| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:04.86 | Unknown | 30. |
| 00:00:23.71 | Steven Woodside | Good evening and welcome to the Sausalito City Council meeting for Tuesday, February 4th, 2025. It is 6.30 p.m. I will call the meeting to order and ask Walfred to call the roll. |
| 00:00:37.56 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilman Blaustein. |
| 00:00:38.99 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:00:39.03 | Steven Woodside | you |
| 00:00:39.06 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |
| 00:00:39.11 | Steven Woodside | Yes. |
| 00:00:39.40 | Steven Woodside | doesn't. |
| 00:00:40.08 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Huffman. Thank you. |
| 00:00:41.90 | Steven Woodside | Here. |
| 00:00:41.95 | Walfred Solorzano | Here. Councilmember Sobieski. Here. Vice Mayor Woodside. Here. And Mayor Cox. |
| 00:00:43.91 | Steven Woodside | Sure. |
| 00:00:47.87 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:00:47.89 | Steven Woodside | here. We are about to adjourn to closed session, which we will discuss one item, conference with legal counsel, anticipated litigation, significant exposure to litigation, one case. And I will ask if there's any public comment on our closed session. |
| 00:01:05.74 | Walfred Solorzano | See none. |
| 00:01:06.96 | Steven Woodside | With that, we will adjourn to closed session. |
| 00:01:22.30 | Steven Woodside | Good evening and welcome back to the Sausalito City Council meeting for Tuesday, February 4th, 2025. We are reconvening after open session, there are no announcements, I will, however, advise that Council members so be asking recused himself from our closed session discussion. um. |
| 00:01:49.85 | Steven Woodside | Okay, Sergio, or Walford, will you, I'm sorry. Okay, welcome to the same. |
| 00:01:57.99 | Ian Sobieski | because of the location of my property to the subject matter. |
| 00:02:01.89 | Steven Woodside | All right. City clerk, will you call roll? |
| 00:02:08.03 | Walfred Solorzano | on some blasting. |
| 00:02:09.56 | Steven Woodside | Yes. |
| 00:02:09.90 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Councilmember Huffman, Here. Councilmember Sobieski. Vice Mayor Woodside. Here. And Mayor Cox here. |
| 00:02:19.37 | Steven Woodside | here. Sophia Collier, will you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance? |
| 00:02:30.35 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:02:30.37 | Sandra Bushmaker | I pledge you. |
| 00:02:31.03 | Steven Woodside | to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God, indivisible with the flag. |
| 00:02:31.59 | Sandra Bushmaker | the fight. of the United States of America. |
| 00:02:33.97 | Unknown | Thank you. to the republic. |
| 00:02:37.73 | Stacey Newell | Thank you. |
| 00:02:37.75 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 00:02:37.81 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. |
| 00:02:37.91 | Sandra Bushmaker | and |
| 00:02:38.00 | Stacey Newell | you |
| 00:02:38.17 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 00:02:39.89 | Steven Woodside | Indivisible. There's a really tough car. |
| 00:02:41.17 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:02:42.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:02:47.01 | Steven Woodside | I will take public comment on closed session items. |
| 00:02:53.15 | Walfred Solorzano | See none. |
| 00:02:54.43 | Steven Woodside | I will entertain a motion approving our agenda. |
| 00:02:57.03 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. So moved, but with the request that we perhaps continue item business item D to another date. I worry about the substantial conversation around our housing element items. And I respect our director McGowan quite a lot to have to stay and then have it be continued anyway. |
| 00:03:17.08 | Jill Hoffman | Can you please read off what that is? I'm looking through my... It is the... |
| 00:03:23.04 | Steven Woodside | It's introduction by title and waiver. |
| 00:03:26.12 | Jill Hoffman | Oh, yeah. and we're going to have a |
| 00:03:26.78 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Okay, is Director McGowan here? Director McGowan, can you step forward and advise whether this is something that is time sensitive? |
| 00:03:39.15 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:03:39.17 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:03:39.20 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:03:39.31 | Steven Woodside | DIAS IN |
| 00:03:40.27 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:03:40.28 | Steven Woodside | Delta. |
| 00:03:42.39 | Kevin McGowan | I think we can move this forward to the next meeting. I don't think that would be a problem. |
| 00:03:46.90 | Steven Woodside | Okay. |
| 00:03:47.27 | Ian Sobieski | Jesus. If it's pro forma, though, could it be heard quickly just to get the first reading out of the way? If it's pro forma? |
| 00:03:52.18 | Steven Woodside | So your colleague has asked to be removed so that we don't require him to stay here until 11 o'clock at night. |
| 00:03:57.01 | Ian Sobieski | 11 o'clock at night. Could it just be knocked out |
| 00:04:01.90 | Steven Woodside | I defer to the council. |
| 00:04:04.13 | Ian Sobieski | How long would it take, Director McGowan? |
| 00:04:10.68 | Kevin McGowan | We do have a quick presentation from our consultants. So we're probably 10 to 15 minutes at least Thank you. |
| 00:04:16.26 | Steven Woodside | So you're at 30 minutes. Do you want to take 30 minutes? No, I think we move ahead on the housing element. That's what I would prefer. Just for this evening, it's a pact. Okay. |
| 00:04:18.56 | Steven Woodside | take their time. |
| 00:04:19.03 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 00:04:22.40 | Steven Woodside | Okay, seeing that our chambers are packed, I will entertain a motion to continue this item to February 18th. So moved. |
| 00:04:36.97 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:04:37.37 | Steven Woodside | second. |
| 00:04:38.70 | Steven Woodside | All in favor aye aye that motion. |
| 00:04:39.62 | Steven Woodside | Aye. Aye. That motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much, Mayor. We will take public comment on that item tonight, but Director McGowan, you don't need to stay for that. |
| 00:04:41.15 | Steven Woodside | Thank you very much, Mary. |
| 00:04:48.22 | Steven Woodside | Okay. With that, there are no... Oh, so now I will entertain a motion approving of the agenda. amended. |
| 00:04:58.69 | Steven Woodside | So moved. |
| 00:05:00.47 | Steven Woodside | second. Thank you. |
| 00:05:01.37 | Steven Woodside | All in favor? |
| 00:05:02.45 | Steven Woodside | Aye. That motion carries unanimously. There are no special presentations or mayor's announcements this evening, so we will move on to communications. Due to the fact that we have a packed chambers, I am taking action this evening to reduce our public comment period from three minutes to two minutes for all items this evening. |
| 00:05:02.50 | Steven Woodside | Hi. |
| 00:05:24.37 | Steven Woodside | All right, city clerk, do we have any communications? |
| 00:05:28.44 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes, we have Babette McDougall. |
| 00:05:30.70 | Steven Woodside | Would you mind passing the slips up here? |
| 00:05:36.79 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:05:36.81 | Unknown | this one. Yeah. |
| 00:05:44.69 | Babette McDougall | Thank you very much for recognizing me by Benton McDougall, Girard Avenue. So during this public comment phase, I just want to say that I have filed at least one letter and some letters written by others in the community. Maybe they got to you. I don't know. but they don't have their names on it if you do have them. because people are justifiably nervous about what's going on in this town. There is just not enough daylighting. I think that's the bottom line. This is a town, as our city manager pointed out in this morning's State of the City event, There's a relationship between the amount of time it takes to make something happen in this community. and the direct involvement of the people themselves. That is not a bad problem. That's a great problem to have. So if it takes 10 years to get the plaza just the way you want it, fine. 10 years is nothing in the big picture of time. So I would just like to say, Once I have your attention again, do I get my time back, Walford? Probably not. So the point is this. I still say that we do need to come together as a community. This division is not helping anyone. Now, maybe some developer will get a steal of a deal because you're keeping the community divided. Do not keep this community divided. Bring us together. as only the council can. Thank you. I'm happy to yield back the remainder of my time. Thank you. |
| 00:07:07.04 | Steven Woodside | Speaker is Jeff Jacobs. |
| 00:07:14.81 | Jeff Jacobs | Hello, City Council. Hello, city workers and packed house. That's a really good to see. It's nice that the rain has ended after four or five days. I didn't have to be in touch with whatever the daily news was, either in the media or even from my friends. Be on a boat on Richardson's Bay in the community that has... Been there from before the houses were here, before the Mud. at the shoreline |
| 00:07:57.83 | Jeff Jacobs | What I want to do is I want to use this time to talk about something a little more important than A storm and then a rainbow afterwards. This is from Exodus 15. What I do is I read the portion from the week, which ups the The level I think of serendipity sometimes with the issues that are happening. I'm very happy to see that there are on the consent calendar. There's no consultants fees. Sometimes what doesn't happen is much more of a victory than what does. I will sing to the Lord for he has triumphed gloriously. This is Exodus 15. Horse and driver he is hurled into the sea. The Lord is my strength and my might He has become my deliverance. This is my God, and I will enshrine him, the God of my Father, and I will exalt him. The Lord, the warrior. The Lord is his name. |
| 00:09:10.44 | Jeff Jacobs | that right now what I want to say is it's a time for Jubilee, not a time for America to take over the Middle East. |
| 00:09:16.48 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Do we have any other public... |
| 00:09:17.97 | Jeff Jacobs | I want to, you know, |
| 00:09:18.95 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:09:19.39 | Steven Woodside | Your kindness has to be. |
| 00:09:19.49 | Walfred Solorzano | Your kind is absurd. Thank you. |
| 00:09:21.41 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:09:22.81 | Walfred Solorzano | We'll start with Sandra Bushmaker. |
| 00:09:27.88 | Sandra Bushmaker | Good evening, Council. With all the commotion that we're having at the national level and all the executive orders that have been signed and all the changes that are occurring, that we've been told in the news will affect us states and municipalities. I would like to request that the public be informed what the changes are that are affecting Sausalito. And I would also like to have a discussion about how the public will be informed about this. I think it's very important Susan Nemitz- Important there's a lot of high anxiety in the community over what's happening, not related to necessarily direct Sausalito business, but which could have major impact on our community, and I would like to have be kept apprised as things happen. as to the impacts of Trump 2.0 has on our culture in it on our town, so I would request some communication from the Council as as to these effects when they happen, thank you. |
| 00:10:35.41 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes, we have Fred. |
| 00:10:40.17 | Steven Woodside | Fred Moore. |
| 00:10:41.63 | Walfred Solorzano | That's right. I'm assuming maybe. |
| 00:10:46.73 | Fred Moore | Hello. Again, I appreciate the council moving the communications for an agendized item to the beginning of the meeting. I would suggest that we go back to the two minutes versus a three minute time period for that, for those communications to help expedite the city council meetings. Also, I hope that the council has an opportunity to encourage the planning staff to expedite the hearing on the appeal for the Wells Fargo building and get it resolved as quickly as possible. Thank you very much. |
| 00:11:18.78 | Steven Woodside | I'll note for the record that appeal will be heard at our February 18th meeting. Anyone else? City Clerk? |
| 00:11:25.38 | Walfred Solorzano | No further public comment. Thank you. Oh, sorry. |
| 00:11:29.15 | Bert Drobnis | Oh, you. |
| 00:11:31.06 | Walfred Solorzano | Dr. Forsyth. Good evening. |
| 00:11:34.96 | Bert Drobnis | Thank you. My first comment is directed specifically at council members Sobieski, Kellerman, |
| 00:11:35.92 | Walfred Solorzano | I did not receive a speech. |
| 00:11:41.14 | Steven Woodside | You have to speak into the mic if you would, and do you mind identifying yourself? |
| 00:11:44.88 | Bert Drobnis | Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Bert Drobnin, this Anchorage Road. |
| 00:11:48.61 | Bert Drobnis | Um, My first comment is directed specifically at council members Sobieski, Blaustein, and Kellerman. I have here in front of me a reprint from the Sausalito Currents. And I'd like to read. at its meeting on July 27th, 2021. The city council decided that it would submit any plans for a new park adjacent to the Sausalito Ferry landing, to a vote of the people, I repeat, people, in accordance with the Ordinance 1128, a section of the Municipal Code that restricts changes to the uses of Municipal Parking Lot 1 through 4. regardless of what a vote would have or would not have shown. No vote was ever submitted in front of the people of this town. That tells me you broke your word and your trust to the people of this town. And if we, the people who you serve, cannot count on you to keep your word. then you don't deserve, in my opinion, to sit on the city council. That's number one. Number two. Ever since the city bought the Bank of America building, it has done nothing but lose money. It has given lucrative contracts to SCA. SCA has held... Over 50 events. It was supposed to split the profits 50-50. The city has not received one Lincoln penny as of yet. You are losing money. My suggestion is sell the goddamn building, take the money. improve the roads, which are some of the worst in the county, and improve the infrastructure of this town, which both have been neglected for years upon years, including the 42 years that I have lived in this town. Thank you very much. |
| 00:13:40.19 | Ian Sobieski | All right. |
| 00:13:40.46 | Steven Woodside | I'm going to respond first. I appreciate that everyone is passionate about their views. I would ask that you refrain from... |
| 00:13:40.48 | Bert Drobnis | to. |
| 00:13:40.53 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:13:40.56 | Bert Drobnis | I thought it was called. |
| 00:13:41.07 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:13:41.12 | Bert Drobnis | I'm going to go. |
| 00:13:41.13 | Ian Sobieski | Bye. |
| 00:13:41.27 | Bert Drobnis | Thank you. |
| 00:13:50.50 | Steven Woodside | CURSING WHILE SPEAKING PUBLICLY. Thank you. |
| 00:13:53.76 | Ian Sobieski | Since I was called out, I just would like a point of personal privilege, sir, that your facts are incorrect. The matter you're speaking about in July of 2021 concerned my vision for the redevelopment of all downtown. Council Member Hoffman and I rewrote the measure. The currents, of course, aren't the definitive document the minutes are. If you'll go to that meeting and the motion, it was around a redevelopment of the entire area that white trigger 1128 totally separate from that a totally separate project that predated my time on the city council was the ferry landing project and that of course moved forward at its own pace and with its own restrictions so i wanted just to correct the record that you're you've just confused the facts of the matter |
| 00:14:37.14 | Steven Woodside | All right, anything else? City clerk. See none. Okay. With that, we'll move on to the consent calendar. Removal of items from the consent calendar. 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 in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion of consent calendar items. However, before the council votes on a motion to adopt the consent calendar, Council members may request the specific items be removed from the consent calendar for separate action. So we have items 3A through 3H on our consent calendar. 3A, Black History Month Proclamation. 3B, adopt the minutes from January 21st. 2025. receive and file the Saucedo City Council strategic planning report submitted by facilitator Amy Howarth of the Municipal Resource Group 3D, receive and file the fiscal year 2024-25 quarter two report from the library. 3E, adopt a resolution increasing the contingency for the Dorothy Gibson House Improvement Project, located at 429 1⁄2 Johnson Street by $100,000, funded by a state and county grant, and authorize the city manager to execute the necessary change orders to complete the project. 3F, receive and file the Treasurer's Report for December 31, 2024. 3G, approve California Employers Retiree Benefit Trust Program Agreement and election to pre-fund other post-employment benefits through CalPERS, authorized city management. and director of finance to transfer the funds from cars to CERBT program and adopt a resolution delegating authority to city manager and director of finance to approve disbursements and 3H waiver of the second reading and adoption of ordinance number 01-2025, an ordinance of the City Council of City of Sausalito amending its accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit regulations. Are there any questions on consent items? |
| 00:16:39.23 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, the report on our strategic planning meeting, I noted, omitted something that we had, I believe, confirmed on the dais, and that was that the city council had committed itself to identifying, it's an ambitious goal, at least $3 million more in annual recurring revenue. And I'd love that inserted specifically in there. The report agreed upon priority. |
| 00:17:01.12 | Unknown | Okay, thanks. |
| 00:17:02.72 | Steven Woodside | I have just a question about We're receiving and accepting the report. These are priorities that were determined, obviously, |
| 00:17:07.33 | Unknown | you |
| 00:17:07.40 | Steven Woodside | use it. |
| 00:17:10.55 | Steven Woodside | after that long session. |
| 00:17:12.93 | Steven Woodside | Correct. We will return to identify an implementation plan. |
| 00:17:13.09 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:17:16.93 | Steven Woodside | Got it. So that was my question. Thank you for the answer. |
| 00:17:20.14 | Steven Woodside | You're welcome. |
| 00:17:21.51 | Ian Sobieski | But just if I might follow on mayor on to that question, there are additional priorities through the course of the year, excepting these, this report doesn't prevent us from adding priorities as we see necessary through the course of the year. |
| 00:17:34.55 | Steven Woodside | If a majority of the council votes on them, yes. But this sets the city manager and staff's priorities for the year in terms of their allocation of resources. Okay, any other questions on consent calendar? Okay, I'll open it up to public comment on the consent calendar. Do you have any speaker slips? |
| 00:17:55.47 | Walfred Solorzano | Speaker Slip. We had one slip, but I think Mr. Drobnis actually spoke on public comment. I don't think he wanted to speak for consent. |
| 00:18:04.13 | Sergio Rudin | And, Mayor, did you still want to pull item 3-H? the second reading of the AD ordinance in light of the letter from Tali Tiaf. |
| 00:18:13.70 | Steven Woodside | Okay, so, council members, we received a communication late this afternoon from the city attorney identifying some potential changes to the ADU ordinance. We could pull this item, make those changes this evening, and start over. I'd rather approve this item and bring back changes at a later date. |
| 00:18:34.86 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:18:37.58 | Jill Hoffman | Sorry, let me ask for clarification on that. So we have an ADU ordinance on our consent calendar item, but we know from a communication from our city attorney that that needs to be amended. |
| 00:18:50.02 | Steven Woodside | He's giving us the opportunity to consider amending it. We received a letter... objecting to language. He does not believe the letter has legal basis, but to avoid risk, we could amend it. Thank you. |
| 00:19:03.92 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 00:19:04.27 | Steven Woodside | you |
| 00:19:05.17 | Jill Hoffman | Um, Okay, thank you for that. |
| 00:19:10.59 | Steven Woodside | I just want to say I'm prepared to move forward on this one. And if there are issues that come up with respect to ADU, and there should be if we go forward, we can always revisit it. I think there's risk the other way if we didn't follow through and adopt it. And that was all explained at the last meeting. |
| 00:19:19.87 | Steven Woodside | from. |
| 00:19:25.87 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. And we've already given direction to staff to do more work and to come back to us. So I'd like to have staff come back to us to address the issue raised by the city attorney, as well as the other issues that we gave staff direction to address. Is that clear, city attorney? Do you know what I'm referring to? Thank you. Yes. Okay. |
| 00:19:41.87 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:19:44.07 | Steven Woodside | If that's the consensus. Okay. Any other public comment on the consent calendar? All right, seeing none, I'll bring it back up here. |
| 00:19:51.96 | Steven Woodside | Very briefly, one of the things that was raised by members of the public as well as just common sense, ADUs in high fire danger areas is one of the issues we were asking people to the staff to look into. |
| 00:20:07.17 | Unknown | Right. |
| 00:20:07.20 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. So I just want to make that clear. It's not always clear to members of the public what's coming back. Thank you. |
| 00:20:14.19 | Steven Woodside | Okay, I'll entertain a motion to approve the consent calendar with the revision to item 3C enunciated by Council Member Sobieski. |
| 00:20:28.99 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:20:29.00 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:20:29.04 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:20:29.22 | Steven Woodside | And |
| 00:20:29.68 | Steven Woodside | All right. |
| 00:20:29.81 | Steven Woodside | in. |
| 00:20:30.03 | Steven Woodside | and the family. |
| 00:20:31.11 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:20:31.13 | Steven Woodside | Aye. Aye. |
| 00:20:31.40 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:20:31.43 | Steven Woodside | . |
| 00:20:34.40 | Steven Woodside | That motion carries unanimously. All right, we'll move now on to business items. Our first business item is... 5A, study session and presentation regarding draft amended 2023-31 housing element, including draft general plan amendments and modified amended housing element. And we'll welcome... our community and Economic Development Director Brandon Phipps. |
| 00:20:57.98 | Steven Woodside | May I make a Levin Act disclosure just in advance of the conversation? In the event that Site 67 does come up and is discussed during my campaign, I received $1,250 total in contribution from different members of the Berg family. I have subsequently returned 750 as displayed in my latest filing. So I just wanted to make sure that it was clear that it is compliant with the Levin Act and in doing so also announced said contributions. |
| 00:21:01.47 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:21:21.08 | Steven Woodside | Are there any other Levine Act announcements regarding this item? Okay, seeing none. Director Phipps. |
| 00:21:28.08 | Brandon Phipps | Good evening to you, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council members, members of the public and staff. Happy to be here joining you as always this time to introduce item 5A as stated by the mayor. A study session and presentation regarding the draft amended 2023-2031 housing element, including draft general plan amendments and a modified amended housing element as a project alternative. As Council is aware, and as was most recently heard by Council, minus current Vice Mayor, at an October 1, 2024 study session, the City has been working on an amended housing element, which includes changes to a number of the programs in the City's adopted housing element, including Program 4, related to our inventory of sites, Program 8, related to public property conversion to housing, Program 16, related to zoning ordinance amendments, and Program 19, development review procedures, which we will be discussing later on this evening, more specifically as part of City Council's Agenda Item 5B, related to the objective development and design standards. Part of this process has also included revising the amended housing element to address comments received from the Department of Housing and Community Development based on a letter they provided to the Community Development Department in response to our amended housing element on November 4, 2024. Staff have also prepared a modified amended housing element based on city council input from the October one study session. And this is considered as an alternative to the amended housing element process and was primarily crafted to address potential shortfall as related to arena if certain ballot pressures fail. And before I pass it off to Beth Thompson of DeNovo Planning Group to discuss details associated with this item, I'd just like to remind council and the public of the need to meet state timelines to have an adopted housing element and conduct the required follow-on rezoning by January 30, 2026. Staff have developed an aggressive schedule in order to support a special ballot measure of June in June of this year for the rezoning of certain opportunity sites and details associated with this timeline are outlined in our staff report. Thank you very much, counsel. I am and will be here to answer any questions. If there are no questions before we jump in, I will pass the mic to Ms. Thompson. Beth, the floor is yours. |
| 00:23:55.16 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, Director Phipps. Welcome- |
| 00:23:56.72 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:24:00.13 | Steven Woodside | Welcome, Beth Thompson. Can you hear us? |
| 00:24:02.67 | Beth Thompson | Yeah, sorry, I just was promoted to a panelist, so. Excuse me for a moment while I get my screen set up and I'll be ready to share my presentation here. |
| 00:24:13.14 | Steven Woodside | And can I... that as a personal privilege remind you of a request from our last meeting that you slow down by 30 percent. |
| 00:24:24.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:24:25.73 | Steven Woodside | I will attempt to do so. Thank you so much. |
| 00:24:31.70 | Beth Thompson | Always, always a pleasure. So, and feel free to remind me if I start. going too quickly. So I'll just go through my presentation and I've tried to keep it succinct while also recognizing that there's a lot to talk about in terms of the modifications to the housing elements so we'll quickly go through the housing element background. the project description for the amended housing element. and discuss the Department of Housing and Community Development comments that were preliminarily received on the draft revisions and then discuss an alternative option, the modified housing element. The city adopted its updated housing element of the general plan on January 30th of 2023. The housing element addresses how the city will meet state housing requirements, including accommodating Sausalito's regional housing need allocation, or RENA, of 724 units. And the adopted housing element is available on the city's website, along with the various meetings and materials related to the adoption of the housing element for anyone interested in diving into all of that background information. The proposed project that we're discussing tonight is the adoption and implementation of an amended housing element. And that's provided as part of your staff report. It was initially attachment one, so I apologize for this slide. It's now attachment three, I believe. And it includes changes to several components of the housing element. It would revise housing plan program four, which is intended to ensure the inventory of sites accommodates the arena throughout the planning period. To add two new housing and mixed use zones that correspond with lower minimum density so it would have a new housing 29 and a mixed use 29 85% overlay zone. To provide some lower densities for some of the housing sites and that will encourage more variety and housing types will continue to accommodate the city's rena requirements and continues to affirmatively further fair housing requirements. There are some changes to housing plan program eight public property conversion to housing to address making publicly owned sites available for development during the 20, 23 to 20, 31 planning period. This includes removal of the Caltrans site, which we'll talk about in a few more slides as well. And then some changes to housing plan program 19 which addresses development review procedures just to clarify implementation of the city's housing streamlining provisions. Including the odds, the objective design and development standards, and that is a separate study session item this evening. So going through some of the changes to program four, There were several sites that were removed. There were some that were added and then some that were adjusted. So site 85, which is a long bridgeway. And as part of the right of way that's attributed to Caltrans is removed that site. The city reached out, was not able to. further any activity on that site. So that site would be removed and would reduce the city's capacity by about 25 units. Site 201 at 931 to 933 Bridgeway is also removed. And then there are two new sites that are added that are also in the northern portion of the city on Bridgeway. Site 401 at 2400 Bridgeway, which is currently the FedEx office, would be a new site that's added. And the owner there is interested in converting a portion of the site to accommodate housing. That would be a mixed use 29 unit per acre. THE FEDEX OFFICE WOULD BE A NEW SITE THAT'S ADDED AND THE OWNER THERE IS INTERESTED IN CONVERTING A PORTION OF THE SITE TO ACCOMMODATE HOUSING. THAT WOULD BE A MIXED USE 29 UNIT PER ACRE WITH A PORTION OF THE SITE ACCOMMODATING NON-RESIDENTIAL USES. This would be a portion of the PAVED AREA OF THE SITE AT 2680 BRIDGEWAY, CURRENTLY A STORAGE SITE. AND THAT WOULD BE THAT PORTION WOULD BE REZONE WITH THE HOUSING 49 overlay. There are a number of sites that are modified. Most of these sites that are modified where We're just seeing some minor adjustments where sites 79 and 81, those were recalculated just based on minimum density. And then a number of sites As I had mentioned, have the density reduced, so the density is reduced from the 49 units per acre to 29 units per acre on a number of sites. And these are sites generally that are along bridgeway near the waterfront of the city or sites in the historic downtown. So this is intended to maintain more traditional building heights in these areas to be more consistent with the historic downtown form. And it said, better facilitate housing projects in these areas. So these modifications occurred to sites 23, 24, 39, 44. 47. And these are all reduced from 49 units to an acre to 29 units an acre. And then site 55 was reduced from 70 units an acre to 49. This is one of the sites that's not in the downtown or along the waterfront. So this was just an adjustment. to the the higher densities that weren't necessarily as appropriate for that site, site 84, the MLK Park site. was increased from 80 units to 94 units. Site 201 at 605 Bridgeway was decreased from 20 to 11 units. Another one of the adjustments from 49 to 29 units per acre. Similarly, sites 207, 301, were also decreased from 49 to 29 units per acre Site 303, which is one in 3 Harbor Drive. This is one in Northern Sausalito. this site doesn't have any change to the designation But the area of the site that it would be applied to was increased to increase the overall units from 90 to 129. |
| 00:30:11.66 | Beth Thompson | So this these changes would continue to accommodate the city's arena, the city has a regional housing need allocation of 724 units. These changes to the potential opportunity sites would still accommodate 697 units and when that's added to the existing capacity of 261 units. Would yield a total capacity of 958 units which exceeds the regional housing need allocation and it provides for a small buffer. at all of the income levels. So a more modest buffer at the very low and low income level and a larger buffer at the moderate and above moderate income levels. A number of these sites are constrained by Ordinance 1028 and Ordinance 1122. So these sites would require a vote of the people. And so when we look at these constraints, it becomes clear why, why these need to go to a vote, because these sites total |
| 00:31:07.67 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:31:08.28 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 00:31:08.31 | Steven Woodside | We have MLK, which is I'm going to ask you to slow down a couple of people in the audience are having a hard time understanding you. Okay. Your words are not as clearly enunciated as mine are right now. |
| 00:31:15.59 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:31:16.14 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 00:31:21.49 | Beth Thompson | I will enunciate more clearly. Thank you. Thank you. So a number of the sites that are identified as the opportunity sites that would be rezoned to accommodate higher densities of housing, both housing the H29, H49, H70 overlay zones, as well as the various mixed use overlays that allow housing at densities of 29, 49 and 70 units per acre are constrained by city ordinances that require sites in that are park sites and parking sites to go to a vote of the people, as well as sites affected by the fair traffic initiative. So the sites affected by the fair traffic initiative Total 358 units. And those include 92 very low, 51 low, three moderate, and 161 above moderate income units. And then sites constrained by ordinance 1128, that's just the one site, the MLK site, site 84, and that's proposed for 94 units. And I will note that the modified project alternative that we'll discuss in a few slides would reduce the units at the MLK site. you |
| 00:32:29.40 | Steven Woodside | Okay, Beth. I am so sorry, but It's just... You just have to really pretend that you're speaking to a child. I will. |
| 00:32:39.15 | Beth Thompson | I will... Keep slowing down. |
| 00:32:41.55 | Steven Woodside | Yeah, so just for clarity, you were saying that Site 84 is currently in the housing element at 94, but there's a proposal in the amended housing element to reduce the density to 80. |
| 00:32:53.41 | Beth Thompson | So the housing site 84 is currently in the housing element to accommodate 80 units. The amended housing element would increase it to 94. And then we also have an alternative to the amended housing element that would reduce it back to 80 and provide for further reduction. project. would increase it to 94. So that there's an increase there, but we have an alternative that would decrease it. And we'll talk about that alternative in a few slides. |
| 00:33:22.03 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you. Okay, I think that is contrary to direction Received. That is just not at all. um, And the program I saw had an option between 80 and 50. |
| 00:33:38.06 | Beth Thompson | Correct. That is the modified housing element. So that's the alternative. So we have The housing element that was addressed in the draft EIR that has it at 94, and that's the project. And then we have an alternative to the project, which has been addressed in the recirculated draft EIR that would reduce that to 80 or 50. And we'll get to that one in a few slides. |
| 00:33:59.29 | Steven Woodside | Okay, so is it the adopted one that has it at 94? |
| 00:34:02.62 | Beth Thompson | Now the adopted has it at 80, And then when the Revised housing element, the potential drafts that were published for consideration were published last August, along with the accompanying EIR, that would have increased it to 94. And that's the proposed project that's addressed in the EIR as well as in the recirculated EIR. And then we have an alternative to reduce it. |
| 00:34:29.16 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:34:33.19 | Beth Thompson | So these revisions, as I had mentioned, affect programs four, programs eight, and then we also have, when the city's implementing the housing element, there are no changes to program 16, but that's another program that the city will be implementing in the near term with the adoption of the housing element. And that's a number of zoning ordinance amendments that would Rezone sites and make changes to the zoning ordinance to streamline the residential provisions of the zoning code. to address some of some potential constraints to a variety of housing types and to ensure that sites are available for development |
| 00:35:13.44 | Beth Thompson | As well, the city would be implementing program 19 related to development review procedures. This addresses the streamlining requirements of the XB 35 and the objective design standards of SB 330 and that The objective design and development standards will be a separate study. session item this evening. So HCD, the Department of Housing and Community Development, did review the draft amended housing element, and they provided findings to the city regarding whether or not the element substantially complied with state law, and they identified that concerns and comments related to a number of issues where they requested further information prior to being able to find it in substantial compliance. These relate to the suitability of the non-vacant sites. proposed modifications to site 201. and use of The housing overlays that require a minimum of 85% residential uses and changes to program 19. And in the materials in the staff report, attachment. 4 is the letter from HCD and attachment 5 is a matrix that provides the city's response to each of these findings. So it provides information regarding the methodology used to determine the suitability of non-vacant sites, but just similar to what's in the adopted housing elements. So just some refining of that language provides the reasoning. is that, behind the changes to Site 201. discusses that the housing overlays that require a minimum of 85% residential uses would not constrain sites that have existing non-residential uses, that there are provisions to allow existing non-residential uses to continue and to be incorporated into new development proposals that would increase residential uses on this property. properties and then it also, we also responded to the concerns related to the proposed changes to program 19. And that's, as I mentioned, is detailed and attachment five. |
| 00:37:14.82 | Beth Thompson | So in addition to the amendment, |
| 00:37:16.80 | Steven Woodside | It's gonna end it. |
| 00:37:17.40 | Beth Thompson | How's it going? |
| 00:37:17.76 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:37:17.89 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:37:18.03 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:37:18.04 | Steven Woodside | I'm going to allow... |
| 00:37:20.07 | Steven Woodside | I just want to clarify a really key point that came from the letter from HCD, and I think that you've addressed it in how you review Program 19. But just to reiterate, it says the revised element now proposes a staggered timeline based on implementation of the re-zones. Re-zones must be completed by January 31, 2026, including for sites subject to restriction or existing voter initiative. So just to reiterate, that's the timeline that we're working with. It just hasn't been highlighted in the presentation, and I think it's a really critical. Brandon announced it. Right. But I mean. restriction or existing voter initiative. So just to reiterate, that's the timeline that we're working with. It just hasn't been highlighted in the presentation. And I think it's a really critical brand and announcement. Right. But I mean, I'm trying to slow down this pace of the |
| 00:37:20.09 | Steven Woodside | Okay. |
| 00:37:49.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:37:49.06 | Beth Thompson | into the baby. |
| 00:37:49.70 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:37:52.97 | Steven Woodside | Okay. Thank you, Beth. Okay. |
| 00:37:55.37 | Beth Thompson | Thank you and that that is an important date to remember that you do need to have all of those reasons completed within three years of the initial housing element adoption. So you are you are on a tight timeline to continue with any changes to the housing element and moving forward with the rezoning. |
| 00:38:03.17 | Unknown | a minute dog. you are. |
| 00:38:13.29 | Beth Thompson | So in addition to the the, Housing element project, the amended housing element, Additional changes have been made to the document and those are presented as a modified amended housing element and that was prepared as an alternative to the amended housing element project following. Community input on the amended housing element, and so this modified amended housing element focuses on implementing city council input from your October 1st, 2024 study session, and these include changes to site 84 so looking at maintaining or reducing the adopted number of units on site 84 so they would either be maintained at 80 as is in the adopted housing element or potentially reduced even further to 50 units or or reduced more this includes provisions to steady spencer avenue fire station and city hall sites to offset any reductions in units and then to consider increases At sites 202, the Altamira site, 401, the FedEx site, and sites with significant parking areas, including the site 303, 1 and 3 Harbor Drive, site 72, and site 402. So we looked at a number of these recommendations and incorporated these into the modified amended housing elements. So there are three different opportunity sites scenarios identified for the modified housing element. And there is some flexibility in the way the modified housing element is written. So it's following. the the meeting with the Planning Commission, we did make some additional revisions to provide some more flexibility and how the city implements this, this, um, this housing element were it to be. approved. So there would be primarily the three opportunity sites with some flexibility. So under the first scenario, Site 84, the MLK site, would be reduced from 94 to 80 units. This would continue to require passage of a ballot measure to authorize development of the MLK property related to the restrictions in Ordinance 1128. There's a second scenario that would accommodate site 84 being further reduced to 50 units. So instead of the 94, the 80, it would now be 50 units. This would also require a passage of a ballot measure. And then there's also a scenario where the MLK site would not be developed. And the modified housing element includes provisions that there's a shortfall of sites to meet the arena. The city could take a number of steps. Site 202 could have an increase in the minimum number of units. That's the Altamira site. So the maximum would not be increased, but the minimum requirement for that site would be increased. And then there's also the provision to look at rezoning site 14, the Spencer Avenue fire station and site 52, the city hall parking lot to accommodate up to 20 to 25 units each. And we've also further refined this to allow the city to consider some other sites as well, as long as they meet. the non-vacant methodology provided in the housing element or they're a vacant site. So there's a number of scenarios that the city could explore. We're the city to have a shortfall to accommodate the arena. So the modified amended housing element looks at reducing units on the MLK site and then exploring some other alternatives if there is a shortfall of sites to meet the arena. And this is an alternative to the project. And it's intended, as I mentioned, to just address the potential for a shortfall of sites. So if a ballot measure fails and you need to identify additional sites, this has been crafted with the intent of not having to go back and continually revise and amend the housing element, but to provide a path and a methodology to identify additional sites. |
| 00:42:08.85 | Beth Thompson | I think I've Described these but the changes would be at site 84 the MLK site and then site 14 is the Spencer Avenue fire station site. We kept the site number from the previous iteration of the housing element that wasn't adopted as well as site 52 city hall parking lot. So both of those sites would be included if needed, and there's flexibility to also look at other sites in lieu of those sites. Under these various scenarios, we have scenario one, which would keep MLK at 80 units. There would continue to be a surplus of sites to accommodate the arena 220 units. |
| 00:42:49.37 | Unknown | you know, |
| 00:42:50.43 | Beth Thompson | with a surplus at all of the income levels. under scenario two, where the MLK site is reduced to 50 units, There would also be a surplus, although a smaller one, to accommodate the arena. And then under scenario three, where the MLK site is removed and then city owned sites, the city controlled sites like the Spencer Avenue fire station and city hall or alternative sites are selected. There would still continue to be a surplus of sites to accommodate the arena, it would get a little smaller. It would continue to just get tighter as we lose sites, but this vision would hopefully maintain adequate sites to accommodate the arena throughout the planning period. There is additional information regarding the housing element amendment on the city's webpage. So the city has information regarding the housing element update, as well as the proposed amendment and the materials created for the amendment. And then as well as the information I've presented in your staff report materials tonight, we have created a couple of additional figures. We had a lot of comments from the planning commission regarding interest in knowing which specific sites were being discussed and some simpler graphics, because we had a lot of very colorful graphics that were, I think, hard to wade through. So we have a few simplified maps that just show the sites proposed for discussion. And the sites that do not have a star are the sites that are proposed for modification, the sites with the asterisks sites, 14 and 52 are the sites that are only affected by the modified project alternative. |
| 00:44:07.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:44:27.78 | Beth Thompson | And we also have that similar figure to showing the city's existing zoning designations in the background. And so with that, I will pause and I would be happy to answer any questions or go over any of the materials. |
| 00:44:44.51 | Steven Woodside | So a question that came up during your presentation. Thank you, Beth, for that presentation. Thank you for all your hard work on this. truly a heavy lift and a very complex document and process. You know, one of the attachments to our staff report is draft general plan amendments to the land use, community design, and circulation and parking chapters. So did you want to comment briefly on those proposed amendments? |
| 00:45:13.46 | Beth Thompson | Sure, I'd be happy to go over those materials. The. Draft amendments to the general plan are intended to support the changes that are identified in the housing elements. So there are changes to the land use element that would create the overlays that are identified in the housing elements of the housing 29, housing 49, and housing 70 overlay, as well as the mixed use 29, mixed use 49, and mixed use 70 overlay. So these land use element would be revised to include these specific overlay designations to describe those and to identify the maximum number of units, as well as the allowed floor area ratio for non-residential uses, the land use map. would be revised to apply these overlays. So it would be revised to apply the overlays to the sites as shown in this figure. It would just be laid over the land use map. Some numbers are adjusted regarding the total build out numbers that could occur with the changes to the housing element as it would increase the capacity compared to the General plan as it was approved, so some changes to projected growth are being made. And then we've also modified a number of the policies and programs to ensure that there are no conflicts between the housing element and the general plan. So the land use element, community design element, and transportation element have some minor minor changes to ensure that there are no conflicts. None of these changes would increase capacity beyond what's envisioned in the housing element. |
| 00:46:50.61 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:46:50.63 | Linda Fudge | Have a fun. |
| 00:46:51.03 | Steven Woodside | up question on that. Thank you for that. I'm going to turn it over to Councilmember Hoffman for a follow-up question. |
| 00:46:55.52 | Jill Hoffman | Beth, do the changes in the modifications to the general plan mirror the the housing element. |
| 00:47:07.91 | Beth Thompson | They do mirror the housing element. There are a few areas where we have policy and program changes that implement the housing elements. So they don't necessarily repeat the housing element, but they Follow the intent of the housing element. |
| 00:47:23.69 | Jill Hoffman | Are there any changes in the general plan that in any way deviate from the housing element? And if so, what are they? |
| 00:47:32.12 | Beth Thompson | Here. |
| 00:47:33.73 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:47:33.80 | Beth Thompson | . |
| 00:47:33.95 | Jill Hoffman | All right. |
| 00:47:33.97 | Beth Thompson | are none, at least none that are intended to deviate. So all of the changes are intended to be consistent with the housing element. |
| 00:47:43.58 | Jill Hoffman | Where would I look if I wanted to check and see if the changes are consistent, where would I go? |
| 00:47:47.51 | Beth Thompson | So. Attachment 7 provides all of those changes, and we have included them in track changes. So an underlying instruction. So the blue underlined text would be the new language included in the general plan. The red strikethrough language would be what is deleted. |
| 00:48:07.14 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Thank you. |
| 00:48:08.27 | Steven Woodside | So it's roughly 100 pages, pages 301 to 412 of our... Packet. And they are red line and there are not that many red lines. It's a lot more pages than changes. Right. |
| 00:48:23.04 | Beth Thompson | It's a lot more pages than changes. |
| 00:48:26.34 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you. |
| 00:48:27.04 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Other questions of staff? I. Go ahead. Vice Mayor. |
| 00:48:34.33 | Steven Woodside | I have a couple questions, but just for clarity's sake and so everyone in the audience knows, this is a workshop. We're not making a final decision tonight. We want to hear from the public on all of these issues, and it is terribly complex and hard to follow. And there was a lot of pages to read to be prepared for tonight. I just want to say that before asking a couple of simple questions. The recommendations that are coming from our consultant had to do with the removal of a couple of sites. And my question is, what happens if we were to direct removal of other sites? And I'll just give an example. |
| 00:49:18.74 | Beth Thompson | So MLK, the removal of MLK is considered in the modified project alternative and explored in the final EIR. So while the EIR Well, you don't have an EIR that has that as the proposed project. We've tried to account for that possibility with alternative five. So Were that to be removed, you could move forward with the modified project alternative. If other sites are removed, we would have to look at whether or not you would continue to have capacity to accommodate the arena. And if additional sites would need to be included to offset those sites. and what, what the effect would be of those additional sites. And that could require additional environmental review and time to circulate the environmental document and prepare the amended housing element document. So it would really depend on the nature and degree of those changes. |
| 00:50:13.32 | Steven Woodside | So if I can just for clarity sake my understanding from your answer is we have more flexibility under the documents presented to us and the environmental review to remove the MLK site, but we have less flexibility and a lot more work to do if we were to consider removal of other sites. Is that fair? That is correct. Thank you. So. |
| 00:50:35.37 | Steven Woodside | That is correct. Thank you. But if we removed MLK, the program that removes MLK adds other sites in its stead. Is that right? IN THE CASE OF THE CASE OF THE |
| 00:50:46.74 | Beth Thompson | It provides for the consideration of other sites and if needed, identifies two specific sites that could be used to accommodate the arena and provides a path to evaluate |
| 00:50:55.03 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:50:55.06 | Beth Thompson | other sites as well. |
| 00:50:55.97 | Steven Woodside | well. |
| 00:50:56.78 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, I will. |
| 00:50:57.43 | Steven Woodside | Bye. |
| 00:50:57.55 | Steven Woodside | I will. |
| 00:50:57.97 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:50:57.98 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. are the Spencer Fire Station and City Hall parking lot, right? |
| 00:51:03.26 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. And as I understand it, and we would also have the option of evaluating other sites as, if you will, replacement to cover the reduction in the numbers. |
| 00:51:17.57 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, so I'll supplement Beth's answer a little bit. I think the key issue is, addition of sites that are not studied or covered under the present environmental impact report. So, if you remove a site typically that's going to have less environmental impact and probably will not further with circulation or revision. The main issue is that if you remove sites. don't have significant, and you don't have capacity to meet your arena, then you have to make it up. So if you remove enough sites, The problem is then you have to put something back. And so we may not have |
| 00:51:58.61 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:52:00.27 | Sergio Rudin | done the appropriate analysis for additional new sites, and that's bigger. |
| 00:52:07.10 | Steven Woodside | If I can just one more follow up for the city attorney. If the ML kite site were to be removed, are we in danger of not having sufficient numbers to meet the RENA requirement? |
| 00:52:22.14 | Steven Woodside | if we don't identify replacement sites. |
| 00:52:24.89 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:52:24.91 | Sergio Rudin | I will punt that one to Beth. I think the key issue there is whether or not we have Because the arena requires that you meet certain prescribed levels of affordability and my understanding is the MLK site goes a long way for the city meeting that's very low and low income housing numbers. So Beth, maybe you can answer that question in more detail. |
| 00:52:46.89 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:52:46.91 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. |
| 00:52:46.95 | Steven Woodside | So you're- |
| 00:52:47.32 | Unknown | of |
| 00:52:47.60 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. It's complicated, but if we were to remove it, we're in danger of not meeting the numbers unless we find adequate replacements. |
| 00:52:57.04 | Steven Woodside | And also the character, because we have identified significant low and very low-income housing on that site. |
| 00:53:04.70 | Steven Woodside | Understood. |
| 00:53:10.05 | Jill Hoffman | Other questions? Go ahead, Councilmember Hoffman. Yeah, just let me... Yeah. Beth, you're finished with your presentation overall. Are we able to, like, all of our questions are open? because I do have some questions. And so Beth, I emailed you some questions this afternoon and it was late, so my apologies. I don't know if you've got my email or not, but I was looking at some of, one of the questions that I had was we had substantial, over the three or four years, I can't remember how many years we've been working on this round, but to opposition to some of the proposed sites that are now back in. So we had, And also the MLK side. And in the staff report and the things that we're looking at, I didn't see a summary of that. And that's something I also talked to our community development director, Mr. Phipps, yesterday when I had a conversation with him. And so it's helpful for us and for new members that may not have been on the council. I can't remember. We've had some change out over the years. of council members. So it's helpful for us to have that summary and other people that are looking at our staff reports to have that information in our staff report so that the city hall site, the Spencer Avenue site, there's reasons why those sites were on for consideration there's reason why they were taken off and now they're back on and so for me as a council member it's helpful to see that it's for other council members it's helpful to see the history of that is there a reason why there was not a summary or that that public comment that written public comment was not added back in for the staff report and is there a reason why it wasn't i'm asking you beth and because I sent you the email. |
| 00:54:51.75 | Beth Thompson | Right, right. There's not a reason why it wasn't added in and there was a lot of discussion of those two sites as part of the public draft housing element that was circulated in 2022 and that also went to HCD for review in 2022 and there's a matrix in that adopted housing element. That includes responses to public comments related to the Spencer Avenue fire station and city hall sites. So there were a lot of comments that were considered. um I think for for myself and I won't speak for staff, to include all of those comments would have felt repetitive with a lot of the information in the housing element. But I can also understand that, that it's a concern. So we can we can provide a link to those comments and to those meetings as part of our future materials. |
| 00:55:45.89 | Jill Hoffman | I think that would be helpful for us. It would be helpful for me. I think it would be helpful for anybody else. I can't speak for the rest of the council, but it would be helpful for anybody else who's looking at these and wants to educate themselves on this. So, I mean, a link would be great, or even a footnote would be great, that we can look back at this. And probably also for the Berg property, that would be helpful too. I know there was substantial public comment, an ongoing public comment about that property as well. And also my next thing that I sent you, we had received, I think some information from community venture partners, I think, from Mr. Silvestri. about SB9 calculation and ADU calculations, Thank you. And his were quite high, and I sent you an email about that. I was surprised because I was trying to remind myself and educate myself for tonight about those calculations. And in our report and calculation, we have ADU and SB9 projected units collectively at a total of 116 units. And his calculation, and again, this is a collective calculation, so his AD unit total is 651 for all of Sausalito. Those are ADUs under state law. And this is a collective total. and his SB9. calculation for all of Sausalito and SB 9 is by law single R1, right, by law, lot split, that's an addition of 510 units. And so, you know, that's substantially higher than the 116 units. And so, you know, my question to you that I emailed to you is, why is your number substantially lower than his number? And the question is, My understanding is that there are some cities that are using that number as the arena number. And, And my struggle here is understanding why our number is so low. and other cities are using this number and getting their number approved. by HCD using a higher number. So, |
| 00:58:00.74 | Unknown | So- |
| 00:58:02.53 | Jill Hoffman | do you have an explanation that you can give for us today |
| 00:58:08.28 | Beth Thompson | Yes, yes, I'd be happy to respond to that. So housing element law requires- |
| 00:58:12.08 | Steven Woodside | law requires Who's speaking? |
| 00:58:14.91 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. Oh, sure. |
| 00:58:17.68 | Steven Woodside | Oh, okay. |
| 00:58:18.79 | Beth Thompson | Okay. So housing element law requires that the city identify specific sites to accommodate the regional housing need allocation. So it's very specific that you identify sites that are available to accommodate your very low, low, moderate, and above moderate income assignments. Now, HCD provides the ability for cities to use ADU and SB9 units to accommodate the renet based on historical development trends or reasonable assumptions of what could be considered that are substantiated. So your ADU projections are based on your past ADU performance, so your past ADU trends. And in looking at these amendments to the housing element, we, yeah,, Director Phipps, myself, um, Senior Planner Taft, we all, we all met and discussed, you know, what, what some of the activities are that are going on in the city. And it didn't appear that the city has had a. significant change in its development trajectory to warrant an increase in the assumptions for 80 units and similarly SB nine units, the city is not seeing. a lot of SB9 applications where we can substantiate an increased number and demonstrate to HCD that that's really realistic and reasonable. So a lot of the numbers that you're hearing are the maximum number of units you might see it build out. And it may be that if you have an increase in those production levels that during your next cycle, you can show that you have had higher ADU development levels, higher SB9 development levels. And then you can use a larger portion of those units to accommodate your RHNA. |
| 01:00:02.59 | Jill Hoffman | Well, yeah, I think I can see the reasoning on that, but I can also see the reasoning behind the same consistent reasoning behind all of our housing element calculations, right? You know, who knows who's going to build what where. And I think from the perspective of what's defensible with HCD and what's defensible with you know, what's required under state law. Um, I think our number lies somewhere in between about what we can include in our housing element And our, you know, quite substantial number that's been assigned to Sausalito, especially given some of the issues that we identified in our appeal and the way our number was calculated. And so I think, you know, with regard to what I just, you know, what I just went into about how the number was calculated for SB9 and the ADU number, I think I'd like to revisit that as feedback for the study session. So that's something that I'd like to revisit and explore further. So that's – |
| 01:01:11.69 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:01:11.74 | Jill Hoffman | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:01:11.80 | Steven Woodside | I'm not. |
| 01:01:11.86 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:01:11.96 | Steven Woodside | I'll ask a quick follow on to that one, Councilman Proffman. |
| 01:01:12.47 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Sure. |
| 01:01:14.75 | Steven Woodside | If we were, as one of our programs for the housing element, to adopt a program to incentivize built construction of ADUs and of SB9s, would that allow us to increase the number that we're projecting? |
| 01:01:34.56 | Beth Thompson | You could you could you do have programs in your housing element already that encourage ADU and SB9 units. You could opt to strengthen those issues those programs and provide more resources to implement those programs. What the housing element does include is it includes a midyear True, so to speak of those assumptions and so in 2027 the city is going to pause and go okay what have we done to accommodate 80 you and SB nine units and are we on track to meet the projections identified in the housing element, if you find at that point in time that you're not. You will have to identify additional sites. My concern would be that if you make those numbers larger and they're not realized and you're not currently on a trajectory to realize larger numbers, that you would be in a similar position to where you are now looking for additional sites. If you are |
| 01:02:32.12 | Unknown | you, |
| 01:02:33.45 | Beth Thompson | at getting up if you are getting more performance of your SB9 and ADU units during the mid-year review, you also can look and if you have changes in your assumptions for your sites, you have development projects moving forward that don't produce units at the levels anticipated, you also may have some capacity then to have additional units and avoid a no net loss issue. I, I would want to go over your 2024 numbers for your ADU and SB9 units and really look at those closely before recommending any changes to the assumptions right now. |
| 01:03:10.29 | Steven Woodside | And is that a change, if you were to look at those numbers and with increased incentives for construction of SB9 and ADUs and JADUs, could we do that within our existing EIR? you can, |
| 01:03:23.98 | Beth Thompson | because the EIR actually looks at slightly higher numbers of ADUs and SB9 units, because we were looking more toward like a larger build out number. So we have slightly higher numbers. |
| 01:03:34.03 | Steven Woodside | some capacity there. Okay, so I don't know where Brandon is. Can you make a note? We're giving direction, so that's one area of direction for staff to explore between now and our meeting on the 25th. Council Member Hoffman, I did a follow-on, so you can continue and then I'll come too. |
| 01:03:54.07 | Jill Hoffman | So my next couple questions are going to be about the buffer. So our RHNA number, our quite high RHNA number, is 724 units. Right. And our total plan, as it's been presented tonight, is for 958 units. Correct. So that's a buffer. What we're calling a buffer is the overcapacity that we're presenting or we're planning for. And understanding that this overcapacity includes all these, the combination of different levels, the different income levels, the low, low, very low, moderate, all these kind of different levels. So when you take out units that are earmarked for low, then you have to, you know, the very complicated Chinese puzzle of, you know. Okay, so, but we still have this 24% buffer over, right? |
| 01:04:20.09 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:04:56.69 | Jill Hoffman | But there's nothing in the state law that requires a buffer, correct? |
| 01:05:00.97 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 01:05:01.07 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:05:01.23 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 01:05:01.24 | Jill Hoffman | So, |
| 01:05:01.31 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 01:05:01.34 | Jill Hoffman | You're not. |
| 01:05:01.38 | Beth Thompson | You're not required to have a buffer HCD, however. looks for a buffer, and if you don't have a buffer, then they really start wanting to see how on target you are to reach those numbers. It's hard to get a housing element certified without a sun buffer. You do have, I would say the most flexibility you have, your moderate and above moderate are numerically decent sized buffers, you might have a little flexibility to reduce those slightly, but HCD is really going to take a close look when you're amending your housing element to make sure that you're not reducing housing opportunities and that you're not making these changes just to avoid accommodating the arena, so we want to make sure you're on track to continue to accommodate the arena. And having that buffer helps you avoid no net loss issues if you have projects that are approved that aren't consistent with the assumptions. |
| 01:05:57.45 | Jill Hoffman | But at the end of the day, our number is 724. Correct. Act. Okay. And the issue also with sites that are included. in your total plan is that the next plan that's coming down the pike, which is we're going to have to certify another plan in three years. What's our next plan coming up? |
| 01:06:18.09 | Beth Thompson | It'll be 2038 or 20, yeah, 20, you'll start, you'll probably start planning for it in 20, or not 20, 2031. Yeah, 20, 2038. We'll probably start planning for it about 2036. Yeah. |
| 01:06:18.51 | Jill Hoffman | and, |
| 01:06:31.41 | Jill Hoffman | 2036. |
| 01:06:32.12 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Yeah. It's 2031 is the next cycle. This cycle is 20. |
| 01:06:33.80 | Jill Hoffman | you. |
| 01:06:36.47 | Beth Thompson | I don't know why I'm going out to the eighth cycle. Yes, you are correct. You'll start planning for it in 2029 or so. |
| 01:06:36.82 | Steven Woodside | I don't know why. |
| 01:06:43.44 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, 2029s, right? So that's coming up quick. Any sites that are included in this plan, whether they're buffer or not buffer, whatever, we can't use them in the next cycle. Thank you. |
| 01:06:53.68 | Beth Thompson | They're off the day. |
| 01:06:54.10 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 01:06:55.10 | Beth Thompson | No, they're not. You can continue to use those sites. You will have to have a program. So certain sites, if they've been used, If they're for the lower income need and they've been used, if they're vacant sites that have been used in two consecutive housing element periods, or they're a non-vacant site that's been used in one or more housing, prior housing elements, you have to have measures in place to allow certain projects by right. But those are very similar to the rezoning requirements in Program 4, so you won't have too much of a penalty for reusing sites. You will have to be able to demonstrate that they continue to be realistic. But that's a lower bar. |
| 01:07:34.25 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, but there are consequences to including or over, I guess, overproducing. sites and including them in our housing element. |
| 01:07:46.10 | Beth Thompson | The biggest concern with having too large of a too much capacity would be that depending on the methodology for the next cycle, and we don't know what the methodology is going to look like, what ABEG is going to do in the next cycle, but you could be assigned a larger number if you demonstrate that you have more capacity. But, You also have the ability to come into ABIG early in the process regarding your actual capacity. |
| 01:08:16.25 | Steven Woodside | And how effective have those concepts been? |
| 01:08:19.41 | Beth Thompson | So you want to comment before they develop the RHNA plan. that you want to comment early and they'll they are supposed to put out a questionnaire and we have a program in the housing element to engage in that process and to respond to that, because if you if you address the issue earlier, it may be of it may be more helpful to cycle. |
| 01:08:39.03 | Jill Hoffman | here. |
| 01:08:42.98 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, well, my experience has been that has not been helpful. And they have not been responsive. |
| 01:08:46.39 | Beth Thompson | And they- Thank you. |
| 01:08:47.96 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:08:47.98 | Beth Thompson | commenting on the RENA plan once they have any methodology, you're right. |
| 01:08:51.96 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. absolute direct evidence that they used area outside of SOSLI to calculate our number was not received with any sort of Yeah, any sort of... Anyway, ability to respond to us other than a direct denial of our appeal at the last, with this number that we're dealing with this time. So, okay, I, you know, I'm not really, I'm not. in favor of a large buffer, certainly a 24% buffer. |
| 01:09:19.72 | Steven Woodside | We're going to reserve comment until after we hear public comment. |
| 01:09:21.51 | Jill Hoffman | after we hear pop. Thank you. |
| 01:09:22.70 | Steven Woodside | So. |
| 01:09:23.31 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:09:23.65 | Steven Woodside | Any other questions? |
| 01:09:24.53 | Steven Woodside | Um, |
| 01:09:24.83 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:09:24.86 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:09:27.02 | Jill Hoffman | Let me see. Hold on a second. Let me go ahead. All right. |
| 01:09:27.73 | Steven Woodside | All right. |
| 01:09:27.82 | Steven Woodside | Okay. |
| 01:09:27.84 | Steven Woodside | Let me go ahead. Thank you. Councilmember Hawke. My question is somewhat in line, and this question is probably for Brandon. So just for context around our housing element and how we've done previously with regards to demonstrating our ability to develop single family or otherwise to respond to the ADU question, for example, we received some correspondence that went to HCD regarding our progress report. Could you maybe share out if it's accurate or not what our average number of permitted units was the last three years that we reported to HCD? |
| 01:09:58.61 | Brandon Phipps | I apologize, I don't have those numbers in front of me at the moment. |
| 01:10:01.55 | Steven Woodside | Absolutely. And I don't know if this has been confirmed by our department. I couldn't find it online, so that's why I'm checking. which is included in our packet, it says that our average housing units permitted in 2018 were three, 2019, six, 2020, 14. So that's an average of eight. So that would mean that we'd have to increase now, we'd have to demonstrate 100% increase in order to meet our RHNA numbers. Sure, but this is statistics from our prior years. I'm asking that. |
| 01:10:33.48 | Brandon Phipps | Yes, and I can attest that we did conduct the ADR for the previous year. What I can say in a more qualitative sense is I've been very impressed with the number of ADUs that we've been able to approve in the last year. I've also been impressed with the amount of approvals that we've made as to lower-density housing development renovations and even single-family housing development approvals. So I have some confidence that those numbers will show increase in the last year. And I'm happy to work with principal planner, Neil Toft on clarifying those figures for you. But I've been pleased with the performance of the department and I've been pleased with the number of units that we've been able to add into the city based on approvals around ADU and SB9. |
| 01:11:17.52 | Steven Woodside | How many ADUs did we approve last year? |
| 01:11:21.22 | Brandon Phipps | Apologies, I don't have those numbers in front of me. |
| 01:11:23.58 | Steven Woodside | Okay. But do you have a guesstimate since you said you're, I'm just trying to get a sense of if we could, I would like to be able to give direction to increase our number of ADUs and housing element as well, if it was realistic and it could be achieved. |
| 01:11:33.32 | Steven Woodside | I think the direction is to explore that and provide us data to consider it at our next meeting. Okay. |
| 01:11:39.58 | Neil Toft | and, Sorry, I just, I got waved from Brandon. Okay, welcome, Neil Toft. Principal planner. |
| 01:11:43.38 | Steven Woodside | Welcome. |
| 01:11:46.07 | Neil Toft | And I do apologize as well. I don't have the numbers right in front of me. We're going to be working. We're actually working on our APR for this 2024. But what we've seen, and we had reported this in the last study session, what we had seen in terms of ADU production, our ADU production was about on pace for what is projected in our housing element. Our SB9 units have not been up there. Now, the New laws for SB9 units do provide more incentivization. We may see that increase, but we have not seen that as of yet. |
| 01:12:28.75 | Steven Woodside | Okay, and then one other point, and this is probably a question for Beth, but in addressing HCD's concerns to Program 19, where they specifically mentioned that they were concerned that there were no specifications for single-family homes in the odds, our response essentially said, recent changes in state law, appear likely to increase the ability of property owners seek development of single family homes development of objective standards of single family units would be unlikely to result in substantial new housing production. Based on what is already permitted in terms of 80 you and sb nine, I just want to make sure in doing this research around what we can and can't allocate for 80 use that if we need to respond to their concerns around program 19. with greater consideration for adus or for single family odds, we do that just in the context of this. And I don't know if that's direction or question or something you had thought about, but in reviewing program 19 that stood out to me as a clear and important comment from HCD. |
| 01:13:21.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:13:21.82 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:13:21.91 | Steven Woodside | For reference, that's on page 285 of our packet. |
| 01:13:26.62 | Steven Woodside | Could you maybe just explain why that was your response for Program 19 with regards to single-family homes? Well, was that your response? Yeah, I think that was more our response. Yeah. |
