| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.03 | Unknown | Are we good? Okay. As soon as the choking ends. Well good evening and welcome to the regular meeting of the Sausalito City Council for Tuesday February 11, 2014. Debbie would you take the roll please. |
| 00:00:18.70 | Debbie | Thank you. |
| 00:00:21.83 | Debbie | Number five. here. Thank you. |
| 00:00:23.98 | Unknown | President. President, here. So, um... Scott Diamond, would you lead us in the pledge this evening? |
| 00:00:35.10 | Debbie | Yeah. |
| 00:00:36.50 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:00:39.82 | Scott Diamond | I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. |
| 00:00:41.04 | Unknown | flag. of the United States of America. Bye. |
| 00:00:55.69 | Unknown | Thank you, Scott. |
| 00:00:59.97 | Unknown | So we met in closed session earlier on two matters, a conference with legal counsel and a conference with real property negotiator. Is there any public comment on these closed session items? Seeing none. No, no, you don't. |
| 00:01:19.38 | Unknown | Oh, boy. |
| 00:01:22.97 | Unknown | Seeing none. |
| 00:01:25.97 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. There you go. |
| 00:01:27.93 | Unknown | Thank you. I It said the first was a conference with legal counsel. This was for a claim for damages. like New Village School at MLK. And the second one was a conference of real property in connection with Bridgeway Marine. The next item is approval of the agenda. Do we have a motion? Thank you. |
| 00:01:57.92 | Unknown | . |
| 00:01:58.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:01:58.97 | Scott Diamond | to the next episode. |
| 00:01:59.03 | Unknown | moved. Second. All in favor? |
| 00:02:02.26 | Unknown | Thanks. |
| 00:02:06.76 | Unknown | Our next is a special presentation. A presentation by Sharon Maidenberg of the Hedlund Center for the Arts. And we have no Sharon. She's up in the hills. Thank you. So maybe we'll move along, and if Sharon will rise, we will slot that in. OK, so communications. So this is the time. for the City Council to hear from citizens regarding matters that are not on the agenda. And except in very limited situations, state law precludes the council from taking action or engaging in discussions concerning these matters. So is there any public comment that any member of the public would like to make at this stage on items not on the agenda? Sir, Peter. |
| 00:03:11.76 | Unknown | YOU'RE ABLE TO GET A |
| 00:03:12.03 | Unknown | The item is later about the docks, right? |
| 00:03:13.12 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:03:13.13 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:03:13.57 | Unknown | I'm not going to be able to Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. |
| 00:03:15.24 | Unknown | I don't know. |
| 00:03:15.46 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:03:17.22 | Unknown | Yes, yes. |
| 00:03:18.75 | Unknown | I want to reiterate about the shower thing, you know, I've been protesting for years, not taking showers and baths, waiting for us to give us some public showers. If you don't believe me, smell it on my armpits, man. Honest to God, I haven't had a shower in a year and a half. and a handful and four. I'm not boasting, you know, I'm an ascetic. I'm not boasting, I'm a preacher. I mean, we do ascetic things. stuff, you know. My dog hasn't had a bath in four years. She smells like incense. But anyways, I just wanted, you know, showers. We had showers. And we have one here in the building. Let us use it. There's one there at the new bathroom, between the two bathrooms. Let us use it. There's already showers. Let us use it. That's all he's saying. We'll paint. God bless you. I'm not going to be a place. |
| 00:04:06.47 | Unknown | So it's why. |
| 00:04:11.30 | Unknown | Thank you. Anybody else for? No. And so the item number three is the action minutes of the previous meeting. We have two minutes. The first being the minutes of the Council meeting on January 14, 2014. |
| 00:04:34.00 | Unknown | and Debbie. |
| 00:04:35.99 | Debbie | There is one correction on January the 14th. Page four of five. Under future agenda items, I inadvertently wrote down Councilmember Fiefer suggested that the Turning Street boat ramp should be agendized when in fact it was Council Member Thank you. |
| 00:04:58.28 | Unknown | that. |
| 00:04:58.87 | Debbie | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:04:59.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:04:59.33 | Debbie | Thank you. |
| 00:04:59.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:04:59.41 | Debbie | Yeah, it's... |
| 00:05:01.03 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 00:05:01.37 | Debbie | Bye. |
| 00:05:01.55 | Unknown | So I move that we approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of January 14, 2014. |
| 00:05:07.85 | Unknown | Second. All in favor? Aye. Okay. And the minutes of the City Council meeting of January 28, 2014. So moved. |
| 00:05:20.05 | Unknown | Second. |
| 00:05:21.04 | Unknown | All in favor? Aye. Aye. |
| 00:05:22.01 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:05:24.44 | Unknown | Item number four is the consent calendar, which we have four items. Is there any city council questions of staff on any of these matters? |
| 00:05:40.35 | Unknown | Can I just make a statement for the record? On 4C, the Cypress Ridge, if we could just communicate this to the people who've come over the years and asked us, what are you doing about what's going on in Cypress Ridge, that this is great, this is a good step, it should have been something, this is a creative solution to a problem up there and to take out the non-native species and get rid of some of the fire prone stuff and it's great. It's a great solution and it's incredibly affordable thanks to the North Bay Conservation Corps. So it's great. It's a good solution for everybody. Is there any other? Maybe we could send a letter to the homeowners association just to say, hey, by the way, this is coming, and thanks for all your help and blah, blah, blah. |
| 00:06:31.97 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. No? Yeah. Is there any other... |
| 00:06:34.52 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah. |
| 00:06:37.56 | Unknown | Well, I do. |
| 00:06:37.57 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Well, I don't have a question of staff, but I did have a couple questions regarding A and D. A, I actually have comments regarding the special counsel of January 25, 2014. And I had intended to try and get these in so they could be included in the packet. and wasn't able to do that. I needed to do some research. And so I guess I'm looking to staff, can I, I have copies, so should I submit this just for the record to be included as, you know, attached to the strategic summary session? Or what? |
| 00:07:21.82 | Adam Politzer | Yes, we can receive and file. |
| 00:07:23.94 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay, thank you. So can I hand this to you now or should I? |
| 00:07:28.86 | Unknown | Should I pass them out? If they weren't part of the flow of the meeting, how can they become an amendment to the meeting? |
| 00:07:29.02 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Should I pass them out? |
| 00:07:35.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:07:39.23 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And my other comment was on topic D. I would like to understand that decision regarding the Marinship-specific plan steering committee to give City Council liaison positions voting rights because that's not the norm. |
| 00:08:01.90 | Unknown | Should I have the city manager perhaps comment on that? |
| 00:08:06.01 | Adam Politzer | Yeah, I think the discussion at the Marinership Steering Committee was, that was the question that was raised. And I think when you look at all of our boards and commissions and task force and steering committees, it's a recommend that this task force or this steering committee makes a recommendation to the council so all the folks that are a part of it have a say. So just like Councilmember Pfeiffer on the Butte Street Task Force or the Housing Element Task Force, any of these types of committees, the council member has a voice and then that gets passed up to the council. At the end of the day, the city council members will always have a vote on this because the vote happens here at the council meeting. So this was an opportunity to make sure that the council members at these meetings have an equal seat at the table. |
| 00:09:00.71 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you, Adam. So I disagree with that and I would like to pull the item from consent and understand that a little bit more. I still think that that is highly unusual. |
| 00:09:16.18 | Adam Politzer | I don't think it necessarily needs to be pulled from consent. If you have comments, further comments that you'd like to make, you're able to make those now. But if the rest of the council wants to have a discussion on it, then you can pull it. But if there's no other interest, then it's the same opportunity for the public to make comment on it now. during public comment for items on consent. And for the council member if you want to |
| 00:09:38.22 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:09:41.59 | Adam Politzer | either ask questions or Um, make your position known on the record, you can do that. |
| 00:09:47.47 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay, so should I, I can make a comment right now just to be on the record that I disagree with this. It feels like it's stacking the deck in terms of votes. And it feels like, I know that in the past council liaisons are typically there to provide guidance or feedback or you know their opinions when asked, but to take the action of voting to allow council liaisons to vote. for this highly controversial topic, the Marinship Specific Plan, to me just doesn't bode well. So I just wanted to comment on that. |
| 00:10:31.19 | Unknown | Okay, thank you, Council Member Pfeiffer. |
| 00:10:33.33 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And Mayor Withey, if I may. Please. My public comments, going back to agenda item A, the special city council meeting on January 25th, there were a number of, |
| 00:10:35.29 | Unknown | Please. |
| 00:10:43.90 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | statements that were made in that, in the summary notes that I did not agree with that were presented as if I had been a part of that with respect to transparency. I remain very concerned about transparency with the council majority and my comments speak to that. |
| 00:11:05.33 | Unknown | Thank you. So, um... Could I have then a motion to Oh, yes. Thank you. Uh... So is there any public comment on items on the consent calendar? |
| 00:11:28.65 | Unknown | Yeah. We're going to be talking about the doc in a moment. |
| 00:11:29.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:11:32.63 | Unknown | I'm not here. you Okay. Could you please capsulize for the rest of us morons, the gist of what you're saying concerning the marineship plan? This plan is very important, you know, the whole marineship plan is very important. It's the most valuable real estate in the world. And my father-in-law owned an ICB building and blah, blah, blah. So I know something about the value of this. And what you're saying is, could you capsulate like the voting, what you were protesting? |
| 00:11:46.28 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:12:05.30 | Unknown | I mean, the vote's being sat. |
| 00:12:06.21 | Adam Politzer | Mr. Romaneski, I'd be happy to. And I can't summarize the whole |
| 00:12:08.07 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:12:12.42 | Adam Politzer | activity, the Marinship, because we're at the very infant stage of this. In short, The council appointed a committee, and the committee has seven people that sit on the committee. There's two council members and five members of the community. One of those members is a planning commissioner, and one of those members is a past council member. So that was a part of the decision to appoint this committee. The committee has regular meetings. They're open to the public and the committee reports back to the council on a monthly basis with an update. At the last council meeting they provided an update which basically shared that they've been conducting interviews with folks in the community that have an interest in the future of the marinship, gathering ideas, about today and about 10 years from now or 20 years from now. That's really been the activity to date. but before the council tonight, is to allow the council members that sit on the committee to have an equal voice at the table when it comes to making recommendations back up to the council. |
| 00:13:16.51 | Unknown | of. That sounds good to me. I trust you. Otherwise, we're going to recall you one by one. Remember what happened to call in community. God bless you. |
| 00:13:25.52 | Unknown | Thank you, Peter. Thank you. So, Could I have a motion to approve the consent calendar and if any member of the council wishes to vote separately on an item, then obviously we can do that. So moved. |
| 00:13:39.43 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Second, |
| 00:13:42.33 | Unknown | Thank you. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? |
| 00:13:44.00 | Unknown | I... |
| 00:13:46.72 | Unknown | Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So moving on to item number six, which is a discussion and direction to staff presumably on Moorage Ordinance Amendment. and the tourney ramp dingy dock. which was continued from our January 28th meeting. And Jonathan Urutio. |
| 00:14:09.92 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council and staff, and members of the community here in the audience. I have a PowerPoint presentation on this. |
| 00:14:47.76 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. |
| 00:14:51.72 | Jonathon Goldman | All right. Again, this item was continued from your last meeting. Fundamentally, the issues have to do with the shortage of safe public mooring for shore access by small boats. That creates hardships and potential life safety issues for persons who live offshore and require access to Sausalito in order to work. perform errands and other personal business, and access available public services, such as postal facilities, the library, laundry, police services, et cetera. The public dinghy dock at Tourney public boat ramp has been damaged and needed repairs. The dinghy dock is currently posted with a 15-minute mooring time limit, but enforcement of that limit won't be supported by the court without adoption of the regulation by ordinance. Here's just a brief graphic showing the location of the dinghy dock. you Here's Bridgeway. North is to the top. Attorney Street, public boat ramp, and the dinghy dock is here. This is Salido's Restaurant and Wellington's. This is Humboldt Avenue and Bridgeway Marine and Locust off to the north. The dinghy dock is located in an area that's subject to natural and storm drain influence deposition of sediments that render the surface less safe at low tide. This photograph, I took this photograph at a minus 0.6 low tide a couple of weeks ago and you can see that the bridgeway end of the dock is actually in the mud up out of the water. There's very little of the dock that actually has water access at this point. In addition, because of the fact that underneath the dock isn't level, it's not even particularly safe to walk on. It's currently fitted with a ramp or a gangway that doesn't comply with the current standards for accessibility in California. Dredging to improve the stability of the dock would provide some relief, but based on characterization performed in 2012, the materials to be removed could cost as much as $150 per cubic yard to dredge and properly dispose of. So a 500 cubic yard project, if that's what it took to return the dock to level at low tide, could cost an estimated $75,000. Staff looked because members of the community spoke and council directed that we agendize this item. We tried to identify some alternatives for dealing with these issues. There's the opportunity to amend the existing mooring ordinance or actually the resolution that established the 15-minute limit and make something like that enforceable, but basically established special regulations for the DOC. to define the dinghy dock specifically, establish a to-be-determined moorage time limit. One concept is to use the the analogy of the public parking vehicle spaces on the street in Sausalito. So parking could be limited to a specific period of time on one side of the dock or the other or both, and also to limit the size of vessels that would be allowed to stay there for longer periods of time. The reason to do that... |
| 00:18:34.59 | Jonathon Goldman | How did you know? The reason to do that would be to ensure that that dock remains accessible. We wouldn't necessarily want a 60-foot vessel to tie up there for more than 10 hours because the objective here was to provide public access for people who live off the water. Thank you. And then we could also establish a shorter time limit for the side of the dock, the northerly side of the dock, so that people launching or recovering vessels from the boat ramp have time to tie up and then go back to the dock. and leave and park their trailer or when they come back and recover the vessel, they can than leave that space available for others. In the time between when Council first heard about this issue and directed staff to agendize it, we from Public Works Maintenance Division have verified the condition of the existing floating dock and made some repairs. The gangway was more securely attached. In addition, there were some boards that needed to be replaced. A bunch of the rubber fender strip was replaced and some of the cleats were replaced. We have started the process and with council direction tonight we'll continue with the process of evaluating alternatives for a smaller scale dredging project. to remove hazards to vessels and persons utilizing the dock And if warranted, seek Bay Conservation and Development Commission and other resource agency approval of a temporary permit to more floating extension to the dinghy dock. until we can develop a more permanent solution. The advantage to having an extension is that again in the situation that I showed you at low tide where there's no very little water that a person in a boat can get to the dock and tie up to, the extension would provide a lot more water so the capacity isn't diminished at low tide. If a temporary extension is warranted, staff would identify and evaluate alternatives, including the use of the Sally Stanford, and would be responsible for developing the budget and identifying and evaluating potential impacts and other issues associated with both temporary and more permanent improvements to address these public access issues. So alternatives available to the Council this evening, no further action, unsafe conditions at low tide, inadequate capacity for small boat demand. and we have enforcement issues with the posted 15-minute limit that's there. We can acquire and install a longer – we could acquire and install a longer code-compliant gangway to the existing dock. but possibly relocate it so that it's further offshore. And then another alternative is to acquire and Um, uh, install the Sally Stanford, the vessel that was moored there at one point and I think is moored there at the moment. Impacts associated with this issue, there's, as I said, no police department enforcement of the currently posted 15-minute sign. Changes to the ordinance regulations need to be balanced with the police department's resources and ability to provide enforcement services. Potential costs associated with prospective small-scale dredging and other more permanent improvements would be taken into account in the budget process. So staff's recommendation for council this evening is to adopt a motion directing us to prepare an issue notice of council's consideration of new regulations to allow time limited mooring of certain vessels on the dinghy dock, to direct us to seek VCDC and other resource agency approval of a temporary permit to moor more floating extension to the dinghy dock, pending development of a more permanent improvement to public access to shore, and to evaluate alternatives for small-scale dredging to remove hazards to vessels and persons utilizing the dinghy dock. |
| 00:22:54.45 | Jonathon Goldman | Any questions for me? |
| 00:22:56.46 | Unknown | Thank you very much. So is there any questions of Jonathan at this point? |
| 00:23:06.11 | Unknown | You had a question for you or for the chief or whoever. Where does, why did we pick 10 hours? Thank you. |
| 00:23:16.71 | Jonathon Goldman | The |
| 00:23:18.21 | Unknown | Not that I have a magic number that's better. I'm just curious where 10 hours came from. |
| 00:23:18.31 | Jonathon Goldman | Exactly. |
| 00:23:22.26 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. |
| 00:23:22.53 | Unknown | Great. |
| 00:23:22.97 | Jonathon Goldman | Did you ask a commission? |
| 00:23:25.30 | Unknown | We actually have an open public comment on this. That will come up in a second. That will come up in a second. |
| 00:23:28.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:23:28.60 | Jonathon Goldman | No. |
| 00:23:28.79 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:23:28.82 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. |
| 00:23:28.91 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 00:23:28.97 | Jonathon Goldman | I will come up in a second. the existing mooring ordinance establishes the 10 hour limit for all of the waters of Sausalito |
| 00:23:41.92 | Unknown | Okay. And, um... how would someone go about obtaining the written consent of the chief of police? And we thought that went through. And what if the chief isn't there? How would that work? |
| 00:24:00.36 | Adam Politzer | Mr. Chairman Leone, let me kind of jump in here because we may be confusing two different ordinances. The ordinance that we really want the council to look at at a future date, we're asking for direction for us to come back with an ordinance |
| 00:24:12.31 | Unknown | You don't want comments on the stuff that's in here now. |
| 00:24:15.26 | Adam Politzer | Well, we're happy to receive comments, but what I want to make sure that we don't confuse is that what I think we heard from the public was that at this moment in time, there's no way to temporarily parked. your skiff, your boat. your raft, your surfboard, whatever it is that you come ashore on, Um, for more than 15 minutes and the police can't enforce that. trying to look at, the extension of the temporary extension of the dinghy dock to allow the continuation of people bringing their boats into the water on trailers and out. on the north side and on the south side to allow, because we now have an extended Uh. floating dock into the water to allow the folks that are coming ashore to potentially the ordinance that we're going to bring forward will consider something between 24 hours and 72 hours or something. different if the council or the public but that will be an actual public hearing to look at the ordinance and do that. So we don't want to confuse the items. There's two different ordinances and that's part of the problem. But we specifically think that we need to address the ordinance that says we need to tie up so we can come to our laundry, go to work, go shop, go enjoy the Caledonia Street Fair, whatever it is, just like everybody else. And right now that doesn't exist. |
| 00:25:34.44 | Jonathon Goldman | If I can add to that, just to be clear, the attachments to the staff report are the existing code. We weren't proposing those as new ordinance. We were just providing that as evidence for, in a way, how ambiguous and how little maneuvering room staff has with respect to this issue at the moment. So we're asking council to direct us to work on the vision. |
| 00:25:36.37 | Adam Politzer | Sure. |
| 00:26:05.98 | Unknown | Okay, yeah, and it was just a little confusing from the staff report of how, because they read the same things repeated like five times, so that's fine. |
| 00:26:12.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:26:17.57 | Unknown | Who will maintain ownership of the Sally Stanford and maintain it and who has liability for it? |
| 00:26:26.11 | Jonathon Goldman | At this point, we haven't even entertained or discussed that issue. If council directs us to consider the use of the South Stanford for the purpose of providing an extension, then we would certainly want to flesh out those details and work that out. |
| 00:26:42.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:26:50.46 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, I'm seeing issues regarding enforcement, and I was just wondering what is the impact for enforcing this. I mean, if we were going to go forward how would we enforce this? I mean, What impact would it have on police resources? |
