City Council Meeting - April 01, 2014

×

Meeting Summary

1
CALL TO ORDER IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT CITY HALL, 420 LITHO STREET - 7:00 PM 📄
The meeting was called to order on Tuesday, April 1, 2014, with roll call confirming attendance of all councilmembers 📄. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Dorothy Gibson 📄. The Mayor reported a closed session was held earlier to discuss three matters: two conference with legal counsel and one real property negotiation, with no public comment 📄. The agenda was approved with a modification to remove items 4C and 4D from the consent calendar and move them to a date uncertain 📄.
Motion
Motion to approve the agenda as modified passed 📄.
A
By Age Friendly Sausalito Task Force on their recent designation by the World Health Organization as an "age friendly city" 📄
Tricia Smith, chairperson of the Age-Friendly Sausalito Task Force, presented an update on the task force's work. She reported that the task force was formalized by a unanimous city council vote in July, mailed a questionnaire to 2,400 residents 55+ with a 50% response rate (1,200 responses), and applied to the WHO. Sausalito has been accepted as the first city in Marin County and third in California to receive the WHO age-friendly city designation 📄. This provides partnership with WHO, access to a global network, and monitoring of progress. Smith introduced and thanked task force members and volunteers, including Betsy Stroman, Sybil Boutillier, Anne Hurland, Pat Christopherson, Judy Leachman, Stella Schell, and city staff Adam, Debbie, Mike Langford, and Council liaison Tom Theodorus 📄. Mayor Withey thanked the task force, noting the importance of age-friendly policies given the growing senior demographic in Sausalito and shared a personal anecdote about Meals on Wheels 📄. Councilmember Pfeiffer also expressed thanks 📄.
B
Recognition of Dorothy Gibson on her contribution to the recently released Streets and Walkways Map 📄
The item began with a police department representative presenting Dorothy Gibson with a certificate of appreciation for her tireless efforts and dedication to the Sausalito Streets and Walkways Pocket Map project 📄. Gibson was recognized as the driving force behind the project, working with city council, transportation committee, government, and historical society. Gibson then shared the history of her involvement, starting with the 1990 general plan where she chaired the Transportation Committee and discovered the need to map walkways 📄. She described decades of walking Sausalito, inspired by her landlady, and persistent advocacy that eventually led to the map's creation 📄. She raised questions about distribution—whether to sell it, put it online, or restrict access to residents 📄. Mayor and councilmembers thanked Gibson, with Councilmember Pfeiffer noting her historical contributions and book on Sausalito stairways 📄, and Councilmember Leon explaining the map's tie to disaster preparedness and police department funding 📄.
2
COMMUNICATIONS 📄
Multiple residents expressed opposition to the proposed housing element plan, specifically the rezoning of 1901 (7-Eleven) and 2015 Bridgeway to support horizontal mixed-use (HMU) units. Concerns included: the plan would destroy Sausalito's charm and character 📄, high-density development would block views and increase traffic/parking issues 📄, and alternative solutions like reusing abandoned buildings were suggested 📄. The Mayor noted the Housing Elements subcommittee met with the Spring Street Housing Association the previous night, directed staff to engage with the group, and scheduled the housing element for discussion on April 22nd 📄. Councilmember Leon also shared condolences regarding an 8.2 earthquake in Chile, near Sausalito's sister city Valparaiso 📄.
Public Comment 6 6 Against
4
CONSENT CALENDAR 📄
Councilmember Pfeiffer clarified the items on the consent calendar, specifically noting 4C as a lease and 4D as a fishing pier repair contract 📄. The Mayor confirmed and called for a motion to approve the consent calendar. Vice Mayor moved to approve items A, B, E, F, and G of the consent calendar 📄. The motion was voted on and passed with ayes heard 📄.
Motion
Motion to approve items A, B, E, F, and G of the consent calendar, passed 📄.
A
On the Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of a Variance for an Addition at 619 Coloma Street (Contract Planner William Card) 📄
The City Council heard an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a variance to reduce the side yard setback from 9 feet to 5 feet for a 590 sq ft one-story addition at 619 Coloma Street. Contract Planner William Card presented the project history, noting staff recommended approval as the variance met criteria and was consistent with the neighborhood where many homes have similar setbacks 📄. The applicant's representative, Richard Jow, argued exceptional circumstances due to backyard flooding/drainage issues limiting usable yard space, and that the variance would allow a more functional interior courtyard 📄. Councilmember Leon questioned the nexus between drainage and the design change, stating drainage is a separate issue not alleviated by the variance 📄. Councilmember Pfeiffer sought clarification on how the design improves usable space 📄. The Vice Mayor and other councilmembers expressed support, noting no opposition from the adjacent neighbor, who spoke in favor, and that the variance causes little harm with much benefit 📄. Councilmember Leon suggested basing the 'exceptional circumstances' finding on neighborhood compatibility and existing similar setbacks, not drainage, to avoid setting a problematic precedent 📄. The Mayor agreed the drainage issue was a 'red herring' but believed the findings could be made 📄.
Motion
Motion to grant the appeal and adopt the resolution in attachment 5 (which approves the design review permit and variance), with an amendment to modify the language in finding A regarding exceptional circumstances to focus on neighborhood compatibility and existing similar setbacks rather than drainage/annexation history 📄. Motion seconded and approved by voice vote 📄.
Public Comment 3 3 In Favor
A
Status Update from the Marinship Specific Plan Steering Committee (Administrative Analyst Lilly Schinsing) 📄
Staff and consultant Charlie Knox from PlaceWorks provided a monthly update on the Marinship Specific Plan Steering Committee's activities. The update covered February and March, including a steering committee meeting on February 24th where a revised scope of work was recommended and approved, a water tour on March 17th, a meeting with 15 Marinship property owners on March 20th, and a steering committee meeting on March 27th where preliminary strategic assessment analysis was presented. 📄 Common ground identified includes: need for infrastructure improvements, protecting the working waterfront, increasing economic vibrancy, enhancing nighttime safety, and improving wayfinding. 📄 Preliminary recommendations include: addressing inconsistencies between zoning and the specific plan, prioritizing infrastructure improvements, considering allowing some industrial (I-zone) uses in the waterfront (W-zone) to spur investment, protecting marine rails, and creating a street grid in the Marina Plaza area to improve circulation and vitality. 📄 Council discussion included Councilmember Leon expressing skepticism about property owners' claims of confusion over permitted uses, arguing they are deceptive and that the specific plan has largely succeeded in preventing unwanted change. 📄 Councilmember Pfeiffer emphasized the importance of the Marinship's economic diversity and maritime services, and raised concerns about infrastructure costs not falling on taxpayers and about large landowners' influence. 📄 Vice Mayor Weiner noted the process is early and urged moving past old conflicts to find consensus. 📄 Mayor Theodores highlighted that the July deliverable is expected to be a strategic framework or roadmap, not a new specific plan. 📄 Councilmember Withy emphasized the need to reevaluate the plan in light of new realities like sea level rise. 📄 The consultant clarified the project will conclude with a roadmap for potential next steps if the council chooses to update the specific plan. 📄
Public Comment 2 1 In Favor 1 Neutral
B
Study and Analysis of the City of Sausalito's CalPERS Pension Plans 2012 Actuarial Reports (Administrative Services Director Charlie Francis) 📄
Administrative Services Director Charlie Francis introduced the item, highlighting the city's proactive pension reforms since 2003, including requiring employees to pay their share, not increasing benefits pre-recession, and hiring independent actuary Mr. Bartell for guidance. Mr. Bartell presented on the 2012 CalPERS actuarial reports, explaining upcoming CalPERS changes: a new contribution policy (direct rate smoothing) to pay off unfunded liabilities over time, assumption changes (mortality and pay increases), and risk pool adjustments. He projected contribution rate increases for miscellaneous and police plans, with significant uncertainty for fire safety. He discussed GASB 68 accounting changes, which will show a net pension liability of ~$22.6M on financial statements, and cost-sharing under PEPRA. Council discussion included: Vice Mayor inquiring about investment return assumptions and volatility 📄; Councilmember Leon questioning the policy of targeting 100% funding and comparing the city's position to others 📄, 📄; Councilmember Pfeiffer expressing concern over the growth of unfunded liability from $5M to $22M and the risks of assumptions 📄, 📄; and Mayor and others noting the city's reforms have put it in a better position than many, with the ability to make payments under projected scenarios 📄, 📄. Charlie Francis noted actual contributions are decreasing due to attrition into lower tiers and that the city has set aside funds for potential side fund payments.
Public Comment 1 1 Neutral
A
City Manager Information for Council 📄
City Manager Adam Politzer provided updates on several topics. He reported on a recent lightning strike that damaged two homes and left 1,000 customers without power, with some out for a full day 📄. He discussed ongoing water conservation efforts amid fluctuating drought conditions and encouraged residents to manually manage irrigation 📄. Politzer noted that Marinship Steering Committee meetings are being recorded and available online, urging public participation 📄. He addressed the situation with C-TREC, whose lease at the Schumacher site is ending, and stated the city is actively seeking options to help them stay in Sausalito, including engagement with Friends of Dunphy Park, under a deadline of end of May 📄. Councilmember Pfeiffer inquired about the reason for C-TREC's notice, with Politzer stating no official reason was given and cautioning against speculation linking it to the Marinship Steering Committee 📄. Politzer also reminded the council of an upcoming MCC-MC dinner on April 23 and mentioned the upcoming priority calendar process, inviting council members to submit items 📄.
C
Future Agenda Items 📄
The Mayor inquired about other reports of significance, and upon receiving no response, suggested a motion for adjournment 📄. No specific future agenda items were discussed or proposed.
D
Other reports of significance 📄
The item was not discussed as the meeting was adjourned immediately after the Vice Mayor requested a brief pause. 📄

Meeting Transcript

Time Speaker Text
00:00:00.03 Mayor Tuesday, April 1, 2014. Debbie, could we please have the roll call?
00:00:05.89 Unknown Councilmember Pfeiffer? Here. Councilmember Weiner? Present. Councilmember Leone? Here. Vice Mayor Theodores? Present. Mayor Withey?
00:00:07.02 Unknown Here.
00:00:08.91 Mayor present.

Here.

President.

here.

Dorothy Gibson, would you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance tonight?

uh...
00:00:23.25 Unknown Ha ha ha.
00:00:24.70 Unknown .

I'm not proud of you.
00:00:25.71 Unknown you Thank you.
00:00:50.76 Mayor Thank you, Dorothy.
00:00:56.41 Mayor We met in closed session earlier to discuss three matters. Two matters which were conference with legal counsel, another matter on real property negotiation. Is there any public comment on these closed session items?

Okay, seeing none, I will move on to the approval of the agenda, and I'd like to note that on the consent calendar, items 4, C, and D are being removed and moved to a date uncertain. Is that correct, Debbie? Yeah. Okay. And so with that change, could I have an approval of the agenda, please?
00:01:46.58 Councilmember Thank you.

so move.
00:01:49.63 Unknown Second.
00:01:50.43 Mayor All in favor? Aye. Thank you.
00:01:51.44 Unknown Hi.
00:01:55.84 Mayor Now, we have some special presentations this evening. And the first is my pleasure to introduce acknowledge the work of the age-friendly Sausalito Task Force.
00:02:15.76 Dorothy Gibson Thank you.
00:02:16.72 Mayor We did.
00:02:17.33 Dorothy Gibson What are you doing?
00:02:18.98 Mayor I'm sorry. We did. I asked for a public comment. Yeah, you're on, Trish. Okay, so first is by the Age-Friendly Social Edo Task Force,
00:02:24.82 Councilmember Yeah.
00:02:32.72 Mayor on their recent designation excitedly by the World Health Organization as an age-friendly city. So I don't know, is it Tricia? Who's, Tricia's going.
00:02:42.60 Tricia Smith you Stand up.
00:02:43.45 Mayor Okay.
00:02:43.62 Tricia Smith Okay. Joint effort. I'm going to. I've got my.

three minutes down, so I'm speaking on behalf of all of us.

It is Tricia Smith, chairperson of the Age-Friendly Sausalito Task Force.

And we thank you for providing us time tonight to update you on the work and accomplishments of our task force. Approximately one year ago, Betsy Stroman, Chair of Sausalito Village Steering Committee, came before you to request that the issue of age friendliness be put on the priority calendar that you are setting In July, thanks to a unanimous vote by you, our city council, our citizens group was formalized as a city task force.

We thank you for your faith in us and are happy to report to you that we have been working hard over the last nine months to fulfill the mission of creating a strategic plan that will continue to move Sausalito forward with age friendliness in mind.

As a first step in developing this plan, we mailed a questionnaire to residents 55 and older.

a total of 2,400.

And by the deadline of December 31st, we received 1,200 thoughtful and insightful responses, a phenomenal 50% return.

With the first steps of the baseline assessment completed, we applied to the World Health Organization to become a partner with them.

The application went in on January 30th of this year along with letters of support from Mayor Withey, Supervisor Kate Sears, the Director of Health and Human Services and Director of Aging and Adult Services for the county.

all of whom we have partnered with during the first phase of our project.

Two weeks ago, we received the good news that we have been accepted as the first city in Marin County and the third city in the state of California to receive this designation. So what does it mean?

It means that we have a significant partner in the World Health Organization, as well as other members of the global network of age-friendly cities as we move through the next phases to complete the baseline assessment and the strategic plan that we will bring back to you.

We will have member-only access to the successful work that other age-friendly cities have accomplished, and most importantly, we will have monitoring of our progress by the World Health Organization to ensure that we do not become stagnant in the process.

I would like to take my last few moments to make it clear I am speaking as the voice of this incredible group of people that I'm gonna ask to please stand so I can introduce.

Betsy Stroman, chair of Sausalito Village, and the driving force behind getting this off the ground in the first place.

Sybil Boutillier.

who is also the city's commissioner on the Commission on Aging, who brought a depth of knowledge about this process from her work in San Francisco Age-Friendly Initiative, Anne Hurland.

who is our behind the scenes member who has spent more time at the computer than anyone in the city.

Pat Christopherson, who's an angel who landed here a little more than two years ago, I believe, for the sole purpose of helping us get this off the ground.

Judy Leachman, who's the president of the Edgewater Senior Club, a reluctant participant at first, but someone who has added a wonderful perspective to the process, and Stella Schell, also on the steering committee of Sausalito Village, who plays the same role there as on our task force as the wise voice of reason.

In addition, we are grateful to the numerous volunteers who are assisting in the process, from putting on stamps, on envelopes, to categorizing data. We couldn't do it all ourselves and appreciate each and every one.

Adam, thank you for the support from the very first meeting. And Debbie, your help with meeting rooms and notices in the currents. And Mike Langford, a special shout out for the hours spent helping with printing, stamping, carrying 2,400 pieces of mail, and Tom Theodorus, our city, Council liaison.

In conclusion, we want to celebrate this momentous occasion with you tonight and recognize that it's your commitment that got us this recognition as the first city in the county of Marin. So thank you.
00:06:49.77 Mayor Patricia, thank you very, very much, and thank everybody for all the hard work we're doing. This was an important, I think it was the first time it was added to the priority calendar last year.

And Everybody is run with it and it's important.

the major demographic in our city Is our senior population growing?

that came over to me loud and clear a week or so ago, when I did some deliveries for Meals on Wheels, and I met some of our residents who actually are able to stay in their homes because of a program like that. This is sort of age-friendly policies, and I was glad to support it personally. So thank you all very, very much, and I don't know if any other council member wants to say anything.
00:07:35.94 Mayor Thank you.
00:07:35.98 Unknown Thank you.
00:07:36.11 Mayor I'm just...
00:07:36.20 Unknown Just something you've said.
00:07:37.31 Mayor Yep.
00:07:38.49 Councilmember Pfeiffer Just...
00:07:38.63 Mayor Thank you.
00:07:38.73 Unknown Stop.
00:07:39.17 Councilmember Pfeiffer A very big thank you.
00:07:39.23 Mayor Very, very good.

Thank you.

Congratulations.
00:07:48.04 Mayor So our second special presentation tonight is a very special recognition of Dorothy Gibson on her contribution to the recently released Streets and Walkways map. And I don't know who's going to, ah, okay.

Welcome.
00:08:09.61 Dorothy Gibson Thank you.
00:08:10.28 Unknown Okay.

GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL, MR. MAYOR, MR. CITY MANAGER AND CITY STAFF.

today.

I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE TO PRESENT Ms. Gibson with a certificate of appreciation. So if she could please stand and join me up here.
00:08:29.23 Unknown I hit that.
00:08:30.21 Dorothy Gibson Thank you.
00:08:30.26 Unknown Come up here for a second, Dorothy.
00:08:30.82 Dorothy Gibson THE END OF THE END OF THE
00:08:30.87 John Majora up here.
00:08:35.21 Unknown All right.

The Sausal Police Department.

is happy to award a certificate of appreciation to Dorothy Gibson.

In recognition of her tireless efforts and dedication to the city of Sausalito's public streets and walkways Pocket map project.

MS. GIBSON WAS THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND THIS PROJECT AND WORKED SEAMLESSLY WITH THE CITY COUNCIL CITY TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE, CITY GOVERNMENT, AND THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY VISITORS CENTER TO ENSURE THE PROJECT'S SUCCESS.

This map is a great asset to the citizens of Sausalito as they prepare themselves, their families and their friends for disasters and emergencies.

Ms. Gibson's actions during this project are in keeping with the finest traditions of community service in the City of Sausalito.

AND WITH THIS, I AM PROUD TO PRESENT YOU WITH THIS CERTIFICATE.
00:09:23.17 Unknown Thank you, sir.
00:09:39.69 Dorothy Gibson Do you want me to say anything? Please.
00:09:43.65 Councilmember Leon We will see you next time.
00:09:44.02 Councilmember the pledge of allegiance.
00:09:44.75 Dorothy Gibson How much time do I have?
00:09:47.72 Councilmember I'm sorry.

You have as much time as you want.
00:09:50.52 Dorothy Gibson Thank you.

I'm sorry, I'm crying.

I'm really very happy. But all of this started back when I was working on the 1990 general plan. And it was of the council at the time, Um, that asked me to be the chair of the Transportation Committee at that time.

And so it turned out that transportation had to do not only with roads and cars and bicycles, but also paths and walkways. And Mary Ann Sears was the chairman at the time of the, and B. Seidler of the total, the total plan, and I was just a subcommittee chair. And so in the process, we all looked at each other and said, well, where are these paths and walkways?
00:10:51.07 Unknown Oh, yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you.
00:10:52.28 Dorothy Gibson And so we got a hold of Norman Wolfsvogger, and Norm was the public works director at the time. He was the first in the city, by the way, and he set up all these files that you now have.

And so Norm drew me this huge, wonderful map, and so we followed this map up and down Sausalito Hills in and out and around and about, and then in the process for the plan we made a map and we put it in the plan.

Well, that got me to walking.

And...

I've always liked to walk since I was a kid on the farm.

And so I just kept walking, and I kept walking, and I kept walking, and my landlady, Mignon Connor, who used to be here all the time, She grew up here.

She said, well, Dorothy, just go over the hill, she says, and go down to the beach and you can get all the driftwood you need for your fireplace.

So that's what I did, and I learned about all the walkways in the process of coming up and down.

And so it just one thing led to another.

I got this bug in my mind that I wanted to get out a map with all of these walkways in it.

And so I talked to Dana Woodson about it. She thought it was a good idea, and she even got a newspaper article about it.

but the map never came to pass. But then we had new people, and slowly by slowly, with my constantly nagging, Uh...

We got it together.
00:12:26.35 Robert Buchel I'm glad I did.
00:12:28.81 Dorothy Gibson And I'm so excited that it finally came about.

And I'm so excited to have been working with with these wonderful people on the staff now, and Jonathan and I have had a good relationship as a result of it, and I've known him ever since he was a kid.

So...
00:12:44.67 Unknown So...
00:12:46.34 Dorothy Gibson Bye.

And I've come and gone with council people over, what, about nine plus years. And so anyway, thanks a bunch. And I'm so glad that it came about. And I hope you enjoy it and like it.

There are questions that have come to my mind that I need to pass on because it's not my job to solve these questions, and that is to whom, aside from Sausavito residents, should have access to this map? Should we sell it? It came out of, I think, the police department's budget.

if that's correct or not. Anyway, it came out with a study budget. And Joanne and Dee, I insisted that they print it because I've seen their work before and I like the way they work. And so, at any rate, the question is, to whom outside of city Sausalito people should get this map, if anybody?
00:13:22.77 Unknown Sorry, buddy.
00:13:42.82 Dorothy Gibson Should it be on the internet, I have my own qualms about that.

And You know, how widely should we distribute it? I sound a little like Mary Ann Sears, who was always saying, I don't want you in the privacy of my, I don't want the stairway in the privacy of my house. Please keep Sausalito for us.

So those are questions that need to be resolved. Thank you.
00:14:19.15 Mayor Dorothy and everybody who helped put this together, thank you. This is, I think, one of the most interesting and useful things that we've put together for many years. So thank you.
00:14:34.75 Councilmember Pfeiffer And Dorothy, I just want to say, when I moved to Sausalito 20 years ago, you were one of the first people I learned about because I was so fascinated with all of the hidden staircases, you know, and the history of the stairways, rather, you know, throughout Sausalito. And you were the person who mapped those out.

and educated me about where they were and the amazing history of those stairways. So I just want to thank you so much for everything you've done from a local historian standpoint. You've contributed so much to Sausalito. Thank you.

and she wrote a book and I have a copy at home.
00:15:11.59 Unknown Thank you.

Good bye.
00:15:12.97 Councilmember Pfeiffer The book on Stairways of Sausalito.
00:15:16.93 Councilmember Leon And for those of you curious why it would come out of the police department budget, it's because it's part of our disaster preparedness to give you access and knowledge of where to go in multiple routes out of the hills, down to either up to the top of the hills or down to the bay in the case of a disaster.
00:15:38.62 Mayor Good. Well, thank you, everybody who was involved with that.

Okay.

The next, our next agenda topic are public communications. And this is the time for the City Council to hear from citizens regarding matters that are not on the agenda.

And, However, except in very limited situations, State law precludes the council at this time from taking action or even engaging in discussions about these matters.

Thank you.

Um...

Thank you.

I do know there are a couple of people at least who have some...

public comments tonight. So please, for those who wish to make some communications this evening, please come forward.
00:16:36.99 Steve Hoffman Good evening, Mr. Mayor, council members, and my fellow residents. My name is Steve Hoffman. I'm a resident at 518 Easterby Street. For those of you who are not familiar with where Easterby Street is, it's the prestigious 7-Eleven neighborhood.

Perhaps some of you have frequent that area. The reason why I'm here tonight is to speak out against my opposition to the current proposed housing element plan. Specifically, the housing element plan has designated 1901, which is the 7-Eleven, and 2015 Bridgeway to be rezoned to support horizontal mix units. and we believe what we're trying to, the city is trying to do is to present a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. We understand that consultants have been hired to go canvas the town of Sausalito to identify the auxiliary ADUs, I believe it's auxiliary something units, and that there's an insufficient count of these units, that there are enough properties out there that can support the high density to meet the state mandates. If you walk around Sausalito, there's tons of abandoned buildings everywhere you go. Why can't we have those buildings re-zoned such that you could support units in the existing footprint of those buildings? That would not impinge upon anybody else's views. It would not destroy the charm and integrity of our neighborhoods. So I'd ask that the city take that into consideration. Finally, we have also a number of liberal boards out there. I know that those have been trying to be counted. I guess my bottom line is we do not want this town to become packed and stacked with these high density units that blocks the views of our city. And again, I would ask that the council members work with the housing element committee to come up with an alternate plan.
00:17:51.85 Unknown Thank you.
00:17:51.90 Unknown months.
00:18:38.89 Mayor Thank you. I know there's at least one other communication on this topic.
00:18:46.23 Robert Buchel All right.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council Members. My name is Robert Buchel. I live on East Jibby Street, and I just recently learned that's in Springvale.

Steve told me that when he helped organize and got me involved with the Spring Valley Neighborhood Association, which is concerned about those two words you love housing element, and I'd like to comment on the housing element very briefly.

tonight.

I strongly object to high density residential development primarily along Bridgeway.

I don't like it anywhere, but Uh, Sausalito, one of its unique assets is its character and charm. All of the unique, different, interesting houses in a sort of an Italian Positano setting and high density housing, and I'm not talking low income housing.

For 10 years I've had a low income resident, a tenant, in a unit I have. And I probably have one of the lowest rents in the city. I'm not opposed to that. It's the high density.

on Bridgeway. And it's protecting the character and charm of our city. And in about two days, this group that Steve helped put together got about 100 signatures from our neighborhood and many of those people are quite concerned about this. We understand that the housing element is conditionally approved. It's in a conditional status. There's still opportunity to take action and preserve the charm and character of the city. And I know that's dear to your hearts. So I hope you'll work with us to help achieve that. Thank you.
00:20:37.29 Mayor Thank you. Is there any other communications this evening? Please, sir.

