State housing mandate ‘insurmountable’ for Marin

Sherman R. Frederick

Sausalito Marin Scope

Sausalito didn’t want to do it, but it must. And Sausalito isn’t alone. The county and every city in Marin is under the gun by a state mandate to create a lot more housing, much of it for the poor.

For example, the county must add 3,569 new housing units between 2023 and 2031. 

Marin County Board of Supervisors President Katie Rice summed it up at the last county meeting when she said:  

“None of us are happy with the numbers that have been assigned to our county or cities. It’s an insurmountable number, but we have to do this work in order to avoid sanctions.”

The county has all of unincorporated Marin to work with. Sausalito, however, must find room for 724 new housing units in a city with only 1.76 square miles of land. Because of that, the city begged the state for dispensation.

It was denied. 

So on Monday, Feb. 28, city leaders began the process – likely to produce robust discussion – for where this new housing for the poor will be wedged into this wealthy seaside village. 

The state says Sausalito must develop 200 dwellings for very low income people, 115 for low income people, 114 for moderate income people and 295 for above moderate income people. The state mandate would require the housing to be built by 2031. 

To that end, the City Council appointed the Housing Element Advisory Committee. At the Monday meeting, the HEAC heard from Beth Thompson of De Novo Planning Group. Thompson’s company has come up with a broad pass at what she called  “opportunity sites”  in Sausalito. 

The list of 75 possible sites are on the city’s website – some large, some small. But at this stage, these are not fully vetted sites, and the owners of the property and surrounding property won’t be contacted until a site advances further into the process.

For example, one site specifically mentioned at the meeting was the land owned by Grace Church Episcopal, an historic church in downtown Sausalito. That’s a site identified by the consultant, but whether it actually has room or would be suitable for any kind of development is something yet to be determined. 

Another potential site that would need further review is the land where City Hall is located. 

The meeting, which was conducted via Zoom, got off to a rocky start, as many Marin public Zoom meetings do. Some of it was due to the usual technical issues surrounding teleconference meetings – stray comments from a person’s household in the background, muting issues and prolonged screeches from feedback issues and the obligatory “can you hear me?” comment.

Other problems were of the administrative housekeeping variety. 

Jenny Silva, a member of HEAC pointed out that notices for the start time of the current meeting were messed up. 

The original invite, she said, was for the meeting to start at 6 p.m. But a day before notice was set for 5 p.m.

“Last minute changes are hard,” she said. 

Kristina Feller, chair of the housing group, explained that this meeting was set to begin at 5 p.m. and all future meetings will begin at 6 p.m. Someone then pointed out that current agenda information has the March meeting starting at 5 a.m.

“That’s a little bit early,” Feller joked, adding “Let’s try to get future meeting clarity.” 

It was also noted that minutes from the previous meeting were not ready for review at this meeting. Staff said the minutes will be ready by the next meeting.

The Feb. 28 meeting was not meant to vett any of the 75 sites identified by the consultant, but to begin the process of evaluation and discussion. 

Council Member Susan Cleveland-Knowles expressed concern with possible confusion with the public when they begin to look at the 75 sites. The sites, she said, are not refined in any way. Some may look at a site mentioned and not know exactly what the committee may have in mind. 

“This is a crude tool at the moment,” she warned. 

Another concern expressed during the meeting was how members of HEAC should conduct themselves as they begin visiting sites. HEAC falls under the Brown Act that requires transparency. Chair Feller asked the city attorney to fully brief the members as to their responsibilities in adhering to the Brown Act, which in this case would prohibit site visits involving a quorum of members, or discussing the merits of a site in a succession of private meetings with other members.

HEAC member Nika Hedrick, in looking at the first pass of potential sites, expressed worry that the low- and very-low income sites might be clustered around the Marinship area.

“I’m worried that what the outcome will ultimately be is that all the low- and very-low income housing will be segregated in Marinship.”

Planning Director Jim Moore told the group that while scheduling is a bit behind, the city will catch up and pledged that as the process goes on we will  “give the community an opportunity to zero in on the issues.” Several meetings are planned with a refined list prepared by summer.

This meeting lasted three hours and twenty minutes. Chair Keller said she was “Delighted there is so much input from the public.”