| 00:27:12.25 | Unknown | Good evening, Mayor. The question of enforcement still would need to be resolved entirely, but we drew the comparison to vehicles that are parked on the city street. Currently, there's a 72-hour limit for that, so those are handled either by parking officers or the beat officers that see a vehicle that appears to be there too long or someone calls up and complains about a vehicle being there too long. Then we have a process for marking them so that we start the 72-hour clock on vehicles at that moment. And so at that point, the clock runs, there's a highly visible tag being put on the car so that people that own it can see it. It's not hidden from people so they can try to move their car. And then after 72 hours and the car's still there, then we have a contract to have the car towed and placed in storage. We would be looking at similar kind of issues, but clearly unresolved at this point about how to do that. We don't have a tow service for boats or impound yard or storage for boats. So seeking direction tonight from Council, we have a bit of work to do to come back with some answers for you to that question. |
| 00:28:25.08 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I have a follow-up question about the 72-hour piece. My experience, this is my personal experience just on my street, has been that oftentimes the 72-hour limit is enforced by residents who notice that something has been parked there for like a week. You know, like a car has been parked there for like a week. So I'm just wondering, because residents don't typically wander down, you know, by the dinghy dock, would this be something that the police would visit on a daily basis just to mark you know, like who's there or because I'm just I'm just not sure if you would get that kind of... |
| 00:29:02.51 | Unknown | that kind of vigilance. |
| 00:29:04.08 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Vigilance. |
| 00:29:06.96 | Unknown | points about our ability to do that. We wouldn't want to say that we could do that if in fact our research don't allow us to. We just don't have somebody to patrol the ding dock and look for boats. Also, not knowing if they've come in and out during the time that they were last seen would require some additional effort or some different ways of marking or observing them to know that the boat's going to move. Cars are actually significantly easier than to look at a boat tied at a dinghy dock and know if it's been moved since it was last observed. So again, we have to roll up our sleeves and do some work if the council direction takes us that way. |
| 00:29:47.99 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:29:49.12 | Unknown | Is there any other? |
| 00:29:49.96 | Unknown | Any other questions? Council member. Chief, did you want to add to that? It looked like you're... Yeah. And then I'll ask you all some questions. |
| 00:29:59.26 | Unknown | Good evening, Council and Mayor. Yeah, I just wanted to add a little piece about the value of this ordinance. And when I came here, we were monitoring that dock to the best of our ability. But after initiating conversations with our residents on the Anchorage, we came to an agreement that they would self-regulate. And so that's been working. And they do a fabulous job of making sure that they're not impeding traffic coming in and out on the north side, and then they tie up on the south side and we don't have an issue. Why this is important is not for our residents on the Anchorage, it's for people who don't subscribe to that agreement that we have. So what do we do with them? So there's the value because the folks who live on the Anchorage know the rules and they're not going to do things that impede the movements of their neighbor. So we have that situation. This ordinance would allow us, given the appropriate resources, to enforce it for people who are not so conscious about other people's needs and right-of-way issues, if that makes it more clear. |
| 00:31:18.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:31:21.05 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I have a follow-up question for Jonathan. |
| 00:31:27.74 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So Jonathan, Chief Tejada was describing tying up on the south side versus not the north side. And when I went down there just to kind of eyeball it, I noticed that some of the dinghies and the kayaks were tied up on the side that did not impede with the ramp launch |
| 00:31:46.47 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:31:46.48 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | but had floated underneath the rope, had floated under it, and so then they were |
| 00:31:46.74 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:31:52.15 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | impeding access, you know, public access for folks to launch boats. So I was wondering if you could comment on that. |
| 00:32:00.61 | Jonathon Goldman | Well, I'm sure that that kind of thing happens. And that kind of thing is likely to happen because of the fact that at low tide, you know, the dock isn't level. We also lost one of the floats recently. I think there really is a maintenance issue there. And that in the long run, that wouldn't continue to be an issue. |
| 00:32:28.94 | Unknown | My memory, and it's not as good as it used to be, but I thought we had dredging permits that still had some life left in them for this location. Is that not the case? |
| 00:32:29.84 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. |
| 00:32:29.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:32:41.53 | Jonathon Goldman | We can acquire as a We have identified ourselves to the Dredge Materials Management Office as a small quantity dredger with respect to this facility and with some additional permitting we would be allowed to perform maintenance dredging associated with any operation that we choose to. The problem with TURNY specifically is that the materials, the sediments that were characterized for that purpose by our consultant are not suitable for aquatic disposal. And so the cost, once we have permits, the cost to remove and dry and dispose of the material is pretty significant. |
| 00:32:57.46 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:33:29.12 | Unknown | Right. |
| 00:33:42.80 | Unknown | Yeah, yeah, yeah. But there's no active dredging permit on that. No. |
| 00:33:43.82 | Jonathon Goldman | So if you can. |
| 00:33:48.79 | Jonathon Goldman | No. And again, with the Council's direction this evening, we can look at the possibility of a smaller quantity than 500 cubic yards. But what we need to do is look at different alternatives, evaluate the cost impacts as well as the longer term impacts. Because one of the, just very frankly, one of the problems with any waterfront facility that requires dredging is that it's gonna require dredging a lot more frequently than we tend to do things in order to continue to operate. And so we need to give you the information to allow you to direct us as to what an appropriate, long-term, maintainable, economically sustainable strategy for making sure that there's safe access to the water. |
| 00:33:51.49 | Unknown | . |
| 00:33:51.75 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:34:15.24 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:34:37.82 | Scott Diamond | So you're saying that the material could not be The consultants are saying that they could not be dropped out by Alcatraz, would have Is it possible that the material could be taken out and put in the... that we have over here to aerate for 30 days, would that make it any difference? |
| 00:35:03.09 | Jonathon Goldman | Well, there are two pieces to the answer. The first is that the characterization that was done was for a project that would have included not only the boat ramp and the dinghy dock, but also the sediment that's accumulated in what used to be Edgewater Yacht, as well as maintenance stretching associated with the channel from there all the way up to the main navigation channel. So the characterization that was done was done on the premise that that entire volume of material would be dredged. And the characteristics of the materials came back as being unsuitable for aquatic disposal. Not just unsuitable for disposal at Alcatraz, but unsuitable for disposal out in the open ocean. Thank you. aquatic disposal. Not just unsuitable for disposal at Alcatraz, but unsuitable for disposal out in the open ocean. And the way a dredge of that magnitude would be conducted would be there is a dredge materials re-handling facility in Oakland at Berth 50 where a barge can be unloaded and the material is dried there and then would be transported to an appropriate landfill. If we were doing a smaller dredging project, and sorry for blithering on about this, but if we were doing a smaller project, we would want to characterize the limits of that smaller project |
| 00:35:21.05 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:36:24.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:36:25.02 | Jonathon Goldman | to make sure that we knew much more accurately with respect to that volume what our disposal options are. And it's possible, for example, that if we only wanted to take a small quantity off the top, it's possible we would be exposing a layer of sediments that is more deleterious to the aquatic environment than what's there now, and the regulators wouldn't permit us to do that. So we'd have to do some more research to be able to figure out how to optimize that dredging project. |
| 00:36:59.28 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor, thanks. So I have a question about the Cass Marina. When I walk down there, you know, the Cass Marina has a very large, that, you know, I guess the America's Cup donated to them or something like this, and it's completely empty. And I've also heard, and I don't know if this is correct, but I've heard that the Anchor Out population has substantially increased, partly because of the drought in that we haven't had quite as many storms with the exception of this last weekend. So that population has gone up. And I've heard that, I guess, other, like San Rafael and Woodside, other places have their anchorages or something and folks have come here. Anyway. regardless, I've heard that the population has gone up. And so I'm just wondering, first of all, is that the case? And second of all, is that driving this request for the the extra the extension and also why aren't we looking at the Cass Gidley you know, because if this is an interim transitional need, then... |
| 00:38:22.37 | Jonathon Goldman | I'm probably not the best person to answer all those questions, but that's not going to stop me. To your first question, I don't know. And fundamentally, from my perspective, it doesn't matter. If one person can't get to shore when they have, you know, at any hour of the day or night, no matter what the tide, that is a life safety issue. And in maintaining a public dock, as we do, I think we have a responsibility to try to make it safe and useful under every reasonable condition that we can. |
| 00:39:05.20 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And my response and a follow-up question to you is, my question is, he just said if one person can't get to the dock, it's a safety issue. |
| 00:39:07.65 | Jonathon Goldman | to you. |
| 00:39:14.74 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | When I was down there, the dinghy dock was full. I mean, no one was going to be able to get there. It was completely full, and I didn't see any enforcement going on. So I'm just wondering, you know. this current status quo has been in existence for quite a while. |
| 00:39:33.75 | Unknown | That's fine. Let's move on. |
| 00:39:35.88 | Adam Politzer | I can read. |
| 00:39:35.90 | Unknown | I can respond. |
| 00:39:37.14 | David Lay | Thank you. |
| 00:39:38.33 | Adam Politzer | And I think that's where Jonathan enlisted in other options. When we look at long-term solutions, if the community and the council feels that we need to increase capacity |
| 00:39:38.36 | David Lay | Yeah. |
| 00:39:38.39 | Unknown | And... |
| 00:39:51.20 | Adam Politzer | to folks from the water, regardless to who the folks are. then we can address that during the budget. At this moment in time, what our public works director is saying is that we have an unsaved existing dinghy dock that we own and are responsible for that he has to repair and maintain and because of the lack of dredging, what the folks from the community have provide it. was an extension so that the dredging doesn't have to happen now. So that's why it's being proposed as a temporary solution And in the long-term solution, We're going to have to come back with a lot of answers. and take more questions and work with the public and then let the council decide What's the permanent solutions here as we move forward? |
| 00:40:33.57 | Unknown | Vice Mayor Theodore. |
| 00:40:35.40 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 00:40:35.41 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:40:35.43 | Adam Politzer | Um, |
| 00:40:36.17 | Unknown | Assuming that we approve this resolution tonight, which really authorizes you to draft motions. regulations for the Council's Thank you. approval and answer the questions that we've raised here. Could you just walk us through what the timeline is likely to be, I assume, that you're going to keep the temporary arrangements in place, and then what would be the next steps in terms of providing information to the council, having a proposed regulation, and then the other steps that are here. |
| 00:41:07.56 | Jonathon Goldman | Well, from my perspective, there are really three parallel tracks. One of those tracks is to address the kind of question that Dr. Tucker asked about, is there, you know, what is the demand? And make sure that whatever solution, temporary or permanent that we come up with, is warranted and that we aren't undersizing it or oversizing it if that isn't necessary. At the same time, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission regulates the use of, regulates fill in the bay, so any change to RDOC, whether temporary or permanent, permanent is subject their regulation. And then finally, the process of trying to figure out what kind of alternatives for dredging there are, we would also take in parallel. So if we, with the information about demand and the need to clarify the regulations for enforcement purposes, I think we're in a position, if a change to regulations or an ordinance are warranted, we're in a position to bring those back to council relatively quickly, but I'm thinking that that's probably April at the earliest. The other alternatives are really driven by permitting agencies and by the process of developing and estimating costs for both temporary and permanent solutions that I have proposed to bring back to Council in the context of the budget for next fiscal year. |
| 00:42:57.03 | Unknown | Thank you, Jonathan. I suggest at this point that we open the subject up for public comment. And then if any of us had any more questions, we can ask afterwards. So how many of you want to please come forward and just get a sense of how many of you want to talk? Okay. |
| 00:43:17.03 | Unknown | Very good. |
| 00:43:18.21 | Unknown | Yes, sir. Please state your name and remember you've got three minutes. |
| 00:43:21.92 | Unknown | Brian Schreier, resident of the Anchorage. I've been saving this little gem for a night like tonight when you guys were actually listening to us and talking about our issue. You guys are concerned about a permanent solution to these public docks. 2016 opens a really good opportunity for you to make a permanent solution. San Leandro Marina, Thank you. is tearing down to develop buildings there. And they've got some really nice concrete docks, Birmingham concrete docks, that they're gonna scrap, that they're gonna salvage. If you can get a hold of those, you would be able to not only add a permanent solution to the Turning Street dock, but for less cost than it would cost you to build that new, you could also refit all of Wellingtons as well. I know that that's in a pretty serious dilapidated state. So 2016, I talked to the Public Works Director of San Leandro and Debbie... |
| 00:44:11.38 | Unknown | Thank you. Works Director of |
| 00:44:19.73 | Unknown | Anyway, I'll get that information to you later so I don't burn my three minutes here. A couple other points. As I was listening to you guys, Chief Dejada was talking about policing the Tourney Street dock. People have been doing a really good job of that. If there are regulations in effect that somebody actually has the power to do something about it and you bring it up, I think that's a good idea. Aside from that, I think that we all pretty much have started looking out for it pretty well. When that storm came, we were pretty quick about making sure all the boats that were sunk over there found their owners and got out of there so that we just didn't end up using boat lot. But there are some other vessels there that have been there for a while, and we don't know what to do with them. There's a stand-up paddleboard that's been underneath the ramp for months now. I mean, I'm not against taking part in the community and doing something about it, but I don't want to do something with somebody else's property, and that's where the regulations come in. So if we can let somebody know, like, hey, this thing's been around for months, we don't know what to do, but if you guys have those regulations, then all of a sudden, you know, our police have somewhere to go. I know you don't want us to breed, Linda, and people have kind of added to the anchorages. Others have closed down. We're not trying to get this extension to bring all of our friends here. We're trying to get this extension as a matter of public safety so that we have a way to Anyway, that's all I've got to say, I believe. And thank you very much for listening to us. |
| 00:45:57.66 | Unknown | Thank you. Who would like to go next? Scott. |
| 00:46:08.88 | Unknown | My name is Scott Diamond and I'm thankful that we finally got this on agenda. And I'd also like to thank Doug Storms and Crystal Giff for moving this thing forward. They've done a lot of work on it. Heh. There's a number of issues. The whole parking time thing, I think 72 hours on the south side would be good, but this conversation is obviously going to go. for a while, but I'd also like to, as long as there's topics on the agenda and we're considering I think there's another use that I'd like to have considered, which is the whole site that's 15 minutes. We really only need 15 minutes for the city dock for people launching. And if we could keep all the small craft that are coming in from the anchorage on the south side, there would still be some room for people. I've heard that people are coming to solitos and powerboats, and it seems to me that we could consider the concept of having a welcoming Thank you. Uh... attitude here for people coming in, I would actually like to see the northwest side be used as sort of an in-between time, like three or four hours where people could come to town, tie up a 20-foot power boat, go for a walk, go to the shops, whatever, and while we're |
| 00:47:27.50 | Unknown | in. |
| 00:47:48.21 | Unknown | going to BCDC to get a permit for a possible Sally Stanford extension, I would also like it to be considered that there is another probably close to 40 foot dock behind Wellington's that's still in decent shape that would go out further and use that for people to come to town because it's kind of a bizarre notion that... people rent slips for a boat and then they go out and around the bay and then they come back to the same slip rather than having a destination. I mean, there's so few destinations like Sam's or Angel Island or whatever. I know that when I was traveling in Tennessee a couple years ago, I was in Chattanooga and I saw their dock system down there and I walked from downtown and took a look at it. Here was water, 50 amp electricity, and 30 amp electricity, and you just pull into downtown Chattanooga. plug in and nobody's there to collect money or anything. It's just kind of like, well, we're a waterfront town, so why would people be coming to town and using those facilities? So anyway, I'm sure this will all take a little time to sort out, but thank you very much. |
| 00:48:48.08 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:48:48.26 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:48:48.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:48:53.31 | Unknown | you |
| 00:49:01.75 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:49:06.24 | Unknown | Jacques Ullmann, Litho Street. Thank you very much, John. |
| 00:49:11.82 | Scott Diamond | Thank you very much, John. We said three words, not three minutes. |
| 00:49:17.09 | Unknown | Right. Thank you. As you know, we had the forum for the Dunphy Park Schematic Master Plan to Longueau, and we had a lot of input that relates to what you're talking about tonight. First of all, there were quite a few people who expressed concern about needing to develop the new property that is now being used as a corporation yardage. So I would warn you about making plans to put any more dirt there or so on because there's actually a strong feeling that was expressed to see that area begin to be incorporated into the park. There's also, and we will have all this information for you pretty soon. We've completed, we've compiled all the comments and we'll have it in a form that you can understand. I'm giving you a little preview. There was also quite a bit of expression for the in favor of the shoreline path and that would connect the area that you're talking about now with Dunphy Park. And it's actually even now quite a nice walk. There was also quite a bit of expression of the need for some sort of accommodation for various kinds of boats in this general area. But as Councilperson Leon has asked for a long time to have a master plan for this whole area, it would seem that developing this area for dinghies and boats would be very appropriate, and with the improved path, pedestrian path between that area and Dunkey Park, then it would make a link because it's very difficult to accommodate boats in Dunkey Park because it's a multi-use area. There was a lot of expression of wanting beach to be improved, and so it's pretty hard to accommodate boats and have the beach improved and so on. So this would really alleviate that problem and it would link in very well. So I really encourage this effort to accommodate particularly the denguees people come off the water, then they can get to Dunphy Park, they have a place to leave their boat, and we don't have conflict with some of the other things that we're going to try to do in the park. As far as launching boats with trailers, that's a bigger problem. I mean, Lake Berryessa has wonderful launches with big parking lots with extra long places for the trucks and the trailers to park. We can't accommodate that in this area. So we have to be a little careful about boats that launch with trailers and what the hell you do with the trailers after you've launched the boat. Maybe Marinship would be a better place to start thinking about doing that kind of thing. |
| 00:49:21.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:51:52.93 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:51:53.00 | Unknown | We're in. |
| 00:51:53.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:51:58.21 | Unknown | Thank you, Jacques. |
| 00:52:04.34 | Unknown | Crystal gifts. I personally want to thank Jonathan. Their boys were so nice and the dock was really nice. And it's really nice to have a nice safe place to park for the people. The answer to your question, the reason why your Anchorage is filling up full Anchorage, a lot more people in your Anchorage is because a lot of us are refugees from other ports. We're working class people that are just trying to do what any other American does, is just trying to make it day by day. Also, I would like to offer myself to the City Council because I do live in the Anchorage and I do care about my people and I would like to help you guys with any questions that you guys would like to have about the Anchorage and the people in the Anchorage. It's a very lovely community. Thank you very much. |
| 00:52:57.74 | Unknown | Thank you, Crystal. Anybody else like |
| 00:53:05.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:53:05.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:53:05.30 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:53:05.63 | Unknown | Peter. |
| 00:53:05.64 | Unknown | Peter. |
| 00:53:06.11 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:53:08.75 | Unknown | Now look, I've been around 50 years, so I can cut to the chase. No secret meetings. I know the answer, so to speak. First of all, we hold BCDC hostage to Galilee Harbor, which is a total farce, right? It's supposed to be a 24-hour Marine Service harbor. There's not a single Marine Service vote in that whole harbor. I got kicked out of there for saying that. But the only problem I had was I should have filled out an official complaint with BC and EC. I didn't do it. So I lost in court. Defended myself. No, we broke even. They kicked me out and they said, well, we won't. |
| 00:53:28.85 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:53:42.72 | Unknown | The bottom lines. |
| 00:53:43.00 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:53:43.02 | Unknown | I'm alone. |
| 00:53:44.41 | Unknown | the dinghy dog. It's the only dinghy dog in town. And this is the last Anchorage left in the world. This is it. This is the richest count in the world. I play my guitar in the best spot of the world. I have a hill, I have a view of the mountain. Tiburon, Mount Belvedere, Mount Tam, and I, you know what, I live in the best spot in the world. And real estate developers, of course, wanted to belt the harbor. They wanted to belt the anchorage. And, as a scattershot, just a scattershot. Tata is not the harbormaster of the thing. With all due respect, Tata, I mean, she's new in town. You know, I got here 50 years ago. Um... We already have VCDC. These regulations about so many hours in social property are ridiculous. Unless you grandfather the people in, like me. I'm grandfathered in. I've been out there so long. I'm just part of this interview. |
