| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:12.64 | Walfred Solorzano | Council, it's now 3.03, and this meeting is being broadcast live on cable TV channel 27. It's also being broadcast on the city's website and on Zoom. |
| 00:00:23.22 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, I will call the special meeting for the City of Sausalito for Tuesday, February 25, 2025 to order and ask the City Clerk to call roll. |
| 00:00:36.53 | Walfred Solorzano | Council Member Blossene. Thank you. |
| 00:00:37.81 | Melissa Blaustein | here? |
| 00:00:38.05 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Council member Hoffman. Thank you. |
| 00:00:41.12 | Sarah Fisk | THE END OF |
| 00:00:41.32 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:00:41.34 | Sarah Fisk | Thank you. |
| 00:00:41.36 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. you Councilmember Sobieski. Here. Vice Mayor Woodside. Here. And Mayor Cox. |
| 00:00:45.88 | Craig Merrilees | here. |
| 00:00:49.68 | Melissa Blaustein | Here. All right. Uh, we are going to, um, JoAnne Hanrahan- Adjourn to close session to. discuss items D1 and D2. Is there any public comment on closed session items? |
| 00:01:05.69 | Walfred Solorzano | seen none. |
| 00:01:06.70 | Melissa Blaustein | In that case, we will adjourn to close session to consider one conference with legal counsel, existing litigation, name of case, yes, in my backyard versus city of Sausalito. And item two, conference with legal counsel anticipated litigation, significant exposure to litigation two cases. And with that, we are adjourned. We will reconvene around 4 p.m. |
| 00:01:56.06 | Melissa Blaustein | Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to the special city council meeting for the city of Sausalito for Tuesday, February 25, 2025. It's so great to see so many of you here. We held a closed session. We adjourned the closed session until the dinner break. We plan to take a dinner break for 20 or 30 minutes around 6 or 630m. Hopefully after we've had an opportunity to hear from all of you wonderful folks. So at the moment, I have no closed session announcements. |
| 00:02:30.07 | Ian Sobieski | Mayor could you just I did recuse myself from one of the items because of the proximity of the location to my personal residence. |
| 00:02:35.82 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes, that is true. um, So I will take public comment on closed session items, if there is any. |
| 00:02:53.74 | Melissa Blaustein | This is Jeff Jacobs. |
| 00:02:55.62 | Jeffrey Chase | My name is Jeff Jacob Chase. I'm a member of The anchorage on a 27-foot snoop. |
| 00:03:01.32 | Melissa Blaustein | You can speak to us, Mr. Chase. |
| 00:03:02.70 | Jeffrey Chase | I am. the owner and captain of a 27-foot sloop named Jubilee. |
| 00:03:12.29 | Melissa Blaustein | City Clerk, I'm sorry. I'm talking on the close. We have a number of people here this afternoon. Our public comment will be limited to two minutes. |
| 00:03:19.91 | Jeffrey Chase | Excellent. I'll speak on the closed session items. After a brief Torah reading... This is a religious freedom, Madam Mayor. No. This is a religious freedom. Before every government meeting in Marin County, in fact, across the United States, |
| 00:03:34.22 | Melissa Blaustein | I'm sorry. |
| 00:03:41.28 | Jeffrey Chase | It is mandated that there is religious freedom, and a person is allowed to say a prayer from whatever their religion is. So I will do that very briefly then. You could do that under the communications session. There is no communications listed on the agenda. And that's why you're not going to do that. There is no communications listed on the agenda. |
| 00:03:49.60 | Melissa Blaustein | So, no. |
| 00:03:58.98 | Melissa Blaustein | So I'm going to confine your comments to comments related to |
| 00:04:00.40 | Jeffrey Chase | I will be speaking on the closed items. Yes. Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad. |
| 00:04:02.53 | Melissa Blaustein | Close session. |
| 00:04:11.38 | Jeffrey Chase | The Lord our God is unified. Please confine your conscience. And as a unified people, Madam Mayor, City Council, City Clerk, |
| 00:04:14.27 | Jan Johnson | as a uniform. |
| 00:04:20.23 | Jeffrey Chase | We should have the ability to accept change. If we insist, that our wallets are paramount, that we worship not the unity, but we worship money or we worship the budget, then we will not accept change. We won't accept new neighbors. We won't accept new people. We won't accept anything but a homogenous community. hooding of nothingness. That's soul-wise. Without a soul, the city is dead, though there are people here and there's money here. So I urge you in any way you can to accept new people into your neighborhoods. Any other people comment? Thank you very much. |
| 00:04:59.19 | Melissa Blaustein | Any other public comments? Thank you very much. |
| 00:05:01.47 | Jeffrey Chase | Todah Rabbah, thank you in Hebrew. |
| 00:05:04.05 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes. |
| 00:05:05.08 | Jeffrey Chase | See you, man. |
| 00:05:05.69 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:05:06.14 | Melissa Blaustein | All right. With that freedom of speech, I'm going to go ahead and we're going to do the Pledge of Allegiance Stafford Keegan. Will you lead us, please? |
| 00:05:25.74 | Jennifer Nimmo | Thank you. All right. |
| 00:05:29.08 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 00:05:29.19 | Jennifer Nimmo | Thank you. |
| 00:05:29.23 | Babette McDougall | I deleted the flag of the United States of America. |
| 00:05:29.48 | Jennifer Nimmo | Bye. Adios. |
| 00:05:32.92 | Babette McDougall | And to the... |
| 00:05:32.99 | Melissa Blaustein | to the republic. |
| 00:05:34.32 | Babette McDougall | for which it's. |
| 00:05:35.03 | Melissa Blaustein | and |
| 00:05:35.24 | Babette McDougall | and, |
| 00:05:35.30 | Melissa Blaustein | And- |
| 00:05:36.13 | Babette McDougall | One nation under God. |
| 00:05:37.45 | Melissa Blaustein | I don't know. |
| 00:05:38.05 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 00:05:38.07 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:05:38.09 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. |
| 00:05:44.94 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. May I have a motion approving the agenda? |
| 00:05:49.65 | Jill Hoffman | Almost. |
| 00:05:51.98 | Melissa Blaustein | Second. All in favor? Aye. That motion carries unanimously. So we will move promptly on to business item 1A, public hearing on certification of the amended 2023-31 Housing Element Environmental Impact Report, adoption of CEQA findings, statement of overriding considerations and mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and approval of amended 2023-2031 Housing Element. I'm going to turn this over to Brandon Phipps for a report, but I want to start off, and I'm going to ask the city attorney to assist me by announcing that we will not this evening be able to adopt a housing element. we transmitted our housing element to the Housing and Community Development Department in January. We hear that their comments are written, but they've not been transmitted to us yet. And we cannot, under statute, newly approved statutes approved at the beginning of this year, adopt a housing element for which we have not yet received HCDC. comments and responded to them. So The planning commission spent 10 and a half hours reviewing this housing element and the odds and the program of rezoning. We have all invested considerable effort. The staff has invested considerable effort. It's our intention this evening to give direction to staff so that they can provide final feedback to HCD When and if we receive HCD comments, we will have to reconvene to address those comments. But we are hoping not to make any further wholesale revisions to the housing element other than those that we will direct staff to make this evening. So that's a prefatory announcement. I city attorney, do you have anything to add? |
| 00:07:49.78 | Sergio Rudin | No, not at this time, but I will... help explain the issue that you just raised as part of the staff presentation or at the conclusion of it? |
| 00:07:57.43 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, wonderful. All right. And so with that, I will turn it over to Brandon Phipps for a staff report. |
| 00:08:02.29 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you very much, Mayor, and good afternoon to you, Vice Mayor, Council members, members of the public, and staff. Thank you for all being here today for this important meeting. I'll give a brief intro before I turn it over to Beth Thompson. I think that Council and attendees here are abundantly aware of all the hard work that we've put into delivering these documents, the documents that are before you today. I will just discuss the more recent meetings because there have been many of them. This meeting follows a City of Sausalito City Council meeting on February 4 where Council provided some direction to staff. Staff carried that direction through to a Planning Commission meeting that was held on February 19th where the Commission was able to provide additional feedback to staff based on their review of the housing element, in addition to their review and understanding of the council direction provided at the meeting on the 4th. This meeting, as the mayor has mentioned, is another opportunity for council to provide direction to staff. And once we receive that direction, we'll be working to ensure compliance with HCD. With that, I will turn it over to Beth Thompson. Beth, thank you very much for being here today and the floor is yours. |
| 00:09:20.26 | Beth Thompson | Oh, good evening. Good evening, Mayor, members of the Council. It's a pleasure to be back before you with the housing element. And so I just share my screen and I'll go through a presentation on this and then the housing element project. We'll briefly discuss the background of the housing element, the modified amended housing element project, comments that were received on the original draft amended housing element from HCD, the Department of Housing and Community Development. the Planning Commission's recommendation, compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, and then the staff recommendation for this project, recognizing that there won't of action on the housing element itself is not anticipated this evening. So the city adopted its updated housing element of the general plan on January 30th of 2023 and the housing element addresses how Sausalito will meet its state housing requirements, including accommodating its regional housing needs allocation or arena of 724 units. And the city's adopted housing element is available on the city's website, as well as just an abundance of information related to the materials leading up to the adoption of the housing element. Similarly, The draft amended housing element and modified amended housing elements supporting environmental documents associated with the materials for this evening are also available on the city's website and just there's a lot of information there for anyone interested in learning more about the housing element and all of the meetings and actions that have been taken to date. So the modified housing element, which is provided as in exhibit C or attachment. Let's see. attachment seven of your materials this evening. includes a number of changes to the city's adopted housing element. It would revise housing plan program four, which is to ensure that the inventory of sites accommodates the RHNA throughout the planning period. And it would add two new housing and mixed use zones that correspond with lower minimum density densities of twenty nine units per acre. And this would provide more variety in housing types would continue to meet the city's Reno requirements and continue to affirmatively further fair housing. There are also revisions to housing plan program eight, the public property conversion to housing to remove site 85 and also some refinements to address how the city would go about making a city owned sites available for development during the planning period. Housing plan program 19 development review procedures is also revised to clarify how the city would implement various housing streamlining provisions. And just as a note, the objective design and development standards are odds that are discussed under program 19 will be considered at a separate public hearing. So those are not approved as part of the housing element. The housing element sets the stage for those at a future meeting. The modified amended housing element was prepared as an alternative to the initial amended housing element project. And so this is taken into account city council input from its October 1 study session from from last year, and that was based on public input and additional consideration of the project so some of the changes that you see in the modified amended housing element. include reducing the units at mlk so initially the amended housing element would have increased those units to 94. And so the modified amended housing element would provide for maintaining the adopted number of units, 80 units and MLK, and also considering the possibility of reducing those units to 50 units, or if there's the ballot major fails, providing some fail-safe measures to also identify additional sites, rather than increasing the units on that site. The modified amended housing element would also increase the minimum required units at site 202, the Altamira site, if that's necessary to accommodate the RHNA in event of a shortfall. And as I mentioned, it includes a pathway to include additional sites in the event of arena shortfall these additional sites may include that are not required to include city hall Spencer avenue fire station. And other vacant sites or underutilized sites that are consistent with the housing element methodology for non vacant sites there's very specific criteria established in the housing element that addresses how non vacant sites. are identified to accommodate the arena. And then the changes also include adjusting the affordability of units at site 303, the one and three Harbor Drive site. And that's just adjusting those as necessary to maintain a buffer for very low and low income units. The changes that are included in the modified housing element include the removal of several sites as well as the addition of sites. Sites 85 and 209 would be removed. Removed. And I won't go over these in detail since we've brought these before you at several previous study sessions. Sites 401 and 402 on Bridgeway and Northern Sausalita would be added. A number of sites would be modified. Most of these changes are involved, involved reducing the overlay designation to the housing 29 and mixed use 29, 85% overlays. And these are, this is applied mainly in the downtown Sausalito area, as well as along Bridgeway and in the waterfront area. So there's some select areas that were identified for a reduction in densities. We also keep... adjusted the calculation for some of the sites. based on the required minimum density. |
| 00:14:46.64 | Beth Thompson | So when we're looking at the capacity of the modified housing element, Document itself includes a pretty detailed table that shows three different scenarios where you would have three different levels of capacity. The city's arena is 724 units if we look at the second scenario for the modified amended housing element which anticipates 50 units at site 84. This would have a total capacity of 921 units and under this scenario, you have a surplus of 197 units and you would have a surplus at all income levels under this scenario. We've included several site maps in your materials that show where these various housing overlay sites are, as well as the inventory sites. The inventory sites that are outlined in red are those sites that are already designated by the city's general plan and zoning ordinance to accommodate residential or mixed use development. And the overlay zone sites are sites that are identified to have an increased capacity under the housing element. |
| 00:15:52.37 | Beth Thompson | The sites in the modified housing element include a number of sites that are affected by ordinances 1022, the fair traffic initiative, as well as ordinance 1128. The sites that are affected by the fair traffic initiative total about 358 units. Well, they total 358 units and this site affected by ordinance 1128, that is 94. Actually, I apologize. That is 80 units for site 84 or 50, depending on which scenario is chosen. In addition to adopting and looking at those changes in the modified amended housing element with the adoption of your certification of your EIR, you would be looking at the implementation of the housing element, which is the complete implementation of all of the programs in the housing element. And some of these programs require the city to take additional actions to encourage and accommodate housing. Program for which addresses ensuring that the city's inventory of sites accommodates the regional housing need allocation. Includes specific actions to reason opportunity sites to the housing 29 housing 49 housing 70 mixed use 29 85% mixed use 49 85% and mixed use 70 85% overlay zones and so as part of the implementation, the city would take the action. to rezone those sites and to update the zoning ordinance. It also includes local ballot measures for ordinance 1022 and ordinance 1128 votes. And those would be considered as a separate public hearing item The city would implement program eight, which would commit the city to taking specific actions to make city-owned sites available for development during the planning period, and coordinating with the school districts who Encourage the development of the school district identified site in that in the element as well program 19 and includes a number of changes to the zoning ordinance. So the city would take action to amend the zoning ordinance to address those changes. Those changes are to. residential and commercial zoning districts to address design, changes to address streamlined ministerial review, historic preservation, and historic design guidelines. And these changes are focused on removing various governmental constraints, making sites available during the planning period, and encouraging a variety of housing types. The city would also implement program 19, which refines the city's development review procedures. This addresses the streamlining requirements of SB 35 and objective design standards of SB 330 adopting comprehensive objective design and development standards to address multifamily development. And then revising zoning code findings for a resident and residential mixed use projects to ensure objective findings and that the public hearings required for projects are a constraint to development. HCD, when it reviewed the initial draft amended housing element Did make a number of findings related to whether or not that document substantially complies with state law. Those findings are provided in HCD's letter as attachment 12. And the comments from HCD related to the suitability of non-vacant sites changes to site 201. use of housing overlays that require a minimum of 85% residential uses, the changes to program 19, And so in response to HCD's comments, a number of changes were made to the housing element And these changes are included in both the modified draft amended housing element as well as in the revised draft amended housing element. And responses to HCD's comments are provided in attachment H. So there's a matrix that goes through each of the comments that HCD made. The revisions made to the housing element and a response to the comments provided by the state In addition to comments from HCD, The city's received a number of public comments on the housing element. Public comments have been made orally at a number of the study sessions and meetings the city's hosted, as well as written comments that have been received on the housing element. These comments are related to disproportionate housing density in northern Zasalito. And in response to these concerns, the alternative, this modified housing element, That would reduce development at MLK to 80 units or to 50 units, would reduce housing in the northern Sausalito area, specifically the Nevada Street Valley neighborhood. Comments have been related to opposition to rezoning and the housing element amendments in general. And, These these comments and concerns are noted the city has worked to make this a transparent process the city's held multiple planning commission and city council study sessions to discuss the project. AND THE CITY HAS ALSO DISCUSSED THE VARIOUS SITES THAT ARE BEING CONSIDERED FOR REZONING AND INCLUSION IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT. The comments have included concerns related to traffic, infrastructure, and environmental issues. And these have also been considered and noted. The city does not have the ability to reduce the RHNA. So the city can't reduce the number of units it has been allocated. So the city has to identify under state law adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA and these sites must meet the requirements of The environmental impact report that's been prepared for the project identifies the potential environmental impacts of the project, and it does include mitigation measures where necessary and for feasible to reduce impacts. Comments included opposition to housing development at site 84, the MLK park site, and in response to these concerns, an alternative has been identified as, as I previously have mentioned to potentially reduce development at that site. And I, we also do want to note here that the city plans to. retain control of all city on site. City Council's previous study session, it was made clear that we needed to revise program eight to ensure that this the path forward for city on sites. Does identify that the city would retain control of those sites and so that means the city can ensure that the future development on those sites is consistent with the number of units identified in the housing element and meets meets the city's expectations. Responses to the environmental impact report comments are provided in the final EIR, so that document includes Is all of the comments were received on the environmental impact report as well as responses to those comments. Some of the additional comments received by this received by the city include concerns regarding site 201 the proposed development at 605613 bridgeway and the final EIR does address comments related to the historic resource status of this site, as well as the development of project alternatives to the amended housing element. So there have the alternatives to the project has identified the potential to reduce density at the site and to refine the project to avoid adverse impacts to the downtown historic district. We've also seen some concerns regarding Site 53. And the comments regarding the increased traffic and congestion, safety, changes to views, and neighborhood character related to the site are also noted for consideration. Thank you. We've also seen comments related to the opposition to site 14, the Spencer Avenue fire station. And once again, the comments on this site, including those related to traffic, evacuation concerns, air quality and health concerns, hazards and safety issues are also noted. A program for in the modified housing element has been revised to provide the city with greater flexibility and identify alternative sites in the event of arena shortfall. with site 1452 now identified as potential sites, no longer being required to be used if there is a shortfall. and the response to the EIR comments. Also do address comments related to site 14. As well as, as I had mentioned, um, comments related to site to a one. We had also received some additional comments related to the potential historic status of building 27. at the MLK site. And I think we'll touch on that in relation to the CEQA Seek what process. The Planning Commission did consider the Amended housing element project. They did consider that last week on February 19th. And they did consider public comment and the commission recommended that the city council adopt the amended housing element. So not the modified amended housing element, but the. An earlier version of the amended housing element and the planning commission identified specific revisions to the housing element. Those are identified in attachment 10. which are actually, I apologize, attachment 11, which is the planning commission resolution. And those changes include really site 84 that MLK site reducing the units to 80 units consistent with the adopted housing element. on site 202, which is the Altamira site, changing the overlay from housing 70 to housing 49. So reducing the overall allowed density at that site and reducing the realistic capacity of that site to 51 units. Site 63 located at 522 Olive, removing that site. SITE 303, LOCATED AT ONE AND THREE HARBOR DRIVE, INCREASING THE VERY LOW INCOME UNITS BY 20 UNITS, REDUCING MODERATE INCOME UNITS BY 5 UNITS AND REDUCING ABOVE MODERATE UNITS BY 15 UNITS. SO NO NET CHANGE IN THE TOTAL UNITS AT THE SITE, BUT READJUSTING THE INCOME ALLOCATION TO ENSURE THAT THE CITY MAINTAINS A BUFFER. And the Planning Commission also separately recommended to the City Council that the City Hall and Spencer Avenue fire station sites be removed from consideration in the housing element. |
| 00:25:23.51 | Brandon Phipps | And Beth, just one moment, just a quick clarification on that slide. Oh, sure. Regarding Site 84, MLK, the Planning Commission also made a recommendation for a preference for senior housing to be considered at that site. Just want to make sure that that's clear for the record. Thank you. |
| 00:25:40.33 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. And I appreciate that I had. I thought I had included that in our presentation, so thank you for noting that. |
| 00:25:46.46 | Melissa Blaustein | And also for the clarity of the council and the public, Beth, you've made reference now to two different versions of the amended housing element. One, an amended housing element, which was recommended for moving forward by the planning commission. that's attached to the Planning Commission resolution that's in our packet. The other a modified amended housing. element that is also in our packet as an earlier attachment. And so the city council has had the opportunity to review both and to consider the utility of both Your presentation thus far has focused on the modified amended housing element as opposed to the amended housing element adopted by the Planning Commission. Is that right? |
| 00:26:32.32 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. Correct. Yes. The recommendation by the Planning Commission was for the other version, the amended housing element. All right. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify that. |
| 00:26:41.18 | Brandon Phipps | And for the record, that's attachment seven, exhibit C, the modified amended housing element as part of item 1A, in addition to attachment 11, planning commission resolution, which includes the amended housing element as an exhibit. |
| 00:26:41.20 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 00:26:54.36 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:27:01.11 | Beth Thompson | So that segues perfectly into my next slide. So as there are multiple versions of the housing element, we have the adopted housing element. So this is the housing element adopted by city council, currently in effect for the city. And this housing element has a RENA or accommodates the RENA, accommodates 908 units and has a buffer for all income levels. the modified amended housing element project. So which is the version that is before you tonight and that we're discussing. accommodates 921 units, so more than the adopted housing element, and continues to maintain arena buffer. And this is the version that's been modified from the original amendments that were issued in last August. That's the amended housing element that would accommodate a higher number of units, 958 units. When the Planning Commission reviewed the modified amended housing element and the amended housing element, the Planning Commission recommended the changes to the amended housing element, and those changes would reduce the capacity of the amended housing element down to 924 units, which still provides a buffer for all of the income levels. And this bottom row here is just the regional housing need allocation. So under all of the scenarios, there's still adequate capacity to accommodate the RHNA. |
| 00:28:31.85 | Beth Thompson | The amended housing element and modified amended housing element have been assessed for environmental impacts in the environmental impact report for the city. um, The Sausalito amended six cycle housing element project. And that document has been prepared as a program EIR. The program EIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. |
| 00:28:44.86 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 00:28:44.91 | Bonnie McGregor | and, |
| 00:28:52.96 | Beth Thompson | The draft program EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review and comment period from September 4th through October 21st of 2024. Following that, portions of the draft EIR were recirculated from December 13th 2024 through January 27th of 2025. During these two comment periods, 23 comment letters were received. Each of those comment letters is addressed in the final EIR. And there is also an errata provided to the final EIR that's included as attachment to. The comments and the responses did not identify any new environmental issues requiring substantial revisions to the program EIR or further environmental review. The modified housing element is analyzed as alternative five in the program EIR. So when you're looking at the program EIR, the amended housing element is the proposed project. The modified housing element is addressed in the alternatives chapter. It's addressed at a level of detail similar to the amended housing element and it's addressed as alternative five. |
| 00:29:59.53 | Beth Thompson | The recommendation is broken into two actions for the City Council. First, looking at the adequacy of the program environmental impact report that city council is asked to adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Sausalito certifying these Sausalito amended six cycle housing element final impact report. Final environmental impact report and that state clearinghouse number 202 4070 676 and the. document is provided as attachment three. So the resolution is attachment three. And then separately, we're requesting directions. Our staff is recommending that City Council provide direction regarding the modified amended housing elements. So understanding that with the delay in receiving comments from HCD, If we are going to go back and work with HCD on the modified amended housing element or the amended housing element, just requesting specific direction on the next steps to take there. So with that, I'll end my presentation and I'd be happy to answer questions. |
| 00:31:04.94 | Melissa Blaustein | Sergio, thank you for that. Beth, I do want to invite Sergio to make comment in connection with the comments I made at the commencement of this meeting. |
| 00:31:17.04 | Sergio Rudin | Yes, and so to summarize the issue and the status of where we are today with HCD, effective January 1st of this year, AB 2023 made amendments to housing element law to add additional language regarding the process by which local governments are to provide their housing elements for review to HCD and to consider comments received by HCD prior to adoption. And Beth, can you please stop sharing your screen so that I |
| 00:31:53.62 | Sergio Rudin | But, |
| 00:31:55.14 | Melissa Blaustein | talking. |
| 00:31:57.62 | Sergio Rudin | Um, The main issue is with the process is the city in response to the November 4 comment letter did submit two HCD revisions to its housing element. during the week of January 20th, I believe. And under the new state law, HCD is to be provided with a common period of at least 60 days City staff did meet with HCD during that week to preview those changes that the city had developed in response to HCD's prior comments and findings, and to explain to HCD that the city was putting together a schedule. in light of HCD's request that the city move forward with implementing Program 19 odds by May of this year. and that the city intended to put together a special election and call a special election in March to ensure compliance with HCD's request that the city would need to adopt It's proposed... Amended housing element prior to calling a special election so he was notified and city staff did request. That he's revised comments on the revised housing element be provided before this evening and he did acknowledge that they would try to do so, but we were notified on Monday that we would. |
| 00:33:02.61 | Anthony Hay | a minute. |
| 00:33:20.63 | Sergio Rudin | not receive HCD's comments and findings on the proposed resubmissions that were provided by the city in January before tonight. A number of public commenters have raised also the issue of whether or not the city can move forward to adopt in light of HCD not providing its comments and findings. And HCD has notified us that they will, in fact, provide us a comment letter in response to our resubmission in January. Um, So that is the current status where we are. |
| 00:33:56.00 | Melissa Blaustein | And Sergio, so you mentioned the new legislation that became effective January 1st. What that says is that every time we make changes to our housing element, we have to give HCD another 60 days to review and comment on those changes before we can adopt, or else we have to make findings that Um, we have to make alternative findings. |
| 00:34:20.99 | Sergio Rudin | Yes, so the main impact of this law is whenever you are Whenever you are considering a new draft or giving direction to staff to prepare a new draft, it should be submitted to HCD. And HCD has by law a 60 day period. They don't have to take the whole time, They are entitled to it. to make findings on your proposed changes. And if they require further changes, the city is supposed to either make those changes and resubmit them, or alternatively, the city can still adopt, notwithstanding HCD's findings, but it has to make as part of his action to adopt specific findings addressing why no further revisions are necessary and why the proposed housing element complies with housing element law notwithstanding HCD's position. |
| 00:35:23.83 | Melissa Blaustein | Aside from any further response necessary to address HCD comments. |
| 00:35:30.91 | Sergio Rudin | And Mayor, I missed part of your question due to a technical issue. |
| 00:35:35.88 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah, I see the camera glitching. So I don't know if our internet connection is not strong, |
| 00:35:45.22 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, do we have a backup? plan? Don't we have a backup internet that we can rely on? |
| 00:35:51.07 | Sergio Rudin | And Mayor, I can't hear you now, so I would welcome an opportunity to answer your question again. |
| 00:35:56.18 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, so is it your hope slash recommendation that City Council and also based on your conversation with HCD yesterday, that the City Council provide uh, clear and final direction this evening. regarding the... recommendations from the Planning Commission, the feedback from the public, and any final revisions to the housing element, other than such revisions as may be necessary to address HCD comments. |
| 00:36:24.79 | Sergio Rudin | I think that that would probably be the best action for the city council to take this evening. Yes. |
| 00:36:29.31 | Melissa Blaustein | All right. Thank you for that. Okay, I'll open it up to council members for questions now that staff has completed their reports. |
| 00:36:40.61 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, thank you very much and thank you to members of the public who are with us this evening, I have a few questions we received significant correspondence asking them in particular about senior housing overlay. Could you just address what we may or may not be allowed to do this evening with regards to allowing for an overlay for senior housing or addressing the need for senior housing within the element. |
| 00:37:05.78 | Sergio Rudin | I will field part of this question. I will let Beth field the other part. With respect to senior housing overlay, already has a senior housing overlay designated by various zoning actions and ordinances. So nothing specifically requires that the city take action to expand or modify the senior overlay in housing element law. That is something that the city council is allowed to explore and do outside of the context of its housing element. Um, with regards to if the city council wants to include a program in its housing element with respect to expanding the senior overlay or designating particular sites as being specifically meant for creation of senior housing. You can add a program to your housing element to consider that and make revisions. We would likely need to resubmit that to HCD for review and comment. |
| 00:38:00.82 | Melissa Blaustein | So if we wanted to take the Planning Commission's recommendation to suggest senior housing at MLK, for example, that would require the authoring of a new program within the element. |
| 00:38:10.37 | Sergio Rudin | It may not require the authoring of a new program, but we would need to revise our existing description of our programs in order to do that. Now, that being said, Nothing. Nothing really requires that we put that commitment in our housing element. As a matter of law, that is something that the council can focus on, you know, because MLK is a city site. you know, That is something the city can focus on when it is conducting outreach and negotiations with potential developers that the city would like to ensure that any project that is built is senior housing. |
| 00:38:48.86 | Melissa Blaustein | I'm just going to interject a procedural matter. So. Each city council member has received a map of sites that it cannot specifically discuss because we live in close proximity to them. So early on in our questioning and in our comments, we will be focusing on sites in general without focusing on specific sites so that none of us have to recuse ourselves from the general discussion. When we get to the point this evening where we are discussing specific sites, we will each recuse ourselves as appropriate from the discussion of those sites to which we live in close proximity. |
| 00:39:25.80 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you, Mayor. And then the next question is probably for Brandon, but I imagine that it's rather confusing for members of the public because even though we have reviewed and understood both of them, the differences between the modified amended housing element and the amended housing element. So the amended housing element The main differences are the attachment 13 considerations for the city council, correct? |
| 00:39:49.90 | Brandon Phipps | Yes, and I'm happy to provide a little bit more of an elongated response to your question. Thank you for the question. So the difference between the amended housing element and the modified housing element, I think first and foremost, is related to our alternative approach, which may utilize City Hall and the fire station site in the case that the city experiences any kind of RHNA shortfall. In addition to that alternative approach based on RHNA shortfall, there are a couple changes to the distribution of affordability between a couple sites in the modified. That is changes to Altamira, site 202, in addition to redistributed affordability at site 303. Additionally, there is some, I'll call it an alternative option and some language as related to the alternative discussed earlier that the city may consider other sites in addition to the fire station and the city hall site if the city does end up experiencing arena shortfall. Those sites would have to meet certain site selection criteria, and the city may need to engage in additional environmental analysis based on what sites the city identifies if there is arena shortfall, and that allows the city to more generally address a shortfall if it occurs, rather than requiring steps associated with a shortfall to contain actions associated with City Hall and the fire station. Thank you. |
| 00:41:22.58 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. I may have more questions, but I'll let my colleagues go ahead. Thank you. |
| 00:41:26.98 | Melissa Blaustein | All right, I'm gonna go to Councilmember Hoffman |
| 00:41:30.04 | Jill Hoffman | to Vice Mayor Woodside. So my question, actually, I think is a follow-up. And that is that we have currently, we have currently before us a plan that does include City Hall and the Spencer Firehouse and I was my follow-up is it does include those two sites and the question is if you could explain how they became part of our part of the plan and what the impact is of them being part of the plan |
| 00:41:58.30 | Brandon Phipps | Sure. I think the reason that they were considered is, one, because they are city-owned sites, and the city ultimately can, I would say, with more certainty, control the fate of how those properties are developed. And I'd say the other reason is because the city wants to build in kind of risk-related responses to any arena shortfalls and wants to create paths to correcting any issues with arena shortfall and no net loss requirements. So I said those are the reasons that they are included for consideration. |
| 00:42:31.19 | Jill Hoffman | And one of the things that I, we had some public comment, Director Phipps, and I did send you an email today that included the new Cal Fire map. And I have it, I sent it to you and our city clerk, and I have it on my computer. And if the city clerk can bring it up, I'm going to ask you if you've seen this and considered it. And or I can share my screen. It's up to the city clerk. |
| 00:43:00.64 | Walfred Solorzano | Let me see, I'm promoting you to a panelist so you can share your screen. |
| 00:43:03.85 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. I'm standing by. I did have to rejoin after our glitch that we just had. |
| 00:43:14.39 | Jill Hoffman | All right. |
| 00:43:20.57 | Jill Hoffman | I'm joining now as a panelist. |
| 00:43:43.72 | Jill Hoffman | Can you see my screen? |
| 00:43:45.98 | Jennifer Nimmo | you know. |
| 00:43:52.07 | Jill Hoffman | And so this map was just put out, I believe, on Monday. And this is Sausalito. This is Prospect. This is Spencer. And this is where my cursor here is where the Spencer Firehouse is. This is all very high risk. area. Was any of this considered at the time when the Spencer Firehouse was was added to The housing element. |
| 00:44:18.45 | Unknown | How's the element? |
| 00:44:19.11 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:44:19.13 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:44:19.14 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. Appreciate the question. Based on the short time frame between the release of this map and this hearing, I am aware of this particular image. I have reviewed it, but it has not been something that's been reviewed in depth in connection with the element itself. |
| 00:44:36.74 | Jill Hoffman | So just in case it's not clear, this is all very high risk. This is all high risk. And this is all moderate risk. The other fire station is down here at the bottom of Johnson Street. So thank you, Director Phipps. I do have additional questions, but do you want me to go and ask my question now or ask? A few. I know. |
| 00:44:56.81 | Melissa Blaustein | I love you. |
| 00:44:58.76 | Jill Hoffman | I just have one other question. Okay. And this is for Beth, our consultant. And I'm going to unshare because my next question is not. You can unshare me. I don't know. Stop share. |
| 00:45:13.85 | Walfred Solorzano | stop sharing. |
| 00:45:14.39 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Thank you. I'm very proud of myself for doing that. And this is for our consultant, Beth. And this is the SB9 lot split question that I had asked the last time about, as a matter of law, the SB9 lot splits and counting those SB9 lot splits as part of our arena number as a just as a function of the law. And I asked you to give us that number. And you did that today. And what was the number is 900 and something, correct? Or at least your preliminary number. It has not been properly vetted. |
| 00:45:51.08 | Beth Thompson | Correct. You have capacity for approximately 945 parcels that could have a SB 9 lot split. |
| 00:45:58.23 | Jill Hoffman | And what would that split be if you split the lot? It's a split of one additional parcel or is there additional parcels? So, |
| 00:46:06.79 | Beth Thompson | The lots could be split into two parcels and then each of those parcels could have up to two units under SB 9. And then additional, I would let the city attorney weigh in regarding whether or not there would be additional capacity for ADUs on those lots. |
| 00:46:23.01 | Jill Hoffman | So that's an order of magnitude of My math is weak, but at least you know, a substantial number of additional numbers that we could add into our RENA number potentially. I mean, you know, potentially. |
| 00:46:41.30 | Jill Hoffman | Yep, go on. |
| 00:46:42.34 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, so. With regards to the question about SB 980 use, typically state law says that you are not required to allow both kinds of development on a lot that has been split. You only need to allow up to two units or a unit and ADUs under state ADU law. Um, with regards to the issue of additional capacity that can be identified in the housing element and Beth I think you've had the most direct discussions with HCD on this subject, my understanding is typically HCD will only allow you to make reasonable assumptions that are supported by either past trends or something credible in terms of future trends that you can point to regarding the real, the, um, likelihood of development during the particular housing element cycle. |
| 00:47:39.47 | Beth Thompson | Correct, yes, they want to see that the city has past experience with certain levels of development in order to increase your SB9 assumptions. And so we've already accommodated, I believe, We've identified about 54 SB9 units that would count toward the arena in the housing element. |
| 00:47:54.35 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. And then you have some other lots in the pipeline, right? Thank you. |
| 00:48:00.58 | Beth Thompson | The 54 are not in the pipeline. Those are just counted toward the arena with the expectation that they could be developed during the planning period. And so there, I think the city's received one application for two SB 9 units since the housing element process started. |
| 00:48:16.10 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, I'm going to pause you for one second. Procedurally, I'm told that our broadcast is continuing to cut in and out. This is probably one of the most important meetings we will hold this year. And so I'm asking staff to please try to troubleshoot what's going on with our Internet. The same thing happened during the Planning Commission meeting, and I advised staff of it at that time. So I'm asking if staff will please be troubleshooting that issue as we continue to conduct this meeting. Thank you. |
| 00:48:47.03 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thanks. I don't have any further questions. I think I will propose some direction later. Thanks. Vice Mayor. |
| 00:48:54.76 | Jill Hoffman | Yes, first of all, just as a follow up to the question that Member Hoffman asked about fire station, for example, the recommendation from the planning commission is that that site be removed. Correct. |
| 00:49:12.97 | Brandon Phipps | Correct. Okay. I think there's just one wrinkle there, which is the amended housing element that the Planning Commission resolution pegged off of, if you will, did not contain reference to City Hall and the fire station. It is the modified version of the element that contains those references. So the resolution itself, as again, if you will, pegging off of the amended housing element element didn't require an explicit statement or door decision but there were there was a kind of an aside recommendation as related to the fire station in the city hall that that carried forward that |
| 00:49:21.63 | Peter Bostosic | Thank you. |
| 00:49:49.17 | Jill Hoffman | that sentiment. And that is one of the directions that we could give after we've heard from the public. Thank you. |
| 00:49:54.95 | Melissa Blaustein | Right. |
| 00:49:55.75 | Brandon Phipps | Absolutely. |
| 00:49:56.19 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:49:56.24 | Melissa Blaustein | And so, Vice Mayor, after we hear from the public, one of the first questions our council will consider is whether to work with the amended housing element or the modified amended housing element. The Planning Commission worked with the amended housing element We have been presented information regarding the modified housing element, but we know enough about the difference between the two that we can go either way. So that will be one of the first... directions I seek following public comment. |
| 00:50:24.39 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, that will be helpful. Clarifying questions, you have an attachment 13 that tracks direction that we gave as a council at our last meeting when we addressed this. For example, we gave some recommendations regarding possible, for example, removal of the MLK site. I'm not going to be more specific about that site, but just to point out that on your chart, with respect to each one of our suggestions, you have a recommendation, but the listing doesn't indicate what density you are dealing with, other than absolute removal on one of the sites. So, for example, MLK, Altamira, and a few other sites, we gave some direction to seek either a reduction in density or an altogether reduction in density |
| 00:50:27.07 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah. |
| 00:51:16.14 | Jill Hoffman | So it would be helpful if, when people look at that chart, they recognize what the densities are that we gave prior direction on and were hopeful could be accomplished. Is that – are you going to be able to do that when we have specific discussions about each one? |
| 00:51:35.11 | Brandon Phipps | Yes, we should be able to fill in the blanks on those. |
| 00:51:37.62 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:51:39.21 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. I will also note that during the Planning Commission meeting, Beth Thompson kindly took stock of each of the requested directions, whether it was to add density or reduce density at given sites, so that she was able to pivot and kind of report on the net outcome of direction proposed direction she was receiving from the planning commission i'm going to ask her to do that same thing this afternoon and evening, if that's all right. |
| 00:52:10.38 | Beth Thompson | I'll be happy to do that. The one thing I'll need to know as a starting point is if we're working from the modified And it has the element that I can try to update it. |
| 00:52:16.30 | Melissa Blaustein | that I can try to update. we address. Thank you. |
| 00:52:19.54 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 00:52:19.56 | Melissa Blaustein | Perfect. |
| 00:52:19.89 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 00:52:19.93 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Okay. |
| 00:52:23.47 | Ian Sobieski | Just following up on that, Brandon, I have a question for you on this. This fire station and it's the parking lot of City Hall, right? It's not the whole of City Hall. I got that wrong. |
| 00:52:35.69 | Brandon Phipps | Good clarification question. |
| 00:52:37.02 | Ian Sobieski | Councilmember the answer is yes so it's the parking lot those two are not opportunity sites they are are they included because MLK needs a ballot initiative pass and if that ballot initiative fails then we may not have enough low income units and that those are stuck in there to catch that |
| 00:53:01.51 | Brandon Phipps | Yeah, thank you for the question. This is a good distinction. And that is correct. I'd open the floor to Beth and Sergio to clarify my language here. But that's exactly right. the city hall parking lot and the fire station site will only become potential sites for cities consideration in the case that arena shortfall is experienced. We could get there, you know, a number of ways, but the, I think the, the one that arena shortfall is experienced. We could get there a number of ways, but I think the one that we've been looking at most closely is arena shortfall as related to a lack of densities prescribed to Site 84, the MLK site. |
| 00:53:40.95 | Ian Sobieski | And what makes those sites special aside from being owned by the city is that unlike some other city owned parcel or some other privately owned parcel, we've actually already gone through the environmental impact assessment of those sites. So we would not be able to add to our, housing element sites that we have not done any IR on. |
| 00:54:05.06 | Brandon Phipps | Correct, I would say that would not be a swift action because additional analysis will be required. |
| 00:54:07.69 | Ian Sobieski | action. |
| 00:54:11.81 | Ian Sobieski | And we have a deadline of January 2026 to do the rezoning of sites. And failure to do that would plunge the entire city into builder's remedy. Is that correct? |
| 00:54:24.85 | Brandon Phipps | That's correct. By statute, the city has until January 30th, 2026 to implement its program of resigning, and the city will increase its risk as related to builder's remedy if that does not occur. |
| 00:54:29.93 | Ian Sobieski | you know. |
| 00:54:38.29 | Ian Sobieski | So if we don't have a reserve of potential sites that have already had an EIR done, and the ballot initiative for rezoning MLK fails, and we don't have enough renown numbers, then we may be out of luck in keeping a approved housing element. that. |
| 00:55:00.12 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. I would say the city would increase its risk associated with potential pushback. Thank you. |
| 00:55:13.32 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, if there are no further questions, I'm going to open it up to public comment once again I really want to welcome everybody for being here it's so gratifying to see our chambers full of interested residents because I honestly do believe this is one of the most important actions we will take as a city council. this year and really during my term since we first adopted the housing element in January of 2023. So with that, if you'd like to make public comment, please provide a speaker card to the city clerk. You can just start and hand it down at the end of that table. City clerk, do you have some speaker cards for me to review? |
| 00:55:56.62 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah, we usually call them from up here, Neil. |
| 00:56:00.37 | Tom Hoover | Thank you. |
| 00:56:04.50 | Tom Hoover | Thank you. |
| 00:56:04.77 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:56:04.96 | Melissa Blaustein | Just a few. And public comment will be limited to two minutes due to the numerosity of of cards. And the first one I will call is Sophia Collier. |
| 00:56:21.78 | Melissa Blaustein | And because there are people, because this chambers is full and some people are in the other room. I'm going to go ahead and call several folks so that you know that you are next. So the first speaker is Sophia Collier, then Kay Carlson, and then Jennifer Nimmo. |
| 00:56:43.11 | Sophia Collier | Thank you very much. Sophia Collier here speaking on behalf of Save Our Sausalito. First, I want to start by thanking |
| 00:56:43.84 | Melissa Blaustein | They're all just |
| 00:56:51.68 | Sophia Collier | Mayor Cox and our members of our council and then also our staff. We have put a great deal of work into this project and folks see the amazing amount of paperwork and all the details in this. It's a very complicated process. We've all devoted countless hours to the goals of finding the best outcome for our community in the very difficult environment of state mandates. Together, we've made tremendous progress, but there's still a little more to do. SOS supports housing 29 designation in the downtown area, and we believe that Altamira should be in that category. SOS was proud to sponsor petition to move Altamira to housing 29. We have gathered more than 600 signatures in just four days. I know there are many here who will add color and reason to that message, and we strongly support them. We will have a speaker later who will present the petition itself. Additionally, SOF's attorneys have submitted technical comments proposing small but essential language changes in the EIR historic preservation provisions. So many times a legal issue can turn on a phrase or a single word. It is essential for us to get this right and have the strongest enforceability possible for our historic protections. I know this council has been strongly in support of the historic district, and I'm very, very grateful for everything that has been done in that regard. And so I urge you to support that fix as well and continue forward in the positive direction we're headed. Thank you very much. Thank you. |
| 00:58:26.55 | Melissa Blaustein | All right, Kay Carlson, then Jennifer Nimmo, then Stacey Nimmo. I'm going to ask us all to refrain from clapping or booing or cheering so that we can move forward because we have a lot of people to hear from this evening. Thank you, Kay. |
| 00:58:39.46 | Kay Carlson | Thank you for hearing me. I've had a studio in the Industrial Center building for over 30 years, maybe 35. Thank you. And As an artist. I am asking to please preserve the current agreed upon plan for housing without adapting any developmental agreement for ordinances 1228 or 1022. protect the workspace that there are 100 working artists in this ICB. If there's a zone change, this is going to mean a huge, change. in their ability to make a living as an artist. and the industrial capacity of marineship. is so important and if you haven't been following that story, then you are under a rock someplace because... Our marinship means everything to Sausalito. Thank you. |
| 00:59:34.22 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:59:34.75 | Kay Carlson | Thank you. |
| 00:59:34.97 | Melissa Blaustein | you. |
| 00:59:35.91 | Kay Carlson | Thank you. |
| 00:59:35.93 | Melissa Blaustein | Jennifer Nimmo, then Stacey Nimmo, and then Peter Bostosic. |
| 00:59:42.10 | Jennifer Nimmo | Hi, Jennifer Nemo here. Thank you, Council, for everything you're doing. We really appreciate it. a massive project for years. Regarding Site 84 inside MLK Park, Can you pull the microphone? There we go. Okay. All right. Can't quite tell. |
| 00:59:53.70 | Melissa Blaustein | Can you pull me? |
| 00:59:56.87 | Jennifer Nimmo | The massing models for the site are flawed and accurate and misleading, and this has been detailed and substantiated in comments submitted earlier today. The 825 project, 825 Drake Avenue project, which has spilled onto 150 Shoreline, is a clear example of what this type of project looks like, and it does not look like the massing models that were being shown. I understand the pressure we're under and the situation that we found ourselves in at this time, but I sincerely encourage you to approve only the lowest possible overlay for site 84 inside of MLK Park. I also encourage you to keep Spencer Avenue Fire Station and City Hall on the list of options in case that ballot measure does not pass. And we need to repeal Ordinance 1022 to open up more options. We need pathways to better other sites to be considered. Thank you. And I'll tell you, Stacy hasn't made it here yet. He's going to raise his hand online so you can pass him over. |
| 01:00:45.64 | Anthony Hay | Thank you. |
| 01:00:49.55 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 01:00:49.66 | Jennifer Nimmo | you you |
| 01:00:50.03 | Melissa Blaustein | Sounds good. All right. We'll skip Stacey and move on to Peter Bostock and then Robert Hayes. |
| 01:00:58.01 | Peter Bostosic | Yes, good evening. I'm Peter Boslock. I'm a 13-year resident of Sausalito, and I believe I live in close proximity to the Altamira. My comment will be brief. My comment is very simply no to H49 at Altamira, yes to H29. I think that is a appropriate balance with change in the city. The council and the staff have a very difficult task here in balancing so many inputs from so many different points of view and that's extremely healthy. But I moved personally, I personally, I moved to this city because I appreciated the character of the city, of the environment and the people of the city. Whilst we must accept change, from my perspective, This is the right change for the city. Thank you. |
| 01:01:59.52 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Robert Hayes, then Jim Gabbard, and then Sally Johansson. |
| 01:02:10.35 | Robert Hayes | good evening council and all the public here my name is robert hayes i'm going to take a little bit of a myopic viewpoint here and i apologize for that but i live at 620 butte street near the mlk site i'm an architect and i design low-income senior housing and multi-family housing projects all over northern california um i know what density translates into relative to scale of projects very very well um i do it five days a week not on the weekends um so i've i've done you know over 25 projects, and I'm really familiar with number of units and what that translates into size-wise, area-wise, and impact to neighborhoods. I'm talking about the MLK site specifically, and 80 units will translate into four stories over parking for a 1.4 acre site all day long it will not be two stories it will not be three it will be five stories of building area on that 1.4 acre site. So I urge you to really look at those numbers carefully. I know the REMA or whatever is very important, but 50 units is too many units. So thank you for the time. |
| 01:02:14.10 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 01:02:14.20 | Anthony Hay | Robert Hayes. |
| 01:03:49.88 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Jim Gabbard, then Sally Johansson, then Rory Moore. |
| 01:04:00.59 | Melissa Blaustein | Welcome. |
| 01:04:01.69 | Jim Gabbard | Thank you. Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Jim Gabbert. And besides having been in San Francisco since the 60s and all, for 53 years, I was the chairman of the California Emergency Alert System, appointed by the governor of California, by FEMA, and the Federal Communications Commission. I resigned this September because I felt I'd been there long enough. Our issue has always been dealing with emergencies in the state of California. I remember the Paradise Fire, which was a few years ago. 77 people died in that fire. And I worked with Senator McGuire as what could we do to prevent that from happening. Number one, they didn't expect it. They're never going to have a fire. Number two, which is not related to this meeting, but they had, we felt like the emergency lane here in Sausalito was important because people could not get out. Same thing in Lahaina. |
| 01:04:44.59 | Anthony Hay | No. |
| 01:04:55.44 | Jim Gabbard | and Los Angeles were never going to have a fire like that. That fire was 100% preventable. And the mistakes there were huge. And we've had that firehouse number two for a long time. Didn't use it. It's been vacated. But if times change, what causes fires? What was LA? They blamed it on. climate change, and we're going to have less water, drier plants. You've got to park right across 101 there. Fire, even a muffler in a car. Fire starts there, jumps over, and it'll be all the way down here so quick you wouldn't believe it. That firehouse is so important. It's got to stay. And I'll tell you one thing. If I got to be careful how I say this, anybody who votes for this and the fire burns us down like they did L.A. I'd like to come back and say I told you so because it's preventable and all I'm asking is that one chunk is that firehouse. Leave it alone. Thank you. |
| 01:05:57.13 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Sally Johansson, then Rory Moore, then Susan Moritz. |
| 01:06:06.64 | Sally Johansson | Good afternoon. My name is Sally Johansson. Thank you one and all for all of your efforts that you do for this community. I'm a new member of this community. I'm so happy to be here and totally uninformed about all that you just dumped on us, excuse my language, but it was overwhelming. So I have a lot to learn. But I will say that as the gentleman who spoke before me, the member for 13 years of this community, I forgot your name. I think the integrity and the spirit of Sausalito is something that also has to be considered when density is being investigated. I'm in favor of Altamira being capped at 29 units. The density in that area is generally in that range, so it would be possible to make a change and accept progress, but yet not destroy the city of Sausalito's character. I personally experienced the loss of my house in a fire. And I can tell you one and all, when you call the fire department, They don't get there fast enough, no matter how clear the roads are. It's imperative to keep the roads clear for, um, what people think could be an impossible situation. But it happens. It happened to me. And the safety of the community is also so paramount. Thank you so much. Thank you. |
| 01:07:45.07 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Rory Moore, then Susan Moritz, and then Matthew Highmark. |
| 01:07:53.86 | Rory Moore | Madam Mayor, council people. I'm Rory Moore. I live right across the street. So I'm in opposition to lot 53, building on the parking lot for a number of reasons. We have a lot of elderly people in Sausalito. This is the only lot that can come to a flat lot and park, go into city hall, go into the library. We'll be taking that away from them. That's one issue. I came down here at 3 o'clock this afternoon. The parking lot was full. I can see during the week when the parking lot is full. It's full. most of the time. We're taking that away from the people of Sausalito. And to echo some of the previous speakers, in case of a fire, People move downhill in case of fire. They're not supposed to move uphill. This is the center of Sausalito. It's Newtown, but it's halfway between the two freeways. By adding 21 units, I believe, to the parking lot, you're taking all the parking away Plus, not alone that, you're having a noise density, which will be huge, and devaluating the property around City Hall. You're basically adding the same amount of units that's on Bonita and B Street to the parking lot. It doesn't make any sense, so it doesn't. And I want to thank you for this opportunity, but I know the work that goes into doing what you're doing. I've been a builder for many years. The hillside alone is unstable. I've seen what happened when the road was resurfaced. They did not fix the sinkholes that was on Bonita Street right at the top of Alito. So it's a huge amount of work to be done before that site is valuable to build on. Thank you very much. |
| 01:09:42.31 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Susan Moritz, then Matthew Highmark, then Tony Cook. |
| 01:09:53.25 | Melissa Blaustein | All right, I'm not sure if Susan Moritz is here. So I'll take Matthew Highmark and then Tony Cook. |
| 01:10:06.98 | Matthew Highmark | I'm Matthew Highmark and I live within close proximity to Altamira, like so many of us present here tonight. And I also want to join so many of us in favor of Altamira's being capped at 29 units. I greatly disapprove of any loss of character and identity of Sausalito as we know it. If an increase should happen, what I fear, in addition to the loss of any character and identity, |
| 01:10:35.69 | Matthew Highmark | Sorry, I lost my handwriting. It was so awful when I was writing this. The unknown safety and traffic situations and anything that we will inevitably experience and not be able to remedy, should we not be able to limit this? Thank you. |
| 01:10:53.63 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. All right, Tony Cook, Annie Porter, then Alexandra Popker. Welcome. |
| 01:11:03.74 | Tony Cook | Hello, I'm Tony Cook, 25-year resident of Sausalito. And I made my notes on my phone, so I might be able to read them. I ask that the council reduce the density at Altamira to 29 units per acre. If not, it seems to me we'd have a supersized nine-story building, potentially, on the bulky site that would ruin the ambiance of the historic district of our town. It'll create an eyesore for neighbors, a traffic nightmare for everyone, and a potential threat to public safety. 49 units per acre will enable developers to create a monstrosity at the heart of Sausalito. I ask you to change the density of the zoning to 29 units to prevent that from happening. Thank you. |
| 01:11:50.01 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Annie Porter, Alexandra Pop. her and then Bonnie McGregor. |
| 01:11:56.47 | Annie Porter | Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Cox and City Council members. I'm Annie Porter. I'm a lived in Sausalito for 35 years. I oppose the unreasonable size of the proposal for the Altamira. The size is completely incompatible with the neighborhood and it will create a log jam of vehicles to the surrounding streets that are already full of cars. Please reduce the number of units to 29 or better yet, scrap the proposal. result of the proposal will be similar to the three other high-rise high-density high-rise buildings in town the Cote d'Azur the Portofino and the pier all three of those stand out like sore thumbs and makes one wonder who was on the planning commission and city council when those were proposed our town cannot afford another monstrosity like that please consider 29 units at the Altamira or please remove the project. Thank you. |
| 01:12:56.97 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you so much. |
| 01:12:58.57 | Annie Porter | Thank you. |
| 01:12:58.59 | Melissa Blaustein | Alexandra Popker, then Bonnie McGregor, then Diana Dempsey. |
| 01:13:04.16 | Alexandra Popker | Good evening, council. My name is Alexandra Popkin. Sorry for my terrible handwriting. That's on me. I live at 115 Harrison Avenue, literally directly behind Altamira, in a historic building over 100 years old. When I purchased my condo in 2022, I had no indication that a project of this scale was even a possibility. Like many of my neighbors, I chose to invest in Sausalito for its unique small town charm and stunning views, both of which would be significantly compromised by this development. My primary concerns are, like many others noted, severe view obstruction and property devaluation. The proposed development would erase the defining feature that makes our homes desirable, dramatically reducing property values and quality of life. Traffic and infrastructure strain is going to be a huge problem. This area is already congested, and adding such a large development would exacerbate existing traffic and parking challenges and be devastating in the event of an emergency. And then finally, incompatibility with the surrounding area. A high-density project of this scale is out of step with the character of Sausalito and does not align with responsible urban planning. I strongly support capping development to 29 units or considering alternate locations better suited for high density housing. Thoughtful development should compliment our community and not overwhelm it. Thank you for your consideration. |
| 01:14:24.73 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Okay, Bonnie McGregor, then Diana Dempsey, and then Dr. Marvin Garovi. |
| 01:14:32.07 | Bonnie McGregor | Good evening, I'm Bonnie McGregor. |
| 01:14:32.18 | Melissa Blaustein | Good evening. |
| 01:14:35.74 | Bonnie McGregor | And my handwriting so bad I printed my words out. I want to thank you all for all the effort you have put into this. It's a very difficult subject. And almost every proposal made has an impact on our historical character and architectural. Although, when I look at the hill down on the south end of town, There are no two buildings, houses there that look alike, which is kind of charming. And there are a couple I'd like to see excluded. But anyway, as a 40-year resident of Sausalito, below are my two cents. And this is what it is. It's mainly a repeat of the letter I submitted, really guarding the housing element and building new units. I really think focusing on underutilized spots in the marinship instead of cramming things into our parks or our neighborhoods is the way to go. The marineship has tons of potential if we're creative about it. And building there certainly is preferred to impacting our parks. or the hills like on Bulkley where the Altamira is. What are they going to do? Tear the Altamira down? That charming, wonderful place? And I don't see where you could put anything, even 29 units seems like too many there. Because you think of every unit that is added, you gotta add two cars. If it's a couple, each one has their own car. If there are two single people living there, they each have their own car. If anybody's driven down Bulkley, they know what a nightmare it is getting around there. It's a one-way street because of parking along the edge. I'm aware of the maze of the private mixed with government properties in the marineship. No one said this would be easy. But it is a way to preserve our town's character and charm. I stand by the three-story limit. and height. Plus, it is way past time to ditch those old laws that are blocking us from even considering housing on empty lots in the Mariners ship. We've got a lot of ideas. Mr. Rex over here is full of good ideas about what can be done there. Thank you. |
| 01:16:35.09 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. All right. Diana Dempsey, then Dr. Marvin Garovi, and then Jed Dempsey. |
| 01:16:46.38 | Diana Dempsey | My name is Diana Dempsey. I've lived on Bulkley Avenue for seven years. I want to tell you today about the petition urging you to adopt H-29 zoning on the Altamira site. In four and a half days, this petition was signed by 618 Sausalitans at last count. So here's the language of the petition that so many people signed in such a short time. We, the undersigned residents of Sausalito, urge the City Council to take action to protect our views, prevent overdevelopment, and ensure responsible planning. Two critical issues are at stake. Number one, stop overdevelopment at Altamira. The Planning Commission is proposing housing 49 zoning for Altamira, which would allow up to 117 units to be built at 125 Bulkley. That is twice the size of the worst version of the Monster 605 Bridgeway project. This would allow a nine-story building, drastically altering Sausalito's hillside forever. Require a massive parking structure for 225 plus cars, overwhelming our narrow streets. Destroy the neighborhood, views, and environment of hundreds of homes. We urge you to prevent this devastation and reduce the density at Altamira from 49 to 29 units per acre to ensure reasonable community-supported development. And number two, protect Sausalito's scenic views, adopt the full objective design standards. Scenic views are a defining part of Sausalito's character, and 93% of residents support clear protections for them. We urge you to adopt the proposed objective design standards, including Chapter 3 for view protection, to ensure strong protections for Sausalito's cherished vistas. Creating this new housing element has been a long and arduous process. Let's finish strong and let's get it right to protect Sausalito and empower development that enhances our community, not destroys it. And I am the speaker that Sophia referred to earlier. So I have five. Thank you. You can just... |
| 01:18:52.96 | Melissa Blaustein | give that to the city clerk. All right, next, Dr. Marvin Garovi, Jed Dempsey, and then Kirk Hassan. City Clerk, will you upload that to the public comment? Are you able to upload that or do you want to hand... No, but... Yes. Okay. Thank you. You can pass it out. If you have copies, you can pass them out. Diana Dempsey. Do you want to hand us copies? Do you have all five? Yeah, do you want to hand them down? Yeah, thanks. All right, sorry for the distraction. All right, so Dr. Marvin Garovi, then Jed Dempsey, then Kirk Hassan. |
| 01:19:38.52 | Marvin Garovi | It's Dr. Marvin Garovoi. |
| 01:19:40.08 | Melissa Blaustein | I don't know. Garavoy. |
| 01:19:41.55 | Marvin Garovi | And I've been social leader for the past 12 years at Laneside, and I had a long list of things I was going to say, but basically I hear with everything everybody else has been saying, I'm going to just support asking the council to say no on 49 at the Altamira, but yes on 29 for obvious reasons. Thank you. |
| 01:20:02.59 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. All right, then Jed Dempsey, our easel, and then Kirk Hassan. And Catherine Streitman. |
| 01:20:12.60 | Jed Dempsey | My name is Jed Dempsey. I've lived on Bulkley Avenue for the past seven years. Let me start by thanking the council and staff for all its work on this enormously challenging task. Today, I urge the council to reject H49 zoning at Altamira and to approve H29 zoning. Even though the recent Planning Commission recommendation for the housing element counts only 51 units at the Altamira site, presumably because those are the rules. That is a fantasy. Any competent developer will use density bonuses to put 100 to 120 units on the site. The result would be huge buildings that would tower over the neighborhood. right in the heart of Sausalito, dwarfing historic buildings and blocking views that people have enjoyed for more than 100 years. And if anyone doubts that developers would do something huge and unsuitable at Altamira, I simply point to the proposed 605 Bridgeway development as proof that they are wrong. Imagine Altamira with two side-by-side, nine-story steel and glass cruise ship buildings, and you'll get the idea. And for what? The fact is that H 49 gives only about 20 extra units over H 29. in a housing element with more than 900 units total. And the 900 plus units include 200 buffer units. In summary. Zoning Altamira at H49 rather than H29 would be a tragic and permanent mistake. The zoning can never be pulled back. And you would be condemning residents, developers, and probably the city itself to decades of wasted time, money. and to energy spent fighting over something that should have been resolved tonight. I ask that you do the right thing for Sausalito now. reject H49 zoning, and approve H29 zoning for the Altamira site. Thank you. |
| 01:22:14.28 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Kirk Hassan, then Catherine Streitman, and then Hank Baker. |
| 01:22:21.94 | Kirk Hassan | Madam Chair and members of the City Council, good afternoon. My name is Kirk Hasson since 1984. I've lived across the street at the corner of Litho and Bonita, so I've paid particular attention to site 52 and its various formulations over the last few years in the housing element that is parts of this block on which city hall rests and I speak in opposition to inclusion of any reference to it in the housing element. Now the the current proposal before you includes the following these sites, including 52. are planned to remain in city ownership and are anticipated to be made available for development through long-term leases. These sites will be made available for affordable housing, consistent with the requirements of the Surplus Lands Act. It's potentially confusing that that language also appears in attachment 11 to the agenda, which is the resolution of the planning committee. Because, as been noted by several of the speakers and I've confirmed with Mr. Toft, the planning committee voted to exclude any reference to site 52 from their recommendation. And for good reason, even though it's been reduced to the parking lot in one of the sketches. They have noted reasons why the parking lot is very important to preserve for other potential uses, for emergency use, as they've noted. They've also noted the building on that site would be de minimis because of the restrictions on any housing that would block solar panels. So it's not a useful site, and it is a site that I submit should be preserved for the reasons stated in opposition by people who 78 out of 137 comments on the initial housing plan were objections to use of Site-52. And the Planning Commission, for its own good reasons, which they have recorded and I can't summarize adequately in my 16 seconds remaining, has correctly, I think, said, do not include that. It will help, and it could very much hurt. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:24:14.97 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Catherine Streitman, then Hank Baker, then Peter Streitman. |
| 01:24:21.76 | Catherine Streitman | Hi, my name is Catherine Streetman. The issue of the rezoning of the marineship is very important to me. My grandfather was a boat builder here before the marineship existed, starting in the 20s, when the whole town was the working waterfront. My uncle was a boat builder. My mom was born here. She and my dad both worked at Marineship during the war. My aunt was a painter at the ICB in the 60s. My husband built sailboats down there in the 80s until the Saucerita Boat Builders Co-op was priced out. I have a studio in the ICB now. My son made a living fishing out of the Marineship through the COVID lockdown. I'd like to see the beat go on. It is the last affordable location for artists rent space. There has been a community of boat builders since the 30s and artists since the 50s. I'm aware that industrial manufacturing has continued to be a mighty revenue stream for the city. When tourists dollars, ebb and wane revenue from industrial business remains steady. I support the current amended zoning plan that has been carefully crafted and negotiated over several years. by some of the current council members Council members Blaustein and Woodward might not know this. It was meant to bring in housing while also protecting the artists and industry in the Marin ship. There's now 303 units slated on Bridgeway across from Wally Stones. That's the biggest load in town that's coming to be built, which is great. It's a great plan. Please don't adopt any developmental agreements for either existing ordinances 1128 or 1022. We do not support that direction. Please don't rezone beyond the current. agreed upon plan. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:25:50.47 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Hank Baker, then Peter Streetman, and then Fred Moore. |
| 01:26:03.14 | Hank Baker | Good afternoon and thank you for all your effort in this exercise. I'm a longtime resident of Sausalito, resident of downtown, as well as a business owner. I'm also a retired real estate developer with over 40 years of experience developing over 15,000 residential units, 20% of which were affordable. I just want to make a few comments regarding that with that background. Each of the market rate units that you choose to up zone is the land value is increased by $250,000. If you take a look at the Altamira, even at 29 units that you're considering right now with the potential for more than 50 units on the state allowances, you're adding over $10 million in value to that property. The property owner that owns that building, Michael Blatt, is a very, very experienced developer and well-financed. Whatever you approve, he will build. The site that's gonna be built on is a half acre, the same size as 600 Bridgeway. You're putting 50 acres or 50 units on a half an acre. That's a six, seven, eight story building. I don't even think 29 units is the proper load for that particular project. Secondly, financing. is a challenge, and the allocation from the state will be very, very limited all the time. Sausalito probably won't qualify for any of that financing. Third, the designating property that has existing buildings on it basically adds to the value of the land in the project and makes it less feasible than a piece of vacant land. And then finally, revisioning Sausalito's northern waterfront could both ensure the permanence and expansion of the present historic uses, as well as create new Sausalito neighborhoods with new industrial creative spaces, along with resident serving retail and housing. Sadly, there have been a number of failed attempts to proactively address the northern water fruit, including the 2008 Wham report, a community labor of love that was shelved the day that it was presented. Thank you, Mr. President. |
| 01:28:06.53 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you, Mr. Baker. Peter Streetman, then Fred Moore, then... |
| 01:28:14.97 | Melissa Blaustein | Ambarica Pinochet. |
| 01:28:23.24 | Peter Streitman | Hi, my name is Peter Streetman. I came here to ask you not to adopt the developmental agreements for ordinances 1128 or 1022. I do not support that direction. Please don't rezone. The Marin ship beyond the current. Agreed upon plans. I've been working on Frida here at Spaulding's. It was built in 1885. It was the oldest sailing boat on the West Coast. And around a year ago, I built six Pelican sailboats also. I have been working on the Matthew Turner for about eight years. And my boat, the Flirt, was built by Ralph Flower in 1904 at Bear Island. I've also been working at Cascadley Marina on some of the wood boats and the dock there. I was a boat builder in the Marin Ship at Sausalito Boat Builders Co-op, and there are many successful businesses still operating successfully. The working waterfront has a valuable history in town and continues to be a thriving business community today. Please preserve this unique aspect of the culture of our town. Thank you. |
| 01:29:45.13 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Fred Moore than Alberica, Pinochet, then Jan Johnson. |
| 01:29:53.06 | Fred Moore | Madam Mayor, Fellowship Council, really applaud and thank you for the efforts you've gone through with trying to deal with the housing mandates. And I applaud you, your efforts, as well as the staff. This housing element process has confused most of us, been weaponized by others, and some just object to any housing. To preserve the character of our town and avoid the builder's remedy, houses must be constructed in Sausalito. The Housing Opportunity site reflects, in my opinion, a haphazard selection process without evidence that they were identified as part of a comprehensive design and vision for our city. Whether we like it or not, compliance with state law mandates that housing be built in the city, not just depicted on a map. In my opinion, as a city planner by education and a real estate development attorney, many of the opportunity sites will never have homes built. However, there are a number of prime, underutilized and or dilapidated sites in the friendship that would attract builders. Please expand your vision to include these locations as opportunity sites in order to expedite construction of housing. Please remove site 201 as an opportunity site and preserve the historic nature of our downtown. To shepherd our city toward compliance with state mandated housing numbers, please repeal Ordinance 1022, implement a comprehensive planning process, develop sites conducive to housing, such as areas in the marinship, actively solicit and entice builders with development agreements, terms, and expedited processing times that benefit the developer, property owner, and the city. As you navigate the state-mandated housing obligation, I ask all of you and all of us SOSLito residents to keep in mind a classic quote, the needs of many outweigh the needs or desires of the few or the one. Thank you for listening. |
| 01:31:39.90 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. All right. M. Bersia, Pinochet, then Jan Johnson, then Judith Bangkolb. |
| 01:31:49.50 | Angelica Pinochet | I'm Angelica Pinochet. I've lived. on Berkeley for the last 25 years. The Altamira site should be zoned at 29 per acre or less to uphold responsible growth that is relevant to the essence of our community. At 49 units, the Altamira site could hold a colossal eight to nine plus story monolith, twice the height of the tallest buildings anywhere in Sausalito. At 49 units per acre, the Altamira structures would diminish the character of the historic district, obstruct views, and threaten Sausalito's appeal to residents and visitors. Adding hundreds of cars to our narrow and winding roads would create traffic congestion, leading to gridlock beyond the neighborhood. Emergency services would slow down, dangerously delaying ambulances, fire trucks, and paramedics. Evacuation due to earthquake or wildfire would have catastrophic consequences. Views matter. I'm one of the 93% Sausalito residents who support protecting scenic views. Most planning commission members hold the untenable position of opposing view protection, setting a dangerous precedent that will destroy the beautiful hillside harmony that is our world-famous Sausalito. Spectacular views advance our economic engine and promote personal solace and well-being. Building massive out of proportion structures on the Altamira site will have long-term financial and legal repercussions for many years into the future. I thereby respectfully request that you establish rezoning the Altamira site at 29 units or less. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:33:39.96 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 01:33:41.53 | Angelica Pinochet | Thank you. |
| 01:33:41.55 | Melissa Blaustein | Jan Johnson, then Judith Bang-Cold, then John Flavin. |
| 01:33:47.45 | Jan Johnson | Hi, Jan Johnson, thank you for allowing us to speak. What she said. |
| 01:33:52.42 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 01:33:52.43 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:33:53.18 | Jan Johnson | Um, For those in my... humble opinion, not so humble, Anything more than 29 units at the Altamira is... An invitation to disaster. For those who say it won't happen here, well, it already happened here. In 1897, the hill burned all the way down to Water Street. Granted, they didn't have modern firefighting, but that's just an example of what can happen. Those people will have no way to get out because the road will block within half a block from the driveway. |
| 01:34:21.76 | Anthony Hay | Yeah. |
| 01:34:32.46 | Jan Johnson | If you build it and a disaster happens, it's on you. And if you think that Mr. Black won't build it, he already mentioned Sausalito through the 90s. including dumping three loads of dirt onto one of his developments without permission, without engineering, that caused a landslide and closed two apartment buildings on Bridgeway for over two to three years. Just I'm appealing to common sense. Please don't overdevelop sites that don't have the infrastructure or the road structure to allow them to be safely and habitably used. Thank you. |
| 01:35:13.84 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Judith Bankhold, then John Flavin, then Heather Wilcoxon. |
| 01:35:19.20 | Judith Bangkolb | Hi, I'm Judith Bang Kolb. I've lived on the Sausalito waterfront for over 50 years. A lot of people in this room know me as the person who designed and built and ran the Montessori School on Caledonia Street for over 45 years. Okay, but today I'm here. I'm an artist still working at the ICB on a daily basis. I'm here to ask you to please preserve the current agreed-upon plan for housing without adopting any developmental agreements for Ordinances 1228 or 1022. Please, please, please help protect the working waterfront space for artists and industrial businesses. Thank you. |
| 01:36:05.53 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. John Flavin, then Heather Wilcoxon, then Emmett Easel. |
| 01:36:11.03 | John Flavin | I'm John Flavin, and I am in full agreement with Jim Gabbert. We need to preserve the... |
| 01:36:11.45 | Melissa Blaustein | COUPLE. |
| 01:36:21.15 | John Flavin | Spencer Avenue firehouse, you're going to need it. As I believe Councilmember Hoffman pointed out, there is a new map out that puts that firehouse right in the center of a large area of high risk. And I know people think that what we have is adequate. But you have to remember 2018, there was a brush fire that worked its way up along 101 and threatened Wolfback Ridge. The only thing that saved it was a plane and two helicopters dropping water. So let's not kid ourselves on that. The other issue is also going to be insurance. Obtaining and maintaining insurance in this marketplace is going to be increasingly difficult. We can comfort somewhat insurance companies by showing we are taking efforts to prevent fires. The best way to prevent it is to stop them when they're small. So I think it was probably a good idea to closed the fire station back in 2010 for whatever reason. But today, in the environment of 2025, it will work for the benefit of Sausalito and for the GGNRA to have an active fire station at the top of Spencer. Thank you very much. |
| 01:37:47.30 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Heather Wilcoxon, then Emmett Yeezell. than Michael Rex. |
| 01:37:56.82 | Heather Wilcoxon | Hi, I have been a working waterfront artist for over 40 years. And I really urge you guys, please maintain the Sausalito Arts District and Maritime Service District. It's really important to all of us. It's been here forever and we want it to stay. I know that you guys got to build houses. Why don't you tear down the machine shop that's just sitting there and being, I don't know why it's not, you can't. I know it belongs to the, The feds, right? Just ask Trump anyway, or Elon. Anyway, that's what I'm saying. Please support the waterfront and please don't. I was in the ICB building for 19 years. It's a great building and the artists should be able to stay there and maintain what they do. So anyway, thank you. |
| 01:38:47.71 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. All right, Emmett Yeazell, then Michael Rex, then Stafford Keegan. |
| 01:39:03.15 | Emmett Yeazell | Hi, my name is Emmett Yeazell. Thank you. Thank you for holding this forum for comment. It's always struck me that the housing element could easily be referred to as the contractor's bill because residents don't seem to be the focus of the element. Now regarding changing of the height limitations with the building element. |
| 01:39:24.43 | Anthony Hay | Thank you. |
| 01:39:32.19 | Emmett Yeazell | within the city. I implore you to keep the limitations of height in all construction, the current limitation, not an amended one. That's the only one that will make a difference. Sausalito. will not benefit from increased density, especially due to taller structures. now. None of us have ever heard the area south of Market in San Francisco referred to as quaint. charming or having a sense of community. Please. Don't be responsible. for amending the maximum height limitation in our city. It will be a disaster. Thank you very much. |
| 01:40:25.65 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Michael Rex, then Stafford Keegan, then Sybil Boutelier. |
| 01:40:32.61 | Michael Rex | Hello, I'm Michael Rex. I've been an architect in South Cedo for 45 years, and I sent a late mail to you dated February 21st, and I'm going to reference the lower part about MLK. I second Bob Hayes' comments that 80 units will be ponderous and out of scale for that site. um i uh i think 30, maybe up to 50 max, probably closer to 30 units will fit more appropriately. The majority of those units should be for very low and low income. and it should be deed restricted. So the occupants are only city workers, first responders, teachers, and seniors. You own the property. You could do this. You could joint venture with a nonprofit. to ensure it. I'm not sure. this ballot measure that you'll be discussing later tonight, If it calls for 80 units, first of all, Those 80 units were based on a CAD model. that the plan calls for 11 buildings. It showed only portions of three buildings, and that were two stories, not three stories. That model was misleading. And yet the planning commission pointed to it to justify 80 units. If you put it on the ballot that way, it'll fail. If you put it on the ballot the way I described it, I think it can pass. and we don't lose those important units, and it serves the people we need. to keep here in town. Thank you. The project would be subject to the new draft odds that we hope you'll adopt next week. to its proposed view sync. And before it goes to vote, we need an accurate model that will show what it will really look like instead of an in-earth one we have currently. Thank you. |
| 01:42:26.63 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Stafford Keegan, then Sybil Boutelier, then Anthony Haye. |
| 01:42:43.19 | Jennifer Nimmo | Hi. Hi. |
| 01:42:44.54 | Stafford Keegan | My name is Stafford Keegan. I'm a former Planning Commission member and served with great pleasure with Mayor Cox. And I can say that all I've heard today only confirms in my mind that mistakes can be made And if they're made, you're stuck with them. And I know that from a planning commission experience, when you see a mistake that's been made, you turn your head, you drive away, and luckily within five years, a coat of paint will be over it, trees will be planted, and you can go on to the next mistake. The mistakes you guys are talking about cannot be replaced. They're going to be here, and you're going to be with us for the rest of my life and probably the rest of your lives. And it's going to hurt every time you look at them. Thank you. |
| 01:43:34.40 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Mm-hmm. |
| 01:43:39.55 | Melissa Blaustein | Sylvia Jones- Sybil Boutelier then Anthony hey then babette McDougall. |
| 01:43:45.40 | Sybil Boutelier | Good afternoon, Mayor Cox, honorable counsel. As you're all aware, there are land use policies in our general plan stating the city will support our senior community for mobility and sensory limitations. And the housing element also goes on to say that the city will support aging in place with housing types that allow people to remain in community as their needs change. It also mentions visitability. Seven years ago, the city passed a great age-friendly housing adaptation program for seniors to retrofit accessibility into existing housing. But now the time has come to add an action program to be sure we build new senior affordable housing that is already accessible for more than 40% of our residents who were over age 60. I heard the city attorney's reading of the law. But whether or not an amendment can be added at this point for a senior overlay, we need to detour. Herman. we will have affordable senior housing with no step entry and other important accessibility features so that we don't have to retrofit this housing later on. So freeing up, we need to allow our elders to downsize, freeing up larger housing for families, so that they can continue to live and contribute to our community as seniors do. So please direct staff either to add or require the use of any available senior overlay, as the attorneys seem to reference, or separately pass a visitability ordinance outside of this process. Thank you, Sybil. Thank you. |
| 01:45:46.55 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you, Sabal. All right, Anthony Hay, then Babette McDougall, then Jim Madden. |
| 01:45:52.86 | Anthony Hay | Good evening. This is Anthony Hay, resident of Sassolido. I'll be brief. I just wanted to say the fire station is important that we put back together again up on Spencer Avenue because the map shows very high fire risk around that area. So it's prudent to add it there. Secondly, this monstrosity at Altamira, I don't know, high-rise building, it's not Manhattan here. We're living in Sausalito, and we have this, the character of the city should be preserved. So Altamira should be down-zoned to, you call it H-29. Finally, there's a site 301 on Bridgeway, which I think you could add more units to it, and it won't be a high-rise, and it will be a nice marina-style building that should help for the city of Sausalito. Thank you. |
| 01:45:53.52 | Melissa Blaustein | I mean |
| 01:46:50.79 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Babette McDougall, then Jim Madden, then Stacey Nimmo. |
| 01:46:59.84 | Babette McDougall | Thank you, Babette McDougall, Girard Avenue. I'm really delighted to see so many of our residents here to speak specifically to various sites that have been called out. on the various plans. and the one in particular that we're under consideration now. I would like to first... Point out. Going back to the city council, correction, the planning commission meeting. If I'm not mistaken, there was a very firm Planning Commission recommendation that all primary infrastructure be in place before any kind of residential or other development could commence. Is that specific? Did I misunderstand that? I don't know. But I think it's important to bear in mind the lack of infrastructure. especially if we're going to look at increased density. So I'd like to just emphasize that now. The second thing I'd like to emphasize is the issue of views, because this is in direct contravention to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Their planners are not even allowed to consider views. Thanks to Stephanie Moulton Peters, our supervisor, we now know squarely on the record that this place is about to undergo a huge transformation between Marin City and Sausalito being designated as one of the world's largest regional transit hubs. All you got to do is go on the web and look up what a tier four looks like. and it will amaze you at what they have in mind for Sausalito. Just amaze you. And so... Yeah, all this little nitty-gritty talk about up and down Bridgeway counts. But at the end of the day, I would just like to remind you that it is by working together. as a community, that we will have our best outcomes. So I really do hope that you really are paying serious attention. to what your residents have to say. They are the people who elect you to this diocese. |
| 01:48:47.08 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 01:48:47.10 | Babette McDougall | Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. |
| 01:48:48.97 | Melissa Blaustein | Jim Madden, then Stacy Nimmo, then Susan Moritz. |
| 01:48:54.96 | Jim Madden | Jim Madden, been here a long time. Family's been here probably 100 years. We have some, I'm hearing the Altamira is an issue, MLK is an issue. We have actual property. We're not putting up six-story buildings. We want our properties to be within the existing footprint, existing height. 210 Caledonia would make that happen, and I'd like the 4985. Also, 1313 and 1315, Bridgeway would make that happen, and I'd like the 4985. Also, 1313 and 1315 Bridgeway would make that happen at the 49. 100 Bay Street at 49, and 1319 Bridgeway take to four units. Again, within the existing footprint, the existing height. There's another property here which can make a big impact on this whole Altamira thing, and it's Site 301, which a gentleman mentioned earlier. The problem with Site 301 is the line is incorrect. It's got to be fixed. It's a combination of Cameron's property and Sausalito Yacht Harbor property that needs to be set into two separate lines. Additionally, take it back to 49. Those sites could make a big-time difference on these other places. And in the Sausalito Yacht Harbor, Mary Madden stuff that we own, we're not putting up six-story buildings. We're going within the existing. But give us the proper units in these buildings. Thank you. |
| 01:50:21.85 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Stacey Nimmo, then Susan Moritz, then Alice Merrill. Amen. |
| 01:50:28.97 | Stacey Nimmo | If I haven't said this enough before, I want to thank you all for all the time and energy you put into this. It's a very, very challenging project to solve, and I can't imagine how much energy it takes. I'm proud to see so many thoughtful neighbors speaking out on behalf of finding alternatives to the building in public parks. In my written comments, I've outlined issues in detail with the current plan. For comments here, I'll simply say that as local control continues to be undermined by the state, it makes little sense to give up more than what's needed in public parks, historic sites, or in the case of MLK Park, both. There's so much opportunity in friendship and beyond and as many have said earlier, please continue to pursue all avenues to building opportunities beyond the limiting bounds of the housing element as is planned, thank you. |
| 01:51:19.17 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Susan Moritz I had called earlier. I don't know if she's here now. And then Alice Merrill and then Ricks Cannell. All right, Alice, why don't you step forward? |
| 01:51:32.77 | Alice Merrill | Good evening. Oh, it's evening. Alice Barrel, 117 Caledonia Street. I... Oh, boy. What a mess. I would like... to know, I would like to know what, more, I'd like to know what you guys are, are going for. I don't really think I know, but, I Altamira beautiful place the lowest the best the lowest the best you know lower whatever that's the Altamira I of course care about the firehouse make it a firehouse good idea |
| 01:52:07.15 | Bonnie McGregor | you know, |
| 01:52:15.23 | Alice Merrill | the Marin ship. I saw recently some pictures of some saying, oh, look at this awful old property here. It's ugly. It's not pretty. Do you know that the owners of the property and rentship, some of them make it look ugly so that it will look ugly so that people will say, we could make this so much prettier. We could make this really nice. This is a working area. We don't have to have it pretty. And don't let that sway you. The northern part of the marineship that's been designated as housing, great. gopher housing there, but not in the part that's near to where the industrial stuff happens. If a certain person who... I don't know what the number of his property is, but it's right next to the Arquez, the old Arquez. If that person wants something more in his property, maybe he could put... with boat building. What a surprise. What a thought. Or if we end up having, um, OK. That wasn't where I wanted to go. Oh boy. Well, I'm all done, but anyway. I do think that if we think about Never. |
| 01:53:34.24 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you, Alice. All right. Rick's can please feel free to write us if you weren't able to say something you wanted us to hear. Rick's can all then Albert Streetman, our third Streetman of the evening and Adrian Brinton. |
| 01:53:52.03 | Rick Scannell | Hello, my name is Rick Scannell. I don't really have anything prepared because I just heard about this today. I work in the Marin ship. I'm born and raised here. And just sort of hearing about the sort of revisions of the zoning and development of this area really, really hurts me and a lot of the people that I work around down there. And there are a lot of them too. There's cabinet makers, architects, artists, all sorts of designers. You know, I could think of just a number of different jobs just off the top of my head that are happening right now. People are working right now. down there, a lot of them. And that's probably why you don't see a lot of representation like a lot of people here tonight, know representing the marine ship is because they they're working down there and um i don't know i just uh I just ask to please consider the fact that there's a lot of people down there doing cool stuff. And I have a lot of sewing machines and it'd be really heavy to, you know, be a lot of work to move them out. So, yeah, thanks. |
| 01:55:04.91 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. All right, Albert Streetman, then. Adrienne Brinton. Then Michael Gaspers. |
| 01:55:21.16 | Albert Streetman | Hello, my name is Albert Streetman. I am a fourth generation Saucyutu resident. I oppose revisions to the 1022 initiative for the housing plan. These revisions would open up the entire marineship to become housing and effectively destroy the working waterfront with many jobs that exist there. I would also like to add, by not including sites south of Harbor Drive, we are in no way risking builders' remedy. Why sacrifice blue-collar jobs for absolutely no reason? Thank you. |
| 01:55:51.50 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Adrienne Brinton, then Michael Gaspers, then Jenny Silva. |
| 01:55:57.86 | Adrian Brinton | Adrian Brinton and yeah, you know, thinking about the Marin ship. Absolutely. There's so much down there that's part of the Solis Ocelito that we need to save and we need to make sure is kept a part of us. Also, the Marin ship is over 200 acres. It's a huge area and there's a lot of underutilized area. If you go along Marin ship way. by Molly stones and you look at the RV lot, that area could support housing without threatening the working waterfront. Also on the economics of the marinship. You know, we talk about how it's an economic driver for Sausalito and by raw numbers it is, it brings in. 2019 1.2 million in tax revenue versus you know, just over a million for downtown. It's also 120 acres versus 16 acres for downtown. So on a per acre basis, it's bringing in a fraction of the tax revenue of downtown. $70,000 per acre we get downtown, we get under $10,000 per acre in the marineship. If we could bring that up to half of downtown, which I don't think would be a massive lift, we could subsidize the businesses that are struggling, the artists that are struggling, and actually pay for the uses that we want to see there. We're subsidizing it anyway to the tune of $4 million taxes lost every year by letting so much of our town sit with under utilized economic activity. So yes, extremely difficult to do and save our soul at the same time. Not saying it's easy. There's so many ways that it could go wrong. But as a community, I think we can come together and find a way to do it right. Let's start saying yes to making it better. and take that underutilized land and actually do something with it and make it a vibrant part of town. Helps us with housing as well. We keep squeezing the balloon. Everything's popping up. We've got everybody saying no to everything that's come out today. Like Jim Madden, thank you for coming up and saying, yes, I've got something I could build. That's great. That's what we need. So anyway, that's my comment. Thank you. |
| 01:57:59.85 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. All right. Michael Gaspers, then Jenny Silva, then Craig Merrily's. |
| 01:58:08.29 | Michael Gaspers | Good evening counsel, I'm Michael Gaspers. I live in Burkane Gulch area. It seems to me that as a public entity and with most public entities and companies and corporations, one of your main talents is communication, especially with other entities, and I think it would, What you should do is to use your communication expertise and lobby Senator McGuire, Assemblyman Connolly, and Governor Newsom to call a special session of legislature and have these housing mandate laws overturned and file a lawsuit in federal court under the according to the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution, especially that or to the people part of the United States Constitution, because these laws are nothing but a one size fits all that fits nobody's sizes. It's like every community is different. And it's just, it's nothing but a boon to developers. These things need to be overturned and struck down in court. And I think that although on a much smaller scale, I think these projects and this law can be very accurately described as Marinchello 2.0. and if you could please get this thing struck down, use your talent to lobby to get these things overturned, and so we don't have to deal with this anymore. Thank you. |
| 01:59:51.87 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Jenny Silva, then Craig Merrilees then Justine Khan. |
| 01:59:59.16 | Jenny Silva | Hello, hi, City Council. Thank you for having this session. As I believe you all know, I was on the Housing Element Advisory Committee, and it's great to see so many new faces that either weren't aware or didn't know about the Housing Element Advisory Committee meetings that we had. And so I wanted to share a little bit of history with the committee with the people that are new to the room. um, On the Housing Development Advisory Committee, we discussed two sites more than any other site. Those were sites 67 and 68 in the Marinship, Carloberg sites. And we voted on those sites at least four times. maybe more, and every time we voted that they should stay on the housing site inventory. We considered all the issues that have been brought up today. whether it would interfere with the working waterfront, whether it would interfere with the artists. And we decided no. It's on the other side of the shipyards from ICB. It's hard to imagine how that would conflict with the ICB. It's a full city block away. It's as close to the shipyards as the FedEx property is, so I don't understand why those sites are a bigger threat than the FedEx site is. It seems to be treated very, very differently. We could build a lot of housing there. We could take care of a lot of our housing element. There is no site that everybody is going to be happy with. That is very clear. This is a site in an area that badly needs reinvestment. It's an old office building. We don't need as many offices here. We need housing. And I know there are some that think we don't need housing. We desperately need housing. a housing crisis. There is a reason why there is nobody between 20 and 30 in this room There is no college grad that can afford to live here. The only one I know was given a house by their parents, um, We are becoming a retirement community here, and we need to build housing that is affordable for younger people if we want to have a vibrant community that is full of energy and fun and great to be in. I believe, and this is just my personal belief, that those sites, 67 and 68, are the most likely sites to be developed within Sausalito. They're flat. They're in a good location. They're walkable to Molly Stones and other things. And I would highly encourage you to reconsider those sites, because they are sites that could be developed. Thanks. |
| 02:02:33.75 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. All right, guys, I'm going to repeat my request that you withhold your applause or your criticism until the end of public comment. Craig Merrilees, then Justine Kahn, then Mark Coleman. |
| 02:02:48.20 | Craig Merrilees | Hello everyone. Thank you, Madam Mayor and members of the council and everyone in the audience. This is a difficult, tedious, almost impossible gordian not to tie and untie and, and we can't make everybody happy. And there are going to be David Miller, And I think that the. David Miller, And I think that the. David Miller, And I think that the. David Miller, And I think that. We've got ourselves into a situation where we're so close at this point. We're really edging close to an agreement that I think will survive legal scrutiny and get us through this impossible situation that our elected representatives put us in. I personally regret not organizing a campaign to go after the two representatives that supported this law and I don't think they briefed the city council on what the implications were. And here now, here it is in our lap and we've got to solve their mess and I don't appreciate that that some of them are gone, some of them are lobbying, some of them are gone. Some of them are lobbying. Um, some of them are no longer in office, but here we are. Um, I want to call your attention to two things. my friend jenny silva who agrees we agree on many things but um approving uh housing immediately adjacent to the working waterfront is a recipe for disaster i just talked with people in bellingham washington and they will tell you among almost every working waterfront in the country that that leads to disaster it leads to limitations that ultimately leads to closure and to gentrification If that's where you want to go, vote that way. But it's not the way to save the working waterfront and finally concerned about Michael Rex's proposal. I think it's dangerous and it needs to be addressed. I don't have the time to do it. Perhaps someone who follows me will. |
| 02:04:51.64 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Thank you. All right. Justine Kahn, then Mark Coleman, then. Andy. Greer. |
| 02:05:02.98 | Justine Kahn | you city council um my name is justine khan i live on coloma street across from mlk park i'm here on behalf of the community at that location to urge City Council to take it off of the plan for development, mostly because we can never get a park back. It's such a vital part of our community. It's a place where my daughter plays. It's a place where I meet with my friends. It's a place that the community uses. And if we vote, even on a small amount of housing inside the park, it is irreversible. I urge city council to listen to all of the people here who have offered up parcels of land to increase their lot numbers and amount that they will build on and take MLK off the table. Thank you so much. That's all I have to say. Thank you. |
| 02:06:00.77 | Jennifer Nimmo | I have to say, |
| 02:06:01.06 | Melissa Blaustein | TODAY. Thank you. |
| 02:06:01.73 | Justine Kahn | Thank you. |
| 02:06:01.79 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:06:01.92 | Justine Kahn | you |
| 02:06:01.97 | Melissa Blaustein | Mark Coleman and then Andy Greer. And that ends my speaker cards for the chambers. If there's anyone else in the chambers that wishes to speak, please turn in a speaker card. We're going to hear from those online next. |
| 02:06:23.37 | Mark Coleman | Okay, so thank you, council members. Beautiful to see so many people here. Um, like everybody, um, I'm also in support of creating low density, low density and low income housing. but this does seem like a pro-developer bill that's really being thrust down our necks. I implore the city to maintain and protect all view restrictions on all areas and sites in the city. I was concerned about hearing that site 52, which is the city hall parking lot, which has already been the point of many rounds of discussion and was advised against by the Planning Commission to be reopened. I hear that's back on the table. I think that's absolutely crazy that we were risk all the various needs that are City Hall has, including parking and places for first responders and whatnot. So I urge you to take Site 52 off the table. I'm also concerned about sites around me and all over the city where there's just ridiculous amount of housing density put on these tiny sites. I'm facing a 0.15 acre site that if the build gets all the bonuses will be up to 14 or 16 units, which of course only means going vertical and blocking neighbors. site that if with the build it gets all the bonuses will be up to 14 or 16 units which of course only means going vertical and blocking neighbors views and really damaging the quality and character of a residential community I also agree with some of the speakers that of the 200 acres in Marinship, as much as I care about a preserving the culture and the history and the working environment there. There does seem to be areas like along Bridgeway, Molly Stones, Kinkovs, et cetera, that seem useful sites for potential development. So I would encourage considering those. Thank you. |
| 02:08:13.26 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. I will call Andy Greer, then Ian Sobieski, who will be speaking as a private individual. |
| 02:08:26.40 | Babette McDougall | It was okay. Thank you. |
| 02:08:28.97 | Melissa Blaustein | I did not. |
| 02:08:32.01 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:08:32.73 | Melissa Blaustein | You can speak to the city manager. I'm not going to have anyone calling out from the audience. It cannot be heard by the people attending this meeting remotely, but you can speak to the city manager. Go ahead, Mr. Greer. |
| 02:08:44.93 | Andy Greer | Hello, thank you. I wasn't going to speak, but just hearing everybody's comments tonight. Thank you. I guess seeing how is this is mandatory for Sausalito and that nobody wants to have development, a large scale development and their neighborhood or right next to them. That we might be able to find maybe like an alternative. I know that there's a lot of buildings in Sausalito that aren't being utilized right now to their capacity. The old cinema on Caledonia Street hasn't been… It's been vacant for years and years. There's the bicycle odyssey. There's the. um, Portofino hotel that's being, that's, um, stripped and I think, uh, uh, is, is ready to have, um, tenants. And I just think that maybe instead of having a new development focused more on the buildings, the infrastructure that we already have and utilizing that. Thank you. |
| 02:10:00.95 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Next up is Ian Sobieski. It appears there's a member of the audience who is objecting to his testifying as a private citizen regarding a matter he will later recuse himself from. So I'm going to ask our city attorney to weigh in and explain why he is allowed to make public comment. |
| 02:10:19.03 | Sergio Rudin | So, I'll briefly address this. Members of the city council have the same rights as any other private individual to speak. Additionally, the recusal requirements and FPPC regulations provide that with respect to a subject matter where a council member is required to recuse, they do expressly retain the right to make public comment and public testimony about issues that relate to their own personal finances and other things that may create a conflict of interest. So, Hopefully that addresses the issue. |
| 02:10:55.28 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. So I will call Ian Sobieski as an individual resident, and then Chris Johnson. |
| 02:11:02.33 | Ian Sobieski | Good evening, City Council. Thanks for hearing from me. I live on Bulkley Street. It's so great to see some of my neighbors on Bulkley and Harrison. The property in question is just inside the circle of potential conflict of interest and try as I might with the FPPC. I still have yet to get a clear answer on whether I could participate. And aside from my own personal risk, if I did participate, the greater danger is if I did from the dais there would be a possibility that that could be used to undermine the legitimacy of the housing element so that would be a cost to the entire community and the safer bet is to make my comment here I hope that the city council will uh Keep the current zone. thing. At ultimate 29. In fact, it should be just taken off the opportunity list site. It is a housing inventory site. Its current zoning allows 29 units. At 49, you could with the density bonus, have more than 100 units. And with a density bonus, of course, the builder is free to not follow our objective design standards. They can build a building that's doesn't fit in much like the renderings that we just saw uh like everyone else here this evening uh this would affect there's also in a way that i think we shouldn't allow and i just think there's a better way uh within the current identification of units this small reduction won't uh cause us to fall out of our arena compliance but also uh in general we shouldn't be doing this with sites around uh sauce leader that are like this we should try to take a different approach or actually engage with the property owners and negotiate community development agreements or a way of them developing their properties in a way that fit in and we shouldn't where we can identify them as arena housing sites so i hope we'll use that tool in the future and i hope the city council will reduce the um the units at Altamir to 29. Thank you. |
| 02:12:56.42 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Chris Johnson. And then city clerk, we will turn to those online. |
| 02:13:06.23 | Chris Johnson | Thank you very much. My name is Chris Johnson. I live 140 Bulkley Avenue, directly across the street from the Altamira site, historic building part of the old part of Sausalito. So I'd begin by just seconding everyone's, anyone who knows that part of town would agree that increasing the density to the proposed max limit would make no sense at all. It's agreed upon that there is space on the site that could be developed, and I support that. And we obviously have a need for increasing our housing. And I would also second the idea that, based on the previous history of Mr. Blatt, who had done previous projects and maxed out his existing ability and did an end run on the town for the use of it, I would bear that in mind. I also support keeping the firehouse at the top of Spencer. I have previously worked with EMS Services as a firefighter and a medic, and I can assure you that the availability of space, even if it's not utilized on a full-time basis for staging of equipment and of inability for other responders to use that as a base to go into servicing areas that are being affected, that would be a critical location. And then my last comment is that when you look at the machine shop, the tennis courts, the space next to the tennis courts, the auto desk buildings that are practically empty, it's really next to a cliff where any height development would have minimal impact. I'm really confused why that's not considered. |
| 02:15:10.21 | Melissa Blaustein | All right, thank you. All right, city clerk. |
| 02:15:13.58 | Walfred Solorzano | THE FAMILY. |
| 02:15:13.75 | Chris Johnson | Thank you. |
| 02:15:13.97 | Walfred Solorzano | Online we have Ed Brekman. |
| 02:15:21.61 | Ed Brakeman | Hello, I'm a Sausalito resident. My name is Ed Brakeman. I am writing with a couple of comments as it relates to some of the technicalities of... the housing element EIR and the amended housing element and the proposed amendments to ordinance 1022. I think based on a legal review it there are some important adjustments that should be made to some drafting throughout the document to make sure that our documentation is as solid and defensible as possible and doesn't leave us vulnerable to future lawsuits. specifically in the final EIR related to the mitigation measure 3.1-1A, I've submitted a written comment as related to what could be done to improve that and make sure that it's enforceable and does not leave us vulnerable. And then secondly, there is inconsistent zoning terminology that's used across the various documents that we are all grappling with tonight, and I urge the staff to clean that up so that it's clear that, for example, MU2985% means the same thing as M2985. in uh, the, uh, ballot initiative. information. If these are more than just typographical errors, then I think uh, that we should be informed about what the differences are among those. And then finally, um, The final EIR should be amended to include appropriate protection for the historic district, particularly as it relates to the monstrous project at 605 Bridgeway. I think nearly every resident in town. |
| 02:17:24.89 | Walfred Solorzano | Next speaker, we have Sandra Bushmaker. |
| 02:17:29.26 | Sandra Bushmaker | Good evening, Council. I realize this has been a long arduous process. I sat through all of the meetings, all of the working group meetings, and all of the Council meetings with regard to the underlying housing element. I've been a resident of Sausalito for 35 years, starting in the late 1970s. And I currently live in Hurricane Gulch in the red area on those new fire maps. First of all, I would like to comment on two areas. One is the North Bridgeway area, which has borne the burden of about 33% of the units in our housing element are there, that's 358 units. I think the Marin ship has dedicated more than its fair share by dedicating the 13 acres north, approximately 13 acres north of of, Harbor Drive. I want to see the preservation of the maritime arts in industrial areas, you And therefore, I do not agree with the repeal of 1022, except as to address the issues in the original housing element. During that process, the stakeholders were briefed, discussed, we had meetings, And the After elaborate discussion, the housing element was approved and those elements were, uh, Adopted. With regard to the Spencer Firehouse, I think the red zone is pretty clear, Times have changed since we closed the the firehouse and we have a climate change obviously has happened. This is especially necessary to remove that from the housing element. because we've got that competing, uh, Removal of the median. on Bridgeway, which is pending. And that will reduce the response time to my area of town, Hurricane Gulch. We also have 200 buffer units, |
| 02:19:32.51 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 02:19:32.53 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 02:19:32.88 | Walfred Solorzano | Next speaker is Sandra. |
| 02:19:43.09 | Melissa Blaustein | Did you say Cassandra? |
| 02:19:44.39 | Walfred Solorzano | I said Sandra. It might be Sandra Bushmaker again, but I don't know. |
| 02:19:51.16 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:19:52.05 | Walfred Solorzano | Sandra, if you can unmute. |
| 02:19:57.39 | Walfred Solorzano | And we'll just go over to the next person, Jack Burrows. |
| 02:20:03.92 | Jack Burrows | Yes, good evening, everyone, and thank you, everyone, for your time. My partner and I moved here to Sausalito three and a half years ago, live directly across from MLK Park. And first I would like to give a second to Michael Rex's suggestion earlier about smart development. Uh, I do realize as someone involved in real estate in San Francisco that, uh, every community has to add housing, uh, to their plan. Um, But doing so in a smart and efficient way, especially when it's a way that requires a ballot measure to pass, I, I, it would, would be in everyone's best interest. to look at the plan and do it in a way that. makes sense for everyone involved. here in Our area of the city, as someone just alluded to, we have, I think it's over 35%, within less than a half of a mile from our residence of the housing burden. And, in a way it feels targeted to our area over here. Um, Unlike most other areas, A lot of the people who live here are working families that have young children who attend the elementary school that is within walking distance of all of our residences here. We also have a private school that abuts MLK Park. it, would severely diminish... Thank you. the property value to develop an area that is a primary attraction to people who are looking to buy here in Northern Sausalito. This is the future of Sausalito with all of the children that are growing up here. So, Again, I second... Michael Rex's suggestions earlier. |
| 02:22:07.52 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:22:09.25 | Walfred Solorzano | Next person is Sam Chase. |
| 02:22:12.60 | Melissa Blaustein | Welcome, Sam. |
| 02:22:19.78 | Walfred Solorzano | You can unmute yourself. |
| 02:22:25.50 | Walfred Solorzano | Okay, we'll go with Evan, Jane, Chris. Yeah. We got about a dozen. |
| 02:22:33.36 | Unknown | Yes, good evening city council members I appreciate everybody's efforts and the amazing amount of community involvement that I have seen. I'm trying to find a solution to the housing issues here in Sausalito. I'd like to start Um, Mm-hmm. by saying that I support a lower number of housing units in the Altamira site. I agree that the congestion issues and the character of the streets around there and everything would be affected by placing more than that number of units. As for MLK Park, I just want to know why that site is even being considered. There seem to be a number of other sites, most notably, I was just looking at the documents, 2200 marine ship is a big vacant lot. It's flat and it seems prime for development. You could put a good number of units there. I just want to know if that has actually been taken off the list of consideration. as many other sites in the MarinShip that are parallel to Bridgeway. We do not want to interfere with the working part of MarinShip. I agree that is a really, really bad thing to do. We wouldn't go anywhere near the waterfront. Leave that alone. But there are sites that are available and that should be considered. Finally, I would like to advocate for the restoration, the recommission of the Spencer Avenue Firehouse. We know that this was decommissioned in 2010. And as somebody pointed out earlier, conditions have changed greatly since 2010. The structure is still intact, but has been unoccupied and left to decay since. This is unacceptable. Some have suggested its conversion to housing, but this is both impractical and unrealistic. Californians have repeatedly supported ballot |
| 02:24:36.50 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. We'll try it with Sam Chase again. |
| 02:24:43.67 | Peter Streitman | Hello. Thank you. |
| 02:24:44.68 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes. |
| 02:24:45.02 | Peter Streitman | Thank you. |
| 02:24:45.51 | Walfred Solorzano | No. |
| 02:24:45.58 | Melissa Blaustein | Hello. |
| 02:24:45.97 | Sam Chase | Thank you. |
| 02:24:45.98 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. you |
| 02:24:46.93 | Sam Chase | talk. |
| 02:24:47.38 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes, we hear you. |
| 02:24:48.48 | Sam Chase | Okay. Welcome. Sam Chase, Bonita Street resident. I do support keeping the Altamira site to 29 units. I also strongly request that you include the Spencer Firehouse in the core housing plan, because of the difficulty in assessing what can be built there. I think that leaving it in the core plan will allow developers will attract more developers to consider. alternatives for housing there. And, That site potentially has the ability to house over 100 units in my opinion. It, It's an ideal fit for high density housing near mass transit. Ah, yet, uh, could be built with fire resistant materials. It could certainly save itself as well as potentially block down, downslope residents. Um, So it's also pretty much for most residents, it's out of sight, out of mind. It's not going to block any views, even in the Wolfback Ridge area. And it really could make a huge dent in the housing and take some. pressure off the Marin ship as well as Altamira. these concerns about fire You know, Nobody's talking about prevention. Everybody's talking about what do we do when there's a fire? Well, in my opinion, There needs to be more prevention with tree thinning, and controlled burns to the undergrowth And we could also consider, work with the GGNRA and talk about potentially adding some fire hydrants on the west side of the freeway. Also, the Marin Fire Department, Marin City Fire Department, the Southern |
| 02:26:51.14 | Walfred Solorzano | Next person is Lisa. |
| 02:26:56.02 | Lisa Maldonado | Hello, can you hear me? |
| 02:26:57.84 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes. |
| 02:26:59.02 | Lisa Maldonado | Hi, my name is Lisa Maldonado and I live in Whiskey Springs. And I wanted to support the lowering of the number of units in MLK parks. but also raise questions about the number of units in one harbor drive. I'm concerned about congestion in that area, which is already considerable. and wanted to make sure that the city is considering Thank you. distributing the units in a smarter way. across Sausalito, like other residents have already suggested. |
| 02:27:43.22 | Walfred Solorzano | Okay, thank you. Thanks. Next person is Charles Angle. |
| 02:27:52.99 | Charles Rangel | Hi, this is Charles Rangel and I'm supporting everything that Stacey Nemo has said previously. Um, I am a resident around MLK park, uh, and I'm one of a rarity. I have a young family and a growing family and MLK park is a gem in our community. We go there often and building such high density or building any construction there would be a huge testament to our community. and affect us all. Thank you. |
| 02:28:20.82 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:28:22.47 | Walfred Solorzano | Next speaker is Judith Wetter. |
| 02:28:33.35 | Judith Wetter | Good evening. I'm a 30-year resident on Atwood and Bulkley Avenue. As another resident mentioned earlier, I remember in the last 10 years when three houses being constructed just north of bulk Lee at wood and Harrison triggered a hill collapse. And I also remember the house that slid down off its foundation on Sausalito Boulevard in 2019 taking its owner down with it. designating sites 201 at 605 Bridgeway and 202 at the Altamira for housing at any scale. for our South waterfront and hills is preposterous and dangerous. We all know this. Please remove both these sites from the list of opportunity sites. Also, I drive up and down Spencer regularly to access the freeway housing project at the side of the Spencer firehouse would cut off. Any safe escape from the fires and mudslides that threaten Sausalito please remove this site also as an opportunity site and restore the Spencer firehouse to a functioning firehouse Thank you. |
| 02:29:43.03 | Walfred Solorzano | Next speaker, we have Brian O'Neill. |
| 02:29:49.56 | Brian O'Neill | Brian O' Good evening, my name is Brian O'Neill I represent Yes in My Backyard and Willie's LLC, both of which have submitted substantive comments on the amended housing element. But I only want to address the procedural issues that make it very difficult to provide meaningful analysis and comment. It's unclear what version of the draft amendment was sent to HCD on January 23. There's been no mention in any of the meetings or staff reports that a draft was ever sent to HCD. We only found out through HCD's compliance website. But if the city wants to adopt anything other than the exact version that was sent to HCD on January 23rd, that version must be made available for public comment for at least seven days, resubmitted to HCD for review and comment before adoption. Thank you. |
| 02:30:40.90 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:30:41.67 | Walfred Solorzano | Next speaker is Daniel T. |
| 02:30:50.11 | Dan Chagru | Hello. Oh, hello. Hello. Can you hear me? |
| 02:30:55.02 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes. |
| 02:30:55.80 | Dan Chagru | Oh, okay. Hello, Mayor Cox and city council members. Dan Chagru, I would like to thank all of you for your hard work and your dedication to Sausalito. My name is Dan Chagru and I have lived in town for most of my life. I would like to voice my support for affordable housing and for complying with the state housing requirements. I also support preserving the gift by protecting the historic district. I also support maintaining the long standing policy of respecting and protecting the views of our fellow citizens. But most of all, I support working together as a community so that collectively we have a voice in shaping the future of Sausalito. By working with developers and with architects and with sensitivity to the neighbors that will be impacted by these new housing projects, we can better navigate through these troubled waters. With that in mind, please vote to reduce the density at Altamira site to 29. units per acre and also maintain the proposed a 605 Bridgeway condo project to 29 units per acre. Thank you very much. |
| 02:32:05.44 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:32:07.01 | Walfred Solorzano | Next speaker is Barbara Brown. |
| 02:32:09.61 | Ed Brakeman | Thank you. |
| 02:32:09.62 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:32:09.86 | Ed Brakeman | Thank you. |
| 02:32:18.86 | Walfred Solorzano | Barbara? |
| 02:32:24.95 | Walfred Solorzano | Okay, we'll go over to the next speaker. We'll go to Jonathan Hutchinson. |
| 02:32:40.56 | Walfred Solorzano | Jonathan. |
| 02:32:41.03 | Jonathan Hutchinson | Thank you. |
| 02:32:41.08 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 02:32:42.77 | Unknown | Amen. Here you go. |
| 02:32:44.59 | Jonathan Hutchinson | Good evening, everybody. Jonathan Hutchinson. Second generation Sassolitan. I live at 107 Bulkley. I'd just like to add my voice to the chorus of people asking questions about the proposed density at Altamira. I attended the Planning Commission meeting last week and the commissioners briefly explored the idea of H-29 on that site, conceding that with density bonuses, the project would likely be 60 units. Our consultant chimed in that, well, she discouraged that approach, given that we don't get any credit for what's actually built, only for what's in the housing element. Additional evidence that this whole process is fundamentally flawed. So at that point, I felt like the Planning Commission capitulated. So it's now on the City Council to correct this error. Let's be clear, at age 49 with density bonuses, we're talking about 100 unit developments on a roughly one acre site on an extremely steep hillside with serious issues of current infrastructure. |
| 02:33:04.86 | Anthony Hay | Commissioners. |
| 02:34:10.97 | Jonathan Hutchinson | Others have already spoken about how disproportionate the bulk and mass of that project might be. I'll use my time to talk about some of the practical implications. Bulkley is already a regular standoff between two cars head to head. It barely passes two cars. Adding an additional 200 cars to Harrison, Bulkley, just seems unwise at best. And furthermore, I'm not convinced our electrical infrastructure or sewer infrastructure |
| 02:34:46.65 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 02:34:46.66 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:34:47.19 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Next speaker is Annie Ustavinis. |
| 02:34:53.68 | Annie Ustavinis | Good evening, Mayor Cox and City Council members. Thank you for your work and your time. 30 years ago, I moved to Sausalito as a renter, and two years later, I was given the blessing by chance to buy the duplex at 635 Main Street where I still live. A lot of the charm of Sausalito for me is our historic district. Our protection of views the variety of home sizes and styles and the types of properties proximity to the water and open spaces, please know that i'm well aware that our city county and state need more housing. I'm not adverse to development. But what I don't understand is any plan that would negatively impact views and therefore the value of properties, any plan that would allow oversized buildings that are out of character for our city. We have sites in Sausalito that can handle development at a reasonable size. But more than anything, I'm gravely concerned about protecting the safety of our community. Approving large scale building in a city that already has limited access for emergency vehicles on our narrow winding streets is hugely problematic. The new CAL FIRE maps show much of our city in high fire danger. And I have a second home, a condo and office, which allow me to work in Los Angeles County. There I've been impacted by the recent fires with toxic air that's likely going to fuel a cancer bloom. Hundreds of. People I know have their homes, businesses, schools, and communities lost. Please do not approve a plan that will impact our safety and property values. We have spaces within the city that deserve to be utilized and improved. Thank you very much. |
| 02:36:30.83 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:36:33.68 | Walfred Solorzano | Next speaker we have is Tom Hoover. |
| 02:36:37.65 | Melissa Blaustein | I didn't understand the name. Tom, can you hear me? |
| 02:36:39.96 | Tom Hoover | I'm not. |
| 02:36:41.36 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay. Hi, Tom. |
| 02:36:43.25 | Tom Hoover | Can you hear me? |
| 02:36:44.77 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes, we do. |
| 02:36:45.48 | Tom Hoover | Thank you. Okay, good. I've noted down a couple of quick things that I wanted to say. And I live at Galilee Harbor. I have lived and worked in Sausalito since the Ides of August 1968. I have worked with the Historical Society since 1981. I have also worked on the Landmarks Board, And I helped with the documentation of the historic district. It is obvious that I am going to encourage you to. preserve the historic district and to preserve Thank you. the landmarks list and all of the buildings because I've been obviously tied up in it. And so I've learned Then in the Historical Society, I've served on the board. I am now honored as an as a emeritus and as a Ambassador. So I want us to preserve our historic heritage, which leads me to quickly note that building that they want to build there at the corner of, near the corner of Princess and Bridgeway. Back in the back in the 80s, when we were fighting and trying to get things to save Sausalito was referred to as the monocleization of Sausalito. That structure, as it has been given forth, is a monocleization and there should be no more than a two story structure allowed there. She should not be allowed to wreck the city. We fought. We fought for 10 years back then. So I wanted to note that. This is my opposition to that project. And I wanted to note also that I would really support Rebuilding and paying attention to the firehouse as a lady just noted about the fire that happened down south, we almost had that happened during the great fires. back in when it was 2018 or so, and not being able to get people I mean, to have, proper facilities up there to get to the other side and to try and stop any fires that would start. |
| 02:38:45.01 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 02:38:45.34 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:38:45.46 | Walfred Solorzano | you Next speaker is Sarah Fisk. |
| 02:38:55.17 | Sarah Fisk | Hi, thanks for listening. I just wanted to voice some concerns around two things. The first would be around MLK Park site number 84. If you take an aerial view of Sausalito and you look at the amount of green space, green public space for our city, it's tiny. We don't have anywhere to go. And We are planning on increasing the population of our town and you're cutting into a public park. Now, this is an area that We have a lot of community events at flea markets, sporting events, and I understand that the council has tried to condense or, you know, cut back on the amount of space in this area, but it's really going to change the look and the feel and the vibe of our park. You know, cutting into a public park should be at last resort, I implore you, to consider Marin Schiff way. There is plenty of space. There's buildings that could be renovated. You could, you know, Establish a whole new neighborhood for Sausalito. And I feel like this is just an opportunity that's being tossed aside. It needs to be vetted. It needs to be clear why this site is being passed over instead of one of our public green spaces. Thank you. |
| 02:40:19.25 | Sarah Fisk | City Clerk. |
| 02:40:19.81 | Walfred Solorzano | Next speaker from the phone. |
| 02:40:29.68 | Walfred Solorzano | Impressed starting that. Okay. Thank you. |
| 02:40:32.65 | Melissa Blaustein | Are you able to identify anything about the phone? |
| 02:40:35.33 | Walfred Solorzano | Okay, 415 number, last two numbers. Okay, there we go. |
| 02:40:37.80 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes, that's the... |
| 02:40:40.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:40:40.11 | Melissa Blaustein | Can you hear me? Yes. |
| 02:40:42.10 | Unknown | Great. I opposed to city hall parking lot. This is a charming quiet historical neighborhood and our north our neighbors have purchased properties based on this lifestyle and quality of life. And our property values and property taxes that we pay are reflective of that. Squeezing in a high density building of this kind does not fit with the character of this quaint neighborhood. |
| 02:40:56.24 | Anthony Hay | AND I THINK IT'S A GOOD |
| 02:41:01.15 | Unknown | an increase of 50 cars, is gonna dramatically impact our ability to find parking as it's already difficult. And where are the seniors going to park? The parking lot is full every day. And shouldn't we be protecting them? Additionally, the increase of traffic is going to increase noise pollution and impact our quality of life. All of these things will certainly lower property values Who's going to pay for that? I feel like we're being asked to shoulder the economic burden for the neighborhood. There are other alternatives like MarinShip that are more suitable and compatible for density and can provide a lovely place to live so close to the water and revitalize a whole new area. |
| 02:41:34.40 | Anthony Hay | READY. |
| 02:41:36.81 | Unknown | We could utilize an RV lot. another empty lot or office building while still preserving historical buildings and working waterfronts for artists and builders. and mitigate the loss of property values and quality of life for our neighbors. I urge you to take City Hall and the lot across the street off the list. Thank you. |
| 02:41:52.01 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:41:55.00 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker is Jeffrey. |
| 02:42:02.07 | Walfred Solorzano | going to mute yourself. |
| 02:42:03.44 | Jeffrey Chase | Uh-oh, there you go. Hi, I am... I'm just going to reiterate what Sarah Fisk just said. She stole my thunder. I want to point out the value of the open space of MLK 84. I'm a 20 year resident of Whiskey Springs, And I believe, as Michael Rex said, in his idea about the park, but There are plenty of spaces. I watch Marinship, or excuse me, I watch MLK Park from my back patio every day. It's constantly populated by local citizens having fun. And I think it's our last great open space in Sausalito. And we should make sure that it stays that way. And thank you for all of your hard work. |
| 02:43:11.12 | Barbara Brown | Thank you. City clerk. |
| 02:43:14.15 | Walfred Solorzano | Next speaker is Barbara Brown. |
| 02:43:22.55 | Walfred Solorzano | If you can unmute yourself. |
| 02:43:31.27 | Walfred Solorzano | All right, we'll go to... Barbara? |
| 02:43:39.04 | Walfred Solorzano | Okay, well... We'll go with John. |
| 02:43:43.69 | Melissa Blaustein | City Clerk, that's the second time with Barbara Brown. Will you reach out to her and see if you can help resolve her issues? |
| 02:43:49.99 | Walfred Solorzano | Okay. Thank you. |
| 02:43:51.76 | John de Ray | John. hi uh thank you city council for all your work i wanted to address this is john de ray i wanted to address um a proposal that i saw in an email to city council by a non-resident local architect craig merrily's mentioned this the proposal is to change the ballot initiative on the agenda for the 1022 fair traffic initiative. It essentially includes almost every property in the industrial and commercial zone throughout the city, but especially in the marineship. It would bypass the process by using a development agreement for housing projects. It would result in approved housing zoning above and beyond the 724 units and 197 unit buffer. Please recall during the housing element process in 2022 1300 people signed the petition that requested no housing adjacent to the working waterfront. I believe that should have more sway than the local architect. This proposal stipulates that the development agreement must not conflict with existing or maritime uses. How easy would it be to shut down those industrial and maritime businesses prior to any development agreement proposal? Keep also in mind when you talk about underutilized Marineship flight storage office vacancy, realize that this is planned obsolescence that's been going on for a long time, and it's been taking potential uh, taxes away from the city. Um, so I also wanted to comment that there are 13, 13 to 15 acres in the north, or in ship that can still use plenty of housing. Uh, there's parcels there that have not been specified. If we do go down the path, |
| 02:45:38.48 | Anthony Hay | Thank you. |
| 02:45:46.51 | John de Ray | of putting more housing in the marineship with this new proposal. I think you would risk passing this adjustment to the- Thank you. |
| 02:45:57.63 | Sarah Fisk | Thank you. |
| 02:46:01.11 | John de Ray | Thank you. |
| 02:46:01.16 | Walfred Solorzano | And Linda Farch. |
| 02:46:06.05 | Linda Fudge | Hi, Linda Fudge, resident Lido. I want to speak to you about fair housing and equity. Everyone tonight is arguing for no change in their neighborhoods. |
| 02:46:13.81 | Anthony Hay | Um, |
| 02:46:18.27 | Linda Fudge | The only way to create equity. is to have development in all areas of town. The Bridgeway corridor and its buffers around traverses the entire city. It is the main evacuation route. It is where housing should be built. Save the neighborhood, save MLK Park, save the firehouse, and save the working waterfront. Don't downs on the one area, Bridgeway, which was designed for density. Put density where the city was designed to accommodate it. Thank you. |
| 02:46:50.58 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:46:51.21 | Walfred Solorzano | No more further public comment. |
| 02:46:52.56 | Melissa Blaustein | Have you tried Barber Bound again? |
| 02:46:54.52 | Walfred Solorzano | let me see Barbara all right Barbara try |
| 02:47:07.75 | Melissa Blaustein | Can you admit her to the meeting, Wolfram? |
| 02:47:10.48 | Walfred Solorzano | She's in the meeting. I'm asking her to unmute. |
| 02:47:15.41 | Barbara Brown | Okay, can you hear me? Yes, we hear you. |
| 02:47:17.69 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:47:19.88 | Barbara Brown | I'm also on the phone, so I'll hang up the phone if you hear me on the computer. Okay, so I'm so sorry about that. So thank you so much for all of your hard work and also for helping me get on the meeting today. So as most of you know, I'm an architect in town. My husband and I own a five unit apartment building. And one of our, we live in one of our apartments Our apartments are directly between the two southern large opportunity sites. So we're on Bulkley between Princess and Excelsior. And it's a very vibrant, active neighborhood full of condos and apartments. And the zoning there The density is basically 29 per acre. We did an average of the neighborhood and it's, you know, just around that number, which is no surprise because that's what R3 allows. And many of the historic properties where we live don't even have adequate off street parking. I, do advocate responsible housing in our neighborhood, but still preserving our precious historic district and protecting our cherished views. I urge the city to cap the density to 29 units per acre, which is basically R3, for both of those large southern opportunity sites, my preference would be to take them off as opportunity sites because of the threat of bonus densities. I also... please ask you to amend the outdated 10-22 so we could, have some responsible development in our underutilized marineship areas. negotiated development |
| 02:49:20.55 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you, Barbara. |
| 02:49:21.48 | Walfred Solorzano | No more further public speaking. |
| 02:49:22.63 | Melissa Blaustein | All right, we're going to close public comment. It is 6.54 p.m. We are going to adjourn back to closed session and take a short dinner break. When would you all like to return, given the deliberations in front of us tonight? Okay, so we're going to take 30 minutes. We'll return at 7.25 p.m. Thank you all for being here. |
| 02:49:52.61 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah. Can you give me two more slips? Yeah. Already? Yeah, we're off. The city attorney is present. |
| 02:50:13.07 | Walfred Solorzano | and Beth Thompson's present. |
| 02:50:28.88 | Unknown | That's a great book. What is it called? Bird, bird, bird? |
| 02:50:31.11 | Melissa Blaustein | What is it called? Bird, bird, bird? |
| 02:50:32.58 | Melissa Blaustein | for family life. |
| 02:50:33.89 | Unknown | you |
| 02:50:33.96 | Melissa Blaustein | you |
| 02:50:33.98 | Judith Wetter | Thank you. All right. Wonderful author. |
| 02:50:34.48 | Melissa Blaustein | All right. |
| 02:50:36.25 | Judith Wetter | Thank you. |
| 02:50:36.29 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:50:36.42 | Judith Wetter | Thank you. |
| 02:50:36.44 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:50:37.06 | Judith Wetter | Sorry. |
| 02:50:38.75 | Melissa Blaustein | Karen Hollweg, Okay, are we back on Okay, we are resuming we conducted we finalized our closed session discussion and there are no reportable actions, and so we will now resume our discussion of business item. 1A. And as promised during our discussion in front of many, many members of the public, and again, thank you all so much for participating. Um, Actually, before I do that, I'm going to announce, we discovered that someone left a book and a phone in the chambers. underneath a black chair. And the book is entitled Bird, Bird, Bird. |
| 02:51:24.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:51:24.87 | Melissa Blaustein | Oh, bird by bird. And so the city manager is going to take custody of that and we will keep it locked up in his office if no one comes during the rest of this evening to claim it. Why don't you take it, city managers, so that whoever comes has to describe it to you, so it's not just sitting out there? So whoever comes has to actually describe to you what it is that... they lift. Okay, so I'm going to start off We heard discussion this evening regarding the amended housing element, which was transmitted to HCD, Housing and Community Development Department, in January. of 2024, sorry, of 2025, and the revised amended housing element that was revised by city staff to address some of the comments from the city council at its February, study session. I move we work with the amended housing element and not the modified amended housing element. |
| 02:52:32.24 | Jill Hoffman | He'll move. |
| 02:52:33.47 | Melissa Blaustein | So that's a second. |
| 02:52:34.82 | Jill Hoffman | Oh, sorry. |
| 02:52:35.31 | Melissa Blaustein | And so is there any discussion on that? All right, all in favor? I I okay that motion carries unanimously we will be using the amended |
| 02:52:41.18 | Unknown | I. Thank you. |
| 02:52:47.22 | Melissa Blaustein | housing element that has already been transmitted to HCD. So Beth. the first order of business for you is to help us migrate from the revised amended housing element, those programs that we would like to migrate to ensure that our housing element is strong. One of those programs has to do with program four in the revised amended housing element, which has language regarding what happens if one of our ballot initiatives does not pass. Can you refer us to that language, please? |
| 02:53:26.29 | Beth Thompson | Sure. So that is on page one of the modified amended housing element, and it basically says Due to the need for ballot measures to accommodate the full arena, there is a need for flexibility in developing the city's approach to accommodate the arena recognizing this there are multiple potential outcomes to accommodate the arena. If there is a shortage to accommodate the arena, And it goes on to discuss the required minimum density on Site 202 and addressing the City Hall and fire station sites. So what we would do is would not be to include that specific language, but to rather say if there is a shortage to accommodate the arena, |
| 02:54:08.31 | Unknown | The city was- |
| 02:54:08.56 | Beth Thompson | The city will identify additional sites to be rezoned to accommodate the RHNA in accordance with government code section 65583.2H,1. paragraphs eight to one. |
| 02:54:18.55 | Melissa Blaustein | paragraphs eight to one. And then not include the rest of that paragraph and start with the next, um, paragraph. |
| 02:54:26.97 | Beth Thompson | Sites to be considered shall include sites that are city controlled or a minimum of 0.5 acres and either vacant or meet the methodology and criteria for non vacant sites provided a background report beginning on page HBR dash 116. |
| 02:54:43.67 | Melissa Blaustein | And then do we want to refer to the RHNA table? In the next paragraph. No, I don't think we need to. |
| 02:54:50.88 | Beth Thompson | I think not because you're going to come up with a new scenario and a whole new site. So yes, I think it's just those changes. |
| 02:54:57.85 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Okay, and then I would like to add to that language a direction that we also investigate the inclusion of additional sites for SB9 and ADU sites accompanied by an incentive program to incentivize use of those sites. So that is my motion that we add this language on page one of the modified amended housing element that beth just quoted together with my language regarding sb nine and adu sites to the amended housing element that is now our working document Mayor. Hold on. I'm looking for a second and then we can discuss. |
| 02:55:44.10 | Anthony Hay | A second. |
| 02:55:45.22 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, I have a motion and a second. |
| 02:55:47.92 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. I was wondering if we wanted to do a friendly amendment or modify the language. Sure. Because we've already got SB. We have nine and 80s in our housing already. And given the number that we just talked about, 945 additional SB nine lots, or at least we have nine lots in addition to that, lot splits on top of that with ADU potential on top of that. In addition to the ADU, and SBN onions we already have. What if we want to do an order of percentage of that, so with a target. |
| 02:56:20.98 | Melissa Blaustein | I think I so you can make a separate motion. I would prefer not to change my motion because we don't yet know which ballot initiative might not pass. And therefore what the delta is that is needed to be accommodated by those sites. So I'd rather keep it to just investigate inclusion of additional SB 9 and ADU sites. |
| 02:56:40.55 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, I just don't want to be, I just don't want us to, you know, self-regulate the full exploration of this. Do you have a thought on that? |
| 02:56:51.32 | Jill Hoffman | Exactly. I think your suggestion to try to be specific. I am on. Maybe not speaking directly. I think it's better to wait until we get the comments from HCD and then we can make a more specific targeted adjustment to HCD. |
| 02:56:55.96 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:56:59.25 | Heather Wilcoxon | There you go. Sorry. |
| 02:57:09.41 | Jill Hoffman | What do we have to do? |
| 02:57:09.46 | Jill Hoffman | What do we have to do? Sorry, would we have to go back to HCD if we add |
| 02:57:14.08 | Jill Hoffman | We would explain more. I think there's an opportunity for us to explain in more detail what our target would be to make up for any... |
| 02:57:23.51 | Jill Hoffman | Well, let me ask this to Beth. She was leaning forward with her lips possibly moving. Yes. |
| 02:57:29.41 | Beth Thompson | I have a, I think it will be very difficult to convince HCD that you could feasibly increase your ADU and SB9 numbers. You currently have about 116 projected ADU and SB9 units in total, plus another 18 ADUs that were in process. Amy Quinton, Ph.D.: Opening that up your I don't think you're going to get more units out of that I quickly looked at Ross's housing element which did use some sb nine units to address where they had a shortfall they got about 20 units they went through a really complicated process. Amy Quinton, Ph.D.: And I think if we apply that to Sausalito you're not you're not going to get more than the 50 something that we had assumed. So. I would leave the language and investigate and not give yourselves a number that when we submit to HCD, they balk at. And then if you have a shortfall and you find capacity for more than that's great. |
| 02:58:22.66 | Jill Hoffman | I'm, |
| 02:58:22.97 | Melissa Blaustein | Months. |
| 02:58:23.81 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:58:23.83 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you for that explanation. I appreciate that. And so are we suggesting we not include the |
| 02:58:24.87 | Beth Thompson | I appreciate that. |
| 02:58:25.46 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:58:29.31 | Melissa Blaustein | SB9 and ADU language in the motion. I say include it. I'm including it. Okay. So there's a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. That motion carries five zero. All right, next, I will take general overview comments in response to what your comments are saying. your review of the staff report, I do want to mention for benefit of the public that We conducted a study session on these matters in early February. We have, we were provided by staff a, 1170 page page. staff report and additional materials regarding the matters that we are considering tonight. We have reviewed significant written public comment and we've listened to a number of folks tonight. And so preliminarily, we're gonna set our clock for three minutes a piece and I'm inviting general comments from council members that do not involve specific sites, but may address some of the issues that you reviewed or that you heard this evening. And from there, we will then move on to consideration of specific sites. So who would like to lead off? |
| 02:59:55.27 | Melissa Blaustein | I had, again, I'm Councilmember Blaustein. I'm happy to. Quick on the draw. |
| 02:59:58.43 | Melissa Blaustein | Happy to speak. |
| 02:59:59.56 | Melissa Blaustein | Sure. Yeah. So I, again, really want to thank all of the members of the public who joined us this evening and who have been very actively engaging with us on this critical conversation about what the future of our community looks like and will continue to look like. And at our last hearing, I mentioned, and I'll share again, you know, I'm a renter, so I'm keenly aware of the shortage of housing. And when you look at the numbers in our housing element and you consider that, I think I mentioned last time the number was something like 60% of our renters are living essentially beyond their means at the cost of housing. And the reason that the state has mandated us to take these steps, whether or not we necessarily like them or feel that the exact numbers are correct, is because we want to increase the opportunities for folks to be able to enjoy and live in Sausalito because the one thing we can all agree on here, everyone who comes to these meetings and who engages with us is, how special this place is and how lucky we are to live here. And with that in mind, when I think about the tough decisions that we have to make together tonight as a city council and as a community. I think about our teachers, our firefighters, our city workers who have maybe not had the opportunity yet to live in our community and have been serving our community for a long time. And I think about my friends who I grew up with. You know, I grew up here. I went to Redwood High School. My parents are in Mill Valley and how hard it is for so many of us to be able to ever have the dream of living, affording a home here and building our own families here because of the issues associated with the larger statewide housing crisis. And I'm not suggesting that we're going to solve it from the dais tonight or here in Sausalito, but I just like to remind folks that that's how we got to where we are. And that's why we're thinking about how can we create more housing opportunities. And with that in mind, I am someone who consistently doesn't say no to a housing site. You'll always see me finding some way to put some sort of housing somewhere that makes sense. But I think we have to do that a little bit everywhere, as we've all shared, and we have to have our fair share of housing across our community. So with that in mind, I think you'll see from my discussion on each of the respective sites that I've really taken into consideration what we've heard, where we've heard comment about opportunities that make sense, where we might reduce some housing numbers, increase some others to really have more of a fair share across the community. Because as we continue to address these affordability challenges, and as we continue to address the challenges from the state, and think about what kind of community we want to be, especially with what we're seeing what's happening nationally. I think this is an opportunity for us as a community to really show up and demonstrate that we are committed to creating more housing opportunities, and we're going to do it collaboratively. And so that's what you'll hear from the diocese. this evening for me, and I think it will be no surprise that I don't say no to any specific sites, but I have really heard your comments about thinking about how much goes where and what that looks like. So I look forward to a conversation with my colleagues about that. |
| 03:02:55.77 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:02:56.38 | Melissa Blaustein | Great. |
| 03:02:56.97 | Melissa Blaustein | way to start us off. Who's next? |
| 03:02:59.24 | Jill Hoffman | I'll jump on. Vice Mayor. Yes, thank you. And I think what Council Member Blaustein suggested about affirmatively seeking housing and distributing fairly are good comments. I would add that we want to make sure the housing is located in places that make sense and don't have negative impacts on the immediate surrounding area. And in particular, there are sites that are on very narrow streets, heavily wooded, heavily congested, and we all know from the recent fires, we need to be more sensitive to the difficulties that housing in those areas will present us. And I don't think that was taken into account as this housing element was developed. |
| 03:02:59.80 | Melissa Blaustein | Vice mayor. |
| 03:03:38.53 | Jill Hoffman | It certainly wasn't taken into account by the state legislature, And we are left to try to pick up the pieces and make sense of it going forward. That means it's very challenging. And I have to say, we've gotten 70, I believe it's 70, maybe 60 something comments here. And I've gotten hundreds through electronic means. I've read as many as I can. And I apologize now for not getting back to all of you, each of you. who've made largely very intelligent suggestions. They don't all agree. They don't all mesh. but I have to compliment people for for getting it, for seeing the issues clearly, and for stating very clearly what their preferences are and why. And I really appreciate that now and going forward, because we're not out of this now. We're going to face a new housing element before we know it, and who knows what the state is going to do to us or for us or against us going forward. I just want to also say that tonight we're going to try to focus very clearly on those few things that we believe we have the authority to do tonight because it's been satisfactorily addressed through the CEQA process. We have an EIR pending. There are many things that I would like to see done that we can't do tonight. We can't really address the marine ship other than the sites north of Harbor Drive. Why? Because they haven't been adequately analyzed under CEQA. So to those people who suggest we take a closer look at portions of the marine ship that may be suitable for housing, we can't tonight add anything other than what's already been identified. So that's just one area where I think we will save that for a future day, and there will be a discussion, and I'm guessing it will be very robust. Similarly, there's a suggestion about visitability, if I've got that right. That may require an ordinance and some things that we'll have to also save for a future day. However, there is, without getting very specific, there is one suggestion related to a senior overlay at a particular site. I think we can at least discuss that later at the appropriate time. So having said that, I just want to compliment again the suggestions that have been made, and they will be taken seriously. Thank you. |
| 03:06:02.27 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 03:06:06.67 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. So we've been working on this since 2021, 2022 on this plan, and this is an adjustment of that plan that we had finally approved in January of 2020. Well, we approved it as a council in January of 2023, and it was approved by the state in April of 2023. And so this overall plan was heavily negotiated, lots and lots of public comment leading up to our approval in January 2023 and the state's approval of it in April of 2023. So that's why a lot of these sites, when we say there was a lot of discussion, there was a lot of negotiation, there was a lot of substantial public input back in 2023, that's what we're referring to. And so, you know, And they were good discussions back then, and supported by many, many members of the community. And many members of the community worked in good faith on those discussions as we move forward through that process. You know, no one was really particularly happy or pleased with the number that we got from the state of 724. I don't think anybody thinks that a town of our size would be adequately able to absorb that. We'll see as we move forward. and our infrastructure of how to absorb those numbers. I mean, that was one of the comments actually from the planning commission Um, How do we absorb that and what infrastructure is going to be in place? as we build these numbers, particularly as they're grouped on the north end of town. It's pretty easy to look. at the site and frankly the people that that have commented on that have a good point i mean a lot of the the impact of the majority of those uh units are grouped uh on the north end of town and so that's pretty apparent just from looking at the map so um i and i do take that to heart um i'm i'm pleased that we've uh looks you know we've taken at least city hall and uh spencer out of the plan uh tonight or at least out of the housing element um and i think that was the right thing to do based on the public comment and um the action that we took in 2023 i think that was the right thing to do back then i think that's the right thing to do do tonight. Certainly with regard to the Spencer Firehouse. So I'm as we move forward through this. It's a tough thing, but it's something we need to do for our town. I'm also excited that we're going to have some more housing. I mean, I think we also agree that we do need more housing, and I'm They're, you know, it's funny, it's like opportunity sites, but they actually are opportunities. They're opportunities for our town, and they're opportunities for our community, and they're opportunities for people that need to work and live here in Sausalito. So hopefully we can come together with a comprehensive plan. Thank you. |
| 03:09:09.95 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:09:10.21 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:09:10.41 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:09:10.43 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:09:12.23 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, thank you, Mayor. I don't want to be a downer. I'm not feeling as good. We're going to have to get through this because the threat of not doing it right is builder's remedy, and that means losing zoning control over... |
| 03:09:13.18 | Jill Hoffman | I'm not sure. |
| 03:09:23.20 | Ian Sobieski | housing sites and people can build a version of anything they want that doesn't fit in with the community at scale, look and feel, and otherwise. So we have to stay out of Builder's Remedy and comply with the law. But I voted against the housing consultant process when I first joined city council, and I didn't have the courage in my convictions back then, but it's playing out in a way that is just suboptimal for the community. A lot of people here showed up despite our multi-year open process, only learning about this recently. And it's just no way to design our... town to preserve our small town character and our working waterfront and and do an urban plan um we had a chance to do an urban plan here uh in may of 2023 uh and by a narrow vote we didn't take that step forward i hope we will bring that back straight away because it's never too late to start doing things in a better way and i think here tonight we're seeing a lot of feedback from people that want to see it in a better way there There are people concerned about things happening near them, not because they're against housing. It's because the thing near to them is a gray box. It is of uncertain scale. If the owner uses their rights to have their density bonus, it can be a monstrosity. If they're like Mr. Madden and they are committed to something of modest scale, then perhaps it'll be welcome. And our process doesn't allow that. And I hope we will, in parallel with the state laws, try to engage on a process that does. I can't feel super great about housing in MLK Park or in in the fire station or the city hall parking lot when this is our partnership tennis courts when we just have an empty lot like this in town. And when, you know, I've shown this before, when we walk down this street, There is a hillside. far away from the water. within 100 yards of bridgeway, a major thoroughfare, That's just empty. And I beg to differ with my friends in the working, some of whom spoke here tonight. This is not a threat to the working waterfront. In fact, one of the commenters from the working waterfront here tonight said, why don't you do something with The machine shop stay out of the Marin ship. Well, the machine shop is in the Marin ship. And I think many people who signed the petition opposing housing in the Marineship actually don't know. that this is in the Marin ship and that this is actually what's being fought against by some of the voices that speak for it. You could have housing here, and if you had it here, it would take away some of the burden on putting housing in MLK Park or in this fire station or city hall or in the other sites around town. But it's not gonna fit in unless we do it with a plan. If we just designated opportunity sites, then indeed it would be almost as bad. So I hope we will agendize to work in that direction. |
| 03:12:15.73 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. I'm going to echo what Councilmember Hoffman said, which is we've been working on this since 2021 immediately following adoption early that year of our general plan. And even though I wasn't on the Council, I attended every single housing element committee meeting. and every city council meeting for the two years I wasn't on the council. We adopted our housing element in January of 2023. To suggest that in May 2023 we should turn around and undo all of that good work of our general plan and our housing element and start over with a new master planning effort to me just does not make logical sense. I am also concerned that we're hearing suggestions tonight of further modifications to our housing element that have not been the subject of environmental review. I think our job tonight is to review those things that are accessible and available to us by virtue of the extensive work done over the last year to undertake environmental review, to explore various sites. And then after that's adopted, then we can start anew looking at you know, new and different and ingenious ways to better develop our city. There's been a lot of discussion about disproportionate application of units in the Reno cycle to the northern side of town. um, I think this is taken out of context. I'm going to echo some of the comments made by Christina Feller. The Marin ship represents roughly 40% of our tax base from commercial enterprises. So it's not a small operation that's happening there. About 210 acres constitute the marineship area, and that area accounts for 234 units in our draft housing element. That's 30% of the units in our draft housing element. So we are absolutely capitalizing on the marineship area for potential housing. We are simply trying to avoid placing housing too close to the working waterfront. How far is too close? It's a matter for debate, and I'm sure this council in the future will continue to debate that. But what we're doing is not intended to be unfair. It's specifically... to address a need. A lot of the marine ship parcels and parcels elsewhere in northern Sausalito are along a transit corridor. They do not interfere with the working waterfront, but they are accessible for employees to provide to occupy and to make their way to and from work. We all just watched Los Angeles burn. We have to be aware of increasing density in our already densely populated hillsides with narrow and crowded streets that resemble Altadena and the Pacific Palisades. I do agree with Christina Feller that we need to also address infrastructure as an implementation measure to support the housing element. Thank you. That's the end of my comments. I want to share with the entire council a correspondence I just received from Chief Tubbs regarding the Spencer Firehouse, because in response to various written comments, I wrote to him, um, regarding possibly recommissioning the Spencer firehouse, he says. As for the Spencer station, while staffing the facility as suggested by some does not provide operational value to the district or community at this time, and we do not have funding for such an expansion, the board has recently approved a new fuels crew program. We believe this station could serve as an excellent location for this wildfire risk reduction team and we would welcome a discussion with the city on this possibility when appropriate. Chief Barnes and I are available for further conversations whenever the city is interested. So I'm going to ask at the appropriate time that we put this on a future agenda item list for consideration of a positive use of the Spencer Firehouse. Okay, so that ends our comments, our general comments. regarding the housing element, I'm now going to turn to Um, the Planning Commission resolution, which made four changes to the amended housing element plan, that we are considering. So the first site I'm going to discuss is Site 202. |
| 03:16:51.43 | Ian Sobieski | you come get me one. |
| 03:16:52.14 | Melissa Blaustein | And that's the Altamira site. |
| 03:16:53.69 | Ian Sobieski | I'm gonna recuse myself as I explained earlier to protect the housing element integrity. |
| 03:17:00.38 | Melissa Blaustein | Sergio, may he sit in the audience or must he leave the room? |
| 03:17:06.40 | Sergio Rudin | Uh, typically he would have to leave the room, but he can certainly listen in, uh, if there's another place to listen in on the proceedings. |
| 03:17:13.05 | Melissa Blaustein | So I don't know, are the proceedings on in the other rooms, Walfred? OK, yeah. And I will text you as soon as we're done. And we're going to try to move expeditiously. Okay, folks, so you heard the Planning Commission changed site 202 from housing 70 overlay to housing 49 overlay, reducing total units to 51. We heard a lot of public comment asking to reduce it down to 29, the lowest, of the of the overlay zones in our housing element. Beth. Do we have enough out. Okay, I was going to ask a question. Did you want to... interrupt my |
| 03:18:03.03 | Jill Hoffman | question. |
| 03:18:04.43 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:18:04.47 | Jill Hoffman | Under the plan that we're talking about now? Yeah. What's our total number, including our buffer? Like I'm lost. Okay. I'm just, I would, under this plan? Yeah. What's our total number? Is it 9-11 or 9-11? |
| 03:18:13.65 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:18:16.99 | Melissa Blaustein | So that was under the modified amended plan. So Beth Thompson, can you join us? |
| 03:18:22.73 | Brandon Phipps | Yeah, and while Beth is joining us, just based on the motion that Council made earlier related to pegging off of the draft amended housing element, the capacity shown in that document is a total of 958 units with a surplus of 234. |
| 03:18:38.88 | Melissa Blaustein | Wait, I'm having a hard time understanding you, community development. Sorry. |
| 03:18:44.75 | Brandon Phipps | Excuse me. In the amended housing element. |
| 03:18:45.29 | Melissa Blaustein | There. housing element. So just let's talk about the operative housing element that we are working on. |
| 03:18:51.31 | Brandon Phipps | Which is the document I'm referencing. |
| 03:18:52.99 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:18:53.00 | Jill Hoffman | And that's, sorry, but I need the title too. The amended, we're on the amended housing element. |
| 03:18:57.95 | Brandon Phipps | Correct. The amended housing element, this is the version of the housing element that was heard by the Planning Commission. This is the version of the element that they have pegged, if you will, their recommendations off of. |
| 03:19:08.81 | Melissa Blaustein | So that's where I'm starting from because I'm working on the Planning Commission resolution which made four changes to that amended housing element. So the question pending Brandon is what was the total buffer in the amended housing element. |
| 03:19:23.65 | Brandon Phipps | That figure is 234. |
| 03:19:27.76 | Melissa Blaustein | And what was that reduced to when the Altamira was reduced from a 70 overlay to 49 overlay, reducing the total units to 51. |
| 03:19:39.61 | Brandon Phipps | I'd have to check to get you an exact unit figure, but it's something like 70 times 1.2 minus 49 times 1.2. |
| 03:19:50.48 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:19:50.53 | Beth Thompson | Beth, are you here? Can you help us? I am here and my video stopped, but the rest I can speak. So that went from 67 units, I believe, to 51 in 2018. So that's- Okay. So here's just one sec. There we go. I have. been given privilege to show myself again. So, and let me just pop open this. |
| 03:20:16.04 | Melissa Blaustein | Pop open this. 16 units. |
| 03:20:18.49 | Beth Thompson | 16 units. |
| 03:20:19.23 | Melissa Blaustein | That's correct. And so that reduces our buffer of 200 and what, Brandon? |
| 03:20:19.33 | Beth Thompson | Correct. |
| 03:20:25.80 | Brandon Phipps | 234. |
| 03:20:27.06 | Melissa Blaustein | 234 to 16 by 16. So that's 218. |
| 03:20:36.55 | Melissa Blaustein | And then, Beth, a lot of people asked us to reduce that to 29. So what would the development capacity be at 29? You had that in our chart. Hold on. I'll go there. Two or two. At 29. Thank you. |
| 03:20:53.83 | Beth Thompson | Did I have that in there for 29? Let's see. I think I did not show it at 29, so I'll quickly do that math. and figure out what it would be. |
| 03:21:04.44 | Melissa Blaustein | No. |
| 03:21:05.71 | Beth Thompson | Just one minute, sorry. |
| 03:21:06.53 | Melissa Blaustein | Sorry. Page one of the summary of city council comments. |
| 03:21:12.15 | Beth Thompson | Yes, and that page that has it lowering to housing 49 on the summary of |
| 03:21:12.22 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes. |
| 03:21:18.83 | Beth Thompson | Comments, but I didn't, I don't, yeah, we did not calculate it at 29. |
| 03:21:19.97 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah. at 29. move on to the next one and talk to Brandon. So, Brandon, they also removed site 63522 Olive Street. They removed it because the homeowner said they don't right now plan to do any development. But that doesn't preclude us from including that in the site's inventory. Is that right? |
| 03:21:38.73 | Brandon Phipps | That's correct. |
| 03:21:39.98 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, so guys, I'm going to move that. |
| 03:21:42.65 | Brandon Phipps | And I'd like to give Neil the opportunity to comment on that. |
| 03:21:46.12 | Melissa Blaustein | Actually, can we invite Ian to return for a moment as we discuss this site? |
| 03:21:56.96 | Beth Thompson | I can just add in it's 35 units at 29 units per acre. |
| 03:22:02.51 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, well. I'm now inviting Ian back. Are we talking about Olive Street? Are we talking about Altamira? So it goes from 51 to 35. |
| 03:22:06.02 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:22:06.03 | Melissa Blaustein | talking about |
| 03:22:06.59 | Jill Hoffman | Very funny. Are we talking about masks? |
| 03:22:13.14 | Melissa Blaustein | Could you tell us? |
| 03:22:13.66 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:22:13.70 | Melissa Blaustein | So, |
| 03:22:13.75 | Neil Toft | Mayor Cox, I just wanted to clarify. |
| 03:22:13.78 | Melissa Blaustein | man. |
| 03:22:17.34 | Melissa Blaustein | Wait, I don't want you to clarify until Ian returns if we're going to talk about Olive. Okay, but hold on. Are we still at Altamira? Altamira? Beth just gave us information on Altamira, but I've already asked the city manager to retrieve Ian because I didn't realize it would take that long. I thought he was going to be right outside. |
| 03:22:39.45 | Melissa Blaustein | 35. 51 to 35. Is he coming, city manager? |
| 03:22:46.58 | Melissa Blaustein | What's my title? |
| 03:22:47.02 | Chris Zapata | Somebody's coming, I'll make an announcement. We discovered who's the owner of the... phone and the book so the police department is going to protect and serve and deliver to her later this evening. |
| 03:22:56.54 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you, Sausalito Police Department. So, Ian, we are not done with Site 202, but Beth was looking up some information. So we've moved to Site 63, 522 Olive Street. And Neil's going to provide us his feedback on that. |
| 03:23:12.00 | Neil Toft | I just want to clarify that the property owner was aware that the city had identified the property and it's a vacant site for being a housing opportunity site. became concerned when he was aware that the opportunity sites do call for minimum densities. And He was very expressive that it's not a large site. He does not want to develop. up to the minimum density that would be required under the housing about it. So it was really a request by the property owner not to be included so he's not sort forest. |
| 03:23:47.57 | Melissa Blaustein | It's just saying, |
| 03:23:47.74 | Neil Toft | So I'm just saying, I'm just letting you know, that was what transpired with the commission. |
| 03:23:49.97 | Melissa Blaustein | That was... Yes, I did listen to the planning commission hearing. So I did know that. 520, but, but. he would not object to it being listed as an inventory site as an opportunity site. And so if we listed it as an inventory site, Brandon, what would the density be? |
| 03:24:10.12 | Brandon Phipps | I believe that density is in our 29 units per acre zone, but I can verify that briefly. Thank you. |
| 03:24:20.26 | Melissa Blaustein | But how big is the site and what would that mean? |
| 03:24:23.06 | Brandon Phipps | I would have to verify that. |
| 03:24:23.75 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, so while you're verifying that, Ian, I'm sorry, I'm going to ask you to leave. We're going to go back to... Before he leaves... |
| 03:24:29.24 | Jill Hoffman | Before he leaves, a quick question on that. If you're listed as an inventory site, Do you have to build to a minimum to a to a minimum density. |
| 03:24:38.43 | Stafford Keegan | Thank you. |
| 03:24:38.45 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah. |
| 03:24:38.65 | Stafford Keegan | Thank you. |
| 03:24:42.35 | Melissa Blaustein | No. |
| 03:24:44.29 | Emmett Yeazell | if you're a |
| 03:24:46.42 | Melissa Blaustein | an inventory site is different from an opportunity site. An opportunity site has a minimum and a maximum density. And that's, I thought. An inventory site does not. Right. |
| 03:24:54.02 | Anthony Hay | I'm sorry. |
| 03:24:54.11 | Ian Sobieski | I thought I'd like to. |
| 03:24:54.43 | Anthony Hay | . |
| 03:24:55.75 | Brandon Phipps | So I think the short answer I'll give is, as inventory sites are not subject to a full-on program of rezoning, you and that the underlying zoning does not maintain minimum density requirements, there would not be a minimum requirement in this case. |
| 03:25:12.11 | Jill Hoffman | So we could still list it as an inventory. you |
| 03:25:14.78 | Brandon Phipps | Correct. |
| 03:25:14.90 | Jill Hoffman | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:25:14.95 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. That's what I'm asking. |
| 03:25:16.15 | Jill Hoffman | No, I understand. I'm just wanting to make sure that what we're hearing from staff allows that. |
| 03:25:24.55 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes. Thank you. Thank you. All right, so Beth, resuming, lowering site 202 to housing 29 would reduce realistic units from 67 to 35. Is that right? |
| 03:25:39.59 | Beth Thompson | It would reduce them from 57 at housing 49 to 35 at housing 29. |
| 03:25:46.42 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, but in, okay, yes. But in the amended housing element, they are at 67. |
| 03:25:55.26 | Beth Thompson | in the amended housing element there at 61. |
| 03:25:55.30 | Melissa Blaustein | in the amended housing I was 61. Your table says 67. Okay, so we would go be going from 61 to 35. So that's 26 unit reduction. So, |
| 03:26:14.03 | Beth Thompson | I apologize. You were right. It's 67-51-35. |
| 03:26:14.52 | Melissa Blaustein | I apologize. |
| 03:26:19.28 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:26:19.30 | Beth Thompson | Okay. Sorry. |
| 03:26:21.76 | Sergio Rudin | And Beth, would those still be very low and low income units? |
| 03:26:26.32 | Melissa Blaustein | Well, five are moderate and five are above moderate, Sergio, as listed in the adopted and amended housing elements. |
| 03:26:37.89 | Beth Thompson | So there's flexibility there. You could assume that a portion of them are low and very low. And you probably don't want to put them all at low and very low, just because it's more likely to develop at an upper or a mix of units. So I would follow the keeping one above moderate for each parcel, perhaps. But we can look at that as we look at all of the adjustments to the sites and then figure out what needs to happen. Once we know the total reaction. |
| 03:27:03.93 | Melissa Blaustein | So at 51 you had recommended 31 very low and 20 low with zero moderate and above moderate so correct. Committee Council Member blasting is going to ask a question but while she does that, can you figure out what the breakout would be at 35 units. |
| 03:27:21.02 | Melissa Blaustein | And this might be a question for Brandon, but with density bonuses, what's the maximum number of units that then we would see at Altamira if we did the zoning of 29 units per acre? |
| 03:27:31.18 | Emmett Yeazell | Thank you. |
| 03:27:31.32 | Brandon Phipps | I am searching for the density that would come out of keeping the base zoning at site 63 at the moment. |
| 03:27:39.38 | Emmett Yeazell | Thank you. |
| 03:27:39.40 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. |
| 03:27:39.43 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:27:39.52 | Emmett Yeazell | at the moment. |
| 03:27:40.36 | Melissa Blaustein | I'm not sure. |
| 03:27:40.89 | Sergio Rudin | I can answer this one, Brandon, as I just did these calculations recently. |
| 03:27:41.29 | Melissa Blaustein | I can't. |
| 03:27:45.66 | Melissa Blaustein | Oh, great. Thanks, Sergio. |
| 03:27:46.74 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, so the Altamira site is five separate parcels totaling 1.19 acres. At 49 dwelling units an acre, the permitted base density is 58 base units. So under density bonus law with the stackable density bonus, assuming |
| 03:28:03.11 | Melissa Blaustein | Wait, you're answering at 49. We're asking. |
| 03:28:03.19 | Sergio Rudin | that they |
| 03:28:06.97 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay. |
| 03:28:07.06 | Sergio Rudin | Okay. Yeah. At 29, the base density is 35. The max in theory would be 70 if they get 100% density bonus. That being said, my understanding is that site's within a half mile of a major transit stop. And under density bonus law, the city's actually not allowed to apply any caps on density. regardless of what it's zoned, as long as they're proposing a 100% low-income project. |
| 03:28:34.23 | Melissa Blaustein | And what if we removed it as an opportunity site? What would the default density be? |
| 03:28:39.24 | Sergio Rudin | The default dense, it is presently zoned at 29 dwelling units an acre because it is subject to R3 zoning. And again, regardless of whether it's an opportunity site or not, the density bonus law says that if someone were to propose a 100% low income project on that site, there would be no limits on density. |
| 03:28:57.06 | Melissa Blaustein | I understand, but if we add it as an opportunity site and include it in 1022, then we're waiving some of the protections. asking what it would mean if we simply remove it as an opportunity site, therefore there's no minimum density required for that site, it's simply uh, re retains its existing character of 29 units per acre. |
| 03:29:23.37 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, so I mean at 29 units per acre... you know, the base density potentially for that site would be 35 units under existing zoning. And then, you know, the applicant would potentially be able to apply for for waivers under density bonus law and additional bonuses in accordance with with law, regardless of whether it's an opportunity site or not. |
| 03:29:45.47 | Melissa Blaustein | Right, but in order to earn the right to density bonus, they have to demonstrate that it's financially necessary to build a feasible project there. at 100% low income in order to enjoy the benefit of all the density bonuses. So it's not really unlimited development. |
| 03:30:04.14 | Sergio Rudin | So one, With regards to 100% low income projects, there is a provision density bonus law that says that local jurisdictions cannot apply limits on density, full stop. And that's separate and apart from the provisions regarding waivers of development standards that are necessary, that are physically necessary and to avoid of the city from physically precluding construction of the project. and also separate from the provisions that deal with incentives and concessions. |
| 03:30:37.33 | Melissa Blaustein | So regardless of... We can't remove this as having development potential. All we can do is not list it as an opportunity site, so it doesn't have a minimum density. But, you know, the owner can and always has been able to do what he's able to do based on existing law, correct? |
| 03:30:56.84 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, that is correct. And the big lever that the council is presented with in terms of a policy decision is do you want to Include this as an opportunity site and require a minimum density. |
| 03:31:07.23 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah. So unless there are other questions, I move, we remove Site 202, the Altamira site, as an opportunity site from the housing elements. |
| 03:31:17.04 | Melissa Blaustein | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:31:17.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:31:17.14 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:31:17.17 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 03:31:18.08 | Melissa Blaustein | Oh, go ahead. Second. There's a second. Now you can discuss. |
| 03:31:18.49 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah. you Second. |
| 03:31:19.08 | Anthony Hay | Thank you. |
| 03:31:21.58 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, but whether we zone it or not, if we remove it, then we lose credit for those RENA numbers. And it seems like what he's saying is that the builder could build it any time regardless. So if we zone it or don't zone it, we should at least leave it in as something so that when it's built upon, it can be part of our housing element. I don't understand why we would. Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead. |
| 03:31:43.63 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 03:31:43.97 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:31:44.05 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, yeah, I think I'm kind of going at it kind of in the same direction. If they build on it or don't build on it, we can still count it. Correct. And there's no downside to including it in our housing hall because they can do right now what they want to do with it. And the only downside is in our, including our housing element, we could require a minimum density, we don't want to require a minimum, We can't... I mean, 29 units per acre is what we're talking about anyway, but that's what they could do anyway, and that would be what we're talking about requiring anyway, right? So that's- |
| 03:32:22.97 | Melissa Blaustein | R-29. |
| 03:32:24.00 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:32:24.35 | Melissa Blaustein | opportunity definition does have a minimum density requirement. So. That is why I'm suggesting removing it as an opportunity site. So, Beth, if this is just an inventory site, can we still count the 35-unit development potential based on 29 units per acre? |
| 03:32:43.39 | Beth Thompson | We can still count it at the 29 units per acre, the 35 units, and that's the maximum capacity. So we'll actually tweak that downward to the realistic capacity, which goes down to 28. And because it's all owned by one entity and it totals more than a half acre, if If more than 20 units per acre are accommodated, then we can count it towards the very low and low. And I think we can make that argument since it's at housing 29. So I think that works and we'll wanna just keep track of how this affects your total sites. But yes, that's an acceptable approach. |
| 03:33:20.55 | Jill Hoffman | acceptable. Sorry, just assuming, Sergio, I bet that my logic is correct. that we're not creating anything new or anything extra that the, as you said, or I think Sergio said, The owner could do with this as they please we wouldn't be able to. Reign them in. We're not giving him anything or him, her, whoever. them anything they don't already have. We're not creating anything new. giving them anything additional than what we're just sort of, acknowledging what they already have and counting it in our arena. |
| 03:33:59.93 | Sergio Rudin | Yes, that's exactly what taking it out of your program of rezoning and removing it as an opportunity site would do is you are just taking credit for whatever the capacity is on that site under your existing zoning. |
| 03:34:12.23 | Melissa Blaustein | Correct. So we still get to take credit. But we don't have a minimum density. There's a motion in a second. If we vote 2-2, then it remains in the housing element at 67 units, zoned at housing 49. |
| 03:34:29.50 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, I don't want to do that. I don't either. We have a question. we should make an alternative note. What happens if it's two, two either way? |
| 03:34:36.31 | Melissa Blaustein | way. There's no action. It stays as it is. |
| 03:34:38.52 | Jill Hoffman | I would like to try to persuade one of those who so far is against the motion to vote for it, recognizing we can still count it. And what it does is it doesn't eliminate. Density bonus for 100% affordable, that's a feature of the law for any |
| 03:34:55.64 | Melissa Blaustein | If you convince me, I'll change my book. Okay, me too. Great. All right. |
| 03:34:58.98 | Melissa Blaustein | I'll have to. |
| 03:34:59.50 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:34:59.97 | Melissa Blaustein | Councilmember Woodside, very... All right, all in favor. I. Okay, so we have approved a motion to remove Site 202 Altamira as an opportunity site. We will continue to take credit of somewhere between 28 and 35 units, depending on Beth's calculation. All right, can we ask Welcome back, Council Member Sobieski. We're gonna now resume our discussion of of. |
| 03:35:32.49 | Brandon Phipps | Site 63. |
| 03:35:32.56 | Melissa Blaustein | Sites 63 site 63 522 up 522 Olive Street now that we've given such a lot of time to our capable Community Development Department to calculate the difference. |
| 03:35:46.94 | Brandon Phipps | Appreciate the additional time and appreciate the additional discussion on Altamira. So a short story here is Site 63 is currently in the R2-2.5 zone, which allows for one unit for every 2,500 square feet of lot size. This lot, that equates to 17.4 units per acre. This lot is 0.12 acres, which means the resultant density, in other words, the density that this site currently enjoys allows 2.088 units. Thank you. acres, which means the resultant density, in other words, the density that this site currently enjoys allows 2.088 units. This would allow by right up to that much. And I would, because the number is so close to two, I would want to reevaluate size specifics to ensure if we'll have to round up or not, but somewhere around two to three units at the max. |
| 03:35:50.77 | Melissa Blaustein | You're on. |
| 03:36:33.78 | Melissa Blaustein | So, and if we remove it as an opportunity site, they no longer have a minimum density. Sorry, I wanted to actually ask you a question. If we remove it as an opportunity site, we no longer, they no longer suffer from a required minimum density. They can develop or not as they please. |
| 03:36:51.91 | Stacey Nimmo | That is correct. |
| 03:36:52.51 | Melissa Blaustein | All right, so I move that we remove site 63 from the opportunity site inventory as requested by the property owners and but that we continue to count in our housing element two units. for a second. |
| 03:37:09.64 | Brandon Phipps | And I would just like to clarify that language. We will remove it from the opportunity site list. That's what I said. Oh, I thought you said inventory list. |
| 03:37:13.74 | Melissa Blaustein | That's what I did. I said opportunity site inventory. I'm reading from the Planning Commission resolution. |
| 03:37:21.40 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you, apologies. |
| 03:37:23.00 | Melissa Blaustein | All in favor? |
| 03:37:24.83 | Brandon Phipps | I. |
| 03:37:25.00 | Melissa Blaustein | Bye. That motion carries. five zero okay um next is um Site 303. What is Site 303? |
| 03:37:42.40 | Jill Hoffman | Lord, that's the name. |
| 03:37:44.17 | Melissa Blaustein | Oh, yes. OK. OK. So Brandon, can you explain to us why the Planning Commission asked to reallocate the affordability levels of Site 303 to increase very low by 20, reduce moderate by 5, and reduce above moderate by 15? Was that to accommodate the other reductions in density of the Altamira and the other sites? |
| 03:38:10.15 | Brandon Phipps | That's correct, and I'm happy to do a one-two punch with Beth, but per your recommendation, Beth also did a pivot table for the commission. We evaluated the buffer total and between income categories at the end of the PC discussion, and the reallocation of units within that site was done so as to balance out the overall arena income categories for the amended element |
| 03:38:39.08 | Melissa Blaustein | for. |
| 03:38:41.32 | Brandon Phipps | that the Planning Commission recommended. |
| 03:38:43.04 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, Brandon, in the modified amended housing element, I thought we had increased the potential density of Site 303. Is that reflect, so. Beth, can you answer that? Thank you. |
| 03:38:55.89 | Beth Thompson | We did not increase the density of 303, but the size of the site that was assumed for development was increased. So I think it went from 90 units to 129 units. |
| 03:39:06.35 | Jennifer Nimmo | Okay. |
| 03:39:06.92 | Beth Thompson | So there is an increase in total units? |
| 03:39:07.83 | Melissa Blaustein | increase in Thanks. Okay. So I move that we um, reallocate the number of units attributable to Site 303 in the amended housing element from 90 to 129 units. |
| 03:39:29.26 | Beth Thompson | So keep it at one. |
| 03:39:29.28 | Melissa Blaustein | So keep it at one point. |
| 03:39:30.02 | Beth Thompson | 29. |
| 03:39:30.61 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:39:30.63 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 03:39:32.03 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes, I'm not talking about affordability levels. I'm just talking about quantum at the moment. |
| 03:39:33.30 | Beth Thompson | Okay. |
| 03:39:38.44 | Beth Thompson | Okay. And the revised housing element has it at 129. So we would keep it at 129. |
| 03:39:43.61 | Melissa Blaustein | Oh, so the amended does have only the. |
| 03:39:45.02 | Beth Thompson | Yes. |
| 03:39:47.20 | Melissa Blaustein | revised amended that had it. |
| 03:39:49.70 | Beth Thompson | No, both haven't. The number of very low and low was increased in the modified version. |
| 03:39:56.80 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, so then my next motion is that we reallocate the affordability levels of Site 303 to increase very low by 20 units, reduce moderate by five units, and reduce above moderate by 15 units with no net increase in units. All in favor? Aye. Aye. That motion carries 5-0. Um, |
| 03:40:15.11 | Jennifer Nimmo | Bye. |
| 03:40:20.51 | Melissa Blaustein | I am skipping site 84 that I have to recuse myself from because that's likely to be a somewhat So I'm gonna move on. to site 201. Um, Again, I would like to... I move... Uh, So there's a discussion, I hope everybody has seen it, that Right now, it's in our... |
| 03:40:51.06 | Ian Sobieski | Sorry, Mayor. |
| 03:40:53.07 | Melissa Blaustein | 605 Bridgeway. |
| 03:40:53.33 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. I have to. |
| 03:40:54.87 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay. |
| 03:40:55.04 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. I have to also accuse myself on this one for the same thing. |
| 03:40:57.74 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, sorry about that. |
| 03:41:09.64 | Melissa Blaustein | So Beth, right now, that's still an opportunity site with an overlay at 29 units per acre, as is what is proposed. Is that right? practice. So in the adopted housing element, it was 20 units. In the modified element, it's 11 units, but it is still Um, at It still has a minimum required density because it is in an overlay zone, is that right? |
| 03:41:38.39 | Beth Thompson | Correct. It would have the minimum of 20 units per acre required at the 29th. |
| 03:41:43.30 | Melissa Blaustein | And so, again, I'm recommending we do the same thing as we did with Altamira, which is that we remove it as an opportunity site. It still is entitled to 29 units per acre as per its... location in, It's current zoning. Is that correct? |
| 03:42:07.53 | Beth Thompson | Yes, it would. Yeah, it's zoning allows up to 29 units per acre. |
| 03:42:11.38 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, so we're not changing the number of net units. We're just removing the minimum density requirement for development on that site. Is that okay, so I move that we remove site 201 as an opportunity site bearing in mind there's already a pending application, so this action is not likely to have any impact on this site, but i'm going to move that we remove as an opportunity site and leave it subject to. the existing zoning of 29 units per acre. Second. All in favor? Aye. That motion carries unanimously 4-0. |
| 03:42:50.08 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 03:42:53.72 | Melissa Blaustein | whom we invite. Thank you. |
| 03:43:02.90 | Melissa Blaustein | All right, council member Hoffman, can you discuss with us the Madden sites? at Sausalito Yacht Harbor and Bridgetway and |
| 03:43:19.29 | Annie Ustavinis | Thank you. |
| 03:43:19.30 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:43:19.49 | Annie Ustavinis | you |
| 03:43:21.73 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay. |
| 03:43:22.24 | Annie Ustavinis | . |
| 03:43:24.33 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay. |
| 03:43:25.30 | Annie Ustavinis | One moment. |
| 03:43:26.46 | Melissa Blaustein | So 409 Napa, 1319 Bridgeway, and 210 Caledonia. |
| 03:43:26.48 | Annie Ustavinis | Thank you. |
| 03:43:34.14 | Jill Hoffman | I think so. Hold on. I think so. Do you have a, is there some concern that I'm within? |
| 03:43:39.27 | Melissa Blaustein | No, I just know you live around the 7-Eleven, but I think you're far enough away. |
| 03:43:46.61 | Brandon Phipps | I believe you're within, if we're speaking to site 63 still, or? |
| 03:43:51.20 | Melissa Blaustein | We're looking at the three, we're talking about Site-44. |
| 03:43:59.42 | Brandon Phipps | Yeah, I would say no. I would envision no conflict for, I mean, it's beyond a thousand feet for Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 03:44:08.97 | Melissa Blaustein | you resources. |
| 03:44:10.47 | Jill Hoffman | Is this the Yacht Harbor site? |
| 03:44:12.00 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes, these are the Yacht Harbor site. |
| 03:44:13.52 | Jill Hoffman | So if one has a vessel in the Yacht Harbor, I think it might be. |
| 03:44:20.66 | Melissa Blaustein | I don't think so. |
| 03:44:21.47 | Sergio Rudin | I don't think so. |
| 03:44:23.12 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 03:44:25.52 | Sergio Rudin | But I will state, as we're beginning that discussion deliberation, if you look at attachment 13, which is the staff responses to the council direction that was given to explore the potential upzoning of it, there is discussion about coverage of the EIR for that action, and I think it is appropriate for the council to know that Due to the increased density, which was not analyzed in the EIR, that is something we would need to look at very closely in terms of whether additional environmental analysis is required. |
| 03:44:59.56 | Melissa Blaustein | What is the address of Site 44? |
| 03:45:06.31 | Beth Thompson | It has three different addresses, 210 Caledonia Street. This is from Appendix D1 of the housing element. 210 Caledonia Street, 1311 Bridgeway, and 1319 Bridgeway. And I believe... The owner referenced one of the properties is 1315 bridgeway. So some, one of the buildings may have more than one address. |
| 03:45:29.48 | Melissa Blaustein | So at 210, so site 44 is 210 Caledonia. |
| 03:45:35.40 | Beth Thompson | It's the three addresses, 210 Caledonia, 1311, 1315 Bridgeway and 1319 Bridgeway. |
| 03:45:43.26 | Melissa Blaustein | So he's already put in Thank you. a an SB 330 application for 1311 1315 bridgeway. I'm not sure. So. For 210 Caledonia, Um, It was zoned at 49 units per acre. And I guess it has been reduced to 29 units per acre. He would like to put, four units there, three regular units and one low income. what would the EIR implications of that be? |
| 03:46:28.67 | Beth Thompson | Let me take a look at what we have assumed for that in the EIR. That'll take them up. |
| 03:46:32.49 | Melissa Blaustein | Your response to us said that the increase in density would increase capacity from three to six units, but he only wants to do three plus a low income or an ADU. |
| 03:46:47.46 | Beth Thompson | And that's just at the 0.06 acre portion that's 210 Caledonia and not the other two Carcels because those have a separate, okay, let me, let me just quickly look at that, just that site. |
| 03:46:54.71 | Melissa Blaustein | Correct. |
| 03:46:59.27 | Melissa Blaustein | just looking for ways to give us a couple of additional units since we're removing units elsewhere. |
| 03:47:05.53 | Brandon Phipps | And Beth, just to clarify for the record, on the amended element that was pegged off of by the Planning Commission, Site 44 is only one parcel. And it is a parcel with the address of 1319 Bridgeway. |
| 03:47:26.62 | Heather Wilcoxon | So that's what we're doing. |
| 03:47:26.98 | Melissa Blaustein | at the |
| 03:47:27.05 | Brandon Phipps | at the size of 0.06 as mentioned. |
| 03:47:31.25 | Melissa Blaustein | That site was reduced from three units to two. plus an ADU, according to him, in the amended housing elements. |
| 03:47:40.39 | Brandon Phipps | It went from 49 to 29, correct? |
| 03:47:42.86 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah. |
| 03:47:45.34 | Beth Thompson | And that's so, yeah, we've the The site was reduced to take off two parcels, as Brandon just mentioned. Um, when we reduce, let's see, so I'm looking back at the 210 Caledonia. So 210 Caledonia, if just that portion is 0.06 acres, |
| 03:48:05.59 | Unknown | Mm hmm. |
| 03:48:06.53 | Beth Thompson | is, is, um, slated for four units, that's 67 units an acre. So you would need to do, if you did housing 49, he would need to do a density bonus application. And he would need to have more units because he would need to have the minimum of five units, I believe. So. |
| 03:48:25.10 | Melissa Blaustein | So... Thank you. So can we allow 49 units per acre? That would allow him to go from, to do three regular plus one low income under with density bonus. |
| 03:48:40.96 | Beth Thompson | Let me, I'm looking up the EIR for that site. It just takes a minute to find the. spreadsheet for it. |
| 03:48:50.78 | Melissa Blaustein | I mean, he has literally come to our last five meetings to make these requests. So I just want to make an effort to accommodate him if we can. |
| 03:49:08.67 | Beth Thompson | Sorry, we have several files that have our inventory assumptions for the EIR. Not all of them are. one that I'm looking for. Oh, there we go. Okay. |
| 03:49:17.68 | Unknown | one that I'm looking for. Okay. |
| 03:49:24.29 | Unknown | Thanks. |
| 03:49:24.50 | Jan Johnson | head. |
| 03:49:26.01 | Melissa Blaustein | Thanks. |
| 03:49:28.07 | Jan Johnson | Thank you. |
| 03:49:28.09 | Melissa Blaustein | You need to step. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Oh, on Olive Street? We already voted. Yeah. So, |
| 03:49:37.66 | Beth Thompson | So we did not include, we don't have the capacity in the E. |
| 03:49:38.55 | Melissa Blaustein | And |
| 03:49:41.57 | Beth Thompson | EIR to increase the units on that site. |
| 03:49:44.26 | Melissa Blaustein | We do not. |
| 03:49:45.67 | Beth Thompson | No. |
| 03:49:46.58 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, so we would have to do that in a future housing element. |
| 03:49:50.09 | Beth Thompson | Correct. Or as a separate rezoning project, he doesn't have to wait for a housing element to request a rezone. |
| 03:49:57.23 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, so we can rezone. Okay. All right. And then what about 1319 Bridgeway? It was reduced from 3 to 2 plus an ADU. |
| 03:50:11.88 | Melissa Blaustein | While you're looking that up, I'm going to revisit... site 63 it turns out that council member hoffman has a conflict so i am uh rescinding my prior motion and uh and approval, I'm going to remake the motion that we remove site 63, 522 Olive Street from the opportunity site inventory as requested by the property owners. |
| 03:50:39.57 | Jill Hoffman | Second. |
| 03:50:40.84 | Melissa Blaustein | All in favor? Aye. That motion carries four zero with one recusing. So, Brandon, will you please supersede the prior action, Walford? |
| 03:50:52.65 | Walfred Solorzano | Sorry, we're talking about Site 63 right here? Yes. |
| 03:50:55.06 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes. So we did a prior motion, and Councilmember Hoffman inadvertently participated, not realizing. Yeah. So we've redone that one. |
| 03:51:14.76 | Melissa Blaustein | I'm hoping to see what else we can discuss. Well, |
| 03:51:36.98 | Beth Thompson | And for 13, 19, In Bridgeway, you could assume two units. We have one in the housing element, but you could assume two per the EIR. |
| 03:51:45.30 | Melissa Blaustein | And could he still do an AD, he can still do an ADU on top of those two, right? Correct. Okay. And the EIR only accommodates two units there. Yes. Okay. And the last one is 409 Napa Street. I think it got reduced from five to four units. |
| 03:52:06.90 | Beth Thompson | look that one up. |
| 03:52:09.28 | Brandon Phipps | I believe that's Site 55, is that correct, Mayor? |
| 03:52:11.78 | Melissa Blaustein | No. Oh, I don't know what the site is. I only know the address. Sorry. |
| 03:52:16.49 | Brandon Phipps | 55 and it's either 55 or 56. Both are in the housing 49 zone. We can look into that now. |
| 03:52:24.11 | Jan Johnson | Okay. |
| 03:52:28.79 | Beth Thompson | So 412 NAPA, site 56, you could assume up to 10 units. And then the- 409 NAPA. |
| 03:52:34.54 | Melissa Blaustein | and then the- |
| 03:52:36.79 | Beth Thompson | 409 NAPA, which must be the adjoining site 55, which we don't have an address for, is eight units. |
| 03:52:44.97 | Melissa Blaustein | He thought 409 Napa Street was reduced from five units to four. |
| 03:52:50.51 | Beth Thompson | Right, and so at 409 NAPA with the EIR, you could increase it up to eight. |
| 03:52:50.62 | Melissa Blaustein | And so |
| 03:52:55.50 | Melissa Blaustein | OK, I would like to increase that to 5. I move we increase the potential density at 409 Napa Street from four units to five. seconds. |
| 03:53:06.67 | Melissa Blaustein | But we could... |
| 03:53:08.31 | Melissa Blaustein | Bye. |
| 03:53:08.46 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:53:08.75 | Sergio Rudin | And Beth, I am curious about this motion specifically Because... You know, increasing the realistic capacity is not something that the city council can necessarily do, but what they can direct is that we change and apply a different zone category. So do we need to change from 29 to 49 or from 49 to something else in order to increase that number? |
| 03:53:32.09 | Beth Thompson | So typically we can't increase the realistic capacity based on just our math, but I think where we have owner interest and they're interested in doing more units, we can say to HCD that it's realistic. The property owner has testified at city council that they want to do a larger project. It still is within the density allowed. So I think I think we could do that and that HCD would find that to be adequate. supporting evidence of accounting at higher capacity. Yeah. |
| 03:53:59.12 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah. |
| 03:53:59.14 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you for that explanation, Beth. |
| 03:53:59.19 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Bye. Thank you. |
| 03:54:00.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:54:00.52 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah, thank you for that carefully. I'm simply asking that we list this with of a, that we list the realistic capacity for this at five instead of four, based on owner feedback. |
| 03:54:13.45 | Brandon Phipps | One point of clarification here would be, does that necessitate a zone change? No. Okay. |
| 03:54:18.02 | Melissa Blaustein | No. OK. If Beth said they could develop up to eight or 10. |
| 03:54:22.42 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. Just wanted to confirm. |
| 03:54:24.45 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, all right, so there's a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. That motion carried, yes? I just, I just. |
| 03:54:28.40 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:54:32.03 | Melissa Blaustein | And it's fine. Emotions, it's fine. I just, if we could zone it for more, why wouldn't we if there's interest from the developer and it's in a reasonable... It's fine. |
| 03:54:39.43 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah. THE END OF |
| 03:54:39.84 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:54:39.97 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:54:40.01 | Melissa Blaustein | zoned for more. |
| 03:54:40.97 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. I'm talking about on the table where we list the realistic capacity. Okay. We had it at four. We're increasing that to five based on owner interest. Okay. So is that a five zero? Sure. Okay. Five. That motion carries five zero. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Um, The rest of the There are some minor corrections. So staff, on the... summary of city council feedback, there are a number of minor clarifications. Have these minor, that are on page three, have these minor clarifications already been made? |
| 03:55:25.35 | Brandon Phipps | I don't believe so, but I will check with Beth. |
| 03:55:29.00 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, so page one, it says correct SB. Karen Hollweg, blank units and this this says that it was revised to read sb nine units on page three redraft remove paragraph related to ab 2011 and sb six. It says deleted paragraph. So it looks to me, are you with me on page three of the... Actually, it's page four of the... It's the last page, Brandon, of the summary of city council. |
| 03:56:03.69 | Brandon Phipps | Okay. I confused it with page three, which contains the recommendations from the Planning Commission, which I don't believe have been reflected. |
| 03:56:09.36 | Melissa Blaustein | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:56:12.65 | Melissa Blaustein | So other than site 84, we've adopted all of the recommendation, but I was working from the Planning Commission. Um, |
| 03:56:29.83 | Melissa Blaustein | I'm not looking at page three of the resolution. I'm looking at page four of the summary of city council comments slash feedback study session. And there are various things highlighted in yellow on that page. |
| 03:56:45.93 | Beth Thompson | Yes, and let me just pop open the revised amended housing element that went to Planning Commission to confirm because we had made those changes in one of our working versions. And let me just make sure that those made it into the Yes, and that is so if you look at the Revised amended housing element. Yes, we've got those changes in there. So where it says revised to read SB9 units, it now says that full text. So where you see the deleted paragraph, we've deleted that. So yes, those changes have been made to the reflux. the amended housing element. |
| 03:57:20.93 | Melissa Blaustein | We don't need a motion to carry that out. Okay. Um, I'm going to turn, so, I have a couple of additional things to address. Give me a second here. Brandon, the EIR that we're being asked to certify this evening contains a number of to do items for staff, many of which are due within 60 days of certification of the EIR, which would happen tonight. So some of those are. you know um, hand out a tribal cultural resources awareness brochure prior to ground disturbing and construction activities. require an ESCP prior to issuance of a grading permit. So my question to staff is, are you prepared to carry out and implement the requirements of the MMRP, the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan, that's attached to the EIR within 60 days of adoption certification of the EIR. |
| 03:58:31.57 | Brandon Phipps | I saw Sergio join us. I will give him the floor, and I'm happy to comment afterwards. |
| 03:58:37.56 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, Mayor, I think that I'm sure staff are prepared to take those actions. I did want to make sure the council is aware that I think that it would not be appropriate to certify the EIR this evening unless you are also taking action to adopt the housing element. |
| 03:58:37.66 | Unknown | and you're going to be |
| 03:58:54.08 | Sergio Rudin | in light of our pending discussion that the city may receive feedback from HCD requiring further revisions I think it would probably be best to wait to certify the housing element until we know that we will not, at all have the need or potential to recirculate or make any revisions to the EIR. So I would suggest that the council defer certification of the EIR this evening. |
| 03:59:19.09 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, so really what we're doing tonight is making motions and giving direction to staff. |
| 03:59:23.58 | Brandon Phipps | But I will clarify my response. Yes, please. Staff is prepared to take on those responsibilities once the EIR is certified. |
| 03:59:25.03 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes, please. |
| 03:59:29.90 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, great, I just wanna be sure that you have a procedure in place to do that. Go ahead, Vice Mayor. |
| 03:59:34.56 | Jill Hoffman | Yes, on a similar vein, I think we heard from Sophia Collier and Ed Brakeman, who had sent comments this afternoon and perhaps earlier, and you probably have not had a chance to look at them, but they described them as somewhat technical but important amendments involving the EIR and language in the EIR, particularly focused on historic standards. |
| 03:59:59.20 | Melissa Blaustein | So I'm going to go ahead and call those out, Sergio and Brandon. The first is correct typos. So they are asking that we change all references to M29 or M429, to MU-29-85%. |
| 04:00:20.88 | Sergio Rudin | And I see no issue with making those changes and ensuring consistency between the draft ballot measure and the rezoning. We will go back through the entire housing element and ensure that we are... using those designations as appropriate and consistently. |
| 04:00:37.03 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, so Brandon, you are copied on this. Sergio, you are not, so I will forward this to you. The next is to revise mitigation measure MM3.4-1A. Ed mentioned this tonight during his... Um, public comment. Instead of saying the evaluation shall identify measures implemented to reduce the impact, he would like to say the valuation shall identify measures that would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. |
| 04:01:05.84 | Sergio Rudin | And I have consulted with our CEQA council that has been advising the city on the EIR, and we can make that change. It should not trigger recirculation. |
| 04:01:14.44 | Melissa Blaustein | And then at the end of that paragraph, he would like to add the language. And all such measures that are necessary to reduce the impact to a less than significant level shall be implemented. |
| 04:01:24.77 | Sergio Rudin | Same issue, that's not a substantial modification. |
| 04:01:28.01 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay. Um, Mr. Brakeman also raised concerns about the historic overview language in the EIR concerning Site 201. I saw extensive redlined additions to the historic Um, evaluation, including a lengthy historic resources report and others in the And the. EIR in the comments to the EIR that were responded to by city staff. So are either of you aware of, Um, concerned that Site 201, that the assertion that Site 201 is a historic resource is not fully supported by the record? |
| 04:02:20.29 | Sergio Rudin | I'm not aware of anything. to that effect. I agree with you that there is substantial evidence in the record regarding the historic resources on site 201. We are looking further into the comment that was made and seeing if any further action is warranted. |
| 04:02:38.50 | Charles Rangel | Thank you. |
| 04:02:38.51 | Melissa Blaustein | And that's about as much as possible. |
| 04:02:38.57 | Sergio Rudin | And that's about as much as I can do now. |
| 04:02:40.69 | Melissa Blaustein | the consensus direction that they follow through and complete that task? the task requested by Ed Brakeman to ensure that the historic resource analysis of Site 201 is complete. Yes. All right, thank you. We're good. You just wanted to make me say it again. Yep. Oh, my goodness. |
| 04:03:05.50 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay. I'm gonna turn to Director Phipps again. There were three other changes that the Planning Commission made to the amended housing element. Director Phipps there on page three. of the resolution items B, C and D. And I did not fully understand these revisions. Do you mind walking us through them so that we can decide whether or not to endorse them? So the first says, the amended page HBR-119, second bullet under land use controls is revised to read, Opportunity housing 29 maximum density of 29. units per acre and it At the end, it says remove the language that says and requiring residential use is required for 85% of the site. |
| 04:04:00.44 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. So I'll interject here. That is because that language is from the mixed use overlays and was accidentally carried forward into the housing 29. Because it's housing 29, it has to be 100% residential. So you don't need to require a minimum amount of residential. |
| 04:04:11.19 | Anthony Hay | Thank you. |
| 04:04:11.21 | Melissa Blaustein | because |
| 04:04:18.47 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, so I move that we adopt... Um, bullet B in the planning commission resolution regarding amending page HBR 119 under land use controls. Exactly. All in favor? Aye. Aye. That motion carries 5-0. |
| 04:04:37.15 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 04:04:39.39 | Melissa Blaustein | Next is item C, amended policy CD 1.3 of the community design chapters revised to read as follows. So it added language that says, except sites identified in the housing element appendix D1, inventory of residential and opportunity sites may develop up to the maximum height Pursuant to Title X, zoning ordinance. So it took out language regarding the odds. |
| 04:05:03.71 | Beth Thompson | So paragraphs C and D are related to the changes to the community design chapter of the general plan, the general plan amendment. And that was not, I don't believe, included in your package tonight. So you're not looking at the specific general plan amendments just at the housing element. And we'll bring back the general plan amendments to- |
| 04:05:21.76 | Melissa Blaustein | On March 4th. Thank you. |
| 04:05:23.23 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 04:05:23.28 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes. OK, so we'll defer discussion on those two to March 4. |
| 04:05:24.28 | Beth Thompson | So- |
| 04:05:24.70 | Jennifer Nimmo | Thank you. |
| 04:05:28.50 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, with that, Vice Mayor, I'm going to step out so that the council may discuss Site 84. And I'd like to focus you on um, You have it. This is page one of the summary of city council comments. Um, and to consider how to move forward with site 84 so i'm recusing myself from this discussion because my residence is in close proximity to this site. |
| 04:05:59.18 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, Mayor, and don't go far. I think we can get through this pretty quickly. You've set a standard that... shows we can move quickly when necessary. So until she gets out, let's not discuss this, but direct everyone's attention to that top of the page that describes Site 84, the MLK site. We've heard from lots of people in the community about that, and there's both a density question and what was raised, I think, at the last meeting was whether it could be removed in its entirety. And before we talk or focus on density, I would just ask, because what I see in this report is the staff does not recommend an outright removal of the site for reasons that it would jeopardize our numbers, particularly at the low income levels. Is that a fair statement? |
| 04:06:56.13 | Beth Thompson | That is a fair statement. |
| 04:07:00.94 | Jill Hoffman | It's perhaps regrettable, but that's That's what the staff recommends unless you want to. |
| 04:07:08.36 | Melissa Blaustein | I would agree with the staff recommendation, understanding that we, I mean, given a significant public comment, that we could at least lower the density to a minimum of, I don't know what was suggested, 50 units was our alternative. I mean I think given that we have very few it is a I think it's important to remind members of the public that it's a city-owned site, so we would be in complete control of what type of housing went there, what it looked like, what the design was, and would be able to, I mean, perhaps we can give direction to put an emphasis on preserving the park to the best of our ability, because that seemed to be a main point of consideration from our public commenters. That's what I would lean towards. |
| 04:07:42.94 | Anthony Hay | Thank you. |
| 04:07:43.01 | Jenny Silva | Thank you. |
| 04:07:43.16 | Anthony Hay | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 04:07:51.09 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 04:07:52.10 | Beth Thompson | Can I interject for just a moment? |
| 04:07:54.25 | Jill Hoffman | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 04:07:55.50 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 04:07:55.51 | Beth Thompson | So, If you were to remove the site, If you, An outright removal would cause a reduction in your very low so that you'd only have two units of buffer. However, if you were to further reconfigure site 303, one and three Harbor drive, that one still has a lot of above moderate income units. And I believe the property owner is flexible as to the type of development that would go there. So if we were to further allocate some of those units to the very low and low, I think that would offset the full removal of MLK. |
| 04:08:13.89 | Unknown | Yeah. I'm going to go. |
| 04:08:26.82 | Beth Thompson | And I don't. I don't know if Director Phipps has any thoughts about that change, but I think that could accommodate the full removal of it. |
| 04:08:38.68 | Jill Hoffman | Director Phipps. |
| 04:08:39.29 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 04:08:41.33 | Brandon Phipps | No comment from me. |
| 04:08:44.52 | Ian Sobieski | I'm concerned about this site concerned about it in the park. uh, And it would be great to have other options. So I'm not sure the scope of what we can talk about here. That's one that's new from Beth and Director Phipps. There is the question of jeopardizing our housing. We need to stay out of builders remedy, so I just want to make sure whatever we do, where there's a path to staying in compliance while we sort it out. But I would love to explore the option of being able to remove it altogether. |
| 04:09:17.96 | Jill Hoffman | you |
| 04:09:17.98 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah. |
| 04:09:18.00 | Jill Hoffman | Can't ask Beth. The question you said that the reason to recommend against justice straight removal without finding substitute places for low income would would put us dangerously close like within two. So there would really be no significant buffer at the low level is that Thank you. |
| 04:09:36.56 | Beth Thompson | Correct. |
| 04:09:36.88 | Jill Hoffman | Thanks. And how confident are you that the Site 303 could accommodate replacement numbers sufficient to keep the buffer about where it was? |
| 04:09:48.64 | Beth Thompson | So the site 303 is currently with the changes we've discussed tonight is, let me hear it. go to site 303. has capacity for 129 units and currently 83 of those are above moderate, 33 are allocated to very low, 13 to low. So I think there's flexibility there. Um, Especially since you don't have a development application for that site that is for market rate. So there is flexibility there to look for an affordable developer and see what, see what can be done. So that site could under HCD's requirements can definitely be a site for very low and low income units. |
| 04:10:30.09 | Brandon Phipps | And Beth, thank you for that. Just wondering if we can review the in-progress pivot table that I'm hoping that you've been building based on council comment heretofore. And that might help form follow-on steps. |
| 04:10:42.47 | Beth Thompson | my power. |
| 04:10:47.55 | Beth Thompson | Yes, let me just quickly do a quick refresh and what I'm going to do. |
| 04:10:54.22 | Melissa Blaustein | While we're doing that. Just while you're doing that, I just want to make the point that even if we do include it, there will be a ballot initiative. So I would lean towards, again, because I generally... |
| 04:10:54.79 | Rick Scannell | Thank you. |
| 04:10:54.81 | Jill Hoffman | doing this. |
| 04:10:55.21 | Beth Thompson | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 04:11:04.16 | Melissa Blaustein | I'm opposed to removing all sites entirely and just keeping the conversation open around where we're going to put housing. There is going to be a ballot initiative potentially on the site. So we wouldn't be able to add it without voter approval. So we're suggesting it for voter approval at a lower density level. We would still allow us to have that buffer. But I'm definitely not comfortable with 80 units. So it would have to be significantly lower. in fact I would even consider going to like if we can the 30 or you know I'm not sure what that looks like, but removing it, and also remembering that we have full control over what development on this site looks like, whereas with one in three Harbor Drive, if it's a profit driven developer, for example, right now it's not owned by an affordable |
| 04:11:15.02 | Judith Wetter | Thank you. |
| 04:11:46.23 | Melissa Blaustein | housing developer. So just not to say there wouldn't be housing there, but let's be thoughtful about how things pencil in the cost and how much we do need those affordable units. |
| 04:11:54.41 | Jill Hoffman | So if I'm understanding you correctly, you would favor a reduction to, I think it would be 29 is the. Is that the lowest that we can have? Is that correct, Brandon? 29? |
| 04:12:00.66 | Melissa Blaustein | Is that the lowest that we can have? |
| 04:12:06.06 | Brandon Phipps | Yes. |
| 04:12:07.67 | Jill Hoffman | And that would result in something less than 50 units, I would imagine. Do you have a number? |
| 04:12:16.70 | Beth Thompson | So what I have shared is The city council direction row is with the MLK site currently at 80 Let's see. Let me see what you're. |
| 04:12:31.28 | Beth Thompson | what we have there. |
| 04:12:33.12 | Brandon Phipps | So yeah, and I'll clarify, the amended sites, site map shows site 84 at the MU 49 zone, MU 49 85. So excuse me. |
| 04:12:46.07 | Jill Hoffman | So reduction at the density of 29 per acre would be realistically how many units? |
| 04:12:56.55 | Jill Hoffman | We've heard a number of discussions tonight that had different numbers associated with them. Yeah. |
| 04:13:00.06 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah, I mean, I'm really concerned about preserving the park. So I'm trying to find a an opportunity for us to lower the density, potentially preserve the park, but also have the opportunity as the city owned site, because we have removed Spencer and City Hall. So at this point, this is kind of our most likely to build on city on site where we could determine the footprint for 100% senior housing, for example, even if it's fewer units. |
| 04:13:21.50 | Ian Sobieski | Right. Can I comment on that? Just a question. Sure. I'm way out of my wheelhouse. Finance is more of my wheelhouse, not housing law, but if we have it in the housing element, there's a program, right? A program that says what we need to do. And that's a little proscriptive. So. Nothing would keep us still from building housing in the MLK site outside of the housing element. While we could meet our arena number and our low and very low units at the 303 site, we could still internally separately. have an effort for senior housing. at that site that we would completely control, not being turned over to the program |
| 04:14:02.78 | Jill Hoffman | and would be subject to voter approval under 1128. |
| 04:14:05.99 | Ian Sobieski | It still would be, but it would be one that is not driven by the program element. If it's in the housing element, if I understand it, what I've learned over the last several months. It's not just that for the city of insight, it's not just that we've authorized X number of units, but we've also agreed to a development program that it somewhat handcuffs the city. This, tell me if I'm wrong, someone, staff or Beth, but I believe- |
| 04:14:30.37 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. We have a program obligation to follow through, and that might require us to put on the ballot the measure. |
| 04:14:38.17 | Ian Sobieski | at that level. And actually sell the property or develop the property in a particular way. I'm still... unclear to what extent we really control the city owned property if it's in the housing omelet. Whereas I completely agree with my colleague about wanting to build senior housing. And I'm just wondering if we can meet the legalistic requirements at three or three, and separately, either this meeting or a future one, agree for some development path for housing we have greater control over. |
| 04:15:05.57 | Jill Hoffman | Can we ask the city attorney to respond to that? |
| 04:15:06.75 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 04:15:09.64 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:15:10.13 | Sergio Rudin | So... Yes. You can work towards developing housing on sites you haven't included or identified in your housing element there there's nothing that would prohibit you from doing that. That being said, typically for that process, you often need to do a general plan amendment. and rezoning and, of course, conduct the necessary environmental review, which You know, unless it's already been covered in the EIR you did for the housing element, you'd need to do it separately and again. So that usually is a pretty significant impediment, although sometimes the developer can come to you, can propose it, and they'll take on the cost of doing the environmental review. Um, Again, there is program eight in the housing elements so Councilmember Sobieski is correct that with respect to the identified city sites, the city is committing to working towards the development of those sites during the housing element cycle. Um, I would say right now, given the tone of the discussion and the prior city council direction already voted on this evening to remove site 202 and make it an inventory site only. to remove site 201. Um, and then to also remove the direction about you know, the potential rezoning of fire station in City Hall in the event of arena shortfall. I would like Beth to have the opportunity to crunch the numbers on what, the buffer would be with respect to particularly the very low and low income Reno. If the council does decide to make a decision to remove this particular site, I know based on my prior experience, HCD frequently does scrutinize your very low and low income arena buffer I would say probably the most. And so to the extent that there is a negative impact Cumulatively, based on all the city council direction tonight. we would want to make sure that we have a good justification for all of those directions and are prepared to respond to HCD's comments. But certainly getting the amended housing element over the hump may be more challenging if there is a lower very low and low income Reno. that is being proposed by the city. |
| 04:17:28.79 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you for that. Before we move on, Beth, would you be able to crunch some numbers now? |
| 04:17:36.37 | Beth Thompson | Yeah, just give me a moment. I'm actually, I had some slightly off information. So let me just add this up and I'll have some numbers for you. |
| 04:17:44.03 | Ian Sobieski | numbers. Are you are we actually deciding the question here? Are we providing direction? |
| 04:17:49.09 | Jill Hoffman | Providing direction we are not able to adopt tonight and subsequently we would we would have based on this direction without change and after we get the hcd comments we might be in a position to act. |
| 04:18:03.10 | Ian Sobieski | got it. So even if you directed, say, to take it off, we're not definitively taking it off until after we hear from the ACD comments and... That's a discussion. |
| 04:18:12.41 | Jill Hoffman | Well, I'm afraid if we were then to take it off later or officially give a different direction later, we'd be starting that clock again, that 60-day clock. |
| 04:18:23.87 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:18:23.89 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, so I anticipate that the city staff and the city attorney are going to take the council's votes this evening. prepare revisions in line with what has been discussed and directed by council. and submit it to HCD4Review. Additionally, I will just update the council. We are now scheduled to meet with HCD on this Thursday. So, Um, Thank you, Beth, for doing this in such short order. |
| 04:18:55.24 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:18:55.26 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:18:55.27 | Jill Hoffman | So, I'm going to go ahead and get a little bit. |
| 04:18:58.28 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Have you got the new number? |
| 04:19:00.98 | Beth Thompson | for us, Beth? We have the new numbers. So with 80 units at site 84, you have, you continue to have a buffer. If we remove site 84 completely, and we don't make up the units anywhere, we actually end up with a shortfall for very low. So we end up with a shortfall of 17 units for very low. and only three additional units, so a small buffer for low, and we maintain the buffer for moderate and above moderate and an overall buffer. So there would need to be adjustment to make up the very low. And similarly, if you reduce... site 84 to 50 units, then you would maintain more of a buffer across the very low and low. |
| 04:19:43.13 | Jill Hoffman | So you said a shortfall of 17 units. Correct. Of rent and low? |
| 04:19:45.97 | Ian Sobieski | Correct. Thank you. Okay. But is that? Oh, sorry. |
| 04:19:49.12 | Jill Hoffman | That's okay. What do we have? We haven't talked at all about the city-owned, the city-owned site of 75, which is a corporation yard. what do we have a portion there? |
| 04:20:02.00 | Beth Thompson | Corporation Yard. |
| 04:20:02.44 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. I'm like 75. |
| 04:20:04.93 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. Yes, let me just pop that one up. I think that's... |
| 04:20:09.25 | Jill Hoffman | And then and then the next site is 73 and that's the school site. We don't actually own that site that's owned by, I believe, the school district. |
| 04:20:19.40 | Beth Thompson | So at the corporation yard, you currently have 31 units. So you have seven units on the smaller parcel, 24 units on the larger parcel. |
| 04:20:29.88 | Jill Hoffman | And how are they? And that's, |
| 04:20:30.75 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 04:20:30.80 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. And we own those rights, and how are those apportioned? |
| 04:20:32.76 | Beth Thompson | That's true. That's, let's see. 18, very low, nine low, and four moderate. |
| 04:20:46.33 | Jill Hoffman | And that's on the 31, or is that combined to those two sites? That's combined for the two sites. And what about site 73? |
| 04:20:49.48 | Beth Thompson | That's combined for the two sides. |
| 04:20:54.44 | Beth Thompson | the school site, let me scroll to that site. |
| 04:21:05.90 | Beth Thompson | Sorry, it'll take me a minute to find that one in my spreadsheet for some reason it has. |
| 04:21:10.19 | Annie Porter | Thank you. |
| 04:21:17.14 | Beth Thompson | Okay, so on the school site, we have 27 units assumed, and that's consistent with the school district's master plan. |
| 04:21:29.24 | Jill Hoffman | And how are those apportioned between very low and low? Those are 15 variants. |
| 04:21:35.98 | Beth Thompson | eight low and four moderate. |
| 04:21:43.81 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thanks. And could we, how would it work if we, similar to how we had the, we had sites 52 and 14 as RHNA alternate sites, or how did we say that? We had them as RHNA shortfall sites How would that work if we had site 84 newly listed or categorized as a RHNA shortfall site? Will we still be able to count those sites as part of our RHNA count, or would they not be able to be counted as RHNA units? Thank you. |
| 04:22:22.75 | Beth Thompson | So if you call it a shortfall site, that means you're only going to use it in the event of a shortfall. It's pretty difficult to do that with your sites that are restricted by the |
| 04:22:22.77 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. So if you call |
| 04:22:33.72 | Beth Thompson | ballot measure requirements because you can't make those available quickly. So typically if there's arena shortfall under no net loss law, you have six months to replace it. If there's just a shortfall, like you can't, in the actual rezoning, you don't have enough sites, then you would have to go through the process of setting up the ballot measure and you would not likely make your deadline for rezoning. |
| 04:22:59.54 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay. |
| 04:23:00.01 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:23:01.14 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 04:23:01.26 | Jill Hoffman | Thanks. |
| 04:23:01.65 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. just one comment i i have met with mayor cox with regards to the city corporation yard and i just want to make clear the climate for the cost of actually penciling these projects it's it's difficult it's difficult to get an affordable developer who's interested unless the number of units makes sense from a very low to moderate level and so I think it just says we don't necessarily have to, as a city, decide to build 50 units there. Obviously, we get to determine this, but I think, again, as someone who feels like we should just be placing sites strategically where it makes the most sense across the city. And I know that there are folks who are unhappy with it, but I wonder if we can give direction around preserving the park specifically and lower the density to the U29. |
| 04:23:50.77 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 04:23:51.21 | Melissa Blaustein | or the lowest possible density there, but keep it, because if we wait to do the ballot measure later, we may miss the zoning deadline, and also we will have to pay again for another ballot initiative. So those are two big risks that we're dealing with, and I just, I mean, also, frankly, I think if we remove it as a whole, it will be, it will raise a red flag for HCD at this phase in the process, and that's a big concern. |
| 04:24:11.85 | Ian Sobieski | Well, lined with options, council member. I mean, I'm all for her. the thought of creating more options. So we're talking about direction to staff, right? We're not deciding things like places an involving understanding on all our parts. and we've seen tonight discussion about sites along bridgeway that currently weren't studied 67 which was a little bit of work but that dry storage yard with the rvs the uh grassy field next to burkehold plumbing the hillside there these are all sites that are currently not studied not 67 was a little bit, but we started today on that work. The AR study I redirected staff to work on EIR on amending 1022 to allow that then Even if. we approved, even if we put on the ballot and MLK was approved, the city later next year could amend its housing on it. to take those, not build on those sites. If we could build low and moderate in some of the sites I just mentioned, then we could avoid building in the park, even if we've approved it. And so I don't know. |
| 04:25:21.37 | Jill Hoffman | So that would be a... |
| 04:25:22.24 | Ian Sobieski | SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS. |
| 04:25:23.01 | Jill Hoffman | it. |
| 04:25:23.15 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 04:25:23.26 | Jill Hoffman | We'll be sure to. |
| 04:25:23.35 | Ian Sobieski | What would be sort of a direction to staff to just research this? |
| 04:25:25.96 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:25:26.03 | Ian Sobieski | and what |
| 04:25:26.99 | Jill Hoffman | Give us a roadmap. |
| 04:25:27.67 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 04:25:27.72 | Jill Hoffman | for how to get started. In lieu of trying tonight to remove a site entirely and try to find substitute places and to Councilwoman Blaustein's point, this would raise a red flag because it's at the low level. |
| 04:25:42.92 | Ian Sobieski | my thought is in addition to approving direction on the ballot measure, it would be to give direction to staff to work on a process for potentially adding sites probably not in time for you know the next six months but But next year and so that even if we approve Sites at 84 at MLK Park We may not actually have to build them because we may by that time have gone through the process of finding some additional sites |
| 04:26:00.79 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 04:26:00.88 | Anthony Hay | and so |
| 04:26:12.64 | Jill Hoffman | Could I suggest that that last point be scheduled for a future agenda item where we can put out that thought and have a thorough discussion? Yeah. |
| 04:26:24.03 | Ian Sobieski | direction for stuff to do some homework. |
| 04:26:26.34 | Jill Hoffman | Right, but I think Supervisor, excuse me, Councilwoman Cox, the mayor, could participate in that. |
| 04:26:26.44 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 04:26:32.47 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you, General. |
| 04:26:32.94 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:26:33.19 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 04:26:33.25 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:26:33.26 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 04:26:33.45 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:26:33.46 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. Oh, for sure. It's just related to my... how much to press on 84 from my point of view, because without some hope that we might be able not to build on 84, I'm inclined to want to see what we can do to reduce that number. I was going to then ask Beth, at the table she showed with the negative pitfall, did that include reallocating 303? site 303 with additional site. |
| 04:26:55.91 | Beth Thompson | That did not include any reallocations to Site 303. And I did pull up the map of Site 84 just so people can see what the area currently being discussed. |
| 04:27:05.97 | Ian Sobieski | So. If we did allocate reallocate the three of the woods, we still have it at deficit. |
| 04:27:10.91 | Beth Thompson | Probably not. And I can I can do that math right now while while you're discussing that. |
| 04:27:15.26 | Jill Hoffman | . |
| 04:27:15.53 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:27:15.92 | Jill Hoffman | Let's wait for that and then keep the discussion going. Councilwoman Hoffman. |
| 04:27:20.11 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you. I just wanted to add... Sorry, I just wanted to add that, you know, as we move through this, even if we, let's say we do the ballot measure and the ballot measure passes, you know, these other discussions of permitting that goes forward that, you know, that aren't part of our plan, we can take credit for those, the new site, even if they're not part of anything of our plan, new developments that come online. We can take credit for those, the new site, even if they're not part of anything of our plan, new developments that come online, we can take credit for those. The SB9 exploration that we're doing, we can take credit for those. So, you know, we can continue maybe to get that number down at at mlk right and um then we can also obviously we own the site and we can engage with the people that live there about what the design is going to be and what it looks like so it's not nothing uh that's the benefit of that being a city-owned site that we get to build what we want to build um and we get to engage uh the design that we want want to design there and so you know that's and we can make you know to the extent that you want to call it development agreement we can have trade-offs with whoever we decide you know who's going to build it what we want them to build it what it looks like so we have a lot of control over that site um so i think that's one of the benefits of that being um you know that being a site that we own and yeah obviously we want to keep it out of the park okay |
| 04:28:59.97 | Jill Hoffman | I think you've had discussed really two things, potential future development that's not in the plan. And then as to this site, if I've heard you correctly, sounds like you would prefer to keep it in the plan, perhaps at a lower density. |
| 04:29:16.71 | Jill Hoffman | I'm trying to, yeah, I'm trying to, well, I'm working toward, I had a glimmer of hope there for a minute that if we could get it, if we could get it and move, you know, and move some of the lower, the very low over to 303 and it, you know, there was capacity at 303 or one of the other sites, we could do it then, and it wouldn't undermine our understanding that our plan says we're going to do zoning changes there to 1128, right? That was the other question I was going to have. So it seems to me the feedback we're having from our consultant and from our attorney is that that's part of our plan, and HCD expects that, you know, okay, we may have locked ourselves into that. I don't know. But, you know, I want to explore the different areas. To me, I think, you know, the key to passing our the zoning and getting over the line for our arena number. is this corridor and 1028. It's not 11, or 1022. It's not 1128. 1022 is giving us a much larger number than 1128, than the rezoning for 1128. So anyway, that's what I was thinking coming in tonight, and that's what I thought. I thought the balance was going to be up until about two and a half minutes ago. Thank you. |
| 04:30:37.80 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:30:37.83 | Ian Sobieski | So may I ask Beth to respond? I just wanted, can I just riff off of Council Member Hoffman's thing? He's like, yeah, I mean, one thing I've learned is that I always wish we'd started a project yesterday. I was playing catch up, so. |
| 04:30:38.12 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:30:38.24 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:30:38.39 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:30:51.79 | Marvin Garovi | Okay. |
| 04:30:54.66 | Ian Sobieski | If we want to have more control over our destiny, and Sergio can tell me if we're off the agenda topic, but we're supposed to be giving direction related to this matter. And it seems like, asking staff to start the process of looking into the how to add some sites that it's not going to be in the next month. there too, but the process for having affordable or moderate income worker housing along bridgeway and some of the sites that i showed earlier would allow us to potentially if we have to, not build in the park. And even if it's in the approved housing element, we could amend it next year. But if we're going to do that, I've learned over the last weeks and months about how long the EIRs take, And this cycle with HCD where you have to go back and forth. So if you practice, if your end result in March of 2026 was that you wanted to amend the housing element to remove housing at MLK and instead have it along Bridgeway, on a site that's currently not in the plan, you'd have to start that process soon. And so I'm wondering if we should direct staff to at least start scoping out what that looks like in terms of the amendments to 1022 that might be needed since we're talking about a ballot in issues. |
| 04:32:11.79 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:32:11.83 | Ian Sobieski | Right now we can't do it because of 10-22. |
| 04:32:12.03 | Jill Hoffman | THE FAMILY. Okay. I think that's something that Mayor Cox can participate in. I think it would be important for her to hear that discussion. I think it's separate from the first decision whether we're going to either eliminate MLK as a site now and find substitute places that we're confident we can convince HCD are good or I think Councilman Blastie makes a good point. It's going to be a red flag and it may make our lift impossibly heavy. |
| 04:32:26.81 | Anthony Hay | now. |
| 04:32:42.62 | Jill Hoffman | You know, it's a judgment call. It's hard to make when we don't really have HED in a room here to tell us. |
| 04:32:48.83 | Jill Hoffman | Or if I could just follow up on that. Or to what we've been doing on all these other sites, which is just remove or reduce, right? And we've principally been, or augment. I mean, that's what we've been doing as we've been moving through all these other sites, is either we've been doing little augmentations here and there, it seems, or we've been, in some cases, you know, reducing. |
| 04:32:57.08 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:33:13.27 | Jill Hoffman | The ones that we removed, as I understand it, did not jeopardize us in terms of arena number at any level. |
| 04:33:13.28 | Jill Hoffman | So why? Oh. |
| 04:33:20.71 | Jill Hoffman | Well, so, yeah, but right now we're talking, okay, so let's focus in. We're talking about MLK. Principally, we're talking about do we want, so it's pretty clear to me that we can't remove it at this point. |
| 04:33:30.70 | Jill Hoffman | So you would not support removing? |
| 04:33:30.87 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. I don't think so. |
| 04:33:33.03 | Melissa Blaustein | I don't think we can. I don't either. But I definitely support reducing it to the lowest level that we can. Thank you. |
| 04:33:38.83 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:33:38.85 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 04:33:38.90 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. So would you like to make a motion? Well, here's the new table, though. |
| 04:33:42.81 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 04:33:42.83 | Beth Thompson | So with the revisions, what ends up happening is when we start tapping too much into the above moderate, we lose our above moderate buffer. So it's that constantly reshuffling sites. There is capacity in the moderate where we could go dig around all the individual sites and find a few that could donate some moderate units to the above moderate. You're going to be safest having a modest number of units at MLK. That'll give you some buffer and some flexibility if you have things happen with your other sites. |
| 04:34:13.93 | Jill Hoffman | So what's your number, Beth? |
| 04:34:16.35 | Beth Thompson | So I would say Well, here, let me run one more with some units at MLK. And so if you have, if you want to just give me like two more minutes, I'll add some units back into MLK. |
| 04:34:27.96 | Jill Hoffman | suggested density at 29. |
| 04:34:30.50 | Beth Thompson | At 29. Okay. |
| 04:34:32.11 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:34:32.26 | Beth Thompson | And that I think is 55 units. If we do 1.88 units at 29 units, so does 55 units sound like a good, starting number for my permutations. |
| 04:34:43.53 | Melissa Blaustein | Wait, but 50 was what we were going to consider for the ballot measure, so that feels high. So I- Maybe look- |
| 04:34:47.28 | Brandon Phipps | So I say maybe look to the potential February 2025 alternative with MLK 50. |
| 04:34:52.83 | Beth Thompson | that. So 50, 35 and 15. Okay. |
| 04:34:56.42 | Brandon Phipps | Correct. |
| 04:34:56.90 | Beth Thompson | Anyway. And you can always reduce the size of MLK. You can still keep it at 29 and just have it be a slightly smaller portion of MLK so it doesn't There's nothing magic about the 1.88 acres. |
| 04:35:07.97 | Jill Hoffman | acres. Thank you. We're not talking about the wording of the ballot tonight, but we're talking about changing a density on this site. Is that correct? Brandon's shaking his head yes. |
| 04:35:18.11 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. That's correct. This would reduce the MLK from the M49 zone or H49 zone to the H29 zone. |
| 04:35:29.04 | Jill Hoffman | So is there a motion to that effect? |
| 04:35:31.74 | Jill Hoffman | And that's, I'm sorry, and that's also consistent with what we did, right, with Altamira and with, I mean, I'm sorry, let's just keep it, right, that's consistent with what we did with Site 202 and 201, right? H29 is what we did. |
| 04:35:48.69 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. |
| 04:35:48.70 | Ian Sobieski | and |
| 04:35:48.97 | Jill Hoffman | Right. |
| 04:35:49.02 | Brandon Phipps | Not exactly as the minimum density requirements for those sites were removed. They were made into inventory sites and subject to the underlying zoning. This would change the zoning and maintain those minimum density requirements. |
| 04:35:50.68 | Jill Hoffman | as |
| 04:35:58.24 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, sorry. |
| 04:36:05.76 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, and which is? |
| 04:36:09.26 | Jill Hoffman | 29 units per acre. |
| 04:36:11.96 | Jill Hoffman | And with the total number of units on the site, |
| 04:36:17.17 | Jim Madden | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:36:18.01 | Jill Hoffman | THANK YOU. Okay. |
| 04:36:20.80 | Ian Sobieski | I guess I'm not following it. It seems that we talked about 29, and now we're talking about 50? That's why. It's age 29. I'm sorry. I can't make this. |
| 04:36:20.83 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:36:25.46 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:36:25.61 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:36:25.73 | Jill Hoffman | Bye. |
| 04:36:25.86 | Jill Hoffman | I did. |
| 04:36:26.15 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:36:26.17 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. It's units per acre, and it's more than an acre, so it's going to be a higher number. |
| 04:36:32.04 | Ian Sobieski | But what Beth was, I'm sorry, you want to go ahead? |
| 04:36:34.25 | Melissa Blaustein | Didn't Beth just say she could reduce the size of the site that we're identifying from 1.8 acres to one, if she wanted? |
| 04:36:40.07 | Brandon Phipps | That's correct. In the element, site 84 is referenced as being approximately two acres, and that's where this 1.88 comes from. But again, it's only a proper part of a parcel, and the city maintains ownership of the parcel. So again, we ultimately have full control over how we develop this in the future. |
| 04:37:01.91 | Ian Sobieski | But under the program element, Director Phipps, are we not obligated to build on the full size? |
| 04:37:12.60 | Brandon Phipps | We can build whatever we like so long as we meet the minimum density requirements that council is discussing now. |
| 04:37:19.83 | Ian Sobieski | So you can be held on half the site as long as you're meeting the minimum |
| 04:37:24.05 | Brandon Phipps | So long as we meet the minimum density requirements. And what's the minimum? |
| 04:37:25.95 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. It's the minimum. Thank you. 29. Is it going to be 29 or is it going to be |
| 04:37:29.97 | Brandon Phipps | I believe it's 20 to the acre. |
| 04:37:33.33 | Ian Sobieski | It's almost a two acre site. Does that mean the minimum, even if you built on half it, half would be two acres times 29? Or would it be since you're building on half, would it be 29? |
| 04:37:45.92 | Beth Thompson | The minimum would be 38 if it's a 1.88 acre parcel. |
| 04:37:50.30 | Ian Sobieski | So that would be the minimum even if you built on half the property. |
| 04:37:53.29 | Beth Thompson | It wouldn't be half, but it would be a smaller, it would be the 1.88 at 20. If you built on half of the 1.88, or say you just brought it down to one acre, then your minimum would be 20 units. |
| 04:38:08.29 | Sergio Rudin | And the consequence of building fewer units than you were proposing in your housing element is that while the city could approve a project at a lower number of units... If you don't have an adequate buffer to absorb the decrease, then potentially you will trigger no net loss requirements and you will have to study and complete rezoning within six months to identify another site to make up that shortfall, even though this is a city project. |
| 04:38:39.09 | Jill Hoffman | So you still have to maintain the number of units. I mean, that's the... |
| 04:38:43.68 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, either you're going to maintain the number of units or you're going to eat into your buffer. |
| 04:38:51.54 | Melissa Blaustein | But Sergio, going forward, oh, sorry, but Okay, let's say because this is the city on site that we get to decide and determine how to develop and when the landscape starts to evolve after we approve our housing element, we see that we are close to meeting our buffer, and we only need X number of units, then that's up to us and we're still okay. That's why we have the buffer, right? |
| 04:39:11.29 | Sergio Rudin | Yes. Yeah. Keep in mind that buffer there is to protect the city from also the decisions of other people like developers. |
| 04:39:12.53 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah. |
| 04:39:19.79 | Melissa Blaustein | Right. Which is why having a site like this is very important because it protects the city in that we're responsible for what ends up going there. So if everyone else builds, then we don't necessarily have to move forward and build at all. But if no one else builds, then we would need to, but we have the opportunity to do that collaboratively with neighbors and in conversation with the community after a ballot measure. I, |
| 04:39:41.14 | Jill Hoffman | I think we do have some affirmative obligations to proceed with you know, what we said in our plan we would do, including putting something on a ballot eventually, but it doesn't have to be right away. We have a deadline that's several months from now. So keep that in mind. Yes, sir. |
| 04:39:48.43 | Anthony Hay | Thank you. |
| 04:39:48.44 | Melissa Blaustein | Sure. |
| 04:39:58.96 | Ian Sobieski | I have a question about site 72 next to site 303. Does that have capacity to add the units or to add a mixture of more low and moderate income? |
| 04:40:09.30 | Beth Thompson | No, so for sites 72 and 211, we had some specific renderings that were prepared by the property owner. And I don't think those have a lot of capacity. I think those were pretty much, they were, I'm 49. Building out the. |
| 04:40:23.92 | Ian Sobieski | building. Pardon me? Isn't that 149? Couldn't that be 70? |
| 04:40:25.54 | Beth Thompson | Pardon me? 49, let's see. You can go find Site 49 here. |
| 04:40:37.77 | Ian Sobieski | It's right next to site 72, I think. |
| 04:40:40.89 | Sergio Rudin | And, counsel, I think we should try to focus our discussion and deliberation on this particular site as we have a recused council member. |
| 04:40:47.93 | Jill Hoffman | That's right. That's what I tried to say earlier. We really shouldn't be moving anything without the mayor being present to hear that discussion. But we have a conundrum because we know that if we took it off, we would not meet our low-income requirements without substituting other things, but we're kind of hamstrung right now. I'm going to ask if you would like to make a motion. Yep. |
| 04:41:09.46 | Melissa Blaustein | now. |
| 04:41:12.99 | Melissa Blaustein | it. Yeah. Okay. I'm going to move to include the MLK site at the lowest zoning level per acre. |
| 04:41:21.38 | Jill Hoffman | 29. |
| 04:41:22.67 | Melissa Blaustein | Is that the lowest zoning level per acre at 29 units? |
| 04:41:22.78 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:41:22.90 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:41:23.01 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:41:23.06 | Jill Hoffman | Absolutely. |
| 04:41:26.37 | Jill Hoffman | With a total of 50 units. Thank you. |
| 04:41:28.06 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes. |
| 04:41:31.89 | Melissa Blaustein | I mean, that's the best that we can, just to clarify, that's the lowest option we can do in keeping this site on, correct, Brandon? |
| 04:41:40.29 | Brandon Phipps | I'm sorry, I didn't hear that, Council Member. |
| 04:41:41.64 | Melissa Blaustein | If we do keep this site on at a lower number, this is the lowest threshold that we can keep it at. |
| 04:41:46.03 | Brandon Phipps | This is the lowest overlay zone in our housing element. |
| 04:41:51.33 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. Is there a second? |
| 04:41:53.07 | Jill Hoffman | Let me just clarify, and if we don't include this on at this number, Sorry, if we don't include this site on at this number, we will not meet our RENA number, 724. |
| 04:42:08.37 | Beth Thompson | You will not have enough of a buffer for your very low and low, so you'll have no buffer at some point for one of your income categories without a lot more reconfiguring of all your other sites. |
| 04:42:24.86 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, well that's different. |
| 04:42:26.56 | Jill Hoffman | Well, it's a different answer. |
| 04:42:26.77 | Jill Hoffman | It's a different gesture. |
| 04:42:27.86 | Jill Hoffman | No, the answer has been the same. We have low, very low, and other categories. We have buffers in each one. If we were to take this site off entirely, we would be below and not have a buffer. We'd have a deficit in the low or very low categories. |
| 04:42:33.28 | Anthony Hay | Thank you. |
| 04:42:33.30 | Jill Hoffman | you |
| 04:42:33.35 | Anthony Hay | Thank you. |
| 04:42:33.47 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:42:33.57 | Anthony Hay | Thank you. |
| 04:42:44.86 | Jill Hoffman | It's not a top line number. It's not the total number. It's the categories. we have to meet not only the top line number, we have to meet the categories. And what I'm going to second the motion so that we can move the discussion forward on this site alone. We can keep talking. Yeah, that's fine. But I'm going to second the motion that was made. |
| 04:43:04.72 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:43:08.65 | Jill Hoffman | That's fine. Let's start talking math then. |
| 04:43:08.78 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:43:11.65 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, so I am less enamored of a buffer than other people are, and I'm fine with being at zero buffer with our arena number. And I'm fine with reconfiguring our numbers so that we're at the arena number in certain categories or reallocating amongst all the others. |
| 04:43:30.81 | Jill Hoffman | We can't make that action right now without inviting Mayor Cox to come back in. |
| 04:43:35.74 | Jill Hoffman | Come back in. |
| 04:43:36.65 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 04:43:36.76 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:43:36.85 | Melissa Blaustein | That's fine. |
| 04:43:37.24 | Jill Hoffman | So there's a motion and a second. And any further discussion? |
| 04:43:42.22 | Melissa Blaustein | I mean, I welcome ideas. I just think that this is the position that we're in. And agree. |
| 04:43:51.33 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, so I'm going to call the question. All in favor of the motion? |
| 04:43:54.96 | Ian Sobieski | We have, I think, I'm sorry. Do you have an alternate? No, I don't, I have it. |
| 04:43:56.32 | Melissa Blaustein | Do you have a question? |
| 04:44:00.66 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah. I'm looking to staff to see some advice on, it sounds like there might be more work they can do on this question of allocating numbers around various sites. And so, |
| 04:44:15.69 | Kay Carlson | We- |
| 04:44:15.98 | Ian Sobieski | And is our action definitive here? In what sense is it definitive versus? |
| 04:44:19.81 | Melissa Blaustein | I think it's a no action if it's a 2-2. And then it stays at the Planning Commission's recommendation of 80 units. |
| 04:44:26.41 | Jill Hoffman | No, I don't think that's the action. |
| 04:44:28.50 | Jill Hoffman | Yes, if we don't take an action, then I think we're left with what's in the plan without changing it. I don't know. Let's find out. |
| 04:44:36.10 | Brandon Phipps | That's correct. It will retain the Housing 49 overlay. |
| 04:44:42.47 | Ian Sobieski | There are two votes for it. We can't. I'm obviously skeptical, but if there's two votes that are repeating, it's better than |
| 04:44:47.03 | Jennifer Nimmo | Thank you. |
| 04:44:47.13 | Jill Hoffman | But, |
| 04:44:47.35 | Jennifer Nimmo | Thank you. |
| 04:44:47.52 | Jill Hoffman | there's and I eating it's better I respond I'm I'm I'm very conscious of your skepticism I think we should have long ago pursued other sites right we're going to be playing catch-up for a long time and that's another item that we're going to try to direct staff to proceed as a future item and all of us I think would be able to participate in that discussion that's a big discussion and And I think in fairness to Mayor Cox, she should be involved in anything that moves into another area where she has no conflict or this larger question that them. Member Sobieski has raised, which I think is a very good one, that we should be pursuing other places that are not currently in the housing element. If we truly believe we need more affordable housing, we shouldn't stop here. We should keep looking, and we should keep asking people in the community for ideas about where it might be. |
| 04:45:45.94 | Melissa Blaustein | Could we bring back Mayor Cox, talk about a reconfiguration, and then deliberate again and give new direction on MLK with Mayor Cox not doing that? |
| 04:45:51.12 | Jill Hoffman | director. |
| 04:45:55.33 | Jill Hoffman | I'd rather see if we can pass this motion first, and if we can't, then I would invite her back in and say we're stuck. |
| 04:45:59.15 | Melissa Blaustein | first. |
| 04:45:59.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:46:04.76 | Jill Hoffman | you |
| 04:46:04.78 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah. |
| 04:46:05.06 | Jill Hoffman | And if I could- |
| 04:46:05.99 | Melissa Blaustein | I do just want to say we have reduced almost almost every site that we've discussed this evening across across the entire community. And so and I mean. just in thinking about our housing obligations and being an inclusive community in general and what we've all said about spreading housing everywhere, I don't I mean, This is a very we're in a very difficult place, but removing consistently removing from site after site after site and then sending it back to HCD significantly removing puts us in a really difficult situation. |
| 04:46:37.06 | Jill Hoffman | And I would have said the same, I would have had the same view if we were removing other sites and it resulted in real jeopardy at the low or those levels where we would be below what the standard has to be. Right. So we're not there yet. |
| 04:46:45.14 | Unknown | Right. |
| 04:46:53.90 | Jill Hoffman | So let me go out from a different perspective, though. I think if we had started with MLK first, rather than being at MLK last, we may have come up with a different solution at MLK. So we're in a pickle right now with the low, with our numbers, because we're ending up with MLK. So if we would have started here first and said, OK, if we remove it, then we would have been fined. |
| 04:47:17.69 | Jill Hoffman | with our calculations. We gave direction, clear direction to the staff to review removal of MLK and last time. |
| 04:47:26.52 | Tom Hoover | We did do that. |
| 04:47:27.77 | Jill Hoffman | And the answer came back, if we did it, we would We don't you did not recommend it because it would reduce and we would be below the requirements at the low levels. |
| 04:47:38.77 | Jill Hoffman | Well, not if you have it. Well, okay, let me finish though. If we have a 250 buffer, |
| 04:47:44.10 | Jill Hoffman | We don't have a 250 buffer. We have a buffer for each category and currently. |
| 04:47:44.81 | Jill Hoffman | I don't know. |
| 04:47:51.00 | Jill Hoffman | It's great. |
| 04:47:51.02 | Jill Hoffman | We do now, but not if you start with a 250 buffer. |
| 04:47:56.69 | Jill Hoffman | No, it's not a 200. We have an overall buffer of 250, but we have also buffers all on the chart. They've been out there for. |
| 04:47:58.93 | Jill Hoffman | with her. |
| 04:48:03.58 | Jill Hoffman | out there for weeks. I understand that. |
| 04:48:04.99 | Jill Hoffman | weeks. |
| 04:48:05.75 | Jill Hoffman | Sure, but if you're telling me, okay, we have more of a buffer when you start at the very beginning than 35. We have more of a buffer in the very low. We have more of a buffer at the beginning than 15 in the low category. That's what we're talking about right now. So if we had started with MLK at the very beginning of this exercise, we've reduced all of those by eliminating different sites, by reducing the numbers in these other sites, |
| 04:48:31.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:48:32.18 | Jill Hoffman | But because we're looking at MLK last, all of these categories have been reduced as we've gone through. So if we had started with MLK, these different – I concede, yes. But because we're ending up now with MLK, these different categories have been reduced as we've gone through here. You have to concede that point. So I'm just pointing out. |
| 04:48:36.78 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:48:53.42 | Jill Hoffman | THE END OF THE END OF THE pointing out i'm not going to concede that point because we had an agreed upon order by which we took these up we gave staff clear direction a couple weeks ago very clear direction to explore this encouraging them to consider alternatives and we we got a report back in the order in which it came up |
| 04:49:01.54 | Sybil Boutelier | Thank you. |
| 04:49:08.92 | Jack Burrows | Thank you. you |
| 04:49:12.31 | Jill Hoffman | The mayor has led us through a... |
| 04:49:12.39 | Jill Hoffman | Wait. |
| 04:49:14.35 | Jill Hoffman | crisp discussion and we've made decisions on all those other sites. And. |
| 04:49:19.33 | Jill Hoffman | Sure. Okay. MLK is at the... |
| 04:49:20.63 | Jill Hoffman | And we've had the recommendation from staff from the beginning that they did not recommend removing this in its entirety because it would not meet our requirements at the low and very low levels. |
| 04:49:31.21 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, well, this is a mystery then because the MLK is at the top of our list, but that wasn't the first one we talked about, and now we've circled back. So this is a mystery. Okay. |
| 04:49:39.76 | Jill Hoffman | It's not a mystery. It's clear. |
| 04:49:41.79 | Jill Hoffman | It's not clear. It's not clear in the least, but okay. We can parse this later, but... Let's talk about this is what I mean, I don't. There's no... I can't conceive that we have sites all across Sausalito and that we really want to remove the site that we can't find and parse out 35 sorry, 35 very low sites across you know, these very large sites, some of the, well, a few of these very large sites, right? 303, 72, 81 that are, you know, somewhat large. And then these other larger sites. I mean, you know, and then you go back 75, site 75, site 73, you know, and 15 more low sites, right? So these are the sites we're primarily concerned about. We don't have any moderate sites. with 50 sites. We don't have any moderate sites. We don't have any above moderate sites. So I mean, I'm not wedded to and I'm not, you know, I'm not, I don't have a I'm not wedded to that we must have a site at MLK unless for some reason, because it's in our draft plan and HCD is looking at it, If Beth or Sergio is telling me that because it's in our draft plan, And because we say we're going to amend. you know, our zoning in 1128, that we've committed to that, that HCD is expecting us to do that. And that's going to, and for some reason we've committed to that, that's gonna be a problem. That's a different story. |
| 04:51:22.01 | Jill Hoffman | Well, we did not, I wasn't on the council when that commitment was made. |
| 04:51:26.16 | Jill Hoffman | Well, I'm asking Beth, and that's a specific question about, I suppose, is that? |
| 04:51:33.77 | Jill Hoffman | I'm sorry that this is protected, but we are apparently at a 2-2 standoff unless... |
| 04:51:38.81 | Jill Hoffman | Are our attorney, have they left the building? Are they still there? No. |
| 04:51:39.12 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:51:43.66 | Sergio Rudin | No, no, we're still here. Beth will correct me. If and or when I'm wrong, but I do believe we did identify site 84 for development in the currently adopted housing element and so. |
| 04:51:53.24 | Anthony Hay | currently. |
| 04:51:55.76 | Sergio Rudin | with respect to a council direction as part of the amended housing element to take it I fully expect we would face significant questions about the removal of the site, given that it is a city control site, and given the substantial number of very low and low income units that are proposed on the site. And Beth, maybe you can chime in here. |
| 04:52:18.98 | Beth Thompson | I think HCD will... be more favorably inclined towards the changes in the housing element if the site is kept in. So it definitely is a benefit. And yes, it's already in your adopted housing element. So you would be with this change, you would be reducing it by 30 units. And I think HCD will understand that given all of the public comments about all of the units in North Sausalito, HCD referenced those comments at one point. So it may overall, I think HCD could be sold on the reduction to 50. We may have a much harder time going down to no units. |
| 04:52:51.95 | Brandon Phipps | Yeah. you I mean, I think it's a good thing. Thank you. Just a point of clarification for council this evening based on this potential 2-2. As decided at the outset of this discussion, we are pegging the direction from council this evening off of the amended housing element. The amended housing element has MLK listed as 94 units, not 80 units. the planning commission voted to retain the Housing 49 overlay on Site 84, but reduce it from 94 to 80 units, with the preference that the Project be designated for senior housing. So just want to clarify, if no action is taken, 94 units will be the allocation to the site. |
| 04:53:35.39 | Jill Hoffman | So that's, okay, got it. Okay, so there is a motion and a second. We've had a discussion. |
| 04:53:37.55 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:53:40.26 | Ian Sobieski | I'm over the barrel on it. Obviously, I'm preferring zero, but certainly if I don't vote with the motion, then it's 94, so I'm going to vote with the motion, but I'm just unhappy about it. |
| 04:53:44.01 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:53:44.03 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:53:44.04 | Jill Hoffman | Y'all are. |
| 04:53:54.17 | Jill Hoffman | I'm happy about it. |
| 04:53:54.74 | Melissa Blaustein | I mean, I think it's my floor, please. I just feel like I'm getting pegged as |
| 04:53:58.37 | Ian Sobieski | Ooh. I just feel like I'm getting gay. You're not being pregnant anything. Everyone's working very hard out of genuine earnestness and it's a complicated situation. I'm just speaking for myself because I'm setting up that I'm even more now that we really start a process to find sites that haven't been identified yet that just make sense it galls me that we're going to potentially build in a public park when we have empty fields against bridgeway of all places the major thoroughfare in town that are going to stay grassy and my goal is if we did and if about measure passes and we build housing and housing's authorized in mlk my goal is that we don't actually have build it, that we're going to get to swap it out sometime next year in an amended housing element for housing in a place that makes more sense and doesn't build |
| 04:54:43.56 | Jill Hoffman | I completely understand your rationale, and I agree with it. Me too. |
| 04:54:47.65 | Jill Hoffman | Let me, the senior overlay. Can we? |
| 04:54:51.71 | Jill Hoffman | Why don't we take up first whether we're going to reduce the density. And if you want to add to your motion, including an appropriate senior overlay as recommended by the Planning Commission, that's up to the motion. |
| 04:55:08.15 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah, absolutely. I would love to do that because we had a lot of requests from Saucelator Village to include, to do that. Is there a motion on the table? There was, but I'm amending it now to include a senior overlay. |
| 04:55:14.12 | Jill Hoffman | Right. Thank you. Thank you. And I, as a seconder, agree with that. I think you agree with that. Okay. Call for the question. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. |
| 04:55:25.68 | Kirk Hassan | Bye. |
| 04:55:27.94 | Jill Hoffman | you |
| 04:55:28.01 | Kirk Hassan | Thank you. |
| 04:55:28.03 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 04:55:28.40 | Kirk Hassan | Okay. |
| 04:55:29.01 | Jill Hoffman | Was that painful or what? |
| 04:55:30.97 | Kirk Hassan | That's right. |
| 04:55:31.40 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. you |
| 04:55:34.36 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. |
| 04:55:40.15 | Brandon Phipps | Just want to clarify with counsel, what was the final density that we decided on? |
| 04:55:41.04 | Jill Hoffman | I just want to... |
| 04:55:41.39 | Melissa Blaustein | I'm sorry. |
| 04:55:41.54 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:55:46.12 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:55:46.13 | Melissa Blaustein | it's a good thing. |
| 04:55:46.20 | Jill Hoffman | 20, no, the density is 20. |
| 04:55:48.65 | Melissa Blaustein | 29, 50 is totally number one. |
| 04:55:50.40 | Brandon Phipps | 29 at 50. Very good. Thank you. |
| 04:55:53.81 | Melissa Blaustein | with a senior overlay. |
| 04:55:55.81 | Brandon Phipps | Is that preference for a senior overlay or a requirement that the city implement a senior overlay? |
| 04:56:00.68 | Melissa Blaustein | Well, I think earlier you talked about the fact that to amend our existing senior overlay would require an amendment to the programs in the housing element. but you could give direction for staff to do that outside of the housing element. |
| 04:56:17.39 | Jill Hoffman | And that's what has just been |
| 04:56:19.33 | Melissa Blaustein | Whatever happens with the senior, yes. |
| 04:56:19.38 | Brandon Phipps | . |
| 04:56:19.43 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:56:19.53 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. And that's what I wanted to clarify. So outside the housing element, thank you. |
| 04:56:26.23 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you, everybody. Welcome back. Thank you. |
| 04:56:30.11 | Melissa Blaustein | Please don't leave us again. Thank you. . Just kidding, Stephen. You did a great job. Yes. |
| 04:56:33.60 | Melissa Blaustein | It's like |
| 04:56:36.22 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:56:36.24 | Melissa Blaustein | It's frustrating to hear you guys go afield from |
| 04:56:36.34 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 04:56:36.41 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 04:56:36.44 | Ian Sobieski | Great. |
| 04:56:36.64 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 04:56:36.68 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 04:56:37.05 | Melissa Blaustein | TODAY. |
| 04:56:37.13 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:56:37.37 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay. |
| 04:56:37.38 | Unknown | Oh, my God. |
| 04:56:37.60 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 04:56:37.74 | Judith Wetter | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:56:40.96 | Melissa Blaustein | site 84 because I so wanted to participate. |
| 04:56:44.08 | Ian Sobieski | have just a two minute break. |
| 04:56:45.42 | Melissa Blaustein | Absolutely. Okay. We'll call. I'm going to give you five minutes. It's 940. We'll reconvene at 945. I guess Brandon needs to take a call. |
| 04:56:54.99 | Walfred Solorzano | We're done talking about the color of money. |
| 04:56:56.93 | Melissa Blaustein | We're on. Okay. So we're back. Um, |
| 04:57:00.99 | Brandon Phipps | And I apologize for this. I'm hoping that we can engage in a brief discussion on Site 303 and reallocation of units based on concerns related to buffer. If that's, yeah. I just want to put it out there based on some recommendations that I've received. |
| 04:57:20.43 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, so Beth, you said that if we, if the city council took the action they did, that we had adequate buffer, are you now saying we need to Identify additional buffer and that you think we should do that through site 303 |
| 04:57:36.31 | Beth Thompson | Correct, so you had Buffer, But you did not have enough buffer. So you would need to make changes at other sites to offset the cumulative changes to the other sites this evening. but primarily the previous changes to 84. So- |
| 04:57:57.19 | Ian Sobieski | So site 72, which has two sections ones zoned at 49 and the others at 70. Can we get the buffer from making them both 70 |
| 04:58:06.22 | Melissa Blaustein | So those are Dan Morgan sites. What if we just zone them both at 70 instead of one at 49 and one at 70? |
| 04:58:15.43 | Sergio Rudin | David Ensign, Well, and counsel, I think first we need to think about two issues. One is that addressed by the EIR and two. |
| 04:58:22.72 | Unknown | as well. |
| 04:58:22.77 | Melissa Blaustein | THE FAMILY. |
| 04:58:22.96 | Unknown | Ask them. |
| 04:58:23.58 | Sergio Rudin | Has that been considered by the Planning Commission? |
| 04:58:28.39 | Melissa Blaustein | Well, and guess what? Increasing density at site 303 was not considered by the Planning Commission. Beth, how are you? |
| 04:58:35.39 | Beth Thompson | No, no, no, this isn't increasing density. This is readjusting the allocation between the affordability of the units. So keeping the same total units, but increasing the Very low. Additionally. |
| 04:58:50.85 | Sergio Rudin | So, and I think As a matter, of course, if you're keeping the same number of units, you're not changing the density, so you're not required to further study that under CEQA. |
| 04:58:59.57 | Melissa Blaustein | So let me ask you this, we have the school site up on Nevada Street. on a school site, you can include a teacher overlay, For teacher housing, so long as the school contributes, I think it's a dollar per thousand dollars for the cost of development of the site, they can impose an overlay on that. Can we explore that or can we not because it's not part of the EIR? Sure. |
| 04:59:28.06 | Beth Thompson | That's not part of the EIR, and that might be a better exploration for the next cycle, just based on the work that's being done for the master plan on that side currently. |
| 04:59:36.53 | Melissa Blaustein | I don't know. Yeah. All right, so Beth, what are you recommending in terms of because we what we did what you're asking us to do is something different from what the planning Commission did the planning Commission reallocated affordability at site 303 to increase very low by 20 units reduce moderate by five units and reduce above moderate by 15 units. When you raise your hand, I'm in the middle of talking. I feel like I have to stop. Thank you. |
| 05:00:03.82 | Melissa Blaustein | No, I just, okay. |
| 05:00:06.58 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 05:00:06.60 | Melissa Blaustein | So go ahead. What's your question? I just don't understand why we're having to do 303 again when we just had a significant conversation in light of that we couldn't change 303. |
| 05:00:19.88 | Beth Thompson | you're not increasing units on 303, but... Chained them. |
| 05:00:23.38 | Melissa Blaustein | I'm going to... You're asking to reallocate affordability. |
| 05:00:24.74 | Beth Thompson | Absolutely. |
| 05:00:27.44 | Melissa Blaustein | So I'm asking what difference you're seeking from what we already did, which is we've increased density from 90 to 129. We've reallocated, well, the existing density is 129. We've already reallocated affordability to increase very low by 20 units. What are you seeking? What additional are you seeking? |
| 05:00:50.73 | Beth Thompson | I am recommending that to counter the various changes that have occurred to the other sites that site 303 be increased to 60 very low units and 25 low income units and maybe a slight reduction to either of those categories and the remaining above moderate. And maybe it would be like, I can play with the numbers a little bit, but something significantly higher for the very low and a little higher for the low. |
| 05:01:21.29 | Melissa Blaustein | Oh, Beth. hold on right now. |
| 05:01:27.52 | Sergio Rudin | And I suspect that the reason Beth is making these recommendations is looking at the table she put on the screen last time, which indicated that we only had a. above moderate buffer Following the council's cumulative changes, I suspect that Beth is suggesting we increase the above moderate buffer be slightly more than 2%. |
| 05:01:50.72 | Melissa Blaustein | It's not the she's asking us to. So right now we have. Let me. |
| 05:01:57.13 | Beth Thompson | Let me share my screen with the cumulative. So as the changes were being made, |
| 05:02:03.28 | Melissa Blaustein | I want to see 303. |
| 05:02:05.71 | Beth Thompson | So this current bottom number here has is uses 303 to offset the various changes. This. These two rows here have A buffer for very low, a buffer for low, a buffer for moderate, barely a buffer for above moderate, and then. an overall buffer, and this is with increasing 303s, very low and low. So we could increase those a little less. We could reduce these buffers a bit. and keep a few more above moderate, but it needs to be increased significantly above the previous change. |
| 05:02:47.89 | Melissa Blaustein | And so Beth, have you discussed with, okay. So I have a page in your presentation that's called Realistic Capacity and RENA Buffer. |
| 05:02:57.87 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 05:02:59.13 | Melissa Blaustein | But it doesn't have, it's not this slide. Is this slide in our packet? |
| 05:03:07.25 | Beth Thompson | No, this is the slide I've been making as you're discussing these various changes tonight. So this is kind of a live slide. |
| 05:03:12.87 | Melissa Blaustein | kind of |
| 05:03:15.31 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 05:03:15.35 | Melissa Blaustein | Got it. Okay. All right. So Um, the Planning Commission put... your slide that you gave us earlier had the Planning Commission recommendation, which had a RENA... which had 241. very low units, you're recommending that we go to 245 why are you asking us to go beyond what the planning Commission recommended |
| 05:03:41.62 | Beth Thompson | And so, And maybe it's not that high. So let me change, I've just been, putting numbers out there to adjust, to offset the other changes. So here, let me just tinker with it for a minute. |
| 05:03:52.51 | Melissa Blaustein | it. So I recommend we stay as close to what the Planning Commission recommended as we can. They had 241 very low units. |
| 05:04:01.40 | Beth Thompson | Okay, so here. |
| 05:04:02.01 | Melissa Blaustein | So here. |
| 05:04:05.70 | Beth Thompson | So I will update our numbers and you will see this is the, it's a little awkward to do some of these things live and not and |
| 05:04:20.38 | Beth Thompson | So let me refresh our summary and see what that looks like. |
| 05:04:34.36 | Unknown | that's you at. |
| 05:04:34.61 | Melissa Blaustein | That's you at. We're more concerned with very low and low than with moderate and above moderate. Right. And so You have above moderate at? 319 planning commission had it at 340 so that's fine You have moderate at 181, planning commission had it at 186. |
| 05:05:00.33 | Beth Thompson | So if, If we decrease the very low and low a bit, we can reduce, we can have less of, we can have more of an above moderate buffer and less of a very low and low. So with those changes, so reducing The very low to 50 rather than 60, the low to 18, we can still have a buffer across the sites and make less changes to. site 303, but it still needs So I'll just let you contemplate that, but some changes need to be made to 303. |
| 05:05:34.11 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, so the Planning Commission had 241 very low, you're saying 235. Is everybody okay with 235 instead of 241? Okay, and that's still 18% instead of the 21% they had before. So that still is a buffer of 18%, which seems pretty healthy to me, Beth. |
| 05:05:54.23 | Beth Thompson | Okay, so this would be the buffer with the changes to 303. |
| 05:05:54.26 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, so this, |
| 05:05:58.43 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, and we went from 157 low to 138 low, which is still a buffer of 20% instead of 37%. So are you saying a buffer of very low at 18% and at low at 20%, you think that will be acceptable to HCD? |
| 05:06:15.76 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 05:06:16.82 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay. |
| 05:06:17.02 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 05:06:17.21 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 05:06:18.05 | Beth Thompson | I think that will be It's similar to the buffer you had before. You could have us increase the units more at Site 303 if you want that to be a larger buffer. |
| 05:06:28.28 | Melissa Blaustein | I want to increase them by as few units. Sorry, we're not going to increase the units at 303 at all. |
| 05:06:35.20 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 05:06:36.50 | Melissa Blaustein | We're going to shift affordability. I want to make as little shift as possible so that it's not red flagged as a major change. |
| 05:06:53.32 | Beth Thompson | I think we go with this. We'll be discussing with HCD, this draft of the housing element. If they have specific recommendations, then they can let you know What changes to, you know, if they have further recommendations. |
| 05:07:06.77 | Melissa Blaustein | Will you please send this slide to Brandon and to Walfred? Walfred, will you please add this slide to the pre, to the, De novo presentation that's in the staff report. It's exhibit 14 to the staff report. Is that okay, Beth? Absolutely. Okay. And may I have consensus for the recommendation from Beth? I'm seeing five nodding heads. Okay, perfect. |
| 05:07:28.98 | Beth Thompson | Bye. Exactly. |
| 05:07:37.69 | Jill Hoffman | Just a quick comment, though. We're moving it now to make sure that we have buffers across the board. |
| 05:07:47.19 | Melissa Blaustein | Correct. The lowest buffer is at 18%. |
| 05:07:50.65 | Jill Hoffman | Well, actually, the lowest is for the above market at 8%. Yes. Okay. Yeah. |
| 05:07:53.77 | Melissa Blaustein | Well, yes, at 8%. |
| 05:07:56.10 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 05:07:57.06 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay. All right. Two other things I wanted to address before we move on to item 1B. is visitability, Thank you. We had a request from Sybil Boutelier that we adopt a visitability ordinance. We heard from our city attorney we do not need to do that within the housing element. I would like to put that on future agenda items list for consideration. Now I have consensus for that. Okay, and the same with um creating with revising any of our senior overlays i'd like we can do that outside of the housing element i'd like to give staff direction to consider revising our senior overlays to comport with council direction as appropriate may i have consensus on that I'm seeing five nodding heads, okay. Um, uh, Brandon and Beth and Neil, I believe we have given you all of the feedback that you need to move smartly ahead with the housing element and Sergio, is there anything else you need from us on item 1B on our 1A on our agenda? |
| 05:09:08.71 | Sergio Rudin | No, not at this time. Thank you. |
| 05:09:12.54 | Brandon Phipps | Likewise, on my end, thank you for the feedback. |
| 05:09:15.87 | Melissa Blaustein | Great, we're gonna move on to item 1B, discussion and direction regarding conduct of special election and proposed initiative ordinance Karen Hollweg, ordinance 1022 and amending the city zoning map so we're not actually going to give. So I propose that for items 1B and 1C, we take public comments since they're on our agenda and that we... depending on what your decision was on Site 84, you give direction to staff to proceed with to move forward with preparing a ballot initiative, I would like to give direction to move forward with preparing a ballot initiative for Ordinance 1022. |
| 05:09:57.75 | Jill Hoffman | So, |
| 05:09:58.09 | Melissa Blaustein | with some revisions to what was in the staff report because there were some mistakes. |
| 05:09:58.10 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 05:10:03.67 | Jill Hoffman | So right now, since we don't have HCD's comments, |
| 05:10:08.01 | Melissa Blaustein | Right. |
| 05:10:08.43 | Jill Hoffman | to actually craft a ballot measure. We're not approving it. |
| 05:10:12.95 | Melissa Blaustein | We're not approving it. We're just giving direction to continue to. And you don't worry. |
| 05:10:16.51 | Jill Hoffman | We need to work on it to incorporate at least the changes that were made tonight. |
| 05:10:17.26 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes. And to correct some errors that I identified with staff earlier. |
| 05:10:26.67 | Jill Hoffman | And there may be, as we look at that language specifically, particularly after we hear from HCD, and we may have a sense. ourselves of two things different than we might predict tonight. One is the actual language. |
| 05:10:40.43 | Jan Johnson | Yep. |
| 05:10:40.70 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 05:10:41.02 | Jill Hoffman | And the second would be... of the timing. |
| 05:10:43.70 | Jan Johnson | Thank you. |
| 05:10:43.73 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 05:10:43.87 | Jan Johnson | Thank you. |
| 05:10:43.88 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 05:10:44.29 | Jill Hoffman | Because it's a special election and we have choices. |
| 05:10:45.81 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah. We're not able to identify the timing because we don't know when we will be able to certify our housing element. We should give direction tonight to not proceed with a June special election as previously directed. And... So I want to give the minimum direction to keep them moving forward. in accordance with the other decisions we've made this evening. So is there a staff presentation, or can we simply go to public comment? |
| 05:11:16.89 | Brandon Phipps | Given the late hour, I would have only done a brief presentation. I think we can skip it. |
| 05:11:22.60 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, so I'm going to open it up to public comment on item 1B. First is Sophia Collier, then Peter Van Meter, then Michael Rex. |
| 05:11:37.77 | Sophia Collier | Thank you very much, Sophia Collier. On the ballot for 10-22, one of the things that I would ask or just query is with Site 201 removed from the housing element, does it need to go on the ballot? I would say no. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 05:11:56.90 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 05:11:58.81 | Sophia Collier | Thank you. |
| 05:11:58.83 | Melissa Blaustein | I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE Peter Van Meter. |
| 05:12:01.97 | Peter Van Meter | Thank you. Yes, you heard a lot of testimony tonight about individual sites. You've heard a lot of testimony about other opportunities that are not included in the housing element, particularly the discussion on other sites that are potential in the marineship area. I strongly urge you. Put the wording in your ballot measure. To include the repeal of ordinance 1022 as part of your language in that ballot measure. this will change nothing in terms of zoning land use policies or anything else in the marineship it simply gives you an opportunity with future options for sites for other uses to go into development agreements that go through a public process that will result in potential housing opportunities with the result being something that the public is going to have direct input into a development agreement concept. It opens up your options and gives you the opportunity to increase the economic vitality of the area, as well as housing opportunities by including that repeal in that ballot measure. Thank you. |
| 05:13:06.38 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Michael Rex. |
| 05:13:14.11 | Michael Rex | Hi. I've expressed concern that it might be a hard sell to completely repeal 1022. I think it'll scare people. It'll be citywide. And yet I heard tonight from a lot of people, they're scared by development agreements. They don't know what they are. It sounds like backroom deals, even though it wouldn't be. And if you appeal 1022, you don't have to even talk about development agreements. So it could really go either way. I think you have to decide what is more likely to pass the ballot. And that's really going to depend on how it's shaped. If you decide to, you're not brave enough to go and repeal, put on the ballot just right Removing 10. 22. I gave you a draft ballot measure, but I was told it was too complex. So I simplified it in one sentence. I'm not sure. I'm You're asking for relief from 1022 to allow development agreements on a case-by-case basis on specific sites where the property owners want to build housing units. Yes or no? That might be a softer sell, and we have plenty of time to explain it and politic it before it goes to vote. or you can be brave and propose appealing 1022 across the board. I welcome your discussion on those options. Thank you. |
| 05:14:56.54 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Is there anyone online, city clerk? |
| 05:14:59.27 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes, we'll start with Babette McDougall. |
| 05:15:08.00 | Babette McDougall | Hello, good evening. Can you hear me all right? |
| 05:15:12.45 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes. |
| 05:15:13.45 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 05:15:13.50 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Proceed. |
| 05:15:14.95 | Babette McDougall | All right, thank you. So I'm sorry I had to repair home, but of course I have not stopped watching the unfoldings. First of all, I'd like to applaud Michael Rex because whether we like it or not, he is really good at laying out the game plan as it exists. You have choices. And the choices are either going to win you the support of your voting constituents, many of whom you saw for the first time tonight. And there are hundreds, if not thousands more. Or, You can ignore the will of your constituents and you can make your deals because this is exactly what Michael was referring to. You know, people are talking about, oh, my God, Michael's been seen here. Michael's been seen there. Michael's been seen the other place. And there's always somebody, at least one other somebody, like on the city council, who's also involved. So all this stuff about secret deals is starting to percolate to the surface and folks are noticing. Hopefully you are too. This is why I appeal to you, please. Please. Think about consensus. You heard lots of voices tonight. I urge you. And Joan, I applaud you because this is not easy. You're the one that put democracy out front. So we're counting on you. We're counting on you to lead your constituents first. because they're the ones have the power of the vote. And they're already talking about Oh my God, what if we have to launch a recall? I'm not saying it's aimed at you, but I'm saying there are questions about recalls. So you have to be mindful of this. I can see Ian himself. really starting to become more balanced. I see Melissa becoming more balanced. |
| 05:17:11.01 | Sarah Fisk | Thank you. |
| 05:17:11.05 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 05:17:11.06 | Sarah Fisk | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 05:17:11.44 | Walfred Solorzano | Next speaker is Senator Bushmaker. |
| 05:17:16.31 | Sandra Bushmaker | Hi, I just wanted to speak. Since the beginning of the housing element, we've been talking about having to submit to the voters The question of 1022's application, yay or nay, on certain sites. And that is all. We have never, ever talked about repealing 10-22. At this point in time, I'm not in favor of repealing 1022. or muddying up the ballot issue, with at a rescission of 1022. We want this. to pass so we can get on with our housing element And we need to keep the ballot measure as simple as possible. Most residents don't even know what 1022 is. And remember, that was a ballot initiative voted by the people. to help limit the growth as much as possible in Sausalito. And I'm not in favor of putting that on the ballot to rescind 10-22. I think we should stay focused on the I'm not sure. The issues that have to be addressed with regard to our housing element and the application of 1022 to those sites and only those sites. Thank you. Thank you. City Clerk? |
| 05:18:32.17 | Walfred Solorzano | Next speaker is Fred. |
| 05:18:35.39 | Melissa Blaustein | Fred Moore. |
| 05:18:42.66 | Fred Moore | Can you hear me now? I guess I've got muted. I wholeheartedly support |
| 05:18:44.69 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 05:18:47.69 | Fred Moore | Peter's comments about repealing 1022. 1022 is not just about housing. 1022 is about economic growth for the city, opportunities for the city to reap benefits, the residents of Sausalito to enjoy economic development, shops, et cetera, down in the Rinship area, which is a perfect place for this. Unfortunately, we're not back in the 1980s. No growth is not an option. The city has already mandated that. So to look at 1022 as a mechanism to stop growth in Sausalito is exactly contrary to the housing element. and our obligation with the states. Repealing 1022 is not a scary boogeyman. It's not going to kick people out of the marinship areas. It's not going to overtake the waterfront. There's existing, as Peter mentioned, there's existing zoning in place, regulations in place that will help preserve the typing control of development and allow the city to be involved in the process as well as the public. Please seriously consider repealing 1022. Thank you. City Grand. |
| 05:19:53.12 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Next speaker is Alice Merrill. |
| 05:19:59.31 | Alice Merrill | Good evening. Thank you for hanging in there, you guys. I believe that 1022 was probably designed to slow down people who are developers who just want it. do what they want to do and not listen to the people in the town. That's what it looks like right now. So I hope that you don't repeal 1022 or even bring it up. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 05:20:31.44 | Walfred Solorzano | Next speaker is John. |
| 05:20:37.19 | John de Ray | Thank you. It's clear if you read 1022. 1022 allows for redevelopment of the marineship into industrial maritime artist uses and developments. It does not, it just does not allow for residential rezoning. I think if you submit the 1022 revision as you have it on the agenda with the specific current sites spelled out, you have a decent chance of it passing. Any of the other two options, whether linking it to development agreements or getting rid of it altogether, I believe you will significantly diminish your chances of having that pass. I'm quite convinced of that. |
| 05:21:33.03 | Walfred Solorzano | I'm, |
| 05:21:37.83 | Walfred Solorzano | The next speaker, Evan, Jane, Chris. |
| 05:21:48.58 | Walfred Solorzano | She's on mute. |
| 05:21:57.79 | Walfred Solorzano | And there are no more public speakers. |
| 05:22:02.01 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, I'm going to close public comment, bring it back up here for discussion. My understanding is that any city action to place a city-sponsored ballot measure on the ballot is a discretionary action and subject to CEQA. And so if the city were to want to commence a ballot measure that repeals Ordinance 1022, I'm going to close. I believe it would be subject to CEQA. Aside from that, We have. Thank you. This This staff report was a surprise to me because it listed sites other than the marine ship sites for 1022 approval and we had been talking. four months about the need to Ask the voters... to exempt the Marin ship sites, uh, from the 1022, um, traffic constraints. So a couple of things regarding the the sites listed on page three of the ordinance in the table. I'm looking at Brandon Phipps. So first, the top site is 39. There are three APNs and three addresses. One of the addresses is a Marin ship address. That's a typo. Is that correct, Mr. Phipps? |
| 05:23:25.98 | Brandon Phipps | I agree, Mayor, and appreciate your attention to detail. We will correct that. |
| 05:23:30.10 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay. We also do list site 201. Now that we have removed site 201 as an opportunity site, it no longer needs to be listed in this table. Is that right? |
| 05:23:42.99 | Brandon Phipps | That is correct, with the caveat that we will work with HCD to receive their next round of feedback, understanding that additional changes may be warranted. |
| 05:23:53.85 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, and then we also list on here 1319 Bridgeway and 501 Humboldt and 303 Johnson. Okay. Some or all of those may have been subject of the revisions that we made tonight. I would like to give direction that you update the table with respect to those sites that we made changes to this evening. |
| 05:24:18.83 | Brandon Phipps | We will do, we will ensure consistency, thank you for that. |
| 05:24:21.75 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, and then in the resolution itself, on the second page of the resolution, there are two whereas clauses that refer to ordinance 1128. City Attorney, I believe those the references to 1128 should be removed from the, 10-22-22. Resolution, I believe those were carryovers from when we initially were considering doing a single resolution for both ordinances. |
| 05:24:49.05 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, we can certainly make that change. That's not a problem. |
| 05:24:52.60 | Melissa Blaustein | So those were my... comments to Um, 1022. Again, we're not going to take action. We're just giving direction to staff for this evening. So does anyone else wish to give any direction to staff regarding the 1022 staff report and resolution and draft ordinance. |
| 05:25:14.42 | Jill Hoffman | I just think that the one thing that has been mentioned a few times is that in earlier drafts you had numbers, site numbers. |
| 05:25:26.18 | Melissa Blaustein | The site numbers are here. I think that's a good question. The site numbers are here and the APN and the address. What I did in the notes was place a description of where the site is. |
| 05:25:36.29 | Jill Hoffman | I was going to suggest that that would be good because most people would, for example, refer to the altimeroside. |
| 05:25:43.93 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 05:25:43.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:25:44.00 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 05:25:44.01 | Jill Hoffman | as opposed to a number. Right. And even an address isn't always clear to the reader. So if we're looking to put something on the ballot that deals with specific sites and rezoning, we want to make sure people understand exactly what they're voting for on which sites. So that's my suggestion as we look toward putting something on the ballot at the appropriate time. |
| 05:25:45.65 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 05:25:45.72 | Unknown | Right. |
| 05:26:07.62 | Melissa Blaustein | To add to that, so for Site 39, I wrote Seafood Peddler. For... site 47 I wrote Bridgeway Marina for site 72 I wrote fang Nian for site 79 I wrote Scott of Sausalito for site 81 I wrote Dario's high five so I will share this with CEDD but that's the type of clarity that I recommend we include for transparency |
| 05:26:32.24 | Sergio Rudin | And keep in mind, council... |
| 05:26:33.51 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah, absolutely. |
| 05:26:34.83 | Sergio Rudin | that this ballot measure once adopted would be codified in your zoning code and would never change. So in terms of The descriptions that we give to these particular sites, while they may be germane now, we want to be mindful about how the germane they will be in perpetuity. |
| 05:26:49.25 | Melissa Blaustein | OK, so we could put it in the description rather than the actual description. ordinance, we could also, this same table is in the staff report on page two, so we could certainly include this in the staff report. if not in the actual world. ballot measure. |
| 05:27:08.79 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, I think, you know, appropriate public education about the sites is certainly going to be a key, key issue. |
| 05:27:16.07 | Melissa Blaustein | Councilmember Sobieski. |
| 05:27:17.28 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you, Mayor. I'll start with a question for staff, for our city attorney. Sergio, I know you and I spoke about this earlier, exactly the question that the mayor brought up about whether a repeal 1022 would trigger CEQA, and my understanding is, as long as the underlying zoning is not changed, and the FAR stay the same, that there would be no need for CEQA. Is that correct? |
| 05:27:39.62 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, so the need for CEQA is going to depend on the exact contents of the ballot measure. The only instance where I could even plausibly see an argument that we You don't need CEQA as if the ballot measure literally has no potential for impact on the environment. So if you had a ballot measure that says Ordinance 1022 is repealed, but the same land use standards remain in effect, You are right. I think that would be a good argument that no sequas required. Um, We'd also need to explain to the voters why they would be passing such a measure. |
| 05:28:09.66 | Ian Sobieski | The only thing that would change in that event is that instead of a a vote of the people being required for a zoning change, the city council after its due process would be able to make such a change. |
| 05:28:22.47 | Sergio Rudin | Yes, and certainly anytime you're making those changes, that would also be subject to SQL. |
| 05:28:27.99 | Ian Sobieski | Correct. Thank you. So, Thank you very much, Sergio. So my comment is I would be in favor of directing staff to come up with draft language for repealing 1022. It is germane to the housing issue for the reasons that we discuss, and it's germane It's just apropos of the moment that we are in where we care also about our economic situation. As John DeRay mentioned, the nine neglect of the property owners is partly the explanation of scenes like this. But 1022 is not working for housing. It's not working for our economy. I have a boat and need to, these are sites in the Marinership. This is not a good use of space. It may generate millions of dollars in tax revenue, but as was pointed out in public comment tonight, it generates one-tenth per acre. Why is the clock in? |
| 05:29:22.22 | Melissa Blaustein | Why is the clock not on, City Clerk? It is on. |
| 05:29:25.60 | Ian Sobieski | If I write in the corner. One-tenth per acre, the revenue of downtown. So if we just improve the economic utility of the land we have, we can have a more thriving working waterfront, more noise, more dust, more boats being worked on, more utility. But this isn't good land use. And the thing that 1022 tried to do was to keep this from being turned into office parks. And congratulations to the generations that did it because they succeeded in that. But something that was passed 40 years ago simply isn't serving us anymore. I have a boat, and I need a place to store my trailer. But if we're thinking about putting housing in our park, |
| 05:29:25.62 | Melissa Blaustein | I see it. |
| 05:30:07.23 | Ian Sobieski | You know, when we as adults are prioritizing what we care about the most, I think there's somewhere else we can park our boat trailers. There is just a lot to do here. And it seems like everyone has a knee-jerk reaction. Even here tonight, people said don't build in the Marin ship, but do something with the machine shop, not even realizing the machine shop is in the Marin ship. This is in the Marin ship. something here isn't going to affect the working waterfront. To get there, If we repeal 1022, then we would be able to uh, And I really encourage people to look at 1022. Here's a copy of it. uh, It specifically prohibits any kind of agreements. It says that There could be no increase in commercial usage or density. We're talking about trying to fix our infrastructure without raising taxes. It's going to incur millions of dollars more in tax revenue. And yet we have a law on the books that for 200 acres of our land in the city, we're prohibited from increasing commercial usage. It just doesn't make sense. If we repeal 1022, we would still have, well, commercial and industrial, we can't increase any kind of intensity by change of use. If we repeal 1022, we still have a long process of CEQA analysis, of planning commission presentations, especially if we use the community development agreement, article 10.81, that such projects take a long time of a lot of public engagement to approve. It's one incremental step forward. The day after it was repealed, nothing would change because all the FARs and zoning restrictions would stay the same. To change any of them would require a CEQA. but it's a step forward and what it would end up us being able to do is what I said earlier, we'd be able to identify some sites that would enhance the working waterfront and allow us to migrate some housing from our parks to places along bridgeway that make more sense. |
| 05:32:08.02 | Melissa Blaustein | I'm just going to rejoin that. Placing that ballot initiative on our ballot this year would undermine the 10-22 ballot initiative that we need to pass in order to enact our, implement our housing element. And placement of that, seeking that approach would absolutely result in litigation against the city. And we are in a very high risk profile right now. and we can't afford to defend expensive lawsuits, but there are enough people in town who would be worried about deferring um, judgment to this city council that they would take whatever action they could to prevent that change. So I... I hesitate at this juncture to expand the ambit of any ballot measure concerning 1022. I believe a more rational course is to get this housing element adopted, be able to defend existing litigation against the city, make sure that we're able to meet our Um, Zoning ordinance requirements by the deadline in January without risking the adverse votes for too broad of a 1022 ordinance. And then, you know, be more creative next year when we consider the next amendment to the housing element. So I think the priority is to get our zoning ordinance implemented. We need the ballot initiatives to do that. And I, would hate to fail. be subject to builder's remedy all because we tried to do too much too fast. So that would be my concern. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 05:34:05.02 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. I think if we could build on the discussions that we had that got us this far and the negotiated parcels that we have in the marine ship now, I mean, substantial partials when you look at them, substantial deviations from what we've had in the past of housing in the marineship and the negotiated consensus plans that we have now. They're quite large. I mean, you can't deny that if you look at it. And to build on that, I mean, I think there is further consensus of additional parcels in the marinship for housing. And so I do think that there is additional parcels. areas. down there that are removed from the industrial areas of the working waterfront that are available for further exploration of housing. And I think people are interested in that. The issues are clear, and everybody knows the issues about parcels that are, you know, adjacent to working shipyard areas and the protection of those working sites. those, sorry, those working shipyard sites. So, you know, and then if you just, as you said, I'm looking at the 1022 ordinance right now, and it's clear it's meant to protect commercial and industrial zones and to keep that economic driver going. I mean, if you look at our financial reports, which you and I love to do, Ian, you know, it's the parcel tax that we have. Our property taxes and our sales tax are largely equal and are at about $6 million each in revenue. And largely it has to do with, you know, it doesn't have to do with selling small tchotchke things. It has a lot to do with high-priced industrial sales and, you know, complicated things that are made sometimes down in the marine ship. And we'd like to make more things down there. And we'd like to make high-priced boats and sell more boats and sell more houseboats. And those things are made down in the marine ship. And so we need to protect that revenue source down there. And it's a stable and it's a powerhouse. And we'd like to support that. So that's my perspective. |
| 05:36:37.21 | Melissa Blaustein | All right. So we've given direction. Anyone else who wants to make comment on this or we'll move on? Go ahead. |
| 05:36:43.30 | Melissa Blaustein | I understand that there is potential for compromising the integrity of the housing element, which I've been clear has been driving a lot of the decisions I've made with regards to housing. But I would not be opposed to a future agenda discussion about the relevance of 1022 outside of the context of passing this ballot initiative, because I do think that there are components of it that are rather dated, and also generally we should have a conversation revisiting to the point of Councilmember obie ski what sites make sense in the marineship and what way how do we you know address those so while i don't think in the context of this ballot measure given what we need to do to certify necessarily make sense i don't want to not talk about it and i think we absolutely need to agendize it |
| 05:37:25.14 | Jill Hoffman | I think apart from my own comment is apart from housing, how do we best protect the working waterfront? And that is a different discussion, I think, somewhat. uh... that It does not depend upon keeping the status quo. I think there are alternatives that we eventually may want to talk about, but I don't think now's the time. I don't want to confuse the matter. I definitely want to see the limited measure regarding our housing element pass. We're motivated primarily to make sure we comply with the law as it is, even though we don't like it, and that we stay out of builder's remedy. But I do agree with Ian that we need to be thinking forward, either for next housing element cycles or sooner than later, to start working on seeing what development agreements actually look like, where the sites could be, where it would be relevant to have an alternate use, et cetera. So I'm hesitant to jump into this debate now because I think it's a little ahead of the task immediately, which is next time we meet, hopefully, or Soon thereafter, we're going to want to call for an election. And I don't want to have that election be confused with issues that take away from the main point, which is we want this housing element to be confirmed. We've made some changes, I think, for the better. And it's not a static thing over time. We're going to have an opportunity to visit this, and I agree with Ian. We should be thinking about this now and act as soon as we can. |
| 05:39:01.21 | Anthony Hay | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 05:39:01.70 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. to do some important things to look at the marinship in particular and the commercial zones and to see what restrictions are holding us back from doing the right thing. Things that don't interfere with the working waterfront. You know, it's a complex topic, but one that we do need to address. It's going to hang over our head every time we have a debate about housing unless we get on with that discussion. At least that's my view. |
| 05:39:30.01 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay. Everybody's had, okay. |
| 05:39:37.18 | Ian Sobieski | You're not a fan of what you want. Let me speak. But I'll just say that just for your consideration, obviously, I don't have even one other person to agree with me exactly to do something tonight. But the thought is if we take paths to give ourselves more options, it helps in the case of things not passing. So I put it to you to consider that when we're thinking about the exact about language and our path forward on changes to some of our old ordinances is that you know there's no guarantee that the mlk ballot initiative will pass and if it doesn't where did that put us in december of 2025 and if we haven't done the spade work ahead of time to give ourselves some options like freeing ourselves up to negotiate community development agreements or or to rezone some properties right along bridgeway in the then we might actually face builder's remedy. So you guys are the real estate. or to rezone some properties right along bridgeway in the marine ship then we might actually face builders remedy so you guys are the real estate attorneys and probably could sort this out better than me but my own game theory chess playing sees that as a potential risk so while it's all well and good to wait and do this at our leisure i think there's an argument to do it sooner rather than later |
| 05:40:46.69 | Melissa Blaustein | I'll also point out that we adopted priorities at the beginning of this year that included addressing infrastructure and generating additional revenue. It did not contemplate spending more money on environmental review or, you know, |
| 05:41:04.82 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 05:41:05.10 | Melissa Blaustein | undertaking another amendment to the housing element beyond what we've already planned. So I think we should place this on future agenda items, bring it to agenda setting committee, and we'll figure out how best to calendar it. Speaking of which, peripherally related to our decision tonight to not move forward with transmitting to the registrar voters on March 4 two ballot initiatives. We're now removing two agenda items from our March 4th agenda. And so our March 4th agenda also includes adopting a updated zoning program. Are we able to do that, Director Phipps, without knowing what our housing element is, or is that something else that should be postponed? |
| 05:41:56.52 | Brandon Phipps | Well, I think that's a good matter for discussion. I appreciate you bringing it up, Mayor. What I would say is similar to this evening, the council may always engage in a discussion between themselves and with the public in order to receive comment and provide direction to staff on what a final version of a document might look like and what they would prefer to see. That being said, I think based on where we are, we are all clear that we can take action. |
| 05:42:20.13 | Melissa Blaustein | We have to publish our agenda tomorrow for next Tuesday. And so it's important that we understand what's going to be on that agenda. |
| 05:42:27.25 | Brandon Phipps | I agree with you. Staff has, staff is prepared, as we have done last week, one day turnaround to support an agenda the following week. We are... |
| 05:42:36.58 | Melissa Blaustein | and on the zoning, the updates to the zoning ordinance that do not require a ballot initiative? Or can we do that without adopting our housing element? |
| 05:42:48.40 | Brandon Phipps | I would defer to city attorney on that discussion. |
| 05:42:51.80 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, I would recommend the council not move forward with introducing ordinance for rezoning until we have decided and finally adopted the housing element in part because our zoning is required to be consistent with the general plan and I am concerned about the ability of the city council and the city to make findings regarding consistency when our housing element is not yet adopted. And maybe the rezoning does not reflect what is currently in our present adopted housing element. So. |
| 05:43:26.68 | Melissa Blaustein | And are we able to, uh, the planning commission already considered the odds. Are we able to consider the odds next Tuesday? |
| 05:43:34.18 | Sergio Rudin | Um, Potentially, yes, we do need to look into that a little further, in part because in light of We want to make sure that The odds as proposed is not inconsistent with the city's currently adopted housing element. Otherwise, again, you would have issues with making those findings and you couldn't move forward. |
| 05:43:53.67 | Melissa Blaustein | So we made a promise that we would publish our agenda on the Wednesday prior to the Tuesday meeting. I'm asking for Mulligan. |
| 05:43:53.75 | Sergio Rudin | THE CITY. |
| 05:44:03.54 | Melissa Blaustein | in this week that we publish our agenda on Thursday to |
| 05:44:08.03 | Unknown | Yeah, seriously. |
| 05:44:09.46 | Melissa Blaustein | Well, if we are able to consider, we have so much on our agenda this year. I've been struggling to get all of our department heads heard. I do want, we are gonna hear from, I wanna hear from the Saucydeo Police Department regarding their budget. |
| 05:44:23.77 | Ian Sobieski | Go ahead. Just any chance to hear the appeal on Tuesday? |
| 05:44:27.03 | Melissa Blaustein | No, we don't have enough notice. We could have, yeah. |
| 05:44:32.16 | Sergio Rudin | Right. Mayor, we don't actually have a future agenda items |
| 05:44:32.95 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 05:44:33.80 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 05:44:33.83 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah, I need it. |
| 05:44:37.41 | Sergio Rudin | on the agenda tonight for discussion. I would suggest that we have this, Discussion about the next agenda with the agenda setting committee. |
| 05:44:47.48 | Melissa Blaustein | I will. I'm simply asking to publish our agenda on Thursday instead of Wednesday. |
| 05:44:54.03 | Jill Hoffman | Here's my thought. Our staff has been incredibly overworked this past month. They have been struggling to keep up and to get the reports. They've got them out. But I know from talking to them and... I know their schedule, and I saw them up until 1 o'clock last week. of the PC and turning around pretty quick to get this agenda out and getting prepared. So I would say let's take a breather and let these guys get caught up and let us get caught up. |
| 05:45:29.97 | Melissa Blaustein | So I can't responsibly say yes to that without seeing what's on the future agenda. And I don't have that. I would not be opposed. Me either. City Manager, what are your thoughts? |
| 05:45:43.34 | Chris Zapata | We can get the agenda out on Thursday, as we have in the past, and we'd appreciate it. |
| 05:45:48.52 | Melissa Blaustein | All right, so I'm gonna leave it to the agenda setting committee tomorrow to convene and make a decision about whether to cancel the March 4th meeting or put out an agenda for the march. |
| 05:45:59.84 | Chris Zapata | Mayor, if I may, we have business for March the 4th. |
| 05:46:00.23 | Angelica Pinochet | That's very calm. |
| 05:46:01.02 | Melissa Blaustein | I'm going to go. |
| 05:46:04.04 | Chris Zapata | It just won't be those things. So canceling the meeting, I think, would set us back. Obviously, we have a police presentation and a PG&E presentation. |
| 05:46:04.11 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah, we have other businesses. |
| 05:46:11.25 | Jill Hoffman | And with respect to the odds, obviously there's a lot of work that was done both by the peer review group. Documents are put together. The Planning Commission thoroughly reviewed it. It seems to me that at least on the policy side, we could have that before us and discuss it. If there are some technical things that need to be worked out before it's finalized, that's a separate question. |
| 05:46:35.31 | Melissa Blaustein | Again, we're going the city attorney has asked that the agenda setting committee have this because this is not on our agenda. |
| 05:46:41.69 | Jill Hoffman | I think we can always talk about the process and scheduling. |
| 05:46:48.66 | Jill Hoffman | under the Brown Act. |
| 05:46:49.67 | Melissa Blaustein | We don't have a future agenda items item on our agenda tonight. We only have three housing element items. |
| 05:46:58.28 | Jill Hoffman | Well, my understanding, and correct me, city attorney, if I'm wrong, but if we want to schedule something, we can talk about scheduling. |
| 05:47:07.85 | Sergio Rudin | And usually to avoid any potential concerns with the Brown Act, we do normally have a specific place on our agenda for that discussion under future agenda items. |
| 05:47:19.17 | Melissa Blaustein | All right. Anyway. I think we've gotten feedback. I appreciate it. You can't leave yet. You still have to do one more agenda item. I'm the only one who gets to leave right now. Yeah. So next on our agenda is item 1C, Discussion and direction regarding submitting to qualified voters of the city of Sausalito initiative ordinance amending ordinance 1128. Because this concerns the MLK site, I have to recuse myself And so And we do have, we do. This is why you want to keep my Tuesdays being, I'm kidding. |
| 05:47:49.14 | Melissa Blaustein | This is why you want to |
| 05:47:52.77 | Melissa Blaustein | We do have two speaker cards. I'm sure there are other people online. So with great pleasure, I'm going to pass the gavel. to the vice mayor. Thank you. |
| 05:48:01.34 | Melissa Blaustein | All right. Good night. |
| 05:48:03.77 | Melissa Blaustein | and I will excuse myself. |
| 05:48:03.79 | Melissa Blaustein | I will excuse myself. Thank you, Amy. |
| 05:48:05.34 | Jill Hoffman | Great job, Mary. We got to hear a lot of things. |
| 05:48:05.63 | Melissa Blaustein | I'm sorry. |
| 05:48:05.83 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 05:48:05.86 | Melissa Blaustein | there. |
| 05:48:06.37 | Melissa Blaustein | THE END OF |
| 05:48:06.42 | Melissa Blaustein | We got through a lot of things. We got through so much. Congratulations to all, and thanks to so many members of the public for your really thoughtful participation. |
| 05:48:15.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:48:20.56 | Jill Hoffman | So 1128, I know the mayor has a conflict. And the question, though, is whether to put something on the ballot for that or a discussion about that topic. and |
| 05:48:35.87 | Emmett Yeazell | Yes. |
| 05:48:36.27 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Right. I understand. I understand. I just want to make sure everyone understands what the issue is before. And are there public comment cards? Anyone in the audience? Yes. |
| 05:48:49.59 | Walfred Solorzano | I give them to Joan. Joan, do you have a slip? |
| 05:48:51.19 | Melissa Blaustein | Joan, do you have a slips? The public comment slips? |
| 05:48:51.98 | Melissa Blaustein | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 05:48:52.13 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 05:48:52.19 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 05:48:52.20 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 05:48:52.29 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. the vice mayor, there were two slips. |
| 05:49:01.04 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 05:49:01.18 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 05:49:01.28 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 05:49:03.91 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. And you also forgot your jacket. |
| 05:49:08.74 | Jill Hoffman | We can show of hands in the audience. |
| 05:49:13.08 | Melissa Blaustein | Sophia and Michael. Sure. |
| 05:49:17.08 | Jill Hoffman | Sophia Collier, you're welcome to make your comments. |
| 05:49:20.54 | Melissa Blaustein | Are we going to not? |
| 05:49:22.58 | Sophia Collier | Okay, thank you very much. I mean, one of the things that I was disappointed that we weren't able to cover would have been a discussion that could have obviated the need for the ballot. which it would have been possibly when the discussion was going on, possibly finding another site that could have potentially filled the the need for those few units because I think everybody here knows that those Everybody heard it. You know, that's our park. You know, we build something there, you know, that's going to be forever for a long time so certainly there are ways to build there and You know, would work could be okay and work out, you know, my studios. They're probably involved tearing down the building but I'm resigned to that. But I think that I wish that where there were, now that there's a little more time, to just really take a look and see is there any other sites that we're down to such a small number here. Would there be some other site And I had mentioned I texted a few times to some people, I'll not mention who, you know, but basically to see if There were some other ways to just find those few units someplace and then save that park. You know, I'd love to see that. So that's on the topic of the ballot initiative, that we wouldn't need it. |
| 05:50:32.90 | Jill Hoffman | So. |
| 05:50:38.53 | Jill Hoffman | It would obviate the need is what you're saying. But just to point out, I thought we had a very extensive discussion about the possibility of |
| 05:50:40.40 | Sophia Collier | what you're saying. Right, exactly. |
| 05:50:46.97 | Jill Hoffman | reducing to zero in other words take a lot right if we could satisfy our our targets for low and such that was the point of that discussion and we are limited as was mentioned earlier by the fact that other sites that might be obvious to the general public were not evaluated under sequa so we didn't have the capacity today to make a move |
| 05:50:49.64 | Kirk Hassan | Right. |
| 05:51:09.46 | Sophia Collier | It's a good day to me. These were the ones that I had identified a specific group or specific site set where I think possibly there could be a threaded needle. Again, I don't know if it would work or not. Just an idea that came up, if it would work, wouldn't that be great? You know, and again, I spent a lot of time looking over these sites, so I have a very strong understanding of them. So I just, I offered that one option to be considered, so. |
| 05:51:36.68 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you. Michael Rex, looks like you're next. Yes, hi. |
| 05:51:40.46 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 05:51:40.53 | Jill Hoffman | I'm |
| 05:51:40.67 | Michael Rex | on the ballot measure for MLK. I, |
| 05:51:49.29 | Michael Rex | You made the decision on the housing element already about 29 units per acre. So that's a done deal. Although you could adjust the size of instead of the 1.8 acres or whatever it is. If you want to get closer to 30 units instead of 50 units, you could adjust the size. And I think you still could do that. maybe in another action. The other one is I think you You also made a recommendation for senior housing. I'm not sure. a recommendation because it's not in the housing element to have a senior overlay, unfortunately. If you're going to make a recommendation, I would suggest you're not just limited seniors. I think there was a benefit to have teachers and first responders and city workers. And I think socially it's good to mix different types of people together and not just all the seniors living together. And if it's a recommendation, why not broaden the recommendation? It might. help. Get the vote. And then the last one. This isn't this related. I wouldn't present it without a model that really shows where those units would go, what it would look like, and it'd be a properly done model, and maybe even use ViewSync to show what kind of views it might impact. Food for thought. |
| 05:53:20.87 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 05:53:21.26 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 05:53:21.54 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Any other comments? |
| 05:53:23.62 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes, we have Babette McDougall. |
| 05:53:30.42 | Babette McDougall | Good evening once again. So I would just like to, in fact, echo. Oh, by the way, can you hear me all right? |
| 05:53:38.35 | Unknown | Yes, we do. |
| 05:53:38.60 | Babette McDougall | Yes. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you so much for stepping up on this occasion. This is actually a really important night. And everybody that, like myself, had to vacate the council chamber were all watching. So you haven't lost your audience. So I'm glad to see that there's this measured approach toward consensus. That's really encouraging. I want to thank you for your personal role in that. And also I want to really applaud Captain Hoffman because she is the stalwart. She's the one that everybody counts on for always the correct interpretation of law. and ethics. And this is something that our council really needs to step up to. So I'm really looking forward to a... to use your Current phrase, rigorous debate. going forward on how we can equitably As a community, it doesn't matter if you're a positive or a negative, whatever that's supposed to mean, I still don't know. And frankly, I don't care. What I care about are neighbors working together. That's what I care about. And Stephen, I'm going to count on you just as I count on Joan, and we have always counted on Jill. I want to see you all come up, and I'm feeling encouraged by both Melissa and Ian, but there is no... way to get around the facts. that just in the last 10 days alone, unprecedented number of reports of special deals going down around town. It's very troubling. To see, you know, somebody like an architect in a meeting with a council member, at least one. And then there's also a developer or a property owner. I mean, come on. How many times do we have to hear this? There's a reason why there's a lack of public trust. |
| 05:55:33.41 | Walfred Solorzano | No further public speakers. |
| 05:55:34.97 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you. Bringing the issue back to council, we're not able to take an action tonight. I think this is a matter that we need to wait and discuss at a future time after we've heard from HCD. This issue is pretty straightforward. It's an up or down on one site. So there's not much to debate in terms of language if and when we get to it. One question, though, for Sergio has to do with timing, just so we're all informed. We're looking to call a special election. We have flexibility as to the date of the election. |
| 05:56:12.15 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, that's correct. Basically, you have to call a special election not less than 88 days away. It doesn't have to be on a particularly established election date, although the council should probably consider trying to align it with one if it's available, in part because of the cost savings of consolidation. So yes. |
| 05:56:34.83 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. And then in terms of I know there's a consolidated election in August, the latter part of August, at the county level. And I think the only other one in the remainder of this year that we would have time to qualify for on a consolidated basis is November. But we're not limited to the consolidated. If we want to incur the extra expense, we can choose a different date. Is that? That's correct. Yes. So we're all clear on that point. |
| 05:56:52.30 | John Flavin | November. |
| 05:57:01.00 | John Flavin | That's correct. |
| 05:57:07.60 | Jill Hoffman | Any other comments at this point? There's no action to be taken at this point. How does it feel to say adjourned, meeting's adjourned? Hit the gavel. Okay, I'm going to do that. We are now adjourned. Thank you. |
| 05:57:22.47 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:57:25.71 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you, council members. |