thank you, Alice. |
| 03:09:56.39 | Serge Avila | Our next speaker is Peter Van Meter. Peter, you've been unmuted. Nice to share your video. |
| 03:10:08.92 | Melissa Blaustein | Hello, Peter. You're still muted. |
| 03:10:15.50 | Melissa Blaustein | You are still muted. Thank you. Oh, still muted. Unfortunately. |
| 03:10:25.79 | Peter Van Meter | Keep clicking it. Can you hear me now? You're good. Thank you. All right, thank you. Pat is correct. 32 is actually part of a ground lease. It's not owned by the South City Yacht Harbor 31 is owned by the Yacht Harbor. And actually the picture of 32 is in my recollection, we studied this back in 2007, is incorrect, Spinnaker, is actually underground leads to the Spinnaker. So parcel 32 only goes over to the side of that roadway. So this map should be double checked and corrected. But 31 is owned by the Odd Harbor. The rest is under the lease. Thank you. |
| 03:11:04.79 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you, Peter. Okay, both Councilman Cleveland Knowles and I have informed the consultant about the long-term leases on these properties, we've talked about interest from the leaseholders and so They are on this list because the leaseholder has expressed an interest at least to some extent of evaluating that option. Any comments or questions on this group? I don't see anyone's hand raised, so then we will move onward. |
| 03:11:40.50 | Melissa Blaustein | Oh, pardon me, I see. |
| 03:11:42.49 | Serge Avila | Madam Mayor, Arthur Bruce just raised his hand. I'm heard you've been unmuted. |
| 03:11:47.77 | Unknown | Bruce, you've been unmuted. |
| 03:11:56.90 | Arthur Bruce | I just wanted to... Hello. Madam Mayor, council members, I just wanted to echo mayor and I'm not sure. I say that yes. we do support water-based housing. That's an awesome idea. |
| 03:12:17.49 | Arthur Bruce | That's all I have. Okay. Oh, |
| 03:12:20.18 | Melissa Blaustein | THANK YOU, MR. BRUCE. |
| 03:12:20.71 | Arthur Bruce | THE END OF |
| 03:12:22.82 | Melissa Blaustein | OKAY. So Beth, no further comments or suggestions on this. Let's move on to the... Next grouping. I believe that is into Newtown, correct? Yes, thank you. So Newtown, we have two groups and let's see. I am in fact conflicted on Sites 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 50, 50, 70, 80. and 106 Council Member Hoffman is conflicted on site 58. So let me hand this over to the Vice Mayor and I will recuse myself It sounds like on all of these sites. And turn my video off. |
| 03:13:07.00 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay, thank you. I will also recuse. |
| 03:13:10.24 | Beth (Consultant) | And you are not recused on group one, council member Hoffman. Oh, I'm not, oh, sorry. No. Okay. That would only be a site 58, which we didn't get property owner interest on, so it didn't get added. So you're good. All right. So. |
| 03:13:25.20 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Thank you. Great. So are there any questions from the council on these first set? We'll start with group one. Do you have presentation on it? Thank you. |
| 03:13:34.57 | Beth (Consultant) | Absolutely. So site 52 is the site that you have probably received many, many, many emails about over the last few days. And that is the city hall site at 420 Litho street. It's a 2.2 acre parcel. We did anticipate that the Robin Sweeney park would be untouched and that it would be mainly the city hall and parking area that could potentially be intensified with some additional housing of The 49 unit per acre mixed use designation would accommodate about 37 units. I'm sorry. I do want to clarify, so a lot of the public comments that I read from the community did indicate that they understood that there were going to be 724 units placed on the city hall site or 700 people residing at the city hall site. And no, this is a much more modest Modest anticipation here that the 37 units are what are envisioned currently so yes, there is room for that to to shift a bit through the housing element process, but I don't I don't envision it being quite as large as some people have have understood it to be so. The 52 would be about 37 units. 53 is located on Bonita Street, just across from City Hall. And that's a vacant parcel. It would accommodate about six units. 54 is located at B Street. It's vacant and would accommodate about two units. 55 is, I believe, a single family home located on Napa Street and the owners interested in some additional housing units, plus a including a low income unit. Site 56 is located over here on Napa Street, just under a quarter of an acre. It has a single dwelling and the property owner hadn't responded to outreach, but we did keep it on. It would accommodate eight units. And then 57 is also a vacant parcel located at 220 Casno Avenue, and that is vacant and would accommodate about five units. Those are the group one parcels, and I'm happy to provide more information if you would like. |
| 03:15:39.65 | Ian Sobieski | Why is the only use of parcel 52 this relatively high density idea that would also impact the current structure instead of AT LEAST INCLUDING another use, which would be something more modest, just would just the parking lot with a few units above UNDERGROUND PARKING. |
| 03:16:00.15 | Beth (Consultant) | And there are many iterations that you could look at for a city hall. And so that could be something that you specifically request we evaluate in the housing element, look at just the parking area. |
| 03:16:11.19 | Ian Sobieski | Is that what we would do here and now? |
| 03:16:13.80 | Beth (Consultant) | Yeah, you definitely, if you wanted to give a specific direction on any of the sites, that would be good to do because we'll evaluate it appropriately in the EIR. We could, you know, this would be one of the sites where we could have a specific, we could look at 37 units and the alternatives could examine a more modest proposal. |
| 03:16:31.18 | Ian Sobieski | Okay. Oh, 106 is not on the list. It's in the pink, but not recommended list. I believe is that the Portuguese hall that is |
| 03:16:39.82 | Beth (Consultant) | That is the Portuguese hall. I don't believe Heidi heard anything from the property owner on that. |
| 03:16:46.47 | Ian Sobieski | Oh, yeah. |
| 03:16:48.58 | Beth (Consultant) | WE WOULD recommend that that as well as a number of other sites be looked at for six cycle capacity because there might be interest from the property owner in intensifying the use. |
| 03:16:55.77 | Ian Sobieski | owner. That's the next cycle or did you say this cycle? |
| 03:17:00.16 | Beth (Consultant) | The seventh cycle, so the next cycle. |
| 03:17:02.10 | Ian Sobieski | but you meant seven. Well, given that, you know, this is our Big Mac here. This is the big thing you gotta swallow, 724 units. Something like that seems like a natural place maybe expend a little bit of effort to really engage with the property owner. given that it's a relatively unused site by the Portuguese Society, which in full disclosure, I'm a member of. but just a regular dues-paying number but You know, they're a nonprofit, so I know that they might be difficult to engage with, but the reward might be worth the effort. |
| 03:17:38.62 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Did you have any additional questions, Council Member Sobieski? |
| 03:17:41.67 | Ian Sobieski | I guess that was the question. Is it worth the effort? Or is it something called the next cycle? |
| 03:17:47.73 | Beth (Consultant) | So you wouldn't, it wouldn't decrease, say the city hall site, the Martin Luther King Jr. site, some of the sites that are more contentious because it's wouldn't likely be large enough to yield a significant number of the very low and low income units. It would be if you want just to see additional capacity, it would be worth the effort. But if I don't think it would do anything significant in changing your |
| 03:17:58.76 | Unknown | THE END OF |
| 03:18:10.97 | Beth (Consultant) | your overall housing element. But it could be an interesting site, especially with the community-oriented nature of the existing use. |
| 03:18:21.21 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Great. I'd like to thank Councilmember Sobieski, Councilmember Cleveland Knowles, and then Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 03:18:27.17 | Councilman Cleveland | Yeah, I just wanted to add to, in response to council members, if we asked these questions about city hall and the parking lot versus other parts of the site, I think that he actually, definitely felt that the Robin's wing portion, you know, should be taken off the table. And then I think because there was kind of incomplete information about possible renovation and reuse of the rest of the site that it was, it was I think a 5-4 road or I can't remember exactly how it came out, but to keep City Hall on there. one of the things that I noted during that conversation is that at least in the past, it hasn't come up well during this council, City Hall is in really dire need of some significant renovation and improvements. I think council member Hoffman probably remembers lots of conversations about that. for me, a motivating factor to keep the City Hall site, at least for the time being on the site on the list. is that it might be possible to do some kind of renovation in a public-private partnership to both enhance City Hall and achieve some housing capability there. So that's how the conversation went. grossly summarizing, but... And obviously we have had a lot of public comment, but I think it would be worth doing more public information about the possibility as I do feel like some of the information that was put out was not. So I'm in favor of keeping it as it is, but I'm not sure CERTAINLY PRECONSIME. |
| 03:20:10.05 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Thank you. |
| 03:20:10.09 | Councilman Cleveland | or other options. |
| 03:20:10.96 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Thank you. and then you go. |
| 03:20:11.99 | Unknown | And then he will be again. |
| 03:20:12.53 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | to your question. of the sorry i was just gonna say we'll get to discussion after we hear from public comment because i'm sure there'll be a lot of other questions that come up but i want to make sure councilmember huffman gets to ask the question unless ian are you Sorry, Councilor. |
| 03:20:24.21 | Ian Sobieski | I have to ask my colleague Susan whether it would be acceptable to Thank you. in addition to ask the the consultant to look at the just the parking lot. So it's late. |
| 03:20:44.68 | Councilman Cleveland | Thank you. |
| 03:20:44.73 | Unknown | I'm going to go to the |
| 03:20:44.92 | Councilman Cleveland | I think the vice mayor was suggesting we hear a public comment. |
| 03:20:45.71 | Unknown | or a |
| 03:20:49.05 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:20:49.52 | Councilman Cleveland | It's good. |
| 03:20:49.83 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:20:50.03 | Councilman Cleveland | Thank you. |
| 03:20:51.68 | Councilmember Hoffman | Council member Hoffman, did you have a question? I did and it relates to that, the 106 parcel. that's, Do you have any sense of the number of units. I mean, I've been in there. I think we've all been in there. It's quite large. So I would be interested in if you have any sense of how many units that would yield and follow up to council member Sobieski's point of you know I believe he or I could facilitate contact with the owner on that so yeah to me that's a that's a high perhaps an opportunity site that we're we haven't captured Can you let me? |
| 03:21:36.52 | Councilman Cleveland | Yeah, let me add it did come up at the HIAC and there was very significant interest in second floor um, YEAH. keeping the communities on the ground floor and the second floor. So I'm surprised that it's still not on there. |
| 03:21:53.97 | Beth (Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 03:21:54.09 | Councilman Cleveland | Thank you. |
| 03:21:54.20 | Beth (Consultant) | Thank you. So it would allow 14 units if it was designated at 70 units per acre and about six units at 49 units per acre, looking at like a mixed use type of scenario. |
| 03:22:05.90 | Alice Merrill | Mm-hmm. Okay, thanks, Beth. |
| 03:22:09.95 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | I had a question about this, a couple of questions about the city hall site in response to public comment, Beth. In particular, we had received quite a few comments about the concern of a public safety or a emergency zone. Could you take that into consideration for the site to make sure that we had a designated emergency? services zoned either within the city hall site or otherwise as you're doing? |
| 03:22:34.94 | Beth (Consultant) | or designated elsewhere. So replacing that, yeah, we can include policy language in the housing element to address that. |
| 03:22:36.55 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Thank you. |
| 03:22:40.59 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Okay, because that was a critical component that had come up. And then it seems like based on discussion. But we'll see. Let's go ahead and take public comment on this because I know there'll be a lot of um, a lot of feedback and thanks to everyone who sent emails and correspondence as well. So we'll go ahead and open it up. Serge, could you facilitate the speakers, please? |
| 03:23:00.62 | Serge Avila | Chair Vice Mayor, we have our first speaker, Peter Van Nieder. Peter, you've been unmuted. |
| 03:23:10.38 | Peter Van Meter | Can you hear me now? |
| 03:23:12.03 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Yes, we can hear you. |
| 03:23:13.52 | Peter Van Meter | All right, I strongly support the sub analysis in the EIR of housing over parking lot on a platform. If you have to look at the entire site, I guess you do. I think that at the end of the day, the housing on the platform is the way to go. that, um, And there was something else, but I forgot. So we'll let it go with that. |
| 03:23:35.42 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Thank you very much, Peter, for your comments. |
| 03:23:38.65 | Serge Avila | Our next speaker is Pat. Pat, you're being unmuted. I'm going to share your video. |
| 03:23:46.42 | Pat | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:23:48.52 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Yes, Pat, we can see and hear you. |
| 03:23:50.46 | Pat | I can't, he's senior. Okay, I can see him. I agree totally with Peter. Amazingly. See you. I think the city hall parking lot should be included. probably 37 units is quite excessive. but we should retain our City Hall and use the platform over the parking lot to put in what we can control which is low-income units As to 106, I am a little astonished that we would eliminate that by virtue solely of a lack of property owner response. That is only one consideration. and shouldn't be and is not the only consideration. So I think that should be included as a potential And if we can reach out and gain their support, that's fine. If not, it's a rezoning and a potential reuse so i would urge retaining that Thank you. |
| 03:24:50.03 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Thank you. |
| 03:24:50.09 | Pat | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:24:50.18 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Thank you. |
| 03:24:50.19 | Pat | Thank you very much, Pat. |
| 03:24:53.38 | Serge Avila | Our next speaker is Sue Stevenson. Sue, you've been unmuted. share your video. |
| 03:25:08.76 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Hi Sue, you're still muted. |
| 03:25:14.19 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | We still can't hear you. |
| 03:25:24.23 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Okay, while we get that figured out, Serge, why don't we move to the next speaker and we'll come back to Sue Stevenson. |
| 03:25:29.87 | Serge Avila | Sure, our next speaker, it's a phone number ending in 4042, you've been unmuted. |
| 03:25:37.82 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:25:40.97 | Unknown | Hello, my name is Sonia. And hello, Madam Mayor and City Council members. When I heard about this proposal for housing at City Hall, I went around to talk to other residents, both in Old and Newtown. Everyone I spoke to was appalled to hear that this was even a consideration No one was supportive of the city hall location for any kind of housing. This is the center of our town and the city's civic public block. It's all... full purpose is to remain as public to serve all Sausalito residents and Marin County residents as well. and Even the suggestion to alter any part of the city hall block is entirely shocking and unacceptable to us as South Toledo residents. As mentioned, it is our emergency gathering place. We've used it for repeatedly over time, for many, many, you know, SITUATION. when they occurred. This building also has historical value, and everyone in town cherishes it. AS LONG AS um, Sorry. As a long-term resident of over four decades, I implore you to listen to our voices and remove this entire block from the list of potential sites. for housing. I also have a question. As a question, will our views of existing residents be considered when developing new units And historically, views have always been considered and protected. So I throw that out to you. to respond at some point. Thank you. |
| 03:27:30.31 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | THANK YOU. Thank you very much for your comments. |
| 03:27:35.01 | Serge Avila | We're going to try again, Sue Stevenson. Great. You've been unmuted and asked to share your video. |
| 03:27:57.86 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Okay, it looks like we're still having an issue. Maybe, Serge, we can message them the dial-in number and they could call on the phone. In the meantime, we'll go to the next speaker and circle back again and try. |
| 03:28:08.68 | Serge Avila | Sure, our next speaker will be Trisha. Trisha, you've been unmuted and asked to share your video. |
| 03:28:18.57 | Trisha Gelman | Hi there, I'm Trisha Gelman, I'm a resident of Sausalito and I just wanted to support the ideas that Ian had suggested to look at just the parking lot for the development of City Hall. I also hear that there may be some updates needed on City Hall itself so maybe there is a mixed use there but maintaining and ensuring that we have a library that we have public access to the City Hall I think is extremely important. I also heard that maybe you guys are addressing this already, but that you were looking to do something different with Sweeney Park. And I wanted to just go on record as saying that We already spent millions of dollars updating Sweeney Park in the last decade. And so it would be irresponsible of us to actually do something different with that space. And then as a parent, I want to go on record as saying that it is such an important part of the young families that have moved into the city in the past 10 years. that I think we want to make sure that we maintain that. Finally, I think on 106, it's already a commercial It's a commercially zoned space and so we should continue to look and we should put that on record as being a place where we could count on some housing because there's nothing that would change the usage we have today by then maybe adding a second floor and adding housing. |
| 03:29:35.08 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Thank you so much for your comments, Tricia. Do you want to try Sue one more time or go to the next speaker? Were you able to send the login or the dial in info |
| 03:29:45.15 | Serge Avila | Vice mayor, I was able to send them an email. Hopefully they'll be able to I'M JOINED BY PHONE. Great. Our next speaker will be Joan Cox. Joan, you... Been unmuted and assisted you very well. |
| 03:30:05.49 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Hi, Joan, you're still muted. I can't hear you. |
| 03:30:15.90 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | We still can't hear you, unfortunately. |
| 03:30:24.24 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Okay, we'll go to the next commenter while you work on figuring that out. Maybe you can dial in or call in if you need to. |
| 03:30:31.49 | Serge Avila | Our next speaker is Nastasia Saad. And Nastasia, you've been unmuted. Nice to share your video. |
| 03:30:40.17 | Nastassia | Bye. HIGH AGAIN. Hi, Mayor and City Council. I wanted to speak on this topic, just in looking at all of the public comment from that came in over the last few days, I think Just to be clear, a lot of that comment and my opinion personally is the entire block. So including the parking lot, which does have core value to the residents, to the surrounding neighborhood and to a lot of other people that come to make use We're talking about the park that was renovated. A lot of money was put in there, the amount of people that come to park in that parking lot and use the surrounding services, Caledonia, Bonita, B and Litho are very impacted already in terms of space. We've had a lot of young families move in, which is great to see the neighborhood revitalized. Growing up here, that was my brother and I and very few kids. So it's really great to see families have already expanded into this space. So I think, We have to pay attention to the whole neighborhood and density has been increased in individual units already. in this space, but City Hall and the entire surrounding area, parking lot, basketball court, the park, And I get those are not even on the list currently in the space, looking at it holistically doesn't make sense for housing. It's where we do our city business and hopefully in a post COVID era, we're gonna be inviting the whole town back to events to join city council in person. make a use of it in a civic way. knowing that it needs repairs, is critical and I think we should look at how we can finance for it, but I don't think using the housing element and this process to have any to get the repairs done in this in this way makes sense. I think we need to look at those as two separate tasks at hand. Thank you. |
| 03:32:45.01 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Thank you. Let's go back to Joan if we can try and see if she can get her audio to work. Can you hear me now? Yes, we can hear you. |
| 03:32:51.99 | Joan Cox | Wonderful. |
| 03:32:52.08 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. Wonderful. |
| 03:32:52.95 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Bye. |
| 03:32:53.56 | Joan Cox | All right, I just wanted to give a heads up about Site 106. My understanding is that there may be some interest there is some financial stress on the property owner at the moment and so there may well be an interest in having that rezoned to allow for additional units on a second floor. Unfortunately, these days, it's cheaper to tear down and rebuild than to just add a floor. But aside from that, my understanding is that there may well be some interest, so I would recommend adding that. And then with city hall, I wanted to make it clear to the city council that the HEAC voted not to include any parks. on the as potential opportunity sites. So that's all of the parks in town, including Marianne Sears Park, including other parks that were not AS RECENTLY. in which there was not as much money recently invested. So I wanted to make that clear that that was the hope of the HIAC and a public comment. with respect to the parks so that city hall development would not EFFECT. Robin Sweeney Park and would preserve City Hall services and would preserve parking. It would just be units of housing in addition to the. Thank you. |
| 03:34:10.85 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Thank you very much for your comments. |
| 03:34:12.98 | Serge Avila | Madam Mayor, Madam Vice Mayor, pardon me. I will try again, Sue Stevenson and Sue, It appears as you are on two devices now. So I'm clicking on both to see if you can THE END OF |
| 03:34:30.49 | Unknown | you |
| 03:34:38.17 | Alice Merrill | to it. |
| 03:34:38.91 | Sue Stevenson | Hello? |
| 03:34:39.88 | Alice Merrill | Oh, we can hear you now. |
| 03:34:42.17 | Sue Stevenson | Okay, I'm a little bit hoarse, not soo, it's more than more actually. I live across from the parking lot in 1952. Peter and Pat do not. and So my concern is when picking this, Thanks. And... Do people actually consider the cost of developing a site when they make it available for you? because this particular site would be extremely as a builder would be extremely expensive to develop |
| 03:35:10.82 | Unknown | builder. |
| 03:35:14.81 | Sue Stevenson | So going through all this trouble of creating a site and submitting it, If the cost analysis is not submitted, or at least on, consider the site being on the list. And I guess that's a different bit. The other thing is the parking lot is extremely valuable. And I know by covering it, It's not gonna mean just saying, is gonna bring a lot of high density. And when you bring high density into an area, You don't give people pride of ownership in their housing. And it's in the long run, it's detrimental. I've lived in San Francisco for 25 years before moving out here to Sausalito. And I see a number of projects being Himalayas. and rebuild. and in no consideration for open space or backyard space. giving people pride of ownership, and it resorted back into a ghetto situation within 10 years. So these are very, these are concerns that decisions of South Lido have in considering low income housing or high density housing. And I understand that we do, that Canada's been kicked for 35 years over here. and we need the housing, but there's different ways to do it. And I would please ask these people to consider the impact on the neighborhood and the historical value of Site 52. Thank you. |
| 03:36:38.41 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Thank you very much for your comments and for bearing with us through the technological difficulties. Okay, is there any further public comment, Serge? |
| 03:36:45.93 | Serge Avila | Madam Vice Mayor, we do not have any, oh, we just got another hand raised. Megan, Megan, you're being unmuted. And as you share your video. |
| 03:36:58.23 | Nick Bressler | Hey there, my name is Nick Bressler. Wipes Megan reason her zoom. I just wanted to reiterate that I agree with the tosses points that she made earlier. That's a really nice job articulating kind of my wife's and I have views on things. We live right across the street from 52 on Girard as well. And a couple points, I mean, cumulatively all of the units on Newtown seem like they comprise close to 10% of the 724 required units. Seems like a lot for one neighborhood to absorb, And then the 37 units proposed for site 52 seem like an enormous amount of units for that particular site to absorb as well. So I'm glad to hear that the parks. I'm no longer included. I go there frequently with my kids. But even the parking lot being absorbed for that many of units, I think seems, extremely high AND I WOULD LIKE TO BE KIND OF re-evaluated altogether. And then I agree with Natazi's point with, if City Hall needs renovating, which I would agree there's an opportunity there, that should be handled separately. And thanks everybody for staying late on talking about these issues, appreciate it. |
| 03:38:05.02 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Thank you very much for your comments, Nick. Okay, any, oh, we have one more public comment, I see. |
| 03:38:12.08 | Serge Avila | We have Lori, Lori, you've been unmuted. I'll see you share your video. |
| 03:38:23.82 | Serge Avila | Lori, you'll need to unmute on your end. |
| 03:38:31.92 | Lori | Has that worked? Yes. Okay, great. No video, I'm actually in bed. |
| 03:38:33.22 | Unknown | Yes. I can hear you. |
| 03:38:38.77 | Lori | So thank you for all your work on doing this. I know that it's a difficult decision. I am strongly opposed to any building on the city hall. block it all. that, the civic heartbeat is that our community is in the whole area having like increasing the density of population and while it might not be, actually on the park or, on the basketball court or in the building of the current city hall having an increased number of people living right there will impact those areas significantly. And it's going to take away something that I think we all need as a community, which is, a comfortable, spacious gathering place. And this is what it means to be a community is have people come together, people places to celebrate, places to bring families, places where people can resource themselves and resource each other. So it's not just a matter of keeping housing. on one part of it because there will be a spillover effect and not just in traffic, but in people as well. And that will have a different incredibly deleterious impact on the sense of community here. Thank you. |
| 03:40:03.89 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Thank you very much for your comments, Lori. |
| 03:40:06.46 | Serge Avila | Madam Vice Mayor, we do have another speaker, Bruce Arthur, you're being unmuted. Nice to share your video. |
| 03:40:17.53 | Arthur Bruce | I'm just going to have to... once again, just echo the last Speaker. And, And also as far as renovations on city hall, I love it just the way it is. One of my favorite things about it is when you walk into the door, and you're heading towards the library, you look to the right beautiful painting of of the of the water-based community. Um, particularly You can see the teepee and the sand. Diane Moyers houseboat and some others. And, um, even though that the city is still in coercion with the R-B-R-A, You know, I hope that no matter what happens at City Hall, that, that, even though the, those people and that that legacy that's part of the, of this community. water-based community. lives on. I hope that painting is allowed to stay up when all the money, takes control of everything. |
| 03:41:29.65 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Thank you for your comments. |
| 03:41:31.67 | Serge Avila | Meta Mayer there are no other hands-free. |
| 03:41:33.94 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Okay. |
| 03:41:34.66 | Serge Avila | FIVE MINUTES. |
| 03:41:35.76 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Thank you. Thank you very much, Serge. We will close public comment at this time and bring it back up to the council. So who wants to kick us off with comment? |
| 03:41:46.22 | Unknown | you |
| 03:41:49.23 | Councilmember Hoffman | Councilmember Huffman. Oh, go ahead. Go ahead, Ian. You were leaning forward before I could put my hand up. |
| 03:41:56.74 | Ian Sobieski | Well, look, I mean, this is a case in point of what's frustrated me. Last year when I voted against hiring the consultant, it's because I favored a plan that was based on a master planning process that would have actually presented people who live across the street for one of these developments. real confidence in what is being considered in on the site location. I live across the street. from the red box, not knowing what goes in the red box, I do be afraid of what is in the red box. So I still, and it's for later on in this meeting, we'll advocate that we supplement this process with the beginnings of the master plan process. Fortunately, what I heard Beth say is that we do have some budget in our current housing element consulting agreement with them. to put some meat on the bones of this and actually show people what we um what might be there or what would be there. Um, And so that might or might not ameliorate some of the concerns. If, I'm very concerned about doing anything with City Hall on the whole Site 52. doing something just over the parking lot where you preserve the parking lot. Uh, And if you only did that, it wouldn't be 37 units. fraction of that. seems very like it might be enhancing actually to the area, but it all depends on what the So I would love to add And again, just so everyone remembers, this is not a decision to do anything except to do the EIR study, right? So I would just like to add, and request that we add, Another sub site, which is just the parking lot of the city hall. And with the stipulation that it, that it preserved the parking lot and would be construction over it. And I suggest we add a cycle 106, which I think, indeed, is owned by a nonprofit and has been thinking of what they should do with their site. And so that could be an additional 14 units take pressure off of other areas in town, Florida. or high density. for more time than |
| 03:44:05.36 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Great, we'll go to Council Member Hoffman next. |
| 03:44:07.11 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you. So yes, I'm in agreement with Council Member Sobieski and his comments. Um, You know, I, I, I understand the concerns with the site, and I don't disagree with a lot of the concerns with the site. Thank you. But I think right now, I'm leaning toward just leaving sites on so that we can get the IAR done. And then the hard work of really looking at it holistically, as Councilmember Silbieski said, in a comprehensive plan, is I think, you know, the better way to go. with those comments, I don't have a request to remove this site, but you know, if we're prioritizing or signaling to prioritization, I would say this would not be my favorite or top of the list site or maybe even the first sites it might be something lower down on the list or taking it off at the end of the day so that's those are my comments Thank you. |
| 03:45:05.53 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Great, thanks Councilmember Hoffman. Councilmember Cleveland knows? |
| 03:45:09.73 | Councilman Cleveland | Yeah, I mean, having |
| 03:45:09.82 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Yeah. |
| 03:45:14.83 | Councilman Cleveland | this site, you know, we have site control of this site, which I think is important. It's a publicly owned site. I don't think anyone has been talking about taking away civic use or civic belonging from the space. That's definitely something that we've been |
| 03:45:28.28 | Unknown | AND I THINK THAT'S A LOT OF Okay. |
| 03:45:32.90 | Councilman Cleveland | CONTINUATING TO KEEP THE Yes. on the table. So yeah, I like Ian's idea of having |
| 03:45:36.23 | Unknown | So yeah. |
| 03:45:39.30 | Councilman Cleveland | calling this site out specifically for |
| 03:45:39.37 | Unknown | AND I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT. |
| 03:45:42.49 | Councilman Cleveland | alternative studies, especially just using the back parking lot and retaining the parking I mean, that's always been the idea not to remove our team both to build a buck. I think. that would be helpful. And that's, this is not Yeah, I think, what is it, 38 units, 37 units. Amen. I don't think that's going to... hurt us too much. I would just, this is a comment I made a lot at the HIAC and we haven't really had a space for general comments. |
| 03:46:10.26 | Cloris Henry | I WANT TO THINK ABOUT THAT. |
| 03:46:16.04 | Councilman Cleveland | But I guess I would just love to I would encourage people to think about all the different ways to build community |
| 03:46:23.70 | Ian Sobieski | you Thank you. |
| 03:46:24.42 | Councilman Cleveland | Um, you know, that bringing new people and new energy to our I think that our community is a way of enhancing our community. I would like to make that point. who are opposed to a particular site for whatever reason to also really think proactively about where they would like to see new housing in town and to also provide proactive alternatives. And I'm not speaking specifically to people that commented about this, but just in general. because it's easy to think about where we don't want things to go, but harder to think about. proactive vision for enhancing our community, if you imagine. but I'm in favor of Ian's idea. |
| 03:47:15.28 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | So I tend to fall out with the rest of the council. I was really happy to see so much feedback and community engagement around this site, mostly because it's great to see that we have new voices that we haven't heard from before, and also just that so many folks were passionate about having a civic center that we can all share in. But I tend to agree, and I think we're all on the same page with the direction to look specifically at the parking lot at the city hall site and make sure that we're maintaining the Civic use and the Robin Sweeney site. And what I wasn't clear from you, Council Member Cleveland Knowles, would you be in favor as well of adding site 106? |
| 03:47:56.19 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Yes. Okay. |
| 03:47:57.56 | Councilman Cleveland | Oh yeah, we've been trying to add that from the HAC for the entire time, so yes. |
| 03:48:02.94 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Okay, great. Okay, so and I would just echo some of the comments about community and the role of housing and how important it is. Because, you know, the more housing opportunities we create, the more we can welcome folks, new folks into our community, but also, you know, our workforce, people who serve our community in Sausalito can't afford to live in Sausalito for many of them. And I think it would be really, in a lot of ways, convenient for some workers from City Hall to be able to just walk downstairs to their office. So it's great to think about a master plan for the vision for housing for all of us. Do we need to take a vote on the direction for Site 52 of looking at the parking lot and the inclusion of 106? I'm looking for direction from the city attorney. |
| 03:48:46.93 | Councilman Cleveland | Sounds like we have direction. |
| 03:48:48.99 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | I think we've given pretty clear direction here. So I don't think we all. You're including them both. |
| 03:48:51.44 | Councilman Cleveland | MS. |
| 03:48:51.98 | Mary Wagner | AND CLEARING THEM. |
| 03:48:52.62 | Councilman Cleveland | THE FAMILY. |
| 03:48:52.96 | Mary Wagner | right? |
| 03:48:53.14 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Thank you. |
| 03:48:53.16 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. MS. |
| 03:48:53.89 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | 106 and 52, but specifically with a look at the parking lot at 52. Got it. |
| 03:49:00.23 | Beth (Consultant) | And is that in addition to looking at the larger area, not including Robin Sweeney Park or just the parking lot only? |
| 03:49:08.23 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | I think the consensus and the direction we're getting from everyone is to look at just the parking lot. Well, let me just clarify with other members of the council. |
| 03:49:16.55 | Councilman Cleveland | I thought EM said, look at 37 units but focus on an alternative that only use the parking lot with parking underneath but Is that what you said, Ian? |
| 03:49:27.33 | Ian Sobieski | That is what I said, but it wouldn't be 37 units if it's just the parking lot. |
| 03:49:32.65 | Councilman Cleveland | not I meant as an alternative to that. |
| 03:49:35.33 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. That's right, it would be substantially fewer number of units over the parking lot only. and add 106. |
| 03:49:44.63 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Thank you. |
| 03:49:44.65 | Beth (Consultant) | Okay. |
| 03:49:45.94 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | the same. |
| 03:49:46.03 | Beth (Consultant) | Does that make sense, Beth? So yes, we'll look at just fewer units, just the parking lot. and add one a second. |
| 03:49:53.03 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | I'm not sure. when I said, |
| 03:49:57.05 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Okay, great. Thank you very much. I think we can welcome back Mayor Kelman at this point. for the next site, right? |
| 03:50:06.36 | Beth (Consultant) | Yes. Okay, great. the next portion of this neighborhood, there are no conflicts. THANK YOU. |
| 03:50:15.54 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Thank you for bearing with me through my first facilitation of the meeting. Excellent job. |
| 03:50:19.02 | Melissa Blaustein | Excellent job. |
| 03:50:20.01 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Okay. |
| 03:50:20.03 | Melissa Blaustein | Excellent. |
| 03:50:20.49 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Thank you. |
| 03:50:20.60 | Melissa Blaustein | I'm refreshed, so thank you for that. |
| 03:50:22.46 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Thank you. |
| 03:50:22.82 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, so we're still in Newtown. This is Group 2, Sites 35, 39. |
| 03:50:22.93 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Okay. |
| 03:50:28.11 | Melissa Blaustein | 40, 42, 44, 45, 46, and 47. Over to you, Beth. Thank you. |
| 03:50:33.70 | Beth (Consultant) | All right, so this is a chunk of units here. So we have site 35 located at 429 Johnson Street. This is a city-owned site with a small structure. It has the potential for about three units, looking at multifamily at 49 units per acre. We have site 39, which is the, commercial waterfront designation and there's property owner interest on this side it would accommodate about four units with a mixed use designation and it is subject to the fair traffic initiative. We have site 40 located at 501 Humboldt, which is just right across from. the Site 39, also property owner interest, also subject to the fair traffic initiative, and that would accommodate about two units. site 42, also property owner interest here and This is, would accommodate about four units. And these we'd all be looking at a mixed use designation also subject to the fair traffic initiative. Sites 44, 45, and 46 kind of all back up with one another. 44 is located at 210 Caledonia Street. would accommodate one unit property owner interest there. And similarly 45 and 46 also have property owner interest and would each accommodate additional unit with a mixed use designation. And these are already designated CR, so would accommodate some residential development already. And there is property owner interest in those sites. Site 47 is 300 Locust Street, and it's adjacent sites 48 and 49, which were two city-owned parcels. And when we looked into those, those are part of the Dunphy Park conceptual plan. So we did remove those from the recommended list. Site 47, however, is not. It's privately owned. And the owner is interested in mixed use or potentially commercial and then separate residential use on the parcel. It would accommodate about 13 units and is also subject to the fair traffic initiative. And that's about a half acre site. And that is the group two sites. Great, thank you, Beth. |
| 03:52:43.98 | Melissa Blaustein | QUESTIONS ON GROUP 2 SIDES? I don't see any hands raised. So Serge, do we have any public comment on Group 2 sites? |
| 03:52:54.24 | Serge Avila | Madam Mayor, I see no hands raised. |
| 03:52:56.53 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay. So back to the council. Anybody wanna make any comments or changes? Again, don't see any comments or changes. So Beth, I believe we'll be leaving this as is. All right. We will come up. Okay. Okay, and then... Great. |
| 03:53:15.43 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:53:15.45 | Beth (Consultant) | So, |
| 03:53:17.12 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah, so we'll move on to 3E, which is in the Montemar Vista Toyon Terrace. |
| 03:53:23.08 | Councilmember Hoffman | I'm sorry, I didn't get my hand up fast enough. I did have a question about that last group. I'm so sorry. |
| 03:53:23.16 | Melissa Blaustein | I'm sorry. |
| 03:53:30.04 | Councilmember Hoffman | WASN'T FAST ENOUGH. So I have a question about, the site, I see where number 47 is and 49. the parking lot that's right there, the city-owned lot. And was that considered at all? Thank you. |
| 03:53:48.47 | Beth (Consultant) | Which parking lot is that? right in that area. |
| 03:53:52.45 | Councilmember Hoffman | area. |
| 03:53:53.58 | Beth (Consultant) | Yeah. |
| 03:53:53.97 | Councilmember Hoffman | you bring your cursor straight down toward the water. I'm not. That is not a problem. That's a very old picture. That's not a parking lot. Okay. |
| 03:54:00.03 | Beth (Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 03:54:00.05 | Leslie Allen | Yeah. |
| 03:54:03.98 | Councilmember Hoffman | So that rectangle there, that. is a city on the parking lot. |
| 03:54:09.77 | Beth (Consultant) | Okay, and that did not pop up for some reason when we, when we |
| 03:54:09.80 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay. |
| 03:54:14.65 | Beth (Consultant) | query the city-owned sites. Okay, that might be. |
| 03:54:17.68 | Ian Sobieski | That might be. It might technically be a street there, Beth. That's the extension of Humboldt Street. |
| 03:54:22.42 | Beth (Consultant) | Okay. |
| 03:54:23.07 | Ian Sobieski | When you draw it out, it's practically a parking lot. but it could be like portions of Lot 3. listed on your map as a street, Humboldt Street. |
| 03:54:34.79 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:54:34.93 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:54:35.03 | Councilmember Hoffman | you I'm not advocating one way or the other. I'm just surprised that it's not. Uh, you know, |
| 03:54:41.97 | Melissa Blaustein | My recollection and |
| 03:54:43.82 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:54:43.84 | Melissa Blaustein | I have to go back and look is that we had some, some substantial discussion with that were that close to the water And I think that we did discuss that one. Um, So I thought we had, I couldn't swear to it, |
| 03:55:01.03 | Councilmember Hoffman | I looked at it. Okay, that's fine. I can follow up with Beth or something. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:55:10.21 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you, Councilman Hoffman. Okay, so then on to a new neighborhood. This is the Montemar Vista Toyon Terrace. None of us have any conflicts, so. Looks like we can move forward. Thank you. |
| 03:55:23.27 | Beth (Consultant) | All right, and in this area, we have no sites identified for council direction. So all of the blue sites that are shown, and I did hear a public comment about the blue shading, these are sites with capacity under existing zoning so they could accommodate some additional units. |
| 03:55:38.21 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay. Let's see if there's any public comment on this neighborhood. |
| 03:55:46.16 | Melissa Blaustein | Serge, I don't see anybody? |
| 03:55:47.20 | Serge Avila | Thank you. Madam Mayor, that is correct. There are no hints. Excuse me, we just have Pat. President. |
| 03:55:53.06 | Pat | and |
| 03:55:55.46 | Serge Avila | to share your video. |
| 03:55:59.52 | Pat | I think I'm good on it. I I would like to reiterate an earlier comment on the outreach to existing property owners with the potential for SB nine divisions. AND THE possibility of people evidencing interest um, particularly if interest is not commitment. There are a lot of properties here which are street to street. One is one of them. I might be interested. No one has reached out to me. I think someone should. Thanks. Thanks, Pat. |
| 03:56:34.27 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS, |
| 03:56:40.66 | Serge Avila | Madam Mayor, we have Arthur Bruce. Arthur, you can unmute it. |
| 03:56:43.63 | Melissa Blaustein | Hey, Chris. |
| 03:56:53.79 | Arthur Bruce | I'd just like to note that We're all living on stolen land. |
| 03:57:02.92 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you, Mr. Bruce. Okay, we're gonna move on back to the council. Do we have any comments on this? |
| 03:57:05.69 | Ian Sobieski | Bye. |
| 03:57:10.79 | Melissa Blaustein | before we move on. |
| 03:57:13.47 | Ian Sobieski | And just so we don't let it be forgotten, I guess we've said it before, can we give direction to |
| 03:57:14.03 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:57:19.39 | Ian Sobieski | Is there a direction to be given to the consultants take another pass at gathering, um, more interest from the community about both SB9 lot splits and also upzonings of properties like Beth had talked about earlier, there might be another crop of that Never got into the front of the hopper here, so haven't been part of the process. That could still add meaningfully to our to our allocation. That's kind of a question to my colleagues. Do we wanna get that direction? Can we? probably another Miller and some current some current some solicitation and currents and Um, |
| 03:57:57.40 | Melissa Blaustein | Council Member Sobieski, that's an excellent idea. And let's, if it's okay with you, let's hold that to the general comment section because it's not just as to this neighborhood, right? |
| 03:58:06.32 | Ian Sobieski | I would just forget by 1 a.m. whenever we get there. |
| 03:58:09.44 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:58:09.48 | Councilman Cleveland | I will commit to not forgetting. |
| 03:58:09.88 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:58:13.06 | Councilman Cleveland | Yeah, I mean, I would... I think we just need to take these as we go. But in any case, I would agree with Ian. But I would also note that we have done extensive outreach. We've had so many, we've sent that property owner interest out in Currents several times. We sent the survey out. It was at the town meetings. Um, So we have, I think we should continue to do it, but we already have, we have done quite a bit of of outreach and you know, I know that not everyone reads currents and not everyone comes to the town halls, but that property owner interest survey was sent. was widely circulated and I think |
| 03:58:52.54 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:58:53.52 | Councilman Cleveland | Thank you. |
| 03:58:55.28 | Melissa Blaustein | Here's an idea, perhaps the start of future council meetings and other meetings, We could actually make that. A statement, it's a public announcement, public service announcement. Just for all you who are gathered, we're in the middle of our housing element process if you're interested in an additional unit and just commit to continuing to do that in addition to the outreach. But Ian, yes, I welcome... further communication with the consultant and direction to |
| 03:59:21.28 | Ian Sobieski | would also be that we need to direct HIAC or whatever mechanism to collect those at some point and process them. before whatever, September. So there may yet be some additions, I guess, It's a little bit of a modification of the process rather than this being it. for leaving the door open for the addition of some additional sites. if they came up in the next couple months. |
| 03:59:44.96 | Councilmember Hoffman | I... I think also as part of that process, we need to have a bit of an explanation about what the commitment is from the property or what they're committing to and how that might affect their property. So, I mean, I think there seems to be a little bit of confusion about that. um, and maybe why people didn't respond previously to the surveys. But at least that's my conclusion from what I've heard tonight. |
| 04:00:10.44 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. I'll be sure to bring this back around. Thank you for those comments. When we do our final round of comments as well so that we can direct. and consult them specifically. Okay, so Bethan, moving on to Spring Street Valley. It looks like, it says that Vice Mayor Blaustein is conflicted on site 59. THEIR OWNERS. And then Council Member Hoffman completed on site 60, 62, and 63. |
| 04:00:38.67 | Beth (Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 04:00:38.70 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 04:00:38.70 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes, so I will be recusing myself |
| 04:00:39.02 | Beth (Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 04:00:39.06 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:00:41.50 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:00:41.52 | Babette McDougall | Okay. I'm... |
| 04:00:42.38 | Councilmember Hoffman | See you soon. |
| 04:00:43.21 | Babette McDougall | to yourself. |
| 04:00:44.27 | Beth (Consultant) | Beth, over to you. All right, so let's see, we'll jump to site 59. So since I'm a renter, I will not be |
| 04:00:51.58 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Thank you. |
| 04:00:51.88 | Beth (Consultant) | recusing myself. |
| 04:00:53.70 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | But I don't live anywhere near Easterby Street, so I'm a little bit confused. Yeah, because you also don't live there, but... |
| 04:00:53.75 | Beth (Consultant) | I don't think |
| 04:00:57.15 | Leslie Allen | Thank you. |
| 04:00:57.20 | Melissa Blaustein | Because you're... Okay. Thank you. |
| 04:01:00.86 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Thank you. |
| 04:01:00.88 | Melissa Blaustein | Let's note that for a future reference. We can not complete it out under any scenario. Okay, great. |
| 04:01:08.00 | Beth (Consultant) | Okay. And so, um, And also the areas are the 501 thousand foot radiuses from your residence so some of those do seem pretty pretty distant given the packed or condensed nature of sausalito so site 59 is 0.12 acres it is a vacant parcel it would accommodate about 40 accommodate about five units at 49 units per acre |
| 04:01:37.97 | Beth (Consultant) | And then since we just have one recusal for them, so I'll just do all of them at once. A sites 62 and 63. Site 62 is located on Woodward Avenue. It is a small parcel, also vacant, would accommodate about two units, and Site 63, is located at 522 olive avenue also vacant and it would accommodate about five units and all three of the sites identified are all anticipated to be designated for approximately 49 units per acre. |
| 04:02:11.45 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay. Thank you. Any questions for Beth? Okay, sorry, I don't have you all on my screen, so I don't see any. And then why don't we go ahead and take public comment. I see one hand raised. I see two hands raised. |
| 04:02:25.72 | Serge Avila | Madam Mayor, we have Linda and Jeff. You're being unmuted and have to share your video. |
| 04:02:33.54 | Serge Avila | I'm sorry. start one. |
| 04:02:37.20 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 04:02:37.22 | Linda Samuels | We see you and we hear you. Can you hear me now and see me? Okay, I'm Linda Samuels and I live on Gordon Street. My comments are directed to the staff report findings on page six as it relates to lot 65. |
| 04:02:46.46 | Unknown | My question is, |
| 04:02:54.14 | Linda Samuels | Lot 65 isn't on the list now, but as you'll see from my comments, it might go back on the list. Contrary to what is stated in the staff report, HIAC voted unanimously at its May 23rd meeting to delete Lot 65 from the housing element plan, at least for the time being, and subject to further review of the deed restriction. That slide confirms this so the report needs to be revised accordingly. As the staff report indicates, the deed restriction requires that Lot 65 not be divided or parcelized in the future. The staff report in this slide conclude, however, that the deed restriction does not restrict development on lot 65. Respectfully, we disagree. And when I say we, I'm including a lot of people in this neighborhood. To accept the staff's interpretation would essentially nullify any purpose for the restriction, which was put on the property at the time the city approved the building of Sausalito Towers apartments on the contiguous property. A review of relevant documents and testimony relating to Sausalito Towers 1991 application to build 10 units on the lot 65, which was denied by the Planning Commission and City Council, indicates that the deed restriction was a requirement for allowing Sausalito Towers to maximize water views by clustering the units on the front of the property. The rest of the property, including lot 65, would remain open space. We have copies of these documents and of the detailed meeting minutes in the event staff wishes. Thank you very much, Linda, for your comments. Thank you. |
| 04:04:47.15 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 04:04:52.18 | Serge Avila | Our next speaker is Trisha. Trisha, you've been unmuted and I have to share your video. |
| 04:04:58.26 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 04:05:09.36 | Trisha Gelman | I don't know. Oh, here you go. Thanks. Okay, so Tricia Gellman again. I am resident in Sal Salido. I actually live at 169 Woodward, which is adjacent to Lot 65, which as Linda and Jeff have just brought to attention, is still in the staff report, even though it's not here. So I just want to go on record because I haven't spoken about this lot, that when I purchased the property, it was very clearly designated in the planning for the city and was told to me that it was open space to not be developed. And I would be seriously disappointed if my investment in the city since 2003 would be sort of changed based on just some staff report. I also wanna bring to the attention of the city council that on my property at 169 Woodward is water runoff that is supposed to be maintained by the city. But in the almost 20 years plus that I've lived here, The city's been out twice and that was only because we had major flooding problems across the property here in Spring Valley. And And I think that doing any development in the upper parts here of this plot 65 would probably have serious impact to additional water runoff. Additionally, there is a lot of animal activity and transfer that's going on here, which we talked about previously, as well around Cypress Ridge. And we're investing in the community and um you know i have chosen to build my family here because we have this unique property with the open space finally i just want to say that we have especially since um gps has become the main way that people access into sausalito have major traffic problems on rodeo coming down and so any development that's being done either here on 62 63 or if people are revisiting 65 needs to make sure that it takes into account anything related to traffic because it's almost untenable already as it is and finally um i just want to say that thank you so much i'm sorry that i went |
| 04:07:17.12 | Melissa Blaustein | That, um... Yeah, thanks very much. |
| 04:07:25.20 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay. |
| 04:07:25.81 | Serge Avila | Our next speaker is Arthur Bruce. Arthur, you're being unmuted. |
| 04:07:25.83 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 04:07:25.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:07:33.39 | Serge Avila | Nice to share your video. |
| 04:07:38.11 | Arthur Bruce | Okay, there we are again. I WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE Well, I'm gonna echo Trisha. now. I'm glad you brought up the city's infrastructure problems. And in regards to lot 47, 52, 63, 41, 12, 29, 14, 17, and all of the rest of them. I think that it's really pertinent, very pertinent to note that with the city's outdated infrastructure, you know, and runoff. not only runoff from these empty lots, runoff from the city's own sewer system builds into the Bay. at an alarming rate. Mr. Bruce, do you have a comment |
| 04:08:17.67 | Melissa Blaustein | Mr. Bruce, do you have a comment on the group two sites? Yes, yes. |
| 04:08:20.79 | Arthur Bruce | Yes, yes, yes. It's relative. I think before we discuss any development in any of these properties, we should talk about how we're going to handle the sewage. keep it from just dumping into the bay. and blaming it on poor people |
| 04:08:37.40 | Arthur Bruce | GIMME. Madam Mayor. |
| 04:08:40.89 | Melissa Blaustein | Are you concluding your remarks, sir? |
| 04:08:43.88 | Arthur Bruce | Thank you. |
| 04:08:43.89 | Melissa Blaustein | it. THANKS SO MUCH. Okay. Any other hands raised for public comment? |
| 04:08:51.08 | Serge Avila | Meta Mayor, I see you know their hands raised. |
| 04:08:53.61 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, back up to the council. comments on what we see here. Did just close public comment, but I do see someone's hand is up, Sharon. MICCLESON? |
| 04:09:04.21 | Serge Avila | Sharon, you're being unmuted and I ask you to share your video. |
| 04:09:10.01 | Sharon | and we'll do it all, so we'll do it all, so we'll do it all. Yeah. Good evening, it's pretty late and we're all pretty tired, but I just feel so strongly about Site 65 that I have to comment. It is such a beautiful, pristine piece of, of Sausalito, it's the lungs of our community. And I just feel so strongly that it needs to be removed as a potential site. It was, as Linda commented before, was already. It was attempted in the 60s, it was attempted to get in the 90s. And It's, It's pristine, it's part of the Cypress Ridge Greenbelt, And it's not. It's a really developable spot, but it's amazing for the animals. The butterflies, the foxes, the coyote cubs, It's just such a beautiful, pristine spot that the idea of Good night. putting that as a potential site for more Sausalito Towers. is just inconceivable. And I just hope that that doesn't happen. Thank you. |
| 04:10:26.92 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:10:27.15 | Unknown | . |
| 04:10:32.35 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you very much. |
| 04:10:33.31 | Sharon | Thank you. |
| 04:10:34.41 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, public comment closed on Spring Street Valley. Any comments from members of the City Council? |
| 04:10:43.10 | Ian Sobieski | Okay. 65 is not on the list, correct? |
| 04:10:47.49 | Beth (Consultant) | Correct. So the HEAC had identified that it be removed. They did ask us to research. They asked city staff and the city attorney to research the site to identify whether or not there were deed restrictions in place that would prevent it from being developed. And based on that research, it is prevented from being further personalized. But the restriction did not say that there could be no development on it. So we just clarified that. But the HIAC had identified that it be Research in case it was needed at some point in the future, but not to include it in this round. |
| 04:11:18.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:11:18.72 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 04:11:19.73 | Beth (Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 04:11:19.75 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Okay, then we are going to move on now. Let's see, we have One more location, our opportunity sites in the Marin Show. Thank you. |
| 04:11:30.20 | Beth (Consultant) | Peace. |
| 04:11:30.58 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 04:11:30.65 | Beth (Consultant) | And let me just quickly |
| 04:11:31.97 | Melissa Blaustein | note. |
| 04:11:33.25 | Beth (Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 04:11:33.39 | Melissa Blaustein | the previous ones. This is one to go after this. All right. It looks like Nelson Rivera-Hoffman is conflicted on Site 66. |
| 04:11:53.75 | Councilmember Hoffman | Can I ask a clarification? Yes, Councilman. I'm conflicted on 66, but the other ones I'm not. So I'll recuse on 66, but I can come back even though it's part of the same. Right? Okay. Thank you. See you in a minute. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:12:09.23 | Mary Wagner | you know? Well, then we should just separate 66 out of this. discussions isn't it separated in group yes it is |
| 04:12:17.02 | Melissa Blaustein | Perfect. |
| 04:12:18.42 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 04:12:18.48 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. All right, over to you, Beth. |
| 04:12:20.87 | Beth (Consultant) | All right, so site 66 is vacant and city owned. It is a strip of land adjacent to Bridgeway, about 0.44 acres in size. There is a similar strip that has some development on it in case you want to envision how development on this parcel would appear. It is zoned open space. It's city owned, it would accommodate About 17 units. And it is not subject to the fair traffic initiative because it is zoned open space. So the city has more flexibility with the site than some other sites in the area. |
| 04:12:56.98 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 04:12:57.00 | Beth (Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 04:12:57.02 | Melissa Blaustein | Any questions for Beth? |
| 04:13:02.69 | Melissa Blaustein | Not seeing any, I do see one hand raised. So Serge, will you please call the public? |
| 04:13:07.97 | Serge Avila | Peter Van Meter, you've been unmuted and asked to share your video. Thank you. |
| 04:13:17.07 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 04:13:17.08 | Unknown | MEETING. |
| 04:13:17.35 | Peter Van Meter | Thank you. Okay, that little portion between the Brinship Way and 66, which is federal property, Should my opinion be added as an opportunity to this site? because I would think the federal government, and that is of course, |
| 04:13:32.12 | Unknown | Thank you. Exactly. |
| 04:13:35.65 | Peter Van Meter | you know, extension of the Bay Model property. We'd be very interested in having a contribution to housing in Sausalito. And that would be a significant increase in size of that potential property, make it run all the way up to Bridgeway. Thank you. |
| 04:13:52.98 | Lydia | Thank you. |
| 04:13:52.99 | Peter Van Meter | Yeah. Oh, so by the way, if I can say one more word, All right. You have to put that in your motion. This isn't just public comment that goes off into the vacuum. So whoever said, what proves what happens here in 66, you've got to add those words to the motion. to make it happen. Thank you. |
| 04:14:11.79 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you, Peter. Okay, any other public comment on group one? |
| 04:14:17.07 | Serge Avila | Better make. ALL THEIR HANDS RAISED. |
| 04:14:19.35 | Melissa Blaustein | OKAY. First quick question. |
| 04:14:21.04 | Beth (Consultant) | I think it's a good thing. |
| 04:14:21.29 | Melissa Blaustein | . |
| 04:14:21.36 | Beth (Consultant) | We don't. |
| 04:14:21.53 | Melissa Blaustein | call. |
| 04:14:22.03 | Beth (Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 04:14:22.56 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 04:14:22.57 | Beth (Consultant) | Uh, |
| 04:14:23.00 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 04:14:23.03 | Beth (Consultant) | looking at 66. This was one of the parcels that was included. I'm trying to remember the It was included in one of the rounds. I think it was not called out for individual discussion, but was one of the parcels that was identified in meetings, I believe meeting seven and meeting five. five. |
| 04:14:44.61 | Councilman Cleveland | I think it was Mayor Kellman, because I know our small subgroup did look at it. specifically and was in favor of including it. It's small, but I think it's right next to public transit. It's, Thank you. you BRIDGEWAY ADJACENT. It's, you know, not much else can be done with it. |
| 04:15:12.19 | Leslie Allen | Thank you. |
| 04:15:12.27 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah, it's a good site. I genuinely do not recall this being on that. I don't recall he discussing it at all. I do recall a member of the public submitting a request that we look at it. So I'd just be interested to If you could, just maybe tomorrow send me which meetings you think we covered this at. Intrigued because I don't recall Okay, so members of the council have comments or thoughts? |
| 04:15:48.32 | Councilman Cleveland | Yeah, I would just say I'm in favor of retaining the site. I think it's a good site. I think you can build. You can be at the bridgeway level and go down so you could have parking underneath. it's a unique site. I wouldn't feel too many units, but I think it's worth keeping and it's city owned. So we have a lot of control over what happens there. I'd certainly be in favor of the consultant. or city staff looking at cooperating with the federal government. I do feel like GETTING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S COOPERATION WITHIN THE TIME limit of housing element cycle six might be challenging, but I So I think it's worth exploration, but I don't think we should count on additional units. WITHIN THIS. THE END OF PERIOD. could do it, right? It's also currently kind of being used as the road. that federal piece of the, you can't drive it to one way Um, There's a bike lane now, so that federal property that Peter is talking about is actually That's the only way you can drive. in one way, so I'm not sure. we don't need to get into these details, but I'd be in favor of moving this forward and looking at the federal, the um, working with the federal government, but regardless of how that works out moving site 66 forward. |
| 04:17:12.56 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you for that. My perspective on it is I'm very uncomfortable because I do not think HIAC reviewed this site. We didn't have that public discourse on it. I do recall it was presented as a matter of public comment, but not presented to HIAC. Um, But that said, I understand now here it is. I would not be in favor of us spending any time talking to the federal government about it because I don't think it meets your standard of available and suitable. and I think that's a good question. that you presented in your memo. So I'm not going to oppose the EIR looking at this particular site if other council members want to move it forward. but I would not spend any additional time looking and talking to the federal government about it. Anybody have any other comments on it? Okay, so with that, we will move on to the next group. We call back Council Member Hoffman. |
| 04:18:09.36 | Melissa Blaustein | And we'll move on to group two. 67, 68, and 72. |
| 04:18:11.16 | Beth (Consultant) | AND THEY'RE IN THEIR SOUTHERN. 67, 68 and 72, these are all located in the Marin ship area. 67 and 68 are under common ownership. 67 is a vacant parcel, 1.92 acres and 68 is 4.35 acres. It has existing office buildings. The owner of the site would be interested in residential and senior development they've indicated. These are both subject to the fair traffic initiative due to the industrial zoning on the site. And we've looked at a mixed use potential designation, which would allow 49 units per acre, 47 units on site 67, about 106 on site 68. With that, I will note that the sites included in the Marin ship don't have maritime uses per se, and there is the potential for to include policy language in the in the housing element to ensure that any uses of the marine ship are buffered from the you know working waterfront uses or that there's some consideration given to transitions between sensitive uses, since we had heard a lot of comments related to that. And then Site 72 is an existing commercial building. It is also designated industrial so subject to the fair traffic initiative the property owner is also interested in development of the site. There would be the potential for approximately 23 units on this site and it's about one acre in size. Thank you. |
| 04:19:46.62 | Melissa Blaustein | So Beth, again, a little concerned. We did not discuss 68 at the EAC. Now maybe it was on a list, but we certainly did not. have a thorough HIAC conversation public airing of this. I know that there were groups that probably were much in favor of it, but it was not presented to the HEAC with a discussion. around it. So I am, Just a little bit concerned about the process. It's just. That's concerning to me based on our reliance on the |
| 04:20:21.67 | Beth (Consultant) | Let me just pull up the memo. |
| 04:20:23.63 | Councilman Cleveland | We definitely had all these sites on our list the night that we went through neighborhood by neighborhood. |
| 04:20:23.65 | Beth (Consultant) | I don't know. |
| 04:20:23.97 | Melissa Blaustein | this. |
| 04:20:24.29 | Beth (Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 04:20:31.44 | Councilman Cleveland | 60 we had the one we just |
| 04:20:31.48 | Unknown | Yeah. Mm. |
| 04:20:35.33 | Councilman Cleveland | voted on and WE HAD A LOT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS. And we had members of the GAC talking about surrounding the working waterfront with opportunity sites. I mean, so we definitely, these were squarely on our sites. |
| 04:20:53.96 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah, you know, Councillor Cleveland Knowles, I think what I'm pointing to is and this is just like a weirdness in the process. I want to call it a flaw per se, But even tonight we're seeing there are some sites that uh, were not talked about. but yet they're showing up on a list. Or I think you said just a couple of sites ago, oh, we didn't, We didn't specifically call it out to the HEAC, but it was there. And so I think I may be reacting to not having had this specifically called out for a HIAC meeting. It's not to say, council member, that it wasn't part of the packet or it wasn't included in a memo, but I'm reacting to the opportunity for further public discourse. um, So yeah, I just wanna put that on the record. If you have a different recollection, I respect that. But this is my understanding and my recollection having been there. So, Anybody have other comments? Certainly, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I don't recall it. Okay, let's take some public comment. I see two-hands raised here. |
| 04:22:04.83 | Serge Avila | Our first speaker is Pat, Pat Zip. You've been unmuted and I have to share your video. |
| 04:22:11.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:22:11.70 | Pat | Thank you. |
| 04:22:11.75 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:22:11.77 | Alice Merrill | Thank you. |
| 04:22:13.79 | Pat | I'm not here. We'll see you. I don't see me, I don't see you, but in any case, I'll talk anyway. What came to mind is I'm wondering at the impact, I'm wondering of the impact of the notion of spot zoning. I mean, here we have a zone... multiple zones of industrial and waterfront. And you're looking at rezoning for housing on two or three specific lots And that to me although I'm not a lawyer, strikes me as a potential spot zoning issue. That's number one. Number two, I don't need to Um, beat the horse of the fair traffic initiative but I think, I think that should be considered. I think thanks. Thank you, Pat. |
| 04:23:07.45 | Serge Avila | Our next speaker. |
| 04:23:07.71 | David Sudo | Thank you. |
| 04:23:07.89 | Pat | Amen. |
| 04:23:08.25 | David Sudo | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 04:23:08.53 | Pat | Thank you. |
| 04:23:08.60 | Serge Avila | Thank you. Um, David Sudo, David you've been unmuted and asked to share your video. |
| 04:23:19.11 | David Sudo | Good evening again. I remember a vigorous discussion about Lot 68. So it was definitely discussed at least one venue, maybe two. You know, I'm pretty against at least the... East section of 68 being developed for housing. It's adjoining industrial space. It's on the wall front, all those degrees. It's not to build housing there. uh, I've... I'm a little less against 60 cents. and Bye. The general comment is our whole slope going over that hill needs some major remediation. And I think it would be a great opportunity if it's Sheeborn Housing. |
| 04:24:06.97 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 04:24:08.31 | David Sudo | and slopes stabilization the whole sector and if we put it The garage entrances on Bridge Bay instead of a marine ship, then we probably would get away from our traffic initiative and not have that issue like that one office building that is on on bridgeway already um some creative thought about how we can solve multiple problems in our city thanks |
| 04:24:37.40 | Serge Avila | Thank you. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS Sandra Bushmaker, Sandra, you're being unmuted. |
| 04:24:45.26 | Sandra Bushmaker | I've said this before, I'm going to say it again. And I fail to understand, this is with regard to 67 and 68. why you do not see putting housing adjacent to a working waterfront is a great is not a great risk to the working waterfront. If you've ever been down there or seen how the operations of the working waterfront work, you would see that housing is an incongruent with a industrial and working waterfront area. In addition, I've sent you a copy of the San Francisco Grand Jury that, really berated the city of San Francisco for its matter of handling Hunter's Point. And it just so happens that there are a huge number of similarities between Hunter's Point and the Marin ship. And I think you need to pay attention to that. Are you going to start a legacy of going down the same path that San Francisco went by putting housing in an industrial area where there are documented contaminants? and leftovers from the World War II work, Shipyard? Or are you just gonna ignore that? those two factors, the fact that we have an |
| 04:26:01.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:26:04.37 | Sandra Bushmaker | uh, unappealing neighborhood to put adjacent to a working waterfront and the risk of putting housing next to the working waterfront. Don't you think there's going to be litigation by potential homeowners there who are disturbed by the consequences of a working waterfront? Who do you think is going to win? |
| 04:26:23.32 | Unknown | you |
| 04:26:23.63 | Sandra Bushmaker | you'll put the working waterfront out of business. Please don't do that. Thank you. Thank you, Sandra. |
| 04:26:34.21 | Serge Avila | Our next speaker is Alice Merrill. Alice, you've been unmuted. |
| 04:26:40.57 | Unknown | you |
| 04:26:40.91 | Alice Merrill | Thank you. Hi. Good evening. Um, So 67 and 68, and basically 70. are all smack in the place where the big ships are pulled out smack there. So there is no buffer. If you call that a buffer, if you call any of that a buffer, you haven't been down there when a lot of the work's been done And the people who want it, you know, it's just like Sandra said, I don't need to, but Why this property is still on here is beyond me. If those office buildings could be filled up with offices, he could reinvent those offices so that they are... so that they can take work, you know, more industrial things. They're not real industrial offices right now. He, maybe. Maybe workforce housing in 67, where there is, just was a big ship built, beautiful big ship. But, um, Those places, those are not buffered. They're not buffered. And he is just pushing, pushing, pushing for you to do this. And it's a much bigger picture than his bottom line. It's just a huge picture. the whole, the whole Marinship is so, so special and it will be gone. And I hope that all of you have watched the show that's put on the documentary by the work, by the, um, the Waterfront Coalition, because it tells you what happens down there. It tells you what will happen down there. It's inspiring. informational and it's That's 67 and 68 and 70, they're just, Oh, just make it. |
| 04:28:42.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:28:42.61 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 04:28:42.62 | Unknown | Just make sense. |
| 04:28:43.42 | Melissa Blaustein | you |
| 04:28:43.43 | Unknown | you |
| 04:28:43.67 | Alice Merrill | Thank you. |
| 04:28:43.79 | Unknown | No. |
| 04:28:43.98 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you, Alice. Thanks very much. Appreciate your comments. |
| 04:28:44.03 | Unknown | Thank you, Alan. |
| 04:28:44.47 | Alice Merrill | Thank you. |
| 04:28:44.62 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:28:44.63 | Alice Merrill | Thank you. |
| 04:28:44.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:28:44.77 | Alice Merrill | Thanks for coming. |
| 04:28:55.01 | Serge Avila | Our next speaker is guest with 52695. You're being unmuted. |
| 04:28:57.22 | Dan Hortert | with |
| 04:29:05.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:29:05.37 | Melissa Blaustein | Mm-hmm. |
| 04:29:05.91 | Guest (phone 52695) | Hi. |
| 04:29:08.43 | Melissa Blaustein | Bye. |
| 04:29:09.51 | Guest (phone 52695) | I'm sorry. Apparently I can't. I'm not really sure what's wrong. Um, but I work in the Marineship area. AND I truly believe that development. I love. particularly Parcel 68, like, with putting residential housing there would not be and |
| 04:29:40.47 | Guest (phone 52695) | would not... be compatible with the type of work that's being done there. There's a lot of industrial work going on. It's very loud. There's a lot of debris, you know, dust. Um, And there's a lot of innovation going on there. There's some, touch. tech innovation going on and there's a lot of individuals who rely on each other in that area. And I really feel that if that area were And in fact, I have been here for 20 years. Just wanna make that clear. |
| 04:30:18.63 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 04:30:21.02 | Guest (phone 52695) | I'm not sure. and it just wouldn't work. I mean, it just, |
| 04:30:28.26 | Unknown | you |
| 04:30:28.87 | Guest (phone 52695) | with the residential and the rest of us that work in the area. It's just the compatibility issue and I really think that we would lose a lot of tax dollars, a lot of you know, boat owners, And I could see a lot of industry and tax dollars going the way. So that's. the comment I wanted to make I will also My understanding is the post office, which is Lot 70 is off the table. Is that true? |
| 04:31:11.23 | Melissa Blaustein | Thanks very much for your comments. |
| 04:31:13.79 | Guest (phone 52695) | I did have a question though. |
| 04:31:15.43 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes, we don't interact in that fashion, but I'm sure we'll address some of these questions. So thank you. |
| 04:31:22.92 | Serge Avila | Our next speaker is Leslie Allen. Leslie, you've been unmuted. |
| 04:31:30.46 | Leslie Allen | Hi there and thank you so much for all of this work. We're all very tired. I've been in the ICB for 35 years almost. And I've watched a lot of activity in the waterfront during that time. I've also experienced the city's very poor enforcement of zoning restrictions And as a consequence, our rents just soared. We've had cubicalization, I call it, in the building. Our tenancy has quadrupled and... all because of unenforcement of the zoning restrictions that existed. And we were competing against offices that were renting and now have the highest rents in Marin County. The only good news out of that is that we've solidified is a very vibrant community, both in the ICB and with the rest of the waterfront. and are huge supporters of all of the workers among us and we can relate. to what it feels like to be squeezed as the marine ship has been squeezed. We're being pared down with properties coming in from all sides and changing the uses and projections for what the traffic is going to be. It's just got to stop at some point. And we recognize that an economic engine is an important thing to have in this town and the Marineship is that. And we should be celebrating it. We should be taking a look at all of the hard workers we have and recognizing that workers are a very, very vital thing in this economy, in this time in history. And we have very unpredictable future possibilities in terms of climate change and all of the innovation that can spring from that. I do think housing belongs in the Moran ship. I just think it needs to be responsible. So as to 72, I think that's great. As to 67, 68, and 70, I don't. Thank you, Leslie. Much appreciated. Okay. |
| 04:33:40.86 | Serge Avila | Our next speaker is Arthur Bruce. Arthur, you're being unmuted. and ask to share your video. |
| 04:33:51.84 | Arthur Bruce | Okay. Lot 67. currently saying in the parking lot, I could throw a rock. and headlock. about 67. And There's some major environmental issues and some hazards here. But the boat crushing yard where boats are brought from not only Richardson Bay, but all around the bay to be crushed. There's been some inconclusive environmental reports so far, but there's a lot of toxicity and just the air depending on which way the wind is blowing from, can sometimes be filled with carcinogens uh, materials such as fiberglass, um, |
| 04:34:39.70 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:34:39.95 | Arthur Bruce | streaming through the atmosphere. So I just wanted to note that, yes, there are also environmental hazards. in regards to lots 67, 68. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:34:53.56 | Serge Avila | Thanks for listening. |
| 04:34:53.86 | Arthur Bruce | Thank you. |
| 04:34:53.91 | Serge Avila | Thank you. Our next speaker is Peter Van Meter. Peter, you've been unmuted. |
| 04:35:00.25 | Unknown | you |
| 04:35:00.52 | Nick Bressler | Thank you. |
| 04:35:00.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:35:03.16 | Peter Van Meter | Thank you. I have to say, RV storage up against Bridgeway, commonly called the Gerhardt property, was designated as an opportunity site previously. I don't see it here. curious about that if it's been removed or just not showing on this map. If it is to be included, which I think it should be, Also add that little stub of the Arkes property that's between the office building and that So it's all on the west side of Marinship Way. I think both those parcels should be included. And finally, if you think back to the numbers, we heard back hours ago at the beginning of this presentation from our consultant, The only way you're gonna meet your housing requirements is to have sufficient acreage to actually meet your low income housing requirement. Some portion, of 67 and 68 is the only place that you've got the sufficient land area, all the entire city, frankly, in order to meet that kind of requirement. You don't have to develop all that parcel. A good part of it. So take advantage of what you can to meet your requirement. You're not going to do it any other way. Thank you. |
| 04:36:14.74 | Serge Avila | And Madam Mayor, it looks like we have John DeRay. John, you're being unmuted. Nice to show you video. Thank you. |
| 04:36:23.62 | John DeRay | Thank you. Thank you, Serge. First thing I wanted to mention is that I'm told this social working waterfront coalition submitted an open letter with 124 signatures that did not make it onto the agenda and also another 25 open letters with individual emails. So a total of 26 that did not make it onto the agenda. I hope City Council got those. The other thing I wanted to just mention briefly is about this fallacy of protecting with a buffer. I think everybody knows that that's not feasible and when you look at that property from the aerial view, you could tell how close it is And people are very willing to ignore sea level rise, toxic materials, and all the other things. but putting vulnerable people down there is crazy putting anybody down there is crazy is crazy and you think somebody's going to pay a million or two million dollars for a condo and going to be uh satisfied with uh overlooking a uh a boat yard, an industrial yard. You know, people down there are the innovators, the fabricators, the educators, the craftsmen, and the artists. And they really make this city special, and this will drive them out. I know three city council members are all for this. For whatever reason, they have an affiliation with this property. and this owner and it's unfortunate because it will destroy the working waterfront And I have one other kind of the rhetorical question over the last four decades, every time the working waterfront was to be saved. It always meant either adding new uses like hedge funds, travel firms, advertising firms, law firms, or it meant reducing the size of the Marineship. of the working waterfront every time for four decades. And now what do we wanna do to save the working waterfront? Reduce it some more. You go to, as you know, I was on the general plan advisory committee. Sorry, sorry, John. |
| 04:38:23.90 | Melissa Blaustein | Sorry, John, your time is up. Thanks very much. |
| 04:38:27.09 | John DeRay | THANK YOU. |
| 04:38:32.31 | Serge Avila | And the speaker is Joan Cox. Joan, Joan, you've been unmuted and asked to share your video. |
| 04:38:38.77 | Joan Cox | Thank you. THANK YOU. CAN YOU HEAR ME? THIS. Right. I just wanted to again point out the fallacy THAT Space. equals affordability. the property owner has made no commitment to utilizing this for high density um, affordable housing. He has talked about Um, continuum of care He's talked about senior housing, but he's never made a commitment to solely affordable housing. And so putting a lot of units on 67 and 68 It by no means guarantees affordability. In fact, I doubt we would make very much of our we may get very far with our low income and very low income quota. THE WAY TO ACCOMPLISH AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS BY UTILIZING city-owned properties and requiring the manner in which the developer develops those properties. The other area that has space is MLK. So it's also a fallacy that this is the only area in town that could accommodate affordable housing, it's less likely to accommodate affordable housing than the MLK property. if the owner of 67 and 68 is committed to high density affordable housing I have yet to hear that and I've met with the owner previously about his plans for this area. Thanks. Thank you. |
| 04:40:26.48 | Serge Avila | Do you have another hand up, sir? Yes, our next speaker is Manira Consulman. you've been unmuted and asked to share your video. |
| 04:40:41.30 | Serge Avila | You need to unmute. |
| 04:40:47.00 | Melissa Blaustein | You still need to unmute, we cannot hear you. |
| 04:41:00.10 | Unknown | Can you hear me? You are. |
| 04:41:01.60 | Councilmember Hoffman | Yep. |
| 04:41:01.99 | Unknown | that sorry about that I just wanted to thank everybody for all the hard work they've done. And I just wanted to also I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT. I echo everything that's been said. especially when it pertains to 67, 68 and 70. If 72 is the Avatar restaurant, I think that's a good placement for for housing. But I just wanted to make those points and let everyone know that I'm supportive of not affecting the, um, or having the development in marineship way and and uh THANK YOU. Thank you, Mark. |
| 04:41:43.09 | Melissa Blaustein | any other public comment, Master? |
| 04:41:45.86 | Serge Avila | that a marriage does not look like we have any other hand-free. |
| 04:41:49.19 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, so we'll go ahead and close public comment. back up to council members. Anybody want to lead off? This is 67, 68, 72, yeah, Councilor Hoffman. |
| 04:42:01.52 | Councilmember Hoffman | Just a point of clarification. Are we talking about 70? Yes or no? |
| 04:42:07.43 | Melissa Blaustein | No. |
| 04:42:08.46 | Councilmember Hoffman | OKAY. Thank you. So that need so. It's confusing because then that needs to be delineated somehow that we're, that's off. Cause it looks like looking at this map. That's why there's confusion, I think by some people. So, okay. So we're 70s off out of consideration as far as I, from what, what we're just being told. Um, Okay, so feedback and direction on these sites. I've commented several times in the past during the general plan update efforts and you know, And now with this effort, I think this is the first time some of the council members have been able to weigh in on these sites. I have an issue with sites that are on or near or next to current former historic shipyards. And I think... I have a lot of concerns about increased risk for certain diseases that are as well documented from these kinds of sites. And whether or not that's an appropriate or responsible place for a government to rezone for housing. So, I mean, those are my comments with 67 and 68. Those are going to be probably my continuing concerns as we move forward. 72 I'm less concerned about because it seems to be more removed. from the industrial area and ongoing industrial operations. So the other part of it is I do believe that we need to, you know, safeguard our working waterfront. It was clear during the pandemic that our economic resilience is reliant upon a working waterfront, as well as part of our history and ongoing work. um, nature of our town. So those are my comments about, 67 and 68. That's something to you. Thank you, Councilman Hoffman. |
| 04:44:00.96 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 04:44:01.97 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:44:01.99 | Melissa Blaustein | Cancelerate Bilons? |
| 04:44:04.90 | Councilman Cleveland | Yeah, thanks. So, I mean, we definitely have talked a lot about these sites at the HIAC, and we've talked a lot about these sites during the general plan. AND I JUST WANT TO REMIND all of us that We made a very strong statement in our general plan that it is our priority to protect the working waterfront, to protect the industrial, artistic, and maritime uses and that is city policy and it is in our general plan. We also simultaneously adopted an overlay district that we DECIDED COULD APPLY THROUGHOUT for special use housing, senior, affordable workforce, senior affordable housing. And so that's currently |
| 04:44:57.04 | Unknown | And |
| 04:45:00.11 | Councilman Cleveland | where we are. |
| 04:45:00.56 | Unknown | where we are. |
| 04:45:01.98 | Councilman Cleveland | WE ARE. are down, I mean, right now we're YOU GOT FOUR. sites in the friendship, which I think kind of given our policy that we want to equally distribute our housing throughout is you know, given kind of land and strength and everything, THAT THAT'S FAIR. We also have a demonstrated property owner and trust And I think most importantly, 67 and well, not 67 is vacant, but 68, it has office use on it. And that office use can continue in perpetuity. And for me, do I want office on that site or housing and housing that can be available for seniors or for workforce or for others, I and definitely remember in favor of housing. And we can create buffers, we can, I mean, The fact that there's existing offices, people are working there, AND I THINK THAT'S A you know, the current configuration has a giant parking lot adjacent to the industrial So. SO, that. site development, et cetera, can account for a lot of that. And in terms of putting vulnerable populations |
| 04:46:22.33 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:46:23.66 | Councilman Cleveland | THEIR UNHEALTHY areas, I think, you know, our California building code, et cetera, you cannot build housing, you cannot locate housing in an area that's unsafe for human habitat. So I think that will if we ever get there. that can be accommodated. This is a developed site. 68. And personally, I would prefer to see residential office at that site if the property in there is interested. So I would like to keep it on. |
| 04:46:53.68 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 04:46:58.51 | Councilman Cleveland | And I think we can mitigate any impacts to the working waterfront. I think it's just a false dichotomy. Like the working waterfront is thriving. it's doing well. It's a mechanism as we've all recognized. and economic engine. But the working waterfront is not working on site 68 right now. And it's unlikely that it ever will because it's zoned. grandfathered Baratis. So, I'm in favor of keeping it on the housing element site. It's a big chunk of units. we have a property on them also in favor of 72. i also thought somehow that the rv storage area was still on, but I guess it's not. All right. So. Anyway, that's those are my comments and that I'd like to just keep keep looking at it and seeing what our trade-offs are. |
| 04:47:54.23 | Melissa Blaustein | Thanks very much. Vice mayor. |
| 04:47:55.39 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Thank you. |
| 04:48:00.57 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Wow, it's definitely late when I'm still muted when I go to talk, sorry. I think we're in a really difficult place as a community thinking about what the next 10, 20, 30, and 40 years will look like. for our housing, it's a critical part of, you know, what type of community do we wanna be? How do we wanna welcome people? How do we wanna provide? workforce housing for instance for folks who live and work on the working waterfront or for our city employees um who you know only three of whom live something like i think about three last i checked live in sausalito YOU KNOW, I FEEL LIKE and not to mention our socioeconomic makeup as a community, the part 92% white. And part of the reason we have these conversations about housing and that we have this opportunity to create more housing zones is because of that because of the real role housing plays in what our community looks like and what our makeup is and how welcome we are to becoming a more diverse place. AND I REALLY FEEL when it comes to housing right now, we need to get to a certain degree of affordable units. And I think that we need to learn more and look at a bigger picture of where does everything make sense in our community? Where can we put housing that makes sense? And at this point, taking any sites off the table before we've had an opportunity to really look at them and what makes sense and where all of our options are. I'm not comfortable with doing that. I think this is an ongoing conversation. We need to see, you know, are there buffers that are realistic? What are they? Can we create a way to really effectively protect and preserve the waterfront? It is part of our general plan as Councilmember Clever Knowles pointed out. I just want to say at this point, it doesn't necessarily mean these sites will be developed but we're considering to look at them and see what what the opportunities are. I don't think that any of us necessarily have from what we're seeing here with just yes to this site, no to this site, a real as Councilmember Sobieski has been referring to it, you know, a larger master plan for the community. And that's something that I'd really like to have an opportunity for all of us to build together and get to a place where we feel comfortable and where more folks get to weigh in and see real iterations of what housing might look like in different parcels in the Marinship. So I'm not comfortable with taking any off the table at this point, and I look forward to finding out more about you know weighing a part of the eir is finding out what environmental concerns there are if any and what that might look like so i think we need to continue the conversation |
| 04:50:21.97 | Melissa Blaustein | THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR. Um, Health Florida Sebesky, do you want to try that? |
| 04:50:27.74 | Ian Sobieski | Sure. So... I agree with many things that different people have said. I'll agree. I'll say that putting housing in 67 and 68 doesn't do squat to help the working waterfront. That's for sure. |
| 04:50:41.71 | Chris Zapata | true. |
| 04:50:43.16 | Ian Sobieski | Um, it's not necessarily incompatible either. I grew up in a town where residential and working waterfront intermixed very well. The devil's in the details. The Working Water Coalition has pointed out examples housing next to boatyards that don't work well, that do result in lawsuits. |
| 04:51:06.08 | Unknown | Amen. |
| 04:51:06.57 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. But that isn't universally the case. It's just not. The fear is there that it might be. And I really hear and respect and sympathize with the concerned that this is potential housing here what would doom the working waterfront? |
| 04:51:26.24 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:51:26.38 | Ian Sobieski | I think there is a missed opportunity in this discussion to actually have a win-win outcome. where a master plan for the Marinship is not devoted to the singular goal of figuring out how to cram housing into the Marinship. but whose singular goal is to bring the marine ship into the 21st century and have it survive for the next 100 years. There are serious infrastructure problems down there that are expensive. Are we happy with the way that Slipways Are we happy with Ian Moody's business being out of business? Are we happy with the those businesses not being able to get more than 60 day leases. these are intertwined problems. Property owners are in the catbird's seat. They own the property. They don't have to do anything. And at least some of them aren't doing anything. That's not helping the working waterfront. It's not helping the workers there. and it's not putting that area into the neck. It's not preserving that area for the next hundred years. So intention, pure intention, only gets you so far. What's the plan? What's the plan? for not just preserving the working waterfront, but enhancing it. Where's the money going to come from? How's the cooperation of property and it's going to be obtain. These are elements that could be answered by a master plan for that area. that would actually have the goal of saving and enhancing. to work in waterfront. 67 and 68 and 72 by themselves aren't part of that. uh, they are. just about housing and the remnant of them. And so if that's the zero sum choice we have to make, then that's That's a definition of winners and losers. So I'm super frustrated by that being the choice that we're stuck with. And you have to choose. So I'm in favor of keeping them on this map. Um, But I'll say it again when we go to the open session, I think It's way past time. that we commit ourselves as a community to having a master plan that actually integrates all the considerations of very disparate people to try to find win-win outcomes for the whole community. And the working waterfront is a cornerstone I think the strategy of many who have expressed concerns about these two particular lots, there isn't a strategy for saving the working waterfront. There's a strategy for forestalling its decline. not for turning that decline around. So I challenge my fellow neighbors especially those that care about this, to to collaborate. on making this problem bigger. There's a lot of sites here that aren't even mentioned where that have property owners that could be part of the solution for saving the ownership. um, and but it's a matter of coming up with win-win outcomes. I'll say more about it in a I guess during the wrap-up, but on the narrow question of these three sites, I would keep them on the map. |
| 04:54:32.95 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, thank you. I'll weigh in, which is not surprising. would much prefer to remove them. And let me speak to community and affordability because although I didn't vote on the City Hall dialogue, I was absolutely shocked. that you took the whole property off except for a tiny sliver of a parking lot. and, You heard people talk about community, and it was great, I thought people made great comments. Same thing here. This is the heart and soul of Sausalito. 400 house votes, 2,000 slips. We are a maritime community. And yet, I don't hear that here. And you talk about affordability. The only way to ensure that you actually get affordable housing is if you have site control. This isn't site control, this is a private property owner. Right? And yet. The decision you all made on City Hall which went so quickly. And maybe perhaps you ended up agreeing to the wrong thing because what I heard you say is only focus on the parking lot. That's what I heard you say at the end of that conversation, even though Ian had actually said Let's create a subset, let's do both. We kept both alternatives, just for clarification. Okay, well, maybe we'll make sure that the consultant heard that, because that is not the way I heard you articulate it. So thank you for that. And we'll certainly confirm that. But my point is how easily You talk about master planning. Look at this. Look at this map. I mean, look how impactful this is to eviscerate the heart of our historic working waterfront. 72, great idea. Fantastic idea, more properties, North Barton, Marinsch, that makes total sense. But I just don't see how on one property we can have this really beautiful, eloquent conversation around affordability and community and maintaining the heart and soul And then here I'm looking at the heart and soul of the historic Portuguese sailing community. Uh, and we so easily are ready to dismiss it. So, uh, that's, that's really what bothers me. The lack of vision around this area and the desire to, um, get into the weeds on this area where we don't get into the weeds and other areas. I hear any conversation about how we're going to renovate city hall. I don't hear any conversation about how we're going to fix that infrastructure for our employees. And yet we're talking about infrastructure down here, we're talking about how we're gonna pay for it, I just, I don't understand the lack of consistency in the way we address And so I'm fully in favor of a master plan because I think a master plan needs to embrace the vision of who we are in Sausalito. So I'll just continue. It's no surprise to any of you, I'm sure. So I appreciate you letting me articulate my concerns. That I don't think this is appropriate to include 67 and 68 So I think, because the two of us have articulated that, I think we need to actually have a motion on this, maybe the city attorney could clarify that? |
| 04:57:34.96 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 04:57:34.98 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 04:57:35.03 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 04:57:35.08 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 04:57:35.23 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 04:57:35.25 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 04:57:35.28 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 04:57:35.32 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, I don't think we have clear direction on what to do with that site, Madam Mayor. Okay. |
| 04:57:35.33 | Melissa Blaustein | I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO |
| 04:57:42.10 | Melissa Blaustein | So two of us would like to remove 67 and 68 It sounds like three people are willing to keep it on. IF I HAVE THAT INCORRECT, please Speak up. |
| 04:57:55.79 | Councilman Cleveland | So I think we've had similar kind of policy disagreements and we've come to agreement on all of them, including on the city hall site where we did agree to keep both options on but to Vigorously look at |
| 04:58:07.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:58:09.64 | Councilman Cleveland | the alternative that council member Sobieski agreed to. And so I really wish we didn't have to come to a vote on this. And I don't think that's, necessary and it's kind of odd that we're calling for a vote on just one item tonight IT. So that said, I would like to, as we have, kind of our general policy tonight has been to move items forward for environmental review so I'd make a motion THAT WE MOVE 67, 68, AND 72 THROUGH ON THE CITES RECOGNIZING ALL OF THE CONCERNS RAISED BY Everyone in the community, including the working waterfront |
| 04:58:43.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:58:47.64 | Councilman Cleveland | And to the mayor and council member Hoffman and to look at options and alternatives as we move forward. And I think we should also call out this site, for these sites, 72, 67, and 68, as ones worthy of additional scrutiny. and visual Cool. you know, renditions and alternatives as we move forward in the process. |
| 04:59:18.95 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, I also just wanna respond to the mayor's comments. I respect that we, I guess, are gonna agree to disagree on the perspective. there. You're not alone in thinking and saying that there somehow eviscerates the waterfront. This housing there is where the offices are. the working waterfront in the adjacent substantial property |
| 04:59:41.24 | Melissa Blaustein | Ian, I'm so sorry, given the late hour, we have a pending motion. I welcome your additional comments when we conclude. But do you want to second the motion? |
| 04:59:49.98 | Ian Sobieski | I was just going to materially respond to your comments since it felt like it's important to know that can both agree with the same objective and just have different paths of getting there. |
| 05:00:01.94 | Melissa Blaustein | OF COURSE. Appreciate that. |
| 05:00:08.73 | Melissa Blaustein | Do we have a second for... |
| 05:00:08.88 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | We have a second. I'm still trying to understand do we do we need to vote on it or can we just do what we did before? with the other sites. It just seems weird to vote on just one site and not all the other ones when we've talked about it together. I don't know. I just, like, consistency seems to make the most sense, especially given the point you made about consistency with regards to sites. |
| 05:00:25.11 | Unknown | I'm sorry to give him that. |
| 05:00:28.32 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Mary, what's your thought? Thank you. |
| 05:00:31.46 | Mary Wagner | It sounds like the council's direction is to include 67, 68, and 72. in the analysis. And if that's accurate, then we can move forward. If it's not accurate, then you guys should Clarify. |
| 05:00:46.75 | Councilmember Hoffman | I think there's, I think there's a, it's a three, two. I think two of us would like to remove 67 and 68 because of the issues that we've just talked about. . on all the other sites, we've generally had a consensus about how to move forward. And I think we agreed early on that if we if we all agreed or no one had an objection to a site, then we would just move on and we wouldn't call for a vote. But yeah, it's just |
| 05:01:13.87 | Councilman Cleveland | Yeah, it's just unfortunate. You know, I agree that because this is just being, it's being teed up and advertised as a 3-2 issue, and it's not. There's lots of room here for discussion. And, But if we have to vote, let's just vote. But I don't think it's helping things. And it's just creating... more community consternation where there's plenty of room for lots of dialogue. So moving things forward has been the That's been the watchword of tonight. We've all kind of tried to get there, even though we have sites that we would prefer not to see move forward. |
| 05:01:40.39 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay. |
| 05:01:47.04 | Councilmember Hoffman | Well, we've, so, okay, well, let me give the opportunity then because we've had, I've suggested things on other sites about how to, you know, address it or that, I'm signaling that I have concerns about the site, but to move forward on it. and especially the City Hall site, we kinda, you know, it may be the late hour as well, you know, we sort of came up with a, you know, a path forward that we all kind of agreed to. I haven't heard that on this site, I've heard that. |
| 05:02:14.12 | Councilman Cleveland | I'm just moving it forward for further review, taking into consideration all of the concerns that have been raised. But if we're not going to get there, I've got a motion. If nobody wants to second it, let's just move on and take them off. |
| 05:02:21.63 | Councilmember Hoffman | We're not going to get there. |
| 05:02:26.76 | Councilmember Hoffman | Well, I think you started us down this road, Susan. Do you not want to continue? I mean, I'm asking. |
| 05:02:31.10 | Councilman Cleveland | You're not proposing an alternative. So if you want to propose an alternative, make another motion. Well, I was asking you if you wanted to. |
| 05:02:38.56 | Councilmember Hoffman | Bye. Thank you. |
| 05:02:39.24 | Councilman Cleveland | No, I want to move forward with the understanding that we're going to look at models. I mean, we've got, this is, you take it off, we've got 153 units. |
| 05:02:39.27 | Councilmember Hoffman | I know, I want to move forward with |
| 05:02:49.58 | Councilman Cleveland | that's the best. |
| 05:02:49.72 | Councilmember Hoffman | Right, and we're at 975 or something. I mean, we're way over our number anyway. |
| 05:02:49.73 | Councilman Cleveland | Right. |
| 05:02:56.06 | Councilmember Hoffman | Sure, we need units and we need places as we've talked throughout the evening There are a lot of landowners who... I don't know what the process has been to reach out to them, but on this call, we've had, property owners saying no one reached out to me and I'd be interested in so And we all know of, you know, parcel 106 that we all believe is amenable to additional units. The arguments of we have to have these two units because of the numbers is not particularly persuasive to me. the argument that it's not next to, you know, a working waterfront area, I can look at the map and see that it's right next to it. And I can also see in the bottom left-hand corner that that's a boat crushing yard. So if you think that like the concern of is this a particularly great site for housing and do we want to waste any more time and effort and And you know, issue on it and with our community on it when we have so many people that are opposed to it just as we gave you know, we gave consideration to people who are I'm opposed to the city hall site. there are quite a number of people in town who are opposed to this site. I, you know, other than just, a reference to maybe we could do a buff You know, I haven't heard anything from the council about specifically how we can address this quite large site right next to the working waterfront area, you know, and address these issues that have come up. So, You know, I, I feel like there are maybe things that we could consider, but if we're all just going back to our corners then fine, let's take a vote. I would like to |
| 05:04:40.11 | Councilman Cleveland | I would like to. We need a second first and then |
| 05:04:44.30 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | We do have a funding motion. Does somebody want to second this? |
| 05:04:44.45 | Councilman Cleveland | We just have to go. |
| 05:04:48.04 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Can I just weigh in for a second before we, I mean, I'm gonna, My concern here is that we have 153 potential sites that we need to fill We're offering an opportunity to continue the conversation without taking anything off the table. We're not saying, yes, this is the sites we're going to develop. I'm not saying we're immediately going to say yes to development of these specific parcels. This is an ongoing discussion that we need to have to see what makes sense. I would not feel comfortable if we didn't have more information about what does it look like to preserve the working waterfront, which is what we've all talked about, and it's in our general plan. So I don't know what more information with regards to a buffer that might look like, I mean, the reason that I like Susan's motion and I will seconded is because it's to include all of the sites and consider them. And so the fact that it's a consideration of all of the sites and a conversation about what's going on without making the decision of yes or no at this point. I mean, this is not the final housing element vote. This is a discussion to continue the conversation about the sites. And I would like more information. I would like an environmental review. I would like to know what is the realistic buffer. I would like to walk the working waterfront. I would like to see the film. I would like to do all of those things so that we can really work together to figure out if it makes the most sense. But as I've done tonight, consistently, I haven't taken any sites off the table. And I just don't think it makes sense to take sites off the table at this stage. That's how I feel about it. |
| 05:06:10.16 | Melissa Blaustein | THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. MAYOR. |
| 05:06:10.36 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Thank you. |
| 05:06:11.76 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, Serge, will you please call the roll? Can I? |
| 05:06:15.76 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 05:06:15.78 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Oh. |
| 05:06:16.50 | Councilmember Hoffman | for an alternate question? Yeah, please. So I would say let's take 68 off. I leave 67 on for further consideration. 68 will provide that buffer that everybody's been talking about. it would remove it at least from the most active areas of the boatyard down there on the left hand. It would remove it from the most active areas on the right hand side. So I would say, I would make amend the motion to say, Let's leave 67 on for further consideration with a close look and a hard look at the impacts that we've all talked about and the need for rezoning that area for further housing, but take 68 off and understanding that I believe, let me ask a clarification, a legal question. since this is a fair traffic initiative area, would we have to have this go to the ballot? you Only if the change would increase the FAR. Okay. So this also has an issue about whether or not this would have to go to a ballot. Anyway, my alternate motion, do I have a second for my alternate motion? I WOULD SECOND THAT. |
| 05:07:23.97 | Melissa Blaustein | I appreciate that compromise. Thank you. |
| 05:07:26.04 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 05:07:26.40 | Mary Wagner | Madam Mayor, may I ask a point of clarification just so that staff is clear on the motion? Because you're going to take the second motion first, correct? Yes. So you're leaving, you would like 67 included, 68 is off. |
| 05:07:26.45 | Councilmember Hoffman | I'm not a bad one. Thank you. |
| 05:07:27.85 | Melissa Blaustein | clarification just so that |
| 05:07:29.18 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 05:07:32.93 | Melissa Blaustein | Absolutely. |
| 05:07:33.28 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:07:38.33 | Mary Wagner | 70 is off, 72 is on. Yes. Okay, thank you. |
| 05:07:43.00 | Councilmember Hoffman | I don't think, well we're not talking about 70 tonight, right? |
| 05:07:47.14 | Mary Wagner | We can go back to- I'm just trying to make sure we're all following Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 05:07:47.64 | Councilmember Hoffman | We keep going back. Okay, I don't think 70 is on. I don't think so. I've heard that tonight we're not talking about 70. So, yeah, the alternate motion is just... take 68 off, leave 72 and 67 on. |
| 05:08:01.29 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | How many sites would that leave us with lacking if we did that potentially? |
| 05:08:01.51 | Councilmember Hoffman | How many? |
| 05:08:07.34 | Councilmember Hoffman | Besides, you mean numbers? |
| 05:08:08.94 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Yeah. |
| 05:08:10.04 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 05:08:10.07 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Thank you. |
| 05:08:10.17 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 05:08:10.32 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | how many houses? |
| 05:08:10.93 | Councilmember Hoffman | We would still be well within our, I think we'd be well within the buffer even. It's 106, 68, that's 169. Yeah, but we're 900 and something. |
| 05:08:20.87 | Councilman Cleveland | So, and I just wanna clarify, that, my emotion. I think number 68 and 67 includes the idea of a buffer, TO GET INTO THAT TONIGHT. I mean, I don't want to say what their buffer would be. Yeah. but it does include that comment. |
| 05:08:37.27 | Ian Sobieski | That's the thing, guys. This is, am I wrong? This is for the EIR review. This is not approving a zoning change. It's not approving... a variance of height limits or, um, or anything, it's improving moving forward. with the environmental assessment. Um, This is a surprise that I mean, there is a lot of work to be done to ensure that anything that, I mean, the whole point of it is that these red blocks are driving me crazy because I'm opposed to certain things in some of these red blocks. And I'm in favor of others. some things in these red blocks will enhance Sausalito and meet our goals as a community and some will Those details matter. and that And at some point, we've got to start constraining what can go into these red blocks uh, to achieve those goals. So I'm not in favor of anything in these 67, 68, Um, I'm in favor of something. but not in terms of anything. and I'm more in favor of it. if the things that are there benefit, Marinship. and I believe that they can. Uh, So, So that's my point. And that's why I wouldn't be in favor of removing them. I'm in favor of But just because we're including them isn't saying that anything is allowed. We are just beginning the process of talking about what those things are. kind of just a term, like 100 yards or whatnot. I mean, when you have lunch at Fish Restaurant, you're right next to |
| 05:10:18.42 | Peter Van Meter | Mm-hmm. |
| 05:10:18.67 | Ian Sobieski | the boatyard. And, um, And to my mind, that enhances my experience at fish restaurants. That of course. is only relevant in terms of an example of how some things can work together for some kinds of uses and some can't. So the orientation of a residence, windows, sound walls, buffers, driveways, parking garages, open space, and physical buffers are all tools that either do or don't make certain situations compatible. Um, So. Do you see it all over? And So, period. Those details matter. |
| 05:10:57.84 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Well, thank you. And look, I too enjoy when we have a 5-0 consensus on things, it often makes things much, much easier. So I very much appreciate everybody's comments. I THINK THAT'S A GREAT WITH THAT SAID, WE DO HAVE Two motions pending. And I think we have to take the roll on that. SO, SIR? |
| 05:11:22.02 | Mary Wagner | that's with us. |
| 05:11:23.98 | Serge Avila | Thank you. |
| 05:11:24.00 | Mary Wagner | YOU'RE HERE. |
| 05:11:24.00 | Unknown | YOU'RE HERE. |
| 05:11:24.92 | Serge Avila | Thank you. |
| 05:11:24.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:11:25.38 | Mary Wagner | to be clear, Madam Mayor, members of the council, so you're taking the substitute motion, which is the motion made by Council member Hoffman first. Yes. THANK YOU. |
| 05:11:33.77 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:11:35.59 | Serge Avila | Council member Sobieski. Councilmember Kulibla, no. |
| 05:11:41.16 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 05:11:42.73 | Serge Avila | Council member Hoffman. |
| 05:11:44.15 | Councilmember Hoffman | YES. |
| 05:11:45.24 | Serge Avila | Vice Mayor Blaustein. |
| 05:11:46.85 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 05:11:46.86 | Melissa Blaustein | NOW, |
| 05:11:48.85 | Serge Avila | Eric Hellman. |
| 05:11:49.82 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes. |
| 05:11:51.77 | Serge Avila | Thank you. |
| 05:11:51.81 | Melissa Blaustein | All right, motion fails. So now we have our other motion. you take the role on that. |
| 05:11:57.97 | Serge Avila | Council member Sobieski? Councilmember McRiblet-Nald. |
| 05:12:01.78 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 05:12:01.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:12:02.86 | Serge Avila | Council member Hoffman. |
| 05:12:04.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:12:04.35 | Melissa Blaustein | No. |
| 05:12:05.56 | Serge Avila | Vice Mayor Blomstein. |
| 05:12:07.11 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes. |
| 05:12:08.19 | Serge Avila | Mary Kelman. |
| 05:12:09.17 | Melissa Blaustein | No. Well, thank you, everybody. This is what public discourse and public hearings are for. So really appreciate everybody sharing your thoughts and being candid and being as collaborative as we can. Although we don't always see eye to eye. So I really respect and appreciate that. So thanks everybody. Um, Not to be outdone, we do have one more neighborhood. Sorry to share that. So this is actually moving on to the Nevada Street Valley. Let's see. Uh, Looks like we have no conflict. Thank you for bearing with us. We welcome your presentation here. |
| 05:12:42.96 | Beth (Consultant) | All right, and so, and I've divided this just, it's all group one, I've divided it into two separate sets just so we can get them all on the map and not have to zoom out too far. So we have site 73 located at the Willow Creek Academy and the school district's master plan for Willow Creek Academy does include staff housing. So we've included site 73. that we anticipate somewhere between 25 to 40, well, 39 units on the site. Site 74 is a city-owned site located on Woodward Avenue,.04 acres, anticipate about two units on the site. Sites 75 and 76 are the city's corporation yard. We're looking at those with a potential density of about 70 units per acre. And with those two units, or those two sites would accommodate about 34 units. And then lastly, site 105. And this was a site that had been approved by the HEAC and we had inadvertently removed it. There were a bunch of paper streets located in the southern area of the city. And we had removed those. We got a lot of comment about them. They were really small little parcels. This is not a small little parcel. It doesn't have the same issues as those sites. And we had inadvertently removed it. So we have put this one back in for the city to continue to explore. It is adjacent, a city-owned parcel. And so there is the potential for the city to be able to acquire that. And so that would accommodate about 25 units, it's about 0.63 acres and it's located between Bridgeway and Woodward Avenue. It doesn't have an APN or an address. So those are the first set of sites in group one. And then we also have a number of sites. Let's see, we have sites 79, 81, and And those are both along Bridgeway. There's some commercial uses here. We have a few property owners who haven't responded. And then 79 and 81 are both property owners who are interested in developing their sites. We have site 84, which is the Martin Luther King site, and This site it's very small print on the map it's not anticipated that the entire site would be developed with housing the entire sites about 17.2 acres and it. It includes the sports fields here in the tennis courts we're anticipating that some portion of this area in pink about two and a half to three acres would be developed with housing. And that the existing uses, it would be a type of mixed use development that would either be, you know, separate buildings or combined together, but would seek to retain many of the existing uses on the site. And that would accommodate about 140 units and that this site is, it's not a voter initiative per se, but the city's ordinance 1128 does call for a vote of the people on the site on site 84. Site 85 is located in the Caltrans right of way. So it's a site that's also not a parcel, but there is the potential for the city to work with Caltrans for them to declare it surplus property and to put it up for sale. So that site can be designated for about 49 units per acre. and would achieve about 17 units. Sites 86 and 87, the property owner hasn't responded to outreach, these were included in the previous housing element cycle. I believe they're under the same ownership, and we'll have to double check that. But site 86 would accommodate about 26 units and site 87 about seven units. Site 87 is vacant. 86 has about three dwelling units on it. |
| 05:16:24.69 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 05:16:24.71 | Beth (Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 05:16:24.74 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, thank you very much, Beth. Any questions for Beth on either of groups? This slide says group one, but this is the group two, right? |
| 05:16:35.17 | Beth (Consultant) | They're all part of group one. I just didn't want to try to squeeze the images on a single slide. So 1A and 1B. |
| 05:16:42.41 | Melissa Blaustein | Bye. |
| 05:16:43.76 | Beth (Consultant) | Got it, okay. |
| 05:16:44.98 | Melissa Blaustein | IS THERE A GROUP TWO FOR THIS? |
| 05:16:46.22 | Beth (Consultant) | Nope, this is it. |
| 05:16:47.93 | Melissa Blaustein | Netflix. |
| 05:16:48.88 | Beth (Consultant) | Yeah. |
| 05:16:48.99 | Melissa Blaustein | area excellent all right any uh any questions for mrs Council members, I'm scrolling. I don't see anybody. Okay, so why don't we go ahead and run through public comment really quickly here. |
| 05:17:00.06 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Thank you. I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. |
| 05:17:01.33 | Melissa Blaustein | THE END OF |
| 05:17:01.38 | Alice Merrill | Thank you. |
| 05:17:01.58 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:17:01.62 | Alice Merrill | Thank you. |
| 05:17:02.48 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 05:17:02.49 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Oh, yes. Quick question. Sorry. Just I wanted to make sure because the number of units and how many acres on the ebb tide property. Is it still at 49 units per acre? Is this this is 70? So this is the only site in our entire in our entire. |
| 05:17:02.54 | Melissa Blaustein | Oh, yes. |
| 05:17:15.74 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | housing element consideration where we've increased the per acre load, right? |
| 05:17:20.58 | Beth (Consultant) | No, there are several other sites that were also 70 units per acre. I think the, yeah, some of the corporation yard would also be at 70 units per acre, the small city-owned site as well. So there are a few. |
| 05:17:21.16 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Thank you. |
| 05:17:30.32 | Councilman Cleveland | . |
| 05:17:33.42 | Beth (Consultant) | Okay. Okay, thanks. |
| 05:17:37.53 | Serge Avila | Our first speaker, it's Peter Van Meter. Peter, you've been unmuted. |
| 05:17:42.99 | Peter Van Meter | Thank you. If you go back to the first picture of this area, please. I'm not sure. This is the most important addition that you can make. If you go back to the first note, of the Not this one. Yeah, that was, pardon me, pardon me, that's it. Go back. We're talking about the corner of Nevada and Bridgeway. And this is the Willow Creek restoration area. which is a private open space. If you go back to that other picture, it might be clearer to see. and where that can actually be integrated with the uh, corporation yard behind those two houses that exist in that area. So this is a portion where you could do restoration of that creek. build substantial number of housing units in that area. And I think that should clearly be designated as an opportunity site, because it's one of the best opportunities, in my opinion, you've got in the entire city to create some very interesting and creative housing in that area and also do a restoration at the same time. Thank you. |
| 05:18:46.68 | Melissa Blaustein | THANK YOU, PETER. |
| 05:18:48.77 | Peter Van Meter | Oh, and please include that in your motion. Thank you. |
| 05:18:54.17 | Serge Avila | Next speaker. is Vicki Nichols. Vicki, you've been unmuted. |
| 05:19:00.52 | Vicki Nichols | Hi, I just like to ask for a small correction. On the first slide, slide, site 73, we are now a United School District unified, and there is no longer Willow Creek. That's known now as the Nevada campus. I'd like to see that reflected in the maps going forward. And the parcel that Peter just mentioned, if it's what I'm thinking of there on the corner adjacent Um, proposal to underground that creek. I thought there were deed restrictions on that that were when that was given to the city? Have those been looked into? Thank you. Thanks, Vicky. |
| 05:19:42.13 | Serge Avila | Next speaker is Cloris Henry. Cloris, you've been unmuted and asked to share your video. |
| 05:19:55.33 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you for, thank you. Thank you for waiting. Good to see you. |
| 05:20:00.15 | Cloris Henry | Yeah, I've been a little bit happy on the trigger, right? Absolutely. |
| 05:20:05.03 | Leslie Allen | Thank you. |
| 05:20:06.04 | Cloris Henry | Yes, again, hi, my name is Cloris Henry. I'm the Chief Operating Officer of the L'Essé-Francés de San Francisco LSFF. which we leased the buildings three, four, and five from the city of Sausalito at 100 Epcadre. Thank you. We've operated the French Emerge and Preschool through 5th grade school at this site since 2013. And we've been in operation as a school for over 50 years. We teach our students that global citizenship is an essential part of being a responsible member of society. So we really understand the importance of the process you're undertaking and how its outcomes may impact the community. |
| 05:20:34.54 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 05:20:43.42 | Cloris Henry | that we're a part of and that we're deeply invested in. Our school has been made aware of the inclusion of the regional housing needs allocation and submitted a formal letter to HHAC, expressing our concern and asking for more information on how we can be a part of the conversation in the future of our school site. This meeting tonight and the previous HEAC meeting that we attended has been really illuminating. We spoke briefly to expressing our sentiments, and unfortunately we haven't received much response. There's growing concern within our school community, and as one of the largest, if possibly we don't want to assume the largest species of the city of Sausalito, we assumed we would be kept up to date on the progress of this matter. Now let me just go into a little bit. As you guys all know, we've survived a pandemic. We've really appreciated the support we've received from the city of Sausalito, but the pandemic has impacted our enrollment and the impact of being on this list and how we learned that being on this list has also impacted our enrollment. On June 10th, a member of our community alerted us to the fact |
| 05:21:59.73 | Melissa Blaustein | Ms. Henry, I'm so sorry, just to be fair to everybody, your two minutes are up, but we do welcome written comment if you want to provide additional commentary based on your comments today. |
| 05:22:13.77 | Serge Avila | Our next speaker. It's Ryan Hoverman. Ryan, you've been unmuted. |
| 05:22:23.02 | Ryan Hoverman | Hello, so I'll follow up on Cloris. My name is Ryan Hoverman, and I'm the chair of the real estate committee for Lice Francais. It's great to speak to this group again. I've met several of the council members last year when we were talking about an issue. So it's awesome to speak to you. Although I had no idea I'd get to speak with you at midnight, which is pretty cool. As Clora stated, the inclusion of the school site on the arena housing list is causing us a lot of operation strategic issues. I know site 84 is a large 17 acre site, but our school is specifically listed and it's really freaking out. A lot of our parents. So our school recently launched a large Marine-focused marketing campaign that's going really well to get interest. But then we have a lot of parents approaching us saying, hey, are you closing? What's going on with your school? It's just causing us a lot of trouble. So it kind of raises some concerns with our lease itself. So we got about a year to go on our current term as several of you that probably researched this look at. And we also have two additional five-year extensions coming up And we're trying to work with Michael Wagner to get some renewal conversations around that because we're really like the site. It's a really beautiful site. So while the HEOC document notes that our lease is under review, WE DON'T HAVE TO DO IT. Know of any effort to modify the lease or renegotiate the terms at this point. And the placing of the site on the list is really causing a lot of confusion in our community and it's causing some detrimental impact. Like we have some parents like, I don't know if I wanna enroll my kid here, because you guys may not be around in two or three years from now. So it's causing us a lot of trouble. So overall, as representing our Board of Governments and Trustees, we want to continue operating in school in the market. but we're finding this process really difficult to engage with. So we've sent letters to HIAC and things, but we're not really hearing back. We'd really just like to be part of this process more. And even if we physically have our site removed from the list, have concerns in our community about what's going to go around. So we just like to know where the placement is going to be within it, even if our site isn't untouched. So we ask that you explicitly do help us remove our buildings from the list. If you want to use the rest of 84, that's your decision. But we'd really like to have our name taken off the list And just include our school administration, myself as a board member, and then, of course, Henry, who you heard from. also is a leader in our schools, the COO. We really want to partner with the city in its future. We can be a valuable part to help markets, oscillators, and vibrant and diverse family-friendly city. And if any of you would like a tour of the school, we'd be happy to show you at any time the space. |
| 05:24:36.72 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you, Ryan. Thanks for staying up with us. Appreciate it. |
| 05:24:42.93 | Serge Avila | OUR NEXT SPEAKER, is Thank you. Pat, Pat, you've been unmuted. you |
| 05:24:55.16 | Serge Avila | I believe I got Arthur Bruce instead. We'll come back to Pat. Go ahead, Bruce. YOU NEED TO MAKE ON YOUR SET ON YOUR ANSWERS. |
| 05:25:05.76 | Arthur Bruce | Thank you. |
| 05:25:07.82 | Serge Avila | Thank you. |
| 05:25:07.85 | Arthur Bruce | Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council members. uh, It's so great the way everyone's minds can come together are democratic. structure. It's just great that there's still just a little glimmer of hope I THINK I'M GOING TO BE but it's real disappointing when I'm not sure. I hear council members discussing not moving or creating housing in a certain area. I'm not sure. in Marinche. because of hazardous and toxicity issues. And, yet just recently, The city has and we've moved an entire group of people to the area- Mr. Bruce. |
| 05:25:58.43 | Melissa Blaustein | Mr. Bruce, do you have specific comments as to this group of buildings |
| 05:26:04.94 | Arthur Bruce | I do. |
| 05:26:06.22 | Melissa Blaustein | Can you please run us with those? |
| 05:26:08.99 | Arthur Bruce | Yeah, yeah, yeah, I just think that they just, The hypocrisy is just absolutely astounding. and, Well, why it applies to one group of people and not another, Um, I mean, it just... That's it. I just want the meeting to continue on. It's 12.31. I think we're setting record time here. Um, |
| 05:26:34.17 | Melissa Blaustein | Thanks very much, Mr. Bruce. Appreciate it. |
| 05:26:40.56 | Serge Avila | Our next speaker is Pat Zook. Pat, you're being unmuted and asked to share your video. |
| 05:26:48.26 | Pat | Are you there? Yes. And why here? Yes. Do I look like Bruce? I can see you, but no, you just wanted to. You made me scared for a minute. In any case, in examining the Martin Luther King site Um, I hope you pull it off for more intense discussion than looking at the whole site. Clearly there is an 11 year lease. It is important to the city to pay down the obligations that the city engaged in to update its other parks. And So I do not, and there's the dog park. And there's the 1128 initiative. So I would suggest that you pull it off and tease it apart if you plan to keep any part of that. on the platter. And I hope you don't. In any case. Thank you. |
| 05:27:53.77 | Serge Avila | NEXT SPEAKER. It's a phone number with the last four digits, 1870. You're being unmuted. |
| 05:28:12.67 | Lydia | Hi, can you hear me? Thank you. |
| 05:28:13.93 | Leslie Allen | This is a production of WGBH. |
| 05:28:16.23 | Lydia | Hi, my name's Lydia, and I just had a... some broad comments on this area? I'm not sure. You guys are doing a great job, by the way. This is so hard. And I know you're all really, really tired. But I'm concerned about some of the thinking around MLK not because I oppose using this area for creative |
| 05:28:36.76 | Unknown | . |
| 05:28:37.66 | Lydia | you know, methods to get affordable housing here, but because of like so many of the other issues that have been talked about with City Hall, the Marinship, Thank you. |
| 05:28:47.19 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:28:47.38 | Lydia | Radio Drive. It's just all the thought about the impact to the whole community, the infrastructure, the traffic, the noise. You know, we have a really high fun quality of life here that's here precisely because of |
| 05:28:56.22 | Unknown | you know, |
| 05:28:56.53 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 05:29:01.69 | Lydia | MLK, the dog park, and the school. Those school kids give this area a ton of fun energy that's just great. And so, In addition to all the environmental concerns, like flooding and sea level rise and such that you already are going to be accounting for, I really appreciate Ian's comments at the very beginning about other decision-making factors and I appreciated some other comments that were made about other areas, about the fact that it's not just looking at a space, It's looking at all the other impacts to the community as well as you know, just the general quality of life impact on traffic. I hope that there can be a balance struck to make use of this space, but to not be too disruptive to the community that's here with the park and with the dog park and with the school. and I love the way that you're thinking about the master plan. I wish that's where we could start. I wish the state mandates, didn't have to put us in this situation, but here we are and I hope you'll find A nice balance. to meet all the needs, but I also hope that there is a way that you can maybe push back again later on after you've landed at a place that shows where some of the real contentious areas are still showing up. Thanks very much. |
| 05:30:16.66 | Melissa Blaustein | Thanks very much. |
| 05:30:18.01 | Lydia | Thank you. |
| 05:30:18.03 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 05:30:18.05 | Lydia | So, |
| 05:30:18.28 | Melissa Blaustein | I'm sorry. |
| 05:30:18.33 | Lydia | I appreciate that. |
| 05:30:18.98 | Melissa Blaustein | comments? Okay. |
| 05:30:22.86 | Serge Avila | Our next speaker is Joan Cox. Joan, you've been unmuted. |
| 05:30:27.14 | Melissa Blaustein | you |
| 05:30:27.33 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 05:30:31.08 | Joan Cox | Welcome, John. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you all for persisting through the late hour. I know this is an arduous process for sure. I just wanted to comment on the MLK site. I don't know if any of you have had an opportunity to look at the Sensible Housing Sausalito site that was put together by a group of concerned citizens. but it actually has some renderings of what housing in the MLK site could look like. I did hear Beth say that only a portion of the site is being considered for housing. and Sensible Housing Sausalito did the same thing. They retained the field, they retained the school, they retained the existing uses at MLK and they I think AND I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT. renderings that show Hey. an integrated way to include housing without destroying the aesthetic, the overall aesthetic and use of the site. I just wanted to point that out SOMETHING. that someone could look at as they are considering AND THE FEDERAL HOUSING ON THIS SITE. happen to live right above the site, so I'm one of those most potentially adversely impacted by it. but I've thrown my support behind this vision for the site because I do see it as a way to create AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCKS. by leveraging a city owned property. Thank you. |
| 05:32:05.59 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 05:32:05.61 | Joan Cox | Thank you, John. |
| 05:32:06.05 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 05:32:07.15 | Serge Avila | And a mayor is |
| 05:32:07.23 | Melissa Blaustein | Can you hear the public comments or should I? |
| 05:32:09.22 | Serge Avila | I see no other hands-rakes, Madam Mayor. |
| 05:32:11.50 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, we'll close public comment. May I just a clarification, Beth? So at HIAC, we talked about making sure that the maps and the articulation specifically excluded the field. and the dog park. and I don't know that we had conveyed to you about the schools, but can you opine at least on the field and the dog park piece of that? |
| 05:32:33.33 | Beth (Consultant) | Yes, and so yeah, when we do the more detailed mapping, we will be leaving out the field, the dog park. There was also mention of the pickleball use that was treasured on the site. And so we can also, there was not a specific instruction to leave out the schools. We can leave out the schools. The site will get smaller if we leave out both of the school uses. So we would definitely help narrow down our efforts quite a bit. |
| 05:32:57.89 | Melissa Blaustein | So, we're going to have a |
| 05:33:02.98 | Beth (Consultant) | AND |
| 05:33:03.02 | Councilman Cleveland | Thank you. Beth, I thought at the HEAC we actually discussed Retaining the public uses. but not Thank you. carving out, I mean, we definitely carved out the park because that's where we spent A LOT OF MONEY. |
| 05:33:16.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:33:19.20 | Councilman Cleveland | PUBLICLY. but the, The dog park, the pickleball, pickleball is part of the park but anyway i think we said We wanna retain the school uses, the dog park, et cetera, but we're not gonna plan right at this moment about how those uses might move around |
| 05:33:29.68 | Unknown | it. |
| 05:33:40.65 | Councilman Cleveland | like a puzzle, might move around on the site, but we want to signal to the public that we want to retain. including like, so the schools, you know, might be on the ground floor of a, |
| 05:33:47.21 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 05:33:47.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:33:47.69 | Unknown | Right. |
| 05:33:53.07 | Councilman Cleveland | building that might have some house in that top or they might be slightly over to one side as opposed to where they are now. they won't leave. I mean, I think that's as far as we got at the HIAC and Mayor Kellman maybe you have more to add on this. But I think we didn't think at least at the HEAC that we should be engaged right at that moment after also a very long meeting. in determining right this minute exactly where the uses would go. But we were signaling we're not going to move. you change the park. Thank you. |
| 05:34:27.29 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:34:27.39 | Councilman Cleveland | And We want to retain the public serving uses, including the private schools, but we're not opining right now about where those all would go. So I think that's as far as we got. That's my memory anyway. And I kind of, that's the signal I would sort of I was comfortable with that signal. And I feel like we need to do a little more digging to get further, but Anyway, that was my memory of how we left it. |
| 05:34:58.75 | Melissa Blaustein | Yep, I support that recollection entirely. And I would further I'm not sure. agree suggests that any further communications things in writing capture that so that we don't have the community unsure of what the policy is on that. |
| 05:35:17.38 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 05:35:17.39 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you for that. |
| 05:35:17.41 | Ian Sobieski | So, thank you. Can we? Consultant or someone to reach out to the woman from Licee-Francaise who, |
| 05:35:18.76 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 05:35:24.35 | Ian Sobieski | Clearly had more to say than her two minutes allowed her. just to ensure the dialogue is there. since, uh, they have an ongoing business that's being affected by not having clear communication to to us. |
| 05:35:41.68 | Beth (Consultant) | Thank you. |
| 05:35:41.69 | Melissa Blaustein | Sure, that's a great idea. Beth, does that make sense to you? |
| 05:35:43.99 | Beth (Consultant) | I'm happy to do that. |
| 05:35:47.23 | Melissa Blaustein | So any other comments about any changes, any other commentary regarding this group. YES, COUNCILOR HOFFMAN. |
| 05:36:02.28 | Councilmember Hoffman | a question about the corporation yard at the corner of Bridgeway and Nevada about why that wasn't included as an opportunity site. Is it 75? It is. It's 75. |
| 05:36:10.69 | Councilman Cleveland | and then, |
| 05:36:14.41 | Councilmember Hoffman | this right here. I thought the corporation, okay, I'm sorry. |
| 05:36:15.12 | Beth (Consultant) | here. |
| 05:36:18.56 | Councilmember Hoffman | is this what the trees here at the corner of bridgeway and of office. |
| 05:36:22.56 | Councilman Cleveland | That's the site that Peter Van Meter has been talking about. I think we asked staff to further investigate. |
| 05:36:30.65 | Melissa Blaustein | I have a deed restriction on it. |
| 05:36:30.68 | Councilman Cleveland | Thank you. and surgeries like that. |
| 05:36:32.32 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 05:36:34.65 | Councilman Cleveland | Still part of Wispy Springs. |
| 05:36:37.08 | Beth (Consultant) | It's the common area. I think Heidi and Serge looked into it, or Sergio, and it's the common area for the Whiskey Springs condominium subdivision. Okay. |
| 05:36:47.27 | Councilman Cleveland | So it was deeded to the city and the city has maintenance responsibility. but we were wondering if there was like a deed restriction that had to be open space Anyway, I don't remember ever getting a report back on whether, how, SPECIFIC. THE RESTRICTIONS WERE. BUT IT'S SIMILAR TO THAT OTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WE I think 68 or something that we deferred. CONSIDERATION OF BECAUSE WE THOUGHT THE LEGAL ISSUES WOULD TAKE TOO LONG. |
| 05:37:16.97 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 05:37:17.92 | Councilman Cleveland | to figure out for the cycle. |
| 05:37:19.37 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 05:37:19.84 | Councilman Cleveland | Thank you. |
| 05:37:19.97 | Melissa Blaustein | Is that right? Yeah, that's right. And I think I saw Susan an email come by from Sergio. to us on this, but I don't recollect exactly what it said, but we did not think that it would hit the cycle due to legal issues, as you said. |
| 05:37:25.86 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 05:37:35.13 | Councilman Cleveland | Thank you for that discussion. |
| 05:37:35.35 | Melissa Blaustein | THANK YOU. Yeah. Thank you. |
| 05:37:36.73 | Councilman Cleveland | Thank you. |
| 05:37:36.87 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah. |
| 05:37:37.54 | Councilman Cleveland | Maybe that correspondence could go to everyone. |
| 05:37:40.34 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Yep. I'll see if I can find it as well and ask for it tomorrow. or today, later today. Thank you. Okay, any other comments, questions, concerns about this? |
| 05:37:54.99 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay. So I'm not hearing any, I don't see any hands and I don't see you all, but okay. Then the direction is to keep these. ON WITH THE EXPLANATION AND articulation, Beth, if we can capture that in future dialogue that would be helpful. Okay, we will keep that. Okay. I think that's it. |
| 05:38:16.62 | Beth (Consultant) | That is it. And I do want to note for the group. So when we embark upon the environmental impact report, there's two different approaches to calculating units. HCD is conservative. They want us to reduce the units for the purposes of CEQA. We usually will do it at the upper end of what the site can accommodate. So we won't use the same deductions that we use for the HCD purposes. So you're going to see two sets of units. So I just wanted you to understand that and be forewarned that that's just due to the nature of CEQA versus the HCD. OK. |
| 05:38:48.96 | Melissa Blaustein | And Beth, I want to circle back Council Member Sobieski's point about SB9 and benefits or opportunity to upzone. If you Could you at least start by providing us with the communication as the efforts that you have already undertaken to make those communications. I suspect that the council will have feedback on other things that could transpire to make sure that our community truly is in the loop on that. And then another thing that came up that I would be interested in having conversation is, is some advice and counsel on what a buffer sounds like, looks like. where you've seen it be effective. I don't think we're in a position tonight to try to define that. but I would be interested to hear a conversation about that in the future. Absolutely. Okay. Any last minute conversations or stuff? Forewarning we're not going to hit the next agenda item in case you're worried. But I was so ready to go on the budget. Come on, guys. But I do have instructions about having to adjourn with the notice as to a Friday meeting. |
| 05:39:40.36 | Alice Merrill | Thank you. |
| 05:39:44.09 | Linda Samuels | What? Come on. |
| 05:39:45.52 | Alice Merrill | Thank you. |
| 05:39:51.14 | Melissa Blaustein | I just want to give people an opportunity to close this matter out if there's more to say. |
| 05:39:51.22 | Ian Sobieski | I just want to get you. |
| 05:39:55.16 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, I actually, I mean, That was really the time. to commit ourselves to something. I guess so April 29th, the planning commission sent us formal letter. requesting that in our 2022-2023 fiscal year budget, we do a couple of things. The first thing is a citywide map. plan. That's their request. I talked about this last year when, like I said, I voted against doing this consulting path, Because we're trying to make the best of a situation that could be a lot better. We're in here tonight. We're trying to make the best of a situation that could be a lot better. that very unsatisfying conversation about the Marineship is a consequence of the path that we're on. instead of actually doing a master planning exercise where we can try to achieve multiple community goals of which RHNA is just one. We are stuck in a process where arena rules. And all we're doing is trying to meet that goal a few random constraints thrown in. Uh. we're gonna do this again. in the next greener cycle. and it's another million dollar consultant. And we're gonna do it again in another, next one. And it's another million dollar consultant. We should start today. on a master planning process. That will... that will give us clarity, give everyone clarity about where housing is gonna go, what it's going to be constrained by, what constraints are on it, Um, and what societal purposes it serves in our community. And you don't get that for free. It does definitely cost money. Um, So I would like to propose, there's a great, I'd like to propose a couple of them. There's a great, I would love the sensible Sausalito plan that you referred to mayor as a great, you know, quasi master plan. I'd love that to be considered by HIAC formally, all the sites in that site. I don't know if they warrant off, but if any warrant, they should be formally considered. you know, with this idea, not just of the sites, but of informed by the by the context of that plan. There is another plan, Community Venture Partners. Yeah. the Marineship Fair Share Plan. for the Marincia, that's doing a innovation zone a working waterfront district and a mixed use district north of um uh molly stones and the post office Um, Community Venture Partners is willing to talk to anyone who will go talk to them. I encourage every one of my colleagues to go talk to Community Venture Partners and ask them to show, to look at the Marinship Fair Share Plan. It is an example of what a master plan looks like that actually doesn't, it only achieves like 200 units. So it's not even all about the units. The main goal is that it actually saves the Marinship. And I didn't even know that thing existed until two weeks ago. And it is a seminal document that really deserves everyone's attention. And I would like, you have to look at that as well, in addition to sensible Salcelito sites. That's a start that's free. at least beginning to attend to the master plan. And I would love to have it agendized, or I'd love to make a motion to in addition to that, actually issue an RFP. We don't know what it'll cost. I mean, it can be wide open. We'll see what the proposals are. but actually to get a Um, some solicitations for doing master planning in Sausalito. at, such an RFP, the first response would be a conceptual master plan. That would be sort of free at a high level with the qualifications of the firm and a proposal for what it would cost to actually do this. for us on an ongoing basis. It's great. It's great. I'm ready. |
| 05:43:45.03 | Melissa Blaustein | It's fine. |
| 05:43:45.63 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:43:46.48 | Melissa Blaustein | Just stop. Do you want to recommend doing it for a dollar to see who might respond? |
| 05:43:51.85 | Ian Sobieski | the dollar on it. And we'll see. And you know, they'll, if they can't do it for a dollar, they'll tell us what it is. You can have a dollar on the cover. |
| 05:43:52.05 | Melissa Blaustein | I'm not sure. |
| 05:43:57.94 | Ian Sobieski | Um, And The goal here is not to upend the HIAC process. That process is going to be marching along on its own timeline. But if we start today, it can help inform that process. And it could be the living way in which we do our planning going forward instead of this current process that we do every eight years. So those are my recommendations. And does anyone object to having HIAC and look at sensible Sausalito sites and the community venture partners? Um, plan and does anyone object to at least put just an RFP out there to see what we get and for doing some master planning. for our town. |
| 05:44:42.32 | Melissa Blaustein | Not only do I not object, but I'm fully in support of all three of those statements. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE Kills from Robert Hoffman and then Susan Clipper-Nelson and then Vice Mayor. Thank you. |
| 05:44:52.78 | Councilmember Hoffman | Yes, I mean, agree. I'm in favor of all three of those. And also a question to our current consultant about what master plan is included in whatever the retention is. So you don't have to tell me right now, Beth, but just, At some point, probably that same meeting what HEAC that are going to look at the venture capital, community venture partner plan and the sensible Sausalito plan and how that you know, how those sites and how that might inform us as we move forward with our housing element and also the RFP for conceptual master plan. I completely agree with that. Thank you. Councillor McLean-Hulsey. |
| 05:45:36.40 | Councilman Cleveland | Yeah. I'm in favor, but I just don't think it's free. I mean, we just... had on consent a about the fact that we don't have STAFF. So in order to get an item in front of the EAC, that takes staff time. I mean, it takes staff time to review the community ventures report, to do all this work, to like work it up. So I, you know, it's, I think do we just have to be cognizant that It's not free and we have, We are trying to get our to actually staff the staff. work plan in front of the HIAC as it stands. And then I'm interested, you know, maybe not right at this moment, because it's late, to understand from best whether she has budget in her scope of work to handle PIAC meetings on this subject. I'm completely in favor of it, but I do Thank you. the first step is to figure out, what getting it in front, it doesn't make sense to go to the HIEAC or does it make sense to come back to the city council first? you know, And WHAT KIND OF STAFF BUDGET DO WE NEED TO EVEN? I mean, we've been talking so much about like, just keeping our eyes on the prize for a certain work product and getting to the finish point. So I love the concepts. I definitely feel like we could use that tool. but I am cognizant of not wanting to have too many too many different work paths for staff. So if we can accommodate all that, I'm 100% for it, but maybe we could just, Tonight, give direction to the city manager, community development director and Beth to meet And figure out what they can do within a small budget and come back to us maybe on a consent item. for us to bless moving forward or something like that. Maybe the city manager can weigh in, but I just don't wanna overload. |
| 05:47:32.25 | Beth (Consultant) | way. |
| 05:47:34.81 | Councilman Cleveland | an already very burdened process. you SO THAT'S MY EYE COMING. You're not going to be. |
| 05:47:40.72 | Beth (Consultant) | Can I just chime in briefly? Oh yeah. So we will. We're definitely wanting to keep the housing element on track because you have, you know, the two, the public review period and the, um, HCD review period, but during the HCD review period, we do have 90 days that we'll be preparing environmental documents. We'll be doing a lot of other stuff. And we, we could coordinate to bring some items to the HEAC during that time that address this kind of broader master planning for housing. And I think that timing could work and I'd be happy to coordinate on some approaches to getting this to the HIAC and keeping you. within the total budget we have and not not needing a lot of additional work Thank you. |
| 05:48:23.94 | Melissa Blaustein | Thanks Beth, maybe council member of Clivenosa and I will circle back with you on that and do our liaising job. Okay, Vice Mayor, wanna close this out? |
| 05:48:34.40 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO And I would be absolutely supportive of Councilmember Sobieski's request. And I just want to say I thought this was a really good conversation, a really hard conversation, but I felt everyone was very respectful of each other. And I really appreciated how much we all tried to weigh in and listen and be effective in a really hard conversation housing is the biggest challenge that we face and i also think it's one of the most important topics that we will ever consider as it relates to not only the future makeup of development in our community, but also what type of community we want to build, how we can be a welcoming community, how we can be more socioeconomically diverse, how we can have more of our teachers and workers living in Sausalito. And I'm really hopeful that as the process goes on, we can come up with a master plan approach that will allow for that and that we'll consider that and that we can hopefully get to majority consensus on. I would really like to see that and I really appreciated how much time everyone put in tonight. So I just wanted to say that. |
| 05:49:34.14 | Melissa Blaustein | I'll echo that. Thank you, everybody. It's a really great conversation. We knew it was coming, so I think it's always taking us to a better spot. Okay, so Ian, you have full support of the concepts. It sounds like The city manager is going to meet with Beth and the interim planning director, Susan and I will liaise to make sure the information gets conveyed back to us. |
| 05:49:58.18 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, I'll... But looking at the sensible Sausalito's and the community venture partners plan, That is basically free, I think, or at least a consultant can meet with them and see. I think Beth could look at it at least under her budget. |
| 05:50:12.97 | Melissa Blaustein | frankly, I don't think we even need a staff report. I mean, those are obviously prepared by people who know what they're talking about. So I invite them to come and give us a 10 minute presentation. I don't need a staff report to summarize a thing that I can just hear from. Let's Susan and I liaise with Beth and figure out where that fits on the schedule, That would be my perspective. Vice President, did your hand go back up? THEIR OWNERS. |
| 05:50:35.04 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | IT'S JUST LATE. |
| 05:50:35.76 | Melissa Blaustein | to be able to get the |
| 05:50:35.88 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | Thank you. |
| 05:50:35.97 | Melissa Blaustein | and it has to be a good thing. |
| 05:50:36.29 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | THE END OF |
| 05:50:36.35 | Melissa Blaustein | THE END OF |
| 05:50:36.42 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | on down. |
| 05:50:36.95 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. okay all right so um thank you everybody uh so we did have a budget item tonight we're not going to get to it uh it looks like we're all available at 10 a.m on friday And so I've been instructed that I have to adjourn our meeting this evening and I'm foregoing the remaining parts of the agenda, if that's possible, that we could pick those up on Friday? Or do you want me to run through Mary the rest of the |
| 05:51:02.44 | Mary Wagner | The only item I think that you need to do, Madam Mayor, is public comment on items not on the agenda. Okay. Thank you. |
| 05:51:11.74 | Melissa Blaustein | and then we will do that and then we will adjourn to a regular meeting on Friday, 6, 17. Okay. |
| 05:51:17.92 | Ian Sobieski | So long. What time are we meeting on Friday? |
| 05:51:21.12 | Melissa Blaustein | What time would you like to meet? |
| 05:51:22.32 | Ian Sobieski | I checked, I can do it at 10.30. And so it's, I can do anything before that. How about 8.30? |
| 05:51:31.17 | Melissa Blaustein | Can everybody do 8.30 or 8 Friday morning? That's fantastic. |
| 05:51:35.00 | Ian Sobieski | Do we do anything? |
| 05:51:36.65 | Melissa Blaustein | It sounds great. |
| 05:51:37.98 | Ian Sobieski | Sounds good. |
| 05:51:38.20 | Melissa Blaustein | Sounds good. Wait. N. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT. |
| 05:51:40.82 | Ian Sobieski | I'll be going to change items next time because I didn't have one. |
| 05:51:44.85 | Melissa Blaustein | Sure, absolutely. We'll even do it at the tail end on Friday. |
| 05:51:48.82 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 05:51:49.00 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:51:49.58 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, thanks, Sam. All right, we have one member of the public to provide a public comment items on the agenda. |
| 05:51:56.24 | Serge Avila | Arthur Bruce, you've been unmuted and asked to share your video. |
| 05:52:02.77 | Arthur Bruce | Everybody have a good night. We almost made it to 1 a.m. We were just a few minutes shy, but I won't go on. Everybody have a good night. Get some rest. Love you guys. Thank you, Mr. Bruce. That was great. |
| 05:52:13.67 | Melissa Blaustein | I'm going to go. |
| 05:52:13.88 | Arthur Bruce | Thank you. |
| 05:52:13.89 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Well then everybody, we will adjourn to our special meeting on Friday at 8 a.m. |
| 05:52:14.50 | Arthur Bruce | Thank you. |
| 05:52:14.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:52:14.58 | Arthur Bruce | AND IF YOU WANT TO TAKE A |
| 05:52:19.26 | Melissa Blaustein | We will pick up the budget items and any city manager reports and future agenda items. Thanks, everybody. |
| 05:52:26.36 | Serge Avila | Amen. |
| 05:52:28.46 | Vice Mayor Blauskain | That's a great wave Jill. That was like a great wave. Good night. |