Sausalito’s northern tip above Mollie Stone’s already has a high concentration of affordable housing, and now the city plans to add 2.3 times more units to this area compared to mid and south Sausalito. Concentrating housing in northern Sausalito not only strains local resources but also goes against California’s Housing and Community Development (HCD) guidelines and the goals of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). Concentrating all affordable housing in one area risks creating an overcrowded, isolated community, reducing diversity and failing to meet fair, inclusive housing goals for the entire city.
Public Parks and Municipal Code: Sausalito Municipal Code 10.20.020 mandates the protection of parks and recreational facilities. The MLK Park development violates this by removing current parking and requiring new lots, which would further reduce public park space and impact recreational courts. Additionally, the lack of transparency on these requirements is concerning.
Public Safety: MLK Park is in the city’s highest wildfire risk zone and has experienced two evacuations in the past five years with little notice. During rush hour, northbound Bridgeway backs up, often blocking evacuation routes. Adding 181 units to this area would increase traffic congestion, potentially trapping residents and emergency vehicles during a fire
Sustainable Alternatives: Development in Marinship properties south of Harbor Drive, and the city’s 150+ owned properties offers a prime opportunity to revitalize the working waterfront. Utilizing these underdeveloped areas like long term storage and empty office parks, would boost the local economy and provide much-needed housing without the risks posed by high-density development in wildfire-prone areas like MLK Park. This shift would support long-term sustainability and better distribute affordable housing across the city.
Here are the 45 sites the city remove since the initial plan, most in mid and south Sausalito.
Here are some additional talking points from the YIMBY lawsuit.
- Community Input Ignored:
Related Text: “In its rush to adopt, the City cast aside the recommendations of its own Housing Element Advisory Committee” (¶ 29)(YIMBY Law v City of Sau…).
Summary: Sausalito ignored key recommendations from its advisory committee regarding housing distribution. - Flawed Site Selection:
Related Text: “At least one commenter noted that he had heard from multiple property owners… who had not been contacted by the City” (¶ 105)(YIMBY Law v City of Sau…).
Summary: Sausalito failed to engage with property owners about potential housing development sites, undermining the selection process. - Restrictive Ordinances:
Related Text: “The City’s housing element depends on removing constraints associated with Ordinances 1022 and 1128” (¶ 128)(YIMBY Law v City of Sau…).
Summary: Ordinances restricting density and the use of city-owned land limit the potential for affordable housing in key areas. - Bypassing Environmental Review:
Related Text: “The City Council directed staff to decouple [the] EIR from the project” (¶ 95)(YIMBY Law v City of Sau…).
Summary: Sausalito opted to bypass an environmental review to meet housing deadlines, raising concerns about community and environmental impacts. - Reliance on Nonvacant Sites:
Related Text: “The Housing Element Law disfavors nonvacant sites” (¶ 277)(YIMBY Law v City of Sau…).
Summary: Sausalito’s heavy reliance on nonvacant sites for housing fails to meet the state’s preference for vacant land, limiting viable development options. - Unrealistic Development Plans:
Related Text: “Sites identified by public commenters as unrealistic for development between 2023–2031” (¶ 204)(YIMBY Law v City of Sau…).
Summary: Many of Sausalito’s designated housing sites, including marinas and school properties, are impractical for development within the required timeframe. - Lack of Programs to Address Opposition:
Related Text: “The HCD review draft listed community opposition as a constraint… but offered no new program to overcome such opposition” (¶ 78)(YIMBY Law v City of Sau…).
Summary: Sausalito failed to develop programs addressing community resistance to new housing developments. - Noncompliance with Housing Goals:
Related Text: “HCD found that the City’s HCD review draft would not substantially comply with the Housing Element Law” (¶ 106)(YIMBY Law v City of Sau…).
Summary: The state’s housing agency found that Sausalito’s housing plan did not meet required standards for affordable housing development. - Rushed Adoption to Avoid Builder’s Remedy:
Related Text: “The City’s rush to adopt was motivated… to avoid the Housing Element Law’s so-called builder’s remedy” (¶ 149)(YIMBY Law v City of Sau…).
Summary: Sausalito hastily adopted its housing plan to avoid legal risks, sacrificing proper review and compliance with housing law. - Related Text: “The City filed a CEQA Notice of Exemption… despite the known environmental risks at certain sites, such as wildfire risks in areas like MLK Park” (¶ 172)(YIMBY Law v City of Sau…).
- Summary: The lawsuit criticizes the city for exempting housing projects from environmental review, even when public park sites like MLK Park are at high risk for environmental hazards.