| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.20 | Unknown | You won't lose. |
| 00:00:11.02 | Jill Hoffman | Good evening and welcome to the regular city council meeting of Tuesday, October 25th, 2016. Debbie, would you please call the roll? |
| 00:00:19.42 | Debbie | Thank you. Council member Weiner? Present. Council member Theodores? Present. Council member Pfeiffer? |
| 00:00:22.10 | Unknown | THE PRESIDENT. |
| 00:00:23.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:23.52 | Unknown | Present. |
| 00:00:25.48 | Debbie | Vice Mayor Withey. |
| 00:00:26.76 | Unknown | Here. |
| 00:00:27.20 | Debbie | Mayor Hoffman. |
| 00:00:28.08 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:00:28.11 | Debbie | Thank you. |
| 00:00:28.40 | Jill Hoffman | Present. Item number D1 will be discussed in closed session. Do we have any public comment on closed session items? See no one. We will now adjourn. to close session for a conference with legal counsel on existing litigation regarding Sausalito versus the Golden Gate Bridge District Highway and Transportation District. |
| 00:01:01.19 | Jill Hoffman | We got two clocks in two different times. |
| 00:01:04.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:01:06.84 | Jill Hoffman | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:01:17.10 | Joan Murray | Excuse you. I can't. Thank you. |
| 00:01:23.31 | Unknown | I'm going to go to the next slide. Who's out there? |
| 00:01:49.18 | Joan Murray | I'm ready. you |
| 00:01:49.87 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:01:49.94 | Joan Murray | Thank you. |
| 00:01:49.97 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:01:49.99 | Joan Murray | Thank you. |
| 00:01:52.60 | Jill Hoffman | Good evening and welcome to the regular meeting, Sausalito City Council for Tuesday, October 25th. |
| 00:02:00.11 | Debbie | Debbie, could you call the roll please? Councilmember Weiner. Present. Councilmember Theodorus. |
| 00:02:03.13 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:02:03.15 | Unknown | Present. |
| 00:02:04.52 | Doug Storms | Thank you. |
| 00:02:04.57 | Unknown | THEIR OWNERS. |
| 00:02:05.23 | Debbie | Council member Pfeiffer. Cheers. Vice Mayor Withey? Here. Mayor Hoffman? Present. |
| 00:02:09.58 | Unknown | here. |
| 00:02:12.25 | Debbie | And can we have our police chief |
| 00:02:13.97 | Jill Hoffman | lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance, please. |
| 00:02:30.30 | Unknown | Thank you. indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. |
| 00:02:36.53 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. We have no closed session. We had closed session this evening and we have no closed session announcements. Do we have any public comment on closed session items? see no one do I have a motion for approval of the agenda |
| 00:02:51.95 | Unknown | So moved. Second. |
| 00:02:53.94 | Jill Hoffman | All in favor? Aye. Motion carries. Communications. |
| 00:02:54.57 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:03:01.59 | Jill Hoffman | This is a time for City Council to hear from citizens regarding matters that are not on the agenda, except in very limited situations. State law precludes Council from taking action on or engaging in discussions concerning items of business that are not on the agenda. However, the Council may refer matters not on the agenda to City staff or direct that the subject be agendized for future meetings. Please make sure you have completed a speaker's card and turn it to the city clerk. if you would like to speak during this time. And I have one. I have one card. And I believe this is for communications not on the agenda from Joan Murray. Yes, ma'am. |
| 00:03:37.58 | Joan Murray | Good evening, my name is Joan Murray. I'm with Clean Mill Valley and Clean Marin. And I'm here to tell you a little bit about our litter program through Marin County and hoping that we can get someone from Sausalito to join us. In Mill Valley in 2012, we started a community group that began a variety of programs including recruiting merchants who would sign a pledge that they were going to clean in front of their stores or their place of business, that they would recycle, they would train their employees you will often see one of our stickers, our clean Mill Valley stickers in their windows. So that's one of the things that we do. We work with schools. A lot of the grammar schools we're working not just in Mill Valley, but currently we have a student at Drake who is interning with us. We have a couple of students at the middle school in Kent Field. So we're trying to really educate people so that mostly women who are part of our organization are not still cleaning up ten years from now when we're too old to be doing it. So at any rate, I did want to tell you a little bit about the group of Clean Marin and the organizations that belong. So we have All One Ocean, Save the Bay. Thank you. Thank you. Marin County Public Works, Marin County Parks, the Board of Supervisors is represented there and they send their aides. We have had a supervisor attend. We have Marin Clean Highways, Las Galinas Watershed, San Rafael Clean, the Conservation League, GGNRA, and the Downtown Streets team and other organizations. So we're looking really for somebody from Sausalito to join us so that you are represented too, and we find ways to find commonality in terms of ridding ourselves of litter, eradicating it generally. So I would like to ask that anyone who's watching that they go to cleanmv.org and send an email, and we will tell them about the next meeting and what there is to do. So thank you. |
| 00:05:53.34 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:05:54.59 | Joan Murray | Thank you. |
| 00:05:54.62 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, thanks for coming. And could we, Adam, could we have staff look into that, especially posting that in our current. |
| 00:05:57.22 | Adam Politzer | You've got one. |
| 00:05:57.76 | Joan Murray | Thank you. |
| 00:05:57.80 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 00:06:04.02 | Adam Politzer | I think there's two great opportunities as mentioned, Public Works Department and also our Sustainability Committee. |
| 00:06:10.20 | Jill Hoffman | Right. I was going to say I can share it with them. I think so, too. Yeah, thank you so much for coming. And I have another communication card for, sorry, another speaker card for communications not on the agenda, Patricia Cornell. |
| 00:06:24.75 | Patricia Cornell | Yes, ma'am. Hi, good evening. Yeah, I'm not sure if you are aware, but I'm here to make you aware that a few nights ago, a homeless person was struck in the head, could have been killed. That's how bad that blow was. If there was an emergency homeless shelter, this would not have happened. So I'd like you to please do something about this. You guys have the money. I'd like you to build some houses for these homeless people in need. Thank you very much. |
| 00:06:24.85 | Jill Hoffman | Yes, ma'am. |
| 00:06:54.25 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Okay, any other? |
| 00:06:56.07 | Patricia Cornell | Thank you. THE END OF you Thank you. |
| 00:06:57.59 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 00:06:57.77 | Patricia Cornell | Thank you. |
| 00:07:01.11 | Jill Hoffman | Yes, sir, you can speak without. You did feel like. |
| 00:07:01.74 | Patricia Cornell | Thank you. |
| 00:07:01.77 | Unknown | You can speak without... Did you? THANK YOU. |
| 00:07:05.97 | Jeff Jacob | over there. |
| 00:07:06.48 | Jill Hoffman | All right, that's okay. |
| 00:07:06.63 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:07:08.06 | Jill Hoffman | Just say your name and start speaking. It's fine. |
| 00:07:11.19 | Jeff Jacob | My name is Jeff Jacob. And it was suggested to me last week that I write my words before I speak them. Madam Mayor, City Council and citizens, Thanks for showing up. As a person who loves being late, I will often instead say that I'm early for the next time. So what am I late for this week? And what am I early for for the next week? Well, the answer's the same. IT'S ALWAYS NOW. |
| 00:07:51.79 | Jeff Jacob | And what's the most important thing on the agenda of now? Well, I began this journey with you talking about something called Jubilee and In Jubilee, there's freedom, there's forgiveness, and fruit trees. And how can I convey this? in an understandable and coherent way to a city council and mayor and the citizens and yet make it link together with the smaller issues that we're talking about. BICYCLES, and boats. and roads and parties and restaurants and really what kind of culture we want to live in, us and the people that come after us. SO THIS IS A a special time of year for the children of Israel, it's called Simcha Torah, which is a celebration of the Torah. It's when we finish the five books, of Moses, and we Begin again. It's... the result. which is, that's the name of the portion that is at the end of Deuteronomy. And it's Moses' farewell. It's a blessing to all 12 of the tribes of Israel. WITH NO RESERVATIONS. When Jacob blesses his sons, he knows who they are, and he knows that they're not perfect. And he says things that are difficult to hear because he can predict as a holy man what's gonna happen to them in the future. Moses too, for all of Deuteronomy has been speaking about what I said with Jeshurun, that when somebody is contented, when God gives the gift of food and shelter, and a good political system that we overeat and become happy and think we've made it for ourselves and we forget that it's a gift. Now, after we finish reading this beautiful blessing of Moses, and he dies from A BREATH OF GOD. A kiss of God, really, is what the rabbis say. that we begin again and we say this, Verashis Elohim, which is in the beginning of God's creating. So I'm saying at the beginning of this meeting, I hope we keep in mind that this is a fresh slate. Thanks. |
| 00:10:32.59 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Okay, any other speakers on matters not on the agenda? Yes. Would you like to fill out a speaker card, sir? Mr. Kiefer, go ahead. You beat him with the card, and then we'll go next. Thank you. |
| 00:10:46.21 | Kevin Kiefer | Thank you. |
| 00:10:46.36 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:10:47.09 | Kevin Kiefer | My name is Kevin Kiefer. I just have a quick point of reference here to a floating homes association newsletter dated September 21, 2016. And the last paragraph mentions Mayor Hoffman provided an update regarding RBRA subcommittee and announced there will be a citywide forum on November 12 at 6 p.m. at the Spinnaker regarding the RBRA. Is that correct? |
| 00:11:15.27 | Jill Hoffman | I don't think so. |
| 00:11:18.00 | Kevin Kiefer | That sounds like last year's date. |
| 00:11:19.54 | Jill Hoffman | It sounds like |
| 00:11:20.11 | Kevin Kiefer | It seems like a one year after or confused. I think so. |
| 00:11:22.62 | Jill Hoffman | I think so. |
| 00:11:24.19 | Kevin Kiefer | Thank you. |
| 00:11:24.35 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you for bringing that to our attention. |
| 00:11:30.27 | Bob Lorenzi | Good evening. My name is Bob Lorenzi and I simply want to commend Mr. Goldman and his department for the great job they're doing keeping Sausalito beautiful and its infrastructure working. |
| 00:11:30.32 | Jill Hoffman | Bye. |
| 00:11:30.34 | Kevin Kiefer | Good evening. |
| 00:11:45.00 | Jill Hoffman | Oh, thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you. Okay, moving on. |
| 00:11:54.15 | Jill Hoffman | To our next agenda item number three. Action minutes of previous meetings. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes of October 13th, 2016? |
| 00:12:08.95 | Unknown | So moved. Second. |
| 00:12:10.75 | Jill Hoffman | All in favor? |
| 00:12:11.53 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:12:11.54 | Jill Hoffman | Bye. Thank you. The motion passes. Moving now onto item four. This is a consent calendar. Matters listed under the consent calendar are considered routine and non-controversial, require no discussion, are expected to have unanimous council support and may be enacted by the council in one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion of consent calendar items. However, before the council votes on a motion to adopt the consent calendar items, council members, city staff, or members of the public may request that specific items be removed from the consent calendar for separate action. In order to request an item be pulled, you must have completed your speaker's card and turn in to the city clerk. Items will only be removed from the consent calendar by a vote of the Council. Items removed from the consent calendar will be discussed later on the agenda when public comment will be heard on any item that was removed from the consent calendar. Do I have any public comment on matters that are on the consent calendar? seen none and I have no speaker cards will move on to Do I have a motion to adopt the consent calendar? |
| 00:13:11.47 | Unknown | I move to adopt the consent calendar items 4A through D. Second. |
| 00:13:18.07 | Jill Hoffman | All in favor? Aye. Motion carries. |
| 00:13:18.71 | Unknown | Hi. |
| 00:13:22.13 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Moving on to item five, public hearing items. Item 5A on our public hearing items is a reintroduction by reading by title only and ordinance amending chapter 8.40 of the Sausalito Municipal Code and adopting the 2016 California Fire Code by reference. This is continued from October 13, 2016. And we have a presentation. on this matter? Thank you. |
| 00:13:48.42 | Mary Wagner | Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. On October 13th, the City Council received a report from Fred Hilliard of the Southern Marin Fire Protection District regarding amendments to the uniform fire codes that are going to effect on January 1st of next year. The City Council gave first reading to that ordinance with the proposed changes. And subsequently, it came to staff's attention that there was a provision in the uniform code that we wanted to take a look at. It's actually section 103.4.1 in the California Uniform Fire Code regarding legal defense. And this is a provision that's been in the uniform code before and that Sausalito has adopted. It's listed in your staff report. I'm happy to read it to you if you'd like. Basically, it lays out the obligations of a jurisdiction to defend and indemnify employees when they're acting in accordance with the fire code. This year, language was added about criminal complaints that the city would also be required to indemnify and defend for criminal complaints. When that came to our attention, it caused us to look further into this provision, and we're actually recommending that you delete it in its entirety from the Uniform Fire Code and its application in Sausalito. There are other statutes that govern a jurisdiction's obligation to indemnify and defend employees. We think this is duplicative and potentially causes some more obligations for the city than it might already have. With that, we are recommending that you reintroduce this ordinance because this is more than a clerical or typographical change. It's a substantive change that you didn't consider before. And then continue this to a date certain of November 15th for second reading and adoption. So we're recommending that you read by title only and reintroduce the ordinance and you do have to read the whole title. I didn't draft the title, you can look at Fred for that and continue the hearing to November 15th. With that, I'm available for any questions and Fred is here as well. |
| 00:15:48.14 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you. Do I have any questions from Council on this issue? |
| 00:15:54.35 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:15:54.36 | Unknown | I have a quick question. I remember when Joan told us about this after the last meeting and I was shocked and I guess I was surprised that something like this was added without a highlight on it, so that cities would be aware that this new provision was added. And I was wondering if we could get a response on that. |
