City of Sausalito Implementation of Housing Element Programs City Council Meeting | May 20, 2014

Background Recap of City Council Direction - April 22, 2014 Take all comments from public Bring back more options Look at all alternatives Recap of Subcommittee meeting - May 13,

History of VMU/HMU Program 3

Record of Public Meetings December April 2012: 42 HETF Meetings (Advertised with Sausalito Currents, distribution list) 1 Mobile Candidate Site Meeting (Advertised with Sausalito Currents, distribution list, posting at 9 candidate sites, flyer to residents/property owners within 300 feet of sites) 7 CC Meetings (Advertised with Sausalito Currents, distribution list) 1 Joint PC/CC Meeting (Advertised with Sausalito Currents, distribution list) 1 PC Meeting (Advertised with Sausalito Currents, distribution list) 3 Public Workshops (Advertised with flyers in the Marinscope, flyers to neighborhood groups, postcard to all residents/property owners, Sausalito Currents, distribution list) 4

Record of Public Meetings April 2012 – October 2012: 2 HETF Meetings (Advertised with Sausalito Currents, distribution list, flyer to all occupants/property owners of four “MUO” sites (now “HMU”) within 300 feet, posting on MUO sites) 3 CC Meetings (Advertised with a legal ad in the Marin IJ, Sausalito Currents, distribution list) 7 PC Meetings (Advertised with a legal ad in the Marin IJ, Sausalito Currents, distribution list) 5

History of VMU/HMU Program City was not able to adopt Element for period due to rezoning controversy M-Group hired Fall 2011 in midst of rezone discussion for Element December 3, 2011 Community Workshop  Pursue balanced, low-impact approach to address RHNA  Focus on infill, rather than large vacant lots and open space  Explore mixed-use infill in commercial districts 6

History of VMU/HMU Program February 2012 Draft Housing Element  Low impact strategy based on ADUs, liveaboards, and infill sites under existing zoning  HCD comment letter (April 2012) “Element relies primarily on liveaboards and second units to address needs of lower income households” “City lacks adequate sites for higher- density housing to meet needs of families”  Public Advocates comment letter “Small sites can not realistically accommodate affordable housing” 7

History of VMU/HMU Program Mixed Use Overlay (MUO) Concept  Allow 100% residential project on select commercial sites  Initially applied to 4 sites  Based on community and decision-maker input, MUO refined: “HMU” Horizontal Mixed Use Limited to 2 sites with 8 unit capacity - smallest size able to justify as "realistic for development" with affordable multi-family rental housing Separate “VMU” Vertical Mixed Use program created applicable throughout CN-1, CR, CC 8

History of VMU/HMU Program June 2012 Revised Draft Housing Element  Program 8a – VMU Requirements in Commercial Districts  Program 8b – HMU Incentives in Commercial Districts  Public Advocates felt HMU should be more extensive  HCD Comment Letter (August 16, 2012) Confirmed two HMU sites adequate to address multi-family sites requirement Finding of Housing Element compliance based on “Program 8 to adopt flexible development standards for multi-family housing in mixed- use districts” 9

Affordability Income Category (AMI) Max. IncomeMax. Monthly Rent Very Low (50%)$39,600$990 Low (80%)$63,350$1,584 Moderate (120%)$86,500$2,163 One Person Household – Median Income: $72,100 *AMI: Area Median Income (Marin County) Two Person Household – Median Income: $82,400 Three Person Household – Median Income: $92,700 Income Category (AMI) Max. IncomeMax. Monthly Rent Very Low (50%)$42,250$1,056 Low (80%)$72,400$1,810 Moderate (120%)$98,900$2,473 Income Category (AMI) Max. IncomeMax. Monthly Rent Very Low (50%)$50,900$1,272 Low (80% AMI)$81,450$2,036 Moderate (120%)$111,250$2,781 Two Person Household – Median Income: $82,400 Three Person Household – Median Income: $92,700 One Person Household - Median Income: $72,100 AMI = Area Median Income 10

History of VMU/HMU Program VMU/HMU Program designed to:  Provide adequate sites with realistic development potential for multi-family rental housing (as required under “variety of housing types”)  VMU Purpose : Further encourage the provision of second-story residential in commercial zoning districts, including mixed income units  HMU Purpose : Allow ground floor residential on designated commercial sites to better accommodate family housing and help retain neighborhood character by reducing the need for increased building heights 11

Consequences of Not Adopting HMU Program 12

Original Sites Strategy 123 (40%) 93 (30%) 51 (16%) 24 (8%) 20 (6%) Commercial Zoning Liveaboards ADUs Built Residential Zoning Total Units:

Updated Sites Strategy 123 (50%) 51 (21%) 30 (12%) 24 (9%) Commercial Zoning Liveaboards Built Residential Zoning Total Units: (8%) ADUs 14

ADUs Built Residential Zoning Commercial Zoning 123 (40%) 93 (30%) 51 (16%) 24 (8%) 20 (6%) Total Units: 311 Original Sites Strategy Updated Sites Strategy 123 (50%) 51 (21%) 30 (12%) 24 (9%) Total Units: (8%) Built ADUs Liveaboards Commercial Zoning Liveaboards 15

Very LowLowModerate Above Moderate TOTALS RHNA TARGETS Approved/Built R-1 District Capacity 19 R-2-5 District Capacity 16 R District Capacity 50 R-3 District Capacity Commercial District Capacity Existing Liveaboard Future Liveaboards New Accessory Dwelling Units Existing Accessory Dwelling Units TOTALS Unit Capacity Over/Under RHNA Target: Sites and RHNA Buffer 16

Consequences of Not Adopting HMU Program RHNA carry-over of 16 very-low income units (AB 1233)  Rezoning of 24,000 s.f. site by January 2016  Site must have at least 16 unit capacity  At least 50% of rezoned sites must be all residential  Housing must be allowed “by right” 17

Map of Potential Rezone Sites 18

Consequences of Not Adopting HMU Program Importance of Housing Element Certification  RHNA becomes cumulative 16 Very Low (carry over) + 40 Very Low/Low (next cycle) = 56 Lower Income units for next cycle Housing Element  Risk of litigation  Loss of local control over future affordable housing  Ineligibility for State housing funds, related infrastructure funds 19

Possible Changes in Response to Concerns #1 - Two-tier system of concessions and incentives under the Density Bonus Ordinance 20

Density Bonus Ordinance: Tiered System Requires review/decision by Planning Commission Reduced minimum lot setbacks, lot sizes/dimensions, common/private open space Increased maximum building coverage (70%), maximum FAR (50%) Approval of mixed use zoning if it reduces residential development costs Requires review/recommendation by Planning Commission and approval by City Council. Reduced parking, beyond State Alternative Parking Standards Building heights not compliant with Municipal Code Section Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by applicant resulting in non-compliance with Municipal Code (e.g., impacts to primary views) Tier 1 Incentives Tier 2 Incentives 21

Possible Changes in Response to Concerns #2 – Remove the requirement that any upper level uses in the CN-1, CC and CR zones be residential #3 - Require 25% two-bedrooms instead of 30% three-bedrooms 22

Possible Changes in Response to Concerns #4 – Reduce or eliminate the mandated affordability of 50% very- low and low income units in the HMU overlay zone 23

Possible Changes in Response to Concerns #5 – Shift the HMU overlay concept to one or more sites in the CN-2 zoning district #6 – Remove the HMU overlay from one of the CN-1 sites and select a CN-2 site to replace it 24

Alternative Sites for HMU 25

Alternative Sites for HMU Consider CN-2 Zoning District for HMU program: 5 parcels 4 feasible sites 11,543 to 42,370 s.f. parcels Maximum 35% FAR allowed Built between 1958 – 1970 Assume density of 1 unit per 2,000 s.f. of land area 26

N CN-2 Area to 21 units per site 27

Residential Overlay Would allow Residential in the CN-2 Set density (1 unit per 2,000 s.f. of land area) No change to FAR (.35), lot coverage (.50) or setbacks No change to building height (32’) 28

Density by Zoning District Zoning DistrictLand area per unit Density R-31,500 s.f.29 du/ac CC1,500 s.f.29 du/ac CR1,500 s.f.29 du/ac CN-11,500 s.f.29 du/ac CN-22,000 s.f.21.8 du/ac R ,500 s.f.17.4 du/ac R-2-55,000 s.f.8.7 du/ac R-1-6,000 s.f.7.3 du/ac 29

Summary of Options #1 Two-tier system of concessions and incentives under the Density Bonus Ordinance #2 Remove the requirement that any upper level uses in the CN-1, CC and CR zones be residential #3 Require 25% two-bedrooms instead of 30% three-bedrooms #4 Reduce or eliminate the mandated affordability of 50% very- low and low income units in the HMU overlay zone #5 Shift the HMU overlay concept to one or more sites in the CN-2 zoning district #6 Remove the HMU overlay from one of the CN-1 sites and select a CN-2 site to replace it 30

Next Steps Planning Commission Meeting Wednesday, May 21 st Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance Density Bonus Ordinance Special Needs Housing Ordinance 31

Project Overview Track 1: Zoning Ordinance Amendments Track 2: Housing Element Update Draft ZO Amendments and Subcommittee Meetings Community Workshop #1 City Council Meeting City Council Mtg. Planning Comm. Hearings City Council Hearings to Adopt Nov 2013/ Feb 2014 Feb. 25 March 15 April 22 May/June 2014 June/July 2014 Housing Element Subcommittee Meetings Communit y Workshop #2 City Council Meeting Planning Comm. Hearings City Council Meeting City Council Hearings to Adopt. Mar 2014 Apr 2014 May/June 2014 June 2014 June/July 2014 July 2014 Oct/Nov 2014 Jan HCD Review of Draft Aug/Sep 2014 City Council Mtg. May 20 32

Staff Contact Contact: Lilly Schinsing Administrative Analyst Link to Housing Element Update progress: 33

Reference Slides 34

Additional Considerations Why the Single-Family Dwelling Units in Multi- Family Zoning Districts Ordinance doesn't meet the same requirements as HMU/VMU Benefit of utilizing two 8-unit sites vs. one 16 unit site 35

2015 Bridgeway N 36

N 1901 Bridgeway 37

3001 Bridgeway Zoning: CN-2 GP: Neighborhood Commercial Built: 1958 Area: 42,370 s.f. Density with Residential Overlay: 21 units Max. FAR: 35% = 14,830 s.f. Max. Lot Coverage: 50% = 21,185 s.f. Tenants: Tommy’s Wok UPS Store Bridgeway Bagel & Coffee Golden Gate School Bayview Salon Kitti’s Place Crossfit Pal’s Liquor & Wine 38

2901 Bridgeway Zoning: CN-2 GP: Neighborhood Commercial Built: 1970s Area: 18,561 s.f. Density with Residential Overlay: 9 units Max. FAR: 35% = 6,496 s.f. Max. Lot Coverage: 50% = 9,281 s.f. Tenants: Shell Gas Station & Car Wash 39

2829 Bridgeway Zoning: CN-2 GP: Neighborhood Commercial Built: 1967 Area: 23,255 s.f. Density with Residential Overlay: 11 units With Max. Density Bonus: 15 units Max. FAR: 35% = 8,139 s.f. Max. Lot Coverage: 50% = 11,628 s.f. Tenants: Dario’s Pizza Restaurant About Faces Ross Insurance Think Personal High 5 Salon Salon LoJe 40

Bridgeway Zoning: CN-2 GP: Neighborhood Commercial Built: 1970 Area: 26,673 s.f. Density with Residential Overlay: 13 units With Max. Density Bonus: 18 units MAX. FAR: 35% = 9,336 s.f. Max. Lot Coverage: 50% = 13,337 s.f. Tenants: Taste of the Himalayas La Hacienda Mexican Grill Martial Arts Studio Eco-Friendly Cleaners 41

END 42