| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.03 | Heidi Scoble | of the Sausalito City Council on Tuesday, January 28th. Serge, would you call the roll? |
| 00:00:10.21 | Heidi Scoble | Councilmember Cox. |
| 00:00:11.89 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 00:00:11.91 | Councilmember Cox | presence. |
| 00:00:12.27 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 00:00:12.64 | Heidi Scoble | Councilmember Riley? Present. Councilmember Burns? |
| 00:00:15.91 | Michael Rex | Sure. |
| 00:00:16.03 | Heidi Scoble | Vice Mayor Withey. |
| 00:00:17.24 | Michael Rex | you |
| 00:00:17.72 | Heidi Scoble | Mayor Cleveland Knowles. |
| 00:00:19.69 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:00:19.71 | Heidi Scoble | here. The first thing on our agenda tonight is our closed session. I will take, we have two items on our closed session. We have D1 conference with legal counsel with existing litigation in the Gala v. Sausalito case and D2 liability claims pursuant to California government code section 54956.95. Is there any public comment? |
| 00:00:47.42 | Jeffrey Chase | I guess. |
| 00:00:49.02 | Heidi Scoble | Jeff. Thank you. You have three minutes. |
| 00:00:50.88 | Jeffrey Chase | Ms. Mara? Hello City Council, City Manager. Police. . One person from Sausalito. This is about the lawsuit for $2 million that's being Filed. Don't worry, it's going to be okay, Adam. It's all right, I'm in front of you, not behind you. Right? Everything is in public here. Unfortunately, the negotiations in this lawsuit are not. Most cases now are done in secret, in criminal and civil, And this is part of it, this closed session that you have to decide how much of the tax money. is going to be spent in a proposed sellout of the Anchorage. |
| 00:01:45.69 | Jeffrey Chase | Because we do not have a vibrant local news culture, the MarinScope, being one of five Very similar newspapers in Southern Marin We don't have a lot of people that understand what's really going on. The people on the Anchorage. do understand it because they're living it with their bodies right now. That's why RBRA, despite Sausalito withdrawing from them, is saying that the anchor outs will be gone, by April 1st. April Fool's Day. 100% of the anchor outs. That was always the trend. There were disingenuous statements, dodges, and feints about this. Registered boats, unregistered boats, sightly boats, unsightly boats, but now it's finally the mask is coming off, as it is in Washington, D.C. and all over the world, 100%. of the last free people in Marin County. Marin very proud of not having as many homeless people this year as it had last year, not because there aren't homeless people surrounding North. south, east and west. of Marin, but because they've been driven out. by the police there are only 55 homeless beds in this entire county. This kind of hard-heartedness towards the poorest people punching down making money off of them, millions of dollars, including for the lawyers that are defending this lawsuit, is beyond the pale. That phrase comes from the Pale of Settlement. It's where the Jewish people were forced to live. in Europe before the Holocaust. It's the 75th anniversary of Auschwitz. We do not want this to happen again. We are fighting back. |
| 00:03:51.67 | Heidi Scoble | All right. Thank you very much. Any other public comments? Okay, I'm gonna close public comment and we will adjourn in closed session. Before we do that, I just wanna make one announcement, which is that item 7A on the agenda tonight needs to be continued. So we will not be hearing the presentation from the southern marin fire district so i'll make that announcement again when we come back after closed sessions |
| 00:05:07.56 | Unknown | you |
| 00:05:13.52 | Heidi Scoble | Okay, the city council is going to reconvene our meeting in open session. uh, Of January 28th, we have already called the roll. So we will go to the Pledge of Allegiance. Sandra Bushmaker, would you like to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance? |
| 00:05:34.19 | Sandra Bushmaker | allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic. |
| 00:05:38.88 | Unknown | the republic for which it stands |
| 00:05:40.00 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 00:05:41.24 | Unknown | one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. |
| 00:05:41.60 | Marcia Raines | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:05:48.97 | Unknown | you |
| 00:05:51.59 | Heidi Scoble | And we have no closed session announcements. Do I have approval of our agenda for this evening? |
| 00:05:57.00 | Councilmember Cox | So moved with the amendment that you announced prior to our journeying into closed session. |
| 00:06:03.77 | Heidi Scoble | Yes, so for all members of the public who are here tonight, unfortunately we have had to move agenda item 7A, which is a report on the planned deployment of the Southern Marin Fire District drone program due to a family emergency to Chief Tubbs. So our thoughts go out to Chief Tubbs and we will look forward to having him on an upcoming agenda. So with that amendment, is there a second? |
| 00:06:34.99 | Joe Burns | So move. |
| 00:06:36.37 | Heidi Scoble | All in favor? Aye. That vote passes five to zero. The first item on our agenda tonight is Susan Patterson, our human resources manager with some special presentations. |
| 00:06:37.29 | Joe Burns | Bye. |
| 00:06:51.87 | Marcia Raines | Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm actually gonna switch it just briefly and I'd like to welcome Abbott Chambers who's gonna introduce his newest employee |
| 00:06:59.71 | Heidi Scoble | Great, thank you. |
| 00:07:05.75 | Abbott Chambers | Madam Mayor and members of the council, it's my great pleasure to introduce you to Julian Randolph. Thank you. the city of Sausalito and the Sausalito Library's new children's and young adult librarian. In her new role, Julianne will oversee all youth programs at the library, from toddler story times to the annual summer reading program. She will also manage the library's collections of children's and young adult books and other materials in addition to staffing the library's reference desk. Julianne holds degrees from UC Berkeley, San Francisco State University, and San Jose State University. Prior to entering the field of librarianship, she worked as an elementary school teacher at the San Francisco Unified School District. I can already tell that Julianne is going to be a great fit here in Sausalito, and I am confident that she will be a big success with local kids, parents, and caregivers. Please welcome Julianne Randolph. |
| 00:08:01.54 | Heidi Scoble | Great, welcome. Would you like to say a few words? |
| 00:08:03.90 | Julianne Randolph | Thank you. Thank you, Abbott and council members. I am really excited for this opportunity and to join such a committed, caring staff. And I really look forward to working with such an engaged community. |
| 00:08:16.68 | Heidi Scoble | Great. We're really happy to have you. Thank you. |
| 00:08:23.06 | Marcia Raines | Are you there? Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:08:38.25 | Marcia Raines | Thank you. Thank you, Abbott. And welcome, Julianne. The next person I'd like to introduce is our new permit tech in the Community Development Department, Bree Gill. Bree took classes at the UC Davis. She graduated from the Santa Rosa Police Academy in 2018. And no, Bill, you cannot have her. She's been working in the community development field for about five years with agencies which include, Vallejo, American Canyon, Pinole, and El Cerrito. On her free time, she likes to work out, watch movies, cook, and hang out with her friends. She also has worked in the Richmond Police Department as a police cadet. So please welcome Brie Grit Gill. |
| 00:09:30.15 | Heidi Scoble | Great. Welcome, Bree. Would you like to say a few words? |
| 00:09:32.30 | Bree Gill | Thank you for having me and I really wanted to say thank you to our city manager. He was in my oral board. I'm really excited, and our HR manager, Susan, them two were like, I live in Hercules, so it was quite a commute. So when I decided I wanted to, these two were my two people who really took me here. Like, okay, I can't say no to these two. So I'm really, really excited to be here. Thank you for having me. |
| 00:09:58.54 | Heidi Scoble | Great, welcome. |
| 00:10:11.87 | Heidi Scoble | Okay, and I understand we have one unagendized welcome. |
| 00:10:15.51 | Marcia Raines | Yes. And I am so excited to bring back and introduce our new city clerk, Heidi Scoble. |
| 00:10:22.38 | Bree Gill | Thank you. |
| 00:10:22.41 | Marcia Raines | I mean, |
| 00:10:22.62 | Bree Gill | you |
| 00:10:25.94 | Marcia Raines | This is actually Heidi's third tour with the city of Sausalito. Heidi has worked as a planning tech, an associate planner, and an assistant planner. She worked from 1997 to 1999 with the city of Sausalito. She worked again in 2008 until 2014. Thank you. and now she returns this year with us. In the meantime though, she's been very busy working for the county of Marin, and lastly was the planning director with the town of Ross. So, a little bit of background, she has a master's degree in public administration, she has a bachelor of science, she has a real estate license, and she's a notary. So please give a warm welcome to returning Heidi. Great, welcome back Heidi. |
| 00:11:16.30 | Sandra Bushmaker | Susan and thank you. City of Sausalito Town Council and Adam Pulitzer, Mary Wagner and the community of Sausalito. I'm so excited to be back and Sausalito keeps on drawing me back. and I can't wait to jump in and start addressing priorities working for both the council and the community so thank you for having me back |
| 00:11:39.21 | Heidi Scoble | Great, we're thrilled to have you. |
| 00:11:53.47 | Heidi Scoble | Great. Madam Mayor, thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks for great new additions. So with that, actually, I would just like to add a little bit of sad news and announce that we'd like to adjourn our meeting in honor and recognition of Toyomi Tanaka, who passed away. Toyomi Tanaka, along with her dear friend Matsuno Patrick, have been longtime residents of Sausalito. moving here from the East Coast more than 25 years ago. They were founding benefactors of the sister city Japan relationship along with Yoshitome. For more than 20 years, they provided translations in all of the communications with our exchange students to Japan and assisted the city in our communications with the city of Sakaide. Toyomi was very generous and gracious as she and Matsuno hosted many of the Japanese chaperones and officials in their home on Cloudview who traveled with the Japanese delegation. so we're going to close our meeting tonight of the Japanese chaperones and officials in their home on Cloud View, who traveled with the Japanese delegation. So we're gonna close our meeting tonight in her honor, and there is a celebration of life on Monday, February 3rd at 6 p.m. at the Sausalito Yacht Club. So with that, we will move on to public communication. So this is a time on our agenda for members of the public to comment on items that are not on our agenda. I have a public speaker card from Laura Chernova. |
| 00:13:21.81 | Heidi Scoble | And if there's any other members of the public who would like to speak, please provide a speaker card. |
| 00:13:27.60 | Laura Chernova | Hi, my name is Laura Chernova. Good evening. I see you up there. But my husband and I have resided in Sausalito at 137 Woodward for quite some time. We moved to Sausalito in 2006. We've been invested in this town and have been active participants in the community and plan to spend the rest of our lives here. |
| 00:13:28.16 | Heidi Scoble | Bye. Good evening. |
| 00:13:45.42 | Laura Chernova | We have two children, our youngest, our eight year old daughter is severely disabled in non ambulatory, which has required us to look at moving or make some significant changes to our house that we can stay. And we love this community, so we chose to stay. We've had an ongoing issue with PG&E to redirect guide wires that cross our property, precluding us from safely accessing half of our property. We have attempted to work with PG&E over the last 10 plus years in an attempt to rectify the issue, but the turnover at PG&E has left us in an ever-repeating cycle of no results. Thank you. During the process, we have been informed repeatedly that the system that is in place on our property is no longer the safe practice that he would otherwise instill. There is no easement on the on file. And at this point, the cables are a hazard to my family, our neighbors and me. For these if these frayed wires fail or are compromised, the pole will fall on our neighbor's house or across our property, offering us no safe exit, especially with our non ambulatory daughter. Additionally, the wires are a hazard for all involved in their head high and just perfect for kids to attract to be attracted to and play on as evidenced by the pictures that I'll submit to you and have been submitted in the letter that I've submitted to you. We've reached out to PG&E multiple times after the most recent change of reps and have not even been given the respect of a response. We are now asking the city council and the planning commission for assistance in addressing the significant public safety issue. |
| 00:15:25.34 | Heidi Scoble | Great. Thank you. |
| 00:15:28.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:15:30.47 | Heidi Scoble | Good. Thank you. If you could give it to the city clerk first so that we make sure. Thank you so much for coming out tonight. Okay, Jeff. Jacobs. |
| 00:15:45.59 | Jeffrey Chase | Hello again. THE FAMILY. It's been a while since I've brought some good news here. Joan. I will tonight. |
| 00:16:00.07 | Jeffrey Chase | The word? is Jubilee. The first part of Jubilee, is freedom. Declare freedom throughout the nation and to all its citizens therein. The alternative? is the United States Correctional System. It's 33 states. prisons. It's local prisons. It's police blotters. It's 33 or so, maybe less, 27, I don't know what it is. Captain Farras. Officers in Sausalito. stopping mainly poor people for mainly non-crimes, and then seeing maybe if they'll snap And it will become a real crime. in which case the police get overtime. |
| 00:17:00.60 | Jeffrey Chase | The Holy Torah says that the longest sentence that's allowed is seven years of slavery. If a person chooses after the seventh year to remain a slave, His ears are pierced. like Custer's were because he would not listen. We are born to be free. 89% of the people in our state prisons are not there. for rape or murder. or thievery. They are there for much more modern crimes. As I've alerted the police department here, Martin versus Boise says all public lands. N analogously waters that human beings are sleeping on Are not. to be invaded by police And for those people there to be charged with the crime. That is now national law. Doesn't mean everybody's going to follow it. Forgiveness is the second part of Jubilee. We loan money to our friends. We do not loan money only to the rich, which is mainly what happens in the United States of America. If somebody doesn't need it, they can have as much as they want. The third part, is fruit trees, everybody has to have an equal place to live. The alternative is not as nice. Jubilee is beautiful. Thank you. |
| 00:18:47.01 | Heidi Scoble | Great, thank you, Jeff. Yoshi Tomei? And then after that, I have Sandra Bushmaker. |
| 00:18:57.02 | Yoshitome | Good evening. Yoshitome, owner of Sushirang 107 Carolina Street. I'm here tonight to say thank you, and I'd like to show my gratitude. I had a small fire at the restaurant December 15th. Sunday night, I got the phone call from my manager around 9 p.m. and right away come over here. So anyway, the fire department shows up within five minutes, big lotteries, big fire truck, everything else. They find where the smoke's coming up. They find the location before they really goes up, they find it, they stop fire, and then I was able to working on to repair the next day. Anyhow, next morning I come over here to the city hall working with the inspector Kenneth Henry. He shows up to the location, give us a direction guidance how to fix it. Check with the electric line, what is the cause of fire, so on. And then my contractor and the standards guy work with it. Two days we the walls, all the replacement done, because the guidance direction from the city manager, all the support everybody else. I was closed only three days, and the third night, I was back in business. I felt really lucky to be business in Sauceriro. Thank you for all city staff, everybody else support, and all the local, all the city council people. Thank you. I'm lucky to have a business in Sauceriro, all your support. Thank you. |
| 00:20:30.37 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. Right. |
| 00:20:31.67 | Yoshitome | Thank you. |
| 00:20:32.35 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you very much, Hiroshi. I'm glad everything... worked out. Sandra Bushmaker. If there's anybody else who would like to speak at general public comment, please fill out a speaker card. Thank you. |
| 00:20:44.43 | Sandra Bushmaker | I signed up, Sandra Bushmaker, resident. I signed up for 8C. I just needed to make a correction. Oh, I'm sorry. But I can do it real quick now if you want to save time. We'll wait until 8C. |
| 00:20:54.64 | Heidi Scoble | No. Want to save time? Let's see. Oh, sorry. What is 8C? |
| 00:20:59.55 | Sandra Bushmaker | 8C. |
| 00:21:00.07 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 00:21:00.15 | Sandra Bushmaker | you Yeah, go ahead. Okay, the correction is I did serve my complete term on the Disaster Preparedness Committee, that it was not a resignation. as listed on your agenda, and I just like to make sure the public record reflects that. |
| 00:21:10.82 | Heidi Scoble | Okay. |
| 00:21:15.39 | Heidi Scoble | Okay, great. Thank you very much. |
| 00:21:16.07 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you very much. |
| 00:21:18.72 | Heidi Scoble | Okay, any other public comment? Seeing none, we will move on to item number three, action minutes of the previous meeting. Are there any comments on the draft minutes? Item 3A. Seeing none, do I have a motion? |
| 00:21:36.18 | Councilmember Riley | I motion to approve. Second. |
| 00:21:38.44 | Heidi Scoble | All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, that motion carries 5-0. |
| 00:21:39.32 | Councilmember Riley | Bye. |
| 00:21:44.57 | Heidi Scoble | Moving on to item number four, council member committee reports. This is a time for the city council to report on various activities that they've engaged on since our last city council meeting. Would anyone like to start? |
| 00:22:01.51 | Heidi Scoble | Councilmember Burns or Riley? |
| 00:22:02.85 | Joe Burns | Yes, thank you. So I have attended the Hospitality Business Committee on the 16th of January. That committee continues to prepare for, as does BAC in a way, to prepare for the arrival of the Cosmon draft, which will be discussed in tandem with BAC in the next couple weeks. there's still a lot of discussion amongst that group in concern for our drop in tourism our our low sales numbers and the challenges that San Francisco is sending our direction as far as less bodies. I didn't attend the park and rec commission because we had an MCC MC meeting that night, but understanding from our director and the chair that they are having a discussion to really re-energize the art commission portion of that committee. So that's good news and I think it'll be in time to consider both in our strategic as well in our general plan. |