All right.
00:20:47.94 Eric Tiemans Good evening and thank you for your time to the council and to the public at large here. My name is Eric Tiemans. I've lived in Sausalito for over 15 years now and I'm a huge fan of Sausalito. It's inspiring, I do a lot of artwork and it's a place I call home. And not only for myself but for family. Wife and daughter.

And Basically as a homeowner and someone who's lived on Easter B Street for 15 years,
00:21:19.58 Unknown Thank you.
00:21:24.71 Eric Tiemans I'm just...

processing the information of these changes and things that we're tackling with. And on the horizon as it's coming so quickly, I'm concerned about basically the neighborhood and potential loss of our overall small town maritime field Sausalito. More specifically, the HMU designation of the two nearby bridgeway sites, especially in the city of the city given the low percentage of actual affordable housing at stake feels like spot zoning or targeting.

are already modest, dense area which probably has more renters than homeowners really points this out as an issue to look into. The fact that with the density bonus law hulking view blocking structures could be built causes me to oppose this plan.

What is especially troublesome is that the normal design review procedure could be bypassed The HMU designation has never been part of Sausalito's housing element, and now it is not the time to put it in. It goes against so many things in our general plan.

I want to go on record as opposing these sites staying in the housing element. And I thank you for your time.
00:22:55.41 Mayor Thank you very much. Please, sir.
00:23:01.27 John Majora Yeah, I'm John Majora. I've been here all my life. The Majora family will be in the fight also. That's about it. They've said everything else. We'll be back. Thank you.
00:23:12.05 Mayor Thank you.

Please, yes.
00:23:22.24 Jane Dirks My name is Jane Dirks and I live at 512 Olive Street. I've lived there for 19 years. And clearly I'm opposed to this project and I'm wondering if you have considered when you designated both of these properties, if you did any sort of a study on the traffic and parking, parking on Olive Street in particular, unless you lived down there, you wouldn't be aware of it. But it's gotten so bad that last October I submitted a letter to the city. I've not heard back yet. I'm waiting.

Regarding this, there is, because of the employees in the office building, they are parking on any available spot on Olive Street and in that area. But I hope you consider, and there's also a considerable increase in the traffic, just vehicular traffic coming down spring onto Bridgeway. It has increased significantly, especially over the past 10 years, I'd say. So please take those aspects into consideration.

So,
00:24:45.86 Mayor Thank you very much. Before I ask if there's any other member of the public who wants to make a comment, I'd like to – we cannot up here really comment on this topic tonight. It's not part of the agenda. And in a situation like this, we would normally direct staff to ensure that a dialogue occurs so that – well, I just wanted to let everybody, probably my colleagues more than anything else know, because everybody in the audience who is involved in this project knows, that all of the members who have spoken tonight, plus others of the new Spring Street Housing Association, met with the Housing Elements subcommittee last night and raised these concerns. We directed staff to meet with this neighborhood group to hear all of their issues, and on April 22nd, the housing element is an agendized item. So I would say for anybody else who wants to talk about this matter, you have your three minutes, But it is an agenda item on April 22nd. We listened to you last night. We've initiated stuff. matter, you have your three minutes, but it is an agenda item on April 22nd. We listened to you last night. We've initiated staff dialogue with you, and we'll take it from there. And is there any other member of the public who does want to talk? Please, sir.
00:26:08.26 Jeff Marku Thank you for that explanation. I look forward to being back here on the 22nd to address it again. My name is Jeff Marku and my wife and I moved to Easterby 530 about a year and a half ago. I'm obviously lured by the wonderful residential environment in the neighborhood. We've met all of our neighbors. We've got a great, wonderful rapport and it's just a great little area of town.
00:26:34.28 Unknown and,
00:26:38.26 Jeff Marku And you know, I think Perhaps we're all feeling a little bit blindsided by this. Perhaps there's been some advance notice for some reason. It just came to light to us in this past week or so. So there's obviously great concern. But I'm glad someone mentioned about the traffic matrix coming in with all those streets intersecting down there and seeing all the pedestrians and the bus stop and the cyclists and the cars coming through there. Yeah, that seemed like it would be a disaster. But I just wanted to lend my voice and thank you for listening. And we'll see you on the 22nd. Thanks.
00:27:12.20 Mayor Thank you, sir. Is there anybody else who would like to make any public comment this evening before Thank you.
00:27:20.35 Councilmember Leon Yeah.
00:27:20.37 Mayor MR. Thank you.
00:27:22.04 Councilmember Leon Can I make one? Because I'll do it as a member of the public. Is that I don't know if you said something earlier, but there was about the earthquake in Chile this evening. It was an 8.2 earthquake. So given our sister city relationship, I just wanted to – it was far north of Valparaiso, near Vino Del Mar, but it was still a very shallow and strong earthquake, and our hearts go out to our sister city and any of those affected by that earthquake.
00:27:24.47 Unknown Oh, my God.
00:27:51.08 Mayor I would concur with that. Having recently come back from Chile and visiting our sister city, these are our sisters, brothers. So it's important.
00:28:00.39 Unknown Thank you.
00:28:04.16 Mayor OK, let's move on. Thank you for those communications.

The next item, agenda item three, is to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of March 18th.

Do I have a motion or any comments on those minutes?
00:28:21.10 Councilmember So moved.
00:28:22.31 Mayor Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you.

Yeah.
00:28:34.97 Mayor We'll just pause for a second.
00:28:41.82 Mayor OK, so the next item on our agenda is the consent calendar, remembering that items for C and D have already been removed to a date uncertain.
00:28:57.97 Councilmember Pfeiffer And Mr. Mayor, 4C being the lease and 4D being the fishing pier repair contract.
00:29:05.45 Mayor That is correct.
00:29:08.80 Councilmember Pfeiffer Thank you.
00:29:08.82 Mayor Thank you.

So I'm looking for a motion to approve the consent calendar.

I move that we
00:29:14.96 Vice Mayor No, I never do.

I move that we
00:29:19.08 Unknown it.
00:29:19.35 Vice Mayor Thank you.

I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ITEMS FOR A, B, E, F, AND G OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
00:29:28.04 Mayor All in favor. Aye. Aye.
00:29:29.86 Vice Mayor Bye.
00:29:30.07 Unknown Bye.
00:29:30.67 Vice Mayor TO BE ABLE
00:29:30.98 Unknown Thank you.
00:29:31.11 Vice Mayor Thank you.
00:29:31.37 Unknown Thank you.
00:29:32.55 Mayor Okay. Um...

We now move on to item number five, which is a public hearing.

And this is on an appeal of a Planning Commission denial of a variance for an addition at 619 Coloma Street. I think at this time, if there's any ex parte communications that have occurred, we should announce them. I will begin by saying that I did visit, actually some weeks ago now.

Thank you.

the property and saw the situation, did not discuss the merits of the matter with the applicant.

Anybody else?
00:30:22.97 Vice Mayor Thank you.
00:30:23.49 Councilmember Pfeiffer I also visited the property.
00:30:26.65 Vice Mayor I visited the property and met with the owners and they explain to me the layout and how the variants would affect their property.
00:30:35.24 Councilmember Pfeiffer And I met with the owners, obviously, when I visited the property. Yeah.
00:30:38.19 Councilmember Yeah, I also met with the owners at the property site.
00:30:41.58 Councilmember Pfeiffer Thank you.
00:30:41.70 Councilmember Leon Bye.
00:30:41.90 Councilmember Pfeiffer Thank you.
00:30:41.92 Councilmember Leon Yeah.

I went to the property, but I did not interact with the appellant.
00:30:48.97 Mayor Thank you.

Okay, so these are really important considerations that the City Council has before it, a public hearing on an appeal from the Planning Commission. So at this point, I'd like to hand over and for those who haven't met, our contract planner, William Bill Card. So welcome, and we'll hand it over to you.
00:31:17.54 William Bill Card Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers. I appreciate your time tonight. This is an important matter. As you've indicated, this is a...

.

an agenda item of an appeal of a Planning Commission decision that was made in February regarding variance and design review application. The site's located at 619 Coloma.
00:31:36.22 Unknown Thank you.
00:31:40.91 William Bill Card Make sure I'm doing this right.

The site is located at 619 Coloma in the Nevada Street Valley area across the street from the Martin Luther King farm.
00:31:51.82 Adam Politzer Thank you.
00:31:53.62 William Bill Card which is right there. You can see it on the map. And northerly of the intersection of Aleman and Kalima Street.

The site is currently zoned R16, and the city general plan designates the site as medium density residential.
00:32:04.46 Unknown Thank you.
00:32:14.29 William Bill Card make sure I get this all right. The proposed project that was before the Planning Commission in February was a construction of a 590 square foot one-story addition. And just so you know, the Planning Commission previously approved an application on this same site for a similar type of addition to the area. It's a fairly straightforward application. for a similar type of addition to the area. It's a fairly straightforward application. The project history involves reviewing the application in October by the Planning Commission. They approved the design review application. In January of 2014, the applicants admitted a revised plan proposing to change the footprint of the building. February 5th, the planning commission denied the variance. On February 23rd, excuse me, on the 13th, the applicant appealed the application brief. The applicant has an existing approval from the Planning Commission in January. He submitted a revised plan. The Planning Commission denied it. Now the appeal is before you.
00:33:32.21 William Bill Card This is the approved residential project that was approved in October. And it's very similar to what you're gonna see in a couple of minutes.

The revised plan, what I did was I put the revised site plan and the approved site plan side by side so you could see them. The approved plan shows a nine foot setback and that's really the subject of the variance. The applicant in his revised plan shows a five foot variance, excuse me, a five foot side yard setback that's required of variance in consideration by the planning commission.
00:34:11.56 William Bill Card As you can see, the elevations are very similar. The upper elevation is the improved house plan, the lower elevation shows the February proposed elevation. There are just some very, very slight modifications, but really overall the project look does not show any significant architectural changes. In addition, the proposed elevations for the south area of the property, which is the rear side of the house, indicates a very similar look in comparison to what was originally approved in October. The change does not affect the rear yard setback in any way.

As part of the project review, Because of the revision to the west side of the building, it required the review of a variance by the planning commission. Just so you know, maybe I'm trying to make this as simple as possible because sometimes variance is going to be a little bit tricky. In this particular case, the variance that's proposed is to reduce the side yard setback from what's normally required. In this district, if you have a building that's 40 feet long along a side property line, it's required to have a 5 foot setback. If you exceed that distance, and in this case, because the applicant was exceeding the distance by about 20 feet, it increases the side yard setback. I think the idea behind that ordinance back when they wrote, when it was written, was to provide for some sort of relief to adjoining properties.

talk about that a little bit more in a second.
00:36:03.95 William Bill Card As I indicated, the Planning Commission did review it.

to look at a modification of the original plan and they looked at and they reviewed a variance to allow the building to encroach within four feet of the property of the side yard setback. And as far as its design review, the staff review of the proposed plan found that the project met the criteria for both design and heightened design projects, meaning that the project posed no excessive impact to the neighborhood or on adjacent properties.
00:36:49.39 William Bill Card And very briefly I'd like to kind of talk about variances because I think that's really the heart of the matter in this particular subject. The purpose of a variance, simply put, is that it is an exception to the usual limitations in the zoning district. In this particular case, the exception is the side yard setback.

Yeah, and the way the process works, a variance has to be reviewed by the planning commission. They have to make particular findings in regard to that.

So briefly, the variance findings, these are very, this isn't the whole thing because it's very long and complicated. But the heart of this is that there are possibly exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that are present on the site. That there's a possibility of creating an unnecessary hardship, preserves a substantial property right, that it's not a grant of special privileges and does not impact the public welfare. creating unnecessary hardship, preserves a substantial property right that is not a grant of special privileges and does not impact the public welfare and is consistent with the general plan of the zoning ordinance.

The staff did review this very carefully before we went to the Planning Commission. We did recommend approval of the variance. Just to repeat that, we did recommend approval of the variance because of the situation in the neighborhood.

as you can see on the site plans, that the majority of the houses on that block have a very similar length on the side yards in addition to their frontages. Most of the houses are single story. This particular house is not proposing to add any additional stories. It will remain a one story building. It doesn't block any views. Generally, we felt as though that the applicants met the criteria that are required under the findings for variances.
00:38:50.86 William Bill Card This is the Planning Commission's decision. This is the actual findings that the Planning Commission made at their meeting in February.
00:39:11.58 William Bill Card As we indicated, the applicant did file an appeal, and that's why we're here.

what we're recommending to the city council, excuse me, the applicant, I messed up there for a second, the applicant did submit his appeal and presented grounds for the appeal.

The appeal demonstrates that the grounds have enough support, have support for the findings, and the staff concurs with the findings that applicants submitted. And as a matter of fact, in the resolution that we presented to the Planning Commission, we enumerated those findings. The Planning Commission disagreed and thus denied the variance.
00:39:44.05 Unknown I'm not.
00:39:56.35 William Bill Card A recommendation to the City Council tonight is we're asking the Council to consider the Commission's determination and grant the appeal approving the variance for the project.
00:39:58.54 Unknown Thank you.
00:40:12.53 William Bill Card Alternatively, the council may also consider denying the appeal, thus upholding the planning commission's decision, or continue the public hearing for more information, or remand it back to the planning commission for further review.

And with that, If you have any questions, I can try to answer them. I believe the applicant is here.

Okay.
00:40:36.76 Mayor Thank you.

Before I invite my fellow council members to ask questions, Mary, could you just remind us of the process of this appeal? I believe the applicant has the right to make a presentation of a specific duration.
00:40:54.75 Mary Wagner Correct. 15. 10?

I'm looking at the city. Sorry, Debbie, maybe 10. 10, okay. 10 and then rebuttal time or no?
00:41:00.14 Mayor Maybe 10. 10. OK.
00:41:05.77 Mary Wagner With five. So the City Council breaks the applicant's time into two parts. Ten minutes to give you a presentation, then they have five minutes after public comment to answer any comments that were heard if they want to add anything.
00:41:16.35 Mayor Okay, so thank you. Before we ask, presuming the applicant wishes to make a presentation, is there any questions of counsel for Bill before we proceed?
00:41:30.51 Councilmember Leon I know I have a question.

Yeah.

So if you could flip back to the site plan and just educate me a little bit here. Not that one, the one of the two different versions of the same house. Yeah. So if it's the same amount of square feet, 520 versus, in the initial one,
00:41:43.72 Unknown Yeah.
00:41:53.22 Councilmember Leon help me understand where it's going, how the additional four feet into the setback isn't adding square footage.
00:42:06.35 William Bill Card generally the change that was made on the site plan to the project itself mostly involved around this area here. What they did was they more or less kind of squared off this area in front here and then they pushed this wall right here out to the setback area. So this This the existing wall that is there, excuse me, yeah, that's right. This is the existing wall that's there now. This is what they're proposing to extend. And that's where we get into the reduction in setback. The square footage is essentially the same by maybe 10 square feet.
00:42:14.52 Unknown Mm-hmm.
00:42:49.42 Councilmember Leon So it's just the little nook area there.
00:42:51.14 William Bill Card It's a change of floor plan, and I believe it was to accommodate the wishes of the applicant with their architect.
00:42:59.43 Councilmember Leon And are they, is the building up against the rear yard setback by the length of it?

I'm sorry, I didn't understand. Is it in the rear? Is it how far back from the rear yard setback is it in the back?
00:43:12.32 William Bill Card It's about 15 feet.
00:43:14.65 Councilmember Leon from the back of the property or from the setback?
00:43:17.03 William Bill Card From the back of the property, I believe.
00:43:19.14 Councilmember Leon So the setback there is.
00:43:21.50 William Bill Card It meets the section. 10 feet.
00:43:23.30 Councilmember Leon 10 feet or whatever it is.
00:43:24.62 William Bill Card Right.
00:43:25.46 Councilmember Leon Right.
00:43:26.51 William Bill Card The addition to the house does not change the rear-end setback for the project.
00:43:34.00 Councilmember Leon Right, but so it's not a square footage question here. It's just a preference of design.
00:43:37.73 William Bill Card No.

It's simply design and the side yard setback.
00:43:45.88 Unknown Okay.
00:43:54.25 Councilmember Leon I don't have any more. This time I might ask some more later.
00:43:56.41 Mayor Thank you.

So with that, could I have the applicant's team make a presentation if they so wish? You have a total of, at this stage, ten minutes, and that can be split between you and others, but you know the drill.
00:44:24.19 Richard Jow Mayor Withee, members of the council, my name is Richard Jow, and I represent the property owners of 619 Columbus Street.
00:44:28.07 Unknown Thank you.
00:44:32.09 Unknown Thank you.
00:44:36.39 Richard Jow On February 5th, 2014, the Planning Commission heard the revised design review and variance application The application was denied because the Planning Commission could not make the finding of, quote, exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other property or uses in the same district.

At the time of the Planning Commission hearing, the exceptional condition, that was not evident. But that was all brought back into focus with the rains that began that night. Remember back in February, there was a prolonged period of rain.

um,
00:45:24.40 Richard Jow As indicated in my February 13th letter and shown under drawings that was in the submission material, the rear yard area of the Yee property becomes a holding basin for the rain and storm runoff from the higher surrounding properties. Now due to the topography and the resulting flooding, this property has limited use of the rear yard area.

altering the topography will divert to collect the runoff towards the back of the residence, potentially exposing the house to flooding. So due to this, making the best use of the reduced usable yard area becomes very important to the east.

The variance will permit shifting the west portion of the addition and increase the width of the interior courtyard by 4 feet 3 inches, making it much more useful and more inviting for the residents. Now, we considered several options before requesting this variance. Now, one of the considered designs, in order to achieve the minimum living space without exceeding a 40-foot side yard or sidewall length was to expand upwards with the second story which basically the zoning ordinance does go ahead and permit.

But a quick study of the neighborhood eliminated that possibility, as all the houses on the block are single-story structures with the exception of just two. Now pursuing this would have violated the character of the neighborhood. And with the self-imposed limitation and in respect for our neighbors, from all who have signed a petition of support for our appeal, we chose to add outwards instead of upwards, which brings us to his hearing.

Technically, we feel we've demonstrated that there is an existing or an extenuating condition unique to this property that does not exist on other adjacent properties, and that the condition limits the use of the Yee's rear yard, depriving them the full use of their property that other property owners on the block enjoy.

We have also provided a drawing showing four of the six identical houses on Coloma already have additions with depths ranging from 59 feet to 78 feet without the increase in side yard setback, which then sets a precedent for a request.
00:48:00.47 Richard Jow On a non-technical note, Robert Yee and Sue Cole reside on this property.

They have decided to start a family and need the additional living area that the addition will afford.

Nathan and Theodore E. live around the corner at 500 Olima and are in their 80s. Robert and Sue would sorely like to remain in this house and close by to care for their parents as they age.

In our era of aging populations, studies have shown that being able to remain in our own homes has many benefits for both the older persons and the neighborhood in which they live.

To name a few, most older people are happier, more content, and comfortable in familiar surroundings. Also remaining in their own homes provide a more diverse population in their neighborhoods.

Also, being able to remain in their homes reduces the demand for concentrated senior housing. And retired people tend to be around home during the day, providing an extra pair of eyes and a presence that discourages crime.

As you can see, the granting of the variance request will have a more far-reaching consequence and benefits than just a simple addition to a residence.

Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them.
00:49:31.97 Mayor Thank you.

Okay, do we have any questions?
00:49:37.66 Councilmember Leon So to clarify, so you're saying, and again, for the sake of fun or just to say, I'm taking off my politician's hat and putting it, this is a planning matter. So I'm not just looking for somebody's vote here.

You're saying because it rained after they got what they proposed, approved the first time, they decided they need to come back for a variance for a site yard setback?
00:50:09.84 Richard Jow No, basically the history of this was
00:50:10.24 Councilmember Leon Thank you.
00:50:12.98 Richard Jow Originally, we had actually approached the planning department with what is being proposed tonight, where the side wall is just five feet from the side property.

At the time that I spoke to the planner that was on duty, Thank you.

She indicated that that would require variance. We were aware of that. We went through all of the issues that we presented tonight, and she indicated that the planning staff would not support that application.

So we went ahead and considered a number of other variations as far as the design was concerned, and finally settled on what you see on the left-hand side on the screen.

when we were preparing the working drawings for the the actual construction of the building to submit to the building department the owners took a second look at it we should probably talk about it again what happened was he came back into the planning department and spoke to another planner the original planner that we spoke to had going on maternity leave the second planner that we spoke to he scoble looked at all the issues and indicated that the planning staff would actually indeed support the application so we had a decision to make. Do we invest the additional amount of time and go before the Planning Commission again or not? We decided to do that. When we appear before the Planning Commission, They...

looked upon the application favorably. However, technically, they were unable to find a second finding, and that was whether or not this property has a unique situation that would make it different than any other property in the zoning district.

We didn't know, at least I didn't know, that this particular property does become a holding basin because all of the rain and storm runoff from the surrounding areas that are higher than this property collects in the rear yard. There is a swale back there that actually ponds when there's a lot of water that runs into it. It takes about a day and a half for it to dissipate. So what happens is when it occurs, it saturates the backyard area, makes it a little marshy. It's really not usable. In order to make it usable, you would have to regrade it to make it more level. But if you did that, then all that runoff would then be diverted towards the back of the house, which will then go ahead and
00:52:49.95 Unknown Good.
00:53:20.21 Richard Jow give the potential of flooding the house itself. So that particular issue was not evident at the time we had the Planning Commission hearing, but came to light.

after that hearing. And that's the reason why we're back
00:53:40.05 Councilmember Leon Right, but I don't see whether that's a special circumstance or not. I don't see how that's alleviated by the change in design here.
00:53:47.49 Richard Jow The design has nothing to do with that.

The design is to allow a wider interior courtyard at the back of the house. That makes it more usable by the residents. The flooding of the backyard is the second finding to allow a variance. In other words, because
00:54:12.55 Councilmember Leon You know, my – sorry to interrupt you. My understanding, city attorney, is that you have to meet all these findings, not just one or two. You have to meet every single finding for a variance. Right. Right. So it's not just an additional finding. You have to meet all of them.
00:54:21.77 Richard Jow Right.
00:54:25.60 Richard Jow What I'm saying is the planning commission was not able to make that finding of a unique circumstance that is on this particular property but does not exist on others. And with the flooding of the backyard,
00:54:32.36 Unknown Thank you.
00:54:32.38 Unknown Thank you.
00:54:41.00 Richard Jow That's what we're indicating that occurs on this particular property, but it does not occur on other properties.
00:54:50.32 Councilmember Leon So where...

Thank you.

And I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm just trying to understand why, to understand how this is a special hardship for you or your clients or however you're related to this project. So if you could sort of point to where the swale is, because we don't have it on the
00:55:17.98 Richard Jow Thank you.
00:55:19.60 Councilmember Leon Okay.

So in our other scenario, you're saying that part of the property is unusable during the winter. Is that what you're saying? Correct. During the rainy season.
00:55:29.57 Richard Jow Right.
00:55:29.84 Unknown Thank you.
00:55:33.72 Councilmember Leon Okay.

All right.

Again, I don't see the nexus of it, so.
00:55:40.66 Councilmember Pfeiffer Mayor Withey, I have a question. So just to add on to Council Member Leon's comment, so because the swale part is not accessible, the new design carves out more courtyard space for accessibility for outside?
00:55:41.72 Councilmember Leon Thank you.
00:55:55.51 Richard Jow accessibility for outside? Let me explain. Because the rear part of the lot that has a soil in it is not usable,
00:56:03.12 Unknown Yeah.

Thank you.
00:56:07.96 Richard Jow What's more important for the yeas is that what area that does remain becomes used. With the additional setback on the side, instead of having five feet, We have nine feet, three inches. If we moved it back to the five-foot mark, it would increase the courtyard that is in the middle by four feet, three inches. That makes that courtyard more usable and offsets the loss of use in the back part of the property. That's what I thought I said.
00:56:40.09 Unknown Mm-hmm.
00:56:45.14 Councilmember Pfeiffer That's what I thought I said, but, yeah, I understand.
00:56:54.84 Mayor Any other questions at this time of the applicant?

No.
00:57:03.04 Councilmember Leon No. Not this time.
00:57:04.46 Mayor Can I just confirm one thing in the question?
00:57:04.58 Councilmember Leon .
00:57:11.33 Mayor Did you...

You initially Did you have to get, maybe this is for Jeremy, actually, or for Bill, did you have to get a design review permit for this, or was this just simply a question of the variance that was needed?

What was the reason it was in front of the Planning Commission? Was there a design review permit, or was it just a variant?
00:57:36.88 Councilmember Leon design review because they're
00:57:39.03 William Bill Card as designers.
00:57:39.05 Councilmember Leon He's a designer.

you and
00:57:40.50 William Bill Card Thank you.
00:57:40.52 Councilmember Leon Thank you.
00:57:41.03 Mayor Okay, design review because it was extra three, over 300 feet addition.
00:57:44.57 William Bill Card over 300 feet addition plus plus it was a change
00:57:51.00 Mayor Okay. No, I'm talking about the original approval.
00:57:54.44 William Bill Card The original approval was not, there was not a variance involved. It's simply a design.
00:58:00.16 Mayor Okay. To the applicant, when you came back, It sounds like on the recommendation of staff that did you then apply for a new design review permit?
00:58:15.30 Richard Jow be applied for a design, amended design review permit and variance.
00:58:22.12 Mayor Thank you.
00:58:22.17 Richard Jow Okay.
00:58:22.24 Mayor Okay.
00:58:22.47 Richard Jow But you cannot approve the revised design review without the amendments because you wouldn't be able to move that less training. Yeah, I understand.
00:58:31.62 Mayor Yeah, I understand.
00:58:32.80 Richard Jow So one works hand in glove with the other. Okay. But you have to have the variance before the revised assignment you can't do.
00:58:35.90 Mayor Okay.
00:58:42.10 Mayor Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you. That's the only questions I have at this time. So if there's no other questions, let's throw this up for open for public comment. Is there any member of the public who would like to comment on this appeal?
00:59:04.42 Mayor Okay, seeing, sir.
00:59:06.84 Dorothy Gibson Yes.
00:59:07.19 Barry Grossman Thank you.
00:59:14.43 Barry Grossman My name is Barry Grossman. I'm a resident of 623 Coloma, the next door neighbor to the east.

Thank you.

I've already submitted to the, submitted a letter of support with my wife and myself in the Ease application for the variants so that this west wall can have the continuation as it appears on the right side of the slide.

Thank you.

The five have said that.

And I'm here in person to support their application as well.

Mr. Card, when he reviewed the history of the application, raised something I didn't know about.

and I want to speak to.

Apparently...

The whole reason to have the Nine foot setback as the wall extends south.

is to protect me.

since I'm the next storybook. And it's out of consideration to me that this code was put into effect. So I really want to make a statement that with the explanations that Robert and Sue have given us, with the storyboards that were up.

With the drawings that were reviewed, with all questions that we asked, there was never, ever a doubt in our minds that this continuation of the five foot setback would provide us any infringement in the enjoyment of our rights
01:01:13.47 Unknown of our
01:01:16.06 Barry Grossman as well as our living in great pleasure and comfort in our home.

If the consideration of this council and the city officials is to protect me, I appreciate it.

And as a protection of my rights, I want to make clear that I feel no infringement.
01:01:44.99 Unknown Thank you.
01:01:50.42 Barry Grossman and would hardly support the granting of the variants.

That is the root of the matter.
01:01:59.57 Mayor Thank you, sir.
01:02:04.19 Mayor Any other member of the public would like to comment on this?

Yes.

Yeah, no.

and
01:02:17.98 Councilmember Leon You've got to keep track of the time.
01:02:20.12 Mayor Yeah, you are the, of course, the applicant, so we, you are, you have, I think, the remainder of your 10 minutes plus five minutes, five minutes left, so please.
01:02:48.78 Mayor It should be.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

phone.
01:02:59.96 Unknown I'll follow up on what Mr. Barron is saying that we appreciate the time for listening to us. But I'd just like to add that my family had this house. We bought this house in 1957 and raised four houses.

We just feel comfortable that our son Robert has decided to live in the house and to raise his family and be close to us, being that both of my husband and I and our babies, and it's very comforting to have that. And it's our family that we did the same thing to his father, who was really cheap, if you remember him back in, I don't know, in the 30s, he was being more of Sausalito during the Depression.
01:03:44.75 Unknown Thank you.
01:03:51.97 Unknown Thank you.

.

Thank you.

Thank you.
01:03:58.62 Unknown Thank you.

Thank you.

He was there for you.

Thank you.

We were there for 43 years and our children all were in there too. We just feel that we want to follow through with our culture, family together and living. We love Sasa Nido and we hope to stay here and we hope you consider
01:04:21.45 Mayor Thank you.

Any other member of the public or a planning commissioner? Vicki?
01:04:29.79 Unknown Vicky?

Yeah.
01:04:40.98 Vicki Nichols in this application. And I think you have this in your staff report, but these properties, as Mrs. Hughes stated, were built, I believe, in the 50s. They were not annexed till the 70s. So some of these changes were made before. They would have come under these conditions. And these are now proposing to be a project under. If you look at most of the footprints from that one, the region of Columbus, there's not, to me personally, the reason I was not able to vote for this was I don't think there's a substantial difference to this, and I didn't really feel there was an impact to the neighbors. They were not going out the story. Thank you. was I don't think there's a substantial difference to this and I didn't really feel there was an impact to the neighbors. They were not going up the story. If you look from the streets, there was no impact there. So I think this is one case where as long as I've been coming to Planning Commission meetings, I can see that we have the ability to use this judgment and this visual inspection of these conditions to be able to make these cases for these variances and findings. So personally, I think this is one of the most impactful variance requests I've ever seen since I've attended a meeting, but that's my personal opinion. So I hope that you take that into consideration. If this property was not on the edge of our town and had not been annexed and had been under the city's conditions this whole time, None of these other changes would have been made prior to this application.

They're very similar.

Thank you.

Thank you.
01:06:32.82 Mayor Thank you, Vicky.

Any other member of the public?
01:06:46.43 Mayor Ah, we apparently lost the microphone, so...
01:06:48.47 Dorothy Gibson Lost the microphone.
01:06:54.22 Mayor Seems to happen every other meeting.
01:06:56.05 Councilmember .

Thank you.
01:06:58.17 Unknown Thank you.
01:06:58.29 Councilmember What kind of batteries do we get? You're up.
01:06:59.88 Mayor Yeah, seriously.
01:07:00.57 Councilmember Leon Seriously.
01:07:02.15 Mayor Thank you.
01:07:02.20 Councilmember Leon I hope they're rechargeable.
01:07:02.64 Mayor They're rechargeable. Come back. Is there any other member of the public, while the microphone's being changed, I don't believe there's any, is there any other member of the public who'd like to make a comment or the applicant?
01:07:04.21 Dorothy Gibson I'm sorry.
01:07:15.82 Mayor She said, uphold the appeal, which would be to approve the thing. Okay, so in that case, let's bring it up here, and Jeremy can prepare the microphone for the next topic.

Okay.
01:07:33.93 Mayor Thank you.
01:07:34.03 Dorothy Gibson Good luck.
01:07:34.57 Mayor to begin our deliberations.

Thank you.
01:07:39.62 Councilmember Well, I went down and looked at the property.

And, um, And a variance means exactly what it is.

coming to us to see if a change could be made that kind of makes more sense.

and I feel at this time here that this does make sense. I could understand the area that it becomes a water catch basin. So I feel at this time here that the appeal should be okay.
01:08:18.72 Vice Mayor I also would uphold the appeal or grant the appeal. In this one, I think everyone from the Planning Commission to the neighbors and up here, no one really has a problem with the plan. I mean, they're not going up.

The difference in the setback would not make any real difference.

And basically, it's can we make these findings? Can we honor the words of the law that everyone would really like to do? This is one of these rare cases where everyone would like to see this happen. There's no opposition, which we always have to choose between conflicting rights. So we need to find whether we can honor the the findings of the statute. And in this case, I think we can Um, I think it's set out. I think staff has set forth sufficient findings that we can. I mean, I think the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, both The appellant has stated the drainage and staff has also mentioned the difference in the development standards from when they were part of the unincorporated county until they came into the city.

And by the way, I think my understanding of what the Planning Commission, they had trouble with A, B, A and B mostly, and C, they found the others. But I think we can find all A through F. The other thing, the B is the operative part. It says, oh, into the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, the literal enforcement of the provisions. And that's what we'd be doing here. We'd be trying to.

to literally enforce the provisions would create an unnecessary hardship.

And frankly, there's slightly more building costs in making the job, but we would have, unnecessary when When people would come and why did you have to do this? Why do you have a smaller courtyard?

just because we had to make a literal interpretation. I think this is why we have variances. I know that they should be given sparingly, but here there is so little harm and so much more benefit I think would add to the future use of the home down through the generations that we have a more reasonable design. So I'd grant it.
01:10:32.35 Councilmember Pfeiffer Yeah, I would also support the appeal. I read the Planning Commission notes. I understand the logic. I certainly understand why they landed the way they did on this, but I think that new information has come forward with respect to the drainage, the soil, and I can understand the desire to make that courtyard more usable and larger there. So that's my comment.
01:11:03.80 Councilmember Leon So I haven't been a planning commissioner for way too long before this. So I hear what you're all saying, and I hear what you're saying as well.

But the drainage issue, you're going to have to deal with that regardless for your own enjoyment of your property. So that's not really a good thing.

Thank you.

I think, grounds for a special circumstance here.

you could probably find a special circumstance in another way than what you put in your appeal, but the drainage one is not it. What I would cite for you instead is that your special circumstance is the nature of the neighborhood and having all the similar setbacks. But it is not the drainage, because if somebody's draining into your property without your permission anyway, that's not, you know, you can seek ways of remedying that. I'm assuming you're going to do that regardless of how this goes here.

because that's going to damage your new addition to your house at some point. There's just the seepage towards the lower elevation of your property. So I can't find for – I think it's finding B, the exceptional circumstances at the literal enforcement. And just to clarify, because I helped write the setback nonsense in 2002, It is to protect the adjacent homeowner, which I'm assuming, I can't remember your name, sir, but you're right next to this addition, right?

Okay. It is both to look out, to give you tools to protect your light and air, not just views, You're not going to get a second story. He's not going to come in and support that. So that whole argument, I forget.

the guy I speak for you may.

That doesn't carry any weight with me. We didn't propose to go up. Your whole neighborhood would come down on you like a pile of bricks. And you know that. You've lived there for quite a long time.

So, So none of that carries any weight for me. What does carry some weight is that there's similar properties along your street which have, I mean, you've owned this property for, you know, what, 50 plus years? Yeah, so I mean, this isn't a new condition either, so I can't go with that, that you're an unsuspecting buyer and you bought it and you didn't know we had Jane's property. I mean, you've owned it for God knows how long. So I would suggest that we, as a council,
01:13:12.49 Unknown Yeah.
01:13:28.96 Councilmember Leon make the finding for the literal enforcement in Basically, I don't like the variances, because the next guy on your street's going to come in and say the exact same thing.

He won't talk about the drainage. He's going to talk about some other issue. And then it's because all these things domino on any street. So what I would say is not the drainage issue, it's finding that similar properties have similar qualities within that. If you're going to vote that way, which, you know, given the support of the neighbor, if the neighbor wasn't supportive, I'd be much more inclined. But we have to make the same findings as the Planning Commission to grant the variance. So what I would suggest is not the topography is an excuse because the topography is an issue all over in any town, and certainly in any town with hills that isn't flat will have drainage issues. So I would say it's the literal enforcement would be the same.

Thank you.

that they're – I think – is it A or B, Jeremy, or Bill, that are the – where they're citing the drainage? I can't recall. I think it's A. Is that correct?
01:14:36.11 Unknown Sacrificed both.
01:14:37.73 Councilmember Leon both as drainage.

Yeah, I would say, B, you can make a case for that with just saying, you know, you've got six properties and they all have the five-yard setback. And then in A, it just doesn't hold up for me personally. As the planning commissioner, as a politician, I was like, hey, go do what you want. Your neighbors are cool and, you know, vote for me next time. So, but as someone who had to do this for too many years, I would say cite something different. And what I would cite here is not the rains. I would cite that the neighborhood conditions are such that it would be an exceptional circumstance for them to not – that it should apply to them.

That would be A.
01:15:22.13 Unknown Council Member Leon, I think there might be benefit to look at the findings that are in the resolution that the staff is proposing to be adopted.

Page 6 of 10 on attachment 5.
01:15:40.96 Councilmember Leon I'm sorry I said this doesn't hold water. I think I said that.
01:15:41.77 Unknown I'm looking at item 5A, attachment 5. That's the resolution that the staff is proposing that the council adopt to uphold the appeal and approve the project.

Item 5A, attachment 5. Okay. Page 6 of 10.
01:16:02.71 Councilmember Leon Okay. That's different. That's fine. That's different than the staff report, which has their reasons for why they should be
01:16:08.72 Unknown I just love it.

We felt that the...

circumstances as Vicki Nichols had stated were the appropriate ones that the properties in the neighborhood had developed under county jurisdiction and then when the city annex the area, more stringent city regulations came into effect and that since this property had not developed under its county jurors, while it was located in the county, then it has been put at a disadvantage and those are the exceptional or unusual circumstances that are applicable to this property relative to its neighbors.
01:16:51.02 Councilmember Leon Yeah, this is just my read of it, because I think you're setting yourself up for more problems down the road by including the whole annexation stuff as part of this. I would just, because other people are going to say the same thing, right? And we'll live down the street or on another street that was part of the annexation, is that I should be, you know, you should allow me the requirements that are put in place in 1970 or whatever, and that's not the way the world works, is I would just reference the last two part of this, where specifically the residential properties around the 600 block of Oklahoma.
01:17:26.07 Councilmember Leon I wouldn't get into it. You know, I would rephrase this somehow, and I can't do it on the fly. I've lost that ability in my aging years. So. I would just not go on. Make the point.
01:17:36.06 Mayor I would just not go on. Make the point in the sense of – there's too many words. Make just the point about the neighborhood, the compatibility with the neighborhood and the fact that the other neighbors, a lot of them, have five-foot setbacks by whatever means.
01:17:40.16 Councilmember Leon Right.
01:17:40.52 Unknown Thank you.
01:17:53.12 Councilmember Leon Yeah, you could just rephrase those last two sentences of that, of A. And, okay, I'll try to do it on the fly, but I'm sorry. I didn't think of this ahead of time.
01:17:56.55 Mayor Yeah.
01:18:02.98 Unknown I think you've given direction to us and we can get it. All right.
01:18:04.87 Councilmember Leon Okay.
01:18:05.04 Mayor All right.
01:18:07.03 Unknown Thank you.
01:18:07.05 Unknown Thank you.
01:18:07.08 Unknown because
01:18:07.75 Councilmember Leon Thank you.
01:18:07.77 Mayor So I really have nothing to add. I would agree with Council Member Leone. I wish we had no discussion of this drainage. I think it's a complete red herring.

But I also can make the findings. So with that, can we call for a vote?

Debbie.

And this is, well, we need a motion. We need a motion.
01:18:33.37 Dorothy Gibson Well, we need a motion. We need a motion.
01:18:36.00 Mayor Thank you.
01:18:36.58 Dorothy Gibson Thank you.

Let's see what we do.
01:18:38.97 Unknown you Thank you.
01:18:39.41 Councilmember I make a motion to grant the appeal and adopt the resolution in attachment 5, which approves the design review permit and variance.
01:18:39.60 Unknown Thank you.
01:18:39.75 Dorothy Gibson to make a motion to a great
01:18:41.94 Unknown Thank you.
01:18:41.99 Dorothy Gibson Thank you.
01:18:42.04 Unknown Thank you.
01:18:49.99 Mayor Thank you.
01:18:50.01 Councilmember and
01:18:50.65 Mayor Yeah.
01:18:50.67 Vice Mayor Second.
01:18:51.49 Mayor Okay. Can we do this by voice vote? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That carries five.
01:18:56.20 Councilmember Leon Bye.

MR. Just as a point of clarification, so we're adopting it with the amendment to the MR. Yes. MR. Which I think is the approval that staff go back and read it.
01:19:05.28 Mayor Yes. Which I think...
01:19:06.97 Unknown Bye.
01:19:07.05 Councilmember So...
01:19:07.19 Unknown Thank you.
01:19:08.99 Councilmember Leon Yes, sir.

and amend the language on A, right? 5A, is that right?

Okay.
01:19:17.40 Mayor Very good. Okay, thank you.
01:19:22.04 Councilmember Thank you.
01:19:22.53 Mayor Thank you.

Thank you.
01:19:23.61 Councilmember And this is not an April Fool's joke either. It's real.
01:19:25.68 Mayor Thank you.
01:19:25.72 Councilmember Pfeiffer I'm listening.

Mr. Mayor, could we take a break now?
01:19:28.18 Mayor Thank you.
01:19:28.20 Councilmember Thank you.
01:19:28.21 Mayor .
01:19:28.25 Councilmember .

Thank you.
01:19:28.81 Mayor Thank you.
01:19:28.85 Councilmember Bye.

And I'm going to go to the next one.
01:19:29.80 Mayor Bye.
01:19:29.92 Councilmember you
01:19:29.97 Mayor going to. So I'm going to take a five-minute break now.

Thank you.
01:20:11.70 Mayor 6A is a status update from the Marineship Specific Plan Steering Committee and the ever-capable Lily Sheen Sink.
01:20:21.83 Lily (Staff) Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council members, good evening. Tonight I have your monthly update on the Marinship specific plan steering committee. As you may recall, the Marinship Specific Plan Steering Committee was formed last November with the intent to work with staff and a consultant to evaluate the Marinship Specific Plan.

and identify areas of the marine ship where improvements could be made to the specific plan.

STAFF PROVIDES MONTHLY UPDATES TO THE COUNCIL ON THIS PROCESS, AND THIS UPDATE WILL COVER FEBRUARY AND MARCH OF THIS YEAR. THE LAST UPDATE TO THE COUNCIL WAS ON FEBRUARY 25TH.

On February 24th, the steering committee held a meeting and the following activities occurred. The committee received a presentation regarding the interviews conducted in January by the consultant and also a presentation regarding a revised scope of work and recommended to the council to approve an additional $20,000 for that revised scope of work.

And that $20,000 was subsequently endorsed by the council at the February 25th council meeting.

On March 17th, the consultant participated in a water tour of the marineship where we went out on the police boat and took a look at the marineship from the water.

We did record that meeting, and the recording from the meeting is available on YouTube, and I've posted the link here. I've sent it to the email list, and we're working on getting it on the website right now, so everyone can look at it.

On March 20th, the consultant held a meeting with approximately 15 Marinship property owners at the direction of the steering committee.

And the consultant has produced a standalone report on the highlights from that meeting, which is included in your packet for this evening.

Last Thursday on the 27th, the steering committee held their regular meeting, which was a special meeting on Thursday. And at that meeting, the consultant presented the preliminary strategic assessment analysis report. And a draft of that report is included in your packet for this evening. The consultant is here tonight to provide an update on the process and where we're at and what some of their preliminary recommendations are. But first, I'd just like to go over as a reminder the schedule of the work. This Saturday, we're holding a public forum at the Bay Model. So that's Saturday, April 5th, beginning at 10 a.m.

After that, we'll have a revised draft report from the consultant to go to the steering committee for two separate meetings in April and in May, at which point it would then be presented to the planning commission.

in June and then the city council in July.

And with that, I'd like to introduce Charlie Knox, who's a principal with the consulting firm formerly known as the Planning Center DC&E. The firm recently changed its name to PlaceWorks. And PlaceWorks was hired by the city to work with the steering committee to conduct the analysis of the MarinShip specific plan. So with that, I'll hand it off to Charlie.
01:23:48.24 Charlie Knox (Consultant) Thank you, Lily. Good evening, Mayor and Council. It's an honor to be here. And I just want to take you through an update of what we have presented to the Steering Committee and then entertain some questions and be available for responses.

I'll also just tell you that we are working on ever better maps, aerial photograph maps of the marine ship. And you'll see some of these on Saturday if you come to the workshop at the Bay Model.

So just to remind us all of the project scope, it is to evaluate the specific plan and identify areas in Marinship where improvements can be made to the plan.

to add to the health of the city. So that's our charge and the charge of the committee. And we are constantly checking back in with them to make sure that what we're doing is supporting that.

that objective. As Lily said, the project goes through July.

And one thing that came up at our meeting just last week is kind of the importance of continuing to remind ourselves of all the efforts that have gone before, which are more numerous than could be listed here. But to reassure the council, these are items that we've checked very carefully and thoroughly, as well as the plan itself. And actually, one of the committee members made a very cogent comment at our meeting on last Thursday that really one of the most important guiding documents in this whole set of documents is the specific plan itself. It contains a lot of information and history and context of how we got to where we are.

So the project so far, as Lily mentioned, we've had two site tours, one on land and water. The land tour took place in the first week of December. There have been, I think, to my account, seven steering committee meetings so far, with at least two more to go. The community interviews engaged 138 people, 91, I believe, in person, and others online through a survey, also online by email, and then the additional landowners meeting just a couple weeks ago that was authorized by the committee.

And then what we are starting to present now is the preliminary report. Oops, that is not the correct button.
01:25:45.03 Unknown now.
01:25:52.09 Charlie Knox (Consultant) Thank you.

Let's try this.

So what's left in the project is, as Lily mentioned, the workshop this Saturday at the Bay Model, we're hoping for good attendance. I'm happy to answer questions about the format and what we expect to hear there and what the outcomes might be.

From that, from the information that we gain, we will fold that into what we've got so far in both the preliminary draft report and the landowners meeting, put that together in one document, revise options and recommendations for the steering committee's review, and then in, we believe, two meetings, that'll be in front of the planning commission in the May-June timeframe and then in front of the council in June or July for your consideration.

So one of the very bright stories in this whole process is there really has emerged several major components of common ground.

true agreement among the folks we've heard from both in the interviews and in responses at the meetings, public comment.

The first is, and I don't think this is any surprise, we really need to improve and upgrade the infrastructure in the marineship. In addition to the potential impacts of climate change, we already have subsidence, we already have flooding, we already have storm drain issues. It's clearly an impediment to investment, and it's also an impediment to quality of life for the people that spend time there, whether it's working or just passing through. Another item of consensus or common ground has been to protect the working waterfront.

different definition of what working waterfront means, but I think at its core we're talking about the system of marine rails that launched 100 or more ships out of that area during the historic shipbuilding industry times and is now being used for repair and bringing the ships onto shore for repair.

There's been great agreement that there's a need to increase economic vibrancy, that it's an area that has a lot of potential that isn't being fully utilized. Again, this is an issue that people have very different views on how to obtain that or how to achieve it, but there is common ground that that is an objective. We've also heard from a lot of folks that – go ahead.
01:27:55.91 Unknown you
01:28:00.12 Councilmember Leon Do you want us to save questions until the end or? Yes, please.
01:28:02.11 Charlie Knox (Consultant) Yes, please. And I'll try to be brief and succinct and not go too fast.

Sure.

Thank you for asking.

So we also have heard from a number of folks, and this is a pretty hard thing to disagree with, that it would be nice to have some more vitality 24-7 out there so that there's a nighttime safety component that we don't have quite right now, both for personal safety but also theft and things like that. And then finally, the last kind of major item of common ground is there's a sense that even for folks who know their way around the Marin ship, it would be nice if there were better alignments for the paths, easier ways to get from one place to another, a little bit more obvious sense of connection between one part of the marine ship and another.

READY.

So, Our preliminary recommendations And again, in going back to our charge of trying to identify the areas in the specific plan and the specific physical places in the marineship where change could occur that could add to the health of the city.

We have evaluated the plan from the standpoint of what we could do with it that would actually be useful, meaningful for the city, would lead to investment in infrastructure, both from the private side and leveraged public funds, what would make the marineship an even better place to be. So the first is really kind of a technical item, and it's kind of a softball because in the request for proposals, it basically clearly states that there are some inconsistencies between the zoning and the specific plan. but it actually really is an important point because the anecdotal stories in the request for proposals, it basically clearly states that there are some inconsistencies between the zoning and the specific plan. But it actually really is an important point because the anecdotal stories that I've heard are, if you go to the counter and you talk to somebody about what you can do with property there, When you go to the zoning, it's pretty clearly laid out and then it says see the specific plan. You go to the specific plan and things get a little bit more murky and so I've been through several of those processes myself to try to find out what I would do if I were a tenant or an owner of a piece of property and those are things we could fix fairly easily.

Thank you.

The next item that I think needs to be accomplished through an update to the specific plan if one is undertaken by the council, if you so choose to go for that route, is to really prioritize the infrastructure improvements. It's hard for me to imagine as a former public works director that there would ever be enough money to do everything that we want to do in the marineship to upgrade infrastructure. And I think it's actually going to be necessary and it's going to be difficult, but we'll have to go through the process of prioritizing what we're going to fix first. Because the whole idea of just taking the whole thing as if it were an airport or a port and just adding seven feet of asphalt and bringing the whole thing up has such a huge price tag and some obvious environmental and aesthetic issues that that's really not going to be possible.

Possibly the most controversial of our recommendations, but I think one that's really important to emphasize, is one way that – and we believe probably the kind of most direct expeditious way to get at increasing the potential for revenue for private property owners from which they will be motivated to invest in infrastructure, thereby possibly leveraging public funds as well, is to take a look at the kind of the three times as many uses that are allowed in the industrial marine ship zoning district and look and see if any of those would be appropriate to also replicate, also allow in the waterfront marine ship zone district. And that's a discussion we just started last week. We had a lot of interesting comments about it. But it's our considered opinion in analyzing this specific plan that that is one fairly direct way both to involve the community in decision making about future growth and change, and also achieve this idea of adding to the health of the city by changing the specific plan. We also think that it's important to protect the marine rails. They clearly are a unique resource in the Bay Area, and I've been checking with my colleagues and possibly on the West Coast. The only kind of analogies I've heard about them are in Newport and, it's escaping me, the Naval area of Virginia.

Thank you.

And so, I mean, the issue with the marine rails is they are where they are, right? I mean, they're not something that can move. They're probably not something that can be permitted in their current form under the existing California Environmental Quality Act. They are something that can be retrofitted with appropriate stormwater protection devices and other environmental protection components to be serviceable and useful in the future. But they clearly are something that's a piece of Sausalito history and the history of the whole World War II effort that just, you know, just can't be replicated somewhere else and they really are something special.

Also, they have the opportunity because of their ability to pull in much larger ships than the 50 ton lifts that you see around.

say at KKMI, to really be an economic driver for repair and work on much larger vessels than can otherwise be worked on.

And then the last item, and this also came with some controversy in our initial discussion, One of the first things that we noticed in traveling around the Marin Ship was the difficulty, not just of wayfinding, but actually physically getting through, even in a motorized vehicle, around the Marina Plaza, Sausalito Shipyard area. And so we're proposing for the Saturday workshop that people take a look at a map and consider one or more segments of a grid of streets kind of through that area. And this has all kinds of difficult issues, private property ownership, et cetera. But we feel very strongly that rather than something skirting that area that would basically help deliveries Um, vehicle traffic only, that creating a series or several streets in there would actually bring the public realm into that in such a way that there would be sidewalks. And streetscape amenities, places for people to gather, and you would have more of a presence both day and night of people actually walking through that area and creating more of a sense of place as a district or neighborhood.

So those are our recommendations. I'm happy to answer any questions on any of these and to go into greater detail and provide examples if the council so chooses.
01:33:55.67 Mayor Thank you, Charlie. Any initial questions from here before we go out to public comment?
01:34:04.62 Councilmember Pfeiffer I have a quick question. What percentage of the interviews conducted included like those currently leasing property to provide maritime services,
01:34:17.69 Charlie Knox (Consultant) You know, I've got a slide here way at the end.

This shows, this shows, how the meetings were broken up.

I think if I go to the report, there is a section that talks about how people self-identified. And this is on page 1-3. So just kind of reading and paraphrasing from the report. Of the 91 attendees, these were at the face-to-face interviews. So this is the third line down, the focus group sessions, the folks we interviewed here at City Hall. 25 described themselves as representatives of the business community. 20 as residents. 13 did not have an affiliation. 12 as liveaboards. 11 were city staff or officials. And then 10 of those among those groups were marinship property owners. Anecdotally, I would say, you know, I certainly could name names Paul Dines, Doug Storms, Scott Diamond, Tony Badger. We had at least, I'm guessing, like seven or eight folks who were really – their focus was wooden boat building, the tradition. I got in trouble for using the word history instead of tradition. And so I think, you know, when we've been on site – so I've been out to KKMI and some of the other Hirschfeld and a lot of the other places to look at how the operations work. So I've met more people than that and certainly have come into contact with more folks who are working in that industry. But I think we had about seven or eight interviewed and probably about seven or eight also on the tour when we did the land tour. And a lot of those folks were extremely informative. We stopped in at Spalding Boat Center and got a brief little informal tour. So I don't think... and a lot of those folks were extremely informative. We stopped in at Spalding Boat Center and got a brief little informal tour. So I don't think we hit any kind of majority of that group but we certainly got some of those viewpoints.
01:34:34.10 Unknown Thank you.
01:36:03.20 Councilmember Pfeiffer I have more questions, but I'll yield to other folks if they want to ask first.
01:36:07.48 Mayor Yeah, let's sort of establish a pattern of going around.
01:36:14.05 Councilmember Leon Can you flip back to me?

Sure.
01:36:21.41 Councilmember Leon Excuse me.
01:36:28.97 Councilmember Leon or maybe it was the slide before in terms of the economic vibrancy.

Yes, thanks. In terms of the common ground, what does that mean, economic vibrancy?
01:36:39.92 Charlie Knox (Consultant) It's a fair question. And I didn't want to take it much further than this because, as I said, once you get into what that means to each individual commenter, you get some different answers. But most people – so if you take, say, as extremes, preserve wood and build building at all costs, and you take at the other extreme, open up the marineship to anything that will Both of those perspectives were still based on there are things that could happen there that could generate revenue for the city, that could make it more profitable for property owners, increase the ability to lease space, increase the diversity of businesses that would come in that were common. Once you got into what should those businesses be, the crux of consider if there are I-zone uses that should be pushed into the W-zone as well, then we have quite a bit of disagreement. But at a base level, there was some very good and strong agreement that people were all saying, regardless of the details of what it might be, there's more we could do there that could be more economically vital for the city.
01:37:38.20 Councilmember Leon and that, by definition, is a good thing.
01:37:42.44 Charlie Knox (Consultant) Well, that is a policy decision for the council. We definitely had viewpoints expressed whereby folks were basically, if not hinting explicitly saying, Maybe we should just do nothing. Maybe that's the best feature. Maybe what's happening in the marineship right now that wouldn't lead to additional vibrancy or revenue generation or flexibility for uses of property owners is okay, and we should leave it the way it is. So there's no judgment in my view that it's a good thing. Only my desire to express to you that at some base level we heard that from this group of 138, which is not 6,000. It's 138. But there was agreement among that group.
01:38:18.08 Councilmember Leon Right.
01:38:21.44 Councilmember Leon I'll let you keep going.
01:38:26.67 Vice Mayor Since I sit on the committee, a lot of this is familiar to me, so I'll defer to the others. So feel free to ask your question. Same with me as well.
01:38:32.54 Mayor Feel free.

Same with you.

Thank you.
01:38:34.47 Councilmember Pfeiffer Oh.
01:38:34.89 Mayor Please.
01:38:35.33 Vice Mayor Thank you.
01:38:35.34 Mayor you
01:38:35.58 Councilmember Pfeiffer Thank you.
01:38:35.61 Mayor Thank you.
01:38:35.63 Councilmember Pfeiffer Thank you.
01:38:35.65 Vice Mayor Thank you.
01:38:36.07 Mayor Thank you.
01:38:36.93 Councilmember Pfeiffer So was there or are there plans to conduct a an industry analysis on the trends in maritime services.
01:38:46.85 Charlie Knox (Consultant) So in our report at the very end, and we got in trouble for calling these optional from some folks who think that they're mandatory, but I wanted to attach optional to the fact that these things have an additional price tag, which may or may not involve anyone who's on your current consultant team. I'm assuming it would be additional work with additional requests for proposals and an open process. But we did recommend, I'm looking at page 2-1.

eight, near the end of the report, two optional pieces that we thought might inform an updated specific plan if the council chooses to go that direction. And one is just what you had mentioned, Council Member Pfeiffer, that we would look at an economic market fiscal study that would actually investigate whether, and this is kind of a chicken and egg thing, whether any uses that the community would find acceptable, which means they kind of needed to tell us if there are some they would find acceptable to expand into the W zone, would actually generate the potential revenue and the potential market base that we might expect. Now, to be fair, the other folks, so I'm from Placebooks. The other major component of our team is Lisa Wise Consulting, and they do a lot of work up and down the West Coast for the ports. And so their thorough and considered opinion is there's no question that there are uses that are in the I-zone, if you move into the W-zone, would create additional economic activity. But I think it's very important for the council to consider, if you're going to go into reopening a specific plan that you consider whether or not you want some a market-based study to tell you what kinds of uses would generate what kinds of impacts because just because there are maybe some things that people can agree on should occur doesn't necessarily mean that the same ones that would have the best benefit from either an environmental or aesthetic or socioeconomic or economic standpoint. And maybe there's a merging of those two subsets where you find the ones that you really want to support.
01:39:59.38 Unknown Thank you.
01:39:59.50 Unknown Thank you.
01:39:59.53 Unknown THE END OF THE END OF THE
01:40:39.17 Unknown I'm just
01:40:44.96 Councilmember Pfeiffer And just to be clear, my question was framed specifically around maritime services and the trends and the success in maritime services, not the broad brush stroke.
01:40:59.93 Councilmember Leon So I'm curious about your meeting with the property owners, because we don't have really
01:41:04.35 Charlie Knox (Consultant) But there is, we did not have time before last week and we wanted to make sure you had the exact same materials that the committee did. I don't know, can someone tell me what it happened?

It's the four page.

Attachment two? So it's in a separate format right now. After we have our workshop next week and start compiling the next phase of the draft report for the committee, we'll put it all together.
01:41:26.81 Councilmember Leon Oh, Yeah, I read this the wrong way. I thought this is what you gave ahead of time. Sorry. That was my...
01:41:31.50 Charlie Knox (Consultant) Sorry. The other thing ahead of time was the last page of the invitation.
01:41:35.08 Councilmember Leon Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, so,
01:41:45.22 Councilmember Leon So the way I read this is, and this is, okay.

So.

I'll save it, that's a comment, more than a question. So in terms of the I-use is moving into the W zone, which, again, depending on how you look at the zoning versus the marineship-specific plan, marineship-specific plan allows for restaurants to serve a certain number of patrons that actually work in the marineship. But the reality of the situation is every restaurant in the marineship relies on is a destination restaurant because it relies on people coming from outside. So they are not technically complying with either plan, zoning ordinance or the specific plan. So if I want – so in your conversations with the ownership – owner group, so does that mean I could put destination – you're saying put I-zone uses into the W-zone. Is that saying, well, I want to put more destination restaurants along the waterfront? Is that essentially what they were putting forward? I know it's not your skin in the game here, but I'm
01:42:49.90 Charlie Knox (Consultant) No.

Well, the only thing that's going to happen in the game is that I really care about the area and I really want, you know, I want to get you the right information so you guys can make a decision that you're comfortable with.

No, I think, you know, restaurants is obviously controversial. There's even more controversial office housing. Yeah, oh yeah. But I think short of...
01:43:04.45 Councilmember Leon Yeah, oh yeah.
01:43:07.30 Charlie Knox (Consultant) short of going through the exercise that I think will be painful but cathartic and informative and constructive about looking at those two lists and thinking, should any of this go there or, and I think this may be one of the implications of Council Member Pfeiffer's comment, are there things we could do to bolster uses that are already allowed that we're not doing now? Before you even get there, you know, I think I think it's totally reasonable to expect property owners to want to do more with their property. And so there wasn't a lot of focus on what exactly it was gonna be. It was more like beating the drum of we really would do more to invest in infrastructure if we could do more with our property. The issues we're having are tenants come in and we don't know if we can tell them that the use is allowed because of inconsistencies.
01:43:50.20 Councilmember Leon You know what? I hate to interrupt you for this, because that's the same crap we've heard from these property owners for 30, 40 years. And the reality is they know exactly what they can put in those buildings They don't tell their prospective tenants what the rules are. They make them come down to the counter and try and figure it out.

And if you're coming down the counter to figure out what you can do in any aspect of a project in Sausalito, I don't care if it's in the Marin ship or in your house, you're a fool.

You have to set up a time to talk to someone and actually make find out what's going on. If you're buying a house and you're coming to the counter, you're not doing your due diligence. So this is the deceptive practices that all of those property owners, and I'll lump them all together, have tried to sell to the public here for decades that I can't put stuff in these buildings because I don't know what can go in here. Well, the specific plan is very specific. And if it was actually enforced, half the tenants in those buildings would be out on the street. You know, a human resources firm is not an applied arts use.

And half the technology stuff and financial stuff there is not what was meant for the spirit of that agreement.

which is banks, not a bunch of venture capital firms and investment firms down there.

So this is a load of crap.

that these guys are having it tough.

you bought a property that was sinking.

And you expect the public to bail you out by allowing uses that are not permitted. And we turn the other way because we like to eat a fish sandwich.

you know, every once in a while. This is going down the path of what the residents of Sausalito do not want to have the fight, and that's why this plan hasn't been touched in so long.
01:45:39.60 Charlie Knox (Consultant) If I may, do you mind? A couple comments. So one of the points you raised is very salient, which is a lot of people talk about enforcement across the spectrum, including property owners, and talked about one of the issues being whether there's clarity or not, if the code isn't enforced, how can you expect people to comply? And so there was an acknowledgement across the board that uses were occurring out there that weren't legitimate, not pre-existing, non-conforming uses that were going in without permits and continuing to exist. And that was very much made explicit. The other thing is if you look at the questions we ask the property owners, This is about as confrontational as I wanted to be or we wanted to be, but we basically said, hey, if the message from you is you're not investing in your property, what's preventing you from doing that? And so that's the spirit in which we had the discussion with them was go ahead and we prompted them. And so if we're at fault for getting an answer you may have heard before, it's also been meshed with other answers about things that might make infrastructure investment possible. And I won't deny the fact that what you're focused on is really kind of the largest answer we've heard, but we did hear some other things about when it might make sense to, for example, if we knew more about the deficiencies in infrastructure, and so this goes back to this idea of an optional infrastructure analysis, which again is not free, then maybe we would be motivated, if we knew the storm vanguilette was going to be put in by the city like the one at Coloma and Gate 5 Road, then I'll go ahead and build walls. I don't know if you guys have noticed. I'm sure you have that around Heath and across the street, property owners have actually built little flood walls and kind of flood-proof the businesses. And in combination with the work the city's done, it actually has spurred investment in infrastructure. So there was some kind of nibbling around the edges of, well, let's not talk about for a moment this whole issue of what our rights are, but what's it gonna take for us to invest in infrastructure? Because getting back to deficient infrastructure as one of the bases for looking at the plan was really kind of important to everybody. So I'm not arguing with any of your points, and we thought we were being fairly confrontational with the questions, but...
01:46:52.16 Mr. Bartell more.
01:47:01.93 Unknown of the storm.
01:47:20.44 Unknown kind of
01:47:20.71 Unknown .
01:47:20.78 Unknown Thank you.
01:47:32.46 Unknown Yeah.
01:47:41.25 Charlie Knox (Consultant) I don't know.
01:47:41.96 Councilmember Leon Hey, I know this isn't – you're in the middle here, and they're not here. You're here. So it's unfortunate for you. But – and I understand that you're just – you're trying to do – you're a professional, and you're doing your job, right? And you're trying to do it the best of your ability. So I don't mean to cast aspersions – and I didn't cast aspersions on your role here. No, and I'm – like I said, I'm happy and honored.
01:47:41.99 Charlie Knox (Consultant) .
01:47:42.02 Unknown Thank you.
01:47:42.18 Charlie Knox (Consultant) Hey, I,
01:47:57.13 Unknown I mean...

and I didn't.
01:47:59.56 Charlie Knox (Consultant) I like that I'm a
01:48:01.30 Mayor THE END OF THE END OF THE
01:48:01.33 Charlie Knox (Consultant) Yeah.
01:48:01.40 Mayor It might be an honor of the year. Remember, we're in the question phase here. So, Council Member Pfeiffer, you have a question?
01:48:05.09 Councilmember Leon Yes, sir.
01:48:05.77 Charlie Knox (Consultant) Ah.
01:48:07.49 Councilmember Pfeiffer No.
01:48:07.93 Councilmember So
01:48:12.15 Councilmember Pfeiffer Thank you. Yeah, and I, for the record, I completely agree with what Councilmember Leon is saying, but I'm trying to withhold the comment and focus on questions.
01:48:21.85 Unknown So,
01:48:22.04 Councilmember Leon some questions.

So,
01:48:27.82 Councilmember Pfeiffer So with respect to asking, I have a question about the property owners you interviewed.

In the Marin ship, we have property owners, or the land owners, and then we have smaller landowners, property owners.

Was there a percentage, how would you that percentage of the property owners that you interviewed? How many represented the small versus the large interests
01:48:49.64 Charlie Knox (Consultant) How many people?
01:48:53.93 Charlie Knox (Consultant) It was about half and half, and...

with 15 people, you can imagine that the half that were the larger interest pretty much well represented the five or six major landowners. But there were others there that talked more specifically about their building and what they could do with their building and not the larger piece. Yeah.

And so I think we've got a pretty good cross-section. I mean, obviously there's 50 or 60 properties out there, so we didn't hear from everybody.
01:49:17.98 Councilmember Pfeiffer Thank you. I have two follow-up questions. So I guess the next question would be if they were like half and half, did you have multiple representatives from one land parcel? I mean, did you have, you know, like the landowner and their advocates or co-owners?
01:49:35.04 Charlie Knox (Consultant) between the landowner interview that was done separately and the focus group interviews, yes. For example, we had a couple people from Clipper, for example. But – If what you're getting at was there a domination factor by any group, not really. I mean, I think we kind of heard – because we also, for example, have – you know, the chair of the committee is a property owner and a business owner who represents a very different viewpoint than a lot that we've heard. So I think we're getting a pretty decent – cross-section.
01:50:08.65 Unknown I'm not sure.
01:50:09.97 Charlie Knox (Consultant) But obviously we're not getting everybody. It's not a scientific...

exercise.
01:50:15.40 Councilmember Pfeiffer Okay, and a follow-up question.

Oh, I lost it.

It'll come back.
01:50:24.82 Councilmember Leon Yeah, I'll ask you actually, ask you a question. If we could flip back to the previous slide.
01:50:28.60 Unknown Okay.
01:50:29.04 Councilmember Leon Thank you.
01:50:29.05 Unknown Thank you.
01:50:29.07 Councilmember Leon Um, In terms of the enhanced nighttime safety and the wayfinding, Nighttime safety.

I think what you...

characterize, you know, you're trying to summarize a thousand comments or hundreds of hundred comments.

is that they want activities or businesses going on there at night that would have – that would somehow increase nighttime safety? Is that –
01:50:53.96 Charlie Knox (Consultant) You know, I think my sense of this one is it really – the reason I didn't put 24-7 activity up there is because it really starts with safety. What people are really concerned about is theft and not feeling comfortable there. And so one way you could get at that is by having more going on. Another way you could get there is having streets with street lights and nice amenities and not dark pockets where people can hide or feel unsafe. So I'm not – from what I've heard, I'm not willing to take it to, oh, therefore we should have a bunch of bars and late night activity there. That's not what we heard. What we heard is, I really don't feel safe there at night, and I wish something could happen, I don't know what it is, that would make it a place where you could walk or ride your bike through at night on the next night.
01:51:07.24 Unknown you
01:51:14.31 Unknown Right.

I'm not.
01:51:33.18 Councilmember Leon Okay. And the wayfinding in terms of building new streets. I understand the shoreline path. We've heard that discussion for a long time. But there really is only an opportunity to build new streets in between in Marina Plaza and whatever they're calling themselves now, the old Artez property.
01:51:51.79 Charlie Knox (Consultant) Yeah, so this is what we showed the group to mixed reviews. And one of the reasons we had mixed reviews is, you know, when the WAM circulation report was done, it had a very different approach. It came from the corner going towards the Bay Mow and kind of diagonal across to up to Fish up there. And so, you know, we have a hard time hiding our bias as planners and urban designers about the fact that the reason that the grid of streets exists where things are flat is because it creates opportunities to go multiple different ways and it creates a lot of frontage. And actually one of the things, I'm going to see if I can get the laser to work, I need to warm up. But one of the things that happens when you do something like this is even though this
01:52:25.78 Unknown I'm not sure.
01:52:36.29 Charlie Knox (Consultant) Total disclosure, I have not talked to the property owner about whether they would like this or not like this. We're trying to be independent.
01:52:41.37 Councilmember Leon No, I'm just trying to understand your...
01:52:42.25 Charlie Knox (Consultant) Thank you.

But this creates multiple business frontages, multiple addresses. So if you do something like this, not only is it easier to get from here to here, not just on a bike or walking or in a car or for delivery vehicles, but you also create public space. And there's just barely enough room between the two buildings in Marina Plaza. And this obviously has a jog we don't want to mess with. But the point is, if you do something like that or any number of those segments, you'll actually bring people to those spaces. and whether that's in daytime to frequent businesses or to those spaces. And whether that's in daytime to frequent businesses or to make deliveries or whatever, or just to provide different ways to go, that'll create vitality that's both economic and also social. And so that could also lend into, you know, if things are happening in the, you know, build streets and there's street lights, those could be funded by private development, and then you've got more of a sense of place that people are comfortable in.
01:53:32.76 Councilmember Leon See, that was a question and you answered it, so I can ask a simple question. So thanks for bearing with me. You are welcome. Thank you.
01:53:39.61 Councilmember Pfeiffer So I have another process question. When you heard, when you asked the question, what's your inhibitor, what are your inhibitors, to the property owners, the land owners, and they gave you answers, well, this is a problem, Did you have?

Was it in the scope of your process to follow up to see if that was those inhibitors were real or just opinions or
01:54:04.09 Charlie Knox (Consultant) Our take on this is what we are hearing as opinions. I certainly have first-hand information of comparing the codes to know that there's something that could be done to make them better. So independent of the comment, which I think is true, that enforcement is a key issue and there's some clarity, I still think... So, for example, if we didn't touch the specific plan, it's actually so specific in certain cases, I think the zoning should probably just mention what those items are instead of making you go look at the specific plan to coalesce the two. So when I use the word inconsistency, at bare minimum that's what I'm talking about. It's just basically having each of them be a resource so you don't have to find out from the other. But no, we did not take, we took the comments at face value as opinions and did not investigate individual anecdotes.
01:54:50.89 Councilmember Pfeiffer Okay. The reason I ask is I saw the statement, many owners of larger parcels stated a willingness to fund improvements of infrastructure if it was allowed uses that generate a sufficient return.

I think in following up with some of the tenants, some of the things I hear is that they they would, they would make improvements to their own infrastructure. The tenants would if they didn't have like month-to-month leases.
01:55:20.03 Charlie Knox (Consultant) Thank you.
01:55:20.15 Councilmember Pfeiffer So that was the question.
01:55:22.19 Charlie Knox (Consultant) So that was the question. We heard a lot of uncertainty from tenants about not wanting to get more heavily invested in some of these spaces because of their relationship with the landlord, because of not having a long enough lease or a lease at a rate that's favorable. So we heard a lot of that. Yeah.
01:55:40.21 Councilmember Pfeiffer Yeah.

Thank you.

So I guess my question spoke to the issue of infrastructure investment and that actually
01:55:42.61 Charlie Knox (Consultant) Thank you.
01:55:48.89 Councilmember Pfeiffer I'll wait till comment, but you can connect the dots with respect to if you're a large property owner and you're speculating, then...

You know, maybe you don't necessarily you know, if you've got a tenant willing to make an investment in infrastructure, then you know, what's the incentive if you're a large parcel owner to do so if you think you can get more bang for your buck, which is really unfortunate. That's not the direction I wanted the project to go in.
01:56:15.09 Mayor Do we have any more questions here? Yeah, sorry. Go on, Charlotte.
01:56:15.28 Councilmember Pfeiffer is.

No, it's not.

Thank you.
01:56:20.05 Charlie Knox (Consultant) I'm not.
01:56:20.12 Unknown Yeah.
01:56:20.24 Charlie Knox (Consultant) Go on, Charlie.

One of the things that was cited by a number of people on all sides of, or various points on the spectrum is that Clipper is an example of an entity that made a huge investment regardless of whatever's going on through this process or what's allowed or not allowed in the specific plan. And actually, in a way, it was one of the more comfortable points where people kind of coalesced around a positive opinion of what somebody has done. Because it certainly could be easy for folks to look at CLIPR and say, oh, it's gentrification. Yeah, they did a great job, but look how slick it is. Look at this breakwater and the seawall and whatever. But actually what people basically said was, wow, this is a great example of one of the large property owners taking initiative, doing something that's going to combat subsidence and flooding, and doing it in a way that seems like it was well done.

And just I think to the points that I've been hearing, it's something for which the motivation occurred already. Now that same property owner has said, if I had additional motivation, I would do more.

That's kind of the perspective.
01:57:23.93 Mayor OK, why don't we, at this point, see if there are any comments from the public?
01:57:31.10 Unknown Thank you.
01:57:31.13 Mayor Amen.

And so at this time, is there any member of the public that would like to make a comment about this item?
01:57:44.26 Mayor Yes.
01:57:47.25 Stan Hales (Public Commenter) Hi, Stan Hales. I'm a resident of Sausalito. Live on 84 Sunshine.

I guess we're here because the plan must be either outdated or flawed or people are questioning it. Otherwise, we wouldn't really be talking about it. So from my perspective as a resident, I actually enjoy some of the, let's call them, non-permitted activities that actually occur in the marineship. There are some restaurants on the waterfront. Maybe they have a few extra tables that are unpermitted.

But that's great. As a member of the community, we go down there and we dine at Fish. We go to Le Garage. I think it's a great use of the space. Broadly, I'd like to see a bit more flexibility built into the plan. If it helps some landlords, well, so be it.

allowing people to have more flexibility in their commercial activities, whatever they are, will generate some of the future tax revenues for the city, whether it be additional property taxes from reassessed property values and or the ability of people to have other businesses and commercial interests which may or may not be
01:59:13.39 Unknown Thank you.
01:59:25.58 Stan Hales (Public Commenter) I think it's a very important thing to think about boat building, but commercial boat building is not coming back to Sausalito anytime soon unless we have World War III and the military moves back in.
01:59:41.54 Councilmember Leon Let's hope that doesn't happen.
01:59:43.89 Stan Hales (Public Commenter) I would hope as well. But I think the point being that having more flexibility and certainty would generate some of the positive changes that it seems like the interviewees are desiring.
01:59:45.00 Councilmember Leon I'm sorry.
02:00:05.84 Mayor Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Adam.
02:00:11.80 Unknown Good evening, Adam Krgaci, 840 Ulimar Street. A comment and a question, actually two comments. One comment is that the consultants went out of their way to contact even absentee owners, and I understand that two property owners who were unable to participate in the meeting reached by telephone and they were invited to submit their comments. So that's to the credit of the consultants to accommodate the community. The other comment I would like to offer on the very specificity of the uses. We know that the specific plan sometimes defines uses on adjacent properties that are very different.

Those uses have been defined at the time, I don't know, 25 years ago, at the time that they appeared appropriate The question is, shouldn't we Ask ourselves.

and I refer to the market study that is an optional item. Shouldn't we allow ourselves to review those uses and ask ourselves, are those uses still appropriate?

Thank you.
02:01:48.12 Mayor Thank you, Adam. Is there any other member of the public who'd like to comment on this item? Okay. So let's bring it back up here for comment.
02:02:03.29 Councilmember Pfeiffer I will, Mr. Mayor.

So I guess I want to thank the consultants for doing some really good work under very controversial circumstances. I know that it's hard to juggle all the...

you know, special interests and opinions. So I want to thank you very much.

So what I'm going to share are my personal opinions on this. I think it's important for folks to also understand that the marine ship is it's something that makes Sausalito unique in that we have a real working waterfront. And I'm not talking about big commercial boats being built, although we do have one business that services the boats from Alcatraz. And actually, if you've gone down there, you have welders and everything really working on this.

But that it actually generates quite a bit of tax revenue. I mean, something like 5,000 workers are there right now. And it's that economic diversity that has brought economic sustainability to Sausalito. Unlike other cities, we don't just have a pretty tourist town which extends tourist creep all the length of our waterfront. We have our light industrial zone with boat making. It's not only maritime services with boat making, but we also have little businesses that service the houseboat community and service repairs for those structures as well. So it's a very diverse, we have some artists with the ICB buildings. We have a very diverse environment there, which actually does generate a lot of tax revenue. So one of my concerns is something that we've always had in Sausalito is the fear of a fisherman's wharfization of the Marin ship, this tourist creep where we're going to get Um, uh, the t-shirt shops, et cetera, and the bike hordes plowing through.

what is currently an industrial zone, a light industrial zone.

and for artists. So that's just one of the comments I want to make. The other thing is the infrastructure. You know, a portion of the Marin ship is, you know, having a real sustenance issue and it's sinking. It's very important to me that taxpayers of Sausalito, specifically like parcel taxes, etc., do not get stuck with the bill. These sewers, the streets, the Marinship are privately owned, okay? And the property owners that purchased those parcels knew the situation when they bought. They knew the zoning, they knew the services, and they knew the state of the infrastructure. So one of the concerns I have is, is I'm all for ways that we can promote helping that infrastructure and improving that infrastructure. I guess I'm just concerned.

about I mean, I'm already looking at all the city staff time being spent on this. And I know, I mean, we've got pension, the pension crisis coming up next, which is something we really are looking at with a $22 million in funded pension liability. So anyway, there are a lot of things that I'm looking at with a balanced eye and a lot of concern.
02:05:14.42 Dorothy Gibson So, it's...
02:05:20.53 Dorothy Gibson Okay.

Who would like to know?
02:05:27.98 Councilmember Leon Nobody has any points of view? So let me say this. So there are two points that I want to make here.
02:05:30.94 Dorothy Gibson So,
02:05:39.36 Councilmember Leon Thank you.

Um, you're trying to make generalizations of talking with a variety of different folks and find some common ground of consistencies. And that is a hard thing to do when there's people with very different economic goals for what's going on in the marineship. As to your point, in terms of...

making the area vital, I want to make a solid argument, it's pretty vital as it is. And it's a very important thing.

It just depends on what your definition of vitality is again. And I'm not saying you're wrong. It's just everyone is going to have their different take on it.

There are a handful of property owners who have decided not to make investments in their properties for a long time.

because they're holding out.

for the brass ring.

that I want to turn this into office property, and I'm not going to make any investment until it gets there.

And maybe I'll let you have a couple rails going in the water, but they won't be functional because there won't be enough space to drag that boat far enough inland to actually work on it so it doesn't pollute the bay. And that's the reality of it. Okay, there were some mistakes made by, and that's why this thing is so restrictive, by the city before, and people took advantage of it and built office buildings on the mark. So the town reacted, and it wasn't like a couple of people. The town wanted this specific plan put in place.

So Whether that's failed depends on what you think the original goal of that specific plan is. The original goal of that specific plan is I don't want it to change. And guess what? Largely it hasn't since that specific plan was put in place.

Um, As far as in terms of the structures, In terms of the uses that are bubbling around inside of there, I still believe, that.

And my point to responding to economic diversity is that or vitality is that if you want these things, show me what's in the other hand.

that you're not telling me.

when you come in. And I can tell you, having talked with each one of these guys over the years, I want these things.

but I'm not going to tell you what I'm going to do with the rest of my property.

in this case, certainly, or Marina Plaza. And they're all fine people.

But that's the game in real estate development.

as, hey, I want to actually I'll help you save marine dependent businesses, but I'm not going to tell you what I'm going to do with the rest of it.

So and I'm not going to give up these uses that were allowed to perpetuate in order to give this economic incentive to maintain your property in terms of these destination restaurants. If the community and other things like that, If the community wants that, which I certainly, some people love going to those restaurants, it's sort of a catch-22. We're sort of eating ourselves and putting ourselves in our own way. Because you look at some of the Um, general consensus items here. They want the funkiness, they want the the character maintained you're chipping away at that one piece at a time, in a sense. So to me, at the end of the day, This...

And I, in some ways, hate to say this, but this has to go.

to a public vote.

What do you want? Because what I think, what we think up here, not in terms of what use is allowed on Property Acts. That's too specific. That's like what California tried to do with disability laws and things like that. It's crazy to go that specific. But there has to be a guiding principle. Is this what you want in a mission statement that's five sentences long for the marineship?

And if that's what it is, then we can settle a debate about what the public wants. And then all these other decisions will float out of it.

because it can't be satisfying the property owners.

Because that's not the goal of the city in general, is to satisfy people. I want to build a casino and venture my house into casino. Do I come to you to make, are you beholden to me to change and to make my reality come true? No. So it's no different if I own an industrial property than a residential property.

I'm not sure.
02:09:40.69 Vice Mayor Okay.

Thank you.
02:09:42.53 Mayor Thank you.
02:09:42.56 Vice Mayor vice mayor I just want to, I'm glad we're bringing it back each time and that the whole council gets to see this and have the input as we go along. That's been the intention. And I think that's.

It's a valuable...

exercise. We need to note that we're still early in the process. Basically the consultants have gone through and and gotten familiar with the territory, and we've had a lot of public input.

This latest report is our first really stake in the ground and really the straw man that we're going to work from. I think we had a lot of comments at our last meeting and a lot here that people get quite excited, but we haven't made decisions. Who got excited? This is just where we're starting. We're just trying to take a look at it.

And one of the things, though, and I think this is one thing I do want to make a point here is, Well, I think when we looked, we reviewed the, THE CONSULTANTS REPORT BEFORE, THEY REALIZE THAT, YOU KNOW, there was a lot of work and not a lot of consensus. But one thing that there was consensus on is, during this public input, we were transcending some of these old traditional conflicts. If we get stuck in this, the owners versus everyone else, we are never going to be able to do anything. And we have to understand that the owners are going to have certain interests, and the residents who want to eat the fish are going to have certain interests, and the maritime people are going to have other interests.

But if we get locked in the old way of doing it, nothing's going to happen. And we just need to...

get past that, now we don't know where it's gonna end up. That's pretty clear, but we can't even really go forward in the conversation until we kind of get past that part.

And the other part, we started this discussion with, we can't really do nothing, but I think The marineship's evolving. I think the marineship specific plan is a great plan. I think the tensions were right on the money.

But there are certain things that are gonna change. We were never voted to have You know, the restaurant's in there, When we say the residents, we heard from one, but I can tell you everybody else, If you tried to take away our restaurants over there, They would say, we want the marineship, no changes, but we want those restaurants. They're not permitted uses. And there are other uses there. So it's going to evolve. And so we could either get in and work on trying to evolve it in a way that's Um.

that keeps its character and goes in the right direction or the direction we want it to, Or it's going to just go off on its own. So, anyway, I would just just remind everyone to keep having the input, but we're early in the discussion, keep the open mind and,
02:12:14.59 Unknown Thank you.
02:12:14.62 Mr. Bartell Thank you.
02:12:14.79 Unknown Thank you.
02:12:17.15 Vice Mayor and look at as it develops and look at what's proposed.
02:12:24.04 Mayor I realise that we will have...

Yeah.

People can make their one minute comments. I think I have three minutes over. I'll try not to use them all. I've said at the beginning of this process that I have no expectations about what, no preconceptions as to what the outcome is. I still don't know what the outcome is.

The one thing I said the other night at the Marinership Steering Committee was to get some expectations set as to what the deliverable is in July. And the deliverable in July is not going to be a new Marinership-specific plan. I don't think it's even going to be specific uses, changes. I don't think it's going to be a specific circulation plan. I don't think it's going to be specific recommendations for what infrastructure is going to be made. I don't think it's going to even be exactly what historic resources to preserve. The point is because that is going to take much longer, I think, and it's going to take a lot more money. And I don't know whether we've got the money.

But...

But...

What I do expect as an outcome here is what I've been calling either a strategic framework or a roadmap for how we now get to something I have gone into this with the presumption that If we do nothing, then the stuff that we want to preserve will be destroyed.

Maybe I'm wrong on that.

but I don't think so.

And what I'm trying to find out from this study is, what is it we can do in order to preserve what we want there, to maintain what we like there and to also encourage what extra we want there. And one of the things that came on very strong for me for with some of my colleagues on the Marine Ship Steering Committee, including those who had been here in 1974 with the big blow up over Marina Plaza.

of the writing of the marineship specific plan, then during the so-called imagined Sausalito and the WHAM report, is that nobody could forget all the old history and it kept coming back and interfering with conversations. And someone who was deeply involved in that made the point the other night that for the first time we're starting to have these conversations without all of those recriminations being brought back.

And that is potentially a very good thing. Again, I don't know where we're gonna get to. I don't know whether we're gonna have the money to continue. That's part of what we'll be asking in the budget process, in the priority calendar process, in the long range planning process. But for this particular study, what I want is a roadmap as to how we get there the next stage.

Okay. Now, may I? You and please. Sorry, Herbie.
02:15:33.09 Councilmember Yeah, yeah.
02:15:37.97 Councilmember I was listening more than thinking what I was going to say, but I believe the Marineship-specific plan was passed in 1986.

And yet they saw that as the roadmap of what they saw in the future.

They didn't really look into what the infrastructure was going to be.

20, 27 years later.

and it's falling apart.

We didn't even think of global warming then.

So maybe it was I guess a blessing in disguise that we did nothing then.

because we would have built things that would not, would be possibly under water in the next 30, 40 years.

So now it's time to look at it again.

And we, We as a city should be making the decisions of how the future of that should be now looking at what conditions we have to work with, and one of those is global And I think now is the time, and I'm glad that this is being reviewed, because we have to, even if we do nothing.

which is the worst thing.

We still have to look at it and face the realities of things that in 1986 they never thought of.

So I think it's a good process.

And whatever the outcome is going to be, we will be more aware of what we should be doing in the future.
02:17:12.91 Mayor Okay. Is there any other brief comments?
02:17:15.57 Councilmember Pfeiffer I have a brief comment.
02:17:17.33 Mayor Please.
02:17:18.17 Councilmember Pfeiffer So yeah, I think it's also, there's a danger of portraying anyone who asks the hard questions about this as someone who's against change or against progress, okay, because I'm not. I'm looking at this from a perspective of business and economic diversity, the economic diversity that has kept Sausalito afloat during this recession right after 9-11 when the tourism went like this in a plummet. We need our light industrial zone. You look at the numbers coming out of the Marinship. It is a very good, very good economic base for the city. We need to consider sea level rise. We need to factor in that. And the other comment I had, I did not write down, but basically, I do have concerns regarding this process, regarding the influence of the large landowners and their special interests driving this.
02:18:28.32 Mayor Well, I was gonna say, well, I just wanna pick up on the last comment.
02:18:29.72 Dorothy Gibson No, go ahead.
02:18:35.34 Mayor Yeah, they're gonna have special interests, but that's not driving this committee.

Okay, number one. But I also wanna pick up on something else you said, which I agree with very much so, and that is the diversity. Charlie, I mean, you're preaching what now, we've been saying for the last 18 months that it is the economic diversity of the city in part with the industrial uses in the marineship that adds an economic component to our our economic model in the city, which is absolutely true.

My point is, I don't want to lose it.

And unless we can find a way to maintain the infrastructure, we won't have that.

because it will be destroyed.

And so we need to find a way to maintain that for the future economics of the city.
02:19:32.11 Councilmember Leon Yeah, so I think I'll just cite a couple things that people said that make perfect sense to me. I think Adam Kravatsi brought up the point that, yeah, certainly there are uses that were put in place 20, 30 years ago almost now that don't apply anymore. You know, printing operations or printing press, things that are dated, you know, that there are just fewer of that you don't want to. And there's also the same, you brought up this point of consistency. Why should one property be able to have a printing operation and the guy next door not to have a printing operation? That was the spot zoning that went on during the specific plan.

To me, there's things we can do along those lines. The I and the W, again, there's only one property, I think, that falls into this category clipper.

if I'm not mistaken, maybe there are more, that has really sizable amount of W that wants to turn into I. And then it's a case, okay, well, does the public want to have some of the uses that we've allowed in the eye and not having been in the specific plan, contemplate, do you want to make those legal, like Fish, like Le Garage, other things that aren't necessarily conforming to the plan. But if that's what the public wants, I'm here to do what the public wants. Seriously, I mean, it may not be what I think is the best use of that land, but that's what I ran on, is to preserve the funkiness of what it is. And I've run on it twice, and people were crazy enough to vote for me twice, so that's their problem. And if they disagree with that and they say, oh, I want destination restaurants all along the waterfront, then that's what they want, right? I'm just a servant of the public as far as that goes.

But the one thing that I will say is that What we continue to see Ownership changes.

And what I would say as far as economic vitality is no one would buy these properties on resale for more than the other guy paid.

if they didn't think they were worth something, not just the speculation that the rules of the game are going to change.

But we saw a developer come in and buy basically six, seven properties, the last economic boom.

God knows what their real intent was in sizeable amounts of property. Some say Marriott, some say whatever.

And now they're all for sale.

And this is a sizable institutional investor.

And people are buying them for probably more than they paid for them. And that's not because they think that all of a sudden we're going to allow a Marriott.

But it's also not, I think getting back to Linda's point, idea that the public should the infrastructure improvements.

That being said, if you want the private sector to do that, you have to give them a return in order to do that.

So what that comes back to is that this is land That's, So my point there is Clipper chose to invest in their property and raise it up.

Does it make economic sense? I don't know. I didn't see their projections. I don't know what their, and it wasn't paid for by fish. I can guarantee you that, okay, as far as the, you know, that made it possible for them to infill the bay.

So.

So the point is, There's a dichotomy there.

And there's a new UN plan that came out today, UN report, about global warming and whether we're following the same pattern we've had in building flood zones. If we're going to do the same thing over and over again, who bears those costs?

And so the point there is that maybe some of these things, it's not worth, there's no economic driver to actually save them because it's too expensive for uses that are not desirable from the public point of view. If you're talking about saving Venice from going underwater, the public of that, the Italian people can decide they want to keep it above and to pay for it.

If we want to keep the marinship above water, I couldn't that there could be people who are working at marketing firms. You know? Is that – I just – that doesn't make any sense to me. Would it be – it makes sense to keep it above water and have the public, the general public, pay some of those costs for uses that we feel are very important or to maintain things that are very important to the character of this town?

that 7,000 people can pay for, not millions of people pay for.

It ain't going to happen. How are 7,000 people going to pay for all this stuff?

So it's like a come to Jesus moment, as my father used to say, hey, you want all these things. Does Heath Ceramics want to stop being flooded? Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

And the problem is that three people own the piece of property that makes it flooded, and none of them will agree to do – to agree to fix it. It's not the city's fault. It's not – it's – that's just the way you bought that property. That's the way it is. Mm-hmm.

Thank you.
02:24:07.03 Councilmember Pfeiffer Thank you.

Thank you. I completely agree. And I, Mr. Mayor.
02:24:08.37 Councilmember Leon I completely...
02:24:09.02 Vice Mayor I'm like, and
02:24:10.04 Unknown Mr. Mayor?
02:24:11.47 Mayor Well...
02:24:14.97 Mayor you
02:24:15.84 Councilmember Pfeiffer Thank you.
02:24:15.86 Vice Mayor Bye.
02:24:15.88 Councilmember Pfeiffer Thank you.
02:24:15.91 Vice Mayor Oh, go ahead.

Well, and...

We really do respect all your opinions, and we acknowledge from the very beginning in this process setup, nothing gets done without this council voting on it.

including whether we have ultimately go to a vote of the people on anything that we do. So this council has to, we have to be getting involved. That's what we're going to have.

REPORTS EACH TIME. I KNOW IT'S MORE DIFFICULT BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT INVOLVED IN in the, um, actual meetings, but one thing I do have to address is this idea that large landowners are driving this process.

One thing, you can follow the process by it's all on video and all there. And actually, probably one of the biggest complaints and criticisms was that the large landowners were not involved in the process. We got that quite a bit. We got them to some degree on these interviews, but when you look at this, you don't see them involved. And that's been one of the concerns and criticisms.

I think the observation that large landowners are driving this is just off base. I think we're going to come back to this. We'll work on it. I, too, would like to keep the funkiness and the character. I think it's come out in all the meetings, but there's a fine line between funkiness and slums, so we have to kind of make sure that we keep it.

up to the proper funk standard.

I'm sorry.

Thank you.
02:25:34.95 Unknown to say.
02:25:35.04 Councilmember Leon Just let me, I've got to grab this one, if you're right.
02:25:38.38 Unknown .
02:25:38.83 Councilmember Leon is that if a property, it's just like these buildings on Bridgeway right here by the 7-Eleven, not the 7-Eleven, not stuff we heard before, If a property owner buys a property, and chooses to not invest in it and let it become derelict And or put uses on it that are not that are permitted but not...

They put trailers all over it that people don't seem to like what they look like. That is their choice.

That's not a slum. That's their choice.

And if we want to take eminent domain, or if we want to enforce the letter of the law to the letter, that.

is within our capability, there are consequences, good and bad, of doing that.

But if I choose a property owner to let my property go to hell in a handbasket, That's not your problem now. I made that choice. I saved the money over decades of non-investment.

And, to then put the blame on you and say, look what you did to me.

You've got to help me out from underneath this mess. I can't make the investment anymore. It's too expensive now.

Well, that's, I'm sorry, sell it to somebody else who has the money to make the investment.
02:26:40.16 Vice Mayor But it's not a blame, you know, we could let them do it, and I agree, they can't blame us. But on the other hand, cities are, I mean, they are...

one of their functions is to encourage people to keep their property up to a standard that's good for the whole community. And rather than just saying, well, too bad for you, let's let it go down. So I don't think anyone's saying we're going to fund this, you know, the property owners. This is not...

some giveaway. We're trying to find ways that we can encourage the whole area to come up to standards. And maybe we can't. And we're certainly not taking over the burden and going to subsidize the property owners, that's for sure.
02:27:19.10 Councilmember Yeah. No, only to repeat. Everything is timing. There's no question in my mind that whether we do something or not do anything, we still have to look forward. And we owe it to our citizens in this community and the businesses to Look.

Look at marine ships.

And once again, evaluate where we're going with it, what we should do with it. And the most important thing is how do we move ahead with the rising of global warming. And that's an issue that I think it was just mentioned that was brought out yesterday.

And we just can't turn our backs to this and say, just let it be like it has been. I think let's look at it. Let's look at it again and see if we can maybe bring it into the next century.
02:28:17.12 Councilmember Pfeiffer Yes, so I just want to comment on the infrastructure issue because I think there's a real problem when we have tenants who have successful, thriving maritime service businesses, and they are doing very well with a great tax base for the city.

and they want to make an investment in their infrastructure and they're not doing it. Why? Because they're on a month-to-month lease.

A month-to-month lease.

Why are they on a month's month lease?

If you're a large property owner and you see this going on and you're thinking maybe you can get some zoning changes and maybe you can get a new, you know, some office building on the beach or, you know, kick off the kayaks or whatever, then maybe you're going to keep things on a month to month. Maybe you're not going to give or encourage these tenants to make investments. And these are tenants making good businesses, good return on profits and taxes for the city.

So those are my concerns.
02:29:29.16 Mayor those.

Thank you. So...

In the one minute I have left, I'm simply going to thank the members of the Marine ship steering Committee, Marinship Specific Plan Steering Committee. They're all working very hard.

I'd like to thank our consultants very much. Charlie, thank you for coming tonight, and thank you very much, Lily, for all your hard work. This is a lot of work.
02:30:01.83 Councilmember Leon Can I ask a question for the committee, I guess? Where do we go from here? Not just on the calendar, but like what are the – I don't want to go through the calendar again. Every meeting we go through the calendar, and it takes up more time to go through the calendar. What I asked at the previous meetings is what does this mean? Like I don't care if it's on April 5th or May 2nd. Tell me where the concrete things we're doing are and how do we – so that just to allay people's fears, whether it's here or in the general public, what's next?
02:30:09.59 Dorothy Gibson Thank you.
02:30:09.66 Mayor Yeah.
02:30:09.75 Dorothy Gibson Yeah.
02:30:09.76 Mayor Thank you.
02:30:35.73 Mayor very briefly, because we need to move on.
02:30:39.33 Charlie Knox (Consultant) If I understand the question correctly, it's really what are the outcomes, what is this process going to produce?

below.
02:30:44.98 Councilmember Leon I mean, you've given us preliminary stuff. So the question is, I didn't participate in the surveys because I didn't feel it was my place to participate in the survey. So where does this go from here?
02:30:45.57 Steve Hoffman Thank you.
02:30:45.59 Charlie Knox (Consultant) Thank you.
02:30:45.66 Steve Hoffman preliminary studies.

I love.
02:30:46.85 Charlie Knox (Consultant) Thank you.
02:30:57.72 Charlie Knox (Consultant) So unless otherwise directed by the steering committee with the implementer of council, what we will do is take the additional input we get from the community workshop, fold it into the report, reframe the report for the committee. They'll have a couple chances to go through it. And our intent at the end would be, I think as the mayor describes it, to provide you, the council, and the community with a roadmap which would say, if you are going to go through additional steps of this exercise to reopen the specific plan, here are the things we think you should do. Here are the milestones along the way. Here's the process we think you should undertake. And that's it. That's where this project stops.

Thank you.
02:31:31.84 Councilmember Leon Okay, and not to go on forever, but we are allowed to go to these one minute things.

So my suggestion, and it's a suggestion from one person, and we had this conversation at the last update for this, is that in your in your final draft of this that you kind of, and this is where it'd be good to characterize some of your conclusions and or recommendations in various levels of practicality.

and not just in money, but controversy. Because you've been doing this long enough, you've talked to enough people, well, you know what the hot spots are, and they're easily flushed out. And let's, I think, as what you were saying, just I'll paraphrase, I hope it's not inaccurate, is it doesn't have to be zero or 100 in terms of the amount of change. It could be somewhere in between. And there's different levels of things we can do. You don't have to – what I keep telling people in my company is it doesn't have to be all or nothing and you do it all at once. It could be you do something in iterative steps and you spoon feed people and it can digest it a lot more easily. So I would encourage you to maybe help us along the way with that kind of a roadmap.
02:32:16.41 Unknown Yeah.
02:32:16.46 Unknown Bye.
02:32:46.45 Mayor In the spirit of fairness, does anybody want to give some guidance to our consultant? And then we're terminating.
02:32:55.15 Councilmember Pfeiffer Okay, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Well, the only thing I will say...
02:32:57.79 Mayor Only thing I will say.
02:32:59.66 Councilmember Pfeiffer is that I would love to see an analysis on maritime services in that industry, the trends on that. Because, I mean, when we look at sea level rise and we look at global warming and we look at the infrastructure challenges of the sustenance and the marine ship, maritime services is a perfect use for that waterfront. And it, in my opinion, gives the best not only economic diversity, but also, you know, and a nod to tradition. But, I mean, more importantly, it makes business sense from an infrastructure investment standpoint. So that's why I'd like to see that.

I'd like to see an analysis of the market trends with respect to maritime services and the Working Water Fund.
02:33:44.68 Mayor Thank you, and thank you, Charlie.
02:33:49.17 Councilmember Pfeiffer .
02:33:50.69 Mayor Lily, thank you.

Okay, our next item is
02:34:01.96 Mayor We're now running 30 minutes late.

Um.

Is study and analysis of the city of Saucelide of CalPERS pension plans 2012 actuary reports. Charlie
02:34:20.86 Adam Politzer good evening mr mayor members of the city council uh... the information on the end before you tonight is the study and review of the uh... annual calpers actuarial valuation as you know uh... every year and june thirtieth calpers as of june thirtieth they prepare an actuarial valuation they do that a year behind so and november of twenty thirteen we received the actuarial evaluation for June 30 of 2012. After that actuarial evaluation was reviewed by the Finance Committee, staff prepared an analysis and put the analysis up on the city's website where it's been since December. In that actuarial analysis, I also did a real brief review, and I'd like to do that tonight, of how the city of Sausalito is very concerned, has always been very concerned about its pension obligations and has taken a number of proactive steps through the years, including in the first decade of the 21st century. We required all employees, all police and miscellaneous employees to pay the employee share of the pension cost. That was a big pension reform. Many cities in Marin County and the state of California did not do that. We did that in 2003. Between 2003 and the recession, we never increased our benefits to our employees. We held the line when we saw benefits being improved for employees in cities all around us here in Marin County and in the state. So when we entered the recession, we were in the position with our pension plans where many cities wanted to enact pension reform to get to. But we didn't just stop there. we realized that we needed to seriously study this issue and make recommendations to the city council. And we took a number of steps, including Mr. Bartell from Bartell & Associates, an independent actuary, a very renowned actuary here in California, to make presentations to the city council and give us guidance on what specific specific steps we could take. We took those steps. Mr. Bartell recommended we pay off our side funds. We paid off our miscellaneous and fire side fund. He made recommendations on creating second pension tiers. We created second pension tiers. His firm was a resource as we went through our labor negotiations and created the second pageanteer, lowered our cost of labor, and took a number of steps that led to very substantial reforms, benefits from those reforms that allow us to be structurally balanced as we face the future. So this is an information only item tonight, but Mr. Bartell is here to make a presentation on the actual analysis and then answer any questions the council or the audience has. So with that I'd like to introduce Mr. Bartell.
02:36:55.93 Unknown Thank you.
02:36:56.03 Unknown Thank you.
02:37:23.55 Mr. Bartell THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHARLIE, MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. HOPEFULLY IN THE PAST I'VE ALWAYS SAID WHAT A WONDERFUL HONOR IT IS TO SPEAK TO YOU ALL. I ABSOLUTELY MEAN THAT.
02:37:39.25 Councilmember Leon Now we won't believe anything else you say.
02:37:41.54 Mr. Bartell Sure enough.
02:37:42.16 Councilmember Leon So...
02:37:43.53 Mr. Bartell So I'm a fan, actually that works extremely well because I am a fan of low expectations, so.

The...

At the risk of getting myself in serious trouble, more trouble than I already am in, I'd like to encourage, with the mayor's permission, encourage you all to interrupt and ask questions. I understand certainly what time it is, and I may very well do my best to speed things UP, BUT I ACTUALLY THINK IT WILL BE BETTER. IT WILL BE MORE EFFICIENT IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS AS WE GO, RATHER THAN HOLD YOUR QUESTIONS, SO IF THAT'S OKAY.
02:38:36.87 Mr. Bartell We're actually going to go through some of this information quite quickly. Definition of terms, for example, is really there for your background. I'm not really going to go through all the terminology. When we get to specific terms, I'll define those sort of as we go, if you will. We'll talk initially in probably more detail than you all would like on what CalPERS upcoming issues are. There really are three specific issues. We'll talk a little bit about that. And all the city's plans are in CalPERS risk pools. So what is the single most important thing from a budget standpoint is not so much what your unfunded liability is. I'm not saying that's not important. But what is particularly important is where do we think your contribution rates are likely to go. So you can factor that in from a budget standpoint. So we will do that for the city's miscellaneous. CONTRIBUTION RATES ARE LIKELY TO GO. SO YOU CAN FACTOR THAT IN FROM A BUDGET STANDPOINT. SO WE WILL DO THAT FOR THE CITY'S MISCELLANEOUS POLICE PLAN. FOR FIRE, SAFETY, IT'S A LITTLE BIT PROBLEMATIC. WE'VE MADE THOSE PROJECTIONS. HAVING SAID THAT, YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR ME SAY BIG, BIG CAVEAT WHEN IT COMES TO FIRE SAFETY.

CalPERS is in the process of going through their risk pool calculations and specifically how they will be treating the unfunded liability for inactive and other plans. And we are not entirely certain what CalPERS is going to do specifically related to the fire safety plan. So you'll hear a big caveat there. We'll also talk a little bit about a new accounting standard coming down the road, governmental accounting standards board statement number 68, and we'll finally talk about the cost sharing component of the change in the law and specifically what does that mean. So definition of terms, I promised I'm going to go through slides one and two very, very quickly. There we go.

slide, there really are three specific items that are coming up for CalPERS. Item number one is what CalPERS refers to as direct rate smoothing. I really refer to it as a change in contribution policy. So you may remember in the past what I told you all is that the The CalPERS contributions are not really, if all assumptions are met, are not going to pay off the unfunded liability. CalPERS contribution policy changes change that dramatically. So you will see that we've got a projection of your contribution rates as going up. Clients all the time ask us whether or not there really is any good news in this. THAT WE'VE GOT A PROJECTION OF YOUR CONTRIBUTION RATES AS GOING UP. CLIENTS ALL THE TIME ASK US WHETHER OR NOT THERE REALLY IS ANY GOOD NEWS IN THIS. I'M A LIFETIME CALIFORNIA RESIDENT. I ACTUALLY DO THINK THERE'S GOOD NEWS. AND THE GOOD NEWS IS IF THE ASSUMPTIONS ARE MET, WE THINK YOUR UNFUNDED LIABILITY WILL BE PAID OFF. AND IN FACT, YOU you'll see this, we're projecting your contribution rates in the short run as well as the long run, and I actually think that's a wonderful thing. The challenge, of course, is that contribution rates have to be higher. If you're really going to pay the unfunded liability off, contribution rates have to be higher in order to be able to do that. I use this analogy all the time. If you're giving advice to a young couple, 25 years old, they've got a large amount of credit card debt. What's the only way to settle that debt? And then it's actually pay more than the minimum payment on the balance. Well, CalPERS historically has left it to agencies to want to pay more than that. Now they're gonna mandate that you pay more than that minimum payment on the credit card. And that's the end result will be noticeably higher contribution rates.

There's a fair amount of detail here, but if you think of their new contribution policy as really having Two, three significant components. Significant component number one is they will no longer smooth assets to determine contribution rates. What they're going to do is determine your unfunded liability using the market value of assets, no more actuarial value of assets. So that's thing number one. Thing number two is they're going to step into that market value contribution rate over a five-year period. So just to be... THING NUMBER TWO IS THEY'RE GOING TO STEP INTO THAT MARKET VALUE CONTRIBUTION RATE OVER A FIVE YEAR PERIOD. SO JUST TO BE VERY, VERY SIMPLE, IF YOUR CONTRIBUTION RATE IS 15% OF PAY, THEY DO THE CALCULATION AND THEY SAY IT SHOULD BE 20, THEY'RE GOING TO STEP YOU INTO 20, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.

The third thing is they will no longer be using rolling amortization to pay your unfunded liability off. All amortization bases will have a fixed period and will actually be paid off. The combination of those three things will get to the point if all assumptions are met where your unfunded liability will be paid off. Contribution rates will go up noticeably and then they will come down gradually over a little bit longer period of time. but with the PAYED OFF. CONTRIBUTION RATES WILL GO UP NOTICEBLY AND THEN THEY WILL COME DOWN GRADUALLY OVER A LITTLE BIT LONGER PERIOD OF TIME BUT WITH THE GOAL OF HAVING assets equal to 100% that there is no one funded liability, that assets will equal 100% of the actuarial liability.

SO THAT'S ISSUE NUMBER ONE. ISSUE NUMBER TWO IS CalPERS has recently gone through a demographic and economic study on their assumptions. They came to the conclusion that they were not going to make any changes to the economic assumptions, so the 7.5% investment return assumption will not be changing anytime soon. What they also came to the conclusion was they're going to have to change two significant assumptions. They're making changes to lots of others, but the two that matter the most are mortality. They are taking into account not just the fact that people have been living longer, but an expectation that people will continue to live longer. So that has a big impact on the miscellaneous and the safety contribution rates. The second thing is they're finding that pay increases, particularly for police safety, are a little higher later in their careers. So what that, that's a statewide phenomena. What that really means is longevity pay is a little more prominent in police than CalPERS had previously thought. And so those combination of those those things will also increase contribution rates. So the timing of these first two things are the direct rate smoothing or the contribution policy changes will be in CalPERS next June 30, 2013 valuation, impacting city 15, 16 contribution rates. But because they're gonna step into this over a five year period, full impact hits in 19, 20.

Similarly for the assumption changes, June 30, 14, first impacting 16, 17, full impact in 2021.

The third thing is CalPERS later this month is going to, the actuarial staff is going to the CalPERS board and they're gonna look at how they are handling the risk pools.

We think we know what the impact will be on contribution rates for agencies with actual payroll, but on the inactive plans, so for example, your fire safety plan, there's a fair amount of uncertainty as to what they're going to do. So when it comes to fire safety in particular, you're going to see a big draft over the projection of where we think your contribution rate is going to be, because we really need to take a look at this agenda item and let you know for sure what that impact is going to be. So with all of these, we'll start with the non-safety, the miscellaneous plan. You all have three tiers, tier one, tier two, tier three. Tier one are the two and a half at 55 benefits, tier two, two at 55, and tier three, what everybody else in California refers to as the 2% at 62 formula. I probably am The only person who refers to it is the 2.5 at 67 formula. I probably am the only person who refers to it as the 2 1⁄2 at 67 formula. It's the same thing, slightly different name. I refer to it as 2 1⁄2 at 67. Why? Because that's the highest benefit factor at the latest retirement age. So what you really find is the 2 at 55 and the 2 1⁄2 at 67 formula are relatively similar So there is a strong argument when we look at your contribution rates going down, you will see the bulk of that is really because of the implementation of the second tier by the city.

I'll just point out one – I'll point out a couple of things on this particular slide. If I could figure out how to get the laser to work. Let me –
02:49:06.43 Unknown Thank you.
02:49:07.76 Mr. Bartell Keep holding. Oh, that one. Oh, great. Okay. Excellent. Thank you.
02:49:08.64 Unknown Oh, that one. Oh, great.
02:49:12.91 Mr. Bartell So let me show two things here. Thing number one is the reason CalPERS is really looking very closely at the risk pools is because when you look at the PEPRA column, you see no payment on risk pool amortization or any side fund payment. The only contribution really being made is for the normal cost.

that leads to under contribution for the system as a whole and it really means that you are not adequately paying the unfunded liability off. So CalPERS clearly recognizes this so they're gonna fix that. The second thing I will also point out is You have your tier one folks with an employee cost sharing which mitigates the city's contribution rates. That is not common around the state. We're seeing folks, Charlie's comment that you had done things in advance of other folks, this is probably a pretty good example of that. We're seeing other agencies begin to move in that particular direction.

Thank you.

So slide seven falls under the category of actuarial minutia. What we're really doing here is telling you the underlying assumptions we're using to project contribution rates.

June 30, 2014 investment return, we don't yet know what that's going to be. What we do know is year to date through January 31, CalPERS rate of return. What we're doing is expecting an assumed rate of return of 7.5 on an annualized basis for the remainder of the year. And then we're adding on top of that what we refer to as good and bad investment return. You should not think of the good and bad or good and poor as being best case and worst case. You should think of them as what happens if investment return is really good, but it could certainly be better than that. What happens if it's poor? But it certainly could be worse than that. And for the good and the poor, the poor were assuming by and large low single digit investment return good by and large low double digit investment return.

And we're also taking into account the hiring of folks into the classic, into the PEPRA formulas, taking into account the tier two. So slide eight is really just the caveat that the first set of projections we're going to show you only take into account the contribution policy changes. They do not take into account the assumption changes. We'll get to that in a minute. We want to show you the impact on a step-by-step basis. So slide nine shows the projection of the contribution rates through 21, 22. What you really see here is
02:52:30.13 Unknown to.
02:52:33.26 Mr. Bartell Cities 14-15, contribution rate about 15-1⁄2. We're projecting that to go to high teens. If that line here is if CalPERS gets the assumed investment return, BUT THEN YOU ALSO SEE where the rates will go if investment return is poor, or where the rates will go if investment return is good. So you will see a relatively wide variance between good and poor, That is a byproduct of using the market value of assets to determine the unfunded liability. So one caution I will give you, giving this to all clients right now, is that a graph like this makes it look like the contributions are going to be nice and smooth.

they unfortunately will not be quite this smooth. There will be much, much more volatility in the contribution rate than appears. And you should think of that as the norm, if you will. Volatility is just going to be the way of the investment market. It's also going to be the way of contributions from CalPERS.

Slide 10, folks back in the office put this together at my request. One request I did not make clear, and that is make the numbers legible with my eyes. I don't think I can read a single number on this particular graph. What I will tell you, though, is the numbers themselves are not very important.

What is important here is where the line goes, the general direction of it, and where does it end up in about 30 years. And what you really see is contributions, if you just kind of look at the Y axis there, you look at the 10% and the 20%, contributions will peak under the assumed rate of return in the high teens. And then you will see the rate gradually coming down to below 10%. Again, if CalPERS gets that 7.5% RATE OF RETURN, AND I SAID EARLIER THAT THERE'S GOOD NEWS HERE. I ACTUALLY THINK THIS GRAPH IS THE GOOD NEWS. THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT THE Rates will gradually come down over time, again, assuming CalPERS meets that 7.5% return. The bad news on this graph is the volatility between the range of where the contribution rates might be in good versus poor investment return.

The one thing you do not see on this graph Historical contribution rates allowed, historically CalPERS allowed the contribution rate to get to zero. This change in the law will no longer allow that. So you see, even if investment return is particularly good, it'll actually get to a lower limit and not go below that. It will gradually decrease as you hire more and more people into that tier two and tier three formulas. But you don't see, even with particularly good investment return, your contribution rate going to zero.
02:56:12.88 Mr. Bartell I'm going to go ahead and get a Yeah, please do.
02:56:18.11 Vice Mayor back to the last slide? Sure. I mean, the ASSUMPTION OF 7.5% OF huge assumption.

So you said even if we have good investments, it's not going to go down to zero. But what if we have poor investments?
02:56:30.06 Mr. Bartell Yeah, poor means by and large low single digit. So if we have long-term CalPERS investment return of low single digit, you can see the contribution rate will get to above 30. It's those upper squares if you will. So you're going to get to a rate above 30%. I will also add if long term CalPERS investment return is low single digit.
02:56:44.62 Vice Mayor Oh, I see that.
02:56:49.38 Vice Mayor Thank you.
02:56:49.39 Unknown Thank you.
02:56:49.43 Vice Mayor Yeah.
02:56:49.44 Unknown I don't know.
02:56:49.68 Vice Mayor Thank you.
02:56:49.95 Unknown Thank you.
02:56:59.35 Mr. Bartell This might be the least of your worries.
02:57:01.90 Unknown Thank you.
02:57:02.03 Vice Mayor Thank you.
02:57:02.17 Unknown Thank you.
02:57:02.73 Mr. Bartell Thank you.
02:57:02.76 Vice Mayor Yeah.
02:57:02.84 Mr. Bartell Thank you.
02:57:05.04 Vice Mayor And I imagine that during that long period of time that the investment returns are going to vary. Significance.
02:57:10.40 Mr. Bartell Signific.
02:57:11.53 Vice Mayor Do they try to smooth it or will they just have it, if it's poorly, it goes up and then it goes way down the next year?
02:57:17.47 Mr. Bartell Yeah, I think what you're gonna see is there, so I know this is a little simplistic. I'm not sure how satisfying of an answer this is gonna be.

But if CalPERS investment return is volatile, in other words, really good one year, really bad, the next year, really good, really bad, really good, really bad, you really won't see, interestingly enough, a lot of fluctuation in your contribution rate because they have this five year recognition period. If you see two or three years of really good followed by two or three years of really bad, that's when you're gonna see the volatility in the contribution rates.
02:57:42.25 Unknown Thank you.
02:57:42.30 Unknown Thank you.

Thank you.
02:57:55.95 Mr. Bartell And what we have noticed over the years is that's really what we've seen, is two, three, four years of good or two, three, four years of bad. And so that, we think, is what's going to generate that volatility in the contribution, right? I will tell you.

we've struggled, I've struggled, as somebody who spent a lot of time trying to communicate these things, how to demonstrate that volatility. I haven't come up with an adequate way to do it yet. So all I want to do is put in the back of your head that don't be surprised when you have that volatility. We think you will have time.

to plan for it, but until we really see it, we don't know.
02:58:44.11 Councilmember Pfeiffer Mr. Mayor, and isn't it true, could you comment on the issue of compounding the fact that, you know, sometimes people say, oh, we had one bad year, but look, we've had two good years, and they think, oh, now we're out of the woods.
02:58:56.38 Mr. Bartell Yeah, yeah. But we're not. No, I can. So if we just kind of take a step back and let's think about a couple of CalPERS investment years. In 2009, June 30, 2009, CalPERS investment return minus 24%. 2011, CalPERS investment return plus 20. So people go minus 24, plus 20, they wipe each other out. Nice try, just isn't the case. You have to look at that minus 20 compared to the expected return. So the expected return back then, seven and three quarters. So minus 24 compared to an expected positive seven and three quarters is about a 32% loss.
02:58:57.51 Councilmember Pfeiffer But we're not.
02:59:47.31 Mr. Bartell The plus 20.

You have to compare that to the 7 3 quarters as well. That gets you to about a plus 12, 13% gain. Unfortunately, 13 doesn't offset the 30. There is still a large, the bulk of the unfunded liability that exists for plans around the state today are absolutely tied to the downturn in the investments in June 30, 2008, June 30, 2009. By far the biggest weight of the unfunded liability comes from those things. It would be great if we were back where the actuaries thought we were going to be. We're not, not even close.
03:00:35.92 Mr. Bartell So, slides 13 and 14 provide the exact same projections except What we've done is factored in the mortality, anticipated mortality and other changes. So what you see here is the non-safety miscellaneous plan contribution rate going to very low 20s with the assumed rate of return of 7.5. And then you see the exact same thing. It's kind of hard to read the numbers. They get to a little higher rate. They gradually come down over time. You see it coming down in what I refer to as fits and spurts and that's because you're paying off components of your unfunded liability. I kind of think of that as analogous to you had a room addition that's being paid off over 15 years rather than your primary mortgage being paid off over 30 years. So your budget is positively impacted once you make that last payment for the room addition. That's why you see the rates kind of popping down a little bit here and there. But again, you see over time that contribution gets to the normal cost, it gets to the point where the unfunded liability is paid off.

It just unfortunately takes a long time to get there. You get there quicker.

If investment return is particularly good, you get there slower, but you will get there if investment return is not so good, if it's poor.

Slide 15 is the police safety plan. Again, you see the cost-sharing component.

FOR TIER ONE, NINE-TENTHS OF A PERCENT. TIER ONE CONTRIBUTION RATE, 41%. MUCH LOWER FOR TIER TWO AND FOR PEPRA. AND THEN PROJECTION OF THE CONTRIBUTION RATES, SAME CAVEAT WITH THE SHOWING THE IMPACT OR BRINGING IN THE IMPACT OF TIER 2 AND PEPPRA Um, THE CITY'S CONTRIBUTION RATE IN THE AGGREGATE WILL GET TO LOW TO MID 40s.

THIS AGAIN DOES NOT INCLUDE THE ASSUMPTION CHANGES.

Slide 19, you see a much more dramatic drop in the contribution rate. The city's police safety plan still has a side fund. That drop in the rates is the last payment due on the side fund amount. This is probably a pretty good time to talk a little bit about this. We have a couple of slides later on on the police side fund.

Historically, what we have recommended, what we recommended to the city was pay the side fund off. However, with CalPERS changes in the contribution policy for plans in a risk pool, we are recommending a wait-and-see attitude. We're recommending that you wait and see what CalPERS board adopts, what changes they make to the risk pools before you sort of jump in and pay that off.

We still think it was a great idea.

for the miscellaneous and fire safety plan, But for police safety with the changes that are imminent, we just think a little bit of caution might be worthwhile here.

uh, And then again with the assumption changes, we're going to see, we expect to see the police safety contribution rate get to the very high 40s, close to 50 percent, again, depending upon investment return. And then nonetheless, though, even with those high rates, you're YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THE BIG DROP OFF AND THEN THE GRADUAL POINT WHERE THE UNFUNDED LIABILITY IS PAID OFF, YOUR CONTRIBUTION GETS TO IN THE VERY LOW TEENS.

Slide 23 and 24 talk about the side fund.

Don't get me wrong. I'd be happy to go into excruciating detail. The challenge with these couple of slides, just so you know, is in a couple of weeks we're going to see the actuarial staff recommendation of how this is going to change. So my recommendation would really be that we not spend time on the side fund. Having said that, I'm happy to if you want me to. So let's go to slide 22. Mr. Bartell, can I ask you a question to flip back?
03:05:47.77 Councilmember Leon Mr. Bartell, can I ask you a question to flip back to the graph, not to the side fund? So the underlying – and you mentioned this earlier – the underlying premise that CalPERS is operating on with the change in policy to have a fully amortized or fully funded, eventually, liability for pension
03:06:08.85 Mr. Bartell Yeah, I think your term fully amortized or fully funded, either one of those are good terms.
03:06:13.51 Councilmember Leon So is it the underlying assumption there is that at some point, You pay off your mortgage.
03:06:22.74 Unknown Yes.
03:06:23.16 Councilmember Leon .

which, depending on your philosophy about finance, whether there's sort of a optimal capital structure, which tends to be the most accepted concept in, you know, your cost of capital, this assumption assumes, at some point, I want to have no debt, because that's the optimal capital structure to be in. And there's, in my opinion, that's an underlying flaw, period, is that it assumes that I want to own the house in 44, 45 outright.
03:06:53.37 Mr. Bartell 30 years.
03:06:53.69 Councilmember Leon Thank you.

I can live with a smaller mortgage, but I can live with it for a longer period of time because I can fund it. I don't have to pay it off to zero. And that front loads all these obligations, which causes weird gyration of high rates and then lower down because you have constant contribution rates. And so I think that's a good question.

And can one argue that that...

You know, that maybe is not the – my question there is, from your point of view as an actuary, is that an underlying assumption that could go either way, but that's a choice they've made from a policy point of view now, given the history of how CalPERS has managed its – gotten itself into this position?
03:07:35.03 Mr. Bartell Got it.

So I'm going to do my best to answer your question in two parts here.

Part number one is CalPERS, you're absolutely right, CalPERS actuarial staff recommended, CalPERS board agreed the goal is to be 100% funded.

Um, Whether I or anybody else may or may not agree with that doesn't – you know, doesn't matter. CalPERS board isn't going to listen to my opinion. So that decision has been made. Doesn't mean you couldn't go to the CalPERS board and argue with them about that. To the extent that you disagreed with that, I don't think they would listen very So that's part one of my answers.

Yeah.

Yes.

No, no, no, that's exact, no, no, I agree with that. So let's go, let's go though to part two of the answer and that is whether I think it's a good idea or not.

MY OPINION IS PART OF THE REASON WE'RE IN THE PROBLEM THAT WE'RE IN NOW IS BECAUSE CALPERS PRIOR CONTRIBUTION POLICY got to the end result of we can have a higher contribution. We can have a lower contribution now and a higher rate in the long run. And so what you're really seeing is in order to dig yourself out from underneath that, you have to do something like this. So I am a fan, and I'm a fan of the of having a target of being 100% funded. I'm also a fan of recognizing that It's not the end of the world if you're not there today.

As long as you keep having that target, then you will end up in the right place. Where I think CalPERS got sideways is they put a premium on mitigating contribution volatility and not on paying the unfunded liability. That's my bias. That's where I'm coming from. I think they made a mistake, and they made that mistake several years ago, and they happened to make the mistake at exactly the wrong time.
03:10:05.96 Councilmember Pfeiffer Mr. Mayor?

Thank you.

So how is the pension, what I consider the pension crisis, not like?

a mortgage.

I mean, a mortgage, you've got a $100,000 home, let's say, and you get a loan on that $100K.

and it's 30 years and let's say you get a fixed rate or a variable rate, but you kind of understand The high and low of that payment.

But It's my understanding that the pensions, the only thing we know are the benefit rates, and there are so many variables involved.

How is it different from that analogy to a mortgage?
03:10:42.88 Mr. Bartell analogy to a mortgage? The mortgage analogy is not a perfect analogy by any stretch of the imagination. The big – you know, if we go back for a moment to the housing bubble, one of the things we saw in the mortgage analogy is you saw values of houses dropping below the balance. So you saw individuals with unfunded liability on their own balance sheet, which you really never historically saw. Banks. So you saw individuals with unfunded liability on their own balance sheet, which you really never historically saw. Banks didn't let you take out a mortgage if they thought the value of the house was not going to be there to go ahead and stand behind the money that they were loaning you.

So that's one big difference is that you historically never really saw unfunded liability relative to a mortgage on an individual's balance sheet until we really had the mortgage crisis. What you also see on a pension plan significant volatility. So if we think for a moment the value of the assets is the value of the house, you see a lot more volatility in pension plan value of the house than you really see in a mortgage example. So that's another reason why it's not a great example. The other, that volatility is really, if we go back for a moment to the end of the 90s, when assets were significantly greater than liability. So you had not unfunded liability, you had excess assets. What you saw then would be, you know, two things. Number one is people believed that was going to be there for a very long time. Everybody did. I'm sure there were some people who didn't, but just about everybody did. And you thought, people thought, gee, maybe we can use these excess assets to sort of one-time money to pay for ongoing cost benefit improvements.

And they didn't really think of it that way, but that's the end result of what really happened. And as soon as benefits started going up, we saw the dot-com bubble and we began to realize the volatility that we all thought was there but only in a positive way.

also had negative volatility as well. So there were lots of components of this that really don't fit the mortgage example. I use the mortgage example though because Most people understand the nature of that, but I will absolutely tell you that volatility is very, very different on this versus a mortgage. So recognize that it's significant volatility as time goes by.
03:13:57.66 Councilmember Pfeiffer I'll just...

Yeah.

I just raise that because of the element, too, of the taxpayers are on the hook to you know, to address the pension, the unfunded pension liability.

That's right. Irrespective.
03:14:13.00 Mr. Bartell Thank you.

So with your permission, I'll give you a little maybe editorial comment just very, very quickly. Several years ago, my wife and I became grandparents. And so what I want to do is make sure that the grandkids are not paying for the pensions of today. And the only way to do that is to do something like this to make sure that contributions bring down the unfunded liability. So I'm a fan, I'm absolutely a fan of making sure that you've taken care of all of your debt.

uh, So we go through the side fund. We have a big draft stamp across the fire safety rates.

Let me, in the interest of full disclosure, there's a column here that's kind of crazy to me. And the column, I don't know whether you can guess as to which column it is, but CalPERS has said the city will not need to make a contribution for the fire safety plan for 14-15. Because the plan is well funded? No.

BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE ANY PAYROLL AND CALPERS WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE YOU CONTRIBUTE AS A PERCENTAGE OF PAY BECAUSE YOUR PAY IS ZERO, YOU GET TO THE CRAZY ANSWER THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO REQUIRE A CONTRIBUTION. I'VE HAD JUST IN THE INTEREST OF FULL DISCLOSURE, Charlie mentioned to me that he is still from a budget standpoint thinking that they might change their mind and to the extent that they don't, that money can be used to mitigate future contribution increases. So you see a $400,000 CONTRIBUTION IN 15-16 WHEN YOU SEE A ZERO IN 14-15, THAT JUST IS A CRAZY, CRAZY ANSWER TO ME.

GASB 68, Governmental Accounting Standard Board 68. So here we are at 1030 at night. An actuary is talking about an accounting standard. That ought to keep you all awake, no question about it. What that accounting standard is going to do, it's really a sea change in accounting. And here's what it means. What it means is the Governmental Accounting Standard Board historically told agencies we're going to have the actuaries calculate something called the annual required contribution and if you contribute less than that you have an obligation on your book. So if we go back to this crummy mortgage analogy, it's kind of like somebody looking at my personal financial statement and saying, gee, have you made all your mortgage payments?

Yes, good, no liability. Nobody pays attention to what the value of the house is and what do I owe on the debt.

That's a crazy way to look at things. So the new standard is gonna say, Here's what we're going to do.

We are not paying attention to whether or not you've made your mortgage payment, what we're gonna do is we're gonna look at the value of the house and we're gonna look at what you owe on it and that difference will either be an asset or a liability on your financial statement.

And so you then will have to go out and think about, have that conversation with your actuaries about what your mortgage payment should be.

Thank you.

And so the accounting standard says, it did a couple of very fascinating things, some of which are kind of funny in a ha-ha way. All of the terminology that I've spent my career explaining to people, they've changed all the terminology. It means the same thing, but they changed the words. So for example, you're gonna have a total pension liability, that actually is what's referred to as the actuarial accrued liability. The value of benefits due to service that's already been rendered.

different term, same thing. And then they're gonna have something called fiduciary net position. That is going to be the market value of plan assets.

The difference between those two is not going to be the unfunded actuarial accrued liability. It's going to be called the net pension liability. If we look at your unfunded liability for your three plans, you see 7.7 million for your miscellaneous plan, 9 million for your police safety, 5.9 million for fire safety, you end up with a total pension liability of 74, market value of assets about 52, a net pension liability of about $22.5 million. And that 22.5, is what's gonna go on your financial statement.

not going to impact fund balance, doesn't need to be paid off right away. It will not be a surprise. To the extent that the bond rating folks look at your financial statement, their response to these numbers is going to be we knew this. This is no surprise to us.

AND SO WE ARE NOT EXPECTING SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN uh, in bond rating, particularly in California. Now, I will tell you, I don't think that's gonna be the case outside of California. Why? Because California enjoys with some notable exceptions, CalSTRS being one, enjoys a phenomena where by and large the actuaries say contribute this and the plan sponsors do so.

There certainly are exceptions to that.

That is not the case around the country.

And so we do think that in California, This will not be – create very much excitement in the long run. It will be to some people a little surprising because that 22.6 million is going to be quite volatile from one year to the next. We're expecting, by the way, that 22.6 to be lower at June 30, 13.

SO WE'LL SEE. AND THE REASON IS NOT FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN CALPERS INVESTMENT RETURN JUNE 3013 WAS BETTER THAN THE EXPECTED RETURN.

Thank you.

Similarly, we would expect it to be even lower June 30, 14. Not a lot.

but certainly lower. And then the very last item we had is the cost sharing component of the change in the law.

The cost sharing component, a fair amount of confusion about what this really is. A lot of people look at the cost sharing component of PEPRA and they use the terminology. The terminology is in the law is that your target contribution rate should be 50% of the total normal cost. So what we thought we would show on slide 29 is tier one.

Total normal cost, 18.4. Member normal cost in the statute, 8%. You have the tier one folks paying an additional 6 tenths of a percent. So the member contribution rate is actually 8.6. That compares with the 50% target of 9.2. Similarly for tier two, two at 55. Member contribution rate in the statute is 7. That's what employees are paying. The 50% of the total normal cost is 7.8. And for Tier 3, the total normal cost 13.4, members are paying the 6.7, that is the 50% target. The only thing that is mandated about this is what do the PEPRA, the Tier 3 new members pay? They are required to pay 50% of the total normal cost. Similarly for safety, Tier 1, member normal cost in the statute nine, your current safety members paying 9.9, 50% of the total normal cost 13.5%. Similarly tier two, two at 50, nine percent member contribution rate in the statute, those members are paying 9, 50% of the total normal cost, 12.5. And then that third column, the 2.7 at 57, Tier 3, PEPRA, formula, 24.5 members paying 12.25. They're paying the 50% of the total normal cost.

So that's the extent of my report.
03:23:55.55 Mayor Thank you very much, Mr. Martell. Charlie, are you adding anything to this before I open this up here for questions, or?
03:24:05.38 Adam Politzer Yes, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, the only addition is, as usual, we value Mr. Bartell's analysis and recommendations. In my staff report, I put next steps where we'll continue to monitor the side fund. We'll wait for the event that occurs in a couple weeks and see what our best course of action is on addressing the police side fund. We'll also look at what they're going to do when they combine the classic and PEPR risk pools into bigger pools. As you know, every year, CalPERS offers cities a prepayment discount if we choose to prepay our PERS obligations. I went through those calculations and it would not be to the city's benefit to prepay because our payroll is lower than the expected payroll in the CalPERS Actuary Report.
03:24:36.59 Unknown AS WE CAN DO, AS WE CAN DO AS WE CAN DO, AS WE CAN DO AS WE CAN DO AS WE CAN DO AS WE CAN DO AS WE CAN DO AS WE CAN DO AS WE CAN DO AS WE CAN DO AS WE CAN DO AS WE CAN DO AS WE CAN DO AS WE CAN DO AS WE CAN DO AS WE CAN DO AS WE CAN DO AS WE CAN DO AS WE CAN DO AS WE CAN DO AS WE CAN DO AS WE CAN DO
03:24:59.66 Adam Politzer And, of course, based on these targets that are set out in the PEPRA legislation, our future MOU negotiations will be repairing a labor negotiating strategy and will present to the city council analysis and strategies that will hopefully achieve even greater normal cost sharing and market risk sharing with our employees. And, of course, we always monitor legislation. We're always on the lookout on what does legislation allow us to do. We analyze it, and we bring it to the city council for policy direction. Thank you.
03:25:33.16 Mayor Thank you, Charlie. Okay, there may be a number of questions from some of us, so I'd like to suggest that either of Charlie or Mr. Bartell, We ask one question and a reasonable follow-up question and then move on and let somebody else ask a question and then we'll see how far we get.

So who, anybody, what?

Thank you.
03:25:59.47 Vice Mayor Thank you.
03:25:59.52 Mayor Thank you.

Okay.
03:26:00.07 Vice Mayor Mr. Bartell, your slide 28, GASB 68, is effective for 2014-15, correct? And you say, so the number we would be using right now for our total net pension liability is 22.6? Yes.
03:26:17.18 Mr. Bartell Yeah, the 22, CalPERS will be preparing that information. This is going to sound like I'm not going to answer your question, and I fully understand why you might think that. CalPERS is really, we expect they will be the ones preparing your GASB 68 information, and the answer depends on how they do it. They really are, they have some options in how to do it. We don't want you to think that this is gonna be the number, we want you to think this is the order of magnitude of the number.

Thank you.
03:26:56.57 Vice Mayor And going back, for example, on my county tax bill, they still have unfunded pension liability.

Now, on my next county, tax bill, will it be a different type of number? Are they also switching to GASB-68?
03:27:10.63 Mr. Bartell Yeah, all public agencies must comply with GASB 68. We think, though, that the contribution policy for both the county and for others will not change dramatically because of GASB 68. So we think the county rate will change for other reasons but not because of GASB 68.
03:27:44.70 Dorothy Gibson Yeah.
03:27:45.61 Councilmember Leon Can I ask a simple question? So, okay, I'm, I, would like to think that I understand some of this. Not all of it, some of it. But if I'm at home,
03:27:53.07 Dorothy Gibson Not all of it.
03:27:56.85 Councilmember Leon and not me, I obviously can't be two places at once, but if I'm listening to this, okay, you probably lost me a long time ago. So not me, the average observer. I understand. As far as the, I've been lost all my life, so it didn't just happen tonight. So as far as the health of our pension plan, okay, incorporating the new assumptions of both the going away from smoothing, increased volatility of rate, which is what it was before 2000. It was volatile, and they smoothed it because the returns got volatile all of a sudden when the stock market crashed, right, so everyone woke up. So, and my analogy before the mortgages is, as you said, it's not a perfect analogy of this. It's more of a question of, you know, do you live with a certain degree of debt or do you pay it off? Forget what you call it, mortgage, bond, whatever you want to call it, because it's essentially a liability that is an obligation. Okay, so that's why I use it. The liability most people have that they understand is either a car loan or a home loan. So there is no perfect analogy here. But it's essentially moving to a more of a variable rate mortgage, in a sense, that has an amortization schedule and pays off from a more collared type of obligation. But given that, so I'll let go of the mortgage stuff. So as far as the health goes, having an unfunded liability of 22 or a net pension liability now of $22.6 million
03:28:07.40 Mr. Bartell I understand.
03:28:11.67 Unknown so it didn't just happen tonight.
03:28:33.25 Unknown with you.
03:28:48.44 Unknown Mm-hmm.
03:29:33.64 Councilmember Leon Where does that put the city of Sausalito relative, because it's a relative comparison, to other communities in California as far as its degree of funding?
03:29:44.98 Unknown Mm-hmm.
03:29:45.00 Councilmember Leon .

Thank you.

And I think the scary part for most people when they have an obligation or a debt of some kind That's question one. The second one is attached to that.

is there the pot the really scary part about that is that tomorrow i might have to pay it off be called to pay it off.

And is there a – so the first question is, you know, compared to others, how do we sit?

And...

So people, you know, that doesn't mean it's all good because everybody in California is somewhat in the same boat being a part of CalPERS. But also, are we going to have to pay it all off tomorrow? Right.

is the question.

and So maybe just tackle those two.
03:30:26.92 Mr. Bartell So, So I may not sound like it when I give you the answer, but those are easy questions to answer. You all are, everything is relative, but you are generally better off than most other cities. Why? Because you put in the second tier, because you paid the component of your, you know, you paid your side fund off on miscellaneous, you paid it off on fire safety. So you have done things to mitigate your unfunded liability. And just so you know, how I do a comparison is not what the order of magnitude of the dollar is, because you can't compare yourselves to the city of Los Angeles, right? You can't.

But what I try to think of is, what is your unfunded liability relative to your payroll?

And I know it's a little simplistic, but I think generally speaking is revenue streams and payroll because you are a service delivery entity. I think of those as being important. So if we looked at your unfunded liability relative to payroll, fire safety creates a little bit of an issue because you don't have any payroll for those folks. But setting that aside just for a moment and looking at that total number relative to your total payroll, you are in better shape than most other, certainly not all, but than a lot of other agencies around the state. So I think that's an easy question to answer. The second question, do you have to pay it off right away? No. I use the mortgage example all the time as well and I recognize that it's not a perfect example but I'll use it again. Your mortgage, you don't have to write that check tomorrow.
03:32:04.24 Unknown THE END OF THE END OF THE
03:32:21.30 Mr. Bartell It's a debt that is paid over time. Would it be better?

If you paid it off sooner rather than later? Absolutely it would. Would it be better if it didn't exist? Absolutely it would. I'm not trying to mitigate the fact that you have a $22.6 million unfunded liability. But it's not a check you have to write tomorrow. And that's why, that basically, by the way, goes to the heart of why If bond rating agencies were looking at the city and rating the city, they would not view this any differently because they knew roughly what those numbers were in the past. These are not surprises. So I would not expect any adverse and if they compare your numbers to other agencies, we think you will be a little bit ahead of the game.
03:33:24.24 Councilmember Pfeiffer Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So it's my understanding we're 70% funded. Is that correct?
03:33:30.91 Mr. Bartell That's about correct, yes. Might be, and that would be at June 30, 2012. I think that's right.
03:33:39.82 Councilmember Pfeiffer Okay. And what's your opinion of that? I mean, is that healthy to be, I mean, 70%?
03:33:46.06 Mr. Bartell So given that, the downturn in the market, 70% is, so I know, Every single question I get asked today, I feel like I'm saying you're not gonna be satisfied with this answer.

But I, people spend a lot of time focusing on that funded ratio.

I as an actuary don't.

And here's why.

what matters to me is not what your funded ratio is.

What matters to me is How is the contribution rate required to get you back to 100%? How does that fit into your budget? Can you afford that?

I think that is much, much more important than whether or not you're, so let me give you, let me expand on that answer a little bit.

a fair number of people around the state, some very, very smart people, who keep saying it is a pension standard if you're below 80% the world, you know, the sky is going to fall and if you're above 80% you're all as well. There is no actuary that I know of who agrees with that statement. And in fact there is an article
03:35:11.84 Unknown Yeah.
03:35:14.64 Mr. Bartell put out by the American Academy of Actuaries that says That's a crummy standard.

and it goes into great detail as to why that's a crummy standard.

It may in fact be a You can have a plan that has an extremely low funded ratio that may be in great shape and another plan that has a really high funded ratio that's in poor shape.

what will make it a good shape or bad shape is not that funded ratio, it's whether or not the plan sponsor has the wherewithal to make the contributions. And so the question that actually I thought you were going to ask but you didn't. I get asked all the time
03:35:57.99 Unknown THE FAMILY.
03:35:58.16 Unknown THE END OF THE END OF THE
03:35:58.21 Unknown I get it.
03:35:58.48 Unknown Yeah.
03:35:58.56 Unknown I failed again.
03:35:59.03 Unknown Thank you.
03:35:59.86 Unknown I don't know.
03:36:01.87 Mr. Bartell Is your plan in good fiscal shape? I think that's a great question.

And here's the answer to that question.

The answer is a function of, when you look at your budget, can you afford to make those contributions?

And if the answer is yes, your plan is in great fiscal shape.
03:36:24.62 Councilmember Pfeiffer So I have a follow-up question.

Thank you.

based on the new CalPERS contribution policy of the step up of the five years.

What was the total cash payment that Sausalito estimated that Sausalito is to be making next year as a start?
03:36:43.81 Mr. Bartell as a start. So I'm gonna, I do not know that off the top of my head, Charlie might. I know I have that information, I just don't have it at the top of my head.
03:36:52.29 Councilmember Pfeiffer because I guess Okay, Charlie, do you have that?
03:36:55.23 Mr. Bartell Thank you.
03:36:59.35 Mayor And Charlie also, did you want to say something you were like earlier trying to?
03:37:04.22 Adam Politzer Only that on July 1st of 2013, which is one day after the June 30 valuation, we paid off the miscellaneous fund and then we paid off the fire fund later that year. So the funded ratio is higher than what's shown on this chart just says.
03:37:05.10 Dorothy Gibson Thank you.

THE END OF THE END OF THE
03:37:23.93 Mayor Okay.

Thank you.

Thanks. Sorry for interrupting.
03:37:25.64 Adam Politzer Thank you.

I'm sorry.

And I'm sorry, the question is what will our pension payment be total dollars for next year? The cash payment.
03:37:33.65 Councilmember Pfeiffer The cash payment next year. I'm just curious as to the CalPERS contribution policy and the impact on the budget.
03:37:46.55 Adam Politzer For the year ending 2013, our CalPERS contribution was 1,885,000, which was 600,000 less than 2012's contribution. This year, our contribution will probably be 1,350,000.
03:38:07.71 Councilmember Pfeiffer I'm sorry, Charlie, I wasn't specific. I'm talking about CalPERS next year. They're starting their step-up contributions over the five year, 50% increase cumulative over five years. What will be our cash payment next year?
03:38:23.91 Unknown to the system.

So,
03:38:26.42 Councilmember Pfeiffer I heard 2012 and 2013. I'm sorry, I didn't hear.

Thank you.
03:38:31.55 Adam Politzer Yes, and the number I gave you was 14.
03:38:31.58 Councilmember Pfeiffer Thank you.

The number I gave you was 15.
03:38:37.34 Unknown Oh, okay.
03:38:38.27 Adam Politzer 15 year. Okay, 15.
03:38:39.52 Unknown Okay, 15.
03:38:41.69 Adam Politzer Thank you.

Um...

For police safety, our actual projected contribution would be $735,000, and our actual projected contribution for miscellaneous will be $600,000.
03:38:56.98 Unknown Wow.

Okay.
03:38:58.08 Adam Politzer So we've been reducing our actual contribution by almost a million dollars from two years.
03:39:05.25 Councilmember Pfeiffer And so what is your opinion with regards to the CalPERS contribution rate, the 50 percent? How will that impact us?
03:39:11.11 Adam Politzer How about Right, that's a good question. And we modeled that, what that impact will be in our long-term financial projections.

In Mr. Bartell's projection, he uses actuarial assumptions about the turnover of employees. We've actually had more attrition in our Tier 1 rates than the actuarial assumption at June 30, 2012. That's because we've gone through 2013 and we're now into 2014. So we were able then to measure the actual result of people moving into tier two or moving into the PEPRA tier. And we're finding that we have lower payrolls in tier one with these contribution rates. So you noticed in his presentation back here, he came up with Blended rates, miscellaneous, I think it was 15.5, and in police it was 40, 39.5. Our actual blended rates are less than that. So we're experiencing, and when you take that blended rate times lesser payroll, our costs are reducing. Did that make sense?
03:40:28.23 Councilmember Pfeiffer I think I need to see the actual dollar signs to understand what the impact is for us
03:40:36.24 Unknown Thank you.
03:40:36.27 Adam Politzer Thank you.
03:40:36.29 Unknown Yeah.
03:40:36.33 Councilmember Pfeiffer Thank you.

Because I mean, yeah.
03:40:36.43 Adam Politzer Because I mean.

In the staff report, And page...

page three of the staff report, there's a table, this is on our website, and the It gives the employer contribution amounts by year going from 2007 through 2013. So you can see how our contribution rates have gone up and then went down in 2013.
03:41:05.52 Unknown Thank you.
03:41:08.49 Adam Politzer And then if you look on the second to the last page of the staff report, there's a prepayment analysis calculation where there's two tables.

And in the middle of those two tables is where I picked out the 735,000 and the 600,000. And that's just in our tier one rate. So you can see those numbers going down. But I can prepare an analysis that directly answers that question if you need it. That would be great. Thank you. We look at what Mr. Bartell presents us. We factor in the mortality assumptions and the other long-term assumptions, and then I assume the poor scenario. So I don't assume the average scenario. I don't assume the best case, not the best case, the better scenario. I assume the poor scenario. And as we roll out our projections over 10 years, we show that we have a structural balance for the current level of services.
03:41:18.24 Unknown Thank you.
03:41:39.94 Councilmember Pfeiffer That would be great. Thank you.
03:42:10.30 Councilmember Leon Can I ask a question and either one of you can answer it. Charlie, you can stay up there. And I don't know who's right, but you touched on this a second ago. And not, we were using the belabored mortgage analogy, unfortunately, because it's the one everybody can sort of wrap their head around.

in a sense, a net pension liability is a Can you make the analogy it's an underwater mortgage, right, that we've come to grips with in the last real estate cycle? But in what you've said, just to – and let me sort of restate this and correct me if I'm wrong, is it almost doesn't matter if you're underwater if you can afford to make your payments and you're going to be around for 30 years.

It's if you can't make that payment that's where the problems of somebody's underwater because they can't sell the house, get underneath out from underneath this mortgage.

So, It's not great to be unfunded here, right? In the perfect world, you'd have other decisions would have been made in the last 20 years to fund this, especially in the last 15 years, to fund these things a little bit more fully along the way instead of smoothing and not taking account return.

Um...

Thank you.

It's not that the sun is not exploding in that we're underwater in terms of the obligation being more than the amount of money we put in the coffee can over here.

because we don't have to pay it off tomorrow. We're not moving.

We're not selling our house. We haven't lost our job.

so we can still afford to make these payments. They're going to be accelerated.

because of some decisions that have made to rectify this.

But our modeling and our budget, my understanding is, in both our two-year budget and in our long-term financial plan, that we've modeled these worst case rates so that we feel that... Can't use worst case.

Well, low-end assumptions in terms of market return, that given some of the adjustments we've made in our pension obligations, that we'll be able to satisfy those obligations if we don't have other factors like change in actual employee makeup, which are more accelerated than what you're assuming, actually. So in terms of who's in Tier 2 and Tier 3. Is that fair? It is fair.
03:43:53.41 Mayor Well, we're low end.
03:44:21.12 Adam Politzer It is fair and I would say not only the changes we made in the pensions but also in our labor cost reform because for every person that a tenured employee who leaves we bring in a new employee 35% less salary at that new lower pension tier rate which then drops the the
03:44:23.06 Councilmember Leon I don't know.
03:44:42.13 Adam Politzer the blended rate down even further than the actuarial assumption.

I also wanted to mention real quickly on this number here.
03:44:54.83 Adam Politzer in the last year's budget, in the current year budget, and next year's budget, we have put aside 215,000 every year to make the inactive pool contribution.

but we weren't required to make an inactive full contribution. So I've been putting that into a coffee can.

And when they do give us our final number of what are liability will be at that point in time will be able to make at least a six hundred thousand six hundred fifty thousand dollar payment to reduce that which would lower this number even further So these are the kinds of steps that council's given us direction to do and we've made recommendations to you to do based on Mr. Bartell's advice to ameliorate the pension concerns that everybody
03:45:48.56 Mayor Is there any other specific questions? Because I'd like to see if there's any comments from the public.
03:45:55.80 Councilmember Pfeiffer I think I have more comments than questions.
03:45:59.13 Mayor So why don't any specific more questions? One quick question, Charlie.
03:45:59.38 Councilmember Leon Why don't One quick question, Charlie. So the 22 – if you take account the side fund payoffs that we did for the miscellaneous and the fire, what is that number? How much would that reduce whatever the number it turns out to be? And, you know, the number will be different next year, but if we had paid it off a day earlier, June 30th instead of July 1st or whatever –
03:46:08.53 Adam Politzer Right.
03:46:23.29 Adam Politzer this number would be $1.8 million less.
03:46:30.48 Councilmember Leon So it's a higher 70 plus 3, 4% funded.

Okay.
03:46:36.69 Mayor So does in fact any member of the public wish to make a comment at this stage?
03:46:45.74 Stan Hales (Public Commenter) go on stand on for it sorry stand hails
03:46:45.85 Mayor I'm sorry.
03:46:45.89 Councilmember Leon Go on, Stank.
03:46:50.66 Stan Hales (Public Commenter) So,
03:46:50.76 Councilmember Leon You were foolish enough to stay around for this.
03:46:51.96 Stan Hales (Public Commenter) stay around for this.
03:46:53.67 Mayor But...
03:46:53.87 Councilmember Leon Got to say something.
03:46:55.96 Stan Hales (Public Commenter) I saw this on the agenda, and I wasn't going to stay around, but then I thought, this has been an issue for us to talk a little bit. And since we've got the actuary here, I thought, what better way to really hear it than the horse's mouth.

I actually have a question to clarify where the funding is coming from. And so yeah, we've got a net pension liability But we're paying it off. And my question is, as a city, it sounds like we can afford to pay it off, We can more than afford to pay it off because our payroll has decreased.

and even though the percentage rate of contribution is increasing, we can easily pay it off over time.

My question is, See.

Is it?
03:47:52.51 Councilmember Leon Charlie, you've got to come back up to the microphone. But first of all, I want to say Stan, you're hired, by the way, because that was a great statement. But go ahead.
03:47:54.38 Stan Hales (Public Commenter) Thank you.
03:47:54.40 Unknown But first of
03:47:54.94 Stan Hales (Public Commenter) Bye.

Very stately quick.
03:47:57.88 Adam Politzer Oh, yeah.
03:47:57.96 Stan Hales (Public Commenter) Bye.
03:47:57.98 Adam Politzer But...

Thank you.

The role of actuaries, as Mr. Bartell said, is to present formulas that bring us back to 100% funding. CalPERS did that. Mr. Bartell said it was the right thing to do. So we can make the statement, we are on our way to fully funding our pension plan based on what we can do within the CalPERS strategic framework.
03:48:02.03 Unknown Bye.
03:48:27.27 Adam Politzer and we've taken the additional steps to reduce our pension costs so that we can have a balanced budget.
03:48:35.20 Stan Hales (Public Commenter) And according to the numbers that you cited, $1.3 million a year in 2014 is less than what you paid last year, what the city paid last year.
03:48:36.05 Unknown Thank you.
03:48:36.11 Adam Politzer THE FAMILY.
03:48:48.55 Adam Politzer That was for tier one. There are some tier two and PEPRA costs that I need to add back to that 1.3 million. So it'll be a little higher.
03:48:50.32 Robert Buchel Thank you.

there are some other
03:48:56.26 Robert Buchel Thank you.
03:48:56.32 Unknown Thank you.
03:48:58.02 Adam Politzer But 0101, 1.8, 1.4.3.
03:49:03.27 Councilmember Pfeiffer I have a question. Mr. Mayor? Okay, I'll wait.
03:49:05.76 Dorothy Gibson Okay, I'll wait.

So we'll bring it back here. If you have a question, I'll give you a slide.
03:49:15.32 Councilmember Pfeiffer It's okay. I'll weave it into my comments. That's a way.
03:49:18.74 Mayor and, yeah.
03:49:18.89 Dorothy Gibson Okay.
03:49:19.99 Mayor you
03:49:20.23 Dorothy Gibson Thank you.
03:49:20.26 Mayor So, let's now back up here. Let's try and be disciplined and keep our comments to three minutes, as it's now seven minutes after 11.
03:49:28.06 Jane Dirks Thank you.

Okay.
03:49:35.48 Councilmember Leon I said let me get a little bit.
03:49:36.88 Dorothy Gibson Bye.
03:49:36.93 Councilmember Leon Bye.
03:49:36.95 Jane Dirks Oh, my God.
03:49:36.97 Dorothy Gibson Thank you.
03:49:38.05 Councilmember Pfeiffer Okay. So I would like to explain, just in plain English, Sausalito's pension crisis. I want to revisit the 22 million here with the caveat that the comments that we can pay, we can pay. You know, we're making assumptions here.

Uh, An actuarial analysis is as good as the assumptions that are, you know, they use assumptions to make those projections.

And, you know, I'm looking at these numbers. In 2005, SOSLIDO's unfunded pension liability was $5 million.

In 2010, it was 10 million.

In 2012, because these are 2012 numbers, it's $22 million.

So in just seven years, our unfunded pension liability has ballooned from $5 million to just a little over 22 million And that's assuming CalPERS projections regarding investment returns.

And...

When CalPERS uses a more conservative assumption of 5% investment returns, our pension liability is not 22 million or wasn't in 2012, it's 49 million.

So, you know, I'm looking at this and I'm seeing a lot of risk. I'm seeing a lot of assumptions that we are making that may or may not necessarily pan out. And I think it presents a great risk to Sausalito. One thing I'm happy about is GASB-68, which kicks in next year.

GASB 68 will change the way that cities report their pension. Right now, cities show the cash payment to CalPERS as our pension expense instead of the full pension liability.

and to use an analogy if I bought a hundred dollar coat and I paid cash I would report that expense as $100.

Currently, If I were to buy that $100 coat with a credit card and my cash payment was $25, under current pension reporting, I would just say my expense was $25, even though we all know that I have a debt of $75 because the coat was $100.

get cities to kind of show the whole picture. So now we're going to see the full pension expense and the full pension debt. I think GASP 68 presents an opportunity for cities to discuss pensions with the public because of the new reporting that we're going to be seeing. And so I would like to give you a little bit of a take a look at perhaps when we get closer to like rolling in GASP 68 to put that on the agenda, to give an opportunity for the public to ask questions and to learn a little bit more.

but clearly when I look at the Increases in our pension debt and our unfunded pension liability. I am very, very concerned. I think we're looking at a crisis, and I am very concerned about the assumptions that CalPERS is making.
03:52:54.64 Mayor Thank you.
03:53:00.78 Councilmember Leon Come on, Theo. You got nothing? No, I'm not. Excuse me.
03:53:01.91 Unknown Thank you.

Thank you.

You got nothing?

No, I'm not teasing you, Donald.
03:53:08.23 Councilmember Leon So I just happened to look at you. But I'm going crazy, so that's why I said that. So, you know, to me, this is certainly an obligation. An obligation is an obligation. It was built up over time. It was built up. And I don't want we could ask the question of you how to go from 5 to 10 to 20.

And the question would be changes in accounting, changes in assumptions of return, smoothing, all kinds of things that grew this. But the two things we can control, are how much we pay people and how many people we pay and how we compensate them pension-wise. And we reduced all three of those things.

and we're going to continue to work on reducing those things so we can afford to pay our obligations, our current obligations of paying on this debt in a in a timely and affordable fashion.

That's not to say it's not an obligation. It's an obligation we have. We should be concerned that we have this obligation. It's not one we created ourselves yesterday. It was built up over time. It was a series of – just like our infrastructure obligation, which it would have been great if people had made decisions to make Thank you.

Investments in infrastructure on a gradual basis over the last 30 years, but they didn't.

They made some fits and spurts and they did some minimums and some just like CalPERS. CalPERS did some returns for 20 percent. Some years they didn't make you contribute anything.

So then you're left with a problem at the end of the day.

So it is an obligation. It is something we take very seriously. But we pay our mortgage. We're making our mortgage payment every month. We can make it under the new assumptions that they've put out for both investment return as well as actuarial assumptions.

It is good to show the amount of an unfunded liability on the balance sheet. Corporations were required to do this many years ago.

Um, And that's why a lot of them then moved away from having defined contribution plans, because they had to show what the obligation was, because it looked like they had a big debt, right? Let's be honest.

So, And the only time it became an issue is if I'm the steel industry or somebody like that, and I can't afford to make those payments anymore.

That's when it, you know, kind of came to hell in a handbasket.

If you look at San Jose, they're having to wave their proposal now is to waive their cuts to their pension cuts to get officers to come back to work in San Jose because they've lost so many officers.

So it's all about compensation, and we're compensating our people fairly, I think. We're trying.

And keeping this liability is something that we can live with. Is it a serious obligation? Yes. Is it something we have to be careful about if the stock market returns start to be much more volatile on the negative front? Yes. Because our obligations are our payments are going to go up and down with the fluctuation of the market or their returns and their mixed bag of investments.

So, Do...

Is it a serious obligation? Yes. Can we afford to pay it? We're paying it over time, just like I'm paying my mortgage. Over time, some years I make more money than others, but I know I can make my payments. The problem is if we don't control our costs, we can't make these payments.

And we are doing that.
03:56:17.60 Vice Mayor Thank you, Mr. Bartol. That was really...

a good presentation. And I think there's a lot of good news. One is, I mean, we're on the right track. But also, I think CalPERS is really on the right track and Gatsby 68. I think it was just cities couldn't plan for what they would do. We have to look at these increased rates and contributions, but I think that's really good news because it's controllable. We can have a target of when we pay off. Definitely we have a debt of 22 million, although as we know that's from 2012 and that number should be lower in 13 and 14 based on both our contributions and and the rate of return of CalPERS. So I see it's good news. And the main thing is that we're able to pay this off.

And that eventually...

because not too long ago we were looking at the prospect of really never knowing what our unfunded liability was. I mean, there were assumptions, and you could assume something in any particular year But you could never know it for long term. But now that we're on the right track, that we can actually get to a place where we could be fully funded or as close to fully funded as possible, even if it's 30 years down the line. And the other good news is that, Our trend, it looks like we'll be able to pay that and go on. So I think we're in good shape. Thank you.
03:57:43.57 Councilmember that you can consider
03:57:45.50 Mayor Yeah, I also think everything's been said. The one thing I'd like to just jump to the planning and sort of the fiscal aspects of this because something that maybe for people at home watching or for people here to realize that this analysis, these projections, the actuarial analysis, the changes that are going on in CalPERS, I think good changes, I agree with you, that are going on in CalPERS, to try and get on top of a problem and a serious problem.

is that you then have to ask the fundamental question which You answered, Mr. Bartel, in terms of the health of the pension plans is whether...

on a long-term projections, that's my addition, but on a long-term projection, you can actually pay the contributions and that you're going to be able to pay down that debt and pay for the future contributions.

And on that, We have been planning as a city very well.

we can already see the benefits of some of the pension reform that we did.

or previous council did, nothing to do with me. Previous council worked on. And so I think, you know, sometimes joke up here about, you know, the sky's falling or the universe exploding or whatever, for some cities it may be.

But it's not for Sausalito.

And...

We have a – it's very important for us to be continually – have this on the radar screen when we plan.

Okay.

But I'm afraid I don't agree that for City of Sausalito, we actually have a crisis.
03:59:48.35 Councilmember Pfeiffer Can I make a statement, Mr. Mayor? Thank you. I think we have a huge crisis. I mean, in seven years, we're going from 5 million to 22 million. We're a small town. We've got, what, 7,200 people? I mean, Tiburon's better than we are. I mean, I don't understand comparing ourselves as a means of saying what, with the healthiest horse in the glue factory? I don't understand that analogy. I mean, the comparison.
03:59:49.56 Dorothy Gibson See you.
04:00:17.81 Councilmember Pfeiffer I went to Sacramento to support Governor Brown when he was pushing his 12-point plan.

And I remember Brown said he asked CalPERS, how are you going to afford this? How are you going to pay for this?

And CalPERS said, well, we'll have new employees come in, and they'll be paying into the city, et cetera.

And Brown said, that's a Ponzi scheme.

That's a Ponzi scheme.

You know, I look at I look at the assumptions that are being made the reality of how much our pension has grown in just the last year, and what it could be if CalPERS is wrong. And it's unacceptable, the level of risk. And I remain very, very concerned.
04:01:09.92 Councilmember Leon Okay. Just for a clarification, Charlie or Mr. Mayor, I'm not going to make a statement asking you a question. Okay, go ahead.

In terms of the growth of the obligation over time, can you clarify? I don't know if you don't have the numbers off the top of your head for the last 15 years.

What has driven that?
04:01:35.18 Mr. Bartell Let me.

Thank you.

clarify the question. Really the question is Am I right? Where did the $22.6 million come from?

Thank you.
04:01:45.88 Councilmember Leon Let's assume for the sake of argument that Linda's figures are correct, which I don't know they are, but let's assume they are. How did the city of Sausalito go from 5 million in I forget what year to 22.6? And has it been as a result of policy changes at the city of Sausalito?
04:01:47.25 Unknown Thank you.
04:01:51.18 Unknown Bye.
04:02:06.25 Mr. Bartell So these are very, very rough numbers, but in 2007, the unfunded liability was extremely low. You had market value of assets very, very close to the actuarial liability. Then what happened was market value investment return in 2008, 2009 dropped the plan from on a market value being almost 100% to being about 60%. So if you just take one of those years, if you look at June 30, 2009 investment return minus 24%, about 30%, 32% off of where it was expected. Just if you take 70 million dollars in assets, multiply it times 30 percent, you get to a number that's short of 22 million, but it's not a lot short. The bulk of the 22 comes from investment losses in 2008, 2009. That's not to say there aren't other things going on. There are. The assumption changes will have an impact, but the single biggest reason is the investment losses in eight and nine.
04:03:48.11 Councilmember Pfeiffer And isn't it true that no one can predict the future? We can't predict the future.
04:03:54.64 Unknown I think that's true.
04:03:55.67 Councilmember Pfeiffer For all we know, my point is that 2008 could repeat itself. I mean, we don't know where this recession is going. We don't know.
04:03:58.55 Unknown that 2008
04:04:02.70 Mr. Bartell We know where this recession is going. Yeah.

You should absolutely be clear the volatility and the market value of assets is going to be there. We've had in the last 15 years.
04:04:06.57 Councilmember Pfeiffer And
04:04:16.59 Mr. Bartell two significant downturns followed by upswings.

But two significant downturns in 15 years, no one should think that it's impossible for those to happen again. No question.
04:04:32.34 Mayor Okay. Thank you.

Thank you very much for coming this evening and for staying so late, Mr. Bartel. So thank you. And thank you, Charlie.

Okay.

With that, we will move on to our city manager, information to council.
04:04:56.20 Unknown Thank you.
04:04:57.94 Mayor Thanks, guys.

Adam, could you also comment on the storm yesterday and the lightning if you weren't planning to already do that and just.

Be helpful
04:05:10.80 Adam Politzer Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I was planning on commenting on that.

And we had a little bit of repeat performance today with lightning and thunder and lightning this afternoon.

um And I think hopefully most of you either saw it on the news or heard it on the radio, but it was well covered by KGO.

that we had a lightning strike, and it did hit a tree right outside of two homes, and the homes were damaged. Luckily, no one was injured.

both fire, police, and public works were on scene in helping manage the situation, and PG&E arrived relatively timely as well. The other effect of that was that 1,000 customers here in Sausalito were without power for a number of hours. The folks that were closest to the strike were out of power for an entire day. The rest of the town pretty much came back up on a timely basis. So, you know, we have had a very turbulent situation.

AND INTERESTING.

winter and now going into the spring.

weather system.

to not getting any rain Um, hovering on severe drought circumstances to now at least getting to some level of water level rising to a degree where we're not as concerned, but still watching what happens. You saw the city of Fremont and I think maybe Newark put some water restrictions in, and the county in Marin continues to have these discussions and we'll continue to let people know, you know, if things change, and we will continue to encourage people to get the make sure that they are manually turning off their water system so that it's not just going on at 4 o'clock in the morning, because that's what time it's going on. And then looking at some of the larger water users in the community that are irrigating their landscape again, because that's just what they do. So I know our community development director and our public works director have both reached out to a variety of folks in town, and we'll continue to do that. But I think the next couple weeks, the weather is going to continue on this crazy pattern.

and warm and cold will create the thunder We've had hail.

RELATED TO THE STORM IN THE LAST TWO DAYS.

So...

I don't know what more to say, but it was caught on TV They were down outside of one of the stores on Bridgeway.

when the lightning struck Lightning.

exploded the thunder exploded, and so I made good news and watched people scramble.

And I think the comment that...

that was shared by the resident that was interviewed whose house was hit It did sound like a bomb went off.

and we were here at City Hall Vice Mayor and Mayor and I and city attorney.

IN A MEETING AND IT FELT LIKE IT STRUCK RIGHT HERE ON CITY AUS.

SO IT WAS SIGNIFICANT.

I wanted to comment just on a couple other quick things here.

And I know that Vice Mayor Theodore has mentioned this, but with the Marinship Steering Committee meetings, we are recording those. Those meetings are on the website.

So you can go back and listen to the discussion.

Please encourage the public to watch those.

At some point, we do want people to weigh in and help, you know, have more than, five or six people in the audience to express their views.

And we'll use all types of other vehicles to gain public's input.

We are at the beginning of this process.

And I appreciate Jonathan Leon's Thank you.

comments because we need to hear those. We need to hear those not just from the council members but we need to hear them from the
04:09:26.30 Councilmember Leon And I'll say the same thing I said to Bartel. Now I don't believe anything you say.
04:09:29.22 Adam Politzer .

I'm going to leave that. But I think that this is a very important subject. I think that we have a very good consultant, I think Lily, and Charlie Francis who are working with the consultant on a day-to-day basis.

are doing a good job.

I KNOW THAT OUR COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARE WORKING HARD. THEY ARE EMAILING CONSISTENTLY TO to our consultants and to staff THEY'RE ASKING QUESTIONS, AND and this will be volatile.

I think that's going to be our new theme is the volatile year.

MR. Exactly. But I think it's going to be healthy, and I think that's what's important, and so I look forward to those discussions. One of the items that's also important, it's on the OMIT agenda. We're having a special meeting today – or today? Tomorrow. Almost today. MR. Almost today. MR. Tomorrow morning with OMIT is that I think most know that CTREC was given notice that their lease is up.

at the Schumacher site.

And the city is working very hard to find a new location with them.

C-TREC is working with the Friends of Dunphy Park. There was a meeting either this afternoon or this evening.

where they were meeting with CTREC And the outcome of that meeting will help the city work with CTREC on a variety of options to see if there's a way.

to help them stay in Sausalito.
04:10:58.18 Councilmember Pfeiffer Adam, I have a question before you move on to another topic. Are you done with that?
04:10:58.22 Adam Politzer Adam, I have.

Go ahead.
04:11:02.77 Councilmember Pfeiffer So I hadn't heard that. I heard a rumor, someone asked me about C-TREC and I went, I don't know, and then I saw it on the minutes, but it didn't explain what the context was. I know years ago there was a proposal to put a large office building, you know, where C-TREC currently is. And I guess my question is, what was the reason for, you know, the property owner giving C-TREC their notice? say what was the what was the reason for the property owner giving C. Trek their notice? What was the context? Do we know?
04:11:35.46 Councilmember Leon answering your own question. I think you can foresee the future on this show.
04:11:37.57 Councilmember Pfeiffer I was teeing it up. And so, interesting. So we've got this MarinShip Task Force meeting here. I mean, we've got the MarinShip Steering Committee formed, and now SeaTrek is getting kicked off.
04:11:52.88 Adam Politzer Yeah, I mean, I can't comment on any of that. I don't know any of what The property owner is talking about what CTREC has shared with us.

they weren't given any reason, they just decided that Vierlise was up.

Either they didn't They couldn't continue to support Um...

the popularity of their program, that there was too much activity in the parking lot, too much activity.

on the beach, but that's all speculation.

So, you know, I don't have any facts supporting that. I'm always an optimist. I don't think there's a correlation between Thank you.

the Marineship Steering Committee being formed, AND SEATREC BEING ASKED TO MOVE.

That discussion has probably been going on well before the Marineship Steering Committee was put in place.

But what I want the public to understand and the council to recognize is that the same with Anderson Boat Yard when they were being pushed out The city stepped in, and I know that that the mayor and the vice mayor, which was Herb and Jonathan, at the time, we met with them and we met with property owners all the proper donors you know, including the Lemon property to see if we could help facilitate keeping them here in town.

We're going through that same exercise with CTREC, looking at both lands that the city owns but also the land that you know, that may be out of support this use.

THIS WILL EVENTUALLY COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL AS A REPORT.

But right now we've asked them to start with the Friends of Dunphy Park because we think they could be the most influential to help them.

and also help the city.

As we look at options here, But they're under a gun of time. They have to be moved out by the end of May.
04:13:40.54 Councilmember Pfeiffer Interesting.
04:13:41.30 Adam Politzer So.
04:13:41.94 Councilmember Pfeiffer Well, I mean, no, that's interesting because I know Anderson Boat, the boat yard, the difference is Anderson was replaced by KKMI, you know, as another like use, you know, maritime services, right? But the city would have liked to continue to do that.
04:13:53.31 Adam Politzer know, maritime services, right? But the city would have liked to continue to
04:13:56.72 Councilmember Pfeiffer Keep going.
04:13:57.08 Adam Politzer Thank you.
04:13:57.28 Councilmember Pfeiffer I guess my point is that C-TREC is potentially being replaced by an office building on the
04:13:57.31 Adam Politzer I,
04:14:02.71 Adam Politzer That's speculative that there's no effect behind that, but that's that speculation
04:14:11.40 Adam Politzer The last two items that I have is just a reminder of the upcoming MCC-MC dinner in April. City of Cora Madera is hosting it, and I think it's the day after our council meeting. I think it's the 23rd if I am correct. So I don't want to make this announcement on the 22nd.

So that's why I'm sharing it in advance. You should have all received an email.

with the invitation and the agenda, if not today in the next few days.

And then lastly, we'll be starting the priority calendar process at our next meeting.

There was items that We heard from the public and from the council Tonight.

And we are going through the Planning Commission, the HLB, AND WRECK ALL THE VARIOUS BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS TO ASK for their input.

but I also want to extend the invitation to individual council members, IF THERE'S ITEMS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO that aren't?

Uh, currently on there.

Feel free to reach out to me, send me an email, GIVE ME YOUR IDEAS, AND I WILL put them in the mix with the others.

We are changing the process, and I'll share more on that on the 22nd. I won't go into it tonight.

But we're evolving and you'll see why and understand why when when we introduce this at the next council meeting.

But please encourage the public and others to send me AND I THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF I can tell you there's no shortage of that already happening.

People think that their items are very important, which we agree with.

But we can't do them all, and that's why this process is important.

So with that, happy to answer any questions to the council.
04:16:05.02 Mayor Thanks, Adam. Any questions? Public comment? Councilmember Committee reports.

Do we have anything to report? Seeing none, no public comment, we'll move on to future agenda items.

Thank you.

Does anybody have any future agenda items to bring up?
04:16:41.05 Mayor Nope. And no? Okay. Then I'm assuming then there's also no other reports of significance. Maybe we should have a motion for adjournment.
04:16:52.95 Vice Mayor One more second.
04:16:54.55 Mayor Okay, we're adjourned.