| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.03 | Director Phipps | To order. |
| 00:00:01.03 | Kristina Feller | Reporting in progress. |
| 00:00:02.24 | Director Phipps | Thank you. And good evening to you, Chair Saad, Vice Chair Junius, Planning Commissioners, staff, and members of the public. This evening's meeting is being held at City of Sausalito's Council Chambers at 420 Litho Street and is open to members of the public. Members of the public may also access this meeting and provide a public comment through Zoom. Firstly, I will say happy to be using the Chair Saad, Vice Chair Junius titles at this meeting. Since the appointment and the kind of structural or title changes on the commission, we've held meetings. So I am excited to have Chair Saad at the helm this evening, in particular in connection with this very important meeting and the important items that we'll be hearing tonight. With that, I will call roll. Commissioner Merlon. Present. Commissioner Luxenberg. Here. Commissioner Feller. Here. |
| 00:00:53.66 | Unknown Staff | Here. |
| 00:00:53.68 | Director Phipps | Here. Vice Chair Junius. Present. Chair Assad. Thank you. |
| 00:00:56.75 | Nastassya Saad | hear of you. |
| 00:00:57.62 | Director Phipps | And we have achieved quorum. Back to you, Chair. |
| 00:01:00.58 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chair Phipps, Director Phipps. Second item is the approval of the agenda. Looking for a motion or any... So moved. Thank you. |
| 00:01:09.05 | Unknown | of... Exactly. |
| 00:01:11.63 | Nastassya Saad | Any discussion? Nope. Director Phipps, take role. |
| 00:01:15.77 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Merlin. Yes. Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Saad. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:01:19.95 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 00:01:23.70 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. Item three, our public comments on items not on this agenda. Director Pips, can you give the public some direction? |
| 00:01:32.98 | Director Phipps | Absolutely. Thank you, Chair. I'll just say video public participation is limited to three minutes per speaker. If you'd like to make a comment, please submit a speaker card to me and or my colleagues to my right. If you'd like to make a comment in a Zoom application, please raise your hand and you will be called upon when it is your time to speak. to raise your hand from a phone press star nine and each speaker will be notified when their time has elapsed uh just as a reminder to folks this is the time for the commission to hear from citizens regarding matters not Star 9 and each speaker will be notified when their time has elapsed. Just as a reminder to folks, this is the time for the commission to hear from citizens regarding matters not on the agenda. |
| 00:02:07.18 | Director Phipps | looking for interested speakers. I have received no speaker cards thus far. Also gonna take a quick look, commissioners, at the Zoom application and I see no hands raised. I will give that one more moment And seeing none, back to you, Chair. |
| 00:02:24.92 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Director Phipps. So we can move on to the public hearing portion of the agenda. First item we have this evening is 4A. This is a public hearing and recommendation on the certification of amended 2023 to 2031 housing element, environmental impact report, and the adoption of the amended housing element and related general plan amendments. |
| 00:02:51.31 | Kristina Feller | Sure. Chair, so do you mind if I just as a point of privilege, because we've been issued our conflict maps again. Thank you, director Phipps. I was wondering how the city attorney would like to handle our recusal of any particular site. Should we actually engage in a debate about any particular site versus the entire, housing element plan overall. |
| 00:03:21.10 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. If you have, if the discussion is going to be on the entire housing element, |
| 00:03:21.16 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:03:26.70 | Mary Wagner | There's no need for recusal, it just stays in that. At the point that an item, a specific location is called out that is within your conflict of interest. you'll need to declare the conflict. recuse yourself, which means you'll need to leave the dais, leave the room, The commission can then continue the discussion on that specific location. when that discussion is complete, whether the discussion and ultimately a motion if necessary. Once that's complete, then the commissioner can come back in the room So, if, We need to do that. It may become a little bit choppy because we may have a couple of conflicts. We may have only one. but, There will need to be some patience with commission at the point we start calling out specific locations that they potentially have conflicts. |
| 00:04:17.02 | Kristina Feller | Karen Hollweg, We were just looking for some general guidance and then are we free to ask any clarification questions from staff reports about any site, no matter proximity. |
| 00:04:19.21 | Unknown Staff | Yeah. |
| 00:04:19.23 | Mary Wagner | Yeah. |
| 00:04:19.42 | Unknown Staff | Thank you. |
| 00:04:31.57 | Mary Wagner | you're turning into a dangerous |
| 00:04:36.04 | Kristina Feller | I just want some guidance, please. |
| 00:04:37.20 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, at the point you're asking questions, you're potentially influencing. I would caution against asking questions for items that you have accomplished. |
| 00:04:46.65 | Kristina Feller | They're just questions for clarification from a staff report. They're not leading the witness. |
| 00:04:51.99 | Mary Wagner | Again, it just, there's... You need to be careful if you're going to ask questions because you could be basically it'd be interpreted as directing the discussion, items that are contained within your conflict without having a specific idea right now, we haven't had a previous conversation, my most conservative advice would be Do not ask those questions if they're items within your conflicts. |
| 00:05:19.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I ask a follow-up question? Please. So I understand what you're saying about if we have a conflict, we should not ask the question. If one of the other members asked the question related to a site, but it's a question, we're not debating, we're not back at the dais, do they have to leave the room when we ask that? They can hear the results of that question. |
| 00:05:19.93 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:05:43.35 | Mary Wagner | I would say that yes, another member of the commission could ask the question. The member with the conflict could stay present in the room. I would caution you on avoiding making faces, doing any sort of noises, like anything that could be interpreted as you're trying to direct the commission. You don't want the appearance of impropriety with a conflict, but you another commissioner could ask a question on something with that. Someone could have a conflict on and a different commissioner has a conflict on. |
| 00:06:12.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. |
| 00:06:13.86 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. No further questions for council, we can move forward. |
| 00:06:19.82 | Director Phipps | Absolutely. Thank you, Chair. I believe we have Beth Thompson joining us tonight, who will be providing the first presentation on the housing element. Before I pass the mic over to Ms. Thompson, I just want to highlight, underline, reiterate the importance of this evening's meeting. What staff are requesting of the commission is that the commission provide a recommendation on each of the items that are being presented before them this evening so that we may take that recommendation to the city council which will inform council's ultimate decision on the special meeting currently scheduled for february 25 that is next week i thank you in advance um for your collaboration in getting us to a recommendation and with that i will pass the mic to beth beth the floor is yours |
| 00:07:08.62 | Beth Thompson | Thank you, Director Fitz and good evening, Chair and members of the Commission. It's a pleasure to be back before you with the Housing Element. And let me just quickly share my screen so everyone can see the presentation. All right. So tonight the item before you is the amended housing element project and all just provide a little bit of background I know you've had a couple of study sessions and a few opportunities to already discuss and think about this so we'll just. briefly provide some background to the housing element a project description of the amended housing element a quick overview. of the comments from the Department of Housing and Community Development, and then a discussion of the modified housing element or an alternative option before you this evening. So the city adopted the updated housing element of the general plan on January 30th of 2023. And this is your six cycle housing element and addresses how the city of Sausalito will meet its state housing requirements, including accommodating its regional housing needs allocation or arena of 724 units. And the adopted housing element is available on the city's website, as well as abundance of materials related. Lisa Smith, related to the adoption of the housing element and the meetings that led up to that and similarly the amended housing element project the materials related to this project tonight, as well as the environmental documentation for it are also available. on the city's website. And so the proposed project is the adoption and implementation of an amended housing element. So this would modify the adopted housing element, and it includes changes to a number of components of the housing element. It would refine housing plan program four, which is to ensure the inventory of sites accommodates the arena throughout the planning period. This would add additional housing and mixed use overlay zones that correspond with lower minimum density. So it would create a new housing 29 and a mixed use 29 Overlay zone, these each would allow up to 29 units per acre. This would provide for additional variety and housing types that would continue to meet the city's Reno requirements and would also continue to affirmatively for their fair housing. There are also revisions to housing plan program eight. This addresses public property conversion to housing to address making publicly owned sites available for development during the planning period. The revisions to this would remove site 85 and also clarify how the city would accommodate making its surplus sites available. So city owned sites available during the planning period |
| 00:09:32.33 | Unknown | . |
| 00:09:41.80 | Beth Thompson | There are also revisions to Housing Plan Program 19, which addresses development review procedures. These would clarify implementation of housing streamlining provisions and just to note that the odds, the objective design and development standards is a separate public hearing items. So those are not part of this, this project, but the housing plan does include refinements to address the odds. So when we're looking at program three, the amended housing element, which is the proposed project, And as I mentioned before, there's also an alternative that we'll get to. It includes some modifications to the sites included in the housing elements. So site 85, which is along Bridgeway, is the Caltrain is a portion of right of way attributed to Caltrans would be removed. A site 209, a site at 931 to 933 Bridgeway would also be removed. Two new sites at 401 at 2400 Bridgeway would be added. and then also 402 at 2680 bridgeway would be added. So two sites would be removed, two sites would be added. In addition, there are a number of modifications to sites. These include adjustments. So as you can see, for each of these sites, we've listed the address, the type of change. So a change in the overlay, a reduction in units. So a number of these changes would be to change the overlay from a designation that allows 49 or 70 units per acre to a reduced density. So a number of these would adjust sites along bridgeway, sites in the downtown, and sites near the downtown. to decrease the number of units to a 29 unit per acre density. In addition, there are some changes to the sites that would increase the number of units so site 84 at the MLK Park site would have an increase under the proposed amended housing element from 80 to 94 units. And then similarly, the site at one and three Harbor Drive site 303 would also be increased that the parcel size wouldn't change, but this area of the parcel that the overlay would be applied to would increase to accommodate 129 units rather than 90. With these changes to program four, the city would still be able to accommodate its regional housing need allocation. So there would continue to be adequate capacity to accommodate the 724 Reno units. So as you can see, looking at this total capacity row here, There would be a total of 958 units available under the realistic capacity, and this would provide a surplus in all categories to accommodate the RHNA. |
| 00:12:19.70 | Beth Thompson | We've also provided a few figures in your materials tonight at your previous study session, there had been a request for some simplified maps that weren't quite so Um, So, information heavy. So we've provided some simplified maps in your materials that kind of just show and highlight the various sites that are under discussion. So the various sites that would be included in the housing element as overlay sites are outlined and shown in these different colors. Two of the sites, the ones with asterisks, are only associated with the alternative or the modified project. So these aren't part of the project as proposed. They're part of an alternative that we'll get to in a few slides. |
| 00:13:04.77 | Beth Thompson | And then similarly, here's another figure that just shows the sites, and this is against the city's zoning map. So this shows the various housing sites in relation to the adopted zoning. |
| 00:13:18.15 | Beth Thompson | We've also included a summary of the sites that would be affected by the city's ordinances that require a vote by the by their community or vote by the citizens. So ordinances 1028 and 1122. Or is it? I think 1022 and 1128, I'm sorry, there's a error here, but ordinances 1022 and 1128 each require a vote for sites affected by those ordinances to be revised. So the sites affected by ordinance 1022, which is the fair traffic initiative. or a number of sites, and these would Total 358 units, which include 92 very low, 51 low, three moderate, and approximately 161 above moderate. that would be accommodated toward the housing element RHNA under ordinance 1022. And then ordinance 1128 affects site 84. Site 84 is proposed to have 94 units. And then looking at the implementation of the housing elements, I briefly discussed some of the programs that are revised by the amended housing element project. And when the city is implementing the housing element, of course, they'll be implementing all of the housing elements programs and policies and actions. And so the environmental impact report prepared to address the amended housing element and its implementation addresses the implementation of the entirety of the housing element, including program four, which would ensure that a number of the opportunity sites are rezoned to the housing 29, housing 49 and housing 70 overlays, as well as the mixed use 29, 85, mixed use 49, 85 and mixed use 70, 85% overlay zones. Program four also addresses how the city would go about enacting the local ballot measures to address ordinances 1022 and 1128. Program eight, as I mentioned, would also be |
| 00:15:17.79 | Beth Thompson | that would address making publicly owned property available for housing. Program 16 includes a number of changes to the zoning ordinance. This includes sites Zoning and changes to the residential commercial zoning districts to address design requirements to ensure streamline ministerial review to address historic preservation requirements and historic design guidelines. |
| 00:15:50.25 | Beth Thompson | These various programs support removing governmental constraints and making these sites available for development. |
| 00:15:59.63 | Beth Thompson | Program 19 would also be implemented. This addresses development review procedures. This includes some majors that have already been implemented by |
| 00:17:32.20 | Beth Thompson | All right, just checking, can you hear me now? |
| 00:17:43.71 | Mary Wagner | This is Kylie, I can hear you. Now I can't, but you're muted. |
| 00:17:52.98 | Beth Thompson | All right, can you hear me now? |
| 00:18:00.27 | Unknown | that. |
| 00:18:00.52 | Beth Thompson | AND I THINK IT'S A GOOD |
| 00:18:00.61 | Unknown | I can hear you as well. now. |
| 00:18:01.94 | Unknown | you |
| 00:18:01.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:18:02.28 | Beth Thompson | Okay, excellent. I will continue sharing my screen and presenting. |
| 00:18:17.55 | Beth Thompson | And it looks like I keep getting muted. So there might be someone just bumping a mute button on their screen. So maybe just watch that. as well. So I will continue with program 19. Is this a good spot for me to pick up or did anyone miss anything leading up to this? |
| 00:18:42.12 | Beth Thompson | I'll assume that this is a great spot to pick up then. So as I mentioned, Program 19, addresses development review procedures the city's already implemented some components of program 19 to address the streamlining requirements of sb 35 and the objective. design standards of sb 330 this would also include adoption of comprehensive objective and design development standards the odds. And these are a separate item that will be a separate public hearing before the planning Commission. And then program 19 also addresses looking at the zoning code findings for residential and residential mixed use projects to ensure that those findings are objectives and to limit public hearings on those items to ensure that there's not constraints to development, residential development projects. |
| 00:19:30.03 | Mary Wagner | Beth, excuse me. I'm not certain that the commission is hearing you at the moment. I'm waiting for confirmation from Brandon. |
| 00:19:34.75 | Beth Thompson | Okay. |
| 00:19:37.86 | Mary Wagner | Brandi, can you hear me? This is Kylie. |
| 00:19:46.49 | Mary Wagner | Just give me a minute. I just want to make sure they are hearing us. |
| 00:19:48.88 | Beth Thompson | No, that makes sense. |
| 00:28:39.91 | Beth Thompson | of the housing element and the environmental analysis of it, we look at the implementation of the housing element in its entirety. And so some of the housing element programs that require rezoning or other actions, I'll THE MIXED USE 29, 85, MIXED USE 49, 85, AND MIXED USE 70, 85 OVERLAY DESIGNATIONS. IT ALSO INCLUDES A FRAMEWORK FOR ENSURING THAT THE LOCAL BALLOT MEASURES TO ADDRESS THE SITES AFFECTED BY ORDINANCES 1022 AND 1128 ARE ALSO ADDRESSED. PROGRAM 8 WILL ADDRESS THE PUBLIC PROPERTY CONVERSION TO HOUSING. THIS ADDRESSES HOW THE CITY WILL MAKE AVAILABLE CITY OWNED SITES DURING THE PLANNING PERIOD AS WELL AS COORDINATION WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND ANY OWNERS OF PUBLICLY OWNED PROPERTY THAT ARE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE INVENTORY OF SITES. PROGRAM 16 ADDRESSES AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THESE ARE CHANGES TO THE CITY'S RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS AS WELL AS THE REZONING OF SITES TO ADDRESS THE DESIGN OF SITES TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS ADEQUATE CAPACITY TO ACCOMMODATE SITES TO REMOVE CONSTRAINTS TO DEVELOPMENT TO ENSURE THAT THERE ARE STREAMLINED PROVISIONS FOR MINISTERIAL REVIEW, HISTORIC preservation. is adequate capacity to accommodate sites to remove constraints to development to ensure that there are streamlined provisions for ministerial review historic preservation and the historic design guidelines are modified and to ensure that governmental constraints are removed to ensure that the sites can accommodate the intended units during the planning period. and ensuring that these sites identified by Program 4 are made available for development as envisioned by Program 4. Program 19 would also be implemented, and this will, of course, address the city's development review procedures. This includes components that have already been implemented and adopted by the cities to address the streamlining requirements of SB 35 and the objective design standards of SB 330. It also includes components to address and adopt the comprehensive objective design and development standards or odds to address multifamily development, as we previously discussed, and those will be considered as a separate item. And then it includes changes to the zoning codes findings for residential and residential mixed use projects to ensure that those findings are objective and to ensure that public hearings would not be a constraint on residential potential projects. The Department of Housing and Community Development did review the draft amended housing elements And they provided findings based on their review of the element, and they included a number of comments. They commented on the suitability of non-vacant sites. They commented on changes proposed to site 201. The use of housing overlays that require a minimum of 85% residential uses and then changes to program 19. So the revised draft amended housing element that's included as an attachment does include changes to address HCD's comments. And then there's also a matrix addressing the responses to HCD's comments. And I apologize, the attachment numbers. Yes. |
| 00:31:55.65 | Unknown | I'm going to go. |
| 00:31:58.92 | Beth Thompson | The attachment numbers are not correct. |
| 00:32:01.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:32:03.09 | Beth Thompson | the Thank you. Draft response to HCD findings and matrix is actually attachment eight. |
| 00:32:11.86 | Beth Thompson | The city has also received public comments on the amended housing element. So the city has received a number of public comments in writing as well as public comments that were provided during the study sessions with the Planning Commission and the City Council. And these comments are we've included an overview of these comments as well as a summary of the commenters and so some of the comments, the key things I won't go through each of the comments, but some of the key things that have been raised by these public comments. Include concerns related to disproportionate housing density and housing numbers in northern Sausalito and so in response to these concerns, the alternative to the project. was developed to Reduced development at the MLK site to 80 units, which would be consistent with the adopted housing element or to accommodate a greater reduction at MLK to 50 units. And then this would result in the reduction overall of 14 to 44 units and the Nevada street valley neighborhood and there was opposition voice to the rezoning and the housing element amendments. And these have been noted the city's work to make this a transparent process. There have been multiple planning commission and city council study sessions to discuss the project and the city is made available the The iterations of the draft housing element, the revisions, the draft housing element to address HCD's comments, as well as an alternative to the housing element and various alternatives that have been considered through the environmental impact report process to make sure that the community is aware of what is being considered. have been identified related to traffic, infrastructure and environmental concerns. And these have been reviewed and noted in terms of addressing comments on the environmental impact report. There is a formal response to those comments. So in the final, environmental impact report or final eir there is an overview of the comments related to the eir and a response to each of those comments is provided regarding comments related to the regional housing need allocation the city does not have the authority to reduce the arena and it's past the period where it can appeal the arena so the city is required by state law to identify sites to accommodate the RHNA. The EIR does address the potential environmental impacts of accommodating the RHNA and implementing the housing element and identifies mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts where necessary and where mitigation is feasible to reduce those impacts. but, Concerns related to the housing development at the MLK Park site were also identified. And as I mentioned in response to these concerns, there is an alternative to the project that would reduce development at MLK to either 80 or even further to 50 units, resulting in a reduction in northern Sausalito. And related to concerns of future densities at the MLK site and other city owned sites, The city council did voice at their previous meeting. They do the city does plan to retain control of all city owned sites. So this means that as future projects are developed on the MLK site on various sites, the city would retain control and oversee the development of those projects and would be able to control the number of units on those sites. So there wouldn't necessarily be a density bonus project on a city owned site because the city would be managing the development of those sites. |
| 00:35:37.23 | Beth Thompson | As I mentioned, a modified amended housing element was prepared as an alternative to the amended housing element project. And initially the The first revision to the modified amended housing element focused on implementing city council input from its October 1st, 2024 study session. So this included changes to site 84, which would either maintain the adopted number of units at 80 units consistent with the adopted housing element, or looking at the possibility of further reducing those units to 50. So the units at MLK would no longer be increased to 94. It also looks at increasing the minimum required units at site 202 and then includes sites 14 the Spencer Avenue fire station and site 52 the city hall site. to provide additional capacity in the event of arena shortfall. based on further input from the community, from the Planning Commission at your January 15th meeting in the City Council's February 4th study sessions, Sarah Silver, additional consideration was made of modifications to the project and so we've also identified some further changes to the project alternative for your consideration this includes reducing site at for the mlk site to 50 units. Reducing site to the Altamira site from a density of 70 units to an acre to 49 units per acre. So that would reduce that to 51 units of realistic capacity. Considering the removal of site 201 at 605 to 613 Bridgeway. And then at site 303, one and three Harbor Drive, not increasing the total number of units, but increasing the lower income allocation on site 303 to offset the modifications to site 84 and site 202. And under this, revised project alternative The approach to looking at sites 80 14 and 52 would also be revised. So rather than identifying these sites as specific sites to be implemented in the event of a shortfall, The housing element would instead include a path to identify additional sites if needed to accommodate the arena. These sites could include city halls, Spencer Avenue fire station, other vacant sites or underutilized sites that are consistent with the housing element methodology for non-vacant sites. And that's very clearly spelled out in the housing element and in the amended housing element. So with these changes, I'll just give a quick summary of the total number of units. So the adopted housing element would accommodate approximately 908 units, and it would accommodate the full renown. The amended housing element, which is the proposed project, would accommodate 958 units. With the changes that are further proposed to the modified project alternative, which would reduce site 84 to 50 units, reduce site 202, the Altamira site, to 51 units, remove site 202, and then increase the lower and low income units at site 303, but not the total units. Those changes would result in a total of 899 units. Under each of these scenarios, the city would still be able to accommodate the full regional housing need allocation. So there would be, there would not be, um, lack of a buffer, there would still be a small buffer under each scenario. So in addition to the Housing element amendment. One of the other items before you is also looking at some changes to the general plan, including the land use element, the community design element, and the circulation and parking elements. These would also be amended to provide for internal consistency between the housing element and the remainder of the general plan. The amended housing element was reviewed for environmental impacts. And that's that review and analysis is provided in the environmental impact report for the Sausalito amended six cycle housing element project and the program EIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. A draft program EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review and comment period from September 4th through October 21st, 2024. Subsequently, portions of the draft EIR were recirculated for public comment from December 13th. through January 2024 through January 27th of this year. 23 comment letters were received during the comment periods and all of those comments are addressed in the final EIR. The comments that were provided or the responses, no new environmental issues were identified, so there is nothing identified that required substantial revision to the program EIR or further environmental review. And with that i'll conclude with staffs recommendation that the planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending certification of the amended 2023 to 2031 housing element. environmental impact report and also recommending adoption of the amended 2023 to 2031 housing element and the related general plan amendments with that I would be happy to answer any questions. |
| 00:40:57.32 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Beth, and thank you to members of the public, both in the chambers and on Zoom, for bearing with us through the audio issues. So right now we'll open up to the commission for questions. Commissioner Luxembourg? |
| 00:41:12.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Chair Saad. First of all, I understand that a letter and notice went out to all of the property owners of HOS sites, and I want to thank the CDD staff for doing that because I think that was very important. First, I want to ask Beth, I'm a little confused. I want to make sure I understand technically what we're doing here. So we have an approved housing element. We have a draft of a housing element amendment before us this evening. Also included in the back somewhere is some sort of modified housing element which you mentioned. My question is, let's assume we'll put that modified amendment aside. Let's say we just take the housing element, and the Planning Commission recommends changes to that housing element amendment and sends it on to the city council, and they agree with those changes. They can adopt that. We do not have to do the modified amendment. We can make specific, can we, my question is, can we make specific changes to the housing element amendment that's before us, rather than dealing at all with the modified housing element? |
| 00:42:36.73 | Beth Thompson | You can make a recommendation for specific changes. Yes, you can make that recommendation. We'll, of course, depending on the recommendation, we'll review those changes for whether or not they would require further environmental review. But yes, the commission is welcome to identify whatever range of modifications it would like to recommend to the housing element. |
| 00:42:58.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, and technically, if we were to recommend that housing element as recommended by staff with changes, and we adjust numbers so it all works, and I understand there might be some other specific language that happens, then do we have to make any action on the modified amendments? At all the season. |
| 00:43:21.01 | Beth Thompson | I think the action would be to to recommend the modified amendment as amended by the changes you're recommending. |
| 00:43:32.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, let's say we didn't want to do that. I think. stay with the housing element as is Thank you. and change that. uh... michael and and then we don't think the modified amendment is good, and we want to, would we take a motion to reject the modified amendment? I mean, I'm just trying to understand technically what, if we take one action tonight, recommending to the city council for a housing element amendment with some changes, and we think that, for example, the modified amendment should not be approved, would we, would we then take a motion to make sure the City Council understands that, if that's the way we go? I just wanna, I'm not trying to debated. I'm just trying to understand the technical part. |
| 00:44:19.38 | Beth Thompson | And I will let Director Phipps or Kylie speak to this in terms of how to best provide that type of motion. |
| 00:44:27.09 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Beth, for the opportunity. And I'm happy to hear from Kylie. I'll just provide some initial feedback. So, Chair, excuse me, Commissioner Luxenberg, Section 4 of the draft resolution that we've provided to you this evening structures the recommendation from the commission based on the amended 2023-2031 housing element. At the end of that section, there is language that reads, do-do-do, there is language that reads, subject to the following modifications. This is optional for the commission. This section allows flexibility. The commission may make any recommendations using the amended housing element as a baseline as they wish. This is how we have structured this draft resolution. Of course, if there's consensus on the commission, the commission can make any recommendation that they like. That being said, staff may have additional follow-on work if, for example, your recommendation is based on a version of the housing element that isn't used as a baseline like we have done with the amended housing element in this draft resolution. That being said, I'd like to just caveat any recommendations from the commission this evening that those recommendations ought to be informed by what has been evaluated in the environmental impact report. A recommendation for, for example, the addition of an opportunity site that has not been evaluated in the environmental impact report is a recommendation that is likely, or I would say less likely to be carried forward based on the timeline that we are on as as i mentioned at the outset of this meeting we really request a recommendation from the commission this evening so we can take that recommendation to the council next week on the 25th |
| 00:46:23.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So if we recommend approval, as suggested, with some changes that do not add sites or do anything that was not in the EIR, and we send that on to the council, and this commission, and I don't know what the commission is going to want to do, wants to have specific instructions regarding the modified housing amendment, which we don't want, do we do that also, or by doing the first one, how do we make it clear to the City Council that the modified one has issues, if we have issues? |
| 00:47:03.35 | Director Phipps | If you'd like, you could make a more general recommendation that is outside of the presented resolution. However, I think that I would hope the commission is able to structure a recommendation based on the draft resolution that staff have provided. And if there are any concerns as far as clarity is concerned with a modified version or a version that you feel there may be a gray area or you have some uncertainty, we're happy to work with you in making sure the language is to your liking. And I'll just defer to Attorney Otto if she has any additional comments. |
| 00:47:41.83 | Mary Wagner | I think you summarized it very well, Brendan. Just in a way, I think, to look at it, Commissioner, is that the staff has given you options. They've given you the revised and the amended you can, it's basically a cafeteria at this point. You can pick whichever baseline you want to utilize. and either adopted the whole of what they've given you. or make changes on it. You do not need to act on both of those individually. You're simply going to take between all the selections that staff has provided, and provide your recommendation to the city council. |
| 00:48:19.44 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Attorney Otto. Thank you. I think that's clear. |
| 00:48:21.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's clear. I do have some other technical questions. So back to Beth. In, I don't know the best way to refer to this. On page 34 of the agenda packet, which says page 15, I think, of the housing element attachment 4, there is a statement that says for housing 29, which I believe is supposed to be only housing. And the statement that's in there, in the draft housing element, not the modified one, says standards for very low and low-income sites will include a minimum density of 20 units per acre and requiring residential units required for 85% of the site. But given that it is only housing, shouldn't we delete the words and required residential units required for 85% of the site? |
| 00:48:21.97 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:49:21.24 | Beth Thompson | Correct. That is correct. |
| 00:49:23.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. Next one, another technical one. In the proposed resolution that we have this evening, the resolution number seven indicates in plural that we remove sites plural and then say former site 85. Should not we be saying former site 85 and site 209 in the seventh whereas in the proposed resolution? |
| 00:49:55.01 | Beth Thompson | That was where I was. Let me look at the proposed resolution here. |
| 00:49:57.23 | Unknown | Right? |
| 00:49:59.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Attachment three. |
| 00:50:00.51 | Beth Thompson | Yeah. |
| 00:50:03.21 | Unknown | Thank you. you |
| 00:50:12.08 | Beth Thompson | Yes, we should. We should just identify all of sites that have been removed. |
| 00:50:17.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. Next one, can you tell me what are the minimum and maximum number of units for 522 Olive Street, which is site number 63, and that's not in the amended because it hasn't been changed, and I got this too late to figure out way back and it's in the original housing, the approved housing amendment. The approved housing elevator. |
| 00:50:42.24 | Director Phipps | Mr. Vicky's head. Is that site, what's the site number? |
| 00:50:46.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. I think it's 63. It's 522 Olive Street. |
| 00:50:49.66 | Director Phipps | 63, thank you. |
| 00:50:52.65 | Sybil Boutillier | be like that. |
| 00:50:58.79 | Director Phipps | Give us a moment. Feel free to engage in additional discussion. |
| 00:51:02.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | What's that? You can move over the question. |
| 00:51:04.31 | Director Phipps | Give us a moment to answer your question regarding Site 63, and feel free to move on, and we'll get back to you. |
| 00:51:09.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'll get back to you. I'll move on to other questions. So the Altamira site that is in the housing element amendment, is Altamira in the original approved housing element? |
| 00:51:26.47 | Director Phipps | Yes. |
| 00:51:27.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, okay, thank you. And finally, if I understood your chart right, there's 358 units in the 1022 list of sites. That was in one of the charts, is that correct? Thank you. |
| 00:51:48.69 | Nastassya Saad | That's correct. |
| 00:51:49.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:51:49.52 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. |
| 00:51:49.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And so if there's one ballot question, then it affects 358 units. Obviously, if there's more than one ballot question, it might be divided up. But does that number, that 358, that exceeds the buffer. Is that correct? |
| 00:51:49.93 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 00:52:12.25 | Beth Thompson | With the 358 plus the MLK site, it exceeds the buffer. |
| 00:52:17.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Um, The 350, if the MLK site is, leave the MLK site in, is there enough in the buffer for 358 units? |
| 00:52:31.78 | Beth Thompson | Yes, yes. |
| 00:52:32.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Not talking about the modified. |
| 00:52:34.80 | Beth Thompson | There's, With, With that, 358, there is a buffer. If the 358 goes away, there is not a buffer. |
| 00:52:47.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And do we meet the 3 to 724? |
| 00:52:49.63 | Unknown Staff | Yeah. That's what she's saying now. |
| 00:52:51.11 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. Yeah, you need the 358 to get to a total of sites to accommodate the 724. |
| 00:52:51.23 | Unknown Staff | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 00:52:53.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | a total sightseeing. So either it needs to pass or we need to have multiple ballot questions. or something else, but if we're just dealing with that simple either or thing. Correct. Correct, okay. I'm all set, Chair. |
| 00:53:12.53 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Commissioner. And if I may, Chair, before we move on, regarding the Commissioner's question on site 63, 522 Olive Street in the adopted housing element, that site was slated for four units realistic capacity. |
| 00:53:31.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And that's the realistic capacity. But under the language that's provided this evening, with minimums and maximums, what is the minimum and what is the maximum? |
| 00:53:44.59 | Beth Thompson | So the housing element doesn't designate a minimum or maximum for that site. It's four realistic units. The maximum would be the housing 49, so a minimum of 43 units per acre and a maximum of 49 units per acre on that site. |
| 00:53:44.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Of course. Absolutely. |
| 00:54:01.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So what would the minimum be that the property owner asked that question in a letter? Let's see. We'd want to know what the minimum is and the maximum, because that's the language we're talking about throughout these three items. |
| 00:54:07.47 | Beth Thompson | Let's see. |
| 00:54:16.86 | Director Phipps | Yeah, so this is the simple This is a fairly straightforward math problem for any property owners listening. Thank you. |
| 00:54:24.35 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:54:24.36 | Kristina Feller | Excuse me, could we have some quiet from the audience, please? |
| 00:54:24.62 | Unknown | because |
| 00:54:28.89 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Commissioner, and I'll continue. This is a simple math problem. Property owners only need to take the size of their parcel and multiply that by the overlay density. And if you want to get the kind of over-under, you would multiply it by the low end or the floor. And if you'd like to get the higher end, you multiply it by the ceiling. So in other words, for this Olive Street case, it would be 0.12 times 49, if I'm not mistaken. |
| 00:55:01.29 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Director Phipps. I appreciate the technical questions. I just want to move us to a little bit broader questions right now. So Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:55:09.56 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. Just a quick side note, that particular site that Commissioner Luxembourg is talking about, and you clarified, Director Phipps, that was actually one of the massing sites that we just tested. It was a beta test to kind of wargame the impacts of the housing element and the objective design and development standards. So just so you know, that's one of them. Beth, Neil, Director Phipps, Maria, everybody, thank you for all the work to get us here tonight. I do have a couple questions here for clarification, and I'll try as best I can just to rapid fire through these. First of all, I wanted to understand, based on our last study session, we had a number of comments about the amendments to the general plan as it relates to this housing element. And I just wanted to know the status of that because it's not in the staff report. Have those been incorporated? And can we we don't need to re comment on that this evening? Can you let us know? |
| 00:56:14.95 | Beth Thompson | So we did go through and we we did make some corrections to the general plan, particularly the land use element where some of the changes had been discussed. Some of the changes and I believe that was summarized in the city council package for the for their meeting, some of the changes. |
| 00:56:28.43 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:56:31.91 | Beth Thompson | were not necessary. So there were some comments where when we looked at it, The comment didn't necessitate a change, but where. where like you had, you had mentioned, um, identifying like environmental constraints related to the opportunity sites, I believe. So we, we included some additional background information in the land use element, we had made some changes. So we did, we did go through and review those comments and make changes where, where appropriate. |
| 00:56:55.55 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thank you for that. The other question that came up also at our last hearing, I just want to make sure that we are closing the loop and keeping our record clean here, is the overlay over overlay over sometimes overlay. So there are a number of areas that in this housing element where there are two to three overlays on any particular site, just because we have some blanket overlays across the city. And I'm curious if there's been any resolution to this or there's been any indication of a hierarchy, for lack of a better way to describe it, for how to handle overlays. |
| 00:57:39.34 | Beth Thompson | So, For the housing overlays, they identify a minimum and maximum amount of residential development that can occur, and they do accommodate a non-residential development in the MU overlays. I don't believe they would. conflict with the implementation of other overlays. So where there are other overlays, those would still be applied, provided that your minimum and maximum residential densities are accommodated. |
| 00:58:04.38 | Kristina Feller | are a cost. I'm just referring back to sort of we have an overall residential overlay across the entire city, but then we also have other overlays like in historic districts or industrial or, you know, different overlays in different parts of town, plus sort of general overlays across the city. So I'm just curious if that has been resolved. Thank you. |
| 00:58:28.49 | Beth Thompson | So this is the contemplation of the citywide overlay is in the general plan. It does not include any actual overlay, so there are no residential capacities provided citywide by that overlay. It's more of a contemplation that that type of overlay would be allowed. So that wouldn't conflict with the of the housing element of a specific overlay in terms of the historic overlay, I don't believe there's a conflict there. And so we've, and we've identified like when we discuss historic resources in the environmental impact report, there's definitely a discussion that certain provisions of the municipal code would continue to apply, including those related to historic resources. |
| 00:59:08.89 | Unknown Staff | Okay. |
| 00:59:09.59 | Neal Toft | Yeah, and if I can just add on to that comment, the actual overlay districts in the city are limited to the historic overlay, the marine ship. PB, David Ensign PB, David Ens PB, David Ensign PB, David Ens Thank you. |
| 00:59:54.10 | Unknown Staff | Yeah. |
| 00:59:54.22 | Neal Toft | districts and but it's not necessarily an overlay that's a zoning |
| 00:59:54.47 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:59:58.32 | Neal Toft | That's a zoning standard. |
| 00:59:59.89 | Kristina Feller | It is. It's something that the city council actually put a quote on. Thank you. |
| 01:00:04.46 | Neal Toft | Yeah. |
| 01:00:04.72 | Kristina Feller | at the time that we were, you know, we adopted the general plan for recommendation to city council, and then that was one change that they made, so they did vote on that. So that's why I'm asking about overlay over overlay. I just want to make sure that, that we don't have any conflicts down the road. Part of these questions is making sure that we're clean and clear and moving anything out of the way shouldn't be there. So the other question I have is, you know, Beth, maybe just for avoidance of any doubt, just quickly rapid fire tell me the chronology of all these different drafts. and how and when and where our comments were included and perhaps those of the city council because I see that what's in front of us tonight is different than what we had a study session on, although not a lot, but there are some slight changes. So maybe you can just highlight those really quickly. |
| 01:01:05.01 | Beth Thompson | Okay, so we started off in, I believe, August of last year with the draft amended housing element. That was the proposed project, and that went to HCD for review and comment. That also was the subject of the environmental impact report. That was... by Planning Commission, review advice. Changes were made to that draft in response to HCD's comments. And then an additional alternative, which was Alternative 5 in the EIR was developed. And so that's the modified project that was introduced at your previous study session, as well as the City Council's previous study section. And that included modifications to the project to potentially reduce units at MLK to introduce the fire station and city hall sites to potentially increase the minimum required units at Altamira. So that included a number of modifications. And then based on the comments we got from city council, from planning commission and the community input, we've recommended modifications to that alternative. And that's not a new document that is before you, but that is just a recommendation of discussion of changes that could be made. when we discussed it, I'll just share that slide. And that's kind of the latest iteration of, potential considerations for how the project could be revised, and that would include revising the alternative further to reduce MLK to 50 units, to reduce Site 202, Altamira to 51 units. And you could mix and match these two. You don't have to choose all of them. It's just some potential changes, a consideration of removing Site 201, and then increasing the lower income units at Site 303. This would be the most recentOST RECENT ITERATION. AND THEN THIS ALSO REVISES THE APPROACH TO SITES 14 AND 52, THE SPENCER AVENUE FIRE STATION AND CITY HALL SITES TO NOT |
| 01:02:53.79 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:03:04.59 | Beth Thompson | require that those be used in the event of a shortfall, but rather to provide a pathway for implementing other sites in the event of a shortfall and providing considerations for those sites. |
| 01:03:15.42 | Kristina Feller | you Thank you both for that. Um, The other thing I wanted to ask you about is specifically on the EIR. Karen Hollweg, And I sent this question I had just to you say so you could be prepared to explain it because I don't understand it, and that is the EIR mm 3.3 dash one a. there is a modification from a 50 foot buffer to a hundred foot buffer. And I want to know where that came from. |
| 01:03:49.05 | Beth Thompson | 2.31A, let me just look at that really quickly. |
| 01:04:00.48 | Beth Thompson | And that may have come out of the, Department, the California Department of Wildlife Commons. I know we modified a number of are biological resources, measures based on the fish and wildlife comments. So let me just pull that up. That'll just take a minute here today. I'm gonna sign it at EIR. |
| 01:04:19.70 | Kristina Feller | No, it was. Thank you. And I guess as you are doing that, one of the things that I'd like you to shed some light on is if this is a. an actual requirement, like a law of some kind, or if this is a request? Because applications on such a small town are big. And so I really want to just understand that. |
| 01:04:34.53 | Beth Thompson | And that's... |
| 01:04:40.74 | Beth Thompson | And for that one, that one would be more of a request. I don't think Berthlin, let me, As I said, it's taking just a minute to pop open the final EIR here. the abundance of documents. So here we go. I'm 3.31. I think that's |
| 01:04:58.86 | Nastassya Saad | Beth, when you get there, could you just give the, a quick high level, um, concept on the, on the buffer just for the public to be able to follow along? |
| 01:05:07.67 | Beth Thompson | So this is a mitigation measure that addresses special studies. And so basically when the Department of Fish and Wildlife reviewed the environmental impact report, they identified a number of additional measures to include for specific species. And then they also address concerns just basically that the special study provision didn't have enough teeth to it. It wasn't necessarily going to provide any performance based standards. So this was revised to more clearly identify what the special studies would require, and then also to ensure that there is a performance standard, and then also just to have a broader buffer zone for suitable habitat to ensure that if there are species in the vicinity of the site, that you're just identifying if those species are occurring and affected by the project. |
| 01:05:56.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:05:59.01 | Kristina Feller | So just still on the EIR, another area that I just want you to maybe shed some light on is Section 3.4 and how it affects 201 and 202, or sites number 201 and 202. I'm not... Maybe you could just give a quick like what's the conclusion here, what's the summary, because it, it talks a lot about these, um, the cultural impacts and historic nature, but it doesn't, in my opinion, and I might be alone here, really get to the bottom of what's the punchline perhaps is the best way to put it. |
| 01:06:40.43 | Beth Thompson | So. Yes, changes were made to the discussion of impacts related Historic resources related to site 201. There were quite a few comments related to site 201. Proponent of the project provided some historical resources assessments for the site. And then another commenter on behalf of SAVA or Sausalito also provided several assessments. The city has also had I think had a separate assessment conducted. For the purposes of the EIR, we reviewed the various reports related to Site 201. We included a summary of those reports in the response to comments in the final EIR. and basically determined that site 201 It is on the California Register of Historic Resources. the Built Environment Resource Directory for Midward County, which is a document maintained by the Office of Parks and Recreation or the State Historic Preservation Office. And so it does have a specific status code, and it is specifically identified as being a contributor to a multi-component resource that's determined to be eligible for the National Register register and that it's listed in the California register. So we've clarified that and that's clarified in the revisions to the draft EIR. So in chapter two of the final EIR, these changes are shown. So that is for site 201. It is identified as being a contributor to the historic district, and it would have to be addressed as a contributor to the historic district and as a site that's listed in the California Register. So we've clarified that in the revisions to chapter two. And then we've also clarified the mitigation measures related to historic resources for site 202, which is the site that's the, not the Altamira Hotel itself, but the uses surrounding the Altamira Hotel. The Altamira site is also, I believe it's a, let me just see if I have that. I have the final EIR, let me pull up the draft EIR, but it is also listed in the built environment resources directory. I believe it's a seven. Yeah. N. And that it's identified for additional study, if I remember correctly. And I have Christina Irwin with me on the line. And Christina, if you have that in front of you, you are welcome to chime in. I will pop that up as well. |
| 01:08:58.29 | Unknown | and that there's a lot of |
| 01:09:13.00 | Beth Thompson | So just give me a moment to pop up the 202. analysis here. |
| 01:09:19.09 | Unknown | Yeah, Beth, I will look that up as well and help follow up. |
| 01:09:22.93 | Beth Thompson | Okay, I'll let Christina chime in regarding that. So for sites that have a historic resource or could potentially affect a historic resource. So for like the Altamira site, it's adjacent to historic resource. There is a requirement that the development or it's adjacent to a potential historic resource, I should say, there is a requirement that those sites do be evaluated. The secretary, of the interior has very specific standards for sites that have historic resources. And so mitigation measure, 3.4 dash. one A in the draft EIR and that's been revised in the final ER. It's been clarified. Clara requires that projects that are proposed on an amended housing element site that have a historic resource that are adjacent to a historic resource or could otherwise adversely affect a historic resource. that they must be designed in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, and specifically the standards for rehabilitation. |
| 01:10:30.44 | Kristina Feller | Sorry. thank you thank you for that let me i've got two quick ones left um and then um hand it back to the chair here the first is actually uh director phipps um one of the things that we asked um at our last study session was what progress have we made towards our arena number and my recollection is we could start counting in June of 2022 towards this 724 RENA number. And if you could just give a quick update on that, that would be helpful. |
| 01:11:04.58 | Director Phipps | Yeah, I'm hoping Principal Planner Toft and I can kind of one-two punch this one. What I have in front of me at the moment are numbers related to ADU and SB9 production in the city. So I'll review that first and then see if Neil has any additional comments based on ADRs. |
| 01:11:26.57 | Neal Toft | I think those are by far the majority of units. Other than that, we're still working right now on our 2024 APR, but it's been ADUs virtually. There may be just a few other dwelling units. Sure. |
| 01:11:47.53 | Unknown Staff | Sure. |
| 01:11:48.00 | Neal Toft | done other than 80 years but those numbers that you've seen are provided in. the attachment reflect |
| 01:11:55.42 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, if you can just highlight those. And it's order of magnitude only. I know this is a moving number. |
| 01:12:00.47 | Director Phipps | No, very happy to, Commissioner. I appreciate the question. Thank you for the icing on the cake, Neil. So as far as numbers starting in 2021, nine ADUs, 2022, 17 ADUs, 2023, nine ADUs, 2024, 11 ADUs. That gets us to an average ADU production of 11 and a half per year. That's a number that CDD is happy with. We would like to see those numbers increase so that we can continue to count those towards our arena. As related to SB9 units, from 2021 to 2024, we saw two SB9 units, to clarify, two, not nine, two SB9 units built in the city. Due to some recent changes in state law, we look forward to tracking SB9 unit progress moving forward. We believe that the new state policy, and I think this is objectively the case, will make it easier for SB9 units to be constructed in the city. |
| 01:13:05.47 | Kristina Feller | Great. Thank you very much. I'll yield back, Chair. |
| 01:13:08.15 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. I'm going to just ask a follow-up question on the ADU. Thank you, Commissioner Feller. So those 46 ADU... ADUs, are those then reflected in the, towards that 724? Is that a way that we can look at the |
| 01:13:24.32 | Neal Toft | Yeah. |
| 01:13:24.34 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. requirement, |
| 01:13:25.99 | Neal Toft | Yeah. The RENA strategy includes, I believe it's 128 units over the eight year cycle. And Beth can correct me if I'm wrong, of SB9 and ADUs. So with the ADUs, we're kind of on track to meet that as long as we do what we're doing or maybe a little better. and we anticipate that to kind of continue to pick up. Thank you. But the SB9 units are really the dark horse in this equation right now. |
| 01:14:05.24 | Director Phipps | And if I may, thank you, Neil, for that. There was some direction from council and I believe some discussion from the commission as to whether or not the department, the city, can increase their expected ADU and SB9 units in the housing element. Based on the analysis that Neil and I have just provided, the short story there is staff wouldn't recommend it. We are overperforming as far as ADU production is concerned, which we're very happy and excited about. However, we are underperforming as far as SB9 units are concerned. So with that in mind, we don't want to overshoot or over-anticipate units. We want to make sure that our projections are realistic, and we believe, based on the current projections being informed by our recent past performance, that it's an accurate figure. |
| 01:14:58.81 | Neal Toft | And I. And I think to add on to that, it's not simply what we want, but also what will HCD accept? Sure. |
| 01:15:05.40 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 01:15:06.13 | Neal Toft | present a amended housing element for review. If we... If we bump up those numbers, we have to be able to explain how and why. And that may be something a good exercise usually there's a mid cycle analysis done of your housing element to really see where you are and to make adjustments, I don't know, Beth may have some experience in doing that, and also any comments you have on. kind of working with HCD on this type of topic of projecting for these types of units. |
| 01:15:44.81 | Beth Thompson | So what HCD is going to expect is that the city is going to do a mid-cycle review and kind of do a true up. Right now, you're a little ahead of schedule with your ADUs. You're below pace with your SB9 units. So what the state's going to expect is when you do that mid-cycle review, that if you are not on track to have your full ADU and SB9 units, and there's going to be a shortfall to accommodate the arena. So it's not necessarily just being on track, but would there be a shortfall to accommodate the arena that you would then at that point, identify additional sites. They're not expecting that if you're exceeding projections that you'll necessarily remove sites Bye. They don't discuss that, but they're hoping that if you have a shortfall, you would increase sites. And at this point, there's really not We reviewed this really closely. Neil and Brandon went through the city's data. They went through the city's projects. We looked at what had been projected in the housing element, what was already counted, what you're on track to do. And there's really not a good basis to make changes at this point to the ADU and SB9 assumptions. |
| 01:16:53.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Did you? Chair, can I have a follow-on question? Of the 46 units, how many are very low and low? |
| 01:17:03.24 | Neal Toft | I don't have that number, but we project a spread based on the housing element. And in fact, as we approach our, what we haven't really done is do the surveying to really find out what actually are. We're actually projecting what the numbers based on a proportional spread that was assumed in the housing element. but what we'll need to do is really survey and find out What how those units are performing and that's surveying the property owners and and I think finding out how many of those units are actually rented at what levels, how many units are in cases where a unit might be used by a family member At no cost that can actually be considered very low income. So there is some actual balance to that while we know that ADUs in Sausalito may not necessarily be, and we can't easily deed restrict them. Um, there'll be a process for doing that. But right now we project on a, we're projecting based on our housing element and our housing element actually, I believe the RHNA strategy identifies of the, |
| 01:18:09.71 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 01:18:09.91 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:18:09.97 | Unknown | I heard that. |
| 01:18:10.03 | Mike Rogers | Yeah, we probably. |
| 01:18:20.68 | Neal Toft | total amount of RENA, total amount of ADUs and SB9 units, we project a certain amount of affordability. But that's really a projection at this point. It's going to take some careful surveying and data collection to really adjust for that. |
| 01:18:40.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm seeing 116 in table one, 12 of which are very low and 27 are low. So I guess my question is, do you base it on the rent they're charging? Do people actually have to tell you what the income of the people in the unit is? I mean, how do we document this for the state? |
| 01:19:01.89 | Neal Toft | Well, right now we do what's called an annual progress report. We'll be bringing that to you shortly once we can get through some of this for 2024. And so we have to do that every year and report to the state. As of right now, we're projecting based on a sort of a proportionality of that number. |
| 01:19:24.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So you're not required to document it? What's that? You're not required to get the actual income level of the people. You just do it based on a model or an algorithm. Doing it on a model. |
| 01:19:35.93 | Neal Toft | I'm going to. Thank you. |
| 01:19:36.62 | Director Phipps | So the housing element is structured around projected units. Yeah. Period. |
| 01:19:43.15 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. But we've also had a couple ADUs up here that were designated as low income that were part of a larger remodel. And they were designating them that, I believe, so they could get additional area that they could develop. So we've actually seen that here on the commission. |
| 01:19:59.92 | Neal Toft | Yeah, there are there are some there have been some rules in place that. In the past that allowed the city to require or you can, if you make exceptions to parking standards or things, if they deed restrict to a certain affordability level, unfortunately. many of the state laws that are seeking to encourage ADUs have also undermined those programs and made it more difficult for cities to grant particular waivers because basically Many of the state laws now. make it. So readily available, entitled to put in ADUs, regardless of deed restrictions, that agency... Don't necessarily have the leverage to necessarily require deed restrictions as it did in the past. But that is, as Commissioner Feller said, something Sausalito has had in place. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:21:05.97 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner Marlott, any questions? |
| 01:21:07.35 | David Marlatt | Yes, thank you. Thank you. And again, congratulations, too, for all the hard work getting us rounding third and heading to home, I hope. I just have two questions. The first is very minor. And the general plan program CD-1.3.1 related to zoning ordinance and the height limit, can you confirm I believe that that should state that the greater heights are allowed pursuant to the zoning code, chapter Title 10, and not the objective design development standards? Because I think we'll discuss later that the height limits have been moved to |
| 01:21:49.04 | Beth Thompson | And we can make that change. Thank you. |
| 01:21:51.52 | David Marlatt | Yeah. |
| 01:21:51.53 | Beth Thompson | I can note that right now. |
| 01:21:54.01 | David Marlatt | Okay, thank you. |
| 01:21:55.55 | Neal Toft | I think that came about through the change to the objective design standards and the limits were moved. But it was not reflected in that section. |
| 01:21:55.58 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:22:00.46 | David Marlatt | All right. |
| 01:22:04.38 | David Marlatt | tons of words. I certainly appreciate that. My other question now is regarding the buffer, because I think this is going to be relevant to what our discussion is later. We started with a buffer, if I can speak correctly here, we started with a buffer of 184 units, so 908 minus 724. So we started with a buffer of 25%. The current housing element amendment before us moves that up to a buffer of 234 units or 32%. And should the Commission and ultimately the Council choose the four alternatives that were proposed, that would move it down to 899 or 24%, 175 units. The original buffer, I know that there was no explicit state mandate that you must have a certain buffer, but was there a, how did that come about? Was there a methodology? Was there a thinking? And my ultimate question really that's going to impact our deliberation later is, should we adopt these possible changes to the housing element? Are we risking anything with respect to HCD approval? |
| 01:23:22.37 | Beth Thompson | So as you noted, HCD doesn't require a specific buffer. What they're not going to wanna see is a huge decline in the buffer. So as long as you're maintaining something that can be construed as being reasonable and adequate, then I think HCD will be okay, but we can't really predict what HCD will do. We know that they want to continue to see a buffer. So we've tried to just maintain that buffer. And even with the reduction to 899, you would still have. a buffer and you would still maintain a lower income buffer. I don't think HDD is as concerned if you're above moderate, and moderate income buffers decrease because typically those are the units that are easier to produce. If you're very low and low income buffers begin to really thin out that there's more concern. |
| 01:24:11.93 | David Marlatt | So HCD had accepted a 25% buffer. And obviously, we can't ask you to speculate on whether they would accept potentially a 24% buffer. |
| 01:24:26.46 | Beth Thompson | Right. And they did not comment. So when they commented on the revisions to the housing element, they did not comment on the buffer. |
| 01:24:33.31 | David Marlatt | OK, thank you very much. That clarifies things. Thank you. |
| 01:24:37.15 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Vice Chair. Any questions? |
| 01:24:40.89 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair. No questions, but a quick comment about the ADU. question and discussion was interesting. I'm not really surprised that the ADU production is pretty fair and the SB9 production is pretty much zero. SB9 projects are expensive, much more expensive than ADU projects. ADUs aren't cheap, but SB9 projects are difficult to fit into sites and I think much more expensive in general. So I wouldn't expect a lot of those in the future. But I would comment, I thought Neil made some interesting comments about, you know, how the ADU process is working. There, if I'm not mistaken, there is a new state law that allows cities to adopt implementing legislation or ordinances that would allow you to condo your ADU, which I do think is something, you know, kind of beyond the scope today, But I hope the city would consider something like that in the future. I do think any option that allows more flexibility and ownership will possibly generate some additional use of these ADUs beyond just in-law units and whatnot. So something for the city to consider in the future. |
| 01:25:44.61 | Director Phipps | If I may, Vice Chair, I'll just thank you for bringing that up. That would be Assembly Bill 1033, I believe, which went into effect January 2024. At current, this program is opt-in. As folks may recall, ADUs were initially an opt-in program for cities also. Just some potential foresight associated with where this legislation may go. However, I look forward to bringing this up as a potential unit production strategy to council. But that would be something that I would prefer to tackle following commissioning council's approval of the items before them this evening. |
| 01:25:50.77 | Unknown | you. |
| 01:26:28.47 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Vice Chair. Beth, I just had one question, and I believe there was a graph somewhere in the presentation along the lines with the buffers. Just to your comment about the percentage of buffer based on low, moderate, above, moderate, is it possible to pull that up just to see if we start to get into the discussion around these potential options, like the 899, what those buffers, what those percentages by? income level are. Thanks. |
| 01:27:00.97 | Beth Thompson | So for this slide, we didn't actually calculate the buffers, but we did include the Rina down here, and then we included the various kind of options that we've started with and how many very low, low, moderate and above moderate so and we can easily. kind of update, we can prepare a buffer for the various options you discuss and keep track of that as you're going through the sites tonight. |
| 01:27:26.44 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. In the background, while we move to public comment, would you mind just in the interest that I think it's going to come up at some point in our discussion? |
| 01:27:36.36 | Beth Thompson | Sure, yeah, I'll add buffers to this slide. |
| 01:27:39.72 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. I don't have any other questions. If there are any, no other questions from the commissioners. Okay. I believe we move to public comment at this time. Thank you. |
| 01:27:51.71 | Director Phipps | If there are no other questions of staff, yep, happy to support that. |
| 01:27:55.44 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Okay, at this time we will move to public comment. Director Phipps, I'll have you lead and provide some direction to comment to the public both on Zoom and in the chambers. |
| 01:28:05.35 | Director Phipps | Absolutely. Thank you very much, Chair. I will start with speaker cards. The first speaker card I have is Jonathan Hutchinson. Speak on item 4A, welcome. You'll have three minutes to speak. Please state your name and address for the record. |
| 01:28:22.80 | Jonathan Hutchinson | Thank you all. Jonathan Hutchinson. I live at 107 Bulkley Avenue. My family's lived here since 1985. Appreciate the hard work you're putting into this process. As an outsider, it looks a bit like a game of whack-a-mole, and I'm a little worried that we're just running out the clock on a game of whack-a-mole. But I wanted to reiterate my concern about how in the first place, it was proposed to have 70 units per acre at the Altamere site. I live adjacent to that site, and I'm in one of the higher density developments in the area, and it's only 15 units per acre. The idea of a 70 unit per acre development on that site is just mind-boggling from the standpoint of traffic, egress, infrastructure, groundwater, even the, I guess there's a couple revisions to that proposal, the latest maybe being 49. That's still on the order of three times the density of, you know, a fairly high density project where I live just next to it. So I hope you'll consider just the appropriateness of that kind of density in that neighborhood. Thank you. |
| 01:29:54.77 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comment, sir. Just for the record, the site being referenced was site 202. I will move on to the next speaker card. That is Michael Rogers. |
| 01:30:08.45 | Director Phipps | Welcome, Michael. You'll have three minutes. |
| 01:30:13.43 | Mike Rogers | Good evening, Commissioners. My Mike, I'm Mike Rogers. I live at 112 Pearl Street. and lived there many years. And my family came here in the 1920s, and we still all, quite a few of us still live here. And, That means we've been here for over 100 years. So we know a little bit about Sausalito. In fact, we are standing here tonight in my kindergarten room that I had with Mrs. Schiller when this was Central School. So needless to say, I've been here a long time. So I'm here tonight because I received this city notice here. It says notice on it, which kind of always opens my eyes and it says housing opportunity site. I received this, it was sent on February 7th. We received it on about February 12th. Today's the 19th. Now that's not a lot of time to absorb everything that's in this list, to go through all the documents. I know you guys have been working on it for a long, long time. But when you send me a notice, that means something to me. And it means something's going to happen that maybe I'm not going to like. And as I read through these documents and talked a little bit tonight to Neil, and I've sent a letter and I appreciate Commissioner Luxembourg mentioning. |
| 01:31:21.13 | Nastassya Saad | Excuse me, may I just ask you to speak into the microphone so everyone can hear? Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:31:22.25 | Mike Rogers | Thank you. Yeah. Thank you for saying that. I appreciate Commissioner Luxenberg bringing up that. My lot number 63, which is an empty lot been empty for a long time. We've owned it a long time. And our intention Is not to put five to nine units on it from the numbers that I think I absorbed tonight that my lot can put five to nine units on it. That would be totally out of character for Olive Street. Olive Street is a narrow one block. If anybody's, I don't know if you've ever been on it, It's a dead-end street. We have, my family has a few houses on it already. Sorry to back away there. And it would be totally inappropriate to put five to nine units on a small lot. I'm not interested in developing Sausalito into San Francisco. I don't want to build as high as I can, as wide as I can, overlay everything else, speaking of overlays. be totally inappropriate, not only for the street, but for Sausalito also to put that many units in it. essentially ending up being tiny houses. What for? Sausalito is not a tiny house community. It's a community of single family homes, duplexes, some triplexes primarily, and of course our apartment unit buildings like the one at the bottom of our street that was originally built as an apartment building. Anyway, I want you to understand that those of us who own property in Sausalito don't want to make it horrible to live here with parking and more traffic that we don't need. So, and I don't want to build five to nine units on my property. So my question to you tonight is, If I just want to build a single family home or a duplex on it, that's what I want to do. And I know you guys have a very difficult job with this arena, which I can talk more about. But again, some of us don't want to build. |
| 01:33:17.42 | Director Phipps | Sorry, sir, your time is up. |
| 01:33:19.24 | Mike Rogers | So that's my question for tonight. Thank you. |
| 01:33:23.46 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:33:25.27 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Looking to the next speaker card, Sophia Collier. Come on down. You will have three minutes to speak. Welcome. |
| 01:33:36.25 | Sophia Collier | Thank you. It's Sophia Collier here on behalf of Save Our Sausalito. And that we have very much studied the housing element. And we have actually modeled every in conjunction with several projects I've been part of. We've modeled every single property. And we have found a lot of different interesting things about some of the proposals. And we think it's very important to visually look at what these potential properties might be. One of the properties though, that was the one that stuck out the most was Altamira. that when we looked at Altamira, 1.2 acres at 70 per acre We thought, okay, we see that these are 750 square feet per unit was what it was put in there. But if somebody once said, well, gosh, maybe it would be a thousand square feet per unit. 1,500 square feet per unit, you're talking about a project that would be between nine and 13 feet tall, 13 stories tall, you would have a huge parking structure for 350 cars going up and down Princess Street. So to me, it's very important to visually consider what you're thinking about before you just, it's not numbers on a page, it's neighborhoods, it's something real that could potentially be built. Once you put that zoning in there, somebody can come in and say, hey, maybe we could make that. And then suddenly we've got a project that you really didn't imagined And there it is. and it basically destroying the community and destroying what we had. So I think it's very, very important to visually consider things. We ardently oppose that Altamira site, we think it should be reduced back to 29 per acre. And it could be a very nice project there Obviously, there is a significant concern with the historic aspect of it. If indeed we have to oppose it, there's many things. can find to do so, but we'd like to obviate that situation and just get it right size now, and we advocate that solution. So thank you very much. |
| 01:35:47.27 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Ms. Collier, for your comments, and thank you for being here. Next speaker card is that of Michael Rex. Michael, come on down. You'll have three minutes. Welcome. |
| 01:35:57.48 | Michael Rex | but fell asleep. Hi, I'm Michael Racks, local architect, and I'd like to... Have you consider adding a new program at this late date? but it came to our attention at the city council's past study session a few weeks ago consider the application of municipal code section 10.81. so the city can explore development agreements with property owners who wish to build housing on their properties that are not opportunity sites. And why do this? For four really good reasons. We could spread the housing units out more throughout the town so we can avoid large, massive, and dense projects that harm our neighborhoods and block views. diminish the village-like scale and character of our town. Second reason, we'd have better control of what gets built by being able to negotiate with the property owners and developers rather than just giving them carte blanche with an opportunity site. particularly when they ask for density bonuses. The third reason, provide an alternative to meet our arena counts if the two ballot measures for the ODDS sites and the MLK site fail. And the fourth reason is we'd actually build housing instead of just removing constraints. How about that? However, to do this and give the city this opportunity negotiate development agreements, which would be fully transparent as defined in Section 1081 in our code. it's going to likely require relief from Ordinance 1022. which prohibit it on commercial sites. You can't add any housing on commercial sites unless they're an opportunity site throughout town. You can't even change the use that exceeds the intensity of use on existing sites. and It would require voter approval to amend of 1022 to give the city this opportunity to negotiate development agreements. on selected sites. So, therefore, because of all those good reasons, I encourage a dialogue in the coming weeks. about adding a ballot measure for the special election in June. So we have one more opportunity to meet our arena counts in a much better controllable and predictable way. I've to add this opportunity for the city to apply the municipal code section 1081 for development agreements. Thank you. |
| 01:38:32.90 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Mr. Rex, for your comments, and thank you for being here. That does it for received speaker cards on my end, Chair. I will take a look at the Zoom application now. I see three hands raised. I'll call them in the order they were raised. First hand raised is that of Linda Hotham. Linda, welcome. You'll have three minutes to speak. |
| 01:38:56.62 | Unknown | Good evening, Commissioners. Hello, Linda Houghtam. Nice to see you again. Not at 2 a.m. The proposed project for Altamira is why I raised my hand. And I'm concerned about the density and the height like Architect Mr. Rex has just so well articulated and I am fully in support. I understand you're in a very difficult position with your obligations to the state. But that the Altamira site is way too high and too dense. And so whatever powers you have, which I understand little, about how you can change this, but you must really consider the nature and the character of Sausalito in your pursuit to get more units. And and I understand that we can anticipate more units, but hopefully half as many as what's proposed here tonight. Thank you. So, |
| 01:40:04.60 | Director Phipps | Thank you very much for your comments. Looking to the next raised hand, that is Stacy Nemo. Stacy, welcome. You'll have three minutes. |
| 01:40:16.54 | Stacy Nemo | Thank you very much. I wanted to speak. My name is Stacy Nemo and I'm speaking on behalf of Build Smart Sausalito and I'd like to talk about the MLK Site 84. MLK is, as I believe most of you know, in a very high fire zone and it's had several evacuations of apartments in adjacent communities, one on Lima Street and one on Lincoln Street very recently, large apartment complexes, the fire comes up off one-on-one at a very fast pace, very little notice to evacuate the residents there. And it's shown in the overlay as being a very high fire zone as well. This city's concept of having control over the site is flawed in that the state really requires the RHNA numbers to be met. In fact, having a city-owned site gives it more vulnerability to have additional units put in there, whether the city wants to have it or not, it may be required to have it in order to meet RHNA numbers. I think it's very important to consider that and to not be misled by cities claiming to have control over it. If we had control over the sites, I don't think we would be putting 700 or 800 sites in Sausalito. Um, If 1128 is repealed for MLK and other private sites are not developed, it's possible MLK could be required to accommodate additional capacity up to like Altamira, 79 units per acre or 316 units in a bonus density situation. This, since it is a flat site, it is easier to build and it would be more likely to catch all of these shortfalls than anywhere else. And this is a public park, again, with lots of facilities that the rest of our community uses and in a high fire zone. So again, more consideration on what this could, what this ballot measure could change. I'd also like to bring up that HCD has requested that housing be more equitably distributed. I saw a letter from HCD to the city reflecting this, and I haven't seen it brought up by staff again. Currently, there are 2.3 times more new units in northern Sausalito than in southern and mid Sausalito. Almost all of the southern mid Sausalito sites could fit within one site in northern Sausalito. I think it's very important to see how heavily northern Sausalito is loaded up with density. I would also like to mention, finally, that the site at MLK, I believe it used to be called 100 Ebtide, is on the built register with historic significance, similar to site 202, I believe. And we've written to staff before,erting them to this. It is eligible for the California Historic Registry. And so it should be treated similar to other sites with historic value. So that's a little bit of information on MLK, some of which you may be familiar with, some of which may be new. But I think the most important thing is to consider if the ballot measure passes, what the possibility is there. I know we would like it to be 50 units, but in the end, it may not be our choice, just like the RHNA count is not really our choice. Thank you very much for your time. |
| 01:43:22.07 | Director Phipps | Thank you very much for your comments. Much appreciated. Next speaker is Steven Woodside. Stephen, welcome. You'll have three minutes to speak. |
| 01:43:32.38 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. I just speaking as a resident of Sausalito at this moment, and I just want to thank all of you for. the extraordinary challenge that you face, and each and every member of the commission and staff and consultants and the participants tonight for paying close attention and for dealing with something that is at least in my view, one of the most challenging things this community has faced in decades. And that's all I wanted to say, but to thank you. |
| 01:44:05.86 | Director Phipps | Thank you very much, Mr. Woodside, for your comments. Always appreciated. Next speaker is Annie. Apologies. |
| 01:44:17.60 | Annie | Quite all right. It's a difficult name. It's Annie used to Venus. Perfect. |
| 01:44:21.26 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:44:21.62 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:44:22.53 | Annie | I've lived in Sausalito since 1995, I own the duplex at 635 Main Street, where I reside part-time currently due to my need to be elsewhere for work. I also own a home in West Hollywood. And the recent fires in Los Angeles County are an important reminder that those of us in Sausalito need to remember. We live in an area that has great difficulty for access to any of our homes as it is now. We live in an area where we have high propensity for fires and other dangers. I live in Hurricane Gulch, And if a spark were to go off, or an issue to happen where one of my elderly neighbors were to have a health scare. that required emergency assistance, it's difficult enough to get up and down our hills as it is. Increasing the density of Sausalito to the level that some of these projects are estimated is ridiculous and makes our city more unsafe. I really appreciate Michael Rex's comments and think that he has some interesting solutions and would love to hear. this commission and the city to consider more solutions based on protection, for our views, for our safety and the community at large. Thank you very much and appreciate your work. |
| 01:45:53.15 | Director Phipps | Annie, thank you very much for your comments. Thank you for being present. Next speaker is Sandra Bushmaker. Sandra, welcome. You will have three minutes. |
| 01:46:02.72 | Unknown | Good afternoon, good evening, commissioners and staff. Thank you very much for all the work that you've done on this project. It is almost indecipherable to be able to digest the quantity of information in this housing element and its amendment. I just wanted to raise the issue that, um, Uh, I would like to see the fire station and city hall be removed from quote, the pathway. It is unclear to me what that pathway is. It's been explained about three or four different times and I still don't understand it. There is a petition going around town right now to reestablish the fire station in light of our uh, Nancy McNeil, M.D.: wildfire threats here in Sausalito, so I think that it needs it just needs to be removed, and I don't know why the city hall is on there either it should be removed as well. Uh, With regard to the buffer, I've always been opposed to an excessive buffer. And it seems to me that we are creating more problems than not by having an excessive buffer I could understand if the buffer numbers were all in the low to very low income categories, but they include the moderate and above moderate categories as well. And then I was a little unclear on the height limit discussion. As to what where that was going, it was unclear to me what Mr. Toft was saying. and the questions raised on that. I'd like clarification on that. And lastly, in my fantasy world... given the fact that HCD completely rejected our appeal, which for those of you who don't know, involved uh, Fire hazards. That was completely rejected by HCD when we challenged the RENA numbers. I think and this is pure fantasy on my part, that the biggest environmental impact of on our culture here in Sausalito is the successive RENA number. I would sure like to see that included in our environmental impact report, or at least a comment on the impact of this excessive number in our small town. Thank you so much. |
| 01:48:24.04 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comments. Much appreciated. Thank you for being present. Next speaker is Jennifer Nemo. Jennifer, you'll have three minutes. Welcome. |
| 01:48:34.56 | Unknown | Thank you. And thank you to the commission for all your work that you've put into this. We know it's been years and many hours and lots of time. Appreciate your consideration of everything. I'll keep this brief. I simply want to second and support everything that Michael Rex offered up this afternoon, this evening, and also Stacey Nemo, as well as Annie's comments on the fire hazard side. I'm in full support of every word they said and just wanted to reiterate their comments. So thank you. |
| 01:49:05.99 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comments. Much appreciated. Chair, that does it for raised hands in the Zoom application. I will give folks a final opportunity to raise hands. And I am seeing none. Back to you. |
| 01:49:21.39 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Director Phipps. Thank you to all the members of the public for your comments this evening. We also, just for the record, do have comments posted to the agenda that we received and have read as well. So we have received any written comments, and they are all available for other members of the public on the agenda. So, Commissioner Pellett. |
| 01:49:47.80 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. I mean, before we move into discussion here, can I just ask, because I think it's maybe worth the clarification, that Director Phipps and staff sort of clarify what that notification was that went out to property owners and explain that it doesn't commit them to developing their property necessarily based on those numbers, but I think that clarification is is important maybe just to start off here since it was issued by the city thank you chair |
| 01:50:17.85 | Director Phipps | Appreciate that, Commissioner. We always try to be as transparent as we can in our planning processes, particularly as related to issues such as housing and high RHNA numbers. So in an abundance of caution and thanks to the recommendation of Commissioner Luxenberg, Luxembourg, we took it upon ourselves to send opportunity site owners a separate and kind of over and above notice that is more than what is required by the state. So we did complete our required CEQA-related rezoning and our required noticing for 10 days in advance of any public hearing. But in addition to that, we did send this follow-on letter to Opportunity Site Owners. And again, the intent is just to make sure that folks are aware of their site being integrated into the housing element. And we're here to answer any questions. We're here to make ourselves available. But at the end of the day, it's just an attempt at being transparent. |
| 01:51:24.19 | Kristina Feller | And this does not prohibit any other property owner from developing their property based on the existing zoning. |
| 01:51:32.77 | Director Phipps | Absolutely, apologies I didn't answer that part of your question. The answer is yes. |
| 01:51:36.99 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:51:37.01 | Unknown Staff | Thank you. |
| 01:51:37.30 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:51:38.02 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. That was a great clarification. So we have a lot in front of us this evening, and I might suggest we start the discussion more generally, and then if we need to get into any specific sites, we will potentially get into some recusals. So I just want to caution us on the questions that we're asking and pay attention to the sites that we're discussing. Would anyone like to start off on any general comments before we move in? No? Go ahead, Commissioner Fowler. Do you want to kick us off? |
| 01:52:10.00 | Kristina Feller | I'll start, and I know Commissioner Luxembourg will chime in here as well. I wanted to use this opportunity not just for our discussion, but to clarify a number of things, both in terms of the public comment we've received tonight, both written and oral, but sort of this whole process. And there's a lot of discussion about a disproportionate application of units in this arena cycle to the the northern part of town and i i want to kind of uh put this in context because i think it's been taken completely out of context and and uh first of all the marineship area uh is a it it's part of the industrial and commercial machine of Sausalito. It's not there and it's for the entire part of the commercial engine behind Sausalito, but it represents, I think at last count, about 40% of our tax base from commercial enterprises. So it's not a small operation that's happening there. |
| 01:52:59.85 | Unknown | I agree with them. |
| 01:53:00.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:53:19.83 | Kristina Feller | Um, Sausalito has about 1.8 square miles of actual land. The The borders of Sausalito are a little bit bigger, but some of that's in the water, so I'm just going to you know take take that out of an equation. And, you know, about Um, 210 acres constitute the marine ship area. And what I mean by that is sort of Napa Street north and then the east side of Bridgeway to the water. They have about 234 units assigned to just that area that I just described. That's over 30%. of the total units. But the idea behind that, of course, is to address the whole ethos of RHNA numbers, and that is workforce housing and housing where you can be more, you could be closer to your place of work or, you know, whatever your business destination might be on a daily basis. So, It's not that it's being disproportionate just to be disproportionate. or unfair. It is it that is the beginning of representing why there's a concentration in the northern part of town. It's specifically to address that need. And the marineship is absorbing quite a bit. And a lot of those parcels and properties are along bridgeways. So they're along a transit corridor Um, They are not interfering with working waterfront designations or other industrial designations that are part of, again, that economic engine behind Sausalito, our tax base, which goes to our general funds and all the kind of stuff that fixes our roads, hopefully, and all those sorts of things. So I just wanted to take a minute to address that because I don't want this to be framed as being unfair. and not distributed evenly just for the sake of being even across the city. So, so I'll leave it at that. The MLK site, you know, I think, you know, what we had talked about here was more akin to like the 80 units or something like that. And yes, we do have development agreements that this commission approved for recommendation to City Council who ratified our recommendation. And, you know, entering into those are, um, can be a wonderful tool to attract development to achieve our numbers here. That can take many forms. including joint ventures, legal joint ventures, and so on and so forth. And I don't want to get ahead of ourselves because who knows who's going to come to develop here in Sausalito. But those are, in fact, there. As it relates to R1 or R2 development agreements, those are really based on the underlying zoning. And so that's why the development agreements are not necessarily applying to those for more obvious reasons. The MLK site, I think we talked about 80 units. So that's what 11% or something of the total units. Again, the idea behind this is that you have First of all, great adjacency to... the economic engine, the majority of the economic engine in, you know, at least concentrated in Sausalito You have a high walkability factor with schools and all that kind of stuff and the transit corridor. So it's not just arbitrary. and i know that we have much more to discuss on some of these sites but I really just wanted to, on a general level, put that out there and why some of these units are there. Um, Part of what this revised housing element is also looking at because I think a lot of the comments were heard very clearly. It was not just the number, but it was what was the allocation? So some of the allocation of whatever the socioeconomic criteria is for affordable, low income, very low income, etc. that has been looked at and redistributed throughout Sausalito and not solely just concentrated in that area. So I want to point that out because it's not just a number. It's also the distribution of that. So I think certainly this commission heard you. I want to say the city council heard you. as well and that's valuable input and i think that that that's part of what we will be talking about So I just want to put that out there. I think to level set on the site 202, it would be helpful if staff could actually just tell us what the revised, or Beth, maybe you can tell us what the revised recommendation is in the revised draft, just so everyone's clear that we're talking about the same number. So I don't know, Beth, if you can throw that number out or Neil, if you have that, just so we can. address that. |
| 01:58:48.13 | Beth Thompson | Sure. So for Altamira, we had included the consideration to reduce it to 51 units or 49 dwelling units per acre. So that would be a realistic capacity of 51. |
| 01:59:00.13 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. I just wanted to start there with some basic. |
| 01:59:03.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I just ask a follow on for the Altamira? What is the Altamira currently in the approved Certified Housing Number unit? |
| 01:59:05.73 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:59:06.58 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 01:59:15.88 | Nastassya Saad | that be so on 67 units is what is in the adopted housing element adopted yes i'm not sure what yes i um i don't know what the designation is off the top of my head but unit wise the adopted housing element had 67 units |
| 01:59:21.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The adopted housing. |
| 01:59:32.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And what is the amendment if we don't reduce it to 51? |
| 01:59:39.50 | Nastassya Saad | So the adopted housing element is 67. The modified housing element is 67. And the alternative would be 51. That would be lowering that designation to the H 49. Thank you. You're welcome. |
| 01:59:53.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not sure. |
| 01:59:55.50 | Kristina Feller | The other thing I just want to mention again as general comment is, at our last study session on on this topic um there was a request and actually I made the request to staff to engage with our elected officials here in Sausalito, our city council, and to county and state officials as well, or ask them to engage with their colleagues in other offices throughout the state to really address primary infrastructure here in Sausalito prior to or in parallel with implementing this housing element and and I and to be clear what I was asking for is and I mentioned that we all just watched LA burn. So you can watch this on on the last tape. we really need to adjust. address the expansion of water supply retention, public and civic services power, you know, traffic circulation beyond just the EIR, as it relates to some of the more specific parking studies and things of that kind. So all of the primary infrastructure in terms of utilities, clearly, all of that primary infrastructure in terms of public services and civic services, it's really critical that we, in parallel and now, start to address how those things are going to be implemented or what the strategy is in terms of achieving what's needed to actually realize 724 additional units. I want to put that out there and actually not just request staff do that, but if I could be so bold as to direct staff to please urgently engage in those conversations. Because I do think that this will be the tail wagging the dog and we wanna be careful about that. So those are just some general comments. |
| 02:02:02.45 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. Great comments. Commissioner Luxenberg. Thank you. |
| 02:02:07.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. I will try to stay to the general, but I may stray to the specific. So as was discussed at the city council and discussed here, I would recommend we not have an excessive buffer. That was in a short term and a long term may hurt us, may not hurt us. We don't know what the next cycle will be and having an excessive buffer may not hurt us, but it could hurt us. So I start with that because it leads to a couple other things. The second is we obviously need whatever ballot questions we put out there to pass, because the numbers for the 10-22, if those go away, we potentially have a problem. I also think we should stay with the simple as opposed to the complicated so we have a proposed housing amendment I think we should stay with that we should make and I'll get into some of the specifics some modifications to that on the numbers but I think they should come out of the buffers so in other words I want to abandon this modified housing element which has City Hall and the fire station and all that that should go away and we should just focus on what's before us and tweak it to make it work rather than complicating and recalculating and all that kind of stuff I would suggest that one of the things we need is senior housing here. I think that one of the benefits of providing some of the senior housing is that, first of all, the heightened bulk of senior housing is less than other types of housing because the square footage needed for senior housing is less. I would also suggest that the traffic from senior housing is also less because it's the occupancy per unit is less. And I think that the income levels for low and moderate as people get older and they're on Social Security tend to be less. So there are a lot of benefits for senior housing. And so one of the thoughts that I had, and this mostly relates to the MLK site, but I'll try to say it generally here, is if we would reduce the MLK site, I heard some suggestions about 50 units, but just talking generally about senior housing, if instead of rezoning it to, I forget what it is, housing 29 or 49. We rezoned that particular site to our senior overlay district, which is exactly what is across the street from that right now. And then we put it in the housing element at whatever number. The senior housing overlay, if we were to do that, would have a range of 58 to 77. So if you wanted 50, you could put it in at 50. You could put it in at, I wouldn't put it in at 84, but we could put it in a number and take it out of the buffer zone. And the benefit of this is I think that that ballot question might have a much better opportunity to pass because the density and the traffic and all that would be less for senior housing. And by making it senior housing, first of all, the city owns it and has control over it. So we could put in whatever developments, there's no bonus density or whatever. We would define what it is, and it could be that. But if we go out to the public with a senior housing overlay district, people will know it will be senior housing. And they'll say, oh, this is a good solution. And so I think that for 1128 or whatever it is, we'd have a better chance of passing and and then if we were to reduce for example Altamira again take it out of the let's not go and recalculate just just reduce it from 67 this is this generally 67 to 51 and take that out of the buffer so we can get into more specifics when we get into specific sites but the idea would be the housing element as proposed the the main one not this modified one uh is is good uh but there are certain sites that need some reductions and we could tweak it and make it make this simple my last comment relates to uh something said earlier about minimum to maximum what i understood last time was we are requiring a minimum and maximum. So somebody has a vacant lot and they want to develop that lot, they're going to be required to do the minimum for housing. So if somebody wants to put a single family or a duplex on a site required for three units, they're not going to be able to do that the way the language is structured. So my suggestion, and this is the only one that's come up today, and we sent letters to everybody, is we may want to just remove 522 Olive Street from this and just take it out of the buffer. So anyways, I have more specific comments when we get to specific sites, but those are my general thoughts at the moment. I'll give it back to the chair. |
| 02:07:20.00 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Commissioner Luxembourg, for those thoughts. Commissioner Marlott. |
| 02:07:24.41 | David Marlatt | Yeah, thank you very much. And I have some comments that really follow on very nicely with Commissioner Luxembourg. I, too, generally don't see any advantage to certainly to raising the buffer. I could understand an argument that we, maybe HCD is looking at us with a little skepticism, so we don't want to lower the 908 buffer, although 899 is practically the same. But I just don't see any advantage to us. And I agree, generally, if we're going to be readjusting these densities, and globally I support all of these reductions, it should come out of the buffer. And I think we should feel pretty confident about that. I also have a, I guess, kind of a comment slash question for staff, but it was raised by the occupant of Olive Street and whether they can still develop a single family home. I have these questions in the zoning changes column for 4B, but can an HOS owner retract their parcel? Because is that something that needs to be considered? If they've committed to an HOS site, what is the nature of the commitment? Can it be retracted? |
| 02:08:33.07 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 02:08:33.10 | David Marlatt | Can you repeat? |
| 02:08:33.97 | Director Phipps | you |
| 02:08:34.03 | David Marlatt | the question. |
| 02:08:34.49 | Director Phipps | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:08:34.57 | David Marlatt | Are you trapped? Is that the word that you use? If an owner is committed, can be retracted. |
| 02:08:35.25 | Director Phipps | Are you trapped? |
| 02:08:36.06 | Unknown | Is that the word that you use? It can be retracted. Retracted. |
| 02:08:39.82 | David Marlatt | you Retract, did I say removed? |
| 02:08:42.35 | Director Phipps | Understood. So at the end of the day, the actions and discussions we're having now are going to manifest themselves in a housing overlay. That's a form of zoning. Can you change zoning? Yes. Is it an easy and fast process that you can take upon yourself independently? No. I will say generally adding density to units increases the value of units. Many people would not have it take issue with somebody, in essence, increasing the residual value of their property. |
| 02:09:24.30 | David Marlatt | Thank you, I think I understood. |
| 02:09:25.96 | Neal Toft | I do want to, I kind of want to add on to that a little bit is that, so the answer is, you know, yes, they could apply to have it removed, do an amendment and have it removed. part of the housing element process involves no net loss. And if, you know, again, during, particularly at a mid-cycle review or at some point where you see a site, that for all intents and purposes is not going to get developed um there's or somebody applies to take it off then the city's kind of obligated to try to backfill now these are that's just a few units so this is very much small but if if the city if somebody with a larger development that has bigger numbers wants to take that off and that has implications towards the whole arena strategy, then the city has to in doing that has to find the replacement. |
| 02:10:17.83 | David Marlatt | Yeah. |
| 02:10:35.73 | David Marlatt | So yeah. |
| 02:10:35.95 | Neal Toft | of the house units and that affordability. |
| 02:10:39.24 | David Marlatt | Okay, well, yeah, thank you. And actually, I have more questions about that subject, about triggers and so forth, when we discuss the next item on the 4B. So I was mostly asking with respect to how it affects our density and our goals. I think there's other questions about process that are open. The other comment related to the Altavira site in particular does come back to fire and so forth. I know from experience we can build buildings that are relatively fire safe, but that doesn't mean that Princess Street becomes safe as an evacuation route or a route for fire trucks and so forth. And what was the role of the Southern Marine Fire Department in developing these densities or was there a role? Maybe other I was not here at the original process. So maybe other people in the dais know was the fire department consulted. |
| 02:11:31.19 | Kristina Feller | They were consulted, yes. Southern Marin Fire did comment on this, and they also commented on the EIR for both the general plan and the housing element. |
| 02:11:41.02 | David Marlatt | OK, thank you. Well, then my general comment, though, is, and I think it's supported by others here on the dais, that the Altamir site is, the density should be dropped, should be lowered to 51 or whatever the alternate suggestion was. And I also support the idea that the alternate sites on City Hall and Spencer should simply be removed. Thank you. |
| 02:12:02.24 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Vice Chair. |
| 02:12:07.31 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair. And I do want to thank, again, staff and Beth and her team for grinding through this. And I hope we're nearing the end here, pray to God. You know, we all want to get through this process. We all want to comply with state law. We all want to do that by also balancing our local interests as best we can. And I really want to be clear on this. I think I personally, and I hope everybody on the commission here, we want to meet the state goals. We want to comply with state law. That's really important, and it's why we've done this entire process. But there's's no question and I actually completely agree with something Sandra Bushmaker said this evening the process has gotten almost incomprehensible so in some respects everything you just sat through with the public that's listening and all of us up here we've been through this a number of times the City Council's been through this it's it's it's almost grotesquely complex and I think and I think that's a problem, but it's what we're stuck with. I also would point out, with respect to all the appeals, when the numbers were assigned a number of years ago, everybody appealed, everybody hated the numbers, and everybody lost. I think there might have been one adjustment made. We're in no different boat than every other community across California and Marin County that doesn't like the big number, but we're stuck with it. Um, You know, I also want to with respect to, you know, general land use issues. I like the fact that we're starting on a very high level in general element here. You know, the marine ship, is an extraordinarily important part of Sausalito, its history, its future, its current economic situation. But the marineship, is I believe and I think a lot of people believe is extraordinarily underutilized at this point at this moment. There is a working waterfront. It's comprised of a handful of large operators, you know, Clipper and KKMI and maybe Bayside Boatworks and a number of smaller ones. But had anybody walked through the Marin ship lately? It's a bunch of vacant lots. It's a bunch of storage. And it's a bunch of office buildings. None of those appear to me to be supporting the industrial idea of the past of the Marin ship. I think that kind of leads us to the next question and the next issue before us is kind of why are we in this mess? We're in this mess because in 1985, the voters of this city passed an ordinance that we call 1022. It froze our zoning. as if it was 1980. So... Does anybody remember the 80s? You know, Ronald Reagan was president. The Soviet Union still existed. I mean, it was... nothing has changed in our zoning for these zoning districts in 45 years. That's kind of stunning. The only reason we're even talking about it right now is because we're being forced to by the state with respect to these housing, the housing mandates. So that's a real problem. I think Mr. Rex, you, you raise an interesting option. We're going to be going to the ballot here. The reason why our housing element is hanging by a thread is because of 1022, there's going to be a ballot measure. If it, if you know, the MLK site with 1128 similar problem, smaller problem, because whether that one goes or not, not going to kill the housing element. But if, but if 10, the 1022 measure doesn't pass, we're in real deep trouble. which means I think not just we shouldn't just be thinking about development agreements in the Marinship and to get around 1022. We should be thinking about getting rid of 1022. I mean, 1022 hasn't, I mean, it's one way to look at it. It's worked perfectly. Nothing has happened in Sausalito in 45 years. So maybe it's time to try something new. And the state is really forcing us to think about trying something new And repeal, total repeal of 1022 is I think something the community should be talking about. I think something the city council should be talking about, whether it's this cycle with this ordinance that we have to put on the ballot in June or another one at some future date, but we shouldn't be waiting forever. This is an enormous barrier to progress, to change, to making Sausalito work. So I think that's gotta be considered. I also want to |
| 02:16:26.57 | Andrew Junius | I also just want to point out that I guess maybe it goes without saying, and if people have been paying attention to this process and it's really hard over the last couple of years, I mean, I've had a tough time keeping track of everything, Because of 1022 and because the Marin ship has been basically off limits to housing up until now Now it's now it's certainly being opened up at the north end But there's still a lot more room and a lot more housing could go into the Marin ship. That's why we're talking about sites that On the hillsides, that's why the neighborhoods are got jammed with a bunch of this housing and a bunch of these larger sites It's because we couldn't put it in the Marin ship. because of 1022. I mean, the problem is bad enough that we've got an ordinance that's going to go before the borders that's got 358 units. Well, what if we had put the whole thing in there? Then the whole housing element would be hanging by a thread. So we couldn't do that. So this is kind of the awkward situation. in my opinion, kind of ridiculous compromise the city made over the last several years, trying to come up with ways to fit it all together and do too many things for too many people. And the one thing that we tried to do, and I think we got about halfway there, is opening up the Marinship. but to really open it up, the city's gotta consider getting rid of 1022. I'm not gonna have a ton of detailed comments. I appreciate, my commissioner fellows up here digging into it i'm probably going to agree with most of your modifications to the amendment uh the amendment that's before us and i do thank you all for your really hard work on this and i appreciate it thank you |
| 02:18:00.51 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Vice Chair. Yeah, I think this is a very interesting discussion. You know, just to reiterate, actually, Vice Chair Junius, there is a very, very big, this is our last chance. I'm going to take the final chance. This is it. We vote tonight. No more study sessions. We take a vote, and then it goes to council. And so for members of council that might also be listening and all members of the public on Zoom and here, there is a very big onus on the public to get this over the line. Very big. so it might look like the five of us are here and council's doing the work but it's actually all about to come onus on the public to get this over the line, very big. So it might look like the five of us are here and council's doing the work, but it's actually all about to come out to you all with 1022 and with 1128. And if these things do not pass, to Vice Chair Junius's point, we are gonna be in a bad situation. Personally, I can speak for myself. I think from being a member of the housing element working group, HIAC, and starting this process with Commissioner Feller many, many years ago. We've been involved in it for a long time. It's really scary. I'm born and raised here. I love that it hasn't changed, and I think everybody knows that, and I'm not shy to say that, but we do have a state mandate, and we need to comply, and we need to comply with a lot of things coming up down the line here. We've got our objective design standards. We've got other things that we need to get right. And so in that effort, the due diligence is on every one of us as residents, as commissioners, as council members. And so I would just implore everyone to do. take into consideration that this commission, the working group, the housing element advisory committee council has tried to create these opportunity sites in a way that distributes the housing opportunity sites in the best way possible for Sausalito. We had received a report from Miller Pacific on the geological hazards in Sausalito, and it's also very overwhelming, the level of grade that we have here, subsidence and liquefaction. So we have concerns all over the city. So to Commissioner Feller's point, I think it's... critical that staff and team starts to look into these overall arching just public policy on how we can protect the rest of our town but for what we're doing tonight I actually think Commissioner Luxembourg I like the direction that you're starting us out with I think the amended housing element has a lot of good in it and I I think if fellow commissioners agree, we can start there and maybe get into some of these site specifics. I believe some modifications are going to come up, but I would like to take us in the direction kicked off by Commissioner Luxenberg and start focusing here on the amended housing project and leave the modified amended housing project off to the side just for ease unless there's opposition. |
| 02:21:08.46 | Kristina Feller | I'm not opposed to it. I mean, that is the one that has the highest buffer, which I don't think anyone here is excited about or would enthusiastically endorse. So we're going to have to maybe talk site by site at some point. |
| 02:21:24.53 | Nastassya Saad | I think we are going to. I think we should get into that because I agree just for that point. I also am not, I think we've been pretty consistent in our feedback on the buffer. So perhaps we can start to look into how we can make some reductions. I would like to note all the public comment, especially about Altamira. And I have some of my own discussion points around MLK, but I think once we get into that, Commissioner Marlott, you might have to recuse. So we'll just hang tight on that for a second. |
| 02:21:51.04 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:21:52.66 | Kristina Feller | I have to recuse from Altamira. |
| 02:21:53.91 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you, Commissioner Feller. I won't comment on that. Okay. But thank you to the public for all the comments. So we'll hope to get it right for you here. In the interest of getting started then on the amended housing element project, we have a couple of things before us out the gate. So we do have site A5, which was a Bridgeway, Caltrans Row, and site 209, which was 931 to 933 Bridgeway. That was for one unit. Site 85 was 25 units. So those have come out. I personally have no, I don't believe we have conflicts, any conflicts? Okay, and I personally have no issues on those being removed from the amended housing element. |
| 02:22:42.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, I just, the comment I made earlier about adding 209 to the whereas's needs to happen because it's a change, but other than assuming that other. |
| 02:22:50.56 | Kristina Feller | Can you repeat that? Yes. Which, like exactly, because I think we need to start to put pen to paper here and be clear about our direction. |
| 02:22:51.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 02:23:00.87 | Nastassya Saad | And may I also ask you, Commissioner Luxenberg, just to speak a little closer to the mic when you're ready. |
| 02:23:05.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sure, I will be happy to do that. So the seventh whereas in the resolution that's proposing the housing element, the proposing the housing element amendment, not the modified one, in the seventh whereas it says at the last sentence, and remove sites with limited potential, former site 85. I want to add the words and site 209, because there are two sites that we're suggesting removing. |
| 02:23:39.36 | Unknown Staff | Agreed. |
| 02:23:40.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And I'm also, I mean, I don't know if this is the time, but I'm going to suggest we take out a site, I think it was 63, 522 Olive Street, because we sent out notices to every property owner and only one came tonight and said, they're very concerned that this is in here. It has very little effect on the overall numbers and I think we should honor that request. So. |
| 02:24:09.25 | Kristina Feller | I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but I want to note that just to be clear on the record, that these opportunity sites came about because property owners actually responded back in 2021 and 2022 to whether or not they were interested in developing and expanding their sites. And that's how this list came about, just to be clear. If that has changed, that's fine. Again, I don't think it's a huge impact, and I think that that can easily be absorbed elsewhere, and then we will have a buffer regardless. But I would ask that the owner formally confirm that they are not interested and would like their site removed just for clarity and for clarity of the administrative record on this. |
| 02:25:04.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, if I could just, I agree with you that everyone was contacted early on, but the difference came, as I mentioned at the last study session, was that no one knew at that time, because it came later, that there would be a minimum and a maximum. |
| 02:25:18.35 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I don't think... |
| 02:25:19.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That was my concern. |
| 02:25:21.35 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I think we're in agreement, so I don't know that we have to belabor it. But yeah, that that's fine. I would just ask perhaps that staff just follow up to make sure that we close the loop on that. That's part of what we're doing here tonight is closing the loop so there are no little pieces hanging. |
| 02:25:35.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And if we do that, I'm just to your point about recording stuff as we go, we would add that to this whereas. |
| 02:25:42.68 | Unknown | Agreed, yeah. |
| 02:25:43.48 | Neal Toft | What can for clarity, because we do have to provide a written recommendation. This ultimately has to be reflected in the resolution. any and all changes. So just to be aware, we really should |
| 02:25:56.32 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 02:25:59.67 | Neal Toft | identify if you recommend removing that. |
| 02:26:02.12 | Kristina Feller | That's what we're writing down. Yeah. We're going to be right back. |
| 02:26:04.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So we're suggesting adding to I see nothing from the audience. We're suggesting adding to that whereas site 63 and site 209. |
| 02:26:04.26 | Kristina Feller | . |
| 02:26:15.49 | Kristina Feller | So it's 85, 209, and 63. 63. |
| 02:26:18.39 | Director Phipps | And of course, if I may, just a quick clarification, also adding the removal of those sites to the recommendations in the substance of the resolution itself. Thank you. |
| 02:26:27.03 | Unknown Staff | RIGHT. |
| 02:26:27.30 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 02:26:27.53 | Unknown Staff | Thank you. Correct. |
| 02:26:28.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and in the element wherever it has to be listed and whatever. And that'll be true of any changes we make. We know we're gonna give you some short summary things and there might be various places you have to put it. We realize that. |
| 02:26:43.85 | Stacy Nemo | Yeah. A good clarifying question. Of course. |
| 02:26:46.03 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair. Before, it seems like the buffer is gonna get smaller and smaller and smaller as the evening goes on. Could Beth or Neil or somebody, again, explain the legal need for the buffer? Well, legal might be the right word, but the HCD, view of the buffer and why the original recommendation is to have such a large buffer. I would love some clarity on here as we move on. Thanks, Beth. |
| 02:27:09.82 | Beth Thompson | One of the primary reasons for the buffer is even though you have sites that are identified to accommodate very low and low income development in the housing element, they don't always develop with those income levels. Somebody can come in with a market rate development and they do not have to provide the number of units that are being identified. Now, the city controlled properties, of course, it's different. You can ensure that those units are created and affordable. So one of the primary reasons for the buffer is to ensure that if there is some attrition with your lower income sites, that you have additional sites to accommodate that. State law has a provision called no net loss. And what that means is as you're approving development projects, And so not even just a reason, but as you're approving development projects, the city has to track its capacity to accommodate the arena. And if projects are approved, that would reduce the city's capacity and you would no longer be able to accommodate the arena, then the burden is on the city to go and replace that. within six months to ensure that you can still accommodate the arena. So by having a buffer, you're staying out of that need to quickly replace sites. Now, one of the things that happened when we made some changes in the amended housing element was you had, when we reduced the number of units on some sites, they no longer were eligible to be lower income sites. So some of those units shifted to moderate. So your moderate income buffer increased a lot. And so you'll see that's much larger, but you don't need to have such a large moderate income buffer. |
| 02:28:34.11 | Andrew Junius | it. Great. Thank you. I appreciate that. And so from my perspective, you know, the world of affordable housing financing and the world of market rate financing are like night and day, right? They're completely different. So as the buffer gets smaller, I think, you know, it's hard to, you know, in some respects, affordable housing is the only thing that pencils these days because the only people that have money to build are what's left of the government to, you know, fund affordable housing. market rate projects are not happening right now um they hopefully they will in the future but um i mean i just what's left of the government to, you know, fund affordable housing. Market rate projects are not happening right now. They hopefully they will in the future. But I mean, I just again, caution the commission not to get too, you know, we talk about everybody, everybody wants a site off, I completely understand why the neighbors in the Altamira area don't want one. You know, the firehouse is an issue that, you know, the city halls an issue. I mean, they all can't come off so we I think we've got to be somewhat realistic about you know what we're gonna do here and be careful not to you know make a recommendation that the City Council is not it's not gonna be helpful to the City Council thank you |
| 02:28:42.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:28:42.53 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 02:28:42.55 | Unknown | to be able to get a |
| 02:28:42.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:29:32.22 | Kristina Feller | And to follow on on that, is it possible, Beth, like as we are identifying these sites to come off and we're recalibrating the buffer tonight in real time, that there's a way or a mechanism to also address the progress that's been made so far so that the buffer combined with the progress is enough to appease HCD or address whatever their concerns are, I think that is worth looking at as well. That's why we keep asking about that number. And that's- |
| 02:30:07.37 | Andrew Junius | And that's a follow up. So is the 724 number is before the 80 use that we've already 40 or 50 to use right so. |
| 02:30:13.49 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:30:13.54 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:30:17.47 | Andrew Junius | I guess theoretically we're down to 675, right? In terms of our RHNA number, I mean, at least aggressively. |
| 02:30:21.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, just to clarify, the number in Table 1 is 116 for SBUs and ADUs and SB9. So, yes, we've done 46, but the SB9 are down. So the staff said earlier that they did not think that the projections right now would cause us to change the numbers for the ADU. But, yes, we've made some progress. |
| 02:30:48.62 | Unknown | I like your picture. |
| 02:30:49.35 | Director Phipps | Thank you. And if I may just add on to that, there is also in table one, the RENA sites strategy, a row entitled approved slash entitled projects. These are units that we're able to count based on previously approved projects that may have been built or may be in the process of being built. And Beth, if you have anything to add on that particular row, I'll give you the floor. |
| 02:31:14.12 | Beth Thompson | No, nothing, nothing to add there. Just when we went back through a number of those projects are still a process. I think a couple have been completed. So yeah, those would, those would still be considered projects that count towards your arena. So what you're really looking at, you have a few different numbers and I'll just quickly share the screen. When you're looking at accommodating your arena, let me put my PowerPoint back into regular mode so it's easy for everyone to see. But you've got the existing capacity. So you have your approved and entitled projects row. You have your inventory of existing residential sites. So these are sites with zoning that's currently adequate to accommodate residential development. And then you have your ADU and SB9 projected units. These three categories give you capacity for 261 units, a very modest amount of very low and low income units, but you have capacity for 261. your opportunity sites have to provide that additional capacity to get to 724, including accommodating the each of the income groups. So as you're discussing your revisions, I've actually just created a spreadsheet. It won't look as nice as this, but I'm going to be tracking the revisions by site and I'll create a pivot table so I can just kind of update those numbers and then give you, it'll probably take me a minute or two once you Once you pause, but I can keep updating you as to where you are. |
| 02:32:37.35 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:32:38.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Excellent, thank you, Beth. Can you leave that on the screen for one second? Can I ask a follow-on question in response to something Commissioner Junior said. The city hall and the fire station, We're not taking them out. They're not in this numbers. We have 958 without the city hall and without the fire station. |
| 02:32:58.92 | Beth Thompson | THAT IS WITHOUT THE CITY HALL AND FIRE STATION. |
| 02:33:04.66 | Nastassya Saad | the clarification. |
| 02:33:05.40 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:33:05.53 | Beth Thompson | It is. |
| 02:33:05.68 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. THE FAMILY. |
| 02:33:05.95 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 02:33:05.97 | Kristina Feller | follow up to that. I, I I don't want them included at all. I know that they're not included in the number But at this time, I don't want to, I think that we have, you know, debated and adjudicated this a thousand times i don't think they should be included at all in this in this housing element |
| 02:33:26.66 | Nastassya Saad | Just a note, if we discuss City Hall, I'm gonna have to recuse any further. |
| 02:33:32.72 | David Marlatt | A follow-on question to that, to Commissioner Feller, is fundamentally at the end of the day, this is about HCD accepting our plan. So, I mean, I'll correct me if I'm wrong. It's more about, I guess, perception and skepticism. And, of course, we have to follow the law. So that we maybe, however the original buffer came about, it is what it is or it was what it was. And we don't want to poke the bear, so to speak, and drop that number too far down. But by including City Hall and Spencer Avenue as a potential alternate, what is the benefit of that to HCD looking at our plan? What why would we do that one way or the other? |
| 02:34:17.30 | Beth Thompson | Those are provided as alternates in the event that the measures to rezone sites fail. So you don't get that ballot approval of the rezones for the sites that are constrained by 10-22 and 11-28. So what this says to HCD is these sites are under city control. You can actually affect the rezoning of those. You can encourage development of those. You don't have to go back to a vote of the people. So these aren't sites where you're finding replacement sites and then you're going through another ballot initiative. So basically, it demonstrates to HCD the city's commitment. And we... vote of the people. So these aren't sites where you're finding replacement sites, and then you're going through another ballot initiative. So basically, it demonstrates to HCD the city's commitment. And we did revise the language and the alternative to not have as strong of a commitment to those sites, but basically to say that in the event there is a arena shortfall, the city could identify City Hall or Spencer Avenue fire station or other sites that are consistent with the methodology discussed in the housing element. And there's a whole criteria and methodology for identifying sites. |
| 02:35:14.05 | David Marlatt | So whether these two sites are in or not in the housing element doesn't really change anything. Is that correct? I mean, the city could decide without altering the housing element or mentioning it to develop the city hall site, for example. |
| 02:35:26.61 | Beth Thompson | Oh yeah, the city could move forward with that regardless of the housing element. |
| 02:35:28.99 | David Marlatt | How our plan is perceived by HDD then in fact developing |
| 02:35:36.44 | Beth Thompson | I think it's both. It gives the city the ability to develop those sites, but it also helps HCD understand the city's commitment. |
| 02:35:37.85 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:35:37.86 | David Marlatt | Well. |
| 02:35:38.18 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:35:42.28 | Nastassya Saad | And that also helps No. |
| 02:35:46.30 | Kristina Feller | The zoning, the underlying zoning. No. |
| 02:35:48.63 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:35:48.66 | Kristina Feller | Right. |
| 02:35:48.68 | Nastassya Saad | Right. |
| 02:35:48.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:35:49.10 | Kristina Feller | Besides 14 and 52, we're not in the certified housing element anyway. |
| 02:35:49.15 | Unknown | Thank you. Yeah. |
| 02:35:49.57 | Beth Thompson | I don't know. |
| 02:35:56.31 | Kristina Feller | Um, |
| 02:35:58.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I make just a follow-on comment on this whole concept without talking specifically about City Hall or Forest, so we don't have to recuse? If we keep putting in alternatives to, you know, if this happens or the ballot fails, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. We want to go out with a logical, fair approach for the ballot, whether it's one question on 1022 or two questions on 1022. We want to go out and say we need this for the city, and it's good for the city. It works. We've done the environmental impact on it. But if we put out, well, if it fails and we have this and that, it's going to be wishy-washy, and people are just going to vote against. We want to come out with a positive. This is appropriate. It's been studied. It will work. And we're going to adjust some numbers so that we can get there. I don't think we want it. And that's why I started with the way in the beginning today. What is this modified thing? Because it just confuses things and allows people to feel like, oh, we don't need to pass this. So again, good. |
| 02:37:06.42 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:37:07.64 | Director Phipps | If I may, Commissioner, I appreciate the comments and I really value this discussion. I just want to pivot a little bit and clarify the Commission's role this evening. The Commission is tasked with providing a recommendation on the housing element itself. The specifics as to how the city chooses to approach and present the ballot measure is ultimately that of City Council. So this evening, the discussion of certain densities on certain sites is very appropriate to inform the Commission. approach and present the ballot measure is ultimately that of city council. So this evening, the discussion of certain densities on certain sites is very appropriate to inform the commissioner's direction. The ballot measure and the details associated with that measure is a council item. |
| 02:37:44.44 | Kristina Feller | But we can still recommend what our position is. |
| 02:37:47.73 | Director Phipps | Absolutely, and I would like those recommendations, to the extent that you are okay with it, to be based off of densities in the housing element. |
| 02:37:55.73 | Unknown Staff | Thank you. |
| 02:37:55.75 | Kristina Feller | So, |
| 02:37:55.97 | Unknown Staff | Thank you. |
| 02:37:56.03 | Kristina Feller | So I'll throw out a couple. |
| 02:37:57.17 | Unknown Staff | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:37:57.59 | Nastassya Saad | Let's get into it. |
| 02:37:59.34 | Kristina Feller | So I'd like to throw out for site 84, which is MLK, I would like to see the 80 units that were originally certified on there. And before that upsets a number of people if they live in that area, there was a whole 3D massing study. actually several options done in that area that demonstrated the impact potentially of that area. And again, I've asked for this to be included in the staff report so people can actually visualize this. And I would ask that that be shared with the city council in their presentations. So- |
| 02:38:42.02 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner Peller, I'm sorry to interrupt you. Can I please have you recuse Commissioner Marlott |
| 02:38:46.17 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:38:47.23 | Kristina Feller | I'm just going to go down the list. I'm going to go down the list. Oh. |
| 02:38:47.64 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Oh, excuse me. |
| 02:38:50.73 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. So these are my thoughts only. I'm not going to comment on Altamir. |
| 02:38:53.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not going to comment on Altamira. Can I just have a point of information? Can we clarify with the city attorney? Because I'm going to do the same thing. But I think what we're going to hear, I heard earlier, is that we're going to have to recuse and then go on and come back and then recuse again because if you get on the list, we shouldn't be. Can we just get the city? |
| 02:39:04.63 | Jonathan Hutchinson | I heard her |
| 02:39:15.87 | Kristina Feller | I thought we were going to throw out a list and then see where |
| 02:39:18.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I would like to do that too, but I heard earlier that that might not work, so I just. |
| 02:39:19.09 | Kristina Feller | I'm sorry. Thank you. |
| 02:39:23.14 | Nastassya Saad | Attorney Otto, could you just clarify for us? |
| 02:39:23.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | any autograph. |
| 02:39:26.20 | Mary Wagner | think it would be more... streamlined if we took the items that had no conflicts and had A discussion on those first. and then came back and dealt with the ones that have conflicts. Alternatively, If there's sites that you know you want out and there's a conflict. identifying it, having the recusal, having the discussion and moving on, having these lists and having kind of this, going back and forth when we have conflicts is creating potential issues for everyone that has a conflict. So we do need to try and streamline this and figure out either or solution. Take all the possibilities of no one has a conflict, talk about those first. and then go down the items that have conflict or start with the conflicts recuse and then come back and deal with it. Either or, but this discussion while the person's in the room is potentially problematic. |
| 02:40:21.14 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, so thank you, Attorney Otto. So let me go back really quick, and Commissioner Fairley, I'd love to get to your points. I think if I could just... look at the revised site since we're focused on the amended housing element and quickly take a show of hands here. We know we have a conflict on MLK, which is site 84, and we know that we have a conflict on Altamira, which is 202, so those are going to be discussed. I have a conflict on City Hall if that comes up, and can I please look to Vice Chair Junius and Commissioner Luxembourg, what are you aware of of your conflicts, please? |
| 02:41:08.65 | Andrew Junius | I have no conflicts on any of these sites. |
| 02:41:10.52 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. |
| 02:41:12.02 | Andrew Junius | I have no conflicts that I'm aware of, |
| 02:41:14.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | that we're talking about. |
| 02:41:16.51 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, so then I think we should start with MLK as a discussion, and we can give the floor back to you, Commissioner Feller, and I'll ask you to recuse Commissioner Marlach. give you a second to leave the room. We will come and get you when we are done. |
| 02:41:32.42 | Director Phipps | And while Commissioner Merlot leaves the room, just want to clarify, Nastasia, Chair Saad, appreciate your sensitivity to proximity to City Hall. Because we are going to be dovetailing off of the amended housing element, that may not be an element of concern because the amended housing element not demodified, it does not include the City Hall site. |
| 02:41:51.12 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Director Phipps. Back to you, Commissioner Feller. |
| 02:41:56.07 | Kristina Feller | Well, again, I mean, just to be clear, site 84, MLK, I would recommend the 80 units. I would request or direct staff to please share the 3D models that were developed to show a neighborhood, a very sensitive sort of neighborhood massing that addressed issues that came up at the time that that was originally put together and and MLK was reduced for the certified housing element And those massing models were developed so that that would be my recommendation for consideration |
| 02:42:35.82 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. Any comments, Vice Chair Juniors? |
| 02:42:39.50 | Andrew Junius | it. Commissioner Feller, do you recall the maximum that was analyzed while you were doing that work with the massing? Because it was higher than this, wasn't it? |
| 02:42:47.70 | Nastassya Saad | It was over 100. It was higher than 100. |
| 02:42:49.63 | Kristina Feller | It was higher than this, and we reduced it because of the public comment that we got, and that's where we got the 80%. |
| 02:42:57.02 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. you |
| 02:42:58.91 | Nastassya Saad | If I recall, it was 110. |
| 02:43:01.94 | Kristina Feller | That sounds about right. |
| 02:43:03.02 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner, I want to call you Chair, Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 02:43:07.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So |
| 02:43:07.83 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:43:07.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you I would suggest some number between 58 and 77, and I would do that based on the fact that it's two acres, and I would suggest that for that, oh, they took down the chart, but to that chart that we had up there a second ago, is it housing, which housing number is it at the moment? The density? Yes. |
| 02:43:30.45 | Kristina Feller | The density? you |
| 02:43:32.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 02:43:32.22 | Nastassya Saad | It's... |
| 02:43:32.67 | Kristina Feller | I think it's 49. |
| 02:43:34.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | my suggestion can we bring that chart back up and can we get beth |
| 02:43:37.89 | Nastassya Saad | Can we get Beth just because we're probably going to need you? |
| 02:43:42.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | so on that chart, if it's in 49, my suggestion is we create a new line called Senior Housing Overlay, and that would allow 58 to 77 units. We would move it out of the one category into this category, so if it's currently 94, so we would reduce it to 94, and I would suggest some number between 58 and I'm okay with 50 actually but between 58 and 77 the overlay district would allow that but I think for the neighborhood and for the sake of of Sausalito if we make this senior housing as opposed to not specify it will reduce the heightened bulk it will reduce the traffic and it'll allow us I would suggest if we were to do 50 units there's something from the city council that that i think beth prepared that said we could have 35 very low and 15 uh i think those were the numbers 35 and 35 very low and 15 low and that would total the 50 and and So this would be all affordable housing. The city would do it through a development agreement and through an RFP. And I think by having senior housing attached to this, by leaving it with 49, it doesn't do that. And then, again, ballot question is not our thing, but I think it more likely would fail than pass and therefore by making it senior housing which we need out we're expecting some senior housing out of the 700 |
| 02:45:15.00 | Unknown | Yeah, we need it. |
| 02:45:16.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | This would be the best place to do it, and I think that that would be an easy alternative. We'd obviously have to have some additional language in the amendment to do that, but I think that would be an easy solution, and I'm okay with any number between 58 and 77 just because that's what I believe the senior housing overlay allows for. That's where those come from. |
| 02:45:38.97 | Director Phipps | And Commissioner, just a point of clarification, 58 and 77, that number's based on the H-29 zone? |
| 02:45:39.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:45:45.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's based on the rezoning the land, which is now public, to R3 with a senior housing overlay. |
| 02:45:56.74 | Director Phipps | So not one of the housing overlay zones designations? |
| 02:45:57.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Not one. |
| 02:46:02.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, we would use a zone that's already in our zoning, and we would rezone it to that, and we would add it to the chart. It would still have the units, it would still count toward the arena, but it would be a much better mechanism for getting this approved. Obviously the city council's gonna put it on our feet, they can say anything they want. What I'm worried about is if we don't do it by zoning, then we might be shooting ourselves in the foot, so to speak. |
| 02:46:33.56 | Nastassya Saad | can either staff or Beth comment on that as a solution towards our RHNA number for very low and low without having a housing overlay that's in the amended housing element. |
| 02:46:51.04 | Kristina Feller | And you're saying this is 100% senior housing? |
| 02:46:53.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I would make it 100% senior housing. I would, I am suggesting putting it in an overlay. We're just gonna call it a different overlay. We're just creating a. |
| 02:47:01.28 | Neal Toft | Bye. |
| 02:47:01.60 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:47:01.62 | Neal Toft | Well, there's a what Commissioner Luxembourg is referring to is the senior housing overlay in our zoning that has certain specifications for density, age. |
| 02:47:09.08 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. that have been a lot of |
| 02:47:13.64 | Neal Toft | So it has a whole, and we have a few of them throughout the, in the city, small enclaves of senior. One is across the street. Right. |
| 02:47:17.50 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:47:20.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | seen. One is across the street with this site. I mean, it's like expanding that zone |
| 02:47:22.58 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:47:25.92 | Nastassya Saad | I think it's an interesting approach. I just want to hear maybe from Beth if that would Are there any, is there any reason that we can't do that to accommodate the arena for very low and low? |
| 02:47:38.07 | Director Phipps | Before Beth speaks, I would just like to make the statement that this is not dissimilar from direction that we received from the city council at their last study session. And that direction was generally to explore deed restrictions for certain use types on city-owned property. So I commend the commission for having some consensus with council direction. That's great. as far as staff's response to that direction the status is our evaluation of our approach to that is in progress and the primary hurdle or challenge that staff has in reflecting these kinds of changes is going to be based on timing and the timeline that we have to meet, which is very tight. So my personal concern is that... kinds of changes is going to be based on timing and the timeline that we have to meet, which is very tight. So my personal concern is that we may not be able to make all of these requisite changes. They are a bit of a departure from the kind of traditional structure and approach to the element that we have previously discussed and the element that we're kind of dovetailing off of. So that would be my initial comment. I'll let Beth compliment that with anything she wishes. |
| 02:48:50.67 | Beth Thompson | That was a good... A good comment. It is consistent with some of the general direction and input we got from the City Council. I don't think there is necessarily a problem with Establishing a senior overlay and if that is the direction, I don't know that you want to use the one that's already in your code. There may be some constraints with development. I think you would want to stick with something similar to your housing 49 and just include provisions for senior housing. Um, I think this is fine to use on a limited basis. If this starts to be the way that the city of Sausalito wants to accommodate all of its lower income units, then you will have some affirmatively furthering fair housing issues where you're not necessarily accommodating families and all household sizes and types. So I wouldn't. want to see it done too broadly, but I think if you have a select site where it makes sense, then, then that would, that would be okay. And we can figure out a way to. include that, but Since it hasn't gone by HCD, my concern is they also may have some feedback there and it may may put some wrinkles in the housing element review process with HCD. Thank you. |
| 02:50:01.22 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:50:01.49 | Nastassya Saad | I'm hearing that there's a chance. So I like that. I think that's a really interesting idea, Commissioner Luxembourg. And with all due respect to staff, not to put more constraints on you, but I think we are charged to do what's best for Sausalito. And I think that would be a really interesting approach. And I would support that. So let's see how we move. |
| 02:50:01.52 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. . |
| 02:50:20.73 | Nastassya Saad | Vice Chair Junius, any feedback or? |
| 02:50:22.96 | Andrew Junius | Well, I'm very concerned about meeting the deadlines we have to meet. I mean, I, if the staff thinks we can, Add something that it sounds like a great idea. We probably should have come up with it six months ago. You know, so it's we're down to five days, right? The city council is going to vote on this in five days. And so I. I mean, I'm not sure it makes a ton of difference. I mean, it's really about the fact that we've gotten all this way. And, you know, with all due respect, I mean, a good idea. But we've come all this way. And there's not one. Is there anything about senior housing in the housing element with respect to the compliance of the numbers? I don't think so, right? So. at the 11th hour and, you know, right a minute before we do this to add another component to this, I just think is... I don't think we need it. I think we can adjust the density per the suggestions. I'm very flexible. I mean, it sounds like you want less. You'll be having four with more. I'm not sure where I am at the moment, but. Thank you. |
| 02:51:19.61 | Kristina Feller | I actually like Beth's suggestion and I appreciate Commissioner Luxembourg, the idea. And I think that it's with the lens to get a voter approval, which of course is ultimately what we need to get to achieve success for Sausalito. I think that the compromise or maybe the Frankenstein version of that is using one of these housing overlays that we're talking about here or the designation. |
| 02:51:49.61 | Kristina Feller | for um for the density on on here and um with additional language specific for senior housing to me that sounds like the best path forward that achieves um maybe the spirit of of all of those things involved the site 84 and i i keep looking down at the map here because i can actually see it on my laptop um you know, it's a very odd shape and that shape was very deliberate to work around the more paved areas and not infiltrate any you know, baseball diamonds or dog walking areas or anything like that. So it's meant to be minimal impact. And I think that again, those how those massing studies are really valuable communication tool to the community that doesn't is not used to looking at this stuff every day and I would I would. I'd like to ask staff to to share those things with the city council in the future, but how do you feel about the compromise that I've mentioned here. |
| 02:52:57.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So there would be a new line. I mean, there's going to be a new line that says senior housing 49 or whatever, as opposed to housing 49. Is that what you're suggesting? Okay. |
| 02:53:08.80 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, or just additional language specific about Site 84 that the priority would go to the senior housing, which we do desperately need. But bear in mind, as Vice Chair says, there's nothing in this housing element or RENA number that designates senior housing. It is only, you know, the market rate, affordable, low income, and very low income, et cetera. So, but I think perhaps what I've suggested maybe addresses what we need for HCD, but can also be stomached by the public. |
| 02:53:46.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Let me, let's look at, I'd like to look at it another way. The staff has an issue because we've got to turn this around by Tuesday. So I understand that issue. By like tomorrow. But having said that, you know, for a process that's taken this long, if we can get, I said 58 to 77. So that's, and you said 80. So let's say 77. 77 senior units might be palatable to that neighborhood because the density is less, the bulk is less, and the traffic is less. Therefore, we got a chance to get 77. If we bury something in here about a little footnote, the zoning become, and the zoning is still that zoning district, Thank you. If we bury something in here about a little footnote, the zoning becomes, and the zoning is still that zoning district, somebody will get worried that somebody will change it. And I think that I'm not suggesting adding a new zoning district. All I'm suggesting is using a zoning district we have. So it's not- I understand what you're talking about. |
| 02:54:49.11 | Unknown Staff | I understand what you're talking about. |
| 02:54:54.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And if what I'm worried about happens, and we're going to reduce the buffers on some other items tonight, and instead of getting 74 units of senior housing, the ballot question fails, then we get nothing. So that's my issue. And so I think the way I'm suggesting it, if it can be done, again the the the council needs to take an action the council can take an action to approve this and have staff uh refine refine it after that time so and they have a little time before the thing and there's a little time for the zoning so yes it's tomorrow so they can get to the council to consider it but that doesn't mean that they can't they have a little time to work it out |
| 02:55:29.51 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:55:44.73 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. But what are your thoughts about this? I know. |
| 02:55:48.07 | Andrew Junius | Well, first off, I know we're not supposed to be talking about the ordinance going to the ballot, but it's very relevant. 11-28, whether MLK happens or not, is gonna be a different question, almost certainly on the ballot than 10-22. We can afford to lose the election on 11-28. In other words, we'd still be okay, we can't lose 10-22. So to the extent, I mean, in some respects, I think I'm still in the mode of, like I just assume work with the three scenarios provided by staff, pick one and move on. And I just think it's too late to be adding confusing stuff. It can be sold as senior housing down the road, but the housing element, I think is focused on units and affordability and not these kinds of designations. And I would caution, I think Beth mentioned something or even Neil did. You know, the ordinance that we've got for the senior overlay I mean, you know, blow the dust off it, right? I mean, who knows if it works anymore? Who knows if it's consistent with how we would want to develop? I mean, yeah, you've got to be careful about that. So I would caution, and I think we should just pick one of the scenarios. |
| 02:56:53.00 | Director Phipps | And Commissioner Luxenberg, I just want to praise you for your sensitivity towards senior housing and a desire to incentivize senior housing. I will say one ace in the hole, if you will, that the city will always have in its back pocket associated with Site 84 is that it owns it. Thank you. Whether or not there's an overlay on the site, we, the city or city council, ultimately will choose the final development vision for that site. Again, with or without an overlay. |
| 02:57:23.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | If I can comment further on that. I think there are three numbers that are important. One is the total unit count, because I don't think we can afford to lose these units, because these are low- and moderate-income units that we can control. So I think this is important that this ballot question, even though that's out of our purview, passes. So I think that's important. Now, there might be another compromise that's out of our control here, which is we make it clear in here that this is senior housing, and we encourage the city council to indicate in the ballot question, that it goes out of the ballot question, and it says it's going to be senior housing, because they could do that in the ballot question. Is there any reason, Director Phipps, that they could not identify this as senior housing in the ballot question? |
| 02:57:24.04 | Director Phipps | So... |
| 02:57:24.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:57:45.86 | Unknown | Acid. |
| 02:58:15.90 | Director Phipps | Thank you for the question, Commissioner. I would say that this particular item of discussion is a bit outside of the scope, as I previously clarified, but the answer is yes. |
| 02:58:25.08 | Nastassya Saad | I think that's what we're saying. I think maybe step one is we need to arrive at a number. Let's start with a number here. And we do have the scenarios as vice chair juniors pointed out, um, just to call out and I'm, and I'm looking at a very well crafted document. This is a summary of city council comments. So I can tell everybody here in the public, our adopted housing element had a total unit of 80, the modified housing element that's before us has pushed that up to 94. The amount of money |
| 02:59:05.03 | Neal Toft | Yeah. |
| 02:59:05.36 | Nastassya Saad | The amended, excuse me. And then from city councils, the alternative is down to 50. So let's work with the numbers that we have in front of us just for the ease of moving through this and from what the public has seen. We've got one. Yes, we're in between 80 and 50 because I think we're not agreeing here with the 94. So... Well, I mean... |
| 02:59:12.83 | Neal Toft | So, |
| 02:59:13.05 | Unknown | Let's work |
| 02:59:13.54 | Neal Toft | With the no. |
| 02:59:13.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:59:32.03 | Kristina Feller | Well, I mean, let's, you know, let's let's focus on that. Nobody wants 94. We agree on that. You know, the number 80 was 80 because it was reduced from what it was before. So again, we listened very carefully to the public. |
| 02:59:35.11 | Nastassya Saad | That's right. |
| 02:59:49.08 | Kristina Feller | And that's how we arrived at 80. as a compromise, and that's why we put together these massing models to help demonstrate the little impact visually, at least, it would have in that area. So that's why I'm back to the 80. I thought 94 was not tenable. But if you guys want to look at something between 50 and 80, then pick a number and. |
| 03:00:19.03 | Nastassya Saad | May I ask Beth just one clarifying question? Because the next bullet point here says explore the removal of MLK. What are the implications? And it says not recommended inadequate buffer to absorb. Would that also imply that if 1128 fails, that we also would not have an inadequate buffer to absorb? |
| 03:00:42.62 | Director Phipps | In the instance that, I'm happy to answer that question initially, Chair. In the instance that we pursue the modified element, we do have those kind of alternative sites, City Hall, Fire Station, to consider. In addition to that, what we're calling internally kind of a safety valve option to review and include additional sites that meet certain site selection criteria. So that is similar to having the alternative option of City Hall and Fire Station, but in a much more abstract sense, right? It could be any site that satisfies the appropriate criteria in the city. However, the caveat there is that the city would need to study those specific sites in some kind of an environmental document to understand their impact. |
| 03:00:45.24 | Nastassya Saad | for that. |
| 03:01:32.12 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. Okay, thank you, Director Phipps. Okay, I am also going to vote for 80 because of everything that Commissioner Feller said. And we had studied this extensively at the start of the process. And I think once the public is able to see the massings as well, they will see that there is an opportunity on that site. And it was reduced at least minimum 40 units. So I'd be happy with 80. I'm comfortable with that as well. |
| 03:01:59.66 | Andrew Junius | I'm comfortable with that as well. |
| 03:02:00.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:02:00.99 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:02:01.08 | Nastassya Saad | to stick with what we have in our adopted housing element. |
| 03:02:05.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Again, I was only suggesting 58 to 77 with this alternative approach. I also think that this alternative approach, even if we don't go for it, the city council could turn around and say that's a good idea or it's a bad idea, and they could pick up on it and do it. In that case, we might want something like 75. But having said that, since we've got 50 and 80 out there and 94 94 i understand the logic for 80 but again i the part i just want to reiterate why i went down this road is because that sheet that you're talking about from the city council said that if we have zero we have a problem and i'm worried if it's not framed correctly we will get zero therefore we have a So I'm okay with 80 at this point, but I want to make it clear it's senior housing to help the ballot question to happen. |
| 03:02:51.06 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:02:57.13 | Kristina Feller | So why don't we, just for clarity's sake, we're at 80. I think the majority of us say 80. So direction to staff would be 80. and with the notation or caveat or Maybe idea shared with city council that we would recommend. favoring senior housing designated at 84 to make this more palatable. Is that a fair summary? |
| 03:03:30.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | THE END OF |
| 03:03:30.92 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:03:31.05 | Nastassya Saad | site 84. Yes. |
| 03:03:31.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So- |
| 03:03:31.59 | Kristina Feller | Fight 84. |
| 03:03:32.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 03:03:33.68 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:03:33.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:03:33.92 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:03:34.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:03:34.19 | Kristina Feller | So, |
| 03:03:34.56 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:03:34.60 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 03:03:34.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:03:35.03 | Mary Wagner | Yeah. |
| 03:03:35.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:03:35.93 | Nastassya Saad | I'm comfortable with that. I'm comfortable with that. We don't need, do we need votes here? |
| 03:03:39.78 | Mary Wagner | Yes. Madam Chair, if I might, we do need a motion on the floor and a second and because we're actually giving direction. |
| 03:03:40.89 | Nastassya Saad | matter. |
| 03:03:47.64 | Mary Wagner | And because we're peace-filling this, we're going to need votes and we need to have a majority for each of these changes that are being recommended by the Planning Commission. |
| 03:03:54.07 | Kristina Feller | Okay, so I'll make a motion that regarding Site 84, which is referred to as the MLK site, that we propose the 80 units on this site as was designated in the certified unit, and that we would recommend sharing with the City Council that we have a preference for this to be designated senior housing on site 84 for 80 units. |
| 03:04:25.71 | Andrew Junius | Second. |
| 03:04:26.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I have some discussion and clarification? Are we going to, I don't think we should just suggest it. I think we should add language in the housing element that say that we prefer housing, for senior housing on this site. |
| 03:04:42.72 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:04:42.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:04:42.97 | Kristina Feller | I would love for that to be senior housing. The point is that our arena numbers do not have a senior housing category. So I mean, I think that at this point, we can identify to city council what our preference is. They can take that, but there's no category for senior housing in this cycle. |
| 03:05:05.91 | Andrew Junius | And again, I would also just, you know. we've got like 24 hours for the staff to get this done even any changes that we don't have to make i don't think we should be making right now i mean the it's a density issue in my opinion and i think i'm i'm i'm supportive of the motion |
| 03:05:19.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The other comment on this is we're going to take a vote, but I'm very interested and won't be able to take a final vote without Beth's spreadsheet. So as we do this, I think we have to take a vote on the 80, and we have to identify very low, low, and keep track, because at the end of this, if the numbers don't look right, if the buffer doesn doesn't look right then we're going to go back and revisit this vote so uh what what were you suggesting in the 80s |
| 03:05:48.23 | Kristina Feller | What were you suggesting? I think we can tally this at the end, but there is a motion on the floor here. |
| 03:05:54.74 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I understand. I'd like to amend that motion to have a breakdown of the very low and low. It can be what was in the element, but I think we need to know what the numbers are. |
| 03:05:55.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:05:55.74 | Neal Toft | Thank you. |
| 03:05:55.76 | Kristina Feller | I'd like to. |
| 03:06:07.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So the 80 was in the adopted element, correct? Correct. Yes. So what were the very low and low in the element? And I want to put into the motion what we're expecting for that so this spreadsheet makes sense when we do it. So if we're going to – because we might want to – |
| 03:06:12.75 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:06:24.97 | Kristina Feller | I think it's one of these three options. |
| 03:06:27.68 | Andrew Junius | to just call the question. I understand where you're going. Maybe there'll be some further discussion about that. I think I'd like to just vote on this one. |
| 03:06:35.08 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, I agree. I understand what you're saying, Commissioner Luxenberg. I don't think it's appropriate for the motion. I think it's implied, since we already have it in the adopted element, and Beth is going to be working in the background to- |
| 03:06:50.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Somebody tell me what the numbers are. |
| 03:06:52.19 | Nastassya Saad | Beth, can you clarify on site 84 of the adopted housing element that currently has the 80 units, what is designated for low and very low? |
| 03:07:05.05 | Beth Thompson | Yes, let me. |
| 03:07:05.33 | Director Phipps | Let me. Let's go ahead, Beth. I've got it in front of me. |
| 03:07:08.71 | Beth Thompson | Okay, it's in the adopted housing element, it's 44 very low, 30 low and six moderate. |
| 03:07:18.78 | Nastassya Saad | 44 very low, 30 low, six moderate. Okay, thank you. So we do have a motion on the floor. |
| 03:07:28.45 | Unknown Staff | Director Phipps. |
| 03:07:30.29 | Director Phipps | No further discussion? Yes, I will call roll. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 03:07:38.49 | Director Phipps | Yes. Commissioner Feller. |
| 03:07:40.45 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 03:07:40.47 | Director Phipps | Yes. Thank you. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Saad. Yes. And let the record show Commissioner Merlot is recused. Motion passes. |
| 03:07:43.33 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 03:07:43.60 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:07:48.85 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:07:55.20 | Nastassya Saad | OK, so moving on, we have sorted MLK. Other sites that are revised on the housing element, any specific call outs? |
| 03:08:07.90 | Kristina Feller | 202 is Altamira and I need to recuse. |
| 03:08:10.43 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, let's get into 202 and we'll have Commissioner Feller recuse. |
| 03:08:21.73 | Director Phipps | And while Commissioner Feller is leaving the room, just seeing some reactions from members in the audience as related to comments associated with senior housing. Although senior housing is not a specified kind of category that is shown on our RENA table, there are a number of goals in the housing element that support the development and maintenance of affordable senior rental and ownership housing and supportive services to facilitate the maximum independence and the ability of seniors to remain in their homes and or community. That would be policy H-4.3, senior housing. So just wanted to put that on record. Thank you. |
| 03:09:01.92 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you for that, Director Phipps. Okay, Beth or Director Phipps, I do want to ask one question, a clarifying question on Altamira, which is Site 202. It is in the adopted housing element at 67 units. Can we just level set with everyone on what it is in the amended |
| 03:09:23.39 | Director Phipps | No change. |
| 03:09:24.28 | Nastassya Saad | No change. Thank you for confirming. So we are looking at 67 units as well. Who wants to kick off a discussion on? |
| 03:09:33.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Just a question. Can we get a breakdown of low and moderate for that as well? Yes. |
| 03:09:37.81 | Director Phipps | Yes, the breakdown in the adopted and modified element for the total of 67 at Site 202 is 39 very low, 18 low, 5 moderate, and 5 above moderate. I will say, just to follow through on Council Direction, staff are not recommending the removal of the Altamira site due to its impact to the buffer. However, there is a scenario that we have presented in our response to council direction that supports a density at Altamira with a total unit count of 51. |
| 03:10:14.25 | Nastassya Saad | And what overlay is? 51. Do we need to do that? |
| 03:10:20.46 | Director Phipps | be the H-49. |
| 03:10:21.64 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:10:21.66 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 03:10:21.69 | Nastassya Saad | Age 49. Thank you. |
| 03:10:25.60 | David Marlatt | It's currently at 70. Correct. |
| 03:10:29.33 | Nastassya Saad | is currently at 870, correct? So there's already a potential reduction on the table to 51. Any other potential reductions or conversation |
| 03:10:45.48 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, a little discussion here. I'm curious what the zoning is now. Like if somebody just came in before the housing element even started, what would have been allowed in the parking lot there? in terms of just total unit count. |
| 03:11:00.53 | Director Phipps | Thank you for the question. I believe this site is currently zoned R1-6. Or is it R3? It's either R1-6 or it is R3. Excuse me for that. I'll have to. It is R3. Thank you, Beth. |
| 03:11:15.84 | Beth Thompson | It is R3. |
| 03:11:20.21 | Director Phipps | So R3 allows for density of, I think it's one unit for every 1,500 square feet of lot area. I could do a quick calculation. |
| 03:11:33.73 | Beth Thompson | 29 units per acre. |
| 03:11:35.43 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Beth. |
| 03:11:37.29 | Andrew Junius | Sorry, so 29 units for the site right now without any changes. So under the density bonus, you'd double that. You'd get up to 60. I mean, in some respects, I'm actually curious, Beth, is open discussion of the density bonus kind of part of this discussion? I mean, I don't know if we've... |
| 03:11:45.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:12:01.86 | Andrew Junius | We know it exists. We know that the state doesn't probably like us to do this, but if you're just assuming that there's going to be a density bonus and you can kind of squeak by by doing something that will be doubled later, but you only get credit for half now under the housing element, I suppose that's probably frowned upon. |
| 03:12:20.83 | Beth Thompson | Correct. So you, Yeah, you just don't get credit for the density bonus right now, even though you know it may happen. So you want to make the site something realistic with the density you want. With the overlay you give it. |
| 03:12:37.63 | Andrew Junius | Right, but I mean, I think the real problem here is, and a lot of the community that's starting to get the gist of the density bonus here is, you zone for X, but the state can force the city to give you two X, so it's an issue. And I, you know. Yeah, it is. |
| 03:12:51.62 | Beth Thompson | Right. Yeah, it is. And Hopefully in your next cycle, if you have some density bonus projects, you can demonstrate to the state that you're actually building at higher densities and then your assumptions would increase. You haven't had any. So jurisdictions that have had a lot of density bonus projects could have different assumptions than Sausalito. You just haven't had a lot of multifamily development where you could substantiate those higher numbers. |
| 03:13:16.82 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Yep, understood. We've had no multifamily development, so that makes sense. |
| 03:13:21.04 | Nastassya Saad | Beth, I'm going to throw something out there. So this is going from H70 to H49. What would it look like if it dropped down to H29? |
| 03:13:31.85 | Beth Thompson | It would accommodate about 35 units, I believe. Let me quickly do the math here. |
| 03:13:40.85 | Nastassya Saad | like having a human calculator. Thank you. I'm going to put that out there while she's doing the math, taking into consideration all of the public comment. And if those numbers shake out where we can still accommodate our very low, low, even moderate, above moderate, then I'm going to propose that. |
| 03:14:00.02 | Beth Thompson | It would be 35 units. I would HCD probably won't want to see a lot of your 29 unit per acre assumptions for your very low, low units, just because you haven't had much success with those in the past. So they're going to want to see that you're doing something to incentivize affordable housing. One of those ways that you incentivize it is by increasing the density. So, If it was city owned where you can control it and ensure that it develops, that would be different, but where it's not city owned and it's accommodating your lower income units, you, I would recommend keeping it at 49 or something above the current density of 29. |
| 03:14:43.18 | Director Phipps | Thank you for that, Beth. And I'll just state, yeah, staff has evaluated a number of scenarios associated with reduction of density on the Altamira site based on both commission and council comment and direction. What you will see in our kind of response to city council feedback is a potential world in which we can support and would recommend Altamira with a total of 51 units, which would be consistent with the H49 zone. Going below it, Beth has said in a, polite way that we may encounter more problems with our RHNA, particularly our very low affordability unit counts, if we were to go any lower than that. |
| 03:15:15.57 | Unknown | that, |
| 03:15:25.88 | Andrew Junius | Then I'm going to go ahead and just make a motion to get us going for that density that would get you 51 units, the 49th grade. 49. |
| 03:15:31.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | 49. Thank you. Can I ask a question? Is that that would all be very low and low? There would be no other moderate? |
| 03:15:38.45 | Nastassya Saad | That would be 39 very low, 18 low. Five moderate, five above moderate. Excuse me, that was for adopted. That was for the 67. The bottom row. |
| 03:15:45.13 | Director Phipps | No, that was. |
| 03:15:51.00 | Director Phipps | Yeah, quick clarification. If we are assessing the 51 unit count, that would be 31 units very low, 20 units low, zero moderate, zero above average. |
| 03:16:02.19 | Andrew Junius | Above moderate. |
| 03:16:02.58 | Director Phipps | Above moderate. |
| 03:16:03.75 | David Marlatt | Thank you for the clarification. |
| 03:16:05.03 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 03:16:05.53 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 03:16:05.57 | Andrew Junius | So I've made that motion. |
| 03:16:05.84 | David Marlatt | MAKING A LITTLE BIT OF Could I ask just also a clarifying question about that? I'm not opposed necessarily to the intent here. But if I understand, we're going to talk more about how the zoning code works. If we zone at 49 units an acre, it's actually a range of 40 to 49 units. And so thinking as a developer, you can develop... up to 40 units with no lower income at all. |
| 03:16:29.21 | Director Phipps | UNIT. |
| 03:16:34.07 | Director Phipps | Yeah, I believe the floor is 43 for that district. |
| 03:16:36.74 | David Marlatt | district. But you're correct. 43. You're correct. I'm sorry, you're right, 43. |
| 03:16:37.60 | Director Phipps | THE END OF You're correct. Thank you. |
| 03:16:43.08 | David Marlatt | If there is no allocation at all for moderate or above market, a developer may be incentivized to just stay below that 43 units. If they go to the full 49 by default, and I'm going to ask about this in the next section, they're already qualifying for waivers, so why stop there? So it would seem to me that any sensible developer is confronted with a purely affordable housing project at 49 units versus a market rate project at 43, I think. or round numbers, whether we want to consider that in terms of how we allocate the moderate and above moderate to not incentivize someone to stay below that 43 and build, in fact, no low-income housing at all. if that makes sense. Thank you. |
| 03:17:34.65 | Nastassya Saad | I've lost the plot. With all due respect, no, I'm sorry, I'm not following. |
| 03:17:36.12 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:17:42.06 | Andrew Junius | Can I ask you a clarifying question here? Maybe Beth, you can explain or Neil. So with respect to these spreads, these assumptions about very low, low, et cetera, on how the, what we're assuming is gonna get built, those are, again, those are just assumptions And I'm not sure, honestly, what they're based on, given that, again, this is a private site, and somebody might just want to use a state program to build... a market rate housing unit that has what's required by state law. Are we gonna be passing ordinances that require this much affordable housing in a project like this? Or are these assumptions based on studies about housing development and what not. |
| 03:18:24.84 | Beth Thompson | So the assumptions aren't based on any requirement that you have that the housing be affordable, nor are they based on just some magical nexus where you get affordable housing at 43 or more units per acre. Basically you have to accommodate at least 20 units per acre when you're rezoning and a minimum of 16 units per site. But HCD also looks at your past performance and they wanna see that you are encouraging and facilitating affordable housing. And so like for sites that have been zoned for 29 units per acre, nothing has happened. They're going to want to see that you're doing something to encourage that development, which is why they're getting bumped up to 43 to 49. Now, what this is, one of the reasons you have a buffer is because yes, it's not required that they be affordable and that would be. Thank you. This is one of those places where Ape City and the state also kind of talk out of both sides of their mouth. They want you to provide affordable housing, but it's considered a constraint if you have a really high inclusionary requirement. So if you were to say this has to be 100% affordable or 80% affordable, then that's a constraint on market rate housing, and they're not going to want to see that. And so they want you to make it available for affordable housing. They don't want you to restrict it to being only affordable housing. And then they want you to deal with it but develops to something other than affordable housing. So it's a kind of a tough spot to be in. THE FAMILY IS GOING TO BE |
| 03:19:51.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Another clarifying question here. |
| 03:19:51.79 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 03:19:51.90 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE I can avoid that. |
| 03:19:55.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I was going to ask this later in the evening, but in the table for the odds, there's a requirement that all the housing opportunity sites have a minimum of 20 percent affordable housing. And so somebody could not build on this site with this density without providing affordable housing. Am I misunderstanding what's coming later this evening? |
| 03:20:09.60 | David Marlatt | Chapter 10. |
| 03:20:10.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:20:20.60 | Beth Thompson | No, so that is correct. So in order to use the state's streamlining provisions and to get ministerial approval, there are provisions that require 20% of the units to be affordable. And so that but. There's the state provisional. Don't require higher. So that's just in line with what the state requires for streamlined housing and ministerial approvals. |
| 03:20:40.39 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Beth. I'm sorry, you guys. I want to keep this moving. It's 10 PM, and we have plenty to get through. So that was those are the questions. Motion on the floor for 51. |
| 03:20:47.14 | Andrew Junius | So there's a motion on the floor for 51 units, the 49 per acre. |
| 03:20:49.29 | David Marlatt | or. |
| 03:20:49.37 | Nastassya Saad | I'm sorry. |
| 03:20:49.42 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 03:20:49.46 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Do we have a second on that? |
| 03:20:53.44 | Director Phipps | I'll say. |
| 03:20:53.74 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 03:20:53.86 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 03:20:53.96 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 03:20:53.98 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 03:20:54.37 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. |
| 03:20:56.46 | Andrew Junius | THE FAMILY. |
| 03:20:56.83 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Happy to call the question. Thank you. Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Vice-Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Saund. Yes. Please note for the record, Commissioner Feller has recused. Motion passes. |
| 03:20:58.03 | David Marlatt | you |
| 03:20:58.06 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 03:21:01.15 | Unknown Staff | you. |
| 03:21:01.27 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:21:01.35 | Unknown Staff | to be able to do this. |
| 03:21:01.42 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 03:21:02.77 | Andrew Junius | Yes. |
| 03:21:03.78 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 03:21:08.34 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. That was a great discussion, just with the interest of what we're trying to achieve at the moment. Want to move forward? Let's get Commissioner Feller back, please. |
| 03:21:27.00 | Kristina Feller | I'm here. |
| 03:21:28.42 | Nastassya Saad | Welcome. |
| 03:21:33.67 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Welcome back, Commissioner Feller. So back to the... Back to the amended housing elements. We have already gone through and agreed on the removal of Sites 85 and 209. There are two new sites which we shouldn't have any conflicts on. One is Site 401, which is 2400 Bridgeway. This is the FedEx building at 16 units. Exactly. This is a condition of two sites. And site 402, which is 2680 Bridgeway, this is for 43 units. Do we have any discussion or opposition to the new sites that were added, site 401 and site 402? |
| 03:22:05.23 | Mary Wagner | about it. |
| 03:22:23.82 | Unknown Staff | No. |
| 03:22:24.65 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. No. |
| 03:22:26.47 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:22:26.50 | Kristina Feller | . |
| 03:22:26.54 | Nastassya Saad | you |
| 03:22:26.59 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:22:26.72 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:22:26.74 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:22:26.98 | Andrew Junius | move to adopt those |
| 03:22:29.34 | Unknown Staff | Second. |
| 03:22:30.59 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:22:30.77 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 03:22:30.88 | Nastassya Saad | Director Phipps, can we take roll? |
| 03:22:33.17 | Director Phipps | Just to confirm, those sites are in the amended housing element already, correct? |
| 03:22:40.33 | Nastassya Saad | Those, yes. I don't believe that. Yes, they are. |
| 03:22:41.59 | Director Phipps | I don't believe that the commission need to take action on those sides. |
| 03:22:42.82 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:22:44.65 | Unknown | . |
| 03:22:44.71 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you. Just moving through the notes on the staff report here. So then there are some of the revised sites, just for a point of clarification, Director Phipps, in the staff report. Sites 23, 24, 39, 44, 47, 55. So these are sites that have been revised. I'm just looking for a little guidance here if we need to go through these. Can you go through that list? |
| 03:22:45.84 | Unknown | Thank you. Okay. |
| 03:23:15.04 | Director Phipps | of sites once again. |
| 03:23:15.97 | Nastassya Saad | This is on the staff report on page 6. It is a list of revised sites that are on the amended list. |
| 03:23:16.27 | Director Phipps | Right. |
| 03:23:26.36 | Nastassya Saad | Um, housing element |
| 03:23:30.34 | Director Phipps | So the resolution that we've provided dovetails off of the amended housing element. Okay. If it's in the amended housing element, you need not take any specific action unless you'd like to depart from the amended housing element as proposed. |
| 03:23:43.93 | Nastassya Saad | OK. So there are some revised sites, and I'm just Site 201 has come up. This is 605 to 613 Bridgeway. I don't believe we have any recusals on this site. No. So do we wish to have a discussion on Site 201 specifically, 605 to 613 Bridgeway? This is a revised site that is reducing from mixed use 49 at 20 units to a mixed use 29 at 11 units. |
| 03:24:24.66 | Kristina Feller | I think we should discuss it just because it is such a change and there have been issues with it. I know that there was some consideration for removing it. I do not support that at all for a number of reasons, including there's an active application on it. Um, but, uh... also it's a buildable site. I mean, that doesn't mean you can build whatever you want, but there is some buildability on that site. And it is probably the closest site to our primary transit hub. So I just want to reaffirm that I'd like to understand why it's been reduced. I think I know, but I'd like to get that on the public record for clarification. But I do not support removing it. |
| 03:25:15.32 | Andrew Junius | I would agree with that. I would not support reducing it either. I think, again, the fact that it's got an active application on should inform us, and we should not be touching that site at the moment. |
| 03:25:28.65 | Kristina Feller | I would probably support that, but I'd like to hear maybe from Beth just a little bit of background or staff if you'd like. |
| 03:25:41.00 | Beth Thompson | SO JUST THE BACKGROUND FOR THIS WAS THAT THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF COMMENTS, A LOT OF INPUT ON WHETHER OR NOT THE SITE SHOULD BE INCLUDED. SO WE JUST PUT THAT UP FOR CONSIDERATION IF THERE WAS A DESIRE TO REMOVE THE SITE. IT'S ALREADY BEEN REDUCED TO 29 units per acre, so the density that's envisioned by the housing element would be reduced with the amended housing element. And apart from that, if Director Phipps wants to add anything regarding the site, I'll leave that to him. |
| 03:26:09.73 | Director Phipps | I'll leave that to him. I'll just add that the reduction in density on this site overall complements the high-level efforts that the city took to improve the element from its adopted version to the amended version. And that was kind of with certain goals. One was removing inoperable sites like Site 85, as Chair Saad has mentioned. Others were made with the goal of preserving our essential commercial historic district as well as preserving our waterfront context |
| 03:26:24.27 | Unknown | it's... |
| 03:26:43.85 | Neal Toft | Yeah, and I think to put that in a little context as well, this site is reduced along with a number of other sites in the downtown and the waterfront. So it wasn't just this site. It's part of the whole effort of the amended housing element to reduce a number of sites or at least level them out to either, you know, to 29 or to 40. |
| 03:27:11.71 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Any other points of clarification on site 201? |
| 03:27:19.74 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It seems to me that it's consistent with picking and choosing. If all the downtown have been changed to 29, I think we should go with it. It's already in the housing element amendment, so I suggest we leave it as is. |
| 03:27:38.52 | David Marlatt | I would support that. Same. |
| 03:27:41.83 | Andrew Junius | So it is a state. So as is is 29 right now. |
| 03:27:45.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's what's in the draft. What's in the revised, yes. Housing element amendment. |
| 03:27:47.75 | Nastassya Saad | within the revised, yes. |
| 03:27:49.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Okay |
| 03:27:50.71 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. So it's... |
| 03:27:52.14 | Nastassya Saad | So it had been reduced from |
| 03:27:54.08 | Andrew Junius | It's already been reduced from 49 to 29. Exactly. That's what we're... |
| 03:27:55.70 | Nastassya Saad | Exactly. I'm just calling this out just as a point of |
| 03:27:59.03 | Neal Toft | public comment and contention. To clarify, can I ask Beth to sort of clarify this site, this is part of, it has not been reduced. It is proposed in the amended housing element. to be reduced along with other sites, correct? |
| 03:28:14.70 | Beth Thompson | Correct. Yes, it's part of the overall reduction in the downtown area and along Bridgeway. These sites, what the housing element had initially envisioned and what is now envisioned in the amended housing element has changed. |
| 03:28:30.36 | Kristina Feller | What are you defining as the downtown? Because the reason I'm asking is, again, I'm looking on my screen at your map, where it has sort of the red flower indications, including sites 39, 301, 47. Are you including that in downtown or is it just? 2, 1, 3, and 24. 2, and 24. |
| 03:28:57.57 | Beth Thompson | No. 21, 23, 24 were reduced because of the downtown. And then we also have sites that are along Bridgeway, generally south of Harbor Drive, but along Bridgeway and in the vicinity of the waterfront. So those were those were also reduced. So you kind of have this this strip here and then the downtown area. So downtown and then along Bridgeway. |
| 03:29:24.23 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. And why were those reduced? |
| 03:29:27.75 | Director Phipps | This was in a way to maintain waterfront context as well as public access. |
| 03:29:28.14 | Kristina Feller | that. |
| 03:29:34.64 | Neal Toft | I was direction through study sessions and largely from council and comment, comment, public comment, and then council. |
| 03:29:45.49 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, so these are already proposed as a reduction. So essentially the question at this point is, is there an issue with the reduction? |
| 03:29:55.33 | Andrew Junius | I'd like to pull outside 201 for a separate vote. And I would make a motion to not reduce and to leave it at the 49 to 85 on that. So anybody want to second that? Or if it dies, I'm curious if I get a second there. |
| 03:30:12.22 | Kristina Feller | I would consider seconding that only because there's an active application on this site. I don't know that we want to step in that. |
| 03:30:21.45 | Andrew Junius | So I've got a second. |
| 03:30:22.73 | Kristina Feller | I will second that. Thank you. Sorry. |
| 03:30:27.24 | Nastassya Saad | Do we have any discussion on that or any other motions on the floor? And just to be clear, so the motion is to retain it at the mixed use 49. Correct. OK. Yeah. |
| 03:30:42.06 | Director Phipps | Yeah. I would just modify that and say increase it to the mixed use. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:30:46.43 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you. To increase it to the mixed-use 49. So that's going from the 11 units in the revised back to 20 units. Okay. one again. |
| 03:30:58.34 | Mary Wagner | Madam Chair, just for clarification, It's 49 to 85, correct? It's not just 49. |
| 03:31:07.37 | Nastassya Saad | 49 to 85. Yes, correct. |
| 03:31:09.85 | Mary Wagner | So the motion would be to keep or amend it or amend it. |
| 03:31:12.80 | Nastassya Saad | And, |
| 03:31:15.49 | Mary Wagner | A motion to recommend amending the housing, amended housing element. to put it at the 49 to 85. Is that correct? |
| 03:31:24.12 | Andrew Junius | That's my motion, yes. Thank you. |
| 03:31:25.29 | Nastassya Saad | Correct. And that is the point to be clear that's 20 units. |
| 03:31:26.49 | Andrew Junius | And that is, |
| 03:31:27.03 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:31:27.06 | Andrew Junius | The motion negative. |
| 03:31:27.79 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:31:27.92 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 03:31:27.94 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:31:28.02 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:31:28.16 | Mary Wagner | Bye. |
| 03:31:33.02 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, so we have a motion, we have a second. Can we please take role director |
| 03:31:37.64 | Director Phipps | Happy to thank you chair. Commissioner Merlot. I would vote no. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 03:31:37.66 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Yeah. |
| 03:31:42.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you know, |
| 03:31:43.26 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Assad. No. Motion does not pass. |
| 03:31:44.24 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 03:31:51.29 | Nastassya Saad | So with that, just for clarification as well for everyone in the public, that leaves it at the reduction to mixed use 2985 of 11 units. Correct. Thank you. OK. |
| 03:32:05.25 | Neal Toft | May I say for the benefit of the public, when you say mixed use 29, 85, that's 85%. It's not 85 units per acre or anything like that, because that is how it can sound. Sure. So for the public, it's not suggesting a higher density of, it's a percentage of |
| 03:32:05.27 | Nastassya Saad | I'm going to... |
| 03:32:18.17 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. |
| 03:32:25.11 | Neal Toft | residential units to commercial floor areas. |
| 03:32:28.55 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you for clarifying that. I will not belabor the rest of the revised sites unless anyone has something specific that they would like to call out. I feel like we're nearing the end of this discussion. |
| 03:32:39.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm going back to, because we're in order to do Beth to do her sheet, that we remove site 63, which we talked about earlier, but we didn't take a motion. So I would move that we remove site 63. |
| 03:32:54.00 | David Marlatt | I need a second, but can I ask just one clarifying question about that? I'm sorry, this wasn't clear to me still. If somebody has site 63, for example, and the underlying zoning, I believe it's an R2, 2.5, they could have a duplex, for example. if it's rezoned to the 29 or 49 units per acre, they are prohibited, is that correct? They are prohibited from developing a two unit, for example. |
| 03:33:18.60 | Director Phipps | I'd have to do some kind of simple math to arrive at the floor and ceiling of density that would be allowed on that site. But that is consistent with my understanding that an upzoning would preclude certain low-density levels. |
| 03:33:36.41 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 03:33:36.42 | Director Phipps | projects. |
| 03:33:37.69 | David Marlatt | Okay. |
| 03:33:37.98 | Director Phipps | Yeah, open to. |
| 03:33:38.01 | David Marlatt | Yeah, open to- It wasn't totally clear for me previously, but that's that clarification. Yeah, so if they're low is three or four units, doesn't matter, then any project that proposed fewer number of units would be turned away. |
| 03:33:53.08 | Director Phipps | That's my understanding. |
| 03:33:54.97 | David Marlatt | Okay. Thank you. So I would second the motion. |
| 03:34:01.45 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, can we take roll, please? |
| 03:34:03.53 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Saad. Yes. Motion passes and that is to remove Site 63. |
| 03:34:06.24 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. Yes. Yes. |
| 03:34:14.92 | Nastassya Saad | Correct. All right. Thank you. In which case we will definitely now add that into the seventh, whereas. |
| 03:34:20.43 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:34:20.57 | Nastassya Saad | to get to the next. |
| 03:34:20.72 | Kristina Feller | Yes. Into the resolution. Into the resolution. |
| 03:34:20.75 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:34:21.90 | Michael Rex | Yeah. Yeah. |
| 03:34:23.03 | Nastassya Saad | Resolution. Into the resolution. That's where you |
| 03:34:26.32 | Kristina Feller | since not |
| 03:34:27.03 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:34:27.03 | Director Phipps | Could we take a separate motion on the seventh whereas item as well? |
| 03:34:27.08 | Kristina Feller | to be able to get the |
| 03:34:27.13 | Nastassya Saad | It could be. |
| 03:34:30.63 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, let's go ahead and do that. Can someone make a motion just for clarification? |
| 03:34:34.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I would move that we revise whereas number seven, which aren't numbered, but the seventh one down, so that the end of that reads, and remove sites with limited development potential for former site 85, comma, site 209, comma, site 63, and site 63. |
| 03:34:58.10 | Kristina Feller | And for clarity, that's on the draft resolution. |
| 03:35:00.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's correct. |
| 03:35:02.91 | Nastassya Saad | We have a second. Thank you. |
| 03:35:04.07 | Kristina Feller | Second. |
| 03:35:04.44 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:35:05.49 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Luxenberg. Thank you. |
| 03:35:08.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:35:09.02 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Feller. Yeah. Vice Chair Eugenius. Yes. Chair Hassan. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 03:35:10.23 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Yes. Thank you. |
| 03:35:17.45 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 03:35:18.97 | Nastassya Saad | you |
| 03:35:21.22 | Andrew Junius | Do we make one more motion just to finish it up with everything else? |
| 03:35:23.40 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, please. That's what I'm looking for. |
| 03:35:25.76 | Andrew Junius | So I move to make the remaining recommendations to staff on the sites that have not already been adjusted. Is that clear enough? |
| 03:35:28.81 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:35:35.97 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 03:35:36.03 | Andrew Junius | you |
| 03:35:36.08 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 03:35:36.14 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:35:36.34 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 03:35:36.37 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:35:36.39 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 03:35:36.44 | Andrew Junius | That would be... |
| 03:35:36.46 | Director Phipps | That would be consistent with the opportunity site list as presented in the amended housing element. |
| 03:35:42.25 | Andrew Junius | That's what I would say. |
| 03:35:42.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. Do we need that? Because you're not changing anything. |
| 03:35:43.75 | Andrew Junius | Oh. |
| 03:35:47.00 | Nastassya Saad | I know what our attorney Otto is on, so. |
| 03:35:50.45 | Mary Wagner | I think with the motion, what I'm hearing, what I'm thinking you're trying to say is that the Planning Commission recommends the amended housing element to the city council. in addition to the changes that you individually voted upon. you're basically moving the amended housing element with the modifications that have been voted on, if I'm understanding where you're trying to accomplish. |
| 03:36:09.02 | Andrew Junius | understanding where you're trying to correct exactly what i was thinking i appreciate it |
| 03:36:12.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, but before we do that, I'm going back to the language change that we made because we have to take a vote on that before you do the whole thing. Yes. So on whatever that page was, On page 34 of the agenda packet, page 15, we want to delete the words in Housing 29 and requiring residential units required for 85% of the site because in Housing 29, it has to be 100%. So we want to take those words out. |
| 03:36:53.29 | Kristina Feller | Can you just repeat that one more time? Exactly. |
| 03:36:54.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | that one more time exactly an opportunity on page uh 34 of the agenda packet which is page 15 of the housing and element housing element amendment attachment for the the language on that page under land use controls talks about opportunity housing 29 and says maximum density of 29 units per acre the realistic capacity sites is calculated at 23.2 units per acre, 80% of maximum density, based on the development trends and historical development patterns discussed above. Standards for very low and low income sites will include a minimum density of 20 units per acre. And the wording I want to delete is and requiring residential units required for 85% of the site. That language is used in all the mixed use ones. It doesn't belong in the housing 29 one. |
| 03:37:47.49 | Kristina Feller | THANK YOU. |
| 03:37:47.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | M. |
| 03:37:47.71 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:37:47.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:37:47.83 | Kristina Feller | That makes sense. |
| 03:37:48.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. But it's a change, and therefore we have to vote. Sure. |
| 03:37:51.61 | Kristina Feller | Do we have a second? |
| 03:37:53.36 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Mr. Merlot. |
| 03:37:56.18 | David Marlatt | Okay. |
| 03:37:56.25 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:37:56.27 | Director Phipps | Yes. Sorry, if there's no additional discussion. Commissioner Merlant. |
| 03:37:56.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 03:38:00.23 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 03:38:00.25 | David Marlatt | Yes. |
| 03:38:02.12 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Asan. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 03:38:04.72 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 03:38:07.13 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. Thank you. I look back to you, Commissioner Junius, to make your motion. |
| 03:38:10.42 | Director Phipps | you can make it. |
| 03:38:10.95 | Andrew Junius | I will. |
| 03:38:11.15 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 03:38:13.53 | Andrew Junius | So I would like to move that we recommend the amended housing element at this time, with it consistent with the changes that we've already made this evening. |
| 03:38:27.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm going to second that, but I have a question. I want to make clear, and I don't know if we do it in a separate motion after this motion, that the fire station, which if we have 724 units, might need to be reopened once those are built. And City Hall, that we reject that in the modified thing. It sort of keeps propping its head back up and I if we do this motion then we're going with this element but that doesn't preclude the City Council from dealing with a modified one and so I think we need this make a some sort of message to them that as a commission if the Commission agrees that, that we've told them this before, that this is a bad idea. But I don't know whether we do it here in this motion and add it to the whereases or we do a separate resolution. I'm looking for direction from Director Phipps or Kylie. Yeah. |
| 03:39:32.08 | Mary Wagner | would not want it in the resolution because it's not, it's really more I mean, it's not part of your motion. It's not part of the amended housing element. You could have a recommendation of planning commission separate and apart just through how we normally communicate in the staff court that The Commission, if it so chooses, is not supportive of inclusion of the city hall property or the fire station that would be appropriate to just give direction um but it doesn't make sense with Karen Hollweg, The direction the Commission has taken, which is to do the amended housing element that was part of another one of the other cafeteria choices that you didn't select. Karen Hollweg, So I think the motion on the floor right now makes sense, you can either take that first or make the recommendation either works. Karen Hollweg, Since you have a motion on the floor, you may want to continue with this one, and then, if there's additional direction that you'd like to get the planning Commission to the city Council. additional recommendations, staff can pass that along as well. but it doesn't need to be as part of the amended housing element because it was not a a component of that process. |
| 03:40:38.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | component. Could we take a vote after this vote on the modified element and reject it? Would that work? Or is that more problematic? |
| 03:40:50.50 | Mary Wagner | I think it just creates some additional confusion because you've pulled some things from different places. So I think it would just be better to give direction and give recommendations like you normally do with items, even though you vote to approve or deny, you give recommendations to city council, but I can ask staff if they have a different position on how they'd like that handled. |
| 03:41:10.87 | Director Phipps | No, I think that's correct, Attorney Otto. I would recommend a separate recommendation from the Commission on this, and I agree with you that it is a bit of a separate kind of advisory recommendation than the recommendations in connection with the amended housing element. |
| 03:41:25.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | of, |
| 03:41:29.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you for that, and we'll make that motion after we do this. |
| 03:41:29.36 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:41:34.97 | Andrew Junius | So call the questions. |
| 03:41:37.13 | Unknown | Do we have a second? I have a second. |
| 03:41:37.73 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:41:37.75 | Kristina Feller | . |
| 03:41:37.83 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. I didn't second it. |
| 03:41:39.77 | Kristina Feller | I'm sorry, I just have a quick question, just for clarification to your motion, which I support. But where do we land on the buffer? Because I believe what you've made a motion for also has that more excessive buffer. And I want to make sure that we've addressed that properly. |
| 03:42:00.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can we just ask what that's been tallying what the number currently is as we voted? |
| 03:42:07.64 | Beth Thompson | So I've just shared on the screen, I've tallied the, it should actually here, this bottom, Sorry. This bottom one should actually say Planning Commission Recommendations. So I've updated the numbers here. So you still have a buffer. At all of them, the low income went down just a little bit because we didn't do any readjustments. So one of the things we had talked about was doing some readjustments to perhaps like Site 303 to increase its lower income numbers to kind of offset. some of the reduction in very low and low if Altavira were reduced or other sites were removed. So that's another thing you can just direct staff to reallocate some of the very low and low units or some of the very low units to 303. |
| 03:43:04.37 | Nastassya Saad | So we've taken the buffer as a total, if I can see correctly, from 32% on the amended down to 28%? |
| 03:43:15.58 | Beth Thompson | So it's... Sarah Mastrianni- Overall, it still you know the adopted housing element was at 25 so you still have a slightly higher buffer there you're very low buffer has decreased the most so that has decreased down to 11% so that's where we might want to do a little readjusting. |
| 03:43:32.58 | Nastassya Saad | I think we should, 68% for moderate is excessive. |
| 03:43:35.83 | David Marlatt | Yes. But is that something we leave to staff, or do we have to make that allocation as a commission? |
| 03:43:43.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So I would suggest an amendment to the motion that changes what site is it three, which? |
| 03:43:48.99 | Beth Thompson | 303. |
| 03:43:50.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. 303, does anybody have a conflict on 303? |
| 03:43:54.98 | Nastassya Saad | 303 is one in Three Harbor Drive. |
| 03:43:58.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Nope. |
| 03:43:58.47 | Nastassya Saad | No? |
| 03:43:59.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And what was the suggested that, as Brennan brought up previously, Beth, what number? Shifting, so we could just take a vote on that number. |
| 03:44:11.68 | Beth Thompson | I'd say just shift 20 of the moderate or above moderate units to very low. And let me just see what the breakdown is there. |
| 03:44:25.34 | Neal Toft | And to clarify, Beth, that can be done in a manner that the... amended raft housing element would be arguable for HCD review and certification with that. Correct. |
| 03:44:40.64 | Beth Thompson | Correct. Yeah, that's the it's not changing the assumptions for the total units and it's still. Yeah, I don't think HCD would have a problem with that. And the property owners expressed no opposition to having their site. and in the housing element and having some adjustments to it. So yes, I think we could, I would say just to increase the very low you know, by, 20 units. |
| 03:45:07.61 | Kristina Feller | money. units. While you're doing that, can we also consider Site 402, which is also just a block away from that, as it's a new site as well? |
| 03:45:18.88 | Beth Thompson | So Site 402 doesn't have a lot of capacity. It already has 24 units that are very low. So it doesn't have, there's not just not a lot to move around on Site 402. |
| 03:45:28.94 | Kristina Feller | I'll leave you to it on the 303, but while you're doing that, so we were at a 25% buffer for our certified housing element. We have made progress towards our numbers as discussed this evening. And so, and you're, and we now have a 28% buffer. So we're kind of going the wrong direction. |
| 03:46:01.91 | Neal Toft | Well, this accounts for units that we've been built. This is really the strategy of the overall cycle. So regardless of- |
| 03:46:12.66 | Kristina Feller | I understand, but you're going from a 25% buffer to a 28% buffer. Oh, that's right. And you've already made progress towards your numbers. So I think you're going the wrong direction. |
| 03:46:17.52 | Neal Toft | Oh. Thank you. |
| 03:46:22.87 | Director Phipps | I'd say looking at the amended housing element row there, we actually, based on the version of the element that you're working from, have a 32% buffer. So we've actually reduced that buffer from 32% to 28%. |
| 03:46:37.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And I would suggest that the HCD is seeing the 32. So we're reducing it from what they've reviewed recently. Absolutely. |
| 03:46:40.69 | Unknown | 32. Thank you. |
| 03:46:41.97 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 03:46:42.11 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 03:46:42.12 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:46:45.50 | David Marlatt | Can you clarify that? I believe HCD has seen the 25. HCD has seen both. |
| 03:46:50.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Go. |
| 03:46:51.34 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, they saw the one in August. |
| 03:46:51.39 | David Marlatt | Thank you. They've not commented. But they've not commented specifically. |
| 03:46:55.64 | Director Phipps | We are anticipating responses or comments from HCD in connection with these cities. I think. I think, yeah, exactly, the modified element. However, we did receive comments from HCA in connection with the amended housing element, and they had comments. |
| 03:47:07.27 | Neal Toft | I think. |
| 03:47:07.98 | Unknown | It's a great day. |
| 03:47:08.03 | Kristina Feller | Good. |
| 03:47:08.21 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:47:17.02 | Kristina Feller | So I guess the other question is before we take a final vote here, because there is a motion on the floor is staff, do you have the clarifications that you need? And have we addressed everything that you have needed us to address to satisfy HCD? |
| 03:47:38.00 | Director Phipps | Thank you for the question, Commissioner. I appreciate that. There is an element of unknown here that I should probably just state for the record. We don't know. I don't know how HCD is going to respond to our specific changes and amendments. However, that's why I would like us to make these decisions in a manner that situates the city as best as we possibly can. So with that said, my request, just for clarity, would be a motion to specify exactly how we're shifting units on Site 303, and that would be helpful. |
| 03:48:12.76 | Neal Toft | Okay. And I think if I just want to add in, and Beth can confirm, part of the strategy when we were adopting the amended housing element, recognizing we were reducing a number of sites and then, you know, adding more to other sites, kind of creative, you know, and reducing, eliminating some sites. there was some recognition that increasing the buffer, particularly in making sure we're addressing the affordability issue, is critical to HCD's sign-off. So anything that we can kind of at least keep ourselves at or above the adopted buffer we have is going to be a preferable approach. That certainly was advice from our consultant who works with HCD on a regular basis. |
| 03:48:47.51 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 03:49:02.03 | Kristina Feller | Okay. So is it helpful? I mean, as there is a motion on the floor, do you want a clarification to 303 and how that's sliced and diced first? Or do you want this overall motion that's already on the floor? What is easier or highly? What do you recommend? |
| 03:49:24.61 | Mary Wagner | uh, If we can, withdraw the motion and do the 303 first and then put the motion back on the floor just for the clarification of the record, because you're basically you've been building in your modifications to the amended housing element. So if we can just take a step backwards, but if the commission desires to make changes to 303, and put that in at the recommendation, do that first, and then put the motion back on the floor if it is If I'm getting to pick, that would be my preference. |
| 03:49:56.17 | Andrew Junius | I will go ahead and withdraw the motion. |
| 03:49:59.97 | Kristina Feller | All right, so let's look at the chart that you have there, Beth, so we can motion or recommendation for 303. |
| 03:50:00.39 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 03:50:05.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:50:05.74 | Beth Thompson | it. |
| 03:50:10.02 | Beth Thompson | and I'm actually updating it to reflect the changes to 303 that I mentioned so everyone can see the I love the net results and my eyes are getting tired at the end of the evening here, so I apologize. I'm getting all squinty. Okay, here we go. And, So share my screen again. |
| 03:50:38.22 | Beth Thompson | All right, so with this, the blue row down here, Planning Commission recommendation, I've bumped up the very low at site 303 by 20 units, I've reduced the moderate income units at site 303 by five and reduced the above moderate by 15. |
| 03:51:03.52 | Kristina Feller | Can you repeat that, please? |
| 03:51:05.66 | Beth Thompson | Sure. So for the Site 303, I have increased the very low units by 20. reduced moderate by five and reduced above moderate by 15. And that gives you a 21% very low buffer, which was previously 11%. So that bumps up your very low buffer a bit. And then it has a slight decrease in the moderate and then just a small adjustment to the above moderate. |
| 03:51:32.29 | Kristina Feller | and then |
| 03:51:37.08 | Kristina Feller | And just to confirm in doing that, you've not changed the total buffer of 28%, correct? |
| 03:51:44.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I make a suggestion? If I were HCD and I saw that we were at 20% low, very low before, and then 20% with the modified that they may have also seen, and then we increased it to 21, it looks a little suspicious. Can we just... change it by 19 or whatever so that we're not somehow it just seems a little weird to me I don't know |
| 03:52:07.90 | Kristina Feller | I think it's negligible between 19 and 21. |
| 03:52:11.25 | David Marlatt | I agree. I think we're speculating HCD. And the fact that it's gone up means we provided a little bit more buffer, nominally more. But that's a good thing. |
| 03:52:13.92 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 03:52:20.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, that's a good thing. You may ask him my question, how did we do that? |
| 03:52:25.18 | Neal Toft | To be honest, as a staff member and thinking it administratively from a critical point of view, if it ended up the exact same number, I would probably question that almost more than a change. |
| 03:52:39.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right, I'll withdraw my comment. |
| 03:52:41.56 | Nastassya Saad | Do we have any more discussion on the buffer for any income level or the total? |
| 03:52:49.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'll make a motion that we move 20 units from moderate to very low. Is that how we did it, Beth? |
| 03:52:57.12 | Beth Thompson | It's five moderate and 15 above moderate to the very low. |
| 03:53:03.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | What she said. Okay. |
| 03:53:05.56 | Kristina Feller | So why don't we make a motion to increase the very low by 20 and decrease the moderate by five and the above moderate by 15. |
| 03:53:10.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:53:10.11 | David Marlatt | and the |
| 03:53:14.40 | David Marlatt | I think it was just the opposite. |
| 03:53:14.43 | Kristina Feller | I think it was just the opposite. For site 303. |
| 03:53:15.95 | David Marlatt | I think it was the moderate by 15 and the above moderate by 5. |
| 03:53:19.78 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:53:19.82 | Beth Thompson | you |
| 03:53:19.85 | Kristina Feller | Bye. |
| 03:53:19.89 | Beth Thompson | I don't know. |
| 03:53:20.04 | Kristina Feller | I'm sorry. |
| 03:53:20.22 | Beth Thompson | by five above moderate by 15. |
| 03:53:20.90 | Kristina Feller | I'm sorry. |
| 03:53:21.03 | David Marlatt | that. |
| 03:53:21.12 | Kristina Feller | moderate. |
| 03:53:21.62 | David Marlatt | Bye. Oh, well. |
| 03:53:23.58 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 03:53:23.60 | David Marlatt | So. |
| 03:53:23.63 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 03:53:23.65 | Kristina Feller | So again, we're going to increase the very low. We're going to increase it by 20. We're going to decrease moderate by 5 and decrease above moderate by 15 for Site 303. |
| 03:53:23.67 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 03:53:23.70 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 03:53:23.72 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 03:53:35.50 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Saad. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 03:53:41.60 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 03:53:41.87 | Kristina Feller | Thanks. |
| 03:53:41.94 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:53:44.20 | Kristina Feller | Yes. Okay. Do we want Vice Chair Junius? No. |
| 03:53:50.82 | Andrew Junius | So can we now make the motion, the final motion on the housing element recommendation to move the amended housing element forward as recommended by staff with the changes that have been discussed this evening? |
| 03:54:04.01 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:54:04.03 | Kristina Feller | Do we have a second? Thank you. |
| 03:54:05.38 | Director Phipps | Second. |
| 03:54:06.51 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:54:07.96 | Director Phipps | Happy to. Chair, thank you. Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice Chair Genius. Yes. Chair Assad. |
| 03:54:14.19 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:54:14.21 | Unknown | Yes. you |
| 03:54:17.19 | Director Phipps | Yeah. |
| 03:54:17.26 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:54:17.83 | Director Phipps | Motion passes. Congratulations. |
| 03:54:21.55 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:54:22.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. I would like to make a motion that we send some information. I don't know what we call it. We send some direction to the city council that the commission, as we have done previously, recommends that the city hall and the fire station on Spencer not be included in the housing element or something to that effect. |
| 03:54:50.49 | Kristina Feller | Well, can I modify that to be just completely removed from consideration? Yes, completely removed from consideration. I'll second that. I'll second that. |
| 03:54:53.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, completely removed from consideration. uh, |
| 03:54:59.03 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Any discussion? Director Pips. |
| 03:55:03.28 | Director Phipps | Just so I understand the language, the commission recommends... Complete removal of City Hall and fire stations. |
| 03:55:11.45 | Kristina Feller | From any consideration for this housing element, yes. |
| 03:55:12.46 | Director Phipps | Any consideration? |
| 03:55:16.42 | Kristina Feller | Do I need to recuse? |
| 03:55:17.07 | Director Phipps | Very good. |
| 03:55:18.03 | Kristina Feller | No. |
| 03:55:20.68 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice Chair Genius. No. Chair Assad. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 03:55:24.34 | Unknown | Thank you. Yeah. |
| 03:55:24.41 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:55:24.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:55:25.64 | Kristina Feller | you |
| 03:55:25.66 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:55:25.96 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Yes. |
| 03:55:32.51 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you. Thank you to members of the public. We are moving on to item... 4B. |
| 03:55:39.97 | Neal Toft | Thank you. Before you run on to 4B, |
| 03:55:45.04 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:55:45.45 | Neal Toft | Thank you. On 4A, there was a comment from Commissioner Merlot regarding part of 4A is adopting a resolution, and I think that... |
| 03:55:51.61 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:55:51.79 | Unknown | and we're going to have a |
| 03:55:57.36 | Neal Toft | recommends both adoption of the housing element as well as the general plan amendments and certification of the EIR And if I'm correct, I'll check with our legal counsel. But I would think what we want is a motion that... Adopts that housing element with the recommended change, adopts that resolution with those recommended changes. And I would also note there was a recommended change by Commissioner Merlot regarding the land use element reference to heights. And so I just want to make sure that's getting, is put in the record as well. |
| 03:56:43.31 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, so let's not close this item yet, Chair. |
| 03:56:47.58 | Neal Toft | Thank you. |
| 03:56:47.60 | Kristina Feller | Okay. So do we need to then make |
| 03:56:53.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'll make a motion that we approve the resolution, which includes the housing element amendment that we just approved, along with the, I think we have to also do the EIR, correct? |
| 03:56:53.88 | Kristina Feller | So, yeah. |
| 03:57:09.76 | Neal Toft | recommending certification. |
| 03:57:10.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Recommending certification of the EIR and approving the amendments to the general plan with the adjustment indicated by Commissioner Marlott. And is that it? you |
| 03:57:29.36 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:57:29.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:57:29.50 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. But a point of clarification, though, we just moved on the housing element. So it shouldn't the next motion just be on the general plan and the EAR? Yes. |
| 03:57:30.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right? |
| 03:57:36.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. Except for the resolution that we have that they've already drafted includes all of it. So I was trying to live with her not having to have two resolutions because they have a draft resolution. |
| 03:57:51.57 | Andrew Junius | I actually think the city attorney probably assumed that I was trying to get it all done in one fell swoop because it is one one resolution. Um, |
| 03:57:59.45 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. for ease of making sure the record is clear. If we could move, have the commission move the resolution COB, Elaine McLaughlin, Even though we've taken bits and pieces we've taken multiple votes tonight both on the on the amended housing element, so if we could just move the. The resolution with the additional the votes coming through would be fine if there's additional things that the Commission would like to vote upon and add to the resolution that would of course be at the chair and the Commission's discretion. |
| 03:58:29.34 | Andrew Junius | But could you clarify, do we need to... Thank you. make the motion again for all three the housing element the eir and the general plan or just the two or should we withdraw the previous motion I apologize for not catching that when we made the motion for the housing element. |
| 03:58:46.75 | Mary Wagner | I think that as long as you're not gonna make changes to the housing element, it's not gonna hurt it to be in two motions. So it's just as easy to move, it's, |
| 03:58:55.88 | Andrew Junius | Understood. |
| 03:58:56.42 | Mary Wagner | As long as we get it accomplished where we achieve it all, it's fine. It's completely acceptable to have the motion be to approve the resolution. with the changes that you've already voted upon to be obviously incorporated hearing because you've taken votes and that will roll all of those in because that's part of what this resolution is. If you'd like to take items, each individual items separately, that of course can happen as well. It's up to the commission. |
| 03:59:09.96 | Unknown | you're in. |
| 03:59:24.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I will change my motion to move the resolution included in the packet as amended by the approval of the housing element amendment and as adjusted in the general plan by Commissioner Meyer lot's earlier comment. |
| 03:59:40.99 | Mary Wagner | For clarification, can we hear what the Commissioner Marlott's comment was so that we have it on the record for this motion? |
| 03:59:47.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So the resolution in the packet includes the EIR and the housing element and the- |
| 03:59:55.01 | Kristina Feller | So why don't we just focus on the land use piece? Like, Commissioner Marlott, what was your comment or your request for an amendment or edit? |
| 03:59:58.14 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:59:58.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You wish to Marlowe at work. |
| 03:59:59.03 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. |
| 03:59:59.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not. |
| 03:59:59.49 | Nastassya Saad | you |
| 03:59:59.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | or, |
| 03:59:59.77 | Nastassya Saad | It's a great day. |
| 03:59:59.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:00:06.00 | David Marlatt | Oops. So the amendment was simply to just an oversight that in program CD-1.3.1, zoning ordinance. |
| 04:00:18.86 | Director Phipps | Apologies, Commissioner. Could you repeat that? |
| 04:00:21.73 | David Marlatt | Okay, in the general plan program CD 1.3.1, Zoning ordinance height limit. should say continue to permit the 32 foot maximum height limit for residential and commercial zones, except where greater heights are allowed pursuant to, then I would say Title 10. In the current draft, it says pursuant to objective design and development standards, but those height limits are no longer in the odds. |
| 04:01:00.32 | Neal Toft | Right, so striking odds. Striking odds, that's a joke. |
| 04:01:02.01 | David Marlatt | I can realize that it's Title 10. |
| 04:01:03.56 | Neal Toft | Title 10. |
| 04:01:04.74 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 04:01:04.79 | Neal Toft | Thank you. |
| 04:01:04.98 | David Marlatt | Yes. |
| 04:01:06.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can you do that as a motion and then we can vote on it and then we can do the other with the second one? |
| 04:01:10.34 | David Marlatt | So I would make a motion to do what I just said. |
| 04:01:13.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Second. |
| 04:01:15.91 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Saad. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 04:01:18.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. Yes. Yes. So let me do the following, which I'll do it cleanly. I move the resolution of the Planning Commission recommending certification of the amended 2003 to 2031 housing element EIR, or adoption of CEQA findings, statement of overriding consideration, mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and recommended adoption of the amended 2023 to 2031 housing element as amended this evening and related general plan amendments as amended this evening. |
| 04:02:01.05 | Andrew Junius | second |
| 04:02:03.92 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Commissioner Feller. |
| 04:02:06.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 04:02:06.86 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:02:06.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:02:06.98 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 04:02:07.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:02:07.09 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:02:08.46 | Director Phipps | Yes. |
| 04:02:08.51 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 04:02:08.85 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Vice Chair Genius. Yes. Chair Assad. Yes. Motion passes. Congratulations. |
| 04:02:10.01 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 04:02:10.06 | Unknown | . |
| 04:02:11.33 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 04:02:14.87 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:02:15.13 | Kristina Feller | Okay. So does that conclude everything you need staff? |
| 04:02:21.22 | Director Phipps | Yes, it does, although we do have two additional items this evening. |
| 04:02:22.13 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 04:02:22.15 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 04:02:22.33 | Kristina Feller | So, |
| 04:02:22.35 | Kristina Feller | Although- |
| 04:02:22.62 | Kristina Feller | do. |
| 04:02:22.91 | Kristina Feller | I'm sorry. |
| 04:02:22.97 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:02:23.02 | Nastassya Saad | I'm going to go. |
| 04:02:23.08 | Kristina Feller | Bye. |
| 04:02:23.21 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 04:02:23.36 | Kristina Feller | Two additional. |
| 04:02:24.05 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 04:02:27.31 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 04:02:28.61 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:02:28.63 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 04:02:28.64 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:02:28.66 | Director Phipps | and then, |
| 04:02:28.73 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:02:28.75 | Director Phipps | And then... |
| 04:02:28.80 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 04:02:28.85 | Kristina Feller | going to |
| 04:02:28.93 | Director Phipps | to the next one. |
| 04:02:28.96 | Nastassya Saad | No. |
| 04:02:29.00 | Unknown | Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:02:30.31 | Nastassya Saad | move on to item 4b this is a public hearing and recommendation on amendments to the zoning map and municipal code title 10 zoning ordinance to implement housing element program four |
| 04:02:46.04 | Director Phipps | And we have a brief presentation. Hoping that Beth Thompson is able to share a screen. Yes, she is. And here is the presentation. Beth, the floor is yours. |
| 04:02:56.22 | Beth Thompson | Anna Long, on to the next item, so this is the municipal code amendments changes to Title 10 for rezoning and i'll go through this relatively quickly. Anna Long, this implements housing element program for it addresses the actual planning Commission recommendation for the housing element addresses department of housing and Community development comments related to zoning. And we did not do the modified housing element alternative option. We had a few slides here. I did change a few things on the fly, but I didn't change this one. So, As you know, program four from the housing element includes the adoption of overlay zones, the 20 to 29 dwelling units per acre that would be accommodated under the housing or H29 zone. 43 to 49 dwelling units per acre accommodated under the H49 zone, and 50 to 70 dwelling units per acre accommodated under the H70 zone. There would also be creation of three new mixed use overlay zones and mixed use 2985 which would allow 20 to 29 dwelling units per acre and a a minimum requires a minimum of 85% residential, mixed use 43 to 49. Oh, no. Mixed use 49.85 allows 43 to 49 dwell units per acre. And again, allows up to 15% non-residential requires a minimum of 85% residential uses. And the mixed use 70, 85%. is mixed use allowing 50 to 70 dwelling units per acre with again a minimum of 85 percent residential uses in response to hcd's comments we did make some changes to the zoning that would allow so existing uses that have a non-residential component Thank you. can continue to keep the square footage of the non-residential uses and they can reconfigure those with the new project so that way you're not reducing your non-residential and job generating uses if there's a desire to maintain those increased non-residential uses, but for new, projects that are not replacing a non-residential component, they would be have that minimum 85% residential requirement. AS WE HAD DISCUSSED, THE AMENDED HOUSING ELEMENT, THE ONE THAT WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION THIS EVENING, DOES INTRODUCE THE TWO NEW OVERLAYS TO H29 AND MU29 85% RELATIVE TO THE CITY'S ADOPTED HOUSING ELEMENT. I won't go through each of the sites that have been changed from the opportunity site inventory, but the rezoning would rezone all of the sites that are identified as opportunity sites that are not constrained by ordinance 1020. eight and 1122. So it would result in all of the remaining sites and we've, I've listed those. And so, Sites 85 and 209 are removed and the new sites 401 and 402 are included. Site 209 was revised. And then we've also the materials that you have in your packet don't capture all of the changes. So there's site 23, 24, 39, site 44, 47, 55. Site 84 would be kept at 80 units, so that one would not be increased to 94. And then site 303 would increase to 129. And then the affordable units would be reconfigured site 202 would be Melanie Lawrence- Now housing 49 not housing 70 with 51 units and we would also be removing site 83 from the list, so we would add site and 63 as being removed and consistent with the direction we received. and This no longer results in a buffer of 234 units above the RHNA, but it still maintains a buffer of 28% more than needed to accommodate the RHNA and a buffer in all income categories, as we discussed with the previous item and Again, the changes that were recommended with the amended housing element would then also be reflected with this rezoning. So the changes to particularly sites 202 and 63, which are not constrained by ordinances 1022 and 1128. The rezoning required under program four is restricted by the initiative measures adopted as ordinances 1022 and 1128. That rezoning has to be completed by January 30th of 2026. And this municipal code amendment and rezoning before you does not change the zoning for any of the sites constrained by those ordinances. So it just affects the ones that are included in the housing element as opportunity sites that are not constrained by the ordinances. And then Brandon has a refinement here to discuss related to some new changes, recent changes to state law. |
| 04:07:58.33 | Director Phipps | Yeah, thank you for that, Beth. This change is recommended by city attorney in order for the city to maintain compliance with state law. This particular change is spelled out here, and it is included as an additional footnote in a version of actually this chapter that you have not seen. So when the time comes, I'd like to read this into the record with the commission as staff's recommendation for an additional adoption. And if you'd like me to read it now, I'm happy to do that. Or if we'd like to just read it in silence for a moment, that's also an option. |
| 04:08:40.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Is it possible to see the section of where it goes? |
| 04:08:46.54 | Director Phipps | Yes, I can call that out. I have a revised document. We just did not have the opportunity to add it to this evening's agenda. We were making changes. Excuse me. I received this specific change from city attorney without too much time before the meeting. What I can say is that it makes revisions to table 10.22-2. That is... Thank you. the site development standards for the residential zoning districts in addition to the same table but for the commercial districts. And again, this language is added to maintain compliance with state law. |
| 04:09:29.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not looking for where the footnote goes. I'm looking for where on the chart it has different numbers. I'm looking for what this footnote changes. |
| 04:09:39.58 | Director Phipps | It does not change the numbers. It simply changes the footnotes as added to the table and the language within the footnote as an indirect component of the table. |
| 04:09:52.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But what is the FAR if we don't do this? Footnote, that's what I'm asking. |
| 04:09:59.54 | Director Phipps | as shown in the tables. |
| 04:10:01.37 | David Marlatt | Well, I can sort of piggyback on that. The table doesn't show any FAR for the housing opportunity sites. The FARs are only for the underlying zoning. And I appreciate we have to stay compliant with state law, of course, but it seems like this is a footnote that would be attached to an FAR for the housing opportunity sites, which, if I'm not missing anything, don't explicitly have an FAR. They have density calculations and other criteria. Correct. This is correct. for the housing opportunity sites, which if I'm not missing anything, don't explicitly have an FAR. They have a density calculations and other criteria. Correct. This is another. |
| 04:10:21.99 | Unknown | the |
| 04:10:26.93 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 04:10:30.27 | Director Phipps | Correct. The recommendation from legal counsel was to add this footnote to the maximum floor area row in table 10.22-2. |
| 04:10:38.66 | David Marlatt | Food. across the board like in the art |
| 04:10:41.61 | Director Phipps | As a maximum flow area ratio, insert footnote. |
| 04:10:46.34 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 04:10:46.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | like, Can we see that table that it's adjusting? It's adjusting. |
| 04:10:52.43 | Andrew Junius | It applies to all projects, not just housing. Well, not the R1. Yeah. Well, it applies to any zoning district that it applies to. It's not just limited to the housing opportunity sites. I think to make sure we're clear about that. |
| 04:10:55.16 | David Marlatt | I'm going to go. |
| 04:10:55.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:10:55.26 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 04:10:55.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and we're going to be |
| 04:10:55.35 | David Marlatt | Well, not the R1. |
| 04:10:56.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:10:56.28 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 04:11:04.11 | David Marlatt | Okay. Oh. |
| 04:11:07.94 | Beth Thompson | So this is, this is a new state law. So it basically any, any housing development project that consists of three to seven units, and it has to meet certain requirements is allowed to have a Floria ratio of up to one. |
| 04:11:08.63 | Andrew Junius | Is that- |
| 04:11:20.80 | Beth Thompson | And a housing development project of eight to 10 units has a Floria ratio of up to 1.25. I believe they have to be multifamily projects. But basically this would only be be applied to projects that meet the requirements of government code section 65913.11 b. So it would be added as a footnote here to the floor area ratio here. |
| 04:11:44.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:11:44.17 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 04:11:44.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | here. |
| 04:11:45.15 | Beth Thompson | And then be added down here as a full footnote, you know, down, down here. |
| 04:11:45.33 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 04:11:45.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 04:11:51.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's bigger so we can see the R3, which would be mostly the multifamily. So see what it is now. |
| 04:11:58.48 | David Marlatt | Right, so 0.65, for example, R2-2.5, would go to 1 or 1.3, depending on the number of units being proposed on that site. |
| 04:12:08.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right, so if we can enlarge this so we can see what R3 has right now without the – |
| 04:12:09.06 | Neal Toft | We could. |
| 04:12:15.29 | Neal Toft | R3 is 0.65. R2. |
| 04:12:15.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right now. |
| 04:12:16.16 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:12:18.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:12:18.31 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 04:12:18.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm sorry. |
| 04:12:18.64 | Director Phipps | R2. I think R3 is 0.8. You're right. You're right. Yeah. |
| 04:12:19.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 04:12:19.77 | Neal Toft | Thank you. |
| 04:12:19.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:12:19.99 | Neal Toft | I think. |
| 04:12:20.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think. |
| 04:12:20.32 | Neal Toft | or three is 0.8. |
| 04:12:21.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So it's going from 0.8 to 1 or 1.25. |
| 04:12:26.93 | Beth Thompson | depending on the number of units that are in the project. |
| 04:12:30.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And in our two, it's going from 0.65 to to one with a minimum of three units. Can you get three units in R2? |
| 04:12:35.87 | David Marlatt | Minimum of three years. |
| 04:12:41.07 | David Marlatt | Well, with the art. |
| 04:12:41.95 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, you can. You can. |
| 04:12:42.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 04:12:42.91 | David Marlatt | you. |
| 04:12:42.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | He can. We go from 0.65 to 1 or 1.65. Okay, that's what I was looking for. That's huge. |
| 04:12:48.83 | Unknown | with. |
| 04:12:48.90 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 04:12:48.97 | Director Phipps | But... |
| 04:12:49.04 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 04:12:52.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:12:52.41 | David Marlatt | Bye. |
| 04:12:52.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:12:52.63 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 04:12:53.34 | David Marlatt | That's not to say. |
| 04:12:54.45 | Director Phipps | And it's only for compliance with state law. We're not trying to introduce anything. I appreciate that. |
| 04:12:59.01 | David Marlatt | I appreciate that. I'm not suggesting we violate state law, but just thinking through the ramifications of that. |
| 04:13:06.18 | Kristina Feller | But you have a footnote you want to add that wasn't in the packet? |
| 04:13:10.15 | David Marlatt | I'm not sure. |
| 04:13:10.94 | Director Phipps | It was presented in the PowerPoint that Beth Thank you. |
| 04:13:14.97 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 04:13:14.99 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 04:13:15.09 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:13:15.11 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 04:13:15.12 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:13:15.16 | Director Phipps | I'll be back. |
| 04:13:15.23 | Kristina Feller | . |
| 04:13:15.38 | Director Phipps | Pop that back. |
| 04:13:15.80 | Kristina Feller | I love you. |
| 04:13:15.97 | Beth Thompson | Yeah. |
| 04:13:16.04 | Director Phipps | that. |
| 04:13:16.17 | Beth Thompson | Yeah. |
| 04:13:16.25 | Director Phipps | Yeah. had displayed and maybe that's the best way for us to look at the language. |
| 04:13:19.88 | David Marlatt | came in earlier this afternoon, correct? Correct. Yeah, I saw the email. |
| 04:13:24.64 | Nastassya Saad | Just for everybody on the phone, can I ask you, Beth, can we read this out loud so we can just level set this conversation, please? |
| 04:13:32.22 | Beth Thompson | Sure. Pursuant to government code section 65913, 0.11. B, a housing development project consisting of three to seven units shall be allowed to have a floor area ratio of up to 1.0. And for a housing development project consisting of eight to 10 units, the project shall be allowed a floor area ratio of up to 1.25. except for projects within a historic district or property included on the state historic resources inventory as defined in section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code or within a site that is designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district pursuant to a city or county ordinance. |
| 04:14:13.19 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:14:16.48 | Kristina Feller | And this is directly from the state legislation. Like, this is not our language. This is. |
| 04:14:22.54 | Beth Thompson | Correct. This is pulled straight from government code section 65913.11. |
| 04:14:29.92 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:14:30.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:14:35.38 | Andrew Junius | So I'm gonna make a motion. |
| 04:14:37.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:14:37.52 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 04:14:37.81 | Unknown | I don't know. |
| 04:14:37.96 | Andrew Junius | . I think we have the ability to make a motion to advance the record. Before. |
| 04:14:45.54 | Mary Wagner | if the ban's question I apologize before we do that, we haven't had any public comment. So we need to take public comment first. I apologize for interrupting. |
| 04:14:48.76 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 04:14:49.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO BE ABLE TO if you're right. |
| 04:14:55.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We haven't had questions. |
| 04:14:56.73 | Nastassya Saad | We also, I'm sorry, I'm unclear if we're done with the presentation. So let's just take one step back. Are we? |
| 04:15:00.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:15:00.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Let's just take one step back. |
| 04:15:02.84 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 04:15:02.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:15:02.97 | David Marlatt | TO BE ABLE Thank you. |
| 04:15:03.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:15:04.02 | Nastassya Saad | Is there anything more for the presentation or can we move to questions from the commissioners? |
| 04:15:04.07 | Unknown | I believe we interrupted that. |
| 04:15:10.23 | Director Phipps | That was it for the presentation. Unless, Beth, you have something else you'd like to touch on. |
| 04:15:15.12 | Beth Thompson | That was it for the presentation, and I will note for the footnote that it applies to projects that are located in a multifamily residential zone or a mixed use zone and is not within a single family zone. So, in addition to the historic district language, there's also those other two provisions. |
| 04:15:31.20 | Neal Toft | Excellent. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Marillott. Can I just get a clarification from Beth before finishing the presentation? The amendments, I think you were sort of tagging, identifying the amendments that would apply to the text change based upon the recommendation of the commission regarding the housing element. Correct. So should they they I guess we'll get there but when they if they want to make a motion to follow that that can be done fairly readily |
| 04:15:32.98 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:15:33.13 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 04:15:33.40 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:15:33.45 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 04:16:06.46 | Beth Thompson | I can make one slide that summarizes that while discussion is going on. |
| 04:16:12.08 | Neal Toft | That'd be great. |
| 04:16:13.54 | Beth Thompson | a problem. |
| 04:16:15.01 | Andrew Junius | Just again, a point of clarification. It's my understanding that all we're doing at this point is advancing an ordinance that changes the zoning map to be consistent with what we just did on the housing element. So, I don't expect there's going to be a lot of discussion because we already talked about it and all we're doing here is taking the, you know, the decisions we've made on the housing element |
| 04:16:33.84 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:16:33.91 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. |
| 04:16:38.65 | Unknown | you know? |
| 04:16:41.37 | Andrew Junius | and turning them into an ordinance that it meant the zoning map. So I would hope we don't start doing different things because we shouldn't. |
| 04:16:41.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:16:41.45 | Jonathan Hutchinson | I'm not sure. |
| 04:16:41.52 | Director Phipps | I don't know. |
| 04:16:41.59 | Jonathan Hutchinson | and, |
| 04:16:41.71 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 04:16:41.73 | Jonathan Hutchinson | Thank you. |
| 04:16:48.85 | David Marlatt | Well, I have a good idea. |
| 04:16:49.45 | Andrew Junius | Distancy is key here. |
| 04:16:50.40 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 04:16:50.48 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 04:16:50.52 | Director Phipps | TO BE ABLE |
| 04:16:50.67 | David Marlatt | I'm not sure. |
| 04:16:50.70 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 04:16:50.72 | David Marlatt | I believe we're being asked to adopt a whole lot more than that. There's an entire, there are tables and changes at the tables, there are definitions. |
| 04:16:58.82 | Andrew Junius | But they're all consistent with, they all have to be consistent with what we just did on the housing elements. |
| 04:17:02.43 | David Marlatt | I'm not sure. I do have questions. I have a question. |
| 04:17:05.52 | Nastassya Saad | Let's go ahead and kick this off so we can move forward. Commissioner Marlott, feel free to start. |
| 04:17:06.70 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 04:17:10.94 | David Marlatt | OK, so I just sort of start randomly. So the 300 LOCUS, which is Site 47, is currently zoned CW. And it's being referred to the odds, but the odds have no CW. So is Site 47 being rezoned to something, or are the odds being changed? |
| 04:17:31.44 | Director Phipps | you |
| 04:17:31.46 | David Marlatt | Yes. |
| 04:17:31.69 | Director Phipps | three zone to the MU-29. |
| 04:17:33.99 | David Marlatt | there's no underlying zoning because mu 29 doesn't tell you enough about how to develop It refers to the odds, but the odds have no CW. |
| 04:17:46.20 | Director Phipps | That's a good comment. |
| 04:17:50.05 | David Marlatt | My second comment is on table 10.25-2, there are three sites with no number, but they're identified by APNs on San Carlos Ave at 70 units per acre. Is that an oversight? Because they're not in the housing element, and they're also completely landlocked. |
| 04:18:06.91 | Unknown Staff | What page are you on? |
| 04:18:08.06 | David Marlatt | On table 10.25-2. Thank you. That's the list. |
| 04:18:10.62 | Unknown Staff | Thank you. |
| 04:18:11.01 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:18:13.42 | Unknown Staff | Thank you. |
| 04:18:13.44 | Kristina Feller | The sites are in the housing element. |
| 04:18:13.51 | David Marlatt | The sites are at the housing element. Attachment three. Attachment three, which has the list of applicable sites, and presumably these are the list of sites that are proposed for rezoning. There are three sites with just an APN and they're completely landlocked. |
| 04:18:33.74 | Beth Thompson | Those sites are in the housing element and the property owner also owns one small piece of property that goes to those sites. They just weren't numbered, but they are in the housing element. |
| 04:18:45.81 | David Marlatt | I know. |
| 04:18:46.79 | Beth Thompson | They were in the adopted housing element and there were no changes to them in the. amended one adopted or recommended for adoption tonight. |
| 04:18:53.03 | David Marlatt | for adoption tonight. They don't appear on the maps that I can see. |
| 04:18:56.98 | Beth Thompson | I'll look that up in a moment |
| 04:19:04.25 | David Marlatt | Because I would think that 70 units per acre is high density for what's essentially landlocked. There is a little bit of a flag lock. |
| 04:19:18.44 | Beth Thompson | They are these sites right here, I believe. Let me zoom in a little bit in case my pointer is not right here. And then this flag lot has the same owner. So it's, right. Thank you. Right there. |
| 04:19:37.72 | David Marlatt | it. |
| 04:19:42.46 | David Marlatt | All right, well, we're not going to reopen the housing element discussion. Okay, so does that have a number, a site number? 10. |
| 04:19:54.32 | Beth Thompson | I believe it is one, I believe it is 110. They had a number and the number came off at one point. And I, we just didn't catch that when we put them in the table. |
| 04:20:02.91 | Director Phipps | Agreed, Beth. I'm looking at a version of the map that has 110 applied to that site. |
| 04:20:10.43 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 04:20:10.45 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 04:20:10.49 | David Marlatt | Okay. |
| 04:20:10.74 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 04:20:10.89 | David Marlatt | And that was in the housing element. |
| 04:20:11.09 | Director Phipps | Thank you. in the world. |
| 04:20:13.76 | David Marlatt | Correct. Okay, then I didn't recognize the site. So I'd like to know, maybe this is more for staff, how the 85%, well, the 85%, 15% rule. So 85%, it says of the site. |
| 04:20:13.96 | Director Phipps | I'm not sure. |
| 04:20:30.65 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Is that maybe better expressed as of the floor area or the building, or is it literally the site? So if I have a 10,000 foot site, I'm expected to have no more than 1,500 square feet of commercial space. And I might have any number of. I'm questioning whether site is what was really intended, the land area. |
| 04:20:54.93 | Beth Thompson | I think you, you were correct in minimum of 85% of the project was what was intended. |
| 04:21:00.66 | David Marlatt | I think it's 85% sight. |
| 04:21:03.29 | Beth Thompson | Right. You are correct on page 16 of 41, it says site. |
| 04:21:08.01 | David Marlatt | which may imply the land area. Thank you. |
| 04:21:12.77 | David Marlatt | All right. |
| 04:21:12.79 | Director Phipps | I believe Beth is agreeing with you. Yes. |
| 04:21:12.97 | Neal Toft | I think that's a good thing. Bye. |
| 04:21:15.94 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 04:21:15.98 | Neal Toft | you |
| 04:21:17.45 | Director Phipps | Um, |
| 04:21:18.04 | Neal Toft | Thank you. So the correct terminology would be of the project as opposed to site? |
| 04:21:24.70 | David Marlatt | Well, I might suggest floor area because we use that terminology for ADUs and for other purposes. And floor area is a defined term in the building code. There's no ambiguity about what a floor area is. |
| 04:21:26.25 | Neal Toft | because we use that terminology L square for AD. |
| 04:21:38.20 | David Marlatt | Okay. I'll move on. I had some other minor questions, but one maybe it's more for Steph is on a site with an existing commercial activity. And I understand that they can continue the commercial activity, but what are the triggers for the for requiring housing development to take place. So for example, if I have the cartelage in building, and I can continue to have that, of course, I understand that, but I can continue to pull permits for tenant improvements, I can expand it as commercial space. At some point, I've demolished or I've changed enough that I have to bring in 85% residential, or what is it thinking on that? |
| 04:22:21.54 | Neal Toft | uh... Can you give me this scenario again? |
| 04:22:25.33 | David Marlatt | Well, if I had a cartelagent building, for example. |
| 04:22:27.58 | Neal Toft | Oh, the cartels. Yeah. |
| 04:22:28.29 | David Marlatt | Yeah, which has, I don't know how many units off the top of my head. And if it was new construction on a fresh site, it would be 15% limited. So they're grandfathered in, so to speak. But can they continue to expand that business? Can they pull tenant improvements? By extension. |
| 04:22:35.21 | Neal Toft | Right. |
| 04:22:42.78 | Neal Toft | By expand, do you mean expand the building? Yeah. |
| 04:22:45.31 | David Marlatt | have more commercial space. Yeah. If they wanted to add more, it could be because it made sense for them. |
| 04:22:49.01 | Neal Toft | Not to the degree that you would be precluding having the 85% of the floor area be residential. So. |
| 04:23:04.74 | David Marlatt | It's more about how do we implement this. |
| 04:23:06.46 | Director Phipps | Well, I would just add for consideration in this discussion, the city has a chapter in its municipal code called Nonconforming Uses and Structures. This is where that chapter would be employed. |
| 04:23:19.40 | David Marlatt | Okay, so then they would potentially get a nonconformity permit or a conformity. |
| 04:23:19.84 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 04:23:19.94 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:23:19.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:23:19.98 | Mike Rogers | then it did. |
| 04:23:23.33 | Director Phipps | But at the end of the day, we have been clear that certain zones allow for certain floors and ceilings of housing density. And staff would just have to kind of evaluate any proposals for expansion that do not add units, for example, on a commercial site to ensure compliance with that section in addition to the housing element. |
| 04:23:39.82 | Unknown | And... |
| 04:23:39.97 | Unknown | and the |
| 04:23:51.31 | David Marlatt | OK, I'm not completely clear on that, but I'm sure you'll work it out in the field. |
| 04:23:57.49 | Neal Toft | And I think to kind of respond to that, it's not going to be – there's not a silver bullet. It's really going to be a matter of if there's significant redevelopment going on on the site or significant expansion, then there's a – or if there's demolition occurring. but to really you know to continue changing tenants that are consistent with the commercial zoning and so on would continue to be allowed. |
| 04:24:28.84 | David Marlatt | Okay. And I'll try to move quickly through this. In table 1028-4, which deals with height, In the H and M49, the heights increased from 32 to 35 feet, but it's still three stories. Was there some thinking about why it has to change three feet, why buildings can be? |
| 04:24:53.02 | Neal Toft | Yeah, I think Beth, there was an explanation of that. We had had that discussion. |
| 04:24:53.04 | David Marlatt | makes you taller |
| 04:24:59.83 | Beth Thompson | We have had HCD consistently want to see, we actually had kept it a foot lower, but they like to see 12 feet per story. So they want to see it be 32 feet, they don't typically find to be adequate for three story buildings. I know in Sausalito, you have a number of three story buildings that are 32 feet. I don't know. However, all of your buildings fall within that threshold. So the 35 feet, it just meets the state's expectations. |
| 04:25:29.42 | David Marlatt | Okay, well, that |
| 04:30:12.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | 20% low-income units on sites designated in the housing element to accommodate very low and low-income units or a minimum of 30% for sites that are not designated in the housing element. But then later in that chart for all of those zones, you're requiring the 20%. |
| 04:30:32.92 | Beth Thompson | 100%. |
| 04:30:34.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So the language here needs to be modified too. I've read this like 20 times and I can't. It needs to, I don't know what, it's gonna be hard to dictate the changes here, but something that we have to get rid of the inconsistencies and go with whatever the intent is. |
| 04:30:43.65 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. |
| 04:30:51.13 | Beth Thompson | Right. Right. |
| 04:31:02.81 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner Luxenberg, should we ask city attorney to maybe start drafting the proposed language to address your your issues while you continue through? |
| 04:31:11.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That would be a great idea. Kylie, can you look at this language and the inconsistency? And the intent is not to require 20% in all of the cases and only require it where it's in the housing element. Is that the idea, Beth? |
| 04:31:28.27 | Beth Thompson | So... So the intent is particularly for sites that are being up zoned to allow the 49, well up zoned, sites that are being given the 49 to 70 units per acre were definitely intended to require 20% lower income or 30% moderate if they're not designated for lower income. And that would be the same across the board, I believe. So let me double check what we said in the housing element related to this and just make sure that they're consistent. And so if you just go on with your other comments, I'll do that for a moment. |
| 04:32:04.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. I have a quick question of Kylie, actually. So what's before us this evening is a zoning change for the ones that are not in the 1022 areas, if I understand this right. That's correct. Okay, so when we get to the ones in the 1022, I just wanna understand where we're going. The ballot question would relieve the restriction on the housing opportunity sites, but the legal question I have is, would the planning commission need to recommend in the city council act on a zoning change in the future for the rest of the sites if the ballot question passed? Or does the ballot question preempt the city council taking action? Is the ballot question actually a zoning amendment? Or does it just remove the restriction that currently exists? And then the planning commission in the future will have to make a recommendation and the city council will have to adopt a similar thing for the additional sites that we're doing this evening. |
| 04:33:11.48 | Director Phipps | My understanding, Commissioner, is that the ballot is the vote and is the rezoning vote. |
| 04:33:18.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so I just, can we have, Kylie, can you confirm that? I just wanna, I believe you, but I just wanna confirm. |
| 04:33:26.11 | Mary Wagner | That is my understanding as well. um, However, ballots can be drafted any number of ways and they can be done. But my understanding is it's going to rezone |
| 04:33:31.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 04:33:31.91 | Unknown | and, |
| 04:33:35.78 | Mary Wagner | And that will be the action that will be taken is simply replacing what was previously adopted by ballot. and putting in a new substituting a new ballot measure that would be the zoning. |
| 04:33:47.32 | Director Phipps | Correct, and that's city's intent. Okay, thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:33:50.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Um, and I have, uh, |
| 04:33:51.52 | Neal Toft | I believe the basic action there will be expanding the list that then goes into this revised text. So, |
| 04:34:00.18 | David Marlatt | So then table 1028.2 will be revised after a successful ballot? Okay. |
| 04:34:07.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The two other questions I have are just typo corrections, which we can do later when we get to a motion. So I'm all set with questions. I mean, I do have a question on this language. One more question on this language that we're trying to fix. So the question is if what it says here that there's a minimum of 20% low income units designated in the housing element to accommodate the very low and low or a minimum of 30%. So the question is, if we change this, what is the minimum, what, if we have that footnote that says they don't have to provide any, what is the minimum they have to provide? What are they going to provide is what I guess we're, we're. Do they have to provide the number that's in the housing element? Do they have to provide? I mean, it's unclear to me what, if we relieve the requirement, do they have to provide any or they have to, they don't have to provide what's in the housing element, that's only suggested, I guess. I'm not clear how this section works in addition to the conflict with the footnote. |
| 04:35:29.41 | Unknown | So, |
| 04:35:34.81 | Beth Thompson | So, First of all, I went back and looked in the general plan and the language there, and there's no requirement for the minimum of 30% moderate for sites that aren't designated to accommodate the very low and low income units. So that would be at your discretion. If you wanted to include that type of requirement, you could. That can be struck, and it could just be a minimum of 20% lower income units. The city does have an inclusionary housing requirement. That's chapter or section 10.40.140 of the municipal code. And that requirement, and I don't recall exactly what it is, so I'm just popping it up, but okay, so 15% of projects that create for or more units have to be available to moderate income households. your new development, if it didn't have to comply with that 20% lower income units would have to comply. with the city's inclusionary housing requirements. And it probably should be clear that the requirements are not additive, that there's not a 20% lower income plus a 15%. moderate income for the inclusionary requirement. |
| 04:36:49.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Um... |
| 04:36:50.67 | Kristina Feller | Help answer. |
| 04:36:52.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, we can get to it when we discuss this. I mean, I think we should just simplify this. Is there a way to simplify this and just require 20% for, not for the 29, because that's not an up zone, but for all the up zones, just require a minimum of 20% and not get into this either or thing? |
| 04:37:11.78 | Beth Thompson | You absolutely could do that. And that's probably consistent with the odds. I will have to look at the language, but I'm guessing the odds when they're applied require 20%. So that would probably. provide for better consistency. |
| 04:37:25.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so we can get to that when we come back. Sure. |
| 04:37:27.78 | Kristina Feller | If staff can just make a note of that, or Beth, if you make a note of that to come back to, so we'll move through this succinctly. Thank you. |
| 04:37:37.38 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner Fowler, any questions? |
| 04:37:38.93 | Kristina Feller | Karen Hollweg, Two super quick questions and i'm on 10.44 point 120 and on page 35 I just wanted a clarification about the 33% density bonus for. Um, senior housing, does it have to be in a designated overlay or is that on any senior housing development? |
| 04:38:07.35 | Director Phipps | I would say the latter, Commissioner. |
| 04:38:09.37 | Kristina Feller | Any senior housing development? Correct. All right, thank you for that. The second question I have... |
| 04:38:10.92 | Director Phipps | Right. |
| 04:38:15.31 | Kristina Feller | is on the following page, on page 36. Um, I'm why, why do we have employee housing agricultural? What is this designation? Do we, we don't really have farms here. |
| 04:38:32.05 | Beth Thompson | So employee housing agricultural actually relates to any agricultural uses, which include fishery related uses, which could include your waterfront uses, I believe. |
| 04:38:49.26 | Kristina Feller | Okay, well, I appreciate that clarification. Is that spelled out somewhere that If, |
| 04:39:00.60 | Beth Thompson | If you dig into the government code section, which also cross references, it may be the labor code for the definition. So if you dig into the state code, you will get there eventually. |
| 04:39:14.97 | Neal Toft | I think we have this. |
| 04:39:16.30 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:39:16.31 | Neal Toft | THE FAMILY IS |
| 04:39:16.48 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:39:16.52 | Neal Toft | And I think we have this included as an abundance of caution given the state law. |
| 04:39:16.74 | Kristina Feller | And |
| 04:39:21.85 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, no, fair enough, and I appreciate the clarification. It's probably. |
| 04:39:21.90 | Neal Toft | you THE END OF THE END OF THE probably not going to come into play. |
| 04:39:24.90 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:39:25.80 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:39:26.26 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:39:26.31 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. Okay, no questions for me. Thank you, everybody. |
| 04:39:28.82 | David Marlatt | Thank you. very quick comment on just for clarification on table 1028-2 um based on the previous uh session and what we voted on uh we need a separate motion to remove uh spencer and 420 litho from this table and to basically down zone um bulkley or |
| 04:39:30.44 | Nastassya Saad | Quick moment. |
| 04:39:53.73 | Director Phipps | I would say that that's a – I would like to get Kylie's feedback on that, exactly how we handle the motion as related to the zoning code, general plan amendments. It could just be in one fell swoop, you know, as already approved or as approved in the resolution for the housing element. I'd defer to the attorney on that. |
| 04:40:12.53 | Mary Wagner | for that. |
| 04:40:16.12 | Mary Wagner | I apologize, I was looking up the code section trying to answer the previous question. Could you repeat the question or staff could just- |
| 04:40:22.48 | David Marlatt | David Myers, How we're going to proceed here table 10 dash 28 dash to which is the list of hos sites includes the Spencer and for 20 little, for example, which we voted to remove from consideration. So the table will presumably be the updated. Does it require a specific motion specific motion. |
| 04:40:46.68 | Mary Wagner | No, I would say that you could direct staff to, you know, You direct actually recommend that the city council make appropriate changes to the zoning to be consistent with your recommendations or direct staff to do so I don't think that you need to go through individually and do the staff work to identify where we need to make changes to the zoning code. |
| 04:41:08.69 | David Marlatt | Sure, that's fine. Thank you. |
| 04:41:09.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. I'm confused. I'm not seeing those in the table. Is that a different version of it? |
| 04:41:15.65 | David Marlatt | In attachment three, with the map and the table, |
| 04:41:20.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Attachment three. Thank you. |
| 04:41:23.97 | Kristina Feller | That's table two. |
| 04:41:25.26 | David Marlatt | Table 2-28-2. |
| 04:41:27.96 | Kristina Feller | The last page of attachment three. |
| 04:41:30.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's from... |
| 04:41:31.87 | David Marlatt | Yeah. And these are the list of HIV sites that do not require |
| 04:41:36.78 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, it's actually the same map we saw. |
| 04:41:39.99 | Beth Thompson | Attachment three is for the modified housing element. If you look at attachment who I think that'll be more similar to what you took action on. |
| 04:41:50.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | There are two versions of this. That version goes away, because we're not doing them. |
| 04:41:58.18 | Nastassya Saad | So attachment to. |
| 04:41:59.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | to. |
| 04:41:59.16 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 04:41:59.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:41:59.36 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 04:41:59.99 | Nastassya Saad | A to resolution. |
| 04:42:01.96 | Beth Thompson | we get look at attachment to and that will have the list of sites that's consistent with the amended housing element, but not the modified version. |
| 04:42:12.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. But to your point, we do need to remove Site 63. |
| 04:42:19.78 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, same concept of... |
| 04:42:21.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | how we'll go through. Same concept, but I wanted to point out you're on a different version because we don't want that. |
| 04:42:21.23 | Kristina Feller | how we'll go through it. |
| 04:42:22.38 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 04:42:22.41 | Kristina Feller | So, |
| 04:42:22.56 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 04:42:22.58 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:42:22.60 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 04:42:22.83 | Kristina Feller | I'm sorry. |
| 04:42:26.58 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, I think we're good here. Okay, no more questions. I'd like to open this up for public comment. |
| 04:42:28.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 04:42:28.39 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 04:42:32.08 | Nastassya Saad | Turn to you, Director Phipps. |
| 04:42:33.80 | Director Phipps | Looking to the house for interested speakers. Anybody interested in speaking? Sybil Boutelier, welcome. You will have three minutes to speak. Thank you for being here. |
| 04:42:49.46 | Sybil Boutillier | Thank you. Good evening planning commissioners. I want to thank, especially Commissioner Luxembourg for bringing up the senior housing element issue. And I'm Sybil Boutillier. I'm Chair of H-20 South Salido. And this is something that we've been working on from the very beginning of the housing element redo for the last 10 years or however long it's been. But I'm wondering if this is the section where it's appropriate to bring up and it possibly recommend adding in a senior overlay and or a visitability ordinance, both of which have been discussed at various times, and both of which would be appropriate. In South Salido, we're more than 42% are seniors. And as of the 2023 American Community Survey of the Census, we have more than 830 seniors with disabilities. And so, in South Salido and disabilities are one of the elements called out by HCB. And so being able to accommodate them as we talk about in the general plan in LU 1.2.3, excuse me, 1.20, where it states that the city will provide policies to support the senior community for mobility, sensory and other limitations. I think it makes sense to be serious and actually add a program of either a senior overlay or a um or the visitability ordinance such as was adopted in petluma for example we have all their documents their modeling which we which we could quickly adjust if that would help time-wise, if that's the way we wanted to go. And the most important element, there's a number of elements, the most important element that is called out in both these policies is the policy a accessible route into and through all dwellings. And living currently now myself in one of the Rotary housing sites, I've been in South Salido since 1986 and have been living there for more than 12 years now in that particular rental unit. I've seen many people have to leave South Salido because they were living on the second floor where they had to use stairs and there's nothing else in South Salido to accommodate them. Thank you. |
| 04:45:55.93 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Sybil, for your comments. Looking to the chamber for any additional interested speakers. I am seeing none at this time. I will look to the Zoom application. Seeing no hands raised, and I will give it back to you, Chair. |
| 04:46:11.93 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. We'll close the public comment. Bring it back up here. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 04:46:19.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I have some typos and other corrections. I can state those so we can incorporate those into a motion at some point. I've got whereas number seven again. It should say the same thing as the other one, which should be former site 85 and site 209 and site 63. On page one and attachment two in the last line, it talks about some, I think, election in 2024. That should be 2025, since we didn't do it. |
| 04:46:59.65 | Director Phipps | Apologies, Commissioner, could you please clarify where that typo exists? |
| 04:47:05.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So attachment two, Um... And. Catchments. Page one, attachment two, and the last line. Page one, attachment. |
| 04:47:26.01 | David Marlatt | He's... Thank you. last night. |
| 04:47:30.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I've got so many items open. |
| 04:47:33.81 | Kristina Feller | It's page one of seven on that attachment, and it's the second to last word on that page. It says various points during 2024, semicolon, and you're saying it should be 2025 instead of 2024. |
| 04:47:50.55 | Director Phipps | Understood. Also the seventh. Also the seventh. |
| 04:47:54.67 | Nastassya Saad | Whereas... The seventh where I think |
| 04:47:55.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:47:56.06 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 04:47:56.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And then just to do it in table, |
| 04:47:56.22 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 04:48:01.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | In table 1028-2, parcel number 63 should be deleted. |
| 04:48:12.38 | Neal Toft | Say that again one more time. |
| 04:48:13.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Table 1028-2, site number 63, 522 Olive Street should be deleted. |
| 04:48:26.96 | Director Phipps | This is consistent with the motion previously made this evening. Or excuse me, the rest of the time is done. |
| 04:48:33.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right. |
| 04:48:33.43 | Unknown | Excuse me. |
| 04:48:33.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, we probably should have a catch-all, but the more we can flag them for you, then you can get them done. |
| 04:48:41.71 | Director Phipps | I think if it's okay with the commission, I would prefer the commission provide changes that were not enunciated in the previous resolution first, and then perhaps we could do a catch-all or address them as the commission wishes. |
| 04:48:58.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so the one I would make a change on is what we've been talking about and we asked legal to address, but in 1028-090, all of these languages, are very confusing. I think all of these suggest say you have to have a minimum of 20% affordable housing and get rid of all this. If it's in there or if it identifies it, it just, the table has 20% affordable housing. Why don't we just go with that? Isn't that the simplest thing to do? |
| 04:49:28.61 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I would just get a recommendation, staff, legal, and Let's go from there. |
| 04:49:35.61 | Beth Thompson | I think you can delete the phrase in that first sentence of each of those paragraphs one through six, the phrase that says, or a minimum of 30% moderate income units for sites that are not designated in the housing element to accommodate very low and low income units. And if you delete that, then that will. only allow the 49 units per acre, the 70 units per acre, the lab residential for sites that provide the 20% of lower income units. |
| 04:50:06.34 | Andrew Junius | But that would also leave the 15% for the ones that aren't affected by this at all, right? |
| 04:50:12.48 | Beth Thompson | this would not, if you delete that language, you would now require just, you would just say if you're If you're in the overlay zones, you'll provide 20% lower income units. And I think that will be consistent with the odds. Brandon or Neil, If the odds are being used, do they have that language in them? |
| 04:50:30.91 | David Marlatt | I don't believe the odds of any language. Related to affordability, okay. |
| 04:50:32.99 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 04:50:33.00 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 04:50:33.04 | Beth Thompson | related to a family. |
| 04:50:33.61 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 04:50:33.71 | Beth Thompson | Okay. |
| 04:50:34.24 | Andrew Junius | But Beth, didn't you earlier say that in our basic inclusionary ordinance in the existing code, it's 15%. So in other words, it's 15% unless you've been upzoned through the housing element process and you're in an opportunity site, right? |
| 04:50:52.43 | Sophia Collier | Right. |
| 04:50:52.48 | Andrew Junius | Right? Okay, that's not going to change. |
| 04:50:52.83 | Sophia Collier | Okay. |
| 04:50:56.26 | Andrew Junius | and I don't support any change of that. |
| 04:50:58.72 | Beth Thompson | So you want, so yes, that wouldn't change for any sites that are not opportunity sites. |
| 04:51:03.44 | Andrew Junius | Great, thank you. |
| 04:51:04.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I ask a question on this? Why can't we just simply say, I'll just take one of them, let's say number six, mixed use 70. This district provides for a maximum of 70 units per acre, period. This district requires a minimum of 50 dwelling units per acre, period. And then a minimum of 85% of the site is required to be developed with residential uses and then use the table 1028-4 which has across the board the 20% minimum Why do we need that? It's sort of saying you get the maximum because you have this low this percentage They need to provide the percentage anyways. Why doesn't that language just confuse things? |
| 04:51:04.95 | Andrew Junius | That's right. |
| 04:51:11.56 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 04:51:53.77 | Beth Thompson | You could just remove it and leave it to the table. |
| 04:51:56.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 04:51:58.27 | Kristina Feller | So sorry, you mean just defer to the table and remove the language, right? |
| 04:52:02.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But we would leave the language for the maximum and the minimum. |
| 04:52:05.90 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 04:52:06.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Then eliminate any reference. All the extraneous stuff. |
| 04:52:07.81 | Kristina Feller | All the extraneous stuff. Yeah, got it, got it. Okay, thank you. |
| 04:52:12.08 | David Marlatt | And is there a minimum one unit? So for example, if you've got three units, do you round up or down? Or is it 20% minimum one? What's the intention? |
| 04:52:25.26 | Unknown Staff | I think you round up. I think we were. |
| 04:52:26.98 | David Marlatt | It's a policy of whatever we decide. |
| 04:52:30.98 | Unknown Staff | I would round out. |
| 04:52:32.17 | David Marlatt | OK, so minimum one, 20%, minimum one. |
| 04:52:36.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:52:36.02 | David Marlatt | Right. |
| 04:52:36.26 | Unknown | Roundup. |
| 04:52:36.61 | David Marlatt | Thank you. OK, just to clarify. |
| 04:52:38.82 | Unknown Staff | Yeah. That's a good question. |
| 04:52:41.54 | Kristina Feller | Anything else, Commissioner Luxenberg? |
| 04:52:43.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Not at this time. I'll reread this when we get to a motion. |
| 04:52:43.80 | Kristina Feller | We'll be right back. |
| 04:52:47.26 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. I think we're nearing there. Any, Commissioner Marlott, any other points of discussion? |
| 04:52:52.56 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:52:52.95 | David Marlatt | I don't think so. |
| 04:52:53.79 | Kristina Feller | OK, Vice Chair? OK, do you want to go ahead then? |
| 04:52:57.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sure. Let's see. Um, |
| 04:53:16.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So, um, |
| 04:53:25.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I make a motion to approve the resolution of the Planning Commission recommendation pursuant to the programmatic environment. Oh, for proven to the programmatic environmental impact report, the Sausalito amended six cycle housing element, the adoption of an ordinance amending municipal code, title 10 zoning ordinance, and the zoning map of the city of Sausalito with the following modifications. The change in the whereas number seven as discussed earlier regarding former site 85, site 209 and site 63 changed to that 2024 to 2025 on page one on attachment two and changes in uh 10 28 0 90 uh for one through six uh with the following template that the staff can arise accordingly for i'll do number six mixed use 70 should now read h mixed use 70 HO-M70. This district provides for a maximum of 70 units per acre period. This district requires a minimum 50 dwelling units per acre period. A minimum of 85% of the site is required to be developed with residential uses. That last sentence would only be for the four, five, and six, obviously would not be for one, two, and three. And the one, two, and three, the language at the end would say, and requires 100% residential usage. |
| 04:55:11.29 | Kristina Feller | So, 100%. |
| 04:55:11.63 | David Marlatt | Yeah. |
| 04:55:11.68 | Kristina Feller | the |
| 04:55:15.07 | Kristina Feller | those homes Okay. Excellent. |
| 04:55:17.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I don't know if there's any other change. |
| 04:55:19.15 | Kristina Feller | for going through all that. |
| 04:55:20.32 | David Marlatt | There are a few other tweaks that I suggested that I don't know if you want to put this part of the motion. For example, when we were referring to 85% of the site, that should be the floor area. |
| 04:55:32.03 | Unknown | Yes, please. Yeah, please, Alice. |
| 04:55:32.57 | Unknown | Please. |
| 04:55:32.94 | David Marlatt | Yeah. There was another thing I just picked up also in the development standards just above 1028-4, mixed uses. It says mixed uses that do not exceed 15%. I think you want to say non-residential uses because mixed is, by definition, non-residential and residential. |
| 04:55:53.88 | Nastassya Saad | Can you clarify that one more time? |
| 04:55:54.78 | David Marlatt | So it's mixed uses that do not exceed 15%. Well, residential is mixed with commercial. So non-residential uses do not exceed 15%. |
| 04:56:08.16 | Kristina Feller | Where? |
| 04:56:09.15 | David Marlatt | Where are you looking? Under Subsection D2. |
| 04:56:09.88 | Kristina Feller | looking. |
| 04:56:14.71 | David Marlatt | What page. page. Uh-huh. What are the page numbers? 18 and 41. Thank you. |
| 04:56:27.63 | David Marlatt | um, Also, I'm not quite sure how staff wants to handle this because the site 47, 300 locust, and eventually some of the water sites are currently zoned CW and the Title 10 makes reference to the odds for certain setbacks and other requirements, but the odds themselves do not have a CW designation. |
| 04:56:48.67 | Neal Toft | Thank you. So I'm actually I'm confused by that. The odds is not specific to zoning districts. |
| 04:56:50.73 | David Marlatt | I'm sorry. |
| 04:56:58.75 | David Marlatt | Well, there are tables for setbacks and massing and building types, which can be applied to certain zoning districts. So for example, the multiplex cannot be used in an R2-2.5. Okay, so there's no CW referenced in odds. So you don't know, like if you were doing a project on 300 |
| 04:57:14.76 | Unknown | like, if you're not, |
| 04:57:17.97 | David Marlatt | a locus, for example, and you had to select a building type and a facade type, the odds wouldn't tell you what was available because there's no CW. |
| 04:57:28.18 | Director Phipps | You've been pretty deeply involved in the drafting of this document. Do you have a recommendation? |
| 04:57:33.17 | David Marlatt | I think we just add CW to the odds. |
| 04:57:39.79 | David Marlatt | but I'll take it. It seems clear to me. OK. We can have a motion in the next section. |
| 04:57:40.29 | Director Phipps | Clear to me. |
| 04:57:46.72 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 04:57:46.74 | Kristina Feller | Is staff clear on all of these points? |
| 04:57:46.76 | David Marlatt | Okay. |
| 04:57:51.11 | Director Phipps | Unfortunately some of the earlier points I would appreciate some clarification just on the exact where I would hate to not carry forward certain comments received from commissioners and I apologize, the hour is late and I may not be as sharp as I was at 630. |
| 04:58:11.78 | Nastassya Saad | Are those the clarifications you're looking for from Commissioner Luxembourg or Commissioner Marlott? |
| 04:58:18.55 | Director Phipps | I would, let's see, as related to the addition of the CW to the odds, I think that that's pretty clear. As related to Commissioner Merlot's comments related to mixed uses that do not exceed 15%, confirming that Beth or Neil is clear on that. Got it. Thank you very much, Beth. When referring to the 85% of the site, we should be referring to floor area and not site. I think that that's pretty clear, and we can make sure that that's reflected throughout. Then we get to the ones where I'm a little bit less confident. Changes in 10.28.090, mixed use 70. Oh, actually, this is my, no, this this is, actually I think Commissioner Luxenberg did a good job of reporting out how he would like that section to be read and I have jotted that down. Let's see. |
| 04:58:39.15 | Beth Thompson | Got it. Thank you. |
| 04:59:10.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:59:10.96 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 04:59:16.01 | Nastassya Saad | have some little ones like the whereas |
| 04:59:18.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We also have the language you have, you wanted to add earlier in the PowerPoint. |
| 04:59:26.66 | Nastassya Saad | the government |
| 04:59:27.10 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 04:59:27.18 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, the government code. |
| 04:59:27.20 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 04:59:27.35 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 04:59:27.37 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 04:59:27.42 | Nastassya Saad | THE END OF |
| 04:59:27.47 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Oh, yes, my section. Yes, yes, I would very much like to include that. |
| 04:59:28.62 | Kristina Feller | yesterday. Yes. |
| 04:59:30.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 04:59:33.07 | Kristina Feller | So that's part of the motion? |
| 04:59:34.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's part of the boat. We'll add that to the motion. Yeah. |
| 04:59:41.53 | Director Phipps | So just to clarify, that would be an amendment to table 10.22-2. |
| 04:59:52.14 | Director Phipps | as well as the commercial land use table. |
| 04:59:59.14 | Director Phipps | and just so I read it correctly into the record, 410.24-410.24. |
| 05:00:10.18 | Director Phipps | 10.24-2, excuse me. |
| 05:00:18.82 | Director Phipps | to carry forward the footnote, and I think that we can read it as shown on the last slide of the presentation provided. |
| 05:00:27.54 | Kristina Feller | Sure. |
| 05:00:31.78 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. I think we're as clear as we're going to be. So that would be the motion. Commissioner Luxembourg, that's all added in. Commissioner Marlott, is there a second? I'll second. Okay. |
| 05:00:37.19 | Unknown | So. |
| 05:00:44.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:00:44.82 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 05:00:44.92 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:00:45.03 | Kristina Feller | . Thank you. |
| 05:00:48.86 | Director Phipps | And I will call Rul, Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Saad. Yes. Motion passes. Congratulations. |
| 05:00:54.51 | Kristina Feller | you |
| 05:00:54.56 | Unknown | TODAY. |
| 05:00:58.27 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. Congratulations. |
| 05:01:03.92 | Nastassya Saad | And now we go on to... Item 4C, this is a public hearing and recommendation on amendments to the Municipal Code adopting Title 10A, the Objective Design and Development Standards. |
| 05:01:19.96 | Neal Toft | Okay. Thank you, Chair Saad. I'm going to get up a quick PowerPoint, but I'm going to go through this very quickly. I'm hoping we're getting this particular item boiled down to a few topical items. So, number one, Bob Brown, who's been the The primary consultant on this is had a pre-scheduled vacation, unfortunately. for me and he couldn't be here tonight. Um, so I'm taking this on. Um, I'm gonna go through, we do have all the slides for all the background, why there's odds, et cetera, et cetera. But I'm gonna run through the, I'm gonna pass those by. And I would like to just get, take a quick look at slide number seven. which Bob had updated. Yeah, this one. Thank you. One of the frustrating facts of life is that, as mentioned, density bonus is making a lot of these efforts sort of, I don't know if I'd say futile, but unfortunately, San Rafael, a number of other cities throughout Marin County are finding their best attempts at odds are not necessarily panning out to, the big projects, which really use density bonus to go past their issues. I'm going to, pass up. We've really discussed most of this in the prior study sessions. So what I want to do is get to couple items On page 11, we had planning commission feedback from a study session concerned some of the frontage types, concerned that... When you have a zero setbacks from sidewalk for landscaping, concern that bays are not adequately defined, concern historic district regulations use different height measurements than the rest of the zoning code. There is concern that the current draft odds provide less certainty of the resulting design. than the former version based on the Marin County toolkit. I'm not sure. We also had some feedback regarding the proposed view preservation software. It certainly is a very useful and innovative tool. concern it was not likely to be completed and fully tested within our timeframe. concerned that was representative of existing views from properties rather than accurate representation. And a concern it may not meet the state law definition of objective standard that requires an effective standard on the proposed project be knowable and advanced to an applicant since the use of the software. and subsequent modifications to a proposed project fails to initially comply would require back and forth with the with the city. So going to slide 13. Um, the ViewSync essentially can... consists of two forms of software. There's a ViewSync interactive design tool. You've seen that demonstrated. It's been the primary tool to kind of show how views can be seen. This can conduct planning level analysis, site visioning, and possibly assist with achieving HCD compliance. There's also the ViewSync compliance web application that can serve to evaluate compliance with That would be intended to serve to evaluate compliance with the draft view standards prescribed in Chapter 3. The interactive design tool appears to be fairly ready for use. The compliance web application is not fully developed and evaluated to determine its current functionality and impacts on housing development. the peer review group, I did submit a revised Chapter 3, so going to the next slide. This has been retitled slightly to public and private view standards. It involves several changes to the draft standards for the purpose of scaling back the extent by which projects are assessed for view impacts and streamlining the review process. So it exempts one and two story projects from U-Impact review, identify specific deficiencies to allow the user to facilitate adjustments. And it attempts to recognize that alternative methods can be employed where they're really possible and sensible. The peer review group is here. They will be making a presentation on these revisions. You've seen a slide was provided as an attachment along with the revised draft revisions to the Chapter 3. On the next slide, a brief discussion of Chapter 6, which is the downtown historic preservation standards. One issue that was identified, we've really worked with the peer review group. We've really tried to upgrade the standards. One concern we continue to have is a restriction, the changing the height of the measurement of height so in no case shall the overall height Exceed 32 feet as measured from the midpoint of each property line that fronts the street. This is a variation, deviates from our standard measurement, which is based on measuring height according to the slope of the site. we have concerns with this approach. It raises potential issues with state law. that precludes adopting more stringent zoning regulations and could be particularly restrictive for sites with multiple street frontages. We haven't included an option in the draft resolution for the Commission to recommend odds be modified so that the measurement of height is consistent with the current zoning code. So in conclusion, next slide, please. We recommend the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing and adopt a resolution recommending the City Council adopt a new Title 10A of the Municipal Code as proposed or subject to specific changes to the Municipal Code amendments of the odds as recommended by the majority of the Planning Commission. We have provided a draft resolution. to adopt the new Title 10A. We have two following modifications recommended that the Chapter 3 be basically removed at this time and held in reserve. due to the city's tight timeline and that this be reserved for future use. And also that the section 10A.06.0502A be amended to make the measurement of height consistent with the rest of the zoning code. We have in the staff report identified alternatives. The planning commission could certainly adopt the resolution recommending inclusion of the Chapter 3 as it's proposed or inclusion of Chapter 3 as revised and presented to you with the planning materials, with the agenda materials. Or you could adopt a resolution recommending inclusion of modifications to either of those versions of the chapter. And of course, any other recommendations for changes to the odds as proposed. |
| 05:09:28.39 | Director Phipps | And thank you for that, Neil. I'll just add to the record. Yeah, I think that you'll see that the resolution provided does provide a recommendation that Chapter 3 be removed. This particular section of text was included in the resolution prior to staff's receipts of this, we'll call it an amended view sync chapter. So just like the other resolutions, we've tried to build in as much flexibility for the commission this evening as possible. You will hear a presentation from the peer review group shortly. If you like what you hear, you may very well add it and amend the staff provided resolution, and we can take that to city council. So just making sure that commission's aware of the flexibility available to them. Thank you. |
| 05:10:07.55 | Unknown | And, |
| 05:10:19.53 | Neal Toft | We've asked that they try to keep their presentation as concise as possible. Thank you. and the energy. |
| 05:10:26.06 | Michael Rex | Well, I'm Michael Rex representing the city appointed peer review group to revisit odds to try to develop a way to protect our views in town and historic preservation, enhance privacy protection. |
| 05:10:26.08 | Neal Toft | line. |
| 05:10:45.62 | Michael Rex | and architectural standards. We've been at it for six months. Here we are. And it's about 20 people. Plus, we had committees that were manned with volunteers that went beyond the city-appointed peer group. MR. So I have a slide show. I'm Michael Rex, by the way, architect. We all volunteered our time. So we have a slide presentation. And I'm gonna flip through some of these slides you already know about and focus on the real important elements. First one, I think we all know how important view protection is in our town and how we cannot be without it. Next slide, please. So I won't go into all the detail. I think we can agree with that. We were... pretty disturbed with this idea of eliminating chapter three and deferring it for some later date. But yet we heard loud and clear that we have to have an ironclad ODDS document that would be approved by HCD. And so since your last study session, we hustled. We went back to the drawing board And tonight we're proposing revisions to the view protections methodology to and we want to show you with some changes. that. We can say without a shadow of a doubt, that we're going to comply with the state standards of not reducing density or floor area beyond what's required by the state mandate. So we're hoping that you'll consider tonight, after you hear this presentation, that you'll keep Chapter 3 in, but as with the amendments we're proposing tonight. Next slide. I'm going to skip the next two slides. I just want you to know that we have wording. Wait, stay right there. Go back one, Neil, if you would. One more, please. I think we went too far. Yeah, hold it right there. The first two that we just skipped provide the revised wording in odds, but I'm going to explain that wording. I just want you to know that we've actually provided new wording. In terms of... This slide that you see here, the... I have the right one here in front of me. Yeah. Um, We have these questions of view regulation that open. We absolutely have to meet. No one is disagreeing with this, OK? That the standards has to be objective, measurable, known in advance. And it doesn't reduce flurry or density than what was allowed in 2018. There's no debate of that. It has to do these things. And that compliance is... easily accessible, and that we have a streamlined approach to approvals. So next slide. We all agree with this. We haven't changed the standard though. that new developments can only block 5% of iconic views that would be Raccoon Straits, Angel Island, San Francisco. They cannot block more than 10% of water views from other properties. That has not changed. Um, These terms are very simple, completely understandable, totally measurable, and known in advance with the modeling and the view sync that we've created. When you look at all the title. 10A standards. These are probably the most simplest of all of them. So for clarity's sake, that's a good thing. Next slide. Please. This is the nitty gritty of the change we've made. We're gonna exempt from any view protection analysis. All one stories. projects throughout town. We don't even have to look at it. They're exempt, okay? When we get to housing, uh, opportunity sites. We're going to exempt any two-story development. We're not going to worry about viewpoints. blockage if it's only two stories. And you'll see that when we do that, Almost all. development opportunity in Sausalito. will not reduce flora or density from this housing element you just adopted, or the flora that was allowed in 2018. And we can, show that mathematically tonight. And that's what I will do. right now. That's not to say, though, that we're going to limit development, told me two stories. If you go on, to three stories on a housing opportunity site, then you're subject to view. standards. But we have the modeling tool to shape that building so it will comply. So... I'm going to show you the mathematics behind this and why you should be very comfortable with these changes. that an HCD should be very comfortable. Next slide, please. I'm gonna show you three charts. This is for the housing opportunity sites. And let me see if I got a pointer here. What we're doing is we're taking all 42 sites, okay, that's in the housing element, And the first table is the square footage. It's probably a little too small for you to see. for the sites. The second table is for coverage. We're going to only cover 50% of the loss. Okay. That allows room for on-site parking, landscaping. the separation between buildings. So that, we think, is conservative. The next column is the density. uh... and And then the number of units fall out of housing element. So, We bumped up the square footage per unit from what was discussed as 750, which many of us thought was too small, to 900 square feet. And that will give us extra room for common areas. which could be maybe 15% or 20%. of a floria. in multi-unit housing for hallways and elevators and things like that. So we think we're being conservative by only covering 50 percent of the lot. We think we're being, conservative by bumping up the unit size. and responding to concerns that were raised. And what we find is when you divide the density by the footprint of the building. All these shaded areas which represent three quarters of your 42 opportunity sites can comply with the F-A-R. that were mandated with Within two stories. only a quarter of the sites that are not shaded here would have to exceed two stories. And again, they can. It's just they would be subject to the view Robert M. Standards And with the modeling tool that's been proposed, they can shape the building. to the point that we think it, it could comply. So the next slide, please. Then we looked at all R1 zones. And we didn't take specific sites. What we did was we established a whole range of property wets. property depths. And, determined likely size of those parcels. And we looked at 25 different sizes. which we think would cover the majority of properties that go from 3,000 square feet to 2200, a broad range of what you would find in Sausalito. And then we propose setbacks, not of five feet, at seven and a half feet. because some of these projects will be deeper than 40 feet, And those setbacks will have to increase. So we think the setbacks are conservative. And then we went with the standard 15-foot rear yard. which isn't always the case. certainly in commercial zones. And we added A deduct. of 225 square feet of open space, which is in your housing element. for outdoor areas and whatnot. Uh, And, When you deduct that from Uh, The parcel size, you end up getting a buildable size. in this column. And when you divide the buildable size by the area of the lot, you get your FAR. and all the shaded ones which represents 60 percent all fit within an R1, the FAR of.65, by staying within the one story. And The ones that are not shaded, the 40%, would have to go higher and then be subject to The View Sync. So again, the vast majority of them would automatically comply in the R1. Next slide, please. Then we looked at, We ran that model. for all the zoning districts in town. And all the shaded ones would automatically comply if we remove, From any view consideration, one stories on all the lots in town and two story structures on our opportunity sites. We think mathematically we can show that 90% of these properties will automatically comply by reducing when we apply. the view protection. So next slide, and I'll get to the end here quite quickly. So is the process easy? Did we miss one? Process streamlined? No? No, okay. Wait a minute. I must have missed that one. It's certainly streamlined and easy. There are also other methods that could be considered. We talked about there are some sites we can identify that are so hidden in trees, they'll never, ever block views. Is that subjective or objective? We could identify those in advance and memorialize it in rioting. Um, Next slide. Uh, Certainly doesn't work. uh... We actually want to demonstrate. We don't have time since. our last meeting with you. But we brought in an architect, Jerome Christensen. He's the one that modeled a specific building using odds for historic preservation. The city has now retained its services to do a model of a selected opportunity site. and apply this new standard. to show you and show the public, just like, Commissioner Feller was talking about MLK we're actually modeling national site. to show compliance physically in a CAD model. We can't show that to you because he's working on it right now. but we'll be showing it to the city council, which we think will give the console. even more comfort that this chapter can stay in as amended and be acceptable to HGD. Thank you. What we're still working on is the app. The view sync compliance would have to be run by a concierge or an outside consultant that the city would identify. and an applicant would retain. But this app that we're working on currently It could be done by any planner. with their desktop. which will make it even more flexible. as a design tool as they're designing and a compliance tool. to test compliance, okay? So this is my last slide. And... So, you know, questions asked, is the standard going to meet HCD? We think with this revision, it should give you comfort level that it has every chance of doing so. Is it going to reduce FAR below 2018? No. Is the inflammation consistent with our streamlining? We have just streamlined it even more. And, Is VUSIN going to work? We already have shown that. In fact, Sophia can show you one more update tonight, very briefly in five minutes. And I'm going to conclude, I'm going to conclude, with these last comments that This volunteer group has spent over a thousand hours. We've had over two dozen people working on this for six months and and We want you to appreciate and recognize that work, but not just thank us. Incorporate that work. Don't sideline it. We want you to keep chapter 3 in. that goes to HCD. give us a chance to see if they accept it. We'll never give them we will never give any of us that chance if you don't send it to them. Okay. And the saucepan cannot be without a view protection standard. I WANTED TO TAKE A LOOK AT uh, and that If we defer it, Who knows when we'll get it back on the table. How many years from now? And what, could get built in the interim. ever regret. So, I recommend an asset I, You remove item one on... section four of page five of the draft resolution that says remove chapter three. I'm not sure if I'm not sure if What I'd. ask is that you replace it with keeping Chapter 3 in as we propose with the revisions that I just demonstrated. I'm here for further questions, and Sophia wanted to give you a very brief update update on the latest improvements and developments on ViewSync application and compliance. Okay? |
| 05:27:13.94 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:27:14.72 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 05:27:15.06 | Kristina Feller | You can bring Sophia up. Thank you. |
| 05:27:16.83 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 05:27:16.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:27:16.90 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 05:27:17.15 | Sophia Collier | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 05:27:18.33 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:27:22.01 | Sophia Collier | Well, I forecast that I would be presenting at midnight. And so I tell you, it's a new day on VIEW compliance. So let's get... And I'll sing Midnight at the Oasis to date me. Okay, let's, May, can you put my slides up, please? |
| 05:27:59.76 | Sophia Collier | Okay, so... First of all, I think a great presentation from Michael. The key concept there is a fail safe, that by doing this, the analysis that we did previously showed by modeling all of the sites that really two stories is kind of the magic place, that above two stories, okay, they maybe could be a little bit of view impairment, but anything that's below two stories based upon the configuration of our housing element, there's really not much of a problem. So that was the key to the idea of coming up with a fail safe to say, we can meet mathematically the housing element requirements and take off the table the concern that HCD is going to be concerned about. Karen Hollweg, about this, so the software is what i'm going to talk about and view sync interactive which i've showed here several times, I know, and as it's been caught coming along. Karen Hollweg, We have made tremendous progress on it and basically we finished it on on just about at the end of the last year so we've demoed it for the team at the city several times we've demoed it here and we've done it to Council so next slide please. So we're just going to look at Altamira. So we had found 68 units. I know that's more than the 67 we were looking at before, the 51. But basically we had said, okay, if we have the HRSA 67 units, next slide please. So view sync analysis or any kind of view shot analysis begins with a defined viewpoint. So you can see the defined viewpoint up there on Harrison. Next slide, please. And then once we have the viewpoint, we have a view shed. Unfortunately, this slide is not. I don't know if you can make that a little smaller to show the full slide. Um, But in any event, if you look on this slide, you'll see that we're looking out the window. And we're also having the numeric values of what we're seeing there. So this is kind of the base situation. So for example, for the water Bay view, we see it's 25.8% of that blue area is 25.8% of that area. Next slide, please. So now we're going to look at, so that's our base. Let's go to the next slide, please. So now let's look at an alternate. So let's say, for example, it was one story taller. So you can see the orange area in the window. is represented by now that the, we can see that the Housing 70, which is what it was there, it was the eight, now that's 8.9% of the view. So next slide, please. So here you can see, so you can look and see that that orange area is shown the numeric value of the orange area. So if we had a different height on there or a different configuration, boom, we're going to get a different number there. And that orange area shows the amount that that is. And this is the magic of it. Basically, we're looking out the window. From that point, And then we're seeing a numeric value of how much of the water view is that we're going to be by any sort of obstruction that's in there. So it's very accurate software. It does a fantastic job of numerically identifying what the interaction is between the elements Thank you. So that is basically how it works. So let's go to the next slide, please. So the compliance process, same thing I've mentioned many times. Developer presents the model. contractor performs a view sync site reviews and perform a compliance report. That's basically, that's it. That's the whole thing right there. And that is a very workable way to start. And that we can, my vision is the compliance app, which will be a web app. So people can upload their own model and take a look at it and get this kind of information. But with the interactive, it's all available and highly accurate. So that's basically the program. It's ready to go. We've developed it. We put a lot of work into it, Michael mentioned. Happy to do so, you know in support of this wonderful community that I truly love And I want to help people have the views that they Treasurer here that are part of our community, and I think this is a way to do it. We've taken the HCD issue off the table with a compliance fail safe, and we feel like we have a great compliance app that can show how it will work. and that we are ready to go. I'll just briefly show, just let me see. Next slide, please. So this would have been, okay, this would be, let's say, for example, we had some of the Altamira that we're trying to avoid. That would have been a 98.2% view blockage in that instance. So next slide, please. Next slide please. So two supplemental slides. This one is we modeled the entire housing element. We came up with view compliant models for the entire housing element using using interactive. Next slide please. And as you can see, we came up here at the dashboard. we came up with 825 units. So basically, I think that we have a very strong case when we get before HCD. Karen Hollweg, Certainly, this is showing this scenario and certainly you can't prove a negative in the sense Okay, is there ever going to be something to propose a few blocking of course there is. Karen Hollweg, But is there a way to do it that's not few blocking, yes, there is, and also we have. by putting the regulatory element behind it where we're saying, okay, first two floors are exempt. We are taking that issue off the table and showing that yes, indeed we can in fact, accomplished the 2018 goal. and it can be known in advance. And it is completely objective. |
| 05:34:17.33 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. |
| 05:34:22.13 | Nastassya Saad | Perhaps maybe one of you will end up back at the dais if we have questions. Looking to the commission. Thank you. |
| 05:34:30.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 05:34:30.77 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 05:34:30.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 05:34:30.89 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 05:34:30.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | going to |
| 05:34:34.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'll try to be brief given the hour. A question I guess is Neil. I'm a little confused about this height thing. Let's go to that one first. So in the odds, the height is only in the historic district? We don't have any other height things throughout the document that's in. |
| 05:34:36.22 | Nastassya Saad | of the |
| 05:34:55.00 | Neal Toft | Yeah, chapter 6 only applies to the historic district itself. |
| 05:35:00.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and what housing opportunity sites are in the historic district? Is there MU29, MU49? |
| 05:35:09.85 | Neal Toft | There are some MU 49. OK. |
| 05:35:13.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | My issue with that is if you go to... |
| 05:35:22.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | If you go to the section on the height, I have two questions. So it says that in no case shall the overall height of new additions. First of all, why is it new additions or new construction or additions? Why can't it be new construction if there's a fire and it burns down and we have to build a building it's in the it's in the district but not contributing that why is it only the overall height of new additions and not new construction |
| 05:35:54.79 | Neal Toft | I don't know. I don't know. But that was language. And there may be a purpose behind that. |
| 05:36:02.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, I'm going to suggest adding new construction because when we get to that point, because it's in a section called additions and new construction. So the second thing is it sets a limit of 32 feet. But if it's MU 49, going back to what we just approved in the last one, you allow a maximum height of 35 feet. That's correct. So those are inconsistent with one another. |
| 05:36:10.67 | Neal Toft | Bye. |
| 05:36:29.65 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner, I think that we revised the opportunity sites in the historic district to limit it to MU29, not 49. That was the question I just asked. Didn't we just change that? |
| 05:36:37.65 | Neal Toft | That was the question I just asked. I think I do believe they all went to MU 29. |
| 05:36:44.65 | Kristina Feller | 29. I don't think we have any 49ers. |
| 05:36:46.65 | Neal Toft | I'm not sure. |
| 05:36:47.02 | Kristina Feller | didn't pass, yeah. |
| 05:36:47.83 | Neal Toft | You got it. |
| 05:36:47.84 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:36:47.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, they're all MNU 29, and that's 32. |
| 05:36:48.08 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:36:48.11 | Neal Toft | THE FAMILY IS THE FAMILY. |
| 05:36:49.65 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:36:49.77 | Neal Toft | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 05:36:49.97 | Kristina Feller | They were 49. They were 49. They've been reduced. |
| 05:36:53.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So if they're all 29, then that issue goes away. But, I mean, I do agree that we should have one standard for, we can get to that later, for how you measure height. So anyways, that's that question. Second question relates to the comment earlier about Chapter 3. I realize that we have a new Chapter 3 this evening, but there was a comment that there was a staff recommendation to exclude Chapter 3, but as I read the resolution that's with us, it includes Chapter 3. I just want to make sure it's not been excluded from the proposed resolution. It's just a recommendation in the staff report. Do I have that correct? |
| 05:37:42.64 | Director Phipps | So the resolution that I'm looking at reads, based on the information provided for and at the public hearing, Planning Commission recommends dot, dot, dot, that the entirety of Chapter 3 titled Public and Private View Preservation Standards be deleted and kept in reserve. That is detailed and called out on page 4 of Attachment 1. |
| 05:38:03.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Page four. |
| 05:38:08.76 | Neal Toft | Under Section 4 recommendation of the resolution. |
| 05:38:12.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so there's a language there that you put in modifications that we haven't yet discussed. Correct. But the prior Chapter 3 in its entirety is attached to that resolution. So you're saying that? |
| 05:38:28.06 | Neal Toft | Yeah, the odds with Chapter 3 in it is attached. It's attached. Yeah, but the resolution indicates... |
| 05:38:34.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | to that. |
| 05:38:37.40 | Director Phipps | And I would just say this was part of the reason why I made this caveat at the beginning of Mr. Rex's and Ms. Collier's presentation, that the chapter referred to, the intent of the chapter referred to in this resolution is the previous version of the view sync that you have reviewed. so what I will say is based on the presentation heard tonight Commission has all the freedom in the world to add that chapter in, or suggest modifications to that chapter, or keep it out, of course. |
| 05:39:14.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. Those were my questions. |
| 05:39:16.33 | David Marlatt | So. lost our chair. |
| 05:39:18.79 | Andrew Junius | I'll take over. Thank you. |
| 05:39:19.97 | David Marlatt | Okay. |
| 05:39:20.19 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 05:39:20.21 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 05:39:20.24 | Andrew Junius | to Mr. Marlowe. |
| 05:39:21.17 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Actually, my first question is for the city attorney. And if she's still with us. Does the footnote that we've just added to table 10.22 regarding the increase in FAR for three units and seven units, or three units and eight units building, |
| 05:39:44.66 | Mary Wagner | I know which one you're talking about. Yes, the one that's put your code. |
| 05:39:45.10 | David Marlatt | I know it's funny. Yes, the government code. Don't forget the government section. Yes. But this came up earlier this afternoon. So which mandates that for three to seven units, the FAR shall be no less than one. And for eight and above, I believe it's 1.25. 2.5, correct. Anyway, my question is, |
| 05:39:49.37 | Mary Wagner | Yeah. |
| 05:40:00.44 | Unknown | I've |
| 05:40:04.10 | David Marlatt | Does that supersede Senate Bill 330 requirement that the development potential not be below what it was in 2018? And I'm thinking not just Sausalito, but many communities in 2018 had an FAR, let's say, of 0.65, 0.75, what have you. Does this supersede that? |
| 05:40:25.80 | Mary Wagner | is it It doesn't supersede they work in concert with one another. |
| 05:40:32.25 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:40:32.37 | Mary Wagner | B-330. all statutes you have to read together, like just no different than you have to read all of our municipal codes together and bring them into harmony. |
| 05:40:41.51 | David Marlatt | . But it's. I don't want to debate it here, so it's inappropriate. But it's kind of moving the goalposts. That's what I'm asking. And it's not related to view seeing, per se. But if the community is developing form-based zoning and form-based objective standards in any community based on the 2018 standards, the bar just moved. Am I correct? |
| 05:41:06.86 | Mary Wagner | For those properties that would be subject to the government code section, we refer for requiring the FAR to be one or 1.25, yes, the bar would have moved. doesn't necessarily move the 2018 bar for the no net loss, but it does move the bar of what the, the FAR needs to be for those sites, because that's the minimum requirement. If you meet the standards of not being in a historic zone, meaning the number, for example, the three units. |
| 05:41:35.04 | Neal Toft | university. |
| 05:41:36.49 | Mary Wagner | But your your baseline for no net loss still is the 2018 number. |
| 05:41:42.19 | Neal Toft | Thank you. |
| 05:41:43.12 | David Marlatt | And then, thank you. Another question that I guess is for Neil, who's wearing the hat of both Bob Brown and Tony Perez. And I know this is kind of new information, but has OptiCo stress tested their form-based modeling against this? I'm just thinking in Sausalito, we have a preponderance of sub-sabbed lots and FAR 1.0 or 1.25. |
| 05:42:02.87 | Neal Toft | That's the preponderance of sub-Candard Lots. Against that? No. Probably not that I know of. |
| 05:42:08.97 | David Marlatt | Probably longer. probably won't work. but I don't know for a fact sitting up here, but I can tell you from a lot of the experience |
| 05:42:16.85 | Neal Toft | experience I don't know |
| 05:42:18.37 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 05:42:18.39 | Neal Toft | Thank you. |
| 05:42:18.47 | David Marlatt | how big a building is on a small lot and so forth. Anyway, I think those are my questions for now. |
| 05:42:22.74 | Neal Toft | I think |
| 05:42:23.15 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 05:42:23.20 | Neal Toft | Thank you. |
| 05:42:24.87 | David Marlatt | to others. |
| 05:42:29.04 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. I stepped away. So are we Commissioner Feller? Have you had a chance? |
| 05:42:33.36 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. And thank you, everybody, for the presentation. Neil, I just wanted to ask if we are getting a presentation on the odds or just the view sync tonight, since this is up for a vote. |
| 05:42:49.58 | Neal Toft | We've had odds through a number of study sessions, so I didn't want to necessarily go repeat through the odds itself. The document, by and large, hasn't changed to any degree. Thank you. |
| 05:43:06.03 | Kristina Feller | So have any of the comments from the study session been addressed or incorporated? |
| 05:43:10.55 | Neal Toft | I think the comment, it's, |
| 05:43:24.52 | Kristina Feller | I'm not trying to, it's not a trick question. I'm asking because I don't see that. And I'm just wondering |
| 05:43:32.57 | Director Phipps | As far as, so a pre, |
| 05:43:33.67 | Kristina Feller | From December. |
| 05:43:34.85 | Director Phipps | Appreciate the comment. As far as planning commission recommendations provided at the study session, I'll fall on my sword here. Due to the timeline, staff have had challenges associated with making all of the changes as directed by the commission. Additionally, it's a study session. So the time to make the recommendations is really tonight as opposed to yesterday, or excuse me, as opposed to at the study session, and as opposed to yesterday. So anything enunciated this evening will be presented to council. Again, we wanna get it in writing via a resolution. And I will say, because of the quick turnaround time, staff will likely not have the opportunity to reflect all changes, although we'll do our very best, provided by the commission this evening. |
| 05:43:58.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:43:58.09 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:44:23.28 | Director Phipps | And I'll leave it at that. |
| 05:44:23.96 | Kristina Feller | I appreciate that. And I don't think we made any recommendations before, but we did make comments. So, okay, I think that's clear. Let's move on from there. If this is mainly about the view sink, I guess a couple questions I have, and this might mean that Mr. Rex or Ms. Collier's need to come back up, but is it possible to get that presentation attached to the agenda just for the public record so people can refer to it, knowing full well that the city council will be hearing this? It'll give people an opportunity to review that. |
| 05:45:00.81 | Neal Toft | The presentation you saw? Yeah. Yeah, it's attached to the agenda. |
| 05:45:02.50 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. It's, well, I, I don't think so, but if you can double check, that would be really great, but it's definitely not on here, but that's okay. I mean, I'm just asking so people can review it. It doesn't need to be right now. |
| 05:45:10.67 | Neal Toft | Maria. That was great. |
| 05:45:12.54 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:45:21.49 | Director Phipps | We do have attachment for the summary of planning commission comments on the draft odds, if that's what you're referring to. |
| 05:45:27.73 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I'm asking about the presentation, like the ViewSync stuff and everything we looked at tonight. So if we could get that, that would be good. Because obviously, there is a quick turnaround. And the more people can be aware of what's happening, the better off we will be. |
| 05:45:29.13 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 05:45:44.25 | Director Phipps | appreciate that commissioner if i could just clarify so on item 4c on tonight's agenda we have an attachment entitled peer review group presentation for planning to planning commission excuse me february 18 2025. i think that that's what we |
| 05:46:04.30 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I don't see it on the agenda here. So if it was attached after... |
| 05:46:06.76 | Director Phipps | you |
| 05:46:06.78 | Unknown | I understand. |
| 05:46:09.29 | Kristina Feller | then I don't want to make a big deal out of it. I just, in being conscious of the fast turn and burn on this stuff and a lot of people can't. |
| 05:46:18.22 | Neal Toft | I think it was attached earlier this week. Yeah, it came in after. |
| 05:46:23.57 | Kristina Feller | I don't want to belabor it. I'm not seeing it. Can I help you? |
| 05:46:25.93 | Neal Toft | Thank you. |
| 05:46:25.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I help here a little bit? The view sink is attached, but the presentation that Mr. Rex gave tonight, which was helpful. |
| 05:46:37.22 | Neal Toft | They're both combined together. |
| 05:46:39.55 | Director Phipps | Yeah, it's the same presentation. that are on the ground. |
| 05:46:42.40 | Neal Toft | So there's a link, yeah. |
| 05:46:42.42 | Director Phipps | So there's a lot. |
| 05:46:44.65 | Kristina Feller | Anyway, I'm gonna move on from that. I think I've made the point, I don't wanna belabor it. But I do have some questions actually on the view sync and it's mainly the piece, Ms. Colliers, that you had. So I'm sorry to pull you back up to the podium. But Happy to come back up. Figured you would be kidding. but you had a couple diagrams there, and if Maria could help us maybe pull those back up, because you're talking about, certain views and areas in orange and all that kind of sure. |
| 05:47:19.34 | Sophia Collier | Sure. you |
| 05:47:19.81 | Kristina Feller | So for me, it's a little bit unclear. What window, what are you looking at? Sure. |
| 05:47:22.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:47:24.67 | Sophia Collier | Sure. |
| 05:47:25.18 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:47:25.94 | Kristina Feller | You know, I think part of what we've talked about a little bit as view sync has evolved Is it's not sort of an initial build, it could be sort of the collective and sort of that patina that you get. Sure, over years on a city so when you're talking about limiting. |
| 05:47:40.82 | Sophia Collier | Sure. |
| 05:47:45.60 | Kristina Feller | view impacts, it's not a singular build, it's a collective, you know, potential erosion of a view quarter. So the question is, as we look at this- Go to slide. |
| 05:47:57.98 | Sophia Collier | Let's go to slide two, maybe. |
| 05:48:01.46 | Kristina Feller | is so when do you tell that next person, sorry, you can't build because then you're infringing upon this, |
| 05:48:09.61 | Sophia Collier | Five or ten, whatever percent it is. |
| 05:48:10.40 | Kristina Feller | whatever percentage of the view. And this is where I want to get in terms of the objectiveness, because I understand adding in coordinates and mathematics and all that kind of stuff. those can be objective, you know, but not within the context of of a view or that sort of collective development around something. So I don't think that that's been addressed to where I'm comfortable with it. |
| 05:48:38.38 | Sophia Collier | Okay, and I want to make sure I know you kind of made that similar comment before and I've tried to understand it as best that I can so so I want to just see if we're tracking here. Okay, so just okay so the first thing that we're doing here is we're placing a point on that building on Harrison. |
| 05:48:47.01 | Unknown | Thank you. Okay. |
| 05:48:54.63 | Sophia Collier | And that what which building is that it is that is a building that's behind. I'm not sure the exact address, but you can see that they're right there. There's like a little little point there. Okay. And that is the that is where the the observer point is placed. And what basically what we're proposing here is to place a single observer point on each view facing. |
| 05:49:02.09 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 05:49:21.51 | Sophia Collier | a wall. And so that is what we're proposing here. And that what is being shown when you, let's go to the next slide, please. So that's what you're seeing. That is basically, what you're basically doing is you're placing the camera on the wall and it's looking out and it's showing you that view which is the view from that location. So, if there was a window there. That is what you would see from it. However, If there wasn't a window there, and it was slightly, a little bit slightly different, you're basically seeing the same Pretty much, you know, we all have anyone who has a view, you're kind of like, okay, we're looking here, looking here. It's pretty similar in a small set. But I'm not sure that I truly understand the evolution over time. And that is where I don't know how to take the next step on that one. |
| 05:50:16.61 | Kristina Feller | Okay, fair question. So, you know, part of what, you know, taking a step back, what the whole – approach or strategy is to the view of preservation It is really going to be baked into our municipal code and ordinances and such. So those have to withstand the test of time. They are not intended, of course, just for... |
| 05:50:40.10 | Unknown | Of course. |
| 05:50:43.16 | Kristina Feller | you know, a one-dimensional, one-time build of something or development of something. And so over time, with additions and renovations... |
| 05:50:53.01 | Sophia Collier | Yeah, let's go to the slide. Keep going to the redevelopment or what |
| 05:50:54.99 | Kristina Feller | or redevelopment or what have you. You have the potential for whatever this arbitrary camera on a wall is looking out, |
| 05:50:59.61 | Sophia Collier | Okay. |
| 05:51:00.27 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 05:51:06.04 | Kristina Feller | whatever the percentage is that you're trying to protect, that can start to be eroded. |
| 05:51:12.89 | Sophia Collier | No, it certainly can be true. |
| 05:51:13.18 | Kristina Feller | It certainly can be true. you know, a nether develop, you know, another property is being developed. And are you going to tell that property owner, no, you can't develop this because you're going to infringe the view preservation that was established 10 years ago. That's kind of the premise of the question. |
| 05:51:28.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:51:28.57 | Sophia Collier | It's a great job. |
| 05:51:28.84 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:51:29.93 | Sophia Collier | It's ink from the... Yeah, it's incremental. So the point is that, let's say, for example, Like, do you understand what the orange is? |
| 05:51:40.62 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 05:51:41.05 | Sophia Collier | So basically, like if we look at the earlier slide, please. Okay, so like you can see the contour of the water. So if we go up, go back to the next slide, please. So the orange is the area above the contour of the water that's now Impeded from the view so that that little area. That's the defined That's the nine point whatever, or eight point whatever percentage it is. And so the point is over time, that basically this is view compliance for a new project. So this new project is here. Okay, boom, it's approved from this, you know, point of view. Now, let's say, okay, somebody's coming, you know, maybe |
| 05:52:33.45 | Kristina Feller | And don't forget, we need to hear you on the microphone. So just repeat it when you when you can. |
| 05:52:48.74 | Kristina Feller | So you're saying look at all those buildings that you're pointing to there, the white building. |
| 05:52:55.12 | Neal Toft | Exactly. |
| 05:53:08.50 | Kristina Feller | Can you take the mic on? I think somehow it got turned off. Sorry. Sorry about that, Ms. Colliers. We can just turn that back on. Okay. Okay. |
| 05:53:08.62 | Unknown | Can you tell me? |
| 05:53:09.02 | Sophia Collier | the mic on? |
| 05:53:16.25 | Sophia Collier | OK, so these are policy questions, which is, do you want to have a policy that is based on point-in-time compliance? And that's basically, that's the frame from which I have tried to create this software solution, point-in-time compliance. |
| 05:53:34.32 | Kristina Feller | Tell me what you mean by that. Like point in time, like an initial bit. |
| 05:53:36.67 | Sophia Collier | basically. THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 05:53:37.76 | Kristina Feller | . |
| 05:53:37.90 | Sophia Collier | like now within the new project. Okay, so project is proposed. |
| 05:53:38.84 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 05:53:43.75 | Sophia Collier | Take a look at it. Is it compliant or not? If it's compliant, it's in. And its view now is going to be whatever view it has, is going to be receive protection. If a new project comes in, now that old project's part of the environment. So the new project comes in, okay, it's going to be baby in the view or not. And so it's point-in-time compliance project by project. That is the basis that I understood... the policy of the city to be. So that is the basis of this. However, obviously there would be other policy choices that could be made, but it's not really a question. The software's duty is only to evaluate the difference in condition from one project Thank you. that's new and proposed, |
| 05:54:37.90 | Kristina Feller | So with that, let me just, so this property on Harrison that we're using to test this here. |
| 05:54:50.22 | Sophia Collier | Right. |
| 05:54:50.93 | Kristina Feller | Um, how are you? how are you determining where that theoretical camera on a wall is looking out a window. |
| 05:55:00.97 | Sophia Collier | Okay. Basically what we have in the, in what we're in our proposed chapter, we have five feet below the roof line. So basically, that would be likely where that view would be. So five feet below the. |
| 05:55:14.44 | Kristina Feller | But a human being would not be at that point. |
| 05:55:17.12 | Sophia Collier | I'm sorry. |
| 05:55:17.69 | Kristina Feller | I don't know that a human being would necessarily be at that point. |
| 05:55:22.76 | Sophia Collier | certainly like we've done a lot of studies of different um you know different environments and like if you look at the little pictures behind there on the little wall that okay like like probably some of those probably are you know so it's a it's a trying to judge um sometimes people hang their window quite high sometimes it's lower so it So it really what it is, it's intended to rep, it's a consistent way of representing the view. |
| 05:55:55.46 | Kristina Feller | And. |
| 05:55:55.72 | Michael Rex | Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Can I respond to a couple of your questions? Yeah. As an architect, I have to deal with these questions Anytime we build in Sausalito. And we're not proposing anything different than what we've been doing for decades. First of all, the vantage point you're asking, where are you taking the view from? That point could be moved anywhere. |
| 05:56:06.82 | Unknown Staff | it's a great place. |
| 05:56:06.90 | Unknown | and, uh, So do I. |
| 05:56:22.29 | Michael Rex | And because the standard requires that these things are known in advance, If I'm an architect designing a building here in town, I get up on the roof. I can see where people are looking over. I can see where the windows are. And with this model, I can put that point where I. can identify that view is probably where I could be impacting. And so, that point could move anywhere, and we could determine in advance ideal places to take this shot. The other thing is, is that Sophia is absolutely right. And you're right. This this is going to evolve us. And already in town, when things get built, people's views change. Well, that's the built environment when the next guy comes along or gal to propose a development on some property. And so what that means is that as projects get approved, we'll want to insert the model of what they built. in the city model so we can keep the city model live. |
| 05:57:29.02 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, but how you you raised something you were you just said that you would move the point around how is that objective Thank you. |
| 05:57:40.19 | Michael Rex | You could move it. |
| 05:57:41.13 | Kristina Feller | I'm not sure. |
| 05:57:41.62 | Michael Rex | This is an interactive tool and you could start testing |
| 05:57:41.64 | Kristina Feller | How? |
| 05:57:45.99 | Michael Rex | what you're building, impact might have on views by putting that dot anywhere you want on the city model. |
| 05:57:52.46 | Kristina Feller | on the city model. What I might want or another property owner might want. I mean, that's fair enough. |
| 05:57:53.84 | Sophia Collier | Thank you. |
| 05:57:57.62 | Sophia Collier | That's not what I think he's saying that he's like an architect, you know, so he's moving around the points. But I'm a more compliance oriented person with software. So I have a point in a very specific place that's defined in the chapter. So it's five feet below the roof line in the center of the property behind the bearing line. So it's very, very specific location. geometric location that every single one is going to do. and that with ViewSync, the ViewSync compliance will have a little more nuanced than one point. But this is a very objective, very accurate way of assessing what very likely is the view at that location. |
| 05:58:38.86 | Kristina Feller | But the center of a property like the land or a center of a property like a building? |
| 05:58:42.02 | Sophia Collier | No, the center of the building. The center of the building, which |
| 05:58:44.55 | Kristina Feller | The center of a building, which could be added on to in the future. I mean, there are a lot of variables here that I, believe me, I have said from day one that view preservation is sacrosanct here, and even on our, you know, odds working group, You know, that was one of the first things I think that we talked about where you know, this was the kind of thing like, we can't figure this out, we might be run out of town. So we better really focus on this. And believe me, nobody wants to find the solution, but I'm not sure that we're there yet on this. I want to learn more, but I'm also curious about, You know, we keep bringing up what we already had before, because I don't know that I'm a believer that it's you know there's a silver bullet here. It's just a one you know, one solution. I think there has to be some redundancy |
| 05:59:43.80 | Sophia Collier | Well, let me mention |
| 05:59:44.15 | Kristina Feller | with some of the other elements. And I know, but I'm, Let me ask the question. How have you taken what we've discussed before and incorporated that into this? Because I just heard that there were really no changes to this. So I haven't seen it in here. |
| 05:59:49.64 | Sophia Collier | Certainly. |
| 06:00:01.60 | Sophia Collier | Thank you. Okay, that is something from him, and that's not with something that, like, I know that I've been trying to work on this, and that when Andrew had introduced, he gave a kickoff meeting to our peer commission, you know, our peer group, and he said that we in our, what he told us was our odds peer group that they had, that you had, had concluded that view protection was impossible and also illegal. So that is what he told us as his, I don't know if it was like a Tom Sawyer trying to get us to really inspire, to really work hard and reach for it. |
| 06:00:42.30 | Kristina Feller | It's not. It's impossible. |
| 06:00:43.26 | Sophia Collier | You know, so I think that that was kind of the, that was the, that was that he's very difficult or no. No, no. I don't know. That was the communication that was provided to us. If there was more content that could have been provided to us, we would have loved to have received it, but we did not. So that was the communication. So we just took off thinking, okay, how are we going to find this? And that I basically the. |
| 06:00:43.28 | Kristina Feller | You know, so so. It's very difficult. |
| 06:01:09.27 | Sophia Collier | We approached it thinking, okay, it's going to be software, probably Esri is going to help us. We're going to. do probably use some LIDAR or some created digital model of the city. And I know that like, for example, a digital, like when we've spoken about this, I know the digital model was something that you're really all over that. And so the idea of a digital model, digital twin of the city, |
| 06:01:33.96 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I mean, look, that's something that we looked at. three years ago. I mean, and the problem was similar to what we're talking about here, which is why we discarded it. So again, I don't think it's impossible at all. I'm not here to give up on any of it. But you know, being objective versus subjective is harder than anybody really realizes when you get down to think about it. And so I don't want to belabor this. I just wanted to dial into some detail to kind of figure out if I was understanding this correctly. And again, I'm not sure it yet, it needs to be beta tested obviously, but I'm not sure it really addresses not just an initial build or that point in time that you're talking about, you know, the layer upon layer that cities and towns have over, you know, years and decades of growth and development, redevelopment, And all of those kinds of things. So that's why I was trying to get your help. to ensure that I was understanding what I was looking at. And I certainly understand better. So thank you. |
| 06:02:45.64 | Sophia Collier | Okay, well, thank you very much. And I think in terms of, you know, beta testing, that this has been completed. This is a complete. This is complete. This is not being beta tested. It is tested. So this is something that we had finished more or less on the deadline at 1231. So this is something that we invested in, created, and finished. And so this is a finished product. It's very accurate in the terms that it is. Thank you. This is something that we invested in, created, and finished. And so this is a finished product. It's very accurate in the terms that it is, in terms of a one-point view analysis. It's very accurate. It has numbers. that change, like that orange. that orange, it's a completely objective. That orange is that percentage of, but can we see the next slide please? |
| 06:03:34.58 | Sophia Collier | Okay, that's that orange is 8.9% of the water. you. That's it. That's what that building does. And if you want something objective that shows you exactly what the percentage is, if you want to set a standard and a policy, whether it be 5%, 10%, 50%, whatever it is, this software can tell you if it did it. |
| 06:03:57.28 | Kristina Feller | I appreciate it. Thank you so much, Ms. Collier. Thank you. |
| 06:03:59.10 | Neal Toft | Thank you. Thank you. Question, Sophia, just so I understand, because I know you've presented, I'm still working. you The point that, because as you said, it's subjective from that point, How was that point actually selected? |
| 06:04:17.10 | Sophia Collier | It selected basically the way we've written a chapter is that So we first we have the view bearing line. And I know that I don't know if in my last presentation, I maybe made a mistake in going a little too technical with discussion of the view bearing line and all this, but basically Sausalito Uh, A certain part of it faces is on a hill, certain part of it faces San Francisco and the water. So if you draw a line that is 321 degrees from north, You are basically looking at the view. So you're looking at the water or you're looking at San Francisco. So... There's no point in looking at view on where you're looking up the hill or someplace. So we want to find, okay, where is the view that we're looking at? So that's one thing. And then what wall, everybody's house might be oriented a certain way. So what walls face the view? So then we identify, okay, we're bisecting the footprint, and then we're saying those walls face the view, and now we're placing a point on each of those walls, five feet from the top. And basically that's our view. Um, |
| 06:05:32.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Why five feet? Is that where somebody stands on the floor below the roof? Just explain the five feet. Yeah, just. |
| 06:05:39.86 | Sophia Collier | Yeah, just basically what we tried to do is we went and we looked at the buildings and we tried to find kind of what's kind of an average where the window is so we tried to find an average location because we're not again We want this to be the same for everything. No. You know subjective okay well I think your windows there or something like that we don't know where their window is So what we want to do is just say okay? Here's where we say our wit proxy window in Sausalito for this period of time during this odds period that we're doing is five feet from the roof line. That's it. And that's what we do. That's our view that we say it is. And okay, it's not going to be okay, you're sitting on your sofa. And I know you've heard a million things in this chamber, listening to people's views. And it was okay, I sat on the sofa, or I stood here. or something like that. This is, that's the subjective way. This is the objective way. It's an objective criterion that's specific, used in all cases. And we did some analysis to try to derive what it would be. Should it be six feet? Should it be three feet? Certainly people could say that. |
| 06:06:58.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 06:06:59.34 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner Fowler, do you have any other questions? |
| 06:07:02.62 | Kristina Feller | No, thank you. Thank you. |
| 06:07:03.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. I have one other question. Go ahead. Of course. Going back to something Commissioner Marlott said at the last meeting, in the odds currently, we have zero front setback. |
| 06:07:05.87 | Kristina Feller | Go ahead. |
| 06:07:06.21 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 06:07:06.24 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 06:07:06.26 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 06:07:21.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | in most of Sausalito, I think. Correct. And so what is the setback in the odds? And is it greater than the zero? And if so, should we fix that? |
| 06:07:24.50 | David Marlatt | Correct. |
| 06:07:31.93 | David Marlatt | It is, we should. It's on my list when we get to the discussion portion because it's a very easy fix. And I've mentioned it before, and I want to propose as part of whatever we decide tonight. you |
| 06:07:41.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. |
| 06:07:43.86 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 06:07:43.87 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, Vice Chair. |
| 06:07:43.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 06:07:45.60 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. So we're going to open this up for public comment. if we have any. |
| 06:07:51.15 | Director Phipps | Looking to the PAC chamber at this hour. Not seeing any raised hands at the moment. I will give Sybil an opportunity if she likes. No? Okay. Looking to the Zoom application for raised hands. And I am seeing none. Chair, back to you. |
| 06:08:09.90 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. We're gonna close public comment, bring it back up here. I'd actually be curious if we could start off Commissioner Marlott with discussion points. |
| 06:08:18.79 | David Marlatt | Well, there's a couple of things. First of all, I'm not usually the person who's saying the sky is falling. But with regards to odds, two things that we've learned tonight kind of make this feel a little bit like arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Honestly, we've resolved that every project in Sausalito, five units and up, will qualify for state waivers. It's not even a choice anymore because they all have to have 20%. They must qualify for state waivers. Why wouldn't they take them? And that's not affecting ViewSync. It's affecting everything in the odds. The second thing is this, I don't know the government section, but the footnote, right? Just move the goalpost. So if we had a site that was 0.65 FAR and you could fully meet everything in the housing opportunity site in terms of its goals for the number of units at 900 square feet, what have you, what have you. |
| 06:08:20.41 | Unknown | you |
| 06:08:20.49 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 06:08:20.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 06:09:16.77 | David Marlatt | that still may not be enough. In other words, they can still go beyond that possibly, and we can't stop them. And what it doesn't take into account, which is not surprising because laws come from Sacramento and big lawns and suburbs and so forth, is that we have a preponderance of small lots. And mathematically, as lots get smaller, the FAR gets smaller on one level and you have to go up. But we're limiting it to 32 feet or 35 feet. This whole thing needs to be stress tested. Of course, we've only learned about this hours ago, literally. But I'm not sure that even our form-based building types and facade types will meet the state standards on small lots, and we have a lot of small lots. so I support including the revised chapter three in whatever we adopt tonight just so that it can continue to evolve and maybe address this question I think that the chapter three standards are probably the most objective standards the everything else is not is subjective design objective design is an oxymoron so building types and facade types and so forth are by definition subjective. This is relatively speaking the most objective. I think we should let it live. I think council has a difficult decision next week. But honestly, tonight the rules have changed. And with that happy note, I know that Commissioner Junius I didn't mean to take away your soapbox. But I do think we should include the adopt the odds. We've got to do that. Our backs are against the wall. We've got to meet HCD requirements. And I do think we should keep the revised Chapter 3 in whatever we adopt tonight. |
| 06:11:05.01 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Commissioner Marlin. Commissioner Pellar? |
| 06:11:09.33 | Kristina Feller | Um, well, I mean, thank you for your comments. I, I, um, It might not have been stress tested, but I think it should come to no surprise that I actually think that the odds that the Planning Commission approved unanimously for City Council ratification has greater protections for this community and that's what I'm interested in at this time. I, once again, respectfully, I do not think that ViewSync is at all ready for prime time and is not something that I could at this point recommend moving forward with to submit to HCD. That in no way means that I am not completely, um, committed to either evolving it somehow addressing view preservation But I also don't think that it's a one-shot deal. I think that you have to layer in other aspects that are very objective in terms of shadow ordinances, solar paths, which is state law pretty much anyway, and some of these public, the fairly extensive GPS coordinate list that we developed previously. How long ago now? I mean, those locations have not changed. Nothing's changed there. So, again, I don't know. I know that this is moving very quickly, but this is something that we've been banging on about for years. um you know years and i don't know why it's it's not reflected here because i think i i still believe that collectively with those different components you will back into something that is an objective uh view preservation i i you know there's a lot of um unfortunate rumor going around that this Planning Commission doesn't support view preservation. And I do not believe that that's true. And I think that, you know, once again, consistently over the last three or four years, I will sit here and say, I absolutely believe in it, but just have to find that objective, that pathway to an objective standard. So that's where I am. I'm not interested in entertaining these odds right now, just because they do not have the protections that we have already approved. from the burden of proof standpoint, we, I don't know that that's been met. and reviewing the city council directives and when they asked that some community and resident members looked at this. They really came up with three issues. It was a historic preservation, which obviously HPC commented greatly on what we had drafted. I'm glad that they have added more protections. I'm completely comfortable with that. the view preservation, of course, which You know where I stand on that. And then the third was kind of a little bit, I don't think anybody's really reflected in that was limitations on color. |
| 06:14:35.25 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 06:14:35.62 | Kristina Feller | But that to me is a little more like what you do at an HOA and not necessarily a township or a city or a village like we are. I'm not sure that I would recommend that anyway. So that's really where I am. |
| 06:14:50.05 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you very much for the comments. Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 06:14:55.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. I, at this point, I have to disagree. I think that with Commissioner Fallon, I agree with Commissioner Marlott. I think Chapter 3 has come a long ways. I think between the one-story and the two-story aspects of these things, plus the fact that you can use alternative software, plus the fact that there are going to be exceptions anyways, I think that this will pass mustard with HCD. I think it's been creative, it's evolved, and it will probably evolve over time. But I believe it is objective. It's objective from the point of view that it is. It might not be the way we would do it as a commission under design and review because we would say where are the windows but I think this is as objective as you can possibly get and it's in and it might it might not be the point on the building that you think it should be but it is objective so and so I think that the it works so I would, including Chapter 3, I would suggest on this height, I have different language for the height because I think the language in the proposed resolution is confusing. I edited what's in the odds to address the height issue, which just adds the new construction and takes out the reference of using a different point. We'll just use the point that's, it will just, it will be silent. Therefore, the ordinance would govern. And I'd suggest that we deal with the front setback issue. I don't know what the exact language is, but I think we should do that. But I think with these changes, I think we need to recommend the odds. We've been working on the odds for so long. We're at a point where we need to move on from, we have odds on the book. Everybody keeps talking about putting odds on the book. We have odds. These are additional odds in addition to the ones we already have. And then we can have the council move on with ballot questions and get this done so that we can meet the HCD standards. But I think they've done an excellent job with Chapter 3, and I think it'll pass mustard with HCD. That's just my opinion. |
| 06:16:50.52 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 06:17:16.02 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Vice Chair. |
| 06:17:18.92 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. I mean, I remain skeptical. I've always come at this from an angle that relates more to property rights and the difficulty that not only this commission, but planning commissions all over the state and city councils have had to deal with when they're put into the situation where they're basically trying to pick winners and losers and arbitrate and be the arbitrators for you know private view disputes and I think that is an extraordinarily unfortunate development over the history of California land use, but that's where we are. And then, and you know, when, know when this issue first came up um the definition of objective standards seemed pretty clear to me um i still don't think this meets it it's gotten a lot closer i do i do applaud the incredible effort and the amount of analysis has gone in and it's definitely better than it was the first time i saw it but there are definitely some elements i think hcd is going to have a problem with Um, You know, that said, we've got to move things along. I think I agree with Commissioner Marlott and Commissioner Luxembourg. It's, you know, might as well give it a shot. It doesn't really, you know, at this point, it does the analysis with respect to the lack of significant impact on housing production or housing volume is a pretty good one I'm still skeptical on the again the technical definition and the legal hurdle that that this has to survive but we'll see what they say so I said you know not not enthusiastically but given the amount of effort and time that has gone into this I would be supportive of the motion to include it going forward |
| 06:19:14.97 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Vice Chair. I'm skeptical as well. I do want to first and foremost say thank you for all the hard work. It's a big charge that you had in front of you. It was a really big charge of what Commissioner Feller and Commissioner Junius at the time had in front of them on the working group. So this has been a long time coming. And I think because we are on such a short deadline and because I still have reservations, I am leaning with Commissioner Feller. And I think that the odds that we did approve 5-0 previously do offer, they were fully vetted. They had the luxury of time at 16 meetings over many years, vetted across the board. And I am more comfortable with what we have previously approved and worked on than I am with this, even though I do see the improvements. And I think to Vice Chair Junius's point, it has taken a big leap forward. But in the interest of what we need to do tonight to get this across the line, I have too many reservations to move forward. I wish we had more time together to see where this could develop. I would not determine, excuse me, deter ViewSync from being a resource to the community to continuing to do the work on it. I think it's incredibly interesting. I think Commissioner Feller took the words out of my mouth. We all want viewpoints. preservation on this commission in concept. But we have a very clear charge from the state. And I'm just not I'm not comfortable with sending a recommendation with ViewSync, unfortunately, as much as it's improved and how interesting that I think it is. I do think it'll be a great tool eventually. So we might have more than one motion on the floor. We can see how it shakes out. But happy to hear more discussion points. But that's where I am right now. Well, Can we sure get... Is your microphone on, please? Sorry. Thank you. |
| 06:21:20.12 | David Marlatt | Thank you. This is a very small point addressing Commissioner Luxembourg's question about zero lot front setbacks. So part of the motion should be in Chapter 5, there's a facade type called engaged porch or porch engaged, I believe. And it requires a minimum of six feet from the property line setback. We simply have to reduce that to zero. So it's just in a graphic, a very simple change. And I think that will remove any potential objection from HCD that we're denying that mass of building that could otherwise be Bill. |
| 06:22:01.28 | Nastassya Saad | Director Phipps, did you catch that in Chapter 5? |
| 06:22:05.95 | Director Phipps | Yes, I'll just read what I've got in Chapter 5. There is a facade type called porch engaged, which there is some language there that requires a minimum six feet from the setback. And Commissioner Merlotte's recommendation is to simply reduce that to zero. That will remove any potential objection from HCD. |
| 06:22:23.92 | David Marlatt | Right. |
| 06:22:24.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I ask a question on that? Do we also have to change the second tier that reduces the minimum to something? Because there was something in that second tier that talked about the minimum can be changed, I thought. But I don't know if that was related to something. |
| 06:22:40.71 | David Marlatt | Well, if it has to change from zero, |
| 06:22:44.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, no, I'm saying, well, I guess it doesn't have to change. Well, if there's a reference, it makes no sense. We would delete it, is what I'm saying. |
| 06:22:46.03 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 06:22:51.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So... |
| 06:22:51.53 | David Marlatt | Right, but that reference applies to other facade types as well. |
| 06:22:54.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, all right. |
| 06:22:55.43 | David Marlatt | I don't think that would be an issue. |
| 06:22:56.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think. |
| 06:23:01.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | If you'd like, I'll put a motion on the table. |
| 06:23:03.19 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 06:23:03.21 | Nastassya Saad | I was just going to ask, if we're getting into the details, let's get a motion on the floor. |
| 06:23:06.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'll get a motion on the table. I will move that we... |
| 06:23:10.16 | Mike Rogers | Can we still discuss? Are we still discussing? |
| 06:23:12.08 | Nastassya Saad | I would just love to put a motion just to get some of the details to discuss it. Yes. |
| 06:23:12.12 | Mike Rogers | I would just love to put it in. |
| 06:23:16.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. a motion that we adopt the resolution of the Planning Commission recommending City Council adoption pursuant to the programmatic environmental impact report for the Sausalito amended six-cycle housing element of Title 10A, Objective Design and Development Standards of the Sausalito Municipal Code for the implementation of the amended six-cycle housing element. This This is the with the following changes. First of all, the resolution will have a 2025 date rather than 2024 date. And instead of the modifications that are attached to the agenda, the first modification be what uh commissioner marlott explained about the front setback the second would be that we replace chapter three that's included with the resolution with the new chapter three that was presented tonight and number three uh we replace section on height, which is 10 a dot 06.050.2 a to read as follows height the height of new construction that is within 15 feet of a street facing facade shall not exceed the average height of the neighborhood context buildings. See figure 10A.06.050.1, parentheses, height requirements, end of parentheses. In no case shall the overall height of new additions or new construction exceed 33 32 feet period. with the overall height being applied in the case of multiple street funnages, period. And since it doesn't have any definition of, that's what I'm suggesting, the language. If it doesn't have any definition of how you measure it, I assume the code's measurement is correct with that. |
| 06:25:31.99 | David Marlatt | You'd simply have to refer to 10.040. There's a section on height. There's a section on height. Which defines height, exceptions to height. It's very robust. |
| 06:25:37.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | There's a section on it. Thank you. Yeah, so this basically deletes that and adds new construction and just cleans it up a bit. So with those three changes, I'm... |
| 06:25:47.65 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 06:25:47.69 | Unknown | We'll be right back. |
| 06:25:47.76 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 06:25:53.44 | Neal Toft | Could you just repeat that last sentence again? |
| 06:25:57.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The last sentence is the same sentence that's already there, with the overall height being applied in the case of multiple street frontages. |
| 06:26:08.04 | Nastassya Saad | And Jeffrey, it was 10? |
| 06:26:09.86 | Director Phipps | Thank you. So, yeah, Jeffrey, apologies. That was really well delivered. Yeah. Could you deliver it well again? Sure. And I will just also trace back what I have here. 10A06, 0502A, the height of new construction that is within 15 feet of the street-facing facade shall not exceed. And then I lost you. |
| 06:26:14.86 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 06:26:17.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 06:26:17.62 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 06:26:17.67 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 06:26:17.84 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 06:26:17.89 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 06:26:33.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | exceed the average I I'm just reading the language and I'm just pretty much reading the language there's only one section deleted but I'm shall not exceed the average height of the of the neighborhood con context buildings period see figure 10 a 06050 dot 1 height requirements in no case |
| 06:27:01.21 | Neal Toft | This is where you're adding new language. |
| 06:27:03.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, no, this is all the language that's there. We just want the new information. |
| 06:27:06.17 | Director Phipps | It's there. and where. |
| 06:27:08.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And where the new language is. So it goes in no case shall the overall height of new additions. I'm adding the words or new construction. So and then it goes on exceed 32 feet. Then I'm deleting this the section that says as measured. I've crossed it out. So it's as measured dot dot dot through the end of the sentence, whatever is there. And then I'm going on with the same sentence with the overall height being applied in the case of multiple street frontages. I was confused in the language you have in the thing because it says no change to measurement of height. I didn't was, you wanted that in there or you're just telling us that. So that's why I did this. So basically we're adding the words or new construction and we're deleting as measured by dot, dot, dot to the end of that sentence. Those are the only changes. |
| 06:28:07.48 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 06:28:09.35 | Kristina Feller | Anything else? |
| 06:28:10.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, those are only changes to the odds at this point. I don't know if anybody has other changes to add to the motion, but you know, that's the motion. I'll be looking for a second. |
| 06:28:19.02 | David Marlatt | I would second that motion. |
| 06:28:20.03 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. OK, and I'd like to continue the discussion. I just wanted to get some direction on the floor. Commissioner Feller had other points to discuss. |
| 06:28:27.58 | David Marlatt | Yeah. |
| 06:28:27.97 | Kristina Feller | for the I want to revisit the view sink. And again, this is nothing personal here, but this legal body – state mandated body has to make a recommendation to another legal body and we have not done our due diligence here I do not believe that this has been beta tested and stress tested and war gamed and all those kinds of things. And I think that we are walking straight into it. And I think it's going to destroy the credibility of everything else that we've already adopted tonight. I, really want you to think hard about what it is we're recommending to the City Council for their approval and the position that we put them in as well. because I don't think that we have done everything that we can here to ensure an actual objective standard. And when we know that it is not an objective standard, which is pretty clear, we should not be recommending it. we can provisionally recommend it for further consideration. ask for additional criteria to be added to it. |
| 06:29:50.38 | Nastassya Saad | Sorry, can we not speak in the chambers while we're deliberating so we can concentrate? |
| 06:29:54.49 | Kristina Feller | But we know that it isn't. And we've talked about some of those things even tonight. Um, We really have to be bulletproof here. We have to. We haven't done our due diligence and I really want the rest of you to think about that before you're making a recommendation just because it's late at night or you're tired of looking at odds or doing this or doing that like we have to do our volunteer job here too. and I don't think we've done it. So I would like to need to consider that or modify your recommendation and think about provisional conditions to consider this or continue to study it, but we're not there yet. Like this could come flying back at a high probability of that happening. with you know Probably a couple knocks on the chin, which is not going to help us with the larger housing element. |
| 06:30:47.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm a little confused. How is this going to come flying back to us? |
| 06:30:51.83 | Kristina Feller | Well, this has to go to HCD. What if they reject it? That's why I'm saying we need to continue to... to beta test this and not necessarily recommend this to the city council or say what we provisionally would like to consider continuing our but this is not meet the minimum bar yet. |
| 06:31:10.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The HCD has asked us to rezone. This is a form of rezoning. We have did the zoning amendment and we're doing this. Once we do this, it will go to HCD. If they feel that somehow, although I believe it is objective, if somehow they feel, and also we're exempting a whole bunch of things, so I feel that HCD will be fine with it. If HCD has an issue with this, we will do further rezonings down the road. Thank you. things. So I feel that HCD will be fine with it. If HCD has an issue with this, we will do further rezonings down the road. Putting it on the books, it was the same as putting on the original odds that we put on and were clear about. Once we have items on the books, if they object to it, we can do further amendments down the road. We're going to have to monitor the amount of housing that gets built, and we might have to make other changes. This is a first step. To step back and say, we're not going to put it in, but we might put it in later, I would put it in, and then if there are problems, we can also do amendments down the road. Plus for the fact that it exempts good about 80% of the city if they want to build one and two story buildings in different parts of the city. And in addition, it offers other software as an option for an applicant. So there's a whole bunch of safety valves in this to make it work. I think that these folks have done an excellent job on this thing. |
| 06:32:37.55 | Kristina Feller | It's not a knock on the work that's been done. |
| 06:32:39.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I understand. I think it works, and we have to have a point of departure. HCD can object to any number of things that we just recommended out of this housing element. We think it's going to be okay. We don't know. |
| 06:32:55.44 | Kristina Feller | I know, but I will note that we had a certified housing development And we got comments back, and that is the premise of some of the amendments that we had to make. So it's not a first time. So I don't know, Vice Chair, I interrupted you. |
| 06:33:13.12 | Andrew Junius | No, it's an interesting debate. I think I'm leaning back toward you, Commissioner Feller. Again, I think I've never believed this was going to work in the first place. I think it kind of runs counter to the entire idea of objective standards. Admittedly, it's become much more robust. robust it's much more accurate it's going to be a great planning tool for the city but in terms of individual project compliance it's just it's just you know the the idea that um i mean i again i didn't think we'd get into this level of debate at this hour. The problem continues to be that the applicant can't know whether he complies or not, without essentially going through an iterative process with a piece of software. And I just don't think that's what the state intended when they talked about an objective standard that the applicant and the public knows whether they can comply or not before they file their application. That's the ultimate problem. The rest of it, a lot of numbers, very close to being objective in certain respects, but the objective standard definition includes more than just the numbers and being objective in terms of the quantification of it. It's the process is part of it. And that's what I'm having trouble with, and that's what I don't think can be solved ever. So that's, I'm skeptical that it'll ever get solved, And I do, you know, I have to say, you know, I think Commissioner Feller is right. It, this is the component of the odds that is, that is the most problematic for me. Everything else has been resolved. I, I'm not offended at all by the fact that it's been shrunk down and twisted around and whatever it's, it's all just. It's all fine. But this part really is something that nobody else is trying. there are probably other ways for the city of Sausalito to preserve its urban fabric and its character having nothing to do with views Um, but this is where we're talking where we're going with views and i'm you know i i i guess i'm i'm changing my mind here and i think i agree that we probably shouldn't be recommending to the city council that we experiment with our housing element with a piece of software that's you know still might not be working and i don't think is ever going to work in connection with that definition and requirement of state law |
| 06:35:48.94 | David Marlatt | It's... Commissioner Merlott. Yeah, thank you. And I think as somebody's been, you know, obviously looking at the entire odds, not just this particular part of it, the view standards, the Chapter 3, are not only the most objective, they're the only objective portion of the entire odds. If you think that identifying a building type and a facade type and playing with what is a porch and what is a garage and what does 18 feet mean and so forth and so on, If you think that identifying a building type and a facade type and playing with what is a porch and what is a garage and what does 18 feet mean and so forth and so on, if you think that that's not subjective, and it is subjective, and it's not a dig on Sausalito. It's true for all design standards. All objective design standards are subjective. The law itself that mandates them is subjective. It's all subjective. What the view sync does, at least, is it takes something that's mathematical, it's more objective. It's 5% of this, 10% of this. The key points are defined in latitude and longitude. There is a compliance software component which will be offered for eventually possibly free, that's a second consideration. But for sites which are obviously or easily compliant then other methods according to CDD are possible but it's it's the only standards we have that really just come down to math and there's nothing more objective than math the everything else in the use of everything else in the odds are is ultimately subjective it It requires judgment. And as an architect, if I'm looking at a complicated site and looking through the floor area ratio requirements of Sausalito and less than 5'11 and a porch that has 3 or 2' surrounds and what qualifies and what doesn't and so forth, and then I have to bring that into the judgment, not mathematical equation, the judgment that I've graphically proven it, that's not objective and it never will be. And also on a complicated site, I designed something and I think it meets the porch and I think it meets the porch or the garage or something like that, and I don't know exactly what I'm doing. I go in in good faith thinking I've resolved the problem, but I don't know that I've resolved the problem until it meets staff review. And then their judgment, they say, oh yeah, we judge that this objectively matches the problem. So this idea that the view sync is more subjective or unknowable or so forth, yeah, there might be some aspect where you come in not knowing the final result. But it's far more objective than the rest of the odds. |
| 06:38:15.01 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Well, I think the point, I tend to agree with most of what you just said, but again, it's the sequence of events, and it's trying to It's forcing a developer to use a piece of software to iterate its design in advance of submitting it and that's not what the state law. is asking to be done. It's much more complicated. It's just not, you might as well just start over and do the thing with the staff. I mean, it's like, how many times do you have to run the software before you get the design that you never wanted to build so that it satisfies the view standard? I mean, that's kind of absurd, if you ask me. |
| 06:38:57.42 | David Marlatt | Everything you said is exactly what an architect does with or without ViewSync anyway. They're dealing with FARs, with setbacks. They're doing the building that they don't necessarily want to do, but they have to do for compliance reasons. Of course, we're using software, much more sophisticated software. It's all software-based. There's nothing here that's new in terms of process. It's a different process, but it's nothing strange. It's an app or it will be an app. It's the 3D model. Everybody works in a 3D model. |
| 06:39:27.86 | Andrew Junius | It's, yeah. |
| 06:39:29.72 | David Marlatt | There's nothing more. |
| 06:39:30.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | about it. |
| 06:39:30.31 | David Marlatt | about it. |
| 06:39:30.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Can I, yeah, I'd like to clarify that. So when you design something, you're designing in a 3D model. Yeah. And you would take the software, not come in and visit the staff. You'd take the software, and you come up with your first 3D model, and then you'll run the software, and it'll say it complies or it doesn't comply. And if it doesn't comply, I mean, if your client said, I don't like this wall here, I want to move this wall, you move it in the 3D model, you would do this. Anyway. You don't do this with the staff. You do it in your office, and then you come into something that you believe because you've tested it on the app complies, right? Isn't that what architects do? Yeah, essentially that's right. |
| 06:39:59.45 | Unknown | Anyway. |
| 06:40:09.01 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 06:40:09.38 | David Marlatt | Essentially, that's right. |
| 06:40:10.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 06:40:10.69 | David Marlatt | That's what I always did. |
| 06:40:11.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 06:40:13.22 | David Marlatt | And then the staff tests that I'm being honest. |
| 06:40:15.77 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. So OK, we have a motion on the floor, and we have a second. Just from my final point, we're going to take a vote, but I'm also not going to be able to support chapter 3, and I'm going to agree with the staff's recommendation to reserve for future use. So is there any modification based on the discussion that we just had that you'd like to make? Director Fitz. |
| 06:40:45.03 | Director Phipps | Director Fitz. A clarification point, Chair. I just want to get on record. Who was the individual who seconded the motion? |
| 06:40:52.15 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner Miller. Very good. Thank you. |
| 06:40:52.93 | Director Phipps | Very good. Thank you. |
| 06:40:54.01 | Nastassya Saad | Just based on this discussion, are there any modifications you wish to make to your motion? |
| 06:40:58.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, I think the, I mean, you either want it in or out. I don't think there's really any way to do this other than, you know, if it doesn't pass, it doesn't pass. And given the lateness of the hour, I think we're going to have to just continue this to another meeting. |
| 06:41:14.90 | Nastassya Saad | No, we've got a motion on the floor and a second. So I think at this point we should definitely take a vote. |
| 06:41:18.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | At this point, we should definitely take a vote. We're gonna have to figure out where we go from here. |
| 06:41:23.05 | Nastassya Saad | We will. We'll keep going. Let's take a vote, please, Director Phipps. Thank you. |
| 06:41:28.59 | Director Phipps | Just to clarify. |
| 06:41:29.13 | Nastassya Saad | Let's clarify the motion, please, on the floor. |
| 06:41:31.37 | Director Phipps | Yep, this is the motion presented originally by Jeffrey, seconded by David, that contains certain minor modifications, such as the reso will have a 2025 date rather than a 2024 date. Instead of modifications attached to the agenda, David Merlant provided a comment regarding Chapter 5. There's a thought type called porch engaged. We will reduce that to zero. Jeffrey had the addition of three words or new construction and the removal of as measured by dot dot dot in section 10A.060.1. And I may want some clarification on that. 10A.06.050.2A. Is that correct? |
| 06:42:22.77 | Unknown Staff | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 06:42:22.94 | Director Phipps | That's what I have. And then the question of ViewSync. So is the motion on the floor the inclusive of ViewSync and the other pieces or exclusive? Yeah. |
| 06:42:23.09 | Unknown Staff | That's what I have. That's correct. |
| 06:42:34.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It's inclusive of the Chapter 3 as presented in the attachment to the agenda. So the revised Chapter 3. |
| 06:42:45.72 | Nastassya Saad | Is everybody clear? Okay, let's go ahead and take a vote please, Director Phipps, when you're ready. |
| 06:42:51.70 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Commissioner Feller. No. Vice Chair Junius. No. Chair Assad. |
| 06:42:56.34 | Nastassya Saad | No. |
| 06:42:59.46 | Director Phipps | you |
| 06:42:59.51 | Nastassya Saad | No. |
| 06:42:59.76 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Motion does not pass. |
| 06:43:02.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm going to move that we continue this item to a future date because it's 1.15 in the morning. |
| 06:43:09.01 | Kristina Feller | I'd like to put another motion on the floor. |
| 06:43:11.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, please. |
| 06:43:11.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 06:43:13.63 | Kristina Feller | So my motion on the floor, which is of no surprise to anybody, is I would like to reaffirm the Planning Commission's 5-0 vote on the previous version of the odds with the following caveats. First of which, the amendments to the historic preservation I fully accept and would like those amendments to be reflected in the motion to that version of odds. That version of odds gives better security, I think, and safety and options to our community and protects the community. I would like to ensure that the three areas of provisional view preservation is included with the caveat that we can continue to vigorously look at further objective standards to be more robust to ensure view preservation in Sausalito. Those three are the public GPS coordinates. There's a very extensive list of them with those view corridors already defined. In addition to obviously solar pass and those shadow ordinances that were discussed. That is my motion. |
| 06:44:46.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I ask a question? Is this the version of the odds that was like 180 pages? |
| 06:44:51.59 | Kristina Feller | This is the version, I don't know how many pages it was, Commissioner Luxenberg. This is the version of odds that we voted on 5-0 last year. Before the peer review committee. I believe, yeah, I believe last February, but don't quote me specifically. I might have the date wrong, but it was last year. |
| 06:45:02.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | before the peer review committee. Thank you. |
| 06:45:13.95 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 06:45:13.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I mean, I think that the peer review committee did an excellent job taking out stuff that wasn't related to Sausalito and make this tailored to Sausalito. Before that, I mean, yes, we voted 5-0, but it's gotten an awful lot better. So I would like to thank you. |
| 06:45:34.05 | Kristina Feller | I think we're looking for a second before we have discussion. |
| 06:45:35.86 | Andrew Junius | I'd actually like to make a third motion because I, while I am supportive of of leaving behind chapter three for now with respect to the view issues and the view sync. |
Michael Rogers — Against: Objected to his property (Site 63) being included as a housing opportunity site, stating he does not want to build the required density and that it would be out of character for the neighborhood; requested the site be removed. ▶ 📄
Sophia Collier — Against: Speaking for Save Our Sausalito, strongly opposed the high density at Altamira (70 units/acre) and advocated reducing it to 29 units per acre; emphasized the importance of visualizing potential projects. ▶ 📄
Michael Rex — Neutral: Proposed adding a new program to explore development agreements on non‑opportunity sites, which could spread housing more evenly, provide better control, and offer an alternative if ballot measures fail; encouraged a dialogue on amending Ordinance 1022. ▶ 📄
Linda Hotham — Against: Raised concerns about the height and density at the Altamira site, stating it is far too high and dense and would threaten Sausalito’s character; urged the Commission to consider reductions. ▶ 📄
Stacy Nemo — Against: Speaking for Build Smart Sausalito, highlighted fire risk at MLK (Site 84), argued that city control is not a guarantee, and noted that northern Sausalito is disproportionately burdened with new units; called for more equitable distribution and caution on the MLK ballot measure. ▶ 📄
Steven Woodside — Neutral: Thanked the Commission, staff, and participants for their work on the challenging housing element process. ▶ 📄
Annie — Against: Citing fire dangers and difficult access in Hurricane Gulch, argued that increasing density to the proposed levels is unsafe; supported Michael Rex’s suggestions for more controlled development. ▶ 📄
Sandra Bushmaker — Against: Requested that the fire station and city hall sites be removed from consideration, opposed an excessive buffer, and urged that the environmental impact of the RHNA numbers themselves be addressed. ▶ 📄
Jennifer Nemo — Against: Expressed full support for the comments made by Michael Rex and Stacy Nemo, reinforcing concerns about fire hazards and the distribution of density. ▶ 📄