| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.35 | Walfred Solorzano | Excellent. Is that a real fireplace? Reporting in progress. |
| 00:00:03.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:03.35 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:03.58 | Jill Hoffman | Yes, it is. |
| 00:00:06.53 | Walfred Solorzano | Good evening, Mayor Kelman and council members. This meeting is being held pursuant to government code section 54953E. And in light of the declared state of emergency, the regular meeting of the city council for November 15th, 2022, will be conducted telephonically through Zoom and broadcast live on the city's website and cable TV channel 27. |
| 00:00:28.85 | Janelle Kellman | Great. Thank you so much, Molly. Welcome, everybody. This is a city council meeting for city of Sausalito, November 15th, 2022. City clerk, can you please call the roll? Council members, so be, |
| 00:00:39.97 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:00:40.50 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. |
| 00:00:40.60 | Jill Hoffman | here. |
| 00:00:41.38 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. |
| 00:00:41.39 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Cleveland Knowles. Councilmember Hoffman. here. |
| 00:00:45.78 | Ian Sobieski | you |
| 00:00:46.35 | Walfred Solorzano | Vice Mayor Blaustein? |
| 00:00:47.96 | Ian Sobieski | here. |
| 00:00:48.68 | Walfred Solorzano | and Mayor Kellman. |
| 00:00:49.74 | Ian Sobieski | Sure. |
| 00:00:51.55 | Walfred Solorzano | you |
| 00:00:51.72 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. |
| 00:00:51.74 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:00:51.79 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. |
| 00:00:52.92 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:00:53.03 | Janelle Kellman | Yeah. |
| 00:00:53.15 | Walfred Solorzano | Bye. |
| 00:00:53.36 | Janelle Kellman | We have a handful of items today in closed sessions. I'm going to go ahead and read through them. Looks like item D1, conference for legal counsel, existing litigation pursuant to California government code section. 54956.9D1, name of the case is Sausalito Yacht Harbor for the city of Sausalito. Item D2, conference of labor negotiators. with the agency designated representatives and Charles Sakai, Deborah Marchmore, Chris Zapata, Employer organizations also to Police Association with unrepresented employees, the Chief of Police, Lieutenant Captain, parking analyst, records supervisor assistant to the Chief of Police. It looks like those are only two closed session items today. Do we have any public comment on closed session? |
| 00:01:35.97 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah. |
| 00:01:36.10 | Janelle Kellman | Mayor. |
| 00:01:36.39 | Walfred Solorzano | Bye. Okay. |
| 00:01:37.99 | Janelle Kellman | I don't actually see anybody. So I will go ahead and close public comment and we will adjourn to the breakout room for a closed session. Thanks everybody. Thank you. |
| 00:02:33.61 | Walfred Solorzano | At the bottom of your screen, Councilmember Sobieski, you can go to the breakout room. |
| 00:02:39.48 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you. |
| 00:06:59.43 | Walfred Solorzano | recording stopped. |
| 00:14:08.32 | Unknown | Test, test, test, testing, testing, test, test, test, test, test, test. Yeah. |
| 00:14:16.64 | Walfred Solorzano | We'll see what happens. Thank you for checking them. |
| 00:16:24.45 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:16:36.40 | Janelle Kellman | Okay, City Clerk, we're on seven o'clock here. Thank you. |
| 00:16:40.41 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:16:40.43 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. |
| 00:16:40.45 | Walfred Solorzano | recording. |
| 00:16:40.92 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. |
| 00:16:40.97 | Walfred Solorzano | progress. We have the recording back on mayor. Thank you. And do we have all council members? It looks like we are waiting for Council member Sobieski and council member Blaustein. I see Councilman Sobieski. We'll make sure we get them in. |
| 00:17:12.56 | Walfred Solorzano | We're ready to let the public in when you're ready, Mayor. If we |
| 00:17:17.03 | Janelle Kellman | We have a third member. then yes, I think we can do that. There we go. Okay. And I'm sure the Vice Mayor is joining as we speak. |
| 00:17:30.97 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. We're ready. Do you see the vice mayor, Molly? No, not yet. Okay, let's give her a second. There she is. And Susan's here as well. Okay, great. Everybody's here. |
| 00:17:47.81 | Janelle Kellman | Everybody's here, but only Ian has a fireplace. |
| 00:17:51.93 | Walfred Solorzano | All right, we're ready to start. We've started the recording and we're letting the public and mayor Great. Thank you so much. |
| 00:18:01.48 | Walfred Solorzano | Let me know when we can start. We're getting vice mayor in. She's here. |
| 00:18:13.21 | Janelle Kellman | You can start now. Okay, great. Well, welcome everybody. We're coming back from closed session. This is the city of Sausalito regular city council meeting. for Tuesday, November 15th, 2022. Coming into open session, nothing to report from closed session. We went ahead and called the roll prior, but I'm going to note that Councilman for the Knowles has now joined us, so we have a full council right now. We do have a motion here now to approve the agenda. Do we have a motion or any comments on the agenda? Yes, city manager. |
| 00:18:49.80 | Chris Zapata | Mayor, staff makes a request for you to pull item 3G from this agenda for a future date. |
| 00:18:56.61 | Janelle Kellman | Item 3G for members of the public. is a resolution regarding the Community Safety Disaster Preparedness Committee. uh, Any comments from council members about that item? Okay. So can we get a motion to approve the agenda with that? haven't been pulled. |
| 00:19:17.39 | Jill Hoffman | I move to approve the agenda, removing item 3G. |
| 00:19:20.73 | Janelle Kellman | Okay, can we have a second? |
| 00:19:21.61 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:19:22.53 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. |
| 00:19:22.58 | Walfred Solorzano | I'm going to go. |
| 00:19:22.77 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. |
| 00:19:24.10 | Walfred Solorzano | Please call the roll. Defense member Sobieski. |
| 00:19:26.95 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:19:26.97 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:19:27.70 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Cleveland Knowles. Yes. Councilmember Hoffman. Yes. Vice Mayor Blaustein. Yes. And Mayor Kalman. Yes. Passes unanimously. Great, thank you. |
| 00:19:39.19 | Janelle Kellman | I start off the meeting, I have two announcements. Today's meeting, both the meeting and the adjournment are going to be made in memory of two critical members of our community. The first is Russell Russkiernan. So if you'll allow me, I'm going to read a brief bio. that Russ Kiernan passed away peacefully this past November 6th at age 84. after several years of worsening dementia. He is survived by his loving family, his wife 55 years, Marilyn Kiernan, daughter Carrie Kiernan, son Hayward Bowser, daughter-in-law Melinda Schnagel, and granddaughters Ruby and Emma Bowser, along with her siblings, nephews, cousins, and their children. Born in Oakland, raised in San Francisco and living the whole of his merry life in Marin, Russ was extremely proud to be a Bay Area native. a longtime teacher at St. Francisca Key Elementary School in San Francisco. He was best known as a runner. proud member of the South End Rowing Club and Tamalpa Runners. Russ competed in hundreds of races over his lifetime, including the ride and tie and most famously the Dipsy. where his feats among them, three first place finishes, are legendary. His athletic achievements are second only to his enduring reputation as a model of good sportsmanship, who we greatly missed. A memorial mass will be held on Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 11 a.m. at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church in Mill Valley. In lieu of flowers, memorial donations can be made to the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy. or the DPSI Foundation. I know we have some runners here. Anybody like to say anything about Passing of Russ Kiernan, now is the time. And I appreciate Leon Hunting bringing this to our attention. And I know the vice mayor is also a member of South End. So thank you for your help on that. I also want to mention tonight and the passing of France Baikal, who is a master shipwright, who is a lead carpenter in building the Matthew Turner. He was 52. He passed away suddenly on October 7th, 2022. So briefly, South Slough's maroon ship was fortunate to have France pass through our waterfront for a few years. Franz was a master shipwright and his leadership in building the Matthew Turner was a key reason for his success. But Franz was more than that. He had a spirit of generosity that he shared with so many in our community. Franz's father flew to Salcedo to see the Matthew Tura launch. And he was so proud of France. There's something about him that people wanted to be around him all the time. and became a trusted and valued member of our community. After he finished his work on Matthew Turner, Franz was unable to find a space for a shop in Salcido and moved to Sonoma. When we see Matthew Turner sailing in the distance, as we do every weekend, we should remember Franz's contribution to Sausalito's greatest maritime, or one of greatest maritime icons. Fairwinds, friend, we will see you on the other side. I'm sure we all know and love the Matthew Turner and appreciate Franz's contribution to that as well. So thank you, everybody, and thank you to the Working Waterfront Coalition for alerting me to that as well. Okay, with that said, we will then move on to item two, the action minutes of the previous meeting. Do we have any public comment? We're looking at meeting minutes for 9-13-2022, 9-20-2022, 10-11-2022, 10-25. 2022 and special council meeting minutes of 10 for 2022 and. City Clerk, if you wouldn't mind explaining how to give public comment, now would be a good time to |
| 00:22:53.77 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes, Mayor. If you want to comment during the public comment portion of the agenda, you can raise your hand function and zoom under reactions. Please make sure your zoom is updated to the latest version. or you can press nine if you are calling in. The city clerk will select you from the meeting queue. And we have no hands raised, Mayor. Okay. |
| 00:23:12.02 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. So that was public comment on the meeting minutes only. Go ahead and close that public comment. Any comments from council members on the meeting minutes? Okay, seeing none, do I have a motion? to pass them down. approval of the meeting minutes. Second. I'm not sure. Great. Looks like we have first from the vice mayor and second from Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 00:23:40.20 | Walfred Solorzano | Roll call, Council Member Sobieski. Council Member Cleveland Knowles. Yes. Council Member Hoffman. Yes. Vice Mayor Blaustein. Yes. And Mayor Kellman. |
| 00:23:46.78 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:23:46.96 | Adriana | Thank you. |
| 00:23:51.03 | Janelle Kellman | Passage unanimously. |
| 00:23:52.30 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:23:52.31 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. Okay, great. Thank you. Then we'll move on now to the consent calendar. This is item three. So matters listed under the consent calendar are considered routine and non-controversial, require no discussion, are expected to have unanimous council support, and may be enacted by the council in one motion in the form of a sip below. There will be no separate discussion of consent calendar items. However, before the council votes on a motion to adopt the consent calendar items, Council members, city staff, or members of the public May request that specific items be removed from the consent calendar for separate action. Items removed from the consent calendar will be discussed later. When public comment will be heard on any item that was removed from the consent calendar. So we have 11, actually 10 items now because we pulled item 3G. So let me quickly run through them. Item 3A. Adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of South City of accepting the Safe Pathways to School Nevada Street traffic calming project as complete and direct the city engineer to file a notice of completion. Item 3B, the Ferryland side improvement project phase one status update. |
| 00:24:47.88 | Unknown | Facebook. |
| 00:24:49.54 | Janelle Kellman | Item 3C is a second reading of the ordinance amending chapters 8.06 through 8.28 and chapter 8.40 of Title 8 of the Sal-State Municipal Code and adopting the 2022 edition of the Title 24 Code of Regulations and the 2021 International Property Maintenance Code with Local Amendments. Item 3D, Third Amendment to the Professional Consulting Services Agreement with DUDAC for cost recovery planning application processing services of secret review for 70 to 74 Liberty Shipway. And again, that's no fiscal impact to the city. It's paid by the applicant. M3E is to receive and file an update on the objective development and design standards project can adopt a resolution to authorize a city manager to execute a professional services agreement with OptiCoast Design for planning services including preparation of visualization images for selected housing opportunity sites for the amount of $35,300 for a total amount not to exceed $109,243. M3F is an IT department status update. 3G has been pulled, 3H, the Solicited Police Department's Crime and Traffic Report Calendar Year 2022 Third Quarter Report, 3i authorizes the city manager to take an agreement for mutual police services support with the city of Mill Valley City J, Southern River Fire District Ordinance 2022-2023-01, amending the 2022 California Fire Code. And Southern Marin Fire District third quarterly report, which is item 3K. So I'll go ahead and open up public comment on the consent counter items. And I'll ask the city clerk if we have any public comment. |
| 00:26:21.23 | Walfred Solorzano | No, we don't, Mayor. |
| 00:26:22.99 | Janelle Kellman | I do see one hand. |
| 00:26:23.02 | Walfred Solorzano | I do see one hand. We do have now two. Okay. |
| 00:26:27.70 | Janelle Kellman | Great. So we'll take a three minute public comment. |
| 00:26:32.59 | Walfred Solorzano | Miss |
| 00:26:32.93 | Janelle Kellman | That is so good. |
| 00:26:33.99 | Walfred Solorzano | Sandra? . |
| 00:26:36.73 | Sandra Bushmaker | Welcome, Sandra. Hi there, good evening everybody. |
| 00:26:38.06 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:26:41.55 | Sandra Bushmaker | Mayor, vice mayor, rest of the council, city manager, city attorney. The whole gang. I just wanted to comment on the ferry landing. |
| 00:26:47.19 | Unknown | I just want to. |
| 00:26:49.94 | Sandra Bushmaker | items. that's on there. I did read through the staff report and I did not see in its discussion of 1128 the possible incursion Bye. whether or not the possible incursion into Gableson Park will trigger 1128. So I think that needs further analysis on that particular section. That's all I have for right now. Thank you. Thank you, Sandra. |
| 00:27:15.03 | Walfred Solorzano | Bye. And we have Joan Cox, please proceed. |
| 00:27:26.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:27:26.58 | Ian Sobieski | um, |
| 00:27:27.15 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:27:27.17 | Ian Sobieski | Bye. |
| 00:27:31.06 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. Good evening, council. I. had the same comment as Sandra Bushmaker on the ferry landing issue and the 1128 ordinance, which concerns not only public parking, but also Um, retaining Gabrielson Park. without modifications. So I think it bears investigation whether the proposed plan It violates. 1128 and would require a vote of the people to proceed. I also noted that the Let's see which item. |
| 00:28:10.52 | Ian Sobieski | The building ordinance says continue the second reading, says that it's a first reading and to continue the second reading, to November 15, but today is November 15. So, It's on the agenda. as many of you. being a second reading, but, the recommended action is to introduce and read by title only. So it's not clear to me if it's a first or a second reading. And if it's a second reading, It should probably be continued to a date beyond today's date. Those are all my comments. Thanks. Right. |
| 00:28:42.66 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. Thank you, Joan. Any other members of the public? I would like to comment. consent. |
| 00:28:47.98 | Walfred Solorzano | No, Mayor. |
| 00:28:49.21 | Janelle Kellman | Okay. Um, Greg, can you speak to that a second? Question. |
| 00:28:58.22 | Mary Wagner | Yes, thank you. I understand we've identified, we've received comment on that. And I consider that the noticing is correct. It is the second reading. I think those are typographic in nature because we are actually doing the second reading in |
| 00:28:59.72 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. |
| 00:28:59.74 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:28:59.76 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. |
| 00:28:59.84 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:28:59.93 | Janelle Kellman | Bye. |
| 00:28:59.98 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:29:17.53 | Mary Wagner | the notice accurately reflects the action that we're asking the council to take. That's your option if you feel like you'd like to continue it. because the content is doesn't align with the notice. you would be able to do that, of course. But legally, I think you could go forward with it because it's a typographic |
| 00:29:35.13 | Janelle Kellman | Okay. |
| 00:29:40.12 | Janelle Kellman | Okay. Thank you, Susan. Councilor Cleveland, also. |
| 00:29:43.75 | Unknown | Oh yeah, thank you, Mary. Just a follow up question on that. Do we need to amend, I don't have the item in front of me, but do we need to amend the resolution to make clear that this is |
| 00:29:53.91 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:29:54.10 | Unknown | or action. So do we need to take it off consent and make that amendment? And Greg, I'm also having a hard, I don't know if other people are also having a hard time |
| 00:30:03.34 | Janelle Kellman | Yeah, we are. |
| 00:30:05.77 | Mary Wagner | and get really close to the microphone. Hopefully that helps a little bit better. Is that better? Yes. Okay. Yes, I think you should remove it from the consent calendar to be able to clarify that it's your motion is to for to adopt. the proposed ordinance. Okay. |