| 00:23:13.52 | Heidi Scoble | Excellent. Thank you. Anyone else? |
| 00:23:19.96 | Councilmember Riley | Certainly, so Councilmember Withey and I attended the Business Advisory Committee meeting on January 16th. The primary topic of that discussion was, is Sausalito business friendly? I'm pleased to say that I believe Yoshi would say yes. But in all transparency, we discussed three to four actual situations where it's been difficult to open businesses in Sausalito and discuss ideas on how we can streamline some of those processes. So I thought it was a very productive conversation and then we discussed what to expect in the general plan update and the strategic plan update and we got alignment there. Finally, Councilmember Burns and I attended MCCMC dinner last week. |
| 00:24:04.30 | Heidi Scoble | I'm just going to ask you to explain that acronym for members of the public, which is mayors. I was going to ask you to. |
| 00:24:09.71 | Councilmember Riley | I was going to ask you. |
| 00:24:12.51 | Heidi Scoble | I think it's the mayor's and city council members of Moran. |
| 00:24:17.04 | Vice Mayor Withey | It's the Burin County Council of mayors and council members. |
| 00:24:21.41 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. It's council members and mayors in Miranda. |
| 00:24:22.97 | Councilmember Riley | Yes. It's a monthly meeting where all the mayors and council members come and each month a different town host the event. It's actually quite fascinating. The discussion in this meeting was about the growing pension obligations that every city has. In Marin County across all the cities has a $401 million pension obligation. And it was discussing strategies and approaches on what cities need to do to prepare. including anticipating recessions and revenues flattening. So it was a brilliant conversation, I think good information for Joe and I to have as we start doing our financial planning. Joe, you may have other comments. |
| 00:25:08.30 | Joe Burns | No, that is good, and it created, as Council Member Worthy knows, or Vice Mayor Worthy, excuse me, it's created in a document that really shows the depth, both in that work, but what each government is doing. And as they brought up, it's kind of like the parable of you don't have to be the best. You just have to not be the worst because you don't want to get caught by the lion chasing. There's going to be 25% of communities that go bankrupt in the next recession be 26% in that category so that was a good message and I think we all feel like we're there. |
| 00:25:45.70 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. Member Cox or? |
| 00:25:48.97 | Councilmember Cox | for. I attended the RBRA meeting, which had a packed room. I sent video to the city manager. It was absolutely packed. And RBRA and Sausalito are working to address how they will meet the demands from BCDC, which have a deadline of March 31. So your police chief and the working group will come back to the City Council at one of your meetings in February and to share with you the hopefully collaborative plan we will undertake with RBRA to meet BCDC's demand that we remove Bayfield from the waters. I did have an opportunity to meet with Beth Pollard briefly following that meeting and to continue our behind-the-scenes efforts to figure out ways for our communities and our forces to collaborate. Councilmember Riley and I met with Cameron and the City Manager and Michael Rex and the City Attorney to continue to push forward plans for the renovations and upgrades of the Bridgeway Marina, and we intend meeting again in February to continue to move those plans forward. In advance of the MCCMC, I won't restate that moniker for you, legislative committee meeting this past Monday morning, I had a conference with Senator McGuire to discuss SB50, which is coming back around. All of the concessions that the senator was successful in negotiating with last year with Senator Wiener remain, and I've included on the dais and in your late mail an overview of those deal points. At the MCCMC Legislative Committee, we heard a report on all of the ADU regulations, the Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations. I've included a summary of those on the dais for you as well. |
| 00:27:49.14 | Heidi Scoble | Great, thank you. |
| 00:27:51.70 | Vice Mayor Withey | Thank you. Those are very helpful, by the way, Councilmember Cox. don't need to talk about the bac meeting i agree with council member riley it was a productive conversation i also am disappointed that i missed the mccmc dinner last week we've we put a lot of work into that pension report and i think it's very revealing so i was sad not to be able to listen to that presentation. I was, along with the mayor up in Sacramento, at the mayors and council members of the League of California Cities meeting. In addition, I attended a revenue and and Taxation Policy Committee meeting of the League. This is a committee that I've very recently been appointed to by the president of the League, for which I'm grateful, although a little daunted. Let me tell you a couple of themes. In addition to, obviously, the major discussion about housing, which we don't need to go into, we basically heard an overview of the governor's budget as presented and all of the work that needs to be done in the coming months on that. There was also an update from the CEO of CalPERS giving an overview of how they are trying to introduce a whole new host of risk mitigation strategies and by the way we are hoping to invite a board member of the of CalPERS to, at the next quarterly meeting of the division, the North Bay Division of the League of California Cities. Two other more specific things, there was a significant discussion of the Wayfair decision, which is a Supreme Court ruling that basically demands that cells Thank you. of the Wayfair decision, which is a Supreme Court ruling that basically demands that sales tax revenue from out of state purchases online, i.e. all your Amazon purchases, for example, will now generate sales tax for the local communities. So it's going to be fascinating to see when we talk to Muni services, our sales tax consultants as to what their projections for what the increase in sales tax revenue from that will be. Some jurisdictions are reporting that they're estimating a fairly significant increases in sales tax. And then finally, in relation to we have a future agenda topic and I know staff will be working on looking at potentially non-storefront cannabis businesses and should that be allowed in Sausalito. There is currently a very significant effort to completely restructure the excise and sales tax for cannabis and it's gonna be probably another three to six months before we understand actually how that will work. So I think we need to just keep our ears open, eyes peeled on that one, thank you. |
| 00:30:40.84 | Unknown | you |
| 00:31:30.86 | Heidi Scoble | Great, thank you. Yeah, so there are a lot of interesting topics at the League of California Cities policy committee meetings and the conference for new mayors and city council members. I also attended, I'm on a subcommittee for the Transportation Authority of Marin for the 101 580 connector southbound, I mean, I'm sorry, northbound west. And so that subcommittee has a few people from the TAM board on it. And we are talking about at the present seven alternatives for transitioning on highway to 580 as opposed to through Larkspur landing. So that will be an important topic coming up this year. Hoping to narrow down the alternatives and start the environmental review. So anyone who's interested in that should look at the Transportation Authority of Marin's website for more information There'll be a lot of community outreach on that. Also, I attended the sustainability Commission meeting last month It's meeting again on Thursday February 13th. There's going to be a speaker on micro grids Which has been a source of a lot of discussion at the Commission lately So that should be interesting for any member of the public who would like to attend. Also just before this meeting this evening, council member Cox and I attended the first meeting of the general plan subcommittee which we appointed at our joint meeting with the Planning Commission with two Planning Commissioners, Christina Feller and Janelle. Kelman and had a good inaugural meeting of that committee. The one decision that came out of that, the city council had asked the committee to look at the optional elements in a little more detail, so we had more discussion on that. There was unanimous agreement to have an optional element on sustainability and our waterfront, and while I made a valiant effort to have infrastructure be elevated to the element level, I was voted down on that. So we are going to have two optional elements and I am still committed to having infrastructure shine in our general plan, but we will not have optional element on that topic. So that was, I think, the highlight of that meeting. Anything else from anyone? Okay. We will move on to item five, our consent calendar. Oh, I'm sorry, I should take public comment on that. Is there any public comment on council member reports? Seeing none, we will move on to our consent calendar. We have 5A through 5F. If there's any comments or public comment on the consent calendar. Any recusals, any questions from council members? |
| 00:34:33.93 | Councilmember Cox | I had one question in the city council protocols I noticed that it said that um, By consensus or a majority vote, an item can be put on a future city council agenda. on a date to be determined by the city manager working with the mayor and vice mayor. There's no timeframe for that so that means it could be six months delayed after there was consensus so I would just recommend that we have some sort of timeframe within which once the Council has directed unanimously that an item be placed on the agenda that it should be done within I would say 60 days or some, you know, as time permits. Thank you. |
| 00:35:12.80 | Heidi Scoble | So I agree. I mean, if it gets to a vote, it seems like there must be some reluctance to put something on the agenda. But given the kind of good faith working relationship we all have, I would be more in favor of saying something like within a reasonable time frame as opposed to 60 days in case there's a good reason for that, but that would be fine with me. Any other council members have any comment on that? |
| 00:35:45.45 | Councilmember Riley | I support your recommendation, Mayor. |
| 00:35:45.52 | Heidi Scoble | Nice. Do you have a phrase other than within a reasonable time that you prefer? No, I think within a reasonable time is fine. Okay. Okay, is there any member of the public who would like to comment on the consent calendar 5A through 5F? I have no speaker cards. Seeing none, do I have a motion? |
| 00:36:07.44 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:36:07.47 | Heidi Scoble | have a |
| 00:36:07.81 | Councilmember Cox | as amended. |
| 00:36:10.48 | Vice Mayor Withey | Second. |
| 00:36:11.96 | Heidi Scoble | All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, the consent calendar is approved five zero. |
| 00:36:13.13 | Councilmember Cox | I... |
| 00:36:20.33 | Heidi Scoble | Okay, we have no public hearing items tonight, so we will move on to our business items. Again, just for any members of the public who might have come in late, we are not hearing item 7A tonight, so we will start with item 7B. approve a resolution to execute the contract to develop the design for the no change alternative of the Sausalito ferry landside improvement. Kevin McGowan, Director of Public Works. |
| 00:36:49.34 | Kevin McGowan | Good evening, Mayor and members of City Council. I'm Kevin McGowan with the Department of Public Works. Item 7B this evening has to do with the Ferry Landside Improvement Project. |
| 00:36:59.58 | Heidi Scoble | So Kevin, I'm just going to stop you for one minute. So I am going to start a new practice this year, which is I'm trying to hold all of our presenters to a time limit on their presentations. So we're going to understand your presentations 10 minutes or under. Is that correct? So do mind setting the clock so I can keep track. Great. Oh, I love it. Sorry. That's great. Try to... 30 seconds in. Yeah. Yeah, put that down to nine minutes. Okay, I'm sorry. It has nothing to do with you. This applies uniformly to everyone. |
| 00:37:17.64 | Kevin McGowan | Oh, I love it. That's great. Try to... 30 seconds in. |
| 00:37:23.75 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:37:23.76 | Kevin McGowan | . |
| 00:37:26.50 | Unknown | you |
| 00:37:26.55 | Kevin McGowan | I'm not sure. |
| 00:37:26.58 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:37:26.68 | Kevin McGowan | Okay, I'm sorry. |
| 00:37:28.51 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:37:28.52 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. Well first up I just want to say good evening. So thank you for having me here. I will move fairly quickly through these slides. That was one of the first thing I was going to say. But I wanted to give you a little bit of background, which most of you know a lot about the Ferry Landsite Project and the Ferry Dock Project. |
| 00:37:31.32 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. We'll see how it works out. Thank you. |
| 00:37:46.85 | Kevin McGowan | So Golden Gate Bridge Highway Transportation District is anticipating replacing the dock system at the Sausalito Ferry Harbor area. I don't think that's the right term, where they currently dock, they're going to be replacing the dock system. AND They're anticipating moving forward with that project fairly soon. They would like to go and submit for a BCDC permit as well as the Corps of Engineers permit. and they're currently working on that application. As part of that, the city needs to sign that document, which I think we are moving forward with at this point in time. We're doing some checks on some of the submittals before we actually move forward. But the Golden Gate Bridge Highway Transportation District is anticipating trying to bid their project in the spring of 2020. and they will have subsequent construction starting in the fall. And if you recall, there is a specific window that they can construct certain months in the fall and only certain months prior to the tourist season in the summer. So in addition, Golden Gate Bridge Highway Transportation District has worked with the city to allocate a pass-through funds to the city of Sausalito for improvements on the ferried land side portion. And originally your direction from Council was to take a look at the area around where the ferry landing is. And, Um, move forward with a visioning phase as well as a design phase for the portions around the area which serve the ferry itself. Now, in taking a look at the funding available from Goldgate Bridge Highway Transportation District, there's only $2.5 million available. And just looking at standard engineering percentages Um, I took a look at this and found that For design, which is traditionally about 12 to 15%, there's only about 230,000 available from these grant funds to support just the design. And that doesn't necessarily include a visioning portion or other portions that may come into play that were originally anticipated by your council. So, Based on your direction, we went through and we solicited four proposals for professional engineering and design firms and received three proposals in the fall of 2019. And we perform interviews of those consultants as well. As part of the process for a federal grant, we're not allowed to open the cost proposals until we reach a negotiation, until we can't reach a negotiation with one or two of the professional firms. I'll explain that just a little bit, in that if we as the The group that interviewed these consultants choose the the preferred consultant, we can only open their cost proposal up front. We can't open the rest of the proposals until we do not reach an agreement with the first consultant. So we moved forward with that and it was kind of Councilmember Joe Burns to be part of that and we appreciate it. However, we're at a point where Um, the, the cost for these consultants was much higher than what we originally anticipated. So we had to step back a little bit and take a look at what the general requirements are for the grant itself. And that has to do with improving access and maintaining improvements for access and parking in the general area. We also stepped back just a little bit and took a look at some of the alternatives that were prepared prior to our our recent interview panel. And THE CITY hired Robert Hayes initially to take a look at some alternatives. And These had three different alternatives, and in the beginning they were noted as costing more than the original grant as well. So their estimates came in at 2.53 million just for the construction itself. I wanted to bring that up because that was kind of my basis for discussing and negotiating with some of the consultants who submitted a proposal. And just to remind ourselves that this came up in October, I believe in 2018, before my time, where Robert Hayes and Associates went through and took a look at what is probably required for the grant itself, which is basically some improvements to Lot 1 in general. and some more details which I think you've seen before I'm circling or putting a rectangle around item seven on this slide because the improvements associated with the intersections may not be required by the grant itself. So there may be some things that we might reduce from the actual scope in order to be in compliance with the grant amount. So within your staff report, I've kind of laid out some options. These are not the only options. These are just my best guess. we could look at this project as a phased approach to construction. In other words, we have an opportunity to go ahead and utilize to 2.5 million to make improvements to our city. which I think is very important and we should move forward with that. We don't want to lose that opportunity. Unfortunately, that amount of funding can't fund everything that we would really like it to fund. The visioning, the taking a look at all the other parking lots as well. So the idea of the first phase, which is on the slide in front of you on the very left hand side, is to do a phased approach and address the improvements that are supported by the grant itself. Any future phases looking at visioning or looking at the other parking lots for improvements would have to be addressed as funding becomes available. So that's one option that we could look at. And that's the main option that staff is recommending at this time. A couple other things I'll run through is we could prioritize with city funding to go and do a visioning process right now. step into that and allocate funding for that visioning so that that could help steer and guide some of the improvements associated with the federal grant itself. Keep in mind that the estimates from some of the consultants were rather expensive. And I think it noted in the staff report that the costs were rather high. Again, we could look at another alternative, which would be to kind of allocate or at least put the visioning process in the capital improvement program. Future years, allocate money or costs as funding becomes available and address the visioning in different phases. So that's another alternative as well. Again, these are not everything. They're just a few of the ideas that myself and maybe Adam helped me out with as we move forward. The estimated timeline if we move forward with the federal grant and move forward with what staff recommends is to initiate the design in the spring of 2020 and come up with a preferred alternative of the plaza and the other areas in compliance with the federal guidelines. And then, based on the schedule, move forward, as we've discussed in the past, where we go through the environmental process and start construction in basically 2021. Now, with that, we did get an additional correspondence from Bill Wheeler, which I want to thank for giving us, at least including me on that documentation. That was helpful. Just to get the background, since I wasn't here in 2018, and very helpful at that point in time. So I have two minutes left, and I think I'll turn it back over to you as counsel. Thank you. |
| 00:45:27.82 | Bree Gill | here in 2020. and |
| 00:45:40.51 | Heidi Scoble | Great, thank you for that good presentation. Just before I open it up to other council members, could you just clarify for the public how much approximately the range of the visioning the cost of a visioning process for that general area is estimated to cost? |
| 00:45:59.84 | Kevin McGowan | The first consultant that was our preferred consultant had a proposal in for $672,000 for the visioning and 30% plans development. And the second consultant had a proposal in for to I think 325,000 for that face. Did I get the wrong way? OK. |
| 00:46:26.38 | Heidi Scoble | So somewhere in that range, 300 to? |
| 00:46:27.66 | Kevin McGowan | 300. Sorry, I've read it wrong. 498 was the second consultant. |
| 00:46:33.47 | Heidi Scoble | Okay, and we have not opened the bid from the third consultant. That's correct. We're not allowed to. |
| 00:46:35.91 | Kevin McGowan | That's correct. We're not allowed to. |
| 00:46:37.37 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. Okay. And one of your options on the screen, and perhaps this is a question for the city manager, was to fund that visioning process at this point. And if we were to do that, is there a source of funds available? in that amount. I think I know the answer but no just for the public record. |
| 00:46:59.07 | Adam Politzer | No. Right. And I think what Kevin shared earlier is that we would, and it's in the staff report, is that there would be a there would be a, visioning. there would be a public process phase. And I think it's limited to two workshops, if I remember correctly in the staff report. um, But in Sausalito, two workshops does not amount to an exhausted visioning phase so I think what we're recommending is is award the contract as recommended let us work with the design team and come back to the council with the approach on how to move forward with workshops and design um uh design options and get that direction and then continue forward At the same time, in one of the items, and I'm now using Kevin's remaining two minutes, the other item that Kevin was unable to was that he and I met with the Golden Gate Bridge District with Dennis Mulligan and John Eberle, and they are committed to working with us to find additional funds, and hopefully non-federal funds because they are more complicated and cumbersome. So as we go through this effort, I think as long as we don't create something that prohibits us from moving forward, there'll be an opportunity to do additional visioning down the road as we identify additional funds. |
| 00:48:29.53 | Heidi Scoble | Great, thank you. Other questions from council members? |
| 00:48:37.04 | Councilmember Riley | Question, just getting more clarity what a visioning phase. I was surprised at the cost of a visioning phase, holding community meetings and putting together a report. What is the deliverable from a visioning phase? |
| 00:48:49.89 | Kevin McGowan | I believe in the proposal it included a 30% design approach. So in other words, you'll have 30% construction level drawings. |
| 00:48:57.97 | Councilmember Riley | for for parking lot one that that corner there. |
| 00:49:01.22 | Kevin McGowan | Well, that's a decent question. There may be some interpretation of what that really means. Is it just for parking lot one or is it for the whole section? So. At this point, All I can comment on is that It included 30% conceptual drawings heading towards fixing parking lot number one. And how that tied together with the other parking lots is probably included in that. Maybe not that much detail, but there's some connectivity between them. |
| 00:49:28.26 | Councilmember Riley | Thank you. |
| 00:49:32.49 | Heidi Scoble | Any other questions? Okay, I have one, thank you very much. I have one speaker card. If there's anybody else who would like to speak, please come forward, Peter Van Meter. |
| 00:49:49.40 | Peter Van Meter | Yes, good. Pardon me. Good evening. The bottom line is you can't proceed with anything without a proper visioning of what this downtown area is going to be. It's just that simple. There has been piecemeal projects done over the years and we don't have a clue how they would tie in with an ultimate vision for that area. The most recent example being this reconstruction of parking lot number two. Maybe I missed hearings on that. How does that fit into a master plan for the area? You know, why are we doing that? Is it consistent with future planning? There's been a lot of resources expended in the past by both private and public entities on planning. There's a lot of documentation available to assist in this effort. It's time to stop more piecemeal work. Now, this cost estimate is absolutely mind-boggling from both of these people that you've opened up for the kind of planning we're talking about. Now one of the things that might be a way to look for some additional funds to help with the visioning process is to look at dividing up that list of so-called required items under the pass-through grant. There's a lot of elements that are not relative to solving the problem of traffic circulation and amenities in the immediate ferry landing area. For example, The sidewalk to the best staging. bus staging, signing, and queuing. a walkway extension all the way to parking lot three. Those are. elements that can be potentially very costly and so-called required aspects of the pass-through. perhaps working with the district, Bridge District, who's monitoring this pass-through, If those elements were included in a master plan developed during a proper visioning phase, with a proper contractual commitment to do those things in, you know, phase two, Then the efforts for the detail planning and construction could be focused on that portion of the project that's actually near the ferry landing. where we can end up with a proper Community Plaza, circulation patterns, vehicle movements and all the rest of that. by concentrating the funding for the project on the basic infrastructure needed to support the long-term vision I'm thinking of the underground utilities, drainage, all the rest of that done in phase one Having the funds go toward that portion near the edge of the water doing the rest of it later. then you're gonna have that infrastructure in place for your future phases one and two. But the bottom line is, please, Do not go ahead with this effort. without prioritizing the vision. We've been talking about this for in my personal experience, 45 years. I think it's time to address this properly and move it ahead in the right way. And I'll just make a final comment. I notice in the report there's gonna be a community advisory committee. I look forward to that invitation. Thank you. |
| 00:52:51.87 | Heidi Scoble | All right, thank you. Bill Hines and then Michael Rooks. |
| 00:53:04.48 | Bill Hines | Hello, good evening. My name is Bill Hines. I'm a local landscape architect with SWA Group. Just to be totally transparent, we did propose on the project. Apparently, we were not rated as favorably as the other two consultants. I wish they would have been able to open our price, because I think that would have... helped inform the decision making process. I'm also representing Sausalito Beautiful, in addition to my company, SWA Group, and generally have kind of a big view of what needs to happen in town here. And as you recall, when the initial alternatives were presented in October, I came and spoke. And I don't really feel that this kind of no change alternative really gets the various priorities and kind of goals around aspirational place making that we talked about back then. I don't really see a lot of goals set towards sustainability and long-term thinking. It assumes a very tight limit of work around the parking lot one, and I think it really needs to have a visioning component that addresses all of downtown and all of its parking areas. And I think that this project is really the last opportunity to envision a downtown Sausalito 10, 20 years or more into the future. |
| 00:54:40.95 | Bill Hines | you know, these alternatives, I don't really see are super viable alternatives. When the initial study was put out in last October, the costs associated with it were really for that option. So any sort of alternatives or Other visions for this project really haven't been costed, so we don't totally know what those cost ramifications would be We'd assume that they would be more expensive than what's portrayed here, but without doing the work, how can you really know? I mean, that was the only option that was costed. Peter brought up a bunch of great points about the visioning, and one of the questions I would ask is, can some of this visioning be happening concurrently with the earlier phases of some of this design work? I do think it makes sense to appropriate some funding toward visioning at this point. And... Um, I do think that it needs to happen now I don't really see any point in doing visioning after this project has sort of taken off and is moving down the road. I just don't think it's going to make any great contribution to the downtown fabric of Sausalito. |
| 00:55:57.68 | Heidi Scoble | Great, thank you Bill. Michael Rex. |
| 00:56:06.54 | Michael Rex | Hi, Michael Rex, local architect. Maybe Peter's been at it for 45 years, trying to improve the downtown ferry landing. I've probably been at at least 20, maybe more. Here we are still at it. I, I don't understand something, though. some 410,000 almost 500,000 to do 30% of the work, but the staff report says we can do all the work for 324,000. Can that? Can someone clarify that? How can you do 100% for 300 25,000 and 30% for 500. I mean, I... Am I misreading it? |
| 00:56:49.61 | Heidi Scoble | So why don't you continue to comment, and then if we want to ask staff for an answer to that question, we'll do that. |
| 00:56:55.53 | Michael Rex | Well, I think it's germane because I'm deeply concerned about what's proposed. I have a lot of respect for staff, but I think their recommendations are misguided. And I'd like to explain why. First of all, the fees are shockingly high. Okay? Uh, staff has it correct that maybe 20 12 13 percent what you should be paying Um, Peter tells me that B is a typo. It's 1.3 million. I don't, Uh, Okay, well, even 500,000, is a huge percentage of your construction cost. And what happens when typically we see soft costs at 20% to 25% of your construction cost. When it goes over that, there's not enough for the project. Too much is going into your services. And, What's happening here, because that's happening here, Uh, We're having to, bifurcate the a proper planning process and get a lot less in the end. and we're squandering this opportunity. $2 million. maybe 2.2 million to improve our Downtown, the heart of our downtown, And we're spending it most on fees. too much on fees. but I think that's a good question. and we're missing the opportunity that we've all been looking for to make some significant improvements downtown. the I tell my clients never When they have a tight budget, I say never faze your conceptual planning because all the details are determined from the perspective of that big picture. So this is backwards. Uh, You can't do visioning later. That always comes first, if your budget's tight, If you have the big picture, you can break it into pieces. You can estimate all the components. You can actually control your money better and determine more clearly how to spend it. you can face Construction. You could face construction documents. but you don't face the preliminary design. THE FAMILY IS So I ask that you try an alternative. I think we can look to a visioning a process either with more funding or possibly with volunteers. There's a lot of thought that's been given over the years Let's take advantage of it. Thank you. |
| 00:59:28.97 | Heidi Scoble | Great. Thank you. Is there any additional public comment? Um, so... Perhaps we could clarify some of the figures here and clear up if there's any. errors in our staff report. |
| 00:59:47.96 | Kevin McGowan | Yes, Kevin McGowan again with the Department of Public Works. I think that the package A, which is visioning plus schematic design, 30% of the project was brought up, and the proposals that came in were obviously pretty high, as we mentioned before, 672,000 for the first consultant, and then 498 for the second consultant. And there was something that came up from the last speaker that we should be using more of 20% for soft costs. And if you take a look at the table in the staff report, we're using 12.5% for design. And then we're also using another 8% for construction management with a 15% contingency for construction. So that's about 20% for soft costs with a little bit more in the construction contingency as well, just in case. That also equates to about a construction budget of $1.85 million. And I think we're just basing it off of the amount of money that's available for the pass-through grant from Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District. |
| 01:00:55.66 | Heidi Scoble | So you took the total amount of the money that is available through the grant and you use that to work backwards |
| 01:01:04.00 | Kevin McGowan | That's correct. |
| 01:01:05.11 | Heidi Scoble | Okay. Okay. |
| 01:01:09.25 | Adam Politzer | Can I comment on Peter Van Meter's comment about starting with the infrastructure and getting the base done before you do the other design elements? The grant doesn't allow that. We can't do the base part of the project without making the improvements that are highlighted in the box in the PowerPoint presentation. Kevin, can you move it back to what the grant project priorities so these if we are to spend the 2.4 million dollars then the no the project priorities the list as the priorities right there so those are elements so that's why we're recommending again I want to reiterate |
| 01:01:09.26 | Heidi Scoble | here. |
| 01:01:46.91 | Bree Gill | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:01:53.97 | Adam Politzer | It's not work with staff, code of the planning commission, and moved to construction. It's worked with the community. through council with two workshops. similar to what Robert Hayes and associates did they would come forward with the initial that they believe that we can build within a certain budget. And so that's what we would come back to council with those options to move forward. public outreach and public process. but it's recognizing that, if you want to do some of the things the community members have shared tonight. you're most likely going to give back the $2.5 million since the Feds have issued those monies to Golden Gate, who has passed it through to us. you're probably five or six years ago, so that money is waiting to be spent. So we are recommending, to move forward with awarding the contract with the understanding that we'll come back with a process. that includes the public outreach and involvement and engagement and then a strategy on securing additional grant funds so that we can continue to move through the program. |
| 01:03:09.95 | Heidi Scoble | Okay, so just to clarify, these are absolute requirements of the grant. They cannot be bifurcated. |
| 01:03:19.42 | Adam Politzer | It's not only requirements, but these are the minimum requirements. you know, we're not negotiating, we can't negotiate below this. obviously do more then what's on the required, that's why you have number seven. there, which is, how do you deal with the other circulation issues? as Peter Van Meter pointed out in the discussion, and it's on the list. This all started with how do we get ferry passengers from the ferry to the commuter lot in three. There is no safe path of travel, let alone an accessible path of travel, from the ferry landing to lot three where all of our commuters are invited to park. That's where this project started. one of the requirements. five, six, seven, eight years ago, our queuing and pedestrian issues were significant, obviously making the sidewalks impassable. So improving the visitor and resident experience at the ferry landing is also a minimum requirement. |
| 01:04:23.11 | Heidi Scoble | Okay, and just one more point of clarification. What is the timing on the expenditure of the grant? |
| 01:04:30.95 | Adam Politzer | About every six months we get a notice from the feds through the Colgate Bridge District asking for a status update. And so thankfully because we have regular meetings where this is on our agenda in those six month window, were able to report on the activity. Obviously, the October Um, design. elements that were presented to the council as a baseline so that we can see kind of where we're starting in terms of what 2.5 million get you at a baseline You know, it was also for us. You know, that's why taking action tonight is important to the federal transportation highway grant administrators to see that we are in fact working on moving this project forward. and it's coupled with the Golgi Bridge District's ferriside project is that we do not wanna complete and that's what we share in our letter. We don't wanna complete our improvements with the district having come after us, and potentially damage our improvements on the land side. We need them to be in to their schedule for us to couple with them in terms of how we move the project forward. |
| 01:05:50.42 | Heidi Scoble | Okay, I'm going to ask one more question and then open it up to Council questions. Is it possible to request an extension from the federal government? |
| 01:05:58.33 | Adam Politzer | I think that's what we've been doing all along when we've been responding back to the feds, that the reason why our project is delayed are for X, Y, and Z. And so when we went out to bid and obviously tripped that we didn't put our, we awarded the contract to Robert Hayes and Associates without going out to bid, And clearly as you've probably seen in at least one correspondence that bid of 70 something thousand dollars to get us through Planning Commission was a deal on an app. to what we're talking about now. I don't think there's a possibility of asking for an extension because even FastPass Um, we are looking at a construction project that really won't start. until 2011 and depending on where they 2021 sorry i lost some time there there's full thinking um but 2021 you know that that's an optimistic time for our project to be done because again not going to finish our project before the district finishes the waterside project. So there'll be some coordination there. So I think that Our public works director is trying to give you an expectation. But we have to communicate that to the feds and they need to support. schedule and our timeline. |
| 01:07:25.20 | Heidi Scoble | Okay. Questions from council members? |
| 01:07:31.68 | Councilmember Cox | Yes, is it possible in our contract with the recommended vendor that we include a provision requiring them to coordinate and cooperate with the whomever we may subsequently higher. to assist in this visioning process or in whatever other So suppose that simultaneously with awarding this contract in order to meet our timing of our federal funding, we start to look for grant funding and we work with the Golden Gate Bridge District to identify other funding available. And then we're able to combine that funding with the 2.5 million to expand on our visioning and on the the no change nature of the project that we're awarding. Can we include in our contract with this vendor the flexibility to do that? |
| 01:08:23.39 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:08:23.41 | Mary Wagner | Thank you, Councilmember Cox. I think that's something that we could build into the contract. I would. caution or just put out the proviso that we need to be cognizant of what the if there's other funding sources what the requirements are for those funding sources if they require bidding if they require compliance with other federal procedures we'd have to make sure that we were complying with those but to the extent that we can do it with this same contractor I think we could build in that kind of provision |
| 01:08:58.03 | Councilmember Riley | Yes, may I ask a two part question if that's okay? If we are unable to complete all these items for $2.5 million, do we still get the money? |
| 01:09:12.07 | Adam Politzer | Please, tell me. |
| 01:09:13.15 | Councilmember Riley | Well, so my understanding is that Thank you. Our agreement is we're going to do this. for GGNRA, for Golden Gate. for $2.5 million. But that seems arbitrary because we got bids and we didn't know how much would cost. So if we could only do two-thirds of this list for $2.5 million, including design and build, do we still get the money? That's question one. |
| 01:09:36.66 | Adam Politzer | So the amount of money that was received was based on the primary improvement of the immediate shoreline amenities that support boarding and disembarking the ferry. So both, so really the pedestrian improvements were seeked initially from BCDC. And so their initial estimate was for two and a half million dollars we should be able to make those initial improvements and a sidewalk from the ferry landing to lot three. The city, because of our own interests, recognized we had a recent |
| 01:10:21.06 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:10:21.09 | Adam Politzer | settlement of a lawsuit. So we had ADA improvements, we had circulation improvements, and we know that we had building code improvements once we decided to change the parking lot itself and its circulation. from the district's perspective, those are all costs that you are bringing onto the project because of your personal needs. But it wasn't a requirement of BCDC So that's where we are. Since then, the negotiations with the bridge district is recognizing the improvements that we're suggesting also benefit the bridge sister. So that's why we continue to have their support. in collaboration and seeking additional funds. |
| 01:11:03.58 | Councilmember Riley | Okay, my second part is maybe a similar question. In staff's estimates we had planned, I'm going to round numbers up a bit for my simple math. A quarter million dollars for design phase, 230, but call a quarter million dollars. If we end up spending $500,000 for visioning and design phase, and that leaves us $2 million, And we can't complete this whole list, but we can complete a portion that satisfies the ferry landing area. that fits into a longer term vision, would we have access to the funds? I believe we would. Thank you. |
| 01:11:39.76 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. question. So I have one additional question, if it's appropriate. I'm looking at the city attorney. But is there, could someone explain why we didn't move to the third package before coming to this point? |
| 01:11:58.34 | Kevin McGowan | you |
| 01:11:58.43 | Heidi Scoble | Third bid package. |
| 01:11:58.44 | Kevin McGowan | third bedroom. The way this works from a federal perspective is that we have to go ahead and open the preferred consultant's bid proposal, cost proposal. |
| 01:12:05.04 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 01:12:05.14 | Bree Gill | THE END OF |
| 01:12:13.14 | Kevin McGowan | Then we negotiate with them to see if we can pull that cost down to where we think we can can build this project at two hundred thirty thousand or a quarter million dollars. In this case, the first consultant, we could not reach an agreement. So then we opened the second proposal. |
| 01:12:30.20 | Heidi Scoble | but can I just stop you right there? But our project was a visioning phase and the project. right that was what excuse me that's what we wanted that's what we sent |
| 01:12:38.08 | Unknown | That was one. |
| 01:12:42.39 | Heidi Scoble | staff back to do. So that's what we wanted, and that's not what we're getting. |
| 01:12:49.59 | Kevin McGowan | Well, if you want to move forward with the visioning and that piece, it doesn't sound like we'll have enough funding to do the basic minimums. |
| 01:13:00.78 | Councilmember Cox | from the second proposal. |
| 01:13:00.97 | Heidi Scoble | from the second proposal. Well, from the second proposal. |
| 01:13:02.00 | Kevin McGowan | you |
| 01:13:02.03 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:13:02.06 | Kevin McGowan | Yeah. |
| 01:13:02.48 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:13:02.54 | Kevin McGowan | FOR THEM. |
| 01:13:02.59 | Councilmember Cox | We don't know about the third proposer. So did you really reach agreement for our project scope with the second proposer? |
| 01:13:07.92 | Heidi Scoble | That's what I'm saying. |
| 01:13:11.97 | Kevin McGowan | agreement to design THE designed the portion that is on the slide in front of you, the basic, what do we call it, the no change alternative. That's what we reached an agreement upon. And that included two public outreach meetings as well. |
| 01:13:34.67 | Peter Van Meter | We'll talk. |
| 01:13:36.66 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 01:13:36.67 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. |
| 01:13:36.73 | Heidi Scoble | Do you? |
| 01:13:37.08 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. |
| 01:13:37.16 | Heidi Scoble | I know that's what we're talking about, no change, but the last time we heard this project, I think there was clear and I believe unanimous consent on the city council that what we saw the first time that we looked at this was just not something that made a lot of sense. So we asked to expand the scope. |
| 01:13:37.21 | Kevin McGowan | Can I just comment on that? Right, I know that's what we're talking about, no change. |
| 01:13:57.41 | Heidi Scoble | But now, if I'm understanding things correctly, we've kind of cut back our scope to meet the second bidder as opposed to going to the third |
| 01:14:08.57 | Adam Politzer | Yeah, no, it is confusing, and there was a second council meeting that happened in between. We had the council meeting where Robert Hayes and Associates back in October of 18 gave this no change alternative you know, this is what you get for $2.5 million. |
| 01:14:28.21 | Bree Gill | point. |
| 01:14:29.90 | Adam Politzer | the real basic design. Then we came back and shared with the council that we did not follow the federal process properly and we had to go back out through this process. this new process. Um, and you know so we agree the council would like to have a Um, a visioning process Um, But what I was sharing with Council Member Riley's question was, if we wanna use the $2.5 million Um, Thank you. |
| 01:15:03.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:15:03.98 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. The visioning can't eat. all of that money. the the design phase cannot eat all that money there needs to be a minimum level of improvements made. |
| 01:15:14.18 | Bree Gill | Yeah. I have. |
| 01:15:16.98 | Adam Politzer | So. We believe there's a visioning phase It's not as robust as the council may be seeking at this moment in time. because we're putting it in proportion of the funds that are available today. |
| 01:15:31.10 | Councilmember Cox | So why not open the third proposal to see if it's not possible to actually Perform the visioning phase directed by Council at our last meeting |
| 01:15:41.97 | Adam Politzer | And that could be the direction of the council. What I don't know, and I don't know Kevin or Our city attorney knows the answer. but I'm assuming that once we move off of option one and go to option two And now you're saying let's go to option three. We don't have the ability. to go back. to those options, so if option three came back at $700,000. you know, then we're back out to going back out to bid. So I don't believe we have the freedom because then why wouldn't you open all the options? I think there is a challenge that once you open the three options, We got to option two, they were the preferred design team that interviewed amongst the panel. We negotiate it obviously to a point where staff Kevin and myself felt that it was appropriate to come forward with this approach. The council can provide different direction. But every delay in this project creates the opportunity that the grants You know, we'll be removed. I don't say that as a threat because we've been in this process for for quite some time. It took us a while to get to 2018. with the initial framing of the project. So we are recommending move forward with our recommendation and give us the ability to continue to seek funding and continue the process with following at least the minimum requirements |
| 01:17:14.02 | Councilmember Cox | to. |
| 01:17:14.40 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 01:17:14.50 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:17:14.97 | Unknown | That's one more. |
| 01:17:15.85 | Councilmember Cox | How much below, and perhaps this is embarrassing and you don't want to answer, but how much below Proposer two was Proposer three ranked. Was it a significant disparity in qualifications? Thank you. |
| 01:17:31.03 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. |
| 01:17:31.15 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:17:31.35 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. |
| 01:17:31.37 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:17:31.42 | Kevin McGowan | These were all good firms. And the panel basically rated the firms in terms of what we would prefer. And it all depends upon a lot of factors, how they interviewed, how their team was, all sorts of different things. I don't want to disparage any of the proposers at all. They were all good firms. |
| 01:17:56.70 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. Okay. Yes, I know Michael Rex wants to approach, but I, you know, we've been very careful to set a precedent here about public comment. |
| 01:18:06.66 | Unknown | We'll be hearing. |
| 01:18:08.70 | Heidi Scoble | No, I know, but you've already had your opportunity to speak. |
| 01:18:08.72 | Unknown | No, I know, but you've already had your opportunity. |
| 01:18:13.12 | Heidi Scoble | The council would like to hear a proposal from Michael Reck. It's for one minute. |
| 01:18:18.03 | Councilmember Cox | have a question for him so that we don't break our own rules. |
| 01:18:21.29 | Heidi Scoble | Okay, so I have a question for Michael Rex. Is there a more simple solution than what we are discussing at the moment? |
| 01:18:29.89 | Michael Rex | I encourage you to reject the BKF bid and open up the third bid. It might give us what we need. Let's give ourselves that opportunity. Thank you. |
| 01:18:41.50 | Heidi Scoble | Okay, thank you, Michael. Okay, so I don't think we have any other questions. |
| 01:18:45.40 | Michael Rex | I'm not. |
| 01:18:50.75 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. on this item. Yep. Nope, just approach please. |
| 01:19:02.97 | Unknown | My comment is I would like the city council to make decisions with integrity, knowing who the players are. And I've worked with Michael Rex for the last two decades And I have questioned his integrity on a more recent issue. Matter of fact, I was in the hallway when he said, that he didn't understand why there were phases and I could hear him whining as if he had lost something. Nobody's had more experience or more time in front of this council than he has. And as the players here change, Michael Rex does know how to work that. I'm not sure. opportunity for himself. And it may be the best bet and it may not be. But I would like you to listen to his voice tone and his interest because I consider him a paycheck player he will say what needs to be said in order to win the deal. Now that's a businessman's approach. So I appreciate and respect that, but I would like you to stick if there's new players here to stick to what you're trying to do and understand that that occurrence has taken place over many, many years. |
| 01:20:04.82 | Heidi Scoble | Okay. Thank you very much. Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing and bring it up to the council for discussion. Would anyone like to start? |
| 01:20:16.06 | Joe Burns | I kind of would. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. And I think when we started this project, we saw $2.5 million and our eyes got big, and we wanted to do a lot of planning and envisioning, and we had grand ideas of changing our entire downtown with $2.5 million, and that we have to now separate these two projects. We simply have to separate the $2.5 million we have to do this circulation project and all of this other visioning for changes that are very deep. There's a lot of changes that the consultants talked about in the interviews that we've gotten from the community that will get us into the weeds and will lose this two and a half. So our first, I think our first responsibility is to not lose that two and a half. And our second responsibility is to do what's on here, which, Connecting the sidewalk to the bus staging I think can be done in that two and a half million dollars And I don't think we need to start wrapping how we do Tracy way what we do with Vina del Mar how we incorporate The pathway over to in a that's gonna get us into the weeds of gonna lose the two and a half So where we once thought this was should be a combined event And that's what's provided a lot of the confusion tonight because some of those numbers you're talking about are in the different Categories of the bid we had two bids for each project so We need to just go back to how are we gonna spend this two and a half million dollars get that Accomplished and on the map I think it shows it very clear that we run a straight line from basically the yacht club to the bus station Where it's number two one. That's the second line of parking on the map and I wish we had more time to talk about it but we need to run that straight line because I think we're all down there every day the choke point for the ferry landing is as they come off and turn right and walk down the parking lot cars has to have to stop cars are stopped they back up while people walk down the middle of the street if we have a sidewalk there we get them on there we can do that for two and a half million dollars and then we plan the entire downtown around and we might tear some of it up but these are two different things and we can't lose this two and a half million dollars because we should make that connection |
| 01:22:05.03 | Bree Gill | THE FAMILY. |
| 01:22:34.73 | Joe Burns | That's what we can do. So at this point, before I was saying we need to combine them, we need to just bifurcate them as quick as possible and go forward on this one now. |
| 01:22:45.92 | Councilmember Cox | After hearing all of the testimony, I agree with Councilmember Burns. So I know that there's an interest to see what's that third bid, but I think we have to trust our staff and our interview panel who ranked these firms in order. We've identified that we can meet minimum project priorities to satisfy the Golden Gate Bridge District Grant with this second vendor. That's why I asked if we could negotiate the flexibility to incorporate additional elements or additional work Um, once we identify grant funding, which we have time to do, since we can't actually embark on this work until after the Golden Gate Bridge District has accomplished the majority of its heavy work for the ferry side improvements. So we do have time to perhaps expand upon this if we get community assistance or are able to identify grant monies. But I think we have to move smartly forward. We have, let's not sacrifice the bird in the hand for two in the bush. Let's follow the staff recommendation to move forward with this vendor under these parameters. |
| 01:24:06.85 | Councilmember Riley | I'd like to share a slightly different view for my two colleagues. I think what's unfortunate here is we don't have a vision for our downtown. And shame on us for not having a vision that we're all lying behind that makes these projects incrementally build towards that vision over the next 20, 30 years. We're building our general plan. And that general plan is, what is our vision for the downtown? I'll use my rounding numbers again. We had budgeted $250,000 for visioning and design. And we'd be left with two and a quarter million dollars for everything else I'd rather spend half a million dollars and get that vision and only do $2 million of the buildup now. and delay some of the work down the road. Because we know that that $2 million is being built towards what we want instead of potentially wasting money. And if we build something now that we don't want in the long run, it's going to stick around a lot longer because we're not going to want to unwind it. And so, It might end up with a smaller project. but headed in the direction we want. And finally, I don't think we should spend a half a million dollars in the visioning and design. I think we should scope the project down Maybe open the third bid and talk about a smaller project with that contender. |
| 01:25:29.57 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. Vice mayor? |
| 01:25:34.81 | Vice Mayor Withey | To be honest, I really I just don't know what to do. |
| 01:25:39.63 | Heidi Scoble | . |
| 01:25:41.32 | Vice Mayor Withey | Thank you. Thank you. I mean, this is very difficult. I agree with, Councilmember Burns, that we cannot afford to lose this $2.5 million. That's the bottom line. I agree with Council Member Riley. that I'M GOING TO BE ABLE TO We shouldn't be starting this without an overall vision with our downtown. but I don't know how to make those two compatible. By the way, I agree with everything that Peter Van Meter, Bill Hines, and Michael Reich said. And I sort of agree with staff, so I'm really stuck here. I'm really, really stuck. Um, I don't know how you can get a complete vision, a vision for our downtown, and still qualify for the grant. And that's the problem with the argument that Council Member Riley has put forward, unless I've misunderstood. |
| 01:26:52.21 | Councilmember Riley | Well, I asked that question of the city manager. I asked if we had to spend $500,000 on design and visioning and only had $2 million and we couldn't deliver all this, would we get the grant? And he answered affirmatively. So I believe we don't lose the grant, and I agree with Council Member Burns. We can't lose the money. So we have to move quick. |
| 01:26:52.25 | Vice Mayor Withey | Well, I asked that question of this. I'm sorry to misunderstand. |
| 01:27:10.66 | Adam Politzer | So we have to move quick. Can I clarify? Yes, please. |
| 01:27:12.63 | Councilmember Riley | Yes, please. |
| 01:27:13.29 | Adam Politzer | I stand behind my answer. but I'm not the decision maker. It will go to the feds, it'll say here's our schedule, here's what we plan on spending the money on and then they will actually make that decision. the dice a little bit because That is potentially, I agree with you, we don't want to spend $500,000 on visioning, but if we did, and that's our proposal to the grant administrator, then we take the risk of losing the money. |
| 01:27:40.69 | Councilmember Riley | In May ask on that. They're going to want landslide improvements. And that's where our priority should be, spend $2 million or $2.1 million on landslide improvements. Landslide. Landslide. Yeah, not landslide. Well, we could do that there too. Landslide. But at least we're doing it within our vision. We may not be getting as much done, but we're spending the $2.5 million and we get a vision out of it. |
| 01:27:52.74 | Bree Gill | and say. |
| 01:27:53.05 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:27:53.15 | Bree Gill | Right. |
| 01:28:06.44 | Councilmember Riley | And we're building something in the direction we want to go. |
| 01:28:11.78 | Joe Burns | I agree with that in theory that where it hurt, where it changes is having been in that conversation. The down having a huge downtown plan is going to be nearly second to the marineship changes that we discuss. I mean, it's it's not a simple plan or box type thing. It is so huge and diverse with because I've been sitting through circulation and PBC, you know, from from street changes on bridgeway and tracy and we're talking about a ginormous you know three-year project just to get to the planning and we should be breaking ground this time next year on this because as we know about construction It's not gonna go quick and it's not gonna go cheap. So if they're going to be done in 2021, we should be breaking ground before they finish, because it's going to take us that long to work on the best staging area and working our way this way to any impact that they would have on us. So we don't want to play around with this any longer. We don't want to risk the money. But I still think it's completely different things. I still think we should be planning on how to use Vina Del Mar, how to restructure the streets out in front of the businesses on Bridgeway. And that's all part of the downtown plan that's in that discussion. |
| 01:29:22.47 | Heidi Scoble | Okay, well, I am most closely aligned at this moment with the vice mayor. This is just, it's a very difficult decision, but it's also just very disappointing to be put in this position, I think. this is not, the proposal that's in front of us is not the ideal way to move forward and I do agree that we can't lose $2.5 million of federal funding, but I don't want to rip up a lot of these things. I don't think it's as simple a situation as Council Member Burns is saying. I think a lot of these things are integral to the circulation plan, and where you walk, you may be walking right across where we decide the ideal place for a drop-off location is and then that you know we'll have to redo that so we might as well have not gotten the money to begin with i think there has to be i don't think that this needs to be linked going back to the scope issue that council member Riley brought up. I don't think this visioning phase needs to be for the entire downtown. I think it needs to be for the circulation around the ferry landing The pickup, the pedestrian, the bike. at a minimum. So we don't have to solve every problem related to Bridgeway and every other aspect. So I think this is very hard. I am leaning towards, I'm feeling like it we would not be using our best efforts to get to a solution without looking at the third bid to see if we can achieve |
| 01:31:12.09 | Heidi Scoble | a better solution. I'm reluctant to do that for the reasons that people have articulated. If we are not successful in that- We don't get to go back. We don't get to go back and we have lost a lot of time and I'm very sensitive to the city managers concerns about that. But I, |
| 01:31:36.96 | Heidi Scoble | I just feel like we're back to the discussion that we had, I don't know if it was a year ago, |
| 01:31:41.99 | Unknown | What? |
| 01:31:42.24 | Heidi Scoble | where this did this proposal that was in front of us then was just not the right approach for us so I With all respect, I feel like so much of these issues up here are tied together to a larger vision. |
| 01:32:05.61 | Councilmember Cox | What if we, preserve this funding by approving this contract, but direct staff to immediately explore options for identifying additional funding perhaps even a parallel contract to do the type of visioning that we're seeking, Um, that we fund outside of the grant funds so that we use the grant funds to pay for what the grant will pay for. And then we do that separate visioning process that we believe is so important on our own dime as quickly as possible. with the flexibility to coordinate with the selected vendor. And in that way, we could perhaps solicit the services of the third bidder in connection with that approach. |
| 01:32:55.04 | Heidi Scoble | Yeah, I thought about that approach. The problem is we're hiring one design firm to then do what? |
| 01:33:03.83 | Councilmember Cox | And then we're paying. To design what we can pay for with our grant monies. And to be willing to coordinate design efforts for a larger vision once we're able to pay for that. |
| 01:33:04.73 | Heidi Scoble | to do it. |
| 01:33:16.94 | Joe Burns | I'll state just quickly, again, from all the discussions we've had on this grand revision, they are around Tracy Way and coming in on Alportal. So that is really the north side of the project. The south side of the project is what's on this board. the most part. So they are two separate areas. There's always going to be economy of scale, but economy of scale of zero is not a good thing. And that's what we're looking at if we don't move on this. So we can go and move on a project that's to the north of the ferry drop, |
| 01:33:36.71 | Bree Gill | always going |
| 01:33:50.78 | Joe Burns | which is bus route in three. Thank you. and still be planning for the north side for Tracy Lane and those are almost exclusively different. because when you look at most of the comments about the Grander project, they're over in that area. You're not seeing that. |
| 01:34:08.48 | Heidi Scoble | I mean, maybe we need a map, but the bicycle staging area is on the north end. And that's. |
| 01:34:16.02 | Joe Burns | And that's, yeah, okay, that's a small, that's really, |
| 01:34:20.75 | Heidi Scoble | Well, and the pedestrian walkway is going to be walking through |
| 01:34:21.10 | Joe Burns | the walk. |
| 01:34:26.27 | Joe Burns | That's to the south. I mean, that's to the north. |
| 01:34:27.97 | Heidi Scoble | No. It's walking. |
| 01:34:32.04 | Joe Burns | Yeah. |
| 01:34:32.56 | Heidi Scoble | a cross, |
| 01:34:33.22 | Joe Burns | numbers 2, 3, and 4 are our biggest challenges on those items. Thank you. |
| 01:34:38.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:34:38.81 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. I mean, I think we're talking about should we, some of the visioning comments that we've gotten in the past are do we enlarge the plaza over by number one? Do we, which is directly impacted by the pedestrian path from the landing to parking lot three? |
| 01:34:57.59 | Unknown | Thank you. Mm-mm. |
| 01:34:59.21 | Heidi Scoble | Yes, because if you have, and also El Portal, if El Portal is going to go through as a drop-off area, it will intersect. |
| 01:35:09.50 | Joe Burns | Can I approach the map? |
| 01:35:13.94 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 01:35:13.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:35:14.21 | Heidi Scoble | I mean, I don't think it's as simple as all that. |
| 01:35:14.23 | Vice Mayor Withey | Thank you. |
| 01:35:18.55 | Vice Mayor Withey | Madam Mayor, I'm just wondering whether we're just not ready to make a decision tonight. |
| 01:35:29.50 | Heidi Scoble | That may be true, but without opening the third bid, I'm not sure what information that we can get. I mean, the only direction I think we could give to staff tonight would be for staff to pursue the option articulated by Council Member Cox with the design firm to see if that's even something that they'd be willing |
| 01:35:50.49 | Councilmember Cox | to have be flexible to be flexible. |
| 01:35:51.39 | Heidi Scoble | to be flexible enough to undertake and to just get his answer on that. |
| 01:35:54.39 | Councilmember Cox | They already know that we are interested in a larger vision that they're unable to provide within our budget. And so... whether we ultimately negotiate a change order with them outside of this project or whether we do something with another firm, we need that flexibility to be able to undertake the visioning that we all have sought. But we cannot risk losing these grant funds. And we've known for a year that these grant funds will pay for, to replace what's there. We've known that's all that will pay for. |
| 01:36:17.98 | Unknown | but we can't. |
| 01:36:18.50 | Bree Gill | Thank you. |
| 01:36:20.02 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:36:20.56 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 01:36:20.58 | Unknown | And we've been. |
| 01:36:21.19 | Heidi Scoble | . |
| 01:36:28.65 | Heidi Scoble | We are all in agreement on that. But the question is whether we spend those funds without knowing what comes next. |
| 01:36:37.34 | Councilmember Cox | So I think we have to tell staff to make it a priority to free up other funding to figure out how to do this additional visioning effort that we think is important. |
| 01:36:48.74 | Heidi Scoble | Okay, so the question is, Mr. McCallum, do you think it would be helpful to discuss with the current bidder either whether they are willing to expand the scope of their visioning for the current bid price or to work with another design team if we can find the funding? |
| 01:37:10.56 | Kevin McGowan | I think the design firm of BKF would be interested in trying to participate in the visioning. |
| 01:37:19.76 | Heidi Scoble | for the same cost or with another partner. |
| 01:37:23.56 | Kevin McGowan | that when you say the same cost that- |
| 01:37:24.22 | Councilmember Cox | Or for a change order. |
| 01:37:26.10 | Kevin McGowan | Well, they've made a proposal to do some of the visioning, but I think we need to negotiate that a little bit as well, based off of what you have discussed in this meeting. And maybe we can pull their prices down a little bit more to focus on what you're specifically talking about as well. |
| 01:37:41.65 | Adam Politzer | I need clarification because I want to make sure we're crystal clear. So what I'm hearing is that the items listed one through six, some portion of those we will complete with the $2.5 million. And we'll focus the design team on those initial six items. Come back to council at some point to tell you what we think we can accomplish and get your, get your direction. in a parallel path as we're seeking additional funding working with the design team to look at the extended phases that are outside those initial six some of those will overlap a little bit but outside of those initial six and if they agree that that might include. working with a different design team as a partner then staff can move forward with this initial agreement. |
| 01:38:42.18 | Adam Politzer | Is that what I'm hearing? I wanna make sure I'm hearing you. |
| 01:38:43.76 | Heidi Scoble | The only thing I don't quite think reflects the conversation is the order of what you just said, which I think The issue is... Designing one through seven should be done with a broader perspective. I mean, that's what we were trying to accomplish through this bid process, which we seem to have not been able to achieve. So it would actually be not designing one through seven It would be designing one through seven in coordination with a broader process. |
| 01:39:18.17 | Councilmember Cox | It's designing 1 through 6. |
| 01:39:20.10 | Heidi Scoble | went through. |
| 01:39:20.64 | Councilmember Cox | Inks. |
| 01:39:21.58 | Heidi Scoble | I can't. Okay. Well, and seven if required. |
| 01:39:26.15 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:39:26.17 | Councilmember Riley | Thank you. |
| 01:39:26.32 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:39:26.36 | Councilmember Riley | Thank you. |
| 01:39:27.25 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. Yeah. |
| 01:39:28.84 | Councilmember Riley | So in the simplest terms, If... If we have funds available to us today, and if we can get a vision done, And we can, let's say, do just one, two, and three with the remaining money. And that satisfies Golden Gate. then we can find funds in the future to do four or five or six. I don't know where the delineation line is. But I don't know why. Um, Parking lot one improvements is being required by Golden Gate. It seems like that's something we're desiring out of this project |
| 01:39:59.53 | Councilmember Cox | No, they are requiring land side improvements contemporaneous with the ferry improvements. Yeah, I just don't know how much of this is what we desire. What is the lot that most serves the ferry landing? |
| 01:40:00.97 | Councilmember Riley | Are they? |
| 01:40:07.77 | Councilmember Riley | Yeah, I just don't know how much of this is what we desire. |
| 01:40:15.11 | Councilmember Riley | Right. but I don't know what they're desiring out of Lot 1 improvements. And we don't know what we're going to get out of that water improvements for this design. So I just I'm like, I'd love to have a vision. Build towards that vision. In the future, find funds to do the sidewalks or extensions. But that's just my input. |
| 01:40:36.44 | Heidi Scoble | So can I just play out the option of moving to the third package? So if that's successful, that's successful, and we're fine. If that's not successful, we need to go out to bid again. Is that correct? |
| 01:40:55.19 | Adam Politzer | That's my understanding. |
| 01:40:56.27 | Heidi Scoble | Okay, and what was our timeline on that process? |
| 01:41:00.60 | Councilmember Cox | at least 60 days. |
| 01:41:05.80 | Adam Politzer | we would come back to council, get direction to reject the three bids. with the last bid. And then, We would have to notice. So Kevin, why don't you go through the process of |
| 01:41:20.31 | Kevin McGowan | with submitting the |
| 01:41:23.81 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 01:41:24.35 | Kevin McGowan | Yeah, resubmitting the RFP would at least take a month, and then you've got to go through the process of giving the consultants at least some time to submit their proposals so you're two months out, if not three, to bring it back to council. |
| 01:41:37.37 | Adam Politzer | you take the risk of the council I'm rejecting three bids that the feds would look at that action as clearly you're paralyzed in process and you're asking for these monies to do more than what their intentions. One thing that I wanted to bring up as I was just checking with the city attorney that's missing here, and again, it's missing for at least a couple of council members, is that this was part of the settlement agreement with the bridge district back in 2009. and 17. And so that included the pass-through agreement where the city in the parking lot improvements we insisted |
| 01:42:19.65 | Bree Gill | THE FAMILY. |
| 01:42:19.88 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:42:20.15 | Bree Gill | Thank you. |
| 01:42:21.99 | Adam Politzer | on the parking lot improvements as part of of what's before you tonight. So that also complicates where we started in 2017 based on a settlement agreement versus a real. direct discussion about you know, our downtown and its vision. |
| 01:42:42.24 | Councilmember Cox | But based on your discussions with Dennis Mulligan, you believe that the bridge district is interested in helping us identify additional funds. |
| 01:42:49.72 | Adam Politzer | Yeah, it is worth noting before 2017, when we were working in collaboration, we were up to $4.2 million in grant funds. We had $4.2 million in grant funds, but because of the delay, |
| 01:42:56.25 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:43:01.75 | Adam Politzer | they removed a portion of those funds. So we've had various meetings, Council Member Withey or Vice Mayor Withey and Council Member Burns have been part of those over time so has council member Hoffman Um, where The bridge district has told us that all of the grant administrators that they've been working with at the federal government have also turned over. So all of those relationships don't exist and |
| 01:43:25.74 | Bree Gill | THE FAMILY. |
| 01:43:28.80 | Adam Politzer | the grant funding has become tighter and tighter on how and people, everyone always, Thank you. always in need of money. So, you know, there's there's a real resistance to giving funds to projects that won't actually come to fruition. |
| 01:43:43.75 | Heidi Scoble | Okay. Does the city attorney have something? Thank you. |
| 01:43:46.10 | Mary Wagner | So, Madam Mayor, just one point of clarification, and I think it's a distinction with somewhat of a difference, although I don't know that it's going to fuel or change your your direction here tonight. The pass-through agreement was an attachment to the conditions of approval. And one of the things that happened to happen in those conditions were approved by the council when you made the acceptance of the modified design. The memorandum of understanding that settled the litigation, which I think is what the city manager is referring to as a settlement agreement, requirement. that the parties enter into the settlement agreement, came through the conditions of approval. |
| 01:44:19.68 | Heidi Scoble | Okay, thank you. You want to say something? |
| 01:44:23.32 | Joe Burns | in in those meetings with Dennis Mulligan. Yes, I appreciate that they're looking for grant funding. He's saying we're looking for grant funding, but there is none there probably won't be any for a while and as long as this administration, it's going to be tied to making America great again or some other clause that really keeps us from utilizing the the the needs of the grant that the ferry district had he said it's a slim to none if less than that. |
| 01:44:51.17 | Vice Mayor Withey | I mean, I would agree with that. I think if grant funding is to be found, it's probably not through the federal government at this point. |
| 01:45:01.63 | Councilmember Cox | I think we have to be cautious about losing the 2.5 we still have. |
| 01:45:06.25 | Vice Mayor Withey | So if we, look, what we want to do is the limited visioning for this limited project, we want to, coordinate with a bigger visioning project. So then, |
| 01:45:22.59 | Councilmember Riley | What? |
| 01:45:33.88 | Vice Mayor Withey | Why don't our direction to staff and I think council member Cox, who were going down this direction, sort of make that a more important part of the committee. And I think that's a good point. how the basis upon which we would approve this. Now whether that means it's gotta come back to us or not, I don't know. |
| 01:46:01.05 | Heidi Scoble | Well, I would delegate. We don't have funding for that. That's the question. |
| 01:46:01.40 | Councilmember Cox | I don't have to. |
| 01:46:01.74 | Vice Mayor Withey | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:46:01.77 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:46:03.88 | Vice Mayor Withey | Well, the thing is that we're just about to start the capital improvement plan as part of the budgeting process. I think we should, as a first step, push back on our bidder number two and get, I would like more clarity personally as to what is the overall, relationship between a larger vision and project would work. I feel it's all a bit fuzzy, right? We can then make the decision that if we can't find the funds, if it requires more of Sausalito's money to do the larger visioning and we can't find the funds, well, it won't happen. But if we can find the funds, then it will happen. |
| 01:46:59.18 | Heidi Scoble | So is your proposal that we ask for more information, or we just put that direction to staff and move forward with this tonight? |
| 01:47:06.28 | Vice Mayor Withey | I don't know enough about this contracting process to know. |
| 01:47:06.96 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. I think we conditioned the award of the contract. I think we moved forward with the staff recommendation to award this contract to this vendor. conditioned on the vendor's willingness to cooperate with us in a larger visioning process. if we're able to identify the funds for that. However, that might shake out. |
| 01:47:29.37 | Heidi Scoble | but without getting any more commitment from them to actually perform that. |
| 01:47:33.35 | Councilmember Cox | It sounds as though our public works director believes he could push back on them to ensure that we're getting the greatest value in the contract that we have with them. |
| 01:47:44.52 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 01:47:44.56 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:47:44.59 | Adam Politzer | Madam Mayor, I'm suggesting and it's a parallel process. you have the narrow visioning process to do one, two, three, four, whatever the number is. The parallel process is working on what the visioning process working with Um, a another. design team potentially. to do the larger visioning and what's the cost associated with that and what grants may be available both state and local grants. |
| 01:48:18.56 | Councilmember Cox | What I'm suggesting so that government code 1090 doesn't preclude this vendor from participating in that process is to include this as a potential change order for this vendor so that they can compete for the larger visioning process on the parallel path should they so choose. |
| 01:48:37.39 | Heidi Scoble | So I thought they've already competed for that. And we've now narrowed our scope. |
| 01:48:42.30 | Councilmember Cox | Right. but we're, but the city we've narrowed our scope because of budgetary constraints, but we haven't narrowed the direction to staff. And so I by leaving the flexibility in the award of this contract. this vendor could compete for the larger visioning process, which we now understand will cost more than we had anticipated. or not. And if they don't compete, we're requiring them to collaborate. But if we don't include this as a part of their contract, Conflict of interest laws in California will preclude them for competing for the expanded scope. |
| 01:49:19.16 | Heidi Scoble | Okay, I'm just still feeling like this process is, I still feel like we asked for a particular visioning phase and we asked for completing fairly straightforward |
| 01:49:22.25 | Bree Gill | Thank you. |
| 01:49:22.33 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:49:22.43 | Bree Gill | Thank you. |
| 01:49:32.02 | Heidi Scoble | improvements and we're not getting that for the price that we can pay. |
| 01:49:38.02 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:49:38.04 | Heidi Scoble | So I know that you're offering the olive branch. Yeah, and I understand. |
| 01:49:38.12 | Councilmember Cox | It's okay. Yeah, and I understand your frustration, but we've delayed this for nearly two years. And so it's no surprise that costs have inflated, and we're not able to get what we'd like for the money that we have. |
| 01:49:57.38 | Heidi Scoble | Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so do I have a motion? |
| 01:50:04.57 | Councilmember Cox | I move we proceed in the manner just enunciated to staff. Does staff need us to repeat that direction? |
| 01:50:13.78 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:50:13.80 | Heidi Scoble | Okay, will you call the roll? It deserves- I'm sorry, there's no, is there a second? |
| 01:50:15.91 | Councilmember Cox | This is a great question. |
| 01:50:15.99 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 01:50:16.03 | Councilmember Cox | So, Thank you. |
| 01:50:17.95 | Joe Burns | Clarity, we're going no change with the contract. |
| 01:50:18.03 | Councilmember Cox | THE FAMILY IS |
| 01:50:21.66 | Councilmember Cox | With the potential for a change order and with direction to staff to proceed on a parallel path to identify funding and commence a larger visioning effort. |
| 01:50:26.15 | Joe Burns | Second. |
| 01:50:32.65 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. And just... |
| 01:50:32.75 | Vice Mayor Withey | And just for clarity, and we're including the that this bidder as part of this will collaborate with Correct. Whatever the parallel process is, whether it's them or us. |
| 01:50:44.56 | Councilmember Cox | Correct. As a condition of the contract, correct. |
| 01:50:50.16 | Vice Mayor Withey | Is that Kevin, does that make sense to you? Yeah. Okay. |
| 01:50:53.59 | Councilmember Cox | THUMBS UP. |
| 01:50:55.70 | Heidi Scoble | And just with apologies to staff and my fellow council members, it's not a motion I can support. So anyway, will you call the roll? |
| 01:51:06.97 | Vice Mayor Withey | Well, hang on a sec. So what motion would you use? Thank you. |
| 01:51:12.32 | Heidi Scoble | I'd like to go to better three. |
| 01:51:16.90 | Vice Mayor Withey | And so as I said, I don't think we're ready to make a decision. |
| 01:51:21.53 | Councilmember Cox | Well, we have a first and a second. Thank you. We have a motion and a second, so I... |
| 01:51:27.31 | Heidi Scoble | I mean, I think I've made my points. And I mean, I just. |
| 01:51:32.00 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:51:33.47 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 01:51:33.50 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:51:34.44 | Heidi Scoble | And I, you know, That's okay, I mean, if you'd like to make a motion to continue, we can do that. |
| 01:51:42.81 | Adam Politzer | And just to clarify, there's not a second. |
| 01:51:45.09 | Heidi Scoble | Joe seconded it. |
| 01:51:45.56 | Adam Politzer | joke. |
| 01:51:48.42 | Heidi Scoble | Sorry. OK, so let's call the roll. |
| 01:51:55.05 | Heidi Scoble | Councilmember Cox? Yes. Councilmember Riley? No. Councilmember Burns? Yes. Vice Mayor Withey? No. Mayor Cleveland Knowles? |
| 01:51:56.05 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 01:51:56.06 | Councilmember Cox | Yes. |
| 01:52:04.99 | Heidi Scoble | No. Okay, that motion fails two to three. Is there a substitute motion? |
| 01:52:19.06 | Heidi Scoble | to continue or, I mean, I think our two options at this point are to continue for more negotiation with bidder number two to see if we can get more of a vision within this bid package or we can vote to move to the bid package. |
| 01:52:41.73 | Vice Mayor Withey | I would be willing to make a motion and continue to a date certain, but I don't know what date that is. |
| 01:52:50.92 | Adam Politzer | I think it's come back in February so either the first or second meeting in February and give staff an opportunity to work with the agenda setting committee to confirm. |
| 01:52:59.46 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:52:59.61 | Vice Mayor Withey | with the vendor. So I'll make that motion. Is that good enough? |
| 01:52:59.85 | Councilmember Cox | vendor. |
| 01:53:00.29 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 01:53:01.30 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. I would say just give direction and we don't need a motion for that. I would I would mind with that direction. |
| 01:53:08.34 | Heidi Scoble | Okay. |
| 01:53:08.93 | Vice Mayor Withey | in that direction. Yeah. |
| 01:53:10.04 | Heidi Scoble | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 01:53:10.24 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:53:10.28 | Heidi Scoble | Okay, is that sufficient for staff? |
| 01:53:12.59 | Vice Mayor Withey | And we got consensus. |
| 01:53:14.73 | Heidi Scoble | And then can I just for clarity for ourselves and for the public, if we cannot reach some agreement with the second bidder, does staff need approval from the council to go to the third? bitter, or is that just something you can determine to do on your own? |
| 01:53:32.59 | Adam Politzer | So again that could be a two step process. We can come back and report back on our success, our lack of success when negotiating and then get direction or you give us that direction now. Thank you. |
| 01:53:45.60 | Heidi Scoble | Okay. I think we're asking for you to come back for direction. |
| 01:53:46.73 | Adam Politzer | I think, |
| 01:53:47.06 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:53:51.60 | Heidi Scoble | assuming that you're not successful in getting an adequate process. Okay, thank you. |
| 01:54:00.18 | Bree Gill | Exactly. |
| 01:54:02.54 | Heidi Scoble | tough and painful discussion, but I think we have clarity on that. So now we are going to thank you for the members of the public who commented. All right, we are going to move on to 70. Oh, I'm sorry, 7C, accept the informational report and status update regarding the mudflow recovery project. Again, Mr. McGowan. |
| 01:54:29.19 | Kevin McGowan | Good evening again. Kevin McGowan, Department of Public Works. I'm going to introduce Eric Vaughn from Harrison Associates to kind of walk us through the presentation. I have a few slides in here, too, so I will jump in towards the end of the presentation. Did you want to set it to 10? |
| 01:54:43.43 | Heidi Scoble | Yes, please, if that's sufficient for your presentation. |
| 01:54:46.58 | Eric Vaughn | and most certainly is. |
| 01:54:47.41 | Heidi Scoble | Great. Thank you. Welcome. |
| 01:54:49.28 | Eric Vaughn | Good evening. Eric Vaughn with Harrison Associates. So I'll quickly just go through a progress update. |
| 01:55:02.29 | Eric Vaughn | OK, so I'll briefly review the timeline where we're at, provide a project status, what our current priorities are, provide a budget update, provide an update on the reimbursement process with Cal OES and FEMA. And then, well, looks like we'll do priorities twice. Okay, so just a brief timeline update. Of course, I think the last report included the start date for the debris removal was late September. By November 1st, the debris removal was totally completed. And then by November 15th, the contractor had implemented winterization work that included jute net and seed. So if you were to look at the site, Now, I'll have a photo of it shortly. So just in terms of timeline, the Crescent Right of Way had been cleared. by early October. The remaining debris had been cleared by the end of November and then by mid-November, the first set of emergency protective measures were in place. As you recall from the last update, a second set of winterization measures were implemented by Majora and Gelati. The current priority then is to prepare the final plans for the permanent restoration of the storm drain system and resurfacing Crescent Avenue, which the surface was pretty badly damaged by the mudslide. Once the debris was removed, it was clear the scale of damage to the street itself. So just to provide a visual of this, the right of way on Crescent Avenue was cleared. and that ended up having about 711 tons of debris on it. MMWD's parcel with the pump station on it had about 44 tons of debris on it. Those areas were most of the housing materials in addition to trees and mud and vegetative debris. The rest of the field that was affected primarily between Sausalito Boulevard and Crescent Avenue had about 1,467 tons of debris. And as I reported, I think at the last time, There was less debris than we had originally estimated in total, so that, as I reported, brought down the total cost of debris removal, which is essentially done on a per ton basis. And then we covered the whole area in that nitro seed. And that's essentially like putting a bandaid on a wound. So dressing it up for the winter, trying to help with some of the reducing erosion risk over the winter so that it allows the vegetation to start the process of growing back. And the protective layer includes some seed in it. And if you go and see the site now, you can see that some of the grass has started to come up. And that's great. That really helps to reduce any of the soil runoff. So that ended up being pretty successful. The most recent work was to install storm drain repair and also to put in place a French drain, which I'll show you shortly. So this is what the jute net and seeding looked like as they were applying it. This is a mulch, so it's wood fibers, seed and fertilizer. And then this is the temporary work. So at the lower left area of the screen, that's a French drain. So right at sort of the base, right before it comes down to Crescent, there's a drain there to capture any sort of underflow. And I'll show you that it ended up being pretty successful when they put the drain in place. And then they replaced the storm drain under Crescent. And then the Majoran Gelata also replaced some of the storm drain on the downside of Crescent. |
| 01:58:53.75 | Eric Vaughn | So this is the contractor preparing the area to put the storm drain in. You can see the contractor putting the storm drain in. This is what the French drain looks like. So it's meant to capture water that's flowing through the drainage area. And then they apply, they put in place a drain inlet. That's where, that's the upside of Crescent. So all the water that's captured by the French drain will go into this drainage inlet, which also connects with the runoff from Crescent Avenue. |
| 01:59:29.83 | Eric Vaughn | And once the system was connected, immediately you could see there started to be some flow. So it was really nice to see that working successfully. And so that will do a good job of protecting the street. And then, of course, after they were done with the drainage system and the storm drain and the French drain, they backfilled the area and reapplied the jute nets. So that project has been completed. And so just a brief cost update. This is unchanged since the last time we spoke. So with the debris removal process being a little done quickly. So the project management design and construction costs were reduced a little bit from expected. That's still on track. Right. Debris removal, the costs were finished the last time I gave you an update, so those are the same actual costs. Those have been invoiced, so those are completed. There was the additional set of emergency measures, which came up at the last meeting for around $110,500. But in the overall balance, since the debris removal came in a little under, and with the addition of the additional winterization measures, the original estimate is about equal to what the actual costs are at this point. And then there's the cost still to be done of the construction of the permanent storm drain system. And that will be bid in the early spring. So as far as the reimbursement process, city staff, city attorney had a meeting with Cal OAS and FEMA last week. That process is moving forward. We're currently preparing to provide all the backup documentation for the construction, the debris removal process, which is required for the FEMA reimbursement process. So that process is continuing right now. There's also the appeal process. So I reported, or we reported, previously that the original request from the city to get reimbursed for removing debris from private property, was not accepted by FEMA. The city prepared an appeal and submitted an appeal That was, um, made on December 4th. Thank you. And Cal OAS is currently deliberating on that decision. They have 45 days to prepare a response, which they would then provide to FEMA. And then FEMA has 60 days. So the 45 days is early February. That's when the initial decision from Cal OAS should be made. and then the FEMA decision could be as long as the end of April, but I don't I don't recall they took nearly the 60 days when they made their first response. I recall it only being 10 or 20 days. I don't know. what that process will be. But worst case scenario, it could be the end of April. So we're in a holding pattern to find out what their decision will be. And this relates to the costs for removing debris on private property only, not the removing debris from the right of way. And the costs on the staff report show the difference. |
| 02:02:43.20 | Heidi Scoble | OK. |
| 02:02:45.38 | Eric Vaughn | Right, so current priorities are the project documentation, preparing the plans for the permanent measures, and implementing the storm drain repairs. |
| 02:02:55.47 | Heidi Scoble | Great, thank you. Why don't we hear the rest of the presentation, and then we'll have questions. |
| 02:03:00.14 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. |
| 02:03:00.18 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 02:03:00.19 | Kevin McGowan | So a quick Kevin and McGowan again from Public Works. So a quick project that we had to undertake had to do with replacing a storm drain line from Hecht Road just before, in December. And so many of you folks may not be aware of where Heck Road is. It is a dirt road that cuts off of Marion and goes up towards Highway 101. There was an existing corrugated metal pipe storm drain, which cut down the slope at an angle. So it wasn't a direct line with perpendicular to the topography lines, but it was cutting over at an angle. This particular pipe captured water from Highway 101 and conveyed it down to Sausalito Boulevard. In examining this pipe, we found that the couplings that were connecting these corrugated metal pipes together were corroded and leaking water. And we communicated this with the National Park Service and let them know that we think that this needs to be replaced immediately. The reason for this is that this pipe is above the existing slide area. which basically looks like a bathtub. And when you look at that, you'll see those vertical slopes on either side. And so myself and our staff was concerned that those vertical slopes would begin to move more water was introduced to those so we took action and requested that we do emergency work to replace this pipe system, which we did. And the replacement included the installation of a high density polyethylene pipe, a big black pipe basically, that's fused together so that there are no more specific joints. They're actually welded in place. And again, it is a pipe that's on the surface. It looks exactly the same and has no other changes in its alignment, What we also found is the pipe underneath Hect Road at the very top was corroded too. That was a change from what we originally anticipated and we had to replace that system as well. That is in place at this point, and the cost was about $60,000. With that, I'll turn it back over to Eric to Move through the recommendations. |
| 02:05:07.53 | Eric Vaughn | Okay, thank you. So the staff recommendations are to accept this informational report regarding the current status of the winterization project, direct the city engineer to file the notice of completion for that work, I thank Majora and Gelati for its good service to the people of Sausalito. And they did a really nice job with this project. It was very clean, it was very efficiently done. And finally, to adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Sausalito, proclaiming the termination of the local emergency declared on February 18, 2019, related to storm activity and landslides occurring in February 2019. And this is because the winterization work has been completed. |
| 02:05:48.69 | Heidi Scoble | Great, thank you very much. I do have one question that relates to the end of the report about the storm drain repair. Is that a cost that we think we paid for that? And is that a cost that we think is the responsibility of the Park Service? Or is that something that's our responsibility under? |
| 02:06:12.64 | Kevin McGowan | With that, I'll probably turn back over to Mary to have a comment on it. |
| 02:06:18.17 | Mary Wagner | I think we have differing opinions from the Park Service on whose responsibility that pipe was. I think we took this action to ensure that the hillside was as stable as it could be. We're in continuing discussions with the Park Service about that. |
| 02:06:29.36 | Councilmember Cox | We already filed a claim. |
| 02:06:30.56 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. We did. |
| 02:06:32.67 | Heidi Scoble | Great. All right. Thank you. Are there other questions of staff? |
| 02:06:38.40 | Joe Burns | just in We like the total are we looking at a total of about three hundred and sixty nine thousand dollars right now of our share of all of these things when we do the The 93% of the reimbursement and the 300 that didn't qualify and so forth is that kind of the number you're looking at? |
| 02:06:41.12 | Bree Gill | Are we looking at a total of about |
| 02:06:54.22 | Eric Vaughn | I'm sorry, what was the total you said again? 369. |
| 02:06:56.75 | Joe Burns | I mean, |
| 02:07:00.06 | Eric Vaughn | I'd have to double check. |
| 02:07:01.42 | Joe Burns | Is that approximately under 400,000 still? |
| 02:07:01.56 | Eric Vaughn | Thank you. |
| 02:07:06.11 | Heidi Scoble | Okay, well staff is looking that up. Are there other council member questions? OK, is there anybody who would like to comment from the public? Seeing none, I'll close public comment. |
| 02:07:36.35 | Joe Burns | It doesn't have to be exact, obviously. Just our... |
| 02:07:38.16 | Heidi Scoble | So but you're asking for our total non-recoverable expenditures related to the slides. |
| 02:07:43.10 | Joe Burns | I read this for you. This will impact that would be noted in the staff report. |
| 02:07:52.00 | Heidi Scoble | And of course, we are still waiting for the appeal answer. So that's going to be unknown at this point. |
| 02:07:55.61 | Joe Burns | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:07:55.78 | Eric Vaughn | THE END OF which was... |
| 02:07:57.33 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 02:07:57.36 | Eric Vaughn | Unknown. |
| 02:07:57.84 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 02:07:57.90 | Eric Vaughn | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:07:57.99 | Joe Burns | THE FAMILY IS THE FAMILY |
| 02:07:58.06 | Eric Vaughn | point. |
| 02:07:58.39 | Joe Burns | WOULDN'T BE IN THE FISCALITY. |
| 02:07:59.03 | Eric Vaughn | Right. |
| 02:07:59.51 | Heidi Scoble | Right. |
| 02:07:59.88 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 02:08:00.22 | Eric Vaughn | you Okay, so the $347,000 was the cost of removing debris from private property, so the city cannot seek reimbursement currently from Pima for that amount? That's the subject of the appeal. |
| 02:08:10.63 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. That's the subject of the appeal. |
| 02:08:12.77 | Eric Vaughn | Thank you. Yes. The remaining amount, the remaining total is subject to that multiplier, the 93. So the the other side of 93, the 7.25% or whatever it is of the remaining total would be, the part the city would be responsible for. Which is about how much? |
| 02:08:32.38 | Heidi Scoble | Which is about how much. So can you say how much that would be? |
| 02:08:38.15 | Eric Vaughn | I'll report back. |
| 02:08:39.95 | Mary Wagner | So if you look at page 331 of your staff report, so |
| 02:08:48.97 | Heidi Scoble | Which page of the actual staff report? You mean page three, is that what you said? |
| 02:08:52.00 | Mary Wagner | Is that what you said? There's a page with a table on it, and it's the next page. It's up above the staff recommendations, one, two, three, columns above. So if you look at the 271, 998 and take away the 254, I'm looking at Eric to make sure I'm doing my math right, you've got about a $20,000 difference there. And then if you do the same on the 104 and the 111, so that's another seven. So you're looking, if you add 30 to the 347, you're looking at close to 380. |
| 02:08:56.36 | Heidi Scoble | Yeah. |
| 02:09:21.22 | Joe Burns | Do we get the 29 back from MMWD? |
| 02:09:24.29 | Mary Wagner | That's a different number. But yeah. Yeah, but you would take that off of. |
| 02:09:26.70 | Councilmember Cox | Yeah. but just like that. |
| 02:09:27.19 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 02:09:27.54 | Councilmember Cox | THE END OF THE END OF THE And does that total include the 60 that the time |
| 02:09:32.44 | Mary Wagner | 29 isn't included in what we're asking for reimbursement from FEMA, so no. That's correct. That 29 is a separate number. Just trying to get to the fiscal impact. So I'm trying to make sure I didn't do that math incorrectly. That's why I went to law school. |
| 02:09:36.76 | Councilmember Cox | That's correct. |
| 02:09:37.21 | Michael Rex | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:09:37.41 | Councilmember Cox | Right. |
| 02:09:37.70 | Michael Rex | ASSISTANT. Just trying to get to the fiscal impact. |
| 02:09:40.47 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 02:09:46.04 | Councilmember Cox | Does your calculation include the $66,000 that we paid to correct the Golden Gate National Recreation Area? No. So that's $66,000 on top of that. |
| 02:09:53.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:09:53.58 | Heidi Scoble | No. |
| 02:09:53.87 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:09:58.22 | Heidi Scoble | So it's that $300,000 number plus the 60 potentially and then the amount under appeal. |
| 02:10:04.04 | Joe Burns | which is about 4.2. |
| 02:10:05.27 | Heidi Scoble | Yeah. |
| 02:10:05.58 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 02:10:06.05 | Heidi Scoble | No, that's the amount under appeal is 369. So we could, our potential total exposure sounds like it's just north of 700 if I'm understanding this correctly. If we're unsuccessful with our appeal, if we're successful with the appeal, it's more in the late 300s to 400,000. |
| 02:10:06.12 | Joe Burns | No. |
| 02:10:18.07 | Eric Vaughn | That sounds right. |
| 02:10:20.55 | Bree Gill | Thank you. |
| 02:10:20.56 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:10:20.94 | Bree Gill | Thank you. |
| 02:10:25.85 | Eric Vaughn | Right. That sounds right but I can confirm with a more precise number. |
| 02:10:28.93 | Heidi Scoble | OK. All right, great. Okay, any other questions or a motion? |
| 02:10:35.03 | Councilmember Cox | I move we adopt the staff recommendations. |
| 02:10:38.13 | Heidi Scoble | And including the resolution? |
| 02:10:39.92 | Councilmember Cox | the resolution which is recommendation number four |
| 02:10:43.77 | Heidi Scoble | Bye. |
| 02:10:43.92 | Councilmember Cox | second. |
| 02:10:43.94 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 02:10:43.97 | Vice Mayor Withey | second. |
| 02:10:44.41 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 02:10:47.19 | Heidi Scoble | Did you want to make a comment? |
| 02:10:47.21 | Joe Burns | Did you want to make a comment? No, I just have public comment. |
| 02:10:50.08 | Heidi Scoble | We had public comment, there was no public comment. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, that motion carries five zero. |
| 02:10:53.56 | Joe Burns | I. |
| 02:10:58.75 | Heidi Scoble | Okay, moving on, we have one more item under 7, 7D, consideration of a request for waiver of planning appeal fees for approval permits at 416 Napa Street. |
| 02:11:14.80 | Mary Wagner | Madam Mayor, I'm going to take this one for the Community Development Department, and I can set a timer on myself if you would like, but I think I can do it in five minutes or less. |
| 02:11:18.01 | Heidi Scoble | GREAT. |
| 02:11:21.62 | Mary Wagner | I have. |
| 02:11:21.92 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 02:11:22.02 | Mary Wagner | I think you can. |
| 02:11:22.28 | Heidi Scoble | Okay. |
| 02:11:23.63 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 02:11:24.01 | Mary Wagner | Well, I gotta give you a little bit of background. So you will all recall the project at 416 Napa Street that involved an appeal of a Planning Commission decision It came up to the council. One of the conditions of approval when the council denied the appeal and approved the project was that in order to deal with an excess of building coverage, you included a condition which gave the applicant some options. They could either apply for an ADU, they could seek a variance, or they could look to amend their project to remove that additional coverage. They chose to apply for an ADU. That ADU met with the requirements of both the state law and our own code to be processed at the staff level as and done through that by staff. Staff approved it, that was appealed to the Planning Commission. That Planning Commission upheld staff's determination, that was appealed to you. The property owner at 418 Napa Street who filed the appeal is seeking waiver of the appeal fees of $3,635. You'll also see in your staff report that the owner of 416 Napa applied for and was granted a fee waiver of 3,530 related to their fees associated with the ADU and the variance that council granted that request. The council's the only body who has the ability to waive fees under provisions in your municipal code. The provision indicates that you can waive them related to a nonprofit organization and other public body or under other circumstances that the council believes warrant a fee waiver With that, I'll stop and answer any questions you may have. |
| 02:13:10.33 | Heidi Scoble | Okay, are there any questions for the city attorney? |
| 02:13:15.98 | Heidi Scoble | Okay, is there any public comment? I don't have any speaker cards. |
| 02:13:18.49 | Bree Gill | any sense. |
| 02:13:23.19 | Heidi Scoble | Okay, we'll come forward. |
| 02:13:26.02 | Unknown | Can I set those? Yes. |
| 02:13:27.89 | Councilmember Cox | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 02:13:30.00 | Unknown | Um, I'm the owner at 418 Napa. This is a very contentious, difficult build design. The city council did make all sorts of design decisions, including roof lines, one I had never seen before, They moved the property back toward me. by a significant amount. I originally recommended that as a compromise for all involved, I would like to have gotten rid of the sunlight. Michael Rex who used to work for me then went to work for these owners at the end of the project when they got basically everything they wanted, much of which impacted me pretty negatively, Including taking down a 70-foot fir tree and not replacing it. They built over it This council actually, when I wasn't here, I was on medical issue. did actually design that new ADU. It also included several other things like air conditioning in the backyard, their backyard, which is my only front yard, well as cement hardscapes and very little protection for noise sound or light I see every single headlight coming into my living room now because that tree was taken down not replaced which was mandated to do so So of course I did appeal. When I went through that process, I flew back from the East Coast. I was heard, supposed to be at 7 p.m. at night. I didn't get to speak until 11.40 p.m. When I asked the question finally of Joan Cox, which was important to me, as to why she thought a door had to go a certain way, and she said it had to, which is the ADU door now facing me, so several more doors. Um, she, yawned and I got dismissed and I felt like Jesus, you know, what do you have to do to actually get heard here? Honestly, no sound, no light. and the landscape that they're putting in They promised, and I've talked to their gardeners, it's only going to be lemon trees and olive trees. despite the fact that they were mandated to put taller trees in there, which is really what I've needed. So I think it's a viable argument that I've done almost everything I can to be heard, and at every turn, whether it was a skylight or the shingles or a number of design decisions, and a lot of it was just coming back toward me. Lily and Calvin Chan, Lily who was the director and Calvin who was the planner, neither one of them are here, Um, said that the the the building was only kind of come toward me about nine inches. It's actually four feet plus an overhang of eight inches. But nobody's up there to look at it. So 70% of the people between this board and the planning committee never came to see the property. And I thank those that did, including Ray Withey and including Susan. But quite frankly, It's It's losses on every single point to me and insult to injury is that Michael Rex did let me know we get everything we wanted We didn't have to pay for it So if they get a refund, I am. hard put to say. I don't understand the bias here. So of course I am going to ask for a refund and I don't think you can ask somebody to pay $3,800, give them 10 minutes at 1140 at night and let you know that I wasn't hurt because I just didn't feel like I was. |
| 02:16:38.24 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Is there any additional public comment? Michael Rex. |
| 02:16:48.44 | Michael Rex | Just to correct the record, the owners of 416 Napa Street never cut down a 70-foot fir tree. The previous owner of the property cut the tree down. Okay, thank you. |
| 02:17:03.79 | Heidi Scoble | Okay, thank you. |
| 02:17:06.63 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:17:09.44 | Heidi Scoble | Okay, all right, so public comment is over. I'm gonna close the public hearing. Are there comments from council members, questions, or? |
| 02:17:21.68 | Councilmember Cox | I mean, I'll correct the record to say that I visited the property more than once. |
| 02:17:27.16 | Joe Burns | Thank you. I did as well. |
| 02:17:30.77 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. Okay, so the question in front of us is about the waiver of fees on the ADU appeal. So on that issue. |
| 02:17:42.10 | Councilmember Cox | For the reasons enunciated by staff, I recommend we comport with the staff recommendation. |
| 02:17:48.14 | Joe Burns | Second. |
| 02:17:51.13 | Heidi Scoble | Any discussion? |
| 02:17:55.65 | Heidi Scoble | I think the only thing that I would just clarify is... We did in the proceedings on the merits of the project request the owners of 416 Napa to add an ADU. paid all of their fees for the original project and for the original hearings. But because the council and the planning commission had specifically asked for an ADO to be added, we felt that it was fair to waive the fees for that particular application. So they did pay all of their fees for the remainder of the project. Thank you. |
| 02:18:40.98 | Councilmember Cox | in addition to going through numerous planning commission and City Council appeals |
| 02:18:46.07 | Heidi Scoble | Correct. I think that that was a reasonable, reasonable decision. I am also in favor of the staff report and I do apologize that the hearing on this was at a very late hour and it was a very long hearing. Thank you. |
| 02:19:03.88 | Joe Burns | Sounds like it was one of my meetings. |
| 02:19:03.91 | Heidi Scoble | Sounds like a little bit. Yeah. Thank you. |
| 02:19:06.68 | Councilmember Cox | No. |
| 02:19:06.84 | Heidi Scoble | Oh. |
| 02:19:07.03 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 02:19:07.17 | Heidi Scoble | It was. |
| 02:19:07.40 | Councilmember Cox | This is mine. |
| 02:19:07.74 | Joe Burns | Well, |
| 02:19:08.82 | Heidi Scoble | Okay. In any case. All right. Any further discussion? on is was there a second on your motion |
| 02:19:19.72 | Councilmember Cox | Councilmember Burns seconded. |
| 02:19:20.85 | Heidi Scoble | All in favor? |
| 02:19:22.47 | Councilmember Cox | Aye. |
| 02:19:22.59 | Bree Gill | Bye. |
| 02:19:22.98 | Heidi Scoble | Any opposed? Hearing none, that motion carries 5-0. So thank you. And I think that concludes the business in item 7. We are moving to item 8, city manager reports city council appointments and other council business. So I will take any public comment on all of item 8. Is there any public comment? And now that we actually have our staff report in front of us, I would just like to ask Ms. Bushmaker for... clarification, you did not submit a resignation. Is that correct? |
| 02:20:05.60 | Councilmember Cox | She simply, her letter says she's simply not applying for a new term. |
| 02:20:09.28 | Sandra Bushmaker | Yeah, that's correct. My letter said I was not applying for an additional term, but I did complete my entire term. The other thing I wanted to ask is, the about the expired terms on the business advisory committee. What's the deal with that? And I'd appreciate hearing if you have a moment to explain that, I'd appreciate that. Okay, thank you. |
| 02:20:37.34 | Councilmember Cox | I actually had the same question because that was on consent in December. I asked it to be moved to a business item in January. |
| 02:20:44.60 | Heidi Scoble | Okay, I think... Thank you. We have multiple expired terms on multiple committees, and it's our practice to hold over until we have candidates to... fill those positions. |
| 02:21:04.31 | Councilmember Cox | I'm aware of at least two applications to the BAC. |
| 02:21:07.20 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 02:21:07.30 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 02:21:07.35 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 02:21:07.37 | Councilmember Cox | We need to. |
| 02:21:07.69 | Heidi Scoble | to schedule those interviews. |
| 02:21:09.76 | Councilmember Cox | So I'm just wondering why we did these interviews and these committees before we did those which were already on our consent calendar in December. |
| 02:21:17.98 | Heidi Scoble | So we can talk to the clerk. I think we discussed in agenda setting to figure out a reasonable number of interviews to do before this meeting. and a reasonable number of interviews to do before our next meeting to start to fill multiple vacancies that we have on multiple commissions so at agenda setting we did not prioritize which committees to start with we just asked the city clerk to determine a reasonable number it's my memory of that discussion |
| 02:21:46.92 | Councilmember Cox | And then the other question I had is we got a report from a resident who had attempted to apply for the Planning Commission opening and at when they went to submit the application. The website said they would not accept the application because there were no openings on the Planning Commission. So I was curious to know how that happened. |
| 02:22:06.56 | Adam Politzer | I can answer that question. And happy to expand on the mayor's response on the other appointments. Right now it's currently filled with Vicki Nichols and so it's just a technical issue that we can correct. So it shows that all five planning commissioners are actually filled so we need to- |
| 02:22:28.77 | Councilmember Cox | But then how did we interview an applicant tonight? There's an applicant we interviewed tonight. Yeah, two applicants who were successful in submitting their applications. |
| 02:22:38.31 | Adam Politzer | I don't know, I mean it wasn't, as the letter said, the application came today, so it wasn't something that in the past, just as each of you, |
| 02:22:39.18 | Councilmember Cox | saying, |
| 02:22:45.02 | Councilmember Cox | Okay. |
| 02:22:48.28 | Adam Politzer | other than Councilman O'Reilly has been mayor, The council on the agenda setting committee looks at the various appointments, looks at the pool, of candidates that are available and makes a decision if the pool has candidates to interview. In some cases, we've done that with just two or three applicants. In other cases, we've waited to have 10 or 15 So, you know, it's at the discretion of the mayor and the agenda setting committee and with support of staff. Staff obviously working with our communications director will continue to invite people to apply for our boards and commissions. And we encourage the boards and commissions to also help recruit. recruit people to serve on their on their boards or commissions, and we recommend that the council do the same. terms of the BAC I think it is worth noting in that same discussion Vice Mayor Withey at the time Councilmember Withey suggested that this is a good opportunity to really look at the what we are actually looking for from the business city relationship in terms of our boards and Commission So hospitality and business development and BAC. So it wasn't simply, let's just appoint new people because we have applications. I think what Council Member Withey was looking, or stating was, let's look at the objective of this board and commission, also amongst a variety of others that also would require a little bit of time for us to again evaluate. example the Arts Commission struggled for years and we had members of the public asking us for us to fill that eventually we combine the Arts Commission in the Parks and Recreation Commission The Trees and Views Committee had challenges with their effectiveness and also filling their roles. We combined that responsibility and moved it up to the Planning Commission for their oversight. I think, again, every year the mayor, working with staff, evaluates these and brings opportunities back for the council to discuss if we want to stay the same course or if we want to consider other opportunities and i believe that's one of the things that we'll look at with bac |
| 02:25:12.53 | Heidi Scoble | And I'm also, just for the record, in favor of taking a look at BAC and hospitality and kind of the missions of both of those. So for Planning Commission, we are definitely, because I think there still are other candidates to interview and because of the glitch with the website or the application process, we are certainly not going to make any decision tonight. We will hold that position open and make sure that our application process and our website is working properly. I don't think we've heard about any other problems with that process, but we should just make sure that that's working. |
| 02:26:02.07 | Councilmember Cox | So but are we prepared to approve a second term for Janelle Kelman as an enunciated in our staff report? |
| 02:26:09.92 | Heidi Scoble | Yeah, so we can. we can do that. Let's see we've got so first we have the community disaster preparedness committee. Is first on our agenda. and this is accept now two resignations and approve a second term for Joan Saxton. So moved. Have a second. |
| 02:26:40.48 | Joe Burns | Second. |
| 02:26:41.59 | Heidi Scoble | All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none. |
| 02:26:42.57 | Joe Burns | Hi. |
| 02:26:46.82 | Heidi Scoble | Those items are approved. Could the city clerk let us know if we have any additional Applicants on file for the Community Disaster Preparedness Committee that we have not interviewed. |
| 02:27:12.25 | Heidi Scoble | Madam Mayor, we have none. |
| 02:27:15.61 | Joe Burns | Can I ask a question? Thank you. |
| 02:27:19.19 | Heidi Scoble | Yes. |
| 02:27:19.86 | Joe Burns | Did we expand that to seven? And so we're actually looking for multiple people. And when we did that we thought maybe also that community disaster would take on the landslide which they chose not to. So. or at least geological hazards. So... We just run it at 5 minutes either way get people in there as quick as possible. But we have more bodies. |
| 02:27:47.20 | Heidi Scoble | Mm-hmm. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, do we want, is there any desire to appoint someone tonight? Okay, so why don't we continue that to our next meeting? And then, Sorry, I've got to get the library. Staff report up here. |
| 02:28:18.15 | Heidi Scoble | Okay, on the library, do we have any additional candidates to interview on that? That's a question for the city clerk. |
| 02:28:29.03 | Heidi Scoble | I apologize. Would you read? Oppenheimer. |
| 02:28:29.84 | Councilmember Cox | Hoppenheimer. is scheduled for February 11. |
| 02:28:34.86 | Heidi Scoble | Okay, great. So we will continue that to the next meeting. |
| 02:28:42.96 | Heidi Scoble | And sorry, just opening and closing all these documents here. Pedestrian advisory. |
| 02:28:54.09 | Councilmember Cox | And we have future interviews scheduled for that as well. And the person scheduled for tonight didn't show up. |
| 02:28:56.29 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 02:28:56.31 | Heidi Scoble | Yeah. |
| 02:29:01.11 | Heidi Scoble | Right. Okay, so we will move that to our next meeting and then as we just discussed for appointments to the planning commission, we are going to hold off on that. |
| 02:29:09.47 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. except I'd like to recommend that we go ahead and approve the second term for Janelle Kelman. |
| 02:29:14.82 | Heidi Scoble | Is there a second? |
| 02:29:16.81 | Councilmember Riley | I second that. |
| 02:29:18.06 | Heidi Scoble | Okay, all in favor? I. |
| 02:29:19.46 | Councilmember Riley | Aye. Aye. |
| 02:29:19.90 | Heidi Scoble | I I Okay, we are now at future agenda items. Oh, I'm sorry, appointments to boards, commissions and committees. I think this is the appropriate section. I have I am going to complete meeting individually with all council members about their desires for various committees that they are on so I'm not going to do a lot of appointments tonight but I did want to thank Joe Burns Council Member Burns for his excellent service on the Finance Committee so thank you for that excellent work and uh appoint uh ray withy to the finance committee for this year And I'm also on the Finance Committee. So that's the only change I'm going to make tonight. So moving on, |
| 02:30:16.04 | Councilmember Cox | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:30:16.07 | Heidi Scoble | and I'll |
| 02:30:16.44 | Councilmember Cox | I'm sorry. |
| 02:30:16.73 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 02:30:16.97 | Councilmember Cox | One item that we heard about tonight was Laura Tanaka with the PG&E issue. |
| 02:30:22.49 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:30:24.17 | Councilmember Cox | So I'd like to refer that to the agenda setting committee to refer that for appropriate staff handling and or placement on a future agenda. Great. |
| 02:30:33.32 | Heidi Scoble | OK, thank you. |
| 02:30:34.11 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. And then back in October, we agreed unanimously to adopt a formal resolution regarding the Marinship specific plan. That resolution has not yet come to us, so I'd like to, and I don't see it on future agenda items. |
| 02:30:50.60 | Heidi Scoble | Okay, so I don't remember that being unanimous, but it might have been. I personally would like to have those issues worked out through the general plan committee. I don't think, I mean, we have already said, as have been stated in numerous emails, that our intent through the general plan process is to replace the marinship specific plan. And I know Miss Bushmaker asked us to adopt a resolution, but I feel like we are moving forward with a planning process that will replace that. And it would be, I mean, we've stated our intent and I think it would be premature to adopt any formal resolution on that. |
| 02:31:35.57 | Councilmember Cox | So the council gave direction to do that. If you want to change that, then it should come back on the agenda. for the council to change their mind. But right now there's council direction to adopt that resolution, and it hasn't been placed on the agenda. And I'm happy to cooperate with you to move that item forward and to enunciate whatever resolution may be appropriate through the general plan committee. |
| 02:32:01.93 | Heidi Scoble | Okay. would it be appropriate to we can make a motion to remove it from future agenda items or to do something else is that correct tonight |
| 02:32:11.99 | Councilmember Cox | It's not on future agenda items. I'm asking that it be placed on future agenda items since its council direction has not yet been carried out. |
| 02:32:19.46 | Heidi Scoble | Okay, so my preference is to let that issue. We have, at a past council meeting, we indicated our agreement that the marineship specific plan would be replaced through the general plan process and subsequent zoning decisions. |
| 02:32:40.78 | Councilmember Cox | So our operating protocols say that once council direction is given to carry out an item, that that item will be placed on the agenda. And it's not been placed on the agenda. |
| 02:32:50.77 | Heidi Scoble | I yes, I understand that so I'm actually I do not remember agreeing to that or having a vote on it. Maybe we did but I'm actually suggesting an alternative course of action. |
| 02:32:58.68 | Vice Mayor Withey | Thank you. |
| 02:32:58.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:32:58.76 | Vice Mayor Withey | Thank you. |
| 02:32:58.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:33:02.87 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 02:33:02.93 | Vice Mayor Withey | I think we should maybe have staff to go back and check the records there. I do not |
| 02:33:03.22 | Heidi Scoble | That's not a thing. |
| 02:33:03.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:33:04.00 | Heidi Scoble | I think we should. |
| 02:33:11.24 | Vice Mayor Withey | I think we gave direction to staff but I don't know that we gave direction to staff to come back with a resolution. So maybe staff could check on that. You may very well be right, but that's not what I recall. |
| 02:33:24.33 | Marcia Raines | . |
| 02:33:24.36 | Heidi Scoble | Right. |
| 02:33:24.57 | Marcia Raines | What was that? I'm sorry. Okay. |
| 02:33:29.00 | Heidi Scoble | Okay. |
| 02:33:30.03 | Councilmember Cox | check on the direction but if we it's fine with me to continue to handle this as a future agenda item okay to clarify what staff said and then we'll decide how to calendar it okay that's okay with you yep that sounds and I'm also happy to work with you on the committee to an appropriate resolution whatever it might be |
| 02:33:40.34 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. Sounds great. |
| 02:33:51.04 | Heidi Scoble | Okay. |
| 02:33:52.78 | Councilmember Cox | And then I'd like to ask that we put the BAC composition slash appointment on a future agenda item list. |
| 02:33:53.56 | Heidi Scoble | And then I'd like to... |
| 02:34:03.16 | Heidi Scoble | Okay, can I make a friendly amendment to that? To have a broader, maybe at our next council meeting, a broader discussion of the BAC and hospitality. |
| 02:34:14.03 | Councilmember Cox | That's what I mean by composition. That's totally fine with me. I just, by taking no action, we actually are taking action. |
| 02:34:14.15 | Heidi Scoble | That's what I mean. |
| 02:34:21.27 | Councilmember Cox | to continue. these terms that have been termed out, we also have But... a member of the BAC that's supposed to be a Sausalito resident who's actually not a Sausalito resident and so these are items that various Residents have raised concerns about and I just want to be sure we address them. However, we decide to address them |
| 02:34:40.71 | Heidi Scoble | Okay, and I would just say that there have been statements that that person is not the suspect a resident I don't think any of us know if that's actually supported but in any case okay so at our next meeting we will talk about those two committees Anything else? |
| 02:34:56.38 | Unknown | Anything else? Thank you. |
| 02:34:57.18 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 02:34:57.25 | Joe Burns | Yeah. |
| 02:34:57.30 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 02:34:57.35 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:57.46 | Heidi Scoble | Yeah. |
| 02:34:57.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:58.65 | Joe Burns | I'm not sure. And it doesn't have to be soon but before we get into the next fire season that we talk about a policy for generators both the noise and maybe placement on public lands right-of-ways and fees that type of thing so basically an overall policy on generators. |
| 02:35:12.62 | Vice Mayor Withey | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:35:14.58 | Bree Gill | Thank you. |
| 02:35:20.16 | Vice Mayor Withey | great reading the minutes from december 10th which we approved tonight i was actually just going to bring that up about generators so |
| 02:35:20.30 | Joe Burns | Great. Thank you. |
| 02:35:31.38 | Heidi Scoble | And, There was something else. |
| 02:35:36.21 | Joe Burns | There is something else. There was a email that's been sent a couple times on a dog barking. I think it's even gone to the city attorney that at least should maybe hit the agenda to go to legislation or however you want to. |
| 02:35:51.51 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:35:51.99 | Joe Burns | but it give to legislative I guess just to give bite to the to an ordinance regulating dog barking. |
| 02:35:53.30 | Sandra Bushmaker | the legislative. |
| 02:35:54.05 | Councilmember Cox | I get it. |
| 02:35:54.50 | Sandra Bushmaker | Just. |
| 02:35:54.97 | Councilmember Cox | give |
| 02:35:55.41 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 02:35:57.44 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 02:36:00.98 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 02:36:01.00 | Heidi Scoble | You mean teeth? |
| 02:36:02.36 | Joe Burns | Teeth. |
| 02:36:03.14 | Heidi Scoble | That's good. Thank you. Did you want to, there was also some legislation that you wanted us to have direction on. Shoot, I can't remember. |
| 02:36:15.14 | Joe Burns | if we should, court C. |
| 02:36:16.79 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 02:36:16.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:36:18.73 | Heidi Scoble | Yes. Thank you. |
| 02:36:21.72 | Councilmember Cox | I mean, doesn't agenda setting typically refer those items to whatever appropriate committee? Yeah, we haven't put it on there yet. Oh. |
| 02:36:21.75 | Heidi Scoble | I mean, he has an agenda set. |
| 02:36:26.89 | Heidi Scoble | Yeah, it's just that Council Member Burns received a request for support of that. |
| 02:36:33.18 | Joe Burns | I think we've all been asked individually if we want to support measure C. Should we do it as a council? Oh, I haven't. |
| 02:36:37.36 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 02:36:37.40 | Councilmember Cox | Oh, I haven't. I haven't. Yeah, I haven't asked. I've been asked. I haven't been asked. |
| 02:36:42.86 | Joe Burns | You both missed the last MCC. |
| 02:36:43.41 | Heidi Scoble | We'll be right back. Thank you. |
| 02:36:44.77 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 02:36:44.79 | Heidi Scoble | Oh, that's right. it all right so why don't we put that just let's put it on future agenda items as a discussion |
| 02:36:52.69 | Councilmember Cox | And then I'm not asking for SB50 to be on future agenda items at this time, because the MCCMC legislative committee voted to remain neutral for the moment, although League of California Cities has asked us to oppose unless amended. So I'm not at this time asking that we place it on future agenda items. |
| 02:37:13.66 | Heidi Scoble | Okay, I do think at some point in the next couple months, it would be good to get some of the housing stuff on our agenda when we have a light agenda, just so that we're all informed to the extent, I mean, I know you are very involved, but I'd like to have, make sure we're all up to speed. |
| 02:37:25.36 | Councilmember Cox | I totally agree. |
| 02:37:30.23 | Councilmember Cox | Totally agree and the city attorney is working on a report on the ADU legislation for the legislative committee |
| 02:37:36.65 | Heidi Scoble | Okay. Great. Anything else? Okay, so we are going to adjourn tonight's council meeting in recognition of Toyome Tanaka. So thank you. And we are adjourned. |
| 02:37:50.16 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 02:37:59.68 | Sandra Bushmaker | I don't know. |
| 02:38:00.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:38:00.29 | Sandra Bushmaker | All right. |
| 02:38:00.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:38:00.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:38:00.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:38:00.59 | Unknown | How are you? |
| 02:38:01.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:38:01.60 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:38:01.66 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |