| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.03 | Melissa Blossom | According in progress. |
| 00:00:01.53 | Unknown | Great. |
| 00:00:01.82 | Melissa Blossom | Yeah. |
| 00:00:04.35 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:00:04.43 | Melissa Blossom | Okay, if you're ready, I think we should get going so we can be as Yes, please. |
| 00:00:15.19 | Walfred Solorzano | Good evening Mayor Blaustein, Council Members and Planning Commission. The meeting is being held pursuant to government code section 5493E. And in light of the cleared state of emergency the special joint meeting for January 12 2023. will be conducted telephonically through Zoom and broadcasted live on the city's website and on cable TV channel 20 and I must also add that we do have Council Chamber open for the public. |
| 00:00:40.67 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you very much, City Clerk. Good evening, Council Members, Planning Commissioners, and members of the public. I am now calling to order the special Planning Commission City Council joint meeting on January 12, 2023. City Clerk, would you please call the roll? |
| 00:00:55.72 | Walfred Solorzano | I'll start with the city council first, council member Joan Cox. |
| 00:00:58.99 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you. |
| 00:00:59.03 | Jill Hoffman | year. |
| 00:00:59.30 | Melissa Blossom | Yeah. |
| 00:00:59.31 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:00:59.87 | Walfred Solorzano | Council member Jill James Hoffman |
| 00:01:02.03 | Jill Hoffman | here. |
| 00:01:03.13 | Walfred Solorzano | I remember Janelle Cummins. |
| 00:01:04.49 | Jill Hoffman | Here. |
| 00:01:05.47 | Walfred Solorzano | Vice Mayor Ian Sobieski. here. And Mayor Melissa Blossom? |
| 00:01:10.79 | Ian Sobieski | Here. |
| 00:01:11.36 | Walfred Solorzano | and I'll call on the Planning Commission. Uh, Commissioner Natasha Saab. you |
| 00:01:18.01 | Natasha Saab | here. |
| 00:01:18.28 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Commissioner Jeffrey Luxenberg. Sure. Commissioner Andrew Junius. President |
| 00:01:25.42 | Andrew Junius | President Obama. |
| 00:01:26.47 | Walfred Solorzano | Commissioner Richard Graff. you |
| 00:01:29.03 | Jeffrey Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:01:31.92 | Walfred Solorzano | COMMISSIONER RICHARD GRAFF, IF I'M SAYING THAT CORRECTLY OR |
| 00:01:35.27 | Jeffrey Luxenberg | He's absent. |
| 00:01:36.50 | Chair Luxenberg | up. |
| 00:01:36.81 | Jeffrey Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:01:36.93 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:01:37.03 | Chair Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:01:37.05 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. I'll make another if it does show up. And for right now he's absent and commissioner Christina Feller. |
| 00:01:46.21 | Melissa Blossom | I see that Councilmember Kelman has her hand raised. |
| 00:01:48.98 | Councilmember Kellman | Yes, Mayor, I just want you to know that your video is not on, so we cannot see you and Councilmember Cox. I don't know if you were aware of that. Thank you for letting us know. |
| 00:01:58.86 | Jenny Silva | Is there an issue with our video? |
| 00:02:06.16 | Melissa Blossom | In the effort of moving things along while they correct that. There we go. Fantastic. Thank you for alerting us to that Councilmember Kelman. So our first item on the agenda is a consent calendar item, which will apply only to members of the City Council. Matters listed under the consent calendar are considered routine and non-controversial. require no discussion are expected to have unanimous council support and may be enacted by the council in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of consent calendar items. However, before this 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. Do any members of the city council have. comments on the consent calendar item this evening, which is 3A adopting two resolutions to implement the changes resulting from the recently approved Measure L and authorizing the city manager to execute agreements for cities use tax with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. Okay, seeing none, I will now open it up to public comment. City Clerk, could you please remind members of the public how we received public comment? |
| 00:03:16.03 | Walfred Solorzano | You can use on Zoom, you can use the raise hand |
| 00:03:19.00 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:03:19.04 | Walfred Solorzano | or if you're on phone, you can press star nine |
| 00:03:19.24 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:03:22.53 | Walfred Solorzano | And if you do have a comment, you can raise your hand now. And I am not seeing any comments. |
| 00:03:30.16 | Melissa Blossom | Okay, we'll close public comment at this time. Can I have a motion to approve the consent calendar items? So I'm moved. Second, |
| 00:03:38.60 | Walfred Solorzano | And for clarification, who moved it? |
| 00:03:41.33 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you. |
| 00:03:41.35 | Jill Hoffman | Councilmember Kelman? |
| 00:03:43.83 | Walfred Solorzano | Second. |
| 00:03:43.86 | Jill Hoffman | Second, I was Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 00:03:45.89 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you very much. Now for the roll call vote, we'll start with Council Member Cox. Yes. Council Member Hoffman. Yes. |
| 00:03:52.99 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 00:03:53.73 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Cummins. Yes. Vice Mayor Sobieski? Yes. And Mayor Blosley. |
| 00:04:00.16 | Melissa Blossom | Yes. Okay, motion passes 5-0 and we can move forward. Tonight we have three agenda items to discuss, the housing element status, objective development standards, and a presentation on SB9. This meeting is unique in that it's a joint meeting between the Planning Commission and the City Council. purpose of this joint meeting is to hear from staff and provide an opportunity for Members of the public planning commission and city council to ask questions regarding the status of the city's efforts on these issues. and the process going forward. And the Planning Commission is joining the City Council tonight as the city's advisory body. So, Let's move ahead with the very first agenda item this evening, which is the six cycle housing element. And our report will be coming from De Novo Associates and Beth Thompson. |
| 00:04:41.08 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | Good evening, Mayor, members of the Council and Chair and members of the Commission. It's exciting to be with all of you tonight to talk about the housing element update. And so I'll just quickly go through... And can everyone see my screen? Yes, fantastic. I'll just quickly go through the status and the schedule. So the housing element is currently with the State Department of Housing and Community Development, HCD, for review, and we expect their comments on January 26 of this month. |
| 00:05:09.69 | Vicki Nichols | this. |
| 00:05:12.32 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | Brandon Phipps and I met today with HCD, the city's representative, Chelsea Lee, and went over some of her preliminary comments. She hasn't completed her review yet, so we don't yet have an idea of what the final comments will be like, but we do anticipate comments on the deadline, so we don't anticipate getting their comments back early. But we will meet with HCD again right before we get the comments so that they can clarify what the intent of their comments is so that we can then go through and quickly respond and then also to let the community The Notice of Preparation or NOP for the Environmental Impact Report is currently out for public and agency review and comments are due to the city on January 20th. So if people have comments regarding the scope of the environmental impact report, written comments have to be submitted to the city by January 20th. Um, Following the close of the notice of preparation, the draft EIR will be prepared and distributed to the community, and that's currently underway. And we anticipate that that will be out for a public review in March, and it does have a 45-day review period. So following the close of the draft EIR public review period, we will then prepare the final EIR that responds to comments on the draft EIR. And we'll also be preparing an adoption draft housing element during the public review period for the draft EIR. And that will address all of the state's comments. So we expect to have that package of the adoption draft housing element and the final EIR ready for planning commission review. late spring this year and for city council review as well. So that's a quick overview of where we are with the housing element update and the next steps in the process. I'll just give a quick overview of what the housing element contains. And then I'm just I'm going to touch on some of the programs that will need to be implemented for the housing element. So the housing element includes three main components. The housing plan, which addresses the goals, policies, and implementation programs that the city will carry forth during the eight year cycle. So the housing plan is really the meat of the housing element in terms of the commitments that the city is making to address Sausalito's housing needs. It also includes quantified objectives, which are numeric objectives for the city to meet as well. There's also a background report and appendices to the housing element. The background report includes a brief introduction, a housing needs assessment, a housing constraints analysis, an inventory of the city's housing sites, which are also identified in more detail in the appendices to the housing element. It includes an analysis of affirmatively furthering fair housing issues. It evaluates the city's progress in implementing its fifth cycle housing element, which addressed 2015 through 2023. And it also addresses some other requirements under state law. And as I mentioned, the meat of the housing element is the housing plan and that it really reflects the commitments for the city going forward. The background report is just that. A lot of background data that assesses existing conditions, but it doesn't really speak to the future as much. The housing plan revolves around three or four goals. Goal H1, preserving housing and neighborhood assets. Goal H2, supporting housing diversity opportunities and assistance. Goal H3 to reduce constraints to housing development, rehabilitation, and preservation. and goal H4 to affirmatively further fair and equal housing opportunities. And there are a number of policies as well as 31 implementation programs that address the city's housing goals and needs. And I'm just going to touch on about 10 of those programs tonight. And I'd also like to note that program four is the specific program that addresses the rezoning of various housing sites. And that's not part of tonight's item. We anticipate the housing Sites will be informed by the environmental impact report process, and we'll come back to the Planning Commission and City Council at a subsequent meeting. So starting with program six, which addresses accessory dwelling units, ADUs and junior accessory dwelling units, a number of the city's units to be accommodated in the housing element are addressed through ADUs. So we have included program six to encourage development of ADUs and JDUs, and it includes a number of measures to update the city's current ADU standards to be consistent with state law that will occur this year. to provide technical resources to assist property owners with ADU and JADU development that will also occur this year. And technical resources are basically informational materials to help property owners understand how they can develop an ADU on their property, whether it's an attached unit, attached to their existing home, a separate unit, or a junior accessory dwelling unit. It also includes some components to pursue state funding to assist lower and moderate income homeowners with constructing ADUs to continue conducting property owner outreach and education. And then also a mid-cycle check-in, so about halfway through the housing element implementation period, checking in on the city's progress towards accommodating ADUs to ensure that the city's on track to meet the number of ADUs identified to be accommodated in the inventory of sites. So that'll be a big milestone when you're checking in on that item. Program 10 addresses affordable housing development assistance and this program provides incentives and assistance for affordable housing development. It includes a number of components, basically establishing financial and regulatory incentives for affordable housing and housing for special needs populations. And those financial incentives mainly focus on the city developing an affordable housing fund, which is program 11, and then also seeking various state funding sources. There are a number of grant programs available through the state available to assist in the production of affordable housing. Program 10 also includes annual outreach to affordable housing providers and developers to ensure that the development community is aware of the city's sites that are available for affordable housing development. And that they're also aware of the incentives and resources that the city is identifying to assist with development of those affordable units. And then Program 10 also works with Program 12 to explore opportunities for regional partnerships to leverage funding and assets for affordable housing. And that program, which I'll jump into, works for the city to establish a network of affordable housing providers this year. So working with other regional governments, working with local nonprofits just to identify a network of. affordable housing providers that are interested in being active in Sausalito, and then annually contacting those housing providers to ensure that they have information regarding the city's affordable housing resources and the city's incentives, as I mentioned with program 10 as well. And the city will further assist these affordable housing providers through when you have projects that the city is supportive of providing letters of support processing those with priority priority processing of those projects and providing concessions and incentives, as well as assisting those developers with identifying funding resources. Program 16 is pretty lengthy, so I won't go through it in detail, but it includes a number of changes to the zoning ordinance to ensure that the city supports a variety of housing types. There are very specific housing types that have to be accommodated by state law, so it addresses all of those specific housing types, and it also removes constraints to housing through addressing the processing of development projects and ensuring that the city is processing projects consistent with the requirements of state law. Similar to program 16, Program 17 will update the zoning ordinance to implement the state's density bonus requirements. And as we've discussed before, The state mandates that projects that include a certain affordable component do receive a density bonus. And so this would ensure that the city's density bonus requirements are consistent with those density bonuses and incentives that are allowed and required under state law. And then the city will also just promote those requirements. So once the zoning ordinance is updated, promoting that those requirements are now available to the development community. Program 19 will update the city's development review procedures. And this is actually will come up again in your subsequent items tonight. but basically to facilitate residential development and to ensure that the city's review process is not excessive, The city will adopt procedures to address streamlining requirements of state law. This includes SB 35. as well as ensuring that the city has standards in place for objective design and zoning standards for projects under SB 330. This includes adopting odds, the objective design and development standards, for multi-unit projects and mixed-use development by November of this year. And then also subsequently adopting odds for single family projects by 2025 to ensure that you just have a full range of projects that can be developed all have objective design criteria so that. Projects will have certainty when they're submitting to the city. They'll have certainty regarding the standards that will be required of the project. Program 19 also includes establishing a permit tracking database. to ensure that the city's permit processing timelines conform to state law. So that'll assist the city in just understanding Applications are submitted, what the review timing is, and all of those requirements. Program 22, much like Program 16, is another meaty program. And this addresses affirmatively furthering fair housing. And Program 22 includes components of previous programs and focuses on how those programs assist the city in meeting fair housing requirements. So to further fair housing, the city will take a number of steps that will encourage housing mobility enhancements. So encouraging just choice in housing, making it easier for people to move from one home to another. by promoting program six with accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units, and then also promoting program 14, which provides for rental assistance through the countywide housing choice voucher program. Program 22 also promotes new housing choices and affordability in higher opportunity areas through programs 10. Programs 22, which focuses on workforce and affordable housing opportunities and high opportunity areas. And that also includes advertising housing availability of the broader region to also include outreach to Marin City and specifically the racial and economically disadvantaged area identified within. Marin City. |
| 00:15:21.86 | Vicki Nichols | Marin City. |
| 00:15:23.11 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | Program 22 also includes place-based strategies, or community preservation and revitalization that focus on Programs Nine. the Live Aboard Housing Program and 21, which provides for fair housing education and outreach. And then lastly, program 22, seeks to protect residents from displacement by providing tenant protection strategies, preservation of existing affordable housing, and also prioritizing assistance to displaced lower and moderate income residents. And then I'll also just touch on two more programs. Program 30 is not something that you'll be implementing right away, but it really focuses on ensuring that in your next housing cycle, the seventh cycle, that the Association of Bay Area Governments, or ABIG, considers local constraints unique to Sausalito. So when you received your sixth cycle allocation, ABIG didn't receive a detailed assessment of constraints in Sausalito. So when you appealed the RHNA, there wasn't really a basis for but then reducing the count based on known constraints. So if you're, involved in the process earlier on that will assist ABEC in understanding constraints in Sausalito and the limited capacity available in the city. So program 30 is really looking to the seventh cycle to to seek to ensure that the regional housing need allocation arena is more reflective of the city's actual capacity. And then program 31 focuses on providing training and education for the city staff, just to ensure that the city staff is equipped to implement the housing element. There are a lot of nuances and requirements in state law when you're implementing the housing element, so I'll just assist city staff in ensuring that they are And that's what I'm saying. able to address comments, questions, just in a manner that's consistent with the requirements of state law. And so... With that, that's the overview of the status, what's in the housing element, and some of the key components of the housing plan. So I'm Happy to answer any questions about the housing element. |
| 00:17:19.35 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you very much, Beth. At this time, just to encourage order and make things more clear, we're going to take questions from the Planning Commission first as our advisory bodies. So if a member of the planning commission has a question for Beth and DeNovo, could you please raise your hand in the Zoom? function. Commissioner Feller, I saw you raise your hand first. |
| 00:17:38.65 | Jeffrey Luxenberg | Thank you very much. And Beth, thank you for your presentation. Just a quick question. We can't hear you. |
| 00:17:44.84 | Unknown | We can't hear you. |
| 00:17:46.97 | Jeffrey Luxenberg | related to the EIR. And that is, how are the density bonuses considered in the EIR? Are they included in there? Is the percentage or how is that handled? |
| 00:17:58.85 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | So the density bonuses are not addressed in the EIR. And we had discussed this a bit previously, but the EIR looks at the maximum capacity of each site based on the existing zoning or the proposed zoning. So it doesn't look at a density bonus just because we don't know specifically where density bonuses will be requested and we don't anticipate that every site in Sausalito will be subject to a density bonus. |
| 00:18:23.20 | Jeffrey Luxenberg | Okay, and just a follow on question to that, if I may, and that is not long ago, the general plan executed citywide EIR. Are there any bits or pieces from that that could be useful or beneficial to where we are currently. with the EIR and our deadline of January 31st and not March 2023. I'm sorry. |
| 00:18:47.03 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | Um, The general plan does address development in the city, however, the city's regional housing need allocation that the housing element addresses is much higher than the development that was anticipated under the general plan. So the general plan update didn't provide adequate capacity. So we can't really point to that as providing full coverage for the housing element, which is why the EIR is being prepared for the housing element. |
| 00:19:11.08 | Jeffrey Luxenberg | Great. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mayor Blaustein. |
| 00:19:14.40 | Melissa Blossom | Any other members of the planning commission have questions for DeNova group? Yes, Commissioner Sagitt. |
| 00:19:18.28 | Commissioner Saad | Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Blaustein. I had a rather specific question when I was re-reviewing the content Um, In Program 6 and in a few other areas within the housing element, we are mentioning that if funds are available, and we receive financial assistance that we would then pass that on to qualified property owners, but we're never very specific in what or how we would I'm just wondering if that opens us up to anything or if we need to be more specific, if there's any guidance, how other jurisdictions might be achieving that, or is it okay to leave it that general? |
| 00:20:00.96 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | I think it's fine to leave it that general when you do when you do successfully obtain funds, you would then develop an implementation manual for each funding sources jurisdictions that receive like access to grant funds with it have specific standards and requirements for applicants to be eligible to use those funds and specific. activities that could be funded through those funds. So it would be very, it would be specifically based on the funding sources that are actually accessed. |
| 00:20:27.20 | Commissioner Saad | Okay. Okay, thank you. That was my only question for right now. Thank you, Mayor Blasthain. Commissioner Luxenberg? |
| 00:20:36.58 | Commissioner Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:20:36.60 | Melissa Blossom | We can't hear you. You are still muted. |
| 00:20:41.22 | Chair Luxenberg | apologize for that. BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. SO THIS IS BASICALLY A STATUS REPORT OF WHERE I SAW ON THE CALENDAR that you're gonna be looking for input from the Planning Commission. And so at our next meeting on the 25th, we'll talk about the schedule to do that, and then planning to hold a public hearing on the substance of the housing elements, so we can do that. So for the public certification and the councils, we do plan to hold the hearing and finalize the pieces that the Planning Commission has to do with this part. Thank you. |
| 00:21:20.02 | Melissa Blossom | And in response to Commissioner Luxenberg statement, we are planning to and I would like to ask the staff to calendar a meeting on January 30th, given the January 31st deadline of the housing element, which will be a joint meeting of the planning commission. and the city council. Commissioner Luxenberg, your hand is still raised. Before I move to the city council, |
| 00:21:37.04 | Chair Luxenberg | No, I'm not used to raising the hands in the electronic thing, so I just need to figure out how to turn that off. Hold on a second. |
| 00:21:37.18 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you. |
| 00:21:44.81 | Melissa Blossom | You're doing great. Thank you. I appreciate it. |
| 00:21:46.80 | Chair Luxenberg | No, it's off now. So thank you very much. |
| 00:21:49.84 | Melissa Blossom | Okay, so now that the planning commission is weighed in, I will move to members of the City Council and Councilmember Sobieski had his hand raised first. |
| 00:21:58.53 | Vice Mayor Sobieski | Hi, Beth. Thank you for the presentation. Did you put that slide of the calendar, the very first slide you had back up? You just heard reference made to the January 31st deadline, but I didn't actually see |
| 00:22:04.94 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 00:22:10.66 | Vice Mayor Sobieski | that in your calendar as a critical point. at the first line I see comments to on the 26th and then sort of a not a deadline. So what's the story with the January 31st deadline? |
| 00:22:24.70 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | So the January 31st deadline is the statutory deadline to have your housing element adopted. The city is running behind schedule. The EIR is currently being prepared, but it will not be ready for adoption at that time. We also won't get the state's comments until January 26th. So it's not just a deadline to adopt your housing element, but it's a deadline to adopt a housing element that substantially complies with state law. And we do anticipate a fair number of comments from HCD. So. Given the need for the EIR and to respond to the comments from HCD, we're anticipating that the adoption will be later than the deadline. |
| 00:23:01.77 | Vice Mayor Sobieski | Are you going to speak to the consequences of missing the deadline? |
| 00:23:05.27 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | And I believe the city attorney is on the line for that discussion. |
| 00:23:09.77 | Vice Mayor Sobieski | Well, I mean, you're the housing expert, so is the city attorney the The right person can speak to that or is that you? |
| 00:23:13.35 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | personal. Well, they might be the better person to speak to the legal consequences of missing the deadline when when you don't have a housing element that's adopted by the deadline, you are open to having projects come in. There's a portion of state law called the Builder's Remedy that allows. eligible projects, they have to include a certain percentage of affordable units to be applied for And those are typically not reviewed under general plan and zoning requirements. They do still have to comply with CEQA. And there are a number of requirements that can be applied to those projects. But that would be the process for those projects. Apart from that, The state doesn't have a specific list of penalties for not having adopted your housing element on time. The city, the state does have a housing element task force, which can require jurisdictions to adopt a housing element or take additional measures. They have a specific amount of notice they need to give a city and Many other communities, cities and counties throughout the Bay Area are in a similar position as Sausalito. And so far, we haven't seen any aggressive actions from the Housing Element Task Force. |
| 00:24:19.82 | Vice Mayor Sobieski | Beth, why is it that we are not getting our EIR and the whole housing element done on time. And home. |
| 00:24:29.07 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | The city's process to identify sites was very lengthy. So there was a lengthy process to identify sites and also at the beginning of the year last year, the review timeline for housing elements changed. So housing elements used to have to go through one review period prior to being submitted or prior to being adopted and now, which was a 60-day review period, and then last January a 30-day review period for the public review, followed by a 10-business-day break and then submittal to the state for a 90 day review period. So there was a 70 day extension to the review period. So there have been some I'm, measures that have definitely affected the timeline. |
| 00:25:10.61 | Vice Mayor Sobieski | So I don't know, to me, that's bearing a bleed a little. It sounded like some pretty severe consequences for missing the deadline. Is there not a slide or someone to inform us about that? Or are we relying on that? |
| 00:25:20.94 | Melissa Blossom | We are fortunate to have a municipal attorney on our city council worked on these issues and can speak to that if we would allow her quickly. |
| 00:25:24.47 | Vice Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. Great. Bye. Whoever can answer the question, I'd love to understand that better. |
| 00:25:33.70 | Melissa Blossom | Councilman. |
| 00:25:34.04 | Councilmember Cox | Cox. I believe Sergio is on the line as well. Two consequences I'm aware of is that one, the time that we have to implement programs 16 and 19 And other changes, such as changes to the zoning ordinance amendments is reduced from three years to one year and for us. In order to implement our zoning ordinance, it will require a vote of the people to address the fair traffic initiative, something that is virtually impossible for us to accomplish in one year. Another consequence I'm aware of is that We lose our eligibility for block grant funding, something that Sausalito heavily relies on. these are severe consequences. These are not the only consequences. And I see the city attorney is on the line. |
| 00:26:26.26 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you. Sergio, could you speak to some of the legal implications of not passing the housing element at the statutory deadline of January 31st? |
| 00:26:33.50 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, so besides those two items, which Council Member Cox raised, and she's correct about them, Um, If the housing element is adopted more than one year after the due date, it cannot be found in substantial compliance until the upzoning is adopted. So that is there's another later deadline that you need to make sure you don't miss. Um, So basically, if you don't have a compliant housing element, the attorney general, any developer, housing advocacy group, can seek a writ against the city, compelling them to adopt a housing element that's in substantial compliance with housing element law. Um, Additionally, there is a process by which the Attorney General can file suit and get a writ from the court and including a deadline for compliance and monetary penalties if you fail to adopt on time. I'm not sure. That typically takes a while and the court order is going to give you some timeframe by which you have to adopt a compliant element. But there is the possibility of monetary penalties while you're out of compliance. Um, So additionally, courts can order a variety of remedies while you don't have a compliant housing element, including strangely enough, the ability to suspend the authority to suspend the city's ability to issue building permits or approve any zoning changes while you don't have a compliant housing element. or process any subdivision maps. Additionally, plaintiffs can typically be entitled to approval of their projects while you are not having a compliant housing element. So there is litigation risk from developers. that is increased at that time. So those are some of the additional potential risks of not having compliant housing elements. |
| 00:28:23.88 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you, Sergio. Council member Sobieski, are you finished with your questions? |
| 00:28:27.17 | Vice Mayor Sobieski | I have some other questions that are less important than the one I asked and the implications of it. I guess I would love to understand how it is. I thought we approved the sites back in August, so I'm still a little I got gobsmacked really. as to why we are not on track to have the ER back in time. to meet this January 31st deadline. So I don't feel like I got, I would like that answered from somebody. about how it is that we got off track. I think we all went. |
| 00:28:53.99 | Melissa Blossom | I think we all win. Beth, would you like to respond to that now, or can I take questions from Councilmember Hoffman? Her hand has been raised as well. |
| 00:29:02.19 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | But that would be fine. |
| 00:29:05.48 | Melissa Blossom | I can come back to that question. Do you have an answer for the question? |
| 00:29:09.63 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | Well, sure, yes, of course. How is the housing element running late? As I had mentioned, the city went through a lengthy process to identify sites. |
| 00:29:16.77 | Councilmember Cox | Why did the EIR scurping just happen last week? |
| 00:29:22.27 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | I'm not. |
| 00:29:22.44 | Councilmember Cox | Bye. |
| 00:29:22.96 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | The city has had a lot of turnover and staff and unfortunately it took two and a half months to get the scoping notice published. |
| 00:29:32.88 | Melissa Blossom | Okay, let's go to Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 00:29:34.32 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:29:36.17 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you. |
| 00:29:36.19 | Jill Hoffman | So, Continuing on in this vein of the consequences of not adopting by January 31st and the challenges with regard to you know, not the fact that that element, I know that's not the right word. That portion of the because element has its own meaning. But that portion of our submission won't be done. I think my question to Beth is, I think the preference from the council is going to be to adopt by the statutory deadline. not to be out of compliance by the statute of deadlines. Understanding that we may have that portion of it, we may still be waiting on the EIR Well, actually we'll have, we should have it back. It will be during the public comment. portion of the EIR. I think my question to Beth is, and you probably don't have an answer tonight, But what we're looking for from our consultant is how do we adopt and note with HCD that that portion is not going to be back yet? or completed because I think the preference for the council is going to be to take action no later than January 31st to adopt our housing element. So be it if some element is missing. |
| 00:30:52.62 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | And so HCD is not concerned about your EIR. They're concerned about whether or not the housing element is adopted. The concern about the EIR is whether or not you are then at risk for litigation regarding adopting your housing element without substantially complying with CEQA. Now, that being said, a number of jurisdictions throughout the state look at the housing element as being a policy only document. And so they do adopt the housing element with an exemption noting that the EIR will be prepared to address the rezoning of sites. In Sausalito, it was planned that the housing element and the rezoning of sites would occur concurrently, so that the housing element and the housing element EIR would also be prepared concurrently adopted at the same time. So that's the reason we've had this timing. I can definitely strategize with city staff and the city attorney regarding other approaches. |
| 00:31:41.37 | Jill Hoffman | I feel like that's going to be the approach, We're not done yet with the meeting tonight. |
| 00:31:47.92 | Melissa Blossom | Are you finished with your questions, Council Member Hoffman? Okay, I'm going to go to Councilmember Kelman. |
| 00:31:54.23 | Councilmember Kellman | Thank you to staff and thank you Beth for being here tonight and providing us with this guidance and information. So on the same thread, just to inform everybody, I went back to try to understand where the schedule had shifted. and having been a member of the Housing Element Committee since its inception. And it looks like there's a change in when we are planning or when we plan to have a final draft of the HCD as of the May 23rd meeting. And so, Beth, you mentioned earlier that there were some factors of the review cycle change. I'm wondering if that date something happened on that day. I mean, I think this whole council is trying to understand how and why did that schedule shift? Because I look back at all the schedules up until May 23rd, and we always had something in December. It's always December. And then all of a sudden on the 23rd of May, It changes to January. Was there a specific reason that that shifted? |
| 00:32:48.60 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | I would have to go back and look through the specific meeting notes, but I anticipate that that's when we realized that we weren't narrowing down the sites. We had anticipated we would identify sites very early on in the process. We would have a limited number of sites and we would start the EIR review of those sites pretty early. And identifying the sites took longer than expected, then also getting that draft housing element to the HEAC. This consequently took longer because it required all of the sites to be finalized. |
| 00:33:16.09 | Councilmember Kellman | Okay. Yeah, I mean, I don't want to belabor the point, but I don't recall the advice of that, hey, this is the risk you run. So I'll have to go back and look at my notes. I want to change course just for a second, talk about the community block grants. So one of the issues, obviously, with not adopting by the 31st is that we then don't have access to the community block grants. My understanding is that the community block grant, is one of the most important local funds for affordable housing, anti-poverty programs, and infrastructure development. Um, How much of that play into your thinking? And has it played into your thinking as we've developed the housing element? Have the block grants been at all part of the strategy? And this is sort of towards Commissioner Sayed's question as well. What type of financing is there? |
| 00:34:05.13 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | So the Community Development Block Grant funds or CDBG funds are allocated to small cities through the state's small city and small jurisdiction program. However, the city of Sausalito participates as a as part of the urban county. So you actually received CDBG funds through Marin County and through that larger block of cities, and so I don't believe you're at risk of losing any CDBG funds because they are not administered by the state they're administered by head. To the urban county so you don't participate in this state's competitive process, so I don't think that you would be significantly impacted by that we do anticipate that the CDBG funds would be used for. a variety of things. They do fund the city's fair housing programs. So fair housing and that's actually funded again through the through the county so a lot of that is funded through the county and then a number of the city's Community service. Programs that benefit the lower income population are funded through the CDBG funds as well. Okay. |
| 00:35:04.02 | Councilmember Kellman | I'm sure we'll revisit that, but with the permission of my colleagues, I'd like to ask Director Phipps to flag that as something to nail down and to say with some certainty the impact to us of not having access to those grants. Okay, two more questions here. This one relates to the EIR and the fact that the EIR scoping meeting just began. Say for example, we had additional sites to add. More people stepped up and received notice and said, hey, this is a great idea, we wanna add our you know, our person's on here as well. Is now the time to do that because of the status of the EIR? |
| 00:35:40.25 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | The EIR is underway and being prepared. So if we were to change sites significantly, we would then have to go and redo a lot of the analysis in the EIR. So this probably isn't the best time to add sites. The best time to add sites was back when the site list was being developed. What the city can do though is, |
| 00:35:47.93 | Vicki Nichols | EIR. |
| 00:35:57.55 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | You can, you know, adopt the housing element, have the EIR, and then you can go back and you can revise your sites. So the state definitely allows for amendments to the housing element during the cycle. So if there's a desire to change sites, you identify sites that are more feasible, more desirable. you can definitely revise those sites and then prepare either an addendum to the EIR or a subsequent document that just addresses those modifications to the housing element. |
| 00:36:22.73 | Councilmember Kellman | I guess the reason for my question is because it doesn't seem like we're very far along, even though we have finally issued the public notice, it's really so nascent as opposed to being primarily almost done kind of thing. But let me shift to my last question. So you had a program 19, you had analysis of the odds, and thank you for bringing that up. I read that slide and heard your comments to suggest that we better get a move on it when it comes to the objective design standards and need to adopt those. Um, Did I hear that correctly? And if so, I will also ask Director Phipps to flag that as something to come back to us. |
| 00:37:00.21 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | And yes, we are anticipating that one set of the odds would be adopted this year and then subsequent odds would be adopted in 2025. Yes. Thank you, Beth. Very soon. |
| 00:37:10.75 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:37:11.01 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | Yeah. |
| 00:37:11.31 | Melissa Blossom | you Councilmember Cox, do you have some questions for Beth? |
| 00:37:14.67 | Councilmember Cox | Yes, thank you so much. Thank you for your report. Beth, I noticed that the PowerPoint presentation is not attached to our staff report. It would be helpful to receive those in advance of our meetings in the future. Is it possible to get a copy of the PowerPoint presentation because it had a lot of information? |
| 00:37:32.25 | Unknown | you |
| 00:37:32.29 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | it. |
| 00:37:32.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:37:32.57 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:37:32.61 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | Absolutely. And that I think will just get posted to the agenda and to the city's website so we can make sure that that's available. |
| 00:37:39.78 | Councilmember Cox | And, uh, Council member Kelman asked you about the slipping of the schedule when you decided on May 23 to extend the schedule to adopt the housing element in January, which now we're not going to do that either. Did you notify the city council of the consequences of not timely adopting a housing element. |
| 00:38:02.78 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | Hi. I would have to look back at our meetings that we had with city council because we did check in with city council a couple of times. |
| 00:38:10.07 | Councilmember Cox | I've attended every housing element committee meeting and every city council meeting and I never heard any mention of loss of block grant funding, any mention of Builder's Remedy. So I just would like to find out when and how Thank you. you notified the city council of the consequences of the schedule being extended. |
| 00:38:34.07 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | And we also likely did notify staff and That would be frequently in most communities we work with, staff would then itemize that for city council discussion. |
| 00:38:44.48 | Councilmember Cox | All right, but you've had several meetings with the city council most recently in August. So if the site's inventory was delaying, the finalization of the housing element and the resultant environmental review, I would hope that you would notify the decision makers directly of that fact. My next question is, I understand that HCD will be providing comments and that we must After receipt of those comments demonstrate substantial compliance with housing law. Um, Is there and then HCD gets to review the housing element again. What is the deadline for final adoption after receipt of HCD comments? I know we're missing the January deadline, but is there also a May 31 deadline? |
| 00:39:34.33 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | There is not a May 31 deadline per se. So- Once the housing element, once you receive HCD comments, some jurisdictions send their draft housing element, they revise the housing element to address comments and they send the revised draft back to HCD for a subsequent comment period. Sausalito does not need to do that. You can do that and a lot of jurisdictions do that to ensure that they fully address the comments, but you are also able to adopt the housing element and submit an adopted housing element to the state for review. And then if it's not. doesn't meet their requirements, you can then go through and revise the housing element again. It just won't be in substantial compliance. or at least that it won't be found to be in substantial compliance by the state. The city may believe it to be in substantial compliance and adopt it with a resolution, you know, with based on the findings that the city council makes. |
| 00:40:26.77 | Councilmember Cox | So as a follow on to that, were the city council to move forward with adoption on the 31st, making those findings that it could between the date it receives HCD's comments and the date it adopts. And, the city council could subsequently amend the housing element. Correct? Correct. And should the city council subsequently amend the housing element, those amendments would relate back to the initial date of adoption. And so the date of adoption would still be January 31, not the date that the amended housing element was adopted. Is that right? |
| 00:41:03.12 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:41:03.48 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:41:03.59 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | Yeah. |
| 00:41:03.85 | Councilmember Cox | you |
| 00:41:03.86 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | Ha ha. I don't believe state law addresses that nuance. I have always understood it to be the date that the element was adopted the element that HCD found to be in substantial compliance was adopted. So if your January 31st element isn't found to be in substantial compliance, HCD is not going to count that as the final date. They're going to wait for you to readopt it to be in substantial compliance |
| 00:41:25.52 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. that's not my understanding. So I'm going to ask the city attorney to weigh in on that at some point, not necessarily right now. |
| 00:41:31.62 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | That would be great. |
| 00:41:33.13 | Councilmember Cox | And then, If HCD requires revisions, if they find some of our opportunity sites unacceptable, would that not also require environmental review if we have to substitute new sites for the ones found unacceptable? |
| 00:41:49.60 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | And that could also, yes, require additional review. And so some jurisdictions also have programs that are, we have a limited number of sites in the housing element. So you do have some buffer. Some jurisdictions have a much broader list of sites. So there's a lot more capacity to kind of pick and choose with their sites. So we could definitely add some more sites and through the EIR process, we built, we will be identifying some alternatives, including increasing densities on sites and then also some additional sites that have some potential. |
| 00:42:19.87 | Councilmember Cox | So if we adopt a housing element with the exemption that you mentioned, Um, and then adopt our EIR in connection with our zoning Can we not postpone the EIR to accompany the zoning changes as opposed to accompanying the adoption of the housing element? Thank you. |
| 00:42:42.65 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | Oh, yeah. |
| 00:42:42.80 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:42:43.21 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | Yes, if you're adopting the housing out with an exemption, you would just by virtue of that action be postponing the EIR to something else. So that's an option for us. I would want the city attorney to weigh in on that since the city had planned to adopt the housing element with an EIR. As I mentioned, jurisdictions throughout the state do adopt their housing element with an exemption, but there are jurisdictions who have sites that are already looked at in their general plan for higher densities. And then some of them do have rezoning programs, but they still adopt with an exemption. So there's kind of a range of opportunities out there. |
| 00:43:17.74 | Councilmember Cox | Okay, so again, I don't expect the city attorney to respond to that this evening, but thank you for that. potential alternative. And my last question is, I think you said that you had a conversation with HCD and got a portent of some of the comments. Can you share with us what you learned from them about their preliminary comments? |
| 00:43:39.27 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | Yeah, absolutely. So they hadn't reviewed the inventory in detail yet, and they had not yet reviewed the housing plan, all the way through. So they started reviewing the housing element and they did identify some concerns regarding just the availability of infrastructure in the city. The housing element discusses that there are some areas with aging infrastructure. And so they want some additional information to identify the, Availability of infrastructure and then also more importantly to ensure that the housing element has a program to ensure that the city has a plan in place to provide adequate infrastructure to the sites and identifying some funding sources that the state has available to assist with infrastructure improvements. They also added for some analysis of the specific findings for a use permit for group homes that serve seven or more people and recommended that some changes be made to ensure that those are fairly and equitably accommodated and not without any undue constraints. And then they asked for additional detail regarding the city's reasonable accommodation process, specifically whether or not any of the findings are subjective or constrain the process. They recommended that regarding the program four, which addresses the need for, the program that addresses the rezoning requirements, that the city look at the city of Newport beaches programs. And they also have a program that addresses a special election and also recommended that we look at the city of Yorba Linda's programs as well. And we did consult the city of Yorba Linda's program. I am not sure that Newport Beach was adopted at the time we were drafting those programs, but we did look at Yorba Linda's program and The housing element definitely reflects some of the information in that. And she also asked for some additional information regarding potential flooding and sea level rise impacts regarding some of the existing housing. along the shoreline and whether or not there would be any undue impacts to any of the protected classes addressed in the affirmatively furthering fair housing analysis. and, Director Phipps specifically mentioned Galilee Harbor, that we could discuss some impacts to Galilee Harbor since they're a known lower income community along the shoreline. |
| 00:45:50.93 | Councilmember Cox | Will you please summarize those comments and send them to the city council so that we can start to undertake. our thought about how we will address those in our findings. Absolutely. Okay, that's the extent of my questions. Thank you so much. |
| 00:46:06.87 | Unknown | you |
| 00:46:07.60 | Councilmember Cox | And, Thank you. |
| 00:46:08.46 | Melissa Blossom | I- I just want to say, you know, thank you for the presentation. And also thank you to HIAC who put in a lot of time here. I appreciate what you're saying about the difficulty of finding sites and how long that takes. However, I think it's pretty clear from all the members on the council that we're not going to accept not submitting for this statutory deadline of the 31st. And I've already said we're going to have a meeting on January 30th. I'm prepared to call for a special meeting every day for the next 18 days if that's what it takes. So if you could just outline what absolutely must happen with the planning commission and the city council between now and the 30th so that we can agendize this appropriately and pursue one of the options, perhaps that Councilmember Cox just pointed out that would be helpful. |
| 00:46:54.21 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | I'll coordinate with staff to identify what needs to happen because I want to make sure that we give you the correct information. |
| 00:47:02.88 | Melissa Blossom | Okay, but when do you think you can have that available given that we have 18 days until the January 30th meeting and and we are very committed to submitting our housing element in advance of the statutory deadline. |
| 00:47:14.22 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | I think we can figure that out next week. |
| 00:47:18.49 | Melissa Blossom | But Council Member Kelman, you have your hand raised. |
| 00:47:21.90 | Councilmember Kellman | Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, sorry to go again. Councilman Cox raised a couple of important issues I want to circle back on. uh, FACT QUESTION. THE FEEDBACK WE GOT FROM HCD AROUND GALILEE AS AN EXAMPLE, DOES HCD'S FEEDBACK AT ALL COMMENT ON properties that are within our sphere of influence, but not within the city boundaries. So I mentioned that because you may or may not know that main dock which is within our sphere of influence by an unincorporated marine county is also a means-based community. And so I just wanna get clarity on whether or not each of these comments include properties within our sphere of influence? And then I have a second question about EIR. |
| 00:48:02.55 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | No, they don't include properties within your sphere. |
| 00:48:05.42 | Councilmember Kellman | Okay, thank you for that. And then the second, I guess, we talked a lot about the EIR, what we can and can't rely on. I've always sort of been confused about Plan Bay Area 2050's EIRs. because it focuses specifically on transportation and housing and affordability. To what extent can we rely on that existing work and tear off of that? And you can't tell if it's a programmatic EIR or if it's a regional EIR. So any insight on that? |
| 00:48:32.69 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | So you definitely can look at the Plan Bay Area 2050 EIR for cumulative impacts because it addresses the cumulative effect of implementing Plan Bay Area, which specifically includes the regional housing need allocation for the sixth cycle. In terms of site-specific analysis for the community of Sausalito, Planned Bay Area is definitely Um, It doesn't look at specific communities and specific impacts to communities, so it doesn't address the impact to Sausalito of accommodating or of adopting its housing element to accommodate state law. |
| 00:49:05.95 | Councilmember Kellman | Because even though it has broad policy statements around the type of properties or parcels we want to prioritize our housing elements because it's not specific on a parcel basis. It's not as applicable as we would hope. |
| 00:49:18.78 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | Not, but you know, we will definitely, as one of the potential measures to get you to the 31st, I'm sure Steph and I will be taking a look at that as well. Yep, that's it. |
| 00:49:26.76 | Natasha Saab | That's it. That's what I do. |
| 00:49:28.19 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | Thank you. and I think that's a great thing. That's a good one. I know when they adopted the 2050 ER, it's like, okay, this should just cover every jurisdiction's housing element. That would be so nice. That's right. Okay, thanks for that. Thanks for picking up on that. |
| 00:49:41.74 | Melissa Blossom | Are there any further questions from the city council before I return to the planning commission for their final questions and take public comment? Okay, so, oh, Council Member Sobieski, please. |
| 00:49:51.12 | Vice Mayor Sobieski | Well, I do have a question. It's a little bit off this very the most important issue, which is what we've all been asking about. But since this is our Q&A, I will ask you, Beth, At that August meeting, he, you, running the consulting firm said that you would be able to follow up on the city council direction, which was given at that meeting. which was for HIAC to look at the sensible Sausalito sites that had been identified by members of the community and also the MarinShip Fair Share Plan that was developed by community venture partners. Um, Was that? followed up on what did those sites and that Marineship Fresh Air Plan get a presentation at HIAC. |
| 00:50:35.34 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | No, they did not. They were not agendized for HIAC. So the HIAC kind of stayed on their course. But there was an opportunity to have done that, but that was not possible. then |
| 00:50:48.13 | Vice Mayor Sobieski | That was the unanimous direction of five members of the city council. Why was that not done? |
| 00:50:52.90 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | And I will have to go back and look at the specific direction because I had thought that that was related to work outside of the housing element and not specifically to there was a lot of discussion about developing kind of a sustainable approach. |
| 00:50:55.01 | Vice Mayor Sobieski | I'm not sure. |
| 00:51:03.77 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | to the city's longer term housing needs. And I believe that was part of that discussion, but I'll have to go back and look at that. |
| 00:51:09.98 | Vice Mayor Sobieski | where you said that you would do it and it would be, you'd be able to do it within the total budget that we're paying. your consulting firm. |
| 00:51:17.09 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | I did say that and we were not directed by staff to do that. So we did not do that. |
| 00:51:23.95 | Vice Mayor Sobieski | you were at the meeting where we voted unanimously to do it, right? |
| 00:51:28.02 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | Thank you. |
| 00:51:28.04 | Melissa Blossom | I was at that meeting. I'm going to go to the city attorney. surgery. |
| 00:51:37.71 | Melissa Blossom | We can't hear you. You're still muted. |
| 00:51:41.55 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. I wanted to chime in on a couple of questions that were posed to the city attorney's office with respect to the May 31st deadline and whether or not there was such a deadline. first, In order to have three years to adopt the program of rezoning required to provide all adequate sites, the ABAC's technical assistance memorandum and my review of the statute cited in it suggests that you have to adopt a compliant housing element by April 1st, 2023. The reason for that is because HCD has to find that it is in compliance by no later than May 31st, i.e. 120 days after your statutory deadline. Um, and HCD is afforded 60 days in the statutes to review any submission that you guys provide after adoption. basically the deadline you're shooting for if you want to ensure you have the full three years for the program of rezoning would be adoption by no later than April 1st. Hopefully that's helpful. |
| 00:52:51.26 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | Thank you. Could I interject briefly? Yes, Beth. If I'm trying to get from April 3rd, this is for Sergio Roodin, but if, HCD has 60 days to review it. Wouldn't we want to make sure that it's adopted by March to give them that 60 days to review it? Or no? |
| 00:53:08.58 | Sergio Rudin | So, Their deadline, I believe, is May 31st. April 1st, you would want to be submitting it to HCD. |
| 00:53:16.44 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | Okay, I'm sorry, I thought you said the end of April, so yes. |
| 00:53:19.11 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah. |
| 00:53:20.49 | Melissa Blossom | Okay, and I'm now gonna go to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Sad, you had your hand raised first. |
| 00:53:28.07 | Commissioner Saad | Um, Thank you, Mayor Blossom for the second opportunity. Beth, in one of the previous HIAC meetings, we had discussed that were supposed to be part of the scope as well. I believe it was for eight specific sites. Um, Are those completed and are those going to have an opportunity to have an impact on anything moving forward? |
| 00:53:53.20 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | So I believe six of those have been completed and those have not yet been forwarded to me, but they were and those were completed separately from the housing element update. So those were part of the odds effort and I believe those have been completed. And so we have we hopefully will have those for the next town hall meeting and then the last two I had forwarded the consultants recommendations to staff and we're just waiting to get those final questions. final site selection. parameters identified so those can be finalized. |
| 00:54:22.78 | Commissioner Saad | Okay. And then we also had discussed an essentially, we worded it somewhat like a pick and choose list. type list. So when we were having the discussion about potentially removing sites, there was a lot of public comment around. some core sites and I believe. Action wanted to be taken, but there was concern if we remove one site, we don't know what the implications were. Was there a chance to complete that list? that we were we'd be able to use to see if we remove one site, how we'd be able to complement it by choosing a different opportunity site. So we have to, |
| 00:54:58.22 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | We have the list of sites that are in the housing element that went to the state and that was the public review draft housing element. And so that has some, there's some buffer and some access there. And then as part of the EIR, we're also identifying some alternatives to provide the city a little more flexibility. |
| 00:55:04.51 | Commissioner Saad | Right. |
| 00:55:04.90 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 00:55:14.01 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | And so that will be part of the EIR. |
| 00:55:16.58 | Melissa Blossom | I just want to be mindful that program four is not proposed for detailed discussion at this meeting. So in order to be compliant with the Brown Act, we have to be careful about how much we talk about specific sites. But I do appreciate the questions with respect to whether or not tasks were completed and what we're still waiting on. Just wanted to make that clarification. |
| 00:55:32.15 | Commissioner Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:55:32.69 | Melissa Blossom | Sorry. |
| 00:55:33.03 | Commissioner Saad | Sure. No, thank you, Mayor Blasie. I was speaking in general. So thank you, Beth, for that confirmation. |
| 00:55:40.99 | Melissa Blossom | Are you completed with your questions, Commissioner Sed? I am. Thank you. Yes. Okay. I will go to Commissioner Filler. |
| 00:55:46.82 | Jeffrey Luxenberg | Great, thank you very much, Mayor. Beth, I just wanted to quickly review with you for the benefit of everybody in this meeting tonight. Can we go over a little bit of the math? about the buffer that we had built into what was submitted to the state in terms of the number of sites and the number of units that we could fit. Because my understanding is that, I think I understood this correctly, that HCD has not commented on the site inventory yet. So I want to understand if you can just quickly review those numbers in that math real quick. |
| 00:56:25.73 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | Absolutely. So the draft housing element includes capacity for about 828 units, which exceeds your regional housing need allocation by 104 units. So you've got some buffer there. And the buffer really focuses around the lower income units as well as the moderate income units. There's no buffer for your above moderate income units. |
| 00:56:46.87 | Jeffrey Luxenberg | Okay, and so if the comments that you and Director Phipps have received so far from HCD don't, address any of the site inventory How do you recommend you know, the Planning Commission, City Council, move forth to meet this January 31st deadline with that buffer. Are you suggesting that we actually submit our housing plan with excessive units. |
| 00:57:17.42 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | Most jurisdictions do. So you do want to include a buffer when you submit your housing element. That gives you flexibility as projects are approved. Otherwise, if you approve a project that has less low income units or less units, then you're assuming all of a sudden you have to go back and update your housing element to add additional sites. So it is good to have a buffer in your housing element given that you're looking at the 31st, I think there are some ways to increase your capacity a bit more. It might be. increasing the minimum densities that are allowed in the housing overlays just to provide a slightly higher unit count in some additional capacity. we may go through and make some recommendations for changes prior to the EIR being completed just to give you even more flexibility if you're submitting on the 31st. And I'll really have to talk to staff just to see what their direction and their input is regarding regarding that. |
| 00:58:15.45 | Sergio Rudin | And I would strongly recommend the city include a buffer in terms of its adopted housing element as a result of the state's no net loss law, which provides that for sites that you have identified at a specific density, you can't prohibit a developer from proposing a project that comes in a lower density. But the issue is, is if you don't have additional buffer space, then you have to undertake immediate rezoning as part of the approval of their project. So that is something you typically want to avoid having to do. |
| 00:58:44.93 | Jeffrey Luxenberg | Okay, that's actually very helpful. So thank you for clarifying that. And just a follow on question, related to do you have was there any commitment by htd or do you and director phipps have any scheduled plan to Talk to HTD before their comments get to us on the 26th. |
| 00:59:05.67 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | We're planning to speak with them two to three days before their comments come out, but their comments, you know, the preliminary discussions aren't a commitment as to what their comments will be. So we'll still also be waiting to see their actual written findings, but we are hoping to get a little more of a preview of what will be coming our way. |
| 00:59:18.53 | Jeffrey Luxenberg | are. |
| 00:59:22.46 | Jeffrey Luxenberg | Do you expect to get any comment on the site inventory? |
| 00:59:26.55 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | Absolutely. |
| 00:59:27.98 | Jeffrey Luxenberg | Okay. All right. Thank you. |
| 00:59:30.39 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you, thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Commissioner Feller. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 00:59:35.22 | Chair Luxenberg | Cheers. |
| 00:59:36.06 | Melissa Blossom | Pardon me. |
| 00:59:36.99 | Chair Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Blomstie. Beth, on the first of all, the materials that the city council asked for you to submit, can you also submit those to the planning commission? That would be helpful. And with regard to the March 1st date that was mentioned as far as this trigger not occurring until March 1st. I want to understand the dates as far as the HCD response comes in on January 26th. If we get that response and we get this EIR scope, AND WE WANTED TO INCLUDE DER, WHAT IS THE EARLIEST DATE THAT WE COULD READOPT THIS BY THE MARCH 1 DATE THAT WAS MENTIONED AS FOR THAT ONE TRIGGER NOT BEING IMPLEMENTED? |
| 01:00:26.45 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | Not by March 1st. I would... |
| 01:00:36.14 | Sergio Rudin | So under CEQA, you are required to first put out a notice of preparation for an EIR, which has a 30-day comment period, and then you're not allowed to publish your draft EIR |
| 01:00:36.16 | Unknown | So understand. |
| 01:00:47.92 | Sergio Rudin | or your notice availability informing the public that the public comment period is open. until that 30 day. period for the scoping and notice of preparation has been completed. After that, you're allowed to have a public comment period, which typically ranges from 30 to 60 days. So even on the short short scale, you know, it would be very difficult, I think, to adopt by the close of March, which would be the deadline to avoid having to complete your programs of rezoning by one year instead of three years, but not necessarily impossible. |
| 01:01:28.38 | Chair Luxenberg | Mayor Mrakas, M.D.: Let me ask you this question related that then if we move aside the RR do this as part of the resounding or. Mayor Mrakas, M.D.: However, that was suggested earlier, if we just focus on getting hd's hcd comments review and make sure that we have something that is going to qualify because. Mayor Mrakas, M.D.: going through all this effort and adopting something and find out it doesn't qualify because they have a bunch of comments we didn't address. What is the reasonable timeline you think if we get those comments on January 26th and you talked to them ahead, that we could finish all that and still not have this one-year trigger as opposed to the three-year on the rezoning? What's reasonable to make sure we get a qualified, approved plan rather than rushing to adopt something that might not be approved? |
| 01:02:24.54 | Beth (Consultant from DeNovo Group) | And that, so there's really no guarantee with HCD when you get their comments. And then when they review your submittal, you might get different comments the second time around, or they might not anticipate, or they might not find that you have made all the changes that they wanted to see to address their findings. So there's not, not really a guarantee here, but I would anticipate that from when we get HCD's comments, you know, within three weeks, we would be able to address the majority of them to have a housing element that addresses the comments. Every once in a while, there are comments that take longer to address if they require significant research. I would anticipate that three weeks would be adequate time to review the state's comments, make all of the revisions to the housing element. that would be necessary. |
| 01:03:05.43 | Chair Luxenberg | you know, necessary. And if that were in order for approved after that, I guess, Sergio, that still complies so that we still have three years to do rezoning. |
| 01:03:18.14 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, I think as long as the city adopts a compliant housing element, i.e. an element that HCD deems to be compliant, If you adopt it, before April 1st so that HCD can make its findings by May 31st, then Yes, in theory, you would have three years to complete your program rezoning. |
| 01:03:37.09 | Chair Luxenberg | Okay, thank you very much. Those are my comments, questions at the moment. They're well-seeing. |
| 01:03:45.17 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you. Okay, we're going to open it up for public comment at this time and given the amount of items on the agenda this evening we're going to limit public comment to two minutes per speaker. So city clerk would you please remind members of the public how to give public comment at this time both for those present and those on zoom. |
| 01:03:45.44 | Chair Luxenberg | you. |
| 01:04:03.70 | Walfred Solorzano | For those that are on Zoom, please use the Raise Hand application. And if you're on the telephone, then you can use a star nine. |
| 01:04:14.06 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you. |
| 01:04:14.47 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. And at this moment, we'll give it a few moments. See if anybody has their hand up. |
| 01:04:18.41 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:04:24.34 | Walfred Solorzano | And we do. Peter McGuire. |
| 01:04:36.94 | Walfred Solorzano | Peter McGuire. |
| 01:04:37.70 | Melissa Blossom | Hi, Peter. Bye. |
| 01:04:40.05 | Walfred Solorzano | You know, meet yourself, please. |
| 01:04:43.34 | Melissa Blossom | We still can't hear you, sir. You're still muted. |
| 01:04:46.68 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 01:04:46.72 | Peter McGuire | I love it. Thank you. |
| 01:04:47.05 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 01:04:47.10 | Melissa Blossom | Peace. |
| 01:04:47.42 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 01:04:47.88 | Peter McGuire | How do I unmute? |
| 01:04:49.18 | Melissa Blossom | You're unmuted. Welcome. |
| 01:04:50.87 | Peter McGuire | Am I in, can you hear me now? We sure can. Thank you very much. Um, I have comments with respect to a specific site, but before I say that, I just want to make a general comment. This is a mess. I'm not sure everybody in this room and understand all the implications of what's going on. And it's kind of disturbing. that at this late stage of this process, There's this much confusion. Truly. My name is Peter McGuire, and I represent about 20 property owners on Marion Avenue and South Street. who oppose 66 Americans. in the current housing element. I want you to, I referenced you to appendix three comment six of the agenda. that first references the opposing letters to 66 Marriott. There were two statements in that provision that I'd like to comment on. The first is a statement that there were nine opposition letters. This is substantially understated. I think there'll be another caller who'll give you more clarified information about The second assertion bears repeating. and I quote, At this point in the process, housing sites are not recommended for a removal from the draft housing element based upon community opposition. Close quote. |
| 01:06:20.79 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:06:20.81 | Melissa Blossom | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:06:21.42 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:06:21.43 | Peter McGuire | Thank you. |
| 01:06:21.92 | Melissa Blossom | I wanted to note that We are not speaking to specific sites for this evening's meeting. It's not proposed for detailed discussion at this time. We did receive your letter and we will have another meeting on January 30th where we'll go in depth on all of the sites. But I want to make sure that we are in compliance with the Brown Act and only accepting public comment on items as they're agendized. |
| 01:06:43.25 | Peter McGuire | Okay, that's fair and I apologize. It was not clear to me looking at the agenda. And again, this is part of this process. It's very confusing. And I followed this process very closely. over the last months and how this process worked. is confusing. So if I need to postpone these comments on a specific site until that time, I will do so. But I'd also like to be informed that that's in fact the date that I can make those comments. |
| 01:07:13.64 | Melissa Blossom | like We're up. |
| 01:07:16.01 | Peter McGuire | Okay. |
| 01:07:16.04 | Melissa Blossom | Okay? |
| 01:07:17.07 | Peter McGuire | Thank you. |
| 01:07:17.12 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you very much, Ms. McGuire. |
| 01:07:17.14 | Peter McGuire | Thank you. All right, now, again, I just make a general comment because I think I... |
| 01:07:24.41 | Melissa Blossom | I think we can give him the 30 seconds back on the general comments because he had some comments with regards to the general practice of the housing element before we cut him off. |
| 01:07:32.24 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:07:33.02 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you. |
| 01:07:33.32 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:07:34.00 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you. |
| 01:07:34.03 | Unknown | You're muted there, Mr. McGuire. I'm muted. Still muted. |
| 01:07:43.09 | Unknown | Still muted. |
| 01:07:47.09 | Unknown | Can you hear us, Mr. McGuire? |
| 01:07:53.72 | Walfred Solorzano | We can't. We can't hear you at all. I'm not. unmute yourself, please. |
| 01:08:02.75 | Walfred Solorzano | you should ask, |
| 01:08:03.49 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you. |
| 01:08:03.58 | Walfred Solorzano | I think. |
| 01:08:03.59 | Peter McGuire | Okay, I tried again. |
| 01:08:03.97 | Melissa Blossom | I'll try it again. Great. I wanted to make sure you have an opportunity to continue your- Thank you. |
| 01:08:07.16 | Peter McGuire | Thank you. And I will withhold my comments on a specific site until that later date, as long as I have notification about that. But let me just make a general comment again to what I have. I simply don't understand why this process has been so delayed. We seem to be behind every other city in Marin. This is a particular concern with respect to the EIR, which is months behind schedule. That's going to leave very little time for the public to review and comment. You know, I mean, you guys are running a distinct risk. that this entire process will be viewed as fatally flawed. And I know a substantial number of property owners |
| 01:08:52.19 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you. |
| 01:08:53.16 | Peter McGuire | who have coming to that conclusion. |
| 01:08:55.76 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you, Mr. I appreciate that. |
| 01:08:56.08 | Peter McGuire | So... I appreciate that in mind. |
| 01:08:58.37 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you very much. We'll move on to the next public comment. |
| 01:09:02.89 | Walfred Solorzano | And we have Sandra Bushmaker. |
| 01:09:04.30 | Melissa Blossom | Welcome Sandra. |
| 01:09:10.28 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, I'll keep it sweet and short. Good evening, council and planning commission. There seems to be still some confusion in the air as to the consequences of certain dates. If I heard the city attorney correctly, the three one-year thing with regard to changing the zoning ordinance, will not be triggered. if we meet it by the 1st of April. That's what I heard. But how about the other consequences? And I think we need to get a really clear notion of what happens to the other consequences of missing men, January 31st, Date. And I don't feel that clarity. I don't hear that clarity. And I think we need to know. I am of the opinion, this is my personal opinion, that we need to push and try to do what we can to adopt a housing element by January 31st. And I would like to see effort on the city's part and staff's time to make that happen. so that we don't get caught after the fact. With oops, this consequence does kick in. Thank you. |
| 01:10:21.55 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you. |
| 01:10:22.56 | Ian Sobieski | And, |
| 01:10:22.63 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you, Sandra. |
| 01:10:27.94 | Walfred Solorzano | And I believe that was our final speaker. |
| 01:10:31.52 | Melissa Blossom | Okay, I will now close public comment. And in the interest of order, I'm going to hand it over to Chair Luxembourg to take whatever comment there may be from the Planning Commission before I turn it back over to the Council for Staff Direction. |
| 01:10:43.22 | Chair Luxenberg | Thank you, Mayor Bonstein. So at this point, the Planning Commission is going to, at its next meeting on the 25th, we'll figure out and get input from De Novo on what we have to do and the steps we have to do it. We would like clarity, we would like clarity, I would like clarity on this confirming of this March or April date, also confirming whether CBDG things CLARITY ON THIS CONFIRMING OF THIS MARCH OR APRIL DATE, ALSO CONFIRMING WHETHER CBDG THINGS ARE AT RISK AND IF THERE ARE ANY DEVELOPERS THAT COULD USE A DEVELOPER'S REMEDY IN THIS SHORT TIMELINE UNTIL WE GET THIS APPROVED. BUT I THINK WE DO NEED TO GO WITH A QUALIFIED AND NOT RUSH SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T END UP BEING QUALIFIED BECAUSE WE WON'T HAVE ACCOMPLISHED ANYTHING. BUT AS I SAID, WE WILL BE DEALING WITH THE NEXT STEPS AT OUR NEXT MEETING. BUT WITH THAT, IF WE COULD ASK THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, IF YOU FOLKS CAN RAISE YOUR HANDS, I CAN CALL ON YOU IF YOU DO HAVE QUESTIONS. I'm not seeing any, so I am seeing Commissioner Feller. If you could ask your questions at this point, thank you. |
| 01:11:58.80 | Jeffrey Luxenberg | Yeah, I would just, just to maybe reemphasize what you said, Chair Luxembourg, Beth, this is a conversation we've been having for some time. We need a very clear schedule. with deliverables, output, whatever you want to call it, and not sort of colorful diagrams with ranges of dates. We really need to understand and be able to reverse engineer what we need to do and when we need to do it and how long it's going to take us. Obviously we're under the gun and we have less, you know, we have a little over two weeks now to get this done. And we need to be working together Planning Commission, City Council, we obviously rely on the public for their input as well. but we need that from you. So I would ask that you please prepare that urgently and don't wait for any other hearing from either body to get that distributed. The only other thing, Chair Luxembourg, is I just want to note that we also received a couple other public comments on this item in writing. And I just want to, I believe there were two different comments that were received. I just want to I believe there were two different comments that were received I just want to publicly note those for the record And that's all I have. Thank you. |
| 01:13:21.05 | Chair Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner of Color. Any other commissioners that have any other questions at this point? With not, I'll turn it back over to Mayor Blaskin. |
| 01:13:31.66 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you. And were there any comments from other commissioners? Okay, thank you very much planning Commission. We appreciate it. Okay, and now I'm going to turn it over to the Council for for comments and potentially some staff direction. Councilmember Kelman. |
| 01:13:49.75 | Councilmember Kellman | Thank you, Mayor. I want to pick up on the theme that you articulated around making sure we have a clear plan of attack to get us to that January 30th date. So in addition to endorsing everything Chair Luxembourg just shared with us, I want to just repeat some of the requests I'd made to Director Phipps and to Beth Um, IN ADDITION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENT, I definitely think we need to understand the risks of the community block development grants or the CBDG grants. It sounds like we need further clarity around how quickly we need to act on the odds. I'm hearing we need to act expeditiously and so we need to prioritize that review and as they relate to this matter. Sounds like we need to evaluate whether the plan Bay Area EIR could help us streamline some of the EIR and CEQA requirements. Um, I heard tonight there was some feedback from HCD. I would appreciate it if Beth could memorialize that in an email to the full council. in the Planning Commission so we could see exactly what that was. We have that top of mind. And then any information we may have from DeNovo around schedule, I think one of the planning commissioners mentioned it, with as much specificity as possible. So if it's possible, the HCD might give the feedback to us prior to the 26th, that would be really very helpful. But if it's only going to be the 26th, then certainly we'll plan for that. So I think those are my main comments at this time in terms of next steps. I am fully in favor of having another special joint meeting on the 30th. That makes sense to me. those are my main comments at this time in terms of next steps. I am fully in favor of having another special joint meeting on the 30th. That makes sense to me. So I'm I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you, Council Member Hoffman. |
| 01:15:33.20 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. And, um, Thanks to the staff and Beth for your candid responses tonight. I think from our strategy and from my understanding of what the quite severe consequences are from not certifying by, January 31st and the fact that we don't actually need the EIR to certify our housing element that we need to decouple that and we need to give direction tonight from the city council to the consultant. We want to decouple EIR. We want to go full steam ahead with adopting a plan by January 31st. Period. And we're, we have our next city council meeting Our next regular city council meeting is January 24th. Who knows how many we'll have between them, Um, I would like. Yeah, I would like Beth to give it, if we don't have another one. but Beth to give the full city council updates as we're moving through this. And you're going to have, my understanding is you're going to have another call with HCD about further comments. I would like to report out. about that no later than our January 24th city council meeting. And then whatever we as a council need to do in between to finalize our plan, that's the priority for the next two and a half weeks. That's my perspective. And if we need to vote on that to give direction tonight, then I say we vote on that. But I think we have probably consensus among the city council on that. |
| 01:16:58.58 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Hoffman. Councilmember Sobieski, do you want to |
| 01:17:07.71 | Vice Mayor Sobieski | I don't know that I need to pile on. But this sounds like an approach, the one that Councilmember Hoffman laid out and Councilmember Cox articulated. And Councilmember Kellman, I think we have a plan about how we're going to proceed. Um, there will be a, At times I try to understand again, why we are in this position given the amount of money we spent on this consultant and the timing that Jen L. Kelman outlined. Uh... And again, it was a secondary question, I don't know when we have a 5-0 vote on city council, I don't know why that isn't taken as direction and why the the he acted or the consultant didn't respond directly to that direction. So there was certainly a problem in our process. And it's frustrating, but we have to deal with the problem that we have. And it sounds like we do have a path towards dealing with that problem. |
| 01:17:58.73 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you, Councilmember Sobieski. |
| 01:18:00.02 | Councilmember Cox | Amber Cox, thank you. |
| 01:18:01.71 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you. |
| 01:18:01.73 | Councilmember Cox | um, I totally endorse the comments of Councilmember Hoffman about getting a um, update from Beth on the 24th. She was saying that she should hear back from HCD on the 23rd. So I would definitely like to have a report to the full council on the 24th. I don't know if we need to ask for this, but, um, Council member Kelman and I are on the subcommittee of the city council for. the housing element. I would like to formally. Excuse the housing element to be sure that we are not inadvertently I'm accused of not going through them in terms of our final adoption of our housing elements. So I think that, um, this evening or whenever it's appropriate, we should thank and excuse the Housing Element Advisory Committee, I would like authority because staff has communicated in emails to me and Janelle that they do not have adequate time and resources to respond between January 26th and January 30, to HCD's comments that we're expecting on January 26th. Uh, the council to direct myself and. Council member Kellman to go ahead and put in the effort and work to draft. findings. addressing HCD comments, make draft revisions. consistent with HCD comments to present to the city council at our special meeting on the 30th. in an effort to adopt a housing element that is as close to as possible. knowing and understanding that we may well have to adopt an amended housing element to April 1. in order to gain HCDs Final. Approval. I endorse what Councilmember Hoffman said about decoupling zoning, assuming that our city attorney agrees that that's an approach. that our city attorney has worked with other cities that have adopted a housing element prior to completing. the CEQA process. I don't know if we need to just hit the pause button adopt an exemption with respect to the adoption of the housing element and then focus on CEQA analysis for the, Zoning. amendments. I don't I thought that was really well enunciated by Beth Thompson, but I would like to confirm with our city attorney that that's an acceptable approach to reduce risk to the city. um, Those are my requests and comments. Thank you. |
| 01:20:46.11 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you very much, Councilmember Cox. So I think that we are all absolutely in agreement that we will submit a housing element by the January 31st statutory deadline. And it sounds like everyone is in agreement with Councilmember Hoffman's approach of decoupling the EIR and zoning from the submittal of the housing element. The direction that we're giving, it seems, will be to do everything necessary to make that happen in a timely manner and verify with our city attorney that that is the best possible legal approach. In terms of us reaching our deadline, I would definitely like to give direction. I feel that we're very fortunate to have two attorneys like Council member Kelvin and Council member Cox willing to take on a response to all of the comments in such a short timeline. and appreciate that effort and happy to have them have you spend several hours of your volunteer time so that we are able to pass this housing element. In addition to us doing the work to get this done, a couple of other direction that I heard with regards to what we'd like to see DeNovo do next, is to more closely outline perhaps in partnership with the city attorney what exactly the risks of the community are specifically around the block development grants as Councilmember Kelman outlined. What are the what's the clarity on the odds and what do we need to do for the odds and the approach there. And then with regards to the EIR can we evaluate plan Bay Area and can we make sure that we get whatever feedback has already come from HCD. be memorialized and submitted to both the city council and the planning commission. So we have an idea of what that is in advance of the official comments on the 26th. And I also would like to see A decoupling or sorry pardon me a dismissal and thank you to the housing element advisory committee to ensure that we are again in compliance. And I truly, truly appreciate all of the effort that the housing element advisory committee put in in their hours of service to work hard to get us to where we are. And I know this is a frustrating situation and I just want to say I think it's clear based on the city council's comments tonight and the planning commission's comments that we are all very committed to. moving ahead and submitting this housing element by the deadline. So with that, if there's nothing else to add or that you'd like to see included, is that direction clear to staff? |
| 01:22:55.52 | Melissa Blossom | Councilman, are you going to? I can't tell if you're gonna raise your hand. |
| 01:23:00.84 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:23:00.86 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:23:00.87 | Unknown | in the future. |
| 01:23:01.02 | Jill Hoffman | There you go. There we go. Okay, yes. I would just request that as we started doing last night, that this direction is included as close to verbatim as possible in the minutes for the meeting tonight. |
| 01:23:18.07 | Melissa Blossom | And I would add another, I don't think since we're including it as closely as possible, just to follow up on. understanding from de novo what was the discrepancies from the May 23rd meeting and getting a sense of where the deadlines were and also the expectations of that with regards to their contract, so if that could be included as well in the staff direction. Okay. So if we are set |
| 01:23:39.03 | Councilmember Cox | The city manager has turned. |
| 01:23:40.85 | Melissa Blossom | Oh, I can't. |
| 01:23:40.87 | Councilmember Cox | THE FAMILY IS A LITTLE BIT. Thank you. |
| 01:23:41.22 | Melissa Blossom | City Manager Zapata, did you want to wait? I see you've turned on your camera. |
| 01:23:45.29 | Brandon Phipps | I just wanted to say it was clear. The direction's clear. |
| 01:23:48.95 | Melissa Blossom | Okay, great. So now we will move on to agenda item 4B, which is the status of objective design and development standards. And I believe that this stuff report will be coming from Director Phipps and Bob Brown. Is that correct? Okay, great. |
| 01:24:04.31 | Brandon Phipps | Correct. Thank you, Mayor. We have Bob Brown available this evening, and he will be giving tonight's presentation. |
| 01:24:14.53 | Bob Brown | Thank you very much. Let me see if I can share my screen. |
| 01:24:21.16 | Bob Brown | Um... Let's see. that work. We can't yet see it, Bob. We cannot see your screen. No, I wonder if the city clerk can allow me to share. |
| 01:24:38.31 | Melissa Blossom | I should have. |
| 01:24:38.48 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:24:38.49 | Melissa Blossom | We have co-hosting capabilities. Okay. |
| 01:24:39.91 | Bob Brown | Okay, I do now. |
| 01:24:41.52 | Melissa Blossom | Fantastic. |
| 01:24:42.31 | Bob Brown | All right. |
| 01:24:42.43 | Melissa Blossom | Now we can see that you're, there you go. |
| 01:24:44.28 | Bob Brown | Very good. Let me just start this up. |
| 01:24:45.53 | Melissa Blossom | started |
| 01:24:48.82 | Bob Brown | Very good. Well, thank you so much for allowing me to give you an update of where we are on the odds, the objective design and development standards. You've heard a little bit about that tonight. So let me try to walk you through a status report, if I may. So both of your bodies have already received updates from the city attorney over the last year or two. on new state laws, which really limit local discretion on new housing proposals that include two or more new housing units. And it's pretty obvious the intent of the legislature is to move housing projects along more quickly. and with more certainty for the applicant to the building permit stage and thereby increase housing production statewide. These laws limit review in most cases to locally adopted objective development standards. So that's why we're going through this effort There are a lot of objective development standards already in your current code. But dealing with issues like building design or view impacts or even grading standards, the code contains a lot of subjective criteria that will no longer be able to be applied. |
| 01:26:01.76 | Bob Brown | So here's how the state is defining objective standards. They involve no personal or a subjective judgment by a public official, They must be verifiable by reference or external and uniform benchmarks. They have to be knowable by the applicants in advance and by public officials. So it's fairly limiting. So things like criteria like, you know, shall be consistent with the character of the neighborhood or must minimize objective obstruction of views or things like, you know, regulations as defined by the city engineer. Those are not considered objective any longer. So what we've been doing in response to these state laws that say the city must provide a list of objective standards to applicants, the council adopted an interim set of objective standards in July of 2021. And these were simply a listing of all your existing standards in the Muni code that are objective. and you directed the Planning Commission subcommittee to and staff to develop new objective standards to replace these. So the planning commission subcommittee of commissioners Feller and Junius, they've been working with staff and myself on this for about a year and a half to customize a version of the form-based code toolkit that several Marin jurisdictions commissioned the design firm Opticos to prepare using state grant funds We've been revising, we've been revising the large code toolkit, it's about 400 pages, down to those proportions that are most applicable to the scale. and the partial characteristics here in Sausalito. We would have finished our work much sooner, but for the parallel housing element update process. Because the housing element will increase the allowable densities and the building sizes on certain identified sites. The odds we're working on will have to be further modified to allow larger or at least taller building parameters for those housing sites. So again, we've been waiting while the sites have been identified and waiting for the visualizations that have been prepared to figure out how to further revise those standards. |
| 01:28:31.86 | Bob Brown | So let me address what the odds will do and what it won't do for the city's development review process. It will give you a set of objective standards that will comply with these new state laws that will hopefully fill in some of the gaps created by not being able to use some of the subjective criteria that you have in your current codes. I want to be really clear, though, that it will only apply to relatively few construction projects in town, only those which entail projects where two or more new housing units are being built. So these standards won't apply to single family homes. and they won't apply to renovations or additions to existing multifamily or commercial buildings, unless two or more units are being added. And as currently written, the draft standards, only apply to multifamily and commercially zoned properties. So it doesn't apply to the single family zones And so therefore it doesn't comply to SB9 projects. It could be modified to apply to SB9 single family homes or duplexes. And I would note that Court of Madera recently has done that with their version of the odds. And lastly, it won't apply to your industrial or your waterfront zones. So that would include the marinship property. It will not apply there. |
| 01:29:59.24 | Bob Brown | So what is the DraftOdds form-based code trying to accomplish from a design perspective? So its code provisions, which have been tested in a number of other municipalities, they seek to reduce the visual scale of buildings by prescribing maximum building sizes and dimensions. And I'll show you a sketch of that in a second. they limit the visibility of parking. so that building facades are more dominant on the streetscape, not parking. They dictate carefully grounds carefully defined ground floor design. Building design and entries and the necessary street improvements that would foster pedestrian oriented and active street frontages. It includes development restrictions based on steep slopes, and it contains grading restrictions that are best practices. And it includes regulations on landscape and equipment screening, protections for privacy between windows on adjacent properties, lighting, landscape standards, et cetera. So again, it covers quite a bit. I would note that the firm that prepared these form-based codes, OptiCoats, they're out of Berkeley, they've gained a national notoriety for promoting what they call the missing middle housing types. And you may have heard about this in some of the planning conferences you may have gone to with the League of Cities. So these missing middle housing types are ones that are sort of closer in scale to single family homes than large mega apartment or condominium complexes. And that's illustrated here in this gradation showing single family home design on the left. and big apartment or condo complexes on the right. So the missing middle is trying to hit those housing types that are between those scales. And an example is, you know, based upon the odds that we have, they would require larger sites to be developed with multiple smaller buildings like on the left and not a larger complex like on the right. So just a simple example. But that's really what they're trying to accomplish. So just to also clarify what the odds won't do, They won't provide geotechnical standards for construction on slopes, which I know is an issue. And I know the general plan has called for, you know, a detailed hillside ordinance to be developed in the future. It won't deal with infrastructure capacity requirements for individual lots. It doesn't define anything to that level of detail. And it also won't address view impacts on private properties. And we've talked to the council about a year ago about that, year and a half ago. And on the issue of view impacts from private properties, that's a real tough one to deal with. And the Planning Commission subcommittee has spent the better part of a year trying to figure out ways to define views, to define and quantify view impacts, how to measure these, and finally, most importantly, how an applicant would submit and verify a view impact study. So all these things ended up with the city attorney strongly recommending against going in this direction. And that's particularly true given the really compressed timeframe under these new state laws that the city has to make determinations of compliance. So we're trying to verify something like a view impact study very hard to do within 30 days and certainly doesn't allow for really any public review or interaction on something that important so I'd point out again though that single family homes aren't subject to these objective standards so You know, single family home modifications or new individual single family homes are still going to be going through your current discretionary design review and your current view preservation review. So, again, this is just dealing with new multifamily or mixed use. So next steps for the odds, we will finalize the draft that we've been working on. I think based on your comments tonight, we're not going to wait for the housing element to be resolved. So the intent is to adopt it in the near term as another interim measure pending completion of the housing element. And it looks like depending upon staff and the city attorney's review, hopefully we'll get to the planning commission and council for hearings. in the February to April timeframe. And then we would further revise the adopted odds for another round to address these housing opportunity sites after the housing element is formally adopted and the EIR is available. So we would do that as part of the subsequent rezoning to implement your new housing element. So with that, I'd be happy to take any questions. that the Planning Commission and the Council may have. |
| 01:34:52.96 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you very much, Bob. We really appreciate it. Okay, so again, I will go first to the planning commission. If you could show the screen with the zoom attendees, please. So I can see who has their hand raised. Okay. Uh, chair Luxenberg. |
| 01:35:09.65 | Chair Luxenberg | Thank you, Mayor Blasthain. I have a mechanical question on how technically this gets implemented. So they do an interim basis and approve these odds, but aren't odds just, aren't they eventually just code changes to the actual municipal code? |
| 01:35:26.81 | Bob Brown | Yes, and so the adoption that I'm referring to would be amending your zoning code. to put these into it, yes. |
| 01:35:32.98 | Chair Luxenberg | into the zoning code. We have design standards. We're adding some design standards and the color is changing and that's how it's going forward. Okay. |
| 01:35:41.73 | Bob Brown | Yeah, in many ways, this is sort of a parallel code to your zoning code that, again, would only apply to these new projects that are building two or more housing units together. |
| 01:35:52.70 | Chair Luxenberg | Okay, these new interim standards, these new standards, but that's not to say that we don't, we have standards all over the, we have objective design standards throughout the code already. And these would, these would be additional ones for those specific multifamily uses for two or greater. |
| 01:36:12.19 | Bob Brown | Correct. The newly adopted code, when you see it, it has a whole section on applicability. So it will cite the parts of the muni code that still apply regardless of the odds. |
| 01:36:22.60 | Chair Luxenberg | Okay. Thank you. Other commission members, people raise their hand. Yes, Vice Torred Jr. |
| 01:36:31.33 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair Luxenberg. And thank you, Bob, for all the work on this. And it's been interesting to work with Commissioner Feller as well. through the last year or year plus on these issues. I THINK IT'S REALLY JUST IMPORTANT FOR EVERYBODY TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A VERY COMPLEX PROCESS. IT'S VERY NEW. the landscape of how, you know, multifamily housing projects are going to get reviewed and approved throughout California. So we're, you know, everybody's stuck with this situation. It takes a lot of discretion away. It takes all virtually all discretion away. or a projects that qualify. protection under the Housing Accountability Act. The thing to keep in mind here is unlike the last matter we were discussing on the housing element, there's no compliance issue here. We are in compliance. We've already adopted, you know, bit of a stopgap measure that really pretty clearly as Commissioner Luxembourg has just said identifies the existing objective standards. We don't have any projects that I'm aware of and maybe, um, Mr. Phipps can address this matter, but you know, this is not an emergency. We're doing as we're doing this as quickly as we possibly can. We do need to get this in place. Form-based zoning is very complex in comparison to the discretion that the planning commission and city councils have had in decades past. But, I don't see this as anything more than a a process that's putting in place rules that will allow us to better comply with state law. But we are in compliance with state law as we sit here right now, and I'm not concerned about that at all. |
| 01:38:05.26 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you, Chair Luxenberg, your hand is still raised. |
| 01:38:07.50 | Chair Luxenberg | Yes, I'll lower the hand. Other members of the planning commissioner have any questions with regard to the odds? Commissioner Feller? |
| 01:38:18.81 | Jeffrey Luxenberg | No questions at this time. Thank you, Chair. |
| 01:38:21.25 | Chair Luxenberg | Thank you. Oh, thank you. Commissioner Saad. |
| 01:38:30.23 | Chair Luxenberg | You're muted, I think. |
| 01:38:32.68 | Commissioner Saad | Okay, it wouldn't let me unmute. I thank you. I don't have any questions right now or comments, Chair Luxembourg. |
| 01:38:39.24 | Chair Luxenberg | Thank you very much. I'll turn it back over to Mayor Blostein. Thank you. |
| 01:38:43.16 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you, Chair Luxembourg. Okay, now we will open it up to the City Council. And I see Councilmember Kellman has a question. |
| 01:38:48.98 | Councilmember Kellman | Please. |
| 01:38:49.85 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you. |
| 01:38:49.87 | Councilmember Kellman | Yeah, thank you, Bob, for putting that together and Director Phipps for bringing this to us. at. So I have a couple of questions to clarify. I guess a little bit confused by the yes and the no as it pertains to steep slopes. And so while this may not be an out of compliant measure, it is certainly top of mind for city leadership, given the storm events that we've been having. And I don't want to let this go another minute at the council meeting on Tuesday. We unanimously agree we want to bring back the Landside Task Force report and revisit that. So I saw a slide and said, yes, development restrictions on steep slopes, no, technical restrictions on steep slopes Can you help me reconcile that? Because I didn't pick up the nuances and I know there are. |
| 01:39:32.45 | Bob Brown | I can say. Yes, so as part of the Marin County work, OptiCoast did create standards that reduce development potential on slopes. It requires that, you know, based upon its slopes get steeper, more of the site becomes unbuildable. And it also has standards for retaining wall height and some standards for grading. And these are all sort of generalized best practices. Now they don't get into, you know, really very detailed individual geotechnical uses that really need to be looked at more carefully in particular neighborhoods or on particular sites. So that it does not do. So it doesn't take the place of this, you know, and probably complicated hillside ordinance that the city council has called for in your general plan, but it does get you partway there. At least I think as a good holding place better than the current objective grading standards that you have. |
| 01:40:30.28 | Councilmember Kellman | Okay, so it's interesting you're mentioning grading standards. When I think about something that's objective and measurable, the average gradient of a hillside seems to me to be both of those things. And in order for us to fully enhance and embrace the Land and Side Task Force report, it seems we need to sort of reconcile that. Could the odds include but I think that's a good thing. a language around a percent average gradient, and that would be something that's both measurable and objective. |
| 01:40:58.53 | Bob Brown | It could. And again, it does have standards based upon the amount that, you know, the percentage of slope that restricts development further in terms of, of how much the site you can develop. You could develop more standards based upon slope. You know, that would take work by your public works department. It certainly could be incorporated as either initially or at some point. Yes. |
| 01:41:19.93 | Councilmember Kellman | Okay, yeah, I'm just trying to reconcile with this direction we gave staff on Tuesday that we want to wholeheartedly embrace the Landslide Task Force report. It sounds like we need to make some updates on the odds to enable that. Okay, thank you for that. |
| 01:41:32.26 | Unknown | There is more work. |
| 01:41:33.41 | Councilmember Kellman | Okay, thank you. And then my second question is, we did see a mention of odds in De Novo's presentation, and I appreciate Commissioner Junius' comment that we're not out of compliance with state law. However, SB9 has an opportunity to dramatically impact the built environment in all cities in California, particularly Sausalito as well. both because it's adding ADUs and because it's allowing for loss splits. Did I hear you correctly that one update we could decide to make tonight is that the odds could be applied to single family, a part of it could be applied to SB9 projects as well. |
| 01:42:12.20 | Bob Brown | That's possible. Cornel Madera just took that additional step. I'd have to look closely at the way that they did it. I don't think it would take a lot of additional work, but I would note that Opticos was not, you know, scoped for that work. But again, I think it could be done fairly simply. |
| 01:42:27.78 | Councilmember Kellman | Okay, thank you. And just for everyone's benefit, my questions are coming from a place of public safety and risk and hazard mitigation. And so if that lens is helpful, I want to offer that. Thank you very much. That's all I had. Thank you, Mayor. |
| 01:42:40.49 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you. |
| 01:42:41.31 | Councilmember Kellman | Thank you. |
| 01:42:41.33 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you, Councilmember Coleman. Councilman, Vice Mayor Sobieski, pardon me. |
| 01:42:44.79 | Vice Mayor Sobieski | Thank you, Mayor. And thank you for the presentation. I have a... question for you about this goal of reducing visual scale of buildings while also at the same time having objective design criteria that can be measured. in a environment that is not flat. Sausalito is a crinkly town with, Rills and ridges and vales and dells. uh, a building that is, Two stories in one location could have dramatic impacts on views and feel ominous. A building that's four stories somewhere else could be hidden. in the day I'll, of the surrounding topography. and its volume. would. feel. to anyone. that is much less than the building that's two stories in a different location. Uh, is, Is there a way of having objective design criteria that capture that at, very pivotal nuance for making a beautiful community that feels delightful for the people that live in it. |
| 01:43:51.09 | Bob Brown | Well, I won't say that odds are, you know, the end all in terms of creating gorgeous buildings, because again, we are losing a lot of individual subjective review by both the public and decision makers. So, but saying that, you know, the draft odds does include for slope sites, you know, the requirements that buildings step with the topography. So you can't do, you know, on the downslope side, a 60 foot high wall and, and on the street, you know, 20 foot. It does require that in most cases, buildings are allowed to be three stories, but only two that are very visible. The third story has to be within a slope roof with dormers. Again, means of trying to diminish the perceived bulk of the buildings. Um, So but but will it deal with all the nuances of each individual site? No, it's much more generalized than that. We're losing that gradation of subjectivity Um, by under the state law. So again, we're doing the best we can, but trying to establish standards that will apply in all cases to all lots. |
| 01:44:59.33 | Vice Mayor Sobieski | So, I mean, those standards are, makes sense in a flat topography. The step-backs, the third story in a dormer building, in a dormer roof, But again, just using, I mean, the case in point, And I guess, By way of illustration, I mean, we all know Mission Bay in San Francisco has an entire development area that had a height restriction. that caused all the buildings there to be short or shorter than they would might otherwise be. And they use their entire lots. So now you have an entire Um, Actually, I think I have a picture of it here. You have an entire area that looks like this. Um, or, and, uh, And that is of a very different scale than, you know, something that, I don't know, would look like this. Right? So, similar kinds of units, but And we're not talking about either one of those for Sausalito, obviously, but it's making the point that uh, that these objective criteria is that sound good and are kind of easy to implement Can you actually Thank you. create a very nonsensical or built environment where we are compelled to, where builders are compelled to build structures that don't take advantage of the natural topography that Sausalito affords them to actually make something that feels less massive and is more in keeping with the actual goals of reducing visual scale of buildings and Well, I appreciate that. things as you defined the setbacks and the and the third story inside a roof is is a way of conceptualizing it. I'm wondering if there isn't, if we try harder, a way of establishing objective design criteria that would be objective but actually like a 3D camera would assess and build a wireframe of the visual impact of a building from any perspective, not of birds, but of actual people on the street. that you could have an objective criteria And you could imagine setting up a tripod with a with a 3D camera that would build wireframe of buildings. from different from all the all the visual angles that a pedestrian would see it from. and measure the implied volume of the visual scale, and that that's the measurable. Thank you. criteria rather than these truly abstract objective design criteria that would be just as applicable in Kansas as they are and the flatlands of Kansas as they are on the rippled dales and bales of Sausalito. |
| 01:47:34.97 | Bob Brown | Well, let me say that the basic standards here were developed for Marin County and tailored for Marin County as a whole. So all the jurisdictions were involved, but Let me say, you know, this is not going to allow high rises. The buildings that these odds would allow would be a maximum of three stories right now. Now that does not take into account the increased density that you're gonna have to look at for your housing opportunity sites. the next round after the housing elements adopted, but based upon your current densities that you allow in your multifamily and commercial districts, maximum height would be three stories. What you described in terms of, you know, again, having some sort of a computer, you know, visualization process and modeling process is, sounds terrific. That was not what was scoped here. You know, we're building off of, again, this countywide, toolkit that Sausalito helped fund and the other cities with state grant funds. So that's the direction that we've been going in for the last year and a half. Could something else be done? Yes. I've not seen anything like you described, but it may very well be possible. Again, in this new state environment, somebody may come up with that as a model, but We don't see it yet. Thank you. |
| 01:48:52.80 | Melissa Blossom | Do any other members of the council have questions for Bob before I go back to the planning commission? Because I see that Chair Luxembourg has his hand raised. Councilmember Cox, please. |
| 01:49:01.51 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. at. Thank you. Um, Bob, nice to meet you. And thank you for all of your work on this. And thank you for providing your PowerPoint presentation in advance of our meeting so that we could review. |
| 01:49:07.72 | Melissa Blossom | And I'm going to go. |
| 01:49:07.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:49:07.75 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you. |
| 01:49:07.87 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:49:07.97 | Melissa Blossom | you |
| 01:49:14.45 | Councilmember Cox | what you had to say. Um, ADUs, if we put an ADU on a site, it's now got more than one site. And so ODDS applies, right? |
| 01:49:25.32 | Bob Brown | No, they'd have to be two brand new units. So if you scrape, if you have a vacant lot and built a single family home and an ADU, yes. Or if you scraped a lot and built two units concurrently, yes. |
| 01:49:26.13 | Councilmember Cox | Yeah. |
| 01:49:37.28 | Bob Brown | But again, we have not applied the odds to the single family zones. So we've talked about maybe doing that for SB 9. So that would be sort of the avenue. |
| 01:49:47.69 | Councilmember Cox | Okay, so I would definitely endorse that. How do we govern industrial and waterfront zones since, um, AND I THINK IT'S A I suppose if we fail to meet our housing element quota, it's possible those could somehow become subject So how do we get to the Um, How do we put guardrails |
| 01:50:12.03 | Bob Brown | on those areas? Well, right now, the odds would not apply to them because, again, they're only being applied to your multifamily and your commercial zones. If the housing element is adopted and does show the, you know, the marine ship sites or other waterfront or industrial sites there, then yes, it's got to be amended. And we'd probably have to have somewhat larger building types to accommodate the densities on sites like that. |
| 01:50:39.36 | Councilmember Cox | And, You're talking about adoption of the odds in several months. What I understand that the planning commission was ready to adopt the odds at the end of last year. What's to prevent us from adopting the odds at the end of this month at our next meeting? |
| 01:50:57.51 | Bob Brown | Well, actually, the schedule I'd be looking at would probably come to the planning commission, I would imagine, in February and the council in March. Because right now, we just got the revised version from OptiCoast back last week. I've shared it with Director Phipps and the city attorney. when I get primarily a city attorney's comments back, then we'll prepare a final version for the planning commission adoption. |
| 01:51:23.54 | Councilmember Cox | The reason I ask is if we don't adopt, if for some reason our housing element is found to be noncompliant, We won't have a housing element, which means we lose our zoning authority. which means having the odds in place is critically important. So would it be possible for us to adopt the odds as is, you know, perhaps amend them at some future date, but is it possible to adopt them as is? at our special meeting, which is a planning commission City Council. on January 30. |
| 01:51:55.08 | Bob Brown | Well, that's a big lift. I'd have to, again, work with staff and the city attorney to see if they can complete their review that quickly and we can get the noticing done. |
| 01:52:03.77 | Councilmember Cox | All right, thank you. I see the city. |
| 01:52:05.97 | Melissa Blossom | Yeah. I can see that city attorney has turned on his camera. Would you like to weigh in on the feasibility of adopting the odds on the January 30th meeting? |
| 01:52:13.56 | Sergio Rudin | There is a timing issue with the Planning Commission rendering their recommendation at a public hearing on the same day. based on state planning and zoning law. Typically you have to have 10 days in between those. So |
| 01:52:22.40 | Unknown | That's true. |
| 01:52:27.45 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:52:27.47 | Sergio Rudin | Okay, thank you for that. That is an issue. |
| 01:52:27.48 | Bob Brown | Okay. that's not. Thank you. But I think we can move this along quickly with your direction and again, follow very quickly after the, the end of January. |
| 01:52:39.38 | Melissa Blossom | Okay. And I think most of what I was going to ask is covered, but just this, I'm, I'd like to more clearly understand since there seems to be quite a bit of confusion from the public with regards to the housing element and all of the additional state mandates and the odds. Could you just give a little bit of an overview of the relationship between the odds and passing the odds and our housing elements? |
| 01:53:03.81 | Bob Brown | Sure, and it is dizzying even for planners and land use attorneys. This is a crazy time. Um... So again, the odds is not really related to the housing element at all. It's, it's, you know, required by state law for housing projects that have two or more units and it just curtails your flexibility. The reason it's gotten wrapped around the axle with the housing element again is because the housing element is necessitating higher densities and therefore, you know, taller building parameters. than what you currently have. And so we were trying to wait for the housing element to be completed. We would wrap the, you know, the additional, um, development regulations for those sites into the odds and get it all adopted together. Obviously we're going to have to bifurcate and separate those. That's the reason, but again, the two are pretty distinct. I mean, the housing element has a program for adopting odds, A, because it is state law and B, because HCD wants to see that as a means of increasing housing production and certainty. |
| 01:54:09.24 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you. I appreciate that clarification. Okay. We have two more questions from the council and then I will come back to you chair Luxembourg. I just want to make sure that we're, being consistent with each body that we're interacting with. So council member Sobieski, you had your vice mayor Sobieski. I swear I'm going to stop doing that vice mayor Sobieski, and then we'll go to council member Kalman. |
| 01:54:24.76 | Vice Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. Mr. Brown, could you? I'm just talking around the OptiCoast website here and I'm learning a lot about but about form-based coding, which is a concept I haven't heard of before that seems super pertinent to a small town like ours. Can you help me understand what is form-based coding and is that part of what we received from OptiCoast or is that a something we have to, is that a premium product? |
| 01:54:48.03 | Bob Brown | No, no, it's part of the package. So the form-based code, Opticos, and a lot of other practitioners of urban design have been pushing for a number of years. the zoning that we've adopted primarily since World War II have been really exclusionary zoning. They've tried to exclude... incompatible uses near one another. You know, so housing goes in this neighborhood. and your commercial goes over here and your industrial is over there. and you know, they should meet. And so that's part of our transportation problem. It's hard to walk or bike ride drive sometimes between these areas. Form-based codes really tries to look less at the use restrictions and more at the building form. and be more predictable about what kind of building forms you're gonna end up with and how to break those up and make them more manageable and how to create really interesting streetscapes. So that's the focus of form-based code as compared to traditional zoning. |
| 01:55:47.55 | Vice Mayor Sobieski | And how is that integrated into the work we're getting from Opticos? |
| 01:55:51.77 | Bob Brown | Oh, you'll see when you get a 300 page new form based code to include in your code. Again, you'll see there's a lot more illustrations. There's a lot more certainty about where the buildings end up being placed. Um, there's even, you know, criteria for window placement and things like that. So again, it's much more detailed design criteria. |
| 01:56:17.57 | Vice Mayor Sobieski | Okay, and that will be part of the odds then? Oh, yeah. That will be the odds, yes. All right, thank you very much. |
| 01:56:24.44 | Councilmember Kellman | Thank you. |
| 01:56:24.48 | Melissa Blossom | Councilmember Kelman. |
| 01:56:25.13 | Councilmember Kellman | Thank you. |
| 01:56:25.23 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you. |
| 01:56:25.71 | Councilmember Kellman | Thank you, Mayor. Bob, sorry, I want to just circle back and make sure I understand correctly. So it's a clarifying question. Council Member Cox made the point that if we have a non-compliant housing element, the odds are helpful in helping us retain some type of control. You were making the point that if we have a compliant housing element, that the odds don't have a relationship. Is that accurate? So that the importance that we are talking about within the context of tonight's conversation is if for some reason, HCD deems it's not compliant, having the odds enacted is a benefit to the city and that therefore |
| 01:57:02.11 | Bob Brown | Well, you need the odds because, again, a developer could walk at any time and ask for the relief provided under SB 35 or the Housing Accountability Act. So you need the odds, irregardless of whether your housing element is certified or not. if that helps. |
| 01:57:19.18 | Councilmember Kellman | Okay, thank you. Yeah, and I think as a member Cox, your point was also well taken. So thank you. We'll go back to council member Cox. |
| 01:57:26.03 | Councilmember Cox | Just one more question. I heard you say Bob that we received the updated odds from Opticos. When may we see that? I understand you got it a week ago. I'd like to see it as soon as possible. |
| 01:57:38.57 | Unknown | Um, |
| 01:57:39.05 | Bob Brown | Thank you. |
| 01:57:39.06 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:57:44.31 | Councilmember Cox | Well, I'll say. |
| 01:57:44.35 | Bob Brown | And commissioners would as well. All right. Well, you know, again, it is being reviewed in draft form by the city attorney and, and director Phipps. If there are no objections, I'm happy to have, to ask the director to send it along. |
| 01:58:01.42 | Melissa Blossom | That would be great. |
| 01:58:02.01 | Bob Brown | Bye. |
| 01:58:02.64 | Melissa Blossom | I would like to give that direction if we could have a copy of the draft odds. Councilmember Sobieski, and then I'll go to Chair Luxembourg. |
| 01:58:12.64 | Vice Mayor Sobieski | No questions, sorry, I forgot to drop my hand. |
| 01:58:14.57 | Melissa Blossom | Okay, and just before I go back to the planning commission, is the council? satisfied with their line of questioning? Is there anything anyone on staff? Okay, great. All right, Chair Luxembourg. |
| 01:58:25.70 | Chair Luxenberg | Thank you, Mayor Blostein. I just want to clarify, Bob, some of these semantics you're using with odds. Objective design and development standards is not just what you're producing, it's anything in our code. this objective design and development standards. So you made this comment about SB9, when the city council remitted that to the planning commission, We worked at length and developed and added a whole bunch of objective design and development standards that are included in ordinance number 1288. So I don't want the public to get any idea that the SB9 implementation that we have doesn't have design and development standards. Now, you might want additional ones, but we went through a whole balancing act to make sure that we added those as other communities had when we adopted 1288. So if you could clarify that would be great. |
| 01:59:24.56 | Bob Brown | Yes, yes, Chair Luxenberg, you're absolutely right. You do have an SB 9 code that, you know, has maximum building sizes and setbacks and height limits. They don't have a lot of regulations regarding the actual design of the buildings. So that's what we would be adding with with adding, you know, making the odds applicable to it. Yes, but you already have this, you have objective standards that relate to SB 9 properties. |
| 01:59:49.35 | Chair Luxenberg | Okay, so it would be helpful to have additional ones, but at the moment, if something came in, in the meantime, we at least have all of those standards that would be applied. Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair Blostey. Are there other planning Commissioner questions at this point of Mr. Brown? Commissioner Fowler. |
| 02:00:12.24 | Jenny Silva | Thank you. |
| 02:00:13.00 | Jeffrey Luxenberg | I just thank you, Chair. I just wanted to make a quick comment, it's not really a question, but as it relates to form based design and development The county of Marin does have an entire toolbox that Opticos and Bob were involved with developing. When we first started out on the objective design and development standards for Sausalito, That is what we referenced and referred to A lot of that, a lot of the information and those standards did not have as much applicability to Sausalito as we were comfortable with, which is why we have developed the odds specific for Sausalito that do take some of our topography and other things into account. So if you want to see an example of what Opticoast has already produced as it relates to form-based design, the County of Marin does have that on their website and that can be referenced. But what we're developing is really specific for Sausalito. |
| 02:01:17.97 | Bob Brown | I should also note, I did not in my presentation, that a version of this code now has been adopted by Marin County, Belvedere, and Corte Madera. And I'm working with San Enselmo to customize the code for them. So again, the intent is for several of the Marin cities to ultimately adopt a version of this code. |
| 02:01:41.61 | Chair Luxenberg | There are any other questions? |
| 02:01:41.66 | Jeffrey Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:01:44.24 | Chair Luxenberg | I mean, Commissioner Feller, any other questions? |
| 02:01:46.50 | Jeffrey Luxenberg | No, thank you for that. |
| 02:01:48.90 | Chair Luxenberg | Oh. |
| 02:01:49.03 | Andrew Junius | Vice Chair, |
| 02:01:50.42 | Chair Luxenberg | I'm going to go. |
| 02:01:50.67 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. And just one other follow up and clarification, Bob, you know, that some of the council members questions relate to, you know, the, the varying geography and Sausalito, the slopes, You know, it is a, It's a very unique city, not a lot of even regular lots. Every lot's got a different angle, different size. Why don't you just... |
| 02:02:07.54 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:02:12.13 | Andrew Junius | clarify a little bit that there is a, you know, that when you see the odds and the odds in form-based zoning are basically the same terminology. So let's not get too worked up about that. When you see what the kind of the cookie cutter stuff that OptiCoast puts out, you know, that's the, you know, as I think Vice Mayor Sobieski was saying, you know, that's for flatlands and where you've got a perfect environment where all the lines have been drawn straight and everything like that. that clearly that can't really be absolutely applied directly to, you know, much of Sausalito. So there is going to be some, I don't know if I'd call it a variance process, IT NEEDS TO BE the, the magic here is gonna be actually applying it. regularly to the very, very interesting topography and site situations in Sausalito. Bob, could you expand on that a little bit? |
| 02:03:04.09 | Bob Brown | Yeah, and I think an important thing to note is, again, this is getting into the weeds, but for projects that when you put out these objective standards, for projects that cannot comply with them, at that point, they are then subject to your subjective codes. So, again, all is not lost. It kind of kicks it back into your traditional design review process where there is some flexibility. |
| 02:03:34.20 | Chair Luxenberg | Okay. Vice George, any other questions at this point? |
| 02:03:38.31 | Andrew Junius | That was it. Thank you, Chair Luxembourg, and thank you for that. I appreciate it. |
| 02:03:43.36 | Chair Luxenberg | Okay, any other questions, Commissioner Saad, Commissioner Beller? No. With that, I'll turn it back over to Mayor Blaston. Thank you. |
| 02:03:51.32 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you, Chair Luxenberg. Okay, I would now like to open it up for public comment. A reminder that again, we will be limiting public comment to two minutes this evening. |
| 02:04:00.42 | Walfred Solorzano | Once again, you can use the raise hand function on a Zoom application. Or if you're on telephone, you can press star nine. And if you're in person, And if you're in person, actually, the people in person, Come up to the dais and state your name, please, if you wish. |
| 02:04:19.62 | Melissa Blossom | We will start with in-person commenters this evening. |
| 02:04:22.71 | Michael Rex | I'm a local architect and I Well, I'm thanking for having an in-person hearing I think it's the first time I've been here in three years. It's kind of shocking. I am terribly concerned about odds. I think it's a great acronym because it's odd. I'm absolutely horrified by resolution that was passed A year and a half ago, resolution 6059, it throws out all our findings. Thank you. for design review, no view protection, No privacy protection. et cetera. And I understand that AND I THINK THAT'S A the way it's been described. Uh, we need to apply these objective standards to any two unit project. And I don't understand why that would include R1 if you're building a new house in R1. with an ADU. Almost every house we design these days has an ADU. So as far as I understand, I can design on a vacant lot or tear down a house, put up a new house, add an ADU, and I can block views all I want. I can't see any protection. I'm terribly concerned that the committee It seems to me it was a small committee and didn't reach out to the design professionals to see how what's being contemplated plays out in the real world. While it may be difficult to figure out how to control or protect views, in an objective manner, that doesn't mean We shouldn't find a way. In fact, we must, okay? And, I think some design professionals should be involved and I wouldn't rush to adopt odds. I think that we need to get it right. The soil ordinance standards scare me. We have so many steep slopes, an arbitrary route A limitation on building slopes could result in a taking of people's property rights. And the idea that you can't have a standard three-story building on steep slopes, it seems very arbitrary. I think it needs a deeper study, specific tailoring to Sausalito. And I think it needs, testing by people who design buildings in this town and know. how it works. So I ask that you, Thank you very much. Send it back to committee and get professional help from design professionals. Thanks. |
| 02:06:51.74 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you, Michael. Welcome back. Okay, and public commenters on Zoom? Vicky Nichols |
| 02:07:01.24 | Vicki Nichols | Yes, hi, good evening. Thank you for the discussion. I had a question for Mr. Brown. Bob, this is Vicki Nichols. And I wanted to just follow up. If the draft is presented in the staff report, I apologize, I did not review it, but we did have two opportunities Am I muted? |
| 02:07:24.02 | Jeffrey Luxenberg | No. |
| 02:07:24.35 | Vicki Nichols | I can hear you. |
| 02:07:24.37 | Jeffrey Luxenberg | I can hear you. |
| 02:07:24.83 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you. |
| 02:07:25.39 | Vicki Nichols | Sorry. |
| 02:07:26.30 | Melissa Blossom | The draft is not included in the staff report. |
| 02:07:27.70 | Vicki Nichols | Yeah, thank you. The HPC did have an opportunity to give you comments about particularly form based architecture or design in the historic district. I wanted to confirm that there had been no change from our strong comments that we did not view that as a positive addition. and that it is not currently included in the draft that we have. And I'd also just comment that I think you ought to... try to get odds into SB9. And I think you ought to get these approved in light of hearing the, timeline of your housing element. And by the way, I will disagree with a public comment Sausalito is not as behind as it's indicated. Almost every other... community is about the same boat. So don't feel. Don't feel like you're awful here. We're in the running. Thanks very much. |
| 02:08:27.43 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you, Vicki. |
| 02:08:28.02 | Bob Brown | Bye. |
| 02:08:28.06 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you. |
| 02:08:29.34 | Bob Brown | So what Ms. Nichols was referring to is when we went to the HRC, There is a chapter in the odds toolkit that was prepared for Marin County that is called architectural standards. And it creates very detailed and prescriptive architectural detail standards for different types of design styles. So for Tudor or for Spanish colonial, or for craftsmen. It has all these different styles and, you know, window dimensions and, and trim details, et cetera. So you get a fairly authentic rendition of that style. The HPC was very clear that particularly applied to, you know, the downtown historic district, those should not be included because they felt they would create You know, buildings that were so typified, it would almost look like, you know, Disneyland Main Street. So the fact is, we have not included those in the draft. Some other jurisdictions are incorporating them, but they're not in the Sausalito draft, no. |
| 02:09:40.69 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you, Bob. |
| 02:09:42.75 | Walfred Solorzano | And the next speaker is Jenny Silva. |
| 02:09:45.50 | Melissa Blossom | Bye, Jenny. |
| 02:09:51.71 | Jenny Silva | We'll unmute. Thanks for bringing up this |
| 02:09:58.93 | Jenny Silva | Now I think I'm set. Yeah. I had a few comments about the odds. And I just want to remind everybody that in the housing element, we do say that we're going to provide them for single family homes. And, um, And that's not for another couple of years. So we have time on them, but that was the intention that was laid out in the housing movement. I am concerned with the description that was provided tonight that the odds will increase the cost of development quite a bit, which is also in conflict with the housing element goals addressing constraints, one of which is cost. and cost of development and parking being hidden and multiple buildings. And also I am really concerned that the odds will end up in a functional down zone of our code and we are not allowed to do that. due to, various housing. well due to specific housing laws from the states, Sausalito is not in a position where it can down zone. And if it reduces the buildable square feet, that is an issue for us. I'm also concerned with some of the conversation that happened after public comment on the last item. I don't see how Sausalito is going to meet its public a review process with BE. timeline that was set. If we get the comments back on the 26th and the public meeting is on the 30th The Brown Act requires the agenda be provided 72 hours in advance. So that's a 24 hour turnaround period. And there's also a seven day review public review period required by the state. So I think there is some timing issues that are not actually addressed in the timeline that was, set forth. Those are my comments. Thanks. Thank you, Jenny. |
| 02:11:50.17 | Walfred Solorzano | Next speaker is Sybil Routier. |
| 02:11:59.33 | Melissa Blossom | Welcome, Sybil. |
| 02:12:00.80 | Sybil Routier | Thank you. I just had a quick question. I don't know if you can answer it. We have a number of sort of more expensive accessibility features that we have included in the Housing element. including a suggestion of visitability standards. And I wondered if any of those types of accommodations for more accessibility in our buildings has been included. This is an issue in South Alameda where we have so many stairs and so forth, and a front step issue is a big issue for folks. So I just wondered if any of that has been included in the design in the odds. Thank you. Or if it needs to be in there, should it be. It is it. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:13:04.45 | Bob Brown | Thank you. |
| 02:13:04.49 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you, Sybil. |
| 02:13:05.01 | Bob Brown | Thank you. |
| 02:13:05.05 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you. |
| 02:13:05.75 | Bob Brown | And the answer to that is no, we have not sought to implement any of the other housing element programs in the odds. Again, the intent is the housing implementation will occur in the subsequent years. |
| 02:13:20.47 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you for that, Bob. Okay, at this time, I'm going to hand it over to Chair Luxembourg to receive comment or further questions from the Planning Commission. Chair Luxembourg? |
| 02:13:30.10 | Chair Luxenberg | Thank you, Mayor Blasdain. Are there any additional comments or questions on this item from Commission members, if you could just raise your hand in the Zoom application or just raise your hand? Um, |
| 02:13:42.91 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair Luxenberg. |
| 02:13:44.09 | Chair Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 02:13:44.92 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 02:13:45.36 | Chair Luxenberg | And you know, one of the Thank you. |
| 02:13:47.06 | Andrew Junius | One of the comments I thought was interesting about, I don't think there's any question that we're in uncharted territories. When you really start looking at this thing, it's complicated. The odds is pretty detailed. And as I said earlier, a major, major change in how we do things with respect to zoning and design. I would say though that the, But the origins of the idea of taking discretion away from planning commissions and city councils is actually to try to make things more you know, more predictable for the property owners and developers so that they had a set of rules that they know is not going to change before they start designing the project. So in that respect, I think, The original idea was to make things relatively more straightforward and more predictable, which should be leading you to less expensive projects as opposed to the uncertainties that I think a lot of projects experience in the discretionary world. But, It is. the Opticoast toolkit and the odds that a lot of people are adopting in in Marin County as well as now, Sausalito, it's pretty complicated. So I think that the jury's out there, but that was a very interesting comment. And I thought I wanted to respond to that. |
| 02:14:55.34 | Chair Luxenberg | Thank you, Vice Chair Junius. Other comments for any planning commissioners at this time? I'm not seeing any. I'll turn it back over to you, Mayor Blasden. Thank you very much. |
| 02:15:05.68 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you, Chair Luxembourg. Okay, I'd now like to hear from members of the City Council. comments or directions? Okay, Councilmember Kelman. |
| 02:15:16.25 | Councilmember Kellman | Great, thank you, Mayor. I'll just repeat my questions on my informative direction. I think in order to be consistent with the unanimous direction this past Tuesday around the Linenside Task Force. I think we need to direct staff to find a way to update the odds to include some type of objective, development restriction on gradients. I don't know what that looks like, and I would be open to seeing how this being applied in other communities. But I do think it's a special concern to us here in Sausalito, and I would like to have staff take a deeper look into that. And then the second thing is I would like some support for staff also looking further into the application SB9. And I've seen what they've done in Puerto Madera and applying that similarly to the city of Sausalito and our SB9 ordinance. Thank you. That's it. Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 02:16:13.02 | Jenny Silva | I support both of those directions. That's it. Great. |
| 02:16:17.93 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you. Vice Mayor Sobieski? Thank you. |
| 02:16:23.29 | Vice Mayor Sobieski | No comments. Thank you. |
| 02:16:24.54 | Melissa Blossom | Okay, Councilmember Cox, anything to add? |
| 02:16:26.48 | Councilmember Cox | Yes, I would like to explore the possibility of including into the odds some of the accessibility features mentioned by Sybil Boutelier, which are critical for our aging population. I would like to endorse the concept of having the odds apply to SB9. Uh, industrial. and waterfront development as well. as well as single family homes to the extent that They supersede. Um, design review guidelines or that design review guidelines were that formerly applied to single family homes. I would like to be sure that the odds have as broad an application as necessary to protect the charm and value of our town. Thank you. |
| 02:17:21.85 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you, Councilmember Cox. Councilmember Hoffman, did you want to add something? |
| 02:17:21.88 | Councilmember Cox | Thanks. |
| 02:17:27.13 | Melissa Blossom | No, I forgot to. |
| 02:17:27.26 | Jill Hoffman | No, I forgot to lower my hand, but I do concur. |
| 02:17:28.30 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you. |
| 02:17:31.13 | Jill Hoffman | I concur with the suggestions from Council Member Costas. |
| 02:17:33.85 | Melissa Blossom | Okay. Okay, great. All right. Unfortunately, Commissioner Feller, we've moved beyond the Planning Commission. We're at the staff City Council direction period for this item. So I'm just gonna continue and sum up the comments from the council And so it seems like what I'm hearing as a consensus is that there is definitely support for staff to look further into the application of SB 9. and find an understanding of whether or not these can apply. I don't feel comfortable directing staff to immediately include odds with SB 9 before seeing the odds, since we didn't have them yet attached to the staff report and we have yet to see a draft. But I think exploring that going forward is what I'm hearing is the direction. and seeing where we might have a broad application of the odds. support for looking into the application of Ada, as mentioned by civil atelier and seconded by Councilmember Cox and of course the inclusion of gradients per the landslide task force. And I would also just I would like us all to have an ample amount of time to review the odds before. They come before us and make sure all of this is considered. Okay, I see two hands up again. So go ahead, council member Kelman. Thank you. |
| 02:18:45.08 | Councilmember Kellman | Yeah. |
| 02:18:45.19 | Melissa Blossom | Yeah. |
| 02:18:45.21 | Councilmember Kellman | Thank you, Mayor. I agree with all of that. I'm wondering if you want to give some direction around timing so as staff has to prioritize its tasks coming out of tonight and knowing we want to have a meeting on the 30th. |
| 02:18:45.25 | Melissa Blossom | you |
| 02:18:55.88 | Councilmember Kellman | It sounds like there is some desire to move forward quickly but also intelligently. Any thoughts on timing and how Do we want to report back and as to status on the 30th or what are your thoughts? I think given that, |
| 02:19:11.98 | Melissa Blossom | It has been clearly outlined by both Commissioner Junius and Bob Brown that we are in compliance with the state at this time with regards to odds and that our top priority as a council right now is submitting our housing element. within the statutory timeline of January 31st. I am hesitant to direct staff to prioritize the odds prior to the submittal of the housing element. And so I would say after the 31st, it would be something that would be agendas and in the meantime bob can take into consideration the comments that we've given in the direction that we've given this evening |
| 02:19:44.78 | Councilmember Kellman | Okay, I'll just go on the record that I would like it to be prioritized. So if there's other support for that, I would welcome that. I understand your perspective, appreciate that. I just want to mention my concerns. |
| 02:19:56.41 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you. |
| 02:19:57.15 | Councilmember Kellman | I appreciate that. |
| 02:19:57.98 | Melissa Blossom | From what I understand, it's not possible for us to to complete it in time with the necessary state comment periods to be available at the meeting on the 30th. Could you weigh in on that, Bob or city attorney? given the planning commission requirements and that you had mentioned. |
| 02:20:17.11 | Sergio Rudin | I don't think it likely. |
| 02:20:20.25 | Melissa Blossom | Okay. Okay. |
| 02:20:21.48 | Jill Hoffman | Councilmember Hoffman. I just I wondered if Chair Feller was going to weigh in on with her expertise in the planning commission on one of the one of the the, the, one of the direction that we were trying to get. And so I just wanted to see if that was one of her comments. Thank you. It's a bit too. |
| 02:20:42.04 | Jenny Silva | to believe it. |
| 02:20:42.98 | Jill Hoffman | I'm sorry, pardon me, go ahead. I mean, if she's trying to weigh in about one of the direction that we were trying to give and then it conflicted somehow, with. you know, the planning directives, then I think we needed to hear that. |
| 02:20:58.90 | Jeffrey Luxenberg | The only, the reason I raised my hand is I certainly wanted to. I certainly heard and understood very clearly the sense of urgency to get the objective design and development centers in front of both the planning commission and the city council. if we begin to modify the odds to include the SB9 and issues like that, the question is, Would it be beneficial to bifurcate and get what we've done already in front of the city council, planning commission city council for that for approval, and then separately bring the modification for SB 9. So that was the reason I raised my hand. |
| 02:21:40.31 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you for that. So I think that might be an approach then that we might want to consider. How does the rest of the council feel about that? So we've listed a bunch of additions that we wanna have, right? That we wanna include SB9 and we wanna include some other things. But the urgency of getting at least a minimal odds adopted before January 31st. How do we feel about that? Thank you. |
| 02:22:06.53 | Melissa Blossom | I mean, I share the urgency for adopting the odds, but I want to do it right and I want to include the concerns that have been mentioned and I want to include sufficient public comments so that they are legally. sound and so that the community feels like they've had an opportunity to weigh in. We have a lot on our plate with the housing element and public comment required for the housing element and I would really like to prioritize completing the housing element and then immediately agendizing working on the odds. I haven't even seen a draft of the odds and I would like an opportunity to give them significant attention and right now the clear priority is the attention on the housing element. I know that they are related and the topics are related. But given the needs of staff right now, the timelines on staff and also the lack of support that we've been receiving as expected from our consultants on this. I'm a little bit concerned, not you, Bob, obviously, I'm concerned about that approach. That's just my, if there's a timeline in which we can, I would really like to get to consensus on this. So if there's a timeline in which we can work on the odds, that's maybe a combination of this. I'm totally open to those. I'm really excited about that. whatever you Maybe council member, you raised your hand. Or council member Cox pardon me. Go ahead. |
| 02:23:15.90 | Councilmember Cox | that comes over. Yeah. |
| 02:23:17.73 | Melissa Blossom | I just want to |
| 02:23:19.02 | Councilmember Cox | I had previously asked for a draft of the odds I believe we're in a better situation to answer this question about bifurcation after we've actually had an opportunity to see this draft. We haven't seen the draft. So may I ask perhaps that we see the draft and then perhaps put on consent for the 24th, a proposed timeline for |
| 02:23:38.77 | Melissa Blossom | for |
| 02:23:39.63 | Councilmember Cox | adoption of the odds that we will be able to intelligently weigh in on having seen a draft of the odds. Thank you. |
| 02:23:46.26 | Melissa Blossom | I definitely like that idea, although it might not be a consent item because I would probably like to have a discussion about it as well if we might, but we'll see. Councilmember Kelman or? |
| 02:23:55.20 | Councilmember Kellman | Yeah, no, thank you for that, Council Member Cox. Excellent idea. I think that's a wonderful way to address this. So I support that. I just want to maybe check in with Director Phipps because I want to be clear what staff thinks they're taking on. I think Council Member Cox and I have obligated ourselves to do a very heavy lift, which may have freed up some time for staff to devote to the odds. It could be wrong, but I think just checking in with our director might be helpful. just given that workload allocation. |
| 02:24:27.74 | Brandon Phipps | Yeah, thank you very much, council member Kelman, and appreciate you being sensitive to the capacities that we have at CDD. I think that it is no surprise that CDD, even prior to the housing element and the odds is very short-staffed and our ability to take on new work housing element and odds aside has been and is continues to be difficult for us. So, so I think what I want to do and my goal in this position is to be able to support the vision of city council and city management. And I am, you know, very much here available to commit myself to whatever direction that we are provided. I think there are certain realities associated with capacity. And once I'm able to assess the work, the direction provided by council planning commissioners here, maybe there's a greater discussion to have offline as to, okay, what can be prioritized feasibly, what cannot, and how can we most efficiently approach these things by prioritizing those items that we feel are of the utmost priority. So, so I think short answer is I am here to implement vision of council and city management. |
| 02:25:15.51 | Vicki Nichols | Yeah. |
| 02:25:47.47 | Councilmember Kellman | So director Phipps, sorry to interject, but then can you, would you be able to comply with the suggestion of Councilmember Cox to provide us with the schedule? My understanding is that city staff actually has done very little on odds because we outsource that to Opticos. So that's actually a consultant workload, not a city staff workload, although I'm sure you want to spend time with it as well. Can you commit to that 24th per Councilmember Cox's concept? |
| 02:26:11.57 | Brandon Phipps | Certainly, yeah, I'm very happy to support consent item on the 24th for a calendar of adoption for the odds |
| 02:26:20.40 | Jill Hoffman | Wonderful. Thank you. Councilmember Hoffman. Oh, that's good. That's the work. Uh, |
| 02:26:25.04 | Melissa Blossom | I was hurt. |
| 02:26:25.44 | Jill Hoffman | And... |
| 02:26:25.56 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you. |
| 02:26:25.58 | Jill Hoffman | So. |
| 02:26:26.15 | Melissa Blossom | It's good. Great. So just summing up directions that we can include this clearly in the minutes and that we're all on the same page here. We are going to agendize this for the 24th with the draft and a potential calendar for adoption of the odds. And in consideration of the odds, we're also going to look at gradients and the inclusion as well of ADA and also a consideration for SB9 with regards to the odds and a more broad adoption of the odds. Is everyone in agreement with that? Yes. And if you could send and as well, if the staff could send the draft sooner rather than that would be fantastic. Okay, great. So now we will move on to our final agenda item, which is a presentation on SB nine local implementation ordinance number 1288 interaction with odds and housing element and direction to staff and we will be hearing from our Community Development Director Brandon Phipps. |
| 02:27:17.52 | Brandon Phipps | Mayor, thank you very much for the introduction. I'm going to pass the mic on to Principal Planner, Neil Toft, who has a presentation. |
| 02:27:27.10 | Melissa Blossom | Hi, Neil. We can't hear you. |
| 02:27:36.44 | Unknown | I still can't hear you. |
| 02:27:50.22 | Neil Toft | How about now? |
| 02:27:51.18 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you. |
| 02:27:51.22 | Neil Toft | Thank you. |
| 02:27:51.25 | Melissa Blossom | now we can hear you. |
| 02:27:51.79 | Neil Toft | AND THE FAMILY IS |
| 02:27:51.83 | Melissa Blossom | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:27:51.86 | Neil Toft | Thank you. You're welcome. |
| 02:27:52.26 | Melissa Blossom | Okay. |
| 02:27:53.85 | Neil Toft | Just had to re-plug in my headphones. That was it. Thank you, Mayor Blasdine and members of city council. You know, number one, I think you've actually had a discussion that really hit on me. one of the main reasons for having this presentation and that is kind of discussing the interaction between SB9 and odds. And if you'd like, I'll go ahead and sort of run through the presentation, but I'm going to be very quick about it. I think most of this is things that Commission, the Planning Commission and the council are very familiar with. This is something you've been working over last year. Um, probably know more than I do. So all. I'll run through real quick, but it does sound like in terms of the decision made, if there's If there's any questions about SB9, how we're implementing it, what's going on. We can certainly try to field that tonight. Um, let me go ahead and get my share screen on, um, if the clerk has that for me. I think we've got it. |
| 02:29:03.68 | Neil Toft | Okay, there we go. Can you see my screen? Yes. |
| 02:29:08.57 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:29:09.15 | Neil Toft | Okay, great. So just quickly, the intent of this SB 9 mandate, was very, basically targets single-family zoning as an obstacle to meeting the state's housing supply. Essentially, the purpose of the law is to allow up to two dwelling units on new on single family lots. and or allow minor lot splits to permit further development of what may be termed as SB9 units. Further, the law seeks to require ministerial permit processes for these things. and eliminate public hearing review and neighborhood impact As this is again seen as an obstacle and a cost to development and housing Bye. And In this regulation, the agencies can adopt implementing regulations. There are limits on how much local control the agencies can be imposed. Some agencies have And, fairly liberal with those, basically adopting what the state mandates have. Others have sought to try to implement greater standards sometimes to the degree of objective standards. trying to implement some detailed control over particularly how these units might be designed. |
| 02:30:34.81 | Neil Toft | So these, uh, You know, in general, um, The main implementing regulations, for one, they cannot be used as short term rentals. So the state recognizes that does not help housing. one of the main changes to our setback regulations Zoning restrictions are limited to four feet on site and rear lot lines. Um, Again, the city can implement objective standards. as long as it does not preclude development up to two 800 square foot units on each lot. Um, or an SB9 lot that's created through subdivision. The city may permit ADU and JDUs on in conjunction with SB9 development. um, And the city may require an off street parking space. And the city does. for each unit. From our understanding, there are some caveats to that. that the city cannot require, agencies can't require parking. For the city of Larksburg, it's our understanding that the only exception for this is for parcels within a half mile walking distance of the ferry. That is a major transit stop. But other than that, That's... restrict the city from requiring a parking space. |
| 02:32:05.88 | Neil Toft | And for just a quick background, again, this basically became effective January of last year. The city had adopted Some interim guidelines soon after the law was as of law in September 2021. um, And so the city had adopted guidelines and did eventually through building off work of the legislative committee and input from the planning commission adopted ordinance 1288. in June of last year. And this is a. basically are affecting control over SB9, lot splits and SB9 units. um, And just for some framework, SB9, We've, The city has done a survey and done an analysis and believes that SB9 could apply of up to 945 parcels That's sort of a broad stroke. there would be additional criteria that could be evaluated on a site by site basis. but certainly we are looking at potentially hundreds of parcels that could utilize SB9 as a development option. |
| 02:33:23.07 | Neil Toft | So first is the urban lot split standard section 9.70 of subdivisions. This is the. the section that regulates urban lot splits and essentially, Per the state mandate, we must allow a pretty small lot size 1,200 square feet. But it also allows cities to require that the lot areas be somewhat balanced. with one lot being no less than 40% of the whole or the original lot. Um, The regulations also require at least 20 feet of street frontage and at least Sausalito allows for at least 10 feet frontage for a flag lost. Um, It does. limit the, um, the lot split to only a one-time uh, application. A lot that's been split under SB9 cannot be split further. of additional lots. New dwelling units on an SB9 lot are limited to 1200 square feet of floor area. And there are no more than two units per lot. perpetuity. out. As I note, the The standards do require up to one parking space per lot. And the only exception being those within a half mile of the ferry. |
| 02:34:47.17 | Neil Toft | Um, |
| 02:34:50.85 | Neil Toft | There are, let me make sure I'm getting right here. |
| 02:34:60.00 | Neil Toft | There are standards that apply to the development of the two units, whether it's on an SB9 lot or whether it's on an existing lot. with a single family home or tearing down a single family. with building SB9 units, there are standards And, can be considered objective design standards for development of these units. Again, there's a limit on the number of units and the size. There's also a 16 foot height restriction But that only applies to portions of the dwelling located between the forefoot um, state mandated setbacks. and the standard side and rear yard setbacks. There are also special setbacks that apply to second story decks and rooftop decks. And these can only be built over conditioned space. So that's. That's a detailed design standard there. And there is a requirement for minimum off-street parking There's also... an objective standard It requires installation of fencing and or clear story or opaque windows to address or minimize potential privacy impacts. And I apologize if Beth already covered this. was having technical troubles getting on. beginning of the meeting. But I don't know. As we know, HCD has indicated that in terms of applying SB 9 development to the housing elements projecting that for meeting your arena needs HCD has taken a pretty conservative approach. They require detailed evaluation of SB9 sites. in a property owner survey. in order to really come up with numbers to project towards meetings goals. And again, HDD is taking a very conservative approach. And identifying quality. sites even for this state mandated program. So in conclusion, in terms of SB9, Of course, we could continue with business as usual, applying the current standards. Um, the Council could consider more restrictive standards or we could consider more objective types of design standards within the ordinance. but it does sound that the consensus is to look at the odds. try to look at how that can apply to SB 9 development. And I think one thing to keep in mind in doing this, and we'll be looking for some direction. is anytime we're adding Any objective, any of additional kind of design standards. those can certainly help to Protect the neighborhoods, encourage, improve the aesthetics. So things fit within the neighborhood. It can also create obstacles and make it a bit more difficult than that. is Probably the balance we're looking for is really to encourage those SB9 developments that fit well within the city of Larkspur and well within the neighborhoods. and not to use standards that avoid those that that don't. I'm so With that, we'll take any further direction on odds. excuse me, on SB9 and odds as it applies to that. Thank you. |
| 02:38:23.10 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you very much. And I will now go to if you could show the planning commission on the screen here, I'm going to pass it over to. Chair Luxenberg to give questions from the planning commission to Neal. |
| 02:38:36.23 | Chair Luxenberg | Oh, thank you, Mayor Blaston. Neil, thank you for a very thorough presentation. I think you capsulized what we have. I just want to make one minor correction of something that you had in there. In Sausalito, I believe, and others can correct me if I'm wrong, the bus stops on Bridgeway, bus stops on Second Street and the bus stop up at Spencer all qualify as transit. And therefore, the half a mile is not only from the ferry terminal, but all of those bus stops. So there is a number of places in single family zones that don't have to provide parking. So I just wanted to make that comment. But again, thank you for a very thorough presentation. Commissioner Feller, questions? |
| 02:39:25.47 | Jeffrey Luxenberg | I just had a question for clarification, Neal, and thank you for your presentation. But you had, I believe on one of the slides, a total number of SB9 qualifying lots. Um, And that number differs than the number that we had received some time ago from an interim CDD director, Heidi Scoble. So can we just verify that number? |
| 02:39:55.54 | Neil Toft | I can certainly work to verify with that for you. And I'll let the council know if there's a difference in that number. And I apologize if this was information that I had gleaned from recent So I was building off of that. Do you remember, was that number um, larger or smaller or what was, what do you, remembers being the |
| 02:40:20.59 | Jeffrey Luxenberg | Sure, I don't remember the actual number, so forgive me for that, but it was substantially smaller than what I saw on your slide. And I just think maybe we can work with Director Phipps just to pull up that list it was a very exhaustive process that in director Scoble had gone through and I think we need to be clear about which lots actually could be eligible because the lot has to be of a certain size to be SB 9 eligible. |
| 02:40:56.70 | Neil Toft | Okay, thank you. I do want to let you know that I had actually contacted Um, uh, from the Transportation Authority of Marin. I was checking on this issue high quality transportation corridors and what come like, What qualifies as that? And the response I got back is that we do not have high quality transportation THROUGH the, the Southern Green area. But I will make sure that's been an interesting moving target for directors and planners. all across the Bay Area and particularly in Marin. So I'll, I'll verify on that because that's a critical issue. as to whether we can or cannot. require parking for these types of units. the city may preferred. not to require or you know, again, that could end up becoming an objective standard, but I will work to really nail that down. |
| 02:41:58.24 | Chair Luxenberg | Thank you, Neil. And thank you, Commissioner Feller. With regard to the parking, we have not had a case on the SB9 come before the commission, obviously, because it's ministerial, but we have had multiple cases of ADUs that come before us because of other things in the project. and the language for ADUs is identical to the language for SB9 in the law. So I'm presuming that it would be helpful if you could clarify that because we have been using that criteria on ADU projects and if that's not the case, if those don't count, we need to be aware of that. Thank you. With that, I'll go to Commissioner Saab for questions. Thank you. |
| 02:42:49.09 | Commissioner Saad | Thank you. Yes. Thank you for the presentation. I'm going to mention what Commissioner Feller had mentioned also was significantly lower and I do think that caveat was based on the 1200 square feet, so I think it's not. It looks like your number probably around the R1 zoning versus what we had decided on the square footage. That being said, it's also that and I believe I just had it open. I think it was in the seventh. PIAAC meeting. because there was a survey that had gone out for projected SB9 units. It was significantly lower in terms of the response. And I think it was about 15 respondents for property owner surveys and 34 respondents who responded to the needs and priority surveys. We're actually interested in SB9 units. I don't know if that makes sense. a terrible difference for the nature of your presentation, but it's just a general call out for, I think, what we're trying to... that she would be housing element if we're gonna go with more, you know, what can actually be built. It was a good survey to get some actual feel and temperature from the community. So I just wanted to note that because it was an important chunk in one of our HEAC agendas. But other than that, I don't think I have any further questions. Thank you again for the presentation. |
| 02:44:24.14 | Chair Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Saag. Vice Chair Junius, questions? |
| 02:44:28.97 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair Luxenberg. Just a quick question to Director Phipps or Mr. Taub. How many SB9 applications has the City of Saucelita received? who have an idea of that just a Any? |
| 02:44:43.15 | Brandon Phipps | We have received some as far as a specific number, I wanna say greater than one, And less than 10, Neil? Probably. Any assumptions? |
| 02:44:53.34 | Neil Toft | I mean, probably. Probably less than 10. I think we were actually trying to tackle that question over the last couple of days. Um, We do have two active applications in. And we have had inquiries, I think we've got about two, sort of inquiries. whether they're very valid, you know, actionable. is hard to say. And so sort of projecting backwards, There may have been a few or a handful over the last year I think the. Like ADUs, SB9 is now becoming a little bit more of a Uh, There's a little more vocabulary through the development community about it, its possibilities So I think you'll see that begin to kind of head upwards. Yeah, not a whole lot of activity yet, but we anticipate it'll continue to rise. |
| 02:45:51.00 | Andrew Junius | I do think we should acknowledge the fact that it is it's a little more complicated process than it would seem on its face. You know, you are creating new lots that requires surveys. It requires, you know, a lot of different considerations. So I'm I'll just be curious as the years move on how many this benign projects we actually get. I'd be surprised if it was a ton, but we'll see how it goes. |
| 02:46:13.68 | Neil Toft | And I think to kind of... A conversation I was overhearing today in the virtual countermeetings The applicant was a bit frustrated by the various, you know, regulations and constraints that do apply. that, It's not really there just to build the biggest market rate housing. It's there to build. smaller units and affordable units, and there are constraints to it. |
| 02:46:43.08 | Brandon Phipps | If I may just briefly want to communicate to commissioners and council that we are creating a process within CDD to detailed to have a detailed system whereby we track new units. And I'm working with principal planner, Neil Toft and Kristen Taiki on that. And that will make it much more efficient and easy for us to answer very specific questions about very specific unit types and in what quantity. |
| 02:46:43.36 | Neil Toft | I don't know. |
| 02:46:43.41 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:46:43.43 | Neil Toft | Thank you. |
| 02:46:43.63 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:46:43.67 | Neil Toft | I'm sorry. |
| 02:47:17.55 | Melissa Blossom | see your hand Councilman Kelvin we're not yet to city council questions but I know that your hand is raised. |
| 02:47:23.14 | Chair Luxenberg | So, Commissioner, Vice Chair, do you have additional questions? Any other commissioners have any questions before we go bring it back to the council? WITH THAT, MAYOR BLONSTEIN, The pun's yours, so to speak. |
| 02:47:38.80 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you, Chair Luxenberg. Okay, so I'll start with Council Member Kelman as she already has her hand raised. |
| 02:47:40.37 | Chair Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:47:42.97 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you. |
| 02:47:43.03 | Councilmember Kellman | Thank you, Mayor Bussin. So Neil, you just made this comment that the SB9 is designed to provide more units than affordable units. And it may come to as a shock to some that it's not just intended to build a house without review. This is more of an existential question, but also I guess direction to consider. which is as we develop our objective development design standards and should they be applied to SB 9, What are some ways in which we can continue to support those objectives and make sure that we are in fact utilizing SB9 within the spirit in which it was intended of affordable units, not just market rate. And that's a rhetorical question at this time, because it's springing in on you, but I just wanted to flag that. And then I guess Neil, or, Maybe you want to comment a little bit. We've talked a lot. on Tuesday and tonight about hazard mitigation, about disaster preparedness, one of the key components of SB9 If I am correct, is that remove SQL review. How can we as a community take into account the lack of environmental planning and secret review includes hazards and public safety. How do we reconcile that with some of the other policy objectives we are trying to focus on here as a council? |
| 02:49:05.47 | Neil Toft | Well, I think there's two things. One is... SB 9 doesn't waive Um, building code and safety standards The fire department does do the reviews for both the lot splits and any construction So there is requirements for emergency access and egress. I think it's a matter of looking more at the question of know. site stability, maintaining vegetation on slopes. slope stability. Um, There may be additional Uh, you know, standards we can look at and apply sort of specific to those criteria And certainly there's some objective stairs that may make it more difficult the steeper the slope. Thank you. the harder it is to meet certain objectives. again, those all become things we need to check through with the city attorney, because you need to, Design these in a way you're not precluding the ability. So I think it's a matter of We can take that. you know, try to take that a little step further. you do have to, you have to treat it with the same sort of code standards as you would any normal construction. By and large. Uh, So I hope that kind of answers your question, but I think in the, in the guise of the looking at this through whether it's the objective design standards or just tightening up Amen. current standards, we can, you know, Um, to do. Look at that. So... specifically. |
| 02:50:44.81 | Councilmember Kellman | Yeah. THANK YOU. |
| 02:50:47.42 | Neil Toft | He's going out. |
| 02:50:47.58 | Councilmember Kellman | So like, |
| 02:50:48.44 | Neil Toft | The other one thing I wanted to say is Yeah. affordability. Some communities, and I'm not sure early on, I'm, imposed. requirements for affordability, deed restrictions, And I'm not sure where that stands legally now. relative whether that's tested or challenged by the state. But the other reality of that is, you know, this is the, conflict of trying to build housing and affordable housing is if you um, if you do impose a deed restriction standard or you then be creating an obstacle to actually developing by imposing I'm... levels that just don't make a pencil out for the property owner. Those are all challenging. issues to balance and study. |
| 02:51:41.48 | Melissa Blossom | Bye. Thank you. Thanks Councilmember Kellman. Okay, do we have further questions from members of the council? Council member Cox, yes. Thank you. |
| 02:51:52.02 | Councilmember Cox | I wanted to just confirm you mentioned, um, Your presentation contains some comments regarding offsite parking. I wanted to just confirm that We adopted. an ordinance. in as connection with our ADU ordinance. that does require off-site parking close to transit if necessary to protect health and safety. because some of our roads are so narrow that if we allow on street parking Fire vehicles will be unable to traverse those roads. And we had that happen. just prior to adopting that ordinance. confirm You may not be able to confirm that this evening. That ordinance is still in place and has not been superseded because it was important to public safety that even those units close to public transit if they are situated on narrow streets still have fire protection services available to them. Thank you. |
| 02:52:57.02 | Neil Toft | It still has that language, yes. |
| 02:52:59.45 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you so much. Thanks Councilmember Cox. I did have one question in light of our previous discussion on the odds. I'm not sure Neil if you've had an opportunity to review the draft of the odds, but I'm wondering different the design standards in ordinance 1288 that we adopted in conjunction with the adoption of SB 9 as a state law. are from the new odds. Do you think that they are quite different or will it be not much of a change or a challenge to integrate our new odds into SB9? |
| 02:53:30.35 | Neil Toft | Well, I haven't studied the odds in detail. As Bob said, it's a big document I was somewhat familiar with. The origin, I was working with one of the other agencies with Opticos, as Bob said most Most of the agencies throughout Marin are in the process of either having had recently adopted or in the process of adopting odds with that toolkit. in various forms. forms and using various different parts of the toolkit. feeling what's appropriate for their jurisdictions, but the, I would say My sense of what the ODDS Toolkit will do is it's going to provide a lot more And it creates more of an off the shelf or out of the box design options for a property owner. So that's good and bad. It gives them a which is not a good thing. what ours does, ours just creates sort of form limits. And here's some restrictions but in terms of any kind of material treatments. other things in the odds would provide a lot more detail to that. And again, it could serve to help. expedite. and assist development to some degree. or it could also You know, depends on what the applicants or property owners trying to achieve. in being. Some may consider it an obstacle. I think it kind of depends on how that, um, how it works. I haven't had a good chance to look at the our odds currently and how like Corte Madera is applying it to this type of development. |
| 02:55:14.17 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you. I appreciate that. Okay, I wanna open it up to public comment. Yes, Michael Rex. |
| 02:55:26.17 | Michael Rex | Thank you again, Michael Rex, local architect. And I wanna draw attention to I just distributed tonight before the hearing. that addresses concerns uh, Senate Bill 9 and how we're implementing it and it also talked about the odds program so I ask everyone to take a moment to read it when you can. I'm concerned about odds. I've seen how it's been applied already. I think there's some good things and bad things. on the concern side is that ministerially, I think we've gone overboard. There's no noticing to the neighbors. Uh, just because there can't be a hearing doesn't mean that neighbors can't be notified and shouldn't be, they should. So they're not surprised and they have an opportunity if they know about it. to talk to their neighbor and try to work something out that's compatible between neighbors. If they don't know about it, they can't do that. And also because it's the ministerial approved, Um, They're still in our code, the ability to... appeal a decision made by staff. And yet I'm told that's not the case here. because it's mandated. staff could err in how they apply Senate Bill Nye. And also, indicates the appeal process because if you don't know about it, how can you appeal it? until after it's all approved. That's part of our code. We shouldn't apply Senate Bill 9 and negate the appeal. The good sizes, you downside houses to 1200 square feet. That's going to, and you require a setback, a step back as it goes up above 16 feet, it has to set a set further back. That's gonna help reduce intrusion of mass and bulk looming over houses. But the goal that the committee had adopted TO, UM, uh, protect privacy isn't going to work. the way the code's written in ordinance 1188, is that if you have windows facing All right, Jason. Thank you very much. Can I complete a sentence? |
| 02:57:37.54 | Melissa Blossom | You can complete your sentences. |
| 02:57:39.14 | Michael Rex | if they require a opaque windows or windows above your head. well adjacent properties could be the downhill. That's just not gonna work. It's gonna need further thought and I recommend you engage with some design professionals in that further analysis. |
| 02:57:57.33 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you, Michael. Do we have any public comment from those on Zoom? |
| 02:58:04.81 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes, we do. We have Sybil Bouliet. Thank you. |
| 02:58:07.76 | Melissa Blossom | Bye, Sybil. No. |
| 02:58:08.84 | Sybil Routier | Thank you. |
| 02:58:08.86 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you. |
| 02:58:08.94 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 02:58:11.56 | Sybil Routier | Thank you, Maria. Since we're still talking about housing, I hope this isn't too much off subject, but I just wanted to mention, I was reminded that Some of us, previously with former Mayor Kelman, we did have some conversations with Senator McGuire about opportunity for senior housing and state support for that in South Toledo. And just like last week at the County Commission on Aging, which I and South Sweetle's representative at. He reiterated his interest in supporting the concept that we were discussing and his willingness to help us with funding. And I bring that up because it's so important that we make sure that we're in compliance and move. And if we wanna take out this opportunity, we wanna make sure that we keep that that we keep that moving as well. And, um, since we have already agreed that senior housing is one of the things that we lack of sufficiency of affordable senior housing in our community. So thank you so much. I just wanted an opportunity to bring that forward. |
| 02:59:35.65 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you, Sybil. Do we have any further public comment at this time, City Clerk? |
| 02:59:39.78 | Walfred Solorzano | We have no further public comment. |
| 02:59:41.45 | Melissa Blossom | Okay, I will now close public comment and I'm going to hand it over to chair lexenberg to receive comments or final questions from the planning commission. |
| 02:59:49.47 | Chair Luxenberg | Thank you, Mayor Blasdine. New members, this is really, it was a status item and we're waiting for getting copies of the odds. We would like copies of the odds submitted to us as well and we can figure out whether they will be helpful to SB9 at a future meeting. But with that, are there any other comments or questions for any of the commissioners? I see Commissioner Feather's hand up. |
| 03:00:17.36 | Jeffrey Luxenberg | Thank you chair Luxenberg, I would only ask that public comments received or issued to City Council for a joint hearing also be copied to the planning Commission and posted to the agenda, so we have the benefit of reviewing those as well. Thank you. |
| 03:00:35.17 | Chair Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. Yeah, there was a comment earlier about something that was dropped off in the chamber, and we have not received that. So if that could be sent to us, that would be helpful. any of the other commissioners, Vice Chair Juniors, Commissioner Saad, any further comments this evening? With that, I'll turn it back over to Mayor Blashtey. |
| 03:00:54.86 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you chair Luxenberg. Okay. I'm now going to open it up to the council for questions on this item. Are there any council? pardon me, comments on this item. Yes, Vice Mayor Sobieski, let's start with you. |
| 03:01:05.93 | Vice Mayor Sobieski | I saw Michael Rex's comments around noticing of neighbors seemed quite reasonable and just making sure people are actually informed. Can those things? easily be adopted into the process. It's kind of a question for it. people that know. |
| 03:01:25.11 | Melissa Blossom | Neil, have you had a chance to review the public comment from Michael Rex on SB9 and the odds? |
| 03:01:31.02 | Neil Toft | No, I haven't. Sorry. |
| 03:01:33.52 | Melissa Blossom | Okay, Vice Mayor, we will get an answer to that from staff forward. Are there comments? Council member Kelman. Thank you. |
| 03:01:42.90 | Councilmember Kellman | Thank you, Mayor. I'll just make the comment, which is a thank you to staff. into our consultants. I thought the meeting tonight flowed exceptionally well. I think by the time we got to this item SB 9, which could have been complicated and unclear, I think we all now understand how these pieces fit together. So I really just want to thank you for that. I've already given my comments, I think, in my question related to Neil. around, there's this thread now, disaster preparedness, resiliency, hazard prevention. It's a theme for us, and I want to make sure it gets embedded into each and every one of these as well. And so I think we talked about SB9 when we talked about the odds. whether or not they interplay, same comment again. But I really just want to take the opportunity to thank staff. This flowed, I think, in a really helpful manner. So well done, everybody. |
| 03:02:30.20 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you councilmember Kelman. Councilmember Hoffman, I see your hand raised. |
| 03:02:33.14 | Jill Hoffman | uh |
| 03:02:33.48 | Melissa Blossom | Yeah. |
| 03:02:33.97 | Jill Hoffman | I concur. And this has been a, you know, this is a very difficult process. And so I think this was a really helpful joint meeting. So thanks to also planning commission for all your tremendous work and, and having a joint meeting with us tonight. And also before we adjourn tonight, I would ask that. Our director, Phipps, introduced Neil because he's new. And we usually do that at beginning of meetings when there's a new guy in our midst as part of our team. Anyway, maybe it's now, maybe it's before we adjourn, but anyway, thank you. |
| 03:03:08.17 | Brandon Phipps | No, certainly Councilmember Hoffman, very happy to make the introduction. And yeah, apologies for those of you who haven't had the opportunity to meet Neil Toft, our new principal planner. He started with CDD in early December. He is a former employee of City of Sausalito and also a former planning director in City of Larkspur. And I have to say he's an incredible asset to our team, and I am very pleased to have the opportunity to work with him. planning director in the city of Larkspur. And I have to say he's an incredible asset to our team and I am very pleased to have the opportunity to work with him. Neil, I'll turn it over to you if there's anything you want to add to your intro. |
| 03:03:44.23 | Neil Toft | No, I just would like to say I did, in fact. kind of cut my teeth in the city of Larkspur as an assistant planner. and then rose up to an associate planner the 90s, left in about 2001. over to Larkspur and then eventually went on to become planning director. for last several years and then retired at the end of 2021. um, And just as a warning, working here. part-time. That's. part of the Uh, arrangements and but we also have Kristen Taiki, I'm not sure if you've all met her. on call tonight, I think, yeah, but we've worked together. both here and in Larkspur. So, you know, we both are excited to be here working with Brandon and try to help you know, get, get some backlog cleared out and at Sausalito. you know, on your own. moving forward. And I would say, yeah, for an example, Um, We really. tried to look at what has been done with SB9 over the last year. And what? the whole conversion to digital processing from paper over the last many years for Sausalito. like every city. That creates efficiencies and it also creates deficiencies and confusion. we're gonna keep working on making that better so we can actually, come to you with some really good reporting on various project types and things like that. But. It was always fascinating to work Sausalito is a dynamic. Um, interesting and very engaged community. So it's exciting to be here. Thank you. |
| 03:05:36.94 | Melissa Blossom | We're very lucky to have you back and glad to have you. It looks like Kristen's on the call too, if you wanted to introduce her as well, Brandon. |
| 03:05:46.05 | Brandon Phipps | Certainly, yeah. Kristen, are you there? Also very good. |
| 03:05:46.12 | Melissa Blossom | like Yeah. I'm gonna give you a heads up that you'd have to turn your camera on, Chris. |
| 03:05:53.41 | Brandon Phipps | I'm very happy to welcome Kristin Taiki to the team. She is also a former city of Sausalito employee, as well as a former senior level planner in city of Larkspur. And actually, Kristin and Neil have had the opportunity to work together for some time. And I'm pleased that they're able to provide a one-two punch in CDDs. Kristin, I'll turn it over to you. |
| 03:06:22.15 | Melissa Blossom | Yeah. |
| 03:06:22.20 | Neil Toft | news. |
| 03:06:22.57 | Melissa Blossom | We can't hear you. Thank you. I think you might be muted or your mic isn't off. |
| 03:06:25.66 | Neil Toft | Turn on mic. |
| 03:06:32.53 | Neil Toft | I'll try it again. does that. |
| 03:06:37.10 | Melissa Blossom | I wonder if your mic's not working. You could run into Brandon's office. Thank you. I'm sorry. |
| 03:06:40.88 | Brandon Phipps | Yeah, Neil's office or my office. There you go. |
| 03:06:45.81 | Neil Toft | Thank you. |
| 03:06:46.43 | Brandon Phipps | I'm putting these |
| 03:06:46.97 | Neil Toft | I'm not. |
| 03:06:50.23 | Melissa Blossom | introducing the new, I think this is a great example of teamwork that they're going to run into each other's office and share the headphones. So. We're off to a great start with our new planning staff. All right. And then I promise we'll get back to comments on the item. |
| 03:07:03.97 | Natasha Saab | Eric. Hi, everybody. Can you hear me now? |
| 03:07:07.36 | Melissa Blossom | Can you hear me now? |
| 03:07:07.96 | Chair Luxenberg | Bye. Thank you. |
| 03:07:08.47 | Natasha Saab | Yes. |
| 03:07:08.57 | Chair Luxenberg | Thank you. Bye. |
| 03:07:08.79 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you. |
| 03:07:08.86 | Chair Luxenberg | Yes, we can. |
| 03:07:09.15 | Natasha Saab | Oh, okay. Yeah, this was actually the first city I worked for after my internship in the city of Cupertino back in the late 1980s. And then I left... to San Jose, came back to Sausalito for a number of years, and then went to Larkspur. So, Yeah, it's funny. the returning back to your roots in a sense. |
| 03:07:31.45 | Melissa Blossom | Thank you. We're so pleased to have both of you back in Sausalito and looking forward to seeing the great work that CDD does under our new Community Development Director Phipps. So just to get back to the item here SB 9 to make sure all of the Council members are able to weigh in and provide comments that we might give the right direction to staff do other Council members have comment to add I know i'm still waiting for vice mayor to weigh in and Councilmember Cox so whomever would like to go first. |
| 03:07:56.23 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 03:07:56.26 | Melissa Blossom | I could go. |
| 03:07:58.25 | Councilmember Cox | I'm And thank you to Neil. And we are certainly fortunate to have you and Kristen. with your level of expertise, join our staff. So thank you and welcome. And thank you for your work on this update. I would like to endorse what the vice mayor said about including the comments from Michael Rex. I actually reached out to Michael yesterday to request his feedback because I think it's important that we include members of our professional community FORGE AHEAD WITH PROJECTS SUCH AS THIS. Um, I some of his suggestions, I think, make a lot of sense, including public notice. the public's right to review the submittal applications and plans, and to appeal staff decisions, The steps to avoid massing so that structures over 16 feet. for second floor decks and balconies be set back. uh, to the normal setbacks, not the reduced setbacks. The re-looking at the wholesale deletion of findings 2 through 13 of our design review standards. I think that needs to be closely examined. Um, Objective criteria such as measurement of heritage trees, story poles, size access easements. And When the public right of way is used or there's an easement that needs to be deducted from the square footage of the property. available. for calculating development. So those are just some examples Um, Mr. Rex's comments, I think are well taken and should definitely be carefully considered as we update our SB nine ordinance. And finally, I wanted to say thank you to the agenda setting committee for scheduling this special joint meeting. of our city council and planning commission. I think it has been extraordinarily. helpful, probably a little bit overdue. So thank you so much for making that happen. |
| 03:09:58.94 | Melissa Blossom | Vice Mayor, do you have comments you'd like to? |
| 03:10:01.39 | Vice Mayor Sobieski | No additional comments. Thank you. |
| 03:10:03.94 | Melissa Blossom | Okay, and I just want to echo a big thank you to staff and the Planning Commission and my fellow members of the City Council. for conducting this meeting in such an effective way. I feel like it was quite informative and we have an idea of what we need to get done to move forward. with our housing element and we've discussed some really critical design standards and responses to state ordinances. So, This was a big success. So thank you to everyone for your participation and your feedback. In terms of this item, just to sum up direction to staff, I think Council member Kelman suggested that we make sure But when we're looking at SB9, we're doing it with an eye to disaster preparedness, which is a critical lens that we should have for any considerations in our community. And I think we also all agree that the memo that was prepared by Michael Rex on SB 9 in the odds is a really good starting point for our staff to take a look at and consider the. Great recommendations that were pointed out by Council Member Cox. And importantly, we should make sure that the Planning Commission as well has a copy of this memo. If they did not yet receive it, it will be in the packet from tonight's meeting. But if it could be directly forwarded to them, that would be helpful. So if there are no further comments from the rest of the Planning Commission and the council, just before I adjourn, our next meeting, regular scheduled meeting is on January 24th. We are likely to have a special meeting a week from tomorrow. in for a closed session. So look out in your inboxes, council members for date and time for that meeting and perhaps there will be more joint meetings determined based on what we hear from de novo about what we need to do in advance of the 31st. So a big thank you to everyone for your participation tonight. And it is now 843, and I'm going to go ahead and adjourn the meeting. Thank you very much. |
| 03:11:49.49 | Chair Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:11:50.52 | Melissa Blossom | Good night, everyone. |
| 03:11:51.48 | Chair Luxenberg | Never mind. Bye. |
Ian Sobieski — In Favor: Urged the council to seek clarity on the consequences of missing the January 31 deadline and advocated for pushing to adopt a housing element by that date to avoid potential negative consequences. ▶ 📄