| 00:30:25.69 | Janelle Kellman | And then I'm- |
| 00:30:25.70 | Adriana | into the- |
| 00:30:26.99 | Janelle Kellman | Yeah, go ahead, Susan. Go ahead. I just want to confirm what item that was. Yeah, so that's item. 3C. 3C, yeah. We'll pull back. Go ahead. |
| 00:30:40.89 | Unknown | So then I just I don't want to take this off consent, but I just wanted to note that item 3A, which is the safe pathways to school on Nevada Street. I just wanted to say that was done with a Transportation Authority of Marin grant. went through many rounds at the feedback. There was a lot of public comment, and Director McGowan and his staff worked really hard with PBAC, with the Safe Routes to School task force and community members to make that project a reality. Just really excited that it's complete and looks good and It's not every... the whole package that we had hoped for, but I think it was compromise with the neighbors and it's a much safer state. Yeah, so just very exciting and nice to see something going from start to finish. and being completed. |
| 00:31:32.97 | Janelle Kellman | to call that out. Thank you for that. Yeah. And it looks great. And it's definitely a shining example of that type of work in town. So thank you for your work on that. Iceberg. |
| 00:31:43.16 | Unknown | I'm not sure that it is necessary, but I don't think we can continue the second reading to a further date because we must adopt the building code before January 1st. 2023. So. I'm not sure if it leaves. I guess we could do it at the next meeting, but I think it's really critical that we get it passed given the urgency for the building codes. |
| 00:32:02.38 | Janelle Kellman | Yeah, I thank you for that, basically I think what we were many of the resolution but then voting on it tonight. So not continuing. Is that okay with you? Yeah, that's great. Okay. I did have one request and it is with consternation. that I make this request because I know that the working groups were working very hard, but I would actually like to pull. and 3B, the Fairyland side. And the reason for that is I have a lot of questions about this staff report and some ambiguity in it. And I'd like to get this on the record. and see if staff has questions or answers tonight around that. I also just don't want this to go too far down a direction and then have someone say, oh, we should have said something earlier. So I debated just having my questions answered by staff by email. So if you will indulge me, I would like to pull this item and be able to put these comments on the record and see where they go. But I do appreciate the working group's tremendous effort to date on this. |
| 00:33:05.68 | Janelle Kellman | Okay. |
| 00:33:05.96 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:33:06.03 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. |
| 00:33:06.08 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:33:06.10 | Janelle Kellman | Any other items? |
| 00:33:07.75 | Jill Hoffman | Just to clarify, so that will be heard at the agenda tonight. It'll be heard after item, whatever it is. |
| 00:33:13.02 | Janelle Kellman | Yeah, we'll put it to the end, yeah. IB or something, okay. Okay. OK, so it sounds like then we have two adjustments. Sounds like nobody's going to be opposed to removing 3B and 3C. We'll move them to the end of the agenda, and we will have our discussion at that time. So with that, modification, do we have a motion to approve the consent |
| 00:33:41.02 | Jill Hoffman | So moved with those modifications. |
| 00:33:43.01 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. |
| 00:33:43.02 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:33:43.09 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. |
| 00:33:43.11 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:33:43.12 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. |
| 00:33:43.34 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:33:43.44 | Jill Hoffman | Exactly. |
| 00:33:43.71 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Bye. |
| 00:33:44.90 | Janelle Kellman | Please call the wrong. |
| 00:33:45.45 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Councilmember Sobieski. |
| 00:33:48.73 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 00:33:48.96 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 00:33:49.40 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Cleveland Knowles. Yes. Council Member Hoffman. Yes. Vice Mayor Blaustein. Yes. And Mayor Kelman. Yes. |
| 00:33:58.03 | Janelle Kellman | Passage unanimously. |
| 00:33:59.24 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:33:59.54 | Janelle Kellman | Okay, thank you everybody. We'll go on then. |
| 00:34:00.03 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:34:02.19 | Janelle Kellman | to our first public hearing item, this is item 4A. This is an item, it's called the first reading and introduction of an ordinance adopting a military equipment use policy per California Assembly Bill 481, Government Code Section 7070. uh, et cetera. OK, so we'll move on. Who is going to be giving? That is at our Acting Lieutenant Brandon Rogers tonight. Welcome, Lieutenant. |
| 00:34:31.32 | Janelle Kellman | Molly, can you help? Lieutenant get off of me, please. |
| 00:34:34.85 | Brandon Rogers | Sorry, yes, I'm on mute. Is my PowerPoint up there or do I have to share a screen here. |
| 00:34:42.05 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:34:42.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:34:42.36 | Janelle Kellman | love to share a script |
| 00:34:43.11 | Unknown | Please. |
| 00:34:51.70 | Janelle Kellman | G. Do you need help on that? Okay, great. |
| 00:34:55.20 | Brandon Rogers | Can you see it now? |
| 00:34:56.78 | Janelle Kellman | See you. |
| 00:34:57.88 | Brandon Rogers | Okay, can everyone hear me? |
| 00:34:59.52 | Janelle Kellman | Yes. |
| 00:34:59.55 | Brandon Rogers | Yes. Okay. Would you like me to start? |
| 00:35:03.58 | Unknown | Yes, please. |
| 00:35:04.53 | Brandon Rogers | OK. Thank you, Mayor and Councilmembers for letting me talk to you tonight. My name is Brandon Rogers. I'm currently the acting Lieutenant for the Saucydo Police Department. I'm here tonight to talk to you about Assembly Bill 481. |
| 00:35:22.96 | Brandon Rogers | Assembly Bill 41 was signed into law on September 30th, 2021. Every municipal law enforcement agency is required to comply. We've created a policy for the acquisition and use of what statute defines as military equipment. Draft policy was posted on our public website May 1st, 2022 and updated on October 10th, 2022. Our policy is aligned with other agencies in Marin County and elsewhere in the state. SPD has not acquired any of the equipment in our current inventory from the military. |
| 00:36:02.34 | Brandon Rogers | So here's a current list of Saucido police equipment covered under Assembly Bill 481. We have the Remington Model 870 12 gauge shotgun which is designed to fire less lethal beanbag rounds and has been outfitted with orange components to make it immediately identifiable as a less lethal or de-escalation tool. Then we have the. Oops, we have the bean bag. projectiles. These are the rounds that are fired from the left lethal shotgun. Next is our Colt AR-15-223-556 Select Fire Rifle. This rifle is only used by trained members of the Special Response Team. And lastly on the list, we have our SRD-556 rifle sound suppressor. This is designed to be employed in patrol and tactical environments. The suppressor is not a silencer. and only lessens sound output partially for hearing protection. This has only been used by members of the Special Response Team. |
| 00:37:17.98 | Brandon Rogers | So this is the public involvement section. The proposed military equipment use policy also provides avenues through which members of the public may register complaints or concerns or submit questions about the use of each specific type of military equipment in the policy. Anyone with questions can reach us by email. by phone or by mail. We also have a dedicated web page to Assembly Bill 481 with any information or questions. The Assembly Bill is on there as well. |
| 00:37:53.55 | Brandon Rogers | So the annual report, Assembly Bill 41 requires the SPD to report to city council annually regarding the use of equipment purchases or upgrades or any complaints we've received about our equipment that falls under assembly bill 481. Tonight staff are recommending the city adopt city ordinance establishing a military equipment use policy, which would be Sausalito Police Policy 705. And with that, I'll open it up to council for any questions. |
| 00:38:28.80 | Janelle Kellman | Great, thank you, Lieutenant. Any questions for Lieutenant Rogers? Yeah, vice president, please. |
| 00:38:36.78 | Unknown | Lieutenant Rogers, thank you for that presentation and for being with us for the meeting tonight. I just wanted to clarify a couple of points because there were some questions from members of the public that I received in just a couple of Things to clarify. I just want to, so that folks are aware. This doesn't say we're planning to purchase additional new military equipment. It's just in compliance with the law stating what we have and creating a policy if we were to purchase more. Correct. |
| 00:39:03.78 | Brandon Rogers | Absolutely. This involves no purchase of any equipment at the moment. If we were to request any equipment from or any equipment that we think we might need, we would have to go to City Council for approval prior to that. |
| 00:39:19.49 | Unknown | And it actually then just increases transparency around the equipment that you have per the assembly bill. |
| 00:39:26.73 | Unknown | Correct. |
| 00:39:27.56 | Unknown | Okay, I just wanted to, there was some confusion about whether or not we were doing this so that we could go forward and purchase military equipment and I wanted to clarify with you so that. |
| 00:39:35.49 | Brandon Rogers | No, we're just complying with every other agency in the state regarding this policy, so. |
| 00:39:40.16 | Unknown | Perfect. Thank you so much. I appreciate it, Brandon. |
| 00:39:43.00 | Brandon Rogers | from. |
| 00:39:44.82 | Unknown | Any other questions? |
| 00:39:45.53 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. |
| 00:39:49.50 | Janelle Kellman | Okay. I'll go ahead and open up to public comment. No public housing. |
| 00:39:56.13 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:39:56.33 | Janelle Kellman | mayor at this time? Okay. And now just for again for the public, we are looking for public comment on item 4A. Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and close public comment, bring it back up to council. Do we have any questions or comments? before we go ahead and look at the draft ordinance. |
| 00:40:15.77 | Unknown | The only comment I have, I thought the staff report was very clear and All of the items were well justified and I'd be happy to make a motion to approve unless there's further discussion. |
| 00:40:28.02 | Unknown | again. |
| 00:40:30.32 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:40:30.96 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:40:30.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:40:31.04 | Mary Wagner | That works for me, please. The introduction of an ordinance. |
| 00:40:31.06 | Unknown | That works for me at least. |
| 00:40:34.15 | Janelle Kellman | Yep. |
| 00:40:36.11 | Mary Wagner | system. or |
| 00:40:39.33 | Janelle Kellman | So we just received the recommendation. We waived the first reading and we don't, we have to see it again next meeting, Greg. |
| 00:40:46.30 | Mary Wagner | you're gonna make a motion to introduce the ordinance. and identify the ordinance. for the record and then the next reading you're going to adopt by another similar motions. |
| 00:41:00.29 | Unknown | Okay. Okay, so I'll make a motion to the first reading and introduction of an ordinance adopting a military equipment use policy for California Assembly Bill 481. Thank you. |
| 00:41:13.50 | Unknown | in. |
| 00:41:13.80 | Unknown | you |
| 00:41:14.90 | Janelle Kellman | Great, thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:41:16.08 | Walfred Solorzano | Can you please call the roll? That's Member Sobieski. |
| 00:41:19.54 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:41:20.00 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Council member Cleveland Knowles. Yes. Council member Hoffman. Yes. Vice Mayor Blasdeen. Yes. |
| 00:41:27.03 | Janelle Kellman | Mayor Cohen. |
| 00:41:27.88 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:41:27.96 | Janelle Kellman | Yes. Great. Okay. Thanks very much. We'll move on then to our business item tonight. This item 5A. This is a general discussion concerning undergrounding of Pacific Gas and Electric Company's systems planned 12 kV system upgrades within the city of Sausalito. We do have, I believe, members of the PG&E here tonight to answer questions. Before we get started on this, I have a quick question for the city manager or for... Director McGowan, which is this is named very specifically All right. Do you intend the conversation, however, to sort of just be a broader, higher level conversation about undergrounding? |
| 00:42:09.44 | Chris Zapata | a mayor and council members of the public We really want to talk about the project that Pacific Gas and Electric is contemplating in Sausalito that was spoken about last year. meeting and then to kind of get the community's input on some of the understandings that they may have or can see conceived ideas they have about what undergrounding would look like in Sausalito. No one has made a decision to underground in Sausalito. The only thing we've been doing is trying to explore what the possibilities might be. And so in lieu of all of the letters that have been received by the city council and city staff about undergrounding, it's important to kind of set the record straight after we talk about what PG is doing with their project and if there's some time to hear public comment about what the history of this has been in Sausalito and what the feelings of the people are in general toward undergrounding as outside of that project area, I think you should hear it tonight. |
| 00:43:06.70 | Janelle Kellman | Okay. Thank you for that. Uh, city manager. We'll hand it over then to Director McGowan for presentation. |
| 00:43:12.88 | Kevin McGowan | Good evening, Mayor, members of the City Council. I'm going to share my screen here. I have a short presentation in order to try to move this forward. So bear with me a second. |
| 00:43:25.16 | Kevin McGowan | And are you able to see my screen now? It should be green and saying PGE system upgrade. We see it. Looks great. Wonderful. Thank you so much. Item 5A before you this evening is a report regarding undergrounding of PG&E's 12 kilovolt electrical upgrades. This report also seeks direction to staff regarding the next steps staff should be pursuing with regard to this specific subject. This evening, I hope to provide you with a short summary of a very complex process related to underground in the Denise 12 kilovolt upgrade project. I hope to cover some of some of the directions provided to staff from the September 20th, 2022 Council meeting and also details some of the efforts staff have pursued since that meeting. Ultimately, we hope council can provide additional direction to staff on how to better serve the community. In 2021 and in early 2022, PG&E informed the city that their existing electrical system about in the center of Sausalito, shown in the shaded areas on the slide in front of you, their system is old and in need of a replacement. The existing four kilovolt system needs to be upgraded to a 12 kilovolt system to address current and future demands of PG&E customers in this area. PG&E, as well as other utilities in the state of California, are regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission, otherwise known as the CPUC. PG&E has a right to maintain and upgrade their facilities to meet demands. PG&E was originally anticipating upgrading their 4kV system in Sausalito in early 2022. However, they have postponed their project until mid-2023 or a little bit later. Over the last few months, PG&E has been interacting with city staff and city council, excuse me, with city staff, the city council, as well as the city's undergrounding subcommittee. PG&E attended the August 30th council meeting and made a presentation to council on their 12 kilovolt project update. The 12 kilovolt upgrade project includes the replacement of existing poles and can include the installation of new poles and equipment. Sausalito is a unique community with amazing views of San Francisco Bay. Some of the work proposed with PG&E's 12-kilow-volt upgrade may impact residents' views. PG&E does not propose to, or is required to underground their 12-kilow-volt upgrade project. PG&E does propose to incorporate some outreach in order to reach out to residents about their upgrade projects. In 1967, the California Public Utilities Commission established electrical tariff rule 20, which defines policies and procedures for California's investor-owned electrical utilities to convert overhead power lines and other equipment to underground facilities. This program was initially intended to address aesthetics of overhead facilities. Over time, the CPUC has recognized that this program does not address other important issues such as climate change and fire impacts from overhead lines. The Rule 20 program Thank you. important issues such as climate change and fire impacts from overhead lines. The Rule 20 program has three basic categories. Rule 20A projects are initiated by municipalities to underground main electrical systems on arterial roadways. 20A projects can be funded by work credits set aside by the utility itself. A Rule 20 project is funded by property owners within a specific area, utilizing an assessment district to fund the work. Property owners are assessed for this cost on their property taxes over time. A Rule 20C project is fully funded by the property owners without the use of an assessment district. Each of these program categories can be very complex, and there are many, many steps to each one of them. On September 20th, staff provided an update regarding PG&E's 12 kilovolt system. Council requested that staff pursue several tasks regarding this subject. I'll cover some of these tasks in the next several slides. However, there may have been a misunderstanding on my part. In other words, trying to get ahead of some of these issues. It was my understanding that we may be pursuing an actual undergrounding project and based on that, public works solicited for an engineering consultant to assist with this project. This effort may have been inconsistent with council's instructions. Traditionally, our engineering department tries to get in front of some of the things that the council may want. So that may be one reason why I moved this forward as soon as I could. Council also requested that staff pursue legal assistance to interact with PG&E regarding their current undergrounding policies, especially since PG&E has stated that they will be undergrounding more than 10,000 miles of overhead lines. Staff is currently seeking legal assistance with someone familiar with PG&E's policies in order to pursue that task. The city currently has accrued about 2 million work credits that can be utilized for undergrounding arterial lines on main arterial roadways. The CPUC will be discontinuing the allocation of additional work credits to cities as of January 2023. It is not known if a subsequent program will be established to further support undergrounding by the utilities. Based on council's direction on September 20th, 2022, staff contacted PG&E representatives who manage the Rule 20 program. If the council so chooses to start a Rule 20B project, which can encompass some of PG&E's 12 kilovolt upgrade area, Rule 20A credits can be used to support the initial design and the project development for PG&E facilities. However, these funds will need to be paid back to the utility if a Rule 20B project is initiated in which property owners are responsible for the cost. As a proactive effort staff utilize PG&E's mapping diagrams to develop a preliminary mapping to develop preliminary mapping of the properties that could be affected by this project. with a total of almost 700 properties in the area, undergrounding can be very complex, costly, and impactful to all residents. on September 20th. Council also suggested that the municipal code be changed to support undergrounding efforts. In addition, the city could update any policies and procedures used in the past to assist property owners in the undergrounding process. Staff located an undergrounding utility district formation guide from the 1990s. This was in a hard copy file, so it was kind of hard to find. In addition, staff reached out to other jurisdictions in Marin that may be pursuing undergrounding of electrical systems. Staff met with the town of Ross representatives who provided valuable insight into the challenges they are facing with their 20B project. The town of Ross also provided a copy of their recently updated policies and procedures, which we may choose to use as a guide to update our current policies and procedures. It may be a bit premature to update the city's municipal code without having a policies and procedures in place. However, staff with council direction can pursue that if you so choose. |
| 00:52:22.14 | Kevin McGowan | As noted earlier, it is possible to dive into the development of an undergrounding project. Council may consider utilizing 20A work credits to initially support PG&E's efforts to develop a design. However, additional property owner interaction and outreach is needed since ultimately property owners in an undergrounding district will need to fiscally support the cost of the entire project. Based on this, it may be more appropriate for the council to consider a high level approach to undergrounding by continuing to utilize legal assistance with PG&E's policies, updating our policies and procedures to assist residents understanding, our residents understanding of the complexities associated with undergrounding to help facilitate those who want to proceed with a 20B and a 20C project. A few more slides for us, so please bear with me. Based on this, staff has noted several alternatives available to Council at this time and is seeking direction for which step to pursue. We are currently recommending a high level approach to assist property owners who may want to pursue underground. We also recommend working closely with PG&E's outreach team to make sure residents in the area of PG&E's 12-Pillival project are aware of the potential impacts of that work. Rule 20 projects are very complex with several main steps that have impacts to the owners within the district. These projects include technical interaction with all utilities, which is expensive and can take a very long time to complete. 20B projects involve the implementation of an assessment district and can require assistance from financial experts and legal counsel just to set up the district. Since the process from start to finish is so long, price increases are common and further impacts to property owners are likely. If the council or property owners decide to pursue this type of project, a significant contingency is recommended to address all of these issues. So Here we go. So thank you very much. I want to keep this at a high level at this point, but I also wanted to give you some detail associated with 20B projects. So that was one reason for kind of diving in just a little bit. With that, that concludes my presentation and I welcome your comments and your direction. And I will stop sharing my screen. |
| 00:55:11.45 | Janelle Kellman | Mm-hmm. Thank you, Director McGonagall. I just want to thank you for two things. One is this presentation, which is very clear and easy to follow. But the second is also I appreciate that you really wanted to back the council's curiosity on this. And I know you're being hard on yourself in terms of pursuing a future information from an outside party. So I do want to thank you for taking the initiative and being so thoughtful on that. Okay, any questions from counsel for Director McGowan? |
| 00:55:46.90 | Janelle Kellman | Councillor Hoffman, please. |
| 00:55:48.42 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, Kevin, I know that we had a timeline, and thanks for the very specific drawings that you gave of the different phases. But do we have a timeline on the different phases? I mean, I know 2023 is some point, but do we have any other available schedule? Thank you. |
| 00:56:07.00 | Kevin McGowan | ARE YOU REFERRING TO PG&E PROJECT SPECIFICALLY OR MORE OF A SCHEDULE OF HOW TO IMPLEMENT SOMETHING ASSOCIATED WITH A 20B |
| 00:56:15.81 | Jill Hoffman | No, the PG&E current schedule for upgrading the 12-volt lines in the different areas. |
| 00:56:23.55 | Kevin McGowan | the different Thank you. |
| 00:56:24.58 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:56:24.94 | Kevin McGowan | So lucky for us this evening, we do have Mark Van Gorder here, who is a government relations person, our officer from PG&E. And I'm hoping instead of me stepping in and maybe guessing, he could help us out by answering that question. Yeah. |
| 00:56:40.36 | Janelle Kellman | it. Welcome, Mark. Thanks for making the time. |
| 00:56:43.70 | Mark Van Gorder | Thank you. We do have a team here. I think there's a direct question that I can answer. but, We have some other folks on on to call. And I'm, like to introduce the mayor after I respond to the question. Could you mayor did you Usually I do. take questions directed from the chair. So what specifically would you like us to respond to? |
| 00:57:06.74 | Janelle Kellman | I think you can just take directions from individual council members just for ease of conversation. So yeah, Councilmember Hoffman had a question there. |
| 00:57:12.09 | Jill Hoffman | conversation. Yeah, Mark. Hey, Mark, thanks for coming. Yeah, just this, just a general schedule, right? So we, Kevin was, and his team was kind enough to, in the staff report, or I'm sorry, one of the attachments, you know, do the different areas, like a map of the different areas. It's, it's, it's pretty detailed, like you can see pretty much where your house is. And so do you have a schedule right now for the We have five areas, it looks like. or four areas and do you have a schedule for each of those areas or when you expect to start work on each of those different areas? |
| 00:57:53.26 | Mark Van Gorder | So we do not, and I may tag one of my associates that are on the phone if they have other information to share. Currently, the project is on hold or on pause. While the city was considering whether or not council members were directing staff to move forward with an undergrounding application. So that works. was was not scheduled. We don't have, and Kevin can correct me if I'm wrong, we don't have encroachment permits. Um, encroachment permits. would dictate the outreach and the engagement to the community, And, and, you know, usually we would go through that. We taught, we had a council presentation that went through the details of what we would do as far as outreach. but we didn't start any of that while we waited to find out which direction the council was heading towards undergrounding or overhead. Does that answer the question? |
| 00:58:50.45 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, it does. Thanks. And let me just point out for the public that's watching, it's attachment four on the, to the agenda under this item and it's drawings and it's six, it's actually six areas that are pretty specific. So if you're curious about where the work's going to happen, it's a very good tool. |
| 00:59:09.59 | Mark Van Gorder | And if I may, I would like to just, for council's awareness or city manager or public group director McGowan, if they can turn their videos on. I'd just like to say that we have Tracy Craig available for questions. Craig Communications. was the the communications and outreach contractor with Craig Communications. Tracy's the principal there. when appropriate when we have a green light or agreement from council and staff. Tracy would be the primary lead. for that outreach with her team. Also on the call, Um, is John Leyba. It sounds like he's having some video trouble, but he is on the call, I believe, for audio. John Leyba is our regional operations specialist. PG is now divided into five different regions. We're region one. for the North Coast. specific questions. John Leyva is standing in for Austin Sharp. So a number of you have had conversations with Austin Sharp these past two years that we've been talking about this. And Austin is a proud father and spending some paternity time with his Thank you. baby and wife. So John Label is basically your Austin Sharp for questions. Um, Thank you. And then we also have Gerald Hunt on the phone here with us, who can answer some questions. He's also engaged in local customer outreach and engagement. However, this project required in Sausalito such a high level of outreach. Um, that we had to bring in additional resources. And I see John Leibas' videos on now. So that's our team. Um, I'll try not to. to answer all of the questions because they are experts in what they do and can speak better than I. |
| 01:00:58.99 | Kevin McGowan | Madam Mayor, if I may answer one of those questions from Council Member Hoffman. I believe originally that the PG&E was anticipating starting this work in 2023. The latest I've heard from representatives from PG&E, it'll be midway through 2023. In other words, summer is the earliest they are anticipating starting. However, what Mark is referring to may be some of the details with approaching each individual area. They're not quite sure yet of which ones they're going to start with. And they anticipate having us help them with that and say, hey, start here compared to some other place. |
| 01:01:43.42 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. |
| 01:01:43.45 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, Joe, you're back on mute there. All right. And so when we get that schedule, I'm assuming that we'll get that information out as quickly as possible to From our end, I mean, I know PG&E is going to give notice, but from our end as well, and I need to I need Ashley. ask an ethics question of our attorney, because my house is on one of these maps. Greg, do I need to recuse myself from this at this point from this conversation? |
| 01:02:16.49 | Jill Hoffman | you |
| 01:02:16.53 | Mary Wagner | I'm sorry. |
| 01:02:16.61 | Jill Hoffman | And apologies for not figuring that out sooner. |
| 01:02:19.31 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, there's an analysis that I'd have to do to figure out if the public generally exception, I don't think you have a conflict on the question of undergrounding that's on the agenda necessarily. But if there were decisions made on the because that is... something that's broader based and conceptual right now. that we're going to have But if there's any action on the actual undergrounding in these districts, if you're within 500 feet of that part of the project, I think there might be. conflict. But before you before this tonight, though, is just the general concept of undergrinding the entire city and figuring out how to do that. So that's a public generally project that's affecting everybody. home. And you're not being affected any differently than the rest of the public. Okay, thank you. |
| 01:03:18.76 | Jill Hoffman | So I think based on that, I can remain on it. I don't need to accuse myself at this point. |
| 01:03:19.71 | Mary Wagner | Based on that, I can |
| 01:03:23.59 | Jill Hoffman | If we start to veer in, then then All right. Well, Okay, thanks. Okay. |
| 01:03:30.03 | Unknown | THE CITY IS A |
| 01:03:30.61 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:03:31.82 | Unknown | Yeah, just following up on Councilmember Hoffman's question about timing. I mean, I think it's really important for the community to understand that one of the reasons we've accelerated this discussion. was that PG&E told us that they were starting this project above ground in January of 2023. So that's why we've been accelerating conversations and also that they were unwilling to do an underground project |
| 01:03:53.95 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:03:53.96 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 01:03:54.07 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:03:55.75 | Unknown | on their at their cost. So, you know, I think it's just important context to understand that we've been working hard to make sure we could kind of figure out our options. in advance of that plan. you know, it looks like the schedule has been pushed out But that definitely led to a lot of the work and the conversations that have happened. But I think We definitely need to get a schedule so that we can do the outreach and communication with the public and have PG&E also start that communication that Kevin was discussing. So it's important that we get a time frame. |
| 01:04:42.70 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:04:43.85 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. |
| 01:04:44.50 | Unknown | Nice to meet you. |
| 01:04:44.89 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. |
| 01:04:45.65 | Unknown | Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Director McGowan for this report and thank you for being here. I appreciate it. And we got a lot of public comment on this issue, rightfully so, because it's one of a lot of importance, but one of the main reasons that we started the conversation as well. was because neighbors on 4th Street were unhappy because they were not informed about a new poll that went up in their neighborhood, which was the beginning of some of these discussions. And I want to understand what PG&E's approach will be this time to make sure that neighbors are not surprised by the changes that are made and that they have input in the opportunity of where these improvements will be, what they might look like if they aren't going to have support for an undergrounding from funding from PG&E. So could you maybe speak to you? You've hired these great. a great team of outreach folks to be engaged. It would be great to hear from them about what their plan for some of that outreach might be and how they're going to engage with the neighbors or what we might expect that to look like because I know based on the letters that we've received and based on our community engagement, that keeping the residents informed on this is really, really important and making sure they have a say is really important. |
| 01:05:53.02 | Mark Van Gorder | Absolutely. So maybe I can just speak briefly and then tag a, you know, call a friend here. probably Gerald Hunt and Tracy Craig can speak to these two, and certainly John Leyva, feel free to jump in. On the scheduling, Again, the. We started talking about this, on December 28th of 2020. And we focused a lot knowing going in, because this has been something that I've been working with Sausalito staff on for many years. The view sheds, the beauty of, Kevin covered it, so I don't need to repeat it. We understand and respect the importance of the views and the beauty of that and how some of our equipment can impact and certainly Councilmember Vossi and I, I hear you. We did not arrive at an ideal resolution. On that, that poll and I would say that we did not |
| 01:06:51.42 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:06:52.01 | Mark Van Gorder | follow best practices there. And I think that's why we're so very aware of the importance of doing this. We were engaged for about a year talking about what local customer engagement would look like and how it would work. And part of that time, it did take us, we had to go through a hiring process and review of vendors. So, So back to the Back to the schedule at the time. We've held off on getting you know, Moving forward with outreach because, and again, Kevin McGowan, please correct me if I'm wrong. We don't yet have the permits. that would have that conditions and be specific about what outreach is required and would not start that until we have the permits. And I believe that city staff has been following along with this ongoing discussion about well, what if instead of overhead, we went underground? So, Back to the question about the outreach. We did not come prepared today with a presentation that went into those details. I believe we did give a presentation to council during the past year, happy to come back and can go back through that detailed outreach that we would perform, but it came down to the level, and I don't remember who asked, But somebody was asking the question, Could you put up story polls? um, You know, we intend to meet with the residents And, engage with them face to face, answer their questions Um, as best as we possibly can, show where the equipment will be, where there will be new poles, where the existing poles will remain, what new equipment may be on existing or new poles as best as we can to share with them what might be the new impacts of this overhead. So, On the one hand, I don't know how long it might take for staff to review and get through the encroachment permits, And I expect it will take some months following that |
| 01:08:59.37 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:08:59.40 | Mark Van Gorder | to have this very high level detail outreach and engagement. So I'll stop there. I do see Director McGowan has his hand up, but I'd also like to hear from either Gerald or Tracy or John, any further details you'd like to share. |
| 01:09:15.48 | Janelle Kellman | Yeah, let's go to Director McGowan first, because I want to slightly reframe the question to be a little bit more specific, Mark. So let's go, Director McGowan, did you have a question? |
| 01:09:24.61 | Kevin McGowan | Not necessarily a correction. Mark and I have been working on this collectively for more than a year, and it has different phases. So sometimes it may be a little confusing on which part we're talking about. So PG&E has started working on their substation piece, and that has to do with changing some of the equipment out in the substation. There's no visual impacts associated with it. So that one's moving forward. As far as the rest of the project where it's broken into five different zones, we will work closely with Mark and his team in order to whatever the council decides at this point of how we move forward. But the idea is to work collectively. And I think that PG&E in the past has recognized the fact that we would like to look into the possibility of undergrounding. And they understood that we had some issues with this. Therefore, their schedule has been moved out specifically to 2023. And my conversation with Austin in the past has also indicated that they had other work in front of them to do more on the specific scale. So again, we're trying to coordinate with Mark and his team. And with that, let's hopefully we can turn it back over to Mark and his outreach folks to see if we can see how they're going to address some of the outreach to the residents. |
| 01:10:53.65 | Janelle Kellman | Yeah, but before we get there, I'd actually like to recraft the question because in the outreach we're interested in tonight is outreach around undergrounding. Okay, so let's just take a step back here. The purpose of having this on the agenda tonight is because members of the public are receiving a lot of different types of information. And we're trying to, I think, clarify what transpires. And so in February 2021, Mark, we met with you. You met with the folks from 4th Street. because a recloser had been installed on 4th Street, blocking several views. That began a series of conversations, right? Um, When we met with you, we talked about undergrounding per their request, I believe under either Rule 20A or Rule 20B. And Rule 20 and Rule 20 are a bit different, right? One has a contribution from PG&E and the other one doesn't. Is that accurate, Mark? maybe John, right? Yeah. Okay. So that was a specific conversation to a specific neighbor, right? |
| 01:11:46.28 | Unknown | Maybe don't. |
| 01:11:52.76 | Janelle Kellman | conversations Wolfpack Ridge, because there was a transformer that was sparking up there. And they reached out to you as well. They also want to talk about a rule 20 right. Is it? I'm just trying to get the timeline here, right? there's a limited amount of rule 28 monies. And so now we had two neighborhood groups wanting to tap into the same I see John shaking his head. So I just want to, I'm confirming I'm getting this right about, maybe John, you want to respond, right? Rule 28 has a limited amount of money. You don't use it or lose it. Is that accurate? |
| 01:12:25.68 | John Leyba | Rule 28 dollars accrue over a period of many years and then cities typically use them to reduce view impacts. And mind you, Rule 20A is not just PG&E, but typically communications providers, undergrounding their lines are involved to. So your Comcast, AT&T, etc. That's correct. I'm not familiar with Wolfback Ridge being interested in Rule 28, but just to give clarity on the program there. |
| 01:12:54.00 | Janelle Kellman | OK, thank you. Yeah, I'll just mention that then for the public. And I think, Mark, we have emails back and forth. So we first met with you guys then in March 2021 to understand 20A, 20B, 20C, what these things all meant, because they're very confusing. Put that aside. Then we heard from you. Later that year, we want to do this large upgrade. Um, And here's some reasons why we want to do it. I never heard public safety at the time. I heard aging infrastructure. We should do it at some time. I want to do this large upgrade. And we have people who said, oh, wow, how many polls are you going to be putting in? And I can't remember, but maybe Mark, you remember, it was something like an additional 80 polls, additional 90 polls, is that Can I agree? |
| 01:13:38.02 | Mark Van Gorder | That sounds correct. I'd have to get the correct number, Yeah, we not. Not all of the polls would be replaced. Some of them and what the specific number was, I don't know. |
| 01:13:50.11 | Janelle Kellman | Okay, so then we came to you and we said, oh geez, 90 more polls. We saw what happened with one poll on 4th Street. Do you have to put up 90 more polls or can you undergone them? And all of a sudden the conversation was PG is undergrounding or the city council wants you to underground, right? So what we're interested in knowing from you all tonight is, what your outreach plan could be for understanding the interest of the folks impacted by this 12 kV upgrade. in whether or not they would want to underground. And. If undergrading were pursued as to this particular project, would it be 20A? Would it be 20B? How does that work in your world? That I think would be most interesting to understand. |
| 01:14:38.37 | Mark Van Gorder | Sure, so let me take a shot at your question here, and then I'll, again, I'll defer to John Leyba and Tracy and others who specifically have that role of customer outreach. We, uh, could be a good thing. perform some communication to customers about the overhead project the details of it. start explaining where we're at in this process with counsel, Again, my understanding is that the council tonight is making some direction to staff, you know, on these different options that Director McGowan has provided. But, We. We would not. say, perform or conduct a survey or ask residents if they would prefer to have their equipment undergrounded or overhead. We are there to talk about the overhead project. and the detailed impacts that there may or may not be. Some customers wouldn't know the difference. Some customers on the property owners wouldn't see any change or difference at all. like the resident at 4th Street might have a substantial impact. And again, I just want to say that I think we could have done that better. So I'll ask John or Tracy or Gerald to To jump in on you i'm hearing you mirror kelman what is for PG prepared to do if i'm hearing you correctly. today or in the next month to help get information out to the residents. |
| 01:16:08.80 | Janelle Kellman | Yeah, that's a great way to put it, Mark. Thank you. |
| 01:16:10.71 | John Leyba | Mark's correct. proactively approach residents pursuing underground option. That would be kind of a request of the city if that was the direction you wanted to go, our whole outreach machinery, if you will, is about supporting projects that are in flight, that are scheduled, that are in the construction, in the pipeline, right? And there's a whole sequencing around that. from You know, getting encroachment permits, doing the outrage, having the construction scheduled alongside that people within the company are doing long lead time material orders, all that fun with supply chain we've all heard about for the last three years. You know, all those other pieces that go with sequencing a project. in the project pipeline. |
| 01:17:00.41 | Janelle Kellman | Okay, thank you. That's quite helpful. And I understand don't put resources for something that's not a project on your books yet. I get that. And so if somebody were to potentially have a poll erected, one of these 90 polls, and it was going to block a view, at what point in the process would they know? |
| 01:17:09.40 | Unknown | you |
| 01:17:21.43 | Mark Van Gorder | So I'm gonna maybe defer a bit to Tracy if she's available. I can't see all of the people that are on the screen here at the moment. But Mayor Kelman, one of the things that we talked about in the past is. Once we have the permits to go forth and start conducting the outreach, And we've determined which phases we would be starting in. That's where we would meet with the customers and as best as we are able, there will be limitations, talk with them about this pole will be located in such and such a place, or this pole will stay exactly as is, but may require a new transformer and it might be three feet higher, so it will be going into those details. as best as we can. so that the customer can get a sense of, where the equipment would be, what impacts it might have. And there may be different views in the same home. You may have a Bayview window that looks out. across towards Belvedere, you may have a deck or a kitchen window or something that looks out, you know, more south towards Belvedere. San Francisco, and so we'd want to get a good idea of what can be done to mitigate those impacts. |
| 01:18:34.69 | Janelle Kellman | So you'll have some flexibility as to location and equipment at that time. |
| 01:18:40.12 | John Leyba | Yeah, the idea is- |
| 01:18:40.98 | Mark Van Gorder | All right. |
| 01:18:41.27 | Janelle Kellman | Sean is saying yes, but you're saying no. |
| 01:18:41.84 | Mark Van Gorder | See you. |
| 01:18:43.41 | Janelle Kellman | Bye. |
| 01:18:43.44 | John Leyba | I believe you would have flexibility on location equipment. |
| 01:18:48.12 | Mark Van Gorder | Well, and I, so two parts to the question and I was focusing on the second, at that time. I think whether it's gonna be is it's been an iterative process. So can we, will we have conversations about moving equipment or what could we do to mitigate At the time of outreach, I think we're going to have to come back, you know, after having talking to our engineering and design folks and ask the question, Can you move this three feet left or three feet right? Can you make it three feet higher or three feet lower? you know, Tracy, I think that's Our lead engagement person here, I think she should say a few words. |
| 01:19:25.65 | Tracy Craig | Well, I just first of all, thank you for the question. And what I think I'm really hearing here are people going to be notified with enough time that they're not just seeing a poll go up and not know what's going on and be upset and angry. And my answer to that is absolutely yes. That's what we're trying to do. That's why we're actually here tonight. because we would like to get ahead of the curve. on this, but it is my intention and I always say, Don't listen to what I say, watch what I do. that we have a couple points of contact that are available 24-7, that we let people know early on that there's going to be impacts, that we are very clear on what those might be. and that we work with the engineering team to the extent that we can, right? We need to manage that. if we can move it. to save a view or enhance a view and it's doable with the engineering constraints. then yes, we would do that. But it's moreover, it's our intent to not have anybody surprised and to let them know and have a seat at the table during this. And you can call my cell phone anytime you hear from somebody and I will answer it and make sure that people really know what's going on. |
| 01:20:35.87 | Janelle Kellman | I THINK THAT'S A |
| 01:20:36.96 | Tracy Craig | I will, yeah, and I'll give it to the public as well. You bet, it's my cell phone. So, of course. |
| 01:20:43.10 | Janelle Kellman | Of course. |
| 01:20:43.54 | Tracy Craig | Thank you. |
| 01:20:44.20 | Janelle Kellman | I have a few more questions, but let's go to Councillor Sobieski, who's been waiting |
| 01:20:48.74 | Jill Hoffman | Oh no, I just was chiming in on that theme there, Tracy. When this was discussed previously, this was the exact same line of inquiry we made. With the preliminary map, there's actually already one of your design, I understand, with the location of poles and transformers. new polls, the 53 plus new polls. And we actually asked that question about the amount of flexibility and it really was |
| 01:21:07.94 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:21:08.11 | Brandon Rogers | Thank you. |
| 01:21:08.35 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:21:13.21 | Jill Hoffman | in my notes it's pretty clear, I have it right here, It is the two or three feet. We can maybe move in a little bit here and a little bit there, but the fundamental location of these things. is pretty rigid. That was what we were told. Are you telling us something different? No, I'm not. |
| 01:21:25.09 | Tracy Craig | Absolutely. No, I'm not telling you something different. No, not at all. I think that there is limited room. And I am not the engineer, right? I'm the communications flag. But I think there's limited... |
| 01:21:28.53 | Jill Hoffman | So. Thank you. |
| 01:21:38.99 | Tracy Craig | If somebody says we want it all the way down the street, that's not going to happen. And I'll tell you what else is going to happen is the person all the way down the street is going to be like, oh, heck no. Right, so I think the challenge here is threading that needle between being very transparent where these can move, but three feet might make a huge difference to somebody. And if we can do that, by all means, we will. |
| 01:22:02.99 | Jill Hoffman | Well, that's good to know. I just wanna make clear that- Thank you. Yes. |
| 01:22:05.27 | Tracy Craig | Thank you. Yes, thanks for the clarification. |
| 01:22:07.11 | Jill Hoffman | that it's not about redesigning the system to mitigate views across the comprehensive system with some fundamental thing. We're talking about tweaking the location of things. That's the, at best, the level of engagement with the neighbors that we're gonna have here at UNI. |
| 01:22:23.43 | Tracy Craig | Well, I would push back on that a little bit because I think one of the, Real levels of engagement is letting people know what's going on, know why it's going on. Understanding the importance of it. and making sure that they even if they're not happy, that they know that they've been heard and listened to, and they understand what can and can't be done. |
| 01:22:44.22 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:22:44.23 | Jill Hoffman | I think we're in agreement on that. |
| 01:22:44.37 | Tracy Craig | I love you. So I think we're in agreement on that. |
| 01:22:47.47 | Jill Hoffman | For sure, that's what was missing on Fourth Street entirely. |
| 01:22:50.70 | Tracy Craig | I have heard, I wasn't involved, let me just say, but it's lessons learned, right? I heard loud and clear that was not handled the way that you folks wanted it to. And I'll give you my personal assurances, I will do better than that. |
| 01:23:07.42 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:23:08.30 | Janelle Kellman | I'm going to go. Thanks, Tracy. Thank you, Councillor Sobieski. So my one last question for you all is for some advice. So, you all have seen communities undertake undergrounding projects. How does a community adequately engage its residents? There's a big cost involved, there's a front engineering, there's an assessment district. What is your advice to us about how to conduct stakeholder engagement in a meaningful fashion so that we know what the residents want to do. |
| 01:23:42.55 | Mark Van Gorder | I'm going to... I'll also ask John, John's a senior and much more experienced than I am. And it may well be worth, Mayor, having a discussion. either in a subcommittee meeting or with staff or however, both with some of our Uh, service planning representatives that handle smaller undergrounding jobs. And then we have some folks who do mile, three mile long, a large project such as this. that is in the millions of dollars range. Those jobs are taken over by a larger project manager in this case, Someone that's worked in Tiburon many times is David Phillips. And he, he in Napa, he performed one of the largest undergrounding sections that we've had, and that was when I first started. nine years ago. So I'll stop there and say that I think John, if you have other comments to add to that, I don't know that I would like to off the cuff, suggest what best works in what city with residents and businesses to communicate, you know, the options and alternatives of undergrounding. I know that there are many jurisdictions right here in Marin that have done that successfully. And I think Tiburon and just across the way is probably one of the most frequent flyers with regard to neighborhoods undergrounding and they'd have ample information to share. |
| 01:25:20.12 | John Leyba | I'll just add yeah I don't have a specific prescription of how you would go about doing that but it's all about community prioritization. We are the first to admit that undergrounding is phenomenally expensive. I don't want to. I don't want to rabbit hole, but since the issue has been raised, I do want to make sure that everybody is aware that the undergrounding you see from our CEO, Patty Poppy on the commercials is not the same as undergrounding of a Rule 20. A Rule 20 takes all the facilities that are on a pole, span to span, So you're talking about primary lines that's high voltage, secondary line, which is more like a household voltage that's been transformed down. All communications lines brings out all underground that is, you know, the deluxe version of it and gives you what you're looking for in terms of that that aesthetic impact sightlines and so forth. Most of the 10,000 miles of underground and we are doing throughout the service territory and several hundred miles in the north coast region are going to involve taking the primary off at the top of the poll, the communications lines and so forth will actually still remain there. So I know that was a lot of inspiration that came up when we first started talking about this over the summer. So just to reiterate, the underground initiative the company is doing is not the same as Rule 20, which has been more specific or more expensive and utilized by municipalities up and down the state for really aesthetic purposes in central business districts, you know, downtown corridors. My old house, I'm a transplant to Windsor. My old neighborhood in San Jose, we had a Rule 20 on the main drag that started three doors down and the rest of our neighborhood was overhead. And so there was actually a riser pole across the street from me that had the wire that then went underground so that the business district on the corner was underground and had a view of the hillsides. But we didn't. I looked at a power pole across the street. So... So I'm trying to say it around that way, I feel your pain is very expensive, but it all goes into community prioritization and how you can chip away at that as an issue. So I hope that's helpful. Thank you for the opportunity. |
| 01:27:41.49 | Mark Van Gorder | Thank you. And John, I'd like to just for those who are watching from the council members and community Um, we have only talked about thus far undergrounding those facilities which is the transformers in the primary and PG&E facilities and past communications and presentations and information shared with council. and staff has been specific to PG&E. So when there's been talking staff reports about costs, whether that's 30 million or 60 million, whatever. That does not include, and we've made this clear, that. |
| 01:28:18.19 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:28:19.35 | Mark Van Gorder | Very frequently people think, aha, undergrounding, great. We can walk sidewalks, there's no poles, nothing. That's not what we've talked about so far as far as underground If we went forward with the undergrounding application, for this entire area. At the end of the day, you would still be left. with the polls and with the communications lines. maybe slightly better views because you're removing that top portion of equipment. |
| 01:28:48.02 | Janelle Kellman | So Mark, sorry, just to clarify, then the scenario that John just laid out, is not what we would get. |
| 01:28:55.79 | Mark Van Gorder | Well, I think in a, and I'm correct me, John, but if you're doing a rule 20 a project, so we have a rule 20 a, We have Rule 20B and Rule 20C. and You know, based on the figures and numbers that were provided by Austin regarding the potential for undergrounding PG&E's facilities. That's what was asked and that's the information we provided. that was specific to PG&E's facilities We don't know what kind of cost estimate would come from AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, or whoever. We have a joint poll, so we share the poll. with those communications folks they would have to determine the cost to underground their equipment. |
| 01:29:41.27 | John Leyba | Well, and additionally, when you first underground, you can end up with a strange hybrid where you have, underground facilities of the lines, but the service poles are remaining because customers would have to underground their own. facility up to their meters, right? So... across their yards or potentially you know from their meter elsewhere on the property so it just it all depends It's a complicated prioritization that a community has to go through to determine the underground |
| 01:30:14.49 | Janelle Kellman | In general, Mark, Run and Rule 28 PG&E contributes Not enough to cover, but contributes in a rule 20B, it's all privately. Thank you. |
| 01:30:23.47 | John Leyba | Rule 20A is all accrued credits Literally. |
| 01:30:26.81 | Janelle Kellman | We have 2 million. |
| 01:30:28.58 | John Leyba | Yeah. And then on the rule 20B, that would be like privately funded. Right. or by the municipality. |
| 01:30:37.12 | Janelle Kellman | Okay. Thank you. And thank you for my council members for letting me move through all of that material. Any other questions for PJ? Yeah, Tracy, please. you're on mute. Thank you. to be. |
| 01:30:53.03 | Tracy Craig | Very good at communications there. There's no chat box. I can't give you my number. So I'm not sure what's going on there, but I will email you that. I just would also like to say with getting ahold of your stakeholders, no magic bullet, right? super important to get your what you want to say down first and what you're asking them. So I'm happy. to talk with you offline and just tell you what I've learned the MTM years I've been doing this. um just to help out. |
| 01:31:22.35 | Janelle Kellman | Okay. Thank you, Tracy. I really appreciate it. Well, so... Speaking of stakeholders, I think we should go to public comment. and hear from our stakeholders. So, um, Molly, we'll hand it over to you. I do see one hand raised. Can you just again announce how people can give a public comment? Absolutely. I believe it's... Joan Cox. Will you announce though how someone could provide public comment either from Zoom or |
| 01:31:50.38 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes, Mayor, thank you. If you want to comment during the public comment portion of the agenda, you can raise your hand function and Zoom under reactions. Please make sure your Zoom is updated to the last version, or you can press none if you are calling in. The city clerk will select you from the meeting queue. |
| 01:32:06.49 | Unknown | you know. |
| 01:32:06.90 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you very much. You can begin. |
| 01:32:09.87 | Ian Sobieski | Welcome, Joan. Yeah, I'm not able to start my video. It says the host is not letting me start my video. |
| 01:32:17.43 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. We're fixing that. |
| 01:32:28.02 | Ian Sobieski | There we go. Thank you. Good evening again, council. I had several questions, some of which refer to the overall undergrounding, not just this specific 12 kV project. So First, I'm wondering, given the lack of encroachment permits, whether there's a way to obtain better notice of future PG&E projects beyond this one? Second, given that PG&E anticipates starting its 12 KV project midway through 2023, how long does the city have to decide whether the city would like to underground that project or not. When is our deadline to notify PG&E? Three, how likely are we to be able to offset the cost of undergrounding by the cost PG&E would have expended for its 12 KV? Above ground upgrades, is PG&E willing to contribute that above ground cost to our undergrounding effort if we were to decide to go that way. As part of Sausalito's consideration of undergrounding as a whole, I'm wondering whether designation of Sausalito as a severe high fire hazard zone would move Sausalito up on the hierarchy of municipalities for which PG&E is undertaking at its cost. the undergrounding of systems. There have been a number of fires in Sausalito this year. We are right next to the heavily forested Golden Gate National Recreation Area. This is something we should be considering anyway, given our housing mandate. And I'm wondering what impact, if any, that would have on our ability to have PG&E pay for undergrounding, since it is announcing throughout California that it is underground. And so I'd like to see what it would take, whether that would help us get monies from PG&E. I appreciated the staff report discussion of our already exploring perhaps undergrounding PG&E as we undertake. sewer repairs and other repairs. I'd like to see us explore that further. Can we explore the obtaining of revenue through varying revenue generating systems such as fiber optic cable? to defray the cost of undergrounding. I'm aware of other cities that have done this, and I'm aware of large agencies such as Google that have expressed interest in paying for such systems in some cities. And that would go a long way towards defraying the cost of undergrounding. And finally, can we obtain estimates of undergrounding on a larger scale so that we can provide concerned residents with a rough order of magnitude regarding THE EXPENSE OF UNDERGROUNDING AND HOW THAT COULD BE funded, you know, this and then spread out over time through tax bills, etc. So If we indeed are engaging in this conversation for possibility, can we do so on a large scale? So that. It's not some a pie in the sky number, residents actually have an idea the impact to their individual pocketbooks might be. Thank you for entertaining my questions. Thank you. |
| 01:35:31.05 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah. Ms. Bushmaker, you're next. Okay. |
| 01:35:37.02 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 01:35:37.04 | Walfred Solorzano | Okay. |
| 01:35:37.97 | Sandra Bushmaker | back. Just a minute. I was very pleased to hear the discussion about new and improved communication with the residents. I think that's extremely important, given that this is such a big ticket item. One of the things that occurs to me is that we've got two issues, I think, that need to be separated. One is the need to go from the 4KV to the 12KV. And that sounds to be in progress and on the books. We just, the city council had put a hold on that while they were going to discuss undergrounding. But it seems to me that that power increase is essential for the function of that area of town. So I don't want to see that delayed to the point. where years down the road, we're saying we should have done the upgrade on the power now and then Bye. arranged for the underground and downstream. This is going to take years to get that anyway. I'm still a little confused on the communication lines. It sounds to me like the communication line will remain up under the estimate that PG&E has already given us. And secondly, I have serious questions about whether we should be declaring Sausalito a wildfire area. because I'm thinking of the chaos that's going to incur, be incurred with homeowners insurance, and there may be other consequences which I have been unable to think of it at the last minute, but I think that needs to, really further analysis and I don't want to see our residents having to scramble for new homeowners insurance because of that declaration. We don't want an insurance crisis here in Sausalito. And that's basically it. Thank you very much. Thanks, Sandra. |
| 01:37:29.97 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Mike, you are next. |
| 01:37:38.09 | Janelle Kellman | Hello, Mike. You don't need to unmute. Yeah. |
| 01:37:41.09 | Mike | Thank you. I have a couple of technical questions. the PG&A representatives can answer them. The proposal is to upgrade the system from from 4KV to 12KV. Uh, It's unclear to me why the additional polls would be necessary for such a minor upgrade of distribution voltages. And if, um, if the upgrade could occur without changing the poll configurations, then the city would, the city's viewshed would remain unaffected. And I don't know if there's any general order 95 implications from going from 4KV to 12KV. but It would be interesting to find out And If uh, Yeah, what would drive the need for the extra poles? And if it's heavier conductor, Is there a higher tech conductor available. that, could be supported on the current poll configuration. Thank you. |
| 01:39:01.53 | Janelle Kellman | Thanks, Mike. Do you have any other hands, St. Clair? No, Mayor, we don't. Okay, so this is, here we go. We have one more hand up, Winner Richards. |
| 01:39:12.42 | Walfred Solorzano | Oh, I'm sorry, Mayor. We did have one last minute. Mr. W.R. Hi, Wendy. W.R. Richards. |
| 01:39:23.25 | Wendy Richards | Yes, hi, thank you. I'm gonna keep my camera off. I'm home with COVID tonight. Um, So I wouldn't want to get you on, get it on any of you. Thank you for that. Yes. So I just wanna be very clear from what I heard tonight. similar to last time's memo, the 30 to $60 million estimate is only for the lines that PG&E has on the polls. It does not include any of the communication lines that are also on those shared poles. So the cost estimate would have to then also be requested from those other vendors who have lines on the polls. Secondly, I understand it also does not include the direct connection of each and every household to the street Line. And that is something that has not been clear in any of the previous documents. So even if the undergrounding were affordable, which I don't believe it is, Yep. That estimate also does not include the cost to tap into the newly undergrounded main line. So that would also be something that each resident would have to pay for. And then the third thing I want to be clear about is regardless of the undergrounding on the overhead line plan that, It is crucial that that residents have the opportunity to review those plans before they get set in stone. even before the question of underground and can be considered because the when we're deciding on undergrounding, we need to be making that decision based on the future poll configuration, not the past. or current whole configuration. So I would ask that PG&E provide as much of that information as possible. In particular, the part that PG&E can provide is the connection from each home to the street. And to the extent that Verizon, AT&T and Comcast are involved, They provide that information so that we get the companies to provide the information first before the city spends any extra money on outside resources. Thank you. Oh, and one final thing is that, The process for these districts needs to really be considerate of affordability. Because if 60% can vote yes, that means that 40% could be forced to spend money that they don't have. Thank you very much. Thanks, Wendy. |
| 01:42:23.31 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Mayor, I don't see any additional hands up. |
| 01:42:27.14 | Janelle Kellman | Okay, so we're going to close the public comment up. We have one more hand. I'm sorry, Des. Adriana's iPad. |
| 01:42:35.36 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Yes. Adriana's iPad, could you please begin? |
| 01:42:45.46 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:42:45.48 | Adriana | There you go. Hi, I just unmuted. Yes, you did. Sorry about that. that I was muted before. Okay. All right, we can go for my video, what the heck. I look like hell. Um, I just tuned in around eight. And so I missed some of the comments, but the one comment I want to to add is I think PG&E should be paying more of this undergrounding cost and I would love to have our street and the adjoining areas undergrounded. But I think PG&A should Consider, for example, the amount of money it takes to keep all the trees trimmed and they're constantly sending all those tree people. Well, they should add in the cost of the tree maintenance for the life of these lines. the new lines. And any other thing that we can figure out that they could actually pay because They charge what they want to charge. And their rates are set by the PUC, it seems they're in bed with. It's like $60 million. Seems like a huge amount of money to do what they're proposing to do. See you now. Um, I support undergrounding, even though it would raise my taxes. |
| 01:44:23.98 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you, Adriana. Okay, any other folks wish to speak tonight on undergrounding? |
| 01:44:31.54 | Walfred Solorzano | Mayor, I'm going to just take two seconds for a pause to make sure no one has jumped in. And it looks like our public comments completed. |
| 01:44:41.53 | Janelle Kellman | Okay, great. Thank you, everybody. Close public comment, bring it up to council. I'm gonna ask for probably Mark and John to weigh in on some of the cost questions. I thought a few were raised that were quite interesting. Could you upgrade without changing the poll configuration? |
| 01:45:00.45 | Mark Van Gorder | Well, let me start, Mayor, by saying that we came tonight to address the agenda item as presented. received the staff report from Director McGowan And we were, I think, kind of interested in looking for the direction from staff. There may be some questions. that we can answer here tonight. It may be that we need to come back at a next council meeting to provide answers to some of these questions because that, unless John's prepared, that's sort of an engineering question that I simply wasn't prepared to discuss what all the alternatives may be, what are the other options? So I don't want to appear evasive. I simply don't have the answer to that question, John. |
| 01:45:46.63 | John Leyba | I asked and had that question answered previously that we cannot use existing facilities that is that is the big driver of the upgrade. One of the callers brought up GEO 95 or general order 95 specifies setbacks distances and so forth, and because of the higher voltage there are larger. larger conductors used. I'm not an electrical engineer. Just play one on Zoom. There are larger offsets and distances required for the the insulators, the bell insulators that are used as well as, you know, for the wires and so forth, which which is driving the scope of this. None of what's been proposed. You saw the table earlier. None of that is would be an unnecessary thing. That's my understanding. |
| 01:46:36.18 | Janelle Kellman | Thanks. Thank you. That's very helpful. Um, And Mark, thank you. I get there's going to be some you just don't know right now, and that's fine. I'm just going to try to ask them. I remember Council Member Sobieski did in the past actually ask, Could PG&E contribute the cost of the upgrade to an undergrounding project. |
| 01:46:55.94 | Mark Van Gorder | That's correct. That was one question that I was prepared to answer. There is a portion |
| 01:46:59.52 | Janelle Kellman | There's a lot of people. |
| 01:47:00.82 | Mark Van Gorder | of that that could be. contribute. Pardon me. I don't recall the exact cost. I mean, first I really want to say again, thanks to Kevin. I'm looking at the staff report right now to see if I might be able to find it very quickly. But yes, there was an amount of that that could be contributed. But it wasn't the full cost. I want to say maybe Kevin recalls that it was somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 million. $1,200 total. Um, And yes, $8 million, here it is. and some portion of that But again, speculation, What we've been asking And I think it's really critical, especially when we're talking about engaging with the community and letting the community know where we're at. what impact they might expect. |
| 01:47:50.75 | Unknown | expect. |
| 01:47:51.74 | Mark Van Gorder | is is knowing whether or not the city wants to go forward with, Kevin laid it out, I think seven different alternatives here or such. Knowing the direction the city would like to go, other than the proposed overhead rebuild of the existing infrastructure. That will help us better answer the questions for you and for the community. and get specific about are we talking about one phase, Or are we talking about? all phases. I've heard some folks ask the question whether or not council members whether or not we should be looking at undergrounding the entire city. All of them are so vastly different. It's hard to be specific to the customer constituent level. |
| 01:48:38.98 | Janelle Kellman | So I think maybe for the sake of argument, I think we're talking about this particular upgrade project. right? Fourth Street, the Wolfpack Ridge, other parts of town or things I think we need to determine whether we want to pursue something larger there, but let's say for the sake of this conversation and your expertise, Let's talk about this upgrade project. |
| 01:49:03.23 | Mark Van Gorder | the overhead. |
| 01:49:04.44 | Janelle Kellman | Yeah. |
| 01:49:05.86 | Mark Van Gorder | up. So again, a portion, the portion of that. upgrade. if there was some underground age. And I would have to dig deeper into this. I am guessing that the value of that phase |
| 01:49:19.07 | Unknown | that you can't get it. |
| 01:49:22.09 | Mark Van Gorder | So the $8 million was a rough estimate of the cost for us to rebuild the overhead. Yes. for all of the phases. if the council chose some that's a good question. I don't know how many properties on one of the phase, of 50 property fees. it would likely get some percentage. I don't believe that all 8 million, because the 8 million has got to be used for the remainder of the project. |
| 01:49:47.88 | Janelle Kellman | I'm not. That's very helpful. And there was one more minor question that I'm just curious about the comment about the direct connection of each household to the street line. Is that something that normally gets embedded in an underground project? |
| 01:50:02.32 | Mark Van Gorder | John, I don't believe that's the case. I believe that- |
| 01:50:05.55 | John Leyba | It's my understanding that service connections would be additional expense. And that would be one of those things, whether the city picks it up for each homeowner or requires a homeowner to do it. Or if there's some phase in over time, if you've got a riser pole sitting out in your yard and, you know, your service line comes to it and then the line goes underground until such time that that can be trenched or is feasible on the property. So it's not a silver bullet. I think that's kind of what we're getting at with Underground and it's a complex configuration, right? There are a lot of different options. And again, just to underscore the point, The Rule 20 undergrounding is not the same as the undergrounding, the 10,000 miles the company is doing for high fire threat districts. |
| 01:50:52.27 | John Leyba | Thanks, Jill. |
| 01:50:53.42 | Kevin McGowan | Madam Mayor, if I may add some clarity to that last question. And it depends upon what certain jurisdictions want to do. If they want to use some of their 20A funds to help with a project, it is possible to underground the laterals for each one of the residents. The problem comes into play that everybody's panel on their house is different. So you might have an overhead line with like my house is pretty old. I might have fuses. So the upgrade of that panel will change from house to house. Generally, that's why PG&E says that's got to be up to the residents to pay for it, because it could be different for each property owner, depending upon what they have. So I hate to be kind of... You know, kind of give that response that it depends, but really it does. It kind of depends upon what you have. |
| 01:51:55.17 | Janelle Kellman | Amen. Thank you, Kevin. Appreciate that. Okay, so fellow council members, any other questions for staff or PG&E? Yeah, please, because we're off. |
| 01:52:06.37 | Jill Hoffman | I know. Thanks, guys. I appreciate your bringing your expertise tonight. You know, I know there are individuals around town that just decide to underground, right? go through this. apparently horrific process for figuring it out. but, You know, as part of this, is that still an option for individuals in whatever neighborhood that You know, we see that there are polls going up, but we'd like to personally just sort of, assuming somebody wants to understand generally. So that's still an option for people. |
| 01:52:39.19 | Mark Van Gorder | Well, let's clarify that a little bit, if I may, Councilmember Hoffman. Um, you. It's always an option. I think for our purposes and the city's purposes, We're We're trying to get through a time window. on this. So if a community of of, And it'd have to be you know, neighbors somewhat together you know, that formed a group if 30 property owners next to each other said, well, we don't mind paying the money. we might be able to get an application for one of the phases of this work. So I think as I'm sorry, I'm looking over my screen here. I believe that's one of the alternatives that Director McGowan mentioned. Is it possible to do it? It would be, it would involve coordinating neighbors and getting their feedback, but ultimately, And I want to drive this home a bit. All of the information that's been shared so far about the costs of undergrounding, the timing of undergrounding, how we would underground requires an application. whether it's for five properties, 600 properties. there has to be an application so we can get into the formal process. and really dive into it and get the detailed information that's needed. we need to know What utilities are already in ground there? How hard is the rock? Can we trench it? Can we bore it? Um, So those are some of the challenges that we would face. |
| 01:54:20.83 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:54:20.87 | Janelle Kellman | Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. Councillor Sobhia Skeen then. |
| 01:54:25.91 | Jill Hoffman | And that's why just for clarity and for people listening, that's why in the previous staff report, there was talk about submitting an undergrounding application. It wasn't to start an undergrounding effort. It was as Mr. Van Gorder just said, described. a necessary step for them to create more than a back of the envelope. analysis of the costs. So the cost estimates we have currently are really a swag, they're taking the cost per linear foot calculating the number of linear feet. That's the cost plus a safety factor. That is not much of a detailed analysis, and it could be wildly different. So in San Jose and San Francisco, they were both specific examples of undergrounding projects that actually came in substantially under the estimates. There are plenty of examples of things going over the estimates as well. Uh, So to get a more detailed number, to be able to ask people what they might be interested in spending requires an undergrounding application. So hence the kerfuffle around this topic when all we're doing is really trying to to understand, as the mayor pointed out, what our options are. Uh, you know, to my mind, this is, uh, kind of, we can really cut to the chase and it's really sort of simple. There are really two paths here to achieve an undergrounding in Osoledo. One is that, you know, the fact is that undergrounding wires is safer from a wildfire point of view. and increases reliability. And so, The question is, is there a way of getting PG&E to pay for the whole thing? And I appreciate what John emphasized, which is their much celebrated effort to underground 10,000 miles of electrical wire is a totally different thing. That's not a bucket we can tap. Nevertheless, it's a reality that this new upgraded system is going to have a lifespan of 50 years. So are we committed to having above ground wires? in Sausalito for that period of time. and, uh, it is for sure the case that they're risky. The Oakland Fire Hills shows what hillside fire can do, killing more than 100 people and burning the whole area down to the ground, a thousand homes lost. So it's not so much a question of, what the insurance designation is. I don't want to pay and have an insurance crisis either, but What's the reality of the wildfire risk? presented by this infrastructure. And how does that compare to other risks from landslide to sea level rise. that our town faces and what are we willing to do about it? The bill is so big to Underground that it's not conceivable. that if PG&A, declines to pay for it. that we will. we have these seven action items in the stack report. choose from and one of them is to direct staff to continue to seek legal assistance to interact with PG&E. And that's really just seeing if we can get someone to help advise us about if, is there some effort, some mechanism, by which we can get PG to pay for this. wildfire designation or not, just some effort. to figure out how to do that. And that's really, request. about from staff about whether we should be doing this. I think for sure we should. uh, if we could get PG&A, To pay for it, it would make a safer town. Bottom line. And it wouldn't cost us. anything. Bye. If we can't, then Is the city going to come up with $60 million, the underground section? I think unlikely. Yeah. We have a lot of infrastructure issues in town and a lot to pay for. But as Mark Van Gogh just said, It may be the case that 30, 15, 20, 30? property owners. in a contiguous area in our town, would be willing. to pay. underground their sections. So it isn't an option of all or nothing. There's a near term option. to solicit the property owners who are of our town. and see if they're interested in undergrounding. And if you get a response from such a solicitation, uh, with different monetary levels, you can create a heat map of dots of people that actually want to do this. And if enough dots are clustered together, you can draw a circle around it, and that's the district. And that at least can be undergranted. So if we went through that process, would we get anyone saying yes? I don't know. But if we did, They're willing to pay for it. And Mark's able to integrate it into the 12 KV upgrade system, then we got underground 5% of the project or 15% of the project. Is that as good as 100? No. but it's a practical way to underground a part of it. And undergrounding a part of it benefits everyone if the goal is reducing the wildfire risk. Thank you. I mean, I did it on my own, on my own Um, survey here, I have Survey Monkey and so Let's see if I even have it here. Yeah, see, you can just do a little survey like this. Very simple, property owner survey. And you ask people, It can just sit here on currents and people can say, Would you be willing to pay an annual additional assessment on your property tax bill, enter the maximum amount you'd be willing to pay, zero, $250, $750, zero, I'm not going to pay anything. What's your address? What's your name? That's it. And Let's just see what the town, once. And the goal is not to force anyone in anything. But the possibility is if you did a simple survey like this, promoted it through Currents, while at the same time letting people know what's coming down the pike on the 12KV program. You would educate people about the upcoming upgrade, so that when the trucks roll and the new poles are put in, new transformers are there, They were well warned in advance. and you give, communities that are willing to step up and can afford to do so. the option. of perhaps underwriting a portion of that upgrade. at their expense. with the city really acting as a facilitator instead of the current situation where we are really saying go with God figure out the 20B process yourself. You just heard how crazy complicated it is. So what we're really just saying is let's have the city provide a little bit of leadership. to try to corral the interest. and see if we can underground part of the, see if anyone wants to pay to underground part of the project, while at the same time, exerting some effort. to see if there are any legal or lobbying or political remedies to encourage PG&E to actually pay for the project. Those are my comments. |
| 02:01:06.68 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you, Councillor Sovetsky. I'll just say, I agree with both of those comments. My question would be back to PG&E around timing And to capture that within the staff report, I think that's that high level approach the solicit property owners who may be interested in supporting an undergrounding effort. Um, and finding ways for PG&E to pay for it. I like both those things. The question is, what's the timeframe when it comes to the 12 KB. So let's go to Council Member Cleveland, also. And I'll just note, I see a member of the public has his hand up. We have closed public comments, so we're not going to call on you. We're going to go to the council members now. |
| 02:01:41.56 | Unknown | Yeah, thank you, Mayor. I also, I think that was a really excellent articulation of the issues from Councilmember Sobieski and I'm in alignment on I, getting legal or policy advice on the issues that he noted. I would also just add that I think that last question that you brought up, Mayor, could also We can ask PG&E, but I'm just getting the sense that the more questions we ask, the more answers we get. And it's, kind of the conversation is shifting very, in a kind of frustrating way. Having an advisor kind of on our own would also help us get ideas about timing and get more of a flow chart about how this could all work. And we should definitely ask PG&E, but I think we should also ask. um, another professional as well about their best advice as to how to move through these processes. You know, I mean, it's just very surprising to me that when PG&E is considering doing a very large project like this, there is not upfront, you know, a timeline of how and when various community members could weigh in on whether they would prefer to see this upgrade done through an undergrounding process. given the safety and reliability issues. I think that should be part of their standard operating procedures and, um, It's not been clear. And it hasn't been consistent at all. I also like the ideas that came up tonight, both from our public works director and I think some members of the public That whatever encouragement permit or whatever levers that we have require more. It was very nice that they said that they would do it better this time, but I think as many conditions of approval are enforceable, um, conditions to an encroachment permit would um, would be great. So I would ask if others agree, ask staff to explore how we can phase a permit to make sure that appropriate outreach is done if we do go down. the above ground project. And I think there's were, oh, I think the other issue that's really come up for me is I need to kind of further educate the community about the difference in what was underground and was considered A couple of years ago, it was all about views and aesthetics. And now there's just a lot of other issues that we're all worried about, reliability, How about safety? shutoffs and, you know, the sparking and, you know, there's just, there's a lot of issues out there and a lot of additional reasons that, property owners might want to consider contributing the cost of undergarming. And I'm just not sure that that full account of advantages, against the costs has been understood, finally, in the community. So to the extent that we can help I in education, I think that would be helpful. And And one other thing, but I will leave that down. |
| 02:05:12.56 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. That's super helpful. Vice Mayor, any additional thoughts? |
| 02:05:19.07 | Unknown | Yeah, sure. Thank you, Councilmember Sobieski, for doing such a thorough job of describing the issue. I really appreciate it, and I appreciate all of the public comment that we got on this issue. I think one takeaway that we all can share from tonight's discussion is that resident engagement is critical. And it's really important that residents are informed about the timeline that we get from PG&E their options, whether or not they want to opt into underground. One point I do want to bring up that I think is important for is that about half of our community is made up of renters. So they would not be paying the property tax or bearing the brunt of the undergrounding. So when we do send out a survey through clearance, something along those lines would have to indicate that just so that we can be aware of the differences there and who's opting in and who's responsible for what. But I think that this is definitely had been a really robust conversation about next steps. And I agree with all of the suggestions made by Councilmember Sobieski and Councilmember Klovenol's. I think We are in a different environment now, given climate change, given the wildfires that we're facing, given the ongoing threats of aging infrastructure. So whatever steps we can take as a community to do more to improve that with the assistance of PG&E, hopefully we can move forward together in making that happen. As Councilmember Sobieski said, I would love to see undergrounding, even if it's only 15% of the project for community as a whole that would improve some of our wildfire risk. I also want to add I think it's important that we have a deeper discussion about what our state rating for wildfire risk is because per our last meeting, there was a lot of conversation and we had asked specifically about why we were or were not, well, per PG and the NCPUC standards, we're not considered at a high risk fire area. I still don't have answers to those questions about why we didn't quite make it and what the requirements for that are. I think we should have a meeting in the next quarter that looks at our wildfire risk, where we stand, what steps we can take to do a better job of mitigating that risk, and also what funds might be available to us as a community to mitigate our wildfire risk. So that's something else to consider. But generally, I really appreciate everyone's comments and feedback and the amount of time put into this by staff and by PG&E so Thank you for that. |
| 02:07:37.35 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. Let's go to Council Member Hoffman, then Council Member Clever Knowles, and then we'll finish with you, Mark. So, Councillor Hoffman. |
| 02:07:44.67 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, so I think I agree that the direction, you know, laid out by Council Member Sobieski, I support that. And You know, I think we do need to take a look at what our fire risk is, it is odd. I thought I recalled that we were in the high fire areas and it certainly comes right up against Sausalito, which is odd that it comes right up to our you know, the, anyway, the boundary. An ask that I would have is a lot of the, some of the comments tonight, the public comments were, a bit circuitous to conversations that we've had as a council over the past year, right? Like these sort of global sort of aspects of, well, what about this? What about this road? What about that? I mean, what about this option or that option or sort of these broad, these broad questions? We have a council, I think, have sort of been down that road. And we are where we are today because we looked at all these different things, but it's not necessarily captured in the staff report. And so My ask of the staff, and I'm sorry to ask this, you know, if you could encapsulate as much as possible of the different conversations that we've had so that the next meeting that we have on the PG&E subject, It's going to be a long staff report. I get it. But, you know, anybody who wants to prepare for the, you know, for the next step in this evolutionary process that we're on in addressing this problem, they can see all of the background and hard work that the council and the working groups have done to sort of run down these different avenues and where we're at now. So I think this was a really productive meeting and thanks to PG&E for coming and really getting us focused in and having answers ready for us. I think it's been very interesting and productive. With the high fire risk though, my understanding is If it's high fire risk, then the poles will likely remain. It's just the high voltage line that's going to go underground. You know, redesign, I mean, that's just the risk of, you know, is the benefit of redesignation of high fire really getting us where we want to go with regards to reduction of risk? And I don't know. And that's something we need to think about and look at. |
| 02:09:52.74 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:09:59.74 | Jill Hoffman | And so those are my, those are my asks. And thanks very much to everybody who's done so much hard work on this. |
| 02:10:07.10 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you for that. Councillor Clevenal is back to you. |
| 02:10:10.09 | Unknown | Yeah, thank you. I just remembered my last issue. It was in the staff report, which was, there was a suggestion that we might wanna update our our undergrounding policy for property owners that do want to engage in the process. And I did review. the example that Director McGowan included from I think it was... Ross. |
| 02:10:34.15 | Unknown | Awesome. |
| 02:10:34.99 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:10:35.06 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:10:35.77 | Unknown | Anyway, I thought it was really, it was an improvement over the one that we adopted in the 90s. And I think if there is a good template and it's not a huge amount of extra staff time, I don't think there's, you know, massive urgency, but I do think having a more updated version that's clearer to understand, indicates, you know, additional rationales for undergrowing this process, etc. I thought it was a good and very clear model and improvement over what we have. I thank you, Director McGowan for including that. I don't know if they would even need a lot of weekend. home. Thank you. Thanks. |
| 02:11:20.71 | Janelle Kellman | It turns out the same attorney who works in Belvedere and Tiburon does the Ross. I mean, it's like it's one guy. I think it's Scott Ferguson from Jones Hall. So we could keep leveraging that resource. So let me just try to recap. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE ALL ON BOARD WITH THE HIGH-LEVEL APPROACH FOR OUTREACH AS ARTICULATED IN THE STAFF Um, There's some good conversation around retaining an expert specifically legal counsel, as to figuring out ways for hold your ears guys, PG need to pay for it. So maybe finding out how we do that. A good point around the encroachment permits and how we link those to outreach so that is more effective. It sounds like PG&E isn't going to proceed until 2023 anyway. So we will, I'm sure Mark, in your comments, give us some insight on when you need to know, but we could hopefully get that outreach as something similar with Councillor Sobieski just shared with us. And then maybe to Councillor Clarenosa's last point about the updated policy. I would just ask that in that outreach, we include some of the options. I think our 94 policy right now says 60% must weigh in. I think in Tehran and Belvedere, it's 80 or 85%. So that would be a good data point to have included in the survey. So Mark, my remaining question, I know you've had your hand up. Thanks for your patience. Do we have a couple of weeks here to do some outreach? What's your thinking? |
| 02:12:47.17 | Mark Van Gorder | So thank you, mayor. Yeah, I did want to make just a couple of points. One, we're always trying to do better. We started this conversation in December of 2020. will be coming up on two years. It'll be helpful to know if maybe three years ahead is helpful. So if any feedback from staff, Manager Council members along the lines of how much time we should be giving communities for lead time for. these dialogues is helpful. Um, The outreach, Mayor, if I understood you correctly, you were trending towards um, Council member Sobieski's survey of community members, not PG&E. sending that out, but that's something the city would initiate. |
| 02:13:35.99 | Janelle Kellman | Well, we'd love if you did it, paid for it, but it doesn't sound like that's in the cards, unless you want to offer, but we will do it. |
| 02:13:43.87 | Mark Van Gorder | Right. Not exactly knowing the direction Council's heading, and I understand I'll make my comments brief here because you've got to get to your to your Decision making. I think until we have a better understanding Is the city going to pursue legal action against PG&E or seek legal advice? I'm not sure exactly what the legal part is. But if the city- |
| 02:14:05.69 | Janelle Kellman | Yeah, I don't think you need to worry about that. That's for our understanding. I mean, the question is, do you guys want to pay for our outreach or not? |
| 02:14:12.32 | Mark Van Gorder | Sure, I think we absolutely would like to begin the outreach as soon as we understand the direction the city would like to head. We, as you mentioned, we have a few months I don't recall exactly when Austin Sharp had said, you know, here's the deadline. At some point, we will begin to go forward with the overhead project. So, We can't we can't perform the underground outreach on the city's behalf. But we can't. |
| 02:14:43.63 | Janelle Kellman | That's what we're asking about. Could you perform the underground outreach on our behalf per what Ian has shown on his screen? |
| 02:14:47.88 | Mark Van Gorder | Yeah. The questions I heard were, you know, scheduling, and outreach. And I think once we have the understanding of that, once we have the encroachment permits, once we're allowed by the city to proceed With the overhead outreach, we can begin doing that. |
| 02:15:05.99 | Janelle Kellman | Okay, let's turn over to that council member who has his hand up. |
| 02:15:08.94 | Jill Hoffman | Thanks, Mayor. Yeah, I just... I thought you did a great summary there, mayor, as usual. I just want to make sure to emphasize that the outreach is going to be, the outreach of educating residents about the 50 plus new poles and 90 plus new transmission boxes. That's a lot of work, and that'll take some money on PG&E's hand to make sure that every person knows everything. All I'm saying is we're trying to be good government. We heard about this and we want to give our residents a, we want to see if there's a way of getting PG&E to pay for it. hire the legal resources necessary, or at least try to. lobbying, legal, otherwise. Like that should be a direction of staff. We agreed that that's the case. But the solicitation of our Residents survey is not that, it's just not complicated. really, I'm just going to show it again because Thank you. It's a website. There's the link right there. I mean, of course, we'll change it, but it's three questions. And it's important to keep it simple. And these questions are simple. and precise, which is, How much would you pay annually? underground the poles and wires near you. Just zero? $250? $500? Thousand? 5,000? What's the address of the property you own in Sausalito? What's your name? This is basically resource about. because it shows, how much resource we have from our residents into public-private partnerships. to pay for this public good. of undergrounding the wires. It may be zero. It may be. $20 million or back a bond measure of $20 million. to pay for just those areas. Let's keep it simple. Let's not overthink it. It doesn't need to be a postcard. It doesn't need to be a mailer. It can be a line in currents. It could be a postcard. You know, leave that up to staff. But let's keep the survey part precise, which is all we're trying to do is see what are the financial resources that our residents, our neighbors, are willing to put towards this. towards this effort. |
| 02:17:14.95 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you for that. Yeah, so very simple. If we may, I mean, I think it'd be helpful to price out a postcard. We have some older residents who might not. right away be looking at currents we're getting online I want to make sure we're covering it and if PG&E want to contribute to that postcard effort we accept uh if you don't it feels too complicated we'll hit you up when it's time for the outreach on the actual project I'll keep asking for money I'm good at it um so uh with that said it sounds like we're all on board page six of the staff report high level outreach approach is articulated here solicit property owners who may be interested in supporting an undergrounding effort, direct staff to help us identify an expert. I think it's probably this legal counsel who can help us figure out how we might entice PG&E to pay for more of this project should it come to fruition. look into leveraging the use of encroachment permits for an outreach plan. and having Austin provide us with an update on the timing. |
| 02:18:14.38 | Janelle Kellman | So I'm open to colleagues having additional elements, but if there are none, I will issue that direction to staff. and make sure that's clear. What was that? |
| 02:18:24.62 | Kevin McGowan | It's Kevin, sorry. The other things that I heard had to do with updating the policy. And so that seems fairly simple. We'll see if we can take care of that. And the other two things had to do with future staff reports need to encapsulate a clear history of how we got to one point. So we'll try to incorporate that |
| 02:18:47.81 | Janelle Kellman | Great. Thank you, Kevin. I'm happy to help. You're on mute. |
| 02:18:56.36 | Chris Zapata | Did I miss surveying your roll call of things to do? |
| 02:19:01.95 | Janelle Kellman | Do you want me to repeat the two? |
| 02:19:03.76 | Chris Zapata | No, no, no. Did you say survey? If you said survey, |
| 02:19:06.41 | Janelle Kellman | Very first thing is that high level approach for page six. |
| 02:19:06.76 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:19:10.54 | Janelle Kellman | 100% have to do that. Okay. Thank you, everybody. Tracy's going to send us her number. We're going to call her. And that's our game plan. So everybody, thank you very much. And I think we have clear direction. |
| 02:19:25.73 | Mark Van Gorder | Thank you. |
| 02:19:26.81 | Janelle Kellman | Okay, thank you PG&E folks for coming in and spending the evening with us. |
| 02:19:31.57 | Mark Van Gorder | Have a good night. |
| 02:19:32.50 | Janelle Kellman | And I... Okay, so we're gonna turn real quick to the two consent items that got pulled off. And thank you to colleagues for that, 3B and 3C. So 3B is the Ferry Landside Improvement Project Phase 1. Um, And since I asked that to come off, I don't need you to to have a staff report at all on that, Kevin. because you did have the material in the on consent, but we do need to see if there's any public comment on this item. So any public comment on the item that was pulled off of consent as to item 3b. |
| 02:20:12.12 | Walfred Solorzano | Bye. |
| 02:20:12.17 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. |
| 02:20:12.24 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 02:20:12.27 | Janelle Kellman | And I was really excited. |
| 02:20:12.37 | Walfred Solorzano | I do not see any public, I'm sorry. One just, Karen Culligan. |
| 02:20:19.48 | Janelle Kellman | Yep. And Peter Vermeer. Hey Karen. You are on mute. |
| 02:20:33.92 | Karen Culligan | Okay, I'm gonna move it. Um, I haven't had a lot of time to study this, I'm pretty I'm trying to track the changes so in the three images provided. Um, They don't seem fully consistent with each other. or with the staff report. But the biggest thing I would say, I mean, I think that is an issue if you're looking for public comment. I'd also call up that the pretty significant change around Tracy Wade is probably the most disappointing thing I see in their current plan. So it's definitely, what we're looking at is definitely better than the status quo. but for I think there's about 10 spots. on Tracy way. So it's kind of like maintain a street so we can park up to 10 private vehicles for an entire road, right? The entire road only exists. so that 10 cars can park. It really serves no other function Doesn't really make sense. And there's a lot we could do with that. general public space, it could be bike parking, It could be a great connection point to Vineyard El Mar Park. There's a lot we could do there. It would make it extremely welcoming to our town. I go down there all the time as a resident. I think people as visitors are there all the time. So it feels odd that that's off the table. Um, doesn't preclude us from doing in the future, but definitely want to call that up as one of the concerns. you know, in general, I'd love to see this get going. and kind of see a new vision for what we have down there. |
| 02:22:06.02 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Peter Van Meter, you're next. |
| 02:22:16.32 | Janelle Kellman | been. |
| 02:22:17.57 | Peter Vermeer | Yes, thank you. Thank you for posting a memo I said on the goals that are satisfied by this project. from the city's general plan, the bridge district, DC, DC, etc. I can't really offer any comment now until I hear Mayor Kellman's concerns, because that's what we'd be responding to. That's the reason you're taking this off. So all I can generally say is that we've been following this for a long time. I'm generally supportive of this plan. I think it meets a lot of the goals that have been set. We get into some of the details about things like trees and views and so on. That's details that are not included in the report today. subject for future comment later. And I certainly wish we could come back and respond to Mayor Kelman's concerns. in the form of public comment. It's impossible to respond to those in advance. I regret that. can't be done. Thank you. |
| 02:23:11.18 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. And our next speaker is Ms. Bushmaker. |
| 02:23:23.48 | Janelle Kellman | Ms. Bushbaker? So, She doesn't know how to get off the mute mic. I'll have to unmute. |
| 02:23:32.37 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 02:23:38.55 | Sandra Bushmaker | There we go. That was a little confusing. I just don't want that 1128 issue for the potential encroachment into Gabelson Park to fall off the consideration. And also I was a little concerned about the, and I'm not speaking for the Sauce Leader Yacht Club, but I was a little concerned about the comment in the staff report about Yes, it's anticipated that the egress and ingress into the Sausalito Yacht Club parking lot may be impacted by the bicycles. And but we're gonna do it anyway, and we'll see how it goes. I would suggest that there be some outreach to the Yacht Club if there already hasn't been. to talk to the leadership there and let them know what's coming. And get their concerns. All right, that's it. Thank you. |
| 02:24:27.50 | Walfred Solorzano | Thanks. |
| 02:24:27.69 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 02:24:28.01 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. And our next speaker is Mr. Zuck. |
| 02:24:35.64 | Walfred Solorzano | or Ms. Suck. |
| 02:24:36.46 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:24:36.58 | Walfred Solorzano | Excuse me. |
| 02:24:36.97 | Unknown | Thank you. Sorry. I'm in a cab, so this may be a little bit discharging. I appreciate that this project or this concept has been on the desired list of several people for many, many years. And I certainly appreciate the time and effort that has been put into it. My concerns relate both to 1128 and to some of the configurations that, some of the configuration that has been put forward. Certainly Gabrielson Park, Is any any change to that beyond the current condition should be something that people who live here should approve of in a vote. um, In addition, It has long been, you know, it is certainly part of the initiative that any non parking use, in other words, expansion of clauses, which are not parking purposes, would also be approved. doesn't mean that these things aren't community goals. It just means that the community should have a voice in approving those changes. Secondly, or thirdly, I was concerned at the absence of any kind of a cost estimate. We've had many improvements to public properties that have come in at numbers vastly greater than that anticipated And in some cases, no anticipation was even penciled out. So before even going further with it, I would like to understand where how much this kind of concept would cost Hang on one second. Um, And in addition, The vast expansion of bike parking, I know it's a desired thing, cars or hated bikes or loved. But we have with Tracy Way a seasonal use that satisfies the seasonal demand and to take part of the parking lot area with cars that serve residents and visitors and therefore businesses and city treasury. and turn it into bike parking which doesn't necessarily accomplish all of that doesn't seem to me to be constructive. But again, if it was put to a vote and the town wanted to do it, I'm fine with it. And even if I'm not fine with it, that's too bad. I think I have to go now, but thank you for listening. Thanks, Pap. Thank you. |
| 02:27:22.23 | Walfred Solorzano | Anyone else, Molly? No mayor, it looks like no more public comments. Thank you. |
| 02:27:28.69 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. And thank you again to my colleagues for just giving me a couple of minutes So really my request is that when this comes back that some of these. ambiguities or maybe inconsistencies get remedy with a little more information. It's actually, I, Kiran really captured a lot of my concerns. There's just some of the, the mock-ups weren't consistent with what was suggested or put forward in the staff report. And I just wanted to make sure that I let my colleagues know I had concerns and open-ended questions. The subcommittee for HPC has said, No chairs and tables in the right of way, and yet on Image three, I see a depiction of tables and chairs in the right of way. Little things like that, that if we don't follow through, it's hard to understand. And so my analysis of this is always and continually on the grant purpose, which is the pedestrian and bike circulation to and from the ferry. And so I am trying to ascertain how this project serves that in every manner. um, Oh my God. That for me got a little bit muddied when I started to see TABLES AND CHAIRS BEING UTILIZED HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SORT OF THAT ASPECT OF IT. I ALSO HAD SOME CONCERN ABOUT the bike parking and the removal of the foliage by Gabrielson. And so many of us remember the old Dunphy Park, these beautiful willow trees, a lot more foliage. Most of that got removed, if not all of it. I think there's a serious consideration there about both do we want to do that from an environmental perspective, but then also now we are impacting the park. And I think that starts to come up against that 1128 where you have a conversion of a parking area requires voter approval. I don't know why you'd want to do that and trigger 1128. I also know we have a 1968 Gabriel Singh gift deed that also Oh, yeah. control some of that usage. And so it just seems like we made some decisions that are creating unfortunate problems for us when we don't need to, we can just keep it simple. And so I'm just trying to understand the whole, what is this trying to achieve? And then I start to see a whole space available. And I think I want to put EV chargers down there. I won't rabbit hole that, but I just other uses that actually, as we have evolved our thinking as a council the last two years, maybe could require some fresh eyes. And then the big thing, Pat just mentioned it, is there's no breakdown of fees or the extras. I understand we got the grant 2017. I understand it's going to at some point expire. How much of this project is covered by that $2.4 million? How much more would the city need to put into it to finish this off? I just want to know what those numbers look like so we can prioritize that against other capital improvements. And then the last piece I just didn't follow in the staff report about the audit. The way I read that section on the audit was we may not qualify. We think we qualify. We've made effort to show we qualify. But at the end of the day, they might tell us we don't. Thank you. And that would be a colossal waste of resources. And so maybe I'm completely misunderstanding it, but just wasn't clear to me from the staff report. And as I read it, there were just so many things that I just didn't quite follow that seemed like loose ends. I wanted just to put on the record and ask that staff tried to run those to ground so that the next staff report has more information and is The images are more consistent with the plan. and the subcommittee recommendations. So that's really it. We just wanted to be able to articulate that. So thank you everybody. I'll open the floor. Anybody else want to comment on the staff report or have any additional questions? Yeah, Councilman Cleveland also. |
| 02:31:04.01 | Unknown | Yeah, thank you. I didn't, I mean, I just like to reiterate support for the overall goals and for the work that the working group and Director McGowan had been doing. I think this is, you know, it's great that this project has been moving forward. I do think that it would be helpful We had a really vigorous discussion about this eight months ago, I want to say, I can't remember exactly. but to track the feedback. from the council and to track the drawing so that we can see what has evolved and what has changed. I think a member of the public brought that up as well. But I did not have time to go back and look at our meeting from before, but I know that we had a really We had a really good discussion. And I think that's a great thing. I thought there were some issues captured from that discussion that I don't see here. tonight, but I'm not, you know, I'm not, would have to go back. So it's just, I think, I think it's a little bit of the same thing, like just a very clear kind of progression linked to our prior meetings, linked to prior staff reports, make sure that Big changes are noted and the evolution of the project is tracked. But I am just really excited to see this moving forward. I think this has been a small but a really important step to making this a much more resident oriented and you know, taking the potential of the space and moving it up a huge notch, not all the way to its full potential, but a really big, important step. So I'm just really glad to see this going forward. So thank you, Kevin, for your work on it. |
| 02:32:54.77 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. Thank you, councilman Cleveland. Um, |
| 02:32:58.53 | Jill Hoffman | you |
| 02:32:58.68 | Janelle Kellman | Oh. |
| 02:32:58.97 | Jill Hoffman | Bye. |
| 02:32:59.02 | Janelle Kellman | Thanks. |
| 02:32:59.96 | Jill Hoffman | as part of the working group on this. So, you know, thank you for the feedback and understood that this is something that we took off from this consent for this type of feedback in a public setting so that, you know, we all had the benefit of understanding and knowing what the concerns are. I think this is great feedback and I appreciate this and I appreciate getting this feedback and giving us, |
| 02:33:17.92 | Unknown | to get us. |
| 02:33:25.21 | Jill Hoffman | further direction. I think we're very, I feel like we're close to getting the design down and keeping in mind that this is, you know, this is, found money, right, that we need to spend for bike and pedestrian paths of travel through that parking lot to make it as safer environment. And just from dealing with the bikes, from the first time I was elected in 2014 and trying to figure out the path forward, the physical burden of seven to 10,000 bikes in town a day is a lot of what's driving, where are we going to put physically put these things and, and, and queuing up and what are we going to learn going forward? And so that's why it's kind of flexible in the plan, right? About where you put just the bulk of all of these rental bikes that are coming in. And also folding in commuters, of course, but during the summer and high season, it's mainly about the bulk of the rental bikes and where to put those. So This is really good feedback. I feel like, you know, we can incorporate, you know, all of these things and concerns that were raised. I know that we've done the 1128 analysis on both Gabrielson Park and on I'll make sure that that for both of those as the questions were tonight is included in the next staff report and the other concerns more clearly is set forth. Anyway, thanks for the feedback. Commissioner Sobieski, do you have anything to add as a other? |
| 02:34:58.59 | Jill Hoffman | I don't have anything to add. Thank you. |
| 02:35:00.32 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, okay, thanks. Okay. |
| 02:35:01.48 | Unknown | you |
| 02:35:02.46 | Jill Hoffman | Vice Mayor, anything to add? Thank you for that, Councillor Hoffman. |
| 02:35:05.18 | Unknown | Yeah, I would just echo Kuzma Rekluev and Noel's comments. I'm excited about this project and the opportunity for it to move forward. And the last thing I would want is for us to lose the funding that we've been provided by the Bridge District. So I really appreciate that. hard work of the, working group that they've put into this. And I know they've done a fairly excessive analysis, I'm sorry, a very substantial analysis of 1128, but I think if the community would like to see more, we can do more. I think we should answer all of these questions. as they come up and make sure we have a plan that everyone can feel comfortable with. I am excited about revitalizing the plaza area in the downtown. I think that we can definitely get to a place where everyone's comments and concerns are heard and we can move forward effectively and make it a really Nice community addition for the downtown as we continue to build on what's growing down there to make it more of a resident serving. area. |
| 02:35:58.00 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. |
| 02:35:58.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:35:58.79 | Janelle Kellman | Thanks, everybody. That was super helpful. Kevin, thank you for your patience and your work here. And there's no action required. So we'll move on then to the other item that we pulled off consent item 3C. which requires a modification of the resolution Does somebody want to offer up that modification or if our City Attorney could do so that might be easiest. Yeah, hopefully our city attorney |
| 02:36:24.91 | Unknown | He has something to read. |
| 02:36:25.67 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. |
| 02:36:29.47 | Mary Wagner | Well, I think when I was looking at the question and The proposed ordinance is correct. It shows it's adopted on the on the appropriate date. What's what has the typographic error is the staff report. The agenda title is also correct, showing the second reading. So you're still introducing the exact same ordinance. We're just going to put it on the record that there's a error in the staff report, which I've just done. And you will you will this will be the second reading and you'll adopt the ordinance tonight. |
| 02:37:01.11 | Unknown | Okay, well with that, Mayor, if it's okay, I'll reiterate my motion to adopt on second reading an ordinance amending chapter. 806 or 828 and chapter 840 for title eight. Buildings and construction was last later on the municipal code on adopting the 2022 edition of the Title 24 for the regulations in the 2021 International property maintenance codes. Right. |
| 02:37:28.23 | Walfred Solorzano | you |
| 02:37:28.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:37:28.73 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 02:37:28.92 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:37:28.97 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Second. Okay, please call the roll. Councilmember Sobieski. |
| 02:37:34.60 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 02:37:35.35 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Cleveland Knowles? Yes. Councilmember Hoffman? |
| 02:37:39.90 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 02:37:40.22 | Walfred Solorzano | Vice Mayor Blaustein? Yes. And Mayor Kalman? Yes. As a genomicly. Great. |
| 02:37:46.38 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you everybody for that. Moving on now to communications. So this is for comments items not on the agenda. Item six public communications the time for the city council to hear from citizens regarding matters that are not on the agenda. Except in very limited situations, state law precludes the council from taking action on or engaging in discussions concerning items of business that are not on the agenda. However, the council may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by a member of the public, ask clarifying questions, make a brief announcement, or make a brief report. on his or her own activities. So I'll turn to the city clerk. Do we have any public comments for items not on the agenda? |
| 02:38:25.04 | Walfred Solorzano | No, Mayor. |
| 02:38:26.04 | Janelle Kellman | not. Okay, so public comment is now closed on that item. And moving over to number seven, council member committee reports. Anyone wish to comment on that? Yes, Vice Mayor. |
| 02:38:42.05 | Unknown | I just wanted to note that I attended the Sustainability Commission meeting, and there was substantial conversation around the Next steps for the tier one reach code adoption and the are very enthusiastic about helping with and running much of the outreach to make sure that there is significant community outreach around those green tier one reach codes and we also heard from a county representative who was responsible for the outreach at the county level and there seems to be a really easy to follow sort of guidelines for that. So I wanted to report back just at per the last meeting to let everyone know that the sustainability commission is of course, |
| 02:39:15.79 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:39:19.75 | Unknown | performing and on top of it and there will be outreach beginning at the beginning of January. |
| 02:39:25.91 | Janelle Kellman | Awesome. Thank you. Great update. Councilor Sibioski. |
| 02:39:29.79 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, just a shout out to Brian Vitale and the whole Parks and Rec department. It's been exemplary, vivacious part of our city staff. Halloween Trick or Treat was a smashing success. About 1,500 people in attendance, 22 sponsors on the basketball court, 40 plus dogs entered in the costume contest. Lots of merchants on Caledonia handing out candy. The haunted house was extra scary. That was the review. It was not just a little scary, it was extra scary. People were waiting to get in. More than $350 was donated by people who visited the haunted house. The 43rd annual Chili Cook-Off sold over 700 tickets with more than a thousand people in attendance. Net revenue from that event exceeded $7,000. We all know about BOCCE and just a real shout out to that department. for all they're doing for the quality of life in our town. |
| 02:40:28.81 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you for that. That's a great shout out. My reaction doesn't let me do one of those weird little hats, but in my head, I'm doing a weird little hat. Councilor Cleveland also. |
| 02:40:38.78 | Unknown | Yeah, just totally piling on with that. The lights at the Bocce Court look so great. It's just such a it's amazing to see the Southview Park party was also amazing and just having those two. projects wrapped up and looking so good. So thanks, Councilmember Servesque, for that. for the gratitude I'm just piling on. with a weird little hat too. My committee report is a little esoteric, but I did want to give a shout out to Director McGowan again. At the Transportation Authority of Marin committee meeting the other day, we heard plans to revise the Measure B expenditure plan and Measure B is the vehicle license tax, $10 per vehicle. that goes to transportation in Marin County. And there was a proposal to revamp that a little bit the way that it might have been distributed instead of by formula. to local jurisdictions. part of the money that goes to street maintenance and improvements would have been done competitively. and Director McGowan and some of the other managers in Marin. you know, had a really good discussion, I think, with the Transportation Authority and with its Citizen Oversight Committee, and they came out with a really great compromise to keep the formula, which I think will be good. for jurisdictions, smaller jurisdictions like ours, but to emphasize a little bit more pedestrian and active transportation projects. So anyway, it was a great, Addict. A lot of effort went into it, and I think they reached a great compromise, so that'll move forward to the full TAM board in December and hopefully be approved. |
| 02:42:31.01 | Janelle Kellman | That's great. It seems like Tam does a lot of things behind the scenes especially EV charging and other items. So thank you for giving us a post. I have a committee report, but it's not really a committee, which is thanks to some excited residents. I got to participate in an ad hoc conversation about doing a South Dakota Pride next June or July. And so we're talking about ways to use SCA. Also maybe do some type of on the water kayaking thing and maybe even a parade. So if anybody wants to get engaged on that, involved, let me know. We are planning Pride's House Alita. Right. Great. You're in. Okay, moving then on to looks like city manager reports, city council appointments and other council business. We'll say public comment on those three things. So over to the city clerk. |
| 02:43:22.87 | Walfred Solorzano | No public comment, Mayor. |
| 02:43:24.52 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. Okay, great. So over then to the city manager. |
| 02:43:32.30 | Chris Zapata | Thank you, mayor and council. Thank you for your work tonight. wanted to point out that in the council packet I want to thank Vice Mayor Blaustein for prompting me to get a comprehensive report on hiring and vacancies that we have. And so that's attached. We won't go into detail just suffice to say we are hiring people and we're still hiring more people. And that's part and parcel to what a city must do. So that's in your packet. And I also wanted to really speak about quality of life as well. Since we won't be having a meeting until December, I wanted to point out the partnership and collaboration with EDAC and business community and various private donors. This year's holiday by the Bay, again, sponsored by the city and EDAC and various people and then again by Monica Finnegan begins December the 1st there's approximately not one not two not three but 13 events throughout the month. in various parts of the community including downtown in Caledonia. You know that spirit which was on exhibit for the first time that I saw last year was wonderful and again this year the tree lighting ceremony is the kickoff that's on Wednesday the first. Again the tree has been donated by in above tides at Vena del Mar Park. All these things including a jingle bell run on Sunday the 11th, Makers Fair, Marin Symphony, Marin Youth Symphony and Orchestra, Candy Cane Lane, Books by the Bay, And concluding with the holiday sing-along, on the 23rd. So kudos to Monica and her team. for putting all that together because it's really important work I know people will line up to see the boat parade, and that's fascinating, but all these other events are worthwhile too, so just want to make sure people are aware of them. Thank you. |
| 02:45:23.46 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you for that. Over to Council Member Sibyoski. |
| 02:45:26.60 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, I forgot to just make sure we all remember that this coming Saturday, the 19th, is the Tunnel Art Project Celebration Ribbon Cutting at and the tunnel between under Highway 101 to Marin City. So kudos, I don't even know all the people to thank besides Susan Shea. and Carolyn Revell and Raylene Gorham, but I'm sure there are many others. and the city of Sausalito for making a donation, but that's at one o'clock. So go and celebrate that very beautiful. addition to our shared community. |
| 02:46:00.85 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you for that. Okay, on to 8C appointments to boards, commissions and committees. I don't know if we have any comments on that. So we'll move over to future agenda items. Anybody have a future agenda item they want to add to the conversation? |
| 02:46:20.58 | Janelle Kellman | Okay. Yeah, seems like we've gone through so many of them. I feel very happy about that for this year. Okay, I have no other reports of significance because thanks to the city manager and the council member Sobieski, you captured all the excitement happening in the month of December. So thank you for that. See you at the 5k. So we'll go ahead and adjourn. Remember, we are adjourning tonight. in memory of both Russell Kiernan, and then also Franz Feigel. So thank you for offering that tonight. And thank you, everybody. Have a good evening. |
| 02:46:51.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:46:51.87 | Mary Wagner | and then, |
| 02:46:52.15 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:46:52.66 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 02:46:52.68 | Unknown | you |
| 02:46:52.93 | Janelle Kellman | Right. |
| 02:46:58.97 | Unknown | . |
Joan Cox — Neutral: Echoed concerns about the ferry landing item and Section 1128. Also noted a potential inconsistency in the notice for item 3C (building ordinance), questioning if it was a first or second reading and suggesting it might need to be continued. ▶ 📄