| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:14.44 | Walfred Solorzano | I am admitting members of the public |
| 00:00:28.40 | Walfred Solorzano | Madam Mayor, all members of the public have been admitted. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mayor Kielman and council members. This meeting has been held pursuant to government code section 54953E. And in light of the declared state of emergency, the regular meeting of the city council for July 12th, 2022 will be conducted telephonically through Zoom and broadcast live on the city's website and cable TV channel 27. Welcome. |
| 00:00:54.45 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you, Serge. Welcome everybody. It's Tuesday, July 12th, 2022. This is regular city council meeting. for the city of Sausalito. Serge, can you please call the roll? |
| 00:01:04.43 | Walfred Solorzano | Council Member Sobieski. |
| 00:01:10.62 | Walfred Solorzano | and council member Soviente you've been Thank you. provided a couple of functions. |
| 00:01:15.33 | Unknown | I'm going to go. Thank you. |
| 00:01:16.54 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah. |
| 00:01:16.81 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:01:16.83 | Councilmember Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:01:19.07 | Walfred Solorzano | Council Member Hoffman. You are a co-host now, council member, help me. |
| 00:01:28.34 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Thank you. Yes, here. Thank you. |
| 00:01:32.86 | Walfred Solorzano | Council member, the lentils. |
| 00:01:37.16 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:01:37.18 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:01:37.20 | Councilmember Cleveland | care of. |
| 00:01:40.94 | Walfred Solorzano | Vice Mayor Blaustein. |
| 00:01:42.56 | Melissa Blaustein | here. |
| 00:01:42.97 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:01:43.54 | Walfred Solorzano | and Mayor Kelman. |
| 00:01:44.83 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:01:44.84 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you very much, sir. by all members of president, we have a quorum. We've had a handful of items today in closed session. Item D1 is conference with labor negotiators pursuant to section 5497.6. or employee organization, SEIU Local 1021, SOSO Police Association. Item D two, Congress of legal counsel, Anticipated litigation, significant exposure to litigation pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9B. Item D3, conference of legal counsel, real property negotiations pursuant to California government code section 54956.8. properties of Bank of America building. Item D4, Conference of Legal Counsel, Anticipated Litigation, Initiation of Litigation Pursuant to California Government Code Section, 54956.9 C. Item D five, conference of legal counsel, existing litigation pursuant to California government 54956.9 D1. And the name of the case is a Saucena Marine County chapter of the California Homeless Union. versus the city of Sausalito. Before we get started, I'm just gonna note, we have a very packed schedule and I anticipate having a lot of public comment. So the city clerk is gonna set the clock for one minute so that we can make sure that everybody gets heard tonight and nobody is left off the docket. So with that said, we'll go ahead and open up to public comment. on closed session items. Clerk, will you please just explain? I see a bunch of hands, but I think just for the public, if you could explain how to make public comment, |
| 00:03:12.83 | Walfred Solorzano | Sure, video or audio public comment participation is limited to one minute per speaker. If you would like to make a comment, please raise your hand in the Zoom application and you will be called upon when it's your time to speak. To raise your hand from a phone, press start nine and each speaker will be notified when the time has elapsed. Madam Mayor, it looks like we have five commenters right now. I will unmute sewer coordinator iPad. |
| 00:03:38.76 | Ian Sobieski | THANK YOU. |
| 00:03:44.35 | Ian Sobieski | Pat, we can't see your face. We can't hear you either. Okay, you're on mute though. |
| 00:03:54.47 | Ian Sobieski | You are so on mute. |
| 00:04:03.94 | Ian Sobieski | Surgery able to help him? |
| 00:04:06.37 | Walfred Solorzano | Madam Mayor, we have sent out a request for him to unmute on his end. |
| 00:04:12.36 | Unknown | I did press it. I'm muted now. |
| 00:04:14.62 | Walfred Solorzano | It's a great day. |
| 00:04:14.68 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:04:14.81 | Walfred Solorzano | from. |
| 00:04:15.18 | Ian Sobieski | I hear you. Thank you. |
| 00:04:16.78 | Unknown | You can hear me okay. Thank you for having me council members. Good evening, Mayor. Keller, Vice Mayor Blaustein, Council Members James Hoffman, Cleveland Knowles, and Sobieski. Um, Right now, what's going on is the 10% reduction in my pay again, which was somewhat voluntary in the past, which I never should have agreed to, is being imposed upon me again. The city does not need to siphon away money from the backs of your employees in order to close your budget deficit when you just paid off. You still have $5.1 million in reserves, and I'm paid from the Sewer Enterprise Fund, which is fully funded. It absolutely makes no sense at all. You're gonna create problems for your operations maintenance. And our job really, is to request that you rethink your decision regarding your most valuable asset, your SEIU membership labor force. Where are the folks who keep the city flowing and vital. Thank you. |
| 00:05:23.19 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker is Ali. Ali, you've been unmuted and asked to share your video. |
| 00:05:33.68 | Unknown | Hi, council members. Thanks for taking the call. I came on last time, I think I was in my eighth month and I mentioned all some 16 members of our staff that had left. I'm in my ninth month now and we've had another member leave. So I just don't want this to be the trend for Sausalito where we come on on board and we make our friendships. with our coworkers, and then they leave based on on pay and furloughs. And I think 36 hours is a little heavy handed. I came from the county of Marin, which was 37 and a half. I don't know if that's a compromise. That's something that we'd have to negotiate with the team. THE FAMILY. but it's something to think about. Thanks for taking the call. |
| 00:06:27.50 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:06:27.51 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you, Holly. Our next speaker is Kenneth Henry. Kenneth, you've been unmuted. Nice to share your video. |
| 00:06:36.88 | Unknown | Mayor, vice mayor, and city council members, thank you for your service. I wanna let you know I've been here for about 17 years as your public servant buildings inspector. Wanna start with our mission statement. The city of Sausalito serves its people. Our core values represent quality public service. I'm the first to arrive and the last to leave. I work at 7.30 to 5.30. Monday through Friday, although Pat Guasco beats me to work every day. My biggest problem is I have three hours to the public in person a week. That's unacceptable. I used to meet with the public on a regular basis. Now I can't go for lunch without being stopped and talked to because I've been here so long. We value our service to the city and currently working on three hours to the public open at the counter, that's all you see at the counter, three hours, that's unacceptable. We can do more and we're gonna need your help to provide that service to the public. Virtual appointments are on Tuesday and Thursday. Currently I'm the building inspector on Monday, Wednesdays, Thursdays. I'm so sorry. |
| 00:07:44.50 | Ian Sobieski | I'm so sorry. I think your time is up, but we really appreciate all your hard work and your comments tonight. |
| 00:07:52.13 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker is Augie. Augie, you've been unmuted and asked to share your video. |
| 00:08:06.62 | Unknown | Good evening. Can everyone hear me? |
| 00:08:08.21 | Ian Sobieski | Yes, welcome. |
| 00:08:09.66 | Unknown | Good evening, City Council Mayor Kellman, City Manager Zapata, and residents of Sausalito. My name is Augie and I've been a reference and text services librarian for the city and a union supporter since 2007. In fiscal year 2021, we agreed in good faith to a 10% furlough during the early days of This year, there is no excuse. The city has $8 million to spend on a deficit of 3 million. While I appreciate the Council's efforts to identify cost-saving measures for the upcoming budget, I'm opposed to yet another 10% furlough that will be borne on the backs of your frontline service workers. |
| 00:11:22.83 | Unknown | going to put more pressure. on the city staff, and that's fine. to complete our duties. |
| 00:11:27.62 | Serge Avila | Thank you. |
| 00:11:29.29 | Unknown | Also, Friday is always a very busy day for us. Thank you very much. Thank you, John. |
| 00:11:36.75 | Walfred Solorzano | Madam Mayor, I see no other hand phrase. |
| 00:11:39.57 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, so let me just ask any other public comments on any of the closed agenda items? Okay, I don't see any hands. Yeah. So with that, We'll go ahead and close public comment, and we will adjourn to closed session. Thank you, everybody, for joining us. |
| 00:12:07.85 | Ian Sobieski | We're coming back from closed session. We have no closed session announcements. We'll go ahead and approve the agenda, get started here in the open session. Do we have a motion and a second to approve the agenda? |
| 00:12:19.71 | Kristen | Thank you. |
| 00:12:19.73 | Ian Sobieski | MOVED. |
| 00:12:20.24 | Kristen | Thank you. |
| 00:12:21.11 | Eva | Thank you. |
| 00:12:21.15 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:12:21.26 | Eva | Okay. |
| 00:12:21.33 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:12:21.49 | Eva | Thank you. |
| 00:12:22.41 | Ian Sobieski | Ms. Father Ross. |
| 00:12:23.00 | Eva | Thank you. |
| 00:12:23.83 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Sobieski. |
| 00:12:24.00 | Eva | members of the church. |
| 00:12:31.66 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes. Council member Glibb. Knowles. |
| 00:12:34.68 | Jan Johnson | Yes. |
| 00:12:37.03 | Walfred Solorzano | Council Member Hoffman. |
| 00:12:38.48 | Jan Johnson | Yes. |
| 00:12:39.41 | Walfred Solorzano | VICE MAYOR BLOESTEIN. |
| 00:12:40.94 | Jan Johnson | Thank you. |
| 00:12:40.96 | Ian Sobieski | Yes. |
| 00:12:41.75 | Walfred Solorzano | Mayor Kelman. Thank you. |
| 00:12:42.70 | Ian Sobieski | Yes. |
| 00:12:42.98 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Welcome to the |
| 00:12:45.08 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, great, thank you. We will go ahead and move to a special presentation And I do have some announcements, but given that we're running a little behind, I'm going to wait until committee reports to provide those. So instead, I would just like to welcome Marshall Now, the fire inspector, who will be giving us a special presentation on the LRAD sirens tonight. So welcome. Thank you. |
| 00:13:10.02 | Unknown | here. I'm happy to see you. |
| 00:13:12.40 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. Welcome, Battalion Chief Hilliard as well. Welcome, thank you. |
| 00:13:16.55 | Unknown | Thank you for having us, but we really appreciate you taking the time out to listen to our presentation tonight for some of you we have, we'll remember, recall that we did this presentation or a presentation about evacuation back in 2017 when the big fires happened in Santa Rosa and Sonoma County and one of the things that we wanted to do for the city is help with evacuation it's not our primary role during a wildfire however in with planning this is a good place for a fire to be involved in and so with that we talked about the ability to notify the public when this happens and how to evacuate. And it took a long time to kind of narrow it down. And it took quite a bit of money, which we were able to get through the MWPA, through a grant and also our Measure U Fund. So with that, I'm going to turn this over to Marshall and I'll be present after the presentation for any questions. |
| 00:14:22.60 | Unknown | Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:14:23.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:14:23.98 | Unknown | Thank you. and then follow my presentation here. Thank you. So as Chief Hilliard said, we've been working on this for quite some time, but this is the Southern Moran Emergency Notification Network. which expands over 420-7 region county. but specifically we want to call out LREP. LRAD stands for Long Range Pre-Support Device. And we will stop here for a minute to look at the components of where this comes from. Because it has been purchased in the last two years since this whole process started, by the parent company genesis. This is a benefit to us because Genesis also just recently last year purchased Zone Haven. Now, Zone Haven is the Marine County platform that has recently been adopted to break up all of our small communities and neighborhoods in this specific zone. And you'll see an example of one of those maps in my presentation. Okay. THAT PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN and not only a partnership with all one company between Elrod and Zonehaven is turning this into a multi-agency algorithm. |
| 00:15:30.25 | Michael Mendel | Thank you. |
| 00:15:30.80 | Unknown | allowing for law, fire, and obstinate services to utilize this in one of those wide-scale wildfire evacuation scenarios |
| 00:15:42.55 | Mary Wagner | Madam Mayor, I apologize for interrupting. I'm having a very difficult time hearing the presentation. It might be helpful for preservation of the record if you get a little bit closer to the mic. |
| 00:15:43.29 | Unknown | I'M POSITIVE. |
| 00:15:51.68 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:15:51.71 | Michael Mendel | Absolutely. |
| 00:15:52.51 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. Apologies again for interrupting. Of course, I'll make a question. |
| 00:15:52.54 | Michael Mendel | Thank you. |
| 00:15:59.14 | Unknown | and then better to have microphone up. Can you hear me better now? Hello? |
| 00:16:05.43 | Ian Sobieski | Yes, much better. |
| 00:16:06.36 | Unknown | Okay, excellent, we'll go with that. I don't mind a little. little necklace going around here. So like I was saying, this has really become more of a multi-agency outdoor notification network, allowing for law, fire, and office of emergency services to utilize this platform for a wide-scale evacuation situation, much more than just sirens. It has the ability to put out voice messages, this time-sensitive, time-critical information, kind of blanketed out to the community through this LRAD technology that we were initially looking forward to. So I like to bring this all in, in the beginning, because you can see how future expansion of this, both physically throughout the city of Sausalito or Marin County, as well as the capabilities of this system |
| 00:16:27.24 | Serge Avila | as the |
| 00:16:51.26 | Unknown | having both physical and technological platform with Zonehaven are kind of endless. We'll see where it goes from here, but we're at a great point right now to utilize this platform, so. Oh, I lost control of my presentation. So with that, I wanna back out a little bit and look at the whole Southern region. Initially Southern Marin Fire District went out and we observed this is the map that was presented to the council in previous meetings where we identified five or six locations alongside the existing five in the city of No Valley. primarily focusing on two in the city of Sausalito. Now these are two that we've prepared or with here in 2022 and install. And that's what the rest of this presentation will cover, but there is future planning for other locations such as Wolfback Bridge and some of the lower portions or Southern portions of Sausalito. into 2023 and 2024. to present. So specifically looking at these two sites, the one on the left, we have the access road leading up to the water tower alongside this bridge. This is a critical location that we've identified strategically that provides us multiple different opportunities and characteristics that we're looking for in our site selection. But specifically here, we have it looking to where we'd be broadcasting into the communities off this ridge here, being able to reach both towards MLK Park and then also back towards the Rodeo side where those Oscillator Towers are. And then secondly, this is that map I was referring to. This is where you see all the different neighborhoods broken into individual zones. That's what you'd see from the Zone Haven side. But this is the old fire station number two up on Spencer nearest the 101 corridor. Now this specific location is also very strategic and it allows us that first coverage into the Wolfback Bridge area from down below broadcasting over the 101 corridor, specifically aimed at their single entrance and exit path. In the event of a wide scale evacuation, we'd be able to target this area and broadcast message there. But in addition, we're able to broadcast down towards that Glen Drive area into that very steep kind of canyon area there, reaching a whole different area into the city that we wouldn't be able to normally. So with that, I like to highlight the fact that LRAD gives us a lot of different capabilities. One is that each horn that you'll see in a moment in some of the pictures are broadcasted out in a 60 degree range. And we can build that up to 360 degrees for full coverage. But we can be very strategic with our implementation here. So here's an example demonstrated on the map where we've selected two 60 degree horns. One pointed to the northwest, the other one to the Southeast off of that Cypress Ridge access road, primarily focusing on the communities that would be immediately at risk for a wildfire coming into their community where we want to evacuate them quickly and not necessarily hyper-focused on broadcasting this out into the open space. And then with that, Elrod's big other claim to fame is that they have the ability to broadcast a 70 degree decibel message out to about half mile without any sort of loss of sound. So that's equivalent to a conversation in a room. And that's depicted here in green, where you see this kind of blanket of information where we can actually broadcast that immediate information across that valley and under those homes along the other side. So with that, this is a depiction of that installation. This one's in the city of Mill Valley, but where they've actually aligned the horns pointing in opposite directions. And that can be built out and mildly adjusted depending on where we're really trying to target that. And that comes to what I'll talk about a little later about sound sculpting and how we continue to monitor the coverage that these provide. To the left is an example of one that's preexisting in the town of Tiburon that we're planning on upgrading. And then at the top, there's the rotating beacon. It rotates in a 360 degree fashion, but that's subject to mechanical failure where it can actually get locked in one direction. Whereas LRAD allows us to make sure that we get the audio to where we're aiming. |
| 00:21:09.05 | Unknown | So moving back to these two specific sites, there's some critical characteristics that we had to really check off to make these functional sites where we wanted to. So one is having some sort of emergency vehicle access or being able to get to it in a true emergency. These each have their own built-in redundancies and the first responders would have the capability of utilizing these both remotely, but also in person at them. Secondly, it would be some sort of alternate electrical source. So whether it's hardwired to a building with a generator or has good solar exposure to run it off solar panels, these are able to be still standalone devices that can still function during like a public safety power shutdown that we see when these high winds pick up during fire season. And then obviously one of the biggest components we have is coverages and clearances. We're trying to really make sure we can get those get to those communities that we want to, but trying to conceal these at the same time. So it's a fine dance, and that really makes it a very strategic pinpoint precision type of location around the map. So that really limits our footprint of where we can be. And because of that, we try and minimize the infrastructure here. We're limiting it to just a standard, typical service pole. It's nothing more, nothing less. It's basically no cement footprint, no fencing. It's very simple and standalone. And that's for that exact reason there. With that, I just want to back up a little bit and show the timeline of where this has been as it moved through a lot of those planning phases that Chief Hilliard referred to initially, all the way back to 2019 when it was first referred to to the City Council during those lessons learned, to 2020 when Southern Marin released their wildland urban interface risk and hazard assessment, and then following through 2020 we had all those lightning strikes and we held countless Zoom, we call them living room meetings, where we encourage neighborhoods to come in from Sausalito, meet with us on Zoom. We met with Sausalito PD and we discussed evacuation and LRAD all at the same time. And then we built that into our evacuation platform that we've been doing for the last two years, along with our Did You Hear It campaign, where we reach out to the public to encourage them to give us feedback about what they heard or what they didn't hear. And then most recently last month, we held both an evacuation drill in the Rodeo neighborhood as well as up near Spencer. So both have been able to be able to reach with community outreach, which is one of our biggest components of all this. And then we want wanna continue that obviously into the future as we expand these into other locations, like I mentioned, the other side of Wolfback Bridge, as well as south to the southern part of the city. AND I THINK IT'S A GOOD And with that, I'm gonna kind of wrap my presentation here. I just wanna highlight that because the funding was secured through Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority, both sides went through extensive environmental review They were deemed, based on their installation, to be exempt when we filed those NOEs with the county clerk's office. So they've been posted on there since the end of last year, as well as our website and the Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority's website for public review. And with that, I believe I'll leave it back to the council for any questions they have for us. |
| 00:24:24.44 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you very much, Inspector. Now, wonderful to see this coming to our community. I know you've been hard at work. HELPING US WITH EVACUATION ROUNDS, AS WELL AS OUR NEIGHBORING COMMUNITY. So thank you and thank you to you and Chief Hilliard for taking the time tonight. Any questions from council members before we open it to public comment? Okay, well, let's go ahead and then open to public comment. Serge, will you please let people know how to Thank you. |
| 00:24:49.13 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:24:49.25 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:24:49.28 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:24:49.32 | Ian Sobieski | comments. |
| 00:24:50.48 | Walfred Solorzano | Sure, video or audio public comment participation is limited to three. to three minutes per speaker. If you would like to make a comment, please raise your hand in the Zoom application. You will be called upon when is your time to speak. To raise your hand from a phone, press start 9, and each speaker will be notified when the time has elapsed. And my apologies, Madam Mayor, are we within three minutes or one minute? |
| 00:25:13.09 | Ian Sobieski | We're going to stay with one minute for the evening and just an announcement for members of the public. Because we have such important issues tonight, we want to make sure everybody gets heard. We are going to have one minute of public comment this evening so that everybody has an opportunity to weigh in. |
| 00:25:26.80 | Walfred Solorzano | One minute first. And Madam Mayor, I see no hands raised. |
| 00:25:30.74 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, so we will close a public comment on this special presentation, the fire district presentation on the LRAD sirens. Any comment from city council before we move on? |
| 00:25:41.68 | Councilmember Cleveland | Thank you. |
| 00:25:44.90 | Councilmember Cleveland | Just to echo your thanks, Mayor, and thanks to the Southern Rhyme Fire District for all their work. Great. Good to see you back. |
| 00:25:54.29 | Ian Sobieski | And we will unmute council member Sobieski, who I'm sure would like to also thank Southern River Fire. |
| 00:25:59.38 | Councilmember Sobieski | My miming is very good. That's exactly what I was trying to say, thank you. |
| 00:26:04.71 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. Well, thank you again. We both look forward to seeing you and also hope that we don't have to see you under those circumstances. So we will thank you for your time tonight. |
| 00:26:15.90 | Unknown | Thank you very much. THANK YOU. |
| 00:26:18.59 | Ian Sobieski | All right, just move on real quickly to the minutes of the previous meeting. We have two meeting minutes to approve June 14th and June 17th. Let's take some public comment. on either Meeting minutes. Sir, just confirm we don't have public comment on the meeting minutes. |
| 00:26:37.97 | Walfred Solorzano | Madam Mayor, you are correct or no, hands raised. |
| 00:26:40.62 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, we'll close the public comment on the meeting minutes and then ask my colleagues if there's a motion and a second or any comments. make a motion to approve a minute. |
| 00:26:50.02 | Councilmember Cleveland | motion. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:26:52.03 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 00:26:53.25 | Councilmember Cleveland | break, please call the roll. |
| 00:26:55.27 | Walfred Solorzano | Council Member Sobieski? Council members, move to let no. |
| 00:26:58.83 | Alice Merrill | Yes. |
| 00:26:59.71 | Walfred Solorzano | President Henry Hoffman. |
| 00:27:00.96 | Alice Merrill | Thank you. |
| 00:27:01.03 | Ian Sobieski | Yes. |
| 00:27:01.68 | Walfred Solorzano | Vice Mayor Blavstein? |
| 00:27:03.09 | Ian Sobieski | Yes. |
| 00:27:03.68 | Walfred Solorzano | Mayor Kellner. |
| 00:27:04.76 | Ian Sobieski | Yes. |
| 00:27:05.43 | Walfred Solorzano | Motion passes. |
| 00:27:06.78 | Ian Sobieski | Great, thanks everybody. We'll move on to the consent calendar. Matters listed under the consent calendar are considered routine and non-controversial, require no discussion, are expected to have unanimous council support and may be enacted by the council in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of consent calendar items. However, before the council votes on a motion to adopt the consent calendar items, Council members, city staff, or members of the public may request the specific items to be removed from the consent calendar for separate action. Items removed from the consent calendar will be discussed later on the agenda and public comment will be heard on any item that was removed from the consent calendar. So tonight we do have eight items on consent. Item 3A, receive and file the report regarding the shared needs assessment study for shared services corporation, Norwood Mill Valley. M3B, adopted resolution amending the revised and restated master fee schedule adopted in fiscal year 2008-2009 to adjust parking rates in the downtown area. and with 3C, renewal of the emergency declaration Item 3D, First Amendment to Legal Services Agreement with Burke Williams and Sorenson for City Attorney Services. Item 3E, Reports to the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, BCDC. 3F is receive and file the SOSA Police Department's crime and traffic report calendar year 2022. Item 3G, NHA advisors analysis related to financial approaches as to give Saucedo may consider for pension challenges, recommendation to direct the city manager to work with NHA to explore a private placement. for potential pension cost savings and 3h approval of the 5k housing and social services contract for marineship in camden Any comments from my colleagues on these items. I will just say, I wanna note and just take a moment here to really thank our city attorney, Mary Wagner, for 20 plus years of service to the city of Sausalito. We are exceedingly grateful for her service, her patience, her institutional knowledge, her insight, I think I've known you since I first started serving on the Planning Commission a very long time ago. We understand as time goes by, you want to pursue other interests and focus on other areas of law. We appreciate that. So I just want to take a moment to acknowledge that and thank you for your service and your time. And of course, welcome our new city attorney from Brooke Williams, Gregory Rubins, who I believe is with us tonight as well. So Mary, thank you sincerely. And Greg, welcome to Sausalito. THANK YOU. |
| 00:29:26.18 | Mary Wagner | Mayor. |
| 00:29:27.47 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, my pleasure. |
| 00:29:28.04 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:29:28.46 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:29:30.44 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, any other comments or thoughts on the extended calendar before we open to public comment? Okay, Serge, will you please hit the timer and comment here on the consent items. |
| 00:29:43.38 | Walfred Solorzano | Sure, Madam Mayor, our first speaker is Arthur Bruce. Arthur, you've been unmuted and asked to share your video. |
| 00:29:54.86 | Ian Sobieski | Welcome, Arthur. |
| 00:30:03.17 | Walfred Solorzano | Arthur, you're only two onion on your end. |
| 00:30:13.86 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, Arthur, we're gonna move on to another member of the public and come back to you. Do we have any other members of the public? |
| 00:30:20.45 | Walfred Solorzano | Madam Mayor, we initially had, oh, we do have SIN, these eggings? Thank you. |
| 00:30:26.99 | Unknown | I'm going to go. |
| 00:30:27.32 | Walfred Solorzano | Oh, Arthur just pop up his video on a different device. |
| 00:30:27.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:30:32.49 | Walfred Solorzano | Go ahead, Arthur. |
| 00:30:39.88 | Jeffrey Chase | Look at the screen. |
| 00:30:46.24 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, gentlemen, will one of you be giving public comments? |
| 00:30:47.93 | Jeffrey Chase | Hello? Look. Hi, this is Jeff Jacob from the Marin Ship Encampments. And I'd like to talk about 3H, which is Five Keys has, uh, prepared a proposal. for a million and a half dollars to administer and be ambassadors to this camp. We've just gone through. urban alchemy. You might have read the front page. Of the Pacific sun and what happened with Urban Alchemy? I DON'T WANT TO paint them all with one brush because they were all different. By the end. Urban Alchemy spent their time in their cars. and on their cell phones and they weren't able really to to manage to relate with the camp, and they were brought here It was said to help people with housing as well as to manage the camp. |
| 00:31:53.00 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you, Mr. Chase. Your public comment is on. |
| 00:31:56.07 | Unknown | I love it. |
| 00:31:56.32 | Jeffrey Chase | Thank you. |
| 00:31:57.44 | Ian Sobieski | Yes. Yes, just a reminder, everybody, because we have a very full agenda, we're going to be holding people to one minute of comment. So thank you for helping us along tonight. |
| 00:32:09.15 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker is Cindy, I think. Cindy's, you've been unmuted and asked to share your video. |
| 00:32:22.61 | Ian Sobieski | You need to unmute. ON YOUR SIDE. Thank you. |
| 00:32:26.04 | Cindy | Okay. |
| 00:32:26.28 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:32:26.38 | Cindy | . |
| 00:32:26.43 | Ian Sobieski | I would say. |
| 00:32:26.51 | Cindy | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:32:26.93 | Ian Sobieski | Okay. |
| 00:32:26.95 | Cindy | OK. Thank you. |
| 00:32:27.36 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:32:27.83 | Cindy | Yeah, I just wanted to quickly talk about obviously the issue of hiring another management group at the camp instead of just investing in the individual lives, which has never been Many people, it's always been kind of a core group of about 40, but when we actually made a list one time, it got up to like 167 people who actually came through the camp, needed help, weren't really assisted. Urban Alchemy, when they arrived, had no idea what they were there for. We asked them several times. In the end, it gelled into just being people who called the police on us. Now, I think everybody knows I think I was the most arrested person at the camp for being drunk and screaming. So whenever they talked about escalated crime, I don't know what that was. I don't think anybody ever reported any crime other than somebody being drunk and loud. And so they never helped to improve any conditions at the camp. In the very beginning, it was very hard to even get them to pick up a broom. And then at the end, it was very hard to even get a broom from them. And so it was very unhelpful. And I would just encourage the town. I know everybody has like their own private agendas. But if you really want to encourage people to like improve their situation, invest in them personally. |
| 00:33:29.67 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you very much for your comments and thank you for making the time. |
| 00:33:30.27 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:33:34.60 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker is Vicki Nichols. Vicki, you've been unmuted. and ask you share your video. |
| 00:33:44.12 | Ian Sobieski | Hi, Vicki, we're waiting for you to unmute. |
| 00:33:47.46 | Vicki Nichols | Pardon me to, I think I've finally gotten it. Hello, counsel, in the evening. I don't wanna pull this item, but I have a question on item 3A, which is the needs assessment that was done for potential combined Mill Valley and Sausalito public works or public yard. It was indicated there was an attachment there with the needs assessment. That also was indicated that we've committed or either paid the money for already. That wasn't attached that I could find. And I would appreciate that if items are on the consent calendar, we get what you're looking at or, whatever you're considering, um, This should have been attached and I'd like to work later to get a copy, but it was not available for the public. Thank you. |
| 00:34:32.50 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you, Vicki. I'll just make a note of that to the city manager that I did not see that attachment, but it is in fact referenced attachment one draft facility needs assessment at the end of that staff report. I'll make that available. Yeah, sorry, search. |
| 00:34:44.72 | Walfred Solorzano | I think. Our next speaker is, um, and in 4 6 7 5 phone number 4 1 5 ending 4 6 7 5 you've been unmuted and that's to you. Share your video. |
| 00:35:02.05 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:35:02.07 | Unknown | Can you all hear me? |
| 00:35:03.87 | Ian Sobieski | Yes. |
| 00:35:05.17 | Unknown | I still go to tell you that you all are guilty of abusing human beings. You all are guilty of people dying in a camp when you put people in a sewer in each field. You are responsible. You, Mrs. Hoffman, You serve as a judge at some point. It would try. Every pile of your homes of office. Also. every single one of you in this panel. You should feel remorses. People have died because of your decisions. You are useless at this point. And now you're going to use some other money to be wasted again? to you. |
| 00:35:52.54 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:35:52.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:35:53.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:35:53.16 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:35:53.32 | Unknown | you |
| 00:35:53.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:35:53.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:35:54.38 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:35:54.39 | Unknown | I can make. You're useless. You have no humanity in you. How can you do that? keep wasting money instead of helping people. |
| 00:36:07.98 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you very much for your time. I'll move on to the next public comment. |
| 00:36:12.55 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker, it's Ethan. Ethan, you've been unmuted and secure your video. |
| 00:36:25.16 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:36:27.57 | Kevin Carroll | Thank you. |
| 00:36:27.59 | Arthur Bruce | You hear me? |
| 00:36:28.13 | Kevin Carroll | Thank you. |
| 00:36:28.52 | Ian Sobieski | WELCOME. |
| 00:36:30.51 | Arthur Bruce | Okay, this is Arthur Bruce. I'm using my son's phone because I'm helping other people. with my other phone. Urban alchemy was an atrocity. This is a money grab. This is absolutely a money grab. I called this new company, Five Keys. They don't even have somebody answering the phone at their main offices that can speak proper English and understand a simple question. This is a pop-up money-grab company. Their business model is garbage. We don't know if these people have had any kind of training, any kind of... Nothing, nothing. The proposal is insane. $1.490 million? THE END OF It's just, this is absolute. I told you guys at City Council before you hired Urban Alchemy that somebody was going to get hurt. If you put a bunch of convicts in charge of vulnerable people, you turn this law... |
| 00:37:30.97 | Ian Sobieski | to a |
| 00:37:31.36 | Arthur Bruce | Thank you. |
| 00:37:32.54 | Ian Sobieski | THANK YOU, MR. BRUCE. So move on to our next speaker, please. |
| 00:37:36.54 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker is Robbie Powelson. Robbie, you've been unmuted and I can share your video. |
| 00:37:41.53 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:37:47.22 | Scott Hanson | Hi, can you hear me? |
| 00:37:48.27 | Unknown | THANK YOU. |
| 00:37:49.68 | Scott Hanson | I'd like to pull consent agenda items 3C, 3D, 3E and 3H. Okay. off the agenda for further discussion. |
| 00:38:07.34 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you, Mr. Townsend. |
| 00:38:11.93 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, search. |
| 00:38:12.14 | Walfred Solorzano | Okay. Madam Mayor, we have no other hands raised. |
| 00:38:16.95 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, thank you everybody. We're gonna close public comment related to the consent calendar. Bring it back up to the council. Any council members wish to remove anything from consent? |
| 00:38:29.90 | Councilmember Cleveland | I'd like a motion to approve the consent calendar if nobody has anything to pull. Do you have a second? |
| 00:38:36.12 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:38:36.14 | Walfred Solorzano | SECOND. |
| 00:38:38.69 | Councilmember Cleveland | Thank you. |
| 00:38:38.71 | Ian Sobieski | OK, please call the roll. |
| 00:38:40.18 | Walfred Solorzano | Chancellor Member Sobieski. Yes. Councilmember Cousin-Noll. |
| 00:38:44.82 | Ian Sobieski | Yes. |
| 00:38:45.81 | Walfred Solorzano | Council Member Hoffman. |
| 00:38:47.09 | Ian Sobieski | Yes. |
| 00:38:47.87 | Walfred Solorzano | Vice Mayor Blassey. |
| 00:38:49.37 | Ian Sobieski | Yes. |
| 00:38:50.16 | Walfred Solorzano | And they are coming. |
| 00:38:51.50 | Ian Sobieski | Yes. |
| 00:38:51.85 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Motion passes. |
| 00:38:53.56 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, thank you everybody. We're gonna move on to our business items, item 4A. Citizens Initiative petition to repeal existing regulations and authorized storefront and non-storefront commercial cannabis businesses in Sausalito. Mary Wagner, our city attorney, will be introducing the item and provide the presentation. I remind everybody we did a continuation of an item we heard on the 28th of June and we gave directions. We will hand it over to |
| 00:39:19.04 | Mary Wagner | THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF |
| 00:39:19.44 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:39:19.49 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. Thank you Mayor Kelman, members of the City Council. I'm actually going to hand it over to my partner, Nick Moscalino to do the presentation in conjunction with the city manager and your interim community development director. And I believe the city clerk is gonna run that presentation for us. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:39:42.31 | Nick Moscalino | Thank you. Thank you, Mayor and Honorable City Council members. Nick Muscolino here to present this report. Tonight we're presenting a report on two citizen-sponsored initiatives. The first was submitted in 2021 and it is entitled Safe Regulation of Cannabis Initiative. For purposes of this presentation, I'll be calling it the 2021 initiative. The second cannabis initiative that we're going to be discussing tonight is also citizen-sponsored. It was submitted in 2022 and is called the safe and fair regulation of cannabis initiative, which I will call the 2022 initiative. Next slide, please. So just a little bit of background before we get into this. The first cannabis initiative was submitted in 2021 The proponents collected 824 valid signatures and last year on July 27th this council voted to submit that initiative to the voters. And just a moment ago on the consent calendar, this council actually took the action of putting it on the ballot. The second initiative, cannabis initiative, the 2022 initiative. was the petition was filed earlier this year. 581 ballot signatures were collected. And then just a few weeks ago on June 28th, this council ordered elections code section 9212 report that discusses both the 2021 initiative and the 2022 initiative. And that is what we are here to present to you tonight. Next slide, please. In addition to the categories that are provided in section 9212, or I'm sorry, Elections Code 9212 provides for a number of categories of information. And the council has requested information on each of those categories, which are listed here. They are information on the city finances, the internal consistency of the land use plan, the use of land and housing infrastructure, The proposed initiatives impact on the city's ability to attract and retain businesses and employment. The proposed initiatives impact on vacant persons of land, and then the proposed initiatives impact on open space traffic congestion traffic and existing business districts. And tonight I'm joined by the city manager, and the Interim Community Development Director in a moment, providing information on each of these topics. Next slide, please. In addition to those topics that I just discussed, which are specifically called out in the elections code, the Council also had the opportunity and took the opportunity to ask for additional information on specific categories of information. And those are listed here. And they included worker protections, age limits, and we're going to have a and parking. the proposed initiatives impact on uses after one year. whether the proposed initiatives impact the government potency, the marketing cannabis, the location of cannabis businesses and buffer zones, security. hours and days of operation as well as the role of the planning commission And we did prepare a the two 2021 and 22. 2022 initiatives that is attached to the staff report and provides an easy reference guide for the council and the residents of the city to compare the two initiatives. Next slide, please. And now we'll be heading it over to the city manager for the next couple of slides. |
| 00:43:24.79 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Nick. Good evening, mayor and council in public. One of the things that has to be considered whenever a dispensary is voted on by the populace is its impact to the city. And when the voters approve, if they do approve what they're looking at on this ballot, potentially you're talking about a monopoly, a business monopoly in our community. And so with respect to cannabis, the one thing the state of California has done is they've attached a 15% tax on all retail cannabis. So that's something that, you know, a lot of people know or maybe don't. But it's important for us all to understand that there's a 15% tax by the state on cannabis. So as it relates to the city and the city's financial impact. Whenever there is a dispensary put into your community, ongoing and costs associated with that application, with that facility, with that service when approved. That includes things like your city clerk who would have to put something on an election ballot and is working toward how that happens. That would include your community development department where we look at various planning, building, and land use applications. That would include your police department which has to look at the security presented for and monitor anything that is submitted by the company or the dispensary that relates to security changes that include the city attorney who has to look at many things that include the construction of this um actual um agenda item and that includes the city manager who has to work with uh the different uh provider dispensary to look at things like you know are there any community issues is there in fact adherence to a community benefit plan there has to be ongoing communication in that regard so with that respect with those respective costs it's important to look at what we call a commercial cannabis business clearance fee on an annual basis. And one of the things that's in the staff report is it could be up to $45,000. It may be lower, but I would not recommend starting lower until we actually see what the costs are and how we recover those costs are so that there in fact isn't an undue burden on city staff and city departments. Next slide, Serge. |
| 00:45:23.49 | Serge Avila | Yeah. |
| 00:45:45.74 | Chris Zapata | One of the questions related to a dispensary is, are there going to be any impacts to infrastructure? And, you know, we do not anticipate any unusual or any increased infrastructure costs as a result of this type of business. So that's not something that we would want to have anybody be concerned about at this time. regarding the impact to the city's ability to attract and retain businesses. Can you change that, sir, please? What we believe is this is a net positive. We currently have vacancies in our commercial properties in Sausalito. We continue to try to work with different partners private and you know our EDAC committee and chamber of commerce to retain and attract and grow businesses cannabis is a business dispensers are businesses We don't anticipate negative impacts. In review of some different communities where there have been dispensers put in place, the actual impact in terms of the business environment has been positive. In terms of what a business could do, in terms of the place they locate, if approved by the voters in the council, there will be benefit from investment and improvements in new construction in a facility that would in fact sell recreational and medicinal cannabis. And one of the big things is to make sure that there isn't a negative impact, that there are safeguards put in place. And obviously that security, which I spoke to, which our police department would have a role in. You gotta look at lighting, signage, and you have to make sure that property and that facility is maintained. And it's in both parties' interest to do that. So next slide, Serge. There was a question asked, I believe by Mayor Kelman and some folks from the community that spoke at the last hearing on this agenda item and talked about worker protection. There are certainly federal and California laws that everyone has to comply with, including a dispensary. In terms of how we are seeing people compensated, there are minimum wage laws that have to be complied with. There are California labor laws impact you know the ability of a dispensary to organize and bargain for better wages benefits and worker protection and enhance worker environment so we believe that there are adequate worker protections in the city really has no real role in adding more to that next slide search I turn it over to Dan Hortert, our Acting Community Development Director to cover the next couple of slides. |
| 00:48:21.59 | Dan Hortert | Greetings Mayor and members of council. As for land use and the general plan, there's currently no reference to cannabis in the city's 2021 general plan. If approved by voters, several elements of the general plan will need to be updated to improve programs and policies aimed at regulating cannabis. Most importantly, the land use and growth management element and the economic development. The housing element is not affected by the sale of cannabis because of the limitations on sales and proximity to residential uses, at least in the 2022 initiative. Council should also consider maybe amending the 2021 initiative to include specific proximities to cannabis facilities. as well. |
| 00:49:04.28 | Serge Avila | Thank you. |
| 00:49:05.56 | Dan Hortert | encouraging the cannabis activities operating zoning and land use districts that limit housing such as industrial and commercial, although we do allow that in industrial commercial. The idea is to set a proximity to those types of uses from the cannabis facilities. Um, And there should not be any availability or location of housing. impacts as both initiatives should provide adequate distance from cannabis activities. NEXT SLIDE. |
| 00:49:38.76 | Dan Hortert | So, depending on the location of the vacant parcels and the potential for new construction of cannabis facility all other locational requirements would supersede including the opportunity sites approved by city council Next slide. Given the parking constraints in Sausalito and in order to assess traffic and parking issues associated with cannabis activities, Most likely, we move the city to require traffic studies to address the impacts of traffic in the area surrounding the proposed cannabis activities. parking impacts would also be reviewed to determine the specific number of spaces that would be required and as a result of that amendments to the zoning ordinance would be needed to address parking impacts. Thank you. |
| 00:50:32.72 | Nick Moscalino | Back to me. Both of these initiatives have certain provisions that change a little bit over time. Both of these initiatives do regulate the city's ability to authorize other cannabis uses for a period of time. Both the initiatives essentially prohibit other cannabis activity other than specifically authorizing each initiative for one year. Meaning that the city could not, the city council could not independently authorize other cannabis uses like cultivation, manufacturing, micro businesses, et cetera, for one year. But then after that one year period has elapsed, the council does seem to have jurisdiction to authorize additional cannabis uses. in addition The two initiatives do have a little bit of differences in terms of the number of cannabis businesses that are allowed. The 2021 initiative is very strict and it only allows one storefront retailer and one delivery-owned business to operate in the city. Next slide, sir. Uh, the 2022 initiative is a little bit different. It authorizes only one delivery and one retail storefront business for two years following the effective date. But after that two-year period has elapsed, the 2022 initiative allows one storefront retailer and one delivery-only business per 4,000 residents. The city currently has about 7,000 residents. So if in the future, the city's population grew to exceed 8,000 residents, you could have, for example, if there was between 8,000 and 12,000 residents, up to two storefront and two delivery only businesses in the city. Next slide, please. This is a small excerpt of the comparison table that is attached to the staff report. It provides a handy side-by-side comparison of the two initiatives. And I'll go through some of the items that we haven't already addressed here today. already I know the hours of operation have been a concern to some residents. The 2021 initiative authorizes the cannabis dispensaries to be open from 7am to 9pm, although that may be shortened from 8am to 8pm in response to community feedback. The 2022 initiative, in contrast, authorizes retailers and deliveries from 8 o'clock a.m. to 9 o'clock p.m. Both initiatives authorize operations seven days a week. Neither initiative has any particular regulations on the potency or the types of product that the cannabis dispensaries could sell. They prefer and rely on state law, which does have regulations for potency, et cetera. I WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE Both initiatives do require participation in the state's track and trace program, which is a program that ensures that really keeps track of cannabis products from, they call it from seed to sale. Next slide, please. The two initiatives are a little bit different in terms of location. The 2021 initiative has a prohibit, requires that cannabis initiatives, I'm sorry, the cannabis retailers be located at least 1,000 feet from schools. And that is measured in a straight line to the closest property lines of the school, and to the cannabis retailer. So that would be as the crow flies, so to speak. The 2022 initiative is a little bit different. It does require a 1,000 buffer around schools and a 1,000 foot from other cannabis businesses and a 50 foot buffer from primitive residents. However, those distances are measured by the pedestrian or vehicular path of travel instead of as the crow flies. uh, cannabis businesses could be a little bit closer to schools and other permitted residences and businesses than the 2021 initiative. Both initiatives do provide restrictions on where, what zoning districts that businesses can be in. They're mostly commercial and industrial and waterfront and shopping center areas. Both have age restrictions under state law. State law requires recreational cannabis to be sold only to those 21 and older. And for medical use, state law provides that those 18 and older can receive medical cannabis with the physician's recommendation. Both initiatives do require electronic age verification. at the at their locations. Next slide, sir. Both initiatives do refer to state law. There are regulations governing that type of security that cannabis retailers and delivery-only businesses can have. This includes requirements for access, specific locks and key cards, identification for employees, video surveillance. Security personnel are required typically at both types of premises. They require special locks and alarm systems, etc. So they both do require compliance with state law and regulations as a security. State law does also govern, have provisions relating to advertising and signage of cannabis businesses. Thank you. However, the 2020 initiative goes a little bit further than the 2022 initiative. That one provides that all signs on a cannabis retailer shall comply with the municipal code and shall not contain any references to cannabis or marijuana, their synonyms or their images. Odor control is a common concern among residents. Both initiatives do have provisions requiring special systems that essentially mean that they require the cannabis cannot be smelled off the premises. Next slide, please. One of the big places where the cannabis initiatives do diverge is the eligibility for the licenses. The 2021 initiative has much stricter requirements for eligibility that really focus more on residency and then social or in the applicants interactions with the city council and expressions of interest prior to April 20th of 2021. So focusing now on the 2021 initiative, that one requires that as of April 2021 to the present, it has at least one owner living in the city. It has one owner with experience operating and we are working with the it has one owner with experience owning a social equity cannabis business. However, it does not define what social equity cannabis business means. It requires that the applicant has expressed interest in operating a cannabis business during one council meeting and at individual meetings with three council members between 2018 and 2021. It also requires that the applicant has co-hosted community outreach meetings, met with one faith leader and attended the community organization meeting before April 2021. And it also requires that one owner has experience in owning, operating, or managing the social equity cannabis business. So as these requirements reveal, the applicants would have had to do certain things by April 2021, which has already passed. So presumably the pool of eligible applicants is somewhat limited by those requirements. The 2022 initiative has different eligibility requirements. They're a little bit more relaxed and focused on kind of business expertise in the area. It requires an owner to have three years of experience owning a cannabis business. An owner has a current active commercial cannabis license issued by the state of California. The owner has at least five years of experiencing managing a business. The applicant has proof that they have the ability to open a bank account. A banking can be a challenge for cannabis businesses because cannabis is still frowned upon, shall we say, under federal law. And it also requires compliance with an owner equity requirement which means that at least one owner must have been convicted of a cannabis crime before I believe 2016. I want to war alternatively one owner earns less than 60% of the area median income. Or alternatively, one owner has lived for five years in an area disproportionately impacted by cannabis criminalization, and that's before 2016. Next slide, please. Finally, both initiatives do provide for some community benefits, but the nature of those benefits is substantially different. the 2021 initiative, requires both storefront and delivery licensees delivery only licensees to pay the city the greater of 7.5% of net profits per year, or $50,000 per year. The 2022 initiative, in contrast, only has a public benefit requirement that applies to the storefront retailers. And that requires the licensee to donate at least 1% of their yearly profits, a minimum of $300,000 over five years to Marin County programs that support individuals disproportionately impacted by the policies and laws associated with the war on drugs. Next slide, please. As we discussed, I think at the last city council meeting, there has been a challenge to the validity of the 2022 initiative. And that's because the proponents of the 2020 initiative are not residents of the city of Sausalito. Although since the last meeting, we have received word that one of those proponents has been expressed willingness to become a resident before the November 8th election if needed. The legal dispute here really turns on whether the california constitution and california law requires the proponents of an initiative to be residents of um of the city where the initiative is being proposed. And perhaps surprisingly, the law is not entirely clear on that question. And so there is some risk that whatever the city council does, putting the 2222 initiative on the ballot or alternatively withholding, it could get sued for either an order compelling the city to take it off the ballot or for an order to have the city put it on the ballot. Next slide, please. |
| 01:01:54.24 | Nick Moscalino | So in this circumstance, and we have two competing measures, if the city council votes to put both on the November 8, 2022 general election ballot and both of the initiatives were to receive a majority vote, the initiative that receives the highest number of votes will prevail and over the lower, the one that receives the lower number of votes. Next slide, please. So you're at the city council's options tonight are governed by primarily by elections code 9215. Now that the council has received the report, It has two options under elections code 9215. I can either adopt the ordinance proposed by the 2022 initiative without change, It can alternatively submit the ordinance proposed by the 2222 initiative to the voters at the next election on November 8th, 2022. or it can determine the 2022 initiative is valid. on the grounds that the proponents are not residents of the city and take no further action. Next slide, please. And that concludes the presentation. |
| 01:03:05.67 | Ian Sobieski | Great, thank you, Nick. Just a quick question for you on parking. So couldn't we consider a variance for parking at the specific site rather than changing zoning in all the possible zones? |
| 01:03:23.15 | Nick Moscalino | I think that's a question for THE COMMUNITY development director. |
| 01:03:28.04 | Dan Hortert | Yeah. Yeah. Mayor, members of council, sure. We could do that. That can be an alternative, uh, for them to take the chance on getting a variant? |
| 01:03:39.45 | Ian Sobieski | Okay. Just trying to get a sense of the lift from the city to move forward in the relative effort So it's something to consider. Okay, thank you, Director Horder. Let's move over to Councilman Hoffman. |
| 01:03:51.53 | Jill Hoffman | Thanks. Thanks to the staff. and the city manager for turning this around so quickly so i know we were trying to get it done before our um our break our august break i mean our break we won't be back until august i think 30th is our next meeting so thank you so much for that hard work so i just want to um make sure that we're clear that once an initiative is passed by the voters, we don't have, the city doesn't have the ability to modify any of those ordinance terms in the initiative. In other words, they become the law of the city and the city council because they're passed by initiative we don't have the ability to modify or change any of those. Is that correct? |
| 01:04:35.11 | Nick Moscalino | I guess that's correct. |
| 01:04:36.32 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, and then, so we have two competing, we're going to have two competing things, initiatives on the ballot. Both seem to be mutually exclusive, correct? Because they both say one, essentially one, you know, cannabis retail in Sausalito. Um, And then on top of that, we have a development agreement process by which we could have approved a cannabis retail in Sausalito. But if either one of these pass, we will be prohibited from doing that under the terms of each of these ordinances. Is that correct? |
| 01:05:11.66 | Nick Moscalino | THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. |
| 01:05:13.39 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thanks. THANK YOU. Those are all my questions right now. |
| 01:05:16.95 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you, Councilor. Other questions? Yeah, Councilman Rickley-Bunelz, please. |
| 01:05:21.11 | Councilmember Cleveland | Yeah, thank you. And I just want to thank staff, everyone on our city attorney team for turning this around so quickly. Um, much appreciated. Um, my questions go to the, um, fees and tax issue. I am... you know, It's not completely clear how the city would pay for some of the fees, you know, some of the services and extra security, et cetera, needed if a business comes into Sausalito. So I was intrigued by the proposal for a, you know, a cannabis fee to recover some of our costs and would that require another voter initiative or could we do that through a code amendment at the council? Um, level. |
| 01:06:18.60 | Nick Moscalino | Um, It's a little bit of a complicated question. Both of these initiatives do provide some some measure for the city to recover fees for example the 2021 initiative authorize explicitly the city to charge a reasonable registration fee and an annual fee to recover the actual costs of regulating cannabis businesses The 2022 initiative, in contrast, provides the city may charge a commercial cannabis business clearance renewal fee in an amount set by the city council. not crystal clear language, but both seem to provide city council some discretion in setting to recover the costs that you're describing. |
| 01:07:08.35 | Councilmember Cleveland | Okay, thank you for that. And then the second is, I know many, I think this is in our staff report, many local jurisdictions that have cannabis establishments have a separate tax on top of the already existing 15% |
| 01:07:21.20 | Judith | Thank you. |
| 01:07:21.26 | Councilmember Cleveland | state tax. That would need to be done through a voter initiative. Is that correct? |
| 01:07:28.22 | Nick Moscalino | Yes. |
| 01:07:29.53 | Councilmember Cleveland | And that requires a two thirds vote or a 50% vote. |
| 01:07:35.06 | Nick Moscalino | I believe if it's a general tax, it would be a 50%. uh, If it was a special tax for specific purpose, it would be to hire secret majority. |
| 01:07:45.79 | Councilmember Cleveland | Okay. And I know we already have a tax on our November ballot, but in the event that we wanted to have the tax go into effect simultaneously with the cannabis ordinance, is it feasible to put that tax on the November BALLOT OR WOULD WE NEED TO WAIT for a subsequent election. |
| 01:08:11.22 | Nick Moscalino | I know that the city attorney Mary was looking up the deadlines for submitting attacks to the I believe that the last opportunity was near the end of July or early August. Mary, if you can jump in and refresh my recollection as to the deadline. for submitting that. |
| 01:08:33.75 | Mary Wagner | Sure, any matters have to be placed on the ballot by August 12th. |
| 01:08:40.43 | Councilmember Cleveland | Okay, and then maybe this is a more practical question for the city manager or community development director but, if one of the initiatives passes THE FEDERAL have sufficient time to pass a tax before that business was kind of up and running Thank you. for a very long time, if that was something that council kind of wanted to pursue. or with would we kind of lose a year? I'm sort of, I'm not exactly sure about the timing of a business getting up and running and actually generating revenue to be taxed. and the timing of a of a potential tax measure. |
| 01:09:28.56 | Chris Zapata | I'll respond to that question, council member clearly knows. COUNCIL MEMBERS. whenever you implement a dispensary in your community, It usually takes a little longer than you think. And so my sense is the market for cannabis in Sausalito in Southern Marin County is to be determined. if in fact there is an opportunity down the road look at placing some type of a sales tax on top of the state sales tax doing it at a later date given the short window we have. given the ballot that we're looking at in November, which has measure on it already, I would recommend that we not say no to that but we revisit that in you know the next six months to a year to see if in fact that's something you want to do in the future. |
| 01:10:23.15 | Councilmember Cleveland | Great. |
| 01:10:23.98 | Ian Sobieski | helpful. Thank you, Mayor. That's all the questions I have. Great questions had similar ones around the taxes. So thanks for asking those. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STOPPING? |
| 01:10:34.09 | Unknown | Madam Mayor, can I just add one point to that tax discussion just for clarity's sake? Generally, a sales tax measure you have to do in a general municipal election year, But there is a way to do a special election for a tax that's not on that by declaring a having the council by forfeit smoke declare a fiscal emergency. There's no direct law on what the definition of a fiscal emergency is, so that the council has the discretion to make findings and declare a fiscal emergency. But given the lag in time that it would take, and there's definitely a complexity in trying to add another tax measure on this year, which I don't think is being, which is not being recommended by the manager, but I just want you to be aware of that information, that you'd have to take an additional step. to. getting for Facebook or something in general, a regular useful option. |
| 01:11:36.39 | Ian Sobieski | Okay. That's good to know. Thank you for that. And there's no timing constraints on that? I mean, obviously after if one is approved on the on the ballot. |
| 01:11:46.13 | Unknown | You would be able to initiate that process by after making the appropriate planning. You just have to have it held on one of the designated special election dates. |
| 01:11:57.08 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. Any questions on that? Okay. LET'S GO AHEAD AND LINE UP SOME PUBLIC COMMENT HERE. AGAIN, WE'RE GOING TO DO A ONE-MINUTE PUBLIC COMMENT. Thank you for your patience and understanding in that. AND AS THE CITY CLERK TO maybe just announce again how to give public comments since we have some more people who have joined. |
| 01:12:16.35 | Walfred Solorzano | Sir, video or audio public comment participation was limited to one minute per speaker. If you would like to make a comment, please raise your hand in the Zoom application, and you will be called upon when you can speak. To raise your hand from a phone, press start nine and each speaker will be notified when the time has elapsed. Madam Mayor, it looks like we do have one and race. Gary? You're being unmuted and asked to share your video. |
| 01:12:42.61 | Melissa Blaustein | Great. |
| 01:12:50.64 | Eric Pearson | Are we here? We're here. Good evening council members. My name's Eric Pearson. Paul Austin and I are the proud proponents of this initiative. What are we doing here tonight? Paul and I introduced an initiative because we know we can bring a valuable service to Sausalito. We listened to this council's long list of concerns with the other initiative, and we wrote a substantially better one. And our initiative might get rejected due to an anonymous complaint The idea that this is somehow good, that we could throw out a transparent election process for an anonymous letter makes absolutely no legal or moral sense. From the beginning, we have walked through the front door. We wrote this initiative because we wanted to get it right. We're proud of it. There's nothing to hide here. There's no investors disguised as proponents, and a true sponsor isn't living in the state of Washington. What we are here to do is to decide whether or not we want to adopt our initiative and that delivers a fair process and protects the city. Your study shows this, that's the choice we have tonight. Thank you very much for your time. |
| 01:13:49.11 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you very much. Our next speaker is Kathleen Stephanie, you're being unmuted, and I'll keep sharing your videos. |
| 01:14:01.92 | Ian Sobieski | You're still muted, Captain. |
| 01:14:10.98 | Kathleen Stephanie | Okay. Hi, good evening. The only point I'd like to make this evening in regards to the initiative 2022 we're referring to is that they, in my opinion, are a chain store. They have been referred to as a corporation But as we as a small town and community have always been sensitive and have avoided some coffee chains, etc. coming into our town spark presently has five locations. Thank you. Thank you very much. |
| 01:14:39.67 | Walfred Solorzano | and it's easier. |
| 01:14:40.43 | Kathleen Stephanie | Thank you. |
| 01:14:40.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:14:40.46 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Our next speaker is Ellie. Ellie, you've been unmuted and asked to share your video. |
| 01:14:48.68 | Ellie | Hello, can y'all hear me? Yes. Okay, thank you so much for letting me share my thoughts again tonight. I know I've spoken at almost every meeting I could. I just want to reiterate, I'm strongly opposed to these cannabis corporations coming into Sausalito despite the proven risks to our kids and to our town's culture and spirit. um, And I just don't understand really what the benefit is. It doesn't seem like the tax benefit is, is significant, especially considering the extensive downsides. Um, so I just asked the city council with utmost respect, like how is bringing these cannabis corporations really good for Sausalito? Um, what has changed since Sausalito and every other Marin jurisdiction banned them a few years ago? I wholeheartedly ask that you vote no on both initiatives. As a council member, you really believe this would be good for our town. I ask that you please let our people share their vote as well. I know there was a petition, but I've also heard in these meetings, many residents said they regret signing it. because they were going by what the person knocking on their door said versus what the particular person |
| 01:15:54.51 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:15:54.53 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you very much, Ellie. |
| 01:15:54.53 | Ellie | Thank you very much, Ellie. Appreciate your comment. |
| 01:15:56.20 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:15:56.21 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 01:15:56.33 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:15:59.20 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker is Ethan. Ethan, you're being unmuted enough to show your video. |
| 01:16:04.04 | Michael Mendel | Thank you. |
| 01:16:12.77 | Ian Sobieski | Is there a |
| 01:16:13.04 | Jeffrey Chase | you're still |
| 01:16:13.70 | Ian Sobieski | it. |
| 01:16:17.27 | Jeffrey Chase | Hoy from Marin ships once again. Hello, Sausalito. And to keep it on the high side. Two initiatives. I haven't heard much about cannabis. Um, I'm not going to have an opinion about that. that I'm gonna share with you. But, I do have an opinion about community gardens. that there isn't in this shift. |
| 01:16:40.97 | Ian Sobieski | Mr. Chase, we're going to limit your comments right now because we are only taking comments on cannabis. |
| 01:16:42.92 | Jeffrey Chase | I like your |
| 01:16:46.85 | Ian Sobieski | So we welcome your province and Canada. |
| 01:16:47.09 | Jeffrey Chase | from. |
| 01:16:51.06 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 01:16:51.07 | Jeffrey Chase | Thank you, Mr. Chris. |
| 01:16:51.24 | Ian Sobieski | Hello? |
| 01:16:52.34 | Jeffrey Chase | Okay, hello. So we can talk about cannabis. Yeah, I'll talk about cannabis. Canabasan is the anointment oil for the Messiah. Mashiach in Hebrew. And without that, he doesn't become anointed. When I partake of it, that's how I feel, that it's a holy rite. Um, I'm, I'm for people sharing. and caring. And... having a garden where they can grow the cannabis, Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chase. |
| 01:17:29.41 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker is Judith. Judith, you've been unmuted and asked to share your video. |
| 01:17:35.84 | Judith | Hi, good evening. Thank you and staff very much for prioritizing and providing the comparison of the two initiatives in such a timely manner. There was some good information gleaned, but I believe there's still other important areas that we still need to understand better So it could be confident that we're making an informed decision and putting safety and welfare of our community first. I DON'T THINK WE STILL UNDERSTAND. what high potency THC products will be sold at what levels of THC. What controls does the city maintain? should these businesses be sold or should there be change in management from the people we're dealing with tonight Did either of them provide traffic studies, we must have traffic studies, reliable ones. I know we are all want to do what's best for the city. The fact that most of us, most, if not all of our neighboring Marin cities have elected to not allow recreational cannabis retail storefronts. |
| 01:18:38.92 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you very much for your comments. |
| 01:18:44.14 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker is Cindy. Cindy you've been unmuted and asked to share your video. |
| 01:19:01.87 | Ian Sobieski | You're gonna need to unmute on your side. TODAY. |
| 01:19:05.90 | Cindy | Heather died of cancer a few months ago, and she lived here in Marin for six months. and she found it very difficult to get a hold of one specific product, which is the 100% THC oil, and it is very important for And so that I just want to deal with Judith's concern about the level of the health care and the second thing was, I'm so proud of you guys for even having an initiative on the subject. It's important to have competitive prices. My mother, I took her up here to Fairfax and she had to pay like $25 for the tiniest amount. And so we definitely need there to be a competitive market and I would like to know more about this, Eric and those guys coming in. I think they put together a wonderful idea If it can't be them, we need somebody like them. There has to be competition in the marketplace. Thank you guys. Thank you. |
| 01:19:53.78 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker is Sean. Sean, you've been unmuted and asked to share your video. |
| 01:20:04.44 | Jill Hoffman | MENTIONED. |
| 01:20:08.46 | Sean | Hello. Uh... Look, I have a real problem with the so-called social equity ownership requirement made by the 2022 corporate ballot measure. It states that an owner must be someone with a cannabis arrest in their record and or make 60% of median and or live in an area affected by the drug war. That's all. There's no need to prove incarceration, property loss, injury, nothing else. Social equity requirements, they're intended to help people that are actually affected by the drug war, but... According to the corporate measure, the effective person in this case is Eric Pearson, owner of the Spark Cannabis Corporation, who sponsored the ballot measure, and he's been arrested for cannabis. Eric Pearson, who's a millionaire who's profiting off of legal cannabis, um... Look, social equity provisions and legal cannabis exist for a very real reason. They want to benefit people directly disenfranchised by the drug war. People that had incarcerated, lost their homes, cars, children, everything. You know, people that actually need help. Eric's not one of those people. He's already gotten rich off an industry that it might be legal now, but a short time ago was subject to a warfare that destroyed the lives of millions of people. And the fact that he's trying to stand alongside those people and claim to also be a victim of the drug war is repugnant. |
| 01:21:14.31 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you, Sean. |
| 01:21:18.00 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker is Arthur Bruce. Arthur, you're being unmuted and I appreciate your video. |
| 01:21:22.58 | Michael Mendel | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:21:33.49 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, Serge, we'll come back to our third one. Why don't we go to the next person? |
| 01:21:37.83 | Walfred Solorzano | Sure, we'll move on to Eva, Eva's iPhone. Pastor Chair, you're being on. |
| 01:21:48.34 | Eva | Thanks. I actually had my hand raised for an earlier item, but was not called on. I just want to point out how sad I feel. This is a city, I CPRA'd the arrest demographics, Mill Valley Police, Sausalito Police, and the Marin County Sheriff's Office, from 1989 through 2020 arrested black individuals in each one of those law enforcement agencies arrested sheriff's office from 1989 through 2020 arrested black individuals in each one of those law enforcement agencies arrested black individuals at a rate over eight times their demographic presence in the county. the fact that you're bringing in largely white-owned cannabis businesses for the storefront is it's just it's not surprising at all to me, unfortunately. And I think, I think this should be put on the back burner until you figure out how to do it right in a way that makes amends for the absolute disproportionate arrest demographics over a 31-year period. Thank you. |
| 01:22:52.10 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker is Chris. Chris, you're being unmuted and I ask you share your video. |
| 01:22:52.62 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:23:07.12 | Tom Riley | Okay, Chris, you there? Here you go. |
| 01:23:10.26 | Chris Monroe | Oh. Thank you. Good evening council members. This is Chris Monroe, owner of Crosswood Sausalito and co-writer of the 2020-2021 initiative. I'm just going to speak briefly about being a local business owner and I see just what that means to us. It's very difficult to run a business, a small business, and I do it in Sausalito because and we follow all the rules. So it's very disheartening to help you get a lot of people who are in the community. see the city council still considering a ballot measure from an outside group. to open a competing business when they're not in the hospital. This would be like someone coming in not following the rules and opening a big gym across the street from me and the city council saying like |
| 01:23:55.77 | Dan Hortert | Well, |
| 01:23:57.29 | Chris Monroe | Oh, wow. So. |
| 01:23:58.62 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 01:23:58.64 | Chris Monroe | Thank you. That's all I have to say. |
| 01:23:59.97 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you very much. |
| 01:24:01.94 | Ian Sobieski | Thanks, Chris. |
| 01:24:03.14 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker is Robbie Powelson. Robbie, you're being unmuted and I should share your video. |
| 01:24:13.81 | Scott Hanson | Can you hear me? |
| 01:24:16.68 | Unknown | THE END OF |
| 01:24:18.80 | Scott Hanson | I just wanted to clarify if we were gonna come back to those items I pulled on the consent agenda. Is that gonna be spoken on later in the meeting? |
| 01:24:32.10 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, thank you, Mr. Pendleton. dispense with the consent items. And we did not pull any of them off the consent calendar. So thank you. Let's move on to our next public comment. |
| 01:24:43.51 | Walfred Solorzano | Sarah, you've been unmuted and has to share your video. |
| 01:24:50.63 | Serge Avila | Good evening, Council. I'm Sarah Bodnar with the Marin Committee for Safe Access. Thank you for the work that went into getting this study done so quickly. And I'd like to focus on one of the most important differences that the study highlights on the last page, which is that our initiative requires a conditional use permit through the Planning Commission. versus rubber stamping a permit for Otter brands without any public input. And based on what we've heard tonight, And so many times when this has been deliberated, we know how much input this community wants to have over its future. What this means is that our initiative gives the I don't know. that adopting our initiative, excuse me, would guarantee that any application will go through a fair and public use permit hearing. It would allow the city to put conditions of approval on a permit, including potency limits for what you can sell, parking, requiring traffic studies, and any other community concern that needs to be addressed. This will allow the people of Sausalito to choose, and we know that this community wants to have a voice in the process. Thank you. Our next |
| 01:25:52.26 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker, it's Pat. Pat, you've been unmuted. |
| 01:25:57.52 | Ian Sobieski | you |
| 01:26:01.05 | Ian Sobieski | PAT, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU. |
| 01:26:02.28 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 01:26:05.52 | Melissa Blaustein | better. Yep. I was not intending to speak on this, but I've been somewhat distressed in hearing some comments which seem to confuse the role of the city in this process. You have two initiatives that have enough signatures to make it to the ballot. It's not your choice as what to put on the ballot or how to interpret or to bless the various provisions in each of the initiatives. But this will be an opportunity, I think. and I hope you examine it to do some educational literature, truly educational, as to an impartial presentation of the benefits and disadvantages or the just simply the provisions of these two initiatives and how they would impact the city. Um, I hope people understand it's not the choice of the council as what you put on the ballot in this case. Thanks. Thank you. |
| 01:27:02.45 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker is Connor. Connor, you've been unmuted and asked to share your video. |
| 01:27:09.12 | Connor Johnston | Good evening again, Councilors. Connor Johnston, one of the main supporters of the 2021 initiative. I don't know if the votes are there tonight to rightly reject this, the 2022 measure as being invalid. But I want to make the case either way just so that it's stated. And I've written ballot measures and campaigned with them and for them. And the most important thing is to have a sponsor who actually lives in the jurisdiction, which the 2022 measure does not. All five of you took an oath to support and uphold the state constitution and the state constitution is crystal clear. If you put this on the measure, you would also be I think raising questions about your fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers of Sausalito because it would establish the precedent that any corporation from anywhere in California could impose costs on your taxpayers by introducing a ballot measure that your city attorney, your city clerk, and your city manager and city staff have to avoid. |
| 01:28:12.35 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 01:28:12.39 | Connor Johnston | Thank you. |
| 01:28:12.40 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you, Connie. |
| 01:28:12.88 | Connor Johnston | Thank you. |
| 01:28:12.96 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 01:28:14.27 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker is Arthur Bruce. Arthur, you're being unmuted and I'll ask you to share your video. |
| 01:28:26.54 | Ian Sobieski | although we still can't hear you. Okay, let's go back through again, and we will try you again in a little bit, Arthur. |
| 01:28:36.38 | Walfred Solorzano | Sure, we'll move on to Amber. Amber, you're being unmuted and I see your video. |
| 01:28:42.88 | Amber Maltby | Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. My name is Amber Maltby with the law firm Nossman LLP. We serve as a council for the committee for safe access for Marin. and we specialize in election compliance. I wanted to take the opportunity to address the two concerns that were raised by public commenters this evening. REGARDING THE RESIDENCY OF THE individuals who are proponents of the safe and fair regulation of cannabis initiatives THIS IS NOT A, And The arguments that have been presented by unidentified, concerned citizens and now parroted here by supporters of the competing measure It's nothing more than a red hearing. The California constitution very specifically prescribed to the legislature Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:29:45.03 | Ian Sobieski | for your women. |
| 01:29:45.03 | Unknown | You remember. |
| 01:29:46.02 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 01:29:46.04 | Ian Sobieski | Your time is up. We did receive public comment in writing from you, so thank you for that. |
| 01:29:51.85 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker is Kelsey Fernandez. Kelsey, you've been unmuted and I hope you can share your video. |
| 01:29:58.95 | Kelsey Fernandez | Good evening, Council. I believe I shared this with you all previously when you were working on cannabis regulations with the public input. but I wanted to reiterate that If Sausalito voters reject the industry-written ballot measures, there's a program through the Public Health Institute that outlines best practices for cannabis regulations that prioritise public health. and include protections above the state minimums. for Sausalito residents that these ordinances do not. Other communities have limited potency levels, prohibited the sale of flavored vaping products, similar to the flavored tobacco ban. that is widely supported countywide here in Marin. And jurisdictions can also prohibit the sale of products attracted to youth more clearly than defined. THE STATE LAW. There are also a number of things lawmakers can do to develop ordinances that have more restrictions related to marketing, smoke-free air, the environment and taxes on potency levels. THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT. |
| 01:31:02.99 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Our next speaker is Paul Austin. Paul, you've been unmuted and I'll see you share your video. |
| 01:31:11.23 | Paul Austin | Hello, Sausalito City Council. Many families know me as Paul Austin, Coach Paul, the founder and CEO of Play Moran. It's a nonprofit that I started and I designed specifically to bring communities together Sausalito and Marin City. all of 94965. My grandparents migrated from the South to work in the shipyard during World War II. They settled here. and pass down the importance of community. being community minded. Um, With that said, the Otter brand. exclude people from having the opportunity to be in business. The outer initiative excludes everybody, but themselves the opportunity to apply. our initiative. will be open for anybody to apply And that's truly fair. Sosfield City Council, You can send both initiatives to the ballot. or you could choose to adopt the truly fair initiatives. So let's talk about it tonight. |
| 01:32:14.14 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you, Paul. Appreciate your time. |
| 01:32:18.59 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker. It's Arthur Bruce, Arthur, you're being unmuted. |
| 01:32:28.87 | Arthur Bruce | The host has disabled my video. |
| 01:32:31.30 | Ian Sobieski | But we can't hear you, so that's... The host has disabled my video! |
| 01:32:32.56 | Unknown | All right. |
| 01:32:32.68 | Arthur Bruce | Bye. |
| 01:32:32.80 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:32:32.85 | Arthur Bruce | Bye. |
| 01:32:32.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:32:33.05 | Arthur Bruce | Thank you. |
| 01:32:35.75 | Ian Sobieski | We can't hear you, Mr. Bruce. |
| 01:32:39.33 | Arthur Bruce | There you go. Thank you. Ah, there we are. Okay. Okay, you guys got to stop violating the Brown Act, okay? I can't. coming to the meeting if the host disables I mean, One minute, 60 seconds. So, So CBD was robbed from our diet, and it was a part of our diet before the illegal prohibition on marijuana, okay? CBD used to be in our eggs, in our milk. It was a byproduct that cattle ate. Our bodies have things called cannabinoid receptors. Why would we have those if we didn't need that in our diet? So when they made it illegal and began the prohibition, they robbed us of that in our diets. Get some CBDs and put them in your pipe. Load it. Okay. Open up your third eye. Maybe try some psychedelics. Take your feet off. Take your shoes off. Walk around in the sand. |
| 01:33:44.03 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Bruce. |
| 01:33:47.05 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker is Bridget. Bridget, you're being unmuted and asked to share your video. |
| 01:33:57.60 | Ian Sobieski | We can I? |
| 01:33:58.04 | Adrian Brinton | Am I unmuted now? You are. Good evening. I just wanted to reiterate that it appears that based on the two initiatives, the way they're written, that it's a good question. |
| 01:34:01.36 | Michael Mendel | Thank you. |
| 01:34:13.63 | Adrian Brinton | It doesn't allow the city to craft policy that is best for the residents. And so I I don't know what I just want to bring that up as well as mention an article that I have found called what white weed entrepreneurs are gaming programs meant to help people of color. I think somebody sent you this article. I just. |
| 01:34:20.94 | Serge Avila | I DON'T KNOW. |
| 01:34:38.82 | Adrian Brinton | because the equity issue I think is important, but the way that this is set up with the two initiatives doesn't allow the city to control to like has been mentioned with development agreements. I think it could be done in a different way that needs to be considered. So thank you. Thank you for joining us. |
| 01:34:56.63 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker, it's phone number ending 4675. You're being unmuted. Share your video. |
| 01:35:10.02 | Unknown | Yes, those initiatives, I guess you guys have something to deal with there you are only having to deal with drunk drivers every other day, but you're going to throw it up to the equation something that might be tenderizing because you might just make a lot of tax money on that. and A lot of people will make money The city would might make a lot of money But I think you have a lot of people that grow their own weed, they don't need to buy all these. And if you are putting these initiatives to go into a ballot, You're wasting money again. As usual, we know that's your model. But, you know, I wish you the best of it. You know, maybe you can turn it into Amsterdam. You can see Amsterdam is a very profitable. So there you go again. One more time, you miss. |
| 01:36:11.43 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, thank you for that. Any other public comment? I see one more hand up. |
| 01:36:16.78 | Walfred Solorzano | Let me in, you're being unmuted and I asked you to share your video. |
| 01:36:26.42 | Walfred Solorzano | I mean, you'll |
| 01:36:26.98 | Amy | Thank you. |
| 01:36:27.41 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:36:27.78 | Amy | CAN YOU HEAR ME? |
| 01:36:29.08 | Ian Sobieski | We can't, Amy. We do not see you. |
| 01:36:31.65 | Amy | That's fine. My videos are really always off. Thank you. I, uh, regarding these social equity and EQUITY IN GENERAL, AS ALWAYS LYNCHED, TALKED ABOUT I think the city of Saucedo and Mr. Mark, I have listened and paid attention to other counties, San Francisco County, Alameda County, Los Angeles County, Sacramento County, Yes, Marin County is one of a kind, we know that, but based on the history here in this county, BEING NUMBER ONE REGARDING racial harassment, racial terror regarding black people in this county. So I'll see you don't miss the mark. Um, Does Saucy don't care enough? I don't know. Maybe not. But again, the social impacts in these reports, I don't think is enough. Saucelito, the city itself could have done more a couple of years ago. Again, I'll say it again. Does the city care enough to support black businesses, black people? It appears not. |
| 01:37:38.00 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you, Damian. I appreciate you weighing in. |
| 01:37:40.19 | Walfred Solorzano | Next speaker is Ken Kennedy. Ken, you're been unmuted and I have to share your video. |
| 01:37:50.35 | Ken Kennedy | Yeah, I used to be. Hello? |
| 01:37:54.22 | Ian Sobieski | YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU. |
| 01:37:54.91 | Ken Kennedy | Thank you. |
| 01:37:54.93 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 01:37:54.96 | Ken Kennedy | Thank you. |
| 01:37:54.98 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 01:37:56.35 | Ken Kennedy | Okay, yeah, you know, I've been around Sausalito for many years. I'm 53 years old. Addabot? About 15 years ago, there was a pot club on Gate 5 Road. And they were called compassion caregivers. And their emphasis was on I THINK I'M GOING TO BE cancer victims, things like that. It was mostly medically . Bye. That was a corporation We've been riding next I think I forget the name of it. what happened it ruined it for They both had to close them. They both had to close out as a |
| 01:38:37.99 | Ian Sobieski | Mr. Kenney, we are having trouble hearing you. It looks like- Your wifi is not, Very strong for you. |
| 01:38:53.36 | Walfred Solorzano | AND META MAYOR, WE NO LONGER HAVE CAN KENNEDY ON THE You're lying. |
| 01:38:57.69 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, so let's just take a quick pause here. Um, I see a 4675, is that Mr. Kennedy? |
| 01:39:06.88 | Walfred Solorzano | No, Madam Mayor, 4675 has already commended. |
| 01:39:10.81 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, that's what I thought. Sorry that we didn't get his comment here. Just see if anybody else would like to give public comment. on cannabis. Again, let me just buy a little time here and just tell you that tonight, uh, The council can take one of three actions. We can adopt the proposed ordinance, we can submit the ordinance to the voters at the city's next regular election, or we can take no action. Okay, looks like Mr. Kennedy is back. |
| 01:39:39.94 | Walfred Solorzano | I'm going to go ahead and get a little bit. Mr. Kennedy, you've been unmuted. |
| 01:39:43.25 | Ken Kennedy | Thank you very much. I don't know what happened. It's one of these Obama phones. I'm not sure. They can hear you. You can talk. Okay. I mean, basically, you know, we don't have a McDonald's in Sausalito. We got one 7-Eleven and there's, you know, people don't like that. I don't know why we would go to some corporate |
| 01:39:47.62 | Unknown | I can hear you. |
| 01:39:58.18 | Ken Kennedy | I'm not saying. and deny local people an opportunity to do something here. I guess that's really all I have to say. Thank you for your time. |
| 01:40:07.85 | Ian Sobieski | Okay. Thanks, Mr. Kennedy. |
| 01:40:09.54 | Ken Kennedy | Thank you. |
| 01:40:09.98 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, I'm noting Mr. Bruce's hand up, but we have heard from him already. So we are going to go ahead and close public comment and bring it up to council. If my colleagues will indulge me, I just wanted to pose two questions to one of our attorneys. The first is we talked last time, council member Sobieski led the way on discussing ways that we could potentially regulate either of these two initiatives. And so I would love to hear from council again about the opportunities for us to regulate should one of them pass as a ballot measure. And then the second question is about formula retail. AND WHETHER OR NOT OUR FORMULA RETAIL PROVISIONS WOULD APPLY AND IF SO, WHAT HAPPENS IF One of the measures gets approved, but we have a formula retail provision. So Nick, over to you. |
| 01:41:01.84 | Nick Moscalino | I'm not sure. I'm sorry, on the second question, I was to formula retail, I have to defer to Mary on that one. I don't have the institutional knowledge of your formula. |
| 01:41:10.59 | Ian Sobieski | That's why I teed it up. Yeah, so that she did a thing about it while you were addressing the first one. |
| 01:41:11.82 | Nick Moscalino | So that Sure, sure thing. In terms of the opportunities to regulate. It's a little bit of a complicated question. So these valid initiatives are attempts to sort of comprehensively regulate cannabis in the city. but they're not in point of fact comprehensive. And so I think that in the future, and this would be subject to further analysis to the extent that the city could arguably take action that was consistent with and supplementary to the initiatives. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING. that Thank you. you know, I think there is some room for that, although it could be subject to legal challenge. And we would need to consider kind of the specific contours of what that might be. But there is room, and I think in both initiatives, for some regulation. And I think that the sort of guiding principle would be that it could not be inconsistent with the language of the initiative. So, you know, without a specific proposal from you and probably time to give that more thought, it's difficult to comment on. In terms of changing wholesale or enacting something that's actually conflicted with a substance provision of either initiative, that is really reserved to the voters. And so the council would not be able to take, regulate something that is directly contradictory to something in the initiative without submitting a further initiative to the voters. And of course, you will have the opportunity at the subsequent election to propose an initiative that amends either of these initiatives in whole or in part in any way you'd like. in the future and it's subject to voter approval of that proposed amendment if should either of these in fact pass that that would supersede. So I don't know if that's as specific an answer as you would like, but it's about as far as I can go, kind of on the fly here tonight. |
| 01:43:07.32 | Ian Sobieski | All right, let me see, council members, any questions around that particular issue? Okay, let's just pause then and go over to Mary on the formula retail. And if you have anything to add on that analysis, please welcome. |
| 01:43:21.59 | Mary Wagner | Sure. So on the formula retail question, you know, we do have areas where formula retail is allowed. with a particular permit But the way that Sausalito's regulations are drafted, businesses that have other locations have been able to locate in Sausalito if essentially their branding is different or Sausalito specific. Two examples that come readily to mind are Sausalito Equator and Sausalito Book Passage by the Bay, I believe is the name of the bookstore. So I don't think that would be a necessarily high hurdle for a business to meet. |
| 01:44:00.35 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, any other insight to add to Nick's analysis on how do we regulate this? |
| 01:44:05.64 | Mary Wagner | Um, no, I agree with Mr. Moscalino's analysis. You know, I think if the council, if one of the, if the council puts this measure on as well as the 2021. initiative and one of them is successful. the council then would be able to submit modifications or additional regulations to the voters in the future if they felt if you felt that modifications were necessary |
| 01:44:28.79 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 01:44:28.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:44:28.96 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. All right, so that's for council members. Anybody wish to opine or weigh in? |
| 01:44:39.32 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 01:44:39.34 | Councilmember Cleveland | I thought one of the... |
| 01:44:39.62 | Ian Sobieski | I don't want to. Yeah, go ahead. |
| 01:44:42.36 | Councilmember Cleveland | Sorry, I just had one additional question which I hadn't thought of. until one of the Public speakers encouraged us to just adopt the 2022 measure in front of us tonight. |
| 01:44:55.23 | Serge Avila | next. |
| 01:44:56.13 | Councilmember Cleveland | So if we did that, it's my understanding that the 2021 measure is still on the ballot. So maybe one of our attorney team could answer um, I assume that the if that one on the ballot passed, would that then OR HOW WOULD WE RESOLVE THAT? issue. Thank you. |
| 01:45:22.40 | Mary Wagner | I'm happy to take the initial stab at that and then ask Mr. Mascolino to jump in if he would like. So interesting question, another piece of the puzzle. So if the council were tonight to adopt the 2022 initiative as drafted, you would still have the 2021 initiative on the ballot. on November 8th. if that measure the 2021 initiative were to pass on November 8th, I believe it would supersede the 2022 initiative that the council adopted without putting it to the voters. But I think that would be a situation that would be ripe for a legal challenge and that the city itself would potentially want to seek judicial validation of what is in effect in Sausalito at that point. |
| 01:46:13.15 | Councilmember Cleveland | Okay, thank you. So it's pretty complicated, I think. Thank you. I appreciate that. |
| 01:46:18.55 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. Vice Mayor. |
| 01:46:20.77 | Councilmember Cleveland | Thank you. |
| 01:46:20.79 | Vice Mayor Bloustein | City Attorney, could you weigh in just on the potential for, I mean, it seems based on the public comment that we've received and then also the staff report that there's potential for legal challenge regardless of what course we take this evening from either side. So should we decide to put it up on the ballot? There might be a legal challenge to that suggestion. Should we not? Could you just give context so that the public is aware of um, essentially the legal mitigation or risk from any of the actions we might take |
| 01:46:52.41 | Nick Moscalino | sure. Yeah, as you just explained, Vice Mayor. I think regardless of what the city council does tonight, there is the possibility of challenge given that we have received letters from two law firms on two sides, perhaps representing the proponents of two, each of the ballot measures. On the one side, we don't know whether they are in fact or not. There is a preference in California law for, at least in kind of debatable cases, for the courts prefer for the ballot initiative to go to the voters. And that's kind of for the obvious reason. If the voters voted down, then there's nothing for the courts to decide. And they also, the courts closely guard the right of the voters to exercise the initiative power. So in this case, if for example, we've heard from sort of opponents from the 2022 initiative tonight, if the council submitted the, voted to submit the 2022 initiative to the ballot, to the voters tonight, Um, THE BUSINESS. the proponents of the 2021 initiative or others might sue to compel the city to take it off the ballot, take the 2022 initiative off the ballot. Whereas on the other hand, if the city council decides not to put the 2022 initiative on the ballot, proponents of that initiative may very well sue the city to compel it to put it on the ballot. So in this case, you know, given the sort of legal uncertainty over the question of whether the proponents of the 2022 ballot measure need to be residents of the city council or not, we think that the safer course and the course most likely to be looked favorably along the court and to preserve the rights of the city council. voters who signed the 2022 initiative would be to submit both to the voters and let it play out. |
| 01:48:46.49 | Vice Mayor Bloustein | Thank you very much for that. I'm happy to give comments or weigh in, Mayor, based on what the city |
| 01:48:53.47 | Unknown | that's it. Thank you. |
| 01:48:54.27 | Vice Mayor Bloustein | Thank you. |
| 01:48:54.39 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:48:54.42 | Vice Mayor Bloustein | Thank you. |
| 01:48:54.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:48:54.55 | Vice Mayor Bloustein | Thank you. Sure. I mean, I, I, first of all, I want to thank staff for getting this report together so quickly. It was certainly a heavy lift. You answered most of our, all of our questions and really appreciate the amount of time that was put into that in such a quick turnaround. I'm thinking about when our recess would be and making sure that we could handle the ballot initiatives in a timely manner. I also really appreciate all of the public comment that we received on this topic and the, you know, the feedback that we've received from the community. And that's, you know, just another reason why it's so critical that as the voters have, you know, signed on for this initiative to go to the ballot, I'm going to be consistent with what I said with the 2021 initiative, which is that, you know, this is something that the voters will decide. I think that's the legal direction we've been given and it's essentially the most realistic and pragmatic choice at this point. So I would support pushing the 2022 initiative to the ballot as well. And then, but additionally, I just want to say I really appreciate Council Member Sobieski's request at the last meeting that we have some sort of consideration for a really clear policy around cannabis. attacks or otherwise. So regardless of the outcome for the election, I think we need to have a robust conversation about what our cannabis policies are, whether we initiate a tax on the next ballot, we would certainly wanna charge a fee. I appreciate that that's included in some of the initiatives so that we can become more fiscally sound as a result of this, if the voters do decide to approve it. And I also appreciated the commenter who suggested a resource around healthy initiatives and healthy legal requirements for cannabis that we should as well consider as a resource. So those would be my thoughts around this tonight. And again, I appreciate everyone's time. |
| 01:50:32.82 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 01:50:33.04 | Councilmember Cleveland | I really appreciate that. Councilman O'Cleven also? Yeah, thank you. I have very similar comments to the vice mayor, so I won't repeat them, but I, I do just wanna clarify as one of our public commenters said that we have very limited choices in front of us tonight. We can't change the, Um, any of the Parts of the 2021 or the 2022 ballot measure. They are what they are and they have received enough signatures to go. So I think what we have in front of us is either to adopt it tonight or to adopt it tonight or to adopt it. move it on to the voters. But given the uncertainty of even considering adopting this initiative at this point, based on what our city attorney said. I don't think that's I also just want to say my questions related to fees and taxes are you know, in the event that the voters decide that one of these measures does pass, then I think the city . Um... resources in order to address some of the issues and KEEP OUR FISCAL HEALTH. I also just want to say, you know, if both measures go to the ballot, the voters will have three choices. They can adopt one of them, they can adopt the second one, or they can adopt neither. And the process that we started here at the city council to come up with a really ideal cannabis regulation for our town, those discussions can continue at the city council level. So, you know, I think there's a lot of options for the voters and, It's gonna be an interesting ballot in November. So yeah, I would be in favor of moving this onto the ballot tonight. |
| 01:52:30.86 | Ian Sobieski | Okay. |
| 01:52:31.11 | Councilmember Cleveland | you |
| 01:52:31.30 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. Excellent comments. Anything further from Councilman Hoffman or Councilman Savieski? |
| 01:52:38.54 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 01:52:38.57 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 01:52:39.14 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, I'm in favor of following the recommendation of our attorneys and the analysis that they provided. and referring us to development. So thanks. |
| 01:52:48.97 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. Councillor Sopiasek? Okay. Yeah, same. I'm gonna rely on council's analysis on the, how to proceed on this. And then I also really appreciated the vice mayor's suggestion that we, do some preliminary thinking and prep some thoughts around key issues like how we might regulate this, including the ones around public health lens THC levels social equity. And as Councilman of the Noles mentioned taxes and fees, so I think we should be prepared with how we want to approach that but i'm ready to entertain a motion to. move forward with this. We'd like to make that motion. |
| 01:53:30.09 | Jill Hoffman | I'll make the motion. So moved that we refer this initiative to the ballot. |
| 01:53:34.78 | Mary Wagner | Madam Mayor, if I may, and Council Member Hoffman, just a point of clarification, there is a resolution in your packet, so staff would I ask that you vote on that resolution. Thank you, Mary. Let me bring it up here real quick. And you don't have to read the whole title. That's a super long title. You can just refer to the resolution in the packet. |
| 01:53:53.04 | Jill Hoffman | That's a super long title. Refer to the resolution of the packet. I make the motion that we adopt the resolution as provided and refer the matter to the ballot. again. |
| 01:54:06.07 | Ian Sobieski | Okay. |
| 01:54:06.51 | Jill Hoffman | THANK YOU. |
| 01:54:06.98 | Ian Sobieski | City Clerk, please call the roll. |
| 01:54:09.73 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Sobieski. Yes. Councilmember Cleveland-Knowell. |
| 01:54:13.51 | Ian Sobieski | Yes. |
| 01:54:14.47 | Walfred Solorzano | Council member Hoffman. |
| 01:54:15.74 | Ian Sobieski | Yes. |
| 01:54:16.55 | Walfred Solorzano | Vice Mayor Blomstein. |
| 01:54:17.96 | Ian Sobieski | Yes. |
| 01:54:18.74 | Walfred Solorzano | Mayor Cumming. |
| 01:54:19.69 | Ian Sobieski | Yes. |
| 01:54:20.63 | Walfred Solorzano | Motion passes. |
| 01:54:21.62 | Ian Sobieski | Great, thank you everybody. And thank you for allowing us to hear this, not once, but twice, and then also previously so that we're really able to vet this closely for the public. So with that, we're gonna turn now to our next agenda item. This is item 4B, consideration of the lease between the city of Salcedo and the Salcedo Center for the Arts. for the former Bank of America building located at 750 Bridgeway. I'll turn it over to Michael Wagner, our real estate manager. |
| 01:54:50.41 | Mike Wagner | Thank you, Mayor Calden. Give me one second here to that at my Presentation for you. Thank you. the There we go. All right. Good evening, my name is Mike Wagner. I am the principal consultant at MKW Real Estate Advisors. and your contract real estate manager here to present the terms and conditions for a proposed lease of a portion of 750 Bridgeway at the Sausalito Center for the Arts. ARTS. which I will hereafter call SCA. In addition, This presentation includes an update regarding the other leaks proposed for the rooftop of the building for restaurant, bar, cafe purposes. The rooftop use was part of the overall proposal made by the consortium of SCA and Restornomics which I will hereafter call restaurant owner. Under the proposal accepted by your council, pursuant to an RFI process, SEA would occupy the ground floor mezzanine of the building and Rustronomics would occupy a new floor to be constructed on the roof of the building. Both organizations have signed non-binding letters of intent And as I will show, each lease stands on its own merits, with the Arts Center providing a better than cost neutral public benefit and the restaurant bar cafe providing substantial new revenues to the city. At this time, staff is recommending that your council adopt a resolution approving the lease of Sausalito Center for the Arts, with such modifications as are agreed to by the city manager and the city attorney. While the financial and other business terms of the lease are fully negotiated at this time, It is typical for leases such as this to require last minute adjustments, to correct typos, or to clarify legal or non-business provisions just before execution. first to brief history of this project. In August, 2020, this council approved acquisition of the property. In 2021, the city issued a request for ideas, which basically functioned as a request for proposals. to which the city received five responses. The responses or proposals were then analyzed by the by the council against the objectives set up in the RFI. January 2022 this council selected the consortium proposal made by SCA and Rastronomics LLC. a company which is owned by the Mendel family. as best meeting those objectives and occupiers. |
| 01:57:16.62 | Ian Sobieski | And occupy it. I'm sorry to interrupt you. Are you have a presentation that we're supposed to be looking at right now? |
| 01:57:23.17 | Mike Wagner | that's what I'm making right now. |
| 01:57:25.11 | Ian Sobieski | Okay. |
| 01:57:25.41 | Mike Wagner | and this one. |
| 01:57:25.44 | Ian Sobieski | We're not reviewing it. |
| 01:57:26.98 | Mike Wagner | Yeah. Well, maybe this is a good time to check in, given our closed session earlier this evening. How would you like you to proceed? Yes, I think she's asking if you have slides. |
| 01:57:33.36 | Councilmember Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 01:57:37.17 | Eva | Yeah. |
| 01:57:37.60 | Mike Wagner | Oh, they're not. Oh, oh my goodness. I thought I shared my screen. |
| 01:57:37.61 | Eva | They're not. Oh my goodness. |
| 01:57:39.50 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. Yeah, yeah, sorry, yeah. Oh my goodness. |
| 01:57:42.49 | Mike Wagner | Oh my goodness. Yes, there you go. |
| 01:57:43.15 | Ian Sobieski | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:57:45.07 | Mike Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:57:45.12 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. Yeah, and Mike, I'm going to request because I think it's probably the most important thing. We had a very long conversation about this in closed session. I am going to ask you to summarize the closed session direction prior to us taking a public comment. |
| 01:57:54.34 | Unknown | I am. |
| 01:57:54.64 | Serge Avila | I'm going to have a |
| 01:58:00.29 | Ian Sobieski | SO THAT we have all the information for the members of the public who are here. |
| 01:58:04.85 | Mike Wagner | No problem. Uh... After our closed session discussion, I created a slide here Which, uh... |
| 01:58:14.67 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, you don't have to jump to it. You go through the rest of it. I just want to. |
| 01:58:14.87 | Mike Wagner | Yeah. Yeah, don't jump to the I hope that's good. |
| 01:58:18.74 | Ian Sobieski | alert you to that. |
| 01:58:20.07 | Mike Wagner | Oh, yes, I am ready for that. Thank you. |
| 01:58:23.21 | Ian Sobieski | OK. |
| 01:58:23.71 | Mike Wagner | I do have 20 slides to go through. |
| 01:58:23.87 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah. Yeah, so I will ask you to not go through all of them, but as much as you can highlight the important aspects of each. |
| 01:58:29.76 | Mike Wagner | Okay. |
| 01:58:34.60 | Ian Sobieski | No problem. And, but get us to that end point, because I think that's extremely important. |
| 01:58:34.82 | Mike Wagner | FROM. |
| 01:58:39.15 | Mike Wagner | Okay, no problem. So from an asset management perspective, This slide shows a bit of project history together with the real estate analysis of what is being proposed. The bank was bought of course in 2020 for $2 million. Based on market research conducted through my office, the value of the property has increased since acquisition, $1.86 million of the $2 million purchase price was funded by a 15-year public sector financing lease. under which the total monthly principal interest averages $13,150 per month. The interesting component of that financing during the first year of the SCA lease is $48,351 per year. and the interest payable goes down each year of the financing. The rent under the proposed SCA lease will cover the entirety of the interest component starting the first year. the lease also transfers responsibility for all operating costs to SCA. Thus, the city will have no ongoing interest or operating costs during the term of the lease. The proposed Restronomics lease, if approved by this council at a later date, is forecasted to generate approximately $240,000 per year new revenues to the city. Between the two leases, the overall rental rate expected for the property will be $41 per square foot per year, or approximately $3.40 per square foot per month Absolute triple net. a level which will further increase the value of the property, all of the things being equal. Moreover, the rest of restaurants lease will result in the addition of new rentable area to the building by virtue of the added third floor. Neither of these leases would preclude the sale of the property at a later date. And if the property were sold in the future, the buyer would simply assume the lease or leases as his customer. Ah, The project as envisioned by the proposal includes a regional class arts center on the ground floor. An open air restaurant, bar and cafe to be located on the new third floor. And finalizing the SCA lease is the first step towards realizing the overall vision. As mentioned earlier, both parties have signed non-binding letters of intent. However, the restaurant obviously is still under negotiation. because of the expensive and costly structural, architectural and engineering studies needed to design the project. The final design, which is expected in about three months, will inform important details for that leak. including square footages, shared access rights, and other provisions which are impossible to define or resolve at this time. If the SC lease is approved, Restronomics will proceed to complete its due diligence finalizes design. then staff will finalize its lease and return with it at a later date. Is this too much detail? |
| 02:01:32.34 | Mike Wagner | I THINK IT'S TOO. |
| 02:01:32.63 | Unknown | I think it should be fine right. |
| 02:01:34.81 | Eva | Yeah, keep on, Mike. |
| 02:01:34.82 | Mike Wagner | Yeah, keep on. Yeah. |
| 02:01:35.80 | Eva | Thank you. |
| 02:01:35.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:01:36.17 | Mike Wagner | All right. The lease with SEA helps realize the public-private partnership envisioned for this project and set out in the RFI. because The art center located in downtown provide a public benefit to the residents and visitors of Sausalito. The city will enjoy free use of the space 16% of the days in each calendar month. the city's current holding or carrying costs, and by that I mean interest and operating expenses will be reduced to $0 per month And I will go over this more. in greater detail in a later slide. The future proposed Restoranomics lease will create substantial new revenues to the city in the form of rent. sales taxes, and other fees. and the city has revenue upside under the proposed transaction, because it will share in private event fees. which I will also describe in more detail later in this presentation. The basic terms of the SA lease as negotiated are a 10 year initial term with two five year options, The premises would contain 5,725 square feet. That is the entirety of the ground floor and the mezzanine less the ATM space. The ATM lease would continue in place and the city would continue to receive approximately $2,123 in monthly revenue. Either party may terminate the SCA lease if it does not meet certain milestones, It's described in a later slide. SEA will directly pay for all operating expenses, and the cost of all major repairs and replacement This is an absolute triple net lease or a bondable lease where the city will have no cost other than the payment of the principal under the financing associated with owning the property. SCA will also pay his rent an amount equal to the interest payment under year one of the financing. This results in a monthly rent and an annual rental rather of $48,348 per year. The rental rate also results in SCA contributing toward the principal component of the financing because under the amortization schedule, the interest payments decline over time. Thus assuming SBA exercises its first option to renew the lease, SEA will contribute a total of $288,000 during the financing term. toward the acquisition price. SEA is also helping the city recoup the purchase price of the property. This is not a fixed rent lease. SCA is also required to pay 50% of all third party private event fees over a threshold of $15,000 per month. This threshold ensures SCA will have sufficient revenue to meet its obligations under the lease while also having sufficient funds to operate a regional class arts center. Finally, the proposed lease requires SCA to fund an initial capital improvement reserve of $25,000 and to add to that reserve over time until it reaches $50,000. This requirement will help provide SCA with cash to solve unforeseen repairs and replacements. If SCA uses the fund, they must replenish it out of their operating revenue. This slide presents the city's financial position per year under three scenarios. The first column, the current unoccupied scenario. And now again, principle is not represented in these tables. with only the SCA leasing effect. And three, with both leases in effect. Note that the city presently expense around $75,000 per year to hold the vacant property. not including the principal. Assuming the SCA lease is approved, as I am recommending tonight, the city will reduce this cost to zero. Assuming both SCA and Rastronomics leases are approved, the city will receive approximately $50,000 in estimated new revenues. This equates to approximately $41 per square foot in triple net rent revenue per year. or as I said, $3.40 per square foot. Vermont. Because SCA is a startup nonprofit, The proposed lease includes a number of performance milestones. most important of which are shown on this slide. if SCA fails to meet any milestone, and I should say timely meet any milestone, either party may terminate the lease. It is my opinion that if SEA is able to meet these milestones on time, they will have demonstrated that they are able to operate the Arts Center as an ongoing concern. According to SCA representatives, they have commitments for at least 50% the $400,000 payment Uh, which is one of the milestones. SEA has also reported that they have received a donation for the entirety of the first year's rent. I would like to point out that the board of directors milestone includes a number of sub requirements designed to include Marin City, and also ensure that the South Florida Arts Festival is not a driving force behind the center. SEA may use the center for the purposes shown on this slide. diseases are typical for an arts center. The art center must be open to the public like a museum, at least five days per week, six hours per day, This ensures public access to the facility and that it is not overused for private events. In addition, SCA must actively engage the public by having at least five programs for classes per month. The proposed lease requires that 20% of all programming focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion, helping to ensure the center is accessible by and interesting to many demographics and backgrounds. |
| 02:07:20.14 | Ian Sobieski | because |
| 02:07:20.24 | Mike Wagner | Thank you. |
| 02:07:21.10 | Ian Sobieski | Mike, I just want to make a suggestion. This is very detailed, and we spent a lot of time in closed session on this, and I appreciate all your work. |
| 02:07:21.28 | Mike Wagner | Yes. |
| 02:07:26.21 | Jan Johnson | We did. |
| 02:07:26.68 | Mike Wagner | Thank you. |
| 02:07:27.88 | Ian Sobieski | When you hit something that we have modified or we discussed, I think it might be helpful to just forecast that to the public. You don't have to skip anything, but I just don't want people seeing this and they're getting confused when they see the last slide. |
| 02:07:41.52 | Mike Wagner | Okay, let's see, there's no changes on this slide. Um... No changes on this slide. So, The other thing I was going to mention, I lost my notes here, was that The city also has the right to use the property in the event of a disaster or emergency. |
| 02:08:06.51 | Mike Wagner | I have to look it over this to see if we changed anything. Actually, it's going to be difficult for me to present and bear in mind the fairly numerous changes that were discussed in closed session. Um, |
| 02:08:21.55 | Ian Sobieski | Then proceed, and the public is alerted that there will be some changes. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but thank you again. |
| 02:08:27.82 | Mike Wagner | No worries. The transaction has been structured to provide the city with revenue upside over time. By upside, I mean the ability to collect more than just the base rest. SEA will need to solicit third-party private events in order to support its operation. where they will be paid a fee by the third party in order for the third party to use the facility. The city will receive 50% of these revenues over a monthly threshold of $15,000. This threshold is at the level SCA needs in order to fully fund not only the operating cost of the building and the rent, but also its art programs, displays, classes, et cetera. Over time, this additional rent may amount to significant city revenue. The more successful the center is at attracting private use when not open to the public, the more additional rent the city will receive. For example, say SEA has six private events in a month. at $4,500 each, which is a figure I believe is achievable. This will result in $27,000 in monthly revenue to SCA. Subtracting the $15,000 threshold I mentioned results in $12,000, and this is the amount which would be subject to the 50-50 split. The city would then receive an additional $6,000 in rent for that month. which, equates to $1.05 per square foot per month and additional rent. adding this to the base rent of 70 cents per square foot for months. equals $1.75 per square foot per month. Now, these are estimates. Uh, it's difficult to accurately predict what will happen, But this is an example. The SCA lease will also require it to spend at least $400,000 on tenant improvements during the first three years of lease terms. These improvements, as you will see in a moment, transform the building from a bank into a flexible arts center for visual, theatrical, musical, and other art. The city will have no responsibility to clean up asbestos or lead paint, which does exist in the building. SCA also intends to make additional improvements to the building likely during or after the time the third four is constructed. Under their proposed lease, the city will have the right of design approval for all such improvements. This plan shows the scope and I'm getting close. this this plan shows the scope of the phase one tendon improvement project I know the teller line is removed and most of the private offices, By removing these improvements, the center becomes an open, flexible space where art displays, music, dance, and dramatic performances may take place. And so here on your left, is an example of how the space could be laid out for you know, a a printed art You know, these are all display booths, if you will. And on the right here is a possible configuration for a musical or drama performance with the stage seating and some areas for people to take breaks have a snack or a cocktail. Thank you. It's possible that SEA's reserves especially early on in the lease term may not be sufficient to cover large repairs or replacements say for example replacement of the roof The proposed lease includes a provision which would allow SCA to request the city to fund such major repairs or replacements. and then pay back the cost as additional rent over its expected life, but we have now discussed changing that to over the lease term. the cost of the major replayers only if and replacement exceeds $25,000. SCA's Capital Reserve Fund is insufficient to cover the cost. and SCA's financial condition were to become insolvent if it were to make the repair. This provision helps ensure the city's asset is properly maintained over time and that deferred maintenance does not become a problem. If you'd like me to continue, I would like to provide an update regarding the proposed Rastronomics lease. |
| 02:12:31.61 | Ian Sobieski | You know, Mike, That's not for us to vote on tonight. So I think a high-level summary would be sufficient. |
| 02:12:40.64 | Mike Wagner | Well, I can say that... RESTRONOMICS. has reconfirmed its strong intention to proceed with a lease of the rooftop They're spending money on engineering and structural analysis right now. I know they're spending a significant amount of time We're in the process of drafting the lead. and you know, from From what I see, they are extremely intent on making this happen. Finally, Here is a visual analysis of what the building would look like with the And I hope that you can see my pointer. with the rooftop restaurant, bar, and cafe. Note it's an open area to the back would be a covered area that you cannot see in this analysis. |
| 02:13:34.27 | Mike Wagner | Okay, now. This is, these are the terms I believe we discussed in closed session. I think I caught them all. Please correct me if I did not. My understanding is that the council would like to renegotiate terms such that it would be a five year initial term lease with a five year option to renew. SEA would pay 18 months of rent at the interest-only level, that is the $4,029 per month. Then after 18 months, the rent would increase to a level that would fully cover both principal and interest. When you subtract the ATM rent revenue, that would equate to $11,095 per month. And If I understood correctly, if this were to occur, the city would eliminate the 50% rent sharing arrangement, fee sharing arrangement. unless the future council, a future council approved otherwise. the unfunded major repairs and replacements I discussed, would now be amortized over the remaining lease terms not the life of the repair components. the proposed right of first refusal would be deleted. Council would like to appoint one member to the SCA board. And the lease. be termitable by the city if restaurant restaurantics for yummy does not execute a lease within SCA's. first lease year. With that, I conclude my presentation, and I am happy to take questions. |
| 02:15:09.82 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you, Mike. I just want to applaud you again for your diligence. I know we've been back and forth on this and, you've really been able to track the details and engage on behalf of the city so thank you and My apologies again for interrupting your presentation. No worries. |
| 02:15:23.08 | Unknown | No worries. |
| 02:15:24.35 | Ian Sobieski | clarify so thank you again. Any questions for Mike Wagner before we move on to public comment? |
| 02:15:26.10 | Unknown | And again, |
| 02:15:34.30 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, so let's go ahead and open public comment |
| 02:15:38.88 | Councilmember Sobieski | I guess that termination thing, I mean, correct, Wayne. and maybe my colleagues can tell me if I'm wrong. That termination for the Restoromics is not one of the last term was Mm-hmm. |
| 02:15:53.51 | Ian Sobieski | Can you put the slide back up, please? |
| 02:15:54.89 | Councilmember Sobieski | You bet. |
| 02:15:59.43 | Councilmember Sobieski | We discussed all the other terms and and not that last one. Wait, I missed this here, where did I go? Thank you. |
| 02:16:06.45 | Mike Wagner | Here they are. This one right here. Yep. |
| 02:16:11.75 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:16:11.94 | Mike Wagner | Thank you. |
| 02:16:11.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:16:12.00 | Mike Wagner | Thank you. Shall I delete it? |
| 02:16:16.54 | Ian Sobieski | Why don't you leave it here for discussions purposes. Council Member Sobiski is not |
| 02:16:17.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:16:17.84 | Mike Wagner | Really? |
| 02:16:18.06 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:16:18.08 | Mike Wagner | All right. |
| 02:16:18.10 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:16:22.13 | Ian Sobieski | wrong that we did not articulate this, but we did have some conversation, but he's right to point out that it was not one of our bullet points. |
| 02:16:39.27 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, thank you for pointing that out. Let's take some public comment and then I'm sure we'll have a robust Council conversations. |
| 02:16:47.66 | Walfred Solorzano | Madam Mayor, we do have some commenters of our first The commenter is Tom Riley. Tom, you're being unmuted and ask you to share your video. |
| 02:16:52.72 | Tom Riley | Thank you. |
| 02:17:00.18 | Unknown | Thank you, Serge. And Mike Bironer, thank you for a very wonderful presentation. I fully support the Saucedo Center for the Arts and for the city to move forward with this lease I've lived here for 17 years with my wife Stacy. The constant complaint we hear is that This downtown is devoted to tourists. It's overrun by tourists. Our retail shops cater to day tourists only. The locals don't go downtown. And I fully agree with it. The last thing we need is for a developer to come in and turn the B of A into another. THEIR TOO. I'm going to go. souvenir shop or food hall. |
| 02:17:47.38 | Unknown | your |
| 02:17:50.08 | Unknown | Rather than our community. |
| 02:17:51.46 | Unknown | you |
| 02:17:53.29 | Unknown | I'm sorry. Am I with you? |
| 02:17:55.77 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, you were going on a little bit. |
| 02:17:57.89 | Unknown | I'm sorry about that. We should reclaim our downtown for our residents and our community. And the Special Student Center for the Arts does that. by celebrating our unique bohemian history |
| 02:18:09.33 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you, Tom. Sorry, as you can see, we've limited it to a minute, but we appreciate your sentiment and your comment. Thank you. |
| 02:18:15.65 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker is Vicki Nichols. Vicki, you've been unmuted. Now, share your video. |
| 02:18:21.30 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Kalman and council members again. I'd like to ask about process here. So I'm speaking from, the Historical Preservation Commission perspective. This building, as I've said from the very beginning, has a potential for historic significance. And I think the fact that you're considering what would be essentially a project by adding a floor without a historical evaluation is premature. It seems unfair potentially to the applicant, the Mendels who I, have great respect for to undertake a lease if there is significance found and this would destroy the integrity of the building. I think the cart is ahead of the horse here, unless you're going to not do that i would strongly disagree with that because that is required of every other applicant in the city and it should be included on a city-owned property. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:19:20.51 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker is Michael Mendel. Michael, you're being unmuted. Nice to share your video. |
| 02:19:26.18 | Michael Mendel | Thank you. |
| 02:19:31.62 | Walfred Solorzano | You'll need to unmute. |
| 02:19:37.32 | Unknown | Okay. Good evening council and thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on this. I was a little surprised to read that last bullet point on that last slide. that was new to me as well as Councilman Sobieski so I'll have to set that aside to make the comments that I wanted to make tonight, which are fully in favor of the FCA lease being approved. To have an active building in downtown Sausalito is such an enhancement for all of the local merchants. The few events that have taken place in front of that building, live music, Other gatherings have been a shot in the arm for businesses that have suffered over the last couple of years with empty storefronts and the lack of visitors. I'll end by saying yesterday, we were invited by the Chamber of Commerce to join State Senator. |
| 02:20:29.08 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:20:29.31 | Unknown | who said that tourism is not likely to come back to Northern California for another couple of years. So anything that helps activate downtown Sausalito, we are in favor of. Thank you very much. |
| 02:20:41.08 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 02:20:41.09 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you, Mr. Medell. |
| 02:20:42.34 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker is Cindy. Cindy, you've been unmuted and asked to share your video. |
| 02:20:49.28 | Cindy | Hi. Yeah, as an artist, I think it's really great The first meeting I ever attended last year of you guys, you were putting this city as a destination before the arts, and I got really concerned. So I totally agree with the speaker who was like, yes, it's all about the arts. Another thing I would say is that despite just saying like diversity, if we could also say specifically a large part of it or like, you know, a nice part of it being dedicated to the specific culture of Marin City and our black population who are so beautiful and they have so much to offer. And I think it would be really great to specifically include the year, like maybe, you know, a to specifically Marin City and its art and classes for specifically them and their culture. And I just really would love to recommend that. It'd be a beautiful thing. Okay, thank you guys. THANK YOU. |
| 02:21:40.78 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker is Raylene. Raylene, you're being unmuted. I'm going to share your video. |
| 02:21:53.65 | Raylene | Hello. Hi, I don't know if you can see me. Okay, thank you so much for this opportunity to speak here. As an artist in Sausalito, I... I find that the arts are, we're a city known for art. And yet we don't have visibility. I've also noticed that our biggest gathering space specifically is the library, which has tremendous programming and lifts, you know, punches beyond its weight. You know, this is an opportunity to provide another civic space And as somebody who is associated with the Innovator Circle with the Sausalito Center for the Arts, Once word got out on that, I have to say that the demand, the pent up demand has been obvious within the community. People have reached out number of ways with a ton of ideas and I think that this place would just really thrive and that's already evidenced by all of the programming already happening there. before we've even really |
| 02:22:57.44 | Ian Sobieski | No. Thanks, Raylene. I appreciate your comments, your insights. |
| 02:23:01.54 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker is John Flavin. John, you're going to mute it and ask you to share your video. |
| 02:23:13.07 | Ian Sobieski | I'm John. |
| 02:23:17.25 | Ian Sobieski | You'll have to unmute yourself, John. Thank you. |
| 02:23:18.81 | John Flavin | I have. |
| 02:23:19.09 | Ian Sobieski | Bye. Thank you. OKAY. |
| 02:23:21.07 | John Flavin | I listen, I disagree with Tom Riley vociferously. This low rent on this space, where even for a number of years is gonna make it impossible for local retailers to compete with this space. So you're going to hurt the very people you're trying, you should be trying to help at this point. Additionally, the interest-only analysis is a farce. I don't know where that came from. I've never seen it in my real estate career before. and the low rent makes it Absolutely. It's difficult, you're gonna drop the value of the building, you're gonna lose the city asset, And it's just a farce. And I think I'm shooting at a moving target You're changing the game, you're changing the rules, What are you going to approve? What are citizens actually going to be able to comment on this? You've spent two years, and you've given us four days and one minute. and I think that's a good thing. |
| 02:24:23.13 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you, John. Let's just pause for a second. Mike, can you bring the last slide back up? And I just wanna make sure everybody who's making public comment. So we had a closed session on this topic. We spent a long time weighing the community input and concerns and the comment letters AND WE CRAFTED A PROPOSAL THAT Mike will have to bring to SCA, but this is This is the revision that we would love public feedback and comment on. And Mike, if we could see your screen, that would be helpful if we could just So I just want everyone to understand that this is what what the council is looking at and looking for public comment and feedback on tonight. |
| 02:25:04.93 | Mike Wagner | Um... I'm having, forgive me, I'm having a technical problem here. |
| 02:25:11.02 | Ian Sobieski | Okay. Well, let's go ahead and then... CONSTITUTION. easily remedied my job. |
| 02:25:17.69 | Mike Wagner | trying. |
| 02:25:21.62 | Mike Wagner | you You didn't save it. We try to learn a place. |
| 02:25:26.99 | Ian Sobieski | No, it's okay. I just wanna make sure that the community understands it. We took your comments very seriously. We read every letter, we heard every point that was made. And so I wanna make sure you saw this slide again to understand the conversation that we had in closed session. |
| 02:25:42.61 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:25:50.11 | Mike Wagner | Can you see it now? |
| 02:25:51.31 | Ian Sobieski | Yes, we're sure can. So just take a moment here. Oh, no. Now let me see something else. |
| 02:25:57.25 | Mike Wagner | Oh, sorry. |
| 02:25:59.22 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 02:25:59.98 | Mike Wagner | I'm so sorry. Thank you. |
| 02:26:02.12 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 02:26:02.31 | Mike Wagner | again. |
| 02:26:02.75 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 02:26:02.83 | Mike Wagner | Thank you. |
| 02:26:03.67 | Ian Sobieski | Last slide, right? |
| 02:26:07.74 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 02:26:07.94 | Michael Mendel | Thank you. |
| 02:26:07.96 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 02:26:07.98 | Michael Mendel | Thank you. |
| 02:26:08.03 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 02:26:08.35 | Michael Mendel | Thank you. |
| 02:26:09.12 | Mike Wagner | Okay, not that one. I don't know. I'm so sorry. |
| 02:26:13.01 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, well let's, yeah, let's go ahead and finish off the, |
| 02:26:13.58 | Mike Wagner | Here it is. I got it. There you go. |
| 02:26:17.95 | Ian Sobieski | OKAY, GREAT. Okay. We looked at the term, we looked at the debt service, WE LOOKED AT THE A DRIPLE NET LEASE REQUIREMENTS AND AMORIZATION OF REPAIRS. WE LOOKED AT THE RITE OF FIRST REFUSAL PROVISION, We discussed adding someone to the board. And then this last term was loosely discussed, but not agreed upon by counsel. So just want everyone to see this again. and welcome feedback on any and all, but I just wanted people to see THIS AS WELL. um, we'll put it back up again when we when we talk but let's Now go back to public comment. Thank you everybody for indulging me. I just want to make sure the public is fully in the loop along the way. |
| 02:27:02.65 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker is Ronald Alpert. Ronald, you're being unmuted. Nice to share your video. Thank you. |
| 02:27:09.72 | Ian Sobieski | I'll be right back. |
| 02:27:13.82 | Ian Sobieski | We see you. |
| 02:27:14.21 | Ronald Alpert | Thank you. |
| 02:27:14.23 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 02:27:14.85 | Ronald Alpert | Okay, hi. Hey, I've been working pro bono for SCA for several months. I'm volunteering because I'm very excited in support of that SCA's vision for the site. I grant all the opposition letters Most of them oppose your previous decisions to buy the building and or your subsequent decision to negotiate with SCA. in the restonomics group. Where you are tonight is a natural and logical outcome of your previous decisions. Unless you want to undo those prior decisions, you should stay the course and approve the lease. I urge the city to adopt the lease as submitted Any brand new business terms need to be discussed by SCA's board. uh, but specifically that last bullet point is complete non-starter. It would make fundraising impossible. And it would probably make me decide to end my own volunteer efforts. Thank you. |
| 02:28:15.52 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker is Sandra Bushmaker. Sandra, you're being unmuted. |
| 02:28:20.61 | Sandra Bushmaker | Good evening, counsel. I hope that you've read all the letters in detail. You will find that in those letters, there was tremendous disapproval of this process. And like Mr. Flavin said, we have only had four days to review this. This is the first time we have seen this proposed lease. I'm gonna read you my conclusion because I only have a minute. I trust that you will do the right thing and stop this process on this bad lease for the city. and go back to the drawing board for fiscal help for the city. Come up with a lease that benefits the city and gives the city protections, or better yet, sell this loser property and send the profits to the basic needs of Sausalito infrastructure, like police and public works and community development staff. We have seen too much red ink in the past four years. We need to get in the black and we are wasting our on subsidizing this, THE FEDERAL. We say special lease. |
| 02:29:26.33 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you, Sandra. I'll also note you sent us an excellent letter that was in the public comment that should also be on the agenda. So thank you for taking the time to do that. |
| 02:29:35.94 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker is Jan Johnson. Jan, you're being unmuted and I should share your video. |
| 02:29:41.08 | Jan Johnson | Thank you. |
| 02:29:41.09 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 02:29:41.23 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 02:29:42.86 | Ian Sobieski | Hi, Jan, we can hear you and see you. |
| 02:29:44.26 | Jan Johnson | hi um the new terms aren't improvement but in my opinion this plan is still a financial malfeasance We've been in deficit spending for four years. This year's budget is $4.5 million in the red. building was purchased also in a deficit year. The proposal to lease at a way below market rate does not cover our costs. and you are subsidizing one new business to the detriment of established businesses. There are several letters by established businesses stating that this will harm them, and you are dependent on restaurants, which you do not know will make a positive decision to make this economically feasible. We're a population of less than 7,000 people. We residents cannot afford grandiose plans and ongoing deficit spending. Please sell this building. Um, You know, the more I see financial mismanagement, the more I wonder that I'll be able to stay here as I |
| 02:30:50.53 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you, Jan. |
| 02:30:53.23 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker is Pat Zouk. Pat, you're being unmuted and I'll ask you to share your video. you |
| 02:30:59.16 | Melissa Blaustein | Let's see, share video. Okay? START VIDEO. Can you hear me? We can, Pat. you All right. You can't see me. I'm sorry about that. First of all, I think I have some standing to comment. I am not, as Ron Albert said, someone who opposed the purchase of the meeting vocally, and I do want to comment and commend you on paying attention to the letters you received, mine included. I do, however, want to take issue with the notion that each lease stands on its own merits. This is a consortium. project and each depends upon the other. I'm not sure. I also think that I cannot approve a lease that I cannot read. This is not something that needs to be approved tonight. It needs to be rewritten. And we need to understand what the police and the Mendels propose to do and who they propose to pay for the improvements for the top roof. I think you'd be ill-advised to approve something at this kind of rapidity, it's not necessary. I'd like to see it. before I vote. Thank you, Pat. |
| 02:32:15.77 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker is Kristen. Kristen, you've been unmuted and I'll please share your video. |
| 02:32:24.12 | Kristen | Hello, good evening. I'm here to encourage council members to vote in favor of the lease. I appreciate that council has had a closed session and has attempted to address some of the community's concerns with very thoughtful consideration. I feel they have adequately weighed many of the pros and cons of this important item. I feel that this is a tremendous once in a lifetime opportunity for the city Budget woes come and go, but this project provides a chance for a fundamental reworking of the downtown corridor that may never arise again in our lifetimes. I also want to mention how truly excited I am about the prospect for this new center. I absolutely can't wait to get involved in supporting the center. And I know many people who feel the same. 20 years from now, the public will not remember our budget woes, but they will indeed appreciate this center. Thank you for acting on your vision. Thank you, Christopher. |
| 02:33:24.99 | Ian Sobieski | Bye. |
| 02:33:25.80 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker is Scott Hanson. Scott, you're being unmuted and I should share your video. |
| 02:33:29.95 | Scott Hanson | Thank you. |
| 02:33:29.98 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 02:33:30.02 | Scott Hanson | Thank you. |
| 02:33:36.21 | Unknown | it. Can you hear me? |
| 02:33:38.12 | Ian Sobieski | Yes, Scott. |
| 02:33:39.06 | Unknown | Thank you. I'm Scott Hanson, the owner and operator of Hanson Gallery in South Salido for 39 years. I'll talk fast. By writing an under market rent to this art center creates a competitive advantage to the art center and a large competitive disadvantage to the existing merchants in town. No merchant in town can compete with a tenant that's paying 15 to 20% per square foot of what everyone else pays for their rent or mortgage. And we can't compete with a business that is using voluntary labor and a commercial business. venture. I believe every merchant in town has competitive exposure to these operators and their commercial approach. Not only art galleries and all forms of art, but our glass stores, our jewelry stores, and any merchandise sold in town. t-shirts clothes objects can all be considered artisan or craft or created by an artist one could argue that almost everything sold in sausalito is artisan or made by an artist this group in setting up a gallery and business sales have already approached sausalito represented artists and artisans and tried to entartize them to leave existing |
| 02:34:44.71 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you, Mr. Hanson. I'm sorry, your time is up, but I will also note you sent us a letter that we reviewed that was in the public packet and on the agenda. So thank you for taking the time to send that to us. |
| 02:34:56.89 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker is Alice Merrill. Alice, you're being unmuted and I should share your video. |
| 02:35:03.24 | Alice Merrill | Thank you. Okay. It's dark here. Um... I know that this has been a hard bunch of years. Yeah. There's been so much going on bigger than us, bigger than anybody. worldwide. And it's taken everybody. by I don't know by what. But, We were trying to go faster than we need to. And the building was bought sort of on the spur of the moment. Oh, it stopped for sale. Buy it. AND I'M GOING TO BE I would like to see. More caution and more or thoughtfulness in him. I don't know, I'm just discouraged that the grand ideas are... are not, they're just by people who want grand ideas. and not thoughtful what is good for Sausalito. So thanks. Thank you, Alan. |
| 02:36:11.92 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker is Kay Carlson. Kay, you're being unmuted and has to share your video. |
| 02:36:25.25 | Ian Sobieski | Here's some unique. |
| 02:36:29.06 | Tom Riley | Thank you for the considerations of signing this lease, which I am heartily in favor of. We studied, and I was on the task force, we studied art centers all around California. And I'd like you to find some other art centers and see how they're doing and see if they're competing with their own merchants. They're not because it's a different kind of function. So we study this for many reasons. And I believe that Sausalito is uniquely posed to become a very successful community public, to give a very successful community public benefit with this center. And I'm so excited about it. I'm also the executive director of Moreno Open Studios. And for the county's artists, I'm saying this county needs a Southern Moran Arts Center. Novato has one. Thank you so much. if we can. |
| 02:37:26.17 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker is Kevin Carroll. Kevin, you're being unmuted. I appreciate your video. |
| 02:37:32.97 | Kevin Carroll | Thank you. Again, I'd like to kind of reiterate what I've said before. I spend 40 to 60 hours a week sitting in front of the Bank of America building. The few events that have been held there already, the arts for Ukraine, and the Maker's Fair that was held there I saw more local residents downtown. than in the, 20 years that I have been sitting there people that I normally drive up to Spencer Avenue and to the city or up to the Village Shopping Center and other parts of Marin, have been down at the bottom of the hill I've known them for 20 years, never seen them before. and they were showing up for those events. I understand the local merchant's concern. but I think the draw of more business by locals and the tourists. will add to all of those other businesses. Thank you. |
| 02:38:34.63 | Tom Riley | Thank you. |
| 02:38:37.45 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker is Arthur Bruce. Arthur, you've been unmuted and asked to share your video. |
| 02:38:49.34 | Arthur Bruce | I just wanted to echo what the, with a nice compassionate lady's head. guys sound like like machine men with machine hearts and machine minds and We're all gonna die. What if we died today? How do you want to spend the last? It's 9. Almost 10 o'clock. How do you want us to bend on it? spend the last few hours of your life? No. Let's see. Let's just think about it a little bit. It goes back to what I was saying with the with the CBD bong ribs, you know? Open your third eye. Look around. Take your shoes off. Connect your feet to the earth. It'd be good for you. You'll feel better. |
| 02:39:40.09 | Ian Sobieski | Great, thank you so much for that, Mr. Bruce. And my remaining, I'd like to move. |
| 02:39:42.99 | Walfred Solorzano | And my name is, I don't see any other hands for you. |
| 02:39:46.57 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, public comment going once. Going twice. Well, the comment is now closed. bring it back up here. And I really just want to thank our working group, Council Member Sobieski and Council Member Hoffman, for their diligent and hard work here. And so why don't we start with you guys? How would you like to weigh in and frame this? |
| 02:40:14.06 | Jill Hoffman | I think Mike did an excellent job with his 27 slides. And thanks to Mike, by the way, for all of his hard work on this, not just this lease, but, all the other review that he's been doing of our properties in Sausalito. So that was something that we did when we hired Mike was to take a look at the real estate assets that Sacio held and review them. and give us an assessment of how we were doing with those. So that's underway. an ongoing effort, but... Huge lift by him. So, To reiterate, I'll let Councilmember Sobieski weigh in too, but the property was purchased at a discounted price. We got a great rate on the interest or a great interest loan. a short loan, it's a 15 year loan. From the standpoint of, was it a good deal when we bought it? Yes, it's appreciated. quite well in the two years that we've owned it. So it's been a very good investment for Sausalito. as we hold it right now and the asset value of it. The idea that we, what we all started on with the city council was we wanted to use this in a way that was resident serving, that it was in keeping with, its strategic location in downtown Sausalito that we wanted it to be an open and vibrant place, that we wanted it open as quickly as possible. And so when we reviewed all of the proposals, this is the one that was going to get up and running and open the doors and turn the lights on the fastest with also, the greatest amount of community engagement. So that was the metric that we were looking at Also obviously is covering our costs and the deal points that would support the art center. AND, UM, give it a runway to become successful, but also looking at the bottom line. So the way the deal is, is worked out generally right now is that we received some monthly income from them so we get I think Mike had a slide on it, but we get a certain couple thousand for the ATM rental. we're gonna get about 4,000 from the Art Center. We have other revenue streams from the Art Center, so The deal was we wanted to be able to use that space a certain number of days. We mean the city of Sausalito for whatever events we wanted to do. rent free right so you factor in the cost of the rent on those five days a month, right? So it would have cost us I think a couple thousand dollars at least to rent different spaces around town when we've done things. through the city. that's a benefit to factor in and also the revenue sharing from events that a 50-50 split of the revenue from events that the Art Center puts on and receives rent for. We'll see how that works out. That's the 18 month. part of the. term that we discussed in closed session. If after 18 months we have the ability to increase, the rent up to the full amount of the coverage for our costs and or at the city council's option to modify that we can continue the revenue sharing with the events if that seems like. seems like the way to go. That was our goal. when and if the restaurant on the roof becomes operational, that's additional revenue and we're in solid positive revenue stream from this asset. Keep in mind if either one of these either one of these efforts fail, we can pivot and go to either another operator in that location or sell the building. These were the main drivers for the deal points. And I think it's a good deal. I think it was a good thing to buy the building. I was gone. when the decision was made to purchase it but I think you know, from a business standpoint, you'll be hard pressed to say it was a bad thing to buy an asset that's almost doubled in our investment in the past two years since we bought it so I think it's these deal points are good I think that the the ones that we worked on in closed session are the ones that we should present to the group except for the last one I think we didn't agree on that and discuss that and I think that would be detrimental to you know, participation by by different groups that you're trying to invest in your effort. So those are my thoughts on it as part of the working group. And I invite Councilmember Sobieski to weigh in. |
| 02:45:09.01 | Councilmember Sobieski | Thanks a lot. I wasn't on the city council when the purchase was made, but I wanted to echo the pop that it was a very wise investment so far, with the purchase price is $2 million, but the city has expended $350,000 between principle and interest. So, and the value of the building is more than doubled. So it's just a wise financial investment. That's actually an IRR of 167% for that cash. I'm a venture, in my day job, I'm a venture investor. So I like those kinds of returns. That money, if it had been left in reserves, by the way, we would have earned about 4%. um, Obviously, we'd only realize that if you sold it, but if you sold it all the day, The city would earn 167% on its money. So. I don't understand anyone who says it wasn't a wise financial investment. you can have an ideological point of view that you shouldn't be trying to real estate, but the city owns a lot of real estate. Eugene Heller built a Spinnaker restaurant, Sosnaya Yacht Club. Castrididly Marina, Edgewood Marina. um if you go on so we have a lot of real estate and i do think we should take a look at that it's a hidden element in our balance sheet and it can be an important part of solving our integrated deep infrastructure issues in town, so we should look at it. But nothing in this lease precludes us from selling the building at any time. It's just the way it is, we can sell it. So that option is always there. At least we picked among the variety of options. You know, we had no concession in January where we discussed all this and we all left it to proceed. We had the five applicants. You know, you have to choose among the options you have. Um, I kind of unproved the whole process. 18 months between beginning and end You know, we do a lot of, Leases that maybe aren't so great in South Salido, we all know about them, but this is, if only we did all our leases with this much effort, I think we'd be really happy with the office. At the end of the day, This is the one, as my colleague said, to get activate downtown in a way that we felt was, that we all felt, but it's soon. So it starts quickly. And then I just wanted to make one point. I mean, the library, which I love last year, in 2019, it serviced 1,740, unique social to residents. about 22% of the town. um, And we love our library and And it has a budget of a million dollars. So we actually spend a million dollars on those services We have been looking for ways to do more with less in Saucelina, to do more with less and Um, you can't ask people to work harder and make less money. You really want to find other creative ways to do so. And here's a case where, You remember the story with Tom Sawyer? he was told to paint his fence And he was wily enough on his Standing outside. So as his friends walked by, he talked them into painting his fence for him. Not only that, but paying him for the privilege. So they paid him for the privilege of painting the fence. Well, here we have, a civic organization that's paying the city for the privilege of providing a civic act and one that's multifaceted and I think, as you heard, very exciting to many people. I'm... I'm not sure. a firm believer that We're going to be so proud of this place. And if it fails, then we're back to the status quo, Andy. If we chose not to do this, we'd have an empty building. If we solved it, the developer might sit on it just like you. The theater building downtown in Caledonia is still in place. By keeping ownership of it in control, we get it activated soon and we keep all our options on the table. And we have a very interesting addition to our real estate portfolio that is appreciating very nicely. excited. And I think the modifications are great too. responsive to the community lots of great comments and and uh you know and we responded |
| 02:49:01.82 | Serge Avila | and we're going to have a |
| 02:49:01.89 | Ian Sobieski | responsibility |
| 02:49:08.64 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. All right, let's go to Councilor Cleveland, then the Vice Mayor, and then I'll chime in. |
| 02:49:13.58 | Councilmember Cleveland | Yeah, I just really wanted to thank our two working group members for their hard work and Mike Wagner for sticking to this negotiation. And I just wanna thank my fellow council members for a very productive conversation about how to best respond to community input around the deal terms of the lease. So I am very much in support of this use for the building. I think it really hits the sweet spot that we were looking for as Council Member Hoffman already described, it will enhance the area for bring local residents back to the downtown, It plays on, you know, one of our main identities in Sausalito as an artistic and really enhances that. And I think it's gonna activate our downtown or other retail businesses and hopefully draw additional regional while we are waiting for the general Bay Area tourist economy to return. So I think this is a very important just a win win and i really want to thank um everyone who has worked on this deal. And I hope that the modifications that we've come up with are acceptable and that we can move forward with the lease. So I know there's concerns. and I appreciate the concern that we've heard. But I'm very optimistic and hopeful that this is going to really do one of the main things that we talked about at the time that we talked about buying it, which is bringing back our downtown. for our residents and regional Um, visitors and really turn it into something that we can enjoy and be proud of as a as locals. Thank you. And thanks again to the working group and to my fellow council members. |
| 02:51:10.49 | Vice Mayor Bloustein | Thank you. |
| 02:51:10.51 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you, Councillor. |
| 02:51:11.03 | Vice Mayor Bloustein | Thank you. Vice Mayor. Great. I also want to echo the thanks to the working group who's put in a lot of time on this project and to Mike Wagner and also to the SCA board and all the volunteers in our community who have been engaged on making this a reality. I am really excited about having an artist hub in downtown and having this center. And I really do hope that it's something that we can continue to be proud of and see many years down the line as an incredible community space that will bring people back to downtown. I'm really thrilled to hear that. folks talk about events that have been successful. I've been to a couple of those events in front of the building and there's always a great turnout. I think there's so much potential in this project and there's also you know the heart of Sausalito has so much to do with artists and our history of supporting the arts and and being a real hub for whether it's music or painting or storytelling it's so much a part of who we are at the same time I am very aware of our fiscal reality right now and the fact that we've been having very frightening budget conversations about that we are faced with a large deficit. And we have been approaching every decision we make with a critical eye towards the budget. So I really appreciated the community input and the questions about know is this a fair market rate are we approaching this in the best possible way for the city um because we have to be making decisions like this in such a way that it can be something we can stand up to and and can also be consistent because we can't be saying for one property we'll offer this amount and for another we'll offer something different as we're trying to get our fiscal house in order so i really appreciated the conversation that we had in closed session i think people We did a really good job of coming together to talk about you know, what is a plan that will allow us for more fiscal solvency so we can get past just potentially paying down the interest to really being at a strong financial position so that we don't necessarily have to rely quite so much on the potential rooftop bar and we'll be in a stronger position going forward at the same time you know it does take time to start up a project like this so i think what we have worked out uh response to those um concerns and i i'm I'm happy to see us move forward with those adjustments. And I hope that the SCA will agree to them. I think it's really critical that we do build in some strong fiscal considerations as we move forward with the lease. And I really, again, want to thank the community members who did reach out and ask some really relevant important questions about the deal that we're making and what we're getting and i also want to say to the merchants who reached out as well you know this i think that this will be um an ongoing discussion and we as a city council as we appoint if we are if the terms are agreed to and we appoint a board member we'll continue to make sure that there's strong engagement with the merchant community and that we're that there's a good relationship between sca and all of the downtown businesses as well um so that's that's where I'm at with it and thank the fellow council members and appreciate the concern for our budget and trying to make steps and changes to the lease that will put us in a stronger fiscal position. |
| 02:54:09.08 | Ian Sobieski | THANK YOU, B.M. Yeah, thank you everybody. And this is truly, I think a community effort on both sides, folks who were proponents and those who maybe were not in favor of this use case. I think I've shown myself in the finance meetings to be pretty conservative. And so from a financial perspective, this was a very, very difficult, at least a conversation for me. And so you know, you know, when you think about an appreciating asset, as you all know, you don't see the benefit unless you sell the property. And when you think about an IRR the initial cash investment for the beginning period has to be equal to the present value of the future cash flows of the investment, meaning it has to have reliance on profitability. And so from a financial perspective, this was a big, this is a big lift for us to work through in closed session. And so I just wanna outline some of the topics that we covered because we did get a lot of of public comment and we did take them very seriously and we did look for ways to reach a compromise, which probably left both sides unhappy, which is a sign of a good compromise. So, you know, one of the big pieces of this was that this wasn't a market rent, that we weren't covering the debt service. So I just want to make sure everybody sees that the proposal on the table. And again, these have to be brought to SCA. And I hope that they'll understand our perspective as well in trying to work through this. But that the lease will revert to a full debt service principle and interest within 18 months. The council can reserve the right should the rev share be higher to stay with that, but we intend to cover the principle and interest at that time. There was a number of comments around the triple net lease. I hope you'll see, I mean, we handled that with an amortization provision so that there isn't some type we will in fact amortize the full repairs and it won't be over a limited time window. We talked about the term. I got a lot of public comment, had a lot of conversations around, why would you enter into a below market, lease for 20 years. You're right, why would we? So we're not going to. What we're going to do is look at a five-year term with a five-year option and that's it. And again, keep in mind within 18 months, principal and debt will be paid We also removed that writer first refusal at the appraised value. So there are some comments that having a below market value rent would lower the price of the... of the property. So the city lease agent, Mike, can in fact make sure that the appraised value of the property, if at least is at market rates so that, you know, as we look forward to anybody moving forward in a potential sale, we would have that. But in any event, the right of first refusal has been removed. So, you know, in closing, I really just, I wanna thank my council. This was hard. And we tried to balance various objectives And I wanna call out that this does play on Sausalito's identity. And it does when we have ownership and control gives the city options and I hope We'll have a similar conversation when we review the machine shop, which I think actually satisfies both of those and is very much in keeping with a lot of the comments and perspective that I heard here tonight. So I do want to flag that. I would hope that with these new bullets that we will see a revised lease. I'd like to see it in writing, but we have authorized the the property manager to go ahead and share that with SCA and get approval. So that would be my request, my final request, of course, removing that final bullet. Um, I'm not comfortable that we keep talking about a lease that hasn't been signed around Restonomics. They are welcome to bundle this if they want to, but they haven't wanted to. So I think we need to look at one thing at a time. So I would like to see it in writing. We can remove that last bullet. And with that, I'm ready to, I don't know if we need to make a motion or just vocalize the direction or take additional comments. |
| 02:58:12.96 | Councilmember Sobieski | You can make a motion to... |
| 02:58:13.94 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 02:58:14.80 | Councilmember Sobieski | approve the recommendation of staff to offers a city manager sign a lease in the form submitted in the staff report modified with the bullet points that you articulated there. Um, That's it. |
| 02:58:28.26 | Ian Sobieski | Council Member, are you, including within that the opportunity for us, at least on consent, to review the lease and so that we see that our comments are captured appropriately and accurately and members of the public can also see them as contained in the lease. I think that's the last piece of transparency here that would really go a long way for long term buy in. |
| 02:58:46.39 | Councilmember Cleveland | I think we had talked about the fact that we would authorize the city manager to sign the lease tonight. So I'm in favor of the motion on second. Thank you. |
| 02:58:55.67 | Ian Sobieski | Well, I appreciate that. You're right, we did discuss that. I just wanna see the motion was made by Councilor Sobieski. I wanna see if he is willing to include that or if he wants to approve it side on scene. |
| 02:59:06.11 | Councilmember Sobieski | Well, if it's not sad and seen, they can't believe. talked about this approach being authorizing just what I said and so I think we should proceed in that way. We have these children as well specified. Amen. So I don't think we need to do it. Thank you. See you again. You're all crazy. Good to do it. |
| 02:59:25.20 | Jill Hoffman | Can we attach the lease with the amendments to tonight's agenda? if like a retroact, you know, so that people can actually see the lease or how might we do that? And that's a question to our city attorney team. |
| 02:59:41.17 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 02:59:42.53 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:59:42.55 | Mary Wagner | So if I'm understanding the question correctly, Councilmember Hoffman, If the city manager is able to negotiate the terms within the parameters given by the Council tonight, we could then make the executed least publicly available, however, the Council would like it can either be on the city's website, it could be. you know, attached to this agenda if you would like. I but everybody first. how would we, |
| 03:00:07.96 | Jill Hoffman | I'm, not necessarily like the executed lease, I think maybe, I don't know, we can figure that out later, but we, how would we attach the lease with the edits that we agreed to tonight in closed session? Like had we been thinking about it, perhaps we would have. |
| 03:00:23.28 | Serge Avila | Like, how? |
| 03:00:27.01 | Jill Hoffman | I don't know, attach them to the agenda as, I don't know. Could we have done that? I'm just asking now so that the public can see the lease that's gonna be presented to the, you know, to the SDA group. Is that possible? done. |
| 03:00:48.50 | Mary Wagner | That's not something we would normally do Councilmember Hoffman. We can certainly summarize the direction that you've given tonight. We don't usually transmit drafts, multiple drafts to the public while we're negotiating a lease. |
| 03:01:05.76 | Councilmember Cleveland | Okay. So the lease is attached to our agenda for tonight. And then we're only making those whatever five changes, which |
| 03:01:09.50 | Mary Wagner | opportunity. |
| 03:01:16.19 | Councilmember Cleveland | or described on the slide. Right. So we have... |
| 03:01:18.84 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:01:18.91 | Ian Sobieski | Right. |
| 03:01:20.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:01:20.22 | Ian Sobieski | So I think- |
| 03:01:21.15 | Councilmember Cleveland | Yeah. . |
| 03:01:21.94 | Ian Sobieski | So the presentation. |
| 03:01:23.04 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:01:23.46 | Councilmember Cleveland | Thank you. |
| 03:01:23.83 | Ian Sobieski | Lept-in presentation can be loaded to Granicus, correct? |
| 03:01:23.87 | Councilmember Cleveland | Thank you. |
| 03:01:23.97 | Unknown | Right. There you go. |
| 03:01:27.31 | Ian Sobieski | Honestly, I mean, I think it's lost opportunity just to have the transparency to let people look at it more than just having a flash on the screen. Um, I've agreed to the terms already. So let me just throw that out there. I'm not gonna hold it up, but I do think it's a lost opportunity. I will say this, my main concern is that first bullet. And so I wanna make sure we're on an agreement that we're reverting to within 18 months to the full debt service with the option to stay with the, a rupture if we want to, but it will automatically go to the last year. |
| 03:01:58.75 | Nick Moscalino | Absolutely. |
| 03:02:00.26 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:02:00.30 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, I agree with that. And if Mike, if you can post your slide, |
| 03:02:01.55 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah. |
| 03:02:01.67 | Nick Moscalino | Thank you. |
| 03:02:01.73 | Ian Sobieski | True. |
| 03:02:06.29 | Jill Hoffman | that last side of the summary and eliminate that last term which was you know the the restaurants doesn't sign so eliminate that so at least those that summary is is posted and then you know, I guess to the point of you know, this is our, this is our, you know, offer back. Hopefully it will be accepted and then we're done. um, Right. And so that we can move forward. So this project can move forward and we can get this up and going as we've been criticized for not and completing. and getting it up. So I think that's what we're trying to, the point we're trying to get to now. Tell me. |
| 03:02:45.27 | Kevin Carroll | Thank you. Yeah, no problem. |
| 03:02:47.63 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:02:47.65 | Ian Sobieski | THANK YOU. |
| 03:02:48.00 | Jill Hoffman | you |
| 03:02:48.71 | Ian Sobieski | Okay. So we do have a motion pending. If no other comments, we can take the roll. |
| 03:03:00.24 | Ian Sobieski | Sir, do we need you? |
| 03:03:01.56 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Sobieski. Yes. Councilman Rick Lutner. |
| 03:03:05.17 | Ian Sobieski | Yes. |
| 03:03:05.59 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 03:03:05.99 | Walfred Solorzano | Council Member Hoffman. |
| 03:03:07.24 | Ian Sobieski | Yes. |
| 03:03:08.44 | Walfred Solorzano | VICE MAYOR BLOUSTEIN. |
| 03:03:09.82 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 03:03:09.84 | Ian Sobieski | Yes. |
| 03:03:10.70 | Walfred Solorzano | And Mary Kelman. |
| 03:03:11.97 | Ian Sobieski | Yes, thank you. |
| 03:03:13.10 | Walfred Solorzano | MOTION PASSES. |
| 03:03:14.75 | Ian Sobieski | All right, thank you everybody. That was a really excellent collaborative job Okay, onto one of our favorite items, which I know we're all very excited about, which is item. 5A, which is ordinance amending chapter 12.16 of the Sausage Lido Municipal Code Noise Control to prohibit the use of gasoline powered landscape equipment. So Director McGowan, APOLOGIES, WE'RE A LITTLE BIT BEHIND HERE, BUT I HANDED or Andy. |
| 03:03:41.74 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:03:42.00 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:03:42.78 | Andrew Davidson | Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council. I'd like, well, personally, bring up the presentation. |
| 03:04:05.41 | Andrew Davidson | There we go. So yes, it's me. Good evening, mayors and members of the city council. I'd like to thank you, the city manager and the director of public works for this opportunity to present to you proposed ordinance amending Sausalito Municipal Code Chapter 12.16, Noise Control, to prohibit the use of gasoline powered landscape equipment. My name is Andrew Davidson. I'm senior engineer in your department of public works. Kevin McGowan, who is our director of public works, is not able to attend tonight. So he's asked me to make this presentation. The recommended motion in front of you this evening is to introduce and read by title only an ordinance of the City Council of the city of Sausalito amending chapter 12.16 of the Sausalito municipal code noise control to prohibit the use of gasoline or landscape equipment. |
| 03:05:03.09 | Andrew Davidson | Earlier this year, the Sausalito sustainability commission developed recommendations to ban gasoline powered landscape equipment in Sausalito. They presented nine findings and declarations on why this equipment should be banned. These include noise impacts to the community, improvements in battery and electric powered equipment, reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and the state will restrict the sale of gas powered landscape equipment, likely starting in 2024. And you can refer to attachment two of the staff report to see all of sustainability's findings and declarations. The attachment also includes some selected emails from residents and is supported, it shows support for use of electric powered leaf blowers and weed eaters from Bay City's Refuge Service, a relevant business operating in Sausalito. Additionally, your resolutions 6-1-5, which declared a climate emergency, directs the city manager to work with staff to meet the growing climate emergency by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Moving forward with this proposed ordinance aligns with this direction. Absorbance also aligns with your strategic goal K4 to continually improve and maintain and structure while depressing climate change. |
| 03:06:31.31 | Andrew Davidson | Other cities and towns in Marin have implemented full or partial bands of gas powered leaf blowers. This includes Belvedere, Cordo Madero, Mill Valley, San Anselmo, Arkesburg, Ross and Tiburon. And according to an article published in the Marin IJ just on July 9th, Fairfax has approved a ban on all gas-powered landscape equipment, and Novato is also pursuing one. So that second bullet on this slide is incorrect. The same article states the city of San Rafael will be considering an ordinance to ban gas powered leaf blowers this August. |
| 03:07:10.56 | Andrew Davidson | Sustainability is recommending a comprehensive ban on the operation of gas powered landscape equipment, including leaf blowers, lawn mowers, weed trimmers, and chainsaws within Sausalito. As you can see in this slide under category A, the proposed changes to this chapter in the municipal code include a ban on gas power lead flow starting at the end of this September. With some exceptions, the proposed ordinance further prohibits other gas powered landscape equipment. Under the category B, lawn mowers, hedge and weed trimmers, as well as weed whackers would be banned starting in January 31st of next year. Under category C, chainsaws, pole-mounted chainsaws, and pole-mounted trimers would be banned starting December 31st of 2023. Staggering the effective date for implementation of category B and C allows for education of residents and landscape businesses. And also potentially lessens the impact to small businesses with some funding becoming available as early as the summer. From the California Air Resources Board for the purchase of zero emissions small off-road equipment. And these landscape gas powered machines are considered small off-road equipment. And these landscape gas powered machines are considered small off-road equipment under Greenstone's gas emissions inventories. |
| 03:08:38.60 | Andrew Davidson | Staff is recommending seven exemptions from the proposed ban, which you can see here, allowing use of lawn mowers for turf, non-electric lawn mowers for turf areas larger than 1,000 square feet. 1,000 square feet can be visualized as a square of about 32 feet on a side. The use of gasoline powered equipment should not be restricted during emergencies. A ban should not restrict the ability of emergency service personnel from protecting the health and safety of the community. Some landscape equipment used for public works projects and some landscaping projects require significant power that battery powered equipment cannot currently provide. Exemptions for things like rototillers and post hole drills, as well as general public works projects are also recommended. |
| 03:09:30.86 | Andrew Davidson | School districts are under the jurisdiction of the state and the city does not have jurisdiction to limit the equipment used on school properties. Finally giving the directors of the community community development department and public works department discretion to allow specific exemptions to the ban will provide some flexibility should the need arise. |
| 03:09:54.76 | Michael Mendel | Thank you. |
| 03:09:54.89 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. |
| 03:10:00.09 | Andrew Davidson | The sustainability commission has been working on and off of this project for many, many years, at least as far back as 2010. Many things are due to all those commissioners who helped develop this ordinance along the way. Thanks also to those members of the city council who looked into this and took it up over the years, and to members of the public and their continued interest. Staff anticipates addressing the council in the future for other changes to this chapter of the municipal code. For now, sustainability and staff felt it important to move forward with a ban on gas-powered landscape equipment with minimal double A. And that concludes my presentation, and hopefully I can answer any questions you might have. |
| 03:10:42.97 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you, Andy. I actually have two questions. One was we had talked about having some type of loaner program. where somebody could come in and actually borrow an electric VIRGIN. I don't know if you have any familiarity with that. And then my second question is that I believe the state is expected to make around $30 million of debates available. to how proprietors of landscaping businesses switch to electric yard tools as well. Is your office tracking that at all? |
| 03:11:13.92 | Andrew Davidson | the answer to the first second question is yes the California resources board is expecting to open up their a program later this summer for small businesses they according to the website they're going to have about 30 million dollars available to assist small businesses in purchasing electric powered landscape equipment the loaner program I'm sorry I'm not familiar with but it certainly is something that could be looked at I don't know that the city has much in the way of electric or I'm sorry gas powered equipment we the city has switched already to electric leaf blowers but maybe there would be a way of doing something the city is not a rebate program. Fairfax did propose or has passed rebate program. That's not something Sausalito is expecting to do. |
| 03:12:07.70 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, thank you. Would you mind taking down your screen share and we'll go to the council members, Council Member Hoffman and then the vice mayor. |
| 03:12:13.47 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:12:14.41 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:12:19.86 | Jill Hoffman | Councilman Hoffman thought, thanks. So Andy, either you or maybe again, our city attorney, team can tell us what's the next what's the next flow process right for actually being able to implement the ban i saw on the staff report that I think we need to have another step in there somewhere back with |
| 03:12:36.11 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:12:40.06 | Jill Hoffman | the Planning Commission. |
| 03:12:42.85 | Andrew Davidson | No, the idea with the planning commission would be future modifications to that particular chapter in the municipal code 12.16 noise control. What's coming forward this evening is specifically |
| 03:12:52.35 | Serge Avila | with. |
| 03:12:57.60 | Andrew Davidson | uh, leaf blowers coming up in September and then powered landscape equipment. So not additional issues related to the chapter noise control. |
| 03:13:08.18 | Jill Hoffman | Sorry, sirens going past my house. so what's the process so this is going to become this is going to be implemented when we got a I mean, I think we got some mail on that. somebody could weigh in on that and maybe our city attorney or |
| 03:13:26.56 | Andrew Davidson | So avoiding the sirens there. Sorry. That's okay. I've got dogs here. So the, if this is passed, there's gonna be a second reading. And then the implementation would be the end of this September, September 29th would be the beginning of the ban on leaf blowers. And then continuing on with that process into January, certain the category B elements would be ban. And then at the end of next year would be the category C elements. |
| 03:13:57.00 | Jill Hoffman | OKAY, THANK YOU. |
| 03:13:57.98 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:13:58.03 | Jill Hoffman | Thanks for that. That's all. |
| 03:13:59.97 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. Great question, yeah. Vice Chair. |
| 03:14:03.71 | Vice Mayor Bloustein | Great, so I reached out to the sustainability commission before the meeting just to get their feedback on this. So I had a couple of questions about their considerations to see if we might make those adjustments before we take public comment or we can do it afterwards. But so, There was a request from the sustainability commission to review everything at the end of phase three by at the end of 2023 when we have a better idea of what the state like whether or not the state will ban gas leaf blowers or gas equipment and we'll be able to see like what this what the small equipment cost is and the fiscal impact so they're asking for that AS ONE PIECE. The other piece is on the second request that you have for the modification to the to the, sorry, to the noise ordinance at like for all gas powered electric or all gas powered appliances to not be used. in a case of emergency, if we could just add in addition to using the electric equipment, because it implies that you would be only using gas powered rather than any electric. And I think it can be both. And the same would go for number three for the instances where we would use Additionally, whatever electric appliances we have in instances where we can, just to make that clear, we wanna make sure that we're still encouraging that. And then the last request they had was around potentially increasing the amount of square footage for the lawnmowers because typical capacity for these leaf blowers is 45 to 60 minutes on a battery charge so you would be able to get to 1000 square feet, so if we could extend that to 2000 square feet for an exemption. So I just wanted to bring those forward. Those are the requests from sustainability commission and get some feedback from staff about that. |
| 03:15:52.57 | Andrew Davidson | So the second, the last part about increasing the square footage for, you mentioned leaf blowers, that would be for the lawn mowers, 1,000 square feet. Does it mean lawn mowers then? Yeah, sorry, excuse me. |
| 03:16:01.11 | Vice Mayor Bloustein | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 03:16:06.36 | Mary Wagner | Vice Mayor Blaustein, members of council, if I may just make sure I understand the sections that you're referencing, make sure that we're tracking correctly what the questions are. So I think what you're talking about is section 1216-137 and then the exceptions in subsection 1316. Thank you. be. One is that use of gas powered landscape equipment for large turf areas. You're suggesting that that 1000 square feet be 2000? That's right. |
| 03:16:32.57 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 03:16:33.21 | Mary Wagner | And then under 2.0, the use of gasoline powered landscaping equipment, which now says may be utilized during an emergency or disaster, we would say the use of gasoline-powered land space equipment may be utilized in addition to electric powered. And I apologize, Vice Mayor Blassey, the third one, which was your first one, which was that there's a review at some point. Did you want that drafted in the ordinance? It's the language of the ordinance itself. |
| 03:16:45.78 | Vicki Nichols | Right. |
| 03:16:59.91 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 03:16:59.92 | Vice Mayor Bloustein | So I think that what she meant was after category C, what after category C goes into effect in December 31st, 2023, Or perhaps after category B, just do somewhere in the ordinance doing a review of like how much can we now expand where we can and can't use gas powered and is it working? |
| 03:17:17.02 | Mary Wagner | And is that a review at the council level or is that something that the council would want the sustainability commission to do and then report back to you? You could do that a couple ways, Madam Vice Mayor. You could put that in the text of the ordinance, or you could just give us that direction tonight that you want to see this go at certain points to the Sustainability Commission and or the council. |
| 03:17:39.86 | Vice Mayor Bloustein | If I may, I see that Mark Palmer from the sustainability commission is here. If he wants to clarify what their request might be around the review. Marguerite, are you there? Maybe you stepped away. Okay, well, I think whatever you feel will make the most sense, I know the sustainability commission has been really fantastic on, oh, hi, Mark. There you are, you unmuted. There you go. |
| 03:18:05.63 | Unknown | Thank you, good evening. |
| 03:18:06.41 | Vice Mayor Bloustein | Oh, and Lauren's here too. Okay, great. |
| 03:18:08.60 | Unknown | Yes, I think Lauren would be best to speak on this issue. She was, I believe, the one who brought up the review. |
| 03:18:16.75 | Vice Mayor Bloustein | I didn't see you here, Lauren. Sorry. Go ahead. She's the chair of the commission. |
| 03:18:26.98 | Ian Sobieski | You're still muted. Thank you. |
| 03:18:30.08 | Lauren | Bye. |
| 03:18:30.52 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:18:31.55 | Lauren | Sorry about that. Yeah, so I can clarify that that comment about the review is simply to take a look at what we've learned, make sure there's not an opportunity. |
| 03:18:41.85 | Unknown | you |
| 03:18:41.93 | Lauren | to you know, implement other things that we may learn about in the next three years. it was really just a comment and I think I certainly would be comfortable with Um, us simply having the commission review that and then bring it over to council. So I don't think it has to be written into the ordinance. |
| 03:19:04.63 | Ian Sobieski | Thanks, Lauren. Thanks for that, Vice Mayor. Any other questions for staff before you take public comments? Okay, so why don't we hand it over to our public, see if you have any public comment on, This item. |
| 03:19:21.28 | Walfred Solorzano | Madam Mayor, I see no hands raised. |
| 03:19:23.98 | Ian Sobieski | Okay. the comment Once and twice? All right, it is closed now for... this item 5A, bring up to the council. I am delighted to see this. I am personally ready to approve it with the changes as suggested, but if folks would like to make other comments, I welcome those at this time. |
| 03:19:43.73 | Councilmember Cleveland | That was a motion, I'll second it. |
| 03:19:45.47 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:19:46.38 | Councilmember Cleveland | Thank you. |
| 03:19:46.44 | Councilmember Sobieski | but it's the first thing I thought of |
| 03:19:47.51 | Councilmember Cleveland | Yeah. |
| 03:19:47.80 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:19:49.87 | Councilmember Sobieski | The first engagement with the city was thinking, gosh, it would be great to ban these 300 people. So it was, you know, I'm so pleased to be here today to do this. that you can see environment in so many ways. Congratulations to the sustainability committee and commission. Sidney Hanson, I think, took it all off with a letter a while back. |
| 03:20:14.74 | Ian Sobieski | Sonia Hanson and Clint Wilder, Citizens have shepherded this through, so thank you for your work. |
| 03:20:19.99 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, let me weigh in here too. Yeah, we brought this to the city council, I think six years ago from the legislative committee. |
| 03:20:20.14 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah. |
| 03:20:29.49 | Jill Hoffman | former mayor joan cox and i did and it was voted down so I'm happy, very happy that it's back and that we're voting for it and it has full support from the council. um, Yeah, I'm ready to vote too. Thank you. |
| 03:20:44.66 | Ian Sobieski | Any other comments before we call the roll? |
| 03:20:46.99 | Vice Mayor Bloustein | And I just, I just want to be sure we're including the sustainability commission's recommendations in the motion that we're approving. |
| 03:20:52.43 | Mary Wagner | Okay, great. |
| 03:20:54.11 | Vice Mayor Bloustein | Thank you. |
| 03:20:54.22 | Mary Wagner | And Madam Mayor, I apologize because this is an ordinance, you know, we're asking you to introduce read by title only this ordinance of the city amending chapter 1216 of the meeting code noise control to prohibit the use of gas powered landscape equipment. And I believe that to be the Council's motion with the modifications directed by. or read into the record by Vice Mayor Blasden. That is correct. Thank you. |
| 03:21:18.43 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. All right. Take public comment. So we did and yeah, we even did it once and twice. Yeah. Sorry. All right, so surgery, please call the roll. |
| 03:21:29.97 | Walfred Solorzano | Council Member Sobieski. Yes. on some members present. |
| 03:21:34.63 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:21:34.65 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:21:35.63 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 03:21:36.84 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:21:37.25 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Weissmere Blaustein. |
| 03:21:42.90 | Ian Sobieski | . That's great. She looks frozen. I think she's frozen. |
| 03:21:49.95 | Walfred Solorzano | and trying to see if we can get it, get her back. Amen. |
| 03:22:04.21 | Walfred Solorzano | It appears as the vice mayor is not responding. |
| 03:22:12.25 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Well, I'm pretty sure she's in favor. No, no, no. |
| 03:22:19.77 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:22:19.81 | Arthur Bruce | I'm going to handle that one. |
| 03:22:19.97 | Ian Sobieski | I handle that one. |
| 03:22:20.63 | Jill Hoffman | THE END OF THE END OF THE you |
| 03:22:20.97 | Ian Sobieski | I think she was one more. |
| 03:22:21.20 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:22:21.27 | Arthur Bruce | Mayor Kellman. |
| 03:22:22.99 | Ian Sobieski | Yes. |
| 03:22:28.34 | Walfred Solorzano | Motion passes. |
| 03:22:29.17 | Ian Sobieski | Wait, did you want to vote? Sorry. Yes. My internet went out. |
| 03:22:34.76 | Unknown | it. |
| 03:22:35.19 | Ian Sobieski | Good. Motion passes five minutes, everybody. |
| 03:22:37.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:22:39.28 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, all right, we'll move right along then to item six, communications. This is the time the city council hear from citizens regarding matters that are not on the agenda. State law precludes the council from taking action or engaging in discussions concerning items that are not on the agenda, although we may briefly reply. OKAY. SO WHY DON'T WE GO AHEAD AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY Public comments on items that are not on the agenda. |
| 03:23:01.08 | Walfred Solorzano | Madam Mayor, I do see one hand raised, Arthur Bruce. And Arthur, you've been unmuted and asked to share your video. |
| 03:23:13.99 | Arthur Bruce | They're not letting me in. No, you're right there, aren't you? We hear you. Okay. Eh. OK. So here's the deal. We're trying to save the environment, right? carbon. THE COMMISSIONS. You'll grasp. THE FAMILY. What we really need to do is get rid of these poor people so we don't have to look at them anymore. The ones in the homeless camp. was that legacy, community. There's only six legacy vessels in Sol Solita waters, I understand that Sausalito has pulled out of it. as far as gas-powered Whatever. I pulled out of the RBRA by the Um, but there's still They're not involved with the RBRA. but yet they, I think a big partner with the RBRA. being involved with somebody, I think of like a partnership. And it's just strange to you. TO SAY YOU'RE NOT INVOLVED with an agency that you're that you partner with. |
| 03:24:21.15 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you, Mr. Bruce. |
| 03:24:26.62 | Walfred Solorzano | Our next speaker is Ethan. Ethan, you're being unmuted. He has to share your video. |
| 03:24:32.93 | Scott Hanson | Okay. All right, we'll have a video. |
| 03:24:39.93 | Jeffrey Chase | Hello again from beautiful downtown Sausalito, right by the tennis courts where it's never really nighttime because we got sodium lamps that keep on burning. |
| 03:24:53.67 | Jeffrey Chase | Two proposals for initiatives. local. as I am. they come from a little bit of experience here. |
| 03:25:06.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:25:06.82 | Jeffrey Chase | A community garden in Sausalito. To grow food. De facto banned? I started four, the last one was a sunflower garden. That needs to be a decision of the people here in Sausalito, whether they choose to have vegetables and fruit trees. grown. on. their land. on our land. The second one is public access. THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF. |
| 03:25:39.98 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:25:40.08 | Jeffrey Chase | Thank you. |
| 03:25:40.09 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:25:40.13 | Jeffrey Chase | Thank you. |
| 03:25:41.44 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, any other public comments and items that are not on the agenda tonight? Madam Mayor. |
| 03:25:46.93 | Walfred Solorzano | Madam Mayor, you know their hands raised. |
| 03:25:49.04 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you, we'll go ahead and close that. We'll move on then to council member committee reports. I have a few items. Does anyone else have anything they wanna? Okay, well, I'm gonna just use this very quickly. I did wanna provide this at the beginning of the meeting, but I didn't wanna hold up our public conversation. But this is the time where I get to brag on all of you. So pardon me while I do so, but I just want to highlight that this council has been working really, really hard generally and specifically to find new sources of revenue and support for the initiatives that are ongoing in our community. And so I want to use this opportunity to really thank the work started by Vice Mayor Lowstead and Councilmember Hoffman to acquire funding to support the guests in our encampment. As you all know, we have... started by Vice Mayor Lowstead and Council Member Hoffman to acquire funding to support the guests in our encampment. As you all know, we have a commitment from the county to match funds from the state and that would not have come about had we not had a working group with such direction and motivation last year. I just want to thank you. That money, of course, is earmarked, but that is an important allocation for us. I also want to take you. That money, of course, is earmarked, but that is an important allocation for us. I also want to take this opportunity to thank Councilman Hoffman, who worked pretty tirelessly to encourage RBRA to abandon their expensive program for mooring field and provide affordable housing alternatives for folks on the water. So I don't know if you all know this, but last week, RBRA held a special meeting to announce termination of the mooring field idea. And instead, they're going to create programs to advance the reduction of illegal vessels, but to create a more creative transition plan for housing off the water. And so we really appreciate that. And I want to just applaud Councilman Hoffman's hard work on that. I also want to thank Council Member Cleaver-Knowles, who I believe was the impetus for encouraging the city of Sausalito to seek reimbursement for the 2019 landslide on Sausalito Boulevard. We heard last week that Cal OES will be reimbursing us, and that could not come at a better time. And that's one of those things that had the council member not suggested it and pursued it. I don't know whether we would have been able to dog that. So thank you immensely for that. I'll take the opportunity to share with you all that was motivated by some of our peers in San Mateo and Burlingame. who had requested and received $8 million from the state for sea level rise resiliency planning. So I got a little fired up and I worked very hard with the support of the vice mayor to make this same request. I asked for $4 million for sea level rise, resiliency and vulnerability assessment planning from Levine and from Senator McGuire. Huge thank you to both of them. Sausalito has been allocated a million dollars. for sea level rise mitigation planning through the state budget. And that's a huge win for us and we work on our infrastructure. And then it hasn't happened yet, but Council Member Sobieski and I are gonna be working on our new parking revenue structure. So I just wanna thank Council Member Sobieski in advance, something he's been talking about. I'm pleased to be able to support him on that. And as we've been committed to, we're looking for new revenue sources, we're doing everything we can. So I just really wanna thank all of you. It takes a village and we're just a tiny village here. So I just wanna call out your efforts. |
| 03:29:02.34 | Councilmember Sobieski | So I just want to call It does marinate you. or you're gonna pull your punches when you are compelled to praise yourself. So let me just praise you for $1 million. You're working for free on behalf of everyone and you run in a million dollars. I mean, that is not jump change. or project I know that's important to you dearly and to all of us. So congratulations. |
| 03:29:26.20 | Ian Sobieski | Well, it's everybody and a huge thank you to the State Liberal Rights Task Force. |
| 03:29:26.57 | Michael Mendel | Thank you. |
| 03:29:26.59 | Councilmember Sobieski | Right. |
| 03:29:31.43 | Ian Sobieski | Those guys are incredible and they really helped craft this. I will put a plug in if anybody wants to work on bringing EV chargers to Sausalito. You have my full support. I know Councilmember Cleveland Knowles, Councilmember or Vice Mayor Blasdain are very well aware of this. And I know Councilmember Cleveland Knowles has identified funding for us from TAM. So please let us know what we need to do to support that. And I think we can make that happen. |
| 03:29:56.09 | Councilmember Cleveland | It seems like that's also a staff intensive one. So I think, you know, the city manager. Um, you know, We need We need locations and stuff, but yeah, thanks. But I think huge kudos and great work. um, both to the mayor and the rest of the team. That's really great news. Thanks for all those great announcements. |
| 03:30:22.06 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you, guys. Thank you for letting me have the time to indulge on that. So now that I've said a lot, we have to take public comment on it. Is there any public comment on any of those announcements? |
| 03:30:32.66 | Walfred Solorzano | And Madam Mayor, I see no hands raised. |
| 03:30:34.80 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, well, thank you. Thank you, everybody. Again, thank you for the hard work. So let's go over then to item eight. City Manager reports, City Council appointments, and other council business. Any public comment on items 8B through 8E? Okay, no public comment, so over to our city manager. |
| 03:30:54.78 | Chris Zapata | Thank you, Mayor. I'll be brief the hours late. We've been hearing comment and public comment from people that we work with, our colleagues that have expressed some interest and concern about our labor process. Let me just say this, all city services for residents, businesses, and visitors are provided by our 70 plus workers in Sausalito and their service is valued immensely. um At this time though, the city of Sausalito is in a structural deficit, which simply means we have more bills and we have more money coming in. And so at two presentations last year and in March, we provided projected general fund deficits for the next three years. without any pay increases. And these are a result of employee pension costs. debt service on our facilities, health care and insurance costs that continue to rise. And these challenges obviously exacerbated by a global pandemic that we were all still trying to get through. And in the face of that budget and that environment and those costs, it should be really understood that on a $20-plus million general fund budget, $14 million of that is for our employee compensation and benefits. And so that's where you have to really focus the most attention. And I think there's a strong commitment on this council's part last year and a year before to maintain service levels consistently, to keep our workforce. And so in order to do that without the revenues matching up to the expenses, we've done some things that were one time in nature. And I've always been, a stickler for making sure that you don't do that a lot because you run out of one-time money if you keep using it for reoccurring costs. So in 21-22 to balance the general fund budget, use one-time monies in this fashion, 1.7 million for American Recovery Act, 1.2 million by transferring major old funds to operations, 1.1 million from the parking fund, and $983,000 in the general fund reserve to balance the budget. So that's around $4.5 million that's used on a one-time basis, and that's not good. This year it improved, our revenues improved. Not enough, but some of our costs were contained, but not enough. So instead of about a $4.5 million hole in the budget, need to request $2.7 million out of your savings account. So those two years to close those structural gaps in the budget were about 3.7 million in one time money from your savings. You take $983,000 from last year and $2.7 million from this year. And so thank goodness the prior council saved money so that you could do this and keep services where they are. |
| 03:33:45.59 | Councilmember Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:33:45.67 | Serge Avila | Bye. |
| 03:33:46.35 | Chris Zapata | What that's left you with is about $5 million in unrestricted general fund amount, which has been referred to by a couple of speakers early on, last meeting and this meeting. And that puts you at about 22% of your general fund reserve. And, you know, you need to be in that vicinity because as a small community, you really have a threat of something large, some mishap, some earthquake, some fire, some landslide, some mudslide, some natural disaster that you have to be responsible for and you need to have money to do that. So it's not prudent and it's not recommended that the city continually pull from its reserves to fund ongoing expenses. So in that environment, we've been working with two labor contracts in negotiation. I want to speak to one, SEIU, and their proposal. When we began the process, I'll just cut to the big part. The request was for a three-year deal, 5% one year, 5% the second year, and 5% the third year. And because of this financial environment and structural development, deficit that we find ourselves in, this has not been recommended. but to value the workforce in the city, what you have authorized, and I want this to be public so that the public can hear more information rather than less. is the city council authorized for one year what is continued increases to SCIU member salaries. So in a year at an anniversary, provided you complete your performance satisfactorily and meet an anniversary, you're eligible for a step increase. That has not been frozen or stopped. In addition to that, all SEIU members were offered, have been offered a one-time bonus of $8,500. to offset the loss of salary due to the need to reconstruct our business model. And in that reconstruction, we're talking about a 36-hour work week, which would mean people would come to work 36 hours, four days a week, nine days, or nine hours a day. The reasoning behind that is a one-time bonus is not pensionable. It doesn't compound or create additional pension burden. And that's what's been one of the big driving factors to this deficit. So trying to address that through one-time bonuses is really, really a prudent way to do that. In addition, we believe in work-life balance when folks have to drive into Sausalito and our workforce is largely a commuter workforce. Of the 70 plus folks that work here, 60 or more don't live here. And so they have to commute and that commute means time away from It means time on the road, It means emissions in the air. It means a lot of things. So a four-day work week can create balance and can create some type of positive, sustainable impact on transportation, congestion, as well as some of the things that matter to our environment. In addition to that, you authorized paid holiday for honoring Juneteenth as part of our diversity, equity, and inclusion belief. That was important to do that. That's what we've offered and we provided that this year. And so that package is in front of the membership. That's what is being referred to as being something that there is some discussion about. There will continue to be discussion about it. It'll be voted on at some point by the membership. And then we will go from there. But I wanted to provide that update because I thought it was important for the public to hear exactly what it is that is happening. Because when I hear the word furlough, furlough is a straight takeaway. when there's an offset of 8% thousand five hundred dollars compensate for the lost hours, that's not a furlough. It means we're doing a different work week. It means we're compensating for that by providing a one-time non-principal bonus. And so I take issue with the idea that this is a furlough because it's not. So that's my report. I'm sure there are a lot of other things, but the hour's late, so I thank you. And while I'm thanking folks, I really want to thank everybody that was involved in the parks, recreation, police, public works, all the people I'm talking about now. in completing a really great event the 4th of July with a number of volunteer helps and yeah it was a sort of roaring back to some community involvement what I call a great ROI, return on involvement was high. Many, many people enjoyed the day thanks to the work of a lot of folks that we're trying to acknowledge in a different compensation and pay structure. But we'll see where it goes. But I want to thank the folks that worked on that. Thank you all for funding the budget that allowed for that to happen because that was extremely important as well. So that concludes my remarks, Mayor Councilman. |
| 03:38:48.00 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you, City Manager. I'll second that that parade was awesome. We had such a great time. I saw all council members and, probably the entire community. So I thought that was really fantastic. Any questions or comments on the City Manager Report? Okay, I'm gonna move us to the next item here. Let's see, which is? |
| 03:39:07.68 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:39:09.94 | Ian Sobieski | Appointment supports the commission. So we have the opportunity to attend the League of California Cities Annual Conference, and we can appoint a delegate and an alternate. I will just take myself out of the running. I have a work conference at that same time. So if anybody is interested, Please put your hand up. Vice Mayor. |
| 03:39:32.15 | Raylene | I'd be happy to do it. |
| 03:39:34.38 | Councilmember Cleveland | I think it's traditionally been the mayor, vice mayor. So hopefully the vice mayor can stand in for you, mayor. And then if somebody else wants to go and stand in for her, that'd be great. Okay. Do we need to vote on this? |
| 03:39:49.89 | Councilmember Sobieski | When is it? Thank you. |
| 03:39:52.72 | Councilmember Cleveland | Thank you. |
| 03:39:52.74 | Councilmember Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:39:52.75 | Councilmember Cleveland | Thank you. |
| 03:39:52.94 | Ian Sobieski | and, |
| 03:39:53.02 | Councilmember Cleveland | or. |
| 03:39:53.26 | Councilmember Sobieski | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:39:53.53 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:39:53.55 | Councilmember Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:39:53.56 | Ian Sobieski | September 7th through the 9th. |
| 03:39:53.58 | Councilmember Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:39:56.15 | Ian Sobieski | So Councilman Hoffman, and then I saw that we do have to make a motion to Mary. |
| 03:40:01.46 | Jill Hoffman | I'm available. So I can be the alternate if for some reason Melissa can't go. |
| 03:40:09.33 | Ian Sobieski | Great, anybody else? Everybody okay with that? Okay. |
| 03:40:12.94 | Councilmember Cleveland | I would like to have the Vice Mayor and Councilmember Hoffman be delegate and alternate. I'll second that. Please call the roll, sir. |
| 03:40:24.92 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:40:25.69 | Walfred Solorzano | member Savijskij? Yes. Council Member Kuru-Ling, |
| 03:40:30.27 | Alice Merrill | Yes. |
| 03:40:31.67 | Walfred Solorzano | Council member Hoffman. Yes. Vice Mayor Blomstein. |
| 03:40:35.58 | Alice Merrill | Yes. |
| 03:40:35.97 | Ian Sobieski | you |
| 03:40:36.46 | Walfred Solorzano | Mayor Kellerman. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 03:40:39.57 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, great. Any future agenda items? And keep in mind our next meeting, one regularly scheduled meeting is at the end of August. I'm sure we'll see each other again before then. Okay, so not hearing any, we'll move. There are no items to report of significance. So I'll, I suggest we adjourn. Make a motion, I guess. Thank you. Thanks, everybody. Good job. |
| 03:41:05.98 | Kelsey Fernandez | Thank you. |
Ali — Against: Expressed concern about high staff turnover due to pay and furlough issues. Suggested a compromise of 37.5-hour workweek instead of 36 hours, noting it was the standard at Marin County. ▶ 📄
Kenneth Henry — Against: A 17-year building inspector criticized limited public service hours (only 3 hours per week in person), stating it is unacceptable. Highlighted his long hours and commitment but emphasized the need for better public access. ▶ 📄
Augie — Against: A librarian since 2007 opposed the 10% furlough, arguing the city has $8 million available for a $3 million deficit. Stated that frontline workers should not bear the burden and that furloughs increase pressure on staff. ▶ 📄