| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.18 | Unknown | Back. |
| 00:00:00.67 | Unknown | Good evening. Good evening, and welcome to the regular City Council meeting of June 10. Debbie, would you call the roll, please? |
| 00:00:12.84 | Unknown | Councilmember Pfeiffer? Here. Councilmember Weiner? |
| 00:00:15.40 | Unknown | President. |
| 00:00:15.42 | Unknown | Thank you. Councilmember Leone. |
| 00:00:17.02 | Unknown | here. |
| 00:00:17.90 | Unknown | Vice Mayor Theodorus. |
| 00:00:19.15 | Unknown | President. |
| 00:00:20.11 | Unknown | Mayor Withing. |
| 00:00:21.21 | Unknown | Take care. And for the pledge this evening. Gene Patterson, will you lead us in the pledge? |
| 00:00:28.99 | Unknown | Mmm. |
| 00:00:32.65 | Unknown | Don't hide over there. |
| 00:00:34.03 | Unknown | Bye. Thank you. Yeah. . . |
| 00:00:36.46 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:36.58 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:37.90 | Unknown | No, no, no, no. |
| 00:00:37.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:38.00 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:00:38.02 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:00:38.03 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:00:38.05 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:00:38.12 | Unknown | No, no, no, no. Sorry to scare you. Thank you. |
| 00:00:42.32 | Unknown | Yeah, yup. |
| 00:00:42.96 | Unknown | Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. |
| 00:00:43.01 | Unknown | I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. being you ever. |
| 00:00:58.76 | Unknown | you |
| 00:00:58.79 | Jeremy Grazier | Thank you. |
| 00:00:58.81 | Unknown | Thank you, Gene. |
| 00:00:59.72 | Jeremy Grazier | Thank you. |
| 00:01:07.19 | Unknown | The council met in closed session to discuss three matters. Is there any public comment on these closed session items? Seeing none, we move on for approval of the agenda. And we would like to consider moving item 6D which is the reconsideration of the action taken on May 27th regarding the appeal of the Planning Commission decision. you up to the first business item today. So move it up to item 6A, renumbering 6A to B, 6B to C, 6C to D. Do I have a motion? |
| 00:01:55.02 | Unknown | So move. |
| 00:01:55.88 | Unknown | Second. All in favor? Aye. That motion carries. |
| 00:01:57.48 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:02:01.45 | Unknown | We now move on to, we have two special presentations this evening, and so, For the first, I think we are asking our police chief to make a very important announcement. |
| 00:02:22.35 | Unknown | Good evening. Thanks for the opportunity to speak with you this evening. It's a wonderful occasion we have here this evening for the police department and for our community. Tonight we're going to introduce you to our new chaplain. And I thought, wow, you might think, what do we need a new chaplain for? What does that function entail? And last March we had the retirement of our chaplain, who's been with the department for many years, Doug Hunnicki. And we didn't have to look very far for somebody to come in and fill his shoes. But a chaplain is not about praying every day and hoping that we get everything right and everything goes well. A chaplain brings to the department and the community that comfort that we need, the comfort that the community needs, maybe after a traumatic incident, maybe after a death in the family. We deal with a lot of tragedies that maybe most people don't know that we deal with, such as recovering suicidal jumpers from the bridge here in the waters. Our officers go out. and sometimes have to recover those bodies. We are helpers by nature, so we're always helping people. And sometimes we can't help them, and it's very frustrating for us. And so we often need to be able to talk to someone about that. And a chaplain fills that role for us, because every day we're here to do good and to keep the community safe, and it's a stressful job. And so our chaplain rides along with officers, engages in conversations, makes sure that they're okay. If they want to talk, they can talk. If not, they don't have to. But it's just that person in our family who helps us stay focused and balanced. And it's a really important role. For the community, it's somebody, when we have maybe a death in the community that we respond to, we can call the chaplain if the family needs somebody, maybe then for religious guidance or some prayer. It's a really important function, and it's a volunteer. Again, it's another person from this community who devotes a considerable amount of time of their time, their valuable time to us to make sure that we're whole and that we can be out there doing what we have to do. So we have a program in the police department called the Peer Support Program and I've tasked Sergeant Steve Vivereau to revamp that program, bring it to life, and part of that program is our chaplaincy role. So I would like to invite Steve up actually to do the honors of introducing our new chaplain to you. |
| 00:05:19.05 | Unknown | It gives me great pleasure tonight to be able to introduce our new chaplain, Paul Mowry. |
| 00:05:32.33 | Unknown | I don't know if anybody in here doesn't know Paul. Thank you. |
| 00:05:34.71 | Unknown | But |
| 00:05:34.87 | Unknown | But I will read a little background about him so everybody does know a little bit about Paul. Reverend Paul Mowry is the proud son, grandson, and great-grandson of Presbyterian ministers. He received his Master's of Divinity degree with honors from Union Theological Seminary in New York City and holds a Bachelor of Fine Arts in film and TV production from New York University. Before being ordained, Paul spent 15 years in the film industry. and then corporate banking. Before becoming a, while doing that, he became a mediator and trainer in conflict resolution, and his first job in that field was setting up a peer mediation program in troubled middle school in the Bronx. He has been a pastor in the Sausalito Presbyterian Church for the past two and a half years, a church he loves because its congregation is so warm and caring and has no boundaries imaginable. It's a place where truly everyone is welcomed. In fact, their motto is, the church that calls itself a family. Paul moved here from New York City with his partner of almost 28 years, Joe Silverman, and their daughter, Ellie, who will be turning eight on the 4th of July. Thank you. |
| 00:06:46.72 | Unknown | Paul, why don't you come out to the side here? So I have the pastor's badge here, and I would like to have Joe and Ellie come up and do the ceremonial donning of the badge. And if you would like to take photographs, please come on up to the front here and do so. |
| 00:07:26.51 | Unknown | Thank you, Paul. And there's cake at the station. |
| 00:07:34.36 | Unknown | With that, meeting adjourned. We're going down for a break. |
| 00:07:37.68 | Jock | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. It's... |
| 00:07:41.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:07:41.90 | Unknown | Thank you very much. |
| 00:07:47.96 | Unknown | . Thank you. You're tired of seeing it. You just have to mention it. |
| 00:07:53.58 | Unknown | Thank you. I'm out of theory rules. Thank you. I'm sorry. I hope you can see that some kids. |
| 00:08:24.80 | Unknown | So we'll just wait one moment while the room is clearing. |
| 00:09:30.14 | Unknown | . |
| 00:09:32.97 | Unknown | you |
| 00:09:33.02 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:09:33.46 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:09:33.49 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:09:34.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:09:35.45 | Unknown | Our next agenda item, I think the room is pretty clear now. Yep. The next agenda item is, a presentation by the Army Corps of Engineers on Marin Shipway Repaving Project. Sir, over to you. |
| 00:09:53.88 | Mike Dillabaugh | Mr. Over to you. Mr. Thank you for listening to me. This briefing started simply because we discovered much to our chagrin that the federal government owns outright part of the Marineship Way, pretty much from Liberty Glen to Tesla. |
| 00:09:55.03 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 00:10:11.04 | Mike Dillabaugh | We didn't know that until we got involved in a lawsuit. So since then, we've been frantically trying to figure out what we're supposed to do, what we need to do, despite driving forces from headquarters telling us what to do. So with that, I'm going to go into a briefing that kind of explains what we do here in Sausalito and then going through our thought processes and where we want to be for at least the short term. So next slide, please. |
| 00:10:40.61 | Mike Dillabaugh | OKAY, CURRENTLY IN SAUSALIDO WE DO A NUMBER OF MISSIONS. where it says existing, a list of all the various missions. So you obviously know the Bay Model Visitor Center. That's basically our regional museum, if you will. Our debris mission is probably the single most mission that we have in the navigation business line. It is the number one funded mission for all of the South Pacific Division because of its life safety missions. Literally, without Sausalito, that wouldn't happen. So this debris mission removes well over 1,200 tons of debris from the bay. About 60% of it is hazardous waste. AND THAT'S IN AN ANNUAL relatively calm year. High range, much more. Obviously, we have a safety office just like it sounds. Construction office is the office that deals with construction within our entire AOR, our area of activity. Um... Our backup servers is just that. It's a server room that does nothing more than backs up all of our computer records for the entire district. WE ALSO HAVE OUR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OFFICE THERE AS WELL AS OUR EOC WHICH IS A kind of like an emergency stand-up district if we need it. during a disaster. Um. Those are extremely important functions, but they're relatively minor in size. And we also know that the Bay Model building is one of the buildings that, if needed, Sausalito City can use as well for a backup emergency. Um... In the immediate future, we are downsizing the number of floor space we have in San Francisco. doing it for two reasons. The biggest reason is the president told us to. So we are having to work out where we can put people. So we will be moving some people into Sausalito offices that we have. At first a relatively small trickle. Over time it may be more. Um, Predominantly what we're going to be moving is security in portions of engineering. Next slide, please. Um, My engineers decided to throw in a picture of Marinship Wade just in case you didn't know what it looked like. Next slide, please. All right, this is a visual, basically the problem we have. If you don't mind me walking up this way. Thank you. I'm not going to be the last guy. The top picture is what you see is really the narrow congestion. And I'll get to it a little bit more in written words. Bottom line is just too narrow for two lanes as well as the heavy amount of bicycles and pedestrian traffic we have. On this road, it's a little bit wider. Again, doesn't meet any codes. perhaps not a dangerous place, in some ways because they can walk through the parking lots a little bit safer, and many of the pedestrians do that. but it again doesn't meet codes and it doesn't in neither case Do they provide us what security is telling us we have to do which is a little bit of a setback. which is why I'm phrasing this in both a temporary. and a little bit of a long term. Cool, laser pointer. Cool, so I'll just push which button? Okay? Oh, okay, thank you. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't introduce myself. Mike Dillabaugh with the chief, excuse me, I am the chief of operation readiness division. My boss is a colonel. So if you have any problems, give the colonel a ring. He'll be happy to hear it. MR. I'm really on the nut with a really good staff. So it's not like I can say that I came up with all this wonderful stuff on my own. I've had a whole group of engineers trying to figure out what the heck it is we can do. And I had a whole group of lawyers tell me what I should do. So we kind of compromised. All right. In a nutshell. WE HAVE IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AN UNSAFE ROAD CONDITION, PERIOD. Bottom line. Thank you. The top. Black Bar is my attempt to make a little representation of what we actually have. It goes anywhere from 26 feet on the south side down to 20 feet. The biggest constraint happens to be two buildings. What we really need without security is anywhere from 30 feet to 34 feet, probably a little bit more if we wanted to meet the city's codes on how wide a sidewalk and bike lane should be, etc. If I threw in security, as a very basic minimum, probably add 10 feet to that stuff. They want closer to 40 feet, but I ain't going to give it to them. And security, though, is a national directive from DOD, and it's picking up steam still. And from the 9-11 event, that's what the genesis of all that is. My basic assumptions as far as traffic lanes are wrote out for you. It should be no surprise, we're looking from 10 to 12 feet, et cetera, for each lane, et cetera. Next slide. So the way forward. I have to look at it from point of view of a short term and then long term. In short term, in essence, I have to do something to eliminate as much liability issues as we can. The Corps of Engineers as well as DOD is under assault from a number of different lawsuits dealing with biological opinions. The tiny pot of money that the government gets to fight those lawsuits is being eaten up by those huge lawsuits. So any lawsuit we get is a direct strike against that and it gets very, very high level attention. When I'm talking about high level attention, we're talking the assistant secretary of the army is calling my boss saying do something. long term. This is where I would like to partner with the city. I'm going to work with you all and your staff to determine what's the best solution. There are limited things I can do with the funds, but I'm more than willing to partner in every way I can to make it happen. One of the things, of course, that needs to be done is for the city needs to complete its circulation studies, economic studies, et cetera, on how to handle that. I might be able to pay for a tiny portion of the circulation study. Cannot pay for the majority of it. Um... going to short term. What I attempted to do on this slide is just bracket our thought processes and what we can do. The first one obviously was trying to leave it the same. Leaving the same as begging it for another lawsuit. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE LAWSUIT THAT WE JUST WENT THROUGH, A lady was trying to avoid a car. and decided to cross a lane, tripped over something, was not able to identify what she tripped over, didn't know if it was an obstruction, or a pothole. Bottom line, even though we won, we still ended up paying $100,000 for the lawsuit. When you take, like I said in the previous slides, when you look at it, these roads are simply unsafe. So that is a non-starter for us. Um... We could install what we have done in military bases before, a number of stop signs. You can legally put in stop signs every 100 feet or every 50 feet if you want. It's kind of ridiculous. is incredibly difficult to enforce. and people eventually get into very bad habits of ignoring stop signs, which has a trickle down effect, in every other location within the city. Again, that's something we recommend... What the lawyers were telling me to do at all levels, including headquarters, was to install gates and eliminate all traffic that's not federal. I consider that a nonstarter simply because it doesn't make sense. Not only is it costly to me, it's not very friendly to the city, it's not a partnership type thing. um... Though I do have to say if we get another lawsuit out of it, I'm probably going to hear that again. Um, We could try and eliminate all the bike and pedestrian traffic. Again, that's a very, very difficult thing to do. People walk and ride bikes wherever they want to. Today, just coming here, I watched a group of ladies, approximately six or so, walking all kind of together so they could talk. and two cars trying to squeeze by them in a very narrow area in that same location I was talking about. The last one is the one we're kind of leaning to and I'll talk about a little more depth, which is basically limiting a lane of traffic that creates a bit of a flow problem for the city. IT DOES CREATE A ONE-WAY THAT DOES MAKE IT SAFE. So this is the way my boss is currently agreeing with me that we need to go. We need to put in basically one way. We do have a small contract in place right now. where we're going to probably start in second week or first week of July as soon as there are bond clears to repair some of the big THE POT OF MONEY, THE This road isn't associated with any one project. It's associated with bunches of projects, which means we have to do it out of overhead. And you kind of know what that means. Never have enough money. Part of the contract is we reel-wheel stripe and install new signage, and this will also help us a little bit towards our security issues, so it will keep that monkey off my back. But in the long run... We'll try and bring up some funds as well also to help whatever kind of public information, education thing we need to do for you, whatever recommendation you want. This one is the only one. He didn't make the We'll see if it works. Okay, this section of the road is truly probably the single most dangerous part of the road, and is driving the one way more than anything else. Now, which way these aeros go, I'll leave it up to you guys. We can make it either way. As an old traffic engineer, and I'm talking 1979, 1980 time frame, the real big problem is this blind 90-degree corner and this very very narrow app here as well as these two buildings. It's about a 51 percent safer going this way, 49 percent safer going the other way. So literally it's 50-50. This one, because of the parking lot, it allows us to create a circular pattern. So we're going to allow traffic going this way, creating a little bit of an offset with some parking here as well as loading zone. It allows the buses to come in through here, and the buses that go out through there. We'll have to do some tree trimming, et cetera. Eventually, in this area up here, this is an insert, by the way. I should say he's a brand new engineer. He just came out of college, and he wasn't sure how to do a circle to show a normal insert, so he did a square pattern. Threw me off when I saw it, too. Anyway, there's a couple, fire hydrants, et cetera, that we need to probably move. So we'll try and do that. We'll also put for this business here, it's that old art studio, I think it's for sale. We're gonna put in a, pardon? Okay. All right, Courtney's through to you. We're going to put in a driveway here so they can drive in right out of this parking lot. We'll eliminate a couple of places here and drive in here. And we'll also leave our parking spot here open as it always is to the public. So that's it in a nutshell. Open to questions or suggestions. |
| 00:23:04.27 | Unknown | Yeah, I have a question. you How many accidents have you had reported down there? |
| 00:23:11.85 | Mike Dillabaugh | We've had one lawsuit which kicked it off. Since that lawsuit we've actually started watching it a bit. I personally have witnessed four accidents. Everything from bikers to pedestrians doing something. Now they haven't sued us yet. Hopefully they don't. But they As to how many accidents they have and the times we haven't been out there, I can't answer that. |
| 00:23:39.69 | Michael Heacock | Thank you. |
| 00:23:39.98 | Mike Dillabaugh | I am. We do know that... the very short period of time we've been looking at this, And when you watch it closely from a traffic point of view, it's an accident ready to happen. Now, we have taken these plans, and we've gone to the fire department, your fire department, your police department, and your public works, and we've gotten and incorporated all their comments. There is concern with that area as we are as far as safety goes. Timing. All I can tell you, this is being driven on the federal side by trying to eliminate a liability from the federal government. And this is being driven on the federal side by trying to eliminate a liability from the federal government. And this is the short term, not the long term process. |
| 00:24:21.34 | Unknown | Let me explain to you maybe about that lawsuit. um, that was the area where there was a piece of track sticking up is that correct |
| 00:24:32.02 | Mike Dillabaugh | She was not able to identify it. |
| 00:24:33.42 | Unknown | Yeah. That's where it happened. And it was interesting because When we didn't know that it was owned by the Fed, We put a A diamond. White diamond right there. And everybody saw it. Then I guess what happened was The Army Corps decided that they did what? |
| 00:25:00.56 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, Councilmember Weiner, I appreciate the information related to the lawsuit. I think it's important that we don't discuss the merits of that lawsuit or the... Well, I was just... |
| 00:25:10.31 | Unknown | Well, I was just trying to bring out that, you know, when they covered it up, that's when the incident happened and there was no markings. But. But it's okay. |
| 00:25:17.97 | Mike Dillabaugh | Thank you. |
| 00:25:18.01 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:25:18.04 | Mike Dillabaugh | Thank you. |
| 00:25:18.06 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:25:19.67 | Mike Dillabaugh | I do understand what you're saying. We actually went out and marked it shortly after that again with paint. We have no idea how it got covered up. Certainly none of my people covered it up, put it that way. We painted bright orange, that would be the color we had. And during the time it was painted, that's when I watched the bicycle biff right there. So |
| 00:25:42.66 | Unknown | So you're saying, Pastor, if we could even that street out, |
| 00:25:46.56 | Mike Dillabaugh | I'm hoping that's what we're going to do with that contract. What we don't know is how much hazardous waste we'll discover once we start peeling it up. It's an old railroad track, which means it probably has a railroad tie still there. Thank you. |
| 00:26:00.19 | Unknown | You plan to make it a one-way and it depends, but what are you going to do with the bicycle and pedestrian traffic? Will they have to go one way or will it be two-way for those? |
| 00:26:07.73 | Mike Dillabaugh | That's a great question, and I'm sorry for not coming up with that earlier. I'd actually like your... Opinions on that. We can do a number of different things. We can try... If we want, Okay, I'm not sure what I did, but... Who wants to fix it? All right. |
| 00:26:34.89 | Mike Dillabaugh | Debbie, can you read that? Can we go back to the slide? All right. There we go. |
| 00:26:40.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:26:42.87 | Mike Dillabaugh | Me and technology sometimes don't get along. Thank you. We can try and eliminate all pedestrian bicycle traffic here and put it towards the bicycle path and pedestrian paths that's there. However, to me, that creates a problem for Liberty Ship because you have it over there. So I'm not recommending that. |
| 00:26:59.34 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:27:02.56 | Mike Dillabaugh | We didn't attempt to put it here, but with your concurrence, one of the things we would do if we make this one way is we would paint and strike a walkway, similar to what you see in other places where you've got this big, broad green path, so to speak. and literally create eight feet or so to get traffic away from the people. and put some type, I don't know if we can put a barrier up, I'm not even sure that's But that's what we've been thinking lately. So those are kind of the couple options we've been thinking of. And we've even thought of different... Um... short terminology where people would come down this way, go down here, come over and come up, But I know for one as a walker, I don't do that. So that these, to me, the only thing that makes sense is re-striping here. and creating a pathway that would be safe for the people. |
| 00:27:57.91 | Unknown | Are you thinking from a security standpoint that you're going to have to put bollards out in the – if that's part of – I mean, it sounds like that's part of your concern, not just the trip and fall kind of issue, but is that more part of the longer-term solution than this, or – |
| 00:28:11.24 | Mike Dillabaugh | The longer term solution, yes. I could talk to you about that right now if you'd like. |
| 00:28:12.27 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:28:16.58 | Unknown | I mean, I'm assuming that you're going to – that that's part of the concern is the proximity of, you know, being able to put a car or whatever. Right. Very close to a federal building. Right. |
| 00:28:23.24 | Mike Dillabaugh | Thank you. |
| 00:28:23.26 | Unknown | never very close to Right. |
| 00:28:26.97 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:28:28.89 | Unknown | All right. Thank you. |
| 00:28:31.66 | Unknown | Sorry. So the one-way lane, Did you, you mentioned a a walkway. a multi-path or multi-use walkway where you'd be expecting both pedestrians and cyclists to share that? Or do you have enough space there to have a separate sidewalk for pedestrians and then a lane for cyclists? |
| 00:28:58.17 | Mike Dillabaugh | Good question. Right here is this narrowest width. It's approximately 20 feet. So if we leave 12 feet for vehicles and allow the vehicles to stay on this side and keep the pedestrians and the bicycles on the tennis court side, we could give approximately 8 feet of space. When you get into the buildings, we have a little bit more space, but there are protrudences on the outside of the buildings, basically electrical boxes, if you follow by code, we're supposed to get an extra three feet away from those. So that sort of just killed that. So with that eight feet, we could maybe paint it different colors, hash marks or something to that. Again, totally open to whatever you want to suggest on us. We really don't know at this point what's the best thing to do. I've read all of the... |
| 00:29:29.86 | Mary Wagner | I don't know. |
| 00:29:53.42 | Mike Dillabaugh | traffic studies that Sausalito has done that was sent to me. I've also gone through a number of different studies that they've done in military bases and other cities. There doesn't really seem to be a really good solution for this. The best solution seems to be a walkway and then some type of separation and then a bikeway. The problem with that is that now requires widening the area. And that goes into city property, which I have zero authority to do. |
| 00:30:08.68 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:30:08.69 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:30:09.08 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:30:13.32 | Unknown | Yeah. Unlikely. Yeah. |
| 00:30:14.68 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:30:20.02 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. The reason I asked that question was because, of course, if the DOD is anxious to step away from liabilities, it would probably be better. to separate the pedestrian, have a separate sidewalk for pedestrians versus a multi-use path where both pedestrians and cyclists would be expected to share the same, you know, area. Absolutely. Even with different colors. |
| 00:30:46.51 | Shelby | Thank you. |
| 00:30:46.53 | Mike Dillabaugh | Even with different colors. Right. |
| 00:30:48.82 | Unknown | you know, |
| 00:30:48.86 | Mike Dillabaugh | Thank you. On this side, we'll be able to do that. |
| 00:30:49.72 | Unknown | And this. |
| 00:30:52.08 | Mike Dillabaugh | Thank you. |
| 00:30:52.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:30:52.27 | Mike Dillabaugh | Thank you. |
| 00:30:52.33 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:30:52.40 | Mike Dillabaugh | will be able to have enough space to do a separation. Okay. |
| 00:30:57.93 | Unknown | I guess another question I had is, I know I once walked with the city engineer Todd Teachout when he was talking about the the some plans with respect to sometimes in the future of a bike path. And I think he actually pointed behind the plant. Were there plans to put some sort of a bike access behind the plant? Because then perhaps that would solve the DOD's problem. You could allocate the Marinship Way space for pedestrians. |
| 00:31:32.58 | Adam Politzer | I don't think the city actually presented plans what the Gate 6 to Ferry Landing projects that we looked at the bike. That was one of the proposed sites for the Greenbelt Way for the bike pedestrian way. WAM also came forward with a circulation plan that shows vehicle traffic going behind the plant as well. that Mike and Jonathan and I have also recently discussed. If I may, Mike, just step in for a moment. One of the reasons why this is before the council is because the federal government was moving forward on protecting their own interests, making sure that they minimize any future liability. And they, as Mike said, worked with police, fire, and public works, reached my desk and then it came to my desk and I kind of reacted to the one way that's a pretty significant change. And I was looking for like what we do with other projects, what was the traffic AND CIRCULATION PLAN that support it. that decision. And at this moment in time, being a a former traffic engineer, obviously working with our city engineer. They were, I think, working in the best interest of that particular area. But why I wanted to come to the council and also to the public, because there wasn't, they don't go through the same public process, is so that folks could have an opportunity to view this Our concern is the city is on both ends. We have traffic that comes into the various offices down at Liberty Ship. And they queue up. at the top of the street there at the light. Then we have traffic that comes in at Harbor that queues up at the intersection there as well. why we appreciate Mike's flexibility in providing options and AND I MET WITH HIM OUT THERE, LOOKED AT IT AND DISCUSSED A LOT OF THIS AND DID LOOK AT THESE OPTIONS BOTH SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM. But the direction of those arrows, if in fact we make this a one-way street, at least for a short period of time, which may be five, six years. um, which direction makes the most sense for the activity there in terms of the offices, the use of the tennis courts, visitors to the bay model, and all the activity associated with that area. That's why we asked Mike to come and talk this through with us a little bit so that we could give some feedback. |
| 00:34:00.18 | Mike Dillabaugh | Now, we could jump into long-term plans, but I think at this point in time, it's probably a little premature. And my recommendation is that we start working together for the long-term plans and figuring out what those various options may be, then come forward and talk about the long-term plans and the funding issues, et cetera. And in the meantime, we need to go with something that will help eliminate the liability issues with us. |
| 00:34:32.62 | Unknown | So, Mr. Mayor, so in response to what Adam said, it seemed to me like we have the bike lane already that we spent taxpayer dollars on on Bridgeway for the cyclists, and then there are plans to potentially look behind the plant. So my personal comment would be to ensure safety for pedestrians along you know, Marinship way. In terms of which way the street should go, north or south, I'd have to think about that a little bit more, because I can see where it could really back up that... |
| 00:35:07.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:35:07.97 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:35:08.04 | Mike Dillabaugh | Thank you. |
| 00:35:12.38 | Unknown | that one area going up to the 7-Eleven. |
| 00:35:14.06 | Mike Dillabaugh | going up to the 7-Eleven. I will offer this, because timing is a constraint for my funding at the moment. Restriping and repainting, as far as the one-way signs go, isn't that hard. So if we put up the one-way science going one way, it turns out it's simply a bad decision and it's better to go the other way, the Corps will fund changing that. |
| 00:35:39.58 | Unknown | MR. Before we continue here, maybe I could ask staff, you know, we've put this on as a special presentation. I mean, this isn't a public hearing. We actually have really no control over what the federal government does, I gather. |
| 00:36:00.72 | Mike Dillabaugh | Well, you as a predecessor can go to the congressman at any point. Right, absolutely. |
| 00:36:04.35 | Jerry Taylor | Thank you. |
| 00:36:04.37 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:36:04.66 | Unknown | Absolutely. Absolutely. |
| 00:36:07.91 | Unknown | Or you can ring the colonel as he's against it. |
| 00:36:10.22 | Unknown | I'm sure that may already have been done. So my question for staff is, |
| 00:36:11.76 | Mike Dillabaugh | Thank you. |
| 00:36:18.44 | Unknown | I mean, this, even for a temporary solution, needs, I think, a little more thought than we can give from the dais here in sort of immediately reacting to something that we've seen for the first time. is my opinion. Yes, I agree. And secondly, if you start |
| 00:36:31.97 | Unknown | Yes. Yes, I agree. |
| 00:36:39.05 | Unknown | I think I would personally like to hear from some sort of analysis, not particularly... Obviously, we don't have time or money to do anything of any significance, and we don't actually want to spend money on their project... We need to know just from a quick and dirty analysis of the turns off of Bridgeway. I mean, is the turn onto, a leverage shipway, which gets backed up in the mornings, blocking bridgeways, that gonna get worse, depending upon which way the arrows go? Or likewise, as you said, is the turn from next round of Molly Stones, because if everybody's going this way, then they've gotta get to Marina Plaza. This is not a trivial thing. And it's not something that we can react to tonight. |
| 00:37:31.22 | Mike Dillabaugh | Thank you. In my view. |
| 00:37:32.17 | Unknown | In my view. |
| 00:37:33.52 | Mike Dillabaugh | Just for clarification, sir, and you're right, I'm not looking for an answer tonight. We have, in reality, roughly a month before we have to make the final decision, and that's just to make sure the contract works, et cetera, and the money gets done. So if I can get an answer back as far as which way we would like the arrows in roughly a month, more than happy. |
| 00:37:59.91 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:37:59.98 | Jeremy Grazier | Yeah. |
| 00:38:00.03 | Unknown | I'd also like to ask, does staff have a recommendation? Because I guess, Adam, you've been out there along with Public Works and Fire and Police. |
| 00:38:00.33 | Mike Dillabaugh | And also, |
| 00:38:07.74 | Unknown | The staff have a recommendation on which way we should go on the temporary one-way direction. |
| 00:38:14.07 | Adam Politzer | Yeah, I mean, I agree with the mayor's comments earlier, you know, and it bubbled up to me that this has happened rather quickly because of the lawsuit. And as Mike said, one option is shut the road down and we just eliminate all of our and he recognized that that wasn't the best option for the community. our involvement, my request when we met out there again without any data, without any engineering experience whatsoever was let's keep it the same. and then deal with the striping in a little bit longer period of time. but Mike doesn't have the funding to pay for a traffic study for this. |
| 00:38:54.03 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:38:54.23 | Adam Politzer | nor any interest from you know, his boss, to spend any money to explore that. I think we on a temporary basis can look at one way left or right based on what's going on on the on Bridgeway But that is going to cost some money and take a little bit of time. And I don't know if 30 days is any better than |
| 00:39:16.05 | Unknown | it. |
| 00:39:16.37 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:39:17.70 | Adam Politzer | where we are at this moment based on everything else on the plate. So we wanted to at least bring it forward. Mike didn't have to come tonight. They don't have to come. |
| 00:39:21.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:39:26.78 | Adam Politzer | to any process, and I appreciate that he did, and at least the public is now at least aware something's going to change down there. Regardless, it's going to change to some perspective. |
| 00:39:38.26 | Mike Dillabaugh | To clarify one statement for the traffic circulation study, it's not that I wouldn't want to fund it if I could find the funds for it. It's illegal for me to fund it because the city is not part of the federal government. I can only fund that tiny, tiny portion of it that has that road in. |
| 00:39:57.21 | Unknown | MR. Right. No, I mean, and first of all, I want to thank you for coming. The Army Corps is certainly a valued part of our community and has been the most receptive to working with Sausalito versus some of the other federal government departments that we interact with, and we always appreciate that. It's a great relationship we have with the Army Corps. the And it sounded like, from what you said earlier, even if we choose, let's say we choose by we give you a preference of one way or the other If it doesn't work, you can change the direction of that one, you know, repaint or re-sign that road to alleviate whatever traffic problems may result at either one of those two intersections from this change. So that's great. That's something you would entertain doing as well if it ends up causing a problem. So it sounds like we might have to take our best shot at it at some point, and I would say the staff has better qualifications to take their best shot at which is going to cause a lesser traffic impact than me. And then if it doesn't work, it sounds like the Army Corps is more willing to say, hey, let's reverse the direction for now and see if it alleviates that problem. |
| 00:41:02.26 | Mike Dillabaugh | Right. Painting the street is relatively inexpensive. |
| 00:41:04.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:41:04.17 | Unknown | and expensive. I would concur with that, that it's the staff who should be sort of trying to agree on a common solution because we're not qualified. |
| 00:41:17.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:41:17.74 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 00:41:17.79 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:41:17.89 | Michael Heacock | Bye. |
| 00:41:17.96 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:41:17.97 | Michael Heacock | Thank you. |
| 00:41:18.02 | Unknown | It's going to be a knee-jerk reaction, but it's not qualified. That's what she's talking about. |
| 00:41:20.98 | Unknown | And Mr. Mayor, I have a comment. In addition to staff, I think it would be good to perhaps include it in the sausalito currents to let some of the neighborhood know, for example, the Spring Valley Association neighborhood around 7-Eleven because this could impact them if the one-way street is going, would be sending all traffic back up to that stoplight at Easter Beach. |
| 00:41:20.99 | Unknown | And Mr. Mayor, |
| 00:41:45.28 | Mike Dillabaugh | We'll be happy to coordinate with whoever you like. I mean, I'm not. |
| 00:41:48.31 | Unknown | I think the way he's diagrammed it, it would still be two ways up until that intersection. It's just between that – I don't know what that alleyway is called. There's no name to it. Yeah, but – Between that and Marina Plaza is the one way. |
| 00:41:48.35 | Mike Dillabaugh | Thank you. |
| 00:41:56.43 | Mike Dillabaugh | There's no name to it. Thank you. All right. I'm sorry. |
| 00:41:59.11 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:41:59.59 | Mike Dillabaugh | Yeah. |
| 00:42:03.62 | Unknown | Right, and to exit, though, they would have to go up. to the intersection that have to go up Marinship Way to the intersection at Easterby and Bridgeway, right? |
| 00:42:15.06 | Mike Dillabaugh | Right, right. |
| 00:42:15.50 | Unknown | That's how they would exit it. |
| 00:42:15.52 | Mike Dillabaugh | That's it. Like I said, I spent about a week off and on studying, figuring out how to do this. And the lawyers were, don't fix any until the lawsuit's done, don't fix anything, don't fix anything. And then they said, why haven't you got it fixed already? |
| 00:42:18.82 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:42:33.37 | Mike Dillabaugh | That's right. |
| 00:42:33.45 | Unknown | Yeah. This works. |
| 00:42:35.53 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:42:36.27 | Unknown | Well, we appreciate you offering us the opportunity to decide which way it would go one way, but as a traffic engineer and you've had your engineers look at it, what was your determination of which might be the better way to go? |
| 00:42:48.02 | Mike Dillabaugh | Like I said earlier, it really almost came down to a 50-50 thing. No matter how you looked at it, there were safety problems. Um, The slowest I've seen people drive was right around this corner as they made the turn from here to here. So more than anything else, that led me to think that the safest thing would be to have the one-way traffic going in this direction. simply because people slow down and actually watch the stop sign. When I'm looking at it from this end, people going that way, You take your chances on being run over as they drive through as fast as they can and many times ignoring the stop sign. So, like I said, there's really no clean way, no matter how you look at it. If I had all the money in the world, I would move these two buildings in. |
| 00:43:42.19 | Unknown | No, um... In the parking lot on Marinship. You have the parking lot, and then you have the city property. Um. |
| 00:43:55.05 | Mike Dillabaugh | The city property is right where the edge of the slope stops. We own all the way up. The federal government owns all the way to the toe of the embankment. |
| 00:44:04.45 | Unknown | I'm seeing if I have this right. As you, where the Army Corps of Engineers parking lot is, is where? |
| 00:44:15.68 | Unknown | Right here. |
| 00:44:16.41 | Unknown | All right. So that means... |
| 00:44:17.15 | Unknown | So that means |
| 00:44:21.03 | Unknown | So that meant that you can't go over unless the city works out something with you to widen that. Is that correct? |
| 00:44:27.93 | Mike Dillabaugh | We can widen all of this grassy area if I can somehow figure out the funds to do that. And I'm currently thinking on how to do that really hard. And I'm saying into the – |
| 00:44:35.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:44:35.16 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:44:40.74 | Unknown | And I'm saying into the |
| 00:44:46.82 | Unknown | And then you would need more space for the parking to extend into where that grassy area is that is owned by the city. Is that correct? |
| 00:44:56.88 | Mike Dillabaugh | Well, this is pretty much the toe of the embankment right here. The shaded area, according to some very old maps, is what we own. Now, one of the things that we'll have done is have it resurveyed. So for the long-term plans, when I'm working with your staff to figure out exactly who owns what and where, when we first started looking at this thing, I'm hoping we're wrong, but from description, it looks like I even own part of your parking lot, which I don't want. That said, once it's resurveyed, I'll be able to answer that question, sir, in much more detail. Thank you. But right now, best we can figure out. is the second it starts to slope up is about where the Army Corps properly stops. |
| 00:45:49.61 | Unknown | thank you and thank you for coming |
| 00:45:52.97 | Unknown | Anybody else want to comment? |
| 00:45:52.99 | Mike Dillabaugh | Thank you. |
| 00:45:53.29 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:45:53.37 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:45:55.72 | Unknown | MR. Yeah, no, my only comment is that if we had to pick on the limited information and knowledge base that I personally have about the subject, this is the right way to do it if this is the plan you want to do with the one-way because you're trying to eliminate the queuing coming off the bridgeway and making it left by the 7-Eleven. |
| 00:46:09.47 | Riley Hurd | Yeah. |
| 00:46:13.54 | Unknown | this would not add to that queuing because you couldn't go any farther to get to Marina Plazas. |
| 00:46:18.35 | Unknown | Knowing nothing about this, I would sort of tend to agree with you. Just for the layman. Yeah, yeah, yeah. |
| 00:46:22.08 | Unknown | Just for the layman. |
| 00:46:23.04 | Mike Dillabaugh | Thank you. |
| 00:46:23.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:46:24.91 | Mike Dillabaugh | Not too much better than you are. |
| 00:46:29.18 | Unknown | Okay. All right, well look, I don't think we're, this is a special presentation, it's not a hearing, so we're not seeking public comment on this. Okay. If we can, then I think it would be worth. Is there any member of the public who'd like to comment on this item? |
| 00:46:58.11 | Peter Van Meter | Hi, Peter Van Meter. As you, this is the first time I think any of us in the audience have heard about this, and it's kind of a shock. I'm guessing that there would be some fairly significant public surprise, and I would actually say outrage, about the convenience lost by switching from a two-way street to a one-way street. And I'm very concerned about the effect on our traffic circulation that is yet to be determined in the Marinship. Thank you. And it seems to me that there Hopefully it could be some accommodation worked out with the Army Corps to in effect delay their activity. I understand what he's talking about, some funding deadlines, et cetera, et cetera. But to somehow see what the impact of this kind of change would be on the circulation plan for the entire Marineship, this seems absolutely essential. If you switch this to a one-way street, there'll be tremendous disruption of normal traffic patterns and flows that are going to be hard to reverse later. So my request is to somehow try to seek accommodation for delay to have this incorporated in the circulation plan. Thank you. |
| 00:47:39.85 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:48:05.64 | Unknown | Thank you, Peter. |
| 00:48:09.54 | Bruce Huff | Hi, I'm Bruce Huff. One of the rare times I disagree with Peter Manmeter, The roadway between Liberty Shipway and Marina Plaza is, in my mind, probably one of the single most dangerous streets in the city of Sausalito. and I've been watching it for 31 years from across the street. I support whatever the Corps wants to do, correct the problems on that street. There are two or three traffic studies that have been done and paid for by private developers, but commissioned by the city that speak to this issue. As someone who sits five days a week, 52 weeks a year, on the corner there, My impression is that the great majority of traffic is going from south to north and not north to south. And so I agree with Mike's assessment that it's much safer to bring it South to North to the stop sign, allow them to stop, make that kind of curious turn there. and go on. I don't think it's going to be a major disruption at all. I think people will get used to it very quickly. And I also think it'll provide pedestrian safety, which we've been trying or promoting for many many years down there and bicycle safety. As far as the toe of the hill is concerned, there has been an improvement district proposed there for at least 20 years. It's been ratified by three or four traffic studies that say that that really completes it. Unfortunately, the Corps only owns half of that. |
| 00:50:02.03 | Mary Wagner | Bye. |
| 00:50:04.98 | Bruce Huff | and the city really does have to get involved with the other half. So I support the core. I support the improvements. I think it'll provide a great deal more safety. We also have a lawsuit going Um, on the infrastructure in the marinship, which is private, which I know there are certain city council people here who think should continue to be private. We don't. but In the meantime, we need to provide for pedestrian and bicycle safety. And that roadway does neither as it exists today. Thank you. |
| 00:50:40.75 | Unknown | Thank you, Bruce. Anybody else want to comment on this item? Okay. Okay. So we'll close public comment. Anybody else up here have anything to say? No? |
| 00:50:55.62 | Unknown | Actually, I do have a quick comment, Mr. Mayor. The certain council member comment was me. And I just wanted to clarify that I am... concerned with private infrastructure in the Marinship, potentially down the road being – I don't think that taxpayers should foot the bill for the repair of private infrastructure in the Marinship. So I just wanted to clarify the comment from the speaker. |
| 00:51:26.64 | Unknown | Okay, well, you've got some feedback tonight. I would also like to reiterate and thank you for coming. |
| 00:51:38.06 | Mike Dillabaugh | Thank you. |
| 00:51:38.11 | Unknown | The Corps is an important part of Solskjaer. |
| 00:51:41.32 | Mike Dillabaugh | And always remember, my boss is a colonel, so if you have any problems, I can't. There you go. All right. Thank you for the information. |
| 00:51:44.34 | Unknown | There you go. All right. Thank you for the information. |
| 00:51:49.03 | Unknown | Thank you. . |
| 00:51:56.15 | Unknown | Um... Our next agenda item 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 So does anybody this evening like would like to make a public comment on any item that is not on the agenda. OK. Ah. |
| 00:52:27.25 | Jeff Jacob | Hello, Mayor. Good evening. Hello, council members. Hello, citizens of Sausalito. I asked Paul, who I know from the Wednesday lunch, which is at 12 o'clock at his church, if anybody wants to come. So that's tomorrow, if you want to meet some of the people who are there. If he would do a prayer or speak about... |
| 00:52:29.09 | Unknown | Hello. |
| 00:52:29.66 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:52:50.37 | Jeff Jacob | What... is the higher picture. that we're all going towards. said, I'm just getting a badge. So he got his badge. I asked a few women that were out there as well to do this. I don't want to be doing this. I don't want to be doing this. but I'm going to. Um, I'm glad that we talked about the Brown Act last week, and now you are responding to people who are publicly commenting, and no longer do you think that you have to remain mute. Also, the three-minute rule is something that you've come up with that's not in the Brown Act, but I understand it's designed to move things along. Well, is there anybody else that's doing a public comment? I don't think there is. I think it's just me. Um... If I can, I'd just like to review a little bit of the, this is the portion for this week. It's numbers. Numbers 13, okay, in the Bible, in the Torah. And what this is about is about the spies who are sent to God. Recontour the land. They find grapes. They find pomegranates. They find figs. They find everything and they come back and they say, this land truly is running with milk and honey. This is perfect. but That's the truth. Those are the facts. Then they tell their opinion. They say, but the people in the land are mighty. They are strong. We are nothing. We are nothing but caterpillars in their eyes. There is no way we can come into this land because these are the Amalekites, these are the Canaanites, these are the Jebusites. They will surely destroy us. They are mighty giant men. So... Because of this, The highest becomes very angry and we were... doomed then to spend 40 years wandering in the desert. this isn't going to happen again. We've learned. We're gonna do it better this time. We're no longer scared of the so-called mighty men. We will tell our truths as they happen and we will take the consequences. So I thank you for listening and Carry on. |
| 00:55:17.55 | Unknown | Thank you. Any other member of the public have any comment? In that case, we will move on. Thank you. We have no action minutes to approve tonight. With regards to the consent calendar, I think before we ask if there's any member of the public to have a comment, I think, Council Member Pfeiffer, you wanted item 4. |
| 00:55:50.66 | Unknown | for F. |
| 00:55:51.41 | Unknown | 4F as a separate vote. Thank you. |
| 00:55:53.51 | Unknown | Yeah, just a quick real call. |
| 00:55:53.53 | Unknown | Thank you. Okay. Is there any member of the public who would like to make a comment on items on the consent calendar? |
| 00:56:02.56 | Jeremy Grazier | Yes. |
| 00:56:03.72 | Unknown | Ah, yes. |
| 00:56:09.55 | Unknown | Were you going to do the reading of the ordinance, or? No. No. We... |
| 00:56:14.64 | Unknown | We don't have the buses. It's on the consent calendar. We don't have to read it again unless you want us to pull it off and read it. |
| 00:56:20.45 | Unknown | I know that they are willing to enforce the ordinance when it is passed. I know that they're going to be conscientious about that. And I also want to thank the council for the work that we have done in the process of doing this. And I want to thank the council for the work that we have done in the process of doing this. I'm being willing to approach this problem and try to come up with a solution. Today I was downtown in Sausalito at 2.30 this afternoon, and I couldn't believe the traffic already. It's a Monday afternoon. And the buses were clogging and the bicycles were clogging and the pedestrians were clogging. And the busses were clogging. And I started thinking about the future It just seems to escalate. It's getting more and more every year. And so I was thinking, maybe sometime in the future, technology could help with this problem. If we had a cap on the number of vehicles that were coming on Alexander, and there would be some way of monitoring that with technology. And you know those big signs on the freeway that have the changeable messages in big lights? When that cap is reached, you could say, residents only, and no buses, no charter buses, no tour buses, so that at least there'd be some alleviation of this problem until it eased off, and then that sign could come off again. Also... Thank you. I was thinking about the quality of life for the residents. And when I was here at one of the last meetings, there were a couple of people that got up and spoke. They've been here 20 years or 30 years, or somebody else said 40 years. Well, my family has actually been here for over 100 years. My grandmother came here in the late 1800s, and my parents grew up here. I grew up here. And, you know, as we have concern for the integrity of the architecture, we want to maintain the beauty of our old buildings, including the one that I own. I feel like we also have to revere the history of the people who live in the buildings and who live in those neighborhoods. I just think this is really important, and I'm very concerned about that. um, There's a little plaque at the foot of North Street stairs I don't know if you're familiar with it. It's a little plaque, Anna Duffy, Little Mother of Old Town. That's my grandmother. And so thank you. Thanks for listening. Thank you. |
| 00:58:53.32 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Is there any other member of the public who would like to say something on the consent calendar? |
| 00:59:03.12 | Sybil | Good evening, Mayor Withey, Vice Mayor, Council Members. I just want to thank you for considering me for reappointment to the Marine Commission on Aging. And it's been a very valuable experience for me, and I've had an opportunity to make quite a contribution, I feel. Things have really come together in South Salido in terms of the village and the members of the Age Family Task Force working together with me and with other members of the community to really, as you know, do a lot of thinking, preparation and activity in order to really work on making Sausalito more age-friendly and to help bring those ideas to the county and to the state. I've been asked if I am reappointed, if I would take over chairmanship of the legislative committee And so I would be happy to do so, and I think I can serve us even better in that way. So thank you for your consideration. I hope I serve you well. |
| 01:00:07.72 | Unknown | Yes. And Sybil, thank you very much for all your hard work. |
| 01:00:13.27 | Unknown | I thought you were going to say you didn't want to do it. |
| 01:00:14.82 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:00:14.84 | Sybil | Yeah. |
| 01:00:14.86 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:00:14.99 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 01:00:15.48 | Unknown | LAUGHTER |
| 01:00:16.41 | Sybil | Bye. |
| 01:00:16.66 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:00:16.80 | Sybil | Thank you. |
| 01:00:16.82 | Unknown | . . Can't get off that easy. |
| 01:00:23.26 | Unknown | Okay, could I have a motion on the consent calendar, please? So moved. |
| 01:00:28.49 | Unknown | I'll make a motion to approve items A through E by acclamation. |
| 01:00:29.32 | Unknown | All right. Vitamins. |
| 01:00:35.21 | Unknown | Check it. |
| 01:00:36.02 | Unknown | All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? |
| 01:00:36.90 | Unknown | Bye. Then I'll make a motion to approve to approve item 4f Second. |
| 01:00:45.55 | Unknown | All in favor? Aye. Opposed? |
| 01:00:48.32 | Unknown | No. |
| 01:00:48.62 | Unknown | that cares for one. Thank you. |
| 01:00:56.05 | Unknown | So our first business item is the renumbered now 6A, which was 6D, the reconsideration of the action taken on May 27, 2014, on the appeal of the Planning Commission decision. So who is the staff member who? |
| 01:01:14.51 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:01:14.55 | Unknown | So Herb and I, they were |
| 01:01:14.56 | Unknown | Well, so Herb and I live within 500 feet of this property, so we don't live together, thank goodness. within 500 feet of a radius of this property. So we are... |
| 01:01:23.37 | Jock | Thank you. . |
| 01:01:23.68 | Unknown | 500 feet of a radius. |
| 01:01:28.60 | Unknown | I'm not going to be a neighbor on the other street. |
| 01:01:30.54 | Unknown | So from a potential financial conflict of interest, we have to recuse ourselves. Thank you. |
| 01:01:36.79 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:01:36.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:01:36.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:01:36.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:01:36.91 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:01:37.60 | Unknown | Thank you. We'll come get you. |
| 01:01:48.84 | Unknown | Mary. |
| 01:01:49.76 | Mary Wagner | Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. The item before you now is agenda item in order for the Council to decide whether it wishes to reconsider an action that was taken on your May 27th meeting on the appeal of the single family residence project located at 206 3rd Street. So the Council did vote to uphold the appeal on May 27th, 3 to 0, without prejudice, which meant that the project could be brought back to the Planning Commission at a future date without having to wait the year period that's outlined in the zoning ordinance for a substantially similar project to be brought back to the city for consideration. Subsequently to that decision, the city received some information from the applicant's attorney. Raising questions regarding the council's action on the 27th and included therein some concerns about the applicant having to pay additional fees as well as the potential application of new zoning regulations, particularly the single family development standards and multi-family zoning districts and how those would impact the project and whether in fact that was actually the council's desire or if in fact The council truly wanted to remand and have some more information. considered by the Planning Commission then returned to the Council. I think it's important to clarify that this really is only an item on whether or not you want to reconsider the appeal. It is not time to discuss the merits of either the application or the appeal, but solely the question of really one of process of whether or not you want to set a future hearing to have more discussion on the appeal of the project at 206 3rd Street. Under Rosenberg's rules of order, which were adopted in June of 2010 by the City Council, A motion to reconsider can be made by anyone who voted in favor of the action and all three of you voted in favor of the decision that you made on the 27th. In order for it to be timely, it has to be made at the meeting when the action was taken or the immediately following meeting, which would be tonight. unless it was over, that rule was overridden by a two-thirds vote of the city council. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. I also wanted to point out that both the applicant and the appellant were notified of this decision or this agenda item being placed on your agenda this evening. They were also told that it wasn't going to be a discussion of the merits and that they would be limited to the typical three-minute public comment period and not given the 15 minutes that they're given during a hearing on the appeal. So again, if the council chooses to reconsider it, we would work with the agenda setting committee to find an appropriate date for that, where your agenda would allow time for that hearing, and it would be noticed as would any public hearing on a project. |
| 01:04:55.56 | Unknown | Thank you, Mary. Is there any brief technical questions now? I'm suggesting that we open it up for public comment straightaway. Thank you. Everybody okay, don't I? Okay. |
| 01:05:09.92 | Mary Wagner | Mr. Mayor, if I may apologize. One other point of clarification. There are a number of late mail items that the city received today that are on the dais. |
| 01:05:19.67 | Unknown | Yes. Okay. Thank you. So at this point, I'm going to open this up for public comment. And as our city attorney indicated, this is not a hearing. And so as a member of the public, any member of the public can make a statement lasting no more than three minutes. |
| 01:05:45.79 | Len Rifkind | Mayor Withee, members of the council, my name is Len Rifkind, as you know I represent Amy Wilson and Gerard Cunningham at 208 3rd Street. And so as the city attorney has just referenced, the only decision before the three of you tonight is whether one of the three of you will consider a motion for reconsideration and whether the council will support that motion. |
| 01:05:59.66 | Mary Wagner | Bye. |
| 01:06:09.79 | Len Rifkind | That's it. This is not the time for any new information to be provided. Um, Basically what I perceive as generated tonight's agenda item was the letter from the applicant's attorney and he basically stated two things in his letter. One, a threat to the city to sue them if they didn't get a different decision. And two, that there was some procedural problem that there were inadequate findings that were made to support the council's decision. And First, I was at the hearing. and second, we've watched the Granicus tape, and therein, the Council's unanimous decision identified effectively four issues, and the four issues were privacy, views, community neighborhood character for the Old Town neighborhood there, and some concern about the soils and drainage. And it, Based upon what I heard on the tape, all of you articulated concerns with all those issues to some degree or another, some less. The mayor said the last issue was a half issue, not a real issue for him. But nonetheless, that, in my view, is enough to support that adequate findings were made, because those are all, at least the first three, privacy, views, and community character and design are factors that are considered under design review. So I would urge the council, now is not the time to consider any new information or to hear new engineering information from the applicant, and to not even consider a motion to reconsider at this point. Thank you. |
| 01:07:45.54 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:07:52.71 | Riley Hurd | Good evening, council. My name is Riley Hurd. I continue to represent the Vanderlindens. I agree with Len. put that in the minutes. The only thing before you this evening is a very narrow legal issue. I think the last hearing got off track in regards to engineering and misinformation about VUE, but we will address that in the appropriate forum. |
| 01:08:12.35 | Mary Wagner | Miss. |
| 01:08:17.79 | Riley Hurd | So I'd like to point out that it's true that courts give a very wide latitude to city councils making decisions. My other clients are often disappointed in hearing about this when they ask me whether they have grounds for a challenge. However, this is one of those circumstances. The case I cited in my letter and its progeny require not just evidence in the record, but specific findings. And there's a reason for that. They say, if you're gonna make a decision that someone's entire let's say equity or home or savings depends on, please bridge the analytical gap between evidence, and do that by making findings. simply put That did not occur at the last hearing. And I understand why. It was an efficiency question, it appeared like to me, and it appeared you wanted this to go back to the commission in a way where it didn't have to come back to you, but unfortunately, the due process rights of my clients were violated when that occurred, and so were the cases in my letter. Um, And this is really important because I think if the findings were gone through from 10.54050 |
| 01:09:36.66 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:09:40.63 | Riley Hurd | I don't think you would have reached the same decision. and That's why the courts say, take those findings in your code And talk about each one. And make a finding as to whether you agree or disagree with it. Um, But we didn't get to that. It was difficult. fairly summary and I disagree with the retelling of what occurred. I was also there, but so were you, so you don't need me to I can tell you that, but I will say that I do not think the current form of the decision will withstand judicial scrutiny. I got 39 seconds and I'll just ask you this. Why do we have appeals? It's so that you can do a de novo look, sit as the planning commission, and give a thorough, thought out, All new decision. to the applicants and the appellants. And that didn't happen. So put the legal stuff aside from a policy standpoint, they didn't get what they're entitled to for that appeal fee, nor did the applicants get their rights. So... I strongly suggest a motion for reconsideration And at that time, if you want to remand it to the PC, you want to make the same decision, you can do it. Thank you. |
| 01:10:56.78 | Unknown | Thank you. Is there any other member of the public who would like to comment on this item? |
| 01:11:09.59 | Jerry Taylor | Thank you. |
| 01:11:09.61 | Unknown | Jerry. |
| 01:11:10.05 | Jerry Taylor | Thank you. my name is Jerry Taylor I live at 210 3rd Street on the other side of Cunningham Wilson property I stated my complaints my concerns about this project to you before I'm not going to rehash them I am disappointed in the council in that I don't know what... rejecting something without prejudice as opposed to rejecting something with prejudice wherever I'd seen anything that was so wrong What more does it take to become a prejudicial decision and say, get back? Now they're holding a gun to your head and threatening to sue you. That's the way they've treated us in the neighborhood also. Thank you. |
| 01:11:51.51 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:12:01.01 | Jenny Wasser | Hi. Jenny Wasser, 203 3rd Street, and I live across the street from the the project. Um... I'm a 27-year resident of Third Street, and I am writing to support your decision to uphold the appeal without prejudice on the matter of the Planning Commission's decision approving the design review permit of this new single-family home at 206 Third Street. I ain't got that off. The May 27th decision was based on articulated evidence that views of the neighbors, specifically the Cunninghams and mine, would be impacted. The Vanderlindens, the developers, who are coincidentally still running in a legal hotel deceived me when they repeatedly approached me over a year's time that my view of Tiburon and the Rackham Straits would not be blocked. They showed me Photoshop renderings that my view would even be improved. when in fact the second set of story polls showed definitively otherwise. I showed you correct photos at the May 27th meeting. They even attempted to bribe me to approve their project with a talk of supporting an undergrounding of wires project. It is appropriate that the Vanderlindens be held to the new regulation so wisely passed that changes a lot coverage back to 45% rather than 65% for a single-family home. Their proposed coverage is now 59%. Perhaps then my views of the water would not be impacted. Thank you for your consideration. |
| 01:13:40.47 | Unknown | Any other member of the public? |
| 01:13:47.51 | Michael Heacock | Mayor Withee, City Council members, Michael Heacock, the architect for the Vanderlandens. Just a couple things. It appeared to me that your intent with the ruling you made at the City Council meeting may not have actually been the outcome that we got, in that we're required to submit an entirely new design review application as if we had never submitted a project previously. Maybe that was your intent and I misread you, but it didn't seem to me like that was your intent. The second point is simply that I don't feel we've really had an opportunity to discuss additional concessions that might be made not only to the appellant but to the other neighbors. And there are modifications that could be made, other things that can be done to the project to meet these people's needs. So I guess for lack of a better way of saying it, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here and we'd like a chance to be re-heard or remanded back to Planning Commission without being required to submit an entirely new application under a new zoning ordinance paying all new fees to the city for that process. Thank you. |
| 01:15:10.47 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:15:18.26 | Amy Wilson | My name is Amy Wilson. I am a homeowner at 208 Third Street. I'm here to oppose the City Council rehearing the appeal of the Planning Commission's design approval for 206. I went back and listened to the tape and had the same questions, like, did they do what they meant to do? And when I heard it again, here's what I took away. For starters, the council carefully considered both sides of the issue. They visited the sites, they read the reports and the letters, which were many in number and hefty in length. They watched the presentations, heard the public comments, the rebuttals, and asked questions. In all, you spent 90 minutes on the agenda item at the hearing. and untold hours preparing, And then, in the hearing, each council member articulated which pieces of the plans made it impossible for them you to support approval of it. Linda raised issues, Council Member Pfeiffer, sorry, raised issues about privacy and the impact on the character of the neighborhood. Council Member Theodorus listed things like input from the neighbors who had opposed the project, the fact that no story polls were erected for the deck, and concerns raised by the Geotech Report, all as reasons not to deny our appeal. And Mayor Withy cited two and a half issues. Character of the neighborhood as one, views and privacy as the second, and engineering as a half issue. Council Member Pfeiffer said, It sounds like they could collaborate and come together on something that would enhance the street. That would require submitting a new design. to do that. Based on all of the statements by the council, the city attorney concluded that, quote, If what you're saying is that we can't uphold the project, we want to take action to have it all redone, another option is to uphold the appeal, but without prejudice so that the project could be resubmitted. So yes, they have to submit a new plan under new ordinances, but they are allowed to submit a plan within a year that has similarities. But for them, you get what I'm saying. Thank you. That is what the council decided unanimously, and it was based on a preponderance of evidence and their interpretation of that evidence. Yes, I think the way it all works is that they have to do a motion with findings, and that's coming. The person who would have prepared that was on vacation, but that will happen, and it doesn't need to be completely re-heard. Thank you very much. |
| 01:18:03.20 | Unknown | Thank you. Is there any other member of the public who would like to comment on this item? Okay, seeing none, I will close the public comment. and bring it up here. |
| 01:18:23.28 | Unknown | So on May 27, we voted to up. uphold the appeal without prejudice so that the matter could return to the Planning Commission without waiting the one-year period set forth in the zoning ordinance to run. I know when I voted, I was certainly not rejecting the project. I wanted to send it back to the Planning Commission to give the matter further consideration and to resolve issues that had come to the city council and resolved. I know that different people have may have looked at the tape which is flattering or interesting in some ways, but certainly I know that I didn't make any statements as to what I found on each of these issues. and we're not going to get in the merits of it, but certainly I wanted it to send back to the I had some idea that this was going to go back to the Planning Commission. Upon reflection, Afterwards, with input from both counsel for the parties and staff, I've come to the conclusion that procedurally that was probably not the right thing to do, It may have been more appropriate to simply remand Matter back to the Planning Commission or to take some other action. because it had a few unintended consequences. I certainly in making that vote did not. want to make the applicant on the project go through a whole different design review, I did not want the applicant to be subject to further Zoning ordinance restrictions in the new zoning ordinance, and I certainly didn't want the applicant to pay other fees. Um, And, So at this stage, I think I thought it would go back to the Planning Commission and they would start anew, but since they can't, I've been advised by our city attorney that the... What we have to do is Make a motion for reconsideration. and And then we would again have to hear one more time at the council level to decide what we might want to do, which in which case we could uphold the appeal. We could deny the appeal. We could send it back. We could do a lot of things. And in that course, we'd make findings. So it's my recommendation. After a comment, I would certainly be happy to make a motion. But my recommendation is that we move to reconsider the matter. |
| 01:20:42.45 | Unknown | Well, I remember the conversations and the public comment distinctly. I remember having concerns regarding privacy. I have concerns regarding the views, concerns regarding the historic character and the scale. And it was my recollection as well that we had identified, at least I had identified these concerns for sending it back to the Planning Commission for a review in collaboration with the neighbors to hopefully get a better product. And after reading the letters from the legal counsel, and it appears that we made a procedural error in terms of how we went about that. So it sounds like what we have to do is move forward with the reconsideration and do another public hearing and then, you know, move forward from there. |
| 01:21:53.81 | Unknown | Okay. I agree with my colleagues on this and would entertain a motion. |
| 01:22:02.15 | Unknown | Thank you. I move that this council reconsider its action taken on May 27, 2014, upholding the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision approving a design permit or to a 6 3rd Street. and to hold a public hearing at a future date to determine what course of action we should take Regarding that appeal, including whether we should demand the matter to The Planning Commissioner takes some other action. |
| 01:22:27.19 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:22:29.27 | Unknown | I just want to comment and stress that this is not an action we are taking that reflects upon the merits of the project. In other words, we are not saying, you know, we're not discussing those issues. We are sticking to procedural. We need to do the procedure right. And we did it wrong. |
| 01:22:53.82 | Unknown | So are you second then? I second then. |
| 01:22:54.75 | Unknown | A second, then. |
| 01:23:00.16 | Unknown | So we've got a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries 3-0. |
| 01:23:13.44 | Unknown | Our next item No. This would be a logical break. Is it too early or are you...? Okay. I will adjourn this meeting for five minutes. |
| 01:23:48.55 | Unknown | Okay, so the next item is the new item 6B, was 6A, which is the City Council Priority Calendar, Step 3. And with that, I think it's over to our city manager. |
| 01:24:03.29 | Adam Politzer | Thank you, Mr. Mayor, City Council members, members of the public. Yes, we made it to step three. And I told you folks at the beginning that step One in three are the more difficult steps. because it requires action to be taken Um, And to remind the public, step one is to review the list of items to be placed on the priority calendar. We placed 24 items during the meeting The first step one meeting, we heard public comment. We reviewed information provided by the Planning Commission, the Park and Rec Commission, HLB, Trees and Views. and so on and so forth, a variety of commissions and boards. sent forward their requests to be considered, and then as well as members of the public. Council heard those items, narrowed the list to 24. uh, directed staff to review those, come back with their comments on projects that they could their staffing. and workload. and then the council reviewed those, asked questions to staff for clarification, took public comment, and then continued to the next step, which is where we are now. between That last meeting and tonight, each of the council members reviewed the 24 items and ranked them as individuals. submitted those to the City Clerk. She's received from all five council members. And she'll show tonight how each of the council members ranked them, and then how that averages out. You'll take a look at how these now average out, and so that it's one voice, not individual voice of the council. ONE VOICE OF THE COUNCIL, and which item ranked as the highest priority, down to not as important of a part but still important to the community and still important to the city. but didn't make the top of the list. I had previously suggested that we keep the list under 10. items above the line. That's one of the things that you will do tonight is draw the line items that we will work. putting both staff resources towards and as we go through the budget later tonight, And as we continue in the budget process, make sure that budget is allocated for items that are above the line where where needed and where available. We may find that we don't have the money tonight. or through the budget process. to allocate funds towards it, and we'll have to wait until money becomes available down Um, down the line. based on how our property taxes are doing, how our revenues are doing for programs that we collect revenues, sales tax, and all the other parking fines, all the other areas that generate revenue for the city. And if we are doing better than we had anticipated, then that would be the time to lend money to appoint money to these projects that may be above the line that aren't yet funded. The other option are for items that are above the line is for the community to step forward and either through volunteer efforts or through fundraising efforts raise money to help fund some of these projects And the community will be empowered to do that at any time, and we welcome them to do so, both on a volunteer effort or on a fundraising effort. And several of the boards and commissions already do a lot of this on their own. And in some cases, they will be the lead on some of these projects as identified on the list of 24. So tonight's action by the council is to review the 24 items that have now been ranked collectively by the body. and confirm that it's in the right sequence, that you are comfortable with how it turned out. THEY DO. You didn't. misinterpret something and cast your vote the wrong way. and would like to ask staff again for clarification. And you may even, if you feel necessary, change your vote. Um, Once you have made a decision that the order is correct, then you will draw the line and the council will say this is where the line should be drawn. So I'm going to ask Debbie to put up the list now and we can take a quick look at this back to the parking or the one-way street |
| 01:28:26.83 | Adam Politzer | which we're keeping this a two-way street right now. So you can see the alphabetical list here, and then to the right are how the council members voted. And we're not going to keep this up for very long. It's too small, too much information. We'll post this on the website so the public can take a look at this. I will send it out to the council so that they can take a look at it. Thank you. And if you need us to reflect back to this so you can look at what you've ranked We can do that. It is important to point out that Councilmember Pfeiffer Did not. rank the Business Analytics Service and SAS report She actually had added an item related to bicycles, And so we had to obviously delete that because that wasn't on the list of the 24 And so if Councilmember Pfeiffer would like to, and re-examination. number three so that it has a vote or leave it blank. If it's left blank, it's just averaged by four. We go to the next – the average, the next column there, or the next page. |
| 01:29:38.55 | Adam Politzer | at the column. |
| 01:29:45.11 | Adam Politzer | Okay. So when you look to the far right and you go down there, you can see how in the alphabetical listing here how it all shapes out. And again, to point out that on the Business Analytics Service Status Report, number three that that is averaged by four because that item was left blank by Councilmember Pfeiffer. So now when we come to the averaging of this and then look at the new rank from top to |
| 01:30:23.52 | Adam Politzer | Drum roll, drum roll. |
| 01:30:40.04 | Mike Dillabaugh | I mean, time. Thank you. |
| 01:30:44.36 | Unknown | Kiss, still thinking. |
| 01:30:52.41 | Adam Politzer | Maybe just to the left. There you go. |
| 01:30:55.48 | Sybil | I don't think I'm going to be a little bit |
| 01:30:56.97 | Adam Politzer | Yeah. Close it down. |
| 01:31:09.25 | Adam Politzer | Okay, so now the left-hand column where the numbers are, are obviously not in sequence. If you see up at top and the many in the audience I'm sure will be pleased with this outcome. but the beautification projects now is the highest priority of the city council. |
| 01:31:31.85 | Adam Politzer | Also looking in the audience, I can see that the number two highest priority is the Dunphy Park schematic master plan. |
| 01:31:42.80 | Adam Politzer | And then I won't go through the rest, but if you're in the audience and your favorite is in the top, 5, then you should be very happy. I'm not sure. So where it gets challenging, and in the past years, there's been a clear break of where we would draw the line. And so when I was suggesting maybe seven or 10, there's no clear break at that number, so you really have to go all the way down to the Friends of the Park program which ends up with an average of 12, and I'm saying, after that item is where you would draw the break. which I believe gives you 14 items. above the line. The items start at 11.6, which is formula retail zoning ordinance those items would fall below the line, it doesn't mean that we can't look at moving those up at a later time based on staff's availability, and resources for consultants to help us write those ordinances and work with the legislative committee on up to the Planning Commission and to the council. But that's where I'm suggesting that you draw the line which on the far left column now you can see it in numerical order, That would be at number 15. and above. would be above the line items, 15 down to Um, 25 because the numbers are off there. Okay, I see 15 to 25, which is technically 14 to 24, would be items that fall below the And so at this point, I'm welcoming Council comments. our questions and then you can obviously take public comment. but your actions tonight are to review that they're in the right sequence. And I don't recommend that you go one through 24, but if something jumped out at you that it just happened by chance that it got voted low, either because the clarification wasn't clear and you need new information or more information from staff, or if Or if you would like to leave it as is, then the opportunity to draw the line. My recommendation at line 15 there. at Friends of the Park Program, everything above that. Everything including that would be above the line, everything below it would be below. Thank you. |
| 01:34:08.31 | Unknown | So, |
| 01:34:08.53 | Unknown | So do we have any, again, sort of technical questions on this process and the issue rather than commentary before we open it to the public? |
| 01:34:19.67 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor, I do. Before we open it. Yes. So, Adam, you mentioned when we started the process this year that your preference was that we draw the line at 7. And the other thing that was different about this year is many of the projects that are near and dear to my heart, like enforcing bicycle safety, writing tickets for sidewalks, and running red lights, etc., And projects like repairing roads and such were taken off the list and put in as, like, projects that staff was working on. Therefore, they weren't on the list to rank. I personally disagree with that approach, but I understand it. So anyway, that's why I put the bicycle safety enforcement as my number one priority. But my question, because you had initially requested we draw the line at 7, presumably is it correct to say that if we lower that line to like 13 or 10 projects, does that mean that the projects above the line then get potentially less time from staff? In other words, we're casting a wider net and therefore, you know, doing the resource load, you know, in a wider way as well? In other words, would these – would our top priority projects be better served by bringing up the line to your recommended seven to ensure they get the amount of time necessary to get things done? |
| 01:35:55.69 | Adam Politzer | Yeah, it's a very good question. And just to clarify, I think what the staff report said in step one, Plus the recommendation was 10. I think my encouragement knowing how aggressive the council has been in previous years to expand from the middle, which in the past has been around 25. was to encourage them to rather than going more than 10, to actually go less than 10. Thank you. So what the recommendation – it was the line to be around 10. Um, But until they are ranked, until we actually see what items are ranked and what involvement is required by staff and what involvement is required by – or being offered by the it can change that. So in this case, those first two items, the beautification projects, a lot of that work is being done Thank you. BY SHELBY AND THE COMMUNITY. that's working to work with the public Public Works Department and the Park and Recreation Department. to do a lot of the heavy lifting there. we're already including some of the maintenance responsibility in increasing the maintenance in the city's budget. We've already addressed some of that. in the city's budget. So in that one, that can take you now down to 11. Dunphy Park Schematic Master Plan. Jacques Allman and Paul Leving, Mr. Leffingwell, thank you. They are, again, two folks that have been working on this with the Friends of Dunphy for multiple years, but they've now got into the technical components of this and have done a workshop which the council supported last year above the line, and has brought that forward. So as we look at the list here, I'm sorry. I think that there are certain things that are going to fall onto city staff and some that are going to fall onto the Boards and commissions and some that will fall on consultants that will need consultants to help us. So I think that's why I'm recommending that you push it down Um... to Fort where did I say it was, 15 Friends of the Park program and Friends of the Park Program The Park and Rec Commission is one of the groups there that will do a lot of the heavy lifting to help that program move forward. So I hope that answers part of your question. |
| 01:38:14.13 | Unknown | So I guess what I heard then is an assumption that because our top two priorities have a lot of resident support and organization behind them, |
| 01:38:14.15 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 01:38:25.66 | Unknown | there is a potential assumption there that the The staff time would be um, lessened and therefore we would lower the bar? Is that what I heard? Because I'm not sure if – I guess I'd listen to public comment to hear their comments about that. |
| 01:38:45.97 | Unknown | Listen to this. Yeah. |
| 01:38:49.35 | Unknown | show. Is there anybody else who? |
| 01:38:51.26 | Unknown | I just have a question. Debbie, is there something below the last item? It looks like it. There's something like poking. No, not that far down. Okay, no, it's just the top of zero, I guess. |
| 01:39:08.42 | Jonathon Goldman | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:39:10.48 | Unknown | That was my technical question. This is questions. Yeah. And then I'll get into my commission list. |
| 01:39:12.81 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:39:12.82 | Unknown | This is... |
| 01:39:13.28 | Unknown | Question. |
| 01:39:13.72 | Unknown | Yeah. So again, we're looking for clarifying questions up here from Council at this point before I open this up to public comment. Yeah. |
| 01:39:25.02 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:39:25.04 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:39:25.06 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:39:25.26 | Peter Van Meter | Thank you. |
| 01:39:25.36 | Unknown | basically. |
| 01:39:25.61 | Unknown | There. |
| 01:39:25.63 | Unknown | Terrifying question. |
| 01:39:25.83 | Jonathon Goldman | Bye. |
| 01:39:29.21 | Unknown | Where'd that go? I don't know what number, 15, which is now It's project number 15, which is a rank of 13, whatever. That is, the way that sentence keeps going, it was kind of different than I remember it being phrased, because the way I thought it was phrased was just too, it would just be about the maritime and artistic things, but it's phrased in this summary as being similar to these things, so it was limited to, not limited to, but including. |
| 01:40:03.82 | Unknown | that saw those goals, including maritime and arts business. |
| 01:40:09.94 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:40:09.96 | Unknown | Right. |
| 01:40:10.84 | Unknown | I think we clarified it that way. |
| 01:40:12.81 | Unknown | Yeah, in fact, the history of this is that last year it was reworded. |
| 01:40:13.74 | Unknown | If I, |
| 01:40:22.62 | Unknown | like to be this. |
| 01:40:24.02 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:40:24.61 | Unknown | Thank you. In the last meeting, you brought it up again, and you said, wow, I like that word. |
| 01:40:27.65 | Unknown | No, I'm just trying to. Meeting. You brought it up again. Yeah, so let's stick with that. |
| 01:40:34.72 | Unknown | I like it now. That's my technical question. |
| 01:40:34.99 | Unknown | I like it now. |
| 01:40:37.03 | Unknown | a question |
| 01:40:38.55 | Unknown | All right, that's my second tip. |
| 01:40:39.58 | Unknown | you |
| 01:40:39.64 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:40:39.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:40:40.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:40:40.13 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:40:40.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:40:40.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:40:41.42 | Unknown | Anybody... |
| 01:40:42.07 | Unknown | Well I do have one, so, The fact that staff recommended against it didn't make any difference because we have at least three up there that staff recommended against. Or does that play into it? We were free to do that. |
| 01:40:54.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:40:54.04 | Unknown | We were free to get it. |
| 01:40:54.81 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:40:56.00 | Unknown | Which one does it? Three of the, I think the... The Marinship Historic District and Historic Register Nomination Mills Act and Noteworthy Structures staff recommends against all of us. |
| 01:41:13.34 | Unknown | And if- |
| 01:41:13.72 | Unknown | By the way, I'm going to make the comment now. One of the things is, and for historic preservation, having been on the Historic Landmarks Board for four years, but we do have five historic. preservation, projects above the line And we're working on the historic regulations as we speak, and we have No one in community development now that can really handle it. So I think that's part of the reason staff recommended against it. So I guess I'm jumping the gun, but that's a little bit of an issue for me on that. It may be more than we want to do at one time. |
| 01:41:51.67 | Unknown | Any other clarifying questions? |
| 01:41:55.13 | Unknown | I have a clarifying question, which is I would echo Councilmember Leon's comment. I know we discussed the wording for the marinship, and I know that – |
| 01:42:04.73 | Peter Van Meter | It's not the branch, it's just the two branches. Yeah, I'm trying to find it. |
| 01:42:07.09 | Unknown | Yeah, I'm trying to find it. Where is it? |
| 01:42:08.73 | Peter Van Meter | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:42:08.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:42:08.98 | Peter Van Meter | Here it is. |
| 01:42:09.23 | Unknown | Here it is, local. Yeah. Okay. And I know that the way it landed was including maritime and arts businesses, but the spirit that I – the meaning that I had at the time of the conversation was targeting, not including, but targeting maritime and arts businesses. And that's why I ranked that when I looked at it later, you know, out of the fog of a late night meeting or all the rigorous discussion I saw the word including, And that was a flag for me. And that's why I didn't rank it as high as I might have if it had said targeting maritime and arts businesses, because I think that that's a real gap in what I've been seeing so far. |
| 01:43:01.09 | Unknown | Any other questions before I open this up to the public? |
| 01:43:04.43 | Unknown | I guess my question out of that was, would you consider changing including to targeting? I know we're kind of reengineering after the fact, but if that was the spirit of not only Council Member Leon in my hope, but also reflects the spirit of what the other Council Members are thinking, perhaps we would have synergy changing including to targeting. |
| 01:43:06.51 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:43:06.52 | Unknown | you can |
| 01:43:06.96 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:43:30.11 | Unknown | Targeting maritime and art services. |
| 01:43:30.30 | Unknown | I didn't marry him. We can have that discussion during the discussion period. |
| 01:43:34.70 | Unknown | Okay, well, I'll leave that question out there. |
| 01:43:38.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:43:38.72 | Unknown | anybody, |
| 01:43:38.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:43:39.14 | Unknown | Thank you. TODAY. |
| 01:43:40.95 | Unknown | Any more questions? Okay. Let's open this up for public comment. So... Again, as usual, anybody is welcome to comment on these priority calendar items, its ranking, and your three minutes shall be. |
| 01:44:03.04 | Shelby | We're absolutely thrilled to be at the top of the priority list. We've worked hard for the last 11 months. It was about 11 months ago exactly that I came and said, what is going on with Sausalito? Our landscapes look horrible. And since that time, positiveness has just bloomed everywhere with Public Works, with Adam, with all of you council members. And we are very, very grateful. In terms, Adam, I will just comment about our ability to do heavy lifting immediately. I'm not sure that's the case. We have a planning group right now that's organizing Sausalito Beautiful. We do not yet have a board of directors, but we are proceeding with all due diligence to work with Public Works. We're meeting with them on the 18th to talk about project priorities and how we can best work together. So a great deal is underway. We have someone who will be in charge of marketing. We're looking into our 501. We're really, really flourishing in terms of the planning for getting this organization going. It was just decided this week that we would be co-sponsoring with Public Works and with the Parks and Rec Department at the first beautification day. As to how that will play out, we're not sure yet, but there will be a tour going on on Monday to try to determine what are the sites that should be addressed in October for a beautification day. So know that we're working very hard and we'll do what we can, but our original premise was that we have to start out THOUGHTFULLY, WITH A WELL-ESTABLISHED BASE, BECAUSE WE INTEND THIS ORGANIZATION TO GO ON way, way, way into the future. So we don't want to rush into our way of approaching the public and gathering support. But you can be guaranteed that we will do all we can in the near future to help out with beautification in meaningful ways. And thank you so much for your vote of confidence and for your joining us and believing that the time has come to have our landscapes begin the process of really being beautiful. So Sausalito's natural beauty will be commensurate with our physical beauty as a built landscape. So thank you so, so much. We are totally thrilled, yes? |
| 01:46:05.62 | Unknown | you |
| 01:46:26.69 | Shelby | and we'll see a lot more of you. Thank you. |
| 01:46:26.86 | Unknown | real soon. |
| 01:46:31.49 | Unknown | And thank you all for your hard work. Josh. |
| 01:46:38.47 | Jock | japan and friends of the park first we want to thank you for the support you've given us so far as a result of that support you actually have completed it from the very cinematic master plan which we are anxious present to you we hope that we can get on your agenda soon we already and uh... actually we feel that there is some sense of urgency because there are projects coming up, particularly with regards to parking for Galilee and for Cass Marina. And we do have a parking solution suggestion in our plan, which coordinates with other aspects of the park plan. So we feel it's really important that he that we present this and that the that process move forward uh... also actually in a way connected with the beautification project we feel with the our plan does not include any uh... planting yet because we feel that for planting to be successful it must be chosen as a result of soil tests and those results being reviewed by horticulturalists and getting that advice so that you prepare the soil properly you choose plant materials appropriate for the soil and the climate that's been one of the reasons for the failure of our beautification in town. So we are going to need funding for that, and perhaps funding is the next item, so I'll come up again and talk about that. But in terms of priorities, we actually are coming toward the end of our heavy lifting. We've got a plan ready, obviously. It's a draft and it'll have to be worked on again after taking comments and so on, but the staff is gonna have to begin to work on the details if we want to move forward with the actual work. Thank you. |
| 01:46:51.57 | Mary Wagner | Go ahead and do that. |
| 01:47:24.19 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:48:43.01 | Unknown | Thank you. Any other member of the public? |
| 01:48:49.83 | Jeff Jacob | Hello, council and mayor again. Thank you. and Shelby and Jacques. This is along the lines of beautification, which is number one on this list. The last list from last year had as number 54 was showers for the Anchorage, water, which we now have one public fountain in Dunphy Park, which is on. Thank you. And number 50 was community gardens. |
| 01:49:23.53 | Jeff Jacob | I'm just going to leave that for a second. |
| 01:49:27.26 | Unknown | No, it's a good point, Jeff, and I wish you were here at the last council meeting because I brought both of those. No, in the last one we discussed this, and I tried to get them both on this calendar, and they didn't make it. |
| 01:49:31.00 | Jeff Jacob | I brought both those. |
| 01:49:37.82 | Jeff Jacob | Okay, well, we have a solution. It looks like we can go into the promised land. The owner behind there, and where the police station stood. The landowner has now agreed to sponsor a community garden. |
| 01:49:57.62 | Jeff Jacob | So, I would rather not go through any bureaucratic hoops because I'm a little bit Tired of that because it hasn't led anywhere in this particular endeavor? So I say the people will lead and the people will follow here. So we have permission from him as far as the land goes. As far as the water goes, there is a city Water supply right there. And I have $5 in my pocket to pay for the first 100 gallons of water that we will use for this community garden. We are ready to do this. We will do this. We can meet you on Saturday at 11.30. We all gather at Dunphy Park, as we've been doing for a number of months by the pagoda, all the people from the Anchorage. This is not just the Anchorage, this is for everybody. Community garden, 20 feet by 20 feet for individuals and a space for other people. This is so people can grow their own food, so they don't have to rely on checks from the government. So they don't have to rely on a white van to take them to churches. So they can grow... They're Own. So I hope to see you there if you have any contributions to make for this, mailboxes, etc., which is at 1000 Bridgeway. My friend Tom will accept any contributions. We don't need any money from the city. We just... need for us to come together in unity. I'm praying. that this happens. If it doesn't happen, then I'm the one that's accountable. My name is Jeff Jacob. Thank you. |
| 01:51:41.38 | Unknown | Thank you. Any other member of the public like to comment on the priority calendar rankings? Okay, seeing no others, we will bring it back here for discussion. And so, Adam. Sorry, I keep turning that off. The process you'd like us to go through here, you just want us to find a line and to have a cross-check that everything, that there isn't anything below it that should be above it. |
| 01:52:19.64 | Adam Politzer | That's correct. I think Vice Mayor Theodorus shared that there are some items there that were not recommended, and there are some – in the staff report, under the staff's and department's recommendations, it talks about a sequence, and there are, you know, at least two that are above the line at the moment, based on drawing the line at 14 items, that you may want to reconsider pushing those down and moving something else up. or leaving it as is and letting staff work out the sequence, it's still fine. to have the item above the line, ultimately staff will come back with a calendar of when these projects will move forward, and some of the items don't take place until the second half of the year. Some of them don't take place until the last quarter of the year of the fiscal year. So you can defer that discretion back to staff if you want to leave. THE LIST AS IS. But if something jumps out at you and you want to move it, or as Councilmember Pfeiffer was suggesting, if there's some negotiations that would like to take place on adding or changing language, that is also at your discretion. |
| 01:53:24.65 | Mary Wagner | Yeah. |
| 01:53:41.94 | Unknown | Okay, who would like to go first. |
| 01:53:46.36 | Unknown | Ms. Thank you. number 13, the local economic development, although I guess before we Maybe the starting point is where we want to draw the line. I don't know. Anyway, if we were to keep that up there and the line were to drop below 7, I guess my preference would be to change including to targeting maritime and arts businesses with respect to |
| 01:54:28.07 | Unknown | Just send me this so I can see my right. |
| 01:54:31.99 | Unknown | OK. You know what, as I'm looking at this, this is local economic development, but it doesn't mention the Marin ships. And my recollection was we were talking about the marineship in the context of that. No. Oh, okay. |
| 01:54:40.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:54:40.86 | Unknown | No. |
| 01:54:41.03 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:54:41.06 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:54:41.99 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:54:44.39 | Unknown | Oh, I do believe it may have been mentioned. |
| 01:54:44.85 | Unknown | Sorry. |
| 01:54:48.24 | Unknown | I'm going to, on that particular point, The way it's phrased, I think we're missing it. I think because to... I think... The idea was that we were going to look at the marineship about attracting businesses. Otherwise, it's a general study regarding businesses, just maritime and arts. I certainly don't support that. And maybe we can find a way to combine that with the Business Analytics Service Status Report because that's actually the other thing. I mean, so I think, I mean, I agree with you. I'm not sure which way we should go, As written, I think it misses the mark. |
| 01:55:23.40 | Unknown | Yeah, and thank you, Vice Mayor Theodoros, because I did think that it was referring to the Marinship. My recollection of the conversation was that context, but it's not. It's just general. So it makes sense to have just including maritime and arts businesses. |
| 01:55:42.86 | Unknown | Again, if you study the derivation of this, you'll realize that it had nothing to do with the Marin show. At the beginning, yes. And then it happened. |
| 01:55:46.03 | Unknown | Thank you. No, at the beginning, yes. And then I put that. |
| 01:55:50.51 | Unknown | Yeah. But I also actually do see the merit of perhaps somehow bringing this together with the business analytics work because – This was discussed in significant detail last year. Now, last year was last year, right? It was discussed in significant detail because we actually wanted a reorient say, the Business Advisory Committee away from the marineship and start looking at the whole city. and making sure the whole of the city's economic development was thought through. and including arts and maritime uses. The fact that maritime uses may be interfacing with the ranch ship much more than others is, in my mind, was a fact. But this was a citywide issue, in my mind, anyway. |
| 01:56:57.18 | Unknown | And Mr. Mayor, if I may, and this is the little historical context before your term is, I had initially voted to support the local economic study under the caveat It would not step over current zoning in the marineship. In other words, focus on Maritone Art. And what happened is they didn't do that. So the next time I voted against it. |
| 01:57:24.10 | Unknown | Right. But that's not what this was. You see, there was a separate priority calendar item relating to an economic development report specifically on the marineship, and that was a separate item from this. You will find that that particular one, which was the business advisory group's focused second report on the marineship, actually fell below the line last year. It's actually a different priority. |
| 01:57:56.87 | Unknown | Yeah, and one thing, and it is very confusing, but... And I know there was a different history And in our list of prospective projects that we got from staff, It lists this item and it says proposed action. Under the stewardship of the Marinship Specific Plan Steering Committee, contract for a market, economic, and fiscal analysis of an illustrative scenario. At any rate, I know when I ranked it, I thought we were going to need to do this for the Marinship Specific Plan, and so I ranked it accordingly. If it morphs into something broader, I think I'd need to reconsider. Fair enough. That's fair enough. |
| 01:58:29.62 | Unknown | . Fair enough. That's fair enough. |
| 01:58:33.03 | Unknown | Thank you for pointing that out because he's right. When you look at the definition, it is described as being part of the marineship, you know, |
| 01:58:33.10 | Unknown | you |
| 01:58:41.03 | Unknown | in the context of the MarinShip Specific Plan. |
| 01:58:44.20 | Unknown | So if that's the case and we're not – does staff have any thoughts on that? Because thank you for pointing that out. I actually hadn't noticed that. |
| 01:58:53.70 | Unknown | Yeah. Yeah. Notice. So I'm back to my original request to change him, including to targeting. |
| 01:58:57.55 | Unknown | Yeah, yeah. I think that's it. |
| 01:59:02.73 | Adam Politzer | Yeah, I might have Charlie come up and comment on this. I think you're right. I think the council is right that it has... had an evolution of its own, and when STAFF THEN WENT BACK TO LOOK AT WHAT NEXT STEPS WERE. I THINK THE CONVERSATION RELATED TO THE MARINESHIP STEERING COMMITTEE, THOSE PRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL, have also blended into this. So maybe Charlie can share a little bit more. |
| 01:59:32.16 | Jeffrey Chase | Thank you. |
| 01:59:32.24 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:59:34.12 | Jeffrey Chase | is It's just exactly that. When I looked at that item, I listened to the prior discussions of the City Council and the Mirrorship Specific Plan Steering Committee. Looking at marine type industries, I saw this item as being a furtherance of the Mirrorship Specific Plan and next step. |
| 01:59:55.53 | Unknown | Okay. So I certainly misunderstood that. |
| 02:00:00.02 | Unknown | Well, it doesn't say marinship in the statement, so that's good context to have. So I guess I'm back to my original... |
| 02:00:03.94 | Unknown | too. |
| 02:00:09.32 | Unknown | I guess I've got two comments. One would be if we lower the line to consider changing that to include marinship and include targeting instead of the word including. And then in terms of where we drew the line, I personally think it should be at 7. I think we're overwhelming staff with a lot of work. And I think stretching it down below 7 when we consider all the things on our plate, you know, the housing element, two cycles, the EPA, you know, the bicycles, all of this stuff, and this, I would put the line at seven. |
| 02:00:53.73 | Unknown | Okay, so let's hear from some other... other folks. |
| 02:00:59.98 | Unknown | Okay. Well, I just have one. If I were to change it, I would get rid of the word goals and put in Sausalito's marineship. The orb. we should craft it as something bigger. I mean, it either is for the marine ship or it isn't. Right. So I would say they're compatible with Sosolito's marineship, including maritime menards business. Because we would be looking at local economic development, it would be somewhat broader than maritime menards, you know. Thank you. |
| 02:01:28.36 | Unknown | So, I mean, Charlie, I think you may need to get up here more often than... |
| 02:01:34.08 | Unknown | Here. |
| 02:01:40.27 | Unknown | Is this, then, The problem I'm having is that we've got a Marinship Plan Steering Committee that hasn't yet made any recommendations to this body. okay, we've got some preliminary recommendations that an economic study was needed. Is that what this is? |
| 02:01:59.95 | Jeffrey Chase | That's how I interpreted that item. The other item which is the broader local economic development for the whole community was the business analytics |
| 02:02:08.76 | Unknown | Okay. So why don't we rephrase this then as an economic study of the Marinship and call it what it is, if that's |
| 02:02:09.57 | Jeffrey Chase | Thank you. |
| 02:02:19.10 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:02:21.21 | Unknown | Okay, so that's... |
| 02:02:24.55 | Unknown | Then it impacts how we ranked it, because I would rank it – I'm very concerned with that wording, if it does – if it keeps the including, because it opens the door for other things. |
| 02:02:24.57 | Unknown | that's just . |
| 02:02:26.95 | Unknown | . |
| 02:02:26.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:02:27.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:02:37.43 | Unknown | I might suggest that we drop it. |
| 02:02:37.50 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:02:40.35 | Unknown | I mean, or lowered, because, I mean, we have to redefine it, because we ranked it under different ideas of what it was. Yes, very good. |
| 02:02:44.90 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. ideas of what it was. Yes, very good. |
| 02:02:49.60 | Unknown | and sorry I was making sure Debbie had the right numbers for my stuff because I had some e-mail problems earlier, my own e-mail problems. and I know we went over this before, But I thought. Whatever the committee comes back with, we don't even know, so we can't rank it right now, so we don't know what the suggestions are. So I thought this was more like low-hanging fruit. I can't imagine any of us are going to argue with, Um, the devil is in the details, but in theory, the general concept of maritime and art businesses being |
| 02:03:24.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:03:24.51 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:03:24.68 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 02:03:24.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:03:24.80 | Unknown | Um, |
| 02:03:24.81 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:03:24.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:03:24.86 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 02:03:25.91 | Unknown | attracting and retaining those businesses in Sausalito. And that's kind of how I viewed this particular item, not as a referendum on the whole marinship plan because that's going to – you're still far away from coming back with specifics for that. MR. Absolutely. Yeah, I agree. MR. So that's the way I – is that – |
| 02:03:36.66 | Unknown | Absolutely. |
| 02:03:42.11 | Unknown | You know what, I have to say it's not the way I see it just because of the history of what happened at the Business Advisory Committee when they did their initial. |
| 02:03:51.58 | Unknown | Well, Linda, again, that was a different item. |
| 02:03:53.72 | Unknown | No, I hear what you're saying, but I was saying we could reword this so it just says those two things and doesn't refer to anything else. |
| 02:04:00.25 | Unknown | Oh, OK. Yes. |
| 02:04:01.28 | Unknown | Thank you. THE END OF |
| 02:04:01.87 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:04:01.97 | Unknown | of that is then you |
| 02:04:03.66 | Unknown | It doesn't preclude anything else. It just, if anything else ever comes forward and it comes to the council and we say this is great, |
| 02:04:03.71 | Unknown | What does it preclude it? If anything else ever comes up, |
| 02:04:10.39 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:04:10.46 | Unknown | Thank you. you |
| 02:04:11.05 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:04:11.10 | Unknown | But these, |
| 02:04:11.42 | Unknown | This is a more specific list, and it's very broad. I mean, it would be, at least to me, it wouldn't have much meaning. |
| 02:04:11.46 | Unknown | This is a morse. |
| 02:04:18.27 | Unknown | to have it on the list. if we broaden it in that way. to just have these two? Yeah, because are we actually going to do a study to do that? |
| 02:04:22.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:04:23.00 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:04:23.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:04:28.43 | Unknown | Well, so just to go back a few cycles. So this was, and this is, I put this on here for just those two businesses years ago, and it kept getting morphed into other things. And so what I think... Getting that way. If you look at the low hanging fruit, those two things are generally in agreement with most of the politics of Sausalito. it doesn't preclude anything coming out of any other economic development like what Charlie's other initiative that could spur other things or the friendships committee could come back with proposals that relate to something specifically in the Marantia. There's some crossover here certainly. Um, If you want to delete it because it's vague, that's fine. But my proposal would be just to have those two specific industries or segments of the community and leave it at that for this go around. |
| 02:05:26.85 | Unknown | It's just. |
| 02:05:27.78 | Unknown | I think it's been – I agree with the comment earlier about dropping it. I think it's morphed into multiple things with multiple interpretations of what it means, and I'm kind of confused about it right now. You know, I do recall that I was very concerned with the direction that the business advisory committee had taken initially. where they were looking at services, potential future in the marineship that stepped beyond the current zoning, which concerned me very much. And I don't think it was popular, actually. And it opened a can of worms. So anyway, that's why I ranked this lower. |
| 02:06:19.74 | Unknown | – Right, but what I think they're saying is if we remove those |
| 02:06:22.36 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 02:06:24.52 | Unknown | I don't know if you're on board with this, but if we just had those two things, then it wouldn't matter if you ranked it lowly. It's still, if you supported those two things in the greater city limits of Sausalito, |
| 02:06:39.96 | Unknown | So you're saying apply this to the olive sauce lido? This statement? |
| 02:06:43.33 | Unknown | Right, because you could be – I mean, certainly the maritime stuff, by its tendency, will end up in that area. Yeah. |
| 02:06:44.60 | Unknown | Certainly the merit-to-adjusted stuff of lights tended That's great. Okay, so go back to the original interpretation not in the staff report, but how we're defining it now, which is all of staff. Yeah, we just – you just say studying and attracting. |
| 02:06:55.04 | Unknown | all of stuff. All of. You just say studying and attracting, retaining businesses. in retaining maritime and arts businesses, period. And just leave it at that. I don't know if it's going to get support here. |
| 02:07:06.10 | Unknown | so we can support you here. Yeah, that's fine. Well, I mean, I support those things, and I support studying those things. But are we, I mean, we have, we're shortening our priority calendar. Are we actually going to do it? And is it just going to be confusing to have it stuck above the line when? we're just going to trip over it. We're actually not going to do anything. Because all these things seem to be things that we would actually do. and I don't see any plan. that we would actually do such a study in the next year. That's why I wouldn't have it above the line. I'd be happy to redefine and put it below the line, but these are things that really are things that are defined and that we would |
| 02:07:36.12 | Mary Wagner | Yeah. |
| 02:07:42.80 | Unknown | like to go ahead and do the show. And I don't think we would do that if we watered it down in that way. I don't see us doing a plan like that. Or are we? I don't know. |
| 02:07:51.17 | Unknown | That's what we're discussing. |
| 02:07:53.72 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:07:53.78 | Unknown | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 02:07:54.04 | Unknown | And if we, by the way, if we came up with something and decided we were, then I would do it. Reward it just to keep it above the line and just have it as a placeholder not do anything I'd prefer to put it below the line or take it off |
| 02:08:08.13 | Unknown | I mean, you know, let's be honest here. There's no money for any of this stuff in the budget. There is very little money for any of this. |
| 02:08:16.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:08:17.01 | Unknown | Let's draw the line at 7. |
| 02:08:17.71 | Unknown | So you can, as far as the reality of anything that's on this list, it's far from real. Even the top-ranked project, there is money in the budget for some things, but not probably as much as you would like. And that's just the reality of there's only so much money. There's no money to fund the Dumpy Park Schematic Master Plan. There's no money for the South City limits to ferry, landing, pedestrian, and bike improvements. There's no money for any of these things – for most of these things. There's some money for the beautification projects. It's – they're line items. You can see it in the budget for that. But there's not, you know, a quarter of a million dollars sitting in there for that. There just isn't – we don't have that money. So in the Heathway, there's no money sitting in. |
| 02:08:59.12 | Unknown | that argument what what but one they're defining there's a number of unfunded, that you could put in the unfunded column, we wouldn't even have a number to even think about. It's that level of non-definition. |
| 02:09:06.65 | Unknown | Right. |
| 02:09:12.95 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:09:12.96 | Unknown | No, I agree. It's not a – but this is like any economic activity. You don't know what it – until you ask somebody who actually knows what they're talking about to tell you if there's anything you could actually do. You'll never know. And that's the problem with these two. Neither of these are big money-making businesses in a sense. They can't fund this themselves, so that's where the city is kind of stepping in saying the goal here would be we want maritime businesses. Do we want, you know, artists and art-related businesses? And is there anything like waiving business licenses, things like that where you even in the smallest way, forget zoning, that bigger picture item. |
| 02:09:41.47 | Mary Wagner | She's right. |
| 02:09:49.92 | Unknown | It's as amorphous as any of the rest of this, in my opinion. For all these things, I think we've gone past the point, and this is just my personal opinion, where you rely solely on citizen participation to make them happen because you have to get people involved. Actually, this is what they do for a living is help you plan these things. |
| 02:10:14.59 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor? So to echo that, I think we do need to look with an eye with regards to our priorities. And it looks like the way the averaged scores, this is how it landed. And in my mind, this exercise is not necessarily about, you know, have we allocated 100 percent of the resources, 100 percent of the money needed to achieve, you know, |
| 02:10:15.55 | Unknown | . |
| 02:10:43.95 | Unknown | this completely, but rather that this is a priority. This is like the average score of everything that could be worked on. these are our top priorities. So with that in mind, and looking at the staff load and looking at the scope of these items. I would I would lean towards placing more of a focus on fewer projects than dropping the line down I think that if we put the bar at like 7, then if we don't have money allocated or whatever, then perhaps the answer is the resource would be to take a look at what needs to happen to move it up a bar. So anyway. |
| 02:11:39.35 | Unknown | Oh, okay. I mean, that's, we're swirling around a bit here. So I think we've got to figure out where we're going to draw the line. And I clearly, this particular one, number, whatever it is, that we've been talking about needs clarification. So those are two definite things that we need to do, right? Clarify that and where we draw the line. Can we have any other questions? |
| 02:11:45.14 | Unknown | Right. |
| 02:11:56.89 | Unknown | do. |
| 02:12:02.64 | Unknown | Council member's opinion on where we should draw the line. I personally am leaning towards where the staff is recommending. |
| 02:12:11.90 | Unknown | May I ask a question? May I ask staff why they picked that line? Was there any particular wisdom in that? I know they had talked about a line that was higher. |
| 02:12:22.33 | Jerry Taylor | Right there. Yeah, that is good. |
| 02:12:24.01 | Unknown | And I'm just wondering if it was based on staff time, on budgeting issues, or any other reason that you picked that number. |
| 02:12:36.95 | Unknown | It's a good place. |
| 02:12:40.27 | Adam Politzer | What we've traditionally done is looked at the right-hand column and where there starts to change the sequence. a third of the way down, a quarter of the way down, you quickly go from 18 to 14. and then it's a slow gradual drop all the way down to But when you look at the items that are above formula retail zoning ordinance, a lot of those where we think that the community can participate |
| 02:13:04.47 | Unknown | Thank you. Yeah. |
| 02:13:17.23 | Adam Politzer | And it doesn't necessarily mean that we got to move quickly. I think as Councilmember Pfeiffer said, These are priorities, and we think that we can move forward this year, this fiscal year, in some cases with money, some cases with staff, and some cases with community members. Um... So... You know, that's why that line went from 10... you know, to 14. Um, but as Vice Mayor Theodore has pointed out there's a couple items on there that are out of sequence. I'M REACTING TO THIS A LITTLE BIT THE SAME AS YOU BECAUSE WE JUST UNVEILED IT. SO I'M KIND OF COMING THROUGH THIS TO SEE WHERE THE NOES SHOWED UP FROM THE SAS PERSPECTIVE Um, But it wasn't no because it wasn't worthwhile. It was just a sequence of it. So the items like the Mills Act and the Marinship Historic District and Historic Register nomination. Thank you. It's not that those aren't important, But we made if you, delegate this back to the staff if you draw the line WHERE IT IS RIGHT NOW. Everything. starting with Friends of the Park Program and up, would be above the line. Then staff would come back at a later time after the budget process, and say here's the sequence as we see these going forward. and as dollars become available, resources become available, they'll move forward. But with an understanding, if resources don't become available, these items will remain static, which we've had some in the past do naturally as well. There's not a whole lot of rhyme or reason. It's going back and saying we've heard the public, we've ranked the items. I think for tonight, the two items that had the most public participation got ranked the highest. Um, But it doesn't mean that those other items aren't important. They are. Um, And so I'm okay with where it's falling. |
| 02:15:19.22 | Unknown | . |
| 02:15:19.59 | Adam Politzer | One of the items that are important to the council and to the community is number 18 on this list, the Climate Action Plan. I mean, that's not an option. We don't have an option not to do it. |
| 02:15:28.75 | Unknown | We have an option at that. Right. |
| 02:15:30.69 | Adam Politzer | but the Sustainability Commission is our vehicle to move that item forward and it doesn't have to be a council priority at this moment. But at some point in time, The council will have to take action on that and that action hopefully is brought forward by both the sustainability commission and also the rest of the county that's working on the same – we're all in the same climate. So we all will have goals that are similar on how to reduce our impact. Oh. So, you know, I don't think that's much of an answer other than, As you move forward, it gives you a place to start. and then adjusts throughout the year. |
| 02:16:10.33 | Unknown | Yeah, I mean, I think the thing to keep in mind, and you know this, and just stating the obvious, is that most of these things are multiyear efforts. And even though, you know, maybe other than I'd say two, which I can look at, they're not going to happen completed within the next year. But efforts, as Shelby pointed out, even for her project, which she has a lot of energy, or not hers, but her whole group's project, it's gonna take time to get to where they wanna be. So some of these, I think, you just have to start. Yeah, like say for the Mills Act, I didn't rank that highly. Because frankly, I don't really need, in my personal point of view, I think it's important, but I don't – Jeremy had a very persuasive argument that it should be the first thing because it's a carrot. I'm a stick person as far as this stuff goes, historic preservation. So I didn't rank it highly for that reason because I'd rather put the stick in place first and give somebody a carrot later because we're in a hurry. I'm going to quote you on that. So because – and as far as like having five preservation, it's taken a long time to even get these anywhere near the top of the calendar given the mix of people over the years, over eight years. |
| 02:17:06.53 | Riley Hurd | Yeah, because we're in a hurry. I'll quote you on that. Bye. |
| 02:17:18.86 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:17:24.26 | Unknown | I'm happy that there are five of them above the line. Can they all help happen before the end of next fiscal year? No, but I think we'll get a good start on most of them. I think all this stuff that I always tell people, they say, well, how long does it take to get things done here? It's like turning a ship. It doesn't make that quick right-hand turn. |
| 02:17:42.32 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:17:44.53 | Unknown | Thank you. It's a gradual turn. And that's what all these things are to me. I'm not trying to lecture. That's just the way I look at this whole thing. I think the line at Friends of the Park put the line there, and formula retail below it is a good place for it. And everything above that is important. It's a little more than I think we – staff had wanted to do, but the ones that are right above it, there are none that I would get rid of. |
| 02:18:12.08 | Unknown | So, Mr. Mayor, I have a follow-up question for city staff regarding this line. |
| 02:18:13.00 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 02:18:19.44 | Unknown | If we're not going to draw the line at seven projects, if we're going to drop the line to, what is it? Fourteen projects? Fourteen projects. So I guess my question is from a resource management standpoint. If I look at these 1 through 14, it appears that, I guess, parks and rec, is involved in, and correct me if I'm wrong, which ones are park and rec involved in? Is it number one and two, the beautification, the Dunphy Park, and the Friends of a Park program? |
| 02:19:02.84 | Adam Politzer | You don't have various roles. The Friends of the Park Program is definitely on there. Bliss as the lead. The Duffy Park Schematic Master Plan, Public Works in my office right now are in the lead. I'm working with Jacques and Paul. Beautification, Public Works is in the lead, but Parks and Rec is involved but not in the lead. |
| 02:19:26.86 | Unknown | So I guess my next question is, irrespective of which department is, you know, tasked with working on the project based on the project's phase, if a project is higher on the priority list than another project, will that play into how much time is allocated by staff resources? In other words, since beautification came first, if you've got the same one resource that is tasked with not only beautification but for other projects, would they give priority to the higher ranked project and projects if decisions had to be made with respect to time management? |
| 02:20:14.18 | Adam Politzer | The council can direct... that to be the case. It traditionally is not the case A couple things play a role in this. This happens before the budget so that the items that require budget dollars can be spent And so once you assign dollars to it, and the housing element was an example, in previous years where we put dollars towards the M group. Well, that item IT MAY HAVE BEEN NUMBER ONE, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN RANKED NUMBER THREE OR SOMETHING, Once it's funded, once the council funds it, then it's just a matter of how does it get calendared for council's action. So there has to be some discretion with staff. on how does this move forward. Once it's funded, then I think it's placed in the top threshold of priorities we have money and we have direction to move this forward. The items that aren't funded that are required staff time and community involvement, those are going to fall after the budgeted items that are already on our work plan and new items that are budgeted this coming fiscal cycle. And as opportunities present themselves with grants, volunteers from the community helping to move some of the projects forward, then we'll use this as a guiding principle and guiding light, but it may not absolutely be in that sequence. |
| 02:21:43.29 | Unknown | Thank you, Adam. |
| 02:21:44.10 | Unknown | So just both from a clarity point of view, and I try to be clear, even though it may not come out that standpoint, I mean, we had 32 things above the line last time. So 14 versus 32 is a big improvement in terms of focus. And some of those have been transitioned to be normal day-to-day responsibilities of the department, so it's not all everything coming off the list. So we've kind of transitioned some that way. So I don't think if we had 12 or 14 or 10 or 7, it's going to make much of a difference from the staff time. And it's also not linear. It's not like they're only going to work on that the planning department, whoever, tries to fill the shoes of Jeremy Graves, is not going to just work on the Dumpy Park schematic plan with Mike and not work on anything below it. They're going to work on – because things – it's all going to be – it's not one to the other. They're going to work on a bunch of things at the same time, and some of them will get traction faster than others. I'm not going to sweat the numbers. If we had to do two, then I would sweat the numbers. I'm going to argue until it gets very late what should be the top two, because if that's really all we're going to focus on. But I think everything – I can debate the Mills Act, whether that's necessary, or do we need the business analytics service report in the top ten. But I think this is a good number. It hits all the top things. If you notice, there's nothing in there that says streets and roads, because we put that as just got-to-dos versus these are nice-to-dos if we can find the money. So to me, that's a good place to draw the line. Yeah. |
| 02:23:24.83 | Unknown | I, to follow on on that, I agree with that. There's been, this is a transition year again where some of the items that had gone from the priority calendar. core activities in the departments. And that's really important. So in a sense, previous priority calendars have worked and pushed stuff in to become important routine even if they're one off things they're part of the job this is a looking at Peace. matrix over time, it's multiple years, it's multiple departments sometimes, it's in collaboration with residents, sometimes in some it's only the residents with minimal staff time. and I'm very sensitive to the fact that up here we should not be micromanaging If the staff is telling us that the line can be drawn there, and that's comfortable, then that's good enough for me. because you know, City Council is like a board of directors of a company. You don't get in and tell the CEO how to apply his resources. You just don't do it. |
| 02:24:48.50 | Unknown | But we're not saying you have to do this one first, that one second. Mr. Mayor. Exactly. |
| 02:24:51.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:24:51.11 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:24:51.15 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor. |
| 02:24:52.46 | Unknown | Exactly. |
| 02:24:53.29 | Unknown | I mean- |
| 02:24:54.74 | Unknown | obviously let me clarify obviously our budget is that our budget is that |
| 02:24:56.19 | Unknown | All right. Yeah. No one is micromanaging anything on this. The point of this exercise is to provide leadership. and vision and direction, and that's why we're doing this exercise. What is new this year that I haven't seen before is that some very substantial resource intensive that were up there are now embedded within the departments. And I guess I look at that and I look at our staff workload and, yeah, I'm concerned. And that's why I think that when the city manager initially suggested putting the bar at 7, this was prior to tonight, that I agree. When I look at how the city manager is going to be in the city the process is working this year, which is different from the way we've done it before. |
| 02:25:53.92 | Unknown | So which ones do you want to eliminate then? |
| 02:25:54.21 | Unknown | Anyway. No, I would draw the line at seven. |
| 02:25:56.70 | Unknown | I would draw the line at 7. You don't want to do noteworthy structures or Heathway or – |
| 02:25:59.52 | Unknown | I- I would. or I would draw, well, I mean, what I wanted to do, my top priority with enforcing bicycle safety didn't even make that list. Thank you. |
| 02:26:10.59 | Jenny Wasser | because it's... |
| 02:26:10.68 | Unknown | So because it's in the project. But see, I think that just because it's listed as a core responsibility doesn't make it any less of a top priority for me. I think we need to devote more time to that. |
| 02:26:25.49 | Unknown | Right, and I agree, and I think disaster evacuation routes are high on everybody's list, and disaster preparedness are high on everybody's list, but we put that as a core responsibility of the staff, and they've said they'll do it. If they don't do it, then that's how we judge their performance. |
| 02:26:45.73 | Unknown | Oh, well, how the city manager judges their performance. The whole – there he is. Because we're not micromanaging. |
| 02:26:49.56 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 02:26:49.57 | Unknown | Because we're not micromanaging. |
| 02:26:52.04 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:26:52.09 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:26:52.39 | Unknown | Okay. Let's – we're sort of straying a bit here. |
| 02:26:52.46 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:26:53.81 | Unknown | So, |
| 02:26:55.97 | Unknown | Thank you. 14. 14. |
| 02:27:01.18 | Unknown | So I think we're going to We're going to need a motion to where to draw the line, but I still want to come back to there was clearly some discomfort with that one item up there that may need rewording. |
| 02:27:16.88 | Unknown | Well, you can swap the underwater streets for that one as far as I'm concerned. Be done with those. If you're uncomfortable with it, then you shouldn't Thank you. |
| 02:27:29.79 | Unknown | Well, no, I'm sensing that the council's uncomfortable with it. |
| 02:27:30.09 | Unknown | No, I'm not. |
| 02:27:33.82 | Unknown | That's what I was hearing. I'm trying to flesh that out. If they're not, let's go ahead, draw the line, have done. |
| 02:27:39.58 | Unknown | I'm okay with it as it's listed as a proposed project because it states states that it's part of the marinship specific planning process That's where I'm coming from. If it goes beyond that, I think we have to discuss it. |
| 02:27:54.00 | Unknown | So just to clarify on the topic we're discussing now, it's number 13, and it states, Local Economic Development, Study Attracting and Retaining Businesses that are Compatible with Sausalito's Goals, Including Maritime and Arts Businesses. |
| 02:28:09.48 | Unknown | It doesn't mention the marineship. What says it in this? |
| 02:28:13.02 | Unknown | It doesn't mention the marinship in the statement, but it does in the definition in the staff report. |
| 02:28:16.45 | Unknown | in the staff report. States that. you |
| 02:28:22.15 | Unknown | So I guess clarifying what that means will make a huge difference for me. |
| 02:28:22.20 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:28:29.24 | Unknown | Okay, so yeah, I would say remove it if that's the way. Because that's not, you're right, it is phrased that way in here, but that's not how I ranked it. |
| 02:28:37.00 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:28:37.07 | Unknown | Right? |
| 02:28:37.46 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:28:37.47 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:28:37.54 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. |
| 02:28:40.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:28:40.04 | Unknown | And I have to admit that's not how I ranked it either. The economic development study that the marinship specific plan steering committee may or may not, this was a draft recommendation of the consultant there, the committee may or may not say that's a good thing to do and a recommendation to do. But that group's not there yet. So if that's what that is, I don't think we should be ranking this on this priority calendar. Personally. |
| 02:29:14.12 | Unknown | Bye. Thank you. Well, and I will give... I would agree with that. And, you know, I'm a little concerned that formula retail Missed the mark for a couple of reasons. It was ranked very high for Planning Commission and BAC, and we have legal exposure. It doesn't sound like it's one of those, but... We have something that needs to be done. I'm looking at it from a basic point of view. And climate action would be the second one I would move on. |
| 02:29:36.70 | Unknown | We'll swap climate action for the local economic development. |
| 02:29:36.74 | Unknown | call. Thank you. |
| 02:29:39.44 | Unknown | I'm not. |
| 02:29:39.69 | Unknown | and draw the line for me. |
| 02:29:42.19 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:29:42.24 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:29:42.34 | Unknown | I think the formula retail, like anything in the zoning ordinance, could be reworded 1,000 times over and still not hit the mark where you want to get it. So I don't know if there's legal exposure, but there's definitely some – |
| 02:29:42.39 | Unknown | No, no, I don't want that. No, I mean, I think... |
| 02:29:45.55 | Jerry Taylor | I don't know. |
| 02:29:45.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:29:58.94 | Unknown | black and some gray in the way it's raised now, but is it like... I think we've only had maybe one or two things that have kind of flashed up against us in 10 years. |
| 02:30:08.46 | Unknown | Ten years. In the historic district, so. |
| 02:30:11.01 | Unknown | so i mean that have been kind of great so but that being said it is something we need to do at some point So I'm willing to, yeah, sure, I'll make that trade. I'll get rid of the economic development, and you can put formula retail and climate action plan for AB 32. |
| 02:30:29.81 | Unknown | I have an issue with the Climate Action Plan because that's a lot more than Um, just a climate action plan. I mean, my recollection was that it was a lot more than what this description. Let's look at the staff description. |
| 02:30:48.47 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:30:48.54 | Unknown | . |
| 02:30:48.58 | Unknown | Should the staff help us on that? |
| 02:30:48.64 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:30:49.98 | Unknown | because I thought the |
| 02:30:51.53 | Unknown | Because it was, yeah. I'm okay with swapping the formula retail zoning ordinance for the local economic piece. |
| 02:30:57.35 | Unknown | Peace. Whatever we have to do for AB 32, we have to do. Right. So it is not – there's no real – if you go above and beyond, that's a choice. But if you just want to meet the requirements of AB 32, it's state law. |
| 02:31:11.86 | Unknown | and it but But there are different interpretations of how you might do that. I just remember this presentation, and I remember having lots of questions about it. |
| 02:31:27.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:31:29.06 | Jonathon Goldman | Um, |
| 02:31:29.36 | Unknown | I would... Can you have someone wandering toward the mic from the end of this, I think? Yes, I might. |
| 02:31:29.38 | Jonathon Goldman | I would... Yes, I might be lost though. Jonathan Goldman, your Public Works Director, attachment three to your staff report. I think it's Paige. |
| 02:31:34.34 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:31:46.07 | Jonathon Goldman | Page two of seven there describes in general terms what my department and the Sustainability Commission are recommending with respect to this particular issue. The proposed action is to work with sustainability and marine climate and energy partnership to develop a climate action plan, which is compliance with the law. |
| 02:32:18.81 | Unknown | Thank you to me. |
| 02:32:19.70 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:32:19.78 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:32:19.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:32:19.94 | Unknown | Thank you. I'll go for it. |
| 02:32:41.98 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:32:42.16 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:32:42.45 | Unknown | Thank you. Okay, do we have a motion? |
| 02:32:44.98 | Unknown | I'm not sure. Thank you. |
| 02:32:45.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:32:46.11 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:32:46.13 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:32:46.68 | Unknown | I'll just try to move this along. |
| 02:32:46.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:32:47.04 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:32:47.05 | Unknown | I'm just going to get it. Thank you. |
| 02:32:47.51 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:32:47.53 | Unknown | Well, okay, I will. |
| 02:32:47.95 | Unknown | Thank you. THE FAMILY. |
| 02:32:49.60 | Unknown | Well, I'll make a motion that we drop the local economic development one which I think looks at light item 10, it had 13.4 on the, And I would... I would drop it below the line. We can just lower it. We keep it on the list because we may want to redefine it and substitute it. And I would move above the line two things, the formula retail and the climate action plan, which would then bring us to one more than staff had recommended. That's it. |
| 02:33:18.64 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:33:18.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:33:18.80 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:33:18.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:33:18.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:33:18.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:33:19.00 | Unknown | Okay, and can I... Ask whether anybody's interested in helping staff by moving one of the historic items down below the line. I mean, there's a clear sequencing issue here, and so you know, it's by not doing so, it's more foreign than substance, you know, and I |
| 02:33:40.38 | Unknown | Absolutely. I... Thank you. I don't know. You can... And Jeremy can – we're certainly – I just – the Mills Act is a nice thing to do, but the other things are have-to-dos. And it's taken a long time to get the have-to-dos up here. And the nice-to-dos, to get people to do the have-to-dos, we can do the nice-to-dos after the have-to-dos. Absolutely. |
| 02:34:02.08 | Unknown | Yeah. . |
| 02:34:03.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:03.72 | Unknown | I know. |
| 02:34:04.43 | Unknown | I can support that. |
| 02:34:06.74 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:06.75 | Unknown | Well... |
| 02:34:06.77 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:06.79 | Unknown | Well, |
| 02:34:07.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:07.06 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:34:07.26 | Unknown | right but I mean if you want to get to get real go to get it is look at it will have some rich in historic district requires over 50% of the owners and |
| 02:34:07.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:07.34 | Unknown | Thank you. Right. |
| 02:34:09.35 | Unknown | If you want to get... |
| 02:34:09.98 | Unknown | I'm not. |
| 02:34:10.21 | Unknown | It's... will have some research is |
| 02:34:17.03 | Unknown | If it's a register, a national register, not for local registers. |
| 02:34:18.57 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so we can keep it up there. |
| 02:34:22.06 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:22.08 | Unknown | So we'll move the mills in below the line. |
| 02:34:22.21 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:22.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:23.63 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 02:34:23.71 | Unknown | I don't know. |
| 02:34:24.22 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:34:24.35 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:34:24.44 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:34:24.47 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:24.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:24.54 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:25.17 | Unknown | So would you accept that amendment? Yes, I would. Okay. Do I have a second? I'll give you a second. |
| 02:34:27.04 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 02:34:32.20 | Unknown | Okay. So you, Debbie, do you want to move them around? No. So |
| 02:34:37.92 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:38.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:38.45 | Unknown | So we need to sort of move around and know what we're voting on here. |
| 02:34:38.72 | Unknown | you |
| 02:34:38.73 | Unknown | need to sort of |
| 02:34:42.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:43.09 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:46.85 | Unknown | to move the Mills Act down below the line. |
| 02:34:46.87 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:46.93 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:47.03 | Unknown | Good movie. |
| 02:34:47.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:47.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:47.54 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:34:48.00 | Unknown | Uh, |
| 02:34:48.08 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:34:48.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:48.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:48.50 | Unknown | you |
| 02:34:48.59 | Unknown | below the line. and economic development. And we move those below the line. Keep it on. A great thing better. Aha. |
| 02:34:54.07 | Unknown | Help us, Jeremy, please. |
| 02:34:57.92 | Jeremy Grazier | Mr. President. please. Jeremy Grazier, Community Development Director. In the interest of disclosure, Council Member Leon's point is accurate that the Mills Act would not be necessary for a local register nomination in the Marin show. However, the Mills Act would not be necessary for a local |
| 02:35:02.16 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:35:21.38 | Jeremy Grazier | I don't know. 13, the downtown district, that does, we're not trying to get a local register there, we're trying to get a national register there, and that does require written consent. So I don't, I, for your information. |
| 02:35:26.03 | Peter Van Meter | downtown downtown I don't even |
| 02:35:33.04 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:35:39.48 | Unknown | So I don't, for your information. So the mills goes up again. |
| 02:35:45.52 | Unknown | So are you still comfortable, though, with where we are? |
| 02:35:48.06 | Unknown | No, you got to leave them up there. Okay. |
| 02:35:48.33 | Unknown | No. you Thank you. |
| 02:35:52.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:35:52.68 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:35:52.81 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 02:35:53.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:35:53.17 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:35:53.57 | Unknown | We've been there. |
| 02:35:54.99 | Unknown | Moving on. So I withdraw my friendly amount. Okay. |
| 02:35:56.19 | Unknown | So I've |
| 02:35:56.83 | Unknown | I'm going to throw it. I think what I'm hearing is instead of drawing the line at what 14, you're now drawing the line at 15. Is that what I'm hearing? |
| 02:36:04.42 | Unknown | 14. I'm hearing. Okay. Still better than 32. |
| 02:36:10.01 | Unknown | No, because part of those 32 are now have been front loaded into |
| 02:36:14.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:36:14.68 | Unknown | Front loader. Still better than 30. Core projects. To be continued. And 24 is better than 61. Workloads. |
| 02:36:16.44 | Unknown | Still better than 30%. Core projects. |
| 02:36:19.93 | Unknown | for the |
| 02:36:20.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:36:20.15 | Unknown | time, workload is still the same. We have a motion. We have a second. |
| 02:36:21.70 | Unknown | We'll see you next time. |
| 02:36:21.91 | Unknown | to be able to get the |
| 02:36:21.97 | Unknown | still. |
| 02:36:22.46 | Unknown | the same. |
| 02:36:22.97 | Unknown | We have a motion. We have a second. Can I have a point of clarification? Please. Charlie, can I ask you a question? Because you were gone and I was going to ask you a question earlier so that I don't look horribly like a horrible person. Can you – do you remember off the top of your head, because I would do it and I'd get it wrong, of the ones that are now above the line, what have money set – forget the dollar amounts, but which have money applied to them in the budget? |
| 02:36:25.28 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:36:26.85 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:36:26.97 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:36:46.54 | Jeffrey Chase | to. There is some money set aside for beautification projects. Asset inventories continuing from last year's appropriation. The historic district and historic register nomination did have proposed amount for either 14-15 or 15-16. |
| 02:36:48.15 | Unknown | Almighty says, |
| 02:37:08.04 | Jeffrey Chase | I don't know about number seven or not. Machine Shop did have money for either 14, 15 or 15, 16. Heathway had a project. Snowworthy Structures had a project, had a budget proposed. Does that answer the question? |
| 02:37:23.36 | Unknown | Yes, thank you. So some of them do have some money of some kind. But most of them don't have enough money to get them all the way to the finish line in any scenario. Most of them. Most of us. |
| 02:37:25.68 | Jeffrey Chase | and have some money of some kind. |
| 02:37:35.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:37:35.89 | Unknown | Okay, we have a motion and a second. |
| 02:37:35.90 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:37:39.97 | Unknown | Should we call the roll? |
| 02:37:41.05 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:37:41.30 | Unknown | What? |
| 02:37:42.03 | Unknown | you Thank you. |
| 02:37:43.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:37:43.06 | Unknown | Oh, Bert. |
| 02:37:43.08 | Unknown | I would work. |
| 02:37:43.75 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:37:43.89 | Unknown | Thank you. Oh, give me something. |
| 02:37:47.06 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:37:47.12 | Unknown | Peace. Thank you. |
| 02:37:48.29 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:37:48.31 | Unknown | Okay, but you know. Yeah, but we need to change. Yeah. But I think we know what we're doing. Yes, we do. |
| 02:37:48.90 | Unknown | But you know. |
| 02:37:49.27 | Unknown | Yeah, but we made the change. |
| 02:37:51.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:37:52.04 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:37:52.46 | Unknown | Thank you. We don't know where to. |
| 02:37:54.36 | Unknown | We don't know what we're doing. |
| 02:37:55.53 | Unknown | I want to see you again. At least we'll get 10 years. |
| 02:37:59.09 | Unknown | We know what we're doing. Yes. Yes, we know exactly what is happening and what we are doing. |
| 02:37:59.31 | Unknown | Jesus. Thank you. |
| 02:38:00.49 | Unknown | yes |
| 02:38:01.03 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:38:01.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:38:01.50 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:38:05.27 | Unknown | specifically. |
| 02:38:06.95 | Unknown | Okay, so what do we do? Do you want to do that? I woke up. |
| 02:38:08.78 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:38:08.81 | Unknown | Um, |
| 02:38:09.11 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:38:13.92 | Unknown | Not just consensus. |
| 02:38:15.09 | Unknown | You mind the roll? Yeah. Stop it. |
| 02:38:15.81 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:38:19.17 | Unknown | Council Member Fyfer. |
| 02:38:22.92 | Unknown | come back to me in this. I'm still struggling with, it's just a huge workload for staff. |
| 02:38:25.38 | Unknown | I don't know. |
| 02:38:29.62 | Unknown | Thank you. I'm not. |
| 02:38:30.38 | Unknown | Yes. Yes. Thank you. |
| 02:38:37.34 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 02:38:39.89 | Unknown | with these. |
| 02:38:40.57 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 02:38:45.97 | Unknown | you |
| 02:38:46.58 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:38:46.64 | Unknown | Becker. Okay, yes. |
| 02:38:50.34 | Unknown | That passes five zero. |
| 02:38:52.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:38:52.42 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:38:53.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:38:53.71 | Unknown | Oh, okay. |
| 02:38:54.39 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor, can we take a brief break? |
| 02:38:54.95 | Unknown | Uh, |
| 02:38:56.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:38:56.30 | Unknown | I don't know. |
| 02:39:01.04 | Unknown | We're going to have a very quick two-minute break. Do we want to continue with the agenda as is, or do we want to – do we have some outside folks for the last item? Should we perhaps take that item first as a courtesy and then deal with the budget? |
| 02:39:01.09 | Unknown | We're still there. |
| 02:39:15.99 | Unknown | that item. |
| 02:39:20.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:39:20.36 | Unknown | Well, I think you can, if you just tell Shelby how much is in the budget for her stuff, then she can, she can go. |
| 02:39:20.39 | Unknown | Well, I think you can use it. |
| 02:39:24.59 | Unknown | Yeah. Bye. Thank you. |
| 02:39:26.35 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:39:26.60 | Jeff Jacob | See? |
| 02:39:27.02 | Unknown | Yeah. Or I'm |
| 02:39:30.26 | Unknown | You've got public for the budget and you've got outside reports. |
| 02:39:36.97 | Unknown | Okay. Let's make that decision when we resume in two minutes, sir. |
| 02:39:44.58 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:39:44.59 | Jeffrey Chase | Thank you. What kind of art is that? |
| 02:39:51.39 | Jeffrey Chase | Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. |
| 02:40:05.57 | Unknown | That's really gross. |
| 02:40:07.83 | Unknown | Oh, you can't see it. |
| 02:40:21.18 | Jeffrey Chase | Okay, the agenda for tonight is to briefly go through the budget highlights. This is the second time that the city council has reviewed the draft budget document. I'll explore the new budget format, why it's important, have a brief discussion on department and the capital improvement projects, include with a summary and outlook, and then ask for council direction, next steps for staff. So in your staff report, I listed a number of operating budget and capital improvement plan highlights. I'd like to show how I used the new fiscal transparency tool to highlight these items to start off with, that the operating budget is we have a rebounding economy. And if you go to the Sausalito OpenGov site and filter down and looking at the general fund revenues you can see that our band of our sales tax and our transient occupancy tax is actually starting to expand as is our property taxes growing so that's an indication of our rebounding economy and because of our rebounding economy combined with the restructuring efforts that we did last year we're still able to have a balanced budget the second item and again this site right here was an example of going to the open gov site and actually downloading an Excel file from the site that gives us the labor costs for the city's general fund, and then bringing that into another graph to show the salaries and the benefits and the percentage of general fund expenditures. And if you take out these two spike years, you'll see a trend going down. So that trend of labor costs as a percentage of all general fund expenditures going down combined with the rebounding economy again is part of the reason why we're structurally balanced and continue to have an operating budget that is continues the level of service that we've been providing. Finally, not finally, next is we're maintaining our reserve funds. And you can see that our revenues and expenditures are balanced. Our revenues are equaling our expenditures as we go out into the future. And that results in having liquid reserves of over $3 million, which is about 30% of our general fund operating expenditures, a number that is enviable among many California municipalities, especially coming out of a recession like this. So our liquid reserves for the general fund activities are very strong. |
| 02:42:55.03 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 02:43:08.41 | Jeffrey Chase | Our MLK will finally have paid off. The purchase of the MLK property was through a lease purchase agreement with the school district. That was paid off during the current year. And then we had a capital lease with West America Bank, and that final principal payment will be paid on July 15th. And as a result of the restructured rents at the MLK facility, you can see rents going up from $1 million to $1.3 million annually. And at the same time, our operating expenses decreasing because of our debt service going down. So we'll be creating a surplus in the MLK fund as we go off into the future, which would be another source for the city to be able to provide services. Finally in the sewer fund we restructured our rates through the recent rate study and passing the fee increase to give us the gap here to provide for financing of capital projects and so within the next few months we'll be bringing back to the City Council a sewer bond resolution to finance capital projects over the next three years. And last, we have a capital improvement program that, if you drill down into the OpenGov site, you can look at actually all the capital projects that are budgeted for the next fiscal year, as you can see in the budget document. But we do have continuing street improvements, including concrete street reconstruction scheduled for next year, increased funding for some small parks improvements, and, of course, the projected ferry terminal shoreside improvements are in the budget which is a grant from the Golden Gate Ferry District supported with a general fund contribution and lastly of course you're not going to get this at the OpenGov site but you do see is a balanced budget with the maintaining reserves, providing some capital projects that are important for our community. We're continuing the excellent city services that the community agrees that we're delivering, as we just saw in the recent community survey that was published, that we reviewed last meeting. |
| 02:45:20.44 | Mary Wagner | and I'm not sure. |
| 02:45:25.72 | Jeffrey Chase | So with those highlights then, I'd like to transition into the new budget format. The new budget format, which came out, is posted on our website, and our citizens can link to it, either through the OpenGov site or through the city's website. You can get the new budget. Rather than just showing line items, we have department and department and division descriptions, and each fund description. In other words, what are we doing within that department that describes the activities? And then what are some ongoing tasks and duties so the public can get a really good idea of what does the police department do or how are programs funded within the recreation department? What's the circulation of the library? how that department relates and what strategic plan projects will be undertaken through the next two years and what priority calendar items will that department division be responsible for working on. We also list staffing. We have performance indicators that are a combination of inputs, outputs, outcomes, some productivity and some efficiency. We don't use the same format for every department, but it's the beginning of developing a performance metric system so that we can define and report on how we're accomplishing the level of service within the city. Each department division then will what revenues are being generated by the activities of that department. So we'll be able to see by looking at the budget whether it's tax supported or a fee supported activity that we're performing. And finally our department expenditures by the major categories, salaries, benefits, professional services, other services, operations, debt, furniture, fixtures, and equipment, and transfers in and out are the major department expenditures. If we want to see the line item detail, then you switch over to the OpenGov site and you can drill down and download as many of the line items as you'd like. So it moves the budget orientation from purely money control to more of service delivery. What kind of services are we delivering and we can manage it that way. And the basic budget unit is still the line item, but it's also the activity that the line item is designed to accomplish. Results measurement, we can not only measure the budget control, but we can also measure the performance achievements. And finally, the budget period, well, we've always had a two-year budget, and now it's still going to be two years, but it wraps more easily into our long-term fiscal modeling program. So this new budget format is a lot more informative, and it's important because it establishes accountability mechanisms. It establishes to the public for the city council's decisions. They get to see not only how much is the city council spending, but what are they spending it on? What are the accomplishments we hope to achieve? And it also gives you, the policymakers, a way to hold department manager accountable for the performance that we're doing through the budget process. Of course, it identifies the spending priorities for the year by activity as well as by dollar amount, determines the actual service levels of programs. We allocate funds and the responsibility for the outcomes to particular departments. And it's a very good tool for informing citizens of city policy. It provides enough information on the cost and activities so that we're more transparent, more accountable, and it links our longer-term objectives with shorter-term goals. It's tied into our long-term financial planning, as we've said in recent strategic planning, mid-term budget review, and throughout the city council meetings, is that our long-term fiscal model shows that we're structurally balanced and can continue to deliver the same level of service we're delivering today and maintain the reserves that we're maintaining. But there's some significant additional infrastructure investment needed in the future. This budget document identifies the storm drain infrastructure, the additional street and concrete street improvements, the parks, the sidewalks to be accessible that is needed in our community. And for those, the finance committee and the staff are looking for additional revenue sources that could help provide the resources to deliver those So with that, I'm willing to answer any questions. We have department heads here that I can talk, and we can go into any specifics of the budget that you may have questions on. |
| 02:50:16.88 | Unknown | So I'd actually like to kick off with a Just a procedural question. process question more in terms of the next steps. We've got the final budget we're adopting in a couple of weeks, I think. Next week. Next week, okay. But we've only just today seen the results of the priority calendar. |
| 02:50:37.25 | Unknown | See you next week. |
| 02:50:45.97 | Unknown | SPEAKER 1, right. |
| 02:50:47.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:50:50.40 | Unknown | Thank you. Are there any aspects of... this budget that are going to need to be reconsidered in light of the priority calendar results we received. |
| 02:51:01.89 | Jeffrey Chase | Well, I guess the first step would be to look at what items in the budget are proposed to be funded over the next two years and then look at where they fell on the priority calendar and either take them out of the budget or say, well, that's an opportunity to provide additional resource for an item that's above the line. So procedurally, staff could do that and bring it back at your next meeting. The finance committee could meet between now and the next meeting and help staff make those decisions so that when we're recommending to the full city council, it's a recommendation that comes not only from staff but from the finance committee as well. And, of course, lastly, our deadline for adopting the budget is July 1st. So even though you've tentatively scheduled the budget adoption for next week, we could schedule another meeting and adopt it later. |
| 02:51:53.52 | Unknown | Thank you. the month. |
| 02:51:57.25 | Unknown | Okay, so that was my first general question. Why don't we throw it out to questions here above Charlie before we open this for public comment. |
| 02:52:06.08 | Unknown | Charlie, in looking at page 145 of 177, that, as far as the, |
| 02:52:13.20 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:52:13.24 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:52:13.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:52:13.50 | Mary Wagner | Yeah. |
| 02:52:19.68 | Unknown | It's labeled city-owned right-of-way, medians, land, and open space. Two of those projects in there are, like for a total of $45,000, are $2,000. sort of soft little beautiful beautification starter projects, not the full stuff they've already identified. Is that? Thank you. |
| 02:52:42.31 | Jeffrey Chase | That's correct. A good characterization. Two line items there, one for $20,000, one for $25,000 for the 14-15 year. And then as you go out in the 15-16 year, there's more in one line item and less in another line item. |
| 02:52:42.44 | Unknown | That's correct. Good characterization. |
| 02:52:49.16 | Unknown | Right. |
| 02:52:56.15 | Unknown | writers forty five in total |
| 02:52:56.17 | Jeffrey Chase | Right. 45 in total of 215,000 over four years |
| 02:53:00.64 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:53:00.67 | Jeffrey Chase | Right. |
| 02:53:00.82 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:53:00.94 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:53:04.82 | Unknown | That was mine. That was the sauce. That was the beautification. |
| 02:53:05.67 | Jeffrey Chase | Thank you. |
| 02:53:05.73 | Unknown | that was |
| 02:53:09.26 | Unknown | I HAVE THE MAIN IN |
| 02:53:10.14 | Unknown | And if I look also in these back pages, which are easier for me to get my head around in some ways, the things that are in red, do you want to speak to what that means? |
| 02:53:22.07 | Jeffrey Chase | So on the pages beginning on 141 of 177 and going through... page 145 of 177, if they're listed in red, they will not have a dollar amount in the 14, 15 year or in the outlying years. And that means that that item has been moved to page 146, where it's again listed in red with the dollar item projected out in the year. And what that, the red means is that these are projects that are critical, I mean urgent. They're a result of aging infrastructure. They're something that the city would like to have done, but we don't have the resources available to do that right now. And you see the majority of those capital projects are for storm drains. And as the council will recall in the last two-year budget, six years ago when we started six-year capital planning, we had a fully funded capital improvement program. Two years ago, we were fully funded except for storm drain. So we've been, staff has been bringing forward and the council has acknowledged that we have a shortfall in resources to fund the urgent storm drain needs that we have. |
| 02:54:46.14 | Unknown | While we're on that page, on page 146, the South City limits to Richardson, Planning, $6 million. in 1617. And you and I talked about it. And you said this guy creeping up on you would be the guy. Yes. Answer it. |
| 02:55:01.95 | Jeffrey Chase | You sure can, yes. Answer it. And before Jonathan describes the project, the $6 million is comprised of two amounts. One is a city match and the other is a grant or outside funding source. And so those two together combined with the $6 million. |
| 02:55:19.81 | Jonathon Goldman | Yeah, hi, Jonathan Goldman again. Just for council's benefit and folks in the audience and folks at home, the history of that project is that the concept of making improvements within the public right-of-way from South City Limits all the way to Princess was developed with some council direction and also by staff. We identified a total of, as I recall, something like $35 million worth of improvements that would have accomplished a number of objectives. Because those improvements on the lower sections of Richardson and Bridgeway involved a proposal for constructing a seawall or otherwise widening the sidewalk area, we kind of separated that from the South City Limits to Richardson piece of the project. The construction cost estimate for that project at the time that that concept was developed was, as I recall, around $7 million. Since that time, we've been successful in receiving a grant with Transportation Authority of Marin's assistance from the One Bay Area Grant Program, $125,000, to prepare more detailed designs for that southerly road segment. And the objective, one of the objectives in preparing those designs, I mean, certainly the objective is to try to accomplish a significant bicycle, pedestrian, motor vehicle operational and safety improvement project without having to acquire property. But the other objective is to allow us to more successfully compete for grant funds to try and deliver a project like that. So what we're trying to do is to anticipate success in that process and program it into a longer range budget. If we aren't successful in developing grant funds for that project or if the council decides that that project isn't desirable in the form that it exists at some point in time, then that project either gets reconfigured or moves downstream or something like that. |
| 02:55:42.16 | Mary Wagner | Thank you very much. |
| 02:57:52.29 | Unknown | And Mr. Follow on, if I may. And the $6 million, I understand, would be the cost of the project, I mean, as estimated, and some of that may be funds from Suslita, but others may be from grants. Is that correct? Thank you. |
| 02:58:05.94 | Unknown | Correct. |
| 02:58:09.82 | Unknown | Any questions over on this side? |
| 02:58:13.67 | Jeffrey Chase | Mr. Mayor, I was just going to bring this up. so that when the council does refer to a council page the I mean to a specific page in the budget the we can also show it for the audience too and so on Shelby I know one of the questions that we just talked about was the beautification and on the page |
| 02:58:40.33 | Jeffrey Chase | There we go. These amounts right here, which are on page. What's that? |
| 02:58:47.98 | Unknown | you |
| 02:58:48.13 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:58:48.19 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:58:48.28 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:58:48.30 | Unknown | 145. |
| 02:58:48.50 | Jeffrey Chase | 145 is in this document that's right in front of me. |
| 02:58:49.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:58:49.68 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:58:54.98 | Jeffrey Chase | Amen. Thank you. Thank you. And then And then Jonathan, Councilmember Leon's question about the amounts in red here. Just wanted to show that when a red item appears here, it means no dollar amount, it means that the dollar amount item has been moved to this unfunded page here. And you can see the corresponding. The black and white copies don't show that. |
| 02:59:17.96 | Unknown | Right, so. |
| 02:59:19.11 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 02:59:20.63 | Unknown | And just for clarity, that doesn't mean there isn't money already in for street repair and patching. It's just not as much as we've identified. |
| 02:59:29.15 | Jeffrey Chase | We've identified. So we come back up to here. You can see that for this next year's street program, we have these three amounts, $355,000 is it, $250,000 and $95,000 allocated for next year's street repair program, that $250,000 being a concrete street. On the unfunded page is additional streets that the city would like to be able to do, we don't have that kind of funding for it in the current year our funding for streets comes primarily through special revenues gas tax and construction impact fees that we charge within the city and a proposition a and measure a and B which were local funded sales tax programs, as well as a general fund contribution. And that limits the amount of streets that we can do every year. If we had additional revenue source, we could do more streets, more sidewalks, fix more cracking infrastructure. |
| 03:00:09.02 | Mary Wagner | that we're going to be |
| 03:00:28.11 | Jeffrey Chase | Thank you. |
| 03:00:29.33 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor, thank you. So, Charlie, first of all, I want to thank you for clarifying the last Council session. I thought the city of Mill Valley was setting aside $600,000 for their unfunded pension liability, and actually you clarified that they were doing that for their OPEB, their other post-employee benefits, so thanks for that. So I guess that leads me to the question about what we're doing with our OPEB, other post-employee benefits, and I understand that we've, you know, closed |
| 03:00:55.94 | Mary Wagner | benefit. |
| 03:00:59.80 | Unknown | our OPEB plan to new participants, which is good. and that certainly saves costs. I know that right now we are paying the minimum payment required. And I guess there are two options. We can pay, a city can pay the minimum payment required or the the ark. That stands for Annual Required Contribution. And, um, So if we're paying the minimum payment, which is I guess $202,000 something, and I guess the ARC is something like $513,000 that we're not paying. So my question is, |
| 03:01:36.37 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:01:44.32 | Unknown | Will future OPEB cash payments continue to grow then? And by how much because we're only paying the minimum as opposed to... |
| 03:01:54.93 | Jeffrey Chase | when you say the minimum, it... You're right, we're paying the annual retiree cost for people who are already retired. So that's more than the minimum. It's our legal obligation that we're paying. And then the fully funding the ARC is the top of the range, and we can fund anywhere in the middle. And in fact, the city does fund in between that amount by putting money not into an irrevocable trust, but we put the money into the employee benefits fund. And so we could go look on page |
| 03:02:44.75 | Jeffrey Chase | Page 137. |
| 03:02:54.84 | Unknown | Anyone can tell if I'm there yet? Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:02:57.39 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. |
| 03:03:08.17 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:03:08.20 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:03:08.22 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:03:08.24 | Unknown | You've got to get some new glasses. I do need new. |
| 03:03:09.94 | Jeffrey Chase | I have new glasses. They're the Google glasses, and you laugh at me when I wear them. |
| 03:03:11.33 | Unknown | I have new vests. |
| 03:03:17.87 | Jeffrey Chase | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:03:18.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:03:18.40 | Jeffrey Chase | Yes. |
| 03:03:18.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:03:18.77 | Jeffrey Chase | So we're set aside another $110,000 in the employee benefit fund, which comes out of each operating department as a transfer out of the general fund and into the employee benefit fund that could be used to fund additional OPEB obligations. And there's one more. We're also, for our OPEB obligations that we incurred through the Southern Marin Fire Protection District, by contract we transfer $58,000 a year to pay for that, too. Thank you. that we incurred through the Southern Marin Fire Protection District. By contract, we transfer $58,000 a year to pay for that, too. So in total, we're paying about $360,000 out of that $500,000 obligation a year. |
| 03:03:18.95 | Unknown | So we're set aside. |
| 03:03:34.68 | Unknown | Well, it's... |
| 03:03:55.17 | Unknown | Okay, so if we're not paying the ARC, if we're paying the minimum that we're legally required to do and a little bit more, Then... |
| 03:04:04.62 | Jeffrey Chase | About half a second. much more. |
| 03:04:06.02 | Unknown | Okay, well, but we're not paying the ARC, is my point. We're not paying the full amount to pay down the debt. So my question is, Will the future OPEB cash payments continue to grow? |
| 03:04:16.41 | Jeffrey Chase | So the answer is It's not a legal required payment. You don't pay the ARC. You set aside the difference between the pay-as-you-go ARC And the full arc. into a fund if you want to not incur any increased liability. Now, our liabilities will eventually go away. They won't continue growing higher. So we took all the steps to mitigate having to contribute the difference between the the pay-as-you-go amount and the full... Will our... costs go up They will until everybody dies. And what I mean by everybody I don't mean everybody in this room. |
| 03:05:04.64 | Unknown | I know what you mean. You're talking about everyone in the plant. |
| 03:05:05.62 | Jeffrey Chase | We're talking about everyone in the plan. employees that are still covered by the plan. We have no more employees that will ever be covered by the plan because we discontinued it altogether. So it is truly a closed pool and that liability eventually goes down. And the actuarial estimate is that it goes down in 75 years. So we have a 75 year plan to fully fund our OPEB liability. |
| 03:05:32.81 | Unknown | Okay, so I understand eventually it goes to zero, obviously, because we're not bringing in any more participants. But when I look at what the ARC is, and that we're not paying that ARC, then my question is, |
| 03:05:40.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:05:40.60 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:05:50.56 | Unknown | Does that mean the rate of increase accelerates as more workers retire? |
| 03:05:53.68 | Jeffrey Chase | No. As workers retire? It would go up whether we paid the full ARC or not. The retiree cost always goes up. |
| 03:05:59.06 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 03:05:59.47 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:06:01.97 | Jeffrey Chase | because we have retirees that the health care costs have health care inflation. But eventually they're going to start going down |
| 03:06:03.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:06:03.69 | Unknown | Uh-huh. Thank you. |
| 03:06:08.60 | Unknown | Will it be? I understand. |
| 03:06:11.74 | Jeffrey Chase | When they die. |
| 03:06:12.12 | Unknown | But so the answer is they will go up. Are they going to go up? higher at a higher rate because we're not paying the ARC. |
| 03:06:20.71 | Jeffrey Chase | No, it has no effect. |
| 03:06:22.91 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 03:06:25.05 | Jeffrey Chase | Absolutely none. The pay-as-you-go portion is only for the legally required obligation. The other is only to help offset it at some point in the future. |
| 03:06:34.11 | Unknown | Yeah, it's the future I'm worried about. Okay. |
| 03:06:37.03 | Jeffrey Chase | okay |
| 03:06:39.31 | Unknown | eventually 75 years |
| 03:06:40.00 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:06:44.41 | Unknown | Is there any other questions of Charlie before we open this for public comment? |
| 03:06:52.15 | Unknown | Okay. Um, So I want to talk about how we interface with the priority calendar. Maybe we'll do that in the comment period. So let's open this for public comment. Does anybody in the public want to comment on our draft budget? Shall we? |
| 03:07:17.87 | Shelby | Yes, and Ray, I'm so glad you brought that up because it's a thrill to know we're at the top of the list of priorities, but when we look at the budget as it stands, there's $45,000, and one of them is for Caledonia Street. I don't know what that is, Caledonia streetscape. The trees were done, |
| 03:07:18.56 | Unknown | I'm so glad. |
| 03:07:37.38 | Shelby | already, so I have no idea what that stands for. And not that I have to, but I assume it means part of the beautification number one priority. Also, City Hall was on that list, number one priority, City Hall. And SWA Group has done a comprehensive plan for the landscaping of City Hall. They're presenting it to the city on Monday. and it is a sizable budget, but I did manage to get from them costs in advance of the presentation so that they could be considered for the budget process, and they were forwarded to the city manager and the Department of Public Works. I see nothing in this budget that pertains at all to that. I also know that Bartlett Trees was asked by Public Works Department to do a review of the trees at City Hall, and as I understand it, the budget came out at $25,000 to do 74 trees. That's just Bartlett, and I know you have to get bids for the lowest probably, but in any case, there's nothing in the budget that reflects that. So I don't really know what beautification number one priority means, and so, Ray, when you brought up, maybe there needs to be some with the budget plan. Um, Since we've had this wonderful, wonderful designation, thanks to all of you. And we've been very much encouraged by the city from the very beginning, and in fact, When I first talked to you, Adam, you suggested we pick some high priority, high visibility projects that would really make a difference in how Sausalito looks. So we came up with three. One of them was fixing up the city hall landscaping where hundreds and hundreds of people come every month. And it looks terrible. So now there's nothing in the budget for it. So I don't know where to begin with this because I know you face huge, huge decisions about really, really critical things that have to do with life and safety. This is not one of them, but you've all agreed that it's very important. So I have to leave it in your hands, but thank you for listening. I have no idea how you would accommodate this and how you would make the budget reflect what you have voted as the number one priority. So thank you so much for all your attention and your consideration for a very complicated situation. So that's all I have to say tonight. Thanks. |
| 03:10:11.99 | Unknown | Thanks. |
| 03:10:16.14 | Jock | Yes, sir. |
| 03:10:16.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:10:16.73 | Jock | Thank you. jock allman friends of the park uh... in in order to uh... move are planned forward we need uh... to include plant material and uh... beautification plant materials important part as i said earlier it's it's easy to put circles on plant and and say you want trees here, but that's not enough. To be successful, we need soil testing, and then those soil tests need to be conveyed to a horticulturalist who can have a dialogue with the people who do the testing, maybe even be involved before in order to give guidance on the kind of testing that's necessary. There's potentially a difficult situation there in the park because of everything that was dumped there and so on. There's no sense really trying to plant trees and have them really last and be successful without choosing the right ones and doing the proper soil preparation, et cetera. I don't think it would take a lot of money that's maybe a three four thousand dollar item i'm just guessing that means not a huge huge item but it it does need to be done the other thing is that parking is becoming an issue part we have he suggested layout for you cast marina needs to satisfy some eighty eight issues galilee has some funding to do some paving of their area and they they feel pressure to do something in this parking area is planned to be a joint use parking area which involves galilee and cast marina So in order for anything that they do to coordinate properly with the overall parking plan, there needs to be an engineering design which involves the drainage, maybe the lighting, the toilet. Will it have to have a sewer lateral, and how does that affect, you know, because it will probably go right through where the parking is. I don't know. I can't enumerate all the things, but I know enough in construction that you can't plan too carefully, and how many times have we seen streets get torn up because it wasn't thought out? So we are asking that you fund enough money for that to be done. In the long run, it's actually wisely spent money. Yeah. So, |
| 03:13:01.48 | Unknown | Thank you. I don't see any other. Yes, there are some other members of the public. Does anybody else in the public want to say anything? okay |
| 03:13:24.02 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:13:26.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:13:27.15 | Unknown | I mean, where do we start? Well, I mean... |
| 03:13:29.07 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but for both you and Shelby, you've got to go get money. You've got to get money to do any of this stuff, to do big projects. All the big projects that are in here, we're not even funding them anything. We're saying we're going to go raise money. And this is where Sausalito needs to transition from There is no pool of money like sitting in the basement that we can dive into to do any of these large capital projects or having a really robust Um... If you wanted to make Sausalito beautiful, This is the challenge that we're giving to you as private groups to say, And I agree with each one of what you're doing is you've got to go out and raise money. And that's the first thing to do to make big dents in any of this stuff. I could sit here and look at you in the face and say, yeah, we're going to do all these things, but we just don't have the money. We don't. Do you want us to stop repairing the sewers? Do you want us to not do ADA repairs to the sidewalks? I mean, we're trying to give the resources we can. but we're trying to do that is it going to build over time? But it's sort of like the concept here in my mind, at least, is kind of like a matching situation. None of the parks are going to be redone without some sort of big dough coming from somewhere. whether it's Robin Sweeney Park, whether it's Dumpy Park, That's just the reality of life, that we just don't have $5 million for each park sitting around. to do them. And so or we don't have six million dollars to do the bike path from here to to |
| 03:15:04.19 | Unknown | And |
| 03:15:04.53 | Mary Wagner | Yeah. |
| 03:15:10.98 | Unknown | to the top of South Street or Alexander. Um, I mean, I can only be honest with you. I can't. I mean, believe me, we've tried to trade these things off. And yes, it's our high priorities because we're getting on the train to build momentum to go find the money both here and in the community. And this is where Saucyut has to change. I think what we've done is set the table over the last time I've been here, as responsible as possible with the public's money. and the desire for the community to do things like in Mill Valley with Kiddo and other things that it's time for the money to start flowing and say, hey, we spent, Peter, you've monitored the money we spent on the public safety building. We've spent money in the right ways. If you give us money and apply it to specific things, we're going to do those things. rather than it gets lost in the general fund and nothing ever comes of it. And that was the flavor of what I think the community had an impression, including myself, of what happened here. That being said, we can make a slow start and then, you know, kind of give you momentum to go out and raise money from people, but there is no big pot of money to do either of these big projects. I mean, I just – I can't look at you in the eye and tell you there is. |
| 03:16:33.55 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor? Thank you. So I believe that as a first step, that and I am still frankly reviewing these numbers from my perspective, but I have seen in the past where going back to line items and kind of getting clarity on, you know, some of the priorities and what it means. In some cases I know in the, city staff has spent time researching grants and has spent time creating proposals and identifying grants and going after grants. So I guess I would look at this constructively and say we've just rated these two projects very high. And so step one, take another – frankly, I'm going to, you know, take another look at the budget and see how these funds are divvied up for various projects. but also to look at strategies for staff resources to look at grants and to explore different opportunities that perhaps we could generate some funds in that way. And so that's just my you know? initial response to the two inquiries we have. These are two of our top priority projects. And then, of course, from my perspective, I'm very concerned with this $6 million OPEB accrued liability that we have and the fact that we are making the minimum payments as opposed to the ARC. I understand it's optional to pay the ARC, but I think we should be paying the ARC. And yes, over, what, 75 years this is going to go away, but I mean, What about generational equity? you know, paying down the debt so that we don't leave it to future generations. So I guess I would end my comment saying that these are actually issues that I am going to go back and maybe schedule some time with Charlie to walk through some of these items because I think we could identify some potential funds and leverage for our two top priority projects. And I also want to revisit this arc. |
| 03:19:20.69 | Unknown | Well, I do have one comment on... on the dumpy park thing. I understand and maybe, Jock, you should clarify that You're asking for some money that would help you with certain plans that would help you get further money, is that correct? |
| 03:19:34.38 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:19:34.73 | Unknown | And I mean, I think it's a small amount, so... There may be some, because I agree with you, we can't, these are great projects, and certainly when we do redo Dumpy Park and to really do beautification right, It's hundreds and hundreds and millions of dollars, but I think I think I understand you to be asking for some money that's going to help you through the next phase, which will allow you to move on to look for grants, or correct me if I'm |
| 03:19:56.94 | Jock | correct me if I'm off. That is correct. And I think that, for instance, with the parking, obviously Cass Marina has some funding for some of its parking needs. And Galilee has some funding. So there is money that can be found. But what we're saying is that there needs to be enough of a plan there, technical plan. We have a layout to start with, that's our contribution, but it needs to be engineered to work and then maybe it's done only incrementally only where there are funds but at least it fits into the bigger picture uh... with the plant material uh... because a fairly small amount which allows us to give guidelines and then maybe uh... we can go out and find someone who would like to donate ten thousand dollars for trees in the park and then maybe that could happen, but it can only happen if all the preparation is done. And I'm sure that when we get to the passive part of the park and the habitat restoration and so on, once that's agreed upon and defined, that we can go for funding for that. And yes, there's all kinds of, that's really one of the things that we were hoping for is that we would have enough of a plan that would allow people specifically interested in different parts of it to go out and get funding for it. |
| 03:21:11.00 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:21:11.21 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:21:11.24 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:21:25.85 | Unknown | Bye. So what would you be looking for to get you that far? |
| 03:21:30.85 | Jock | Well, as I say, I think 3,000 to 4,000 would handle the soil testing and the water cultural. I have no idea. The engineering, the parking is beyond me to say. I'm sure the public works director could have some input on that. |
| 03:21:54.12 | Unknown | Jonathan, why don't you... |
| 03:21:56.16 | Jonathon Goldman | thank you mister marriage is uh... very briefly on the dunphy park schematic master plan in your priority calendar packet attachment three page three of seven the city's department of public works operations budget is adequate to cover the cost of the soil testing necessary and that information got factored into the budget process. I also think, as is pointed out in this discussion on the general fund, we have two capital projects funded or proposed for funding in the budget at Dunphy Park already and I suspect that there's the opportunity for some synergies between the work that the city has to do there, both those that are listed here as well as accessibility issues and the work that Mr. Ullman referred to with Cass Gidley working towards getting their operation started as well as the parking that Gally Harbor intends to implement. So I'm confident that the objective of the Friends of Dunphy Park can be realized in this next fiscal year without any additional appropriation. |
| 03:22:34.20 | Mary Wagner | in the end. |
| 03:23:16.88 | Unknown | Actually, while you're still or almost still up there, |
| 03:23:20.96 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. |
| 03:23:21.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:23:23.69 | Unknown | Could I ask a question actually about Do I ‑‑ I'm trying to remember when we were dealing with the operating budget that in finance committee that we increased budget for maintenance of medians that would be classified as sort of beautification sort of work. And we asked the question, what capital projects or small capital amounts we set aside versus what we've actually put in the operating budget for your department to actually do. Could you remind me of that? Because I can't remember the example. |
| 03:24:07.43 | Jonathon Goldman | Well, I know. Adam, go ahead. |
| 03:24:11.11 | Adam Politzer | Yeah, and I'll let Jonathan fill in the blanks here. I mean, when Shelby got up and Listening to Councilmember Leon's comments. There is a ton of money in here in our world. a ton of money, for things that are beautification specifically, but To your question, Mr. Mayor, you know, in the bridgeway mediums, tree maintenance and removal, when we first had this discussion, when the audience was back, one of the loudest things we heard was the condition of the medians and the trees. And so when you look at the capital budget, There's $175,000 budgeted there. to remove trees to start planting trees and then – and that's the first two years, 25,000, 25,000. |
| 03:24:53.67 | Unknown | What page is that? |
| 03:24:54.67 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. That's on page 145. And the next three years is $50,000. And so that's in the effort to replace and improve the Bridgeway mediums and So that's significant. The Caledonia Streetscape We started that with the prunings of the trees, but there's still a balance of I think $30,000 to continue the improvements on Cal Dona Street by itself. You go to page 144, and if you want Charlie to walk through a lot of these items, we can go through it. But we've got small park improvements with Casno and Langendorf with $150,000 budgeted there over the next five years just on the Casno and Langendorf. You've got significant money for continued work on the retaining walls at Southview Park. We put in $100,000 for capital. AND WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE INCREASING THEIR RETAINING WALLS. Park Capital Project Planning to come over to look over the course of all of our parks and what is going to need it. Some will be maintenance, some will be reconstruction, AND SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN. BUT THOSE ARE SIGNIFICANT DOLLARS THAT WE'VE put in there. On City Hall, we're working, there's money that is set aside at mid-year for some improvements working with the Sausalito Beautiful, so on page 143, It's not what Shelby and her group is working with SWA, and even in Shelby's email to the council and to the community, it's going to be a phased approach. And there's some monies that we have right now that's in today's budget to help move forward on that. But there's also $80,000 on painting. the exterior of City Hall. which would obviously be in concert with beautification and the significant improvements that we're looking for City Hall. |
| 03:26:53.08 | Mary Wagner | and |
| 03:26:59.12 | Adam Politzer | As you go through item by item, It may not be labeled beautification, but there are significant beautification dollars in the capital. And then in the maintenance side, we put money in there so that at least twice a year, we can go into the medians and right away to do a spring cleanup and a winter cleanup. to get the staff in a position where they can maintain versus having to be just trying to catch up with pulling weeds or mowing lawns when we can look at opportunities there. So sorry to steal your thunder, but. Well, that's all right. |
| 03:27:33.65 | Jonathon Goldman | Sorry to steal your money. Well, that's all right. You left me a little bit, and I won't belabor it too long. But we're also now fully staffed in landscape maintenance. We took advantage of the opportunity, and Mr. Francis alluded to some changes in our pay structure under the MOU. We have a new employee as a landscape maintenance worker entered at the appropriate tier for a new employee, that actually gives us not only fully staffed but at reduced cost compared to where we were before. And with Sausalito Beautiful's work with Lauren Abertus, who's the maintenance division manager, we've been able to factor the opportunity to acquire things like once or twice a year services |
| 03:27:37.85 | Adam Politzer | More political. |
| 03:28:27.41 | Jonathon Goldman | into the operations budget that fundamentally cost less for the service, let's say mowing the medians, mowing the parks, fundamentally cost less than they would if we used city employees to do that work. And that's going to allow those city employees who are higher value workers in an economic sense to do higher value work, which is more along the lines of beautification than simply mowing MLK is. So the answer to your question is yes, we spent a lot of time on that. And as Adam said, it's not necessarily clearly labeled as such in the proposed budget, but it's a significant difference from what we've done in the years. |
| 03:28:30.83 | Unknown | Fundamental. Thank you. |
| 03:28:32.67 | Jeremy Grazier | I'm not sure. |
| 03:28:32.73 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:28:33.37 | Jeremy Grazier | Thank you. |
| 03:28:33.38 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 03:29:07.25 | Unknown | Well, can I ask you to do this? So it's been like a month since we looked at a lot of these things in detail. So can – is there a way to – just gather a list of things and run over them with Shelby, of the things that we've – and her group, which would fall in that category so they can get a better sense of what's in the budget, what are capital projects that are in the budget, and then what's in the staff side, which is the more general fund side of things, that's in the budget that relates to some of the things that she's discussed with you previously. |
| 03:29:36.07 | Adam Politzer | of things. Thank you. things that she's discussed with If I can interject, we're happy to continue to work with Shelby and her group. I think that Lauren is doing an outstanding job of keeping that connection very solid. But we have one week to turn this around, and one of the proposals was a finance committee meeting in the middle of that. So, |
| 03:30:01.44 | Unknown | Who? |
| 03:30:01.83 | Adam Politzer | WE'LL BE HAPPY TO WORK AS HARD AS WE CAN TO COORDINATE, BUT IT MAY NOT COME TO A PERFECT LIST THAT EVERYONE SIGNED OFF ON. BUT I'M SURE THAT LAUREN AND JONATHAN CAN WORK WITH SHELBY AND THEN THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO DECIDE IF THERE'S A NEED FOR A FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING OR IF YOU'RE GOING TO TRUST STAFF TO JUST DO THE WORK. We have, you know, the council packet gets put together on Thursday, and we try to get it out Thursday. So there's not a whole lot of working days in between. Thank you. |
| 03:30:30.92 | Unknown | I hear you. It doesn't have to be, you know, to the nth detail, but I'd like to give her a straight answer rather than me off the cuff looking at the capital budget here of what items here are |
| 03:30:30.97 | Adam Politzer | I know. |
| 03:30:42.12 | Unknown | you know, are kind of applicable to that category of expenditure and what aren't. Um, And as far as the – in the regular budget and the general fund budget versus the capital budget, both categories that relate to that. It doesn't have to be down to, like, you know, even Fred's at a lower step level than Joe. I don't need that level of category. It's just here's where money can be applied to it, and let's total it up, run it by those folks so they know where the money's going that applies to them, because we did bake things into smaller. increments rather than kind of bigger projects. And see if it – get their reaction, if we can. Or just give me the list, or array the list, and there's somebody on the list, and they can meet with them out so the staff doesn't have students. |
| 03:31:40.10 | Shelby | I think one of the challenges is that it's really not about me and what we propose. It's really... It's really, I would think, a basic, desire of the city, whether it's city staff, city Council. to to make this a priority and rather than, I think, if possible, responding to what comes forward from community complaint. to perhaps have I'm not sure I'm expressing this, It seems like, It's wonderful to have a response that we've worked very hard to to accomplish from you, and we have, and we appreciate that. But it's like, it's so much work. to do this and we throw things out there and recommend things and often don't hear anything back. So all of a sudden the budget is here and there hasn't really been a discussion. We don't really know how it was received or whether we had any success other than your vote of confidence with the $30,000 |
| 03:32:36.67 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:32:52.19 | Shelby | but it seems like there's some sort of a communications gap somehow because this Until tonight. we don't really have an understanding of what really is coming in response to our request. And in a way, it doesn't seem totally that we, the community, me or any other individual has to press so hard and to try to get this town looking better. You know, it really should be something that should come from the top instead of bubbling up and we're always harassing you, I feel. We're like being pests and we're saying, please do this, wouldn't you do this? And it really is kind of taxing. And so I don't know how we can all put our heads together and I feel like it's kind of a disparate process. I don't know if there's a way to... No, I mean, I can only tell you... Conversation that would... I can only tell you that... |
| 03:33:50.13 | Unknown | I can only tell you that in the discussion of both here in the council and in the finance committee meetings as we've put this together over the last two months, both the – we and I think, Ray, you correct me if I'm wrong, is the idea that the department heads and at least us and the council, I think, in general, is that we're trying to elevate parks and kind of general public space to the same level of importance as anything else. Whereas I think for a longer period of time, they were kind of put as a second level of attention because there were bigger fights to fight kind of thing. And they were viewed as nice-to-dos versus have-to-dos. And so I know in our discussions, and I think so far at the council level, that we're trying to raise that – that both – public space, including parks as well as medians and other – the city hall, I think think up to the same level of consideration, same ability to fight for money as anything else, which is a real change than when I started eight years ago, believe me, in terms of, like, what kind of attention went to those types of things. And in terms of the funding, that's part of it. And some of it, Jonathan who says his staff is reoriented because of suggestions from you is reorienting what they're focusing on and they're getting different people. And that's, as I said, a multi-period shift of focus. So I think it's happening. If you want a specific list of things, I think you can sit down with you guys and that will |
| 03:34:29.53 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:34:54.77 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:34:55.00 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:35:29.72 | Unknown | But as far as like the – if I had to, from my own point of view, gauge the general opinion of the city government, it's shifting. It's not – it can't let go of the other things it does, but it's raising – of some of the issues you've brought and some other things that you haven't discussed in terms of some of the more park-related stuff to that same level of debate over funding and importance. So that is a fundamental change. |
| 03:35:52.64 | Shelby | That is a fundamental change. Thank you. And that it is, and it's really terrific. I don't really feel like carrying the entire load of trying to make things happen, because it takes a lot of energy and a lot of commitment. |
| 03:35:55.63 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:36:10.63 | Shelby | somehow I think phasing out, for example, the medians, $25,000 a year, which is nice, but then the whole overall impact is so slow in developing that the impact doesn't really hit. So how is anyone gonna notice that, wow, this is happening? Because we're doing a little bit this year, a little bit next year, a little bit next year, if you know what I mean. So it's almost as though let's just take something and really do it and make it look good. as opposed to putting, I don't know what I'm talking about, but as opposed to putting little bits here and little bits there that won't really be that noticeable. if you know what I mean. So I don't know how to solve this, but thank you for listening. This is all new to me, and I'm kind of trying to find my way and understand. I've never looked at a budget before. I've never had a conversation like this. |
| 03:37:05.61 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. You're not sure. |
| 03:37:08.42 | Shelby | You're not, you don't need to be. |
| 03:37:09.03 | Unknown | You don't need to be forgiven in any shape or form. No. So we should be thanked. |
| 03:37:10.00 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:37:10.03 | Shelby | I forget. |
| 03:37:10.30 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:37:11.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:37:11.75 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:37:11.80 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:37:12.17 | Shelby | I hope you guys enjoyed it. Wait, you should. I think it's just a process of working together and trying to have good communications. It's about the town. It's not about us. It's not about South Little Beautiful. It's about this town and how it looks. |
| 03:37:21.79 | Unknown | Amen. |
| 03:37:22.09 | Mary Wagner | Bye. |
| 03:37:27.19 | Shelby | We'll just do our best to work together and see what happens. |
| 03:37:30.73 | Unknown | I'd be very glad to work with you on trying to or attempting to find other funds, whether we have fundraisers or something like that. |
| 03:37:31.31 | Shelby | Yeah. |
| 03:37:31.83 | Unknown | Shelby. |
| 03:37:32.57 | Shelby | Thank you. |
| 03:37:43.31 | Unknown | And the combination with what the little of the city does give you, or what it can... with and some other source I think you can get in the direction that you want to go and have an impact. So you call me and I'll call you. There's ways of getting money, legally. |
| 03:38:06.12 | Unknown | And Mr. Mayor, so I just want to respond to Shelby's comments. I think that what I'm seeing with the budget is that there was a goodwill attempt by city staff to and the finance committee to allocate funds towards beautification |
| 03:38:08.36 | Unknown | I just wonder. |
| 03:38:30.86 | Unknown | progress towards beautification. And then I'm hearing that the beautification committee has identified specific projects that are a high priority and an interest in keeping a focus on the the objectives and results and getting those results. And so I think the earlier recommendation made by Councilmember Leon for the beautification group to meet with city staff to go through that bulleted list how city staff's interpretations of those priorities may be adjusted to align with the beautification committee makes a lot of sense. And so I think that's a really good first step |
| 03:39:23.10 | Unknown | Okay, we're in the comment period at the moment. Did you wanna have any? No, I, yeah. Okay. |
| 03:39:31.46 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:39:31.54 | Jeremy Grazier | WHAT ACTION IS THAT? |
| 03:39:32.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:39:32.72 | Jeremy Grazier | Thank you. |
| 03:39:34.83 | Unknown | So, I mean, also to very quickly respond also to Shelby, I think you should be very proud of the fact that through the efforts of your group, We changed the maintenance budget. I think you should be very proud in that group that there's now a recognition for line items for this, for actually capital projects to actually improve how things look. Um... What? Councilmember Leone said about his sense of a shift in how the budget is being done. we discussed that in the Finance Committee because I think we were recognizing that You know, there had been in the past, from what I could see as sort of, Um. natural tendency to focus on sewers roads and major capital improvements in those areas. If there was any money left over, just there might be some for parks, there might be some for medians, there might be some for new trees. There was never a budget for new trees. And so, What's happened is saying, Look. These have got to be legitimate line items in the budget now. And now, moving forward, we've now got the basis for a conversation about how we allocate funds among all the different groups. So, That I think is what is different. There was a serious conversation about, okay, how do we consider you know, getting all our parks redone. You know, unfortunately, some of the numbers are so big, they've got to go on the unfunded list, and we figure out how to get the funds, grants. whatever. So the budget is, in my view, more holistic than in the past. It's looking at capital improvements for all the possible capital projects, even if some of them don't You know, they're not there. So that's sort of my take on where we're at in transitioning the budget to really get a grip with this. And in terms of specific projects, we got to see among the various capital items we got there. Do we want to readjust some of the projects because to do one big beautification project, I don't know, that's the decision we can make, but there is, money's there to be, you know, Right. Does anybody else have anything they want to add to this discussion? It is now 11 o'clock. We have another item. And we do have some outside visitors who are here. |
| 03:42:34.10 | Unknown | Yeah, and I appreciate them waiting. The two things I would say, too, because I tend to be a little too direct in some ways, but is that, yeah, for the smaller things, for both, we put money for small things. For that big wow project, there's no big wow in here for either one of you guys, or even though they're at the top because we just don't have the big wow money. But as far as testing and planning for the future, we have money in there for Dunphy Park. There's money to be spent park planning, and there's some projects that Jonathan's doing, some projects that the Public Works Department's going to be doing at Dunphy Park where they can do soil testing and other things that could go to that direction. But if you think about it, all the big wow projects the city's done over the past 10 years have been because the residents have caught have funded them by building the public safety building, MR. You know, new sewer taxes. That's where that additional funds have come for the big wows. And so if we want to do a big wow project, like a new park or redo a park or – |
| 03:43:27.76 | Unknown | you know. |
| 03:43:28.01 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:43:40.79 | Unknown | But I don't think We're going to have to come up with that money somehow. But as far as just general improved maintenance of landscaping, there's money in here to do that. and where there wasn't before. And it's not no detriment to people before, or even myself four years ago, is this where we're trying to build that building down the street, and that's where all the money was going. We were trying to do something else at the time, and now we're shifting and And it's a credit to these folks, there's different priorities as well to raise up the parks and raise up public space. And I think it's an ongoing process, but we hear you, and I don't think we're just reacting to you. I think we see the need, and you've helped highlight that need, and not to dump it all on your shoulders. But the biggest – and I don't think you should take that responsibility, but you're being an advocate for something that's very important, and it's resonating, and that's how change begins. So it's a great – you should be proud of your efforts and not that – I know it sounds like you're swimming upstream, but it's – I think the stream is being diverted in your direction. |
| 03:44:47.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:44:47.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:44:47.86 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:44:47.88 | Unknown | Oh. |
| 03:44:49.84 | Unknown | Okay. Are there any other comments? No. Yeah. |
| 03:44:57.15 | Adam Politzer | I need to take a moment because I think it's really important. And just one other highlight I wanted to point out, and then I wanted to say something about the department But one of the items that's never been on this list is also repairing concrete streets. And, you know, the city council and the city staff you know, we've repaired concrete streets. Three so far. But we've started and we weren't doing that before. So Johnson Street, San Carlos Street, Third Street, and Richardson Street and then we repaved a street that was under dispute that was just a gravel road on Watery Street. and built a street that was a gravel road and every winter turned into a very difficult street to navigate, let alone live on and walk through. So we are adding items, and as the council is saying, this is evolving. The process has changed. as Charlie laid out at the beginning, is also evolving and becoming more transparent. So it is really important to recognize that we are listening and responding and I think moving in a very healthy, positive direction together as one community, not as a council or staff or a community working against each other. And I think you can see it. And that's the credit that I want to make sure that the department has, especially the ones that are here that come before you with their quarterly reports. like our library talking about how many more services they're offering but basically the same budget. The park and rec. and the Park and Rent Commission with all the special events and classes and programs Those two departments don't get in front of the council that often. and there's not a lot of talk But they're doing it with the same level of BUDGET DOLLARS. but still working extra hard and working with the community to do an outstanding job. The police department. during the worst economic time where crime was really rampant in other communities, serious crime. was able to still keep all the fingers in the dike and keep us from being overtaken really bad things, working again in again collaboratively, with the other agencies in the county to make sure that we all keep our town safe and feel comfortable for the tourists that come and visit and the people that live here that like to engage in evening activities as well as early morning activities. You know, the VIPs, you know, provide a tremendous resource to that department in terms of extending, you know, their fingers to help provide public safety in our community. You know, Public Works, the maintenance division. to that department in terms of extending their fingers to help provide public safety in our community. You know, Public Works, the maintenance division, I think that's been talked about. You know, Charlie in one of the messages said, in the last six years, we spent $30 million on capital capital projects. That's significant money on significant outcomes. I think again it's important that we recognize the staff that work hard every day. Charlie is one of the folks that on a regular basis gets recognition from the council. He's I'm the Town Finance Director. In my 25 years of working in municipal government I've never come across someone that can talk to you straightly about what's going on in the budget and explain it without just giving you numbers and burying you in data but understands, listens to the community, makes himself available and his staff every day. I still think about the stack of dollars that reaches 11 miles into the sky after strategic planning. That's the amount of work that these folks process in that department. There's three people that are doing that type of work. So we have an extraordinary staff that works hard every day and works with our community really well. And that's what makes this a small town as we work together to solve these real significant difficult problems. So I know that this is – what's your word, Mr. Mayor? Evolving or – Which was? of the microorganism that's always changing and growing and reinventing itself, that's part of what happened with the budget. It helps us stay within a box that we're trying to work within, but as grants come forward, as new opportunities come forward, it evolves. And I think that we are equipped with a great management team, great council, great community that understands that and working together will continue to |
| 03:49:04.30 | Unknown | Which was? |
| 03:49:10.54 | Unknown | Right. |
| 03:49:10.86 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:49:37.66 | Adam Politzer | provide exceptional services to our community and be prepared for the future as we move forward. So I felt compelled to share that and thank you for that opportunity. Okay. |
| 03:49:49.01 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor, I do have one quick question for city staff, which is |
| 03:49:49.45 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. Uh-huh. |
| 03:49:51.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:49:51.60 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:49:54.11 | Unknown | In this budget, one of the things that we – read about were the storm drains and sewers, et cetera. And it was related to the survey poll that was taken regarding the potential of future taxes. During that session at the last council, I asked for a list of the original survey questions. And so I guess, That is one thing I wanted to... reiterate that I hope to get a copy of the original survey questions that were asked as part of that poll. |
| 03:50:34.76 | Adam Politzer | Yeah, we're looking to see if we have that information. That's not information that the city retains, so we're looking to see if that is available. Traditionally, that information is not distributed. |
| 03:50:44.64 | Unknown | Well, every survey summary I've ever seen, they include the list of the questions they asked in the survey. |
| 03:50:45.29 | Adam Politzer | survey. |
| 03:50:51.00 | Adam Politzer | And we didn't do that with a fire consolidation survey. |
| 03:50:53.65 | Unknown | And I asked for it then, too. |
| 03:50:55.62 | Adam Politzer | been provided. |
| 03:50:57.02 | Unknown | Okay. We need to move on. I want to reiterate the comments that the City Manager made about all the hard work that went in by the heads of departments, all the staff, to produce this. I also want to make the point that You know, there are 177 pages here, and somebody might go, ah, what's that? But a lot of it is words, and it's a narrative, and it's, we're in a transition year again, and Charlie is really, |
| 03:51:19.82 | Mary Wagner | I'm not sure. |
| 03:51:19.89 | Unknown | I'll see you next time. |
| 03:51:20.19 | Mary Wagner | . |
| 03:51:29.30 | Unknown | pushing. um, the fact that we need to start incorporating into our budget more of an explanation and narrative of what each of the departments do, how the budget's constructed, and I think this is a fantastic first step in that. So thank you. So let's move on. No, this is for information only. Thank you, Charlie. Thank you, Charlie. |
| 03:51:57.59 | Unknown | Thank you, Charlie. |
| 03:51:58.72 | Unknown | the So our Last business item for tonight is the Marin emergency radio authority update and Thank you. We are sorry but very thankful that you could stay so very late. We get used to it at the moment, but not all our visitors do. Chief. |
| 03:52:27.08 | Unknown | It's okay, I like to punish him. He was my first FTO at Novato. Uh-huh. It's payback. |
| 03:52:30.88 | Unknown | Uh-huh. |
| 03:52:31.62 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:52:31.66 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:52:31.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:52:32.03 | Mary Wagner | Okay. |
| 03:52:32.42 | Unknown | . |
| 03:52:32.55 | Mary Wagner | you |
| 03:52:35.88 | Unknown | Anyway, good evening. Thanks for letting us continue this evening, even though it's so late. Tonight you're going to hear from Special Projects Manager Dave Jeffries on an update on the MERRA project. And this is primarily to request you to make a resolution in support of funding the next generation of Marin Emergency Radio Authority. And essentially, in a nutshell, it is funding the communications that supports first responders and 25 agencies in Marin County that are all in the business of first response and keeping everything going in terms of disaster preparedness, emergency response. The system that we have is outdated. It's over its initial use. It was designed for, I think, 1,500 systems, and now we're over that by 400. So with that, given the time, I will hand you over to David Jeffries. |
| 03:53:53.69 | Dave Jeffries | Good evening, and don't worry about it. I spent enough years working the graveyard shift that this is just flashbacks starting to occur. |
| 03:54:00.88 | Unknown | Well, you're not out yet. |
| 03:54:04.11 | Dave Jeffries | As Chief Todd said, the mayoral system is a JPA, as you're aware, with 25 member agencies. By the time we're done with this round of presentations, between the round one presentation you saw last year and this, we'll have done this a little over 50 times. So far, with this round of presentations, we're doing this to 24 different boards and councils. 18 of them have already seen the presentation and voted. All 18 have so far voted to support where we're heading with this which is making my life a little easier at this point I do understand that you have the staff report mayor prepared and the presentation generally follows with that so since you already have that my intent would be to kind of move through this relatively quickly if you have questions feel free and also at the end of'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Just a quick reminder about why we're here. Reliability is one of the issues that we have. Capacities, another as Chief Goddard referred to, we saw a huge growth in the system in Gen 1 that we had expected and we do plan to make sure we have lots of capacity in the new system. Coverage has been a key issue. We are planning in the current budget to add four additional sites, two in South County and two in West County to try to Thank you. passing the new system coverage has been a key issue we are planning in the current budget to add four additional sites to in South County and to in West County to try to improve some of the areas there the next one I have to say I learned a week and a half ago there's been a change in this compliance issue to explain it briefly timeline wise the FCC mandated that we comply with this technical requirement called narrowbanding. After that, the federal government passed legislation in which they were going to take back our frequencies as listed there at the end. And the FCC, I actually learned about a week and a half ago, came back and said, well, if we're taking your frequencies away anyway, it seems kind of silly to force you to make technical changes right now. So that out of compliance one has been suspended, but it doesn't make me feel much better because we're going to take our frequencies back anyway. |
| 03:55:55.81 | Unknown | Anyway. Thank you. |
| 03:55:58.73 | Dave Jeffries | So we're hoping with the new system to improve our response times, expand coverage, reliability, moving to 700 megahertz, I mentioned in round one, provides us a number of benefits, especially with mutual aid. And as we've seen over the last couple of years, our ability to move mutual aid to other counties also to support them coming to us. And lastly, we do intend in the budget to replace all the existing radios one for one so that as we start the new system, there's no agency costs for that. So, you know, bottom line here is we're hoping to have a strong, robust communication system that helps make our responders safer and comply with all our regulatory deadlines. Hello. So to explain the next couple of slides, I want to back up a little bit and say that when we started the Gen 1 project, the intention or decision was to sell bonds and have the member agencies commit to making payments annually to pay off those bonds. And that's what I'll refer to here as the traditional funding mechanism. Looking at the needs for Gen 2, we recognized the impact that would have. And you may recall in the round one presentation, there were six overlapping years that had a significant impact on total costs for the member agencies. So in polling different options like sales tax, general obligation bonds, and parcel tax, we've got a lot of support for parcel tax. That is the method Mera has chosen to move forward with. Both the executive board and governing boards approved that plan of action. And at this point, we're scheduled to meet with the board of supervisors late July to hopefully have them place this on a November ballot. |
| 03:57:13.52 | Mary Wagner | That is the matter. |
| 03:57:31.15 | Dave Jeffries | This kind of graphically explains the challenge we have here. The upper graph is the impact on all the merit and member agencies should the parcel tax fail to pass. The second graph is the impact on the merit agency should the parcel tax be successful. |
| 03:57:52.47 | Dave Jeffries | Related to this, we had a number of questions about O&M costs moving forward, so Public Works has been able to work out some estimates for us. I would caution with these that they are estimates beyond this year. I would also mention that there are some challenges in estimating operating and maintenance costs for a project that we haven't completely designed and built yet. But these are their best estimates looking at other folks in their systems. Also on here, I'd like to MENTION THE SERVICE UPGRADE AGREEMENT. IT IS SOMETHING WE ARE GOING TO ASK TO BE QUOTED AS AN OPTION FOR MARA TO TAKE A LOOK AT. THE IDEA WITH THE SERVICE UPGRADE AGREEMENT IS TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS WE HAD WITH GENERATION ONE AND THAT FOR AN ADDITIONAL COST EACH YEAR AS AN OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSE, THE VENDOR WOULD COME IN EVERY COUPLE OF YEARS AND DO WHATEVER TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES HAVE COME come to be during that period of time. The concept being at the end of 10 years we have a system that's been upgraded as we go into the second 10 years as opposed to this system where essentially the technology is the same as it was. So when you take operating and maintenance and the bond costs, this is, again, a similar representation you saw a couple slides ago, the upper indicating the parcel tax not passing, the lower one indicating the impact if it does. And the staff report MERA provided on page 8, there are some estimates that we created locally for your agency to give you the same illustration, although the graph would look pretty much the same. So as I mentioned, MARA has decided to move forward with the parcel tax proposal. It does require a two-thirds vote. It does have to be put on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors. MARA doesn't have that legal authority on its own. The governing board has decided to include exemptions for income-qualified senior homeowners and has decided to include a citizen oversight committee that would be keeping an eye on the funds that come through. And we'll get back to some more details of this in a moment. We did do another round of polling, specifically looking at the $29 single-family residence parcel tax, and the support was a little stronger than we saw last year, still a little shy of what we'd like to see, right at the edge of the margin of error with 4.5%. And so we're going to take some steps to try to improve that. What you'll probably be seeing, I think, next week spot will be coming out educating Marin County as to what MARA is about. There will also be some social media and mailers coming out because we did see in our conversations that a lot of folks either don't know what MARA is still or don't know enough about it to really have an opinion and recognizing as part of that 911 system. So tonight in these presentations is it really a key part of that outreach too and that our hope is when we go to the Board of Supervisors to be able to show them that we have the unanimous support of all the MARA member agencies as we move forward. Just a quick reminder about why we're here so early in the process. We're looking at turning this on in 2018, but this is a highly technical capital project that's going to take some time to develop. And that Mara believes strongly that we need to start next year, regardless of whether or not the parcel task is successful. The budget has – the $40 million budget hasn't – the total hasn't changed since last time I was here. There's been a little internal movement between the four line items. Some money is removed from portables and mobile radios to help support the rest of the system. This budget does include the four sites we're proposing in addition to the current sites and does still include a contingency. |
| 04:01:23.93 | Dave Jeffries | So just the details on the parcel tax, this is for residential and agricultural parcels. And for commercial industrial and utilities again, I know you've had this in your staff report So basically, at this point, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to come back. I was hoping to have something more entertaining after your budget discussion and more numbers, but I apologize for that. We, at this point, I BELIEVE WE PUT TOGETHER A PROPOSAL THAT WILL LET US CONTINUE TO HAVE ROBUST PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS, PROVIDE US SOME ADDITIONAL BENEFITS, ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE FACING. IT'S BASED ON AN AWFUL LOT OF ANALYSIS. I BELIEVE WE'VE HAD IN ADDITION TO 50-PLUS MEETINGS IN THE OUTREACH THAT ALEX ANDERSON AND I HAVE BEEN DOING, A NUMBER OF STRATEGIC PLAN MEETINGS, AND REALLY DOZENS OF IMPLEMENTATION MEETINGS AS WE'VE WORKED THROUGH THIS. SO WE ARE HOPING TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN THIS EFFORT AND HOPEFULLY LOOK FOR YOUR SUPPORT. WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT BACK TO CHIEF TO HADDA. to discuss the resolution itself. Again, happy to answer any questions you may have. |
| 04:02:29.88 | Unknown | So do you have any questions? |
| 04:02:33.66 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor. So I guess one question I have is right now when I'm not sure if you're with mutual aid to help with the firefighters. Can they, do their frequencies work with Mira's frequencies? |
| 04:02:57.95 | Dave Jeffries | Not directly. In areas that are state responsibility areas that are more rural areas of the county, if Cal Fire is involved in those responses, especially with their attack aircraft, they use Cal Fire channels on those specific fires. Now, most of the day-to-day residential fires, even a lot of our wildland fires that are handled initially, are handled on the Mara channels. And, of course, law enforcement, EMS, Public Works, and all of those agencies are also on Mara. |
| 04:03:13.13 | Mary Wagner | All right. |
| 04:03:26.96 | Unknown | What drove the decision in 1998 for you to pursue the higher frequency mirror system over the lower frequency. |
| 04:03:40.04 | Dave Jeffries | A number of the agencies pre-MARA had, without getting too technical, VHF low band channels that were even lower than what Cal Fire uses now. So the radios that I started using wouldn't talk to Cal Fire either. And what we had was a series of separate systems here in the county. Law enforcement at the time was restricted to one common channel, so if a big event occurred in Marin, we were all stuck on that one channel. So when we looked at having this combined system, really what it came down to at that point was looking at how many frequencies we needed to grab in the same band that we could get. And that's why we ended up in the UHF TV band. It was the only place available to get the number of frequencies we needed to make the system work. Unfortunately at this point those are the same frequencies the federal government wants back so they can sell them and the push now is to move in an urban area like this to 700 megahertz and the feds are also investing money in 700 megahertz. So I really don't think we're going to see that same challenge come up again. But it was really the only place we could find enough frequencies. |
| 04:04:38.70 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 04:04:38.72 | Unknown | really |
| 04:04:38.93 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:04:38.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:04:45.57 | Unknown | Let's move some questions around so if there's more we can invite you. Councilman, move. |
| 04:04:51.54 | Unknown | Sure. I'll ask you this question only because we had to go through similar exercises just a few months ago with MBS on allocating costs across different classes of property descriptions. I think if you go back a slide or two to your that right there, those two slides. So how did MBS come up with these kind of tax units from the part number of parcels in each class? Because that sort of decides how you allocate things. And one of the things we found in how they allocated our own costs for our sewer tax was it was way – one class was subsidizing another. And I don't know, maybe you could speak to how do you think this is – they thought this was equitable. |
| 04:05:22.91 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 04:05:23.01 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:05:23.03 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 04:05:39.16 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:05:39.18 | Mike Dillabaugh | We dealt with |
| 04:05:39.21 | Unknown | We dealt with the same classes. We don't have agricultural, but as far as the other multi-family commercial, we found that the residential was subsidizing the commercial, and I don't know how they solved that problem here. |
| 04:05:52.97 | Dave Jeffries | I may not be able to answer that question for you completely tonight. The NBS study, the NBS did the work for us as well. And I know it's posted on Mara's site. It's a public document. But, you know, essentially the one challenge we did come up with was there was case law along the way that talked about whether or not you could even differentiate different parcel types for costs. And there are several different authority sections for parcel taxes. So it really, we had to go back and take a hard look and actually change our tax a little bit to use a section that was specific to police and fire that you could even radiate the parcel amounts this way. I really can't tell you what was in the mind of NBS when they did that. I know this was supposed to be built similarly to other projects they had worked on. |
| 04:06:37.42 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 04:06:37.79 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:06:41.36 | Unknown | uh, Let me ask a question if I may about scale, scalability and technology lifetime, life cycle. It seems like you had two things going on with this G1 or the first generation system. you're operating on a bigger scale than originally been planned now, but it also seems that there's a technology lifecycle which you're probably already beyond or close to being there. |
| 04:07:19.35 | Dave Jeffries | Well, to be clear, we're comfortable, this system working into 2018. So I hate to say that I expected to wake up tomorrow morning and find out the system failed tonight. |
| 04:07:29.74 | Unknown | Sure, sure, sure. Okay, so my question is, And then the financing mechanism that was in place had no relationship to the technology lifecycle such that you know, in a sense, if you're putting the first system in place, you've got to be thinking, what's my life cycle? overall cash flows are going to look like so that I'm going to have to upgrade or change at some point. I know you're trying to consider for an extra half million-ish, 400 and change, build in some technology life cycle risk protection, but are you already thinking about how the technology will go and what you think the useful life of this is? And then is the parcel tax just forever? Does it have a sunset? What's the, how's then the financing mechanism tied to those life cycle |
| 04:08:32.22 | Dave Jeffries | I think I defined about four questions in there. But you see what I'm trying to get at. The parcel tax is set at 20 years, and the rates you see here are maxes. So if the project came in less than we expect or if grant funding became available for parts of this, adjusts can be made downward but not upwards. That's one issue. The original system was designed in 98, and it is pretty well known. There were some significant delays in implementation that I really don't expect to see in the same way. to the The original system was designed in 98, and it is pretty well known. There were some significant delays in implementation that I really don't expect to see in the same way this time, because we can create almost essentially the same existing footprint of coverage with our existing sites. And, you know, we believe truly that to take our existing sites and add new equipment to them is going to be a less controversial project than building new sites as we had to do before. With the four additional sites, if we get hung up on one or two of those, it's not going to stop the whole system the way it did last time. |
| 04:08:34.24 | Unknown | So you see what I'm trying to get at. |
| 04:08:59.92 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 04:09:15.58 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:09:15.64 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 04:09:30.49 | Dave Jeffries | The... So that delay from system design implementation was part of the challenge that we had. The increase in radios, the user part, from my experience with it, I think it's a challenge we ran to because the system worked well. I know with some agencies at the time I was working with Novato, we looked at the system and its capabilities and made the decision to push out and buy enough radios for everybody who needed them, where in the past two or three officers might share a radio Not everybody did that. that went back and went, you know what, that makes sense, especially when you're having that really bad day. You know, you're not going to have a lot of time YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT RADIO. SO A LOT OF AGENCIES went to that model after The calculations were done. And because that's already happened, I don't see that kind of rapid growth again. I don't look around and see any agencies expecting to double in size over the life of the new system. So that's another piece of that. In terms of system life, IN OUR FEASIBILITY STUDY IT SAYS WE SHOULD EXPECT SYSTEMS LIKE THIS TO RUN 15 TO 20 YEARS, AND THAT'S WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE SERVICE UPGRADE AGREEMENT, WHICH HOPEFULLY WOULD EXTEND THAT. SINCE WE'RE LOOKING AT STARTING TO SELL BONDS IN 2015, then the payment period at the twenty thirty five if we turn on a system in twenty eighteen that'll last fifteen to twenty years it certainly looks like we're pretty well synced up now could there be an overlapping year or two because we have this three year design period certainly could be but it looks like we're better synced up i would say to the service upgrade agreement we are asking for it as an option for a couple reasons one until we see exactly what they're going to charge us and exactly what they're going to do for it, there may be other options that America considered at that time. They could set monies aside and manage their own upgrade process or maybe some other mechanism. So we don't want to be locked into it until we see the |
| 04:11:12.49 | Mary Wagner | THE FAMILY. |
| 04:11:30.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:11:31.26 | Dave Jeffries | I think I got Yeah. |
| 04:11:33.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:11:33.08 | Dave Jeffries | Thank you. |
| 04:11:33.10 | Unknown | Yeah, that's good. Yeah, that's good. Any other questions? |
| 04:11:33.27 | Dave Jeffries | That's good. |
| 04:11:37.55 | Unknown | Well, just for a member of the public who actually do watch on TV, even though it's a late hour, the issue here is not if we're going to pay for these upgrades in MIRA, it's how we're going to pay. Is that correct? Because MIRA, we're... . part of MIRA, SOSLIL's representative in MIRA, has decided it needs to make this upgrade. So what you're asking us to do is to make a recommendation about how you're going to pay. |
| 04:12:02.90 | Dave Jeffries | Well, to pass a resolution supporting the funding mechanism that Merritt's chosen to follow. |
| 04:12:07.83 | Unknown | And just could you explain a little bit more, I know you went quickly, then how you chose the parcel tax versus coming out of our general fund to save money? to fund this. |
| 04:12:22.51 | Dave Jeffries | Thank you. |
| 04:12:22.52 | Unknown | Nobody wanted to cough it up, man. You know, you mentioned, too, as you've |
| 04:12:23.62 | Dave Jeffries | Yeah. So you mentioned, too, as you mentioned, there's people at home that may not understand what this Mara thing is. The JPA is run by an executive and a governing board. All 25 member agencies have voting members on the governing board. And then there's a subset of that, about 10 members that sit on the executive board. And so it's the member agencies that have made these decisions along the way. But this essentially indicates the problem that, you know, Merrigan has decided we need to move forward next year, and otherwise we won't have a system ready when we need it. So really it comes down to how do we fund this? And this is, again, the impact of what will happen if we don't have a funding mechanism other than the traditional method in place. But to back up, I think this slide here covers that we did look at other options. So when this was pulled last year, you can see at the bottom, sales tax and obligation bonds showed a lot less support than what we saw in the parcel tax funding. When we did the survey last year, it was in the high 50s for the parcel tax. And then this year when we pulled it again, that was at a $45 level that we were looking at the point. We've got it down to $29. It went from 62% support just based on the question. After explaining the positive arguments, it rose to 64%. After going over the negative arguments, the support dropped percent. So it was stronger than what we saw last year. It was darn close but we're a little shy where we want to be. So that's part of why the mayor did, again, approve a public education campaign that will be starting next week. |
| 04:13:14.05 | Mary Wagner | THE CITY. |
| 04:14:03.98 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor, I have a question. So my question is going back to Cal Fire and the other fire agencies and the frequency that they, the lower frequency they use. |
| 04:14:05.40 | Unknown | MAKING A LITTLE BIT. |
| 04:14:11.42 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 04:14:15.57 | Unknown | It's my understanding that that system is less expensive than the MIRA system. And my question is, have you ever considered going back, taking a second look at the lower frequency kind of systems used by the other agencies? And if not, why not? |
| 04:14:36.31 | Dave Jeffries | The frequencies really aren't the cost drivers, the technology behind them. So with CAL FIRE, they basically work one of two ways. They have a repeater, that a field unit talks to and then it resends it somewhere else, or they talk direct from antenna to antenna like two walkie-talkies. The systems that we see used for larger areas throughout the Bay Area, and we're not the only county that does this, actually. We're a little behind the curve with the other Bay Area counties in making this transition. but these are digital trunk systems that I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF THEM. It's a shared frequency system, somewhat like cell phones use. So, you know, when Chief Tejada's officers are talking to each other on – was it SNPD? Was it your primary? Southern Marine Police? Sorry, I don't have all of the templates memorized. But when they're talking on Southern Marine Police talk group, to each other, they may have the same follow-up conversation two minutes later and actually be on different frequencies. So when you look at our frequency loading, even though we have all these used and everything else, we are running oftentimes eight, nine, 10, 11, 12 conversations simultaneously. But as soon as the conversation drops off, those frequencies get reused. What we had before was more like Cal Fire. You know, every agency had their own channels. They didn't have as much coverage as they have now. IT WAS EASY TO OVERLOAD BECAUSE THERE WAS NO CAPACITY TO DO EVERYTHING ELSE. AND REALLY THE MUTUAL AID WAS A HUGE CHALLENGE AS WELL. As I said, you had one law channel to do everything that law had to do. Now, currently, the law officers have access to, I believe it's four or five county-wide law tactical channels that they can go to instantly if they need to. In addition, we've been able to build in some other capacities that never existed before. All of the law enforcement radios have Golden Gate Bridge frequencies in them, Petaluma PD, Sonoma County. We've reached out and Sonoma County's helicopter and CHP's helicopter have access to the Mara channels. So it makes that part of the mutual aid much, much better. And again, with our fire partners, what we find more and more, even though I've retired from the trauma of training as I used to do years ago, I'm still heavily involved in emergency management. And I think that's a good question. |
| 04:16:53.17 | Unknown | We really do pity you, as a matter of fact. |
| 04:16:56.90 | Dave Jeffries | Bye. |
| 04:16:56.91 | Unknown | Bye. No, we don't. |
| 04:17:00.14 | Unknown | uh... we don't know these agencies to refer into the all use the same system |
| 04:17:05.50 | Dave Jeffries | Asmura in Marin County and West |
| 04:17:09.00 | Unknown | In Marin County. In Marin County. And what about the other Bay Area agencies? |
| 04:17:14.26 | Dave Jeffries | So most of them have moved or are in the process of moving to 700 megahertz, except Sonoma County. Sonoma County is still a little more like we were with different systems. But one of the advantages as we move forward to 700 megahertz is not only is it giving us a new system, but as I mentioned, the feds have invested money in this, and there is currently a Bay Area network of sites that we'll be able to add to our radios at 700 megahertz, that if agencies come here to help us or we go there to help them, we'll have common talk groups in our radios. In addition, with the current technologies, there's another band right next to it, 800 megahertz, which has been around for a while that has a lot of mutual aid in it. And the current crop of radios, if you have one that works in 700, it'll work in 800. That wasn't as true in the lower bands, so we see a lot more capacity coming with this system as well. |
| 04:18:06.66 | Unknown | Is there any other questions? |
| 04:18:08.77 | Dave Jeffries | you |
| 04:18:09.05 | Unknown | One last question. So at one point, I was on the MIRA. One of the 25 people came, but now smarter people go, namely the captain. And my memory is that part of Sausalito is not currently served by MIRA, the southern end of town, has sketchy coverage. Will the new site, or is it just the bandwidth that's going to sort of accommodate that end of Sausalito? |
| 04:18:09.10 | Dave Jeffries | Well, |
| 04:18:18.44 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 04:18:35.21 | Dave Jeffries | As a general rule of thumb, as you moved up in frequencies, you needed more sites to provide coverage. But with the time that's gone by, it looks like they've addressed that particular issue. But since you have a current coverage issue, that's where the four additional sites, I think, become real important. Again, the intent is to put two of them down here in South County and two out in West County to address what we thought were the major concerns. And that wasn't just thrown dart to the dartboard. Essentially, our operations committee looked at calls for service and coverage gaps and tried to prioritize based on where things were actually happening. |
| 04:18:35.31 | Mary Wagner | And as a gentleman, |
| 04:18:36.04 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. |
| 04:18:36.17 | Unknown | rules. |
| 04:18:54.23 | Unknown | Right. |
| 04:18:54.57 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 04:19:00.73 | Unknown | you |
| 04:19:00.79 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 04:19:00.98 | Unknown | All right. |
| 04:19:07.54 | Unknown | But is that reliant on the site in Tiburon that kept, you know, being a lawsuit candidate to cover Sausalito, or is that? |
| 04:19:15.10 | Dave Jeffries | So the current sites we believe will be retaining, but we would be looking for two additional locations down here to put more sites on. So you would see really quite probably a significant improvement in coverage. But until we get a vendor in place, and our feeling is we need a funding source first to get the vendors enticed to compete, and go through their system design, we've looked at potentially a number of theoretical places we could put it, but we just can't go too much deeper into that |
| 04:19:17.94 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 04:19:29.90 | Mary Wagner | Yeah. |
| 04:19:45.12 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor, I have a follow-up question. |
| 04:19:46.79 | Dave Jeffries | question. |
| 04:19:48.77 | Unknown | So your upgrade will entail additional antenna towers in southern Marin And potentially one in Sausalito? This area? |
| 04:20:06.17 | Dave Jeffries | Well, at this point, the most specific I can get is Southern Moran. Until we have a vendor start looking at what their system will do and what their technologies and antennas will do, then we would identify where those four sites are best located, both here and in West Moran. |
| 04:20:21.03 | Unknown | You mentioned you had a list of sites that you had looked at some sites. Were any of the sites you looked at in Sausalito? |
| 04:20:21.05 | Dave Jeffries | Thank you. |
| 04:20:31.83 | Dave Jeffries | I don't recall any of them being in Sausalito being in town. We normally look for co-locating sites. So there's sites around that have existing radio equipment on them. Those could be simpler to do because we're not building from the ground up. But again, we really – we even looked at whether there's places across the water. We could put an intent on looking back here if we need to. But we can't go any further in that planning process until we have a vendor working on detailed design review. And of course, the mayor governing board is the one that's going to make the final decisions on where we go. |
| 04:21:10.26 | Unknown | Okay, is there any comments from the members of the public? Seeing none, let's, can we put the resolution up on the screen, Debbie? |
| 04:21:20.33 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:21:24.80 | Dave Jeffries | Is it there? It's kind of a presentation. We just have a lot of slight thoughts |
| 04:21:30.62 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:21:30.66 | Unknown | I thought it was up there. |
| 04:21:31.74 | Dave Jeffries | It's in your pocket. |
| 04:21:32.70 | Unknown | It's in our packet. Oh, OK. We can read it. OK. |
| 04:21:33.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:21:33.86 | Unknown | Oh. |
| 04:21:33.95 | Unknown | Oh, okay. |
| 04:21:34.37 | Unknown | Okay, fair enough. Sorry, I thought it was at the end of this presentation. |
| 04:21:42.45 | Dave Jeffries | Yeah. |
| 04:21:46.08 | Dave Jeffries | considerate the The one thing I would like to say about the resolution, again, it's a resolution supporting and endorsing mayor's effort. It's not a commitment of funds or anything else, but just to, again, show ideally that we have the support of our member agencies that we move forward. Everyone needs to fund it. |
| 04:22:04.78 | Jeremy Grazier | I have it up to you. |
| 04:22:06.16 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:22:06.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:22:07.02 | Unknown | because it didn't. |
| 04:22:07.51 | Unknown | Thank you. Oh, it's at the top of the staff report. I got it. OK. So could we? |
| 04:22:09.67 | Jeremy Grazier | Yeah. |
| 04:22:15.09 | Unknown | If there's no further comments, could we have a motion? |
| 04:22:19.85 | Unknown | I actually have a comment, Mr. Mayor. My comment is I have concerns about this. I have I still have questions about the technology choice, and I have questions regarding the use of the parcel tax. Marin County has the highest taxes in the state, And I just think this is, I have concerns with yet another parcel tax. |
| 04:22:21.60 | Unknown | Please. |
| 04:22:55.17 | Unknown | And I'm not convinced this is the most cost-effective way to go. And I also am – now I'm concerned about the placement of the tower. |
| 04:23:09.40 | Unknown | Any other comments before? entertain a motion. |
| 04:23:15.07 | Unknown | I'll just say this is kind of one of those unfortunate realities of life, where if you want a system that's going to work, you're going to have to pay for it again, and some choices that were made before, you know, technology is always moving forward. And my guess would be, despite whatever upgrade package is part of this, it will be obsolete during its lifetime as well. So – For sure. And that being said, in my memory is the only – the sites – I think the headlands were the other – some of the local Southern Marin sites that were – besides Tiburon and perhaps Angel Island, which I think we can't do because it's a service to cover Southern Marin. But on the existing towers, they're in the headlands already that – you know, up here in the neck of the woods. So – but as far as – you know, this is, my memory is the current system is certainly overloaded. You can't even get parts for some of it anymore because it's not being made. I think it was a Motorola system, is that right? So, you know, it's kind of here's what it is. People don't make parts for antiquated systems, and you need something that's going to accommodate things, and it's much more interoperable. So it's something we need to do, whether it should be a general fund or a parcel tax. It's a tough parcel tax pull, even for a public safety thing. So it's a tough good luck with that. But at least it's people deciding on their own fate in terms of whether they want this system or not. So I'm in support of it. |
| 04:23:33.48 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 04:23:33.54 | Jeremy Grazier | Thank you. |
| 04:23:33.68 | Unknown | No. |
| 04:23:33.90 | Jeremy Grazier | you |
| 04:23:33.97 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 04:24:49.26 | Unknown | I'm... I move that we receive the presentation on the proposed funding mechanism for the MIRA. placement system and approve a resolution supporting and endorsing the proposed parcel tax to fund the capital costs for this project. |
| 04:25:04.87 | Unknown | Do I have a second? |
| 04:25:07.62 | Unknown | Okay, this is Let's call the roll. |
| 04:25:14.24 | Unknown | Councilmember Fiverr? No. Councilmember Weiner? |
| 04:25:18.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:25:18.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:25:18.61 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 04:25:19.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:25:19.08 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:25:19.32 | Unknown | Council member Leon. |
| 04:25:20.45 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 04:25:22.86 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:25:22.89 | Unknown | Thank you. Yes. |
| 04:25:25.15 | Unknown | Yes, that passes 4-1. |
| 04:25:27.06 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for saying to me. |
| 04:25:30.30 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:25:30.50 | Unknown | Yeah, again, thanks for staying so late. |
| 04:25:35.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:25:35.58 | Unknown | . |
| 04:25:39.41 | Unknown | terrible. It was terrible. |
| 04:25:41.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:25:41.18 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:25:41.29 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:25:46.89 | Unknown | Okay. City manager information for council. |
| 04:25:53.28 | Adam Politzer | Very brief, and you've heard it before. We do have a city council meeting scheduled for next Tuesday and then the 24th. So as I mentioned a couple meetings back, we are looking at having lots of meetings up to the end of this fiscal year. So at this moment, it's the 17th and the 24th. As Charlie mentioned, if there is a need for a special meeting after the 24th, we will advise you. But hopefully that's on your calendars. |
| 04:26:24.27 | Unknown | Okay, thank you. I'm assuming there's no public comment on the city manager's report. So council member committee reports. I do want to say a few words here actually about marine clean energy. you whose board I sit on, and Previous to that, Councilmember Leone was a member of that board. What I want to just let you guys know and as importantly let the general public know, is that there's been over the last month or six weeks a very significant series of events in Sacramento, which is basically the introduction and processing of AB 1245, which is basically a bill sponsored by the law, potentially, well, a bill sponsored, it appears, by PG&E and actually supported by certain labor groups, labor unions who are affiliated with PG&E, to actually process a bill that is currently got through several Assembly committees, has had a vote in the Assembly, a positive vote in the Assembly, is now up in front of the Senate, I can't remember which committee, I apologize, I can't remember which committee, and then for a full vote at the Senate. What the bill actually does is in what is portrayed as being fairer or more equitable, it's actually completely reversing the whole opt-in, opt-out mechanism for the CCAs. And what that effectively would do is essentially shut down all future CCAs in this state. So what is happening is there's a, I went into looking at marine clean energy with a healthy dose of skepticism, to be honest. I had a sort of gut feeling that government shouldn't be messing around in providing utilities. But the more I've got into this, the more I've realized that this is actually the CCA legislation that was put in place, originally with and others the more I've realized that this is actually the CCA legislation that was put in place originally with and others. It's actually made a difference in terms of Energy usage, greenhouse gas emissions. County Marin has actually met its greenhouse gas reduction goals nine years early because it switched all of its accounts over to MarinClean Energy. So it's very interesting. There's actually, without much public, without a lot of fuss in the media, apart from some, there's some, there's a chance that actually CCAs will no longer be able to exist by August 31st. So the fight at the moment is in the Senate, and then it will go to the governor's desk. And if he has to... So the fight at the moment is in the Senate, and then it will go to the governor's desk, and if he has to either sign it or not sign it by August 30th, that's the timetable. So this is actually really quite a significant effort, a significant change. The reason is this is about scale and scalability. There's no way a CCA could start off the ground unless it had the opt-out mechanism. It'd just be impossible. So effectively, this is gutting CCA legislation. so I think it's important for everybody to know about this some city councils are taking positions on this and that is not something we normally do for everybody to know about this. Some city councils are, you know, taking positions on this, and that is not something we normally do. So, but I think you all ought to know that, and the residents of Sausalito need to understand this as well. So that's my one report on this. Does anybody have any other reports? |
| 04:31:14.21 | Unknown | I'll pretend that I'm MIRA and I'm on the MIRA report. And I would encourage you to ask the captain to ask the same question and get an answer from MIRA as to how MBS allocated costs because it will be interesting to see if they made some of the same assumptions, similar assumptions they made in our study, which we found to be not necessarily the most representative. |
| 04:31:39.29 | Unknown | I mean, the difference there is we had a parameter, water flow. that we could use to actually know that there was an error, that there was previously a subsidy in a sense from one class to another. I don't know what the equivalent of water flow is in this case. |
| 04:31:54.51 | Unknown | equivalent. Well, there's water flow and there's also the what's an equivalent household unit. Yeah. You know, and that's why I'm curious how they... Yeah. |
| 04:31:59.79 | Unknown | Yeah. Yeah. But the household unit was defined by their water consumption. |
| 04:32:07.15 | Unknown | where we defined, we took the household unit and applied it to the water consumption for a household. Applied it to an equivalent number of somethings. |
| 04:32:13.88 | Unknown | Right, right. Right, right. Right. Some things are in connection with this. Okay. |
| 04:32:18.27 | Unknown | Some things are in connection with this. Thank you. It would be worth seeing if it's equitable. |
| 04:32:28.13 | Unknown | Any other? |
| 04:32:28.58 | Unknown | you |
| 04:32:28.75 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:32:28.90 | Unknown | in the community. |
| 04:32:28.97 | Unknown | you're a |
| 04:32:29.22 | Unknown | reports. |
| 04:32:29.75 | Unknown | Okay. Public comment? I see none. Future agenda items. |
| 04:32:37.32 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor? Yes. |
| 04:32:38.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:32:39.03 | Unknown | Yes. APPOINTMENT. |
| 04:32:40.02 | Unknown | Thank you. Oh yeah, Arts Commission, that would be great. Okay, I have two future agenda items. Last time I requested the Marin City PDA be placed on the agenda. At the time it was the consensus of the council majority to direct that to city staff as an agenda item. Not an agenda item, per my request, but rather as just something that they would research and get back to us. Again, I'm asking for it as an agenda item. It's fine for, you know, city staff to make a presentation, but it impacts Osolito and I think we need more transparency on it. The second future agenda item I have concerns what we heard at the last council meeting when we had the two members from Mill Valley tell us about the National Park Service 20 Year Plan. I saw the city manager's letter that was sent to the NPS on Friday. I too sent an individual city council member letter to the MPS expressing my concern. I looked at their plan, and it includes adding new shuttle service to downtown Sausalito to pick up visitors for heading for Muir Woods. So this is having – this would have – definitely an impact, adding additional bus traffic to our streets. And we should be included in that discussion. And we should have transparency on this. And it was my understanding we had two representatives on this council who were at least working with the federal, the National Park Service with respect to developments at Cavallo Point. I presume, no. |
| 04:34:45.71 | Unknown | who are the two oh well okay person |
| 04:34:47.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:34:47.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:34:47.60 | Unknown | So, |
| 04:34:47.62 | Unknown | No. |
| 04:34:47.70 | Unknown | Well, |
| 04:34:47.92 | Unknown | I thought we had... |
| 04:34:48.81 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:34:48.90 | Unknown | One person. Who was... And that's specifically excluded from the general plan. If you read the general plan, Fort Baker is specifically excluded from the general plan. |
| 04:34:57.00 | Unknown | Yeah, but still it impacts us. I mean, the point was to keep our finger on the pulse of what's happening at Cavallo Point at Fort Baker. So anyway, now with this... |
| 04:35:06.75 | Unknown | With this has nothing to do with Fort Baker with the shuttle it goes to mere woods. There's nothing |
| 04:35:11.90 | Unknown | Okay, I'm sorry. There are two separate issues, okay? The issue I'm asking for the future agenda item is the National Park Service 20-year plan, which impacts Sausalito. |
| 04:35:11.93 | Unknown | I... |
| 04:35:23.02 | Unknown | I just discovered last week in reviewing it that they're going to be adding a shuttle service going to downtown Sausalito. Now you just responded, you knew about this. |
| 04:35:34.46 | Unknown | Well, they've had it for years. |
| 04:35:34.68 | Unknown | Amen. |
| 04:35:36.87 | Unknown | Well, they're increasing that by 46% next year. That's double, that's going down to the ferry. No, I'm not talking about the shuttle that's the Muir Woods shuttle. I'm talking about a new shuttle that's coming down to the middle of San Salido. |
| 04:35:41.40 | Unknown | Don't. |
| 04:35:41.62 | Jenny Wasser | Thank you. |
| 04:35:41.73 | Unknown | I don't know. |
| 04:35:41.97 | Jenny Wasser | That's a double. |
| 04:35:51.86 | Unknown | It's a season of agenda items so we can't. |
| 04:35:52.97 | Mary Wagner | Yeah. |
| 04:35:53.04 | Sybil | agenda. |
| 04:35:53.53 | Unknown | I'm excited. So I'm requesting a future agenda item to understand what that impact would be to Sausalito. and frankly, Southern Marin. I mean, they're looking at doubling the population. of visitors, and that would impact us. And we should be included in that. We should have a seat at that table. |
| 04:36:18.06 | Unknown | Does the city manager want to add anything? |
| 04:36:20.38 | Adam Politzer | No, I don't want anything. I just want to ask Council Member Pfeiffer to send your letter to the city clerk so we have that on file. |
| 04:36:26.62 | Unknown | Yeah, absolutely. |
| 04:36:29.03 | Unknown | Okay. Other reports of significance, I'm assuming there are none. Are we adjourning tonight's meeting to continue for June 17th? Okay. So that's what we're doing then, is adjourning to the June 17th meeting. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you. |
| 04:37:10.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:37:15.34 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. |
Bruce Huff — In Favor: Supported the Corps' plan, stating the road is very dangerous. Agreed with south-to-north one-way direction for safety, noting most traffic flows that way. Emphasized need for pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements. ▶ 📄