| 00:16:19.09 | Mary Wagner | Sure, and quickly, we do appreciate Commissioner Cox bringing that to our attention. It is a provision that's been in the code with the exception of the criminal complaint. And I'm not aware of any highlighting of that language |
| 00:16:25.18 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:16:34.81 | Mary Wagner | through the uniform code procedure and I see that Mr. Hilliard is here as well. |
| 00:16:39.89 | Unknown | Regarding the change of adding the criminal complaint. Understood. |
| 00:16:42.66 | Mary Wagner | Understood. Understood. |
| 00:16:47.98 | Fred Hilliard | So I was not aware that it was actually there was a provision there for that it was not called out in the matrix of the code when the code was adopted by the state. However, That section did exist in prior codes. I look back in 2013, it did exist, and so did it exist in 2010. I think the difference between it is, at the time, because of the annexation, now what we're looking at is the legal defense would be a part of the actual annexation. fire district rather than the city taking on the legal defense of the individual who represented the city at the time. So by removing that section, it basically states that if there is a criminal suit, that the district will represent the official at that particular point. |
| 00:17:45.59 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Any other questions? Any follow-up? Okay, I agree that we should proceed as our city attorney suggests and that we adopt without that provision with regard to the criminal defense and that... and that we read by title only and then continue to November 15th for adoption. |
| 00:18:09.70 | Mary Wagner | Some public comment? Oh, yeah. Sorry. |
| 00:18:11.98 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:18:12.03 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:18:12.06 | Jill Hoffman | moment. |
| 00:18:12.43 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:18:12.45 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:18:12.48 | Mary Wagner | And just to be clear, Madam Mayor, all the other revisions remain unchanged, obviously. They're still highlighted in your draft ordinance. |
| 00:18:16.91 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. Yeah, and anybody who's really interested in this, this is attached to our agenda. There's a staff report that's attached to our agenda, and so is the ordinance. So, okay, any public comment on this matter? I see no one. Okay, do I have a motion? Do you want me to make the motion? |
| 00:18:35.92 | Unknown | So let's go back. It's wrong. |
| 00:18:38.64 | Unknown | It's long. Okay. I move to reintroduce reading by title only and ordinance of the City Council of the City of Sausalito amending Chapter 8.40 of the Sausalito Municipal Code and adopting and modifying the 2016 California Fire Code, 2015 International Fire Code, and Appendix A of the 2015 International Wildline Urban Interface Code, prescribing regulations governing conditions hazardous to life and property from fire or explosion. Providing for the issuance of permits for hazardous uses or operations and defining the powers and duties of the risk reduction prevention and mitigation division and officers and continue to November 15th, 2016 for adoption. |
| 00:19:24.46 | Unknown | Second. |
| 00:19:25.64 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:19:25.67 | Jill Hoffman | All in favor? Aye. |
| 00:19:26.33 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:19:27.24 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Motion carries. Okay, moving on to item six, business items on our agenda. Our first item is 6A, Richardson Bay Enforcement Abatement Project Update from our Police Chief John Robacher and our Police Lieutenant John. Bill Frost, although I don't see Lieutenant Frost, so Chief. |
| 00:19:52.62 | Unknown | Good evening, Mayor and Vice Mayor, members of the Council. Lieutenant Frost is away at training this week. left me to my own. |
| 00:20:02.48 | Unknown | He'll pay for that later. |
| 00:20:22.46 | Unknown | All right, maybe I should open my different one here. |
| 00:21:04.02 | Unknown | All right, so I think this should work. you So before I get started with the update, I also wanted to make an announcement, and I'll probably remember to say it again later as well, is that we recognize there's a lot of interest in this, and we have a meeting scheduled for tomorrow night at 6 o'clock at the Bay Model, so that anybody that's interested in a question and answer session can come to that meeting and we will hopefully have a great dialogue about our plans for Richardson's Bay and the update. So with that, I'm going to get started. Six o'clock. |
| 00:21:48.50 | Unknown | So we were last here in June. And so because it's been a while, I want to just have a couple of introductory slides. I realize that some people might be watching this from home or watch the recorded version later. So this map comes from the RBRA website. And just to refresh for people that may not be up on it, this dark line here is just a county border. Thank you. Thank you. The dotted white line that you can see, hopefully you can see it pretty well, comes around Belvedere, goes all the way around up in Mill Valley, comes back around. And around that is all the Richardson Bay Regional Agency jurisdiction boundaries. And then the ones in yellow, represent the boundaries of the different jurisdictions that make up RBRA. So example, you can certainly see us here. and then the counties and then Belvederes, which is always a big surprise about how large that is. and then Mill Valley up in the corner. Tiburon has actually two spaces, a large area here that's protected. and then a little area over here. So that's just a reorientation of what the Richardson's Bay looks like. |
| 00:23:04.12 | Unknown | And I'm revisiting a couple of slides that we've used in previous presentations. So this is an overhead from 2010. and we use it as a comparison for future overheads. This one is in November of 2015 and we're going to be Again, it's not the exact same view directly overhead, but we Thank you. I hope it helps illustrate the increase in the number of vessels in the bay. And then we had another flyover done in April of this year And other than kind of a crummy day outside, shows again the amount of vessels on the bay so there's an increase of course every time we have the new pictures taken So as an example of some of the things that we are looking to help alleviate, and examples of the crowding on the bay, is the amount of small boats at the Galilee dinghy dock. and the Attorney Street dinghy dock and the Schumacher dinghy dock. Something in particular I want to point out that's a problem that still needs to be resolved. is that you can see from this picture here, That's, of course, the public ram. And the crowding here This area, really, if you were to draw a straight line or envision a line here, we would like for that to be clear most of the time because people use that as the only public launching and recovery ramp and there's oftentimes other boats that block that. In this particular photo, it also happened to be a little bit larger boat. There's a sailboat sitting there. I don't remember when this was taken, but clearly illustrates that it's a busy area and at some point that's gonna need some more of our attention. |
| 00:25:07.02 | Unknown | Chief, do you want us to ask questions as you go or wait until the end? |
| 00:25:09.50 | Unknown | You may. I'm happy to do it because the slides will keep me on track. |
| 00:25:13.28 | Unknown | So real quickly, I remember looking at this about three years ago, looking into this and the implication I walked away with in talking with a couple folks is was not so much as it was busy as it was being used for just storage like people were just leaving their boats there is is is there any weight to that today has the situation changed In other words, are people just tying up their dinghies and just leaving them there? |
| 00:25:46.40 | Unknown | I think it's a little bit of all of those things. There's boats for people that come in that need to use services on land, and so they're gone for a little while. I imagine some of them have jobs, so they might leave their small boats there. Actually, regardless, we would still like that area of the ramp to be left clear so that people can use the ramp. Right. So, you know, I don't really have any specifics about each and every boat, other than there's certainly a busy place, and there's probably a wide variety of uses taking place. |
| 00:26:19.19 | Unknown | And do the dinghies, the small boats, they require registration too, right? And the numbers? |
| 00:26:24.83 | Unknown | You know, I actually don't think that they do. However, I'm actually, you asked me a question I actually don't know the answer to, so I'm gonna... |
| 00:26:27.36 | Unknown | Mm. Maybe we can change that. We'll be right back. |
| 00:26:33.64 | Unknown | I'm going to fudge on a little bit. |
| 00:26:34.60 | Unknown | We can work on that legislation. |
| 00:26:36.09 | Unknown | Yeah, I just don't believe that they all do. There might be something that has to do with the size of it or something, but I'm not... Thank you. |
| 00:26:45.28 | Jeff Jacob | whether it has a motor on it. |
| 00:26:46.62 | Unknown | I don't know, so there might be. But it's an answer we can get for you later. |
| 00:26:56.29 | Unknown | And part of the emphasis of what we're presenting tonight is a theme of partnership and teamwork in solving some of the issues that present themselves on Richardson's Bay. And we're at the point now, of course, that we're working not only as the city of Sausalito, but the police department of Sausalito and the county of Marin and the sheriff's office. and the towns of Tiburon and Belvedere, Richardson's Bay Agency, and of course the Coast Guard and Mill Valley, And also a new partner is the San Francisco Baykeeper Organization, which is a nonprofit dedicated to the environment of the bay, the pollution and such. |
| 00:27:42.76 | Unknown | So since we were here last, we've been pretty busy with spreading information and gathering information. And as a result of the work that we have been doing, the Coast Guard has invited us twice to appear at different working groups. and one of them is an environmental work group, and that's where we met the people from Baykeeper. And the other is their Abandoned Derelict Vessel work group, and they meet over in Hercules, and we've been there twice now. And that photo shows Lieutenant Frost preparing or giving some of our remarks to the group. The group is made up of people doing just like we're doing, but in different jurisdictions all around the Bay. And it's there for us to share what we're experiencing here and to learn from them about what they're doing to address similar problems. And of course, I think most of you or some of you heard my comments at the Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers. And then we have also made the effort to provide some of the appointed officials with tours of Richardson's Bay to help them see the Issues that we're trying to address but from the water point of view |
| 00:28:55.76 | Unknown | When you say appointed officials, you mean council members from other cities? |
| 00:29:00.03 | Unknown | I took Adam was one. I took Rod Gould when he was here. I took the... |
| 00:29:04.72 | Unknown | I'm sorry, who? |
| 00:29:05.92 | Unknown | I think Adam. Oh yeah, I got Adam. Rod Gould, when he was looking at helping and then also |
| 00:29:07.18 | Unknown | Oh, yeah, I got Adam. Oh, OK. Great. |
| 00:29:11.89 | Unknown | the city manager for Tiberon, Greg Chanis. And then also the police chief from Belvedere, Trish Seiler. |
| 00:29:20.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:29:20.90 | Unknown | I think. |
| 00:29:22.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:29:22.98 | Unknown | Great. |
| 00:29:23.11 | Unknown | and then also Dan Eierleman from the county of Miranda. |
| 00:29:27.50 | Unknown | Wonderful. Great. |
| 00:29:27.52 | Unknown | Wonderful. So that all took place over the summer months. |
| 00:29:34.89 | Unknown | So as a result of all that, we have been tasked with coming up with a enhanced enforcement abatement plan. We created a law enforcement working group and it made up of the Marine Patrol crew from the Sheriff's Office and Bill Price from Richardson Bay Regional Agency as a Harbor Administrator and us from Saucyote Police. And our task was to come up with what might be the best way to clear some of the marine debris from Richardson's Bay, as taking this as our first step of things to work on. And so with that in mind, we came up with a couple of plans. And one of them is that we would divide some of our chores instead of each of us doing our own thing The sheriff's office would handle the removal of the marine debris vessels, and the outline of how they would do that is there. of course includes you know, the notice for the vessels and providing notification to the owners if at all possible. and then if necessary, arranging for the tow-away and then the paperwork is really important as we want to start a new trend of creating some documentation that's meaningful for all of us. And then after the end of a period of time, then the vessels could be destroyed if it comes to that. And here's a couple pictures of some of the marine debris vessels that have been identified for removal. |
| 00:31:24.11 | Unknown | And then the other issue is that we and the Saucyutu Police Department would take on the task of removing the unattended mooring balls. And we've done a significant amount of research with that to determine that they do fall under the marine debris removal authority that we have. We also double-checked with the state division of boating and waterways to make sure that our grant funds could be spent on marine debris, itself and mooring balls in particular and that the the money could be used to pay for the salvage company that would actually do the removal because we don't have the actual equipment to be able to do that. So we took those two pieces and put them together with the sheriff's office doing the vessels, us doing the mooring balls. Same kind of process, you know, arranged for the salvage company and accompany them on the removal itself and then provide storage for them in case people want to claim them later as their own property. And then, of course, create the paperwork necessary to make sure that we've got really good records of where they were taken and, you know, where they were taken from out of the water. and then what we did with them afterwards. And then we would handle claims from people that want to claim ownership for the that property that Maureen Balls. And... And there's just an example of some of the different mooring balls that are out there. Some of them are boat vendors, mooring balls, A little rest for a bird. So the coordinated effort I'm in the enforcement we think would be very helpful for the beginning and then I look at the marine debris but as we move forward with and see how our efforts are successful or not, that we would still work on individual agency effort but still coordinated about the vessels that are unregistered or undocumented. And it's hard to see in the photos, but I think that one shows something that's a couple years old, and this one's a little harder to see. But, um, Again, those require posting and noticing so that people would know that their vessel is not documented or registered and is subject to removal. especially if it's over one year time, because that's the Harbors Navigation Code rule. |
| 00:33:59.54 | Unknown | So the timeline is starting now. And we want to get to work immediately and use the time between now and the end of the fiscal year 2017 At that point, we would take a look at how did we do. Did we make a difference? uh were we achieving the results that we hoped for you know how many marine to be vessels or mooring balls were there how many boats were not registered or or not documented that could be removed and then if that's the case, look out how it would be going forward. Or should we stop, leaving that as an option? |
| 00:34:41.49 | Unknown | So there's a couple alternatives of course, and one of them is to not do the teamwork approach, but just simply go on our merry way and the substitute of police and the sheriff's office and RBRA do their own thing. As you've heard us say many times, we don't think that's a very good idea because the Richardson's Bay is not designed that way. The boats will just move. and it doesn't really serve any purpose to have them just move from one jurisdiction to the other to avoid any enforcement. The other is take no action at all and allow the number of vessels and marine debris to grow THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE you know, from the law enforcement working group, neither of these alternatives are recommended or endorsed by us. |
| 00:35:25.05 | Unknown | I have a question about your comment about moving from one jurisdiction to another. Are you suggesting that Sausalito shouldn't enforce its code because the anchor routes will just go someplace else? |
| 00:35:42.41 | Unknown | It seems to us that if we work together with the Sheriff's Office that we would cover all the water of Richardson's Bay. the we hope discourage boats from simply moving from, like let's say for instance, we were doing nothing but work in Sausalito. Well, the boats we would think might just move to the county water. If the Sheriff's Office picks up work, they're just gonna come over to the Sausalito Water. It's not really what we're trying to accomplish. |
| 00:36:08.33 | Unknown | I see. |
| 00:36:12.84 | Unknown | I see. So what you're saying is they'll just move to, they'll stay in Richardson Bay, they'll just move to a different location. And so by creating this coordinated force, you can all work together to |
| 00:36:22.10 | Unknown | Yeah, it's a great idea. |
| 00:36:28.41 | Unknown | hopefully get them off the bay |
| 00:36:31.28 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:36:31.30 | Unknown | Exactly. Completely. |
| 00:36:31.32 | Unknown | BEEN ABLE TO BE ABLE TO BE ABLE TO Exactly. |
| 00:36:37.51 | Unknown | So here's what the numbers look like. Is the RBRA applied for a grant from the Division of Building Waterways and was awarded $195,000. We made our own application, as you know, because you approved it a few meetings ago. Our grant is for $129,000. |
| 00:36:44.65 | Fred Hilliard | Thank you. |
| 00:36:58.30 | Unknown | And then the extra piece is that We in Sausalito don't have a full-time Marine Patrol force and so we're asking for the Richardson's Bay Regional Agency to approve a $10,000 assessment or to pay for the extra work that would be required of Sausalito and then divided by however the Percentages are divided now. And so we are, of course, a part-time Marine Patrol enforcement done on overtime, whereas the Sheriff's Office has a full-time working crew. And so they are not asking for extra funds. And we feel that it's a reasonable ask to achieve some results in the first six months, or the next six months prior to the end of June 2017. So this is a little bit about our public outreach. We've already done some. I mentioned earlier that we're gonna do it again. This one was across the street from the police department at the fire station. We wanted to have a little bit more room, so we reserved a room at the Bay Model, hoping that more people would show up. We had about 60 people that night in March. So the idea is, again, to have a discussion, spirited or not, about the things that we intend to do and to answer people's questions and then seek information back. |
| 00:38:30.69 | Unknown | I wanted to mention a little bit about city ordinances because it came up from council before. We did take a look at our city ordinances and found that, um, They could use a little work, especially given the age of some of them. And one thing that we don't have is any removal authority, even though we do have siting authority, that we're not going to be able to do that. We've been working with the city attorney's office and with Community development and public works about on that, but we also submitted at their request. We submitted our municipal code information to the division of building waterways and they reviewed it and of course Provided the feedback we thought we would get is that our information and our codes need to be updated and then the San Francisco Baykeeper group also provided a the research that they did regarding water reordinances when they were doing a review and I'll mention them again in a minute. |
| 00:39:34.14 | Unknown | Chief, quick question. Regarding the ordinances, we know that in the last three years, I believe, a number of anchorages have been have closed down for environmental reasons, removed their anchor routes from, what was it? I don't know. Thank you. well, the Oakland Estuary and I think something you're |
| 00:40:04.40 | Unknown | I think Redwood's. |
| 00:40:04.92 | Unknown | Redwood City. I wanted to say Woodlands. It's not that. Redwood City. And so I'm wondering if perhaps looking at their ordinances as well to see if they passed any ordinances that, you know, could really put teeth into keeping the bay clean and clear. |
| 00:40:26.88 | Unknown | And that's actually what the San Francisco Baykeeper Group did and also the Division of Boating and Waterways. |
| 00:40:30.42 | Unknown | Oh, yeah. Oh, great. |
| 00:40:32.75 | Unknown | And I mentioned before that we have attended two of the derelict vessel meetings with the Coast Guard Working Group. We met officers from Marine Patrol units in several other jurisdictions and learned from them what they do. so that we can employ best practices when we move forward here. |
| 00:40:52.10 | Unknown | Do you do to clean up the derelict boats or to remove the anchor out? |
| 00:40:55.66 | Unknown | Actually, all aspects of everybody's jurisdiction is a little bit different, and we learn something from all of them. |
| 00:40:58.65 | Unknown | Oh, great. |
| 00:40:59.04 | Joan Murray | or something. |
| 00:41:02.40 | Joan Murray | GOOD. |
| 00:41:07.04 | Unknown | So just a little bit of a touch about the boat surveys that are done by the Richardson Bay Regional Agency in cooperation with the Sheriff's Office and Saucyutu Police. These are just some numbers of the boats. You've heard us talk about them before, about the increase from 2010 to 2012, 2014. And then there was a mid-year, 15. They did it every two years, but they did one in 2015 as we were watching some growth take place. But 2016 was the last year. survey that was done in the format you see here. This is just a page out of the survey book when it's done. deputies and officers that work on this actually try and get a photograph of the boat and any kind of information on it that might look like a registration number and then a description and then the actual GPS location where the vessel was anchored or moored and then the registrar information if there was any. And because of privacy concerns, we eliminated that from the slide. Thank you. So, Anyway, that's just a numbers thing. We intend to... improve upon the way that the surveys have been conducted and the information's obtained. because as we move forward with... whether it's mooring balls or marine debris or undocumented or unregistered vehicles, we want to have a little bit more specific information than that was provided earlier. Here's an example of what we did retroactively. We took information from the surveys and cross-compared them to, and this is about 50 or 60 boats here, And this is some of the work that our volunteers did for us. And then we just put it on a map to show just a sampling of where I'm not sure. where boats were removed from. And this goes back I think like two years or four years, I forget exactly. Not really important, but it's just a sampling of where they were taken from. and whether they were included originally in any of the surveys. It's a little complicated to get into at the moment. I'm just using it as sort of illustrative of where boats are located and where they're taken, and then from where they were in the surveys. And then the Baykeeper group, did their own survey of the Sausalito water and made their own count in July, that there were 68 vessels in our jurisdictional waters, and under their own assessment, 27 of them they felt were derelict or abandoned. and that one might be a pollution hazard. I have to say though that that doesn't necessarily meet the threshold for us to remove one is marine debris. Because at the end of the day, that's our responsibility to determine that, and that's not necessarily 27. It could be more, it could be less. Dave, we're just being helpful in sharing information with us. So This is just another slide about the grant and about how we applied for it back in April as part of that effort going from really, we really ramped up in January of this year moving forward in trying to do our research and due diligence and then by July being able to ask for our own grant and, uh, There's a little information there about the match that we have to provide is 10%. We don't have to do that in cash. We're able to do that in our services. So the time we spend doing the work we can calculate out towards that 10% match. So it's not an extra cash from the city. And Of course, I mentioned earlier that the grant allows the funding for the removal of the unattended mooring balls that we're gonna be working on And the grant was effective October 1st. And it actually runs two years. So again, in response to a council question earlier about crime on the bay and the impact on crime on the land at and around and near the, um, access to land from the water. We started working with our crime analyst. I had some slides that she produced before. And so she's still working on it. I have a couple more slides to go, but this is just some preliminary information so it's it's not the final report by any means but it includes you know, how many reports were taken over that time period, which is about you know, one and a half years, is that right there? Two and a half years? Anyways, and about how many people were some repeat offenders. So we took that same information from her and she produced this slide, just giving a sampling of the types of crime And the numbers across the top don't mean anything to you yet without a map, but the T1, T2, and through five are just sectors she pulled out of zones on the water in order to calculate the same information for every crime type. So that's her first look at it. It's not, it will only get more defined as we move along. But she wanted to make sure that she has something for us to present to you tonight. And one more agency that does help out with work on the bay, of course, is the Coast Guard Station, Golden Gate. And they just provided a generic sort of response to us that since 2012 they've done over 300 sorties just in Richardson's Bay, covering lots of things though, law enforcement, Search and Rescue, of course, which is their primary mission, you in addition to pollution response incidents and some vessels that are adrift. But they're a fabulous partner, so I didn't want to leave them off. And so that's an overview of what we've been doing basically since January through October, but really since our last report to you in June. And so we have... many plans going forward. We're ready to roll up our sleeves and get to work. And any questions you might have of me, I'm happy to answer. |
| 00:47:31.26 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, Chief. So before we get into City Council questions, I just want to ask for a show of hands of those who wish to speak on this issue. I'm going to go ahead and go ahead Okay, thank you. If you could, I can remind you that those wishing to speak, if you could fill out a speaker card and turn it into our clerk and address your comments, remind you to address your comments to the council, not the audience, be respectful and polite, refrain from rude and derogatory remarks. We have a three minute rule. And do we have any speaker cards turned in already? Well, you guys got to get to work then if you want to talk. Okay. But we're going to go to council questions now, so you'll have time. Mm-hmm. Go ahead. Council question, go ahead. |
| 00:48:15.76 | Unknown | Yes, thanks Steve for your answer. And going back to, you talk about this enhanced enforcement abatement plan was to be done by three agencies. The Marin Sheriff's Office, you said Bill Price, but it's RBRA and Sausalito Police Department. But then when you got into the details, you said what the Sheriff's Office would do and what we would do, but you didn't say, I didn't catch what the role of RBRA or Bill Price would be. |
| 00:48:21.92 | Jill Hoffman | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:48:38.26 | Unknown | catch what's the role of RBI. I should have explained a bit more about that. We are... actually insisting is actually the right word, I believe, that the enforcement of what we're trying to do is really should be in the hands of the enforcement officers, which is us and the Sheriff's Office. But we don't want to lose what, you know, Bill Price is really good at, and he's been doing work on removing boats and arranging for the destruction for a long time. you know that's not a business that we're familiar with and so it's a partnership for us but rather than What has been going on prior to now is that, you know, Bill Price has been responding to any, you know, actually any inquiries or complaints about votes or things that happen and he's gotta respond to. He's just one guy doing all that work But without a specific direction from law enforcement about which votes to take. And so we are looking at a three party partnership in that we want to use what, you know, Bill Price's best skills are, and that's arranged for the, you know, best, most efficient way to, you know, remove and crush boats for the, you know, with not wasting a lot of money doing it and having to be very effective. So, He's a great resource to have, but the decision about what's going to get done and where it's going to get done is going to fall directly to law enforcement to take care of. |
| 00:50:02.90 | Fred Hilliard | resources. |
| 00:50:11.73 | Unknown | So it still really is a three-party partnership. |
| 00:50:15.09 | Unknown | and the 195,000 that would go to our B or a would be for part of this abatement plan that you would direct bill price to participate in because you have that I mean you have three parts of the plan sort cost would be from the 195,000 and 129. |
| 00:50:30.26 | Unknown | And 129. The $195,000 actually applies to all the jurisdictions of Richardson Bay. uh, The money that... can go to vessels in Saucena water as it should, and all the other jurisdictions in Richardson Bay, not just county water. and Actually the same for our own, our $129,000 grant is not limited just to the waters of Sausalito, we're able to spend that in the Richardson Bay waters. And so combining our resources, it puts us into having, you know, 300 and $29,000 instead of just $200,000. |
| 00:51:12.39 | Unknown | And you think that 129 will be enough money to do our end of this up through fiscal year 2017. |
| 00:51:19.85 | Unknown | Well, I don't expect that we're gonna spend the $129,000 by June of 17. That's a two-year grant. So, and the same for RBRA. It's not likely that they're gonna and have enough ability to process enough boats and things that quickly to spend $200,000 that fast. So it goes in two year cycles, theirs is two years just like ours, but we are allowed to apply for a second, another grant one year later, and it also lasts two years, so there's overlapping money taking place. And so depending on how we do, and we'll evaluate that as we go forward, to see if there's value for us to apply for additional funds. |
| 00:51:58.61 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:52:00.84 | Unknown | So we have two years to spend our $129,000. |
| 00:52:03.24 | Unknown | So these funds should be enough under your current plan. You won't need any additional funds from the city or other sources for now. |
| 00:52:09.33 | Unknown | Well, if we do, we are able to ask the Division of Boating and Water Waste for additional grant money Thank you. in one year's time. Just like we did this year when we applied in April, So by April or so of 2017, if we think that our plan is going well that we want to ask for even more money to add another year to our grant efforts. We're able to do that. but we want to be able to show results first, It's a little early to say now, but it could easily last the two years based on the rate at which we're able to remove things. |
| 00:52:48.51 | Unknown | Okay, thank you for that presentation, and also thank you, Chief, for all the amazing work there. I've been asking for this sort of data for a while, but you guys actually pulled that together, and I know it took a lot of energy and a lot of focus and time, and I appreciate it. It's also exciting to see everyone coming together on the code enforcement. And that leads me to my question, which is a follow-up from my earlier question during the presentation. I know that Redwood City, I think it was I think, I mean, they, and Oakland, they face the same issues we face in terms of removing the anchor outs, those who are living illegally on the water. So. I know also that I think it was Redwood City was able to get a grant from, I think it was the Boats and Waterways, to help them in that effort. And so I was just wondering if there were grants specifically to that. I know right now that your focus is removing the derelict empty boats, and I know the council has given that direction and that leadership. If we were to take it to the next step in terms of removing the illegal anchor outs, could we talk with Redwood City and find out about the grants that they had applied for and how BCDC helped them? |
| 00:54:29.21 | Unknown | I expect when the time comes that we are going to be asking for lots of information and lots of help. You know, we are trying to take this in the, I'm you know, the steps that allow us to measure our success and not, you know, take on too much, but also allow to make a difference, you know, and... spend our, you know, the grant money wisely and be able to show some results before we would ever go back and ask. Because they're watching us very closely. And every meeting that I've pointed out that we've attended there are representatives from building and waterways at those meetings as well. And it's part of those working group meetings where we were making presentations and we're hearing other presentations and the Boating and Waterways officials are there listening is where they gather the confidence to then decide whether to award grants to us. because they hear our plan, they think it's sound and it has measurable results possible. And so that's what we have going forward. |
| 00:55:35.63 | Unknown | Chief, thank you very much for that. Lots of data here. It's very clear what's going on. So you mentioned that this focusing on the abatement of the marine debris was a path to get some measurable success. So sort of putting you on a spot a little bit, by end of June 2017, what would you regard as success? |
| 00:56:05.58 | Unknown | Well, we actually put some numbers in our worksheets that we put together to ask the management working group to come up with that $10,000 figure. And I'm... I don't remember exactly what we said, but I think that we know the number. Yeah, go ahead. Help me out. |
| 00:56:25.31 | Adam Politzer | It was 30 additional unoccupied vessels and 60 more involved in marine debris. |
| 00:56:31.96 | Unknown | you And so that's what we're looking for. And that's how we calculated out the time and the expense. Thanks. |
| 00:56:43.08 | Jill Hoffman | Chief, with regard to where we're at with RBRA, we've talked about this in prior meetings and whether or not we need to put in our letter of withdrawal at this next meeting that's coming up in RBRA in November because of the timing issue. So we've got to put in our letter to withdraw by 31 December of this year. |
| 00:56:59.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:57:05.84 | Jill Hoffman | If we don't, then we're in RBRA for another 18 months. it. And that's where we're at at this point. on that issue? |
| 00:57:15.17 | Unknown | to do. |
| 00:57:15.19 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 00:57:15.21 | Unknown | But I think that's one reason why we were looking at the six month work window, because of course at some point the council is going to want to hear about how we're doing and whether there's success to be had. And so that's something that we'd be able to measure. |
| 00:57:20.29 | Jill Hoffman | because |
| 00:57:20.71 | Fred Hilliard | Thank you. |
| 00:57:28.59 | Unknown | to help the council with that decision when the time comes. |
| 00:57:28.69 | Jill Hoffman | OK. Great. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions for us? |
| 00:57:34.97 | Unknown | Council? I have a quick question. You've done a lot of good research on the number of boats. I presume both derelict versus those living illegally on the bay. Are the goals, the metrics for success only right now on the derelict boat, the empty boat removal? That's my understanding. Yes. |
| 00:58:01.60 | Unknown | Yes, that's correct. Okay, thank you. That and then Maureen Valls. |
| 00:58:04.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:58:04.57 | Jill Hoffman | OK, thank you. That's our measure for success short term. |
| 00:58:09.98 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:58:10.57 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, so, okay, any other questions from the council? No. Okay, we're gonna move into public comment. Do we have any public comment cards? |
| 00:58:20.72 | Unknown | And just a reminder for those who are going to participate in public comment, I'm going to be there at 6 o'clock tomorrow night for those that want to come and have a more question and answer type of environment than they will have here. Not that what you're doing is not important, but I know you can't say a lot. That's okay. |
| 00:58:34.27 | Unknown | I know you can't, you say a lot. No one would ever think that cheaper. I do have a follow up question really quickly though. Which if removing the derelict boats are our goal in the short term, before we remove the anchor outs, what's the time duration for the short term? |
| 00:58:36.24 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 00:58:36.71 | Unknown | I think. |
| 00:58:36.93 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:58:36.97 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:58:37.00 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Thank you. |
| 00:58:57.32 | Unknown | The end of June 17. |
| 00:58:59.38 | Unknown | Okay, and so the end of June, all of the derelict or 80% of the derelict boats, what's the metric? |
| 00:59:10.77 | Unknown | Well, as Adam helped remind you, we were looking at 30. vessels and 60 morning balls. |
| 00:59:17.13 | Jill Hoffman | Great, great, thank you. Thanks. Okay, we're going to start public comment. And again, I remind those wishing to speak, I have your speaker cards. Do you speak into the mic because we're recording this, that you state your name, that you direct your comments to the council, not the audience. You'd be respectful and polite, refrain from rude and derogatory remarks. All speakers are limited to three minutes. And I'll also ask the audience, in turn, to display proper decorum as the speakers expressing their views and discourage. And please try to hold your applause and negative comments. Thank you. Okay, so I have, first up, I have four cards, so I'm just going to read them off. Jeff Jacob, Kevin Kiefer, Doug Storms, and Scott Diamond. So Jeff, you're up. Mr. Jacob, you're up. |
| 01:00:15.70 | Jeff Jacob | Hello again. |
| 01:00:20.31 | Jeff Jacob | I'm hearing something about illegal Anchor out. from Ms. Pfeiffer, as if a human being could be in his or her entirety. Hey. outlaw The people who lived here on the bay in boats. were here before the people who have built their houses on the land. This is not just a Sausalito issue, this is a worldwide issue when I lived in the Philippines. people who live on their boats there are called badgows. And people throw pesos overboard, and the badgows dive in the water to get them. Whenever there's a conflict, Between the Muslims and the Hindus, the Badjows are the first TO SUFFER. They're boat people nobody can survey. Water nobody can decide. Where's Sausalito on the water? begins or where Mill Valley on the water ends. It says this about the laxars, it says, As the volume of exported goods from India increased, more laxars were employed and the complaints multiplied. Some shipping companies simply refuse to pay the sailors anything at all. threatening them with violence if they press for their meager wages. Grudgingly in London, Arrangements were made to provide the Laxars with board and lodging when they arrived. These dwellings were of the meanest kinds, mainly in the slums of London. It was not long before the locals started to complain about the nuisance from the foreign presence. These were Indian Hindus in London, England, But what we're talking about here on Richardson Bay are American citizens in the United States of America. I I hadn't heard about illegal anchor outs until I was already one. If I had had a choice, I still would have done it because I got a boat and I didn't understand why people would have a big house or an apartment and not stay on their boat. And in fact, when they were all wooden boats, you had to be close to your boat, otherwise it was going to sink. With fiberglass boats, you can put a bilge pump in. Etc. Sailors are always going to be on their boats. The reason this is not Redwood City or Oakland is because there are hills that stop the west wind from coming in. This is the original port of San Francisco Bay and it always will be. I agree so much with the chief as far as getting rid of derelict boats. I want this to be a completely public process. and unattended marine balls as well. I want him to tell the people who are being affected and everybody around them which specific boats are being targeted and if there's any way to clean them up. I saw a picture of one of the boats there. It looked like there was just laundry hanging from the boom. I do that too when I dry my laundry, so. |
| 01:03:42.86 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:03:42.88 | Jeff Jacob | Thank you. Yes, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:03:42.89 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. Mr. Kiefer, you're next. |
| 01:03:54.23 | Kevin Kiefer | Yeah, my name's Kevin Kiefer. I've been an anchor out for eight years. I don't plan on leaving. I'm sorry. I know that there are a few lame ducks here that I guess we're not going to be able to get you to stick around and see the outcome of your decisions here. But one decision you need to make, pertains to the information that Chief Rohrabacher put up on the screen because this management structure of this city and this council is well aware that the RBRA has submitted misrepresentations, in their documentation. It would be unethical of you to accept the report from the chief tonight. as great a reporter as it was, and Lieutenant, I know they did a lot of good work on it, can see that this man is making an honest, concerted effort to deal with this issue. AND but but his report cannot stand because it would be unethical of you to accept when you when you know that the rbra information is incorrect and invalid as far as the mooring balls i guess we'll get to that tomorrow but are they a hazard to navigation or are they an aid to navigation because anchoring is a part of navigation and a ball or a marker on an anchor or a line assists you in doing that so I would consider that to be an aid and not a hazard so we'll have to determine that I guess because all over the world those are used balls and markers are used as aids not hazards Um, the city is in, been in violation of, uh, some other things. You keep mentioning boats and waterways. The city is in violation of a debt servicing policy for about a million $600,000, uh, capital construction loan, uh, from the, uh, it's, it's being paid off through the Thailand trust revenues and debt servicing is legal with Thailand trust revenues. That is a major issue. Um. I think what this might come down to is if you want to push, this is going to federal. We'll get a federal injunction. We'll enjoin her because this is different than any other anchorage that any of you have talked about. This is a federal special anchorage, and the federal government did not ask anybody's permission to designate this. It declared it because it already was a federal enclave. That's all I need. |
| 01:06:22.87 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. you I'm going to go ahead and |
| 01:06:28.54 | Doug Storms | Yeah, Doug Storm, 700 Waldo Point, in Sausalito, California. I'd like to echo what Kevin said, the previous speaker. It's really obvious that South Seattle Police have spent a lot of time and money and resources trying to get a handle on this problem and they really need to THE FAMILY. be applauded for that, you know, recognized. It's a lot better to go in and to work with the community, with the people than to... dictator. come on in guns blazing. In the presentation slide under alternatives, I'm not sure. It's almost like a straw man. Obviously, anybody with any brain Well. That's not true. The first two options are off the table. But there is a third option. AND, UH, For the last year, We gave a presentation, the Richardson Bay Special Anchorage Association. It's a group of Mariners that work, play, live, on Richardson Bay and we've been having meetings at the cruising club the first Tuesday and steering group meetings, and we have been struggling with, because we're impacted by this. You know, this is where we live and work and play. And so I guess my encouragement to you and to the chief, my hope. is that we can have workshops. And I'm not talking about a one hour dog and pony show at the Army Corps of Engineers tomorrow. By the time you go through all the dignitary introductions and all that, you have one minute to speak, and you're really not wrestling with the issues. We need to have dedicated, working groups to deal with ground tackle, seaworthiness, shore access, etc, etc. It's a Gordian knot and it needs to be pulled out over a period of time and it needs everyone to work together. You do have a partner, there's a bunch of people that are anchored out, that live there, that want to be a part of the solution. And it would be extremely foolish for you to spend $330,000 without first seeking the guidance and advice, the experience of the maritime community. Because my recommendation in a nutshell, because I'm down to 18 seconds, is that why don't you allow the Richardson Bay Special Anchorage Association to provide preliminary status report on what you want. and then with a final report by the end of the year. It'll save you a lot of money and a lot of grief. |
| 01:09:34.10 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Scott Diamond's next. |
| 01:09:43.80 | Scott Diamond | My name is Scott Diamond. I've lived on the waterfront of Sausalito since 1957. And I would like to |
| 01:09:56.40 | Scott Diamond | just say that I applaud the cleanup of the bay, but I think we do need to have further discussions about what this all means. I think everybody would like to see the junk go except for possibly the people that own the junk. but there's a lot of misconceptions about moorings and anchoring. And there's a lot of safety issues that go along with this that aren't understood by people that aren't mariners. I would also like to know for sure, I don't think this derelict boat thing should be too subjective. I hope that we have a law that really lays it out very clearly so that all the people will know what is being expected and I would also just like to say that people aren't really living illegally on the bay this is a federal special anchorage and people that actually don't live on their boats are making things more dangerous because storms and problems with the boat could cause hazards that if people aren't there keeping an eye on things, you know, it just makes it more dangerous. And I think the BCDC already had a case back in the 80s which basically said that, Mariners living on their boats were exempt from being thrown off the bay. I think that's a good statement, but I think it needs to be examined a little further, I think. Anyway, I just hope that we have a very clear law about this and not subjective, like, oh, somebody left a gas can on the deck one day and their boat gets towed away. So I hope we get very clear on what derelict boats are and I am really happy to see the derelicts go. So I hope we have a written statement of what this law is about that the public can access. |
| 01:12:14.14 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Do I have any more speaker cards? Thank you. Right. Yeah. Sure. That's okay. Just bring it up. All right. |
| 01:12:26.63 | Bob Lorenzi | Bob Lorenzi, I'd like to commend Chief Rohrabacher and the police department for the effort they're making to objectively handle the problems that we have associated with the Richardson Bay. I do have a question, though, regarding who is going to be enforcing the ordinances, the RBRA ordinances, while the police department and sheriff's department are enforcing state law Are they going to be doing both, or are the ordinances just going to be left without any attention whatsoever during this period? |
| 01:13:11.73 | Bob Lorenzi | And I think that's where the division between the RBRA and what the police and sheriff departments are doing. The RBRA is primarily responsible for enforcement of its ordinances. And the police departments, I guess, are pretty free to enforce whatever they want. And they've elected to use state law for that. But I think we should be careful that we don't neglect the RBRA ordinances that still need to be enforced in this bay. Thank you. |
| 01:13:45.48 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. And Alden Bevington, this is the last card I have. for speakers. Thank you. |
| 01:13:52.82 | Alden Bevington | Hi, everyone. Thank you so much. I apologize. I could not get out of work. So I missed the presentation, so I can't really comment on it. But I can say that I still haven't gotten a call. Everyone here in this room knows that we've been working very hard for a long time. In many cases, know the topography better than anyone. And, you know, I'm looking forward to that time coming. You'all know how to find me. I hope you all have had a chance, if you haven't, to check out the website I built at anchoredout.org, which is at least a beginning of an informational portal for the people living on the shore and on the land. And regarding any of the details of the presentation, again, I apologize, but I look forward to speaking with y'all about it in the future. I just do hope you work with the community. I don't think it's happening yet, at least with the Anchorage community. And I think we can make something that is really cool and actually a symbol of some of our deeper values here in Marin and Sausalito that I think we can do this right. So please work with us. Thank you. |
| 01:15:06.53 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. OK, so I have no more speaker cards. No one else is approaching. I'm going to close public comment. |
| 01:15:18.72 | Jill Hoffman | I WANT TO ADDRESS ANY OF THE Yeah, never. Well, about any of the questions or concerns that were raised about who's going to be enforcing ordinances or just very quickly. |
| 01:15:42.53 | Unknown | I'm happy to answer the question. I'll answer them all tomorrow night as well for everybody else. |
| 01:15:45.70 | Unknown | Right. |
| 01:15:45.97 | Fred Hilliard | FOR EVERYBODY ELSE. |
| 01:15:47.74 | Unknown | It's true, the Richardson Bay Regional Agency rules are still there to be enforced and according to those regulations all of us that work in law enforcement in any of the jurisdictions that make a purchase of Bay Regional Agency are authorized to enforce our BRA rules and so I leave it at that we will still be able to do that in fact there'll be some cases I suspect in the future where we will use the RBRA Um, a 10 day warning notice rule for applying to some, you know, circumstances when they crop up. And so that's a little ahead of time, But Mr. Lorenzi is right, there's still those on the books, in addition to our harbors and navigation, green debris laws that we're going to use that state law sooner. |
| 01:16:38.27 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 01:16:38.47 | Unknown | But I'll talk in detail about them tomorrow night. |
| 01:16:40.26 | Jill Hoffman | Great, thank you. Okay, comments from city council? Anybody want to kick us off? Well, okay. So I just want to say thank you to the chief and the Vips, especially the chief and Lieutenant Frost. I think you've moved us farther in the last year with regard to efficient management of Richardson Bay than we've moved in the past 20. So with regard to coordination with regard with other agencies, with regard to better efficiency, more accountability, more transparency, I'm very happy with the direction that we're moving. I hope we continue moving in this direction. I think this is a positive way to go. I think this is the right way to go with regard to, as I said, the efficient management of the bay. So thank you. very much for all of your tremendous, tremendous hard work on this issue. under trying circumstances. And thank you too for the voting community here in Sauseli that's been trying to assist us in this effort and also for your, um, your, your attention today and, um, Thank you. So let's, oh, go ahead. I guess. |
| 01:18:02.84 | Unknown | My comment is, I can only speak for myself as a council person, but Our object shouldn't be to clear everything off the bay. In the beginning, when I went on the RBRA, it was never intended to do that. But to think that 250 boats out there is actually a number that we can live with. I really feel we can't. So... You know, it was feasible maybe five years ago, four years ago when we had about 85, 90 in there. But now it's gotten to a point where If we can't handle 250 and somewhere, we have to find the number that we can all live with. |
| 01:18:57.25 | Jill Hoffman | Councilwoman Pfeiffer. |
| 01:18:57.97 | Unknown | Thank you. Comment? I guess I'm next. Okay. Yeah, I also want to thank Chief Rohrabacher and Lieutenant Fraz for the amazing job they've done with the statistics, the crime analysis, everything, the focus on removing the mooring balls. Very much appreciated and very, very important. There were a couple things that were said tonight. I just wanted to share my views for the record. It's true this is a federal government anchorage. It does not mean it is a federal housing anchorage. It is for mariners to visit, drop anchor, stay a short period of time and move on. It is not here to live. We are not looking at condos on the bay, that's called Bayfill. I also heard the reference that throughout history people have been living on the bay. There are some other things we've done to the bay in history. After the gold rush, San Francisco's bay size reduced by one-third, and it was destroyed 90% of its bay tidal marsh. That's another part of the bay history. In 1961, there were plans to fill 60% of our bay. That was another part of the bay history. The public at that time had access to less than six miles of shoreline. And the bay was choked with raw sewage. That was the history. That's how we treated our bay. We are light years ahead from where we were back then. That was the genesis of BCDC. That's why we have BCDC today. So when we look at history, we have to learn from history. And that's why we have RBRA. That's why we have BCDC. And that's why we have the codes that we have right now. It's illegal to live on the bay. We have codes in Sausalito, and RBRA has codes that makes it very, very specific that it is a situation where you come and you visit and you move on. So I'm very concerned with the environmental hazard that exists today, and I'm also concerned with the legacy we are slowly moving towards with regards to what I view as really destroying our bay. And when I look at the crime statistics in the staff report, it just boggles the mind. Over 1,000 police reports between just 2014 and 2016, 35 people arrested and I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. over, I guess, 115 times. I mean, these statistics are absolutely crazy. It's a small area out there, and to see that much activity, I think it's dangerous for our police officers. I think it's a hazard for our bay and our environment, and I really would love to see leadership on the council to move, I guess in the springtime beyond derelict boats and to really take a pioneering view and vision and be bold to clean our bay. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. |
| 01:22:51.64 | Unknown | Yeah, Madam Mayor just very, very briefly wanted to reiterate and agree 100% with what you said. We have the opportunity here for the needle to be moved. And that's because of the good collaborative work that we've done here. And I'd very much like to commend the chief and staff for that effort. We decided that the first step would be the abatement of the marine debris. We decided that earlier in the year, middle of the year. We've now going to push the button on that and Let's not forget that winter storms are starting and I heard a community that actually pretty much agrees that we need to be removing the debris. And we need to start there. It's a real safety issue. And so good luck and success with that, Chief. |
| 01:24:00.64 | Jill Hoffman | you So I'd also like to... suggest that we have direction from the Council to go ahead and have the staff work on the letter to submit to our be a by December 31st that we're going to withdraw from our be a now that doesn't mean we're actually going to withdraw from our be a on July, June 30th. But if we don't put the letter in now, then we're foreclosed under the rules of RBRA. from submitting that letter for another year, which means we'd be in for another 18 months. So do I have? |
| 01:24:36.86 | Unknown | Just a point of clarification. If we submitted the letter, but before it became effective, would it come back to councils to make that decision on it? Or I just want in whose hands would it be once we submitted that letter? |
| 01:24:47.42 | Jill Hoffman | And who's the one? |
| 01:24:50.98 | Jill Hoffman | I'm not. I WANTED TO BE ABLE I think that's a good question. I'm going to chime in as well, but my understanding is once we no further actions required. But of course, we would have updates from the chief, and then we would decide as a council if we wanted to take some sort of other action before the date of June 31st. I guess my question is, |
| 01:25:13.71 | Unknown | I guess my question is, the council will have an opportunity to withdraw the letter if it's felt that it needed to. I'm not suggesting it should. I just want to make sure the council has the opportunity. |
| 01:25:17.97 | Jill Hoffman | Oh, yeah. |
| 01:25:19.91 | Unknown | Okay. Bye. |
| 01:25:22.27 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 01:25:23.16 | Unknown | Thank you. Yeah, that's my understanding. Any other questions? Yeah, I have a comment, which is my concern on this is if we pull out of RBRA, and believe me, I'm not a fan of RBRA. I think they have, I mean... after what I learned a couple sessions ago about the fact that the majority of the boats they had removed from the bay actually were from marinas. That was incredible. My question is, I'd like to see clear metrics in place in terms of where the council would like to go in terms of vision long term. I don't support the mooring fields where people could live on the bay attached to these mooring fields. I see that as bay fill. And so I would like clarity on that with regards to, you know, if we're pulling out of our BRA and yet we're working with them as part of you know a coordinated effort. What are the metrics? What does that look like? |
| 01:26:35.74 | Jill Hoffman | I THINK THAT'S GOING TO VARY AS WE MOVE FORWARD. I THINK THE IMPORTANT THING RIGHT NOW IS THAT WE AGREE AS A COUNCIL TO PUT THE LETTER IN AND THEN WE CAN ADJUST AS WE MOVE FORWARD. BUT OUR OVERALL PLAN REMAINS THE SAME. AND IT'S THE SAME PLAN THAT THE CHIEF OUTLINED ALMOST A YEAR AGO IN JANUARY. AND I AGREE WITH THAT APPROACH. |
| 01:26:54.66 | Unknown | That was the plan that I think I voted against because it was focused on the derelict boats. So I'm really torn about this because I am not happy with RBRA, but I want to see those metrics. And I don't know if this council has a shared vision in terms of what success looks like on the bay. And that's my concern. |
| 01:27:19.03 | Jill Hoffman | I, I, |
| 01:27:20.60 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:27:20.73 | Jill Hoffman | I see, I take your point, but at this point, I think we're all in agreement that we want to put the letter in, that we want to put the letter in that we're drawing from RBRA. because of the timing issue. So I think that's the direction tonight. But I take your point, too, about |
| 01:27:40.29 | Unknown | Well, just the fact that RBRA was misrepresenting, in my mind, what they were supposedly doing in cleaning up the bay, telling us that, what, 460 boats or so were being removed from the bay, and only 63 came from the bay open waters? I believe it was 406. OK, 406. |
| 01:27:41.02 | Jill Hoffman | Just the fact. |
| 01:27:59.48 | Jill Hoffman | And we can only confirm that 63 were... taken from the bank. |
| 01:28:04.10 | Unknown | yeah that's just so misleading I would definitely yeah I'm fine with going for |
| 01:28:04.12 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:28:09.03 | Jill Hoffman | with the letter. |
| 01:28:09.97 | Unknown | you |
| 01:28:10.02 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thanks. Any other? Do we all agree? Thank you. Do we need a motion on that? Yeah? Okay, anybody want to make a motion? |
| 01:28:30.83 | Doug Storms | Thank you, Chair. I'm |
| 01:28:32.03 | Jill Hoffman | So, I think that's a great question. Yes. |
| 01:28:35.59 | Doug Storms | Yes. before you. |
| 01:28:36.92 | Jill Hoffman | Yes, not to, sir, thank you for your comments, but we're not engaging in a conversation between us. But we've talked about this numerous times in the past at Agenda City Council meetings. And this is merely, I think, a point of form that we're going to go forward with this before the next RBRA meeting, which is, I believe, December 1st. And this item is, this is not going to be agendized again, RBRA is not going to be agendized again before that meeting. Thank you. |
| 01:29:07.33 | Unknown | And it's a mission of a letter, and as I, per my question, is that we would come back to the city council anyway. This is just to submit the letter in terms of a placeholder to make sure we don't miss the deadline. |
| 01:29:07.47 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:29:16.02 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. Mm-hmm. Yep. Okay. Do I have a motion? |
| 01:29:22.40 | Unknown | I'm sorry, |
| 01:29:23.94 | Jill Hoffman | Sure. Yeah. Yeah, second. |
| 01:29:26.79 | Unknown | second. All in favor. |
| 01:29:27.43 | Jill Hoffman | All in favor? |
| 01:29:28.10 | Unknown | Hi. |
| 01:29:28.27 | Jill Hoffman | Hi. Thank you. Okay, moving on to our next item. Which is item 6B, adopt a resolution amending the master fee schedule. This is going to be very exciting. IN OUR MELANY PURSELL, OUR ADMINISTRATION SERVICES DIRECTOR. DOES ANYBODY NEED TO TAKE A BREAK? No? Okay. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. All right. Okay, Melanie, go ahead. |
| 01:30:03.32 | Melanie Purcell | Melanie Purcell, Administrative Services Director. As promised, we're back to talk about the master fee schedule. in our FY 2016-17, back in June. We had a conversation about including phase one of a master fee schedule update. The city's been working on the master fees. for the fee schedule for quite some time, but we wanted to at least start the path. So we included in the budget, approximately $50,000 in revenues and with the anticipation and the expectation is adopted by council to come back with specific fees to be increased. In this, we have included the recreation and library fees. They had actually been addressed at different points in time, but I wanted to bring them so that there was a little more clarity. And then we focused on community development and engineering fees, bringing these to markets. based on a recent report I'm trying to say market comparison, we took five of our neighboring communities and we compared similar fees to see where we ranked. So for those areas in which we were significantly on the low end of the scale, I recommended coming up to the next lowest person, lowest neighboring community. So it does not bring us into the top end, does not bring us actually even necessarily into the middle of the pack, but this is anticipating a final cost analysis by our consultant to be brought forward in the FY 2017-18 budget. So this is step one. In one item in particular I wanted to highlight, all of these have been listed in your agenda. or in your staff report, but one particular item is in order to bring some consistency across our fee schedule in that our administrative overhead cost. So when our fees are based on utilizing a consultant or specific staff time, so we use the term actual cost, we want to ensure that we're consistent in using 20%, not 25, not 15, not 10, 20% administrative charge. This allows us to cover the cost of actually processing all of the activities associated with either the consultant's contract or our staff. The building in particular is an area where we simply rounded up slightly to the next community above us. We were at the bottom of the rank for all of our building permits. So. Similarly with mechanical permits. |
| 01:32:38.72 | Melanie Purcell | Public Works is probably the most notable change. We, in particular, added three fees, the sewer lateral certification fee, the sewer lateral inspection fee, and a sewer re-inspection fee. This is actually, the sewer re-inspection fee reflects similar to the building inspector. When people are not prepared for their inspection or have not done the work that was previously intended, we're calling somebody out. Therefore, we're taking time away from other services that need to be provided. So we want to have a re-inspection. So if we have to reschedule and redo work because somebody has not been prepared, we want to be able to charge for that. The other the two lateral certifications in the majority of our neighbors we find that this Sewer lateral work is done by another agency separate from the city in our case We have it internal And what happens is the sewer rate payers end up subsidizing that activity So in order to break this out and ensure that the rate payers are not subsidizing development But that we're in fact keeping those behaviors separate we wanted to establish the fee separately and |
| 01:33:53.55 | Melanie Purcell | In the library, the vast majority of the activity here is actually deleting fees that previously have been charged. So there is a really good marked up version of the resolution in front of you that shows the deletion. Majority of these actually also are reductions. trying to stay in pace with our neighbors and encourage use of our library. |
| 01:34:20.66 | Melanie Purcell | Finally, recreation, major change here is actually removing the rental of equipment. So chairs, tables, et cetera, that actually is a pretty significant burden when it comes to replacing, tracking down, hunting those kinds of things out, the private sector can handle that just fine. So we would actually get out of that business. |
| 01:34:43.26 | Melanie Purcell | So the recommended motion is to adopt the resolution before you. amending the revised and restated master fee schedule adopted originally in FY 2008, 2009. |
| 01:34:54.95 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, any council questions on this? |
| 01:34:56.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:34:56.86 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:34:57.17 | Unknown | Briefly one question. Thanks, Melanie. |
| 01:34:57.18 | Jill Hoffman | FLEE. |
| 01:35:01.79 | Unknown | Do you... Do you yet have any idea whether we're going to make that $50,000 difference, considering we're already in November, or almost November? And presumably you'll have a clearer picture at mid-year budget review. Could you comment on that? |
| 01:35:23.73 | Melanie Purcell | Could you comment you Yeah, we will definitely be bringing forward the mid-year budget amendment a little earlier than last year, so you can expect to see it in January. We, at this point, aren't seeing a whole lot of enough data to say, yes, we're on track, no, we're not. We have not seen any significant slowdown in the activity in the building and community development area. |
| 01:35:50.17 | Unknown | May I, and thank you, Melanie, for that presentation. And remind us, was this driven by, I noticed you said, to bring us up to market, so to speak, or other jurisdictions? Or is it to make another $50,000, you know, in revenue that could meet some of our expenses? Or does it reflect costs to provide these services? So I'm unclear what drives these changes in these fees. |
| 01:36:14.89 | Melanie Purcell | The actual original intent of doing a full comprehensive update is involving particularly community development, public works, is to reflect cost so that the council can make a determination as to how much we want to recover of the cost expended, how much should be subsidized general activity of the city and how much should be paid for by these specific users. In this instance, what I'm recommending is a step partway, because we don't have the full data yet on the cost analysis, but recognizing that our neighbors are actually charging more. We know that we're leaving money on the table, and that's money that the taxpayers are then subsidizing for the services. |
| 01:36:55.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:36:58.48 | Unknown | Thank you, Melanie, for that presentation. And let's see. |
| 01:37:08.66 | Unknown | It says on page three of five, inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated. I just didn't understand what that was. |
| 01:37:21.04 | Melanie Purcell | That's actually referring to the sewer lateral inspections and the sewer re-inspection fees. Those are things that we don't currently charge specifically for, which is different than our neighbors. They actually, because there are two different agencies involved, |
| 01:37:26.02 | Unknown | So it's sewers. Thank you. |
| 01:37:28.60 | Mary Wagner | What? |
| 01:37:34.91 | Melanie Purcell | In those jurisdictions, both agencies are charging for their relative work. In our case, it's been lumped in. and is being subsidized heavily. by the ratepayers in effect. So those are the three that are particular to new fees. |
| 01:37:52.67 | Unknown | And I know we have a special task force that was formed on the permit process. Or, you know, have they looked at this? Or has this been something that they've weighed in on? Or I'm just curious. You mean a new task force? Yeah, the new task force. |
| 01:38:03.84 | Jill Hoffman | I'm just curious. No, because we haven't met yet. Oh, OK. But that might be something we might look at, I'm guessing. |
| 01:38:10.60 | Unknown | I'm guessing. So where are we in this particular? process are there two readings are there what houses I think we moved for a |
| 01:38:18.47 | Jill Hoffman | I think we move for a resolution, adopted resolution tonight to amend the revised and restated master scheme. master fee schedule. And then Mary, do we come back on this? Is this a consent or is this it? Awesome. Okay. Very efficient. Thank you. |
| 01:38:36.96 | Unknown | And my possibly last question, where does this put us? And I know we looked at Larkspur, Tiburon, Corte Madera, San Anselmo, and Mill Valley. Where would this put Sausalito on the spectrum if we adopted these increased fees? |
| 01:38:58.09 | Melanie Purcell | For those in which we were at the bottom of the market, particularly in the building valuations, I simply bumped close to the next highest community, so we'd still be in the low end of the pack. but we would still be collecting some. There are a couple where we're probably, we wouldn't come back and make a recommendation, but I want to not I'm not recommending any changes to where I had any question because I wanted to ensure that we had done the full cost analysis and then that could be a decision of council as to what they want to do from there. Some of these were updated at various times over the last seven, eight years, but the building in particular have not been. |
| 01:39:35.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:39:36.02 | Jill Hoffman | OK, thank you. Okay. Yeah. Public comment on this issue. |
| 01:39:41.58 | Unknown | Thank you. Yeah. |
| 01:39:43.96 | Jill Hoffman | you See none now. Are we ready? Yeah. Yeah. |
| 01:39:46.84 | Unknown | Thank you. Okay. |
| 01:39:47.36 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Anybody want to? |
| 01:39:49.17 | Unknown | Yeah, I'll move to adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Sausalito, amending the revised and restated master fee schedule adopted in 2008, 2009. Second. |
| 01:40:03.50 | Jill Hoffman | All in favor? Aye. Passes. Thank you so much for your hard work on this issue. |
| 01:40:04.43 | Unknown | Hi. |
| 01:40:09.62 | Joan Murray | Thank you. |
| 01:40:12.17 | Jill Hoffman | Yes, okay, we're going to take a five minute break. |
| 01:40:31.16 | Jill Hoffman | and the other. Ready? All right, we're back from our short break. And our next item is item 6C on our agenda tonight. Consideration of a request for a waiver of planning division application fees for the proposed Bridgeway Parklet located in the right-of-way between 621 and 633 Bridgeway. And Danny Castro, our community development director, is going to give us a presentation. |
| 01:40:56.30 | Danny Castro | Yes, thank you. Thank you, Mayor Hoffman, members of the council. Give a couple seconds to have the screen up here. for my short presentation. |
| 01:41:10.09 | Danny Castro | So the issue is today, this evening, is the Bridgeway Parklet and its request for the fee waiver. A waiver of planning division application fees for the proposed Bridgeway Parklet located in the right of way between 621 and 633 Bridgeway. Just to be clear, this is not a review of the project or its design. It's what is before you is a request for a fee, a waiver of the application fee that would apply for the project when this is getting gets reviewed by the planning commission and then to the city council for its final consideration. Some brief history, in May 2014, the City Council approved a temporary permit for Parklet as a pilot project. It was constructed and completed about June and July of 2015. And then in January 2016, the City Council approved a one-year extension of the temporary permit until January 12, 2017. The direction at that time was from the City Council was prior to the expiration of the year. Should the applicant wish to continue use at the site for a longer duration, submittal of a formal design review and encroachment applications are required for review and consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. Here are the Planning Division application fees that apply to this. There's a design review permit, encroachment agreement, Historic Landmarks Board Review, Environmental Review, a planned document retention fee, and the public noticing. That totals 6,031. Application fees are a cost of staff time to process the applications. It's a cost recovery. If the fee waiver is approved, that cost is paid for by the general fund. |
| 01:43:08.30 | Danny Castro | The Sausalito Municipal Code section 1.09050 states the City Council may waive any fees required under this title for any nonprofit organization, public body, district or agency of federal, state, county or municipal government, or under other circumstances that the City Council in its discretion justifies such a waiver. The applicant's basis for a waiver of the fees are that costs for the proposed improvements would be in excess of $30,000. and is already a burden to business owners, that the parklet has been very successful, And the parklet contributes to the beauty of Sausalito's downtown. It offers a new way to enjoy our downtown. and it benefits both residents and visitors. The options for the City Council action is to approve the waiver of $6,031 in Planning Division application fees, to deny the waiver. to direct the applicant to submit any additional information in support of the request. And that concludes my report. |
| 01:44:22.56 | Jill Hoffman | Thanks, Danny. Director Castro. Do we have any questions from the |
| 01:44:28.27 | Unknown | Yeah, Danny. |
| 01:44:28.82 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 01:44:30.36 | Unknown | That's all one lump sum, but can that be broken down if we choose to have some fees waived? Or does it have to be the whole? |
| 01:44:44.26 | Danny Castro | It can be... Separate it out. It doesn't have to be the entire. It could be the entire. It could be a particular. T-shirt. Yes. |
| 01:44:51.89 | Unknown | Jesus. Okay, thank you. |
| 01:44:55.03 | Jill Hoffman | So, Danny, on that slide where you had the ordinance under which we could wait. Yeah, there you go. So we're in that last clause, which is or under other circumstances, the city council's discretion justifies a waiver. We're not under. It's not a non-profit, it's not a public body, it's not a district or agency or federal state, blah, blah. That's correct. Okay, thanks. |
| 01:45:12.78 | Danny Castro | THANK YOU. |
| 01:45:14.39 | Jill Hoffman | That's the only question I had. |
| 01:45:15.50 | Unknown | Yeah, I have a quick question. How many parking spaces did we lose when that parklet was put in? I know I voted against it, but what? Four spaces. Four spaces, and then how much do they pay every year to use that public right away that is now a bunch of tables that has expanded the real estate of their restaurants? |
| 01:45:21.47 | Jill Hoffman | I know I, and I'll see you next time. |
| 01:45:23.70 | Danny Castro | Four spaces. |
| 01:45:34.37 | Danny Castro | Because it was a temporary parklet, they paid the initial application fees, but there is no current charge. |
| 01:45:39.88 | Unknown | So they get that free. It's the public right away, and they get that free. |
| 01:45:43.46 | Danny Castro | at this time as the end of this pilot program. |
| 01:45:44.49 | Unknown | Okay. THE FAMILY. Thank you. And what was the application fee? |
| 01:45:49.81 | Danny Castro | I wasn't here at the time. Oh, it's okay. Probably close to a thousand. |
| 01:45:50.84 | Unknown | Oh, it's okay. Yeah, I think it's about a thousand. And, okay, thank you. |
| 01:46:00.77 | Jill Hoffman | Danny, for those four parking spots that are right there, can you tell us what parking fees those would generate? |
| 01:46:08.60 | Danny Castro | At the time when we brought this to you in January, early this year, we estimated in my talks with the parking enforcement division, |
| 01:46:09.11 | Jill Hoffman | The term would be Thank you. |
| 01:46:12.22 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:46:17.99 | Danny Castro | approximately 10,000 in a year And that was based on the immediate surrounding... parking meter usage in those fees. |
| 01:46:26.19 | Jill Hoffman | Is that $10,000 per space or $10,000 for the four spaces? $10,000 for the four. |
| 01:46:28.96 | Danny Castro | $10 for the four. And that's an approximate number, but again, based on the collection of coins or money. |
| 01:46:38.10 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:46:38.54 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:46:38.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:46:38.68 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:46:38.83 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. |
| 01:46:38.90 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:46:38.96 | Unknown | Fine thanks. And in driving by there, I noticed that there was some debate about whether that area would be open to the public, not necessarily patrons of the restaurant. And it seems like the tables that I see are always set outside. So, and then there are like benches that are, you know, don't face the view that are, I guess, accessible for the public, is that it? |
| 01:47:15.16 | Danny Castro | Yeah, there are two areas that are non-dining or for tables that are just accessible to the public. And then the remainder is. |
| 01:47:15.23 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:47:25.13 | Danny Castro | THE END OF THE END OF THE dining tables and chairs, correct? |
| 01:47:29.52 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:47:33.64 | Jill Hoffman | Any other questions from city council? Oh, go ahead. Good talk. |
| 01:47:38.52 | Unknown | Just for clarification, and so when they have to go to the planning commission, but they don't need to come back to council. This is on their own volition about the fees, but the actual parkland itself doesn't need to come back to council. We've already approved that, correct? |
| 01:47:52.74 | Danny Castro | I know it will come to you. |
| 01:47:53.90 | Unknown | Oh, well, okay. |
| 01:47:54.40 | Danny Castro | The reason is that it will come to you because it involves a formal encroachment agreement And that is decided upon by the City Council. The Planning Commission will review both the design review and the recommendation of an encroachment agreement, and then that will come to you |
| 01:48:10.71 | Adam Politzer | Madam Mayor, can I just ask Danny to expand on that a little bit? I think it's really important. |
| 01:48:11.79 | Danny Castro | Sure. |
| 01:48:16.45 | Adam Politzer | What the council agreed to back on the date when this last came to council where this direction was given was the council gave permission to continue to have a parklet at this location. And but the direction was to go back Now, through the formal process, which is through the Planning Commission, HLB, for the formal design review process, and the only component that comes back to the council is the encroachment permit, which traditionally, when we have encroachment permits come back to the council, it's on consent. We don't have an item revisiting if we're going to have a park split or not. we give the Planning Commission the responsibility to go through the design review and any conditions that are required for approval. And then the encroachment permit is normally a technicality as it comes through on consent. One consent. |
| 01:49:12.64 | Jill Hoffman | Okay? Any other questions from Council? Thank you. Public comment. |
| 01:49:26.30 | Mike Monsaf | It's interesting, right after the fee situation you were talking, our project is coming up. But I have been one of those people who always encourage, create something that brings more revenue to the city. I was one of those people who did work for Jazz by the Bay. They were a lot of naysayers, but now everybody's happy. It's creating a good budget for Park and Rec. And also, I've been pushing for a movie at the Park here, finally I guess they are moving to that direction. That's another way of bringing more revenue to the city. This was another project we put on to bring more revenue. that granted, first of all, it was three parking. One of them was a yellow zone, and it was three parkings. The revenue that is created out of the tax that generated from this, I think gentleman sitting here after me, who is going to talk, and he'll tell you how much has changed the ambiance beside and changing the ambiance. leave the sidewalk free for the handicap to go and it was not congested like it was before. So these are the good issues that created with this. And I mean, I don't want to go, how many people they came and thanked us for it. And now the reason we are going for, requesting for waiver for this fee, is just like I've been through this situation a lot. For example, if you want to paint your house, if Planning Commission doesn't like the, he said, well, when you put a sample paint, we go and look at it, if we like it, then you go and put the sample paint and come back. They don't come and ask for another review, pay another fee to show their paint. You ask us to put this one as a temporary to see how it is, whether it's successful or not. I think with the sign, it shows that it's been very successful. I'm saying, why do I have to pay? Or why do we have to pay? Since we are gonna, we are the one, I mean, all the merchants are the one, they're gonna pay for this, changing the material. and make it more appealing Why should we have to pay more? So this is the reason we ask possibility if you can, your contribution to town for this project would be only 6,000. in a sense, because the majority of that cost is gonna be for concrete, for redoing the railings and all that, we gotta take it off, put it back on, and all that stuff. So I'm hoping that you understand our situation. It's not that we are requesting for A request to... Okay. So I hope that you consider that in... We can get it. I appreciate it. |
| 01:52:40.32 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Any other public comment? Yes, sir. If you could state your name. That'd be great. |
| 01:52:47.70 | Chris Hunt | Good evening, Chris Hunt, 625 Bridgeway. Oh. As Mike said, We have spent out of our own pockets. over $50,000 to build this temporary facility. And we have to spend probably that much more to make it permanent when it comes up for a final vote. So any consideration that would be given to us by you would be appreciated because we're gonna be in a hole for close to $100,000 to make this thing permanent. |
| 01:53:23.00 | Kevin Kiefer | Thank you. |
| 01:53:27.37 | Chris Hunt | And I feel we have contributed to the city, it's an asset, We have a lot of local people walking the streets in the morning and evenings now with the sidewalk being free. And a lot of locals are dining outside and enjoying it. I think it's an asset to the community. And, uh, We'd like to see if you can give us any consideration on these fees. It would be appreciated. Thank you. |
| 01:53:53.33 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Any other public comment on this matter? Seeing none. Okay, back up here to City Council for comments. Any comments from City Council? Anybody want to start? Want me to start? I'll start. Okay, so. I think you guys won when you got the pilot project to be able to get four spots. I mean, this is just my opinion. You got four parking spots in prime location. That was a discussion, just whether or not we were gonna be able to take four parking spots. You are not charged rent at this time for those four parking spaces. That's the public's land. I mean, that land belongs to the people of Sausalito. And so on the balance, you know, I felt like last year when we talked about continuing the pilot project, that it was a good idea, that it was a good thing for that location, for that area. And so I supported that aspect of it. I don't support the waiver of the fees. Like I said, you won when you got the pilot project. You won when you were able to build that. And I think that's a great. A GREAT ASSET FOR YOU AS A BUSINESS. NOT EVERY BUSINESS IN TOWN HAS GOTTEN THAT WHEN THEY COME UP HERE AND ASKED US FOR THAT. BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT YOU WERE IN, YOU WERE ABLE TO GET THAT. AND I THINK THAT WAS A BIG WIN FOR YOU. ANYWAY, THAT'S HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT. BUT I'M ALWAYS LISTENING TO MY FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS. |
| 01:55:29.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:55:29.09 | Jill Hoffman | but |
| 01:55:29.14 | Unknown | Thank you. Yeah, I would agree with that. Well, of course, I voted against it. I want to acknowledge you know uh mike monsaf and you sir for um your diligence and in your vision but i it's not you know it's it's not a vision that i share i i like the parking i like the convenience that the parking gave um residents and visitors alike my concern is we're losing parking spaces one space at a time downtown, and it's really adding up. I also feel that every time I drive by, this is not something that is like it's full inside the restaurant and so then now they sit outside. They are also, people are opting to just sit outside instead of sitting inside the restaurant. So when I hear claims of more revenue, I'm not necessarily seeing that because I am seeing a restaurant where if it's nice out, people just want to sit outside. I'm not necessarily seeing the more revenue. But let's, for argument's sake, let's say it is the bottom line is these parklets were built in the public right-of-way removed a parking convenience for residents and it's to the benefit of the businesses that have built them yes you you've spent I guess fifty thousand possibly a hundred thousand more you'll probably spend more you're you're getting I mean you're you've spent, I guess, $50,000, possibly $100,000 more. You'll probably spend more. You've just increased the size of your restaurants with several more tables by building these parklets. When it comes to waiving fees, and I'm a big supporter of business in town. I've always been supporter of Jazz by the Bay, for example. But when it comes to waiving fees for commercial property like this, especially property that's built in the public right away, I kind of balk at that request. I am fine with waiving fees for nonprofits for Spalding, Marin. of way, I kind of balk at that request. I am fine with waiving fees for non-profits for Spalding, Marin School, Nursery School, Galilee Harbor, groups that are non-profits and would struggle with a real hardship, but not for something that basically took four parking spaces, was built in the public right of way, and expanded the footprint of several businesses. I can't support that. Thank you. Any other comment from City Council? |
| 01:58:20.69 | Unknown | you |
| 01:58:20.71 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:58:20.73 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:58:21.03 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:58:22.04 | Unknown | well. I think it's been a benefit for both. It's livened up that corner, you could see that, the activity that it's generated. And it gives people an opportunity to be outside to really enjoy probably one of the most beautiful views in the world, which you can't really see so much from inside the business. I, I, but on the other hand, I think there is some movement there where Can I ask Danny a question? We can't do that. |
| 01:59:01.24 | Jill Hoffman | Well, I think that's fine. I WANTED TO BE ABLE |
| 01:59:03.07 | Unknown | You need to clarify. Yeah, yeah, I do. Danny. Explain to me how much staff time it would take for the design review permit, roughly. for this project. |
| 01:59:23.32 | Danny Castro | 20 hours. Thank you. |
| 01:59:24.46 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:59:24.48 | Danny Castro | Okay. 20 to 25 hours. |
| 01:59:25.02 | Unknown | 20 to 25 hours. Encroachment agreement. DO WE- |
| 01:59:30.07 | Danny Castro | It would be in total. you because we would bundle both the design review and the encroachment agreement both to the Planning Commission, hold a hearing. in maybe more than one hearing, |
| 01:59:41.44 | Unknown | Okay. HLB. |
| 01:59:44.49 | Danny Castro | one hearing. |
| 01:59:47.04 | Unknown | environmental review. |
| 01:59:49.03 | Danny Castro | That's together with the Planning Commission review. |
| 01:59:53.32 | Unknown | In the other it's minor, public motion. |
| 02:00:02.38 | Unknown | my comment, my feelings are that I would be amenable to maybe, um, waiving the design review permit and the public noticing which comes out to a total of $2,613. That's my thought. |
| 02:00:28.61 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Tom Murray, any thoughts on this comment? Go et toi. |
| 02:00:34.46 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:00:35.39 | Unknown | By the way, thank you for bringing the parklet to us. The thing is, back then, you brought a novel concept. There was not uniform public support, and the council went out of its way to approve this. We did, and it has been a success. I think it's a good thing. But I mean, on the other hand, in terms of waiving the fees, some of the problems are, we're losing the $10,000 in terms of parking. But also, we have other parklets coming up. Are we going to not only waive the fees for all our other parklets, but are we going to spend time on these things and have them come up like this? So I have difficulty pointing. The only thing I would sayED WOULD IT COME BACK TO COUNCIL BECAUSE WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THESE THINGS AFTER IT COMES BACK. WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THESE THINGS AFTER IT COMES BACK. WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THESE THINGS AFTER IT COMES BACK. WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THESE THINGS AFTER IT COMES BACK. WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THESE THINGS AFTER IT COMES BACK. WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THESE THINGS AFTER IT COMES BACK. WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THESE THINGS AFTER IT COMES BACK. WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THESE THINGS AFTER IT COMES BACK. WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THESE THINGS AFTER IT COMES BACK. WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THESE THINGS AFTER IT COMES BACK. WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THESE THINGS AFTER IT COMES BACK. WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THESE THINGS AFTER IT COMES BACK. WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THESE THINGS AFTER IT COMES BACK. you know later but uh right now um you know i i don't know that i can support it you know possibly when they bring it back if if it was something that you brought such a clean project didn't take any time that's one thing and we also have to think about as staff and council what we're going to do with these other parklets because again i don't think we're in a position to be waiving fees i mean because there are many many things that we do in the city that are beneficial to the city. And if it's, but if they're commercial enterprises, even private homes, we just, it may be great that we like someone doing this great remodel on the house, but we make them pay the fees. So I don't think I can support it at this point. |
| 02:02:24.60 | Jill Hoffman | Any comments? I'm not sure. |
| 02:02:27.27 | Unknown | Well, it doesn't look like there's the votes here for it. And I think we need to remember that, well, first of all, let me say, I really like this park. I think it's a great location. It's exactly what really needs to be there because it solved a lot of problems. This is obviously a collaboration between the city and the business owners there, and we were very favorably inclined to allow this prototype, proof of concept, trial run, whatever you want. We're losing parking revenue. We decided, okay, we'll give that up for this experiment. As a council, we haven't had the discussion, but it would be my position that under the encroachment agreement, we're not charging you a rent for the use of the right-of-way. So you put those two things together, balance with your investment and the increased revenue that the business will get, I think the city has actually done a fairly good job. good deal here. I think it's been a fairly fair partner here. So those are my thoughts. |
| 02:03:57.62 | Unknown | Just a couple more comments I forgot. For example, we know one of the issues we have in town is code enforcement. On the consent calendar tonight, we just passed a contract for, you know, a code enforcement contract for up to $80,000. You know, I see fees like this going to help us fund the type of code enforcement we have to do. And the other point is I was eating at some of the other businesses across the street that don't have parking across the street and can't have parklets, and they were complaining to me. They said they just took part of our business parking too because people could park and walk across the street and come to eat at our restaurant. So I had a lot of issues with this parklet, but on the face of it, no, I can't waive these fees. |
| 02:04:54.03 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, so do we need to do a motion to deny the request? How do we... Deny the waiver. So yes, I believe someone needs to make a motion. Thank you. |
| 02:05:10.33 | Unknown | They're up there. I move to deny the waiver of $6,031 in planning division application fees. Do you have a second? Second? |
| 02:05:22.03 | Jill Hoffman | Second, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Those opposed? |
| 02:05:28.95 | Jill Hoffman | Yes, 401 passes. Thank you. Thank you very much. On to the next matter on our agenda, we're at number seven. City manager reports, council member reports, council member appointments, and other council business. City manager reports. |
| 02:05:56.79 | Adam Politzer | not a lot on the list here i just wanted to share uh really just three three quick items the short-term rental committee task force had their first meeting i believe last week mayor hoffman may respond more or report more on on the first meeting but i wanted to also confirm the makeup of the committee because we left the last meeting recognizing that the Planning Commission would make their appointment and they've appointed Susan Cleveland Knowles and that the historic landmarks board appointed Ben Brown. And so you have Russ, Erwin, and Kate Storr, and Mayor Hoffman that make up the five members of the committee and then, uh, Danny Castro as staff to the committee. um also would like to just share that uh you know i mentioned a meeting or so back that uh mike langford from parks and recreation park director held a public meeting community meeting over at southview park a few weeks ago on a saturday had excellent attendance i know that um that council member weiner was at the meeting um And so that discussion is now going to move forward with SWA, who's the architect that we have engaged in the project. And so they will start working with the community out at Southview Park. and come back at a later date to the council to talk about how we move that process forward and eventually onto the planning commission for their approve and then eventually on to construction. In a optimistic and aggressive position, we'd like to see that park renovated and open in the late summer of 2017. I say that is very aggressive and you heard from our maintenance division manager lauren and burtus at the last meeting when we talked about the robin sweeney park schedule and a reminder that the robin robin sweeney park project was actually already approved by the council supported by the community approved by the planning commission and and then we had six months to get it done and he talked about the the strain that the city manager may have applied on him to have that open prior to July 4th, so it can have its own celebration on July 2nd. So I put Lauren and Bertis on notice that I'm giving him plenty of time, but we'd like to see Southview Park, if at all possible, and if it's reasonable, open later in the summer of 2017. So there'll be a whole public process. There'll be additional council meetings, and obviously we'll go through the Planning Commission design review process, but just wanted to give you just a little bit more information about that public meeting that happened and then what's happened since then. I also would like to share with you that we are meeting with RHH a the architectural firm that the council selected with the support of the Friends of Dunphy Park and the support of Galley Harbor all endorsing that selection we have worked through the initial phase of of how we want to move forward with the stakeholder groups and really look at this initial phase as a peer review because that's what the council asked is look at what the Friends of Dunphy Park has proposed conceptually. We heard some concerns from Galley Harbor. We heard some concerns from the Cruising Club. We heard some concerns from some of our other community members that wanted showers and different things. So we want to make sure that what's proposed can be built. And so that first phase of this is to do a peer review, meet as directed by the council with the stakeholders, at least in those three categories, which was with the Friends of Dunphy Bark, the folks from galley harbor the folks from the cruising club and i would add the fourth which is the bocce ball players and make sure that what is being proposed can be built and and then come back to council with a report from that peer review event so we're holding our first meeting tomorrow with the Friends of Dunphy Park and the Landscape Architectural Firm, and then we will continue with our meetings with Galilee Harbor, the Cruising Club, the Botubal folks, and then come back to council with an initial report. So I think that's all very positive, important news. Mixed into that, I think that we will want to go back to the next slide. uh well i'll i'll refrain from saying going back it's and we'll want to make sure that we are communicating with the public on how we move forward and how we work with the bond oversight committee to make sure that these funds are are spent in accordance of of what the council directed them to be but i think it's all positive news building on the momentum from the opening of remand's winnie park The last item, as we had our first big event in the rain season earlier this week, last night, was significant. And they're projecting a bigger storm coming later in the week. And so in some parts of the county, they received well over two inches of rain. Um, it was reported that San Geronimo had over four inches of rain. And so if the next event is coming on Thursday, and into the weekend, it's supposed to be bigger. So again, just reminding the public there's information on our website, there's information in the currents on how to protect their own property and also help us keep the storm drain system moving and open. There's things that residents can do by just moving leaves out of the way to make sure that the water is not getting bundled up and going across. So on Saturday morning Sunday mornings opportunity for our residents to continue to work together and and help prevent damage to their own property or someone else's property by just doing some maintenance on their home and in their lands and particularly in the landscape |
| 02:12:14.71 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:12:16.53 | Adam Politzer | Happy to answer any questions to the council. That concludes my report. |
| 02:12:20.53 | Jill Hoffman | Thanks, Adam. Any questions for Adam based on his report? Okay, so moving on to Council member reports. We did have our first meeting. I'll start. We did have our first meeting of the short-term rental task force on October 20th. And Adam told you who the members were, but let me just point out that Susan Cleveland Knowles is the chair of the planning, or the. Thank you. Planning Commission and Ben Brown is the Chair of HLB, so I feel like we really have a blue ribbon. committee for the short-term rentals. Really great expertise and perspective on that. And let me point out, too, Susan Cleveland Knowles is a, I believe she's a land use attorney in San Francisco. So she brings a really great perspective to the discussion based on the issues that San Francisco's had with short-term rentals. And that perspective, I think, is very useful for us. Our next meeting is we're trying to get a date. The plan is that we're going to meet two more times before the November 29th city council meeting. and then we're going to come back at that meeting with sort of a map going forward on how we think we want to proceed. We broke it down into two parts. One emphasis is going to be on enforcement and we're going to move pretty quickly on that with recommendations for changes in the code regarding the enforcement and fines and how to effectively enforce. You know, the problems that we see that are going on now, regardless of any other change for short term rentals. And then the other side is going to be if we do come up with a pilot short term rental program, what that's going to look like. And we'll be back to the council periodically to talk about it and to get direction from the full council. And that's it for the short term rental. Our task force for the building and planning commission, sorry, building planning departments, we have not met yet. We're looking for dates for all members to meet on that. Have we confirmed? Yeah, okay, sorry. Okay, so that's all I have for my committee reports. The next RBRA meeting is December 1st at 530 in these council chambers. Mm-hmm. Any other, yes? Thank you. |
| 02:14:37.01 | Unknown | The sustainability commission is looking at possibly doing an audit study in the future where they kind of have kind of a study on the extent of recycling in town. It's done kind of on a random basis, so they're discussing that. Also, this Thursday, October 27th at 7.30 at the Women's Club, Open Space Sausalito will be hosting a talk featuring our resident biologist, Jennifer Berry, and she will talk about the wildlife that resides at Sassados First Wildlife Preserve. |
| 02:15:16.25 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:15:17.41 | Unknown | Open Space at Lincoln Butte. |
| 02:15:19.64 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:15:19.71 | Unknown | you |
| 02:15:19.89 | Jill Hoffman | you Great, that's a great presentation. Any other committee reports? No? Okay, moving on to appointments to boards and commissions. We have, we interviewed an applicant tonight for... the historic landmark board, her name is Melinda Sesto. Am I saying that right, Sesto? Do we have any... I'm going to ask you a question. |
| 02:15:50.91 | Unknown | I think we need more candidates for this. Mayor Hoffman, that's my personal opinion. We've only got one and I just think that, |
| 02:16:06.64 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:16:06.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:16:07.07 | Unknown | we need to do a little bit more outreach. Thank you. |
| 02:16:09.99 | Unknown | I think one of the problems that we have there is that, |
| 02:16:10.05 | Unknown | I think |
| 02:16:13.66 | Unknown | It's been expressed to me that if one person doesn't show up they don't have it the way it's set up now with one seat open besides that that they don't have enough for quorum and I think that's I think we have a qualified candidate |
| 02:16:31.54 | Unknown | My concern about this candidate is that she was not aware that downtown Sausalito was historic and she also was not aware that the fountain at Viña Del Mar was historic. I mean, it just seems like if you're |
| 02:16:46.43 | Debbie | We... |
| 02:16:46.90 | Unknown | you know, this is the historic landmarks board and, to not know that it just gives me pause that's all i mean she's very capable in terms of you know i mean she's she's very good and i would i would consider her for um you know several other you know committees or appointments but for hlb i i'm i have my concerns |
| 02:17:10.73 | Unknown | I also want to make a comment that Ben Brown was very instrumental in I'm recommending her and he is your chairperson. |
| 02:17:22.56 | Unknown | Okay. And I like Ben very much. It's not a reflection on Ben or this candidate. I just think that we need maybe a little bit more outreach. That's my personal opinion. |
| 02:17:23.35 | Jill Hoffman | Bye. |
| 02:17:33.97 | Jill Hoffman | Do we have any public comment on? Okay, now we're gonna move into council discussion. I think she's a great candidate. We have, I think we have one vacancy now on HLB and soon to perhaps two. |
| 02:17:49.73 | Unknown | No. There's already two. |
| 02:17:51.38 | Jill Hoffman | We have two, so we're down to three. So they have a problem with the quorum. I've interviewed Melinda on a prior occasion as well for this position. you know, I, I wouldn't expect somebody coming into it to know all of the ins and outs of the ordinances, but she's very bright, and I have every confidence that she's going to know the ordinances very quickly. So I do take your comments, Council Member Pfeiffer, under advisement, but I think she's going to be great. I think we're lucky to get her on HLB. um, Does someone need to make a motion? |
| 02:18:27.49 | Unknown | Yeah, by the way, I just want to say, I think she's a qualified candidate. |
| 02:18:27.91 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. By the way, I just want to say. I'm sorry, I always did this wrong. Yeah, I'm sorry, Tom. |
| 02:18:32.15 | Unknown | And in the interview, she's a lawyer and took a lawyerly position on it. And I think it was technical. I am, so I'm coming to her defense. And I think it was an appropriate answer at that time. So I think she's a very qualified candidate, and we need someone to fill the position at this point. So I would certainly vote to put her on. |
| 02:18:50.83 | Jill Hoffman | So then I just make the Oh, I nominate, okay, sorry. Okay, so then I nominate Melinda Sesto for the Historic Landmark Board. |
| 02:18:59.77 | Unknown | Second. |
| 02:19:00.97 | Jill Hoffman | All in favor? Aye. Opposed? No. Very good. Motion passes. Okay, and we have no other appointments right now. Future agenda items we're moving on to. |
| 02:19:01.78 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:19:12.83 | Jill Hoffman | I have a couple future gen and items. One is the annual wrap up for Sausalito Plus. I'm hoping that they can come on November 29th so that we can do it before our essentially our holiday break so that we can have that before January essentially the next opportunity would be in January so. I think there's also I've heard a member of a community also request Councilmember Fyfer's mentioned this a couple times the is it called the southern gateway what's the bike. |
| 02:19:43.97 | Unknown | Yeah, whatever it's called. Adam, what's it called? It's the Southern Gateway. It's the one that I get upset over every time they mention it because they're carving out parts of the... I said that hurricane gulch main corridor. |
| 02:19:55.07 | Adam Politzer | Bye. I DON'T THINK IT HAS AN OFFICIAL NAME YET, BUT I THINK IT'S BEEN CALLED THE SOUTH GATEWAY PROJECT. |
| 02:20:00.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:20:00.73 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, South Gateway Project. So those are my two. I mean, it's sometime in the next few months to have that come back to us. Any other future agenda items? |
| 02:20:02.23 | Adam Politzer | Yes. |
| 02:20:08.98 | Unknown | South Gateway project for me, I just, if it, I've mentioned it before several times, I'd love to see that. In fact, when we voted on the budget, I was told that this would come up and be agendized soon after the budget approval because it was included in the budget as a space holder. And I think the reason why you don't have a lot of people upset is it's just kind of like people are so, They just don't believe it. It just sounds so outrageous. When I describe it to them. So I just think it's important that we get clarity from the public on this and some transparency on it. |
| 02:20:44.64 | Debbie | Thank you. |
| 02:20:44.69 | Melanie Purcell | Wow. |
| 02:20:45.07 | Unknown | the So. |
| 02:20:52.72 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:20:53.97 | Unknown | I'm sorry, by the way, my comment on that. Wait, wait, wait. We went through this last week that we said we would not have to subsistence discussions on future agenda. Exactly. And so we just, someone can ask it at the end of it. Okay, so I want to clarify. |
| 02:20:56.40 | Unknown | We went through this. Right. We're not having to discuss discussions on future agenda items. Exactly. And so we just, someone can ask it at the end of it. Okay, this is not, I want to clarify. Don't make me hammer down. This is not a substantive discussion. This is, I raised this topic as a future agenda item many times and I was making that point. |
| 02:21:08.14 | Jill Hoffman | We hammered not at all. |
| 02:21:16.80 | Jill Hoffman | OK. Yes, any other future agenda items? Seeing none. Any public comment? |
| 02:21:22.37 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:21:22.98 | Jill Hoffman | Any council discussion, if any? No, we already had it? Okay, that's it, we're done, it's a wrap. Thanks, everybody. |
| 02:21:30.84 | Doug Storms | That's pretty early. |
Patricia Cornell — In Favor: Urged Council to address homelessness, citing a recent incident where a homeless person was struck in the head, and requested building houses for homeless people. ▶ 📄
Jeff Jacob — Neutral: Gave a philosophical reflection on time, Jubilee, and Simcha Torah, encouraging a fresh perspective for the Council's proceedings. ▶ 📄
Kevin Kiefer — Neutral: Questioned the accuracy of a date mentioned in a floating homes association newsletter regarding a citywide forum on the RBRA, which was clarified as likely outdated. ▶ 📄
Bob Lorenzi — In Favor: Commended Mr. Goldman and his department for their work maintaining Sausalito's beauty and infrastructure. ▶ 📄