| 00:54:40.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:54:41.09 | Unknown | But I live technically in Tiburon. If you allow the chief police at Sausalito to be the harbormaster. We already have one, Bill Price. Then what's next? Tiburon? Belvedere, strawberry, honestly, it's going to be an escalating thing. I'm getting too old. I'm going to die soon. I'm 75 is the average time people die, right? I'm 65. I don't have much time. And they wait until we die. |
| 00:55:05.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:55:09.40 | Unknown | then Bill Price destroys our votes. That's the bottom line. I mean, we accept our fate. You know, just waiting for us to die. at least give us some little thingy-docks, some dignity. It didn't knock it, did you? Thank you. Give us a little dignity before we die. God bless you. |
| 00:55:28.19 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:55:29.32 | Unknown | I mean, it'll be so dramatic. Once I stop, I can't stop. |
| 00:55:35.27 | Unknown | Thank you, Peter. |
| 00:55:42.70 | Jeffrey Chase | Hello, Mayor and Council and citizens of Sausalito. Thank you for discussing this as... |
| 00:55:50.02 | Unknown | Will you just state your name for the record? |
| 00:55:51.93 | Jeffrey Chase | My name is Jeff Jacob Chase. Um... |
| 00:56:01.87 | Jeffrey Chase | I'm going to bring in something that's a little tangential to this. It's that right now they've closed down the dumpsters over at Galley Harbor and the dumpster at the Cruising Club, and there's trash all over the place, which seems like a natural reaction. People don't have any place to put their trash. This is a public... facility or could be the disposal of trash. And I'm sure that the people who are out there living along with me would be willing to pay for disposal of trash. But if the public access is closed down, then there is no place to put the trash. So we're talking about boats. We're talking about not just dinghies, but sailboats as well. There are sailors out there on the anchorage and they have no place to come in and put their sailboats when they're coming to pick up people, for instance. So after the last storm I came into what is CAS's, what was CAS's, and I got a ticket immediately. I was out there the next morning, but, and this had happened a few years ago and led to some bad consequences for me and for a few other people. I feel like this is a time to start fresh. And we've got docs. This is not a question of money. This is a question of of public access. So the California Coastal Commission also rules on the waters and they guarantee in their words that all the public access that existed before the businesses and the city facilities were built has to be respected even afterwards. So there should be a report for all the restaurants and for any place else of what the public access was before and what it is now. I don't think that this is going to exist. I don't think I can find it. but I think that we can still live by its spirit. And we can remember that all the people out here are individuals and It's called the public. Everything is not about money. Everything is not about I guess I'm just going to say it, Herbie. The golden calf. We're not supposed to be worshiping that. There's something a little higher. And I hope we keep our eyes focused. So thank you. |
| 00:58:34.32 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Please, sir. |
| 00:58:39.46 | Unknown | My name is Richard Taylor. And from what I heard this evening, that 15-minute notice on the dock was put there without any... No ordinance from the council, nor any way of prosecuting it in the courts, let alone policing it, which begs the question, why was it put there in the first place and under whose authority and why is it not removed? |
| 00:58:56.17 | Unknown | you. |
| 00:59:10.26 | Unknown | Does the staff want to answer that question about 15 minutes and the city council resolution of whatever that was, 1980 something or other? |
| 00:59:18.78 | Jonathon Goldman | Yeah. I think you've basically already answered it. A regulation was passed. The problem is that for reasons that I'm not intimately familiar with, the court won't necessarily uphold citations issued under that resolution. So again, that's a reason why we're asking counsel to direct us to make whatever changes are appropriate to clarify the regulations and make them enforceable so that the courts will hear that issue. |
| 00:59:41.93 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:59:54.93 | Unknown | Is there any other public comment? Doug. |
| 01:00:03.80 | Unknown | Yes, Douglas Storm, 700 Waldo Point. A couple things. I would like to, along with many of the other mariners, express extreme gratitude for your city manager and public works and for the chief for working with us. Sometimes it's really stressful, and they handled it with professionalism and great dignity and that's a good feeling. That's what it's all about. The other thing is concerning the dredging. I know this will be discussed later, but there are a lot of different ways to skin the cat. From the picture you saw, the existing public dock is uneven. So we don't need to dredge out eight feet. All we need to do is just take off enough surface area to make it flat so that somebody doesn't fall into the bay. There's a lot of creative ways to do that and we'll be discussing it with the public works with Jonathan. The other thing is it's really important to standardize the regulations, not only what you're doing, but at Galeley Harbor, at Schoonmaker, at Clipper. It's a window of opportunity to sit down with the property owners to address the regulations concerning the size, the draft of the vessel, the beam of the vessel, how long, engine size. And I would really encourage... |
| 01:00:34.26 | Unknown | you Thank you. |
| 01:01:41.65 | Unknown | the staff and the council, and I think they're leaning toward that. to invite the rest of the because you guys aren't in it alone. Even though it's the city property here, there's other property and it's time for the maritime community and the property owners. to stand up and to do what we can. One entity can't solve the problem. It needs to be a coordinated effort. Uh, expanding where you can of enforcing the existing regulations and just communicating and talking and that's the key. 48 seconds. Uh, It wasn't easy. |
| 01:02:22.55 | Unknown | I'll ask you a question if you keep going. I'll ask you a question so you can keep talking. |
| 01:02:26.99 | Unknown | Okay. Okay. Well, I'm glad somebody – no, no. I think the enforcement right now, the maritime community is self-enforcing. So, Dr. Pfeiffer, like your community residents take action and call the police if there's a problem. It's the same way. I guess most of us know how to take care of business, so we take care of business. And then the last thing is it sure would be nice to address the 18 tickets and stuff like that. I was up in court Monday addressing scheduling the court appearances, and I think it's kind of a waste of time for the police officers to come up to the trial and all that. It really wasn't for a personal agenda. It was just for the community, for the safety and action that needed to be taken. Thank you. |
| 01:03:24.60 | Unknown | So maybe this is a question for you, because I wanted to, this is something that If this stuff is unenforceable, Why are we still ticketing people? I gather from what she said we've stopped. But I'm not asking, so you still have 18 tickets that are issued by the city on the dinghy dock? Is that what you're saying? |
| 01:03:46.15 | Unknown | Yes, that's correct. We've been meeting with, we met with Jonathan, and it's an ongoing process. It's just kind of silly if it's going to happen. I don't want to waste, we don't want to waste the taxpayer money, the court time and all that. And right now we're scheduled for three different days, three different times that the C-10, the clerk, scheduled the court appearances. And so this is one thing that I was hoping to talk to the chief about, and unfortunately, we weren't able to, or I wasn't able to get together. It's been kind of rough out there recently, but you know, |
| 01:04:30.62 | Adam Politzer | Councilmember Leon, if I can just clarify. There are no tickets for folks that are parking on a dinghy dock. The ticket that the Sally Stanford vessel received was for mooring for more than 10 hours. So it wasn't for being there for 20 minutes or an hour. And during the preliminary discussions, that, Mr. Diamond, and Doug we're having with the chief There was agreements to allow it to stay there for a duration of time and then with a date. And that's when it kind of got complicated and that's when the folks came here and said we need some help. And that's when council directed us to step in and really look at this. the citations, weren't for Ford No one received citations for just tying up to the doc. It was the 10-hour mooring citation that was issued after a variety of discussions that eventually went south. |
| 01:05:28.75 | Unknown | Okay. Okay, thanks, Doug. Is there anybody else who would like to speak before I close public comment? Okay, so with that, I'm going to close public comment and bring this back. |
| 01:05:48.32 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor. Um... |
| 01:05:49.93 | Unknown | . |
| 01:05:50.42 | Scott Diamond | Yeah. |
| 01:05:51.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:05:51.51 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thanks. |
| 01:05:51.97 | Unknown | So, |
| 01:05:52.02 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely. |
| 01:05:52.04 | Scott Diamond | Yeah. First of all, there are more boats out there, and the reason that it's taking place is we've seen the migration come when they closed down Redwood City. They came, and now the second wave is coming from the Oakland Estuary as that's closing, and that's where you're seeing the increase. |
| 01:05:53.42 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:06:17.47 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor, you said you were going to bring it back from our questions. So, I do have. |
| 01:06:21.16 | Unknown | If there's any more questions. |
| 01:06:23.93 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yes, thank you. I do have questions. Um, In looking at the staff report, this question is for Jonathan. I did not see... Uh... I did not see estimates with respect to how much staff time A, B, and C would take, and also how much staff time the police would need in terms of assessing you know, some of the issues we've heard tonight with respect to enforcement and impoundment of dinghies. You know, we saw your slide that showed low tide where all the dinghies were, you know, just basically abandoned, stuck on the mud. So what are the staff time assessments? |
| 01:07:09.29 | Jonathon Goldman | We haven't made those assessments yet because we don't have a direction to work on these alternatives. |
| 01:07:17.22 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I guess my question is that to propose the alternatives in order for me to make an informed decision on whether or not You should pursue these alternatives A, B, and C. typically I would expect to say this is your guesstimate of a range of how much time it will take you, for example, Is there a question there? For BCDs. Well, that's my question. |
| 01:07:37.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:07:37.59 | Unknown | Is there a question there? |
| 01:07:38.77 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:07:41.45 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:07:41.61 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:07:41.64 | Unknown | Thank you. It's his journal. Yeah, but that's the city manager's job. It's to allocate staff time. We don't do that at the city council level. |
| 01:07:51.18 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Excuse me, Council Member Leanne. I'm not asking for allocation of staff time. I'm asking for an estimate of how much staff time it would take. |
| 01:07:52.53 | Unknown | I remember Leanne. |
| 01:07:59.97 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | if we were to direct city staff to pursue A, B, and C? |
| 01:08:03.76 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 01:08:03.82 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Bye. |
| 01:08:03.85 | Unknown | Well, we clearly don't have that information this evening. So are there any other questions before we turn this over to our three-minute comments? No? OK. Who'd like to go first? |
| 01:08:21.47 | Unknown | That's us. Thank you. |
| 01:08:22.19 | Unknown | That's us. |
| 01:08:22.70 | Unknown | That's us. Oh. |
| 01:08:23.83 | Unknown | you |
| 01:08:23.96 | Unknown | you |
| 01:08:24.32 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:08:25.84 | Unknown | But if you brought your guitar, we could hear that for three minutes. |
| 01:08:26.61 | Unknown | If you play the guitar, we can hear that for three minutes. |
| 01:08:29.30 | Unknown | Thank you. Yeah. |
| 01:08:30.80 | Unknown | Have some... Council Member Pfeiffer. |
| 01:08:34.02 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Well, I guess I'll start. I heard a couple comments regarding me and my perception of the Anchorage. We have an anchorage. We've always had an anchorage with respect to about 40 to 60 anchor outs. In recent, just in the last couple two or three years we've seen an explosion and we know why. We've heard that the Oakland Estuary closed, Redwood City closed. I heard San Rafael did as well. And so apparently, you know, a lot of folks are coming here. Now we have this... population issue and we have evidently a dinghy dock with no way of enforcement. And we have a lot of issues on our plate right now in our small town. We have just recently we were looking, or the council majority, was exploring the parcel tax just for the library. They were looking at issues with respect to enforcing bicycle safety. You know, we had, upwards of over 800,000 cyclists coming into San Francisco. They're riding on sidewalks, they're going without helmets, It's a safety hazard. We had Saucydo Beautiful residents coming forward talking about you know, trees that are posing a hazard because they're not being kept up and possibly and there's an aesthetic issue involved as well. So, you know, we have a lot of issues looking at the sewer fee increase, And so before I move forward on something that wasn't primarily on our priority calendar in the exercise we did strategically at the beginning, year is I want to know just how much staff time we're looking at in terms of taking this direction. You know, is this something that's going to take a solid, you know, month of dedicated one-on-one, one resource from the Public Works Department, which is already strapped. Is this going to take a You know, how many resources from the police department to pursue this? Um, I have a lot of questions here and I don't feel comfortable moving forward with an action without understanding the scope of what this represents in terms of staff time. So, you know, I have a number of concerns regarding enforcement, regarding staff time allocation for the bandwidth that our SWAMP staff has. And you know, in, in, the information that I've been given tonight. It's just not enough for me to make an informed decision. |
| 01:11:20.46 | Unknown | Well, I'd say I appreciate the staff and working with the residents and all the comments, and I think this is a reasonable proposal going forward. And so it's a health and safety issue. We have to address it even though it's not above the line, and I support the particular recommendation. And of course, there are a lot of questions to be answered and resources. We'll have to understand what the resources are, but I'd be in favor of supporting this particular motion and moving this along. Thank you. |
| 01:11:50.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:11:50.75 | Scott Diamond | And I agree. It isn't a matter of how much staff time. And this might have not been on the priority, But... All of a sudden, some other areas like the estuary and migration have come over, and these people are human beings. They're not just an object out there, and they should, they deserve to be treated like any other citizen in Sausalito. And the idea is that We in Sausalito try to provide a quality of life whether you're living on the land or you're living on the water. And that's our job up here. So, to say no and not continue this is like the typical old-fashioned way of turning your back to it, and maybe it won't be here. So. I say let's move it ahead. and let's tread and see where we go, and we're going to feel our way through this, but at I think we'll all gain by, by having the quality of life that you deserve out there also. |
| 01:13:03.55 | Unknown | Just so you folks know, Peter, the showers are on our priority calendar. They did not make it above the cutoff of things to do, but they are on the calendar. I just looked it up again to make sure they're there. It was the calendar? No. No, no, no, no. It was the drought, Peter. Thank you. |
| 01:13:22.53 | Scott Diamond | Uh-huh. |
| 01:13:23.66 | Unknown | They are on the list of things, among other things, like what to do with a lot of other things. So it's not, again, it's not our job to, it's our job to allocate cities' priorities. And it's the staff's job to say we don't have enough staff time to do X, Y, and Z without you making a choice about whether you want to do X or Y. But for you folks, and I've said this in the time I've been up here, I mean you have more than every right to have a safe place to live, okay? And because you're more critical in my mind to the character of this community than any single person that lives in the hills. Because you are what makes Sausalito different from Teburon, Belvedere, whatever. So if just to have a, to be able to get out of your whatever craft you're using to go back and forth with safely is of paramount importance to me. And these are some very small interim things that we should do. This whole dingy dock and Edgewater and all that stuff sat in limbo because of all the crap that's gone on around the Bridgeway Marine property over the last, you know, X million years, right? So the city wouldn't focus on putting any money into it because you never know what was going to come about with all that stuff. So, but in the interim, let's do something. Okay, let's do these three small steps until we figure out what the bigger issues are and how to solve them. So, and this is the minimum we should do. And then we'll come back to the budget process and revisit these bigger issues along with some other stuff and say, okay, well, this isn't handicap compliant. We're going to have to put in a doc that's this, that, and the other thing. Um, You have to. talk to Jacques and the Friends of Dunphy Park to see, you know, okay, there's talk about moving the launch ramp over to the other, to, what is that? Not tourney, what's the other one? This next one. Napa, is it? |
| 01:15:30.24 | Scott Diamond | on that bridge with |
| 01:15:31.39 | Unknown | Well anyway, over to the other side of Bridgeway Marine, so you can back things in and out easier than between those two restaurants. But anyway, to me, this is important. It's a small thing to do. It's been ignored, and we should be able to do it. I'm not concerned, and I said this when I was on the RBRA, with |
| 01:15:31.41 | Scott Diamond | Well, anyway. |
| 01:15:55.89 | Unknown | That's it. I think you guys are fabric of the community. You deserve to be treated with respect and have a safe way to come in and out of your boats. And that's the minimum we should do. |
| 01:16:09.06 | Unknown | I would absolutely echo what Council Member Leon has just said, to me this is an important safety issue and our job, you have, we need to make sure that you've got a place where you can tie up the safe and that's our responsibility. Thank you. So that's the first thing. Second thing is I'd like to thank you all and I'd like to thank our staff um, all of the staff who have worked together very well with you. It's, I think, a good example of how we had a real problem and we came together and dialogued. And it's very nice to see progress. This is the first step, but I think it's a step that's important. |
| 01:16:59.41 | Unknown | So I really have nothing else to say except that I fully endorse the three recommendations that staff have made. So I'd look for a motion to that effect. |
| 01:17:14.50 | Unknown | Yeah, I'll make a motion. And so, but, and you guys made it work, right? You've been through the process. It took longer than you liked. Hopefully we'll figure out what's going on with these tickets. I would, maybe we should ask the staff to maybe broker some compromise here so it doesn't eat up everybody's time. But let's. Let's do that. But anyway, I'll make a motion to adopt to prepare an issue Well, I'll just make this motion since it's up here and you have it in... That we prepare an issue notice of consideration of regulations. We talk to BCDC about the minor dredging and evaluate alternatives for a little bit more further down the road. So let's see what... |
| 01:17:37.50 | Unknown | Bye. evidence. Yeah. |
| 01:17:56.63 | Unknown | And I believe that's the motion that's included in the staff report verbatim. |
| 01:18:00.04 | Unknown | you ever made him what i just said that Yeah, that's the staff report motion. I think that let's do this. And you made the process work for you. And we'll continue to make it work going forward. Okay? And thanks for, and you did it the right way. I mean, I echo your statements. You did it the right way. You came, you know, you've got to push the wheels and they start turning. And congratulations to you. Okay. With a second? You bet. |
| 01:18:11.52 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:18:28.04 | Unknown | Thank you. All those in favor? Aye. Those opposed? No. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:18:30.22 | Scott Diamond | Bye. |
| 01:18:30.86 | Unknown | No. |
| 01:18:31.75 | Scott Diamond | Thank you. |
| 01:18:31.80 | Unknown | No. |
| 01:18:31.97 | Scott Diamond | . |
| 01:18:55.86 | David Lay | you can see the steps |
| 01:18:58.30 | Unknown | Thank you. We're going to take a five minute break. Thank you. |
| 01:26:47.32 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:26:49.46 | Unknown | Okay, Debbie, are we ready to roll? |
| 01:26:49.48 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:26:55.28 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:26:55.99 | David Lay | Next. |
| 01:26:56.30 | Unknown | Thank you. Next. |
| 01:26:59.98 | David Lay | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:27:03.42 | Unknown | Thank you. The next item on the agenda is the Butte Street Task Force update. And it's my pleasure to welcome |
| 01:27:04.40 | David Lay | Thank you. |
| 01:27:04.50 | Unknown | That's all. |
| 01:27:13.64 | Unknown | the very hard work in hunting as chair of that task force. |
| 01:27:18.27 | Scott Diamond | Leon. He came down from Harana Circle. Thank you. |
| 01:27:21.96 | Leon | Can you hear me? Thank you. |
| 01:27:27.43 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:27:27.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:27:27.56 | Unknown | Can we tap it? Just bang on it a second. Tap it. Tap it. No, it's not on. |
| 01:27:27.58 | Leon | REGION. |
| 01:27:27.97 | Unknown | Thank you. Tap it. Tap it. |
| 01:27:38.92 | Leon | Thank you, Council. Thank you, Mayor Woodley. I'm here to give you an update on the Beats Creek Task Force. And there isn't really a large group, so I think I can cut out a few things that I was going to mention. |
| 01:27:57.08 | Scott Diamond | Well, they're watching you on TV. |
| 01:27:57.11 | Leon | You know, they're watching See you next week. Thank you. Yeah. I think you've got the collection of information, so I don't think we need to go through that. You know, we did the vote, and that was a positive vote that we got to move forward. So just in retrospect, briefly, all the task force meetings have been open to the public and we've invited public comment. It's always been an agenda item. We've had several members of the public provide input and we've taken note of all of those. At our last meeting, which was January 16th, it was kind of a special meeting because as a task force, we felt the council, |
| 01:28:07.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:28:51.35 | Leon | and Ron Albert, and giving weight to Ron and his opinion, we felt we needed to open this up and really have, try to get as many people as possible, and we got about 40 people. Ron Albert sat to my right and Keith Stone King sat to his right, Ron being president of Rotary and Keith, a former Rotary president. of We had no negative comments. Keith Stone King was very much for what we're doing and how we're doing it. Ron, and I went on the three-minute approach, but I gave Ron at least 10 minutes because I felt it was important for him to talk about this. The bottom line, I think, at this point with Ron is that He has a great passion for having Rotary housing somewhere in Sausalito. And it seemed that Butte Street was maybe the location, but he's really saying, you know, I doubt if Butte Street is really going to be something that can be developed. And as a result of the meeting also, there were a couple of task force members who said, look, we love what you're doing with Rotary housing. Why don't we help you? not at View Street, but we'll help you try to find another location. So, All the responses were very positive. what we were doing and how we were approaching it. And I think that's really important, that they sensed that we were being very thorough in our approach to making this happen. There were also 14 communiques, whether by letter or email or telephone, 14 of those came in. Only one was opposed to the proposal. So, we felt that everything was very positive coming out of that. We feel that we're on the railroad tracks and just moving right on down and we want to move ahead. We want to move ahead as quickly as possible. And this meeting is something that's going to be important because I'm going to ask for another vote of confidence. so that we can then go meet with the Hunts and really get this moving down the track. Now, I want to lay out what are the next steps, because I think it's important for you to hear those from us. Number one, we need to meet with the Hunts to get their agreement regarding the proposal. because if they say no, It's over. Uh... If they say yes, and they're in agreement to move ahead, then we'll reconnect with past and new third-party contacts and prospects to source interested parties who would become the eventual recipient owners. and then work out all the proposed terms, transfer mechanisms, letters of intent, and legal agreements that would be acceptable to the third party and, of course, the city and the hunts. It has to be agreeable to all parties. We bring those documents and the hunts into a meeting with the city so that the city attorney and possibly other staff members can review and comment and provide applicable information on the city's side of the transaction and staff can present the documentation to the council for a final vote because the city has to vote on and vote in open on the project. Um, Now, as a task force, We really feel that the Council made their voice heard on October 22nd in a positive vote of support, and the task force interprets that vote to mean that we are now in a position to begin meeting the, what I would call, conditions precedents. And those conditions as we see them are, number one, getting the support of the hunts in writing, reflecting their indication of interest. We have to have that before we go to step two. The second one is the task force securing at least one party that would purchase the Hunt's 50% undivided interest in the property and providing a letter of intent to receive the deeds from the city, and in this sense, the city donating its portion. And so we then go into a binding full agreement for the full property. and it's to be held as open space in perpetuity. And the third party would most likely be a foundation or land trust. The third item is getting all parties in agreement with the terms of the proposal, including the purchase price for the hunt portion. And at that time, the task force would notify the council that the conditions preceded have been met and a final vote of ratification needs to be made, so all the transfer documentation and funds can be consummated. you And so we would like to get a vote of confidence again and send us forward. And Mary might want to come in. |
| 01:34:42.96 | Leon | I'll answer your question. |
| 01:34:43.26 | Unknown | Yeah, so could we, is there any specific questions early on before we sort of start discussing this? |
| 01:34:44.22 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:34:53.93 | Unknown | Anybody, any questions? |
| 01:34:54.58 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | That's good. Mr. Mayor, I have a quick question for Leon. Leon? Under point two, I'm just wondering, you made it clear in your statement that the city would donate |
| 01:35:00.93 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:35:01.15 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:35:08.76 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 01:35:09.03 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | you know, its deed. |
| 01:35:09.18 | Unknown | Thank you. Um, |
| 01:35:12.64 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | written here. And so I was wondering if we could just make one quick little change. This The task force. |
| 01:35:24.37 | David Lay | the task. Yes. |
| 01:35:26.48 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | securing at least one party that would purchase the Hunt's 50% undivided interest in the property. and providing a letter of intent Uh, to receive the deed donated by the city. |
| 01:35:44.57 | Leon | Why don't we just add deeds from the city? |
| 01:35:45.60 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | or just... |
| 01:35:51.10 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | To be donated by the city? |
| 01:35:52.21 | Leon | for the city to donate its portion. |
| 01:35:55.52 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay. |
| 01:35:56.18 | Leon | It's undivided interest is what we probably should say. |
| 01:35:58.03 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay. for the city to donate to It's, and divided interest in the parcel |
| 01:36:03.77 | Leon | and divided interest in the parcel. |
| 01:36:07.48 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay. |
| 01:36:09.00 | Leon | to the third party. |
| 01:36:14.77 | Leon | which is what we've said in all preceding |
| 01:36:18.94 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Right, exactly. |
| 01:36:20.16 | Leon | Yes. |
| 01:36:20.97 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 01:36:21.00 | Leon | Thank you. |
| 01:36:21.47 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:36:24.31 | Unknown | Is there any other clarifying questions, again, before we discuss this? And I may have some questions later with Mary, so I'm going to... Thank you. |
| 01:36:33.69 | Unknown | Leon, quick question. Has there been any or have any conversations been fruitful with third parties as far as the land trust or foundations so far? |
| 01:36:44.76 | Leon | for. As I've mentioned, we've had indications of interest and some of those are current, but |
| 01:36:50.52 | Unknown | So good. |
| 01:36:51.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:36:51.04 | Unknown | and so. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:36:54.63 | Leon | You know, here we are as members of the task force kind of sitting out on a thin limb. Right, right, right. And we need a larger branch before disclosing because I'm sure that they would want to say, we need discretion here. We don't want to be embarrassed. So yes. But we are, yes. |
| 01:36:58.58 | Unknown | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 01:37:00.05 | Unknown | Right, right. |
| 01:37:00.98 | Unknown | and we need a larger branch. |
| 01:37:03.97 | Unknown | Before we just Thank you. |
| 01:37:05.77 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:37:06.58 | Unknown | All right. |
| 01:37:06.78 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:37:17.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:37:19.86 | Leon | Thank you. |
| 01:37:19.90 | Unknown | Thank you very much. |
| 01:37:21.55 | Unknown | I take it we haven't secured the agreement of the Hunts or who the third party is or the funding. But, and I take it that last time we approved an agreement to negotiate with these other parties. And I assumed at that point, and I haven't seen anything different, you haven't figured out exactly how title would be held. There's often covenants that run with the land, exactly how maintenance would be done, who would do it, how it would be documented. All that stuff would be done later, I take it. |
| 01:37:45.26 | Leon | All that stuff would be... Well, as a matter of fact, I had a very good meeting, I felt, with Mary and Jeremy recently. So we were able to open the door to those issues, because they are real issues that we're going to have to go through. But right now, we have to get past step one. Because if the Hunts don't agree to it, then we don't need to take up staff time, and we don't want to waste anyone's time on it. We are sincere in our endeavor, but step one first. |
| 01:38:26.50 | Unknown | So my question of our city attorney is, and I guess I should know this, but I'd like to hear from Mary. I know it's your words. What do conditions precedent mean? |
| 01:38:43.58 | Mary Wagner | It's one of those terms back from contract law, and that was a long time ago. But basically, they have to happen before something else can happen. That these things have to be fulfilled before something else can come along. So in this case, a condition precedent would be that the hunts agree. The hunts are going to agree, the third party has to be brought into the mix, the deal has to get fully fleshed out, and then brought back to the council for action. |
| 01:39:11.64 | Unknown | see why I didn't go to law school. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:39:13.61 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:39:14.26 | Mary Wagner | That was the fun stuff. |
| 01:39:14.69 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 01:39:16.81 | Unknown | . Is there any other questions before we bring it up here? |
| 01:39:25.16 | Unknown | Well, I do. Thank you. |
| 01:39:27.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:39:27.74 | Unknown | So, |
| 01:39:27.81 | Unknown | to get to the hospital. |
| 01:39:28.19 | Jeffrey Chase | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:39:28.62 | Unknown | you |
| 01:39:28.67 | Unknown | I'm sorry. May I ask one more question? Yeah, please. |
| 01:39:28.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:39:28.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:39:28.77 | Unknown | Puff. |
| 01:39:29.56 | Unknown | I'm sorry. Maybe you asked one more question. you I'm not sure. If this all seems fine and I can understand the steps you're taking and take them one step at a time, that all seems reasonable. Uh, I'm not quite sure what you're asking that's different because when I read what we approved on October 22nd, we've already given you all this authority. to do all the things, and you're just detailing what you're going to do, and It seems like this would be a report. I guess my question is, is there anything additional you're asking for, just to reiterate our previous motion? |
| 01:40:00.95 | Leon | as well. You know, as media will do to get excitement in the neighborhood, so to speak, there were some distortions that came out and unfortunate that involved us. And so I talked with Adam and I said, and we agreed, I should come back. I should give you an update because this sort of thing involves coming back to what we were talking about, making sure that we're clear. So I'm just, this is an iteration you might say, but a confirmation also. Had enough? |
| 01:40:47.37 | Scott Diamond | Had enough? |
| 01:40:53.23 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And Mr. Mayor, if I may, as a follow-up question. And Leon, just to confirm that the other issue that introduced some muddy waters with respect to quotes in the media uh, spoke to the real intent of the council, which is to donate their undivided interest, as opposed to sell. Yeah. |
| 01:41:15.27 | Unknown | it. Yeah. Yes, yes. |
| 01:41:19.96 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And that was the other cloudy issue we wanted to clarify tonight. |
| 01:41:20.97 | Leon | with the... I'm sorry. Cloudy issue. We wanted to clarify to that. Yeah. Thank you, because that was an issue, unfortunately. |
| 01:41:30.83 | Unknown | Yeah. Okay. Well, before we bring it back here, I've been reminded, are there any members of the public who'd like to talk on this topic? No? OK. Seeing none, then let's... It's pretty easy. Craft what we want to do. Why wouldn't it be the same motion as last time then? |
| 01:41:54.10 | Scott Diamond | if we're gonna... Just reaffirming the last motion there. That's all it is. |
| 01:41:58.79 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor. |
| 01:41:59.80 | Scott Diamond | Uh-huh. |
| 01:42:00.24 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So I think with Leon's edits with respect to receive the deed from the city and for the city to donate its undivided interest in the property to the third party is the key element here. Yeah, I understand. |
| 01:42:19.49 | Unknown | Yeah, I understand that. The element is the hunts. |
| 01:42:20.62 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And so that And so the question was, how does this motion differ from the earlier motion we made With the earlier motion, the verb was deed. My initial, as you reviewed the staff report, my initial motion, use the verb donate. Mayor Withee, you'll recall you took exception to that. It was reworded to deed. And from there on, it has been kind of these cloudy... Um, interpretations of what that meant. And so tonight, one of the things we can do is just clarify that, you know, we are talking about deed from the city. and for the city to donate its undivided interest in the property to the third party. And that would be part of point two. |
| 01:43:16.87 | Unknown | Mary, is there anything that you need to clarify for us there? |
| 01:43:25.95 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, I mean, I think what the Council is being asked to do is to clarify to kind of your negotiating party, which is the committee, your intent with respect to the deal and you know one of the deal points is how the city is going to transfer title of its own property you can't fully determine that until the full deal is in front of you, you know, and part Um, the discussion that we had briefly at the last meeting about this was, could the city donate its interest? And the answer was yes. because there's a public benefit to the open space. So that just has to all be clarified in all the documentation. So I think if what the Council is saying is We would like you to go forward with that intent, but we can't give you a final until the deal is inked. That is really the extent to which you can grant that. this evening. um, Mr. Honey and I kind of discussed it as The letter of intent you entered into with Cass Gidley, it was a non-binding letter of intent, but the city intends to hold up to that deal, things could change if the factors change, and that That was the best analogy I could think of as to what the council is being asked to do tonight. Give your negotiating party the ability to go forward and work with the other parties who are interested, knowing that they have your backing on putting the deal together. |
| 01:44:51.37 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:44:51.40 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:44:51.42 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:44:51.49 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:44:51.94 | Unknown | In reviewing the minutes of the meeting on October, 24th, 22nd, sorry. It took us about four goes to get a motion together. |
| 01:45:09.10 | Scott Diamond | And Leon came in and finished it. |
| 01:45:11.31 | Unknown | Yeah. Mm-hmm. So I don't know why we just don't go with the, I mean, Tom, can you help us with the craft of motion? Why can't we go with the old motion, perhaps change indeed to donate, I don't know. |
| 01:45:24.63 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | That would be great. |
| 01:45:25.78 | Unknown | Thank you. I don't know what you think that would work. |
| 01:45:26.54 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | That would work. |
| 01:45:28.63 | Unknown | Well, you know, we can do that. The problem is, the old motion actually, and we went round and round, finally settled on something. It actually, though, sets forth the motion of procedure that we may not do. We may not exactly take these funds and donate it to the motion. There may be other ways that it's handled on a legal basis. I mean, the intention is that we want to donate this land and have it be open space. But I think the way this is drafted is really not the way. The way I would... What I would suggest, I think we could take a straw poll to see if we are all interested in donating. But then what I would recommend is that you work with Mary on of. a resolution that would more accurately cover what we're doing here. To actually give you more flexibility, I think this is a little restrictive in its legal language, and yet capture our intent. So. Otherwise we'll be here, and some of this language was |
| 01:46:19.14 | Scott Diamond | Otherwise, |
| 01:46:22.34 | Unknown | was not exactly right and we're going to have to spend time crafting this motion, I would say we could do that. But we could give you a vote of confidence that we would follow the spirit of this resolution with the word donate, but that we would have a resolution that came back possibly on consent. |
| 01:46:38.00 | Unknown | Eric. |
| 01:46:40.41 | Mary Wagner | I guess I would look to your committee as to if they need a piece of paper or if the fact that the council is in agreement with the intent to move forward if that's sufficient. |
| 01:46:51.97 | Leon | Is that sufficient? |
| 01:46:52.82 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:46:52.84 | Leon | Thank you. Yeah. I think we would have to read something like with the With a purpose to receive or to dispose of this through a donation or equivalent |
| 01:47:23.21 | Leon | Manor. Thank you. We've talked, yeah, we're going to have to talk more, but... |
| 01:47:33.25 | Unknown | Well, I'd have to say, on one hand, I think the spirit's there. On the other hand, this is a major thing to donate a piece of city property for open space. And we certainly should have the language. So, I mean, we have the prior resolution, but if you need more, I think we really probably need to have it crafted in a way that we feel comfortable with. And again, the donate could be there. I just think... that we have to be clear that we're going to be donating it to a land trust and but the terms will be decided when the parties negotiate them. |
| 01:48:05.23 | Leon | I don't really see a problem with placing the emphasis on donation, though. I mean, as a first, as a, you know, there may be other things that come up that would be as good or better. But I think we need to have some sort of clarity in there that it's, that you're looking at a donation as opposed to a sale. You know, that's what... |
| 01:48:06.49 | Unknown | I don't really think. |
| 01:48:13.09 | Charlie Francis | Thank you. |
| 01:48:13.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:48:13.24 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:48:13.45 | Charlie Francis | Thank you. |
| 01:48:27.13 | Unknown | Exactly. Thank you. |
| 01:48:30.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:48:32.21 | Leon | I think we need to have a question. |
| 01:48:33.16 | Unknown | I'm not disagreeing with that, but I'm saying in terms of crafting the resolution, it should be specific, and I'm not sure that we're in a position to do that exactly right now. |
| 01:48:42.13 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And Mr. Mayor, if I may, |
| 01:48:43.59 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:48:43.89 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I think that the initial suggestion where we move forward in good faith with the original motion replacing the verb deed with the verb donate would certainly go a long way in getting us unstuck. It would be, um... Leon, just to, it would say... the task motion that the task force be allowed to negotiate the purchase of the city's co-owners undivided interest in property. would come from a neutral third party. the new co-owner in the city. would then donate the entire property to a conservation land trust to be held as solely dedicated to permanent open space? |
| 01:49:27.86 | Leon | in an open space. |
| 01:49:30.82 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah, okay. So it was for the third party. |
| 01:49:30.84 | Leon | Yeah, okay. So it was for the third party that third party. |
| 01:49:35.04 | Unknown | I mean, |
| 01:49:35.48 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah. |
| 01:49:35.49 | Leon | Yeah. |
| 01:49:35.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:49:36.00 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 01:49:36.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:49:36.03 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And the original motion that you presented did say the new co-owner, in other words, the nonprofit, the new co-owner and the city would then donate. So both parties would donate. |
| 01:49:36.35 | Leon | Thank you. |
| 01:49:42.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:49:42.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:49:42.77 | Leon | Non-primsy. |
| 01:49:47.64 | Leon | Party. Um... The new, no, because we would, if I could clarify that, the Hunts would, we would find the purchase, the buyer, let's say, keep it simple. So that would be negotiated. Yes. And a price agreed upon, hopefully. So let's say it is. All right. uh that property would be sold and deeded over right simultaneously and simultaneously we as the city would go through a donation process now that's going to be kind of a legal thing that we've talked about But I think the donation side has been extremely important. Yes. we've talked about, but I think the donation side has been extremely important to the task force and there's been no resistance in the community lately. I know there was one comment that Ron made. |
| 01:49:59.96 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Right. Right. Thank you. Yeah. |
| 01:50:06.20 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:50:06.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:50:06.41 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:50:06.51 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:50:16.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:50:16.95 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:50:17.11 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:50:17.21 | Unknown | you |
| 01:50:17.29 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:50:26.20 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:50:39.11 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yes. Mm-hmm. |
| 01:50:45.91 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:50:48.41 | Jeffrey Chase | Thank you. |
| 01:50:48.43 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 01:50:48.61 | Jeffrey Chase | Thank you. |
| 01:50:52.75 | Leon | It's one. |
| 01:50:53.84 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So how about this motion to move that the city |
| 01:50:56.05 | Leon | See. |
| 01:50:56.46 | Scott Diamond | Thank you. |
| 01:50:59.09 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. It's undivided to move this |
| 01:51:00.12 | David Lay | you |
| 01:51:04.41 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | that the city's intent is to donate its undivided interest in the property to the third party. |
| 01:51:11.73 | Unknown | Yes. Hold that thought. |
| 01:51:15.43 | Unknown | Harry, is the concern that, you know, and I'm not a real estate person, but I know in any transaction you may sell somebody something for a dollar because that makes the most sense rather than, say, donate something. So because you have to transfer liability and there has to be a transfer of funds to transfer all those things. So is the concern here that we don't know what the form of this transaction would take place, how it's going to all go down to a certain degree? |
| 01:51:15.68 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:51:27.74 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 01:51:49.02 | Unknown | So they're could you say something to the effect of little or no cost, or something that gets you to that point, or do we even need to? Is your concern more, and I can understand this, that we don't know how the form of this transaction would work, so let's just say the city's intent is to, You know, deed is the verb we used before. I'm not sure how, I can't remember how it came about. Is that kind of where you're coming from? |
| 01:52:13.34 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, and the verb I use is transfer title. I don't know why, but that's the transfer of title, but I think I think that the important to get documented if this is what the council wants to do. is that you're directing your negotiating parties to enter into negotiations with the key players And the city's intent is to Thank you. offer its land as part of this transaction to be to be donated But the really Real key point from a legal standpoint in my mind is you can't tie future councils to that. decision. So there has to be a legal point that we discussed when we met with Jeremy. So it's really just saying that that's what we're intending to do, bring us back the full deal, and then it gets inked up. And I think if that's what the council is directing, then that's very clear to me that those are the deal points that you want us to go to the table with. I think it's very clear. |
| 01:53:10.41 | Leon | I just want to be sure none of you die. Okay? |
| 01:53:13.89 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. And hopefully this will all go fairly quickly. |
| 01:53:15.85 | Leon | Yeah. Go fairly quickly. I'm thinking hopefully we want to move this right now. |
| 01:53:18.92 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah. |
| 01:53:19.27 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:53:19.34 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And... |
| 01:53:19.46 | Unknown | Amen. |
| 01:53:19.54 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah. So, and I use the word intent. I said the motion, I move to confirm the city's intent to donate its undivided interest in the Butte parcel to the third party as open space. |
| 01:53:39.49 | Scott Diamond | You see, my question to you, Liam, does it matter or would it if you went there and had to explain that it would either be donated or a sale for a dollar? |
| 01:53:54.56 | Leon | Yeah. |
| 01:53:55.23 | Scott Diamond | I don't know, but I'm just asking. |
| 01:53:56.73 | Leon | I think what Linda just said is very good because I think that meets Mary. Did you feel comfortable with it? I did too because it really is a statement of intent, serious intent. It's fun. And we've talked about there could be tax things that could come in that would be more... Some other ramifications. Yeah. Okay. |
| 01:53:57.92 | Scott Diamond | either way. |
| 01:54:08.53 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:54:09.04 | Scott Diamond | I don't, okay. It's fun. |
| 01:54:10.94 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:54:15.67 | Scott Diamond | Thank you. |
| 01:54:15.70 | Unknown | I'm not. |
| 01:54:16.02 | Scott Diamond | of ramifications. |
| 01:54:16.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:54:17.15 | Scott Diamond | Thank you. |
| 01:54:17.19 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:54:17.22 | Scott Diamond | Yeah. |
| 01:54:18.57 | Unknown | Okay, so Mary, you are comfortable with, in terms of your legal concerns, you're comfortable with the motion that Council Member Pfeiffer has put forth. |
| 01:54:26.10 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. that. Council member. Yes. |
| 01:54:30.05 | Unknown | Can we restate that for the. |
| 01:54:30.10 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:54:32.26 | Unknown | It's like... One more question. I want to make sure that it's clear that the final terms and conditions need to be approved by the City Council. Oh, of course. Can we add that? I feel much more comfortable because there's something about this. |
| 01:54:33.62 | Unknown | Right. |
| 01:54:42.58 | Leon | Can we add that? I feel much. this. I think that's right there in what I gave you. |
| 01:54:47.97 | Unknown | I'm not sure I see the motion, but okay. It's not a motion that I've already known. It's a statement. |
| 01:54:52.32 | Scott Diamond | Thank you. Yeah. |
| 01:54:53.03 | Leon | statement. Okay. |
| 01:54:55.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:54:55.51 | Leon | Bye. Thank you. |
| 01:54:56.30 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Debbie, did you happen to capture that motion? I can do it again if you didn't. It's okay if you didn't, because... |
| 01:54:56.32 | Leon | Death. |
| 01:54:56.54 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:55:03.91 | Debbie | Well, what I have so far is to confirm the city's |
| 01:55:06.78 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yes. Thank you. |
| 01:55:07.59 | Debbie | you confirm that the city's intent is to donate the undivided interest in the parcel. |
| 01:55:13.04 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | to the third party as open space was my complete motion. |
| 01:55:19.27 | Leon | Yeah, permanent open space. Yes, permanent open space. And I would place it should be the city's |
| 01:55:20.47 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yes, permanent open space. |
| 01:55:27.83 | Leon | as possessive. |
| 01:55:29.73 | Unknown | May I? A friendly amendment. What might be simpler is to take our original motion... substitute the word donate for deed, And then add that the final terms and conditions to be approved by the City Council. That may make, because otherwise, We didn't have the words negotiate. We worked through all this language. I think what we're talking about is we didn't like deed and we're moving to donate. So we're just... Intent to donate. Intent to donate. Okay. |
| 01:55:54.07 | Leon | Intensive. Well, you have to transfer time. I think I feel more comfortable with Linda's, because it states the intent in a way that |
| 01:55:55.74 | Unknown | Well, you know. |
| 01:55:55.99 | Scott Diamond | Thank you. |
| 01:55:58.30 | Unknown | I was like, |
| 01:56:03.41 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:56:03.43 | Unknown | because it's... |
| 01:56:09.42 | Leon | So I need to see this workable. |
| 01:56:09.98 | Unknown | is workable. Yeah. The Worship's not |
| 01:56:12.11 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Oh. |
| 01:56:12.58 | Leon | No, I'll write it down. No, there's not a motion in there. |
| 01:56:12.71 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah. |
| 01:56:12.86 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:56:12.98 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I'll write it down. |
| 01:56:15.23 | Unknown | because |
| 01:56:15.23 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Because, yeah, if I may, thank you, Leon. If I may, Mr. Mayor, I think when we're saying... |
| 01:56:20.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:56:20.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:56:20.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:56:22.13 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | the intent to donate, then obviously it's subject to what you're saying. approval in encompassing any final issues or whatever. But, I mean, to me, keeping it just... |
| 01:56:32.95 | Tim Sutherford | are |
| 01:56:33.22 | Unknown | What? |
| 01:56:37.99 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | very specific that It is to confirm. a motion to confirm the city's intent to donate its undivided interest in the Butte property to the third party as permanent open space. I think that says it all, and I don't think we need to add any other addressing. Well, one of the problems... |
| 01:56:55.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:57:01.89 | Unknown | DR. Well, one of the problems we're donating I mean, I think we're all fine on the concept. you're having us donate to a third party. It doesn't even say that it's a land trust like it says in the last part. I think this idea, and I'd like to see it written out, we are donating. a significant part of the city's property. And I have no problem with donating. I just want to make sure that whatever resolution we have, |
| 01:57:19.84 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:57:20.05 | Unknown | and I think that's it. |
| 01:57:24.74 | Unknown | doesn't have us donating it to a third party without even designating that they're a conservative land trust |
| 01:57:30.41 | Leon | Thank you. Could I ask then, Linda made a motion which was seconded and approved last time. That includes what you're talking about, Tom. So I think that you could feel comfortable with that motion and you voted for it, so I think you did. But then just modify it in the sense the language of... |
| 01:57:55.31 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Replace deed with donate or add that sentence to it? |
| 01:57:59.19 | Leon | I don't know, just to say that. |
| 01:58:02.76 | Unknown | Thank you. I'm going to take a crack at this. |
| 01:58:03.19 | Leon | What is she saying right up front? The city is something intense. Thank you. |
| 01:58:09.07 | Debbie | From the city's intent |
| 01:58:11.07 | Leon | Yeah. |
| 01:58:11.73 | Debbie | to donate its undivided interest in the Butte Street parcel to a third party as permanent open space. |
| 01:58:17.52 | Leon | Yeah, and just if you take out third party and you put in what we had in the motion there, which was a non-profit or land trust or equivalent? then Yeah, we said constantly |
| 01:58:34.38 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah, we said conservation land trust. |
| 01:58:36.88 | Leon | Yeah. |
| 01:58:38.04 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So we could replace third party with conservation land trust. |
| 01:58:42.58 | Leon | Could be a foundation though, I mean, but. It's obviously going to be one that is specializing in land. |
| 01:58:53.33 | Adam Politzer | I offer to the council, yeah, I I... Appreciate. conversations tonight and the conversations that me and Mr. Huntinghead before. But I think the, you know, really where you're actually talking the same language. But at the end of the day, it's the intent. We intend to come forward to donate this property, but until the details all come forward, and there's lots and lots of details and process that will come forward, |
| 01:59:12.03 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:59:23.77 | Adam Politzer | That's all that you're agreeing to. So I think that we're getting hung up on deed, donate, land trust, public, non-profit, Those are all, you know, they're important details. But tonight the committee just needs reaffirming that it's the Council's intent to donate this property, let the details come forward, in future meetings. and maybe not get too caught up in all the specific language because When the details come forward and the council says, look, that's completely different than what we thought. Or the Hunts say, you know what, too complicated, we're out. I mean a lot of things can happen at this point. I know that you guys can sit here tonight and try to work it out, but I think it may not be that significant or important other than the intent to donate the property and continue to do your good work with the committee and come back with an update. you |
| 02:00:18.73 | Scott Diamond | Is that good enough, Leon? |
| 02:00:18.90 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 02:00:20.57 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 02:00:20.61 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 02:00:20.64 | Adam Politzer | Yeah. |
| 02:00:20.84 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 02:00:20.86 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 02:00:21.01 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 02:00:21.03 | Leon | Thank you. |
| 02:00:21.18 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah. I'm... |
| 02:00:22.77 | Leon | I'm |
| 02:00:23.93 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:00:25.15 | Leon | Maybe I'm just a person who is very trusting, and I am, and that's because I trust you. And I think we're here all working for the benefit of the city. That's what I saw in the last discussion, that everybody has a real sincere feeling for the city. And I wouldn't be here if I didn't believe in you. I wouldn't work for you. I'll just tell you that. |
| 02:00:49.36 | Unknown | you know Thank you. |
| 02:00:50.76 | Leon | . |
| 02:00:51.67 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So to respond to the city manager and to Leon's comment, it sounds like the option to replace deed with the verb donate in the original motion. would would satisfy that. I mean, the task force needs a motion from the council to vote on its intent to donate this parcel. And we have two options. We can change deed to donate in the original motion. That's option one. We can keep the original motion and just add the added statement that I read earlier, right? And that's what I'm hearing. Okay, so let's do that. |
| 02:01:31.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:01:31.13 | Unknown | And that's what I'm hearing. |
| 02:01:32.26 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:01:33.85 | Unknown | Yes. Thank you. |
| 02:01:34.67 | Unknown | Okay, so let's do that. So why don't we then go the route of changing deep to donate. And adding this. Use the language of the previous motion. |
| 02:01:38.16 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:01:38.18 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay. and adding this. |
| 02:01:41.19 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:01:42.28 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 02:01:42.30 | Unknown | motion. Thank you. |
| 02:01:43.09 | Unknown | And add the terms and conditions are subject to approval. |
| 02:01:43.23 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | K-12. |
| 02:01:43.43 | Leon | Bye. |
| 02:01:47.01 | Leon | And on donate, I would go with Lyndon's comment on that, because it qualifies it. And I think, Tom, that'll take away some of the concerns. |
| 02:01:54.97 | Unknown | Yeah. I just want to be clear, we're all in agreement. We're just trying to work out what the resident says. |
| 02:02:00.09 | Leon | Yeah. Yeah. I mean, |
| 02:02:03.53 | Unknown | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 02:02:03.88 | Leon | I'm sorry. |
| 02:02:03.97 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 02:02:04.03 | Leon | Now we're just, we want to get to the head. |
| 02:02:04.24 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:02:06.28 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So I'm going to make this full motion. And if Council Member, Vice Mayor Theodorus wants to amend something, feel free, but I'm just going to read this. I move that the task force be allowed to negotiate the purchase of the City Koner's undivided interest in the property. |
| 02:02:07.17 | Leon | So I'm going to And if |
| 02:02:25.25 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | The funds for this purchase would come from a neutral third party. The new co-owner in the city would then Donate. the entire property to a conservation land trust to be held as solely dedicated to permanent open space And to confirm the city's intent to donate its undivided interest in the property to the Conservation Land Trust as permanent open space. |
| 02:02:55.00 | Leon | It's an added sentence to the existing motion, I think. I don't care about the word deed, really. I mean, because deed or donate, because donate comes in, in that sentence. |
| 02:03:12.02 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Do I have a second to that motion? |
| 02:03:12.11 | Leon | Do I have a second? |
| 02:03:14.82 | Unknown | I still, I'm now confused about the motion because I heard you repeat the sentence twice. Sorry. I mean, I- |
| 02:03:17.64 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah. |
| 02:03:17.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:03:21.88 | Unknown | Okay. Yeah, it's two different ways. |
| 02:03:23.95 | Unknown | You're saying two different things in the same, you're saying the same thing two different ways in one motion. |
| 02:03:24.11 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Here. |
| 02:03:24.41 | Unknown | to the |
| 02:03:29.59 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay, so... Then we I would be fine with just changing deed to donate with the original motion. |
| 02:03:40.24 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:03:41.62 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Leon, is that okay with you? To change deed to donate and leave it at that? I'm busy. Okay, I know, me too. |
| 02:03:48.25 | Unknown | . |
| 02:03:49.13 | Adam Politzer | And mayors, can I be with that? Mr. Mayor, can I? Please. I'm sorry, just trying to... |
| 02:03:49.20 | Unknown | Mayor Sparrow. |
| 02:03:50.03 | Jeffrey Chase | You're happy with that? Yes. |
| 02:03:51.43 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 02:03:52.61 | Jeffrey Chase | Please. I'm sorry, just trying to. I think donating is important in there. Thank you. |
| 02:03:56.66 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 02:03:56.73 | Jeffrey Chase | Thank you. |
| 02:03:56.83 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. Just trying to keep this tight. Going back to the council meeting And the final motion that was made It says, Councilmember Pfeiffer move that the task force be allowed to negotiate the purchase of the city's co-owned, the purchase of the city's co-owners, individual interests, uninvited interests in the property. |
| 02:04:20.01 | David Lay | Thank you. |
| 02:04:23.40 | Adam Politzer | The funds of this purchase would come. from a neutral third party, the new co-owner, and the city within the entire property to a conservation land trust to be held as solely dedicated to permanent open space. And then there was seconded. I think you're just reaffirming reaffirming that motion the added language that Vice Mayor Theodorus is asking to be added at the end. |
| 02:04:52.09 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | No, actually, Adam, I'm sorry. We're actually, what I did was I just replaced deed with donate. That's all I did. |
| 02:04:55.92 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 02:04:56.07 | Leon | Thank you. |
| 02:04:56.38 | Adam Politzer | Yeah. |
| 02:04:56.46 | Leon | Yes. |
| 02:04:56.63 | Adam Politzer | See you. |
| 02:04:56.82 | Leon | you |
| 02:04:56.87 | Adam Politzer | you |
| 02:04:56.89 | Leon | Thank you. |
| 02:05:00.07 | Leon | And what was the term Linda used with donate |
| 02:05:07.97 | Debbie | divided. |
| 02:05:08.53 | Leon | No, no, no. |
| 02:05:08.55 | Mary Wagner | No, no, no. Intent to donate? |
| 02:05:10.76 | Debbie | The intent is to donate this undivided |
| 02:05:14.00 | Leon | There you go. That's what I would put in there. |
| 02:05:15.70 | Mary Wagner | Mayor Withey, may I just make a suggestion? |
| 02:05:16.56 | Leon | With you, may I? |
| 02:05:19.67 | Mary Wagner | So your original action, which is a minute order, stance. And I think what you're being asked to do is confirm the intent to donate language. So I suggest leaving the original action standing as it is, and I would suggest a motion that just says, you're confirming your direction to the committee Um, to negotiate. with the city's intent to donate its interest All the terms and conditions of the deal were returned to the Council for action. you |
| 02:05:55.59 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Mary, I'm sorry. I would like it to be more direct than that with respect to this. The intent of the city council is to donate. I'll make the motion. No, I've made the motion. It's okay if you don't second it. |
| 02:06:00.57 | Mary Wagner | Respect. |
| 02:06:01.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:06:01.53 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 02:06:01.62 | Unknown | and tens of thousands. |
| 02:06:04.70 | Unknown | So I'll make the motion. If you don't second it. I'm making a second motion. I'll make your motion right there. |
| 02:06:13.02 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | No, I will not second that and I will not vote for it. |
| 02:06:16.16 | Unknown | That's fine. |
| 02:06:17.33 | Mary Wagner | And Mayor Withie, I apologize, this seems to be taking on a wordsmithing. Well, I think this is actually quite a good question. |
| 02:06:17.41 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | and mayor with Thank you. |
| 02:06:21.09 | Unknown | Well, I think this is actually quite unnecessary, most of it, to be honest. |
| 02:06:23.79 | Mary Wagner | But I think, I mean, I was trying to get the intent to donate language very clear in there and not to wordsmith it so much that you're not sure what you've actually done. Oh, what you did? |
| 02:06:33.80 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | What you did, though, was you made the city direction about the negotiation process as opposed to the city's intent to donate. And my motion was to confirm the city's intent to donate |
| 02:06:46.98 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:06:47.18 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | The beaut. property, its undivided interest in the Butte property to the Conservation Land Trust as permanent open space. That's direct. It says it. It's clean. It's straightforward. |
| 02:07:00.09 | Unknown | It's straightforward. Well, no, the difference is, I believe Leon came to get this confirmation that we're donating. But the original resolution always said negotiate. So I'd like to keep negotiating. So I tend toward |
| 02:07:15.01 | Unknown | American. |
| 02:07:15.46 | Unknown | Mary's proposed resolution because it specifies that we intend to have you negotiate, but we're going to donate. See, because otherwise we're doing two things. We're saying we're going to We're going to donate it without limiting you to negotiation and so we're doing two things. |
| 02:07:34.70 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | This is lawyer speak is what this is. They're trying to make direction with respect to how you negotiate as opposed to taking a stand and voting on their intent. |
| 02:07:36.20 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:07:39.85 | Unknown | Direct. |
| 02:07:40.28 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:07:47.56 | Scott Diamond | Okay. |
| 02:07:47.81 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And my motion spoke to your intent. |
| 02:07:47.83 | Scott Diamond | And my- |
| 02:07:48.40 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:07:50.09 | Scott Diamond | And you need a second. |
| 02:07:51.96 | Unknown | Yeah, Mr. Mayor, would you repeat what you, Mary, the city attorney, who's actually a lawyer, please repeat the language that you read before? |
| 02:08:05.73 | Mary Wagner | I believe what I said was that your original minute order stands as it was adopted on the 24th and that the council is moving to affirm or confirm its direction to your negotiators to move forward with discussions with the other parties and confirming the city's intent to donate its interest in the property with all the terms and conditions returning to the council for action. |
| 02:08:37.10 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:08:39.79 | Mary Wagner | Leon, are you here? |
| 02:08:39.87 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:08:40.19 | Scott Diamond | Yeah. |
| 02:08:40.38 | Unknown | you |
| 02:08:40.43 | Scott Diamond | Sure. |
| 02:08:40.51 | Unknown | Leon, are you happy with that motion? Okay, is there a second? |
| 02:08:43.94 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah. |
| 02:08:44.01 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:08:44.51 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I have discussion. I'll second that. |
| 02:08:44.77 | Unknown | . |
| 02:08:44.80 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:08:44.81 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 02:08:45.00 | Unknown | I have discussion. I'll second that. I have discussion on this. Yeah, Rosenberg's Rules |
| 02:08:47.04 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. I have discussion on this. Yeah, Rosenberg's Rules of Order. We have discussion now for a motion. Council Member Pfeiffer. |
| 02:08:52.14 | Unknown | So, Council Member Fleming. Thank you. |
| 02:08:53.83 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 02:08:53.84 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:08:53.96 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah, so this is really muddying the waters. We came, the task force has been clear with seeking a vote from this council majority on its intent to donate this parcel. What you're doing instead is you're redirecting things towards negotiation. The spirit of the Butte Task Force was to ultimately, in essence, to make a recommendation to this council. Now it's turning into a negotiating body. That's fine, but before we go there, residents of this town want to hear from this council majority what your intent is. that your intent is to donate this property. |
| 02:09:34.78 | Unknown | Oh, ho. |
| 02:09:35.15 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | as OpenSpace. And you can vote on that motion, and then you can vote on the negotiation fine. But I want to hear a direct vote from you with respect to your intent. |
| 02:09:47.14 | Unknown | So there's a motion and a second. |
| 02:09:49.85 | Unknown | I do not know what the motion is. |
| 02:09:53.02 | Unknown | No, the motion was Mary's motion. |
| 02:09:53.38 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | No, man. The motion was Mary's motion. |
| 02:09:56.96 | Unknown | Mary can't make a motion. We need somebody to make a motion. |
| 02:09:59.42 | Unknown | I made that motion. Oh, okay. You made the motion and I second. |
| 02:10:01.23 | Leon | I made the motion and I second it. And he seconded it. This was not a good week for me to stop drinking. |
| 02:10:08.13 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | . |
| 02:10:08.16 | Leon | Thank you. |
| 02:10:08.23 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 02:10:08.70 | Scott Diamond | Leon, ever hear that expression, had enough? Leon, I think it's a good question. |
| 02:10:14.02 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Leigh Ann, I would encourage you to listen to this motion and interpret it from a lawyer's perspective. I know you can do that because this is very... |
| 02:10:23.36 | Leon | because this is very... I feel comfortable because of the last part of the motion, because I think it's saying essentially what you were saying on donation. It says negotiate the donation, not that they... The city's intent. Debbie, can you just kind of... |
| 02:10:38.47 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | It says negotiate the donation, not that they... |
| 02:10:46.96 | Debbie | I cannot do it all the way. you Thank you. |
| 02:10:48.86 | Leon | But no, right at the end. |
| 02:10:51.06 | Debbie | The six you have to donate is interesting. Thank you. I have to go with it because it says in the party |
| 02:10:58.52 | Mary Wagner | Yeah I think what we said was you're giving direction to your negotiator which is what the committee is to move forward with discussions with the other interested parties and you're confirming the city's intent to donate your interest in the land and that you're going to it's going to be brought back to you for final action with all the terms and conditions. |
| 02:10:58.55 | Debbie | THE END OF THE END OF THE Yes. |
| 02:11:03.39 | Debbie | Yeah. |
| 02:11:03.63 | Unknown | to. |
| 02:11:11.41 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:11:11.80 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:11:11.81 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:11:18.09 | Unknown | Yeah, that's fine. |
| 02:11:19.61 | Unknown | That's fine. |
| 02:11:22.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:11:22.39 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I wouldn't have a problem with this if they first voted on the clean motion regarding their intent. |
| 02:11:28.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:11:28.69 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 02:11:28.70 | Unknown | OK. |
| 02:11:29.38 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Devoid of the negotiation process. |
| 02:11:30.34 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:11:30.36 | Unknown | Wait. |
| 02:11:32.91 | Unknown | Can we actually now stop discussion? We have a motion on the table. We have a second, I think I know what the motion is. but I'm still not certain. |
| 02:11:43.20 | Mary Wagner | I mean, I can tell you what I said, and then you guys decide if this is what you really want to do. I like to tell you that this is your motion. You're confirming the direction to your negotiators. The task force. To move forward with discussions with the other interested parties, which are the other owner in the property and whatever entities are being... |
| 02:11:44.94 | Unknown | and you guys decide if this is what you really want to do. You told me that this is your motion. |
| 02:11:52.84 | Unknown | The task force. |
| 02:11:58.12 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:12:01.29 | Mary Wagner | brought to the table to talk about final ownership interest. So that's point one. And point two is you're also confirming your intent to donate the city's interest in that property and that all the terms and conditions will be brought back to the City Council for final action. |
| 02:12:17.95 | Unknown | Thank you. Is that your motion? And you've seconded that. Okay, let's call for a vote. And you are happy with that? Okay, thanks. Let's call for a vote. |
| 02:12:23.97 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 02:12:24.01 | Unknown | you |
| 02:12:25.22 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I need clarification on something. I heard two separate sentences there. I heard the second part of the sentence was that to confirm the cities or was that confirmation part of the negotiation direction? |
| 02:12:42.41 | Mary Wagner | Well, I think there's two concepts to it. So what if we did this? The City Council moves to one. direct its negotiating process negotiators. to enter into discussions with the other interested parties. which in my mind includes the other owner. in whatever third parties you're bringing to the table. semicolon and two, to confirm the city's intent to donate its interest in the property. All of this subject to the full deal being brought back to the Council for action because that's all you can do. You can't... |
| 02:13:16.11 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I can't. |
| 02:13:16.89 | Mary Wagner | You can't determine that until you see |
| 02:13:19.03 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay, I feel more comfortable with it split like that. So it's not nested. |
| 02:13:22.48 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 02:13:22.51 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:13:22.83 | Mary Wagner | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:13:24.22 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | under negotiation. |
| 02:13:25.68 | Unknown | That's still your motion? Yes. Yeah, that's still your second. Okay, let's call for the vote. |
| 02:13:28.38 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | That's stupid. |
| 02:13:29.92 | Debbie | Yeah. |
| 02:13:29.95 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:13:30.04 | Debbie | call for the vote. |
| 02:13:33.48 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah. |
| 02:13:33.66 | Debbie | Thank you. |
| 02:13:33.82 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 02:13:35.06 | Debbie | Councilmember Weiner. |
| 02:13:36.79 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:13:36.80 | Scott Diamond | Yes. |
| 02:13:38.64 | Debbie | Thank you. to me. Good morning. |
| 02:13:41.23 | Scott Diamond | Yes. |
| 02:13:46.76 | Scott Diamond | That passes. |
| 02:13:49.21 | Unknown | that passes Blah, blah. |
| 02:13:50.98 | Scott Diamond | Leon 5-0. Yeah, and Leon, thank you very much for all the work that you've done on putting this together. |
| 02:13:59.20 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you, Leon. |
| 02:14:07.82 | Scott Diamond | And don't sell the house on Iran or Circle and leave. |
| 02:14:23.23 | Unknown | Okay. Again, thank you very much Leon. |
| 02:14:27.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:14:29.64 | Unknown | The next item, when I get my glasses on, is the... 2013 streets project and I'll just leave it at that. |
| 02:14:39.78 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Jonathan Goldman again, your public works director and city engineer. This is actually a closure item in a way kind of a celebratory item, reminding the council and the community that in June of last year, the council awarded a contract to Majoran Gelati for the 2013 Street Improvement Project. |
| 02:15:03.64 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:15:07.52 | Jonathon Goldman | Following the notice of award, staff had a meeting with representatives of that contractor and identified some issues with the plans that needed to be addressed with supplemental appropriations which we came to the council with in September of last year. And at that time, council authorized two project augmentations to address known changes at that time and the cost impacts of those changes. That included a lot of work that we elected to do at MLK Park in advance of Lycée Francais becoming a tenant there. Work is now complete and I've got some photographs to show and I'm sure that all of you members of the council and community have seen the product of the work. So what we're doing tonight is to make sure that you're apprised of the difference between the supplemental appropriation, what we thought the final costs were going to be in September and what the actual final costs were. There is another supplemental appropriation that we're requesting from you in closure on this project, but also to recognize that the city, the community got a significant amount of value from this work and its value that will last a long time like many of the facilities that were replaced. I'm just going to show a few slides to illustrate, and the staff report has some of these details, but I want to point out that one of the areas where there was a discrepancy between what was designed and what actually got built is in the way the reinforcement associated with the Fort Lincey-Mond concrete pavement in Richardson got constructed. We had the advantage in this circumstance of having worked with a contractor who also was the low bidder when we did Third Street and San Carlos. And with their contribution to revisions to the plans, we have a much better product. in that. what was replaced in the pavement sections on all of these concrete streets now is unreinforced concrete. And as you can see, in fact, you drive in and out on B Street all the time, you can see that fracture in the concrete pavement is independent of all of the rest of the concrete pavement. So it's free to move up and down, and if the soil conditions below it are moist, that promotes a much more significant failure than with the addition of this kind of reinforcement that won't allow that to happen in the next 80 years on Richardson. This is just a photograph depicting some of the finished work, you know, highlighting the much more accessible curb ramps. We added a number of curb ramps to what had been originally planned. I know that there are folks in Hurricane Gulch and Old Town that would like us to add more, and unfortunately we weren't able to do that with this project but we plan to do so next year with next year's budget. Another after photograph. Thank you. |
| 02:18:50.81 | Jonathon Goldman | Yes, they did. This too was an instance where what was planned and the quantities that were included in the plans didn't accurately reflect the reality of that situation and there were pretty significant failures in the gutter section there. We went with the advice of the contractor who, again, are very good at what they do and I think have always been very forthright and offered very good advice to the city of Sausalito in executing their work and were able to make that repair. Um, in a way better than what had been designed. This is the parking lot at MLK. We took advantage of the opportunity to make sure that all the disabled parking spaces in the lot complied with the current code. And one of the key parts of that is that the markings need to be well maintained and be visible. So the parking lot there got essentially slurry sealed and then re-striped as part of our project. We also, with this contract, used a new technique called cape seal instead of slurry seal. The slurry seal is a liquid emulsion that does kind of restore the surface of asphalt pavement. But what the cape seal does, and I think there's a photograph here, the cape seal includes really three layers of treatment. There's a liquid layer that goes down first and then aggregate chips get embedded in the slurry seal and then it gets slurry sealed again. So according to our retired city engineer who was the project manager on this work, this treatment will extend the life of these pavements in the areas that it was employed by significantly longer than Solericio La Rhone would. Another point I want to make about this subcontractor to Majora and Jalati is There were a number of issues that came up during the course of their work where traffic control wasn't quite what it should have been. We had residents and visitors drive their cars through fresh Cape Seal on a couple of occasions. In every one of those instances, this contractor very promptly and expeditiously resolved claims, cleaned people's vehicles, took care of everything with absolutely no complaint and that also is pretty significant, I think. This is an example of some of the drainage work that we had to do in Richardson. Once we got, once first of all PG&E got out of the way, moved their gas mains from immediately below the concrete pavement depth, which is where they've been since the 20s, we had and Maggiore and Gelati is able to demolish the Portland cement concrete pavement that was there. As those of you who live in that part of town know, you find all kinds of natural watercourses underneath the pavement. And rather than allow, rather than just slap new pavement on on top of that, We took advantage of the opportunity to collect it and get it conveyed into storm drains underground in every reasonable place that we could. So this is a geotextile, and this permeable material is being backfilled in this cross trench underneath the pavement so that we don't have springs appearing or not as significant or as frequent, the appearance of springs through cracks and joints in the pavement in the future. So I'm happy to answer questions, but fundamentally what I'm asking you all to do this evening is adopt a resolution accepting the project as complete, authorizing the city engineer that's made, issue a notice of completion, appropriating additional funds for, and authorizing the city manager to approve the outstanding change orders that still exist, And then also a very small augmentation to RGS's budget for our retired city engineer Todd T. Jobs project management services. And the details associated with this are in the staff report, and there's a detailed final funding allocation table that's also an attachment to the staff report. |
| 02:23:41.52 | Unknown | Thank you, Jonathan. Questions? |
| 02:23:46.09 | Unknown | Just to clarify, Jonathan, the additional funds total is, I couldn't, it's like $3,000, I believe. Because the original stuff we already approved, the $180,000 or whatever. |
| 02:23:46.61 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:23:54.72 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. For the project management services, it's an additional $3,000. There was, I have to look it up, a table one has the total project budget as well as the, there are capital project reallocations basically. |
| 02:24:08.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:24:19.05 | Unknown | Oh, right. Okay. So the total you're asking for tonight is the 181 or is that Let me just pull. |
| 02:24:27.64 | Unknown | I think so. |
| 02:24:27.66 | Jonathon Goldman | I think so. |
| 02:24:28.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:24:28.79 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:24:32.30 | Jonathon Goldman | Yes. The supplemental appropriation or the revisions to funding allocations, the requested augmentation is 181.738. As you can see, there was some movement between funds. For example, the storm drainage work, the underground drainage on Richardson, which wasn't originally factored into the project, we had budgeted resources available for storm drain improvements in the public right of way. So we're just asking for your blessing in transferring those funds to pay for those kinds of improvements. The sewer enterprise is responsible for the public sewer improvements piece, so there was an additional $12,320 there. and then some additional work at MLK that some of which we still expect to be reimbursed for where we have about $40,000 in work that Majora in July did because at least they needed to have it done, at least this contractor had needed to have it done, and Lysay's contractor needed to have it done. And rather than have two contractors work in the same space, Majoran Gelani was willing to do it, and Lysay agreed to be responsible for paying for it. |
| 02:24:45.17 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:24:45.22 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:24:45.26 | Unknown | move. |
| 02:25:19.72 | Unknown | Uh. that. |
| 02:25:53.03 | Unknown | John. |
| 02:25:53.26 | Jonathon Goldman | the other accessibility improvements or the other line item there and the parking fund because we did some work in lot four so that the space numbers could be stenciled and still be visible. |
| 02:26:00.26 | Unknown | Mhm. |
| 02:26:07.17 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:26:07.57 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. |
| 02:26:08.30 | Unknown | And just for my clarification, so you were going through the chart, but the The staff report says the estimated cost was $9. $187,000, and then the final cost was $1,473,000. Yes. |
| 02:26:22.30 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 02:26:23.57 | Unknown | Were you going over the, were they all, I guess, approved by council, the difference in their additional projects? |
| 02:26:29.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:26:29.51 | Jonathon Goldman | additional. |
| 02:26:31.26 | Unknown | I'm sorry if you belabor it. I'm not quite up with it. |
| 02:26:32.21 | Jonathon Goldman | with. It's all right. Council approved the initial award and the funding split for the initial award was based on the design. As soon as we sat down with the contractor, we were able to quantify some discrepancies between the quantities in design and the details, for example, reinforcing, and what actually needed to be built. So the contractor submitted proposed change order requests. Council had authorized the city manager to approve change orders up to a certain contingency amount. When we knew that we were going to reach that amount with change orders, we came back to Council in September after the August recess and said, you know, we knew that we needed to expend additional funds and we need your authority to do that. At that time, it was my best estimate that the supplemental appropriations that we asked you to approve and that you approved in September would be adequate to cover the rest of the project, but I was wrong. And this is the final reconciliation. |
| 02:26:58.69 | Unknown | you |
| 02:27:45.13 | Jonathon Goldman | you |
| 02:27:45.18 | Unknown | And the final reconciliation is the 181,000. |
| 02:27:48.20 | Jonathon Goldman | additional $181,000 over what Council has already approved. And again, that isn't just, it's important that you realize, not that it's good news or bad news, that's not necessarily new money. It's just that, for example, with respect to storm drainage, there was budget appropriated for storm drainage improvements this year and the funding source notes column there points out that some or all of those funds were available and unencumbered, that there wasn't, we're not taking it away from something else. But because council had not appropriated it or approved a transfer of those budgeted funds for this project, we need your approval. |
| 02:28:37.76 | Unknown | Jonathan, one quick question on your table. I see what you're doing in terms of where you're pulling the various allocations from. |
| 02:28:50.26 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:28:50.67 | Unknown | The only question I have is on the 4013, the citywide ADA fund. Your request in 48 and change, but there's only an available fund balance of 31, 7. So how does that work? |
| 02:29:03.29 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:29:03.31 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 02:29:11.75 | Jonathon Goldman | Well, the finance director would probably be the best person to answer that, but it's, as you may recall, in our budget, we adopt a two-year budget, and we have been working fairly diligently to have a rolling five-year capital improvement program in it. So it's more explicitly noted up above with respect to street repair 4118. We're requesting that council allow us to spend some of next year's budget to make this project whole. |
| 02:29:51.89 | Unknown | Is that what you're doing there on that fund? |
| 02:29:54.17 | Jonathon Goldman | Yeah. |
| 02:29:54.22 | Unknown | Thank you. you Okay, thanks. |
| 02:29:59.92 | Unknown | Okay, is there any other questions, Jonathan? Any public comments on this? Seeing none, let's bring it back here. I don't know if there's much discussion or whether we could have a motion for this. Thank you. |
| 02:30:12.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:30:12.90 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. Thank you. |
| 02:30:14.44 | Scott Diamond | I'd like to... |
| 02:30:14.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:30:14.98 | Scott Diamond | I'd like to adopt a resolution accepting the 2013 Streets Project as complete. authorizing city engineer to issue a notice of completion, appropriating additional funds for, and authorizing the city manager to approve change orders to Majora and Gelati, and augment RGS budget for the project management services. Second. Second. |
| 02:30:48.69 | Unknown | Okay, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? |
| 02:30:50.06 | Scott Diamond | Bye. |
| 02:30:52.29 | Unknown | Okay, so our next topic is sanitary sewer needs, adoption of sewer system management plan, and discussion on fee study. |
| 02:31:04.22 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you again, Mr. Mayor. I'm going to start this presentation off and then the cleanup hitter comes in with the bigger ticket item at the end. You might, in reading the staff report, and I won't spend too long on this, but this is actually a fairly technical item and one that in some respects might better be on consent. but as a practical matter it's really important. It's important that you are aware of some of the issues that we have to deal with in managing our sewer system, where the bar is set with respect to environmental regulatory compliance, and that I think the regulators appreciate it when an elected board, an elected council recognizes these issues and formally adopts the plans that we have in place to place to operate our system. So I'm not going to read through all this. There are a lot of details in the staff report and I gave you 98 pages of the updated sewer system management plan. But suffice it to say that there are a lot of regulatory orders that apply to how we operate the sanitary sewer system and that applies not only to our maintenance, our monitoring, our response to spills and things like that, but also how our emergency response structure is prepared, how we structure our computerized maintenance management system software and things like that. Again, it's late, and there are a lot of details here. And in the staff report, I'm certainly happy to answer questions, but fundamentally just wanted to give you the opportunity to see that document to understand the significance of it with respect to our EPA order compliance as well as our general regulatory compliance and ask you respectfully to adopt by resolution the updated city of Sausalito's Sourj System Management Plan and authorize me to submit it to the regional board and any other regulatory agencies that require it. |
| 02:31:47.92 | Unknown | Uh... |
| 02:31:54.22 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:32:15.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:33:19.99 | Unknown | General. |
| 02:33:30.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:33:41.86 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:33:46.56 | Unknown | There's really two subjects here. Yes. And I'm wondering whether we could, I understand why you've put this up here because this is an important thing that needs to go to its next stage in front of regulatory bodies and so on. So I'm wondering whether we could quickly ask any questions, if there are any, on this and seek public comment on this. |
| 02:33:48.43 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 02:34:01.79 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:34:11.02 | Unknown | maybe approve this motion and then move on to the sewer rate studies discussion rather than try and deal with this in the middle of the other discussion. So if everybody's okay with that, does anybody have any questions of Jonathan on this particular topic? Thank you. Is there any member of the public who'd like to comment on this? Seeing none, could we bring it back up here and look for a motion to... as is up on the board. |
| 02:34:45.47 | Unknown | Sure. I'll make a motion to adopt the updated City of Sausalito Sewer System Management Plan and authorize the Director of Public Works and City Engineers to submit the adopted Sausalito Sewer System Management Plan to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. |
| 02:35:03.34 | Unknown | Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Done. Thank you, Jonathan. |
| 02:35:05.58 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:35:10.83 | Unknown | Charlie. |
| 02:35:18.44 | Charlie Francis | Good evening, Mayor, members of the City Council. Charlie Francis here in the Administrative Services bracket. |
| 02:35:26.83 | Charlie Francis | The agenda item before you now is the summary of the sanitary sewer fee study. |
| 02:35:37.59 | Charlie Francis | I got it there, though. |
| 02:35:43.62 | Charlie Francis | Oh. Thank you. Just in summary, our sewer system was built in 1930. We have 27 miles of clay pipe in the ground. It was built for the last maybe 50 years. That was when they thought clay would last 50 years. Now it's 75 years old and it's deteriorated. Our current rate structure that we adopted in 2009 has allowed us to significantly increase our maintenance and to put a big dent in reducing spills and complying with the EPA order. There's a lot of work left ahead of us and we have a responsibility to protect the environment, keep the bay clean, so it's essential that we address these issues and therefore staff through through the work program, the priority calendar, initiated a sewer rate fee study for the next five years. Just real briefly, the city operates what's called a collection system from the whole sanitary sewer treatment system. Collection being it comes from the house, new two pipes that are gravity fed down to lift stations and then it gets transferred into a transmission system and finally a treatment system. So the treatment system, which is run by Sausalito Marin City Sanitary District, is a completely separate operation in terms of cost and management and in generating rates than it is from the city of Sausalito. The city of Sausalito is only responsible for the blue pipes area. Manholes, sewer mains, lift stations. Just to point out that there's very few moving parts in the system. It's mostly stationary and fixed parts. So when you look at it from a cost study of how much flow going through the pipes increases our cost, we find that 88% of our costs are fixed and 12% are variable cost based on flow. |
| 02:37:40.38 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 02:37:40.41 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:37:43.02 | Charlie Francis | As you can see, we do split the rates out on the rate bill. The city's rate for the collection system is a separate charge than Saucelido Marin City rate for the treatment system and for a single family attached rate right now. The current rate structure is $327. At our last meeting we reviewed the finance requirements and this meeting will be looking at the allocation of costs and the proposed rates for both residential classes and for the commercial class. So that would be tonight's meeting. |
| 02:38:00.51 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:38:23.66 | Charlie Francis | Real quickly, we increased the level of service in 2009 and did a significant amount of work to significantly reduce spills of raw storage and remain in compliance with the EPA order. There's still a lot of work left out to do there. There's manholes that need to be replaced or repaired. There's cracked pipe. Some of it can be done on a maintenance basis, and we've identified $5 million of work that needs to be done on an infrastructure investment basis over the next five years so that we can continue our program to help ensure that our pipes are updated, our infrastructure is properly and safely transporting sewage, essential to keeping the community safe and to keep our day safe and for health purposes, health and safety. |
| 02:39:10.40 | Charlie Francis | The cost of service was allocated this time by looking at water consumption. And this is just an interesting, busy graph, only to focus your attention on three numbers. The average annual consumption of water during the winter for residents is 71.600 cubic feet worth of water. So that becomes what we call the equivalent dwelling unit rate. How much water, so we took two months during the winter, January and February of water usage and we said during those two months in the winter for residents that's probably, there's not a lot of irrigation going on, there's mostly what's being consumed by that household is going into the sewer. Then we annualized that flow for those two months over the full year so we can see this is probably what a resident is putting into the sewer system. Then we looked at single family attached residences in duplex and we came up with their average flow that's going into the sewer system. We added that together with the commercial system when we came up with how much water average residential winter use annualized for residents equals about 70% of all the water that goes into the sewer. On the commercial side, 30% of all the water they consume goes into the sewer, taking out of the equation any irrigation meters that the commercial side may have. So we're looking at water that's going into the sewer. The previous cost of allocation study had 80% going to residential and 20% going to commercial, round numbers. This year, this rate study is saying only 70% of the water going into sewer is coming from residential and 30% is coming from the commercial community. And then that will affect how the revenue requirement is allocated between the two funds. Next, we looked at two different rate alternatives. We said, should we continue billing the rates the way we did in the past, which was taking the fixed, all the charges, and making it one charge to go on to the sewer, onto the property tax bill? And then as an alternative, we said, well, if 88% are fixed and 12% are variable, the city council may want to adopt a rate that takes into account the variable costs so that we can encourage conservation in using less water. Use less water, you pay less of a bill. So tonight we're going to be presenting two alternatives to you for that. Those two alternatives would have rates for going up only total rates. We'd go from 492 to 541 or about $48 a year, which is only about $4 a month extra. However, if we wanted to go to the variable charge, the rate for a single-family residence would be $476, which is actually $16 less than they're paying now for the fixed portion. And then they have complete control over how much water they use, and the average variable rate citywide would be $64. But I did a quick little graph of people that used water within the, what they used all the way down to the 25th percentile, their base rate would be $476 and their top would be $38. So that's only about a $30 increase on their tax bill. And if they used water at the 75th percentile, in other words, they're using more water than the average, then their bill would be higher. So we give and we penalize the propagate water users and we reward people who conserve water. So that's the two alternatives that the council has and we're hoping that the staff recommendation we hope the council directs us to move forward with the variable rate. It's a five year rate study. We're generating revenues to continue the operations of the sewer system and provide for the $5 million in capital investment and a rate structure that would increase 4% in years two and three, or 3% in years two and three and 4% in years four and five. Those increases in those later years being for inflation only. And if we looked at it on the variable charge, the blue would be the 88%, being 88% of the costs are fixed in the system, and 12% of the costs are variable. So we feel comfortable that if people used less water, we would actually experience less sewer costs, and we'd still have enough money to provide for the maintenance, provide for the debt service coverage, provided for the building up of the reserve funds, that the financial model indicates that, and I went over all those with you last month. This is a chart that shows all the charges for each class. We broke out charges for single-family residents would be $541. Let's say for duplexes, now this duplex would be a building that has two units, but each one has its own meter. And we found, based on that previous chart, that duplexes in general use less water than a single-family residence because there's fewer bathrooms and at least fewer residents. And same with single-family. So the rates are structured lower and graduated downward as they go through the higher density units based on the water that they're consuming. So it's a cost of service allocation that's fair, it's equitable, and it's defensible. And once again, I just want to point out that if everyone, even on the variable charge, used the average, the increase over what the current one would be $48, $60. |
| 02:44:47.06 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:45:10.09 | Charlie Francis | Thank you. |
| 02:45:10.25 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:45:10.26 | Charlie Francis | Thank you. |
| 02:45:10.77 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:45:13.49 | Charlie Francis | Like I said though, the distribution of costs for residential went from 80% of the revenue being required down to 70% on the residential side and on the commercial side we need to generate 30% of the revenues this year from the commercial side rather than the 20% that we did last year. And so we're recommending a new rate schedule for the commercial side, a rate schedule that provides for horizontal equity amongst commercial rate payers. I'm gonna give you a quick example The way we structured the rates last time was on a per parcel basis. So if you had a little shop, a little retail store that had one bathroom, maybe a small little sink in it. It had a parcel charge, the parcel. that it was sitting on had a charge of $305. If it was sitting next door to a hotel that had 100 rooms in it on a single parcel, That hotel only got charged $305, and yet it could have had maybe 50, 60 toilets in there and had the equivalent of a lot more single-family residence usage than this single parcel here. So that hardly seems fair, does it? You know, 300 parcel, 300 parcel. And then we had a volumetric charge that was directly disproportionate to the variable costs in the system. At $2.45, this is paying about, looks like 25% of their bill, and here it's almost 98% of your bill is going for a variable charge, but there's only 12% fixed costs in the system. So the other part of equity that's not there, in this example, is this small retail using 71.6 hundred cubic feet of water, putting that into the sewer system right here, is the equivalent of one house. This fee is about the equivalent of one single family resident under the old rate structure. So that's about equitable. A large retail establishment had a total fee of $400 It's easier just to make it work here. |
| 02:47:36.60 | Charlie Francis | $733, it's using the equivalent of two and a half single family residents worth of water but it's only being charged the equivalent of two single family residents worth of water. So you can see that it's starting not to pay its fair share of what a single family resident would be paying. If we went to a small restaurant, this amount of water, 420, is the equivalent of... Six single family residences. But the rates under the old study, they were only paying the equivalent of three single family residences. You can see now the more that you push the charges on the variable, $2.45 and having a small per unit charge makes the inequity even more. On a large restaurant, they're consuming 630, 100 cubic feet of water. That's the equivalent of nine single family residences. They're only getting charged four. So, and finally we get to a large hotel. We get a large hotel that's putting 11,100 cubic feet worth of water into the sewer system is the equivalent of 153 single family residences, the same amount of consumption. And yet this $27,000 bill is only the equivalent of 50 single family homes. So you see that we have the commercial side was not paying its full burdened share of the sewer costs than the residential side using a basis of water consumption. So the proposed rate structure then would be to convert these from a parcel charge to an equivalent dwelling unit charge. So if they're using 71.6 of water, the 476 base fee, so it's really similar to |
| 02:49:37.70 | Charlie Francis | or 76 right here. So in other words, if you're using 71.6, 100 cubic feet of water, that's the equivalent of one single family What's that? That's the equivalent of one single family house. The volume charge is the same, 91 cents, so you'd be paying exactly the same as a single family resident. In the same example, carrying this example down here, they're using two and a half times, the bill now is two and a half times a single family resident, with two and a half single family residents would be paying. If you bring it to a smaller restaurant, they would be paying $3,133, and that would be the equivalent of what? Six single family residents would be paying, because they're putting into the sewer the equivalent of six single family residents' use of water, and so on until we get to the large hotel, who is the equivalent of 153 single family residences and their bill would reflect 153 single family residences. So if they used water at a smaller percentile they could reduce their charges and again if they reduce their charges that's okay because they're reducing the variable costs in the system. |
| 02:50:11.43 | Unknown | family. |
| 02:50:57.99 | Charlie Francis | So with those commercial rate examples, I would like to ask Tim Sutherford to come on up, talk about a little bit of summary from an outsider's perspective of how this model addresses fairness, equity, and possible change. |
| 02:51:18.73 | Tim Sutherford | Charles. Good evening. I'm Tim Super with MBS. Just wanted to bring a couple of principles to this. Having seen how these work in dozens of agencies all over California, obviously you want to know, are you in the norm? Are you within the parameters? And so we came up with some of these things. Obviously fairness in the rate system is important. Equity is important. You want to encourage conservation as much as you can, this is, we're talking sewer versus water, but obviously, you know, it's a system. You need to provide the required amount of funding, obviously, that you need to do what you need to do, and it has to be fiscally responsible. What I would add to these two things I just took a note is that, again, you want to be in the guidelines of what's done in most communities, in California in particular. This rate setup that we're talking about here is very much in the norm. In fact, it was upheld just last week, a very similar rate structure in the city of Davis that was actually challenged, and the court upheld that. So I think that's important to know, obviously. And then the last is obviously legal compliance. All of this has to have muster in terms of what is going on and does it conform to Proposition 218 and all the various regulations that we need to live with. |
| 02:52:11.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:52:53.19 | Tim Sutherford | So that brings me to the next step, obviously legal compliance. Assuming that after discussion that one of these rate alternatives is adopted, we go into what's called the Proposition 218 process, which is really stipulated by statute. We would bring a notice forward to you for review in early March. And assuming that passes by the council, then that's sent out to all the rate payers in the city. And there's a 45-day period that occurs for people to understand the rates, ask questions, do all that kind of thing before May 6th, which is the important date, which is when we would have the public hearing and then a tabulation of any protests that come in. And again, that's per Proposition 218, which we've been living with for many years now. May 20th would just be the second reading of the rates so that those could be put in place so that they could be put on the tax rolls by approximately August 10th, which is when all that has to be given to the tax collectors. |
| 02:53:15.60 | Unknown | classes. |
| 02:53:16.21 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:53:16.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:54:04.10 | Tim Sutherford | I think that's all I want. |
| 02:54:05.05 | Charlie Francis | internally? Do you have any notes? Not until we get to questions. So in summary, with the current funding, the city has done everything that it could do in terms of stopping spills, making sure that we have a good aggressive maintenance program, we're not polluting our environment, and we need additional funds now to upgrade our 75-year-old system. There are significant capital improvements that need to be made. It will protect our waterways, it will protect the transport of sewage, and it will provide for the health and safety of our residents. Lastly, it's the right thing to do. It's not just because we're complying with the EPA order. Protecting the environment is the right thing to do. So the plan is being recommended to the Council. It's fiscally responsible. has a number of other summary items, but in general, staff is recommending that you direct staff to initiate the Prop 218 process. And we stand ready to answer any questions. |
| 02:55:07.64 | Unknown | Thank you, Charlie. Is there any questions? from Council here to either staff or the consultants. |
| 02:55:18.49 | Unknown | Well, I do. I'll start off with... On the conservation component, if When we read the money you need, there's $5 million in capital improvements and then other ongoing maintenance costs. If Sausalito did a fabulous job on conservation, would we fall short of the money that we need for the capital improvements and other costs? |
| 02:55:42.67 | Charlie Francis | So there's two components to that answer. The first component is the flow-based portion of the rate is directly related to the variable cost in the system. So less flow is going through. We have less electricity pushing the sewage up into the regional transmission lines. So that's part of it. The other part is we built a 5% factor into the flows to account for a margin. So if flows go up, then we would set that aside into a reserve fund. If flows go down, we would take it from the reserve fund. So we have two protections against the moving variable rate. |
| 02:56:18.72 | Unknown | March. |
| 02:56:32.01 | Unknown | And just quickly, did you build in an assumption on the conservation piece? |
| 02:56:37.40 | Charlie Francis | Right. Oh, that we would conserve. |
| 02:56:39.98 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:56:40.03 | Charlie Francis | Yes, sir. Well, we build a 5% cushion above the rate, the actual consumption. |
| 02:56:51.10 | Unknown | Council member Pfeiffer, do you have questions? |
| 02:56:53.61 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I had a quick question as to process with regards to the Prop 218 noticing. So if the clock starts on March 21st and then I guess May 6th would be the 45th day mark. |
| 02:56:57.22 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 02:57:16.88 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | is that... Is it 51% of property owners who are also residents? Is it 51%? Is it residents or property owners? What's the, to, I mean, if, I'm not suggesting this would happen, but if folks were concerned, what would that formula be to stop this? |
| 02:57:40.56 | Tim Sutherford | Basically, everybody gets a notice. And so if you get 50% plus one of the number of parcels protesting, then you have what is the majority protest. |
| 02:57:59.75 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 02:57:59.76 | Unknown | So... |
| 02:57:59.88 | Tim Sutherford | So during that period, people can submit right up until the point where the public hearing is closed on May 6th. And that's when we tabulate those protests. |
| 02:58:00.32 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 02:58:00.35 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:58:09.89 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So it's not the, it's actually the parcel owners. Correct. Okay. |
| 02:58:15.25 | Tim Sutherford | Correct. And that's who they're sent to. |
| 02:58:19.52 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So if you're, and I just don't know, but if you, so a condominium, |
| 02:58:20.55 | Tim Sutherford | it. |
| 02:58:24.94 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | or an apartment, that's on one parcel, it would go to that apartment owner |
| 02:58:31.93 | Tim Sutherford | That's correct. Yeah, if you have, let's say, like a six-unit apartment building with one meter, then yeah, it would be sent to the owner of that six-unit apartment building. |
| 02:58:39.81 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I see. So that owner would be the one to cast the protest |
| 02:58:39.82 | Tim Sutherford | I'll see you next time. |
| 02:58:46.22 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | notice as opposed to |
| 02:58:47.28 | Tim Sutherford | as opposed to... Standing, if you will. |
| 02:58:49.80 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | as opposed to the people who are renting in that apartment, |
| 02:58:54.50 | Tim Sutherford | Thank you. |
| 02:58:54.57 | Charlie Francis | Yeah. |
| 02:58:54.96 | Tim Sutherford | Thank you. |
| 02:58:54.98 | Charlie Francis | Thank you. |
| 02:58:55.00 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. Oh, interesting. OK, thank you. |
| 02:58:57.54 | Charlie Francis | Thank you. In the case of a condominium, you have multiple parcels. Each condominium owner is a parcel. So it's a little bit different. An apartment, it's not a condominium. One owner, one notice. A condominium, each condo owner receives a notice. I do have a question. |
| 02:59:24.07 | Unknown | Um... I noticed that this looks like a much more equitable plan, but Some of the commercial people, particularly the hotels, look like they're in line for quite an increase. Has that been looked at? I mean, will that have any severe economic impacts on any of our businesses in Sausalito? |
| 02:59:46.34 | Unknown | I left that up to the hospitality committee to reach out. |
| 02:59:48.83 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:59:48.84 | Unknown | No, I just... |
| 02:59:50.78 | Unknown | And why aren't they here? |
| 02:59:51.04 | Scott Diamond | Zoom. |
| 02:59:51.66 | Unknown | That's me. |
| 02:59:51.95 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:59:51.97 | Scott Diamond | you |
| 02:59:52.03 | Unknown | That's me. |
| 02:59:53.03 | Scott Diamond | Thank you. |
| 02:59:53.06 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 02:59:53.60 | Scott Diamond | Thank you. |
| 02:59:53.72 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:59:55.15 | Scott Diamond | Are you talking about a car wash? |
| 02:59:56.76 | Charlie Francis | Thank you. |
| 02:59:56.79 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:59:57.03 | Charlie Francis | Sorry, it's a serious question. |
| 02:59:59.58 | Scott Diamond | question and so. |
| 03:00:00.82 | Charlie Francis | Thank you. They'd only be, I mean, from a business sense, they'd be paying their fair share, they're paying their proportionate share, they're paying what's fair and equitable, and they have to build that into their business model. |
| 03:00:15.02 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor, I have another question. I'm just curious because it with respect to the commercial uh, uh, increase here, which is substantial |
| 03:00:25.75 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:00:27.52 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Do we have a graph here that shows how many businesses would fall into that. Thank you. big hotel category and how many would fall into the small versus the large retail, et cetera. |
| 03:00:39.37 | Charlie Francis | Let me make two comments to answer your question. The first is these are example numbers only. I did not use any real numbers from any existing establishment. I just used them up there because it represents a range of fees that could be had. The second part of the question is there are 272 parcels that are commercial in the city. The rest of our parcels, about 20 2,500 of them are residential. |
| 03:01:17.10 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So of those, as a follow-up question, of those 272... |
| 03:01:19.33 | Charlie Francis | Oh, I'm sorry. There's four hotels. There's only four hotels in the city. We know how many restaurants there are. So most of our commercial are going to fall into the small and large retail category. And again, these are just examples. And there's only a handful of hotels and large restaurants that would fall in, that would have fair, you take a decrease. |
| 03:01:40.81 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So you don't distinguish with hotels? Are you, I see we don't have small hotel versus large hotel up there. |
| 03:01:49.23 | Charlie Francis | I just used an example. |
| 03:01:50.75 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | of... Thank you. |
| 03:01:51.44 | Charlie Francis | It all depends on how much water they're consuming. So a hotel, and what we're hoping, is that a hotel that has 50 rooms, probably has about 55 toilets in it, and their consumption of water that goes into the sewer system would be equivalent or less than the 71.6. That's where we want them to shoot for in their conservation of water that goes into the sewer system would be equivalent or less than the 71.6. That's where we want them to shoot for in their conservation of water. So this encourages that. |
| 03:01:56.05 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:01:56.13 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay. |
| 03:02:22.22 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So does the dog... So does a document exist then that kind of has mapped those out, who they are and where they fall in the category? |
| 03:02:27.52 | Charlie Francis | Oh. fall in the categories? Once the council directs staff to move forward with these rates, we will plug that into the spreadsheets for what the impact will be on each resident and on each business. |
| 03:02:40.51 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And that would happen before? Before March 6th. March 6th. OK, thank you. |
| 03:02:43.18 | Charlie Francis | before March 6th. |
| 03:02:47.31 | Unknown | One last. You said that this particular system or proposal is kind of the norm for many cities. And in Marin County, can you give some feeling about Do other cities adopt this general approach? Are we one of the laggards in terms of changing or are we ahead of the curve on it in Marin County? |
| 03:03:03.02 | Charlie Francis | I'm gonna let it go. |
| 03:03:08.27 | Charlie Francis | Yeah. the Do you know the other cities of Marincan? |
| 03:03:13.32 | Tim Sutherford | I don't know all the different cities I've read, but I would say that the previous study had obviously, it was 100% fixed for residential. This is moving a little bit more in the direction of the fixed and variable, which I would say is a statewide trend. I've often said, I'm not an attorney or what have you, but if some folks still have fixed charges for water, for example, those will go the way of the buggy whip at some point. So this is a step with your wastewater in going in the direction of fixed and variable, which I think rewards conservation, but it also I think dovetails in with practices of Prop 218 and sort of the norm that has been developing over the last 10 to 15 years. |
| 03:03:17.13 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:04:07.28 | Tim Sutherford | So I would say that in general this type of scheme is where things have been moving to for a number of years. I don't think you were outside the norm five years ago, no. But this is the way things are moving and as I mentioned the case that everybody was watching was the city of Davis which used winter water usage and very, very similar analogy here. Let me add a little bit to the |
| 03:04:35.41 | Charlie Francis | Thank you. Sausalito Marin City Sanitary District, we met with the Executive Director, Craig Justice, just last week. And they're at an 88%, 12% fixed to variable rate where they're at now. And their rate study, and I was a little surprised that it was only 12% on their side. And they have a new rate study going on, and Craig said that it may go up to 20 to 30%. But remember, they're running a treatment system, so not only do you have the gravity and the lift pumps, but you also have power and chemicals going in to treat the stuff. So I would think that there'd be a little bit higher variable cost from flows in their system. I'm sorry, what agency? Finally, let's just finish the answer. We do know that the city of the Ross Sanitary Sewer District has gone to 100% of flow. Now, to me, that doesn't seem responsible because you always have pipe in the ground. It's a fixed cost, and if everyone stopped using water, you wouldn't even be able to meet your EPA minimum regulations. So 100% flow is not a responsible way of passing sewer rates, etc. |
| 03:05:03.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:05:03.86 | Unknown | All right. |
| 03:05:23.15 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I'm sorry, what agency? |
| 03:05:53.75 | Charlie Francis | Thank you. you |
| 03:05:53.95 | David Lay | Thank you. |
| 03:05:53.98 | Charlie Francis | Thank you. |
| 03:05:54.61 | David Lay | Thank you. |
| 03:05:54.78 | Charlie Francis | Thank you. |
| 03:05:54.95 | David Lay | you |
| 03:05:55.32 | Charlie Francis | Oh, sorry. OK, we'll build. |
| 03:05:55.70 | David Lay | Sorry. |
| 03:05:59.25 | Charlie Francis | Okay, Linda, I'm sorry. I cut you off. |
| 03:06:01.24 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Oh, no, you were describing another agency and I just missed what that agency was. |
| 03:06:05.85 | Charlie Francis | Jonathan just corrected me. It's Millbelly. |
| 03:06:08.77 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | But it was, I think, the example prior to Mill Valley. |
| 03:06:11.60 | Charlie Francis | I'm not sure. |
| 03:06:12.80 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay, it was also in city sanitary district. |
| 03:06:17.54 | Unknown | So at this point, why don't we open this up for public comment. Are there any members of the public who would like to comment? Say none. Let's bring it back up here. |
| 03:06:34.21 | Unknown | I'll start off. I mean, it's unfortunate that we're in this situation as a city that we're in, and that Replacement of a lot of the sanitary sewer pipes that had a life of 50 years wasn't done over 75 years. So we're in the position where we have to play catch up and tackle some of the bigger issues. And those are, I think, the five or six projects that Jonathan had put up there before, or some of the hot spots and more troublesome issues that we need to address. And we need to have a new source of income to to be able to do this capital construction work. With that, I think the reassessment of both the sharing of cost between commercial and residential customers that need to be reassessed in general, the get-alone as part of this, because the residential customers were in fact subsidizing commercial rate payers. And this is a more equitable solution. And the fact that we're moving to a flow-based rate system for both, a small portion of that, provides the incentive to people to conserve, which is important as we're all learning again in California in this round of drought, to conserve water, as well as recognize the fact that every customer has a pipe going to their house. So there's a fixed cost of just providing the surface in general, regardless of how much goes down the drain. So I think the split we've come up with here based off the analysis that MBS has done in sort of allocating costs between the two and making sure they are equitable and making sure that on a flow-based system the charges were the same between the classes of customers because wastewater is wastewater. We don't have a huge diversity of of, customers in Saucelieu. There's not like a big manufacturing segment that would have a much more intensive use of the types of effluent that would go through the wastewater system. I think this is a very good change in both the makeup of the system as well as the split of cost structure. And, you know, there's a lot more to do over time. This is just for the next five years, and there's more pipes that will need to be fixed as they've gone beyond their useful life. And so it's an unfortunate reality of, you know, of where we are with our infrastructure. |
| 03:09:26.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:09:27.32 | Scott Diamond | I just totally agree with Jonathan that, you know, in the last six, seven years, we've been just catching up or just getting things started, and this is something way overdue, and we have to move forward. Never mind. It's the right thing to do. We should not be... dumping waste or anything else in our bay. So I think that, I think this is fair. I know the cow wash people won't like it, but I think it's very, very fair. |
| 03:10:10.67 | David Lay | I agree. |
| 03:10:11.97 | Unknown | It is. |
| 03:10:12.02 | David Lay | Thank you. |
| 03:10:12.04 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:10:12.05 | David Lay | Thank you. |
| 03:10:12.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:10:12.14 | David Lay | Thank you. |
| 03:10:12.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:10:12.37 | David Lay | Thank you. |
| 03:10:12.39 | Unknown | you An unfortunate reality has been said, but we have to do it. And we have, I mean, that's what we have to do here is when we have to step up to infrastructure needs that we're calling, we have the EPA orders and we can't. pollute the bay and so I think we're going forward. I think the proposal seems both equitable and fair and necessary. So I would support going forward on that basis. Yes. |
| 03:10:39.16 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah, and I recognize I've been a strong supporter of investing in our infrastructure from roads to sewers and really taking a responsible eye to, you know, resisting high-density development with respect to balancing the improvements needed in our infrastructure first. And clearly with the EPA mandates, you know, we need to look at strategies for addressing the improvements that we have ahead of us. My concern is just, again, it goes back to what I perceive as the transparency of this process. I just think it rises to the level of a ballot vote. I would like to see a ballot vote that engages the public, generates healthy education and questions and I just really I mean we're looking at such a big amount here and increase this all around It just seems like the right thing to do here would be a ballot vote. |
| 03:11:46.66 | Unknown | Thank you. I think I've made my position very clear the last time we discussed this. In terms of, I echo what Council Member Leon has said. We've worked in the Finance Committee very hard with, seems like a meeting every week for the last month to get through this. I think staff has worked very hard. I'd really like to thank the NBS and the hard work that has been done in this. It's equitable. It's fiscally responsible. It's unfortunate we've got to do it, but in the end, for an average resident, It's a $50 increase a year, give or take. $5 million worth of investment in our infrastructure in addition to our maintenance. That's not a bad deal, considering the state the system's in. So, I'm going to go ahead and With that, I'd like to ask for a motion. |
| 03:12:49.77 | Scott Diamond | I recommend direct staff to accept the draft sewer rate study and direct staff to proceed with the Proposition 218 public hearing process culminating on May 6, 2014. Is that right? |
| 03:13:10.44 | Charlie Francis | Thank you. Are you going to also be recommending alternative to the fixed variable? |
| 03:13:19.35 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:13:21.95 | Unknown | Second. |
| 03:13:23.47 | Unknown | All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? No. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Charlie. Thank you very much for coming tonight. |
| 03:13:25.04 | Unknown | Aye. Opposed? |
| 03:13:36.68 | Unknown | Okay. the Next agenda item is number 7A, City Manager Information to Council. |
| 03:13:50.32 | Adam Politzer | My report will be fairly quick because I am keeping |
| 03:13:58.18 | Charlie Francis | with this. |
| 03:13:59.97 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. |
| 03:14:00.41 | Adam Politzer | just |
| 03:14:01.13 | Jonathon Goldman | I'm sorry. |
| 03:14:02.51 | Unknown | Was it? |
| 03:14:03.02 | Jonathon Goldman | Yes. |
| 03:14:04.17 | Unknown | Yeah, yeah. |
| 03:14:04.19 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:14:04.22 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. |
| 03:14:04.27 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 03:14:04.46 | Adam Politzer | to. |
| 03:14:04.51 | Jonathon Goldman | We did that first. |
| 03:14:06.01 | Unknown | We did that first. |
| 03:14:07.56 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:14:07.63 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. |
| 03:14:07.78 | Adam Politzer | Yeah. |
| 03:14:07.80 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. |
| 03:14:07.95 | Unknown | I know. |
| 03:14:12.12 | Adam Politzer | I am standing in the way of getting onto my vacation, so I'm going to keep this relatively close. |
| 03:14:17.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:14:17.35 | David Lay | Uh, |
| 03:14:17.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:14:17.58 | David Lay | Right. Thank you. |
| 03:14:18.63 | Unknown | Thank you. Before you start, I think it's important, and I know we closed the last item, but you guys can go. That Prop 218 was a voter initiative, and the only things that were exempted under the prop, which required the two-thirds approval for special taxes, things like that. So this is a, Prop 218 was a good thing. It was a good thing that was passed by the voters to implement this and part of it was for only three categories of things, for example sewer, water, and refuse collection. And so we're not outside the norm by using Prop 218 in this example. |
| 03:14:56.35 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And Mr. Mayor, I will respond to that. Proposition 218 is a perfect example of legislation looking really great on paper, and everybody, the voters read it, and it looks so good, and we all pass it. And then we later realized and discovered that it means that a city council can routinely vote to make drastic tax increases or fee increases every certain time schedule without our vote. So that was something that was the gotcha in Proposition 218 that people were not. It was a gotcha and people did not understand it. |
| 03:15:35.36 | Scott Diamond | Thank you. |
| 03:15:35.38 | Unknown | So you're saying that... Whoa, whoa, whoa. We don't need... We close this item. did let you respond. |
| 03:15:42.52 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | We let Councilmember Liam. |
| 03:15:43.72 | Unknown | And I therefore let you respond. |
| 03:15:45.86 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:15:46.53 | Unknown | Thank you. So, Adam. |
| 03:15:50.80 | Adam Politzer | Now you folks are standing in the way of my vacation. |
| 03:15:52.78 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:15:52.79 | Unknown | I have occasion to be here. |
| 03:15:54.36 | Adam Politzer | you My report is done. Just a couple quick items here of importance. One is I am going on vacation. My family and I are going to Australia. to attend the family wedding. |
| 03:16:06.48 | Unknown | the family wedding. |
| 03:16:10.29 | Adam Politzer | That's where I'm going. Come find me if you like. Or wait for me when I return. But very much looking forward to this and the break. |
| 03:16:11.54 | Unknown | I'm fine. |
| 03:16:20.75 | Adam Politzer | But in my absence, you guys are in excellent hands. As usual, Charlie Francis. will be the Acting City Manager so if you have any emails phone calls or meeting requests with the city manager, Charlie would be Happy to meet with you. And the same protocols are in play. If you want to contact the department head or a staff member, please go. through the city manager so that he's aware of any communications. of big items tonight and so there may be lots of follow up and again, knowing that... Both Charlie and Jonathan on this particular issue. that was just discussed and I think just like the Butte Street, I don't think there's any disagreement that our infrastructure needs our attention and the sewers need to be I don't even think there's probably much concern regarding the fee increase that we're proposing and as the mayor shared, roughly $50 over this period of time gets us $5 million worth of capital projects which again is just a small dent but goes in the right direction of keeping the bay and the tax. community safe. and out of harm's way. and it's the right thing to do. It's not unfortunate. there's two council members saying it's unfortunate we find ourselves in this situation. I actually think that it's fortunate that this council is prepared to take this action on because other councils didn't. Thank you. for whatever reason. But this council, this community I think understands the importance of this. And so I think we are all fortunate that we have good staff good consultants helping us go through And the equity in this is really what's playing itself out as we move forward. Uh, Yes, thank you, my fan club. The other part of this is you look at future agenda items and that will be on the list. I mean, as you look forward and we're trying to help the Council look into the future of what's coming on the next agenda and the agenda is going out into several months now. There's only bigger items coming forward. One of the biggest is our two-year budget. process. As the mayor mentioned, working with Councilmember Leon The Finance Committee is meeting on a weekly basis and as we get into the um, the finer details of the budget will be meeting multiple times a week for multiple hours a day. So it is a lot of heavy lifting. And again, a reminder to the public just as Leon Hunting is the chair of the Butte Street. A task force mentioned This is, these are public meetings. We invite the public to attend. If they have creative ideas, If they want to share, Just as are folks from the Anchorage chairs in past meetings and today, If there are important items that they want us to be addressing or Shelby Van Meter with beautification of Sausalito. coming to these meetings is really an informal way to have these discussions. please pass on to the public to either send emails, If voice messages attend or communicate to one of the five of you, of items that are important and you get that to the finance community. It will be very valuable as we go through the process. and eventually bring all this to the council further consideration starting The next meeting. when we do mid-year budget review. Oh. I came back last week from the city managers conference and again It's very valuable to attend. It was in Long Beach. very well attended. You can see that the economy is improving because all the little are towns kind of up in the Lake County. out in the desert. that were really hit by the recession were once again able to send their city managers, so it was a full conference And then some of the larger cities are cities that have done better with the economy were able to bring their analysts, their assistant city managers, So there was a real great spectrum of age and experience at the conference, which led to some really terrific and insightful discussion. So I walked away with a lot of notes information. on how to strengthen our team going forward. With that said, you all received a note from our Community Development Director It's time to hang it out. is coming. He is preparing to leave later this summer. We kind of have a window between July 1st and October 1st. depending on how quickly we can move forward with the recruitment. So I've asked Charlie and Susie Nichols, our HR administrator, to move forward with getting a consultant on board just as we did with the police chief position hire the consultant. Go out there and find the best candidates for us. and then start the process, so I'm hoping that when I return, that that process is underway and we can then start the recruitment of the next Community Development Director. to build on the fine job that Jeremy Graves has done the last five years. Uh, On top of that, you may have also received the same note from Heidi Scoble. announcing that she's taken on an exciting position with the county of Marin. And so we're very happy for her. It's a great opportunity. Working for the county is kind of like working for the city of San Francisco. to the biggest agency in our county with the most challenges, the most diversity, from the coast to the bay, to the hills, you know, to some of the more challenging communities like Marin City. and some of the other incorporated areas where the county has responsibility long-term and short-term planning needs. So we're excited for Heidi. So this is an opportunity for the department to be evaluated. on its next steps. We are in the process of hiring the assistant planning position so that recruitment is underway. And so we'll look at Heidi's position as we now look forward. a task that I take on when I return from vacation. I think there may be one other item. And there is not, so I'd be happy to answer any questions from the council. |
| 03:22:42.53 | Unknown | Thank you, Adam. Any questions for Adam? |
| 03:22:45.52 | Unknown | Are you going to Wollemaroo? |
| 03:22:52.31 | Unknown | Any public comment on... Let's move on to future agenda items. And I think there was a schedule or sort of an outline of where the next agenda topics are looking for the next four or five meetings. Trying to get this more fully developed, but I think you have a good picture of what's happening. Is there any questions about that or any other additions? |
| 03:23:27.81 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Mr. Mayor, I specifically was looking for the agenda item legislation options to mitigate tour bus traffic congestion. Where is that? |
| 03:23:41.58 | Unknown | Perhaps the City Manager can help us. I've got a feeling it's sometime in April if I remember. |
| 03:23:41.70 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | On the list. |
| 03:23:46.48 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I will, I see. |
| 03:23:47.47 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 03:23:47.49 | Unknown | You know, |
| 03:23:47.98 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 03:23:48.13 | Unknown | in March. |
| 03:23:48.55 | Adam Politzer | Oh, my. |
| 03:23:48.58 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I'm sorry. |
| 03:23:48.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:23:48.75 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I see tour bus update, but that doesn't say legislation. Are we going to get legislative options for mitigating tour bus congestion? |
| 03:23:49.44 | Unknown | I see. |
| 03:23:49.97 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 03:23:59.30 | Adam Politzer | Yeah, I believe the police captain's going to come forward with a variety of options, including legislative options. |
| 03:24:05.24 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | including legislative, okay. The other future agenda item I had was legislation options to mitigate the bicycle traffic congestion. I know, for example, riding on sidewalks, perhaps we could get an update from the bicycle committee on progress they've made in that regard. |
| 03:24:26.60 | Unknown | Well, the Bicycle Committee has discussed it and they're still looking at all the possibilities on the legislative side, which could be riding on sidewalks, changing speed limits or helmet laws, but nothing has been done at this point. I think what I'm going to try to do is get the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee to give a report because they've done quite a bit of work so far and they've done a great job and I'd like to see them. present before this council and the public. We just have to find a spot for them. But hopefully in the next couple of two months, I hope. |
| 03:24:56.56 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay, thank you, because I noticed on March 18th this is downtown bicycle parking plan. I don't know if there's some sort of wiggle room to allow that. I'm interested in legislative options to mitigate the bicycle traffic problem. The other future agenda item I have is the REED initiative for pension reform. I know it was placed on the Board of Supervisors agenda today and it, you know, whether you, or support it or what have you. I think it's important to educate the public. It's important for transparency to allow the public to weigh in and listen to the options. And, uh, So that would be the other addenda item. And the last one I have is if the city's response to the Pension analysis by Citizens for Sustainable Pension Plans They identified some potential fiscal hardships ahead for Sausalito, and I would like to have a city response to the pension liability debt and OPEB and retirement costs medical debt that was outlined in the CSPP plan. |
| 03:26:16.81 | Unknown | I think we've planned for a thorough pension discussion on April 1. |
| 03:26:22.18 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | It didn't say response to the CSPP and it didn't mention the READ initiative. So could we include those two items in the pension discussion? |
| 03:26:32.88 | Unknown | I think you need to do that. |
| 03:26:34.97 | Unknown | talking about our pension problems. Chuck Reed or whatever he's doing. Thank you. |
| 03:26:40.14 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Council Member Leon, could you turn on your microphone? I believe you're opposing the inclusion of the READ initiative on the April 1st agenda. |
| 03:26:48.59 | Unknown | Thank you. Are you making agenda item suggestions? Is that what you propose? |
| 03:26:50.67 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:26:53.65 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I'm making future agenda item suggestions. |
| 03:26:57.21 | Unknown | to do. |
| 03:26:57.28 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 03:26:57.36 | Unknown | questions. Right. |
| 03:27:00.01 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And so the REED initiative and Mayor Withey commented that the topic of pension discussion was listed on April 1st. And my question was, could we include the REED initiative and the response to the CSPP as part of that pension discussion agenda topic? |
| 03:27:23.44 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | We're with you. |
| 03:27:23.45 | Unknown | Mayor with you. City Manager would like to comment on we've not really got to the point yet of crafting the exact nature of that discussion. Our intention is to have a full and detailed discussion of pensions. And I think until we do more detailed planning on that agenda item, it's premature to discuss. |
| 03:27:45.76 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay, well then you've heard my opinion. Thank you. I hope when you discuss it you'll include the READ and the CSPP response. |
| 03:27:47.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:27:52.87 | Unknown | Thanks. Any other public comment on future agenda items? Yes, sir. |
| 03:28:05.89 | David Lay | David Lay. Just like a dog walker supervision, there's only one guy here that's Ugh. There's only me for the crowd. When these discussions happen, do as much transparent that the public sees the whole discussion before it's brought to this room or whatever, you have to find a way to do it here and not there. That's all. You'll do the best you can. But we've had problems before years ago where where All of a sudden, you could tell, son of a gun, this all happened in the back room. And here we are, boom, it's done. And that's not gonna work for you. So you know where I'm going, thanks. |
| 03:29:00.55 | Unknown | Thank you. Okay. The next agenda is Council Member Committee Reports. |
| 03:29:11.64 | Unknown | you |
| 03:29:13.58 | Unknown | And I would just like to remind us that we did at our team-building session agree that we would begin collecting agendas and minutes for various committees, particularly outside committees. So let's start thinking of a process of how to make that happen. I don't particularly have any specific report this evening. I don't know if anybody else does. No? OK. Any other reports of significance? |
| 03:29:48.44 | Scott Diamond | Yeah, the only thing I'd like to bring up is, as you know, we really got our first major storm this weekend. And I have to comment to DPW that All that preventive maintenance really paid off. If you drove around Saturday and Sunday, you would have seen how how the lines were able to handle this. There was virtually almost very, very little flooding. There was a small portion on Buckley and Santa Rosa Avenue at the bottom. But other than that, and I drove around the whole town with my little brake. cleaning up and I want to comment to the DPW job well done because that maintenance really paid off. You could go down the streets and even like Richardson Street, our new street there, It was clean. everything that it was supposed to do the system worked. So thank you, Jonathan, and thank you to DPW. |
| 03:30:51.24 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:30:51.45 | Scott Diamond | Here, here. |
| 03:30:52.00 | Unknown | Thank you. Okay, so at not so bad, almost 10.40, I'd like a motion for adjournment. |
| 03:31:02.42 | Unknown | a move. |
| 03:31:03.18 | Unknown | Second. |
| 03:31:03.52 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |