City Council Feb 25, 2025

Feb 25

City Council Meeting Summary

Time	Item	Item Summary	Motion Summary	Comment Summary
00:00:12	None: None	The meeting is called to order at 3:03 PM and is being broadcast live on cable TV channel 27, the city's website, and Zoom.	No Motion	0 Total: 0 In Favor 0 Against 0 Neutral

00:00:23	I.: CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL & ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION - 3:00 PM	Mayor Mary Weig called the special meeting to order (00:00:23). The City Clerk took roll call. The council then adjourned to closed session to discuss items D1 and D2 (00:00:54). The closed session included one conference with legal counsel regarding existing litigation, specifically the 'Yes In My Backyard versus City of Sausalito' case, and another conference with legal counsel regarding anticipated litigation with significant exposure to litigation, involving two cases (00:01:06). The meeting was adjourned, with a plan to reconvene around 4 p.m. (00:01:26)	No Motion	0 Total: 0 In Favor 0 Against 0 Neutral

00:01:56	II.: RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION - 4:00 PM	The meeting was called to order, and it was announced that a closed session had been held and would reconvene after a dinner break. Councilmember Sobieski recused themself from one of the items due to the proximity of the location to their residence. Public comment was opened for closed session items. The mayor clarified that public comment would be limited to two minutes.	No Motion	1 Total: 0 In Favor 0 Against 1 Neutral
00:02:53 Jeff Jacob Chase was Neutral: Jeff Jacob Chase, identifying himself as the owner and captain of a 27-foot sloop named Jubilee, stated he would speak on the closed session items. He argued for religious freedom, asserting that a prayer from any religion should be allowed before government meetings. He urged the council to prioritize unity and accepting new people over financial considerations, warning that focusing solely on money would lead to a soulless and homogenous city.
00:04:59	1.A): Public Hearing on Certification of Amended 2023-2031 Housing Element Environmental Impact Report (EIR); Adoption of CEQA Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Approval of Amended 2023-20	The meeting was called to order, and the agenda was approved unanimously. (00:05:52) Mayor Weig announced that the council would not be able to adopt a housing element this evening due to pending comments from the Housing and Community Development Department (HCD). (00:06:19) The intention was to provide direction to staff to finalize feedback to HCD, with a focus on avoiding wholesale revisions to the housing element. (00:07:19) Brandon Phipps provided a brief intro, mentioning previous meetings and the goal of ensuring compliance with HCD. (00:08:02) Beth Thompson presented the background of the housing element, comments received from HCD, the Planning Commission's recommendation, CEQA compliance, and the staff recommendation (00:09:20). She noted the amended housing element would revise Housing Plan Program 4, add two new housing and mixed-use zones, revise Housing Plan Program 8, and revise Housing Plan Program 19. (00:11:06) The modified amended housing element took into account City Council input and public comments. (00:12:14) There were also changes made regarding MLK park site, Altamira site, affordability of units at site 303, and the removal/addition of several sites. (00:12:36) The capacity of the modified housing element was discussed, showing three different scenarios. (00:14:46) Beth also addressed public comments related to disproportionate housing density, opposition to rezoning, and concerns about traffic, infrastructure, and environmental issues. (00:19:50) She outlined potential changes to development at MLK park in response to public comments. (00:21:09) The Planning Commission recommended adopting the amended housing element, identifying specific revisions in attachment 11, including reducing units at MLK, changing the overlay at the Altamira site, removing site 63, and readjusting the income allocation at the City Council Chambers. (00:24:09) Brandon Phipps noted the Planning Commission also recommended considering senior housing at the MLK site. (00:25:27) Mayor Weig clarified the existence of two different versions of the amended housing element. (00:25:46) Beth Thompson discussed the differences between the adopted, modified amended, and amended housing elements. (00:27:01) The presentation then moved on to the environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for the project. (00:28:31) Comments received on the EIR and responses to those comments were discussed, including concerns regarding site 201 and site 53. (00:22:05) Sergio, the city attorney, summarized the new housing element laws and the status of communication with HCD. (00:31:17) He noted that any new draft should be submitted to HCD, which by law has 60 days to make findings. (00:34:26) Councilmember Hoffman asked about senior housing overlay (00:36:40) and fire risk (00:41:19), and Councilmember Sobieski inquired about the differences between the modified amended housing element and the amended housing element (00:39:49) and how City Hall and the Spencer firehouse became part of the plan (00:41:33).	Motion to work with the amended housing element and not the modified amended housing element (00:07:24); The motion carried unanimously (00:07:24); Motion to add language from the modified amended housing element to the amended housing element regarding shortfall scenarios and to investigate the inclusion of additional SB9 and ADU sites (00:36:40); This motion carried unanimously (00:36:40); Motion to remove Site 202 Altamira as an opportunity site from the housing element (00:50:00); [Redacted] The motion to remove Site 202 Altamira carried unanimously 4-0 (00:50:00); Motion to reallocate the affordability levels of site 303 to increase very low income units by 20 units, reducing moderate-income units by five units and reducing above moderate units by 15 units to ensure the city maintains a buffer (00:52:00); Motion carried unanimously (00:52:00); Motion to reduce density at the MLK site to 29 units (00:07:24)	22 Total: 2 In Favor 20 Against 0 Neutral
00:56:43 Sophia Collier was In Favor: Speaking on behalf of Save Our Sausalito, Sophia thanked the Mayor, Council, and staff for their work on the housing element, recognizing the complexity and effort involved. She stated SOF supports housing 29 designation in the downtown area and for the Altamira site. (00:57:19) The organization has sponsored petition signed by 600 signatures to move Altamira to housing 29. (00:57:32) They're also submitted technical comments proposing essential language changes in the EIR historic preservation provisions. (00:57:46) 00:58:38 Kay Carlson was Against: Kay, an artist, urged to preserve the current plan for housing without adapting any developmental agreement for ordinances 1228 or 1022. (00:58:55) Protect the working waterfront that has 100 working artists at the ICB. If there's a zone change, this is going to have a huge impact on their ability to make a living as an artist.(00:59:03) 00:59:42 Jennifer Nimmo was Against: Stated that the massing models for the MLK park site are flawed and inaccurate. (00:59:56) Can't reduce arena numbers but to ensure to have adequate sites. She encouraged the council to approve the lowest possible overlay for Site 84, keep the Spencer Avenue fire station and City Hall on the list of options and to repeal ordinance 1022. (01:00:05) 01:01:10 Peter Bostock was Against: Peter, a 13 year resident, said no to H49 at Altamira and yes to H29 as a change of the city. Appreciated the character of the city, the environment and the people of the city. He wants to accept change, but preserve it. (01:01:10) 01:02:10 Robert Hayes was Against: Robert lives near the MLK site as an architect and designed low income senior housing and multifamily housing projects all over northern California. (01:02:10) 80 units will translate into four stories over parking for a 1.4 acre site. 50 units is too many units as well. 01:04:01 Jim Gabbert was Against: Former chairman of the California Emergency Alert System for FEMA and Federal Communications Commission remembers the Paradise Fire and Lahaina and how the emergency lane here in Sausalito was important because people could not get out. Also referenced the firehouse is important in the climate change era, where they blamed the LA fires on climate change. (01:04:01) Has to make sure that the firehouse stays. 01:06:06 Sally Johansson was Against: Newer resident, who is uninformed, said that city has a right to the arena but can't reduce it. Believes that the integrity and spirit of Sausalito has to be considered. In favor of Altamira being capped at 29 units. Talked about traffic. Infrastructure and environmental issues and that is why Altamira should be capped. (01:06:06) 01:07:53 Rory Moore was Against: Lives right across the street and in opposition to lot 53. In case of fire, people are supposed to move downhill not uphill and the proposed area is the center of Sausalito, and halfway between the two freeways. By adding 21 more units they will be taking away parking (01:07:53). Noted increased noise and congestion and changes to views. 01:10:06 Matthew Highmark was Against: Lives in close proximity to Altamira. He greatly disapproves of any loss of character and identity of Sausalito. Wants density be reduced at the site, and refined project to avoid impacts to historic buildings. Unknown traffic and safety situation with development (01:10:06). 01:11:03 Tony Cook was Against: Asks the council to reduce the density at Altamira to 29 units per acre (01:11:13). He felt this would lead to a traffic nightmare and create an eyesore. The concerns expressed were about safety, traffic and building a monstrosity at the heart of Sausalito. (01:11:28) 01:11:58 Annie Porter was Against: Opposes the unreasonable size of the proposal for Altamira (01:11:58) due to its size being incompatible with the neighborhood which create a log jam of vehicles and safety issues. Resulting buildings make one think of the Portofino building and other buildings. 01:13:04 Alexandra Popkin was Against: Lives in building directly behind Altamira. Concerned that there was no indication when she moved of a project of this scale, her view obstructed, traffic and infrastructure strain, etc. (01:13:04) Recommends considering alternate locations. The city needs the council to adopt a resolution at 29 units or less. 01:14:32 Bonnie McGregor was Against: Long time Sausalito resident presented a letter saying underutilized spots in the Marinship should be the focus. The city plans to retain control of all city on site. Clear it needed to revise program eight (01:14:32). 01:15:23 Robert Hayes was Against: Robert Hayes is negative to new development and has concerns regarding site traffic infrastructure and other problems and has a transparent process with the various sites being considered. He mentions that it is a city wide problem (01:15:23). 01:15:52 Matthew Highmark was Against: Program four was revised to provide the city with great flexibility and potential to reduce the potential impact on Spencer Avenue. And has comments related to site 14 including to address the Spencer air quality and health concerns. 01:16:11 Annie Porter was Against: Additional comments regarding the 201 site on Bridgeway. 01:16:57 John DeRay was Against: Talks about opposition to re zoning at the fire stations and mentions his history in planning and traffic (01:16:57). 01:16:57 Sam Chase was In Favor: Support keeping the Altamira site at 29 units per acre, and Spencer Avenue. Fire and air quality health (01:16:57). 01:27:05 Lisa Maldonado was Against: Concerns over senior housing overlay, traffic, evacuation, air quality and health. 01:27:52 Charles Angle was Against: Support comments made by Stakey Nimo, comments regarding building density in northern Sausalito and Spencer traffic traffic and air quality. 01:28:31 Judith Bang Kolb was Against: Protect all workspace for artists and industrial traffic by adopting ordinance to reduce traffic and zoning fair share, this can’t reduce 01:34:09 Robert Hayes was Against: With all the changes to accommodate arena in MLK site development of alternative is to reduce site and refine the project to avoid address impacts
05:09:15	1.B: Discussion and Direction Regarding Conduct of Special Election and Proposed Initiative Ordinance Amending Ordinance 1022 and Amending the City Zoning Map to Authorize Development of Housing on Specific Commercial Properties to Permit the Development o	The council discussed the potential ballot measure to amend Ordinance 1022, focusing on exempting Marinship sites to allow for housing development. Mayor Weig pointed out errors in the staff report, including incorrect addresses and the inclusion of Site 201, which is no longer an opportunity site. She directed staff to update the table of sites, remove references to Ordinance 1128, and provide clear descriptions of site locations for transparency (05:25:28). Councilmember Sobieski suggested drafting language for repealing 1022, arguing it hinders both housing and economic development (05:28:29). However, Mayor Weig cautioned that expanding the ballot measure to include a repeal of 1022 could undermine the necessary housing element implementation and lead to litigation (05:32:12). Councilmember Ian agreed that a discussion about 1022 is warranted, though not in the context of this ballot initiative (05:34:07). Council gave direction to staff to prepare ballot language with the discussed edits for the identified parcels.	No Motion	8 Total: 2 In Favor 2 Against 4 Neutral
05:11:37 Sophia Collier was Neutral: She questioned the necessity of including Site 201 on the ballot since it has been removed from the housing element. 05:12:02 Peter Van Meter was In Favor: He urged the council to include the repeal of Ordinance 1022 in the ballot measure to allow for future development options in the Marinship area and increase economic vitality (05:12:20). 05:13:14 Michael Rex was Neutral: He presented two options: a full repeal of 1022, or a more limited approach focused on specific sites and development agreements, advising the council to consider which is more likely to pass (05:13:16). 05:15:14 Babette McDougall was Neutral: She emphasized the importance of considering the will of the constituents and warned against secret deals, urging the council to think about consensus and prioritize their constituents. 05:17:16 Sandra Bushmaker was Against: She expressed opposition to repealing 1022 and suggested keeping the ballot measure focused on the application of 1022 to specific sites related to the housing element to ensure passage (05:17:35). 05:18:42 Fred Moore was In Favor: He supported repealing 1022 to promote economic growth and align with the city's housing element obligations, arguing that existing zoning regulations can control development (05:18:47). 05:19:59 Alice Merrill was Against: She stated that 1022 was designed to slow down developers and stated that she hopes that the council doesn't repeal 1022. 05:20:37 John DeRay was Neutral: He believes that the ballot has a decent chance of passing with the specific current sites spelled out but will significantly diminish if they link it to development agreements or getting rid of it all together.
05:47:28	1.C: Discussion and Direction Regarding Submitting to the Qualified Voters of the City of Sausalito an Initiative Ordinance Amending Ordinance 1128 and Amending the City Zoning Map to Authorize Development of Housing on Martin Luther King Jr. Property (Sit	The council discussed the possibility of submitting an initiative ordinance to the voters regarding housing development on the MLK site. Mayor Weig recused herself due to a conflict of interest. Captain Hoffman, acting as Vice Mayor, opened the floor for public comment. The discussion included the timing of a special election, with options for a consolidated election in August or November, or a separate election at an additional cost. (05:55:34) It was determined that no action would be taken at this meeting, and the matter would be discussed further after hearing from HCD.	No Motion	3 Total: 0 In Favor 1 Against 2 Neutral
05:49:22 Sophia Collier was Against: Expressed disappointment that a discussion to find an alternative site had not occurred, which could have obviated the need for the ballot initiative. She suggested exploring other sites to avoid building on the park and offered one specific alternative for consideration. (05:49:41) 05:51:40 Michael Rex was Neutral: Suggested adjusting the size of the development area on the MLK site to get closer to 30 units. He recommended broadening the recommendation for senior housing to include teachers, first responders, and city workers. (05:51:49) He also advised presenting a model of the proposed development to show its visual impact. (05:52:59) 05:53:30 Babette McDougall was Neutral: Expressed encouragement toward a measured approach for consensus. She highlighted concerns about special deals and a lack of public trust, referencing reports of meetings between architects, council members, and developers. (05:55:15)
05:57:01	2: ADJOURNMENT	Captain Hoffman asked if there were any other comments, noting that there was no action to be taken. He then declared the meeting adjourned and thanked everyone (05:57:19). Brandon Phipps also thanked the council members (05:57:25).	No Motion	0 Total: 0 In Favor 0 Against 0 Neutral

City Council Meeting Transcript

Adrian Brinton

City Council Mar 4, 2025

Time	Speaker	Text
00:00:12.64	Blossene	Council, it's now 3.03, and this meeting is being broadcast live on cable TV channel 27. It's also being broadcast on the city's website and on Zoom.
00:00:23.22	Mary Weig	Okay, I will call the special meeting for the City of Sausalito for Tuesday, February 25, 2025 to order and ask the City Clerk to call roll.
00:00:36.53	Blossene	Councilmember Blossene.
00:00:37.80	Blossene	Thank you.
00:00:37.81	Mary Weig	Here.
00:00:38.05	Blossene	Thank you.
00:00:38.76	Blossene	Council member Hoffman.
00:00:41.09	Blossene	Thank you.
00:00:41.12	Hoffman	Here.
00:00:41.32	Blossene	Thank you.
00:00:41.34	Hoffman	Thank you.
00:00:41.48	Blossene	Thank you.
00:00:41.97	Blossene	Council Member Sobieski. Here. Vice Mayor Woodside. Here. And Mayor Cox. Here.
00:00:45.88	Cox	here.
00:00:49.68	Mary Weig	Here. All right. Uh, we are going to, um,
00:00:54.77	Mary Weig	adjourn to closed session to
00:00:57.96	Mary Weig	discuss items D1 and D2. Is there any public comment on closed session items?
00:01:05.69	Blossene	See none.
00:01:06.70	Mary Weig	In that case, we will adjourn to close session to consider one conference with legal counsel, existing litigation, name of case, yes, in my backyard versus city of Sausalito.
00:01:16.91	Mary Weig	And item two, conference with legal counsel anticipated litigation, significant exposure to litigation,
00:01:24.19	Mary Weig	two cases.
00:01:26.11	Mary Weig	And with that, we are adjourned. We will reconvene around 4 p.m.
00:01:56.06	Mary Weig	Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to the special city council meeting for the city of Sausalito for Tuesday, February 25, 2025. It's so great to see so many of you here. We held a closed session. We adjourned the closed session until the dinner break. We plan to take a dinner break for 20 or 30 minutes around 6 or 630 p.m. Hopefully after we've had an opportunity to hear from all of you wonderful folks. So at the moment I have no closed session announcements. Um,
00:02:30.07	Councilmember Sobieski	Mayor could you just I did recuse myself from one of the items because of the proximity of the location to my personal residence.
00:02:35.82	Mary Weig	Yes, that is true.
00:02:38.12	Mary Weig	um,
00:02:41.29	Mary Weig	So I will take public comment on closed session items, if there is any.
00:02:53.74	Mary Weig	This is Jeff Jacob.
00:02:55.62	Jeff Jacob Chase	My name is Jeff Jacob Chase. I'm a member of
00:02:59.51	Jeff Jacob Chase	The anchorage on a 27 foot slough.
00:03:01.32	Mary Weig	You can speak to us, Mr. Chase.
00:03:02.70	Jeff Jacob Chase	I am.
00:03:05.66	Jeff Jacob Chase	the owner and captain of a 27 foot sloop
00:03:09.45	Jeff Jacob Chase	named Jubilee.
00:03:12.29	Mary Weig	City Clerk, I'm sorry. I'm talking on the close. The number of people here this afternoon, our public comment will be limited to two minutes.
00:03:19.91	Jeff Jacob Chase	Excellent.
00:03:23.12	Jeff Jacob Chase	I'll speak on the closed session items.
00:03:28.00	Jeff Jacob Chase	After a brief Torah reading...
00:03:31.04	Jeff Jacob Chase	This is a religious freedom, Madam Mayor. No, this is- Before this is a religious freedom, before every government meeting in Marin County, in fact, across the United States,
00:03:34.22	Unknown	What?
00:03:41.28	Jeff Jacob Chase	It is mandated that there is religious freedom and a person is allowed to say a prayer from whatever their religion is. So I will do that very briefly. You could do that under the communications session. There is no communications listed on the agenda. And that's why you're not going to do that. There is no communications listed on the agenda.
00:03:49.60	Mary Weig	So-
00:03:58.98	Mary Weig	So I'm going to confine your comments to comments related to
00:04:00.40	Jeff Jacob Chase	I will be speaking on the closed items. Yes.
00:04:02.53	Mary Weig	closed session.
00:04:11.38	Jeff Jacob Chase	The Lord our God is unified. Please confine your comments. And as a unified people, Madam Mayor, City Council, City Clerk,
00:04:14.27	Unknown	And as a university.
00:04:20.23	Jeff Jacob Chase	We should have the ability to accept change. If we insist,
00:04:26.74	Jeff Jacob Chase	that our wallets are paramount, that we worship not the unity, but we worship money or we worship the budget, then we will not accept change. We won't accept new neighbors. We won't accept new people. We won't accept anything but a homogenous,
00:04:41.94	Jeff Jacob Chase	hooding of nothingness. That's soul-wise. Without a soul, the city is dead, though there are people here and there's money here. So I urge you in any way you can to accept new people into your neighborhood.
00:04:59.14	Jeff Jacob Chase	Any other people comment? Thank you very much.
00:04:59.19	Mary Weig	Thank you very much.
00:05:01.47	Jeff Jacob Chase	Todah Rabbah, thank you in Hebrew,
00:05:04.05	Mary Weig	City Clerk. Yes.
00:05:05.08	Jeff Jacob Chase	See you, none.
00:05:05.69	Blossene	Thank you.
00:05:06.14	Mary Weig	All right. All right. All right. With that, I'm going to go ahead and we're going to do the Pledge of Allegiance. Stafford Keegan, will you lead us, please?
00:05:25.74	Unknown	Thank you.
00:05:27.52	Unknown	All right.
00:05:29.08	Babette McDougall	Thank you.
00:05:29.19	Unknown	Thank you.
00:05:29.23	Babette McDougall	I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.
00:05:29.48	Unknown	Bye.
00:05:30.66	Unknown	the United States.
00:05:32.92	Babette McDougall	And to the right.
00:05:32.99	Mary Weig	And to the republic.
00:05:34.32	Babette McDougall	for which it
00:05:35.03	Mary Weig	100%.
00:05:35.24	Babette McDougall	And.
00:05:35.30	Mary Weig	And-
00:05:36.13	Babette McDougall	One nation under God.
00:05:37.45	Mary Weig	Thank you.
00:05:38.05	Babette McDougall	Thank you.
00:05:38.07	Mary Weig	Thank you.
00:05:38.09	Babette McDougall	Thank you.
00:05:38.44	Babette McDougall	indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
00:05:43.98	Babette McDougall	Thank you.
00:05:44.94	Mary Weig	Thank you. May I have a motion approving the agenda?
00:05:49.65	Captain Hoffman	So moved.
00:05:51.98	Mary Weig	Second.
00:05:52.72	Mary Weig	all in favor aye that motion carries unanimously so we will move promptly on to business item 1a public hearing on certification of the amended 2023-31 housing element environmental impact report adoption of sequa findings statement of overriding considerations and mitigation monitoring and reporting program and approval of amended 2023-2031 housing element
00:06:19.08	Mary Weig	I'm going to turn this over to Brandon Phipps for a report, but I want to start off and I'm going to ask the city attorney to assist me by announcing that we will not this evening be able to adopt a housing element.
00:06:35.97	Mary Weig	We transmitted our housing element to the Housing and Community Development Department in January. We hear that their comments are written, but they've not been transmitted to us yet. And we cannot, under statute, newly approved statutes approved at the beginning of this year, adopt a housing element for which we have not yet received HCDC.
00:07:02.63	Mary Weig	comments and responded to them. So
00:07:05.42	Mary Weig	The planning commission spent 10 and a half hours reviewing this housing element and the odds and the program of rezoning. We have all invested considerable effort. The staff has invested considerable effort
00:07:19.32	Mary Weig	It's our intention this evening to give direction to staff
00:07:23.40	Mary Weig	so that they can provide final feedback to HCD.
00:07:27.77	Mary Weig	When and if we receive HCD comments, we will have to reconvene to address those comments, but we are hoping not to make any further wholesale revisions to the housing element other than those that we will direct staff to make this evening.
00:07:43.76	Mary Weig	So that's a prefatory announcement. City Attorney, do you have anything to add?
00:07:49.78	Sergio	No, not at this time, but I will...
00:07:52.31	Sergio	help explain the issue that you just raised as part of the staff presentation or at the conclusion of it.
00:07:57.43	Mary Weig	Okay, wonderful.
00:07:58.59	Mary Weig	All right, and so with that, I will turn it over to Brandon Phipps for a staff report.
00:08:02.29	Brandon Phipps	Thank you very much, Mayor, and good afternoon to you, Vice Mayor, Council members, members of the public, and staff. Thank you for all being here today for this important meeting. I'll give a brief intro before I turn it over to Beth Thompson. I think that Council and attendees here are abundantly aware of all the hard work that we've put into delivering these documents, the documents that are before you today. I will just discuss the more recent meetings because there have been many of them. This meeting follows a City of Sausalito City Council meeting on February 4 where Council provided some direction to staff. Staff carried that direction through to a planning commission meeting that was held on February 19th where the commission was able to provide additional feedback to staff based on their review of the housing element, in addition to their review and understanding of the council direction provided at the meeting on the 4th. This meeting, as the Mayor has mentioned, is another opportunity for council to provide direction to staff and once we receive that direction we'll be working to ensure compliance with hcpd with that i will turn it over to beth thompson beth thank you very much for being here today and the floor is yours
00:09:20.26	Beth Thompson	Good evening. Good evening, Mayor members of the Council. It's a pleasure to be back before you with the housing element. And so
00:09:27.44	Beth Thompson	I just share my screen and I'll go through a presentation on this amend housing element project.
00:09:34.39	Beth Thompson	We'll briefly discuss the background of the housing element, the modified amended housing element project, comments that were received on the original draft amended housing element from HCD, the Department of Housing and Community Development.
00:09:48.14	Beth Thompson	The Planning Commission's recommendation
00:09:50.55	Beth Thompson	compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, and then the staff recommendation for this project, recognizing that there won't
00:09:59.23	Beth Thompson	of action on the housing element itself is not anticipated this evening.
00:10:03.45	Beth Thompson	So the city adopted its updated housing element of the general plan on January 30th of 2023 and the housing element addresses how Sausalito will meet
00:10:12.07	Beth Thompson	its state housing requirements, including accommodating its regional housing needs allocation or arena of 724 units. And the city's adopted housing element is available on the city's website, as well as just an abundance of information related to the materials leading up to the adoption of the housing element.
00:10:29.38	Beth Thompson	Similarly,
00:10:30.77	Beth Thompson	The draft amended housing element and modified amended housing element supporting environmental documents associated with the materials for this evening are also available on the city's website and just there's a lot of information there for anyone interested in learning more about the housing element and all of the meetings and actions that have been taken to date.
00:10:51.25	Beth Thompson	So the modified housing element, which is provided as in
00:10:54.90	Beth Thompson	exhibit C or attachment, let's see.
00:10:59.46	Beth Thompson	attachment seven of
00:11:01.13	Beth Thompson	your materials this evening.
00:11:02.66	Beth Thompson	includes a number of changes to the city's adopted housing element.
00:11:06.75	Beth Thompson	It would revise housing plan program four, which is to ensure that the inventory of sites accommodates the RHNA throughout the planning period.
00:11:14.15	Beth Thompson	And it would add two new housing and mixed use zones that correspond with lower minimum density densities of twenty nine units per acre. And this would provide more variety in housing types would continue to meet the city's Reno requirements and continue to affirmatively further fair housing.
00:11:29.15	Beth Thompson	There are also revisions to housing plan program eight, the public property conversion to housing to remove site 85 and also some refinements to address how the city would go about making a city own sites available for development during the planning period.
00:11:43.30	Beth Thompson	Housing plan program 19 development review procedures is also revised to clarify how the city would implement various housing streamlining provisions. And just as a note, the objective design and development standards are odds that are discussed under program 19 will be considered at a separate public hearing. So those are not approved as part of the housing element, the housing element sets the stage for those at a future meeting.
00:12:06.79	Beth Thompson	The modified amended housing element,
00:12:09.54	Beth Thompson	was prepared as an alternative to the initial amended housing element project.
00:12:14.35	Beth Thompson	And so this is taken into account city council input from its October 1st study session from from last year, and that was based on public input and additional consideration of the project. So some of the changes that you see in the modified amended housing element include reducing the units at MLK. So initially the amended housing element would have increased those units to 94.
00:12:36.22	Beth Thompson	And so the modified amended housing elements would element would provide for maintaining the adopted number of units, 80 units and MLK, and also considering the possibility of reducing those those units to 50 units, or if there's the the ballot major fails, providing some failsafe measures to also identify additional sites rather than increasing the units on that site.
00:13:00.26	Beth Thompson	The modified amended housing element would also increase the minimum required units at site two of two, the Altamira site, if that's necessary to accommodate the arena in event of a shortfall.
00:13:09.71	Beth Thompson	And as I mentioned, it includes a pathway to include additional sites in the event of arena shortfall. These additional sites may include that are not required to include city hall Spencer Avenue fire station. And other vacant sites or underutilized sites that are consistent with the housing element methodology for non vacant sites there's very specific criteria established in the housing element that addresses how non vacant sites.
00:13:33.17	Beth Thompson	are identified to accommodate the arena.
00:13:36.98	Beth Thompson	And then the changes also include adjusting the affordability of units at site 303, the one and three Harbor Drive site. And that's just adjusting those as necessary to maintain a buffer for very low and low income units.
00:13:51.02	Beth Thompson	The changes that are included in the modified housing element include the removal of several sites, as well as the addition of sites. Sites 85 and 209 would be removed.
00:13:59.76	Beth Thompson	removed and
00:14:00.56	Beth Thompson	And I won't go over these in detail since we've brought these before you at several previous study sessions. Sites 401 and 402 on Bridgeway and Northern Sausalita would be added.
00:14:12.98	Beth Thompson	A number of sites would be modified. Most of these changes are involved, involved reducing the overlay designation to the housing 29 and mixed use 29, 85% overlays. And these are, this is applied mainly in the downtown Sausalito area, as well as along Bridgeway and in the waterfront area. So there's some select areas that were identified for a reduction in densities.
00:14:36.30	Beth Thompson	We also,
00:14:37.31	Beth Thompson	adjusted the calculation for some of the sites.
00:14:40.13	Beth Thompson	based on the required minimum density.
00:14:46.64	Beth Thompson	When we're looking at the capacity of the modified housing element, there's the
00:14:51.32	Beth Thompson	Doc even itself includes a pretty detailed table that shows three different scenarios where you would have three different levels of capacity.
00:14:59.60	Beth Thompson	The city's arena is 724 units, if we look at the second scenario for the modified amended housing element which anticipates 50 units at site 84. This would have a total capacity of 921 units and under this scenario, you have a surplus of 197 units and you would have a surplus at all income levels under this scenario.
00:15:23.87	Beth Thompson	We've included several site maps in your materials that show where these various housing overlay sites are, as well as this inventory sites. The inventory sites that are outlined in red are those sites that are already designated by the city's general plan and zoning ordinance to accommodate residential or mixed use development. And the overlay zone sites are sites that are identified to have an increased capacity under the housing element.
00:15:52.37	Beth Thompson	The sites in the modified housing element include a number of sites that are affected by ordinances 1022, the fair traffic initiative, as well as ordinance 1128.
00:16:01.86	Beth Thompson	The sites that are affected by the fair traffic initiative total about 358 units. Well, they total 358 units and this site affected by ordinance 1128 that is 94. Actually, I apologize. That is 80 units for site 84 or 50, depending on which scenario is chosen.
00:16:23.42	Beth Thompson	In addition to adopting and looking at those changes in the modified amended housing element with the adoption of your certification of your EIR, you would be looking at the implementation of the housing element, which is the complete implementation of all of the programs in the housing element. And some of these programs would.
00:16:41.02	Beth Thompson	require the city to take additional actions to encourage and accommodate housing.
00:16:46.09	Beth Thompson	Program for which addresses ensuring that the city's inventory of sites accommodates the regional housing need allocation. Includes specific actions to reason opportunity sites to the housing 29 housing 49 housing 70 mixed use 29 85% mixed use 49 85% and mixed use 70 85% overlay zones and so as part of the implementation, the city would take the action.
00:17:10.38	Beth Thompson	to make the to rezone those sites and to update the zoning ordinance. It also includes local local ballot measures for ordinance 1022 and ordinance 1128 votes, and those would be considered as a separate public hearing item.
00:17:25.96	Beth Thompson	The city would implement program eight, which would
00:17:28.98	Beth Thompson	Commit the city to taking specific actions to make city owned sites available for development during the planning period and coordinating with the school districts who.
00:17:37.05	Beth Thompson	encourage the development of the school district identified site in that in the element as well. Program 19 includes a number of changes to the zoning ordinance. So the city would take action to amend the zoning ordinance to address those changes. Those changes are to.
00:17:52.83	Beth Thompson	residential and commercial zoning districts to address design, changes to address streamlined ministerial review, historic preservation, and historic design guidelines. And these changes are focused on removing various governmental constraints, making sites available during the planning period,
00:18:08.00	Beth Thompson	and encouraging a variety of housing types.
00:18:11.88	Beth Thompson	The city would also implement program 19, which refines the city's development review procedures. This addresses the streamlining requirements of SB 35 and objective design standards of SB 330, adopting comprehensive objective design and development standards to address multifamily development. And then revising zoning code findings for residential and residential mixed use projects to ensure objective findings and that the public hearings required for projects are a constraint to development.
00:18:41.71	Beth Thompson	HCD, when it reviewed the initial draft amended housing element,
00:18:46.25	Beth Thompson	Did make a number of findings related to whether or not that document substantially complies with state law.
00:18:52.01	Beth Thompson	Those findings are provided in HCD's letter as attachment 12. And the comments from HCD related to the suitability of non-vacant sites.
00:19:00.53	Beth Thompson	changes to Site 201.
00:19:02.86	Beth Thompson	Use of housing overlays that require a minimum of 85% residential uses. The changes to program 19.
00:19:10.15	Beth Thompson	And so in response to HCD's comments, a number of changes were made to the housing element
00:19:16.41	Beth Thompson	And these changes are included in both the modified draft amended housing element
00:19:20.73	Beth Thompson	as well as in the revised draft amended housing element. And responses to HCD's comments are provided in attachment H. So there's a matrix that goes through each of the comments that HCD made.
00:19:30.43	Beth Thompson	The revisions made to the housing element and a response to the comments provided by the state.
00:19:35.83	Beth Thompson	In addition to comments from HCD,
00:19:38.35	Beth Thompson	The city's received a number of public comments on the housing element. Public comments have been made orally at a number of the study sessions and meetings the city's hosted, as well as written comments that have been received on the housing elements.
00:19:50.22	Beth Thompson	These comments are related to disproportionate housing density in northern Sausalito.
00:19:54.65	Beth Thompson	And in response to these concerns, the alternative, this modified housing element,
00:20:00.23	Beth Thompson	That would reduce development at MLK to 80 units or to 50 units, would reduce housing in the northern Sausalito area, specifically the Nevada Street Valley neighborhood.
00:20:10.68	Beth Thompson	comments have been related to opposition to rezoning and the housing element amendments in general.
00:20:15.61	Beth Thompson	And,
00:20:16.57	Beth Thompson	These comments and concerns are noted. The city has worked to make this a transparent process. The city's held multiple planning commission and city council study sessions to discuss the project.
00:20:26.30	Beth Thompson	And the city has also discussed the various sites that are being considered for rezoning and inclusion in the housing element.
00:20:33.71	Beth Thompson	The comments have included concerns related to traffic, infrastructure and environmental issues. And these have also been considered and noted that the city does not have the ability to reduce the arena. So the city can't reduce the number of units it has been allocated. So the city has to identify under state law.
00:20:51.19	Beth Thompson	adequate sites to accommodate the arena and these sites must meet the requirements of state law.
00:20:56.21	Beth Thompson	The environmental impact report that's been prepared for the project identifies the potential environmental impacts of the project, and it does include mitigation measures where necessary and for feasible to reduce impacts.
00:21:09.37	Beth Thompson	Comments included opposition to housing development at site 84, the MLK park site, and in response to these concerns, an alternative has been identified as, as I previously have mentioned to potentially reduce development at that site.
00:21:23.31	Beth Thompson	And
00:21:23.98	Beth Thompson	I we also do want to note here that the city plans to.
00:21:27.63	Beth Thompson	to retain control of all city on site.
00:21:30.56	Beth Thompson	City Council's previous study session, it was made clear that we needed to revise program eight to ensure that this the path forward for city on sites. Does identify that the city would retain control of those sites and so that means the city can ensure that the future development on those sites is consistent with the number of units identified in the housing element and meets meets the city's expectations.
00:21:51.67	Beth Thompson	Responses to the environmental impact report comments are provided in the final EIR, so that document includes
00:21:58.63	Beth Thompson	It's all of the comments were received on the environmental impact report as well as responses to those comments.
00:22:05.68	Beth Thompson	Some of the additional comments received by the city include concerns regarding site 201, the proposed development at 605-613 Bridgeway. And the final EIR does address comments related to the historic resource status of this site, as well as the development of project alternatives to the amended housing element.
00:22:26.45	Beth Thompson	So there have the alternatives to the project has identified the potential to reduce density at the site and to refine the project to avoid adverse impacts to the downtown historic district.
00:22:39.14	Beth Thompson	We've also seen some concerns regarding site 53.
00:22:43.11	Beth Thompson	and the comments regarding the increased traffic and congestion, safety, changes to views, and neighborhood character related to the site are also noted for consideration.
00:22:52.09	Beth Thompson	Thank you.
00:22:52.12	Beth Thompson	We've also seen comments related to the opposition to site 14, the Spencer Avenue fire station. And once again, the comments on this site, including those related to traffic, evacuation concerns, air quality and health concerns, hazards and safety issues are also noted.
00:23:06.72	Beth Thompson	Program four in the modified housing element has been revised to provide the city with greater flexibility and identify alternative sites in the event of arena shortfall.
00:23:16.99	Beth Thompson	with site 1452 now identified as potential sites, but
00:23:21.97	Beth Thompson	no longer being required to be used if there is a shortfall.
00:23:25.48	Beth Thompson	and the
00:23:26.75	Beth Thompson	response to the EIR comments.
00:23:28.65	Beth Thompson	Also do address comments related to site 14.
00:23:31.62	Beth Thompson	As well as as I mentioned, comments related to site 201.
00:23:36.08	Beth Thompson	We had also received some additional comments related to the potential historic status of Building 27
00:23:43.22	Beth Thompson	at the MLK site.
00:23:44.77	Beth Thompson	And I think we'll touch on that in relation to the CEQA
00:23:48.60	Beth Thompson	secret process.
00:23:50.74	Beth Thompson	The planning commission did consider
00:23:53.12	Beth Thompson	the
00:23:54.46	Beth Thompson	Amended housing element project. They did consider that last week on February 19th.
00:23:59.37	Beth Thompson	And they did consider public comment and the commission recommended that the city council adopt the amended housing element, so not the modified amended housing element that the.
00:24:09.41	Beth Thompson	An earlier version of the amended housing element and the planning commission identified specific revisions to the housing element. Those are identified in attachment 10.
00:24:18.59	Beth Thompson	which are actually, I apologize, attachment 11, which is the planning commission resolution.
00:24:23.65	Beth Thompson	And those changes include
00:24:25.96	Beth Thompson	really site 84, the MLK site, reducing the units to 80 units, consistent with the adopted housing element.
00:24:32.68	Beth Thompson	on site 202, which is the Altamira site,
00:24:35.73	Beth Thompson	changing the overlay from housing 70 to housing 49. So reducing the overall allowed density at that site and reducing the realistic capacity of that site to 51 units.
00:24:47.01	Beth Thompson	Site 63 located at 522 Olive, removing that site.
00:24:51.70	Beth Thompson	City Council Chambers, Site 303 located at one and three harbor drive increasing the very low income units by 20 units. City Council Chambers, reducing moderate income units by five units and reducing above moderate units by 15 units so no net change in the total units at the site, but readjusting the income allocation to ensure that the city maintains a buffer.
00:25:12.88	Beth Thompson	And the Planning Commission also separately recommended to the City Council that the City Hall and Spencer Avenue fire station sites be removed from consideration in the housing element.
00:25:23.51	Brandon Phipps	And Beth, just one moment, just a quick clarification on that slide.
00:25:27.00	Brandon Phipps	Oh, sure. Regarding site 84, MLK, the planning commission also made a recommendation for a preference for senior housing to be considered at that site. Just want to make sure that that's clear for the record. Thank you.
00:25:40.33	Beth Thompson	Thank you. And I appreciate that I had
00:25:42.71	Beth Thompson	I thought I had included that in our presentation. So thank you for noting that.
00:25:46.46	Mary Weig	And also for the clarity of the council and the public, Beth, you've made reference now to two different versions of the amended housing element. One, an amended housing element, which was recommended for moving forward by the planning commission.
00:26:03.84	Mary Weig	that's attached to the Planning Commission resolution that's in our packet. The other a modified amended
00:26:10.37	Mary Weig	Housing.
00:26:11.52	Mary Weig	element that is also in our packet as an earlier attachment. And so the city council has had the opportunity to review both and to consider
00:26:20.80	Mary Weig	the utility of both
00:26:22.45	Mary Weig	Your presentation thus far has focused on the
00:26:25.34	Mary Weig	modified amended housing element
00:26:28.41	Mary Weig	as opposed to the amended housing element adopted by the Planning Commission. Is that right?
00:26:32.32	Beth Thompson	Thank you.
00:26:33.28	Beth Thompson	Correct. Yes, the recommendation by the Planning Commission was for the other version, the amended housing element. All right. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify that.
00:26:41.18	Brandon Phipps	And for the record, that's attachment seven, exhibit C, the modified amended housing element as part of item 1A, in addition to attachment 11, planning commission resolution, which includes the amended housing element as an exhibit.
00:26:54.36	Brandon Phipps	Thank you.
00:27:01.11	Beth Thompson	So that segues perfectly into my next slide. So as there are multiple versions of the housing element, we have the adopted housing element. So this is the housing element adopted by city council currently in effect for the city. And this housing element has a RHNA or accommodates the RHNA, has accommodates 908 units and has a buffer for all income levels.
00:27:24.84	Beth Thompson	The.
00:27:25.85	Beth Thompson	Modified amended housing element project. So, which is the version that is before you tonight and that we're, we're discussing.
00:27:33.76	Beth Thompson	All accommodates 921 units, so more than the adopted housing element and continues to maintain arena buffer. And this is the version that's been modified from the original amendments that were issued in last August. That's the amended housing element that would accommodate a higher number of units 958 units.
00:27:55.08	Beth Thompson	when the Planning Commission reviewed the modified amended housing element and the amended housing element, the Planning Commission recommended the changes to the amended housing element and those changes would reduce the capacity of the amended housing element.
00:28:10.10	Beth Thompson	down to 924 units, which still provides a buffer for all of the income levels. And this bottom row here is just the regional housing need allocation. So under all of the scenarios, there's still adequate capacity to accommodate the RHNA.
00:28:31.85	Beth Thompson	The amended housing element and modified amended housing element have been assessed for environmental impacts in the environmental impact report for the city
00:28:40.57	Beth Thompson	um,
00:28:41.52	Beth Thompson	The Sassolito amended six cycle housing element project and that document has been prepared as a program EIR. The program EIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
00:28:44.86	Babette McDougall	Yeah.
00:28:44.91	Unknown	in it.
00:28:52.96	Beth Thompson	The draft program EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review and comment period from September 4th through October 21st of 2024.
00:29:02.96	Beth Thompson	Following that, portions of the draft EIR were recirculated from December 13th
00:29:08.43	Beth Thompson	2024 through January 27th of 2025.
00:29:12.28	Beth Thompson	During these two comment periods, 23 comment letters were received. Each of those comment letters is addressed in the final EIR, and there is also an errata provided to the final EIR that's included as attachment to.
00:29:26.17	Beth Thompson	The comments and the responses did not identify any new environmental issues requiring substantial revisions to the program EIR or further environmental review.
00:29:35.65	Beth Thompson	The modified housing element is analyzed as alternative five in the program EIR. So when you're looking at the program EIR, the amended housing element is the proposed project.
00:29:45.54	Beth Thompson	The modified housing element is addressed in the alternatives chapter. It's addressed at a level of detail similar to the amended housing element, and it's addressed as alternative five.
00:29:59.53	Beth Thompson	The recommendation is broken into two actions for the city council. So
00:30:04.51	Beth Thompson	First, looking at the adequacy of the program environmental impact report, the City Council is asked to adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Sausalito certifying the Sausalito amended six cycle housing element final impact report.
00:30:20.03	Beth Thompson	final environmental impact report, and that's state clearinghouse number 2024070676, and the
00:30:27.56	Beth Thompson	Document is provided as attachment three. So the resolution is attachment three.
00:30:34.11	Beth Thompson	And then separately, we're requesting directions. Our staff is recommending that city council provide direction regarding the modified amended housing elements. So understanding that,
00:30:44.08	Beth Thompson	with the delay in receiving comments from HCD...
00:30:48.21	Beth Thompson	If we are going to go back and work with HCD on the modified amended housing element or the amended housing element, just requesting specific direction on the next steps to take there.
00:30:57.50	Beth Thompson	So with that, I'll end my presentation and I'd be happy to answer questions.
00:31:04.94	Mary Weig	Sergio, thank you for that. Beth, I do want to invite Sergio to make comment.
00:31:11.57	Mary Weig	in connection with the comments I made at the commencement of this meeting.
00:31:17.04	Sergio	Yes, and so to summarize the issue and the status of where we are today with HCD, effective January 1st of this year, AB 2023 made amendments to housing element law to add additional language regarding the process by which local governments are to provide their housing elements for review to HCD and to consider comments received by HCD prior to adoption.
00:31:45.86	Sergio	And Beth, can you please stop sharing your screen so that I...
00:31:53.62	Sergio	But, um,
00:31:55.14	Mary Weig	talking
00:31:57.62	Sergio	Um,
00:31:58.94	Sergio	The main issue
00:32:01.89	Sergio	with the process is the city in response to the November 4
00:32:08.10	Sergio	comment letter did submit to HCD revisions to its housing element.
00:32:14.38	Sergio	during the week of January 20th, I believe. And under the new state law, HCD is to be provided with a
00:32:23.64	Sergio	common period of at least 60 days
00:32:26.14	Sergio	City staff did meet with HCD during that week to preview those changes that the city had developed in response to HCD's prior comments and findings, and to explain to HCD that the city was putting together a schedule.
00:32:41.31	Sergio	in light of HCD's request that the city move forward with implementing Program 19 odds by May of this year.
00:32:50.27	Sergio	and that the city intended to put together a special election and call a special election in March to ensure compliance with HCD's request that the city would need to adopt
00:33:00.50	Sergio	It's proposed...
00:33:02.35	Sergio	Amended housing element prior to calling a special election. So HCD was notified and city staff did request that HCD's revised comments on the revised housing element be provided before this evening. And HCD did acknowledge that they would try to do so, but we were notified on Monday that we would
00:33:02.61	Unknown	amended housing.
00:33:20.63	Sergio	not receive HCD's comments and findings on
00:33:24.41	Sergio	the proposed resubmissions that were provided by the city in January before tonight.
00:33:29.99	Sergio	A number of public commenters have raised also the issue of whether or not the city can move forward to adopt in light of
00:33:37.18	Sergio	HCD not providing its comments and findings.
00:33:40.19	Sergio	And HCD has notified us that they will, in fact, provide us a comment letter in response to our resubmission in January.
00:33:48.42	Sergio	Um,
00:33:50.21	Sergio	So that is the current status of where we are.
00:33:56.00	Mary Weig	And Sergio, so you mentioned the new legislation that became effective January 1st.
00:34:03.20	Mary Weig	What that says is that every time we make changes to our housing element,
00:34:07.19	Mary Weig	we have to give HCD another 60 days to review
00:34:10.41	Mary Weig	and comment on those changes before we can adopt, or else we have to make findings that
00:34:16.33	Mary Weig	Um,
00:34:18.97	Mary Weig	we have to make alternative findings.
00:34:20.99	Sergio	Yes, so the main impact of this law is whenever you are
00:34:26.22	Sergio	Whenever you're considering a new draft or giving direction to staff to prepare a new draft, it should be submitted to HCD and HCD has by law a 60 day period. They don't have to take the whole time, but
00:34:37.43	Sergio	They are entitled to it.
00:34:39.05	Sergio	to make findings on your proposed changes.
00:34:43.43	Sergio	And if they require further changes, the city is supposed to either make those changes and resubmit them or alternatively, the city can still adopt, notwithstanding HCD's findings, but it has to make
00:34:56.77	Sergio	as part of his action to adopt specific findings addressing why no further revisions are necessary and why the proposed housing element complies with housing element law, notwithstanding HCD's position.
00:35:23.83	Mary Weig	Aside from any further response necessary to address hcd comments.
00:35:30.91	Sergio	And Mayor, I missed part of your question due to a technical issue.
00:35:35.88	Mary Weig	Yeah, I see the camera glitching. So I don't know if our internet connection is not strong.
00:35:45.22	Mary Weig	Okay, do we have a backup?
00:35:46.80	Mary Weig	plan? Don't we have a backup internet that we can rely on?
00:35:51.07	Sergio	And Mayor, I can't hear you now, so I would
00:35:53.57	Sergio	welcome an opportunity to answer your question again.
00:35:56.18	Mary Weig	Okay, so is it your hope slash recommendation that City Council
00:36:01.52	Mary Weig	and also based on your conversation with HCD yesterday that the City Council provide
00:36:06.19	Mary Weig	clear and final direction this evening.
00:36:09.55	Mary Weig	regarding the
00:36:13.04	Mary Weig	recommendations from the Planning Commission, the feedback from the public, and any final revisions to the housing element.
00:36:19.10	Mary Weig	other than
00:36:20.48	Mary Weig	such revisions as may be necessary to address hcd comments
00:36:24.79	Sergio	I think that that would probably be the best action for the city council to take this evening, yes.
00:36:29.31	Mary Weig	All right.
00:36:29.80	Mary Weig	Thank you for that.
00:36:31.01	Mary Weig	Okay, I'll open it up to council members for questions now that staff has completed their report.
00:36:40.61	Unknown	Okay, thank you very much and thank you to members of the public who are with us this evening, I have a few questions. We received significant correspondence asking them in particular about senior housing overlay. Could you just address what we may or may not be allowed to do this evening with regards to allowing for an overlay for senior housing or addressing the need for senior housing within the element.
00:37:05.78	Sergio	I will field part of this question. I will let Beth field the other part. With respect to senior housing overlay, the city...
00:37:13.78	Sergio	already has a senior housing overlay designated by various zoning actions and ordinances. So nothing specifically requires that the city take action to expand or modify the senior overlay in housing element law.
00:37:27.16	Sergio	That is something that the city council is allowed to explore and do outside of the context of its housing element.
00:37:33.11	Sergio	Um,
00:37:34.84	Sergio	with regards to if the City Council wants to include a program in its housing element with respect to
00:37:41.94	Sergio	expanding the senior overlay or designating particular sites as being specifically meant for creation of senior housing.
00:37:51.00	Sergio	You can add a program to your housing element to consider that and make revisions. We would likely need to resubmit that to HCD for review and comment.
00:38:00.82	Unknown	So if we wanted to take the planning commission's recommendation to suggest senior housing at MLK, for example, that would require the, the authoring of a new program within the element.
00:38:10.37	Sergio	It may not require the authoring of a new program, but we would need to revise our existing description of our programs in order to do that. Now, that being said,
00:38:20.14	Sergio	nothing
00:38:21.78	Sergio	Nothing really requires that we put that commitment in our housing element.
00:38:26.34	Sergio	As a matter of law, that is something that the council can focus on, you know, because MLK is a city site.
00:38:32.82	Sergio	You know,
00:38:34.62	Sergio	that is something the city can...
00:38:36.97	Sergio	focus on when it is conducting outreach and negotiations with potential developers that the city would like to
00:38:43.89	Sergio	ensure that any project that is built is senior housing.
00:38:48.86	Mary Weig	I'm just gonna interject a procedural matter.
00:38:51.92	Mary Weig	So.
00:38:53.15	Mary Weig	Each city council member has received a map of sites that it cannot specifically discuss because we live in close proximity to them. So early on in our questioning and in our comments, we will be focusing on sites in general without focusing on specific sites so that none of us have to recuse ourselves from the general discussion. When we get to the point this evening where we are discussing specific sites, we will each recuse ourselves as appropriate from the discussion of those sites to which we live in close proximity.
00:39:25.80	Unknown	Thank you, Mayor and then the next question is probably for Brandon, but I imagine that it's rather confusing for members of the public, because even though we have reviewed and understood both of them. The differences between the modified amended housing element and the amended housing element element so the amended housing element.
00:39:43.49	Unknown	The main differences are the attachment 13 considerations for the city council. Correct.
00:39:49.90	Brandon Phipps	Yes, and I'm happy to provide a little bit more of an elongated response to your question. Thank you for the question. So the difference between the amended housing element and the modified housing element, I think first and foremost, is related to our alternative approach, which may utilize City Hall and the fire station site in the case that the city experiences any kind of RHNA shortfall. In addition to that alternative approach based on RENA shortfall, there are a couple changes to the distribution of affordability between a couple sites in the modified. That is changes to Altamira, site 202, in addition to redistributed affordability at site 303. Additionally, there is some, I'll call it an alternative option and some language as related to the alternative discussed earlier that the city may consider other sites in addition to the fire station and the city hall site. If the city does end up experiencing arena shortfall, those sites would have to meet certain site selection criteria, and the city may need to engage in additional environmental analysis based on what sites the city identifies if there is arena shortfall, and that allows the city to more generally address a shortfall if it occurs rather than requiring steps associated with a shortfall to contain actions associated with City Hall and the fire station
00:41:21.89	Brandon Phipps	Thank you.
00:41:22.58	Unknown	Thank you.
00:41:22.75	Unknown	Thank you very much. All right, I may have more questions, but I'll let my colleagues go ahead.
00:41:26.97	Unknown	Thank you.
00:41:26.98	Mary Weig	All right, I'm going to go to Councilmember Hoffman and then
00:41:30.04	Ian	to Vice Mayor Woodside.
00:41:33.11	Ian	So my question, actually, I think is a follow-up, and that is that we have currently,
00:41:37.94	Ian	we have currently before us a plan that does include city hall and the Spencer firehouse. Um, and I was, my followup is, um, it does include those two sites. And the question is, if you could explain how they became part of our, uh, part of the plan and what the impact is of them being part of the plan.
00:41:58.30	Brandon Phipps	Sure. I think the reason that they were considered is one, because they are city-owned sites, and the city ultimately can, I would say, with more certainty, control the fate of how those properties are developed. And I'd say the other reason is because the city wants to build in kind of risk-related responses to any arena shortfalls and wants to create paths to correcting any issues with arena shortfall and no net loss requirements. So I said those are the reasons that they are included for consideration.
00:42:31.19	Ian	And one of the things that I, we had some public comment, Director Phipps, and I did send you an email today that included the new Cal Fire map. And I have it, I send it to you and our city clerk, and I have it on my computer.
00:42:46.79	Ian	And if the city clerk can bring it up, I'm going to ask you if you've seen this and considered it.
00:42:54.38	Ian	And, or I can share my screen. It's up to the city clerk.
00:43:00.64	Blossene	Let me see. I'm promoting you to a panelist so you can share your screen.
00:43:03.85	Ian	Okay.
00:43:04.96	Ian	I'm standing by.
00:43:06.99	Ian	I did have to rejoin after our glitch that we just had.
00:43:14.39	Ian	All right.
00:43:20.57	Ian	I'm joining you now as a panelist.
00:43:43.72	Ian	And can you see my screen?
00:43:45.98	Unknown	So.
00:43:52.07	Ian	And so this map was just put out, I believe, on Monday. And this is Sausalito. This is Prospect. This is Spencer. And this is where my cursor here is where the Spencer Firehouse is. This is all very high risk.
00:44:09.34	Ian	area was any of this considered at the time when the Spencer firehouse was
00:44:14.47	Ian	was added to
00:44:18.28	Ian	A housing element.
00:44:18.45	Unknown	The housing element.
00:44:19.11	Brandon Phipps	Thank you.
00:44:19.14	Brandon Phipps	Thank you.
00:44:19.23	Brandon Phipps	Appreciate the question. Based on the short time frame between the release of this map and this hearing, I am aware of this particular image. I have reviewed it, but it has not been something that's been reviewed in depth in connection with the element itself.
00:44:36.74	Ian	So just in case it's not clear, this is all very high risk. This is all high risk.
00:44:42.84	Ian	And this is all moderate risk. The other fire station is down here at the bottom of Johnson Street. So thank you, Director Phipps. I do have additional questions, but do you want me to go ahead and ask my question now? A few. I know.
00:44:56.81	Mary Weig	See you.
00:44:58.76	Ian	I just have one other question at this point.
00:45:01.90	Ian	And this is for Beth, our consultant. And I'm going to unshare because my next question is not
00:45:09.04	Ian	You can unshare me.
00:45:11.56	Ian	I don't know. Stop share.
00:45:13.85	Blossene	Stop shit, yeah.
00:45:14.39	Ian	Okay.
00:45:15.83	Ian	Thank you.
00:45:15.89	Ian	I'm very proud of myself for doing that. And this is for our consultant, Beth. And this is the SB9 lot split question that I had asked the last time about, as a matter of law, the SB9 lot splits and counting those SB9 lot splits as part of our arena number as a.
00:45:36.50	Ian	just as a function of the law. And I asked you to give us that number. And you did that today. And what was the number is 900 and something, correct? Or at least your number, it has not been properly vetted.
00:45:51.08	Beth Thompson	Correct. You have capacity for approximately 945 parcels that could have a SB9 lot split.
00:45:58.23	Ian	And what would that split be if you split the lot? It's a split of one additional?
00:46:03.41	Ian	parcel or is there additional parcels?
00:46:06.06	Ian	So,
00:46:06.79	Beth Thompson	The lots could be split into two parcels, and then each of those parcels could have
00:46:12.51	Beth Thompson	up to two units under SB 9. And then additional, I would let the city attorney weigh in regarding whether or not there would be additional capacity for ADUs on those lots.
00:46:23.01	Ian	So that's an order of magnitude of
00:46:26.35	Ian	My math is weak, but at least
00:46:29.37	Ian	you know,
00:46:30.55	Ian	a substantial number of additional numbers that we could add into our RENA number potentially. I mean, you know, potentially.
00:46:41.30	Ian	Oh, go on.
00:46:42.34	Sergio	Yeah, so...
00:46:43.49	Sergio	With regards to the question about SB 9 and ADUs, typically state law says that you are not required to allow both kinds of development on a,
00:46:53.50	Sergio	lot that has been split
00:46:55.51	Sergio	You only need to allow up to
00:46:59.35	Sergio	two units or a unit and ADUs under state ADU law.
00:47:04.38	Sergio	Um,
00:47:05.51	Sergio	with regards to the issue of
00:47:09.70	Sergio	Justin Fields, Additional capacity that can be identified in the housing element and beth I think you've had the most direct discussions with hcd on this subject, my understanding is typically hcd will only.
00:47:19.79	Sergio	allow you to make reasonable assumptions that are supported by
00:47:24.09	Sergio	either
00:47:25.26	Sergio	past trends or something credible in terms of future trends that you can point to regarding the real, the, um,
00:47:35.05	Sergio	likelihood of development during the particular housing element cycle.
00:47:39.47	Beth Thompson	Correct, yes, they want to see that the city has past experience with certain levels of development in order to increase your SB9 assumptions. And so we've already accommodated, I believe,
00:47:49.71	Beth Thompson	We've identified about 54 SB9 units that would count toward the arena and the housing element.
00:47:54.35	Ian	Thank you.
00:47:55.80	Ian	And then you have some other lots in the pipeline, right?
00:48:00.58	Beth Thompson	The 54 are not in the pipeline. Those are just counted toward the Reno with the expectation that they could be developed during the planning period. And so there, I think the city's received one application for two SB9 units since the housing element process started.
00:48:16.10	Mary Weig	Okay, I'm going to pause you for one second. Procedurally, I'm told that our broadcast is continuing to cut in and out. This is probably one of the most important meetings we will hold this year.
00:48:27.78	Mary Weig	And so I'm asking staff to please try to troubleshoot what's going on with our Internet. The same thing happened during the Planning Commission meeting, and I advised staff of it at that time. So I'm asking if staff will please be troubleshooting that issue as we continue to conduct this meeting. Thank you.
00:48:47.03	Ian	Okay, thanks. I don't have any further questions. I think I will propose some direction later. Thanks.
00:48:54.10	Ian	Vice Mayor.
00:48:54.76	Captain Hoffman	Yes, first of all, just as a follow up to the question that Member Hoffman asked about fire station, for example, the recommendation from the planning commission is that that site be removed. Correct.
00:49:12.97	Brandon Phipps	Correct. Okay. I think there's just one wrinkle there, which is the amended housing element that the Planning Commission resolution pegged off of, if you will, did not contain reference to City Hall and the fire station. It is the modified version of the element that contains those references. So the resolution itself, as again, if you will, pegging off of the amended housing an element. It didn't require an explicit statement or decision. But there were... again, if you will, picking off of the amended housing didn't require an explicit statement or decision. But there were kind of an aside recommendation as related to the fire station in the city hall that carried forward that
00:49:21.63	SPEAKER_18	Uh,
00:49:49.17	Captain Hoffman	that sentiment. And that is one of the directions that we could give after we've heard from the public.
00:49:54.91	Captain Hoffman	Thank you.
00:49:54.95	Mary Weig	Correct.
00:49:55.75	Brandon Phipps	Absolutely.
00:49:56.19	Captain Hoffman	Thank you.
00:49:56.24	Mary Weig	And so, Vice Mayor, after we hear from the public, one of the first questions our council will consider is whether to work with the amended housing element or the modified amended housing element.
00:50:07.71	Mary Weig	The Planning Commission worked with the amended housing elements.
00:50:11.44	Mary Weig	We have been presented information regarding the modified housing element, but we know enough about the difference between the two that we can go either way. So that will be one of the first...
00:50:21.26	Mary Weig	directions I seek following public comment.
00:50:24.39	Captain Hoffman	Okay, that will be helpful. Clarifying questions, you have an attachment 13 that tracks direction that we gave as a council at our last meeting when we addressed this. For example, we gave some recommendations regarding possible, for example, removal of the MLK site. I'm not going to be more specific about that site, but just to point out that on your chart, with respect to each one of our suggestions, you have a recommendation, but the listing doesn't indicate what density you are dealing with, other than absolute removal on one of the sites. So, for example, MLK, Altamira, and a few other sites, we gave some direction to seek either a reduction in density or an altogether reduction.
00:50:27.07	Mary Weig	that's going to be a
00:51:16.14	Captain Hoffman	removal, so it would be helpful if when people look at that chart they recognize what the densities are that we gave prior direction on and we're hopeful could be accomplished is that. Are you are you going to be able to do that when we have specific discussions about each one.
00:51:35.11	Brandon Phipps	Yes, we should be able to fill in the blanks on those.
00:51:37.62	Captain Hoffman	Okay, thank you.
00:51:38.64	Captain Hoffman	it.
00:51:39.21	Mary Weig	Thank you. I will also note that during the Planning Commission meeting, Beth Thompson kindly took stock of each of the requested directions, whether it was to add density or reduce density at given sites, so that she was able to pivot and kind of report on the net outcome of
00:52:01.48	Mary Weig	direction proposed direction she was receiving from the planning commission i'm going to ask her to do that same thing
00:52:07.31	Mary Weig	this afternoon and evening, if that's all right.
00:52:10.38	Beth Thompson	I'll be happy to do that. The one thing I'll need to know as a starting point is if we're working from the modified
00:52:15.96	Beth Thompson	and it has an element that I can try to update it.
00:52:16.30	Mary Weig	it has development that I can try to update.
00:52:18.14	Mary Weig	we address.
00:52:19.52	Mary Weig	Thank you.
00:52:19.54	Beth Thompson	Thank you.
00:52:19.56	Mary Weig	Perfect.
00:52:19.89	Beth Thompson	Thank you.
00:52:19.93	Mary Weig	Thank you.
00:52:20.82	Mary Weig	Okay.
00:52:23.47	Councilmember Sobieski	Just following up on that, Brandon, I have a question for you on this question.
00:52:29.90	Councilmember Sobieski	this fire station and it's the parking lot of City Hall, right? It's not the hall of City Hall. I got that wrong.
00:52:35.69	Brandon Phipps	Good clarification question.
00:52:37.02	Councilmember Sobieski	Councilmember, the answer is yes. So it's the parking lot. Those two are not opportunity sites. They are, are they included because MLK needs a ballot initiative to pass? And if that ballot initiative fails, then we may not have enough low income units and that those are stuck in there to catch that?
00:53:01.51	Brandon Phipps	Yeah, thank you for the question. This is a good distinction, and that is correct. I opened the floor to Beth and Sergio to clarify my language here, but that's exactly right. The city hall parking lot and the fire station site will only become potential sites for cities consideration in the case that arena shortfall is experienced. we could get there you know a number of ways but the I think the the case that arena shortfall is experienced. We could get there, you know, a number of ways, but I think the one that we've been looking at most closely is arena shortfall as related to a lack of densities prescribed to Site 84, the MLK site.
00:53:40.95	Councilmember Sobieski	And what makes those sites special aside from being owned by the city is that unlike some other city owned parcel or some other privately owned parcel. We've actually already gone through the environmental impact assessment of those sites. So we would not be able to add to our.
00:53:58.97	Councilmember Sobieski	housing element sites that we have not done any IR on.
00:54:05.06	Brandon Phipps	Correct, I would say that would not be a swift action because additional analysis will be required.
00:54:07.69	Councilmember Sobieski	Action.
00:54:11.81	Councilmember Sobieski	And we have a deadline of January 2026 to do the rezoning of sites. And failure to do that would plunge the entire city into builders remedy. Is that correct?
00:54:24.85	Brandon Phipps	That's correct. By statute, the city has until January 30th, 2026 to implement its program of resigning, and the city will increase its risk as related to builder's remedy if that does not occur.
00:54:29.93	Councilmember Sobieski	Yeah.
00:54:38.29	Councilmember Sobieski	So if we don't have a reserve of potential sites that have already had an EIR done, and the ballot initiative for rezoning MLK fails,
00:54:49.88	Councilmember Sobieski	And we don't have enough rena numbers, then we may be out of luck in keeping a approved housing element.
00:54:59.92	Councilmember Sobieski	So,
00:55:00.12	Brandon Phipps	Thank you.
00:55:02.20	Brandon Phipps	I would say the city would increase its risk associated with potential pushback. Thank you.
00:55:13.32	Mary Weig	Okay, if there are no further questions, I'm going to open it up.
00:55:16.88	Mary Weig	to public comment. Once again, I really want to welcome everybody for being here. It's so gratifying to see our chambers full of interested residents because I honestly do believe this is one of the most important actions we will take as a city council.
00:55:32.24	Mary Weig	this year and really during my term since we first adopted the housing element,
00:55:37.64	Mary Weig	in January of 2023. So with that, if you'd like to make public comment, please provide a speaker card to the city clerk, you can just start and hand it down at the end of that table. City clerk, do you have some speaker cards for me to review? Yes.
00:55:56.62	Mary Weig	Yeah, we usually call them from up here, Neil.
00:56:00.37	SPEAKER_62	Thank you.
00:56:04.50	SPEAKER_62	Thank you.
00:56:04.77	Unknown	you
00:56:04.96	Mary Weig	Just a few. And public comment will be limited to two minutes due to the numerosity.
00:56:12.26	Mary Weig	of cards. And the first one I will call is Sophia Collier.
00:56:21.78	Mary Weig	And because there are people, because this chamber is full and some people are in the other room, I'm gonna go ahead and call several folks so that you know that you are next. So the first speaker is Safiya Collier, then Kay Carlson, and then Jennifer Nimmo.
00:56:43.11	Sophia Collier	Thank you very much. Sophia. Sophia Collier here speaking on behalf of Save Our Sausalito. And first I want to start by thanking
00:56:43.84	Mary Weig	So,
00:56:51.68	Sophia Collier	Mayor Cox and our members of our council
00:56:54.92	Sophia Collier	And then also our staff. We have put a great deal of work into this project. And, you know, folks see the amazing amount of paperwork and all the details in this. It's a very complicated process. We've all devoted countless hours to the goals of finding the best outcome for our community in the very difficult environment of state mandates. Thank you.
00:57:14.31	Sophia Collier	Together, we've made tremendous progress, but there's still a little more to do.
00:57:19.73	Sophia Collier	so sos supports housing 29 designation in the downtown area and we believe that ultimira should be in that category sos was proud to sponsor petition to move ultimira to housing 29
00:57:32.35	Sophia Collier	We have gathered more than 600 signatures in just four days.
00:57:36.20	Sophia Collier	I know there are many here who will add color and reason to that message, and we strongly support them.
00:57:42.78	Sophia Collier	We will have a speaker later who will present the petition itself.
00:57:46.31	Sophia Collier	Additionally, SOF's attorneys have submitted technical comments proposing small but essential language changes in the EIR historic preservation provisions. So many times a legal issue can turn on a phrase or a single word.
00:58:01.41	Sophia Collier	It is essential for us to get this right and have the strongest enforceability possible for our historic protections. I know this council has been strongly in support of the historic district, and I'm very, very grateful for everything that has been done in that regard. And so I urge you to support that fix as well and continue forward in the positive direction we're headed. Thank you very much. Thank you.
00:58:26.55	Mary Weig	All right, Kay Carlson, then Jennifer Nimmo, then Stacey Nimmo. I'm going to ask us all to refrain from clapping or booing or cheering so that we can move forward because we have a lot of people to hear from this evening.
00:58:38.23	Mary Weig	Thank you, Kay.
00:58:39.46	Kay Carlson	Thank you for hearing me.
00:58:41.20	Kay Carlson	I've had a studio in the Industrial Center building for over 30 years, maybe 35.
00:58:46.87	Kay Carlson	Thank you.
00:58:47.26	Kay Carlson	And
00:58:48.85	Kay Carlson	as an artist.
00:58:50.15	Kay Carlson	I am asking to please preserve the current agreed upon plan for housing
00:58:55.70	Kay Carlson	without adapting any developmental agreement for ordinances 1228 or 1022.
00:59:03.98	Kay Carlson	protect the workspace that there are 100 working artists in this ICB.
00:59:09.79	Kay Carlson	If there's a zone change, this is going to mean a huge...
00:59:13.75	Kay Carlson	Change.
00:59:14.65	Kay Carlson	in their ability to make a living as an artist.
00:59:18.41	Kay Carlson	And
00:59:19.80	Kay Carlson	the industrial
00:59:21.84	Kay Carlson	capacity of marineship.
00:59:24.01	Kay Carlson	is so important and if you haven't been following that story,
00:59:27.20	Kay Carlson	then you are under a rock someplace because
00:59:30.46	Kay Carlson	Our marinship means everything to Sausalito. Thank you.
00:59:34.22	Mary Weig	you
00:59:34.75	Kay Carlson	Thank you.
00:59:34.97	Mary Weig	Thank you.
00:59:35.91	Kay Carlson	Thank you.
00:59:35.93	Mary Weig	Jennifer Nimmo, then Stacey Nimmo, and then Peter Bostosik.
00:59:42.10	Unknown	Awesome. Hi, Jennifer Nemo here. Thank you, Council, for everything you're doing. We really appreciate it.
00:59:47.71	Unknown	a massive project for years regarding Site 84 inside MLK Park.
00:59:53.11	Unknown	Can you pull the microphone? There we go. Okay. All right.
00:59:53.70	Mary Weig	Can you pull them
00:59:56.87	Unknown	The massing models for the site are flawed and accurate and misleading, and this has been detailed and substantiated in comments submitted earlier today.
01:00:05.71	Unknown	The 825 project, 825 Drake Avenue project, which has spilled onto 150 Shoreline, is a clear example of what this type of project looks like, and it does not look like the massing models that were being shown. I understand the pressure we're under and the situation that we found ourselves in at this time, but I sincerely encourage you to approve only the lowest possible overlay for site 84 inside of MLK Park. I also encourage you to keep Spencer Avenue fire station and city hall on the list of options in case that ballot measure does not pass. And we need to repeal ordinance 1022 to open up more options. We need pathways to better other sites to be considered.
01:00:45.18	Unknown	Thank you. And I'll tell you, Stacey hasn't made it here yet. He's going to raise his hand online so you can pass him over.
01:00:45.64	Unknown	Thank you.
01:00:49.55	Mary Weig	you
01:00:49.66	Unknown	you
01:00:49.97	Unknown	you
01:00:50.03	Mary Weig	Sounds good. All right. We'll skip Stacey and move on to Peter Bostock and then Robert Hayes.
01:00:58.01	SPEAKER_18	Yes, good evening. I'm Peter Boslock. I'm a 13 year resident of Sorcellito. And I believe I live in close proximity to the Altamira.
01:01:10.78	SPEAKER_18	My comment will be brief. My comment is very simply no to H49 at Altamira, yes to H29. I think that is a appropriate balance with change in the city.
01:01:27.40	SPEAKER_18	The council and the staff have a very difficult task here in balancing so many inputs from so many different points of view and that's extremely healthy.
01:01:38.36	SPEAKER_18	But I moved personally, I personally, I moved to this city because I appreciated the character of the city, of the environment and the people of the city.
01:01:50.34	SPEAKER_18	Whilst we must accept change,
01:01:52.89	SPEAKER_18	from my perspective,
01:01:55.43	SPEAKER_18	This is the right change for the city. Thank you.
01:01:59.52	Mary Weig	Thank you. Robert Hayes, then Jim Gabbard, and then Sally Johansson.
01:02:10.35	Robert Hayes	Good evening, council and all the public here. My name is Robert Hayes. I'm going to take a little bit of a myopic viewpoint here, and I apologize for that, but I live at 620 Butte Street near the MLK site. I'm an architect, and I design low-income senior housing and multifamily housing projects all over northern california um i know what density translates into relative to scale of projects very very well um i do it five days a week not on the weekends um so i've i've done you know over 25 projects, and I'm really familiar with number of units and what that translates into size-wise, area-wise, and impact to neighborhoods. I'm talking about the MLK site specifically, and 80 units will translate into four stories over parking for a 1.4 acre site all day long it will not be two stories it will not be three it will be five stories of building area on that 1.4 acre site. So I urge you to really look at those numbers carefully. I know the REMA or whatever is very important, but 50 units is too many units. So thank you for the time.
01:02:14.10	Mary Weig	Right.
01:02:14.20	Unknown	Robert Hayes.
01:03:49.88	Mary Weig	Thank you. Jim Gabbard, then Sally Johansson, then Rory Moore.
01:04:00.59	Mary Weig	Welcome.
01:04:01.69	Jim Gabbert	Thank you. Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Jim Gabbert. And besides having been in San Francisco since the 60s and all, for 53 years, I was the chairman of the California Emergency Alert System, appointed by the governor of California, by FEMA and the Federal Communications Commission. I resigned this September because I felt I've been there long enough. Our issue has always been dealing with emergencies in the state of California. I remember the Paradise Fire, which was a few years ago. 77 people died in that fire. And I worked with Senator McGuire as what could we do to prevent that from happening. Number one, they didn't expect it. They're never going to have a fire. Number two, which is not related to this meeting, but they had, we felt like the emergency lane here in Sausalito was important because people could not get out. Same thing in Lahaina.
01:04:44.59	Unknown	Number one.
01:04:55.44	Jim Gabbert	and Los Angeles were never going to have a fire like that. That fire was 100% preventable.
01:05:03.13	Jim Gabbert	and the mistakes there were huge.
01:05:06.54	Jim Gabbert	And we've had that firehouse number two for a long time, didn't use it. It's been vacated.
01:05:13.07	Jim Gabbert	But if times change, what causes fires? What was LA? They blamed it on.
01:05:18.47	Jim Gabbert	climate change. And we're going to have less water, drier plants. You've got to park right across 101 there. Fire, even a muffler in a car. Fire starts there, jumps over, and it'll be all the way down here so quick you wouldn't believe it. That firehouse is so important.
01:05:33.58	Jim Gabbert	It's got to stay. And I'll tell you one thing.
01:05:38.22	Jim Gabbert	If I'm going to be careful, I say this. Anybody who votes for this and the fire burns us down like they did L.A.,
01:05:46.64	Jim Gabbert	I'd like to come back and say I told you so because it's preventable. And all I'm asking is that one chunk of...
01:05:52.93	Jim Gabbert	is that firehouse. Leave it alone. Thank you.
01:05:57.13	Mary Weig	Thank you.
01:05:57.98	Mary Weig	Sally Johansson, then Rory Moore, then Susan Moritz.
01:06:06.64	Sally Johansson	Good afternoon. My name is Sally Johansson. Thank you one and all for all of your efforts that you do for this community. I'm a new member of this community.
01:06:19.29	Sally Johansson	I'm so happy to be here and totally uninformed about
01:06:23.81	Sally Johansson	all that you just dumped on us, excuse my language, but it was overwhelming. So I have a lot to learn. But I will say that as the gentleman who spoke before me, the member for 13 years of this community, I forgot your name. I think the integrity and the spirit of Sausalito is something that also has to be considered when density is being investigated. I'm in favor of Altamira being capped at 29 units. The density in that area is generally in that range, so it would be possible to make a change and accept progress, but yet not destroy the city of Sausalito's character. I personally experienced the loss of my house in a fire. And I can tell you one and all, when you call the fire department,
01:07:24.04	Sally Johansson	They don't get there fast enough, no matter how clear the roads are. It's imperative to keep the roads clear for, um,
01:07:33.56	Sally Johansson	what people think could be an impossible situation. But it happens. It happened to me.
01:07:39.03	Sally Johansson	And the safety of the community is also so paramount. Thank you so much. Thank you.
01:07:45.07	Mary Weig	Thank you.
01:07:45.98	Mary Weig	Rory Moore, then Susan Moritz, and then Matthew Highmark.
01:07:53.86	Rory Moore	Madam Mayor, council people, I'm Rory Moore. I live right across the street. So I'm in opposition to lot 53, building on the parking lot for a number of reasons. We have a lot of elderly people in Sausalito. This is the only lot that can come to a flat lot and park, go into city hall, go into the library. We'll be taking that away from them. That's one issue. I came down here at 3 o'clock this afternoon.
01:08:22.70	Rory Moore	The parking lot was full.
01:08:24.98	Rory Moore	I can see during the week when the parking lot is full. It's full of...
01:08:28.98	Rory Moore	most of the time. We're taking that away from the people of Sausalito. And to echo some of the previous speakers, in case of a fire,
01:08:38.86	Rory Moore	People move downhill in case of fire. They're not supposed to move uphill. This is the center of Sausalito.
01:08:45.72	Rory Moore	It's Newtown, but it's halfway between the two freeways. By adding 21 units, I believe,
01:08:52.03	Rory Moore	to the parking lot, you're taking all the parking away
01:08:55.65	Rory Moore	Plus, not alone that, you're having a noise density, which will be huge, and devaluating the property around city halls.
01:09:05.98	Rory Moore	You're basically adding the same amount of units that's on
01:09:10.30	Rory Moore	Bonita.
01:09:11.77	Rory Moore	and B Street to the parking lot. It doesn't make any sense, so it doesn't. And I want to thank you for this opportunity, but I know the work that goes into doing what you're doing. I've been a builder for many years. The hillside alone is unstable. I've seen what happened when the road was resurfaced. They did not fix the sinkholes that was on Bonita Street right at the top of Alito. So it's a huge amount of work to be done before that site is valuable to build on. Thank you very much.
01:09:42.31	Mary Weig	Thank you.
01:09:43.24	Mary Weig	Susan Moritz, then Matthew Highmark, then Tony Cook.
01:09:53.25	Mary Weig	All right, I'm not sure if Susan Moritz is here.
01:09:58.36	Mary Weig	So I'll take Matthew Highmark and then Tony Cook.
01:10:06.98	Matthew Highmark	I'm Matthew Highmark and I live within close proximity to Altamira, like so many of us present here tonight. And I also want to join so many of us in favor of Altamira's being capped at 29 units. I greatly disapprove of any loss of character and identity of Sausalito as we know it. Um, if, if an increase should happen, what I fear in addition to the loss of any character and, um,
01:10:35.69	Matthew Highmark	Sorry, I lost my handwriting. It was so awful when I was writing this.
01:10:41.61	Matthew Highmark	The unknown safety and traffic situations and anything that we will inevitably experience and not be able to remedy, should we not be able to limit this. Thank you.
01:10:53.63	Mary Weig	Thank you.
01:10:54.71	Mary Weig	All right, Tony Cook, Annie Porter, then Alexandra Popker.
01:11:02.25	Mary Weig	Welcome.
01:11:03.74	Tony Cook	Hello, I'm Tony Cook, 25 year resident of Sausalito. And I made my notes on my phone, so I might be able to read them.
01:11:13.35	Tony Cook	I ask that the council reduce the density at Altamira to 29 units per acre. If not, it seems to me we'd have a supersized nine-story building, potentially, on the bulky site that would ruin the ambiance of the historic district of our town.
01:11:28.41	Tony Cook	It'll create an eyesore for neighbors, a traffic nightmare for everyone, and a potential threat to public safety. 49 units per acre will enable developers to create a monstrosity at the heart of Sausalito. I ask you to change the density of the zoning to 29 units to prevent that from happening.
01:11:49.45	Tony Cook	Thank you.
01:11:50.01	Mary Weig	Thank you.
01:11:50.97	Mary Weig	Annie Porter, Alexandra Popper,
01:11:54.77	Mary Weig	Her and then Bonnie McGregor.
01:11:56.47	Annie Porter	Thank you.
01:11:58.97	Annie Porter	Good evening, Mayor Cox and City Council members. I'm Annie Porter. I've lived in Sausalito for 35 years. I oppose the unreasonable size of the proposal for the Altamira. The size is completely incompatible with the neighborhood, and it will create a log jam of vehicles to the surrounding streets that are already full of cars. Please reduce the number of units to 29, or better yet, scrap the proposal.
01:12:27.27	Annie Porter	The result of the proposal will be similar to the three other high-rise, high-density high-rise buildings in town, the Cote d'Azur, the Portofino, and the Pier. All three of those stand out like sore thumbs and makes one wonder, who was on the Planning Commission and City Council when those were proposed? Our town cannot afford another monstrosity like that. Please consider 29 units at the Altamira or please remove the property.
01:12:55.85	Annie Porter	project. Thank you.
01:12:56.97	Mary Weig	Thank you so much.
01:12:58.57	Annie Porter	Thank you.
01:12:58.59	Mary Weig	Alexandra Popker, then Bonnie McGregor, then Diana Dempsey.
01:13:04.16	Alexandra Popkin	Good evening, Council. My name is Alexandra Popkin. Sorry for my terrible handwriting. That's on me. I live at 115 Harrison Avenue, literally directly behind Altamira, in a historic building over 100 years old. When I purchased my condo in 2022, I had no indication that a project of this scale was even a possibility. Like many of my neighbors, I chose to invest in Sausalito for its unique small town charm and stunning views, both of which would be significantly compromised by this development. My primary concerns are, like many others noted, severe view obstruction and property devaluation. The proposed development would erase the defining feature that makes our homes desirable, dramatically reducing property values and quality of life.
01:13:49.87	Alexandra Popkin	Traffic and infrastructure strain is going to be a huge problem. This area is already congested, and adding such a large development would exacerbate existing traffic and parking challenges and be devastating in the event of an emergency. And then finally, incompatibility with the surrounding area. A high-density project of this scale is out of step with the character of Sausalito and does not align with responsible urban planning. I strongly support capping development to 29 units or considering alternate locations better suited for high density housing. Thoughtful development should complement our community and not overwhelm it. Thank you for your consideration.
01:14:24.73	Mary Weig	Thank you.
01:14:25.85	Mary Weig	Okay, Bonnie McGregor, then Diana Dempsey, and then Dr. Marvin Garovi.
01:14:32.07	Unknown	Good evening, I'm Bonnie McGregor.
01:14:32.18	Mary Weig	Good evening.
01:14:35.74	Unknown	And my handwriting so bad I printed my words out.
01:14:42.08	Unknown	I want to thank you all for all the effort you have put into this. It's a very difficult subject, and almost every proposal made has an impact on our historical character and architectural. Although, when I look at the hill down on the south end of town,
01:14:57.83	Unknown	there are no two buildings, houses there that look alike, which is kind of charming, and there are a couple I'd like to see excluded. But anyway, as a 40-year resident of Sausalito, below are my two cents, and this is what it is. It's mainly a repeat of the letter I submitted, really guarding the housing element and building new units. I really think focusing on underutilized spots in the Marinship instead of cramming things into our parks or our neighborhoods is the way to go.
01:15:26.97	Unknown	The marineship has tons of potential if we're creative about it.
01:15:30.97	Unknown	and building there certainly is preferred to impacting our parks.
01:15:34.34	Unknown	Or the hills like on Bulkley where the Altamira is. What are they going to do? Tear the Altamira down? That charming, wonderful place? And I don't see where you could put anything, even 29 units seems like too many there. Because you think of every unit that is added, you gotta add two cars. If it's a couple, each one has their own car. If there are two single people living there, they each have their own car. If anybody's driven down Bulkley, they know what a nightmare it is getting around there. It's a one-way street because of parking along the edge.
01:16:04.65	Unknown	I'm aware of the maze of the private mixed with government properties in the marineship. No one said this would be easy. But it is a way to preserve our town's character and charm. I stand by the three-story limit.
01:16:17.80	Unknown	on the heights.
01:16:18.91	Unknown	Plus, it is way past time to ditch those old laws that are blocking us from even considering housing on empty lots in the Mariners' ship.
01:16:27.97	Unknown	We've got a lot of ideas. Mr. Rex over here is full of good ideas about what can be done there. Thank you.
01:16:35.09	Mary Weig	Thank you. All right. Diana Dempsey, then Dr. Marvin Garovi, and then Jed Dempsey.
01:16:46.38	SPEAKER_25	My name is Diana Dempsey. I've lived on Bulkley Avenue for seven years. I want to tell you today about the petition urging you to adopt H-29 zoning on the Altamira site.
01:16:58.73	SPEAKER_25	In four and a half days, this petition was signed by 618 Sausalitans at last count. So here's the language of the petition that so many people signed in such a short time.
01:17:10.60	SPEAKER_25	We, the undersigned residents of Sausalito, urge the City Council to take action to protect our views, prevent overdevelopment, and ensure responsible planning.
01:17:20.18	SPEAKER_25	Two critical issues are at stake. Number one, stop overdevelopment at Altamira.
01:17:26.68	SPEAKER_25	The Planning Commission is proposing housing 49 zoning for Altamira, which would allow up to 117 units to be built at 125 Bulkley. That is twice the size of the worst version of the monster 605 bridgeway project.
01:17:42.17	SPEAKER_25	This would allow a nine-story building, drastically altering Sausalito's hillside forever. Require a massive parking structure for 225 plus cars, overwhelming our narrow streets. Destroy the neighborhood, views, and environment of hundreds of homes. We urge you to prevent this devastation and reduce the density at Altamira from 49 to 29 units per acre to ensure reasonable community-supported development.
01:18:07.47	SPEAKER_25	And number two, protect Sausalito's scenic views, adopt the full objective design standards. Scenic views are a defining part of Sausalito's character, and 93% of residents support clear protections for them.
01:18:20.66	SPEAKER_25	We urge you to adopt the proposed objective design standards, including Chapter 3 for view protection, to ensure strong protections for Sausalito's cherished vistas.
01:18:32.19	SPEAKER_25	Creating this new housing element has been a long and arduous process. Let's finish strong and let's get it right to protect Sausalito and empower development that enhances our community, not destroys it.
01:18:45.52	SPEAKER_25	And I am the speaker that Sophia referred to earlier
01:18:49.15	SPEAKER_25	So I have five.
01:18:50.53	SPEAKER_25	Thank you.
01:18:52.40	SPEAKER_25	you can just
01:18:52.96	Mary Weig	give that to the city clerk.
01:18:55.70	Mary Weig	All right, next, Dr. Marvin Garovi, Jed Dempsey, and then Kirk Hassan.
01:19:02.85	Mary Weig	City Clerk, will you upload that to the public comment?
01:19:08.82	Mary Weig	Are you able to upload that or do you want to hand...
01:19:11.37	Mary Weig	No, but
01:19:12.99	Mary Weig	Yes. Okay. Thank you.
01:19:17.50	Mary Weig	You can pass it out. If you have copies, you can pass them out.
01:19:21.75	Mary Weig	Diana Dempsey.
01:19:24.13	Mary Weig	Do you want to hand us copies?
01:19:27.25	Mary Weig	Do you have all five?
01:19:29.14	Mary Weig	Yeah, do you want to hand them down?
01:19:31.25	Mary Weig	Yeah, thanks.
01:19:32.64	Mary Weig	All right. Sorry for the distraction. All right. So Dr. Marvin Garovi, then Jed Dempsey, then Kirk Hassan. All right.
01:19:38.52	Marvin Garovi	It's Dr. Marvin Garovoi.
01:19:40.08	Mary Weig	horrible.
01:19:41.12	Mary Weig	Garapoyed.
01:19:41.55	Marvin Garovi	And I've been social leader for the past 12 years at Lane Side, and I had a long list of things I was going to say, but basically I hear with everything everybody else has been saying.
01:19:52.16	Marvin Garovi	I'm going to just support
01:19:53.73	Marvin Garovi	asking the council to say no on 49 for the Altamira, but yes on 29 for obvious reasons. Thank you.
01:20:02.59	Mary Weig	Thank you.
01:20:04.48	Mary Weig	All right, then Jed Dempsey, our easel, and then Kirk Hassan.
01:20:09.37	Mary Weig	And Catherine Streitman.
01:20:12.60	Jed Dempsey	My name is Jed Dempsey. I've lived on Bulkley Avenue for the past seven years. Let me start by thanking the council and staff for all its work on this enormously challenging task.
01:20:24.17	Jed Dempsey	Today, I urge the council to reject H49 zoning at Altamira and to approve H29 zoning.
01:20:31.38	Jed Dempsey	Even though the recent planning commission recommendation for the housing element counts only 51 units at the Altamira site,
01:20:37.72	Jed Dempsey	presumably because those are the rules,
01:20:40.91	Jed Dempsey	That is a fantasy.
01:20:43.34	Jed Dempsey	Any competent developer will use density bonuses to put 100 to 120 units on the site.
01:20:50.31	Jed Dempsey	The result would be huge buildings that would tower over the neighborhood
01:20:54.14	Jed Dempsey	right in the heart of Sausalito,
01:20:56.06	Jed Dempsey	dwarfing historic buildings and blocking views that people have enjoyed for more than 100 years.
01:21:02.01	Jed Dempsey	And if anyone doubts that developers would do something huge and unsuitable at Altamira, I simply point to the proposed 605 bridgeway development as proof that they are wrong.
01:21:12.94	Jed Dempsey	Imagine Altamira with two side-by-side, nine-story steel and glass cruise ship buildings, and you'll get the idea.
01:21:22.26	Jed Dempsey	And for what?
01:21:23.94	Jed Dempsey	The fact is that H 49 gives only about 20 extra units over H 29.
01:21:30.25	Jed Dempsey	in a housing element with more than 900 units total.
01:21:34.90	Jed Dempsey	And the 900 plus units include 200 buffer units.
01:21:39.42	Jed Dempsey	In summary,
01:21:40.73	Jed Dempsey	Zoning Altamira at H49 rather than H29 would be a tragic and permanent mistake.
01:21:48.56	Jed Dempsey	The zoning can never be pulled back.
01:21:51.16	Jed Dempsey	and you would be condemning residents, developers, and probably the city itself to decades of wasted time, money,
01:21:59.50	Jed Dempsey	and energy spent fighting over something that should have been resolved tonight.
01:22:04.43	Jed Dempsey	I ask that you do the right thing for Sausalito now,
01:22:08.65	Jed Dempsey	reject H49 zoning, and approve H29 zoning for the Altamira site. Thank you.
01:22:14.28	Mary Weig	Thank you.
01:22:15.34	Mary Weig	Kirk Hassan, then Catherine Streitman and then Hank Baker.
01:22:21.94	Kirk Hasson	Madam Chair and members of the City Council, good afternoon.
01:22:24.98	Kirk Hasson	My name is Kirk Hasson since 1984. I've lived across the street at the corner of Litho and Bonita, so I've paid
01:22:31.34	Kirk Hasson	David David
01:22:52.91	Kirk Hasson	are planned to remain in city ownership and are anticipated to be made available for development through long-term leases.
01:22:59.25	Kirk Hasson	These sites will be made available for affordable housing, consistent with the requirements of the Surplus Lands Act.
01:23:06.34	Kirk Hasson	It's potentially confusing that that language also appears in attachment 11 to the agenda, which is the resolution of the planning committee, because as been noted by several of the speakers, and I've confirmed with Mr. Toft, the planning committee voted to exclude any reference to Site 52 from their recommendation. And for good reasons, even though it's been reduced to the parking lot in one of the sketches,
01:23:31.69	Kirk Hasson	They have noted reasons why the parking lot is very important to preserve for other potential uses, for emergency use, as they've noted. They've also noted the building on that site would be de minimis because of the restrictions on any housing that would block solar panels. So it's not a useful site, and it is a site that I submit should be preserved for the reasons stated in opposition by people who 78 out of 137 comments on the initial housing plan were objections to use of Site-52. And the Planning Commission, for its own good reasons, which they have recorded and I can't summarize adequately in my 16 seconds remaining, has correctly, I think, said do not include that. It will help and it could very much hurt. Thank you. Thank you.
01:24:14.97	Mary Weig	you
01:24:15.58	Mary Weig	Catherine Streitman, then Hank Baker, then Peter Streitman.
01:24:21.76	Catherine Streitman	Hi, my name is Catherine Streetman. The issue of the rezoning of the marineship is very important to me. My grandfather was a boat builder here before the marineship existed, starting in the 20s, when the whole town was the working waterfront.
01:24:34.48	Catherine Streitman	My uncle was a boat builder. My mom was born here. She and my dad both worked at marine ship during the war. My aunt was a painter at the ICB in the 60s. My husband built sailboats down there in the 80s until the Saucer Boat Builders co-op was priced out. I have a studio in the ICB now. My son made a living fishing out of the marine ship through the COVID lockdown. I'd like to see the beat go on.
01:24:54.39	Catherine Streitman	It is the last affordable location for artists rent space there has been a community of boat builders, since the 30s and artists, since the 50s. i'm aware that industrial manufacturing has continued to be a mighty revenue stream for the city when tourists dollars ebb and Wayne revenue from industrial business remains steady. I support the current amended zoning plan that has been carefully crafted and negotiated over several years.
01:25:17.66	Catherine Streitman	by some of the current council members.
01:25:19.81	Catherine Streitman	Council members Blaustein and Woodward might not know this. It was meant to bring in housing while also protecting the artists and industry in the Marin ship.
01:25:28.60	Catherine Streitman	There's now 303 units slated on Bridgeway across from Wally Stones. That's the biggest load in town that's coming to be built, which is great. It's a great plan.
01:25:38.15	Catherine Streitman	Please don't adopt any developmental agreements for either existing ordinances, 1128 or 1022. We do not support that direction. Please don't rezone beyond the current
01:25:48.04	Catherine Streitman	agreed upon plan. Thank you. Thank you.
01:25:50.47	Mary Weig	Thank you.
01:25:51.24	Mary Weig	Hank Baker, then Peter Streetman, and then Fred Moore.
01:26:03.14	SPEAKER_43	Good afternoon and thank you for all your effort in this exercise. I'm a longtime resident of Sausalito, resident of downtown, as well as a business owner.
01:26:11.95	SPEAKER_43	I'm also a retired real estate developer with over 40 years of experience developing over 15,000 residential units, 20% of which were affordable.
01:26:22.41	SPEAKER_43	I just want to make a few comments regarding that with that background.
01:26:26.09	SPEAKER_43	Each of the market rate units that you choose to upzone
01:26:29.63	SPEAKER_43	is the land value is increased by $250,000. If you take a look at the Altamira, even at 29 units that you're considering right now, with the potential for more than 50 units on the state allowances, you're adding over $10 million in value to that property.
01:26:48.08	SPEAKER_43	The property owner that owns that building, Michael Blatt, is a very, very experienced developer and well financed.
01:26:54.59	SPEAKER_43	Whatever you approve, he will build.
01:26:58.05	SPEAKER_43	The site that's gonna be built on is a half acre, the same size as 600 Bridgeway,
01:27:03.35	SPEAKER_43	You're putting 50 acres or 50 units on a half an acre. That's a six, seven, eight story building.
01:27:09.12	SPEAKER_43	I don't even think 29 units is the proper load for that particular project.
01:27:14.59	SPEAKER_43	Secondly, financing.
01:27:16.21	SPEAKER_43	is a challenge and allocation from the state will be very, very limited all the time. Sausalito probably won't qualify for any of that financing.
01:27:25.64	SPEAKER_43	Third, the designating property that has existing buildings on it basically adds to the value of the land in the project and makes it less feasible than a piece of vacant land. And then finally, revisioning Sausalito's northern waterfront could both ensure the permanence and expansion of the present historic uses as well as create new Sausalito neighborhoods with new industrial creative spaces along with residents serving retail and housing.
01:27:54.14	SPEAKER_43	Sadly, there have been a number of failed attempts to proactively address the northern water fruit, including the 2008 Wham report.
01:28:02.31	SPEAKER_43	a community labor of love that was shelved the day that it was presented. Thank you, Mr. Baker.
01:28:06.53	Mary Weig	Thank you, Mr. Baker.
01:28:08.67	Mary Weig	Peter Streetman, then Fred Moore, then...
01:28:14.97	Mary Weig	Ambarica Pinochet.
01:28:23.24	Peter Streitman	Hi, my name is Peter Streetman. I came here to ask you not to adopt the developmental agreements for ordinances 1128 or 1022. I do not support that direction.
01:28:38.15	Peter Streitman	Please don't rezone.
01:28:40.60	Peter Streitman	The marineship beyond the current.
01:28:42.79	Peter Streitman	agreed upon plan.
01:28:45.31	Peter Streitman	I've been working on Frida here at Spaulding's. It was built in 1885. It was the oldest sailing boat on the West Coast. And around a year ago, I built six Pelican sailboats also. I have been working on the Matthew Turner for about eight years. And my boat, the Flirt, was built by Ralph Flower in 1904 at Mare Island.
01:29:12.60	Peter Streitman	I've also been working at Cascadley Marina on some of the wood boats and the dock there. I was a boat builder in the Marinship at Sausalito Boat Builders Co-op, and there are many successful businesses still operating successfully. The working waterfront has a valuable history in town and continues to be a thriving business community today please preserve this unique aspect of the culture of our town thank you
01:29:45.13	Mary Weig	Thank you.
01:29:46.51	Mary Weig	Fred Moore than
01:29:48.64	Mary Weig	Alberica, Pinochet, then Jan Johnson.
01:29:53.06	Fred Moore	Madam Mayor, fellow city council, really applaud and thank you for the efforts you've gone through with trying to deal with the housing mandates. And I applaud you, your efforts as well as the staff. This housing element process has confused most of us, been weaponized by others, and some just object to any housing. To preserve the character of our town and avoid the builder's remedy, houses must be constructed in Sausalito. The Housing Opportunity site reflects, in my opinion, a haphazard selection process without evidence that they were identified as part of a comprehensive design and vision for our city. Whether we like it or not, compliance with state law mandates that housing be built in the city, not just depicted on a map. In my opinion, as a city planner by education and a real estate development attorney, many of the opportunity sites will never have homes built. However, there are a number of prime, underutilized and or dilapidated sites in the friendship that would attract builders.
01:30:49.81	Fred Moore	Please expand your vision to include these locations as opportunity sites in order to expedite construction of housing. Please remove site 201 as an opportunity site and preserve the historic nature of our downtown. To shepherd our city toward compliance with state mandated housing numbers, please repeal Ordinance 1022, implement a comprehensive planning process, develop sites conducive to housing, such as areas in the Marin ship, actively solicit and entice builders with development agreements, terms and expedited processing times that benefit the developer, property owner in the city. As you navigate the state mandated housing obligation, I ask all of you and all of us SOS leader residents to keep in mind a classic quote, the needs of many outweigh the needs or desires of the few or the one. Thank you for listening.
01:31:39.90	Mary Weig	Thank you.
01:31:40.98	Mary Weig	All right. Embercia, Pinochet, then Jan Johnson, then Judith Bangkolb.
01:31:49.50	Diana Dempsey	I'm Angelica Pinochet.
01:31:51.62	Diana Dempsey	I've lived.
01:31:53.06	Diana Dempsey	on Bulkly for the last 25 years.
01:31:56.50	Diana Dempsey	The Altamira site should be zoned at 29 per acre or less to uphold responsible growth that is relevant to the essence of our community.
01:32:06.10	Diana Dempsey	At 49 units, the Altamira site could hold a colossal eight to nine plus story monolith, twice the height of the tallest buildings anywhere in Sausalito.
01:32:15.67	Diana Dempsey	At 49 units per acre, the Altamira structures would diminish the character of the historic district, obstruct views, and threaten Sausalito's appeal to residents and visitors.
01:32:27.52	Diana Dempsey	Adding hundreds of cars to our narrow and winding roads would create traffic congestion, leading to gridlock beyond the neighborhood.
01:32:36.29	Diana Dempsey	Emergency services would slow down, dangerously delaying ambulances, fire trucks, and paramedics.
01:32:42.82	Diana Dempsey	evacuation due to earthquake or wildfire would have catastrophic consequences.
01:32:49.91	Diana Dempsey	Views matter.
01:32:51.78	Diana Dempsey	I'm one of the 93% Sausalito residents who support protecting scenic views.
01:32:57.52	Diana Dempsey	Most planning commission members hold the untenable position of opposing view protection, setting a dangerous precedent that will destroy the beautiful hillside harmony that is our world-famous Sausalito.
01:33:10.28	Diana Dempsey	Spectacular views advance our economic engine and promote personal solace and wellbeing.
01:33:19.36	Diana Dempsey	Building massive out-of-proportion structures on the Altamira site will have long-term financial and legal repercussions for many years into the future.
01:33:30.26	Diana Dempsey	I thereby respectfully request that you establish rezoning the Altamira site at 29 units or less. Thank you.
01:33:39.85	Diana Dempsey	Thank you.
01:33:39.96	Mary Weig	Thank you.
01:33:41.55	Mary Weig	Dan Johnson, then Judith Bang-Cold, then John Flavin.
01:33:47.45	Unknown	Hi, Jan Johnson, thank you for allowing us to speak. What she said.
01:33:52.42	Mary Weig	Thank you.
01:33:52.43	Unknown	Yeah.
01:33:53.18	Unknown	Um,
01:33:55.17	Unknown	For those in my
01:33:58.73	Unknown	Humble opinion, not so humble.
01:34:02.07	Unknown	Anything more than 29 units at the Altamira is...
01:34:06.05	Unknown	an invitation to disaster
01:34:08.57	Unknown	For those who say it won't happen here, well, it already happened here.
01:34:12.72	Unknown	In 1897, the hill burned all the way down to Water Street.
01:34:17.75	Unknown	Granted, they didn't have modern firefighting, but that's just an example of what can happen. Those people will have no way to get out because the road will block within half a block from the driveway.
01:34:21.76	Unknown	Thank you.
01:34:32.46	Unknown	If you build it and a disaster happens, it's on you. And if you think that Mr. Black won't build it, he already mentioned Sausalito through the 90s.
01:34:46.01	Unknown	including dumping three loads of dirt onto one of his developments without permission, without engineering that caused a landslide and closed two apartment buildings on bridgeway for over two to three years. Just I'm appealing to common sense. Please don't overdevelop sites that don't have the infrastructure or the road structure to allow them to be safely and habitably used. Thank you.
01:35:13.84	Mary Weig	Thank you.
01:35:15.02	Mary Weig	Judith Bankhold, then John Flavin, then Heather Wilcoxon.
01:35:19.20	Judith Bang Kolb	Hi, I'm Judith Bang Kolb. I've lived on the Sausalito waterfront for over 50 years. A lot of people in this room know me as the person who designed and built and ran the Montessori School on Caledonia Street for over 45 years. Okay, but today I'm here. I'm an artist still working at the ICB on a daily basis. I'm here to ask you to please preserve the current agreed-upon plan for housing without adopting any developmental agreements for Ordinances 1228 or 1022. Please, please, please help protect the working waterfront space for artists and industrial businesses.
01:36:05.53	Mary Weig	Thank you. John Flavin, then Heather Wilcoxon, then Emmett Easel.
01:36:11.03	John Flavin	I'm John Flavin, and I am in whole agreement with Jim Gabbert. We need to preserve the
01:36:11.45	Mary Weig	COUCA.
01:36:21.15	John Flavin	Spencer Avenue firehouse, you're going to need it.
01:36:26.65	John Flavin	As I believe Councilmember Hoffman pointed out, there is a new map out that puts that firehouse right in the center of a large area of high risk.
01:36:37.91	John Flavin	And I know people think that what we have is adequate.
01:36:41.44	John Flavin	But you have to remember 2018, there was a brush fire that worked its way up along 101 and threatened Wolfback Ridge. The only thing that saved it was a plane and two helicopters dropping water.
01:36:56.68	John Flavin	So let's not kid ourselves on that.
01:37:00.61	John Flavin	The other issue is also going to be insurance. Obtaining and maintaining insurance in this marketplace is going to be increasingly difficult. We can comfort somewhat insurance companies by showing we are taking efforts to prevent fires. The best way to prevent it is to stop them when they're small.
01:37:24.47	John Flavin	So I think it was probably a good idea to...
01:37:28.48	John Flavin	It closed the fire station back in 2010 for whatever reason. But today, in the environment of 2025, it will work for the benefit of Sausalito and for the GGNRA to have an active fire station at the top of Spencer. Thank you very much.
01:37:47.30	Mary Weig	Thank you.
01:37:48.94	Mary Weig	Heather Wilcoxon, then Emmett Yeazell.
01:37:53.15	Mary Weig	than Michael Rex.
01:37:56.82	Heather Wilcoxon	Hi. I have been a working waterfront artist for over 40 years. And I really urge you guys, please, you know, maintain the Sausalito Arts District and Maritime Service District. It's really important to all of us. It's been here forever, and we want it to stay. I know that you guys got to build houses. Why don't you tear down the machine shop that's just sitting there and being, I don't know why it's not, you can't. I know it belongs to the...
01:38:27.36	Heather Wilcoxon	The feds, right? Just ask Trump. Anyway, or Elon.
01:38:33.25	Heather Wilcoxon	Anyway, that's what I'm saying. Please support the waterfront and please don't. I was in the ICB building for 19 years. It's a great building and the artists should be able to stay there and maintain what they do. So anyway, thank you.
01:38:47.71	Mary Weig	Thank you.
01:38:49.10	Mary Weig	All right, Emmett Yeazell, then Michael Rex, then Stafford Keegan.
01:39:03.15	Emmett Yeazell	Hi, my name is Emmett Yeazell.
01:39:04.96	Emmett Yeazell	Thank you.
01:39:05.57	Emmett Yeazell	Thank you for holding this forum for comment.
01:39:09.89	Emmett Yeazell	It's always struck me that the housing element could easily be referred to as the contractor's bill
01:39:19.64	Emmett Yeazell	because residents don't seem to be the focus of the element. Now regarding changing of the height limitations with the building element.
01:39:24.43	Unknown	the
01:39:32.19	Emmett Yeazell	within the city.
01:39:33.21	Emmett Yeazell	I implore you to keep the limitations of height in all construction, the current limitation, not an amended one. That's the only one that will make a difference.
01:39:47.70	Emmett Yeazell	Saw Solito.
01:39:49.61	Emmett Yeazell	will not benefit from increased density, especially due to taller structures.
01:39:58.22	Emmett Yeazell	now.
01:39:59.55	Emmett Yeazell	None of us have ever heard the area south of Market in San Francisco referred to as quaint.
01:40:09.57	Emmett Yeazell	charming or having a sense of community.
01:40:14.60	Emmett Yeazell	Please.
01:40:16.05	Emmett Yeazell	Don't be responsible.
01:40:18.21	Emmett Yeazell	for amending the maximum height limitation in our city.
01:40:22.45	Emmett Yeazell	It will be a disaster. Thank you very much.
01:40:25.65	Mary Weig	Thank you.
01:40:26.95	Mary Weig	Michael Rex, then Stafford Keegan, then Sybil Boutelier.
01:40:32.61	Michael Rex	Hello, I'm Michael Rex. I've been an architect in South Cedo for 45 years, and I sent a late mail to you dated February 21st, and I'm going to reference the lower part about MLK. I second Bob Hayes' comments that 80 units will be ponderous and out of scale for that site. I think 30, maybe up to 50 max, probably closer to 30 units will fit more appropriately. The majority of those units should be for very low and low income.
01:41:10.05	Michael Rex	and it should be deed-restricted.
01:41:13.21	Michael Rex	So the occupants are only city workers, first responders, teachers, and seniors. You own the property. You could do this.
01:41:21.32	Michael Rex	You could joint venture with a nonprofit.
01:41:23.54	Michael Rex	to ensure it.
01:41:25.17	Michael Rex	Um,
01:41:25.95	Michael Rex	this ballot measure that you'll be discussing later tonight,
01:41:29.27	Michael Rex	If it calls for 80 units, first of all,
01:41:31.74	Michael Rex	Those 80 units were based on a CAD model.
01:41:34.59	Michael Rex	that the plan calls for 11 buildings. It showed only portions of three buildings, and that were two stories, not three stories. That model was misleading.
01:41:47.26	Michael Rex	and yet the Planning Commission pointed to it to justify 80 units. If you put it on the ballot that way,
01:41:54.25	Michael Rex	It'll fail.
01:41:55.46	Michael Rex	If you put it on the ballot the way I described it, I think it can pass.
01:42:00.71	Michael Rex	and we don't lose those important units and it serves the people we need.
01:42:04.81	Michael Rex	to keep here in town.
01:42:06.41	Michael Rex	Thank you.
01:42:06.48	Michael Rex	The project would be subject to the new draft odds that we hope you'll adopt next week.
01:42:13.69	Michael Rex	to that's proposed view sync.
01:42:16.37	Michael Rex	And before it goes to vote, we need an accurate model that will show what it will really look like instead of an in-earth one we have currently. Thank you.
01:42:26.63	Mary Weig	Thank you. Stafford Keegan, then Sybil Boutelier, then Anthony Haye.
01:42:43.19	Unknown	Hi. Hi. My name's
01:42:44.54	Stafford Keegan	My name is Stafford Keegan. I'm a former Planning Commission member and served with great pleasure with Mayor Cox. And I can say that all I've heard today only confirms in my mind that mistakes can be made
01:43:01.93	Stafford Keegan	And if they're made, you're stuck with them. And I know that from a planning commission experience, when you see a mistake that's been made, you turn your head, you drive away, and luckily within five years, a coat of paint will be over it, trees will be planted, and you can go on to the next mistake. The mistakes you guys are talking about cannot be replaced. They're going to be here, and you're going to be with us for the rest of my life and probably the rest of your lives. And it's going to hurt every time you look at them.
01:43:32.81	Stafford Keegan	Thank you.
01:43:34.40	Mary Weig	Thank you.
01:43:35.90	Mary Weig	Ooh.
01:43:39.55	Mary Weig	Sylvia Jones- Sibyl Boutelier then Anthony hey then babette mcdougall.
01:43:45.40	Sybil Boutelier	Good afternoon, Mayor Cox, Honorable Counsel. As you're all aware, there are land use policies in our general plan stating the city will support our senior community for mobility and sensory limitations. The housing element also goes on to say
01:44:02.65	Sybil Boutelier	that the city will support aging in place with housing types that allow people to remain in community as their needs change. It also mentions visitability.
01:44:15.02	Sybil Boutelier	Seven years ago, the city passed a great age-friendly housing adaptation program for seniors to retrofit accessibility into existing housing. But now the time has come to add an action program to be sure we build new senior affordable housing that is already accessible for more than 40% of our residents who were over age 60. I heard the city attorney's reading of the law.
01:44:47.98	Sybil Boutelier	But whether or not an amendment can be added at this point for a senior overlay, we need to detour, and we need to do
01:44:59.50	Sybil Boutelier	Herman.
01:45:00.77	Sybil Boutelier	we will have affordable senior housing with no step entry and other important accessibility features so that we don't have to retrofit this housing later on.
01:45:14.71	Sybil Boutelier	So freeing up, we need to allow our elders to downsize, freeing up larger housing for families, and so that they can continue to live and contribute to our community as seniors do. So please direct staff either to add or require the use of any available senior overlay, as the attorney seemed to reference, or separately pass a visitability ordinance outside of this process. Thank you.
01:45:46.55	Mary Weig	Thank you, Sabal.
01:45:48.51	Mary Weig	All right, Anthony Hay, then Babette McDougall, then Jim Madden.
01:45:52.86	Unknown	Good evening. This is Anthony Hay, resident of Sassolido. I'll be brief. I just wanted to say the fire station is important that we put back together again up on Spencer Avenue because the map shows very high fire risk around that area. So it's prudent to add it there. Secondly, this monstrosity at Altamira, I don't know, high-rise building. it's not Manhattan here we're living in prudent to add it there. Secondly, this monstrosity at Altamira, I don't know, high-rise building, it's not Manhattan here. We're living in Sausalito, and we have this, the character of the city should be preserved. So Altamira should be down-zoned to, you call it H-29. Finally, there's a site 301 on Bridgeway, which I think you could add more units to it, and it won't be a high rise. And it will be a nice marina-style building that should help for the city of Sausalito. Thank you.
01:45:53.52	Mary Weig	I'm at
01:46:50.79	Mary Weig	Thank you. Babette McDougall, then Jim Madden, then Stacey Nimmo.
01:46:59.84	Babette McDougall	Thank you, Babette McDougall, Girard Avenue.
01:47:02.98	Babette McDougall	I'm really delighted to see so many of our residents here to speak specifically to various sites that have been called out.
01:47:10.39	Babette McDougall	on the various plans.
01:47:12.29	Babette McDougall	and the one in particular that we're under consideration now. I would like to first
01:47:16.63	Babette McDougall	Point out.
01:47:17.59	Babette McDougall	Going back to the city council, correction, the planning commission meeting.
01:47:22.43	Babette McDougall	if I'm not mistaken, there was a very firm Planning Commission recommendation that all primary infrastructure
01:47:28.90	Babette McDougall	be in place before any kind of residential or other development could commence. Is that specific?
01:47:36.02	Babette McDougall	Did I misunderstand that? I don't know. But I think it's important to bear in mind the lack of infrastructure.
01:47:42.23	Babette McDougall	especially if we're going to look at increased density. So I'd like to just emphasize that now.
01:47:47.81	Babette McDougall	The second thing I'd like to emphasize is the issue of views, because this is in direct contravention to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Their planners are not even allowed to consider views, and yet
01:48:00.39	Babette McDougall	Thanks to Stephanie Moulton Peters, our supervisor, we now know squarely on the record,
01:48:04.54	Babette McDougall	that this place is about to undergo a huge transformation between Marin City and Sausalito being designated as one of the world's largest regional transit hubs.
01:48:15.98	Babette McDougall	All you got to do is go on the web and look up what a tier four looks like.
01:48:19.40	Babette McDougall	and it will amaze you at what they have in mind for Sausalito. Just amaze you.
01:48:24.94	Babette McDougall	And so...
01:48:26.29	Babette McDougall	Yeah, all this little nitty-gritty talk about up and down Bridgeway counts. But at the end of the day, I would just like to remind you that it is by working together...
01:48:35.72	Babette McDougall	as a community, that we will have our best outcomes. So I really do hope that you really are paying serious attention.
01:48:42.08	Babette McDougall	to what your residents have to say.
01:48:44.04	Babette McDougall	They are the people who elect you to this diocese.
01:48:47.08	Mary Weig	Thank you.
01:48:47.10	Babette McDougall	Thank you so much for your time. Thank you.
01:48:48.97	Mary Weig	Jim Madden, then Stacy Nimmo, then Susan Moritz.
01:48:54.96	SPEAKER_19	Jim Madden, been here a long time. Family's been here probably 100 years. We have some, I'm hearing the Altamira is an issue, MLK is an issue. We have actual property. We're not putting up six-story buildings. We want our properties to be within the existing footprint, existing height. 210 Caledonia would make that happen, and I'd like the 4985. Also, 1313 and 1315 Bridgeway would make that happen at the 49. 100 Bay Street at 49, and 1319 Bridgeway take the four units. Again, within the existing footprint, the existing height. There's another property here which can make a big impact on this whole Altamira thing, and it's Site 301, which a gentleman mentioned earlier. The problem with Site 3 is that the problem is that the problem's got to be fixed. It's a combination of Cameron's property and Sausalito Yacht Harbor property that needs to be set into two separate lines. Additionally, take it back to 49. Those sites could make a big-time difference on these other places. And in the Sausalito Yacht Harbor, Mary Madden stuff that we own, we're not putting up six-story buildings. We're going within the existing. But give us the proper units in these buildings. Okay.
01:50:21.22	SPEAKER_19	Thank you.
01:50:21.85	Mary Weig	Thank you.
01:50:22.96	Mary Weig	Stacy Nimmo, then Susan Moritz, then Alice Merrill.
01:50:27.69	Mary Weig	Thank you.
01:50:28.97	SPEAKER_34	If I haven't said this enough before, I want to thank you all for all the time and energy you put into this. It's a very, very challenging project to solve, and I can't imagine how much energy it takes. I'm proud to see so many thoughtful neighbors speaking out on behalf of finding alternatives to the building in public parks. In my written comments, I've outlined issues in detail with the current plan. For comments here, I'll simply say that as local control continues to be undermined by the state, it makes little sense to give up more than what's needed in public parks, historic sites, or in the case of MLK Park, both.
01:51:05.27	SPEAKER_34	There's so much opportunity in marineship and beyond. And as many have said earlier, please continue to pursue all avenues to building opportunities beyond the limiting bounds of the housing element as is planned. Thank you.
01:51:19.17	Mary Weig	Thank you.
01:51:20.37	Mary Weig	Susan Moritz I had called earlier. I don't know if she's here now. And then Alice Merrill and then Ricks Cannell.
01:51:29.16	Mary Weig	All right, Alice, why don't you step forward?
01:51:32.77	Alice Merrill	Good evening. Oh, it's evening. Alice Barrel, 117 Caledonia Street. I...
01:51:43.00	Alice Merrill	Oh, boy. What a mess. I would like...
01:51:45.26	Alice Merrill	I would like to know what...
01:51:49.50	Alice Merrill	more, I'd like to know what you guys are, um,
01:51:53.21	Alice Merrill	are going for. I don't really think I know. But
01:51:59.54	Alice Merrill	I Altamira beautiful place the lowest the best the lowest the best you know lower whatever that's the Altamira I of course care about the firehouse make it a firehouse good idea
01:52:07.15	Unknown	you know.
01:52:15.23	Alice Merrill	the Marin ship.
01:52:16.61	Alice Merrill	I saw recently some pictures of some saying, oh, look at this awful old property here. It's ugly. It's not pretty. Do you know that the owners of the property and rentship, some of them make it look ugly so that it will look ugly so that people will say, we could make this so much prettier. We could make this really nice. This is a working area. We don't have to have it pretty. And don't let that sway you. The northern part of the marineship that's been designated as housing, great.
01:52:50.52	Alice Merrill	gopher housing there, but not in the part that's near to where the industrial stuff happens. Yeah.
01:52:57.69	Alice Merrill	If a certain person who, I don't know what the number of his property is, but it's right next to the Arquez, the old Arquez. If that person wants something more in his property, maybe he could put...
01:53:14.38	Alice Merrill	With boat building, what a surprise, what a thought. Or if we end up having...
01:53:21.53	Alice Merrill	OK.
01:53:22.36	Alice Merrill	That wasn't where I wanted to go. Oh, boy.
01:53:26.01	Alice Merrill	Well, I'm all done. But anyway...
01:53:30.97	Alice Merrill	I do think that if we think about
01:53:34.02	Alice Merrill	Thanks.
01:53:34.24	Mary Weig	Thank you, Alice. All right. Rick's can please feel free to write us if you weren't able to say something you wanted us to hear. Rick's can all then Albert Streetman, our third Streetman of the evening and Adrian Brinton.
01:53:52.03	SPEAKER_07	Hello, my name is Rick Scannell. I don't really have anything prepared because I just heard about this today. I work in the Marin ship. I'm born and raised here. And just sort of hearing about the sort of revisions of the zoning and development of this area really, really hurts me and a lot of the people that I work around down there.
01:54:18.93	SPEAKER_07	And there are a lot of them too. There's cabinet makers, architects, artists, all sorts of designers. I could think of just a number of different jobs just off the top of my head that
01:54:32.09	SPEAKER_07	are happening right now.
01:54:34.06	SPEAKER_07	People are working right now.
01:54:36.10	SPEAKER_07	down there, a lot of them.
01:54:38.01	SPEAKER_07	And that's probably why you don't see a lot of represent
01:54:40.69	SPEAKER_07	like a lot of people here tonight
01:54:43.60	SPEAKER_07	you know, representing the Marineship is because they're working down there. And I don't know. I just...
01:54:50.70	SPEAKER_07	I just ask to please consider the fact that there's a lot of people down there doing cool stuff. And I have a lot of sewing machines, and it'd be really heavy to, you know, be a lot of work to move them out. So, yeah, thanks.
01:55:04.91	Mary Weig	Thank you.
01:55:06.43	Mary Weig	All right, Albert Streetman, then...
01:55:09.97	Mary Weig	Adrienne Brinton.
01:55:12.35	Mary Weig	Then Michael Gaspers.
01:55:21.16	SPEAKER_01	Hello, my name is Albert Streetman. I am a fourth generation Saucyutu resident. I oppose revisions to the 1022 initiative for the housing plan. These revisions would open up the entire marineship to become housing and effectively destroy the working waterfront with many jobs that exist there. I would also like to add by not including sites south of Harbor Drive, we are in no way risking builders remedy. Why sacrifice blue collar jobs for absolutely no reason. Thank you.
01:55:51.50	Mary Weig	Thank you.
01:55:52.68	Mary Weig	Adrienne Brinton, then Michael Gaspers, then Jenny Silva.
01:55:57.86	SPEAKER_10	Hi, Adrian Brinton. And, yeah, you know, thinking about the MarinShip, absolutely, there's so much down there that's part of the Solus Sausalito that we need to save and we need to make sure is kept a part of us. Also, the MarinShip is over 200 acres. It's a huge area, and there's a lot of underutilized area. If you go along MarinShip Way,
01:56:18.59	SPEAKER_10	by Molly stones and you look at the RV lot that area could support housing without threatening the working waterfront
01:56:25.54	SPEAKER_10	Also on the economics of the marineship.
01:56:28.54	SPEAKER_10	You know, we talk about how it's an economic driver for Sausalito and by raw numbers, it is, it brings in.
01:56:32.80	SPEAKER_10	2019, $1.2 million in tax revenue versus
01:56:36.61	SPEAKER_10	You know, just over a hundred, just over a million for downtown.
01:56:40.52	SPEAKER_10	It's also 120 acres versus 16 acres for downtown. So on a per acre basis, it's bringing in a fraction of the tax revenue of downtown. $70,000 per acre we get downtown. We get under $10,000 per acre in the marineship. If we could bring that up to half of downtown, which I don't think would be a massive lift, we could subsidize the businesses that are struggling, the artists that are struggling, and actually pay for the uses that we want to see there. We're subsidizing it anyway to the tune of $4 million taxes lost every year by letting so much of our town sit with under utilized economic activity. So yes, extremely difficult to do and save our soul at the same time, not saying it's easy. There's so many ways that it could go wrong.
01:57:32.43	SPEAKER_10	But as a community, I think we can come together and find a way to do it right.
01:57:36.41	SPEAKER_10	Let's start saying yes to making it better.
01:57:38.79	SPEAKER_10	and take that underutilized land and actually do something with it and make it a vibrant part of town. Helps us with housing as well. We keep squeezing the balloon. Everything's popping up. We've got everybody saying no to everything that's come out today. Like, Jim Madden, thank you for coming up and saying, yes, I've got something I could build. That's great. That's what we need.
01:57:57.34	SPEAKER_10	So anyway, that's my comment. Thank you.
01:57:59.85	Mary Weig	Thank you.
01:58:01.52	Mary Weig	All right.
01:58:02.50	Mary Weig	Michael Gaspers, then Jenny Silva, then Craig Merrily's.
01:58:08.29	SPEAKER_02	Good evening, counsel, I'm Michael Gaspers. I live in Burk-Hangulch area. It seems to me that as a public entity and with most public entities and companies and corporations, one of your main talents is communication, especially with other entities, and I think it would,
01:58:26.82	SPEAKER_02	What you should do is to use your communication expertise and lobby.
01:58:33.97	SPEAKER_02	Senator McGuire, Assemblyman Connolly, and
01:58:39.31	SPEAKER_02	Governor Newsom to call a special session of legislature and have these housing mandate laws overturned and file a lawsuit in federal court under the
01:58:51.71	SPEAKER_02	according to the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution, especially that or to the people part of the United States Constitution, because these laws are nothing but a one-size-fits-all that fits nobody's sizes. It's like every community is different, and it's nothing but a boon to developers. And...
01:59:16.35	SPEAKER_02	These things need to be overturned and struck down in court. And I think that although on a much smaller scale, I think these projects and this law can be very accurately described as Marinchello 2.0. and if you could please get this thing struck down, use your talent to lobby to get these things overturned, and so we don't have to deal with this anymore. Thank you.
01:59:51.87	Mary Weig	Thank you.
01:59:53.40	Mary Weig	Jenny Silva, then Craig Merrilies, then Justine Kahn.
01:59:59.16	SPEAKER_32	Hello, hi, City Council. Thank you for having this session. As I believe you all know, I was on the Housing Element Advisory Committee, and it's great to see so many new faces that either weren't aware or didn't know about the Housing Element Advisory Committee meetings that we had. And so I wanted to share a little bit of history with the committee with the people that are new to the room.
02:00:24.12	SPEAKER_32	um,
02:00:25.40	SPEAKER_32	On the Housing Development Advisory Committee, we discussed two sites more than any other site. So those were sites 67 and 68 in the Marin ship, Carloberg sites. And we voted on those sites at least four times.
02:00:42.09	SPEAKER_32	maybe more, and every time we voted that they should stay,
02:00:45.78	SPEAKER_32	on the housing site inventory.
02:00:48.60	SPEAKER_32	We considered all the issues that have been brought up today.
02:00:51.39	SPEAKER_32	whether it would interfere with the working waterfront, whether it would interfere with the artists. And we decided no. It's on the other side of the shipyards from ICB. It's hard to imagine how that would conflict with the ICB. It's a full city block away. It's as close to the shipyards as the FedEx property is, so I don't understand why those sites are a bigger threat than the FedEx site is. It seems to be treated very, very differently. We could build a lot of housing there. We could take care of a lot of our housing element.
02:01:26.54	SPEAKER_32	There is no site that everybody is going to be happy with. That is very clear.
02:01:31.08	SPEAKER_32	This is a site in an area that badly needs reinvestment. It's an old office building. We don't need as many offices here. We need housing. And I know there are some that think we don't need housing. We desperately need housing. We are having housing.
02:01:45.45	SPEAKER_32	a housing crisis. There is a reason why there is nobody between 20 and 30 in this room
02:01:51.41	SPEAKER_32	There is no college grad that can afford to live here. The only one I know was given a house by their parents.
02:01:58.40	SPEAKER_32	We are becoming a retirement community here, and we need to build housing that is affordable for younger people if we want to have a vibrant community that is full of energy and fun and great to be in.
02:02:12.15	SPEAKER_32	I believe, and this is just my personal belief, that those sites, 67 and 68, are the most likely sites to be developed within Sausalito. They're flat. They're in a good location. They're walkable to Molly Stones and other things. And I would highly encourage you to reconsider those sites because they are sites that could be developed. Thanks.
02:02:33.75	Mary Weig	Thank you.
02:02:35.34	Mary Weig	All right, guys, I'm going to repeat my request that you withhold your applause or your criticism until the end of public comment. Craig Merrilees, then Justine Kahn, then Mark Coleman.
02:02:48.20	Cox	Hello, everyone. Thank you, Madam Mayor and members of the council and everyone in the audience. This is a difficult, tedious,
02:02:58.24	Cox	almost impossible gordian not to
02:03:01.51	Cox	tie and untie and, and we can't make everybody happy. And there are going to be.
02:03:06.89	Cox	sacrifices and there are going to be disappointments here. I'm prepared to accept some of that, but not this kind of stuff that's avoidable. And I think that,
02:03:19.57	Cox	we've got ourselves into a situation where we're so close at this point. We're really edging close to an agreement that I think will survive legal scrutiny and
02:03:33.64	Cox	get us through this impossible situation that our elected representatives put us in. I personally regret not organizing a campaign to go after the two representatives that supported this law. And I don't think they briefed the city council on what the implications were. And here now, here it is in our lap and we've got to solve their mess. And I don't appreciate that some of them are gone, some of them are lobbying, some of them are no longer in office. But here we are.
02:04:07.29	Cox	I want to call your attention to two things.
02:04:10.82	Cox	My friend Jenny Silva, who agrees, we agree on many things, but approving housing immediately adjacent to the working waterfront is a recipe for disaster. I just talked with people in Bellingham, Washington, and they will tell you among almost every working waterfront in the country that that leads to disaster. It leads to limitations. It ultimately leads to closure and to gentrification. If that's where you want to go vote that way, but it's not the way to save the working waterfront. And finally, I'm concerned about Michael Rex's proposal. I think it's dangerous and it needs to be addressed. I don't have the time to do it. Perhaps someone who follows me will.
02:04:51.64	Mary Weig	Thank you.
02:04:53.56	Mary Weig	Thank you.
02:04:54.51	Mary Weig	All right. Justine Kahn, then Mark Coleman, then...
02:04:59.10	Mary Weig	Andy.
02:05:00.78	Mary Weig	Greer.
02:05:02.98	SPEAKER_30	Thank you, City Council. My name is Justine Khan. I live on Coloma Street across from MLK Park. I'm here on behalf of the community at that,
02:05:15.48	SPEAKER_30	location to urge City Council to take it off of the plan for development, mostly because we can never get a park back.
02:05:26.38	SPEAKER_30	It's such a vital part of our community. It's a place where my daughter plays. It's a place where I meet with my friends. It's a place that the community uses.
02:05:38.40	SPEAKER_30	And if we vote even on a small amount of housing inside the park, it is irreversible.
02:05:45.22	SPEAKER_30	I urge City Council to listen to all of the people here who have offered up parcels of land to increase their lot numbers and amount that they will build on and take MLK off the table. Thank you so much.
02:06:00.47	SPEAKER_30	That's all I have to say. Thank you.
02:06:00.77	Unknown	I have to
02:06:01.06	Mary Weig	say.
02:06:01.69	Mary Weig	Thank you.
02:06:01.73	SPEAKER_30	Thank you.
02:06:01.79	Mary Weig	I'm,
02:06:01.92	SPEAKER_30	you
02:06:01.97	Mary Weig	Mark Coleman and then Andy Greer.
02:06:06.95	Mary Weig	And that ends my speaker cards for the chambers. If there's anyone else in the chambers that wishes to speak, please turn in a speaker card. We're going to hear from those online next.
02:06:23.37	SPEAKER_56	Okay, so thank you, council members. Beautiful to see so many people here.
02:06:29.44	SPEAKER_56	Like everybody, I'm also in support of creating low density, low density and low income housing.
02:06:36.36	SPEAKER_56	but this does seem like a pro-developer bill that's really being thrust down our necks. I implore the city to maintain and protect all view restrictions on all areas and sites in the city.
02:06:49.44	SPEAKER_56	I was concerned about hearing that site 52, which is the city hall parking lot,
02:06:55.40	SPEAKER_56	which has already been the point of many
02:06:57.42	SPEAKER_56	rounds of discussion and was advised against by the planning commission.
02:07:01.78	SPEAKER_56	to be reopened.
02:07:03.13	SPEAKER_56	I hear that's back on the table. I think that's absolutely crazy that we would
02:07:07.28	SPEAKER_56	risk all the various needs that a
02:07:12.07	SPEAKER_56	City Hall has, including parking and places for first responders and whatnot. So I urge you to take Site 52 off the table. I'm also concerned about sites around me and all over the city where there's just ridiculous amount of housing density put on these tiny sites. I'm facing a 0.15 acre site that if with the build it gets all the bonuses will be up to 14 or 16 units which of course only means going vertical and blocking neighbors views and really damaging the quality and character of a residential community
02:07:48.10	SPEAKER_56	I also agree with some of the speakers that of the 200 acres in Marinship, as much as I care about
02:07:55.37	SPEAKER_56	preserving the culture and the history and the working environment there. There does seem to be areas like along Bridgeway, Molly Stones, Kinkovs, et cetera, that seem
02:08:07.22	SPEAKER_56	useful sites for potential development. So I would encourage considering those. Thank you.
02:08:13.26	Mary Weig	Thank you. I will call Andy Greer, then Ian Sobieski, who will be speaking as a private individual.
02:08:26.40	Babette McDougall	It was okay.
02:08:28.56	Babette McDougall	Thank you.
02:08:28.97	Mary Weig	I did not.
02:08:32.01	Babette McDougall	Thank you.
02:08:32.66	Babette McDougall	Thank you.
02:08:32.73	Mary Weig	You can speak to the city manager. I'm not gonna have anyone calling out from the audience. It cannot be heard by the people attending this meeting remotely, but you can speak to the city manager. Go ahead, Mr. Greer.
02:08:44.93	Andy Greer	Hello, thank you. I wasn't going to speak, but just hearing everybody's comments tonight.
02:08:54.15	Andy Greer	Thank you.
02:08:54.82	Andy Greer	I guess seeing how is this is mandatory for Sausalito and that nobody wants to have development, a large scale development in their neighborhood or right next to them, that we might be able to find maybe like an alternative. I know that there's a lot of buildings in Sausalito that aren't being utilized right now to their capacity.
02:09:20.32	Andy Greer	The old cinema on Caledonia Street hasn't been…
02:09:24.49	Andy Greer	It's been vacant for years and years. There's the bicycle odyssey. There's the.
02:09:30.73	Andy Greer	um, Portofino hotel that's being, that's, um, stripped. And I think, uh, uh, is, is ready to have, um,
02:09:43.83	Andy Greer	tenants. And I just think that maybe instead of having a new development focused more on the buildings, the infrastructure that we already have and utilizing that.
02:10:00.20	Andy Greer	Thank you.
02:10:00.95	Mary Weig	Thank you. Next up is Ian Sobieski. It appears there's a member of the audience who is objecting to his testifying as a private citizen regarding a matter he will later recuse himself from. So I'm gonna ask our city attorney to weigh in and explain why he is allowed to make public comment.
02:10:19.03	Sergio	So,
02:10:19.94	Sergio	uh i'll briefly address this uh members of the city council have the same rights as any other private individual to speak um
02:10:28.92	Sergio	Additionally, the recusal requirements and FPPC regulations provide that with respect to
02:10:35.82	Sergio	a subject matter where a council member is required to recuse, they do expressly retain the right to make, uh,
02:10:43.43	Sergio	public comment and public testimony about issues that relate to their own personal
02:10:48.20	Sergio	finances and other things that may create a conflict of interest.
02:10:52.98	Sergio	Hopefully that addresses the issue.
02:10:55.28	Mary Weig	Thank you. So I will call Ian Sobieski as an individual resident and then Chris Johnson.
02:11:02.33	Councilmember Sobieski	Good evening, City Council. Thanks for hearing from me. I live on Bulkley Street. It's so great to see so many of my neighbors on Bulkley and Harrison. The property in question is just inside the circle of potential conflict of interest. And try as I might with the FPPC, I still have yet to get a clear answer on whether I could participate. And aside from my own personal risk, if I did participate, the greater danger is if I did from the dais there would be a possibility that that could be used to undermine the legitimacy of the housing element so that would be a cost to the entire community and the safer bet is to make my comment here I hope that the city council will uh
02:11:39.66	Councilmember Sobieski	Keep the current zone.
02:11:40.97	Councilmember Sobieski	thing.
02:11:41.58	Councilmember Sobieski	at ultimate 29 in fact it should be just taken off the opportunity list site it is a housing inventory site its current zoning allows 29 units at 49 you could with the density bonus have more than 100 units and with the density bonus of course
02:11:58.42	Councilmember Sobieski	the builder is free to not follow our objective design standards. They can build a building that's,
02:12:05.48	Councilmember Sobieski	doesn't fit in much like the renderings that we just saw. Like everyone else here this evening, this would affect the social way that I think we shouldn't allow. And I just think there's a better way. Within the current identification of units, this small reduction won't cause us to fall out of our arena compliance, but also
02:12:28.14	Councilmember Sobieski	in general we shouldn't be doing this with sites around uh sauce leader that are like this we should try to take a different approach or actually engage with the property owners and negotiate community development agreements or a way of them developing their properties in a way that fit in uh and we shouldn't where we can identify them as arena housing sites so i hope we'll use that tool in the future and i hope the city council will reduce the um
02:12:52.96	Councilmember Sobieski	the units at Altamirida 29. Thank you.
02:12:56.42	Mary Weig	Thank you. Chris Johnson.
02:12:59.22	Mary Weig	And then, City Clerk, we will turn to those online.
02:13:06.23	SPEAKER_47	Thank you very much. My name is Chris Johnson. I live 140 Bulkley Avenue, directly across the street from the Altamira site, historic building part of the old part of Sausalito. So I'd begin by just seconding everyone's, anyone who knows that part of town would agree that increasing the density to the proposed max limit would make no sense at all. It's agreed upon that there is space on the site that could be developed, and I support that. And we obviously have a need for increasing our housing. And I would also second the idea that, based on the previous history of Mr. Blatt, who had done previous projects and maxed out his existing ability and did an end run on the town for the use of it, I would bear that in mind.
02:14:10.77	SPEAKER_47	I also support keeping the firehouse at the top of Spencer. I have previously worked with EMS Services as a firefighter and a medic, and I can assure you that the availability of space, even if it's not utilized on a full-time basis for staging of equipment and of an ability for other responders to use that as a base to go into servicing areas that are being affected, that would be a critical location. And then my last comment is that when you look at the machine shop, the tennis courts, the space next to the tennis courts, the auto desk buildings that are practically empty, it's really next to a cliff where any height development would have minimal impact. I'm really confused why that's not considered.
02:15:10.21	Mary Weig	All right. Thank you. All right. City Clerk.
02:15:13.58	Blossene	All right?
02:15:13.75	SPEAKER_47	right?
02:15:13.97	Blossene	Online we have Ed Brekman.
02:15:21.61	Ed Brakeman	Hello, I'm a Sausalito resident. My name is Ed Brakeman. I am writing with a couple of comments as it relates to some of the technicalities of,
02:15:34.24	Ed Brakeman	The housing element EIR and the amended housing element and the proposed amendments to ordinance 1022. I think based on a legal review it. There are some.
02:15:49.42	Ed Brakeman	important adjustments that should be made to some
02:15:54.01	Ed Brakeman	drafting throughout the document to make sure that our
02:16:00.63	Ed Brakeman	documentation is as
02:16:03.16	Ed Brakeman	solid and defensible as possible and doesn't leave us vulnerable
02:16:07.24	Ed Brakeman	to future lawsuits.
02:16:09.20	Ed Brakeman	Specifically in the final EIR related to the mitigation measure, 3.1-1A, I've submitted a written comment as related to what could be done to improve that and make sure that it's enforceable and does not leave us vulnerable.
02:16:27.83	Ed Brakeman	And then secondly, there is inconsistent zoning terminology that's used across the various documents that we are all grappling with tonight, and I urge the staff to
02:16:43.37	Ed Brakeman	clean that up so that it's clear
02:16:46.06	Ed Brakeman	that, for example, MU2985% means the same thing as M2985.
02:16:53.58	Ed Brakeman	in
02:16:54.46	Ed Brakeman	Uh,
02:16:55.42	Ed Brakeman	the
02:16:56.91	Ed Brakeman	ballot initiative.
02:16:58.51	Ed Brakeman	information. If these are more than just typographical errors, then I think
02:17:03.64	Ed Brakeman	that we should be informed about what the differences are among those. Then finally,
02:17:09.53	Ed Brakeman	The final EIR should be amended to include appropriate protection for the historic district, particularly as it relates to the monstrous project at 605 Bridgeway. I think nearly every resident in town, in fact,
02:17:24.89	Blossene	Next speaker, we have Sandra Bushmaker.
02:17:29.26	Sandra Bushmaker	Good evening, Council. I realize this has been a long arduous process. I sat through all of the meetings, all of the working group meetings and all of the Council meetings with regard to the underlying housing element.
02:17:41.69	Sandra Bushmaker	I've been a resident of Sausalito for 35 years, starting in the late 1970s. And I currently live in Hurricane Gulch in the red area on those new fire maps.
02:17:53.93	Sandra Bushmaker	First of all, I would like to comment on two areas. One is the North Bridgeway, which area which has...
02:18:01.42	Sandra Bushmaker	borne the burden of about 33% of the units in our housing element are there. That's 358 units.
02:18:09.30	Sandra Bushmaker	I think the marine ship has dedicated more than its fair share by dedicating the 13 acres north, approximately 13 acres north of
02:18:19.51	Sandra Bushmaker	of
02:18:20.84	Sandra Bushmaker	Harbor drive.
02:18:22.41	Sandra Bushmaker	I want to see the preservation of the maritime arts in industrial areas,
02:18:26.93	Sandra Bushmaker	Thank you.
02:18:26.97	Sandra Bushmaker	And therefore, I do not agree with the repeal of 1022, except as to address the
02:18:34.28	Sandra Bushmaker	issues in the original housing element.
02:18:38.06	Sandra Bushmaker	During that process, the stakeholders were just, were
02:18:42.11	Sandra Bushmaker	briefed, discussed, we had meetings,
02:18:44.99	Sandra Bushmaker	And the.
02:18:46.34	Sandra Bushmaker	After elaborate discussion, the housing element was approved and those
02:18:52.23	Sandra Bushmaker	elements were, uh,
02:18:54.17	Sandra Bushmaker	adopted.
02:18:55.59	Sandra Bushmaker	With regard to the Spencer Firehouse, I think the red zone is pretty clear.
02:19:00.01	Sandra Bushmaker	Times have changed since we closed the
02:19:03.69	Sandra Bushmaker	the firehouse and we have a climate change obviously has happened.
02:19:08.23	Sandra Bushmaker	This is especially necessary
02:19:10.94	Sandra Bushmaker	to remove that from the housing element
02:19:13.43	Sandra Bushmaker	because we've got that competing
02:19:16.23	Sandra Bushmaker	Removal of the median.
02:19:17.90	Sandra Bushmaker	on Bridgeway, which is pending.
02:19:20.83	Sandra Bushmaker	and that will reduce the response time
02:19:24.33	Sandra Bushmaker	to my area of town, Hurricane Gulch.
02:19:28.26	Sandra Bushmaker	We also have 200 buffer units, which I
02:19:32.53	Sandra Bushmaker	Thank you.
02:19:32.88	Blossene	Next speaker is Sandra.
02:19:43.09	Mary Weig	Did you say Cassandra?
02:19:44.39	Blossene	I said Sandra. It might be Sandra Bushmaker again, but I don't know.
02:19:51.16	SPEAKER_06	Okay.
02:19:52.05	Blossene	Sandra, if you can unmute.
02:19:57.39	Blossene	And we'll just go over to the next person, Jack Burroughs.
02:20:03.92	SPEAKER_76	Yes, good evening, everyone, and thank you, everyone, for your time.
02:20:08.52	SPEAKER_76	My partner and I moved here to Sausalito three and a half years ago, live directly across from MLK park. And first I would like to give a second to Michael Rex's suggestion earlier about smart development. Uh, I do realize as someone involved in real estate in San Francisco that, uh, every community has to add housing, uh, to their plan. Um,
02:20:34.29	SPEAKER_76	But doing so in a smart and efficient way, especially when it's a way that requires a ballot measure to pass,
02:20:42.17	SPEAKER_76	Um, it would.
02:20:43.59	SPEAKER_76	would be in everyone's best interest.
02:20:46.09	SPEAKER_76	to look at the plan and do it in a way
02:20:49.53	SPEAKER_76	that
02:20:50.74	SPEAKER_76	makes sense for everyone involved.
02:20:53.70	SPEAKER_76	here in
02:20:54.88	SPEAKER_76	our area of the city, as someone just alluded to, we have, I think it's over 35%, uh, within less than a half of a mile from our residents of the housing burden. Um,
02:21:09.24	SPEAKER_76	And
02:21:10.67	SPEAKER_76	In a way, it feels targeted to our area over here.
02:21:15.84	SPEAKER_76	Um,
02:21:17.15	SPEAKER_76	Unlike most other areas,
02:21:19.87	SPEAKER_76	A lot of the people who live here are working families that have young children who attend the elementary school that is within walking distance of all of our residences here.
02:21:31.63	SPEAKER_76	We also have a private school that abuts MLK Park.
02:21:36.56	SPEAKER_76	It
02:21:37.69	SPEAKER_76	would severely diminish
02:21:40.96	SPEAKER_76	Thank you.
02:21:41.25	SPEAKER_76	the property value
02:21:43.48	SPEAKER_76	to develop an area that is a primary attraction to people who are looking
02:21:49.92	SPEAKER_76	to buy here in Northern Sausalito.
02:21:53.72	SPEAKER_76	This is the future of Sausalito with all of the children that are growing up here.
02:21:59.22	SPEAKER_76	So,
02:22:01.11	SPEAKER_76	Again, I second
02:22:02.61	SPEAKER_76	Michael Rex's
02:22:04.22	SPEAKER_76	suggestions earlier.
02:22:07.52	Mary Weig	Thank you.
02:22:09.25	Blossene	Next person is Sam Chase.
02:22:12.60	Mary Weig	Welcome, Sam.
02:22:19.78	Blossene	You can unmute yourself.
02:22:25.50	Blossene	Okay, we'll go with Evan, Jane, Chris.
02:22:29.85	Blossene	Yeah.
02:22:31.27	Blossene	We got about a dozen.
02:22:33.36	SPEAKER_06	Yes, good evening city council members I appreciate everybody's efforts and the amazing amount of community involvement that I have seen.
02:22:44.08	SPEAKER_06	I'm trying to find a solution to
02:22:46.84	SPEAKER_06	the housing issues here in Sausalito.
02:22:50.24	SPEAKER_06	I'd like to start
02:22:51.65	SPEAKER_06	Um,
02:22:52.50	SPEAKER_06	Mm-hmm.
02:22:53.39	SPEAKER_06	by saying that I support a lower number of housing units in the Altamira site,
02:22:59.05	SPEAKER_06	I agree that the congestion issues and the character of the streets around there and everything would be affected by placing more than that number of units. As for MLK Park, I just want to know why that site is even being considered. There seem to be a number of other sites, most notably, I was just looking at the documents, 2200 marine ship
02:23:26.74	SPEAKER_06	is a big vacant lot.
02:23:30.57	SPEAKER_06	It's flat and it seems prime for development.
02:23:38.14	SPEAKER_06	Good number of units there. I just want to know if that is actually been taken off the list of consideration.
02:23:45.00	SPEAKER_06	as many other sites in the Marin ship that are parallel to Bridgeway. We do not want to interfere with the working part of Marin ship.
02:23:54.82	SPEAKER_06	I agree that is a really, really bad thing to do. We wouldn't go anywhere near the waterfront. Leave that alone.
02:24:00.74	SPEAKER_06	But there are sites that are available and that should be considered. Finally, I would like to advocate for the restoration, the recommission of the Spencer Avenue Firehouse.
02:24:11.57	SPEAKER_06	We know that this was decommissioned in 2010. And as somebody pointed out earlier, conditions have changed greatly since 2010. The structure is still intact, but it's been unoccupied and left to decay since.
02:24:25.65	SPEAKER_06	This is unacceptable. Some have suggested its conversion to housing, but this is both impractical and unrealistic.
02:24:32.41	SPEAKER_06	Californians have repeatedly supported ballot prices.
02:24:36.50	Blossene	Thank you. We'll try with the Sam Chase again.
02:24:43.67	Peter Streitman	Hello?
02:24:44.67	Peter Streitman	Thank you.
02:24:44.68	Blossene	Yes.
02:24:45.02	Peter Streitman	Thank you.
02:24:45.51	Blossene	No.
02:24:45.58	Mary Weig	Hello?
02:24:45.97	Sam Chase	Thank you.
02:24:46.81	Blossene	You can see.
02:24:46.93	Sam Chase	talk.
02:24:47.38	Mary Weig	Yes, we hear you.
02:24:48.48	Sam Chase	Okay. Welcome. Sam Chase, Benita Street resident. I do support keeping the Altamira site to 29 units.
02:24:58.35	Sam Chase	I also strongly request that you include the Spencer Firehouse in the core housing plan,
02:25:04.71	Sam Chase	because of the difficulty in assessing
02:25:08.16	Sam Chase	what can be built there. I think that leaving it in the core plan will allow
02:25:13.54	Sam Chase	developers
02:25:14.82	Sam Chase	will attract more developers
02:25:17.52	Sam Chase	to consider
02:25:18.87	Sam Chase	alternatives for housing there.
02:25:21.08	Sam Chase	And
02:25:22.30	Sam Chase	that site potentially has
02:25:25.45	Sam Chase	the ability to house over 100 units in my opinion.
02:25:29.91	Sam Chase	It,
02:25:30.73	Sam Chase	It's an ideal fit for high density housing near mass transit.
02:25:36.62	Sam Chase	Ah, yet,
02:25:41.21	Sam Chase	could be built with fire resistant materials that could certainly save itself as well as
02:25:47.15	Sam Chase	potentially block downslope residents.
02:25:52.91	Sam Chase	The site's also pretty much for most residents, it's out of sight, out of mind.
02:25:57.75	Sam Chase	It's not blocked. It's not going to block any views, even in the Wolfback Ridge area.
02:26:04.11	Sam Chase	And it really could make a huge dent in the housing and take some
02:26:08.91	Sam Chase	pressure off the marine ship as well as Altamira.
02:26:13.12	Sam Chase	these concerns about fire
02:26:15.67	Sam Chase	You know,
02:26:16.65	Sam Chase	Nobody's talking about prevention.
02:26:19.81	Sam Chase	Everybody's talking about
02:26:21.86	Sam Chase	What do we do when there's a fire? Well, in my opinion,
02:26:25.54	Sam Chase	There needs to be more prevention with tree thinning,
02:26:29.34	Sam Chase	and controlled burns to the undergrowth
02:26:33.91	Sam Chase	And we could also consider, work with the GGNRA and talk about potentially adding some fire hydrants on the west side of the freeway.
02:26:44.75	Sam Chase	Also, the Marin Fire Department, Marin City Fire Department, the Southern...
02:26:51.14	Blossene	Next person is Lisa.
02:26:56.02	SPEAKER_09	Hello, can you hear me?
02:26:57.84	Blossene	Yes.
02:26:59.02	SPEAKER_09	Hi, my name is Lisa Maldonado and I live in Whiskey Springs.
02:27:03.51	SPEAKER_09	And I wanted to support the lowering of the number of units in MLK Park.
02:27:10.45	SPEAKER_09	but also raise questions about the number of units in one harbor drive. I'm concerned about congestion in that area, which is already considerable.
02:27:23.21	SPEAKER_09	and wanted to make sure that the city is considering
02:27:28.79	SPEAKER_09	Thank you.
02:27:29.05	SPEAKER_09	distributing the units in a smarter way.
02:27:33.09	SPEAKER_09	across Sausalito like other
02:27:36.67	SPEAKER_09	residents have already suggested.
02:27:43.22	Blossene	Okay, thank you. Thanks. Next person is Charles Angle.
02:27:52.99	SPEAKER_77	Hi, this is Charles Rangel, and I'm supporting everything that Stacey Nemo has said previously. I am a resident around MLK Park, and I'm one of a rarity. I have a young family and a growing family, and MLK Park is a gem in our community. We go there often, and building such high density or building any construction there would be a huge detriment to our community.
02:28:17.16	SPEAKER_77	and affect us all.
02:28:18.98	SPEAKER_77	Thank you.
02:28:20.82	Mary Weig	Thank you.
02:28:22.47	Blossene	Next speaker is Judith Wetter.
02:28:33.35	SPEAKER_36	Good evening. I'm a 30-year resident on Atwood and Bulkley Avenue.
02:28:38.59	SPEAKER_36	As another resident mentioned earlier, I remember in the last 10 years when three houses
02:28:44.04	SPEAKER_36	being constructed just north of Berkeley, Atwood and Harrison, triggered a hill collapse. And I also remember the house that slid down off its foundation on Sausalito Boulevard in 2019,
02:28:56.76	SPEAKER_36	taking its owner down with it.
02:28:59.27	SPEAKER_36	designating sites 201 at 605 Bridgeway
02:29:03.34	SPEAKER_36	and 202 at the Altamira
02:29:05.52	SPEAKER_36	for housing at any scale,
02:29:07.61	SPEAKER_36	for our South waterfront and hills
02:29:11.10	SPEAKER_36	is preposterous and dangerous. We all know this.
02:29:14.99	SPEAKER_36	Please remove both these sites from the list of opportunity sites.
02:29:19.48	SPEAKER_36	Also, I drive up and down Spencer regularly to access the freeway housing project at the side of the Spencer firehouse would cut off. Any safe escape from the fires and mudslides that threaten Sausalito. Please remove this site also as an opportunity site and restore the Spencer firehouse to a functioning firehouse. Thank you.
02:29:43.03	Blossene	Next speaker, we have Brian O'Neill.
02:29:49.56	SPEAKER_53	Brian O' Good evening, my name is Brian o'neill I represent yes in my backyard and willies llc both of which have submitted substantive comments on the amended housing element.
02:29:59.84	SPEAKER_53	but I only want to address the procedural issues that make it very difficult to provide meaningful analysis and comment.
02:30:05.97	SPEAKER_53	It's unclear what version of the draft amendment was sent to HCD on January 23. There's been no mention in any of the meetings or staff reports that a draft was ever sent to HCD. We only found out through HCD's compliance website.
02:30:22.08	SPEAKER_53	But if the city wants to adopt anything other than the exact version that was sent to HCD on January 23rd, that version must be made available for public comment for at least seven days, resubmitted to HCD for review and comment before adoption. Thank you.
02:30:40.90	Mary Weig	Thank you.
02:30:41.67	Blossene	Next speaker is Daniel T.
02:30:50.11	SPEAKER_67	Hello?
02:30:52.07	SPEAKER_67	Oh, hello. Hello. Can you hear me?
02:30:55.02	Blossene	Yes.
02:30:55.80	SPEAKER_67	Oh, okay. Hello, Mayor Cox and city council members.
02:30:59.42	SPEAKER_67	I would like to thank all of you for your hard work and your dedication to Sausalito. My name is Dan Chagru, and I have lived in town for most of my life.
02:31:09.67	SPEAKER_67	I would like to voice my support for affordable housing and for complying with the state housing requirements.
02:31:16.42	SPEAKER_67	I also support preserving the gift by protecting the historic district.
02:31:22.04	SPEAKER_67	I also support maintaining the longstanding policy of respecting and protecting the views of our fellow citizens. But most of all, I support working together as a community so that collectively we have a voice in shaping the future of Sausalito by working with developers and with architects and with sensitivity to the neighbors that will be impacted by these new housing projects, we can better navigate through these troubled waters.
02:31:48.35	SPEAKER_67	With that in mind, please vote to reduce the density at Altamira site to 29,
02:31:53.85	SPEAKER_67	units per acre and also maintain the proposed
02:31:57.71	SPEAKER_67	605 Bridgeway condo project to 29 units per acre.
02:32:03.33	SPEAKER_67	Thank you very much.
02:32:05.44	Mary Weig	Thank you.
02:32:07.01	Blossene	Next speaker is Barbara Brown.
02:32:09.61	Ed Brakeman	Thank you.
02:32:09.62	Mary Weig	Thank you.
02:32:09.86	Ed Brakeman	Thank you.
02:32:18.86	Blossene	Barbara.
02:32:24.95	Blossene	Okay, we'll go over to the next speaker. We'll go to Jonathan Hutchinson.
02:32:40.56	Blossene	Jonathan.
02:32:41.03	SPEAKER_58	Thank you.
02:32:41.08	Blossene	Thank you.
02:32:42.77	Unknown	Thank you.
02:32:43.90	Unknown	There you go.
02:32:44.59	SPEAKER_58	Good evening, everybody. Jonathan Hutchinson.
02:32:46.97	SPEAKER_58	Second generation Sassolitan. I live at 107 Bulkley. I'd just like to add my voice to the chorus of people asking questions about the proposed density at Altamira. I attended the Planning Commission meeting last week and the commissioners briefly explored the idea of H-29 on that site, conceding that with with density bonuses the project would likely be 60 units. Our consultant chimed in that well she she discouraged that approach given that we don't get any credit for what's actually built only for what's in the housing element. Additional evidence that this whole process is fundamentally flawed. So at that point, I felt like the planning commission capitulated. So it's now on the city council to correct this error. Let's be clear, at age 49 with density bonuses, we're talking about 100 unit development on a roughly one acre site on an extremely steep hillside with serious issues of current infrastructure.
02:33:04.86	Unknown	Commissioner's
02:34:10.97	SPEAKER_58	Others have already spoken about how disproportionate the bulk and mass of that project might be. I'll use my time to talk about some of the practical implications. Bulkley is already a regular standoff between two cars head-to-head. It barely passes two cars. Adding an additional 200 cars to Harrison, Bulkley, just seems unwise at best. And furthermore, I'm not convinced our electrical infrastructure or sewer infrastructure
02:34:46.65	Blossene	Thank you.
02:34:46.66	Mary Weig	Thank you.
02:34:47.19	Blossene	Thank you.
02:34:47.51	Blossene	Next speaker is Annie Ustavinis.
02:34:53.68	SPEAKER_65	Good evening, Mayor Cox and City Council members. Thank you for your work and your time.
02:34:59.07	SPEAKER_65	30 years ago, I moved to Sausalito as a renter. And two years later, I was given the blessing by chance to buy the duplex at 635 Main Street, where I still live.
02:35:08.18	SPEAKER_65	A lot of the charm of Sausalito for me is our historic district.
02:35:12.31	SPEAKER_65	Our protection of views, the variety of home sizes and styles, and the types of properties, proximity to the water and open spaces. Please know that I'm well aware that our city, county, and state need more housing.
02:35:25.17	SPEAKER_65	I'm not adverse to development.
02:35:27.55	SPEAKER_65	But what I don't understand is any plan that would negatively impact views and therefore the value of properties any plan that would allow oversized buildings that are out of character for our city.
02:35:39.33	SPEAKER_65	We have sites in Sausalito that can handle development at a reasonable size. But more than anything, I'm gravely concerned
02:35:46.66	SPEAKER_65	about protecting the safety of our community.
02:35:49.67	SPEAKER_65	Approving large scale building in a city that already has limited access for emergency vehicles on our narrow winding streets is hugely problematic.
02:35:59.14	SPEAKER_65	The new CAL FIRE maps show much of our city in high fire danger.
02:36:03.14	SPEAKER_65	And I have a second home, a condo and office, which allow me to work in Los Angeles County.
02:36:08.09	SPEAKER_65	There I've been impacted by the recent fires with toxic air that's likely going to fuel a cancer bloom.
02:36:13.81	SPEAKER_65	Hundreds of.
02:36:15.09	SPEAKER_65	People I know have their homes, businesses, schools, and communities lost.
02:36:19.00	SPEAKER_65	Please do not approve a plan that will impact our safety and property values. We have spaces within the city that deserve to be utilized and improved. Thank you very much.
02:36:30.83	Mary Weig	Thank you.
02:36:33.68	Blossene	Next speaker we have is Tom Hoover.
02:36:37.65	Mary Weig	I didn't understand the name. Tom, can you hear me?
02:36:39.96	SPEAKER_62	OK.
02:36:41.36	Mary Weig	Okay. Hi, Tom.
02:36:43.25	SPEAKER_62	Can you hear me?
02:36:44.77	Mary Weig	Yes, we do.
02:36:45.48	SPEAKER_62	Bye.
02:36:45.72	SPEAKER_62	Okay, good. I've noted down a couple of quick things that I wanted to say. And I live at Galilee Harbor. I have lived and worked in Sausalito since the Ides of August 1968. I have worked with the Historical Society since 1981. I've worked with the Historical Society since 1981.
02:37:04.31	SPEAKER_62	I have also worked on the Landmarks Board
02:37:07.32	SPEAKER_62	And I helped with the documentation of the historic district.
02:37:10.67	SPEAKER_62	It is obvious that I am going to encourage you
02:37:13.76	SPEAKER_62	to.
02:37:14.76	SPEAKER_62	preserve the historic district and to preserve
02:37:17.38	SPEAKER_62	Thank you.
02:37:17.41	SPEAKER_62	the landmarks list and all of the buildings because I've been
02:37:21.56	SPEAKER_62	obviously tied up in it.
02:37:23.25	SPEAKER_62	And so I've learned
02:37:24.44	SPEAKER_62	Been on the Historical Society. I've served on the board. I am now honored as an
02:37:28.92	SPEAKER_62	as a emeritus and as a
02:37:31.45	SPEAKER_62	Ambassador.
02:37:32.55	SPEAKER_62	So I want us to preserve our historic heritage, which leads me to quickly note
02:37:38.79	SPEAKER_62	that building that they want to build there at the corner of, near the corner of Princess and Bridgeway.
02:37:45.86	SPEAKER_62	So back in the 80s, when we were fighting and trying to get things to save Sausalito, it was referred to as the monocleization of Sausalito. That structure, as it has been given forth, is a monocleization, and there should be no more than a two-story structure allowed there.
02:38:02.60	SPEAKER_62	she should not be allowed to wreck
02:38:05.27	SPEAKER_62	the city.
02:38:06.65	SPEAKER_62	We fought for 10 years back then.
02:38:09.10	SPEAKER_62	So I wanted to note that as my opposition to that project.
02:38:13.69	SPEAKER_62	And I wanted to note also that I,
02:38:16.28	SPEAKER_62	would really support
02:38:17.89	SPEAKER_62	Rebuilding and paying attention to the firehouse as a lady just noted about the fire that happened down south. We almost had that happened during the great fires.
02:38:28.20	SPEAKER_62	back in, whenever it was 2018 or so,
02:38:31.00	SPEAKER_62	and not
02:38:31.90	SPEAKER_62	being able to get people
02:38:33.75	SPEAKER_62	I mean, to have
02:38:34.86	SPEAKER_62	proper
02:38:36.28	SPEAKER_62	facilities up there to get to the other side and to try and
02:38:40.35	SPEAKER_62	stop any fires that would start. I saw
02:38:45.01	Blossene	Thank you.
02:38:45.34	Mary Weig	Thank you.
02:38:45.46	Blossene	you
02:38:45.77	Blossene	Next speaker is Sarah Fisk.
02:38:55.17	Hoffman	Hi, thanks for listening. I just wanted to voice some concerns around two things. The first would be around
02:39:03.15	Hoffman	Emily Buckley, M.L.K. Park site number 84.
02:39:06.17	Hoffman	If you take an aerial view of Sausalito and you look at the amount of green space, green public space for our city, it's tiny. We don't have anywhere to go.
02:39:17.86	Hoffman	And
02:39:18.96	Hoffman	We are planning on increasing the population of our town
02:39:22.92	Hoffman	and you're cutting into a public park. Now, this is an area that
02:39:28.06	Hoffman	We have a lot of community events at flea markets, sporting events, and I understand that
02:39:34.01	Hoffman	The council has tried to condense or, you know, cut back on the amount of space in this area, but it's really going to change the look and the feel and the vibe of our park. You know, cutting into a public park,
02:39:47.33	Hoffman	should be at last resort. I implore you.
02:39:50.80	Hoffman	to consider MarinShip way.
02:39:52.84	Hoffman	There is plenty of space. There's buildings that could be renovated. You could, you know,
02:39:59.41	Hoffman	establish a whole new neighborhood for Sausalito.
02:40:02.28	Hoffman	And I feel like this is just an opportunity that's being tossed aside. It needs to be vetted.
02:40:08.50	Hoffman	It needs to be clear why this site is being passed over instead of one of our public green spaces. Thank you.
02:40:19.25	Hoffman	City clerk?
02:40:19.81	Blossene	Next speaker from the phone.
02:40:29.68	Blossene	and press star 9.
02:40:30.90	Blossene	Okay.
02:40:31.64	Blossene	you guys.
02:40:32.65	Mary Weig	Are you able to identify anything about the phone?
02:40:35.33	Blossene	Okay, 415 number, last two numbers. Okay, there we go.
02:40:37.80	Mary Weig	members of the 90-year-old?
02:40:40.03	SPEAKER_14	Thank you.
02:40:40.11	Mary Weig	Can you hear me?
02:40:41.14	Mary Weig	Yes.
02:40:42.10	SPEAKER_14	Great. I oppose the City Hall parking lot. This is a charming, quiet, historical neighborhood, and our neighbors have purchased properties based on this lifestyle and quality of life.
02:40:51.89	SPEAKER_14	and our property values and property taxes that we pay are reflective of that.
02:40:56.01	SPEAKER_14	We've been in a high density building of this kind does not fit with the character of this quaint neighborhood.
02:40:56.24	Unknown	in the next.
02:41:01.15	SPEAKER_14	an increase of 50 cars,
02:41:02.83	SPEAKER_14	is going to dramatically impact our ability to find parking as it's already difficult.
02:41:07.43	SPEAKER_14	And where are the seniors going to park? The parking lot is full every day.
02:41:10.86	SPEAKER_14	And shouldn't we be protecting them?
02:41:12.85	SPEAKER_14	Additionally, the increase of traffic
02:41:14.91	SPEAKER_14	is going to increase noise pollution and impact our quality of life.
02:41:19.06	SPEAKER_14	All of these things will certainly lower property values
02:41:21.91	SPEAKER_14	Who's going to pay for that? I feel like we're being asked to shoulder the economic burden for the neighborhood.
02:41:27.07	SPEAKER_14	There are other alternatives like MarinShip that are more suitable and compatible for density and can provide a lovely place to live so close to the water
02:41:34.25	SPEAKER_14	and revitalize a whole new area.
02:41:34.40	Unknown	.
02:41:36.81	SPEAKER_14	We could utilize an RV lot.
02:41:38.67	SPEAKER_14	or another empty lot or office building while still preserving historical buildings and working waterfront for artists and builders.
02:41:45.01	SPEAKER_14	and mitigate the loss of property values and quality of life for our neighbors.
02:41:48.37	SPEAKER_14	or if you just take city hall and the lot across the street off the list. Thank you.
02:41:52.01	Mary Weig	Thank you. City Clerk.
02:41:55.00	Blossene	Next speaker is Jeffrey.
02:42:02.07	Blossene	You can unmute yourself.
02:42:03.44	SPEAKER_28	Oh, there you go.
02:42:05.41	SPEAKER_28	Hi, I am...
02:42:07.37	SPEAKER_28	I'm just going to reiterate what Sarah Fisk just said. She stole my thunder. I'm going to point out the value of the open space
02:42:17.61	SPEAKER_28	of MLK 84. I'm a 20-year resident of Whiskey Springs
02:42:27.76	SPEAKER_28	And I believe, as Michael Rex said, in his idea about the park, but
02:42:37.56	SPEAKER_28	There are plenty of spaces. I watch Marinship, or excuse me, I watch MLK Park from my back patio every day. It's constantly populated by local citizens having fun. And I think it's our last great open space in Sausalito.
02:43:01.84	SPEAKER_28	And we should make sure that it stays that way.
02:43:07.01	SPEAKER_28	And thank you for all of your hard work.
02:43:11.12	SPEAKER_37	Thank you. City clerk.
02:43:14.15	Blossene	Next speaker is Barbara Brown.
02:43:22.55	Blossene	You can unmute yourself.
02:43:31.27	Blossene	All right, we'll go to... Oh, no, there she is.
02:43:34.83	Blossene	Barbara?
02:43:39.04	Blossene	Okay, well...
02:43:42.02	Blossene	We'll go with John.
02:43:43.69	Mary Weig	City Clerk, that's the second time with Barbara Brown. Will you reach out to her and see if you can help resolve her issues? Yes.
02:43:49.99	Blossene	Okay.
02:43:51.74	Blossene	Thank you.
02:43:51.76	John DeRay	John.
02:43:52.94	John DeRay	Hi, thank you, City Council, for all your work. I wanted to address, this is John DeRay, I wanted to address a proposal that I saw in an email to City Council by a non-resident local architect. Craig Merrilees mentioned this. The proposal is to change the ballot initiative on the agenda for the 1022 fair traffic initiative. It essentially includes almost every property in the industrial and commercial zone throughout the city, but especially in the marineship. It would bypass the process by using a development agreement for housing projects. It would result in approved housing zoning above and beyond the 724 units and 197 unit buffer.
02:44:43.77	John DeRay	Please recall during the housing element process in 2022 1300 people signed a petition.
02:44:51.21	John DeRay	that requested no housing adjacent to the working waterfront. I believe that should have more sway than the local architect. This proposal stipulates that the development agreement must not conflict with existing or maritime uses. How easy would it be to shut down those industrial and maritime businesses prior to any development agreement proposal? Keep also in mind when you talk about underutilized marineship blight, storage, office vacancy, realize that this is planned obsolescence that's been going on for a long time, and it's been taking potential
02:45:28.34	John DeRay	Uh, taxes away from the city. Um, so I also wanted to comment that there are 13, 13 to 15 acres in the north. Marinship that can still use plenty of housing. Uh, there's parcels there that have not been specified. If we do go down the path.
02:45:38.48	Unknown	.
02:45:46.51	John DeRay	of putting more housing in the marineship with this new proposal. I think you would risk passing this adjustment to the...
02:45:57.63	Hoffman	Thank you.
02:46:01.11	John DeRay	Thank you.
02:46:01.16	Blossene	and Linda Farch
02:46:06.05	SPEAKER_73	Hi, Linda Fudge, resident
02:46:08.87	SPEAKER_73	Lido.
02:46:10.12	SPEAKER_73	I wanted to speak to you about fair housing and equity.
02:46:13.59	SPEAKER_73	Everyone tonight is arguing for no change in their neighborhoods.
02:46:13.81	Unknown	every day.
02:46:18.27	SPEAKER_73	The only way to create equity
02:46:20.48	SPEAKER_73	is they have development in all areas of town.
02:46:23.42	SPEAKER_73	The Bridgeway corridor and its buffer zone
02:46:26.54	SPEAKER_73	traverses the entire city.
02:46:29.39	SPEAKER_73	It is the main evacuation route. It is where housing should be built.
02:46:34.98	SPEAKER_73	Save the neighborhood, save MLK Park, save the firehouse, and save the working waterfront.
02:46:40.98	SPEAKER_73	Don't down zone the one area, Bridgeway, which was designed for density. Put density where the city was designed to accommodate it. Thank you.
02:46:50.58	Mary Weig	Thank you.
02:46:51.21	Blossene	No more further public comment.
02:46:52.56	Mary Weig	Have you tried Barber Bound again?
02:46:54.52	Blossene	Uh, let me see. Barbara. All right. Barbara, try.
02:47:07.75	Mary Weig	Can you admit her to the meeting, Wolford?
02:47:10.48	Blossene	She's in the meeting. I'm asking her to unmute.
02:47:15.41	SPEAKER_37	Okay, can you hear me? Yes, we hear you. We hear you, yay.
02:47:17.69	Mary Weig	Thank you.
02:47:19.88	SPEAKER_37	I'm also on the phone, so I'll hang up the phone if you hear me on the computer.
02:47:23.90	SPEAKER_37	Okay, so I'm so sorry about that.
02:47:26.31	SPEAKER_37	So thank you so much for all of your hard work and also for helping me get on the meeting today.
02:47:34.63	SPEAKER_37	So as most of you know, I'm an architect in town. My husband and I own a five unit apartment building and,
02:47:42.63	SPEAKER_37	And one of our, we live in one of our apartments
02:47:46.48	SPEAKER_37	Our apartments are directly between the two southern large opportunity sites. So we're
02:47:55.11	SPEAKER_37	on Bokely between Princess and Excelsior.
02:47:59.18	SPEAKER_37	And it's a very vibrant, active neighborhood full of condos and apartments.
02:48:04.45	SPEAKER_37	And the zoning there
02:48:07.10	SPEAKER_37	the density is basically 29 per acre. We did an average of the neighborhood and it's just around that number, which is no surprise because that's what R3 allows. And many of the historic properties where we live don't even have adequate off-street parking.
02:48:27.08	SPEAKER_37	I...
02:48:27.90	SPEAKER_37	do advocate responsible housing in our neighborhood, but still
02:48:33.03	SPEAKER_37	preserving our precious historic district and protecting our cherished views. I urge the city to cap the density to 29 units per acre.
02:48:44.27	SPEAKER_37	which is basically R3, for both of those large southern opportunity sites. My preference would be to take them off as opportunity sites because of the threat of bonus densities.
02:49:00.18	SPEAKER_37	I also
02:49:01.69	SPEAKER_37	please ask you to amend the outdated 10-22
02:49:07.56	SPEAKER_37	so we could
02:49:09.57	SPEAKER_37	have some responsible
02:49:12.20	SPEAKER_37	development in our underutilized marine ship areas.
02:49:17.13	SPEAKER_37	negotiated development
02:49:20.55	Mary Weig	Thank you, Barbara.
02:49:21.48	Blossene	No more further public speaking.
02:49:22.63	Mary Weig	All right, we're going to close public comment. It is 6.54 p.m. We are going to adjourn back to closed session and take a short dinner break. When would you all like to return, given the deliberations in front of us tonight?
02:49:40.63	Mary Weig	Okay, so we're going to take 30 minutes. We'll return at 7.25 p.m. Thank you all for being here.
02:49:52.61	Blossene	Yeah. Can you give me two more slips?
02:49:57.85	Blossene	Yeah.
02:49:58.27	Blossene	We're ready. Yeah, we're off.
02:50:01.64	Blossene	The city attorney is present.
02:50:13.07	Blossene	and Beth Thompson's present.
02:50:28.88	SPEAKER_14	That's a great book.
02:50:31.07	SPEAKER_14	What is it called? Bird, bird, bird?
02:50:31.11	Mary Weig	What is it called? Bird, bird, bird?
02:50:32.58	Unknown	for Faye Amla Mott.
02:50:33.89	SPEAKER_14	you
02:50:33.96	Unknown	Thank you.
02:50:33.98	SPEAKER_36	So
02:50:34.43	SPEAKER_36	All right. Wonderful author.
02:50:34.48	Mary Weig	All right.
02:50:36.25	SPEAKER_36	Thank you.
02:50:36.29	Mary Weig	Okay.
02:50:36.42	SPEAKER_36	Thank you.
02:50:36.44	Mary Weig	Thank you.
02:50:37.06	SPEAKER_36	Sorry.
02:50:38.75	Mary Weig	Okay, are we back on Okay, we are resuming we conducted we finalized our closed session discussion and there are no reportable actions, and so we will now resume our discussion of business item.
02:50:55.80	Mary Weig	1A.
02:50:57.21	Mary Weig	And as promised during our discussion in front of many, many members of the public, and again, thank you all so much for participating.
02:51:06.63	Mary Weig	um,
02:51:07.66	Mary Weig	Actually, before I do that, I'm going to announce, we discovered that someone left a book and a phone
02:51:15.61	Mary Weig	in the chambers
02:51:18.05	Mary Weig	underneath a black chair, and the book is entitled Bird, Bird, Bird.
02:51:24.67	Unknown	Thank you.
02:51:24.87	Mary Weig	Oh, bird by bird. And so the city manager is going to take custody of that and we will keep it locked up in his office if no one comes during the rest of this evening to claim it.
02:51:38.10	Mary Weig	Why don't you take it city managers so that whoever comes has to describe it to you. So it's not just sitting out there. So whoever comes has to actually describe to you what it is that.
02:51:47.23	Mary Weig	Bay left.
02:51:49.15	Mary Weig	Okay, so I'm going to start off
02:51:53.05	Mary Weig	We heard discussion this evening regarding the amended housing element, which was transmitted to HCD, Housing and Community Development Department, in January.
02:52:03.46	Mary Weig	of 2024, sorry, of 2025, and the revised amended housing element that was revised by city staff to address some of the comments from the city council at its February 9th.
02:52:21.35	Mary Weig	study session.
02:52:23.63	Mary Weig	I move we work with the amended housing element and not the modified amended housing element.
02:52:32.24	Captain Hoffman	So moved.
02:52:33.47	Mary Weig	So that's a second.
02:52:34.82	Captain Hoffman	Oh, sorry.
02:52:35.31	Mary Weig	And so is there any discussion on that?
02:52:39.41	Mary Weig	All right, all in favor?
02:52:41.11	Mary Weig	I I okay that motion carries unanimously we will be using the amended
02:52:41.18	Unknown	I.
02:52:41.67	Unknown	Thank you.
02:52:47.22	Mary Weig	housing element that has already been transmitted to HCD. So Beth,
02:52:52.20	Mary Weig	The first order of business for you
02:52:55.20	Mary Weig	is to help us migrate from the revised amended housing element, those programs that we would like to
02:53:03.71	Mary Weig	migrate to ensure that our housing element is strong. One of those programs has to do with Program 4 in the revised amended housing element, which has language regarding what happens if one of our ballot initiatives does not pass. Can you refer us to that language, please?
02:53:26.29	Beth Thompson	Sure, so that is on page one of the
02:53:32.19	Beth Thompson	modified amended housing element and it basically says
02:53:36.38	Beth Thompson	Due to the need for ballot measures to accommodate the full arena, there is a need for flexibility in developing the city's approach to accommodate the arena. Recognizing this, there are multiple potential outcomes to accommodate the arena.
02:53:47.62	Beth Thompson	If there is a shortage to accommodate the arena,
02:53:50.50	Beth Thompson	And it goes on to discuss the required minimum density on Site 202 and addressing the City Hall and fire station sites.
02:53:57.94	Beth Thompson	So what we would do is would not be to include that specific language, but to rather say if there is a shortage to accommodate the arena,
02:54:08.31	Unknown	The city will-
02:54:08.56	Beth Thompson	The city will identify additional sites to be rezoned to accommodate the RHNA in accordance with government code section 65583.2H, 1.
02:54:18.45	Beth Thompson	paragraphs eight to one.
02:54:18.55	Mary Weig	paragraph station one.
02:54:19.80	Mary Weig	and then not include the rest of that paragraph and start with the next.
02:54:25.67	Mary Weig	Paragraph.
02:54:26.97	Beth Thompson	Sites to be considered shall include sites that are city controlled or a minimum of point five acres and either vacant or meet the methodology and criteria for non vacant sites provided that background report beginning on page hbr dash 116.
02:54:43.67	Mary Weig	And then do we wanna refer to the RHNA table?
02:54:46.76	Mary Weig	In the next paragraph.
02:54:50.09	Mary Weig	No, I don't think we need to.
02:54:50.88	Beth Thompson	I think not because you're going to come up with a new scenario and a whole new site. So yes, I think it's just those changes.
02:54:57.85	Mary Weig	Thank you.
02:54:58.02	Mary Weig	Okay, and then I would like to add to that language a direction that we also investigate the inclusion of additional sites for SB9 and ADU sites accompanied by an incentive program to incentivize use of those sites. So that is my motion, that we add this language on page one of the modified amended housing element that beth just quoted together with my language regarding sb nine and adu sites to the amended housing element that is now our working document
02:55:41.44	Mary Weig	Mayor. Hold on. I'm looking for a second and then we can discuss.
02:55:44.10	Unknown	Second.
02:55:45.22	Mary Weig	Okay, I have a motion and a second. You can discuss.
02:55:47.92	Ian	Thank you. I was wondering if we wanted to do a friendly amendment or modify the language. Sure. Because we've already got SB...
02:55:55.48	Ian	and 80s in our housing element already. And given the number that we just talked about of 945 additional SB nine lots, or at least we have nine lots in addition to that, lot splits on top of that with ADU potential on top of that. In addition to the ADU,
02:56:14.02	Ian	and that's been onions we already have. I wonder if we wanna do an order of
02:56:18.12	Ian	percentage of that. So with the target.
02:56:20.98	Mary Weig	I think, so you can make a separate motion. I would prefer not to change my motion because we don't yet know which ballot initiative might not pass and therefore what the delta is that is needed to be accommodated by those sites. So I'd rather keep it to just investigate inclusion of additional SB9 and ADU sites.
02:56:40.55	Ian	Okay, I just don't want to be, I just don't want us to,
02:56:44.11	Ian	you know,
02:56:45.73	Ian	self-regulate the full exploration of this.
02:56:49.24	Ian	Do you have a thought on that?
02:56:51.32	Captain Hoffman	Exactly. I think your suggestion to try to be specific. I am on. Maybe not speaking directly. There you go. I'm sorry. I think it's better to wait until we get the comments from HCD, and then we can make a more specific targeted adjustment to...
02:56:55.96	Ian	Thank you.
02:56:59.25	Heather Wilcoxon	There you go. Sorry.
02:57:09.41	Captain Hoffman	What do we have to do?
02:57:09.46	Ian	What do we have to do?
02:57:10.69	Ian	Sorry, would we have to go back to HCD if we add
02:57:14.08	Captain Hoffman	No, we would explain more. I think there's an opportunity for us to explain in more detail what our target would be to make up for any...
02:57:23.51	Ian	Well, let me ask this to Beth. She was leaning forward with her lips possibly moving. Yes.
02:57:29.41	Beth Thompson	I have a,
02:57:31.19	Beth Thompson	I think it will be very difficult to convince HCD that you could feasibly increase your ADU and SB9 numbers. You currently have about 116 projected ADU and SB9 units in total, plus another 18 ADUs that were in process. And I think
02:57:50.04	Beth Thompson	Amy Nunez- Opening that up your I don't think you're going to get more units out of that I quickly looked at Ross's housing element, which did use some SB nine units to address where they had a shortfall they got about 20 units they went through a really complicated process. Amy Nunez- And I think if we apply that to Sausalito you're not you're not going to get more than the 50 something that we had assumed.
02:58:10.17	Beth Thompson	So,
02:58:11.14	Beth Thompson	I would leave the language and investigate and not give yourselves a number that when we submit to HCD, they balk at. And then if you have a shortfall and you find capacity for more, then that's great.
02:58:22.66	Ian	I'm,
02:58:22.97	Mary Weig	Months.
02:58:23.81	Ian	Thank you.
02:58:23.83	Mary Weig	Thank you for that explanation. And so are we suggesting we not include the
02:58:24.87	Beth Thompson	I appreciate that.
02:58:25.46	Unknown	Thank you.
02:58:29.31	Mary Weig	SB 9 and AD language in the motion.
02:58:34.29	Mary Weig	I say include it. I'm including it. Okay, so there's a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
02:58:38.76	Mary Weig	All in favor, say aye. Aye. That motion carries five zero. All right, next, I will take general overview comments in response to what your comments are saying.
02:58:54.15	Mary Weig	your review of the staff report, I do want to mention for benefit of the public that
02:59:00.72	Mary Weig	We conducted a study session on these matters in early February. We have, we were provided by staff a
02:59:13.35	Mary Weig	1,170 page page.
02:59:17.41	Mary Weig	staff report and additional materials regarding, um,
02:59:22.87	Mary Weig	the matters that we are considering tonight. We have reviewed some significant written public comment and we've listened to a number of folks tonight. And so preliminarily, we're gonna set our clock for three minutes a piece and I'm inviting general comments from council members that do not involve specific sites but may address some of the issues that you reviewed or that you heard this evening.
02:59:49.45	Mary Weig	And from there, we will then move on to consideration of specific sites. So who would like to lead off?
02:59:55.27	Unknown	I had, again, I'm Councilmember Blousey. I'm happy to. Quick on the draw.
02:59:58.43	Mary Weig	I'm happy to see you.
02:59:59.56	Unknown	Sure.
03:00:00.82	Unknown	Yeah, so I again really want to thank all the members of the public who joined us this evening and who have been very actively engaging with us on this critical conversation about what the future of our community looks like and will continue to look like.
03:00:15.45	Unknown	And at our last hearing, I mentioned, and I'll share again, you know,
03:00:19.62	Unknown	I'm a renter, so I'm keenly aware of the shortage of housing. And when you look at the numbers in our housing element and you consider that I think I mentioned last time the number was something like 60% of our
03:00:31.10	Unknown	renters are living essentially beyond their means at the cost of housing. And the reason that the state has mandated us to take these steps, whether or not we necessarily like them or feel that the exact numbers are correct,
03:00:43.87	Unknown	is because we want to increase the opportunities for folks to be able to enjoy and live in Sausalito. Because the one thing we can all agree on here, everyone who comes to these meetings and who engages with us
03:00:55.21	Unknown	how special this place is and how lucky we are to live here. And with that in mind, when I think about the tough decisions that we have to make together,
03:01:02.65	Unknown	tonight as a city council and as a community. I think about our teachers, our firefighters, our city workers who have maybe not had the opportunity yet to live in our community and have been serving our community for a long time. And I think about my friends who I grew up with. You know, I grew up here. I went to Redwood High School. My parents are in Mill Valley and how hard it is for so many of us to be able to ever have the dream of living, affording a home here and building our own families here because of the issues associated with
03:01:32.51	Unknown	the larger statewide housing crisis. And I'm not suggesting that we're going to solve it from the dais tonight or here in Sausalito, but I just like to remind folks that that's how we got to where we are. And that's why we're thinking about how can we create more housing opportunities. And with that in mind, I am someone who consistently doesn't say no to a housing site. You'll always see me finding some way to put some sort of housing somewhere that makes sense. But I think we have to do that a little bit everywhere, as we've all shared, and we have to have our fair share of housing across our community. So with that in mind, I think you'll see from my discussion on each of the respective sites that I've really taken into consideration what we've heard, where we've heard comment about opportunities that make sense, where we might reduce some housing numbers, increase some others to really have more of a fair share across the community because as we continue to address these affordability challenges and as we continue to
03:02:24.08	Unknown	address the challenges from the state,
03:02:25.81	Unknown	and think about what kind of community we want to be, especially with what we're seeing
03:02:29.68	Unknown	what's happening nationally. I think this is an opportunity for us as a community to really show up and demonstrate that we are committed to creating
03:02:36.55	Unknown	more housing opportunities and we're going to do it collaboratively. And so that's that's what you'll hear from the diocese.
03:02:42.64	Unknown	this evening for me, and I think it will be no surprise that I don't say no to any specific sites, but I have really heard your comments about thinking about how much goes where and what that looks like. So I look forward to a conversation with my colleagues about that.
03:02:55.77	Mary Weig	Thank you.
03:02:56.38	Unknown	Great story.
03:02:56.97	Mary Weig	Way to start us off. Who's next?
03:02:59.24	Captain Hoffman	I'll jump on. Vice Mayor. Yes, thank you. And I think what Council Member Blaustein suggested about affirmatively seeking housing and distributing fairly are good comments. I would add that we want to make sure the housing is located in places that make sense and don't have negative impacts on the immediate surrounding area. And in particular, there are sites that are on very narrow streets, heavily wooded, heavily congested. And we all know from the recent fires, we need to be more sensitive to the difficulties that housing in those areas will present us. And I don't think that was taken into account as this housing element was developed.
03:02:59.80	Mary Weig	Vice mayor.
03:03:38.53	Captain Hoffman	It certainly wasn't taken into account by the state legislature.
03:03:42.04	Captain Hoffman	And we are left to try to pick up the pieces and make sense of it going forward. That means it's very challenging. And I have to say, we've gotten 70, I believe it's 70, maybe 60-something comments here tonight. I've gotten hundreds through electronic means. I've read as many as I can. And I apologize now for not getting back to all of you, each of you,
03:04:09.49	Captain Hoffman	who've made
03:04:10.49	Captain Hoffman	largely very intelligent suggestions. They don't all agree. They don't all mesh.
03:04:15.13	Captain Hoffman	But I have to compliment people for...
03:04:17.75	Captain Hoffman	for getting it, for seeing the issues clearly, and for stating very clearly what their preferences are and why. And I really appreciate that now and going forward, because we're not out of this now. We're going to face a new housing element before we know it, and who knows what the state is going to do to us or for us or against us going forward. I just want to also say that tonight we're going to try to focus very clearly on those few things that we believe we have the authority to do tonight because it's been satisfactorily addressed through the CEQA process. We have an EIR pending. There are many things that I would like to see done that we can't do tonight. We can't really address the marine ship other than the sites north of Harbor Drive. Why? Because they haven't been adequately analyzed under CEQA. So to those people who suggest we take a closer look at portions of the marine ship that may be suitable for housing, we can't tonight add anything other than what's already been identified. So that's just one area where I think we will save that for a future day, and there will be a discussion, and I'm guessing it will be very robust. Similarly, there's a suggestion about visitability, if I've got that right. That may require an ordinance and some things that we'll have to also save for a future day. However, there is, without getting very specific, there is one suggestion related to a senior overlay at a particular site. I think we can at least discuss that later at the appropriate time. So having said that, I just want to compliment again the suggestions that have been made, and they will be taken seriously. Thank you.
03:06:02.27	Mary Weig	Thank you. Councilmember Hoffman.
03:06:06.67	Ian	Thank you. So we've been working on this since 2021, 2022 on this plan, and this is an adjustment of that plan that we had finally approved in January of 2020. Well, we approved it as a council in January of 2023, and it was approved by the state in April of 2023. And so this overall plan was heavily negotiated, lots and lots of public comment leading up to our approval in January 2023 and the state's approval of it in April of 2023. So that's why a lot of these sites, when we say there was a lot of discussion, there was a lot of negotiation, there was a lot of
03:06:52.10	Ian	substantial public input back in 2023, that's what we're referring to. And so, you know,
03:07:02.41	Ian	And they were good discussions back then and supported by many, many members of the community. And many members of the community worked in good faith on those discussions as we move forward through that process. And so...
03:07:17.21	Ian	You know, no one was really particularly happy or pleased with the number that we got from the state of 724. I don't think anybody thinks that a town of our size
03:07:26.78	Ian	would be adequately able to absorb that.
03:07:30.49	Ian	We'll see as we move forward.
03:07:32.74	Ian	and our infrastructure of how to absorb those numbers. I mean, that was one of the comments actually from the planning commission
03:07:40.40	Ian	Um,
03:07:41.43	Ian	how do we absorb that and what infrastructure is going to be in place
03:07:45.31	Ian	as we build these numbers, particularly
03:07:47.74	Ian	as they're grouped on the north end of town. It's pretty easy to look
03:07:52.45	Ian	at the site and frankly the people that that have commented on that have a good point i mean a lot of the the impact of the majority of those uh units are grouped uh on the north end of town and so that's pretty apparent just from looking at the map so um i and i do take that to heart I looks you know we've taken at least city hall and uh spencer out of the plan uh tonight or at least out of the housing element um and i think that was the right thing to do based on the public comment and um the action that we took in 2023 i think that was the right thing to do back then i think that's the right thing to do tonight certainly with regard to that's the right thing to do tonight, certainly with regard to the Spencer Firehouse. So as we move forward through this,
03:08:42.94	Ian	you know, it's a tough thing, but it's something we need to do for our town. But, you know,
03:08:46.75	Ian	I'm also excited that we're going to have some more housing. I mean, I think we also agree that we do need more housing.
03:08:54.01	Ian	They're, you know, it's funny, it's like opportunity sites, but they actually are opportunities. They're opportunities for our town, and they're opportunities for our community, and they're opportunities for people that need to work and live here in Sausalito. So hopefully we can come together with a comprehensive plan. Thank you.
03:09:09.95	Councilmember Sobieski	Thank you.
03:09:10.21	Mary Weig	you.
03:09:10.41	Councilmember Sobieski	Thank you.
03:09:10.43	Mary Weig	Thank you.
03:09:12.23	Councilmember Sobieski	Yeah, thank you, mayor. I don't want to be a downer. I'm not feeling as good. We're going to have to get through this because the threat of not doing it right is builder's remedy. And that means losing zoning control over
03:09:13.18	Ian	All right.
03:09:23.20	Councilmember Sobieski	housing sites and people can build
03:09:25.85	Councilmember Sobieski	you know, a version of anything they want that doesn't fit in with the community at scale, look and feel, and otherwise. So we have to stay out of Builder's Remedy and comply with the law. But I voted against the housing consultant process when I first joined city council, and I didn't have the courage in my convictions back then, but it's playing out in a way that is just suboptimal for the community. A lot of people here showed up, despite our multi-year open process, only learning about this recently. And it's just no way to design our...
03:09:55.33	Councilmember Sobieski	town to preserve our small town character and our working waterfront and and do an urban plan um we had a chance to do an urban plan here uh in may of 2023 uh and by narrow vote we didn't take that step forward i hope we will bring that back straight away because it's never too late to start doing things in a better way and i think here tonight we're seeing a lot of feedback from people that want to see it in a better way there There are people concerned about things happening near them, not because they're against housing. It's because the thing near to them is a gray box.
03:10:26.57	Councilmember Sobieski	It is of uncertain scale. If the owner uses their rights to have their density bonus, it can be a monstrosity. If they're like Mr. Madden, and they are committed to something of modest scale, then perhaps it'll be welcome. And our process doesn't allow that. And I hope we will, in parallel with the state laws, try to engage on a process that does. I can't feel super great about housing in
03:10:52.77	Councilmember Sobieski	MLK Park or in
03:10:56.45	Councilmember Sobieski	in the fire station or the city hall parking lot when you know this is our partnership
03:11:02.61	Councilmember Sobieski	tennis courts when we just have an empty lot like this in town. And when, you know, I've shown this before, when we walk down this street,
03:11:09.97	Councilmember Sobieski	There is a hillside.
03:11:11.83	Councilmember Sobieski	far away from the water.
03:11:14.10	Councilmember Sobieski	within 100 yards of bridgeway, a major thoroughfare,
03:11:16.80	Councilmember Sobieski	that's just empty. And I beg to differ with my friends in the working, some of whom spoke here tonight. This is not a threat to the working waterfront. In fact, one of the commenters from the working waterfront here tonight said, why don't you do something
03:11:31.62	Councilmember Sobieski	The machine shop stay out of the Marin ship. Well, the machine shop is in the Marin ship. And I think many people who
03:11:37.32	Councilmember Sobieski	are signed the petition opposing housing in the Marineship.
03:11:41.36	Councilmember Sobieski	actually don't know.
03:11:42.62	Councilmember Sobieski	that this is in the Marin ship and that this is actually what's being fought against by some of the voices that speak for it.
03:11:50.33	Councilmember Sobieski	You could have housing here, and if you had it here, it would take away some of the burden on putting housing in MLK Park or in this fire station or City Hall or in
03:12:00.58	Councilmember Sobieski	the other sites around town. But it's not gonna fit in unless we do it with a plan. If we just designated opportunity sites, then indeed it would be almost as bad. So I hope we will agendize to work in that direction.
03:12:15.73	Mary Weig	Thank you.
03:12:18.48	Mary Weig	I'm going to echo what Councilmember Hoffman said, which is we've been working on this since 2021, immediately following adoption early that year of our general plan. And even though I wasn't on the council, I attended every single housing element committee meeting.
03:12:32.22	Mary Weig	and every city council meeting for the two years I wasn't on the council. We adopted our housing element in January of 2023. To suggest that in May 2023 we should turn around and undo all of that good work of our general plan and our housing element and start over with a new master planning effort to me just does not make logical sense.
03:12:53.56	Mary Weig	I am also concerned that we're hearing suggestions tonight of further modifications to our housing element that have not been the subject of environmental review.
03:13:02.36	Mary Weig	I think our job tonight is to review
03:13:05.66	Mary Weig	those things that are accessible and available to us by virtue of the extensive work done over the last year
03:13:12.95	Mary Weig	to undertake environmental review, to explore various sites. And then after that's adopted, then we can start anew looking at
03:13:22.67	Mary Weig	you know, new and different and ingenious ways to better develop our city.
03:13:29.24	Mary Weig	There's been a lot of discussion about disproportionate application of units in the Reno cycle to the northern side of town.
03:13:35.26	Mary Weig	Um,
03:13:36.12	Mary Weig	I think this is taken out of context. I'm going to echo some of the comments made by Christina Feller. The Marin ship represents roughly 40% of our tax base from commercial enterprises. So it's not a small operation that's happening there.
03:13:50.72	Mary Weig	About 210 acres constitute the marineship area, and that area accounts for 234 units in our draft housing element. That's 30% of the units in our draft housing element. So we are absolutely capitalizing on the marineship area for potential housing. We are simply trying to avoid placing housing too close to the working waterfront. How far is too close? It's a matter for debate, and I'm sure this council in the future will continue to debate that. But what we're doing is not intended to be unfair. It's specifically unfair.
03:14:30.07	Mary Weig	to address a need. A lot of the Marin ship parcels and parcels elsewhere in northern Sausalito are along a transit corridor. They do not interfere with the working waterfront, but they are accessible for employees
03:14:51.66	Mary Weig	to
03:14:52.62	Mary Weig	occupy and to make their way to and from work.
03:14:56.82	Mary Weig	We all just watched Los Angeles burn. We have to be aware of increasing density in our already densely populated hillsides with narrow and crowded streets that resemble Altadena and the Pacific Palisades. I do agree with Christina Feller that we need to also address infrastructure as an implementation measure to support the housing element.
03:15:17.96	Mary Weig	Thank you.
03:15:18.10	Mary Weig	That's the end of my comments. I want to share with the entire council
03:15:22.64	Mary Weig	a correspondence I just received from Chief Tubbs regarding the Spencer Firehouse, because in response to various written comments, I wrote to him,
03:15:33.56	Mary Weig	THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF
03:15:34.42	Mary Weig	regarding possibly recommissioning the Spencer firehouse he says
03:15:39.09	Mary Weig	As for the Spencer station, while staffing the facility, as suggested by some, does not provide operational value to the district or community at this time, and we do not have funding for such an expansion, the board has recently approved a new fuels crew program. We believe this station could serve as an excellent
03:15:57.11	Mary Weig	location for this wildfire risk reduction team.
03:15:59.76	Mary Weig	and we would welcome a discussion with the city on this possibility when appropriate.
03:16:03.73	Mary Weig	Chief Barnes and I are available for further conversations whenever the city is interested. So I'm going to ask.
03:16:09.11	Mary Weig	at the appropriate time that we put this on a future agenda item list for consideration of a positive use of the Spencer Firehouse.
03:16:18.70	Mary Weig	Okay, so that ends our comments, our general comments.
03:16:24.87	Mary Weig	regarding
03:16:26.24	Mary Weig	the housing element, I'm now going to turn to
03:16:29.51	Mary Weig	Um,
03:16:31.77	Mary Weig	the Planning Commission resolution, which made four changes to the amended housing element plan,
03:16:41.51	Mary Weig	that we are considering.
03:16:43.86	Mary Weig	So the first site I'm going to discuss is Site 202.
03:16:51.43	Councilmember Sobieski	Will you come get me one?
03:16:52.14	Mary Weig	And that's the Altamira site.
03:16:53.69	Councilmember Sobieski	I'm gonna recuse myself as I explained earlier to protect the housing element integrity.
03:17:00.38	Mary Weig	Sergio, may he sit in the audience or must he leave the room?
03:17:06.40	Sergio	Uh, typically he would have to leave the room, but he can certainly listen in, uh, if there's another place to listen in on the proceedings.
03:17:13.05	Mary Weig	So I don't know, are the proceedings on in the other rooms, Walfred? OK, yeah. And I will text you as soon as we're done. And we're going to try to move expeditiously.
03:17:24.83	Mary Weig	Okay, folks, so you heard the Planning Commission changed Site 202 from Housing 70 overlay to Housing 49 overlay, reducing total units to 51. We heard a lot of public comment asking to reduce it down to 29, the lowest.
03:17:46.11	Mary Weig	of the
03:17:48.62	Mary Weig	of the overlay zones in our housing element. Beth.
03:17:55.32	Mary Weig	Do we have enough
03:17:59.09	Mary Weig	Oh.
03:17:59.73	Mary Weig	Okay, I was going to ask a question. Did you want to...
03:18:02.38	Mary Weig	Interrupt my question.
03:18:03.03	Ian	question.
03:18:04.43	Mary Weig	Thank you.
03:18:04.47	Ian	Under the plan that we're talking about now? Yeah. What's our total number, including our buffer?
03:18:09.92	Ian	Like I'm lost.
03:18:10.97	Ian	Okay. I'm just, I would, under this plan? Yeah. What's our total number? Is it 9-11 or 9-11? No.
03:18:16.99	Mary Weig	No, that was under the modified amended plan. So Beth Thompson, can you join us?
03:18:22.73	Brandon Phipps	Yeah, and while Beth is joining us, just based on the motion that Council made earlier related to pegging off of the draft amended housing element, the capacity shown in that document is a total of 958 units with a surplus of 234.
03:18:38.88	Mary Weig	Wait, I'm having a hard time understanding you, community development.
03:18:42.73	Mary Weig	Sorry.
03:18:44.75	Brandon Phipps	Excuse me. There. In the amended housing element. So just.
03:18:45.29	Mary Weig	There.
03:18:46.91	Mary Weig	So just let's talk about the operative housing element that we are working on.
03:18:51.31	Brandon Phipps	Which is the document I'm referencing.
03:18:52.99	Mary Weig	Thank you.
03:18:53.00	Ian	And that's, sorry, but I need the title too. The amended, we're on the amended housing element.
03:18:57.95	Brandon Phipps	Correct. The amended housing element. This is the version of the housing element that was heard by the planning commission. This is the version of the element that they have pegged, if you will, their recommendations off of.
03:19:08.81	Mary Weig	Thank you so that's where I'm starting from because I'm working on the planning Commission resolution which made four changes to that amended housing element. So the question pending Brandon is what was the total buffer in the amended housing element.
03:19:23.65	Brandon Phipps	That figure is 234.
03:19:27.76	Mary Weig	And what was that reduced to when the Altamira was reduced from
03:19:33.22	Mary Weig	A 70 overlay to 49 overlay, reducing the total units to 51.
03:19:39.61	Brandon Phipps	I'd have to check to get you an exact unit figure, but it's something like 70 times 1.2 minus 49 times 1.2.
03:19:50.48	Mary Weig	Thank you.
03:19:50.53	Beth Thompson	Beth, are you here? Can you help us?
03:19:52.81	Beth Thompson	I am here and my video stops, but the rest I can speak.
03:19:58.00	Beth Thompson	So that went from 67 units, I believe, to 51.
03:20:03.17	Beth Thompson	So that's...
03:20:05.68	Beth Thompson	Okay. So-
03:20:06.69	Beth Thompson	So here's just one sec. There we go.
03:20:09.50	Beth Thompson	I have.
03:20:10.09	Beth Thompson	been given privilege to show myself again.
03:20:14.03	Beth Thompson	So, and let me just pop open this.
03:20:16.04	Mary Weig	pop open this 16 units
03:20:18.49	Beth Thompson	16 units.
03:20:19.23	Mary Weig	That's correct. And so that reduces our buffer of 200 and what, Brandon?
03:20:19.33	Beth Thompson	Correct.
03:20:25.80	Brandon Phipps	234.
03:20:27.06	Mary Weig	234 to 16 by 16. So that's 218.
03:20:36.55	Mary Weig	And then, Beth, a lot of people asked us to reduce that to 29. So what would the development capacity be at 29? You had that in our chart. Hold on. I'll go there.
03:20:50.13	Mary Weig	Karen Hollweg, 202 at 29.
03:20:53.81	Mary Weig	Thank you.
03:20:53.83	Beth Thompson	Did I have that in there for 29? Let's see. I think I did not show it at 29. So I'll quickly do that math.
03:21:01.66	Beth Thompson	and figure out what it would be.
03:21:04.44	Mary Weig	I know.
03:21:05.71	Beth Thompson	Just one minute, sorry.
03:21:06.53	Mary Weig	Sorry. Page one of the summary of city council comments.
03:21:12.15	Beth Thompson	Yes, and that page that has it lowering to housing 49 on the summary of
03:21:12.22	Mary Weig	Yes.
03:21:18.83	Beth Thompson	comments, but I didn't, I don't, yeah, we did not calculate it at 29.
03:21:19.97	Mary Weig	Yeah.
03:21:21.03	Mary Weig	at 29.
03:21:22.02	Mary Weig	move on to the next one and talk to Brandon.
03:21:24.57	Mary Weig	So Brandon, they also removed site 63 522 Olive Street. They removed it because the homeowner said they don't right now plan to do any development, but that doesn't preclude us from including that in the sites inventory. Is that right?
03:21:38.73	Brandon Phipps	That's correct.
03:21:39.98	Mary Weig	Okay, so guys, I'm going to move that.
03:21:42.65	Brandon Phipps	And I'd like to give Neil the opportunity to comment on that.
03:21:46.12	Mary Weig	Actually, can we invite Ian to return for a moment as we discuss this site?
03:21:56.96	Beth Thompson	I can just add in it's 35 units at 29 units per acre.
03:22:02.51	Mary Weig	Okay, well.
03:22:04.58	Mary Weig	I'm now inviting Ian back. Are we talking about Olive Street? Are we talking about Altamira? So it goes from 51 to 35.
03:22:06.03	Unknown	We're talking about that.
03:22:06.59	Ian	Very funny.
03:22:08.41	Ian	Are we talking about math?
03:22:13.14	Mary Weig	Could you tell us
03:22:13.66	Unknown	Thank you.
03:22:13.75	SPEAKER_20	Mayor Cox, I just wanted to clarify.
03:22:13.78	Mary Weig	Mayor.
03:22:17.34	Mary Weig	Wait, I don't want you to clarify until Ian returns if we're going to talk about Olive. Okay, but hold on. Are we still at Altamira? Yeah.
03:22:23.97	Mary Weig	Beth just gave us information on Altamira, but I've already asked the city manager to retrieve Ian because I didn't realize...
03:22:31.09	Mary Weig	it would take that long. I thought he was going to be right outside.
03:22:39.45	Mary Weig	35.
03:22:40.53	Mary Weig	51 to 35.
03:22:42.05	Mary Weig	Is he coming city manager?
03:22:46.58	Mary Weig	What's my tone?
03:22:47.02	Unknown	While he's coming, I'll make an announcement. We discovered who's the owner of the...
03:22:50.94	Unknown	phone and the book so the police department is going to protect and serve and deliver to her later this evening.
03:22:56.54	Mary Weig	Thank you, Sausalito Police Department. So, Ian, we are not done with Site 202, but Beth was looking up some information. So we've moved to Site 63, 522 Olive Street, and Neil's going to provide us his feedback on that.
03:23:12.00	SPEAKER_20	I just want to clarify that the property owner was aware that the city had identified the
03:23:19.90	SPEAKER_20	property as a vacant site for
03:23:21.82	SPEAKER_20	being a housing opportunity site,
03:23:24.03	SPEAKER_20	became concerned when he was aware that the opportunity sites do call for minimum densities.
03:23:29.78	SPEAKER_20	and
03:23:30.73	SPEAKER_20	He was very expressive that it's not a large site. He does not want to develop.
03:23:36.23	SPEAKER_20	up to the minimum density
03:23:38.59	SPEAKER_20	that would be required under the housing
03:23:41.97	SPEAKER_20	man.
03:23:42.78	SPEAKER_20	So it was really a request by the property owner not to be included. So he's not sort of.
03:23:46.91	SPEAKER_20	Forrest.
03:23:47.57	Mary Weig	I'm just saying,
03:23:47.74	SPEAKER_20	I'm just saying, I'm just letting you know that was what transpired with the commission.
03:23:49.97	Mary Weig	That was.
03:23:52.65	Mary Weig	Yes, I did listen to the planning commission hearing so I did know that.
03:23:57.27	Mary Weig	520, but...
03:23:59.23	Mary Weig	he would not object to it being listed as an inventory site as an opportunity site. And so if we listed it as an inventory site, Brandon, what would the density be?
03:24:10.12	Brandon Phipps	I believe that density is in our
03:24:17.02	Brandon Phipps	29 units per acre zone, but I can verify that briefly.
03:24:20.24	Brandon Phipps	Thank you.
03:24:20.26	Mary Weig	But how big is the site and what would that mean?
03:24:23.06	Brandon Phipps	I would have to verify that.
03:24:23.75	Mary Weig	Okay, so while you're verifying that, Ian, I'm sorry, I'm going to ask you to leave. We're going to go back to – Before he leaves.
03:24:29.24	Captain Hoffman	Before he leaves, a quick question on that. If you...
03:24:33.88	Captain Hoffman	if you're listed as an inventory site,
03:24:36.69	Captain Hoffman	Do you have to build to a minimum density?
03:24:38.43	Stafford Keegan	Thank you.
03:24:38.45	Mary Weig	No.
03:24:38.65	Stafford Keegan	Thank you.
03:24:42.35	Mary Weig	No.
03:24:44.29	Emmett Yeazell	If you're a...
03:24:46.42	Mary Weig	an inventory site
03:24:48.19	Mary Weig	is different from an opportunity site. An opportunity site has a minimum and a maximum density. And that's, I thought. An inventory site does not. Right, and that's what I interested in.
03:24:54.02	Unknown	I don't know.
03:24:54.11	Councilmember Sobieski	I thought it was.
03:24:54.43	Unknown	.
03:24:55.75	Brandon Phipps	So I think the short answer I'll give is as inventory sites are not subject to a full-on program of rezoning,
03:25:04.22	Brandon Phipps	Mm-hmm.
03:25:04.94	Brandon Phipps	and that the underlying zoning does not maintain minimum density requirements, there would not be a minimum requirement in this case.
03:25:12.11	Captain Hoffman	So we could still list it as an inventory.
03:25:14.76	Captain Hoffman	Thank you.
03:25:14.78	Brandon Phipps	Correct.
03:25:14.90	Captain Hoffman	THE FAMILY IS THE FAMILY
03:25:14.95	Mary Weig	Thank you.
03:25:15.00	Mary Weig	That's what I'm asking. I'm asking...
03:25:16.15	Captain Hoffman	No, I understand. I'm just wanting to make sure that what we're hearing from staff allows that.
03:25:24.55	Mary Weig	Yes. Thank you.
03:25:26.10	Mary Weig	Bye.
03:25:27.52	Mary Weig	Karen Hollweg, Alright, so Beth resuming lowering site to to to housing 29 would reduce realistic units from 67 to 35 is that right.
03:25:39.59	Beth Thompson	It would reduce them from 57 at housing 49 to 35 at housing 29.
03:25:46.42	Mary Weig	Okay, but in, okay, yes.
03:25:48.97	Mary Weig	But in the amended housing element, they are at 67.
03:25:55.26	Beth Thompson	in the amended housing element there at 61.
03:25:55.30	Mary Weig	In the amended housing
03:25:58.72	Mary Weig	Oh, 61.
03:25:59.80	Mary Weig	Your table says 67.
03:26:03.47	Mary Weig	Okay, so we would be going from 61 to 35.
03:26:08.85	Mary Weig	So that's
03:26:11.33	Mary Weig	26 unit reduction.
03:26:13.81	Mary Weig	you
03:26:14.03	Beth Thompson	I apologize. You were right. It's 67-51-35.
03:26:14.52	Mary Weig	I apologize.
03:26:19.30	Beth Thompson	Okay. Sorry.
03:26:21.76	Sergio	And Beth, would those still be very low and low income units?
03:26:26.32	Mary Weig	Well, five are moderate and five are above moderate, Sergio, as listed in the adopted and amended housing elements.
03:26:37.89	Beth Thompson	So there's flexibility there. You could assume that a portion of them are low and very low. You probably don't want to put them all at low and very low just because it's more likely to develop at an upper or a mix of units. So I would follow the keeping one above moderate for each parcel perhaps. But we can look at that as we look at all of the adjustments to the sites and then figure out what needs to happen
03:27:03.31	Beth Thompson	once we know the total reduction.
03:27:03.93	Mary Weig	total reduction. So at 51 you had recommended 31 very low and 20 low with zero moderate and above moderate. So correct. Council member Blaustein is going to ask a question but while she does that can you figure out what the breakout would be at 35 units?
03:27:21.02	Unknown	And this might be a question for Brandon, but with density bonuses, what's the maximum number of units that then we would see at Altamira if we did the zoning of 29 units per acre?
03:27:31.18	Emmett Yeazell	that.
03:27:31.32	Brandon Phipps	I am searching for the density that would come out of keeping the base zoning at site 63 at the moment.
03:27:39.38	Emmett Yeazell	Thank you.
03:27:39.43	Unknown	Yeah.
03:27:39.52	Emmett Yeazell	at the most?
03:27:40.36	Unknown	Don't engage.
03:27:40.89	Sergio	I can answer this one, Brandon, as I just did these calculations recently.
03:27:41.29	Unknown	I can't.
03:27:45.66	Unknown	Oh, great. Thanks, Sergio.
03:27:46.74	Sergio	Yeah, so the Altamira site is five separate parcels totaling 1.19 acres. At 49 dwelling units an acre, the permitted base density is 58 base units.
03:27:58.08	Sergio	So under density bonus law with the stackable density bonus, assuming
03:28:03.11	Mary Weig	Wait, so you're answering at 49. We're asking.
03:28:03.19	Sergio	That's right.
03:28:06.97	Mary Weig	Okay.
03:28:07.06	Sergio	Okay, yeah, at 29 the the the base density is 35. The max in theory would be 70 if they get 100% density bonus. That being said, my understanding is that sites within within a half mile of a major transit stop.
03:28:23.87	Sergio	And under density bonus law, the city's actually not allowed to apply any caps on density.
03:28:28.59	Sergio	regardless of what it's zoned, as long as they're proposing 100% low income project.
03:28:34.23	Mary Weig	And what if we removed it as an opportunity site? What would the default density be?
03:28:39.24	Sergio	The default, it is presently zoned at 29 dwelling units an acre because it is subject to R3 zoning.
03:28:46.11	Sergio	And again, regardless of whether it's an opportunity site or not, the density bonus law says that if someone were to propose a 100% low income project on that site, there would be no limits on density.
03:28:57.06	Mary Weig	I understand, but if we add it as an opportunity site and include it in 1022, then we're waiving
03:29:03.44	Mary Weig	some of the protections. And so I'm,
03:29:07.15	Mary Weig	asking what it would mean if we simply remove it as an opportunity site, therefore there's no minimum
03:29:14.09	Mary Weig	density required for that site, it simply
03:29:17.38	Mary Weig	retains its existing character of 29 units per acre.
03:29:23.37	Sergio	Yeah, so I mean at 29 units per acre...
03:29:26.52	Sergio	you know, the base density potentially for that site would be 35 units under existing zoning.
03:29:31.74	Sergio	And then
03:29:33.26	Sergio	you know, the applicant would potentially be able to apply for
03:29:37.52	Sergio	for waivers under density bonus law and additional bonuses in accordance with
03:29:42.60	Sergio	with law, regardless of whether it's an opportunity site or not.
03:29:45.47	Mary Weig	Right, but in order to earn the right to density bonus, they have to demonstrate that it's financially necessary to build a feasible project there.
03:29:55.30	Mary Weig	at 100% low income in order to enjoy the benefit of all the density bonuses. So it's not really unlimited development.
03:30:04.14	Sergio	Um, so one,
03:30:06.80	Sergio	With regards to 100% low income projects, there is a provision density bonus law that says that local jurisdictions cannot apply limits on density, full stop. And that's separate and apart from the provisions regarding waivers of development standards that are necessary, that are physically necessary and to avoid
03:30:27.88	Sergio	the city from physically precluding construction of the project.
03:30:31.12	Sergio	and also separate from the provisions that deal with incentives and concessions.
03:30:37.33	Mary Weig	So regardless of...
03:30:39.83	Mary Weig	We can't remove this as having development potential. All we can do is not listed as an opportunity site, so it doesn't have a minimum density. But the owner can and always has been able to do what he's able to do based on existing law, correct?
03:30:56.84	Sergio	Yeah, that is correct. And the big lever that the council is presented with in terms of a policy decision is do you want to
03:31:03.37	Sergio	Include this as an opportunity site and require a minimum density.
03:31:07.23	Mary Weig	Yeah, so I am so unless there are other questions I move we remove site to to the Altamira site as an opportunity site from the housing. But.
03:31:17.04	Unknown	it.
03:31:17.14	Unknown	Thank you.
03:31:17.17	Unknown	it.
03:31:18.08	Mary Weig	Oh, go ahead. Second. There's a second. Now you can discuss.
03:31:18.49	Unknown	Yeah.
03:31:18.59	Unknown	Thank you.
03:31:18.76	Unknown	Second.
03:31:19.08	Unknown	Thank you.
03:31:21.58	Unknown	Okay, but whether we zone it or not, if we remove it, then we lose credit for those RENA numbers. And it seems like what he's saying is that the builder could build it any time regardless. So if we zone it or don't zone it, we should at least leave it in as something so that when it's built upon, it can be part of our housing element. I don't understand why we would. Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead.
03:31:43.63	Ian	Yeah.
03:31:43.97	Unknown	you
03:31:44.05	Ian	Okay, yeah, I think I'm kind of going at it kind of in the same direction. If they build on it or don't build on it, we can still count it. And there's no downside to including it in our housing hall because they can do right now what they want to do with it.
03:32:00.74	Ian	And the only downside is in our, including our housing element, we could require
03:32:07.00	Ian	a minimum density, but
03:32:08.73	Ian	we don't want to require a minimum,
03:32:10.65	Ian	We can't.
03:32:11.80	Ian	I mean, 29 units per acre is what we're talking about anyway, but that's what they could do anyway, and that would be what we're talking about requiring anyway, right? So that's.
03:32:22.97	Mary Weig	R29
03:32:24.33	Ian	Thank you.
03:32:24.35	Mary Weig	opportunity definition does have a minimum density requirement.
03:32:29.89	Mary Weig	So,
03:32:30.59	Mary Weig	That is why I'm suggesting removing it as an opportunity site. So Beth, if this is just an inventory site, can we still count the 35 unit development potential based on 29 units per acre?
03:32:43.39	Beth Thompson	So we can still count it at the 29 units per acre, the 35 units, and that's the maximum capacity. So we'll actually tweak that downward to the realistic capacity, which goes down to 28.
03:32:54.27	Beth Thompson	And because it's all owned by one entity and it totals more than a half acre, if
03:33:01.22	Beth Thompson	If more than 20 units per acre are accommodated, then we can count it towards the very low and low.
03:33:07.79	Beth Thompson	And I think we can make that argument since it's at housing 29. So I think that works and we'll wanna just keep track of how this affects your total sites. But yes, that's an acceptable approach.
03:33:20.55	Ian	acceptable approach.
03:33:22.11	Ian	Sorry, just assuming, Sergio, I bet that my logic is correct.
03:33:26.67	Ian	that we're not creating anything new or anything extra that the, as you said, or I think Sergio said,
03:33:35.80	Ian	the owner could do with this as they please we wouldn't be able to
03:33:40.29	Ian	rein them in. We're not giving him anything or him, her, whoever.
03:33:44.46	Ian	them anything they don't already have.
03:33:46.82	Ian	We're not creating anything new. We're not...
03:33:50.36	Ian	giving them anything additional than what we're just sort of
03:33:54.99	Ian	acknowledging what they already have and counting it in our arena
03:33:59.93	Sergio	Yes, that's exactly what taking it out of your program of rezoning and removing it as an opportunity site would do is
03:34:06.92	Sergio	you are just taking credit for whatever the capacity is on that site under your existing zoning.
03:34:12.23	Mary Weig	Correct. So we still get to take credit.
03:34:15.22	Mary Weig	But we don't have a minimum density.
03:34:17.94	Mary Weig	There's a motion in a second. If we vote 2-2, then it remains in the housing element at 67 units, zoned at housing 49.
03:34:29.50	Unknown	Okay, I don't want to do that. I don't either, but...
03:34:32.64	Unknown	We have.
03:34:33.63	Unknown	we should make an alternative note what happens if it's two to either way there
03:34:36.31	Mary Weig	with their own.
03:34:36.60	Mary Weig	There's no action. It stays as it is.
03:34:38.52	Captain Hoffman	I would like to try to persuade one of those who so far is against the motion to vote for it, recognizing we can still count it. And what it does is it doesn't eliminate...
03:34:51.70	Captain Hoffman	Density bonus for 100% affordable, that's a feature of the law for anything.
03:34:55.64	Unknown	If you convince me, I'll change my book. Okay, me too. Great. All right.
03:34:58.98	Mary Weig	Stephen.
03:34:59.50	Unknown	Thank you.
03:34:59.97	Mary Weig	Councilmember Woodside, very...
03:35:02.81	Mary Weig	All right, all in favor.
03:35:04.36	Mary Weig	I.
03:35:05.02	Mary Weig	Okay, so we have approved a motion to remove Site 202 Altamira as an opportunity site. We will continue to take credit of somewhere between 28 and 35 units, depending on Beth's calculation. All right, can we ask?
03:35:21.84	Mary Weig	Karen Hollweg, Welcome back Council Member sobieski we're going to now resume our discussion of.
03:35:31.01	Mary Weig	of
03:35:32.49	Brandon Phipps	Site 63.
03:35:32.56	Mary Weig	Site 63, 522 Olive Street, now that we've given such a lot of time to our capable community development department to calculate the difference.
03:35:46.94	Brandon Phipps	Appreciate the additional time and appreciate the additional discussion on Altamira. So a short story here is Site 63 is currently in the R2-2.5 zone, which allows for one unit for every 2,500 square feet of lot size. This lot, that equates to 17.4 units per acre. This lot is 0.12 acres, which means the resultant density, in other words, the density that this site currently enjoys allows 2.088 units. This would allow by right up to that much. And I would, because the number is so close to two, I would want to reevaluate size specifics to ensure if we'll have to round up or not, but somewhere around two to three units at the max.
03:35:50.77	Mary Weig	Mira.
03:36:33.78	Mary Weig	So, and if we remove it as an opportunity site, they no longer have a minimum density. Sorry, I wanted to actually ask you a question. If we remove it as an opportunity site, we no longer, they no longer suffer from a required minimum density. They can develop or not as they please.
03:36:51.91	SPEAKER_34	That is correct.
03:36:52.51	Mary Weig	All right, so I move that we remove site 63 from the opportunity site inventory as requested by the property owners, but that we continue to count in our housing element two units.
03:37:08.86	Mary Weig	Second.
03:37:09.64	Brandon Phipps	And I would just like to clarify that language. We will remove it from the opportunity site list. That's what I said. Oh, I thought you said inventory list. Excuse me.
03:37:13.74	Mary Weig	That's what I said.
03:37:16.22	Mary Weig	I said opportunity site inventory. I'm reading from the Planning Commission resolution.
03:37:21.40	Brandon Phipps	Thank you. Apologies.
03:37:23.00	Mary Weig	All in favor?
03:37:24.83	Brandon Phipps	I.
03:37:25.00	Mary Weig	Bye.
03:37:25.39	Mary Weig	That motion carries.
03:37:27.75	Mary Weig	Five zero. Okay. Next is...
03:37:35.02	Mary Weig	Site 303. What is Site 303?
03:37:42.40	Captain Hoffman	I don't know if that's the name.
03:37:44.17	Mary Weig	Oh, yes. OK. OK. So Brandon, can you explain to us why the Planning Commission asked to reallocate the affordability levels of Site 303 to increase very low by 20, reduce moderate by 5, and reduce above moderate by 15? Was that to accommodate the other reductions in density of the Altamira and the other sites?
03:38:10.15	Brandon Phipps	That's correct, and I'm happy to do a one-two punch with Beth, but per your recommendation, Beth also did a pivot table for the commission. We evaluated the buffer total and between income categories at the end of the PC discussion, and the reallocation of units within that site was done so as to balance out the overall RENA income categories for the amended element.
03:38:39.08	Mary Weig	for the
03:38:41.32	Brandon Phipps	that the Planning Commission recommended.
03:38:43.04	Mary Weig	Okay, Brandon, in the modified amended housing element, I thought we had increased the potential density of Site 303. Is that reflected? So...
03:38:53.81	Mary Weig	Beth, can you answer that?
03:38:55.87	Mary Weig	Thank you.
03:38:55.89	Beth Thompson	We did not increase the density of 303, but the size of the site that was assumed for development was increased. So I think it went from 90 units to 129 units.
03:39:06.35	Unknown	Okay.
03:39:06.92	Beth Thompson	So there is an increase in total units.
03:39:07.83	Mary Weig	increase in total.
03:39:09.03	Mary Weig	That's...
03:39:09.72	Mary Weig	Okay.
03:39:10.47	Mary Weig	So I move that we
03:39:14.87	Mary Weig	um,
03:39:15.92	Mary Weig	reallocate the number of units attributable to Site 303 in the amended housing element from 90 to 129 units.
03:39:29.26	Beth Thompson	So keep it at one.
03:39:29.28	Mary Weig	So keep it at one
03:39:30.02	Beth Thompson	29.
03:39:30.63	Beth Thompson	Thank you.
03:39:32.03	Mary Weig	Yes, I'm not talking about affordability levels. I'm just talking about quantum at the moment.
03:39:33.30	Beth Thompson	I'm not.
03:39:38.44	Beth Thompson	OK, and the revised housing element has it at 129, so we would keep it at 129.
03:39:43.61	Mary Weig	Oh, so the amended does have only the.
03:39:45.02	Beth Thompson	Yes.
03:39:47.20	Mary Weig	revised amended that had it.
03:39:49.70	Beth Thompson	No, both haven't. The number of very low and low was increased in the modified version.
03:39:56.80	Mary Weig	Okay, so then my next motion is that we reallocate the affordable affordability levels of site 303 to increase very low by 20 units, reduce moderate by five units and reduce above moderate by 15 units with no net increase in units.
03:40:13.78	Mary Weig	All in favor? Aye. That motion carries five zero.
03:40:15.11	Unknown	Aye.
03:40:20.51	Mary Weig	I am skipping site 84 that I have to recuse myself from because that's likely to be a somewhat
03:40:26.96	Mary Weig	detailed discussion so I'm going to move on
03:40:29.47	Mary Weig	to Site 201.
03:40:33.14	Mary Weig	um
03:40:35.26	Mary Weig	Again, I would like to, I move.
03:40:38.99	Mary Weig	Uh,
03:40:40.10	Mary Weig	So there's a discussion. I hope everybody has seen it.
03:40:44.36	Mary Weig	Right now, it's in our...
03:40:51.06	Councilmember Sobieski	out.
03:40:53.07	Mary Weig	605 Bridgeway.
03:40:53.33	Councilmember Sobieski	Yeah.
03:40:54.18	Councilmember Sobieski	I have to.
03:40:54.87	Mary Weig	Okay.
03:40:55.04	Councilmember Sobieski	Thank you.
03:40:55.93	Councilmember Sobieski	I have to also increase myself on this one for the same reason.
03:40:57.74	Mary Weig	Okay, sorry about that.
03:41:09.64	Mary Weig	So Beth, right now, that's still an opportunity site with an overlay at 29 units per acre, as is what is proposed. Is that right?
03:41:19.32	Mary Weig	practice.
03:41:20.47	Mary Weig	So in the adopted housing element, it was 20 units in the modified element. It's 11 units, but it is still.
03:41:28.50	Mary Weig	Um,
03:41:30.48	Mary Weig	at
03:41:31.44	Mary Weig	it still has a minimum required density because it is
03:41:35.78	Mary Weig	in an overlay zone, is that right?
03:41:38.39	Beth Thompson	Correct. It would have the minimum of 20 units per acre required at the 29.
03:41:43.30	Mary Weig	And so, again, I'm recommending we do the same thing as we did with Altamira, which is that we remove it as an opportunity site. It still is entitled to 29 units per acre as per its...
03:41:59.52	Mary Weig	location in
03:42:02.61	Mary Weig	It's current zoning, is that correct?
03:42:07.53	Beth Thompson	Yes, it would. Yeah, it's zoning allows up to 29 units per acre.
03:42:11.38	Mary Weig	Okay, so we're not changing the number of net units. We're just removing the minimum density requirement for development on that site.
03:42:21.64	Mary Weig	Is that right? Correct. Okay. So I move that we remove site 201 as an opportunity site. Bearing in mind, there's already a pending application, so this action is not likely to have any impact on this site. But I'm going to move that we remove it as an opportunity site and leave it subject to
03:42:42.50	Mary Weig	the existing zoning of 29 units per acre. Second.
03:42:48.37	Mary Weig	All in favor?
03:42:49.96	Mary Weig	Aye. That motion carries unanimously 4-0.
03:42:50.08	Captain Hoffman	I,
03:42:53.72	Mary Weig	Can we invite?
03:42:55.27	Mary Weig	Thank you.
03:43:02.90	Mary Weig	All right, Councilmember Hoffman, can you discuss with us the Madden sites?
03:43:10.63	Mary Weig	at Sausalito Yacht Harbor and
03:43:15.68	Mary Weig	Bridgetway and
03:43:19.30	Mary Weig	Thank you.
03:43:19.49	SPEAKER_65	Thank you.
03:43:21.73	Mary Weig	Okay.
03:43:22.24	SPEAKER_65	.
03:43:24.33	Mary Weig	Okay.
03:43:25.30	SPEAKER_65	Thank you.
03:43:26.46	Mary Weig	So 409 Napa, 1319 Bridgeway, and 210 Caledonia.
03:43:26.48	SPEAKER_65	Thank you.
03:43:34.14	Ian	I think so. Hold on. I think so. Do you have a, is there some concern that I'm within?
03:43:39.27	Mary Weig	No, I just know you live around the 7-Eleven, but I think you're far enough away.
03:43:46.61	Brandon Phipps	I believe you're within, if we're speaking to Site 63 still, or...
03:43:51.20	Mary Weig	We're looking at the three, we're talking about Site 44.
03:43:59.42	Brandon Phipps	Yeah, I would say no, I would envision no conflict for, I mean, it's beyond a thousand feet for Councilmember Hoffman.
03:44:08.97	Mary Weig	you
03:44:09.69	Mary Weig	Be sure.
03:44:10.47	Captain Hoffman	Is this the Yacht Harbor site?
03:44:12.00	Mary Weig	Yes, these are the Yacht Harbor sites.
03:44:13.52	Captain Hoffman	So if one has a vessel in the Yacht Harbor,
03:44:18.33	Captain Hoffman	I think it might be.
03:44:20.66	Mary Weig	I don't think so.
03:44:21.47	Sergio	I don't think so.
03:44:23.12	Captain Hoffman	Okay.
03:44:25.52	Sergio	But I will state as we're beginning that discussion deliberation, if you look at attachment 13, which is the staff responses to the Council direction that was given to explore the potential up zoning of it, there is discussion about coverage of the EIR for that action, and I think it is appropriate for the Council to know that
03:44:48.83	Sergio	due to the increased density, which was not analyzed in the EIR, that is something we would need to look at very closely in terms of whether additional environmental analysis is required.
03:44:59.56	Mary Weig	What is the address of site 44?
03:45:06.31	Beth Thompson	It has three different addresses, 210 Caledonia street. This is from appendix D one of the housing element, 210 Caledonia street, 1311 bridgeway and 1319 bridgeway. And I believe, um,
03:45:22.00	Beth Thompson	The owner referenced one of the properties as 1315 Bridgeway, so one of the buildings may have more than one address.
03:45:29.48	Mary Weig	So at 210, so site 44 is 210 Caledonia.
03:45:35.40	Beth Thompson	It's the three addresses, 210 Caledonia,
03:45:38.32	Beth Thompson	1311, 1315 Bridgeway and 1319 Bridgeway.
03:45:43.26	Mary Weig	So he's already put in
03:45:44.95	Mary Weig	you
03:45:45.20	Mary Weig	an SB330 application for 1311-1315 Bridgeway.
03:45:52.06	Mary Weig	Um,
03:45:53.12	Mary Weig	So.
03:45:54.28	Mary Weig	for 210 Caledonia,
03:45:56.70	Mary Weig	um,
03:45:58.39	Mary Weig	It was zoned at...
03:46:04.10	Mary Weig	49 units per acre. And
03:46:08.56	Mary Weig	I guess it has been reduced to 29 units per acre. He would like to put,
03:46:17.15	Mary Weig	four units there, three regular units and one low income.
03:46:22.23	Mary Weig	what would the EIR implications of that be?
03:46:28.67	Beth Thompson	Yeah, let me take a look at what we have assumed for that in the EIR, that'll take a moment.
03:46:32.49	Mary Weig	A moment. Your response to us said that
03:46:35.56	Mary Weig	The increase in density would increase capacity from three to six units, but he only wants to do three plus a low income or an ADU.
03:46:47.46	Beth Thompson	And that's just at the 0.06 acre portion that's 210 Caledonia and not the other two
03:46:54.65	Beth Thompson	Carcels because those have a separate. Okay. Let me, let me just quickly look at that. Just that site.
03:46:54.71	Mary Weig	Correct.
03:46:59.27	Mary Weig	Just looking for ways to give us a couple of additional units since we're removing units elsewhere.
03:47:05.53	Brandon Phipps	And Beth, just to clarify for the record, on the amended element that was pegged off of by the Planning Commission, site 44 is only one parcel.
03:47:15.99	Brandon Phipps	and it is a parcel with the address of
03:47:20.40	Brandon Phipps	1319 Bridgeway.
03:47:26.62	Heather Wilcoxon	So that's...
03:47:26.98	Mary Weig	at PC.
03:47:27.05	Brandon Phipps	At the size of 0.06 as mentioned.
03:47:31.25	Mary Weig	That site was reduced from three units to two.
03:47:36.43	Mary Weig	plus an ADU, according to him, in the amended housing element.
03:47:40.39	Brandon Phipps	It went from 49 to 29, correct?
03:47:42.86	Mary Weig	Yeah.
03:47:45.34	Beth Thompson	And that's, so yeah, we,
03:47:47.57	Beth Thompson	the,
03:47:48.16	Beth Thompson	The site was reduced to takeoff
03:47:50.55	Beth Thompson	two parcels, as Brandon just mentioned.
03:47:53.74	Beth Thompson	Um,
03:47:54.50	Beth Thompson	when we reduce, let's see, so I'm
03:47:57.30	Beth Thompson	looking back at the 210 Caledonia. So 210 Caledonia, if just that portion at 0.06 acres
03:48:05.59	Unknown	Mm-hmm.
03:48:06.53	Beth Thompson	is,
03:48:07.73	Beth Thompson	is, um,
03:48:08.88	Beth Thompson	slated for four units, that's 67 units an acre.
03:48:13.05	Beth Thompson	So you would need to do, if you did housing 49, he would need to do a density bonus application. Well, and he would need to have more units because he would need to have the minimum of five units, I believe.
03:48:24.96	Beth Thompson	So,
03:48:25.10	Mary Weig	So.
03:48:25.38	Mary Weig	Thank you.
03:48:26.21	Mary Weig	So can we allow 49 units per acre that would allow him to go from to do three regular plus one low income under with density bonus.
03:48:40.96	Beth Thompson	Let me, I'm looking up the EIR for that site. It just takes a minute to find the.
03:48:48.22	Beth Thompson	spreadsheet for it.
03:48:50.78	Mary Weig	I mean, he has literally come to our last five meetings to make these requests. So I just want to make an effort to accommodate him if we can.
03:49:08.67	Beth Thompson	Sorry, we have several files that have our inventory assumptions for the EIR. Not all of them are.
03:49:17.56	Beth Thompson	The one that I'm looking for. Oh, there we go.
03:49:17.68	Unknown	one that I'm looking for.
03:49:18.30	Unknown	Thank you.
03:49:24.29	Unknown	Thank you.
03:49:24.50	Unknown	at home.
03:49:26.01	Mary Weig	It's like,
03:49:28.07	Unknown	Thank you.
03:49:28.09	Mary Weig	Oh, you need to step up.
03:49:29.96	Mary Weig	Thank you.
03:49:30.28	Mary Weig	All right.
03:49:30.96	Mary Weig	Thank you.
03:49:31.82	Mary Weig	Oh, on Olive Street? We already voted.
03:49:34.66	Mary Weig	Yeah.
03:49:35.60	Mary Weig	So.
03:49:37.66	Beth Thompson	So we did not include, we don't have the capacity and the email.
03:49:38.55	Mary Weig	And then,
03:49:41.57	Beth Thompson	EIR to increase the units on that site.
03:49:44.26	Mary Weig	We do not.
03:49:45.67	Beth Thompson	Now.
03:49:46.58	Mary Weig	Okay, so we would have to do that in a future housing element.
03:49:50.09	Beth Thompson	Correct. Or is, or is a separate rezoning project. He doesn't have to wait for a housing element to request a rezone.
03:49:57.23	Mary Weig	Okay, so we can rezone.
03:49:59.92	Mary Weig	Okay.
03:50:00.69	Mary Weig	All right. And then what about 1319 Bridgeway?
03:50:05.15	Mary Weig	It was reduced from three to two plus an ADU.
03:50:11.88	Mary Weig	While you're looking that up, I'm going to revisit
03:50:16.03	Mary Weig	site 63 it turns out that council member hoffman has a conflict so i am uh rescinding my prior motion and uh
03:50:26.17	Mary Weig	approval I'm going to remake the motion that we remove site 63 522 Olive Street from the opportunity site inventory as requested by the property owners
03:50:39.57	Captain Hoffman	Second.
03:50:40.84	Mary Weig	All in favor? Aye. Aye. That motion carries 4-0 with one recusing.
03:50:46.41	Mary Weig	So, Brandon, will you please supersede the prior action, Walford?
03:50:52.65	Blossene	Sorry, we're talking about Site 63 right here? Yes.
03:50:55.06	Mary Weig	Yes. Okay. So we did a prior motion and Council Member Hoffman inadvertently participated, not realizing. Yeah. So we've redone that one.
03:51:14.76	Mary Weig	I'm looking to see what else we can discuss.
03:51:36.98	Beth Thompson	And for 13, 19,
03:51:38.74	Beth Thompson	In bridgeway, you can assume two units, we have one in the in the housing element, but you could assume to per the EIR.
03:51:45.30	Mary Weig	And could he still do an ADU? He can still do an ADU on top of those two, right? Correct. Okay.
03:51:51.07	Mary Weig	And the EIR only accommodates two units there.
03:51:55.46	Mary Weig	Yes. Right. And the last one is 409 Napa Street. I think it got reduced from five to four units.
03:52:06.90	Beth Thompson	may look that one up.
03:52:09.28	Brandon Phipps	I believe that's Site 55, is that correct, Mayor?
03:52:11.78	Mary Weig	Oh, I don't know what the site is. I only know the address. Sorry.
03:52:16.49	Brandon Phipps	55 and it's it's either 55 or 56 both are in the housing 49 zone and we can look into that now
03:52:24.11	Unknown	Okay.
03:52:28.79	Beth Thompson	So 412 NAPA, site 56, you could assume up to 10 units. And then the- 409 NAPA.
03:52:34.54	Mary Weig	And then the-
03:52:36.79	Beth Thompson	409 NAPA, which must be the adjoining site 55, which we don't have an address for is eight units.
03:52:44.97	Mary Weig	Okay, he thought 409 Napa Street was reduced from five units to four.
03:52:50.51	Beth Thompson	Right, and so at 409 NAPA with the EIR, you could increase it up to eight.
03:52:50.62	Mary Weig	Right.
03:52:55.50	Mary Weig	Okay, I would like to increase that to five.
03:52:58.99	Mary Weig	I move we increase the potential density at 409 Napa Street from four units to five.
03:53:05.19	Mary Weig	Second.
03:53:06.67	Unknown	But we could, okay.
03:53:08.31	Mary Weig	Go ahead.
03:53:08.46	Unknown	it.
03:53:08.75	Sergio	And Beth, I am curious about this motion specifically.
03:53:14.22	Sergio	because...
03:53:15.43	Sergio	You know, increasing the realistic capacity is not something that the city council can necessarily do. But what they can direct is that we change and apply a different zone category. So do we need to change from 29 to 49 or 49 to something else in order to increase that number?
03:53:32.09	Beth Thompson	So typically we can't increase the realistic capacity based on just our math, but I think where we have owner interest and they're interested in doing more units, we can say to HCD that it's realistic. The property owner has testified at city council that they want to do a larger project. It still is within the density allowed.
03:53:49.65	Beth Thompson	So I think we could do that and that HCD would find that to be adequate.
03:53:54.82	Beth Thompson	supporting evidence of
03:53:56.94	Beth Thompson	of counting at higher capacity.
03:53:58.97	Beth Thompson	Yes.
03:53:59.12	Mary Weig	.
03:53:59.14	Sergio	Thank you for that explanation, Beth.
03:53:59.19	Mary Weig	Thank you.
03:53:59.68	Mary Weig	Thank you.
03:53:59.86	Mary Weig	Right.
03:54:00.27	Unknown	Thank you.
03:54:00.52	Mary Weig	Yeah, thank you for that carefully. I'm simply asking that we list this with of a
03:54:06.19	Mary Weig	that we list the realistic capacity for this at five instead of four, based on owner feedback.
03:54:13.45	Brandon Phipps	One point of clarification here would be, does that necessitate a zone change? No. Okay.
03:54:18.02	Mary Weig	no. Okay. Beth said they could develop up to eight or ten
03:54:22.42	Brandon Phipps	Thank you. Just wanted to confirm.
03:54:24.45	Mary Weig	Okay, all right, so there's a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. That motion carried, yes? I just, I did not.
03:54:28.40	Unknown	I'm sorry.
03:54:32.03	Unknown	I it's fine emotions it's fine I just if we could own it for more why wouldn't we if there's interest from the developer and it's in a reasonable but it's it
03:54:39.43	Mary Weig	It is.
03:54:39.84	Unknown	Yeah.
03:54:39.97	Mary Weig	Thank you.
03:54:40.01	Unknown	zoned for more.
03:54:40.97	Mary Weig	you
03:54:41.38	Mary Weig	I'm talking about on the table where we list the realistic capacity. Okay. We had it at four. We're increasing that to five based on owner interest. Okay. So is that a five zero? Sure. Okay. Five. That motion carries five zero.
03:54:54.91	Mary Weig	Thank you.
03:54:54.98	Mary Weig	Thank you.
03:54:55.77	Mary Weig	All right.
03:54:59.62	Mary Weig	The rest of the...
03:55:03.33	Mary Weig	There are some minor corrections. So staff, on the...
03:55:09.27	Mary Weig	Summary of city council feedback, there are a number of minor clarifications have these minor that are on page three are the have these minor clarifications already been made.
03:55:25.35	Brandon Phipps	I don't believe so, but I will check with Beth.
03:55:29.00	Mary Weig	Okay, so page one, it says correct SB.
03:55:33.92	Mary Weig	Blank units and this this says that it was revised to read SB nine units on page three redraft removed paragraph related to AB 2011 and SB six.
03:55:45.77	Mary Weig	It says deleted paragraph. So it looks to me. Are you with me on page three of the
03:55:55.49	Mary Weig	Actually, it's page four of the...
03:55:58.92	Mary Weig	It's the last page, Brandon, of the summary of city council.
03:56:03.69	Brandon Phipps	Okay, I confused it with page three, which contains the recommendations from the Planning Commission, which I don't believe have been reflected.
03:56:09.36	Mary Weig	Right.
03:56:12.65	Mary Weig	We've, I, other than site 84, we've adopted all of the.
03:56:20.16	Mary Weig	recommendation, but I was working from the
03:56:23.37	Mary Weig	Planning Commission.
03:56:24.72	Mary Weig	Um,
03:56:29.83	Mary Weig	I said looking at page three of the resolution i'm looking at page four of the summary of city council comments feedback study session, and there are various things highlighted in yellow on that page.
03:56:45.93	Beth Thompson	Yes, and let me just pop open the revised amended housing element that went to Planning Commission to confirm because we had made those changes.
03:56:54.89	Beth Thompson	And one of our working versions, and let me just make sure that those made it into the.
03:56:59.68	Beth Thompson	Yes, and that is. So if you look at the,
03:57:03.23	Beth Thompson	Revised amended housing element. Yes, we've got those changes in there. So where it says revised to read SB9 units,
03:57:09.55	Beth Thompson	it now says that full text. So where you see the deleted paragraph, we've deleted that. So yes, those changes have been made to the reference.
03:57:17.69	Beth Thompson	the amended housing elements.
03:57:20.93	Mary Weig	We don't need a motion to carry that out.
03:57:23.19	Mary Weig	Okay.
03:57:24.05	Mary Weig	Um,
03:57:27.66	Mary Weig	I'm going to turn, so,
03:57:32.05	Mary Weig	I have a couple of additional things to address. Give me a second here.
03:57:37.99	Mary Weig	Brandon, the EIR that we're being asked to certify this evening contains a number of
03:57:46.76	Mary Weig	to do items for staff, many of which are due within 60 days of certification of the EIR, which would happen tonight. So some of those are
03:57:56.72	Mary Weig	you know,
03:57:57.61	Mary Weig	Um,
03:57:58.78	Mary Weig	hand out a tribal cultural resources awareness brochure prior to ground disturbing and construction activities and
03:58:06.24	Mary Weig	require an ESCP
03:58:08.67	Mary Weig	prior to issuance of a grading permit. So my question to staff is, are you prepared
03:58:15.00	Mary Weig	to carry out and implement the requirements of the mm rp the mitigation and monitoring reporting plan that's attached to the eir within 60 days of adoption certification of the eir
03:58:31.57	Brandon Phipps	I saw Sergio join us I will give him the floor and I'm happy to comment afterwards.
03:58:37.56	Sergio	Mayor Mrakas- And yeah mayor I think that i'm sure staff are prepared to take those actions, I did want to make sure the Council is aware that. Mayor Mrakas- I think that it would not be appropriate to certify the EIR this evening, unless you are also taking action to adopt the housing element.
03:58:37.64	Brandon Phipps	.
03:58:37.66	Unknown	All right.
03:58:54.08	Sergio	In light of our pending discussion that the city may...
03:58:57.79	Sergio	receive feedback from HCD requiring further revisions
03:59:01.66	Sergio	I think it would probably be best to wait to certify the housing element until we know that we will not
03:59:07.61	Sergio	at all have the need or potential to recirculate or make any revisions to the EIR.
03:59:14.45	Sergio	So I would suggest that the council defer certification of the EIR this evening.
03:59:19.09	Mary Weig	Okay, so really what we're doing tonight is making motions and giving direction to staff.
03:59:23.58	Brandon Phipps	But I will clarify my response. Yes, please. Staff is prepared to take on those responsibilities once the EIR is certified.
03:59:25.03	Mary Weig	Yes, please.
03:59:29.90	Mary Weig	Okay, great. I just wanna be sure that you have a procedure in place to do that. Go ahead, Vice Mayor.
03:59:34.56	Captain Hoffman	Yes, on a similar vein, I think we heard from Sophia Collier and Ed Brakeman, who had sent comments this afternoon and perhaps earlier, and you probably have not had a chance to look at them, but they described them as somewhat technical but important amendments involving the EIR and language in the EIR, particularly focused on historic standards.
03:59:59.20	Mary Weig	So I'm going to go ahead and call those out, Sergio and Brandon. The first is correct typos. So they are asking that we change all references to M29
04:00:12.24	Mary Weig	or M429
04:00:16.11	Mary Weig	to MU-29-85%.
04:00:20.88	Sergio	And I see no issue with making those changes and ensuring consistency between the draft ballot measure and the rezoning. We will go back through the entire housing element and ensure that we are consistent
04:00:33.08	Sergio	using those designations is appropriate and consistently.
04:00:37.03	Mary Weig	Okay, so Brandon, you are copied on this. Sergio, you are not, so I will forward this to you. The next is to revise mitigation measure MM3.4-1A. Ed mentioned this tonight during his...
04:00:48.68	Mary Weig	Um,
04:00:50.70	Mary Weig	public comment, instead of saying the evaluation shall identify measures implemented to reduce the impact.
04:00:57.72	Mary Weig	he would like to say the valuation shall identify measures that would reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
04:01:05.84	Sergio	And I have consulted with our CEQA council that has been advising the city on the EIR, and we can make that change. It should not trigger recirculation.
04:01:14.44	Mary Weig	And then at the end of that paragraph, he would like to add the language,
04:01:17.92	Mary Weig	And all such measures that are necessary to reduce the impact to a less than significant level shall be implemented.
04:01:24.77	Sergio	Same issue, that's not a substantial modification.
04:01:28.01	Mary Weig	Okay.
04:01:29.51	Mary Weig	um,
04:01:30.97	Mary Weig	Mr Brakeman also raised concerns about the historic overview language in the EIR concerning site 201 I saw extensive a redlined additions to the historic.
04:01:48.14	Mary Weig	um,
04:01:49.38	Mary Weig	Evaluation, including a lengthy, you know, historic resources report and others in the.
04:01:58.42	Mary Weig	In the...
04:02:00.68	Mary Weig	EIR in the comments to the EIR that were responded to by city staff. So are either of you aware of
04:02:08.93	Mary Weig	Um,
04:02:11.70	Mary Weig	concerned that site 201, that the assertion that site 201 is a historic resource is not fully supported by the record?
04:02:20.29	Sergio	I'm not aware of anything
04:02:22.75	Sergio	to that effect. I agree with you that there is substantial evidence in the record regarding the historic
04:02:30.43	Sergio	resources on site 201. We are looking further into the comment that was made and seeing if any further action is warranted.
04:02:38.51	Mary Weig	And that's my
04:02:38.57	Sergio	And that's about as much as I can do now.
04:02:40.69	Mary Weig	the consensus direction that they follow through and complete that task?
04:02:46.57	Mary Weig	the task requested by Ed Brakeman to ensure that the historic resource analysis of Site 201 is complete. Yes. All right. Thank you.
04:02:58.31	Mary Weig	You just wanted to make me say it again. Yep. Oh, my goodness.
04:03:05.50	Mary Weig	Okay.
04:03:09.70	Mary Weig	I'm going to turn to Director Phipps again. There were three other changes that the Planning Commission made to the amended housing element.
04:03:20.58	Mary Weig	Director Phipps there on page three.
04:03:23.60	Mary Weig	of the resolution items B, C and D.
04:03:27.82	Mary Weig	And I did not fully understand
04:03:34.37	Mary Weig	these revisions.
04:03:36.36	Mary Weig	Do you mind walking us through them so that we can decide whether or not to endorse them so the first says the amended page hbr dash 119 second bullet under land use controls is revised to read.
04:03:47.43	Mary Weig	Opportunity housing 29, maximum density of 29,
04:03:52.11	Mary Weig	units per acre and it
04:03:53.76	Mary Weig	At the end, it says remove the language that says and requiring residential use is required for 85% of the site.
04:04:02.59	Beth Thompson	So I'll, I'll interject here. That is because that language was from the mixed use overlays and was accidentally carried forward into the housing 29. Because it's housing 29, it has to be 100% residential. So you don't need to require a minimum amount of residential.
04:04:11.21	Mary Weig	because of the
04:04:18.47	Mary Weig	Okay, so I move that we adopt
04:04:21.44	Mary Weig	um,
04:04:22.87	Mary Weig	bullet B in the planning commission
04:04:26.78	Mary Weig	resolution
04:04:28.35	Mary Weig	regarding amending page HBR 119 under land use controls.
04:04:34.57	Mary Weig	Yeah, good.
04:04:35.68	Mary Weig	All in favor?
04:04:37.01	Mary Weig	Aye. That motion carries 5-0.
04:04:37.15	Unknown	Bye.
04:04:39.39	Mary Weig	Next is item C, amended policy CD 1.3 of the community design chapters revised to read as follows.
04:04:47.24	Mary Weig	So it added language that says, except sites identified in the housing element appendix D1,
04:04:52.69	Mary Weig	inventory of residential and opportunity sites may develop up to the maximum height
04:04:57.11	Mary Weig	pursuant to Title X,
04:04:58.80	Mary Weig	zoning ordinance. So it took out language regarding the odds.
04:05:03.71	Beth Thompson	So paragraphs C and D are related to the changes to the community design chapter of the general plan, the general plan amendment.
04:05:11.77	Beth Thompson	And that was not, I don't believe, included in your package tonight. So you're not looking at the specific general plan amendments just at the housing element. And we'll bring back the general plan amendments to-
04:05:21.76	Mary Weig	on March 4th.
04:05:23.20	Mary Weig	Thank you.
04:05:23.23	Beth Thompson	you
04:05:23.28	Mary Weig	Yes. OK, so for discussion on those two to March 4.
04:05:24.28	Beth Thompson	So we're the best.
04:05:24.70	Unknown	Thank you.
04:05:28.50	Mary Weig	Okay, with that, Vice Mayor, I'm going to step out so that the council may discuss site 84.
04:05:37.69	Mary Weig	And I'd like to focus you on
04:05:41.52	Mary Weig	Um,
04:05:42.60	Mary Weig	You have it. This is page one of the summary of city council comments.
04:05:47.21	Mary Weig	um
04:05:48.51	Mary Weig	and to consider how to
04:05:50.98	Mary Weig	move forward with site 84. So I'm recusing myself from this discussion because my residence is in close proximity to this site.
04:05:59.18	Captain Hoffman	Thank you, Mayor, and don't go far. I think we can get through this pretty quickly. You've set a standard that...
04:06:08.71	Captain Hoffman	shows we can move quickly when necessary. So until she gets out, let's not discuss this, but direct everyone's attention to that top of the page that describes Site 84, the MLK site. We've heard from lots of people in the community about that, and there's both a density question and what was raised, I think, at the last meeting was whether it could be removed in its entirety and before we talk or focus on density i would just ask because what i see in this report is the staff does not recommend an outright removal of the site for reasons that it would jeopardize our numbers particularly at the low income levels is that fair statement
04:06:56.13	Beth Thompson	That is a fair statement.
04:07:00.94	Captain Hoffman	It's perhaps regrettable, but that's
04:07:05.92	Captain Hoffman	That's what the staff recommends unless you want to.
04:07:08.36	Unknown	I would agree with the staff recommendation, understanding that we, I mean, given a significant public comment, that we could at least lower the density to a minimum of, I don't know what was suggested, 50 units was our alternative. I mean I think given that we have very few it is I think it's important to remind members of the public that it's a city-owned site so we would be in complete control of what type of housing went there what it looked like what the design was, and would be able to— I mean, perhaps we can give direction to put an emphasis on preserving the park to the best of our ability, because that seemed to be a main point of consideration from our public commenters. That's what I would lean towards.
04:07:42.94	Unknown	Thank you.
04:07:43.01	SPEAKER_32	it.
04:07:43.16	Unknown	.
04:07:51.09	Captain Hoffman	Okay.
04:07:52.10	Beth Thompson	And can I interject for just a moment?
04:07:54.25	Captain Hoffman	Sure.
04:07:55.51	Beth Thompson	So,
04:07:56.37	Beth Thompson	If you were to remove the site,
04:07:58.94	Beth Thompson	if you,
04:07:59.83	Beth Thompson	An outright removal would cause a reduction in your very low so that you'd only have two units of buffer. However, if you were to further reconfigure Site 303, one and three Harbor Drive, that one still has a lot of above moderate income units. And I believe the property owner is flexible as to the type of development that would go there. So if we were to further allocate some of those units to the very low and low, I think that would offset the full removal of MLK. Okay.
04:08:13.89	Unknown	I'm sorry.
04:08:13.94	Unknown	.
04:08:26.82	Beth Thompson	And I don't.
04:08:28.37	Beth Thompson	I don't know if director Phipps has any thoughts about that change, but I, I think that could accommodate the full removal of it.
04:08:38.68	Captain Hoffman	Director Pips.
04:08:39.29	Councilmember Sobieski	Thank you.
04:08:41.33	Brandon Phipps	No comment for me.
04:08:44.52	Councilmember Sobieski	Yeah, I'm concerned about this site. Concerned about it in the park.
04:08:49.28	Councilmember Sobieski	uh,
04:08:51.20	Councilmember Sobieski	And it would be great to have other options. So I'm not sure the scope of what we can talk about here. That's one that's new from Beth and Director Phipps. There is the question of,
04:09:02.84	Councilmember Sobieski	jeopardizing our housing. We need to stay out of builders remedy, so I just want to make sure whatever we do, where there's a path to staying in compliance while we sort it out.
04:09:13.15	Councilmember Sobieski	But I would love to explore the option of being able to remove it altogether.
04:09:17.96	Captain Hoffman	Thank you.
04:09:17.98	Councilmember Sobieski	May I?
04:09:18.00	Captain Hoffman	May I ask Beth?
04:09:19.03	Captain Hoffman	The question, you said that the reason to recommend against justice straight removal without finding substitute places for low income would put us dangerously close, like within two, so there would really be no significant buffer at the low level.
04:09:36.54	Captain Hoffman	Thank you.
04:09:36.56	Beth Thompson	Correct.
04:09:36.88	Captain Hoffman	Thanks.
04:09:38.21	Captain Hoffman	And how confident are you that the Site 303 could accommodate replacement numbers sufficient to keep the buffer about where it was?
04:09:48.64	Beth Thompson	So the site 303 is currently, with the changes we've discussed tonight, is, let me
04:09:57.92	Beth Thompson	Oh, just like three or three.
04:09:59.61	Beth Thompson	has capacity for 129 units and currently 83 of those are above moderate, 33 are allocated to very low, 13 to low. So I think there's flexibility there.
04:10:11.32	Beth Thompson	Um,
04:10:12.05	Beth Thompson	especially since you don't have a development application for that site that that is for market rate. So there is flexibility there to look for an affordable developer and see what, see what can be done. So that site could under HCD's requirements can definitely be a site for very low and low income units.
04:10:30.09	Brandon Phipps	And Beth, thank you for that. Just wondering if we can review the in progress pivot table that I'm hoping that you've been building based on council comment heretofore. And that might form follow on steps.
04:10:42.47	Beth Thompson	might help.
04:10:47.55	Beth Thompson	Yes, let me just quickly do a quick refresh and what I'm going to do.
04:10:54.22	Unknown	And while we're doing that. Just while you're doing that, I just want to make the point that even if we do include it, there will be a ballot initiative. So I would lean towards, again, because I generally
04:10:54.79	SPEAKER_07	Thank you.
04:10:54.81	Captain Hoffman	for doing that.
04:10:55.21	Beth Thompson	Yeah.
04:11:04.16	Unknown	I'm opposed to removing all sites entirely and just keeping the conversation open around where we're going to put housing. There is going to be a ballot initiative potentially on the site, so we wouldn't be able to add it without voter approval. So we're suggesting it for voter approval at a lower density level. We would still allow us to have that buffer. But I'm definitely not comfortable with 80 units, so it would have to be significantly lower. in fact I would even consider going to like if we can the 30 or you know I'm not sure what that looks like but removing it we and also remembering that we have full control over what development on this site looks like whereas with one in three Harbor Drive if it's a profit-driven developer for example right now it's not owned by an affordable
04:11:15.02	SPEAKER_36	level.
04:11:46.23	Unknown	housing developer. So just not to say there wouldn't be housing there, but let's be thoughtful about how things pencil in the cost and how much we do need those affordable units.
04:11:54.41	Captain Hoffman	So if I'm understanding you correctly, you would favor a reduction to, I think it would be 29 is the. Is that the lowest that we can have? Is that correct, Brandon? 29?
04:12:00.66	Unknown	Is that the lowest that we can have?
04:12:06.06	Brandon Phipps	Yes.
04:12:07.67	Captain Hoffman	And that would result in something less than 50 units, I would imagine. Do you have a number? Yes.
04:12:16.70	Beth Thompson	So what I have shared is
04:12:19.37	Beth Thompson	The city council direction row is with the MLK site currently at 80%.
04:12:24.82	Beth Thompson	Let's see. Let me see what your...
04:12:31.28	Beth Thompson	what we have there.
04:12:33.12	Brandon Phipps	So yeah, and I'll clarify the amended sites. Site map shows site 84 at the MU 49 zone, MU 49 85. So excuse me.
04:12:46.07	Captain Hoffman	So reduction at the density of 29 per acre would be realistically how many units?
04:12:56.55	Captain Hoffman	We've heard a number of discussions tonight that had different numbers associated with them.
04:13:00.06	Unknown	Yeah, I mean, I'm really concerned about preserving the park. So I'm trying to find a an opportunity for us to lower the density potentially preserve the park but also have the opportunity as the city owned site because we have removed Spencer and city hall so at this point this is kind of our, our most likely to build on city on site where we could determine the footprint for 100% senior housing, for example, even if it's fewer units.
04:13:21.50	Councilmember Sobieski	THE FAMILY.
04:13:22.63	Councilmember Sobieski	Can I comment on that? Just a question. Sure. I'm way out of my wheelhouse. Finance is more of my wheelhouse, not...
04:13:29.38	Councilmember Sobieski	housing law. But if we have it in the
04:13:33.22	Councilmember Sobieski	housing element, there's a program, right? A program that says what we need to do. And that's a little proscriptive.
04:13:40.28	Councilmember Sobieski	So
04:13:41.53	Councilmember Sobieski	Nothing would keep us still from building housing in the MLK site outside of the housing element. While we could meet our arena number and our low and very low units at the 303 site, we could still internally.
04:13:54.51	Councilmember Sobieski	separately.
04:13:55.54	Councilmember Sobieski	have an effort for senior housing.
04:13:58.27	Councilmember Sobieski	at that site that we would completely control, not being turned over to the program unit.
04:14:02.78	Captain Hoffman	And would be subject to voter approval under 1128.
04:14:05.99	Councilmember Sobieski	It still would be, but it would be one that is not driven by the program element. If it's in the housing element, if I understand...
04:14:13.29	Councilmember Sobieski	what i've learned over the last several months uh it's not just that for the city inside it's not just that we've authorized x number of units but we also agreed to a development program that it somewhat handcuffs the city that this tell me if i'm wrong someone staff or beth but we have a pro
04:14:30.37	Captain Hoffman	Thank you.
04:14:30.49	Captain Hoffman	We have a program obligation to follow through, and that might require us to put on the ballot the measure.
04:14:38.17	Councilmember Sobieski	at that level and actually sell the property or develop the property in a particular way is that is still
04:14:43.85	Councilmember Sobieski	unclear to what extent we really
04:14:46.03	Councilmember Sobieski	control the city-owned property if it's in the housing omelet.
04:14:49.46	Councilmember Sobieski	Whereas I completely agree with my colleague
04:14:51.92	Councilmember Sobieski	about wanting to build senior housing. And I'm just wondering if we can meet the legalistic requirements at 303,
04:14:58.81	Councilmember Sobieski	and separately, either this meeting or a future one,
04:15:01.93	Councilmember Sobieski	agree for some development path for housing we have greater control over.
04:15:05.57	Captain Hoffman	Can we ask the city attorney to respond to that?
04:15:06.75	Councilmember Sobieski	I'm going to go.
04:15:09.64	Unknown	Yeah.
04:15:10.13	Sergio	So-
04:15:11.23	Sergio	Yes.
04:15:12.59	Sergio	You can work towards developing housing on sites you haven't included or identified in your housing element. There's nothing that would prohibit you from doing that. That being said, typically for that process, you often need to do a general plan amendment.
04:15:27.19	Sergio	and rezoning and, you know, of course, conduct the necessary environmental review, which
04:15:32.66	Sergio	You know, unless it's already been covered in the EIR you did for the housing element, you need to do it separately and again. So that usually is a pretty significant impediment, although sometimes the developer can come to you, can propose it, and they'll take on the cost of doing the environmental review.
04:15:48.32	Sergio	Um,
04:15:49.33	Sergio	Again, there is program eight in the housing elements. So Councilmember Sobieski is correct that with respect to the identified city sites, the city is committing to working towards the development of those sites during the housing element cycle.
04:16:03.05	Sergio	Um,
04:16:03.82	Sergio	I would say right now, given the tone of the discussion and the prior city council direction already voted on this evening to remove site 202 and make it an inventory site only.
04:16:16.43	Sergio	to remove site 201.
04:16:20.53	Sergio	Um,
04:16:22.64	Sergio	And then to also remove the direction about
04:16:26.76	Sergio	you know, the potential rezoning of fire station and city hall in the event of arena shortfall. I would like Beth to have the opportunity to crunch the numbers on what,
04:16:36.63	Sergio	the buffer would be
04:16:39.23	Sergio	with respect to particularly the very low and low income renown.
04:16:43.01	Sergio	If the council does decide to make a decision to remove this particular site,
04:16:48.16	Sergio	I know based on my prior experience, HCD frequently does
04:16:53.94	Sergio	scrutinize your very low and low income arena buffer
04:16:57.82	Sergio	I would say probably the most. And so to the extent that there is a negative impact
04:17:03.63	Sergio	cumulatively based on all the city council direction tonight.
04:17:07.68	Sergio	We would want to make sure that we have a good justification for all those directions and are prepared to respond to HCD's comments.
04:17:16.83	Sergio	but certainly getting the amended housing element over the hump may be more challenging if there is a lower
04:17:22.75	Sergio	Very low in low income Reno.
04:17:24.98	Sergio	that is being proposed by the city.
04:17:28.79	Captain Hoffman	Thank you for that. Before we move on, Beth, would you be able to crunch some numbers now?
04:17:36.37	Beth Thompson	Yeah, just give me a moment. I'm actually, I had some slightly off information. So let me just add this up and I'll have some numbers for you.
04:17:44.03	Councilmember Sobieski	numbers.
04:17:44.74	Councilmember Sobieski	For you. Remind me, are we actually deciding the question here? Are we providing direction?
04:17:49.09	Captain Hoffman	We're providing direction. We are not able to adopt tonight. And subsequently, we would have, based on this direction, without change, and after we get the HCD comments, we might be in a position to act.
04:18:03.10	Councilmember Sobieski	Got it. So even if you directed, say, to take it off, we're not definitively taking it off until after we hear from the ACD comments and.
04:18:11.01	Councilmember Sobieski	That's an informative discussion.
04:18:12.41	Captain Hoffman	Well, I'm afraid if we were then to take it off later or officially give a different direction later, we'd be starting that clock again, that 60-day clock.
04:18:23.87	Unknown	Thank you.
04:18:23.89	Sergio	Yeah, so I anticipate that the city staff and the city attorney are going to take the council's votes this evening.
04:18:30.23	Sergio	prepare revisions in line with what has been discussed and directed by council
04:18:35.72	Sergio	and submit it to HCD4 review.
04:18:38.58	Sergio	Additionally, I will just update the council. We are now scheduled to meet with HCD on this Thursday.
04:18:46.50	Sergio	So
04:18:48.44	Sergio	Um,
04:18:50.35	Sergio	Thank you, Beth, for doing this in such short order.
04:18:55.24	Captain Hoffman	Thank you.
04:18:55.26	Ian	Thank you.
04:18:55.27	Captain Hoffman	So
04:18:56.30	Captain Hoffman	Thank you.
04:18:58.28	Ian	Okay.
04:18:58.97	Ian	Have you got the new number?
04:19:00.98	Beth Thompson	for us, Beth?
04:19:02.06	Beth Thompson	We have the new numbers. So with 80 units at site 84,
04:19:06.63	Beth Thompson	you have, you continue to have a buffer. If we remove site 84 completely and we don't make up the units anywhere, we actually end up with a shortfall for very low. So we ended up with a shortfall of 17 units for very low.
04:19:20.89	Beth Thompson	and only three additional units, so a small buffer for low, and we maintain the buffer for moderate and above moderate and an overall buffer. So there would need to be adjustment to make up the very low. And similarly, if you reduce
04:19:35.69	Beth Thompson	site 84 to 50 units, then you would maintain more of a buffer across the very low and low.
04:19:43.13	Ian	So you said a shortfall of 17 units. Correct.
04:19:45.97	Councilmember Sobieski	Correct.
04:19:46.81	Councilmember Sobieski	Thank you.
04:19:47.08	Councilmember Sobieski	Okay.
04:19:47.75	Councilmember Sobieski	But is that? Oh, sorry.
04:19:49.12	Ian	That's okay. What do we have? We haven't talked at all about the city-owned, the city-owned site of 75, which is a corporation yard.
04:19:58.40	Ian	So what do we have a portion there?
04:20:02.00	Beth Thompson	Corporation yard, we've got
04:20:02.44	Ian	Okay.
04:20:03.97	Ian	I'm like 75.
04:20:04.93	Beth Thompson	Thank you.
04:20:05.56	Beth Thompson	Yes, let me just pop that one up. I think that's...
04:20:09.25	Ian	And then and then the next site is 73 and that's the school site. We don't actually own that site that's owned by, I believe, the school district.
04:20:19.40	Beth Thompson	So at the corporation yard, you currently have 31 units. So you have seven units on the smaller parcel, 24 units on the larger parcel.
04:20:29.88	Ian	And how are they?
04:20:30.75	Beth Thompson	Thank you.
04:20:30.80	Ian	Thank you.
04:20:32.54	Ian	And we own those sites. And how are those apportioned?
04:20:32.76	Beth Thompson	That's...
04:20:35.50	Beth Thompson	That's, let's see.
04:20:38.99	Beth Thompson	18, very low, nine low, and four moderate.
04:20:46.33	Ian	And that's on the 31 or is that combined to those two sites?
04:20:49.42	Ian	That's combined for the two sites. And what about site 73?
04:20:49.48	Beth Thompson	That's combined for the two sides.
04:20:54.44	Beth Thompson	The school site, let me scroll to that site.
04:21:05.90	Beth Thompson	Sorry, it'll take me a minute to find that one in my spreadsheet. For some reason, it has...
04:21:10.19	Annie Porter	Thank you.
04:21:17.14	Beth Thompson	Okay, so on the school site, we have 27 units assumed and that's consistent with the school districts master plan.
04:21:29.24	Ian	And what are the, how are those apportioned between very low and low?
04:21:33.31	Ian	Those are 15 very
04:21:35.98	Beth Thompson	eight low and four moderate.
04:21:43.81	Ian	Okay, thanks.
04:21:47.36	Ian	And could we, how would it work if we, similar to how we had the, we had sites 52 and 14 as RHNA alternate sites, or how did we say that? We had them as RHNA shortfall sites.
04:22:03.60	Ian	How would that work if we had site 84 newly listed or categorized as arena shortfall site? Will we still be able to count those sites as arena as part of our arena count? Or would they not be able to be counted as arena units?
04:22:22.68	Ian	Thank you.
04:22:22.75	Beth Thompson	So if you call it a shortfall site, that means you're only going to use it in the event of a shortfall. It's pretty difficult to do that with your sites that are restricted by the
04:22:22.77	Ian	Yeah.
04:22:22.84	Ian	So if you call
04:22:33.72	Beth Thompson	ballot measure requirements because you can't make those available quickly.
04:22:38.72	Beth Thompson	So typically if there's arena shortfall under no net loss law, you have
04:22:42.90	Beth Thompson	Sarah Holtzman, Ph.D.: Six months to replace it, if there is just a shortfall like you can't in the actual rezoning you don't have enough sites, then you would have to go through the process of setting up the ballot major and you would you would not likely make your deadline for rezoning.
04:22:59.54	Unknown	Okay.
04:23:00.01	Ian	Thank you.
04:23:01.02	Ian	Okay.
04:23:01.14	Unknown	Okay.
04:23:01.26	Ian	Thanks.
04:23:01.65	Unknown	Thank you.
04:23:02.12	Unknown	Karen Hollweg, Just one comment, I have met with Mayor Cox with regards to the city corporation yard and I just want to make clear. Karen Hollweg, The climate for the cost of actually penciling these projects it's it's. Karen Hollweg, difficult it's difficult to get an affordable developer who's interested unless the number of units makes sense from a very low to moderate level and so.
04:23:22.67	Unknown	I think it just says we don't necessarily have to as a city decide to build 50 units there. Obviously, we get to determine this, but I think again as someone who feels like we should just be placing sites strategically where it makes the most sense across the city and I know that there are folks who are unhappy with it, but I wonder if we can give direction around preserving the park specifically and lower the density to the U29.
04:23:50.77	Unknown	Mm-hmm.
04:23:51.21	Unknown	Or the lowest possible density there, but keep it because if we wait to do the ballot measure later, we may miss the zoning deadline. And also we will have to pay again for another ballot initiative. So those are two big risks that we're dealing with. And I just, I mean, we're also, frankly, I think if we remove it as a whole, it will be, it will raise a red flag for HCD at this phase in the process. And that's a big concern.
04:24:11.85	Councilmember Sobieski	well lined with options, Council Member.
04:24:16.71	Councilmember Sobieski	I mean, I'm all for her.
04:24:18.01	Councilmember Sobieski	the thought of creating more options. So we're talking about direction to staff, right? We're not deciding things like
04:24:23.10	Councilmember Sobieski	places an involving understanding on all our parts.
04:24:26.51	Councilmember Sobieski	and we've seen tonight discussion about sites along bridgeway that currently weren't studied 67 which was a little bit of work but that dry storage yard with the rvs the uh grassy field next to burkehold plumbing the hillside there these are all sites that are currently not studied not 67 was a little bit, but we started today on that work. The AR study I redirected staff to work on EIR on amending 1022 to allow that then.
04:25:00.68	Councilmember Sobieski	Even if.
04:25:02.03	Councilmember Sobieski	we approved, even if we put on the ballot and MLK was approved,
04:25:06.81	Councilmember Sobieski	the city later next year could amend its housing on it.
04:25:10.86	Councilmember Sobieski	to take those, not build on those sites. If we could build low and moderate and some of the sites I just mentioned, then we could avoid building in the park, even if we've approved it.
04:25:21.37	Captain Hoffman	So that would be a sub-
04:25:22.24	Councilmember Sobieski	THE SUBSEQUENT AMENDATION
04:25:23.01	Captain Hoffman	it.
04:25:23.15	Councilmember Sobieski	Thank you.
04:25:23.26	Captain Hoffman	We'll be sure.
04:25:23.35	Councilmember Sobieski	It'd be sort of a direction to staff to just research this.
04:25:25.96	Captain Hoffman	Thank you.
04:25:26.03	Councilmember Sobieski	and what
04:25:26.99	Captain Hoffman	Give us a roadmap.
04:25:27.67	Councilmember Sobieski	Thank you.
04:25:27.72	Captain Hoffman	for how to get started in lieu of trying tonight to remove a site entirely and try to find substitute places and to uh councilwoman flaustein's point this would raise a red flag because it's at the low level
04:25:42.92	Councilmember Sobieski	My thought is in addition to approving direction on the ballot measure, it'd be to give direction to staff to work on a process for
04:25:53.45	Councilmember Sobieski	potentially adding sites probably not in time for you know the next six months but but next year and and so that even if we approve sites at 84 at mlk park we may not actually have to build them because we may by that time have gone through the process of finding some additional sites
04:26:00.88	Unknown	And so that's...
04:26:12.64	Captain Hoffman	Could I suggest that that last point be scheduled for a future agenda item where we can put out that thought and have a thorough discussion?
04:26:23.44	Captain Hoffman	so
04:26:24.03	Councilmember Sobieski	direction for stuff to do some homework but i don't
04:26:26.34	Captain Hoffman	Right, but I think Supervisor, excuse me, Councilwoman Cox, the mayor, could participate in that.
04:26:26.44	Councilmember Sobieski	Thank you.
04:26:32.47	Councilmember Sobieski	Thank you.
04:26:32.94	Captain Hoffman	discussion.
04:26:33.19	Councilmember Sobieski	Thank you.
04:26:33.25	Captain Hoffman	Thank you.
04:26:33.26	Councilmember Sobieski	Thank you.
04:26:33.45	Captain Hoffman	Thank you.
04:26:33.46	Councilmember Sobieski	Thank you.
04:26:33.58	Councilmember Sobieski	Oh, for sure. It's just related to my...
04:26:36.10	Councilmember Sobieski	how much to press on 84 from my point of view because without without some hope that we might be able not to build on 84 i'm inclined to want to see what we can do to reduce that number like i was going to then ask that
04:26:48.33	Councilmember Sobieski	that the table she showed with the negative
04:26:50.44	Councilmember Sobieski	pitfall, did that include reallocating 303?
04:26:53.48	Councilmember Sobieski	site 303 with additional
04:26:55.62	Councilmember Sobieski	That's right.
04:26:55.91	Beth Thompson	That did not include any reallocations to Site 303.
04:26:59.91	Beth Thompson	And I did pull up the map of Site 84 just so people can see what the area currently being discussed.
04:27:05.97	Councilmember Sobieski	So,
04:27:06.40	Councilmember Sobieski	if we did allocate reallocate the 303 which we still have it at deficit
04:27:10.91	Beth Thompson	Probably not. And I can, I can do that math right now while, while you're discussing that.
04:27:15.26	Captain Hoffman	that.
04:27:15.53	Ian	Thank you.
04:27:15.92	Captain Hoffman	Let's wait for that and then keep the discussion going.
04:27:20.11	Ian	Thank you.
04:27:20.33	Ian	Thank you.
04:27:20.48	Ian	I just wanted to, I just wanted to add.
04:27:24.04	Ian	Sorry, I just wanted to add that, you know, as we move through this, even if we, let's say we do the ballot measure and the ballot measure passes, you know, these other discussions of permitting that goes forward that, you know, that aren't part of our plan, we can take credit for those, the new site, even if they're not part of anything of our plan, new developments that come online, we can take credit for those, the SB9 exploration that we're doing, we can take credit for those, so, you know, we can continue maybe to
04:28:04.35	Ian	to get that number down at at mlk right and um then we can also obviously we own the site and we can engage with the people that live there about what the design is going to be and what it looks like so it's not nothing uh that's the benefit of that being a city-owned site that we get to build what we want to build um and we get to engage uh the design that we want to of design there and so engage the design that we want to design there. And so, you know, that's and we can make.
04:28:34.90	Ian	To the extent that you want to call it a development agreement, we can have tradeoffs with whoever we decide who's going to build it, what we want them to build it, what it looks like. So we have a lot of control over that site. So I think that's one of the benefits of that being a site that we own. And, yeah, obviously we want to keep it out of the park. Okay.
04:28:59.97	Captain Hoffman	I think you've had discussed really two things, potential future development that's not in the plan. And then as to this site, if I've heard you correctly, sounds like you would prefer to keep it in the plan, perhaps at a lower density.
04:29:16.71	Ian	I'm trying to, yeah, I'm trying to, well, I'm working toward, I had a glimmer of hope there for a minute that if we could get it and move some of the lower, the very low over to 303, and if there was capacity at 303 or one of the other sites, we could do it then, and it wouldn't undermine our plan,
04:29:40.88	Ian	understanding that our plan says we're going to do zoning changes there to 1128 right that was the other question I was going to have so it seems to me the feedback we're having from our consultant and from our attorney is that that's part of our plans you see the expects that you know okay we may have locked ourselves into that I don't know but you know I want to explore the different areas to me
04:30:07.17	Ian	you know, the key to passing our the zoning and getting over the line for arena number
04:30:13.48	Ian	is this corridor and 1028. It's not 11 or 1022. It's not 1128. 1022 is giving us a much larger number than 1128, than the rezoning for 1128. So anyway, that's what I was thinking coming in tonight. And that's what I thought. I thought the balance was going to be up until about two and a half minutes ago.
04:30:37.78	Ian	Thank you.
04:30:37.80	Captain Hoffman	Thank you.
04:30:37.83	Councilmember Sobieski	So may I ask Beth to respond? I just wanted, can I just riff off of that Councilmember Hoffman's thing? He's like, yeah, I mean, one thing I've learned is that I always wish we had started a project yesterday playing catch up, so.
04:30:38.12	Captain Hoffman	So,
04:30:38.24	Ian	So,
04:30:38.39	Captain Hoffman	Thank you.
04:30:51.79	Marvin Garovi	Right.
04:30:54.66	Councilmember Sobieski	If we want to have more control over our destiny, and Sergio can tell me if we're off the agenda topic, but we're supposed to be giving direction related to this matter. And it seems like,
04:31:06.25	Councilmember Sobieski	asking staff to start the process of looking into the
04:31:11.09	Councilmember Sobieski	how to add some sites that it's not going to be in the next month.
04:31:15.36	Councilmember Sobieski	There are two, but the process for...
04:31:17.91	Councilmember Sobieski	having affordable or moderate income worker housing along Bridgeway and some of the sites that I showed earlier would allow us to
04:31:27.98	Councilmember Sobieski	potentially if we have to,
04:31:29.64	Councilmember Sobieski	not build in the park.
04:31:31.58	Councilmember Sobieski	And even if it's in the approved housing element, we could amend it next year. But if we're going to do that, I've learned over the last weeks and months about how long the EIRs take.
04:31:42.44	Councilmember Sobieski	and this cycle with HCD where you have to go back and forth.
04:31:45.60	Councilmember Sobieski	So if you practice, if your end result in March of 2026 was that you wanted to amend the housing element to remove
04:31:54.78	Councilmember Sobieski	housing at MLK and instead have it along Bridgeway
04:31:57.97	Councilmember Sobieski	on a site that's currently not in the plan, you'd have to start that process soon.
04:32:02.34	Councilmember Sobieski	And so I'm wondering if we should direct staff to at least start scoping out what that looks like in terms of the amendments to 1022 that might be needed since we're talking about a ballot in issues.
04:32:11.83	Councilmember Sobieski	Right now we can't do it because of PEN 22.
04:32:12.03	Captain Hoffman	THE FAMILY.
04:32:13.07	Captain Hoffman	Okay.
04:32:13.65	Captain Hoffman	I think that's something that Mayor Cox can participate in, and I think it would be important for her to hear that discussion. I think it's separate from the first decision whether we're going to either eliminate MLK as a site now and find substitute places that we're confident we can convince HCD are good, or I think Councilman Blasdy makes a good point. It's going to be a red flag, and it may make our lift impossibly heavy.
04:32:26.81	Unknown	now.
04:32:42.62	Captain Hoffman	You know, it's a judgment call. It's hard to make when we don't really have HED in a room here to tell us.
04:32:48.83	Ian	Or if I could just follow up on that. Or to what we've been doing on all these other sites, which is just remove or reduce, right? And we've principally been, or augment. I mean, that's what we've been doing as we've been moving through all these other sites, is either we've been doing little augmentations here and there, it seems, or we've been, in some cases, reducing.
04:32:57.08	Unknown	Mm-hmm.
04:33:13.27	Captain Hoffman	The ones that we removed, as I understand it, did not jeopardize us in terms of the arena number at any level.
04:33:13.28	Ian	It was.
04:33:14.23	Ian	you're going to be a
04:33:20.71	Ian	Well, so, yeah, but right now we're talking, okay, so let's focus in. We're talking about MLK. Principally, we're talking about do we want, so it's pretty clear to me that we can't remove it at this point.
04:33:30.70	Captain Hoffman	So you would not support remove it?
04:33:30.87	Ian	We need to.
04:33:32.52	Ian	I don't think so.
04:33:33.03	Unknown	So I don't think we can. I don't either. But I definitely support reducing it to the lowest level that we can.
04:33:38.81	Unknown	Thank you.
04:33:38.85	Unknown	Thank you.
04:33:38.90	Captain Hoffman	Thank you.
04:33:39.27	Captain Hoffman	So would you like to make a motion? Well, here's the new table, though.
04:33:42.81	Unknown	Thank you.
04:33:42.83	Beth Thompson	So with the revisions, what ends up happening is when we start tapping too much into the above moderate, we lose our above moderate buffer. So it's that constantly reshuffling sites. There is capacity in the moderate where we could go dig around all the individual sites and find a few that could donate some moderate units to the above moderate. You're going to be safest having a modest number of units at MLK. That'll give you some buffer and some flexibility if you have things happen with your other sites.
04:34:13.93	Ian	So what's your number, Beth?
04:34:16.35	Beth Thompson	So I would say
04:34:18.42	Beth Thompson	Well, here, let me run one more with some units at MLK. And so if you have, if you want to just give me like two more minutes, I'll add some units back into MLK.
04:34:27.96	Captain Hoffman	suggested density at 29.
04:34:30.50	Beth Thompson	At 29, okay.
04:34:32.11	Captain Hoffman	Yeah.
04:34:32.26	Beth Thompson	And that I think is 55 units. If we do 1.88 units at 29 units, so does 55 units sound
04:34:39.90	Beth Thompson	like a good,
04:34:41.10	Beth Thompson	starting number for my permutations.
04:34:43.53	Unknown	Wait, but 50 was what we were going to consider for the ballot measure, so that feels high. So I think maybe look.
04:34:47.28	Brandon Phipps	So I say maybe look to the potential February 2025 alternative with MLK 50.
04:34:52.83	Beth Thompson	Okay.
04:34:54.20	Beth Thompson	So, 50, 35 and 15. Okay.
04:34:56.42	Brandon Phipps	Correct. And wait,
04:34:56.90	Beth Thompson	Anyway.
04:34:58.19	Beth Thompson	And you can always reduce the size of MLK. You can still keep it at 29 and just have it be a slightly smaller portion of MLK. So it doesn't.
04:35:06.33	Beth Thompson	There's nothing magic about the 1.88 acres.
04:35:07.97	Captain Hoffman	acres.
04:35:09.30	Captain Hoffman	Thank you.
04:35:09.59	Captain Hoffman	We're not talking about the wording of the ballot tonight, but we're talking about changing a density on this site. Is that correct? Brandon's shaking his head yes.
04:35:18.11	Brandon Phipps	Yeah.
04:35:18.53	Brandon Phipps	That's correct. This would reduce the MLK from the M49 zone or H49 zone to the H29 zone.
04:35:29.04	Captain Hoffman	So is there a motion to that effect?
04:35:31.74	Ian	And that's, I'm sorry, and that's also consistent with what we did, right, with Altamira and with, I mean, I'm sorry, let's just keep it, right, that's consistent with what we did with Site 202 and 201, right?
04:35:45.90	Ian	H29 is what we did.
04:35:48.69	Brandon Phipps	Thank you.
04:35:48.70	Councilmember Sobieski	excellent.
04:35:48.97	Ian	No.
04:35:49.02	Brandon Phipps	Not exactly. As the minimum density requirements for those sites were removed, they were made into inventory sites and subject to the underlying zoning. This would change the zoning and maintain those minimum density requirements.
04:35:50.68	Ian	Okay, sorry.
04:35:58.24	Ian	Okay, sorry.
04:36:05.76	Ian	Okay. And which is...
04:36:09.26	Captain Hoffman	29 units per acre.
04:36:11.96	Ian	And with the total number of units on the site of?
04:36:17.17	SPEAKER_19	Thank you.
04:36:17.34	SPEAKER_19	Thank you.
04:36:18.01	Ian	Thank you.
04:36:19.13	Ian	Okay.
04:36:20.80	Councilmember Sobieski	I guess I'm not following it. It seems that we talked about 29, and now we're talking about 50? That's why. It's age 29. I'm sorry. I can't make this.
04:36:20.83	Ian	I guess.
04:36:25.46	Ian	That's right.
04:36:25.61	Captain Hoffman	So...
04:36:25.73	Ian	I think.
04:36:25.86	Captain Hoffman	They take you.
04:36:26.15	Ian	Thank you.
04:36:26.17	Captain Hoffman	I think.
04:36:27.19	Captain Hoffman	It's units per acre, and it's more than an acre, so it's going to be a higher number.
04:36:32.04	Councilmember Sobieski	But what Beth was, I'm sorry, you want to go ahead?
04:36:34.25	Unknown	Didn't Beth just say she could reduce the size of the site that we're identifying from 1.8 acres to one, if she wanted to?
04:36:40.07	Brandon Phipps	That's correct. In the element, site 84 is referenced as being approximately two acres. And that's where this 1.88 comes from. But again, it's only a proper part of a parcel and the city maintains ownership of the parcel. So again, this, you know, we ultimately have full control over how we develop this in the future.
04:37:01.91	Councilmember Sobieski	But under the element then, under the program element, Director Phipps, are we not obligated to build on the full size?
04:37:12.60	Brandon Phipps	We can build whatever we like so long as we meet the minimum density requirements that council is discussing now.
04:37:19.83	Councilmember Sobieski	So you can be held on half the site as long as you're meeting the minimum
04:37:24.05	Brandon Phipps	So long as we meet the minimum density requirements.
04:37:25.95	Councilmember Sobieski	We'll be right back.
04:37:26.04	Councilmember Sobieski	That's the minimum.
04:37:26.66	Councilmember Sobieski	Thank you.
04:37:26.86	Councilmember Sobieski	29. Is it going to be 29 or is it going to be 29?
04:37:29.97	Brandon Phipps	I believe it's 20 to the acre.
04:37:33.33	Councilmember Sobieski	But since it's almost a two acre site, does that mean the minimum, even if you built on half, would be two acres times 29? Or would it be, since you're building on half, would it be 29?
04:37:45.92	Beth Thompson	The minimum would be 38 if it's a 1.88 acre parcel.
04:37:50.30	Councilmember Sobieski	So that'd be the minimum, even if you built on half the property.
04:37:53.29	Beth Thompson	It wouldn't be half, but it would be a smaller, it would be the 1.88 at 20. If you built on half of the 1.88, or say you just brought it down to one acre,
04:38:05.26	Beth Thompson	then your minimum would be 20 units.
04:38:08.29	Sergio	And the consequence of building fewer units than you were proposing in your housing element is that while the city could approve a project at a lower number of units...
04:38:19.36	Sergio	If you don't have an adequate buffer to absorb
04:38:23.35	Sergio	the decrease, then potentially you will trigger no net loss requirements and you will have to study
04:38:28.85	Sergio	and complete rezoning within six months to identify another site to make up that shortfall, even though this is a city project.
04:38:39.09	Ian	So you still have to maintain the number of units. I mean, that's the...
04:38:43.68	Sergio	Yeah, either you're going to maintain the number of units or you're going to eat into your buffer.
04:38:51.54	Unknown	But Sergio, going forward, oh, sorry, but.
04:38:54.07	Unknown	Okay, let's say because this is the city on site that we get to decide and determine how to develop and when the landscape starts to evolve after we approve our housing element, we see that we are close to meeting our buffer, and we only need X number of units, then that's up to us and we're still okay. That's why we have the buffer, right?
04:39:11.29	Sergio	Yes. Yeah. Keep in mind that buffer there is to protect the city from also the decisions of other people like developers.
04:39:12.53	Unknown	Yeah.
04:39:19.79	Unknown	Right.
04:39:20.80	Unknown	Which is why having a site like this is very important because...
04:39:24.18	Unknown	it protects the city in that we're responsible for what ends up going there. So if everyone else builds, then we don't necessarily have to move forward and build at all. But if no one else builds, then we would need to, but we have the opportunity to do that collaboratively with neighbors and in conversation with the community after a ballot measure.
04:39:41.14	Captain Hoffman	I think we do have some affirmative obligations to proceed with
04:39:46.74	Captain Hoffman	you know what we said in our plan we would do including putting something on a ballot eventually but it doesn't have to be right away we have a deadline that's several months from now so keep that in mind yes sir
04:39:48.44	Unknown	Sure.
04:39:58.96	Councilmember Sobieski	I have a question about that site 72 next to site 303. Does that have capacity to add the units or to add a mixture of more low and moderate income?
04:40:09.30	Beth Thompson	No, so for sites 72 and 211, we had some specific renderings that were prepared by the property owner, and I don't think those have a lot of capacity. I think those were pretty much, they were.
04:40:23.22	Beth Thompson	I'm 49. Building out the...
04:40:23.92	Councilmember Sobieski	Builds it.
04:40:25.50	Councilmember Sobieski	Pardon me? Isn't 149, couldn't that be 70?
04:40:25.54	Beth Thompson	Pardon me?
04:40:28.94	Beth Thompson	49, let's see.
04:40:33.33	Beth Thompson	And go find site 49 here.
04:40:37.77	Councilmember Sobieski	It's right next to site 72, I think.
04:40:40.89	Sergio	And counsel, I think we should try to focus our discussion deliberation on this particular site as we have a recused council member.
04:40:47.93	Captain Hoffman	That's right. That's what I tried to say earlier. We really shouldn't be moving anything without the mayor being present to hear that discussion. But we have a conundrum because we know that if we took it off, we would not meet our low-income requirements without substituting other things, but we're kind of hamstrung right now. I'm going to ask if you would like to make a motion to do that.
04:41:09.46	Unknown	now.
04:41:12.99	Unknown	it.
04:41:13.60	Unknown	Yeah. Okay. I'm going to move to include the MLK site at the lowest zoning level per acre.
04:41:21.38	Captain Hoffman	29th.
04:41:22.67	Unknown	Is that the lowest zoning level per acre at 29 units?
04:41:22.78	Captain Hoffman	Thank you.
04:41:22.90	Ian	.
04:41:23.01	Captain Hoffman	Thank you.
04:41:23.06	Ian	I'm like,
04:41:26.37	Ian	With a total of 50 units.
04:41:28.03	Ian	Thank you.
04:41:28.06	Unknown	Yes.
04:41:31.89	Unknown	I mean, that's the best that we can just to clarify there's that's the lowest option we can do in keeping this site on correct, Brandon.
04:41:40.29	Brandon Phipps	I'm sorry, I didn't hear that, Council Member.
04:41:41.64	Unknown	If we do keep this site on at a lower number, this is the lowest threshold that we can keep it at.
04:41:46.03	Brandon Phipps	This is the lowest overlay zone in our housing element.
04:41:51.33	Captain Hoffman	Yes. OK. Is there a second?
04:41:53.07	Ian	Let me just clarify, and if we don't include this on at this number,
04:41:58.60	Ian	Sorry, if we don't include this site on at this number, we will not meet our RHNA number, 724.
04:42:08.37	Beth Thompson	You will not have enough of a buffer for your very low and low, so you'll
04:42:15.04	Beth Thompson	have no buffer at some point for one of your income categories without a lot more reconfiguring of all your other sites.
04:42:24.86	Ian	Okay, well, that's different.
04:42:26.56	Captain Hoffman	Well, it's a different answer.
04:42:26.77	Ian	It's a different picture.
04:42:27.86	Captain Hoffman	No, the answer has been the same. We have low, very low, and other categories. We have buffers in each one. If we were to take this site off entirely, we would be below and not have a buffer. We'd have a deficit in the low or very low categories.
04:42:33.28	Unknown	Thank you.
04:42:33.30	Ian	Thank you.
04:42:33.35	Unknown	Yeah.
04:42:33.57	Unknown	Thank you.
04:42:44.86	Captain Hoffman	It's not a top line number. It's not the total number. It's the categories.
04:42:49.40	Captain Hoffman	we have to meet not only the top line number, we have to meet the categories.
04:42:53.72	Captain Hoffman	And what I'm going to second the motion so that we can move the discussion forward on this site alone. We can keep talking. Yeah, that's fine. But I'm going to second the motion that was made.
04:43:04.72	Ian	Thank you.
04:43:08.65	Ian	That's fine. Let's start talking math then.
04:43:08.78	Captain Hoffman	So.
04:43:11.65	Ian	Yeah, so I am less enamored of a buffer than other people are, and I'm fine with being at zero buffer with our arena number, and I'm fine with reconfiguring our numbers so that we're at the arena number in certain categories or reallocating amongst all the others.
04:43:30.81	Captain Hoffman	We can't make that action right now without inviting Mayor Cox to come back in.
04:43:35.74	Ian	to come back in.
04:43:36.65	Unknown	you
04:43:36.76	Ian	Thank you.
04:43:36.85	Unknown	That's fine.
04:43:37.24	Captain Hoffman	So there's a motion and a second. And any further discussion?
04:43:42.22	Unknown	I mean...
04:43:43.60	Unknown	I would, I welcome ideas. I just, I think that this is the position that we're in.
04:43:49.15	Unknown	And agree.
04:43:51.33	Captain Hoffman	Okay, so I'm gonna call the question. All in favor of the motion?
04:43:54.96	Councilmember Sobieski	Do we have, I think, sorry. Do you have an alternate? No, I don't, I have it.
04:43:56.32	Unknown	Do you have a
04:44:00.66	Councilmember Sobieski	Thank you.
04:44:02.41	Councilmember Sobieski	I'm looking to staff to see some advice on, it sounds like there might be more work they can do on this question of allocating numbers around various sites. And so,
04:44:15.69	Kay Carlson	We...
04:44:15.98	Councilmember Sobieski	And is our action definitive here? In what sense is it definitive versus...
04:44:19.81	Unknown	I think it's a no action if it's a 2-2.
04:44:22.22	Unknown	And then it stays at the Planning Commission's recommendation of 80 units.
04:44:26.41	Ian	No, I don't think that's the action.
04:44:28.50	Captain Hoffman	Yes, if we don't take an action, then I think we're left with what's in the plan without changing it. I don't know. What's my guess?
04:44:36.10	Brandon Phipps	That's correct. It will retain the housing 49 overlay.
04:44:42.47	Councilmember Sobieski	There are two boats for it. We can't.
04:44:44.70	Councilmember Sobieski	I'm obviously skeptical, but if there's repeating it's better.
04:44:47.03	Unknown	Thank you.
04:44:47.13	Captain Hoffman	Right.
04:44:47.35	Unknown	STAY.
04:44:47.52	Captain Hoffman	If there's- Can I respond? I'm very conscious of your skepticism. I think we should have long ago pursued other sites. We're gonna be playing catch up for a long time. And that's another item that we're gonna try to direct staff to proceed as a future item. And all of us, I think, would be able to participate in that discussion. That's a big discussion.
04:45:12.53	Captain Hoffman	And I think in fairness to Mayor Cox, she should be involved in anything that moves into another area where she has no conflict, or this larger question that,
04:45:25.05	Captain Hoffman	man.
04:45:25.78	Captain Hoffman	Member Sobieski has raised, which I think is a very good one, that we should be pursuing other places that are not currently in the housing element. If we truly believe we need more affordable housing, we shouldn't stop here. We should keep looking, and we should keep asking people in the community for ideas about where it might be.
04:45:45.94	Unknown	Could we bring back Mayor Cox, talk about a reconfiguration, and then deliberate again and give new direction on MLK with Mayor Cox not
04:45:51.12	Captain Hoffman	new director.
04:45:55.33	Captain Hoffman	I'd rather see if we can pass this motion first and if we can't, then I would invite her back in and say we're stuck.
04:45:59.15	Unknown	first.
04:45:59.97	Unknown	Thank you.
04:46:04.76	Captain Hoffman	Thank you.
04:46:04.78	Unknown	Yeah.
04:46:05.06	Captain Hoffman	And if I go to the
04:46:05.99	Unknown	I do just want to say we have reduced almost every site that we've discussed this evening across the entire community. And so, I mean...
04:46:18.17	Unknown	just in thinking about our housing obligations and being an inclusive community in general and what we've all said about spreading housing everywhere
04:46:25.46	Unknown	I don't I mean,
04:46:26.97	Unknown	This is a very, we're in a very difficult place, but removing, consistently removing from site after site after site and then sending it back to HCD significantly removing puts us in a really difficult situation.
04:46:37.06	Captain Hoffman	And I would have said the same, I would have had the same view if we were removing other sites and it resulted in real jeopardy at the low or those levels where we would be below what the standard has to be. Right. So we're not there yet.
04:46:45.14	Unknown	Right.
04:46:53.90	Ian	So let me go out from a different perspective, though. I think if we had started with MLK first, rather than being at MLK last, we may have come up with a different solution at MLK. So we're in a pickle right now with the low, with our numbers, because we're ending up with MLK. So if we would have started here first and said, okay, if we remove it, then we would have been fine.
04:47:17.69	Captain Hoffman	with our calculations. We gave direction, clear direction to the staff to review removal of MLK. And
04:47:26.26	Captain Hoffman	Last time.
04:47:26.52	SPEAKER_62	We did do that.
04:47:27.77	Captain Hoffman	And the answer came back, if we did it, we would.
04:47:31.31	Captain Hoffman	We don't, you did not recommend it because it would reduce and we would be below the requirements at the low levels.
04:47:38.77	Ian	Well, not if you have it. Well, okay, let me finish though. If we have a 250 buffer,
04:47:44.10	Captain Hoffman	We don't have a 250 buffer. We have a buffer for each category and currently.
04:47:44.81	Ian	enough.
04:47:51.00	Captain Hoffman	No.
04:47:51.02	Ian	Now, we do now, but not if you start with a 250 buffer.
04:47:56.69	Captain Hoffman	No, it's not a 200. We have an overall buffer of 250, but we have also buffers all on the chart. They've been out there for— I understand.
04:47:58.93	Ian	with
04:48:03.58	Ian	I understand that.
04:48:04.99	Captain Hoffman	weeks
04:48:05.75	Ian	Sure, but you're telling me, okay, we have more of a buffer when you start at the very beginning than 35. We have more of a buffer in the very low. We have more of a buffer at the beginning than 15 in the low category. That's what we're talking about right now. So if we had started with MLK at the very beginning of this exercise, we've reduced all of those by eliminating different sites, by reducing the numbers in these other sites. Yeah.
04:48:31.55	Unknown	Thank you.
04:48:32.18	Ian	But because we're looking at MLK last, all of these categories have been reduced as we've gone through. So if we had started with MLK, these different – I concede, yes. But because we're ending up now with MLK, these different categories have been reduced as we've gone through here. You have to concede that point. So I'm just pointing that out.
04:48:36.78	Unknown	Thank you.
04:48:53.42	Captain Hoffman	just.
04:48:53.66	Captain Hoffman	I'm not going to concede that point because we had an agreed upon order by which we took these up. We gave staff clear direction a couple of weeks ago, very clear direction to explore this, encouraging them to consider alternatives. And we got a report back in the order in which it came up.
04:49:01.54	Sybil Boutelier	Thank you.
04:49:08.92	SPEAKER_76	Thank you.
04:49:09.25	SPEAKER_76	Thank you.
04:49:12.31	Captain Hoffman	The mayor has led us through a...
04:49:12.39	Ian	Maybe.
04:49:14.35	Captain Hoffman	crisp discussion and we've made decisions on all those other sites.
04:49:18.11	Captain Hoffman	And.
04:49:19.33	Ian	Sure, okay, MLK's.
04:49:20.63	Captain Hoffman	And we've had the recommendation from staff from the beginning that they did not recommend removing this in its entirety because it would not meet our requirements at the low and very low levels.
04:49:31.21	Ian	Okay, well, this is a mystery then because the MLK is at the top of our list, but that wasn't the first one we talked about and now we've circled back. So this is a mystery.
04:49:39.76	Captain Hoffman	It's not a mystery. It's clear.
04:49:41.79	Ian	It's not clear. It's not clear in the least, but okay.
04:49:45.55	Ian	We can parse this later, but
04:49:48.18	Ian	Let's talk about this is what I mean, I don't.
04:49:52.22	Ian	There's no...
04:49:53.97	Ian	I can't conceive that we have sites all across
04:50:01.11	Ian	Sausalito and that we really want to remove the site that we can't find and parse out 35
04:50:07.89	Ian	sorry, 35 very low sites across
04:50:12.65	Ian	you know, these very large sites, some of the, well, a few of these very large sites, right? 303, 72, 81 that are, you know, somewhat large. And then these other larger sites, I mean, you know, and then you go back 75, site 75, site 73, you know, and 15 more low sites, right? So these are the sites we're primarily concerned about. We don't have any moderate sites.
04:50:36.01	Ian	with 50 sites. We don't have any moderate sites. We don't have any above moderate sites. So I mean, I'm not wedded to, and I'm not, you know,
04:50:44.93	Ian	I'm not, I don't have a
04:50:48.22	Ian	I'm not wedded to that we must have a site at MLK unless for some reason, because it's in our draft plan and HCD is looking at it,
04:51:00.37	Ian	If Beth or Sergio is telling me that because it's in our draft plan,
04:51:06.60	Ian	And because we say we're going to amend.
04:51:09.82	Ian	you know, are zoning in 1128 that we've committed to that, that HCD is expecting us to do that and that's going to
04:51:17.50	Ian	and for some reason we've committed to that, that's gonna be a problem.
04:51:20.54	Ian	That's a different story.
04:51:22.01	Captain Hoffman	We did. I wasn't on the council when that commitment was made.
04:51:26.16	Ian	Well, I'm asking Beth, and that's a specific question to Beth, I suppose I should.
04:51:33.77	Captain Hoffman	I'm sorry that this is protracted, but we are apparently at a 2-2 standoff unless we...
04:51:38.81	Ian	Our attorney and have they left the building? Are they still there? No.
04:51:39.12	Captain Hoffman	Thank you.
04:51:43.66	Sergio	No, no, we're still here.
04:51:46.24	Sergio	Beth will correct me.
04:51:47.88	Sergio	If and or when I'm wrong, but I do believe we did identify site 84 for development in the currently adopted housing element and so
04:51:53.24	Unknown	currently.
04:51:55.76	Sergio	with respect to a council direction as part of the amended housing element to take it out, we would need
04:52:00.65	Sergio	I fully expect we would face significant questions about the removal of the site, given that it is a city control site, and given the substantial number of very low and low income units that are proposed on the site.
04:52:14.19	Sergio	And Beth, maybe you can chime in here.
04:52:18.98	Beth Thompson	I think HCD will...
04:52:22.03	Beth Thompson	be more favorably inclined towards the changes in the housing element if the site is kept in. So it definitely is a benefit. And yes, it's already in your adopted housing element. So you would be, with this change, you would be reducing it by 30 units
04:52:37.00	Beth Thompson	And I think HCD will understand that given all of the public comments about all of the units in North Sausalito, HCD referenced those comments at one point. So it may overall, I think HCD could be sold on the reduction to 50. We may have a much harder time going down to no units.
04:52:51.95	Brandon Phipps	And I think that's it.
04:52:52.04	Brandon Phipps	you
04:52:53.25	Brandon Phipps	Just a point of clarification for council this evening based on this potential 2-2. As decided at the outset of this discussion, we are pegging the direction from council this evening off of the amended housing element. The amended housing element has MLK listed as 94 units, not 80 units. the planning commission voted to retain the housing 49 overlay on site 84, but reduce it from 94 to 80 units with the preference that the project be designated for senior housing. So just want to clarify, if no action is taken, 94 units will be the allocation to the site.
04:53:35.39	Captain Hoffman	So that's okay. Got it.
04:53:37.14	Captain Hoffman	Okay, so there is a motion and a second. We've had a discussion.
04:53:37.55	Ian	Thank you.
04:53:37.63	Ian	and the other side.
04:53:40.26	Councilmember Sobieski	I'm over the barrel on it. Obviously, I'm preferring zero, but certainly if I don't vote with the motion, then it's 94, so I'm going to vote with the motion, but I'm just unhappy about it.
04:53:44.01	Ian	Thank you.
04:53:44.03	Captain Hoffman	Thank you.
04:53:44.04	Ian	be alarmed.
04:53:54.17	Captain Hoffman	happy about it.
04:53:54.74	Unknown	I think we all are. I mean, I think it's... Hang on. It's my floor, please. Go ahead. Sorry. I just feel like I'm getting pegged as...
04:53:58.37	Councilmember Sobieski	Ooh.
04:53:59.03	Councilmember Sobieski	I just feel like I'm getting paid.
04:54:00.26	Councilmember Sobieski	You're not being pregnant or anything. Everyone's working very hard out of genuine earnestness, and it's a complicated situation. I'm just speaking for myself because I'm setting up that I'm even more
04:54:10.98	Councilmember Sobieski	term right now that we really start a process to find sites that haven't been identified yet that just makes sense it galls me that we're going to potentially build in a public park when we have empty fields against bridgeway of all places the major thoroughfare in town that are going to stay grassy and my goal is if we did and if the bout measure passes and we build housing and housing's authorized in mlk my goal is that we don't actually have to build it, that we're gonna get to swap it out sometimes next year in an amended housing element for housing in a place that makes more sense and doesn't build them.
04:54:43.56	Captain Hoffman	I completely understand your rationale, and I agree with it. Me too.
04:54:47.65	Ian	Let me, the senior overlay.
04:54:50.58	Ian	Can we?
04:54:51.71	Captain Hoffman	Why don't we take up first whether we're going to reduce the density and if you want to, if you want to add to your motion, including a an appropriate senior overlay as recommended by the planning Commission that's up to. Yeah, absolutely.
04:55:08.15	Unknown	Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. I would love to do that because we had a lot of requests from Sossilator Village to include to do that. Is there a motion on the table? There was, but I'm amending it now to include a senior overlay.
04:55:14.12	Captain Hoffman	There.
04:55:16.96	Captain Hoffman	TODAY.
04:55:17.04	Captain Hoffman	And I, as a seconder, agree with that.
04:55:20.55	Captain Hoffman	I think you agree with that.
04:55:21.78	Captain Hoffman	Okay. Call for the question. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay.
04:55:25.68	Kirk Hasson	Bye.
04:55:27.94	Captain Hoffman	Thank you.
04:55:28.01	Kirk Hasson	Thank you.
04:55:28.03	Captain Hoffman	Okay.
04:55:28.40	Kirk Hasson	Okay.
04:55:29.01	Captain Hoffman	Was that painful or what?
04:55:30.97	Kirk Hasson	That was really cool.
04:55:31.40	Unknown	Thank you.
04:55:34.21	Unknown	Thank you.
04:55:34.36	Brandon Phipps	Thank you.
04:55:40.15	Brandon Phipps	Just want to clarify with counsel, what was the final density that we decided on?
04:55:41.04	Captain Hoffman	I just want to...
04:55:41.39	Unknown	Yeah.
04:55:41.54	Unknown	Thank you.
04:55:46.12	Captain Hoffman	Thank you.
04:55:46.13	Unknown	If.
04:55:46.20	Captain Hoffman	20 to note the density is 20
04:55:48.65	Unknown	29, 50 is totally number one.
04:55:50.40	Brandon Phipps	29 at 50. Very good. Thank you.
04:55:53.81	Unknown	With a senior overlay.
04:55:55.81	Brandon Phipps	Is that preference for a senior overlay or a requirement that the city implement a senior overlay?
04:56:00.68	Mary Weig	Well, I think earlier you talked about the fact that to amend our existing senior overlay would require an amendment to the programs in the housing element.
04:56:10.77	Mary Weig	but you could give direction
04:56:12.61	Mary Weig	for staff to do that outside of the housing element.
04:56:17.39	Captain Hoffman	And that's what has just been
04:56:19.33	Mary Weig	Whatever happens with the senior, yes.
04:56:19.43	Captain Hoffman	.
04:56:19.53	Brandon Phipps	Thank you.
04:56:21.13	Brandon Phipps	And that's what I wanted to clarify. So outside the housing element. Thank you.
04:56:26.23	Mary Weig	Thank you, everybody. Welcome back. Thank you.
04:56:30.11	Unknown	Please don't leave us again.
04:56:31.43	Unknown	Thank you.
04:56:32.46	Unknown	.
04:56:32.73	Unknown	Just kidding, Stephen. You did a great job.
04:56:33.60	Mary Weig	No, it was.
04:56:36.24	Mary Weig	It's frustrating to hear you guys go afield from...
04:56:36.41	Unknown	Thank you.
04:56:36.44	Councilmember Sobieski	That's great.
04:56:37.05	Unknown	I'm not sure.
04:56:37.13	Unknown	You too.
04:56:37.38	Unknown	guys.
04:56:37.60	Unknown	They did.
04:56:37.74	SPEAKER_36	Thank you.
04:56:40.96	Mary Weig	site 84 because I so wanted to participate.
04:56:44.08	Councilmember Sobieski	Have just a two minute break. Absolutely.
04:56:45.42	Mary Weig	Absolutely. Okay. We'll call. I'm going to give you five minutes. It's 940. We'll reconvene at 945.
04:56:52.84	Mary Weig	I guess Brandon needs to take a call.
04:56:54.99	Blossene	We're done talking about the color of money.
04:56:56.93	Mary Weig	We're on.
04:56:58.19	Mary Weig	Okay, so we're back.
04:57:00.99	Brandon Phipps	And I apologize for this. I'm hoping that we can engage in a brief discussion on site 303 and reallocation of units based on concerns related to buffer. If that's yeah want to put it out there based on some recommendations that I've received.
04:57:20.43	Mary Weig	Okay, so Beth, you said that if we, if the city council took the action they did that we had adequate buffer, are you now saying we need to,
04:57:31.27	Mary Weig	identify additional buffer and that you think we should do that through site 303
04:57:36.31	Beth Thompson	Correct. So you had Buffer.
04:57:40.51	Beth Thompson	But you did not have enough buffer. So you would need to make changes at other sites to
04:57:47.58	Beth Thompson	offset the cumulative changes to the other sites this evening.
04:57:54.06	Beth Thompson	but primarily the previous changes to 84.
04:57:57.19	Councilmember Sobieski	So site 72, which has two sections, one's zoned at 49 and the others at 70. Can we get the buffer from making them both 70?
04:58:06.22	Mary Weig	So those are Dan Morgan sites. What if we just zone them both at 70 instead of one at 49, one at 70.
04:58:15.43	Sergio	Well, and counsel, I think first we need to think about two issues. One is that addressed by the EIR and two.
04:58:22.72	Unknown	to the next one.
04:58:22.77	Mary Weig	I'm excited.
04:58:22.96	Unknown	asking.
04:58:23.58	Sergio	Has that been considered by the Planning Commission?
04:58:28.39	Mary Weig	Well, and guess what? Site 303, increasing density at site 303 was not considered by the planning commission. Beth, how are you?
04:58:35.39	Beth Thompson	No, no, no. This isn't increasing density. This is readjusting the allocation between the affordability of the units. So keeping the same total units, but increasing the
04:58:46.95	Beth Thompson	Very low.
04:58:49.40	Beth Thompson	Additionally.
04:58:50.85	Sergio	So, and I think-
04:58:52.32	Sergio	As a matter, of course, if you're keeping the same number of units, you're not changing the density, so you're not required to further study that under CEQA.
04:58:59.57	Mary Weig	So let me ask you this. We have the school site up on Nevada Street.
04:59:03.64	Mary Weig	on a school site, you can,
04:59:06.22	Mary Weig	include a teacher overlay,
04:59:10.32	Mary Weig	for teacher housing, so long as the school contributes, I think it's a dollar per thousand dollars for the cost of development of the site, they can impose an overlay on that. Can we explore that or can we not because it's not part of the EIR?
04:59:28.06	Beth Thompson	That's not part of the EIR and that might be a better exploration for the next cycle, just based on the work that's being done for the master plan on that side currently.
04:59:36.53	Mary Weig	plan.
04:59:38.03	Mary Weig	Like,
04:59:39.42	Mary Weig	All right, so, Beth, what are you recommending in terms of because we what we did what you're asking us to do is something different from what the planning Commission did the planning Commission reallocated affordability at site 303 to increase very low by 20 units reduce moderate by five units and reduce above moderate by 15 units.
05:00:00.39	Mary Weig	When you raise your hand, I'm in the middle of talking. I feel like I have to stop.
05:00:03.80	Mary Weig	Thank you.
05:00:03.82	Unknown	I just, okay.
05:00:06.58	Mary Weig	Thank you.
05:00:06.60	Unknown	So go ahead. What's your question? I just don't understand why we're having to do 303 again when we just had a significant conversation in light of that we couldn't change 303.
05:00:19.88	Beth Thompson	You're not increasing units on 303, but...
05:00:23.15	Beth Thompson	Can from the
05:00:23.38	Mary Weig	Bumble.
05:00:24.57	Mary Weig	You're asking us to reallocate affordability.
05:00:24.74	Beth Thompson	They're asking if
05:00:27.44	Mary Weig	So I'm asking what difference you're seeking from what we already did, which is we've increased density from 90 to 129. We've reallocated, well, the existing density is 129.
05:00:40.84	Mary Weig	We've already reallocated affordability to increase very low by 20 units. What are you seeking? What additional are you seeking?
05:00:50.73	Beth Thompson	I am recommending that to counter the various changes that have occurred to the other sites that site 303 be increased to 60 very low units and 25 low income units and maybe and maybe a slight reduction to either of those categories and
05:01:09.63	Beth Thompson	and the remaining above moderate.
05:01:12.14	Beth Thompson	And maybe it would be like, I can play with the numbers a little bit, but something
05:01:17.34	Beth Thompson	significantly higher for the very low and a little higher for the low.
05:01:21.29	Mary Weig	Oh, Beth.
05:01:22.49	Mary Weig	Hold on right now.
05:01:27.52	Sergio	And I suspect that the reason Beth is making these recommendations is looking at the table she put on the screen last time, which indicated that we only had a
05:01:37.84	Sergio	2% above moderate buffer.
05:01:40.73	Sergio	Following the Council's cumulative changes, I suspect that Beth is suggesting we increase the above moderate buffer
05:01:47.60	Sergio	be slightly more than 2%.
05:01:50.72	Mary Weig	It's not the she's asking us to. So right now we have
05:01:57.06	Mary Weig	Let me...
05:01:57.13	Beth Thompson	Let me share my screen with the cumulative. So as the changes were being made.
05:02:03.28	Mary Weig	I want to see 303.
05:02:05.71	Beth Thompson	So this
05:02:07.83	Beth Thompson	current bottom number here.
05:02:10.35	Beth Thompson	has
05:02:11.29	Beth Thompson	is uses 303 to offset the various changes.
05:02:16.76	Beth Thompson	This is
05:02:18.41	Beth Thompson	These two rows here have
05:02:22.21	Beth Thompson	A buffer for very low, a buffer for low, a buffer for moderate, barely a buffer for above moderate, and then
05:02:29.51	Beth Thompson	an overall buffer, and this is with increasing
05:02:33.92	Beth Thompson	303s, very low and low. So we could increase those a little less. We could reduce these buffers a bit.
05:02:40.21	Beth Thompson	and keep a few more above moderate, but it needs to be increased
05:02:44.80	Beth Thompson	above the previous change.
05:02:47.89	Mary Weig	And so Beth, have you discussed with, okay. So I have a page in your presentation that's called Realistic Capacity and RENA Buffer.
05:02:57.87	Unknown	Mm-hmm.
05:02:59.13	Mary Weig	But it doesn't have, it's not this slide. Is this slide in our packet?
05:03:07.25	Beth Thompson	No, this is a slide I've been making as you're discussing these various changes tonight. So this is kind of a live slide.
05:03:12.87	Mary Weig	kind of a
05:03:15.31	Beth Thompson	Thank you.
05:03:15.35	Mary Weig	Got it. Okay. All right. So
05:03:18.03	Mary Weig	Um,
05:03:19.25	Mary Weig	The Planning Commission put...
05:03:22.76	Mary Weig	your slide that you gave us earlier had the Planning Commission recommendation, which had a RENA...
05:03:29.22	Mary Weig	buffer, which had 241
05:03:32.00	Mary Weig	very low units. You're recommending
05:03:34.72	Mary Weig	that we go to 245. Why are you asking us to go beyond what the Planning Commission recommended?
05:03:41.62	Beth Thompson	And so...
05:03:43.12	Beth Thompson	And maybe it's not that high. So let me change. I've just been
05:03:46.58	Beth Thompson	putting numbers out there to adjust to offset the other changes. So here, let me just tinker with it for a minute.
05:03:52.51	Mary Weig	it.
05:03:53.22	Mary Weig	So I recommend we stay as close to what the planning commission recommended as we can. They had 241 very low units.
05:04:01.40	Beth Thompson	Okay, so here I go.
05:04:02.01	Mary Weig	So here.
05:04:05.70	Beth Thompson	So I will update our numbers and you will see this is the, it's a little awkward to do some of these things live and not
05:04:15.74	Beth Thompson	seeing low and
05:04:20.38	Beth Thompson	So let me refresh our summary and see what that looks like.
05:04:34.36	SPEAKER_06	That's you at.
05:04:34.61	Mary Weig	That's you. We're more concerned with very low and low than with moderate and above moderate.
05:04:41.63	Mary Weig	Right.
05:04:45.73	Mary Weig	You have above moderate at...
05:04:49.78	Mary Weig	319 planning commission had it at 340. So that's fine.
05:04:53.71	Mary Weig	You have moderate at 181. Planning Commission had it at 186.
05:05:00.33	Beth Thompson	So if,
05:05:02.03	Beth Thompson	If we decrease the very low and low a bit, we can reduce, we can have less of, we can have more of an above moderate buffer and less of a very low and low. So with those changes, so reducing
05:05:15.24	Beth Thompson	The very low to 50 rather than 60, the low to 18, we can still have a buffer across the sites and make less changes to
05:05:26.04	Beth Thompson	site 303, but it still needs
05:05:28.27	Beth Thompson	So I'll just let you contemplate that, but some changes need to be made to 303.
05:05:34.11	Mary Weig	Okay, so the planning commission had 241 very low, you're saying 235.
05:05:39.65	Mary Weig	Is everybody OK with 235 instead of 241? OK, and that's still 18% instead of the 21% they had before. So that still is a buffer of 18%, which seems pretty healthy to me, Beth.
05:05:54.23	Beth Thompson	Okay, so this would be the buffer with the changes to 303.
05:05:54.26	Mary Weig	Okay.
05:05:58.43	Mary Weig	Okay, and one and we went from 157 low to 138 low with that, which is still a buffer of 20% instead of 37%. So are you saying a buffer of very, very low at 18% and at low at 20% you think that will be acceptable to HCD.
05:06:15.76	Beth Thompson	Thank you.
05:06:16.82	Mary Weig	Hey,
05:06:17.02	Beth Thompson	Bye.
05:06:17.21	Mary Weig	Thank you.
05:06:18.05	Beth Thompson	thinks that will be
05:06:20.74	Beth Thompson	It's similar to the buffer you had before. You could have us increase the units more at site 303 if you want that to be a larger buffer.
05:06:28.28	Mary Weig	I want to increase them by as few units. Sorry, we're not going to increase the units at 303 at all.
05:06:36.50	Mary Weig	We're going to shift affordability. I want to make as little shift as possible
05:06:44.02	Mary Weig	so that it's not
05:06:45.49	Mary Weig	red flagged as a major change.
05:06:53.32	Beth Thompson	I think we go with this. We'll be discussing with HCD this draft of the housing element. If they have specific recommendations, then they can let you know
05:07:04.02	Beth Thompson	What changes, you know, if they have further recommendations.
05:07:06.77	Mary Weig	Will you please send this slide to Brandon and to Walfred? Walfred, will you please add this slide to the pre, to the, um,
05:07:18.57	Mary Weig	De novo presentation that's in the staff report. It's exhibit 14 to the staff report.
05:07:27.29	Mary Weig	Is that okay, Beth? Absolutely. Okay, and may I have consensus for the recommendation from Beth? I'm seeing five nodding heads. Okay, perfect.
05:07:29.03	Beth Thompson	Absolutely.
05:07:37.69	Captain Hoffman	Just a quick comment, though. We're moving it now to make sure that we have buffers across the board.
05:07:47.19	Mary Weig	Correct. The lowest buffer is at 18%.
05:07:50.65	Captain Hoffman	Well, actually, the lowest is for the above market at 8%. Yes. Okay. At 8%. Yeah.
05:07:53.77	Mary Weig	Well, yes. Okay. At 8%. Yeah.
05:07:56.10	Captain Hoffman	Yeah.
05:07:57.06	Mary Weig	Okay. All right. Two other things I wanted to address before we move on to item 1B.
05:08:04.82	Mary Weig	is
05:08:07.96	Mary Weig	visitability,
05:08:09.97	Mary Weig	Thank you.
05:08:10.15	Mary Weig	We had a request from Sybil Boutelier that we adopt a visitability ordinance. We heard from our city attorney. We do not need to do that within the housing element. I would like to put that on future agenda items list for consideration. Now I have consensus for that. Okay. And the same with
05:08:27.69	Mary Weig	creating with revising any of our senior overlays. I'd like we can do that outside of the housing element. I'd like to give staff direction to consider revising our senior overlays to comport with council direction as appropriate. May I have consensus on that?
05:08:45.58	Mary Weig	I'm seeing five nodding heads. Okay.
05:08:47.90	Mary Weig	I'm
05:08:49.32	Mary Weig	Uh,
05:08:50.11	Mary Weig	Brandon and Beth and Neil, I believe we have given you all of the feedback that you need to move smartly ahead with the...
05:09:01.37	Mary Weig	housing element and Sergio is there anything else you need from us on item 1b on our 1a on our agenda
05:09:08.71	Sergio	No, not at this time. Thank you.
05:09:12.54	Brandon Phipps	Likewise, on my end, thank you for the feedback.
05:09:15.87	Mary Weig	Great, we're gonna move on to item 1B, discussion and direction regarding conduct of special election and proposed initiative ordinance
05:09:23.90	Mary Weig	ordinance 1022 and amending the city zoning map so we're not actually going to give
05:09:30.50	Mary Weig	So I propose that for items 1B and 1C, we take public comments since they're on our agenda and that we...
05:09:38.01	Mary Weig	depending on what your decision was on site 84, you give direction to staff to proceed with,
05:09:45.99	Mary Weig	with
05:09:47.19	Mary Weig	to move forward with preparing a ballot initiative, I would like to give direction to move forward
05:09:52.31	Mary Weig	with preparing a ballot initiative for Ordinance 1022.
05:09:57.75	Captain Hoffman	So.
05:09:58.09	Mary Weig	with some revisions to what was in the staff report because there were some mistakes.
05:09:58.10	Captain Hoffman	So...
05:10:03.67	Captain Hoffman	So right now, since we don't have HCD's comments,
05:10:08.01	Mary Weig	Right.
05:10:08.43	Captain Hoffman	to actually craft a ballot measure. We're not approving it.
05:10:12.95	Mary Weig	We're not approving it. We're just giving direction to continue to...
05:10:16.31	Mary Weig	I need you to work.
05:10:16.51	Captain Hoffman	We continue to work on it to incorporate at least the changes that were made tonight.
05:10:17.26	Mary Weig	Yes.
05:10:20.72	Mary Weig	And to correct some
05:10:23.47	Mary Weig	errors that I identified with staff earlier.
05:10:26.67	Captain Hoffman	And there may be, as we look at that language specifically, particularly after we hear from HCD, and we may have a sense.
05:10:34.35	Captain Hoffman	ourselves of two things different than we might predict tonight. One is the actual language.
05:10:40.43	Unknown	Yep.
05:10:40.70	Mary Weig	Thank you.
05:10:41.02	Captain Hoffman	And the second would be...
05:10:43.08	Captain Hoffman	of the timing.
05:10:43.70	Unknown	Thank you.
05:10:43.73	Mary Weig	me.
05:10:43.87	Unknown	Thank you.
05:10:44.29	Captain Hoffman	Because it's a special election and we have choices.
05:10:45.81	Mary Weig	Yeah.
05:10:47.16	Mary Weig	We're not able to identify the timing because we don't know when we will be able to certify our housing elements.
05:10:52.61	Mary Weig	We should give direction tonight to not proceed with a June special election as previously directed. And...
05:11:04.34	Mary Weig	So I want to give the minimum direction to keep them moving forward.
05:11:09.86	Mary Weig	in accordance with the other decisions we've made this evening. So is there a staff presentation, or can we simply go to public comments?
05:11:16.89	Brandon Phipps	Given the late hour, I would have only done a brief presentation. I think we can skip it.
05:11:22.60	Mary Weig	Okay, so I'm going to open it up to public comment on item 1B. First is Sophia Collier, then Peter Van Meter, then Michael Rex.
05:11:37.77	Sophia Collier	Thank you very much, Sophia Collier.
05:11:40.35	Sophia Collier	On the ballot for 10-22, one of the things that I would ask or just query is,
05:11:46.59	Sophia Collier	Is with Site 201 removed from the housing element, does it need to go on the ballot? I would say no.
05:11:54.66	Sophia Collier	Thank you.
05:11:56.90	Mary Weig	Thank you.
05:11:58.81	Sophia Collier	Thank you.
05:11:58.83	Mary Weig	Um,
05:12:00.24	Mary Weig	Peter Van Meter.
05:12:01.97	Peter Van Meter	Thank you.
05:12:02.98	Peter Van Meter	Yes, you heard a lot of testimony tonight about individual sites. You've heard a lot of testimony about other opportunities that are not included in the housing element, particularly the discussion on other sites that are potential in the marineship area.
05:12:17.27	Peter Van Meter	I strongly urge you
05:12:18.67	Peter Van Meter	Put the wording in your ballot measure.
05:12:20.66	Peter Van Meter	to include the repeal of Ordinance 1022 as part of your language in that ballot measure.
05:12:25.96	Peter Van Meter	This will change nothing in terms of zoning, land use policies, or anything else in the marineship. It simply gives you an opportunity with future options for sites for other uses to go into development agreements that go through a public process that will result in potential housing opportunities, with the result being something that the public is going to have direct input into a development agreement concept. It opens up your options and gives you the opportunity to increase the economic vitality of the area, as well as housing opportunities by including that repeal in that ballot measure. Thank you.
05:13:06.38	Mary Weig	Thank you. Michael Rex.
05:13:14.11	Michael Rex	Hi.
05:13:16.57	Michael Rex	I I've expressed concern that it might be a hard sell to completely repeal 1022.
05:13:24.64	Michael Rex	I think it'll scare people. It'll be citywide.
05:13:28.33	Michael Rex	And yet I heard tonight from a lot of people, they're scared by development agreements. They don't know what they are. It sounds like backroom deals, even though it wouldn't be.
05:13:37.16	Michael Rex	And if you appeal 1022, you don't have to even talk about development agreements.
05:13:45.44	Michael Rex	So it could really go either way. I think you have to decide.
05:13:50.56	Michael Rex	what is more likely to pass the ballot. And that's really going to depend on how it's shaped.
05:13:56.65	Michael Rex	If you decide to, you're not brave enough to go and repeal, put on the ballot just right
05:14:05.44	Michael Rex	Removing 10.
05:14:06.79	Michael Rex	22. I gave you a draft ballot measure, but I was told it was too complex. So I simplified it in one sentence.
05:14:17.76	Michael Rex	Um,
05:14:18.82	Michael Rex	uh...
05:14:19.73	Michael Rex	You're asking for relief from 1022 to allow development agreements on a case-by-case basis on specific sites where the property owners want to build housing units. Yes or no? That might be a softer sell, and we have plenty of time to explain it and politic it before it goes to vote. or you can be brave and propose appealing 1022 across the board. I welcome your discussion on those options. Thank you.
05:14:56.54	Mary Weig	Thank you. Is there anyone online, city clerk?
05:14:59.27	Blossene	Yes, we'll start with Babette McDougall.
05:15:08.00	Babette McDougall	Hello, good evening.
05:15:10.49	Babette McDougall	Can you hear me all right?
05:15:12.45	Blossene	Yes.
05:15:13.45	Babette McDougall	Thank you.
05:15:13.50	Blossene	Thank you.
05:15:13.80	Blossene	See you.
05:15:14.95	Babette McDougall	All right, thank you. So I'm sorry I had to repair home, but of course I have not stopped watching the unfoldings. First of all, I'd like to applaud Michael Rex because whether we like it or not, he is really good at laying out the game plan as it exists. You have choices.
05:15:34.25	Babette McDougall	And the choices are either going to win you the support of your voting constituents, many of whom you saw for the first time tonight.
05:15:44.70	Babette McDougall	And there are hundreds, if not thousands more.
05:15:48.82	Babette McDougall	Or,
05:15:49.86	Babette McDougall	You can ignore the will of your constituents and you can make your deals because this is exactly what Michael was referring to. You know, people are talking about, oh, my God, Michael's been seen here. Michael's been seen there. Michael's been seen the other place.
05:16:05.07	Babette McDougall	And there's always somebody, at least one other somebody, like on the city council, who's also involved. So all this stuff about secret deals is starting to percolate to the surface and folks are noticing. Hopefully you are too. This is why I appeal to you, please.
05:16:25.08	Babette McDougall	Please.
05:16:26.63	Babette McDougall	Think about consensus. You heard lots of voices tonight.
05:16:31.36	Babette McDougall	I urge you
05:16:33.05	Babette McDougall	And Joan, I applaud you because this is not easy.
05:16:36.99	Babette McDougall	You're the one that put democracy out front.
05:16:40.07	Babette McDougall	So we're counting on you.
05:16:42.02	Babette McDougall	We're counting on you to lead your constituents first.
05:16:45.90	Babette McDougall	because they're the ones
05:16:47.71	Babette McDougall	who have the power of the vote,
05:16:49.31	Babette McDougall	And they're already talking about
05:16:51.69	Babette McDougall	Oh my God, what if we have to launch a recall?
05:16:54.87	Babette McDougall	I'm not saying it's aimed at you, but I'm saying there are questions about recalls.
05:17:00.01	Babette McDougall	So you have to be mindful of this. I can see Ian himself.
05:17:04.48	Babette McDougall	really starting
05:17:05.87	Babette McDougall	to become more balanced. I see Melissa becoming more balanced.
05:17:11.01	Hoffman	Thank you.
05:17:11.05	Blossene	Thank you.
05:17:11.06	Hoffman	.
05:17:11.10	Hoffman	Thank you.
05:17:11.44	Blossene	Our next speaker is Sandra Bushmaker.
05:17:16.31	Sandra Bushmaker	Hi, I just wanted to speak. Since the beginning of the housing element, we've been talking about having to submit to the voters
05:17:23.97	Sandra Bushmaker	The question of 1022's application, yay or nay, on certain sites.
05:17:30.79	Sandra Bushmaker	And that is all. We have never, ever talked about repealing 10-22.
05:17:35.92	Sandra Bushmaker	At this point in time, I'm not in favor of repealing 10-22.
05:17:40.73	Sandra Bushmaker	or muddying up the ballot issue
05:17:43.21	Sandra Bushmaker	with
05:17:44.12	Sandra Bushmaker	at a rescission of 1022.
05:17:48.11	Sandra Bushmaker	We want this...
05:17:49.46	Sandra Bushmaker	to pass so we can get on with our housing element
05:17:53.29	Sandra Bushmaker	And we need to keep the ballot measure as simple as possible. Most residents don't even know what 1022 is.
05:18:00.58	Sandra Bushmaker	And remember, that was a ballot initiative voted by the people.
05:18:03.88	Sandra Bushmaker	to help limit the growth as much as possible in Sausalito.
05:18:09.01	Sandra Bushmaker	And I'm not in favor of putting that on the ballot to rescind 10-22.
05:18:15.06	Sandra Bushmaker	I think we should stay focused on the
05:18:17.99	Sandra Bushmaker	uh,
05:18:19.36	Sandra Bushmaker	the issues that have to be addressed with regard to our housing element and the application of 1022 to those sites and only those sites. Thank you.
05:18:30.97	Sandra Bushmaker	Thank you. City Clerk?
05:18:32.17	Blossene	Next speaker is Fred.
05:18:35.39	Mary Weig	Fred Moore?
05:18:42.66	Fred Moore	Can you hear me now? I guess I've got muted. I wholeheartedly support
05:18:44.69	Unknown	Yes.
05:18:47.69	Fred Moore	Peter's comments about repealing 1022.
05:18:50.59	Fred Moore	1022 is not just about housing. 1022 is about economic growth for the city, opportunities for the city to reap benefits, the residents of Sausalito to enjoy economic development, shops, et cetera, down in the Rinship area, which is a perfect place for this. Unfortunately, we're not back in the 1980s. No growth is not an option. The city has already mandated that. So to look at 1022 as a mechanism to stop growth in Sausalito is exactly contrary to the housing element.
05:19:24.41	Fred Moore	and our obligation with the states. Repealing 1022 is not a scary boogeyman. It's not going to kick people out of the marineship areas. It's not going to overtake the waterfront. There's existing, as Peter mentioned, there's existing zoning in place, regulations in place that will help preserve the typing, control of development, and allow the city to be involved in the process as well as the public. Please seriously consider repealing 1022. Thank you.
05:19:52.78	Fred Moore	City Carpenter.
05:19:53.12	Blossene	Thank you.
05:19:53.96	Blossene	Next speaker is Alice Merrill.
05:19:59.31	Alice Merrill	Good evening.
05:20:00.58	Alice Merrill	Thank you for hanging in there, you guys.
05:20:03.75	Alice Merrill	I believe that
05:20:06.28	Alice Merrill	1022 was probably
05:20:09.37	Alice Merrill	designed to slow down people who are developers who just want it.
05:20:14.67	Alice Merrill	do what they want to do and not listen to the people in the town. And,
05:20:19.96	Alice Merrill	That's what it looks like right now. So I hope that you don't
05:20:24.37	Alice Merrill	repeal 1022 or even bring it up. Thank you.
05:20:29.87	Alice Merrill	Thank you.
05:20:31.44	Blossene	Next speaker is John.
05:20:37.19	John DeRay	Thank you. It's clear if you read 1022. 1022 allows for redevelopment of the marineship into industrial maritime artists uses and developments. It does not, it just does not allow for residential rezoning. I think if you
05:21:05.14	John DeRay	submit the 1022 revision as you have it on the agenda with the specific current sites spelled out you have a decent chance of it passing any of the the other two options whether linking it to development agreements or getting rid of it all together i believe you will significantly diminish your chances of having that pass
05:21:32.90	John DeRay	I'm quite convinced of that. Thank you.
05:21:33.03	Blossene	I'm,
05:21:37.83	Blossene	The next speaker, Evan Jane Chris.
05:21:48.58	Blossene	He's on mute.
05:21:57.79	Blossene	And there are no more public speakers.
05:22:02.01	Mary Weig	OK, I'm going to close public comment, bring it back up here for discussion. My understanding is that any city action to place a city-sponsored ballot measure on the ballot is a discretionary action and subject to CEQA. And so if the city were to want to commence a ballot measure that repeals Ordinance 1022,
05:22:27.79	Mary Weig	I believe it would be subject to CEQA. Aside from that,
05:22:32.65	Mary Weig	We have.
05:22:33.85	Mary Weig	it.
05:22:34.53	Mary Weig	this, um,
05:22:36.70	Mary Weig	this staff report was a surprise to me because it listed sites other than the marine ship sites for 1022 approval and we had been talking
05:22:46.47	Mary Weig	four months about the need to
05:22:49.88	Mary Weig	Ask the voters.
05:22:51.33	Mary Weig	to exempt the Marin ship sites from the 1022
05:23:00.21	Mary Weig	traffic constraints. So a couple of things regarding the
05:23:07.03	Mary Weig	the sites listed on page three of the ordinance in the table. I'm looking at Brandon Phipps. So first, the top site is 39. There are three APNs and three addresses. One of the addresses is a Marin ship address. That's a typo. Is that correct, Mr. Phipps?
05:23:25.98	Brandon Phipps	I agree, Mayor, and appreciate your attention to detail. We will correct that.
05:23:30.10	Mary Weig	Okay. We also do list site 201. Now that we have removed site 201 as an opportunity site, it no longer needs to be listed in this table. Is that right?
05:23:42.99	Brandon Phipps	That is correct, with the caveat that we will work with HCD to receive their next round of feedback, understanding that additional changes may be warranted.
05:23:53.85	Mary Weig	Okay, and then we also list on here 1319 Bridgeway and 501 Humboldt and 303 Johnson.
05:24:02.06	Mary Weig	Some or all of those may have been subject of the revisions that we made tonight. I would like to give direction that you update the table with respect to those sites that we made changes to this evening.
05:24:18.83	Brandon Phipps	We will do, we will ensure consistency, thank you for that.
05:24:21.75	Mary Weig	Okay, and then in the resolution itself,
05:24:25.58	Mary Weig	on the second page of the resolution, there are two whereas clauses that refer to ordinance 1128. City Attorney, I believe those
05:24:35.76	Mary Weig	the references to 1128 should be removed from the
05:24:39.92	Mary Weig	1022.
05:24:41.56	Mary Weig	Resolution, I believe those were carryovers from when we initially were considering doing a single resolution for both ordinances.
05:24:49.05	Sergio	Yeah, we can certainly make that change. That's not a problem.
05:24:52.60	Mary Weig	So those were my...
05:24:55.45	Mary Weig	comments to
05:24:57.22	Mary Weig	Um,
05:24:58.89	Mary Weig	1022. Again, we're not going to take action. We're just giving direction to staff for this evening. So does anyone else wish?
05:25:06.49	Mary Weig	to give any direction to staff regarding
05:25:09.20	Mary Weig	the 1022 staff report and resolution and draft ordinance.
05:25:14.42	Captain Hoffman	I just think that the one thing that has been mentioned a few times is that in earlier drafts, you had numbers, site numbers.
05:25:26.18	Mary Weig	The site numbers are here.
05:25:28.00	Mary Weig	I...
05:25:28.96	Mary Weig	The site numbers are here and the APN and the address. What I did in the notes was place a description of where the site is.
05:25:36.29	Captain Hoffman	I was going to suggest that that would be good because most people would, for example, refer to the altimerocyte. Right.
05:25:43.93	Sandra Bushmaker	Thank you.
05:25:43.96	Unknown	Thank you.
05:25:44.00	Sandra Bushmaker	Thank you.
05:25:44.01	Captain Hoffman	as opposed to a number. Right. And even an address isn't always clear to the reader. So if we're looking to put something on the ballot that deals with specific sites and rezoning, we want to make sure people understand exactly what they're voting for on which sites. So that's my suggestion as we look toward putting something on the ballot at the appropriate time.
05:25:45.65	Sandra Bushmaker	Thank you.
05:25:45.72	Unknown	Right.
05:26:07.62	Mary Weig	To add to that, so for Site 39, I wrote Seafood Peddler. For...
05:26:13.17	Mary Weig	site 47 I wrote Bridgeway Marina for site 72 I wrote fangnian for site 79 I wrote Scott of Sausalito for site 81 I wrote Dario's high five so I will share this with CEDD but that's the type of clarity that I recommend we include for transparency.
05:26:32.24	Sergio	And keep in mind, council,
05:26:33.51	Mary Weig	Absolutely.
05:26:34.83	Sergio	that this ballot measure once adopted would be codified in your zoning code and would never change. So in terms of
05:26:41.88	Sergio	The descriptions that we give to these particular sites, while they may be germane now, we want to be mindful about how the germane they will be in perpetuity.
05:26:49.25	Mary Weig	Okay, so we could put it in the description rather than the actual...
05:26:55.92	Mary Weig	ordinance we could also this same table is in the staff report on page two so we could certainly include this in the staff report
05:27:04.91	Mary Weig	if not in the actual world.
05:27:06.69	Mary Weig	ballot measure.
05:27:08.79	Sergio	Yeah, I think, you know, appropriate public education about the sites is certainly going to be a key, key issue.
05:27:16.07	Mary Weig	Councilmember Sobieski.
05:27:17.28	Councilmember Sobieski	Thank you, Mayor. I'll start with a question for staff, for our city attorney. Sergio, I know you and I spoke about this earlier, exactly the question that the mayor brought up about whether a repeal of 1022 would trigger CEQA, and my understanding is, as long as the underlying zoning is not changed, and the FARs stay the same, that there would be no need for CEQA. Is that correct?
05:27:39.62	Sergio	Yeah, so the need for CEQA is going to depend on the exact contents of the ballot measure.
05:27:45.19	Sergio	The only instance where I could even plausibly see an argument that we
05:27:50.71	Sergio	Don't need CEQA as if the ballot measure literally has no potential for impact on the environment. So if you had a ballot measure that says Ordinance 1022 is repealed, but the same land use standards remain in effect.
05:28:01.28	Sergio	You are right, I think that would be a good argument that no sequ is required.
05:28:05.06	Sergio	Um,
05:28:06.02	Sergio	We'd also need to explain to the voters why they would be passing such a measure.
05:28:09.66	Councilmember Sobieski	And the only thing that would change in that event is that instead of a,
05:28:12.78	Councilmember Sobieski	vote of the people being required for
05:28:15.33	Councilmember Sobieski	a zoning change, the city council after its due process would be able to make such a change.
05:28:22.47	Sergio	Yes, and certainly anytime you're making those changes, that would also be subject to CEQA.
05:28:27.99	Councilmember Sobieski	Correct.
05:28:28.53	Councilmember Sobieski	Thank you.
05:28:28.61	Councilmember Sobieski	So.
05:28:29.83	Councilmember Sobieski	Thank you very much, Sergio. So my comment is I would be in favor of directing staff to
05:28:36.28	Councilmember Sobieski	come up with draft language for repealing 1022. It is germane to the housing issue for the reasons that we discuss and it's germane
05:28:45.91	Councilmember Sobieski	It's just apropos of the moment that we are in where we care also about our economic situation. As John DeRay mentioned, benign neglect of the property owner is partly the explanation of scenes like this. But 1022 is not working for housing. It's not working for our economy. I have a boat and need to, these are sites in the Marinship. This is not a good use of space. It may generate millions of dollars in tax revenue, but as was pointed out in public comment tonight, it generates one-tenth per acre. Why is the clock not...
05:29:22.22	Mary Weig	Why is the clock not on, city clerk? It is on.
05:29:25.60	Councilmember Sobieski	I don't see it. If I write in the corner. One-tenth per acre, the revenue of downtown. So if we just improve the economic utility of the land we have, we can have a more thriving working waterfront. More noise, more dust, more boats being worked on, more utility. But this isn't good land use. And the thing that 1022 tried to do was to keep this from being turning, turned into office parks and congratulations to the generations that did it because they succeeded in that. But something that was passed 40 years ago simply isn't serving us anymore. I have a boat and I need a place to store my trailer. But if we're thinking about putting housing in our park,
05:29:25.62	Mary Weig	I can see it.
05:30:07.23	Councilmember Sobieski	You know, when we as adults are prioritizing what we care about the most, I think there's somewhere else we can park our boat trailers. There is just a lot to do here. And it's it seems like everyone has a knee jerk reaction. Even here tonight, people said don't build in the Marin ship, but do something with machine shop, not even realizing the machine shop is in the Marin ship. This is in the Marin ship.
05:30:27.29	Councilmember Sobieski	Something here isn't going to affect the working waterfront.
05:30:29.86	Councilmember Sobieski	to get there.
05:30:31.43	Councilmember Sobieski	If we repeal 1022,
05:30:33.61	Councilmember Sobieski	then we would be able to
05:30:36.63	Councilmember Sobieski	Uh,
05:30:37.81	Councilmember Sobieski	And I really encourage people to look at 1022. Here's a copy of it.
05:30:41.64	Councilmember Sobieski	uh,
05:30:43.65	Councilmember Sobieski	It specifically prohibits any kind of agreements. It says that
05:30:51.43	Councilmember Sobieski	There could be no increase in commercial usage or density. We're talking about trying to fix our infrastructure without raising taxes. It's gonna carry millions of dollars more in tax revenue. And yet we have a law on the books that for 200 acres of our land in the city, we're prohibited from increasing commercial usage.
05:31:09.74	Councilmember Sobieski	It just doesn't make sense. If we repeal 1022...
05:31:13.69	Councilmember Sobieski	we would still have, well, commercial and industrial, we can't increase any kind of intensity by change of use. If we repeal 1022, we still have a long process of CEQA analysis,
05:31:27.46	Councilmember Sobieski	of Planning Commission presentations, especially if we use the Community Development Agreement, Article 10.81, that such projects take a long time of a lot of public engagement to approve.
05:31:40.33	Councilmember Sobieski	it's one incremental step forward the day after it was repealed nothing would change because all the far's and zoning restrictions would stay the same to change any of them would require sequa
05:31:48.99	Councilmember Sobieski	But it's a step forward and what it would end up us being able to do is what I said earlier.
05:31:53.95	Councilmember Sobieski	we'd be able to identify some sites that would enhance the working waterfront and allow us to migrate some housing from our parks to places along Bridgeway that make more sense.
05:32:08.02	Mary Weig	I'm just going to rejoin that discussion.
05:32:12.61	Mary Weig	Placing that ballot initiative on our ballot this year would undermine the 1022 ballot initiative that we need to pass in order to enact our, implement our housing element. And placement of that, seeking that approach would absolutely result in litigation against the city.
05:32:31.97	Mary Weig	And we are in a very high risk profile right now.
05:32:35.28	Mary Weig	And we can't afford to defend expensive lawsuits, but there are enough people in town
05:32:40.67	Mary Weig	who would be worried about deferring
05:32:43.90	Mary Weig	Um,
05:32:45.32	Mary Weig	judgment to
05:32:47.17	Mary Weig	this city council that they would
05:32:51.29	Mary Weig	take whatever action they could to prevent that change. So I...
05:33:00.91	Mary Weig	I,
05:33:02.41	Mary Weig	hesitate at this juncture to
05:33:06.58	Mary Weig	expand the ambit of any ballot measure concerning
05:33:12.08	Mary Weig	1022. I believe a more rational course is to get this housing element adopted
05:33:19.30	Mary Weig	be able to defend existing litigation against the city,
05:33:23.00	Mary Weig	make sure that we're able to meet our
05:33:25.39	Mary Weig	Um,
05:33:26.29	Mary Weig	Zoning ordinance requirements by the deadline in January without risking the Adverse votes for too broad of a 1022 Ordinance and then you know be more creative next year when we consider the next Amendment to the housing element, so I think the priority is to get our zoning ordinance implemented We need the ballot initiatives to do that and
05:33:52.34	Mary Weig	And I,
05:33:53.49	Mary Weig	would hate to
05:33:55.19	Mary Weig	fail.
05:33:56.71	Mary Weig	be subject to builder's remedy all because we tried to do too much too fast. So that would be my concern. Thank you.
05:34:05.02	Ian	Yeah.
05:34:07.63	Ian	I think if we could build on the discussions that we had that got us this far and the sort of negotiated –
05:34:16.04	Ian	parcels that we have in the marine ship now, I mean substantial partials when you look at them,
05:34:20.95	Ian	substantial deviations from what we've had in the past of housing and the marineship and the negotiated consensus plans that we have now. They're quite large. I mean, you can't deny that if you look at it.
05:34:33.94	Ian	And to build on that, I mean, I think there is further consensus of additional parcels in the marinship for housing. And so I do think that there is additional parcels.
05:34:47.98	Ian	areas.
05:34:50.24	Ian	down there that are removed from
05:34:52.91	Ian	the industrial areas of the working waterfront that are available for further exploration of housing. And I think people are interested in that. The issues are clear, and everybody knows the issues about parcels that are, you know, adjacent to working shipyard areas and the protection of those working sites.
05:35:20.97	Ian	those, sorry, those working shipyard sites. So, you know, and then if you just, as you said, I'm looking at the 1022 ordinance right now, and it's clear it's meant to protect commercial and industrial zones and to keep that economic driver going. I mean, if you look at our financial reports, which you and I love to do, Ian, you know, it's the parcel tax that we have. Our property taxes and our sales tax are largely equal and are at about $6 million each in revenue, and largely it has to do with, you know, it doesn't have to do with selling small tchotchke things. It has a lot to do with high-priced industrial sales and, you know,
05:36:11.60	Ian	complicated things that are made sometimes down in the marine ship. And we'd like to make more things down there. And we'd like to make high-priced boats and sell more boats and sell more houseboats. And those things are made down in the marine ship. And so we need to protect that revenue source down there. And it's a stable and it's a powerhouse. And we'd like to support that. So that's my perspective.
05:36:37.21	Mary Weig	All right. So we've given direction. Anyone else who wants to make comment on this or we'll move on? Go ahead.
05:36:43.30	Unknown	I understand that there is a potential for compromising the integrity of the housing element, which I've been clear has been driving a lot of the decisions I've made with regards to housing, but I would not be opposed to a future agenda discussion about the relevance of 1022 outside of the context of passing this ballot initiative, because I do think that there are components of it that are rather dated, and also generally we should have a conversation revisiting to the point of Council members obie ski what sites make sense in the marineship and what way how do we you know address those so while i don't think in the context of this ballot measure given what we need to do to certify necessarily make sense i don't want to not talk about it and i think we absolutely need to agenda it
05:37:25.14	Captain Hoffman	And I think apart from my own comment is apart from housing, how do we best protect the working waterfront? And that is a different discussion, I think, somewhat.
05:37:38.25	Captain Hoffman	uh... that
05:37:39.53	Captain Hoffman	It does not depend upon keeping the status quo.
05:37:43.36	Captain Hoffman	I think there are alternatives that we eventually may want to talk about, but I don't think now's the time. I don't want to confuse the matter. I definitely want to see the limited measure regarding our housing element pass.
05:37:57.76	Captain Hoffman	We're motivated primarily to make sure we comply with the law as it is, even though we don't like it, and that we stay out of builder's remedy. But I do agree with Ian that we need to be thinking forward, either for next housing element cycles or sooner than later, to start working on seeing what development agreements actually look like, where the sites could be, where it would be relevant to have an alternate use, et cetera. So I'm hesitant to jump into this debate now because I think it's a little ahead of the task immediately, which is next time we meet, hopefully, or
05:38:34.66	Captain Hoffman	Soon thereafter, we're going to want to call for an election.
05:38:37.73	Captain Hoffman	And I don't want to have that election be confused with issues that take away from the main point, which is we want this housing element to be confirmed. We've made some changes, I think, for the better.
05:38:51.54	Captain Hoffman	And it's not a static thing over time.
05:38:54.17	Captain Hoffman	We're going to have an opportunity to visit this, and I agree with Ian. We should be thinking about this now and act as soon as we can.
05:39:01.21	Unknown	Yeah.
05:39:01.33	Unknown	Thank you.
05:39:01.70	Captain Hoffman	you
05:39:02.42	Captain Hoffman	to do some important things to look at the marineship in particular and the commercial zones and to see what restrictions are holding us back from doing the right thing. Things that don't interfere with the working waterfront. You know, it's a complex topic, but one that we do need to address. It's going to hang over our head every time we have a debate about housing, unless we get on with that discussion. At least that's my view.
05:39:30.01	Mary Weig	Okay.
05:39:33.03	Mary Weig	Everybody's had, okay.
05:39:37.18	Councilmember Sobieski	You're not a fan spot with you, and let me speak, but I'll just say that just for your consideration, obviously, I don't have even one other person to agree with me exactly to do something. But the thought is, if we take paths to give ourselves more options, it helps in the case of things not passing.
05:39:53.67	Councilmember Sobieski	So I put it to you to consider that when we're thinking about the exact back about language and our path forward on
05:40:01.30	Councilmember Sobieski	uh changes to some of our old ordinances is that uh you know there's no guarantee that the mlk ballot initiative will pass and if it doesn't where did that put us in december of 2025 and if we haven't done the spade work ahead of time to give ourselves some options like freeing ourselves up to negotiate community development agreements or or to rezone some properties right along bridgeway in the marine ship then we might actually face builder's remedy so you guys are the real estate attorneys and probably could sort this out better than me but my own game theory chess playing sees that as a potential risk so while it's all well and good to wait and do this at our leisure i think there's an argument to do it sooner rather than later
05:40:46.69	Mary Weig	I'll also point out that we adopted priorities at the beginning of this year that included addressing infrastructure and
05:40:56.73	Mary Weig	generating additional revenue. It did not contemplate spending more money on environmental review or, you know,
05:41:04.82	Unknown	you
05:41:05.10	Mary Weig	undertaking another amendment to the housing element beyond what we've already planned. So I think we should place this on future agenda items, bring it to agenda setting committee, and we'll figure out how best to calendar it. Speaking of which, peripherally related to our decision tonight to not move forward with transmitting to the registrar of voters on March 4, two ballot initiatives. We're now removing two agenda items from our March 4th agenda.
05:41:39.19	Mary Weig	And so our March 4th agenda also includes
05:41:43.93	Mary Weig	adopting a updated zoning program. Are we able to do that, Director Phipps, without knowing what our housing element is? Or is that something else that should be postponed?
05:41:56.52	Brandon Phipps	Well, I think that's a good matter for discussion. I appreciate you bringing it up, Mayor. What I would say is, you know, similar to this evening, the council may always engage in a discussion between themselves and with the public in order to receive comment and provide direction to staff on what a final version of a document might look like and what they would prefer to see. That being said, I think based on where we are, we are all clear that we can take action.
05:42:20.13	Mary Weig	We have to publish our agenda tomorrow for next Tuesday. And so it's important that we understand what's going to be on that agenda.
05:42:27.25	Brandon Phipps	I agree with you, staff is prepared, as we have done last week, one day turnaround to support an agenda the following week.
05:42:36.58	Mary Weig	and on the zoning, the updates to the zoning ordinance that do not require a ballot initiative? Or can we do that without adopting our housing element?
05:42:48.40	Brandon Phipps	I would defer to city attorney on that discussion.
05:42:51.80	Sergio	Yeah, I would recommend the council not move forward with introducing
05:42:58.33	Sergio	ordinance for rezoning until we have decided and
05:43:03.11	Sergio	finally adopted the housing element in part because our zoning is required to be consistent with the general plan and
05:43:10.40	Sergio	I am concerned about the ability of the city council and the city to make findings regarding consistency when
05:43:16.26	Sergio	our housing element is not yet adopted. And maybe the rezoning does not reflect what is currently in our
05:43:23.97	Sergio	present adopted housing element.
05:43:26.58	Sergio	So.
05:43:26.68	Mary Weig	And are we able to
05:43:29.11	Mary Weig	The planning commission already considered the odds. Are we able to consider the odds next Tuesday?
05:43:34.18	Sergio	Um,
05:43:35.15	Sergio	Potentially, yes, we do need to look into that a little further, in part because in light of
05:43:42.61	Sergio	We want to make sure that
05:43:44.30	Sergio	The odds as proposed is not inconsistent with the city's currently adopted housing element. Otherwise, again, you would have issues with making those findings and you couldn't move forward.
05:43:53.67	Mary Weig	So we made a promise that we would publish our agenda on the Wednesday prior to the Tuesday meeting. I'm asking for a mulligan.
05:43:53.75	Sergio	CITY.
05:44:03.54	Mary Weig	in this week that we publish our agenda on Thursday to
05:44:08.03	Unknown	Yes.
05:44:09.46	Mary Weig	Well, if we are able to consider, we have so much on our agenda this year. I've been struggling to get all of our department heads heard. I do want, we are gonna hear from, I wanna hear from the Sausalito Police Department regarding their budget.
05:44:23.77	Councilmember Sobieski	Go ahead. Any chance to hear the appeal on Tuesday?
05:44:27.03	Mary Weig	No, we don't have enough notice. We could have, yeah.
05:44:32.16	Sergio	And,
05:44:32.90	Sergio	Mayor, we don't actually have a future agenda items.
05:44:32.95	Mary Weig	You're the one.
05:44:33.80	Councilmember Sobieski	Thank you.
05:44:33.83	Mary Weig	beyond it.
05:44:37.41	Sergio	on the agenda tonight for discussion. So
05:44:40.26	Sergio	I would suggest that we have this, um,
05:44:44.26	Sergio	Discussion about the next agenda with the agenda setting committee.
05:44:47.48	Mary Weig	I will. I'm simply asking to publish our
05:44:51.82	Mary Weig	agenda on Thursday instead of Wednesday.
05:44:54.03	Ian	Here's my thought. Our staff has been incredibly overworked this past month. They have been struggling to keep up and to get the reports. They've got them out.
05:45:07.97	Ian	But I know from talking to them and
05:45:12.07	Ian	I know their schedule, and I saw them up until 1 o'clock last week.
05:45:16.30	Ian	of the PC and turning around pretty quick to get this agenda out and getting prepared. So I would say let's take a breather and let these guys get caught up and let us get caught up.
05:45:29.97	Mary Weig	So I can't responsibly say yes to that without seeing what's on the future agenda. And I don't have that. I would not be opposed to that.
05:45:39.20	Mary Weig	Me either. City Manager, what are your thoughts?
05:45:43.34	Unknown	We can get the agenda out on Thursday, as we have in the past, and we'd appreciate it.
05:45:48.52	Mary Weig	All right, so I'm gonna leave it to the agenda setting committee tomorrow to convene and make a decision about whether to cancel the March 4th meeting or
05:45:57.56	Mary Weig	put out an agenda for the march.
05:45:59.84	Unknown	Mayor, if I may, we have business for March the 4th.
05:46:00.23	Diana Dempsey	Mayor, if I may,
05:46:01.02	Mary Weig	Yeah.
05:46:04.04	Unknown	It just won't be those things. So canceling the meeting I think would set us back. Obviously we have a police presentation and a PG&E presentation.
05:46:04.11	Mary Weig	Yeah, we have other businesses.
05:46:11.25	Captain Hoffman	And with respect to the odds, obviously, there's a lot of work that was done both by the peer review group. Documents are put together. The Planning Commission thoroughly reviewed it. It seems to me that at least on the policy side, we could have that before us and discuss it. If there are some technical things that need to be worked out before it's finalized, that's a separate question.
05:46:35.31	Mary Weig	Again, we're going, the city attorney has asked that the agenda setting committee have this, because this is not on our agenda.
05:46:41.69	Captain Hoffman	I think we can always talk about the process and schedule.
05:46:48.66	Captain Hoffman	under the Brown Act.
05:46:49.67	Mary Weig	We don't have a future agenda item on our agenda tonight.
05:46:54.53	Mary Weig	we only have three housing element items.
05:46:58.28	Captain Hoffman	Mayor Mrakas- Well, my understanding and correct me city attorney if i'm wrong, but if we are want to schedule something we can talk about scheduling.
05:47:07.85	Sergio	And usually to avoid any potential concerns with the Brown Act, we do normally have a specific place on our agenda for that discussion under future agenda items.
05:47:19.17	Mary Weig	All right.
05:47:20.28	Mary Weig	Anyway.
05:47:20.98	Mary Weig	I think we've gotten feedback. I appreciate it. You can't leave yet. You still have to do one more agenda item. I'm the only one who gets to leave right now.
05:47:28.81	Mary Weig	Yeah.
05:47:30.33	Mary Weig	So next on our agenda is item 1C,
05:47:34.88	Mary Weig	Discussion and direction regarding submitting to qualified voters of the city of Sausalito initiative ordinance amending ordinance 1128.
05:47:42.29	Mary Weig	Because this concerns the MLK site, I have to recuse myself
05:47:46.51	Mary Weig	And so...
05:47:47.69	Mary Weig	And we do have, we do. This is why you want to keep my Tuesdays being, I'm kidding.
05:47:49.14	Unknown	This is why you want to
05:47:52.77	Mary Weig	We do have two speaker cards. I'm sure there are other people online. So with great pleasure, I'm going to pass the gavel.
05:47:59.20	Mary Weig	to the vice mayor
05:48:01.31	Mary Weig	Thank you.
05:48:01.34	Unknown	All right. Good night.
05:48:03.77	Mary Weig	And I will excuse myself.
05:48:03.79	Unknown	and I will excuse myself. Thank you.
05:48:05.34	Captain Hoffman	Great job, Mary. We got to do a lot of things.
05:48:05.63	Mary Weig	job.
05:48:05.83	Unknown	Thank you.
05:48:05.86	Mary Weig	Mary Weig.
05:48:06.37	Unknown	I'm not sure.
05:48:06.42	Mary Weig	We got through a lot of things. We got through so much. Congratulations to all, and thanks to so many members of the public for your really thoughtful participation.
05:48:15.40	Unknown	Thank you.
05:48:20.56	Captain Hoffman	So 1128, I know the mayor has a conflict. And the question, though, is whether to put something on the ballot for that or a discussion about that topic.
05:48:34.40	Captain Hoffman	and
05:48:35.87	Emmett Yeazell	Let's see.
05:48:36.27	Captain Hoffman	Thank you.
05:48:37.56	Captain Hoffman	Right, I understand. I understand. I just want to make sure everyone understands what the issue is before. And are there public comment cards? Anyone in the audience?
05:48:49.59	Blossene	I give them to Joan. Joan, do you have a slip?
05:48:51.19	Unknown	Joan, do you have a slips? The public comment slips?
05:48:51.98	Mary Weig	lips.
05:48:52.13	Blossene	Thanks.
05:48:52.20	Blossene	Thank you.
05:48:52.29	Mary Weig	Absolutely.
05:48:55.02	Mary Weig	The vice mayor, there were two slips.
05:49:01.04	Mary Weig	Yeah.
05:49:01.18	Unknown	Thank you.
05:49:01.28	Mary Weig	Thank you.
05:49:03.91	Unknown	Thank you.
05:49:05.85	Unknown	And you also forgot your jacket. Yeah.
05:49:08.74	Captain Hoffman	We can show of hands in the audience.
05:49:13.08	Unknown	Sophia and Michael.
05:49:14.88	Unknown	Sure. OK.
05:49:17.08	Captain Hoffman	Sophia Collier, you're welcome to make your comments.
05:49:20.54	Unknown	Are we going to not okay.
05:49:22.58	Sophia Collier	Okay, thank you very much.
05:49:24.47	Sophia Collier	I mean, one of the things that I was disappointed that we weren't able to cover was
05:49:28.94	Sophia Collier	would have been a discussion that could have obviated the need for the ballot.
05:49:33.19	Sophia Collier	in which it would have been possibly when the discussion was going on,
05:49:37.31	Sophia Collier	possibly finding another site
05:49:39.59	Sophia Collier	that could have potentially
05:49:41.33	Sophia Collier	filled the need for those few units. Because I think everybody here knows that those, everybody heard it. You know, that's our park. You know, we build something there. You know, that's going to be forever for a long time. So certainly there are ways to build there and, you know, where it could be okay and work out. You know, my studios there probably involve tearing down the buildings.
05:50:04.04	Sophia Collier	But I'm resigned to that.
05:50:05.95	Sophia Collier	But I think that I wish that where there were, now that there's a little more time,
05:50:10.15	Sophia Collier	to just really take a look and see is there any other sites
05:50:14.17	Sophia Collier	that we're down to such a small number here.
05:50:16.90	Sophia Collier	Would there be some other site
05:50:19.01	Sophia Collier	And I had mentioned I texted a few people
05:50:21.76	Sophia Collier	times to some people, I'll not mention who, you know, but basically to see if
05:50:26.40	Sophia Collier	There were some other ways to just find those few units someplace and then save that park. You know, I'd love to see that.
05:50:32.88	Sophia Collier	So that would be on that. That's on the topic of the ballot initiative that we wouldn't need it.
05:50:32.90	Captain Hoffman	So that's-
05:50:38.53	Captain Hoffman	It would obviate the need is what you're saying. But just to point out, I thought we had a very extensive discussion about the possibility of
05:50:40.40	Sophia Collier	what you're saying, but just.
05:50:46.97	Captain Hoffman	reducing to zero, in other words, taking a lot, if we could satisfy our targets for low and such. That was the point of that discussion, and we are limited, as was mentioned earlier, by the fact that other sites that might be obvious to the general public were not evaluated under CEQA, so we didn't have the capacity today to make a move.
05:50:49.64	Kirk Hasson	Right.
05:51:09.46	Sophia Collier	today to make it.
05:51:10.17	Sophia Collier	These were the ones that I had identified a specific group or specific site set.
05:51:16.96	Sophia Collier	where I think possibly there could be a threaded needle.
05:51:20.04	Sophia Collier	Again, I don't know if it would work or not,
05:51:22.27	Sophia Collier	Just an idea that came up, if it would work,
05:51:24.97	Sophia Collier	wouldn't that be great? And again, I spent a lot of time looking over these sites, so I have a very strong understanding of them. So I offered that one option to be considered.
05:51:36.68	Captain Hoffman	Okay, thank you. Thank you. Michael Rex, looks like you're next.
05:51:39.86	Captain Hoffman	Yes, I.
05:51:40.46	Michael Rex	Thank you.
05:51:40.53	Captain Hoffman	on
05:51:40.67	Michael Rex	on the ballot measure for MLK.
05:51:49.29	Michael Rex	You made the decision on the housing element already about 29 units per acre. So that's a done deal.
05:51:58.17	Michael Rex	Although you could adjust the size of instead of the 1.8 acres or whatever it is, if you want to get closer to 30 units instead of 50 units, you could adjust the size. And I think you still could do that.
05:52:12.54	Michael Rex	maybe in another action. The other one is I think you...
05:52:18.01	Michael Rex	You also made a recommendation for senior housing,
05:52:23.76	Michael Rex	Um,
05:52:24.59	Michael Rex	only a recommendation because it's not in the housing element to have a senior overlay,
05:52:29.84	Michael Rex	If you're going to make a recommendation, I would suggest you're not just limited seniors. I think there was a benefit to have teachers and first responders and city workers. And I think socially it's good to mix different types of people together and not just all the seniors living together.
05:52:49.43	Michael Rex	And if it's a recommendation, why not broaden the recommendation? It might.
05:52:54.01	Michael Rex	help.
05:52:54.58	Michael Rex	get the vote.
05:52:55.93	Michael Rex	And then the last one.
05:52:57.40	Michael Rex	This is related.
05:52:59.89	Michael Rex	I wouldn't present it without a model that really shows where those units would go, what it would look like, and it'd be a properly done model, and maybe even use ViewSync to show what kind of views it might impact.
05:53:20.08	Michael Rex	Food for thought.
05:53:20.87	Captain Hoffman	Thank you.
05:53:21.26	Michael Rex	Thank you.
05:53:21.54	Captain Hoffman	Thank you.
05:53:22.17	Captain Hoffman	Any other comments?
05:53:23.62	Blossene	Yes, we have the bet McDougall.
05:53:30.42	Babette McDougall	Good evening once again. So I would just like to, in fact, echo. Oh, by the way, can you hear me all right?
05:53:38.35	Unknown	Yes, we do.
05:53:38.60	Babette McDougall	Yes.
05:53:39.21	Babette McDougall	Okay, thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you so much for stepping up on this occasion. This is actually a really important night.
05:53:46.65	Babette McDougall	And everybody that, like myself, had to vacate the council chamber, we're all watching. So you haven't lost your audience. So I'm glad to see that there's this measured approach toward consensus. That's really encouraging. I want to thank you for your personal role in that.
05:54:04.39	Babette McDougall	And also I want to really applaud Captain Hoffman because she is the stalwart. She's the one that everybody counts on for always the correct interpretation of law
05:54:15.92	Babette McDougall	and ethics.
05:54:17.71	Babette McDougall	And this is something that our council really needs to step up to. So I'm really looking forward to a
05:54:24.12	Babette McDougall	to use your
05:54:25.81	Babette McDougall	Current phrase, rigorous debate.
05:54:28.39	Babette McDougall	going forward on how we can equitably
05:54:31.85	Babette McDougall	As a community, it doesn't matter if you're a positive or a negative, whatever that's supposed to mean, I still don't know. And frankly, I don't care. What I care about are neighbors working together.
05:54:48.28	Babette McDougall	That's what I care about. And Stephen, I'm going to count on you just as I count on Joan, and we have always counted on Jill.
05:54:56.65	Babette McDougall	I want to see you all come up, and I'm feeling encouraged by both Melissa and Ian, but there is no
05:55:03.18	Babette McDougall	way to get around the fact
05:55:05.53	Babette McDougall	that just in the last 10 days alone,
05:55:08.36	Babette McDougall	the unprecedented number of reports of special deals going down around town. It's very troubling.
05:55:15.40	Babette McDougall	to see somebody like an architect in a meeting with a council member, at least one. And then there's also a developer or a property owner. I mean, come on, how many times do we have to hear this?
05:55:27.42	Babette McDougall	There's a reason why there's a lack of public trust.
05:55:33.41	Blossene	No further public speakers.
05:55:34.97	Captain Hoffman	Okay, thank you. Bringing the issue back to Council, we're not able to take an action tonight. I think this is a matter that we need to wait and discuss at a future time after we've heard from HCD. This issue is pretty straightforward. It's an up or down on one site, so there's not much to debate in terms of language if and when we get to it. One question, though, for Sergio has to do with timing, just so we're all informed. We're looking to call a special election. We have flexibility as to the date of the election.
05:56:12.15	Sergio	Yeah, that's correct. Basically, you have to call a special election not less than 88 days away.
05:56:19.81	Sergio	It doesn't have to be on a particularly established election date, although the council should probably consider
05:56:25.94	Sergio	trying to align it with one if it's available, in part because of the cost savings of consolidation.
05:56:32.81	Sergio	So, yes.
05:56:34.83	Captain Hoffman	Okay.
05:56:35.44	Captain Hoffman	And then in terms of I know there's a consolidated election in August, the latter part of August, at the county level. And I think the only other one in the remainder of this year that we would have time to qualify for on a consolidated basis is November. But we're not limited to the consolidated. If we want to incur the extra expense, we can choose a different date. Is that? That's correct, yes. So we're all clear on that point.
05:56:52.30	John Flavin	November.
05:57:01.00	John Flavin	That's correct.
05:57:07.60	Captain Hoffman	Any other comments at this point?
05:57:10.83	Captain Hoffman	There's no action to be taken at this point.
05:57:14.42	Captain Hoffman	How does it feel to say adjourned, meeting's adjourned?
05:57:19.03	Captain Hoffman	Hit the gavel. Okay, I'm going to do that. We are now adjourned.
05:57:21.88	Captain Hoffman	Thank you.
05:57:25.71	Brandon Phipps	Thank you, council members.

City Council Feb 25, 2025

City Council Meeting Summary

City Council Meeting Transcript

City Council Mar 4, 2025

City Council Feb 18, 2025

Positive People for Sausalito