| 01:13:33.22 | Neil Toft | Yeah, I think that was more our response. Thank you. Well, I think it was more a response in that. question for that for that hcd was why not why do you not have odds for single family development And the response was, twofold. One is we have very little new single family units that are coming online in and of themselves. Single family units are largely going to come in line as a result of SB9. And our subject will now be under state law subject to SB 9 regulations, which really restrict, already kind of provide a objective design standard through our code. So the, our point there was, we have more significant issues to get on with in order to increase housing production than spending time on creating a odds for strictly for single family dwellings. |
| 01:14:35.11 | Steven Woodside | Sure, I just want to be thoughtful if we're considering an increase in the number of ADUs within the housing element that we are very mindful of their questions with regards to single family. |
| 01:14:44.02 | Steven Woodside | Thanks. |
| 01:14:44.24 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:14:44.38 | Steven Woodside | I'm gonna ask council members to confine to questions right now. I was asking about that specifically, but. |
| 01:14:44.39 | Steven Woodside | it. |
| 01:14:49.94 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:14:50.00 | Neil Toft | But that was a question about single |
| 01:14:50.01 | Steven Woodside | If that was a question about something. |
| 01:14:51.02 | Steven Woodside | I'm guessing why I asked the question around me. |
| 01:14:51.48 | Steven Woodside | Bye. |
| 01:14:53.00 | Neil Toft | The question was about single family homes, though, and not So we weren't addressing ADUs. in that response because that wasn't the issue for HCD. |
| 01:15:04.37 | Steven Woodside | Okay, thank you. Okay, Vice Mayor. |
| 01:15:08.46 | Steven Woodside | Just a couple timing questions, and I'm going to use again MLK as an example because it appears there may be long-term flexibility if MLK site were not included. And the question of timing is, in order to do anything housing-wise at MLK, there has to be a vote with the people, Sausalito, and there are two elections coming up that might be relevant. One in June, which means we have to act by March, early March, in order to put it on the ballot. The next one, of course, would be in the fall. in November. So if there was direction this evening not to include MLK at this time, is there a way to keep it alive, at least theoretically, to consider at a following election, which could be separate from the general overall election on the majority of the housing element that also requires a vote? |
| 01:16:08.38 | Unknown | it. |
| 01:16:13.49 | Steven Woodside | too complicated a question. |
| 01:16:15.96 | Beth Thompson | Not too complicated of a question. So your main constraint is that you have to have your rezoning complete. And I have, Council Member Blaston mentioned the date, but it's in 2026. I believe it's January 30th. |
| 01:16:28.49 | Brandon Phipps | January 30th. 2026. |
| 01:16:30.79 | Beth Thompson | Yeah, so you have to have all of your rezoning complete by then. So if you don't have it, in a special election that allows you to reach that timing, then you don't have your resending complete and your housing elements out of compliance. So there's some flexibility, but it's pretty limited in terms of pushing back a site that might be needed to meet your RENA. |
| 01:16:53.50 | Steven Woodside | I understand. Thank you. |
| 01:17:02.77 | Ian Sobieski | right |
| 01:17:08.10 | Ian Sobieski | Happy to defer to you, of course, if you'd defer right now. Hi, Beth. uh, I have a question for you. It's been quite a learning curve for four years on this subject, and I still feel like I'm at the bottom of the mountain. Can I just ask some level setting questions if we had not Succeeded. and having a certified housing element passed in January of 2023. we would have been out of compliance. And my understanding is not having a certified element means we would have been exposed to a thing called builder's remedy. Is that correct? All right. So if we hadn't passed that in January, then Builder's Remedy would be enforced. And is my understanding that then most residential units, most residential zoning, actually everything except industrial would be subject to a buy right development potential by property owners? Is that what the Builder's Remedy is? |
| 01:18:08.09 | Beth Thompson | Builder's Remedy provides for developers to propose a project, basically regardless of general plan and zoning. standards so they can propose projects that are not consistent with the general plan and zoning. So you could get high densities, you could get projects on sites that weren't intended to allow residential. I would have to look at the specific industrial restrictions. I know AB 2011 speaks to industrial. I don't recall the recent changes to builders remedy law reference industrial and I can the city attorney can weigh in. I don't believe the builders remedy that was in place at the time. that your housing element was adopted, included any exceptions for industrial. So I think residential projects could have been proposed throughout the And, And- areas that undergo intense use And Sergio, if you have anything to add, please do. |
| 01:18:59.61 | Ian Sobieski | Please do. It's important to my line of just level setting questions. It's an important question. But because the previous city council succeeded in getting a housing element certified in January of 2023, we have not been exposed to builders remedy for this period of time. |
| 01:19:01.50 | Beth Thompson | Yeah. |
| 01:19:17.41 | Ian Sobieski | Uh, and we currently are not exposed to it. My question is why are we amending Why are we doing any of this? Why can't we just rely on the previous housing element that's been certified by the state? HCD. I really don't know why. I'm sorry to disappoint you, Mayor. I really don't mind. I think a lot of people don't know why. I just really want to understand a simple articulation. In fact, I believe that McDougal asked that very question in a letter that was submitted to city council today, and I thought it was a fair one. So why do we have to go through an amendment of the housing element. Okay. |
| 01:19:54.02 | Steven Woodside | Do you want me to answer? I see Sergio. See the city attorney has turned on his mic. This was covered in Beth's presentation earlier this evening, but I see the city attorney has turned on his camera. |
| 01:20:05.69 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, you know, to be perfectly candid, you know, the city's current adoption of its present housing element is being challenged in litigation. So that is a concern for the city in terms of addressing some of the issues that have been raised and not going to gauge them. So, you know, to the extent that, the city does adopt an amended housing element, it would likely move much of the challenges that were brought forth in that litigation and allow the city to one save some money in terms of fighting that cost of lawsuits. And two, you know, the city council during its study session with regards to preparing the objective design and development standards, you know, did express some concerns about some of the existing designations in the site's inventory and the present housing element with regards to protection for the historic district and height limits and additional zoning restrictions that it wanted to maintain for the purposes of preserving views, David Miller, And so, based on that feedback that was provided with respect to the staff identified that a amended housing element would likely be necessary. regardless of the pending indie litigation. So, Thank you. |
| 01:21:18.07 | Steven Woodside | All right. |
| 01:21:18.10 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. |
| 01:21:18.86 | Steven Woodside | And HCD demanded that we remove a couple of sites. |
| 01:21:22.20 | Sergio Rudin | Yes. |
| 01:21:22.63 | Steven Woodside | in |
| 01:21:22.86 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. |
| 01:21:22.90 | Steven Woodside | . |
| 01:21:22.96 | Sergio Rudin | Correct. Yeah. Once staff identified, staff tried to reach out to both Paltrans and the county to do ascertain on the site 85. |
| 01:21:23.49 | Steven Woodside | Correct. |
| 01:21:32.18 | Sergio Rudin | It was determined that Thank you. neither agency was willing to step forward to Kevin Mohr, Assist the city in making that site available during the housing element cycle it's still unclear exactly which agency owns that subject parcel and after meeting with hd and determining that we're unlikely to see the development of that parcel during this this cycle, it was recommended that if you remove. |
| 01:21:55.80 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. That's a very clear explanation. I appreciate that. So, Beth or Sergio, if we have a new certified housing element, whatever changes we make, we submit the HCD and they certify our housing element and the necessary ballot initiatives passed by the voters of Sausalito, will we then be in the clear and be certain not to have builders remedy as a sanction until the next housing cycle by the voters of Sausalito. Will we then be in the clear and be certain not to have builder's remedy as a sanction until the next housing cycle in 2031? |
| 01:22:29.55 | Sergio Rudin | We would be in the best possible position at that point. one of the existing challenges to the city's housing elements in the UNB litigation as with respect to the implementation of Program 19. and the timing of the city's implementation of the program. Now, the housing element, has a number of commitments and programs that the city needs to undertake throughout the eight year cycle. And of course the city potentially, if it failed to meet those commitments, could be subject to challenge. and You know, additionally, there are a number of instances where the HCD could potentially decertify the city housing element, even after it certifies it for lack of meeting those standards and goals in the city housing element. That being said, The reality is HCD has primarily dealt with jurisdictions who have failed to meet their program of rezoning, and that has historically been the main issue that HCD has targeted for enforcement. I'm not aware of. HCD decertifying a housing element for any jurisdiction on the basis of failing to implement one of the smaller programs that are identified in the housing element. Hopefully that ends up as a quote. |
| 01:23:40.90 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah. There's a lot there. But what I'm wondering about is I know the city doesn't build housing. We're engaged in a process of clearing the way for housing to be built by designating sites and changing their zoning. But to what extent would the city potentially be exposed to Builder's Remedy if it failed to build any significant number of the 700. If no significant number of the 724 units was actually built over the next five years. |
| 01:24:13.15 | Sergio Rudin | I would say if the city has completed its program of rezoning, the likelihood that it is exposed to the builders on the B is going to be very low. Um, Thank you. You know, there are no certainties, but I would say it would be approaching year zero. because the city will have done what is required of housing element law to clear the hurdles for housing to be developed. Now, obviously, if market conditions are such that, you know, builders can't get loans, can't get financing, you know, that there's an economic slowdown and the housing doesn't get developed. The city has done what it's needed to do, comply with the law. We can't control the economy or other bigger factors. |
| 01:24:54.66 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, then my related question is if in that same circumstance, for whatever reason, the city has been in compliance with its certified housing element, but no significant amount of housing has been built over this period of time, and we have a new RHNA cycle starting, in 2029 uh for a 2031 uh period how does that fact influence what our new arena number would be uh going forward would we expect it to be this do we have any sense about what our number would be in 2029 based on actual performance of housing being built in Sausalito |
| 01:25:36.65 | Sergio Rudin | Jeff, do you want to take a crack at that one? |
| 01:25:38.60 | Beth Thompson | I'll gladly take a crack at that. So the past arena cycles haven't necessarily reflected what actual construction has been so. your current, if your current arena had reflected your construction, you would have a very small number. So It really depends. The methodology for the arenas changes every single cycle. So HCD has their methodology for um, for distributing the RHNA to the broader region and then ABAG adopts the methodology for distributing it to the individual jurisdictions. And it currently doesn't address your past production Thank you. You won't be There won't be currently under state law, if you have reason and you've identified adequate sites there's not a carryover, so if you haven't identified adequate sites from the previous cycle. There's a carryover where you have to actually demonstrate that you can accommodate your current current read up plus any accommodated need from the previous cycle. But as long as you've rezoned, you won't have that penalty. And there's currently not another penalty that I can think of that would that would occur. |
| 01:26:45.60 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:26:50.93 | Steven Woodside | I'm going to ask some questions and then I'll turn it back over to Councilmember Hoffman. On page one of the revised draft amendment, it says, after accounting for approved projects projected ADUs and projected SB, the city has a remaining arena of 465 units. What does SB mean? |
| 01:27:12.82 | Brandon Phipps | I believe the reference to SB9 will make that change. |
| 01:27:12.85 | Steven Woodside | SB9 units. Thank you. |
| 01:27:16.98 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:27:17.03 | Steven Woodside | Okay. Thank you. That's not the only place in here that that appears. I, um... |
| 01:27:25.76 | Steven Woodside | On page three, it says the city is in the process of evaluating the application of these new laws, AB 2011 and SB 6, to the inventory of sites and opportunity sites to determine if there's additional capacity for residential development. to preclude the need for a voter initiative on any of the sites? When will we have the city's feedback on the implications of AB 2011 and SB 6, since we have to make a decision about voter initiatives on or before March 4th? |
| 01:28:06.14 | Steven Woodside | I'm going to ask the city attorney to turn his camera on because we're going to rely on you to provide us with feedback on the implications of AB 2011 and SB 6, which passed following release of the draft housing element. This housing element draft says that the city is in the process of evaluating the application of these new laws to the inventory sites and opportunity sites to determine if there is additional capacity for residential development. When will that evaluation be complete, and will we have it in hand before we have to make a decision about the voter initiatives? |
| 01:28:43.86 | Sergio Rudin | So yeah, I would need a certain work with CDD to identify the potential sites could be subject to AB 2011 or FD6. Um, AB 2011 provides a ministerial people pathway. for multifamily projects on commercially zoned land, as long as it pays prevailing wages and the specified affordable housing targets. And so we would need to analyze how many parcels in the city would qualify for potential approval under AB 2011 and then give the council some preliminary analysis of what figures, if any, could be included for projects under AB 2011. Additionally, SB 6 doesn't provide any sort of minuscule approval pathway, but just simply allows residential use on commercial rezone property without requiring a rezoning. Again, this is one of those laws that requires payment of prevailing wages. best. I don't know if you have had much success with HDD allowing jurisdictions to count be potential projects under either of these laws for the purposes of the you |
| 01:30:00.45 | Beth Thompson | No. No, they continue to want to see sites be specifically and explicitly rezoned to accommodate residential. It's a lot like the SB9 units where You have to really demonstrate that there's going to be There's a trend or desire for those types of projects, since these were passed in 2022, I don't think the city's seen any AB 2011 or SB 6 requests or applications. So I think there's, I think it's pretty small and I believe that was addressed in your 2023 APR. I'm not positive though, and Principal Planner touched me. May I be able to chime in on that? |
| 01:30:38.57 | Steven Woodside | to be. to chime in on that. |
| 01:30:43.30 | Steven Woodside | Okay, yes, it is in our existing housing element. It is not redlined, but we adopted this in January of 2023. It's now two years later, and we've not received any feedback on this. So I would like to have a better understanding of this before we approve these voter initiatives. And there are other references to development on commercial lots that I'll get to in just a second. Okay. On page six, program objectives and time frame, you talk about utilizing the Surplus Lands Act as the mechanism by which if the voter initiative is approved for site 84 or site 75, that we would then issue a notice of availability to sell that site to a developer. That is not the city's plan. The city intends, if it were to develop on site 75 or 84, to do so through perhaps a long-term lease or some other mechanism by which the city retains control over the site. The city does not intend to declare as surplus or sell the MLK site or the corporation yard or any other city-owned site. So I'm You know, this says that following a successful ballot measure for site 84, issue a notice of availability pursuant to the Surplus Lands Act within 60 days. I would like to know, Who drafted that, and is it possible to remove that? The city can manage this process without utilizing the Surplus Lands Act. |
| 01:32:25.51 | Sergio Rudin | So I will comment on that. The Surplus Lands Act also covers leases of property for longer than 15 years. So the city does have to go through the Surplus Lands Act process unless it is fits within one of the exemptions. There is an exemption for transactions, including leases under government code 37364 for affordable housing. But that deals with specifically qualifying projects. if- |
| 01:32:55.38 | Steven Woodside | There's also an exemption for income producing property. There are other exemptions. So I just... Is it possible to enunciate this program in such a way that doesn't require us to automatically declare our property as surplus. |
| 01:33:13.05 | Sergio Rudin | I think that revision would be appropriate. |
| 01:33:15.75 | Steven Woodside | Okay. |
| 01:33:17.18 | Steven Woodside | Quick follow-up on that. Is it also true that if we were to sell surplus property, that would require a four-fifths vote? |
| 01:33:28.22 | Sergio Rudin | I would need to double check that. Additionally, with respect to some of the surplus property, if it is Um, you know, part property, we would typically want to look at the applicable provisions of state law regarding disposal of park property. And additionally, any deed restriction that would exist on that property that could cause a reversion to the original owner. And so for this reason, I think some revisions to this program language would probably be appropriate. |
| 01:33:56.97 | Steven Woodside | And I think this may have already been answered, but if it's city property, it would be up to the city to decide how to proceed. It would not be up to a private developer unless we were to reach an agreement with that developer to go forward. |
| 01:34:12.21 | Sergio Rudin | That is correct. |
| 01:34:14.44 | Steven Woodside | And if it's under city control, the city can designate it, for example, as senior housing or require that a developer designate it as senior housing or that a developer designate it as purely affordable housing. Rights the city might lose if it were to actually sell the property. Is that right? |
| 01:34:33.22 | Sergio Rudin | David Miller, And that is correct under both the surplus lands act and the exemption and government code 37364 typically the city would need to negotiate those transactions, whether they're in the form of a. sale or lease for affordable housing. And certainly that provides the city with significant opportunity to shape any project |
| 01:34:58.13 | Steven Woodside | And even if the city were to want to sell the land and had a buyer identified, the city would still have to go list the land as available for affordable housing before it could sell it. Isn't that right? |
| 01:35:10.92 | Sergio Rudin | That is correct. That is one of the requirements of the surplus plan. |
| 01:35:14.51 | Steven Woodside | Okay. All right, I'm moving now to page nine. This says under program objectives and timeframe, no later than December, 2024, develop procedures to address the streamlining requirements of SB 35 and similar state laws. My question is what are the similar state laws And following that is another paragraph that says, by no later than December 2024, establish a permit tracking database. Have we accomplished those? And if not, should we not change the dates for these deliverables? |
| 01:35:51.79 | Brandon Phipps | I can confirm that the city does have a permit tracking database and that's been in place well prior to December 2024. So we have accomplished that section. |
| 01:36:01.16 | Sergio Rudin | THANK YOU. |
| 01:36:01.22 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:36:01.65 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. And the city did revise its design review chapter, chapter 1054, to implement a process for ministerial approval of projects that are subject to streamlining under state laws, including SB 35, AB 2011, any other state laws that the legislature may enact or pass. |
| 01:36:13.10 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:36:22.47 | Sergio Rudin | So I do think that we are substantially in compliance with that housing element program I described. |
| 01:36:27.62 | Steven Woodside | So since this is something that's already been done, is it possible for us to change the and similar state laws to really identify the ones that we did? Because we already did this by December of 2024. And rather than just say and similar, which leaves us vulnerable, to actually identify the streamlining laws that we've comported with? |
| 01:36:48.12 | Sergio Rudin | We certainly can. I will say that the revisions to... the city's chapter and 54 of the municipal code also leave a catch all for subsequently enacted state laws that requires streamlined ministerial |
| 01:37:07.81 | Steven Woodside | Okay, I just don't like saying and similar state laws because who knows what that means. So, and it's something we've already done. So we're certainly able to announce what it is we've done. Okay. Okay. |
| 01:37:22.98 | Steven Woodside | On page 11 it states no density for residential uses is specified for CMCS and CW zones. And we talked earlier today about 2011 allowing... enhanced density in certain commercial zones. Have we considered enhancing second-story residential in our commercial zones in the Caledonia and Bridgeway areas since 2011 was enacted. |
| 01:38:04.16 | Steven Woodside | in 2022. |
| 01:38:06.59 | Sergio Rudin | I don't have an answer to that. Perhaps Beth or Brandon have considered that or are working towards that. |
| 01:38:14.05 | Steven Woodside | So we already have a program that allows some residential, second story residential in our commercial zones. May I ask that staff take a look at whether it's possible to enhance the density of that potential development in our commercial zones in alignment with AB 2011? |
| 01:38:33.96 | Steven Woodside | between now and... February 25th. |
| 01:38:37.30 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, I suspect it's not AB 2011 that would govern that issue, but like the ordinance 1022 and the fair traffic initiatives. because there are height limits and floor air ratio requirements in that ordinance. And while we have We will be discussing later tonight, as part of the program of rezoning and the draft ballot measure, the changes that would be made allow increased height limits and density on some of the commercially zone properties on the opportunity sites. I think, allowing for greater residential capacity in some of our commercial zones may butt up against ordinance 10.2 That does need some study and some analysis before we can answer that question. |
| 01:39:27.22 | Steven Woodside | So for example, on Bridgeway, we reduced the density at 1319 Bridgeway. This was not on your chart, Beth, but this was in the amended housing element, we reduced the density for that site from 3 to 2 plus an ADU. That site owner would like to go from three to four, three regular plus low income. Why did we reduce the capacity of that site at 1319 Bridgeway? I'm sorry I don't know the site number. |
| 01:40:04.04 | Brandon Phipps | I believe that's Site-44. |
| 01:40:06.08 | Steven Woodside | Okay. And why did we reduce the density of Site 44? It's a small Thank you. unit on Bridgeway. |
| 01:40:17.64 | Brandon Phipps | I'm happy to provide some preliminary comments on that. My recollection was that this reduction was made when the housing element was amended, as Sergio previously described, with a sensitivity towards preserving the historic character of our historic district, in addition to ensuring that our waterfront districts maintain their context. |
| 01:40:18.97 | Steven Woodside | That are. |
| 01:40:21.55 | Jim Madden | that they're going to be. |
| 01:40:39.81 | Steven Woodside | OK, but 1319 Bridgeway is not in this historic district. I don't believe it's closer to Napa Street, is it? That's correct. |
| 01:40:45.70 | Brandon Phipps | That's correct, but it is approximate to our commercial waterfront zone, and there was, I recall, if I recall correctly, some concern that a project of a greater density in that area may have a negative impact on context. |
| 01:40:59.44 | Steven Woodside | So if we wanted to reject that change, could we do so within our existing EIR? instead of reducing from 3 to 2, retain it, increase it from 3 to 4. |
| 01:41:15.59 | Beth Thompson | week. |
| 01:41:15.65 | Unknown | the, |
| 01:41:16.45 | Beth Thompson | We can look at that, I think we did Address the no project alternative in. in the EIR so we could look at how much environmental coverage you have for increasing that. So I can look at that. |
| 01:41:31.47 | Steven Woodside | And the same is true for the site at 409 Napa Street. |
| 01:41:40.55 | Beth Thompson | Is that site 55? |
| 01:41:40.80 | Bert Drobnis | And I... |
| 01:41:40.83 | Steven Woodside | Is that something? |
| 01:41:43.28 | Steven Woodside | Correct. |
| 01:41:44.88 | Beth Thompson | Okay, so keeping site 55 would be keeping it at 70 units per acre. The change to 49 units per acre, it actually |
| 01:41:50.86 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:41:54.16 | Beth Thompson | Because of the minimum zoning, the calculations we, we managed to increase the number of units but decrease the maximum density. So I think you haven't had any loss at that site. |
| 01:42:07.77 | Steven Woodside | Okay. All right, next question is on page 13. Um, |
| 01:42:17.72 | Steven Woodside | I wanted to so it says additional refinements were made through a housing element amendment in 2025 to the opportunity sites as a result of community and design decision maker input. during implementation of Program 4. I'd like to add the word HCD to that because HCD asked us to remove sites. Okay. Yeah, we can add that. Is it possible to add that? Yes. |
| 01:42:46.09 | Steven Woodside | I've got to abide by my own rules. Okay, those were my questions for now. Thank you. at Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 01:42:58.26 | Jill Hoffman | So, |
| 01:42:58.52 | Steven Woodside | All right. |
| 01:42:58.58 | Jill Hoffman | Yes, I had a couple of follow-up questions on the MLK site. Beth, can you just tell me where in the housing element materials that we have can I find the breakdown of the units of the income levels assigned to the MLK site? And can you tell me the page? Are they in the housing element? Are they in attachments? |
| 01:43:20.36 | Beth Thompson | It's in a couple of different places. So for the version that has 94 units at the MLK site, it's going to be, and I apologize because I don't have your packet with the page numbers as they're |
| 01:43:21.05 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 01:43:34.15 | Beth Thompson | as they're ordered, but it's in attachments three. And it's towards the very end where it's appendices D and one, if you go to the first page of appendix D, It's the very bottom row on that table. |
| 01:43:53.03 | Brandon Phipps | We've also provided a summary of the units that are impacted by voter initiatives and there's a one pager that's pretty straightforward we've tried to provide that to create some some clarity and easy reference points. That is one of the attachments as well to this item and that shows the breakdown also. |
| 01:43:53.42 | Beth Thompson | So, |
| 01:43:57.81 | Beth Thompson | That's true. |
| 01:43:58.33 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:44:11.29 | Jill Hoffman | And what attachment is that, Director Fitz? |
| 01:44:16.67 | Brandon Phipps | Give me a moment to review the agenda. |
| 01:44:19.51 | Steven Woodside | them. |
| 01:44:19.83 | Brandon Phipps | It should be titled |
| 01:44:19.86 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. It's page 287 of our packet. Okay. |
| 01:44:22.07 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. |
| 01:44:22.09 | Jill Hoffman | AND I'M GOING TO BE ABLE TO That doesn't help me. I'm going digital. So can you tell me what attachment it is? |
| 01:44:26.34 | Steven Woodside | CARRIE. |
| 01:44:30.78 | Beth Thompson | It's attachment six, subject to ordinances 1022 and 1128. Thank you, Beth. Okay, gotcha. |
| 01:44:35.68 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, Beth. Okay, gotcha. Okay, so that's site six. Or, sorry, attachment six. Okay, and then the site number is 84, right? Correct. The bottom row on that. The body, 84. 84. Okay, got it. Okay, so very low is 54, and 94 units, so very low is 54 units, and low is 34, and then moderate is 6. Okay, great. Thanks very much. That's very helpful. |
| 01:45:05.26 | Steven Woodside | As a follow on, what's the breakdown for that in the amended? Because we don't have the same table in the newly amended with regards to tonight's presentation. |
| 01:45:14.15 | Jill Hoffman | So it's different. If it's 80, right? Are you talking about if it's 80 or if it's 50? |
| 01:45:14.22 | Steven Woodside | So, It's, |
| 01:45:19.48 | Steven Woodside | Well, this is for 94. The table you're looking at has for 94. So you're exactly right, for 80 or for 50. |
| 01:45:19.50 | Jill Hoffman | This is for 94. |
| 01:45:25.57 | Steven Woodside | What would the breakdown? or 80 is |
| 01:45:27.16 | Beth Thompson | For 80, it's... 48 very low. 28 low. And for moderate, |
| 01:45:37.81 | Beth Thompson | We didn't specify the breakdown at 50, but I believe we lose all of the moderate and we reduce to about 30 something very low. And then the remainder low. And basically, we're just trying to keep your buffers when we get to. down to 50, so we reduce it in the manner that has |
| 01:45:57.97 | Steven Woodside | to the matter that has. 35, 16, and 0, something like that. Yes, something like that. |
| 01:46:01.10 | Beth Thompson | Yes, something. |
| 01:46:01.97 | Jill Hoffman | like that. |
| 01:46:02.26 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:46:05.96 | Jill Hoffman | Any other questions, Councilmember Hoffman? No, but sorry, can you repeat those again? Not the 94, but the 80 is- |
| 01:46:10.66 | Steven Woodside | Not this. 80 it's 48 here I'm just going to hand you this piece of paper and I'm going to open this up for public comment everybody has two minutes oh Yeah, thank you guys. |
| 01:46:22.61 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:46:24.91 | Steven Woodside | I know we want to hear from the public, but just a big picture question in 2023, the housing element that we now have, that's been approved was done in time. We have more time. And- |
| 01:46:36.50 | Steven Woodside | It gave us three years to adopt our zoning, which expires January 31st, 2026. |
| 01:46:42.86 | Steven Woodside | So we have some opportunities now to address it again with the revisions that are before us. And my question is, the buffer is about the same, if not a little bit larger than it was in 2023. |
| 01:47:01.42 | Beth Thompson | Buffer is larger. |
| 01:47:01.91 | Unknown | large. |
| 01:47:02.32 | Steven Woodside | Sure. Thank you. By how, what's the number? |
| 01:47:07.26 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 01:47:07.31 | Unknown | I'll see. table. |
| 01:47:13.00 | Brandon Phipps | Beth, is it 184, increasing to 234? |
| 01:47:17.32 | Beth Thompson | I believe so. Are you looking at that first table in program four? |
| 01:47:21.17 | Brandon Phipps | Correct. |
| 01:47:21.83 | Steven Woodside | Okay. Yes. There's so much volume here, it's hard to find these things. And I just wanted to make it clear there was a buffer then, and there's a buffer now. And I can comment about the significance of that later. |
| 01:47:22.10 | Beth Thompson | Yes. |
| 01:47:33.05 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you, Mayor. Beth or Sergio, I have the same questions. My concern is obviously around being subject to builder's remedy. So if we have a housing element where we have a significant number of housing sites on city-owned property, 80 at MLK, some number at, let's say, the fire station, city hall, other places, and it's a certified element. |
| 01:47:33.15 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:47:33.22 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. |
| 01:47:33.25 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:47:55.69 | Ian Sobieski | I understand that private property owners, the city can't do anything to compel them to actually build housing. uh, but would the city of Sausalito face any pressure from HCD? with a housing element where we have housing sites on city-owned property if they would we'd be facing pressure to actually execute on building housing in other words if they saw us not doing something with our city owned property in an orderly way to actually build the units we're promising. would we possibly face some kind of action? |
| 01:48:27.60 | Beth Thompson | So the city does not have to build the units, but you would have to implement program eight as we'll revise to address that Vera Cox's comments, but you would have to implement program eight to make those sites available. So you would either make those available as long term leases or otherwise make them available and seek developers for those sites. So you would you would have to be. |
| 01:48:32.52 | Ian Sobieski | of the people. |
| 01:48:49.78 | Beth Thompson | working to get those sites developed, but you're not responsible for developing them. |
| 01:48:54.81 | Ian Sobieski | That's news information for me. So on the private property sites, the real perfecting action is to rezone it residential with this new density and then it's up to the private property owner you know, to go with his or her financing and figure out how to build if they so chose. with the city-owned sites, different. kind of perfection of the action, which is we have to execute this program in the housing element to actually long term lease or otherwise connect with a developer. and that that's actually incumbent upon us to execute. That's part of the housing element. plan. That's what I hear you say. Did I articulate that? I see nodding Sergio, so |
| 01:49:31.56 | Sergio Rudin | The main thing is that we do have a specific program on steps the city intends to take to develop those sites, and we would be to demonstrate to HDD who are making new strides to achieve that program. |
| 01:49:42.63 | Ian Sobieski | and, |
| 01:49:45.99 | Ian Sobieski | And if we fail to do that, then we might be subject to the decertification of our housing elements. |
| 01:49:52.11 | Sergio Rudin | Correct. Again, as long as the city is showing meaningful concrete actions to implement that program. You know, if no developers are interested in that site, obviously that's something outside of the city's control. But, you know, we do need to make meaningful meaningful steps towards implementing that program as soon as those sites remaining in the site |
| 01:50:18.59 | Ian Sobieski | Got it. So from the dice here next year, if this all goes according to plan, if these MLK site, for instance, is in there at any density, we would expect to see things on the agenda related to. executing that program here with potential developers at MLK and other city owned sites. |
| 01:50:36.83 | Sergio Rudin | Correct. And of course, the city would first need to deal with some of the preconditions, including the voter approval requirements before we do. begin those. So, you know, step one out of all of those who are dealing with the ballot measures that are going to be discussed as part of the program. Thank you. |
| 01:50:54.05 | Brandon Phipps | If I may, I'll just clarify that and say that we have slightly amended that language to allow for the evaluation of sites that are not the city hall parking lot and are not the fire station so long as they satisfy certain site selection criteria. So we've expanded our options within that realm if that's where we end up. However, that will require some additional analysis. |
| 01:51:18.41 | Steven Woodside | I'm going to ask and then I'll turn to you, Councilmember Kaufman. I'm not sure. Beth and Brandon, I emailed to you earlier this afternoon a question regarding the Altamira site, which has been the subject of much correspondence that we received this afternoon. how, what, Did you receive my email? I did receive an email. Okay. So what are the implications of reducing the density at that site and how many units at that site are designated for very low and low income? |
| 01:51:40.00 | Unknown | I did receive your email. |
| 01:51:53.61 | Beth Thompson | Bye. |
| 01:51:53.89 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:51:54.04 | Beth Thompson | Let's pull that up. So that one actually has a fair amount of lower income units. |
| 01:51:54.58 | Steven Woodside | that. Thank you. |
| 01:51:57.29 | Ian Sobieski | have lower income units. On this particular site, I'm still getting clarity on whether I can participate because of it's a gray zone. So for the purposes of this meeting without. without yet committing to recusing myself two weeks from now, I'm going to Step over there, or at least. |
| 01:52:14.44 | Steven Woodside | So we are discussing sites questions and answers regarding sites. We're not discussing it. |
| 01:52:21.69 | Ian Sobieski | For the discussion of any ultimate mayor thing, I will stop off. But for the purposes of questioning, I'm just sitting here. Thank you. |
| 01:52:24.02 | Steven Woodside | Exactly. I will stop off. But for the purposes of questioning, I'm just sitting here. Okay, great. Because I have to similarly recuse myself. Okay. |
| 01:52:31.97 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 01:52:32.01 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:52:34.25 | Beth Thompson | And so I don't actually have the unit breakdown for all Samira in front of me. It'll take me just a minute to pull that up. So if you have another question or if you want to, while I pull that up, |
| 01:52:42.79 | Jill Hoffman | I pulled that Thank you. |
| 01:52:43.92 | Steven Woodside | you |
| 01:52:43.94 | Jill Hoffman | I'll pass to Councilmember Hoffman. Yeah, this is a simple question. So for ADUs, are ADUs considered... Low or very low, just generally. |
| 01:52:54.67 | Beth Thompson | ADUs are spread out across different levels of affordability. So we did a survey and based kind of on the feedback we got from that, we refined some of the countywide assumptions for ADU affordability. So they're mainly affordable Well, they're affordable, I would say across all levels. As you get the ADU applications in, you'll have to verify the affordability in order to take credit toward the RENA. So you'll have to have a survey that the, um, developer fills out. And then you'll be able to take credit based on the actual affordability. |
| 01:53:29.75 | Jill Hoffman | So when we do our arena, but when we do our housing element, can we count those for which income level? So I see in our I see in our housing on it, though, that we have ADUs and SB9 in extremely low, low, moderate, like we have them apportioned. So can we apportion certain ADUs? Can we apportion if we add ADUs according to the lot splits or changes to the law that allows more ADUs for right, can we apportion them? I mean, it looks like we can specifically just decide. |
| 01:54:06.12 | Beth Thompson | Yeah, it would be the same percentages that are currently being applied. So in that same manner, we would apportion any additional ones. |
| 01:54:12.63 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 01:54:12.98 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 01:54:13.24 | Jill Hoffman | Thanks. |
| 01:54:14.72 | Steven Woodside | OK, so at Altamira, as currently listed, it's possible to have 153 units there. And that has raised concern for some of the neighbors. And indeed, our buffer has increased by 50 units. So I'm curious as to why we are designating that site at such a high density, and if that's necessary for our very low or low income quotas. So, |
| 01:54:47.04 | Beth Thompson | It's kind of a... when you change one, you know, it can affect your others. And so as soon as we reduce something you'll have that effective having to look at We'll have to look at how it affects everything. But here, I'm actually adding up all of the sites, all of the income levels right now, so you can see how it affects that overall buffer. |
| 01:55:09.82 | Steven Woodside | Okay, and then I do wanna follow on to Vice Mayor |
| 01:55:10.01 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 01:55:10.16 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:55:14.38 | Steven Woodside | Uh, Woodside's question. Why did we increase our buffer by 50 units from 184 to 234? |
| 01:55:25.24 | Beth Thompson | The increased buffer came when we made some of the changes to reduce the density of some sites. I think we lost some affordable units and they increased some of the, Um, It increased some of the above moderate and moderate. And then we also added some sites because we don't, we did not want to go to HCD with just changes that stayed even. So this showed kind of a good faith effort on the part of the city demonstrating that you're working to still incentivize and encourage housing So it was a twofold reason. And you don't have to have that exact buffer. I think there's a little flexibility, but I do think HCD is going to look as a scan certifying something that significantly decreases your buffer beyond what you currently have. So at Altamira, the units, the realistic capacity that's attributed to Altamira in the adopted housing element is 67 units, and that includes 39 very low, 18 low, five moderate and five above moderate. |
| 01:56:33.18 | Steven Woodside | Okay. And so You said it's 67? 67? |
| 01:56:37.84 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:56:37.86 | Beth Thompson | Yes, I think the higher number might be with a density bonus. I'm not sure where the 150 number is coming from, and I would have to look at what someone referenced for that. |
| 01:56:49.97 | Steven Woodside | OK, I think we'll hear from that public comment. So I'm going to open public comment. The first card I have, please turn in a speaker card if you have not already. The first speaker card I have is Rick Matkovich. And next is John Story. |
| 01:57:11.42 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:57:11.44 | Babette McDougall | Sorry again. |
| 01:57:11.83 | Unknown | you |
| 01:57:17.01 | Mark Coleman | So just for clarity, I am not Rick Maktovich. I'm his neighbor. And he had to leave because this meeting went on so long. And he's in back pain. So... |
| 01:57:26.29 | Steven Woodside | getting started. |
| 01:57:27.50 | Mark Coleman | I know. So this is written by Rick, but I am also a neighbor and empathize with some of the statements that he reads about this particular lot number 53. |
| 01:57:42.73 | Steven Woodside | So you're 20 seconds into your two minutes. |
| 01:57:44.70 | Mark Coleman | All right. My name is Rick Maktowicz, and I live at 501 Benita and B Street, Keddy Corner from our meeting here. Of immediate concern for me is the proposal to put 14 units on a very small, that's 0.15 acres, narrow lot near City Hall. This is unsuitable and puts nearby properties at risk. The property steeply sloped and acts as a water drainage for the whole hillside, both with a concrete culvert and natural water percolation. The narrowness of the lot will prevent parking under the building, putting many more cars onto the street. the narrowness and the slope. neighbors losing privacy and other neighbors losing views. I encourage city planners and city council members to simply step outside of city hall, look at this lot, and see the risks involved. Essentially, this and other neighborhood infills try to solve the housing issue ineffectively and bit by bit. A few residents are disproportionately burdened by the disruption of the construction, the long-term reduction of quality of life, and decrease in property values. We look to the city council to look out for residents who can't muster large numbers to oppose individual lot development and hope you can do so in this case. And- |
| 01:58:52.18 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:58:53.24 | Mark Coleman | Is that it? |
| 01:58:54.56 | Steven Woodside | Oh, no, you have more. I thought you had finished. |
| 01:58:56.28 | Mark Coleman | No, it's much longer. Yet to be fair, opposition to certain development compels a proposal for where to build instead. I would propose that City Council consider rejuvenating development in the marineship. There is considerable unused or unutilized land there. What Sausalito has on its hands is a once in a lifetime opportunity transform marinship into a mixed-use mecca and visage the Pearl District in Portland or Port Townsend, Washington. Okay. |
| 01:59:22.27 | Steven Woodside | Okay, thank you. I'm going to ask folks to refrain from calling out or clapping so we can run our meeting. efficiently. John's story. followed by Jim Madden. |
| 01:59:32.99 | John Story | Hi, I live at 521 Nevada Street and have for the last 31 years. Your proposal to build a 35-unit building across the street would block my view of Mount Tam, which I've had, again, for 31 years. I would strongly appreciate you looking at that site and considering a smaller number, because I think in Sausalito of all places views are priced and I think if any one of you had a building to be built across the street from your house that would block your view, you obviously would not vote for it. That's all I have to say. Thank you. |
| 02:00:15.27 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. We'll hear from Jim Madden and then Jed Dempsey. Welcome Jim. Thank you. |
| 02:00:21.62 | Jim Madden | Jim, Matt. represent the Mary Madden LLC. Site 44, which was mentioned earlier, 1319 Bridgeway. What in going from three to two would not be good. Going to three to four would be great. We would not be exchanging the exterior building other than the garage door. So a low impact project, help save MLK, other things that need be saving. Another thing I noticed on here is 210 Caledonia. was removed. I haven't, you know, actually studied doing that building. But there is a potential for pickup, once again, we would not change the footprint, existing footprint, and you just got to pick up Thank you. Thank you. MLK or whatever fire stations you got if you want to keep these these are small projects and But if you got a bunch of small projects where you're losing two to four units, and they're not controversial. You're not building out. I think you should keep them. and then you can save your bigger. your bigger stuff you want because a bunch of little numbers adds up to a big number. at the end of the day. So you have a benefit. Thank you. |
| 02:01:43.02 | Steven Woodside | THE END OF |
| 02:01:43.18 | Jim Madden | Thank you. |
| 02:01:44.59 | Steven Woodside | Jed Dempsey and then Adriana Denehite. Didn't didn't he any in. |
| 02:01:49.59 | Jed Dempsey | Hi, I'm Jed Dempsey. I live on Bulkley Avenue. A bunch of my neighbors are in the audience and I don't know if they'll be speaking. I have a lot of concern about the Altamira project. Haven't heard much about it. It's kind of, in my view, a land mine in the middle of this whole thing. The number of 153 is astronomical. Even a number of 67 is The density of the existing multi family in that area is 15 to 20 per acre. It is not 70 per acre. It is right next to the historic district. Some of the buildings on the north side, sorry, on the uphill side are, I believe, part of the historic district. So I guess my request is that you guys think very carefully about this. And I wanted to say, actually, I'm grateful to all of you for the attention. This is obviously very important to an awful lot of people. And it's a lot of work, and I'm grateful for that. But please think carefully about Altamira. Thank you. |
| 02:03:16.77 | Steven Woodside | Adriana Dinahinian. Babette McDougall. Thank you. |
| 02:03:23.67 | Adriana Denehite | Thank you. |
| 02:03:23.68 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:03:23.72 | Adriana Denehite | Thank you for the correct pronunciation. Hello, city council and city employees. I'm speaking about Martin Luther King Park. Two little items. One is people have asked me, What would 80 units on that site look like? And you can look up at the Anchorage apartments, seven buildings, I believe, three... What? 13, three stories high. Folks, not to call out, please. Three stories high. I can see seven from where I am. That's what it would look like on a much, much smaller space. The other thing I want to say is that MLK Park is not a good place to put residential because it's a very loud area. Kids screaming, adults laughing, dogs barking, the Zumba class with their music playing. It's not a place that people would be happy to live in. Right next to the pickleball courts, right next to the tennis courts, right next to the basketball courts. There's noise there all the time. And hundreds of people on the weekends, and even during the week, hundreds of people use that park. It's very, very well attended, and we would be losing our off-street parking, which would be really, really tragic. So please, let's get rid of MLK on the list. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:04:52.28 | Steven Woodside | Babette McDougall and then Ian Sobieski. Speaking as an individual. |
| 02:05:02.62 | Babette McDougall | Thank you for recognizing me, Babette MacDougall, Girard Avenue, Sausalito. So, of course, two minutes. Let's just take up that word de novo. You lawyers especially know it's Latin. It means to make new, to renew something. Okay, so here's our chance, since we're using a consulting group apparently, at least one person for sure. in the de novo mix. Let's be new about a lot of things. And you know, there's a lot of interesting things being said tonight, which is promising. So I would like to see a more integrated approach as we go forward, because it's very confusing. We need a glossary of terms. And I think if you really want to engage your constituents, then you need to be mindful of the will of your constituents. Now, if the majority of people speak up and they say, don't even think of touching City Hall, and you flout that, and you bring City Hall back on the list anyway, despite the overwhelming opposition from your own constituents, I don't know if that's the idea of how you were, because you think you're representative government agents and therefore you get to call the shots. I don't know. I would think carefully about that. So again, a gossery of terms would be nice. And as for some of these other issues, I think the landmark And the density reduction issue is really quite important. So I'm glad to hear you guys opening it up too. smaller, maybe more, but smaller, instead of a few giants. This is not New York. It's not San Francisco. and the views really do matter. So thank you very much. |
| 02:06:35.38 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you. Ian Sobieski and then Michael Rex. |
| 02:06:42.37 | Ian Sobieski | Oh, he said, he canceled. |
| 02:06:42.44 | Steven Woodside | to get the best. |
| 02:06:43.75 | Ian Sobieski | Because of the proximity of this Altamira site to my home, as I'm still investigating whether I'm allowed to participate, I'm making this comment as a member of the public. Altamira, as we have seen on other sites that were in the housing element that was certified, can use a density bonus to create a very large number of units at that location. So with the density bonus, it might be 130, 140 units. That is going to impact the community in much the same way that you saw a reaction from the community around other sites where density bonuses like that are used. So I would encourage the city council on that site to consider well, we encourage it to reduce it to 29. That is the zoning that would still allow significant housing to be built at that site and help spread the sites around. the city. uh, when you squeeze the balloon somewhere, you have to, it has to go somewhere else. And so, uh, I would encourage the city council to engage in a parallel process to find other places where housing can be affirmatively built that isn't simply tolerated. But actually embraced by the community and there are a whole there's a whole path of urban design that we could engage in as a parallel path that would allow us to find those sites. and actually build public support. for and retain local control because we'd be able to use a thing called the Community Development Agreement. So we should try to get by and stay out of builder's remedy. And that's an imperative. But if we do that by. giving away a high density zoning allowance to any particular site, then we can create a real problem for that neighborhood and for the entire city. So please consider reducing the Altamira site to 29. Thank you. |
| 02:08:34.77 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, Michael Rex, and then Albert Strickman. |
| 02:08:40.24 | Michael Rex | Hello, Michael Rex, local architect. And, uh, I heard tonight there's pass forward to Thank you. evaluate other sites besides the opportunity sites. And I don't see that that's possible on commercial properties within ordinance 1022. We have a proposed ballot measure on your agenda tonight when I'll speak on this further. But right now, if you want any density added to commercial sites that under 1022, on some of those commercial sites you can. And, and, We don't have a path forward. My office is getting called from property owners that are becoming aware that hey, our office market's dead. We want to convert our building or our upstairs to residential. And if they're under the 1022 plan, limitation. It would require another ballot measure. and that, That's just a way of saying, no, it'll never happen. So we probably really need to look at that. if we want to pass forward to consider our sites. And when we do consider our sites, we'll get less density on specific sites. Spread it out. And so this is something I urge you to look at. Thank you. |
| 02:10:12.68 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, Michael. Albert Strickman, and then Alice Merrill. |
| 02:10:21.83 | Albert Strickman | Hello everyone, I'm Albert, I live in Saucedo, Albert Streetman. |
| 02:10:25.76 | Steven Woodside | Sorry about that. |
| 02:10:27.13 | Albert Strickman | I'd like to remind everyone we've been told the sole reason for rezoning the marineship industrial areas is to meet the state mandate for additional housing units. I question why there is any suggestion of changing zoning throughout this area to overshoot that quota when a plan is in place with the purpose of protecting vulnerable jobs for hardworking people that rely on these specific protections. I will remind everyone having housing built next door and on top of these industrial spaces simply won't work. It would be extremely disruptive to the people that intend to live in these rezoned areas and would also violate DTSC and EPA guidelines. On the other side of the fence, limitations imposed on industrial working spaces would prevent work from being completed. Shortly thereafter, rezoning in the Marin ship, you would see the end of industrial trades in Sausalito, creating a ripple effect throughout our community. First, the blue collar jobs in our maritime trades would be lost. The exact industry that thousands of people in Sausalito who live on houseboats or floating homes rely on for the service would be gone. in turn, leaving the homes vulnerable to disrepair or destruction. Are we willing to lose a large part of our culture to appease the thirst to develop our town? I suggest we move slowly and consider what is at stake when we go to rezone areas that's maritime history has defined our community and was at one point the backbone of industry. Thank you. |
| 02:11:56.53 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Alice Merrill and then Fari Tabatabai. |
| 02:12:03.30 | Unknown | Um, Alice Merrill, 117, Caledonia. I, uh, ditto what, um, Albert, Albert, just I was about to say Peter, that's his father. And the marineship is so, so important and so vulnerable. And this is my thing. Everybody knows it. But it's true. And people who don't know about care about the marineship don't realize how much of an impact it would have to have any kind of housing really of any kind of substantial or even small. amounts down there. Um, It will shut down the maritime and trades and the industrial... center. And that's been here. That's our history. That's important. It's just important. And I will say that since I have a little bit of time, I grew up here. I'm infinitely aware that the people who live on the Hill don't know about the Marineship and how important it is, because because I happen to have a father who, who had boats in his blood, so I knew. But our neighbors didn't know. except for the fact that they knew us. And, you know, it just... It's just a huge, important place, and we can't lose it. We just can't. It's my thing. Thank you. |
| 02:13:39.05 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Fari Tabatabai, Mark Coleman. |
| 02:13:47.10 | Fari Tabatabai | Yes, hi, thank you. You pronounced my name very well. Bye. I'm speaking about the MLK parcel, parcel 84, |
| 02:13:56.89 | Unknown | for |
| 02:13:58.12 | Fari Tabatabai | Um, I, I live in the area and I just, there's a bit of a background. I have spent 25 years in preparing NEPA SQL document. So when I see an inadequate NEPA SQL document, you know, I can tell. So, uh, What I want to specifically talk about with regards to this CEQA document is the inadequacy of the traffic studies that are presented in this study. in the report. The traffic issues related to MLK Park is very significant. When you add 90, even 90 units of housing on top of the recreational area and you have kids running in and out of Coloma Street, along Coloma Street, it represents a serious hazard to the public. So I strongly recommend that you take a look at the traffic studies and pay more attention to have a more due diligence you know, look at that. I have a little bit of time left. I had brought this issue up the last time, and that is the allocation of the 700, the required 700 units. I asked what is being done to rectify that number, the appeal that was rejected. I haven't heard anything about what the city's plans are. to rectify, you know, that number. Thank you. |
| 02:15:51.85 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:15:52.60 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:15:53.80 | Fari Tabatabai | you Mark. |
| 02:15:54.98 | Steven Woodside | Coleman and then Vicki Nichols. If anyone else would like to speak, please turn in a speaker card. |
| 02:16:04.22 | Mark Coleman | Council members, I'm speaking as myself, long term social resident, live across the road. And first I just want to say how painful it is to see how this is impacting everybody in Sausalito and creating a sense of division. When we need unity, there's a sense of, nobody wants these buildings in our backyards, nobody does. And yet, and they just feel how painful this is this division between different neighborhoods, different communities. And it's just really heartbreaking. What brought me up here is I feel a certain unclarity about how to engage with this process as a resident, as a homeowner. We're also facing looking at 14 units going up high in front of our house, blocking our view. And so there's some questions, one about how does a citizen engage other than coming to these meetings? writing occasionally, but it feels like this process is being done to us, and I know you're also feeling that because the state's imposing that on us. But for example, who decides on Density allotment per acre who I don't know who's that who done is it the consultant we're using there is it this is it who knows how do we contest the density of a particular site is there a way to engage in that is there a way to understand the criteria. Is there a way to also I heard in previous meetings about build a density bonus. I think our site was allocated for six units, but with builder density bonus, they get 14 units. Is that contestable? And what is the basis for the inclusion or removal of a site from the total allocation? So these are just questions, but they're coming from a place of not wanting to engage more and not knowing how to engage. So I'd love more clarity on that at some point. Thank you. |
| 02:18:00.91 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Please give your email, Mr. Coleman, to Brandon Phipps. He's raising his hand, and he will send you notifications every time an action is taken in connection with this process. Vicki Nichols and then Joel Carr. |
| 02:18:20.02 | Vicki Nichols | Good evening, Mayor Cox and council members. Mine is more of a question. I appreciate the hearing, and I know how hard this is. It's been going on for a long time, but I also know that we have these laws that we have to comply with. Everybody does. My question, I heard two different, I thought I heard two different things tonight, and my question is around when opportunity sites are identified in a particular housing element and the community. Um, desired results are not met, and that those sites roll over to the next element. Is it not true that some of them roll over and they are there by right? And I'm saying this in regards to the more sites that we add, if we don't meet our 724 units, we're going to have additional locations that will be eligible by right, which means no consideration. Just come in and do it. I think that's an important thing that I haven't heard addressed tonight. Thank you. |
| 02:19:26.25 | Steven Woodside | Joel Carr. and then we'll turn to our online Speakers. |
| 02:19:33.41 | Joel Carr | Hello, Joel Carr, architect and homeowner in Sausalito, San Francisco. I want to speak to a lot of dis and misinformation I've been hearing now for years about the marineship. I have actually been developing a series of case studies, all of which I'm happy to share with the council and the public, whoever would like, looking at small, historic, working waterfront towns all over the country. Several in the northeast, a couple in Florida, a couple in the west coast, all of which are historic and very active working waterfronts that have instituted development programs that not only actually preserved but also increased the number of maritime businesses, housing, retail, entertainment, and various other uses in very creative and exciting ways that our whole marineship could take as examples of how to develop in thoughtful ways and create synergies and new activity that also supports the maritime businesses in the marine ship. I would really like to see a little bit more openness from the no marine ship development crowd at looking at these kinds of examples where they've been done successfully and over the course of many years. So someone needs to let me know if they want to see the information. Thanks. |
| 02:21:12.07 | Steven Woodside | City Clerk? |
| 02:21:14.45 | Walfred Solorzano | Okay. |
| 02:21:15.85 | Steven Woodside | You have to turn in a speaker slip, sir. |
| 02:21:18.00 | Walfred Solorzano | He did not turn 100 for 5A. |
| 02:21:20.55 | Bert Drobnis | speak on number three, which was stuff that was not on the agenda, and want to speak on item number five. |
| 02:21:26.82 | Steven Woodside | All right, Mr. Drobnis, please come forward, and apologies for that. I did not receive it. |
| 02:21:31.43 | Bert Drobnis | Once again, I'm Bert Drobnis. I live at the Anchorage. The information that I'm going to present to the City Council has been obtained from sources deemed to be reliable. The city of Sausalito has 1.8 square miles of land and our arena number is 724. Puerto Madero, 3.164 square miles, 176% of the square miles of Sausalito. Their number is 725. Mill Valley, 4.7 square miles, 260% of the land of Sausalito. Their arena number is 865. And Novato has 27.49 square miles, 1,527% of the size of Sausalito and their number It's only 2,090 units. My point in bringing this to the city council is I understand that you filed an appeal with HCD and it was denied. I urge the city council to appeal once again. This number is egregious and ruins our city. They included, as has been told, land outside of the city confines. This is wrong, and I urge the city council to rectify this. As far as the mar marineship goes it is my understanding that a private landowner in the marineship has offered his property to be developed in order to meet the housing element number I strongly urge. the city council to look at that. If we can combine reducing the number by appeal and adding the marineship, it'll put less stress on the entire city and every single community because I I do agree. It affects everyone within the city, and nobody wants to be affected to the extent that I have heard this evening. I've lived at the Anchorage for 42 years. I know what people have spoken about. Thank you. |
| 02:23:33.77 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you for those statistics. Justine Kahn. |
| 02:23:41.96 | Unknown | Hi, City Council. Thank you. I just I I live on Coloma Street right across the street from the park, MLK Park, and I wanted to come and second actually what Bert just said. I urge the city council to look at the Golden Gate Recreation Area and see if we can lower the amount of density that we are required to build. I'm still unclear how that was rectified and why we're not looking at that as a potential solution. The other thing I wanted to say is just that we use the park. it is the perk about living in that part of Sausalito. We don't have views of the ocean where I live. We have views of the park. It's where I go with my daughter. It's also where my daughter goes to school. Her school uses the park every day during their lunch. It's a place where We go to hang out with our friends and people walk their dogs. It's a gathering place and it is the center of our part of town. And so I really urge the city council to take seriously taking MLK Park off of the list. I also have a business in the Marin ship. If you build in the marine ship, the density in the area, my business will be relocated. I would rather that happen than have it be built in the middle of our park. I have a very soft spot for the marineship. I think it is an incredible place. It's where I employ people. It's where I spend my days. It's where my husband spends his days. It's an important part of our city. And I also agree that we need to move slowly and think very complexly about how we think about expanding in that area. Thank you so much for your work. And that's all I have to say. Thank you. |
| 02:25:32.64 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:25:32.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:25:32.98 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 02:25:33.28 | Steven Woodside | City Clerk. |
| 02:25:36.89 | Walfred Solorzano | Okay, first speaker, Sandra Bushmaker. |
| 02:25:41.91 | Sandra Bushmaker | Hello, counsel again. Couple of things I wanted to comment on. First of all, I said last night I sat through the Catalyst California meeting and the man from Southern California who started California cities for local control was Once again, trying to get more city councils involved. Their focus has been completely to the city councils in California to oppose some of these egregious laws coming out of Sacramento. So I'm sure that's on the Catalyst California website to be able to see that meeting. Also, I'm very surprised to see the firehouse on Spanser and City Hall put back on the list when there was really, really strong opposition to that and the Berg property. that and you were presented with 1300 signatures opposing that particular site. So having, excuse me, my dog is, of course, acting as soon as I speak. Um, Having attended all the housing element meetings, all the city council meetings, the working group, all of the element of housing element meetings. I'm really surprised to see these properties even being considered again. And you know that the, that. area north of Harbor Drive in the Marin ship was included as a housing opportunity site. And lastly, I just wanted to comment on the buffer. I have a, a really difficult time with the high buffer. We've increased it by 50 in this amended housing element. And the increases were mostly in the moderate and above moderate. That is an irony to me when the whole thrust of housing laws in California lately has been for affordable housing. So could we not load up our very low and low-catted |
| 02:27:44.27 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker is Jennifer Nemo. |
| 02:27:52.40 | Unknown | Hi, good evening, counsel. Can you hear me? |
| 02:27:56.21 | Steven Woodside | Yes, we hear you. |
| 02:27:57.36 | Unknown | Okay, great, thank you. Thank you and good evening. I want to say thank you for listening to the concerns that we've expressed over time about MLK Park and for your attempts to accommodate those concerns. However, asking the people of Sausalito to choose between three options or suffer the fate of Builder's Remedy isn't quite what we had in mind. There are dozens of other city owned sites throughout Sausalito. There are acres of land in Marinship, sites 67 and 68, for example, that have been well considered in the process, but later removed. Notably not by a vote of the people and also not as advised by your housing element advisory committee, the HEAC. The housing element plan has a large buffer as we've talked about tonight above the necessary requirements and I love the idea of the ADU SB Dine option that was discussed to Dine a new idea to maybe increase those numbers with incentives to make sure that that happens. Please don't leave us pigeonholed and choosing between these three sites and please know we do not want housing inside our park. |
| 02:29:02.13 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Next speaker is Aaron Nathan. |
| 02:29:07.27 | Babette McDougall | Aaron, who? |
| 02:29:08.34 | Walfred Solorzano | you |
| 02:29:08.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:29:08.41 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 02:29:08.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:29:08.45 | Walfred Solorzano | in. |
| 02:29:09.81 | Unknown | Thank you, counsel and everyone for your comments and the information today. I live directly across from Site 84, MLK Park at 607 Coloma. And I wanted to point out that when you analyze the numbers proposed, there's roughly over 70% of the very low income housing is actually set to be within basically the intersection of Glomann and Bridgeway. And I think that this is in flagrant violation of the part of what these housing mandates are trying to do, which is create equitable housing. So I think that this will actually backfire. And so using MLK as basically the dumping ground for our lowest income and low income areas is just not actually going to work. The second piece that I wanted to point out is that when you look at the density, you guys talk in units of MU49 and these cryptic elements. Most of us are thinking about it in terms of how tall are these buildings. Looking at Whiskey Springs as an example, that's roughly half the density at which what is proposed for that site. And so in order to get the density numbers of 94, even the supposedly 80 units that are lower, we would need a three to four story structure built basically right behind a school. And so I think that that's completely unacceptable. And I just wanted to provide real numbers that the people that live in these areas will actually understand what's being proposed. And a four-story structure that's basically twice the size of Whiskey Springs is really just insanity. So hopefully that sheds some light and I urge the council to severely consider the impact this will have to the area that we live in. Thanks. |
| 02:31:00.62 | Walfred Solorzano | Next speaker is Carmela Davis. |
| 02:31:04.67 | Unknown | Hello, city council members. My name is Carmela Davis. I was born and raised in Marin County, and I currently work as a housing specialist with the Marin Environmental Housing Collaborative, also known as MECC. MEC is a local nonprofit that advocates for environmentally friendly and sustainable, affordable housing. And my comments tonight will be on behalf of the organization. I'm speaking to you today to strongly emphasize the importance of planning for housing sites that will have an actual pathway to being built. We are in a housing crisis, and due to that, Sausalito needs to produce more housing. As you know, the housing element needs to meet the RENA requirement of 724 new units. MEC has concerns that the current primary objective has been getting approval, but the sites that are included are not all workable. Some sites are included where the owner has not yet been contacted, and some sites do have owner interest that were approved by the housing element advisory committee that have now been discarded the housing element needs to include vetted sites and we at mech are urging the review and approval of such sites and as you have heard tonight there are you know a good recommendation about finding as many sites as you can to build housing and so that there won't be sites that have so much opposition, but in order to do that, you need to be carefully vetting and making sure that these will have actual pathways moving forward. And on a personal note, I would like to comment on the discussions around ADUs tonight. I just want to emphasize the fact it's not a guarantee an ADU will actually go on the market to the public and might go to a family member, whereas new multifamily housing will be affordable and accessible to people of all income brackets. ADUs also do not need to be built accessible for people with disabilities. It's not always required by the ADA. So I thank you for people with disabilities. It's not always required by the ADA. So I thank you for your time tonight and appreciate it. |
| 02:33:06.61 | Walfred Solorzano | Next speaker is John. |
| 02:33:16.21 | John | Good evening, council. Thank you for listening to us. Just a few comments about the housing element in general. I believe the piecemeal approach causes more anxiety and much consternation than if the city had implemented a mixed use residential master plan for all of marinship long ago. At the end of last year, the Planning Commission discussed the Council's decision to remove opportunity sites and marine ships south of Harbor Drive, specifically sites number 67 and 68, The discussion talked about how that's a missed opportunity. and also would make, if that was put back in, it would make the rezoning of MLK Park unnecessary. Any ballot measure rezoning Marinship should include all of Marinship and take the MLK site 84 off the list for this round of the housing element. I believe a further discussion on developing, potentially developing that site is needed. It's specifically incorporating the schools. That site has always been contemplated for a community center at some point in the future. And we have an opportunity to have a true discussion on what to do there. Thank you. |
| 02:34:34.38 | Walfred Solorzano | Next speaker, Ben Dean. |
| 02:34:38.65 | Ben Dean | Hello, council. I'm a resident on Olima Street right across the street from MLK Park. I would just echo the sentiment around MLK. I think it should just be removed at this point. You would be impacting significantly a community and also economics. Your largest leaseholder today is sharing this parking lot and needs it for the purposes of school and parking for the facilities. And I think missed opportunity is the other thing that you should take away today around the marinship there's seems to be a lot of land available that is currently underutilized and i would echo the the thoughts from the architect around treating it as an opportunity we have the opportunity to revitalize a really underutilized part of the city that today residents aren't going to. And there's an opportunity to dramatically transform that. Let's take this and bring another renaissance to Sausalito. Thanks. |
| 02:35:34.35 | Walfred Solorzano | Next speaker is Sybil Boutillier. |
| 02:35:41.90 | Sybil Boutillier | Mm-hmm. I'm sorry. Good evening, Mayor, City Council members. There were a number of things I just wanted to point out. There's been a number of wordsmithing changes to the draft that aren't redlined. I'm not sure when those happen. Um, And mostly the ones I've been looking at obviously have to do with age friendly senior housing. I could point out specifics. One thing I specifically was wondering about When I looked at a document yesterday of the submitted housing element. It had a goal number Thank you. H4, Section 26, that stated that the City Council or the staff. Anyway, the city would direct a family South Salido to present by December 24 December 2024. Um, some review and report on universal service and visitability. I cannot find that anymore in the current draft. And I had discussed that with our community a development director in the fall, and he had said that was, you know, we should deal with it a little bit later. Thank you. And I'm, you know, so I recently sent him some material on that. um Karen Grove, But there were a few other things on page 84 I wondered why CD 4.41 crossed out the word supportive housing. Um, And at LU. 1.20.3 Um, and your age-friendly living has been added to that section. I mean, all that language is different, but it specifically says that something that would be made |
| 02:37:44.90 | Walfred Solorzano | Next speaker. |
| 02:37:45.07 | Steven Woodside | Hold on one second City Clerk Sybil your time is ended you had a number of detailed comments that we weren't able to scribe as you were speaking would you kindly send them to our Community Development Director Brandon Phipps with a copy to me thank you |
| 02:38:03.61 | Walfred Solorzano | Speaker is Nicole. |
| 02:38:07.63 | Nicole Belfoy | Hi, City Council. Thanks so much for allowing the opportunity to speak. My name is Nicole Belfoy and I live in the Whiskey Springs Willows area. So I just wanted to say first that while I appreciate all of the work that's been done, I do agree with so many comments that this is causing a big divide between our community. It feels like at first it was sort of north versus south, historic versus not. But the big picture is that something just feels wrong. So we really do need to look at that appealing of the 724 unit allotment. It feels like just given the stats, like it just we can't stop that appeal process, like continue, continue. We've got so much going on in the world. Like this is causing strife within our community um and i also just want to say that we're asking for creativity and transparency proper planning a real pathway to being built these opportunity sites that are missing it seems like it's why are there so many questions that are coming up tonight about it um altamira sounds a little scary building such a huge thing on on a hillside. But let's also talk about MLK, of course, like the traffic concerns are real. At Whiskey Springs, it's going to be unique because we're actually going to be surrounded by many of these new complexes. And I'm going to say that we have a lot of disruption already, not only between the noise for the construction that's been going on at the school, but we have a lot of break-ins. There's a lot of easy on off access there and also traffic. The traffic concerns are huge. I think that, you know, police force, everything would need to spend a little bit more time up here in the north that we're just not getting. So while density is hard, I don't feel like this north side of town feels like an easy target. It feels overpopulated. And we already have the school and we have what is equivalent of the only community center Sausalito has, and that's MLK Par. |
| 02:40:10.73 | Walfred Solorzano | That no more further public speakers. |
| 02:40:13.90 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. I'm going to close public comment. We'll bring it back up here for any further questions and comment. But first, we're going to take a five-minute break for personal convenience. Thank you. We're talking about some logistics. I'm gonna resume this meeting. |
| 02:40:26.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:40:33.48 | Steven Woodside | Could I have guys step outside if you'd like to talk? I'm gonna resume the two people in the front row. All right. We're going to resume the meeting. If you want to chat with one another, please step outside. I'm going to bring it up here for any further questions of staff. If no questions, I'm going to invite comment. |
| 02:40:58.10 | Steven Woodside | All right, who would like to lead off? |
| 02:41:04.07 | Steven Woodside | Vice Mayor. |
| 02:41:04.60 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. I've only been here. |
| 02:41:07.77 | Steven Woodside | Newest member of our team. |
| 02:41:10.32 | Steven Woodside | It's not because I have a clear path to get through all this in my own mind, and I'm sure you and the audience feel the same way. It's a very tough problem for everybody. And I just want to make a couple overarching comments first, then I'm gonna go to the bottom line of what I recommend we do about some of these things now, and then if necessary, explain a little more detail. But I'd rather get to the chase quicker than not. |
| 02:41:41.15 | Steven Woodside | I'm gonna stop you, I apologize. So, certain of us have to recuse ourselves regarding certain decisions. |
| 02:41:47.78 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Before I would speak to each of those, I would give a heads up. |
| 02:41:52.32 | Steven Woodside | Okay, perfect. So you know that it's Altamira for Councilmember Sobieski, and it is MLK for me. |
| 02:41:59.31 | John Story | Yes. |
| 02:41:59.58 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. And is anyone else aware of any conflict regarding any of the sites we just saw? She's a renter. |
| 02:42:05.21 | John Story | the |
| 02:42:05.75 | Steven Woodside | So are you aware of any conflicts in terms of your ability to debate the inclusion or exclusion of any of the sites we've discussed this evening? because |
| 02:42:15.61 | Ian Sobieski | I'm adding the site near me that's being proposed by Ms. Fodch. |
| 02:42:20.87 | Steven Woodside | OK, so he's 605 Bridgeway and Altamira. Okay. Okay, thank you. Thank you for indulging me. |
| 02:42:29.76 | Steven Woodside | Okay, no, it's very important that we do this up and up. We are deliberating. We haven't conferred among ourselves on the merits. We've listened to staff's report, et cetera. We're going to do our best to give direction, and it's very challenging. And the overarching things, a couple of preliminary things, |
| 02:42:49.12 | Steven Woodside | And we're not making a decision tonight. |
| 02:42:50.72 | Steven Woodside | That's right. We're giving... This is a study session. Study session. We're going to suggest certain things and see how it plays out, and we have to come back in the end of this month and adopt something. So having said all that, quickly, the state housing laws have evolved over the years. There's for a long time been a requirement to have a quote RENA number a target that number in Sausalito hovered in the 70s for decades and I think there's even one cycle where we were totally out of compliance city was totally out of compliance. |
| 02:42:51.68 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:43:26.92 | Steven Woodside | didn't even produce one. So I think we're a target. Having said that, I think there is an authentic need for housing. I would suggest that it be focused on truly affordable housing, workforce housing, senior housing. I think those are the highest priorities, as I see it, need in our own communities. So I think while I am very concerned about the high number thrown at this small community to try to deal with in short order, it is overwhelming. It's overwhelming staff. It's overwhelming us. It's dividing the community. |
| 02:43:54.31 | Unknown | that. |
| 02:44:07.18 | Steven Woodside | And it is not the way to actually achieve housing, in my humble opinion. But I'm not in the legislature. I don't have a vote there. the city filed a very competently written appeal And the city lost. And that's the end of that. So to suggest that we keep appealing, there's no more appeal. It's like it's been to the Supreme Court and we're done. It wasn't the Supreme Court, by the way. But I want to make those points clear, because it's not for lack of effort on the part of my colleagues here who approved. the housing element in 2023 that had a, what you call it a surplus, an excess, a buffer, whatever the word is, Right, of something under 200, when the target was 724, they added a buffer. Thank God you did what you did. Oh, we're going three minutes. |
| 02:45:04.90 | Jill Hoffman | Mayor, I would like to suspend the three minute. This is a study session, and I would like to have a free-flowing conversation. Yeah. |
| 02:45:11.11 | Steven Woodside | conversation. Thank you. |
| 02:45:12.39 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you for that feedback. |
| 02:45:13.86 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |
| 02:45:14.08 | Jill Hoffman | We're gonna do three minutes and then we'll go back around. So that people can continue. I would like to make a motion that we suspend the three minutes. This is a study session and I'd like to reach some kind of consensus. I think we need to have more than just three minutes. I think, cause I'd like to listen to what we all have to say on this we've just had three and a half hours or four hours |
| 02:45:30.17 | Unknown | THE END OF |
| 02:45:34.31 | Jill Hoffman | No. Three hours of this? I don't think three minutes is enough for all of us to – I mean, I think we need leeway tonight, and I don't think I can make a motion that we suspend it at three minutes. |
| 02:45:43.90 | Steven Woodside | Thank you for your feedback. We have adopted protocols limiting our comment to three minutes. I, but it has a process for rotating. So we're going to hear three minutes from each, and then we can each comment again. |
| 02:45:57.31 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:45:57.36 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:45:57.40 | Jill Hoffman | Well, Ashley, |
| 02:45:57.80 | Steven Woodside | THE FAMILY. |
| 02:45:57.97 | Jill Hoffman | not it's not my feedback there's a motion on the floor if nobody wants to second it that's fine but uh there's a motion on the floor um that i'd like to suspend the three minute uh protocol for this evening for this study session we have four or this portion of our study we have |
| 02:46:11.87 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. two other items to consider this evening. Thank you. |
| 02:46:14.51 | Jill Hoffman | Right, and I'd like to, there's a motion on the floor. If somebody wants to second it, that's fine. Anybody want to second it? Okay. |
| 02:46:22.03 | Steven Woodside | All right. Who would like to speak next? Thank you. |
| 02:46:31.06 | Steven Woodside | I'm happy to give some preliminary comments if other people are not ready. Okay. All right. I want to take a few minutes to address some of the comments from the public. So I'm going to countermand what you just said about all hope is lost, because I have reached out to Senator McGuire to protest our RENA numbers, and I am setting up a meeting with him and HCD to point out that we should not have included in our area of potential housing the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and the Richardson's Bay. So. I've not given up all hope yet, but. |
| 02:47:05.59 | Steven Woodside | I should modify it in light of what you've said, and I don't want to take from your time. But I do think, yes, the legislature can change the law, and they should, but that'll take a little time. |
| 02:47:08.29 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |
| 02:47:14.34 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. Um, I dispute the comment that owners were not contacted. So I personally worked on a group called Sensible Housing Sausalito, where we reached out to nearly every property owner in Sausalito, separate from the work our consultant was doing. So we have contacted owners. We are not listing on our housing element sites that owners have not indicated an interest in developing. Um, Who decides the density per acre? We do. So the standard density in Sausalito is 30 units per acre. We did not initially in our housing element have a 29 units per acre. We have now added that as a category of housing. We also have 49 units per acre and we have 70 units per acre. Typically, we have confined the 70 units per acre to those areas of Sausalito that are less densely developed and the 29 units per acre are applied to the areas that are historic or more densely developed already. The density bonus is not contestable. That is California law. And so that has been one of the most challenging aspects of planning for development throughout Sausalito. um how to remove a site or add a site write to the community development director write to us you heard me raise um two sites tonight um and um and also propose removal of a site. And so that's the purpose of this study session. So reach out to us, let us know your thoughts, let us know your concerns. Regarding the merits, I would like to see us reduce the density at the Altamira site. We have 39 very low and 18 low. I'd like to hear from the consultant, not necessarily tonight, but at our next meeting, how we could accommodate those units. I also would like to see us reduce the buffer. the least The category in which we need the least amount of housing in Sausalito is moderate and above moderate. And so to have a 50-unit buffer in moderate and above moderate when our goal is to house those in need is ridiculous in my mind. So I'd like to understand from staff the impact of reducing our buffer for moderate and above moderate units. Okay, who's next? |
| 02:49:47.35 | Ian Sobieski | I guess I can go. |
| 02:49:47.91 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:49:47.92 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 02:49:48.36 | Steven Woodside | Okay, thank you. |
| 02:49:49.65 | Ian Sobieski | Just my first three minutes, you know, I'm no housing expert or urban planner. I'm just a person that lives here and has been spending four years trying to figure out this process. And it just never made sense to me. I voted against the housing consultant in one of my first votes because it seemed like we should be able to come up with a plan where things all work, where housing is embraced. This is just a map of Sausalito, right? I, you know, we all recognize where we're at. This is right across from Rinship Park. This is where our homeless encampment was back in the day. But I can't help but just look at this empty field here, right? and the objection of my friends who, like me, want to preserve a vibrant working waterfront is that on the other side of these buildings over there, there's mark welding going on. Well, I only have three minutes, and if the discussion goes on, I'll show you, but I I brought a decibel meter here. while Parker dive boat was being arc welded. And it was quieter standing here than it is standing at Equator Coffee. Uh, This is an empty field with a property owner that wants to develop it. Now, I have real trepidation about putting this site on housing element, even if we could, because if you do that, we lose all local control over what's built there. But if we had engaged in a rational process that just seems common sense, which is you go to property owners that want to build something and you enter into a negotiation, and constrain what they can build so that it fits in with our other design criteria, then it seems like we could have ended up with units here that would serve the needs of our workers in the maritime industry or artists, maybe crew on the Matthew Turner. But we haven't engaged in this process. Instead, we engaged, spent a million dollars on this process that generates documents hundreds of pages thick. So as I said in a recent email, I'm going to vote the way I have to vote to make sure we stay out of builder's remedy. But I'm showing this not with an agenda. It's really just kind of a call to common sense that I want to try to percolate into the community. Because I think a lot of people that signed the Working Waterfront Coalition petition against housing the Marin ship didn't know that they're talking about this site right here. And the concern is the nose under the camel's tent that destroys the working waterfront. But as has been told here, the... Working Waterfront can actually be saved by a master plan that would help create quid pro quo arrangements around actually having a thriving working waterfront. So there'll be another go around here for three minutes, and I do want to continue the remarks. But I'm just so I won't be rushed. There'll be another chance to continue this theme, but it is relevant and I'll continue it later. Thank you, Mayor. |
| 02:52:46.60 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Who would like to go next? |
| 02:52:48.40 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Okay, great. So I think from the policy perspective and especially from local elected perspectives, I think we can't do this in a vacuum. And we really have to look at what happened in Southern California and the fires and the number of houses that were destroyed. And part of the problem was the poor planning. in the high density housing in vulnerable areas and no one can deny that there are vulnerable vulnerability issues in Sausalito, and we all know what they are, and they were frankly put in our in the appeal that we drafted that was presented to ABAG. So ABAG is the authority that manages the housing and the allocation arena numbers for this area. And we wrote a very good appeal. It was probably the best appeal that was written, but all of the appeals were summarily and without much review denied. There was a big frankly, not much, not much review. They were all, all of the appeals were just denied. So there wasn't, you know, there was really no review at all. It was just denied. So I have no problem. I would have gone further. Um, as a council member at the time in fighting those numbers because they were wildly out of range for Sausalito. And to further Mr. Draubnis, who rattled off some numbers, you know, of similar land mass just to throw out a couple more numbers. Belvedere's number also like 1.5 miles was 160. Ross's number was 111 and our number is 724. I don't know how anybody could look at those numbers at the state level. at the state legislator level, and I'm glad the mayor's reaching out to our state legislator, Mike McGuire, because I don't know how anybody could defend and say 724 is a good number for Sausalito. All the assumptions have changed. All the numbers have changed since that number was given to us back four years ago. So I think we're working really hard. What I would give as direction right now, I would take Spencer Firehouse and City Hall off. We looked at that number, we received substantial opposition to that. I think it's a breach of faith, frankly, with the community when You know, people came, they showed up and we said, great, you know, we don't need those sites. We're going to pivot and look at other sites. I mean, now all of a sudden they're back in. You know, three years later at, you know, late in the evening, late in the day, all of a sudden they pop back in and people have to re, you know, come back to the city hall and talk to us again. I just don't think that's defensible from a city from an integrity standpoint, and I think we should remove them. I don't think a 24% buffer of 234 on top of a 724, we will pay the price later with a higher number The number never decreases, FYI, from the state. They are greedy. And if we give them a 720, if we give them a 900 number now, they're going to come back later for more. So I have more comments. And the next time I come around, I will find out, I figure out a way to get them in. Thank you. Great. Yes, thank you. |
| 02:56:02.51 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 02:56:03.04 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:56:03.34 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. you |
| 02:56:03.61 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:56:03.71 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. So I want to start by just saying I really express a lot of empathy for the frustration of the community. I know this is a really difficult, complex process, and I regret to say that I don't think that everyone will be 100% satisfied or happy with the outcome. Everyone in this process will see changes in what our housing landscape looks like. Our staff has done an outstanding job of working to comply with state mandates that we really have no choice but to comply with. So either we can take the steps here to move forward in a way that is responsible and makes sense for our community the best of our ability, or we can miss out on a deadline and be subject to even more potential for things like builder's remedy. But I just want to take a step back because in looking at the census data that was part of our packet that showed sort of how we got to where we are for Sausalito and what some of these goals for RENA really consider, you know, 60 to 80% of the renters in Sausalito are burdened. They're spending more than 30% of their income on on rentals 40 to 60 percent of homeowners are burdened spending more than 30 percent of their income on rentals and more than 30 percent of our community are seniors. So the reason that we're in the place that we're at is because the cost of living right now is not tenable and that's for current residents so imagine the issues that our teachers are facing, that our service workers are facing, that our firefighters are facing, of course, in the face of what we saw in Southern California more than ever. We need to be reporting and respecting our first responders. So I think when we consider the context of why we're doing what we're doing, we can take a step back and think about how do we all come to the table in a way to spread the housing throughout the community? Because there's going to have to be, and there should be, a little bit of housing everywhere. And if everyone is happy or if one group is entirely happy and the other group is entirely upset, we probably didn't do a very good job. And so I think all of the different voices here should be considered while we look at the next steps. I know I have limited time to give some direction here. I mean, I'm open to including more ADUs, but I want to be realistic about what ADUs will actually be built. I think what we're looking at is that we need a real consideration of all of the sites. It's not one or the other. It's a both and conversation. Where can we? decrease density in some places to make it a more level playing field. and increase in others. And I look forward to a discussion with others from the dais about how exactly we do that um, But I think what's important to remember as well is with sites like the MLK site, as well as the sites in the Marinship, there will be a voter approval. So whatever we decide from the dais, you will all still have an opportunity to come forward and make your voice heard and determine the outcome, which is why we have things like a buffer or further consideration of sites. But removing sites right now, rather than having a both-and conversation with this timeline that's at stake, to me doesn't make sense. We just need to really work together to figure out the best picture, and I look forward to hearing from all of you further as we continue that process. Thank you. |
| 02:59:06.25 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. I'm going to go back to the vice mayor. |
| 02:59:09.68 | Steven Woodside | Right. |
| 02:59:09.74 | Steven Woodside | I was. |
| 02:59:09.78 | Steven Woodside | I would. |
| 02:59:10.03 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:59:10.08 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:59:10.13 | Unknown | you |
| 02:59:10.47 | Steven Woodside | I was loving what you were saying. I hated to cut you off. |
| 02:59:13.57 | Steven Woodside | Oh, that's okay. won't be the last time you'll have to do that. But let me go to the heart of what I think we have the ability to do in terms of direction, ultimately, when we vote at the end of this month. I think. We could and I would prefer to remove the MLK site in its entirety. I am also open to the notion of reducing the density there to 29, which would mean the number is about 50 or less. What I fear will happen is for good reason. I used to live on that side of town, walk my dog there, played there, loved the space. It's our largest community park. To see anything other than park related or education related activities there doesn't work from my perspective. Perhaps the community would be open to a very scaled senior housing project and you could at that site provide a senior overlay that protects and puts a guardrail on what could be built there. And it is city property, so it's not subject to some other builder. However, HCD... As the former mayor pointed out members so be asking we could be in trouble if we don't follow through on rezoning properties that we include, so I think we better be mindful of that. Secondly, I would reduce the density has been suggested by others, and I think this format works for me because I get to hear a little bit of other ideas. I would reduce the density at Altamere. I would prefer to remove the site on Bridgeway. What's the number? It's the proposed development. 605. Six, right, the address is 605. |
| 03:01:12.88 | Steven Woodside | 6.05. |
| 03:01:17.27 | Steven Woodside | as an opportunity to all of them. |
| 03:01:20.80 | Steven Woodside | Opportunity site 201 address is 605 Bridgeway. I would, I felt at the time I learned that it had been included in January of 2023. I felt then and still feel now it was a stake to put an opportunity site in our only historic district. So I don't have to say more about that. However, I am open to the recommendation of the staff to have a density of 29. I'm open to that. Finally, I would have not removed had I been here. Site 67. And I know there's strong feelings about somehow that site will ruin. the working waterfront. I worked in the Working Rotter Front. I've been there for many years, helped build the Matthew Turner on that site. It is on rock. And I've got a really important point to make when it comes back to me. Thank you. About that site. |
| 03:02:27.81 | Ian Sobieski | Yes. Can I take another step? Yes. So yeah, just proceeding with my little show and tell this is this town of Port Townsend, which we all Love as a Model, there's a working Waterfront right there, there's a hotel. Uh, There's a cafe. another cafe, a brew pub, a poor house. So an integrated mixed use region can actually be thriving for for Townsend, it can be thriving for us. It could also, let me acknowledge, devastate the working waterfront if it's not done right. But rather than engage, It's been a zero sum fight for a long time around the Marin ship. And we see the consequence of it when Ian moved, he passed away. No one took over his business. the houseboats don't have anywhere to be fixed because we haven't created a soil rich enough for other businesses to engage in. The property owners and the community in that area long ago seem to have stopped talking to each other. So there are sites if you just look at it. I mean, if you go over here, right, I mean, this is not a housing site either. for some reason. this storage area. How is this the working waterfront right here? How does this help Maritime? We have a two-lane, actually four-lane, two in each direction roadway right here. And you have a storage of RVs for people mostly who don't even live here. The reason that this is relevant is that we could We've been fighting housing. And the reason we're fighting housing is because so many This process allows things to pop up that look like columns, horrible columns, and they're dropped right into our neighborhoods. They're ugly. They don't fit in. They're disrupted to the community. But it doesn't have to be that way. As the town, we have control over zoning changes and allowance. You know, Ms. Fotch has a controversial project. She proposed a hotel many years ago and was stopped. if the city had embraced her hotel proposal, there wouldn't have been a housing controversy on her site. Similarly, by constantly saying no we've set ourselves up for the very problem we're suffering from now uh in may of 2023 i direct the community to just look at the agenda of the city council in may 2023 we heard a A presentation from Bob Silvestri that Councilmember Hoffman cited. An opponent of senseless housing development. who is going to help us with a marine ship. Master Plan. That still is a key. to not just providing housing, But. thriving working waterfront for our future. |
| 03:05:32.94 | Unknown | Who would like to go next? I can. |
| 03:05:36.42 | Steven Woodside | follow along. |
| 03:05:36.87 | Unknown | I went last last time. |
| 03:05:38.76 | Steven Woodside | I appreciate the discussion of my colleagues and all the time and thought that's being put into this. I have to say I am very much in line with Vice Mayor Woodside's recommendations for a number of the sites. I would like to see potential to at least reduce the density at MLK to 29 if there's political will. Again, I just think it's important to spread housing out as much as possible across the community so that there's a fair disbursement of housing. With that in mind, again, I don't want to necessarily fully remove any sites, and I wanted to hearken back to you know I had been in favor of of site 67 being um, considered in the housing element from, from the beginning, I've been, uh, in favor of those conversations. Given our timeline, I'm concerned about whether or not it's possible at this phase, but I do think we need to have a conversation about a development agreement. and what it would look like for that property that would allow for the preservation of the working waterfront and allow for some form of, of housing in that area. So I think that there is an opportunity, that we haven't yet had to present that and to have that conversation and to see what it would look like separate from the certification of this housing element so that we can finish in a timely manner. Um, and I, you know, I just want to reiterate support for the vice mayor's, uh, comments i don't know that i need to continue for three minutes in the interest of time so Thank you, Councilmember Bollinger. |
| 03:07:06.21 | Steven Woodside | Bye. |
| 03:07:06.24 | Steven Woodside | I like to say that. |
| 03:07:07.04 | Steven Woodside | Be brief. Three. |
| 03:07:11.88 | Adriana Denehite | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:07:14.87 | Steven Woodside | If we can wrap up this round, if possible, that would be great. Okay. |
| 03:07:28.15 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:08:05.39 | Brandon Phipps | Very sorry to interrupt, Councilmember. I'm hearing from our Marin TV colleague. Yeah, thank you. |
| 03:08:10.30 | Jill Hoffman | Sorry, I didn't have my microphone on. I would plus up the ADUs and the by right ADU numbers and the SB... um sb9 numbers um i think 116 is way too low and that will give us some flex uh with our overall numbers especially on the low ends uh which is which is what the pressure on at least looks like the mlk site is and that will give us some flexibility and ability to lower the numbers on that site if not remove that site altogether um i agree that we, I support lowering the number on the Altamira site as well and the site 201. And using those by right, you know, legal by legislative act numbers will help us do that as well. And I say, you know, if the legislature wants to make these changes, then I think we need to take advantage of them because of the high number that we've been assigned and, you know, if and address it with HCD as we need to, given our the record that we already made with our appeal and address it, you know, as we move forward in this process. I have no problem with that strategy at all. With regard to the Berg property, which is, I guess it's site 67, we've talked about that a lot, and we had a lot of opposition to that. and that site is problematic because it's so close to housing to industrial areas and toxicity levels and generational industrial areas for many many many years like decades of industrial uses there's a lot of problems with putting housing next to generational industrial areas and increased levels of epidemiological increased risk of cancers and increased risk of developing different types of diseases when you live in those areas, as opposed to when you work in those areas. So those are my concerns as a city of rezoning and allowing housing in those areas. And I talked about that a lot when we talked about that site, and that's the difference, and that's why I don't support housing in those areas. Thank you. |
| 03:10:41.62 | Steven Woodside | Okay, I think it's my turn. So I'm going to echo the comments of my fellow council members. I cannot weigh in on the MLK site because I live right above it. I could get up here and testify my personal views, but I'm not going to do that. It sounds as though my fellow council members have this issue well in hand. I endorse what Council Member Hoffman said about including an incentive program for ADUs and SB9 units and increasing those numbers in a moderate manner. I endorse what I said earlier and she said, including numbers for enhanced residential over commercial pursuant to AB 2011 and SB 6 to the extent we can. I want to make it clear that there's a limit to what we can do tonight and when we next meet because we've already had an EIR and we've already enunciated various alternative programs. of housing within that EIR. Although Site 67 in the Marin ship was in the EIR, the inclusion of that site in any of our programs of housing is not what's before us. And so it's not feasible if we keep our timeline to add that site. Now, however, I do endorse Council Member Blaustein, and I saw a nod from Council Member Sobieski about exploring a potential development agreement. I would like to see us explore potential development agreements with all of the major marineship property owners, because I don't believe one size fits all for any of those properties. And so I would like to see us utilize that mechanism that this council adopted in early 2021 and see what we can do this year. And then if that's... see us utilize that mechanism that this Council adopted in early 2021 and see what we can do this year. And then if that's not successful, we can look at further revisions next year. I endorse reducing the density at Altamira. I believe the I would like to ensure that staff redlines deletions as well as additions in the housing element. I was very concerned by Sybil Boutelier's comments. I respect her highly, and it concerns me that she saw deletions that were not redlined as deletions and saw programs removed with no notification to us. And so none of us really can sit here and read a thousand page document wholesale. We really rely on the red lines. And I believe the 234 buffer is too high. And so I'd like to see, I'd like to understand from staff and the city attorney whether and how much we can reduce that buffer. If we remove any sites, um, We've already heard about low-income and very low-income people um numbers for the altamira and for other sites if we remove any sites I request staff advise us of where we will replace the very low and low income units allocated for those sites. |
| 03:13:53.12 | Steven Woodside | Following your- Mr. Vice Mayor. Yes, thank you. I wholeheartedly agree on- |
| 03:13:53.84 | Steven Woodside | Mr. Vice Mayor. |
| 03:13:58.09 | Steven Woodside | an approach that deals with community development agreements with property owners as a means of putting guardrails on any type of development. and also encouraging development and reaching agreements that then the landowner, the property owner can rely on. Yes, I can build this. It's by agreement that's enforceable, and it comes to the public. So we all have a chance to review it before it's basically signed onto. As to what I would have preferred, not removing Site 67, the mayor is correct. It has not been analyzed environmentally to the degree that we could put it back. The track I would like to see this round. I would like to see us taking, Member Sobieski's suggestion, to really look at a plan and see what can be done. Obviously, There are portions of the marine ship in the plan now. There are many buildings in the Marin ship. that have been built that are not interfering with the actual working waterfront. Now, as to the Site 67, It's not a dirty site. It's not full of toxins. We had to clean it up after Matthew Turner. was built. It's clean. It's bedrock. It was Pine Point. And there's an article in September, or excuse me, the spring 2011, The Lost Community of Pine Point. I encourage you all to take a look for it. It's readily available from the Historic Society archives. 80 to 100. residents were removed. from what became the shipyard. So some people's sense of history goes back to World War II. Some people will look beyond that and further into our history of housing in what's now. |
| 03:15:50.63 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:15:50.65 | Sergio Rudin | Amen. |
| 03:15:50.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:15:55.93 | Steven Woodside | The friendship, so I I think we need a planning process that is open to looking at marineship we've heard many people saying why have you ignored. All this land in the marineship. Well, I want a thriving working waterfront. Every much is... member Sobieski and I think members of the community want. It's not going to be easy to sustain a working waterfront without making some infrastructure improvements there. adapting to sea level rise and doing many other things that are going to require careful planning and funding. |
| 03:16:32.26 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 03:16:32.28 | Jill Hoffman | So can I respond to that? |
| 03:16:33.48 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Um, yeah, so he's next and then I'll take you. Okay. |
| 03:16:40.06 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you, Mayor. So just to do a broader wrap-up. And this is the wrap-up. Fair enough. I also would be inclined to take MLK altogether off. I, my armor twisted, maybe a very low number there, but I think it's city on property and we shouldn't be, if we can preserve city on property for all city use, that would be ideal, especially when there's so much property available to meet our housing. desires elsewhere if we do it right for this element as councilman rostine said our hands are somewhat tied but i wouldn't be serious about actually moving forward in helping have ourselves later renaissance. I want us to be a Port Townsend like place. And it's not by just saying no. Here's the interesting graph that came from public data. This is the tax, these are not buildings. This is the property tax per square foot of various lots. The higher the column, the more the tax. You can see, The the residential taxes of houses across the board are astronomical per square foot and compare that to the industrial areas where we. don't get as much property tax. This is just an example of if we want to fix our, how it's all integrated. If we want to fix our, various infrastructure problems, then we need to think about it in an integrated way. A lot of these properties, like the empty lot, Site 67, don't generate any business license tax. They don't generate any sales tax. They're an empty lot. They generate a miniscule amount of property tax. We should set our sights on actually having a thriving working waterfront and that means figure out a way. to actually come to yes about accomplishing the goals we want. We want a place for workers to live. We want a place for people like the crew with a Matthew Turner to live. That's a dormitory style housing. You know, if site 67 were able to be put on, that's the empty lot, I'm not sure I would vote for it now. I'd have to have my arm twisted. And the reason is because if we put it on the housing element site, the owner would get by right development rights. And laws of economics that I know very well as a capitalist, would drive him to make the cheapest possible building as big as it could be. That's why we oppose this whole process, because the buildings that end up out of it are awful and they clash with our sense of what the town could and should be. But... that property owner could still make money if we constrained him to build something that actually met our social desires, to have a thriving working waterfront and have people and places to live. I've tipped my hand about what I'd like to do at MLK. I also, and it's part of a major priority for the year that wasn't in our summary on the consent agenda, and that is to I would bring Bob Silvestri back and hear that very same RFI again, and I would have another parallel process to fill that out. I mean, we should hear that matter, and we should amend it. And so on future agenda items, I'm going to say that that's what we should do. Thank you. |
| 03:19:38.50 | Jill Hoffman | So here's the problem with Site 67, is that it's right next to the debris yard at the Corps of Engineers. We don't really manage. That's the Corps of Engineers. That's a federal site. So when you talk about housing right next to a debris yard where they're crushing boats and crushing buildings, you know, stuff that they pick up all over the bay, that's a problem with toxicity levels. When you say you're going to have people living right next to a debris yard where they're crushing toxic boats from, or toxic boats or toxic things that they're crushing right next to a, yard and then on the other side they have outside the fence line they have another working boat yard it's a working boat yard where they're sanding boats where they're finishing boats the bottoms of boats they're scraping the bottoms of boats so there are toxic uh you know things in the air right next to where you want to put housing so it may be a nice grassy area that you're looking at where they built the Matthew Turner. Yes, you can have people working in a tent for hours during the day, but when you're talking about living 24 hours a day, that's a different type of analysis about whether or not it's a good place or a safe place for people to live and whether we as a town should be zoning that for living and 24-hour living and whether or not we as a town are exposing people to increased risk so that's the analysis and why I don't think that's a very good risk and we talked about all of that ad nauseum when we talked about this site in the past so that's that site 67. And I'm sure we're going to talk about that more. So with regard to tax and revenue, so working waterfront and why working waterfront is good. So when you talk about property taxes, we only get 10 cents on the dollar from every dollar of property tax that we have. So the economic engine that is our working waterfront, the economics come from sales tax and they come from manufacturing. You want people to be building things. You want people to be selling things. you want high dollar goods manufactured in the Marin ship, which is you sustained us during the pandemic and is a good economic part of our revenue in Sausalito. So that is the economic engine. It's not a romantic... you know, sort of idea it is an actual economic engine that sustains Sausalito. And that is the working waterfront. And that's why we need to sustain it. And that's why we need to protect it. And that's why we need that area around the working waterfront as a buffer around housing to protect the people that are living there 24 hours a day from the industrial areas. So. that's my view. |
| 03:22:41.73 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. So I'm going to close this out. Okay. I will say, point of interest, we did have an arena of 372 in 2010. because we failed to adopt a housing element in the prior cycle. And so our number doubled. So. But we managed, I was on the housing element committee at that time and we did manage to meet our quota. |
| 03:23:04.49 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. We only knew that we failed in one full cycle to do anything. |
| 03:23:06.77 | Steven Woodside | Right. Yeah. I agree with Councilmember Hoffman about removing the Spencer firehouse and City Hall as potential sites. I am not in favor of those sites, however. The reason we added them back in is that the only way to ensure affordability is to deed restrict. And the only people who can indeed restrict are us on our property. So, you know, there are density bonuses for private developers who agree to put some level of affordability. But the only way to ensure that a property is 100% affordable is for us to manage that. And so we have the corporation yard on our inventory right now. Melissa and I met with a developer i'm working with Peter van meter to try to obtain additional property nearby so that the site is big enough to feasibly develop and so. The same is true of mlk and I can't vote on mlk but I will say there are lots of developers who would love to work with the city to build affordable housing on city owned property. that we could deed restrict, and one of the few things we can do is restrict things for seniors as well. And so we could deed restrict senior housing. So I just think we need to be keeping that in mind as we consider adding or removing sites, is the ability, we have the tools, I would welcome the task to bring to the council a developer to build at the corporation yard. That is absolutely in my wheelhouse, happy to do it. Um, Interesting what Councilmember Hoffman said about the debris yard. We actually had complaints from the homeless when they were housed at Marin Ship Park regarding the |
| 03:24:52.74 | Unknown | neighborhood. |
| 03:24:57.47 | Steven Woodside | the air quality, et cetera. And council member Hoffman mentioned, we only get 10 cents per dollar on our property tax. 40% of our property tax goes to Southern Marin Fire, which is a good investment because we get fire protection and emergency protection, but it is not a huge windfall for us when we build more housing. Yeah. |
| 03:25:12.44 | Unknown | It's just. |
| 03:25:24.57 | Steven Woodside | All right, that's the extent of my comments. Thank you all. This was a great discussion. Staff, do you have what you need to inform us as we come to the decision-making process? |
| 03:25:37.26 | Brandon Phipps | Absolutely, and I'll just thank council for their feedback this evening. Much appreciated. I've been taking rigorous notes, and we will make sure to follow and summarize with staff following this meeting. |
| 03:25:50.54 | Steven Woodside | All right. |
| 03:25:50.93 | Steven Woodside | Just a quick clarification. Yes. Sorry to do this, but you mentioned the sites |
| 03:25:52.45 | Steven Woodside | Yes. |
| 03:25:56.82 | Steven Woodside | The city hall and fire station. Yeah. |
| 03:25:58.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:25:58.98 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |
| 03:25:59.28 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you. They're not in the plan now. They're listed as an alternative fallback. |
| 03:26:03.84 | Steven Woodside | So if a ballot initiative for MLK were to fail, they are listed as an alternative program that would still meet our quota for very low and low income housing. |
| 03:26:16.56 | Steven Woodside | So to say we want to remove them, right now they're not in, but they're not totally out. |
| 03:26:22.82 | Steven Woodside | Correct. They're not totally out. But if we decide to remove MLK... or any other site with affordable need. We have to have alternatives. And those are alternatives for which the environmental impact has already been studied. |
| 03:26:29.69 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |
| 03:26:29.76 | Unknown | I'm going to... |
| 03:26:29.84 | Steven Woodside | All right. |
| 03:26:29.96 | Unknown | for. |
| 03:26:30.03 | Steven Woodside | have an alternative. |
| 03:26:30.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:26:30.75 | Steven Woodside | We'll be right back. . |
| 03:26:32.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:26:32.39 | Steven Woodside | Stay off. |
| 03:26:37.57 | Steven Woodside | I see. I understand. Thank you. |
| 03:26:40.41 | Steven Woodside | Okay, we're going to move on to item 5B, a study session for municipal code amendment, adoption of more comprehensive objective design and development standards and form-based code. So I will remind us, this is not the first time we're hearing this, so I'm going to urge staff to be expedient in their presentation, and I want to commend so many members of staff, our planning commission, Save Our Sausalito, our volunteers, for all of the hard work they've invested in this project to get us to where we are. |
| 03:26:50.78 | Unknown | based on the |
| 03:27:23.25 | Steven Woodside | I will welcome Neil Toft, principal planner. |
| 03:27:26.47 | Brandon Phipps | To be sensitive of time here, I'm just going to pass the mic over to Bob Brown. I'll say that the odds represents primarily Program 19 in the housing element, and we've worked hard over the past three and a half years to develop a revised program that Bob Brown will present now. |
| 03:27:33.12 | Steven Woodside | Okay. REPRESENTATIVE. |
| 03:27:44.48 | Bob Brown | Thank you, Madam Mayor and members of the council. Yeah, given the hour tonight, and this is your seventh study session on this topic, I will abbreviate my presentation. So let's just- We appreciate that. We'll whip through the first several slides. They're really about how we got to this point, which I think you well know. So we'll keep going. Next slide. Next slide. Moving along next. |
| 03:27:54.23 | Steven Woodside | I appreciate that. |
| 03:28:07.82 | Bob Brown | And next. And next. |
| 03:28:14.18 | Bob Brown | Yeah. Bye. We're rolling right along. |
| 03:28:15.83 | Steven Woodside | One of our best so far. |
| 03:28:16.98 | Bob Brown | Next slide, please. Okay, so now what I'd like to focus on is responses to your study session last in October, and then the feedback from the Planning Commission and the changes that resulted. So back in October, you gave staff five pieces of direction. One was to consider putting back into the odds of the exemption process for projects that could not achieve their floor area ratio. because of concerns about state law, which does not allow that to occur. And so, yes, those have gone back in. It's a two-tier exemption process. First tier are the simpler things that the city probably would not mind giving as much away. The second tier are things that the city would rather not, but if pressed, would be able to exempt to a degree and give some flexibility. Next slide. The second item was the council director staff to pursue the completion of the view sync view preservation software staff has worked with members of the the peer review group, and they will give you an update in a moment as to the status of that effort. next. Next, direct to staff to pursue an update to your historic building inventory, and they will do that. That's a process. That's money. That's public process. So that will occur after the completion of the housing element and the rezonings. Next. You directed staff to improve the defining characteristics list. This is a list of the historic features of each of the buildings in the district to make them objective. And we have done that. That's in your packet. Next. And probably most importantly, you asked staff to talk to HCD about the view preservation standards and the software, and they did that. Just to summarize HCD's response was essentially proved to us that this does not reduce development potential. So it's clear that HCD is going to require not only the completion of the software, but a pretty vigorous analysis and testing of that software. to confirm that it really doesn't impact your total capacity and it doesn't impact the ability to develop your opportunity sites. So that work is to come in the next slide, please. The Planning Commission held a study session a couple weeks ago, and while you have the specific comments they made in your packet, I think one of the consistent themes from the Planning Commission was about the VIEW preservation software. The Planning Commissioners all agreed it is extremely innovative and could be a very handy planning tool. They were very concerned, though, about its ability to be completed in its development and fully tested by it to the satisfaction of HCD within the timeframe you have to adopt these zoning amendments. That process will take time and will take additional monies as well. The Commission also had a discussion about how the software works and came to the understanding that the view preservation software is not really trying to replicate views from specific primary windows like your current discretionary. view preservation process does. Instead, it's a more representative depiction and averaging of view preservation vantage points all on building walls where windows might be located. So again, it's not an accurate description of the existing views from surrounding properties. It's more a representative view. And then lastly, one of the planning commissioners who was a land use attorney questioned whether or not the software and its use by applicants would really constitute an objective standard knowable to an applicant in advance that they were in compliance because if a project did not comply with the software there would be an iterative process probably involving staff to finally get to a point where it would comply. So that was a concern raised. Next. So the changes that have occurred to the ordinance since you last saw it in October were principally in the historic district standards. Many of these were sort of technical. We worked with the city's historic preservation consultant and the peer review group to make some refinements. Probably the biggest change was the Planning Commission chair noted that the Secretary of the Interior guidelines for historic structures requires that new construction and historic be differentiated, not appear similar. And so we've added some provisions that would accomplish that. If there's a vertical addition, it would have to be recessed from the existing facade. And if there's a planar addition, There would have to be a change in materials or a change in setback, et cetera, so you see the difference between old and new. So that has been incorporated in the historic regulations. Next, please. And next. And then the other changes were in the view preservation standards. And the biggest change there, there were several technical changes, but the biggest change is there were originally three categories of protected views. Iconic views, things like the skyline of San Francisco, the bridges, Angel Island. There were water views, self-explanatory. And then there were vista views. These were views of undeveloped areas. And that proved very, very difficult to model. And so that piece has been taken out of the view preservation regulations. And next. And that is it. This is your remaining schedule, which I'm sure staff has already gone over with you quite thoroughly. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. And again, there's a presentation on the status of the ViewSync software in a moment. |
| 03:34:15.79 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 03:34:15.83 | Bob Brown | I'm not sure. |
| 03:34:16.03 | Steven Woodside | member Blaustein. |
| 03:34:16.98 | Bob Brown | Thank you. |
| 03:34:17.08 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 03:34:17.72 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, and thank you for your many months of hard work on the odds as well. Thank you to our volunteer working group. I'm just going to bring up again HCD's questions about Program 19 with regards to lack of odds changes essentially for single family residential housing and just making sure in the context of the study session that we just had with regards to directing It seems like consensus in increasing the number of ADUs and SB9 sites. Do you think there needs to be any adjustments to the odds so that we can be effective in increasing that or in streamlining development in light of that? |
| 03:34:53.93 | Bob Brown | These odds were really specifically developed for multifamily and mixed-use projects. There really is no applicability to single-family homes. There are modules that Opticos, the consultants for the base code, have done for single-family and have done for SB9 projects. So if the city chooses to go in that direction, there are examples that you could utilize for that work. |
| 03:35:19.02 | Babette McDougall | Facebook. |
| 03:35:19.78 | Jill Hoffman | you Yeah, thank you. I agree. And I want to say thank you to everybody who's worked so hard on the odds, you know, the whole team. collectively. But I did see, when I was looking through the materials, in the draft odds. And my question to Director Phipps was, we had the Planning Commission working group. I think there was an odds working group that worked for a couple of years on the draft odds. They had a toolkit, and then they kind of redid the whole thing. And then it went back to a smaller working group I think we called it whatever it was, the local professional. Peer review group. Yeah, peer review group. Sorry, sorry, apologies. I didn't get that right, but the peer review group. But then, you know, so we had that, we had the |
| 03:36:02.33 | Unknown | review group. |
| 03:36:10.17 | Jill Hoffman | We had the PC working group draft and then we had the peer read graph But then, But then in the comments, from the PC, it was like they were referencing both. And my comment with the director Fitz was OK, where's the Where's the PC draft so I can see what the PC was talking about when there. But we didn't get that draft. So I couldn't compare, but I was looking through the comments from the PC. So my question to you is, from what I can tell, and I guess if it comes back to us again, Is this, are we asked tonight, I guess here's my question. Is this a study group for the odds? Yes. Okay. Okay. So when it comes back to us again, I would ask that the PC, I guess, version also be attached to the staff report. Or not to staff report, but to the agenda, just in case I want to go back and look through it. But so one of the – when I was looking through the comments from the Planning Commission, there were some comments that some of the things were not included and didn't make it in there. So considerations of solar pathways and shadows onto adjacent properties, and these things were lost in the translation, and public viewpoints and parallel option for public views and the shadow ordinance, are those somewhere in the draft? So those were lost in the translation. Can they be reinserted somehow or? |
| 03:36:48.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:36:48.77 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:36:48.97 | Unknown | The odds? It's a steady session. |
| 03:36:57.35 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:36:57.41 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 03:36:57.64 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:37:30.21 | Bob Brown | Well, the locations for the public view preservation vantage points. |
| 03:37:34.65 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. Yeah, we have a lot of those. |
| 03:37:35.95 | Bob Brown | Those were inadvertently left out. Okay. |
| 03:37:38.55 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, are they going to be inadvertently reinserted? They're back in. Advertently? |
| 03:37:40.25 | Bob Brown | Reinserted. They're back in. |
| 03:37:42.75 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:37:42.80 | Bob Brown | Intentionally. |
| 03:37:42.93 | Jill Hoffman | Intentionally. |
| 03:37:43.85 | Bob Brown | No, they're back in. Okay. It was a version control issue. But no, the other issues, the solar access. |
| 03:37:44.69 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Okay. |
| 03:37:51.49 | Bob Brown | And |
| 03:37:52.39 | Jill Hoffman | Gatto, yeah. |
| 03:37:52.76 | Bob Brown | Those were never in the original odds. So that was a mistaken memory about what was in or out. But no, that was never addressed in the original odds. |
| 03:38:02.56 | Jill Hoffman | Are those things that would be helpful to be in there? |
| 03:38:05.02 | Bob Brown | It would take work. And again, the concern is the more you layer on, you become more restrictive and then |
| 03:38:09.41 | Jill Hoffman | because |
| 03:38:11.59 | Bob Brown | You know, if solar access eliminates the ability to develop a property, you've got issues with the state. |
| 03:38:16.23 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. Okay, and solar access means sunlight, right? Thank you. |
| 03:38:20.41 | Bob Brown | Thank you. |
| 03:38:20.47 | Jill Hoffman | Right. |
| 03:38:20.51 | Bob Brown | Right. |
| 03:38:20.60 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Okay. Okay. And then shadows are shadows, I guess. They are. |
| 03:38:24.55 | Bob Brown | Thank you. |
| 03:38:24.57 | Unknown | They are. |
| 03:38:25.04 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, all right, well thanks. Okay, so the, what, okay, so What's been – oh, so the public view – Public vantage points are back in. Okay. And then, Brandy, you're going to attach next time. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thanks very much. Okay. That's fine. |
| 03:38:32.83 | Bob Brown | Public vantage points are back in. |
| 03:38:42.37 | Jill Hoffman | Appreciate it. Go ahead. |
| 03:38:45.05 | Steven Woodside | Question. This was all reviewed also by the Planning Commission, the most recent version? Yes. And can, I think we already have a report, but so the audience knows, Planning Commission is in favor of these revisions? |
| 03:39:00.58 | Bob Brown | They didn't specifically say so, but they didn't object to anything other than, again, the point where the public view vantage points were left out. So they're back in. That was inadvertent. But, no, they did not suggest any revisions to the version that was in front of them two weeks ago. |
| 03:39:17.82 | Steven Woodside | And having served as a member of the peer review group, I do know that these standards are significantly reduced in volume, in a number of words, and the effort was made to take difficult concepts and to make them objective in language. And I know... One of the members was very good at wordsmithing the document throughout. I'm just going to comment that from my perspective, sitting on the peer review group, These are more objective than the earlier versions, not to any fault of people working before, but it just took a lot of effort by a lot of people to hone in on making these more objective. That's my comment, premature. |
| 03:40:03.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:40:03.50 | Steven Woodside | you. |
| 03:40:03.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:40:03.86 | Unknown | you |
| 03:40:03.96 | Steven Woodside | Okay. I am. couple of questions. We have in our packet at page 861 an October 23, 2024 letter from HDF to City of Sausalito, you know, criticizing the odds they'll violate housing law. Did we respond to that letter? Because I did not see a response in our packets. |
| 03:40:31.01 | Bob Brown | I do not believe, but I'll defer to the director |
| 03:40:35.01 | Brandon Phipps | I know that we spent significant time responding to letters received from HCD. I personally did not engage in a response to that specific letter. |
| 03:40:44.39 | Steven Woodside | Okay. We also have in our packet a case study performed by Barbara Brown and Michael Rex as a real-world test of the draft odds. So did that factor in at all in HCD's review of our draft? Why not? |
| 03:41:02.92 | Bob Brown | No, they've not seen it. It was only done a few weeks ago. So that's not been something that has been referred to HCD. Okay. It did result, though, in a few changes to the historic preservation standards. |
| 03:41:09.53 | Steven Woodside | Okay. |
| 03:41:14.19 | Steven Woodside | Okay. And then... You know, it was just not clear to me where we stand with ViewSync because we gave direction in October to absolutely include that as a component of the odds. |
| 03:41:27.56 | Bob Brown | It's in there. |
| 03:41:28.22 | Steven Woodside | Okay, so you're not, HCD hasn't fully approved it, and we haven't gotten through the. the testing process. |
| 03:41:35.73 | Bob Brown | Thank you. No, and you'll hear an update on that. The testing has not begun. I don't believe it's ready to begin just yet, but... |
| 03:41:41.34 | Steven Woodside | But we're going to have it in there. |
| 03:41:41.61 | Bob Brown | going to have it in there. It's a process. Yes, the standards are in there. |
| 03:41:43.52 | Steven Woodside | that the standards are in. They can object and we can respond. Okay. All right, I just wanted to confirm that. Anybody else have questions? All right, so we're going to hear that presentation, then we'll open it up for public comment. Is that the... the sequence of events. And is this going to be brief as well? |
| 03:42:08.55 | Sophia | Okay. |
| 03:42:09.32 | Steven Woodside | Okay. |
| 03:42:09.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:42:09.76 | Sophia | Thank you. |
| 03:42:09.86 | Unknown | What? |
| 03:42:10.59 | Steven Woodside | All right. |
| 03:42:10.94 | Unknown | you |
| 03:42:10.98 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 03:42:15.20 | Sophia | if you could make me a host here. |
| 03:42:51.55 | Sophia | Okay, so first of all, we're talking about an update. Everybody note remembers the science of views views a view shed is what you see. It says what's visible from a specific location. So just kind of to reorient. We've been talking about a lot of different things just want to reorient that we're talking about views. The key detail here is that views have shapes and shapes have sizes. So you can see their location, um, and what can be seen from it and what is not visible. So what we do is we use a digital twin of Sausalito, and this is a high resolution surface map And we have found with our strategy of attempting to outsource, rather than flying drones around Sausalito, we decided to acquire a map from a company called NearMap, which actually, due to our proximity to San Francisco, reflies this area quite frequently, so be able to maintain a very up to date map. We have two modes of operation. One is we call ViewSync Interactive. This is a design tool, and I think it's really going to a lot of the things we've been talking about tonight are going to be very helped by this in addition to studying the view impacts. This is based on Esri City Engine. We were not able to get together with Esri on the compliance app, However, they do have wonderful software on the interactive side, and this will be for planning and compliance, and it also will provide the support for our HCD. on the web app. This checks, this is the compliance app, this is a web app. It's. checks, projects for view compliance, it's an advanced analysis. and it supports formal certifications. When I'm speaking of an advanced analysis, this means it's considering multiple viewpoints on the House where the city engine really takes one viewpoint. Now we'll go to the demo. |
| 03:44:59.46 | Sophia | Okay, so the heart of the system is our, the, |
| 03:45:07.61 | Sophia | is the view tool. So that's the first thing that So you can see what we're looking at here is just some of the sites we've been looking at. We're pulling out a viewshed. |
| 03:45:28.63 | Sophia | Now what we're doing is we're looking out the window. So in this particular, this is next to one of the sites and it's looking through, you can see it's looking through those two existing buildings. And in this case, it can't, the site cannot see, the site does not cause a view impairment to that location. But what about some of these? So we're looking at those opportunity sites nearby that you see in yellow. So what about some of the others? So let's just take a look so you can just see what What you can see there, like, That one has really no impact. Now let's go to another one, looking over it. which looks okay. You can see what the characterization of what the particular view parts are. Okay, now we're seeing in this particular one, we're seeing no real impact there. Okay, so let's come over here. Okay, boom. Now we're starting to see it. We're seeing about a 2%. in the view of that particular site. Let's check another one. Okay, a little lower in the building, 4.2%. Now we're seeing 9.6% in that particular case. So what we're doing with the ViewSync interactive is we are I'm trying to model and find out exactly what kind of impact a particular site has. But where do we get these yellow buildings? You know, where did these yellow buildings come from? So what we did was we took all the housing sites, and this is kind of our answer to the HCD. Is this going to cause a big problem for us? Are we going to be able to do the job or not? So we took, we created this software where we can model each housing site can be modeled in various types of scenarios. So this is how it works. So we can go and put different parameters. For example, we can, separate the building into different elements. |
| 03:47:33.73 | Sophia | This is running here. |
| 03:47:37.95 | Sophia | put it into some different forms. Now I know that Michael Rex, I'm sure would be able to create much better forms than these modest shapes. But for looking at view preservation and also just simply the shape of different properties, this is a good way to do it. |
| 03:48:00.88 | Sophia | So we can go through and we can put in different setbacks. We can change the shape in a wide range of manners. We can add floors, we can divide it. |
| 03:48:16.81 | Sophia | put in different sorts of... structures. |
| 03:48:25.06 | Sophia | move it back. A lot of times in view preservation, the key thing is just shaping the building so that it doesn't interfere with other properties. And that's been basically the way Sausalito's been for years. So here's like a waterfall shape. |
| 03:48:42.16 | Sophia | could put what kind of like parking on the bottom or residential, commercial, Okay, so we went through every site every single site. and we found a view compliant. version of it. So we went through every site. So this is our dashboard. that tells the story. So what we can do is we can pick any site, And then it shows on this dashboard exactly what the particulars are, like that has eight units, This one's 68 units over at Altamira. other properties with other numbers of units. And then the other thing, though, that we can add this all up. So what is our total? So we can see that we found 825 we found 825 units that were view synced in Sausalito. Now it wasn't exactly the same as in some cases, like we heard, The gentleman speaking about ones, twos, threes. Susan Nemitz, Ph.D.: These four or five small projects like a lot of small projects, we were able to say hey that project could be a little bit bigger we could add maybe add a unit there to units three units, so we found several. Susan Nemitz, Ph.D.: We found a lot of places that we were able to aggregate units in other cases we weren't able to. maybe get the maximum number. And it would be irresponsible if we didn't highlight the very worst site that we found. |
| 03:50:20.56 | Sophia | Okay, so this is the Altamira site. Like right now, it looks great. Like it's nice. At 68, it kind of fits in. Not perfectly, but it's not too bad. However, if like these we've met based our housing element on 750 square feet per unit, that's not realistic. It's like it's going to be like 1000 1500. And this is what happens. Basically, it's going up to nine stories at 1,000 feet, 13 stories at, goes to 13 stories at 1,500 feet. |
| 03:51:00.83 | Sophia | So I think that However, the thing is that, you know, it's not This is, we don't want that to be the future of Sausalito right there. Like that is 153 units. at 1,000 square feet per unit. And that is what that would look like. Every one that has 70 has a problem because it's 70 times two. is what it really means. |
| 03:51:31.73 | Sophia | you know, but I think we've had a lot of discussion about that. But this tool can be used not only for view preservation, it can be used as a planning tool. Because you look at all of these sites and you see what it really means. It's not like, hey, my site, It's going to be whatever it is. But you can see, okay, well, maybe it could be like this. It's not so bad. Or no, it's terrible. You know, you can really fine-tune it. And with the dashboard, you see what it means. Okay, so then The other part of our program is the, so our future- |
| 03:52:09.80 | Steven Woodside | Sophia, I'm going to ask you for an ETA because you've been almost 15 minutes so far. |
| 03:52:13.04 | Sophia | Thank you. OK, I'm almost done. So then my second part here is the U-Sync compliance mode. And I'm just going to demo that and then I'm done. So here's the compliance mode. Upload a model. Find out where it is. Send for analysis. This is speeded up. Scanning some of the nearby homes, boom, there they are. continue processing. Going to speed it up. view impact. and that is emailed to the person. |
| 03:52:54.44 | Sophia | That's it. So then- |
| 03:52:55.52 | Steven Woodside | I'm going to go ahead and ask you a couple of questions. |
| 03:52:57.49 | Sophia | Thank you. |
| 03:52:57.64 | Steven Woodside | based on the comments of Bob Brown and HCD. I know that our goal for this, on the one hand, is view preservation. However, we are incorporating this into an odds, which is an objective design standard. And so it has to be user-friendly for the user to be able to |
| 03:53:09.02 | Unknown | you |
| 03:53:09.03 | Steven Woodside | How was it? |
| 03:53:19.99 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. ascertain whether their project will comply with Sausalito's objective design standards. And so one of the issues raised by Andrew Junius is, is it a truly iterative process Is an applicant going to be able to use this software to ascertain on their own without involving staff assistance, whether or not their proposed project is compliant, and if not, how it needs to be modified to be compliant. . |
| 03:53:55.96 | Sophia | Oh, absolutely. I mean, that's where the, one of the things that the original concept was to work with Esri, And that one of the concerns always with that was that, okay, they would have to kind of work through an ESRI. This is a web app. LOGIN. upload your model and get a report back. And that report will tell you, okay, here's the properties that were potentially impacted Here's the analysis of what the problem was, if any. And then there you are. Which is what you just showed us. You just showed us. |
| 03:54:27.01 | Steven Woodside | Which is what you just showed us. You just showed us the three issues identified in that. |
| 03:54:30.84 | Sophia | Right. In that one, only one of them had an issue in that particular case. Right. And then there would be a, in the email, it would lay out, okay, here's the name of the, you know, the location. Here is the, a image of like the earlier images I showed of views have shapes, shapes have sizes. It would show the place where the size caused a problem. And then they would be able to see, okay, if I, just like we're using in ViewSync Interactive, |
| 03:54:31.92 | Steven Woodside | clients. |
| 03:55:02.99 | Sophia | that, okay, if I shape my building slightly differently, then I wouldn't have that problem. or I want to come into Sausalito and say, I don't care about views, and I'm going to come in looking for a waiver. But basically, you can shape the building to – with respect to view. So this will guide them into how to do that. |
| 03:55:21.98 | Steven Woodside | I'm just walking. So the other challenge is the fate is where we are at with this. So we were told in October that we could have this ready to roll in time for adoption of our odds. It's not ready to roll. |
| 03:55:27.63 | Sophia | Yeah. |
| 03:55:35.07 | Sophia | I mean, it's very close. I'm sorry. |
| 03:55:36.66 | Steven Woodside | I'm sorry. You asked my question yet. |
| 03:55:38.28 | Sophia | Thank you. |
| 03:55:38.41 | Steven Woodside | Um, I believe we are inclined to include it, even though it's not fully ready to roll. But what is the ET, because HCD is gonna push back on us and say, This isn't fully tested and vetted, and why are you including this? So what is your ETA, real... like down to earth, no No BS. When is this going to be? When can we say to HCD this is this has been rolled out and is ready to use? |
| 03:56:08.42 | Sophia | Well, one thing that I want to understand and I've... |
| 03:56:10.68 | Steven Woodside | I'm looking for a date. |
| 03:56:12.26 | Sophia | Right. And may I first respond? Yes, you can, of course. One of the challenges that I've had, frankly, is that there's been discussion to me like, Sophia, you need to do some testing. |
| 03:56:16.11 | Linda Fudge | Of course. |
| 03:56:24.50 | Sophia | It's like, well, what kind of testing is that? You know, like, for example, I feel that at this moment, for example, I feel I have demonstrated through the, interactive tool that I just demonstrated. that I've answered the question of the person at HCD. Like that is the answer. And that's, that's. That's a, I feel like a very strong answer to that. That's a complete answer to that question. But I want to understand, I've tried to find out, okay, what other things, what are the, like, to me, like, for me, like, testing software has, you know, specific. There's specific meaning that I have, but I don't understand like when I hear it's going to cost a lot or it's going to be a lot of testing. Nobody told me what that was. |
| 03:57:02.60 | Steven Woodside | Okay, it's good. Right. Okay, I'm going to turn to our Director of Community and Economic Development. Where is the disconnect, Brandon? What do we need to convey to Sophia so that she can get us across the finish line? |
| 03:57:19.33 | Brandon Phipps | So I think that looking back to the letter and discussions that we've had with HCD, the term that they've used as related to ensuring kind of our own compliance is that we provide or conduct some sort of capacity reduction analysis, which demonstrates that the tool or that would demonstrate that the tool does not preclude the feasibility of developing housing projects on housing element opportunity sites at the densities proposed in the amended housing element to meet the city's arena requirements. And in order to satisfy the concerns raised by HCD. |
| 03:57:58.69 | Steven Woodside | So, but Brandon, we know from experience from some of the sites that are listed that it is infeasible to build those sites out at their listed density with a density bonus. So that is not a feasible task for us to undertake. |
| 03:58:18.13 | Brandon Phipps | I believe it would not necessarily require the city to conduct that analysis in connection with density bonus. I think that that analysis would just need to occur in connection with the densities proposed in the amended housing element to meet the city's arena requirements as related to realistic capacity. |
| 03:58:35.19 | Linda Fudge | Thank you. |
| 03:58:35.35 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Yeah. So is that something possible? Well, I just showed it. You showed us 860, but you raised the issue of the 750 square foot. And so when we are listing units, |
| 03:58:37.17 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 03:58:42.59 | Sophia | Yeah, 18. |
| 03:58:52.81 | Steven Woodside | um, You understand that the whole challenge of uh, feasibility is not just 750 square unit but an economically viable unit to allow development on that site so people can come to us and say, listen, it's not economically viable for me to build in this manner You know, if you make me build 500 square foot units, I can't make any money. So. How do we connect the dots between development potential and what your software does? |
| 03:59:33.18 | Sophia | I mean, I think that for me that I, I am only producing a software that can assess view impact. These to me, that's more of a policy question. You are size and shape of building. I'm like, I'm saying if you show me a building, I can tell you is, does that have |
| 03:59:53.04 | Steven Woodside | impact on somebody's view. So Brandon, what do we need besides size and shape of building from this software? |
| 04:00:00.30 | Brandon Phipps | Well, it would have to be able to test a variety of sizes and shapes, I imagine. And from my position as staff, I'll admit I haven't had the opportunity to engage with the ViewSync interactive design tool or really the ViewSync compliance web application. So I'll admit my exposure to these things and my ability to interface with them has been pretty minimal to this point. |
| 04:00:17.27 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 04:00:27.04 | Steven Woodside | So can I ask then that between now and when we hear this next, that you or whoever you designate as your guinea pig engages with the ViewSync software so that we can confidently address the issues raised by HCD? Okay. Uh, |
| 04:00:48.37 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:00:49.05 | Steven Woodside | And because although I think we all voted in favor of this software, we don't want to include in our design standards something we know is going to be rejected by hcd out of hand and i see that the that council member sobieski wants to add his two cents all |
| 04:01:06.53 | Ian Sobieski | I just have a question actually for you or for Brandon or Beth, if she's still on the phone, because it's related to just thinking ahead. This isn't the last housing element we're going to have to go through. So I know, I know, but, but using this view sync tool, uh, to in a future housing element. to, I'm wondering if we, the current housing element process, and I know the hour is late, so sorry. The current process involves rezoning sites. either an opportunity site, it's rezoned. That's it, right? And then those issues you just brought in, kind of control what the size of the building is. Is it economically viable? And then there's a whole debate about that. My question is for a future housing element process, would we be able to use this tool? to pre-negotiate community development agreements to fit within a box of no view impact. and have a housing element based on a bunch of CDAs instead of a bunch of rezonings. And that's what I don't know. And I'm curious. |
| 04:02:11.55 | Steven Woodside | And I'm not sure HCD will allow us to develop a housing element based on no view impacts. So that's why I said this is a parallel process. On the one hand, we as residents want to use this to protect views. But on the other hand, HCD does not want us to constrain housing in favor of views. |
| 04:02:34.42 | Ian Sobieski | It was a question if we actually got to whatever the arena number was for the future one with no view impact because we use this tool. |
| 04:02:37.91 | Steven Woodside | MADISON. |
| 04:02:37.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:02:38.04 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:02:38.08 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:02:42.53 | Ian Sobieski | And rather than it being just zoning changes, it was a bunch of CDAs. Would that be a future housing amount that this tool could be a cornerstone |
| 04:02:47.75 | Sophia | with that. |
| 04:02:52.83 | Ian Sobieski | to use it. |
| 04:02:53.05 | Sophia | Well, may I clarify one thing as well? which is that the ViewSync interactive is a planning tool. So that's kind of, could we fit something here? What could it be? and so on. That's a planning tool. and that is to demonstrate to HCD, hey, we came up with 829 units. You know, this is not, we're on the hook for 724. So. You know, maybe with Michael Rex's work, we could get it even more designed and better. But I feel like we made our case. It's not like, hey, we've got 200 units. We've got more than our housing element. So I feel like in terms of that. just some policy or discussion with them. I feel like we have a strong case. If we had more time, you know, and a consultant, maybe an even stronger case. Okay, but again. |
| 04:03:42.03 | Steven Woodside | The focus of tonight is whether this is a suitable tool for objective design review standards. We can have a housing element conversation at a future date. |
| 04:03:50.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:03:54.15 | Steven Woodside | The question for tonight is, will this be ready to utilize in an effective manner as part of our objective design stand, or else we have to take it out of our program? |
| 04:04:06.97 | Sophia | Understood. No, so, but I wanted to, so I just wanted to clarify the difference. So we've got the ViewSync Interactive. I went over that. the ViewSync Compliance app, that allows a developer to upload any model so that to upload their model, this is not uploading some model that we did. That's their model. So that's what that's purpose is. |
| 04:04:25.60 | Steven Woodside | Right. I'm totally clear. I have no doubt about the efficacy of the software. Right. My question to you is, is it ready to hit the street on February 25th or March 4th, or not, or will it take another six months? |
| 04:04:43.76 | Sophia | No, I think it's practically done. I mean, that is basically what we would call this is the validation phase. |
| 04:04:50.04 | Steven Woodside | So I'm going to ask Brandon to have a designee work with you so that staff can endorse what you're saying, because tonight I'm not hearing any endorsement from staff of your view on that. |
| 04:05:01.89 | Sophia | Right. And I think, you know, truthfully, you know, Madam Mayor, I haven't worked that closely with staff because they have been, you know, very busy. Because we've buried them with other stuff. Very busy with other things. And I think that Brandon has relied upon me to carry the ball, which I happily have done so. |
| 04:05:09.70 | Steven Woodside | because we've buried them with |
| 04:05:16.89 | Steven Woodside | Right. |
| 04:05:18.88 | Sophia | However, I have requested, you know, to retain consultants and so on. For some reason, nobody ever came to help me. Well, no, we're not. I'm carrying forth as well. |
| 04:05:26.47 | Steven Woodside | What? We're not. as well. |
| 04:05:28.58 | Sophia | Thank you. |
| 04:05:28.60 | Steven Woodside | So that's not something branding can authorize. You have to come to us to authorize or the city manager to authorize the hiring of a consultant. Sure. Right now we're on a deadline. So I'm just trying to see whether we're going to cross that finish line or not. So understood. Is everybody clear on that direction? I'm looking at Brandon. |
| 04:05:47.92 | Brandon Phipps | I am clear I will work with the designee to work with Sophia. And that work will be related to confirming that the ViewSync compliance web application can support the densities as proposed in these cities. |
| 04:06:04.12 | Steven Woodside | No, can support the evaluation of a proposed site utilizing objective design standards enunciated in... our what we're about to adopt. Well, I think we need to discuss that, though. I do. I agree. So this was just my question. I'm now going to open it up for questions from council members. Then we're going to hear public comment. Then we'll make our own comment. |
| 04:06:20.00 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:06:32.07 | Steven Woodside | It's partly a comment, but also a question. OK, please, no comments. I so if I you you have made the case and is it correct and this is a question for Brandon and maybe the city attorney the HCD could simply say no we don't agree. That's what's at stake. So we're going to go forward with something and it's going to be used as a tool to help not just preserve views, but to to convince HCD that this will not reduce the potential of housing. |
| 04:07:12.72 | Steven Woodside | So she has already made a presentation to HCD. And HCD is pushing back after having already been through what we've seen. I understood what she said, yes. |
| 04:07:20.08 | Steven Woodside | I understood what she said. Yes. But the jury's out on the efficacy of it from their point of view, not necessarily from ours, unless others think it's not useful. |
| 04:07:31.53 | Steven Woodside | Bob Brown. |
| 04:07:32.04 | Jill Hoffman | No. |
| 04:07:32.23 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:07:32.38 | Jill Hoffman | It's he doesn't believe it's ready. And Sergio's looks like Sergio wants to weigh in. So. |
| 04:07:37.88 | Sergio Rudin | I'll be brief. The concerns that we're going to need to grow with HDD are whether or not this program is a constraint on development because they... |
| 04:07:46.81 | Steven Woodside | Her voice is very garbled. I'm not quite sure why. |
| 04:07:54.80 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:07:54.82 | Sergio Rudin | Um, |
| 04:07:54.89 | Steven Woodside | I've been hearing you clearly before. Is that better? |
| 04:07:57.08 | Sergio Rudin | that better |
| 04:07:57.88 | Steven Woodside | Yes. |
| 04:07:58.57 | Sergio Rudin | Okay, there we go. the concerns we're going to need to broach with HCD are whether or not the objective design and development standards one pose a constraint on development and two, really fulfill the mandate that the city has set for itself in the housing element where we indicate that this is going to be a program to streamline housing production. So those are really gonna be the, the concerns that have already been raised by HCD that we need to address with this particular tool. So. |
| 04:08:30.46 | Steven Woodside | Okay. So I think it's fair to say we're going to ask staff to weigh in on that at our next presentation. |
| 04:08:37.75 | Jill Hoffman | Yes, Councilmember Hoffman. Is there anything that constrains us from adopting the proposed odds, the proposed odds that Mr. Brown just talked about, as well as abusing, as alternatives? I mean, we can do both and present both to HCD, right? Thank you. |
| 04:08:55.33 | Steven Woodside | I think we can have a chapter within the odds |
| 04:08:58.39 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 04:08:58.71 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. I said, here, |
| 04:09:00.57 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:09:00.68 | Steven Woodside | THE END OF |
| 04:09:00.82 | Jill Hoffman | And the odds should say... |
| 04:09:00.87 | Steven Woodside | And the odds could say, Thank you. Okay, I see Neil Tuft coming to the. |
| 04:09:04.82 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:09:06.56 | Neil Toft | Thank you. |
| 04:09:06.57 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:09:06.61 | Neil Toft | Thank you. |
| 04:09:06.62 | Steven Woodside | the document. |
| 04:09:06.98 | Neil Toft | Just to clarify, yes, it is chapter three within the odds. Yeah. That is the text language is the basis of both the standards and the... |
| 04:09:07.87 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. Oh, |
| 04:09:11.30 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |
| 04:09:19.08 | Neil Toft | software, maybe you have a better way of explaining. how that chapter explains kind of how the software is supposed to work. But that is this kind of standalone chapter that is similar to view protection. |
| 04:09:27.58 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:09:27.60 | Steven Woodside | All right. |
| 04:09:27.68 | Unknown | There's a lot. |
| 04:09:27.92 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:09:34.25 | Steven Woodside | So we could remove that chapter if we got, if HCD declined. Yes. |
| 04:09:40.48 | Brandon Phipps | We have some flexibility to decouple. Yeah. |
| 04:09:43.23 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:09:43.24 | Sophia | Thank you. |
| 04:09:43.36 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:09:43.48 | Sophia | Thank you. |
| 04:09:43.50 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:09:43.58 | Sophia | Thank you. |
| 04:09:43.63 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:09:43.76 | Sophia | Okay. I mean, I think it would be important to have a plan B then, because I think that it's a, I mean, obviously, it put a great deal of effort into this, but certainly if it isn't to come to fruition for whatever reason. You know, that's the way it is. But I think it's very important that Sausalito has a plan B on view protection because we cannot abandon view protection. |
| 04:10:06.11 | Steven Woodside | I agree. So if it's not in the odds, we can still use it as a tool. It's just not part of the objective design standards. So it doesn't preclude us from using it as a tool. It just is not an automatic tool for prospective developers to utilize in ascertaining the feasibility of their design because we cannot... |
| 04:10:07.59 | Sophia | If it's not in the |
| 04:10:26.92 | Steven Woodside | impose a constraint on development so we have to be able to demonstrate anyway i think staff is clear are there any other questions from council members i'm going to open it up for public comment i don't have any speaker cards |
| 04:10:40.36 | Sophia | Thank you, Michael Rex. |
| 04:10:42.05 | Steven Woodside | Okay, Michael Rex. And thank you, Sophia. I'm not trying to cut you short. Apologies. |
| 04:10:51.20 | Michael Rex | A little perspective here. The Planning Commission sent to you an odds document that had no view protection. Its privacy protection didn't work. It had no historic preservation. Okay. The draft was written in a way that some of it didn't even fit Sausalito. We had to add sections for downhill lots that just wasn't in the draft. We also wanted to reduce its scope. Parts of it, portions of it had really nothing to do with Solito. So that's why we put a volunteer group together and you endorsed it. OK, so here we are. |
| 04:11:31.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:11:31.99 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 04:11:32.00 | Unknown | . |
| 04:11:35.56 | Michael Rex | the planning commission at their last study session to a commissioner said, So, We we're not ready for view protection. They weren't convinced of this. Sausalito, as Sophia just said, we cannot have a law for development standards that doesn't protect views. OK. And this is not only I think what we probably should do here is what we did for the historic district. We took a very specific site. and we applied the standards, and we actually went back and thought we got to revise the standard a little bit. It was very telling. I think with this view sink, we should take a specific opportunity site, And she, Prove it. in a graphic way where this view sync's applied And anybody can understand it meets that It protects you without reducing the unit count. OK. And I think working with staff, we can do that. And I'm willing to help. in that as well. I would, we would love that. And I, I think we can get David Merlot to help with a couple of architects with staff. Okay. |
| 04:12:53.54 | Steven Woodside | So, and again, Brandon, it's a constraint, it doesn't impose a constraint on development beyond what has already been enacted within our zoning code. So we still do have a right to protect views so long as that was enunciated prior to a certain date. |
| 04:13:15.99 | Brandon Phipps | Yes, that is the case. I think it's January 1, 2018. However, the way that the odds is being structured is an alternative potential permitting pathway for development. So developers may always avail themselves of the typical design review, more discretionary review process. That's why, you know, really the intent, I think, here is for this objective route to be a streamlined approach. And staff's hope is that that avenue does provide for the opportunity to support the RHNA numbers that the city's adopted or at least proposed in its amended housing element. |
| 04:13:20.22 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:13:20.24 | Jim Madden | Right. |
| 04:13:31.51 | Steven Woodside | Design review. |
| 04:13:57.78 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Vicki Nichols. And then do we have anyone online, city clerk? |
| 04:14:04.06 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes, we do. Thank you. |
| 04:14:05.87 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. I wanted to speak to the case study that I saw in the staff report that I was not aware that was done. And I think it's interesting because we did, at the end, avail odds from different communities. So we used a lot of the San Francisco odds, which specifically talked about that setback that was used in the case study. And I agree that was a good demonstration. But what I want to talk about in the case study is I'm not sure how the Secretary of Interior Standards apply with the odds and the way that the... Second edition was made, was introducing different materials in, vis-a-vis the illumined windows in a historic district, attaching the parapet to the original structure. All these things are not recommended. So if the project comes in under odds, there's no review at this point. How is it that we're going to be able to, if at all, have any reference to the Secretary of Interior Standards. These buildings are documented in a historic district, Thank you. most of them do have character-defining features. And I just would be alarmed. I checked with our chair today, HPC, to see if I was just overreacting. He had the same concerns. So I guess the question is, is how is it that under the odds, using this case study as sort of the precedent, that people will just be able to come in and do this with a setback, and be able to, through massing, get their building permit How will we look at design features vis-à-vis materials? I think it's really important. Thank you. See you next time. |
| 04:16:03.03 | Walfred Solorzano | CLERK. Babette McDougall. |
| 04:16:11.89 | Babette McDougall | Can you hear me all right? Yes. Okay, thank you. |
| 04:16:14.20 | Steven Woodside | Yes. |
| 04:16:14.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:16:17.02 | Babette McDougall | So thank you. This has been a very, you probably could tell, Personally, I'm not all that much in favor of having to put up with somebody's software beta model. But on the other hand, I'm a big believer in beta models. And the more I hear And I want to thank everybody for taking the drill down task on this particular aspect, because I think it will be a net. benefit to the community overall. But I do have some things that we need to, I personally think we need to keep in mind if you know If you don't mind. We are just this morning at the State of the City breakfast. What did the fire under chief and the marshal say? They both said, we want to look. Let's look what we're just dealing. We've all been involved with L.A. one way or the other. We sent huge resources there. Now they're back. It turns out everybody that goes down to the work, they do it on their off and volunteer time. They don't juggle responsiveness up here. That's awesome. So they said, we need to create the model on how to do this wildlife-urban interface and go forward. So yes, maybe the modeling is thinking about Let's be stingy about our views because we are. We're possessive of our beautiful place. by of By fiat. By claim, we love this place. but let's remember the bigger picture that we want to create a model. the whole county if we can. So I say let's do this with open arms and let's be as inclusive. And unite as many, let's get Marine City on the content. I mean, really, let's just bring them in. And let the first responders stand out front and give us what they know, because they know a lot at this point. And again, we need to remember densification frankly, turns out to be a disappointing model for solving population location issues. We just may have to look more inventively out of the box. Mr. Sobieski can do that for us. Thank you. |
| 04:18:15.74 | Walfred Solorzano | No further public speakers. |
| 04:18:17.02 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:18:18.28 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes. |
| 04:18:19.31 | Steven Woodside | Go ahead and come forward, sir. |
| 04:18:24.93 | Unknown | Archeobora. Uh, I don't understand why we're looking at this presentation. Why isn't this presentation given to the Housing Authority. get their authority. and go through with it. We have enough problems just to... Build what you guys are doing. uh, required to build. Another comment I'd like to make is that You have to build 724 units. You keep mentioning that. How many have you built so far? Okay? You're under a time constraint. The other problem, you're talking about ADUs. And If you built 700 ADUs, It's. They're the most expensive thing to build. single unit cost more. than a high rise, okay? And, The people that, if you sell it, You can't. if it costs you six or 700 bucks a square foot, It can't be under the low cost. You have 60% of your units. are controlled, 40% are open. You're talking about the Altamir and worried about that, they sold the Altamir for 28 million bucks. And if you're going to put a whole bunch of low-cost housing, they're not going to let you do it. I mean, it doesn't make any sense. I'm sorry. The other thing you were talking, I know is coming up about the... the fire sprinklers. the cost of fire sprinklers It's between $10,000 and $15,000 to put a fire sprinkler in. Not only that, you may have to change the water line, and you may have to get a larger Oh. a vow, And that's an ongoing expense every month. But, I mean, Thank you. |
| 04:20:27.26 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you so much. |
| 04:20:30.38 | Walfred Solorzano | We have another speaker online, Stacey Nemo. |
| 04:20:40.00 | Stacey Newell | Hi, can everybody hear me okay? |
| 04:20:41.52 | Steven Woodside | Yes. |
| 04:20:42.67 | Stacey Newell | Great, thanks. I just wanted to support Sophia and Michael Rex on the improvement of the odds. I think that any improvement that we can possibly make to them, which suits building and Sausalito, is a great idea. It may not be a perfect fit right now with HCD, but I think the effort to improve it is a super great idea. We'd be foolish to miss out on trying to do everything we can to improve the odds as they stand now. That's it. |
| 04:21:10.19 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. No further public speech. |
| 04:21:12.40 | Steven Woodside | All right, I'm going to close public comment, bring it back up here for discussion. I'm just going to lead off and say, |
| 04:21:12.42 | Walfred Solorzano | I'm sorry. |
| 04:21:18.86 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Michael, Rex, Sophia, your entire team. David Marlott, oh my goodness. The amount of work that you all have accomplished since this came to us, when you put together your study groups, it's spent hundreds of hours, literally, um, The difference in the work product is astounding. It was an impossible task. I hope that you don't think any of us are opposed to getting this across the finish line in the best way possible so you know I just want to be sure that it is indeed an objective standard that we're not overly burdening any single homeowner or potential developer from developing to the extent permitted under the code and permitted by our design review standards in place in January of 2018. So, um... I thank you, Brandon, for taking on the task of helping us get across the finish line with the view sync. that it can be a very helpful development tool. And as Council Member Sobieski pointed out, I look forward to using it for that purpose as well. And I think that's another way to demonstrate its utility to HCD. Um, I don't think I have any other than understanding this. I don't think I have any further direction. Is there any comment from fellow council members? |
| 04:23:00.69 | Steven Woodside | I just really want to reiterate the thank yous to the people involved. Michael Rex and Mayor Cox and I served on a Blue Ribbon Committee on Housing in 2018. during which time many of the recommendations that we actually see in the odds were suggested initially by Michael Rex and his tireless review of our planning. Hopefully we'll be able to go forward with more from that report in other opportunities because I think a lot of it was and is still relevant. And I appreciate the amount of time given by all of you. I'm hopeful that FUSYNC will be feasible. I will await feedback from staff and from Sophia. And I appreciate again, the amount of time put forward. The only comment that I would make, as I have said before, is just making sure we're mindful of what it might mean to not include at all any single family recommendations in the odds with regards to our commitments to HCD and the housing elements. So just keeping that in mind, but I really appreciate. |
| 04:23:57.47 | Unknown | it. |
| 04:23:59.11 | Steven Woodside | everyone's time and effort and I won't continue past my one minute there. |
| 04:24:08.10 | Jill Hoffman | Same. Thanks, everybody. I know it's been a huge, right? So, huge effort. Okay, so, relevant comments. I'm concerned that the, I'm concerned about the ViewSync isn't ready to go for HCD acceptance. I'm just looking at the comments from the PC All of them say not quite ready to go for the PC members, planning commission members. And also feedback, frankly, from some of the staff members that I've talked to. That's not a criticism. It's just a, I think it's just a fact about where we're at and also the feedback from HCD. That's not to say it shouldn't be presented because I think it's an incredible tool. And I think it's a, something that we need to utilize, and it's a cutting edge Um, you know, really, really useful and incredible leap from what was presented to us, I think, a few months ago. So, I mean, it's been hard for, I think, Sophia working on it by herself. Thank you for all the work that you've done on it. But I've seen the, to me, there's been an improvement just from what you've done. My concern is our CDDs, they're not computer guys. for all of their talents. You know, and all their, I'm sure, gaming expertise. I'm not sure that they have the background to carry this forward. And they have a mountain of work to get us across the line in the next three weeks and then what we need to do in the next six months to get us over the line with this housing element. So I just want to be cognizant of that and the direction that we're giving tonight to try to get this view sync working with you ready for HCD I think they should both be presented I think that the draft odds that we have need to be presented to HCD and that we should adopt those and that we should also present the view sync and so that we have both of those available that's that's my direction |
| 04:26:20.47 | Brandon Phipps | I appreciate that. May I ask a quick clarification question? So I'm clear on working with Sophia with a designee to continue the progress on the ViewSync compliance web application. I want to ask the question of how this relates to our tight timeline and the special planning commission meeting scheduled for February 19th, 2025. Is the direction from Council that we shepherd forward kind of two versions of the odds for consideration? Is that what I'm hearing? Or is it our, is it gonna be based on our determination of if the view sync is ready? |
| 04:26:54.56 | Steven Woodside | I don't know. Thank you. I think, and council members, please weigh in if you disagree with me, but I think chapter three is already the view sync chapter. And so we can on a dime remove chapter 3 if we make a decision at our subsequent hearing that it's not ready but i am hoping that um we that through your working with staff we can answer the question is utilization of this alternative design review process that's intended to expedite design review does it impose a constraint on housing And if we can... you know, demonstrate it to the extent that we can answer that question no, then perhaps we can agree. I don't know if you'll have that done, and I don't know if you could convince the Planning Commission, but ultimately it's up to us to listen to their recommendations, understand their concerns, address those to our satisfaction as we make our final decision. |
| 04:27:56.59 | Brandon Phipps | Okay, so again, if I'm understanding correctly, we're going to do our very best to complete all of the analysis needed in connection with the ViewSync compliance web application and present those findings to the Planning Commission on the 19th. We will not have two versions. We will have a singular version, and we have flexibility to remove the chapters as this commission sees fit. Thank you. |
| 04:28:17.48 | Steven Woodside | I see Nottingham. |
| 04:28:18.36 | Brandon Phipps | Appreciate that. |
| 04:28:18.93 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, but let me, OK. So I would have phrased that differently. What I would have said was, your priority is to get us across the line for this housing all around. And if your workload does not allow you to finish the view sink, then it doesn't allow you to finish it. And the priority is we have a finished chapter before us right now. And that's the written chapter that attaches, I think, exhibit whatever it is, exhibit one. That's your finished chapter. And if your technical ability for view sink is taking up too much of your time, you know and you have a mountain of work beside that, then you need to pivot and you don't have enough time to just get it done because you don't have the technical expertise to do it or whatever it is. And that's your discretion. You're the director of the department. And that's up to you. And with your bandwidth. And that's just, you know, that's just a fact. And that's just a fact within, for at your discretion as a director of the department. And to get it across the line. I say regardless, whatever status it's at, and if it's at a different status from the last time HCD's looked at this, I would still present it to HCD. Okay. |
| 04:28:29.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:28:29.67 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:28:29.93 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:29:32.71 | Jill Hoffman | and say this is a great new tool and we're working on it and you may see this again, and what do you think about it at the status that it's at right now? It's different from what you saw last time because you're gonna see this again because we're gonna continue to work on this and we're gonna continue to use this at a later iteration. So, I mean, that would be my direction. And it's okay, and if you can't get it done, then you can't get it done. Thank you. |
| 04:29:54.02 | Steven Woodside | So I would agree. So Council Member Sobieski wants to weigh in as well. I would agree. getting our ballot initiatives on the ballot, getting our housing element approved in time, priorities. If a designee of yours can meet with Sophia to help us get across the finish line so there's less risk in including Chapter 3, I think that would be our preference. So, Council Member Sobieski. |
| 04:30:23.64 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, I know it's late, so I might not be hearing things right. I didn't hear anything. The way Director Phipps summarized it, that... suggested that making sure we stay out of builders, but he's not his number one priority. So obviously that's the priority. |
| 04:30:35.67 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:30:35.69 | Steven Woodside | Agreed. |
| 04:30:36.13 | Steven Woodside | you |
| 04:30:36.18 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:30:38.32 | Ian Sobieski | The best way to thank Sophia and everyone who's worked on this is indeed to. making the best effort approach. |
| 04:30:43.96 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |
| 04:30:44.51 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. to have this included in the odds with HCD and otherwise. So I think that's the clear. |
| 04:30:51.04 | Brandon Phipps | Appreciate that, counsel. And I would be remiss to not thank Sophia as well for all of her excellent work and the rest of the peer review group. Thank you. |
| 04:30:58.99 | Steven Woodside | All right. Okay, with that, I'm going to swiftly move on to our last item. We're going to bifurcate this item slightly because this item concerns two different ballot initiatives. So we're going to discuss process and we're going to then discuss each ballot initiative and for the ballot initiative concerning 1128. Sorry. Yes, I'm going to recuse myself because that is confined to the MLK site. um, And I cannot thank you. and good evening and I cannot weigh in on that so but first we're going to hear a staff report which is hopefully brief and then we'll go through the process Are we going to do one ballot initiative, two ballot initiatives in June? And then we will discuss the content of each individual ballot initiative, and I will Turn the gavel over to the vice mayor for the discussion of 1128. |
| 04:32:07.56 | Brandon Phipps | Okay, thank you, Mayor. In connection with this item, we've provided for you a draft ordinance and zoning map amendment that would implement rezoning of sites and other required zoning text changes necessary to implement the proposed amended housing element. We've also provided a zoning map and modified list of sites to reflect the alternative modified amended housing element that you've heard tonight. We will have our consultant, Beth Thompson, provide a brief overview of the rezoning program. And I'll note that we've also provided a draft resolution calling for ballot measures for the rezoning of Opportunity Sites 1022, 1128. Quite a number of housing sites identified under both the adopted housing element and the draft of amended housing element are subject to those restrictions, as know to a tune of 452 units in total that can only be lifted by the electorate and again our consultant Ms. Thompson will provide more details on that list subject to those ordinances and I will just note we are currently working with a ballot consultant who we hope will help to provide us with a survey that will inform communities' attitudes and inform cities' approach to how these ballot measures will be proposed. We anticipate that that survey data will be provided to staff very soon. I am working with them to schedule a follow-on meeting. We will share that information with council when we receive it. Thank you. |
| 04:32:59.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:33:35.36 | Steven Woodside | um brandon we've already heard and we've already heard and given direction on the programs for rezoning which will change what is in our staff report tonight on rezoning so do we need to hear rezoning again or can we go to ballot measures |
| 04:33:53.53 | Brandon Phipps | So, yes, staff can kind of decouple some of those items, and I agree that some of these items have higher degrees of overlap. So we can decouple some of those comments and integrate them into how we handle this approach. I'm seeing that Beth's joining us here. Beth, any follow-up on that? |
| 04:34:11.79 | Beth Thompson | I think we've got some great discussion already and guidance on the program for sites. And so, yes, if you want to go straight to the ballot measures, I don't know that there's a need to go in detail through the rezoning, the changes to the zoning tax. |
| 04:34:27.03 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:34:27.18 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 04:34:27.21 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. And is that okay with my fellow council members? Thank you. |
| 04:34:29.59 | Steven Woodside | If I'm with me, I just wanted to underscore, ask the question, how many units are in jeopardy if the ballot measures do not pass? |
| 04:34:40.78 | Brandon Phipps | 452. |
| 04:34:42.52 | Steven Woodside | You said that earlier. I just want to make sure everybody understands how many of those are attributable to MLK. It depends. |
| 04:34:50.38 | Brandon Phipps | 94, 80, 50. |
| 04:34:51.65 | Steven Woodside | Okay. I'm just saying this for everyone's benefit. And 1022 is 358. All of them are related to another. If we had two ballot measures, for example. |
| 04:34:56.14 | Brandon Phipps | And 1022 is 358. |
| 04:35:02.50 | Steven Woodside | which we have to have two ballot measures, |
| 04:35:04.30 | Steven Woodside | in order to do it. |
| 04:35:05.15 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |
| 04:35:05.49 | Steven Woodside | Right. |
| 04:35:05.67 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:35:05.69 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Okay. |
| 04:35:08.20 | Steven Woodside | Okay. |
| 04:35:08.64 | Steven Woodside | Just clarifying questions. |
| 04:35:10.62 | Steven Woodside | Okay. Great. So did you, so Beth, one of your slides was on the ballot measures. Thank you. |
| 04:35:19.54 | Beth Thompson | One of my slides was on the ballot measures correct and I can pop up that slide again or I can hand it over to the city attorney to go over the ballot measures. |
| 04:35:33.78 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:35:33.80 | Beth Thompson | Well, why don't you turn to your slide? |
| 04:35:35.40 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:35:35.62 | Beth Thompson | Let's see. So I have I'm going to actually go back to the housing element presentation as opposed to the presentation that's part of this because it actually has, I think, a better slide for the ballot measures. |
| 04:35:48.11 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 04:35:51.59 | Beth Thompson | So this slide summarizes the sites that are specifically affected by Ordinance 10 22 and It also identifies the sites for MLK under ordinance 1128. And this of course has the 94 units for MLK. So as you can see under ordinance 1022, we've got an assortment of sites ranging from 29 up to 70 units per acre. And they total 358 units. These would produce 90, well, would accommodate 92 very low, 51 low, three moderate, and 161 above moderate income units. |
| 04:36:31.99 | Steven Woodside | units. Okay. Can you turn off the city clerk? Can you turn off? We can't see the chart because it's blocked by the transcript. |
| 04:36:51.33 | Steven Woodside | Okay, thank you. Sorry, Beth, go ahead. |
| 04:36:54.09 | Beth Thompson | Okay, so that was the summary for the sites affected by Ordinance 1022. And then Ordinance 1128, as you already know, and we've discussed, is the MLK site. And I think that's the overview of the sites. We do have several maps I can also pull up if you'd like to see those. Let's see. That's actually probably a better |
| 04:37:16.52 | Jill Hoffman | Do you have a map? Do we have a map that has a map of the overlay of the ordinance map with the sites with nothing else? Thank you. I mean- |
| 04:37:31.05 | Beth Thompson | Let me pull that up. We have a couple of maps. So just give me a second and I can pull up some of my figures. |
| 04:37:36.52 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, I saw the maps, but they have other things on them. You know, like they have lots of other things other than just the sites. And the the overlay of the ordinance. It'd be helpful if we just had those you know, really clear maps of, you know, the geography of the ordinance and then just the sites that we're talking about. |
| 04:38:00.78 | Unknown | Let me give me just a minute here. I think I do have some additional figures. |
| 04:38:05.64 | Steven Woodside | While you're looking for that, can I ask the city attorney? So city attorney, you have presented to us a resolution. amending ordinances 1128 1028, it's wrong. It says 1028 and 1122 instead of 1128 and 1022. Okay. It was a great day. |
| 04:38:25.00 | Sergio Rudin | and we will fix that. |
| 04:38:28.53 | Steven Woodside | Can you please turn that into two different resolutions because |
| 04:38:32.36 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, we intend to do that. you know, before the March 4th meeting. Um, So I guess while I have you folks here, discuss a little bit of the mechanics in terms of calling the special election |
| 04:38:49.03 | Steven Woodside | Can you tell us what you need from us tonight? Because you've previously discussed the mechanics of the election with us. Thank you. |
| 04:38:54.46 | Sergio Rudin | Okay. |
| 04:38:54.83 | Steven Woodside | Can you just tell us what direction you need from us tonight? |
| 04:38:58.61 | Sergio Rudin | At this point, ultimately, you know, besides the direction to prepare two separate resolutions, you know, one resolution in place. the ballot measure related to the MLK properties separately. Um, I think to the extent the council wants to consider Um, you know, the form of the ballot questions and discuss those. Of course, the council is going to have an additional opportunity on March 4th to consider the form of ballot questions. I also anticipate that before the council makes that decision that we will have some survey results related to you know, what form of the you know, how much, political support that each of these measures have. and what sort of ballot questions are likely to have some popular support. I know that city staff are currently working with FM3 to survey the the city with respect to that particular issue. Um, Yeah, I would say at this point, given some of the feedback that the Council provided regarding the contents of the sites inventory and the housing element, we are going to need to review and revise the draft ballot measures to make sure that It does reflect the council's direction. And ultimately, we're going to need to make sure that this, again, is also revised by March 4th. following the council's adoption and final action on the amended housing element. |
| 04:40:40.62 | Steven Woodside | So our next study session on this is currently scheduled for February 25th. Is that right? our action on this. And then so our action on the zoning |
| 04:40:48.12 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. Yeah. |
| 04:40:48.55 | Steven Woodside | and- |
| 04:40:48.84 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. |
| 04:40:51.14 | Steven Woodside | is, sorry, our action on the housing element is on the 25th. Our action on the ballot initiatives is March 4th. Is that right? |
| 04:41:00.76 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. |
| 04:41:00.82 | Steven Woodside | That is correct. Yes. |
| 04:41:02.56 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. |
| 04:41:03.71 | Steven Woodside | A quick follow-up. So if we were to give you specific direction on the 25th of this month, would you have enough time to prepare the appropriate resolution and ballot language so that it's ready for the public to see ahead of our meeting on March? |
| 04:41:03.99 | Steven Woodside | A quick follow-up. |
| 04:41:21.33 | Steven Woodside | Of course. |
| 04:41:22.49 | Sergio Rudin | It would be a very tight timeframe, i.e. less than 48 hours, but yes, it is technically feasible. |
| 04:41:29.48 | Steven Woodside | And you are presenting us draft resolutions on the 25th. Is that right? |
| 04:41:34.79 | Sergio Rudin | I anticipate that being the case, yes. Yeah. |
| 04:41:41.76 | Steven Woodside | Okay, is there anything else staff wants us to know about this? |
| 04:41:45.37 | Unknown | the |
| 04:41:46.17 | Steven Woodside | Beth already covered the fact that in order to carry out the housing element, we have to bring certain portions of our zoning amendments to the voters before we can enact them. So... Is there anything else staff needed us to know before I open up to questions and then public comment? |
| 04:42:10.47 | Sergio Rudin | Not at this time. Thank you. |
| 04:42:11.80 | Beth Thompson | Okay. |
| 04:42:11.85 | Sergio Rudin | . |
| 04:42:11.92 | Beth Thompson | And I'll just refer and answer to Councilmember Hoffman's question. We don't have a map that's all blanked out. So we just have the figure that's there's two figures and attachment three. that provide the um, the various zoning maps. So those show the revisions. I think that'll be the best spot to look. |
| 04:42:34.66 | Brandon Phipps | Yeah, you can also look at attachment six in item 5A, which is the amended housing element ordinance 1022 and 1128 site summary. That, in connection with some of the simplified maps we've provided, should give a nice summary of the sites impacted by each voter initiative. |
| 04:42:53.94 | Steven Woodside | So we have a city of Sausalito zoning map that's labeled amended sites alternative five. |
| 04:43:02.07 | Beth Thompson | So you have to let's see, is that which attachment are you referring to? Is that the attachment to? |
| 04:43:07.84 | Steven Woodside | attachment to behind the definitions in the um amendments to the sasuno municipal code okay so to the it's page 947 of our packet |
| 04:43:15.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:43:15.69 | Beth Thompson | Okay. |
| 04:43:16.55 | Unknown | you |
| 04:43:16.60 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 04:43:22.88 | Beth Thompson | So that demonstrates what sites, which sites would be rezoned potentially under the alternative housing elements. So that doesn't speak to the ballot measure necessarily. It includes all of the sites that would be rezoned, not just the ballot measure sites, The following attachment, Attachment 3, includes figures that focus on the ballot major sites. |
| 04:43:44.95 | Steven Woodside | Okay. Other questions? Go ahead, Vice Mayor. |
| 04:43:48.41 | Steven Woodside | So there's no single map that would show the 358 sites? |
| 04:43:55.19 | Steven Woodside | I think that would be a useful tool for the ballot initiative. |
| 04:43:57.94 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:43:57.96 | Brandon Phipps | for you. |
| 04:43:58.15 | Steven Woodside | All right. |
| 04:43:59.90 | Brandon Phipps | I think we can slightly augment our ordinance 1022 and 1128 one pagers to include maps, individual maps, and then a single one pager for 1022 with a map and a singular one pager for 1128 with a map. |
| 04:44:00.19 | Steven Woodside | We will. I. |
| 04:44:13.20 | Steven Woodside | That sounds brilliant. Thank you. Any other questions? I know the hour is late. OK, I'm not seeing any raised hands. I'm going to go ahead and open it for public comment. First, I'm calling Joe Penrod, and then next, Michael Rex. If anyone else wishes to speak, please. And then we'll call Linda Fudge. Is Joe Penrod here? All right, then I'll call Michael Rex. |
| 04:44:45.36 | Michael Rex | I heard earlier that we should have the opportunity to enter into development agreements with property owners for commercial properties outside this approach. Industrial properties. Outside of housing opportunity sites. Industrial properties. |
| 04:45:00.36 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:45:00.38 | Steven Woodside | Industrial properties. Industrial properties. |
| 04:45:06.19 | Michael Rex | Um, Well, I would include commercial properties. There's there's commercial properties. My understanding at 1022. is that you cannot increase density. or Floria ratio without a vote of the people in these commercial sites. That's what it says, okay? And, Density is defined as residential units per acre. So you cannot add any residential units outside these opportunity sites without going to a load of the people. So we cannot enter into those kind of development agreements in the commercial zones. without a vote of the people. And. so they're not going to happen because if you go to a property owner and say, well, we'll have to take her out. Uh, we can't even negotiate unless we go to the ballot box. So maybe we need three measures in June, not two. and one that would say, to give the city the opportunity to enter development agreements on selected sites on commercial properties throughout Sausalito. You can't have it both ways. |
| 04:46:21.11 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, Michael, as always. Linda. |
| 04:46:27.03 | Steven Woodside | just after the stroke of midnight. |
| 04:46:28.96 | Linda Fudge | Yay, Linda Fudge. Ordinance 102.2 does not apply to the CC zoning district or any residential district. It's on your website. I have all the paperwork. There was a meeting with ACD where Joan Cox was there, Brandon Phipps, Kristen Taiki, and I think your city attorney all agreed with ACD that that was correct. I know you're room full attorneys. I think you're really pushing everything into litigation. Please don't do that. |
| 04:47:03.99 | Walfred Solorzano | Online we have Babette McDougall. |
| 04:47:12.16 | Babette McDougall | Good evening. Thank you. So this view compliance analysis, where we're doing a study design review session on this thing. |
| 04:47:20.63 | Steven Woodside | On this thing. Sorry, this is on the ballot initiatives. This is not on ViewSync. |
| 04:47:26.43 | Babette McDougall | Well, I think they're related. This is why I'm bringing this up, because the truth of the matter is, I think you need to be really wary of trying to push this. Like we have a pattern that we don't talk about this issue often enough, even though it's front and center. The SCA got more attention than this did in the last two years. And why? Because this is the cutthroat of your constituents. People are upset. It's interesting that Ms. Fotch just made that comment. I, too, have got scores. They are lawyering up. And they're coming after you all. They're coming after you. Do you understand that? They are mad in this community. All right, I just think you should know that we have an opportunity to come together here. You have the opportunity to lead it. And frankly, in my book, this has been a well-run study session tonight. A lot of stuff has been aired. for better or for worse. And as Mr. Woodside has pointed out, we may not like it all, but we have to find a way to come to terms with it. And I agree with that. So I want us to go forward. I know a lot of us would like to see us go forward, but you have got to include the citizens, and that has not been happening enough. On my way out this evening, someone walked out with me and said, how in the world are citizens supposed to play a role in this? It's not clear to me at all. So please rethink, these are your constituents. These are the people that are responsible for your vote. Please do not ignore this plea. There were people here tonight that I had no idea intended to show up. You should feel proud of that. Feel proud of yourselves for what you've done. Ms. Cox, this is a credit to you. You are the one who returned democracy to the council. You are the ones starting to reintroduce the old model. People are appreciative of that. Do not lose sight of this. None of us do. So this is an opportunity. |
| 04:49:15.09 | Babette McDougall | I implore you to do it openly, fairly, and with great transparency. |
| 04:49:20.98 | Walfred Solorzano | Next speaker, Stacey Newell. |
| 04:49:26.53 | Stacey Newell | Hi. The MLK park unit count fluctuates from zero to 188 units with bonus density. It seems like there's little consistency or planning motivating the unit counts at MLK other than there's a catch-all for other areas that are complaining louder. It's not really a beneficial urban plan, and it's an attempt for community inclusion. The recent survey, which was mentioned earlier today, is remarkably biased in both writing and distribution. The current EIR for MLK has no site-specific traffic or fire data, and as we're all more aware than ever, the fire risk is very high and very real. While the city may have more control over property they own, it's likely MLK Park will be governed by builder feasibility and state housing requirements, as is most of the housing throughout Sausalito right now. The Working Waterfront Coalition movie generated great opposition for marineship development, but as we hear now with the meetings, there's few locations where development is not opposed. MLK is also a historic part of marineship and is now home to one of two surviving marineship buildings, and it's occupied by boat builders and artists, the very type of people you're trying to protect elsewhere in marineship. The MLK park currently generates significant revenue and development will restrict public access to schools, sport courts, and soccer fields while eliminating a valuable financial asset. It's also important that HCD comments requesting more diversity in housing locations is heeded. I see no mention of this in the current staff reports, and it was in a previous letter from HCD. the reality is a marineship has one of the greatest opportunities for building improvement diversity and possibilities for revitalizing the waterfront for the community and mixed-use spaces for maritime and artists if there is a ballot it should be for building a marineship not building in a public park or city hall thank you |
| 04:51:17.08 | Walfred Solorzano | Next speaker is Nicole. |
| 04:51:23.44 | Nicole Belfoy | Hi, just to carry on on sort of our request for transparency, I did hear a reference to a survey and I am a resident, but I was wondering how that was distributed and kind of by what means, for instance, I know that there's an undergrounding survey that is on the city website, it's pretty easy to find. It seems like. Even more comments are being solicited for that one. Yet on some survey that I see that was distributed, I'm not on the email list or I can't seem to find it. And I wasn't able to review it. And so I'd like actually an answer tonight as part of your comments on how exactly would we have filled out that survey and been able to comment. Thank you. |
| 04:51:56.94 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 04:52:06.64 | Steven Woodside | Before you call the next speaker, I'm just going to respond and say, this is a telephonic survey. It is not a written survey. And the recipients or survey, those being surveyed, were chosen randomly. City clerk. No further public comment. |
| 04:52:24.28 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 04:52:24.36 | Steven Woodside | Okay, I'm going to close public comment, bring it up here. Um, So. One of the things, as pointed out by Vice Mayor Woodside is that, and when you look at the chart from Beth, is that there are a huge number of units. in one ballot initiative, not as many in the other. One of the questions for the council is, do both ballot initiatives go on the June 1st? ballot. assuming both ballot initiatives go forward, which you will decide later, Do they both go on the June ballot? |
| 04:53:00.56 | Steven Woodside | I can start. I mean, well, I guess, yes, if that's possible, because then, but because then in the event that one of them fails, we would be able to plan and have significant time in advance of the January 30th deadline. |
| 04:53:14.28 | Steven Woodside | And we can go back to the November |
| 04:53:16.62 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:53:16.64 | Steven Woodside | We can also go back and try again in November. |
| 04:53:17.74 | Steven Woodside | Try again. |
| 04:53:19.98 | Steven Woodside | And we can refine if necessary so we have a fallback plan. Other comments on that? |
| 04:53:25.28 | Steven Woodside | Quick comment. I thought I made clear earlier, and this is not a direct answer to your question, but I think MLK site should be moved. Therefore, that would move it for now. |
| 04:53:25.82 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |
| 04:53:35.81 | Steven Woodside | understanding my hypothetical was if they both go forward, should they both go in June? |
| 04:53:41.68 | Steven Woodside | Okay, if they were both going forward, yes. Or alternatively, It seems to me that the MLK site, there may be widespread opposition to certainly the higher numbers. We've heard that clearly from members of the public. |
| 04:53:52.62 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:53:57.49 | Steven Woodside | I cannot discuss the MLK site with this group. |
| 04:54:01.43 | Steven Woodside | Okay. |
| 04:54:01.81 | Steven Woodside | Okay, so that's why I'm posting this question the way I'm posing it |
| 04:54:03.20 | Steven Woodside | That's right. I see. |
| 04:54:06.52 | Steven Woodside | So. I will, after we decide whether we would put, if we do both, would they both go in June? Then we'll decide, are we doing both? Or are we deferring one to later? |
| 04:54:19.60 | Steven Woodside | Well, that's a good one. Okay. And just to make the point, though, about who we're listening to, I'm not particularly enamored of surveys as much as hearing from the public directly. |
| 04:54:32.56 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 04:54:36.39 | Ian Sobieski | uh, |
| 04:54:37.98 | Steven Woodside | Oh. |
| 04:54:38.25 | Ian Sobieski | It is late, but what Michael Rex said made sense to me. |
| 04:54:38.38 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:54:41.89 | Unknown | you |
| 04:54:41.91 | Sybil Boutillier | Yeah. |
| 04:54:42.47 | Ian Sobieski | or going to the public anyway. It feels like, I don't know what, I can't wordsmith at this late hour, but having a carve out of 1022 that allows the city council approved CDA agreement to |
| 04:54:53.76 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 04:54:54.16 | Ian Sobieski | not be in conflict with 1022 seems like a worthy addition to that ballot initiative |
| 04:54:54.18 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:55:03.17 | Jill Hoffman | Um, so I'm trying to Follow up on what the Vice Mayor, his comments. And so I'm also leaning toward just taking the MLK site off, giving our buffer and what we talked about plusing up with the ADUs and the by right SB 11 and the other ordinances we talked about and seeing what we can plus the numbers up on that one. So I'm more inclined to not put both on. |
| 04:55:34.10 | Steven Woodside | So my question was, if we're gonna move both forward, would they both go on in June? |
| 04:55:40.28 | Jill Hoffman | Well, that's my – so I would – I don't know. Yeah. That's what I'm trying to figure out. Yeah. Because I would say no because we're – the 10-22, it has a lot more sites on it. Yeah. And we would save MLK if we had – oh, my God, you know, if we're really in a tough spot. then that would be the more urgent if we have to go back in November. It's a lower number, and I can't imagine that we would be in that spot. So I don't know. So I'm thinking. |
| 04:56:07.47 | Steven Woodside | And we don't have to decide tonight. This is a study session. That's my initial date. I wanted to identify the issues for consideration, really. |
| 04:56:09.20 | Jill Hoffman | That's my study session. Thank you. That's my initial date. |
| 04:56:14.50 | Steven Woodside | them. |
| 04:56:14.97 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, and my feedback on whether or not I want to do an additional carve out for development agreements. Uh, No, I'm not. At this point, I'm sorry. At this point, at this late hour, I'm not... I can't wrap my head around that and give direction on that. |
| 04:56:33.28 | Steven Woodside | last point I think it's worth at least in a more reasonable hour revisiting this when we meet later and because I think there may be a necessity to do that if we actually want to see some of these things built in areas and Michael Rex has pointed out we may have impediments to actually building things where we think they should be built |
| 04:56:57.89 | Ian Sobieski | So I see some nodding heads on that point. Could we make that direction to staff so they do some homework so we're ready to talk about that? |
| 04:57:04.60 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:57:04.64 | Ian Sobieski | And I appreciate that. |
| 04:57:04.67 | Steven Woodside | And I appreciate some of us aren't ready to go that far yet tonight. |
| 04:57:05.51 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Yeah. So I would give direction to staff to explore it, but again, not at the cost of getting on the two ballot initiatives or one, depending on what we decide, but not at the cost of sacrificing the path we've all already aligned upon. Okay. All right, so I don't think we need to discuss tonight Unless you want me to step out of the room and you can discuss whether you want to move forward with an MLK ballot initiative. |
| 04:57:33.41 | Steven Woodside | MLK, valid initiative. Thank you. I think we all know there are issues there that we will need to discuss. Yeah. Maybe now is about the time. |
| 04:57:39.30 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Okay. Okay. Staff, do you have what you need from us and city attorney for this evening on this? |
| 04:57:47.23 | Brandon Phipps | Yes, appreciate that. We will explore the ballot alternatives, but not at the cost of the path that we're on related to the timeline, and we'll provide you with the survey results when we receive them. |
| 04:57:59.19 | Steven Woodside | And then part of our earlier direction was to advise if we removed some of the sites that we discussed removing, identifying what the alternatives would be to meet our low and very low income requirements. quotas, right? Because we need that information to make that decision. |
| 04:58:16.07 | Brandon Phipps | Yes, that is one of the big follow-on items I have as related to item 5A. And of course, all these things are intertwined. Yes, absolutely. |
| 04:58:23.71 | Steven Woodside | Yes, absolutely. All right. Thank you. With that, I'm going to move on. I'm going to open up item 5 D for public comment. Is there anyone here or online that would like to make public comment this evening on an ordinance of the city council of the city of Sausalito amending section 15.04 point 060 to prescribe speed limits within the city of Sausalito. |
| 04:58:47.31 | Walfred Solorzano | See you, man. |
| 04:58:48.38 | Steven Woodside | Okay, I'm gonna move on to city manager reports. You all got, and I'm going to, I'm going to usurp you, sir, for a moment. So you all got an email from the city manager advising that he's going to request that we move the February 22nd special meeting on Bridgeway grant to Saturday, March 29th, 2025 at 1 p.m. before we encounter that, If you all decide in favor of that, that frees up. February 22nd. I would like to suggest, and I've already conferred with the city manager and staff on this, that we move our February 25th meeting from 7 p.m. Two. February 22. at 2 p.m. because Okay. Jill, I really need you to hear this. Okay, because you have a women's club event that morning. And so we would start it at 2 p.m. in the afternoon that way If we go five hours, as we did tonight, we're not exhausted at midnight making decisions. to February 22nd at 2pm. the 25th, instead of the 25th at 7 p.m., We make our decisions on these important issues on a Saturday at 2 PM. |
| 05:00:12.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:00:16.56 | Steven Woodside | movements. One is to take the one issue. Which we'll discuss in a moment. Yeah. |
| 05:00:20.27 | Steven Woodside | Which we'll discuss in a moment, yeah. |
| 05:00:22.94 | Steven Woodside | move that to March so that we can all focus on these very important issues in February. and I'd like your suggestion of having you know Saturdays are hard for some people. Members of the general public often can't come here. |
| 05:00:39.95 | Steven Woodside | Right. Or at 11 p.m. on a weeknight. |
| 05:00:43.74 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 05:00:43.76 | Adriana Denehite | Well, 20. |
| 05:00:44.76 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 05:00:44.97 | Adriana Denehite | Thank you. Yeah. |
| 05:00:52.55 | Sergio Rudin | And Mayor, I, My only caution on this is that because this would escalate our timeline by several days on an already tight schedule, I just want to make sure with CDD that there's not an impact there. |
| 05:01:06.20 | Steven Woodside | So you weren't here when I conferred with them during our five-minute break that I turned into 15 minutes in order to discuss this option. So it's fine with me. If the council would prefer to start earlier, I'll try and take time off from work to start earlier on Tuesday, the 25th. I can set the link. |
| 05:01:31.48 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. No, I know way earlier for. |
| 05:01:32.17 | Unknown | No way earlier. |
| 05:01:35.60 | Steven Woodside | You said four just a second ago. Yeah. You did. |
| 05:01:38.59 | Unknown | I can do four. |
| 05:01:39.58 | Steven Woodside | I can do corall, so I'll make it. |
| 05:01:41.03 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 05:01:43.51 | Unknown | I can be forward to it. |
| 05:01:45.27 | Steven Woodside | Okay. Thank you. |
| 05:01:46.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:01:46.16 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 05:01:46.18 | Unknown | of the community. |
| 05:01:46.38 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Look what time it is. Mill Valley starts their meetings, I think, at 5 every time. |
| 05:01:51.97 | Steven Woodside | All right, and that gives staff the same amount of time that they would have. I know they'll be grateful, and Brandon was going to have to readjust his schedule. All right, so. This is direction to staff to hold our February, to commence, the regular portion of our February 25th meeting at... 4 p.m. So if we have to have closed session that will be prior to 4 p.m. The conversation is going to relate to. |
| 05:02:28.37 | Steven Woodside | It is a special meeting. |
| 05:02:30.29 | Steven Woodside | I thought we were moving the special meeting per the request |
| 05:02:32.94 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. No, we are going to meet on February 18th. February 25th has always been a special meeting to adopt the housing element in order to meet the timeline. Okay. Okay. Yeah. |
| 05:02:41.50 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 05:02:43.98 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Okay. |
| 05:02:45.02 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 05:02:45.16 | Chris Zapata | If I can, and I'll conclude the report. Thank you for that information. I just want to caveat this with a couple of things. We have received an invitation to ask for more time. We have not received the approval from MTC yet, but we don't anticipate a problem. But should there be something that says, no, you've got to do this on a time frame that we said earlier, we're not going to give you a six-month extension. We'll deal with that. But I don't think that's going to happen. I just want to put that on the record. The other thing is this will not change the February 13th 6 p.m. meeting of the Sustainability Commission to listen to the Sea Level Rise Commission. What this will do, we'll then move the Bridgeway grant meeting to the last Saturday in March, which is the 29th. |
| 05:03:37.93 | Steven Woodside | And he is proposing 1 p.m. Any issue with 1 p.m. for folks on March 29th? Okay, so city manager, you have consensus from the council to move the Bridgeway grant meeting to March 29th, 2025 at 1 p.m. unless MTC declines the extension request. In which case you're going to have to circle back with us. |
| 05:04:04.30 | Chris Zapata | And we'll make sure that we... We put some clarity into the public in terms of currents and whatever other mechanisms we have so that people understand, you know, the meeting on the 22nd probably will not happen once we know that's not that's the case, then we will make sure that they know the meeting in March on the 29th will happen and the time. |
| 05:04:25.03 | Steven Woodside | Great. Anything else for your report, sir? Thank you so much. Any council member reports? |
| 05:04:39.00 | Steven Woodside | I attended an MCC MC legislative committee meeting and one of the focuses was zone zero, which is the yes. And I attended the MCC MC meeting the two days later and we heard from the Marin Fire Chief and the Marin Office of Emergency Services, And their focus was Zone Zero. And so on February 18th, we here will hear a presentation from first Stephanie Moulton-Peters, and then from Chief Tubbs, who will also discuss Zone Zero. So Zone Zero was adopted by Mill Valley five years ago. Sausalito declined. There is now a better incentive to adopt zone zero. That means creating zero fire fuel between zero and five feet from your residence. The incentive is it can result in lower insurance costs. So that's something that's being worked on regionally. So that's my report on MCCMC. Any other council member reports? Okay, I have no appointments this evening. Future agenda items. We had a request from Sandra Bushmaker that we prepare an update on executive orders. So I would ask that our city attorney, who is a member of a large firm, if his firm happens to disseminate any updates on executive orders and their implications on local agencies, that he share those with us. But I am not inclined to ask our city attorney to spend Sausalito's money performing that work. If there is a specific order that any of us becomes aware of that we need further analysis on its implications for Sausalito, I would say let's do it. |
| 05:06:36.80 | Steven Woodside | And I think the city manager would be the point person to be aware of those things. And I would want to hear from the city manager or other staff. There's an executive order that has implications for us. And whether we need to react to it in some way, we'd have a chance to do so. I think it's amazing how many orders are being issued. And I will just say one that was issued by the commander in chief to the Army Corps of Engineers released a lot of water. |
| 05:07:06.57 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 05:07:06.62 | Steven Woodside | . Now we have an Army Corps of Engineers facility here. Are there going to be executive orders that, for example, kick out the other uses at that site, including the Bay Model itself? I don't know. You never know what's going to happen. |
| 05:07:22.45 | Steven Woodside | Yep. So that's not direction. That's, yeah. Yeah. |
| 05:07:27.29 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 05:07:27.31 | Unknown | Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. |
| 05:07:28.79 | Jill Hoffman | Yes, please. I'm sorry. Okay. |
| 05:07:30.78 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 05:07:31.02 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 05:07:32.15 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 05:07:32.34 | Steven Woodside | It's a great day. |
| 05:07:32.40 | Jill Hoffman | So, |
| 05:07:32.47 | Steven Woodside | So, |
| 05:07:32.54 | Jill Hoffman | Right. |
| 05:07:33.28 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 05:07:33.35 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 05:07:33.37 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 05:07:33.38 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 05:07:33.42 | Steven Woodside | I'm going to start listing our various committees so that you can do a checklist of whether you have anything to report from your committee. |
| 05:07:39.58 | Jill Hoffman | Well, this may be a little bit premature, but I serve on the North Bay Executive Committee for Marin County, I've served on it for the last two years. And the president for the North Bay Executive um, The North Bay. committee was Janelle Kelman and she obviously she's not on the council anymore so she was not the president anymore So it's gapped and usually if you serve on the executive committee, You're the second the first person and the second person. And if you're served on it, then you become president and you just sort of move up. And so she was left. This happened with the Councilmember Withy when he also was right. |
| 05:08:19.28 | Linda Fudge | Yes. |
| 05:08:20.84 | Jill Hoffman | And so anyway, so he left and I present, I put in an application to become the president at Janelle Kelman's suggestion. and with her support. And the nominating committee met yesterday and I was the only application by the deadline, and I received the unanimous support of the nominating committee, and so it's expected that I'll be supported by the rest of the North Bay group that's going to meet next Monday. And so I think I'll become the president of the North Bay executive group on Monday, and we're going to meet Monday at lunch. So I just wanted to do a little bit. |
| 05:09:05.37 | Steven Woodside | Well, congratulations, and we look forward to the grant funding opportunities you'll identify for us through that organization. |
| 05:09:09.37 | Jill Hoffman | I promise. Through that organization. So it will be an abbreviated, but I'll finish out Janelle's and her thing. It's a nice continuity for Sausalito. So anyway. Wonderful. Yeah. Thank you. |
| 05:09:21.18 | Steven Woodside | Wonderful. |
| 05:09:23.26 | Chris Zapata | And I take city manager privilege, mayor. |
| 05:09:23.56 | Steven Woodside | of the community. |
| 05:09:23.73 | Jill Hoffman | and we're going to have a |
| 05:09:26.04 | Steven Woodside | Give me just a moment. I'm going to hear from him and then. Yeah. |
| 05:09:29.40 | Ian Sobieski | Each feature agenda items I had to one. |
| 05:09:30.06 | Steven Woodside | Yeah, thank you. |
| 05:09:32.81 | Ian Sobieski | is I would love us to schedule a resolution to make sure we don't lose our undergrounding credits that might be threatened. There's a deadline to initiate a project. |
| 05:09:45.40 | Steven Woodside | Yes, staff is working on that. |
| 05:09:47.10 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. and the other is as i said earlier this evening i would like to bring back uh the rfi Topic that was agendized in March 20. May 2023. Um, with that staff report, the RFI, the response from community venture partners for consideration and direction from the City Council. |
| 05:10:08.77 | Steven Woodside | Will you reach out to confirm he's still interested? Because my understanding was he was not interested in working with us. |
| 05:10:14.84 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, he is still interested. I did check on that. both I'm interested in him and also just the whole subject. So the staff report, the RFI, the topic it's aligned with what we discussed tonight. Uh, And yes, he is still interested. Who knows on what terms? Okay. |
| 05:10:31.23 | Steven Woodside | Okay, wait. Sorry. |
| 05:10:32.80 | Ian Sobieski | I'm sure. Thank you. |
| 05:10:33.10 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 05:10:33.15 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 05:10:33.93 | Steven Woodside | I've got you on each side, so go ahead. |
| 05:10:36.93 | Steven Woodside | I had a number of requests from members of the community to consider speed bumps near our school zones. Apparently there's been a lot of issues with speeding around the campus. So I don't know where we would agendize that if it's within capital improvement projects or otherwise, but I've been asked by a number of parents. Just the neighborhood is very, people are driving very speedily. And city clerk. |
| 05:10:58.43 | Steven Woodside | City clerk, you're grabbing these, right? |
| 05:11:01.03 | Steven Woodside | And that's it. |
| 05:11:01.18 | Steven Woodside | Bye. I also have been waiting for quite some time to see us have bring back the conversation of the development agreement around bridgeway Marina. So I just want to bring that back up to top of mind for all of us as something we should consider on the agenda this year. In light of the discussions around zone zero i've been having a number of discussions as well with supervisor mold and peters and our assembly member. Damon Connolly, and I would love for us to do something immediately to assess the Zone Zero ordinance or enforce Zone Zero. So I just want to get that going. Also, at our previous meeting, We heard from Damian Morgan about police data, and I still think we should agendize a conversation about that. That was significant public comment. |
| 05:11:43.00 | Steven Woodside | Yeah, we're going to hear about that at our first meeting in March. |
| 05:11:47.72 | Steven Woodside | I agree with all of these and just a question on the undergrounding. You mentioned the deadline. Is that deadline soon? |
| 05:11:56.33 | Steven Woodside | Yeah, we're going to hear about that, I think, at our meeting on February 18th. Okay. |
| 05:12:05.58 | Steven Woodside | Oh. |
| 05:12:11.69 | Steven Woodside | Other reports of significance? None. Before we adjourn, I want to remind everybody that the police department annual awards ceremony is tomorrow morning at 7 a.m. Many of you have attended this. The city manager and I will be there representing Sausalito, but please feel free to join us if you are so inclined. You would all be welcome, as you well know. And with that, this meeting is adjourned. |
Jeff Jacobs — Neutral: Made a non-agenda comment referencing Exodus 15, celebrating no consultant fees on the consent calendar, and making broader statements about jubilee and geopolitics. ▶ 📄
Sandra Bushmaker — Neutral: Requested the council inform the public about how national executive orders and political changes ('Trump 2.0') might impact Sausalito, citing community anxiety. ▶ 📄
Fred Moore — Neutral: Suggested reducing public comment time from three to two minutes to expedite meetings and urged expediting the Wells Fargo building appeal hearing. ▶ 📄
Bert Drobnis — Against: Criticized council members Sobieski, Blaustein, and Kellerman for allegedly breaking a 2021 promise to submit ferry landing park plans to a public vote. Also criticized financial management of the Bank of America building, claiming it loses money and suggesting it be sold to fund road and infrastructure improvements. ▶ 📄